Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bolton Museum mummy found to be royalty
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isisinacrisis
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 2228
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldn't the DNA extracted from deep inside the mummy be unlikely to be contaminated? That's why bone marrow or DNA from inside a tooth would be used, not DNA from the skin which is handled a lot.

I had no idea that Ramses II's mummy had been 'nuked', maybe that would alter his DNA. I always thought that the bacterial growth on him was halted not with radiation, but with nitrogen being put in his glass case?

I thought looking at the facial bone structure and embalming materials would be a good way to guess who the mummy really was? Maybe he wasn't directly related to RII but because of the high cost of the stuff he was preserved with, he must have been very wealthy and noble.

know nothing about this and I sometimes wonder if some of you are being a little too sceptical? (Sorry if I offended any of you because I don't mean to, but surely not all discoveries announced to the media are just to make media attention, right? Or am I just terribly naive? Embarassed )
_________________
High-Priestess of Isis, Hereditary Princess, Lady of Philae, Favourite of Osiris, the Lord of Abydos, Daughter of Horus, Chantress of Bastet, Superior of the Kitty Litter Wink
<---Check out my av-I made it myself Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isisinacrisis wrote:
Wouldn't the DNA extracted from deep inside the mummy be unlikely to be contaminated?

Pardon my French: contaminated indeed. Cool

isisinacrisis wrote:
I thought looking at the facial bone structure and embalming materials would be a good way to guess who the mummy really was?

Tricky terrain: compare the mummies from the 18th dynasty for instance.
Those that are generally claimed to be royal, are quite often hard to compare.

isisinacrisis wrote:
I sometimes wonder if some of you are being a little too sceptical?

It's an innate deformity. Can't help it. Confused
But I know what you mean.

Let me put it this way: I love theories and exploring their possibilities.
I do however not like those, plucked out of almost thin air.
I mean: nothing is known of the identity of the mummy.
There is no name or reliable context, left over from his find.

And with what is said in these articles, assumptions are made, based on his appearance.
The used materials do indeed point towards an upper class burial.
But to make him a son of Ramses for that? I think it's a stretch.
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3650
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

March 16, 2008 :

MUMMY FORENSICS

HISTORY CHANNEL 8-00PM AND 11-00PM. UK SKY.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Ancient_history/programme_431.php

and

also in the US on History Channel International. Assuming the guide is correct, the episode "the Missing Body" is on today (16 March) at 12 noon
and again at 5 pm (Eastern time).

(From EEF)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3650
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isisinacrisis wrote:
Maybe he wasn't directly related to RII but because of the high cost of the stuff he was preserved with, he must have been very wealthy and noble.

This is what I would sign after reading the reports of examination the mummy from Bolton until now. But "high ranking" seems to be not enough for a press report and a TV-show ... ?

Quote:
I sometimes wonder if some of you are being a little too sceptical? (Sorry if I offended any of you because I don't mean to, but surely not all discoveries announced to the media are just to make media attention, right? Or am I just terribly naive?

One should - if you would like to have a seriously look at a topic.

But in Germany - and as far as I know in most of the countries of the so called "Western Civilization" - there is religious freedom ... Very Happy

In this meaning, here is another "Breaking News" :

http://openpr.de/news/195342/Sensation-im-Tal-der-Koenige-Nofretetes-Grab-entdeckt.html

Quote:
Sensation in the Valley of the Kings? - Discovery of Nefertiti's Tomb

Science, research, education

Press release of: Luc Bürgin/Mysteries magazine

(openPR) Excitement in the Egyptian valley of the kings: A till now unknown tomb entrance was discovered from pharaohnic times in the desert sand once more. This reports the German language magazine MYSTERIES (mysteries-magazin.com) in her coming kiosk edition.

The Egyptian authoritys (SCA) for safety reasons still acts coveredly over the exact place of the discovery. As MYSTERIES reveals exclusively on its home page now, however, the entrance found in November 2007 shall be located in an immediate proximity of the tomb of King Meren-Ptah, KV 8, according to the insider information.
The last resting place of Ramses VIII ? Hardly, it seems to be a so-called "step entrance", possibly leading to the legendary missing resting places of Pharaoh Echnaton or its wife Nefertiti, what might indicate an important Amarna ruler tomb from the 18-th dynasty!

This is the third such discovery in the Valley of the Kings after the tomb of Tutankhamun (1922) and the coffin depository KV 63 (2006) within the last 85 years [What about KV 55 ?].

