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 

KV 21 mummies and DNA tests
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL There's a lot of speculation passed off as fact on the internet, and I would prefer that ED stays informed and separates fact from fiction.

Quote:
(1) KV21a is Mother of the foetuses in KV62. She is likely to be Anksenenum, wife of Tut?

That is not certain. They were only able to get a partial sequencing of the DNA. I think the best we can say is that KV21a could be the mother. Maybe it would be better to say that nothing was found that would exclude this mummy from being the mother. The latter being a lot weaker statement and likely a more accurate reflection of what we truly know.

Quote:
(2) KV55 mummy is Father of Tut (and Full Brother of KV 35 YL).

Based on the data we have, that is likely. People have wondered if the level of incest in the family could make this a bit less certain that it may at first appear.

Quote:

(3) KV35 YL is Mother of Tut (and Full Sister of KV55).

See (2)

Quote:

(4) KV55 is NOT Father of KV21a.

That's a bit more tricky.
If we assume KV21a is the mother of the foetusses, and the wife of Tut, then no, she cannot be a daughter of KV 55. Being the mother of the babies she would have had to have had markers 6 and 13 on D7S820, and that shows she could not also be a daughter of KV 55.

If she is not the mother of the foetusses then we do not know what markers she had on D7S820, and she could be a daughter of KV 55, but considering we only have half the markers for KV21a compared to the other mummies, then that's not exactly based on very much...

And she cannot be the daughter of KV55 and KV35YL based on one of the markers on D21S11.

Quote:
(5) KV 35 YL is NOT Mother or Sister of KV21a.

KV21a cannot be a daughter of Amenhotep and Tiye, which suggests that she is not a sister of KV35YL. They (KV35YL and KV21a) do however share markers on 6 of the 8 alleles sequenced. Which seems to point to them being of the same or at least overlapping family/ancestry. I think she could be a grand daughter of Yuya and Tuya? KV21a seems to share at least 4 markers with Yuya and 4 with Tuya. But there is not quite enough information to say anything definitive I think.

Quote:
(6) KV 35 EL is Mother of both KV55 and KV35 YL.

Her DNA is consistent with being the mother of that couple.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
LOL There's a lot of speculation passed off as fact on the internet, and I would prefer that ED stays informed and separates fact from fiction.

Quote:
(1) KV21a is Mother of the foetuses in KV62. She is likely to be Anksenenum, wife of Tut?


That is not certain. They were only able to get a partial sequencing of the DNA. I think the best we can say is that KV21a could be the mother.

Maybe it would be better to say that nothing was found that would exclude this mummy from being the mother. The latter being a lot weaker statement and likely a more accurate reflection of what we truly know.


So no 'strong' reason to suggest a close relationship? I mean, are we saying here that these 'non-exluding' factors could, say, suggest a mother, an aunt, a sister? Or maybe suggest a 'family' member from somewhere in the 'family tree'? Or even, a non-member, who has certain genetic factors that are coincidentally similar to some found in the foetuses?

[quote="anneke"]
Quote:
(2) KV55 mummy is Father of Tut (and Full Brother of KV 35 YL).


Based on the data we have, that is likely. People have wondered if the level of incest in the family could make this a bit less certain that it may at first appear.
Quote:



"Likely' but not certain, is that what you mean? Could KV55 have a close familial association with Tutankhamen? An Uncle or Brother as examples, or 'ather' as stated, or, even if weird to say, a Son? I'm talking about the likelihood of DNA matches here, I'm definitely not suggesting other evidence supports KV55 being Tut's son.

(3) KV35 YL is Mother of Tut (and Full Sister of KV55).

See (2)
Quote:


Okay.


anneke wrote:
(4) KV55 is NOT Father of KV21a.


That's a bit more tricky.

If we assume KV21a is the mother of the foetusses, and the wife of Tut, then no, she cannot be a daughter of KV 55.

Being the mother of the babies she would have had to have had markers 6 and 13 on D7S820, and that shows she could not also be a daughter of KV 55.


Right, so we can't close the door on KV55 being Akhenaten quite yet. Is that a reasonable point to make?


anneke wrote:
If she is not the mother of the foetusses then we do not know what markers she had on D7S820, and she could be a daughter of KV 55, but considering we only have half the markers for KV21a compared to the other mummies, then that's not exactly based on very much...


