The Enigmas of Tomb KV55: An overview

The tomb designated KV55 belongs to an important, shadowy era of Ancient Egyptian history that has been referred to in previous articles: The Heirs of Akhenaten and The Wives of Akhenaten.  This period of Egyptian history, towards the end of the eighteenth dynasty is referred to as the "Armana period", defined by the reigns of Akhenaten and his heirs, viz. Smenkhkare, [Ankhkheprure] Neferneferuaten, Tutankhamun, and Ay; five pharaohs (with probably one female ruler amongst them) who ruled Egypt during the latter half of the fourteenth century BC.  These years  continue to fascinate Egyptologists and students alike, as they are filled with unsolved questions and riddles relating to various individuals, the order of succession, and the complicated, convoluted familial relationships between the individuals.  It also covers a period of time when Egypt was in religious turmoil; a period that later pharaohs endeavored to erase from the record as much as from the minds and memories of their subjects.  This attempt was for many centuries afterwards largely successful.

The golden mask of Tjuju, mother of queen Tiye, and grandmother
of the mummy in KV55, both discovered by Theodore Davis.

In the early part of the twentieth century a significant number of finds were found in the Valley of the Kings by a retired American financier, Theodore M. Davis, and his team.   Davis, long interested in Egypt, in 1902 decided to become involved in the financing and carrying out of excavations in the Valley of the Kings.  This decision occurred soon after an encounter with a young Howard Carter, then the Inspector-General for Antiquities in Upper Egypt.  Carter was seeking funding to carry out excavations in the Valley, and Davis seemed to have the funds and the resources at his disposal to undertake such work.  Davis could at best be described as being somewhat awkward and prickly in nature, and was considered to be “brusque”, “eccentric” and “difficult”.  However, he seems to have expressed a fondness for collecting antiquities, but was completely unacquainted with excavation techniques.  With Davis’ financial backing to cover excavations in the Valley, Carter had a promise from the Egyptian government granting Davis the right to keep any duplicates of antiquities which he happened to find during the excavations he financed. 

The excavator Theodore Davis, second right, in the Valley of the Kings.

Davis funded numerous excavations in the Valley of the Kings for well over a decade, until he lost interest in 1914.  He passed away soon afterwards, believing that the valley had been exhausted of all finds and tombs.  Despite his ham-fisted approach to archaeology and excavations, Davis was responsible for the discovery of some of the most important finds in the history of Egyptology.  Carter only remained Chief Inspector until 1904, when he was replaced by James Quibell.  It was with the appointment of Arthur Weigall that the method behind the archaeology in the Valley of the Kings changed dramatically.  Where previously Davis had been a silent partner in the excavations, Weigall actively encouraged his patron to participate in the digging first hand.  Davis, the treasure hunter, relished this opportunity that was presented to him.  This change was to affect the way in which excavations were carried out and resulted in some of the most tragic, mindless destruction to the archaeological record anywhere.  The methods employed under Davis were described as being “spoilt by Davis’ interference – generally ignorant experience of the nature of things and of the workmen. [Davis] is old and stupid at times through his stubborn arrogance.  [What] pleases him most is to give in to him and let the work suffer.”

Queen Tiye.
Her mummy was believed by Theodore Davis
to heve been found in Tomb KV55.

The methodology employed by Davis’ excavation teams had been questionable prior the discovery of this tomb.  The method used in KV55 might be considered appalling for its lack of care and respect, having been carried out in a hasty, careless manner. Much mindless destruction occured with inconsistancies in the recording of finds, and various items were stolen.  In some cases, at Davis' behest, priceless artifacts were damaged or destroyed as a feat of showmanship to visitors.  The excavation of KV55 can justifiably be described as a shambles; being more destructive than respectful in relation to the preservation of important finds.  

The entrance to the tomb in the Valley of the Kings.

The tomb itself was located in the centre of the Valley, not far from the tomb of Rameses IX.  Its entrance had been covered by chippings from the quarrying of the Ramaesid tomb.  Having uncovered the opening entrance, a flight of steps was discovered which led downwards to the tomb.  The internal doorway had been well cut, with a figure standing by it. It contained a cemented door blocking covered in plaster.  Unfortunately, no photographs were taken or have survived of the doorway and plastering over it.  Contemporary descriptions state that it was stamped with the Necropolis seal, similar to those found sealing the tomb of Tutankhamun discovered some fifteen years later.  The seal showed a jackal over nine bound captives.  A fragment of the original wall blocking was later found inside the tomb.  The seal of Tutankhamun was reported as to have been found on the wall, however this cannot be corroborated, so should probably be dismissed as a misunderstanding or misinterpretation by its excavator, Arthur Weigall.  Later descriptions, both in Davis’ report on the excavation and elsewhere, state that the blocking had been partially dismantled in antiquity and were later closed off with a loosely built wall.  Perhaps somewhat ironically, the tomb was used as a darkroom during the excavation of that of Tutankhamun, a tomb that the late Davis believed he had already located.

The Tomb entrance at the end of the stairway.

First to enter the tomb proper was Davis, followed by Weigall and finally by Joseph Lindon Smith, an artist.  Smith set about painting watercolours of the interior of the tomb and a few days later was joined by a photographer from Cairo named R. Paul.  Paul set about photographing the tomb; his photographs are now a vital aid to understanding how the tomb was found.  At this point, the majority of the objects were still untouched and in situ.  Also the majority of them were intact despite being in the sorry sad state prior to further deterioration and sloppy handling by the excavation team.  In marked contrast to other tombs that had been found in the Valley, the tomb appeared to be smaller and a more modest affair than others.  It consisted of a single chamber and niche, with steps and a corridor leading in.  The main corridor was covered in more chippings, together with the remains of a door and panel of a large gilded wooden shrine, which were leaning up against the wall.  Although badly damaged and defaced, the remains of the shrine showed exquisite workmanship and design, as can be seen from the recording drawings made by Smith.  Most of the gilt had become detached from the gesso on the panels.  Owing to bad preservation methods employed by Davis and his team, with little interest in preserving the gilding and artwork on the shrine until it was too late; only two panels have survived to this day.

The entrance corridor leading into the main chamber. The wooden
planks were placed to grant visitors access to the tomb.

The inscriptions on the shrine proclaimed that it had been prepared for the burial of Queen Tiye by her son, the infamous heretic pharaoh, Akhenaten.  This led Davis to announce that he had located the tomb of Tiye herself, a grand 18^th dynasty queen and daughter of the noble couple, Yuya and Tjuju, who’s tomb Davis had uncovered two years previous.  Without question, the finds made in the tomb of Yuya and Tjuju were significantly more grand and largely intact in contrast to those of KV55.  Nonetheless, Davis, intent on finding a tomb with a royal occupant, was now proclaiming to have found just that.  With the exception of Davis, few belived the tomb to be that of Tiye.  Soon after the discovery of the body, there were disputes as to the gender of the mummy.  Despite these disagreements, Davis was to publish a report (complete with inconsistencies, omissions, and inaccuracies) of the tomb’s excavation under the title of “The Tomb of Queen Tiyi [sic]” in 1910.   

