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 

new speculations
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:34 am    Post subject: new speculations Reply with quote

http://www.egiptomania.com/historia/beneretmut-adn-kv35yl.htm

That`s a link to a spanish article in which is suggested that Nefertiti`s sister Benretmut could be KV35YL.
It is an unusual approach which involves gene mutations wherever the data doesn`t fit this model, so I don`t think it will get much approval.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


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

PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Howver ydna does mutate quickly. From what I have learnt. It is mtna that doesnt.

If a DNA testing company performed the analysis, then surely their expert knowledge ,must be taken into account? It is not as if he did the analysis without expert advice and anlaysis of the results. By people who test dna day in and day out.

I found the article fascinating, as well as the other article on Beneretmut- Nefertitis sister on the same site.

You can use Google to translate it to english.

I could nut understand how Mutnodjemet could have married Horemhab, but his assertion is that they were two different people. Still why would Tutankhamen not mention his Mothers name anywhere? Because she was part of Amarna?

There must be some intrigue here..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Beneretmut article doesn't say anything about Y-DNA or mtDNA, does it?

Here's some information on aDNA mutation frequencies for the markers reported in the JAMA article. About 1 to 3 per thousand children.

FGA 0.28%
D18 0.22%
D21 0.19%
CSF 0.16%
D13 0.14%
_D2 0.12%
D16 0.11%
_D7 0.10%

Sample size about 750 thousand to 1 million. Data compiled from paternity testing at 44 laboratories (possibly all in the Untied States?). From the American Association of Blood Banks (2003).

Mutations are actually more likely than some of the rarer alleles.

How many mutations goes the article suggest?
Which mummies?
Which alleles?

Sorry I don't read Spanish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aromagician
Citizen
Citizen


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

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can use the Google translater on the top left hand corner of the page, it changes it to English for you.

I will try pasting the link here to the english version here, you may have to cut and paste as in the past I have had problems with links

http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.egiptomania.com%2Fhistoria%2Fbeneretmut-adn-kv35yl.htm&langpair=es|en
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sobek wrote:
The Beneretmut article doesn't say anything about Y-DNA or mtDNA, does it?

Here's some information on aDNA mutation frequencies for the markers reported in the JAMA article. About 1 to 3 per thousand children.

FGA 0.28%
D18 0.22%
D21 0.19%
CSF 0.16%
D13 0.14%
_D2 0.12%
D16 0.11%
_D7 0.10%

Sample size about 750 thousand to 1 million. Data compiled from paternity testing at 44 laboratories (possibly all in the Untied States?). From the American Association of Blood Banks (2003).

Mutations are actually more likely than some of the rarer alleles.

How many mutations goes the article suggest?
Which mummies?
Which alleles?

Sorry I don't read Spanish.


The mutation is suggested in KV55 at the D7S820 locus where he is 15,15.
They say he inherited a 6 at this locus fromAIII and he passed it on to KV21A but it mutated in his own body to 15.

I don`t know, is it possible that a mutation takes place but the original gene is passed on?
The location D7 is according to the statistics the least likely to develop mutations.

I think there is another mutation suggested in the fictional genes of Ay but I cannot get the details anymore.
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 Apr 17, 2010 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In spite of the insufficient and unsatisfactory nature of the data presented in the JAMA paper (which has been amply commented on in this and other forums/fora), if we accept what we have been given as scientifically valid - and several high-flying specialists have put their reputations and careers on the line in the report - we can deduce:
1 All Tutankhamun's DNA comes from either KV55 or KV35YL, so they must be either his parents or siblings of his parents
2 KV55 and KV35YL in turn get all their DNA from Amenhotep III and Tiye (KV35EL), so must be their children
3 Amenhotep III and Tiye share no common features, so Tiye (along with Yuya and Thuya) does not belong to another branch of the royal family. Besides, KV55 and KV35Yl can only be cgildren of these two parents.
4 The Amenhotep mummy really is him, in spite of the late mummification procedure. Scientific fact defeats logical deduction!
5 The report adduces no credible data for believing KV55 to be older than the previously established age of 18-21, so cannot be Akhenaton (a pity, because that, along with a 12 year co-regency with Am. III, would solve a multitude of problems). This is in spite of the archaeological evidence in the tomb and the mummy itself. The end of the Amarna period was clearly a time of great upheaval, and all sorts of odd things could have happened then, and later when the tomb was re-entered.
The rest, I'm afraid, is speculation, and must wair upon 'he who knows all' revealing more data.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is 'He who knows all' God or Dr. Hawass? Laughing

