| Author | Message | ||
     Lori gorgas (12.90.111.56) |
ll that I know is that she probly did marry Aye so he could ascend to the throne after her husbands death and she may have wrote to the Hittie king asking for a son of his to marry, who was soon killed enroute to Egypt. The one theory I have read about which intriques me is the discovery of a blonde male buried alive in a coffin. Could this be the Hittie prince sent to marry Ankhesenamun? This just one of many questions and theories that I have about this period of Egyptian history. I welcome all thoughts and theories. | ||
| Pete Vanderzwet (24.150.203.16) |
Where was it found and how do you know he was buried alive? | ||
| Sylvie Gingras (65.92.186.15) |
Hi! You are probably talking about the "Unknown Man E" found in the Royal Mummy Cache in Deir el Bahari. There is a good article on him in KMT Vol 10, no. 1 of spring 1999. Not sure though he was buried alive: there are many theories: poisening, tortured to death before burial, etc. He has not yet been identified with a Hittite, but his hair was blond and he was wrapped in a sheepskin, wich would have been considered impure by the AE. Many other interesting things in the article, check it out if you can. Tourelou, Sylvie | ||
| ta_hemet_nesu (207.217.64.37) |
It seems unlikley that a Hittie prince would be buried in the Royal Mummie cache, especially since Hittie was enemy to Egypt. Kate | ||
| george (63.149.20.50) |
The mummy was of course not first buried in the royal mummy cache in DB 320. But was brought from some unknown tomb when the mummies were gathered for reburial. | ||
| ta_hemet_nesu (63.205.139.203) |
I still don’t see the AE taking the time & money to mummify a Hittite prince, especially since Egypt went to war with Hittie immediately following the princes 'murder'. | ||
| george (63.149.20.35) |
Kate, If you research the publications of the Hittite archives and the published papers about Unknown Man E you will find that he is as likely to be the Hittite prince as any of the other possible identifications offered for this very unusual mummy. | ||
| ta_hemet_nesu (63.205.139.203) |
George, There is no evidence to suggest that Unknown Man E's mummy is that of the Hittie prince. :c) | ||
| george (63.149.20.35) |
Kate, Sorry, that subject has been suggested and there is as much evidence to support that theory as there is to support that the mummy is that of a blond Egyptian. | ||
| Fred L (213.120.56.45) |
Hi George,Kate, Kate, I thought you might like this link http://www.geocities.com/royalmummies/ManE/ManE.htm George, I can understand how are man could wind up in DB320,so do we take the last paragraph of that article as it stands? With the evidence in hand would they now test any further? Best Regards, Fred Lundberg | ||
| ta_hemet_nesu (63.205.140.50) |
Fred, Thank you for the link. I have recently read that. :c) George, I dont think we are really getting anywhere with our discussion. Perhaps we should just agree- to disagree. Though I really do appreciate your input. :c) I always enjoy friendly debates. Kate | ||
| Ritva (212.246.17.130) |
George, you suggested a comparative testing for this mummy in your paper. Was it ever made? | ||
| george (63.149.20.1) |
Ritva, No. The mummy is still in storage in Cairo. The heart of the article and your important translated contribution to the published conclusions were edited out because of the "Aryan" connotations connected with a blond Hittite prince being found in Egypt might prove offensive to some people. A DNA test would answer the questions. It is a pity there does not appear to be any interest in such a test. If, as I proposed in the article, Unknown Man E is indeed the Hittite prince, his body accidently preserved without mummification because he was buried as a hated man, his is the only existing body of the Hittite royal family and one of the most important human bodies of middle-eastern history. | ||
| george (63.149.20.1) |
Fred, As stated above, many of the supposed mysteries of Unknown Man E's burial become clear if he is the Hittite prince. Since the internal organs were intact and in good condition when the mummy was unwrapped, DNA and toxicology tests should answer the still unresolved questions about his origins and if he was poisoned. Until then all must remain only conjecture based on very unusual and limited evidence. | ||
| Ritva (212.246.17.130) |
George, Isn't that a pity. It's amazing how the word Aryan can cause so much confusion and anger, even if used in the original meaning, with no connection what so ever to what some have perverted it into  How long will it take to realise, that there is a difference of almost 3000 years between the two? | ||
