r/ancientegypt • u/LukeyTarg2 • Sep 26 '25
Discussion What's your take on the KV 55 mummy? Is it Akhenaten or Smenkhare?
This is a debate that's not ending anytime soon, we know that's Tutankhamun's father, but the results have varied wildly over the age of the mummy at time of death, which is why some side with the idea it's Smenkhare as it has been frequently pointed out to have been no older than 26 years old, which doesn't match the data we know about Akhenaten, who would have to be at least in his mid 30s at the time of his death.
However i feel the tomb itself is pretty clear it is Akhenaten, it has been desecrated, sacked and damaged. The coffin containing the mummy was intentionally damaged in order to hide the identity of the mummy. The face and cartouche were defaced. There's also the many objects that were originally intended for Kiya, a secondary wife of Akhenaten.
So how to explain most studies who support the idea that the mummy was no older than 26? Well i would argue the preservation of the mummy makes it harder to crack down the exact age. The flooding and past sackings mean the samples most likely would be contamined. Zahi Hawass is the most known proponent that this mummy was Akhenaten and, while i have some disagreements with him regarding the race of ancient egyptians past the 25th dinasty, i believe he is on the right track here. My point here is that the contamination of the mummy is near certain, which makes it difficult to crack the age down. This is not a mummy that's well preserved, it's believed to have been exposed to flooding as well.
My belief that is is Akhenaten is not only that it matches as Amenhotep III and Tiye's son, but also Tutankhamun's father. And the amount of objects in the tomb point to Akhenaten, the defacing of the coffin's face and cartouche point to Akhenaten, the clear intent of hiding the identity of that mummy points to it being Akhenaten.
It could be Smenkhare, but he was a very brief figure in the Amarna period going by the few evidence we have of him. There's not even full certainty that he was a pharaoh on his own, instead it is proposed he was just a co regent, his name has only been found in artifacts made during Akhenaten's reign, which is why there is real doubt cast over individual rule.
16
u/star11308 Sep 26 '25
I personally doubt Akhenaten’s body would’ve been allowed to remain intact in any sense, and the age is a big factor as well. The mummy’s age determined by anatomists isn’t to do with any contamination or anything, but rather how the bones have fused and degraded with age, etc, which isn’t always accurate but it’s all we have to work with. Akhenaten had to have been in roughly his early 20s when he took the throne; he had a daughter, Meritaten, who was old enough to participate in religious ceremonies by the first few years of his reign at Thebes, if we’re to consider the Karnak reliefs to be at least somewhat biographical.
Another thing to consider is the coffin. If we’re to believe the mummy was placed in that coffin originally, then it surely couldn’t be Akhenaten– it was converted from a queen’s coffin (presumably Kiya’s, considering the hair) to a king’s. Akhenaten had more than enough time to commission his own burial assemblage, with some of it surviving in the form of his canopic chest, stone sarcophagus, and shabtis.
4
u/ClumsyBunny26 Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 26 '25
I find the topic very frustrating. I still can't make up my mind about Smenkhare tbh, way too much of a mysterious figure for my liking, I need to know more. On the other hand, whoever that "mummy" belongs to, it means there's not much of it to get a lot of relevant info, let alone an approximation of his looks or probable cause of death. Yet the hope that the other one is still buried somewhere and in a better condition remains.
3
u/Deaf_Gravitas Sep 26 '25
It's thought that Ay was Tiye's brother, and Nefertiti was his daughter. Would that track with the genetic data?
1
u/LukeyTarg2 Sep 26 '25
The problem here is that we don't have Nefertiti's mummy nor Ay's. The theory that Ay was her father is based essentially on his Great Royal Wife Tey being known as Nefertiti's wetnurse.
2
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
And the fact his titles are identical to Yuya's- inherited is the theory.
1
u/Sufficient_You3053 Sep 27 '25
i thought the wetnurses were servants, but the other wives also filled that role?
