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 

KV 21 and mummies KV21A and B
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
freeTinker
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
A murderer would rather hit the skull itself to kill someone, wouldn`t he?

Yes she might... Smile

Are there not two wounds to the head? - one to the side of the face and one on the cranium itself? - I didn't know about the pig-stabbing affair

Murder? Accident? or Damage (deliberate?) after burial? - I guess this is going to be the next whodunnit for the discovery channel, I'm sure it will sell plenty of soap powder (cynical me, huh!). It would be nice to have more 'complete' details about these 'fatal' trauma wounds before the subject hits the TV screen and the books hit the shelves. Is there no way of telling conclusively through forensics if the wounds were inflicted on living flesh and bone?
_________________
Est modus in rebus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just wondering. The questions I have is

1) Using the dna shown, is it possible that the KV35YL is the mother of the KV21 mummies? If so then it still could be Nefertiti. (disregarding a pairing with KV55).

2) if the answer to the above question is yesm but the combination of KV55 and KV35YL, does not seem compatible to be the KV21 parents, because of the missing Alleles. Wouldnt this prove that KV55 is not the father of the KV21 mummies. Proving he is not Akhenaton? Surely this would be the deal breaker. If KV35 can be the Mother, KV21 can be the mother of the foetus , yet KV55 cannot be the parent of KV21.

3) If as suggested- KV55 is not Akhenaton, but Smenkhare or another brother ( perhaps Tuthmosis did not die until during Akhenatons reign- there is as far as I can tell only one shabti with his name on it- cant remember if it was dated). Then couldnt a scenario be ( this only fits if KV35YL can be KV21 mummies mother). That KV35YL could still be Nefertiti- if she not only had children to Akhenaton, but also had a son to a brother of Akhenaton.

Then the missing alleles from the foetus could come from the body of Akhenaton who is missing?
We always seem to look for the Conventional explanations. Yet in the days before contraception, parentage was not always black and white. People did not only have children to their own partners.
After watching the movie "The Duchess" it reminded me that a child can be born to another family member without that fact being known by all concerned.

Please tell me if the dna evidence does not support this theory. But conventional partners do not alway tick all the boxes when looking for the parents of children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I`ve just checked the DNA-chart regarding these points.I have gathered that due to the first marker (D13S317) the pair KV55/YL could not be both parents of KV21A because she is 10,16 whereas they are both 10,12.
KV21B is not excluded to be their daughter in this marker (she only shows 10), but she is excluded by the marker D2S1338 which shows both KV55 and YL as being 16,26 where 21B is 17,26.

But the bad thing is that either KV55 could be their father with an unknown mother or the YL could be their mother with another father (at least that`s what I have found out).
So one can imagine different possibilities:

-KV55 and YL are Akhenaten and Nefertiti but neither KV21A nor B are their daughters

-Kv55 is Akhenaten and YL is another woman with KV21 A or B (or both) possibly being their daughters

-the same as before but with the YL being their mother with an unknown father

-both KV55 and YL are unknown children of AIII and Tiye and KV21A and/or B could be their daughters or

-worst case: we don`t actually know anyone of the whole lot! Sad

If there are still other possible constellations, please let me know.

There is of course the possibility pointed out by Kate that KV55 might be Smenka and YL Meritaten which I personally could well imagine to be true.

I think one can say that the two markers I stated add a little bit more to the thought that KV55 is unlikely to be Akhenaten just as the marker D7S820 does which shows that KV55 cannot be maternal grandfather to both of the foetuses.

A big problem is certainly posed by the poor information we have of KV21A+B and the doubts as to wether one of them might be Ankhesenamun.

I am currently trying to get closer to solving the question if their bent left arms are compelling evidence that they were queens on the other thread, but the answers I got so far are not very encouraging.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. So it could be possible .
Because it occured to me last night that the stone that Zahi Hawass refers to as evidence that Tutankhamen is Akhenatons son says
Son of the Kings Body. It does not say which King.

There was another King at Amarna- Neferneruaten. If she was female, as many suggest, and is Tutankhatens parent, then she could be the one it is referring to.
Which could be why there is never any reference to his mother anywhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
I`ve just checked the DNA-chart regarding these points.I have gathered that due to the first marker (D13S317) the pair KV55/YL could not be both parents of KV21A because she is 10,16 whereas they are both 10,12.


Exactly so.
Sothis wrote:
KV21B is not excluded to be their daughter in this marker (she only shows 10), but she is excluded by the marker D2S1338 which shows both KV55 and YL as being 16,26 where 21B is 17,26.


Exactly so.
Aromagician wrote:
1) Using the dna shown, is it possible that the KV35YL is the mother of the KV21 mummies?


Yes.
Aromagician wrote:
2) if the answer to the above question is yes but the combination of KV55 and KV35YL, does not seem compatible to be the KV21 parents, because of the missing Alleles. Wouldnt this prove that KV55 is not the father of the KV21 mummies.


