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 

KV55
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell? Is that you, Orwell? Have you really returned to us?
_________________


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


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Hey, you aven't been working as hard as I thought. I've read all the posts since I was last here - and also many before I left so as to reacquaint myself!

That Harris document sugggestsd the KV55 Mummy was older than 35!

Mystery solved? Idea

I mean - how old was Akhenaten when he died? At leasty 35? Idea


(Sigh)

The Harris "documents" are over 20 years old, and were never actually published (you are reading an abstract of what was to be presented at the Congress, above). To date, there has been no full publication of Harris and Hussein's studies, and so their method, by which they reach this conclusion, is not clear: we have no X-rays from them, a description of their standards for determining sex and age, etc, or how exactly they made their determination.

If they had indeed "solved" the issue of age of KV 55 better that Smith (1912), Derry (1931), and Harrison (1966), one would think they would be chomping at the bit to publish this information for the entire world to read and understand. But, as Lutz has noted, this abstract is all we have, and in later publications (which Lutz also cited), is all that Harris and Hussein refer to this abstract as their "proof."

The second article to which he referred (and which I have downloaded and read), from 1988, does not even mention any methods to even roughly "age" any of the skeleons in the study, but only gives general rough determination of gender (pelvises are referred to as gyanaecoid or not gynaecoid, for example) and any pathology they saw on the bones (Braunstein, White, Russell and Harris 1988: 348-349; 352). It should be noted here that of the 12 royal mummies examined (as noted in the abstract, beow), the authors did not identify any of these mummies by name.

The abstract for the Braunstein, White, et al. 1988 article states:

We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These radiographs demonstrate findings not previously described in Egyptian mummies, including congenital lunate-triquetral fusion and destructive skeletal lesions not explainable on the basis of vandalism by tomb robbers. Antemortem fractures, degenerative joint disease, and arterial vascular calcification were also seen. In 11 of the 12 cases, there was chondrocalcinosis of intervertebral discs or menisci, probably an artifact of embalming. Visceral packing and skeletal deformity due to wrapping were observed, as well. Radiology provides important paleopathologic and archeologic information for the accurate, comprehensive study of Egyptian mummies.

Both Harris and Hussein's conclusions for this older age for KV 55 certainly flies in the face of some 3 examinations prior to 1988, and in direct contradiction with the examination of 2000 by Filer. Further, much of what they wrote in 1988 has been supplanted by later investigations into the KV 55 mummy - mainly, by the 2010 DNA analysis (Hawass, Gad, et al.).

In short - whoever KV 55 is - he is a direct sibling of KV35YL, and both are descendants of Tiye and Amenhotep III. Both KV 55 and KV 35YL are the parents of Tutankhamun.

Now: if KV 35YL is a sibling of KV 55, this may argue against KV 55 being Akhenaten as he is not recorded to have married any of his sisters (and there were a number of them). The whole schmegegge about Nefertiti's titles/lack of daughter/descendant titles also tells you that she is not a royal sibling of KV 55, nor is she a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Hence, she is not KV 35YL.

Further, the remains of KV 21A (thought to be Ankhsenamun) shows that she is also not related to KV 55 - nor to KV 35YL - which means that - whoever KV 55 is - he is NOT Akhenaten, nor is KV 35YL Nefertiti, who is Ankhsenamun's attested mother. Meanwhile, KV 21A appears to match the DNA of the mummified foetuses, thought to be the children of Tutankhamun and Ankhsenamun.

What I find unfathomable is why none of this seems to make any difference to you: you seem hellbent on proving that KV 55 is a) older than all forensic examinations state that he is (which is early to mid 20's at death), and b) that somehow, no matter what facts present themselves, he has to be Akhenaten. I cannot understand why you are determined to take this position.

Reference:

Braunstein, E. M., S. J. White, et al. 1988. Paleoradiologic evaluation of the Egyptian royal mummies. Skeletal Radiology 17/5: 348-352.

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-119.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/Autumn: 13-14.

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Hawass, Z., Y. Z. Gad, et al. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. Journal of the American medical Association 303/7: 638-647.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Hey, you aven't been working as hard as I thought. I've read all the posts since I was last here - and also many before I left so as to reacquaint myself!

That Harris document sugggestsd the KV55 Mummy was older than 35!

Mystery solved? Idea

I mean - how old was Akhenaten when he died? At leasty 35? Idea


Orwell, barring an examination of these bones by a team of noted forensic scientists who have no particular Egyptological ax to grind and who have no idea of who it's supposed to be, this puzzle will never be solved to the satisfaction of all.

I suggest a seance in the mummy room of the Cairo Museum. Perhaps a voice from beyond the grave will clear it all up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's the thing about the tarpits, Katherine, old theories NEVER go away no matter what evidence surfaces to invalidate them! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neseret: What I find unfathomable is why none of this seems to make any difference to you: you seem hellbent on proving that KV 55 is a) older than all forensic examinations state that he is (which is early to mid 20's at death), and b) that somehow, no matter what facts present themselves, he has to be Akhenaten. I cannot understand why you are determined to take this position.

I admit to taking a light humored approach in my posts, Neseret, for all that I find the subject fascinating and worthy of serious discussion, but I am 'hell bent' on nothing. Like everyone here, I can't prove the 'age' of the mummy. It is simply not an open and shut case either way when different researchers can still argue for different 'ages'. I fear it is you who is 'hell bent" on your beliefs, and 'belief' is generally no proof of anything.

Yes, Akhenaten is as good as guess as any at the moment, but I say it with no confidence nor longing. I don't care if it turns out to be him or not. The idea is clearly not as important to me as it is to you.

I take a view that investigating things without fear or favour, and with a mind like a parachute (if it isn't open it doesn't work) is a rational approach to take. I have taken into account the views of others here, btw, and I respect them all. But it is a scientific principle, surely, that all ideas and 'facts' are open for discussion and worthy of testing and constant re-assessin
_________________
I've discovered that finding out what 'facts' actually exist and weighing them and thinking on what they might mean is more fun and challenging than pursuing my other hobby here - trying to form wild theories!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neseret's point is that Akhenaten is NOT as good a guess as Smenkhkara but requires a bit of a stretch, several exceptions to the rule AND the latest Akhi supporters haven't troubled to document their evidence but just declaimed it ex-cathedra.

It would be nice to have Akhenaten's remains. It would be a heck of a lot simpler if he was Tutankhamun's father. BUT the forensic evidence does NOT support that theory. Boo Hooo.

I've managed to get over losing my favorite scenario (Smen and Tut as the sons of Akhi and Kiya) others have not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if with the best will in the world Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV would have to be around thirty at death (if, say, he was only thirteen or fourteen when he came to the throne, which he would have to have been since he had at least one child + seventeen year reign). Most evidence points to the body in the coffin being no older than twenty five at the outside. I believe there was only one examiner, out of five, who gave an older age.

It would certainly be convenient if the body was that of Akhenaten, since the coffin would appear to be his, but the cache in which it was found was completely out of its original context. There were numerous relics from other individuals involved as well; the shrine of Tye, (possibly) Kyja's canonic jars and a "brick" of Akhenaten. The body in the coffin could easily be that of another son of Amenhotep III. If the burial had been intact, like that of Tutankhamen, or if there had been a substantial number of goods belonging unmistakably to Akhenaton, then it might be easier to say that the body must be that of Akhenaten because of context. But all the Amarna era burials seem to be scattered hither and yon, with the exception of Tutanhkamon.

It seems to me that the only thing we can say with any assurance is that the body in KV55 is that of the father of Tutankhamen based on DNA testing. Perhaps we would do better to work backward from there.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only clear 'fact' as I see it is that we don't know who the mummy in KV55 is.

