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 

Nefertiti Documented in Year 16 of Akhenaton
Goto page Previous  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
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the mummy is of supreme importance. he is a son of amenhotep III and queen tiye. this makes him a prince. he is tutankhamun's father, and though we only have it from one source, a block from a temple at hermopolis, he was a king's son.

so kv 55 was a king. this leaves 2 candidates: akhenaten and smenkhkare.

the age of the mummy in this case becomes critical. since tutankhamun and the kv 55 mummy are of a similar age, and the same examination points used to age them are the same, i find it hard to believe whenever people with obvious agenda's ascribe an age of 30+ to the mummy. examples being hawass and reeves. who i might add are not anthropologists, and still yet, forensic ones.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
... kv 55 was a king. this leaves 2 candidates: akhenaten and smenkhkare. ... i find it hard to believe whenever people with obvious agenda's ascribe an age of 30+ to the mummy. ...

25 +/- 5 would be absolutely sufficient. And with that age at death, all parties and scientific-anthropologic investigations can live, I think.

See : http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=74019&highlight=gohary+akhenatens+sedfestival+karnak+1992#74019

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
kylejustin wrote:
... kv 55 was a king. this leaves 2 candidates: akhenaten and smenkhkare. ... i find it hard to believe whenever people with obvious agenda's ascribe an age of 30+ to the mummy. ...

25 +/- 5 would be absolutely sufficient. And with that age at death, all parties and scientific-anthropologic investigations can live, I think.

See : http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=74019&highlight=gohary+akhenatens+sedfestival+karnak+1992#74019

Greetings, Lutz.


If Akhenaten is 12 in Year 4 (and I doubt he could father a child at that age as puberty can only begin at this age and reproducible sperm does not begin until at least a year later), then by the end of Year 17, he would be 25. Smith and Redford's 1976 assessment of the ages of children must also be addressed, which has the first 3 daughters all born by Year 4, IMO, based upon their appearance in the Gem-Pat-Aten at Karnak.

However, the age of the KV 55 skeleton is always assessed as 23 years at TOD, according to Derry (1931), Harrison (1966), and Filer (2000). Smith (1912) also favoured a younger age, but opined the age of the KV 55 remains could not be more than 30 (however, you do get the distinct impression he was pressured into this assessment, if you read his notes).

I am at a loss why everyone here is arguing 25 as the age of TOD of KV 55: this was always the maximum age ever assigned, as a range. The youngest age of TOD assigned was 19 and the standard age assigned as a matter of course is 23, but no older than 25.

See:

Derry, D. E. 1931. Notes on the Skeleton hitherto believed to be that of King Akhenaten. ASAE 31: 115-119.

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology17/Autumn: 13-14.

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Smith, G. E. 2000 (1912). Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. No. 60151-61100. The Royal Mummies. Service des Antiquités de L'Égypte: Catalogue Général de Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. London: Duckworth.

Smith, R. W. and D. B. Redford 1976. The Akhenaten Temple Project. Vol. I: Initial Discoveries. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
_________________
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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
If Akhenaten is 12 in Year 4 (and I doubt he could father a child at that age as puberty can only begin at this age and reproducible sperm does not begin until at least a year later), ...

These days begin in healthy, well-nourished human body usually from the age of eight or nine years of puberty underlying hormonal changes. The increased production of sex hormones sexual maturation is initiated and promoted. Initially, the ejaculate contains few sperm with mostly low quality, so that fertility initially reduced significantly but not completely excluded. The age at which these processes are running is far too individual to make about this here an absolute and general statement. This is true both for today and, in my view even more so, for over 3500 years ago - a time from which we have no significant statistical data for this.

neseret wrote:
... Smith and Redford's 1976 assessment of the ages of children must also be addressed, which has the first 3 daughters all born by Year 4, IMO, based upon their appearance in the Gem-Pat-Aten at Karnak. ...

As I said, Nefertiti is not to prove as a Royal Wife / Great Royal Wife in year 1/2 of Amenhotep IV. He appears in representations alone or with his mother. His father married Teje in year 2.

The earliest representations in Karnak`s Gempaaton are for sure the one with the sed-festival cycle. Also here appears none of the daughters. In all other known representations of the sed-festival bodyly daughters of the kings are here mentioned by name, as they play an important role in the ritual. The group of the "Royal Children" at Amenhotep IV`s sed-festival remains anonymous. That is why I have serious and not quite unjustified doubts already three daughters may have been born in year 4. And who can really say when the reliefs from the House of Ben-Ben were carved? I see no logical reason to assume that with relocation of the court the works on the Aton Temple at Thebes were stopped. On the contrary, does not have Meritaton in one of the reliefs the title of a (Great?) Royal Wife?

My legitimate doubts as to the methods for age determination I have, several times, expressed. The reasons for this also. I stand there in Egyptology also not all alone, see as the last (but not the only) example Gabolde in his already here in the thread linked article.

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

people in all cultures since ancient times have been married and become parents in their early teens. henry VII's mother was 13 when she gave birth to him, this over 500 years ago.

even if people did hit puberty later than now, say mid to late teens, this only makes akhenaten older when he comes to the throne. doesn't exactly help you in your age estimate of the kv 55 body.

since all the people examining the body have been anthropologists, and joyce filer a forensic anthropologist, i am likely to believe they are correct in their findings. i am also sure they took into account the egyptians would have had different rates of growth and a different diet.

anthropology is not the dinosaur you seem to think it is lutz.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
people in all cultures since ancient times have been married and become parents in their early teens. ...

And in all cultures there are examples of mature sooner / very young parents, also today.

kylejustin wrote:
... even if people did hit puberty later than now, say mid to late teens, this only makes akhenaten older when he comes to the throne. doesn't exactly help you in your age estimate of the kv 55 body. ...

I did not say with no single word that Akhenaten "hit puberty later than now". Have no idea how you come on this... And how you come to the idea that "hit puberty" and "come to the throne" have for Akhenaton anything to do with each other, I also do not understand.

kylejustin wrote:
... since all the people examining the body have been anthropologists, ...

The scientists of the University of Dresden, investigating medieval cemeteries in Germany, were also forensic anthropologists, with additional historical education. And in addition they had written sources about the age at death of the people whose remains they examined. And they found discrepancies of several years... For what mummy we have registrations in a birth and death register?

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Quote:
Its only value to me is the revelation that it is Tutankhamens father.


There's also another, often overlooked, valuable revelation about the Amarna genetics: The fact that it's impossible for the mother of the fetuses from KV62 to have been a daughter of the man buried in KV55.
Even if it doesn't provide a definite solution to the Amarna family tree, it lets us narrow down the options, since all reconstructions that have 'KV55' as Akhenaten ánd Ankhesenamun as the mother of the fetuses can now be disregarded: 'KV55' can only be Akhenaten if the mother of the fetuses was not Ankhesenamun and Ankhesenamun can only be the mother of the fetuses if 'KV55' was not Akhenaten.


I'm not sure the foetuses DNA, or that of KV21A is sufficiently well preserved to be certain of those facts. I wish it were different but I am being cautious about that evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Hi Kemetian,
Kemetian wrote:
I can see the merit in the theory that the presence of the magic bricks would indicate a burial for Akhenaten, Reeves would argue the same. I just think it is still a leap to say that because the magic bricks indicate that Akhenaten was buried there then KV55 male must be Akhenaten. ...

they are just one note in a series. What evidence in KV 55 are there and speak for one other male member of the royal house from the Amarna period?

Greetings, Lutz.


Hi Lutz,

I don't dispute there is no inscriptional evidence for Smenkhkare in KV55. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have no idea what happened during the years between Tutankhamen sealing the tomb and Davies rediscovering it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Hi Kemetian,
Kemetian wrote:
I can see the merit in the theory that the presence of the magic bricks would indicate a burial for Akhenaten, Reeves would argue the same. I just think it is still a leap to say that because the magic bricks indicate that Akhenaten was buried there then KV55 male must be Akhenaten. ...

they are just one note in a series. What evidence in KV 55 are there and speak for one other male member of the royal house from the Amarna period?

Greetings, Lutz.


Hi Lutz,

I don't dispute there is no inscriptional evidence for Smenkhkare in KV55. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have no idea what happened during the years between Tutankhamen sealing the tomb and Davies rediscovering it.


Or even Davis Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kemetian
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 33
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
Kemetian wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Hi Kemetian,
Kemetian wrote:
I can see the merit in the theory that the presence of the magic bricks would indicate a burial for Akhenaten, Reeves would argue the same. I just think it is still a leap to say that because the magic bricks indicate that Akhenaten was buried there then KV55 male must be Akhenaten. ...

they are just one note in a series. What evidence in KV 55 are there and speak for one other male member of the royal house from the Amarna period?

Greetings, Lutz.


Hi Lutz,

I don't dispute there is no inscriptional evidence for Smenkhkare in KV55. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have no idea what happened during the years between Tutankhamen sealing the tomb and Davies rediscovering it.


Or even Davis Embarassed


One thought just occurred to me. Item number JE 39628 (described on page 101 Bell 1990) is a Ureaus with Aten cartouches of the later form. It doesn't belong to the Coffin that contained the Mummy so it could perhaps indicate the existence at some time of another coffin. Which could presumably have contained another body. My point being there are other possibilities depending on how evidence is interpreted. There are few certainties.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
Quote:
Its only value to me is the revelation that it is Tutankhamens father.


