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 ... , 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
Theban Moon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've a question which is related to trying to build a family tree. Where princes other than the crown prince allowed to marry? One gets the impression - perhaps wrongly - that an attempt was made to restrict male progency to the direct line of Pharaoh. Am I right or wrong?

Kate
_________________
Kate Phizackerley
News from the Valley of the Kings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Theban Moon wrote:
I've a question which is related to trying to build a family tree. Where princes other than the crown prince allowed to marry? One gets the impression - perhaps wrongly - that an attempt was made to restrict male progency to the direct line of Pharaoh. Am I right or wrong?

Kate


I suspect that they were allowed to marry and did. A princess named Nebetia was found and her father was a prince called Siatum who is thought to be a son of Tuthmosis IV. So this would have been a brother of Amenhotep III with a daughter.

Among the sons of Ramesses II several sons with offspring are known:
I think it's Prince Sethhirkhepeshef who is mentioned on an ostracon with a wife named Nefertari and a son named Sety.

Prince Khaemwaset had two sons - Ramesses and Hori - as well as a daughter - Isetnofret.

Prince Simentu was married to Iryet a daughter of a Syrian ship's captain named Benanath. So I guess some even married commoners?

It's really too bad these families are not better documented.
It would be fascinating to know if fro instance Tuthmose the first son of Amenhotep III was old enough to have started a household.

Welcome to the board btw Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diorite wrote:

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


I've never been a fan of the math arguments since they rely too heavily on Akhenaten's reign being 17yrs long. Any date after year 12 is invariably accompanied by "probably" or "around" and relies on weak support. To my mind, dates after Year 12 can be dismissed as theoretical.

Trying to trump DNA and CAT scans with a handful of inscriptions is a no-win situation. Make the theories fit the facts

RstJ
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: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:
Diorite wrote:

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


I've never been a fan of the math arguments since they rely too heavily on Akhenaten's reign being 17yrs long. Any date after year 12 is invariably accompanied by "probably" or "around" and relies on weak support. To my mind, dates after Year 12 can be dismissed as theoretical.

Trying to trump DNA and CAT scans with a handful of inscriptions is a no-win situation. Make the theories fit the facts

RstJ


I'm not sure where your comment comes from, it certainly isn't from anything I said. I didn't mention any reign lengths. I didn't mention any inscriptions. Did you quote the wrong post?

My point was and is that they assert that the skeleton is that of a man older than had previously been assigned to it but they give no reasons for that statement in their paper. In the program they tried to pass off the unclosed sutures in the skull and mentioned wear in joints but didn't produce the DATA that show that. In the paper, they make the same assertion about age but again give no data to support their argument.

Scientifically speaking, if you don't produce the data, others must assume that is because your data do not support your conclusion. I have to suspect that, too, because statements made during the program differ from the conclusions drawn in the paper. Marfans was mentioned as obvious in one of Tut's daughters but the published paper says that none of the genetic diseases is evident in their study of the bodies.

I have scientific questions. I can accept the conclusion that KV 55 is Tut's father because they published the data. I do have to question their conclusion as to the identity without it.

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


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Theban Moon wrote:
I've a question which is related to trying to build a family tree. Where princes other than the crown prince allowed to marry? One gets the impression - perhaps wrongly - that an attempt was made to restrict male progency to the direct line of Pharaoh. Am I right or wrong?

Kate


I suspect that they were allowed to marry and did. A princess named Nebetia was found and her father was a prince called Siatum who is thought to be a son of Tuthmosis IV. So this would have been a brother of Amenhotep III with a daughter.

Among the sons of Ramesses II several sons with offspring are known:
I think it's Prince Sethhirkhepeshef who is mentioned on an ostracon with a wife named Nefertari and a son named Sety.

Prince Khaemwaset had two sons - Ramesses and Hori - as well as a daughter - Isetnofret.

Prince Simentu was married to Iryet a daughter of a Syrian ship's captain named Benanath. So I guess some even married commoners?

It's really too bad these families are not better documented.
It would be fascinating to know if fro instance Tuthmose the first son of Amenhotep III was old enough to have started a household.

Welcome to the board btw Very Happy


The perhaps we should ask why we know of no children by Akhenaten before Meritaten who was born probably just before his reign. Does that suggest he came to the throne at a young age, or that there was a marriage before Nefertiti which we do no know of?

Kate
_________________
Kate Phizackerley
News from the Valley of the Kings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't there a jar docket from Armana dated Year 17 of one king, which is then re-dated Year 1 of another?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The most possible scenario is in my view that kv55 is Semenkhkare who at some point during Akhenaten`s reign was married to his sister and fathered Tut. His sister/wife probably died before he became king, this might explain why the marriage hasn`t been considered important enough to be mentioned much. Of import could also be the question if the YL was buried with a bent arm as queen (as Fletcher suggests) or with a straight arm as Hawass contradicts. there is no conclusive report on this, currently.

I note that the older age estimate for KV55 is based on alterations of the vertebrae due to shrinking of the disks. I could imagine that certain physical activities such as chariot riding which had no shock absorbers put a lot of strain on the spine and especially the discs. If practised much and maybe sometimes on rough ground such as desert ground i think it`s possible that it might result in premature damage to the discs which then leads to alterations on the vertebrae which could be mistaken for age related degeneration.
All other finds on the skull and the fact that there is no wear on the teeth support a young age.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diorite wrote:

I'm not sure where your comment comes from, it certainly isn't from anything I said. I didn't mention any reign lengths. I didn't mention any inscriptions. Did you quote the wrong post?


I think I got caught up in the argument-from-age angle about KV55. Team Zahi jumps into the same fray, trying to use science to support speculation. They have the DNA matches. They don't really need to stretch Akhenaten's age to match up with a handful of highly questionable dates, half of those inferred from the reign of a different Pharaoh and a coregency that no one can prove.


Quote:

My point was and is that they assert that the skeleton is that of a man older than had previously been assigned to it but they give no reasons for that statement in their paper. In the program they tried to pass off the unclosed sutures in the skull and mentioned wear in joints but didn't produce the DATA that show that. In the paper, they make the same assertion about age but again give no data to support their argument.

Scientifically speaking, if you don't produce the data, others must assume that is because your data do not support your conclusion.


I agree. And I don't think Akhenaten was much over 30 when he died, if that. Doesn't change the identification, but should have changed the thinking about how long he was really on the throne. Zahi's all about blowing up some of these Amarna myths that have made the field a parody of science. Now if he'd just take it the rest of the way and start questioning the date mathematics rather than trying to artificially age the remains.

Quote:

I have to suspect that, too, because statements made during the program differ from the conclusions drawn in the paper. Marfans was mentioned as obvious in one of Tut's daughters but the published paper says that none of the genetic diseases is evident in their study of the bodies.


That just sounds like sloppiness on the part of the show's producers. I'm glad to see the whole Marfans thing going by the boards. Diagnosing 3500yr old patients based on stylized artistic representations isn't science.

Quote:

I have scientific questions. I can accept the conclusion that KV 55 is Tut's father because they published the data. I do have to question their conclusion as to the identity without it.


Without the DNA? Or without the interpretation of the age of the individual?

RstJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
ZH's age estimation on KV 55 comes from examination of the vertebrae. Where does this come from? The Discovery programme? It's the first I've heard of it. If that's what they say, it seems hardly tenable, in view of the admitted spinal disorders of Tutankhamun and all his family. Most other scientists who have seen the remains age him at around 20 years old.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefertum wrote:
Isn't there a jar docket from Armana dated Year 17 of one king, which is then re-dated Year 1 of another?


Yes. And that's it. That's all we have to support a 17yr reign, but on that magic number, whole systems of theory are built, and phantoms like Smenkhare conjured out of the air.

From Year 1-12, there is a lot of documentation, no small part of it chiseled into stone in an unambiguous fashion. From year 13-17 there's very little. In fact, there's so little that I'm currently looking to see if there are any dates at all, which I'm beginning to doubt. What I'm seeing is a lot of speculation based on that jar docket as an end date, and then applying Year 13,14,15 etc to any undated scene to bridge the gap.

Supposedly Manetho ascribed a 12yr rule to the daughter of a king, probably confusing that wife of his (Akhenaten's sister/wife) as the true ruler (which if you went solely by the Thebes evidence would be an easy conclusion to arrive at). I'm starting to believe he knew what he was talking about.

