Wepwawet Posted September 24, 2022 #526 Share Posted September 24, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wistman said: Yes, those clips confirm the prince was tested long ago but no results of that testing were ever published or mentioned. It isn't reasonable to deny it with this footage - there must have been much more which was edited out for film making/entertainment purposes. It is ludicrous to say that they tested two mummies but not the third, when he actually is shown inside the scanning equipment. Noted that YL has a big head wound atop her head, as does the prince, reportedly. Do any of your old x-rays of the prince show the wound? Large hole in the top of his head caused by an adze used by robbers to cut away his wrappings. I suspect that this image may be become somewhat more well known than it is now where only Amarna obsessives even know of his existance. You know, while I've had suspicions about who this mummy is for a while, it's still odd to think that while we have all been captivated by Tutankhamun all these years, here was, perhaps, the only son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti together, laying in KV35 in total obscurity, and never mentioned except as a footnote in a book. But, does it not now look as if behind the scenes in Egypt they suspected who he might be for a long time. Edited September 24, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 24, 2022 Author #527 Share Posted September 24, 2022 8 minutes ago, Wepwawet said: Large hole in the top of his head caused by an adze used by robbers to cut away his wrappings. I suspect that this image may be become somewhat more well known than it is now where only Amarna obsessives even know of his existance. Thanks, pretty clear what you say but where is the fatal wound then that Zahi speaks of? I'm confused. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 24, 2022 #528 Share Posted September 24, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Wistman said: Thanks, pretty clear what you say but where is the fatal wound then that Zahi speaks of? I'm confused. Hawass states that he has a skull fracture, but not where, and I dont see one on the X-ray I have, but that is just of the right side of his head. He also says that they found fractured vertebrae. I've never seen his back, but as the Universtity of York team never mentioned any pathologies to his back, or at least visible ones, I guess the fractures can only be detected by the scans, likewise his pelvic injuries, but his dislocated right femur head is detectable from an external examination, and it can be seen that his right leg is a bit shorter than the left due to the dislocation. I would hope that this fracture to his skull has been determined to be not the result of the injury inflicted by the robbers, otherwise we get into a mess when clarity is needed. Edited September 24, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 24, 2022 Author #529 Share Posted September 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Wepwawet said: Hawass states that he has a skull fracture, but not where, and I dont see one on the X-ray I have, but that is just of the right side of his head. He also says that they found fractured vertebrae. I've never seen his back, but as the Universtity of York team never mentioned any pathologies to his back, or at least visible ones, I guess the fractures can only be detected by the scans, likewise his pelvic injuries, but his dislocated right femur head is detectable from an external examination, and it can be seen that his right leg is a bit shorter than the left due to the dislocation. I would hope that this fracture to his skull has been determined to be not the result of the injury inflicted by the robbers, otherwise we get into a mess when clarity is needed. Well I hope it has been established that the prince's injuries occurred ante-mortem. Besides the cranial damage caused by the robbers' adze, the mummy has been moved around a lot. To whit: Loret planned to move the coffined Royal mummies from KV35 to Cairo by the end of his first season (of two). After photographing them, the 'mummy on the boat', and the three Ja mummies, he had the kings crated in very large (and heavy) wooden crates, intending to move them to Cairo - whereupon the government orders came to leave them in the tomb, citing "sacrilegious desecration", which he did. According to Maspero, the 'mummy on the boa't and the three Ja (Amarna) mummies had already been moved to the back of the chamber in order to accommodate the building and packing of the crates. It was only later, when Maspero and Carter had taken over, that the crated mummies were shipped to Cairo, but leaving (by Maspero's order) AII in his sarcophagus, the 'mummy on his boat', and the three Amarna mummies returned to their Ja chamber...but now rearranged by Carter to be re-photographed, differing from the Loret glass plate photos in their sequenced arrangement as well as the placement of their mummy wrappings and positioned not on the bare sandy floor as originally but on wooden boards. All of which is to say that uncoffined and unwrapped mummies, moved around the cramped and crowded tomb, in 1898, might have been gotten bumped...or heavens to Betsy, dropped. Not saying that happened, but it very well could have. After all, they didn't really know who they were, Loret thinking they were part of the original AII burial group. Things happen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 25, 2022 #530 Share Posted September 25, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, Wistman said: Things happen. Yes, we will never get to the bottom of what happened and when exactly, and the case of the boy having his feet attached on discovery in 1898, but not now, certainly shows a lack of care. I think there is an issue here that back then they were not really interested in human remains, or at least of taking adequate steps to prevent damage, and look at the mess of the KV55 excavation. Then even worse, in our terms but not back then, is Belzoni finding the two KV21 mummies in good condition, and then saying that the hair of one of them came away when he tugged on it, great, but at least they did not end up as fertilizer. Perhaps it's worth laying out what we know, or can reasonably guess at, of the original location of mummies and where they ended up. It's all known, but tends to come out piecemeal. TA26 By the time that Amarna was abandoned as the capital, the royal tomb TA26 would have contained Akhenaten, Tiye, Meketaten, Neferneferure and Setepenre as a certainty I think. Could the YL and the boy be added to this list, I don't know as we have no idea when or where they died, but it should remain a possibility as those two and Tiye end up together in KV35. I think that no matter who was in this tomb, by the death of Tutankhamun it had been emptied. KV55 This nightmare contained probably Akhenaten and Tiye, but Tiye was moved out. We have no idea if there were any other mummies in KV55, and the appalling excavation does not help here. This tomb was sealed initially by Tutankhamun and then presumably entered by either Ay or Horemheb before the entrance was buried by a flash flood until discovered in 1907 of our era. WV22 The tomb of Amunhotep III. Provision was made in this tomb to bury both Tiye and Sitamun, but there is no clear evidence of any mummy being in this tomb other than Amunhotep III. The shabti for Tiye more indicate they were made before her death, not an uncommon practice, and we have the same with Nefertiti. KV35 The tomb of Amunhotep II used as one of the two royal mummy caches. Queen Tiye, the YL and the boy are discovered in 1898 by Loret in a chamber all to themselves and neatly laid out side by side, as the photo made of them before the game of musical chairs began shows. This photo clearly shows that both of the boy's feet were at that time still attached to his ankles, which is not the case today. Going by the original photo, Loret's notes and the examination of these mummies by G.E Smith, and further photos after they had been replaced in a different order to being found, I don't see any changes to them, apart from the boy's feet, and as all photos and vidoes of them up to the 21st Century, 2012 in fact, as far as I know, do not show his feet, it's not possible to tell when they came off. I would guess by him being picked up by his feet and they just came away, and I suspect that if not a hundred years earlier, then in 2007 with multiple moves, but silence of course. Otherwise, what can KV35 tell us. Well, I think that while uncoffined and with no labels, that these three mummies were given a chamber to themselves and laid out side by side, it was known by the necropolis officials either who they were, or that to them, as to us, it was obvious they were a family group. The question is were they moved into KV35 along with Amunhotep III from WV22. I think not, and I think this because even if found robbed in WV22, they would have had some work done to re-wrap them and transport them in coffins to KV35. As the kings in this cache had not been re-robbed after deposition, they were all stlil wrapped and in their coffins, why on earth would robbers leave the kings alone but zoom in on these three mummies. I think the answer to that is because they were already in KV35 when it was last robbed before being turned