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

1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

https://www.thecollector.com/akhenaten-monotheism-plague-egypt/

why I thought  Akhenaten  was Moses and in his plagues  that hit  Amarna

 

http://www.geotimes.org/may04/NN_plague.html

Except for thr whole “Akhenaten was a real person, even the Jewish community says Moses was a myth” part of the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the data, so speculating, I'll put forward this opinion on how this works with the DNA of all the relevant mummies, ie, KV21, 35, 55 and 62.

The easy part is that Tutankhamun is the son of KV35YL and KV55, who are full siblings and children of Amunhotep III and Queen Tiye. The debate here is not on what the DNA says, but on giving names to KV35YL and KV55, ie, do we have Nefertiti and Akhenaten respectively.

The DNA tests of various Amarna mummies conducted over a few years starting in 2007 gave indeterminate results for the two female mummies found in tomb KV21. The younger mummy, aged older than 21, is known as KV21A, and the elder mummy, aged about 45, is known as KV21B. The DNA results of Tutankhamun linked him to the two fetuses found in his tomb, and they were also linked to KV21A, though at that time a link was only suggested, not proven. The only known wife of Tutankhamun was Ankhesenamun, who epigraphic evidence shows to be the third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, therefore the possibility arose that KV21A was Ankhesenamun.

This has been the situation since partial DNA results were published in 2010, with the only change being the release of the full DNA results in 2020, which though being very interesting, did not solve the issue of the KV21 mummies and who they could be.

Further testing has been carried out earlier this year, and it is these results that we await. Going by what Hawass has said, and doing some reading between the lines I'll admit, it looks like a breakthrough has been made and the identity of the KV21 mummies will be announced. What seems to have been the crucial factor is the DNA results of a boy aged around twelve who was found in KV35 between KV35YL and Queen Tiye. He has long been thought to be a son of Amunhotep II named Webensenu, whose shabti were found in KV35. However, a resemblance to Queen Tiye was noted, and also a resemblance to a statue of Tutankhamun as the Moon god Khonsu, part of the Theban Triad. Personally, I thought the resemblance to be striking. As he was found by Queen Tiye, it has also been suggested over the years that he might be crown prince Thutmose, though, in my opinion, Thutmose had reached adulthood by the time he died, his titles suggest this, and so the boy is too young to be him. The only other reasonable option, with no DNA results ever having been given for him, until next month, was that he may be a brother of Tutankhamun.

Hawass has intimated that he may be a brother of Tutankhamun, and of course he knows full well that he is and is just spinning the story out, as is his usual style. How then could he be the key to unlocking the identity of the two KV21 mummies. I will speculate that his DNA shows him to be only a half brother to Tutankhamun, and that while his father is still KV55, the same as Tutankhamun, his mother is not KV35YL, but KV21B, whose DNA shows here to be the mother of KV21A, whose own DNA shows her to be a daughter of KV55, and only a half sister to Tutankhamun, not full sister as previously thought. As we know for certainty, and there is no doubt, no disagreement, that Ankhesenamun was the wife of Tutankhamun and daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and that the DNA will show KV21A and Tutankhamun as parents of the two fetuses, then KV21A can be none other than Akhesenamun.

The boy will be shown to be the son of KV55 and KV21B, a half brother to Tutankhamun, and full brother of KV21A, Ankhesenamun. Therefore, KV21B has to be Nefertiti as there is no dispute over the parentage of Ankhesenamun. This will happen because KV21B, Nefertiti, cannot be a full sister to KV55, the putative, if not probable, Akhenaten, but a cousin, and here we go into more intricate DNA analysis which I leave to others. This still leaves KV35YL as the mother of Tutankhamun, but she cannot be Nefertiti, but an unamed full sister of Akhenaten, and there will of course be arguments over which sister this can be, but I fear will never be answered.

So, a putative family tree will be Akhenaten marries a half sister or cousin named Nefertiti, with whom he has six daughters and one son, the still by name annonymous boy from KV35, the only son, as far as we know, of the king and queen. Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten and an unknown sister of his, and marries the third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and has two unborn daughters by her.

This all raises questions, and will be disputed, though if the DNA results are clear cut that may be difficult. That Tutankhamun is now "relegated" by not being a son of Nefertiti does not alter his right to the crown as primogentiture was practiced, and his is the crown by right, if first born son to Akhenaten, even if not born to Akhenaten's primary Great Royal Wife. This was the case with Amunhotep III, and other kings, who were not the son of the GRW, but had been born first.

When the boy died and how, though it looks now like he took a fall, chariot or from a roof, cannot be known on available evidence, likewise when KV35YL died and how she received her fatal wound to her face we cannot know, but if, as seems the case, and of course Hawass still has to present his case so I am jumping the gun, she is not Nefertiti, the speculation about her potentially being removed from power by assassination recede.

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

I must say how good it feels - whatever the testing reveals as to the identities of the mummies - to soon, after so long a wait, have further hard data at hand and hopefully this twist in the knot of unknowns will loosen.

