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 

KV 21 and mummies KV21A and B
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see the link didn't work

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/egypt.html

Hopefully this will scroll down to examining the remains of badly damaged mummies in tomb 21
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hopefully this will scroll down to examining the remains of badly damaged mummies in tomb 21. Look at this picture of where the mummies were.


Thanks. I hadn't seen pictures of the site before. I have seen fairly recent pictures of them in their present "restored" condition.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment, though. The only effect of mixing up a few pieces on the DNA data, so far as I know, would be that one or more alleles that should go with KV21A are assigned to KV21B, or vice versa. Do you think that has happened?

8 of 16 alleles are reported for KV21A, and 6 of 16 for KV21B, and they share alleles at 3 sites out of 4 possible. So 6 of 14 alleles can't be affected by piece swapping, since they occur in both mummies anyway. The distribution of the remaining 8 alleles looks reasonable to me, both between the two KV21 mummies, and by comparison with the other mummies sampled. If you see something in the DNA data that you think was caused by piece swapping please tell me.
Quote:
What chance do you think all the right pieces got in the right boxes?


Close enough to 100% so that allele distribution is not affected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment, though. The only effect of mixing up a few pieces on the DNA data, so far as I know, would be that one or more alleles that should go with KV21A are assigned to KV21B, or vice versa. Do you think that has happened?


Obviously I know nothing about science, but yes, starting with moving over the club foot on KV21A to B. I wondered if you considered all the collected data as 1 person rather than 2 what you would get. And if some of the DNA bits were mixed what bearing that would have on the kids.

I also wonder if the data reported in Secrets of the egyptian tombs badly in need of espionage and the outside link solves some of your data issues, in that they are only reporting on politically correct pairs & burying the stuff they don't what to get out except they are making assertive IDs on mummies/skeleton where they don't seem to warrant it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Obviously I know nothing about science, but yes, starting with moving over the club foot on KV21A to B.


Ha! From your comments it's obvious that you know considerably more than nothing about science. Don't try to play dumb with me...

Seriously, it's certainly possible that a few pieces have been swapped or misplaced. This might affect the list of problems (bad feet, bad back, bad breath, etc.) or more likely the CAT scans. I haven't looked at the pathology data very much, though.
Quote:
I wondered if you considered all the collected data as 1 person rather than 2 what you would get.


As far as the DNA data goes, three alleles (8,11,13) are reported at one location (D16S539) so there must be two people since each person has only two.
Quote:
if some of the DNA bits were mixed what bearing that would have on the kids.


Hard to say. It depends a lot on which bits. As things stand both KV21 mummies can be the mother of either or both fetuses. KV21A is a better fit because more alleles match, but KV21B is not excluded as a possible mother.
Quote:
I also wonder if the data reported in Secrets of the egyptian tombs badly in need of espionage and the outside link solves some of your data issues, in that they are only reporting on politically correct pairs & burying the stuff they don't what to get out except they are making assertive IDs on mummies/skeleton where they don't seem to warrant it.


I looked at the links under the "Secrets..." topic a little, and it's possible to read some data off the screen in the Discovery broadcast. Mostly this was Y chromosome (inherited from the father in males only) data rather than autosomal DNA (inherited from both parents by everyone) data. The JAMA article uses mostly autosomal data since it's using the information to construct family trees including both males and females.

While I'm sure the article and the broadcast show the researchers biases to some degree (they are human after all), I see no indication that they're slanting or suppressing data in the some kind of cover-up or conspiracy.

I don't think I've ever heard of a politically correct scientist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As far as the DNA data goes, three alleles (8,11,13) are reported at one location (D16S539) so there must be two people since each person has only two.


I know there were 2, I was just wondering exactly how close they were. Could they have a parent in common? Or with so much inbreeding could the relationship be not so close. Or is there not enough data.

I noticed in the photo neither had any hands, so that must have been the interesting discovery that brought them to go look at the tomb.

Quote:
I don't think I've ever heard of a politically correct scientist.


Is Hawise a scientist? or could non-scientists be involved on some level?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Could they have a parent in common?


Yes. The D2-17 allele in KV21B and the D18-10 allele in KV21A must come from unsampled people. One unsampled person is more likely than two, but there's not a lot of difference.
Quote:
with so much inbreeding could the relationship be not so close?