It has soon to be expected Egypt's SCA-Boss Zahi Hawass to want to inform the public about the new sensation find at an international press conference officially. All the more than it shall have succeeded also in an "important discovery" in the famous tomb of Pharaoh Sethos I.

Mysteries magazine
Luc Bürgin (editor)
PO box, CH 4002 Basel
Tel. 0041 (0)61 681 62 61
Fax 0041 (0)61 681 85 62
Mail: mysteries@bluewin.ch
www.mysteries-magazin.com

Whether curious phenomena, controversial scientific discoveries or secret research projects: MYSTERIES publishes what others cover up. For almost five years, the 66-sided, four coloured popular science magazine has been published four monthly in 20.000 exercise book on big kiosk in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Editor and editor-in-chief is the Swiss journalist and book author Luc Bürgin.

(Translated by "Personal Translator 2006".)


Greetings,

Lutz Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
isisinacrisis
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 2228
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Segereh wrote:
isisinacrisis wrote:
Wouldn't the DNA extracted from deep inside the mummy be unlikely to be contaminated?

Pardon my French: contaminated indeed. Cool


Sorry? Confused I'm probably missing the point completely (and if so I'm sorry) ut can you explain what you mean?
_________________
High-Priestess of Isis, Hereditary Princess, Lady of Philae, Favourite of Osiris, the Lord of Abydos, Daughter of Horus, Chantress of Bastet, Superior of the Kitty Litter Wink
<---Check out my av-I made it myself Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry? Confused I'm probably missing the point completely (and if so I'm sorry) ut can you explain what you mean?


He had misspelled the word in a previous post.

I just thought I'd help with that, as long as I was here anyway. Very Happy

I largely agree with Segereh and also consider these findings to be very much a stretch. I don't know how much of it comes from the people studying the mummy or from the media outlets publishing the story, but by the time it has reached us it has become another sensationalized story.

There is definitely nothing that conclusively identifies this mummy. As Segereh pointed out, the evidence we really need is lacking. Comparing facial features is notoriously unreliable and must never be considered as important evidence. Extremely circumstantial? Sure, but much other evidence is needed.

I would agree with DNA analysis. That's hard evidence, if it can be achieved, although I also was unaware that Ramesses II had been nuked. I don't know that I ever studied up on how exactly the bacterial growth was halted, but that would sure do it! The nitrogen-filled case in which he's now stored is a secondary, prophylactic measure: nothing can grow in nitrogen.

Anyway, although teeth are a good source for DNA, a better source is bone marrow, as you said, isisinacrisis. It's much deeper inside the body and more protected, and with proper modern methods there is almost no chance for contamination. There is also no guarantee that usable DNA can be extracted from any given mummy, but it's becoming a vital tool for analysis.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3650
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
... although I also was unaware that Ramesses II had been nuked.

See Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane: Ramses - Sonne Ägyptens - Die wahre Geschichte. - Bergisch-Gladbach: Lübbe, 1997. - 3-7857-0899-8.

By the way, X-raying is also a kind of radioactive radiation (and destroys DNA). And as far as I know nobody was watching so carefully at the intensity of dose of radiation by examination of a mummy like you have to when you do this to a living patient ?

Quote:
The nitrogen-filled case in which he's now stored is a secondary, prophylactic measure: nothing can grow in nitrogen.
Anyway, although teeth are a good source for DNA, a better source is bone marrow, as you said, isisinacrisis.

Before the royal mummies were put again in her "Snow-White-Coffins" in the renovated hall at Egyptian Museum Cairo, Dr. Scott Woodward (Professor of Microbiology, Brigham Young University) was given a rare opportunity to harvest detached tissue fragments from these mummies for DNA testing, though no invasive sampling, including endoscopy, was permitted by the Egyptian officials.

Here are some quotations from a lecture presented to the ESS by Dr. Scott Woodward, 20 April 2001 :

Quote:
Which tissues of ancient human remains provide the best source of DNA ? After experimenting with lung, bone, brain and various tissues, Dr. Woodward was surprised to find that teeth are the best source for DNA. Because tissue samples can be readily contaminated by ubiquitous modern DNA (in the form of shed cells), the outer layer of the tooth first is vigorously cleaned. The interior of the tooth then is drilled to obtain a “clean” sample and the pulverized tooth used for DNA testing. DNA derived from teeth is qualitatively in better condition and more robust than DNA obtained from other tissues.


Quote:
Professor Woodward was able to glean tissues from 11 of the mummies and sequence the DNA of seven of these individuals. He worked from a hypothetical “tree” to see if DNA evidence would support relationships between some of royals from late Dynasty XVII. and early Dynasty XVIII.

Ahmose I was supposed to have married his full sister, Seknet-re, which would mean they should share mtDNA (having the same mother) and some of the HLA alleles or nuclear DNA, if they had the same father. This was supported by the DNA evidence. It was assumed that Amenhotep I.`s mtDNA would be different from Ahmose’s, as his mother was probably not part of the lineage. This too was borne out by Woodward’s DNA findings. It is possible that Ahmose Nefertari may have been Amenhotep’s mother.

Thutmosis I introduces new mtDNA. Was his mother, Seneseneb, a non-royal? The new mtDNA indicates that a pharoah did not necessarily inherit the throne through his mother’s line. Thutmosis shares a particular allele with Amenhotep I.; conventional wisdom says they were not father and son but DNA evidence implies that they were.

The other three mummies sampled do not fit closely with any of the remaining four Woodward sampled. And while this is the most extensive genealogical record (based on DNA) to date of New Kingdom royal mummies, it does not yet answer many questions — such as Tutankhamen’s lineage.

Woodward’s team, among others, has come tantalizingly close to sampling the tissues of Tutankhamen, “the national treasure” of Egypt.
Perhaps permission will be granted once Tutankhamen’s possible relations — including Smenkhare, Akhenaten and Amenhotep III. — are sampled and sequenced. The parentage of two fetuses found in Tuts tomb remain a mystery. They were miscarried at five months and eight months. Woodward has now sequenced the mtDNA and nuclear DNA from the older fetus, but genetic information from these two mummies will tell us more when it has been compared with other possible family members.



Greetings,

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
isisinacrisis
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 2228
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:


Quote:
The nitrogen-filled case in which he's now stored is a secondary, prophylactic measure: nothing can grow in nitrogen.
Anyway, although teeth are a good source for DNA, a better source is bone marrow, as you said, isisinacrisis.

Before the royal mummies were put again in her "Snow-White-Coffins" in the renovated hall at Egyptian Museum Cairo, Dr. Scott Woodward (Professor of Microbiology, Brigham Young University) was given a rare opportunity to harvest detached tissue fragments from these mummies for DNA testing, though no invasive sampling, including endoscopy, was permitted by the Egyptian officials.

Here are some quotations from a lecture presented to the ESS by Dr. Scott Woodward, 20 April 2001 :

Quote:
Which tissues of ancient human remains provide the best source of DNA ? After experimenting with lung, bone, brain and various tissues, Dr. Woodward was surprised to find that teeth are the best source for DNA. Because tissue samples can be readily contaminated by ubiquitous modern DNA (in the form of shed cells), the outer layer of the tooth first is vigorously cleaned. The interior of the tooth then is drilled to obtain a “clean” sample and the pulverized tooth used for DNA testing. DNA derived from teeth is qualitatively in better condition and more robust than DNA obtained from other tissues.


Quote:
Professor Woodward was able to glean tissues from 11 of the mummies and sequence the DNA of seven of these individuals. He worked from a hypothetical “tree” to see if DNA evidence would support relationships between some of royals from late Dynasty XVII. and early Dynasty XVIII.

Ahmose I was supposed to have married his full sister, Seknet-re, which would mean they should share mtDNA (having the same mother) and some of the HLA alleles or nuclear DNA, if they had the same father. This was supported by the DNA evidence. It was assumed that Amenhotep I.`s mtDNA would be different from Ahmose’s, as his mother was probably not part of the lineage. This too was borne out by Woodward’s DNA findings. It is possible that Ahmose Nefertari may have been Amenhotep’s mother.

Thutmosis I introduces new mtDNA. Was his mother, Seneseneb, a non-royal? The new mtDNA indicates that a pharoah did not necessarily inherit the throne through his mother’s line. Thutmosis shares a particular allele with Amenhotep I.; conventional wisdom says they were not father and son but DNA evidence implies that they were.

The other three mummies sampled do not fit closely with any of the remaining four Woodward sampled. And while this is the most extensive genealogical record (based on DNA) to date of New Kingdom royal mummies, it does not yet answer many questions — such as Tutankhamen’s lineage.

Woodward’s team, among others, has come tantalizingly close to sampling the tissues of Tutankhamen, “the national treasure” of Egypt.
Perhaps permission will be granted once Tutankhamen’s possible relations — including Smenkhare, Akhenaten and Amenhotep III. — are sampled and sequenced. The parentage of two fetuses found in Tuts tomb remain a mystery. They were miscarried at five months and eight months. Woodward has now sequenced the mtDNA and nuclear DNA from the older fetus, but genetic information from these two mummies will tell us more when it has been compared with other possible family members.



