[SunkenCiv]

Hey, one of the *those* topics. The KV55 mummy was in a coffin that had been prepared for, hmm, Kia (not the car), and last I knew, was believed to contain the remains of a young (20 or under) man.

I inhale the sweet breath that comes from your mouth
I contemplate your beauty every day.
It's my desire to hear your lovely voice
like the north wind's whiff.
Love will rejuvenate my limbs.
Give me your hands that hold your soul,
I shall embrace and live by it.
Call me by name again, again, forever,
and never will it sound without response.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[SunkenCiv]

Anatomy Of A Mummy
by Joyce M. Filer
March/April 2002
(abstract)

"An anatomical examination cannot identify the individual, but it can provide information useful in evaluating the theories various scholars have proposed. 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."

Who's In Tomb 55?
by Mark Rose
March/April 2002
(abstract)

The largest object was a wooden shrine, sheathed in gold, that had been made for the funeral of Queen Tiye, the mother of the late 18th Dynasty pharaoh Akhenaten (r. 1350-1333 B.C.). This pharaoh's name could be read on two of the four clay bricks found on the tomb's floor. In the niche were four jars, originally inscribed for Kiya, a secondary wife of Akhenaten, mismatched with stoppers bearing exquisite portraits, probably of one or more of Akhenaten's daughters. The strangest of the tomb's contents was an elaborate coffin, also originally for Kiya as attested by reworked yet still decipherable inscriptions, but adapted for a male burial by the addition of a beard and the alteration of the inscriptions. The face on the coffin had been broken off and the royal names on it, which might have identified its occupant, removed. Sometimes I wonder if the people who study mummies aren't wrapped too tight. ;')

Who Was Who Among The Royal Mummies
by Edward F. Wente

Seti II is an interesting case, because he should belong to the Nineteenth Dynasty line, being the grandson of Ramesses II and son of Merenptah. Elliot Smith in his catalogue of the royal mummies had already noted in 1912 that Seti II does not at all resemble the orthognathous heavyjawed pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty, but bears a striking resemblance to the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Smith's observations, which were not made with the aid of x-rays and computer analysis of craniofacial variation, nonetheless were those of a person with considerable experience in examining human remains. Subjected to Jim's more sophisticated approach using cephalometric x-ray tracings and cluster analysis, this mummy was found to be most similar in craniofacial morphology to the mummies of Thutmose II and III. In other words, Seti II was not Seti II. The confusion between Seti II and Thutmose II may have been occasioned by the similarity of their prenomens when written in the hieratic script.

Since the identification of Thutmose I was already seriously in doubt, there would be room to insert the Seti II mummy into the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty. This possibility sent me to reevaluate the dockets supposedly identifying the mummy of Thutmose II. On the mummy the orthography of the king's name was not without ambiguity, while on the coffin the scribe had originally written the prenomen of Thutmose I and then altered it to Thutmose II's. Since the mummy identified as Thutmose II was older at death than the Seti II one, and from historical considerations we believe that Thutmose I died at an older age than Thutmose II, the end result of this part of our inquiry was to suggest that the Thutmose II mummy really belonged to Thutmose I and the Seti II mummy to Thutmose II, while Thutmose III has possibly been correctly identified. I say "possibly" because the shroud of Thutmose III, which has been used to identify the mummy, was discovered not wrapped around the body but simply folded on top of the mummy, which itself bore no clear identification...

The craniofacial morphology of the mummy labeled Amenhotep III also made it difficult to place in the position he should occupy as son of Thutmose IV. Of the mummies in the collection only the one supposed to be Amenhotep II is a suitable candidate to have been the father of the Amenhotep III mummy. Over the years Jim became increasingly intrigued by the Amenhotep III mummy, because it is one of the most severely battered of the royal mummies, having suffered postmortem injuries of a very violent nature, more than what tomb-robbers generally inflicted upon the mummies in search of precious items. Since the publication of the x-ray atlas further study of this mummy has been undertaken by Jim and Dr. Fawzia Hussein, Director of the Anthropological Laboratory of the National Research Center, Cairo; and it has been ascertained that the skull is two standard deviations too large for his body, and its craniofacial characteristics are consonant with sculptured portraits of Akhenaten... What may be said on the basis of the biologic evidence of craniofacial variation is that the mummy labeled as Amenhotep III by the restorers was not a likely father, or even grandfather, of Tutankhamun... [W]e suggest that Thutmose IV was the paternal grandfather of Tutankhamun, a conclusion consonant with a literal reading of the text on the Oriental Institute astronomical instrument, and that Amenhotep III was his maternal grandfather. In other words, Tutankhamun was the offspring of a marriage between a son of Thutmose IV and a daughter of Amenhotep III.

---

Sequence Of Kings		Royal Mummies
Dynasty 18		Scheme 1	Scheme 2	Scheme 3
Thutmose I	=	Thutmose II	Thutmose II	Thutmose II
Thutmose II	=	Seti II	Seti II	Seti II
Thutmose III	=	Thutmose III	Thutmose III	? Thutmose III
Amenhotep II	=	---	---	? Thutmose III
Thutmose IV	=	Amenhotep II	Amenhotep II	Thutmose IV
Amenhotep III	=	Thutmose IV	Thutmose IV	Amenhotep II
Akhenaten	=	KV 55	---	Amenhotep III
Smenkhkare	=	---	KV 55	KV 55
Tutankhamun	=	Tutankhamun	Tutankhamun	Tutankhamun
Aye	=	Amenhotep III	Amenhotep III	---

---

Royal Mummies Musical Chairs:
Cases Of Mistaken Identities?
by Dennis C. Forbes
(book excerpt)

Turning to the problematic "Thutmose I," they concluded that No. 61065 was, indeed, almost certainly a Thutmosid because of his craniofacial morphology, but not a king. Analysis of Harris’s x-rays concurred with Smith’s original estimate of the individual’s age at death being eighteen or twenty years — far too young for the historical Thutmose I. And then there was the aforementioned problem of the mummy’s extended arms. Since the arms of Amenhotep I and the individual thought to be Thutmose II were in the kingly crossed position, it seemed wholly unlikely that those who mummified "Thutmose I" would have broken with established tradition (inasmuch as the so-called "royal position" was apparently not a New Kingdom innovation, the skeletal remains of ephemeral King Hor of the late Middle Kingdom having been found at Dahshur by Jacques De Morgan with the arms crossed). Thus, Harris and Wente relegated No. 61065 to anonymity, leaving the "Thutmose I" slot open for another candidate.