Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Saturday, January 28, 2012

There is a new photo set of the Tomb of Maya the Overseer of the Treasury at Saqqara by Kate Gingell on Egyptological.

Kate has also kindly provided a photo album of Horemheb's tomb at Saqqara as well which is also on Egyptological.  I'm sure most people can find it by browsing but I will add a link when I do a longer Horemheb post later on today, or maybe tomorrow.

47 comments:

Marianne Luban said...

I feel sure--and I had a protracted argument with Jacobus Van Dijk on the EEF about this some years ago--that Maya, himself, did not die in the reign of Horemheb. I think it is reasonable to assume that Maya's wife, Meryt, died in that reign but not the treasurer. Maya--and there is no certain indication exactly when he began his career, was already a very important man in the reign of Tutankhamun. By artistic indications, this was the era in which his very grand Saqqara tomb was begun. But it is also clear that the tomb was completed in stages by different artisans with their own styles. We know that Maya served Horemheb and then see nothing more about him. But, judging by the length of the wig of Meryt in certain representations, the tomb continued to be worked on into the 19th Dynasty. In some statues and wall scenes, the wig of Meryt is very long. When this long wig began is difficult to pinpoint, but it was not in the time of Horemheb. Probably, the long wig replaced the shoulder-length one late in the reign of Seti I. It was de rigueur by the time of Ramesses II.

It's not impossible for Maya to have continued into the 19th Dynasty. The reigns of Tutankhamun, Horemheb, Ay, and Ramesses I--plus any ephemeral successors of Akhenaten--were all not very long. Horemheb, with 14 years, had the longest reign. Around 30 years does for all of the above and Seti I was also not a long-lived pharaoh. An old man can even have begun his career as far back as the reign of Amenhotep III.

Kate Phizackerley said...

BTW Prof Martin mentioned last night in a lecture about his re-excavation of KV57 (I am writing it up for Egyptological) that he believes Horemheb's reign was only 14 years long, not the 27 which had been accepted.

Maya almost certainly worked until infirmity or death prevented working any longer, so I can see how a long career was possible. (Sometime I must study the idea of retirement in Ancient Egypt - did military men retire to farm the land for example?)

Marianne Luban said...

Actually, there was an intermediate, breast-length female wig with two tassles at the sides of the forehead that was between the shoulder-length wig [worn by Mutnodjmet, queen of Horemheb]and the long type seen on Meryt here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Maya_and_Merit_(Leiden).jpg

I'll find a lady's wig from the era of Seti I, so people can view that.

Marianne Luban said...

Here it--reign of Seti I. Breast-length, as you can see:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/2010/07/imitation-is-pure-flattery.html

rymerster said...

It's not just about wig length, it appears to me that the outfits worn by men got longer and more flamboyant at the beginning of the 19th Dynasty - as seen in all of Maya's tomb representations. His profile too I think resembles representations of Seti I.

I like the idea that Maya lived a long life, no idea if he was a good or bad person, though Egyptologists could perhaps thank him for doing a good job in the VOK (restoring tombs, possibly concealing Tut's tomb following early robberies). As treasurer he must have faced some challenges working with Horemheb to re-establish Maat following the Amarna period.

I'm a fan!

Anonymous said...

Doctor Joann Fletcher is THE expert on Egyptian hairstyles: it was her doctoral thesis's topic.

Marianne Luban said...

So what?

Anonymous said...

In Professor Martin's book on the tombs of Horemheb and Maya, he proposes a reign length of 13 years for Horemheb. This was back in 1992. He also mentions a dated docket from Year 9 of Horemheb's rule found in the underground part of Maya's tomb. At the time he was writing, this was the only dated object found. CJB

Marianne Luban said...

Horemheb's entry in Wikipedia has a lengthy discussion about the controvery surrounding his regnal length and how the 14 years were deduced. It now makes sense that Manetho appeared to assign 4 years to "Armais" [Horemheb]but probably the first part of "14" was lost through repeated copying or some other glitch.

