All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 

Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:03 pm 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:08 am
Posts:442
Location: Derby
Not henpecked just young and naive. This is related to the possible 'murder' of Tut but we can debate that another time:-) One theory for the murder of tut was that he began to realise how much power he had and wanted to exercise it and either horemheb or aye had him murdered. If this is true it implies that he was easily lead as a youngster.
When you say Kiya's funerary goods. Are you refering to KV 55? All books and documentaries I have seen imply that it was Akhneaten who sealed it not tut. As for evidence that kiya was tut's mum well you know there is know firm evidence and I definitely don't 100% belive it is the case. Just that it is the theory I first became aware of and one i believe is the most likely although i don't rule out Tiye being his mum, we know she had a child late in life, Baketaten.
If you refere to the funeral scene at Amarna of Princess Meketaten then you may also be aware that there is actually a second and separate scenen showing the death of a differewnt royal lady in childbirth. The evidence would point top this being kiya. Also you don't place much emphasis on the title 'favourite' but she was also 'Greatly Beloved of the King'.
On the subject of Tut III elevating his concubine mother ISis to the position of God's wife well he is hardly likely to have elevated Hatshepsut is he?:-)


Top
 Profile  
 

Powerless Pharaoh Tut
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:18 am 
Hi Kiya

Kiya writes "Not henpecked just young and naive. This is related to the possible 'murder' of Tut but we can debate that another time:-) One theory for the murder of tut was that he began to realise how much power he had and wanted to exercise it and either horemheb or aye had him murdered. If this is true it implies that he was easily lead as a youngster."

Pj writes- Please see Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture, by William H. Stiebing, Jr, Longman Publishing 2003, pg 188. He might have died in battle or in training for further battles.
Please see The Complete Tutankhamun The King The Tomb The Royal Treasure by Nicholas Reeves, Thames and Hudson Pubishers, 1990 pgs 170-180 the amount and types of weapony buried with him the young naive boy king. For a young naive boy king he was outfitted well for battle. More current and serious (not out to make a fortune) historians are looking at all the battle scenes and weapony buried with him. With the idea they weren't just for his amusement after all. Please note the date of Dr. Stiebings work 2003.

Egypt was no stranger to boy kings, from the 1st dynasty on to the end of the Ptolomy line, there were boy kings. To name a few- Den (1st Dynasty)Pepy 1, both of his successors Menkaurf and Pepy II (6th Dynasty) the last 3 all had offical co-regents and mothers who ruled for them unitil maturity. Tut had neighter. Powerless?

i will be happy to debate with you at another time if he was murdered by servants unable/unwilling to put their own blood upon their throne or (my position) killed in relation to restoring his nations honor and empire.

Kiya writes "When you say Kiya's funerary goods. Are you refering to KV 55? All books and documentaries I have seen imply that it was Akhneaten who sealed it not tut."
Pj writes- Yes i am referring to KV55. Please see Nefertiti by Joyce Tyldesley, Pengiun Books, 1998 pg 156. " The discovery of Tutankhamen's sealings confirm that the tomb must have been closed some time after Tutankhamen had come to the throne, and it seemed safe to assume that he had been responsible for the burial, although there was always the possibility that this was a reburial of someone who had died in an earlier reign."
Pg 157 ... it is now generally accepted that the coffin, like the canopic jars, had initially been prepared for the burial of Kiya."

Please see Akhenaten King of Egypt by Cyril Aldred, Thames and Hudson Publishers 1988, pg 196. For further documentation of Tutankhamun as having sealed KV55.

I would greatly appreciate your sources that imply that Akhneaten did the sealings.

Kiya writes "As for evidence that kiya was tut's mum well you know there is know firm evidence and I definitely don't 100% belive it is the case. Just that it is the theory I first became aware of and one i believe is the most likely "
Pj writes- Please see Nefertiti by Joyce Tyldesley pg 129-130. "We know that Kiya bore the king a least one daughter as we have a relief.... There is also stong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Kiya gave Akhenaten at least two sons." However Dr. Tyldesley does not mention this "strong circumstantial evidence".
See The Complete Tutankhamen... by Nicholas Reeves pg.24 "In a number of Amarna reliefs, Kiya is shown in the company of a daugher. The question is: might she also have given the king a son?"