into a cache, therefore they did not come from WV22 but another tomb, KV55? nobody knows. Why not put them in WV22, the obvious place, another mystery. Another factor is the spare arm without a body, and there are also two heads in KV35 without bodies, these were found in the well shaft. What on earth was going on here. KV21 This tomb is perhaps the biggest mystery of them all. Presuming that the two mummies are in fact Ankhesenamun and Nefertiti, then we are presented with the issue of Nefertiti having died presumably at Amarna and being buried there in TA26?, no evidence though. Then we have Ankhesenamun dying no less than ten years later, and highly likely more than ten years, and certainly not dying at Amarna. By the time she died Memphis had long been the capital again, so, without evidence, I think it reasonable to think she may have died there, but who knows. One thing is certain though is that she would have been buried at the Theban necropolis. How I wonder does she end up in an unidentified tomb with Nefertiti who should have been long buried, and just these two. That we have a mother and daughter does show that they were not thought to be random mummies and dumped in KV21, but were did they come from, who moved them and why, and was it just these two in KV21. Missing Mummies Where is Meritaten, Meketaten, Neferneferure, Setepenre, Kiya and Smenkhkare. Given which mummies we actual have, I'm not sure that all of these missing ones have long been destroyed in some way, Akhenaten and Nefertiti are the better candidates for having been destroyed, burnt, yet, it looks like we have them. I do not suggest that all these missing mummies are all in one undiscovered tomb, but I think some of them still exist to be found, and there is still this large void right by KV62 which is almost the same size, rather big for a fault I think. Will we get some surprises next month or in November, I would not bet against. Edited September 25, 2022 by Wepwawet 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 25, 2022 Author #531 Share Posted September 25, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, Wepwawet said: Yes, we will never get to the bottom of what happened and when exactly, and the case of the boy having his feet attached on discovery in 1898, but not now, certainly shows a lack of care. I think there is an issue here that back then they were not really interested in human remains, or at least of taking adequate steps to prevent damage, and look at the mess of the KV55 excavation. Then even worse, in our terms but not back then, is Belzoni finding the two KV21 mummies in good condition, and then saying that the hair of one of them came away when he tugged on it, great, but at least they did not end up as fertilizer. Perhaps it's worth laying out what we know, or can reasonably guess at, of the original location of mummies and where they ended up. It's all known, but tends to come out piecemeal. TA26 By the time that Amarna was abandoned as the capital, the royal tomb TA26 would have contained Akhenaten, Tiye, Meketaten, Neferneferure and Setepenre as a certainty I think. Could the YL and the boy be added to this list, I don't know as we have no idea when or where they died, but it should remain a possibility as those two and Tiye end up together in KV35. I think that no matter who was in this tomb, by the death of Tutankhamun it had been emptied. KV55 This nightmare contained probably Akhenaten and Tiye, but Tiye was moved out. We have no idea if there were any other mummies in KV55, and the appalling excavation does not help here. This tomb was sealed initially by Tutankhamun and then presumably entered by either Ay or Horemheb before the entrance was buried by a flash flood until discovered in 1907 of our era. WV22 The tomb of Amunhotep III. Provision was made in this tomb to bury both Tiye and Sitamun, but there is no clear evidence of any mummy being in this tomb other than Amunhotep III. The shabti for Tiye more indicate they were made before her death, not an uncommon practice, and we have the same with Nefertiti. KV35 The tomb of Amunhotep II used as one of the two royal mummy caches. Queen Tiye, the YL and the boy are discovered in 1898 by Loret in a chamber all to themselves and neatly laid out side by side, as the photo made of them before the game of musical chairs began shows. This photo clearly shows that both of the boy's feet were at that time still attached to his ankles, which is not the case today. Going by the original photo, Loret's notes and the examination of these mummies by G.E Smith, and further photos after they had been replaced in a different order to being found, I don't see any changes to them, apart from the boy's feet, and as all photos and vidoes of them up to the 21st Century, 2012 in fact, as far as I know, do not show his feet, it's not possible to tell when they came off. I would guess by him being picked up by his feet and they just came away, and I suspect that if not a hundred years earlier, then in 2007 with multiple moves, but silence of course. Otherwise, what can KV35 tell us. Well, I think that while uncoffined and with no labels, that these three mummies were given a chamber to themselves and laid out side by side, it was known by the necropolis officials either who they were, or that to them, as to us, it was obvious they were a family group. The question is were they moved into KV35 along with Amunhotep III from WV22. I think not, and I think this because even if found robbed in WV22, they would have had some work done to re-wrap them and transport them in coffins to KV35. As the kings in this cache had not been re-robbed after deposition, they were all stlil wrapped and in their coffins, why on earth would robbers leave the kings alone but zoom in on these three mummies. I think the answer to that is because they were already in KV35 when it was last robbed before being turned into a cache, therefore they did not come from WV22 but another tomb, KV55? nobody knows. Why not put them in WV22, the obvious place, another mystery. Another factor is the spare arm without a body, and there are also two heads in KV35 without bodies, these were found in the well shaft. What on earth was going on here. KV21 This tomb is perhaps the biggest mystery of them all. Presuming that the two mummies are in fact Ankhesenamun and Nefertiti, then we are presented with the issue of Nefertiti having died presumably at Amarna and being buried there in TA26?, no evidence though. Then we have Ankhesenamun dying no less than ten years later, and highly likely more than ten years, and certainly not dying at Amarna. By the time she died Memphis had long been the capital again, so, without evidence, I think it reasonable to think she may have died there, but who knows. One thing is certain though is that she would have been buried at the Theban necropolis. How I wonder does she end up in an unidentified tomb with Nefertiti who should have been long buried, and just these two. That we have a mother and daughter does show that they were not thought to be random mummies and dumped in KV21, but were did they come from, who moved them and why, and was it just these two in KV21. Missing Mummies Where is Meritaten, Meketaten, Neferneferure, Setepenre, Kiya and Smenkhkare. Given which mummies we actual have, I'm not sure that all of these missing ones have long been destroyed in some way, Akhenaten and Nefertiti are the better candidates for having been destroyed, burnt, yet, it looks like we have them. I do not suggest that all these missing mummies are all in one undiscovered tomb, but I think some of them still exist to be found, and there is still this large void right by KV62 which is almost the same size, rather big for a fault I think. Will we get some surprises next month or in November, I would not bet against. Hawass et al estimated KV21A's age at death to be @21, based on the degree of epiphyseal union, which would make her too young to be Ankhesenamun according to your calculations. How might you reconcile this? eta: Checking table 1 from Hawass, Gad, et al's 2010 paper Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family, both KV21A mummies are estimated as between 25 - 40. Edited September 25, 2022 by Wistman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 25, 2022 #532 Share Posted September 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wistman said: Hawass et al estimated KV21A's age at death to be @21, based on the degree of epiphyseal union, which would make her too young to be Ankhesenamun according to your calculations. How might you reconcile this? Easy, Hawass/Saleem state that while she was relatively young at death, she was older than 21, which is old enough to live past Tutankhamun's death given that she was born in year 8. If we ignore the regnal years of Nefertiti and start Tutankhamun's count from when Akhenaten died, then Ankhesenamun would have been 19, the same age as Tutankhamun, when he died, and 23 at the death of Ay about four years later. So, was she a twin of Tutankhamun?, or was Tutankhamun a twin of Neferneferuaten-tasherit or Neferneferure born in the years following year 8, if he is a year or two younger than 19. I'll point out that I missed Neferneferuaten-tasherit from the list of the missing. The fly in the ointment here is the contradictory dates given for the births of the daughters. Here