Okay.

anneke wrote:
And she cannot be the daughter of KV55 and KV35YL based on one of the markers on D21S11.


Does this mean that this 'one of the markers' excludes the possibility, or that we haven't got enough 'markers' to decide one way or the other?

anneke wrote:
Quote:
(5) KV 35 YL is NOT Mother or Sister of KV21a.


KV21a cannot be a daughter of Amenhotep and Tiye, which suggests that she is not a sister of KV35YL.


Okay. What about a daughter or niece of KV35YL? (May be doubling up here, but I'm trying to avoid being confused).

anneke wrote:
They (KV35YL and KV21a) do however share markers on 6 of the 8 alleles sequenced. Which seems to point to them being of the same or at least overlapping family/ancestry. I think she could be a grand daughter of Yuya and Tuya?


If KV21a is Anksenenum, this could suggest Nefertiti as a possibly family member of Tiye but NOT her daughter? Nefertiti could be a daughter of Ay, then? Though KV21a could be one of Anksenenum's sisters, or another unrecorded (or not considered yet) descendant of Yuya and Thuja?

anneke wrote:
KV21a seems to share at least 4 markers with Yuya and 4 with Tuya. But there is not quite enough information to say anything definitive I think.


Okay.

anneke wrote:
Quote:
(6) KV 35 EL is Mother of both KV55 and KV35 YL.


Her DNA is consistent with being the mother of that couple.


Consistent, but perhaps not Certain?


Fascinating stuff, Annekke. And thank you. Keen to hear your further responses...

It's all a bit like sand slipping through one's fingers, isn't it. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kv 21a seems to have some markers from amenhotpe III, so if not a direct line from him, from the same male lineage, therefore a descendant of the 18th dynasty line.

the way i saw it, and i may be wrong, the babies have DNA inherited from thuya, from descent not found in the existing mummies.....i took this as maybe it was mitochondrial, as in ankesenamun got it from nefertiti, who in turn got it from her mother....who may have been a sister of tiye. i personally think ay is likely a son in law of yuya and thuya, if he connects to that family at all....and he did build quite a bit at akhmin. i think if nefertiti was a grandchild of thuya, it's from a daughter.

other than that, what you've found seems to be what the experts are saying, and yes, it doesn't prove who kv 55 is lol though it make the family a little more clear than before!
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What are your thoughts Kyle on the further questions and thoughts I put to Annekke? Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Neteria sounded kind of like he/she knew what he/she was talking about
Well, our study-group may be referred-to as "they", but I'm definitely a "he". And we all knew well what we were talking about, it was merely the application of elementary sound scientific principles to a scientifically neglected field.
Orwell wrote:
- even if the speculations based on his/her conclusions might not be up to close scrutiny.
Scrutinize them as closely as you like, we already did that thoroughly two years ago and met with no valid objections. That's the way we came upon the theories that could be fully fitted to the published DNA evidence, and posted one of them - the TAMNSI theory - that has so alarmed some of our fellow-posters. So those well-tested "speculations" are now actually backed by the available evidence. And we later cleaned up all implicit assumptions to make the reasoning water-tight and provide final assuredness.
Orwell wrote:
(1) KV21a is Mother of the foetuses in KV62. She is likely to be Anksenenum, wife of Tut?
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV21A ought to be their mother (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, Tut's Queen, Ankhesenamen.
Orwell wrote:
(2) KV55 mummy is Father of Tut (and Full Brother of KV 35 YL).
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV55 could well be his father (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, King Smenkhkare I. And he would not be "full brother", but "full uncle" and "half uncle" (simultaneously) of his wife KV35YL.
Orwell wrote:
(3) KV35 YL is Mother of Tut (and Full Sister of KV55).
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV35YL could well be his mother (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, Smenkhkare's Queen Meritaten, murdered as King Neferneferuaten. And she would not be "full sister", but "full niece" and "half niece" (simultaneously) of her husband KV55.
Orwell wrote:
(4) KV55 is NOT Father of KV21a.
Defiitely not, going by his measured alleles, KV55 cannot be the father of Ankhesenamen nor of Meritaten either.
Orwell wrote:
(5) KV 35 YL is NOT Mother or Sister of KV21a.
Considering Ankhesenamen's measured alleles, KV35YL certainly ought to be the sister of KV21A (no 100% guarantee) but definitely not her mother.
Orwell wrote:
(6) KV 35 EL is Mother of both KV55 and KV35 YL.
No, she is not likely to be the mother of any of the couple's members (whose respective mothers would be Sitamen and Nefertiti, according to the allele tables I posted in 2010)
Orwell wrote:
Now, is there any dispute about above 6 points, do you know?
Sure, there is some dispute. The DNA allele patterns do allow for more than one interpretation tree, so we have adopted the most logical one, fitting the historical evidence and not based on any ad hoc trickery, such as conjuring up unknown characters or developing partial-body mutations and generation-skipping alleles. Your (1)-(6) speculations do look basically sound, but may require a bit of that hanky-panky, if adjusted to the evidence.
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Neteria. Sorry if I seemed to doubt to you. But I wasn't sure about those blocked threads and just wanted to clarify things in my mind.

