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 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
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:42 pm    Post subject: The other KV35 mummy. Who is it? Reply with quote

KV35EL is Tiye, KV35YL is her daughter and mother of Akh's successor. Between them we have the mummy of "a prince" (who doesn't get a cool mummy name, apparently). Logicially, given his location, this should be Crown Prince Thutmosis.

But he isn't identified even though the means to do so were right at hand.

Any ideas as to why he wasn't ID'd and who else besides Thutmosis it could be?

RstJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It could be Prince Tuthmose, or it could be Smenkhare.
I know you don't believe he exists, but most people do, and he would be another possibility.

It's also possible of course that this is another royal son who is not known to us from any other source.

How old is this boy thought to be? CA 10 years old or so? I'm totally guessing, but the side lock seems to indicate someone who should be young. I don't know when the sidelock was removed in favor of the adult hairstyle(s).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Note btw that some have suggested that this mummy was possibly original to KV35 and of so could be the royal prince Webensenu.

See Max Miller's excellent page mentioning this unidentified boy

It seems that the two most often suggested identities are Webensenu (son of Amenhotep II) or Tuthmose (son of Amenhotep III).

The site also mentions that Smith estimate the age at time of death to have been ca 11 years old.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real question is why didn't he test him, situated in such an obvious position and long thought to be related to the two women due to placement. I'm wondering if he already has been and will be exciting corroboration on a future Discovery Channel show. He's a much more obvious choice than the KV21 women.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 104
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
KV35EL is Tiye, KV35YL is her daughter and mother of Akh's successor. Between them we have the mummy of "a prince" (who doesn't get a cool mummy name, apparently).


Some sources refer to him as the "Unknown Boy".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think he's either the older brother of KV55 = Akh, or the older brother of Tut = Smenkhkare, who died at age (around) 10 and owned the wooden pencil box from Tut's tomb (page 4, fig. 2).

http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/

Scrolll down to the James P. Allen, "The Amarna Sucession"

The adult pictured on page 4, in fig 3. and 4. has to be Nefertiti rather than the start of a "see he's gay & someone else fathered the kids' " campaign, which a Smenkhkare ID would surely provoke.

I tend to think it's Smenkhkare because there are no other male names or unlabeled male mummies so by process of elimination, if the boy is Smenkhkare, KV55 must be Akh, regardless of age, hence the positive ID.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Newmoon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:

The adult pictured on page 4, in fig 3. and 4. has to be Nefertiti rather than the start of a "see he's gay & someone else fathered the kids' " campaign, which a Smenkhkare ID would surely provoke.


Why does this figure have to be Nefertit? It looks incontestably male to me, though I might partially agree that a Smenkhkare ID might provoke (in some) that tired and completely insubstantial "gay" debate.

The persistent assumption that the figures are portrayed in some sort of romantic setting never fails to amaze me, especially when it's promoted by credentialed Amarna scholars who strangely seem to forget that the coddling pose in Fig. 3 was also used in at least one instance to portray Akhenaten's infant daughters: http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/1/0/0/k/2/AmarnaPainting.jpg.

I wonder if they believe these tiny tots were also "gay." Seriously, it just amazes me. It seems far more likely that this was simply a standard way of portraying affection between family members, no more.

The unidentified boy would more realistically seem to be Prince Thutmose, or another prince we aren't aware of. I don't believe we have all the information concerning Amenhotep's or Tiye's children, especially as there seems to some question as to how many daughters they had, and exactly who they were. The record is just not complete enough to ID this prince with any certainty. I don't, however, believe it was Smenkhkare, who probably lived to be older than ten or eleven when he died (he had at least one marriage, maybe more), and is most likely the younger king shown in the images.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought this was a guess who he is post. Details to be revealed on a later Discovery show.

Quote:
Why does this figure have to be Nefertit? It looks incontestably male to me, though I might partially agree that a Smenkhkare ID might provoke (in some) that tired and completely insubstantial "gay" debate.


They look incontestably female to me (both fig 3 & 4). What other female would be shown in an affectionate pose with Akh? And please don't tell me Kiya or Meritaten. All this made up stuff gets tedious. And in any case you then agree on female.

