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, 4 ... 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
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think akhenaten and smenkhare were brothers. maybe akhenaten knew he wasnt going to be around much longer, or thought his brother would be king one day, and decided on a co regency. smenkhare is believed to have ruled for one year after akhenaten and then died. then comes neferneferuaten, which could quite possibly have tuts mother whoever she is.

maybe smenkhare is tuts father. he was a king too, and we know tuts was the son of a king. he was alreadfy born by the time akhenaten came to the throne, if the kv 55 mummy is his. i just dont think we should be saying akhenaten is his father until we can prove more about the kv 55 mummy. like his age at death. more people say it is a young male around 20 years old at death. the ones who say it is around 35, are the ones who want akhenaten to be this mummy. i highly doubt akhenatens mummy would have survived to the present. there were mummified remains found in akhenaten's tomb at amarna. they could be his remains. and if he was buried in kv 55, why strip the mummy and coffin of its identity, and leave the body intact? he was erased from history, if he was treated like that every where else, why not destroy his mummy?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
christphe
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KV21A is essential to understand better those relationship
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
christphe
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
i think akhenaten and smenkhare were brothers. maybe akhenaten knew he wasnt going to be around much longer, or thought his brother would be king one day, and decided on a co regency. smenkhare is believed to have ruled for one year after akhenaten and then died. then comes neferneferuaten, which could quite possibly have tuts mother whoever she is.

maybe smenkhare is tuts father. he was a king too, and we know tuts was the son of a king. he was alreadfy born by the time akhenaten came to the throne, if the kv 55 mummy is his. i just dont think we should be saying akhenaten is his father until we can prove more about the kv 55 mummy. like his age at death. more people say it is a young male around 20 years old at death. the ones who say it is around 35, are the ones who want akhenaten to be this mummy. i highly doubt akhenatens mummy would have survived to the present. there were mummified remains found in akhenaten's tomb at amarna. they could be his remains. and if he was buried in kv 55, why strip the mummy and coffin of its identity, and leave the body intact? he was erased from history, if he was treated like that every where else, why not destroy his mummy?


if we're on speculations i highly doubt a king like akhenaten would prefere his brother to his girls. Specialy if we think about Meriaton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Posts: 397
Location: USA - Northeast

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Link to Lawry Gold drawings of small clay necropolis seals from KV21 published and copyright, Donald P Ryan and Valley of the Kings Project. Anyone know (have an indication of) what they say?

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/21seals.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Neferseshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now the result is announced today, I read the illustration of the family tree(from the German news Annake provides), which presented that KV55 mummy was Tut's father, and KV21 mummy was his mother, but their identities are still under debate, I am surprised they still say KV55 is Akhenaten.

And in theban mapping project, the two female mummies were found with their left arm across their chest. Is it all king's wives can have their arm posed this way or just the chief wife?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really unexpected news among allthe results. AndI have tosay good-bye tomy pet theory that AIII and Queen Tiye were Tut`s parents Crying or Very sad , but there is compensation in form of new questions to muse about.

Of special interest is if KV21A is really the foetuses` mother and what her relationship to Tut and everybody else was. They promise to work on it, sothere will hopefully be more news coming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefertum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KV21 was originally explored by Belzoni in 1817, where he discovered the 2 female mummies "on the ground quite naked, without cloth or case". The tomb was finally excavated by Donald P Ryan, beginning in 1989, by which time the mummies were found to be dismembered.

Puzzling to me are the remains of the pottery storage jard which were found in the tomb, which appear to have been dated to pre-Thutmose IV. It seems strange that jars would be held in storage, thus ensuring their survival to a point in time some 4 or 5 generations later, so that they then could be used to contain embalming residue.

They are saying that the body from KV55 is older than previously thought, based on "our recent anthropological analysis", but I don't see where they're providing the results of that analysis which led them to come to that conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It really seems too early to name akhenaten as the KV55 mummy, it would be a stretch to assume that this body is old enough to be him assuming that Akhenaten was a young adult when he became king. It would be a stretch, too, to assume that he died in his early twenties and was in fact a child at his accession, especially with regards to his religious changes. One should have to assume that it was his mother who carried out the changes in his name or maybe Nefertiti if she was a few years older.
I think it`s still rather possible that the KV55 body is Semenkhkare`s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for posting this article, Freethinker.

I'm not even going to pretend I can understand all of the raw scientific data but on the face of it, it looks like Zawi Hawass and his team have come up with some really interesting stuff that could settle some questions that Egyptologists have been debating for years and will no doubt open even more debates.

A few comments. Not all of them completely serious.

King Tut's causus mori: Not a fall from a chariot, not foul play--now it looks like the poor guy had malaria aggravated by an already weakened condition caused by congenital disorders and the injuries that had previously been cited as cause of death. (Someone's going to have to break it to James Patterson) With the latest controversy regarding this king being articles in KMT and now Archaeology suggesting that Tutankhamon may have campaigned abroad, is it possible that he came down with malaria while on campaign?

KV55=Akhenaton: OK, I've sort of been on board with this one for a while especially since the age of death of this individual had been recently revised upward.

KV35-EL= Tiye: Not much of a suprise there. It's been suspected for a long time.

Tut's Mom was the full sister of his father (KV55 AKA Akhenaton): Didn't see that one coming--I was betting on Kiya.

Clubfoot seems to have run in the family as did scoliosis.

