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 

Implications of DNA results + KV55=Akhenaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amenhotep 0 wrote:
anneke Write:
Quote:
If KV 35YL is actually Nefertiti herself, then she died relatively young and that may put a crimp in the theories that Nefertiti became "Pharaoh Neferneferuaten

This is pure speculation. It can never be Nefertiti since she is not a member of the Amentohep family, and the test result of Tutís wife and his babies confirms that. Now I see why you are hostile to my theory because you always wish to demolish Pharaoh Neferneferuaten even in front of the contradictory evidence. Your subjectivity is showing through.


If you read my posts more carefully you would see that I was in some sense just "thinking out loud". I never claimed that KV 35YL is Nefertiti. I merely made the observation that if she were this would really have an impact on the possible events at the end of the Amarna period.
Further down in the thread (different post) I add other possible candidates to the list of possible identities for this woman (Queen Isis).

From what we know Nefertiti was not a member of the royal family, but I have seen even that questioned.

And besides, even if this mummy is Nefertiti (I would need some persuading on that one) then it means Nefereneferuaten cannot be Nefertiti, but could still be someone else.

And I am not "hostile" to what you argue. I just think your theory is not one of the most likely scenarios. You may want to develop a bit thicker skin if you want to come on a discussion board with new theories. Throwing a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with you and then making it personal is just going to lead to people ignoring you (as they apparently did on that Chinese history site) or getting banned if you don't keep it civil.

For as far as the thread goes: the point of the discussion as I started it was to start with the assumption (I do not consider it proven) that KV 55 is Akhenaten. Then what does this information we found tell us?

With that in mind :
Quote:
Someone else posted that if KV55 is Akhenaten, and Smenkhare vanishes, there will be a lot of people trying to scholarly paper him back into existence. Should be fun to watch!

Even if KV55 is Akhenaten, there is nothing that says that Smenkhare does not exist. That just does not follow as a logical conclusion. All it means is that KV 55 is not Smenkhare's body.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
<..>
From what we know Nefertiti was not a member of the royal family, but I have seen even that questioned.


I think it has to be. Otherwise we have the mother of the heir, a full sister to the king, taking second place to an outsider (Nefertiti). And that's very difficult to imagine given Tiye's tremendous influence.

It's time to return to the Karnak inscription which identifies Nefertiti as "heiress." I've heard it said so many times that Nefertiti's never identified as "king's daughter" but what other meaning can "heiress" have?

Now that we know the mother of Tutankamen was Akhenaten's sister, I don't see how it's possible to identify Nefertiti as anything other than a member of the royal family.

Quote:

Even if KV55 is Akhenaten, there is nothing that says that Smenkhare does not exist. That just does not follow as a logical conclusion. All it means is that KV 55 is not Smenkhare's body.


It reduces Smenkhare to a hypothetical missing royal mummy. For me, that's game over.

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


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:
It's time to return to the Karnak inscription which identifies Nefertiti as "heiress." I've heard it said so many times that Nefertiti's never identified as "king's daughter" but what other meaning can "heiress" have?
What if Nefertiti is 'heiress' to an entirely different line? perhaps a foreign line, even a foreign royal line?. "since earliest times no daughter of the king of Egypt has ever been given in marriage, &c..." - could this not be a game of political chess? - Link Here
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Have to track down the KV21 skulls and see if they have that deformity.


One of them got her head ripped off and the other used to have more skull (in a photo) but lost the top of her head. It may have been a symbolic shape rather than physical. (Ovoid.) The bald was probably priestessly.

Quote:
I knew the evidence was thin for the guy, but I never realized just *how* thin. His entire existence seems conjured from a presumed age problem with the KV55 mummy. Horemheb would be furious--not only does he fail to erase the real Atenists from the history books, but new ones who never existed have sprung up as well


I was under the impression that at least half of Semenkare's was definitely attributed to Nefertiti, being written in the female form and there is sufficient (decent) bas relief art to support it. Another interpetation is that the guy is soft & feminine because he's a she a la Hapshetsut.

In view of the fact that there is sufficient artwork to support that she could have gone Pharonic and accounted for the second half. The coffinettes in Tut's tomb and there are a whole series of these with the swan neck and breasts.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://z.about.com/d/africanhistory/1/0/L/J/TutankhamunExUpperEgyptStat.jpg&imgrefurl=http://africanhistory.about.com/od/egyptology/ig/TutenkhamunEx/TutankhamunExUpperEgyptStat.htm&usg=__0FkC0S0fpvIb0T1oXAvm66WaQ4w=&h=500&w=341&sz=20&hl=en&start=48&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=Ii3gyHh9W0Hg2M:&tbnh=130&tbnw=89&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtutankhamun%26start%3D36%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1


This head has the same face as the coffinettes but she would have had to reverted back to the old religion, which the coffinettes and gilt sculputures seem to imply.

