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 Heirs of Akhenaten

The Amarnan period of Ancient Egyptian history, i.e. the period of pharaonic rule from the death of Amenhotep III through to the reign of Horemheb, is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating yet enigmatic for the scholar or Egyptologist.  It is not just the case of analyzing and endeavoring to interpret a period of history that occurred close to 3500 years ago where historical documentation was scant, but to study an era that was deliberately obliterated from history by the immediate successors to the throne.  Not only did Horemheb usurp monuments and inscriptions that had been made to Akhenaten and his heirs, but an official rewriting of history took place; whereby Horemheb claimed that he was immediate successor to Amenhotep III, thereby subsuming over thirty "lost" years into his reign.  

Understandably, it was the failed attempt at religious change in the constitution that was condemn Akhenaten and his religious reforms to a shadowy obscurity; most of the events can only be speculated upon during the latter years of his reign.  This obscurity was to change when archaeologists such as Flinders Petrie uncovered the ruins of his lost city, Akhetaten, in the latter half of the nineteenth century; together with the discovery of the Amarna letters, and ultimately, culminating in the discovery of various 18^th dynasty tombs and caches in the Valley of the Kings.  These were the tombs of some of the key individuals during this period; including those of Yuya and Thuya, the mysterious occupant of Tomb KV55, and a small, near intact, tomb found in 1922 by Howard Carter of the arguably the most well known pharaoh in modern times, Tutankhamun.  It is however due to this destruction of the historical record that the tombs discovered so far in the Valley of the Kings from that period have remained in better condition than those of other periods, as these kings and their family’s memory had been so effectively repressed. 

It was once suggested that Akhenaten was deposed as pharaoh, and was replaced by the young Tutankhamun [then named Tutankhaten]. Tutankhamun subsequently married one of his predecessor’s daughters so as to assure his right of succession to the throne.  All sorts of crackpot theories were born of this suggestion of Akhenaten having been ousted from the throne, arguably the most ludicrous being that Akhenaten was in fact the Biblical figure of Moses. Following his deposal; he went into exile under a new identity, leaving Egypt behind, with his followers. Among these followers were the Israelites, heading across the desert for the land of Canaan, a “promised land”. There, Akhenaten would able to continue his monotheistic pursuits and ideals, the Aten reborn and renamed Jehovah.  This hypothesis can be immediately discounted based upon the surviving evidence such as inscriptions, together with DNA testing on various royal mummies that took place in early 2010. Also, after Akhenaten’s kingship came to an end, the evidence exists to support the notion that the cult of the Aten didn’t entirely vanish, and continued to be practiced by the Royal family and their supporters for some time after. 

Scholars have long determined that the reign of Akhenaten ended after seventeen years, from wine labels which dated their vintage to the year of the king’s reign. Wine labels are used for determining the length of a king’s reign, together with, where possible, inscriptions or monuments.  A questionable Egyptian historian, writing in the third century BC, named Manetho was to write the Aegyptiaca [History of Egypt], an important if not entirely accurate work. The Aegytiaca displays numerous inaccuracies , not least around this period, drawing into question its reliability. Despite its shortcomings, Manetho was clearly able to gather information now lost to us, accurate or not, from this turbulent period of Egyptian history; a difficult task given the subsequent damnatio memoriae instigated under the reign of Horemheb.

Akhenaten

It appears that in the wake of this tumultuous and obscure period that Akhenaten appears to have had at least one, quite possibly two immediate successors prior to the ascension of Tutankhamun to the throne.  Was a co-regency was entertained between Akhenaten, and one or both of these individuals?  These possible co-regents were named Smenkhkare, and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten [hereafter referred to as Ankhkheperure except in instances where the full title is used] respectively.  It cannot be determined with certainly whether the two kings ruled in their own right, nor the sequence in which they ruled, in the role of co-regent or pharaoh. Experts are inclined to follow the chronology of Akhenaten, Smenkhkhare, Ankhkheperure, Tutankhamun, Ay and finally Horemheb; this same chronology has been adopted when discussing the succession of the last of the 18^th dynasty kings.

Very little is known of either of the individuals.  A significant number of experts have proposed that it is the remains of Smenkhkare which were found by Theodore Davis in the coffin of Tomb KV55; which would thereby identify Smenkhkare as the father of Tutankhamun.  In 2002, Joyce Filer, anthropologist and Egyptologist at the British Museum, stated that “[the] human remains from Tomb 55, as presented to me, are those of a young man who had no apparent abnormalities and was no older than his early twenties at death and probably a few years younger. If those wanting to identify the remains with Akhenaten demand an age at death of more than mid-twenties, then this is not the man for them. As an obviously younger individual, some people might like to identify the remains as belonging to the mysterious Smenkhkare. Might they, in fact, belong to neither of them? Whoever he was, the similarity between the Tomb 55 skull and that of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten's son, certainly suggests he was a member of the royal family."   

The relationship between Tutankhamun and the body in KV55 has been corroborated by recent DNA analysis, thus his paternity has been ascertained.  However, these discoveries complicate to the case.  KV55's has been identified as being a son of king Amenhotep III, and of Queen Tiye; and was initially named, following publication of the DNA results, as Akhenaten.  A number of experts disagree, such as Filer, and even the initial report by G. Elliot Smith.  Smith's findings were presented in open defiance of the belief of Theodore Davis, who discovered the tomb, and believed the body to be that of Queen Tiye.  Smith identified the body as being that of a man aged between 25-26 years old.  However some experts continue maintain the remains are still that of a middle aged man.  Davis' initial suggestion can be wholly dismissed as unfounded, and purely that of an opportunist in determination to find a royal tomb. 

Drawing further information from the DNA reports, Tutankhamun's DNA shows that he was born of a brother-sister union.  His mother has also been identified as the anonymous, informally named “Younger Lady” found in KV35.  She was found alongside her mother, Tiye, previously whose remains were given the name of “The Elder Lady”. These bodies were discovered by Victor Loret in 1898. Previously Tutankhamun was thought to be the son of Kiya, one of Akhenaten’s secondary queens. These theories can be discarded, as the Younger Lady is not Kiya.  Of the few surviving objects and inscriptions, nowhere is Kiya referred to as being either the “King’s daughter”, nor as “daughter of the God”; both titles used when referring to a royal princess.  Kiya's name means “monkey”; an affectionate yet unlikely, unsuitable name for an Egyptian royal princess. Royal names frequently invoked the gods in their etymology.  

Returning to the question of succession, this question arises from the existence of two sets of cartouches bearing the names of two separate pharaohs.  The first set belongs to Smenkhkare, and the second, to Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.  Only two surviving instances of the names of Smenkhkare and Akhenaten’s names have been found together, which has lead to the suggestion the possibility of a co-regency between the two.  The first object was in fact located amongst the very first finds made by Howard Carter in November 1922, just outside the tomb itself in the fill of the lower staircase. The object (no. 1k) was parts of a broken linen box, made of wood and covered in white gesso.  On the central rail are inscribed the names of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.  The knobs of the box are further inscribed the names of Smenkhkare, and Neferneferuaten.  The other object, a calcite vase (no. 405) located within the tomb itself, where an incised inscription bears the two names in cartouches, once filled with blue pigment, but have been subsequently erased in antiquity.  Placing Smenkhkare’s name in such close proximity to that of Akhenaten’s, even on a linen box or a vase, suggests this could have been done to reinforce his claims to the throne.  But this is mere speculation.

A study, believed to represent Smenkhkare and Meritaten.

