A very thourough analysis of what might be missing in the already famous 'JAMA article on Tut's parentage':
The paper Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family by Hawass al. (Journal of American Medicine, 2010 - JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647), states that the mummy in KV55 is “probably” Akhenaten, although the attribution has attracted considerable comment and debate with a number of writers questioning the forensic data.
In the JAMA paper, Hawass et al. outline what they see as the most likely 5-generational family tree including the identification of the KV55 mummy and KV35YL as full siblings. I accept the family tree with the exception of the sibling identification which I believe should be questioned and the identification of Akhenaten.
The age at death of the KV55 mummy has attracted considerable debate. The forensic assessment of the age at death based upon skeletal and dental analysis remains contentious. Since this paper identifies that the KV55 mummy is not Akhenaten on genetic grounds, I don’t discuss the forensic assessment at the age of death in detail. However, I note in passing that once the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten is set aside, the this forensic data ceases to be problematic – at least for now – as so little is known of Smenkhare (if indeed the KV55 mummy is even he).
Go to http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-that-kv55-mummy-probably-not.html for the rest of the discussion.