I don't think either body has been found... if so let me know, give me a URL on it.

As far as the elongated skulls are concerned this is no joke, They have found skulls with elongated heads. They were not all 'tape & bound" as some were. These found were real, not artificialy deformed.

So as far as the dipictions in the Armarna period, I'd say we have no proof because we do not have the mummy. However, it is a possiblity their heads were that way. The ‘Shemsu-Hor’ are thought to have this head shape as well.



When some of these pictures (the first two) were posted on a newsgroup, for all eyes to scrutinize, the majority of people assumed that they represented an example of binding of the head, well known to be in fashion in ancient Nubia, Egypt and other cultures. Indeed the skulls show the capacity of holding about the same volume of brain matter as present day humans. But anthropoligists have admitted that the shapes of the Peruvian skulls is unlike the deformity caused by binding.

you might want to look at the site...


Deb

The Mayans did that to newborn children by presing two boards against the head. They also dangled a shiny object in the sunlight to make the eyes squint. Pretty screwed up.

The mummy of Amenhotep III can be seen at:

http://www.secker.fsbusiness.co.uk/amenhotep3.html

Do you have any examples of Egyptian skulls that were deformed, debraregypt? Those you posted seem to be all from Peru.
That of Amenhotep III does not seem to be mis-shaped at all. I have to agree with the opinion of it being part art and part reality. But to the best of my recollection, I have seen no mummies or skulls from Egypt that have any deformation. I think you'll agree, though, that in the art of Amarna elongated skulls were an artistic way of showing support and admiring Akhenaten. This shows itself very well in the tombs of the royal supporters in Amarna. Elongated faces, pot bellies and spindly legs are the rule of thumb--but such mummies do not exist.

The Armana Mummy
dates unknown (18th Dynasty)

No mummy has proved as controversial as the remains found in tomb KV55 by Theodore Davis in 1907. The situation hasn't been helped by the 'excavation' of the tomb, which was (to be fair) a disaster.

In this small, hastily-assembled tomb a mummy was laying in a coffin from which the names had been erased, wrapped in gold bands (that were stolen shortly afterwards and never recovered) that displayed the name of Akhenaten.

Davis virtually immediately took the mummy outside the tomb, grabbed a passing doctor and claimed to have found the body of Queen Tiye (wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Akhenaten).

The remains (Davis had succeeded in reducing it to a disarticulated skeleton) were sent to Grafton Elliot Smith in Cairo, who wrote back 'are you sure the bones you sent me were those that were found in the tomb?' Smith had expected the bones of an old woman. He was sent what he took to be the remains of a young man.

Smith was convinced the remains were those of Akhenaten's, although he found it difficult to age the mummy at more than 30. In fact, most of the evidence indicated that this individual had been around 25 years old at the time of death.

Smith thought the skull exhibited signs of hydrocephalus, although he admitted that parts of the skull had been mislaid in transport.

Over the years, despite the fact that of all the names found in and around KV55 his is conspicuously absent, scholars have generally (and grudgingly) concluded that the remains must be those of Smenkhkare, the supposed successor of Akhenaten.

However, a new examination of research done on the skull in 1978 raises the possibility that the body may actually have be that of a woman - and if it is, the weight of the evidence favours it being the mummy of Tutankhamen's mother Kiya.

DNA research (which is still possible) would resolve the issue - although if the body in KV55 does turn out to be male after all, its identity remains a mystery.
( )