A likeness of Smenkhkare as pharaoh is depicted in a scene in the tomb of Meryre (II), steward, scribe and superintendent of Queen Nefertiti, located to the north east of the city of Akhetaten.  The scene shows Smenkhkare alongside his wife, the princess Meritaten, at the “Window of Appearances”, handing out tribute, an act which appears to only have been carried out by the pharaoh and his consort.  A further study, located in Berlin, exists of two figures (illustrated below) believed to be of Smenkhkare leaning on a cane (leading to speculation that the figure is in fact that of Tutankhamun), and of Meritan offering him flowers. No inscription is to be found on the study, and neither of the two figures are named.  However, the likeness of the individual does not resemble either Tutankhamun nor Akhenaten.  An assumption can be made that it therefore is representative of Smenkhkare.  A further temple to the Aten was built at an indeterminate location in the city of Memphis, and that Smenkhkare played a role in its construction and/or dedication.  His reign however appears brief, having been for, at most, one year. This is attested by the existence of a wine label dated “Year 1”, and from “the house of Smenkhkare.” (but apparently with the epithet “deceased”).    Even the suggestion that the body in Tomb KV55 is that of Smenkhkare is open to speculation, as all the cartouches bearing the name of the occupant of the coffin have been excised, any reference to Akhenaten on the surviving panels of the gold funerary shrine [of Tiye?] were removed and re-inked with his father’s name and no objects found within the tomb carried the name of Smenkhkare.  

Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten is often given epithets bestowing up the king such titles as “desired of Akhenaten”, or “desired of Waenre” [Neferkheprure-Waenre being the name of Akhenaten] , after being named in the cartouches.  Other unique epithets include “desired of Aten”, and “incarnation of Akhenaten”.  Cartouches are also found to be marked with distinctly feminine elements, and attributes such as the expression “living”, an epithet most notably found in reverence to royal wives.  The most fascinating and enigmatic of all the attributes relating to Neferneferuaten however reads “effective for her husband.”

The association between Ankhkheperure and Akhenaten is more evident than that between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.   As well as the cartouches and epithets, her name too was found on the fragmentary linen box, and yet more objects bearing her name or traces thereof were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.

Ankhkheperure seems to have set about starting to implement changes to the reforms of her predecessor, perhaps having seen or been advised of the collateral damage that had been caused by the reforms and religious upheaval that had had been caused in the previous decade or so. Akhenaten had implemented a cultural reform that affected the constitution of Egypt.  This wasn’t just a fancy or a new cult. It wasn’t just the pharaoh changing his name nor deciding to encourage a new design of fashioning sculpture or art. It cannot be understated that the cult of Akhenaten was so vehemently anti-Amun, shown by his endeavours to obliterate of the name of Amun from temples, to the chiseling out of the sacred goose of Amun from various monuments.  The knock-on effect caused such outcry that any lingering memory of his actions would be condemned for generations thereafter.

The centre rail of the broken wooden box found in the

tomb of Tutankhamun, with the names of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.

After the end of the reign of Akhenaten, it is indeed possible that the Royal family still continued to privately worship the Aten; however a graffito from Year 3 of the reign of Ankhkheperure makes mention of  “offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheperure at Thebes”.  This at least suggests some attempt at the start of effecting reconciliation with the old religion. The offerings referred to were possibly made at Ankhkheperure’s morturary temple. It is significant that these offerings are being made to Amun (of who’s worship had been just recently been proscribed), and at Thebes, the former, traditional capital and centre of worship.  The complete inscription is quoted below, and evidently is valuable to the historian on numerous levels, reading:

“Year 3, 3rd month of the Inundation, day 10. The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, lord of the Two Lands, Ankhkheprure - beloved of Aten, son of Re, Nefereneferuaten, beloved of Waenre ... Giving praise to Amun, kissing the ground before Onnophris by the wab-priest and scribe of divine offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheprure in Thebes, Pawah, born to Itefseneb."

The season of the Inundation (or Akhet) is the first season of Ancient Egyptian lunar calendar, marked by the rising of the Nile, and consisting of four months.  The wab-priest refers simply to a priest who was seated, holding his arms in adoration before a god or gods.  Pawah appears to served as a minor priest of Amun.

