Ancient Egyptian Forum • View topic - Tut and Akhenaten: Let's clear some things up...

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sat May 14, 2005 3:45 pm

This was Probably brought up hundreds upon hundreds of times, but with the new CT scans for Tut, and the new reconstructions of Tut's face, Could this help prove who his parents were? Especially Akhenaten...I don't believe that they were brothers at all. I estimated that Akhenaten was 37 when he died. But who knows for sure? ^_^ I would love to hear everyone's input, theories and opinons. Just one rule:
NO RACIAL COMMENTS OF ANY KIND, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!

IT'S OFFENSIVE, AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!

Thank you, and please post your thoughts. ^_^

kmt_sesh · **Posted:** Sat May 14, 2005 9:02 pm

I voted for Akhenaten as Tut's father. It's the leading theory embraced by the majority of Egyptologists, but that doesn't mean it's universally agreed upon. The evidence as it exists now leads in that direction. But using Tut's recent CT scans would be of no use at present because we have no idea whatever became of Akhenaten's body.

The statuary of Akhenaten is hardly reliable as it radically varies in style and form throughout the Amarna Period; well, that's generally true for Egyptian royal statuary throughout the dynastic period. They were idealized likenesses, not necessarily realistic.

maatkara · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 4:41 am

well, art style is not an evidence....nor the opinion of even the best egyptologyst of all....the nude fact is that we have no scientific prove of whatever theory...so, do you think I should "vote"?...no, I can't, 'cos I think that my opinon is not important....(more, I have no idea! :lol:

)
Ct scan and the reconsruction of the visage of the Pharaoh cannot prove that he was the son, nor in anycase related to Akhenaton...not even the contrary....the only exam that could have given certain results was the DNA test, but it is considered to be "invasive", so it was not done.

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 11:48 am

And I agree-art really isn't a tell-tale sign of parentage. It's a shame they didn't do a DNA test, but if it was considered "Invasive", then I guess we can really never be sure. We really have little evidence of the parentage, but I'm glad to hear what you think of all this. ^_^

kmt_sesh · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 3:35 pm

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 3:43 pm

Unas · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 5:54 pm

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 6:22 pm

Yeah, Unas, as weird as it sounds, they did!! :lol:

hehe..

Lostris · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 7:04 am

I voted 'yes' because I always thought Tutankhamon is Akhenaten's son. Who else could he be? He was too young to be Ay's and too old to be Smenkhare's. We could realize from every statue that he was an Amarna prince - look at his face and eyes! - but only Akhenaten can be his father. And it 's not true that Akhenaten didn't have a son. I think Smenkhare is his older, and Tut is his younger son. But I heard somewhere that Smenkhare is Akhenaten's brother. According to their ages, well, it can be, because Akhenaten was 35-37, when he died and Smenkhie - if his is the KV55 mummy - was about 20-25. Anyway, Kiya seems to be so young in her statues, so she can't be Smenkhare's mother... Or yes? But it's another topic as well. So my answer is: yes, of course! :wink:

Si-amun · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 9:14 am

It has been disupted by some whether the lock of hair actually comes from Queen Tiy, I hate to do this yet again, but be careful before you provide absolutes for the Amarna period.

Lostris · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 9:32 am

Whose hair? Smenkhare's? Tut's?

Osiris II · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 11:34 am

Lostris, there was a lock of hair found in Tutankhamen's tomb. It was in a small golden coffin inscribed with the name of Queen Tiye. One of the mummies that has been found in the tomb of Amenhotep II is thought to be the mummy of Tiye. Comparison has shown that in the tomb to be the same type as that of the mummy, but no DNA testing or any other type of test has been done on it.

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 4:36 pm

It will always be disputed, until more evidence is found, on whether or not Tut is Akhenaten's son. Yet, I still have high hopes that they are, and I want to study in Akhetaten as an Egyptologist for this--and many other--reasons. Though, if they DID a DNA test on the lock of hair, Osiris, it would clear up some misunderstandings. Though, Hawass always believes, somehow, that no tests are needed. This was so with Tut's mummy, and this is so with many other mummies. If they find Akhenaten's mummy, it would clear up almost everything...but still, I doubt that even in HIS case, they would perform a DNA test on him.

maatkara · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 4:57 pm

by the way...would like Tut less if would discover that he is not Akhenaton's son?...uhm...I don't think so! :wink:

....

This is nothing serious, of course, but just to let you see things from a different point of view.
Nothing can be considered sure until we don't have prove of this....and even when we think we have evidences which cannot be denied, something can suddenly pop up to show us that we had the wrong opinion for a long time....

this is what generally happen... :wink:

...and this is why I personally love archaeology and egyptology!

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2005 5:19 pm

I agree with you, Maatkara!! That's one of the exciting aspects of Egyptology and Archaeology in general!! To find evidence to either prove others wrong or providing evidence to clear up a misunderstanding!! And no one should think less of Tut whether Akhenaten is the father or not! This is why I'M Tutness!!! :lol:

( I have no life, sometimes...

....

).