Why Special mummification of Amenhotep III?
Lars Wilson
Amenhotep III:
The embalmers had packed the skin of the deceased king with a resinous
material, and Smith's description of this as being "analogous" to embalming
techniques used in the 21'st Dynasty led Douglas Derry to question the
identification of the mummy as being that of Amenhotep III. Edward Wente,
however, points out that the resinous material used here for packing was
quite unlike the materials employed by 21'st Dynasty embalmers. Long before
the controversy regarding the identity of this mummy had arisen, Smith
himself had noted (in the same report in RM that caused Derry's
uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's
mummy is altogether unique, and takes special care to distinguish it from
21'st Dynasty practices which, he goes on to explain, utilized linen, mud,
sand, sawdust, or mixtures of fat and soda for packing materials, but not
resins. Therefore, there is nothing about this mummy that would point to the
21'st Dynasty as the time of its original embalming.
Smith expresses the interesting theory that the novel style of embalming
used on the mummy of Amenhotep III (whose identity he doubts not in the
least) was part of the general cultural revolution sweeping Egypt toward the
end of the 18'th Dynasty and which culminated during the reign of Amenhotep
IV-Akhenaten. That resin-packing was not employed during the 19'th and 20'th
Dynasties is explainable in terms of the anti-Amarna reaction that set in
after Akhenaten's death.
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/18B.htm)
I'm still researching this, but apparently resin is used as a connector and
solidifier. As noted above the use of resin was unique to the embalming of
the body of Amenhotep III. But the question is why? What was unique about
the body of Amenhotep III which prompted the embalmers to use resin in the
embalming process under the skin?
I think it would be safe to presume that there was "something uniquely
wrong" with this particular body at the time it was embalmed, that is, the
body was already damaged at the time of embalming to require resin.
My theory is, since we know Amenhotep III now was the pharoah who died in
the Red Sea, is that this probably had something to do with his perhaps
having been dead in the water for an extended period of time. His skin
might have been waterlogged and perhaps falling apart or perhaps extremely
wrinkled and the resin was used to help hold together the skin or smooth it
out or both. Maybe someone else can shed more light on this.
Also of note, the age of the body as determined by x-ray estimation was
about fifty years of age. So he didn't necessarily die of old age.
L.W.
jte...@gmail.com
Lars Wilson wrote:
> I think it would be safe to presume that there was "something
> uniquely wrong" with this particular body at the time it was
> embalmed, that is, the body was already damaged at the
> time of embalming to require resin.
A not-very-careful glancing at the other 18th dynasty
mummies would have revealed that resins were frequently
used, including in efforts to preserve the shape of some
body feature (the nose, as one example).
Amenhotep III was depicted late in life (presumably not too far
from death) as overweight. It's likely that, post-desiccation,
he would have resembled more of a dried prune than a human,
and required some efforts to restore/preserve his kingly shape.
It's a simple fact that if you desiccate the body of a fat person
the end result is something that looks like a giant scrotum.
That's because you've got all this skin that /was/ needed to
cover a big fat body, but little more than a skeletal frame to
actually cover.
Marian...@aol.com
because, going by some of his statues, he was quite a fat man. After
dehydration with natron, all that remains is loose skin over bone. The
thinner the person had been in life, the closer the skin adhered to the
bone. Rather than have all that skin, stretched out by fat, just
hanging there in folds, someone may have gotten the idea to fill that
in with some handy compound--like liquid resin--and attempt to give the
body a more normal shape, resembling the king in life. However, for
whatever reason this was done, it was a disastrous idea--because the
mummy of A III is one of the worst preserved specimens of the kings of
Egypt--unlike those mummies of the 21st Dynasty, limbs stuffed in a
different manner. They are very well-preserved, indeed.
Lars Wilson
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153543868.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
was known that Amenhotep III was fat. As a point of technical detail, along
with the resin used was "natron", a salt that was used specifically to
dissolve fats, etc. Apparently the two were used in combination. Here's
the quote from "Akhenaton - Pharoah of Egypt a New Study" by Cyril Aldred,
page 63 "What his mummy does reveal, however, is that special measures were
taken by the embalmers to restore his corpse some of the semblance of his
appearance in life by packing a *mixture of resin and natron* under the
skin, an innovation which is not repeated until four centuries later...."