Quote:
I wonder if they believe these tiny tots were also "gay."


Did someone seriously say fig 3 & 4 are gay guys? I was being funny. The picture you show looks like an obvious pair of little girls to me, way too young for sexual inclination.

Defending Smenkhkare aged 20 or over is one thing, but do his defenders have to shove him down every one's throat? Other people have different opinions. Why quarrel.
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 Mar 08, 2010 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:

What other female would be shown in an affectionate pose with Akh? And please don't tell me Kiya or Meritaten. All this made up stuff gets tedious.

I always thought the female on the left could be Nefertiti with her blue crown. I don't think Kiya is ever depicted in anything but a short wig, so that would be a rather big departure in her depictions. Meritaten is usualy depicted (as an adult) with the short wig or a khat headdress from what I remember.

stephaniep wrote:

Defending Smenkhkare aged 20 or over is one thing, but do his defenders have to shove him down every one's throat? Other people have different opinions. Why quarrel.

I don't see this as a matter of opinion. Smenkhare's name is well attested:
tomb of Meryre in Amarna,
Amarna block reused in Hermopolis (records Smenkhare and Meritaten),
Calcite Jar found in the tomb of Tutanhamen.

So no matter what people like to claim, this is a person attested in the archaeological record and in more than one instance.

Bezel rings mentioning Djeserkheperure Smenkhare:
Museum number - UC23800
Museum number - UC23801

I have a hard time taking anyone serious who just dismisses known archaeological evidence. That's taking some assumptions and just dismissing anything that doesn't fit with some preconceived notion. That's not scientifically sound. We need to start with the given inscriptions, scenes and depictions and go from there. And like it or not Smenkhare is attested.

For as far as identifying these bodies: I think they may need to do more research and establish the m-DNA lines there.

But it seems that Tiye and the KV35 younger lady would have died in Amarna and were later reburied. I do have one question mark in identifying the young boy as Tuthmose: this boy died before year 30 in Amenhotep III's reign. So if it's him, then how did he end up with 2 Amarna period reburials? If not Tuthmose, then what young prince would it be? It is of course possible that this individual is some otherwise unknown young prince. If there was one royal prince (Tut) then there may have been more.

I'm not sure why he was not included in the DNA tests. Next round he should definitely be included.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I always thought the female on the left could be Nefertiti with her blue crown. I don't think Kiya is ever depicted in anything but a short wig, so that would be a rather big departure in her depictions. Meritaten is usualy depicted (as an adult) with the short wig or a khat headdress from what I remember.


I'm just saying it's a woman on the left in 3. and on the right in 4. and a man, so we're in agreement.

Yes, he's attested. I wasn't aware I was dismissing known archaeological evidence. He could have married Meritaten at 10, and be gone at 11 (both gone apparently). Like Tut married Ankesenpaatan at 9 or so. Are any of these things dated? I still think the female form of the name could be Nefertiti with another name change and the boy was Thutmose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Newmoon
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:


Quote:
Why does this figure have to be Nefertit? It looks incontestably male to me, though I might partially agree that a Smenkhkare ID might provoke (in some) that tired and completely insubstantial "gay" debate.


They look incontestably female to me (both fig 3 & 4). What other female would be shown in an affectionate pose with Akh? And please don't tell me Kiya or Meritaten. All this made up stuff gets tedious. And in any case you then agree on female.


I'm not sure I follow your logic. You seem to be saying that because the figures look female to you, I must then agree they are female. (?) Yet the figures do not look any more female to me than any other Amarna-era figure, males included, so I can't concur with what you say.

I can then guess you are basing your argument on the nature of the "affectionate" pose, in that this configuration can only suggest romantic affection and must therefore indicate that one of the figures is female. But the image I linked of the princesses suggests this pose is not exclusive to, or even indicative of, romantic affection. Rather (and especially) since it appears more than once, it's suggestive of an Amarna-era standard for showing general affection.

I'm a little baffled that there seems to be an unwillingness in some Egyptologists to accept the display of platonic affection between adults or family members in Amarna art. But this rejection has no real basis in anything other than our own prejudices or ideas of what is acceptable or familiar. We have to remember not to inject our personal cultural notions into what was very likely a different culture and age, and hence probably functioned a little differently.

stephaniep wrote:

Quote:
I wonder if they believe these tiny tots were also "gay."