A beautiful graffito was left in the tomb of Thutmose IV by Maya and his assistant in Year 8 of Horemheb. There it gives the parents of Maya. Part of Maya's job as royal treasurer was being in charge of the kingly tombs in the Valley. Having seen that the tomb of Menkheperure had been violated, Maya saw to its restoration. Let me see if I can find the graffito.

Marianne Luban said...

Scroll down in this PDF for an article about the graffito:

http://www.egyptologyforum.org/THOE/Heritage_of_Egypt_3.pdf

I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions of its author, though.

Anonymous said...

Occasionally it is worth examining what an author from the early 20th Century had to say on a topic using the information that was available then. I have in mind a passage from Breasted's History of Egypt. My edition is rather ancient itself: 1905. I hope I am legally allowed to quote it:
"How long he reigned is uncertain, but in Ramses II's day the reigns of Ikhnaton and the other Aton worshippers had been added to his reign, increasing it by 25 years or more, so that a lawsuit of Ramses II's time refers to the fifty ninth year of Harmhab. He therefore probably reigned some thirty five years."
I suspect few people would agree with Breasted's estimate nowadays, but if the source of "fifty nine years" is still valid, his logic is difficult to refute. Breasted makes no reference to co-regencies or periods of anarchy in coming to his estimate of "25 years or more" for the "Aton Worshippers". Life for a historian was simpler back then!
Wikipedia is not accessible to me at the moment, perhaps it is the "Vague de froid" we have here!
CJB

Patrick said...

The 'Aton worshipers'' reigns would total rather more than 25 years, i.e.:
Akhenaton 17 Smenkhkare etc 3
Tutankhamun 9 Ay 5 = 34, give or take a year.

Marianne Luban said...

The 59 years is surely a scribal error. They are not uncommon in Egyptian texts, although normally these slip-ups don't cause as much argument among Egyptologists. They are found even in royal texts--which does not pertain to the tomb of Mes. I think the best explanation is that the scribe who prepared the text for the sculptor was used to writing Year 59 because that is what year it was in the reign of Ramesses II--and absent-mindedly repeated that for the long-dead Horemheb. Somebody may have spotted the error later after the glyphs had already been hammered out [stone cutters were probably illiterate, like most people were] but let it go because reliefs are harder to correct than mere paintings.

Yes, that has been the reasoning of those who have accepted the 59 years--that Horemheb appropriated the reigns of others. The math became complex. But these scholars did not take into consideration, apparently, cases like that of Mes, himself, where old records had to be looked up to validate people's legal claims. Since all had to be dated to the reign of a king, to appropriate the reigns of rulers would have been useless. One could never wipe them out completely due to the records--and those of the "land register" were particularly important in agricultural nation of Egypt because of possible boundary disputes, etc. The worst a king could do to his predecessors was to usurp their monuments and leave them out of kinglists that might be generated in ones reign. Their tombs could also be defaced, their treasure stolen and worst of all--the mummies destroyed. But I doubt this last was done because the superstitious ancient Egyptians believed in curses from the dead.
Most of the curses that were written in tombs threatened that the defiler's son would not succeed in his office and nobody feared that more than a pharaoh! Horemheb usurped his share of monuments but he let the burial of Tutankhamun alone. What happened to that of Ay is unknown. Something did--but no one knows when it happened. The royal tomb of Horemheb, himself, seems in a strangely unfinished atate for someone who reigned as long as 14 years. But that could be because, at first, the king had contemplated burial in his magnificent tomb near Memphis. It was far more wonderful than any tomb in the Valley could be. But he evidently changed his mind at some point. I know of a URL for a complete reconstruction of the commoner tomb of Horemheb. I will supply it so people can see why Horemheb would want to be buried there.

Marianne Luban said...

Here the site:

http://jasoncordero.com/digital/horemheb.html

Anonymous said...

