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 

baketaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
didn't some guy 10 years ago claim he did DNA testing on the royal mummies?

Dr. Scott Woodward, Professor of Microbiology, Brigham Young University. See an article in : "The Ostracon 12-1, 2001. - "THE ANCIENT WORLD REVEALED THROUGH DNA" .

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


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that's the one lutz. he thinks that ahmose nefertari may have been amenhotep I's mother, but she is not ahmose's sister, because apparently ahmose and amenhotep I have different mitochondrial DNA?

and he thinks thutmose I is the son of amenhotep I, i'm guessing they tested the one maspero thought was thutmose I. so i wonder if they ever test these mummies, if the same conclusions will be drawn? and if the tests are the same, how is thutmose II related to amenhotep I?
_________________
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: 3754
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To my knowledge the results of Woodwards investigations were never scientifically published.

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


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cormac mac airt wrote:



Another cause for concern is the lack of reported quality control measures in the
Samples taken from bone marrow would be one place. Another place would be the interior of teeth (pulp) also.

The article Anneke quotes does bring up some valid concerns when doing DNA testing, but in and of itself it doesn't disprove the results. It's easy to say such and such is wrong, but it's kind of meaningless unless one can show HOW it's wrong. If the scientific community, or parts thereof, really feel the results are inaccurate then it behooves them to retest the mummies and prove it. Until then the results will have to stand.

cormac


It would have been much easier for the team around Hawass to dissuade the doubts as to the validity of their study by showing their raw data than for the doubters to replicate the results - which is virtually impossible thanks to the current regulations.
The raw data could have made the successful DNA amplification much more feasable for other scientists without the need for re-testing - so why didn`t they do it?

Unfortunately the ultimate reliability and validity of Woodward`s work will not be known either until he`ll publish his work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cormac mac airt
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
cormac mac airt wrote:



Another cause for concern is the lack of reported quality control measures in the
Samples taken from bone marrow would be one place. Another place would be the interior of teeth (pulp) also.

The article Anneke quotes does bring up some valid concerns when doing DNA testing, but in and of itself it doesn't disprove the results. It's easy to say such and such is wrong, but it's kind of meaningless unless one can show HOW it's wrong. If the scientific community, or parts thereof, really feel the results are inaccurate then it behooves them to retest the mummies and prove it. Until then the results will have to stand.

cormac


It would have been much easier for the team around Hawass to dissuade the doubts as to the validity of their study by showing their raw data than for the doubters to replicate the results - which is virtually impossible thanks to the current regulations.
The raw data could have made the successful DNA amplification much more feasable for other scientists without the need for re-testing - so why didn`t they do it?

Unfortunately the ultimate reliability and validity of Woodward`s work will not be known either until he`ll publish his work.


I agree with you that it would have been easier if the Egyptians had put all the information out there for the scientific community to see. They should have and I don't know why, specifically, they haven't yet. Hell, I'd still like to see the mtDNA results of the mummies they were supposed to be testing. It's been a couple of years now and STILL nothing is forthcoming.

I can, though, understand their perspective since there appears to be (at least from some quarters) a growing resentment towards other countries and the way they've carried out archaeological endeavors in the past. Particularly since many of Egypts national treasures are housed in museums in Berlin, London and elsewhere. They've become a bit paranoid IMO and other countries haven't exactly given them much reason not to be. I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but it is what it is.

cormac
_________________
When it comes to the fringe, logic has left the system....AT WARP 10. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I almost feel that there is almost a spontaneous show of "Western" contempt for anything Egyptian scholars (or Egyptian 'enlisted' scholars) throw up in the way of research or theories. An illogical response, if I'm right, and possibly Rascist too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
I almost feel that there is almost a spontaneous show of "Western" contempt for anything Egyptian scholars (or Egyptian 'enlisted' scholars) throw up in the way of research or theories. An illogical response, if I'm right, and possibly Rascist too.


What exactly do you mean with that?

