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
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

don't forget about tut's babies. kv55 is the paternal grandfather, but can't be the maternal grandfather. kind of puts the nail in akhenaten's coffin, since the babies have thuya's DNA, and are likely ankhesenamun's babies too.
_________________
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: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawass et al : Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family. - In: JAMA 303(7). - 2010. - pp. 638 - 647, on page 640 & 641:
Quote:
"... complete data sets for all 8 markers in 7 mummies (Thuya, Yuya, Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, KV55, and both female mummies from KV 35) but only partial data for both KV 62 fetuses and the KV 21 A and KV 21 B mummies (FIGURE 1). ..."

With look at the results, I would be in statements about the fetuses a little more cautious and reserved...

Lutz
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It doesn't matter if the foetuses' DNA is incomplete, if there's just one locus fully preserved in multiple mummies we can build a family tree no matter how fragmentary the rest of the DNA is.

Conveniently, one such locus was preserved:

D7S820
KV55 body: 15 15
Tutankhamun: 10 15
Foetus 1: 10 13
Foetus 2: 6 15
Mother of the foetuses (hypothetically): 6 13

Tut has 10 and 15 at this locus. Foetus 1 inherited the 10 and Foetus 2 inherited the 15. The 13 and 6 therefore must have been inherited from their mother (assuming there was just the one, as seems likely in Tut's case). If this mother was KV55's daughter she'd have inherited at least one of his 15s, so we can be pretty sure the mother wasn't directly related to KV55.

Based on this, the point still stands: KV55 can't be grandfather on both sides of the foetuses, which he would have to be if he was Akhenaten and Anchesenamun was the mother. Until Egyptology can deliver another candidate for motherhood of the foetuses, I think it's far more likely that KV55 isn't Akhenaten after all.

Which is an important - but far from the only - reason why I share neseret's views in this debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i also find it highly interesting nobody disputes tutankhamun's age. they used the same markers for kv 55 and tutankhamun. experts agree kv 55 is between 18-25 and that tut is around 18-22.

so my point is thus, if you are going to dispute kv 55's age and say he was 30 or older at death, than you must do the same for tutankhamun.
_________________
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: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:55 pm    Post subject: KV55 Reply with quote

KV55 brings up problems. His DNA fits with him as a son of AIII and Tiye. He and KV35YL have dna equal to that of siblings and their dna fits as them being the parents of Tut. It does leave the problem that KV55 cannot be both the paternal and maternal grandfather of the two foetusses in Tut's tomb. Leaving several options:

1 KV55 is Achnaten and father of Tut by one of his sisters but the two foetusses are from Tut with someone other than a daughter of Achnaten (either an unknown secundairy wife or Anchesenamun was not Anchesenpaäten as has been asumed so far [she could have been Anchesenpaäten tashjerit if she was the daughter of Meritaten, Meketaten or Anchesenpaäten with someone other than their father).

2 KV55 is not Achnaten but a son of AIII and Tiye and fathered Tut with his sister KV21YL. In that scenario KV55 is most likely Smenchkare as he is the only other king in the Amarna periode as Nefernferuaten was a female pharaoh.

3 KV55 and KV21YL are not siblings because their families were very closely related in other ways. their son (or nephew?) Tut had the two little girls with an unknown wife who was not the daughter of KV55 and KV21YL. This option is unlikely in my view.


Until we get a better DNA profile of the entire 18th dynasty and the Akhmin family of Tiye and Ay as well as a better understanding of who reigned between/with Achnaten and Tutanchamun and how they are related we can only guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
i also find it highly interesting nobody disputes tutankhamun's age. they used the same markers for kv 55 and tutankhamun. experts agree kv 55 is between 18-25 and that tut is around 18-22. ...

But for the first time these "markers" were determined in the same way: CT scan ... and now experts not agree.

By the obviously totally different state of the bones from KV 55 and the mummy of Tutankhamun, this was certainly not been the case before. The data for Tutanchamun were won over radiographs (X-rays are sometimes very wide interpretation, I only remember the supposedly deadly injury blow at the back of the head...).

The fact that all the experts have known a rough age for Tutankhamun before commencing their studies, it should also not be underestimated. True objectivity in the age determination is difficult, when you know that he can only be so and so old because of other archeological fixed data / facts. Then you must of course not admit a chance for tolerance...

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


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

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
But for the first time these "markers" were determined in the same way: CT scan ... and now experts not agree.

By the obviously totally different state of the bones from KV 55 and the mummy of Tutankhamun, this was certainly not been the case before. The data for Tutanchamun were won over radiographs (X-rays are sometimes very wide interpretation, I only remember the supposedly deadly injury blow at the back of the head...).

The fact that all the experts have known a rough age for Tutankhamun before commencing their studies, it should also not be underestimated. True objectivity in the age determination is difficult, when you know that he can only be so and so old because of other archeological fixed data / facts. Then you must of course not admit a chance for tolerance...

Greetings, Lutz.


do you know if kv55 was ct scanned? i can't recall. i know they examined tut with x rays, and the ct scan. i'm guessing they might not, as kv 55 is just a skeleton, so most things could be discovered with an examination.
_________________
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: 3523
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Lutz wrote:
But for the first time these "markers" were determined in the same way: CT scan ... and now experts not agree.

By the obviously totally different state of the bones from KV 55 and the mummy of Tutankhamun, this was certainly not been the case before. The data for Tutanchamun were won over radiographs (X-rays are sometimes very wide interpretation, I only remember the supposedly deadly injury blow at the back of the head...).

The fact that all the experts have known a rough age for Tutankhamun before commencing their studies, it should also not be underestimated. True objectivity in the age determination is difficult, when you know that he can only be so and so old because of other archeological fixed data / facts. Then you must of course not admit a chance for tolerance...

Greetings, Lutz.


do you know if kv55 was ct scanned? i can't recall. i know they examined tut with x rays, and the ct scan. i'm guessing they might not, as kv 55 is just a skeleton, so most things could be discovered with an examination.


Hawass et a : Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family. - In: JAMA 303 (7). - 2010. - pp. 638 - 647, on page 639:

Quote:
"... Radiology

All of the mummies, except for that of Ahmose-Nefertari, were scanned using a multidetector computed tomography unit (Somatom Emotion 6; Siemens medical Solutions, Malvern, Pennsylvania) installed on a truck. The tomography unit was used to examine the mummy of Tutankhamun and those of the 2 women from tomb KV35 in Luxor as well as the rest of the mummies at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo ..."

Greetings, Lutz.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(theory)I do believe that Amenhotep III and Tiye were first cousins which would put all of their children in the same category and their grand children unless they decided to make a family outside the Royal House. (Mutemiya and Yuya being siblings hmm good theory guys)

However in the case of KV21A, I kind of disagree with her being Mutemiya neither Ankh(Ankhesenamun). Everyone knows why I have my reasons but anyways

The two mummies that were in KV21A are definitely members of the royal family, but I believe they were of minor importance(not on status with Tiye, Nefertiti, and their daughter) otherwise they were married to these Kings because they were relatives.

I think KV21A she is a cousin to Tut, I mean if they siblings I think it would have at least shown a hint of that in the DNA result(or maybe not). As of KV21B, I believe she is the mother of KV21A thus Nebetnehat who i think
was a cousin or maybe sister to Tiye.

Why I keep talking about Queen Nebetnehat well(....) but seeming that she dated from the eras of the Amarna Period and Amenhotep III and had the title of Great Royal Wife my thought that if she had this title "Great Royal Wife" she had to have been someone of some importance to either Pharaohs and I think she's family.

The only thing about this is KV21A who the heck is she? and most importantly who is her father?

I wonder if the Queens could have remarry after their husbands deceased
Idea

Well let me go to work ya'll have a safe and nice holiday. 2014!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frater0082
Account Suspended


Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 175

PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finding Meketaten's body would be a prize to these DNA results im surprised that no one found her mummy yet one could only assume what happened to it

I wonder if they moved it like they did the other mummies of Armarna perhaps she was placed some where close to I KV55.


