Who were King Tut’s Parents?
- Catherine Campbell
- Aug 2, 2021
- 8 min read
Updated: Jun 17
The Tutankhamun Family Project lead by Zahi Hawiss conducted extensive DNA testing of mummies purported to be related to Tutankhamun in an attempt to identify the relationships between them.
The results of the study published in 2010[i] suggested that the body found in KV55 was Akhenaten and Tutankhamen’s father, the body dubbed Younger Lady from tomb KV35 was both Tut’s mother and a sister of KV55 and the body dubbed KV21a was likely to be the mother of the foetuses buried in Tutankhamun’s tomb and therefore was Ankhesenpaaten, Tutankhamen’s Great Royal Wife and the third daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. However, studies by other geneticists since the results were released, have cast doubt on these conclusions.
Based on the genetic markers from the different bodies, Kate Phizackerly, in her reassessment of the DNA results of the Egyptian Study[ii], has proven that it is impossible for KV21a to be both the mother of the foetuses and the daughter of KV55. If KV21a is accepted as Ankhesenpaaten, the body in KV55 cannot be Akhenaten.
It should be noted that the DNA results obtained from KV21a and KV21b were incomplete, despite repeated attempts made to retrieve complete data, so the identification of KV21a as Ankhesenpaaten is open to question. That being said, there are other reasons for doubting the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten as well.
So, who were Tut’s parents?
Let us begin by identifying who they couldn’t be. If KV55 is Tut’s father (as the DNA results suggest), he is not Akhenaten on the following grounds: the body is estimated to be in his early 20’s.
Based on the anthropological data, particularly fusion of the epiphyses and stage of pubic symphysis, an age between adolescent and young adult, 19 to 22 years as previously suggested by Strouhal [8], can be reasonably put forward. FAPAB Research Centre Media Release March 7th 2021[iii].
This is too young to be Akhenaten who, based on a 17 year reign and being the father of at least six girls, the eldest three of which are old enough to have born children of their own during his reign, he must be at least 35 – 45 at death.
The so-called Younger Lady in KV35, (61072) has previously been identified as Nefertiti by Joanna Fletcher but the evidence has since proven that identification was wrong. Firstly, the body is too young, being 25 to 30 at death. Like Akhenaten, Nefertiti must be at least 35 to have born six daughters, three of whom are old enough to have born children during Akhenaten’s reign. Secondly the posture of the body doesn’t support the Younger Lady being a Queen, as both arms have been identified as resting on her thighs[iv], the left arm for Queens of the 18th Dynasty would be positioned crossing the chest with the fist clenched, as the two bodies in KV21 are arranged. Finally, the Younger Lady and KV55 are siblings or perhaps cousins. There is no evidence that Nefertiti is a Kings daughter or a sister of Akhenaten, although she is a cousin, if her Father is Ay, Tiye’s brother and she may be a granddaughter of Thutmose IV (her mother possibly being one of his daughters[v]) like Akhenaten, which would make her Akhenaten’s cousin on both sides. This would also accord well with her title of Hereditary Princess (see my post on this title and its possible meaning).
So, if the Younger Lady and KV55 are the parents of King Tut and they are siblings or at least close relatives such as cousins with similar antecedents, and they are not Akhenaten and Nefertiti, who are they?
The only candidate for KV55 is Smenkare, Akhenaten’s coregent, who likely predeceased him by a few months. But who is Smenkare? We know that he is Akhenaten’s co-regent and chosen successor. We know he was married to Akhenaten’s eldest daughter, Merytaten, who was his Great Royal Wife, as the pair are shown and identified in the tomb of Meryre II (Amarna Tomb TA2). The DNA also suggests that his parents were Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, so he is, most probably, Akhenaten’s younger brother.
Logically then, is the Younger Lady Meretaten? This is unlikely, given that she was buried not as a Queen but as a noblewoman based on the arrangement of the arms. The age of the mummy precludes her being Meketaten, Nefertiti and Akhenaten’s second daughter, as Meketaten died in childbirth around year 12/13 of Akhenaten’s reign. The age of the body does mean she could be Meretaten (body positioning not withstanding). However there is another stumbling block to identifying the Younger Lady as either Meretaten or Meketaten, which is that according to the Tutankhamun Family Project, the Younger Lady is a full sibling of KV55. If KV55 is Smenkare and he is a son of Amenthotep III and Queen Tiye, then the Younger Lady must be one of Tiye and Amenhotep III’s five daughters: Sitamun, Iset, Henuttaneb, Nebetiah or Beketaten. The only one who could be the right age, both to give birth to Tutankhamun and to be age 25 at death, is Beketaten. She is of a similar age to Meretaten. Both girls could be younger than the 25 years minimum age of the younger lady but not older than that. Amenhotep III’s other daughters would be too old to fit that timeframe. If Smenkare (KV55) is a son of Amenhotep and Tiye he is their youngest child, born in the last three years of his father’s reign and age 20 at death in the last year of Akhenaten’s reign.
But if Beketaten is Tut’s mother, and she is still alive at the end of Akhenaten’s reign, why was Smenkare married to Meretaten? This would make no sense. If Beketaten were the mother of Smenkare’s heir and she was still alive, Smenkare would not be married to Merytaten, would he? Another interpretation of the evidence is possible.
Kate Phizackerley’s re-evauation
of the results of the DNA testing produced by The Tutankhamun Family Project team was checked and endorsed by a Genetics Professor (See comments below the article). In her re-evaluation, she suggested a simpler reconstruction of the results was possible than the convoluted solution offered by the Egyptian team that required an unknown Queen of Akhenaten (one of his sisters) to be Tut’s mother. Her solution was the that the Younger Lady was a daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. She proved this solution was possible by deducing the genetic profiles that Akhenaten and Nefertiti would’ve had to have based on the other information of the known genetic profiles of Yuya, Thuya, Amenthotep, Tiye, Tut, KV55 and the babies. This is predicated on the assumption that Nefertiti is a daughter of Ay and therefore her girls have a double dose of Yuya and Thuya’s genetic markers. This would give them a strong likelihood of similar markers to Tiye’s daughters. If Nefertiti is also a granddaughter of Thutmose IV (being a daughter of one of his daughters) as I have speculated elsewhere[vi], this would give the girls even stronger markers, as it would double up the markers on both sides. This means that the Younger Lady could be a daughter of Nefetiti, but equally she could be a daughter of Tiye.
However, there is one more reason why the Younger Lady is still not King Tut’s mother. Nowhere is Tut’s mother mentioned, even though we know his wet nurse was Maia and judging by the size of her tomb she was well loved by the King. This suggests to me that he regarded Maia as his mother and his biological mother died in childbirth. If that is the case, she is not the Younger Lady. However, if she has a similar genetic profile to the Younger Lady, she must be one of the Younger Ladies sisters, either she is one of Tiye’s daughters, or one of Nefertiti’s. We know of one daughter of Nefertiti who is recorded to have died in childbirth at the right time, and the child is shown to have survived the birth. The event is recorded in the Royal tomb at Amarna.
The mother, in this case, is Meketaten.
Therefore, I propose that Tut’s parents are most likely to be Meketaten and Smenkare. Akhenaten lacking a son of his own, made Smenkare his coregent and successor on the basis, not that he was his brother, but because he was the father of his grandson, Tutankhaten.
Meretaten was made his Great Royal wife and upon Smenkare’s premature death just before Akhenaten’s, Nefertiti adopted the same Throne name as Smenkare (with the feminine variation: Anketkheperure) and became Akhenaten’s co-regent. Possibly because he is by now unable to rule alone, he is shown in Meryre’s tomb walking with a cane and may have been quite frail. Thus, Meretaten is their joint Great Royal Wife as shown on the box found in Tutankhamun’s grave goods.
Shortly thereafter Akhenaten dies, Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten Nefertiti becomes King and Meretaten serves as her Great Royal Wife. This all make sense if it is understood that the title Great Royal Wife is a religious and perhaps secular role. It is not one that necessarily implies a sexual relationship, although it can. There are several examples of Kings’ Mothers acting as Great Royal Wives for their sons (Meretre and Amenhotep II is one) and Kings Sisters and Kings Daughters for their fathers. In the latter situations there is evidence of incestuous relationships in the form of offspring, but not in all cases. There is evidence that the title can be held by a woman acting in the role functionally while not being a “wife” in the normal sense we understand that role.
What about the question of Ankhesenpaaten? The identification of the bodies in KV21 was inconclusive because the team wasn’t able to retrieve enough markers to provide a full picture. It is however interesting that the information retrieved for KV21b matches the pattern of markers predicted by Phizackerley for Nefertiti. KV21b is an older female around 45+ years of age, which fits Nefertiti. The younger body, KV21a which was identified as possibly Ankhesenpaaten, Tut’s Queen and the mother of the babies, was so badly preserved that very little can be said conclusively about her, although Phizackerly accepts her identification as Ankhesenpaaten and the mother of the babies. The body was composed of mismatched parts, including two badly clubbed feet. It is not clear if these feet belong to the body or not. If they do and this body is Ankhesenpaaten, then she wouldn’t have been able to walk!
This contradicts the visual images we have of Ankhesenpaaten with Tutunkhamun where she is shown standing where he is shown sitting, shooting a bow. We know from his body that Tut had a misshapen foot and he was buried with many canes. He clearly could only walk with assistance, which is implied in the image of him seated shooting a bow, where she is clearly depicted standing without assistance. Given the “realism” of this period that has Akhenaten depicted with a walking stick in his later years, if Ankhesenpaaten was so afflicted would some sign of it not be hinted at in the images we have of her? Not necessarily, but I would like to think that these badly misshapen feet do not belong to the Princess and Queen we know as Ankhesenpaaten. If they do however, it is likely proof of the doubling up of genetic markers as a result of too close consanguinity between her parents, who while not siblings, may have been first cousins on both sides.
References
[i]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41451669_Ancestry_and_Pathology_in_King_Tutankhamun’s_Family
[ii] https://web.archive.org/web/20100307020356/http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html
[iv] Hawass, Zahi A.; Saleem, Sahar N. (2016), “D. The mummy of the Younger Lady of KV35”, Scanning the Pharaohs: CT Imaging of the New Kingdom Royal Mummies, American University in Cairo Press, ISBN 978-9774166730
[v] Who was Nefertiti’s mother?
[vi] Op cit
Comments