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 

Zivie's theory wet nurse maia=meritaten
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1029
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
The recent DNA examinations suggest the body from KV55 is a son of Amenhotep III and the father of Tutankhamun, right? Anatomical examinations of the same body suggest this individual was aged around 18-23, which is way too young to be Akhenaten. ...

I find it again and again strange and surprising that on the one hand, the aDNA results without a doubt are accepted and the by the same team at the same time put forward age determinations are rejected...


Possibly because they never gave any evidence of their later age determination? I have all forms of the DNA article, and they simply state a later age but give no rationale for it.

I know that someone will remember some statement about 'spinal degeneration' (I think Hawass made it independent of the DNA studies), but quite honestly, that is NOT a means to determine age. People who are in their teens can have spinal degeneration, particularly if they have performed heavy load-bearing work, or if they have spinal scoliosis (as the KV 55 remains do). The description I have seen given of this 'spinal degeneration' matches the effects of scoliosis.<snip>

Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.


Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.
_________________
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
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 98
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Quote:
Or am I missing something?

And if we have evidence to rule out Akhenaten (as I believe we do), what other option than Smenchkare do we have as an identification for the KV55 body?


Why Smenkhare? Where does it say that Smenkhare was a son of Amenhotep III?

Smenkhare is just a name in two rocks...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3631
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
... Since we know he had a daughter when he came to the throne ...

Lutz wrote:
Do "we"? From where?

Meretaten appears on reliefs from the Aten temple at Karnak, so she was clearly alive when they were carved.

Nefertiti and her daughter(s) do not appear on the reliefs from his first year(s ?) in conventional style (Karnak and Tombs on the West of the Nile).

The earliest decorated scenes from the Aten-Temple in Karnak are the scenes from the Sed-Festival. This festival took place between year 2 and year 5 (the temple where it took place had to be build and decorated, 2 years are probably not recognized too long for such a task; in this decoration the name of the king is still "Amenhotep Netjer Heka Waset", the name change took place in year 6 following the Gurob-Papyri).

Also in these scenes wife and daughter do not appear. If he was married to Nefertiti still at year 2 she should appear, also a still born daughter. This we know from the Sed-Festival scenes before and after Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten (for example Amenhotep III or Osorkon II) where wifes and daughters, referred to by name, occur (see for that: Jocelyn Gohary, Akhenaten`s Sed-Festival at Karnak, 1992, pp. 29 ff.).

An exact date for the scenes with Nefertiti and daughter is, as far as I know, not to establish. The decoration may well date from the time after the move to Amarna, as there is no logical or archaeological reason to assume that no further building at the Temple of the Aten at Karnak took place after the move.

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Lutz wrote:
As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.

With all respect, the archeological evidence in KV55 is such a hodgepodge that it's easy to jump to conclusions like Davis did when he found the tomb.
Besides, all the archeological evidence can prove is that at some point, people thought they were dealing with Akhenaten's body. And it wouldn't have been the first time they were wrong...

Fallacy, they prove that at a certain point in history KV 55 contained the ritual intact burial of a king. 3 names of kings appear in KV 55: Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun...

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Apart from the fact that for the presence of these fetuses in the tomb quite other approaches to interpretation than the fatherhood by Tutankhamun in Egyptology exist ... Was`nt it, as I remember, only for one of the two possible to extract aDNA material? And even here it was clearly unsafe, right?

Are you trying to say here that the fetuses may not have been Tutankhamun's? If so, the DNA clearly indicates that they are... But in any case, DNA was extracted from both fetuses and both have preserved alleles at locus D7S820, which we can compare to other mummies. ...

I "try" to say nothing, I call only in memory that there are quite different interpretations...

Hawass et al, Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family, 2010, p. 641:
Quote:
"... only partial data for both KV 62 fetuses and the KV21A and KV21B mummies. Repeated attempts to complete the profiles in the 4 latter mummies were not successful ..."

... does not really sound assured and convincing to me. Especially also in view of statements like this one for example:
Quote:
"... if a sample has been contaminated decades or centuries ago it may result in contaminant DNA that displays degradation damage patterns similar to that of true ancient DNA (short fragments and an increase in C to T or G to A base changes close to the end of the sequences) (Sampietro et al. 2006; Garcia-Garcera et al. 2011). Although strict laboratory exercises are often combined with bioinformatic analyses to respectively remove and identify DNA contamination, it would be extremely beneficial if the risk of contamination could be lowered in the first place. ...

... Below are listed five simple rules that can be implemented during an archaeological excavation to increase the potential for downstream ancient DNA analyses. ...