None of the evidence I have seen so far proves it is Smenkhare, or Akhenaten, or someone else.

How anyone can suggest it is NOT Akhenaten more certainly (or less certainly) than it IS Akhenaten is beyond me.

The evidence presented on this thread and in the other stuff I have either been directed to by the good folk here or that I have gone and found myself, can establish nothing to a satisfactory and rational standard of proof.

One guess is as good as any other from what I can see. This is why I enjoy this mystery so much. No one is an expert in the sense of having a better portion of the truth than the next man (or woman).
_________________
I've discovered that finding out what 'facts' actually exist and weighing them and thinking on what they might mean is more fun and challenging than pursuing my other hobby here - trying to form wild theories!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are not talking 'proof' - archaeologists almost NEVER have conclusive evidence for ANYTHING - but the balance of probabilities. For KV55 to be Akhenaten we must postulate a number of biological peculiarities and exceptions to make the remains a suitable age. None of which is necessary for Smenkhkara. Occam's Razor applies.

It is barely possible that KV55 is NEITHER Akhenaten OR Smenkhkara, but not terribly probable. The one thing that's certain is he WAS Tutankhamun's father and a son of Tiye and Amenhotep III
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The peculiarity to me is that how the idea it could be Akhenaten is so untenable when there are several 'proven' attestations to him (proven in name only, of course!) while a pharaoh who isn't named (attested) in the tomb MUST be the mummy.

As to the age of the mummy, there appear to be dissenting voices and views among academics, so this emphasis purely on the 'age' of the mummy (at death) may well be disproportionate. I can't dismiss the view of 'Akhenaten' believing academics because someone like Neseret scoffs at the idea.

As to age there could be three obvious posibilities. If I sat back and thought longer about it, I'm sure there would be more than three, but for all that, here are my three 'obvious' possibilities as they stand.

(1) The academics who argue for a 'young' age - so it can't be Akhenaten based on other (apparent) evidence for Akhenaten;

(2) The academics who argue for an 'older' age - so it might indeed be Akhenaten, based on the attestations to him in the tomb;

(3) If the mummy is Akhenaten, but the mummy seems too 'young', perhaps the other known evidence might be re-examined to see how a 'young' (but dead) Akhenaten can be accounted for. One wildly speculative example: what if Amenophis (his Dad) built the city at Amarna 'for' his son when Akhenaten was but a child? A co-regency may allow the possibility? Tiye's presence might even suggest a kind of regency there. Tiye's and Amenophis' attestation on the lintel (I think?) of an Amarnan tomb, may suggest even that Amenophis was interred at Amarna at one point? No? (Oh well, but you can't tell me it's not a juicy idea to chew on!) This is just one 'idea' that comes to mind, I don't propose it as any kind of hellbent theory of mine. Think of it as a potential prompt for possible further 'brain storming' perhaps!

It's an interesting thought to me that if evidence was suddenly discovered and produced which clearly suggested Akhenaten was much younger at time of death than we currently think, then no one would dispute that Akhenaten was the mummy. It's ony the 'age' of the mummy (at death) argument that some here find so impossible to countenance that it is Akhenaten - and, of course, quite reasonably so, though depending on which academics we choose to believe in.

No, I'm not saying it is Akhenaten btw! I swear I don't know who the mummy is!
_________________
I've discovered that finding out what 'facts' actually exist and weighing them and thinking on what they might mean is more fun and challenging than pursuing my other hobby here - trying to form wild theories!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I enjoy your thought mongering, Orwell. Wink but, just the be clear, Neseret is not the only one who disputes the claim that the KV55 body is Akhenaten, not by a long shot.

