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 

re-search for Hatshepsut`s mummy

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:38 pm    Post subject: re-search for Hatshepsut`s mummy Reply with quote

One of the articles in the latest KMT-issue deals with the re-search for Hatshepsut`s mummy.
As my issue will take some time to arrive, has anyone already got this issue?
What prompted a renewed search for her mummy and what are the proposals as to which mummy could be hers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: re-search for Hatshepsut`s mummy Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
One of the articles in the latest KMT-issue deals with the re-search for Hatshepsut`s mummy.
As my issue will take some time to arrive, has anyone already got this issue?
What prompted a renewed search for her mummy and what are the proposals as to which mummy could be hers?


Unfortunately mine hasn't arrived yet, either. I have a friend who's already received her copy and she was telling me about this article a couple of days ago.

Let's face it, the evidence as presented so far that the mummy in question is Hatshepsut, is not exactly concrete. As I understand it, that's how the author of the article feels, and so he's weighing in on the issue.

For example, is that broken tooth adequate evidence that the mummy is Hatshepsut's? Numerous people have already cautioned that it isn't. Moreover, as my friend explained to me, the inscribed box in which the tooth and other mummification residues were found, might be inscribed for Hatshepsut, but what exactly does that mean? Given the hasty reburials in DB320 in Dynasty 21, might the box actually contain residues and remains from another person? Or several other people?

That's the gist of the article, as I understand it. My friend really enjoyed it and found it compelling. A sort of cautionary tale: don't rush to judgement. Hawass always had the tendency to rush to judgement, especially where TV appearances were concerned, and I'm sure you recall the flashy special that was aired about Hatshepsut. Evidently the author of the article feels the SCA got it backward: the mummy identified as Hatshepsut is really the wet-nurse and the wet-nurse's mummy is really Hatshepsut.

I wish my copy of the magazine would arrive already. Mad
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huh! I got mine a week or so ago.

One of the issues raised was (very briefly) okay, we have a tooth fragment that appears to fit in the mummy, and the tooth fragment was found in a box labeled with Hatshepsut's name. Interesting evidence to be sure, but still circumstantial. (Circumstantial evidence is not bad in and of itself, but it's necessarily incomplete...) One possible scenario raised is that the body and the tooth do go together, but neither one is Hatshepsut herself, but rather her nurse. Another objection raised is that the tooth has only been examined remotely, with a visual judgment as to its shape and possible fit into the mummy's jaw. Neither of these prove that the identification of Hatshepsut is wrong, but they are plausible alternate explanations/observations that should be addressed before we can be too comfortable with the conclusion already reached.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
Huh! I got mine a week or so ago.

One of the issues raised was (very briefly) okay, we have a tooth fragment that appears to fit in the mummy, and the tooth fragment was found in a box labeled with Hatshepsut's name. Interesting evidence to be sure, but still circumstantial. (Circumstantial evidence is not bad in and of itself, but it's necessarily incomplete...) One possible scenario raised is that the body and the tooth do go together, but neither one is Hatshepsut herself, but rather her nurse. Another objection raised is that the tooth has only been examined remotely, with a visual judgment as to its shape and possible fit into the mummy's jaw. Neither of these prove that the identification of Hatshepsut is wrong, but they are plausible alternate explanations/observations that should be addressed before we can be too comfortable with the conclusion already reached.


I'm still waiting on my issue to arrive, dammit.

Can I borrow yours? Laughing
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't recall seeing a photo of sitre in, just the mummy they claimed was hatshepsut. if they test the preceeding pharaohs of amnehotep III against him, and construct the line, then they can say for certain if either mummy is hatshepsut. but if she is related to thutmose II, and you havn't done the tests to prove he is thutmose II lol all it proves is those 2 mummies are related!
_________________
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 Mar 13, 2012 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
i don't recall seeing a photo of sitre in, just the mummy they claimed was hatshepsut. if they test the preceeding pharaohs of amnehotep III against him, and construct the line, then they can say for certain if either mummy is hatshepsut. but if she is related to thutmose II, and you havn't done the tests to prove he is thutmose II lol all it proves is those 2 mummies are related!


