With Amun now the King of the Gods, his earthly consort came into her own wealth and authority in a way that would ultimately shatter the glass ceiling of Egyptian politics, at least for a while…

When studying religious and political institutions in ancient Egypt, very rarely can we point to a specific person, time, and place and say “that is where it all began.”  The God’s Wife of Amun is unique in that aspect.  True, the genesis of the title and its original purpose are lost in the murky traditions of overlapping and often contradictory provincial religions.  And true, we are not 100% certain of who the first royal God’s Wife may have been.  But there are some things we do know.

We know, for instance, that the office of God’s Wife of Amun underwent a complete restructuring in the early years of the New Kingdom, when it was endowed with wealth and status that elevated it to one of the most powerful institutions in ancient Egypt.  We know the individual who set these changes in motion was none other than Ahmose I, Hero of Thebes and Champion of Amun.  And we know that the first person to hold the reinvented office was his queen, Ahmose-Nefertari.

As with both Thebes and Amun, the story of the God’s Wife is a tale of upward mobility.  Just as Thebes began as a backwater county seat, and Amun began as an abstract creative principle, the God’s Wife started out as just one character in a cast of many in the creation dramas of Egypt’s temples.  But also like her patron city, which rose to become the capital of all Egypt, and her divine consort, who was raised to the status of King of the Gods, the God’s Wife of Amun became the quintessential case study in power politics.

Before we look at what the title of God’s Wife came to entail under the auspices of Pharaoh Ahmose, let’s first look at what it meant in its more humble years.  The details are scanty, but there is enough to lay a foundation that will enable us to place her in her historical, religious, and political contexts.

God’s Wives in the Middle Kingdom

The first mention of God’s Wives occurs in the Middle Kingdom Period, particularly in the Tenth and Twelfth Dynasties.  Although they were not royal women, having a daughter or wife who was a God’s Wife, Divine Adoratrice, or temple musician or chantresses was a sign of prestige.  The daughters of priests, relatives of the royal family, and influential nobles and courtiers were prime candidates for these posts.  Offices of this type were often exchanged for favors and were part of the capital with which the temple bartered.

A priest leading a procession of temple chantresses (Photo by vxla)

God’s Wives during the Middle Kingdom were an order of priestesses who performed special rites associated with their patron deity’s role in creation.  In addition to the God’s Wives of Amun, who was worshipped almost exclusively at Thebes at this time, there were God’s Wives of Ptah, the creator god revered at Memphis, and God’s Wives of Min, also a god of fertility and creation.  As with Ptah and Min, Amun was associated mostly with his role as creator during the Middle Kingdom Period, and the God’s Wives were just part of the temple staffs rather than a specific person associated only with the cult of Amun.

Twosret, a God’s Wife from the Nineteenth Dynasty, playing sistrums for Amun (Photo by John D. Croft)

Specific details of the God’s Wives duties and functions are practically non-existent, but based on what we know from other aspects of temple liturgy and ritual we can make some pretty informed guesses.  Just from her role as the wife of the creator god, we can logically presume that she would have symbolically performed the role of consort in the act of creation.  The later God’s Wives of Amun, for example, would dance and play the sistrum before the god’s statue to arouse him to the act of creation.

God’s Wives probably carried out other duties such as singing hymns and presenting food offerings before the god.  Chanters and musicians were ubiquitous to religious processions, and God’s Wives undoubtedly participated in these public and private aspects of worship.  During the New Kingdom Period the God’s Wife of Amun assumed many of the duties of the High Priest, but there is no evidence to conclude that her station was so elevated during the earlier years. 

Musicians and chanters in adoration of Montu, from a Middle Kingdom temple at Madu, near Luxor

God’s Wives in the Second Intermediate Period

It is not entirely clear whether or not there were God’s Wives during the Second Intermediate Period, as there are no attestations that date from that time.  This was during the era of the Hyksos occupation, and the office may have been altered or phased out in many places.  But if it survived anywhere, it would make sense that it would have survived at Thebes, where native Egyptian traditions were maintained by the local nobility.  There is some evidence that this may have been the case. 

A scene from Khabekhnet’s tomb depicting his mummification (Photo by Helmut Satzinger, courtesy of Lenka and Andy Peacock)

The suggestion that there may have been God’s Wives during the Second Intermediate Period comes from a scene in the tomb of Khabekhnet, a Nineteenth Dynasty artisan who was himself a tomb worker in the Theban Necropolis. 

One of the privileges of being a royal tomb worker was that you had the tools and skills to craft for yourself a tomb fit for a king.  Khabekhnet left a beautifully decorated tomb in which he pays homage to deceased members of the royal family, who frequently had local cults in which they were revered as gods. 

Four God’s Wives from the Tomb of Khabekhnet—Are two from the Second Intermediate Period?

One scene in Khabekhnet’s tomb depicts four royal women whom he calls God’s Wives.  One is named Kamose, thought to refer to a known Eighteenth Dynasty God’s Wife named Sitkamose, whom we will examine in depth later in this series.  Another name is illegible.  But the other two, Sit-ir-bau and Ta-khered-qa, may have lived during the latter years of the Second Intermediate Period, and do not appear on lists of God’s Wives from the Eighteenth Dynasty (See Anneke Bart, Ancient Egypt:  God’s Wife of Amun).  Could they have been God’s Wives—royal God’s Wives no less—from the Seventeenth Dynasty?

This comes with the caveat that Khabekhnet lived during the reign of Ramesses II, some 250-300 years after the time in question.  It was also not unusual for the title of God’s Wife of Amun to be conferred posthumously, although this was typically done by pharaohs and had to do with exalting their mothers and legitimizing their own succession.  But this fragment of evidence hints that the office of God’s Wife may have been reformed rather than revived, and keeping the position active may have been another way in which Thebes remained faithful to Amun during the occupation.

Reformation:  God’s Wives at the Dawn of the New Kingdom

The woman who would be king—Hatshepsut (Photo by Keith Payne)

Beginning with the New Kingdom Period the office of God’s Wife of Amun becomes something entirely different from anything that had ever existed before.  Ultimately, her authority will surpass that of the High Priest of Amun (Taylor, p. 338) and will come close to that of the pharaoh himself (p. 360).  These particular developments did not occur until the Third Intermediate Period, but even as early as the New Kingdom her power was such that a particularly determined God’s Wife used her influence to actually become a pharaoh.  More about her later.

Many lists of God’s Wives of Amun place Ahmose I’s mother, the celebrated Queen Ahhotep I, as the first royal woman to hold the office.  But as with Sit-ir-bau and Ta-khered-qa, there is a lack of corroborating evidence from Ahhotep’s lifetime attributing the title to her, which calls into question whether she ever actually held the position.  In fact, the only place where she is called a God’s Wife is in the inscriptions on the lid of her coffin.

The first royal woman we can say with near certainty was a God’s Wife of Amun was Ahmose’s queen, Ahmose-Nefertari.  With Nefertari we have not only an abundance of attributions from her lifetime, we have the actual legal document that confers upon her the newly reconstituted office and all rights, privileges and properties contained therein.  For these details we shall resume with the story of the Hero of Thebes and the founding of the New Kingdom.

Ahmose I:  Hero, Champion, and Benefactor

Champion of Amun, Hero of Thebes—Pharaoh Ahmose I (Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)

AhmoseOur story picks up after Ahmose I’s defeat of the Hyksos and their allies, and the corralling of the remaining dissidents.  As detailed in The Rise of Thebes, The Rise of Amun, Ahmose then began a program of construction and restoration funded by the opening of trade routes with Syria and copper mines in the Sinai, not to mention the gold that came out of Nubia.  The newly-founded Eighteenth Dynasty was cash rich and well-placed to repair the misfortunes war had inflicted on Thebes.

The specifics of Ahmose’s reconstruction of Thebes, as well as his investments in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, are provided by three stelae recovered from the temple complex. 

The stelae appear to chronicle a devastating flood and Ahmose’s response, although reading between the lines leaves the impression that the flood may have been a cover story to excuse the destitution of the temple following the wars.  But flood or no flood, the picture that emerges is one of the Estate of Amun desperate for a benefactor and a pharaoh willing to open the coffers.

The first stele, discovered at the Third Pylon at Karnak, is called the Tempest Stele.  It describes a catastrophic storm sent to punish Thebes for her neglect of one of Amun’s major statues, and details Ahmose’s expenditures in repairing the tombs, temples, and pyramids that were damaged. 

Based on how the king’s name appears on the stele, it is believed that it dates from before his twenty-second regnal year (Claude Vandersleyden, as cited by The Thera Foundation:  “A Storm in Egypt during the Reign of Ahmose”). 

It has been proposed that the storm described in the Tempest Stele was the result of a volcanic eruption that destroyed the Aegean island of Thera (also called Santorini), which is believed to have occurred early in Ahmose I’s reign.

Since the stele was erected to commemorate the repairs at Thebes, some time must have elapsed between the storm itself and the erection of the stele upon completion of the repairs. If the storm attested by the stele was caused by the Thera eruption, a date in the reign of Ahmose before year 22 would support the traditional chronology…”  (Source) 

Ritual objects such as this solid gold bowl from the tomb of Djehuty, an Eighteenth Dynasty General, may have been handed over to fund the war during the Third Intermediate Period (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

Another stele, discovered at the Eighth Pylon and which we will call (unofficially!) the Benefactor Stele, dates from the eighteenth year of Ahmose’s reign and again describes the king’s magnanimity regarding the Estate of Amun.  Of particular interest is the nature of his gifts, which included items such as gold and silver ritual vessels and jewelry that, on the one hand, would have been important to the functioning of the temple, but on the other hand would have been valuable to support the war effort.

The objects donated by the king to Karnak are the most essential cult furniture, and their dedication may indicate that the temple was utterly without precious metal objects at this point.  It is impossible to say whether this would have been due to the action of a great storm, as the king asserts in the Tempest Stele, but temple cult objects…might also have been important financial resources for the Thebans during the arduous years of the Seventeenth Dynasty.  (Bryan, 2000, p. 221)

Ahmose I makes an offering to Amun in a scene from the Donation Stele

The third stele, also discovered at the base of the Third Pylon, is called the Donation Stele.  Again we have an account of the pharaoh’s largess, but this time there is a clearly stated quid pro quo.  Ahmose is not just making a donation, he is actually purchasing something, a temple position called the “second priesthood of Amun,” which is to be granted to his wife, Ahmose-Nefertari.  The queen had already been installed as the God’s Wife by this time, making this in effect a conjoining of two previously separate offices within the temple hierarchy.

The fact that Ahmose-Nefertari was already the God’s Wife raises its own set of questions, since it is not known when she was conferred the title, only that it was not simultaneous with the creation of the New and Improved God’s Wife, as detailed in the Donation Stele.  If Nefertari came to the office completely independent of its amalgamation with the second priesthood of Amun, then there is no reason to presume that she was the first royal woman to hold the title.  Perhaps there were God’s Wives during the Second Intermediate Period after all, and Ahmose-Nefertari was simply the next in line.

But the Donation Stele does not just combine two offices, it lays out the schema for a new institution that was a lot more than the sum of its original parts.  Recall that Ahmose was the same tactician who defeated the Hyksos by superior planning.  He took advantage of the seasonal floods, bypassed the targets that were braced for his attack and seized strategic positions that cut Avaris off from both assistance and escape.  If anything, the Donation Stele reflects a similar amount of forethought and nothing, including having the queen already installed as God’s Wife, should be considered superfluous. 

From the Law Offices of Ahmose & Co.:  The Donation Stele

The Donation Stele describes not only the fusion of the God’s Wife and the second priesthood, it also details the endowment of an estate attached to the new office that was separate and independent of both the Priesthood of Amun and the pharaoh himself. 

These assets, called the House, or Estate, of the Adoratrice (not to be confused with the Divine Adoratrice, a distinction which we will explore in the very near future), along with the office itself were the domain of the God’s Wife, to be passed on as she saw fit, to whom she saw fit, without interference.  The ancient contract is very clear on this matter:

Done in the presence of [the council?] of the lands of the city and the servants of the temple of Amun.  What was said in the majesty of the palace, (life!, prosperity!, health!), in… [saying]: …[I have given] the office of the second priest of Amun to the god’s wife, great royal wife, she united to the beauty of the white crown, Ahmose-Nefertary, may she live!…

I have given to her male and female servants, and four hundred oipe of barley and six arouras of inundated land as an excess over the 1,010 shenau.  Her office will be at the value of 600 shenau.  The office is completed for her, it being endowed…

Then the majesty of this god said: “I am her protector.  A challenge to her shall not occur forever by any king who shall arise in the following of future generations.  But only the god’s wife Nefertary.  It belongs to her from son to son forever and ever in accordance with her office of god’s wife.  There is not one who shall say, ‘Except for me’. There is not another who can speak.”  (Bryan, 2003, pp. 3-4)

The final paragraph leaves no doubt as to the intent of the contract—the combined office of God’s Wife and second priesthood belonged to Nefertari and could not be touched by any present or future king, period.  To add extra weight, the paragraph comes in the form of an oracle from Amun himself:  “Then the majesty of this god said…”  The stele also contains a very specific legal proviso which guaranteed her right to name her successor, and that this right would carry over, with all other rights and properties, to that successor.

The clauses pertaining to heirship were drafted under the aegis of a legal device known as imyt per, which was a means of “transferring property outside the normal lines of inheritance” (Bryan, 2003, p. 4).  Imty per allowed a benefactor to transfer property while still living or as part of a will, and contained stipulations that nullified traditional inheritance.  So instead of following convention and going to her eldest son, all properties of the God’s Wife associated with her title went to a successor of her choosing.  Imty per also allowed her to confer her title and properties while she still lived and could personally see her succession through.

Ahmose-Nefertari—First New Kingdom God’s Wife of Amun and possibly the most powerful woman in human history up to that point.

At this point it would be fair to ask regarding this unprecedented compact, cui bono?  It would be noble to think that after the example set by his own mother, Ahhotep, Matriarch of the Revolution, that Ahmose was merely assuring that there would always be a female sovereign to check the power of kings and priests.  Another somewhat less noble but more probable motive was the projection of royal authority into the temple hierarchy that the office provided.  But these two motives are not mutually exclusive, as Bryan notes:

The king was able to purchase the second most important priesthood and further endow its title holder in concert with the position of god’s wife. This not only assured the god’s wife direct involvement in the Amun priesthood, but it also guaranteed a similar connection for the king who sponsored the god’s wife.  (2003, p. 5)

Ahmose had restored wealth and dignity to the Estate of Amun and in so doing had secured for his dynasty the gratitude of the priesthood and an implicit and explicit covenant with Amun.  But the combining of the God’s Wife with the second most powerful office of the temple, the second priesthood, and endowing the new office with an estate which guaranteed independence from priest and potentate alike, assured that at least some royal women would have a voice of their own in how the politics and religion of the New Kingdom unfolded.

Many of Ahmose I’s reforms would be watered down in the coming decades, but his intent was clear—he sought to create a sovereign office for the queen and her heirs which carried its own inherent spiritual and secular leverage.  Regardless of ulterior motives, not the least of which were the obvious implications of being able to say that your mother had coupled with the King of the Gods, the liberties bequeathed on the God’s Wife of Amun by the Donation Stele are undeniable.

In the next installment of this series, The House of the Adoratrice:  Demesne of the God’s Wife of Amun, we will take a specific look at what properties and privileges the Donation Stele granted to the office of the God’s Wife and how they constituted a sort kingdom within the kingdom.  We will also examine what her duties and functions were within the temple, and how these related to another position of power for women within the Estate of Amun, the Divine Adoratrice.

Works Cited

Bart, Anneke.  Online:  Ancient Egypt:  God’s Wife of Amun.

Bryan, Betsy.  “The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period.”  The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.  218-271.

—–  “Property and the God’s Wives of Amun.”  Paper from the conference “Women and Property,” organized and collected by Deborah Lyons and Raymond Westbrook.  Boston:  Harvard U, Ctr for Hellenic Std, 2003.  Available for download here.

Davis, E.N.  Online:  The Thera Foundation:  A Storm in Egypt during the Reign of Ahmose.  1990.

Taylor, John.  “The Third Intermediate Period.”  The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.  330-368.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Images “Min” and “Ptah”, based on originals by Jeff Dahl, and photograph “Twosret” by John D. Croft are used in acordance with the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2.  Photograph “Temple Chantresses” by vxla is used in accordance with the Creative Commons 2.0 Generic License.  Photo “AhmoseI-StatueHead MetropolitanMuseum” by Keith Schengili-Roberts is used in accordance with the Creative Commons 2.5 Generic License.   Photographs “Ahmose Nefertari” and “Medamoud (Medu) Procession” are in the public domain, as is “Four God’s Wives from tomb of Khabekhnet” by Lepsius (See also Anneke Bart, God’s Wife of Amun).  Photographs “Gold Bowl”, and “Judgment papyrus of Hunefer” (which was sampled for the “Ahmose & Co.” graphic) are by Jon Bodsworth, who has kindly released them to the public domain.  Photo “Tomb scene from Khabekhnet” by Helmut Satzinger is provided courtesy of Lenka and Andy Peacock.

This account of the ascent of Thebes and the god Amun sets the background for a series that will investigate an order of female pontiffs called the God’s Wives of Amun and how these tributaries converge into the ethos, or pathos, of the Heretic King, Akhenaten.   

The Rise of Thebes, the Rise of Amun

To understand how the office of the God’s Wife of Amun was transformed from an order of temple functionaries into a female pontiff with her own domain and retinue we must first understand the interconnectedness between the rise of both the Theban nobility and the god Amun to national significance.  Like the God’s Wife herself, it is a tale of the rise from obscurity to supremacy.   

Prior to the Middle Kingdom Period, Thebes was simply the capital of Waset, the fourth nome of Upper Egypt.  It was a quiet little backwater township of little significance until the closing years of the First Intermediate Period, when the foundations of the Eleventh Dynasty were laid.   

The First Intermediate Period

The First Intermediate Period was a miserable time for Egypt, when drought spread famine and disease, and the lack of a central government fomented civil unrest.  The land was divided into three kingdoms with ineffective and bickering local administrators based at Memphis, Herakleopolis, and Thebes.  But an ambitious Waset nomarch (governor of a nome) would set in motion a series of changes that would lay the course for Thebes’ transformation into the capital of all Egypt.   

The consolidation of power in Thebes began when a nomarch named Intef “the Great” combined the office of governor with that of “overseer of priests,” to which he added “great overlord of Upper Egypt.”  Such lofty claims of station were far from unique during the First Intermediate Period, but there is evidence that Intef’s claim was not your typical blustering.    

Since an inscription referring to this Intef was found in the cemetery of Dendera (the capital of the sixth nome of Upper Egypt), it seems fair to assume that his authority was recognized far beyond the confines of his native province.”  (Seidlmayer, p. 133) 

  

Pharaoh Intef II (Photo by David Liam Moran)

 Intef the Great would not be recognized as a king in the regular sense, but his successor, Mentuhotep I, would be posthumously ascribed pharaohood and is credited with founding the Eleventh Dynasty.  A series of three rulers would follow who would carry Intef’s name, but it is during the fifty-year reign of the second of these, appropriately named Intef II, that the new dynasty really begins to assert itself militarily. 

Intef II launched a northward expansion that captured Abydos, the real seat of power in Upper Egypt, and pressed into Wadkhet, the tenth nome of Upper Egypt.  This campaign was Intef II’s fait accompli and the beginning of the end for the Tenth Dynasty, based at Herakleopolis.  As Stephan Seidlmayer observes:    

This constituted a policy of open hostility against the Herakleopolitan kings, and for several decades war was to be waged intermittently in the stretch of land between Abydos and Asyut.  (p. 135)      

Pharaoh Mentuhotep II

But once the Thebans had wrested control of Abydos from the Herakleopolitans, the die was cast.  When Asyut finally succumbed to Intef II’s grandson, Mentuhotep II, the Herakleopolitans lost their primary base in Upper Egypt.  Provinces that had been loyal to Herakleopolis had no desire to face down the victorious Thebans, opting to join them instead.  

Mentuhotep II then set his sights on Herakleopolis, taking the old capital of Memphis as well.  With the Tenth Dynasty out of business and all of Lower Egypt under his control, Mentuhotep II became the first Theban pharaoh to rule all of Egypt.  Thus began the Middle Kingdom Period.   

 The Middle Kingdom

Rather than move the capital back to Memphis, Mentuhotep II transformed the minor city of Thebes into the capital, and this promotion extended to the local gods as well.  The patron god of Thebes at this time was Montu, a warrior god who was said to possess soldiers on the battlefield, and Mentuhotep II’s namesake—Montu is Content.   

But Montu’s winter of discontent was on the horizon.  

Before the Middle Kingdom Period Amun was a lesser deity, little more than an Old Kingdom god who had found his way into the Theban pantheon.  His earliest known appearance is in the Pyramid Texts of the Fifth Dynasty where he is a primeval creative principle and protector of the king.  

But by the time of the Eleventh Dynasty he had his own temple at Karnak and had become more defined and human-like, gaining a consort in Mother Mut, who had her own adjacent temple precinct.   