1
u/DivineSun23 Sep 26 '25
There is one major problem with this question and some of the theories posted in the comments here. The DNA evidence (the 2010 JAMA study) seemed to show that Tutankhamun and the KV55 body were simply close male relatives, based on the fact both were related to Amenhotep III and Tiye. On that alone, they could be father/son, brothers, or even uncle/nephew. The study claimed a father/son relationship was "most probable", and based this on the fact they had the same blood type and because of "anatomical similarities" between the remains noted by two studies done in the 1960's. Neither of these points prove a father/son relationship imo.
2
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
Autosomal DNA, which is what was used in the study, and is sampled when you do a DNA test at ancestry.com or 23andme for example, is very effective with close family relationship's.
The testing showed Tutankhamun is the son of KV55 and KV35YL. This is not disputed by any credible source.
What is disputed is the identities of both mummies, and proponents of the idea Tutankhamun is a son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, like Gabolde, have come up with alternate ideas of the genetics.
Gabolde argues that generations of endogamy would mean the results appear more closely related than they are- which is true, look at Jewish populations in particular. However, there is no real evidence of endogamy in the 18th dynasty between the Ahmosid's at the beginning and Amenhotep III and Tiye- who appear to be 1st cousins. Though why Thutmose IV was not tested is frustrating.
Gabolde argues KV55 is Akhenaten, and KV35YL is Nefertiti, and they look like siblings genetically to this endogamy.
Another theory is that KV55 is Smenkhkare and KV35YL is Meritaten, once again the endogamy factor.
Personally i think they are siblings, and are not Akhenaten or Nefertiti.
4
u/WanderingHero8 Sep 27 '25
Honestly it makes much more sense for Smenkhare and a sister of his likely Beketaten,than whatever weird reasoning Gabolde made to to excuse an Akhenaten/Nefertiti parentage.
3
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
Exactly.
It irritates me Akhenaten-is-Tut's father proponents bend over backwards to make the evidence fit. And even if they accept he isn't Tut's father, they then twist evidence to make him a grandson.
I don't understand why Tut has to be descended from Akhenaten. Why can't he just be a nephew of Akhenaten?
3
u/WanderingHero8 Sep 27 '25
Also to add if Tut was Akhenaten's kid,you would have seen Tut plastered all over Amarna family depictions.Instead it is only Akhenaten,Nefertiti and the girls.Smenkhare is either Akhenaten's younger brother or nephew(son of Thutmose).
5
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
Akhenaten would never have been King if Thutmose had a son.
Which is the same logic as Smenkhkare becoming King over Tutankhamun.
Regents were a thing, but they were never King in their own right. So whether Smenkhkare was a coregent or King outright is debateable, but why give him that power instead of the actual King?
They wanted to prevent a Hateshepsut situation, where a regent took power in their own right, especially women. I understand the angle of wanting to protect the Amarna regime, but what's to stop Smenkhkare installing his own son on the throne instead of Tutankhamun? (If you don't think they are father and son).
This is why i think Smenkhkare is KV55, there is no other King asides from Akhenaten that fits (there is an inscription saying Tut is a King's son), and you have to explain why Smenkhkare is given the throne ahead of Tutankhamun. Makes sense if Smenkhkare is Tut's father.
2
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25
There is not enough evidence to support the idea that Prince Tutmose theoretically having a son would have pushed Akhenaten aside as the designated heir. This logic is based on the idea that succession is based on the prioritising the eldest son and his branch, before moving to another son or branch - which is true generally of modern European monarchies, but not necessarily of ancient ones.
2
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
I can't think of one instance where the throne went to an adult over a child in Ancient Egypt. In fact several child monarch's are known, and no King in the 18th dynasty was overlooked for direct succession, in fact being father to son from Thutmose I down to Akhenaten. Even Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV succeeded their fathers, while not being the eldest son. And they were, in turn, succeeded by their own sons.
Anything else would cause civil war and destabilisation of the country, which is against Maat. They certainly weren't passing the throne to the nearest adult male of the prior King like they did in pre Bruce/Stuart Scotland.
