All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 

Clear it up: Is Akhenaten Tut's dad?!
Yes 81%  81%  [ 21 ]
No 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
Maybe 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
So...? 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Who?!! 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Are you really THAT bored, Tutness? O_o 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 26

Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 6:09 pm 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
I was watching a program last week in which Salima Ikram stated that to get good DNA results you would have to use the teeth (this is where the DNA is best preserved), and so it would actually be quite invasive on most mummies.

Not sure if the hair follicles would still contain viable DNA after this long a time.

BTW the hair in the container naming Tiye was not the only hair found in Tut's tomb. There were also to unidentified balls of hair which some think may be the hair of Tut and his wife Ankhesenamen (from some sort of wedding ritual?) This can be found on the Griffith Institute website.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:11 am 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Thu May 05, 2005 8:23 am
Posts:384
Location: Miskolc, Hungary
Hatshepsut, could you tell us the URL of the website?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:37 am 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
Sure Lostris :D

The main site for the Griffith institute is here:
http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/Griffith.html

There's lots of interesting stuff there. If you're interested in the info about Tutankhamen, then the page about "Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation" is a real gem.

The original pictures taken by Brunton and the notes made by Howard Carter can bee seen. I spent some time just "surfing" through all the finds from the tomb. There's even a search engine, allthough it's somewhat hard to come up with the right keywords to search on.

The tut page containing the database is here:
http://www.ashmolean.museum/gri/4tut.html

The list of objects from the tomb is here:
http://www.ashmolean.museum/gri/carter/

Here's the lock of plaited hair in the small sarcophagus shaped container with the name of Tiye on it:
http://www.ashmolean.museum/perl/gi-ca- ... &curr=320e

I'm having some problem finding the information about the balls of hair of Tut and Ankhesenamen.

I'll get back to you if I find it.

Anneke


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:44 am 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
Here it is :D:
Painted alabaster box containing horse-hair, but also :

Quote:
At corners two round balls ofhair covered with cloth and tied round below ball. These were 5 and 6 in diam. respectively


Here's a picture of the container

And A picture of the contents of the box. The hair balls must be the round objects in the top left and right corners.
Some speculate that these balls of hair were part of a wedding ceremony? Don't know of any such ceremony though 8)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:06 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am
Posts:574
Location: The palace of Tutness!
:o I read this book by Micheal Hayes on the Ancient Egyptians, and it states that the Ancient Egyptians didn't have a ceremony...the wife simply moved into her husband's house. The book doesn't mention Royal weddings in Ancient Egypt, so if anyone can clear this up, I'd appreciate it. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:20 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts:606
Location: Saqqara... someday...
Yeah, it's pretty unknown what happened. There's a topic at glyphdoctors.com having to do with the subject.

You'll have to register, log-in, etc. if you want to see what she actually posted, but here... Er... here's what it is ::

[quote=Nicole Hansen]
Many people have been asking for a summary of my talk at ARCE last weekend and so here it is:

In most societies, the three life events that involve the most ritual activity are birth, marriage and death. While Egyptian rituals associated with birth and death are well-known, Egyptologists hqave long contended that the ancient Egyptians did not perform any sort of wedding ceremony or ritual. Ancient Egyptian couples, they said (in a thouroughly modern way), simply moved in together.

In my paper, I argued that this was not the case. The main body of evidence I used to support my theory was a collection of songs, probably from Deir el-Medina, known by Egyptologists as "love songs." This misnomer has led Egyptologists to overlook their true function, and that is as wedding songs.

I used three lines of argument to support my case: 1-comparison between the ancient songs and modern Egyptian wedding songs in terms of themes, 2-references to rituals in the ancient songs that are performed at modern Egyptian weddings, and 3-internal evidence from the songs themselves and comparative material from ancient times dealing with marriage.

In short, I was able to reconstruct weddings at Deir el-Medina as follows:


The boy or girl makes a petition to Hathor at Deir el-Bahari, perhaps over a period of 3 days, for a specific spouse.
The boy approaches his beloved's mother to express an interest in her.
Once the parents agree on the match, seven days of possibly sex-segregated celebration with singing and feasting takes place, surrounded by flowers.
Guests at the festivities gives gifts, which are later repaid at similar events.
In preparation for the groom's arrival the bride has her hair braided, while songs extolling her physical beauty are sung.
Upon the groom's arrival at his bride's home, an animal is slaughtered on the doorstep, and the groom's hand is kissed 4 times.
To thank her for her help in obtaining the desired spouse, a feast is made for Hathor.
The paper was well-received by the conference attendees. I need to do further research before I publish it though, because I did not have a chance to review all of the relevant books and articles that I wanted to cover before the conference.[/quote]

To read the full discussion, you'll have to register...


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:05 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am
Posts:574
Location: The palace of Tutness!
Thanks, Unas, I appreciate the article! ^_^


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:52 am 
Aten

Appearance:
A sun disk with rays which end in hands

Aten was a form of the sun god Ra.
During the reign of Akhenaten, the Aten was made the 'king' of the gods.


Top
  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:02 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am
Posts:574
Location: The palace of Tutness!
:shock: ....Yeah....anyway, back to what's REALLY important!! The topic at hand, I realized that more people in my poll have voted Akhenaten as Tut's father. Makes me feel special inside... :cry: :wink: I'm so happy!! Heh, anyway, sorry, I just wanted this topic to SOMEHOW stay alive!! :lol: :lol: 8)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:41 pm 
:?:


Top
  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:59 pm 
Egyptian Architect
Offline

Joined:Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:42 pm
Posts:110
Location: Palatine,IL
It's simple math. Tut was only 9 when he took the throne and Ankhenaton ruled for 17 years.