From this point forward Amun grows in significance both locally and nationally.  Montu would remain a defender of Thebes, but with the tumultuous First Intermediate Period over and prosperity on the rise, Amun found increasing resonance with the Egyptian people.  The hard times had passed and people identified more with the fatherly and benevolent Amun than the hawkish Montu.  

Not all of Amun’s competition was local, and he found himself in a sort of turtle vs. hare contest with the god Osiris, with the latter seeming to own the race during the Middle Kingdom.  This was due in part to the “democratization of mummification.”  As Gae Callender notes, 

Another religious development of the Middle Kingdom was the idea that all people (not just the king) had a ba, or spiritual force (p. 180).  

With an afterlife to contemplate, the Egyptian people found new veneration for the Great God of the Necropolis.  

But as important as the afterlife was to the Egyptian people, Amun was increasingly viewed as the primary god of the living.  In an inscription in the Jubilee Chapel of Senusret I at Karnak, dating from the Twelfth Dynasty, Amun is already referred to as the King of the Gods.  By the time of the New Kingdom his primacy will be unchallenged (with a notable exception during the Amarna Period).  But Egypt was about to face a new period of adversity, one from which Amun would emerge supreme.   

The Second Intermediate Period

The Thirteenth Dynasty began peacefully enough, but after a long period of slowly losing its grip on the provinces and a multitude of pharaohs with short reigns, the old Theban nobility found themselves in a crisis of succession.  The death of Pharaoh Merneferre Ay left a vacuum, with no single king laying claim to both Upper and Lower Egypt.  The Middle Kingdom Period collapsed and Egypt fell again into decentralization and fragmentation.    

Provincial rulers in the Eastern Delta took this opportunity to found their own dynasty, the Fourteenth, centered mainly on Sais and Avaris.  But disorganized and divided, they proved to be the lesser problem.   An even greater peril to Egypt’s sovereignty would rise up from the Delta and Eastern Desert to form its own dynasty, the Fifteenth.   

Called the Hyksos by the Greeks, from the Egyptian hekau khasut (“rulers of/from foreign countries”), this new threat made Avaris their own and pushed at least as far south as Memphis, seizing control of Lower Egypt.  As if to set the tone for their future relations with the old nobility, the Hyksos stole the pyramidion (capstone) from Merneferre Ay’s pyramid and carted it off to Avaris as a trophy (Bourriau, p. 196).    

But there was an even more direct attack on the Theban nobility.  At the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, Pharaoh Amenemhat I had moved the capital from Thebes to Itjtawy, the location of which has not yet been discovered, but was close to Memphis and the foreign troubles which were beginning to manifest even then (Callender, p. 158).  With their capital sacked and Lower Egypt in the hands of the Hyksos, Thebes again became the seat of power for the remnants of the Thirteenth Dynasty.   

Meanwhile, the Fourteenth Dynasty proved unable to form a cohesive union of their own.  After as many as 76 kings in less than 125 years, they either joined or were subjugated by the Hyksos.  Although the Saite nobility would eventually earn their own legends during the Third Intermediate and Late Kingdom Periods, for now they bowed to the foreign power seated at Avaris.    

As for the Thebans, they had also organized into a new dynasty.  The Sixteenth Dynasty was long thought to be foreign vassals of the Hyksos, but the work of Egyptologist Kim Ryholt indicates this may not be the case.  Dr. Ryholt’s recent work with the list of pharaohs known as the Turin Canon suggests that as many as fifteen kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty had ruled from Thebes (Bourriau, p. 203)   

One of these kings, Iykhernefert Neferhotep, had a stele erected which clearly showed his affiliation with Thebes and the gods sacred to her.  According to Janine Bourriau:   

Neferhotep is shown protected by the gods Amun and Montu and by a goddess personifying the city of Thebes itself.  She appears armed with a scimitar, bow, and arrows.  (P. 203)   

From this description we may assume that the Thebans meant business, although Bourriau points out that we don’t know if this business was with the Hyksos and their lackeys or with rivals closer to home (pp. 203-4).  But from the Sixteenth Dynasty nobles a new line of rulers would emerge that would become the scourge of the Hyksos.   

Pharaoh Rahotep was probably the first king of the Seventeenth Dynasty (although some lists attest Intef V first, then Rahotep) and with him and his successor, Sobekemsaf I, we see a return of expenditures on civic projects.  Some temple restorations and quarry expeditions were conducted which, while modest by Middle Kingdom standards, nonetheless showed enough local stability to be concerned with something other than conflict and display a return of confidence (Bourriau, p. 205).   

This stability seems to have stemmed in part from a cooling off period between the Thebans and the Hyksos, wherein the former were treated as subjects by the latter.  But to the same degree that security was reestablished in Upper Egypt, resentment against the Hyksos seems to have grown as well.  As relations became increasingly strained war seemed inevitable.  It is unclear exactly what led to the initial bloodshed, but it seems to have involved… noisy hippopotami.   

Scarab with Apepi's cartouche (Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)

The story comes to us by way of a text known as Papyrus Sallier .  The crux of the story is that Apepi, the king of the Hyksos, sent a messenger to Seqenenre Tao II, the Theban king, ordering him to control the hippo population in a canal to the east of Thebes because: 

They don’t let sleep come to me either in the daytime or the night, for the noise of them is in his citizens’ ears.  (For a full translation, see Pharaonic Egypt:  The Quarrel of Apophis and Sekenenre). 

After an initial period of shock and insult, Seqenenre replied that he would look into it, but somewhere along the way diplomacy broke down.  Perhaps the Theban king was insulted at being sent on such an errand by the Hyksos king.   

