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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3733
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
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. ...

Thank you for the correction and note. Maybe I should check out my own private library before writing from memory... Confused

However, what does not change the fact that I can not understand why because of the text on these scarabs Queen Teje could not have been a relative of the royal house (a cousin of Amenhotep III)...

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


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:27 am    Post subject: Tiye Reply with quote

There is nothing in the text of the weddingmessage that prevents Tiye from being a relation of her husband.

MG suggests that the relation is through AIII's mother who never made it to Great Royal Wife during her husband's reign and must have been one of his lesser wives/concubines and Tiye's father Yuya.
Both were commoners and Thuya was due to her temple position a lady of high rank. Yuya and his presumed sister Muttemwiya would have been from an important family as well. She got into the Pharaoh's harem and was lucky to give birth to his son(s) while her brother married a lady of high standing and had several children with him.

For MG's theory to work with the DNA results Muttemwiya had AIII and a younger son who both married daughters of their maternal uncle. Yuya and Thuya had Tiye, Aanen, a second daugther who married the younger brother of AIII to become the mother of Nefertiti and Mutbenret and possibly Ay was the fourth child from their marriage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 993
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's try another possibility.
If Nefertiti was a daughter of an Amenhotep III's brother, we could look for her father among the other Thtmose IV's sons. There are at least two attested: There was probably an Amenemhat, who died before his father, and Siatum, who grew older enough to sire a daughter, Nebetia. Maybe there were others insofar unattested or could we think about this Siatum as Nefertiti's father and Nebetia as one sister of hers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If resources allow the remains of Nebetia and of others found in this cache tomb might be interesting to investigate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Abd_el-Qurna_cache

I find it curious that Tuthmosis IV seems to have had so many daughters yet only one living son, Amenhotep III, who is believed to have been very young at his accession.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:07 pm    Post subject: Nefertiti's parents Reply with quote

I don't know who her parents are.
For MG's theorie to work one of her parents has to be a full sibling of AIII and the other a full sibling of Tiye. So half-siblings will not be good enough.

AIII succeeded to the throne as a child and to my knowledge no older (half-)brothers were still alive so he was the only or oldest remaining son of his father. We also know that his son and successor Achnaten was one of his younger children with crownprince Thutmosis, princess Sitamun and possibly several other princesses older than him.

If Nefertiti was a daughter from a brother of AIII that brother would have to be younger otherwise this older brother would have succeeded instead of the minor AIII.

Another option would be that a full sister of AIII married a brother of Tiye. That i find less likely as i don't know of any other Royal princess marrying a subject of the Pharaoh in this era.

That is why i feel that for MG's theory to work Nefertiti is the daughter of a younger full brother of AIII and a sister of Tiye. If Yuya and Muttemwiya are also siblings that would provide the conditions for the DNA of KV55 and KV35YL to resemble that of siblings even though they were not.

There remains a stumbling block for MG's theory: the dna of the foetusses in Tut's tomb. That does not fit with KV55 and KV35YL being their paternal and maternal grandparents. The two little ones have dna that is not in those two mummies leaving a big dent in the theory of MG.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Nefertiti's parents Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:

There remains a stumbling block for MG's theory: the dna of the foetusses in Tut's tomb. That does not fit with KV55 and KV35YL being their paternal and maternal grandparents. The two little ones have dna that is not in those two mummies leaving a big dent in the theory of MG.


This is exactly why the theory that Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten and one of his other wives, not Nefertiti, is attractive. It allows for that DNA from the foetuses to come from Nefertiti via their mother. Alternatively, it allows KV55 to be Smenkhkare and KV35YL to be younger siblings of Akhenaten who married.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DNA testing is good enough to differentiate double first cousins from half siblings. kv 55 and kv 35yl both share DNA from amenhotep III and tiye. this is autosomal DNA, full siblings have different autosomal DNA from each other. i think marc gabolde's theory rests very heavily on generations of incest- which at this point, is unproven.

doesn't really matter how the results are interpreted, you can't have all the amarna family in any one theory. you can have ankhesenamun or akhenaten, but not both. nefertiti may be present in either theory....

until someone independantly verifies the DNA results, the most likely fit in my mind, with forensic and archaelogical evidence is kv 55=smenkhkare and kv35yl a sister. they are tut's parents. the babies are his. and the kv21 mummies are descendants of amenhotep III or another royal male.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
DNA testing is good enough to differentiate double first cousins from half siblings. kv 55 and kv 35yl both share DNA from amenhotep III and tiye. this is autosomal DNA, full siblings have different autosomal DNA from each other. i think marc gabolde's theory rests very heavily on generations of incest- which at this point, is unproven.