One of the most extraordinary factors in all this is the nomination of a woman as co-regent or pharaoh, whether by Akhenaten or Smenkhkare, over and above Tutankhamun, following the death of her predecessor.  If it is the body of Akhenaten discovered in Tomb KV55, it seems even more extraordinary, and a change in royal protocol not to have named his [nameless] sister Chief Royal wife over Nefertiti, and their son as his immediate heir.  The identity of this sister is a further enigma in this already convoluted history. The current suggestion made is that she is Nebetah, one of the younger daughters of the union between Amenhotep III and Tiye, or Baketaten (who may or may not be their daughter).  The three eldest daughters – Sitamun, Isis, and Henuttaneb having previously ceremonially married their father, but it is believed that Tiye may have given birth  to up to eight daughters. Together with two, possibly three, sons. Certainly Ankhkheperure’s co-regency with Akhenaten seems to imply that Tutankhamun was not the son, nor grandson, of Akhenaten. By this rule of thumb, the same logic might apply to the familial relationship between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare.

Like Smenkhkare, the identity of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten cannot be pinpointed with certainty and to date, continues to remain a mystery.  Her gender seems to have been female, owing to the feminine nature and usage of her epithets, and the reportings of Manetho seem to correspond with the facts.   She most certainly was a member of the royal family.  Expects have speculated that she could have been either Nefertiti, or one of her daughters, either Meritaten or Neferneferuaten Tasherit. 

Adding to the confusion is the “Coregency Stela”; a fragmentary stela consisting of seven fragments, made of limestone, found at Amarna, and currently housed in the Petrie Museum, London.  On the stele are the figures of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and Meritaten.  However, at some point after the completion of the stela, the name of Nefertiti appears to have been chiselled out and replaced by the titles of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.  Contemporary to this embellishment of Nefertiti’s titles are those of Meritaten, with her name being replaced by that of her younger sister, Ankhesenpaaten (later Ankhesenamun).  The enigma as to why Nefertiti, clearly a feminine figure, should have her name replaced by Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten, a throne name for a king, remains mysterious and unresolved to this day. Equally mysterious is the replacing of the name of one daughter, Meritaten, with that of another daughter. 

A calcite vase, found in the tomb of Tutankhamun,

with the names of Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, erased in antiquity.

Rolf Krauss has proposed that the identity of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten to be Meritaten, eldest daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti; previously attributed with having performed the role of Chief Royal Wife to Ankhkheperure (as well as Smenkhkare previously), rather than being the king per se.  Krauss initially draws on the evidence as presented by Manetho as Meritaten’s being  of “the king’s daughter”;  followed by an interpretation of her “brother” as being, in fact, her brother in law (if not, her half brother as well) as succeeding her to the throne of Egypt soon after her death.  What renders this theory dubious is that Meritaten never seems to have been accorded a status higher than as King’s daughter. Certainly her position never eclipsed that of her mother, nor even one of the king’s secondary wives, Kiya, described as “Greatly Beloved wife”.

Far more convincing evidence to the identity of Ankhkheperure has been proposed by James Harris, given further weight by Nicholas Reeves, and ties in with the belief that Ankhkheperure was a woman.  Harris’ theory being that the disappearance of Nefertiti several years before the end of Akhenaten’s reign was not due to disgrace as suggested by some, nor due to death, but to the queen was elevated to the status of co-regent. This was a progressive step up from the high standing that the previous queen, the mighty Tiye, appears to shared with her husband, Amenhotep III.  Previously, Nefertiti adopted a prefix to her name, now called Neferneferuaten Nefertiti, however she abandoned this name and adopted, as co-regent, the kingly name of Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten.  The presence of the “Neferneferuaten” element to both individuals names suggests a sense of unity between both, lending itself to the idea that one was quite probably the same as the other, just operating under different names.  The fact that that feminine elements and epithets occur alongside the name of Ankhkhepure seem to corroborate this idea.

Akhenaten seems to have undertaken a determined effort to produce a male heir so as to continue his reforms.  His marriage to Nefertiti was fruitful, and certainly by Year 12, he is shown as having six daughters by Nefertiti.  One of his secondary wives, Kiya, the “Greatly Believed Wife” provided him a further daughter whose name has been lost.  Kiya was once thought to have attained this title as being responsible for having delivered the son and heir, Tutankhamun. Marc Gabolde has proposed that this daughter of Kiya to be Baketaten, who appears with Queen Tiye in a relief showing the workshop of the royal sculptor, Iuty.  Akhenaten appears to have turned to his own daughters, Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten for issue, and through them was responsible for two further daughters, Meritaten Tasherit and Ankhesenpaaten Tasherit respectively (the term “Tasherit” meaning “The Younger” or “Junior”, in modern parlance). These children were born before the end of Akhenaten’s reign, and it appears that it is likenesses of Kiya and her daughter were usurped and replaced with the names and titles of Akhenaten’s daughters.  These granddaughters can be named as being his daughters owing to the quite specific titles they both receive. They are named as being “King’s daughter of his body, his desired Meritaten [or Ankhesenpaaten] the younger,  born of the King’s daughter of his body, his desired Meritan [or Ankhesenpaaten], born of the Chief Royal Wife Nefertiti Neferneruaten, living.“  A further daughter, Meketaten, may have had a sexual union with her father, being shown to have died in childbirth, in reliefs found in the Royal Tomb at Amarna.  Akhenaten would certainly be following the precedent set by his father in marrying his three eldest daughters, and no husband of the young Meketaten is known.  Akhenaten need not have married his daughters to bestow upon them the role of Chief Royal Wife, as the “King’s daughter” was certainly not without prestige and still kept the royal blood pure, and were any sons born of the union, they would still be afforded the title of “King’s son of his body”, thereby making them heirs to the throne.  The paternity of these daughters being ascribed to Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun seems unlikely, Tutankhamun having been too young and Smenkhkare is not mentioned as being the husband of Meritaten until after her appearance at the Window of Appearances in place of her mother; Nefertiti.

Neferneferuaten and her sister on a fragment of a wall painting.

One final suggestion has been proposed as to the identity of Ankhkheperure tied in directly to the nomen Neferneferuaten.  It has been suggested that the usage of this title was related to its bestowal upon Nefertiti later into the reign of her husband, but often overlooked is that the couple had amongst their daughters one named Neferneferuaten Tasherit.  It has been proposed that the practice among pharaohs was to use the name that he or she bore before his/her coronation.  Her sisters had not been successful in providing their father with a male heir, and if she were co-regent, any son born of their union would have its claims further substantiated.  Once crowned, her sister, Meritaten, could act as her consort or “Chief Royal Wife”, and her other sister, Ankhesenpaaten, as the “King’s eldest daughter”. 

Upon his ascension to the throne, Tutankhamun appears to have still used the “Aten variant” of his name, viz. Tutankhaten, as a number of objects in his tomb are testament.  A small crook and flail with the frail bearing the name of Tutankheten.  Probably the most splendid is Golden Throne, with the image of king and consort, under the rays of the solar disc. The figures depicted appear to be neither Tutankhamun nor Ankhesenamun though, as the names in the cartouches would appear to have been subject to alteration twice; once from the earlier “Aten variants” of the king and queen’s names (indeed, those versions are still found on the throne’s arms).  Their cartouches superimpose others inscribed beneath, a safe assumption can be made of different individuals.  Both king and queen are seen wearing rather elaborate and ornate headpieces; an atef crown and a feathered headdress respectively.  These headpieces are shown cutting through, eradicating the rays emanating from the solar disc above. 

