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 ... 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
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have read numerous places that aging ancient bodies is very problematic even with modern advanced forensics.

Case in point;Atherosclerosis in Ancient Egyptian Mummies - http://imaging.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1110017

Using multislice computer tomography scanning they were able esstimate the age at the time of death of 52 mummies as well as locate calcification on numerous arteries. Though they did allow for a variable of about nine years, which puts us back to square one.
Laughing

The mummy could be Akhenaten or it could be Smenkara. Whoever it was was a full son of Amenhotep III and GRW Tye. But keep in mind this individual fathered Tutankhamen by his full sister. There is no record of Akhenaten having a sister-wife, who would have been the daughter of a king as well as king's wife and therefore would have trumped Nefertiti in prestige. And I rather doubt Tye would have stood by while one of her own daughter's position was usurped. It seems improbable that is woman, kv25yl, daughter of Amenhotep III and Great Royal Wife Tye was a minor or secondary wife of Akhenaten. In this instance the lack of inscriptional evidence at Amarna for such a prestigious woman may also point to the fact that she was not married to Ankhenaten. Smenkara is connected, though tenuously, to a co-regency with Akhenaten and a marriage to Meritaten, Akhenaten's daughter by Nefertiti. Once again, there is no mention anywhere of a daughter of AmenhotepIII. The body in kv55 may be that of another king altogether, namely Ankheperura, whose coffin was repurposed in Tutankhamen's burial. This individual could have been a younger son of the old king and queen, set up as king at the death of the other Amarna royals because he had a living male heir, Tutankhamen.

*waits for lutz to tell me I'm from mars*
_________________
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
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
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).


If I come off as "pompous" it may be because I have well over 30+ years' experience in this field - as a scholar, an instructor, and at the level of 'expert' in various areas of the field of Egyptology. I assume you count such experience as something worth valuing?

If I come off as "wiser than thee", it may be that whatever you have argued - one way or another - I have considered it myself - tested it - run proofs against each theory - and, finally, used Occam's Razor* as a valid way of determining the value of other theories. While that doesn't mean I have all the answers, I'm darned closer to the truth than chasing after invalid theories as something to hang my argumentative hat upon, as you often seem fond of of doing.

What I would have thought - based upon your profession as a police officer - that you would value logic, credible information, and reasonable deduction - all of which I have attempted to present in regard to KV 55.

I personally do not know who the KV 55 remains are: based upon every credible examination that I have read and that has been published to submit until logical scrutiny, they belong to a male (this is well established, as every examination published (and most of the non-published ones, as Lutz's example of Harris and Hussein shows) state this as a fact. Thus, the remains are most likely not those of the "King Neferneferuaten/Ankhkheperure" (female king), as Ankhetmaatre opined earlier.

Further, every published examination of the KV 55 remains, that has been open to considerable scholarly scrutiny, shows that the remains are those of an individual with an age from early to mid-20's at time of death. Those experts who have a background in pathology and anatomy all appear to agree on this conclusion. Whether such an age rules out Akhenaten completely has to bear on sheer facts of mathematics:

IF the KV 55 individual is 20-25 years of age at death (as attested in Smith 1912; Derry 1931, Harrison 1966, and Filer 2000);

and

IF Akhenaten is attested to have had a 17-year reign and, during such period, fathered 6 daughters, one of which was a walking toddler at time of his accession to the throne (Smith and Redford 1976), then he would have had to be (at a minimum) at least 29 years of age at death, and probably older.

ERGO: the KV 55 remains cannot be Akhenaten.

Those who have disagreed about the age of the KV 55 remains (Harris and Hussein (1988), and Hawass (in Hawass, Gad, et al, 2010)) have not published a full and complete treatise on how they came to their conclusions for an older age: for this reason, their theories have not been very seriously considered by most scholars. Where the information included has been discussed (usually in abstracts and public lectures, as we have discussed), each theory has been critically assessed by many scholars in the field of medicine and Egyptology, and found (for lack of a better word) wanting. While this does not completely rule out such theories, it does seem that real facts are needed, and in more detail, none of which have yet been presented.

