Who was buried in tomb KV55? Reconstructions and conclusions

Welcome to Egyptology Online - Ancient Egypt at your fingertips!

Wooden inner coffin of Irtyru, 26th Dynasty

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

Reconstructions and conclusions

In 1998, Fawzia Hussein and James E. Harris reported to the International Congress of Egyptologists in Cairo that the body was indeed "that of a male, who was closely related to Tutankhamun; the dentition is that of an individual in his mid-thirties, whilst the anatomical evidence suggests an age in excess of 35 years." [28] This new evidence vindicated Reeves' belief and those of Weigall, Aldred and Sandison that the body was indeed that of Akhenaten.

"Unless the anatomists change their minds yet again, it seems the impasse has at last been broken – in which case Akhenaten is found, and we are finally able to move forward." [29]

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:

1) Mandible: There is little to say. The mandible shows good bony support for the teeth and no obvious pathology. The molars do not seem to show much attrition. These facts make me suspect someone who is fairly young. The skull itself is to me more interesting than the x ray. What you can see is that all teeth except upper right eight are erupted. To me they don't appear to have experienced much wear. It is interesting that the canines and several other teeth show small pits in the cusp tips. These are quite rare. I don’t think they are just the effect of attrition.

There are aspects of this paper which make it look like a radiologist's report of a generation ago. Things which are not relevant receive comment: "The pulp cavities of maxillary canines are clearly visible". So are those of all the incisors, but so what? It is difficult to assess tooth wear from this view but the fact that UL8 is erupted while UR8 is not fully through, despite sufficient space, would make me think of late teens or early twenties.

X-ray of the mandible: The broken third molar looks to have occurred post mortem. Its root apices are fully formed which usually occurs a year or two after eruption (normal eruption range 18–22, provided there is space so perhaps a patient in the early twenties.) Things look in good state: no caries, no periodontal bone loss or secondary dentine formation, etc. This looks like somebody young. At first I thought the gonial angle was remarkably obtuse but picture No.1, as we can see, shows that this is not the case (bear in mind that the later picture is not a true lateral view. It is an oblique one). Nevertheless I do wonder whether this is somebody with a long face. It would have been nice to see a lateral view of the whole skull with mandible in place. Perhaps the incisors met edge to edge in life, but with the damaged lowers this could be difficult to tell.

The occlusal view of the mandible itself is very useful. There has clearly been some anterior crowding. You can see attrition of the first molar surfaces which goes through to dentine on some of the buccal (outer) cusps. By comparison the second molars show (as far as I can make out) only slight wear while the lower right third molar shows none at all suggesting that this tooth has only recently erupted. The whole picture is of someone fairly young who has been on quite an abrasive diet. I would guess at early twenties.

None of the pictures clearly show the areas one would need to decide on the sex of the individual.

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.

	References for this page:
[28]	Reeves Op Cit p83 - 84
[29]	Reeves Ibid
[30]	J Filer: "The KV55 body: the facts", Egyptian Archaeology 17, 2000
[31]	Ibid
[32]	Ibid
[33]	Ibid
[34]	It was during the late part of Akenaten's reign that reference to a second king begin to appear. A box from the tomb of Tutankhamun, apparently dating to Akhenaten's reign, bears the following tiulary: "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheperure beloved of Neferkheperure [= Akenaten], Son of Re, Lord of Crowns, Nefernefernuaten beloved of Waenre." Alongside this name are written the names and titles of Akhenaten and the text "King's chief wife Meritaten, may she live forever." (Murnane 1995).
[35]	Aldred Op Cit p152
[36]	Murnane 1995
[37]	Redford Op Cit p192

return to the main article page >>