| Fred L (213.1.45.14) |
George, If he was our Hittite prince then why would his body have still been kept,somewhere so that years later it would have still been obvious enougth to be included in the DB320 cache? I can understand the defilement,but I feel that would have been it. Do you think he was given this treatmant & then perhaps interred properly? Gloated upon/prized? Working in London this week,will post at the weekend. Best regards Fred Lundberg | ||
| george (63.149.20.183) |
Ritva and Fred, Ritva, A good question that I can not answer. In science the evidence must be followed no matter where it may lead. Fred, If you were Ay and Horememheb and had the the body of a dead Hittite prince on your hands, and his father is rattling the sword looking for him, what do you do with the evidence--leave his body for the jackels and vulures to hopefully dispose of, or wrap him up, put him in a cheap coffin, with no identification except a sheepskin jacket, and hide him away in plain sight with many other bodies. (The Egyptians may have thought of that ploy long before Sherlock Holmes.) Remember the Hittites cremated their royal dead and the prince's body would have been considered unwhole if the internal organs had been removed for mummification. The prince's gold earrings and staffs of office were not stolen. If need be the prince's body could have been sent back to his father, intact with no wounds or visible signs of the cause of death. King Aye would have sent a note along saying: "Sorry, our search party found the body of the prince and his guards in the desert shortly after they died from drinking bad water. I return the prince's body to you intact for burial according to your customs." May this have been the first time the result of drinking bad water became to be called pharaoh's revenge. ;-) | ||
| Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51) |
George, Is there anything consistent with the manner of Unknown Man E's burial and the burial practices of cultures other than the Egyptians in the area? What may have been impure to the AE's might not have been for other groups. Brent | ||
| Beth (63.180.2.30) |
Hi Brent, and all, If the Egyptians didn't embalm Unknown Man E, (as suggested in the article Fred linked to above) why is he buried in Egypt? If he wasn't from Egypt, wouldn't this theoretical 3rd party send him home after they had embalmed him? They would only send him to Egypt if they considered him Egyptian. And if he was from Egypt, why would this theoretical 3rd party embalm him at all? If it were the norm for Egyptians who died outside of Egypt to be embalmed by non-Egyptians, wouldn't we expect to find more evidence of this? And further - let's assume that this theoretical 3rd party did take it upon themselves to prepare the body in such a way, why would the coffin remain anonymous? Even if the Egyptian officials loathed sheepskin so much that they refused to touch it, wouldn't they have at least decorated the outside of the coffin? I think George's explanation is better than the one presented in the article. George- The article mentions that the internal organs were intact, but above you stated that the Hittites would have considered the body unwhole if the internal organs had been removed - Are the internal organs in fact intact? Or is this uncertain? Beth | ||
| Ritva (212.246.17.130) |
All, IMO, it's just the non removal of internal organs that proves the Unkonwn E is a Hittie. As George says, he would have been considered unwhole for their burial. IIRC, Dr Fouquet speculated on the intent of burying E as correctly as possible according his religious standards, respecting at the same some of the Egyptian ones (better to humour the Egyptian gods, as well!). How much is know about the Hittie burials? I know they burned their deceased, but in what manner? Where they possibly wrapped in skin? Or as Brent points out, was there another neighbouring country, that had this kind of customs? | ||
| Beth (63.184.23.251) |
Hi Ritva, If I recall correctly, not all Hittite burials involved cremation (where commoners were concerned). However, the Hittite Kings were cremated - and I believe the ashes put in urns and interred. I didn't know that the remains had to be intact to be considered whole, but I haven't read that much on Hittite burial practices. Or as Brent points out, was there another neighboring country, that had this kind of customs? I've wondered about this myself. But if Unknown Man E were embalmed (by Egyptians) in this fashion to honor the burial practices of his (non-Egyptian) homeland, why wasn't he sent home for burial? And if that wasn't possible, shouldn't we expect some kind of identification on the coffin? The treatment of the remains and the anonymity of the coffin seem to suggest intent to revile the one buried in this manner. What do you think? Beth | ||