What I have noted about the DNA results of the 2010 study - most of which still needs independent verification, BTW - also argues against KV 55 being Akhenaten as well (for reasons I noted in my previous post). So, these are two very valid reasons to believe that KV 55 is NOT Akhenaten.

I DO understand the "fun" of highflying wild theories just for the hell of it: gods know, we have all done this at one time or another. But it's when someone wants to take a wild theory and hangs on to it - when facts show so much evidence otherwise - it truly becomes an unproductive exercise, and is a waste of everyone else's time, trying to set the record straight.

I believe in giving as much facts as possible and then let the issues normally speak for themselves: but, to do so effectively, I also believe you need to use discrimination is determining what information out there is actually "credible" and what is simply "shooting from the hip," without any verifiable support for their position. Only then can the maze which is KV 55 become more clear, and only then Occam's Razor* can be applied.
-----
* For those not familiar with the term "Occam's Razor": Also called lex parsimoniae, it is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

The razor asserts that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced. This principle is sometimes phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity").

The razor's claim that "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones" is amenable to empirical testing. The procedure to test this hypothesis would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. The validity of Occam's razor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would lend support to its use).
-----
So, you can most certainly consider me with an "attitude," or as "pompous and presents I-am-Wiser-than-thee attitude," but that tells me more about you than I think it does about me. I see myself as presenting - as objectively as I can - the facts of the situation, with cited information in support of these facts. One thing I don't think you can claim is that I don't give you well-reasoned facts, with the means to verify and learn for yourself.

What you do (or don't) with such facts is ultimately up to you: as my Father used to say, "You certainly can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink (or think)."

Reference:

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.

Hussein, F and J. E. Harris. 1988. The Skeletal Remains from Tomb No. 55. In Fifth International Congress of Egyptology - Cairo 29. Oktober - 3. November 1988 - Abstracts of Papers: 140 - 142. - Cairo : E.A.O. Press,

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.

Smith, R. W. and D. B. Redford 1976. The Akhenaten Temple Project. Vol. I: Initial Discoveries. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

I'm now done with this discussion. I don't think I need to be insulted by someone who feels that "anything goes" makes a valid argument, and that those who attempt to keep the discussion 'on track' are somehow "pompous" or whatever. That is not a valid debate tool: never has been.

If anyone is really serious about this discussion in terms of examining the theories on KV 55, with a logical mind, in hopes of coming to some viable conclusions, I'm always open to talk about the topic with them.

Done for now.
_________________
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
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the undeniable fact that KV55 is a cache the presence of items with Akhi's name at BEST indicate that his body was there - not that KV55 was that body. It could also indicate Left over equipment of Akhi's being used for a short lived, unpopular successor. In any case it is FAR from a conclusive counter to the forensic evidence which so many seem so willing to explain away or ignore.

I repeat: I have no problem with KV55 being Akhenaten, in my opinion given his paternity of Tut and apparent marriage to a royal princess it would be a *Heck* of a lot simpler if he WAS Akhi as opposed to Smen. I do not, however, like the sweeping of forensic evidence under the carpet required to make it so.
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: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Thus, the remains are most likely not those of the "King Neferneferuaten/Ankhkheperure" (female king), as Ankhetmaatre opined earlier.


I was not aware that the theory of the female king had been verified and was an accepted fact. I know Nicholas' Reeves feels that it is based upon one instance of the name rendered in the feminine and certain alterations to the coffin and mask as stated in this article: http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx?category=Press&id=332

.. but I had not heard that the scholarly community at large was in complete agreement. I thought the opposite in fact.