Apepi’s patron god was Set, and hippos were sacred to Set.  Perhaps, either unintentionally or by design, Seqenenre’s manner of removing the animals was not to Apepi’s liking.  Perhaps, either unintentionally or by design, Apepi had presented Seqenenre with a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.     

The battered head of Seqenenre Tao II

Regardless of how it happened, the quarrel descended into an all out war that Seqenenre Tao II took serious enough to personally lead his troops into battle.  This did not go as well as he had hoped.  His mummy reveals a number of mortal wounds to his head, at least one of which was probably inflicted in combat, but there is disagreement as to whether he died on the battlefield or was assassinated while recovering (See The Theban Mummy Project:  Seqnenre-Taa II).  

Far from breaking their spirit, the death of Seqenenre Tao II galvanized the Thebans against the Hyksos and hostilities escalated under the rule of his successor, Kamose ‘the Brave.’  Kamose spent a short but eventful three years as regent of Upper Egypt, doing his best to avenge Seqenenre and push the Hyksos out.  His success is debatable, but the insults of the Hyksos, perceived and actual, were answered in kind.   

Pharaoh Kamose (Photo by Kurohito)

Kamose made fierce advances against the occupiers, plundering Hyksos ships and towns as he sailed north along the Nile, and punishing the Kush in the south for their collusion with the enemy.  He ignored a peace treaty drafted by Apepi and instead pushed his troops to the edge of the northern capital.  Kamose never seized Avaris, but did his best to humiliate the Hyksos king while encamped at the edge of the city:  

 Then follows the traditional boastful speech to Apepi: ‘Behold, I am drinking of the wine of your vineyards…I am hacking up your place of residence, cutting down your trees’, and a list of the plunder he was carrying away.  (Bourriau, p. 212).  

Second Stele of Kamose, describing his campaign against Apepi (Photo by Kurohito)

Cut off from his southern allies, Apepi wisely assessed his situation and chose to settle for a stalemate rather than clash with the haughty young king.  For his part, Kamose eventually declared victory and withdrew back to Thebes and to a hero’s welcome.  But as history would have it, the stalemate would prove final.  Within a few years both Kamose and Apepi would be dead with neither having won a decisive victory against the other.  

 King Apepi was succeeded by Khamudi, Pharaoh Kamose by Ahmose I.  Ahmose I was too young to assume the responsibilities of kingship, so his mother, Ahhotep I, stepped up as regent.  Seqenenre Tao II’s widow exhibited as much vigor as her husband, acting as both ruler and commander-in-chief.  She held the pact together, quelling or expelling rebellious elements and maintaining a decade-long détente with Khamudi while Ahmose I came of age.  

Pharaoh Ahmose I (Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)

But the cessation of hostilities would not last, and on assumption of his sole rulership, Ahmose I initiated the final drive against the Hyksos.  Some sources place the date in Ahmose I’s eleventh regnal year, while others contend it was Khamudi’s eleventh year, but either way it was roughly a decade after the deaths of Apepi and Seqenenre Tao II.

Seqenenre’s heir would not only finish the work of his predecessors, he would found one of the most celebrated dynasties of Egypt and help establish Amun as King of the Gods.   

The New Kingdom

Ahmose defeating the Hyksos

It is not certain what prompted Ahmose I to launch his campaign against Khamudi other than a general desire to expel the Hyksos from Egypt.  No specific event seems to precipitate his decision to go on the offense, and the level of strategy he employed argues against a heated reaction to some slight.  Ahmose I initiated a well-planned assault aimed at isolating Avaris, driving out the occupiers, and sweeping up behind them.   

Ahmose I’s assault on Lower Egypt was in many ways the opposite of Kamose’s, which had the feel of a war of opportunity with no real forethought.  Rather than plundering his way down to Avaris and laying siege with no thought given to what next, Ahmose’s fleet sailed past Memphis and seized Heliopolis.  This was in July, ahead of the inundation of the Nile.  He then bivouacked there for three months, waiting out the flood season.   

In mid-October, with the waters of the Nile back within her banks, Ahmose I took his fleet north, this time bypassing Avaris to attack Tjaru.  Tjaru was the gateway to the Sinai, an important fortress along the Horus Road that connected Egypt to the East.  By controlling access to the Horus Road, Ahmose I deprived the Hyksos of any aid Canaan and Palestine might have sent, and likewise prevented any large-scale retreat across the Sinai.   

With Avaris sealed off at Tjaru and Heliopolis, Ahmose I was ready to lay siege to the Hyksos capital.  The account of one of Ahmose I’s top soldiers, also named Ahmose (son of Ebana), details an initial battle followed by a protracted siege and numerous skirmishes on land and water.  Khamudi had taken advantage of the years of relative peace to fortify the city and her walls which frustrated Ahmose’s attempts to enter the city.   

From better days--Bronze dagger with Apepi's name (Photo by Udimu)

But while the city had grown strong during the decade between Kamose and Ahmose I, the Hyksos military had grown weak in a way that left them vulnerable in battle.  During the Second Intermediate Period both the Egyptians and the Hyksos used weapons made of a tin and bronze alloy.  By the time of the battle with Ahmose I, the Hyksos had begun using unalloyed copper for their weapons, which looked attractive but did not hold as good an edge as the tin bronze, which the Thebans had retained (Bourriau, p. 124).   

The superior defenses of the Hyksos and the superior weapons of the Thebans seem to have cancelled each other out, and the long siege may have compelled Ahmose I to offer terms to the Hyksos.  According to Josephus’ version of Manetho’s account of the siege, Ahmose I and Khamudi negotiated a surrender that allowed the Hyksos to depart peacefully, with the same terms being extended to Memphis.   

Evidence from Avaris itself tends to confirm this picture of mass exodus rather than slaughter after Ahmose’s victory.  A clear cultural break is visible between the latest Hyksos stratum and that of the earliest Eighteenth Dynasty all over the site, largely because of the appearance of a new ceramic repertoire.  The same phenomenon appears also at Memphis.  (Bourriau, p. 214)   

In other words, the Hyksos left and took what they could carry with them, with no signs of a Theban coup de grâce, and no signs of a mixed Egyptian/Hyksos populace after the siege.  As the Hyksos departed Ahmose I seems to have followed them into Palestine, not in pursuit, but rather as more of a land grab.  With the Hyksos out of power he probably found their allied towns easy picking, and pushed as far east as Sharuhen before turning his attention back to internal affairs.   

Ahmose I next took his fleet south to the second cataract to finish off the Nubians who had allied with the Hyksos, after which there were two small uprisings he had to put down.  The first came from a Nubian leader named Aata who was launching raids from the north.  Aata and his men were most likely remnants of the Nubians the Hyksos had employed to defend Memphis and Avaris, doing what recently unemployed soldiers tended to do—loot.  The second was an Egyptian named Teti-an, who led his own band of disenfranchised malcontents.   

With the land once again reunited under a Theban crown, Ahmose I then concerned himself with healing the kingdom.  He launched a program of temple building and restoration after reopening the quarries at Tura.  He also reopened the copper mines at Sinai and the trade routes with the Syrians.  Having Nubia under his control also meant gold was again flowing into the royal coffers.    

The future of the dynasty--Ahmose Nefertari and Amenhotep I

On the political front, Ahmose I was planning for the future of his dynasty.  Following in the footsteps of Seqenenre Tao II, Ahmose I laid out a plan whereby access to the throne would be limited to his immediate family and their offspring.  This was achieved by refusing to allow royal princesses to marry anyone other than their royal brothers.  Kings were free to marry whoever they wished, but this system of interfamilial marriage for daughters meant nobody could marry their way to the throne.   

Ahmose I’s plan of insulating the throne via incest would last no more than a few generations, but another of his institutions would survive well into the Late Period—the God’s Wife of Amun.  Thebes had remained true to Amun after the Middle Kingdom collapsed, calling upon his protection throughout the occupation and resistance, and tying their dynasty to his favor as the New Kingdom was born.    

Amun - King of the Gods

In the eyes of Egypt, Amun had rewarded Thebes with victory, he had become the god of the oppressed, the god of the underdog, the god of the people.  There would still be a place for Montu in the pantheon, but from the Eighteenth Dynasty forward, Amun in one form or another would remain King of the Gods.   

There was, of course, an exception.  But we are still a while off from dealing with him.   

Next in this series:  The God’s Wives of Amun – Royal Women and Power Politics in the Eighteenth Dynasty

Works Cited

Bourriau, Janine.  ”The Second Intermediate Period.”  The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.  184-217.   

Callender, Gae.  ”The Middle Kingdom Renaissance.”  The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.  148-83.   

Miller, Wm. Max.  Online:  The Theban Mummy Project:  Seqnenre-Taa II   

Seidlmayer, Stephan.  ”The First Intermediate Period.”  The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.  118-47.   

Wente, Edward F., trans.  “The Quarrel of Apophis and Sekenenre.”  The Literature of Ancient Egypt.  New Haven and London:  Yale UP, 1973.  77.  Online:  Pharaonic Egypt:  The Quarrel of Apophis and Sekenenre   

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.   

Photographs “AhmoseI-StatueHead MetropolitanMuseum” and “ScarabBearingNameOfApophis MuseumOfFineArtsBoston” by Keith Schengili-Roberts are used in accordance with the Creative Commons 2.5 Generic License.  Photographs “Funerary stele of Intef II” by David Liam Moran.  Photographs “dagger with Apepi’s name” by Udimu, and “2e-stele-Kamose” and “Sarcophage-Kamose” by Kurohito are used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License.  The original graphics “Montu”,  “Amun”, “Mut”, “Osiris”, and “Set” are by Jeff Dahl and were altered and used by Keith Payne in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License.  Photographs “Mentuhotep II”, “Sequenre tao”, “Ahmose-Nefertari I”, “Amun”, and “ahmosedefeatingHyksos” are in the public domain.

Food and fun, work and play, you will be surprised by how much remains the same.  Summary, analysis, and some really cool video clips wait inside!

The Hidden History of Egypt is presented by Terry Jones, with Egyptologist and fellow Brit, Dr. Joann Fletcher serving as his guide and advisor.  It was written by Terry Jones, Alan Ereira, and Phil Grabsky, and was directed and produced by Phil Grabsky, in conjunction with Seventh Art Productions, for the Discovery Channel (original air date—January 20, 2002).

In The Hidden History of Egypt, comedian, philosopher, and social commentator Terry Jones seeks to uncover the mysteries of one of ancient Egypt’s most secretive orders—the everyday man and woman.  With all the attention given to celebrity mummies, touring treasure troves, and custody battles over “stolen” artifacts, it’s easy to forget about the people who paid the taxes, crafted the treasures, and built the monuments, which Terry Jones dismisses as the “funeral arrangements for some crazed megalomaniac.” 

