...
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 Jim Stinehart: [QB] Supercar: Let's look closely at the text portion that you posted. 1. "...comparison of the cephalograms and cluster analysis revealed that the mummy supposed to be that of Thutmose IV bore the closest resemblance in craniofacial morphology to the remains of Tutankhamun and the skeleton from KV 55, often considered to be Smenkhkare." There's no real surprise that the mummy that's supposed to be Thutmose IV has similar craniofacial morphology to both the mummy that's supposed to be Smenkhkare, and to Tut. All the mummies in question are from the same family line. A very different question is whether we should give much credence to the world's first attempt (the study you cite) to establish which mummies are which persons based on craniofacial morphology. There is no established track record for such a gambit. The study you are touting itself gave three different scenarios for how to realign which mummies go with which Egyptian rulers. (My own views fit scenario #2 perfectly, and more or less fit scenario #3.) There's little real excitement generated by the fact that the mummy that's supposed to be Thutmose IV has similar craniofacial morphology to both the mummy that's supposed to be Smenkhkare and to Tut. Everyone agrees that they're all in the same family line, so where's the excitement here? 2. "In 1984 the nearly complete skeleton from KV 55 was reconstructed, and the jaw was remounted in its correct position." Yes, that's non-controversial, too. 3. [Part of the third sentence; the rest of the third sentence is at #4.] "As a result of further examination,…the facial skeleton is even more similar to Tutankhamun's than had previously been thought." That's just #1 again. Virtually everyone agrees that the mummy in KV 55 is very similar to Tut's mummy. That is not new news. I fail to see the excitement in this innocuous sentence. I see it as being non-controversial. Everyone had always known that the two mummies were "similar", and now we see that they are "even more similar…than had previously been thought". Virtually everyone sees the KV 55 mummy as being either the father, the full-brother, or the half-brother-and-blood-nephew, of Tut. On all of these various views, we would expect to see the facial skeletons of these two mummies as being very similar. 4. [Now finally to the only real controversy here, the rest of the third sentence.] "As a result of further examination, the age at death of this individual has been estimated to be about 35 years…." Few people have been convinced by that particular argument. With the exception of this one study, all the other scientific studies of the KV 55 mummy in the last several decades have come up with an age of 20 – 26. Indeed, for those people like Nicholas Reeves who argue that the KV 55 mummy is Akhenaten, the single biggest problem they have is the raft of scientific studies showing that the KV 55 mummy died between ages 20 – 26. Yes, there is the one study you cite, which gives a much older age. But why is your study so out of sync with all the other scientific studies? Why has your study failed to convince many people on this issue? The best that can be said for the view that the KV 55 mummy is Akhenaten is that the various scientific exams regarding age have been contradictory. In fact, your study is considered so unconvincing that proponents of the view that the KV 55 mummy is Akhenaten usually only cite your study to show that various scientific studies have come out with different results as to age. Other than the specific article you cite, I have never seen any Egyptologist rely heavily on your study as being determinative of the identity of the mummy in KV 55. The study you cite as to the age of the KV 55 mummy is interesting, but has by no means proved convincing. Summary (a) Everyone agrees that the mummy in KV 55 is very similar to Tut's mummy. That's a no brainer. (b) Most people do not agree that the mummy in KV 55 lived to age 35. Rather, most people see the mummy in KV 55 as having died between ages 20 and 26. (c) The majority view today of experts in all different fields is that the KV 55 mummy is Smenkhkare, a male who died between ages 20 – 26. There is, however, a respectable minority view, headed by Nicholas Reeves, that (i) discounts the anatomical studies that show an age range of 20 – 26 for the KV 55 mummy, and (ii) sees the KV 55 mummy as being Akhenaten. Perhaps I should add that the KV 55 mummy and its coffin are only routinely desecrated. Many of us think that the mummy of Akhenaten would have been atrociously desecrated by the Amen priests, in spectacular style. Jim Stinehart [/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