Orwell wrote:
Neteria sounded kind of like he/she knew what he/she was talking about


Neteria wrote:
Well, our study-group may be referred-to as "they", but I'm definitely a "he". And we all knew well what we were talking about, it was merely the application of elementary sound scientific principles to a scientifically neglected field.


That sounds promising. Smile

Orwell wrote:
- even if the speculations based on his/her conclusions might not be up to close scrutiny.


Neteria wrote:
Scrutinize them as closely as you like, we already did that thoroughly two years ago and met with no valid objections. That's the way we came upon the theories that could be fully fitted to the published DNA evidence, and posted one of them - the TAMNSI theory - that has so alarmed some of our fellow-posters. So those well-tested "speculations" are now actually backed by the available evidence. And we later cleaned up all implicit assumptions to make the reasoning water-tight and provide final assuredness.


Actually I put that badly. What I meant to say is that whether in the final analysis we can agree with your speculations on the evidence or not, your way of putting things seemed quite well reasoned, at least to me who is no expert on these things - barely an amateur!

Orwell wrote:
(1) KV21a is Mother of the foetuses in KV62. She is likely to be Anksenenum, wife of Tut?


Neteria wrote:
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV21A ought to be their mother (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, Tut's Queen, Ankhesenamen.


What percentage guarantee - and your reasoning for it would be appreciated.


Orwell wrote:
(2) KV55 mummy is Father of Tut and Full Brother of KV 35 YL).


Neteria wrote:
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV55 could well be his father (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, King Smenkhkare I.


And so KV55 can't be Akhenaten? And if actually Smenkhkare, how do we know?

Neteria wrote:
And he would not be "full brother", but "full uncle" and "half uncle" (simultaneously) of his wife KV35YL.


So KV55 and KV35YL are not Full brother/sister, but full or half uncle?

Orwell wrote:
(3) KV35 YL is Mother of Tut (and Full Sister of KV55).


Neteria wrote:
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV35YL could well be his mother (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, Smenkhkare's Queen Meritaten, murdered as King Neferneferuaten. And she would not be "full sister", but "full niece" and "half niece" (simultaneously) of her husband KV55.


So KV35YL would be a full or half niece of KV55 who is Smenkhkare in your opinion? (Does this make Smekhkare Akhenaten's brother btw?)

Orwell wrote:
(4) KV55 is NOT Father of KV21a.


Neteria wrote:
Definitely not, going by his measured alleles, KV55 cannot be the father of Ankhesenamen nor of Meritaten either.


Okay. You mean here, not Father of KV35YL or KV21a? In your thought, Meritaten and Ankhesenamen! (I think I've got that bit).

Orwell wrote:
(5) KV 35 YL is NOT Mother or Sister of KV21a.


[quote="Neteria"]Considering Ankhesenamen's measured alleles, KV35YL certainly ought to be the sister of KV21A (no 100% guarantee) but definitely not her mother.

"Ought" to be, but not? What relation in that case - if a relation at all? Or do you mean by 'ought' that there is a big chance they 'are' sisters?

Orwell wrote:
(6) KV 35 EL is Mother of both KV55 and KV35 YL.


Neteria wrote:
No, she is not likely to be the mother of any of the couple's members (whose respective mothers would be Sitamen and Nefertiti, according to the allele tables I posted in 2010)


Sorry, I find that a bit too ambiguous. Could you re-post that rephrased. I don't quite comprehend what you're getting at and don't want to start guessing. That could lead to confusion - and I'm easily confused.

Orwell wrote:
Now, is there any dispute about above 6 points, do you know?


Neteria wrote:
Sure, there is some dispute. The DNA allele patterns do allow for more than one interpretation tree, so we have adopted the most logical one, fitting the historical evidence and not based on any ad hoc trickery, such as conjuring up unknown characters or developing partial-body mutations and generation-skipping alleles. Your (1)-(6) speculations do look basically sound, but may require a bit of that hanky-panky, if adjusted to the evidence.


That is not a particularly sharp or focussed dissertation. What hanky-panky are you talking about? And ad hoc trickery? I have no idea what you're talking about. You may be referring to earlier discussions you had, is that it? If so, I don't want to buy into that. It's not relevant to me. I really am only interested in looking at the facts that are available - if they're available, of course!

And "Your (1)-(6) speculations do look basically sound, but may require a bit of that hanky-panky, if adjusted to the evidence." Sorry, that is ambiguous (to me) too! Could you rephrase that too, please.

As to the 'speculations' you mentioned, I thought them more 'questions' about what I'd read and not so much 'speculations' as such.

As to: "The DNA allele patterns do allow for more than one interpretation tree, so we have adopted the most logical one..."

That does sound like a disturbingly confident statement. I'm looking forward to you backing it up. I'm after the facts, you see, and I do hope you can supply them, Neteria.

Cheers. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Been reading some of the reports and reviews on the DNA tests.

My goodness! Shocked

Is there nothng we can call 'agreed evidence' in Egyptology? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
Is there nothng we can call 'agreed evidence' in Egyptology? Laughing


Not when it comes to anything touching Amarna! :lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it interesting (and frustrating) that the two clear case of 'forensic evidence' in relation to Amarna are both under heavy questioning.

(1) The age of the KV55 mummy. No consensus.

(2) DNA evidence on mummies and what it suggests. No consensus.

I think I might need to go back to modern Australian Politics. At least there are 'some' certainties in the field! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neteria is basing his theory on that of kate phizackerley, who has a background in science or genetics. here's some linkes to her blog, with really informative and intriguing discussions. i just searched for 'tutankahmaun dna' and up came quite a few articles she posted i hadn't read:

http://www.***/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html

http://www.***/2010/02/tutankhamun-testing-discovery-videos.html

http://www.***/2010/02/critique-of-tutankhamun-dna-analysis.html

kate thinks the DNA results allow a reading that tut's mother may have meritaten, not a daughter of queen tiye. in her theory, which is based ont he alleles and the idea incest makes this harder than it is lol, she says kv35yl could be meritaten, and kv 55 is smenkhkare. kv21a is likely ankhesenamun, who can't be a daughter of kv55. so it really depends on whether you want akhenaten of ankhesenamun in this scenario.

you can have ankhesenamun as the mother of the babies, but kv55 can't be akhenaten. or you can say kv55 is akhenaten, but have an unknown wife for tutnakhamun. it is quite possible kv21a is a concubine or minor wife, but his only known queen was ankhesenamun. anyway some more food for your thoughts lol
_________________
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: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

forgot to say, it was a shock that the mummies from kv21 were included in the study in the first place. it was always suspected they were 18th dynasty queens, but i don't think anyone had an idea they may be amarna personalities.

anyway, a theory i read on kate's blog i think, was that hawass had found hatshepsut with her wet nurse, so his theory may have been the kv21 mummies were a similar occurence. except he hoped the kv21 mummies were none other than nefertiti and tey.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, kyle.

I did read Kate's article. She said she was an amateur, not an expert. Me being an amateur who is not afraid to think for myself, it didn't worry me. The Smenkhkare as KV55, and KY35YL as Meritaten idea is alluring. Especially as the KV21a as Ankhesenum idea seems more than reasonable, and in that case, KV55 can't (it seems) be her Dad.

I still think we need to overcome the issue of Akhenaten's Magic Bricks (which from my readings suggest strongly they were pretty well oriented correctly), and Ahkenaten's attestation on the coffin (with NO reference to Smenkhkare) is still in need of an explanation. I have sen a few 'ideas' of how "Smenkhkare" might have got into that coffin, but none of them seem satisfactory to me - as yet.

I'm still hopeful that some - perhaps tiny - piece of new (or previousky misunderstood) evidence will turn up and be the final puzzle piece in finding a satisfactory answer.

