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 

KV 21 mummies and DNA tests
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kevin
Admin/Admun/Admen
Admin/Admun/Admen


Joined: 04 Jun 2003
Posts: 1109
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
when I tried to post my reply (it took about an hour to think it all out in a reasonable and lucid manner!) I got logged out and lost it all.
Its due to session time out. When you log in you create a session on the server. If there is inactivity for a long period of time (I think 20 mins in this case) the session times out and is cleared. If it didn't clear then there would be thousands of sessions still active and the server would become overloaded and grind to a halt. It's the same on any non-static web site. Typing a post doesn't create activity because until you hit preview or submit nothing is being transferred between you and the server. When making a long post hit the preview button before the 20 mins is up as this will renew the session and prevent the time out. Hope that helps.
_________________
"Man fears Time - but Time fears the pyramids" - Old Egyptian saying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Or do not close your web browser and use his rewind button. So you come back to your text and than you "Copy" it and "Paste" after new login. With my browser (Firefox) this works ...

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That makes sense. Thanks guys. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

So no 'strong' reason to suggest a close relationship? I mean, are we saying here that these 'non-exluding' factors could, say, suggest a mother, an aunt, a sister? Or maybe suggest a 'family' member from somewhere in the 'family tree'?

I think it could be Ankhesenamun. The DNA does not seem quite strong enough to exclude the possibility of it being one of her sisters? But given that the woman was buried with one arm bent I suspect that it is more likely to be Ankhesenamen. My point was not really to suggest it would be someone else. More so to point out the DNA is not conclusive here and that the limited sequence should be kept in mind.

Orwell wrote:
Or even, a non-member, who has certain genetic factors that are coincidentally similar to some found in the foetuses?

I personally find that to be a bit more unlikely.

Orwell wrote:

"Likely' but not certain, is that what you mean? Could KV55 have a close familial association with Tutankhamen? An Uncle or Brother as examples, or 'father' as stated, or, even if weird to say, a Son? I'm talking about the likelihood of DNA matches here, I'm definitely not suggesting other evidence supports KV55 being Tut's son.

Maybe even "very likely" but not (100%) certain. But definitely as close an argument in favor of being "daddy" as we can expect.

Orwell wrote:
Right, so we can't close the door on KV55 being Akhenaten quite yet. Is that a reasonable point to make?

LOL Even though the door is not entirely closed, I think the poor guy would be squeezing through a very tight space though....

Quote:
anneke wrote:
And she cannot be the daughter of KV55 and KV35YL based on one of the markers on D21S11.


Does this mean that this 'one of the markers' excludes the possibility, or that we haven't got enough 'markers' to decide one way or the other?

It excludes that possibility. (could be daughter of one or the other I think - I woould have to check again - but not both)


Quote:
Quote:
KV21a cannot be a daughter of Amenhotep and Tiye, which suggests that she is not a sister of KV35YL.


Okay. What about a daughter or niece of KV35YL? (May be doubling up here, but I'm trying to avoid being confused).

Daughter seems unlikely? Then KV35YL would have had 2 husbands? Not sure about a niece. Maybe?


Quote:
anneke wrote:
Quote:
(6) KV 35 EL is Mother of both KV55 and KV35 YL.


Her DNA is consistent with being the mother of that couple.


Consistent, but perhaps not Certain?

As close to certain as we can be based on the data. I think the only other alternative would be that one of KV55 and KV35 YL was actually a child of Amunhotep and a very close relative of Tiye? But that opens up a whole new can of worms. I do not see anything that would suggest that they are not full siblings. Well except that this was not known from the archaeological record.


Pheww hope I got the indented quotes right!
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
[I think it could be Ankhesenamun. The DNA does not seem quite strong enough to exclude the possibility of it being one of her sisters? But given that the woman was buried with one arm bent I suspect that it is more likely to be Ankhesenamen. My point was not really to suggest it would be someone else. More so to point out the DNA is not conclusive here and that the limited sequence should be kept in mind.


We're discussing this on two threads! Laughing Anyhow - if I read the bit hightlighted in red - we can't be sure (without other evidence intruding) that the idea that KV21A and Tutankhamen are siblings can't be confirmed from the DNA. But (without other evidence intruding) does the DNA suggest it as very likely. That is, the DNA could not easily suggest another more distant relationship?

anneke wrote:
I personally find that to be a bit more unlikely.


Can you explain why you think that? Please exclude reference to any non-DNA evidence you know of. I want to know what it is specifically about the DNA tests that make you say it.

(I have read your entire post, Annekke, but I'm honing in the above stuff for clarity's sake).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Annkke. Above should be -

Orwell wrote: "Or even, a non-member, who has certain genetic factors that are coincidentally similar to some found in the foetuses?"

Annekke wrote: "I personally find that to be a bit more unlikely."

Orwell wrote: "Can you explain why you think that? Please exclude reference to any non-DNA evidence you know of. I want to know what it is specifically about the DNA tests that make you say it."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Is there nothng we can call 'agreed evidence' in Egyptology? Laughing


Not when it comes to anything touching Amarna! :lol


That's why we call them the tarpits!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 238

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, there are many worthy and very interesting posts here. However, there is something missing I think, something also missing from the Hawas documentary. There is much about DNA etc, which is of course important, but sometimes simple gut feeling can also provide an answer. Before seeing documentary I did not know about mummies in KV21, so had no preconceived ideas of who they may be. Yet, as soon as Hawas pulled the cloth from mummy of older lady and exposed her jawline, I immediatly thought this was Nefertiti. Jawline is remarkably like her bust, yet it seems I am alone in noticing this.........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EgyptianRose
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 251
Location: Australia. Down Under.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
Well, there are many worthy and very interesting posts here. However, there is something missing I think, something also missing from the Hawas documentary. There is much about DNA etc, which is of course important, but sometimes simple gut feeling can also provide an answer. Before seeing documentary I did not know about mummies in KV21, so had no preconceived ideas of who they may be. Yet, as soon as Hawas pulled the cloth from mummy of older lady and exposed her jawline, I immediatly thought this was Nefertiti. Jawline is remarkably like her bust, yet it seems I am alone in noticing this.........


I agree, we shouldn’t leave it all to DNA! Smile Is it at all possible that Neferteti and Akhenaten were related (full brother and sister) what so ever? I did read on this forum somewhere that it is sometimes extremely hard to differentiate the statues of Akhenaten and Neferteti from one and other, I completely agree with this. The odds are against me though...
_________________
It is of course the hieght of irony that, after this intensive campaign to expunge them from the annals of Egypt, the Amarna pharaohs are today probably the most recognized of all the country's ancient rulers!

Quote 'Amarna Sunset' by Aidan Dodson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

there is no evidence that nefertiti was related to akhenaten. looking at the nobility in any country though, you will see links with the royal family. the modern british aristocracy descends from charles II, and most definently from edward III. so nefertiti may have had distant royal blood.

if you look at the DNA sequencing, tut's babies have inherited DNA from thuya, tiye's mother, that has not come down from tiye. so this means their mother is a female relative of thuya's. daughter, sister, cousin etc. it has long been thought nefertiti was a grandchild of yuya and thuya, hence tiye's niece. most put ay as her father, and tiye's brother. which is plausible, but it is based on him holding similar titles to yuya. i suspect ay married tiye's sister, if nefertiti is tiye's niece.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 273

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a lot of "ifs" here!

This post is an attempt to get the facts straight for myself, I hope this is helpful to others.

We start with the "knowns" - Tutankhamun, Yuya and Thuya were all found in their original places of burial, all are named multiple times and their DNA is related (they are his great-grandparents).

The foetuses in Tutankhamun's tomb are his children.

The mummy known previously as KV35 Elder Lady (or EL) is the daughter of Yuya and Tuya, therefore Tiye. As an aside, this mummy closely resembles known images of Tiye right down to the hairstyle shown at Amarna and on her shrine.

Tiye only had one known husband, Amenhotep III, and the mummy labelled as that King does turn out to have DNA that makes him an ancestor of Tutankhamun, so it seems likely that this is a correct identification.

Tiye and Amenhotep III are the mother and father of the KV35 younger lady (KV35YL) mummy and of the remains found in KV55, who are full brother and sister. KV55 and KV35YL are the parents of Tutankhamun but KV35YL is NOT the grandmother of the foetuses in Tutankhamun's tomb. I believe that this proves she is not Nefertiti.


1) The DNA findings suggest that the mother of the foetuses in Tutankhamun's tomb is one of the mummies from KV21, known as KV21A.

2) If this is Akhenesenamun (and not an unknown secondary wife of Tutankhamun) then the KV35 younger lady cannot be Nefertiti, because the KV21 mummies (who appear to be sisters) have DNA alleles that so not appear with the rest (Tutankhamun, Amenhotep III, Tiye, KV55 (Akhenaten or Smenkhkare) or KV35YL). This different DNA must have come from their mother - unquestionably Nefertiti according to many examples of inscriptional evidence. That is assuming that KV21A is not an unknown wife of Tut - which seems unlikely as no other wife is known from his almost complete tomb or from any other inscription.

3) However, and this is where it gets tricky, it's by no means certain that the KV21 ladies are the daughter of KV55 - which they should be if that mummy is Akkenaten. They are definitely not the daughters of KV35YL.

4) So we can't yet really have the remains of Akhenaten or Nefertiti.

5) This means by implication that KV55 is Smenkhkare (and that he was a younger son of Amenhotep III and Tiye), and that he was married to a full sister - and they were the parents of Tutankhamun.

So, in conclusion, the KV21A mummies point towards the existence of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, though we may never find their mummies we can understand:

a) Akhenaten was the son of Tiye and Amenhotep III - and this is backed up by a lot of inscriptional evidence
b) Nefertiti was not the child of Tiye and Amenhotep III, which fits with other evidence (we don't know her parentage).

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

5) This means by implication that KV55 is Smenkhkare (and that he was a younger son of Amenhotep III and Tiye), and that he was married to a full sister - and they were the parents of Tutankhamun.

That's certainly the way I see it. Granted it does make things rather more complicated but royal families and successions often are complicated. Given Tutankhamun's age he had to have been born during Akhenaten's reign which raises the question of how common the marriages of princesses to secondary sons was. Was this a deliberate and obviously political move to supply an alternative line of succession or was it a routine arrangement for providing a royal daughter with a husband of suitable rank?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ик&am wrote:
Well, there are many worthy and very interesting posts here. However, there is something missing I think, something also missing from the Hawas documentary. There is much about DNA etc, which is of course important, but sometimes simple gut feeling can also provide an answer. Before seeing documentary I did not know about mummies in KV21, so had no preconceived ideas of who they may be. Yet, as soon as Hawas pulled the cloth from mummy of older lady and exposed her jawline, I immediatly thought this was Nefertiti. Jawline is remarkably like her bust, yet it seems I am alone in noticing this.........


I think I share your gutfeeling to some extent, but first I want to make sure we are talking about the same mummies.
You talk about an older lady from KV21, but the designation "older lady" is usually given to one of the female mummies from KV35.
The KV21 mummies are only told apart by the letters A and B and not by age because they are both estimated to have been about 25 to 40 years old at death.
But probably you know all that and just mixed it up by mistake.

To come to the point, when I saw the features of the KV21 mummy (and there is only one who`s head is preserved) in the docu I thought like you that they are very regular and well formed and indeed resemble those seen in Neferetiti`s bust.
I had mentioned this thought in one of my posts in one of the threads that followed the release of the DNA data, but due to the vast amount of posts at that time looking for it would be worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack, so I do not even try.

The thing is what we do with that "gutfeeling". Not much probably because it could be Nefertiti or one of her daughters or her sister or even someone else entirely (though this is maybe not so likely).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 238

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is mummy KV21B, as I think KV21A is the one without a head. I think sometimes it is as good to charge through front door than creep around back of house, climb onto roof, make elaborate preperations to climb down chinney, tick some boxes, do "health and safety" check and such and so forth. Perhaps until we know exactly who Nefertiti is, then all options are still open, and then I think we will never know full truth without time machine.

Likely this is last post with this ridiculous username. I accidently entered my username in Cyrillics, so unless admin can change this, then I will have to open new account, as Ikon, probably.....Admin - Already done Wink
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
Page 5 of 5

 
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