Since most of you think KV55 is Smenkhkare, I must remind you of the implications.



Above is a reconstruction of the KV55 mummy. It bears little resemblance to most common busts of Smenkhkare, and looks to me more like Akhenaten than anything. The jaws are prognathous, the face is long, and these features are seen in portraits of Akhenaten in Amarna artwork.

i agree that there is some resemblence between the two pictures you posted. But i dont know if i could agree that it was Akhenaton until i saw more evidence.if you have any more information on it, please email me at softballstar_amw@juno.com with it thanks

The only problem is, we don't actually have any depictions that we are DEFINATELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sure are Smenkhkare (At least that's what I read). If that were the case, and even if it weren't, surely since the mummy in KV 55 is related to Akhenaten, it would have some resemblance to him, right? And if Smenkhkare were Akhenaten's son, then it would surely be possible that he would look like his father. That sketch also looks a lot like Tutankhamen, too, but we know it's not him. But, we still never know. It could be Akhenaten, after all, but it could not be him just as easily.

I wish BESS didn't block those pics.

So is this BESS on your home computer or what? You should really talk to your parents about it, because it sounds like a real pain in the backside.

I believe the unknown mummy in KV55 is not Smenkhkare but Akhenaton. I may be way off base but I think Smenkhkare was really Nefertiti, taking on the role of male king, after Akhenaton died. The funerary things for "Smenkhkare" were probably for Nefertiti and put with Akhenaton when their bodies were moved, as it is said the items were made for a woman and changed to "fit" a man. They could have been purposely mixed up to try to help protect the bodies from harm form vengeful people. It is said maybe King Tut and "Smenkhkare" were brothers because they resembled each other and had matching DNA, but so would father and son.

I believe that the occupant of the Coffin was Smenkhkare, the most clinching evidence for this being the fragemtary cartouche of his discovered in the tomb, and the partially erupted wisdom teeth that for me strongly (but not conclusiely) deny the skull as being that of Akhenaten. Furthermore, the reconstruction picture does nothing to convince me. If you have watched programs like 'Meet the Ancestors' or anything similar, then you will know that reconstructive facial modelers cannot (ever) recreate the parts of the face that are comprised of cartilidge or soft tissue with accuracy. The most obvious places where reconstuctive artists have to 'make things up' are the nose, lips, eyes and chin- which are here the features that define Amarna art. Besides which it would be naive readily to conclude that Akhenaten looked as he does in Amarna art. The illustrator has most certainly used her artistic license to the extreme.

I agree about the artistic liberties taken in the drawing. It is even prevelent in Amarna art itself.

These are all pictures of Akhenaten: