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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is all there is to that "Queen Tiye worshipped as Hathor" business at Sedeinga. The queen is shown as a lioness, "great of terror". Conclusion--that must be Sekhmet and Sekhmet is identified with Hathor and therefore Tiye must have been venerated as a goddess while she lived..."

No. It is merely symbolic of the power of the queen and her influence as the chief wife of a mighty king. He has plenty of sphinxes, too [lions with a human head] and that doesn't make him a personification of Hathor. It's just indicative of power--and was since the Old Kingdom.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:11 pm    Post subject: KV55 and KV35 YL Reply with quote

KV55 cannot be Achnaten if the two foetusses in Tutanchamun's grave are those of children Anchesenamun miscarried from Tut.
KV55's dna results do not match with him being their only grandfather.

Now we can speculate that the two foetusses were not of Anchesenamun but what is known of their dna together with the DNA of other members of the dynasty fits with the idea that they are the result of Tut's marriage to Anchesenamun.

That means KV55 is probably not Achnaten. Nefertiti is in never mentioned as the king's daughter or the king's sister. She is not listed as one of Amenhotep III and Tiye's daughters and neither is the wife of Amenhotep IV styled as his sister even though she is styled as Great Royal Wife.

KV35 YL fits with her dna as a daughter of AIII and Tiye and as such a full sibling of KV55. I agree that we simply don't know who she is. All we know is that she died young and had one child. Nefertiti had at least 6 daughters. To fit that in before the age of 19 with Tutanchamun as her son as well means a child every year from the age of 12. Surely her mummy would have shown multiple births if she had 7 children.

This all makes it most unlikely that KV55 and KV35YL are the Amarna Royal couple.

Im leaning more towards KV55 as Smenkchare and KV35YL as one of his sisters.
After the birth of her son KV35YL died (possibly as a victim of murder) and her husband remarried the eldest Amarna princess Meritaten.
The Amarna succession either went from Achnaten to Neferneferuaten/Nefertiti to her brother/son-in-law Smekchare who after a very short reign was succeeded by his son Tutanchamun. Or from Achnaten to his brother/son-in-law Smenkchare who died shortly afterwards requiring Nefertiti to step up as Neferneferuaten before being succeeded by her step-grandson Tutanchamun who was married to her daughter Anchesenamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sidney,

neseret has already answered your question about the kv35YL giving birth. she gave you a quote saying this mummy had never given birth or had one birth. either way not enough times to leave evidence.

also, dragging up an email from 2006? seriously? couldn't find anything more recent for you point?

as for tiye being worshipped as hathor, connor and cline said she was. so doesn't really matter if you don't believe it. you also have later examples of royal women being worshipped as goddesses: nefertari at abu simbel and cleopatra famously worshipped as isis. there is a very fine line between godesses such as isis/hathor/sekhmet/tefnut. most have very little to distinghuish them. hathor and isis wear the same crown with the horns and sun disk. usually only the inscription tells you which goddess it is.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject: Re: KV55 and KV35 YL Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
KV55 cannot be Achnaten if the two foetusses in Tutanchamun's grave are those of children Anchesenamun miscarried from Tut.
KV55's dna results do not match with him being their only grandfather.

Now we can speculate that the two foetusses were not of Anchesenamun but what is known of their dna together with the DNA of other members of the dynasty fits with the idea that they are the result of Tut's marriage to Anchesenamun.


There is nothing there that points to the mother of the infants having to be Ankhesenamun. But you summed up the problem in a nutshell.

Quote:
That means KV55 is probably not Achnaten. Nefertiti is in never mentioned as the king's daughter or the king's sister. She is not listed as one of Amenhotep III and Tiye's daughters and neither is the wife of Amenhotep IV styled as his sister even though she is styled as Great Royal Wife.


Someday people are just going to have to accept the fact that these things are not predictable. How much more evidence do I have to submit that king's daughters did not use all their possible titles once they were queens during this period? Marc Gabolde, who accepts that the mummies are Akhenaten and Nefertiti, appears to have gotten hung up on this, too, and attempted to show that these two were cousins instead of brother and sister. It didn't work. We know the names of maybe four daughters of Amenhotep III [I don't recall exactly how many] but, in the tomb of Kheruef, there are eight.

Quote:
KV35 YL fits with her dna as a daughter of AIII and Tiye and as such a full sibling of KV55. I agree that we simply don't know who she is. All we know is that she died young and had one child. Nefertiti had at least 6 daughters. To fit that in before the age of 19 with Tutanchamun as her son as well means a child every year from the age of 12. Surely her mummy would have shown multiple births if she had 7 children.


