All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 

Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:46 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Kmt_sesh has written:
The examiners of the CT scans Osiris II was telling you about went on record, I believe, as saying he recieved a good mummification. That is clearly not the case. He was well wrapped and sealed inside his coffins and sarcophagus, but the body itself was poorly prepared. His head is in good shape, but the farther down his body you go, the more skeletal he is. We have commoners in our exhibit whose mummies are much better preserved than the boy king's.

They were speaking more of the wrapping than the condition of the body. I thought the skeletal appearance was more the result of a reaction with the ungents that were pour over the body, which caused an oxidation of the wrappings and the tissue, literally burning away the flesh.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 8:16 pm 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Fri May 13, 2005 10:15 pm
Posts:350
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
They were speaking more of the wrapping than the condition of the body. I thought the skeletal appearance was more the result of a reaction with the ungents that were pour over the body, which caused an oxidation of the wrappings and the tissue, literally burning away the flesh.Back to top


The wrappings would make sense, then. But there are many mummies to which far more resins and unguents were applied that are in much better shape than Tut's remains. We have a couple in our exhibit at the Field. I do think there was a power struggle or some sort of court intrigue at this time that necessitated the cutting of some corners, as it were. The state in which Tut is found now tells me his tissues did not receive adequate desiccation and thus were not fully dried before the wrapping, which allowed bacteria and micro-organisms to have their Tut and eat it, too! :D


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 11:22 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am
Posts:574
Location: The palace of Tutness!
Sorry I haven't been on in a while, but kmt and Osiris, thanks for clearing some things up once again. :wink: And I'm thrilled that Tut will ALWAYS be a famous pharaoh...though he accomplished more in death than he did in life, which to me sounds rather depressing... :cry:

And as for Tut's mummy, I agree with my buddy Kmt. There are mummies both from earlier and later dynasties that were better preserved then he was--and yes, even commoners!!! If Tut's mummy is that bad, I can imagine what Akhenaten's mummy--if he has one--looks like right now. :shock: Kind of scary, if you think about it...


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005 8:43 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
Deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005 9:33 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005 10:24 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:11 am 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
Trying to use MAnetho is pretty much a lost cause I think.
We don't have the original writings of Manetho, just versions of his writings as recorded by Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius.
These writings do not agree with each other. They provide different lists and the info is shaky at best.
See http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/manetho1.html for instance for the discrepancies.

For as far as the DNA tests for Amenhotep III and IV go: That's not even possible.
The mummy tentatively identified as Amenhotep III is a strange one and the mummification techniques used cast some serious doubt on its identity.
The mummy of Amenhotep IV (=Akhenaten) has not been found. Most think the mummy in KV55 is that of Smenkhare.
So there is no way DNA testing could have shown anything like what you claimed.

Amenhotep III is the son of Tuthmosis IV (Egyptian) and Mutemwia. Some people thought Mutemwia to be a daughter of Artatama of Mitanni, but a careful examination of the facts shows that this is not possible. Amenhotep III must have been born either before Tuthmosis IV took the throne, or in the very early years of his reign. Tuthmosis IV was not married to the Mitanni Princess at this point (this took place later) so Mutemwia cannot be this Syrian princess.

Amenhotep IV is the son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. Tiye's father looks like he may be of foreign extraction, but her mother is very much an Egyptian noble lady (Looking at the mummies this much can be determined). So it seems to me that Amenhotep IV may have had a grand-father with foreign roots, but the rest of the family tree seems fairly firmly rooted in Egypt.

Quote:
Amenhotep 2 is called the "Napolean of the Ancient World"

No, that would be Thutmosis III. He was the stepson of Hatshepsut and the father of Amenhotep II and he was known as the NApoleon of the ancient world because of the ca 20 military expeditions he undertook.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 6:15 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:14 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 6:22 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:21 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:22 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 10:02 am 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
HI Rich :D

In all honesty I have no faith whatsoever in the author of "specialtyinterests.net". That site is full of holes so big you can drive a truck through them.

Quote:
Considering these circumstances we cannot find any person like Horemheb in the days of Akhnaton and Tut-ankh-amen.

Well, there's the Saqqara tomb of Horemheb which shows him as the general before Tutankhamen. Pretty convincing proof I think :wink:

In Theban tomb 10, workers are shown to be worshipping Amenhotep I, Ahmose Nefertari, Sety I, Ramses I and Horemheb.
etc.

Another example:
Quote:
Amenhotep III broke tradition by marrying Tiyi who used a title `Queen's nurse' for having raised Nefretete

This is wrong. Tiyi was never a royal nurse. He is confusing Queen Tiyi, wife of Amenhotep III with Tey the wife of Aye. Tey would later on become Queen in her own right.

About tomb KV55:
Quote:
The presence of jewelry, a necklace and gold foil proved that the tomb had never been robbed. Yet, the tomb was extremely disorderly. The burial place chosen also seemed inappropriate for a queen since her servants had better constructed ones than she did.

That's really rather royally (no pun intended :)) missing the point. This tomb was no ordinary burial place, it was a deposit of burial goods that were probably taken from the royal tomb in Amarna.
Some now think that this site may have initially contained many more goods, but that these were used in the burial of Akhenaten.

So I don't really trust what this person has to say at all. (but that's my opinion)

The connections to Mitanni and later Hatti are very interesting though.

Changing the topic slightly (hope you don't mind), the presence of people from the general area of Syria is well attested I think. If you read the translations of the inscriptions by Tuthmosis III, then you find mentione of many, many captives taken from the battle field, and many slaves that are brought to Egypt in tribute. The country of Retenu provides literally a couple of thousand people to the temple economy.

There is also mention of quite a few horses and thier caretakers brought to Egypt. The Mitanni and the Hurrians before them were rnowned horsemen.
I had wondered if the nobility in the 18th dynasty ended up with some nobles from that area.

It's speculation, but I had wondered if that was the case with Yuya, the father of Queen Tiye. He looks semitic, and he was a Master of the Horse.

Some think he may have been the son of a man called Yey, who held similar titles.

Have you seen the mummies of Yuya and Tuya?
They can be found on this site:
http://members.tripod.com/anubis4_2000/Bookmarks.htm

Here's Yuya:
Image

The discoloration is due to the mummification process. Still, a striking figure I think.

Some think this is Tiye, others think it's Nefertiti :D
Image


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 4:47 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
how about birthdates, instead of reigns... for manetho's list?

Then, on average.... the birthdate will equate with a reign length... but sometimes it will be longer, and sometimes shorter...

King A lives to 50, he has a son, King B, when he is 20.
His son, King B, lives to 50

King B takes the throne at 30, and lives to 50, reign of 20 years.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:55 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts:71
deleted.


Last edited by rich on Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:09 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:30 pm
Posts:55
I've heard that some people believe the pharaoh didn't die but, one of his high army officials did? I've always believe the later pharaoh of the exodus to be Moses (I've read on other sites, and people tend to forget that Moses was in the deesert for like 40 years) so when Moses came back there was a new pharaoh 'Ramses'. I watched Ramses Wrath Of God or man and that movie just confused me! :oops:
Not too long ago I read that the amount of people who left with Moses was in the few thousands, not hundreds of thousands. The bible is not always accurate with dates unfortunatly.


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group