Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tut's Parentage
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it is still widely believed that the restoration parties made frequent errors of identification.'

With all the travelling around the royal mummies experienced before being removed to the cache, it's no wonder that errors were made in the original identification.
The question of the identity of the mummies has been a subject of contention since that cache was found. Some of the identification seems correct, but others are glaringly wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nekht-Ankh
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 250
Location: Manchester, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
... others are glaringly wrong.


That's a very strong statement, Osiris II. Can you back that up? I know that the identification of Tuthmosis I is now very questionable, but that mummy wasn't labelled by the priests. His identification relied on the coffin he was found in and a supposed family ressemblence to other Tuthmosids.

Wente and Harris's study is interesting, but essentially speculative. The original aim of their study was to find out whether closely related people had similar cranio-facial morphology, which they chose to do by studying the royal mummies whose relationships were known. They then turned this on it's head and decided to rewrite the relationships of the mummies on the basis of morphology. But without the foundation of a study such as the one which they originally intended, it is not known how much we can safely deduce about relationships from the skull shape.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But without the foundation of a study such as the one which they originally intended, it is not known how much we can safely deduce about relationships from the skull shape.


I would have to agree, Nekht-Ankh. And I would have to ask Osiris II if it's "widely believed" the identifications are wrong, exactly who belongs to this group who distrusts the identifications so strongly? And what is their position that would reliably disprove so many of the identifications?

I found the argument of skull morphology very interesting and thought provoking, but not decisive enough to turn orthodology on its head. Morphology alone is not enough evidence, just as the study of dentition alone is not enough to arrive at conclusive findings for the age at death of human remains. Multiple factors have to be considered.

In my own humble opinion not enough evidence has yet been found to disprove the identifications of most of the royal mummies from the Deir el-Bahri cache. Wink
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the truth lies in the middle.
There are 4, maybe 5, mummies whose identification raises some serious doubt:

1.The mummy identified as Tuthmosis I cannot be his (wrong age, according to DNA tests by Woodward this mummy is a son of Amenhotep I)

2. Amenhotep III is highly questionable due to the muffication process employed.

3. The mummy of Sety II is also highly suspicious. His mummy seems to follow mummification practices from the 18 dynasty instead of the 19th dynasty (According to a writeup I have by Forbes). And physically he does not seem to fit with the Ramesside Kings (much smaller individual etc)

4. The mummy in the boat. Some tentatively identify this mummy as Sethnakht, but the mummy was destroyed.

5? I will have to look at the details again but I have always found the identification of the Niagara / Emory mummy as Ramesses I a bit odd. The ages of Ramesses I and Sety I at death don't quite seem to match the historical record. [I will point out that I seem to be the only one who has a problem with this Very Happy ]

Added to the high number of mummies (from the New Kingdom era) that are just not labeled at all, I think being cautious when it comes to identifications seems to be prudent. It seems that the rewrapping and reburial during ancient times may have been quite confused. Not to mention that some of the mummies show signs of a lot of damage. (The bundle of reeds identified as Princess Sitamen for instance)
Added to that is the hasty excavation in the late 1890's. There's also the question about what the Rassuls did with the mummies (besides squirreling the supposed mummy of Ramesses I away).


I think there are several, as Osiris mentioned, who are generally accepted and are probably correct. From DB 320
see : http://euler.slu.edu/Dept/Faculty/bart/egyptianhtml/mummycaches/DB320%20Cache.htm
We find several well known royals and they seem identified. (Tuthmosis III and IV, Tao II, Ahmose-Nefertari and several more)
There are also 3 unknown women and 2 unknown men.

I think the mummies from the 21st dynasty are generally thought to all be correctly identified.


The mummy cache in KV 35 contained 4 unidentified individuals.
I find it interesting that these bodies were not identified. This seems to have been important. Did they not know who they were? Forget to write a little note? Smile

There's a list of these mummies here:
http://euler.slu.edu/Dept/Faculty/bart/egyptianhtml/mummycaches/KV%2035.htm


For as far as cranial morphology goes I'm not sure what it shows scientifically. It seems reasonable that some similarities might suggest a familial relationship.
I take after my dad's side of the family. It always made me wonder if future archeologist would conclude I'm not related to my mother based on the shapes of our cranium Shocked I have no idea what types of traits are inherited at the skeletal level though.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nekht-Ankh
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 250
Location: Manchester, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I think the truth lies in the middle.
There are 4, maybe 5, mummies whose identification raises some serious doubt:

And only two of these are identified by the labels of the priests who reburied them.

Quote:

1.The mummy identified as Tuthmosis I cannot be his (wrong age, according to DNA tests by Woodward this mummy is a son of Amenhotep I)

That's interesting. I didn't know that any DNA testing had been allowed on the royal mummies. I'd like to read more about that. Do you have a reference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a very informative site:
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/identifying_the_mummies.htm

Obviously, identification of the mummies relied quite heavily on the dockets and notations of the restorers. As I've said before, I'm sure mistakes happened. With all their wandering around, being robbed of all their grave goods, reburials in others' coffins, etc. it's no wonder if some were mis-identified. I never said that this was a majority of thinking, and I agree that MOST of the identification is correct, but the chance of error remains and has been posulated by several Egyptologists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rozette
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1186
Location: Belguim

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Ancient World Revealed Through DNA
Lecture by DR. Scott Woodward, Professor of Microbiology

Very informatif lecture about DNA taken from some of the Royal mummies.

http://www.egyptstudy.org/Ostracon/Greenfield_WoodwardDNA_June2001.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm very confused...
It was my understanding that the SCA did not allow any DNA testing on mummies, that they considered it to be too invasive and gave mixed results.
Was this only royal mummies? This article cites quite a few good results in DNA testing with several mummies. Could someone clear this up for me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nekht-Ankh wrote:
Quote:
That's interesting. I didn't know that any DNA testing had been allowed on the royal mummies. I'd like to read more about that. Do you have a reference?


Did you catch the link Rozette provided? I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it because this little PDF is very interesting. These DNA examinations are worth delving into. I think anneke provided it some time ago and that's where I got it, and I still have the PDF in my files.

Osiris II wrote:
Quote:
I'm very confused...
It was my understanding that the SCA did not allow any DNA testing on mummies, that they considered it to be too invasive and gave mixed results.


I'm playing the broken record here, Very Happy but do downloand that PDF in Rozette's post. It's a good read.

And until I read this PDF I had thought the same thing as you. Evidently the SCA has begun to loosen its rigid stance on this issue. The PDF is from a lecture presented in April 2001, and most of the mummies that were examined were of the royals (during some restoration work on them, if I remember correctly).

Most Egyptologists do emphasize that reliably examining the DNA of Egyptian mummies can be quite problematic. Something about the chemicals involved in the mummification process can play havoc with examination results. DNA from much more ancient remains, animal and human, has been effectively analyzed many times over, but it's generally not the same with remains from Egypt. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if they get a handle on this within our lifetimes.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nekht-Ankh
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 250
Location: Manchester, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
Did you catch the link Rozette provided?

Yes, thanks, I've just read it. Most interesting. The one thing it does clear up is that Tuthmosis I was related to Amenhotep I. The older books tend to say that he married into the royal family; more recent works have suggested he came from a junior branch of the royal family, but without much in the way of evidence.

Osiris II wrote:
It was my understanding that the SCA did not allow any DNA testing on mummies, that they considered it to be too invasive and gave mixed results.

This study seems to have been an opportunistic one. Woodward was not allowed to undertake any invasive sampling; in effect he was only allowed to use debris. The article says he was only able to get satisfactory DNA from 7 out of 11 royal mummies. For the best possibilty of obtaining results unaffected by contamination one would want to take a tooth or a piece of tissue from inside the body cavity.

kmt_sesh wrote:
Most Egyptologists do emphasize that reliably examining the DNA of Egyptian mummies can be quite problematic.

Particularly when the samples are not ideal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nekht-Ankh
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 250
Location: Manchester, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nekht-Ankh wrote:
The one thing it does clear up is that Tuthmosis I was related to Amenhotep I.


Except that mummy is probably not Tuthmosis I Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The article says he was only able to get satisfactory DNA from 7 out of 11 royal mummies. For the best possibilty of obtaining results unaffected by contamination one would want to take a tooth or a piece of tissue from inside the body cavity.


Nonetheless, a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of. Just imagine when they solve the problems with DNA testing and can reliably examine it in Egyptian mummies. It will be one of the most important research tools available to Egyptology.

And come to think of it, I would imagine one of the most expensive. Shocked Okay, everyone. Dig deep into those pockets. This research we so love to read about isn't free, you know!
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gerard
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 106
Location: France

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
About Nefertiti as Tut's mother: Gabolde claims that the baby depicted in the royal tomb may actually be Tut, and based on that he may have been Nefertiti's son. Kinda shaky for an argument I think. There is some indication that the damaged inscription may have mentioned the name of the baby and that it had a male determinative.
The text was completely erased in 1934. Egyptologist must rely on U.Bouriant photograph and EES reports. The orientation of the text is for the nurse. In Martin ''Royal Tomb II pl.63' the determinative of the name is partialy drawn, Gabolde took for a flagellum what look like a knee. I received a flow up of the scene in *.bmp format. IMO The flower of the B7 determinative can still be seen at the right of the knee. What was represented by Martin on pl.63 is not exactly what's on the photograph. Mind you getting something of a smashed text on a 1894 photograph is not easy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group