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 

Tutankhamen's family
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
1) I've already forgotten where the warehouse was, but there was the scene where Hawass and his companions found and reassembled the pair of blocks specifying that Tutankhamun was "son of the king, of his body." I've read about this inscription before, as I'm sure many of you have, and though the TV special tried to pass it off more or less as definitive proof that the father is Akhenaten, the inscription does not mention Akhenaten or any other forebearer by name. Am I missing something, or how is the inscription "proof" of Akhenaten as the father? Or is this a bit of the TV simplification I mentioned above?


It's true that the block doesn't name the king that was Tutankhuaten's father. But as I understand (do correct me if I'm wrong), it was found to join up with another block that names Ankhesenpaaten as "king's daughter of his body".
Two king's children next to each other, at least to me, implies that the king is the same in both cases, i.e. Akhenaten. Or is there a precedent for children of different kings appearing as such right next to each other in scenes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 17
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Quote:
1) I've already forgotten where the warehouse was, but there was the scene where Hawass and his companions found and reassembled the pair of blocks specifying that Tutankhamun was "son of the king, of his body." I've read about this inscription before, as I'm sure many of you have, and though the TV special tried to pass it off more or less as definitive proof that the father is Akhenaten, the inscription does not mention Akhenaten or any other forebearer by name. Am I missing something, or how is the inscription "proof" of Akhenaten as the father? Or is this a bit of the TV simplification I mentioned above?


It's true that the block doesn't name the king that was Tutankhuaten's father. But as I understand (do correct me if I'm wrong), it was found to join up with another block that names Ankhesenpaaten as "king's daughter of his body".
Two king's children next to each other, at least to me, implies that the king is the same in both cases, i.e. Akhenaten. Or is there a precedent for children of different kings appearing as such right next to each other in scenes?


Hmm, yes forgot about that. Found this article by Hawass on it from last year: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/929/he2.htm. I, for some reason, always have a hard time believing anything Hawass says but how do you refute the blocks then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khaemweset wrote:

Hmm, yes forgot about that. Found this article by Hawass on it from last year: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/929/he2.htm. I, for some reason, always have a hard time believing anything Hawass says but how do you refute the blocks then?


Maybe we don't. That would leave us with Akhenaten/KV35YL-->Tut and Akhenaten/Nefertiti-->Ankhesenpaaten. I'm guessing this is the direction Zahi is going. Someone was posting saying that he's still claiming Kiya is Tut's mother, so maybe he's going to make a stab at ID'ing KV35YL as Kiya.

Returning to the blocks: if they're accurate and Ankhesenpaaten is the daughter of a king, then we've got at least half-brother/half-sister marriage within Tut's generation. I'm surprised the DNA link isn't clearer. Zahi's a lot more hesitant on this ID probably because Ankhesenpaaten is clearly identified as Nefertiti's daughter in inscriptions. If she turns out to be Tut's sister, then the case for KV35YL being Nefertiti becomes much stronger.

Zahi's playing Mythbuster lately. He's trying to kill the "Tut was murdered" theory with a combination of malaria and a broken leg (as if they were somehow related). And he's using this DNA tree to somehow rule out KV35YL as Nefertiti to defeat Fletcher's theory. Except I don't think he's getting where he wanted to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Diorite
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:


Returning to the blocks: if they're accurate and Ankhesenpaaten is the daughter of a king, then we've got at least half-brother/half-sister marriage within Tut's generation. I'm surprised the DNA link isn't clearer. Zahi's a lot more hesitant on this ID probably because Ankhesenpaaten is clearly identified as Nefertiti's daughter in inscriptions. If she turns out to be Tut's sister, then the case for KV35YL being Nefertiti becomes much stronger.



If the KV21A mummy is Ankhesenamun, KV35YL can't be Nefertiti because KV21A has alleles that KV35YL doesn't have. The implication is that Tut and Ankhesenamun were half-brother and sister.

Diorite
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: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
Taken from latest DNA report:

It had been thought that the large wound in the left side of the mummy's mouth and cheek, which also destroyed part of the jaw, had also been the result of the tomb robber's actions,[6] but a more recent re-examination of the mummy while it was undergoing genetic tests determined that the wound had happened prior to death and that the injury had been lethal


Now this should be news headlines! "Tut's Mother Murdered!" (or executed but it doesn't seem likely given the locations of the wound)
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: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

freeTinker wrote:
akb wrote:
...Is it possible that you can upload the article / supplemental to a site like
www.sendspace.com ?...


Download eSupplement
http://www.sendspace.com/file/s3bmz1

thx, I was looking for site just like that!


This is where the most telling kinship information is hidden. In the comment section on Kinship determination the last line in the second paragraph says, "Thus, Egyptologically the most likely candidate is Akhenaten, although Smenkhkare remains a possibility."

on KV35YL "The allele constellations in all short tandem repeat markers tested indicate that the KV 35 Younger Lady is a full-sister of the KV 55 mummy, and is unlikely to be Nefertiti or Kiya, neither of whom is attested as a daughter of Amenhotep III. This leaves Nebetiah and Beketaten, daughters of Amenhotep II not known to have married their father and who therefore might have married their brother, as the most likely candidates for the KV35 Younger Lady."

They still don't tell what it is about KV 55 that makes them convinced he was older. Maybe it was Hawass whispering in their ears?