A drawing made by Smith, showing the now lost detail of the damaged gold shrine.

Based upon the drawing made by H.L. Smith, the image on the shrine would appear to have followed a similar style to other Armanan artwork. Had the shrine have survived, it would probably have been amongst the finest surviving works of art from that particular period.  Akhenaten (whose likeness has been crudely hacked out, together with his cartouches and replaced with the name and titles of his father) and his mother, Tiye, are depicted worshipping and making offerings to Aten, the solar disc.  Based upon the drawing and an approximate guess as to the dimensions of the panels, the shrine seems to bear striking similarities to the one later found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Two planks of gilded wood, all that survives of the golden shrine.

Based upon the photographs of R.Paul, the coffin was located in the western part of the tomb, badly decayed and damaged, yet of superb quality.  The coffin was heavily gilded, and inlayed with precious stones.  The lid showed slight anomalies, appeared to have been designed for a woman, yet it was shown wearing a pharaonic beard, the hands showing signs of once having held a crook and flail, part of the kingly regalia and emblems of Osiris.  No inscriptions have survived on the coffin lid as to the identity of its occupant, intended or actual.  All cartouches had been hacked out in a similar crude fashion to those on the shrine.  However, the most shocking damage of all was to the face on the coffin.  It had been savagely torn off below its eyes, destroying any identifying features, as well disfiguring the face, rendering it blind, mute and unable to breathe in the afterlife.

A close up of the badly damaged coffin, taken in situ
in Tomb 55, at time of discovery in 1907.

Edward Ayrton wrote that the coffin itself had rested upon a lion-headed wooden bier, apparantly similar in nature to that which was later found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, and which had, owing the flooding from the water, collapsed, and displaced objects that were on the body.  Modern scholarship suggests that this hypothesis is dubious; a recent article by Martha R. Bell has suggested that the damage to the coffin had not occured due to a collapsing bier beneath the coffin, but to the ceiling collapsing above the coffin.  Bell's theory suggests that a section of the ceiling had fallen unto the coffin, breaking it into three pieces.  Beneath the bier were various clay seal impressions.  Davis himself saw little import in reproducing the likeness of these seals in his report.  Fortunately a photograph has survived of these four seals.  The seals are an unusual mix, one showing Amenhotep III’s prenomen and another showing Tutankhamun as a sphinx trampling a captive. 

A likeness of one of the clay seals.

At the turn of the 21st century, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported that a significant proportion of the gold from the coffin’s basin had surfaced in the State Museum of Egyptian Art in Munich.  This was the first mention of the basin since its disappearance between 1914 and 1931 from Cairo. Research carried out by Rolf Krauss, of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, stated that the gold had been acquired in the early 1950s from an antiquities dealer based in Geneva, Nicolas Kououlakis.  After various unsuccessful attempts to sell the gold to the museum, it was sent there for restoration and was finally donated in 1984 by the dealer’s daughter.  The surviving pieces of the basin were mounted by the museum’s restoration team on a plexi-glass mount.  The basin does show that cartouches have been removed from the sides, further obscuring the owner of the coffin’s identity.   Subsequent to the restoration efforts in Munich, the basin was finally exhibited for the first time in 2002.  After the exhibition, the remains of the restored basin were returned to Egypt, where they are currently displayed alongside the coffin lid in Cairo.   

The damaged coffin lid, showing the torn-off face, and the excised cartouches.

Scholarship most recently carried out has convincingly suggested that the coffin as well as the canopic jars had originally been designed for a woman; the occupant was to have been Akhenaten’s secondary wife, the “greatly beloved” Kiya.  This suggestion was first proposed in 1967 by the Russian Egyptologist Y.Y. Perepelkin, and later, independently, by the German born Rainer Hanke in 1975.  This identification arose from texts found within the coffin, containing Kiya’s unique titles and form of address viz. “The goodly child of the living Aten, who lives forever and eternity.”  These changes were made to the coffin in its final form, prior to the later vandalism and damage inflicted upon it.

At the foot of the coffin is inscribed an Atenist prayer, and though the text itself refers to a man, Murnane has observed that there are sufficient and significant grammatical errors on the coffin to demonstrate the fact that designated occupant was intended to be a woman.  Aiden Dodson has proposed that the coffin could be seen as a companion piece to the second coffin used in the burial of Tutankhamun, whose physogeny of the facial features are very different from the other likenesses of the king.  Furthermore, the lower half of the coffinettes of Tutankhamun bear the slightly recessed cartouches which once named a very different individual, and these mirror the style and design on the coffin lid in KV55.  In addition, the wings that protect the body in a different style to those which protect a male pharaoh, again lending credence to that the (designated) occupant was indeed once a woman.

The gold foil at the foot of the coffin, showing excised cartouches.

Another striking feature and anomoly in the design of the coffin is the large and unusual wig adorning its head.  It has been suggested by some scholars that the wig itself bears a striking similarity to that in the design of the canopic jars.  Through this similarity, it has been suggested that the coffin and jars had been made to compliment each other.  Possibly the greatest travesty of archaeology related to the remains of the mummy.  All that survives are just the skull and scattered parts of a skeleton.  The deterioration of the mummy appears to have been accelerated due to water having dripped into the tomb through a large crack in the tomb’s ceiling.  The Valley of the Kings has long been prone to occasional torrential floods allowing water to seep in through a crack on the ceiling.

Drawing upon the observations of the tomb’s occupant made by Davis, and upon the photographs taken it appears that the mummy still retained some of its facial characteristics and features, with contemporary descriptions describing it as possessing "leathery lips" and of "teeth that turned to dust" at the touch.  None of the excavation team considered that the remains of sufficient import to take a photograph or make a drawing recording the mummy's appearance, before it “turned to crumbled ashes... [where] nothing remained except a pile of dust and a few disconnected bones.”  The skull of the mummy appears to have been struck a blow by a rock, presumably as a further act of desecration in antiquity.   A gold pectoral, in the shape of a vulture, had been crudely bent around the head, described by Davis as being a “crown”.  The placement of the pectoral on the head is nonetheless an extraordinary act, whoever placed it there.  Edward Ayrton recorded that the tail of the vulture hung over the forehead of the mummy.  This placement of the pectoral could be unintentional, having moved when the bier collapsed.  Some scholars have suggested that placement was as a subversive gesture to the dead occupant, as a mock crown.  The corpse only had a few additional items of jewellery remaining, and these were scant in number.  A gold cartouche was found with part of the early name of the Aten, together with pieces of foil with the same cartouche.  Smith also recovered a broad collar on the chest of the mummy.

The damaged skull of the occupant of the tomb.

Whilst endevouring to rescue finds from the mummy, it further deteriorated rapidly into dust, which in turn mixed with the water in which the coffin lay, and became a "sludgy mess".  In this “mess” were recovered other items of jewellery, missed by Smith, and appear to have been stolen by the workmen in the tomb.  A number of these items were later bought back by Davis and ended up in his private collection, only to be auctioned off in the 1970s.  Since then, most of these items have once again been lost.  All that survives are drawings.  There is still uncertainty as to whether the mummy was wrapped in bandages or not; both Weigell and Davis suggest that mummy bandages were found, dark, hardened, and in a state of decay.  Davis infers the body was wrapped in them, yet according to Weigell they had fallen off prior to the discovery of the tomb.  Both G.L. Smith and Weigell however state that the bandages did not survive handling during the excavation.  Like parts of the mummy, they “crumbled to dust.”