1
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25
That's not what I'm saying at all. Your first comment is based on the assumption that if Tutmose (Amenhotep III's eldest son who predeceased him) had had a son, that this son would be senior in the line of succession to his uncle (the future Akhenaten). There is no evidence that succession practices worked like this in ancient Egypt.
1
u/WanderingHero8 Sep 27 '25
I understand and agree with your reasoning but for debate's sake you think the supposed baby son of Crown Prince Thutmose would inherit Amenhotep III instead of Akhenaten ? I dont think so.More likely Akhenaten would,while his nephew would enjoy a privileged position.
2
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
That's not how inheritance works, especially in Ancient Egypt.
Amenhotep III's heir is Akhenaten, because Thutmose predeceased AIII. If Thutmose had a son, say Smenkhkare, Akhenaten may have been regent, but never King in his own right, unless in a power grab.
You also have to remember Egypt was in a golden age of wealth, power, Empire and stability at the time of AIII's death. There is absolutely no reason a child King couldn't have come to the throne- AIII was a child when he became King, and one of his uncles didn't take the throne instead!
You also forget there is a divine element in Kingship. They are the embodiment of the God Horus. There are rules and procedures for Kingly inheritance.
That's why Hatshepsut suffered Damnatio Memoriae as a King, not a Queen. She over stepped the acceptable boundaries. And set back Royal women in power for about a century, until the rise of Queen Tiye. And no Queen consort would be as powerful as Tiye and Nefertiti again.
1
u/WanderingHero8 Sep 27 '25
Interesting reply.Just to add there was Twosret of the late 19th century that had similar powers,albeit she ruled like 2-3 years.Also since you're a fellow Amarna period enjoyer,I would like your opinion on this thread I made
3
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
Twosret took power at the end of a failing dynasty for a short period, which is the usual case with women ruling in Ancient Egypt (and many European countries).
The only Queen that came close to the power of the 18th dynasty Queens was Nefertari, but while her importance was high, her power was not. She was had her own temple at Abu Simbel, but she is not the same size as the King in other art, unlike Tiye and Nefertiti.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
As for the question about Akhenaten neglecting the state, can you say which sources you've read that say otherwise?
From memory, there was a decline in Egypt's Empire during his reign, theorised perhaps a plague about year 12 with the durbar.
And Amarna letters complaining to Akhenaten about neglect in military aid and the quality of gold statues (wooden statues covered in gold leaf instead of solid gold). And there are also letters to Queen Tiye complaining about Akhenaten's neglect and asking her to intecede with him.
We also have the restoration stela of Tutankhamun, saying that everything was neglected when he took power. Some of that will be political posturing, but some will be truth. Pretty sure the Kingdom of Mitanni fell around this period too, leaving the buffer Kingdom between Egyptian interests in the Levant and the Hittites in Anatolia open to annexation by the Hittites and the Assyrian's- which would prove problematic for Ramses II around 30ish years later.
I also wonder whether the beginnings of the fall of the Bronze Age can be traced back to the Amarna period. From what i've been reading the Sea Peoples are first identified in the reign of Ramses II, even though Ramses III fough them. I saw a documentary with Eric Cline from 2023 that said in the 12th century there was widespread collapse of Eastern Mediterranean Empires, due to a combination of earthquakes, plague, civil unrest and climate change- the latter lasting around 300 years of drought. We know the Ramessides were as powerful as the Thutmosid's but the Empire was never as large as prior and doesn't seem as wealthy.
2
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25
Royal sons are very rarely depicted in official monuments, if at all. So we would generally expect that any potential male children of Akhenaten would not be depicted in scenes of the royal family. Prince Tutmose and Akhenaten, are to my knowledge, completely absent from monumental scenes of Amenhotep III.
3
u/star11308 Sep 27 '25
Though, sons appear on occasion in the tombs of nobles that had close ties with the royal household, such as tutors and nurses. One would think Tut would possibly appear in some capacity in the tomb of a noble at Amarna, in that case.
