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 

New evaluation of the KV55 remains
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
ALL the studies? There have been less than five. And I think that there are more than two people who are willing to allow that the KV55 remains could be those of Akhenaten.


1) smith 1912, stated an age around 25. you know my thoughts there.

2) derry 1931, stated an age about 23.

3) harrison 1966, stated 20-25.

4) strouhal 1998, stated 19-22.

5) filer 2001, stated 18-21.

6) hawass et al 2010, stated 35-45. (this was based from one point of the mummy, not looking at every point as a whole)

7) baker 2012. though not having studied the bones themselves, she is a bioarchaeologist and studied the x rays concluding that hawass did not give any evidence that refutes the earlier age of the body, and that she agrees the body is 18-23.

so in fact, you have 7 studies on the body so far. only one has given an age above 25 years. and that is hawass.


You have listed only 5 prior to the tomographic study. That introduced a whole other technology--but Hawass was not involved in the interpretation of the results. He is not a radiologist. And you have neglected to mention that Smith did allow that the person can have been some years older than 25-26. Your inclusion of Baker proves a point. The JAMA paper did not go into detail about the age of the KV55 remains because that was not its focus. The focus was "ancestry and pathology" [illness].
As to the xray Baker saw, many people do not think that the morphology of the pubic symphysis is very accurate in assessing the age of persons who died relatively young.

Quote:
i find it kind of odd, of all the studies done, no one agrees with hawass. he is not the first archaeologist to ignore the forensics and claim the body as akhenaten.


Yet another unsubstantiated claim. What forensics?


Quote:
anketmaatre proves my point that an anthropologist has a better understanding of human remains, especially ancient bones. and an anthropologist today would certianly know more than an anatomist did in 1912.


Yes, about prehistoric man--or woman in the case of Lucy. But I hardly think KV55 fit into that category.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you must understand that in assessing remains, they look at all the different points on a body to identify age, not just one to make their decision.

with kv 55 they looked at bone fusions in the skull, vertebra, knees, pelvis and sternum among other things, as well as dentition. looking at the body as a whole, they concluded the 18-23 age range. just looking at one point and making a decision is not how it's done. which is alarmingly, what hawass did. he looked at the scoliosis in the bone and used that as his age estimate for the entire body.

and i suppose hawass had nothing to do with the whole study at all, except get the project started? come on, he would have been present for most of it, and would certainly been present when the scientists were drawing up their conclusions taking part in the discussions. to say hawass had absolutely no influence in the results is simply naieve. a man as attention hungry as he would most definently have held tightly to the reins on such a project.

if he had released the DNA on ramses III, he would have said without a sliver of doubt it was pentaweret as the screaming man. funny how th epeople who did release those results only said he was a likely son of ramses III.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4005
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Ankhetmaatre wrote:
Specialization offers many advantages. You cannot become a specialist without a period of practical application, or practicum as they call it, so I must disagree with you on that point, Lutz. ...

Here I can not really follow. Where exactly I do claim contrary?

Greetings, Lutz.


you just said an anthropologist today knows less than an anatomist did in 1912. which is bull btw lutz.

Question Question Question Where?

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


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4005
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... and i suppose hawass had nothing to do with the whole study at all, except get the project started? come on, he would have been present for most of it, and would certainly been present when the scientists were drawing up their conclusions taking part in the discussions. to say hawass had absolutely no influence in the results is simply naieve. a man as attention hungry as he would most definently have held tightly to the reins on such a project. ...

This, conspiracy theorists hooey is really boring. Bring tangible prove for your outrageous allegations against reputable scientists or leave it...

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Real quick here,

kylejustin:
Quote:
anketmaatre proves my point that an anthropologist has a better understanding of human remains, especially ancient bones. and an anthropologist today would certianly know more than an anatomist


I have not proved any point at all. I simply raised a point.

And,
SidneyF:
Quote:
Yes, about prehistoric man--or woman in the case of Lucy. But I hardly think KV55 fit into that category.


Actually, few specialists would be more qualified to draw conclusions from the remains, except perhaps a forensic anthropologist. You gentlemen are pursuing a logical fallacy when the meat of the argument lies in the body of evidence itself; the most recent, scientifically current study, done with the ct scan, is most likely to be the most accurate. How that scan has been interpreted seems to be the most contentious subject. I, for one, would like to see the raw data released to other specialists to study as well, not because I doubt the integrity of the radiologists on the Hawass team, but because good science calls for a multi-discipline approach. This helps cover the gaps in specialization. If a group refuses to share their data it often raises more questions than it answers.
_________________
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: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Ankhetmaatre wrote:
Specialization offers many advantages. You cannot become a specialist without a period of practical application, or practicum as they call it, so I must disagree with you on that point, Lutz. ...

Here I can not really follow. Where exactly I do claim contrary?

Greetings, Lutz.


It appeared that you were saying that an anatomist was more specialized than a physical anthropologist but that was probably just an interpretation or language issue.
_________________
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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of the problem can lie on the other end--in ancient Egypt. We don't know anything about the age of Akhenaten and view it all through modern eyes. Even I wrote just the other day that he can have been 16 at the time he was appointed co-regent--because that age seems reasonable to me, is that of a young adult. But, actually, manhood, in oriental terms, comes with puberty. Among the Jews, the rite of passage, the Bar Mitzvah, takes place at age 13.