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/egyptian_art/head_of_the_god_amun/objectview.aspx?page=1&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=amarna&fp=1&dd1=10&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=10&OID=100001014&vT=1

Here's a PDF that goes on and on about it.

Quote:
http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/Allen.pdf


If for the sake of argument you eliminate Kiya and Nefertiti because they never said they were royal this is the picture: Ahkenaten is married early to a beautiful nobody who is titled Great Wife. And he has another official queen of unknown origin in monuments and statues etc and an official foreign queen about who nothing is known other than her name.

At some point he has a fling with a full sister who should have been an automatic Great Royal Wife, instead he apparently knocked her up with out marrying her (would that make Tut a ***?) She has the kid, there is no record of her anywhere at all until she turns up murdered.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heiress was the title given to the chief wife since, at least, the founding members of the dynasty. It has to do with some priestess thing as well. It's easy to find an 18th dynasty history on the web. Since Aye's original wife and Horemhab's original wife were also heiresses the title probably got eroded. It's a question of how far back it got eroded. Aye did however marry the heiress Ankespataten (signet ring) and case could be made that Horemhab's second wife was a sister of Nefertiti.

I did wonder if the 18th dynasty was a marriage between Egypt and Hyksos and that the military branch of the family would be the Hyksos side from which came Tiye and apparently Nefertiti. But they mostly seem to have married their sisters and every few generations they ran out of direct heirs & had to use a person of lesser status for kids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For as far as the thread goes: the point of the discussion as I started it was to start with the assumption (I do not consider it proven) that KV 55 is Akhenaten. Then what does this information we found tell us?


If the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten then Ankhesenpaaten cannot be the mother of the KV62 fetuses.

The mother of the KV62 fetuses must have the 6 and 13 alleles at position D7S820, and her father must have one of these alleles at the same position.

The KV55 mummy has two copies of the 15 allele at position D7S820.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
At some point he has a fling with a full sister who should have been an automatic Great Royal Wife, instead he apparently knocked her up with out marrying her (would that make Tut a ***?) She has the kid, there is no record of her anywhere at all until she turns up murdered.
Could he not simply have 'inherited' her? if his sister had previously been a royal wife to his father, would she not simply have become his wife through his inheritance of the harim?
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Could he not simply have 'inherited' her? if his sister had previously been a royal wife to his father, would she not simply have become his wife through his inheritance of the harim?


I wondered about that too. But why is there only Nefertiti? Where was she? And is that sort of thing legitimate sucession? I would have thought a Great Royal Wife would have to take precedent over a mere Great Wife. If no co-regency she would have been there from the beginning in all the artwork. And he would of had her for nine years without any other apparent issue. I did find one image of a woman wearing a pill box hat (like in the medinet Habu sculpture) hacked out of a bas relief. The other figure was a woman. Maybe something did go down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten then Ankhesenpaaten cannot be the mother of the KV62 fetuses
.

Those mummies were scrambled up pieces interspersed with huge stones. Given the fact that Tut's penis was rolling around in the sand and they may or may not have lost his heart what probability do you give it that all the pieces wound up in the right box. I have a problem with Ankhesenpaaten having a club foot in view of all the images of her standing with Tut sitting. If she had a club foot she'd be sitting too. I figured the other one had two clubbed feet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sobek wrote:
The KV55 mummy has two copies of the 15 allele at position D7S820
Yes, the red-coded one is from his mother Tiye (KV35EL) and the green-coded one is from his father Amenhotep III (KV35)

Sobek wrote:
The mother of the KV62 fetuses must have the 6 and 13 alleles at position D7S820, and her father must have one of these alleles at the same position
The father, Tutankhamun (KV62) has a grey-coded 10 corresponding to Fetus-1 and a red-coded 15 corresponding to Fetus-2

No Alleles are shown on KV21A on the D7S820 column, but you might expect to find a 6 and a 13 there, you might also expect to find the 6 and 13 in the same place for Nefertiti (as KV21A's mother)

Since KV21A is likely to be the mother (possibly Ankhesenamun) of the Fetuses, with Tut being the father, this simply means that the mother of KV21A is not included on the list of tested mummies - but Tut's mom is... and that would be Akhenaten's full sister KV35YL

Who do you think that could be?
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Who do you think that could be?


I don't know. I still don't think Nefertiti is out of the running because of the early Tefnut/Mut symbology and her rapid advancement in status in the early years. What got me going on Nefertiti was that the word for waterlily is Nefer, I read somewhere. And there is the young head of Tut emerging from a water lily.

It would be whichever sister works best into some hypotheticial time line with huge could or could not be scales. Sitamun disappears around year 30 Amenhhotep III I think.

I wonder of there are any images around that no one is focused on because no one was looking. Or inscriptions that didn't make sense, so were discarded. There has to be some mention somewhere that just wasn't picked up because that situation didn't exist at that time.