Yes. Without some samples of the source population it's difficult to tell how great the effect of inbreeding is. Judging from the range of variation seen in the 11 people sampled, as many as 50% of the alleles in the source population may be known.
Quote:
Or is there not enough data?


There is enough data to get some idea of possible relationships, not enough to see them clearly.
Quote:
Is Hawass a scientist?


Yes. He's an archaeologist. He's also head of the Antiquities Commission, which is part (sort of) of the Egyptian government. He's a scientist with a government job. He has a website, so it's possible to check on what he's actually saying, rather than what people are saying about him.
Quote:
could non-scientists be involved on some level?


Yes. Others are definitely involved. The editors and reviewers at JAMA and quite a few that prepared the Discovery broadcast, at least. I think the data, reasoning, and conclusions are mostly directly from the researchers. The others involved certainly affect how the information is presented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the "others involved" do not only have a say in the presentation of facts, but also in what "facts" are presented.
The most recent example (Zahi`s docu on Tut) shows that.
They state for example that they did get a complete set of genetic data of the larger foetus and half of Tut`s DNA shows up in it, so Tut is the father.

The JAMA paper shows that they managed to get only partial data of both foetuses and tut can be the father.

Or Marfan`s: In the show they say that due to an oversized hand the bigger foetus has Marfan`s. The paper states that no symptoms of Marfan`s have been found in any of the mummies ( besides if it had really Marfan`s shouldn`t all the limbs be longer than normal, not only the hand?).

Feminine hips: In the docu it is said that KV55`s reconstructed pelvis is wider than normal for a man, the paper states it shows no unusual traits.

That`s just what I remember right now, there were certainly more "adjusted" facts in the show.

I wonder why they do so, does it make a show more spectacular?

And as to the researchers who are turned into actors: don`t they bother to twist and turn the facts they themselves have worked hard to find, and sometimes even to lie?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Granite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Posts: 156
Location: C'ordoba, Spain

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, indeed. Some reputations are going to come out of this more than a little tarnished.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Diorite
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Land of Make-Believe

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
I think the "others involved" do not only have a say in the presentation of facts, but also in what "facts" are presented.
The most recent example (Zahi`s docu on Tut) shows that.
They state for example that they did get a complete set of genetic data of the larger foetus and half of Tut`s DNA shows up in it, so Tut is the father.

The JAMA paper shows that they managed to get only partial data of both foetuses and tut can be the father.

Or Marfan`s: In the show they say that due to an oversized hand the bigger foetus has Marfan`s. The paper states that no symptoms of Marfan`s have been found in any of the mummies ( besides if it had really Marfan`s shouldn`t all the limbs be longer than normal, not only the hand?).

Feminine hips: In the docu it is said that KV55`s reconstructed pelvis is wider than normal for a man, the paper states it shows no unusual traits.

That`s just what I remember right now, there were certainly more "adjusted" facts in the show.



I think those statements were ones made at the time and the editor of the show did not bother to edit for what the ultimate results were. If you read the JAMA paper and watch the show, the people come out looking bad. Those who just watch the program will come away with mistaken notions.

I was truly appalled by the comparison of the statuary and the skeleton. They've been telling us for years that it was not intended to be realistic. And the wide pelvis discussion, how could they tell when they were looking at disarticulated pieces?

One thing I did catch rewatching it yesterday after all of the discussion was that they said that the eight alleles they looked at were the 8 that they could read. Perhaps those were the only alleles that they got fairly consistent returns from.

Diorite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sobek
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Posts: 113
Location: Maine, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Sothis. I stand corrected.

I only saw the first two hours of the Discovery show, and I wasn't paying close attention after the KV55 mummy part. I was thinking about why so little mention was made of Smenkhkare instead.

I like your explanation, Diorite. It seems to account for at least some of the differences between the JAMA article and the Discovery broadcast.

16 alleles at 8 positions are identified in the microsatellite marker table from the JAMA article. Copies of this table are posted earlier in this topic. Thanks to freeTinker, a complete (or nearly so) copy of the article are on the first two pages of the "Tutankamen's Family" topic. In addition, Kate Phizackerley has written an article exploring some of the implications of the DNA data in more depth than the JAMA article. There is a link to Kate's article near the beginning of the "Foos for Thought" topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Granite wrote:
Yes, indeed. Some reputations are going to come out of this more than a little tarnished.


