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 mummy Akhenaten after all?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:19 pm    Post subject: KV55 mummy Akhenaten after all? Reply with quote

I have heard so many contradictory statements about this mummy that I have to confess that I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

The latest news is though that the CT scans indicate that this is the body of a man of ca 25-40 years old. This is much higher than earlier eastimates which put the age at death at ca 20.

From what I have read the higher age estimates (which now seem to match a much earlier report) are partially based on the state of the spine. Apparently the spine shows signs of some condition that makes them estimate the age of the individual as higher than thought before.

Together with some work by German Egyptologists who had suggested that the coffin was that of Akhenaten and the fact that there were items of Akhenaten found in the cache (bricks for instance) make it more likely that this is in fact the body of AKhenaten.

I wonder how long it will take for someone to refute the test results and the conclusions one is tempted to draw from them ? Wink

See for instance:
http://www.egyptology.blogspot.com/2007/07/kv55-ct-scan-of-mummy-akhenaten-or.html

http://guardians.net/hawass/Press%20Releases/new_ct-scans_of_egyptian_mummies_07-10-2007.htm
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diorite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Land of Make-Believe

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is one of the places that DNA could come in as useful. I don't know that the condition of the body would allow any to be preserved, though.
I do think there is a good possibility that this is him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ELISE
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: KV55 mummy Akhenaten after all? Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I have heard so many contradictory statements about this mummy that I have to confess that I'm not sure what to believe anymore.


Anneke - I could not agree more! Very Happy

How we are supposed to have any faith in these reports is beyond me.

I know that science advances daily and that new technologies become available that may help elucidate things, but frankly I don't see any evidence of findings becoming more 'refined' (eg age range tightened from say 25-35, to 27-30) - I just see completely contradictory findings released one after the other.

Also, the material we are working with is so old and so damaged (in many cases) that I have very limited confidence in any observations about how/when injuries and damage took place.

Even DNA may not tell the whole story - offspring are not always 'legitimate' heirs, yet 3000 years ago no-one would have been any the wiser, and looking for familial relationships could tell us much less than we might think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boodog
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Florida & Indians, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not the most educated person in Egyptology. But I read everything that I can find. I hit the web almost daily looking for information. I watch everything that I can find on TV, much to my husband's dismay. I saw both the Hatshepsut and the "search for Nefertiti" this month on NGC.
My question is: Am I the only one on the planet who remembers that Hawass declared loud and clear that the mummy he is now claiming is Kiya was a MAN? He did DNA testing on it and said that there was no question about it. This is a man. This shortly after Fletcher's announcement that it was Nefertiti. And on this latest program he went back to Fletcher's mummy - the one he claimed to be a man - also looking for Nefertiti. I'm not dreaming this, folks, this is what he said. Lordy pete, this poor mummy is sure changing gender back and forth.
Personally, I always felt that KV55 was Ankhenaton. The names were carved off. Who else would it be? Who else was so hated? Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boodog, I slightly remember seeing a program where the mummy in question was claimed to be a man. I think it was either on the Digging for the Truth episode about Nefertiti or on Joann Fletcher's documantary.
I cannot really draw any conclusions about the KV 55 mystery. There is just too much lack of evidence to really support any claim.
Something else I was wondering is have there been any DNA tests done between the parents of Queen Tiy and the "elder lady"?
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They have never explained how the mummy was momentarily identified as a man. It's possible that they tested DNA from the arm that was previously thought to have belonged with the mummy, but it would be nice if they would just come out and say so.

It would be interesting to see a DNA comparison of Yuya and Tuya with some of the known mummies. It would be able to determine if the elder lady is Tiye.
There is also an older theory by Aldred suggesting that Queen Mutemwia was a sister of Yuya. If so, mDNA tests should be able to confirm if there is any shared mitochondrial DNA.

It would also be nice to test the foetusses from Tut's tomb and compare those with Tut, but also with some of the other mummies. Comparison with the younger lady would be quite interesting I think.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1001
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
They have never explained how the mummy was momentarily identified as a man.