Kiya if you have sources of firm evidence of Kiya being Tut's mother, i would greatly appreciate seeing them myself after all the circumstantial evidence and induendos i am familiar with.

Kiya writes-"If you refere to the funeral scene at Amarna of Princess Meketaten then you may also be aware that there is actually a second and separate scenen showing the death of a differewnt royal lady in childbirth. The evidence would point top this being kiya."

What evidence points to it? The desire by some archaeologists to sell their work? My understanding of the secondary childbirth scene is that it even more hacked up, defaced than the first. Considering that the usual target of such defacement was Akhenaten and Nefertiti i would offer that the dead woman was Nefertiti and the Queen by Akhenaten grieving side, was Meritaten.

Dr. Reeves places great emphesis on Tut being born in the yr. 11 of Akhenaten's reign. Nefertiti had already given birth to her sixth daughter before his 10th year. So there is no reason to believe that she stopped having children or making attempts to do so after Setepenre.
Queen Tiye had at least 8 live births during her marriage to Amenophis III so again there is no reason to believe with 4 more years of appearing in the reliefs with her husband Nefertiti quit having his children.

Kiya writes "Also you don't place much emphasis on the title 'favourite' but she was also 'Greatly Beloved of the King'."
Patty writes- Actually no i don't because it was a unsual term and certianly not used by other 18th Dynasty women of rank and power. I am sure it meant a great deal to Kiya but it certainly didn't give her power in life and helped her not at all in death.

Kiya writes "On the subject of Tut III elevating his concubine mother ISis to the position of God's wife well he is hardly likely to have elevated Hatshepsut is he?"
Patty writes- It does show that he honored his mother when no one else did. (let us not forget there is some thought she was dead when he raised her to such lofty height of female power) Unlike Tutankhamen the assumed son of Kiya.


Top
  
 

Re: Tut's father
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:07 am 
Kiya wrote:
CAn anyone speculate as to why some people think Tut's father may have been Amenhotep III rather than Akhenaten. Tut was only 9 when he came to the throne. Akhenaten reigned for nearly 20 years. Tut was obviously fathered during that time.


This isn't speculation but originally when Tutankhamen was discovered his tomb held artifacts from Q. Tiye, Amenophis III and a few other persons from Amenophis III reign. This strengthened the argument that Amenophis III and Q. Tiye was his parents. That Q. Tiye was having children late into the reign of husband allowed at that early post discovery date to include Tut as their last child.

Q. Sitamun was once considered his mother however the experts didn't care for this theory on account of the incest involved as the father in this case was understood to be her father Amenophis III.

Why in the first place Akhenaten wasn't considered Tutankhamun's father was because at this early date. We are talking 1920's, in Tutankhamun's tomb there was nothing to suggest that Akhenaten and his (then) only identified Queen and wife Nefertiti was his parents. Along with the reliefs at Amarna involving the royal family of Akhenaten show only daughters also led to the conclusion that Akhenaten and Nefertiti couldn't be his parents. It as since become Canon that Nefertiti had no sons. But this isn't proven only assumed based only upon these reliefs and despite Egyptian history of no reliefs of royal sons. Amenophis III and Q. Tiye had at least 2 sons who were never shown in reliefs. So claiming that because the Amarna reliefs show only daughters Nefertiti had no sons doesn't mean that it is true.

Since the 1920's the Lady Kiya has been found to have been a wife of Akhenaten. Also since then, there has been found across the river from Amarna an artifact that announces that Tutankhamun was the son of a King. The king is unnamed.

Since the discovery of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten there has been two camps in the world of Egyptianology. Camp one states there was a period of co-regency lasting up to 12 years between Akhenaten and his father Amenophis III. It is this argument that makes it possible for Amenophis III to be Tut's father in that if there was a long co-regency it is possible that Tut was the last child of Amenophis and his wife Tiye. Camp 2 states there was no co-regency or a very short one of not more than 2 years between the two Kings. If there was no coregency or a short one Tut almost has to be the son of Akhenaten.

There is another recent theory on who Tut's parents might have been based upon crainofacial similarities. There is a link to it in the section Mummies, under Who is Who in the World of Mummies. This newest theory offers that Tut's father was another son of Thutmosis IV and a daughter of Amenophis III.


Top
  
 

PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:37 pm 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:08 am
Posts:442
Location: Derby
Ok sorry for late response have been on holiday!
Firstly, where on earth did the Tut IV theory arise from? Ok its not beyond the realms of possibility but did someone just pull it out of a hat?

Secondly, in response to guest 2:

- We all know that it was common practice for a Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great and powerful warrior, whether or not hat was the case in real life. Tut was taking his place with the gods so his tomb would need to be equipped for this task. It doesn't change what he was in real life.

- Yes Tut had neither a mother or a Regent. If we are to believe Kiya was his mother then she died/disapeared, as did Nefertiti. What could he do but allow the Vizier(his relative) and the head of the army to 'take charge'. These were men used to getting their own way as prooven by the murder of the Hittite prince Zananza, whoever carried it out.

- There was a documentary on the history channel which stated that Akhenaten had sealed KV55. This never did sit well with me considering the fact that Akhenaten had said he would never leave Akhet-Aten, why would he allow his family to be burried outside the city?

- Obviously I don't have any firm evidence stating Kiya was the mother of Tut as there isn't any. I stated above that I didn't 100% believe it, just that I thought it the most likely scenario. The obvious answer is usually the right one.

- You quoted 'Akhenaten by Cyril Aldred, a copy of which I own, so I will also refer to it: It is Cyril Aldred who speculates that the 2nd death bed scene may have been Kiya. It does make sense, we know that she died/disapeared around this time. What other royal female could it be?


Top
 Profile  
 

king tut's tomb
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:51 am 
why is king tut's tomb most appropriate for a king :?: :!: :? [/b]


Top
  
 

Re: king tut's tomb
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:08 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
dabomb wrote:
why is king tut's tomb most appropriate for a king :?: :!: :? [/b]


Hi Dabomb, i am sorry to tell you but King Tut's tomb wasn't the most appropriate for a king. In fact it wasn't even created for a King but for a commoner honored with a tomb in the Valley of Kings. This happened to the parents of Queen Tiye they were honored with a tomb in the Valley of the Kings as well.


Top
 Profile  
 

Thutmosis IV as possible grandfather of Tut
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:15 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
[quote="Kiya"]Ok sorry for late response have been on holiday!
Firstly, where on earth did the Tut IV theory arise from? Ok its not beyond the realms of possibility but did someone just pull it out of a hat?

I suggest you go to the website and read up on the latest information. The scientists offer good reason for their 3rd suggestion as to the parents of Tutankhamun. The son of Thutmosis IV and a daughter of Amenophis III. It is based upon facial/crano simialarities. Sciene, Kiya not fictional flights of fancy.


http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IS/WENTE/ ... Win95.html


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:43 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Kiya wrote:
- Kiya writes: We all know that it was common practice for a Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great and powerful warrior, whether or not hat was the case in real life. Tut was taking his place with the gods so his tomb would need to be equipped for this task. It doesn't change what he was in real life.

Sekhmet writes: I am sorry but i know such thing. Would you please enlighten me with the source of your knowledge? "That it was common practice for Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great powerful warrior." The only such portrayals i am aware of are those of Pharaohs who were in acutuality warrior Pharaohs. Or 18th Dynasty Queens who were shown able and willing to carry out the Pharaohs job of stompping out the enemy. You're actually talking a 19th/early 20th century theory that has been mostly discarded.

"Amenophis III his grandfather, if not his father, was leading armies at the age of 17." pg. 49 Egyptian Warfare and Weapons, by Ian Shaw.

"Ramesses II as a 14 maybe 15 year old prince was allowed to lead his father's armies against Nubia. Pharaoh Triumphant the Life and Times of Ramesses II." pg. 24, by K.A. Kitchen

Tutankhamun died between the ages of 16- and 19 well old enough to have lead armies and to have died in that action. Why must he be a naive, little boy to you? Because it fits best with your understanding of his history?