| Ritva (212.246.17.130) |
Beth, The Egyptians couldn't send E home, since they killed him! What would they say to Supp.? Sorry, we poisoned him by accident? No, their best defence was to say, that E never got to his destination, bury him anonymously among others (in plain view, as George suggests) and hope that the Hitties stay calm. After all, the main issue in this affair, IMO, was not to kill E, but to get Horemheb out of the capital, so that Ay could take the throne. The Unknown Man E was just a tool, and in this game he had to desappear with no trace. | ||
| george (63.149.20.107) |
Brent and Beth, The completely un-Egyptian appearance of Unknown Man E, and the completely un-Egyptian preservation of his body WITHOUT embalming, leaving the body completely intact with all internal organs still in place indicates this man and the circumstances of his death were very unusual. Only a few known events fit the evidence of his death. The examinations of the body found no evidence of any trauma, invasive wounds, or a conclusive cause of death. Yet, this young man showing no evident cause of death is dead and great care was taken not to mark his body in any way, even by opening it for embalming, a proceedure that would have been completely normal for preparing an Egyptian for burial. Why all this care to leave the body unmarked? We have evidence in the words of King Suppililiuma himself in a letter to Aye: "You wrote, 'Your son has died, however I have done him no harm.' . . . However, if you [were now king at the time I sent my son] you could have sent my son home. Your servant Hani held us responsible. . . . What [has been done] with my son? Concerning that [you wrote] that bloodshed did not . . . occur . . . that was not so. . . .If you now perhaps have [harmed my son] perhaps you have killed my son." So does Suppililiuma's reference to a statement by Aye that "bloodshed did not occur" explain that the great care taken with the body of Unknown Man E was ordered by King Aye to ensure that he could make this very statement to Suppililiuma without lying--and could produce Prince Zannanza's body to proove this statment if the threat of war or others circumstances forced him to do so. The series of events, the appearance of the body and the circumstances of the interment--not a normal burial--indicate sufficient evidence exists to do a reexamination of the body with new testing proceedures. If DNA tests prove Unknown Man E is Hittite, the mummy holds the best preserved bioanthropological information about Hittite's ever recovered. The proposal then is simply a recommendation that the body of Unknown Man E should be reexamined. I fail to understand any reason for debate about that conclusion. | ||
| Beth (63.184.6.220) |
Hi George, The completely un-Egyptian appearance of Unknown Man E, and the completely un-Egyptian preservation of his body WITHOUT embalming, leaving the body completely intact with all internal organs still in place indicates this man and the circumstances of his death were very unusual. By embalming - I meant that the body had been wrapped and treated with ointments. (Not that his organs had been removed). This still qualifies as embalming, although you are right about the unusual circumstances. I was agreeing with your position (that the Unknown Man E is Zannanza). The part in the article above that I was questioning was that non-Egyptian embalmers had prepared the body. Isn't it possible that the reason that E was buried in this manner (if he is Zannanza) is because he dared to try to take the throne? If they wanted to honor him in the manner of his homeland - they could have cremated him. Then they would have no body to worry about at all. Is it possible that he was prepared this way in Egypt, by Egyptians, who had reason to revile him and bury him this way? The proposal then is simply a recommendation that the body of Unknown Man E should be reexamined. I fail to understand any reason for debate about that conclusion. I agree - I wasn't debating that (sorry for the confusion). Beth | ||
| Beth (63.184.6.220) |