Repeating again:

https://www.academia.edu/2785941/Skeletal_Indicators_of_Pregnancy_and_Parturition_A_Historical_Review


And note "some women can bear children with a minimum of scarring, or without any scarring" [of the pubic bone]


Quote:
This all makes it most unlikely that KV55 and KV35YL are the Amarna Royal couple.


At one time, if anyone had suggested that Yuya was a relative of Amenhotep III, that would have been met with derision and a comment of "Extremely unlikely." But the DNA indicates that the two men were related. I think people's skepticism is influenced by too many old theories about this era that have become "fact" without very much to back them up.

Quote:
Im leaning more towards KV55 as Smenkchare and KV35YL as one of his sisters.


Without really knowing anything about Smenkhkare. How do you know he was even a king's son and that Meritaten didn't marry some high official there at Akhetaten and that he became king by virtue of being her husband? Another Egyptian queen wrote to the Hittites that she didn't want to marry one of her servants--so it's possible that this could happen.
Smenkhare's only known wife was Meritaten. You seem sure that Tutankhamun's children were by his only known wife, Ankhesenamun--but you are will to accept an unknown wife for Smenkhkare?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kylejustin"]sidney,

Quote:
neseret has already answered your question about the kv35YL giving birth. she gave you a quote saying this mummy had never given birth or had one birth. either way not enough times to leave evidence.

also, dragging up an email from 2006? seriously? couldn't find anything more recent for you point?


You can't see the point that she is still basing her conclusion on what she heard Dr. Brothwell say on the radio before 2006? There is nothing more recent--except the DNA testing. Which indicates that Dr. Brothwell was wrong about the mummy, the Younger Lady, never having given birth. Therefore, if Brothwell read the radiography correctly, the lady was someone whose childbearing did not leave any of the characteristic grooves.

Quote:
as for tiye being worshipped as hathor, connor and cline said she was. so doesn't really matter if you don't believe it.


If mere theory becomes fact for you, that's your problem. That's also the major problem with Egyptology in my view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="SidneyF"]
neseret wrote:


Quote:
The body of KV 55 is much younger than 30, and cannot be more than 25, with ages 19-23 reflected in most exanimations of the remains. With a 17 year reign, and the first child appearing before Year 1 (Smith and Redford 1976), this argues against KV 55 being identified with Akhenaten.


You seem to have every confidence that skeletal remains can be aged with that great an accuracy but I'm sure many disagree--including Dr. Selim Ashraf, who viewed the bones with CTscan.


I'm not sure there are that 'many' who disagree: the epiphyses are not closed, wisdom teeth have not erupted, and so on; this has been noted by every examination of the KV 55 skeleton since its discovery. Further, since the body is skeletal, the bones can be handled and seen visually so to determine these lack of closures and other evidence of a youthful status, and thus do not require X-rays or CT scans. However, I am aware of other radiological scans done which confirm this youthful status (most notably Filer 2000).

SidneyF wrote:
b) Nefertiti cannot be Akhenaten's sister because she is never styled "king's daughter".

And where is it written that this was mandatory? The reign of Akhenaten is an unusual one in several respects but in this respect it is expected to conform to previous times? In what previous time within the 18th Dynasty are the king and the queen touted as the personifications of Shu and Tefnut? [getting hard to type so will continue]


Quote:
It's "mandatory" because KV 35YL is found to be by DNA testing to be a sibling of KV 55 and is a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye, making her both a "king's daughter" /sAt nsw/ and "king's sister" (/snt nsw/) - both titles that Nefertiti did not possess. If she were KV 35YL, Nefertiti would have possessed those titles during her lifetime, but she does not. No matter how "non-traditional" Amarna may have been, royal titles such as "king's great royal wife" (/Hmt nsw wrt/), "king's daughter" (/sAt nsw/), etc. were still used, as they have hierarchal importance in royal court life (Troy 1986).


SidneyF wrote:
If it was so "mandatory", then how do you explain Meritaten being only styled "king's wife" on the box element and in the scene with Smenkhkare?


Uhm....She isn't: as I sit here and look at the very scene to which you refer (tomb of Meryre), the Lepsius inscription shows that she is entitled as /Hmt nsw wrt/, or "King's Great Wife" (De Garies Davies 1905: Plate 46). Meritaten is even entitled as /Hmt nsw wrt/ and /Hmt nsw/ at Karnak (Helck 1969: 24, Fig. 1). In other inscriptions, she is called both /sAt nsw/ and /Hmt nsw/.