I looked up natron in connection with the embalming and it was associated
with destroying/converting the fat. So there is that too, certainly, that
his obesity was an issue of motivation for the special embalming process.
But whether because he was extremely obese or perhaps damaged by the Red Sea
experience I suppose we can't know, but we do know he was rather young and
this process was used specifically/exceptionally for him. ??
Thanks for your comment!
L.W.
Lars Wilson
<Marian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153544236.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your comment basically assures me I might not likely find more info on this
particular issue, but as per my comment to JTEM, certainly the obesity issue
would be one of option since a *mixture* of resin and naphron was used for
this king.
I suppose at this point it would be nice to have a forensic anthropologist
to weigh in on the use of this mixture in context of damage by prolonged
exposure in the water. We may never know. I do know that water does
affect the skin (even in a few hours! as we all know by those long bubble
baths we take!) It seems the resin was used due to some issues with the
skin. The obesity is an issue, but was he that obese all over? vs some
complication of "water logged" in some way?
EXTRA: I had a great "quote" for you I can not now find (@#$##@!!!!) about
Akhenaton having Thebes renamed in connection with Aten and it being known
as the "city of the sun" or something like that, so Thebes became this
possible reference to the Biblical reference to a city of the sun, etc (vs
Heliopolis, etc.) When I find it again I'll run the reference by you.
Take care!
L.W.
Marian...@aol.com
III being who he was, would have been in a position to warrant special
attention. Doubtless, some of the others from the 18th Dynasty weren't
so slender, either, but nothing like the treatment of the body of A III
was afforded them. Yes, the mummification style is certainly unique
for the period. On the other hand, A III is the only pharaoh of whom
statutes were carved making him appear truely fat, with an abdomen
looking like that of a pregnant female. And, in his case, even that
may have been an understatement of reality.
For A III to have been the one drowned, one has to imagine him being in
the position to personally get in his chariot and chase after some
people. My guess would be that this king never even went to war in his
life against any people. His reign was known for diplomacy and
personal indulgence. When he was younger, it is said, he liked to hunt
animals. Even when he died, A III was probably not a very old man. He
came to the throne young and reigned 38 years. Probably, he was under
50 at death--but, come to think of it, that was considered an "old" man
in AE. In those times, people, even the wealthiest, had no really good
remedies against anything that begin to plague people when they get
older. With obesity often comes high blood pressure and there was
nothing to be done about that or gout or anything that results from too
much indulgence. In a relief from Amarna, A III sits beside Queen
Tiye, slumped forward and looking every bit the tired, defeated old
man. A statue of Ishtar was sent to him from abroad, evidently to give
aid to his physical condition. And, as Smith wrote, the mummy's teeth
and gums were in deplorable condition. "During the last years of his
life, Amenothes III must have suffered most acutely from tooth-ache and
dental abscesses."
So what was a man in like condition to do, if he could afford to? Live
on opiates, is my guess, anything that might possibly make such pain
more bearable. Most of us have eventually suffered the agony of having
"one" tooth go bad. So we trundled ourselves off to the dentist, got a
filling or a root canal and a crown. Evidently, in AE, people did not
even know enough to pull a tooth when it got very painful. Judging by
some mummified remains, even the pharaohs, who had access to the best
of everything available, just lived with those bad teeth. [ If they
were lucky, a bad tooth fell out on its own.] I repeat "teeth"--not
just one bad tooth. Can you imagine the horror of having a mouthful of
teeth with exposed nerves or throbbing abcesses? I don't know how it
can have been borne without the person going mad from the pain that
never went away--unless he kept himself permanently "sedated". And
that ain't good, either. Think about it. The coarsely ground cereals
for the bread in AE wore everyone's teeth down eventually--and that has
been a good way for modern examiners to judge the age of a mummy at
times--the wear and tear on the teeth. But few that have been seen
fared more ill with teeth than A III.