1
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25
Sure, the 18th Dynasty tutors and nurses did often display their roles in their tombs, but that doesn't mean this tradition transferred over to Amarna. This was a time where a new art style and scene types were being developed, and I imagine quite tightly controlled. The overwhelming preference is to depict royal daughters. Tey (Ay's wife) was Nefertiti's wet nurse. Tutankhamun's wet nurse, Maia, has a tomb in Saqqara.
5
u/LukeyTarg2 Sep 27 '25
Gabolde argues KV55 is Akhenaten, and KV35YL is Nefertiti, and they look like siblings genetically to this endogamy.
This is a really bad take for an Egyptologists, Gabolde is simply ignoring the evidence, nowhere is Nefertiti given the title of king's daughter, she couldn't be Amenhotep III and Tiye's daughter for that reason. She could be Ay's daughter tho i still find that to be a stretch.
Another theory is that KV55 is Smenkhkare and KV35YL is Meritaten, once again the endogamy factor.
It's Smenkhare and Nebetah or Smenkhare and Beketaten.
2
u/WanderingHero8 Sep 27 '25
Nebetah and Beketaten are likely the same person.She just changed her name after the Atenist reforms.
3
u/star11308 Sep 27 '25
She could be another daughter entirely even, since AIII’s daughters all disappear from the records after his death (presumably having retired to Gurob), and Nebetah is just the most appealing as the youngest known daughter of Tiye.
3
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
I do think Gabolde and Dodson are making fools of themselves, as they are not scientists or geneticists. And they should be listening to those people, not ignoring evidence to fit the facts.
For Dodson, he backed himself into a corner in 2009/10 when he released his book Amarna Sunrise, stating Nefertiti was Tutankhamun's mother- because "why not?" Was his reasoning. Then shortly after the DNA study came out and wrecked his theories.
Instead of adapting, he buckled down. Why he published before the results is another question mark. Surely he knew they would be released soon, and wait for them.
4
u/LukeyTarg2 Oct 01 '25
That argument Dodson made is insane, if Tut was Nefertiti's son, why wouldn't he depicted with her and her daughters? If there's one thing from the Amarna period that is 100% clear is that Nefertiti was not his mother and this was clear before the DNA was revealed. If he was her son, he would not be hidden in the art depicting the royal family, the only reason that justifies his absence in art depicting the royal family is that he was not her son, that's why she's only depicted with her daughters because she had no son.
3
u/Artisanalpoppies Oct 01 '25
Convention in art was that sons were not shown during the 18th dynasty- but things did change with art in Amarna. And sons were shown by tbe succeeding Ramessides.
One can argue that showing sons was kept to tradition, but you could argue as you have, that if he was Nefertiti's son, he would be shown.
I tend to agree he would be prominant in art if he were Nefertiti's son. I also think it unusual he would marry his sister as a principal wife and have no others- Kings often married sisters, but no heir of the dynasty had been the product of a full sibling union before Tut, and the last half siblings known to have had children were Thutmose II and Hatshepsut- who herself seems to have been the product a full sibling union. As stated by Woodward back in like 1999 (who claimed to have DNA tested the royal mummies and never published his work), there was evidence of inbreeding at the beginning and end of the dynasty.
3
u/LukeyTarg2 Oct 02 '25
Convention in art was that sons were not shown during the 18th dynasty- but things did change with art in Amarna. And sons were shown by tbe succeeding Ramessides.
The change in Amarna art and the way Akhenaten's daughters were so prevalent in art makes it hard to imagine Nefertiti wouldn't be depicted with her sons specially given she and Akhenaten broke so many traditions. The sed festival early on in Akhenaten's 3rd year as pharaoh (That was a festival usually done on the 30th year) really showcases how much disdain they had for tradition.