is a tale about not trusting wiki, which I notice has had a lot of very recent edits for the Amarna personalities. Wiki says that Ankhesenamun was born in around year 4, it also says that Meketaten was born around year 4, or later, thus contradicting the order of births usually given. Boundary stela K, made in year 5, originally showed the king and queen and Meritaten, with the figure of Meketaten as a clear later addition being squeezed in. Therefore, Meketaten has certainly been born after year 4, but also after year 5, and the probable year of her birth is year 6. It is also obvious from stela K that she was born before Ankhesenamun, who must have been born in year 7 at the earliest, and she then appears on the year 8 boundary stelae A, B, P, Q and U. The dates for the remaining daughters are also contradictory though at least show some sort of almost logical progression, and will have been born before the year 12 durbar. I took the boundary stelae information from Huber, who is at least very good for lists, and, just in case he was wrong, checked in the book of the stelae by Murnane and Siclen. I know this is nerdish pedantry, but I really do want to try and cut through all the nonsense out there, particularly wiki, and get as close to the truth as is possible, and that's the truth, not a truth from various parties with an axe to grind, some of whom edit wiki articles. Edit: I'm going to leave the above text as it is, but add that anticipating the forthcoming annoucement, speculating that Tutankhamun is a twin of any of the daughters will not work if his mother is not Nefertiti, but this does not alter a potential year of his birth, the main question being the identity of his mother. Edited September 25, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 26, 2022 #533 Share Posted September 26, 2022 (edited) In this post I mentioned that scans of the paint on the north wall of KV62 burial chamber by Factum Arte in 2017 did not, on the evidence I saw, show any alterations to one of the cartouches of Tutankhamun. In the photo below it is the figure of Tutankhmun that is third from the right, and the cartouche is to the left of his head. Reeves says that this figure has been altered, and I have to say it does look so, but, the scan showed that the cartouche had been applied directly to the plaster, not over another name, which for Reeves to be correct would need to be Ankhkheperure. To do an alteration would need the removal of the "Neb" sign and insertion of an "Ankh" sign by the "Kheper" sign to make the "Ankhkheper" element of the name. This type of alteration seems to have been done on some of Tutankhamun's burial goods. However, there is no sign of this here, so even if the image looks altered, for the cartouche to be unaltered would need the old paint to be removed down to the plaster. I have not seen any scans of the cartouches to the right, by Tutankhamun as Osiris and Ay performing the opening of the mouth ceremony, and it is these that Reeves is pointing to specifically. I don't know if he is correct, but the entire wall scene raises issues, some of which may be down to just plain old haste, and we know the tomb was sealed before the paint dried. As already discussed, that a king is actually depicted perfoming this ceremony is I believe unique, and must show that no matter who the figure is on the far right, they had a pressing need to confirm their legitimacy to rule, even if only in a magical sense as nobody would see this scene except the tomb builders and court officials. Ay would certainly need to confirm his legitimacy from the previous king, but Tutankhamun, if it is him performing the ceremony, cannot claim legitimacy from a female king as they have no legitimacy anyway, he needs to claim succession from a previous male king, and that can only be Akhenaten or Smenkhkare, but as it's more likely that Smenkhkare died before Akhenaten, the king we see as Osiris has to be Akhenaten, if of course the figure on the right is Tutankhamun. Because it's Amarna, it just doesn't make any sense, to us. Akhenaten has not been buried behind this wall and neither has Nefertiti, no matter what name she is using. If we have the time line wrong, and it's possible, then a male king Smenkhkare is possible, but why has he been buried here in a female orientated tomb. Meritaten had been suggested as the very ephemeral third Acencheres, aka Ankhkheperure, but the inadmissibillity of a male king claiming legitimacy from a female king still applies. I think that if there is a KV62 extention, then we really do see Ay burying Tutankhamun, it is the most clear cut option, and the oddities are the result of changes and hasty work made to cover a blocked doorway that led to the burial of potentially Meritaten, not as a king, but GRW to Akhenaten/Nefetititi, and maybe to her alone on Akhenaten's death. Maybe the Gordian knot should be renamed to the Amarna knot, or knots as there are many. Edited September 26, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 27, 2022 Author #534 Share Posted September 27, 2022 (edited) 22 hours ago, Wepwawet said: In this post I mentioned that scans of the paint on the north wall of KV62 burial chamber by Factum Arte in 2017 did not, on the evidence I saw, show any alterations to one of the cartouches of Tutankhamun. In the photo below it is the figure of Tutankhmun that is third from the right, and the cartouche is to the left of his head. Reeves says that this figure has been altered, and I have to say it does look so, but, the scan showed that the cartouche had been applied directly to the plaster, not over another name, which for Reeves to be correct would need to be Ankhkheperure. To do an alteration would need the removal of the "Neb" sign and insertion of an "Ankh" sign by the "Kheper" sign to make the "Ankhkheper" element of the name. This type of alteration seems to have been done on some of Tutankhamun's burial goods. However, there is no sign of this here, so even if the image looks altered, for the cartouche to be unaltered would need the old paint to be removed down to the plaster. I have not seen any scans of the cartouches to the right, by Tutankhamun as Osiris and Ay performing the opening of the mouth ceremony, and it is these that Reeves is pointing to specifically. I don't know if he is correct, but the entire wall scene raises issues, some of which may be down to just plain old haste, and we know the tomb was sealed before the paint dried. As already discussed, that a king is actually depicted perfoming this ceremony is I believe unique, and must show that no matter who the figure is on the far right, they had a pressing need to confirm their legitimacy to rule, even if only in a magical sense as nobody would see this scene except the tomb builders and court officials. Ay would certainly need to confirm his legitimacy from the previous king, but Tutankhamun, if it is him performing the ceremony, cannot claim legitimacy from a female king as they have no legitimacy anyway, he needs to claim succession from a previous male king, and that can only be Akhenaten or Smenkhkare, but as it's more likely that Smenkhkare died before Akhenaten, the king we see as Osiris has to be Akhenaten, if of course the figure on the right is Tutankhamun. Because it's Amarna, it just doesn't make any sense, to us. Akhenaten has not been buried behind this wall and neither has Nefertiti, no matter what name she is using. If we have the time line wrong, and it's possible, then a male king Smenkhkare is possible, but why has he been buried here in a female orientated tomb. Meritaten had been suggested as the very ephemeral third Acencheres, aka Ankhkheperure, but the inadmissibillity of a male king claiming legitimacy from a female king still applies. I think that if there is a KV62 extention, then we really do see Ay burying Tutankhamun, it is the most clear cut option, and the oddities are the result of changes and hasty work made to cover a blocked doorway that led to the burial of potentially Meritaten, not as a king, but GRW to Akhenaten/Nefetititi, and maybe to her alone on Akhenaten's death. Maybe the Gordian knot should be renamed to the Amarna knot, or knots as there are many. I see there's a Guardian article just out about this and Reeves's upcoming book, reiterating the Nefertiti hidden tomb postulate and a (supposedly) pentimento cartouche of Ay. Quote Reeves realised that cartouches depicting Tutankhamun being buried by his pharaonic successor, Ay, had been painted over cartouches of Tutankhamun burying Nefertiti, the legendary beauty, queen of Egypt and wife of King Akhenaten. Reeves told the Guardian: “I can now show that, under the cartouches of Ay, are cartouches of Tutankhamun himself, proving that that scene originally showed Tutankhamun burying his predecessor, Nefertiti. You would not have had that decoration in the tomb of Tutankhamun.” [...] Reeves said: “Close inspection of Ay’s cartouches reveals clear, underlying traces of an earlier name – that of Tutankhamun. In its original version, this scene had shown Tutankhamun performing the funerary ritual for the tomb’s original owner, his immediate predecessor … Nefertiti.” He again states that the portrait characteristics of figures have had their identities altered. Quote “This conclusion finds absolute confirmation in the figures’ facial profiles – the snub nose and