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 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: 3538
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:51 pm    Post subject: Marc Gabolde Looks on DNA Test of Tutankhamuns Family... Reply with quote

Marc Gabolde : L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes. - In: ENiM 6. - 2013. - pp. 177 - 203...
Quote:
From "Osiris Net", News, September 2013:

The investigations carried on the DNA of the royal mummies, published in February 2010, have provided material for a new genealogical tree for the royal family of the late XVIIInth dynasty. After discussing the reliability of this study, a close examination of these results leads to the conclusion that some genetical links escaped to the team of geneticians. The most significant being the fact that Yuya shared with his son-in-law, Amenhotep III, about 1/3 of genetical inheritance. It is consequently proposed that Yuya was an uncle of Amenhotep III, Mutemwiya being his sister. This means that queen Tiyi was in fact an actual cousin of Amenhotep III. Extrapolating to the next generation it is also suggested that Amenhotep IV - Akhenaten equally married his own cousin, Nefertiti, whose parents were related to both Amenhotep III and Yuya. This would explain why the DNA of Amenhotep IV - Akhenaten (mummy KV 55) and that of Nefertiti, identified to mummy KV35 YL, were looking like that of siblings. It is also suggested that Tutankhamun was the seventh child of Amenhotep IV - Akhenaten and Nefertiti in accordance with some reappraised epigraphic evidences, and that Mutemwiya is no other than the mummy KV21A. A new genealogical tree based on DNA and epigraphic data is given in conclusion.

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: 981
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then the foetuses in Tut's tomb were actually Amenhotep III sisters?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 237

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting.

I can certainly buy that Mutemweia was a sister of Yuya which would explain the DNA links between Amenhotep III and Tiye's father. However, the evidence seems scanty to state with certainty that she is KV21A. The age, though, is right.

The proposal that KV35YL is Nefertiti because that mummy is a cousin of KV55 rather than the daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye is interesting but hard to prove because we don't have the parents mummies to verify this. Gabolde also totally omits Baketaten from his paper - she is known to have been at Amarna and is a daughter of Tiye.

It is very tempting to think, (and I believe Gabolde leads you to this) that Ay and Tey are relatives of Tiye and are the parents of Nefertiti.

Something that springs from this for me is the idea (not in the paper) that Mutenberet, Nefertiti's sister AND attested in Tutankhamun's tomb, could therefore be KV35YL and his mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 405
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes... the statement that Nefertiti = KV35YL is a huge assumption. Not impossible, of course, but that will require a lot more in the way of proof to make that more certain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 405
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes... the statement that Nefertiti = KV35YL is a huge assumption. Not impossible, of course, but that will require a lot more in the way of proof to make that more certain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:45 pm    Post subject: Jumping to conclusions Reply with quote

Im also wondering about the other KV21 remains.
if KV21A would have been the mother of Amenhotep III (strange for a woman with a clumb-foot to be selected for the pharaoh's harem and actually being the one to mother his heir) than who are the other mummies?

I can understand the idea that kv21 was designed for Amenhotep III's mother or wife and that the ladies in kv21 are related to him and Yuya. That does however not mean 21a is Muttemwiya.

The Nefertiti claim is even worse. It assumes that Nefertiti's parents were siblings of Amenhotep III and Tiye. I don't know of examples of 18th dynasty princesses (the status of AIII's sisters) marrying anyone other than the pharaoh. So that means a younger brother of Amenhotep III survived and married a sister of Tiye to become the parents of Nefertiti. We have not yet seen any evidence of either one of these individuals existing.

Lastly we still have Smenchkare to deal with and the reason why Achnaton was not succeeded by the son of his beloved Great Royal Wife and potential co-ruler.

In all a nice theory but it leaves plenty of open ends and question marks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"A different take on Tut - Egyptian archaeologist shares theory on pharaoh’s lineage" - Harvard Gazette, 11 February 2013, By Alvin Powell (Harvard Staff Writer).

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: 981
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:07 am    Post subject: Re: Jumping to conclusions Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:


Lastly we still have Smenchkare to deal with and the reason why Achnaton was not succeeded by the son of his beloved Great Royal Wife and potential co-ruler.


Yes, is hard to swallow that, unless Smenkh was also Nefertiti's son
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Robson
Priest
Priest


Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Re: Jumping to conclusions Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:

So that means a younger brother of Amenhotep III survived and married a sister of Tiye to become the parents of Nefertiti.


In this case she should be called "king's daughter", just like Nebetia, prince Siatum's daughter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 515
Location: U.S. NJ

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I strained my high school French to the max but managed to get the gist of the original article. I have a feeling people will be arguing about these mummies for many years to come.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First, I do not speak French, so I am rely on translations by Google etc... So, I would ask the following:

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

Why?