If I or someone else criticizes the way the most recent big project was carried out - by a team which was only by name all-Egyptian but in fact it consisted of members of many nationalities - it is from a scientific point of view and not a racist one.
Nobody ever said they cannot do anything right because they are Egyptians. Far from that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a passing thought... Crying or Very sad


Anyhow --- if all the evidence (other than the age of the mummy) points to KV55 being Akhenaten, and then we see things like this:

Hawass: "When we brought the remains from KV 55 out, it was the first time that I had actually seen them. It was immediately clear to me that the skull and the other bones are in very bad condition. Dr. Hani Abdel Rahman operated the equipment, and our gifted radiologist Dr. Ashraf Selim worked with us to interpret the results.

Our CT scan put Akhenaten squarely back in the running for the identity of the mummy from KV55. Our team was able to determine that the mummy may have been older at death than anyone had previously thought. Dr. Selim noted that the spine showed, in addition to slight scoliosis, significant degenerative changes associated with age. He said that although it is difficult to determine the age of an individual from bones alone, he might put the mummy’s age as high as 60. The jury is still out, but it is certainly tempting to think that Akhenaten has finally been found.


The above 'evidence' is immediately rebutted by those who subscribe to the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare theory. Is this just an example of folk not willing to be open minded? Hawass seems an enthusiast. He has had a few theories which he has been willing to change in the face of what he sees as NEW evidence. Perhaps folk could take a leaf out of his book?

Actually, on the age thing, the first few people who saw the bones thought it was an elderly person (even if they got the sex wrong).

Also there's this (kindly offered in a post by Kmt_sesh):

[i]I stressed "nearly" earlier because not all agree the man lived as briefly as most of us think. In 1988 two orthodontists from Cairo argued for an age at death in the mid-thirties, but their findings were never widely accepted by colleagues. [/i]

On top of all this - and I know I'm not an expert - but as far as I know the mummy was in a hugely poor state. Three thousand (or so) years old, seriously deteriorated through time and decomposition, and affected presumably by moisture over a long period - basically a "collection" of poorly preserved bones... Well, how can we be so sure that the 'consensus' view of their 'young' age can be correct? Surely there is plenty of room for doubt? What? We must accept it because it fits the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare theory? On one bit of scholarly theorizing, we must ignor everything that points to Akhenaten?

Look, maybe it is Smenkhkare afterall, but the evidence, when weighed, points so very strongly toward Akhenaten, why would anyone not think it the best explanation according to the actual evidence available?

I, of course, withdraw my question about the possible extending of disrespect to Egyptians -- as I said, it was a thought that occurred to me and I was just curious to see what others thought. I did not mean to offend anyone by it. I'm just interested in finding out the truth of things, and 'motive' (if it can be established) is always a key bit of evidence in my opinion. And that includes the 'motive' behind the thoughts and theories of Egyptology Enthusiasts. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1032
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Just a passing thought... Crying or Very sad

Anyhow --- if all the evidence (other than the age of the mummy) points to KV55 being Akhenaten, and then we see things like this:

Hawass: "When we brought the remains from KV 55 out, it was the first time that I had actually seen them. It was immediately clear to me that the skull and the other bones are in very bad condition. Dr. Hani Abdel Rahman operated the equipment, and our gifted radiologist Dr. Ashraf Selim worked with us to interpret the results.

Our CT scan put Akhenaten squarely back in the running for the identity of the mummy from KV55. Our team was able to determine that the mummy may have been older at death than anyone had previously thought. Dr. Selim noted that the spine showed, in addition to slight scoliosis, significant degenerative changes associated with age. He said that although it is difficult to determine the age of an individual from bones alone, he might put the mummy’s age as high as 60. The jury is still out, but it is certainly tempting to think that Akhenaten has finally been found.


The above 'evidence' is immediately rebutted by those who subscribe to the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare theory. Is this just an example of folk not willing to be open minded? Hawass seems an enthusiast. He has had a few theories which he has been willing to change in the face of what he sees as NEW evidence. Perhaps folk could take a leaf out of his book?


As has been noted by me and a few others on this list, Hawass makes a HUGE assumption here - that the spine had "...significant degenerative changes associated with age." Yet, in the very same sentence, Hawass noted that the KV 55 remains has scoliosis. Now, as any medical expert will tell you, scoliosis causes degenerative changes in the spine, and that degeneration is NOT associated with age.

