This post has already been read 4631 times!
Nefertiti’s tomb: a critical approach.
For a long time the writer believes that several of granite dogmas of Egyptology at the base would need a “brush up” because now less and less compatible with the continuous discoveries performed with increasingly sophisticated technologies day after day. Years later, though, if the respected old school in this academic discipline throughout remained almost as it was, if nothing else has changed communication because if the first to get news of new discoveries or hypotheses they had to consult only publications specialist, now just go on the net to find out in detail the latest news in near real time. Unfortunately, sometimes this immediate accessibility to information has its pros and cons and that is what is happening to a likely new discovery, already sensational itself if it is confirmed, that is literally passing in the background because to make it more palatable the general public (and collecting so million “likes”) has not hesitated to bring up another character considered perhaps much more engaging than King Tut in the collective contemporary.
They are long gone, in fact, the times when the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb in the world had exploded the Egittomania and Tutmania to the point that to be fashionable, everything was to be characterized by the unmistakable Egyptian style at times so pushed to the limit to become vulgar (just think that even even the packaging of many foods for animals and condoms had labels which recalled that of ancient Egypt or Tutankhamen), and so, since the announcement of possible new environments in tomb of King Tut would also be unable to be very striking, since the first launch of the news here is that Reeves does appear on the scene because Nefertiti the Times headlined the “Tutankhamun’s tomb may house lost grave of Nefertiti”. Obviously the news is immediately bounced the media all over the world, as well as subsequent launches (the last of which in late November in which it was given to all the 90% probability due to three days of scans with a Japanese radar system ), but if the sources rightly continue to reiterate to await developments because at the moment there are just guesses (which by the way do not see all agree) and to cite the various theories on the figure of Nefertiti, other titrate already for certain the discovery of the tomb of the queen while others are certain this also that Nefertiti was Tutankhamun’s mother, which would explain why “his” tomb had been used to also bury the young king. As if it were not enough these “certainties” groundless and misleading, they are also read imaginative reconstructions of what is concealed behind the walls, that is, secret rooms still full of offerings and funeral furnishings and of course the burial chamber with inside the sarcophagus of queen. In a nutshell so on and so forth because the famous saying “the subject is rich so I shove” never had a more appropriate context.
It easy to imagine, therefore, how all these “enrichments” free and without any basis, just to ride the wave of media to attract the attention of more readers, can annoy and harass all those like me who have spent many years of study to deepen the eighteenth Dynasty, and in particular its figures of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Tutankhamun Smenkhkara. As well as the distorted image that annoys many books and documentaries still continue to give the royal couple Tutankhamun-Ankhesenamun at the time of the wedding.
In fact, I can not understand why you always keep prospettarla idyllically as a pair of the same age children at the mercy of events too large for them, “forgetting” that Ankhesenamun was not only the greatest of Tutankhamun (so much so that it was the third daughter of Akhenaten Nefertiti and born in the year 4 while Tutankhamun was born in the year 12) but also that earlier had already married his father Akhenaten (which may have had a little girl, Ankhesenamun-Tasherit) in the year 16 and his death, Smenkhkara, as reported on a small object of pottery.
Since the Eighteenth Dynasty marriages with daughters of kings and / or sisters had a habit, what would so misrepresent a historical reality, since there are records? Always mention the background of the young queen, in fact, not only it does not bring to the attention of the complexity of the relations of the princesses in the Egyptian royal families because they could marry only the closest relatives as well as had been troubled and tormented her married life because, before marrying Tutankhamun just seventeen was already twice a widow. And documentation, it seems at this particular time intentionally forgotten by those who “trumpets” the maternity of Nefertiti, there are also the real mother of Tutankhamen. Perhaps not everyone is aware that this had already been identified with a 2005 TAC in the “Young Lady”, found in KV35 tomb of Amenhotep II together with the “Old Lady” (later identified with certainty with Teje), due to the specific peculiarities his skull presents an asymmetry in the back, underdevelopment on the left and a small piece of bone between the rear plates exactly how the skull of Tutankhamen.
