...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Here we go again. QUEEN NEFERTITI BROUGHT TO LIFE WITH CONTROVERSIAL
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE] “The Younger Lady” But, the hype over the empty tomb was nothing compared with the Nefertiti-mania that swept the media in 2003. University of York archaeologist Joann Fletcher studied three mummies that had been found in the tomb of Pharaoh Amenhotep II. Fletcher announced that one of the bodies, nicknamed “the Younger Lady,” was, in fact, the mummy of Queen Nefertiti. Her conclusion—which became the basis for a TV documentary, a book, a 60 Minutes report and numerous newspaper and magazine articles—was based, in part, on a wig found near the mummy. It was, Fletcher said, a Nubian hairstyle worn only by royalty during the period when Nefertiti reigned. And, Fletcher also discovered that one ear was double-pierced—a rare practice that was also attributed to Nefertiti. Most Egyptologists, however, found Fletcher’s evidence superficial and unconvincing. Barbara Mertz, an American Egyptologist and author (who died in 2013), wrote a letter in an academic journal stating that “the discussions will surely continue to rage, but there can be no doubt in the mind of any Egyptologist or educated Egyptology buff that the identification of the mummy in question as Nefertiti is balderdash (good manners prevent me from using a stronger term)." The Younger Lady would make a return appearance in 2010. A National Geographic article written by Zahi Hawass—then Egypt’s Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs—announced the results of DNA analyses of the three mummies. The Younger Lady, he said, was one of the sisters of King Tut’s father, the Pharaoh Akhenaten, and was Tutankhamun's mother. But in 2013, French Egyptologist Marc Gabolde challenged that conclusion. Closer examination of the DNA evidence, he says, revealed that Nefertiti was both the Younger Lady and King Tut’s true mother. [/QUOTE] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150814-nefertiti-tomb-tutankhamun-tut-archaeology-egypt-dna/ And as for all those folks who think the "experts" are objective and acknowledge the "diversity" of Egyptian society. Note the following: [QUOTE] But all experts arent sold. The University of Chicago is home to The Oriental Institute, a world-renowned showcase for the history, art, and archaeology of the ancient Near East. The museum displays objects recovered by Oriental Institute excavations in permanent galleries devoted to ancient Egypt, Nubia, Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia and the ancient site of Megiddo, as well as rotating special exhibits. Raymond Johnson, director of the Epigraphic Survey project and Research Associate and Associate Professor at the University of Chicago in the Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department, weighed in with great detail about the recent discovery and what they may mean to our understanding of King Tut's family: "Regarding the forensic facial reconstruction of the mummy of the 'younger lady' announced this week, there are several issues worth discussion. The head in question is a beautiful job of forensic reconstruction by Elisabeth Daynes, and the artist has done science a great service. The mummy of ‘the younger lady’ has evoked a lot of speculation since it was found in 1898 in a side chamber of Amenhotep II’s royal tomb (KV 35) in the Valley of the Kings with two other despoiled mummies, and a cachette of nine reburied kings in the main burial chamber (Thutmosis IV, Amenhotep III, Merenptah, Sety II, Siptah, Sethnakht, and Ramesses IV, V, and VI). The second female mummy found in the side chamber, referred to as ‘the elder lady,’ has been identified as the mummy of Queen Tiye, great royal wife of Amenhotep III, based on a matching lock of her hair found in Tutankhamun’s tomb and recent DNA analysis. A third mummy found in the chamber, of a young prince with a sidelock, might be Akhenaten’s older brother Thutmosis, who predeceased Akhenaten. The ‘younger lady’ is the mummy that Joanne Fletcher years ago identified as Nefertiti, an idea that Zahi Hawass vigorously refuted. Zahi's DNA testing of the royal mummies a few years ago, including the 'younger' and 'older' ladies, indicated that the mummy of the ‘younger lady’ was Tutankhamun's mother, and to everyone’s surprise that she is also a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. If one accepts that the mummy of the 'younger lady' is the mother of Tutankhamun, then she cannot be Nefertiti. In no text is Nefertiti ever identified as a royal daughter. If she had been a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye, it would have been clearly stated in her inscriptions, and there are hundreds of texts that survive mentioning Nefertiti with no mention of her parents. It has been suggested that she was a daughter of Ay, one of Akhenaten and Tutankhamun's high court officials, a military man who took the crown after Tutankhamun’s early death. Ay's title, Gods Father, could refer to his relationship to Nefertiti, who as queen could never claim a non-royal as her father. If the genetic analysis is correct and the mummy of the ‘younger lady’ is the mother of Tutankhamun and a daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, then this mummy cannot be Nefertiti. Numerous sculptures and reliefs survive of Nefertiti, who ruled as queen and then as king with her husband, including many portraits from the end of the Amarna Period when the art style favoured a naturalism that borders on true portraiture. There are elements common to all of these later representations of Nefertiti: a straight nose, heavy-lidded eyes, long graceful neck, and a strong square jaw. The forensically reconstructed face with its narrow skull, deep-set eyes, and triangular jaw is beautiful but in no way resembles the portraits that survive of Nefertiti. That said, they could be relatives. One must remember that Queen Tiye and Ay were siblings; if Nefertiti’s father was indeed Ay, she and the younger lady would have been cousins. [b]Finally there is the issue of race and skin tone of the reconstructed princess. From the beginning of human history Egypt was the gateway out of the African continent, but was also the main route back in. The population of Egypt was always a mix of European and African races, and the Egyptian court and royal harem reflected this. Amenhotep III’s many wives included foreign wives from countries all around Egypt and the Mediterranean, including Caucasians, but he was certainly of mixed blood, as was Queen Tiye. We can never know for sure what the skin color of this princess might have been, but as the child of Amenhotep III and Tiye, she was undoubtedly not pure Caucasian. A brown skin color would have probably been more true to the individual represented, and to her times.