There may be some surprises as well.  Such as the terrible, likely fatal, injuries to the YM that Zahi has already told.  Nobody's ever commented on those before.

tick tock tick tock  

:) 

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

So, just to tidy up, a statement from above about the KV55 coffin: "It obviously once had the cartouches of Akhenaten all over it, since excised."  This identification though possible, even likely, is speculative, is neither proven nor widely accepted as certain.  Nicholas Brown (UCLA) states about some of the original inscriptions:

Quote

The coffin found within KV55 was originally created for a female member of the royal family during the Amarna Period, but was subsequently altered for the burial of a royal male instead. This is obvious from the altered hieroglyphic inscriptions throughout the lid and trough, some that still have a feminine “t” ending or the female pronoun of a seated woman from the original inscriptions. There is much debate as to whom the coffin was originally intended for: earlier scholarship suggested Queen Tiye, Meryetaten, or (erroneously) Akhenaten himself; there is even the possibility that the coffin was created for Nefertiti when she was ruling as Akhenaten’s queen. Today, however, most Egyptologists would agree that the coffin was created for Kiya, a secondary wife of Akhenaten. Based on the spelling of the Aten’s name from this coffin, as well as Kiya’s canopic jars that were also found in KV55 (such as: Met 07.226.1), her funerary equipment was started sometime before Year 9 of Akhenaten’s reign. Yet, for unknown reasons Kiya disappears from official records sometime after Year 12, and her monuments were usurped by other women of the royal family and her funerary equipment was reused for the KV55 burial. 

.And about the later ones: 

Quote

Dividing the lower torso and the two legs is a gold band with a hieroglyphic inscription in colored inlays. The most striking characteristic of this inscription is the hacked-out cartouche.  This vertical inscription translates to: “The perfect ruler, symbol of the sun, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, living in truth, Lord of the Two Lands [missing cartouche]. The perfect little one of the living Aten, who shall be alive continually forever, correct in the sky and on earth.” On the underside of the lid’s feet are seven lines of hieroglyphic text (the remaining five continue onto the trough’s feet, which is not shown here). In the uppermost line, a cartouche was deliberately removed in antiquity, while in other sections the inscription was altered from the original feminine text to accommodate the later male burial.

Thus, though a royal female coffin later adapted for a male king, that king is not identifiable by way of the erased cartouches and could just as well have indicated Smenkhkare.

We've discussed all this before, don't know why it has to be repeated.  Alas.

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

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

I must say how good it feels - whatever the testing reveals as to the identities of the mummies - to soon, after so long a wait, have further hard data at hand and hopefully this twist in the knot of unknowns will loosen.

There may be some surprises as well.  Such as the terrible, likely fatal, injuries to the YM that Zahi has already told.  Nobody's ever commented on those before.

tick tock tick tock  

:) 

If this new information is all good, then perhaps, as some aspects of Amarna will be solved, we could say, "The Battle for Helms Deep is over, the battle for Middle Earth begins".

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

So, just to tidy up, a statement from above about the KV55 coffin: "It obviously once had the cartouches of Akhenaten all over it, since excised."  This identification though possible, even likely, is speculative, is neither proven nor widely accepted as certain.  Nicholas Brown (UCLA) states about some of the original inscriptions:

.And about the later ones: 

Thus, though a royal female coffin later adapted for a male king, that king is not identifiable by way of the erased cartouches and could just as well have indicated Smenkhkare.

We've discussed all this before, don't know why it has to be repeated.  Alas.

There is an aspect of that coffin that could raise a question, well, there's lots of things to be questioned of course, but this is the cartouche on the lid. It has been cut out, presumably to remove the name of the occupant, but, it's been cut out very neatly, more neatly than I would have thought needed if you are performing a desecration. It almost looks as if it were cut out so that another cartouche with another name could be inserted, but never was. Why be so neat when the mask was just ripped off, almost as if these actions took place at different times, almost as if, while the coffin would have been made for Kiya, or possibly another important Amarna female, it had, at different times, two male occupants, both kings, or, it was intended for one king, but used by another for reasons we will never know.

Total speculation of course, but it's these seemingly minor and overlooked things, like a cartouche cut out rather more neatly than needed, that can lead us into other areas of thought, speculation, madness, whatever.

See, one door closes, maybe, and another opens, the Battle for Middle Earth begins.

Edit: Better with a picture I think.

e0cbc4e287c11fcae1a8701847f61e29--tutank

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

8 hours ago, Wistman said:

So, just to tidy up, a statement from above about the KV55 coffin: "It obviously once had the cartouches of Akhenaten all over it, since excised."  This identification though possible, even likely, is speculative, is neither proven nor widely accepted as certain.  Nicholas Brown (UCLA) states about some of the original inscriptions:

Quote

The coffin found within KV55 was originally created for a female member of the royal family during the Amarna Period, but was subsequently altered for the burial of a royal male instead. This is obvious from the altered hieroglyphic inscriptions throughout the lid and trough, some that still have a feminine “t” ending or the female pronoun of a seated woman from the original inscriptions. There is much debate as to whom the coffin was originally intended for: earlier scholarship suggested Queen Tiye, Meryetaten, or (erroneously) Akhenaten himself; there is even the possibility that the coffin was created for Nefertiti when she was ruling as Akhenaten’s queen. Today, however, most Egyptologists would agree that the coffin was created for Kiya, a secondary wife of Akhenaten. Based on the spelling of the Aten’s name from this coffin, as well as Kiya’s canopic jars that were also found in KV55 (such as: Met 07.226.1), her funerary equipment was started sometime before Year 9 of Akhenaten’s reign. Yet, for unknown reasons Kiya disappears from official records sometime after Year 12, and her monuments were usurped by other women of the royal family and her funerary equipment was reused for the KV55 burial. 

.And about the later ones: 

Quote

Dividing the lower torso and the two legs is a gold band with a hieroglyphic inscription in colored inlays. The most striking characteristic of this inscription is the hacked-out cartouche.  This vertical inscription translates to: “The perfect ruler, symbol of the sun, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, living in truth, Lord of the Two Lands [missing cartouche]. The perfect little one of the living Aten, who shall be alive continually forever, correct in the sky and on earth.” On the underside of the lid’s feet are seven lines of hieroglyphic text (the remaining five continue onto the trough’s feet, which is not shown here). In the uppermost line, a cartouche was deliberately removed in antiquity, while in other sections the inscription was altered from the original feminine text to accommodate the later male burial.