The fragile remains of the body, wrapped in fine linen, was covered with gold lining sheets which may have come loose from the coffin lid.  It was not only in a highly decayed state, but adopting a most extraordinary pose.  The left arm was found folded across the chest, a position which was adopted by female mummies, which might well have lead to some of the confusion of the gender of the mummy. This pose probably reinforced Davis’ belief that he had located the remains of an 18^th dynasty queen.  Both arms were adorned with simple gold foil bracelets.  The positioning of the arms has lead to all sorts of theories.  Some have attributed this pose in connection to an attribtution of the body being that of Smenkhkare, and suggesting a homosexual relationship between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare as his consort, adopting the role of "Great Royal Wife."   

Inconsistencies exist in all the reports as to the nature of these gold “sheets”, or “plates” according to Ayton.  Both Davis and Weigell (refering to them as "plates") claimed the body was covered in these sheets, and G.L. Smith reports that a dozen of these sheets were found, placed systematically from side to side.  Some later writers believe that these sheets were not separate protection for the body but infact lining from the coffin itself.  One of the sheets apparently bore traces of the name of Akhenaten, and another was inscribed “beloved of Waenre" [ie Akhenaten] suggesting the possible presence of Smenkhkare. 

Photographic record of one of the gold sheets.

As noted above, six bracelets were found on the body; three on the left upper arm and three on the right wrist. Ayton described them as “broad”, “very thin” and “of a fragile nature.”  Mrs. Andrews, the most neutral observer of the excavation and therefore, probably the most accurate, suggests that the bracelets, together with the sheets and “crown” were not removed until the arrival of the two visiting doctors, responsible for the spurious identification of the body as being that of a woman.  Since then, the bracelets have been subsequently lost or stolen. 

The necklace found with the body in the coffin.

The only surviving piece of jewellery from the remains appears to be that of a necklace, described as being “of gold pendants and inlaid plaques connected by rows of minute beads, ending in large lotus flowers of gold, inlaid with paste.”  However, even this object does not seem to have escaped the nimble fingers of the twentieth century workmen, as various elements of the necklace surfaced in the objects Davis purchased later.  The exact location of the necklace cannot be pinpointed with accuracy.  It does not appear to have been found around the mummy's neck.  The majority of the necklace however has been reconstructed and now displayed in Cairo.   

A coffin lining sheet was also found, recorded by G.L. Smith as being inscribed with the name of Akhenaten – intact.  However this item did not necessarily identify the occupant of the coffin as being Akhenaten, but may well have been part of the original occupant’s funerary goods.  The remains of the body were then placed in a basket, together with the skull, sealed, and then promptly sent to Cairo.  Mummy bands were allegedly found with the coffin, either wrapped outside the mummy or found in the debris surrounding the coffin.  With the exception of Weigell, none of the first recorded writings by the tomb’s excavators make any mention of such bands.  Martha Bell, upon examing the photographs by R. Paul, has suggested that there appear to be gold bands at the side of the coffin, yet these were not recorded in the official reports.  Based upon the photographic evidence, these bands, if indeed they are bands, were made from gold, about two inches thick and may well have had excised cartouches.  If such bands existed however, since their discovery, they have been subsequently lost, presumably stolen.  However, in an exhibition, held in 2005, six bands were displayed together with the coffin basin, and other artefacts from the tomb itself. 

Davis appears to have been determined to prove that the remains were that of queen Tiye, and based his beliefs upon the shape of the pelvis and the female posture and positioning of the arms in the coffin.  Yet subsequent analysis demonstrated the bones have been determined as being without question as being those of a male, and DNA analysis has shown that the identity of the occupant is the father (or a close brother) of Tutankhmun.  Gaston Maspero, Davis' assistant, did not believe the bones to be those of a woman, and initially believed the body to be that of Akhenaten, based in part upon the lining sheet found in the coffin.  He was later to change this belief to that it was the body of the enigmatic Smenkhkare, Akhenaten’s possible successor and/or co-regent.  The age of the body was said to be of a man aged 25-26 years old; an age far too young for Akhenaten when one bears in mind the reforms undertaken in his seventeen year reign.  It was even suggested at the time that the body might be that of Tutankhamun.  Weigall believed that the tomb was possibly acting as the location of a reburial of Akhenaten and his mother, Tiye, who was later moved elsewhere.  In regard to Tiye, it appaears that her remains have been recovered.  The body of the "Elder Lady" of KV35 was recently identified to high degree of certainty through DNA testing in 2010, together with a lock of her hair found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. 

The remains of the "Elder Lady", believed by many to be queen Tiye, together
with an unnamed prince and the "Younger Lady", mother of Tutankhamun.

Conflict amongst Egyptologists still rages to this day as to the identity of the mummy found in Tomb KV55.  Even the most recent DNA testing that has been employed upon the bodies which has determined with a degree of certainty that the mummy is that of Tutankhamun’s father does not offer any further clues as to the identity of the body.  The two most popular candidates being Akhenaten, and the obscure Smenkhkare.  Even the statement of paternity of Tutankhamun is disputed by some, who suggest that the body is in fact that of an unmentioned, unidentified brother.  DNA testing is rather vague still with mummified bodies, and given the numerous incestuous marriages and issue thereof that was prevalent in the royal family at the time, further confusion arises in the difficulty in the determination of exact familial relationships between one member and another.

Nicholas Reeves has convincingly questioned the theores identitying the body as being that of the elusive Smenkhkare owing to the fact that there is no evidence at all within the tomb itself naming nor denoting this individual’s presence.  The “identification” of this body being Smenkhkare has been based upon the supposed age of the skeleton found within the coffin, which has wildly fluctuated over the years, being anything between 20 and 45 years old; and tallying these facts with the assumed age and gender of Smenkhkare.  As Reeves correctly points out, the tomb itself only contains references to Tiye (see above), and to Akhenaten himself, by name and no one else. 

DNA testing of various mummies in the Valley has thrown up a significant problem in identifying the remains of KV55 as those Akhenaten.  The carrying out of the analysis of various remains has suggested that one of the (remains of) two mummies found in KV21 appears to be that of Ankhesenamun and the other being possibly her sister, owing to collelation  between the DNA found in the remains and those of the mummified foetuses in Tutankhamun's tomb.   However, the testing made to the remains of the lady (KV21A) suggested as being those of Ankhesenamun have demonstrated that she is not the daughter of the mummy in KV55.  No other queen has ever been associated with Tutankhamun nor his reign; hence the identification of KV21A as being Ankhesenamun, the third eldest daughter of Akhenaten.  The body shows signs of having suffered from mild club foot, echoing the disability which it is believed that Tutankhamun suffered from. This theory has arisen owing to the presence of numerous canes in the young king's tomb.

The "Vulture pectoral", initially believed to have been a crown by Davis.

