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 

Fact or Fiction
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sure that the Tiye mentioned on the hairlock`s coffinette must be AIII`s wife because she is described as deceased in all inscriptions. As Aye`s wife was clearly alive at the time of Tut`s burial, it cannot be her`s.

This also explains why there is no "King`s Mother" title connecting Tiye and Tut; she was dead,most probably already before his accession.

What regards the older lady, she is not proven to be Queen Tiye. The results or the previous examination of her hair and the hairlock have been doubted. There are no results from DNA tests known so far. And I personally do not really recognize the features we know from Tiye`s more distinguished portraits in this mummy ( I know it`s not the soundest of proofs, but it adds to the doubts).
And the relatively rare blood group of Tut`s (A2, MN) has been found in Tuja`s mummy (I mean Queen Tiye`s mother). Besides, she bears a strong facial resemblance to other family members such as her daughter, Akhenaten and Tut. I am convinced that there is a close relationship between Tut and Tuja, and that she is more likely his grandmother than the great-grandmother.

And Queen Tiye`s age does not have to be a problem, either. We know that AIII was very young at his accession, probably younger than Tut at his. His wife was most likely about the same age, so she could have been in her early to mid fourties at the end of AIII`s reign and still be able to bear children. The existence of the princess Baketaten who`s birth must have occured not long before Tut`s also points to this fact, and I really wonder why many people want to find other parents for her as in Amarnan repesentations such as in Huja`s tomb she is always shown next to Queen Tiye and called "King`s Daughter", without doubt referring to AIII ( it does not always have to be the depicted king to whom this title refers).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
christphe
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

all those dna talk!!! there is alway a possibility that the father is the father.
This is true in our society and in ancient egypt to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sothis

I'd found a translation for the coffinette texts and you are right: the coffinette's hairlock owner is really mentioned as deceased and the hair itself got some resin on it to symbolize the mummification process. Maybe because Tiye was considered a goddess and her "relic" could confer protection to the deceased king, because the inscription says: "...for smelling/breathing the sweet/refreshing air of the North Wind by the Ka of the Great Royal Wife, Tiye".

A curious thing is that the outermost coffin include protective Osirian deities with a invocation to Nut and Sokar-Osiris, which theoretically would not be possible before Tut's ascension.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

....or the coffin could have been left over from the time before the real rise of the Aten and the proscription of certain deities. The gold statuette of a squatting king which was inside the second coffin is usually identified as either AIII or Tut himself. If the first is true, it represents probably AIII in the form of the solar child with which he identifies himself in the late part of his reign and after his sed-festivals. It would also point out his relationship with Tiye. If it is Tut, it again demonstrates their close relationship and conveys the blessings of Tiye`s ka on to him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've heard it was Tiye's hair, matched with the hair on that mummy that is supposed to be her. Either way she was his grandmother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The result of the "hair matching" has been questioned later. And how can you be so sure Tiye was Tut`s grandmother? Is it logical to place an item which so significantly connects Tut with his grandmother in his tomb, but to place nothing whatsoever connecting him to Kia (if you think she`s the mother) or just ordinary items as clappers or a scribal palette if one assumes it is Meritaten?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lock of hair from Queen Tiye could have been along the lines of a royal heirloom buried with Tut since he left no child to hand it on to. Meritaten's clapper and scribe's kit and the box belonging to Neferneferure might have been 'hand me downs' that he'd used in life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
The lock of hair from Queen Tiye could have been along the lines of a royal heirloom buried with Tut since he left no child to hand it on to. Meritaten's clapper and scribe's kit and the box belonging to Neferneferure might have been 'hand me downs' that he'd used in life.


or leftover's from their burial's.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well there are certainly a lot of theories here, but just as we don't know they are true, we don't know they aren't. Examined in a case by case basis, i'm sure most can be argued either way.

The only thing i find VERY odd is that two little girls were named for two older ones, and the second oldest daughter (who doesn't have a junior) is possibly dead of childbirth. I'm sure there could be a thousand reasons for the kiya connection, but those names seem quite ridiculous if not named for their mothers, and so do some of the other explanations for whose children they could be if (and why) they were renamed. I think i'm with Reeves on this one. Sometimes a picture of a duck really is just a duck, and father-daughter incest, however nasty it is now (and was then... not like the brother-sister-divinity thing), we do know Akhenaten's father practiced it... and the apple does not fall far from the perv tree, as i understand.

As for Smenkhare, he could be Akhenaten's male kin and Tut's. No one wonders if he was Tut's dad, but maybe? Tut is the "son of a king" but never named which one (except for where he claimes Amenhotep 3 for a grandfather using a word I understand to be the same as father). As last I read, the age of the kv 55 mummy rules him out for Akhenaten (who died in his young-mid thirties). Of course some people think he is Nefertiti. Any news on Hawas' DNA testing? haven't heard.

I think Tiye cannot be his mother... way too old. I don't think Nefertiti was either, though that's tossed around too.

