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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Wait a minute--this paper is confusing. After all it had to say about 12 at that locus, on page 7 it says, in conclusion, 8.3 was the most common allele at CSF1PO in the Egyptians studied and 12 is not even mentioned as a runner-up! So I give up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Wait a minute--this paper is confusing. After all it had to say about 12 at that locus, on page 7 it says, in conclusion, 8.3 was the most common allele at CSF1PO in the Egyptians studied and 12 is not even mentioned as a runner-up! So I give up.


Hello again. After an extremely busy day I was able to take another, less cursory look at the paper--and have got it sorted out. This particulat study was done on 100 unrelated individuals inhabiting a governate in the Delta only. The other studies that found 12 the most frequent number at CSF1PO were all in Upper Egypt. Moreover, in an Upper Egyptian village near Esna, 12 was the most frequent allele among the Copts but 10 was the most frequent among the Muslims at the same locus.

This paper seems to believe that Arabs constituted the largest foreign admixture in Egypt and that the Copts of today had the least mixture with non-Egyptians. For our purposes, this dominant number 12 at the locus in Upper Egypt makes sense. It means that our mummies are consistent with the modern population of southern Egypt--at least at this 7th locus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in order for kiya to the missing link for those alleles, she has to be a descendant of thuya or a female relative of hers.

i agree, the DNA as already discussed excludes kv21 from being the daughter of kv 55. so can't be akhenaten if you want ankhesenamun. and nefertiti if royal, would most certainly have used those titles, all the other royals at amarna did. i really wish they'd get over the whole shu and tefnut argument for akhenaten and nefertiti to fit as tut's parents. it is quite absurd. and really was only a religious point to strengthen their position as the intermediaries of the aten on earth.
_________________
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: Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
in order for kiya to the missing link for those alleles, she has to be a descendant of thuya or a female relative of hers.

i agree, the DNA as already discussed excludes kv21 from being the daughter of kv 55. so can't be akhenaten if you want ankhesenamun. and nefertiti if royal, would most certainly have used those titles, all the other royals at amarna did. i really wish they'd get over the whole shu and tefnut argument for akhenaten and nefertiti to fit as tut's parents. it is quite absurd. and really was only a religious point to strengthen their position as the intermediaries of the aten on earth.


You juat admitted a good reason for the "Shu and Tefnut" argument--so why is it absurd? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I repeat--none of the queens of the 18th Dynasty, including Nefertiti and those who followed ever used "king's daughter" among their titles again. And note I said "queens", not princesses--even the Amarna girls after they became associated with another king. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, he or she is welcome to post the image that says otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the 'king's daughter' title was used under akhenaten's reign, so while i recognise you are referring to queens, ankhesenamun was the only princess to be a queen alongside meritaten. and she never used the title because of the shift from akhenaten's reign and memory. so the fact nefertiti never used the title makes it pretty secure she was not of royal blood- the point you are implying looks like she didn't use the title, but still could be a princess.

just because akhenaten and nefertiti were occassionaly depicted as shu and tefnut does not mean the mythological stories about the couple were depicted in reality as truth by the amarna power couple. the egyuptologists in favour of tut's parents being akhenaten and nefertiti are pointing to this myth as proof that they were siblings. cousins i believe is plausible, but siblings i do not. there are many different religious depictions of the amarna royal family, it was all propaganda. just because they took the guise of one set of twin gods does not prove nor translate a royal genealogical relationship.
_________________
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: Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
the 'king's daughter' title was used under akhenaten's reign, so while i recognise you are referring to queens, ankhesenamun was the only princess to be a queen alongside meritaten. and she never used the title because of the shift from akhenaten's reign and memory. so the fact nefertiti never used the title makes it pretty secure she was not of royal blood- the point you are implying looks like she didn't use the title, but still could be a princess.


Why not? Meritaten was certainly a queen and of royal blood. If memory serves correctly, her name is coupled with those of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare on two items, both just referring to her as "king's wife". [same in the tomb of Meryre II]. So no "shift from Akhenaten's reign and memory" can be claimed there.

Quote:
just because akhenaten and nefertiti were occassionaly depicted as shu and tefnut does not mean the mythological stories about the couple were depicted in reality as truth by the amarna power couple.


I'm not sure what you're saying. Shu and Tefnut were the children of Ra. The Aten was a manifestation of Ra. Are you saying that Akhenaten did not believe in any of this? That it was all just "stories" to him? Whatever it is you are trying to assert--one thing is clear. All the king's of Egypt claimed divinity and "nTr nfr" [good god] was among their titles. So was "sA ra" or "son of Ra". Akhenaten's way of claiming divinity was as the personification of Shu, son of Ra. If Nefertiti hadn't been his sister and of equal royal status, how could she be Tefnut personified? Tefnut was a goddess and a female twin to Shu.

Quote:
the egyuptologists in favour of tut's parents being akhenaten and nefertiti are pointing to this myth as proof that they were siblings. cousins i believe is plausible, but siblings i do not. there are many different religious depictions of the amarna royal family, it was all propaganda. just because they took the guise of one set of twin gods does not prove nor translate a royal genealogical relationship.


Or maybe it does. Nefertiti and Akhenaten are still the best candidates for the parents of Tutankhamun, historically. I don't think we need to rehash all that again. Gabolde's assertion of "cousins" is not compelling according to what the DNA says.
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: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have an interesting point, Sidney, since the last queen of the 18th Dynasty who was both "King's Daughter", as well as "King's Sister" was Iaret. Maybe Mutemwiya's party (that could be also Tiye's party, according to Gabolde) opted to fill the Great Royal Wife with a collection of legitimizing titles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1031
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
I repeat--none of the queens of the 18th Dynasty, including Nefertiti and those who followed ever used "king's daughter" among their titles again. And note I said "queens", not princesses--even the Amarna girls after they became associated with another king. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, he or she is welcome to post the image that says otherwise.


Considering that every queen in the 18th Dynasty after Nefertiti had one of two reasons NOT to claim she was a' king's daughter,' or /sAt nsw/, those two reasons being:

a) to not be associated with the heretic king, Akhenaten (Ankhsenamun* coming to mind quickest), or

b) were totally unrelated to the actual royal family (Tey (wife of Aye), Mutnedjmet (wife of Horemheb) and Amenia (another wife of Horemheb) are all unrelated to the previous Thutmosid royal family)

...then that's not much of an argument, IMO. You are talking about the end of a dynastic line, and the players at the very end are mere placeholders, unrelated to the royal family (Ankhsenamun being the exception), until the next dynastic line emerges, the Ramessid line.

There, the title re-emerges, with Hentutmire, daughter of Seti I and Tuya/Mut-Tuy the first to hold the /sAt nsw/ title in the new dynastic line (bypassing Sat-re (wife of Ramses I) and Tuya/Mut-Tuy (wife of Seti I), with only Sat-re holding the full title of a "queen," as /Hmt nsw wr.t/.

Tuya/Mut-Tuy never holds the title of /Hmt nsw wr.t/, giving rise to the theory that she was already married to Seti I before Ramses I became king, and of course, is unrelated to any royal family by birth(she was the daughter of the Lieutenant of the Chariotry, Raia and his wife, also named Tuya, based upon a reused block naming Tuya/Mut-Tuy's parents at Medinet Habu (Habachi 1969)).

* It should also be noted that Ankhsenamun drops her filiation with both Akhenaten and Nefertiti after she becomes Tutankhamun's queen, and there is no mention of them as her parents at all after she attains queenship.

What Ankhsenamun does add to her titles is that of /rt-pa.t/, "countess/noblewoman," a title never held by her sisters (from Meritaton --> Setepenre), nor any of the -tasherit children during the Amarna period. Only Nefertiti had held this title of /rt-pa.t/, and before her, Tiye (wife of Amehotep III), and before her, Mutemwiya (wife of Thutmose IV), and before her, Tiia (wife of Amenhotep II). None of these women claimed to be - at any point during their royal lives - a /sAt nsw/.

