# Dossier B: Physical and genetic evidence — KV55, KV35, Tutankhamun's parentage Citation-status key used throughout: - **[READ-FULL]** = I read the source in full (copy saved under ../sources/). - **[READ-PART]** = I read part, abstract, preview or excerpt. - **[CITED-ONLY]** = known to me only through citation by another author (or from memory of the literature); NOT verified against the original. ## Source register (what was actually obtained; files in ../sources/) | # | Source | Status | File | |---|--------|--------|------| | S1 | Davis, T.M. (ed.), *The Tomb of Queen Tîyi* (London 1910), with Maspero, Ayrton, Daressy, Elliot Smith | READ-PART (archive.org OCR text; read Ayrton's excavation report, Elliot Smith's note, Daressy's catalogue entries for coffin, crown, canopic vases, magical bricks) | davis1910_tomb_of_queen_tiyi_archive.txt (https://archive.org/details/cu31924028654691) | | S2 | Elliot Smith, G., *The Royal Mummies* (CG 61051-61100), Cairo 1912, no. 61075, pp. 51-56 | READ-FULL for entry 61075 (archive.org OCR) | elliotsmith1912_royal_mummies_CG61051-61100_archive.txt (https://archive.org/details/SmithRoyalMummies1912) | | S3 | Hawass, Z., Gad, Y.Z., Ismail, S., et al., "Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family", *JAMA* 303(7), 17 Feb 2010, 638-647, doi:10.1001/jama.2010.121 | READ-PART (full HTML text; Figure 1 allele image NOT obtainable — allele values below are taken from Gabolde 2013's transcription of JAMA fig. 1, p. 641) | (jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185393; local HTML copy is a bot-block page only) | | S4 | Lorenzen, E.D. & Willerslev, E., "King Tutankhamun's Family and Demise" (letter), *JAMA* 303(24), 23 June 2010, 2471; and Reply by Gad, Selim, Pusch et al., 2473-2475 | READ-PART (first paragraph of letter and first paragraph of reply, from JAMA abstract pages) | — | | S5 | Marchant, J., "Ancient DNA: Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA", *Nature* 472 (28 Apr 2011), 404-406 | READ-FULL (Wayback copy of nature.com/news version) | marchant2011_nature472_curse_pharaohs_dna_wayback.txt | | S6 | Strouhal, E., "Biological Age of Skeletonized Mummy from Tomb KV 55 at Thebes", *Anthropologie* (Brno) 48/2 (2010), 97-112 | READ-FULL (PDF from journal site) | strouhal2010_anthropologie48_kv55_age.pdf/.txt (http://puvodni.mzm.cz/Anthropologie/downloads/articles/2010/Strouhal_2010_p97-112.pdf) | | S7 | Duhig, C., "The remains of Pharaoh Akhenaten are not yet identified: comments on ... Strouhal", *Anthropologie* 48/2 (2010), 113-115 | READ-FULL | duhig2010_anthropologie48_reply_to_strouhal.pdf/.txt | | S8 | Gabolde, M., "L'ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes", *ENiM* 6 (2013), 177-203 | READ-FULL (PDF) | gabolde2013_enim6_adn_famille_royale_amarnienne.pdf/.txt (http://www.enim-egyptologie.fr/revue/2013/10/Gabolde_ENIM6_p177-203.swf.pdf) | | S9 | Belmonte, J.A., "DNA, wine & eclipses: the Dakhamunzu affaire", *Anthropological Notebooks* XIX Suppl. (2013), 419-443 | READ-PART (DNA section pp. 431-436 read in full; rest skimmed) | belmonte2013_anthropological_notebooks_dakhamunzu.txt (extracted from full volume PDF, iaps.zrc-sazu.si) | | S10 | Allen, J.P., "The Amarna Succession", in Brand & Cooper (eds.), *Causing His Name to Live* (Fs Murnane), Leiden 2009, 9-20 | READ-FULL (author's PDF) | allen2009_amarna_succession_memphis.pdf/.txt | | S11 | Habicht, M.E., Bouwman, A.S., Rühli, F.J., "Identifications of ancient Egyptian royal mummies from the 18th Dynasty reconsidered", *Yearbook of Physical Anthropology / AJPA* 159 Suppl. 61 (2016), S216-S231, doi:10.1002/ajpa.22909 | READ-PART (abstract only, via Europe PMC; Wiley, academia, ResearchGate, ZORA all blocked) | — | | S12 | Gad, Y.Z. et al., "Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship", *Human Molecular Genetics* 30 (R1) (2021), R24-R28 | READ-FULL (5-page review PDF) | gad2021_hmg_insights_ancient_dna_egyptian_mummies.pdf/.txt | | S13 | Gad, Y.Z., Hawass, Z. et al., "Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun's family", in *Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass* (Prague 2020) | CITED-ONLY (ResearchGate/unibz copies blocked; content known via search summaries and blog reports) | — | | S14 | Connolly, R.C. [with Harrison & Abdalla], "Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen affirmed by serological micromethod", *Nature* 224 (25 Oct 1969), 325-326 | READ-PART (abstract) | nature1969_connolly_abstract.html | | S15 | Brown, N., "The KV55 Coffin", ARCE topic article (arce.org/kv55-coffin/) | READ-FULL | arce_kv55_coffin.txt | | S16 | Thimes, J.L., "Reasons for retesting the Tutankhamun family DNA", *Ancient Egypt* 131 (2022), via the-past.com | READ-PART (fetch summary + saved HTML) | thimes2022_ancientegypt131_retesting_tut_dna_thepast.html | | S17 | Thorne, Hartley & Gota, "Re-evaluating Amarna: A Likelihood-Based Assessment of 18th-Dynasty Genealogies from STR Evidence", 'Miskatonic University' PDF, 2025 | READ-PART. WARNING: self-published, no peer review, institution name is fictional (Lovecraft), authors unverifiable. Use only as a pointer to the Bommas 2025 and Tawfik 2018 models it summarises | miskatonic2025_reevaluating_amarna.pdf/.txt | | S18 | Hawass, Z., "Mystery of the Mummy from KV55" (guardians.net, pre-2010) | READ-FULL (fetch summary + saved HTML) | hawass_guardians_mystery_kv55.html | | S19 | Explorersweb, "Four years later: an update on the supposed discovery of Nefertiti's tomb" (9 Jan 2026) | READ-FULL | explorersweb2026_nefertiti_update.html | | S20 | Johnson, W.R., "Ray Johnson on the forensic reconstruction of the 'Younger Lady'", ISAC/OI Chicago, 12 Feb 2018 | READ-FULL | johnson2018_isac_younger_lady.html | | S21 | Filer, J.M., "Anatomy of a Mummy", *Archaeology* 55/2 (Mar/Apr 2002) | READ-PART (online abstract) | — (archive.archaeology.org/0203/abstracts/mummy.html) | | S22 | Rose, M., "Where's Nefertiti?", *Archaeology* online (2004) | READ-PART (fetch summary) | — | | S23 | Papa, Vaccarezza, Galassi, Varotto, IJAE 127/1 (2023) 23-34 | READ-PART (turned out to be a general mini-review on mummy imaging, not the KV55 paper) | galassi2023_ijae127_kv55_reassessment.pdf (misnamed; not KV55-specific) | | S24 | Wikipedia "KV55", "The Younger Lady" | finding aid only, never cited | — | Sources known only through citation (CITED-ONLY) and NOT verified against the original: Derry 1931 (ASAE 31, 115-119); Harrison 1966 (JEA 52, 95-119) — but its measurements and criteria are quoted at length by Strouhal 2010 and Duhig 2010; Engelbach 1931 (ASAE 31); Fairman 1961 (JEA 47); Reeves 1981 (JEA 67); Bell 1990 (JARCE 27, 97-137); Allen 1988 (JARCE 25, 117-126); Wente & Harris 1992 (in *After Tut'ankhamun*, 2-20); Grimm & Schoske (eds.) 2001, *Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges* (incl. Germer pp. 58-61; Grimm pp. 101-120); Filer 2000 (EA 17); Hawass & Saleem 2016, *Scanning the Pharaohs* (AUC Press); Rühli & Ikram 2014 (HOMO 65/1, 51-63); Eaton-Krauss 2016, *The Unknown Tutankhamun*, 10-11; Dodson 2009/2018 *Amarna Sunset*; Tawfik, Thomas & Hegenbarth-Reichardt 2018 (MDAIK 74, 179-195); Bommas 2025, *Tutankhamun: A Biography* (Routledge); Huber, *Nile Magazine* 21; Galassi/Habicht/Varotto 2021 (poster, Anatomical Society, Glasgow; FAPAB press release 8 Mar 2021); Phizackerley 2010 (kv64.info blog, 2 Mar 2010). --- ## 1. KV55: discovery, contents, inscriptions, locations, and who argued what ### 1.1 Discovery - Found January 1907 by Edward R. Ayrton excavating for Theodore M. Davis; Arthur Weigall (Inspector) present; Davis published it as *The Tomb of Queen Tîyi* (1910) [S1, READ-PART]. Ayrton's report (S1 pp. 7-10): entrance stairway blocked; "the remains of the original sealing of the door ... on this we found the impressions of the oval seal of the priestly college of Amon-ra at Thebes — a jackal crouching over nine captives" (the necropolis seal). Corridor filled with clean limestone chippings; on them lay a gilded sled-like object and a gilded door "ornamented with a scene in low relief of a queen worshipping the Sun-disk ... we discovered the cartouche of the famous Queen Tiyi" (parts of the shrine). In the chamber: sides and cornice of "an enormous casket-shaped box" (the shrine), an alabaster vase-stand, small boxes, in a niche "the four canopic jars", and beneath it "a wooden coffin covered with