Aldebaran Posted December 7, 2024 #1076 Share Posted December 7, 2024 22 hours ago, Wepwawet said: On 12/6/2024 at 2:34 PM, Aldebaran said: Habicht banned me from viewing his stuff on Academia a long time ago. That's my basic access problem there I'm not banned from viewing his papers, but on this one it is just the very short and unhelpful abstract. The two links both go to the same page, with the same abstract, but no means of accessing the full paper unless you are a paid subscriber. https://pontecorbolipress.com/journals/index.php/he/article/view/365 100 euros to subscribe means more than 100 US dollars. Naw...never was a fan of Habicht. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted December 7, 2024 #1077 Share Posted December 7, 2024 6 minutes ago, Aldebaran said: 100 euros to subscribe means more than 100 US dollars. Naw...never was a fan of Habicht. I once subscribed to some of these, not this one, and then you find that you only found one article of use, and then over the years you find that you need to subscribe to ever more dubious, imo, publishers. So I don't subscribe to any now. The info on the Amarna DNA that Hawass was to release two years ago will, I believe, be released in a Discovery Channel documentary next year, which in the UK at least, needs a subscription these days, when it came as part of your cable TV package back in the days, or was completely free on terrestrial TV via your aerial, long long gone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldebaran Posted December 8, 2024 #1078 Share Posted December 8, 2024 20 hours ago, Wepwawet said: The info on the Amarna DNA that Hawass was to release two years ago will, I believe, be released in a Discovery Channel documentary next year, which in the UK at least, needs a subscription these days, when it came as part of your cable TV package back in the days, or was completely free on terrestrial TV via your aerial, long long gone. From what I know about the Discovery documentaries is that they always put out a DVD of them. I don't have the channel, either. But I do have a couple of the DVDs and, IMO, that's the best way to go as you can re-watch them and refresh your memory on certain things. I have viewed both "King Tut Unwrapped" [also DNA] and "The Lost Queen" [meaning Hatshepsut] several times. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted December 11, 2024 #1079 Share Posted December 11, 2024 Reading between the lines, the two KV21 mummies had their original samples re-tested using the same techniques as were used in 2007, hence issues trying to get decent results. If so, This was a bit bizarre, why not use the latest techniques in 2022. Well, hopefully we'll see some time next year. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldebaran Posted December 12, 2024 #1080 Share Posted December 12, 2024 Regarding videos of ancient Egypt, it seemed to me quite awhile since I watched a new one. It seems I missed "King Tut: A Century of Secrets" in 2022. I looked for it on Amazon Prime, which I have streaming on my TV, and there it was: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B8M77358/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Of course, everybody looks aged now [including me] Zahi Hawass, Ashraf Selim, that handsome doctor, now has white hair and eyebrows. Only Dr. Yehia Gad, the microbiologist, looked the same to me. There were snippets of recreating footage, here and there, that I'm sure I've seen previously. In fact, most of the documentary is made up of those snippets. But, I'm not complaining as it was a very cheap streaming rental and there was something there I'd been waiting for. Dr. Hawass congratulates Dr. Gad on his good work with the DNA. Then he asks him, point blank, "Can the mother of Tutankhamun have been the cousin of the father?" Gad shakes his head and replies "No." and then goes on briefly to explain why. In several of my papers I have done the same, first contra Marc Gabolde. And, yet, I have been waiting for a firm statement on the part of someone connected to the original publication of the DNA testing in some form. There it is, in a documentary commemorating the century since the discovery of KV62. A decade later, there has been no backtracking on the "brother/sister" results--nor can there be, really. Dr. Selim, the radiologist, made a few interesting remarks, as well. One was that the knee wound was so large that it can only have been the result of trauma--like an accident with a chariot. Not just a fall. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted December 20, 2024 #1081 Share Posted December 20, 2024 (edited) I want to revist the sem and High Priest of Ptah in relation to crown prince Thutmose. In an earlier post about the high priests in general I mentioned that quite a few of them were titled not just high priest, but also sem, and Thutmose does this as well. Having no reference at the time for why this might be so I assumed that some of them simply wanted to continue as sem as well as being high priest, therefore there being a progression from sem to high priest, but this may not be the case. German Egyptologist Wolfram Grajetzki, in an article about a Memphis tomb for a High Priest of Ptah from the time of either Tutankhamun or Ay, discusses a scene from a wall of the tomb. The top register of the scene shows mourners in postures reminiscent of the death room scenes in TA21, and the bottom register shows a line of court officials in order of precedence. They are led by Horemeb as Hereditary Prince and General , then the two viziers followed by various overseers. The last man is the Mayor of Memphis, but just in front of him are two High Priests, the one taking precedence is the Greatest of Seers of Heliopolis, Sainheret, followed by the now reigning High Priest of Ptah, Meryptah. I need to add here that the names of these officials has to be extrapolated from other evidence, and Grajetzki does go into this evidence. It's of interest, at least to me, that the Heliopolitan has precedence over the High Priest of Ptah, even at the funeral of the previous High Priest. Of direct relevance to crown prince Thutmose is the fact that Meryptah is not named as High Priest of Ptah, even though it is not doubted that he was, but as sem only. Grajetzi points this out with the explanation that the High Priests of Ptah were often only known by their sem title, and he references a source for this, but it's a German publication and I cannot link to an online version, except to say that it deals with the sons of Ramesess II, which is interesting. In a previous post I went with "common knowledge" that son of Ramesess II, prince Khaemwaset, was first sem and then promoted to HPP, there seemingly being a reigning HPP while he was sem. I would like to get my hands on this publication as it seems that this was not the case, otherwise why would Grajetzi reference it as regards HPPs often only being known by their sem title. This then suggest to me, that while further research is needed, that crown prince Thutmose was always HPP, even in the scene of him officiating as sem at the burial of Apis I, perhaps a funeral being the apt place for him as sem anyway. Like Superman and Clarke Kent, is a HPP and sem-priest of Ptah ever seen together... And another point. It is "common knowledge" that priests of Ptah wore a wig and a sidelock, yet I have never seen an image of any priest of Ptah other than sem or HPP so attired, and in the image below we see the HPP with wig and sidelock with a rank and file priest of Ptah who is, as should be expected with priests anyway, shaven headed. And incase anybody was wondering why we see images of lectors wearing a wig, it's because they are not part of the temple priesthood. The image below shows a High Priest of Ptah, yet he is described as being sem-priest, the title can be seen if you look at the knees of the central figure and look left to the first column of hieroglyphs at that level, just under the "eye" sign. Edited December 20, 2024 by Wepwawet 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted December 20, 2024 #1082 Share Posted December 20, 2024 1 hour ago, Wepwawet said: I want to revist the sem and High Priest of Ptah in relation to crown prince Thutmose. In an earlier post about the high priests in general I mentioned that quite a few of them were titled not just high priest, but also sem, and Thutmose does this as well. Having no reference at the time for why this might be so I assumed that some of them simply wanted to continue as sem as well as being high priest, therefore there being a progression from sem to high priest, but this may not be the case. German Egyptologist Wolfram Grajetzki, in an article about a Memphis tomb for a High Priest of Ptah from the time of either Tutankhamun or Ay, discusses a scene from a wall of the tomb. The top register of the scene shows mourners in postures reminiscent of the death room scenes in TA21, and the bottom register shows a line of court officials in order of precedence. They are led by Horemeb as Hereditary Prince and General , then the two viziers followed by various overseers. The last man is the Mayor of Memphis, but just in front of him are two High Priests, the one taking precedence is the Greatest of Seers