Robson wrote:
Thieuke wrote: "So that means a younger brother of Amenhotep III survived and married a sister of Tiye to become the parents of Nefertiti."

In this case she should be called "king's daughter", just like Nebetia, prince Siatum's daughter.

Why "should she"? The case Nebetia is unique in the NK. Also from the OK we know only a few examples for this practice (daughter of a son of a king is called kings daughter). From the MK we know not even one.

karnsculpture wrote:
Gabolde also totally omits Baketaten from his paper - she is known to have been at Amarna and is a daughter of Tiye.

Why is Baketaton the daughter of Queen Tiye? So far as I know it is only clear that she was a king's daughter. Neither mother nor father are called...

karnsculpture wrote:
Mutenberet, Nefertiti's sister AND attested in Tutankhamun's tomb

Where / How is the sister of Nefertiti in KV 62 - Tutankhamun occupied?

Thieuke wrote:
The Nefertiti claim is even worse. It assumes that Nefertiti's parents were siblings of Amenhotep III and Tiye.

Why siblings of both?

Thieuke wrote:
we still have Smenchkare to deal with and the reason why Achnaton was not succeeded by the son of his beloved Great Royal Wife and potential co-ruler.

The identity of "Semenchkara" is still not really clear. Tutankhamun was probably 8 or 9 years old when he became king. That means he was around 5 years old when Akhenaten died. Maybe too young also for Egyptian relations in a very difficult domestic and foreign political situation?

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: 62

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:14 pm    Post subject: nefertiti's parents Reply with quote

I don't know why, but i guess in order to have DNA that resembles siblings two generations of cousins marrying is not enough. It is clear that Amenhotep III and Tiye are at best cousins (her father and his mother being siblings fits with the third of matching dna between AIII and Yuya).

For Achnaten and Nefertiti to share sibling-like dna their links have to be stronger. that would be provided by Nefertiti being the result of a match between a sibling of AIII with a sibling of Tiye.

All AIII's children were born when he was allready pharaoh for a number of years. Nefertiti married one of his younger children so she herself must have been born in AIII's reign (especially if she is to be KV35YL who seems to have been fairly young when she died).
This means that if Nefertiti was the daughter of a brother of AIII he has to be younger as an older brother would have become Pharaoh.
Im also not convinced that Nefertiti's mother was a daughter of Tutmosis IV and Muttemwiya as the only examples of a King's daughter marrying in the second half of the 18th dynasty is by marrying a pharaoh (brother or father).
So the most likely scenario for his theory to have kv55 and kv35yl be Achnaten and Nefertiti and parents of Tut is when AIII's younger brother married a sister of Tiye and they had children (Nefertiti and her sister whose name is given differently).

The scenario is not unlikely, but we don't have any proof for it. So it remains a theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:19 pm    Post subject: Re: nefertiti's parents Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
I don't know why, but i guess in order to have DNA that resembles siblings two generations of cousins marrying is not enough. It is clear that Amenhotep III and Tiye are at best cousins (her father and his mother being siblings fits with the third of matching dna between AIII and Yuya). ,,,

If I understand it correctly Gabolde suspects (and before him, by the way, other Egyptologists, even without DNA testing; as one example see El Mahdy : Tutankhamen - The life and death of a Boy-King. - London: C.Brown, 1999) sibling marriages / marriage between closely related of at least three, if not more, generations in the family of Queen Teje and a kinship binding to the royal house of the 18th Dynasty for some generations.

The Royal Harim had at least a palace next to Achmin since the 11th Dynasty and starting with Pharaoh Ahmose, first king of the 18th, all kings of this Dynasty are amply proven at this palace buildings as a kind of "branch" of the Royal Harim at Deir el-Ballas (dig by Reisner, Lythgoe and Green for the Hearst Foundation in 1900). So it is clear that the royal children had contact with the children of the most importent family(s) there: the family of the first prophet of Min.

I am not really this DNA freak but I would think there are some at Harvard University ... And I would imagine that these experts would have certainly raised the caveat against Gaboldes lecture, when his theories would be completely nonsensical in view of genetics?

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: 981
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:30 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: 981
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

Robson wrote:
Thieuke wrote: "So that means a younger brother of Amenhotep III survived and married a sister of Tiye to become the parents of Nefertiti."

In this case she should be called "king's daughter", just like Nebetia, prince Siatum's daughter.

Why "should she"? The case Nebetia is unique in the NK. Also from the OK we know only a few examples for this practice (daughter of a son of a king is called kings daughter). From the MK we know not even one.


Indeed. But the closest example we have is Nebetia's. Why wouldn't Nefertiti repeat her example in case she actually was a pharaoh's granddaughter? And have we any evidence of a pharaoh's granddaughter who was NOT addressed as "King's Daughter"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 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