Thus, though a royal female coffin later adapted for a male king, that king is not identifiable by way of the erased cartouches and could just as well have indicated Smenkhkare.

We've discussed all this before, don't know why it has to be repeated.  Alas.

Who is Nicholas Brown?  Never heard of him--but I have heard of the bandwagon fallacy.  That means that no matter how many people subscribe to an idea doesn't make it right.  I know much more famous Egyptologists who don't believe the coffin was made for a female--and most of everything you mentioned is not correct.  Unhappily for you, I happen to know a lot about this coffin and its inscriptions.  Alas!  What the hell is wrong with you?  Who could possibly care what you or any of your cronies "discussed before"?

https://www.academia.edu/73618020/Akhenaten_As_Re_Horakhty_the_Father_God

The coffin has crossed arms and those were only made for kings during the New Kingdom.  Down the front of the coffin lid and around the trough were the cartouches of Akhenaten and his unique epithet "the Perfect Child of the Aten".  Do you know what "unique" means?   All are original to the coffin.  The face of the coffin was of gold but much of that was hacked off.  The wooden face beneath the gold is somewhat deteriorated but still recognizable.  It has a long somewhat curved nose and the only person at Akhetaten who fit that description was Akhenaten, himself, and none of the women.

The coffin was obviously not created for Nefertiti.  But it is very likely [Grimm--famous Egyptologist--see?] that she, as the widow, was the author of the original text on the foot of the coffin.  At some later date, the coffin foot text was changed to be spoken by a female who looked upon Akhenaten as a father.  The rest is in my paper, above.

Back to another matter.  Lies deserve to be debunked?  Far from never having watched the documentary "King Tut Unwrapped", I have seen it several times and own the DVD sold by Discovery.  My memory is pretty good but today I dug the thing out and watched the entire doc.  It is just as I recalled.  The prince from KV35 doesn't appear in it at all, much less has his DNA tested--although somebody here claimed "there is footage" of the act.  I have nothing more to say to you or your prevaricating friend.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

Back to another matter.  Lies deserve to be debunked?  Far from never having watched the documentary "King Tut Unwrapped", I have seen it several times and own the DVD sold by Discovery.  My memory is pretty good but today I dug the thing out and watched the entire doc.  It is just as I recalled.  The prince from KV35 doesn't appear in it at all, much less has his DNA tested--although somebody here claimed "there is footage" of the act.  I have nothing more to say to you or your prevaricating friend.  

I am not going to let this deliberate and cynical lie pass, not least because it should be very clear that you are attempting to stop both Wistman, who you insult yet again, and me from engaging in discussion as you do not like what we say. You have shown zero indication of having watched the documentary, and in a previous post proved that by saying that KV35 does not appear in it, only KV62. I even gave you the time stamp of one hour and ten minutes into the documentary when the cameras take us into KV35. At no time have I stated that there is footage of the prince in this documentary, only of him in a documentary from 2003 presented by Joann Fletcher. As regards the boy I have stated that the photo of him was taken in KV35, which is blindingly obvious, and even if KV35 is not familiar to everybody, images can be easily found to check against the photo I posted here. I have never said that he was in the documentary from 2010, only that, by what we see in the photo and the people around him in protective clothes, it is highly likely that he was included in the DNA testing programme, but for reasons unknown he was not included in the documentary or test results.

Not for the first time I'll ask you to back up your lies and deliberate and cynical misrepresentations with quotes from what you think are the relevant posts of mine. For instance, quote me stating that there was footage of the boy in the 2010 documentary "King Tut Unwrapped".

Here's some help. In my post #490 I say this:

Quote

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

However, you have "nothing more to say", good, let's hope it stays that way and that reasonable and civilized discussion can resume.

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

Moving on, again.

The KV55 coffin, translations, interpretations and semantics.

There is of course a diverse range of opinions on this coffin, by experts and lay people alike, and these opinions can be greatly at odds with each other. There is of course a truth to what happened, but we will probably never know what that truth is, so we make best guesses, or even entirely invent a "truth".
What expert, ie genuine Egyptologist, do we believe when they cannot agree amongst themselves, the one that we have the most regard for, even if they could be wrong, the one who appears on the TV more than others, and needs to follow to an extent the premise of whatever documentary it is they are a talking head on. The reality is that we will generally believe the one who most mirrors what we already believe, and it has to be said, what we may have been led to believe.

I'm not an expert so I have to take a lead from what they say, and try to take what I think to be the best course through the murky and stormy seas of Amarna, and will engage in speculation when presented with what is so often a black hole. I have no book or reputation to defend, I just want to get as close to the truth, the real truth, not A truth as dictated by numerous loud voices out there.

I will follow the lead of Egyptologist Marianne Eaton-Kraus when it comes to the KV55 coffin, and quote from page 8 of her 2016 book, "The Unknown Tutankhamun".

Quote

The strips of inlaid hieroglyphs down the front of the lid and around the upper edge of the coffin's basin named the original owner. These were completely replaced with strips naming Akhenaten while the text, executed in the technique called chasing in the gold sheeting under the foot of the coffin, was altered by patching. (These changes were probably made when a descision was taken to remove Akhenaten's body from the Royal Tomb at Amarna in preperation for reburial in the Valley of the Kings at Western Thebes). The obvious care with which the cartouches were then subsequently 'emptied' is evidence of intent to replace Akhenaten's name with another, not to deface the inscription. Since Akhenaten's epithet 'perfect little child of Aten' and 'great in his lifetime' were left standing, they must have been considered suitable for the new owner, just like the epithet 'perfect ruler' heading up the text down the lid of the coffin.

Note that Eaton-Kraus says that the three epithets could be suitable for whoever the next occupant of the coffin was going to be, they, while used by Akhenaten, are not cast iron evidence that the bones found in the coffin were his, only that the coffin had at some point been converted from a coffin for a female to one for Akhenaten. There is not much doubt that Akhenaten had, if not been in this coffin, been intended for this coffin. Those epithets could be used by any king, and the epithet 'perfect ruler' had been used by Tutankhamun. Akhenaten had in fact changed this epithet from it's original form 'perfect god', to which it reverted to after Tutankhamun. So there we have one of these epithets, 'invented' by Akhenaten, used by a successor to him.

I'll reference the translation of the text on the lid of the coffin by Murnane, which is informative as to how a false impression of this coffin can be gained. All the cartouches have been removed, but Murnane in his translation inserts this [NEFERKHEPRURE-WAENRE] into where the missing cartouches are. Murnane does of course point out that he is inserting the prenomen and epithet of Akhenaten into an empty space, but it does unfortunately leave the door open for mischief makers in trying to claim that Akhenaten's actual cartouche is on the coffin, when it is not, though in all probability was, there is a difference here.

Much is often made of the epithet wa-en-re, translated as Unique one of Ra. This epithet appears once on the coffin, but the context is not of it being part of the name of Akhenaten, but of refering to him, presumably by the original female owner of this coffin. The words are "May you behold [...] beloved of Wa-en-re" So, is Akhenaten "beloved" of himself, no.

There is also an issue of translating this epithet and the use of the "wa" element. When it is used as an element in Akhenaten's epithet "wa" is always translated as "unique", yet "wa" is often used to address various gods, though here we translate "wa" as "sole", and the texts usually go, "O sole god". This has caused issues in thinking that the Egyptians thought there was a single god behind all the others, and was therefore at heart monotheism. However, as multiple gods can be refered to as "O sole god", it can be seen that this phrase is just the normal hyperbole so loved by them. Translating "wa" as "unique" though sort of double downs on this and make it seem as if Akhenaten is in fact the ONLY person that the Aten recognizes. Of course this is understandable given the way he refers to this god, and it's depictions, though the rays of Aten do also touch his family. This is not crucial, and I do think that Akhenaten had either been in the KV55 coffin, or was intended to be placed in it, but I mention this use of "wa" as a caution that the way we translate a word, and the emphasis we place on it, can be somewhat different to that which the Egyptians themselves intended.

So, it looks to me that the KV55 coffin was made for a female, possibly Kiya, and then converted for use by Akhenaten, and then had it's cartouches carefully cut out in order to insert a different name for a new occupant. This will never be solved, but the question here is that while the cartouches were removed, and they would have been Akhenaten's cartouches, was he still in the coffin and they buried him in it anyway, or, had they removed him and placed ? in the coffin. I would think that before altering the coffin they would have removed the occupant, but that is just my opinion. The mask being ripped off could have been done no matter who was in the coffin.

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

Well I suppose every forum should have an insult comic drop in on occasion to keep everybody's spirits up.

:D 

Too bad about the grandiosity though.  Dampens the chuckles.

 

tick tock tick tock

 

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

5 hours ago, Wistman said:

Well I suppose every forum should have an insult comic drop in on occasion to keep everybody's spirits up.

:D 

Too bad about the grandiosity though.  Dampens the chuckles.

 

tick tock tick tock

 

Unfortunately, like death and taxes, they will always be with us, could do with some lighting bolts occassionally though to hit those flying a kite.

Did that work or was I off several degrees.

Anyhoo, and moving on echo echo echo... I wonder if Hawass is holding back some surprises. On what he has said it seems quite clear cut what he is going to announce, but I would hold something back, something to make the audience gasp. It's noticible that he has not made any mention of KV35YL and KV55, though he doesn't have to if these latest test results make no change to their status, or at least their status in Hawass's opinion of who they are, and he is adamant, a relative of Adam Ant ?, that the YL is not Nefertiti. However, some of his comments about this in "Scanning the Pharaohs" may come back to bite him if the evidence he presents next month is less than conclusive. Without a long quote, he essentially dismisses the YL as Nefertiti because she is never shown with a son and that she was not a daughter of AIII and Tiye. On the last part I guess he will be proven correct, but if he declares that the boy is a son of KV21B, who will be announced as Nefertiti, his argument about no visible son for Nefertiti as she never had one, falls flat. Now clearly if the results are what we think they will be it will not matter, but it does show the specious nature of some arguments about these mummies, though nearly all arguments about them are specious to some extent.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Unfortunately, like death and taxes, they will always be with us, could do with some lighting bolts occassionally though to hit those flying a kite.

Did that work or was I off several degrees.

Anyhoo, and moving on echo echo echo... I wonder if Hawass is holding back some surprises. On what he has said it seems quite clear cut what he is going to announce, but I would hold something back, something to make the audience gasp. It's noticible that he has not made any mention of KV35YL and KV55, though he doesn't have to if these latest test results make no change to their status, or at least their status in Hawass's opinion of who they are, and he is adamant, a relative of Adam Ant ?, that the YL is not Nefertiti. However, some of his comments about this in "Scanning the Pharaohs" may come back to bite him if the evidence he presents next month is less than conclusive. Without a long quote, he essentially dismisses the YL as Nefertiti because she is never shown with a son and that she was not a daughter of AIII and Tiye. On the last part I guess he will be proven correct, but if he declares that the boy is a son of KV21B, who will be announced as Nefertiti, his argument about no visible son for Nefertiti as she never had one, falls flat. Now clearly if the results are what we think they will be it will not matter, but it does show the specious nature of some arguments about these mummies, though nearly all arguments about them are specious to some extent.

 

Well I"m hoping for surprises and am cautiously optimistic.  And I'm wishing the relevant data that's released is complete, to put it kindly.

But we will not know the identity of KV35YL, other than that she's full sister to KV55, and maybe not any more about him.  That frustrates me to be frank.  But the pivotal KV35 prince, he is tantalyzing; how does he fit into the Amarna game of thrones.  And if the two KV21 mummies are the missing queens, why was Hawass so certain he would find Ankhsenamun's tomb nearby?  Any guess?

 

  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wistman said:

Well I"m hoping for surprises and am cautiously optimistic.  And I'm wishing the relevant data that's released is complete, to put it kindly.

But we will not know the identity of KV35YL, other than that she's full sister to KV55, and maybe not any more about him.  That frustrates me to be frank.  But the pivotal KV35 prince, he is tantalyzing; how does he fit into the Amarna game of thrones.  And if the two KV21 mummies are the missing queens, why was Hawass so certain he would find Ankhsenamun's tomb nearby?  Any guess?

 

  

Yeah, we all know that Hawass is the great bigger upper, but, on this occassion everything is on DNA results, and he knows the full results already. This pre-announcement is just to generate interest, then the main announcement at the end of October just before the centenary on November 4th. He might even make the announcement on Sunday October 31st because it's halloween, and it's mummies, and it's spooky, or if not, then on Friday 29th, exactly a week before the centenary.

I don't think Hawass will actually say what he has about this, knowing the full results, if they are inconclusive or just plain bad, as he will be eviscerated. Sibson in the video goes "hm" about Hawass saying "could" about naming which mummy is Nefertiti, but he knows and "could" is just hype. I see it as something like judges at singing or cookery contests waiting a ridiculously long amount of time, with drums rolling, before announcing the winner.

As you say, I think a full the release of the data straight away is needed, because if it's only partial the arguments will continue.

Even hoping that Hawass might spring a surprise, thinking about it I'm not sure if there is any scope for this with KV35YL and KV55 as their full results have been public since 2020, and that they are full siblings has not changed, though KV55 could still be a full brother of Ankhenaten, but I don't think this will ever be resolved, unless the age can be pinned down to an age lower than possible for Akhenaten, below 30 really.

Why Hawass, who has long suggested that KV21A and B are possibly Ankhesenamun and Nefertiti, would continue to say he is still looking for mummies and tombs is a mystery, though he's probably just been hedging his bets, and it helps with the hype.

Where the boy fits in, assuming he will be named as a half brother of Tutankhamun, depends mostly on his date of birth and death, was he the eldest and crown prince? How can we ever know on the epigraphic evidence we have on any royal sons, just the Hermopolis block naming Tutankhuaten. The only thing that suggests itself to me is that, assuming the content of this announcement, as he may be a son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, he may be first born, and I will still go for a DOB inbetween Meritaten and Meketaten, with Tutankhamun produced from one of Akhenaten's sisters for reasons unknown, but perhaps religious. It may be the Shu and Tefnut thing. Those gods were a part of Atum, a trinity, so if Nefertiti was not a full sister of Akhenaten, maybe any children of theirs is not "pure", though this has not stopped Ankhenaten and Nefertiti being shown as Shu and Tefnut, an argument of course to show that they were full siblings and that KV35YL is Nefertiti, an argument seemingly about to be dismissed by DNA once and for all. The problem with putting this boy into a slot in Amarna is that while we are about to find out where he fits genetically, we can do nothing other than make guesses as to were he fits in the timeline. It wil be interesting to hear what is said about his probable cause of death though, and does this in any way fit somehow with the death of the YL. Two violent deaths, even if accident, need some thought, and Hawass does think that the YL was killed by a deliberate blow, but there's still the possibility of a kick from a horse. So, no matter the results, there will still be a whole heap of things to discuss.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yeah, we all know that Hawass is the great bigger upper, but, on this occassion everything is on DNA results, and he knows the full results already. This pre-announcement is just to generate interest, then the main announcement at the end of October just before the centenary on November 4th. He might even make the announcement on Sunday October 31st because it's halloween, and it's mummies, and it's spooky, or if not, then on Friday 29th, exactly a week before the centenary.

I don't think Hawass will actually say what he has about this, knowing the full results, if they are inconclusive or just plain bad, as he will be eviscerated. Sibson in the video goes "hm" about Hawass saying "could" about naming which mummy is Nefertiti, but he knows and "could" is just hype. I see it as something like judges at singing or cookery contests waiting a ridiculously long amount of time, with drums rolling, before announcing the winner.

As you say, I think a full the release of the data straight away is needed, because if it's only partial the arguments will continue.

Even hoping that Hawass might spring a surprise, thinking about it I'm not sure if there is any scope for this with KV35YL and KV55 as their full results have been public since 2020, and that they are full siblings has not changed, though KV55 could still be a full brother of Ankhenaten, but I don't think this will ever be resolved, unless the age can be pinned down to an age lower than possible for Akhenaten, below 30 really.

Why Hawass, who has long suggested that KV21A and B are possibly Ankhesenamun and Nefertiti, would continue to say he is still looking for mummies and tombs is a mystery, though he's probably just been hedging his bets, and it helps with the hype.

Where the boy fits in, assuming he will be named as a half brother of Tutankhamun, depends mostly on his date of birth and death, was he the eldest and crown prince? How can we ever know on the epigraphic evidence we have on any royal sons, just the Hermopolis block naming Tutankhuaten. The only thing that suggests itself to me is that, assuming the content of this announcement, as he may be a son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, he may be first born, and I will still go for a DOB inbetween Meritaten and Meketaten, with Tutankhamun produced from one of Akhenaten's sisters for reasons unknown, but perhaps religious. It may be the Shu and Tefnut thing. Those gods were a part of Atum, a trinity, so if Nefertiti was not a full sister of Akhenaten, maybe any children of theirs is not "pure", though this has not stopped Ankhenaten and Nefertiti being shown as Shu and Tefnut, an argument of course to show that they were full siblings and that KV35YL is Nefertiti, an argument seemingly about to be dismissed by DNA once and for all. The problem with putting this boy into a slot in Amarna is that while we are about to find out where he fits genetically, we can do nothing other than make guesses as to were he fits in the timeline. It wil be interesting to hear what is said about his probable cause of death though, and does this in any way fit somehow with the death of the YL. Two violent deaths, even if accident, need some thought, and Hawass does think that the YL was killed by a deliberate blow, but there's still the possibility of a kick from a horse. So, no matter the results, there will still be a whole heap of things to discuss.

If the KV35 prince is shown to be the child of Nefertiti and KV55, it strengthens the case for KV55 as Akhenaten, weakens it for him as Smenkhkare, conclusively I'd say.

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

45 minutes ago, Wistman said:

If the KV35 prince is shown to be the child of Nefertiti and KV55, it strengthens the case for KV55 as Akhenaten, weakens it for him as Smenkhkare, conclusively I'd say.

I think it probably will, and arguments against are going to sound like nit picking. I'll put the contra argument just so it can be seen. On my shaky understanding of this, full siblings do not inherit exactly the same DNA from their parents, therefore there will be a slight difference between them. The boy and Tutankhamun are presumably going to have different mothers, so different DNA there. The issue which could be used to continue the KV55 argument, is that if Akhenaten and Smenkhkare are full siblings, and we have zero idea, due to the slight differences in the DNA passed on, it may not be possible with 100% certainty to say that the boy and Tutankhamun are not sons not only of the same mother, but not also of the same father if one is the son of Akhenaten and one the son of Smenkhkare. So, I believe, it would not be possible to say with 100% on the basis of the DNA of the boy and Tutankhamun that KV55 is Akhenaten. I hope that makes sense, and do we need 100% certainty on mummies 3,400 years old, probably not.

For myself, if the DNA, without the nitpicking, shows the boy and Tutankhamun to be sons of KV55, then I will accept that this is Akhenaten, as to have one of them a son to Akhenaten and one to Smenkhkare, while I believe technically possible, would be a bit cranky and creating argument for the sake of it. The good side is that it still leaves Smenkhkare to be found, and it still leaves the possibility that he might be the boy. A point here about "pure blood" marriages, is that if he is Smenkhkare, being married to his full sister Meritaten will fit the criteria, that is if there was such a criteri, and I don't think so, but I thought I would mention it anyway, just for completeness.

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

These people who insist that KV55 must be Smenkhkare rather baffle me as that theory has so little evidence backing it. Just yesterday, when I pointed out somewhere that the coffin of the individual once had the cartouches of Akhenaten all over it, since excised to render the coffin anonymous, but with the tell-tale unique epithets of Akhenaten remaining--someone replied that the epithers could have been used for any king. Could have, should have, would have--such wishful thinking doesn't even approach evidence. All these Smenkhkare enthusiasts cling to is the young age of the individual concluded by some examiners, but not all, and certainly not the latest ones in Cairo.
And not mentioned by this camp is that there was an *alteration* to the foot of the KV55 coffin making it clear that the change was ordered by someone who thought of the deceased as a father. And my conclusion, as stated in the paper below, is that the person was a female! The evidence is hieroglyphic. If this is the coffin of Smenkhkare, which daughter of his grew up to have the authority [and access to artisans and gold] to alter what had been there in the first place?

https://www.academia.edu/73618020/Akhenaten_As_Re_Horakhty_the_Father_God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 12:24 PM, Wepwawet said:

So, it looks to me that the KV55 coffin was made for a female, possibly Kiya, and then converted for use by Akhenaten, and then had it's cartouches carefully cut out in order to insert a different name for a new occupant. This will never be solved, but the question here is that while the cartouches were removed, and they would have been Akhenaten's cartouches, was he still in the coffin and they buried him in it anyway, or, had they removed him and placed ? in the coffin. I would think that before altering the coffin they would have removed the occupant, but that is just my opinion. The mask being ripped off could have been done no matter who was in the coffin.

Bolded for emphasis as no argument has been put forward here to deny that this coffin had not been converted for use by Akhenaten, only speculation, not yet a criminal offence, as to whether it is his body in the coffin or not.

If the forthcoming DNA results show the boy and Tutankhamun to be the sons of KV55, then I will accept that this is probably Akhenaten, despite the large range of ages, 18-45 across all of them collectively, but there is something a bit off with the latest age range for the YL due to Saleem's remark on a German TV documentary which confliced with "Scanning the Pharaohs", and in any case I think the DNA results will work against this mummy being Nefertiti.

So, this is probably going to be a score draw, KV55 as Akhenaten and case closed, the YL not Nefertiti and still unidentified by name, and the case remains open. However, I'm not keeping score, I just want to know what the actual truth is, and if it becomes scientifically clear by the DNA that KV55 is Akhenaten, so be it, I'm happy with that as it shines some light into the black hole of Amarna. I'll also be happy with any clear scientific result that shows the YL to be Nefertiti, not specious arguments about wigs, spare arms or what she looks like, but it seems this is not going to happen, we'll see next month.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already stated, since the coffin has undergone evident alterations and its cartouches have been excised, it is curious to argue that its current and final state undeniably identifies the individual found inside it, irrespective of the epigraphy which only gives a glimpse of one of the states of alteration which for all we know might have been intermediary.   But in any case we cannot know for certain when the KV55 mummy was put inside the coffin, just as we cannot know if Akhenaten was removed from it and replaced with Smenkhkare...unless some corroboratory evidence surfaces; currently we cannot know with certainty what happened or when regarding KV55 and its occupant.  We can only wonder why Akhenaten needed a refurbished coffin at all after a seventeen year reign, since this one was made for Kiya, who hardly merited more than the Pharaoh.  Seems mighty curious that.  And why with all the changes done to it no alteration was made to the modeling of the female Nubian wig, which could easily have been done.  The coffin is a curious but beautiful mash-up.

And again, (!), this is not about a pet theory being clung to religiously, KV55 is whoever he was and that has to be okay; we're all anxious to know for certain, without prejudice.  Having doubt and questioning authority, such as it is, is healthy skepticism even if inconvenient or frustrating for some.  The evidence as it exists so far is inconclusive.

I'll get the mop.

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

3 hours ago, Wistman said:

As already stated, since the coffin has undergone evident alterations and its cartouches have been excised, it is curious to argue that its current and final state undeniably identifies the individual found inside it, irrespective of the epigraphy which only gives a glimpse of one of the states of alteration which for all we know might have been intermediary.   But in any case we cannot know for certain when the KV55 mummy was put inside the coffin, just as we cannot know if Akhenaten was removed from it and replaced with Smenkhkare...unless some corroboratory evidence surfaces; currently we cannot know with certainty what happened or when regarding KV55 and its occupant.  We can only wonder why Akhenaten needed a refurbished coffin at all after a seventeen year reign, since this one was made for Kiya, who hardly merited more than the Pharaoh.  Seems mighty curious that.  And why with all the changes done to it no alteration was made to the modeling of the female Nubian wig, which could easily have been done.  The coffin is a curious but beautiful mash-up.

And again, (!), this is not about a pet theory being clung to religiously, KV55 is whoever he was and that has to be okay; we're all anxious to know for certain, without prejudice.  Having doubt and questioning authority, such as it is, is healthy skepticism even if inconvenient or frustrating for some.  The evidence as it exists so far is inconclusive.

I'll get the mop.

Over the years I have always been puzzled as to why some commentators on Amarna swear blind that this coffin was made originally for Ankhenaten, even people who otherwise have a lot of good knowledge, and seem quite sane. The most puzzling thing is that they actually think it looks right for a king, even the wig. Point out that while a really good coffin, it hardly stacks up against those for Tutankhamun, and why a wig and not a nemes, and you get a blank stare, or even abuse, never a proper explanation of their workings out, odd, and as for workings out, see below.

Anyhoo, some years back looking for some specific anatomical information on the Amarna mummies, and not finding what I was looking for, I made some calculations of my own. What I was after was their cephalic indexes, [Which as a measure of skull dimensions is still valid, it's the racial aspects which have been questioned], the interest being of course the unusual skull shape of Tutankhamun, and if it fitted into normal parameters. The results were a bit odd, not surprising really. He is described as being brachycephalic, meaning "short headed", or that his head is about as wide as it is long. To have a brachycephalic index as a female the index will be from 83 and up, for a male it will be 81.1 and above, but usually not as high as a female. Tutankhamun with his "long skull" came out at 83.9, it's because of his broad face, which we do not see when looking at his head in profile. I made the calculations for all the mummies, but as it does not show anything by comparing females to males, I'll give the indexes for KV55 as 81, and the boy as 80.769. This puts KV55 at the top end of being mesocephalic "Medium headed", and the boy only a little way below him on the mesocephalic scale.

Reading descriptions about the boy he is often described as being brachycephalic, or even as exceptionaly brachycephalic, which is odd as he is not, and some who make these observations are pathologists, even odder. I think they are misreading, misinterpreting the meaning of brachycephalic and interpreting it as only having a broad face, which he does have. If as related mummies they should have the same or similar indexes I do not know, but it can be seen that the boy is quite close to KV55, while Tutankhamun is a bit of an outrider, actually considerably I think. The calculations are all mine based on the given dimensions of the various skulls , and I've checked them multiple times.

I know it all looks like rather esoteric nerdiness, but I became unsatisfied with just accepting what I was told about these mummies, and while not being a professional, tried to work some things out for myself, and voila, I see a different  picture, which I can at least show my workings for, and not just wave an imperious hand and say it is so. So, what I am working up to here is if full brothers, unlikely it seems anyway, should the boy and Tutankhamun have similar head shapes, I don't know, but if Tutankhamun does not in fact have some sort of syndrome, perhaps they would be similar. So, their cephalic index shows quite a difference, and so do X-rays of their skulls, for I have found an X-ray of the boy hidden in plain sight for years. First, while they both have a very distinct Thutmosid overbite, the shape of their craniums in profile is very different, and I cannot provide an image of the boy at this time as my scanner is kaput. Tutankhamun is just weird to be honest, it's overly long and flat after a strange dip about a few inches back from the forehead. The boy's cranium is perfectly normal. I wonder if what we are seeing is the result of inbreeding with Tutankhamun, but not with the boy if he has a mother who is not the sister of his father, and that is the pertinent part of this probably overly complicated post.

How was this X-ray of the boy hiding in plain sight for years? It's all in the way that hieroglyphs, names in particular, are translated. The son of Amunhotep II buried in KV35 was named Webensenu, presumed to be this boy, if not prince Thutmose, and this is the only variant I ever use, but there is another one, and that is Ouabkhousenou, and a phonetic similarity can be seen. I have a copy of "An X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies" by James Harris and Edward Wente published in 1980. This is not the sort of book you read from cover to cover like a novel, just use for reference for a particular mummy, so it would be easy to overlook this one photo covering a quarter of one page. Did I once look in the index for Webensenu, yep, did I find him, nope. I only found him because, for the first time since about 2005 I had a look in Fletcher's book about Nefertiti, and behold she indexes him with both names, and crucially, says that he is in the book of X-rays. I now need to find a microfiche reader as the book just has one less than crystal clear photo of his skull, but has a load of microfiche slides in the back with the full set of X-rays, and who has a microfiche reader in these days of computers.

Edit: I said in a previous post that no X-rays of this boy had come to light. This comment was specifically about the University of York research from 2002/03, when he was digitally X-rayed along with Tiye and the YL. I had no idea he was X-rayed decades earlier. There is a pattern here that everytime the other KV35 mummies were looked at and tested in some way, he was as well, and why not as his position in the tomb on being found was a clear indication that he was not Webensenu, but an Amarna royal,, but for reasons that will probably never be explained, his results were never fully released, or even talked about, until now.

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

On me saying that the boy was shown in the 2003 documentary being X-rayed, it was a false memory, though in this documentary, which I have now tracked down, and with the name "Nefertiti Ressurected" the X-ray apparatus can be seen on a gantry above all three mummies in KV35 chamber Jc. I would though ask if it is feasable that they would not also X-ray the boy and Tiye at the same time. This can be seen in the video from the one hour mark.

However, in a previous post I mentioned a Siemens truck, and scanning, and I was wracking my brain as to why I was tying that into the 2003 documentary. The reason is that I had confused two documentaries, the one from 2003 and another one, on the same topic, from 2007, named "Nefertiti & The Lost Dynasty". In this documentary all three KV35 chamber Jc mummies can be seeing being slid into a CT scanner in the Siemens truck. As this is from 2007 I presume that it was in fact tied into the DNA project, though that does not appear in this documentary, nor the CT scanning in the 2010 documentary. I am aware that they often film various activities that are then used not as a whole, but in parts of various documentaries, and this was very evident in the last few years with multiple documentaries about Tutankhamun's burial equipment when it was being conserved at the GEM, where we see the same footage, no need for multiple camera crews, and different voice overs in different languages, and all edited differently and appearing under different names.

However, here is the link to "Nefertiti & The Lost Dynasty", fortunately there is no need to watch more than the first 32 seconds, as in these seconds we see the Siemens truck, and then the boy, and it is very clearly him, being slid into the CT scanner, and if you watch further you will also see Tiye, the YL, KV55 and Tutankhamun in the scanner. My point, for some time, is that no results of this scan of the boy have ever been made public, and of course there has been scepticism that he was ever scanned, and that can now be addressed. Along with the photo of the boy in KV35 surrounded by three people in protective clothes, also probably in 2007, convinced me that he had also been DNA tested back then. I remain convinced of this, and that the DNA testing this year was primarily for the optics of a new documentary, and probably several. But, at the end of the day, all these arguments become history as we are finally going to get DNA and scan results, and that is all that matters, though the question of why we had to wait for 15 years is another matter, as is the matter of why there has been venement opposition to the very idea that he was ever scanned and DNA tested that long ago.

 

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

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

On me saying that the boy was shown in the 2003 documentary being X-rayed, it was a false memory, though in this documentary, which I have now tracked down, and with the name "Nefertiti Ressurected" the X-ray apparatus can be seen on a gantry above all three mummies in KV35 chamber Jc. I would though ask if it is feasable that they would not also X-ray the boy and Tiye at the same time. This can be seen in the video from the one hour mark.

However, in a previous post I mentioned a Siemens truck, and scanning, and I was wracking my brain as to why I was tying that into the 2003 documentary. The reason is that I had confused two documentaries, the one from 2003 and another one, on the same topic, from 2007, named "Nefertiti & The Lost Dynasty". In this documentary all three KV35 chamber Jc mummies can be seeing being slid into a CT scanner in the Siemens truck. As this is from 2007 I presume that it was in fact tied into the DNA project, though that does not appear in this documentary, nor the CT scanning in the 2010 documentary. I am aware that they often film various activities that are then used not as a whole, but in parts of various documentaries, and this was very evident in the last few years with multiple documentaries about Tutankhamun's burial equipment when it was being conserved at the GEM, where we see the same footage, no need for multiple camera crews, and different voice overs in different languages, and all edited differently and appearing under different names.

However, here is the link to "Nefertiti & The Lost Dynasty", fortunately there is no need to watch more than the first 32 seconds, as in these seconds we see the Siemens truck, and then the boy, and it is very clearly him, being slid into the CT scanner, and if you watch further you will also see Tiye, the YL, KV55 and Tutankhamun in the scanner. My point, for some time, is that no results of this scan of the boy have ever been made public, and of course there has been scepticism that he was ever scanned, and that can now be addressed. Along with the photo of the boy in KV35 surrounded by three people in protective clothes, also probably in 2007, convinced me that he had also been DNA tested back then. I remain convinced of this, and that the DNA testing this year was primarily for the optics of a new documentary, and probably several. But, at the end of the day, all these arguments become history as we are finally going to get DNA and scan results, and that is all that matters, though the question of why we had to wait for 15 years is another matter, as is the matter of why there has been venement opposition to the very idea that he was ever scanned and DNA tested that long ago.

 

Yes, those clips confirm the prince was tested long ago but no results of that testing were ever published or mentioned.  It isn't reasonable to deny it with this footage  - there must have been much more which was edited out for film making/entertainment purposes.  It is ludicrous to say that they tested two mummies but not the third, when he actually is shown inside the scanning equipment.

Noted that YL has a big head wound atop her head, as does the prince, reportedly.  Do any of your old x-rays of the prince show the wound?

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 2
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.