The existence of Tutankhamun is attested prior to his ascension to the throne. His likeness does not appear in any of the Amarna tombs, as it was not common practice to depict sons in artwork.  A tenuous suggestion has been made that Tutankhamun is the baby which is being breast fed by a wet-nurse in one of the scenes, but this supposition remains unproven either way, all that can be said with any clarity is that an infant in the royal household is being suckled at its nurses breast.  The identity of the baby remains unknown.  A block survives at Hermopolis with the inscription “the king’s son of his body, his desired, Tutankaten”, the term “son” however can refer to a son, a grandson, or even a son in law. Certainly Tutankhaten/Tutankhamun would have been Akhenaten’s son in law if he were already married to Ankhesenpaaten/Ankhesenamun at this point in time.  Or this royal paternity could relate to the enigmatic Smenkhkare.  Ankhesenpaaten is also mentioned on this block, cited as the “king’s daughter of his body, his desired, the greatly blessed one of the lord of the two lands, [Ankhesenpa]aten.”  Both individuals are seen to face one another, suggesting some form of union between the two. 

Despite the subsequent fame that Tutankhamun has attained since the discovery of his tomb in the twentieth century, despite his royal status and the significant reforms he implemented to undo the changes made by his predecessor(s), his role in the grand scheme of Egyptian history is largely insignificant.  Yet his tomb has proved paradoxical in nature; inasmuch that such a rich and exquisite trove should be found, crowded into such a small, unassuming tomb.  Based upon other objects discovered in other tombs and environs, it seems apparent that the majority of the effects in found in his tomb are par excellence. Quality is as apparent as quantity in terms of objects.  

Nicholas Reeves has suggested that the magnificence of the burial treasure found with Tutankhamun and its being deposited in such a miserable little tomb is not unconnected with the fact that a number of the objects interred with the king were not made with him in mind, and though their precise, intended owners cannot be established, they were certainly designed with either Akhenaten, Smenkhkare or Ankhkheperure in mind.  These range from the one of the bows (no. 48h), the stoppers of the canopic jars (nos. 266c-f), to the mummy bands (no. 256b).  In some cases the cartouches removed and/or replaced, in others the names of the original owners are still there. Indeed, one of the statuettes ascribed to Tutankhamun has such distinctly feminine features, breasts and wider hips, that it is doubtless that of a woman.  Other “recycled” items, rather than “heirlooms” include the gold shrine surrounding the sarcophagus bearing epithets of Akhenaten, the difference in the facial physiognomy on the second coffin, and the feminine design of most of the canopic equipment containing the king’s viscera. 

Recently, and perhaps most staggering of all, is an entirely believable suggestion made by Reeves tells of another hugely important object having been appropriated by Tutankhamun for his burial; that object being his gold death mask (no. 256a). The suggestion has been made that the majority of the mask, as seen today, was not actually designed for Tutankhamun at all, but only the face. This could explain why the face is made from a different, inferior quality of gold to the rest of the mask, also why the blue inlays of the mask are of glass for the headdress and main body, whereas on the face are fashioned from stone i.e. lapis lazuli. If the mask was all constructed at the same time, not even taking into account the timescale(see below) in which the goldsmiths would have had to fashion the object, it seems unusual to have constructed it from differing materials.  In addition, Reeves draws attention to the pierced ears on the mask, whereby pierced ears were common in the art of pharaohs who had not yet reached puberty, these piercings were replaced by dimples in the imagery of boys having reached adulthood.  The suggestion that the mask was made for Tutankhamun as a child can disputed as the mask and coffin (bearing the dimpled ears of an adult male) are full-sized, not for a constructed for a pubescent child. Other goods found in close proximity to the mask were equally fashioned for someone else other than Tutankhamun; the aforementioned mummy bands,  a resin scarab, the gold hands holding a crook and flail.  The underside of these objects show that they were inscribed for a different pharaoh: his predecessor, Ankhkheperure Neferneruaten.

Canopic coffinette of Tutankhamun,

originally made for Ankhkheprure.