This mummy, even if it had not been scientifically proven, many had been associated for years to Nefertiti to the particularities and other Meritaten (of Smenkhkara wife) but, since the TAC had been made to do by Zahi Hawass, has always been convinced that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten and Kiya (his younger bride), of course in the end the results led to exclude all the clues to an association that is not the one with Kiya. Pretty much as it would have happened a few years later with the investigations based on archaeological research, TAC and forensic technologies that Hawass would “conclusively” established that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten. As observable in “The Curse of the darkened sun”, however, the same flow tests confirming “indisputable” the professor are just as irreconcilable with Smenkhkara, so much so that the same Hawass, after a few months, downsized its initial enthusiasm for the sensational discovery admitting that it could not be ruled out that Tut’s father would also have been Smenkhkara. The only thing ascertained at the time, therefore, is that the father of Tutankhamun was so identified in the individual of KV55 but not positively identified, even given the opportunity Akhenaten double-Smenkhkara. Found and positively identified without any shadow of doubt, however, it is the mother. In 2010, in fact, everyone remained deeply disappointed that the results of DNA tests of the “Young Lady”, the facts do always Hawass, finally shedding light on his true identity invalidated associations made up to that point with Nefertiti, Meritaten and Kiya. This mummy was in fact yes Tutankhamun’s mother but, like Akhenaten, was a daughter of Amenhotep III and Teje. Presumably, for this writer, the youngest daughter Beketaton born in the last years of marriage, as the other four daughters of the royal couple (Sitamun, Isis, and Henuttaneb Nebetah) are never named during the reign of Akhenaten because maybe probably already dead . Of Beketaton, however, is no news until the death of Teje, which scholars believe she survived her husband for about 12 years, so not only up to a period compatible with that of the birth of King Tut (year 12 of Akhenaten) but, since after it is no longer mentioned, suggesting also that the young woman might die in childbirth, what at that time will certainly not rare. Based on what just wrote, so, you will see that after 5 years away from this sensational discovery is just out of place to keep talking even Nefertiti as Tutankhamun’s mother, speech instead, if done before 2010, would not have even blink. As for the “grave” of Nefertiti, however, it is a different matter. The sudden death of Tutankhamun was that, given the short time available between the death and the funeral, most likely the grave was adapted already almost completed, because what the king was building in the Valley of the Kings, close to that of the grandfather Amenhotep III, was still far from over. The decorations, in fact, given the color dripping not retouched, were quickly delayed until later in the burial chamber and the walls of the other rooms are smoothed, but no paintings. The probability that there are other possible environments in KV62, therefore, is really very high. And widespread opinion, that the tomb could have been that of Ay, the successor of Tutankhamun, whose construction would begin in the Valley of the Kings when he was not yet king (one built at Amarna was unfinished). Accordingly, since the majority of scholars believe that Nefertiti was his daughter, though the rooms were really adapted to the Tut tomb initially prepared for Ay, maybe behind the walls they could conceal possible environments in which in one Ay could have secretly mound Queen to safeguard the remains from any desecration because Akhenaten, many years after his death, still continued to be called the “Enemy of Amarna”.
Possibilities, this just exposed, not so remote because even Tutankhamen could bring together in KV55 objects and furnishings (including the father of the mummy and the sarcophagus that contained it) from more amarniane graves because, among the debris under the bier that was supporting the sarcophagus, several fragments of clay seals were found including some with his cartouche. Therefore, if Tutankhamun had again made bury secretly to Thebes his father’s body in the tomb KV55 cache, there is no reason that Ay had been able to secretly mound daughter in the grave who was having built at Thebes. Pending further developments, therefore, at the moment let’s enjoy this sensational probable discovery of possible new environments in KV62, regardless of what might be hidden behind the walls. King Tut, in fact, even alone still exudes all the charm of its own, just like in the thirties of the last century …
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED