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 

Kv21a
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh--I know what they meant by "nontransmitted". It's made clear here:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/09/tut-dna/tut-family-tree

The nontransmitted alleles are the ones in the black boxes. These are the ones each parent did not transmit to the next generation. But that only applies to the persons who are there on the chart, not anybody who might be missing. Once again, each parent has two alleles at each locus, but only transmits one of them to each offspring. Therefore, Amenhotep may have not transmitted the allele 16 at that locus to KV55 or the YoungerLady, but that certainly doesn't mean he couldn't have transmitted it to another of his children! There is no such thing as a "nontransmittable allele". But, obviously, if you don't get a certain allele from a parent, you are not going to be able to transmit that yourself autosomally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here's a site I found with the simplest explanation of what is involved when there is a possibility of one of two brothers being suspected of fathering a child.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask378
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What have I started! Shocked


[quote="SidneyF"]
VBadJuJu wrote:
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :] Why don't you say her name? It was Marianne Luban. Are you trying to imply she doesn't know what she's talking about?

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.


Well, was that a fair statement of the situation at the time or not? Do you see any judgments being made at that site as to who is who? I don't! All I see is a discussion of the DNA and what the possibilities are.


I was not questioning how fair the statement was during the time. I just thought (due to many debates, including the thread already made on this site) that it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were too young to be that of Akhenaten. Which as Neseret already stated, they're were numerous examinations of KV55 prior to that of Zahi, concluding that the KV55 remains were simply to young, at age of death, to be that of Akhenaten.

Let's not begin another elongated debate on this particular topic Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To get back to the KV21 mummies, there seems to have been a change of opinion regarding their ages.
In the JAMA report they were both said to be between 25 and 4O at death, right.
But in the TV show "Nefertiti:Mummy Queen Mystery" {what a title!}, which is basically Zahi`s quest to find her mummy, the headless KV21A is said to have died around 2O and the other at 4O. No specific reason for this differentiation is given other than they were the result of CT-scans.

This enables the researchers to conclude that KV21B is the prime candidate to be Nefertiti as both are related to the fetuses but KV21A is too young.

Personally I don`t think much of it. It looks just like another attempt to pinpoint a famous mummy via elimination of others. Albert Zink who makes the sloppy statement about their ages towards the end of the show did similarly in the other show on KV55....

What do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Nefer-Ankhe]I was not questioning how fair the statement was during the time. I just thought (due to many debates, including the thread already made on this site) that it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were too young to be that of Akhenaten. Which as Neseret already stated, they're were numerous examinations of KV55 prior to that of Zahi, concluding that the KV55 remains were simply to young, at age of death, to be that of Akhenaten.[/quote]

Then you don't think a CT-scan has any advantages over xrays or examination by naked eye?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
This enables the researchers to conclude that KV21B is the prime candidate to be Nefertiti as both are related to the fetuses but KV21A is too young.

Personally I don`t think much of it. It looks just like another attempt to pinpoint a famous mummy via elimination of others. Albert Zink who makes the sloppy statement about their ages towards the end of the show did similarly in the other show on KV55....

What do you think?


I think the prospect of Nefertiti with a club foot is not the happiest. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
I was not questioning how fair the statement was during the time. I just thought (due to many debates, including the thread already made on this site) that it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were too young to be that of Akhenaten. Which as Neseret already stated, they're were numerous examinations of KV55 prior to that of Zahi, concluding that the KV55 remains were simply to young, at age of death, to be that of Akhenaten.

You might be satisfied that the mummy is too young to be Akhenaten based on the previous results and numerous criticisms of the 2010 conclusions or methods. But as the site you linked to shows, someone else can embrace the Hawass conclusions and take things in a different direction.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
I thought it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were simply to young to be that of Akhenaten, yet this statement suggest otherwise Idea


Welcome to the Amarna Tarpits where no theory EVER dies and no evidence is EVER settled! Very Happy


Quote:
However, this statement does get me thinking. Wouldn't Smenkhkare need to marry one of Akhenaten's daughters, in order to legitimize his rule? or is that already being done by marrying one of Amenhotep III daughters, his own sister? Perhaps Smenkhkare had previously been married to one of Amenhotep's/Queen's Tiye's daughter, then went on to marry Meritaten? Or he didn't marry Meritaten altogether ---
.

It is generally agreed that Smenkhkara married Meritaten - except by those who believe he never existed of course. There is no reason why he couldn't have also been married to somebody else as well. Pharaohs were polygamous.

Quote:
I don't know if this is possible, but could Nebetah have been the mother of King Tutankhamun?


The field is open. Personally I favor Baketaten the only daughter of AIII and Tiye (probably) attested to at Akhetaten. Of course she and Nebetah could be one and the same given all the name changing going on at this period.

Love those Tarpits! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
SidneyF wrote:
This is the only analysis of the DNA of that KV21 mummy that I know about:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/2011/08/tutankhamuns-family-tree-possibilities.html


I would like to pin point a few comments made by the person, who wrote this article :

Quote:
Many persons are of the opinion that the remains are too young at time of death to be those of Akhenaten due to pronouncements by those who examined the skeleton in the past. However, it was most recently subjected to a CT-scan whereas Egyptian radiologist, Ashraf Selim, opined that the young man to whom the bones belonged had to be at least 22 years old when he died, but the doctor could not pinpoint the age any nearer than 22-45.


I thought it was well attested that the remains of KV55 were simply to young to be that of Akhenaten, yet this statement suggest otherwise Idea

Quote:
Even though the mummy known as the Younger Lady from KV35 [KV35YL] and the remains from KV55 appear to be the parents of Tutankhamun, that is no guarantee that they were--or that they were even husband and wife.


How so? I thought the DNA results concluded/proved that KV35 and KV55 were the parents of Tutankhamun?

Quote:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the KV55 individual is Smenkhkare. The only king's daughter that we know of who was his wife was a child of Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti. The KV35YL and KV55 are full sister and brother.


However, this statement does get me thinking. Wouldn't Smenkhkare need to marry one of Akhenaten's daughters, in order to legitimize his rule? or is that already being done by marrying one of Amenhotep III daughters, his own sister? Perhaps Smenkhkare had previously been married to one of Amenhotep's/Queen's Tiye's daughter, then went on to marry Meritaten? Or he didn't marry Meritaten altogether --- .

I don't know if this is possible, but could Nebetah have been the mother of King Tutankhamun?


I serious think so finally i'm not the only one who thinks that she could've been the mother of Tutankhamen. She fits with the age of the Younger lady anot not her older and younger sister so to me that's the final nail in the coffin.

Smenkhare + Nebetah= Tutankhamen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Then you don't think a CT-scan has any advantages over xrays or examination by naked eye?


No of course not, though considering all the information provided by many previous examiner's about the approximate age of the remains of KV55, IMO over rule, that of the one suggested by a single CT-scan. Is that wrong to do so SidneyF?

Quote:
It is generally agreed that Smenkhkara married Meritaten - except by those who believe he never existed of course.


Why so? Is there any evidence suggesting that Smenkhkare married Meritaten?

Quote:
The field is open. Personally I favor Baketaten the only daughter of AIII and Tiye (probably) attested to at Akhetaten. Of course she and Nebetah could be one and the same given all the name changing going on at this period.


I was going to mention that Nebetah and Beketaten could be one and the same person. I do find it interesting that when Nebetah disappears from records Beketaten appears! Beketaten being presented in Akhetaten because she had significant royal connections via Tutankhamun, why else would Beketaten be attested in Akhetaten?

Quote:
Welcome to the Amarna Tarpits where no theory EVER dies and no evidence is EVER settled! Very Happy


aha thank you for the belated warning Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
Why so? Is there any evidence suggesting that Smenkhkare married Meritaten?


a) Depiction in Meryre with Meritaten attested as GRW to Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare

b) Line drawing of a lost block with his cartouche alongside hers

c) Garment from Tut's tomb with daisy sequins bearing Meritaten's name and his throne name.

That does not mean Meritaten must be Tut's mother, even if KV55==Smenkhkare. He could have sired Tut by someone else and taken Meritaten as GRW for other reasons.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VBadJuJu wrote:
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
Why so? Is there any evidence suggesting that Smenkhkare married Meritaten?


a) Depiction in Meryre with Meritaten attested as GRW to Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare

b) Line drawing of a lost block with his cartouche alongside hers

c) Garment from Tut's tomb with daisy sequins bearing Meritaten's name and his throne name.

That does not mean Meritaten must be Tut's mother, even if KV55==Smenkhkare. He could have sired Tut by someone else and taken Meritaten as GRW for other reasons.


I fully understand and highly doubt that Meritaten was Tutankhamun's mother. My conclusion is that Smenkhkare was married to a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye (I would suggest Nebetah/Beketaten) then married Meritaten, for whatsoever reason.

Oh and thank you for that VBadJuJu. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Nefer-Ankhe"]
Quote:
Then you don't think a CT-scan has any advantages over xrays or examination by naked eye?


Quote:
No of course not, though considering all the information provided by many previous examiner's about the approximate age of the remains of KV55, IMO over rule, that of the one suggested by a single CT-scan. Is that wrong to do so SidneyF?


In my opinion, yes. Because you're still insisting the older methods are more reliable. No mummy today, no ancient skeletal remains, are examined other than by tomography. The length of the line standing behind (and I dispute the word "many" in this case) has no bearing on accuracy. The advanced technology does having a bearing. It's like saying about a microscope "But what about all those people who used to look at things with magnifying glasses? There were so many! Aren't we better off to accept their research?"

I'm beginning to think there's some kind of national bias going on in the various posts. Is there supposed to be something wrong with Egyptian scientists as opposed to weatern ones? Then we get, "Well, Hawass influenced them all, told them what to say." As if Hawass could control all doctors in Egypt and European scientists, with their own reputations to uphold!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nefer-Ankhe
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="SidneyF"]
Nefer-Ankhe wrote:
Quote:
Then you don't think a CT-scan has any advantages over xrays or examination by naked eye?


Quote:
No of course not, though considering all the information provided by many previous examiner's about the approximate age of the remains of KV55, IMO over rule, that of the one suggested by a single CT-scan. Is that wrong to do so SidneyF?


In my opinion, yes. Because you're still insisting the older methods are more reliable. No mummy today, no ancient skeletal remains, are examined other than by tomography. The length of the line standing behind (and I dispute the word "many" in this case) has no bearing on accuracy. The advanced technology does having a bearing. It's like saying about a microscope "But what about all those people who used to look at things with magnifying glasses? There were so many! Aren't we better off to accept their research?"

I'm beginning to think there's some kind of national bias going on in the various posts. Is there supposed to be something wrong with Egyptian scientists as opposed to weatern ones? Then we get, "Well, Hawass influenced them all, told them what to say." As if Hawass could control all doctors in Egypt and European scientists, with their own reputations to uphold!


Now that's to the extreme? I have nothing against Egyptian scientists whatsoever, nor do I have much against Zahi Hawass. I do understand what your saying and usually would not dispute it, though, from what I'm aware of, the past examinations of KV55 hold more factors of it being too young to be that of Akhenaten than opposed to the more recent CT-scan examination of it being preferably much older, in favor of it being Akhenaten. No disapproval intended towards modern science or Egyptian scientist/Egyptologists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VBadJuJu
Priest
Priest


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
...you're still insisting the older methods are more reliable.
The better question is whom is most likely to do an exam and publish an unbiased report: A Brit (Filer: 18-21 yrs), a Czech (Strouhal: 19-22 yrs), an American (Baker: 18-23 yrs) or the head of the SCA who, for years, has made no secret of the fact that his pet theory was that KV55 is Akhenaten (25-40 years, or 35-45 or even 60).

The previous exams done over the last 100 years were all done with complete transparency. You can get Filer's radiographs and measurements and photos, for example, and review her results and conclusions. The Hawass exam only released their conclusions. The age range cited - one five times broader than Filer or Strouhal - sound more like a political compromise than a scientific conslusion. Shouldn't the CT be able to be at least as precise as in previous exams???

SidneyF wrote:
As if Hawass could control all doctors in Egypt and European scientists, with their own reputations to uphold!
He didn't have to "control all doctors in Egypt". He just has to be able to select who is to be on his team, and exert his (then) considerable influence in drafting the report.

No one doubts the Hawass study because he is Egyptian, but because there is cause to doubt it.
_________________
Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
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