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 

Tutankhamun's Family Tree--Full of Knots!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:25 pm    Post subject: Tutankhamun's Family Tree--Full of Knots! Reply with quote

I just recieved my issue of KMT, and Dennis Forbes' article on the new findings of the DNS-Family connections for Tutankhamun was titled that--Full of Knots! after reading it, I have to agree with most of the things he has said. Several of Hawass' and Teams comments are radically differrent from JAMA article.
The findings of the 2 year research has, indeed, opened a huge can of worms! One of the most surprising statements, to me, was that of the SCA, in saying ""Two stillborn fetuses found in the tomb (of Tut) after DNA analysis supports the belief they were the children of Tut (previously believed) and that the mummy found in KV21, known as KV21A, was the mother, Ankasemamun"
Some other questionable findings--the skeletal remains found in KV55 are Akhnaten (even though the age is highly disputed, ranging from 18 to 60!) All of the previous research that has identified him as Smenenkara has been tossed! KV35YL, first identified as a male, then a female, then a male and finally a female was the mother of Tutankhamun, although she has not been identified. She has been identified, though, as a daughter of Amenhotep and Tiye, making her a full sister of Akhnaten. KV35EL is definately Tiye. (This has been accepted for years!) The mummy we have identified as Amenhotep III may not be the king--incorrect embalming for that period. Other candidates for KV35YL are: Sitamun, Kiya, Beketaten and Meritaten. The mummies of Tiye's parents are indisputable. Yuya and his wife, Thuyu, were found in their (almost) completely intact tomb. But now there is some question about Yuya's descent. Was he Asiatic? Was the family related in some way to Amenhotep III!
The parisite causing maleria has been found in several of the mummies, leading to the belief that Tutankhamun died from a weaked condition, caused by the break in his leg, that allowed the maleria "bug" to do him in.
After reading the article several times, I am still at a complete loss trying to piece together family relationships in this period.
As I said, all of the research and examination done has turned accepted thinking on its head, and really opened a can of worms!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elakazal
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I work as a plant breeder, and I've long thought that when you start poking around in the DNA to figure out the pedigrees of varieties, compared to what you "know" already, you very quickly wish you hadn't, because it starts to make you question all the written pedigree data. (Which is probably healthy, but breeders eat and breathe pedigree data...)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excuse me that I don`t share your excitement right now, but the information you have given so far seems to be about the same things we have been discussing in various threads since the release of the JAMA paper. Can you work out some more specific points which you think have not been discussed yet?

When you mention differing statements from Hawass and team, do you mean the stuff they are telling on their Discovery Channel show?

I have reviewed most of the show in these days and came over a few points where the scientists are really telling lies.
First regarding the foetus DNA they say they got a complete data set from the bigger foetus which proves she was Tut`s daughter, but no sufficient data from the smaller foetus. The truth is (and I think what is written in the Jama paper is more reliable than the contents of the show) that from both only partial DNA was obtained which makes it appear possible that Tut could be their father. They are even more cautious when it comes to their mother as the two KV21A mummies` data is also partial.

When the scientists examine the reconstructed pelvis of KV55 one can hear Albert Zink saying that some angle in it looks wider than normal to him.
Exact measurements are not given though. This sloppy statement together with the following presentation of one of Akhenatenaten`s wide-hipped statues evokes the impression that this is another "proof" that KV55 is Akhenaten.
The Jama paper on the other hand describes the KV55 pelvis as not showing any abnormal feminine traits.

Furthermore the hand of the bigger foetus is deemed too long compared to the length of its thigh. Therefor it is diagnosed with having Marfan`s.
The other mummies show no signs of Marfans according to the show.

The Jama paper states clearly that in none of the mummies were signs of Marfan`s detected. It is not conceivable anyway why a hand which is long in relation to the thigh should point toMarfan`s as in Marfan`s the limbs are too long in relation to the body.

I am sure there are many more points to be discovered but I leave it for now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The KMT article heavily panned the Discovery show (if you're talking about Tut Unwrapped) and said that most of its information was way off base and inaccurate. For example, the show stated that the feteuses had never before been examined so throughly, but an examination has been made of them twice before.
The elongated hand HINTS at Marfan's, does not give a definate prognosis.

I know most of the subjects have been discussed here. My only reason for posting was to say that there was a very interesting article in the latest issue of KMT, and to show that at least one person--Dennis Forbes of KMT--disagrees with the blanket statements issued by Hawass and Co.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can say that again!

