Researchers to look into Victorian historical 'truths'

Guardian ^ | Friday November 25, 2005 | Polly Curtis

[SunkenCiv]

In 1880 when the Victorians discovered Tutankhamun's predecessor Akhenaten, they interpreted their findings to show that the Egyptians were conservative - they emphasised how they rejected the old gods and discovered one god, as well as values of truth and beauty, respectability and honour. It was some contrast to the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in the 1920s which led to a glamorous reinvention of Egypt as glittery and exotic and brutal, like something out of a Hollywood film.

[SunkenCiv]

---

---

[SunkenCiv]

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[asp1]

Akhenaten was a rather unusual looking individual if stone depictions of him are accurate. At least one Egyptologist that I know of believes that Akhenaten may have suffered from Marfan Syndrome. Dr. Bob Brier also theorized that because of Akhenaten's deformities he may have been shunned by his family. His abandoning the traditional gods of Egypt when he became Pharaoh, may have been more about asserting himself above them then any religious epiphany. Choosing the Aten as his own personal god and a system of worship that only through Akhenaten were others allowed to know this new god could show a bit of pain tinged with just a touch of revenge.

It is interesting to note that much of the art from his period shows his courtiers attempting to please Akhenaten by having their own images mirroring his in shape and form. It is as if Akennaten is setting the standard for beauty at least during his era. Aging likenesses of Nefertiti show her as a a very human middle aged woman. Her body is slightly overweight and sagging in a very natural and normal way. They let it all hang out with no glorification for either of them.

I will be interested in what new research and perspectives they come up with. As long as they are doing this I wish they would reexamine Richard III's life and times. I just don't buy that he was the villain that Shakespeare needed him to be. From everything that I have read of Richard he was a just and honorable man prior to becoming King. He could not have changed so drastically.

[SunkenCiv]

At least one Egyptologist that I know of believes that Akhenaten may have suffered from Marfan Syndrome.

Yes, that's not exactly a consensus view, but I'm pretty sure it's widely believed.

Dr. Bob Brier also theorized that because of Akhenaten's deformities he may have been shunned by his family. His abandoning the traditional gods of Egypt when he became Pharaoh, may have been more about asserting himself above them then any religious epiphany. Choosing the Aten as his own personal god and a system of worship that only through Akhenaten were others allowed to know this new god could show a bit of pain tinged with just a touch of revenge.

Bob's "Murder of Tut" idea was given the heave-ho by the most recent x-ray study of the dead boy king, and while I like Brier's creepy vibe, I'd advise taking what he says with a grain of natron.

It's not generally discussed that Akhenaten's grandfather was first to revive Aten worship, but that is true. As Akhenaten's father neglected Egypt's affairs, his son did also, both pharaohs preferring diplomacy to warfare. When Akhenaten built his new capital, he erected steles (still exist) which state that he would reside there forever (IOW, the rest of his days).

My somewhat wild guess is that the money started to dry up, and playtime was over; meanwhile the pharaoh had steadily lost control (through ennui, being a dissolute son of a dissolute but long-lived father) to a powerful priesthood. Killing two birds with one stone, he closed the temples of the cults he didn't control, greatly expanded the one he did control, and redirected the cash flow into his own coffers.

His eventual successor, Tut, recanted; the great columnade at Karnak was his major monument, although it was for a long while (since the hieroglyphs began to be read) attributed to Rameses II ("the Great") because that pharaoh had Tut's name carved over with his own. Only near the top are the original cartouches intact, and had Rameses II built it, Tut would have to have altered it from beyond the grave. So he's the one responsible.

This isn't surprising -- the 19th dynasty had no solid connection with the 18th, and the 18th ended with a short series of short, weak rulers who were little remarked on or remembered, and the 19th dynasty had to establish its bona fides. Rameses II did little during his reign other than build self-aggrandizing monuments the length and breadth, and (practically at the very beginning of a long reign) get his ass handed to him at the Battle of Kadesh.