Unfortunately many people, including Dr. Hawass, are so committed to the 'Akhenaten as Tut's Father' theory that they are willing to ignore the forensic evidence of age. Or for that matter the question of why a pharoah who ruled for 17 years and had plenty of time to create an elaborate funerary suit was buried in a coffin borrowed from his wife?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote

Quote:
Or for that matter the question of why a pharoah who ruled for 17 years and had plenty of time to create an elaborate funerary suit was buried in a coffin borrowed from his wife?


He thought he was going to live for a million years, so there was plenty of time left for all that stuff. KV55 was a reburial and the coffin most likely wasn't the original one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Or for that matter the question of why a pharoah who ruled for 17 years and had plenty of time to create an elaborate funerary suit was buried in a coffin borrowed from his wife?


Maybe because his original coffin was "borrowed" by someone else...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Maybe because his original coffin was "borrowed" by someone else...


...Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare are the same person?
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 Apr 18, 2010 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sobek wrote:

...Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare are the same person?


I don't think so. The analysis of the epithets seems to indicate that Ankh(et)kheperure Neferneferuaten is a female ruler (quite possibly a regent or co-regent), while Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare was a male ruler.

I'm not sure there's enough information to tell who may have ruled independently and who may have been more of a regent.
It seems that Ankh(et)kheperure Neferneferuaten may not have ruled independently, while Smenkhare did. But that's my impression.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


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

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
...why a pharoah who ruled for 17 years and had plenty of time to create an elaborate funerary suit was buried in a coffin borrowed from his wife?

Robson wrote:
Maybe because his original coffin was "borrowed" by someone else...

Sobek wrote:
...Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten and Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare are the same person?

anneke wrote:
The analysis of the epithets seems to indicate that Ankh(et)kheperure Neferneferuaten is a female ruler (quite possibly a regent or co-regent), while Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare was a male ruler.


So whose coffin is "borrowed" from whom?
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 Apr 19, 2010 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea is that the middle coffin for Tutankhamen previously belonged to someone else . I think Smenkhare but I'm not sure. And I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure we have any idea at all what happened to most of Akhenaten's funerary equipment. Some shabtis were found, his stone sarcophagus was smashed. About the (presumably gold) coffins? For all we know it could have been melted down?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
About the (presumably gold) coffins? For all we know it could have been melted down?


Maybe for produce gold foil to adorn Amun's statues... Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
The idea is that the middle coffin for Tutankhamen previously belonged to someone else . I think Smenkhare but I'm not sure. And I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.


No, you're correct. The second coffin and sarcophagus are thought to have belonged to Smenkhkare (Dodson 1992 and Eaton-Krauss 1992). The coffinettes are most likely from "King Neferneferuaten;" Dodson some years ago reconstructed the inscriptions on the coffinettes and proposed they had been reused at least twice, with the original use by "King Neferneferuaten", then reused by Smenkhkare, and finally, by Tutankhamun. This is his theory, graphically:



anneke wrote:
Not sure we have any idea at all what happened to most of Akhenaten's funerary equipment. Some shabtis were found, his stone sarcophagus was smashed. About the (presumably gold) coffins? For all we know it could have been melted down?


The remnants of Akhenaten's sarcophagus can be seen today outside in the garden of the Cairo Museum. It is heavily reconstructed, but was found in situ in the Royal Tomb at Amarna. This tends to argue that the coffin/s and mummy were probably destroyed at the same time, and Pendlebury in the 1930's did find a destroyed mummy (burned) right outside the Royal Tomb. Was this Akhenaten? No one knows.

Reference:

Dodson, A. 1992. KV 55 and the end of the reign of Akhenaten. In VI Congresso Internationale di Egittologia, 1: 135-139. Turin: International Association of Egyptologists.

Eaton-Krauss, M. 1992. The Sarcophagus in the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. In C. N. Reeves, Ed., After Tut'ankhamun: Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes: 85-90. Studies in Egyptology. London: Kegan Paul International.
_________________
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
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 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 1 of 13

 
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