We have no idea at what point in the reign of Amenhotep III Akhenaten was born. He could have reached manhood at the time of the Year 34 jubilee and was appointed coregent then. And,yes, he could have been already married by then. People used to get married as young as 11 and I know of one documented case from the 18th Century where a Jewish man was only 14 years older than his first born and I'm sure it was quite normal then. Just why Amenhotep III would have wanted a coregent can't be known, but Cyril Aldred thought the arrangement lasted for 12 years. I don't know about that, but am just stating a fact. Akhenaten can have been younger than a lot of people think.
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: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have a point, SidneyF. Dynastic marriages were sometimes made between very young people, (see amenhotep iii) and even now it isn't uncommon for 12 to 13 year olds to be fertile.
_________________
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: 4005
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not really sure whether the evidence base speaks for a wedding with Nofretete before the coronation. The representations in the tomb of Cheruef, made before, during and completet after change of rulers point rather in a different direction. Here his mother Teje takes the role of the Great Royal Wife for the young king in the beginning. Nofretete appears first in time to be settled later pictures. In the Amarna letters it is initially Teje selected as the contact person.

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


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely that could merely indicate Tiye's seniority? Possibly Nefertiti was no immediately raised to the rank of Great Wife.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
I'm not really sure whether the evidence base speaks for a wedding with Nofretete before the coronation. The representations in the tomb of Cheruef, made before, during and completet after change of rulers point rather in a different direction. Here his mother Teje takes the role of the Great Royal Wife for the young king in the beginning. Nofretete appears first in time to be settled later pictures. In the Amarna letters it is initially Teje selected as the contact person..


I think [but am not sure] that Amenhotep IV first appears with Nefertiti in the tomb of Ramose. There the figures appear in a different style than the rest of the tomb decoration, so it is difficult to know when they were added. It has been said that the brother of Ramose continued the construction of the tomb under a new king because he planned to be buried there, as well.

But you're right. Only Tiye at the beginning, so probably no wife--which argues more than anything else for Akhenaten having been very young.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4005
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
I'm not really sure whether the evidence base speaks for a wedding with Nofretete before the coronation. The representations in the tomb of Cheruef, made before, during and completet after change of rulers point rather in a different direction. Here his mother Teje takes the role of the Great Royal Wife for the young king in the beginning...

After I watched the scene in TT 192 - Cheruef again I must relativise the statement a bit. Although Teje appears in the robes and at the position of a "Great Royal Wife" behind her son as king, she leads here the title "Mother of the God".

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


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
you must understand that in assessing remains, they look at all the different points on a body to identify age, not just one to make their decision.

Strouhal makes some interesting points in his paper. Since it was apparently written after the Hawass et al report, he addresses some things directly.
Quote:
...[the DNA / CT study] included the man from KV55, who was identified anew as Akhenaten. This was announced by the simple statement that "...our new computed tomography investigation (of KV55) revealed that he lived to be much older" (Hawass et al 2010; 640 note b), as much as 35-45 years (Hawass et al; Table 1). No factual proofs for such a startling change has been included in the printed report. If the alleged X-ray or CT features showed a substantially higher age, the proofs should have been submitted for evaluation by professionals. p 110; emphasis added
I daresay there would be substantially less controversy on the extraordinary conclusion of they had actually released data to support it. Strouhal on the other hand, has pages and pages of measurements and such.
Quote:
Even then, the arguments by classic morphological ageing features should not be overlooked.ibid
Which is interesting: Hawass did not factor in those previous assessments even giving preferential weight to his own CT data. A "long list" of factors indicating a young age were apparently ignored (they certainly werent addressed) in favor of the mere mention of a single factor, subsequently refuted ('...he did not exhibit even the onset of degenerative changes in the spine and joints.")

In part the link from KV55 to Tut was an assortment of things like "elongated skull, cheek bones, cleft palate, and impacted wisdom tooth":
Quote:
The finding of a cleft palate cannot be proven, because the posterior part of the hard palate was secondarily broken off (see our Figure 7).(Emphasis added, Strouhal p 110-111
Interesting.

Quote:
After checking the DNA analysis reported by Hawass et al (2010), a noted Czech specialist in molecular genetics concluded that the agreement of 50% of genes suggesting kinship of the first degree cannot prefere (sic) either a father-son or brother-brother one. (M. Kuklik, personal communication [with Strouhal], June 2011). p 111
Without DNA from both father candidates (and more of it), the conclusion seems unsustainable. Modern simple paternity tests without possible brother involvement tend to use 10-15 alleles.

The larger issue is the lack of transparency. If you have a report which concludes something vastly different from that based upon 100 years of scientific research, and you want people to accept it, you need to release more than 'our new investigation revealed that KV55 lived to be much older'. Strouhal offers 10-11 pages of data, statistics, measurements and photos. Hawass offers nothing of the sort.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="VBadJuJu]
Quote:
After checking the DNA analysis reported by Hawass et al (2010), a noted Czech specialist in molecular genetics concluded that the agreement of 50% of genes suggesting kinship of the first degree cannot prefere (sic) either a father-son or brother-brother one. (M. Kuklik, personal communication [with Strouhal], June 2011). p 111
Without DNA from both father candidates (and more of it), the conclusion seems unsustainable. Modern simple paternity tests without possible brother involvement tend to use 10-15 alleles.


That's what I said before in this thread but I didn't notice you rushing to disagree with the interlocutor who stated "That means KV 55 is Tutankhamun's father: end of story. No matter which side you look at this, no one else sired Tutankhamun."

There certainly is no "end of story" about it. However, that has no bearing on the age of the KV55 person at death. I don't wish to be repetitive, but I pointed out before that this question was not the focus of the JAMA paper, as indicated by its title. However, it would have made another nice paper. Even an online one would have been helpful because, obviously, questions have arisen.
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 ... 10, 11, 12
Page 12 of 12

 
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