Log In | Register
The paper Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
by Hawass al. (Journal of American Medicine, 2010 - JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647), states that the mummy in KV55 is "probably" Akhenaten – hereafter "the JAMA paper". The media has accepted the attribution as affirmed fact, although the attribution has attracted considerable comment and debate with a number of writers questioning the forensic data. I believe, however, that the correct focus of dissent to the attribution should be the STR analysis which shows that the KV55 mummy is highly unlikely to be Akhenaten and that an alternative family tree is a better fit to the genetic findings of the Hawass study.
News from the Valley of the Kings: DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten
Seeded on Tue Mar 2, 2010 7:51 PM EST
Article Source: kv64.info- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (8)
And, if Akhenaton is not in the tomb, where is he?
Israel?
- 2 votes
#1 - Tue Mar 2, 2010 7:52 PM EST....where is he? Israel?
I'm curious.
From whence does this speculation arise Syn?
- 1 vote
For starters, from Freud, but more recently, a fella by the name of Ahmed Osman.
I wrote a bit about their theories <a href="http://primarysources.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/14/3382491-crypto-history-instalment-18-moses-monotheism-and-magic">here</a>.
- 2 votes
Well, even according to what you present us with (in the linked to article), nearly all of the information is speculative at best.
I did find that one point put forth there to be curiously similar to another of a biblical nature...
"...the staff of the "King-Initiate" held so strong a potency that, with it in his hand, the leader of armies became as mighty as the Pharaoh himself."
This reminds me of the rods (staffs) that became serpents in the tale of the Exodus; only in that tale the rod (or staff) belonged not to a 'king-initiate" but to a "high-priest-initiate" (Aaron).
There are (it seems) enough similarities between the histories and traditions of both cultures not to disqualify the theories of either in whole but (in the same breath) it may be stated, there is much more to be discerned before an suitable explanation can present itself with reasonable assurances as to accuracy and validity of either.
I will say that (personally), "I do (based on the biblical account) totally discount the idea that Joseph and Moses may have been contemporaries."
Very interesting article you linked too here. I look forward (with anticipation) to going back and reading the many other installments well!
Thanks much for the added insight, Syn !!!
- 3 votes
My pleasure, Mic.
And, if you'll pardon me for saying so, speculation is my middle name.
It's fun, ain't it?
There are many traditions (those of Freemasonry not least) that hold that the king-initiate and the priest-initiate were separate but equal powers in the theocratic/nobility structure, an architecture that remained intact in the legacy that spawned Israel's culture.
There, the Kingdom of Heaven (ie, Jerusalem) was thought to be an arch founded on two pillars, a Kingly pillar and a Priestly pillar, a notion which found a semi-mythological parallel in the Masonic legend of Boaz and Jachin, replicas of which grace lodges even today.
- 3 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