I stand corrected.
_________________
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
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't read any comment on the fact that the body in kv55 and kv35yl are full brother and sister and children of Amenhotep and Tye. I'm very curious as to what the scholarly community makes of this in light of the fact that there is no inscriptional evidence or documentation of any sort for a daughter of Amenhotep at Aketaten.
_________________
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 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to zip off to work, so I popped in for a quick read. Good to see the discussion goes on. Some quick comments though. I am a cop and married to a teacher. Many cops and teachers I have met over many many years have had many many years of investigative and research experience. Alas! None of that necessarily makes what they say more accurate or factual, or their theories of themselves more salient than that of others, expert or not. Indeed, I have known plenty who are poor cops and poor teachers. Also, I don't hold hard to any theories, no matter how many times someone repeats that misinformation. I do, however, not discount out of hand the theories of experts who disagree with you, Neseret. (This is not to say yiou can't be right, btw, just that I assess the views of other experts as best I can as I assess yours, Neseret). I say, I think I'm on te cusp of an Egyptological feud! But over what? My goodness, I don't even hold (at all) to an Egyptological Theory as yet! How peculiar!
_________________
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
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
I haven't read any comment on the fact that the body in kv55 and kv35yl are full brother and sister and children of Amenhotep and Tye. I'm very curious as to what the scholarly community makes of this in light of the fact that there is no inscriptional evidence or documentation of any sort for a daughter of Amenhotep at Aketaten.


I guess it's possible - at the (apparent) risk of sounding like a confirmed Akhenatenist - that Akhenaten could have bonked his sister. I guess that would not necessarily have been chiselled on a monument though. Is it impossible Akhenaten - or improbable? - that Akhenaten sired a child on a Sister?
_________________
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
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have had another quick flyover of the posts on this thread.

One question leads to ten more! Idea

I've decided to find out a bit more about Smenkhare. I'll stick my question in this thread, as Smenkhare is said to be the mummy in KV55, so this seems as good a place as any to discuss him.

What is the agreed view as to who he was?
_________________
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: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I guess it's possible - at the (apparent) risk of sounding like a confirmed Akhenatenist - that Akhenaten could have bonked his sister. I guess that would not necessarily have been chiselled on a monument though. Is it impossible Akhenaten - or improbable? - that Akhenaten sired a child on a Sister?


Personally, I think it's unlikely that a high ranking princess, of higher rank than either Nefertiti or Kija, AND mother of a male heir could have lived at Akhetaten without having had her own palace or at least a sunshade temple.

It SEEMS as if, - this being more a postulation than an outright opinion - that kv35yl was not an acknowledged wife of Akhenaten, and because of the rank of the princess she would not have been treated like a minor concubine and ignored. Therefore it SEEMS unlikely to me that Akhenaten is the father of Tutankhamen.

Smenkhare also presents the same problem. His documented wife while he was king was Meritaten. Though it could be that kv35yl was an earlier wife who died.

All of this relates to who the body in kv55 belongs to, if you follow me, because kv55 (a royal prince) and kv35yl (a royal princess) are the parents of Tutankhamen.

As far as who Smenkhare was there are a number of books published which discuss him. Nicolas Reeves' Akhenaten; Egypt's False Prophet being one.

He is more ephemeral and difficult to pin down than Akhenaten though, so good luck.
_________________
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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4176
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like Katherine, I think it probably all has been said on the subject. As long as no new facts come into the play (for example, a clear and full presentation of the study by Harris / Hussein from 1988, a cross-check of the DNA results from 2010), it makes little sense to repeat again and again, ultimately the same arguments.

BTW (and sure OT), the last two contributions by Katherine (neseret) are quite outstanding examples of serious Egyptological publication has to look like in a short and compact form. The author clarifies its position and is called the sources for it. Own opinions are clearly distinguished from acquired from others. She indicates to the contrary opinions and cites also here the sources. Unfortunately, of course not necessarily in Egyptology...

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: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough, I s'pose.

I think I'll go back to the sources again, Lutz

--- for the time being anyway! Smile
_________________
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: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
I haven't read any comment on the fact that the body in kv55 and kv35yl are full brother and sister and children of Amenhotep and Tye. I'm very curious as to what the scholarly community makes of this in light of the fact that there is no inscriptional evidence or documentation of any sort for a daughter of Amenhotep at Aketaten.