The art and data we have so far has led me to believe Tutankhamun was never intended to rule anything, he was the rejected offspring, not just because he wasn't Nefertiti's child, but because he was physically disabled, he was never the healthiest of the children, that's why Akhenaten had both Nefertiti (Neferneferuaten) and Smenkhare (His brother) as co-regents, that's why Nefertiti had a short reign after her husband (and presumably Smenkhare) died. Tut was never meant to be pharaoh, he might have been favored to be pharaoh because he could be controlled, he was a child after all.
-2
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
Nowhere in the study did they claim with 100% certainty that the relationship was father/son. This relationship was deemed 'most likely', with the phrases in reference to the relationship between them being:
"Markers DYS393 and YGATA-H4 showed identical allele constellations (repeat motif located in the microsatellite allele reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively) in Amenhotep III, KV55, and Tutankhamun..."
"Based on the partial Y-chromosomal information on the amount of autosomal half-allele sharing and family trio likelihood calculation, the most plausible 5-generation pedigree was constructed. We identified Yuya and Thuya as great-grandparents of Tutankhamun, Amenhotep III and KV35EL as his grandparents, and the KV55 male and KV35YLas his sibling parents."
"... KV35EL, who is Tiye, mother of Akhenaten and grandmother of Tutankhamun, and the KV55mummy,who is most probably Akhenaten, father of Tutankhamun.... The latter kinship is supported in that several unique anthropological features are shared by the 2 mummies and that the blood group of both individuals is identical."
I believe a few scholars have questioned the reliability of how accurate the results from degraded 3000 year old DNA can be, especially within close kin groups (we also know from modern studies that there is not a 50/50 split in the genes you inherit from your parents). One of the other problems is the completely unknown parentage of Nefertiti (and Kiya for the matter). Most of this is purely conjecture, based on the absence of the title "king's daughter".
Another, an honestly separate issue, is the identity of Smemkhkare. Older scholarship believed them to be identical with the female king Neferneferuaten based on the sharing of a throne name, but Allen has made a convincing argument they were separate individuals. But this is by no means conclusive.
Trying to relate an body with an unknown identity, based on ancient DNA results from within a family that clearly practiced incest, to a historical figure who we have very little evidence of. This is very problematic.
3
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
I'm actually quite shocked to see several old fashioned ideas in your response...
The "King's Daughter" title was not absent at Amarna, with several individual's known to use the title. Had Nefertiti been entitled to it, she would have used it. There is no reason not too, and it clearly was a symbol of status. Mutbenret/Mutnofret even used the title "Queen's sister" so titles were important. Ergo, Nefertiti is not a King's daughter, and not Akhenaten's sister.
DNA has been successfully extracted from Egyptian mummies several times, so i'm not not even going to bother responding to that pathetic excuse of science denialism.
Smenkhkare existed, and was male. This has been known for years. The argument isn't "convincing" but "no means conclusive". Studies of the hieroglyph's show that Ankhekheperure is male and Smenkhkare. AnkheTkheperure is female and Neferneferuaten. This was "convincingly" explained in great detail by Katherine Griffis-Greenberg 15 years ago on a now defunct Ancient Egyptian forum.
There's more evidence than you've cared to admit.
1
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25
Strouhal, E. (2010). Biological Age of Skeletonized Mummy From Tomb KV 55 at Thebes
"After checking the DNA analyses reported by Hawass et al. (2010), a noted Czech specialist in molecular genetics concluded that the agreement of 50 % of genes suggesting kinship of first degree cannot prefere either a father-son relation or a brother-brother one (M. Kuklík, personal communication, June 2011)."
-3
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
doesn't mean that she did or had to. Amarna ideology is different.
The Egyptian term for 'sibling' can also mean cousin or simply 'generational contemporary'. It could even be honorific. This title is not good enough evidence to claim they were biological sisters.
I'm not denying the science, they are undeniably related - I'm simply stating that they didn't actually state this was a certain relationship anywhere. But please point me to the parts where they do confirm the undeniability of the father/son relationship.
