Anthropometric data of CG 61075
Vital for any research attempt are correct anthropometric data, e.g., long bone measurements. From such measurable data a comparison among mummies is possible. The bones of KV 55 were measured twice by Smith and Harrison [107,110].
| Right femur (oblique length) | 45.05 cm | |
| Right femur (max. length) | 45.5 cm | 45.3 cm |
| Left femur (oblique length) | 45.3 cm | |
| Left femur (max. length) | 45.55 cm | 45,3 cm |
| Left tibia (axial length) | 35.55 cm | 37,2 cm |
| Right tibia (axial length) | 35.4 cm | 37.5 cm |
| Left humerus (oblique length) | 31.1 cm | |
| Left humerus (max. length) | 31.9 cm | 31.9 cm |
| Right humerus (oblique length) | 31.4 cm | |
| Right humerus (max. length) | 32.2 cm | 32.2 cm |
Based on such long bone measurements several studies were published on the Pharaohs: 1983 by Gay Robins and Charles Shute [128]. Other studies focusses on the cranial data [125]. Comparisons with studies on the general population [129–134] and comparisons with the Kings and Queens of Egypt are quite revealing. It is most likely that KV 55 and Tutankhamun are closely related, probably father and son. The results concur with the genetic results from 2010.
| | Thutmosis IV | Amenhotep III | KV 55 | Tutankhamun |
| Condition of the mummy | Good | Bad | Very bad | bad |
| Length (direct measurement) | 164 cm | 156 – 160 cm | Not possible | 167 cm |
| [123] | 165 cm | 160 cm | 167.5 cm | 169 cm |
| Tibia max [130] | 165.5 cm | 157 cm | 165 cm | 167 cm |
| Femur max [130] | 166 cm | 162 cm | 169 cm | 171 cm |
| Femur | 44.1 cm | 42.1 cm | 45.5 cm | 46.5 cm |
| Tibia | 36.2 cm | 34.1 cm | 37.5 cm | 38.3 cm |
2010 genetics: KV 55 is the father of Tutankhamun
As part of the “Tutankhamun Family Project”, investigating the ancestors of Tutankhamun using genetics the mummy Cairo CG 61075 was investigated again [47]. Albert Zink observed the fusion of the Sutura sagitalis (fibrous joint of the plates of the cranium); they were closed but not too far advanced, pointing to a fully adult individual of 20 to 40 years of age, slight signs of arthritis in the knee further points more towards a man of 40 years [119,136].
The genetic studies identified CG 61075 as a son of Amenhotep III (CG 61074) and the Elder Lady from KV 35 (CG 61072), which is the daughter of Yuya and Thuya and therefore likely Queen Tjye [3,26,49,137–139]. Since 2010, the mummy from KV 55 is now often identified as Akhenaton and no longer as elusive Smenkhkare.
| STR | D13S317 | D7S820 | D2S1338 | D21S11 | D16S539 | D18S51 | CSF1PO | FGA |
| Thuja | 9 12 | 10 13 | 19 26 | 26 35 | 11 13 | 8 19 | 7 12 | 24 26 |
| Juja | 11 13 | 6 15 | 22 27 | 29 34 | 6 10 | 12 22 | 9 12 | 20 25 |
| EL KV 35 | 11 12 | 10 15 | 22 26 | 26 29 | 6 11 | 19 22 | 9 12 | 20 26 |
| STR | D13S317 | D7S820 | D2S1338 | D21S11 | D16S539 | D18S51 | CSF1PO | FGA |
| CG 61074 | 10 16 | 6 15 | 16 27 | 25 34 | 8 13 | 15 22 | 6 9 | 23 31 |
| EL KV 35 Tjye | 11 12 | 10 15 | 22 26 | 26 29 | 6 11 | 19 22 | 9 12 | 20 26 |
| KV 55 | 10 12 | 15 15 | 16 26 | 29 34 | 11 13 | 16 19 | 9 12 | 20 23 |
| YL KV 35 | 10 12 | 6 10 | 16 26 | 25 29 | 8 11 | 16 19 | 6 12 | 20 23 |
| Tutankhamun | 10 12 | 10 15 | 16 26 | 29 34 | 8 13 | 19 19 | 6 12 | 23 23 |
STR data von Hawass et al. 2010. The Elder Lady KV 35 is according to the presented date the daughter of Yuya and Thuya and therefore most likely Queen Tjye. KV 55 is the genetic father of Tutankhamun and therefore most likely Akhenaton. The Younger Lady KV 35 is the genetic mother of Tutankhamun.
The new identification as Akhenaton is supported by new epigraphic investigations: fragmentary inscriptions in the Royal tomb of Akhenaton seem to support that the little child in the arms of the nanny is Tutankhaton (the later Tutankhamun) and that he is not the son of Kiya, but of Nefertiti and Akhenaton: ‘The son of his body, whom he loves, Tutankhaton, born by the Great Royal Wife Neferneferuaton Nefertiti, she may life forever and in eternity.’ [26,48,49,55,90].
The canopic jars of Kiya, found in KV 55, were altered from Kiya to Akhenaton – not for Smenkhkare [72,112]. This is another clue that Akhenaton was secondarily buried in KV 55.
The spectre-like figure Smenkhkare becomes even more foggy, the only evidence (the body) of his alleged male identity disappeared. If one wanted to persist with the identification of the mummy KV 55 as Smenkhkare, one has to postulate that Smenkhkare would be the father of Tutankhamun: ‘Aufgrund der archäologischen und biologischen Untersuchungen darf als gesichert gelten, dass es sich bei dem Toten um König Semenchkare handelt, auch wenn seine Herkunft zunächst ungeklärt blieb.’[48]. [Translation: Based on the archaeological and biological investigations, it may be considered certain that the dead man is King Smenkhkare, even if his origin initially remained unclear]. This statement is against the evidence given by historic inscriptions.
The published genetic study is not without problems: not all data was made public [47]. The Y-DNA data and the mRNA was not published, only on a screen shot in the documentary film one could spot some Y-DNA profile of Tutankhamun [119], but it is unclear if they are genuine or not [140].The identification of mummy CG 61074 to be Amenhotep III was not tested by a comparison with his father Thutmosis IV (mummy CG 61073) [3]. The earlier Kings were genetically tested a decade before by Scott Woodward, but the results were never published. The documentary movie “Secrets of the Pharaohs” (2001) gives some very limited information [123]: it seems that the genetic paternal line of Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II and Thutmosis IV is confirmed. Based on the very limited information, CG 61074 seems to be indeed Amenhotep III, while nothing points towards an identity as usurper Aja. Woodward also found signs of sibling marriages, especially at the beginning and the end of the 18th Dynasty [123]. Such consanguineous marriage politics was suspected [141–143] and recently supported by a new study [144].
Anthropological re-analysis by Strouhal (2010)
Strouhal always was an adamant defender of the Smenkhkare theory. After the genetic results were published, he reassessed the case again [98].
At the end he also gives a list of scientific positions by various researchers, either with archaeological or / and anthropological statements on the assumed age of KV 55 skeleton.
| Researcher | Identification | Age assessment |
| Smith (1912) | Akhenaton | 25-26 years |
| Weigall (1922) | Akhenaton | Not more than 30 years |
| Aldred & Sandison (1962) | Akhenaton | |
| Harrison (1966) | Smenkhkare | 17-25 years |
| Connolly (1969) | Akhenaton | Serological |
| Harrison & Connolly (1969) | Akhenaton | Serological |
EPUB (Wasserzeichen)