Allen 2009 also notes that two of Akhenaten's daughters, Neferneferuaten being one of these, were entitled as /Hmt-nswt sAt n Xt.f/ "King's wife, daughter of his body" (for a contra interpretation as "daughter of the king’s wife and of his body," see Allen's discussion at 2009: 15, n. 63). So, there is a link of hierarchal use, as Troy (1986) indicated, even at Amarna.

Even Allen (2009) reads that Akhenaten's 4th daughter, Neferneferuaten, is entitled as /Axt n h(j).s/ "effective for her husband," refers to a marital state with Akhenaten, though she herself is never referred to as /Hmt nsw//wr.t/, but (Allen argues) Neferneferuaten served also as Akhenaten's co-regent as "king" Neferneferuaten, though acknowledged elsewhere as his daughter. So, even titles used only at Amarna, such as /Axt n h(j).s/, don't preclude that a daughter status was ever totally negated.

SidneyF wrote:
Ankhesenamun wasn't called "king's daughter" after her marriage, either. I don't know, faced with this evidence, how you can insist that using all possible titles was "mandatory".


As far as I can recall, ONLY Ankhsenamun dropped her "king's daughter" titles after her marriage to Tutankhamun. Meritaten is still attested in other inscriptions as king's daughter and chief queen.

SidneyF wrote:
Quote:
Further, as discussed before, there is NO evidence of a minimum of 6 individual births on the skeletal remains, of which Nefertiti is attested to have produced, which argues against the body being Nefertiti.


And so you paid no attention whatsoever to the paper to which I gave the URL yesterday where it states that some women give birth without manifesting any grooves on the pubic bone whatsoever. This is not within your field of expertise! You never examined the mummy's x-rays and it wouldn't have done you any good had you seen them. You are STILL going by Dr. Brothwell's radio announcement where you claimed he stated the mummy looked to him like she had never given birth. Well??? Did she give birth or not? Is she the mother of Tutankhamun or not?


Brothwell's quote, for which I was given a full quote after the post of mine to which you refer, stated that either the body was nulliparous OR had given birth only once, based upon his X-rays of the body. I stand by this statement, and as there is little evidence of pitting or any of the other signs of parturition which - as your article indicates is not always reliable as a single indicator, would have shown up after six births, then I stand by this position as well. (I note your article was not as clear whether multiple births would not have shown up at least one of the various indicators of pregnancy: scarring, pitting, etc.).

Reference:

Allen, J. P. 2009. The Amarna Succession. In P. Brand and L. Cooper, Eds., Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane: 9-20. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Volume 37. Leiden: Brill.

de Garies Davies, N. 1905. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part II: The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 7/Autumn: 13-4.

Helck, W. 1969. Die Tochterheirat ägyptischer Könige. CdE 44/87: 22-26.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

).

SidneyF wrote:
b) Nefertiti cannot be Akhenaten's sister because she is never styled "king's daughter".

And where is it written that this was mandatory? The reign of Akhenaten is an unusual one in several respects but in this respect it is expected to conform to previous times? In what previous time within the 18th Dynasty are the king and the queen touted as the personifications of Shu and Tefnut? [getting hard to type so will continue]


Quote:
It's "mandatory" because KV 35YL is found to be by DNA testing to be a sibling of KV 55 and is a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye, making her both a "king's daughter" /sAt nsw/ and "king's sister" (/snt nsw/) - both titles that Nefertiti did not possess. If she were KV 35YL, Nefertiti would have possessed those titles during her lifetime, but she does not. No matter how "non-traditional" Amarna may have been, royal titles such as "king's great royal wife" (/Hmt nsw wrt/), "king's daughter" (/sAt nsw/), etc. were still used, as they have hierarchal importance in royal court life (Troy 1986).


SidneyF wrote:
If it was so "mandatory", then how do you explain Meritaten being only styled "king's wife" on the box element and in the scene with Smenkhkare?


Quote:
Uhm....She isn't: as I sit here and look at the very scene to which you refer (tomb of Meryre), the Lepsius inscription shows that she is entitled as /Hmt nsw wrt/, or "King's Great Wife" (De Garies Davies 1905: Plate 46).


Just like Neferiti. Uhm...right? No "sAt nsw" or "king's daughter". So your point?


Quote:
Meritaten is even entitled as /Hmt nsw wrt/ and /Hmt nsw/ at Karnak (Helck 1969: 24, Fig. 1). In other inscriptions, she is called both /sAt nsw/ and /Hmt nsw/.


Nope. There is only the one inscription at Karnak and there the "Hmt nsw wrt" is obviously an error because Meritaten could be no more than four years old. But if you know of any other inscriptions with both those titles simultaneously, please feel to post them here. Cool



SidneyF wrote:
Ankhesenamun wasn't called "king's daughter" after her marriage, either. I don't know, faced with this evidence, how you can insist that using all possible titles was "mandatory".


Quote:
As far as I can recall, ONLY Ankhsenamun dropped her "king's daughter" titles after her marriage to Tutankhamun. Meritaten is still attested in other inscriptions as king's daughter and chief queen.


Nope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="neseret"]

Quote:
Allen 2009 also notes that two of Akhenaten's daughters, Neferneferuaten being one of these, were entitled as /Hmt-nswt sAt n Xt.f/ "King's wife, daughter of his body" (for a contra interpretation as "daughter of the king’s wife and of his body," see Allen's discussion at 2009: 15, n. 63). So, there is a link of hierarchal use, as Troy (1986) indicated, even at Amarna.


Allen didn't believe it, himself, and said it was an error in the footnote of his paper, so don't try to make it seem like he thought it was possible.



Quote:
Even Allen (2009) reads that Akhenaten's 4th daughter, Neferneferuaten, is entitled as /Axt n h(j).s/ "effective for her husband," refers to a marital state with Akhenaten, though she herself is never referred to as /Hmt nsw//wr.t/, but (Allen argues) Neferneferuaten served also as Akhenaten's co-regent as "king" Neferneferuaten, though acknowledged elsewhere as his daughter. So, even titles used only at Amarna, such as /Axt n h(j).s/, don't preclude that a daughter status was ever totally negated.


Nice try--but no dice. This has nothing to do with "sAt nsw" being coupled with "Hmt nsw wrt". Neferneferuaten is a pharaoh.[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smenkhkare and Meritaten from the tomb of Meryre II at El Amarna. At lower right is her cartouche--with only "great king's wife" for a title.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I submit the thesis of Barbara Cage Anderson, "Parturition Scarring As A Consequence of Flexible Pelvic Architecture" [which can be read as a PDF, as it is online] as proof that pelvic scarring or lack of it is no proof at all as to whether a woman had ever given birth [some who never did have the scarring] or how many births there were. [see beginning page 70]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
If mere theory becomes fact for you, that's your problem. That's also the major problem with Egyptology in my view.


connors and cline are not the only ones i have read that say this. it is the only one i (at the moment) have a reference for. when you have been reading books on egypt since you were a child, you pick up a lot and don't always know where it came from. was it a library book? something on the shelf at home? a magazine article? a post on the internet? when did i read this? 10? 18? last month?

and just to bring up nefertiti not being of royal blood- she is mentioned in thousands of inscriptions, and not ONCE has she ever held a royal title given to her by birth. never a king's daughter or sister, but his wife. when you have other members of the royal family using their titles, a bit hard to argue why nefertiti dropped some she would be entitled too. and it's not like the inscriptions are damaged or incomplete for you to say that might be why she doesn't have them.

her daughters do use the titles. ankhesenamun dropped hers because the royal family was dumping amarna.

absence of proof is not evidence of absence- this is the impression i am getting for your arguement on this point.
_________________
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: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

just pointing out, ankhesenamun was a king's daughter, which she dropped when the court returned to orthodoxy. she was also great royal wife of tutankhamun.

but not once is she given the title of 'king's sister'. this is not a title she would drop, because in using it she would of course be referring to tutankhamun, not akhenaten. so yet another reason kv 55 can't be akhenaten.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kylejustin]
Quote:
and just to bring up nefertiti not being of royal blood- she is mentioned in thousands of inscriptions, and not ONCE has she ever held a royal title given to her by birth. never a king's daughter or sister, but his wife.


Nefertiti is most certainly NOT mentioned in "thousands of inscriptions". That's an outrageous claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Nefertiti is most certainly NOT mentioned in "thousands of inscriptions". That's an outrageous claim.


seriously? you think she is mentioned in less than 2 thousand inscriptions? that's hard to believe. considering all the damage done to the amarna period, she is still one of the most proflic of egyptian queens.
_________________
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, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 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