There's also another, often overlooked, valuable revelation about the Amarna genetics: The fact that it's impossible for the mother of the fetuses from KV62 to have been a daughter of the man buried in KV55.
Even if it doesn't provide a definite solution to the Amarna family tree, it lets us narrow down the options, since all reconstructions that have 'KV55' as Akhenaten ánd Ankhesenamun as the mother of the fetuses can now be disregarded: 'KV55' can only be Akhenaten if the mother of the fetuses was not Ankhesenamun and Ankhesenamun can only be the mother of the fetuses if 'KV55' was not Akhenaten.


I'm not sure the foetuses DNA, or that of KV21A is sufficiently well preserved to be certain of those facts.


The JAMA report says the fetuses' DNA is preserved well enough, at least in some crucial loci that we can compare to those preserved in multiple other mummies, such as locus D7S820. At that locus, 'KV55' has 15 and 15, Tutankhamun has 10 and 15, Fetus 1 has 10 and 13, and Fetus 2 has 6 and 15.

Each person inherits one allele from each of his/her parents, and we can see that Fetus 1 inherited a 10 from Tut, and Fetus 2 inherited a 15 from him. If both fetuses had the same mother, that means that she must have provided the alleles that don't match Tuts, which would make her 6 and 13. 'KV55' has two 15s, and a daughter of 'KV55' must have inherited at least one of those 15s.
Conclusion: If both fetuses had the same mother she couldn't possibly have been a daughter of 'KV55'. So if 'KV55' is Akhenaten, the mother is not Ankhesenamun and vice versa. Assuming the DNA results are reliable, there's another hurdle (other than age) to indentifying 'KV55' with Akhenaten, unless you want to speculate there was an as yet unknown wife of Tut that bore him two children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kemetian wrote:
I don't dispute there is no inscriptional evidence for Smenkhkare in KV55. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ...

But halfway solid conclusions can not be justified by the absent, only by the present proofs... If not you can justify anything and science and research are unnecessary.

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
... unless you want to speculate there was an as yet unknown wife of Tut that bore him two children.

One has not really to speculate that much ... We just have to look at his predecessors. No king before had only one wife. There were always several Royal Wives, sometimes several Great Royal Wives simultaneously. We know several kings from the 18th Dynasty whose mothers, so far we know, did not had the title of a Royal Wife before the son was king. When her son would never become king, if we would have probably ever known the names of these women?

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
I did not say with no single word that Akhenaten "hit puberty later than now". Have no idea how you come on this... And how you come to the idea that "hit puberty" and "come to the throne" have for Akhenaton anything to do with each other, I also do not understand.


i am referring to the point that worse nutrition in the past would have delayed the onset of puberty. an argument you have used in the past. so if that theory holds true, akhenaten comes to the throne later, or his ability to breed comes in later. you yourself express doubts he had children by year 1, but that is not consensus among egyptologists. ergo akhenaten must be of breeding age when he came to the throne. anywhere between 12-20.

Lutz wrote:
The scientists of the University of Dresden, investigating medieval cemeteries in Germany, were also forensic anthropologists, with additional historical education. And in addition they had written sources about the age at death of the people whose remains they examined. And they found discrepancies of several years... For what mummy we have registrations in a birth and death register?


the psitalfields project is one worth looking at lutz. it shows that the younger the remains at death, the more likely they are to be accurate. in their case, remains under 35 years were quite accurately aged. it is because of markers indicating puberty and the finalisation of it that make it easier to fix an age. once age comes into the equation, the breakdown of the body, markers are not set, and that is when it becomes difficult.

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
I did not say with no single word that Akhenaten "hit puberty later than now". Have no idea how you come on this... And how you come to the idea that "hit puberty" and "come to the throne" have for Akhenaton anything to do with each other, I also do not understand.

i am referring to the point that worse nutrition in the past would have delayed the onset of puberty. an argument you have used in the past. so if that theory holds true, akhenaten comes to the throne later, or his ability to breed comes in later. you yourself express doubts he had children by year 1, but that is not consensus among egyptologists. ergo akhenaten must be of breeding age when he came to the throne. anywhere between 12-20. ...

Again, coming of puberty and procreation age are still today not to fix to a special year for everyone. There is a statistical average, including and not excluding many deviations up and down. It is a very individual value and can be different even within a family, between siblings, for one earlier and for the other later...
What real evidence is there for a marriage between Nefertiti and Amenhotep IV before or in the 1st year of his accession to the throne? What real evidence is there for the birth of a daughter before or in year 1?

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
The scientists of the University of Dresden, investigating medieval cemeteries in Germany, were also forensic anthropologists, with additional historical education. And in addition they had written sources about the age at death of the people whose remains they examined. And they found discrepancies of several years... For what mummy we have registrations in a birth and death register?

the psitalfields project is one worth looking at lutz. it shows that the younger the remains at death, the more likely they are to be accurate. in their case, remains under 35 years were quite accurately aged. it is because of markers indicating puberty and the finalisation of it that make it easier to fix an age. once age comes into the equation, the breakdown of the body, markers are not set, and that is when it becomes difficult. ...

Tell that to the dead from the medieval cemeteries in Thuringia... Cool

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 12 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