posted
This topic was discussed before here and here but for some reason those threads are in the 'Deshret' section of the forum instead of this section which is supposed to be dedicated to Egyptology.
The topic has recently been rehashed a couple years ago again.
Although Tutankhamun was a very minor king of no significance in Egyptian history, he is the most famous in modern times since his tomb was the only one yet discovered that was left intact with all of his treasures and artifacts kept in completion.
The discovery of course by Howard Carter in 1922
However, the tomb shows signs of a rushed burial not only due to the fact that much of Tut's belongings were found stacked in the chambers but that his body and belongings were entombed before the plaster could dry causing microbes to form the brown splotches on the wall murals.
Stranger still is the fact that some of the artifacts that supposedly depict Tut don't look like him at all but resemble that a female.
For example his alabaster canopic jars.
^ Some have speculated the alabaster heads to be those of the 4 guardian funerary goddesses but the nemes headdress is clearly that of a king, but the face is unlike that of any portrait of the boy king and that of a female.
Then there are the gold gilded statuettes:
^ In fact there are many gold statuettes portraying breasts and wide hips. Naysayers argue that Tut was portrayed in androgynous way similar to his father Akhentaten or that Tut had gynecomastia, but not only is the face also effeminate and different from his other portraits but other statues show him in a an unambiguously masculine manner.
Then there is his famous golden face mask which shows possible alteration and reuse: Several of the objects in Tutankhamun's tomb are thought to have been adapted for Tutankhamun's use after originally being made for either of two pharaohs whose short reigns preceded his: Neferneferuaten, who was probably Nefertiti, and Smenkhkare. Egyptologist Nicholas Reeves argues that the mask was one of these objects. He says that the pierced ears indicate that the mask was intended for a female pharaoh, which Neferneferuaten was; that the slightly different composition of the underlying alloy of the face (23.2 karats) suggests it was made independently from the rest of the mask (23.5 karat alloy); and that the cartouches on the mask show signs of being altered from Neferneferuaten's name to Tutankhamun's. Reeves argues that the nemes-headcloth, collar, and ears of the mask were made for Neferneferuaten but that the face, which was made as a separate piece of metal and matches other portrayals of Tutankhamun, was added later, replacing an original face that presumably represented Neferneferuaten.[11][21] However, Christian Eckmann, the metal conservation expert who carried out the restoration in 2015, says there are no signs that the face is composed of a different gold than the rest of the mask or that the cartouches have been altered.
posted
I can see Nefertiti ruling as regent between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. It wasn't unknown for queens to act as regents in ancient Egypt before the male heir could take over (in fact, that's probably how Hatshepsut got her start). And, for what it's worth, those gold statuettes do have appear to have prominent female breasts. I suppose they could also be "man-boobs", but they appear too slim for that.
Also, where would Smenkhare fit into this? He's another Pharaoh alleged to have reigned between Akhenaten and Tut.
posted
^ We have portraits of Tutankhamun in Amarna and in temples dedicated to him as well as some portraits in his tomb i.e. the masculine looking portraits. All the others that look womanly are the suspect ones.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I can see Nefertiti ruling as regent between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. It wasn't unknown for queens to act as regents in ancient Egypt before the male heir could take over (in fact, that's probably how Hatshepsut got her start). And, for what it's worth, those gold statuettes do have appear to have prominent female breasts. I suppose they could also be "man-boobs", but they appear too slim for that.
Gynecomastia (female breasts on a man) was suggested, but that doesn't explain the wide hips and effeminate face, unless there is any proof Tut underwent cross-sex hormone therapy. LOL Nor does it explain his other portraits that show him in a normal masculine way.
quote:Also, where would Smenkhare fit into this? He's another Pharaoh alleged to have reigned between Akhenaten and Tut.
That's a good question. The Amarna family is perhaps the most enigmatic of the 18th dynasty. We have all these royal names popping up nobody can pin these names to actual mummies except Tut himself. Recall that Tut is the son of KV55 and the Younger Lady who are both full siblings but we don't even know if KV55 is really Akhenaten! In fact it looks like KV55 could very well be Smenkhare.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We have portraits of Tutankhamun in Amarna and in temples dedicated to him as well as some portraits in his tomb i.e. the masculine looking portraits. All the others that look womanly are the suspect ones.
If the tomb called Tutankhamun's tomb is not his
then why would "some portraits in his tomb" like the gold mask, the coffins and mummy be him?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I edited the title to "originally" since the theory is that the tomb originally belonged to someone else but then was given to him. Which begs the question who was the original owner and where is he/she??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
looking at the white canopic jar stopper on the upper right and comparing it to the gold mask; the canopic jar stopper has a more masculine jaw The chin on the gold mask tapers down in a much more feminine way
The features are more masculine on the jar stopper, yes indeed
but people get thrown off just by that reddish paint on the lips of the jar It's like a psychological optical illusion their mind tells them reddish lips = feminine "features"
On the upper left, the colossal figure of Tut at the tomb of Ay and Horemheb, lip color standing out in contrast to the rest of the face
^hypothetically this could be brother and sister. brother on the left, sister on the right. Yet the one of the right is the actual gold mask and the one the left was photo edited to broaden the chin and jaw. _________________________________________________
.
.
. there is a lot of crossover in male and female features but the thing here giving the impression of the feminine is the fact that the red color of the lips and the eyeliner jump out more on that white stone that that canopic jar lid is made of. If the whole thig was painted brown, no one would be talking about it looking feminine
posted
Seated Statue of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, 1353-1337 BC Yellow stone Musée du Louvre
It's already established in the Amarna with Akenaten this "feminine" build according to our modern perspective His face here also, could easily pass for a young woman
____________________________________________
.
.
Akhenaten (older)
^^ here we go again, look at those curvy hips
some men have this type of chest Our society looks at it as embarrassing, theirs seemed not to They seemed less concerned with making a "macho" impression, at least in this period
Akhenaten and Nefertiti The couple is seated under the God Aten and his rays. Several cartouches of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Aten can be seen. Limestone. From Amarna, Egypt. New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, c. 1345 BCE. Neues Museum, Berlin, Germany.
Look at the beauty of this, unlike the pumped up superhero icons we have today, the male and female are in unity here, unconcerned with looking physically strong as if they were in a perpetual state of war or threat
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are 3 portraits of Tut that are more or less consistent.
The face has rounded cheeks that give a boyish look but still masculine and has splayed ears and not the effeminate more gaunt face with showy cheekbones with flattened ears that the other portraits show.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic