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 

Marc Gabolde Looks on DNA Test of Tutankhamuns Family...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 991
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

Robson wrote:
Then the foetuses in Tut's tomb were actually Amenhotep III sisters?

Why?


Because according to JAMA's report the foetuses are Tut's and KV21A daughters. If they were Tut's daughters and 21A is Mutemwiya, they were nos 21A's daughters. If they were 21A daughters and 21A is Mutemwiya, they were not only Tut's daughters but also Amenhotep III's sisters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 991
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

Robson wrote:
Then the foetuses in Tut's tomb were actually Amenhotep III sisters?

Why?


Because according to JAMA's report the foetuses are Tut's and KV21A daughters. If they were Tut's daughters and 21A is Mutemwiya, they were nos 21A's daughters. If they were 21A daughters and 21A is Mutemwiya, they were not only Tut's daughters but also Amenhotep III's sisters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

it is very interesting but there really are a lot of questions he doesn't answer. will there be a more involved publication of his theory?

for starters the ages of the mummies in question. kv 55 and kv 35yl are both under 25 years old (at the latest) according to most experts. i understand the issues with ageing mummies, i don't want to go there. but it seems pretty obvious akhenaten and nefertiti were older than 25 when the died. upwards of 30-40 i would think.

also, the kv 21 mummies show DNA in common with descent from amenhotep III (as i took it), it is obvious they are descendants of the 18th dynasty royal family. so that puts a puzzle in it doesn't it? i mean it is quite logical an elite family might supply wives to a dynasty, but if this is the case, the elite family must also have wives from the royal family.....unless the patrilineal line is from a brother of a ruling pharoah. which could explain the uses of using the same family.

i personally think asides from ascribing kv55 to akhenaten, the JAMA article has the most easily explainable and understood scenario- which evidently may not be the correct one.

personally i don't think you can have an opinion on the DNA of mummies you don't have, such as mutemwia (though her son's you should have mitochondrial DNA), and nefertiti. there is also that famous line of descent of tut's babies from tuya to address, the one where they inherit her genes that bypassed the royal line.
_________________
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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

and also which are the 3 generations he mentions?

we know amenhotep III and tiye are cousins.
we suspect akhenaten and nefertiti were cousins.

is this third generation thutmose IV and mutemwia?
_________________
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: 3705
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
Lutz wrote:

Robson wrote:
Then the foetuses in Tut's tomb were actually Amenhotep III sisters?

Why?

Because according to JAMA's report the foetuses are Tut's and KV21A daughters. If they were Tut's daughters and 21A is Mutemwiya, they were nos 21A's daughters. If they were 21A daughters and 21A is Mutemwiya, they were not only Tut's daughters but also Amenhotep III's sisters.

As far as I remember the results of the DNA analysis of the two were restricted. With some certainty could probably only the paternity of Tutankhamun are suspected...

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: 3705
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
... And have we any evidence of a pharaoh's granddaughter who was NOT addressed as "King's Daughter"?

From the NK all but Nebetia ... As far as they are known by all.

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


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 991
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Above I meant:


"...they not only cannot be Tut's daughters but they were also Amenhotep III's sisters."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: foetusses Reply with quote

I don't read the piece that the foetusses in Tut's tomb are the daughters of KV21A. MG suggests that the lay out of tomb KV21 resembles that of another tomb for a Great Royal Wife from the middle 18th dynasty so is more likely the one of the mother of AIII.
Given the fact that MG sees the foetusses as a product of Tut and his full sister Anchesenamun who both are children of Achnaten and Nefertiti (first cousins on both maternal and paternal side in his theory) so them having DNA that fits with the DNA of Muttemwiya is not strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 991
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JAMA's team accepted KV 21A as the foetuses mother, but she doesn't fit as KV55's daughter, thus, she is probably not Ankhesenamun (or KV55 is not Akhenaten). If Tutankhamun was really the father, she was an otherwise unknown wife of his, or he is not the father at all, and she can be whoever, even (who knows) Mutemwiya.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:28 pm    Post subject: JAMA Reply with quote

The study showed that KV21A and the foetusses share dna. For all three mummies the dna profile is incomplete so it is not possible to say that kv21A is the mother just that the dna results did not make it impossible for her to be their mother.
The study also showed that for the foetusses to be the children of Tut and Anchesenamun their maternal line has to be one that relates them to Thuya and Yuya through someone other than Tiye.
MG's theory gives that option if Nefertiti is the daughter of Tiye's sister who married a brother of AIII. Making Nefertiti like her husband a maternal grandchild of Thuya and Yuya her granddaughters would have their dna through Anchesenamun.
KV21A not being Anchesenamun but her paternal great-grandmother leaves the option for K55 to be Achnaten.

The JAMA report was flawed and jumped to conclusions. MG has constructed another theory on the DNA results that is possible but not proven.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about Queen Nebetnehat (Lady of the Sycamore Tree)? she was a Great Royal Wife attested in the mid to late 18th dynasty. It is unknown of which Pharaoh's reign(Between AIII and Akhenaten's reign) she hails from. however, she is only known by a alabastar carnopic fragment found within the valley of the queens dated between the tow kings time.

I'm pretty sure that she has an equation in this. correct me(PLEASE DO) if i'm wrong, but doesn't the title "Great Royal Wife" speaks for itself? I've done some studying on the Great Royal Wife subject and I've noticed that many queens that held this title are unusually very close to the pharaoh's and their family. Perhaps this queen was a close relative to the then ruling house. To be honest, i believe she was a relative to Queen Tiye.

As for the situation with the KV21 mummies, I believe KV21A is the daughter of KV21B, therefore Nebetnehat and a elusive child that went in seclusion during the days of Akhenaten, or maybe not. it wouldn't surprise me if KV21A is Mutbenret.

Personally, i think Zahi Hawass need to call Joann Fletcher and apologize to her because even though her theories were little off, she really did placed some nails in the right place.

Here's what i think is what happened. AIV married Nebetah(Nefertiti), the only daughter that did not get married by their father AIII. Its without a doubt that Queen Tiye had her paws in this, ensuring that the throne stay within the bloodline, so the traditional brother sister marriage was held. Tut could have been the last child of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

Nebetah-Nefetiti "Lady of the Palace. the beautiful one has come!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man, does this keep getting interesting every time i come on here but only time will tell what one seeks. But I assure you, that many answers that you all have had, one may have already answered.

I originally came to these forums to search for answers about a strange phenomenon that i endure in years past, but i got sidelined by all the theories and speculation( i'm so amazed at all of your theories) awesome. Smile Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kharis
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 65
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thinking about something other than the DNA for a moment, wasn't it the case that Tye was a commoner who married Amenhotep III and he had special scarabs made to send out all over the Egyptian Empire to celebrate the fact?

If that is so, then she could not have been a relative of the royal house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3705
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kharis wrote:
... wasn't it the case that Tye was a commoner who married Amenhotep III and he had special scarabs made to send out all over the Egyptian Empire to celebrate the fact?

If that is so, then she could not have been a relative of the royal house.

I do not know that one of these so called commemorative scarabs was ever found abroad. So, the formulation "made to send out all over the Egyptian Empire" shoots in my view far beyond the target.

And, why because of these scarabs Queen Teje could not have been a relative of the royal house (a cousin of Amenhotep III) I do not understand. As far as we know the "royal house" in Ancient Egypt ultimately only consisted of the king, his mother, maybe his sisters, wives and children. All others were ultimately "commoners" (the titles "Father or Brother of the King" are only occupied two or three times in 3000 years, the title "Royal Son" could also be given in honor).

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: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Kharis wrote:
... wasn't it the case that Tye was a commoner who married Amenhotep III and he had special scarabs made to send out all over the Egyptian Empire to celebrate the fact?

If that is so, then she could not have been a relative of the royal house.

I do not know that one of these so called commemorative scarabs was ever found abroad. So, the formulation "made to send out all over the Egyptian Empire" shoots in my view far beyond the target.


Of the 200 commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III, 56 are of the "Marriage" variety. I would have to trace down the location of each and their provenance, but I don't believe that all were found in Egypt. I am aware that this one is stated as found in ancient Ugarit.

Lutz wrote:
And, why because of these scarabs Queen Teje could not have been a relative of the royal house (a cousin of Amenhotep III) I do not understand. As far as we know the "royal house" in Ancient Egypt ultimately only consisted of the king, his mother, maybe his sisters, wives and children. All others were ultimately "commoners" (the titles "Father or Brother of the King" are only occupied two or three times in 3000 years, the title "Royal Son" could also be given in honor).


Here's the transliteration and transcription of the scarab in question:







(Source: Ancient Egyptian Language List)

TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION

anx Hr kA-nxt xaj-m-mAat

Live Horus: Mighty bull appearing in truth;

nbtj smn-hpw

sgrH-tAwj

Two Ladies: Who establishes laws,

who pacifies the Two Lands
;

Hr-nbw aA-xpS Hwj-sTtjw

Gold Horus: Great of strength, who smites the Asiatics;

nsw-bjtj nb tAwj nb-mAat-ra

The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands: Neb-maat-re;

sA-ra jmn-Htp HqA-wAst

Dj anx

Son of Re: Amenhotep, ruler of Thebes,

given life
,

Hmt-nsw wrt tjy anx.tj rn n jt.s

ywjA

and the great king's wife Tiye (may she live!). The name of her father is

Yuya,


rn n mwt.s TwjA

Hmt pw nt nsw nxt

the name of her mother is Tjuya.

She is the wife of a mighty king
,

tAS.f rsj r kry

mHtj r nhrn

his southern boundary reaches to Karoy,

and the northern to Naharin
.

Images of the Marriage Scarab online (there are several throughout museums in the world, so this list is not exhaustive):

Michael Carlos Museum, Atlanta, Georgia

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Walters Museum, Baltimore, Maryland

Brooklyn Museum of Art, New York

Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel

Oriental Institute, Chicago, Illinois

Williams College of Art, Williamstown, Massachusetts

Cairo Museum, Cairo, Egypt

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts

References:

Clayton, P. A. 1996. Some More 'Fierce Lions', and a 'Marriage' Scarab: The Large Commemorative Scarabs of Amenophis III. JEA 82: 208-210. (In reference to a Marriage Scarab, sold to a private collector in 1991, which was listed in Numismatic Fine Arts, Scarabs and Design Amulets: A Glimpse of Ancient Egypt in Miniature (New York, 1991), lot 117. Clayton notes that this may have been the Nash scarab (see, infra) or one owned by Dattari. For this reason, the official count of Marriage scarabs remains at 56 (per Berman in Kozloff, et al. 1992: 67), although this one may represent the 57th example.)

van Delden, C. B. 1970. The Large Commemorative Scarabs of Amenhotep III. Leiden: Brill. (This publication is considered the main exhaustive study of the Amenhotep III commemorative scarabs, and most of the other references here do allude to this work as the primary resource.)

Kozloff, A. P., et al. 1992. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art.

Shorter, A. W. 1931. Historical Scarabs of Tuthmosis IV and Amenophis III. JEA 17: 23-26 (plates) (Example of the Marriage Scarab in a private collection owned by Rev. G. D. Nash, of Cliftonville, Thanet (Just outside of Margate in the UK))

Simpson, W. K. 1974. A Commemorative Scarab of Amenophis III of the Irrigation Basin/Lake Series from the Levant in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and Remarks on Two Other Commemorative Scarabs. JEA 60: 140-141. (Simpson notes about the Boston MFA scarab that "There is good reason to assume that the scarab was found in the Levant. Bibliography: Matouk, Corpus, I, 552 c, 89, 2I5.")

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 2 of 8

 
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