"The events surrounding the death of Tut are still far from clear. The King died unexpectedly in his teth regnal year at a time when Egypt was engaged in a major confrontation iwth the Hittites. That ended in an Egyptian defeat about the time of Tut's death." pg 292 The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, by Jacobus Van Dijk, Ian Shaw editior.

"The Kings were traditionally the chief warrior of the state, the King personally led his troops on campaigns." pg. 228 Handbook to life in Ancient Egypt, by Rosalie David.


Kiya writes- Yes Tut had neither a mother or a Regent. If we are to believe Kiya was his mother then she died/disapeared, as did Nefertiti. What could he do but allow the Vizier(his relative) and the head of the army to 'take charge'. These were men used to getting their own way as prooven by the murder of the Hittite prince Zananza, whoever carried it out.

Sekhmet writes- Your welcome to hang onto your desire to make a seconadary wife of Akhenaten, who has no position outside of Akhenaten, loses that little position to Akhenaten's daughters, the mother of King Tutankhamun. Myself i prefer to look at the facts and history of King/Queen ship in Ancient Egypt and say it just doesn't jive with history. Poor little Tut in your opinion and the opinion of those Victorian aged scholars who discovered him, more intuned with underlings attempting to control British and European royality than the respect Divine Royality achieved in Ancient Egypt.

Kiya writes- There was a documentary on the history channel which stated that Akhenaten had sealed KV55. This never did sit well with me considering the fact that Akhenaten had said he would never leave Akhet-Aten, why would he allow his family to be burried outside the city?

Sekhmet writes- could you please furnish me with source for this statement. I remember that Lucille Morgan in The Lost Queen of Egypt makes this statement regarding Akhenaten, it was a work of fiction and no real archaeologists supports her statement in the book. You haven't read her book too have you? It lead me for years in several wrong conclusions.

Kiya writes - Obviously I don't have any firm evidence stating Kiya was the mother of Tut as there isn't any. I stated above that I didn't 100% believe it, just that I thought it the most likely scenario. The obvious answer is usually the right one.

Sekhmet writes- The obvisous most likely interpetaton of the Armarna story at the time of the discovery was that Akhenaten had only one wife. It was obvisously wrong as much later finds proved. There is no proof that Kiya was Tutankhamun's mother and what proof that does survive indicates that she wasn't held with any affection by anyone other than Akhenaten.

Kiya writes- You quoted 'Akhenaten by Cyril Aldred, a copy of which I own, so I will also refer to it: It is Cyril Aldred who speculates that the 2nd death bed scene may have been Kiya. It does make sense, we know that she died/disapeared around this time. What other royal female could it be?


Kiya when i refer to a source i put the page number in it. To make it easy for someone else to check what i am saying. I can not find the reference you are referring to in the book. However i do find on pg.286, "It may well be, therefore that such an exceptional beloved queen (Aldred's words not mine) if only a secondary queen (never allowed the title or royal uranus, my words) was granted the privilege of burial in or near the Royal tomb.
On pg. 288 he writes The death of Kiya also about the same time, obliged him to bury her in the Royal Tomb or in a tomb nearby.

I find no reference to it being her in Aldred's book decipted as the other woman in the royal mourning scene in the Royal Tomb. As there are 2 such scenes and only one with an identifing name, the other one with the names wiped out. I maintain there is no reason not to believe that it was Nefertiti who was the dead queen, and her daughter Meritaten taking her mother's place beside her grieving father.

I also note in trying to find the information you offer from Aldred's book that on pg. 227 Kiya is thought to have outlived Nefertiti by 2 or more years. Which would make it hard for Nefertiti to have been the Queen mourning Kiya's death with Akhenaten, if it was her in the more defaced scene.

You may not like this but since you have the book i suggest you go and reread pages 113, and 285. On these pages you will be told that her position and importance have been taken out of context by modern scholars.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:26 am 
Originally posted by Kiya - Kiya writes: We all know that it was common practice for a Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great and powerful warrior, whether or not hat was the case in real life. Tut was taking his place with the gods so his tomb would need to be equipped for this task. It doesn't change what he was in real life.