I spent most of the second two hours shouting at the screen. Put simply it is FAR from proven that KV55 is Akhenaten and KV35YL is almost certainly NOT Kiya - who was not a King's Daughter. She may be any one of the four recorded daughters of Amenhotep III and Tiye, Sitamun, Iset, Henuttabeb and Nebet'ah, or the mysterious Baketaten who was probably a daughter - possibly Nebet'ah under an Atenist name.

The DNA of the two KV21 mummies is so fragmentary all we can be sure of is that they belonged to the Amenhotep III/Tiye family, daughters or granddaughters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The mummy we have identified as Amenhotep III may not be the king--incorrect embalming for that period.


This point intrigues me. Did the article elaborate on whether the mummy's embalming method's thought to be too early or too late to be Amenhotep 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: Thu May 20, 2010 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mummy is apparently quite unique and does not fit in with any mummification technique.

On Max Miller's excellent site the following is written:
The embalmers had packed the skin of the deceased king with a resinous material, and Smith's description of this as being "analogous" to embalming techniques used in the 21'st Dynasty led Douglas Derry to question the identification of the mummy as being that of Amenhotep III. Edward Wente, however, points out that the resinous material used here for packing was quite unlike the materials employed by 21'st Dynasty embalmers. Long before the controversy regarding the identity of this mummy had arisen, Smith himself had noted (in the same report in RM that caused Derry's uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's mummy is altogether unique, and takes special care to distinguish it from 21'st Dynasty practices which, he goes on to explain, utilized linen, mud, sand, sawdust, or mixtures of fat and soda for packing materials, but not resins. Therefore, there is nothing about this mummy that would point to the 21'st Dynasty as the time of its original embalming.
Smith expresses the interesting theory that the novel style of embalming used on the mummy of Amenhotep III (whose identity he doubts not in the least) was part of the general cultural revolution sweeping Egypt toward the end of the 18'th Dynasty and which culminated during the reign of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten. That resin-packing was not employed during the 19'th and 20'th Dynasties is explainable in terms of the anti-Amarna reaction that set in after Akhenaten's death.

From: Page about Amenhotep III's mummy

Here's the general entrance to the website:
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/Jackal%20Logo.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I`m still confused by the resin-packing. Was it only "packed" under the skin or also poured over the mummy? If it was really only resin and not resin-soaked other materials (as I used to believe by now) , is it known if the resin was poured in as a liquid or packed in the body cavities in solid form?
I`ve heard several times that the unusual treatment of AIII`s mummy can be explained by his obeseness. He needed more stuffings that others. Is this true?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the info, and thanks for the link (I'd visited the site before, but lost the link. Got it bookmarked now Very Happy ).

Obviously, it's very unlikely that a 21st Dyn. pharaoh's DNA fits into an 18th Dyn. family tree, so I guess Smith must have been at least partially correct. It's a bit puzzling that we don't see this embalming method on other mummies of the period though.
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 May 21, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That site is definitely worth looking at. The pages about KV46 are very well done as well. But that's for another thread Very Happy

The suggestion seems to be that the Amarna period may have also lead to a change in mummification techniques. That would be quite interesting. Amenhotep III would have been mummified during the first months of Akhenaten's reign. But who would have made the decisions about the mummification "style" used? Would it have been Amenhotep III's last wishes? Tiye's influence? Or Akhenaten himself?

I get the impression that the resin would have been packed under the skin to give the body a more life-like appearance? The 21st dynasty mummies had their faces "stuffed" so they look more life-like.

Hennnutawy is a good example:

http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/Henttawy.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The technique didn't always work out well. Some mummies are busting out all over. Laughing
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 May 21, 2010 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
The technique didn't always work out well. Some mummies are busting out all over. Laughing


Yes, backfired rather horribly in some cases didn't it? Very Happy
Looking at the reconstruction of Hennutawy you can see what effect they were going for, but further dessication combined with too much packing material resulted in burst skin in some cases ....

It may have looked life-like right before burial though? Maybe that's what they were going for?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arthur
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although the mummy attributed to A111 is in question, does the DNA evidence then suggest that he is not related to the other members of the Amarna family?
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 Sep 06, 2010 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

arthur wrote:
Although the mummy attributed to A111 is in question, does the DNA evidence then suggest that he is not related to the other members of the Amarna family?


No, quite the opposite. The mummy is very much related and fits the bill of really being Amenhotep III.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruby
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

Does anyone know a good online resourse that documents all found mummies from Egypt?

Thanks!
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  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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