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
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just wish they'd stop labelling KV55 Akhenaten, Zahi wanting it doesn't make it so! KV55 IS the father of Tut AND a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye but most experts (without an axe to grind that is) state that he was also 25 AT MOST when he died - much too young for Akhi, ergo he must be Smenkhkara. KV35YL is a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye, full sister of KV55 and so CANNOT be either Nefertiti or Kiya who were NEVER called King's Daughter.

I personally favored the theory that Smenkhkara and Tutankhamun were the sons of Akhenaten by his 'Greatly Beloved Wife' Kiya but I accept that that has now been thoroughly disproved. Smen was the youngest son of AmenIII and Tiye and the father of Tut by one of his sisters - personally I favor Baketaten since her presence at Akhetaten is attested by archaeological remains. She CANNOT be Meritaten because Meritaten was a granddaughter of AmenIII and Tiye and the daughter of Nefertiti whose body is still unfound.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ra-Mont
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Posts: 41
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
I just wish they'd stop labelling KV55 Akhenaten, Zahi wanting it doesn't make it so! KV55 IS the father of Tut AND a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye but most experts (without an axe to grind that is) state that he was also 25 AT MOST when he died - much too young for Akhi, ergo he must be Smenkhkara...


But is the KV55 mummy really the father of Tutankhamen? I'm convinced that body is that of Smenkhare, but if he was a full brother of Akhenaten, surely the two would share the same DNA alleles, albeit in different pairs (I could be wrong here, such is my limited knowledge of DNA). Therefore, the DNA of either king would fit the bill as father of Tut.
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: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not an expert on DNA, either but, from what I've read, it appears that the JAMA research has proved that Tutankhamun was definitely the grandson of Amenhotep III and Tiye, and the son of two of their children. His mother was practically certainly KV35YL, and his father was a brother of hers, 90+% certain to be KV55, but he could be another brother - Akhenaten or X.
KV55 is not Akhenaten, as Ranoferhotep has said, and we know of no other brothers in the family, but, if we want to be absolutely rigorous in our evaluation of the possibilities, we can't rule him out.
Smenkhkare appears to have had his niece, Meritaten, as his Great Royal Wife (whatever that implied), and she cannot, according to the DNA, be KV35YL. So, who was this daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye? There were several we know of, and any one of them could be Tutankhamun's mother, either through marriage to KV55 as secondary wife or through more unorthodox channels.
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 19, 2011 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes 2 brothers will have similar dna, but we can prove which brother is the father in paternity cases today. i think the dna was mostly autosomal, which means they checked a different dna to plain old mitochondrial and y dna. everyone has different autosomal dna, because everyone takes after different ancestors. siblings get very different results when they have autosomal dna tested.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ra-Mont
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Posts: 41
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
yes 2 brothers will have similar dna, but we can prove which brother is the father in paternity cases today. i think the dna was mostly autosomal, which means they checked a different dna to plain old mitochondrial and y dna. everyone has different autosomal dna, because everyone takes after different ancestors. siblings get very different results when they have autosomal dna tested.


Are you saying that DNA testing has confirmed the body in KV55 is definitely the father of Tutankhamen, or could the father still be a missing brother of KV55?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
waenre
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 19 Mar 2010
Posts: 70
Location: Bay Area, California

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
yes 2 brothers will have similar dna, but we can prove which brother is the father in paternity cases today. i think the dna was mostly autosomal, which means they checked a different dna to plain old mitochondrial and y dna. everyone has different autosomal dna, because everyone takes after different ancestors. siblings get very different results when they have autosomal dna tested.


Interesting point.

What happens with identical twins -- is the dna really identical?

I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb question, but my knowledge of dna is sorely lacking.

Thanks in advance.

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


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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the introduction to the JAMA report it states that 'sixteen Y-chromosomal short tandem repeats' were used. We are still waiting for the promised mtDNA results...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ra-Mont
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Posts: 41
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Granite wrote:
In the introduction to the JAMA report it states that 'sixteen Y-chromosomal short tandem repeats' were used. We are still waiting for the promised mtDNA results...


Does this mean that DNA testing so far has identified the KV55 mummy as a possible father of Tutankhamen, or the only possible father?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Theban Moon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ra-Mont wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
yes 2 brothers will have similar dna, but we can prove which brother is the father in paternity cases today. i think the dna was mostly autosomal, which means they checked a different dna to plain old mitochondrial and y dna. everyone has different autosomal dna, because everyone takes after different ancestors. siblings get very different results when they have autosomal dna tested.


Are you saying that DNA testing has confirmed the body in KV55 is definitely the father of Tutankhamen, or could the father still be a missing brother of KV55?


Such questions are surprisingly hard to answer as it comes down to probabilities. When I last looked, it is possible but unlikely that a brother could be the father of Tutankhamun. I'd like to put some numbers against that statement to quantify how unlikely, but it's surprisingly difficult to do. I'm thinking about how best to explain it.

So I wouldn't say it was proven in the way it might be proved by inscriptions. but it is probably more solid that some of the other theories that kick around Egyptology.

As people have said, the fact that KV55 was very probably Tutankhamun's father doesn't tell us who KV55 was, but the DNA does make it very unlikely it was Akhenaten. By process of elimination that means Smenkhare is the most likely, but ...
_________________
Kate Phizackerley
News from the Valley of the Kings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To return to the main topic of the thread, the KV21 mummies were found in a largely Thutmose III context, so why all the insistence on proving they were the mothers of Tutankhamun's foetuses - if they are his daughters, which has not been proved, either? It would make more sense to compare their DNA to that of Thutmose III and his immediate predecessor and, especially, successor (i.e. Amenhotep II).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Granite wrote:
To return to the main topic of the thread, the KV21 mummies were found in a largely Thutmose III context, so why all the insistence on proving they were the mothers of Tutankhamun's foetuses - if they are his daughters, which has not been proved, either? It would make more sense to compare their DNA to that of Thutmose III and his immediate predecessor and, especially, successor (i.e. Amenhotep II).