On a personal note, I happen to have scoliosis - not severe - and I think perhaps the same "mild" condition as noted in KV 55. My orthopaedist informed me after viewing my X-ray (when I was in my mid-20's) that if he hadn't know the X-ray was mine, he would have thought it belonged to a MUCH older person. This is the way scoliosis can affect what is seen on the spine. I think Hawass should have realised (or someone on his teams should have realised and informed him) that the condition of scoliosis can make the spine appear to belong to an older person when in fact it's not the case.

Orwell wrote:
Actually, on the age thing, the first few people who saw the bones thought it was an elderly person (even if they got the sex wrong).

Also there's this (kindly offered in a post by Kmt_sesh):

[i]I stressed "nearly" earlier because not all agree the man lived as briefly as most of us think. In 1988 two orthodontists from Cairo argued for an age at death in the mid-thirties, but their findings were never widely accepted by colleagues. [/i]

On top of all this - and I know I'm not an expert - but as far as I know the mummy was in a hugely poor state. Three thousand (or so) years old, seriously deteriorated through time and decomposition, and affected presumably by moisture over a long period - basically a "collection" of poorly preserved bones... Well, how can we be so sure that the 'consensus' view of their 'young' age can be correct? Surely there is plenty of room for doubt? What? We must accept it because it fits the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare theory? On one bit of scholarly theorizing, we must ignor everything that points to Akhenaten?


I think I have noted that the above comments about the orthodonotists, passing comments by Gods-know-who when the remains were found, those who think the sinuses indicate an older person, etc., tend to have the following problems:

a) they cannot "explain away" the some 15-20 points that indicate a younger age, as noted by Derry (1931), Harrison (1966), and Filer (2000) (as well as Smith (1912)) - all of whom were expert anatomists and/or anthropologists in their field. These experts examined the entire body - which is an almost complete*, disarticulated skeleton, and with the exception of damage to one side of the skull, is undamaged.

b) a number of the claims for an older age did not publish their reasoning for such claims (some were merely part of radio interviews, for example), and in the case of Egyptology, a claim is merely an unsupported statetment until you publish a full rendering of why the previous examinations of a younger age are wrong. To date, neither Hawass or other previous claimaints have published full and verifiable articles which describe their process, how their results were obtained, and how this voided all previous examinations.

* KV 55 lacks the manubrium sternum and the final coccyx bone of the spine. Both may have been lost when the bones were moved from KV 55 or while in the hands of Smith. It is known that some items of KV 55 were stolen from Smith's office.

Orwell wrote:
Look, maybe it is Smenkhkare afterall, but the evidence, when weighed, points so very strongly toward Akhenaten, why would anyone not think it the best explanation according to the actual evidence available?


There is textual evidence that a king named Smenkhkare - separate from Akhenaten, separate from "King Neferneferuaten" - existed. You have been given examples of where such inscriptions existed. You seem to ignore this since no "evidence" for Smenkhkare existed in KV 55. But KV 55 is a cache tomb, and included material from other individuals - Kiya, Tiye, and so on, including Akhenaten. You tend to argue that since Akhenaten's name appears on items in KV 55 that means the body in the coffin must be Akhenaten, and damn all medical forensic examinations to the contrary.

But let me note one more thing here: there are artefacts which names Akhenaten in KV 62, which is also a cache tomb of sorts, for ex-Amarna royal items. This does not mean that the body in KV 62 would HAVE to be Akhenaten, does it? No, because we have evidence that the body in KV 62 IS Tutankhamun.

However, let's suppose this: had the KV 62 tomb been opened and all evidence of Tutankhamun removed (as has been proposed by Bell 1990 about KV 55: she proposes two post-burial entries into the tomb), such that all we had was the skullcap around the mummy's head (which bears the name of Akhenaten, along with other items in the tomb), then what sort of conclusion would we reach? I'm sure you can see that the answer would seem to be that KV 62 was Akhenaten. I hope you can see the problem that such thinking can lead.

