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 

The other KV35 mummy. Who is it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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: Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:48 pm    Post subject: Re: AIII and his daughter-wives Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:

Genetically it's impossible to make a difference between children of AIII with Queen Tiye and and those he might have had with Sitamun and Isis/Iset.


This is incorrect as a child of AIII by his daughter would show a higher precentage of his DNA than one by Tiye

Quote:
Achnaton married Nefertiti who was a relative of Queen Tiye (possibly a daughter of her deceased brother Aanen or potentially Ay who could be another brother or maybe a brother-in-law as a sister of Tiye would put the required dna of Thuya in the decendants of Nefertiti).
As they only had daughters, Nefertiti rose from Great Royal Wife Nefertiti to GRW Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti to co-ruler and successor Anchepereru-Neferneferuaten.


Nefertiti is often tied to the family of Aye, his wife Tey possessing the title of Queen's Nurse and Nefertiti's sister Mutbeneret being known from Aye's tomb but the nature of the connection, biological or social, is unknown.

Nefertiti MAY have been Neferneferuaten though there is no trace of a co-regency in the Amarna letters but clear indication that Mayati (Merytaten) has taken over the duties if not the title of consort.

Frankly the logic of appointing one's wife, about one's own age, co-regent (a strategy intended to secure the succession) eludes me.

Quote:
Smenkhkare was married firstly to his (half)sister KV35YL and had a son prince Tutanchaton. Both Smenkhkare and his first wife may have been children of Amenhotep III with his daughter Sitamun.
After the (violent?) death of his first wife Smenkhkare remarried Achnaton's eldest daughter Meritaten.


As stated above DNA would show if KV55 and KV35YL were the children of AIII by his daughter and Tiye's rather than Tiye herself.

I like to identify KV35YL with Beketaten, the only (apparent) daughter of AIII attested to at Akhetaten but that is speculation. There would have been no need for KV35YL to die before Smenkhkara took Merytaten as his Great Wife as Pharaoh's were polygamous.

Quote:
After the short solo rule of Nefertiti/Anchepereru-Neferneferuaton she was succeeded by her her son-in-law Anchepereru-Smenkhkare with Great Royal wife Meritaton. He died soon afterwards and was succeeded by his son Tutanchaton who became Tutanchamon.


Personally I prefer to place the reign of Ankhkheperure-Neferneferuaten AFTER Ankhkheperure Smenkhkara and identify her with Meritaten but there are problems with that I know. In any case the order of the two Ankhkheperure's reigns is unestablished but Tutankhamun definitely followed them and we KNOW he was the son of KV55 who forensic evidence identifies as most likely being Smenkhkara.

Quote:
Anchesenamun was either princess Anchesenpašton (third daughter of Achnaton and Nefertiti) or Anchesenpašton tashjerit (the younger). She may have been a daughter of her namesake or Meritaton with either Achnaton or with Smenkhkare.


The existence of Meritaten tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten tasherit is not reliably established much less their parentage. There seems no good reason to doubt that Ankhesenamun was Ankhesenpaaten the elder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: KV35YL Reply with quote

I wrote Smenkhkare may have married Meritaton after the death of KV35YL as she seems to have died young. Pharoah's had harems but Tut was conceived during the reign of Achnaton so if KV55 is Smenkhkare than he wasn't Pharoah yet and we know little to nothing of what happened to younger sons of a king.

Though Pharoahs had extensive harems and must have had numerous children only a few are mentioned (Ramesses II being the main exception). No man ever claimed to be the Pharoah's brother in the 18th dynasty during the king's reign as far as i know. Maybe brothers were not allowed to conceive children or their offspring was not considered Royal (Pharaohs were succeeded by a Pharaoh's son their own or that of a predecessor rather than a grandson through a predeceased crownprince).

My theory is based on the assumption KV35YL's death was violent (the facial wounds are reported to have been inflicted premortal). With the country in trouble a potential rival claim from KV55(Smenkhkare) and KV35YL(Baketaton) with a son might have caused those in the camp of Nefertiti to act. With the mother out of the way a potential rift in the family was healed by marrying off the potential rival Smenkhkare to the eldest daughter of Achnaton and Nefertiti Meritaton.

I think Nefertiti rose even further than her mother-in-law in status so became co-regent not to secure her succession but to mark her importance. It did however help her to ensure their line would continue on the throne.

Smenkhkare may have married not just Meritaton but also Anchesenpašton. That is another reason to suggest Anchesenamun may have been Anchesenpašton the younger as i do not know of an example of a son marrying (one of) his father's widows and making her the Great Royal Wife.