Unfortunately Hawass doesn`t seem to care if his reputaion gets tarnished.
Why should he?
His job is safer than ever since his appointment as Vice Culture Minister, and he seems to stand above all criticism.

As for the others, they have to play his game or they probably get fired.

One scientist once belonging to Hawass`s team quit after the publication of the 2005 scan on the grounds that this had nothing to do with science anymore. Unfortunately I cannot recall the name of this straight scientist.
What would he say now after the dna testing as the gap between scientific research and Hawass`s thirst for publicity has become even bigger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arthur
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:00 pm    Post subject: KV 21 and mummies KV21A and B Reply with quote

From my limited understanding, the JAMA paper suggests that the skeleton in KV 55 is a son of A3 and Tiy, and also the father of Tutankhamun: the identication of the KV 55 remains as being those of Akhanaten rests on archaelogical and inscription evidence.

Joyce Filer's examination of the KV 55 skeleton seems to indicate that it belongs to a man in his very early twenties, not much older than Tutankhamun. I think attempts to attribute an older age to this skeleton should be regarded with the 'Spitalfields Caveat' in mind. Given tha Filer's age estimantion rested mostly on maxilio-facial and cranial epiphyseal indicators, I think hers is the more reliable. So, given that Akhenaten must have been at least in his late thirties when he died, whose is the skeleton in KV 55? Who might be the likely/possible contenders? What would be the repurcussions of any putative identification upon the rest of the family tree?

As regards the JAMA findings, and the inferences drawn therefrom, I can only agree with the questions and objections raised here and elsewhere. Although I have not been involved in genetic research since the mid-sevenites, and then only for procaryote organisms, some of the inferences of the JAMA paper contradict the supossed findings. Given the somewhat 'fortuitous' selection of mummies examined and the lack of a control group, I wonder whether even the basic criteria for objective research has been met?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could you please tell more specifically which pointsof the JAMA paper contradict the findings?
Some concerns have already been discussed (only 8 readable markers etc.),
but maybe there is more.

I also wondered that if Tut`s samples were so much contaminated by resin that they had to be chemically purified prior to analyzing (and so the foetuses samples), wouldn`t this process have been potentially harmful to the DNA?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arthur
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:57 pm    Post subject: Cause of death of KV35YL? Reply with quote

according to a recent CT scan, it has been suggested that the skull injuries were incurred by the mummy before the embalming process; the evidence for this assertion being that very little mummified tissue being left within the wound, as would be expected if it had been inglicted by tomb robbers.

I wonder if anyone knows whether there is any more detail available about the exact nature of these skull injuries? How might they have been incurred / inflicted? Are there any indications as to whether the injuries might be accidental or deliberate?

In addition, I wonder if the CT scan revealed whether there was any evidence of healing of the wound, perhaps suggesting whether death might have followed very soon after the injury, or that the lady might have survived for sometime afterwards?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too would like to see more conclusive evidence or at least indications that the trauma to the face was inflicted before death. I find it hard to imagine an accident or an assualt which would hit only this specific area and with such high impact,too. A murderer would rather hit the skull itself to kill someone, wouldn`t he?

One interesting fact is not mentioned in this latest report on KV35YL.

There is a show on Nefertiti in which Joanne Fletcher tries to find out if the YL could be Nefertiti. In this show they found another injury to the left flank of the YL, quite a long gash which looks like a stab wound.
They tried to find out if both the injuries to the face and the wound to her side were inflicted before or after death by inflicting the same injuries to the carcasses of two huge pigs, one of it fresh and the other dried out to imitate mummification.
The conclusions are that the injury to the face could have been sustained at the time of death or after death and even after mummification as no difference was seen in the two carcasses.
The stab wounds they inflicted to the flank of the dried pig were virtually invisible in contrast to the wound inflicted to the fresh pig,so they conclude that this injury was sustained before death as it is clearly visible in her mummy and that it was probably fatal.

I don`t know how conclusive this experiment with pigs is but I could imagine an injury to the left flank being the result of an assault in which the potential murderer tried to stab the heart but slightly missed it because of struggle. Could she then have fallen on her face and crushed it so badly?

I know I`m in the realm of speculation but I find it intriguing that this other injury is not mentioned by Hawass et al.`s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
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