of Heliopolis, Sainheret, followed by the now reigning High Priest of Ptah, Meryptah. I need to add here that the names of these officials has to be extrapolated from other evidence, and Grajetzki does go into this evidence. It's of interest, at least to me, that the Heliopolitan has precedence over the High Priest of Ptah, even at the funeral of the previous High Priest. Of direct relevance to crown prince Thutmose is the fact that Meryptah is not named as High Priest of Ptah, even though it is not doubted that he was, but as sem only. Grajetzi points this out with the explanation that the High Priests of Ptah were often only known by their sem title, and he references a source for this, but it's a German publication and I cannot link to an online version, except to say that it deals with the sons of Ramesess II, which is interesting. In a previous post I went with "common knowledge" that son of Ramesess II, prince Khaemwaset, was first sem and then promoted to HPP, there seemingly being a reigning HPP while he was sem. I would like to get my hands on this publication as it seems that this was not the case, otherwise why would Grajetzi reference it as regards HPPs often only being known by their sem title. This then suggest to me, that while further research is needed, that crown prince Thutmose was always HPP, even in the scene of him officiating as sem at the burial of Apis I, perhaps a funeral being the apt place for him as sem anyway. Like Superman and Clarke Kent, is a HPP and sem-priest of Ptah ever seen together... And another point. It is "common knowledge" that priests of Ptah wore a wig and a sidelock, yet I have never seen an image of any priest of Ptah other than sem or HPP so attired, and in the image below we see the HPP with wig and sidelock with a rank and file priest of Ptah who is, as should be expected with priests anyway, shaven headed. And incase anybody was wondering why we see images of lectors wearing a wig, it's because they are not part of the temple priesthood. The image below shows a High Priest of Ptah, yet he is described as being sem-priest, the title can be seen if you look at the knees of the central figure and look left to the first column of hieroglyphs at that level, just under the "eye" sign. Sem priests had a particular function -- so it's a true distinction that one would want known. The regular (wab) priests could do purification and so forth but the sem priests were literate and had a number of duties that the wab priests couldn't perform because of lack of education. I'll post some references later, but making the distinction is important for it indicates he's highly educated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted December 20, 2024 #1083 Share Posted December 20, 2024 4 hours ago, Kenemet said: Sem priests had a particular function -- so it's a true distinction that one would want known. The regular (wab) priests could do purification and so forth but the sem priests were literate and had a number of duties that the wab priests couldn't perform because of lack of education. I'll post some references later, but making the distinction is important for it indicates he's highly educated. I think there should be a distinction made between the vast majority of sem-priests "in the community", and those who were members of the elite, king's sons and high priests. I detect a difference between them that may be similar between holders of the rank of God's Father. Ay of course has this title, but the exact same title is used for the lowest ranking priests of Amun. Nobody, to my knowledge, can clearly explain this, but at least try, and I have never read anything dealing with a potential difference between sem-priests, not even suggesting there may be differences, yet clearly the royal and high priest sems cannot have the same function as a lowly sem in a village. It seems more than a question of scale, for instance the Pope at base level is a priest just as a village church priest is, but I think with the AE it's different, not least because they are not really priests at all, and we can lose sight of that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted December 21, 2024 #1084 Share Posted December 21, 2024 1 hour ago, Wepwawet said: I think there should be a distinction made between the vast majority of sem-priests "in the community", and those who were members of the elite, king's sons and high priests. I detect a difference between them that may be similar between holders of the rank of God's Father. Ay of course has this title, but the exact same title is used for the lowest ranking priests of Amun. Nobody, to my