KV55

25°44′N 32°36′E / 25.733°N 32.600°E / 25.733; 32.600

KV55 is a tomb in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt. It was discovered by Edward R. Ayrton in 1907 while he was working in the Valley for Theodore M. Davis.

Both the tomb's history and the identification of its single occupant are problematic. It is assumed to be a royal cache and reburial dating from the late 18th Dynasty, which was established after the abandonment of Amarna and the dismantling of the royal necropolis there. The mummy found in the tomb is most often identified as either Akhenaten or his successor Smenkhkare. On the basis of the recovered artefacts it is also assumed that the burial at one point contained more than one occupant, either interred on one occasion or over a period of time, Queen Tiye is most often named in this context. It is also clear that the tomb was re-entered at a later time, almost certainly during the 20th Dynasty. It is most likely at this time that other occupants of the tomb were removed and (possibly) relocated to KV35, while the remaining mummy and some of the other artefacts were desecrated and abandoned.

The tomb is often referred to as the Amarna cache, due to the mixed nature of its content.

The entrance to KV55 was uncovered by Ayrton on 6 January 1907, its discovery was brought to Davis's attention on the following day. The tomb was first entered by Ayrton, Davis, Joseph Lindon Smith and (as the representative of the antiquities service) Arthur Weigall on 9 January. On the 11th, photographs were taken of the finds.^[1]. After this Ayrton started with the clearance of the tomb. On 25 January 1907, the coffin and mummy were investigated in situ^[2].

According to a letter from Davis to Gaston Maspero, some of the objects found in KV55 were still in place in January 1908 and their study and attempts at conservation were still ongoing at this later date^[3][4] .

In 1921, Howard Carter, while excavating to the south of the tomb, discovered several items which seem to have originated from KV55. These include a jasper burnisher and some fragments of copper rosettes from a funerary pall^[5].

After the excavation of the tomb its entrance was fitted with a steel door, which was however removed and replaced by a stone blocking later on. By 1944, this blocking had collapsed resulting in the entrance of the tomb being filled with debris. In 1993, the tomb was cleared again by Lyla Pinch Brock for the Theban Mapping Project and, in 1996, she undertook conservational work on the stairs and the plastering inside the burial chamber^[6]

Three days prior to the discovery of KV55 Ayrton uncovered a recess in the rock (now designated as KVC) containing jars of 20th dynasty type that was located immediately above the entrance to KV55^[7]. It is possible that this recess was an unfinished tomb commencement and that its content was analogous to the embalming cache found in KV54, but since information regarding this deposit was never properly published the precise nature of its content, the date of the jars and its relation (if there is any) to KV55 below is now unclear^[7][8][9].

KV55 is a relatively small, undecorated, single-chamber tomb, its total length only measuring 27.61 meters.^[6] It is located in the central area of the Valley, immediately adjacent to and below KV 6 (Ramesses IX) and across the valley floor from KV7 (Ramesses II) and the near-contemporary tomb KV62 (Tutankhamun). Orientated almost due east, its entranceway consists of a set of stairs cut into the Valley's bedrock which lead to a gently sloping corridor and then to the tomb's single chamber.

The tomb appears to be unfinished: in the south wall of the burial chamber is a small niche, the commencement of an unfinished antechamber, while red masonry marks within the burial chamber indicate plans for yet another room. When finished these would have made the tomb's layout roughly similar to that of Tutankhamun's. This seems to indicate that KV55, like KV62, was initially intended as a private burial site and only later taken over for a royal internment.^[10].

The tomb is accessed by a flight of 20 steps, cut into the bedrock and covered by an overhanging rock. An ostracon found by Pinch Brock in 1993 has been interpreted as a plan of the tomb, and possibly indicates a widening of the entrance after it had been first cut. This is also suggested by mason's marks found on the walls by the tomb's entrance. It appears that the stairwell has been enlarged, its ceiling raised and the number of steps were increased^[6].

At the time of the discovery in 1907 the stairwell was covered with debris, probably originating from the cutting of KV 6 directly above^[6]. The upper part of this filling was formed by chips cemented together by water, underneath this layer the chips were dry and clean^[11]

When discovered the tomb's outer door was (partially) blocked by two consecutive walls. The primary blocking was formed by a wall of cemented limestone blocks, plastered and stamped with the seal of the Royal Necropolis (with the jackal and nine captives motive)^[12]. Weigall later stated that a fragment of Tutankhamun's seal had been recovered from this original blocking^[13], this however is not corroborated by any of the other reports dating from the time of discovery which leaves Weigall's statement open to question^[14][15].