Orwell wrote:
I'm just interested in finding out the truth of things, and 'motive' (if it can be established) is always a key bit of evidence in my opinion. And that includes the 'motive' behind the thoughts and theories of Egyptology Enthusiasts. Wink


You seem to presume that the "pro-Smenkhkare" folks have an agenda, but ignore that the same can also be said of the "pro-Akhenaten" folks as well. You need to be balanced in your review, methinks. You also have to understand that, as far as Egyptology goes, we care only that where good factual evidence is present - until disproved, if disproved - we will go with the preponderance of the evidence, and for Egyptologists, 'evidence' is that which is verifiable and fully articulated in published works.

So, for Egyptologists, if medical examinations indicate a young male, and we have contemporary inscriptional evidence of a young Amarna male who rules after Akhenaten's 17 year reign, then we feel there is substantial evidence to argue that KV 55 is Smenkhkare.

As far as this discussion is leading, I have to wonder who of the following is applying Occam's Razor to this issue:

- the folks who accept that, on the whole, the published and verifiable evidence shows that KV 55 is more likely that of Smenkhkare, or

- those who feel they must convolute every individual piece of extraneous information available in order to make the remains of KV 55 those of an older Akhenaten, while not providing any verifiable hard facts and evidence for such a claim, and/or ignoring all archaeological and medical evidence to the contrary?

Reference:

Bell, M. R. 1990. An Armchair Excavation of KV 55. JARCE 27: 97-137.
_________________
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
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Just a passing thought... Crying or Very sad


Anyhow --- if all the evidence (other than the age of the mummy) points to KV55 being Akhenaten, and then we see things like this:

Hawass: "When we brought the remains from KV 55 out, it was the first time that I had actually seen them. It was immediately clear to me that the skull and the other bones are in very bad condition. Dr. Hani Abdel Rahman operated the equipment, and our gifted radiologist Dr. Ashraf Selim worked with us to interpret the results.

Our CT scan put Akhenaten squarely back in the running for the identity of the mummy from KV55. Our team was able to determine that the mummy may have been older at death than anyone had previously thought. Dr. Selim noted that the spine showed, in addition to slight scoliosis, significant degenerative changes associated with age. He said that although it is difficult to determine the age of an individual from bones alone, he might put the mummy’s age as high as 60. The jury is still out, but it is certainly tempting to think that Akhenaten has finally been found.


The above 'evidence' is immediately rebutted by those who subscribe to the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare theory. Is this just an example of folk not willing to be open minded? Hawass seems an enthusiast. He has had a few theories which he has been willing to change in the face of what he sees as NEW evidence. Perhaps folk could take a leaf out of his book?

Actually, on the age thing, the first few people who saw the bones thought it was an elderly person (even if they got the sex wrong).

Also there's this (kindly offered in a post by Kmt_sesh):

[i]I stressed "nearly" earlier because not all agree the man lived as briefly as most of us think. In 1988 two orthodontists from Cairo argued for an age at death in the mid-thirties, but their findings were never widely accepted by colleagues. [/i]

On top of all this - and I know I'm not an expert - but as far as I know the mummy was in a hugely poor state. Three thousand (or so) years old, seriously deteriorated through time and decomposition, and affected presumably by moisture over a long period - basically a "collection" of poorly preserved bones... Well, how can we be so sure that the 'consensus' view of their 'young' age can be correct? Surely there is plenty of room for doubt? What? We must accept it because it fits the 'ephemeral' Smenkhkare theory? On one bit of scholarly theorizing, we must ignor everything that points to Akhenaten?

Look, maybe it is Smenkhkare afterall, but the evidence, when weighed, points so very strongly toward Akhenaten, why would anyone not think it the best explanation according to the actual evidence available?

I, of course, withdraw my question about the possible extending of disrespect to Egyptians -- as I said, it was a thought that occurred to me and I was just curious to see what others thought. I did not mean to offend anyone by it. I'm just interested in finding out the truth of things, and 'motive' (if it can be established) is always a key bit of evidence in my opinion. And that includes the 'motive' behind the thoughts and theories of Egyptology Enthusiasts. Wink


LOL You seem frustrated, Orwell. You mustn't let Amarna Period mysteries get to you. If you sink into those proverbial tar pits, you'll end up babbling to yourself in a padded cell, and heavily medicated. Laughing

Recall that all evidence in KV55 doesn't point to Akhenaten. Despite Lutz's well-supported argument, not all agree that the coffin was originally Akhenaten's. Personally I find Lutz's argument reasonable and compelling, but I must remember that not all who've studied the coffin agree on this.