[asp1]

A grain of natron? Ok, so maybe Dr. Bob should stick with mummies then. :0) I'll bet you don't like Dr. West's theory of the Sphinx being water damaged either do you? LOL! But to say that Rameses wasn't great is just too much! I have a real soft spot for Rameses based on frivolity I will admit. Whenever I think of him a. I picture Yul Brynner, and b. I think of the wonderfully sentimental dedication Rameses wrote for Nefertari after her death.

Back to the Armana period: Any theories as to who Neferneferatenefersmenkhkare is? Is he/she in fact Nefertiti as some suspect? If she was, isn't it strange that it is recorded that Merytaten, Akhenaten's eldest daughter would have married him/her? If Nerfertiti isn't Neferneferatenefersmenkhkare then who is he and where did he and Tut come from? Was Ankhensenpaaten (later Ankhsenamum), Akhenaten's daughter who married Tut? How old would she have been if Tut was only 8 or 9 when he came to the throne? >

[SunkenCiv]

Tut was married to one of Akhenaten's daughters. Akhentaten had a few different wives. The disappearance of Nefertiti has to do with her having predeceased the pharaoh; some say that she was disgraced (different reasons, depending on who sez); lately there's been a very PC and anachronistic rewriting (I think Brier mentions it, but isn't its author; Kent Weeks mentions it, also not its author) by which Smenkhare *was* Nefertiti. There's not a whole lot going for that idea, but some have latched onto it for PC reasons.

---

Tutankhamen: The Life and Death of the Boy-King by Christine El Mahdy

---

When it comes to water erosion on the Great Sphinx, I agree with Dr. Schoch. Not too sure that means that there has always been a Great Sphinx there. The head has been recarved, and (according to Schoch and Dobecki) the area around the hindquarters was carved out later. IOW, I could agree that the Sphinx in some form or other predates the 2nd Dynasty, but that it was an image of something else in its earliest form. I don't have Schoch's third book in this vein:

---

Pyramid Quest: Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the Dawn of Civilization by Robert Schoch

---

[SunkenCiv]

Smenkhkhare, the Hittite Pharaoh
BBC History | September 5, 2002 | Dr Marc Gabolde
Posted on 07/30/2004 9:42:36 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1181802/posts

Dynasty 0 (Egyptian colonies in Canaan)
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Dynasty0-Raffaele_AH17.pdf | Francesco Raffaele
Posted on 11/27/2004 9:48:47 PM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1289651/posts

Theban Mapping Project (Valley of the Kings etc)
Theban Mapping Project | 1980s to present | Kent Weeks et al
Posted on 01/13/2005 8:03:55 PM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1320504/posts

[asp1]

Wow, thanks for the information, Sunk--I'm sure you have guessed by now that I am quite a novice at all of this. It is a little frustrating that historical "facts" and theories seem to be constantly changing and now researchers a may be revising "history" once again. A professor once told me that when learning history pick an era that you are particularly interested in and concentrate on it. I find that to be especially true of Ancient History, there is just too much of it to keep straight.

Thanks for giving me so much of your time. I do appreciate all that you do for this ping list.

One other thing, I have a few books that I could throw out they are obviously irrelevant now! LOL! :0(

[SunkenCiv]

Sell 'em on eBay. ;')

[asp1]

Who would want 'em? Maybe someone who is more of a newbie to the subject than me? =)

[SunkenCiv]

What are they?

[asp1]

Ancient Egypt by Lorna Oakes and Lucia Gahlin.

Life in Ancient Egypt (?)

Early Life on the Nile. (?)

TUT (?)

Ramesses the Great (yes, with two ss)

There are others, but I would have to drag them out of the boxes I have them stored in (I have moved several times in the last couple of years). Ancient Egypt is relatively new (published in 2002), and can still be found in a local Barnes and Noble. The others are pretty old and not in very good condition (soft covers with the glue coming away from the spines and pages falling out). I was only kidding about throwing them out. I have moved them from New York and all around the east and west coasts of Florida. Considering that, I would say their home is pretty secure. LOL!

[SunkenCiv]

There's bound to be cool stuff in 'em. Yeah, when Ramses became Ramesses, the spelling changed. ;')