Marianne Luban
re: KV55 again
Tue Jul 4, 2017 12:00
97.126.197.233

I think the two biggest stumbling blocks when it comes to understanding the Amarna period are the denial of a lengthy coregency and the refusal to believe in the young age of Akhenaten [when he was made a co-regent with his father]. I have quite a few papers on this era here:

https://independent.academia.edu/MarianneLuban

The latest about Akhenaten is "The Deification of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and the Reason For It". Recently, I read something by Aidan Dodson saying that the inscription that mentions the elevation of the heir to the throne in Year 30 of Amenhotep III cannot be denied--but he attempted to work it into a mere selection of the future Akhenaten as successor. I feel that simply is not enough, given that Amenhotep III now saw himself as the living incarnation of the sun-god, Ra-Atum. That is the gist of my paper.

Since King Nebmaare still figured on being around for awhile, the youth of the heir at this time, Year 30, made no difference. That is why there is nothing barring the KV55 remains from being those of Akhenaten--the effect of an eight-year coregency. One of the reasons I think some examiners put such a young age to the skeleton was the lack of erupted wisdom teeth. However, Prof. Smith was a better authority than any of the subsequent examiners and his first impression was "around age 30"--and he wrote this to Arthur Weigall, the man who had sent him the bones. Much later it has been seen that unerupted wisdom teeth were also present in the mouth of the KV35YL but she has been judged to be around 30, also, via CT-scan. Because she was not removed from the tomb for decades, this mummy was not subjected to any other physical exams for age. To give another example of how examiners can be swayed--the KV55 individual was considered to have been past 40 after his own CT-scan on account of his very bad hip. This type of hip problem usually is seen in people over 40--but someone evidently forgot it can result from an injury in a younger person, too. The KV55 person is, all things considered, Akhenaten and he never lived to be 40--which is probably a good thing being that he was a rather terrible king and even an oppressor of children--for which evidence is recently mounting. I don't think the Dahamunza affair need be connected to Akhenaten at all. The king named by Mursili is the best fit to Tutankhamen, who really had no sons and has never been suspected of having any.


  • re: KV55 againJaime O, Tue Jul 4 09:11
    Hi Joe I hope you make a swift recovery; my best of wishes. “For those who are still holding out and insusting that the KV55 mummy is NOT Akhenaten (…)” I held this position a year ago, and joined... more
    • re: KV55 again — Marianne Luban, Tue Jul 4 12:00
      • re: KV55 againMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 4 12:30
        I had to consult the book "Scanning the Pharaohs" by Hawass and Saleem [the radiologist]. Although everything to do with the KV35YL in that work seems to me to be slanted toward the views of Z.... more
Click here to receive daily updates