Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Well we have Tut's body, the fetuses of
> both of his daughters, the body in KV 55. Along
> with Yuya and Thuya who proposed as her possible
> > parents. And I believe the skeleton of
> Mutnojmet's her putative sister.
> >
> > Actually, we have NO remains of anyone
> related to Nefertiti, unless Tutankhamun is her son.
>
> What I was trying to say is that there IS A
> SELECTION of Amarna bodies to run DNA tests on
> if and when the undisputed body of Nefertiti is
> ever found.
We have Tutankhamun and we have the KV 55 mummy. If Tutankhamun is NOT Nefertiti's son, he is of no use and the KV 55 remains - if Akhenaten - will have no mtDNA available related to Nefertiti - if not Akhenaten, but a son of Amenhotep III - he will have no mtDNA related to Nefertiti - and if an unrelated person (the body of the Hittite Prince Zannanza has been suggested, though not widely accepted) - again, no mtDNA related to Nefertiti.
The general consensus is Nefertiti is probably
NOT related to Tiye and so also, not to Thuya or Yuya. We
might have the body of Tiye, though this is questionable (the age of the Elder Lady remains is more on line for Tiye, so the 'Elder Lady as Nefertiti' theory (by Susan James) does appear disproven). It's also possible the body of the Elder Lady is not related to the Amarna royals at all, but is a royal from another period of the 18th Dynasty (consider, for example, daughters of Amenhotep III not from Tiye, or even Mutemwiya, Amenhotep III's mother).
Again, the idea that Horemheb's queen Mutnedjmet is related to Nefertiti is also unlikely as it has been found the that half-sister of Nefertiti did not possess that name - her name was, instead,
Mutbenret -
not Mutnedjmet. Mutnedjmet possess no titles, no relationships with the Amarna royals as far as can be ascertained.
At best, you have the two fetuses in the tomb of KB 62 (Tutankhamun) who may be Ankhsenamun's children (which means Nefertiti's mtDNA should be present) - but then again, a king could have many wives and these children may not be hers. What then?
So, what "selection" of undisputed Amarna bodies do you have in mind to run these mtDNA tests upon when Nefertiti's body is found?
> I won't argue the point. Interesting about
> Akhsenamun, though. Generally speaking I don't
> take names too terribly seriously as proof of
> anything. In addition to that I've never taken the
> idea that Neferiti was related to Horemhab's wife
> as anything more than another Amarna urban legend.
> Just go through Beckman's king list contrary to
> what people think these guys had hundreds of
> different names.
Do you mean Jurgen von Beckerath? In this case I think taking
at least the author's name seriously would advance this discussion.
I think you are also confusing what von Beckerath was doing. He gives the various classical name references (usually as found in Josephus and other classical authors) and tries to correspond them with names of known kings of Egypt, where possible. Then he gives all (and I mean
all) variations of the son-of-Ra (birth) name, throne name, and titularies. I think he's done a good job on this, and at least gives an idea where the Manethian kinglists were trying to go.
Reference:
von Beckerath, J. 1999 (1984).
Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, Bd. 49. G. Burkard and D. Kessler. Mainz: von Zabern.
which should be read in conjunction with
von Beckerath, J. 1997.
Chronologie des Pharonischen Ägypten. Die Zeitbestimmung von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 46. G. Burkard and D. Kessler. Mainz: von Zabern.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom