Talk:KV55

"As a final insult, a large rock was thrown at the coffin."

A citation has been requested for this statement, and the idea is supposedly attributed to Nicholas Reeves. I have a couple of his books (Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet and The Complete Valley of the Kings) and cannot find him laying out that scenario in either book. I know I have read about someone speculating about that this scenario, but I doubt it can be attributed to Reeves. (I actually thought it might be Dennis Forbes, but the scenario he outlines in Treasures, Mummies: Seven Great Discoveries of Egyptian Archaeology suggests that the rock fell by accident on the coffin, as a result of ceiling weakened by water damage). Might be better to leave him out of that section until someone can come up with an actual reference to back up the assertion that he made that statement. Captmondo (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the possibility that a stone was hurled at the face of the KV55 mummy at the time of the partial dismantling of the burial (reign of rameses ix) is put forward by reeves in his introduction to the 1990 reissue of the tomb of queen tîyi (p.xiii)

the following pasage is quoted from that introduction "it may also be speculated that this same investigating party was responsible for hurling the stone which chrushed the front of the mummy's skull"

the fact is not mentioned by reeves in the valley of the kings. decline of a royal necropolis (1990). --L!nus (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the same possilbity is put forward more strongly in reeves' akhenaten, egypt's false prophet (2001) "..., a stone was hurled at the coffin's head just before the party left" --L!nus (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't have the first book, but have the second and third. Could you supply a page reference for that from Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet? (Interestingly, I have the 2005 edition—perhaps he decided to omit that from the later edition? Can confirm/deny if you can give me a page reference). Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry, forgot the page ref. in my edition: p 83 (in case the pagenumbers do not correspond: chapter 4 revolution, ageing akhenaten: the body in tomb 55).--L!nus (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! You might as well add the page reference for the citation then. Will check my own edition (I remember looking in the latter section of the book, so it is likely there and I missed it), when I can get to it this evening. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just confirming—my edition lists the theorized incident on the same page as does yours. When I have time I will also add Forbes' construction of events as well. Have added the citation to the article. Thanks for setting me straight! Captmondo (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mummy age

I clearly recall an article in Archaeology some years back in which an examination of the mummy placed its age at 20 or so. I know this number has now been deprecated by the fuller analysis by Hawass et al, but it would still be good to list that article. Alas, I cannot find my (carefully photocopied) copy of that article - can anyone else provide the citation? Thanks! Noel (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Found it! It's

• Joyce M. Filer, "Anatomy of a Mummy", Archaeology, March/April 2002, pp. 26-29

I'll add it to the article. Noel (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

mistaken identity

Using all the latest methods the late Prof. Harrison indentified the body in KV55 as that of Smenkhare, concluding that both Smenkhare and Tutankhamun were sons of Amenhotep III by another wife, posssibly Kiya.

If the tomb was accidentely rediscovered during the 20th dynasty and at the the time the body incorrectly identified as Akhenaton, this still could explain the actions for removing the remains of Tiye.

However the arguement goes round in circles of who was interred in KV55, the best bet still seems to be Smenkhare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's wrong. Because Akhenaton's (KV55) son king Tut clearly was a maldevelopped person (have a look: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070710-king-tut_2.html). Which makes sense since Nefertiti is his alleged sister. But the fact which is most interesting is that Akhenaton has an African skull, while his son has an African-Asian hybrid skull. That only proves that the Pharaos were African-Asian hybrids by themselves, but with mainly African skulls and mostly Asian facial features. This is so obvious...I really wonder if Egyptologists ever heard of anthropology? --81.6.59.42 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

another thought

If Tiye and Akhenaton were buried to gether in KV 55, this must be a unique mother and son burial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, they must have slaughtered them both at the same time... --81.6.59.42 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The DNA case for the KV55 mummy as Smenkhare

The DNA tests put forth by Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities and Vice-Culture Minister for Egypt, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, 6/23-30/2010) does NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten and, consequently, the father of Tutankhamun. In fact, the DNA evidence allows for alternative possibilities that are equally valid.

The idea that the KV55 (paternal) and KV35YL (maternal) mummies are the parents of Tutankhamun is not in dispute. What is is in dispute is whether it has been conclusively proven that they are full blood siblings. That conclusion is only one possibility because the JAMA paper fails to take into account the effects of incest on consanguinity since it is equally possible for the KV35YL mummy, the so called Younger Lady, to be the daughter of the KV55 mummy. While father/daughter incest is not unprecedented with respect to the Egyptian royal line, it is not absolute, either.