gold-leaf and inlaid with carnelian and glass; it had fallen in on one side exposing the head of the mummy, on which appeared a gold crown" (the vulture pectoral). Rain-water had entered through a crack; woodwork rotten. Under the coffin "a long wooden boarding covered with gold-leaf, at the head of which were found lions' heads in wood" (a collapsed lion-bed). Mummy: "wrapped in flexible gold plates ... the bones would only just bear handling"; broad collar of gold pendants; "The left arm was bent with the hand on the breast ... the right arm was laid straight down by the side". Also: "Four inscribed mud tablets, on two of which the cartouche of Akhenaten is legible, were found, respectively (a) in the north-west corner; (b) under the mummy couch; (c) in the small side-chamber; and (d) against the east wall"; and "numerous fragments of small clay seals, some of which bore, besides the device, the cartouche of Neb-kheperu-ra (Tutankhamen)" [S1, verbatim]. - Davis's own narrative (S1 pp. 2-3) says the gold sheets covering the body were "so thick that when taken in the hands, they would stand alone" and that two physicians pronounced the body female; he touched a tooth and it "fell into dust". - The sex misidentification and the "gold bands with the name of Khouniatonou" claim: Elliot Smith (S2) relied on "gold bands encircling the mummy" bearing Akhenaten's name, but Strouhal (S6 p. 97) notes that Helck (2001: 17) showed these were gold sheets that had collapsed onto the mummy from the coffin interior — i.e. NOT inscribed mummy-bands. [Helck 2001 = CITED-ONLY via Strouhal.] ### 1.2 Contents, inscriptions, current locations - **Shrine of Tiye** (gilded wood panels; Cairo JE 57175 per ARCE [S15]): inscriptions say it was made by Akhenaten for his mother Tiye; Akhenaten's figures/names largely erased (Davis 1910; Bell 1990 [CITED-ONLY]). Panels remain in Cairo; parts were left in the corridor in 1907 and deteriorated. - **Coffin** (Cairo JE 39627 = lid; the gold sheets and inlays of the trough are Cairo TR 2/12/15/2 [S15]). Daressy's 1910 catalogue (S1 pp. 16-19): cedar, rishi-inlaid, gold mask (lower part missing), Nubian-style wig "similar to that on the heads of the canopic vases", gilt-bronze uraeus whose two cartouches "contain the name of the rayed disc", crossed hands holding crook and flail; a central inscription column on the lid, horizontal bands at the lid/trough junction, twelve engraved lines on the foot (seven on the lid, five on the trough), and one column inside lid and trough. Daressy read the titulary as Akhenaten's and noted: "The cartouches of the king have been everywhere destroyed, but the epithet 'living for the Truth' is entirely peculiar to Khuniatonu." The trough's gold sheets were removed from Cairo (they resurfaced in Munich, restored by the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, exhibited with the Cairo lid in Munich 2001 and Cairo Oct 2001-Jan 2002, then returned to Egypt in 2002: Grimm & Schoske 2001 [CITED-ONLY; exhibition confirmed by smaek.de listing found via search]). - **Readings of the altered coffin bands**: (i) Engelbach 1931 read "beloved of Waenre" in a corrected passage and attributed the coffin to Smenkhkare [CITED-ONLY]; Gabolde (S8 p. 181) rejects this reading as syntactically impossible and not matching the traces. (ii) Perepelkin (1960s) and Hanke 1978 argued the coffin was made for Kiya and later adapted for a king (Allen S10 n. 23 cites Hanke, HÄB 2, 171-74, 195). (iii) Allen 1988 (JARCE 25, 117-126) discussed the foot inscription as altered from a text spoken by a woman [CITED-ONLY]; in 2009 Allen himself writes: "A recent examination, however, has demonstrated that it was intended originally for Akhenaten himself, and later altered primarily by excising the names within the pharaonic cartouches. ... A. Grimm, in Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges, pp. 101-120. The inscription on the foot was originally addressed to Akhenaten by Nefertiti and was changed so that the deceased himself addressed 'My father Re-Harakhti.' This supersedes my arguments in JARCE 25 (1988), 121-26." [S10 p. 12 and n. 24, verbatim]. (iv) The current majority view as summarised by ARCE (S15): "most Egyptologists would agree that the coffin was created for Kiya, a secondary wife of Akhenaten ... some [inscriptions] still have a feminine 't' ending or the female pronoun of a seated woman"; foot text (translation on S15): "Recitation by [missing cartouche], justified. May I breathe the sweet air of the north wind. May I see your beauty daily ..."; lid column: "The perfect ruler, symbol of the sun, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, living in truth, Lord of the Two Lands [missing cartouche]. The perfect little one of the living Aten ...". (v) Gabolde (S8 pp. 180-181): the corrected parts carry Akhenaten's specific epithet "great in his lifetime" (ꜥꜣ m ꜥḥꜥw.f) "never used by any other sovereign", and band D inside the lid shows, in a corrected part, the writing of Waenre "which designates Akhenaten and him alone"; Smenkhkare's name "has never been found in this tomb". NOTE the disagreement: Grimm (per Allen 2009) = coffin originally for Akhenaten; Gabolde/Hanke/Perepelkin/ARCE = originally for Kiya, secondarily for Akhenaten. All agree the second owner named was Akhenaten; nobody now reads Smenkhkare's name on it. - **Canopic jars** (four; three Cairo JE 39637, one MMA 30.8.54 lid with jar 07.226.1): Daressy (S1 pp. 24-25) found the inscription panel "obliterated with such care" that only the sky-sign survived, filled with alabaster inlay; heads female with uraeus (uraei broken off), assumed by him to be Tiye. Now agreed the jars were made for Kiya and re-inscribed for a second owner: Gabolde (S8 p. 180): "les inscriptions des vases canopes, dans leur second état, destiné à les mettre en conformité avec le propriétaire des viscères, ne nommaient qu'Amenhotep IV-Akhenaton" (Gabolde, "Under a deep blue starry sky", 2009, 109-188 [CITED-ONLY]). Allen 2009 (S10 p. 12): "Canopic jars and magic bricks found in the Theban tomb were intended at one point for him [Akhenaten], though his name was later expunged." The MMA record (via search summary, page itself blocked): faint traces show the jar "was originally inscribed for Kiya"; the lid's Nubian wig is associated with Kiya. - **Magical bricks** (four, Nile mud; Cairo): Daressy (S1 pp. 26-27) "The tomb has yielded the series of four bricks, with the name of Khuniatonu"; north brick 5 lines hieroglyphs (with hollow for a statuette), south brick 7 lines, west brick 5 lines hieratic, east brick fragment. The text names "the Osiris, king Neferkheperure [Waenre]" (Gabolde S8 p. 180 n. 16: "le texte étant parfaitement clair sur trois des quatre briques"; Fairman, JEA 47 (1961) 37, had doubts [CITED-ONLY]). Implication: bricks are personal to the deceased and were made for Akhenaten's own burial (they are not reusable trousseau); hence either the body is Akhenaten's, or Akhenaten's burial furniture was brought to Thebes with, or reused for, another body. Allen (S10 n. 26) allows that the coffin "originally contained the body of Akhenaten when it was moved to KV 55" and that the bricks' cartouches "could have been done subsequently, when these items were appropriated for the burial of Smenkhkare". - **Vulture "crown"/pectoral** on the head (S1 no. 8, p. 22: thick gold foil, 24 x 21 cm, wings raised, with an ancient repair) — Cairo. Also gold collar, bracelets (fragile), a bronze uraeus, faience objects, a silver goose head, alabaster vase-stand, model vases, four alabaster "foundation" bricks etc. (S1 catalogue). - **Sealings**: necropolis seal (jackal over nine captives) on the blocking, and clay sealings with Tutankhamun's prenomen Nebkheperure found in the fill (S1 p. 10; ARCE S15; Bell 1990 identifies them as Tutankhamun's seal type from KV62 [CITED-ONLY via finding aid]). This dates the closing (or re-closing) of the deposit to Tutankhamun's reign. ### 1.3 Who has argued what about the burial - **Akhenaten**: Elliot Smith 1912 (S2: "we have the most positive evidence that these bones are the remains of Khouniatonou"), Weigall 1922 [CITED-ONLY via S6], Gardiner 1957 (JEA 43) [CITED-ONLY], Reeves 1981/1990/2001 (reburial from Amarna under Tutankhamun, body = Akhenaten) [CITED-ONLY; Gabolde S8 n. 31 cites Reeves 2001 p. 174], Gabolde 1998 pp. 