I was a bit confused by the mummies included in the early 18th Dynasty control group. Thutmose II I can definately see, he was an ancestor of Amonhotep III and Tutankhamon. Hatshepsut, I can also see, she was not a direct ancestress (as far as we know) but still a relative, the mummy formerly known as Thutmose I (certainly a relative, possibly an ancestor of Thutmose II). Ahmose Nefertari, OK. but why not include Thutmose III who was CT scanned and DNA typed in the series of tests that resulted in the identification of KV60 B as Hatshepsut and is probably the most securely identified of the early 18th Dynasty mummies. Also, why include Sitre-Inet who as far as we know had no biological relation to the royal family?

Does Hawass have more bombshells up his sleeve or were these just the mummies with the best surviving DNA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neferseshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 212
Location: Kaohsiung, Taiwan

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naunacht wrote:
I was a bit confused by the mummies included in the early 18th Dynasty control group. Thutmose II I can definately see, he was an ancestor of Amonhotep III and Tutankhamon. Hatshepsut, I can also see, she was not a direct ancestress (as far as we know) but still a relative, the mummy formerly known as Thutmose I (certainly a relative, possibly an ancestor of Thutmose II). Ahmose Nefertari, OK. but why not include Thutmose III who was CT scanned and DNA typed in the series of tests that resulted in the identification of KV60 B as Hatshepsut and is probably the most securely identified of the early 18th Dynasty mummies. Also, why include Sitre-Inet who as far as we know had no biological relation to the royal family?

Does Hawass have more bombshells up his sleeve or were these just the mummies with the best surviving DNA.


Your post reminded me of one thing: I remembered this DNA project was also to find out if the mummy of Thutmose I is really Thutmose I, but there in nothing of it mentioned, or Tut's family is only the first stage of this project?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neferseshat wrote:
Naunacht wrote:
I was a bit confused by the mummies included in the early 18th Dynasty control group. Thutmose II I can definately see, he was an ancestor of Amonhotep III and Tutankhamon. Hatshepsut, I can also see, she was not a direct ancestress (as far as we know) but still a relative, the mummy formerly known as Thutmose I (certainly a relative, possibly an ancestor of Thutmose II). Ahmose Nefertari, OK. but why not include Thutmose III who was CT scanned and DNA typed in the series of tests that resulted in the identification of KV60 B as Hatshepsut and is probably the most securely identified of the early 18th Dynasty mummies. Also, why include Sitre-Inet who as far as we know had no biological relation to the royal family?

Does Hawass have more bombshells up his sleeve or were these just the mummies with the best surviving DNA.


Your post reminded me of one thing: I remembered this DNA project was also to find out if the mummy of Thutmose I is really Thutmose I, but there in nothing of it mentioned, or Tut's family is only the first stage of this project?


Tut's family seems to be the second stage of this project. The early 18th Dynasty mummies were scanned and DNA mapped in the 2007 investigation which identified KV60 B as the mortal remains of Queen Hatshepsut. In the process, the long suspected theory that the mummy identified as Thutmose I was not really that king was confirmed.

Hawass has talked about testing the mummy of Seti II who bears a strong resemblance to the early Thutmosids and may have been misidentified when the royal mummies were removed to caches for safekeeping and to see if he is really Thutmose I--or possibly Thutmose II. The Thutmose II mummy is that of a man who died in his 40s while some the historical evidence indicates that he was considerably younger. Then there is of course the question of just who the mummy formerly known as Thutmose I really was. Some have suggested that he was the real Thutmose I's father, possibly prince Ahmose Sipair, Amonhotep I's older brother. (My pet theory is that he's Amonemhat Thutmose I's crown prince and possibly the grandson of Hatshepsut.)

What I'm intrigued about is the inclusion of Sitre-Inet in the royal group. She was the nurse of Queen Hatshepsut and as far is is known not a member of the royal family but hey, who knows. Wouldn't it be a blast if one of her daughters or grandaughters married into the royal family and she was a distant ancestress of Tutankhamon.

I'm already looking forward to part three of this story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seshat
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 132

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some points. I doubt kv55 is tuthmose and for me the evidence is that he's too old (mid 20s). And the defacing of the coffin isn't logical for tuthmose.
Speaking of the kv55 mummy, afaik the problematic age estimation for kv55 has been a result of bone analysis. The state of joint development etc. I'm wondering if the fact that a bone disease was endemic in the family will invalidate this?
Something we are pretty sure of is that in the aftermath of akhenaten we have two kings ankheperure smenkhare who was likely a guy and ankheperure neferneferuaten who was likely female. Because of the age estimate on the kv55 body people have wanted to assign it to the next possible candidate after Akhenaten which is smenkhare whom we know next to nothing about. But the epigraphic evidence in kv55 leans heavily toward Akhenaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seshat wrote:
Some points. I doubt kv55 is tuthmose and for me the evidence is that he's too old (mid 20s). And the defacing of the coffin isn't logical for tuthmose.
Speaking of the kv55 mummy, afaik the problematic age estimation for kv55 has been a result of bone analysis. The state of joint development etc. I'm wondering if the fact that a bone disease was endemic in the family will invalidate this?
Something we are pretty sure of is that in the aftermath of akhenaten we have two kings ankheperure smenkhare who was likely a guy and ankheperure neferneferuaten who was likely female. Because of the age estimate on the kv55 body people have wanted to assign it to the next possible candidate after Akhenaten which is smenkhare whom we know next to nothing about. But the epigraphic evidence in kv55 leans heavily toward Akhenaten.


Seshat. I wasn't suggesting that KV55 was Thutmose. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
christphe
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it is sometime usefull to remind that no object with smenkhare name were found in KV55, but only Akhenaton and Tiyi.
as sheshat wrote smenkharé is a fantomatic kind, and there is no proof or mention that he was a king son.
The age of KV55 mumy has alway been subject of speculation and i don't know why people think akhenaton was a "young adult" when he decame king.
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, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 3 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