knowledge, can clearly explain this, but at least try, and I have never read anything dealing with a potential difference between sem-priests, not even suggesting there may be differences, yet clearly the royal and high priest sems cannot have the same function as a lowly sem in a village. It seems more than a question of scale, for instance the Pope at base level is a priest just as a village church priest is, but I think with the AE it's different, not least because they are not really priests at all, and we can lose sight of that. Your analogy is a good one. The pope is a priest...but before that he was a cardinal. I'm going to start a new thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted December 31, 2024 Author #1085 Share Posted December 31, 2024 (edited) Here's a short video showing the inside of the Royal Tomb of Amarna: Edited December 31, 2024 by Wistman 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 2 #1086 Share Posted January 2 An interesting paper from David Brügger. He discusses whether the Aten temples at Amarna are as unique as is thought, and that they seem to replicate the Amun-Ra temple at Karnak, without a roof of course. He presents a number of graphics with the Karnak and Amarna temple ground plans superimposed and side by side. I think some of the lines he draws are somewhat selective, to be expected, though overall it does seem to me that he is on to something. What is suggested is that while Akhenaten has just the one god, who needs a temple open to the sky, he has retained much of the old in it's layout. Should we be surprised, probably not. Seamlessly from Karnak to Amarna? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldebaran Posted January 6 #1087 Share Posted January 6 The carving in the Royal Tomb looks so well executed--too bad the preservation is so poor. Surprising about the "ceiling to the floor" method of hewing out the chambers. Not a chance Nefertiti was buried there--so where? Somewhere in the Valley for sure. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 18 #1088 Share Posted January 18 Habicht's book about Ankhesenamun is finally on Amazon, but only in Italian, the other sellers of this book will not sell the English version to anybody from an English speaking country except Australia. This is bizarre. Anyhoo, this is the Amazon translation of an Italian review which gives more information on the contents than the abstract. Quote A fantastic investigation in the land of Egypt. Habicht and Galassi, an Egyptologist and the other a paleopathologist, investigate the figure of Tutankhamun's wife, his half-sister Ankhesenamon. Compared to other books that deal briefly with the issue, this work analyzes the figure of the queen in a compact and precise way, reconstructing an image as clear as possible starting from the few sources, which are philologically analyzed by scholars. A good section of the book is dedicated to the mysterious Dahamunzu affair, an international intrigue involving the queen herself in complex negotiations with the king of the Hittites to have a husband. Various theories are discussed and the pros and cons of each interpretation are weighed. The comparative table of scenarios is very useful. A very interesting and original analysis of the anthropological aspects of the mummy follows, with an excursus on the discovery of two mummies possible candidates for identification with the queen by the Italian explorer Bellini, with a precise anatomical and linguistic analysis of his description of the finds to which a description of subsequent studies is attached. Much has been explained that today no mummy is an adequate candidate for identification. An interesting chapter on the paleopathology of the queen and her possible thyroid disease are being investigated. It closes a large iconographic section with references to the myth in the cinematographic arts of the figure of Ankhesenamon. What can I say? Always passionate about the history of medicine, I already knew other texts by the author Galassi, the latter, written together with his colleague, seems to me a very appropriate choice and is configured as a highly researched study but written in a language that is not too complex. Definitely recommended. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wistman Posted January 18 Author #1089 Share Posted January 18 @Wepwawet Maybe Zahi can clear this up. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 18 #1090 Share Posted January 18 6 hours ago, Wistman said: @Wepwawet Maybe Zahi can clear this up. In no more than one brief paragraph, but..