The blogosphere has produced some good commentary on the recent JAMA article I discussed here.
The improbably-named Shoveling Ferret blog has a four-part series discussing the article:
Part 1:
http://shovelingferret.blogspot.com/2010/02/commentary-on-recent-tutankhamun.html
Part 2:
http://shovelingferret.blogspot.com/2010/02/commentary-on-recent-tutankhamun_18.html
Part 3:
http://shovelingferret.blogspot.com/2010/02/commentary-on-recent-tutankhamun_19.html
Part 4:
http://shovelingferret.blogspot.com/2010/02/commentary-on-recent-tutankhamun_8728.html
The author has an MA in Egyptology from Chicago and her commentary is often quite amusing, so I highly recommend checking it out.
Of course not everyone agrees with the conclusions of the JAMA article. This blogger has posted an in-depth refutation of the idea that the KV55 mummy could be Akhenaten: http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html
I’m not a geneticist (I don’t even play one on TV), so I can’t comment on the scientific accuracy of her conclusions. But I think there’s a very strong possibility that the ancient Egyptians at least thought the KV55 mummy was the body of Akhenaten, given its desecrated state. There’s also the circumstantial evidence of the presence of some of his grave goods in the tomb. If the mummy is in fact NOT Akhenaten, how do we explain these things?
The Quote of the Day though comes from Justine over at Shoveling Ferret. She has this to say about the intricacies of Amarna-period royal genealogy:
Pedigree charts are annoying enough, but add in a heaping helping of incest and I’m just like “dude, they were all fucking each other and then they died, the end!”