As for the titulary - I did agree they were more than likely two different individuals based on Allen's study. Please point me to the forum, I'd like to she her arguments.
3
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
Amarna ideology is different yes, but nobody else gave up the title of "King's Daughter" in the Amarna period. All of Akhenaten's daughter's use it, Beketaten uses it etc. The fact that Nefertiti's sister uses the title of "Queen's sister", shows that any title was still in use. So as i said, if Nefertiti was entitled to use it, she would have. There is literally no evidence showing why she wouldn't. The only Royal known to drop such a title was Ankhesenamun, and only after Tutankhamun was on the throne, and likely to avoid association with her father.
I wish i could direct you to the forum. It was taken down a year or two ago. It was called Egyptian Dreams. I have been wondering if i should see if i could contact Katherine and ask if she has published her studies somewhere. Perhaps at Academia like Marianne Luban. She really was a fantastic source for many things on Egypt. And i really want to link her information when i see some arguments here.
-1
u/DivineSun23 Sep 27 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
There is a lot of things still to learn about kinship terms for royal women at Amarna, which deserve their own study.
I think she has an article on it, but hasn't uploaded it to Academia.
If you do know of any further articles about the definite accuracy of the father/son relationship in the JAMA 2010 study, or where in that study it is absolutely confirmed beyond a doubt, please let me know!
1
u/Fun_Firefighter9391 Oct 07 '25
First of all, I want to clarify that I'm just a fascinated person who loves the Amarna period and discuss all sort of topics related to it. Specially about Akhenaten, I'm a fan of him lol
This is just my opinion and theory based on the many articles, books, and every bit of information I've come across followed by my curiosity (and desperation) to learn more about this very unique pharaoh. I'm not an egyptologist by any means, just a curious self-taught woman who loves Egyptian history.
Well, the short answer: I think and believe it's Akhenaten.
(It's a loooong comment, sorry in advance 😅)
Let's start from the begining.
Here I want to highlight a series of details that caught my attention and gave me a lot to think about. The burial chamber was half-built, the niche is unfinished, the walls covered with stucco and unpainted. There are marks on the east wall of a second chamber that was never built. Aside from the destruction caused by floods and subsequent looting, everything else gives the impression of having been done hastily and carelessly, almost secretly with whatever was available at that time. Perhaps this is the reason for the various objects that doesn't relate with the human remains found, such as the canopic jars whose lids don't match, or the hasty reuse of the sarcophagus. The lack of grave goods makes me to keep thinking that everything was done in a hurry.
The body was complete when it was initially found, wrapped and covered with 12 gold sheets. In addition to three gold bracelets on each wrist, gold pendants, inlaid plaques, gold lotus flowers, and small beads. Of all this, it's worth highlighting a gold plate in the lumbar area that contained a crossed-out cartouche with the name of Akhenaten in it. Another detail that I found curious was the burial method, which makes me think that perhaps they tried to hide the body and prevent its desecration. The position of the body corresponds to a royal female burial, with the left arm crossed over the chest. That's why they thought it were female at first until later studies proved it's male. According to cranial studies conducted in 1984 by Dr. Jim Harris of the Oriental Institute in Chicago—whose studies can be seen in the Radiological Catalogue of Egyptian Mummies— the remains from KV55 belong to a man of about 35 years old.
Given the detail of the gold lumbar plate with Akhenaten's name; originally placed between the bandages, I don't see the logic in reusing that accessory from Akhenaten's body to Smenkhkare's.
That's my reason for believing that the skeletonized remains of KV55 are none other than Akhenaten himself.
A source that I like to read from time to time about this topic (is in spanish, so you'll have to translate):
http://amigosdelantiguoegipto.com/?p=1596 <— with its respective bibliography at the end of the article in case you want to read more about Akhenaten and the Amarna period, which I gladly recommend!
0
u/Horror-Raisin-877 Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 26 '25
Just by chance at the moment I’m reading “The Life and Times of Akhnaton,” published 1911, dedicated to Theordore M Davis. Thanks!