Interestingly, none of the royal daughters born of the various unions in the post-Hatshepsut Thutmosid dynasty ever attained the title of /rt-pa.t/, but they do hold the title of /sAt nsw/, as if the two titles are exclusive.

One has to go as far back as Hatshepsut to find a queen who had both titles of /rt-pa.t/ and /sAt nsw/, and before her, in the Ahmosid side of the 18th Dynasty, only Ahmose-Nefertari holds both titles.

The title of /rt-pa.t/ is used sporadically in the 17th and earlier dynasties, but always with the title of /sAt nsw/, all the back to Dynasty 8. There are instances of the /sAt nsw/ title appearing alone for royal women, but never an instance of the /rt-pa.t/ title appearing alone.

The title of /rt-pa.t/ is unknown in the Old Kingdom, and its usage begins in Dynasty 6 with only 2 instances of the /rt-pa.t/ title, introduced for queens of Pepi II , one with a /sAt nsw/ (Iput II, daughter of Pepi I) and the other, Udjebten, without the /sAt nsw/ title, and of unknown parentage.

Looking to the dynasties after the 18th Dynasty, the wife of Ramses I, Sat-re, possesses the /rt-pa.t/ title, as does Seti I's wife, Tuya/Mut-Tuy, and Ramses II's wife, Nefertari - none possess the title of /sAt nsw/. One has to wait until the daughters of Ramses II - Merytamun III and Bintanath - also his Great Royal Wives - to find the title of /sAt nsw/ combined again with the /rt-pa.t/ title.

Further, this is not a standard combination in the Ramessid period, as you have Nebetawy, who also served as Ramses II's Great Royal Wife, who is clearly noted as /sAt nsw/ but without the /rt-pa.t/ title. In fact one, does not see the title of /rt-pa.t/ again until Twosret, wife of Seti II, who is not a /sAt nsw/ and later, with Nodjmet, wife of Herihor and mother of Smendes, who is, again, not a /sAt nsw/.

After these two royal women of Dyn. 19-21, the title of /rt-pa.t/ VERY infrequently, but in all cases, only with daughters of the king.

This holds true until the last holder of the /rt-pa.t/ title, being Berenice III, wife of Ptolemy XI, who did not hold the title of /sAt nsw/ but rather the title of/Hmt-snt nsw/n sA ra/ "Wife-sister of the king/of the Son of Ra." In previous usages, during Dynasty 25 (Kushite Dynasty), this reflected a real sister relationship with a king, thus meaning the sister was also a king's daughter. In the Ptolemaic times, however, these relationships are not always apparently contiguous.

So, to sum up,

- the /rt-pa.t/ title was, prior to the post-Hatshepsut period, usually held by /sAt nsw/ title holder, with only one instance of a /rt-pa.t/ holder not being a daughter of a king (Udjebten, wife of Pepi II, in Dynasty 6).

- Not all /sAt nsw/ title holders during this period held the title of /rt-pa.t/, but after Udjebten, there were no royal women who held the title of /rt-pa.t/ alone.

- During the post-Hatshepsut period of the Thutmosid 18th Dynasty, the title of /rt-pa.t/ alone was held by those royal women who did not possess the title of /sAt nsw/, while those royal women who did possess the title of /sAt nsw/ did not possess the title of /rt-pa.t/.

The /rt-pa.t/ title holders of this period were:

- Merytre Hatshepsut - Daughter of the Adoratrice Huy (Gitton 1984), wife of Thutmose III and mother of Amenhotep II;

- Tiia - wife of Amenhotep II, mother of Thutmose IV;

- Mutemwia - wife of Thutmose IV and mother of Amenhotep III;

- Tiye - wife of Amenhotep III, mother of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten;

- Nefertiti - wife of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten;

- (Nebethat - possible wife of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten)

- Ankhsenamun - wife of Tutankhamun (possesses the /rt-pa.t/ title only after becoming his queen, shedding her /sAt nsw/ title from her father's reign);

- Tey - wife of Ay, and last to hold the /rt-pa.t/ title in the 18th Dynasty;

- Sat-Re- wife of Ramses I, founder of the 19th Dynasty, mother of Seti I;

- Tuya/Mut-Tuy - Wife of Seti I, daughter of Raia, the Lieutenant of the Chariotry, mother of Ramses II, and

- Nefertari (Mery.t-mwt) - wife of Ramses II, mother of Amunhirkopshef [son], Meryatum [son], Merytamun III [daughter], Meryre I [son], Nebetawy [daughter], and Prehirwenemef [son].

- In all cases of these title holders of the /rt-pa.t/ title, not one (except Ankhsenamun, already noted), ever claims the title of /sAt nsw/, yet all became Great Royal Wives and in most cases, were the mothers of the next succeeding king (exceptions being Nefertiti (based upon Hawass, Gad, et al 2010), Ankhsenamun (married the next succeeding king based upon the Newberry ring), and Tey, wife of Ay, who was not maternally- or otherwise related to the next succeeding king, Horemheb).

- After Nefertari, the /rt-pa.t/ title become s coupled with two daughters of Ramses II, who also possess the /sAt nsw/ title, being Merytamun III and Bintanath, who also served as Ramses II's Great Royal Wives.

- After these two queens, the title reverts back to non-/sAt nsw/ royal women (Twosret and Nodjmet) from Dynasty 19-21;

- and finally, from that point onwards, the /rt-pa.t/ is always combined with a holder who is also daughter of the king, until the last holder of the /rt-pa.t/ title, Berenice III, wife of Ptolemy XI, whose lineage is uncertain.

The reason I make this point is the fact that during a portion of the 18th Dynasty, if one does not claim /sAt nsw/ status but holds a royal position, it does appear, at least from the analysis shown here, that such women had to hold the title of /rt-pa.t/, perhaps as sort of substitute title, conveyed to women who were not royal by birth in the dynastic line. This seems to hold most true from the post-Hatshepsut 18th Dynasty, remaining in a continuous pattern until the title of /rt-pa.t/ is coupled again with /sAt nsw/ title of the daughters of Ramses II in the 19th Dynasty.

Since the pattern hold true in this instance for over 200 years (from the end of Hatshepsut's reign until several years into Ramses II's reign), I would argue this is not merely a "blip" or one-off situation. The pattern holds true enough such that an Amarna princess, in order to become queen to a male that was possibly not her brother but more likely a more distant relation, such as cousin, required that since she was not the /sAt nsw/ of his father, she had to be content with the lower title of /rt-pa.t/.

Reference:

Dodson, A. and D. Hilton. 2004. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

Gitton, M. 1984. Les divine éspouses de la 18e dynastie. Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne 61/Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon 306. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres.

Grajetzki, W. 2005. Ancient Egyptian Queens: A Hieroglyphic Dictionary. London: Golden House Publications.

Habachi, L. 1969. La reine Touy, femme de Sethi I et ses proches parents inconnue. RdE 21: 27-47.

Mertz, B. 1952. Certain Titles of the Egyptian Queens and Their Bearing on the Hereditary Right to the Throne. Ph. D. Dissertation (Unpublished). Oriental Languages and Literature. University of Chicago: Chicago.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.
_________________
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
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="neseret"]
SidneyF wrote:
I repeat--none of the queens of the 18th Dynasty, including Nefertiti and those who followed ever used "king's daughter" among their titles again. And note I said "queens", not princesses--even the Amarna girls after they became associated with another king. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, he or she is welcome to post the image that says otherwise.