Does anyone know of any inscribed dates at Amarna between Year 13-17?

RstJ
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: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:

Quote:

I have scientific questions. I can accept the conclusion that KV 55 is Tut's father because they published the data. I do have to question their conclusion as to the identity without it.


Without the DNA? Or without the interpretation of the age of the individual?

RstJ


Hawass and company seem to be basing the identity of KV 55 on the fact that he was Tut's father (and they've assumed that Akhenaten was Tut's father) and the age of the remains. I think without the explanation of their age estimate they are maybe finding what they want to find instead of relying on the evidence.

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


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hawass and company seem to be basing the identity of KV 55 on the fact that he was Tut's father (and they've assumed that Akhenaten was Tut's father) and the age of the remains. I think without the explanation of their age estimate they are maybe finding what they want to find instead of relying on the evidence.


I agree it was not explained. I have to say though that Tiye was long refuted as being herself because she looked too young. Amenhotep III is often wondered if he is himself because he tests too young.

As an off-civilization coroboration: in Mexico in 1953 when Ruiz discovered an unbreached entombment in Palanque, he said that the skeleton could not be Pacal (with a bust of himself on the side of his sarcaphogus), and lots of inscriptions because he looked like a skeleton in his 40s while he was known to be over 80. Ruiz went to his grave believing that. In the light of irrefutable evidence everyone else moved on and IDed him as Pacal.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

smenkhare existed. he is attested by inscriptions in noble's tombs at amarna.
his wife was meritaten, also attested in the same inscriptions.

read dodson's amarna sunset. apart from the id of tuts mother as nefertiti (because the book was published a full month before the dna results were), everything else is the latest scholarly research. there is a chapter on smenkahre.

and the kv 55 remains are 20 years old at best. how hard is it to believe that a 20 year old can have a 6 year old child? tut was 9 when he came to the throne. take off 3 years for the reigns of smenkhare and neferneferuaten, you have a 6 year old child at akhenaten's death. so tutankhamun is born roughly year 11/12. based on the age of kv 55, he would have been born around the last year or so of amenhotep III's reign.
akhenaten was certainly older than 20 at death. his eldest daughter was born in year 1. if akhenaten died at 20, he would have been a small child at his accession, therefore he couldnt have fathered any of his daughters.
therefore the whole kv 55 equals akhenaten theory, goes up in smoke when you look at the mummy's age.

how hard it it to believe akhenaten had a younger brother, who married their younger sister? she dies, therefore never being queen, explaining why she isnt buried as such. akhenaten has no son, so promotes his brother as heir. akhenaten dies, smenkhare rules for around a year, then dies himself. meritaten rules as regent? for tutankhamun, dies, and then smenkhare's son becomes king. now, this theory fits better with the archeaological and biological evidence then the crackpot theories that smenkahre never existed and therefore akheneten has to be tuts father.

plain and simple: kv 55 is not old enough to be akhenaten, but is a brother of his. likewise, nefertiti would have to be older than 20 to be his mother.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khaemweset
Citizen
Citizen


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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
how hard it it to believe akhenaten had a younger brother, who married their younger sister? she dies, therefore never being queen, explaining why she isnt buried as such. akhenaten has no son, so promotes his brother as heir. akhenaten dies, smenkhare rules for around a year, then dies himself. meritaten rules as regent? for tutankhamun, dies, and then smenkhare's son becomes king. now, this theory fits better with the archeaological and biological evidence then the crackpot theories that smenkahre never existed and therefore akheneten has to be tuts father.


This scenario would fit well into the theory of Alain Zivie that Maia the wetnurse of Tut was Meritaten, if Tut's mother died when he was very young and she became his stepmother, no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Theban Moon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:

That just sounds like sloppiness on the part of the show's producers. I'm glad to see the whole Marfans thing going by the boards. Diagnosing 3500yr old patients based on stylized artistic representations isn't science.

RstJ


I incline to the viewthat the statements on things like age in the video were the beliefs of the scientists involved which were subseuquently editorialised. Courts place great weight on contemporaneous versions of events which in this case would seem to tbe the video.

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 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 11 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