Btw, no one ever got back to me on my query whether Akhenaten's bricks could have been protecting 'Smenkhkare's mummy. Or that his attestation on the coffin was as 'Smenkhare's' heavenly or worldly protector in some fashion. Does that mean no one here understood what I was asking - or do I take the silence on that score to mean no one can - or are willing to try - to give an answer? Or was it my query about the possibility of Smenkhare predeceasing Akhenaten offending people's sensibilities, mking them too upset to reply? Wink

You know, if what I am asking about in the previous paragraph is possible, that is, that there are some cases of one Pharaoh's name/titles being entered on bricks or coffins or other burial items as 'protector' of the mummy that occurred in other 'mummy' contexts, then I'm more than willing to jump to the 'Smenkhkare' theory.

Well, an alternative-to-Akhenaten theory to begin with at least! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Neteria
Account Suspended


Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 93

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwell wrote:
I'm after the facts, you see, and I do hope you can supply them, Neteria.
Well, Orwell please receive my pleasantly surprised hello! I'll drink to that.
My personal pursuit of the Truth is obvious to anyone who reads my reasoning (see my signature sentence) so it's very encouraging to find a comrade-in-arms. My posts may require some patience, as English is not my language, and I must try my best to be very careful (through several translating revisions), so as to avoid ambiguity and getting my point across as best as I can. This has not been wholly successful, unfortunately, and most of the times I am misread.
Orwell wrote:
Hi Neteria. Sorry if I seemed to doubt to you. But I wasn't sure about those blocked threads and just wanted to clarify things in my mind.
Good, but I try to abide by the rules, and the subject of "blockings" is probably off-topic here, so I would have to address those points in another thread within the pertinent section.
Concerning "KV 21 mummies and DNA tests" I have given out a good deal of my reasonings in the previous pages, so I hereby just reaffirm them, to avoid incommensurate lengths. Therefore, I will now concern myself directly with your points of contention, which I'm happy to address in a rational way to the best of my ability, and hope you can find those "facts" you seek in my answers.
May I interject, however, how satisfying it is to be able to debate in proper terms the merits of theories, postulates, speculations, etc., related to Ancient Egypt. This is what I was seeking by joining a rational forum, but recently I have been mostly stonewalled and derided by conservative interests, who apparently abhor new theories and demand that they be proven before being even debated. To me, historical theories are equivalent to accusations, and can never be taken as proven facts, but must be treated as hypothetical realities to see where they may lead, while actual proofs are just presented at the final stage, equivalent to verdicts, and usually lead on into new theories and speculations. That's the angle from which we may be allowed to make Egyptology grow as a Science.
I know that by telling this to you, of all people, I´m dancing between the horses' hoofs, but it is always good to provoke a specialist's comment that straightens up older misconceptions.
So let me now join the ping-pong game of quick points to ponder.
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
Neteria sounded kind of like he/she knew what he/she was talking about

Neteria wrote:
Well, our study-group may be referred-to as "they", but I'm definitely a "he". And we all knew well what we were talking about, it was merely the application of elementary sound scientific principles to a scientifically neglected field.

That sounds promising. Smile
I meant that the application of simple principles was clear enough, and we followed the rational lead of Kate Phizackerley's blog, which she also commented as Theban Moon in the "New Speculations" thread. Where our analysis deviated from hers, I was transparent in mentioning the principles being applied. That transparency has not changed since, and the "promising" aspect you mention has rendered some of its fruits by now, probably to be followed by some more.
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
- even if the speculations based on his/her conclusions might not be up to close scrutiny.

Neteria wrote:
Scrutinize them as closely as you like, we already did that thoroughly two years ago and met with no valid objections. That's the way we came upon the theories that could be fully fitted to the published DNA evidence, and posted one of them - the TAMNSI theory - that has so alarmed some of our fellow-posters. So those well-tested "speculations" are now actually backed by the available evidence. And we later cleaned up all implicit assumptions to make the reasoning water-tight and provide final assuredness.