Quote:
Considering that every queen in the 18th Dynasty after Nefertiti had one of two reasons NOT to claim she was a' king's daughter,' or /sAt nsw/, those two reasons being:

a) to not be associated with the heretic king, Akhenaten (Ankhsenamun* coming to mind quickest), or


But not Meritaten. She liked associating herself with Akhenaten and she is never styled "sAt nsw" once she is a queen--nor is she styled "irt-pat.t"

Quote:
b) were totally unrelated to the actual royal family (Tey (wife of Aye), Mutnedjmet (wife of Horemheb) and Amenia (another wife of Horemheb) are all unrelated to the previous Thutmosid royal family)


Do you know for certain that is true? I don't know how you could.

Quote:
...then that's not much of an argument, IMO. You are talking about the end of a dynastic line, and the players at the very end are mere placeholders, unrelated to the royal family (Ankhsenamun being the exception), until the next dynastic line emerges, the Ramessid line.




Quote:
* It should also be noted that Ankhsenamun drops her filiation with both Akhenaten and Nefertiti after she becomes Tutankhamun's queen, and there is no mention of them as her parents at all after she attains queenship.


That may be, but I think it was hardly a secret that she was the daughter of a king and could have been called "sAt nsw" had that been the style--without ever mentioning the name of her father. So your point seems rather meaningless.

Quote:
What Ankhsenamun does add to her titles is that of /rt-pa.t/, "countess/noblewoman," a title never held by her sisters (from Meritaton --> Setepenre), nor any of the -tasherit children during the Amarna period. Only Nefertiti had held this title of /rt-pa.t/, and before her, Tiye (wife of Amehotep III), and before her, Mutemwiya (wife of Thutmose IV), and before her, Tiia (wife of Amenhotep II). None of these women claimed to be - at any point during their royal lives - a /sAt nsw/.


I don't know where you're going with that--unless you can come up with some meaning of "irt pat.t" that makes it special in the case of Ankhesenamun. And I don't know why you bring the princesses into it when the subject is queens. In your eyes all these other queens may not have been "royal" but, again, they may have had connections to the royal family of which we are not aware. Before the DNA testing, nobody could say that Queen Tiye was a cousin of Amenhotep III. But she was. I don't recall this title with regard to Mutemwia or Tiaa. Where is "irt-pat.t" attested with regard to them?

Quote:
Interestingly, none of the royal daughters born of the various unions in the post-Hatshepsut Thutmosid dynasty ever attained the title of /rt-pa.t/, but they do hold the title of /sAt nsw/, as if the two titles are exclusive.


Not much to go on as far as they are concerned. Few became queens and those who I can think of who did, Neferura and Iaret, are barely attested once they did. I think some of our old notions about "queenship" may be due to be overhauled. There was once the "heiress theory" but somebody tried to debunk that by more or less writing "but look at all the chief queens who were not royal". Really? There was also the old mantra about how Amenhotep III chose a commoner for his great royal wife--but he didn't simply pick her out of the masses. She was a blood relative., as it turns out. And nobody expected Tutankhamun's parents to be brother and sister, did they? So perhaps the rest of the queens of the 18th Dynasty besides the obviou royal princeses also had connections. Even Horemheb claimed his own ancestor was Thutmose III.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, and by the way, this page gives an accurate overview of the DNA work of Scott Woodward on the royal mummies, as far as I remember.

http://www.dwij.org/forum/amarna/comments/popedna.html


Woodward tested Thutmose IV and, despite that, said the 18th Dynasty unions came out of "a very narrow gene pool". And he didn't distinguish that king's parentage as having been an exception in any way. Since we haven't seen his STR profile, we are none the wiser--but, meanwhile, there is not much reason to believe his mother, Tiaa, was not of royal blood, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidneyF
Banned


Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 431

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't find anything where Ankhesenamun was called "irt pat.t" except for on the back of Tut's golden throne. That image there may not have been her originally, anyway. Hannig, in his doctionary, says he thinks "irt pat.t" meant "female regent".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Oh, and by the way, this page gives an accurate overview of the DNA work of Scott Woodward on the royal mummies, as far as I remember.

http://www.dwij.org/forum/amarna/comments/popedna.html




I worry that over the years so many religious and political agendas have got in the way of our learning relating to these people. I suppose funding has to come from somewhere, but if any party wants to find particular things they will likely twist the science to present the answers they want.