Too many holes in this time period, and it's one of the most interesting!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chillie wrote:

but those names seem quite ridiculous if not named for their mothers, and so do some of the other explanations for whose children they could be if (and why) they were renamed. I think i'm with Reeves on this one. Sometimes a picture of a duck really is just a duck, and father-daughter incest, however nasty it is now (and was then... not like the brother-sister-divinity thing), we do know Akhenaten's father practiced it... and the apple does not fall far from the perv tree, as i understand.


i think those princesses in tut's tomb could have been given those names.
other than that, they could be named for akhenaten's favourite daughters.
or maybe they were family names.
there is no evidence any egyptian king actually consummated they're marriages with their children. as far as we know, sitamun was elevated to great royal wife to take some of the strain off queen tiye. from what i understand, tiye took a back seat from government after her daughter's elevation, but probably stayed as the influence behind the throne.
and i havnt heard of sitamun having children.
there is no evidence akhenaten had sexual relations with his daughters, and it is likely they were being groomed for future office like sitamun was.
ramses II also married his daughters, and as far as i know, they didnt have children by him.

chillie wrote:
As for Smenkhare, he could be Akhenaten's male kin and Tut's. No one wonders if he was Tut's dad, but maybe? As last I read, the age of the kv 55 mummy rules him out for Akhenaten (who died in his young-mid thirties). Of course some people think he is Nefertiti.


the k.v. 55 mummy is either a brother or father of tut. blood grouping and skull shape have confirmed this. the mummy is also under 25 at death. this is stated more than the age of 35 hawass has claimed. grafton elliott smith said the body was of a young male, under 25, and most anthropologists agree. i think once again, hawass is trying to shine the spot light where there is nothing to be found. he insists it is akhenaten, when the historical evidence says otherwise. smenhkare would have been born in the last years of amenhotep III's reign, sp it is quite plausible i think that he is akhenaten's son, and tut's brother. alternatively, he could be akhenaten's brother, and tut's father. either way, he best fits the identity of k.v.55.


chillie wrote:


I think Tiye cannot be his mother... way too old. I don't think Nefertiti was either, though that's tossed around too.

Too many holes in this time period, and it's one of the most interesting!


i think it is absurd that tut could be tiye's son. he was 10 when he came to the throne. akhenaten died roughly 2-3 years before tut got the throne.that makes him 8 when akhenaten died. which means he was born around year 9. tiye was well into her 50's by then. nefertiti is a plausible mother, but akhenaten changed the rules about art, so if she had a son, i would think that he would be depicted. i think an unknown woman of the harem is the best fit. she wouldnt have been around long i dont think, and kiya fits the bill so far. until more research is done, and an inscription found, we will never know for sure i dont think. unless the dna type the 'the younger lady' from k.v. 35.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin... while i disagree in that i think there is more evidence of them being akhenaten's children than not... i was acutally JUST thinking that this morning!

Could the children in Tut's tomb, at least one of them, be one of the Ta-Sherit girls?

At least the oldest one... there isn't really much evidence that Ankhesenpaaten Ta-Sherit lived very long, and THIS child is called (if I'm not mistaken) simply "the osiris" or something to that effect. It WOULD be interesting if this was actually Ankhesenamun's FIRST child rather than her children with Tut (if she HAD any... and BTW that's another thing we can't know for sure, isn't it?).

The baby had spinal bifida. One of spinal bifida's main causes is incest, and it is actually far more common for the FIRST child born to a girl to carry the disease. I really doubt lack of folic acid was the cause here, as the royal family probably had better nutrition than we have today with all the junk we eat. They would have had fruits, meats, veggies, grain, dairy in abundance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yup n i agree... absurd for him to be Tiye's son... she would have been way too old or dead (was she dead by year nine?)

And I've always heard it: he was 9 when he got his crown, and it was really not very long at all between akhenaten's death and his coronation. but who really knows
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm surfing the web and just randomly the Tour Egypt page saying Akhenaten definitely did marry his daughter. Is this true?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:

It has also been suggested that, like his father Amunhotep III, Akhenaten may have taken some of his daughters as consorts:

Meritaten, recorded as Great Royal Wife late in his reign, though it is more likely that she got this title due to her marriage to Smenkhkare, Akhenaten's co-regent;Meketaten, Akhenaten's second daughter. The reason for this suggestion is Meketaten's death due to childbirth in, or after, the fourteenth year of Akhenaten's reign, though nowhere does she have the title or cartouche of a queen.Ankhesenpaaten, his third daughter, also on tenuous evidence. In his final year or after his death, Ankhesenpaaten married Akhenaten's successor Tutankhamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don`t think the babies from Tut`s tomb could be the Ta-sherit girls (even not one of them), because given the importance the egyptians conferred on names they would certainly have been buried mentioning their proper names ( even if they were only "junior versions", still they were names).
But the two babes we have here were only referred to as "Osiris", which means they never had names. Besides, it would have been strange if Meritaten or Ankhesenpaaten would have mentioned the name of Osiris on their children`s mummies at a time which would still have belonged to the Amarna Period.

As for everyone thinking it absurd for Tut to be Tiye`s son...........well,I would like to say more on this topic, but I see I stand alone with my opinion and I do not want to convince anyone, so I`d better shut myself up.

Hopefully one day we get more evidence for one of the many theories
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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