chubby under-chin of the [figure] currently labelled as Ay follow … precisely the standardised facial outline adopted for official representations of Tutankhamun at the very start of his kingship. The face of the mummy carries the indisputable features of Nefertiti. Demonstrably, the scene had begun its life as a record of Tutankhamun officiating at the burial of his predecessor.” Yet, the 2012 Getty paper examining the walls and strata of the paintings contradicts assertions of cartouche or figural pentimenti on the north wall, which they would have noted along with the few other pentimenti present elsewhere in the chamber. The strata and method of laying down the design directly on the white huntite ground layer of the north wall doesn't support this notion either, without such changes being conspicuously obvious, which they absolutely are not, nor was such detected by the conservators of the Getty team in either their exacting examination or their subsequent conservation endeavors. Quote There are also mistakes of a more serious nature, which as a consequence had to be corrected [by the AE]. On the west wall, some hieroglyphs were initially painted in the wrong place, and were then brushed over with yellow paint and redone. Considering the limited textual content of the paintings, such errors are notable. Other smaller faults, such as damages to the painted plaster that occurred during its decoration, were expediently painted out by the original craftsmen. The W,S,E walls of the chamber, while following the 18-square pre-Amarna grid design system (unlike the latterly-finished north wall, which inconsistently uses the 20-square Amarna system, and method of figural style) also show signs of cursory and rapid application, though varying in techniques of layering and painting, incl. poorly prepared paint mixtures, all indicating the rushed burial of Tut. Different teams and designers working near-simultaneously and following different canons of design and working techniques in order to finish it within the 70-day embalming period is the most likely cause of those disparities, along with tomb artisans and workers re-adjusting to traditional canons of work disrupted by the Amarna episode and not yet fully re-synchronized. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/sep/26/tutankhamun-burial-chamber-could-contain-door-to-nefertiti-tomb Edited September 27, 2022 by Wistman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 27, 2022 #535 Share Posted September 27, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Wistman said: I see there's a Guardian article just out about this and Reeves's upcoming book, reiterating the Nefertiti hidden tomb postulate and a (supposedly) pentimento cartouche of Ay. He again states that the portrait characteristics of figures have had their identities altered. Yet, the 2012 Getty paper examining the walls and strata of the paintings contradicts assertions of cartouche or figural pentimenti on the north wall, which they would have noted along with the few other pentimenti present elsewhere in the chamber. The strata and method of laying down the design directly on the white huntite ground layer of the north wall doesn't support this notion either, without such changes being conspicuously obvious, which they absolutely are not, nor was such detected by the conservators of the Getty team in either their exacting examination or their subsequent conservation endeavors. The W,S,E walls of the chamber, while following the 18-square pre-Amarna grid design system (unlike the latterly-finished north wall, which inconsistently uses the 20-square Amarna system, and method of figural style) also show signs of cursory and rapid application, though varying in techniques of layering and painting, incl. poorly prepared paint mixtures, all indicating the rushed burial of Tut. Different teams and designers working near-simultaneously and following different canons of design and working techniques in order to finish it within the 70-day embalming period is the most likely cause of those disparities, along with tomb artisans and workers re-adjusting to traditional canons of work disrupted by the Amarna episode and not yet fully re-synchronized. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/sep/26/tutankhamun-burial-chamber-could-contain-door-to-nefertiti-tomb Which all goes to show how contradictory all of this is. I have to say though that before 2015 and Reeve's extention theory I had thought the burial chamber odd, but not anything to shout about, and clearly Carter did not think there was an extention either. I think that the game has changed a bit because of, at least, the scans showing this void by KV62 with no separate entrance found on the surface, if this is a man made structure. So I think that no matter the arguments about the painting of the burial chamber, the issue of this void needs to be resolved as if it is manmade, then it must have an entrance from KV62. Here's some thoughts on the decoration of the burial chamber. Clearly it was hastily painted, but I wonder why they thought it imperative to paint the chamber anyway. For most of their history up to the tomb of Thutmose IIII, as far as is known, kings did not have a painted burial chamber, texts and stars on the ceiling in the late Old Kingdom, yes, but not painted with the type of scenes we see from the 18th Dynasty. What was really important for them was not that they had a roadmap of the Duat on the walls, but that the mummy was made and coffined correctly, that includes the relevant texts which served as a roadmap before it appeared on walls anyway, and that the correct rituals were performed at the burial. One of the consequences of separating the mortuary chapel from the tomb was that the post burial rituals, the offerings to the king's ka and worship of him, can now be done remotely, no matter the decoration of the tomb, as long as the mummy of the king is undisturbed. KV43, the tomb of Thutmose IV, has hardly any painting at all, and none in the burial chamber, so was it important, perhaps not. Here's another thing though, the "meet and greet" scene we see on the north wall of KV62 had previously been used not in the burial chamber, but in the well chamber or annexe, and we see this in WV22 for Amunhotep III, KV43 for Thutmose IV, KV35 for Amunhotep II and KV34 for Thutmose III. Reeves speculates that the KV62 burial chamber had been the well chamber of this notionaly bigger tomb, and the north wall scene would certainly be a fit for this. However, Ay's tomb KV23, thought to have been made for Tutankhamun, has been painted with almost the same scenes as KV62, the "meet and greet" and the "edited" first hour of the Amduat. Horemheb's KV57 reverts to a more normal sequence of decoration with the "meet and greet" back in the areas leading to the burial chamber. So, of all the known decorated tombs for kings in the 18th Dynasty, barring TA26 and it's Atenism, KV62 and KV23 are the odd ones out in their truncated and partially out of place decoration. I wonder which tomb came first, was it really KV62, or, if a decision was made by Ay to usurp KV23, do we see a hurried attempt to replicate the decoration of KV23 in KV62, or, was something else going on and KV23 was replicating KV62's "distorted" return to a normal burial. And one further point, while the painting was rushed and the tomb sealed before the paint dried so causing mold to form, is it possible that this occured about eight years before Tutankhamun was buried in KV62. And further, that only the north wall scene existed on the death of Tutankhamun, with it's Amarna style and grid, and that the other walls, particularly the west wall, were then painted. I have no idea, but I think it worth pointing out other possibilities. Edited September 27, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 27, 2022 Author #536 Share Posted September 27, 2022 30 minutes ago, Wepwawet said: Which all goes to show how contradictory all of this is. I have to say though that before 2015 and Reeve's extention theory I had thought the burial chamber odd, but not anything to shout about, and clearly Carter did not think there was an extention either. I think that the game has changed a bit because of, at least, the scans showing this void by KV62 with no separate entrance found on the surface, if this is a man made structure. So I think that no matter the arguments about the painting of the burial chamber, the issue of this void needs to be resolved as if it is manmade, then it must have an entrance from KV62. Here's some thoughts on the decoration of the burial chamber. Clearly it was hastily painted, but I wonder why they thought it imperative to paint the chamber anyway. For most of their history up to the tomb of Thutmose IIII, as far as is known, kings did not have a painted burial chamber, texts and stars on the ceiling in the late Old Kingdom, yes, but not painted with the type of scenes we see from the 18th Dynasty. What was really important for them was not that they had a roadmap of the Duat, but that the mummy was made and coffined correctly, and that the correct rituals were performed at the burial. One of the consequences of separating the mortuary chapel from the tomb was that the post burial rituals, the offerings to the king's ka and worship of him, can now be done remotely, no matter the decoration of the tomb, as