Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
cormac mac airt

King Tutankhamen - One Mystery Solved

55 posts in this topic

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.

"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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks kmt_sesh,

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

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:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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:

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

~

Thanks for the usable link, third_eye. It's not surprising that the old link doesn't work, since it's nearly 5 years old.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~ no worries ~

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

cormac

Thank you. And Akhnaton is supposed to have this unusual body shape, with wide hips.

Did that not help to identify him?

*Snip*

Edited by kmt_sesh
Inflammatory remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. And Akhnaton is supposed to have this unusual body shape, with wide hips.

Did that not help to identify him?

*Snip*

That is only based on the stylistic representation in Egyptian art of the times. It has nothing to do with anything shown via physical remains. So no, it was not helpful in identifying him.

cormac

Edited by kmt_sesh
Inflammatory remark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I believe Tut's father was Akhenaten, and it is unlikely, but I suppose it is possible that it was Amunhetep III.

On one program on History Channel, Dr. H was saying SOME of the DNA testing on certain mummies was inaccurate/inconclusive, etc. and he decided there was a need for, (and to wait for) tech improvements in the process before continuing to (re)test.

IMO, ALL mummies should be DNA tested, and CT scanned as well. It's up to the experts to obtain accurate info/results if we are to know for sure. :tu:

kmt-sesh, "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."

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

:alien: My ancient alien friends whispered the same thing! :tsu:

Edited by Willie B Herd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Tut's father was Akhenaten, and it is unlikely, but I suppose it is possible that it was Amunhetep III.

On one program on History Channel, Dr. H was saying SOME of the DNA testing on certain mummies was inaccurate/inconclusive, etc. and he decided there was a need for, (and to wait for) tech improvements in the process before continuing to (re)test.

IMO, ALL mummies should be DNA tested, and CT scanned as well. It's up to the experts to obtain accurate info/results if we are to know for sure. :tu:

Unless or until Egyptologists find a body that can be shown specifically to be either Akhenaten's or Smenkhkare's we'll never know for sure.

Hawass' objections to DNA testing don't mean alot since it's the evidence and conclusions by actual geneticists that will either validate or invalidate a mummy as being a specific person.

I'd agree with this as well, as long as people realize that 1) acquiring reliable DNA from a mummy is rather hard to begin with*, which means that not all mummies/remains will present testable samples and 2) It should be done by those actually qualified to do so and with the permission of the Egyptian Government and not like the two Germans who've thusfar screwed up any reason to take them seriously by circumventing the Egyptian Government with their C14 "results".

* The mummification process hasn't exactly helped maintain the viability of human DNA and that'll always be a problem.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C, I agree, it seems the 2 germans had their own agenda...too much playing to the camera, and not enough reporting the truth by all, (most) involved.

One mystery almost solved. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA fingerprint of King Tut Ankh Amen is a unique African genetic marker

Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Tut's father was Akhenaten, and it is unlikely, but I suppose it is possible that it was Amunhetep III.

On one program on History Channel, Dr. H was saying SOME of the DNA testing on certain mummies was inaccurate/inconclusive, etc. and he decided there was a need for, (and to wait for) tech improvements in the process before continuing to (re)test.

IMO, ALL mummies should be DNA tested, and CT scanned as well. It's up to the experts to obtain accurate info/results if we are to know for sure. :tu:

kmt-sesh, "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."

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

:alien: My ancient alien friends whispered the same thing! :tsu:

Well, my spirit guides are much older than yours and are the ascended souls of ancient Atlanteans, so nah nah nah nah nah!

In seriousness, prior to the genetic testing I always believed Akhenaten was Tut's father, myself. It's maddening that Tut's father is never mentioned by name, but Akhenaten seemed the best fit. As ratings go, I always placed Smenkhkare as a second option and Amunhotep III as a distant and unlikely third.

But then the genetic testing identified the mummy designated KV55 as Tut's father. I personally see no reason at present to doubt these findings—the testing was conducted by scientists who specialize in this type of analysis. Hawass was always there trying to steal the show and squeeze in his two cents, to the point that he got top billing in the JAMA report, but he was not directly involved in the genetic testing itself. Hawass truly muddies the waters by proclaiming the KV55 mummy was Akhenaten's body, but this was on shaky ground from the start and met with heated resistance from other Egyptologists and specialists. The skeletal KV55 mummy has been examined by numerous experts through the years, including the Egyptologist and forensic anthropologist Joyce Filer, and nearly everyone who's properly examined the remains believe them to be of a male no older than his early twenties at death. Akhenaten had to have been around his mid-thirties when he kicked the bucket, so in all likelihood the skeletal remains of KV55 are those of the ephemeral Smenkhkare.

Until (if) subsequent evidence comes to light to disprove this, I'm sticking with Smenkhare as Tut's father.

Or maybe Moses. Before he departed Egypt for the Promised Land. Now see, I shouldn't have said that. The crazies might show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.