Great idea, but unfortunately probably wishful thinking. It looks like they have already moved swiftly on to the 19th dynasty mummies pretending that further research into the members of Tut`s family could raise controversial issues as to their origins (or are difficulties to get clear results the real reason behind it? What about the origins of the Ramesside family?)
Now the Ramessides seem to make better stuff for another flashy show what with all those promised tales of conspiracy and murder..... (see Lutz`s entry with Pusch`s latest statement in the genetics thread).

But back to Hatshepsut, I already thought that it might be more of a re-assessment of the available "evidence" than some new issue. Still this is a very good thing to do.
The other hot candidate seems to be the wetnurse Sitre-In.
I just remembered something rather funny which I read in a recent book I think by Charlotte Booth on curses in AE.
She told how Hawass initially thought the nurse`s mummy to be Hatshepsut and told the media how royal and regal her expression was. Later when the spotlight had switched to the other "fat" mummy he thought this one to look very royal and the other one rather ordinary.
That`s what I call scientific evaluation of hard evidence! Very Happy

BTW the other mummy supposed to be the nurse featured in the special show on Hatshepsut on Discovery channel which for some obscure reason I haven`t banished from my planner yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i wouldn't be surprised if sitre in was related to hatshepsut. the lady rai was ahmose nefertari's wet nurse, and it is thought rai may have been part of the family. makes me wonder about tut's wet nurse maia. was her mummy found? and nefertiti's wet nurse tey. i wouldn't be surprised if she was related to the akhmim family of yuya and thuya and ay not.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


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

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking back at the original KMT article from Fall 2007 by Zahi Hawass, they CT scanned the mummies of the four unidentified women including the two mummies from KV 60 as well as those of Thutmose II, III and the mummy thought to have been Thutmose I, taking measurements of the facial bones. As expected Thutmose II & III were a very close match. "Strikingly similar" in Hawass' words. The mummy formerly known as Thutmose I was quite different from the other two men. Of the women KV 60 A--the one later identified as Hatshepsut--came the closest to the male mummies. She shared some features with the two Thutmoses and others with the now anonymous male once thought to be her father.

Apparently KV60 B the mummy currently identified as Sitre-Inet (the nurse) was not as close a match for the male mummies sampled. What's sort of interesting though as one of the control mummies for the JAMA study, she had kyphoscoliosis as did Thutmose II and the mummy formerly known as Thutmose I as well as several of Thutmose II's descendants. KV60A had no genetic defects although she made up for it by suffering from a combination of diabetes, cancer and really bad teeth later in life.

It would be sort of ironic if the mummy now known as Sitre Inet turned out to be Hatshepsut because Hawass was originally quite confident that KV-60 B was Hatshepsut--purely, it seemed, on the grounds that the mummy who looked like she had been more attractive in life should be the great queen renowned for her beauty. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Styler78
Priest
Priest


Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 974
Location: Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re-examination is essential with the Hatshepsut mummy. It is the same with others too. I am sceptical over the label of "Hatshepsut"and would one day like all issues to be addressed.

We do not have enough information to give the Sit-Re In link (to Hatshepsut), but she would have been known to Hatshepsut, through links to the royal court- but not necessarily through family links.

We would need evidence for this, but Sit- Re In didnt leave behind much for us to look at.

We have her coffin, one tutor statue, single ostraca (linked directly to the statue) and that's it off the top of my head. Her (possible) KV60 tomb has not given up much in the way of finds.

Wink
_________________
Beloved of Hathor, Chief of Thebes, Not the Messiah just a Very Naughty Boy!

http://styler78hatshepsutproject.blogspot.com/

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naunacht
Priest
Priest


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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would be very helpful if all of the DNA testing and other scientific work done on the royal mummies was finally compiled and released in a serious, comprehensive, scientific study.

At the moment everyone who looks at this is speculating based on partial information. This leads to wild theories and conspiracy theories--my favorite--the Egyptian government shut down the study because DNA tests proved that the royal family was really of European origins, Scottish, if I remember to be exact.

I guess part of the problem was that this was one of Zahi Hawass' pet projects and that his successors may not feel the same sense of purpose--or have the same means to continue with the project. This is sad because these studies, while they've produced some controversial findings: i.e. KV55=Akhenaton and to a lesser extent KV60A=Hatshepsut, have produced a great deal of important information about the lives and deaths of these great men and women that can only fuel our understanding of the history of the period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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