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: Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:26 am    Post subject: Re: 3 generations Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:


SidneyF wrote:
... How can you get a cousin for Akhenaten out of all this [although it's not what Gabolde suggested, himself]? ...


Quote:
As you say yourself, neither Gabolde yet I say something like that. I have no idea where you get that from...


I get it from an understanding of the subject and what kinds of relationships it would take to get a cousin for Akhenaten who has about the same DNA as a sister.

SidneyF wrote:
... And I don't care if the lecture was given at Harvard or someplace else. What difference could that possibly make?

The difference is in the audience and in the public attention. The probability that a geneticist at Harvard University opposition rises is probably higher than if he had kept the lecture at an elementary school in the midwest?


Unless some geneticist also had a firm understanding of the key players in this part of the 18th Dynasty, I can't see how he could understand what Gabolde was talking about. Well, I have given my opinion and that's it. Whoever accepts it or rejects it--it's all the same to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:08 am    Post subject: fact versus theory Reply with quote

The issue is not if MG's theory is proven by the DNA only if it would be possible and it is genetically possible. Even if we need identical twins for AIII and Tiye to get there it still is possible so there is no proof for the statement that KV55 and KV35YL are siblings; just that their DNA matches like the dna of siblings would.

That is why the conclusion that KV55 and KV35YL are the bodies of Achnaten and his sister and the parents of Tutanchamen is not the only possible option so not scientifically proven.

Is it likely that KV55 and KV35YL are siblings? Yes, but they could be otherwise related and ended up with sibling-like DNA. It's most likely that they were siblings born from a match of AIII and Tiye. Still that leaves a number of options. It also does not solve the problem that KV55 cannot be the paternal and maternal grandfather of the two foetusses in Tut's tomb. That makes his identification as Achnaten problematic.

Im also missing DNA information about Thutmosis IV and other members of the 18th dynasty. It might be interesting if they tried to get more dna from previous generations as it might lead to a better understanding of the marital politics from the Royal family.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:23 am    Post subject: Re: fact versus theory Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
... Im also missing DNA information about Thutmosis IV and other members of the 18th dynasty. It might be interesting if they tried to get more dna from previous generations as it might lead to a better understanding of the marital politics from the Royal family.

Yes, it's really a pity that there is not more known of Woodward's results. At least for the extraction of mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited through the female line), he was probably successful. Unfortunately, I only know the article in "The Ostracon" and the TV documentary about his work...

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: Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:51 pm    Post subject: KV21A and B as Nefertiti and one of her daughters Reply with quote

Just saw a rerun of an older documentary still by Zahi Hawass. It suggested that KV21A could be Nefertiti. Both KV21 mummies belong to the 18th dynasty and were most possibly queens.

KV21A was about 40 and KV21B around 20 years old. Both would fit with Nefertiti and her daughters (either Meritaten or Anchesenamun).

KV21A has dna that links her to both Thuya (but not Tiye) and AIII. So maybe AIII married two daugthers of Yuya and Thuya getting his successor from his Great Royal Wife Tiye and Nefertiti by her sister. Another option would remain her as the daughter of AIII's brother who shares some of his dna and a daughter of Thuya.

That would leave KV55 as Achnaten, KV35YL as his sister-wife and parents of Tut. KV21A being Nefertiti who possibly ruled as Neferneferuaten for a while before or even with Tut (her step-son and son-in-law). KV21B could be Anchesenamun or Meritaten.

20 would be too young for Anchesenamun born in year 4 of her father's reign as she would be 13 when he died, add to that 2 years of Neferneferuaten 10 for Tut and possibly a year for Smenchkare. In that case she'd be 26 if she died shortly after her husband.
But if Smenchkare either never ruled or only was a co-ruler with Achnaten and Neferneferuaten also was co-ruler with either Achnaten and/or Tut than Anchesenamun would be 23 around her death. Still a bit older than the 20 they estimated but it would work. Meritaten could work if the reigns were seperate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i have seen this docu too and i wondered how they came to give so different age ranges for the two KV 21 females when in the JAMA report both were given the same age range of 20-40 (if I remember correctly).
Seeing that no explanation was given as to why one of them is now estimated to be much younger than the other I suspect that this may just be wishful thinking to give an interesting twist to yet another TV programme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ankhesenamun would be roughly 27 when tut dies, and meritaten would be around 18 when smenkhkare dies. so either could be the younger kv21 mummy. since we have no idea how old they were when they died, just when they disappear from the historical record it may be difficult to say who they are in kv21.

but it is interesting they are paternally descended from the 18th dynasty, and have that link to thuya which is intriguing.

i wonder if nefertiti's mother could have been tiye's sister, instead of ay being her brother. or maybe ay was tiye's brother and he married a maternal cousin.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: KV21A Reply with quote

KV21A is another doubtful explanation in MG's theory. She has DNA that links her to Thuya but not through Tiye. So if kv21a is Muttemwiya and sister of Yuya she also has to be a close relative of her sister-in-law Thuya.
The idea of her being Nefertiti and kv21b Meritaton would at least explain why they are all burried in close proximity to Tut.

