Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

King Tutankhamen - One Mystery Solved


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 19 December 2008 - 11:45 PM

Considered something of a mystery amongst Egyptologists, whether Akhenaten or Smenkhkare (or possibly someone else) was the father of Tutankhamen, the answer appears to have been found.

Quote

"The block shows the young Tutankhamun and his wife, Ankhesenamun, seated together. The text identifies Tutankhamun as the 'king's son of his body, Tutankhaten,' and his wife as the 'king's daughter of his body, Ankhesenaten,'" Hawass said.


King Tut's Father ID'd in Stone Inscription

cormac


The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#2    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,739 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 20 December 2008 - 06:20 AM

All Royalty indulged in Sort of inner family marriages!!!! sheesh--------sounds incestuous!!

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#3    Enigmatic Annasawzi

Enigmatic Annasawzi

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, why would you want to know

  • Frank Herbert, who, oh him the guy who tried showing our sameness through fiction, he's dead, does it matter?

Posted 20 December 2008 - 10:09 PM

Yea, I know they must of been a real hooot to be around, just like those silly people down south, with their plantations.....I got nothing beyond that.


EA

"There are times when the end justifies the means. But when you build an argument based on a whole series of such times, you may find that you've constructed an entire philosophy of evil."
―Luke Skywalke

#4    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 20 December 2008 - 11:16 PM

The Spartan on Dec 20 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

All Royalty indulged in Sort of inner family marriages!!!! sheesh--------sounds incestuous!!


This was a way for the upper echelons of Ancient Egyptian society to keep royal/noble priveleges and powers within the hands of a select few. Particularly as their king was considered a god incarnate. Many other royal lines did much the same for the same or similar reasons, both then and in more recent times.

cormac


The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#5    Mr. Mummy's Merry Maiden!

Mr. Mummy's Merry Maiden!

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined:14 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • - Indeed, I am alive today; tomorrow is in god's hands -

Posted 20 December 2008 - 11:40 PM

Personally, I don't think the "discovery" is that conclusive; Tutankhamun could still be the son of Akhenaten or Amenhotep III.


#6    Orcseeker

Orcseeker

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,803 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 22 December 2008 - 01:19 PM

Akhenaten is the father of Tutankhamen. Tutankhamen used to be known as Tutankhaten as his father, Akhenaten worshipped the sun god Aten and therefore had this at the end of his sons name. However Tutankhaten then changed his name because he did not simply worship that sun god and therefore his name is as we see it today.


#7    legionromanes

legionromanes

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:06 PM

Orcseeker on Dec 22 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

Akhenaten is the father of Tutankhamen. Tutankhamen used to be known as Tutankhaten as his father, Akhenaten worshipped the sun god Aten and therefore had this at the end of his sons name. However Tutankhaten then changed his name because he did not simply worship that sun god and therefore his name is as we see it today.

thats not neccesarily true as lines of kings often took the name of their predecessor even though they weren't related
but as it turns out you did get it right because of the information contained in the OP
perhaps you should have read the OP before posting
thumbsup.gif


#8    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,000 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:07 AM

Personally I've always believed Tut's father was Akhenaten, and it would seem to be the consensus among Egyptologists. But as Merry Maiden pointed out, this find is not necessarily conclusive. Methinks Hawass was grandstanding for the cameras a bit again. There are other inscriptions that mention Tutankhamun as "king's son, of his body" (the Soleb lion, for instance), and no one doubts that Ankhesenamun was the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, but that still does not establish the patrilineal origin for the boy-king.

Merry Maiden reminded us of Amunhotep III as the possible father, and plenty of scholars believe that. I personally do not, but it's there. Fact is, nowhere is there an inscription or a context specifically tying Tutankhamun to Akhenaten. His original name, Tutankhaten, does not really establish anything. There were a lot of people in the court during the reign of Akhenaten who had the god's name Aten in their names, and after the fall of the Amarna Period, they changed their names--often replacing "Aten" with "Amun."

The possibility of Amunhotep III partially depends on whether there was a long co-regency between him and his son Akhenaten. This is an issue that's still hotly debated today. I tend to lean in favor of a lengthy co-regency, but many people do not. Even though I don't believe Amunhotep III was Tut's father, a long co-regency suggests he was still at least virile enough to produce more children. We should all be so fortunate in our elder years. grin2.gif

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#9    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:26 AM

kmt_sesh on Dec 22 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

Personally I've always believed Tut's father was Akhenaten, and it would seem to be the consensus among Egyptologists. But as Merry Maiden pointed out, this find is not necessarily conclusive. Methinks Hawass was grandstanding for the cameras a bit again. There are other inscriptions that mention Tutankhamun as "king's son, of his body" (the Soleb lion, for instance), and no one doubts that Ankhesenamun was the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, but that still does not establish the patrilineal origin for the boy-king.

Merry Maiden reminded us of Amunhotep III as the possible father, and plenty of scholars believe that. I personally do not, but it's there. Fact is, nowhere is there an inscription or a context specifically tying Tutankhamun to Akhenaten. His original name, Tutankhaten, does not really establish anything. There were a lot of people in the court during the reign of Akhenaten who had the god's name Aten in their names, and after the fall of the Amarna Period, they changed their names--often replacing "Aten" with "Amun."

The possibility of Amunhotep III partially depends on whether there was a long co-regency between him and his son Akhenaten. This is an issue that's still hotly debated today. I tend to lean in favor of a lengthy co-regency, but many people do not. Even though I don't believe Amunhotep III was Tut's father, a long co-regency suggests he was still at least virile enough to produce more children. We should all be so fortunate in our elder years. grin2.gif



Hello kmt_sesh,

Two questions come to mind. One, do we know, with any certainty, from archaeologists/egyptologists when Amenhotep III was alive in relation to when Tutankhaten/Tutankhamen was born. If there is no overlap then that would pretty much rule him out as the father, would it not?

The other question is, are there any writings declaring one person the "kings son, of his body" when in fact that person was not a biological son? Did kings from different biological lines who continued a particular name do this?

cormac


The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#10    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,000 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:25 AM

cormac mac airt on Dec 22 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

Hello kmt_sesh,

Two questions come to mind. One, do we know, with any certainty, from archaeologists/egyptologists when Amenhotep III was alive in relation to when Tutankhaten/Tutankhamen was born. If there is no overlap then that would pretty much rule him out as the father, would it not?

The other question is, are there any writings declaring one person the "kings son, of his body" when in fact that person was not a biological son? Did kings from different biological lines who continued a particular name do this?

cormac


In answer to your first question, and using Dodson's chronology, Amunhotep III died around 1348 BCE; Tutankhaten (Tutankhamun) was born around 1343 BCE. We all know these dates are not precise, so it's possible that there was some overlap. Plenty of historians do in fact argue that Amunhotep III was the father, but by far most believe it was Akhenaten. A smaller percentage argue that the father was Smenkhare. Akhenaten seems the likeliest to me, too. I believe that if Amunhotep III was actually still alive when Tut was born, he was too old and infirm to have sired him. The mummy identified as Amunhotep III reveals an elderly man (for the time) who was in ill health and quite obese; however, I must be honest and note that many people believe this mummy does not really belong to Amunhotep III, but the majority do accept the identity.

As for the second question, the title "king's son" alone does not guarantee that the individual was the biological son of a king. It was sometimes bestowed upon a particularly loyal and effective official as an honorific. But when the term "of his body" is included, it does indeed refer to an individual who was born of a king. The question is, in Tut's case, who exactly was the king? As far as I know, there is no known inscription that specifically mentions Akhenaten as the father of Tut.

That may have been deliberate, however. Even on the Restoration Stela, in which Tut was praised for restoring the old religion and traditions (and which Horemheb later usurped for his own glorification), there is no mention of Akhenaten specifically. The stela does say, "He is the effective King who did what was good for his father and all the gods," but here "father" means the god Amun, not Akhenaten; rather, the gloomy recounting of how far Egypt had fallen before restoration is a direct inference to the problems caused by Akhenaten. Anyway, it's more than likely that agents sent out by Tut's regents (men like Ay and Horemheb) deliberately defaced and destroyed any direct reference they could find that tied Tut to Akhenaten as father and son.

