Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Yes, you are right here. Paternal DNA cannot confirm a father. It can only
tell you that somebody certainly wasn't the father. A positive paternal DNA
test should be interpretted as 'could be the biological father'.

I guess we should tell the tour guides that Nefertiti wasn't Tut's mother.
That's the story they're still telling at the Museum in Cairo.

James Christian

2010/2/18 <JimStinehart AT aol.com>

>
>
> Stephen Shead:
>
> You wrote:  “Are you suggesting both the articles George cited are
> inaccurate reporting?”
>
> Yes, in the sense that they are presenting only Scenario #1, whereas
> Scenario #2 is more likely.  I have not had time to look at this closely.
>  But
> based on what I have seen so far, it seems to me that the DNA evidence
> would
> fit either of the following two scenarios.
>
> Scenario #1.  Akhenaten married his own full-sister, for example Sitamen.
> They gave birth to Tut.  The KV55 mummy is Akhenaten.
>
> Scenario #2.  From Amenhotep III’s known marriage to his daughter Sitamen
> came Tut.  The KV55 mummy is Smenkhkare, who is Akhenaten’s younger
> full-brother.
>
> I do not think that paternal DNA can distinguish between Tut’s biological
> father being Akhenaten or Akhenaten’s father, Amenhotep III.  Nor can DNA
> distinguish between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, if they were full-brothers.
>
> Scenario #1 does not fit history.  There is not an inkling of an indication
> that Akhenaten married Sitamen or any other full-sister.  A full-sister
> would be an important princess, so such a marriage could not be kept in the
> closet.  Pharaohs rarely married full-sisters, and when they did, it was to
> keep all the property in the small royal family, keeping out all in-laws.
> Akhenaten is super-famous for his in-laws, especially Ay, who got more
> riches at
> Amarna than anyone else.
>
> Scenario #2 fits everything we know.  Amenhotep III not only married his
> daughter (by Queen Tiye), Sitamen, but Sitamen and Queen Tiye
> simultaneously
> had the same grand title:  Queen of Egypt!  Tut often called Amenhotep III
> “
> father”.  But although Tut liked Akhenaten, being buried wearing his Aten
> skullcap, Tut never once called Akhenaten “father”.  Tut is probably the
> half-brother, and also the nephew by blood, of Akhenaten.  The only
> “problem”
> with Scenario #2 is that then the long, 11-year co-regency theory would
> need
> to be adopted, which is controversial (but I think it’s right).
>
> I myself do not see the new evidence as undercutting Scenario #2 in any
> way.
>
> The  b-i-g  news is that now we know that Kiya was not Tut’s mother.  (We
> also know that Nefertiti was not Tut’s mother, but that was very unlikely
> anyway.)
>
> If Tut’s mother was a daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, being a
> full-sister of Akhenaten, which is what the new maternal DNA evidence
> suggests,
> then the only two possibilities are now Scenarios #1 and #2, I believe.  As
> I said, Scenario #1 simply does not fit history.  Scenario #2 fits history
> perfectly.  I think that both Scenarios fit the biological evidence.
>
> That’s the way I see it at this point.  If more evidence comes out, and I
> am wrong about what the DNA testing showed, then I will retract the above
> views.
>
> For purposes of the b-hebrew list, Scenario #1 would put a big dent in my
> theory of the Patriarchal narratives.  By contrast, Scenario #2 fits my
> theory of the Patriarchal narratives perfectly.  So although I have not had
> time
> to follow up on this yet, this is a big deal for me.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>