... I note that the five rules represent minimum requirements but there are other aspects to consider. If preparing for an excavation that is specifically aimed at recovering material for ancient DNA analyses, it would be beneficial to consult more detailed literature on this subject. ...

... The five rules

1. Minimise the time between initial exposure (discovery) and removal of the specimen from the sediment. If, for recording purposes, the specimen must remain a little while in situ, it can be covered with plastic until removed.
Reason: the DNA contamination risk increases when a specimen is exposed.

2. Handle the specimen with plastic gloves, and wear disposable sleeves and a face mask. If any tools are used to extract/remove the specimen from the sediment these should be sterilized in 10 per cent hypocholorite before use.
Reason: these procedures will minimise the risk of contamination from modern human DNA.

3. Place the specimen in a zip-lock plastic bag or other sterile container. If it is subsequently necessary to take out the sample for further examination, wear gloves, disposable sleeves and a face mask.
Reason: as above.

4. Keep the specimen cold and dry (preferably frozen) until the molecular work can be carried out at a dedicated ancient DNA facility. Never wash the specimen and/or leave it to dry in the sun.
Reason: heat and humidity will increase the rate of pure chemical DNA fragmentation (hydrolysis and oxidation) as well as microbially facilitated DNA degradation (enzymatic).

5. Minimise the time period from excavation to DNA extraction.
Reason: in general, the DNA degrades faster in a sample no longer in situ. ..."

(Morten E. Allentoft : Recovering samples for ancient DNA research - Guidelines for the field archaeologist, Centre for GeoGenetics from the Natural History Museum of the University of Copenhagen in "Antiquity".)
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3631
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
The recent DNA examinations suggest the body from KV55 is a son of Amenhotep III and the father of Tutankhamun, right? Anatomical examinations of the same body suggest this individual was aged around 18-23, which is way too young to be Akhenaten. ...

I find it again and again strange and surprising that on the one hand, the aDNA results without a doubt are accepted and the by the same team at the same time put forward age determinations are rejected...


Possibly because they never gave any evidence of their later age determination? ...

This is really a problem which will hopefully be changed with a book that, following "Amazon", will be delivered between January 27, 2016 - February 16, 2016: "Scanning the Pharaohs: CT Imaging of the New Kingdom Royal Mummies".

neseret wrote:
Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.


Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.

The archeological part ... All the other finds from KV 55, beside the bones.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
evarelap
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 98
Location: Barranquilla, Colombia

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:

Scoliosis is noted for KV 55, so what part of KV 55 says it cannot be Smenkhkare, and MUST be Akhenaten, Lutz? Please be detailed.


I don't think it has to say "not Smenkhkare".

The question is "why Smenkhkare?" Why is he a candidate for KV55?

There is no evidence Smenkhkare was a son of Amenhotep III or a brother to Akhenaten. DNDA shows KV55 mummy is a son of Amenhotep III. Is there even evidence that Smenkhkare was in his 20's to fit in with the age of the bones of the KV55 mummy?

There is also no mention of Smenkhkare in Maia's tomb. I just read Alan Zivie's book, looked at all of the plates, and there is no mention of Smenkhkare.

Is there any evidence that Smenkhkare is even an Egyptian? I remember Marc Gabolde saying Smenkhkare is the name given to the Hittite prince married an amarna queen. A theory, I know, but hardly any better than coming up with KV55 mummy is Smenkhkare because no else fits the description for the bones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thieuke
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 62

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:43 pm    Post subject: KV 55 Reply with quote

KV 55 does not have to be Smenkhkare but we do know that he cannot be the maternal and paternal grandfather of Tut's daughters. We know he is based on DNA the likeliest candidate to be Tut's father and we know the foetuses were through their maternal female line related to Thuya.

So if KV55 was Akhenaten and Anchesenamun is the known wife of Tut than who was the mother of the two foetuses and who were her parents?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3631
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:47 pm    Post subject: Re: KV 55 Reply with quote

Thieuke wrote:
... So if KV55 was Akhenaten and Anchesenamun is the known wife of Tut than who was the mother of the two foetuses and who were her parents?