Besides, my spirit guides have whispered to my that Akhenaten was Tut's father, so I'm in the know. Also, the ghosts of Atlantis who founded the Egyptian civilization come to me in the night and tell me all the secrets of ancient Egypt, so I know everything and cannot be questioned.

Hmmm, pardon the brain-fart. I think I've been spending too much time at UM. rofl.gif

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#11    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:47 AM

Thanks kmt_sesh,

Looks like the OP is quite likely to be the closest to "conclusive" as we may ever have.

Quote

Besides, my spirit guides have whispered to my that Akhenaten was Tut's father, so I'm in the know. Also, the ghosts of Atlantis who founded the Egyptian civilization come to me in the night and tell me all the secrets of ancient Egypt, so I know everything and cannot be questioned.


To this I can only say my spirit guides, (Kor, Koloth and Kang) all great warriors of the Klinzhai, are glad to know their enemies from Niburu exist. Today is a good day to die! As to the secrets of ancient Egypt, the Goa'uld won't like anyone telling those.  w00t.gif

cormac


The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#12    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,000 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:43 AM

cormac mac airt on Dec 22 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

Thanks kmt_sesh,

Looks like the OP is quite likely to be the closest to "conclusive" as we may ever have.


At this point, yes. But there remains so much for us out there to find, so who knows what might surface next? Many Egyptologists claim that we have found maybe about 40% of what's out there, so one can only imagine the evidence that remains for us, hidden out there in the sands. Or in Zahi's office closet, whichever the case may be.

Quote

To this I can only say my spirit guides, (Kor, Koloth and Kang) all great warriors of the Klinzhai, are glad to know their enemies from Niburu exist. Today is a good day to die! As to the secrets of ancient Egypt, the Goa'uld won't like anyone telling those.  w00t.gif

cormac


LOL I'm thinking, Kor, Koloth, and Kang? Sounds like Klingons. You have some pretty damn tough spirit guides. But you needn't worry about the Goa'uld. As of The Continuum and the death of Ba'al, I believe they've all been wiped out. We can dig up all the secrets we want now!

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#13    blueblood

blueblood

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 December 2013 - 03:27 PM

I did some reading, could not get to the heart of the matter.
Why was the DNA testing inconclusive to proof Akhenaton was King Tut's father?
There was something about King Tut's sacrophagus showing breasts as if intended for a woman,
who died later. So it was given to King Tut.
I'm not much into Egyptian things, lately reading Diop about Egypts as a Black civilization.
He is fulminating against scientist who claim Egyptians were whites, in the Blumenbach manner that is.


#14    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 06 December 2013 - 03:45 PM

View Postblueblood, on 06 December 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

I did some reading, could not get to the heart of the matter.
Why was the DNA testing inconclusive to proof Akhenaton was King Tut's father?
There was something about King Tut's sacrophagus showing breasts as if intended for a woman,
who died later. So it was given to King Tut.
I'm not much into Egyptian things, lately reading Diop about Egypts as a Black civilization.
He is fulminating against scientist who claim Egyptians were whites, in the Blumenbach manner that is.

What is inconclusive is that KV55 is Akhenaten as opposed to Smenkhkare. The body itself, whomever it is, is the father of Tutankhamun.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#15    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 8,847 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 06 December 2013 - 03:47 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 19 December 2008 - 11:45 PM, said:

Considered something of a mystery amongst Egyptologists, whether Akhenaten or Smenkhkare (or possibly someone else) was the father of Tutankhamen, the answer appears to have been found.

QUOTE
"The block shows the young Tutankhamun and his wife, Ankhesenamun, seated together. The text identifies Tutankhamun as the 'king's son of his body, Tutankhaten,' and his wife as the 'king's daughter of his body, Ankhesenaten,'" Hawass said.


King Tut's Father ID'd in Stone Inscription

cormac


Link is broken : most other referrals points to the some "page not found" on discovery but excerpt still available on FreeRepublic : link

and :
  • Egyptology News link
~

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer

~





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users