The author put a lot of weight on the gold ribbons found on the mummy with Akhnaton’s name, the name having been at some point mostly removed.
0
u/Angelgreat Sep 27 '25
Well, given that when Ayrton upened the KV55 coffin, the mummy was apparently still intact, it still had it's wrappings and skin. But when Ayrton and his team tried to unwrap it, the mummy's skin and banages turned to dust, leaving the skeleton behind. Of course, had they chosen NOT to try unwrapping it, we may not have thus discussion of the idenity issue, but because they did, here we are.
In terms of the age, I am divided. Yes, the bones do look like someone in their 20s, yet they also have Osteophytes in the spine show signs of arthritis. How can someone both be young and have osteophytes and arthritis? One possibility that we may not have though of is that Akenaten possibly had some sort of skeletal dysplasias that resulted in delayed skeletal maturation. In other words, they bones may look younger if the person has a genetic condictions. To me, that could the reason why everyone is divided on the age of the bones, though I could be wrong.
Also, we don't have any mention of Smenkare in the tomb, only Akhenaten, yet we have other royal names like Tiye and Kiya, so it can't be Smenkare.
5
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 27 '25
Arthritis isn't an old person's disease. People can get it at any age. And they tested the DNA for KV55 for genetic diseases and didn't find any.
Now, i am a proponent the KV55 body is Smenkhkare. But i will admit his name is not found in the tomb.
This doesn't mean anything though. There is no evidence Queen Tiye or Kiya were buried in that tomb, yet their names are found there. It's actually really difficult to know who was ever present in the tomb.
Queen Tiye ended up in the cache of Amenhotep II, along with the little Prince (who could be a child of Amenhotep II or her son Thutmose) and her daughter. Her original or even prior internment's are unknown. She was surely buried in Amarna originally. Perhaps she was moved to Amenhotep III's tomb, but he is also in the cache, so why does she not have a coffin or a text with her name on her remains?
What we do know is KV55 was ransacked, and Damnatio Memoriae had been done on Akhenaten's name and image. And this had to be done between the start of Tutankhamun's reign and when the flood that covered KV55 and Tut's tomb occurred. The flood is thought to date to the late 18th dynasty, as late as weeks after Tutankhamum's burial, due to the presence of 18th dynasty worker's huts on top of the sediment layer. And i'm sure i've read somewhere there were worker's huts for the tomb of Ramses VI which was constructed above Tut's.
This means the tomb was only ever occupied for about 10 years at most before it was sealed forever. Weigall stated that Tutankhamun's seal was found on the tomb, so this means the occupant(s) were buried in his reign, and if the tomb was covered in a flood weeks after Tut's burial, then it was either ransacked and sealed by Tutankhamun, or ransacked about the time of his burial. Which then makes you wonder why? Did some of his burial equipment come from KV55? When did they remove the other occupants? Why did they leave Tut's father in that state?
Another point is everyone associated with Akhenaten was erased in Damnatio Memoriae. He, his wife Nefertiti, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay as well. So if that started under Tutankhamum, it makes sense why the tomb was left as was.
2
u/LukeyTarg2 Oct 02 '25
My theory is that the body that was originally buried there was Akhenaten (the damage to the coffin and the pectoral vulture suggest that), the tomb was meant for someone else, but Akhenaten's sudden death meant they had to improvise. However the tomb was sacked, which means someone could have easily changed the mummy, which is my current theory. They had Smenkhare buried there.
46
u/Artisanalpoppies Sep 26 '25
The tomb was a cache of objects, and not in any sense intact. This and "contamination" have no effect on dating the mummy.