Sekhmet writes: I am sorry but i know such thing. Would you please enlighten me with the source of your knowledge? "That it was common practice for Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great powerful warrior."

The source of my knowledge is accepted fact! Part of the role of the pharaoh was to establish Maat throughout the land, part of which involved fighting and defeating Egypt's enemies. Consequently this is how pharaohs were portrayed: strong and vigorous warriors establishing justice and order and defending Egypt against aggressors.

Kiya writes- There was a documentary on the history channel which stated that Akhenaten had sealed KV55. This never did sit well with me considering the fact that Akhenaten had said he would never leave Akhet-Aten, why would he allow his family to be burried outside the city?

Sekhmet writes- could you please furnish me with source for this statement. I remember that Lucille Morgan in The Lost Queen of Egypt makes this statement regarding Akhenaten, it was a work of fiction and no real archaeologists supports her statement in the book. You haven't read her book too have you? It lead me for years in several wrong conclusions.

I have just stated my source, a documentary on the history channel although, as previously stated I was not happy with this. I watch so many of these documentaries on Egypt and sometimes it seems like the researchers of the show have not done any. It is now accepted by most that the sarcophagus in KV 55 was made for a royal female whether that be Kiya, Meritaten etc..... but this theory wasn't even mentioned in the show, it was all about Akhenaten.


Top
  
 

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:00 pm 
The evidence of co-regency is complex due to the conflicting interpretation of the same data. The Tomb of Ramose in Thebes depicts in the same chamber images of Amunhotep III and Akhenaten. These inscriptiopns have been taken to suggest that the pharaohs ruled similtaneously for a short while or alternatively that Ramose served both . The theory has been developed extensively by Aldred and refuted by Redford. However there is an intersesting doctorate on the of co-regency evidence by Leslie Bailey: University of Chicago Illinois.
The debate still rages and is infact not refuted by all scholars. To what extent this can be applied to Tutankhamun as the son of AmunhotepIII depends on acceptance of a long coregency of at least 9 years to enable Tutankhamun to ascend the throne of Egypt at about 9 years of age. There is evidence of a royal infant in the tomb of Akhenaten at Amarna. The infant is in the hands of a servant and accompanied by an ostrish plumed fan- designating royalty. All of this is confusing and while the jury seems to be in favour of Tutankhamun being the son of Akhenaten and perjhaps his favourite Kiya. This still doesn't explain the exclusion of Tutankhamun from the wall paintings at Amarna that depict Akhenaten and only his daughters.


Top
  
 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:14 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Anonymous wrote:
This still doesn't explain the exclusion of Tutankhamun from the wall paintings at Amarna that depict Akhenaten and only his daughters.


Thank you Guest for your post. I am just wondering if Akhenaten (Amumhotep IV) or his older brother Thutmosis, High Priest of Ptah, are depicted in the tomb of their father Amunhotep III? If they are not, as they were not in depictions of Amunhotep"s III court life. Then we have an explanation of why Tutankhamun isn't depicted in Akhenaten's tomb.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:19 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Anonymous wrote:
All of this is confusing and while the jury seems to be in favour of Tutankhamun being the son of Akhenaten and perjhaps his favourite Kiya.



Let us remember Guest that prior to the discovery of "his favourite" the Lady Kiya. The Queens Tiye and Sitamun were judged by the jury to have been his mother. The fact is the jury doesn't know who his parents are and all they are really doing is making best guess'. Hopefully one day DNA will solve the problem and best guess' will be a thing of the past. :)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:42 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Anonymous wrote:
Originally posted by Kiya - Kiya writes: We all know that it was common practice for a Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great and powerful warrior, whether or not hat was the case in real life. Tut was taking his place with the gods so his tomb would need to be equipped for this task. It doesn't change what he was in real life.

Sekhmet writes: I am sorry but i know such thing. Would you please enlighten me with the source of your knowledge? "That it was common practice for Pharaoh to be portrayed as a great powerful warrior."


