I don't belive it!
I found in Joyce Tyldesley's Egypt's Golden Empire - The Age of The New Kingdom that a priest called A. H. Sayce saw when tomb robbers robbed Akhenaten's tomb, destroyed everything and took away the mummy!!!! He wrote it from Luxor in his letters in 1890 in the twenty-sixth of February. (The Academy 933:195)
Is it true? Do you think egyptologysts ever find Akhenaten's mummy? And if yes, do they find it in Amarna or in Thebes? Please vote - I'm really curious.

I really doubt if it was burned in 1890. From the condition in which the Royal Tomb at Aketaten was found, I would say that the mummy was probably distroyed when the tomb was first violated and "trashed".
Starting in the 19th Dynasty, he was considered to be The Heretic of Aketaten and was systematically removed for existance--his name was taken from lists of kings, his temple in Karnak was distroyed, and his tomb was violated and abused. This is when his mummy would have been burned, with the objective of cancelling his after-life.

...yes, once I saw on a site which is showing all the mummies of pharaohs, also a skull which was supposed to be that of Amenhotep IV Akhenaton....I cannot really imagine how could they find proof of their hypotesys.....

they were also showing the mummy that is supposed to be that of Hatshepsut...which is still lying on the florr of KV 60, (?)....who knows?

Joyce Tyledsley wrote they found Hatshepsut's mummy - an old, red-haired woman. And she didn't have teeth. It was so... illusion-destroyer...
In my opinion, I think the family of Akhenaten didn't took the pharaoh's mummy into the Valley of the Kings. I think they brought it to an unknown place. But maybe A. H. Sayce had right. But I'd be sad... I always wanted to see my favourite pharaoh's mummy...

yeah, I read Tyldesley's book and that of Desroches-Noblecourt....final thing is that mummy can possibly be that of Maatkara, but, once again, we have nothing which can prove it for sure...so mummy is still lying on the floor of that tomb....

Sounds so interesting and misterious. But, will we ever know exactly who are the mummies? Maybe modern science will do it, but I never will be sure. Yes, we have a lot of proofs, but... That's why I like ancient Egypt. So misterious... We don't know anything exactly...

...I do think like you...I only wonder why they didn't want to make DNA test...in my opinion the fact that it is an invasive test is just an excuse....when Hawass wanted to prove that Joan Fletcher was saying foolishness about the hipothesys of the mummy of Nefertiti, he didn't hesitate to make the test on that mummy to prove that that was a Male and not Female....why didn't he do that on Tut?....what I think is that this way he's gonna have something to say in his "dark" period, when nothing will come out, he'll have some new scoop to declare to the international press, he will have some new and fresh money from National Geographic or Discovery Channel, or whatever TV channel who will be ready to pay him some more money...what do you think about that?

Sorry for answering late, I had to use my dictionary... so much...
Joan Fletcher?... umm... the "Nefertiti Resurrected"? I saw that show, it gave me food for thougt. There are so many shows on Discovery and NG like 'Who murdered King Tut?' and so on when they try to prove who killed the king, and the end of the show an agent tell you it was Horemheb. Some weeks ago, I heard in the news: no-one killed Tut. He had an accident... so, that's about shows... What about Hawass' 'dark period'? Sorry, but I haven't heard about it. He wanted only money??? Huh... Anyway, I don't understand why he didn't make that test. It would be an answer for a lot of questions. 'Dark period?' Oh my god... I thought Hawass is a clever, quick-witted egyptologist and opened for the new things... Correct me, if I said something wrong...

I meant "dark period" as to say a period during which he is not earning money from TV channels!!
I'm sorry, that's similar to an italian expression "periodo buio".....eheheh...I didn't mean anything else!
about the DNA test:
-Hawass says they didn't do it on King Tut because it is an invasive test ( to do it, they have to prelevate a small portion of tissue) and they firmly believe that they should not disturb his mummy anymore....
-Hawass didn't feel the same when he was about to have the same test on the mummy of the "unknown", on which doc Fletcher was proposing her new..."theory"...
I say: what about the disturbance to the mummy? does it work only for King Tut? Or does Mr Hawass want to keep some more secrets in order to sell TV rights to the TVs when he will be facing his "dark period"?

That was my question....sorry for my english, sometimes it gets complicated to explain clearly!

Hey, that is quite a coincidence! I really have no idea, myself!

uhm...just to break your....dreams: xray has been taken in 68 and 78....it's not 40 at all!