Pages in this article: the discovery | the coffin | the physical remains | further examinations | reconstructions and conclusions

Reconstructions and conclusions

These words by Nicholas Reeves were to be prophetic. In the January 2000, Joyce Filer, a recognised world expert from the Human and Animal Remains in the Department of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, was invited by Dr Nasry Iskander of the Cairo Museum to re-examine the remains. Worried that the remains would be in a "sorry state of preservation", as recorded by Harris and Weeks (1973), Filer was astonished to find that "the skeleton is almost complete and overall in good condition … is in fact virtually intact." [30]

Filer followed Harrison's approach and remained completely subjective relying solely on the medical evidence to formulate her diagnosis. She concluded that the pelvis in general, displayed "strongly male characteristics". The skull also had some very strong male features, including "well defined brow ridges and a wide rather square shaped jaw." [31]

Regarding the contentious evidence of Hussein and Harris, Filer states: "firstly, the dental development is not quite mature, in that the one out of four of the third molars is not fully erupted, which suggests an age at death of no more than the early twenties … further support for a low age is the fact that the molars show only the slightest traces of attrition." [32]

Filer further contests Harris's findings by stating: " … it is quite clear that some of the bony elements have not entirely completed their fusion process … at the ends of the upper and lower limbs … suggesting an age of between 18 - 21. The sternal epiphyses of the clavicles are not all fused, setting an upper limit of 25 years." Filer sums up her findings thus: "it is clear from the evidence that this was a man between the ages of 20 -25 and veering towards the lower end of this age range." [33]

Facial reconstructions

Shows the facial reconstruction of the "unknown body" indicating the maximum and minimum values permissible according to Kollman and Büchly. (After Harrison 1966)

Artistic reconstructions

Artistic reconstructions after Harrison 1966

The middle coffin from Tutankhamun’s tomb, which was originally dedicated to Smenkhkare. The facial similarity to the reconstruction is uncanny.

Mr J Muir's analysis

In addition to the autopsies and investigations cited already. In a personal communication, I sent copies of Harrison's x-rays of the skull and the upper and lower jaws to one of the country's leading orthodontists, Mr J. Muir BDS., FDS. M.Orth. RCS for his professional analysis. In order to maintain subjectivity, all traces of identification were removed from the x-rays. Below are his conclusions:

Dr Muir's findings reiterate previous findings, in that this person could not possibly be Akhenaten due to age constraints.

February – March 2005. It must be stressed that at no point did Dr Muir have access to the skull or the original x-rays.  He formulated his conclusions on the copied x-rays.

Conclusions

I have, within the confines of this article, put forward as much background medical information as possible regarding the individual discovered in tomb KV55, in order to come to some form of rational conclusion. On reflection it is quite obvious that there is a vast amount of conflicting evidence. We can safely discard Davis's assumption that the body was that of queen Tiye. With the weight of evidence presented, we can also discount Hussein and Harris's assumption that the body was a male of some 35 years old.

We are then left with the undeniable evidence that the body was clearly a royal male, of some 20 - 23 years of age at death, who was married to Akhenaten's daughter Meritaten [34] and had ruled either as a co-regent or as sole king, and with a very close familial link to Tutankhamun, known as "Beloved of wa-en-re". 

Reeves insists that not a scrap of archaeological or inscriptional evidence has been mustered to associate Smenkhkare with this tomb. Although no direct inscriptional evidence was found in KV55, we do have a smoking gun: "It would appear that Smenkhkare had already begun to prepare his tomb furniture at Thebes … in the traditional style." [35]

Verification of this can be evidenced by some major, personal funerary pieces discovered in Tutankhamun's tomb: a set of four coffinettes, which were to be used to store Smenkhkare's internal organs, Tutankhamun's middle mummy case, along with numerous other small objects attributed to Smenkhkare. Close inspection of the hieroglyphs has shown that Tutankhamun's name has been incised over the previous owner's: Smenkhkare. Moreover, a factor which the ancient craftsman would have taken into consideration when designing the funerary assemblages was for the facial appearance to be 'true to life'.

When one compares the facial features of the coffinettes and the middle coffin, to those of Tutankhamun, it is obvious that there is a definite difference in appearance and that these pieces have been usurped; however, they do bear a striking similarity.

We are now therefore left with only one conclusion that the name Smenkhkare refers to a male. I say this, as one theory suggests that Nefertiti, who later in her life was known as Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten, was actually king Smenkhkare. This theory has been rejected by Murnane and Redford. The throne name of King Ankhkheperure is occasionally written in the feminine, ie: Ankhe (t) kheperure, with the feminine "t". William Murnane speculates that this indicates that "King Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten was indeed Nefertiti, and a separate individual from King Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare." [36] Redford endorses this fact saying that "Neferneferuaten is not a name until it appears in Smenkhkare's cartouche … a variation that militates in favour of a distinction between the two individuals." [37]

After removing the improbable, all that remains is the probable. All the medical evidence indicates that the body found in KV55 is that of a young king who was interred in a coffin that was originally intended for Kiya. This was subsequently usurped for Akhenaten, but housed the body of an ephemeral king known as Smenkhkare.  It is beyond the remit of this article to propose a reason why, although many scholars have suggested various scenarios. 

In truth, we don’t know why and we may never now the reason why - perhaps only time will reveal the answer to this enigma.

 return to the main article page >>