long as the mummy of the king is undisturbed. KV43, the tomb of Thutmose IV, has hardly any painting at all, and none in the burial chamber, so was it important, perhaps not. Here's another thing though, the "meet and greet" scene we see on the north wall of KV62 had previously been used not in the burial chamber, but in the well chamber or annexe, and we see this in WV22 for Amunhotep II, KV43 for Thutmose IV and KV34 for Thutmose III. Reeves speculates that the KV62 burial chamber had been the well chamber of this notionaly bigger tomb, and the north wall scene would certainly be a fit for this. However, Ay's tomb KV23, thought to have been made for Tutankhamun, has been painted with almost the same scenes as KV62, the "meet and greet" and the "edited" first hour of the Amduat. Horemheb's KV57 reverts to a more normal sequence of decoration with the "meet and greet" back in the areas leading to the burial chamber. So, of all the known decorated tombs for kings in the 18th Dynasty, barring TA26 and it's Atenism, KV62 and KV23 are the odd ones out in their truncated and partially out of place decoration. I wonder which tomb came first, was it really KV62, or, if a decision was made by Ay to usurp KV23, do we see a hurried attempt to replicate the decoration of KV23 in KV62, or, was something else going on and KV23 was replicating KV62's "distorted" return to a normal burial. And one further point, while the painting was rushed and the tomb sealed before the paint dried so causing mold to form, is it possible that this occured about eight years before Tutankhamun was buried in KV62. And further, that only the north wall scene existed on the death of Tutankhamun, with it's Amarna style and grid, and that the other walls, particularly the west wall, were then painted. I have no idea, but I think it worth pointing out other possibilities. Besides the four foundation deposits, Hawass had GPR images showing what appeared to be an entranceway to a tomb in the WV dig for Ankhesenamun's tomb, but there was none. GPR is not always reliable, as ghost images sometimes occur. Perhaps this is so with the KV62 void. I'm not really very knowledgeable about it to be honest. The KV62 burial chamber, and the tomb itself, is odd, no doubt. The finest wall preparation is in the undecorated antechamber, which would have been from the original tomb before the burial chamber and treasury were added of course. The south wall of the burial chamber is roughest of the painted surfaces, likely due to it ultimately hosting the partition wall to close off the burial chamber from the antechamber, and for this reason may have been finished last. Plastering layers here were rendered unstable by being laid atop an exceedingly rough chiseled wall surface, and major patching was needed before being decorated; this wall seems to have been the most problematic for the builders and artisans. Also, the south wall has only seven layers of plaster and ground, whereas the other walls have eight, whatever that signifies. The East wall as well had much patching around the door. The Getty team showed that the north wall of Tut's burial chamber was prepared for painting subsequent to the east and west walls: Quote Subsequent preparatory and ground layers were also applied inconsistently. The south, east, and west walls were brushed over with a thin (∼0.02–0.1 mm) buff-colored wash suggesting that a plaster slurry was used. Compositionally, this is similar to the clay-bound fine plaster. A different thin (∼0.1–0.7 mm gray wash uniquely covers the north wall, applied by brush over the underlying plaster. This overlaps onto the buff wash on the east and west walls, indicating its later application. This doesn't show the sequence of painting the walls though, so your point is a possibility, though W, E walls were already at the very least prepared for painting prior to the North wall. I'll just point out that the paint on all of the chamber's walls shows the same mold growth patterns from sealing the tomb before the paint was dry, even atop the hieroglyphs and cartouches. Maybe Reeves has something new to show, we'll see! His timing for this book may be a little off, what with Zahi's upcoming announcements and all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 28, 2022 #537 Share Posted September 28, 2022 7 hours ago, Wistman said: Maybe Reeves has something new to show, we'll see! His timing for this book may be a little off, what with Zahi's upcoming announcements and all. His book comes out on the 28th October, and as it is 100 pages longer than the 1992 first edition I guess all those extra pages will be about his theory, but yes, it look likes he might be overtaken by events on tutankhamun himself. Dodson's book comes out on 25th October, and part of the blurb is "It explores the various theories as to his parentage". As I'm convinced Hawass has known the result of these new tests for some time, depending on when he makes his announcement I wonder if Dodson has had advance warning, long enough to make amendments before going to print, we'll see. The Darnells' book comes out on 1st November and has an endorsement from Hawass on the back cover "This fascinating book uncovers the hidden history of this intruiging couple who ruled Egypt as gods on earth." Is this a hint that they may have had advance warning, or just his normal hyperbole, probably, and would he want to share the limelight with anybody, no. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 28, 2022 Author #538 Share Posted September 28, 2022 Oct. 4, 1 - 2 PM. Aiden Dodson lecture at The Society of Antiquaries of London (great channel to bookmark on YouTube btw if you like lectures) Live streamed on YouTube The Rediscovery of Tutankhamun Dodson's lectures are always good, no doubt previewing some of the content of his new book. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted September 29, 2022 Author #539 Share Posted September 29, 2022 Aiden Dodson's very nice, earlier, live-streamed lecture for the Society of Antiquaries. From Nov. 3, 2020 Nefertiti, Queen & Pharaoh of Egypt. One hour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted September 29, 2022 #540 Share Posted September 29, 2022 What's interesting about Dodson's lecture is that about three times he says that a particular subject needs a lecture all to itself, which shows just how devilishly complicated this all is, and how the usually one hour TV documentaries, or forty minutes deducting for adverts, are mostly trivial fluff that hardly scratches the surface. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted October 3, 2022 #541 Share Posted October 3, 2022 (edited) There's a certain amount of repetition here from other posts, but I thought it may be worthwhile putting this all down in one post to be more cohesive. The KV35 boy has been suggested as a candidate to be Smenkhkare before, but without knowing who he was related to it was all just guessing. I'm going to jump the gun again, but Hawass hinting that he may be a brother of Tutankhamun is just for the suspense/hype for a general audience, and I'm sure Hawass has known for some time that he is a brother of Tutankhamun, in fact I'm sure he has known since 2007 or shortly thereafter, therefore I'll assume that he is a brother of Tutankhamun. There are three candidates to be Smenkhkare, a younger brother of Akhenaten, an older brother of Tutankhamun and Nefertiti in her third persona. Nefertiti as Smenkhkare: I would like to dismiss the third option of Nefertiti being Smenkhkare, but it's just not possible due to two kings having the same prenomen, a huge issue really I think. However, looking at this from the angle of who has the right to succeed a king, or be a co-regent, then Nefertiti being a woman has no right at all in any circumstances. Akhenaten, with the power that he wields can of course simply make her his co-regent, and he clearly did, but he can only do this by essentially force, by rebelling against rules for succession laid out in the Contendings of Set and Horus. There is not a single date for Smenkhkhare, there is no way of telling when in the timeline he appears, of when the unfinished depiction of Smenkhkare and Meritaten appear in the tomb of Meryre II, or of when the "Coronation Hall" was built. Therefore Smenkhkare can technically follow Akhenaten, or come after Neferneferuaten if Nefertiti has changed names in the last few months of her life. This is of course the scenario presented by Nicholas Reeves. However, in my opinion, and putting the issue of the prenomen aside as there is no easy answer, Smenkhkare appears during the reign of Ankhenaten at some point after year 12 and before the creation of Box 001K which names Ankhenaten and Nefernefruaten as co-rulers and Meritaten as GRW. Most authors put his appearance around year 14. Therefore, and still avoiding that pesky prenomen, I'll discount Nefertiti as being Smenkhkare on the grounds of her becoming Smenkhkare after three years of being king Neferneferuaten due to this not fitting the more probable timeline. She is further excluded on the basis of it being "illegal" for her to be a king in her own right. Younger brother of Akhenaten being Smenkhkare: Probably the most popular choice, but falls down flat on it's face because we know that Akhenaten had at least one son, Tutankhaten. There is no mechanism by which the brother of a king