How about, following a good old family tradition, a lady from Achmin? Because that Tutankhamun had no concubines nobody can really think / argue?!
_________________
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: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean, that Tut could have his own "Royal Ornment" who almost bore two children to him and anyhow was honored with a tomb in the Valley of the Kings years or maybe decades after (due to her age of death) Tut's death? No, I think that was someone with a much higher profile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Nefertiti and her daughter(s) do not appear on the reliefs from his first year(s ?) in conventional style (Karnak and Tombs on the West of the Nile). The earliest decorated scenes from the Aten-Temple in Karnak are the scenes from the Sed-Festival. This festival took place between year 2 and year 5 (the temple where it took place had to be build and decorated, 2 years are probably not recognized too long for such a task; in this decoration the name of the king is still "Amenhotep Netjer Heka Waset", the name change took place in year 6 following the Gurob-Papyri). Also in these scenes wife and daughter do not appear. If he was married to Nefertiti still at year 2 she should appear, also a still born daughter. This we know from the Sed-Festival scenes before and after Amenhotep IV / Akhenaten (for example Amenhotep III or Osorkon II) where wifes and daughters, referred to by name, occur (see for that: Jocelyn Gohary, Akhenaten`s Sed-Festival at Karnak, 1992, pp. 29 ff.). An exact date for the scenes with Nefertiti and daughter is, as far as I know, not to establish. The decoration may well date from the time after the move to Amarna, as there is no logical or archaeological reason to assume that no further building at the Temple of the Aten at Karnak took place after the move.


this just pushes akhenaten's age at death further back. it seems fairly obvious he was quite young when he came to the throne and tiye was in control. if he didn't marry until quite late, it pushes his possible age of death from 30-35, which is what most archaelogists have written. still way too old to be the kv 55 mummy.

Lutz wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
Lutz wrote:
As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.

With all respect, the archeological evidence in KV55 is such a hodgepodge that it's easy to jump to conclusions like Davis did when he found the tomb.
Besides, all the archeological evidence can prove is that at some point, people thought they were dealing with Akhenaten's body. And it wouldn't have been the first time they were wrong...

Fallacy, they prove that at a certain point in history KV 55 contained the ritual intact burial of a king. 3 names of kings appear in KV 55: Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun...

and yet the body is too young.....doesn't matter which way you try to spin it, the body is too young. the only evidence hawass gave for an older age was the spine, which was taken out of context, and put in with all the other assessed points of age does not cancel out the others. just sounds pure and simple like you have an idea in your head and instead of accepting it's wrong, you find any point you can to discredit the methods used for 100 yrs, and getting better, not worse to discredit the evidence. if you say this skeleton is akhenaten, and that ageing of mummies does not work, you MUST also say tutankhamun was in his 30's at death as well. yet you won't because you accept the same ageing techniques for his mummy.


Lutz wrote:
The five rules

1. Minimise the time between initial exposure (discovery) and removal of the specimen from the sediment. If, for recording purposes, the specimen must remain a little while in situ, it can be covered with plastic until removed.
Reason: the DNA contamination risk increases when a specimen is exposed.

2. Handle the specimen with plastic gloves, and wear disposable sleeves and a face mask. If any tools are used to extract/remove the specimen from the sediment these should be sterilized in 10 per cent hypocholorite before use.
Reason: these procedures will minimise the risk of contamination from modern human DNA.

3. Place the specimen in a zip-lock plastic bag or other sterile container. If it is subsequently necessary to take out the sample for further examination, wear gloves, disposable sleeves and a face mask.
Reason: as above.

4. Keep the specimen cold and dry (preferably frozen) until the molecular work can be carried out at a dedicated ancient DNA facility. Never wash the specimen and/or leave it to dry in the sun.
Reason: heat and humidity will increase the rate of pure chemical DNA fragmentation (hydrolysis and oxidation) as well as microbially facilitated DNA degradation (enzymatic).

5. Minimise the time period from excavation to DNA extraction.
Reason: in general, the DNA degrades faster in a sample no longer in situ. ..."


this only works if a tomb was discovered by us, and not touched since the day of burial. it is the ideal, but hardly works in the case of all these mummies. tutankhamun was handled by carter's team, therefore contaminated. same for yuya and thuya under davis. god knows how many people in ancient times handled the remains of: tiye, amenhotep III, kv 55, kv35YL and the kv 21 mummies. all of them are contaminated by DNA, ancient and modern. the results we got were the best we could get at this stage.
_________________
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: 1227
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

evarelap wrote:
Vangu Vegro wrote:
Quote:
Or am I missing something?

And if we have evidence to rule out Akhenaten (as I believe we do), what other option than Smenchkare do we have as an identification for the KV55 body?


Why Smenkhare? Where does it say that Smenkhare was a son of Amenhotep III?

