Archaeologica.org

http://apnews.excite.com/article/201003 ... LFKO0.html

Two years of DNA testing and CAT scans on 16 royal mummies conducted by Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, however, gave the firmest evidence to date that an unidentified mummy - known as KV55, after the number of the tomb where it was found in 1907 in Egypt's Valley of the Kings - is Akhenaten's.

The testing, whose results were announced last month, established that KV55 was the father of King Tut and the son of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, a lineage that matches Akhenaten's, according to inscriptions.

Minimalist wrote:http://apnews.excite.com/article/201003 ... LFKO0.html

Two years of DNA testing and CAT scans on 16 royal mummies conducted by Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, however, gave the firmest evidence to date that an unidentified mummy - known as KV55, after the number of the tomb where it was found in 1907 in Egypt's Valley of the Kings - is Akhenaten's.

The testing, whose results were announced last month, established that KV55 was the father of King Tut and the son of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, a lineage that matches Akhenaten's, according to inscriptions.

I've seen Akhenaten called Amenhotep IV or Amenophis IV also.

Right. He took the theophoric name Akhenaten when he decided to change gods.

And now we wait for the labs to identify and confirm who Akhenaten's parents were! Because he wasn't exactly your average run-of-the-mill classic pharao. He did the monotheistic bit and forced the whole country to switch and abandon the old pantheon of gods. And he even seems to have succeeded for a while too. Well, he was an absolute ruler, of course. So it was probably wise for his subjects to switch if they wanted to keep their heads attached to their bodies. Probably a kind of reverse inquisition. Anyway, Akhenaten certainly was different, 'special'. Raving mad has also been applied to him...
So it could be interesting to see who his parents were (in relation to each other) as incest is suggested to have been a pharaonic 'trade mark' rather than the exception, don't you think?

Meanwhile, archaeologists in Egypt make another big find from Amenhotep's III trove of buried sculpture.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_ ... Vhci1vbA--

Minimalist wrote:Meanwhile, archaeologists in Egypt make another big find from Amenhotep's III trove of buried sculpture.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_ ... Vhci1vbA--

Certainly interesting! But merely confirming what we already knew: that Am III was a biggie. Maybe I sound negative, but, like everyone, I'm a sensation seeker. I have a G-spot for discoveries that throw new light on entrenched concepts. This one unfortunately doesn't seem to. However majestic it is.

You don't know what it is until you dig it up.


Do you want them to put it back?

Minimalist wrote:Do you want them to put it back?

Of course not. But although I certainly see cause for serious attention here, I don't see any for excitement (yet).

But, anyway, now that Tut's DNA has been sequenced, and confirmed through the ID of his father's mummy, the geneticists have a hard anchor point, a secure reference, to start on the identification of the dozens of mummies found in a big heap, hidden from grave robbers in some caves in the Valley of the Kings. Akhenaten's mummy was one of them: KV55. Tut's wasn't.

Yeah, although the line ended with Tut. Ahmose I was also found in the Royal Cache and it might be interesting to see what connection he had (as the founder of Dynasty XVIII) with, say, Thutmosis IV. The cache also includes later 19th Dynasty rulers such as Ramses II and Seti I who should have no relation to the earlier dynasty.

At least it will keep them busy for a while.