Both Gardiner and Hayes quote the "Year 59" and I have never before seen it described as a scribal error.We do the ancient scrivener an injustice.
In terms of length of reign, the more recent Oxford History and Nicholas Grimal estimate 27-28 years. There would seem to be two camps: a short reign of 13-14 years and a long reign of 28-ish years. It reminds me of the Long versus short or even non-existent arguments for an Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV co-regency.
CJB

Marianne Luban said...

Opinion shifts depending upon new evidence. There were no pot-sherd inscriptions past Year 14 in the tomb of Horemheb upon re-examination--so now the consensus leans that way. I don't think anyone in the profession credits the 59 years any longer. The "scribal error" is my explanation and I don't think it's unreasonable due to the lawsuit of Mes haven taken place in the reign of Ramesses II--the only king of the era who actually had a Year 59--and more! If we take the position that an ancient scribe could not possibly have made an error--then we would have to accept things that are not possible according to other evidence. For example, at the Hwt-Bnbn at Karnak, there is Nefertiti portrayed with her eldest daughter, Meritaten. This was, of course, early in the reign of Akhenaten and he had not yet made the move to el-Amarna. Both Nefertiti and Meritaten are styled "Hmt nsw"--"king's wife". But it's hardly likely that Meritaten, still a very little girl, can have been her father's wife then. The illiterate stone-cutter just duplicated what he chiseled for Nefertiti beside the figure of Meritaten. How do we know it's a mistake? Because when Meritaten gets to Akhetaten, she's just styled, for many years, "sAt nsw n XAt=f" or "king's daughter of his body" like the rest of her sisters. She didn't receive a demotion from "Hmt nsw"--because she never was one in reality.

Anonymous said...

In terms of modern writers, Professor Kitchen argues for the veracity of the Ramesside dating while Redford refers to a graffiti (or is it graffito?) dated to Year 27 of Horemheb from his Medinet Habu mortuary temple. The wine jar dockets from KV57 date from Years 13 and 14, but that dates their vintage not when they were placed in the tomb. CJB

Marianne Luban said...

CJB, wine in ceramic jars that were of the Year 14 vintage could not be placed in a tomb even ten years down the road. It would have been spoiled and even evaporated to sediment. It didn't keep like in bottles. The tomb of a king deserved good vintage--some of which was surely drunk by the funeral party.

Kate Phizackerley said...

Indeed some were marked nefer-nefer (finest quality) and it seems inconceivable that anything other than a recent vintage would have been placed in the tomb - as Marianne says the clay jars were not airtight and wine spoiled fairly quickly.

It took me some time to understand the argument but it seems solid to me.

Anonymous said...

However, if you examine the wine jars found in KV62, there is wine dated from Years 4 to 9 of Tutankhamen himself as well as dockets that give Years 10 and 31 (presumably the 31 is Amenhotep III). From WV22 there are dockets dated Years 32 and 37. If Horemheb's jars are dated to Years 13 and 14, that is the date of the wine. It does not follow it was the year he was buried.
I am lucky enough to live near to Cognac. In the distilleries there the insides of the barrels are charred to prevent excessive evaporation. The success of this can be measured from a visit to the Hennessey stores where there is Cognac that is over 200 years old. Given the Egyptians' skill as vintners and that they recognised vintage years, we may be overlooking that they might have found a way to prevent both seepage and evaporation from ceramic jars. There might be a line of scientific research here to validate or otherwise this suggestion. Qithout glazing, how could the jars be made leak or seepage proof? CJB

Marianne Luban said...

Glazing would do it, but I don't know how the Egyptians could have made a stopper/seal for those jars sufficiently air-proof to make wine keep for a long time. Without that, it will spoil even in a glazed vessel. Where did you learn about the years 10 and 31? For years it has been held that the highest vintage date found in KV62 was Year 9 and thus was dated the length of the reign of Tutankhamun.

http://ib205.tripod.com/tut_amarna_2.html

"Twenty Six wine vessels found in the tomb carried ink-written hieratic dockets which (in most cases) specified the date of the vintage, beverage type, vineyard and the name of the vintner. From these dockets Howard Carter was able to deduce that 68% of Tutankhamun's wines came from the 'Domain of the Aten', just 5% came from the Amun temples and 27% from Tutankhamun's own vineyards. Also the length of Tutankhamun's reign can be verified - no wine is found which is produced later than Year 9."