[/b] That said, it is moving to see the features of this remarkable woman whose identity has been debated ever since her discovery in 1898. Whoever she was, and in my opinion her name is still in question, she was a major player in the Amarna Period. As Tutankhamun scholar Marianne Eaton-Krauss has noted, Tutankhamun never mentioned his mother in any inscription because she was deceased before he took the throne. We know the names of Amenhotep III’s chief daughters: Sitamun, Nebetah, Isis, Hennutaneb, Baketaten, and we know that there were many more. Perhaps in time we will be able to restore one of those name to this body, whose face has been so vividly and beautifully recreated here."[/QUOTE]So right there from one of the so-called experts you hear them say point blank that the AE weren't really "indigenous" populations of the Nile. They had to be mixed and because of that they didn't have to be African looking like their own artwork. And of course he claims that most portraits of Nefertiti have a "square jaw" when that is FALSE. The only portrait of Nefertiti with such refined features are that ONE BUST. Most other portraits of Nefertiti have BIG LIPS and a BIG HEAD. So what on earth is this guy talking about? He even says Queen Tiye was mixed. Wow. Coulda fooled me. They sure look 100% African from the way is shown in their artwork. And of course "brown" is a weasel word. It could be anything from very light tan to light brown but nothing like the deep rich brown that the Egyptians used in their own art work. I wonder why nobody uses that as the basis fo the colors of these reproductions? What? Were the Egyptians not able to tell what skin color they had? And not to mention he says that Egypt always had "EUROPEAN" mixture. Since when was the Levant, Syria and Arabia ever part of Europe? And keep in mind that the Oriental Institute was founded by the Rockefellers who were the main financiers of American expeditions to Egypt in the 1900s. [QUOTE] History of the Oriental Institute Museum The Oriental Institute was founded in 1919 by James Henry Breasted with the financial support of John D. Rockefeller Jr., and was originally envisaged as a research laboratory for the investigation of the early human career that would trace humankind’s progress from the most ancient days of the Middle East. The goal of the Oriental Institute is to be the world’s leading center for the study of ancient Near Eastern civilizations by combining innovation in theory, methodology, and significant empirical discovery with the highest standards of rigorous scholarship. The Oriental Institute Museum was opened to the public in 1931. The majority of the collections of the Oriental Institute came from its expeditions in the Middle East during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. A major reinstallation of the Museum, including the construction of a climate-controlled wing for housing collections and archives, took place in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Voting Members of the Oriental Institute, who meet quarterly and approve changes to the Mission Statement of the Oriental Institute Museum. The Oriental Institute is a unit within the University of Chicago and the name of the corporation is “The University of Chicago.” The corporation was originally incorporated on September 10, 1890. The corporation has not changed its name since its original date of incorporation.[/QUOTE] https://oi.uchicago.edu/about/oriental-institute-museum And of course the purpose of the Europeans being in the "Middle East" which actually what they called the lands of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 to disconnect them from the Ottomans, was to put a white European face on the history of mankind. Which is why so many artifacts from this area are in European museums. [QUOTE] In 1926, the United States' first Egyptologist James Henry Breasted and the philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr., proposed to build a New Egyptian Museum and Research Institute in Cairo. The Egyptian government ultimately rejected the proposal and the museum was never built as suggested. The project's failure was attributed to "suspicious" or "irrational" nationalism and "Egyptian vanity." The archives, however, demonstrate otherwise. This thesis analyzes the Breasted-Rockefeller museum's conception, trajectory and failure, using the team's lengthy correspondence. The archives show that the project was an early example of U.S. cultural imperialism, disguised as a gift of "Science," from the "Great Democracy of the West," to an Egypt desirous of independence from British and French empires. Deploying the twin themes of post World War I "opportunity" (political) and "obligation" (civilizational, scientific, philanthropic) to demonstrate the imperial possibilities of the particular political and cultural moment in 1926, Breasted mobilized Rockefeller first and the U.S. State Department later, to pry open the political field in Egypt for U.S. entry through archaeology and appropriation of antiquity. The Breasted-Rockefeller team's strategy was to create an Anglo- American alliance in the Near East, by beginning with the creation of a private-philanthropic corporation for the New Egyptian Museum, controlled by Western archaeologists, with token Egyptian representation. This ambitious and innovative approach to imperialism was spatially and architecturally revealed in the proposed museum's design and in its location in Cairo. That this project failed when it would succeed in later iterations elsewhere, is to be ascribed both to the lack of U.S. power against competing British and French imperialisms at this early stage, as well as to Egyptian nationalism, which identified the Breasted-Rockefeller proposal for the imperial project that it was, and which had begun to recognize Egyptian antiquity as a metaphor for nationalism. [/QUOTE] https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59109 And America wasn't the only one. All Europeans were plundering the history of the "Middle East" to bring glory and prestige to the colonial/imperial powers of Europe for a history that was not theirs. As for the so-called Nefertiti bust, the only reason it is famous is because it is on display in Germany and is OWNED by Germans. It is the ONLY bust of Nefertiti that looks like that. Most images of Nefertiti do NOT look like that but this is what Europeans want to see and this is why this is the ONLY image of Nefertiti you see in books and magazines. Not to mention the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the bust are controversial and shady at best. And to this day, Germany refuses to return it to Egypt (because it is fake like many tourist artwork seen in Egypt). https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59109 [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3