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.


- - - - -

Nefertiti was King King Tutís mom?

marc gabolde nefertiti king tut akhenaten tutankhamun

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,322 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:01 AM

I agree with cormac. It's too bad this discussion has already grown quiet and I regret not having had the time to weigh in until tonight, but Marc Gabolde's conclusions are a bit of a stretch, to say the least. As cormac noted, nothing certain is known of Nefertiti's parentage, so suddenly placing her as a first cousin of Akhenaten seems decidedly odd to me. In the first place there is not much evidence for how cousins came into play in the royal families at any point in dynastic history, aside possibly from some muddled periods when there was royal infighting such as at the end of Dynasty 19 and in the late Third Intermediate Period (and I'm only speculating on this much because I can't recall accounts of first cousins off the top of my head, even at these times).

As Aidan Dodson states in his book on royal families, nowhere is Nefertiti described as a King's Daughter or a King's Sister so there is simply nothing to argue she was of any kind of royal birth (2004: 146). The connection with Ay that cormac mentioned is itself far from certain, although plausible. Ay bore the title of God's Father which can be taken to mean several things. The "god" in this case would ordinarily refer to a king or queen, so there's the suggestion that it's a reference to Nefertiti and hence he was her father (ibid 147). It has to be stressed, however, that this is only theoretical and no evidence exists to support it directly.

In any case, if true, this alone would rule out Nefertiti as Tut's mother. There's also the fact that of the children produced by Akhenaten and Nefertiti (six daughters, all well attested), Tut is nowhere referred to as one of their children.

The genetics are quite clear that Tut's parents were a full brother and sister. The two mummies are not identified by name and no extant evidence helps us to identify them with certainty, but the mummy of Tut's father is referred to as KV55 and the mother as KV35YL. The JAMA report published subsequent to the genetic analyses (2007-2009) boldly identifies KV55 as Akhenaten, but one can sense at play here the overbearing hand of Zahi Hawass. The news article in the OP makes mention of this controversy, and in point of fact quite a lot of people came out to speak against it and in a follow-up National Geographic article Hawass softened his stance on the issue and admitted the Akhenaten identification was just what he personally believes.

The KV55 mummy is in fact that of a man too young at death to have been Akhenaten. Akhenaten reigned for seventeen years and would've died somewhere in his mid-thirties. KV55 is the mummy of a man who most likely died in his early twenties. A more realistic theoretical identification for him is the ephemeral and short-reigned king named Smenkhkare. Who exactly this king was is not well understood, although he may have been a son of Akhenaten's or, more likely, a brother. The identification for Tut's mother, KV35YL, is even more problematic, although it's plausible to see her as one of the numerous daughters of Amunhotep III and Tiye. Here again the full brother-sister marriage for Tut's parents comes into play.

The mummy known as KV35EL is most likely Tiye and is the body of an elderly woman. I cannot see her as Nefertiti.

Cormac's summary is spot-on: Gabolde is trying to pigeon-hole Nefertiti into a role he wants her to fit. That doesn't make it real.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#17    teetay08

teetay08

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Joined:03 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:baltimore

  • i love weird things

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:33 PM

thats just alot of incest


#18    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:57 PM

Disturbing actually, and I wonder if any, or how many, AE royalty had a brother who was also their father. It's always possible that some DNA results are not released because they are just too shocking....
Anyway, having six fingers on each hand makes for really fast typing :)

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 01 March 2013 - 05:08 PM.


#19    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,322 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:29 AM

 Atentutankh-pasheri, on 01 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Disturbing actually, and I wonder if any, or how many, AE royalty had a brother who was also their father. It's always possible that some DNA results are not released because they are just too shocking....
Anyway, having six fingers on each hand makes for really fast typing :)

Pity the ancient royals had no typewriters, then.

Listen to me—"typewriters." Now I'm dating myself. Let's change that to computer keyboards. But as far as that goes, at least the old-fashioned typewriters didn't require electricity, so the ancient royals with their dozen fingers are screwed on all counts.

What DNA results would be too shocking? Thanks to DNA analysis we know now Tut's parents were a brother and sister, and the "icky" factor doesn't get much worse than that. Besides which, most modern folk love to hear about all of the ickiness ancient people were capable of. Humans have become a lurid and gratuitous race. :D

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#20    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:20 AM

 kmt_sesh, on 02 March 2013 - 03:29 AM, said:

Pity the ancient royals had no typewriters, then.

Listen to me—"typewriters." Now I'm dating myself. Let's change that to computer keyboards. But as far as that goes, at least the old-fashioned typewriters didn't require electricity, so the ancient royals with their dozen fingers are screwed on all counts.

What DNA results would be too shocking? Thanks to DNA analysis we know now Tut's parents were a brother and sister, and the "icky" factor doesn't get much worse than that. Besides which, most modern folk love to hear about all of the ickiness ancient people were capable of. Humans have become a lurid and gratuitous race. :D
Ah, about shocking, I was thinking about a well know Americanism that is slightly worse than brother/sister :whistle:





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users