On a table on the website, one can see some of the Year dates, type of wine and names of vintners. The ones in the table are all from the House of Aten, probably in the Delta, where most wine was grown.
There are four from Year 4, 8 from Year 5 and 4 from Year 9, the highest date found in the tomb--or has that now changed for some reason?

It may be that old wine, presumed spoiled, was provided for the deceased. [It all depends, I suppose, how seriously the Egyptians took their afterlife beliefs and how much had merely become custom. However, some of the wine was surely for the funeral feast, held right at the tomb site--in the case of a king containing neck-wreaths for the guests with actual gold elements in them and big pillows to sit on--as KV63 has shown. The drinking cups were disposable, apparently. They were found, as well.]

That the scruples about appropriating items from the burials of others was not so great we already know. How about jars of wine? Perhaps the jars labeled Yeara 4 and 5 were from someone's else's tomb, a predecessor? Or even Year 9. Those jars from the House of the Aten tally 16 out of the 26 claimed by the website. Can there really have been a House of the Aten in Year 9 of Tutankhamun?

Marianne Luban said...

Here's a reference that both Brand and Allen quoted in foot notes, but I haven't read it and can't find it anywhere online:

P. Tallet, “Une jarre de l'an 31 et une jarre de l'an 10 dans la cave de Toutânkhamon,” BIFAO 96 (1996), pp. 375-82.

Yet it didn't look to me like either of those two authors adopted that Year 10.

Anonymous said...

I think it would be possible to use beeswax or a resin to seal the inside of the jars and pour molten beeswax on top of the wine when it is filled then add the mud/clay seal. This would greatly increase its shelf life I would think. I do not know if jars have ever been examined for waterproofing but would be interested to know

Marianne Luban said...

This ebook

http://tinyurl.com/78nubk9

gives more information about the wine dockets in KV62, beginning on page 61. The author says the wine jar stoppers were sealed with clay and also makes the guess that the one from Year 31 might have been a reused jar that never had the label changed. For me, especially in a hot, dry climate, a clay seal would have a limited usefullness until it began to crumble and fall off-- and then allow air into the jar.

Anonymous said...

I do not think the seal was that delicate.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/aes/p/pottery_wine_jar_with_a_mud_se.aspx
This jar it is said fitted with a pottery cap then the mud conical seal it put over the seal, jar rim and all the way to the body of the jar. Knowing what I do about the stickiness of mud and clay, I would think it would be a fairly tight seal and not easily dislodged.

Anonymous said...

The KV62 jars were indeed sealed by a clay stopper. A small hole was left in this to allow the escape of certain gasses, then that too was filled once fermentation was over. Carter records that one of the jars appeared to have exploded, though I wondered how he differentiated that from robbers' depredations. Some 26 jars were buried in the tomb. While the jars were not glazed, there is a possibilty of multiple firing. I have a fragment of what I am told is a wine jar. It came from Amenhotep III's palace at Malkata. The exterior is yellow on top of a thin terracotta colour, the core is a purplish colour while the interior is a terracotta colour. I do not know if the KV62 jars have the same section, but as they date to within 30 or so years of the fragment I have, my guess is they used a similar technique. I would assume each colour is the result of a different quality clay being used. Is it possible that by combining their attributes, they could counter the seepage problem? A jar of liquid natron was found in KV46 which at first was taken to be honey. I checked various books but could not find whether this was ceramic or calcite. CJB

Anonymous said...

Pine resin (from Lebanon?) smeared or painted on the insides would add to the impermeability of the jars and give the wine a flavour like modern-day Retsina. Jar residues from First Dynasty tombs were found to contain traces of resin. Was any analysis undertaken of the KV57 material? CJB

Marianne Luban said...

I remain more interested on the dates on the wine jars from KV62 and why the greatest ratio of them [16 out of 26], including from a Year 9, came from the House of the Aten. I have just discussed, on my own blog, the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun, on which he [or rather the powers that were behind him] are very severe upon his predecessors. It seems really odd to me that there should still have been a House of the Aten in Year 9 of Tutankhamun. Such a place would have doubtless been a temple and probably not very far from Memphis--possibly at Heliopolis where Akhenaten had his temple to the Aten. This will probably take me some time, but I now feel compelled to research this place and the tombs of some of its priests, which I recall from years ago. However, the main reason the Restoration Stela was erected in from of the temple of Amun at Karnak was to advertise the devotion of the young ruler to Amun, his "father". Also, it claims he had done [and by implication would continue to do] all in his power to placate the old gods whose temples had been allowed to go to neglect and ruin. The religion of the Aten had become the enemy of the worship of Amun--in fact the very name of this god. Is is really possible that a king whose administration was eager to let it be known that he was a devote of Amun could still support a "pr itn"? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Marianne Luban said...

Check out this Saqqara tomb

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0311/feature3/index.html

Don't forget to click on the photos, as well. Note the one on the door jamb that says the own was the "treasurer of the House of the Aten at Akhetaten and Memphis".

But, evidently, Raiay/Hatiay was never buried in this tomb. I wish I could find out more about it. Alain Zivie was the excavator.

Marianne Luban said...

In this paper

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/festschrift_simpson/39_malek.pdf

Jaromir Malek claims that an Aten temple at Memphis was still attested in the time of Seti I! So, I suppose there is no reason why it should not have been functioning in Year 9 of Tutankhamun. I do not know the context of the reference from the reign of Seti. Perhaps things were different in the north--although Malek believes this temple was small--and demolished in the reign of Ramesses II.

The paper also deals with a co-regent of Akhenaten.

Patrick said...

The Aten could not have completely disappeared after the Amarna episode; after all he/it was an immortal god. He was just put back in his proper place in the pantheon, with temple(s) and vineyard(s) of his own. Probably the person responnsible for stocking the tomb of Tutankhamun with so much Aten wine had something to do with the other Atenist elements there, including the most intimate of all, the headband next to the skull.
BTW, does anybody know the procedence of the year 31 and year 10 wines?

Rozette said...

Quote : Marianne Luban said...
Here's a reference that both Brand and Allen quoted in foot notes, but I haven't read it and can't find it anywhere online:

P. Tallet, “Une jarre de l'an 31 et une jarre de l'an 10 dans la cave de Toutânkhamon,” BIFAO 96 (1996), pp. 375-82.

For the P. Tallet article see at the site of Le Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale

http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/96/

Marianne Luban said...

Thank you,Rozette. I will study the article later today.

Patrick said...

Merci bien, Rozette! After perusing Tallet's article, it would appear that;
we are dealing with 25-26 jars - 1 year 31, 1 year 10, 6 year 9, 12 year 5, 5 year 4, ( + 1 year ?)
68% from the domain of the Aten, 27% from id of Tutankhamun (the figures don't fit exactly), most with named vintners.
31 year old jar: docket clearly says '31' and appears to have borne a vintner's name. Seal missing, but another floating seal in the tomb mentions domain of 'Tetchen Aten' = Amenhotep III.
Year 10 jar: docket says yr 10, good wine from domain of Iaty - probably one of the oases. Seal says 'Dqrw' from southern oasis. Dqrw could be ointment or (perhaps more likely) special wine (cf. Catholic altar wine); this avoids the awkward 'refill' hypothesis. Similar to Akhenaten seal found at Amarna. Therefore probably from Akhenaton's year 10.
Year 9 is obviously significant - Tutankhamun died then (the year 10 wine, if his, wouldn't have been pressed till the following autumn).
Assuming the years are significant, what about the others? Years 4 & 5 would be rites of passage celebrations - circumcision, marriage, birth of first child, heb sed, move from Amarna or what have you. Year 10 of Akhenaten would figure nicely for his date of birth. Year 31 of Amenhotep III, if there was no coregency, could be the year of birth of his father (= KV55, a brother of Akhenaten, probably Smenkhkare). The Egyptians did not do things without a reason, which is what makes me think the years really are significant.

Marianne Luban said...

Tallet makes the rather obvious point that, by 1922, it was impossible to know whether wine as old as Year 31 of Amenhotep III could have been any good by the time Tutankhamun died. He also mentions that, in 18th Century France, the new wine lost its value by the next spring after it had been made. So there is the possibility that a jar of wine from a "good epoch" should have occupied some symbolic place in the tomb--another heirloom, perhaps. Although then one would have to wonder why this jar of wine should have been kept so long. Perhaps jars of suspect wine were kept around to be used as libations, the palates of the gods not thought to be so fussy. Another point was that it was not uncommon for jars to have been reused and carry traces of older dates--but they are seldom dates that are very far apart. I find the fact that the Year 10 jar had two separate inscriptions an indication of re-use, although Pierre Tallet tries to make a case that it need not be so. I remain unconvinced that a jar of wine could have been drinkable from Year 31 of A III to the end of the life of Tutankhamun. That's a lot of time given porous receptacles and fallible sealing methods.

Patrick said...

The wine must be symbolic, Marianne, and not necessarily drinkable. Reme3mber that in Greek sacrifices the gods were offered the bones of thew victim wrapped in fat, recording an event when Zeus (or was it Khronos?) had the wool pulled over his eyes. Greek and other religions appear to have borrowed a lot from the Egyptians; I believe Herodotus called then the most religious of nations.

Stephanie said...

I find Patrick`s idea of linking the various dates of the jars to certain events very interesting. I have never thought of it and in the literature the years on the jars are mostly said to represent good vintage years.
Could the jar of Akhenaten`s year 10 then represent Tut`s own birth year?
I am not sure about it but it certainly seems strange to have those two odd jars included in the burial when there were probably loads available from Tut`s last years.

Stephanie said...

I just re-read Patrick`s post and saw that he has already suggested Tut`s birth for year 10.
Sorry Patrick!

Patrick said...

No, problem, Stephanie!
The more I think about the Akhenaten year 10 angle, the more I like it. Although it could, of course, be just a good vintage year, or simply pure chance.If we had a study of other wine jars from other tombs, it might help to clear the matter up. I'm sure somebody somewhere must have done research into the matter..Tallet mentions other studies of wine jars, but does not, naturally, detail what their approach is. At times like this I wish I lived in e.g. London and had access to the EES library!

Patrick said...

The Griffith Institute reproduces Carter's rather depressing note, plus a few vague transcriptions:
"3. Mud jar seals. (Numerous examples only best ones kept).
Position: Helter-skelter in rubbish before sealed entrance doorway (4) as
if cast away."
See: http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/001f.htm
It's near the famous 001k box which names Ankh-Khepereru (not necessarily Smenkhkare, as Carter states) and refers to Nefertiti as Meritaten´s husband.
I intend to take asvantage of Sunday to dig deper, but it's all a mess, I'm afraid.

Marianne Luban said...

That's a shawabti box due to its shape

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/burialcustoms/shabtiboxes.html

and they are generally cheap in character and white-washed like that one. Some have funerary scenes but apparently the one in question didn't. But the name of the deceased should be on the box and my guess is it's Akhenaten. So no co-regent now but just another ruler, Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and a queen, Meritaten, still living. This box is obviously another thing placed in KV62 from the burial of a predecessor, now not holding shawabtis but supposed to contain some linen, as the hieratic docket claims.