Im wondering if the boy in KV35 could be Smenchkare. That would explain the strange succession in the Amarna period. Achnaten succeeded as the oldest remaining son of his father and the principal Great Royal Wife Tiye.
He himself had 6 daughters with his GRW Nefertiti. There is the option of him having two sons from other wives. A marriage of his oldest son Smenchkare to the oldest princess Meritaten would fit in with tradition (Thutmosis II and Hatchepsut come to mind). Elevating his son to co-regent may have been another step. If this son died before Achnaten it would explain the elevation of Nefertiti to co-ruler to act as regent for the remaining son Tutanchamun who was married to another daughter of Nefertiti upon his succession. That would leave the issue of a co-rule of Neferneferuaten with her husband and his successor/her step-son. For the second co-rule is no evidence so far.

The idea that Nefertiti is related to Thuya in a female line is not that strange. It is a requirement for the dna result of the two fetoessus being daughters of Tut with his GRW Anchesenamun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Re: KV21A Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
The idea that Nefertiti is related to Thuya in a female line is not that strange. It is a requirement for the dna result of the two fetoessus being daughters of Tut with his GRW Anchesenamun.


only if ankhesenamun is their mother. as his only known wife, it would make sense that she was.

as far as smenkhkare goes, it would make sense that he is a brother of akhenaten. i used to think he and tut were brothers, sons of akhenaten and kiya. but i think the DNA study makes it quite clear this doesn't work. i believe kv55 is smenkhkare, and he is tut's father. if nefertiti is neferneferuaten it would make sense to have the experienced queen as regent for tut.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:54 pm    Post subject: amarna succession Reply with quote

The unclear line of succession between Achnaten and Tutanchamun leaves several scenario's.

A female pharaoh ruling on her own between Smenchkare and his son Tutanchamun sounds strange. Amenhotep III was a child when he succeeded so there was no need for an interregnum by a woman when the deceased Pharaoh has a living son of 6 to 8 years old at the time of his death. Especially if we are talking about Nefertiti who was not the widow of Smenchkare but his mother-in-law and possibly his sister-in-law and cousin.

Depending on what line of succession you take a different scenario becomes more plausible. Just a few of no doubt plenty of variations.

Scenario 1:

Achnaten has selects Smenchkare as co-ruler and marries him to the eldest princess Meritaten. The young co-ruler dies and is replaced by the Great Royal Wife Nefertiti-Neferneferuaten as co-ruler while his widow Meritaten continues the duties of the GRW.

Option A: Smenchkare is an older (half-)brother of Tutanchamun. This scenario plays in the final years of Achnaten's reign and he allready has a son Tutanchaten from his marriage with one of his sisters. Naming any other relative to heir other than his son is strange. Naming Nefertiti co-ruler may be to appoint her as the clear regent for the young successor rather than Meritaten or any other individual.

Option B: Smenchkare is a (half-)brother of Achnaten. He first married one of his sisters and had Tutanchaten. The baby's mother died young, possibly from faul play and the widower marries his niece Meritaten. He reigns with Achnaten but dies before the elder pharaoh. Achnaten appoints his GRW as co-ruler and she makes little Tut her heir marrying him to her daughter Anchesenpaaten.
I don't think it is likely that Smenchkare ruled on his own in this scenario because than again it would be odd that not his son, but his widow Meritaten (under another name) or his sister-/mother-in-law Nefertiti would succeed him before his son Tutanchamun.


Scenario 2:

Achnaten first selects GRW Nefertiti-Neferneferuaten as co-ruler and his successor, she is followed by Smenchkare who is married to Meritaten. After his short reign Tutanchamun succeeds.


Option A: Both Smenchkare and Tutanchamun are sons of Achnaten but not of Nefertiti. The queen has gained so much prominence and both princes still so young (if Smechkare is the young boy in KV35 he would be 8, 9 or 10 years old) that she can reign. Potentially as co-ruler with her husband, his heiress or with his sons.

Option B: Smenchkare is the brother of Achnaten and Tut is his son by a sister-wife. After the rule of his brother and sister-in-law Smenchkare succeeds and is himself succeeded by his son Tut.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 237

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
ankhesenamun would be roughly 27 when tut dies, and meritaten would be around 18 when smenkhkare dies. so either could be the younger kv21 mummy.


The problem is we don't know how old they were when they died. Female Royals could in theory live to be a ripe old age, out of the limelight once their husband or father died and their positions were taken by new Queens or Princesses. We only tend to hear about Queens who are the mothers of succeeding Kings but the fact is that many must have outlived their husbands.

Likewise what about all of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten's daughters? I think an assumption is made that they were all dead by the time Ay was on the throne but if he and wife Tey lived long lives, why not some of the princesses?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:02 am    Post subject: Re: amarna succession Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
A female pharaoh ruling on her own between Smenchkare and his son Tutanchamun sounds strange. Amenhotep III was a child when he succeeded so there was no need for an interregnum by a woman when the deceased Pharaoh has a living son of 6 to 8 years old at the time of his death. Especially if we are talking about Nefertiti who was not the widow of Smenchkare but his mother-in-law and possibly his sister-in-law and cousin.


i think the most plausible explanation is neferneferuaten was regent for tut. i have read that there is evidence for this, though i don't recall what the evidence was. it may be in dodson's amarna sunset. anyway, it seems to me neferneferuaten did a hatshepsut. whoever she was regent or co ruler for, it appears she took power in her own right at some stage.

as for not having 'interregnums' as you mention, i would say there was no need in the middle of the dynasty. the queens obviously had limited power after hatshepsut, so they would have been regent i guess, but it seems to me the nobility would have been more powerful, in some sort of regency council. certainly when amenhotep III is crowned, it would seem mutemwia and yuya would have governed the country. so you see the nobility becoming more powerful, and possibly tut needed a strong queen to rule for him, with the whole instability of the amarna period and he being the sole male representative of the 250 year old thutmosid royal line. whoever she was (nefertiti, meretaten) she was a seasoned statewoman of royal blood. she was probably needed to stop a power struggle for the control of the young king, we know the nobility becomes more powerful towards the end of the 18th dynasty, as you have queen tiye's family, and then you have 2 becoming pharoahs, and a third founding another strong military dynasty.

Thieuke wrote:
Option A: Both Smenchkare and Tutanchamun are sons of Achnaten but not of Nefertiti. The queen has gained so much prominence and both princes still so young (if Smechkare is the young boy in KV35 he would be 8, 9 or 10 years old) that she can reign. Potentially as co-ruler with her husband, his heiress or with his sons.


i personally don't think nefertiti is their mother regardless of who their father is. i also think with akhenaten's rather unusual family intimacy being depicted in public art, had he had sons, they would be included.

i also think that the boy in kv35 found with tiye and her daughter is prince thumose, tiye's son.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not at all convinced that Tut had a female regent, be it Nefertiti, Meritaten or whoever. First there is not a shred of hard evidence for it such as a depicition or inscription. From the start of his reign Tut appears either alone or together with Ankhesenamun.
Second there was no need for a female regent. As the excavation of Horemheb`s tomb has shown, he was very prominent from the beginning of the reign and continued to heap title upon title until he basically governed the two lands. Aye was there close to the king in the capacity of advisor and besides there were two viziers in place. IMO this leaves no room at all for an additional regent, female or otherwise. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:22 am    Post subject: Pharoahs Ankhepereru Reply with quote

What i tried to bring across is that we don't know who the two pharaohs Neferneferuaten and Smenchkare were and when they reigned. Were they sole rulers or just co-regents of Achnaten? It is also unknown in what succession they reigned.

What we do know is that between the sole rule of Amenhotep IV, changing his name to Achnaten and the sole rule of Tutanchamun two other pharaohs existed. This subject is about the family of Tutanchamun and how he relates to Amenhotep III and Achnaten.

Having no factual evidence on who the two pharaohs that shared the name Ankepereru were and when they reigned makes it at present impossible to give answers about Tutanchamuns parents. Leaving only theories and options. MG put forward an alternative theory to that of the JAMA papers. Both have inconsistancies so we try to come up with other theories that fit the little evidence that we have.

I don't believe that if Achnaten was the father of Tutanchamun he would choose another relative (wife or brother) as his successor over his son. That in my view does not fit in with Egyptian tradition and the monarchical traditions in Egypt. That is why i think that if Tutanchamun really was Achnaten's son that Smenchkare also was the son of Achnaten. If Smechkare was not Achnaten's son than the most logical option is that Smechkare was Tutanchamun's father.

JAMA presents KV21A as the mother of the two foetusses in Tut's grave. I don't find that convincing. Nor do i credit MG's theory that she is Mutemwiya. The DNA of KV21A fits with her being a maternal relation of the two foetusses as well as being related to Thuya. With Yuya and Mutemwiya being potential siblings and Tiye being a first cousin of her husband the option of Nefertiti also being related to the Akhmin clan becomes likely. That means that KV21A and B could be Nefertiti and one of her daughters or that both could be daughters of Achnaten and Nefertiti.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Pharoahs Ankhepereru Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
What i tried to bring across is that we don't know who the two pharaohs Neferneferuaten and Smenchkare were and when they reigned. Were they sole rulers or just co-regents of Achnaten? It is also unknown in what succession they reigned.


Well, I suspect we know more than you think. They had regnal years, with "King Neferneferuaten" having year of about 3 years (the highest date known for Neferneferuaten is Regnal Year 3, in a graffito from the tomb of Pairi at Thebes (TT 139)) and Smenkhkare at least 1 year; we know this from wine dockets (Pendlebury, 1951, II: pl. 86 and 1951, I: pl. lxxxvi and xcvii).

As Wikipedia notes: By the start of the 21st Century, a "a fair degree of consensus" emerged that Neferneferuaten was a female king and Smenkhkare a separate male king, particularly among specialists of the period. Almost as important, when presented with just the name Ankhkheperure, it is now widely accepted that the use of epithets indicates Neferneferuaten while no epithets (attached to Ankhkheperure) indicates Smenkhkare. (Allen 1998 and 2006; Murnane 2001; Gabolde 2001; Hornung 2006, Miller 2007; Dodson 2009)

Thieuke wrote:
Having no factual evidence on who the two pharaohs that shared the name Ankepereru were and when they reigned makes it at present impossible to give answers about Tutanchamuns parents. Leaving only theories and options. MG put forward an alternative theory to that of the JAMA papers. Both have inconsistancies so we try to come up with other theories that fit the little evidence that we have.


I'm not sure that knowing who "King Neferneferuaten" is or even who Smenkhkare is makes much difference. If the DNA is replicable, then KV 55 is the father of Tutankhamun and KV 35YL is his mother. If it is established - by age of the remains being that of a young male at 20-25 years at most at death - that KV 55 cannot be Akhenaten, then you have a choice of Tutankhamun's father being Smenkhkare, as we know "King Neferneferuaten" is female.

There's not much other choice beyond that, as Tutankhamun does consider himself a "king son," based upon the Hermopolis reliefs, so a brother of Akhenaten, directly related to Amenhotep III and Tiye, who never became king would likely not be the case.

I suspect that "King Neferneferuaten" was the successor king to Akhenaten, ruled for 2-3 years, and related her reign directly to that of Akhenaten with her titles of /mry wa-n-ra/ and /Axt n h(y).s/, "desired/chosen by Wa-en-ra" and "effective for her husband." She then died/gave way/ was deposed, etc. to Smenkhkare, who ruled only for 1 year before dying (his fate is assured as one of the wine dockets makes it clear that Smenkhkare is "deceased").

Thieuke wrote:
I don't believe that if Achnaten was the father of Tutanchamun he would choose another relative (wife or brother) as his successor over his son. That in my view does not fit in with Egyptian tradition and the monarchical traditions in Egypt. That is why i think that if Tutanchamun really was Achnaten's son that Smenchkare also was the son of Achnaten. If Smechkare was not Achnaten's son than the most logical option is that Smechkare was Tutanchamun's father.


I don't think I've seen very sold evidence that seriously states that KV 55 cannot be a brother of Akhenaten (and thus, as stated in Hawass, Gad, et al 2010, that KV 55 is s direct son of Amenhotep III and Tiye.) Further, I don't believe that we have established - beyond a doubt - that we have a cousin relationship established as a fact. It takes an extreme set of circumstances, as noted in the earlier reference given in this thread- which we cannot state is the actual case here - that cousins would share identical DNA, as Gabolde suggests.

My
_________________
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
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As before, and as my hand already repeatedly expressed, doubts remain... Especially if you look at the archaeological evidence:

The name "Semenchkara" is not known as a first name in Ancient Egypt. Its shape has clearly the look of a composed throne name. In KV 55, there is not the slightest indication of a King "Semenchkara". Objects that refer to Akhenaten are available. Especially the coffin, by the Munich studies clearly rejected to this king as the originally intended owner and the magic bricks.

Determine the age of the bones with such certainty and precision ("20-25 years at most at death") is completely unacceptable in my view. For this I refer again to the studies in medieval cemeteries in Germany on juvenile skeletons, showing clearly significant differences between estimated (by methods as used in case of KV 55) and real (known from documents, church birth and death records) age at time of death. Doubt on the accuracy of these methods are entirely appropriate, especially as in this case already about 5 years plus enough to make out of the mummy in KV 55 Akhenaten.

In KV 62 also found no evidence for a king "Semenchkara". On the single object (vase) on which the name could possibly have been it has been deleted. The name of Akhenaten also appears here on several occasions. Thus we would have the rather strange situation that the name of the alleged biological father of Tutankhamun (the person to which he owes his right to the throne) is deleted / not available in KV 62 and the name of the heretic and outlaw, the supposedly already under Tutankhamun proscribed predecessor, appears. In my view incomprehensible and illogical.

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 6 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