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldebaran Posted January 21 #1091 Share Posted January 21 (edited) On 1/18/2025 at 12:57 AM, Wepwawet said: Habicht's book about Ankhesenamun is finally on Amazon, but only in Italian, the other sellers of this book will not sell the English version to anybody from an English speaking country except Australia. This is bizarre. Anyhoo, this is the Amazon translation of an Italian review which gives more information on the contents than the abstract. I think the reviewer meant Belzoni instead of Bellini. Thyroid disease? Where does that come from? If Habicht admits there is no certain mummy for Ankhesenamun that is certainly correct. As for scenarios, I think I've seen them all by now. Here's the book in German on American Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Anchesenamun-Königin-Ehefrau-von-Tutanchamun-ebook/dp/B0B9NWW48N/ref=sr_1_14?crid=1FJVOJKXRM68O&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ycDRfLL5R88MQfGf63Mzd8hgYs3EcVmZBj4gagOKGaG2yAywCcWYHpQp***PV7M2M-GOmD6EubMvT-YaxfIeUsK9PTujoOCvnjdP2LMpmachseicDmeQf0wDtOcCojg7sWseDUMEG-1Vb_F2UA059xJaXCheLWZrzdVlZ9mgxIo45CZyTEBgGOO-APYXZnKpZr8F-4i-CFG-S4CnKIsfyYlVxArl6LwqlIln36bXdes.3h3bRDgb-WXhtub_XQMNF84vLR_XW6xnmZoa5xARyNE&dib_tag=se&keywords=Michael+Habicht&qid=1737502488&s=books&sprefix=michael+habicht%2Caps%2C2742&sr=1-14 Maybe there is no English version. However, the above title is from 2020. I didn't see a later one. Edited January 21 by Aldebaran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 24 #1092 Share Posted January 24 (edited) On 1/21/2025 at 11:32 PM, Aldebaran said: Maybe there is no English version This all looks like a right mess. It seems he has published several books about Ankhesenamun and Meritaten co-authored by either his wife or Galassi. The one with Galassi dealing only with Ankhesenamun seems not to be available in English at all, and another one on Ankhesenamun authored only by Habicht is in English but cannot be bought by anybody outside of Australia, where he works. The book on both Ankhesenamun and Meritaten is available on American Amazon in Kindle format. I tried to buy but got a message saying it was unavailable for sale, whether there is a block on selling it to the UK specifically, or to anybody I don't know. I have to say that I'm not impressed by this type of nonsense so I'll ignore what he has to say on this topic until such time he can get himself in order, or get a grip of his publishers, from whom this nonsense probably originates. This is the book on Meritaten and Ankhesenamun, perhaps you or anybody else in the States can see if you can at least make some progress in buying it before comitting. I sense that all three books are the same, though with some extra info in the Italian version. https://www.amazon.com/Meritaton-Akhet-Aton-Ankhesenamun-Consort-Tutankhamun-ebook/dp/B0BR8P9L1V?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kExZS6_qZrNb31qUktBE7WY7DD_M8L2i2rFSgWA-UD6QN7Ttl3cSqxm8kFLt_HuykCiwE77012FwU09wvnBS-a-8ejow9QQmZ9LqU3tLdTgkJFql26A-uahxiWXbra3_iRaY9x3cm9wU-76eWgz0QjC6GwO7nY5BY8U58uVyCx3X0HoegallvSJXXcPyf5PsIQZhM_DPr8teIobzAsn9tvgqz7GW31uapB7FtvMneKg.zTbQyXsMZC6kQ9RxRdbNuKyCbztkQz-eRNEXz8TL9GI&dib_tag=se&qid=1737718384&refinements=p_27%3AMichael+E.+Habicht&s=digital-text&sr=1-7&text=Michael+E.+Habicht&ref_=nav_signin Edited January 24 by Wepwawet 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldebaran Posted January 25 #1093 Share Posted January 25 (edited) I was able to read a sample of the Kindle version. Astonishingly, while attempting to cast shade on the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten, there was the contention that, even if the remains there are even 30 years at death, Akhenaten would have had to have been a small boy when he fathered Meritaten or 13 at most! Since there is no proof that Akhenaten reigned for more than 17 years and Meritaten doesn't appear in the art until he is a pharaoh and Nefertiti a queen at Thebes--how does this small boy business make sense? And how does being 13 when becoming a father disqualify anyone? No one knows exactly in what year of either the reign of Amenhotep III or Akhenaten, her father, Meritaten was born. All one can tell, judging again from the art, is that the princess was still considered a child in the Amarna tomb of Huya, the majordomo of Queen Tiye. Meritaten's head is still bald with the exception of a sidelock around Year 9, when the tomb was begun. It looks to me like, in the family scenes, the later form of the Aten cartouches are there. These were changed after the death of Amenhotep III. But I'll post an image, below. But, at some point, an Amarna princess wears a full wig like an adult and that is probably Meritaten, now a young lady. For certain, when the portrait of Kiya is changed to Meritaten, the full wig is there--even though another portrait of Kiya is made bald to indicate another princess [not named] who is still considered a child, probably Ankhesenamun. I concluded in one of my later papers that Akhenaten was 15 when he became a co-regent with his father, making him 32 when he died prematurely. 