Tuesday, March 02, 2010

DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten

News from the Valley of the Kings (Kate Phizackerley)

Kate has reviewed the JAMA article and has come to a different view of the KV55 mummy than that proposed by the authors. Here's the abstract, but the complete article is available at the above address.

The paper Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family by Hawass al. (Journal of American Medicine, 2010 - JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647), states that the mummy in KV55 is “probably” Akhenaten – hereafter “the JAMA paper”. The media has accepted the attribution as affirmed fact, although the attribution has attracted considerable comment and debate with a number of writers questioning the forensic data. I believe, however, that the correct focus of dissent to the attribution should be the STR analysis which shows that the KV55 mummy is highly unlikely to be Akhenaten and that an alternative family tree is a better fit to the genetic findings of the Hawass study.

1 comment:

bert.leyns said...

I have - and that since long - the distinct feeling that Mr Hawass, whom I respect highly for his endeavour the preserve the Ancient Egytian Heritage, every now and then launches theories, only for the sake of being the one and only discoverer and sole descriptor of the Ancient Egyptian history. He changes female mummies in male one and vice versa whenever it suits him. Or am I mistaken ?