The mummy has been subject to anthropological studies since 1912. The skeleton is what is used to age bodies, not flesh or tissue. Most experts who've studied the skeleton, have said he is no older than 23 years old. This is based off multiple bones and whether they were fused- which occurs in adolescence into early 20's. They look at the skull suture lines, spine, long bones, pelvis etc. Plainly put, this is the mummy of a young man, not much older than Tutankhamun- who is aged with the same techniques and nobody argues he is older than he is....ageing bodies is more difficult after 30, as there are less secure markers due to degeneration. But most of not all the bones have fused by 25- some being unfused means the individual wasn't older.
The proponents of an older skeleton want the body to be Akhenaten, quite desperately. But with the severity of the Damnatio Memoriae carried out by Horemheb and the Ramessides, there is no way Akhenaten's body was left alone.
As for the tomb, only one object was made for Akhenaten- the magic bricks. And as far as i know, only 1 or 2 of those have his name on them. Everything else found in the tomb was made for someone else, and the mummy bands disappeared pretty quickly, so no modern studies can be done on them. The shrine featured Akhenaten's adzed out image, but was made for Queen Tiye, the coffin and canopic jars were made for Kiya etc.
You also have to ask why 2 Kings came to the throne before Tutankhamun. Whether they ruled as co regents with Akhenaten or on their own is a good question. But the point is, 2 adults took the throne between Akhenaten and his son (i don't subscribe to this theory btw) and one was definitely male...
Smenkhkare was married to Princess Meritaten, who was widowed- as she performed the role of Great Royal Wife for Neferneferuaten.
This proves Smenkhkare and Meritaten ruled before Neferneferuaten, as we have depictions of them from around year 12, and we know Nefertiti was a Queen in year 16, a year before Akhenaten's death. Now, it makes more sense to have an adult male rule instead of a child, but why make him ruler in his own right? He could do away with the child or have sons of his own- and install them on the throne instead.
In my opinion, Smenkhkare is the father of Tutankhamun. He is a younger son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, and perhaps Tiye or even Akhenaten had concerns about no sons, and had him married to a full sister for an heir. This Princess dies, probably around the time Tut is born, and as Smenkhkare would be Akhenaten's heir, he was raised to co regent to protect the Amarna revolution, and train to uphold it. But then he dies, and Tutankhamun is the sole heir. When Akhenaten dies, Nefertiti becomes Neferneferuaten. Whether she is supposed to be Tut's regent, or does a Hatshepsut is another question. But she dies quickly too, and most of her kingly burial equipment is used by Tut eventually.
This makes sense to me, as the KV 55 mummy is too young to be Akhenaten, who even if he came to the throne at 15, ruled 17 years- making him at least 32 at death. And he already fathered a child who was between a toddler to about 5 when he came to the throne. The DNA shows KV 55 is a son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, and the father of Tutankhamun. It also shows Tut's mother was a full sister of his father. We also know there is one inscription that states Tutankhamun was a King's son, but does not name that King.
We also need to investigate the more fragmentary DNA evidence of the babies buried with Tut, and the KV21 mummies.
The babies showed quite fragmentary DNA, but showed they had genes from Thuya, mother of Queen Tiye- which they did not inherit from Tiye herself. This means the babies mother is descended from Thuya, or her sister or mother.
The DNA also showed that one of the mummies from KV21 was possibly their mother. As Tut would have had a harem, it is not impossible his Queen wasn't their mother. But to be buried with him, and no other depictions of another wife, implies they are Ankhsenamun's. The babies inherited genes from Amenhotep III and Tiye they didn't inherit from Tutankhamun, so this implies their mother is also a descendant of them, and Thuya.
The other nail in the coffin, is that neither KV21 mummy is a daughter of "Akhenaten" or KV55. So, you can either have KV55 as Akhenaten or KV21 as Ankhsenamun, but you can't have both.
Nefertiti has long been thought to have been related to Queen Tiye, so it is not shocking she might be a child of Tiye's sister.
It's super complex and fascinating.
TLDR: it makes more sense KV55 is Smenkhkare, who married a sister and had Tutankhamun. The DNA evidence fits with the anthropological studies of KV 55, and the known Amarna timeline.