Anonymous wrote:
The source of my knowledge is accepted fact! Part of the role of the pharaoh was to establish Maat throughout the land, part of which involved fighting and defeating Egypt's enemies. Consequently this is how pharaohs were portrayed: strong and vigorous warriors establishing justice and order and defending Egypt against aggressors.


Accepted fact that Pharaohs lied, or boasted of things they did not do. Do you know about the Book of the Dead, where the dead have a list of negative statements they make? Including the statement "I have not lied" Do you know that even Pharaoh had to make that statment. Apparently you and others who understand that Pharaoh just lied and boasted of things he did not do. Potentially paid no price for such a lie.

Again Kiya this is an old theory, that isn't as favored as it once was. In part because there is greater knowledge of things like the Book of the Dead. The evidence supports that Tutankhamun was a warrior in the last years of his life and more experts are accepting this over the old theory that he was a milk fed, big baby murdered for wanting to excise his rights.


Anonymous wrote:
Kiya writes- There was a documentary on the history channel which stated that Akhenaten had sealed KV55. This never did sit well with me considering the fact that Akhenaten had said he would never leave Akhet-Aten, why would he allow his family to be burried outside the city?

Sekhmet writes- could you please furnish me with source for this statement. I remember that Lucille Morgan in The Lost Queen of Egypt makes this statement regarding Akhenaten, it was a work of fiction and no real archaeologists supports her statement in the book. You haven't read her book too have you? It lead me for years in several wrong conclusions.

I have just stated my source, a documentary on the history channel although, as previously stated I was not happy with this. I watch so many of these documentaries on Egypt and sometimes it seems like the researchers of the show have not done any. It is now accepted by most that the sarcophagus in KV 55 was made for a royal female whether that be Kiya, Meritaten etc..... but this theory wasn't even mentioned in the show, it was all about Akhenaten.


Aww come on Kiya, it is accepted that the coffin was made for Kiya do i need to get out my books and document it for you? I regret your not even being able to remember the name of this program.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:47 am 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed Sep 25, 2002 1:08 am
Posts:442
Location: Derby
Although I do believe, as do most, that Kiya was Tut's father, we do know that Queen Tiy had a child very late in life, the Princess Baketaten so I guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility for her to have given birth to Tut also.



Quote:
Aww come on Kiya, it is accepted that the coffin was made for Kiya do i need to get out my books and document it for you? I regret your not even being able to remember the name of this program.


I agree with you and accept that the coffin in KV55 was made for Kiya. By mentioning Meritaten I was just stating another possible Amarna female who had been put forward as a possibility of being the owner.

Quote:
Accepted fact that Pharaohs lied, or boasted of things they did not do. Do you know about the Book of the Dead, where the dead have a list of negative statements they make? Including the statement "I have not lied" Do you know that even Pharaoh had to make that statment. Apparently you and others who understand that Pharaoh just lied and boasted of things he did not do. Potentially paid no price for such a lie


Lets see, no i've never heard of the 'Book of the Dead' before, what is that? :lol: :D
Yes I accept what your saying but the fact is that there were pharaohs who did comitt deeds and ascended to the throne contrary to the rules of Maat. Surely they would have known that their heart would speak against them in the afterlife and it didn't seem to bother them too much.
With Tut one could argue that being portratyed as a warrior trampling the enemies of Egypt would be, for him, a more ceremonial role. Tut 'ceremonially' trampling the enemies of egypt as he may have gone on to do if he had lived longer.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:47 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Kiya wrote:

Lets see, no i've never heard of the 'Book of the Dead' before, what is that? :lol: :D


Okay Kiya, i see you're not willing to learn even though the above shows me you have lots to learn yet, Futhermore you're uable to present lucid arguments for your reasoning, and you prefer to carry on even when evidence is lacking. You must have great amounts of time to waste. I don't. You carry on with your dreams and remember i warned you. You maintain old beliefs that include many that are no longer valid and others that are dying even as we speak. Heck, if archaeologists hadn't gone back to Amarna, Kiya would still be an unknown name and Nefertiti would be the only known wife of Akhenaten. What does it matter? Nothing to me Kiya.
Sincerely,
Sekhmet


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


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