Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Amarna, Before and After


Wistman

Recommended Posts

On 9/6/2022 at 5:50 PM, Aldebaran said:

Just looking at the mummy?  He was found in that tomb, after all, with the two females who did have their DNA tested--but my point was that any examination of the mummy anywhere else would have the people involved wearing protective covering.  Do you see anyone boring into the bone of the mummy to obtain a sample?  That's how the bits of marrow of the mummies in the study were obtained.  When I read the statement of a microbiologist saying that a sample had been derived from the young prince or look at his DNA, then I'll know it was done.  Thus far it's lacking.

I've found this quote from Hawass dated 14th September which expands on his previous  announcement about the KV21 mummies and if they are Nefertiti and Ankhesenamun.
 

Quote

 

"We already have DNA from the 18th dynasty mummies, from Akhenaten to Amenhotep II or III and there are two unnamed mummies labeled KV21a and b," he said. "In October we will be able to announce the discovery of the mummy of Ankhesenamun, Tutankhamun's wife, and her mother, Nefertiti. There is also in tomb KV35 the mummy of a 10-year-old boy. If that child is the brother of Tutankhamun and the son of Akhenaten, the problem posed by Nefertiti will be solved."

"I am sure that I will reveal which of the two unnamed mummies could be Nefertiti," Hawass added.

 

Allthough he does not state explicitly that the mummy of the boy has had a DNA test, it is very clear from what he is saying that it was tested. What he says also indicates that he is certain that KV21A and KV21B will be shown to be Nefertiti and Ankhesenamun, making no mention at all of KV35YL.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And from the same source Hawass also said this:

Quote

"I am still looking for two things: [Nefertiti's] grave and her body," Hawass said. "I really believe that Nefertiti ruled Egypt for three years after Akhenaten's death under the name of Smenkhkare."

This is a total volte face on his behalf as he was the most vocal critic of Reeve's assertion in 2015 that Nefertiti ended up as Smenkhkare. I wonder though if he has actual evidence, and what that could possibly be, presumably something compelling for him to do this 180 turn.

A caveat on all of this is that in one sentence he says that he is still looking for the tomb and body of Nefertiti, but, as we see in the quote in the above post, essentially claims that he has both her and Ankhesenamun. I'll put this down to the manner in which Hawass proclaims things. I just wish I had seen this article before making the two posts yesterday as, if Hawass really does have what would be big news, it would have saved me a lot of time. However, lacking as yet any proof from Hawass, I'll still remain unconvinced that Nefertiti became Smenkhkare, and that the points contra this in the previous post remain valid.

If though, for the sake of argument, Hawass has actually produced a "magic key" to unlock some previously sealed doors in Amarna, then, by what Hawass is saying, the Younger Lady is not Nefertiti, making discussion about which of Amunhotep IIIs daughters she is now fully realistic, and, if one of the KV21 mummies is Nefertiti, what does her DNA say about her that KV35YL can be discounted as Nefertiti. Do we throw away our books? do the several Egyptologists with Amarna books soon to be published throw up their hands in despair? Is Reeves partying? Interesting times.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2022 at 10:55 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Yeah, I think that was it: "I always thought   Akhenaten; was Moses because his body was never found . and in his Egyptian`s  family a picture of him not  included in his family  is not found". And you want more?

You are saying the Hebrews did not "emerge into history" until c.550BC...?  How'd that be? 

 

https://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving on and avoiding the bumps in the road, here's some idle thoughts on how this all might pan out, or not...

First a quote from "Scanning the Pharaohs" by Hawass and Saleem published in 2016:
 

Quote

 

The Two Fetuses in Tutankhamun's Tomb: DNA Analysis

We also did a preliminary DNA study of the two fetuses found in Tutankhamun's tomb, who are presumably the children of Ankhesenamun, and mummy KV21A. The data obtained from the later suggests that this was the mother of the fetuses. We cannot, however, identify the mummy as Ankhesenamun. More time is needed to analyze the data.

 

Fast forward to the paper by Gad et al published in 2020 which contained, for the first time, all of the DNA data on ten mummies. I'll note that no data was published in this paper dealing with the two fetuses or KV21A and B, an odd omission, and even odder now it has become evident that the boy was tested, and it seems also Amunhotep II, so how about Thutmose IV, I'm going to guess that he was tested as well, but silence for 12 twelve years until, miraculously, the 100th anniversary year. Who here is being cynical...

Another quote from the same book, and it is the last part of their conclusions on the fetuses and KV21A and B.

Quote

The mummy KV21B is in very poor condition, with many missing parts, but we think this mummy is a candidate for Nefertiti. As we saw in the case of KV35, the priests of Dynasties Twenty-one and Twenty-two placed Queen Tiye near her daughter. The two mummies of KV21 could be a mother and daughter as well. We hope that our future research will lead us to the mummy of Nefertiti.