Anyway, I think, fwiw, that it is an interesting thought exercise to try to look at Akhenaten's reign in a different light. It's unlikely the Amenhotep III built Aketaten, because if he had there most certainly would have been inscriptional evidence. Akhenaten himself takes full credit there in many inscriptions and stele saying that he and he alone established the city(boundary stele k, I believe). It is entirely possible though that he was much younger than we usually picture him. Even pubescent, perhaps. Much of his headstrongness and lack of foresight might support this. Not to mention his particular ideas about art and the human form. Having taught young art students I see much of the same sort of esthetic mixed with lack of technique. Now all of the artisans of the time gave the king direct credit as the one who "instructed" them in this new esthetic. To me that's a bit telling. It's as if they didn't want posterity to mistakenly assign the blame on them. Laughing Not that certain aspects of his naturalistic style aren't quite sublime. And I know that most Egyptologist consider his style to be a deliberate distancing of himself from his subjects. Still, it's interesting that as he matured the style he dictated became much softer and truly realistic, which is also common among teenaged artists.

Also, consider this; when one looks at the coffins we can directly associate with the burial of the kv55 mummy and Tutankhamen we have to realize that there are a number of key figures missing - namely Nefernefruaten and/or Ankhkeprure, whose coffin was repurposed for the burial of Tutankhamen. Where is that body then? And is it possible that kv55 is actually that individual?

So many questions. Wink
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the open minded response, my friend. Refreshingg.

Yes, I do enjoy my thought mongering. It's how I am. (Useful techniquie if you're a cop too, I reckon).

I hurry to aver that any mongering on my part (while generally in good humour) is for serious reasons. Relaxing and listenning to the views of others - genuinely doing so - is a healthy intellectual practice in my opinion.

As to Neseret, I don't accuse her of being the only one who holds an opinion. And I don't reject her for that either. She does - and she may not be aware of it - sound a bit pompous and presents I-am-Wiser-than-thee attitude. I may be taking her the wrong way btw, and misunderstanding the drift of her motives, I concede that. She may be wiser than thee (and me) but it is an attitude that does rile me up a bit! And that's not good, is it, because I am here to listen, learn, laugh and speculate. (I can't think of a word for 'speculate' that starts with 'L' - sorry about that).

For the sake of discussion, I would suggest a possibility that Tiye could have seen to it that Akhenaten had his name on everything at Amarna, evemn if Amenophis was paying, because the issue of legitimizing Akhenaten as Heir (or Co-Regent) might have been important at the time. Maybe Akhenaten sat on her knee and sked, "Mummy, can I have my own city, please?" And Mother answered, "Let's see what Daddy says?" Mother's can be overindulgent at times. (I suspect Tiye ruined that boy! Isn't it always the Mother's fault?)

Your thoughts on the art of the time seem very plausible to me btw.
_________________
I've discovered that finding out what 'facts' actually exist and weighing them and thinking on what they might mean is more fun and challenging than pursuing my other hobby here - trying to form wild theories!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4173
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gay Robins : The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence. - In: Göttinger Miszellen - GM - 45. - 1981. - pp. 63 - 68, on page 66:



Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

For the sake of discussion, I would suggest a possibility that Tiye could have seen to it that Akhenaten had his name on everything at Amarna, evemn if Amenophis was paying, because the issue of legitimizing Akhenaten as Heir (or Co-Regent) might have been important at the time. Maybe Akhenaten sat on her knee and sked, "Mummy, can I have my own city, please?" And Mother answered, "Let's see what Daddy says?" Mother's can be overindulgent at times. (I suspect Tiye ruined that boy! Isn't it always the Mother's fault?)


Here's some things to keep in mind.

Akhenaten wasn't the oldest child; he was the second son. There was never any question of 'legitimizing' him as heir.

Akhetaten wasn't started until Year 6 of his reign. By then he would have been long past the "Mommy, get it for me stage". He would have been at the "Vizier, do this for me" stage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the age of around 35 comes from a 17 year reign, which right in year 1, he has a daughter alreay depicted in monuments. that makes him around 12-14 at accession at the earliest. and some people claim the ancient egyptians hit puberty later, which if possible would make him even older when he fathered his child and acceeded the throne.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 29 of 32

 
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