No. KV55 can be a parent of either or both of the KV21 mummies. It is only when KV55 and KV35YL are taken togather as both parents of the KV21 mummies that they are excluded for the reasons given by Sothis.
Aromagician wrote:
3) If as suggested- KV55 is not Akhenaton, but Smenkhare or another brother ( perhaps Tuthmosis did not die until during Akhenatons reign...). Then couldnt a scenario be ( this only fits if KV35YL can be KV21 mummies mother). That KV35YL could still be Nefertiti- if she not only had children to Akhenaton, but also had a son to a brother of Akhenaton.


The DNA data and a genetic kinship analysis allow this possibility.

Other biological and historical information make it unlikely that KV35YL is Nefertiti. The KV35YL mummy seems to be less than 20 years old at death and shows little or no indication of having children. Nefertiti was at least 25 (and possibly considerably older) at death and is thought to have had at least six children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sobek wrote:

Other biological and historical information make it unlikely that KV35YL is Nefertiti. The KV35YL mummy seems to be less than 20 years old at death and shows little or no indication of having children. Nefertiti was at least 25 (and possibly considerably older) at death and is thought to have had at least six children.

Thanks for that.
Re likelihood of Nefertiti. How old would she have been at death? Married at maybe 13- could start having children straight away- 12years reign- cmes to 25years?
Yet Zahi is saying KV35YL is Tutankhamens Mother, so she must have gone through childbirth. Do the latest results confirm an age? I know Joan Fletcher said she was older. What is the latest? In the excerpt of the doco he did not say she wasnt Nefertiti. But that they could not say who she was- Kiya, Nefertiti, another sister?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nabari
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KV35yl and Akhenaten were the parents of Tutankhamun.
Nefititi was Akhnaten's wife, so KV35yl was Nefititi, wasn't she??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 97
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If only it was that easy. There is a few sticking points
1) According to Zahi, the KV35YL is the male Mummy's (said to be Tutankhamens Father) sister
2) There is no evidence elsewhere to say Nefertiti was Akhenatons sister, or even a daughter of Amenhotep III of Tiye
3) Akhneaton had another wife KIYA. And could have had more children with other wives in the "harem"
4) Some say Smenkhare would have the same DNA, so could be Tutankhamens father.
5) If Smenkhare was Tuts Father, then the KV35YL could be his wife, which could be Meritaten, who would have the same YDNA as her father and AmenhotepIII.
Which could infer that they were Tutankhamens parents.. I think that is the scenario...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aromagician wrote:
5) If Smenkhare was Tuts Father, then the KV35YL could be his wife, which could be Meritaten, who would have the same YDNA as her father and AmenhotepIII.
Which could infer that they were Tutankhamens parents.. I think that is the scenario...
Yes, very sound thinking. If you let the DNA evidence speak out, you are required to listen to what it tells you, and with a few nudges from History and Archaeological Evidence, you are left with a Most Reasonable Scenario, such as this one. (However, please omit the reference to the YDNA from Meritaten's male ancestors: unless we're missing something big, she got no Y chromosomes from them)
But the DNA ball also hits all the other pins as it tumbles the Akhenaten doll.
Some months ago I worked out a total squeeze of all the available DNA evidence and built up the Most Reasonable Scenario for the family relationships of all the Amarna-related characters that are touched by such results.
The family tree thus concocted is definitely not a proven fact, but it is the front runner in a race where all other participants are either ignoring the evidence or inventing fantasies to try to turn it from impossible into favourable (such as generation-jumping alleles, unknown royals, ad hoc mutations).
I may have stumbled upon a wrong theory, but so far no one can show it to be wrong (I have tried hard enough), so I can assume it to be right. How many others can state the same?
In fact, the race has become pretty lonesome, since the other Amarna-related family trees do not seem to be in the running at all ... ostensibly, not a single of the rival proposals has been checked against DNA allele evidence, so that all of them may by now be safely assumed to be in opposition to it. If they are in agreement, why is that important fact never mentioned?
The true family relationships can never proven by DNA alone, but increasing likelihood has to be treated as workable fact at some stage.
After all, in those days things did happen in one very specific way, to which we have limited access. It helps little to keep repeating that we have not yet achieved absolute certainty.
So the tested hypotheses that have come out unscratched and are most likely to be true facts can now be re-stated, with a few interesting leads pointing elsewhere:

