...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Tut-ankh-amun's lineage
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Stinehart: 2. One item I disagree with in the article is this: "…the age at death of this individual [the KV55 mummy] has been estimated to be about 35 years…." [b]All of the [i]more recent examinations[/i][/b] have in fact produced a much younger age than that for the mummy in KV 55. Science seems now to have agreed upon an age range of 20 – 26 for the KV 55 mummy. If that age 35 years were to be accepted, then everyone would be claiming that the KV 55 mummy is Akhenaten. Yet I believe that Nicholas Reeves is one of the few prominent Egyptologists who claims that the KV 55 mummy is Akhenaten. [/QUOTE][i]All[/i] "recent excavations" as in what? I mean, what does "recent excavations" have to do with the determined age of an already found [i]skeletal[/i] remain? Perhaps...literature telling us how old the individual was? If so, how do we know that this pertains to the specific specimen in question, not to mention labeling issues?... From the aforementioned link I posted: [i]"[b]How such confusion of the royal mummies could have arisen may be due to tomb-robbers having removed from the mummies the materials providing their names.[/b] In some cases it is possible that only the original nomen, such as Thutmose or Amenhotep, both [b]shared by several kings[/b], was preserved, and the restorer mistakenly supplied the wrong prenomen, which was the throne name that distinguished one king from another. As these royal mummies, [b]some deprived of their original identifications[/b], were gathered together and [b]moved from one hiding place to another, the possibility of confusion arose.[/b] We know that a number of tombs in the Valley of the Kings had served as [b]temporary caches[/b] at one time or another before the final interments were made after the New Kingdom. There is also evidence that the restorations of the mummies took place at Ramesses III's mortuary temple of Medinet Habu, where according to Cyril Aldred the mummies may have been stored for some extended period of time. One of the results of this reshuffling of the royal mummies, particularly as proposed in Scheme 3, is that the discrepancies in their estimated ages at death between the biologist and the historian become less extreme. [b]On the negative side, since the royal mummies are not as firmly identified as some have believed, their value to the biologist researching the inheritance of craniofacial characteristics over several generations is less than initially hoped for.[/b] However, with the exception of the Seti II mummy, the mummies of the Ramesside kings of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties do not present serious problems of attribution, so that one can be fairly confident about the mummies of Seti I, Ramesses II, and Merenptah."[/i] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3