That's right. See here for further explanation:

http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here are two more quotes from Marianne Luban in an online discussion she had with Gabolde, himself. They are both in agreement, at least, that the KV55 remains and the KV35YL are Akhenaten and Nefertiti:

"As to the age at death of the KV55 individual, I think there is no problem. On a lintel of the tomb of Kheruef, Amenhotep IV is shown with his mother, Tiye. He looks like a kid, his shoulder only slightly higher than that of Tiye, who was a woman less than five feet tall. Amenhotep III was a very short man, too, but he is represented in the same tomb as being taller in comparison with Tiye. I think the sculptors were attempting to show that Akhenaten was, even though a king, only a youth and so did not make him as tall in ratio to the queen. Akhenaten, despite what many believe, need not have been any older than 30 when he died."


"I have brought this up before but even in the tomb of Ay and Tey, which is one of the earliest at Akhetaten, Nefertiti is referred to as "goddess". You know why--because she was supposed to be the incarnation of Tefnut to the Shu of Akhenaten. They were the children of Ra. Not only were they brother and sister, they were twins,and husband and wife. "son of Ra" was part of the titulary of Akhenaten and any other king of Egypt. And, of course, no king of Egypt is called "sA nsw" anymore once he becomes the ruler in his own right. Therefore, if Akhenaten was the son of the sun as Ra,[which fit to his incarnation as Shu] then how could Nefertiti be Tefnut and still be called "sAt nsw" or "king's daughter"? It would be a contradiction. Nefertiti was the only goddess at Akhetaten until Year 9, when Akhenaten decided to strengthen the monotheism by rejecting all but the Aten, himself, and even removing Ra-Horakhty from the Aten's cartouche. No queen is called "king's daughter" anymore until the end of the 18th Dynasty, whether or not they were actually the daughters of a king."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But then what about the DNA from the babies?

There are markers that are not present in Tutankhamun, KV55 or KV35YL, ergo they came from their mother.

Akhenesenamun is the only known wife of Tutankhamun; you might have thought that having a nearly intact tomb, another wife's name might have appeared on at least one object?

Akhenesenamun is known to be the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (many inscriptions from her childhood confirm this), if she is the babies mother then that unmatched DNA must have come from her mother - who can not be KV35YL, therefore KV35YL is not Nefertiti.

The only possible alternative is that Akhenesenamun was actually Akhenesenpaaten-Tasherit all along, and that only works if she was a daughter of Kiya (the source of the unmatched DNA), and not a daughter of Akhenaten and the older Akhenesenpaaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
But then what about the DNA from the babies?

There are markers that are not present in Tutankhamun, KV55 or KV35YL, ergo they came from their mother.

Akhenesenamun is the only known wife of Tutankhamun; you might have thought that having a nearly intact tomb, another wife's name might have appeared on at least one object?


In the tomb of the Viceroy of Kush, Huy, a woman is being presented as a gift to Tutankhamun. That surely indicates others were, as well. Lesser wives of the pharaohs were not always mentioned by name but nobody can say they did not exist.

Quote:
Akhenesenamun is known to be the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (many inscriptions from her childhood confirm this), if she is the babies mother then that unmatched DNA must have come from her mother - who can not be KV35YL, therefore KV35YL is not Nefertiti.


Ankhesenamun need not have been the mother of any babies.

Quote:
The only possible alternative is that Akhenesenamun was actually Akhenesenpaaten-Tasherit all along, and that only works if she was a daughter of Kiya (the source of the unmatched DNA), and not a daughter of Akhenaten and the older Akhenesenpaaten.


Maybe. Let me have another look at the alleles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnsculpture wrote:
But then what about the DNA from the babies?

There are markers that are not present in Tutankhamun, KV55 or KV35YL, ergo they came from their mother.


Who was also probably someone from the extended family. If you look here:

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

You can see that, at the 7th locus, everybody there has the #12 except Amenhotep III. Makes me wonder how common it was at that marker.[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="SidneyF[/quote]
Quote:
You can see that, at the 7th locus, everybody there has the #12 except Amenhotep III. Makes me wonder how common it was at that marker.[/url]


Well, it's interesting. At the 7th locus, the number 12 makes a fairly good showing in Europe and Turkey, It is even higher in Israel and some parts of Africa with Egypt not especially high in the modern population compared to some others. But India! Very much higher, especially in some parts. And the farther east one goes on the map even higher in some parts. 12, it would seem, is a number that does best in the far east.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
[quote="SidneyF

Quote:
You can see that, at the 7th locus, everybody there has the #12 except Amenhotep III. Makes me wonder how common it was at that marker.[/url]


Well, it's interesting. At the 7th locus, the number 12 makes a fairly good showing in Europe and Turkey, It is even higher in Israel and some parts of Africa with Egypt not especially high in the modern population compared to some others. But India! Very much higher, especially in some parts. And the farther east one goes on the map even higher in some parts. 12, it would seem, is a number that does best in the far east.[/quote]

Okay--but not to get too excited, I see that this paper

http://medfac.mans.edu.eg/english/forensic/july2009/S.%201_.pdf


does have 12 as the most common allele at CSF1PO in Egypt. And that's the one we should go by.
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 3 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