Smenkhare is just a name in two rocks...


tutankhamun was a king's son. comes from one block. kv55 is tutankhamun's father. kv34yl is tutankhamun's mother. they were siblings. kv 55 is 18-23 at death, too young to be akhenaten.

so tut's father was a king, but not akhenaten. tut was too young to be amenhotep III's child. since amenhotep III and akhenaten are not known to have married their sisters, and those sisters would have been prominent, and used the title "king's sister" had they borne a son, you are left with one king.

therefore as process of elimination, tut's father is smenkhkare. if you accept (and there is no proof, only theory) the 18th dynasty was inbred, the DNA allows for the reading of tut's mother to be meritaten (known to have married smenkhkare) but i've only seen this theory held among those who insist tut must be akhenaten's descendant in some form.

also must bear in mind how smenkhkare and neferneferuaten got the throne before tut if he was akhenaten's son, considering both appear to have inherited with akhenaten's permission/association.
_________________
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: 3631
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robson wrote:
You mean, that Tut could have his own "Royal Ornment" who almost bore two children to him and anyhow was honored with a tomb in the Valley of the Kings years or maybe decades after (due to her age of death) Tut's death? No, I think that was someone with a much higher profile.

I see no good reason to assume that did not exist several concubines. At least this is common practice among his predecessors and successors. And why should be among these women not again a lady from Achmin, which brings not really new dna informations into the royal family?

All evidence suggests that Aja also originated from this family (the short form of his and his wifes name, its titles as civil servant, its building activity as king). This family had a certain influence so well even after Tutankhamen.

The romantic idea that Akhenaten with the introduction of the Aton faith (for early strong Christian-influenced archaeologists, on a desperate search for archaeological evidence for the history of their faith, ie a kind of "Proto-Christianity") also the Christian ideal of monogamous marriage introduces, originates from the 19th century and was probably shelved at least with the identification of a certain Kiya.
_________________
Ägyptologie - Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3631
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In between to return to the actual topic... A short report from "visitor no. 1" Cool in the now for the public open tomb at Saqqara (via EEF-List):
Quote:
Chris Marriott - 26.12.2016 :

"... I can report that the tomb of Maïa opened to the public today. I visited it about 12pm today and, according to the tomb's guardian, was the first visitor following the official opening!

The tomb consists of a short entrance corridor, opening into a larger rectangular room with four square columns, and an unfinished-looking false door on the end wall. I was immediately struck by the Amarna style of the artwork. In all the scenes the lady is shown wearing a long flowing dress and has a wax cone on her head.

An extremely interesting tomb and I recommend a visit to anyone in the vicinity of Saqqara."

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: 985
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

I see no good reason to assume that did not exist several concubines. At least this is common practice among his predecessors and successors. And why should be among these women not again a lady from Achmin, which brings not really new dna informations into the royal family?


Indeed, and I agree with you in this point. My issue here is that how a concubine could be honored with a burial in the Valley of the Kings, years or maybe decades after her royal benefactor death? I believe that the two ladies at KV21 (if we consider that they were both related to Tutankhamun) were much more than "concubines", enjoying a royal status themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Fallacy, they prove that at a certain point in history KV 55 contained the ritual intact burial of a king. 3 names of kings appear in KV 55: Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun...


A ritually intact reburial of a king, to be more precise. And when you're dealing with a reburial, you have to keep in mind that mistakes may be made (As we know happened to several of the royal mummies from the caches). Evidently the people reburying this king thought they were reburying Akhenaten. That doesn't mean they were right, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3631
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Quote:
Fallacy, they prove that at a certain point in history KV 55 contained the ritual intact burial of a king. 3 names of kings appear in KV 55: Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun...


A ritually intact reburial of a king, to be more precise. And when you're dealing with a reburial, you have to keep in mind that mistakes may be made (As we know happened to several of the royal mummies from the caches). Evidently the people reburying this king thought they were reburying Akhenaten. That doesn't mean they were right, though.

The reburial took place under Tutankhamen (sealings on the door). So, there were at most 12 years have passed. I do not think you have to expect a similar risk of confusion here as in the case of the cachettes. Here we find mummies of kings, reburied several times over the decades / centuries, some of them had some kind of odyssey from one hiding place to another behind. Tutankhamen knew the reburied person (s ?) in KV 55 when he was alive, no matter who it may be now.

By the way, Ankhcheperura had a Memorial Temple at Thebes (Graffito in TT 139). Every king before and after him with a temple of this kind at Thebes had also his tomb there, almost all in the Valley of the Kings... The only exception is, as far as I know, Amenemhet I. He did not finish the construction of the facilities, because he moved the capital and the royal necropolis to Itsch-taui.
_________________
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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