This first wall had been partially pulled down and the tomb was closed again by a second wall made up out of loose limestone fragments, build up in front of the remains of the first blocking. Due to an ambiguous description of these consecutive blockings by Weigall it is unclear whether this secondary wall was found intact or had been partially pulled down like the primary wall^[16][17].

The sloping corridor beyond the entrance was partially filled up by rubble. Since the secondary blocking was built on top of material originating from this filling, it seems to date from the time of the original interment. At the time of the discovery this rubble had spread down into the burial chamber^[18]. Stains on the ceiling and walls indicate that water had infiltrated the tomb in the past.^[6].

On top of this rubble fill were found a panel and door of a large gilded shrine, the exact position of these items is unclear^[19][20].

The walls of the burial chamber were plastered but otherwise undecorated. This plastering seems to have been done some years after the cutting of the tomb and repairs to it are evident^[6]. As already mentioned, rubble fill from the corridor had spread down into the chamber, partially covering its floor with debris. Elsewhere in the room fragments of plastering which had fallen off the walls and stones which had fallen down from the ceiling covered the floor and the objects found here^[21].

Items found in this room can be grouped into several categories^[22][23]

• Parts of a dismantled, gilded shrine: Related to the panel and door found in the corridor. A door was found lying on the rubble inflow near the entrance to the chamber, large panels were lying on the floor or stacked against the eastern wall, smaller elements (such as doorjambs, lintel and possibly parts of the cornice) were lying on the floor.
• Coffin, mummy and related items: Lying against the southern wall and resting on the decayed remains of a lion-headed bier was a badly damaged coffin, its lid ajar, the base seems to have decayed altogether. The mummy contained in this coffin was badly preserved but its linen wrappings appear to have been intact. The damaged skull had broken loose of the body and was found with a vulture pectoral wrapped around it. The left arm of the body was crossed over the chest, the right arm extended. In the niche above this coffin were found a set of four canopic jars. Also related to this group of items were four magical bricks.
• Remains of boxes and their content: At least two badly preserved boxes were found in the south-eastern corner of the room, their contents spread on the floor appear to have been items related to the opening of the mouth ceremony and faience objects.
• Seal impressions: Several small seal impressions were found underneath the panels of the shrine. These carry Tutankhamun's prenomen and are identical to seal type N found in Tutankhamun's own tomb
• Other items: Their exact location in the chamber is not always clear. Included are a vase stand, fragment of furniture, a silver head of a goose, pall-discs of gilded copper and a statue plinth.

Wooden objects in the burial chamber seem to have suffered from water damage to some extent, most notably the coffin, brier and boxes although the shrine elements appear to have been reasonably solid^[24]. The presence of moisture is also apparent in discolouration visible on some of the faience objects. Other, similar objects appear to be unaffected^[25].

The problems surrounding the interpretation of the KV55 find are in large part due to the shortcomings of Davis's original publication of the excavation. Its mix of fact, assumption, error and omission has obscured a full understanding of the deposit ever since^[26]. The blame for these shortcomings usually falls on Davis (as editor of the publication) and Ayrton (as supervising archaeologist)^[27][28]. Recent careful re-examinations^[29][30] of the original publication, other eyewitness reports and the photographs taken before the tomb was cleared have however brought some clarity in this matter.

Although the tomb was clearly disturbed in antiquity (see below) and while generally the disturbed and chaotic state of the deposit is highlighted^[31] it has been noted that this disarray might be more apparent than real. A recent reconstruction of the lay-out of the find indicates an orderly and deliberate arrangement and it is suggested that the apparent chaos might be caused by the rubble coming from the corridor, stones and plaster coming from the walls and ceiling and the poor condition of wooden objects due to water damage^[32]. The cemented chips and the stains in the corridor indicate that water coming down the exterior rock-face entered the tomb along the corridor ceiling but the amount of water might not have been great and most damage could have been caused by increased humidity rather than direct contact with water. It has also been suggested that the moisture found underneath the coffin might have been the result of modern rainfall in the days prior to the discovery and that some of the damage might be the result of other agents such as insect attack^[33].

A recent reconstruction of the shrine^[34], based on photographic evidence, drawings,descriptions and two planks belonging to it that are on display in Cairo, indicate that in general appearance and size it resembled Tutankhamun's second and third shrines. The presence of copper rosettes indicate a funeral pall draped on a frame associated with the shrine, which is also comparable to Tutankhamun's burial equipment^[35]. The decoration and text on the shrine are however markedly different from those in found in Tutankhamun's tomb: there is less text, which seems primarily concerned with titles, names and the dedication of the shrine rather than with text from funerary books. The decoration is dominated by large offering scenes rather than a multitude of smaller mythological ones^[36]. Another difference is seen in the lack of decoration on the inside^[37].