The thing is there's early artwork of Tut around. Why not mom? The only image of the daughters' I know of are Sitamun's chairs in Yuya/Thuya's tomb (other than children linked to Amenhotep III and Tiye). Is there anything in Tut's tomb? Pretty much everyone's stuff ended up in there. Could the hair ID'd in the Tomb mini coffin be the same as a daughter of Tiye? I know I read that the hair analysis matched Tiye but not Thuyu.

Who do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:

One of them got her head ripped off and the other used to have more skull (in a photo) but lost the top of her head. It may have been a symbolic shape rather than physical. (Ovoid.) The bald was probably priestessly.


And the damage suggests the Royal Tomb at Amarna. More and more it seems like when the salvage crew got there, all that was left was a pile of gilded trash and scattered bones.

If KV55, KV63, and KV21 all originated there, I mean.
<...>

Quote:

In view of the fact that there is sufficient artwork to support that she could have gone Pharonic and accounted for the second half. The coffinettes in Tut's tomb and there are a whole series of these with the swan neck and breasts.


Maybe it wasn't a choice. If Akhenaten got killed out on campaign like Rameses the II almost did (and I'm not seeing any victory panels for the Nubian adventure), and there was no heir old enough to be taken seriously, she may have had to step into the breach. In a big hurry.

That "durbar" in Meryre IIs tomb is of particular interest. I don't buy the claims that it shows two rulers sitting side by side. It looks like one, and the foreign types showing up offering tribute feels like a coronation. Nefertiti ascending to the throne of Egypt? If heiress meant royal blood, she'd have a pretty clear path to Hapshepsut status.


<...>

Quote:

If for the sake of argument you eliminate Kiya and Nefertiti because they never said they were royal this is the picture: Ahkenaten is married early to a beautiful nobody who is titled Great Wife.


No sale. Not with a mom like Tiye.


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


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
And the damage suggests the Royal Tomb at Amarna. More and more it seems like when the salvage crew got there, all that was left was a pile of gilded trash and scattered bones.

If KV55, KV63, and KV21 all originated there, I mean.


I would imagine, in that case, that everyone who visits the tomb breaths the dust of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. They would have ripped them into little tiny pieces. Ankhespaaten probably died after that tomb was dismantled. If she wrote the Amarna letters that would probably warrant that treatment (after marrying Aye).


Maybe it wasn't a choice. If Akhenaten got killed out on campaign like Rameses the II almost did (and I'm not seeing any victory panels for the Nubian adventure), and there was no heir old enough to be taken seriously, she may have had to step into the breach. In a big hurry.

Quote:
That "durbar" in Meryre IIs tomb is of particular interest. I don't buy the claims that it shows two rulers sitting side by side. It looks like one, and the foreign types showing up offering tribute feels like a coronation. Nefertiti ascending to the throne of Egypt? If heiress meant royal blood, she'd have a pretty clear path to Hapshepsut status.


Can you get a photo of this, I can't find it. The image I have in mind is two kings in an affectionate pose under the Aten, I seem to remember one of them looked like Nefertiti.

Akhetaten doesn't strike me as a military man, and I don't remember any military campaigns in his reign. It could have happened and not been reported in the disintegration of the empire. I think he either died of natural causes or was offed. In either case Nefertiti was forced apparently to abandon the Amarna religion and revert to the old gods. It could be construed as a takeover of the throne by the other side of the fsmily, since it went over to the military & stayed there.[/quote]
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: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
Quote:
And the damage suggests the Royal Tomb at Amarna. More and more it seems like when the salvage crew got there, all that was left was a pile of gilded trash and scattered bones.

If KV55, KV63, and KV21 all originated there, I mean.


I would imagine, in that case, that everyone who visits the tomb breaths the dust of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.


Before anyone gets too carried away this all of this, we need to look at some other evidence.

In "The Complete Valley of the Kings", Reeves and Wilkinson when Belzoni discovered KV 21, the bodies of the two women were intact and they had long hair. The bodies were left there and the damage was probably the result of flood waters getting into the tomb before it was re-opened in 1989 by Donald Ryan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sobek, you are correct about the KV55 grandfather observation. He cannot be grandfather to both fetuses- He could be grandfather or father to Fetus-2 (virtue of the red-coded 15 on D7S820), but not father or grandfather to Fetus-1

How would this work for size?

Fetus-1 = daughter of Tut + (KV21A = Akhesenamun, daughter of [KV55 = Akhenaten] and Nefertiti [not on list])

Fetus-2 = daughter of (KV55 = Akhenaten) + (KV21A = Akhesenamun, daughter of [KV55 = Akhenaten] and Nefertiti [not on list])

Would this mean that the two fetuses buried with Tut are not his unborn children, but those of his wife, Akhesenamun. She buried them with her dead husband?
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
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, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
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