Lars Wilson
<Marian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153859908.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Larry, the obesity issue is just a guess, coupled with the fact that, A
> III being who he was, would have been in a position to warrant special
> attention. Doubtless, some of the others from the 18th Dynasty weren't
> so slender, either, but nothing like the treatment of the body of A III
> was afforded them. Yes, the mummification style is certainly unique
> for the period. On the other hand, A III is the only pharaoh of whom
> statutes were carved making him appear truely fat, with an abdomen
> looking like that of a pregnant female. And, in his case, even that
> may have been an understatement of reality.
>
I know you have studied all this. My general "presumptions" based
upon a few things are:
1) I think they may have long ago known about natural painkillers and other
types of drugs and sedatives (see below-off topic**). So I wouldn't venture
too far in that direction.
2) His being extremely obese and not that active I don't think would have
prevented him from going out to watch the Jews being buthered. It doesn't
mean he himself was going to actively do it but just basically watch. I
will
check out some statues showing his obesity, but I don't think he was like
bedriddin or over 500 pounds as we have seen some obese people today,
but they still manage to move around. In addition, he would have had plenty
of help if he needed to be lifted into a special chariot or something.
Someone so
obese as to be completely immobile is a little different than someone just
300
pounds.
Interesting notes based upon what we have but we have to weigh that against
the "potential" record of what occurred, that he persued the Jews and then
drowned
in the Red Sea. Still points well taken.
**Note: as a side note on the above, I tend to think that some specialized
knowledge
of drugs and natural substances did exist and we presuming this was
undeveloped seems
not the case. Case in point, mummification. That's still kind of
impressive even today. But
another general reference to drugs and drug use back then dates back over
200 years earlier
connected with Canaanite Baal and Asherah worship. There was a drug
involved that was
mixed with wine that caused aphysiation, which in an of itself becomes
eupphoric but at
the same time was a strong aphrodiasiac that then induced unconsciousness
but contniued
spontaneous orgasm. In the pagan worship it was used and the concept of
having sex with
someone sleeping perhaps related to the resultant pregnancy belonging to
that of a demon
or god and then that child was sacrificed, etc. There is a suggestion that
the drug was
addictive, though. At any rate, it must have been used recreationally as
well since a
connection with Sodom and Gomorrah suggests the drug-wine mixture was quite
available
and in common use, it being used by the daughters of Lot on their father.
Remember, they
each gave him wine two nights in a row without the slightest doubt about
possibly getting
pregnant by him without him having any knowledge of it at all. A drug-wine
mixture that
causes organism, likely continuous and spastic, during unconsciousness.
So in general, as we might suppose A III was perhaps too slovenly and lazy
to bother
getting into a chariot and perhaps was in great pain all the time, you have
the complex
embalming process and use of sophisticated aphrodiasiacs in use suggesting
the use of
drugs and natral substances were fairly advanced.
But thanks again for noting that likely obesity wouldn't justify the special
handling of
the mummification. But I think if he died in the Red Sea and perhaps a
degree of
decomposition had begun mixed with having been exposed tot he water, there
may
have been some need for a special process. Resin is used to glue and hold
things together
suggesting it was fragile and falling apart. Was this special process
undertaken because
the body was not immediately available after death as would certainly the be
usual case?
On the other hand, since it seems he had some type of a chronic medical
condition which
prompted the sending of the statute of Isis to him for healing might have
been some skin
condition we haven't presumed about and the special embalming was for that
condition,
not directly related to whether he actually drowned in the Red Sea or not.
??
I guess we'll never know absolutely for sure.
Thanks again for adding your comments based upon your expertise in the area.
Regards,
Larry Wilson
JTEM
Lars Wilson wrote:
> I guess we'll never know absolutely for sure.
It's a given that you never can know for sure, as that
would require you to be open to the facts.
Marian...@aol.com
Lars Wilson wrote:
>
> Hello Marianne, thanks so much, again for your background and input,
> I know you have studied all this. My general "presumptions" based
> upon a few things are:
> 1) I think they may have long ago known about natural painkillers and other
> types of drugs and sedatives (see below-off topic**). So I wouldn't venture
> too far in that direction.
I would, though, because, up to the 19th Century, modern times, there
was no better
painkiller available than laudanum, a solution of opium. Opium is
addictive if taken regularly over a period of time. There was no such
thing as an "aspirin" untile later. However, during the 19th Century,
someone came up with chloroform, which was used in some of the
childbirths of Queen Victoria, not putting her completely out but
making the process more bearable. In greater quantity, chloroform was
used in operations until better anesthetics came along. So, to assume
that the AE's knew of better painkillers than the people of the 19th
Century would be too optimistic. They knew about opium, probably, but
would haven't known enough to make a tincture of opium employing
alcohol. What they would have done with the opium to make themselves
more insensible to pain, I cannot say. But anyone who resorted to
opium for a period of time would have to become dependant upon it. And
that includes heavy amounts of alcoholic beverages, like wine, as well.
One has to drink an awful lot of wine to make one not care if one has
a toothache!
> 2) His being extremely obese and not that active I don't think would have
> prevented him from going out to watch the Jews being buthered.
Actually, when it comes right down to it, there is nothing in the Bible
that states the intention of butchering the Hebrews. Other ancient
accounts, from the writers who lived long after the fact, don't say
anything about any butchering, either. One even speaks of a treaty
with the people of Avaris, allowing them to depart in peace--see
Manetho. Here are some points to consider that tend to rule out your
theory about A III.
1. The departure seems to have been from the north of Egypt, the
Delta. In his last years, A III seems to have lived at Malkata, in the
south. So, for him to do any "chasing after" in any area that could
correspond to the exodus as described in the BOE, that would have meant
a considerable trip. It is better to consider someone who had his seat
at Memphis, the northern capital--or happened to be in the north for
some reason, such as warring there at the time--or passing through on
the way to war in the east.
2. A 3 was well known to the classic authors. Still connected to him
were the colossi of "Memnon", those great statues before his funerary
temple. In the "Tale of the Polluted Ones", the pharaoh, "Amenophis"
appears to be consulting a sage, "Amenophis son of Paapis", who has
been, rightly or wrongly, equated with Amenhotep son of Hapu who was,
indeed, a servant of A3. But, in that same tale, the next thing we
know is that "Amenophis" had a son, "Sethos also called Ramesses",
named after his grandfather. So now, at very least, "Amenophis" has to
be Merneptah, also called "Amenophis" due to the actual pronunciation
of his name. Beyond the first mention in the tale, there is no other
evidence at all from the historians connecting someone who might be A3
with an exodus.
Therefore, I'm afraid that your connecting the unusual embalming of A3
to a drowning is only the merest speculation. Interesting, but needing
more backup by way of argument than anything you have presented here so
far.
JTEM
Marian...@aol.com wrote:
> I would, though, because, up to the 19th Century, modern
> times, there was no better painkiller available than
> laudanum, a solution of opium. Opium is addictive if taken
> regularly over a period of time.
What of the reports concering traces of cocaine in ancient
Egyptian mummies?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010126.html
"...analysis had found significant traces of cocaine, nicotine,
and THC"
I realize that's there's absolutely no evidence supporting the
use of Cocaine in ancient Egypt -- apart from test results
which positively identified "significant" traces in mummies --
but I also know that the reported finding have never been
explained.
Marian...@aol.com
JTEM wrote:
> I realize that's there's absolutely no evidence supporting the
> use of Cocaine in ancient Egypt -- apart from test results
> which positively identified "significant" traces in mummies --
> but I also know that the reported finding have never been
> explained.
I think there was an attempt to explain it--but I'm no longer sure of
the details. All I can recall is that probably the traces were from
some kind of plant that was *like" cocaine but actually indigenous to
the ancient Near East. That's all I remember and I certainly don't
recall the name of the suggested plant or plants.