Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Wednesday, April 14, 2010

An article has appeared on a Spanish site which duplicates much of my eariler article showing that KV55 is probably not Akhenaten including extrapolition of the DNA to cover Nefertiti (although I am not credited); however the author comes to a different conclusion than me and opines that KV55 is Akhenaten. In coming to this conclusion it theorises that there was a genetic mutation between the two generations. Unfortunately the author, Juan de la Torre Suárez, President Andalusian Association of Egyptology doesn't cite any evidence for the frequency of mutation in the allele concerned.  Personally I think somatic mutation is unlikley and continue to believe that the evidence points against KV55 being Akhenaten, but when I re-write my article for our new magazine I'll address the mutation point directly and research what is known about mutation frequency in this allele.  (Some alleles are more susceptible to mutation than others.)

However, the article does confirm my view that KV55 and KV35YL need not be siblings.  They identify KV35YL as Beneretmut, the sister of Nefertiti.  

My thanks to Monkia and Andie Byrnes for sending me the link.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The article of Juan de la Torre that you mention is not a duplicate one of yours, you are so wrong. Whatever article on review of recent DNA analysis is a duplicate one? I´m so sorry but it is evident that you did not understand it (not all, at least, perhaps only conclusions), maybe due to the language.
It is not a matter of being credited or not; your article suffer from some mistakes. Sincerely, Teresa Soria.

Anonymous said...

Well eventually one day we will see who is right Theresa!
My gut feeling has always been that the Mummy in kv55 is not Akhenaten but the jury is out for the time being, best wishes

tim said...

Hi Kate

Great work on this subject but since we are only at the beginning of the DNA studies of the royal mummies all of the mummies already studied are tentative in their positions on the family tree. One does not know what the DNA of the mummy known as Seti II and how and if that will affect the position of the mummies of the Thutmoside kings. Also in the Deir el Bahari DB 320 contained the mummies of a number of women who have been traditionally assigned to the late seventeenth early eighteenth dynasty. DNA testing may change this making some of them more relevant to later courts. In this report I am most comfortable that the elder lady is a daughter of Yuya and Thuya and little else. The science is interesting(to a degree)but there is always with time room for improvement.

Cheers

Instituto de Estudios Científicos en Momias said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Instituto de Estudios Científicos en Momias said...

KV55 can't be Akhenaten, because this skeleton pertain to a young male (about 23-25 years)

Best,

Mercedes Gonzalez
Instituto de Estudios Cientificos en Momias (IECIM)
Madrid
Spain

Kate Phizackerley said...

I agree that KV55 is very unlikely to be Akhenaten for other reasons.

Search

Admin Control Panel