Research - Kartvelo-Egyptian


© Prof. Dr. Anna Meskhi Prepared for CRKC article

October 22, 2011

On Tutankhamon’s Caucasian Origin

Recently, entirely unknown aspects of Tutankhamon’s origin have been a constant focus for western press and the Internet. Georgian TV has also devoted a brief coverage to the issue on the October 23rd PostScriptum. The results of the genetic tests conducted by Swiss specialists it has been revealed that Tutankhamun’s genetic code (R1b1) is especially widespread in Europe. In Ireland haplogroup R1b1 accounts for 80%, in Britain – 70%, France –50%, Spain – 60%, and along the European English Channel coast the haplogroup accounts for 80% (Wikipedia). The intensity of the group recedes somewhat towards the east reaching down from 25% to 15% on the territory of Greece. Interestingly, the same R1b1 haplogroup is common among the population in Africa (95% in Cameroon) and Asia; however, in view of the Swiss geneticists Tutankhamon’s genetic code is of Caucasian origin.

The advanced statement is supported, and even made precise by our linguistic and culturological study whose results are already published in a separate monograph entitled Kartvelian–Sumerian–Egyptian Linguoculturology (Tbilisi, 2011). Several important strata of Egyptology are raised and discussed in the work: language, religion, writing, symbolism. For the present, paper the most significant issue is Tutankhamon’s Kartvelian origin. In Egyptian, his name is interpreted as “the living image of Amun”, which reflects the belief of the solar origin of the pharaohs accurately. Through the prism of Kartvelian languages, the name Tutankhamon consists of several components: t‘u-t‘ + an + xat + on. The mentioned items belong to the general vocabulary of the Kartvelian languages: month (t‘t‘ue, t‘ut‘a) + an + xati + oni. The collection of the lexemes, understandably, is not a proper name per-se. T‘u-t‘ + an + xat + on’s name, similar to the names of other pharaohs, are tailored at the transmission of information and not the identification of a person, which is the basic function of proper names. Therefore, to extract the informational plane of the name of Tutankhamon (T‘u-t‘ + an + xat + on) , it is necessary to decode each member of the name. Their decipherment given in different sections of the monograph, is the sum total of Egyptian and Kartvelian meanings and characterizes the young pharaoh as Image of god of writing and personification of writing (T‘u-t‘ = Thoth, An = Asomtavruli Ani, moon), the astronomy of the moon (t‘ve), and the Image of the solar city (on = Heliopolis; cf. town Oni). Obviously, the Kartvelian decoded information of the name Tutankhamon is more complete and exhaustive than its Egyptian interpretation.

Tutankhamon’ Kartvelian origin is confirmed by the etymology of Tutankhamon’s father’s and grandfather’s names – Amehotem IV and Amenhotep III. The name is the combination of two Kartvelian words. The first one, the Egyptians’ great god Amun is the demonstrative pronoun aman in Kartvelian; the second constituent is a derived word xat-eb-a, whose meaning is well known to every Georgian. Differently put, Amenhotep = aman + xateba, i.e. the image of this sun Aman (this). Consequently, the results of genetic tests on their biological relationship – son <> father <> grandfather – are also confirmed by the Kartvelian origin of their names.

In addition to the above said, the book discusses the Kartvelian origin of a number of deities and historical persons, whose study should become one of the priorities of Georgian academia. There should be no need to be informed about our contribution to world civilization from abroad. We should be trying to lift up the lost roots on our own.
At the end of the article, an excerpt from the book dealing with the Kartvelian decipherment of Tutankhamun’s name is offered (pp. 392-93). It is based on the study of the individual components of the name as well as other Egyptian divine and royal onomastics that take up more than 2/3 of the 580 page long work.
I hope the article as well as the book will contribute to the discussion not only of Tut’s ancestry, but the role of Kartvelian languages and culture to world civilization.
17. Linguistic and Cultural Analyses of Tutankhamon
The same name xati (‘image’, ‘icon’) features in the name of Pharaoh Tutankhamon who is well-known not for his deeds but rather for the treasure uncovered in his tomb undisturbed by robbers. The son-in-law (or son) of the reformer pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhetep IV ‘Aton is satisfied’) ascended the throne as Tutan-khat-on (Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth…, xvi). The name of the Pharaoh speaks volumes when scrutinized through the Kartvelian language and culturological evidence. Let us remember that the name of the Egyptian God of Writing originates from the Kartvelian word t‘u-t‘-a, t‘u-t‘-ue, t‘u-t‘-e meaning ‘moon’, ‘month’ (pp. 78-86). Let us also recall that the Moon God in the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet is Ani. The combination of the two Kartvelian words t‘u-t‘ + An produces a composite noun identical with the first part of Tutan-khat-on’s name. The two - t‘u-t‘ + An and Tutan – differ only in that the Kartvelian voiceless aspirated stop t‘ is replaced by a dental stop t. This is the sound correlation which rather approves than disapproves their identity. Moreover, it is quite possible that the Egyptian t is the rendition of the Kartvelian abruptive t’ which is frequently encountered in modern Indo-European languages when aspirated Ibero-Caucasian voiceless stops are rendered through their un-aspirated counterparts (cf. p – p‘, k – k‘, c – c‘, č -č‘) which has already been discussed during the analysis of the name of Am-Mit (an Egyptian underworld monster). Structurally, both names display the same formula: Kartvelian: t‘u-t‘ + An, and Egyptian Tut+an.

Semantically, too, the Kartvelian t‘u-t‘an and Egyptian Tutan are identical. The first element of the Kartvelian t‘u-t‘ + An, as repeatedly mentioned, signifies ‘moon’ and ‘month’, while the second item is the name of the first letter of the Asomtavruli alphabet Ani starting representing the first day of the moon calendar and signifying the ‘Moon God’ (former ‘Sky God’).
The first constituent Tut in the Egyptian Tutan, is a slightly corrupted phonetic representation of Thoth, the name of the God of Writing, while the second member an (Tutan) is phonetically completely identical with its Kartvelian counterpart (an). However, to understand the esoteric meaning of an and perceive its Kartvelian origin from the Asomtavruli Ani, we need a deeper understanding of the name within Egyptian culture. Especially helpful is the name Ani found in the famous Papyrus of Ani.

18. Linguistic and Culturological Analyses of Ani
By common consent, the Papyrus of Ani was written for Ani, a royal scribe and accountant. The Papyrus is believed to have been written during the reign of the XVII Dynasty sometime between 1500-1400 B.C. Although the given conclusions are based on a careful analysis and a thorough examination of the Papyrus, there are facts that suggest a different view. First, the Papyrus of Ani is undated. While its reasons may remain unknown, certain features, or rather the philosophical system expounded in the work, render the necessity of the exact date of the Papyrus insignificant. Here, we have to remember that despite the four editions of the Book of the Dead, the text is essentially the same starting from the Vth Dynasty up to the end of the Ptolemaic Period 30 B.C.1 and covers various aspects of the Egyptian view on life after death. Differently put, if not the desire to satisfy our curiosity with as exact information as possible, due to its contents, the Papyrus could essentially suit any date between Old Kingdom and the beginning of our era. In terms of philosophico-religious views the Book of the Dead can easily be undated, or rather have a generalized date of several millennia, and we will not err at all. In this respect, the Papyrus of Ani is a metachronological work.

The next point which supports the suggested understanding of the generalized date (metachronological date) of the Papyrus of Ani is the absence of facts about Ani’s life. The only information that we are able to gather form the Papyrus is that Ani must have been a very high ecclesiastical dignitary who held the highest possible office in a scribal career. Ani is said to be “beloved of the Lord of the North and South”, “the governor of the granary of the Lords of Abydos, scribe of divine offerings of Lords of Thebes”.1 The conclusions drawn from Ani’s titles contain no mention of the Lord whom Ani served. Moreover, all the different sections of the Papyrus were not even written for Ani and his name was added later. Differently put, the scarce information that is provided by the Papyrus presents Ani in the same rank of a generalized scribe of his Lord as the generalized date of the Papyrus.
The view finds further support in the name of Ani’s wife Thuthu, which is the same as Thoth (God of Writing) and the Kartvelian t‘u-t‘a, t‘u-t‘ue, t‘u-t‘e (‘month’, ‘moon’). The marital bond Ani+Thuthu brings into play the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet, its letters, their names and their esoteric significance. Being the name of the first letter and designating the moon and month, the Kartuli Ani incorporates the Egyptian Ani and Thuthu couple. Furthermore, the alphabetic pertinence of the Asomtavruli Ani does not only coalesce with Ani’s profession as a scribe but more importantly, agrees harmoniously with his highest
1 The four editions of the Book of the Dead are the Heliopolitan (Annu), Theban, the XXth Dynasty version, and the Saïte version.
scribal office. As a result, even if scribe Ani and his wife were real personalities, their names depict them as a divine couple whose unity rests on the complex symbolism of the Asomtavruli Ani and the Kartvelian language evidence.
The credulity of the presented analysis and its conclusions are validated by other evidence. I ask the reader to remember the analysis of the name Nebsen (The Papyrus of Nebsen) and its etymological meaning as a Kartvelian phrase ‘Let it be your (God) will’, and not a name in its present understanding.

Now, compare the names of Tutan in Tutan-khat-on and the An(i) – Thuthu pair. The only difference consists in the ordering of otherwise identical name-components (Tut-an = an(i)-Tut(u). Therefore, the name of the Pharaoh Tutan-khat-on consists of three Kartvelian roots: t‘u-t‘ + An +xat. The first member means a ‘month’ and “moon”, the second designates three concepts: the ‘Moon God’, ‘month’, and the name of a ‘writing character’, while the third stands for an ‘icon’. All put together decodes the meaning of the Pharoah’s name Tutan-khat-on as ‘the image of the Moon God, the God of Writing, and the cosmic knowledge of the universe’ (we do not touch upon the fourth component “on” in this article).

In scholars’ view, extensive use of the word xat (‘image’, ‘icon’) in pharaohs’ names was founded and “grew out of the ideas and customs of prehistoric chieftains of the Neolithic world” (Clark 1991, 30). Pharaohs believed that they were the “manifestation of the Godhead on earth, the son of God begotten through divine intervention” (ibid.). Due to their solar origin pharaohs claimed to be the image or the xati of the sun, the name used as a royal title to match and support their status and rank.