In order for Hawass to prove his theory correct, he must make exceptions to non-DNA evidence. The assertion that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten makes exception to the fact that the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun are his children from someone other than Tutankhamun's wife, Ankhesenamun. Hawass asserts without ANY proof to corroborate his conclusion that the fetuses could derive from another wife other than Ankhesenamun since the non-DNA, historical and archeological evidence does NOT support the conclusion of a royal wife other than Ankhesenamun. Without the mummy of Ankehesenamun, there is no way to contradict the non-DNA evidence and exclude her maternity of those fetuses. Furthermore, there is no precedence for pharaohs being buried with children whose authentic, royal paternity is in doubt.

An alternative view of the paternity of Tutankhamun based on the DNA, as well as the historical and archeologicla evidence, is the probability that the KV55 mummy is NOT Akhenaten but is related to Akhenaten. In this scenario, KV55 is Smenkhare and related to Akhenaten as a full brother. The DNA evidence does NOT preclude this as a possibility and Hawass has no evidence, whatsoever, to contradict Smenkhare as a valid alternative to the identity of KV55; and, therefore, the father of Tutankhamun. In which case, Akhenaten is not only Tutankahum's uncle, but also his father-in-law with Smenkhare as the paternal uncle/spouse of Tutankhamun’s mother the Younger Lady, KV35YL, i.e. Akhenaten's daughter, Meritaten, who was married to Smenkhare according to the historical and archeological evidence (paternal uncle and niece marriages were practiced as late as the first century AD as evidenced by the Herodians of Israel).

With Smenkhare as the usurper of his heretical brother, Akhenaten, and as the true father of Tutankhamun, the fetuses buried with Tutankhamun can be validated as his offspring with Ankhesenamun, but only if Ankehesenamun is the sister (albeit younger) of the Younger Lady (Meritaten) since the fetuses are genetically related to the KV35YL mummy. This represents a shift in Tutankhamun’s incestuous profile such that his relationship with Ankhensenamun cannot be viewed as brother/sister incest, but rather a maternal aunt/cousin to a nephew/cousin, probably, of similar age. Nevertheless, the conclusion that KV55 is Smenkhare and therefore the father of Tutankhamun is not only consistent with the DNA evidence but also the historical and archeological evidence.
Pvsalsedo (talk), 10:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies regarding KV55/Akhenaton

A few passages in the current article state matter-of-factly that Tutankhamon is the son of Akhenaton. That is imprecise and incorrect. What has been proven is that Tutankhamon is the son of KV55, and that possibly means KV55 is the mummy of Akhenaton -- but it could also be Smenkhare, or someone else. Examples:

• :it is therefore almost certain that it is indeed Akhenaten's body.[1]
• :Over the past century, the chief candidates for this individual have been either Akhenaten himself or Smenkhkare, another male member of the Amarna royal family.[38][39][40]

compare to :

• :but their mummies were moved to KV55 following the total abandonment of Akhetaten during the reign of Tutankhamun, who was Akhenaten's son.
• :The archaeological, inscriptional and now genetic evidence indicate that the ancient Egyptians who buried (and later desecrated) the body in KV55 correctly believed this to be Akhenaten's

Natha 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article asserts: "The archaeological, inscriptional and now genetic evidence indicate that the ancient Egyptians who buried (and later desecrated) the body in KV55 believed this to be Akhenaten's" How can "genetic evidence" show "that the ancient Egyptians ... believed this to be Akhenaten's [body]" ???? (BTW all examinations of the KV55 bones by experienced physical anthropologists have resulted in low estimates of the deceased's age - i.e. ages inconsistent with what we know of Akhenaten.) 110.23.47.237 (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on KV55. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/murnane/M_Gabolde.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Smenkhare

In his paper the late professor Harrison of Liverpool university, a world authority in cranial reconstruction concluded that the remains in KV 55 were those of Smenkhare. He was also the first to publish the A2MN blood groupings of Tutankhamen and the remains in KV55. The Hawass DNA team also concluded that these two were father and son both of which which seems to confirm the KV55 remains as those of Smenkhare.AT Kunene 123 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)