Despite the seemingly shambolic nature in which the tomb was found; it has been suggested Martha Bell, who has endeavoured to reconstruct the placement of objects in the tomb as and how Davis and his team discovered them that there was a degree of order to the chaos.  The damage to the various items and the appalling state in which they were found is illusionary and creates confusion, and it is important to consider where the objects were found and what they represent, not their sorry state of preservation.  Some objects were clearly intended for the burial of queen Tiye, as evidenced by there being the remains of part of her (dismantled and probably magnificent) golden shrine.  These were also found with remains of objects such as seals relating to her late husband, Akhenaten’s father and previous pharaoh, Amenhotep III.  The rest would appear to be funerary equipment for use of by her son, Akhenaten, whether originally intended for him (such as the “magic bricks”) or otherwise.

Bell has proposed that the distinction two groups of items is in fact evident, suggesting further that the presence of the shrine and coffin together was incidental, and had not been intended on being used together in a situation of “recycling” goods from other burials.  Readers will be aware, of course, that Tutankhamun’s trove of treasure contained items that had belonged to other members of his family.  However, it is important to note that these items had had their previous owner’s names removed with the names and/or titles of their new “owner”.  This wasn’t the case in KV55.   Bell has proposed that the shrine itself, although it had been dismantled, was in the main area of the tomb itself with coffin and canopic jars placed to the side or edge of the chamber.  The tomb was quite probably not intended as a tomb but appears to have been a cache.  This is backed up by the very nature of the surviving goods, all of which are of a very personal nature, and would have served no purpose to anyone other than whom they were originally inscribed and intended for.  Therefore, it might be suggested that the chamber was intended not for one, but two separate burials, those of mother and son, Tiye and Akhenaten.

This theory gathers support based upon the fact that mother and son were, prior to their likely removal to the Valley of the Kings, probably interred in the same chamber (E) in the rock tombs at Amarna. Both Edwin C. Brock, and Maarten Raven, Field Director of Antiquities from Leiden, have shown from the reconstruction of surviving fragments that a sarcophagus had been prepared for Tiye and placed in the Royal tombs at Amarma.  Granite fragments have been found which can partially reconstruct the walls and lid of the sarcophagus and lid of  Tiye.  Two scenes can be identified on the walls; one showing Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their eldest daughter, Meritaten, pouring a libation.  However, the second scene shows a queen under a canopy.  In addition, the name of Tiye features on the corner posts of both scenes, suggesting that indeed this sarcophagus originally belonged to her.  Other fragments were also found, some bearing name of Meketaten on an indeterminate object, but significantly others appear to have belonged to the sarcophagus of Akhenaten, suggesting that he wished to be, or was initially, buried alongside his mother at Amarna, if not removed at a later date to the Valley of the Kings.  This removal could well have taken place during the reign of Tutankhamun, implied by the presence of his seals close to the coffin and mummy in KV55.  Geoffrey Martin futher suggested that Tiye was a principal figure in royal tomb at Amarna.  Other broken funerary goods were found at Amarna suggesting Akhenaten’s original interment there, mostly broken stone and faience shabti figures.

Canopic jar, with the head bearing the likeness of Kiya

Still unexplained is the gold vulture pectoral, and why it was perhaps reused as an adornment to the head of the occupant of the coffin in Tomb 55 as a “crown”.  Also the unorthodox position of the mummy's arms adopting those of a queen rather than of a king.  And also the walls of the undecorated tomb with no images of the afterlife nor of the Opening of the Mouth ceremony, all important and vital constituents of the path of the soul into the West.  On the walls are mason’s marks, suggesting a pillared hall design, much like the tombs at Amarna, yet this design was never realised.  Or, at the time that the occupant(s) were moved to the Valley, there are no motifs or suggestion as to the Atenist belief system surrounding the journey of the Ka [soul] after death.  Even Tutankhamun’s tomb, constructed and doubtless decorated under instruction from his successor Ay (who, no doubt, still adhered to his Atenist beliefs), was complete with images of the traditional gods, and of Ay performing the ritual of opening the dead pharaoh’s mouth.   

The recess or niche, showing one of the canopic jars, as discovered in 1907.

In a small recess or “niche”, perhaps originally intended to be the starting point of a mostly unfinished second chamber were lying the four alabaster canopic jars, presumably those of the occupant.  Despite, once again, the damaged state of the jars with the uraei decorating the brow of each of the jars having been cruelly snapped off.  The jars themselves had been exquisitely fashioned,  being of extremely fine workmanship and quality.  However, once again, like the coffin, the names of their owner had been defaced and chiselled out in antiquity.  The jars also have distinctively feminine features, with the stoppers all showing an attractive young woman in a Nubian style wig, which has lead some experts to believe that these were intended for the burial of the Lady Kiya, owing to her often being portrayed wearing a similar wig in the surviving likenesses of her. 

Recently a tiny fragment of a "sky sign" was exhibited in Munich.  The "sky sign" is fashioned from dark blue glass and has five yellow stars adorning it.  The exact provenance of this fragment is uncertain, with suggestions that it came from the coffin, or from an unknown object, or most convincingly, in an article by Marc Gabolde, that it had been broken off from the canopic jars, forming part of the border where the chiselled out inscriptions had once been.  Amongst the canopic jars, was an object bearing an inscription with the name of its owner.  The object was a “magic brick” fashioned from Nile mud and bearing the prenomen of Akhenaten “Neferkheprure-Waenre”.  Indeed this brick was found with three others in other locations within the tomb, of which two others also bore the pharaoh’s name similarly inscribed, except in hieratic script. 

The magic brick, bearing the name of Akhenaten

Also mentioned in the report are badly decayed boxes, sadly neither photographed nor recorded, which contained funerary goods, as well as a few models of objects such as of a papyrus, model fruits and fragments of a couple of small statues in faience boomerangs, and various vessels for containing cosmetics, etc.  Little else was found within the tomb itself by Davis’ excavation, and only a few objects have been discovered subsequently; copper rosettes from a funerary pall were discovered by Carter in 1921 near the tomb’s entrance and the latest discovery is of an ostracon chip showing a plan of the tomb which possibly dates from the original construction and quarrying of the tomb itself.
 

The tomb itself was eventually cleared by Ayrton, however, owing to the extremely fragile condition of the shrine, it simply collapsed and crumbled before it could moved, and most regrettably before all the designs upon the panels could be copied by G.L. Smith and therefore have been lost forever.  The excavators had more luck with the badly damaged coffin lid and basin which was carefully dismantled and sent back to Cairo where it was restored.  The basin had crumbled and all that remained were gathered up and placed in cigarette boxes.  These remains consisted mainly of fragments of component inlays and gold foil but unfortunately, soon after their arrival in Cairo, were stolen from Eliot Smith’s laboratory, not to resurface until many years later. 

The ostracon chip, possibly showing a plan of the burial chamber.

It is highly improbable that Tutankhamun, out of respect for his grandmother and father, would have allowed their reburial in tomb KV55 to have been left in such a disrespectful state.   Despite the associations by his court and the priests of Amun with the disastrous reforms that Akhenaten had attempted to implement whilst pharaoh, a re-interment appears to have taken place.  Following the reburial, the tomb was subsequently re-entered on at least one separate occasion.  The tomb had not been ransacked by tomb robbers like most other tombs in the Valley. It appears that it was entered by workmen of the nearby Tomb KV6; that of Rameses IX.  This is suggested by abrupt halt to the quarrying work in the tomb which may suggest that the quarrying workmen realised they were nearing another tomb as the tomb of Rameses overlies that of KV55’s main chamber.  Perhaps the workmen were curious and chose to explore the neighbouring tomb, hence the re-blocking of the tomb after their departure. 

It might be speculated that having successfully uncovered the tomb, the superstitious workmen would have been shocked upon realising that they had uncovered appeared to be the resting place of the pharaoh who had caused so much upheaval for the state and no doubt, in their mindset, greatly displeased and upset the gods.  Inscriptions, cartouches and likenesses were hacked out, not just from the coffin, but also from the splendid god shrine.  The occupant of the coffin had had the gold likeness of his face ripped off, desecrating and blinding the occupant for all eternity.  The identity of the mummy would be lost, the mummy was now deprived of its eyes to see therefore was blind, as well as its mouth and nose to breathe; condemned for eternity.  The protective uraei on the canopic jars were broken off and unceremoniously chucked on the floor with the other fragmentary funerary goods; so that the jars were no longer protected nor bore the kingly status of their contents.  Such anger and hatred, together with the final act of hurling a rock at the coffin, crushing part of the skull inside, seems only likely to have been directed at one individual: Akhenaten. 

A close-up of the damage to the face on the coffin lid.

These later visitors to the tomb appear to have afforded some respect to the other possible occupant of the tomb, queen Tiye.  They removed her body from the contaminating presence of her son, and she was quite probably reburied elsewhere.  Her shrine may well have been intended to follow her to her new resting place.  Any reference to Akhenaten would have been removed from the shrine, not just his likeness but his name too, re-written in red ink and replaced with that of his father, Amenhotep.  The removal of the bulky shrine appears to have proved difficult and awkward, with at least one of the bronze tendons holding the shrine being cut through.  The panels themselves would have knocked and crashed against the walls, leaving traces of the gilded gesso on them.  Chisels were also found in the tomb that might have been used in the dismantling,  Therefore, it appears the shrine was proving too cumbersome to remove, and so what couldn’t be carried out was left just behind.  Many centuries later Davis and his excavation team found those objects where they had been abandoned, the twentieth century wind taking its toll on the final remains of the shrine as the excavators and their visitors trampled to and from the tomb. 

As for Tiye herself, presumably still in her coffin, both she and remaining equipment were removed.  A few objects were overlooked, such as the faience Bes amulets being left behind.  Her body was probably still covered by a linen pall (similar to that found in the tomb of Tutankhamun); a rosette which had been sewn on to it was discovered by Carter in 1921 outside the tomb.  Where Tiye was (once again) reinterred is unknown; her body however, unwrapped and unadorned, had been uncovered previously by Victor Loret in the late nineteenth century in a side annexe to the tomb of Amenhotep II.  Sadly, most of Tiye’s funeral goods have been lost and never been located, although a small broken mask survives and is housed in Berlin, of unknown provenance, and was named as being that of Tiye.

The damaged remains of the "mask of Tiye" in Berlin.

As time has passed since the tomb was excavated, it becomes more apparent that yet more objects from Tomb KV55 were stolen or lost.  Various items were surfacing in Luxor which bore the name of Akhenaten and of the Aten soon after the discovery of the tomb.  Cyril Aldred was able to publish significant parts of Emma Andrews’ diaries detailing some of the plundering that was taking place under Davis’ nose.  Perhaps aware of this blundering taking place, and considering the probable disappointment which Davis was feeling in the ramshackle tomb/cache, he apparantly encouraged his fellow excavators to take handfuls of dirt from the tomb floor, some of which had gold foil in between their grains.  Just two years previous, Davis had found the tomb of Yuya and Tjuja, and although its occupants had not been of royal blood, the finds were more noteworthy and captured the imagination.  Amongst the finds were the excellently preserved bodies of its occupants; together with splendid artifacts, such as the masks on the coffins, and a seat belonging to the Princess Sitamun.  Davis, ever the treasure hunter, seems to have been underwhelmed by the tomb he believed to be of Tiye, and his disregard is evident in the contempt he held for the spoilt finds he made therein.

The seat of princess Sitamun, one of Davis' most dramatic finds
throughout his excavations of the Valley of the Kings.

Mrs Andrews records that “Carter had told him [ie. Davis] of various small and precious things which had been shown to him by a native which had been stolen from Tiyi’s tomb.”  These objects included neferts taken from a necklace, an object with the cartouche of the Aten, and an enamel element from a necklace inscribed with the number 17 in “hieroglyphic characters”.  Independently of Mrs. Andrews’ recording of such events, Arthur Weigell was to describe an identical pendant being found “in the rubbish” of the coffin and mummy.  A number of these items were later tracked down by Carter for Davis, and in the instance of one of the dealers, were returned at no cost to Davis.  Davis however did not choose to include these items in the official inventory of finds made, for concern that the integrity of the entire find might be called into question.  Once again, an accurate archaeological record was sacrificed and certain facts omitted; a tragedy and a travesty for ascertaining information concerning the final resting place of the father of Tutankhamun, perhaps one of the celebrated pharaohs since the discovery of his tomb in 1922.

In 1958, a little over half a century following the tomb's discovery, a letter was sent to the Oriental Institute of Chicago by Theodore Davis’ great-nephew, John A. Allen.  Mr Allen was offering to sell various items from the estate of Theodore Davis to the Institute.  With the letter were sent ink drawings and descriptions of the items.  It wasn’t until 1990 that the museum archivist realised that the provenance of the items Mr Allan had offered to sell were in fact from Tomb KV55.  However the Institute declined Mr. Allan’s offer and the items were not purchased.  Mr Allan was later to sell some twenty items from this collection at Sotheby’s, New York in 1976, and further items in 1986.  Among these items appear to be the necklace element with the number “17” detailed above, in the writings of Mrs. Andrews, and Arthur Weigell.  However, subsequently a similar element appeared on the market, inscribed with the number “16”, and had been sold to the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden by an antiquities seller in thee Netherlands.  In turn, this had come from the collection of a certain Baron van der Straeten-Solvay, but how he managed to acquire it remains unknown to this day. Another enigma amongst so many others that continue to surround the nature, as well as the objects, of Tomb KV55.

The gold and enamel element marked with number "16" in the Leiden museum.

The Wives of Akhenaten

Due in no small part to his infamous attempts to change the state religion requiring the worship of numerous deities to that of just one, the sun, Akhenaten has become one of the most celebrated and famous of all the pharaohs.  This infamy has been compounded by the discovery in the twentieth century of the tomb of one of his heirs, the so-called “boy King” Tutankhamun, and the wonderful treasures that were found therein.  Numerous sculptures and monuments, some intact and many damaged or defaced are testament to his reign.  Alongside the death mask of Tutankhamun, and the bust of Nefertiti; the image of Akhenaten accompanied by his wife, Nefertiti, and their daughters under the life-giving rays of the sun remains one of the most popular and frequently replicated images from Ancient Egypt, being painted unto modern day papyrus and sold to numerous tourists and visitors to Egypt each and every year.