Hello Ritva, Beth, The Egyptians couldn't send E home, since they killed him! What would they say to Supp.? Sorry, we poisoned him by accident? Of coarse not! But the body was unmarked, there would be no proof of wrongdoing on the part of Egypt. It seems clear that no matter what the Egyptians did, Supp. was going to assume the worst- that his son was murdered. I don't see how burying him this way would make Supp feel better. Had they been concerned about his reaction, IMO, they would have sent Zennanza home to be cremated in the manner of Hittite Royalty. We still don't have any evidence that the Hittites covered the body in sheepskin before cremation - and what about the solutions administered? I'm confused about why, on the one hand, E would be buried in sheepskin to "honor" his homeland; and on the other hand, be treated with natron, crushed resin, and lime? The article states: " The use of calcium oxide seems to point toward an ancient Greek influence. In Greek, the word "sarcophagus" means "flesh eater" and was used to designate the large stone receptacles filled with quicklime (CaO) in which corpses were placed. Much more harsh in its desiccating properties than natural Egyptian natron, this chemical would have been avoided by Egyptian embalmers who wanted to preserve rather than destroy the tissues of the body". Unless (like the sheepskin) it was purposefully administered NOT to honor the dead but revile him? Beth | ||
| Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51) |
George, I have not seen the original Hittite text (nor would I be able to translate it). I am curious about Ay's response, ". . . however, I have done him no harm." [My emphasis.] Pronouns can be subject to their context by translaters. Is it possible that the translation refers not to "him", but instead to ". . . however, I have done no harm to his body."?? To the AE, the concept of body and individual was one and the same. To a modern translater or perhaps to a Hittite transcribing the message from Ay, it may not have been, thus giving us a different meaning. Just curious. As for my sheep skin comment. I am curious if any other cultures are known to have used this method of burial - such as a nomadic or pastoral culture in Palestine or elsewhere. I do agree that further forensic research would be appropriate and that he may be the Hittite prince. However, I am still curious if the manner of preparation mimicked that of any other known culture. Another question. It is presumed by some that this burial was one of punishment or eternal damnation. Do we have another example of such an ad damnio type of burial by which to judge and compare this one? I'm not aware of one. Final query. Can we derive any clue from the context of the reburial. My sense is no, that mummies got shuffled at a midpoint where some rehabilitation of them took place. Who were Unknown Man E's immediate neighbors for eternity? Just some thoughts. Brent | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
If any DNA tests are performed on Unknown man E, might I suggest that they restrict the test to taking a few shafts of hair, and not actually open the body? As George pointed out this a bioantrhopological treasure trove. I've read how they've gone taken the greatest care to open tombs that might hold pristine air samples from 3K years ago. Shouldn't we exercise the same caution on obtaining DNA samples? Opening the mummy, even microscopically, can either release precious gases or chemicals, or expose the interior of the mummy to bacteria, contaminating it and lessening its value. | ||
| b.j.barnes (216.190.159.89) |
This is a very interesting subject matter to me. I did not even know about this mummy until I read it here. Where can I go to learn more on this subject? Thanks..b.j. Rick; you are so right about the process that should be used. Do you remember the opening of the vault that held the cedar ship? The comment was that the cedar smell was so fresh. Then they wanted to save the air from the other ship, but that one had no 3,000 year old air. There had been damage and the precious air samples were all gone. | ||
| george (63.149.20.44) |