can take the throne if that king has a son. The "Contendings" show that the son of a king follows his father, and that if his uncle attempts to take the throne, even jointly with his brother, then there is potentially a state of war, and Horus and Set were certainly at war with each other, and the "Contendings" may actually be based on a succession civil war in the past, Dynasty Two ?. However, the "Contendings" do provide a mechanism for the brother of a king to claim the throne if his brother has no sons. Technically the brothers of a king become his "sons", and the eldest of his younger brothers becomes his eldest son, IF the king has no sons. Clearly Akhenaten had one son, and now it seems two, therefore Smenkhkare cannot by any criteria be a younger brother of Akhenaten. Eldest son of Akhenaten being Smenkhkare: This is the most straight forward option of all, and follows normal practice and the "Contendings". As we now have two sons for Ankhenaten, the question is which son was born first, Tutankhamun or the KV35 boy. Well, Tutankhamun becomes king in his own right and with his own name on the death of Akhenaten, despite having to share the throne for about two years with the usurper Nefertiti, a woman who it seems was not his mother. I think that Tutankhamun can certainly be discounted as Akhenaten's first born son. So now we come to the KV35 boy, a brother of Tutankhamun and son of both Akhenaten and KV21B, Nefertiti, (jumping the gun again). To provide another candidate to be Smenkhkare at this point needs us to invent somebody, just like a younger brother of Akhenaten, so going by an actual mummy and son of Akhenaten, this boy has to be, unless further evidence ever emerges, the only realistic candidate to be Smenkhkare. Assuming that Hawass will declare him to be a brother of Tutankhamun, then I'll give these reasons as to why I think he is the prime candidate to be Smenkhkare. The reign of Smenkhkare is put somewhere around year 14, and IMO, could be just as well be in around year 15 or 16. The reason for saying that Smenkhkare could have been co-ruler in around year 16 is that Nefertiti is still named as such, and is still GRW in year 16. The boy was aged at about eleven by G.E Smith, twelve to thirteen by the University of York and Hawass has recently described him as being ten. There is an approximate gap of four years between the birth of Meritaten and Meketaten, and given that it seems he is to be announced as a son of Nefertiti, unless he was a twin, that gap between year 2 and 6 looks a good fit, and provides some leeway when we come to just when the reign of Smenkhkare occured. Due to his dentition, I'm more inclined to agree with the University of York's estimate of twelve to thirteen, however, they only had access to X-rays in 2003 while Hawass has access to the 2007 CT scans. Without going through every permutation of when he might have been born and when he, as Smenkhkare died, I'll just give this example. If Smenkhkare died in year 16 aged twelve he would have been born in year 4, and the wiggle room is obvious, but quite reasonable I think. So, the boy's age range fits into the time range for Smenkhkare and fits into a gap of births by Nefertiti between Meritaten and Meketaten. Smenkhkare clearly dies young with a reign of less than one year, bar any evidence emerging for a higher regnal year. The boy has obviously died young, and with a fractured pelvis, dislocated right femur head and a fractured skull, probably died in a chariot accident or falling from a window or roof, and they did make use of their roofs for living space, not good for sleepwalkers. If Smenkhkare, he has married his slightly older sister Meritaten, and I think this fits into the general picture we get of this family, Meritaten on his death then being made GRW to Akhenaten as Nefertiti is now co-ruler Neferneferuaten, filling the position held by her son, and could this be a reason for her using the same prenomen, as a sentimental tribute to her son in keeping his name alive. As she had already lost three daughters, and now a son, I can see this, even if it has no precedent in all of Egyptian history, and after all, this is Amarna. After the year 12 Durbar Akhenaten almost vanishes from sight except for some images of him with a co-ruler that do not have names in the cartouches, and the deathbed scenes in the royal tomb. It is often postulated that Akhenaten suffered a mental collapse, and even in an age where child mortality was very common, you would need a heart of stone not to feel for this family. So though still comparitively young himself, promoting his still juvenile eldest son to become co-ruler may have been seen as prudent. The fact that when Smenkhkare dissapears Nefertiti then appears as co-ruler I think gives weight to the idea that Akhenaten is in difficulties and cannot rule alone, and I would guess that even with Smenkhkare as co-ruler, Nefertiti was defacto ruler if not dejure. The comments I made about her inadmissibility to be a king still stand, but we now have some context as to why she became king, not so much by some "Game of Thrones" manipulation, but by tragic necessity, even if "illegal". But, this is all guesswork, and while this boy will be returned to his historical place in his family, we can never know who he was as a living person. Areas of doubt still remain, and always will, such as the shared prenomen with Nefertiti. The condition of his mummy also raises doupts as to him being a king as his arms are not crossed or folded, but this business of arm positions is not an exact science. There is also the question of would a juvenile king keep his sidelock, a question that nobody can answer. Ramesses II, obviously an adult at the start of his reign, is depicted as a juvenile king with uraeus over a sidelock. Tutankhamun is depicted like this as well, but was he still a juvenile when the perfume box was made or an adult?. It's not clear cut at all, but it is clear that a king, adult or not, can be depicted as a juvenile with a sidelock, so I cannot see a pressing reason why this situation should not be reflected in reality, after all, a king, no matter what his age, is the living Horus, and Horus has an existance as a juvenile just as much as an adult. Edited October 3, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted October 3, 2022 Author #542 Share Posted October 3, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Wepwawet said: There's a certain amount of repetition here from other posts, but I thought it may be worthwhile putting this all down in one post to be more cohesive. The KV35 boy has been suggested as a candidate to be Smenkhkare before, but without knowing who he was related to it was all just guessing. I'm going to jump the gun again, but Hawass hinting that he may be a brother of Tutankhamun is just for the suspense/hype for a general audience, and I'm sure Hawass has known for some time that he is a brother of Tutankhamun, in fact I'm sure he has known since 2007 or shortly thereafter, therefore I'll assume that he is a brother of Tutankhamun. There are three candidates to be Smenkhkare, a younger brother of Akhenaten, an older brother of Tutankhamun and Nefertiti in her third persona. Nefertiti as Smenkhkare: I would like to dismiss the third option of Nefertiti being Smenkhkare, but it's just not possible due to two kings having the same prenomen, a huge issue really I think. However, looking at this from the angle of who has the right to succeed a king, or be a co-regent, then Nefertiti being a woman has no right at all in any circumstances. Akhenaten, with the power that he wields can of course simply make her his co-regent, and he clearly did, but he can only do this by essentially force, by rebelling against rules for succession laid out in the Contendings of Set and Horus. There is not a single date for Smenkhkhare, there is no way of telling when in the timeline he appears, of when the unfinished depiction of Smenkhkare and Meritaten appear in the tomb of Meryre II, or of when the "Coronation Hall" was built. Therefore Smenkhkare can technically follow Akhenaten, or come after Neferneferuaten if Nefertiti has changed names in the last few months of her life. This is of course the scenario presented by Nicholas Reeves. However, in my opinion, and putting the issue of the prenomen aside as there is no easy answer, Smenkhkare appears during the reign of Ankhenaten at some point after year 12 and before the creation of Box 001K which names Ankhenaten and Nefernefruaten as co-rulers and Meritaten as GRW. Most authors put his appearance around year 14. Therefore, and still avoiding that pesky prenomen, I'll discount Nefertiti as being Smenkhkare on the grounds of her becoming Smenkhkare after three years of being king Neferneferuaten due to this not fitting the more probable timeline. She is further excluded on the basis of it being "illegal" for her to be a king in her own right. Younger brother of Akhenaten being Smenkhkare: Probably the most popular choice, but falls down flat on it's face because we know that Akhenaten had at least one son, Tutankhaten. There is no mechanism by which the brother of a king can take the throne if that king has a son. The "Contendings" show that the son of a king follows his father, and that if his uncle attempts to take the throne, even jointly with his brother, then there is