To expand upon Reeves’ theory, and given that Tutankhamun died comparatively young, whether due to foul play, to sickle cell decease, or the most recent suggestion of malaria, it would have been an unforeseen eventuality. Following death, the body had the obligatory seventy or so days as part of the mummification process, hence burial goods and materials would be required, and quickly, to afford the king a decent burial with funeral goods befitting his station.  Hence, a small tomb was employed, though a larger one appears to have been prepared.  Equipment from his predecessors, perhaps adorned with heretical images of the Aten, could be used as a ready source of bullion.  Or the objects could be appropriated, cartouches renamed and adjusted accordingly, with the names and titles of Tutankhamun.  Evidently some of the objects ended up this way. Others may well have ended up deposited in the cache in KV55, certainly one of the splendid gilded panels from the funerary shrine of queen Tiye seems to have been; doubtless once been an object of outstanding beauty and an exceptional example of Amarnan art.   

Smenkhkare and Ankhkheperure Neferneferuaten were considered up until recently still considered by some to be one individual, not least Aiden Dodson, and indexed under the name of the sole personage of Smenkhkare.  This confusion was compounded as both kings were to marry the daughter of Akhenaten, Meritaten, and make her their chief Royal Wife respectively.  Evidence now seems to point to the fact that we are dealing with two distinct individuals, and certainly (at least) one of them was a female pharaoh.  Writing many years later, Manetho writes of a female pharaoh during this period.  She is named Akenkeres, a “King’s daughter” and who he states ruled Egypt for twelve years and one month.  Manetho was unreliable with transcribing the Egyptian names, showing inconsistency and possible confusion over which of the kings names he chose to record.  Scholars have debated as to whether the “Akenkeres” of Manetho is a transcriptional error of Ankhkheperure.  

At least one, if not both, of the individuals might well have served as a co-regent alongside Akhenaten.  The only evidence of a co-regency between Smenkhkare and Akhenaten is mentioned above, and this is not conclusive proof.  A small block, depicting a smaller figure that might well be that of Smenkhkare, alongside a larger figure (possibly that of Akhenaten) has been found at Memphis.  The ends of his cartouches, and possibly those of his consort, Meritaten are found on the same block from which this identification has been based.  These assumptions are based on drawings of the original blocks.

In addition, there exists an unfinished Amarnan stela, made for a military official named Pase, depicting two kings, both crowned, seated under the life giving rays of the Aten, with one affectionately touching beneath the chin of the other.  Previously, this stele provoked concern and distaste, when published in 1928 by Percy Newberry.  The unfinished image appeared to suggest that Akhenaten was in fact a homosexual, having abandoned the beautiful Nefertiti, and replaced her with a male consort in the shape of the younger Smenkhkare.  This hypothesis of an “unwholesome” relationship between the king and his favourite has since been dismissed as being wide of the mark. John R. Harris published that the problem with identification as being of two kings lies in the number of cartouches located on the stele. Two pairs are located on either side of Aten to contain its name and titles, leave just three blank.  Two would have been for the king’s titles leaving just one, presumably to carry the cartouche of the queen.  James P. Allen proposed that this nonetheless is a representation of the female pharaoh, Ankhkheprure Neferneferuaten.  Also the question has been raised as to whether the scene is taken from when both individuals were alive, as it was not unusual to depict a living pharaoh with his dead predecessor. The intimacy of the pose suggests that the depiction is of Akhenaten, still alive, suggesting that the reigns of the kings depicted were at the very least, partly contemporary.

The unfinished stele of Pase, depicting two figures,

believed to be Akhenaten and Nefertiti, both wearing the crowns of Egypt.