I don't have any particular theory to prove, I just want us to get as near to the likely truth as possible (we will never really know what happened to all of Akhenaten's daughters for example) - without inventing anything, taking into account all of the evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Why not? Meritaten was certainly a queen and of royal blood. If memory serves correctly, her name is coupled with those of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare on two items, both just referring to her as "king's wife". [same in the tomb of Meryre II]. So no "shift from Akhenaten's reign and memory" can be claimed there.


it's a different picture with meritaten? she has no reason to dump her father's reign and all associated with it. her husband seems to have begun restoring the old ways, but died before making any monumental decisions. either she or her mother took over on his death, and whoever she was, held power by her relationship with akhenaten's regime. and may even have ruled as regent for tut. once she is gone- murder? natural death? retirement? the court rules for tut, and distances itself from akhenaten and his reign, hence why ankhesenamun does not hold any titles linking her to akhenaten. he was a heretic, a disgrace. damnatio memoriae.

SidneyF wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Shu and Tefnut were the children of Ra. The Aten was a manifestation of Ra. Are you saying that Akhenaten did not believe in any of this? That it was all just "stories" to him? Whatever it is you are trying to assert--one thing is clear. All the king's of Egypt claimed divinity and "nTr nfr" [good god] was among their titles. So was "sA ra" or "son of Ra". Akhenaten's way of claiming divinity was as the personification of Shu, son of Ra. If Nefertiti hadn't been his sister and of equal royal status, how could she be Tefnut personified? Tefnut was a goddess and a female twin to Shu.


all the pharoahs of egypt claimed to be the son or daughter of some god or goddess. this would logically make any wife their 'sister' depending on which goddess she was the counterpart of. all deceased pharoahs were considered to be osiris. following your logic their queens are all isis, therefore making them blood siblings in life. if you follow your logic i mean. now this is an absurd idea, so why is the one that because akhenaten and nefertiti chose to be depicted as shu and tefnut (thereby 'proving' they were blood siblings) be any less ridiculous?

one thing all the advocates for this idea forget, is nefertiti's lack of royal titles. even the children of concubines held royal titles. this rules her out as being of royal blood. maybe she did descend from pharoahs, highly likely if she came from a noble family, but she is not the daughter of the king.

SidneyF wrote:
Or maybe it does. Nefertiti and Akhenaten are still the best candidates for the parents of Tutankhamun, historically. I don't think we need to rehash all that again. Gabolde's assertion of "cousins" is not compelling according to what the DNA says.


really? smenkhkare and a younger sister don't sound plaiusible at all?
_________________
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: Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SidneyF wrote:
Do you know for certain that is true? I don't know how you could.


none of the queens after ankhesenamun had any link to the thutmosid royal family. if they had, they would have publicised it. maybe they were related to nefertiti or tiye. it is the same story in any aristocracy, if you have links or titles you flaunt them.

SidneyF wrote:
That may be, but I think it was hardly a secret that she was the daughter of a king and could have been called "sAt nsw" had that been the style--without ever mentioning the name of her father. So your point seems rather meaningless.


doesn't matter if you think it's meaningless, it happened. she dropped the title, she distanced herself from her family. it was all part of burying the past and building a future out of the ruins her father left behind. many noble and royal families had similar situations they tried to distance themselves from.

SidneyF wrote:
Before the DNA testing, nobody could say that Queen Tiye was a cousin of Amenhotep III. But she was.


not proven before DNA, but it was an old theory mutemwia and yuya were siblings.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
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 4 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