potentially a state of war, and Horus and Set were certainly at war with each other, and the "Contendings" may actually be based on a succession civil war in the past, Dynasty Two ?. However, the "Contendings" do provide a mechanism for the brother of a king to claim the throne if his brother has no sons. Technically the brothers of a king become his "sons", and the eldest of his younger brothers becomes his eldest son, IF the king has no sons. Clearly Akhenaten had one son, and now it seems two, therefore Smenkhkare cannot by any criteria be a younger brother of Akhenaten. Eldest son of Akhenaten being Smenkhkare: This is the most straight forward option of all, and follows normal practice and the "Contendings". As we now have two sons for Ankhenaten, the question is which son was born first, Tutankhamun or the KV35 boy. Well, Tutankhamun becomes king in his own right and with his own name on the death of Akhenaten, despite having to share the throne for about two years with the usurper Nefertiti, a woman who it seems was not his mother. I think that Tutankhamun can certainly be discounted as Akhenaten's first born son. So now we come to the KV35 boy, a brother of Tutankhamun and son of both Akhenaten and KV21B, Nefertiti, (jumping the gun again). To provide another candidate to be Smenkhkare at this point needs us to invent somebody, just like a younger brother of Akhenaten, so going by an actual mummy and son of Akhenaten, this boy has to be, unless further evidence ever emerges, the only realistic candidate to be Smenkhkare. Assuming that Hawass will declare him to be a brother of Tutankhamun, then I'll give these reasons as to why I think he is the prime candidate to be Smenkhkare. The reign of Smenkhkare is put somewhere around year 14, and IMO, could be just as well be in around year 15 or 16. The reason for saying that Smenkhkare could have been co-ruler in around year 16 is that Nefertiti is still named as such, and is still GRW in year 16. The boy was aged at about eleven by G.E Smith, twelve to thirteen by the University of York and Hawass has recently described him as being ten. There is an approximate gap of four years between the birth of Meritaten and Meketaten, and given that it seems he is to be announced as a son of Nefertiti, unless he was a twin, that gap between year 2 and 6 looks a good fit, and provides some leeway when we come to just when the reign of Smenkhkare occured. Due to his dentition, I'm more inclined to agree with the University of York's estimate of twelve to thirteen, however, they only had access to X-rays in 2003 while Hawass has access to the 2007 CT scans. Without going through every permutation of when he might have been born and when he, as Smenkhkare died, I'll just give this example. If Smenkhkare died in year 16 aged twelve he would have been born in year 4, and the wiggle room is obvious, but quite reasonable I think. So, the boy's age range fits into the time range for Smenkhkare and fits into a gap of births by Nefertiti between Meritaten and Meketaten. Smenkhkare clearly dies young with a reign of less than one year, bar any evidence emerging for a higher regnal year. The boy has obviously died young, and with a fractured pelvis, dislocated right femur head and a fractured skull, probably died in a chariot accident or falling from a window or roof, and they did make use of their roofs for living space, not good for sleepwalkers. If Smenkhkare, he has married his slightly older sister Meritaten, and I think this fits into the general picture we get of this family, Meritaten on his death then being made GRW to Akhenaten as Nefertiti is now co-ruler Neferneferuaten, filling the position held by her son, and could this be a reason for her using the same prenomen, as a sentimental tribute to her son in keeping his name alive. As she had already lost three daughters, and now a son, I can see this, even if it has no precedent in all of Egyptian history, and after all, this is Amarna. After the year 12 Durbar Akhenaten almost vanishes from sight except for some images of him with a co-ruler that do not have names in the cartouches, and the deathbed scenes in the royal tomb. It is often postulated that Akhenaten suffered a mental collapse, and even in an age where child mortality was very common, you would need a heart of stone not to feel for this family. So though still comparitively young himself, promoting his still juvenile eldest son to become co-ruler may have been seen as prudent. The fact that when Smenkhkare dissapears Nefertiti then appears as co-ruler I think gives weight to the idea that Akhenaten is in difficulties and cannot rule alone, and I would guess that even with Smenkhkare as co-ruler, Nefertiti was defacto ruler if not dejure. The comments I made about her inadmissibility to be a king still stand, but we now have some context as to why she became king, not so much by some "Game of Thrones" manipulation, but by tragic necessity, even if "illegal". But, this is all guesswork, and while this boy will be returned to his historical place in his family, we can never know who he was as a living person. Areas of doubt still remain, and always will, such as the shared prenomen with Nefertiti. The condition of his mummy also raises doupts as to him being a king as his arms are not crossed or folded, but this business of arm positions is not an exact science. There is also the question of would a juvenile king keep his sidelock, a question that nobody can answer. Ramesses II, obviously an adult at the start of his reign, is depicted as a juvenile king with uraeus over a sidelock. Tutankhamun is depicted like this as well, but was he still a juvenile when the perfume box was made or an adult?. It's not clear cut at all, but it is clear that a king, adult or not, can be depicted as a juvenile with a sidelock, so I cannot see a pressing reason why this situation should not be reflected in reality, after all, a king, no matter what his age, is the living Horus, and Horus has an existance as a juvenile just as much as an adult. Thank you, very plausible. It seems to me, based on the relatively good state of the KV35 prince's mummy, and the photos you've provided, that as you suggest Hawass has had a readable sample of his DNA profile for many years. I suppose the recent scans are for better determination of the prince's age and bodily condition; there's really no evidence that his DNA was rechecked, though it could have been. All of which, if so, implies that the prince's DNA sample, as first analyzed in 2007, had alleles that didn't fit well with the markers obtained from the other Amarna mummies, so they suppressed it until they could get better readings from KV21 females, hoping for better, more telling, matches there. Which apparently has happened, we presume to think. These should show relationships between the KV21 duo and the other Amarna mummies, such as they are, including KV55, the KV62 fetuses, Thuya (some of their alleles, scant as they were, matched hers*), AIII, etc. Though there are those Egyptologists who argue that due to the post-AIII royal family inbreeding, and with only eight markers usable, definitive evidence of relationship certainty is still elusive. I guess we shall see. Still mysterious (to me) are the groupings of these mummies in their final tombs. And, as you note, the KV35 prince's arms don't really indicate his royal status if he's Smenkhkare, which is a bit curious but neither do Tut's. * Quoting Marianne, from her 2016 paper, p.4 : Quote Once again, due to her incomplete 8-marker DNA profile, it cannot really be stated with certainty that K321A was the mother of either nameless foetus, fathered by Tutankhamun, or that her name was actually Ankhesenamun. The only thing that can be stated with any degree of certainty is that the mummy known as K321A and the two babies are somehow related to Thuya, the mother of Queen Tiye--but not via Tiye, herself. At the 4th locus, K321A and foetus 1 both have the number 35, not seen in any family members of Tutankhamun, in the previous generations whose test results were published in the JAMA paper--except Thuya. Also, at the 2nd locus, which is D7S82, foetus 2 has the number 13, again not seen since Thuya. https://www.academia.edu/21597027/MORE_OBSERVATIONS_ON_18th_DYNASTY_DNA It's complicated. Edited October 3, 2022 by Wistman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted October 3, 2022 #543 Share Posted October 3, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wistman said: Thank you, very plausible. It seems to me, based on the relatively good state of the KV35 prince's mummy, and the photos you've provided, that as you suggest Hawass has had a readable sample of his DNA profile for many years. I suppose the recent scans are for better determination of the prince's age and bodily condition; there's really no evidence that his DNA was rechecked, though it could have been. All of which, if so, implies that the prince's DNA sample, as first analyzed in 2007, had alleles that didn't fit well with the markers obtained from the other Amarna mummies, so they suppressed it until they could get better readings from KV21 females, hoping for better, more telling, matches there. Which apparently has happened, we presume to think. These should show relationships between the KV21 duo and the other Amarna mummies, such as they are, including KV55, the