227-276 and 2013 (S8, READ-FULL: the inscriptions make the attribution "inévitable"; he puts Akhenaten's age at death at 27-30 and discounts forensic ages), Laboury 2010 pp. 350-351 [CITED-ONLY via S8], Hawass et al. 2010 (S3: "most probably Akhenaten"), Hawass & Saleem 2016 [CITED-ONLY]. - **Smenkhkare**: Engelbach 1931, Derry 1931 (on age) [CITED-ONLY], Aldred (1957 JEA 43; 1988) [CITED-ONLY], Harrison 1966 (on age and Tut resemblance) [CITED-ONLY, but criteria reported by S6/S7], Filer 2000/2002 (S21: "if Akhenaten identification requires an age exceeding mid-twenties, these remains don't fit ... might belong to the mysterious Smenkhkare"), Allen 2009 (S10: "the body itself must therefore be that of another male pharaoh, who can only have been Smenkhkare"), Strouhal 2010 (S6), Duhig 2010 (S7: "another royal male ... Smenkhkare or some previously-unknown prince"), Phizackerley 2010 (blog) and Belmonte 2013 (S9, on DNA), Dodson (Amarna Sunset) [CITED-ONLY], Bommas 2025 [CITED-ONLY via S17], Huber (Nile Magazine 21) [CITED-ONLY], Tawfik et al. 2018 [CITED-ONLY; KV55 = Smenkhkare as a son of Thutmose (?) per S17's summary — unverified]. - **Reburial moved from Amarna under Tutankhamun**: Reeves 1981 (JEA 67) and Bell 1990 (JARCE 27) argue the deposit is a re-interment of Tiye and Akhenaten (Bell) brought from Amarna, sealed under Tutankhamun; Tiye's body later removed (to KV35 as the Elder Lady) [both CITED-ONLY; summarised by ARCE S15: "likely on the orders of the king to transfer the remaining royal burial(s) at Amarna south to the Valley of the Kings"]. Gabolde (S8 p. 190 n. 61) denies Tiye was ever in KV55 despite her shrine. --- ## 2. The KV55 skeleton (Cairo CG 61075): age-at-death estimates, criteria, and related claims ### 2.1 Every published estimate (with criteria) | Examiner (year) | Estimate | Criteria/method reported | Status | |---|---|---|---| | Two physicians at the tomb, 1907 (Dr Pollock, Luxor; an American obstetrician) | "without doubt that of a woman" | none (pelvis misread; arm position) | S1, S6 | | Elliot Smith, note in Davis 1910 (S1 pp. xxiii-xxiv) | "about twenty-five or twenty-six years ... lessened or increased by two or three years"; "highly improbable that he could have attained thirty years if he had been normal"; but hydrocephalus "possibility ... that the process of ossification ... may have been delayed" | European ossification standards (Poirier, Testut) | READ-FULL | | Elliot Smith 1912 (S2 pp. 52-54) | "if we accept the generally admitted criteria, this skeleton is that of a man about 25 or 26 years of age; and ... no anatomist would be justified in refusing to admit that this individual may have been several years younger or older"; he would accept 27 or 30 if historians insisted | Detailed: scapula fully ossified; C4-C5 inferior epiphyses not completely fused; upper dorsal vertebral epiphyses "fused only a short time before death"; sacrum four-pieced, S3-4 just closed, S1-2 "in process of closing"; rib head/tubercle epiphyses "just joining"; first mesosternal segment separate; sternal epiphysis of clavicle "still separate"; all limb bones fused except pelvis and clavicle; iliac crest joined but with a slight cleft posteriorly (45 mm R, 30 mm L); ischial tuberosity consolidated, pubo-ischial rami joining; cranial sutures "no signs of obliteration"; teeth unworn; right upper third molar not erupted. Skull 189 x 154 x 136 mm; "hydrocephalus" endorsed by A.R. Ferguson. Femur 455 mm, humerus 319/322 mm ("a bigger man than his father"). | READ-FULL | | Derry 1931 (ASAE 31, 115-119) | c. 23 (reported as "not more than 23-24"; Hawass 2010/Wikipedia give "25-26" for Derry — DISCREPANT secondary reports) | reconstructed the skull; noted no hydrocephalus, platycephalic skull like Tutankhamun's | CITED-ONLY (Strouhal S6 cites Derry as attributing the body to Smenkhkare on age grounds) | | Harrison 1966 (JEA 52) | c. 20 (dental 19-20, even 18-19 on Egyptian diet; pubic symphysis 20-21; overall "early twenties", "not more than 25") | X-rays, dental radiographs (no secondary dentine, periodontitis or cementum), sternum fusion 19-23, pubic symphysis phase (Todd), spheno-occipital synchondrosis; cranial index 81.05; capacity 1672 cc; no hydrocephalus; skull morphology "strikingly similar" to Tutankhamun's | CITED-ONLY, but numbers taken from Strouhal S6 pp. 102-106 and Duhig S7 who cite Harrison's pages | | Harrison, Connolly & Abdalla 1969 (Nature 224, 325-6) | — (kinship) | serological micromethod: KV55 and Tutankhamun both A2 and MN | S14 abstract READ-PART | | Wente & Harris 1992 (After Tut'ankhamun, 2-20); Harris & Wente X-Ray Atlas 1980 | 30-35 (Harris "settled upon 30-35"; Hawass & Saleem report J.R. Harris c. 35) | craniofacial cephalometric cluster analysis; dental/skeletal X-rays | CITED-ONLY (search summaries; Gabolde S8 n. 26 notes their scepticism of epigraphy) | | Germer 2001 (in Grimm & Schoske, 58-61) | "probably between eighteen and twenty-five" (Allen S10 n. 21 summarising Germer) | review of earlier examinations | CITED-ONLY | | Filer 2000 (EA 17) / 2002 (Archaeology 55/2) | "no older than his early twenties at death and probably a few years younger" | direct examination 2000 (British Museum); criteria not in the abstract | S21 READ-PART | | Hawass et al. 2010 (S3, p. 640/Table 1, eAppendix) | 35-45 | CT: "previously thought to be in his 20s ... our new computed tomography investigation revealed that he lived to be much older"; Duhig (S7): "This evidence is not made explicit, either in the paper or in the e-Appendix to it, but in a television programme ... a member of Hawass's team asserts that the condition of the spine is that of a man in his 30s at least." Hawass's own pre-publication web article (S18): "Dr. Selim noted that the spine showed, in addition to slight scoliosis, significant degenerative changes associated with age" (even suggesting up to 60) | READ-PART | | Strouhal 2010 (S6; examination 23-24 Feb 1998) | **19-22** | Dentition: right upper M3 erupting (crown 2 mm above alveolus), attrition minimal (Brothwell stage 0-3), "consistent with 18-22"; spheno-occipital synostosis line still visible (disappears 18-20, latest 25); sutures open; vertebral apophyseal growth fissures C3-7, T1-8 (close 20-23); sacral body fissures visible; sternebra 1-2 recently fused; rib heads unfused/recently fused (20-25); scapular vertebral borders not fully fused; **sternal clavicular epiphyses not fused, stage I bumpy surface = 18-20 (Szilvássy)**; distal radius epiphysis traces (17-22); **pubic symphysis Todd phase 1-2 = 19-21, Suchey-Katz phase I 18.9 ± 2.3**; iliac crest apophyseal union traces; ischial tuberosity apophyses unfused; femoral head fusion sulci; no degenerative change anywhere ("complete absence of even incipient dental or osseous age-dependent pathological changes"); no hydrocephalus (no digital impressions, sella normal). Stature (Trotter-Gleser) ~ c. 1.65-1.70 m [check S6 table 6]. | READ-FULL | | Duhig 2010 (S7) | "probably aged 20 years or over at death but not more than 23" | re-scores Strouhal's observations with Scheuer & Black 2000 / Suchey-Brooks / Ubelaker standards (Table 1 reproduced in S7): clavicle medial epiphysis unfused; iliac crest fusing 15-22; ischial epiphysis fusing <23; femoral head sulci ≤20; greater trochanter sulci ≤18 (from Harrison's photos); pubic symphysis Suchey-Brooks I 18.9 ± 2.3; no osteophytes <35 | READ-FULL | | Hawass & Saleem 2016, Scanning the Pharaohs pp. 84-86 | 35-45 (repeats 2010) | CT | CITED-ONLY | | Galassi, Habicht, Varotto, Moraes 2021 (FAPAB poster/press release) | accept "early 20s" from the literature; note conflict with Akhenaten's c. 40 | literature + photographs; facial reconstruction (Manchester method) | READ-PART via archaeology.wiki report | | Habicht et al. 2016 (S11) | (meta-analysis; abstract says KV55 "recently most likely identified as the genetic father of Tutankhamun" while identity "still highly controversial") | — | READ-PART (abstract) | | Thimes 2022 (S16) | argues for forensic re-ageing (teeth to ~21, long-bone fusion to ~25) | — | READ-PART | | "The identity of the KV55 mummy must remain open..." (academia.edu, 2022; author not established, possibly Habicht) | calls for publication of the CT data behind the 35-45 claim | — | CITED-ONLY (search snippet) | Disagreement summary: every direct osteological examination of the bones (Elliot Smith 1908/1912, Derry 1931, Harrison 1966, Filer 2000, Strouhal 1998/2010, Duhig 2010 on Strouhal's data) yields a range 18-26 with a central value around 20-23; the only estimates ≥30 come from Harris/Wente's radiographic-cephalometric programme (30-35) and from the 2010 CT team (35-45), whose criteria have never been published in detail (Duhig S7; the academia.edu 2022 paper). ### 2.2 Skull morphology, blood group, "Marfan" - Elliot Smith (S2 pp. 54-55): cranium 189 x 154 x 136 mm, "quite an exceptional breadth", thin in places: hydrocephalus (Ferguson concurring); face "identical" in upper part to Yuya; jaw "typically Armenoid"; projecting upper incisors as a family trait; strong nasal-spine ridge shared with Amenhotep III. - Harrison 1966 (via S6): cranial index 81.05, capacity 1672 cc (megacephalic), large frontal sinuses; explicitly rejected hydrocephalus; found the skull closely resembling Tutankhamun's (both platycephalic with similar facial architecture) — the "Smenkhkare = brother of Tutankhamun" argument; Strouhal (S6 abstract): "The striking resemblance of Tutankhamun and the man from KV 55 confirms highly probability of their brotherhood". - Strouhal (S6 pp. 101-102): 33 measurements (Table 1: max length 191, max breadth 153, basion-bregma 136, bizygomatic 136, facial height 122, upper facial 73, nasal height 54, orbital 42 x 37, mandibular bicondylar 127); cranial index 80.1 (brachycranic), "platycranic ... extremely broad ... very big dentition", crowded anterior teeth, Carabelli cusps, shovel-shaped incisors; explicitly no hydrocephalus, no pituitary enlargement. - Blood group: Connolly (S14 abstract): "the XVIIIth dynasty pharaohs Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen both belong to the same blood groups A2 and MN" (serological micromethod on tissue). Connolly et al. 1976 (JEA 62, 184-86) extended to parentage; Meltzer 1978 (JEA 64) queried it [CITED-ONLY via Allen S10 n. 67]. Hawass 2010 (S3) invokes "the blood group of both individuals is identical" as supporting KV55 = father (a group shared by brothers or father-son equally). - Marfan/Fröhlich/etc.: Hawass et al. 2010 (S3): "Macroscopic and radiological inspection of the mummies did not show specific signs of gynecomastia, craniosynostoses, Antley-Bixler syndrome ... or Marfan syndrome"; the Amarna style is "a royally decreed style". Strouhal (S6 p. 98) declines to discuss syndromes "never shown in the skeleton". Elliot Smith's hydrocephalus is rejected by Derry, Harrison and Strouhal; Fröhlich's syndrome (Aldred/Elliot Smith speculation) is unsupported since the individual fathered children if he is the father of Tutankhamun. --- ## 3. The 2010 JAMA study (Hawass, Gad, Ismail, Khairat, Fathalla, Hasan, Ahmed, Elleithy, Ball, Gaballah, Wasef, Fateen, Amer, Gostner, Selim, Zink, Pusch), JAMA 303(7): 638-647 [S3, READ-PART: full text read via fetch; figure images not retrievable] ### 3.1 Methods (as stated in the paper) - Sample: 11 royal mummies "suspected of Tutankhamun lineage" + 5 earlier-dynasty controls (N = 16; Table 1). Study period Sept 2007 - Oct 2009, Cairo. - Sampling: "More than 55 bone biopsies"; "2 to 4 different biopsies per mummy"; sampled from inside bone under CT guidance. - Two "physically isolated" ancient-DNA laboratories in Cairo (Egyptian Museum; Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University), built for the project with Discovery Channel money; design and oversight by A. Zink (EURAC Bolzano) and C. Pusch (Tübingen) [S5 Marchant: "The pair designed and oversaw the study, including the building of two dedicated labs in Cairo. The labs were partly paid for by the Discovery Channel"]. - Autosomal markers: 8 STR loci — D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539, D18S51, CSF1PO, FGA; typed "up to 30-fold"; "complete data sets for all 8 markers in 7 mummies (Thuya, Yuya, Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, KV55, and both female mummies from KV35) but only partial data for both KV62 fetuses and the KV21A and KV21B mummies". - Y-STRs: 16 loci (DYS456, DYS389I, DYS390, DYS389II, DYS458, DYS19, DYS385, DYS393, DYS391, DYS439, DYS635, DYS392, Y-GATA-H4, DYS437, DYS438, DYS448); result stated: "Markers DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4 showed identical allele constellations (repeat motif ... reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively) in Amenhotep III, KV55, and Tutankhamun but different allelotypes in the nonrelated CCG61065 sample" (Thutmose I? control); "All 8 females tested were negative for the examined polymorphic Y-chromosomal loci" (quoted by Gabolde S8 n. 11). No haplogroup was assigned in 2010. - Kinship statistics: "family trio likelihood calculation" (software not named in the text I saw); Gabolde (S8 p. 184) complains that "aucun pourcentage n'est donné. Le taux de probabilité pour chaque lien familial déduit n'est jamais fourni". - Pathogen PCR: P. falciparum STEVOR, AMA1, MSP1, MSP2 — positive in Tutankhamun, Yuya, Thuya and control CG 61065. - Authentication claims (S3 and the Reply, S4): profiles differed from all lab staff; females had no Y-STRs; males "homozygous (ie, hemizygous) Y-chromosomal profiles"; "Reproducible genotypes were obtained from different biopsies and extractions per mummy"; "Subsets of the data were independently replicated in a second, separate ancient DNA laboratory" (Reply, verbatim). NB the replication was in the second Cairo lab of the same project, not by an outside group. ### 3.2 Autosomal STR table (values as transcribed by Gabolde 2013 from JAMA fig. 1, p. 641; Gabolde S8 figs. 1, 9, 10; the original figure image could not be retrieved — any single cell should be verified against JAMA fig. 1 before it is quoted as JAMA's) | Mummy | D13S317 | D7S820 | D2S1338 | D21S11 | D16S539 | D18S51 | CSF1PO | FGA | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Yuya (KV46) | 11/13 | 6/15 | 22/27 | 29/34 | 6/10 | 12/22 | 9/12 | 20/25 | | Thuya (KV46) | not transcribed by Gabolde; JAMA fig. 1 has a full profile (not verified here) | | | | | | | | | Amenhotep III (CG 61074) | 10/16 | 6/15 | 16/27 | 25/34 | 8/13 | 16/22 | 6/9 | 23/31 | | KV35EL (Tiye) | 11/12 | 10/15 | 22/26 | 26/29 | 6/11 | 19/22 | 9/12 | 20/26 (so in Gabolde's fig. 9; I recall 20/23 in JAMA — UNVERIFIED, check) | | KV55 | 10/12 | 15/15 | 16/26 | 29/34 | 11/13 | 16/19 | 9/12 | 20/23 | | KV35YL | 10/12 | 6/10 | 16/26 | 25/29 | 8/11 | 16/19 | 6/12 | 20/23 | | Tutankhamun (KV62) | 10/12 | 10/15 | 16/26 | 29/34 | 8/13 | 19/19 | 6/12 | 23/23 | | Fetus 1 (KV62, 317a) | 12/16 | 10/13 | 16/– | 29/– | 8/– | –/19 | –/12 | –/23 | | Fetus 2 (KV62, 317b) | 10/– | 6/15 | –/26 | 29/35 | 8/13 | 10/19 | –/12 | 23/– | | KV21A | 10/16 | –/– | 26/– | 35/– | 8/– | 10/– | 12/– | 23/– (8 of 16 alleles; Gabolde fig. 10) | | KV21B | partial; D2S1338 17/26 (Gabolde p. 191) | | | | | | | | Consistency checks I ran on this table: Tutankhamun is compatible with KV55 x KV35YL at all 8 loci (10/12 from either; 15 from KV55 + 10 from YL; 16/26 either; 29 or 34 from KV55 + 29 from YL — NB D21S11 29/34 requires 34 from KV55 and 29 from YL; 13 from KV55 + 8 from YL; 19 + 19; 12 + 6; 23 + 23). KV55 and KV35YL are each compatible with Amenhotep III x KV35EL at all loci (e.g. KV55 D7S820 15/15 = 15 from each parent; D16S539 11/13 = 11 from Tiye, 13 from AIII; YL D7S820 6/10 = 6 from AIII, 10 from Tiye). Fetus 1 and 2 share exactly one allele per typed locus with Tutankhamun except D7S820 where they require the mother to carry 13 (F1) and 6 (F2) — the basis of the Phizackerley/Belmonte/Gabolde argument in section 4. ### 3.3 The pedigree published (JAMA fig. 2) "We identified Yuya and Thuya as great-grandparents of Tutankhamun, Amenhotep III and KV35EL as his grandparents, and the KV55 male and KV35YL as his sibling parents." Fetuses = daughters of Tutankhamun; "The data obtained from KV21A suggest her as the mother ... However, the few data are not statistically significant to define her as Ankhensenamun." KV21B unplaced. ### 3.4 Pathology and age claims - Tutankhamun: cleft palate, mild left clubfoot, right pes planus, right hypophalangism, mild kyphoscoliosis, Köhler disease II (aseptic necrosis of left 2nd-3rd metatarsals), leg fracture, P. falciparum DNA; age "19 years"; no Marfan, no gynecomastia in any mummy. - KV55: "The mummy in KV55 was previously thought to be in his 20s when he