Despite the immediately recognisable bust of Nefertiti, in fact housed many miles from Egypt in Berlin, and the likeness of Akhenaten as described above; events surrounding his life and of his immediate family remain vague and obscure. Much of what is understood from that shadowy period in the fourteenth century B.C. still remains highly speculative and open to interpretation and guesswork.  As discussed in the previous article “The Heirs of Akhenaten”; considerable questions are raised by scholars as to the order of succession following the death of Akhenaten, and to their identities and familial relationship to Akhenaten himself.  Many of the details of the reign of Akhenaten are, to paraphrase the words of Winston Churchill “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

Although his reforms were a fraught endeavour to change the infrastructure of religious life in Egypt, Akhenaten still adhered to the traditions set by his predecessors concerning the pharaonic practice of polygamy, so as to continue his dynasty and provide heirs to the throne.  Polygamy was frequent among the pharaohs; however it was not practiced by the general Egyptian populous at large.  Furthermore, the King would frequently be married one of his sisters, following the divine traditions set by the gods, who since Creation had married their siblings thus following a divine precedent as well as keeping the royal blood pure.  Of all the King’s wives, the favourite was named the “Chief Royal Wife”, rather than “queen” (the Egyptians had no such term in their language), and all other the other royal brides were given the status of concubine, or as secondary wives.  Within the context of this article, the terms “queen” and “lady” shall be used, although not Egyptian terms, convey the status and bearing of the woman afforded such a title.

The famous bust of Nefertiti, housed in Berlin

In the role of Chief Royal wife was Nefertiti, arguably one of the most famous of all of Egypt’s queens, alongside Hatshepsut [the female pharaoh], and Cleopatra.  It was only in the late early twentieth century that Nefertiti achieved the recognition she deserved, as for many centuries her name was not known, with very little discovered  or written prior to excavations at Akhetaten [modern day Amarna], an abandoned, ruined city located some 400 kilometres north of Thebes.   In the late nineteenth century, a certain mystique was attached to Nefertiti’s mother-in-law, Tiye.  Tiye had been the consort and chief Royal Wife of Amenhotep III, seemingly a strong powerful woman, when one reads inscriptions dedicated to her, and from surviving likenesses.   It has been suggested that Tiye might have been instrumental in the religious reforms and changes carried out by her son.  However this temporary “fame” enjoyed by Tiye was soon enough superseded by that of Nefertiti.

Together with the infamous reforms brought into being by her husband, Nefertiti has achieved worldwide recognition from an elaborate, colourful limestone bust discovered in the workshop of Thutmose at Armana in 1912 by the German archaeologist, Ludwig Borchardt.  The bust had been left on a shelf which had collapsed in antiquity, found with various likenesses of other members of the Royal Family.  It is of such beauty that it has been paralleled with that of the golden death mask of Tutankhamun in terms of Egyptian sculpture.  Measuring 47 centimetres in height and weighing nearly 20 kilograms, it has been fashioned from limestone but covered with painted stucco layers.  Facially, it is almost perfectly symmetrical; however one of the eyes is absent, apparently never having been affixed to the empty socket.  Nefertiti is depicted wearing a multi-coloured floral collar, and a cap-crown and diadem that appears in the many reliefs of Nefertiti in and around Armana.  Despite its aesthetically pleasing and contemporary beauty, the work appears to have never been intended for public display nor devotional purposes, but as a presumed, lifelike model for the creation of official portraits of the queen.  

Nefertiti, whose name means “The beautiful [one] has come” was bestowed with many titles including Mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt, Hereditary Princess, Sweet of Love and Great of Praises.  Her parentage and origins remain unknown, although it has been suggested that she was the daughter of Tutankhamun’s vizier and successor, Ay, brother of Tiye.  Ay’s wife, Tey, is believed to have been nursemaid or wet nurse to the infant Nefertiti.  However, the identity of her mother remains unknown.  She is believed to have had a younger sister, Mutbenret (previously thought to read as Mutnejmet), who is depicted on various works of art in the Amarna complex, and was later to marry the general, Horemheb. 

As the chief royal wife, Nefertiti played a highly important and significant role during the reign of her husband.  The dowager queen, Tiye, had revolutionised how queens were seen and portrayed in Egyptian art, being seen on an equal standing and level to her husband, the King.  A number of surviving portraits show Tiye as being of an equal height and level to her husband, and not as that of a subservient spouse, a typical, traditional portrayal.  This was to continue with Nefertiti; in fact, her might and power was accentuated.  Likenesses exist of Nefertiti with her husband in praise of the solar disc alongside her husband, but also in various scenes of the “Window of Appearance”, awarding courtiers for their services by bestowing them with collars.  As well as accompanying her husband in such scenes of worship, there are scenes of great candour and affection between the Pharaoh, his wife, and their children, showing scenes of kissing, or playful affection between the daughters and their parents.  Equally there exists a scene showing sadness and mourning within the family group, most memorably of the death and mourning by the family of one of the royal princesses, Meketaten.  Finally there are likenesses of Nefertiti on her own, wearing a King’s crown and smiting enemies and captives, a role previously exclusively reserved for the King. 

A relief showing Akhenaten, his wife Nefertiti, and two of their daughters.

In the wake of his reforms, Akhenten and Nefertiti moved from the long established royal capital and religious centre of Thebes to the newly build city of Akhetaten.  Akhenaten had by then changed his name from Amenhotep, and Nefertiti adopted the epithet of Neferneferuaten, and is thereafter referred to as Neferneferuaten Nefertiti.  Her name now meant “The Most Beautiful One of the Aten – The beautiful [one] has come.”   During her marriage to Akhenaten, she was to deliver at least six daughters who survived infancy: Meritaten [“She who is beloved of Aten”], Meketaten [“Behold the Aten”], Ankhesenpaaten [“Living for Aten”], Neferneferuaten [“The Most Beautiful One of the Aten”] Tasherit [meaning “the Younger”], Neferneferure [“The Most Beautiful One of Ra”] and Setepenre [“Chosen of Ra”]. 

The fate of Nefertiti remains unknown.  Her name disappears from the stage after year 13-14 of Akhenaten’s reign, however some scholars have proposed that this disappearance is due to Nefertiti having been named as Akhenaten’s co-regent.  Previously, it was thought that she had fell into disgrace, and her name was removed from monuments, however this theory has been dismissed.  Another theory is that she died, possibly from a plague that was sweeping Egypt at the time, and may have carried off some of her daughters at the same time.  To date, no tomb nor body of the queen has been found.  As discussed previously, suggestions have been made proposing Nefertiti assumed the throne or at least acted as a co-regent, under the name of Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.

In 2003, it was suggested by a British archaeologist, Joann Fletcher from the University of York, identifying one of the bodies, that of the Younger Lady, as being that of Nefertiti.  Recent DNA testing and research has shown the body to be that of the mother of Tutankhamun, and daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye.  It was also been proposed that the body found resting alongside that of the Younger Lady, named the “Elder Lady” was that of Nefertiti.  Again, through DNA testing of this body and coupled with a lock of hair found in the tomb of Tutankhamun; together with analysis of the teeth, show this to be the body of an older woman, and daughter of the courtiers Yuya and Tjuju, therefore confirming its identity as being that of Tiye.