KV62 fetuses, Thuya (some of their alleles, scant as they were, matched hers*), AIII, etc. Though there are those Egyptologists who argue that due to the post-AIII royal family inbreeding, and with only eight markers usable, definitive evidence of relationship certainty is still elusive. I guess we shall see. Still mysterious (to me) are the groupings of these mummies in their final tombs. And, as you note, the KV35 prince's arms don't really indicate his royal status if he's Smenkhkare, which is a bit curious but neither do Tut's. * Quoting Marianne, from her 2016 paper, p.4 : https://www.academia.edu/21597027/MORE_OBSERVATIONS_ON_18th_DYNASTY_DNA It's complicated. I think that may well be a thing that his DNA was looked at and they had to do a double take, scratch their heads and put him on the back burner until they could get better results from the KV21 mummies. Yes, the arm postion of the royal Tutankhamun indicates that he is a commoner, while the arm position of the commoner Yuya indicates he is a royal, so it's not the best indicator. Likewise with queens, as Tiye has her left arm bent, but the YL has her left arm straight, with ludicrous attempts to try to get her detached arm, and the spare, to look as if they were a bent right arm. I think arms can be thrown away. I would leave serious discussion of DNA to others, but I'll allow myself the observation that if the two fetuses seem to share DNA with Thuya but not via Tiye, then this may indicate that their mother and grandmother, presumably KV21A and B respectively, are descended from Thuya by more than one route. They must have a link via Tiye as Tutankhamun is a grandson of Tiye and great grandson of Thuya, but if, as it seems, there is a stronger link to Thuya that does not go through Tiye, then it must come from KV21B (Nefertiti) as presumably a grand daughter of Thuya but not a daughter of Tiye. I hope that this can be cleared up when the announcement is made, and surely Hawass is holding information back for the occassion. And of course this may well give added life to the speculation that Nefertiti is a daughter of Ay, who could be a brother of Tiye or son of a full sister of Thuya. On my understanding of these sometimes convoluted succession protocols, Ay, though not the bodily son or brother of a king, could, when the male line has ended, as it did with Tutankhamun, claim the throne by being the father of Nefertiti. This is connected in the "Contendings" with the position of Isis, though, he could claim to be a brother of Amunhotep III as his daughter has married his son. He is of course a brother in law, but this can, it seems, be used as a lever in succession issues by him claiming to be the only surviving "eldest son" of Amunhotep III, or, mindbendingly, the "eldest son" of Tutankhamun, perhaps 40 years his junior. But, as you say, it's complicated, all of it's complicated, and then everything is encrypted and fed into a machine that makes things complicated, and then it's all shredded and 80% of the information is burnt and none of the remaining infomation clicks into place with any other piece of information. Is that clear, of have I made it complicated Edited October 3, 2022 by Wepwawet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted October 4, 2022 Author #544 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) Aiden Dodsen lecture at the Society of Antiquaries, from earlier today: The Rediscovery of Tutankhamun Largely historiographical; still, some interesting details, especially in second half and questions/answers at the end. Poor miking though, so sometimes difficult to hear speaker; best to listen in a quiet room. Just over an hour long. Edited October 4, 2022 by Wistman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted October 4, 2022 #545 Share Posted October 4, 2022 What made me chuckle were his comments about other Tutankhamun books coming out to "cash in", but buy his because he is the only Tutankhamun expert, and about Reeves flying a kite. Also interesting to hear an Egyptologist publicly state the truth about the damaging influence that contemporary religion had on how the early Egyptologists interpreted and presented Ancient Egypt, and his short presentation of a rouges gallery of woo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted October 5, 2022 Author #546 Share Posted October 5, 2022 At the beginning he said that Tutankhamun is 'probably' the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. I guess that means he still thinks the YL is she. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted October 5, 2022 #547 Share Posted October 5, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, Wistman said: At the beginning he said that Tutankhamun is 'probably' the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. I guess that means he still thinks the YL is she. I think that with the available information he is still going with his own convictions, perfectly rational, though does he sit on top of a house of cards, with many others, and there is Hawass about to pull out the bottom card. Honestly, no matter what evidence Hawass presents, there will still be argument about this, but Dodson did do a complete volte face about a co-regency, so he has an open mind, and I would think that his book on Nefertiti has past it's peak sales point by now, not so with Reeves though, oops. Edited October 5, 2022 by Wepwawet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted October 7, 2022 Author #548 Share Posted October 7, 2022 The bit about finding Tut's willie in the 'sand' seems odd. The sand...where? Harry Burton had photographed the royal penis intact during Howard Carter's excavation of King Tut's tomb in 1922. It was subsequently reported missing in 1968, when a series of x-rays were done of the mummy. People thought it had been nicked and sold. In 2006 Zahi said: "Instead, it has always been there. I found it during the CT scan last year, when the mummy was lifted. It lay loose in the sand around the king's body. It was mummified." How funny. All of that sand in Tut's tomb! I hope Zahi got a better cleaning service since then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted October 7, 2022 #549 Share Posted October 7, 2022 (edited) I think the problem is at it's root cause Carter and his treatment of the mummy. Nobody outside a small circle knew until Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt published her book in 1963 that Carter had hacked up Tutankhamun as badly as any of the tomb robbers had hacked up Thutmose III and other kings. All the sand on the tray was, according to her, just a means of disguising the fact of his dismemberment, with some careful placement and skillfull photography by Burton. I believe that Desroches-Noblecourt's expose was treated with some skepticism at the time, but these days of course it's all laid bare. Christina Rigg's book Photographing Tutankhamun is the go to source for the reality of what happened and to see the original photos, not the ones touched up for the public to see. These show Tutankhamun at various stages of being unwrapped, and the decapitated head being photographed in a manner to disguise the fact of decapitation. The famous sandbox photo was in a way tricking the public into seeing a mummy looking not as bad as it actually was, and as Dodson pointed out, it's even worse now. Going back to 1993, Christopher Frayling wrote a book and presented a documentary that showed even at this late date some shockingly bad "preservation" work being done on KV62 artifacts, including on the bust of him as Nefertum/Ra, where we see the "conservator" handle it so badly that bits fell off right in front of the camera. This has improved 100 %, but a lot of damage and "funny stuff" has happened since the tomb was opened. 1993 is also when John Romer brought out his book "The Rape of Tutankhamun", which was actually about the appalling state of the VoK and artifacts at that time. It still leaves be baffled as to why the signs for the tombs look like they are unchanged from the 1920/30s, particularly KV62 with it's un-neccesary and archaic spelling Tut-Ankh-Amun, still, better than Toutankhamanou I guess. Edited October 7, 2022 by Wepwawet 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted October 7, 2022 Author #550 Share Posted October 7, 2022 (edited) Also now thinking of the deplorable state of the KV21 mummies, that Belzoni reported had full heads of long hair when he found them. Like Queen Tiye's. How regrettable they were just left in there to get completely wrecked. Hindsight is so easy, but it is somewhat troubling that these two, in their WV tomb associated with late D18, never sparked anybody's curiosity until the sixties, who might have associated them with the missing queens...they could have been rescued in even a little bit better condition. Though a lot of time passed between Belzoni and Egyptology's awakening to the Amarna period and its mystery late in the nineteenth century. Perhaps the mummies were already completely ruined by then. Carter, however, should have known better when he pulled off Tut's resin-soaked wrappings. Cripey. I guess his excitement got the better of him. Poor judgment from one who otherwise seemed so competent. Speaking of excitement.....tick tock tick tock! Edited October 7, 2022 by Wistman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now