died. However, our new computed tomography investigation revealed that he lived to be much older" — designated 35-45 (Table 1). Criteria not given in text or eAppendix (per Duhig S7). - KV35YL: Table 1 lists "Previously supposed identity: Nefertiti, 18th-dynasty queen or princess"; CT age 25-35 (Hawass & Saleem 2016, CITED-ONLY); facial wound discussed in 3.5. ### 3.5 The paper's own identification statements (verbatim) - "the KV55 mummy, who is most probably Akhenaten, father of Tutankhamun"; supported because "several unique anthropological features are shared by the 2 mummies and ... the blood group of both individuals is identical". - "KV35EL, who is Tiye, mother of Akhenaten and grandmother of Tutankhamun." - For KV35YL the paper does not name her; contemporaneous press (National Geographic 17 Feb 2010 [CITED-ONLY]) and later Hawass statements say she is "likely to be Nebetah or Beketaten" or an unnamed daughter (per Wikipedia's citation of JAMA p. 644 — I could not confirm that sentence in the fetched text; treat as READ-PART). --- ## 4. Criticisms, alternatives and the state of the DNA debate (2010-2026) ### 4.1 Lorenzen & Willerslev 2010 (JAMA 303/24: 2471) [S4, READ-PART: opening paragraph only] Verbatim opening: "In their study, Dr Hawass and colleagues reported ancient DNA data from 11 royal Egyptian mummies and used microsatellites to ascertain kinship among specimens. We question the reliability of the genetic data presented in this study and therefore the validity of the authors' conclusions. Furthermore, we urge a more critical assessment of the ancient DNA data in the context of DNA degradation and contamination." The rest of the letter (paywalled) is reported by Marchant (S5): the "major concern, shared by others, was the method of DNA analysis used. Rather than extracting and sequencing DNA, the team used a technique called genetic fingerprinting, which involves measuring the size of the DNA products that have been amplified by PCR. It is rarely used in ancient-DNA studies, say critics, because without sequence data it is especially difficult to rule out contamination." Other letters in the same JAMA issue (Timmann & Meyer on sickle-cell disease as an alternative to malaria as the cause of death; Gamble on Köhler disease; Braverman & Mackowiak on Akhenaten's physique) are CITED-ONLY (from PubMed/JAMA listings); not read. Reply (Gad, Selim, Pusch et al.) [S4, READ-PART]: "All generally accepted criteria for ancient DNA authentication were strictly adhered to"; female mummies lacked Y-STRs, males were hemizygous; "individual differences" between mummies exclude "the same source of putative contaminant DNA"; "Reproducible genotypes were obtained from different biopsies and extractions per mummy"; "Subsets of the data were independently replicated in a second, separate ancient DNA laboratory". ### 4.2 Marchant 2011, Nature 472: 404-406 [S5, READ-FULL] Key verbatim points: "The ancient-DNA field is split absolutely in half" (Tom Gilbert). "'I'm very sceptical,' says Eske Willerslev ... who co-authored a letter to JAMA disputing the results." "on a well-handled mummy such as Tutankhamun, say sceptics, contamination could be rife." Controls claimed: "replication of the tests by different teams in the two labs and comparing the mummy DNA fingerprints with those of the research team"; samples "taken from within the mummies' bones". Zink and Pusch's preservation argument: natron desiccation prevents depurination. David Lambert (Griffith): absence of Y-STRs in female mummies "argues against contamination from modern archaeologists, who are generally male". "it is difficult for anyone else to replicate the DNA work without permission to access the samples." Pusch: "I don't understand people's harshness. This is pioneering work." "He and Zink say that they are sequencing DNA from the mitochondria and Y chromosomes of the mummies, and plan to publish these results this year" [2011; this became Gad et al. 2020, see 4.5]. Zink on next-generation sequencing: "We would love to do this ... The problem is to do it in Egypt" (samples may not leave Egypt; political sensitivity about "the genetic origin of the pharaohs"). Nothing in Marchant on KV55's age. ### 4.3 The "fetus / D7S820" objection: Phizackerley 2010, Belmonte 2013, Gabolde 2013 - Phizackerley (kv64.info blog, 2 Mar 2010) [CITED-ONLY, summarised by Belmonte S9 pp. 431-435 and Gabolde S8 n. 38]: fetus 1 has D7S820 10/13 and fetus 2 has 6/15; Tutankhamun is 10/15; so the mother must carry 6 and 13. If she is Ankhesenamun, daughter of Akhenaten, Akhenaten must carry 6 or 13; KV55 is 15/15; therefore KV55 is not Akhenaten (or the fetuses' mother is not Akhenaten's daughter). Belmonte (S9 p. 432): "The reasoning is simple and brilliant"; his conclusion: Tutankhamun is "the son of a stem of Amenhotep III and Tiyi, which must therefore be a brother of Akhenaten ... Semenkhkare"; mother "remains ... Lady KV35YL ... (a simple calculation shows a probability of c. 90%) as a full sister of Akhenaten and the KV55 male"; the alternative that KV35YL is a granddaughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye (e.g. Meritaten) has probability "smaller than 6%". Belmonte also notes Phizackerley's D13S317-16 argument (fetus 1 has 16, absent in Tutankhamun and KV55; present in Amenhotep III and KV21A) as a second, weaker, independent line. - Gabolde (S8 pp. 185-186, READ-FULL) reaches the same arithmetic but the opposite historical conclusion: the paternal:maternal allele imbalance in the fetuses "anormalement déséquilibrée" implies the mother was closely related to Tutankhamun; and "soit la momie de KV55 n'est pas celle d'Akhenaton – ce qui ... semble extrêmement peu vraisemblable au vu des inscriptions de la tombe KV55 –, soit les deux fœtus ne sont pas nés tous les deux de l'épouse principale de Toutânkhamon, Ânkhesenamon" — he prefers the second (secondary wives; the KV21A link is "très hasardeux" with only 50-75% of alleles preserved). - The premises of the objection (both fetuses are Ankhesenamun's; Ankhesenamun is Akhenaten's daughter; KV55's D7S820 is truly 15/15 and not an allelic dropout of a heterozygote) are stated by Belmonte himself: "If any of these assumptions fail, the building crumbles." Allelic dropout (a homozygous call masking heterozygosity) is a well-known artefact in degraded DNA and would dissolve the argument — none of the three authors tests it; the D7S820 argument should be treated as suggestive, not decisive. ### 4.4 Gabolde 2013 (ENiM 6) [S8, READ-FULL] — the cousin-marriage model - Accepts the DNA as authentic (contamination scenarios "douteux"; a modern contaminant "aurait immédiatement réagi" instead of taking two years) and accepts that identifications must follow inscriptions: KV55 = Akhenaten "inévitable"; Akhenaten died at 27-30 in his view, forensic ages being unreliable (pp. 180-181). - Observation (pp. 192-193): Yuya shares 5-6 of 16 alleles with his son-in-law Amenhotep III and every allele shared by Amenhotep III and the Elder Lady is also in Yuya; so Yuya was probably Amenhotep III's maternal uncle (Mutemwia = Yuya's sister, as Aldred 1991 p. 220 suggested) and Tiye his first cousin. KV21 is typologically a mid-18th-Dynasty queen-mother's tomb (cf. KV32 of Tiaa; Preys SAK 40), so KV21A "puisse correspondre à la reine Moutemouiya"; KV21B is excluded as Mutemwia by D2S1338 17/26 vs Amenhotep III 16/27. - Model (pp. 194-201): if endogamy already made husband and wife cousins in generation 2, then a first cousin of Akhenaten whose parents were siblings of Amenhotep III and of Tiye respectively would carry a profile indistinguishable, at 8 loci, from a full sister's. Candidate paternal uncles/aunts (Siatum, Amenemhat, Menkheper, Aakheperure, Aakheper[ka]re, Ahmes, Pentepihu; Tentamun, Tiaa, Tatau, Pyihu, Pypuy ...) and maternal (Anen, Ay (?), ...). Nefertiti's ties to Akhmim (Tey, Ay) fit. - Conclusions (p. 201, verbatim): "– Youya était un oncle maternel d'Amenhotep III et en conséquence Tiyi était une cousine germaine de son époux. – Moutemouiya était sans doute une sœur de Youya ; sa tombe est vraisemblablement KV21 et sa momie peut-être KV21A. – Nefertiti était une cousine germaine d'Amenhotep IV, aussi bien par son ascendance paternelle que maternelle et elle est identique à la momie KV35YL. Elle est bien la mère de Toutânkhamon." He notes the Luban/Fletcher identification of KV35YL as Nefertiti "n'était cependant fondée que sur des arguments de portée limitée". - Epigraphic support he adduces (pp. 195-199): the nurse-and-child in room gamma of the Amarna Royal Tomb, which he reads as a seventh child of Nefertiti (Tutankhaten) born c. years 13-14; contested by van Dijk 2009 (a girl, Meketaten "reborn") and G.T. Martin (caption belongs to the nurse) [both CITED-ONLY]. He also observes (p. 187) that no sister of Akhenaten (Sitamun, Iset, Henuttaneb, Nebetah) is attested at Amarna, and only Nefertiti, Kiya and Meritaten are documented as his wives — the "hidden sister-wife" of the JAMA pedigree "paraît invraisemblable pour la mère de l'unique héritier mâle connu". - Weaknesses to note: (a) the model needs two undocumented sibling links (a brother/sister of Amenhotep III married to a sibling of Tiye) plus Nefertiti's undocumented parentage; (b) Belmonte's calculation (S9) gives a granddaughter-type profile (which is what a double first cousin partly resembles) a low probability, but he did not model Gabolde's exact double-cousin scheme; (c) Ay's and Tey's titles: Tey is "nurse of the great royal wife" (Urk. IV 2001), never "king's mother-in-law", and Ay is "god's father"; Gabolde reads Ay as possibly a son of Yuya and Thuya (n. 90), which would make Nefertiti Tiye's niece — i.e. exactly the maternal-side cousin link his model needs — but Nefertiti's descent from a sibling of Amenhotep III on the other side is pure hypothesis. ### 4.5 Y- and mt-lineages: Gad, Hawass et al. 2020 and Gad et al. 2021 - Gad et al. 2020, "Maternal and paternal lineages in King Tutankhamun's family", in *Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass* (Prague 2020) [S13, CITED-ONLY]: reported (per search summaries of the abstract and of the unibz/ResearchGate record) that the royal male line Amenhotep III -> KV55 -> Tutankhamun belongs to Y-haplogroup **R1b**, and that the maternal line Thuya -> Tiye -> "the yet historically-unidentified mother" (KV35YL) -> Tutankhamun belongs to mtDNA haplogroup **K**, from Y-STRs and HVR1 sequences. The full Y-STR haplotype and HVR1 mutations could not be retrieved here. Context: an "R1b" prediction for Tutankhamun had already been circulated in 2011 by iGENEA from Y-STR peaks glimpsed in the Discovery documentary (a commercial, non-peer-reviewed inference) — Gad 2020 is the project's own confirmation, again without independent replication. - Gad et al. 2021, HMG 30(R1): R24-R28 [S12, READ-FULL]: an invited review; states that kinship of Tutankhamun's family was established "using both mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear DNA markers ... in four studies" and that "Early doubts of aDNA integrity within the Egyptian mummies and data authenticity were later abated with studies proving successfully authenticated aDNA retrieval" — citing the 2017 Schuenemann et al. Abusir genomes as proof of principle; no new data on the royal mummies. ### 4.6 Habicht, Bouwman & Rühli 2016 (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 159: S216-S231) [S11, abstract only] Abstract: "While the ancestors of Tutankhamun have been identified, some identities are still highly controversial (e.g., the mystery of the KV-55 skeleton, recently most likely identified as the genetic father of Tutankhamun). The meta-analysis confirms the suggested identity of some mummies (e.g., Amenhotep III, Thutmosis IV, and Queen Tjye)." The body of the paper (which tabulates all KV55 age estimates and grades each identification) could not be obtained; its treatment of KV55 is reported second-hand (Wikipedia; FAPAB 2021) as leaving KV55's identity open between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare because of the age conflict. Habicht (with Galassi/Varotto, FAPAB 2021) later accepted "early 20s" as the literature consensus while still calling the mummy "potentially attributable to Akhenaten". ### 4.7 Rühli & Ikram 2014 (HOMO 65/1: 51-63) [CITED-ONLY; abstract via search] "Purported medical diagnoses of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, c. 1325 BC": a critical review finding that most proposed diagnoses (including the JAMA foot pathology and malaria as cause of death) rest on secondary data; not about KV55. ### 4.8 Other reassessments, 2016-2026 - Eaton-Krauss 2016, *The Unknown Tutankhamun*, pp. 10-11, "Alternative interpretations of the DNA data" [CITED-ONLY]: reviews Gabolde's cousin model and the Smenkhkare alternative without endorsing the JAMA pedigree. - Tawfik, Thomas & Hegenbarth-Reichardt 2018 (MDAIK 74: 179-195) [CITED-ONLY; abstract via search]: from GEM conservation of KV62 objects (a box strip with royal names, sequins, a tunic) they propose Tutankhamun's parents were Smenkhkare and Meritaten; per S17's (unreliable) summary they make Smenkhkare a son of Prince Thutmose — unverified. - Thimes 2022 (Ancient Egypt 131) [S16]: notes KV55 and KV35YL share 11 of 16 alleles and Yuya-Amenhotep III share 6 of 16, implying extra consanguinity; proposes retesting 14 mummies with full autosomal panels, mtDNA, amelogenin and forensic age-at-death methods; says KV55 cannot be Akhenaten "if skeletal evidence indicates death at 18-20 years" and KV35YL was "far too young to be Nefertiti". - Bommas 2025, *Tutankhamun: A Biography* (Routledge) [CITED-ONLY via S17 and publisher blurb]: KV55 = Smenkhkare, KV35YL = Beketaten (youngest daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye), Tutankhamun their son. - Huber, "The enigmatic mummy from KV55, Part 2: its identity finally resolved", Nile Magazine 21 [CITED-ONLY]: five arguments for Smenkhkare. - "Miskatonic" 2025 PDF [S17]: a likelihood exercise over the 8 loci concluding the sibling-parent architecture fits best and that "osteological age-at-death evidence for KV55 excludes identification with Akhenaten, pointing instead to Smenkhkare (Bommas model)"; also finds KV21B's label undecidable by STRs. NOT citable as scholarship (fictional institution, unverifiable authors). - Hawass statements 2022-2026 [S19, S20, ancient-origins/popular-archaeology interviews via search]: Dec 2022 press claim that Nefertiti's mummy is one of KV21A/B with DNA results promised "next month"; late 2023 "within four months"; Dec 2024 "pretty sure Nefertiti would be found in 2025"; as of 9 Jan 2026 (S19) "No published DNA results have been released definitively identifying either mummy". On Tutankhamun's mother Hawass repeats: "she is the younger female mummy from KV35, however we still do not know her name". No new peer-reviewed data on KV55 since 2010/2020. - Independent replication: **none**. No laboratory outside the Hawass/Gad project has typed any of these mummies; no whole-genome or shotgun data exist for any of them (searches of 2023-2026 found none; Marchant 2011 explains why: samples cannot leave Egypt). The only "replication" is the project's second Cairo lab (S4). The 2017 Abusir mummy genomes (Schuenemann et al., Nat. Commun. 8: 15694) and the 2025 Old Kingdom Nuwayrat genome show that authentic Egyptian aDNA is recoverable, which weakens the a-priori "impossible" objection of 2010-11 but does not validate the 2010 STR calls. ### 4.9 State of the debate in 2026 (plain statement) 1. The 8-locus STR pedigree of 2010 has not been independently replicated, has never been released as raw electropherograms, and was produced by a fingerprinting method the ancient-DNA mainstream considered inadequate for contamination control; but its internal structure (female mummies Y-negative, consistent Mendelian transmission across three generations, a plausible degree of homozygosity) is hard to produce by contamination, and most Egyptologists (Gabolde, Dodson, Allen's successors, Eaton-Krauss, Habicht) now argue from it rather than against it. 2. What the STRs establish, if authentic: KV55 and KV35YL are both children of Amenhotep III and KV35EL (or genetically equivalent: double first cousins per Gabolde), and Tutankhamun is their son. What they do NOT establish: whether KV55 is Akhenaten or another son of Amenhotep III; the name of KV35YL. 3. The osteology (every hands-on examiner 1908-2010: 18-26 years) and the CT team's 35-45 (criteria unpublished) remain unreconciled; no CT data have been published to settle it. 4. Haplogroups R1b (Y) and K (mt) were announced in 2020 by the same group; no independent confirmation. 