Did someone seriously say fig 3 & 4 are gay guys? I was being funny. The picture you show looks like an obvious pair of little girls to me, way too young for sexual inclination.


I believe this idea did circulate about for a while, based on the interpretation of these figures, and still popularly exists in some circles (not scholarly for the most part). Regarding the image of the young girls, I'm trying to show that the pose (almost identical to Fig. 4) was used previous to the scene of the two kings and should not be cited as a basis for a romantic/sexual relationship, or as proof that one of the figures must be female. Certainly the smaller "king" could be female, but I don't personally find any substantiating evidence for it.

As far as the figure being representative of Kiya or Mertitaten, I've never been especially fond of any of the Kiya theories. She existed most certainly, but it seems a great deal of importance has been attached to her lately than could be solidly supported. I'm more inclined to believe, if I had to choose between the two, the figure represents Meritaten, though it is a stretch for me. I'm still of the mind it is Smenkhkare, as there is just more evidence for Smenkhkare ruling as a king than Meritaten. Likewise nothing in the figure seems to suggest a female over a male, and other images suggestive of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare side-by-side do exist. To be fair, I won't completely rule it out, but I'm not convinced by anything I've seen in scholarship so far.

stephaniep wrote:

Defending Smenkhkare aged 20 or over is one thing, but do his defenders have to shove him down every one's throat? Other people have different opinions. Why quarrel.


I'm not sure what you mean by shoving him down everyone's throat. I'm stating what I believe and why I believe it; that's the idea behind discussion. I don't think I (or anyone) has the ability to force a view on another just by debating it. This isn't something you should take personally. Disagreeing with someone does not equate a quarrel. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok. Let's see what the next chapter of the Discovery show brings. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:

<...>
But it seems that Tiye and the KV35 younger lady would have died in Amarna and were later reburied. I do have one question mark in identifying the young boy as Tuthmose: this boy died before year 30 in Amenhotep III's reign. So if it's him, then how did he end up with 2 Amarna period reburials?


It's interesting that despite the attempts to erase the Armana pharaohs in later dynasties, the priests of the 20th and 21st dynasties still seemed to know the family relationships, at least as far as KV35EL and KV35YL go. So it would make sense that KV35YB (young boy) would be Thutmosis, son of Tiye, and KV35YL's younger brother.

I'm not sure why Zahi didn't just toss him too, especially since we get KV21b who seems to lack a direct connection to anyone in her generation or later. It's very hard for me to make an argument that KV35YB is irrelevant seeing as how he's found right next to two people who are *very* relevant--one unquestionably Queen of Egypt and the other one her daughter and mother of a King. I don't think he can be written off as just some mummy that was laying around.

Maybe Zahi will publish the identity before long.

RstJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The boy could certainly be the younger lady`s brother, but couldn`t he also be a brother of Tut? Everyone seems to be reluctant to give him male siblings, but I would definitely fancy the idea of Tut having at least one brother besides all the girls that were around at Amarna (call them his sisters or not) Very Happy

Seriously, I think it`s possible the boy may have been Tut`s brother buried with his mother and grandmother, either an older brother who died before he could become king, or more likely a younger brother who died at some time during Tut`s reign.

Anyway, like everyone here I hope to see the next part of Zahi`s docudrama soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertStJames wrote:


It's interesting that despite the attempts to erase the Armana pharaohs in later dynasties, the priests of the 20th and 21st dynasties still seemed to know the family relationships, at least as far as KV35EL and KV35YL go. So it would make sense that KV35YB (young boy) would be Thutmosis, son of Tiye, and KV35YL's younger brother.


They may not have known the family relationships. Those could have easily been made clear by inscriptions on their coffin/sarcophagus/funerary equipment. And it is interesting that these individuals were buried anonymously. There are no inscriptions on the linens (as with Amenhotep III for instance) and no identifying items left .

Before they matched the elder lady's hair to the lock found in KV62, they had no idea who this was. Some speculated it was Merytre Hatshepsut. That gives some idea of how thoroughly they were stripped of their identity.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 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