The mud bricks as Akhenaten's, yes, but then the shrine was Tiye's, and et cetera. KV55 is a mix, plain and simple. It is certainly not representative of an original burial for any single individual, and that's the bottom line.

The findings Hawass presents are not conclusive. The "slight scoliosis" is not a firm indicator of age, and the "degenerative changes" associated with the vertebrae are osteophytes--which usually do indicate older age but certainly not always, especially when one is afflicted with an autoimmune disorder or other disease that can affect skeletal development and growth.

The KV55 mummy is in fact just a skeleton. We tend to use the word "mummy" with it but calling it that is a stretch. The bones are in rough shape but the skeleton is nearly complete. That's very important. And in ancient human remains, the most important thing about determining age at death is the bones, not soft tissue.

Once again I return to Joyce Filer, whose expertise in forensic anthropology place her considerably ahead of most others who've examined the KV55 mummy. Grafton Elliot Smith was one of the foremost of his time but recall that he examined those Egyptian mummies a century ago, and forensic science was barely in its infancy at that time. Someone like Filer is decidedly better trained and positioned to arrive at reliable results, and as I've stated numerous times, she herself believes the KV55 body is that of a man well under 25 years old at death.

LOL Hawass might not be so open minded as you might think. One of his failings was, in fact, his severe stubborn nature and insistence on following his line of thought. He's definitely an enthusiast, and the man did enormous good in his tenure, but he pushed too far in many cases. Many of his colleagues supported him, many did not care to work with him (I've personally met people from both camps, although the majority fall into the latter).

It's not that anyone's tried to force the issue that the KV55 body is Smenkhkare's. It's simply that the evidence points to this. To my knowledge the majority of people, professionals and enthusiasts alike, still agree on this. Now, as I wrote in some earlier post, no one can guarantee that the body in KV55 is Smenkhkare's, but the weight of evidence points away from Akhenaten. If it isn't Smenkhkare in that coffin, it is someone else of younger age. That's certainly not impossible.

I don't know if you're having a hard time accepting the coffin situation. That is, do you take issue with the possibility that a coffin possibly originally made for Akhenaten might have been used for another individual, such as Smenkhkare? You shouldn't be shocked by this, if this is the situation. There is plenty of precedent for it, as I believe other posters have explained.

I for one can accept that perhaps the coffin was originally made for Akhenaten but that the body of Akhenaten is not who ended up in there. I can also accept the strong possibility--if not likelihood--that Akhenaten's body was completely destroyed. The coffin was left available, then. Smenkhkare reigned so briefly that he most likely died unexpectedly and suddenly, so it would've been expedient to reuse Akhenaten's coffin. It's just another possible explanation.
_________________


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


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:

As has been noted by me and a few others on this list, Hawass makes a HUGE assumption here - that the spine had "...significant degenerative changes associated with age." Yet, in the very same sentence, Hawass noted that the KV 55 remains has scoliosis. Now, as any medical expert will tell you, scoliosis causes degenerative changes in the spine, and that degeneration is NOT associated with age.

On a personal note, I happen to have scoliosis - not severe - and I think perhaps the same "mild" condition as noted in KV 55. My orthopaedist informed me after viewing my X-ray (when I was in my mid-20's) that if he hadn't know the X-ray was mine, he would have thought it belonged to a MUCH older person. This is the way scoliosis can affect what is seen on the spine. I think Hawass should have realised (or someone on his teams should have realised and informed him) that the condition of scoliosis can make the spine appear to belong to an older person when in fact it's not the case.

...


Thanks, neseret, for explaining this particular issue better than I did. It's exactly what I've been trying to convey. Your own personal experience is the perfect example, in fact.

Well, as far as that goes, your entire post is better worded than my own attempts. Wink
_________________


Visit my blog!
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: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My - lots of stuff to read! Thanks guys.

I'll try to keep things brief.


Neseret said: "There is textual evidence that a king named Smenkhkare - separate from Akhenaten, separate from "King Neferneferuaten" - existed. You have been given examples of where such inscriptions existed. You seem to ignore this since no "evidence" for Smenkhkare existed in KV 55. But KV 55 is a cache tomb, and included material from other individuals - Kiya, Tiye, and so on, including Akhenaten. You tend to argue that since Akhenaten's name appears on items in KV 55 that means the body in the coffin must be Akhenaten, and damn all medical forensic examinations to the contrary."

My understanding is there are no 'proven' inscriptions in KV55 in regard to Smenkhkare or Kiya.

Also you are quite welcome to choose which 'experts' you want to believe, neseret, just as I am. That's Democracy for you. Wink (Mind, I am just raisng some 'thoughts'. I'm not as glued to a theory as you are - and I do respect your theory. At the moment, I just have serious doubts about it, that's all).

Btw 'motive' is 'the reason' people do or say things. I don't suggest a conspiracy! It can be (in police investigation tems at least) as simple as someone wanting to defend their view about something. I don't suggest anyone of sinister 'coverings up' of anything. Laughing

You Egyptologists do seem quite touchy at times. Very Happy

I guess I agree with you Kmt_nesh, any confident pronouncement of a theory on this has to be seen for what it is, a case of 'impassioned believing' and not actually a 'statement of the facts.' Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:

...

My understanding is there are no 'proven' inscriptions in KV55 in regard to Smenkhkare or Kiya.

...


I realize your post was in response to neseret's, so I'll keep my comments restrained to the one line above. Neseret can of course speak for herself, and is certainly welcome to correct me if I'm in error.

What I wanted to say, Orwell, is that you seem overly concerned with what exactly was found in KV55. It's been repeatedly stressed to you that KV55 was not the original burial for any of the people about whom we've been arguing, so in the end, who is and who isn't mentioned in inscriptions in KV55 is pretty much irrelevant.

KV55 was a secondary burial, an embalmer's cache...an afterthought.

I don't wish to muddy the waters but I might suggest studying KV63. It's an even better example of an embalmer's cache. Although no mummies were found in there, numerous coffins were, as well as a myriad of other artifacts. It would appear that whomever KV63 was originally cut for did not end up in there. It was used for secondary purposes. The same is true for KV55. Wink
_________________


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


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell, what part of '15-20' points (unerupted wisdom teeth, unknit sutures, etc) that indicate youth - possibly extreme youth as in under twenty - as opposed to ONE *possible* factor (degenerating vertebrae) that COULD indicate a greater age but is KNOWN to occur in young people including children do you fail to grasp?

NO; there are no inscriptions indicating Smenkhkara's ownership of anything remaining in KV55 - a point that loses some of its force when we concede that it is a cache burial which has been disturbed at least twice.

YES; Akhenaten's name IS found on items in KV55, according to some experts including the coffin and mummy bands.

YES; the forensic evidence has overwhelmingly and REPEATEDLY over a period of nearly a century been accepted as indicating an age in the twenty-twenty five range AT THE OLDEST by SEVERAL different specialists ranging from Elliot Smith to Joan Filer.

Not 'facts' perhaps but evidence (we're pretty short of settled facts here in the tarpits) make of it what you will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
What I wanted to say, Orwell, is that you seem overly concerned with what exactly was found in KV55. It's been repeatedly stressed to you that KV55 was not the original burial for any of the people about whom we've been arguing, so in the end, who is and who isn't mentioned in inscriptions in KV55 is pretty much irrelevant.


Shocked

kmt_sesh wrote:
KV55 was a secondary burial,[/i] an embalmer's cache...an afterthought.


Shocked A incomplete burial, perhaps, but a mere cache? Idea

kmt_sesh wrote:
I don't wish to muddy the waters but I might suggest studying KV63. It's an even better example of an embalmer's cache. Although no mummies were found in there, numerous coffins were, as well as a myriad of other artifacts. It would appear that whomever KV63 was originally cut for did not end up in there. It was used for secondary purposes. The same is true for KV55. Wink


Except for "The same is true for KV55" sounds about right. Very Happy
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, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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