5. Nothing published 2021-2026 changes the evidential base; the promised KV21 "Nefertiti" results have not appeared. --- ## 5. What the body evidence permits for the succession ### 5.1 Akhenaten's minimum age at death - He reigned 17 years (year 17 wine dockets; Allen S10 p. 11; Gabolde S8 n. 48: Nefertiti last attested year 16, III akhet 15). Meritaten is named in the Early Proclamation on boundary stelae K and X dated year 5, month 4, and appears on Karnak talatat "almost certainly earlier than Regnal Year 5" (Allen S10 pp. 12-13 with Redford 1984: 79). Allen's arithmetic: "If Akhenaten died between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five in his seventeenth regnal year, he would have been one to eight years old at his accession ... Meritaten ... must have been conceived at the latest in Month 7 of Regnal Year 4, when Akhenaten himself would have been five to twelve years old" (S10 p. 12); n. 55: "This makes it impossible for the body from KV 55 to be Akhenaten's. He could not have fathered his three older daughters before Regnal Year 4 and died thirteen years later at the age of twenty-five or less." Strouhal (S6 abstract): "Since Akhenaten's reign was at least 17 years ... he could not have started to reign as a 2-5 year old child." Duhig (S7): "Akhenaten must have been in his 30's or older at death because in his last years his eldest daughter was in her late teens or early 20s." Elliot Smith (S2 p. 52) already conceded historians "want at least 30 years". Gabolde's 27-30 (S8 p. 181) is the lowest figure any Egyptologist defends, and even it exceeds every hands-on osteological estimate except the upper tail of Elliot Smith's. - Requirement on KV55: if KV55 = Akhenaten, the skeleton must be ≥ ~30 (≥ 27 on Gabolde's minimal view). Only Harris/Wente (30-35) and Hawass/Selim/Saleem (35-45) meet this; Elliot Smith (25-26, "may have been 28"), Derry (~23), Harrison (~20), Filer (early 20s or younger), Strouhal (19-22), Duhig (20-23) do not. ### 5.2 Candidate identities for KV55 against age and DNA | Candidate | DNA (2010) | Age | Burial equipment | Verdict | |---|---|---|---|---| | Akhenaten | fits (son of AIII & Tiye; father of Tut) — but the D7S820 fetus argument (4.3) counts against unless the fetuses' mother is not Akhenaten's daughter | fails on all hands-on estimates; fits only Harris/Wente or the 2010 CT | fits best: bricks, canopics (2nd state), coffin (2nd state) all name Akhenaten; sealed under Tutankhamun | possible only if the CT age is right and osteologists wrong | | Smenkhkare as a younger full brother of Akhenaten (son of AIII & Tiye) | fits identically to Akhenaten (a brother is genetically indistinguishable at 8 loci) | fits every osteological estimate (a king who died at ~20-25 after a reign of ≤ 3 years) | requires that Akhenaten's own burial goods (bricks!) were reused/relabelled for him, or that he was interred in a cache with Akhenaten's equipment (Allen S10 n. 26; Bell 1990's reburial) | favoured by Allen 2009, Strouhal, Duhig, Belmonte, Dodson, Bommas, Huber, Thimes; problem: no monument calls Smenkhkare "king's son" of Amenhotep III, and his known wife is Meritaten | | Another prince (an unknown son of AIII & Tiye; or, per Tawfik 2018, a son of Prince Thutmose) | a son of AIII & Tiye fits; a grandson (son of Thutmose) does NOT fit the trio likelihoods unless endogamy is extreme (Belmonte: <6% for granddaughter-type alternatives for YL; analogous for a grandson) | fits | same reuse problem | possible but unmotivated by any text | | Akhenaten's body with the age estimates wrong because of pathology (Elliot Smith's delayed ossification) | — | ad hoc; hydrocephalus rejected by Derry, Harrison, Strouhal | — | abandoned | ### 5.3 Candidate mothers of Tutankhamun (= KV35YL, if the DNA holds) - The DNA requires a woman genetically equivalent to a full daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Candidates: - **An unnamed or named daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye** (Sitamun, Iset, Henuttaneb, Nebetah; Beketaten if she is Tiye's daughter): genetically the simplest reading (Hawass 2010; Belmonte 2013 c. 90%; Johnson 2018 [S20]: "she was likely one of Amenhotep III's daughters"; Bommas 2025: Beketaten). Objections: none of the four named sisters is attested at Amarna at all (Gabolde S8 p. 187: "Aucune de celles-ci n'est attestée sous le règne de leur frère"), and a king's daughter-sister-wife-mother "n'aurait laissé absolument aucune trace" (Gabolde); Sitamun, Iset and Henuttaneb were already Great Royal Wives of Amenhotep III (would have outranked Nefertiti). Beketaten's parentage is itself disputed (daughter of Tiye per Dodson & Hilton 2004; daughter of Kiya/Akhenaten per Gabolde 1992 and Laboury 2010 — both CITED-ONLY via S8 n. 42). - **Nefertiti**: only if she were such a daughter, which her titles (never "king's daughter" or "king's sister"; Johnson S20: "In no text is Nefertiti ever identified as a royal daughter"; Duhig S7 point 1) and the nurse title of Tey, wife of Ay, make hard; Gabolde's double-first-cousin model (4.4) is the only published route to Nefertiti = KV35YL that respects the STRs, and it is speculative on both parental links. Marchant 2011 and Hawass have both said the DNA "shows" KV35YL is not Nefertiti — strictly, it shows she is not Nefertiti unless Nefertiti was a daughter (or genetic equivalent) of Amenhotep III and Tiye. - **Kiya**: no royal parentage in her titles ("greatly beloved wife"); if she were a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye she would carry "king's daughter", which she never does (Duhig S7 point 1). Kiya as Tutankhamun's mother was the standard pre-2010 hypothesis (Reeves, Dodson 2009 [CITED-ONLY]); the DNA makes it require the same undocumented royal parentage as Nefertiti. - **Meritaten / Meketaten (granddaughters of Amenhotep III)**: Belmonte (S9) computes <6%; chronologically Meritaten would be ~9 at Tutankhamun's birth (Belmonte), unless the daughters were born before year 1 (Krauss, private communication in S9). Tawfik 2018 nonetheless proposes Meritaten (with Smenkhkare); Tyldesley 2012 and Cooney 2018 (father-daughter incest) float similar ideas [CITED-ONLY]. - Age of KV35YL: Elliot Smith 1912 pp. 40-41: not older than 25 (iliac crest, unerupted wisdom teeth) [CITED-ONLY via finding aid]; Hawass & Saleem 2016: 25-35 by CT [CITED-ONLY]; Thimes: 15-16 (no source given). Tutankhamun born c. Akhenaten year 7-11 (Allen S10 p. 11), i.e. c. 1341-1337; a mother aged 25-35 at death would have been born c. 1375-1355, compatible with a late daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye (married c. year 2 of AIII, 1388) and equally with Nefertiti (attested from AIV year 3-4, Gabolde S8 n. 48). ### 5.4 Consequences for the succession models - If KV55 = Akhenaten (Hawass, Gabolde, Reeves): Smenkhkare's body is unlocated; nothing physical constrains his age or parentage; the coffin/bricks reflect Akhenaten's own reburial from Amarna under Tutankhamun; Tutankhamun is Akhenaten's son by a sister or double-cousin (Nefertiti, per Gabolde); the "king's son of his body" block from Hermopolis (Allen S10 p. 13) is literal. - If KV55 = Smenkhkare (Allen, Strouhal, Duhig, Belmonte, Dodson, Bommas): Smenkhkare is a son of Amenhotep III and Tiye (so a full brother of Akhenaten, born c. 1360-1350; a "prince" invisible in the record until his accession), died at ~20-25 after a short reign/co-regency, was buried with Akhenaten's relabelled equipment, and is Tutankhamun's father by a sister (KV35YL); Tutankhamun's "king's son" claim derives from Smenkhkare (Allen S10 p. 19: "Tutankhamun's status before his accession as the son of a king can therefore derive only from Smenkhkare"). This model needs Smenkhkare to have fathered Tutankhamun c. year 9-11 of Akhenaten, i.e. at ~12-18 if he died at 20-25 in c. year 17-18 — tight but not impossible (Belmonte places the birth "around year 10 or 11"). - If KV55 = an otherwise unknown son of Amenhotep III: Smenkhkare's and Neferneferuaten's identities are unconstrained by the body. - In no model do the physical data bear directly on Neferneferuaten's identity; the only link is negative — a male body means KV55 "cannot have been Neferneferuaten" (Allen S10 p. 12), and KV35YL's DNA and injury do not identify her as a ruler. --- ## 6. The KV35 Younger Lady (CG 61072) - Found 1898 by Loret in the side chamber of KV35 with the Elder Lady and a boy; unwrapped, right arm broken off (recovered arm fragments include one with a clenched hand); large wound on the left face/mouth; wig found nearby (Rose S22; Elliot Smith 1912 pp. 40-41 CITED-ONLY). - **Fletcher 2003**: Luban (1999, web) then Fletcher (York, 2003, Discovery Channel) identified her as Nefertiti from the "Nubian" wig, double ear-piercing, nefer beads, arm position and age. Rejections (S22, verbatim): Susan James — "use of this type of wig was broader and over a longer period than Fletcher suggests"; Thuya "also had double piercings"; Barbara Mertz — the bent-arm argument "unsound"; Hawass called it "pure fiction" and banned Fletcher; Hawass also argued the pelvis was narrow, suggesting a male or a woman who had not borne six children (search summary; CITED-ONLY). Gabolde (S8 p. 202) calls the Luban/Fletcher identification "une brillante intuition" resting on "arguments de portée limitée". - **DNA (2010)**: daughter of Amenhotep III and KV35EL; mother of Tutankhamun; name not given (3.3). Hawass since 2010: "we still do not know her name". - **Facial injury**: Hawass & Saleem 2016 pp. 80-83 [CITED-ONLY via finding aid]: 3.8 x 3 cm defect of the left cheek/maxilla, unhealed, with an embalming pack placed in the wound, therefore peri-mortem; Hawass suggests a kick from a horse; Selim "too violent to be the result of an accident"; Schlögl: chariot accident; Heath: axe blow. Earlier view (Elliot Smith; Reeves & Wilkinson): tomb-robber damage. The 2016 World Archaeology report (the-past.com, READ-PART): "she died of injuries resulting from a violent shock to the face. The researchers suggest the strong kick of a horse." - **Age**: ≤25 (Elliot Smith); 25-35 (CT 2016); Thimes 15-16 (unsupported). - **Could she be Nefertiti or Kiya?** Only via undocumented royal parentage (5.3). Johnson (S20, 2018): "If one accepts that the mummy of the 'younger lady' is the mother of Tutankhamun, then she cannot be Nefertiti"; the Daynes reconstruction does not match Nefertiti's "straight nose, heavy-lidded eyes, long graceful neck, and a strong square jaw". Gabolde (S8) is the one substantial scholarly voice for Nefertiti = KV35YL after 2010. - **Who she likely is**: on the DNA as published, an otherwise unattested (or Beketaten/Nebetah-type) daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye who was the mother of Tutankhamun by a brother; her invisibility in the Amarna record is the strongest objection (Gabolde), and is the reason alternative readings (cousin; granddaughter) persist. Her wound, wig and piercing do not discriminate. --- ## 7. Coverage and gaps Obtained and read in full: Elliot Smith 1912 (CG 61075 entry), Davis 1910 (Ayrton, Daressy, Elliot Smith), Strouhal 2010, Duhig 2010, Gabolde 2013, Allen 2009, Marchant 2011, Gad 2021 (review), ARCE coffin article, Connolly 1969 abstract, JAMA 2010 main text (not figures/eAppendix), JAMA letter and reply (first paragraphs), Belmonte 2013 (DNA section). Not obtained (blocked or paywalled): JAMA 2010 Figure 1 (allele image), Table 1 image and eAppendix (jamanetwork CDN 403); the full Lorenzen & Willerslev letter and reply; Habicht et al. 2016 full text (Wiley/ZORA/academia/ResearchGate blocked) — its meta-analysis table of KV55 ages and its identification grades are the most important missing item; Gad et al. 2020 (haplogroup paper) full text; Harrison 1966 (JSTOR); Derry 1931; Bell 1990; Allen 1988; Grimm & Schoske 2001; Hawass & Saleem 2016 (no Google Books preview); Filer 2000/2002 full text; Wente & Harris 1992; Eaton-Krauss 2016; Tawfik et al. 2018; Bommas 2025; the Theban Mapping Project KV55 page (Cloudflare) and the MMA canopic-jar record (Vercel bot wall). Numbers to double-check before quoting: the STR table (transcribed from Gabolde's reproduction, not from JAMA's figure; Thuya's row missing; KV35EL FGA cell doubtful); Derry's exact figure (23 vs 25-26 in different secondary reports); Hawass & Saleem's page numbers (84-86 for KV55; 80-83 for KV35YL; 131-132 on Nefertiti; per the Wikipedia citation trail). --- ## Addendum: citations upgraded from saved sources - **Dodson 2014, *Amarna Sunrise*, Appendix 4 pp. 162-166** [READ-PART from ../sources/Dodson_2014_Amarna_Sunrise_archive.org_djvu.txt]: criticises the 2010 study for (i) no true unrelated control, (ii) KV21's mid-18th-Dynasty pottery undermining the Ankhesenamun suggestion, (iii) the KV35 side-chamber bodies possibly being Amenhotep II's own family, (iv) "the results were published giving only the 'preferred' interpretation of the raw data. Thus, for example, the KV55 remains were confidently identified as those of Akhenaten, without noting that the genetic data applicable to him ... would also apply to any full brother of Akhenaten"; on age: "to be Akhenaten it would have had to have been at the very least thirty years old at the time of death"; cites the Spitalfields crypt study (under-40s systematically over-aged; "one teenager who was apparently in her mid-thirties") as "very much supportive of those studies that have placed the KV55 body at the lowest end of the age spectrum"; conclusion: "the likelihood that the KV55 skeleton represents Akhenaten seems low, with the greater likelihood that it was that of a full brother. Smenkhkare would thus be the most probable candidate." He then notes the chronological difficulty of Smenkhkare (dead c. year 14/15 on his dating) fathering Tutankhamun c. year 10 with Meritaten aged ≤ 9. - **Dodson 2020, *Nefertiti, Queen and Pharaoh of Egypt*, pp. 47-48 and 69-70** [READ-PART from ../sources/Dodson_2020_Nefertiti_Queen_and_Pharaoh_archive.org_djvu.txt]: "The identity of the KV55 mummy has been problematic since its discovery. Candidates are Akhenaten and his short-lived coruler Smenkhkare ... but neither has a known sister-wife"; notes "three generations of first-cousin marriages can produce the same genetic signature in the final generation as a brother-sister union" (Gabolde) and "there are good arguments for making Nefertiti a first cousin of her husband"; on KV55: "the vast majority of assessments placing him in his (probably early) twenties, although a handful have proposed something significantly older. If the majority view is indeed correct, the body cannot be that of Akhenaten, leaving Smenkhkare as the only candidate ... That Smenkhkare was a younger brother of Akhenaten has often been suggested, and this would be consistent with the DNA determination that gives the KV55 mummy the same genetics as the father of Tutankhamun, argued above (pages 47-48) to be Akhenaten." I.e. Dodson's 2020 model: Tutankhamun = son of Akhenaten and (cousin) Nefertiti; KV55 = Smenkhkare, Akhenaten's full brother. NB: a full brother is NOT genetically "the same" as the father at 8 STR loci — a paternity-vs-uncle likelihood test is possible in principle and was not reported by JAMA; Dodson's phrasing overstates the equivalence (Belmonte's <6% granddaughter figure shows how such tests can discriminate). This point should be weighed: the STR data as published do not distinguish "KV55 = father" from "KV55 = paternal uncle" only if no likelihood ratio is computed; the JAMA authors claimed a trio likelihood favouring paternity but printed no figures (Gabolde S8 p. 184). - **Gabolde 2009, "Under a deep blue starry sky"** (Fs Murnane) [READ-PART from ../sources/Gabolde_2009_Under_a_Deep_Blue_Starry_Sky_CausingHisNameToLive.txt]: a starry 'sky'-sign inlay from the Munich/Cairo material belongs to the recut canopic jars; the adaptation of Kiya's jars and coffin "for a king, were done in a workshop and not in" KV55; Krauss (MDAIK 42, 1986) established Kiya as the jars' original owner; Gabolde concludes the final state of the jars' inscriptions named no one but Akhenaten. - **Reeves 2001, *Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet*, pp. 80-84** [file present: ../sources/Reeves_2001_Akhenaten_Egypts_False_Prophet_archive.org_djvu.txt; not read in detail — CITED-ONLY via Gabolde S8 n. 31 for KV55 = Akhenaten]. - The *Guardian of Ancient Egypt* PDF (../sources/Guardian_of_Ancient_Egypt_vol1_2020.pdf) is front matter/contents only (10 pp.); it confirms the Gad et al. chapter's author list (Gad, Ismail, Fathalla, Khairat, Fares, A.Z. Gad, Saad, Moustafa, el-Shahat, Abu Mandil, Fateen, el-Leithy, Wasef, Zink, Hawass, Pusch) but contains no data. S13 remains CITED-ONLY.