Without reproducing the entire book, it was also noted that there are strong indications that both KV21 mummies originally had their left arms folded across their chests in the same queenly pose as Tiye. Also the putative Ankhesenamun, KV21A, is aged at probably more than 25 years, while the putative Nefertiti, KV21B, is aged at around 45 years. Now I am going to be cynical here and point out that the book has an age for the YL of 25-35, but Saleem herself has cast aspertions on this by her on camera quote of a 20-25 year age range, and the ongoing dispute about the age of KV55 where Hawass and Saleem give it the highest estimate, by a big margin, over all other estimates. This is clearly a self impossed contradictory mess that should be rectified, and perhaps now will be.

The ages given for the two KV21 mummies also look reasonable to be Ankhesenamun and Nefertiti. KV21A is aged at 25 or over. Ankhesenamun, as Ankhesenpaaten, first appears in year 8, just about when Tutankhaten is also born. Many books will state that she was some years older than Tutankhamun, but this is based on the erroneous placing of Tutankhamun's birth to the TA26 deathbed scenes at some point after year 12. Therefore Ankhesenamun will be around 19 when Tutankhamun dies, give or take a year or so, and if she lived at least until the death of Ay, aged 23, and who knows how much longer she lived.

KV21B is aged at 45 ish. We have no idea how old Nefertiti was when she married Akhenaten, but I think it reasonable to assume that she would be around the same age. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she was aged 15 when she first appears, and then dies two years after Akhenaten. This gives an age of death at around 34, too young at face value to be KV21B, but, due to the probable overestimate of both KV35YL and KV55 by ten to fifteen years, still a possibility, and Hawass is not alone in suspecting that this mummy is Nefertiti. But it can be seen why KV35YL is claimed to be Nefertiti based at least on her presumed age as she is a very good fit, but, Saleem going "off message", oops.

So, judging by these statements from Hawass, we will see KV21A proclaimed, by DNA evidence, to be Ankhesenamun, and likewise KV21B to be proclaimed as Nefertiti. This evidence should then show that KV21A, if Ankhesenamun and the only known mummy of one of the six daughters, obviously the daughter of Akhenaten and Nefettiti, even if KV55 is a not Akhenaten but at least a full brother, and that she is a half brother to Tutankhamun who has a different mother. The question here then is how can KV35YL and KV21B be separated as both not being a mother or potential mother to Tutankhamun,if you see what I mean, other than KV21B, if Nefertiti, not being a daughter of Amunhotep III and Tiye. I know all these arguments have been exercised many many times over the years, but finally it looks like we get some meat to put on the bones and can be more bolder in what we say, though lack of full evidence has never been a brake to many, has it :)

The KV35 boy will never be known by name of course, but at least he will be put back into his family, by DNA if nothing else. It's obvious that Hawass knows exactly who his mother is, and this part of his statement is a big clue:

Quote

If that child is the brother of Tutankhamun and the son of Akhenaten, the problem posed by Nefertiti will be solved

Note he makes no mention of KV35YL at all, and that is if this boy is the son of KV55 and the YL, and so a full brother of Tutankhamun, it actually tells us nothing other than that as his DNA will be the same as Tutankhamun's. However, if his mother is KV21B, and she is not a full sister to KV55, or even a sister at all, and if the two fetuses are fathered by Tutankhamun and KV21A, presumably shown to be a daughter of KV21B and KV55, then we definitively have Nefertiti, and a son by her and Akhenaten who is not Tutankhamun. I wonder what his name would have been, something ending in Aten if born earlier in the reign, or something ending in Re if born around the time of Setepenre and Neferneferure.

Next month a "magic key" opens a door in Amarna and we all ooh and ahh, then when the fuss dies down we realize that the new room with "wonderfull things" opened to us has other doors leading off of it, but nobody has a key to any of them, and the merry-go-round music starts to play again as we enter the next circle of Hell :)

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of that, sets out the case of the Amarna mummies pretty thoroughly.

It looks like Zahi had YM's DNA data all along, among other royals, and 'reserved' it.  How very clever of him to wait and reveal it now during the centenary celebrations.  But good to get all the same, even though I suppose some caution would be in order, considering how things have previously been massaged revealed, if not peer reviewed.

If I remember correctly, there were some problems extracting readable DNA from the KV21 mummies early on; it'll be interesting to see how much usable stuff they've been able to finally obtain now in order to make certain connections.  It has taken so long....will there really be enough matches to back up what Zahi is hinting at.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wistman said:

If I remember correctly, there were some problems extracting readable DNA from the KV21 mummies early on; it'll be interesting to see how much usable stuff they've been able to finally obtain now in order to make certain connections.  It has taken so long....will there really be enough matches to back up what Zahi is hinting at.

Yes, that's going to be a fly in the ointment if the results are not clear cut and we get phrases like "probably" "highly likely" etc. It needs to be clear cut so we can move on from fruitless arguments about the YL and spare arms and how old she is, and then argue soley about which sister of Akhenaten she is, excluding Nefertiti, but, we need this announcement and results first.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

Thanks for all of that, sets out the case of the Amarna mummies pretty thoroughly.