If Anchesenpašton the younger was a daughter from a marriage of Smenkhkare to either her elder namesake or Meritaton the fusion of the two lines would have continued in the next generation. With Ay somehow linked to Nefertiti he may have been involved in furthering the cause of her (and his?) decendants.

Still this is all assumption. As for the DNA of a child of AIII with one of his daughters being different. To the best of my knowledge all the research shows is that KV55 and KV35YL are descendants of AIII and Tiye but not in what way.

The young boy with Tiye may have been her oldest son or possibly another unknown son of her or maybe even of her husband with one of his other wives.

If Tiye was married to AIII shortly after his succession she probably was in her mid thirties (if married as a young child) to her mid forties by the time KV55 and KV35YL were conceived. That is not impossible the only issue is that we do not have any proof of AIII's reign that he had a third son with Tiye or the name of one of their daughters was Baketaton. The latter could be explained by a change of name during her brother's reign.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As you say this is all assumption and speculation - but that's the fun of playing in the Amarna Tarpits! Very Happy

Personally I like to identify Baketaten with Nebet'ah, the youngest of AIII and Tiye. For Tutankhamun to be their son Smenkhkara and Baketaten (or KV55 and KVYL if you prefer) had to have been married during their brother's reign. I have wondered if such marriages were routine or if perhaps Queen Tiye was attempting to establish an alternate line of succession given Akhenaten's embarrasment of daughters and unfortunate religious policy. Either way Baketaten wouldn't have had to have been dead for Smenkhkara, now Pharoah, to take Meritaten as his Great Wife thus uniting the two branches of the family. The possibility that Meritaten considered herseslf the 'real' heir to Akhenaten is one of the reasons I favor her as Neferneferuaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:37 am    Post subject: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

Continuing on with the mystery surrounding this mummy (#61071)...

It appears that we're not going to be seeing any DNA results anytime soon so we're going to have to speculate.

Does anyone else remember this very odd moment in Amarna research, related to the identification of KV35YL (61072):


In addition, there is controversy about both the age and gender of the mummy. <...>On August 30, 2003, Reuters further quoted Dr. Hawass as saying, "I'm sure that this mummy is not a female",<...>[4] Hawass has claimed that the mummy is female and male on different occasions.[5]


This is pretty fundamental and I'm at a total loss to explain why Hawass would be confused as to the sex of one of the most famous mummies in Egypt. But he's not the only one!

Egyptologist Kent Weeks (quoted in Time) says: "If the mummy is female and if it is royal, then you still do not necessarily have Nefertiti."

Huh? Was there really that much confusion as to the gender of 61072?

Here is Fletcher on the age of 61072:

. According to Fletcher's analysis of the x-rays, the mummy was between the ages of 19 and 30. (However, an AP story reports that an analysis of the x-rays by unidentified people indicates that the body belonged to a 16-year-old girl.)

Did these unidentified people know which mummy Fletcher was referring to?

It doesn't seem possible that so much confusion existed as to the sex of 61072 (offered by more than one Egyptologist as Nefertiti), yet there we have it. Either the gender-identification of the "younger lady" was far less certain than we believed, or the confusion actually refers to a different mummy, the only one of our Amarna cast that does not have published DNA...

If Smith was wrong, and that was the mummy of a young female, perhaps the daughter of the Younger Lady, who herself is the daughter of the conclusively identified Tiye, then we would have located Nefertiti and Ankhesenpaaten.

So, what solid evidence exists that the youngest KV35 mummy, 61071, is male?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:02 pm    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:
This is pretty fundamental and I'm at a total loss to explain why Hawass would be confused as to the sex of one of the most famous mummies in Egypt. But he's not the only one!


he was saying this around the time fletcher produced her theory kv35yl was nefertiti. to put it simply, he disliked fletcher. he claimed she was working in egypt illegally, and had her deported and banned from the country. then he discredited all her work, and said the mummy was male. which no one believed anyway, since elliott smith said it was the mummy of a boy.

RobertStJames wrote:
So, what solid evidence exists that the youngest KV35 mummy, 61071, is male?


pelvis shape. smith analysed his remains:

http://tim-theegyptians.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/forgotten-boy.html
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:12 pm    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... to put it simply, he disliked fletcher. he claimed she was working in egypt illegally, and had her deported and banned from the country. ...

That's not true. Fletcher was a member (not leader) of an research team licensed by the SCA for the Valley of the Kings. Among the conditions for the grant of the license is the control for the publication of results. This may only occur with the knowledge and permission of the SCA.

Fletcher has clearly failed to this rule. She has her theories (which were not well founded on closer contemplation) distributed in public media without knowledge by the SCA and also not by her excavation leader. This was a clear violation of the rules of the treaty, which would actually justify a withdrawal of the license for the entire team. The prosecution of the offense by withdrawal of permission for Fletcher alone is thus justified and actually being generous. By the way, she was not "banned" or "deported" from the country, thats nonsense.

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:34 am    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
and said the mummy was male. which no one believed anyway, since elliott smith said it was the mummy of a boy.


i meant to say elliott said the younger lady was a woman, which has not been doubted by people who have examined the mummy.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
By the way, she was not "banned" or "deported" from the country, thats nonsense. Lutz


she was banned from working in egypt. and she was dismissed from the country at the time of her publication. whether hawass was correct in persecuting her for releasing a theory mind you is a different issue.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:05 am    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
By the way, she was not "banned" or "deported" from the country, thats nonsense.

she was banned from working in egypt. ...

As a result of her selfish actions and breach of contract. So thoroughly justified. As I said, the whole team could have lost the license... But that did not happen.

kylejustin wrote:
... and she was dismissed from the country at the time of her publication. ...

What I continue to call a rumor. Evidence?

kylejustin wrote:
... whether hawass was correct in persecuting her for releasing a theory mind you is a different issue.

With look on the contract, that was known to Fletcher, and that she has violated clearly, it is absolutely no question. Is to breach a contract in Australia legally?

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:05 pm    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

To get back to the report of the Egyptian doctor who made the report for Hawass, indicating that the mummy YLKV35 was a male. I have discussed this with a friend who is very knowledgeable and even has a copy of the report. It seems the sample for the gender test was taken from a piece of bone, which makes it quite likely that, instead of the mummy, one of the two extra arms found wrapped up with her was tested. Evidently that arm belonged to a man. That is one theory, leading to something else. Which man? A man with an arm in a kingly pose? Then that arm should be tested again, not just for gender [which is called a "quick test"] but for a complete genetic profile. If it closely matches that of the YLKV35, then that would be very interesting.

Even of Hawass was angry with Fletcher, I doubt he could make a person from a completely different field give a false report. I have said it before. Hawass was the head of the SCA, not the king of Egypt. I don't believe in this conspiracy theory at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:20 am    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
To get back to the report of the Egyptian doctor who made the report for Hawass, indicating that the mummy YLKV35 was a male. I have discussed this with a friend who is very knowledgeable and even has a copy of the report. It seems the sample for the gender test was taken from a piece of bone, which makes it quite likely that, instead of the mummy, one of the two extra arms found wrapped up with her was tested. Evidently that arm belonged to a man. That is one theory, leading to something else. Which man? A man with an arm in a kingly pose? Then that arm should be tested again, not just for gender [which is called a "quick test"] but for a complete genetic profile. If it closely matches that of the YLKV35, then that would be very interesting.

Even of Hawass was angry with Fletcher, I doubt he could make a person from a completely different field give a false report. I have said it before. Hawass was the head of the SCA, not the king of Egypt. I don't believe in this conspiracy theory at all.


I can`t imagine they tested a separate arm and then applied the results to the mummy of the Younger Lady. This would be the height of incompetence because it is clear that the extra limb could be about anything. It might be in some relation to her but it could also have been wrapped in quite by accident by some later restorers.

Interesting in this context is that Fletcher reported one of the arms to be slightly longer than the one attached to the mummy and therefore dismissed it as not belonging to her.

Maybe its size could indicate that it might have belonged to a male?
Still it is a mystery how the rumour of the YL being male came up.
There is certainly no good excuse for the confusion.
If there were clear test results from her own body ok, but if there were any doubts on such an important issue like gender they should simply have kept quiet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:19 am    Post subject: Re: What is the evidence that the youngest mummy is male? Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
Still it is a mystery how the rumour of the YL being male came up.
There is certainly no good excuse for the confusion.
If there were clear test results from her own body ok, but if there were any doubts on such an important issue like gender they should simply have kept quiet.


victor loret stated it was a male when the tomb was discovered. it was because of the shaved head i understand. hawass was either just trying to undermine fletcher further when he stated it was a male, or he honestly had not read up on anything recent about it. either way, he ate his words.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mummy between Queen Tye and Tutankhamun's mother is boy. R & J Janssen in their book "Growing up in Ancient Egypt" use him as an example of boys not being circumscised before 14 years. His hands cover him, though of course Loret , Smith and others since will have seen the evidence. BTW, as there still seems some dispute about if he was tested with the other mummies, here is some proof that he was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thankyou that's the photo I've been looking for - what's the source?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
Thankyou that's the photo I've been looking for - what's the source?

I googled "KV35 mummies pictures" and found this
http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/ngsimages/lightbox/share/publishedlightbox.jsf;jsessionid=E32D9A62E25C5CA3B51079269CE554E8.worker4
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, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 4 of 10

 
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