Greetings,

Lutz


This is really fascinating. I had no idea such thorough DNA studies were done on these mummies. It's still incomplete (we don't have Akhenaten's mummy) but at least that's a good start.
_________________
High-Priestess of Isis, Hereditary Princess, Lady of Philae, Favourite of Osiris, the Lord of Abydos, Daughter of Horus, Chantress of Bastet, Superior of the Kitty Litter Wink
<---Check out my av-I made it myself Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd be highly cautious in accepting Dr. Woodward's conclusions. By his own statement, he was able to obtain most of his samples from tissue from the mummies--a source of DNA that is easily contaminated.
Since their discovery, the mummies identified as the Thutmasiods have been thought, in quite a few cases, to have been mis-identified. More than likely by those priests who salvaged the mummies, re-wrapped them and put them in various coffins. (usually not their own)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 3650
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
I'd be highly cautious in accepting Dr. Woodward's conclusions.

I agree with you, and obviously this also does Dr.Woodward himself. He emphasizes the uncertainties regarding the withdrawal of the sample of tissue and I think probably has not done a more mediagenic publication of its results without reason ? He also said, as I still wrote, that he worked "... from a hypothetical “tree” ..." of the genealogy of these pharaohs.

But the point is, it works ! You can isolate Ancient Egyptian DNA from a mummy. And the Egyptians have the opportunities now - National Geographic or Discovery (?) finance two modern laboratory`s - and will do !

Greetings,

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gerard.
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 492
Location: France

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Thutmosis I introduces new mtDNA. Was his mother, Seneseneb, a non-royal? The new mtDNA indicates that a pharoah did not necessarily inherit the throne through his mother’s line. Thutmosis shares a particular allele with Amenhotep I.; conventional wisdom says they were not father and son but DNA evidence implies that they were.

Could Thutmosis I be a cousin of Amenhotep I ? Chris BENNETT showed that his father could be Ahmes-Sapair (in GM 141 [1994] Thutmosis I and Ahmes-Sapair pp. 35-3Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerard. wrote:
Could Thutmosis I be a cousin of Amenhotep I ?

You got here before me. Confused

I always found it a fit theory for the absence of his father being named.
Royal princes outside of the crown-prince are rarely known in detail. The chance a king of unknown origins, still coming to prominence with apparent ease, to be a child of such a prince sounds possible. Trouble with it is that absence of fact is never a good guideline for a theory.

@ Isisinacrisis:
sorry for confusing you.
As Lutz said, I was correcting myself.
Really hate (my own) typo's. Evil or Very Mad
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Notice btw that this comes from a tv program with people from York University?
Quess who's the leader? Joanne Fletcher.

So after identifying Nefertiti, she now finds a son of Ramesses II in England?

I wonder if Hawass will try to ban her from England next? Very Happy

I have seen another episode where Fletcher used several investigational techniques to try and determine more info about a mummy (a female in this case)

In her defense, it may be the tv directors running away with the truth here.
The mummy dates to the new kingdom and apparently could date to the 19th dynasty. The mummification techniques show that this should be a high ranking individual, or at least a member of an influential family.

Makes much better publicity to jump the gun and claim it's a google eyed, nerdy looking guy with an overbite who is also the son of one of the most famous kings. Have to admit I'm curious about the episode now...

I must admit that part of me finds it funny that a supposed stud muffin like Ramesses who had access to the most beautiful women would father such ugly kids. Remember the reconstruction of the faces from the skulls from KV 5? Shocked The supposed face of the person thought to be Amenhirkhepeshef was the kind of face only a mother could love (and preferably in the dark).
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Segereh
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 2934
Location: Bruges

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Notice btw that this comes from a tv program with people from York University?
Quess who's the leader? Joanne Fletcher.

One nice piece of investigatory journalism, Anneke!
My brother would be jealous. Cool

anneke wrote:
I must admit that part of me finds it funny that a supposed stud muffin like Ramesses who had access to the most beautiful women would father such ugly kids.

Maybe his harem guards were selected by unattractiveness?
The girls probably got bored in the absence of our Asian-bashing King...
_________________
"Leave him in error who loves his error."
"Learn politeness from the impolite."

Feel free to visit my site in construction:
-- www.enks.net --
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I wonder if Hawass will try to ban her from England next? Very Happy


#Rofl Wow, that cracked me up! Thanks for the laugh, anneke. Now don't go giving Hawass any ideas. At this rate poor Fletcher will have to assume a disguise and become part of the night cleaning crew at the B.M. just to stay close to her craft.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group