It looks like Zahi had YM's DNA data all along, among other royals, and 'reserved' it.  How very clever of him to wait and reveal it now during the centenary celebrations.  But good to get all the same, even though I suppose some caution would be in order, considering how things have previously been massaged revealed, if not peer reviewed.

If I remember correctly, there were some problems extracting readable DNA from the KV21 mummies early on; it'll be interesting to see how much usable stuff they've been able to finally obtain now in order to make certain connections.  It has taken so long....will there really be enough matches to back up what Zahi is hinting at.

If you don't trust the old results, why would you have faith in any newer ones?  However, the DNA of a boy from KV35 was tested in April of 2022.  That photo posted by Wepwawet of people in white coats *looking* at a mummy [as I said] was not when it happened.  The place where the CT-scan and the DNA sampling occurred was the Shefaa el-Orman Oncology Hospital, actually a cancer facility for children.   So this was only five months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

If you don't trust the old results, why would you have faith in any newer ones?  However, the DNA of a boy from KV35 was tested in April of 2022.  That photo posted by Wepwawet of people in white coats *looking* at a mummy [as I said] was not when it happened.  The place where the CT-scan and the DNA sampling occurred was the Shefaa el-Orman Oncology Hospital, actually a cancer facility for children.   So this was only five months ago.

Do you have proof of this, and if it was so, why would they transport him to Luxor, the location of the hospital you mention, for testing when he was moved to Cairo in 2012, and there will be facilities there.

However, no matter the veracity of this, I would think that if he was tested and scanned in April of this year, it was a re-test and re-scan, and I would not be surprised if other mummies have been re-tested. And there still remains the question just what exactly he was doing on a white sheet on the top of the sarcophagus of Amunhotep II in KV35, as they will not bring him out, in a clearly fragile state, just to gawp at him, likewise why risk further damage by transporting him to Luxor for work which can be done in Cairo, and he can be sampled for DNA in the museum.

Edit: I'll present this as a scenario for him being transported to Luxor.

I will assume that a documentary is in the process of being made about these latest finding by Hawass. Therefore, seeing how Discovery Channel, and others, go about making these documentaries, I would take a bet that as the historical focal point for all of this is the VoK, then large parts of the documentary will be filmed there, with scenes in KV21, 35 and 62. For the "optics" I would not be surprised if the boy, and maybe more mummies than him, despite the dangers of further damage, have been transported to Luxor, if not the VoK, to be filmed at the focal point of the entire thing. Therefore, taking a DNA sample and maybe another CT scan may have taken place at the hospital in Luxor. This is a somewhat cynical argument of course, but when it comes to anything to do with TV production, is any amount of cynicism too much.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this going to go, I know.

Breaking News! King Tut has a brother! Amazing new discovery by top Egyptologist Zahi Hawass.

But, the discovery was made at some point between 2007 and 2009, but let's pretend it occured in the centenary year to avoid awkward questions.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they retested the KV21 mummies to gain better results, perhaps now having better technology to do so, they may have wished to do the same with other mummies for confirmation of matches.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not a shred of evidence that the prince from KV35 was ever subjected to CT-can or DNA testing prior to this April.  It's just something Wepwawet invented.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

There is not a shred of evidence that the prince from KV35 was ever subjected to CT-can or DNA testing prior to this April.  It's just something Wepwawet invented.  

I understand that careers, not just yours, based on the Younger Lady being Nefertiti look like they are about to hit the buffers, but please try to maintain some dignity in this.

Here's something. If at the end of the day it transpires that the data Hawass presents, and if the conclusions it seems he is going to present are wrong, I will put my hand up and admit that I have jumped the gun in accepting what looks like is going to happen. On the other hand, if the data and conclusions are good, will you accept them.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did happen in April  and I'm fine with this. However, I am certain that this is a re-test, partly for the optics needed for a documentary, hence also the need to transport him from Cairo to Luxor when it would have been better to test and scan him in Cairo. The wording of the article is a bit odd, and with some errors. The author says that scans showed that he had a fracture to his head and spine. Why, I wonder, is this information only released now when he was first X-rayed in 2002/03, and there is footage of this being done, yet not a single X-ray image of him has ever been released, and if they can withhold X-rays they can withold DNA results. Certainly a CT scan shows more, but an X-ray is perfectly okay to find skull and spine fractures. It is apparent now that he took a fall, either falling from a chariot or from a roof.

Expecting a snarky reply, I'll ask again what is happening here in 2007 or 08, as they will not move him, with bits falling off him, just to gawp at him, and he is, I'll repeat, placed on the sarcophagus of Amunhotep II in KV35 where Tiye and the YL are shown in the documentary having DNA samples taken.

DNA_sampling.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to another source which replicates what Hawass has said, but also gives some background to previous announcements that Nefertiti has been found, and some criticism of Hawass.

I'll make this quote from the article, and then criticize it:

Quote

Hawass has faced his share of critism, too. In 2021, Egyptologist Bassam al-Shammaa told Al-Monitor that he doubts whether Hawass “will find the mummy and the original tomb of Nefertiti in Luxor for religious and political reasons, most notably among which is the enmity with the priests of Amun-Ra after her husband Akhenaten called for worshipping the god Aten and she supported him.”