A suggestion has been made proposing that Nefertiti was in fact a princess of Mitanni, located to the northeast of Egypt in modern day Northern Syria, with the name of Tadukhipa.  Alliances had been formed between the two nations inasmuch as Amenhotep III had taken the sister of Tusharatta, King of Mitanni, Gilukhipa, as a secondary royal wife.  Tushtatta later sent his own daughter, Tadukhipa, as another wife for Amenhotep, laden with gifts of gold, cloth and precious stones.  Correspondence survives from the Amarna letters relating to this proposed marriage, however it appears that the elderly Amonophis died soon after the arrival of the princess.  From other letters, it is stated that she later married his son and heir, Akhenaten.  The attribution of Tadukhipa being Nefertiti arises from the translation of Nefertiti’s name, suggesting that she was of foreign origin.  This suggestion however doesn’t take into account if Tey was indeed Nefertiti’s nurse, as a mature princess would have no need of one.  Furthermore, if the marriage took place soon after Akhenaten ascended the throne, it doesn’t tie in with the believed sequence of events such as the birth of the first royal child, Merititan.   If not Nefertiti then, Tadukhipa’s identity has also been linked with possibly being another, significant wife of Akhenaten; the Lady Kiya.
Where information on Nefertiti, despite the relative proliferation of objects and artwork, is scant, even less survives on Kiya.  Her existence was unknown to Egyptologists until 1959.  The name “Kiya” in and of itself is unusual, appearing to have been a pet name rather than a full name.  The name contains no religious overtones or veneration towards a particular god or goddess, and simply means “monkey”.   However, it could be an abbreviation or contraction of a foreign sounding name. 


A likeness of the Lady Kiya, possibly engaged in a purifying ritual.



Whether of foreign extraction or not, Kiya certainly seems to have enjoyed a unique status whilst queen at the court of Akhenaten.  She was evidently not of royal Egyptian birth as nowhere in her titles is she named as “Heiress”, or “daughter of the God”, all of which were epithets for the daughter of a pharaoh.  Nonetheless,  Kiya was bestowed a title which no other royal wife, before or after, was afforded .  This title was as “the greatly beloved”, also affectionately referred to as “the Favourite.”   Her full titles are given as: “The wife and greatly beloved of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Living in Truth, Lord of the Two Lands, Neferkheperure Waenre [i.e. Akhenaten], the Goodly Child of the Living Aten, who shall be living for ever and ever, Kiya.”   All that survives in relation to the enigmatic Lady Kiya comes from the anonymous tomb KV55, or from Amarna itself. 

Kiya’s existence first came to archaeologists when her name and titles were noted on an unguent jar at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, previously bought by the Museum in 1929 from Howard Carter.  The container itself was without provenance.   After this identification, further “discoveries” relating to Kiya’s existence were discovered, despite that certain cases her name had been removed and had been re-inscribed with the names of others, most notably the two eldest surviving daughters of Akhenaten viz. Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten.   Kiya herself does not appear until soon after the Royal Family and entourage moved from Thebes to the newly constructed capital of Akhetaten.  This is believed to have taken place sometime after Year 5 of the pharaoh’s reign.

It is only at Amarna where her likeness appears and her attribution as the “greatly beloved" is to be found.  Sunshades were built to the south of the city, with at least one of them carrying the likeness, name and titles of Kiya.  These sunshades were similar to adjoining chapels to the temples, and there is one, the Maru-Aten, which bears the name of Kiya.  Furthermore, she is listed as having sired another daughter, whose name, sadly, has been lost.  She was also previously thought to have been the mother of Tutankamun, for which she received the honorary title of being the “Greatly beloved” however recent DNA evidence has shown this is not the case.  The mother of Tutankhamun was a daughter of Amenhotep  and Tiye, and being of royal blood, one would expect to find references to Kiya as the “God’s daughter”, and this is nowhere to be found.  In addition, the name “Kiya”, an affectionate pet name or not, would not be one which was suitable for a royal Egyptian princess.
Much like Nefertiti, the Lady Kiya disappears from the record during the final six years of her husband’s reign.  A number of theories abound as to the reasoning behind this.  One, as suggested is that she shared a similar fate to Nefertiti in that a plague swept across Egypt and was responsible for the death of numerous members of the royal household.  This is not beyond the realms of possibility as plagues were rife and prevalent in the ancient world.  However, a theory has been proposed suggesting the reason for Kiya’s disappearance was due to something far more sinister. 

One theory has been proposed that there was a considerable rivalry between the two royal wives: Nefertiti and Kiya.  Nefertiti, as Great Royal Wife became jealous of Kiya, who had risen from merely being a secondary wife to that of the King’s favourite, his “greatly beloved” – titles which had never been used before and were never to be used again for a royal bride.  It has been suggested by Nicholas Reeves that perhaps the jealous Nefertiti orchestrated a coup and this resulted in Kiya being “denounced” and sent into exile.  An alternative theory proposed by Marc Gabolde is that relations between Egypt and Mitanni became so strained, and that if Kiya were indeed Tushratta’s daughter, Tadukhipa, she was returned home to her father.    

A damaged fragment showing Kiya, affectionately kissing her daughter.

It seems that Kiya somehow incurred disfavour, so much so that her name was removed and in certain cases the likeness altered.  Kiya is often portrayed as an attractive young woman, pretty rather than stately like the noble Nefertiti.  She is also shown to be wearing large earrings and a Nubian wig; a short cropped wig which became fashionable amongst men and women during the 18^th dynasty.  A plaster study of a nameless young woman in large earrings, found at the studio of Tuthmose, and on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, has generally been thought to be her likeness.  However the most intriguing story which could to the fate of Kiya comes from a mythological tale told some years later “The Tale of Two Brothers”; in a papyrus dating from approximately 150-200 years after the death of Akhenaten, and the subsequent damnatio memoriae of the Amarnan pharaohs  instigated by Horemheb.

The story tells of two brothers, Anpu and Bata.  The two brothers live together, farming the land, together with Anpu’s wife.  Anpu’s wife attempts to seduce her brother in law, however he rebukes her advances.  After Bata spurns her spurns her advances, his angry sister in law feigns sexual assault.   In anger, Anpu plans to kill his brother; however the gods intervene and warn Bata of his brother’s intentions, having believed his wife’s lies.  Bata flees with his brother pursuing him with a knife.  Bata prays, and a river of crocodiles is created dividing the brothers, and Bata swears his innocence, cutting his flesh and makes himself bleed.  Anpu then realises the truth and returns home, full of grief, and kills his adulterous wife, feeding her body to the dogs.  Before the brothers part, Bata tells his brother that he will place his heart in an acacia tree.  He advises Anpu that should he, Bata, ever be danger, that the beer in Anpu’s hand will foam.  If this happens Anpu will need to find his brother’s heart and place it in water, reviving him.