Beth, I did not intend my post to debate your point, but only to review the evidence. I do, however, in the context of AE practices, disagree that "E" was embalmed. He was covered with a thick layer of natron, lime and crushed resin and wrapped, not embalmed. It was probably only a fortunate accident that the natron/lime turned the subcutaneous fat of the body into a layer of soap that sealed the body from decay and preserved it intact for so many centuries. Of course the method of his interrment was intended to revile him. The sheep skin was a statement that he came from an enemy nation of sheepherders. The unadorned, unnamed, coffin was perhaps intended as much for secrecy as insult. I do not consider that "E" was buried alive and I do not support most of the final conclusions of Bickerstaff or Miller. Brent, The translations are from H.G. Gueterbock, "The Deeds of Suppiluliumas." Since my field is AE I can not comment about your questions concerning errors in translation. Except that the body had never been distubed, there is no evidence where "E" was stored before he was placed in DB320. No other bodies compare with "E." Rick, The body cavity was opened and examined by Dr. Fouquet. | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
Well while we're having fun speculating over who Unknown man E really is I'd like to add another wrinkle. Let's assume he is Zannanza for a second, how did he come to rest with the rest of these kings, unblemished by any wound, how did he die? Again let's assume that Ay knew for a fact that Ankh. had sent the message to Supp. Supp. finally sends Prince Z to become king of Egypt. On his way to egypt Z is captured by Horemhab alive and returned to Egypt where he is held as a bargaining chip, in the course of his stay he gets sick and dies a natural death. The AE's embalm him deciding to hold his body for ransom until Supp. pays up. But like the old wheeze goes. "Every battle plan fails it's first encounter with the enemy." Supp. doesn't believe that Zannanza died a natural death but was murdered goes to war with the AE's etc. etc. Now all were left with is some fragmentary Hittite letters and a dried up mummy as proof of a palace intrique that spun out of control 3.5 k years ago. I know Neat, plausible, and probably wrong... | ||
| george (63.149.20.6) |
It is far, far, far, from neat or plausible to consider "E" died a natural death. The evidence to answer speculation and supposition is in the basement of the Cairo Museum waiting for a forensic examination to tell his story. Seems a lot more important than all the fuss and publicity about a stone plug in a pyramid air shaft to me. But no one seems to care about old "E"--the mystery man of Egytptolgy. | ||
| Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51) |
Was there an original occupant of DB320? | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
Well since we have an intact mummy that's been opened up, we no longer have to worry about contamination. Instead we can concentrate on things such as his blood type, pathogens that might have been preserved in various organs, search for trace quanitities of arsenic, do a DNA analysis of him. Run some scans on him to see if he died from internal hemmoraging. Whether he had any kidney stones, gall stones, what genetic diseases he might have been at risk for or was a carrier of...Oh wait a second I just remembered....we gotta find out what's behind that plug first  . Put me down on the let's move Unknown man E to the front of the line in Egyptological research. I think we have the technology and the knowledge to investigate anything we want and do less damage to him than the AE's or the folks who opened his sheepskin coccoon and found him. What's there to wait for? BTW whatever happened to the sheep skin? That's another biological time capsule too. | ||
| b.j.barnes (12.81.169.21) |
What ever really did happen to her anway? I have read many accounts of "maybe this happened", but does anyone know something a little bit more certain? I have wondered what the writings left said about her. I thought she just dissappeared from the writings after Aye became Pharoah (unwanted or un-needed bride?) Is all we really have are the tomb glyphs? There are so many different ideas about what happened here and what happened there that I get really confused. I had thought that with the advanced learning we now have that more questions would have been answered. The opposite seems the case. More questions, fewer answers. The old timers at least were almost positive about their answers! See what ego can do for you? They just knew they were right! Nowdays, we seem to question everything to death to be sure we have it right. Good idea, too. But it leaaves me confused | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
Nobody knows. Just another unsolved mystery in Amarnaville. | ||
| b.j.barnes (12.82.162.81) |
So many questions---so few answers--- | ||
| Rick (24.25.208.10) |
Welcome to the Amarna tar pits! | ||
| Lori gorgas (12.90.107.5) |
Is it possible that her tomb could be in the valley of the Queens? and If she was killed by Aye would she have had the same fate as Unknown man E? and had her tomb unmarked? | ||
| fredl (213.1.45.6) |
George, re the 13th,thank you for the reply its nice to see so many interested in this TRUE egyptian mystery. Its a shame for the test not to be done for fear of the politics. best regards fred lundberg | ||
| george (63.149.20.195) |
Fred, Perhaps some day science may win over politics? Meanwhile "E" remains neglected and ignored. | ||
| Lord homer (24.70.144.138) |
Why does everyone today assume that every one in the Amarna court was was murdered? Do you realize what the average life expectancy was at the time? (Yes, even for royalty!) Tut's body had a mark on the cheek when first unwrapped-he may have died from a mosquito carried disease-like Lord Carnarvon many years later. (See photo in Carter's book) The other members of the Armarna cast may have died of disease-plaque could have decimated the lot! Has anyone noticed that Akhenaton (possibly), Smenkare (possibly), Tutankamen (probably), Aye, and Horemheb -count them folks-5 successive rulers-died without leaving male heirs to succeed them. (P)Ramses I left a son Seti I to succeed him. Now, were all of these other rulers unable to father sons, or were there murders being committed regularly to keep the path to the throne clear?? Big conspiracy or perhaps fertility problems due to heredity or environment? | ||
| Ally (203.166.96.237) |
In the late 1800's a female mummy was discovered in a side chamber, along with two other mummies, in KV35. She was determined to be from the late 18th Dynasty, a royal and, along with five other possible Queens (Hatshepsut, Meretaten, Nefertiti, Tiye and Tey), may be Ankhesenamun. She is more commonly known as the "Elder Lady" (or the "Younger Lady" after some retesting on age approximations). She is believed to have died between 25-35. Some believed her to be Tiye when comparisons were made between the mummies hair and a coffinette bearing the cartouche of the queen were made, and they matched. However, the mummy may be too young for her. Others believe her to be Nefertiti due to her physical appearance (pictures are available at http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20010618/nefertiti.html# ). DNA tests were suggested to be conducted between the mummy's hair and the tufts of hair from Tut's tomb, meant to be from their marriage contract. I would be interested to know if anyone has any further information on the mummy and whether or not tests were done (even though it is unlikely). Please, post anything pertaining to Ankhesenamun. | ||
| lori gorgas New member Username: lusithathor Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.239.107.140 |
After watching the discovery special. I think I can safely speculate on this thread. Any one for some theorys? If it is her in the newly discovered tomb? | ||
| Doug Brewer New member Username: hotep Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 72.161.146.94 |
I believe that if their is a mummy in the coffin in the back it could very well be Ankhesenamun. If it is they were trying to either hide her or degrade her. I think we will find out soon if they don't keep a lid on it. [quote]In the late 1800's a female mummy was discovered in a side chamber, along with two other mummies, in KV35. She was determined to be from the late 18th Dynasty, a royal and, along with five other possible Queens (Hatshepsut, Meretaten, Nefertiti, Tiye and Tey), may be Ankhesenamun. [/quote] I think in KV 35 that the lady Dr., who done the discovery channel show hit the nail on the head. She showed that the mutilated mummy in the side chamber is Nefertiti. | ||
| Perdita Woodley New member Username: goddessmayet Post Number: 20 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 86.134.80.172 |
Well Doug, that "Lady Dr." Who was and is British Egyptologist Dr. Joanne Fletcher may well have stumbled on something quite interesting I agree with you! However it is quite well known now that she was famously banned back in 2003 by the SCA for it under the claim that she did not present her information to them beforehand in detail, although some suggest she was pressing in Zahi's lime light by making her findings so glamorously presented on the discovery channel. (Who really knows.) I guess we will never really know if she hit the nail on the head of not. Zahi denounced her as "Nuts." for the claim. | ||
| Doug Brewer New member Username: hotep Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 69.179.138.44 |
I think it was more along the lines that she stepped on Zahi's toes, I think she was right. If Zahi don't discovery it it's not right. But your right we will never no. |