Diorite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
burlgirl
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 71
Location: Corinth, New York

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="neseret"][quote="Oudjat-Paneb"]
neseret wrote:

...The second coffin of Tutankhamun does not possess his features, nor do the canopic coffinettes, which seem to argue for reuse of these item from someone wishing an Osiride burial before Tutankhamun takes over the items (such as the rishi design on the coffin and canopic coffinettes). This, IMO, argues for another individual other than Akhenaten, as noted by Dodson (1992).


I keep seeing this stated, but, to me, the 2nd coffien does look like Tut. The area above the lip and around the bottom of the nose looks like it was "messed up" while being manufactured, but I still see Tut. Now, the coffinettes - that's a different story. They look like a different person to me. The faces on the canopic jars look like a third person (I had often thought they look like Nefertiti - even before we learned of the theory she could have been king).

But, this is off topic, so I return you to your regular topic at hand.
_________________
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They still don't tell what it is about KV 55 that makes them convinced he was older. Maybe it was Hawass whispering in their ears?


It sounds like a default type of whisper. Doing the math: if it was Semenkare, KV35YL must be Meritaten, who then gives birth to Tut at around 7 years old. Who else could it be then?
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: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:


It sounds like a default type of whisper. Doing the math: if it was Semenkare, KV35YL must be Meritaten, who then gives birth to Tut at around 7 years old. Who else could it be then?


KV35YL can't be Meritaten because she wasn't a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye.

We have no way of knowing how many sons A III and Tiye had. The KV 55 could be one we've never heard of. If it was Smenkare, he could have had a wife before Meritaten, one of his sisters. It could be the new study is right and the KV55 body is Akhenaten, but as a scientist I need the facts behind the interpretation before I'm happy. Explain why the detailed anatomical studies done by previous workers was wrong.

The possibilities aren't endless, but there are more than you think.

Diorite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Posts: 156
Location: C'ordoba, Spain

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wholly agree, Diorite. The more I look at the report, the less scientific it appears to be:- no real explanation for raising (dramatically!) the age of KV 55, contra Smith, Harrison and Filer & Iskander; no mtDNA; vague speculation over cause of death: sudden appearance of club feet all over the place, to mention a few 'cracks' off the top of my head.
Also, if (maybe via mtDNA) it can be proved that KV 35 YL is Tutankhamun's mother, why does KV 55 have to be the father - couldn't it be another sibling? By context, KV 55 is likely to be from Amarna - i.e. Akhenaten or Smenkhkare, or X, another son of Amenhotep III (sons are notably invisible in pharaonic royal families - perhaps to prevent them from getting above their station).
Now, if KV 55 is Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun's father - but it has to be proved - that solves a lot of problems. Smenkakare is then another brother who succeeds him as of right, or a usurper who married Meritaten to strengthen his position. Tutankhamun is by-passed or ignored: maybe he was blind, deaf, mentally retarded or had some other disability which diesn't show up on his mummy.
If KV 55 is Smenkhkare, that leads to almost insoluble problems concerning dates and two marriages (KV 35 YL and Meritaten) for a second or third son - but improbable doesn't mean impossoble.
Finally, by the by, shouldn't the young man in KV 35 be Amenhotep III's 'lost' son, and brother of Akhenaten, Thutmose? It would be interesting ro run DNA tests on him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oudjat-Paneb
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Feb 2010
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For Smenkharę, further possibilities :

-it's a royal name of Nefertiti after akhenaten's death (I don't think so but probably)... we already must find his tomb before conclude !
-it's a royal name of a Akhenaten brother ... but wich brother ???
-it's a royal name (and egyptian one) of prince Zannanza (Mittani) (most probable yet)... if KV55 considered be the Tutankhamen's father (or family) it could be not Zannanza so not smenkharę !

I think KV55 could be Akhenaten. No traces of smenkharę every where !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be a stretch for Semenkare, dead around 20 to have fathered Tut at around 9-11 years old by anyone.

There is no record of Ahkenaten marrying a sister, but Amenhotep III could still be the father of Tut, right? And there are several married daughters to choose from. Of course that would put him in Amarna to at least year 8 of Ahknaten's reign.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oudjat-Paneb
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 02 Feb 2010
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

King Tut revendicated be the "son" Amenotep III, but it's not a prove he was his real son.

I think Amenhotep III been Tut's great father, but his "father" (spiritualy and religiously)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The big stumbling block in the calling of Amenhotep III Tutankhamen'f fater, is a matter of Egyotian practices of the time.
He may have been referring to his biological father, but he also could have been referring to A III as a father, in the sense of an ancestor from his lineage--i,e, grandfather.
It is certainly in the possiblit to have A III as his immediate father, I'm sure by a lesser queen or concubine, but all of the latest examinations and testing seems to prove, without much doubt, that Ankhnaten was his father. I still question that conclusion, though. There seems to be too many "pssible" "maybe" "is likely" comments to be absolutely positive concerning identification. I always wonder if the mummies tested have been identified correctly?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Theban Moon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a seeming discrepancy between the age at death of KV55 in the report and the Discovery videos of the investigation. Refer to Pharoah Forensics in which Dr Selim clearly gives an estimated age of death as "40s" and the commentary uses the age 40.

Having watched this video, personally I find it hard to entertain an age in the 40s. The skull sutures are really very obvious. I know that is not determinative, but the teeth are in remarkably good condition.


Kate
_________________
Kate Phizackerley
News from the Valley of the Kings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 10 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