Bata then makes his way to the Valley of the Acacia, where he settles.  One day, the gods happen upon Bata, and seeing his loneliness, Re-Horakhti fashions a beautiful woman for Bata to be his wife.  The seven Hathors determine the woman’s fate is to die by the executioner’s knife.   Despite the love and loyalty of her husband, the young woman becomes bored, and against her husband’s wishes, she leaves their home.  The sea, besotted by the beauty of Bata’s wife endeavours to rape the girl, and calls upon an acacia tree to seize her by the hair for him.  However, the acacia doesn’t manage to hold the woman in its grasp, and only manages to grab a lock of her hair.  The hair is carried by the sea to Egypt, where it is washed up and perfumes the water where the Pharaoh’s launderers are cleaning the royal linen.  The linen, imbued with the divine scent from the hair, arouses the pharaoh’s interest, and realising the divine origin of the hair (as being the daughter of the god Re-Horakhti), sends envoys to locate the owner of the lock of hair.  The envoys, upon arrival in the Valley of Acacia, in a foreign land, discover the identity of the woman with the sweet scented hair. Bearing treasures and gifts from the pharaoh, the woman agrees to leave, instructing them to cut down the tree where her husband, Bata, had previously hidden his heart.  She then returns with the envoys to Egypt, where the pharaoh adorns her with jewels, and marries her, making her his greatly beloved wife.

Upon the cutting down of the tree, Bata falls to the ground, dead.  At that exact point the beer which Anpu is holding foams in his hand, and he leaves for the valley where his brother resided.  Upon discovering the body of his brother, for nearly four years he searches through the acacia leaves to find his brother’s heart.  It is not until the final day of the third year, and on the verge of giving up, does Anpu find his brothers heart.  Following his brother’s wishes he places his heart in water and revives his brother from the dead.  Bata, taKing the form of a prize bull, tells his brother to take him to Egypt where he will attempt to regain his wife.  Upon arrival in Egypt, the bull attracts much attention and is sold to the pharaoh.  Whilst in the pharaoh’s palace, Bata makes himself known to his cuckolding wife, who, in fear asks that the bull be sacrificed. Although this request upsets the pharaoh, he reluctantly agrees.  Bata then takes on other forms to remind his former wife of her misconduct, each of which she endeavours to destroy to protect her secret.  In his final transformation, he is transformed into a persea tree, which the queen orders to be cut down.  Whilt the tree is being cut down, she swallows a splinter. She then becomes pregnant bearing the pharaoh a son, a final incarnation of Bata.

A sheet from the Papyrus D'Orbiney, British Museum telling
the "Tale of the Two Brothers."

There is a lacuna in the text detailing the conclusion of the of the story, however the most popularly proposed ending for the story is that the son, an incarnation of Bata, grows up and exposes his mother for her action and exposes her actions to the court.  She is then taken away to be executed and thereafter he sends for his brother, Anpu, and together they rule Egypt. 

The suggestion has been made that Kiya was the personality (or the inspiration thereof) behind the cheating, beautiful woman in this tale.  This suggestion has arisen from the title which the wife of Bata is bestowed by the pharaoh; that of the “greatly beloved wife”, a title unique to Kiya.   Like most ancient civilisations, the Egyptians possessed an excellent oral tradition for telling tales and fables, as well as myths of the gods, in the absence of widespread literacy and written material. Given that this was written down less than two centuries afterwards, it is indeed possible that through recollection and association that there is an allegorical retelling of the eventual fate of Akhenaten’s “greatly beloved wife.”

Kiya can always be differentiated from Nefertiti, not just in inscriptions and titles, but also in appearance.  Despite her unique title, this served no religious function to the King, she is never shown wearing a crown, a diadem, nor a uraeus, all of which were emblematic of queenship, and all of which are at various junctures portrayed on the likenesses of Nefertiti.  Equally relevant is that her name is never seen contained within a royal cartouche.  She also appears with only one daughter, unlike Nefertiti who is seen with as many as six.  However there appears to be a fragmentary inscription of Kiya with Akhenaten and their daughter, notable for the absence of Nefertiti.  In addition there are fragments of Kiya’s likeness (determined in part by her large earrings and an absence of Nefertiti’s usual regalia, receiving the life giving rays of the sun, the ankh beneath her nostrils.  This bestowing of life from the Aten was exclusive to likenesses of the Royal Family which shows the elevated status that she was afforded, most likely in the absence of the Great Royal Wife.

Whatever became of Kiya, she left behind some impressive and beautiful funerary equipment, which possibly were never actually used by their intended owner.  These objects were found by Theodore Davis in the enigmatic tomb KV55, which was previously ascribed, incorrectly, as being that of Queen Tiye.  The mummy that was found in the tomb has been identified as being the father of Tutankhamun, however his identity remains obscure and indeterminate, with some scholars suggesting Akhenaten himself, and others the shadowy Smenkhkare.  The coffin is the most telling piece of evidence, and of fine, elaborate and expensive workmanship.  The shape and style of the coffin betray that it was originally intended for a woman, as the coffins with a designated male owner would have the protective wings of the goddess wrapped around them, whereas the coffins for women did not.  Furthermore, the footboard of the coffin is inscribed with an Atenist prayer, although “spoken” by a man (its occupant), there are plentiful grammatical errors to suggest that the prayer was originally intended to be “spoken” by a woman.   This coffin is of equally fine workmanship to a similar coffin found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, again also quite probably usurped and intended for a woman, demonstrating the respect in which its original owner was held.  All cartouches have been carefully excised from the coffin, and face torn off in antiquity, making the identity nearly impossible to ascertain. Additionally the wig is of an atypical style and design, and is mirrored in style on the four canopic jars, also found in the tomb.  It has been suggested that the wig design is more feminine in style, lending a further probability that the coffin’s original intended occupant was Kiya.

Suggestions have made that Akhenaten married two of his daughters in an attempt to keep the royal blood pure.  These daughters were Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten (who later was to marry Tutankhamun).  Akhenaten’s father Amenhotep had ceremonially married his own daughter, Sitamun, and however distasteful this idea might sound to a modern audience the marriage was purely of ceremonial nature.  However, it appears that Akhenaten took his presumed marriages to his young daughters one step further, and some scholars have proposed that Akhenaten and his daughters were responsible for having sired two further daughters named Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit respectively.

Finally, a suggestion has been made that Akhenaten married one of his sisters, and the fruit of their union was the birth of Tutankhamun.  Certainly the recent DNA findings have suggested that Tutankhamun was born of a brother-sister union, and that they were the children of Amenhotep III and of Tiye.  However his parentage is still subject to much debate and discussion, as the DNA found in the two foetuses buried alongside Tutankhamun are not aligned with the remains of a mummy believed to be that of Ankhesenamun, who was Akhenaten’s daughter.  If Akhenaten also were to have married one of his sisters, it seems unusual that she was not promoted to the status of Chief Royal Wife, over and above Nefertiti, and there is no mention anywhere of another wife of Akhenaten, and certainly not one of the importance and rank of being a god’s daughter, which she would have been.  Also the chronology of events does not follow through as Tutankhamun was born between years 8 and 11 of Akhenaten, and his mother died, probably murdered, when she was in her mid to late twenties.