- as stated, Smenkhkare (KV55) and Meritaten-Nefeneferuaten (KV35YL) must be the parents of Tutankhamen (KV62)
- Tutankhamen (KV62) and Ankhesenamen (KV21A) must be the parents of the two fetuses
- Akhenaten and Nefertiti must be the parents of Meritaten (KV35YL) and Ankhesenamen (KV21A)
- Amenhotpe III (KV35) and Tiy (KV35EL) must be the parents of Akhenaten
- Amenhotpe III (KV35) and Sitamen (KV21B) must be the parents of Nefertiti and Smenkhkare (KV55)
- Yuya (KV46m) and Thuya (KV46f) must be the parents of Tiy (KV35YL)
- Thotmes IV (KV43) and Mutemweya must be the parents of Amenhotpe III (KV35)
- Thotmes IV (KV43) and Iaret must be the parents of Sitamen (KV21B)

There are no DNA alleles that point elsewhere, so I believe these to be as close to the original facts as we are ever going to get.
One historical objection has been brought up, though: some believe Sitamen to have been a daughter of Amehotpe III and Tiy, and thus a full sibling of Akhenaten. No proof of this has surfaced so far, so if there really is a Sitamen somewhere mentioned as daughter of Tiy (rather than of Iaret, in the previous generation), this has been assumed to refer to a namesake. The Sitamen that matters here is the secondary wife of Amenhotpe III who was his half sister.
As we stray away from the principal tested characters, the trail becomes fuzzier and little more can be inferred from the DNA. But an interesting lead is the allele pattern of Iaret, as far as it can be inferred, which seems to coincide with that of Thuya. This might indicate that both women were full sisters, and explain the "adoption" of orphaned Princess Sitamen (after the death of Iaret) by her aunt Thuya, whose husband then presented the little girl with successive made-to-measure jewel thrones as she grew up.
The alternative proposition that it was Yuya and Mutemweya who were related may also be true but becomes unnecessary and besides, there are no allele coincidences that point that way.
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

apart from your guessing the dna profiles of nefertiti, sitamun and iaret, what evidence do you have any of them are related? i mean hardcore serious archeological evidence? inscriptions? funeral equipment? art?

as far as dodson and hilton are concerned, and they are the experts on the subject, iaret had no cgildren, and was a sister of thutmose IV. amenhitep III's daughter was sitamun, who donated chairs, not thrones to her grandparents burial. she also has no attested cgildren. and nefertiti never explains her parentage, so i have no idea where you get the idea she is smenkhare's sister from.

frankly you can have theories, no one can stop you. but you dont have evidence at all. your so called evidence is projected dna sequencing, that you cannot prove, as there are not enough amarna era royals to test.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
These are the pictures of the KV 21 mummies:




KV21A's feet look odd even to this very inexpert observer. If she is Ankhesenamun we're going to have to seriously rethink all those novels that make the third princess a bit of a tomboy... sad really, whoever she was she must have had a difficult and uncomfortable life even with all the advantages of her royal station.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
anneke wrote:
These are the pictures of the KV 21 mummies:




KV21A's feet look odd even to this very inexpert observer. If she is Ankhesenamun we're going to have to seriously rethink all those novels that make the third princess a bit of a tomboy... sad really, whoever she was she must have had a difficult and uncomfortable life even with all the advantages of her royal station.


Yes, and the right one is truely extreme. Don`t know if you have seen the TV-show in which they show this foot from every angle. Really looks very bad.
KV21B`s remaining one foot also is a clubfoot, but certainly not as extreme as A`s right foot.
Poor girls Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Parennefer
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting stuff indeed. I too wonder why the lad with Tiye was not also profiled. These two women in KV21 were probably moved from somewhere, surely, as was Tiye and the (alleged) mother of Wink Wink Tutankhamen (Now Akhenaten's daughter. The habit (?) of stripping the women and leaving them with no name and no covering seems a commen thread between the KV21 girls and Tiye and her friends. Surely in the Egyptian cosmology that is as far as one could go to confuse and punish the dead short of actually destroying them.

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


Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi guys

if i may ask, i'm seriously looking for the DNA chart of the 11 mummies tested.

i also came across a DNA chart on the NGM website. you can check it out at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/09/tut-dna/tut-family-tree Unfortunatly the KV21B mummy is not shown

the are 2 markers that specifically are of interest for me, the 1st one (10;8) shared by Amenhotep, KV35YL, KV21A, Tut and the 2nd fetus. the 2nd one is marker 6 (26,12) shared byTuyu, Tiye, KV35YL, KV55, KV21A, Tut, 2nd fetus and most probaly the 1st fetus aswell.

I also tried to fill some of the missing markers for KV21A using the two fetusses, and excluding the ones from Tut. what is interesting, Kv21A then shares two markers with KV35YL, and nothing with KV55. makes you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pieter wrote:

I also tried to fill some of the missing markers for KV21A using the two fetusses, and excluding the ones from Tut. what is interesting, Kv21A then shares two markers with KV35YL, and nothing with KV55. makes you think


im sorry, im tired, but doesnt this tell us what we already know? that the kv 55 mummy cannot b the grandfather of the foetuses by the kv 21 mummies?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
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, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 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