I guess it has to do with the pelvic bone structure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1001
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I referred here to KV55 mummy. About KV35 Younger Lady, I really don't know either. I was amazed because then there was that taboo about DNA collecting. Would Dr. Hawass broke this taboo just for make his point?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For some reason Hawass went out-of-his-way to *** Fletcher. To "prove" his point, he ordered DNA testing to be done ON THE ARM of the Younger lady. It showed male DNA.
Since then, however, the arm has been shown not to belong to the Younger Lady. DNA done on the mummy has shown it to be that of a woman.
The jury is still out on any positive identification for her. The known facts:

She was 18th Dynasty
She was important enough to have been re-buried.
The massive damage done to her face occurred before death.

Any thing further is just speculation at this point. Hopefully, she will be identified positively soon.

One of the big mysteries also is the remains found in KV55. It has, through the years, be "id'd" as everyone from Tiye to Smenenkhra. Obviously, it was a re-burial, probably a cache of various Amarna tombs. Positive id will probably never be made, leaving the field open to all sorts of speculation!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too bad there is not enough left of the KV 55 body to obtain a DNA sample (or so I remember reading). It may have shed a little more light on the mystery or at least ruled out a few possibilities as to the actual identity.

I agree it would be interesting to run tests between Yuya and Tuya in comparison to the younger lady as well. So many advances and finds have recently come in Egyptology lately, so I remain hopeful of new evidence concerning KV 55 also.
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tadukhipa
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Osiris II"]For some reason Hawass went out-of-his-way to *** Fletcher. To "prove" his point, he ordered DNA testing to be done ON THE ARM of the Younger lady. It showed male DNA.
Since then, however, the arm has been shown not to belong to the Younger Lady. DNA done on the mummy has shown it to be that of a woman.
[quote]

Wow! I didn't hear this!! Do you by any chance have a link with more info? I remember that even before the DNA test, Fletcher sort of glossed over all of the evidence that suggested that the mummy was too young to be Nefertiti. I was SO convinced that it would be Meritaten or maybe Ankhesenamun and then that blasted DNA test said it was a man! Wink Somebody please send me more info!
_________________
*Tadukhipa*

http://strictlybecca
.blog
spot
.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "old" DNA test is here:
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040113_nef/documents/dna_test.pdf

I'm not sure if the latest assertion that it's a female after all are based on newer DNA tests. I got the impression this came from the CT scans.

There are DNA tests under way I think, but they need to repeat the tests to make sure.

Some of the latest about the tests on the mummies is on Hawass' website:

LAtests (July 2007) about the CT scans

There are also some articles in the KMT journal.
That's all I know, but maybe others can point to more recent info?
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andypryce
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 4
Location: Birmingham UK

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
It would also be nice to test the foetusses from Tut's tomb and compare those with Tut, but also with some of the other mummies. Comparison with the younger lady would be quite interesting I think.


I seem to remember that the foetuses were DNA tested by scientists from Salt Lake City, USA, but I can't remember the outcome. If I find out more I will post the info here.
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 Dec 10, 2007 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean Scott Woodward? I have only read about results from some of the other mummies. I wonder if the baby mummies were the ones where he couldn't get any results?

But I would love to hear anything else you can find Smile
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boodog
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Florida & Indians, USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

National Geographic Channel, here in US on December 16. Think it was "The Lost Dynasty". The young mummy in question is once again a woman. As per Hawass. (Beginning to wonder if he knows the difference. Or was he just so ticked off at Fletcher that he jumped in with his first thought?) And now she is Kiya, the mother of Tut. The older woman is now Tiye.

AND the KV55 mummy is now Akhenaten. They have found parts of the cut off name.

You must see the show if you haven't. Airs again here on December 22.
In it Hawass just goes from Akhenaten to Tut. DUH. Wasn't there a Smenkhkare in there? Or has he been written out of history? I know I'm not well educated on the subject, and I miss a lot of information on the web. But what the heck happened to Smenkhkare?

The coffin that Old Tut was in since Carter's time, does not look anything like Tut on the mask or the inter coffin. I always figured it was from Smenkhkare.

And I think it's horrible to have put him on display. Put the coffin he was in inside the glass case. Hawass is after publicity and nothing else.
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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