Not for the first time, and it will not be the last time, a block to the discovery of Nefertiti has been the "fact", and that is how it is presented, that the Amun priesthhod "hated" her, and Akhenaten for that matter, and so made it that their mummies would never be found. This is usually mixed in with nonsense about the Amun priesthood "not allowing" Akhenaten to be buried in the VoK. I dealt with the last part earlier, but as it is all tied up with the first part I'll go over this again, if for no other reason than to show that articles in the media, and sometimes from professionals about the "power" of the Amun priesthood at this period should be ignored.

Apologies for labouring this, but I think clarity is needed. For a start all the terms we use for Egyptian religion and priests were invented  in the 19th Century AD by Egyptologists and others whose prime concern was not so much in discovering facts about the Egyptians, but about trying to prove that elements of the Bible that dealt with Egypt were founded on fact. I'm sure the majority here know this. Using the remains of Ancient Egypt to "prove" fiction is in itself bad enough, and I speak here specifically about Exodus, but there was a spin off in that in order to make sense to the public the religion of Egypt, they used our terminology, so we have "temples", "priests" and various orders of "priests". This is understandable as otherwise how do you even begin to explain these things to an audience that will not know a hm-ntr from a hry-hbt, and why should they anyway. A hm-ntr is what we call a priest, it means servant of the god, but, crucially, it should be seen as literally a servant, a butler. Their purpose was not to administer to a flock, or spread the word in any form whatsoever, all they had to do was look after the cult statue of the god, or gods in some temples such as that of Seti I at Abydos. We also use the term wab priest, or pure priest, but they had less relationship to what we see as a priest than the hm-ntr. Their actual title was just wb, transliterated as wab and meaning pure,  and there was never any "priest" element to their job description, we have done that. These people were essentially the temple cleaners, carpenters and stonemasons, in fact everybody who entered the temple had to be purified, that was the purpose of the sacred lake, rather like having a shower before entering a public swimming pool.

When it comes to actions that are similar to those we see with priests in our terminology, then we look not at the hm-ntr, but the sm, transliterated as sem, a position discussed further up this thread, and I think we all have a reasonable idea of who the sem is. Another officiant at these "religious services" is the hry-hbt, aka the lector, usually refered to as a "lector priest" and I do that myself at times, but he is not also a hm-ntr, he is just lector, or chief lector written as hry-hbt hry-tp  His function is to both hold the scrolls, hry-hbt means "He who is under (holds) the ritual scrolls", and can either read from them himself, or the sm or "High Priest" if they are not the same person, and we see that often, particularly with the High Priests of Ptah, they are the same person. What they do in this ritual is not the equivalent of our religious service. They remove the statue of the god from it's shrine, unwrap it as these statues are not on show all gleaming with gold, wash it and then re-wrap it and put it back in it's shrine. All the while what will be more like magic spells than a "service" will be recited by one of the officiants, ON BEHALF OF THE KING, as the king is the only real priest in all of Egypt, and cannot be in every temple at dawn, and other times, to perfom the ablutions for the statue of the god, and that is what is happening, ablutions and being re-dressed. There were no "holy books" and no dogma, the creation myths were not part of ritual or of anything we would see as a religous service, they were just a "roadmap" of how things came to be, and, in conjunction with netherworld books, how things should be maintained.

What we call a "Temple" was a "Home of the God" and not a church in our terminology and practice. It could be argued that this is semantics as our churches can be called a "House of God", but to the Egyptians their temple was, while of great importance of course, just a place where the god lived, manifested itself, and needed to be looked after, not worshipped in the way that we worship in a church. I'll point out here that, as we know, the temple played a huge role in commerce, though the riches generated belonged to the king. Corruption by the temple officials, of course, and massive at times.

The point here, and I know you'll all know this, is that these people who held positions in a temple that we mantle with our terminology, were never priests as we know them, but more caretakers who, in great privacy and secrecy, washed a statue every day while chanting spells. The chief officiant, who we love to call a "High Priest", has no religious "power" or authority in the way that our Archbishops and Popes do, they had no religious doctrine to spread or enforce. All of these "High Priests" in whatever flavour they came, and for instance the so called "Prophets of Amun" were no such thing, they were just "God's First Servant", and descending to Fourth Servant, were, in the 18th Dynasty appointed by the king. It is true that some positions could be passed on from father to son, but these, at that time, were not those of FP, HP, HPP, HPO, Greatest of Seers etc.

In conclusion, and I've been here before, a man who holds his position entirely due to the favour his king, does not "rebel" against his king in any way, unless he has gathered an army and is going to fight. He also does not dictate to the king who can or cannot be buried in the VoK, a royal property that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Amun priesthood, and is not even in the "spiritual" domain of Amun at all, but of Osiris, Anubis, Wepawet and others. So, for these tales about the Amun priesthood dictating to a king about who can or cannot be buried in the VoK, try moving on a few dynasties to when the positions do become hereditary, and a  FP of Amun declares himself to be king, at least of Upper Egypt, but this does not happen in the 18th Dynasty.

So, while I say that the Prophets of Amun had no power whatsoever over the king, they are his stand-ins, nothing more, and had no religious hold over the royal necropolis, those that Akhenaten dissmissed would of course had been miffed, not least because their fingers were removed from the treasure chests, we know that new prophets were appointed by Tutankhamun, and as his appointees, were his servants, not masters, and if the previous prophets were raging in the background, they no longer had any power.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 2:54 PM, Wistman said:

I've recently come across this 2020 paper, https://www.academia.edu/83716253/Nefertiti_strikes_back_A_comprehensive_multidisciplinary_approach_for_the_end_of_the_Amarna_Period , by Juan Antonio Belmonte, which lists and tries to reconcile the conflicting evidence, physical and genetic, and numerous pet theories regarding the Amarna mummies.  The author's conclusions may not be the most satisfying to everybody, but he reaches them, I think, through sound analysis and comparison.  A good read.  Some few quotes and useful tables:

And you would know the soundness of all that--how?  First of all, Belmonte has an agenda--and that is his own "pet theory", which is that KV55 is Smenkhkare and not Akhenaten.  In support of that he brings forward some old conclusions that place the KV55 remains on the younger side but says nothing about the Cairo CT-scan, which doesn't.  Also, he references a number of times an online paper by Kate Phizackerly from 2010.  This was a good paper but had rather prematurely been given the title which contained the words "probably not Akhenaten".    It all hung on the mummy KV21a, as the putative mother of one or two of King Tut's children, not being reconcilable with KV55 as their grandfather.

Yet, under the circumstances of the 2010 Cairo publication of the DNA testing and the insufficient DNA profiles of KV21a and the two babies from KV62, it was not the best science to propose that KV21a was Ankhesenamun. Phizackerly did not do this; it came from Cairo.  Checking on this, I have seen that the link Phizackerly makes to her own paper from another of her web pages no longer works.  Her paper can only be found at an old mirror site.  It appears that Phizackerly might have withdrawn her paper--or I don't know why the link no longer is viable.

https://katephizackerley.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not-akhenaten/?fbclid=IwAR3fOJP_-4-CMeLpJtus_pN3FRKtBVfmFtnzs9vzTwKwBvLs7CURr15S4qw

Anyway, at some later point Marianne Luban demonstrated, in a paper "More Observations On 18th Dynasty DNA". that under present circumstances and if one only compared KV55 and KV21a--there was nothing preventing him from being her father.  

https://www.academia.edu/21597027/MORE_OBSERVATIONS_ON_18th_DYNASTY_DNA

In Belmonte's paper there was the comparison of the autosomal DNA of a modern person to that of an ancient mummy in the Cairo study.  In my opinion that is not only unsound but just plain irresponsible.  [I suspect he got this idea from a man named Habicht].  The same alleles [and their numeric values] exist at varying degrees of frequency in several different populations at the same autosomal markers--but one cannot compare ancient individuals to modern ones that way for reasons too complex for me to go into here.  But one can compare mitochondrial and y-DNA as their patterns remain basically unchanged for thousands of years.  Also the haplogroups attached to them.

Also, in his certainty that KV55 must be Smenkhkare, he actually *invented* a different DNA profile for Akhenaten.  That may be your idea of sound procedure but it certainly is not mine!!  DNA aside and also putting aside the varying forensic conclusions on the age at death of the remains, everything in the actual tomb KV55 points to the individual found in it being Akhenaten, despite any protests of Juan Belmonte. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

And you would know the soundness of all that--how? 

Same way you do.

 

First of all, Belmonte has an agenda--and that is his own "pet theory", which is that KV55 is Smenkhkare and not Akhenaten.  In support of that he brings forward some old conclusions that place the KV55 remains on the younger side but says nothing about the Cairo CT-scan, which doesn't. 

Well, pet theories seem to abound among Egyptologists.  Some, like Dodson, say, are able to change previous assumptions in the face of new information.  Others not so much.  Yours is that KV35YL is Nefertiti and, if I may be so bold, to you KV55 must be Akhenaten in order to fit the DNA profiles obtained by Hawass and Saleem and justify Nefertiti as YL.  It's understandable.  But note how you dismiss Strouhal and other forensic examiners' younger age determinations out of hand and refer solely to the 2010 publication of the CT scans.  But there Hawass and Saleem simply declare that their scans show the mummy to be 35+, without explanation or demonstration of their evidence, and without any peer review.  But you know this, and choose to dismiss it. 

 

Also, he references a number of times an online paper by Kate Phizackerly from 2010.  This was a good paper but had rather prematurely been given the title which contained the words "probably not Akhenaten".    It all hung on the mummy KV21a, as the putative mother of one or two of King Tut's children, not being reconcilable with KV55 as their grandfather.

Yet, under the circumstances of the 2010 Cairo publication of the DNA testing and the insufficient DNA profiles of KV21a and the two babies from KV62, it was not the best science to propose that KV21a was Ankhesenamun. Phizackerly did not do this; it came from Cairo.  Checking on this, I have seen that the link Phizackerly makes to her own paper from another of her web pages no longer works.  Her paper can only be found at an old mirror site.  It appears that Phizackerly might have withdrawn her paper--or I don't know why the link no longer is viable.

https://katephizackerley.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not-akhenaten/?fbclid=IwAR3fOJP_-4-CMeLpJtus_pN3FRKtBVfmFtnzs9vzTwKwBvLs7CURr15S4qw

Anyway, at some later point Marianne Luban demonstrated, in a paper "More Observations On 18th Dynasty DNA". that under present circumstances and if one only compared KV55 and KV21a--there was nothing preventing him from being her father.  

https://www.academia.edu/21597027/MORE_OBSERVATIONS_ON_18th_DYNASTY_DNA

I always like your papers, and recommend them to others.  But of course KV55 could also be her uncle, say.  Particularly so within the AIII's inbred royal family.  We will know more about this relationship, hopefully, very soon.

 

In Belmonte's paper there was the comparison of the autosomal DNA of a modern person to that of an ancient mummy in the Cairo study.  In my opinion that is not only unsound but just plain irresponsible.  [I suspect he got this idea from a man named Habicht].  The same alleles [and their numeric values] exist at varying degrees of frequency in several different populations at the same autosomal markers--but one cannot compare ancient individuals to modern ones that way for reasons too complex for me to go into here.  But one can compare mitochondrial and y-DNA as their patterns remain basically unchanged for thousands of years.  Also the haplogroups attached to them.

Also, in his certainty that KV55 must be Smenkhkare, he actually *invented* a different DNA profile for Akhenaten.  That may be your idea of sound procedure but it certainly is not mine!!  DNA aside and also putting aside the varying forensic conclusions on the age at death of the remains, everything in the actual tomb KV55 points to the individual found in it being Akhenaten, despite any protests of Juan Belmonte. 

B)  I see how you've picked that out and focused on it.  The weight of those comparison tables doesn't really lie with the modern addresses and shouldn't be dismissed in entire, as you wish to do.  And anyway, my opinion of the value of Belmont's paper is based not simply on the tables of course, and remains distinct from yours.

Other than the two magic bricks, nothing in the actual tomb KV55 points to its mummy being Akhenaten per se.

 

 

 

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Wistman said:

And you would know the soundness of all that--how? 

Same way you do.

Really?  Suddenly you're my equal in the ability to analyze a paper that includes DNA matters?  Funny how you have demonstrated that nowhere.

 

Aldebaran:First of all, Belmonte has an agenda--and that is his own "pet theory", which is that KV55 is Smenkhkare and not Akhenaten.  In support of that he brings forward some old conclusions that place the KV55 remains on the younger side but says nothing about the Cairo CT-scan, which doesn't. 

Wistman:Well, pet theories seem to abound among Egyptologists.

Belmonte seems to be involved with astro-physics.  

Wistman:  Some, like Dodson, say, are able to change previous assumptions in the face of new information.  Others not so much.  Yours is that KV35YL is Nefertiti and, if I may be so bold, to you KV55 must be Akhenaten in order to fit the DNA profiles obtained by Hawass and Saleem and justify Nefertiti as YL.  It's understandable.  But note how you dismiss Strouhal and other forensic examiners' younger age determinations out of hand and refer solely to the 2010 publication of the CT scans.  But there Hawass and Saleem simply declare that their scans show the mummy to be 35+, without explanation or demonstration of their evidence, and without any peer review.  But you know this, and choose to dismiss it. 

Aldebaran:  You seem to miss a lot.  And the next time a physician tells you you are best off having a scan, I trust you'll simply say "I prefer a physical exam done by the naked eye".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufWU3AbpJ00

And who is supposed to be capable of peer-reviewing the DNA and forensic conclusions of the Egyptologists?  The other Egyptologists who are the editors?  They don't ask me!  A recent paper in a popular magazine about AE was so out-of-date it was unreal.

Aldebaran: Also, he references a number of times an online paper by Kate Phizackerly from 2010.  This was a good paper but had rather prematurely been given the title which contained the words "probably not Akhenaten".    It all hung on the mummy KV21a, as the putative mother of one or two of King Tut's children, not being reconcilable with KV55 as their grandfather.

Yet, under the circumstances of the 2010 Cairo publication of the DNA testing and the insufficient DNA profiles of KV21a and the two babies from KV62, it was not the best science to propose that KV21a was Ankhesenamun. Phizackerly did not do this; it came from Cairo.  Checking on this, I have seen that the link Phizackerly makes to her own paper from another of her web pages no longer works.  Her paper can only be found at an old mirror site.  It appears that Phizackerly might have withdrawn her paper--or I don't know why the link no longer is viable.

https://katephizackerley.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not-akhenaten/?fbclid=IwAR3fOJP_-4-CMeLpJtus_pN3FRKtBVfmFtnzs9vzTwKwBvLs7CURr15S4qw

Anyway, at some later point Marianne Luban demonstrated, in a paper "More Observations On 18th Dynasty DNA". that under present circumstances and if one only compared KV55 and KV21a--there was nothing preventing him from being her father.  

https://www.academia.edu/21597027/MORE_OBSERVATIONS_ON_18th_DYNASTY_DNA

Wistman: I always like your papers, and recommend them to others.  But of course KV55 could also be her uncle, say.  We will know more about this relationship, hopefully, very soon.

Aldebaran:  "Uncle" wasn't the point.  The whole point was that one can't dismiss a father/daughter relationship on the assumption  [and that is really what it was] that an anonymous someone is a certain person and that this female was the mother of some others [unproved!].  

Aldebaran: In Belmonte's paper there was the comparison of the autosomal DNA of a modern person to that of an ancient mummy in the Cairo study.  In my opinion that is not only unsound but just plain irresponsible.  [I suspect he got this idea from a man named Habicht].  The same alleles [and their numeric values] exist at varying degrees of frequency in several different populations at the same autosomal markers--but one cannot compare ancient individuals to modern ones that way for reasons too complex for me to go into here.  But one can compare mitochondrial and y-DNA as their patterns remain basically unchanged for thousands of years.  Also the haplogroups attached to them.

Also, in his certainty that KV55 must be Smenkhkare, he actually *invented* a different DNA profile for Akhenaten.  That may be your idea of sound procedure but it certainly is not mine!!  DNA aside and also putting aside the varying forensic conclusions on the age at death of the remains, everything in the actual tomb KV55 points to the individual found in it being Akhenaten, despite any protests of Juan Belmonte. 

B)  I see how you've picked that out and focused on it.  The weight of those comparison tables doesn't really lie with the modern addresses.  And anyway, my opinion of the value of Belmont's paper is based not simply on the tables of course, and remains distinct from yours.

Other than than the two magic bricks, nothing in the actual tomb KV55 points to its mummy being Akhenaten per se.

Aldebaran:  Anyone would focus on that as a shocker--provided they actually know something about DNA.  You said that the tables were sound, recommended them.  Two magic bricks?  What about the coffin KV55 was found in?  It obviously once had the cartouches of Akhenaten all over it, since excised.  *Smenkhkare*  doesn't appear in the tomb anywhere, nor in KV62, the tomb of Tutankhamun.  Pretty odd if that man was his father.  It was on a calcite vessel--but an attempt was made to erase it which just missed succeeding.  As you should know better than most, the names of Akhenaten were on a certain box in KV62 with those of Neferneferuaten and Merytaten.  Nobody attempted to erase them.  The name of Smenkhkare wasn't on the box in the first place.

Well, you can wait with great anticipation from some news coming out of Egypt just in time for the new tourist season but not I because I can already anticipate all the pitfalls.  A new scientific paper with DNA in plain sight--fine.  But I'll accept nothing less.

 

 

Edited by Aldebaran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Why, I wonder, is this information only released now when he was first X-rayed in 2002/03, and there is footage of this being done, yet not a single X-ray image of him has ever been released, and if they can withhold X-rays they can withold DNA results.

Let's see the footage of it being done.  There are snippets of footage from documentaries all over YouTube, if not the entire doc.  Before you claimed that photo or still you keep posting was from "King Tut Unwrapped".  Nope.  The only tomb shown in that one was KV62 and the rest of the DNA related footage was in the lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another paper that will demonstrate the possibility that the ages at death of the pharaohs, including Akhenaten, may have been known by certain antique authors and were used in their writings when they did not know how long their reigns were.  

https://www.academia.edu/38193142/EVIDENCE_FOR_LENGTH_OF_REIGNS_OF_AKHENATENS_SUCCESSORS

Some king at the end of Dynasty 18 was given as "32 years".  Actually, as no one past Amenhotep III reigned anywhere near that long--what else can this number have signified?  For me, it's a perfect age for Akhenaten to have been when he left this earth.  It fits to everything, including the first impression of the first really qualified person to study the KV55 bones--the professor of anatomy, Dr. Smith, who wrote to Weigall "about 30".   It is even a good compromise to the latest forensic exam/CT-scan in Cairo.  40 may be the upper age concluded there, but 32 is only 8 years younger.  The Spitalfields experiment has taught us that "ballpark" is as good as it gets from skeletal remains there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

Let's see the footage of it being done.  There are snippets of footage from documentaries all over YouTube, if not the entire doc.  Before you claimed that photo or still you keep posting was from "King Tut Unwrapped".  Nope.  The only tomb shown in that one was KV62 and the rest of the DNA related footage was in the lab.

The full documentary "King Tut Unwrapped" is not on Youtube, probably for copywrite reasons. Small segments of this documentary are all you will find, and totaling barely more than twenty minutes in two about ten minute clips and one two minute clip. All of these clips only deal with Tutankhamun, and do of course show KV62. However, the full documentary, which I watched when first broadcast, and have the DVD, is 3 hours long and divided into two parts. In part one at about one hour and ten minutes in, we are taken into KV35 where we are shown DNA samples being taken from Tiye and the YL. They had both been placed on the sarcophagus of Amunhotep II for this. As the photo of the boy is very clearly in the same position in KV35, with Hawass and others in protective gear who are also in the documentary, it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that they had also worked on the boy at the same time, but had not included him in the documentary, or released data, for reasons unknown. Would you like to have another go at explaining what is happening in that photo other than they are "looking at him", technically correct for this exact moment in time, but why, what are they actually doing, why risk further damage to him just to "look at him".

The documentary fronted by Fletcher was broadcast in 2003, and I saw it then. This was before Youtube and clearly nobody has bothered to upload the entire thing, though I have seen a few years back a clip that showed the boy, Tiye and the YL being passed under the Xray. This happened in a large Siemens truck, you could tell it was because they showed it from the outside with Siemens written in large letters on it.

You can try to call me out on all of this, but I am not lying, I have no reason to. On the other hand, you have every reason to try your best to disparage anybody with a contra opinion to your theory about the YL being Nefertiti, don't you, so have an agenda, just like, in your opinion, Belmonte, and there will be many others.

 

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Time, and science, moves on, you may have to adjust your theory to keep up, and there are plenty of other contentious areas with Amarna, and there is still the identity of the YL to be dealt with, even if, as it seems, Nefertiti is to be excluded, but you won't ever accept that, will you.

You don't know me or anything about me other than rumors.  Yet, over and over again, you question my integrity, insinuating I wouldn't accept something that was scientifically proved.  [Your conclusions and those of Egyptologists I don't have to accept if they don't make sense to me.]  I am not an "amateur" in Egyptology as I come up short nowhere when it comes to the history, culture, and language of the New Kingdom, which is my specialty.  Nobody is an expert in the entire spectrum from the age of the pyramids to foreign rule.  Not only that, I am the only person attached to Egyptology who bothered to attain an excellent understanding of the DNA science that is the new frontier of Egyptology.  That's more than obvious.  If I didn't accept what science dictated, that would make me no more than a clown like you.  An obsessed clown at that.  I mean, what will YOU do if your jealous obsession with the fact that I actually came up with a novel theory  and the need to prove me wrong isn't vindicated by the news on which you place so much hope?  My guess is--just continue to insult and revile the people who are so presumptuous as to ask you for proof of anything you say--ever.  This site exists as a record of that.

I have a book, but haven't made much money on it because, at the same time, all the Egyptophiles were more interested in Nicholas Reeves theory that Nefertiti was somewhere in KV62.  I don't care about the book, published in 2015, because my thoughts on the Amarna Age have evolved since then.  I am never stuck in one place, never run out of new ideas.  I am one of the most frequently read authors on Academia.edu.  You never write anything except on websites like this one.  You are the amateur personified.  If I am not an expert, you'd be the last to know or to be able to prove it.

 

Edited by Aldebaran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

You don't know me or anything about me other than rumors.  Yet, over and over again, you question my integrity, insinuating I wouldn't accept something that was scientifically proved.  [Your conclusions and those of Egyptologists I don't have to accept if they don't make sense to me.]  I am not an "amateur" in Egyptology as I come up short nowhere when it comes to the history, culture, and language of the New Kingdom, which is my specialty.  Nobody is an expert in the entire spectrum from the age of the pyramids to foreign rule.  Not only that, I am the only person attached to Egyptology who bothered to attain an excellent understanding of the DNA science that is the new frontier of Egyptology.  That's more than obvious.  If I didn't accept what science dictated, that would make me no more than a clown like you.  An obsessed clown at that.  I mean, what will YOU do if your jealous obsession with the fact that I actually came up with a novel theory  and the need to prove me wrong isn't vindicated by the news on which you place so much hope?  My guess is--just continue to insult and revile the people who are so presumptuous as to ask you for proof of anything you say--ever.  This site exists as a record of that.

You are deliberatly lying in order to disparage me. I have never questioned your integrity, not once, and I challenge you to provide evidence, either from a post on this forum or a copy and paste from any other forum, and with other posts for context if you think you have an example. Go ahead, or rather do not, as your cynical disruptions ought to cease and normal discourse resume. Normal discourse could involve you, if you make some attempt at it and stop thrashing about and essentially trying to impose your diktat here, a ploy that always fails.

Here's a thought, I would do this by PM, but I want it in public. Some of your accusations against me are so weird and utterly untrue that I suspect that you may think that I am somebody from your past on another forum, or more, or even real life, who you have had problems with. I can assure you, madam, that until you joined the Box 001K thread on Historum, I had never had any discourse or any communication with you at all. So, please stop with these very weird accusations, such as "jealous obsession", and utter nonsense such as :

Quote

"continue to insult and revile the people who are so presumptuous as to ask you for proof of anything you say--ever."

You are in fact engaging in what is known as projection, applying your actions onto others in order to distract from what you are doing yourself. You will note that I have always responded to your posts about the photo of the boy in a reasonable manner, can you say the same for your replies where you are essentially constantly calling me a liar.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.