15 gives him plenty of time to have sired Meritaten already. Why would anybody think more years were needed? Anyway, people married very young in those times. I used to think Akhenaten wasn't married when he first became a pharaoh because, in the tomb of Kheruef, he was shown with Tiye, his mother, and no wife. But now I don't know. Kheruef was a servant of Tiye and there was no other royal lady more important in his career. So perhaps that's all that accounts for her standing behind her son instead of Nefertiti. Edited January 25 by Aldebaran 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted January 26 #1094 Share Posted January 26 (edited) On 1/24/2025 at 5:49 AM, Wepwawet said: This all looks like a right mess. It seems he has published several books about Ankhesenamun and Meritaten co-authored by either his wife or Galassi. The one with Galassi dealing only with Ankhesenamun seems not to be available in English at all, and another one on Ankhesenamun authored only by Habicht is in English but cannot be bought by anybody outside of Australia, where he works. The book on both Ankhesenamun and Meritaten is available on American Amazon in Kindle format. I tried to buy but got a message saying it was unavailable for sale, whether there is a block on selling it to the UK specifically, or to anybody I don't know. I have to say that I'm not impressed by this type of nonsense so I'll ignore what he has to say on this topic until such time he can get himself in order, or get a grip of his publishers, from whom this nonsense probably originates. This is the book on Meritaten and Ankhesenamun, perhaps you or anybody else in the States can see if you can at least make some progress in buying it before comitting. I sense that all three books are the same, though with some extra info in the Italian version. https://www.amazon.com/Meritaton-Akhet-Aton-Ankhesenamun-Consort-Tutankhamun-ebook/dp/B0BR8P9L1V?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kExZS6_qZrNb31qUktBE7WY7DD_M8L2i2rFSgWA-UD6QN7Ttl3cSqxm8kFLt_HuykCiwE77012FwU09wvnBS-a-8ejow9QQmZ9LqU3tLdTgkJFql26A-uahxiWXbra3_iRaY9x3cm9wU-76eWgz0QjC6GwO7nY5BY8U58uVyCx3X0HoegallvSJXXcPyf5PsIQZhM_DPr8teIobzAsn9tvgqz7GW31uapB7FtvMneKg.zTbQyXsMZC6kQ9RxRdbNuKyCbztkQz-eRNEXz8TL9GI&dib_tag=se&qid=1737718384&refinements=p_27%3AMichael+E.+Habicht&s=digital-text&sr=1-7&text=Michael+E.+Habicht&ref_=nav_signin It shows as available for me (so I bought it)... but whoever did the blurb for it isn't as proficient in English as one would hope ("cloths" for "clothes". The text also shows similar gaffes.) The early part of the work summarizes what's known and does correctly mention information from other Egyptologists of good repute (Tyldesley, Kemp, Habicht, Reeves, and others) and has recent citations. It's not quite as meaty as an encyclopedia article, and only (roughly) 1/3 of the text is actually about Meritaten. There's a brief discussion of the mummies, some pictures of images that depict both Meritaten and Ankhesenamun, A number of pages are simply an image and a scholarly citation along with the non-clickable URL link (which takes up page space and gives the impression that the book might be 132 pages instead of 85or so pages with actual text, along with 9 pages of appendix and around 20 pages of reference. A decent portion of the material (1/5th, perhaps) covers the Dakhamunzu affair (aka the Zannanza affair (for readers not familiar with this, it's the story of a Hittite prince who was sent to Egypt to marry an Egyptian queen. The prince dies along the way.) I did quirk an eyebrow at his using Ancient Origins material for some of his source (only three sources, but... still...) I haven't read the whole thing; only glanced at it and read the first chapter. I'll finish it later. Edited January 26 by Kenemet 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 26 #1095 Share Posted January 26 20 hours ago, Kenemet said: I did quirk an eyebrow at his using Ancient Origins material Well he just slipped down a few notches for that. Now if he said he had used material from this forum, that would, or could, be a different matter..... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted January 27 #1096 Share Posted January 27 So far, the book is just a slog through what's known (I'm about a third of the way through) -- one of those "wall of text" type manuscripts that just begs for a nicer formatting in Kindle format (to be fair, it'd be fine in a journal but as a Kindle book it's kind of eye-watering.) He mentions the quarrels over the date of mummy KV55 (Akhenaten, presumed) and leans into the "maybe only 22 years old" point -- but doesn't really do anything to give us an idea of what HE thinks the timeline is. And apparently the only way to identify Meritaten in most images is to look for a naked female. Having eyeballed some of those images (mostly Wikimedia images), I'm not entirely confident of the "naked" bit. Sheer clothing, yes. Naked.... not sure. The drawing of the panel in the tomb of Apy seems to my eye to indicate some sort of clothing on all the daughters. He shows an image of KV35 (Younger Lady) and says "genetic mother of Tutankamun. Nefertiti or Meritaton?" and cites Huber and Forbes as well as himself as supporters of the idea. His intro to Ankhsenamun is also peculiar: "Although historical inscriptions claim that Akhenaton and Nefertiti were her parents, we do not have any genetic-scientific proof today, since her mummy has not been identified with certainty until today." (the text is full of sentences like this.) He also concludes "In view of the presumed age at death of the male mummy KV55 (Harrison 1966; Strouhal 2010, Habicht et al 2021), which is identified with good arguments as Akhenaton (Reeves 2002; Habicht 2022b), and bearing in mind the partial genetic results of the genetic study (Hawass et al 2010; Phizackerley 2010), it must theoretically also be considered that in truth King Amenhotep III could be the genetic father -- contrary to the state propaganda texts." We'll see where it goes from there. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 27 #1097 Share Posted January 27 8 hours ago, Kenemet said: So far, the book is just a slog through what's known (I'm about a third of the way through) -- one of those "wall of text" type manuscripts that just begs for a nicer formatting in Kindle format (to be fair, it'd be fine in a journal but as a Kindle book it's kind of eye-watering.) He mentions the quarrels over the date of mummy KV55 (Akhenaten, presumed) and leans into the "maybe only 22 years old" point -- but doesn't really do anything to give us an idea of what HE thinks the timeline is. And apparently the only way to identify Meritaten in most images is to look for a naked female. Having eyeballed some of those images (mostly Wikimedia images), I'm not entirely confident of the "naked" bit. Sheer clothing, yes. Naked.... not sure. The drawing of the panel in the tomb of Apy seems to my eye to indicate some sort of clothing on all the daughters. He shows an image of KV35 (Younger Lady) and says "genetic mother of Tutankamun. Nefertiti or Meritaton?" and cites Huber and Forbes as well as himself as supporters of the idea. His intro to Ankhsenamun is also peculiar: "Although historical inscriptions claim that Akhenaton and Nefertiti were her parents, we do not have any genetic-scientific proof today, since her mummy has not been identified with certainty until today." (the text is full of sentences like this.) He also concludes "In view of the presumed age at death of the male mummy KV55 (Harrison 1966; Strouhal 2010, Habicht et al 2021), which is identified with good arguments as Akhenaton (Reeves 2002; Habicht 2022b), and bearing in mind the partial genetic results of the genetic study (Hawass et al 2010; Phizackerley 2010), it must theoretically also be considered that in truth King Amenhotep III could be the genetic father -- contrary to the state propaganda texts." We'll see where it goes from there. His book on Smenkhkare was good, but this looks a mess of contradictions, so maybe I'm not missing anything. However, Habicht says this about the Italian version of his book on Akhesenamun Quote The Italian edition of Ankhesenamun represents more than just a mere translation from the German or English editions. This book brings a significant expansion in many ways. How fortunate for Italians, and the rest of us, tough I suppose. Habicht also states that online access to his works is restricted due to "data extraction by artificial intelligence". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldebaran Posted January 28 #1098 Share Posted January 28 23 hours ago, Kenemet said: His intro to Ankhsenamun is also peculiar: "Although historical inscriptions claim that Akhenaton and Nefertiti were her parents, we do not have any genetic-scientific proof today, since her mummy has not been identified with certainty until today." (the text is full of sentences like this.) He also concludes "In view of the presumed age at death of the male mummy KV55 (Harrison 1966; Strouhal 2010, Habicht et al 2021), which is identified with good arguments as Akhenaton (Reeves 2002; Habicht 2022b), and bearing in mind the partial genetic results of the genetic study (Hawass et al 2010; Phizackerley 2010), it must theoretically also be considered that in truth King Amenhotep III could be the genetic father -- contrary to the state propaganda texts." Oh, dear. This is what comes of ignoring or peevishly blocking other authors who might have a better grip on the genetic part--you work against yourself. Kate Phizackerly was a good observer but that was fifteen years ago now. In my recollection she never wrote that Amenhotep III could be the father of anyone in Tut's generation and I don't know what in heck is meant by "state propaganda texts". One doesn't publish propaganda in scientific journals. I have proved in recent years why AIII certainly wasn't the father of Tutankhamen and why it must be "theoretically considered" that he could have sired any of Nefertiti's children is beyond me. I also showed why it is very unlikely that Meritaten can have been the Younger Lady [due to the DNA} and mother of Tutankhamen--which Huber continues to ignore. But what that has to do with historical inscriptions that repeatedly give the parents of all of the Amarna princesses--well, I know what Habicht is trying to say but is going about it wrong. I think he means no one is certain of the parents of the *mummy* suggested by the 2010 Jama paper to be Ankhesenamen and I suppose that's true, especially since it has been admitted that KV21A has body parts from more than one person. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted January 28 #1099 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, Aldebaran said: Oh, dear. This is what comes of ignoring or peevishly blocking other authors who might have a better grip on the genetic part--you work against yourself. Kate Phizackerly was a good observer but that was fifteen years ago now. In my recollection she never wrote that Amenhotep III could be the father of anyone in Tut's generation and I don't know what in heck is meant by "state propaganda texts". One doesn't publish propaganda in scientific journals. I have proved in recent years why AIII certainly wasn't the father of Tutankhamen and why it must be "theoretically considered" that he could have sired any of Nefertiti's children is beyond me. I also showed why it is very unlikely that Meritaten can have been the Younger Lady [due to the DNA} and mother of Tutankhamen--which Huber continues to ignore. But what that has to do with historical inscriptions that repeatedly give the parents of all of the Amarna princesses--well, I know what Habicht is trying to say but is going about it wrong. I think he means no one is certain of the parents of the *mummy* suggested by the 2010 Jama paper to be Ankhesenamen and I suppose that's true, especially since it has been admitted that KV21A has body parts from more than one person. I had a similar reaction to you -- and I didn't pull out other quotes that I found questionable (it's tedious to retype his Wall of Text, though I may use the web reader and clip some pictures of some of the material. I also suspect that he's using some citations that are taken out of context. I haven't gone into his references, but there's something about the material that he's associating with his statements that seems a bit "off" at times and a little out of step with what I think I remember from those authors. He also makes the claim that the famous "Tut and Ankhesenamun" scene on the throne is actually Tut and Nefertiti, which was then reworked. I've never heard that claim before -- are you (or others here) familiar with it? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wepwawet Posted January 28 #1100 Share Posted January 28 43 minutes ago, Kenemet said: He also makes the claim that the famous "Tut and Ankhesenamun" scene on the throne is actually Tut and Nefertiti, which was then reworked. I've never heard that claim before -- are you (or others here) familiar with it? First I've heard of this combination. Reeves believes that the "throne" was made for Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and even if it were not, then he does clearly show that it had been extensively reworked, probably with a third figure, Meritaten? removed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now