The text on the shrine state that it was made by Akhenaten for his mother Tiye. With the exception of one occurrence the names of Akhenaten were erased and in some places were substituted with those of Amenhotep III in ink. ^[38]. A reference is also made in the text to the "House of the Aten in Akhetaten" which might indicate the shrine was made and originally used in Amarna^[39]. The decoration, which appears to have been very similar on all sides of the shrine, features Akhenaten and Tiye making offerings to the Aten and seem to focus on the king rather than his mother. As is the case with his names, Akhenaten's figure was erased from the scenes again however with one exception^[40].

The orderly arrangement of the shrine parts inside the tomb seem to indicate it once stood up with its doors facing south and that it was later dismantled in the tomb^[41]. it also suggest that, unlike in the case of Tutankhamun's shrines, no other shrines were ever present in KV55^[42].

The presence of her shrine is usually seen as evidence that Tiye was once interred in KV55, placed inside the erected shrine. Other objects inscribed with her name (such as the piece of furniture) and with those of Amenhotep III are also seen as belonging to her funerary equipment. The seal impressions found near the east wall might indicate further items which were removed together with the queen's mummy at some later point^[43].

Evidence that the coffin found in the tomb was originally made for a woman and was only at a later point adapted to accommodate a king through alterations to the inscriptions and the addition of a false beard, uraeus and crook and flail was recognised early on by Georges Daressy^[44], and while the identity of this original female owner has been the matter of much discussion over the years (Tiye, Nefertiti, Meketaten and Meritaten have all been suggested^[45]) it is now widely accepted that this person was Akhenaten's second wife Kiya^[46]. It is now also recognised that the four canopic jars originally belonged to Kiya and that the portraits on the stoppers are hers. These jars were, like the coffin, only later altered for a king (through the erasure of Kiya's titulary and the addition of a uraeus to each stopper)^[47].

Although the names on the coffin texts had been erased in antiquity, early reconstructions indicated that these text were altered for Akhenaten as the intended occupant^[48]. Later suggestions that the coffin texts were changed to accommodate Smenkhkare (either from an original female owner or from an originally private coffin for Smenkhkare himself) are now usually disregarded^[49]. Likewise the erasure of Kiya's titulary from the canopic jars would have made them apply to Akhenaten exclusively^[50][51].

Further evidence that the occupant of the coffin was Akhenaten is provided by the magical bricks found inside the tomb. Two of these are inscribed in hieratic, but they are poorly preserved and the name of their owner is lost. The other two are however of better quality and their hieroglyphic inscriptions identify them as belonging to the Osiris Neferkheprure Waenre (i.e. Akhenaten)^[52]. The fact that all four bricks were orientated correctly and that three of them were positioned in close association with the coffin indicates that they all belonged together and were made for the coffin's occupant^[53], who therefore should be identified as Akhenaten.

The mummy found in the tomb was however at first identified as belonging to a woman by two visiting physicians who examined the remains in situ. This led Davis to conclude he had found the mummy of queen Tiye and he therefore published his account of the discovery as The Tomb of Queen Tiyi.^[54]. As possible reasons for this initial identification the (typical female) position of the mummy's arms^[55], post-mortem damage to the pelvic bones^[56] and the absence of male genitalia^[57] have been suggested. But when anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith examined the skull and bones in Cairo a few months later he concluded that they were those of a young male, with wide hips, a pendent chin and distorted cranium brought on by chronic hydrocephalus^[58]. The age of death he estimated as being around 25 years^[59] although he later suggested the possibility that the body had suffered from Frölich's syndrome which delayed normal skeletal maturation^[60]. These results where seen to support the initial claims by Weigall, Maspero and Smith, based on other evidence found in the tomb (see above) that the body was that of Akhenaten^[61].

Later re-examinations of the remains confirmed Smith's original identification of the mummy as belonging to a young male (although with feminine trends^[62]) but pushed the estimated age of death back to around 20 years^[63]. These re-examinations also indicated that the body showed no signs of delayed maturation^[64] and that, while the skull was of unusual shape, it certainly wasn't abnormal^[65], and showed no indication of hydrocephalus^[66]. Reconstruction of the facial features of the skull also indicated that there was no resemblance with Akhenaten's representation on his monuments^[67][68]. It must be remembered though, that Akhenaten's representation's are highly stylised. After the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun a close resemblance was noted between his mummy and the body found in KV55 and later tests showed both shared the same blood-group (A2) and serum antigen (MN), all of which suggests Tutankhamun and the individual found in KV55 were closely related to each other,^[69] either as father and son, or brothers. Based on these results it was concluded that the KV55 body was too young to be Akhenaten and they were seen to support the claim that the mummy was that of Smenkhkare, an idea first proposed by Rex Engelbach in 1931^[70].