Princess Baketaten, who accompanied Tiye on her visit to Akhetaten is generally accepted to have been a daughter of Amenhotep III and his Great Wife. She may or may not have been identical with the Princess Nebet'ah attested to at Malkata. IMO she is the most likely candidate for KV35YL and Tut's mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Ankhetmaatre wrote:
I haven't read any comment on the fact that the body in kv55 and kv35yl are full brother and sister and children of Amenhotep and Tye. I'm very curious as to what the scholarly community makes of this in light of the fact that there is no inscriptional evidence or documentation of any sort for a daughter of Amenhotep at Aketaten.


I guess it's possible - at the (apparent) risk of sounding like a confirmed Akhenatenist - that Akhenaten could have bonked his sister. I guess that would not necessarily have been chiselled on a monument though. Is it impossible Akhenaten - or improbable? - that Akhenaten sired a child on a Sister?


Kings' customarily took sisters as consorts there would be absolutely nothing unusual about Akhi having a sister as a secondary wife or siring children on her. It would, as I have said, be a heck of a lot simpler in KV55 WAS Akhi for this reason. Unfortunately the forensic evidence does not support that conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
Quote:
I guess it's possible - at the (apparent) risk of sounding like a confirmed Akhenatenist - that Akhenaten could have bonked his sister. I guess that would not necessarily have been chiselled on a monument though. Is it impossible Akhenaten - or improbable? - that Akhenaten sired a child on a Sister?


Personally, I think it's unlikely that a high ranking princess, of higher rank than either Nefertiti or Kija, AND mother of a male heir could have lived at Akhetaten without having had her own palace or at least a sunshade temple.


Baketaten HAD a sunshade temple.

Quote:
It SEEMS as if, - this being more a postulation than an outright opinion - that kv35yl was not an acknowledged wife of Akhenaten, and because of the rank of the princess she would not have been treated like a minor concubine and ignored. Therefore it SEEMS unlikely to me that Akhenaten is the father of Tutankhamen.


This is not necessarily so. There doesn't seem to have been any requirement that the Chief Wife be a royal princess and there is record of princesses married as secondary consorts (the younger daughters of Amenhotep III come to mind, and several 12th Dynasty princesses).

Of course I agree with you that Akhenaten was not the father of Tutankhamun but Smenkhkara. This however leaves us with the interesting question of how common the marriage of a princess with a younger brother was and if this was perhaps a deliberate effort to provide a non-atenist line of succesion.

Quote:
Smenkhare also presents the same problem. His documented wife while he was king was Meritaten. Though it could be that kv35yl was an earlier wife who died.


Meritaten was also a King's Daughter, in fact the eldest daughter of the preceeding King with her own right to his throne. That alone is enough to explain why she and not Tut's mother became Great Wife.
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: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Meretseger - If KV35yl was Baketaten, and Baketaten was a daughter of AmenhotepIII and Tye, then that WOULD solve a part of that equation, true.

I would think Baketaten, as King's Daughter and King's Wife, might have moved to a place of greater prominence in the court of Akhenaten, especially if she was the mother of the king's son. But perhaps not if Nefertiti was a powerful as she seems.


Quote:
This is not necessarily so. There doesn't seem to have been any requirement that the Chief Wife be a royal princess and there is record of princesses married as secondary consorts (the younger daughters of Amenhotep III come to mind, and several 12th Dynasty princesses).

Of course I agree with you that Akhenaten was not the father of Tutankhamun but Smenkhkara. This however leaves us with the interesting question of how common the marriage of a princess with a younger brother was and if this was perhaps a deliberate effort to provide a non-atenist line of succesion.


Good point. There is no hard and fast rule that states a king MUST marry a royal sister.

If Baketaten was born at the time of Akhenaten's marriage to Nefertiti, or was too young to marry, it might make sense that she could become a secondary wife. It also makes sense that she may have become a wife to Smenkhkare around year 12 Akhenaten, bore Tutankhamen and then died, perhaps in childbirth, leaving Smenkhkare free to take Maritaten as GRW when he was elevated to the throne. Perhaps having a male heir is what made him eligible.

I realize, of course, that all of this is pure speculation. Until more is published concerning the dna evidence ect.
_________________
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
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 ... 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 30 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