It's not a sure thing that Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was Nefertiti and, even if it was, that Meritaten's name was included there as Nefertiti's "wife". Meritaten can have been included as a wife of the deceased, her father--or another king, the short-lived Smenkhkare. Or somebody put Meritaten there twice, once as a king and again as a queen. Of all those cartouches, only one has a "life wish" after it and that is Meritaten. Perhaps it's not wise to place too much reliance on the protocol on such a cheap box. Carter indicates the box belonged to Smenkhkare--but his name isn't there. Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten are not the same individual.

Kate Phizackerley said...

I'm interested and have been following.

Given other items in KV62 were beieved to have been appropriated from another tomb, why not the odd wine jars as well?

A simple alternative is that the King's own wine cellar was just transfered to his tomb. If his cellar still contained older vintages which had never been drunk, then they would just end up in the tomb as well.

Patrick said...

Sorry, Marianne, I made the crass error of reading 'Nefertiti' instead of 'Nefeneferuaten Ankh(t)-Kheperu-Re'. I certainly do not hold with Reeves' theory that this enigmatic person is Nefertiti in sheep's clothing - or with most of his other theories, either!
Perusal of the Griffith Archives shows that;
- the Amenhotep jar is more likely year 21, not 31, not that that makes much difference
- there are in all 3 jars with special 'sdh' wine
- Griffith's Nº 539 is year 10 or over (as well as Nº 500, cited by Tallet)
- Griffith Nº 195 is year 5 or 10 or more
- the positioning of the jars in the tomb looks significant
- on the whole, I think year 5 is circumcision (just 'think'!)
PS Why not shift the wine-jar saga into a new thread?

Marianne Luban said...

No need for apologies, Patrich, because Nefertiti has been a candidate for "Ankhe[t]kheperure Neferneferuaten" for a long time. It's really interesting to me how Manetho knew there was more than one "Akencheres" and that one was a king's daughter--since all the rulers with ties to Amarna were omitted from the kinglists. Their reigns, I suspect, were so unusual as to have become legendary. The question is why-- and why was there both a female and a male Ankhkheperure. Thomas Mann wrote that the "well of the past is deep" but we can haul a few drops out of it now and then. Here is a short list of what's become known about Tutankhamun and relatives since 1922--other than the mummies being identified via their DNA:

Tut was the son of a king
Thutmose IV was the ancestor of Tut just as many times removed as the astro-instrument in KV62 claims
Tut had a nurse called Maya
Tut suffered from physical
anomalies and pre-mortem injuries
and disease
Smenkhkare and Neferneferuaten were
not the same individual

Perhaps I missed something but--if we live long enough we'll probably learn more, especially given the interest in which Egyptologists have in finding another tomb connected to Tut's family.

Kate Phizackerley said...

I am not sure we did know that Tutankhamun was the *son* of a king until we got the DNA results. My understanding is that the phrase can also mean grandson. It's a somewhat irrelevant point because the DNA seems to show that he is the son of KV55 and, while we may debate the identity of that mummy, I don't think anybody doubts his kingship.

Stephanie said...

Kaye, I believe that the phrase " king`s son from his body, his beloved" as it appears on the block from hermopolis is always taken to designate the bodily son of a particular king in contrast to the more vague "king`s son" only which can mean a lot more.

Sugeng raharjo said...

Penyebab Kutil Kelamin dan Cara Penyembuhanya
Obat Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kutil Kelamin Wanita
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Di Bibir Memek
Cara Menghilangkan Kutil Di Kemaluan | Vagina, Anus, Atau Penis Tumbuh Kutil
Menghilangkan Kutil Di Bibir Vagina
Tumbuh Kutil di Penis Dan Anus | Obat Herbal Penyakit Kelamin
Kenapa Ada Kutil Di bibir Vagina ? Cara mengobatinya Bagaimana?
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Pada Wanita
Obat Kutil di Kemaluan Pria | PENYAKIT KELAMIN JENGGER AYAM
Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Pada Bibir Memek
Tanda-Tanda Kutil Kelamin Condyloma Acuminata Pada Ibu Hamil

Search

Admin Control Panel