Actually I put that badly. What I meant to say is that whether in the final analysis we can agree with your speculations on the evidence or not, your way of putting things seemed quite well reasoned, at least to me who is no expert on these things - barely an amateur!
From an amateur to another, I believe amateurish approaches need to be vindicated, as they bring in different ways of viewing reality that could never be raised from any murky specialized jargon. And good reasoning is a convenient way of communicating – to those who can read it, of course. The point here is that "DNA allele testing" constitutes evidence of a far superior level than the usual bits of inscriptions, statuary, pottery or tombal self-propaganda, but it must be well measured to be useful. So far, there are doubts about the measurement consistency, but no incompatibilities or contradictions have been found, so the published allele tables are likely to be correct.
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
(1) KV21a is Mother of the foetuses in KV62. She is likely to be Anksenenum, wife of Tut?

Neteria wrote:
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV21A ought to be their mother (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, Tut's Queen, Ankhesenamen.

What percentage guarantee - and your reasoning for it would be appreciated.
Sorry, but two years can be a significantly long time and the original leafs, scribbled with Bayesian probabilities for mutual and conditioned parenthoods, are now either lost or mixed up in disarray (and each page looks exactly like any other!). Figuring out those probabilities again is, however, high in the list of new chores to get running, so for the time being, we can assume that "no 100% guarantee" just means "very high probability indeed, but slightly short of total"
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
(2) KV55 mummy is Father of Tut and Full Brother of KV 35 YL).

Neteria wrote:
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV55 could well be his father (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, King Smenkhkare I.

And so KV55 can't be Akhenaten? And if actually Smenkhkare, how do we know?
We only know from the "King's son" title that Tut was the son of KV55 who was king and is not Akhenaten (from his 15,15 alleles). The only other possible King from the time is Amenhotpe III who is not Tut's father. So it must be Smenkhkare.
Orwell wrote:

Neteria wrote:
And he would not be "full brother", but "full uncle" and "half uncle" (simultaneously) of his wife KV35YL.

So KV55 and KV35YL are not Full brother/sister, but full or half uncle?
Actually, Smenkhkare is both, as brother of Nefertiti and half brother of Akhenaten, but remember "no 100% guarantee"
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
(3) KV35 YL is Mother of Tut (and Full Sister of KV55).

Neteria wrote:
Considering Tut's measured alleles KV35YL could well be his mother (no 100% guarantee) and therefore, Smenkhkare's Queen Meritaten, murdered as King Neferneferuaten. And she would not be "full sister", but "full niece" and "half niece" (simultaneously) of her husband KV55.

So KV35YL would be a full or half niece of KV55 who is Smenkhkare in your opinion? (Does this make Smekhkare Akhenaten's brother btw?)
Certainly, Smenkhkare would be his half brother, as the alleles allow them to be both royal princes of Amenhotpe III, from two different queens (namely, Tiy and Sitamen)
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
(4) KV55 is NOT Father of KV21a.

Neteria wrote:
Definitely not, going by his measured alleles, KV55 cannot be the father of Ankhesenamen nor of Meritaten either.

Okay. You mean here, not Father of KV35YL or KV21a? In your thought, Meritaten and Ankhesenamen! (I think I've got that bit).
Yup, you got it just right.
[quote="Orwell"]
Orwell wrote:
(5) KV 35 YL is NOT Mother or Sister of KV21a.

Neteria wrote:
Considering Ankhesenamen's measured alleles, KV35YL certainly ought to be the sister of KV21A (no 100% guarantee) but definitely not her mother.

"Ought" to be, but not? What relation in that case - if a relation at all? Or do you mean by 'ought' that there is a big chance they 'are' sisters?
For the time being, we can just keep that "very big chance" you mention to imply an "extremely high probability". For KV35YL to be “not her mother” with the “definitely” qualifier, I meant that DNA forbids it, so that probability would have to be zero. I still have to look it up as the strong negation could turn out technically, not to be so absolute in this case, but other alternatives fail to make sense.
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
(6) KV 35 EL is Mother of both KV55 and KV35 YL.

Neteria wrote:
No, she is not likely to be the mother of any of the couple's members (whose respective mothers would be Sitamen and Nefertiti, according to the allele tables I posted in 2010)

Sorry, I find that a bit too ambiguous. Could you re-post that rephrased. I don't quite comprehend what you're getting at and don't want to start guessing. That could lead to confusion - and I'm easily confused.
Happy to oblige. The verified part of the TAMNSI theory (and also of subsequent theories) positions Smenkhkare (KV55) as son of Amenhotpe III (KV35) and Sitamen (KV21B), while Meritaten (KV35YL) is the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (N/A, alleles known only through their relatives). Therefore, Tiy (KV35EL) is the mother of neither (to postulate that is part of the TAMOE theory).
I trust I got rid of any remaining ambiguities?
Orwell wrote:

Orwell wrote:
Now, is there any dispute about above 6 points, do you know?