The female pharaoh in the writings of Manetho, Akenkeres is listed as being succeeded by her brother, Rathotis, who reigned for nine years.  Scholars assume that “Rathotis” to be Tutankhamun; examinations of his mummy have shown him to have been around 18-19 years old at the time of death, and wine jars in his tomb list up to at least nine full years on the throne, so it’s likely he ruled just over ten years in total.  Neither Ankhkheperure nor Smenkhkare’s age at death can be given nor ascertained with any degree of certainty.  If the body in KV55 is indeed that of Smenkkare, debates and disagreements between experts continue to rage as to the age of the body.  The body is that of a younger brother to Akhenaten, who fulfilled royal protocol by marrying his sister, who delivered a son.  As for Tutankhamun’s mother’s age, the younger lady’s remains in KV35 show her to have been in her mid twenties when she died.  British Egyptologist Joann Fletcher initially proposed the remains were those of Nefertiti, but DNA analysis has proved the contrary.  Events surrounding the lady’s death are more compelling; her face bears a large wound to the left side around her mouth and cheek, destroying part of the jaw.  Previously this was thought to have occurred post-mortem as an act of vandalism by tomb robbers, yet recent analysis has shown the assault as having occurred prior to death, most like to have been a fatal and agonising injury.

Ultimately, the attempts by Horemheb to eradicate the memory of his predessors indeed has proved to be largely successful. Since 1922, historians have acquired and attained new information, in substantial depth, of this otherwise still very blurred, obscure era, with many questions still unanswered.   Over the years, only one further tomb (KV63) has thus far been uncovered, at the start of the twenty-first century, in the Valley of the Kings.  Contained therein were numerous unused coffins and funerary and embalming goods from the period of the 18th dynasty, including pillows, which may have formed part of the mummification process or rituals.  Also found are important objects involved in the various magic rituals, such as the “Opening of the Mouth” by the kings successor.  

As is often the case with speculative history, one hypothesis might very well answer particular questions, but with those answers, further confusion relating to other events or personalities in this drama tends to arise.  Even with the most recent DNA findings; finally ascertaining the parentage of Tutankamun, experts are still are no clearer to attributing an exact name to either his mother nor his father, two of the children of Amenhotep III (whom Tutankhamun described as “his father”) and Queen Tiye.  If Smenkhkare were to indeed to be the father of Tutankhamun, and by extension the body in KV55; the extraordinary fact exists that his son did not afford him a respectable burial.  A burial apparantly without any honours, nor surviving funerary goods, in his name.  A father, and a king, whose destiny was to end up with his body placed in an undecorated tomb, enclosed in a usurped woman’s coffin (most likely that of Kiya), with excised cartouches and its face savagely torn off; surrounded by abandoned, seemingly unused funerary goods of others. These goods included such paraphernalia as empty canopic jars, magic bricks bearing the name of Akhenaten, and with a vulture pectoral bent (once believed to be a "crown") and placed upon his head.  If the body is that of Akhenaten; it is a sad, sorry end for one of history’s most written about, yet little known, kings of the past four thousand years.

References and Further Reading.

Aldred, C. 1988. Akhenaten, King of Egypt.  London: Thames and Hudson.

Allen, J.P. 2006. The Amarna Succession. In Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murname

Brier, B. 1998. The Murder of Tutankamen: A true story. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Davis, T. M. 1910. The Tomb of Queen Tiyi. London

Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1963. Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a Pharoah. Penguin Books, London.

Dodson, A. 2009. Amarna Sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb and the Egyptian Counter-Reformation. Cairo, American University in Cairo Press.

Dodson, A. and Hilton, D. 2004. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London and New York: Thames and Hudson.

Fletcher, J.2004. The Search for Nefertiti.  London, Harper Collins

Hawass, Z. et alia. 2010. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family. JAMA.   

Krauss, R. 1978. Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge, Hildeshiem.

Reeves, N. 1990. The Complete Tutankhamun: The King, The Tomb, The Royal Treasure. London: Thames and Hudson.

Reeves, N. 2001. Egypt’s False Prophet: Akhenaten. London: Thames and Hudson.

Smith, G. E. 1991 (reprinted). The Royal Mummies.  London: Duckworth.

Tyldesley, J. 1998. Nefertiti. London, Penguin Books.

Van Dijk, J. 2006. The Death of Meketaten. In Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murname