[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin
Admin/Admun/Admen
Admin/Admun/Admen


Joined: 04 Jun 2003
Posts: 1108
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Originally posted by Kemetian in the wrong forum and moved here by Admin.

Kemetian wrote:
I have the greatest respect for both Gabolde and Reeves but I am somewhat wary of their take on the DNA evidence because both have published their theories extensively and may, perhaps unconciously, be trying to make the new evidence fit their theories. I would prefer to see the evidence leading to the conclusion rather than the other way around.

For example I have noted that recent discussions of the body from KV55 and the KV35YL seem to start with an assumption that it is Akhenaten and Nefertiti that is being discussed. If people continue to do that it will soon become viewed as accepted fact. We should perhaps learn our lesson from the fact that for many years Smenkhkare was named in discussions that were actually about Neferneferuaten because the name Smenkhkare was used whichever name was actually present in the text under discussion.

It is not proven that KV55 is Akhenaten and it is not proven that KV35YL is Nefertiti. I think that should be remembered, anything else would be unscientific.

We should perhaps take things one step at a time and concentrate on finding evidence that would help secure the identification of these mummies before we move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Chrismackint
Account Suspended


Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 809

PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about finding living relatives? Do we know if Kanye's origins can be traced back to the aten family line, considering he shares the trait of believing he is a god, he would be a good candidate to start with.

http://www.rap-up.com/2010/07/07/kanye-west-outshines-king-tuts-great-grandmother/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A small addendum, the results of DNA tests well relativized somewhat, in my view, and maybe other possible interpretations explains ...

Quote:
"... The scientists tested 11 royal mummies suspected of being related to King Tut, while five other royal individuals dating to the early New Kingdom (1550-1479 B.C.) were chosen as a control group.

To create a genetic fingerprint for each mummy, the researchers led by Hawass used eight sets of genetic markers. Shared markers helped produce a five-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun's immediate lineage. ...

... “Our review basically supports the DNA results,” Rühli said.

The researchers noted however that the genetic tests would have not been enough in UK and US courts today to claim parentage. ..."

(From: "Mummy Identification Still Uncertain Science" - Discovery News, Rossella Lorenzi, 08.02.2016.)

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: 1028
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
A small addendum, the results of DNA tests well relativized somewhat, in my view, and maybe other possible interpretations explains ...

Quote:
"... The scientists tested 11 royal mummies suspected of being related to King Tut, while five other royal individuals dating to the early New Kingdom (1550-1479 B.C.) were chosen as a control group.

To create a genetic fingerprint for each mummy, the researchers led by Hawass used eight sets of genetic markers. Shared markers helped produce a five-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun's immediate lineage. ...

... “Our review basically supports the DNA results,” Rühli said.

The researchers noted however that the genetic tests would have not been enough in UK and US courts today to claim parentage. ..."

(From: "Mummy Identification Still Uncertain Science" - Discovery News, Rossella Lorenzi, 08.02.2016.).


These were the same objections brought up by genetics experts in the NEXT issue of JAMA after the Hawass, Gad 2010 article. Yet, everyone seemed to ignore them.

While I have my doubts about the 2010 DNA tests, when I do cite the results of Hawass, Gad, 2010, I do note it's THEIR result, which has never been tested and verified by an independent testing (something unheard of in DNA testing, I might add. Note the various testings of the Romanov remains' DNA to ascertain identity).

Until independent and additional testing can be done, citing the 2010 Hawass, Gad DNA results is simply a matter of further speculation, not proven fact.
_________________
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: Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
... Until independent and additional testing can be done, citing the 2010 Hawass, Gad DNA results is simply a matter of further speculation, not proven fact.

As I understand Rühli and Co., this is irrelevant. As long as the aDNA can be only sequenced to this extent as they did, remain the results a question of interpretation and are not suitable to prove father- or motherhood definitely ("... not been enough in UK and US courts today to claim parentage ...").

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 7 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