Neteria wrote:
Sure, there is some dispute. The DNA allele patterns do allow for more than one interpretation tree, so we have adopted the most logical one, fitting the historical evidence and not based on any ad hoc trickery, such as conjuring up unknown characters or developing partial-body mutations and generation-skipping alleles. Your (1)-(6) speculations do look basically sound, but may require a bit of that hanky-panky, if adjusted to the evidence.

That is not a particularly sharp or focussed dissertation.
I apologize, translations may seem accurate but can also lead into misconceptions. I do try hard.
Orwell wrote:
What hanky-panky are you talking about? And ad hoc trickery? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Dreadfully sorry again. I did include the "ad hoc trickery" referents in the same sentence:
Neteria wrote:
such as conjuring up unknown characters or developing partial-body mutations and generation-skipping alleles
These devious devices have actually been brought up quite seriously to explain away the discrepancies between some favoured theories and the measured DNA alleles. Such subterfuges look very fishy to me and while they may turn out to be valid, I emphasize that they did not enter into our analysis leading to the TAMNSI theory or any of its successors. Calling them "hanky-panky" was just an indulgent slip of mine. Please forgive me the inappropriate figure.
Orwell wrote:

And "Your (1)-(6) speculations do look basically sound, but may require a bit of that hanky-panky, if adjusted to the evidence." Sorry, that is ambiguous (to me) too! Could you rephrase that too, please.
I meant that if "(1)-(6)" are spread out as assertive allele tables, some non-coincidences of parenthood will appear that might only be patchable by using some of the "hanky-panky" mentioned before. In our group's work any of such non-coincidences has always been interpreted as a total refutation of the genealogical assumptions leading to the detected discrepancy, and we thus take all the "ad hoc trickery" as illegal patching.
Orwell wrote:

As to the 'speculations' you mentioned, I thought them more 'questions' about what I'd read and not so much 'speculations' as such.
Fine, what I did was take each question as a possibility to be tested when asserted, and checked such assertions for their possible truth. This differs very little from simply analyzing speculations.
Orwell wrote:

As to: "The DNA allele patterns do allow for more than one interpretation tree, so we have adopted the most logical one..."

That does sound like a disturbingly confident statement. I'm looking forward to you backing it up.
This request of yours fits in with providing the exact probabilities, which are very hard to determine. Writing out different trees is not that hard, however, but IMO most of them are simply not true, and do require some of the mentioned hanky-panky to make them look so. When a particular tree is found t fit the data, we may be confident enough to stick with it, but there’s no need for a “disturbing confidence”.
Orwell wrote:
I'm after the facts, you see, and I do hope you can supply them, Neteria.

Cheers. Smile
Okay, I’ve provided what facts I can, and made some commitments to provide some more in the future. Is this satisfactory?
Thanks and best regards
_________________
Truthfulness may be relative, but can be kept very high when faithfully recording past events just how they would be seen from a visiting time machine, or as close as possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin
Admin/Admun/Admen
Admin/Admun/Admen


Joined: 04 Jun 2003
Posts: 1110
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here we go again. I'm pretty sure I make it clear about fringe theories and I think myself and most of the more active members on this board have had enough of this. Take it elsewhere Neteria; you are not welcome here any more.
_________________
"Man fears Time - but Time fears the pyramids" - Old Egyptian saying
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Orwell
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 441
Location: Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kevin, I just did a long thought out post on this in response to Neteria's post.

There were a few items I thought to pull him up about, but much seemed reasonable enough to discuss. Is some of the problem we have with him just a matter of him using English as a second language? I realise this TAMSI thing is a cause for grief, but I was steering clear of that. Fair enough.

I'm not sure. But he doesn't seem as unreasonable as your last post makes him seem. Sorry if I'm wrong here. I'm certainly not trying to cause a problem.

I'm a bit miffed, though, because when I tried to post my reply (it took about an hour to think it all out in a reasonable and lucid manner!) I got logged out and lost it all.

That's a bit frustrating, mate. Sad

Cheers.

Please don't block me. I am a friend. Smile
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  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
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