Skip to comments.DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten [Smenkhare]
Posted on 03/02/2010 7:00:36 PM PST by SunkenCiv
If we identify the KV55 mummy as Smenkhare and assume that Akhenaten remains missing, we can add Akhenaten and Nefertiti into the family tree, while retaining KV55 (Smenkhare) as the father of Tutankhamun as shown by the Hawass team. It's tempting to consider that KV21B and the Younger Lady are also daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. While not essential for my revised theory, this would neatly fit historical facts. In considering whether the DNA data would fit the revised family tree, it seems appropriate to consider that KV21B and the Younger Lady may also have been daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti as this represents the tightest constraint. That is, if the DNA data fits an assumption that these two queens/princesses were also daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti then if they aren't daughters the theory wouldn't be invalidated.
(Excerpt) Read more at kv64.info ...
Who Was Who Among The Royal MummiesSeti II is an interesting case, because he should belong to the Nineteenth Dynasty line, being the grandson of Ramesses II and son of Merenptah. Elliot Smith in his catalogue of the royal mummies had already noted in 1912 that Seti II does not at all resemble the orthognathous heavyjawed pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty, but bears a striking resemblance to the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Smith's observations, which were not made with the aid of x-rays and computer analysis of craniofacial variation, nonetheless were those of a person with considerable experience in examining human remains. Subjected to Jim's more sophisticated approach using cephalometric x-ray tracings and cluster analysis, this mummy was found to be most similar in craniofacial morphology to the mummies of Thutmose II and III. In other words, Seti II was not Seti II. The confusion between Seti II and Thutmose II may have been occasioned by the similarity of their prenomens when written in the hieratic script.
by Edward F. Wente
Since the identification of Thutmose I was already seriously in doubt, there would be room to insert the Seti II mummy into the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This possibility sent me to reevaluate the dockets supposedly identifying the mummy of Thutmose II. On the mummy the orthography of the king's name was not without ambiguity, while on the coffin the scribe had originally written the prenomen of Thutmose I and then altered it to Thutmose II's. Since the mummy identified as Thutmose II was older at death than the Seti II one, and from historical considerations we believe that Thutmose I died at an older age than Thutmose II, the end result of this part of our inquiry was to suggest that the Thutmose II mummy really belonged to Thutmose I and the Seti II mummy to Thutmose II, while Thutmose III has possibly been correctly identified. I say "possibly" because the shroud of Thutmose III, which has been used to identify the mummy, was discovered not wrapped around the body but simply folded on top of the mummy, which itself bore no clear identification...
The craniofacial morphology of the mummy labeled Amenhotep III also made it difficult to place in the position he should occupy as son of Thutmose IV. Of the mummies in the collection only the one supposed to be Amenhotep II is a suitable candidate to have been the father of the Amenhotep III mummy. Over the years Jim became increasingly intrigued by the Amenhotep III mummy, because it is one of the most severely battered of the royal mummies, having suffered postmortem injuries of a very violent nature, more than what tomb-robbers generally inflicted upon the mummies in search of precious items. Since the publication of the x-ray atlas further study of this mummy has been undertaken by Jim and Dr. Fawzia Hussein, Director of the Anthropological Laboratory of the National Research Center, Cairo; and it has been ascertained that the skull is two standard deviations too large for his body, and its craniofacial characteristics are consonant with sculptured portraits of Akhenaten... What may be said on the basis of the biologic evidence of craniofacial variation is that the mummy labeled as Amenhotep III by the restorers was not a likely father, or even grandfather, of Tutankhamun... [W]e suggest that Thutmose IV was the paternal grandfather of Tutankhamun, a conclusion consonant with a literal reading of the text on the Oriental Institute astronomical instrument, and that Amenhotep III was his maternal grandfather. In other words, Tutankhamun was the offspring of a marriage between a son of Thutmose IV and a daughter of Amenhotep III.
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
Must be someone elses mummy.
Cool. I dig Egypt, not literally but..
If true this could be the Mummy we have all been looking for.. or not. 8-]
"Are you my mummy?"
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.I inhale the sweet breath that comes from your mouthI'm looking for another file, regarding the "dueling Nefertitis" probably familiar to most due to that travesty of a show on Discovery Channel a few years back.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
King Tut’s Father ID’d in Stone Inscription
Discovery News | Wednesday, December 17, 2008 | Rossella Lorenzi
Posted on 12/21/2008 1:39:52 PM PST by SunkenCiv
if they’d all had Obamacare, they might still be alive
where’s the birth certificate? (snicker)
But, if not not, then maybe so; but, then again, maybe not, after all.
If they really want to dissect these family trees, they should first consult a mink breeder, though even that isn't entirely foolproof, as there are breedings that even they draw the line at.
They'd have to be,, in order to pay for it.
I LoVE when Dr. Hawass goes on a rant against the UFO “Believers” who insist the Great Pyramid was built by Space Aliens!
Don’t you be diss’n Minister Farroutkhan!
Do we need an Ebonics Interpreter?
Call in the dogs and pee on the fire, the hunt’s over.
Last weekend on the History channel, Hawass’ team in a new DNA lab identified a mummy as Ankhennaten.
kv55 had nothin` in common with Tutenkamen.
You mean they worked a little History in between loggers and gangbangers?
Velikovsky was right!
Isn’t it a shame what they have done to the History Channel.
So much of their programming nowadays has little or nothing to do with history.
I can deal with the ice road guys and loggers and gangbangers. At least, some of them are actual documentaries—but the Nostradamus stuff gets old.
Damned right! :’)
:’) That’s the kind of humor that’s second natron to me now.
That’s true — I know because my dog told me. I had to have it translated, he only speaks Swedish.
Your Swedish Speaking dog and Dr Hawass will have to debate the issue, With an Interpreter, Of Course! :-)
The Hawaas scientific paper was published in the Journal of American Medicine in 2010. Hawass says it is probably Ankhnaten and builds a genetic family tree.
The fellow who wrote the article disputing Hawass’ conclusions is very refreshing in his candor. “I could be wrong...On advantage of being an amateur with no reputation or credentials is that a bit of embarassment will not harm me.”
I think it would be hilarious if some no name amateur showed Hawass up. Hawass does get tiresome.
I’m going to see if I can borrow that issue of JAMA, although I’m not entirely sure that it hasn’t gone entirely electronic. But yeah, given the age of the KV55 dead guy at time of death, there’s no way in hell it could be Akhenaten. The profile shots Hawass uses to try to show affinity (that kinda pinheaded conehead skull of Tut, alongside the KV55 skull) reminds me of the n-rays fiasco. Hawass’ latest thing is to “identify” pharaohs’ mummies. The sad fact is, most of the pharaohs (not merely those of the New Kingdom) don’t have extant mummies, the tombs were robbed in ancient times and the remains burned (if they were dry enough) or unwrapped or cut apart to get at the precious objects in the wrappings, and the remains decayed to dust or disarticulated parts. KV55 was discovered undisturbed, one of just a few (three from the 18th Dynasty; and even Tut’s was entered by ancient robbers, just wasn’t plundered), and it was a ramshackle collection of borrowed burial items.
Y’know, being in one of those “heads I win tails you lose” situations feels kinda good. Update:
“In one tantalizing discovery, the testing established that another unidentified mummy was Akhenaten’s sister, that he fathered Tutankhamun with her and that she appears to have died from violence with blows to her face and head.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.