Why do you think the tomb is related to Tuthmosis III?
I looked at Donald Ryan's page and at the Theban Mapping Project, and all they say is that it's 18th dynasty. Am I missing something?

My impression was actually that no one had ever linked these 2 female mummies with the Amarna period. It looks to me that this was a surprise to the researchers as well?
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reeves & Wilkinson, 'The complete Valley of the Kings', Thames & Hudson,
1996, p. 115:
'fragments of 24 large pottery storage jars of typical mid 18th-dynasty form dating post-Hatshepsut and pre-Tuthmosis IV'.
The tomb was found and written up by Belzoni in 1820, and re-investigated by Donald P. Ryan around 1990; his results are published in KMT 1/1 and 2/1. Neither they nor the Theban Mapping Project give it an exact date, but seem to favour mid to late 18th Dynasty. TMP mention scarabs and seals, which may be illuminating; Belzoni speaks of pieces of vases of alabaster, and a vase with hieroglyphics on it; nobody seems to have noticed anything Amarnan, although the architecture of the tomb is similar to ones around the time of Amenhatep III.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for that piece of info Granite.
From what I have read, the tomb was actually in a fairly good state when initially found in the 1800s. A lot of very important information was lost due to looting and damage from flooding.

The DNA tests do not show any connection with the Tuthmoses mummies did they?
It would be interesting to see if there is any family connection in that direction.

If these are queens from that time period, they could be Merytre-Hatshepsut (mother of Amenhotep II) or Tiaa (mother of Tuthmosis IV). Those might end up having some DNA in common with the Amarna king's being direct ancestors of them. Although the percentage of DNA overlap would be fairly small.
Say Tiaa - Tuthmosis IV - Amenhotep III - KV55/KV35YL - Tutankhamen - children.
Possibly 12.5% overlap between Tiaa with Tut?, maybe more if Mutemwia and Tiye are also part of some collateral branch (although I have not seen much evidence of that)
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anneke, I haven't seen any DNA results for Tuthmose I, III and IV, or Amenhotep II - but I would be delighted to see them! 'Tuthmose II' was done in the JAMA project, which seemed to prove what had always been suspected, that he wasn't that pharaoh at all.
By the way, if anyone has access to KMT, they might do us the favour of telling us what Ryan discovered in KV21.
I think we should be more cautious in formulating hypotheses and not make the mistake (a very 19th century one) of looking for X (our favourite pharaoh, princess etc) - which means that we are inclined to fit anyone we find into that description. A case in point is the KV55 mummy, which different people over the years have tried to prove must be Tiye, Akhenaten or Smenkhkare or god knows who else. Well, he could quite feasibly be another brother of that family whom we have never even heard of.And he was very probably Tutankhamun's father, but could possibly have been just an uncle. There are many more examples,both recent and older, of this kind of forced identification. So let's not jump to conclusions.
From what I've seen the KV21 ladies have enough significant alleles to allow us to conclude they were members of the 18th dynasty mainstream royal family. The body posture and the architectural configuration of the tomb lead us to conclude they were queens, and lived at some time in that dynasty. There may be more evidence I haven't heard of but, until we have concrete data at our disposal, I don't think we can say any more about the KV21 mummis than what I have outlined above. As I said before, seals, scarabs etc found in the tomb would help, although a lot of the artefacts still there when Ryan started his survey appear to be intrusive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Granite wrote:
Anneke, I haven't seen any DNA results for Tuthmose I, III and IV, or Amenhotep II - but I would be delighted to see them! 'Tuthmose II' was done in the JAMA project, which seemed to prove what had always been suspected, that he wasn't that pharaoh at all.
By the way, if anyone has access to KMT, they might do us the favour of telling us what Ryan discovered in KV21.
I think we should be more cautious in formulating hypotheses and not make the mistake (a very 19th century one) of looking for X (our favourite pharaoh, princess etc) - which means that we are inclined to fit anyone we find into that description. A case in point is the KV55 mummy, which different people over the years have tried to prove must be Tiye, Akhenaten or Smenkhkare or god knows who else. Well, he could quite feasibly be another brother of that family whom we have never even heard of.And he was very probably Tutankhamun's father, but could possibly have been just an uncle. There are many more examples,both recent and older, of this kind of forced identification. So let's not jump to conclusions.
From what I've seen the KV21 ladies have enough significant alleles to allow us to conclude they were members of the 18th dynasty mainstream royal family. The body posture and the architectural configuration of the tomb lead us to conclude they were queens, and lived at some time in that dynasty. There may be more evidence I haven't heard of but, until we have concrete data at our disposal, I don't think we can say any more about the KV21 mummis than what I have outlined above. As I said before, seals, scarabs etc found in the tomb would help, although a lot of the artefacts still there when Ryan started his survey appear to be intrusive.


DNA from Thutmose II (?) was not used in this survey. His mummy was CT scanned but, if I remember correctly, DNA extractions from Thutmose II & III attempted in 2007 were unsuccessful. DNA From Ahmose Nefertari was used but for some reason her mummy was not scanned. The mummy formerly known as Thutmose I was scanned and DNA analyzed as were those of Hatshepsut (?) and Sitre Inet (?).

Here's a PDF of the JAMA article.
http://hutkaptah.altervista.org/APIKTF.pdf
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 6 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