Are we sure it's Kiya,though? Didn't the Egyptians take records of royal births?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:31 pm 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
Selket wrote:
It's simple math. Tut was only 9 when he took the throne and Ankhenaton ruled for 17 years.

The problem is that Akhenaten may have ruled alongside his father. So the math may be simple, but it does not completely rule out Amenhotep III as a father.
Some think that the "durbar" recorded in some of the tombs in Amarna may have been an event to celebrate the sole rule of Akhenaten. This is only a theory mind you. There's also the fact that in this year 12 (the year of the Durbar) the Nubians revolted. This often coincided with the ascension to the throne of a ruler. All circumstantial but some think that Amenhotep may have shared the throne with his son Akhenaten for as many as 12 years.
Inscriptions from the time of Tut are ambiguous. He mentions Amenhotep III in a way that it could mean either father or grand-father

Selket wrote:
Are we sure it's Kiya,though? Didn't the Egyptians take records of royal births?

No it is not certain that Kiya was his mother. That is suggested because she is the only other Queen of Akhenaten of prominence of that time, and because she apparently lived at the North Palace where Tut grew up.

Royal births were generally not recorded. The only royal births we have records of are to my knowledge Hatsheput and Amenhotep III (maybe Ramses II or III?). And they go all out recording how their mothers were impregnated by a god :D

There is a real problem at this time period with them not recording the royal children very well. Akhenaten and Nefertiti showing off their daughters is a bit of an anomaly. Akhenaten himself , who was born as Prince Amenhotep, is only known from one wine docket. That's it! We of course see him with his family after he becomes King, but he's not shown in inscriptions before that time.

Amenhotep III and Tiye are shown with their daughters, and I think Amenhotep is known the have been shown with Akhenaten's older brother Tuthmosis once, but that's about it. Royal sons are sometimes found in inscriptions in the tombs of their tutors, but that's it.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:45 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am
Posts:574
Location: The palace of Tutness!
I would have thought that Akhenaten, as a young child and before he became pharaoh at age 19 (And according to some of my books), He was kept in the dark. Thutmose, his older brother, was mentioned more than he was--obviously, because he was the hier to the throne before he died at age 14(?). Only that wine docket (Which in another book I read, they said a jar lid that said "Amenhotep IV, king's son") was any clue to Akhenaten's past. Other than that, unless more is found, we really have a small idea of what his past was. It's interesting to note that only after Akhenaten became pharaoh was he ever acknowledged at all. (Evidence pending).

Not to mention, he, Tut and even Ay are ommited from the king's list. Wouldn't you think that Tut would be on the list if he was Amenhotep III's son? It's more probable he was left out, for being the son of a heretic, the "Criminal of Akhetaten". Instead, after Amenhotep III, Horemheb's name is in the place of all 3 pharaohs.

As for Kiya, she IS a likely canidate for being Tut's mom. Since Smenkhare and Tut are brothers (Maybe), then Kiya would have born 2 sons, and supposedly a daughter, since she is shown with one.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:04 pm 
Prince/Princess
Offline

Joined:Wed May 04, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts:210
Location: USA
the_tutness_is_here wrote:
Not to mention, he, Tut and even Ay are ommited from the king's list. Wouldn't you think that Tut would be on the list if he was Amenhotep III's son? It's more probable he was left out, for being the son of a heretic, the "Criminal of Akhetaten". Instead, after Amenhotep III, Horemheb's name is in the place of all 3 pharaohs.

That's a very interesting question.
It is a bit strange that Tutankamen was removed from the king list. He was after all the one that continued the return to orthodoxy. There's an inscription in a tomb in Thebes dating to the 3rd year of Smenkhare's reign and the inscription shows that the priesthood of Amen was functioning again at that time. Although they were probably not at full strength??
Tut is known to have continued the return to orthodoxy and from his decrees it seems that he must have gone quite a ways to restoring the Amen priesthood.
No matter his deeds, he must have been tainted by either being the son of a heretic or even just by growing up in Akhet-Aten.

I agree with you Tutness that Akhenaten and Kiya are good (and even likely) candidates as parents of Tut. Personally I just do keep in mind that there is no definitive evidence for it though.

To me that's part of the fascination I have to say. :D Lots of clues, very little proof...

[I couldn't remember off the top of my head if the evidence for Prince Amenhotep was a wine docket or a jar. If you looked it up I'm sure you're right..]

I thought there was a problem with Smenkhare as the son of Akhenaten and Kiya? Although that's based on the body in KV55 being Smenkhare. If that body belongs to Smenkhare then he may have been too old to be the son of Akhenaten and Kiya?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:22 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am
Posts:574
Location: The palace of Tutness!
I'm glad you agree with me, Merytre-Hatshepsut, I'm glad I finally asked an "Interesting question"!! :lol: :lol:

Anyway, it depends....does anyone know approx. how old Smenkhare was when he died? Do you mean too old, like he was in his 20's-30's?

And you're right, the fascination is the little proof that is given--or maybe even, if I'm so bold as to say, hidden. :wink:

I still say it's likely that Tut is Akhenaten's son, and besides, he wouldn't be ommited off a list like that for living in Akhetaten. Remember that Horemheb was also in Akhetaten, and he's ON the list. It might be because of heredity that Tut was left off.


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group