In view of the other evidence in the tomb (see above) identification of the KV55 mummy as that of Smenkhkare or Akhenaten remains nevertheless problematic. It has also been pointed out that the reliability of methods to asses the age of death for mummies in general is uncertain^[71]. For these reasons the correctness of the age estimates has been repeatedly called into question^{[72][73][74][75]}. This opinion might find support in the latest analysis of the skeletal remains which indicate an age of death around 35 years (based on dentition) or even later (based on anthropological standards and new X-rays of the long bones)^[76][77]. Most examinations place the mummy at 20–25 years at death, though some still assess the mummy as 35, years. the archaeological and inscriptional evidence at least indicates that the ancient Egyptians who buried (and later desecrated) the body in KV55 believed this to be Akhenaten's^[78][79].

The deposit as it was found in KV55 presents a mixture of apparently chronological and religious anomalies^[80]. Objects inscribed with Amenhotep III's nomen and pre-nomen might be contemporary with that king's reign and could be interpreted as possessions of queen Tiye. Other items inscribed with Tiye's name (such as the shrine and furniture elements) also clearly belonged to her. Akhenaten's presence is indicated by items originally inscribed for him (such as the magical bricks) and items that were adapted for his use (such as the coffin and canopic jars). It is nevertheless highly unlikely that either of these two burials within KV55 was original. In the case of Tiye, evidence found in tomb WV22 suggests that Amenhotep III prepared her burial in his own tomb. However, the fact that Tiye outlived her husband by possibly as much as twelve years seems to have disrupted such plans^[81]. From inscriptional evidence on the KV55 shrine on the other hand, it seems likely that Tiye was buried at Amarna by her son Akhenaten. In the case of Akhenaten it seems almost certain that he was originally buried in the tomb he prepared for himself in the Amarna royal wadi^[82]. Although it is unclear whether or not the original blocking of the tomb was stamped with Tutankhamun's seal, the several small seal impressions carrying his prenomen are most likely related to the reburial(s) in KV55 since he was probably not involved in the original burial preparations of either Tiye (who died several years before Tutankhamun came to the throne) or Akhenaten (who presumably was buried by his co-regent and probable immediate successor Smenkhkare)^[83].

One scenario, suggested by Nicholas Reeves, is as follows: Akhenaten and his mother, Queen Tiye, were originally entombed at Akhenaten's new capital Akhetaten (modern Amarna) but their mummies were moved to KV55 following the total abandonment of Akhetaten during the reign of Tutankhamun, who was likely Akhenaten's son by his secondary wife, Kiya. The door to KV55 was sealed with Tutankhamun's name. There the mummies remained for about 200 years, until the tomb was rediscovered by workmen excavating the tomb of Ramesses IX nearby. By this time, Akhenaten was reviled as the "heretic king"; consequently, Queen Tiye's sarcophagus was hastily removed from his defiling presence, except for its surrounding gilded wooden shrine which would have had to be dismantled for removal. Akhenaten's likeness was chiseled off of the shrine's carved relief. Moreover, the gold face mask was ripped from Akhenaten's sarcophagus and his identifying cartouche was removed from its hieroglyphic inscription, thus consigning its occupant to oblivion. As a final insult, a large rock was thrown at the coffin.^[84] However, a finely made vulture pectoral—a symbol of royalty in Ancient Egypt—was still found placed around this mummy's head.^[85]

In 1923, Harry Burton used KV55 as a darkroom to develop his photographs documenting Howard Carter's excavation of Tutankhamun's tomb.

• Theban Mapping Project: KV55 – Plans of the tomb and other details.

• Aldred, C. (1988). Akhenaten, King of Egypt. Thames and Hudson.
• Bell, M.R. (1990). "An Armchair Excavation of KV 55". JARCE. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |Volume= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help)
• Davis, T.M. (1990). The Tomb of Queen Tiyi. KMT Communications.
• Gabolde, M. "Under a Deep Blue Starry Sky" (PDF). Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
• Reeves, C.N. (1990). Valley of the Kings. Keegan Paul.
• Reeves, C.N. (2005). Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet. Thames & Hudson.
• Reeves, C.N. (1997). The Complete Valley of the Kings. Thames & Hudson. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Romer, J. (1981). Valley of the Kings. Henry Holt.
• Weigall, A.E.P.B. (1912). The Treasury of Ancient Egypt. Rand McNally and Company.

An exhaustive bibliography is available in Davis (1990), p. xv and following