But this documentary doesn’t rely solely on ancient chronicles to bring the citizens of Dynastic Egypt to life (although there is certainly plenty of that as well).  Instead, Mr. Jones asserts that in many ways life in Egypt remains unchanged, and to get an idea of how the average ancient Egyptian lived, one needn’t look further than how ordinary Egyptians live today.

Click here to view the embedded video.

To assist him in this undertaking, Mr. Jones enlists the expertise of Dr. Joann Fletcher to act as his (and our) guide.  The mix is a good one and it is clear the Mr. Jones and Dr. Fletcher are genuinely enjoying their tour of ancient and modern Egypt.  Dr. Fletcher is equally at home in the field and in the Egyptian social milieu, and Mr. Jones’ natural wit—in all senses of the word—is both entertaining and thought provoking in equal measure.   

The video opens with scenes of modern agrarian life and Dr. Fletcher’s observation that one of the key similarities between the ancient and the modern Egyptians is their spirit of cooperation.  Neighbors help neighbors with planting and harvesting, building houses and maintaining common resources, and putting on social events and celebrations, just as they have always done. 

The collective activities of average individuals working together toward common goals is a recurring theme throughout the video, and  Dr. Fletcher points out that it is this communal character that transformed the Giza Plateau into the Sphinx, the temples, and the pyramids.

This leads into a montage of clips of ancient builders that seems to have been culled from classic movies and outdated documentaries showing slaves and citizens-in-duress toiling under threat of the pharaoh’s whip.  Fortunately Terry counters this with the radical notion that the pyramid builders were not slaves, but free people working in a collaborative effort (for more on this, see Who Built the Pyramids? Part 1: The Lost City of the Pyramid Builders, here on Em Hotep).

In order to get a more realistic depiction of how the ordinary ancient Egyptian spent a typical day at work, we begin at Saqqara with a visit to the tomb of Ti “the Rich.”  Ti was an important Fifth Dynasty court official whose rather large estate employed an equally large workforce.  Apparently Ti was given to wandering his grounds and eavesdropping on his employees, and many of the rather mundane interactions he observed found their way onto the walls of his tomb.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Actually, tomb scenes depicting average people going about the business of their average days are not all that unusual in Egypt, as the ideal afterlife was basically a continuation of an ideal life.   These portrayals provide us with a detailed look at ancient life, which this documentary makes good use of by interjecting clips of modern Egyptians conducting the same activities in much the same way.

 Another example visited by The Hidden History of Egypt is the tomb of master craftsman Sennedjem at Deir el-Medina, a sort of up-scale village adjacent to the Valley of the Kings where the builders of the royal tombs dwelt.  Like Ti, Sennedjem had his tomb decorated with scenes of how he envisioned his afterlife, which included working in his garden with his wife.  Again we see video clips of modern Egyptians doing the same work with the same tools.

We then take a walk down into Deir el-Medina for a tour of Sennedjem’s house.  Dr. Fletcher explains the architecture of the house and shows evidence of how the furniture was arranged, food and water were stored, and how and where the family would have slept.  This is followed by a trip to a modern working-class Egyptian house where we see how little things have changed in 4,500 years, from the architecture down to the furniture.

The Hidden History of Egypt stands apart from other Egyptological documentaries in its ability to get its point across without the use of reenactments and computer animations.  Not that there is anything wrong with reenactments and animations per se, it’s just that this documentary doesn’t need them.  The juxtaposition of ancient artistic renderings with modern video footage and comparing ancient sites to currently occupied spaces leaves little doubt that the secret lives of ordinary ancient Egyptians are not so secret after all.  They are still going on every day throughout Egypt.

The video turns next to comparing the ancient and modern palates with a trip to the suq.  Winding our way through the marketplace we again find that the Egyptians have found little need for change.  But the scenes of beer and winemaking and the baking of bread are interrupted when Terry and Joann arrive at a tailor where they commission a kilt and robe ensemble for Terry based on an ancient pattern provided by Joann.

While the tailor weaves his ancient magic, we resume our culinary comparison with a trip to the village of Gurna, located across the Nile from Luxor, not far from Sennedjem’s house.  Over a lunch of beer and a variety of breads, Dr. Fletcher explains that bread and beer were the fuel that powered the pyramid builders.  Unlike our modern lackluster bread, the fare of the ancient Egyptians provided the calories needed to put in a hard day of cutting stone and dragging blocks.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The documentary provides another interesting example of the ancient surviving into the modern with a discussion of how the ancient Egyptian language was kept alive by, of all institutions, the Coptic Church.  When the Roman Emperor Theodosius banned pagan temples, the video explains, his edict had the collateral effect of closing the schools, libraries, medical centers, and legal courts of Egypt.  All civil life was tied to the temples, and when they closed they took with them the written, and eventually the spoken, language.

But just as the Catholic Church preserved Latin, the Coptic Church retained a distant linguistic cousin of ancient Egyptian as the official language of the liturgy.  Terry Jones points out that modern Coptic is probably as distinct from ancient Egyptian as modern English is from Anglo Saxon, but it was sufficient to help with decoding the hieroglyphs after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799.

The Hidden History of Egypt makes other comparisons between ancient and modern Egyptians, and modernity does not necessarily always come out on top.  In one segment we learn that the engineers who moved the colossal temple of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel were not able to reassemble it with the same precision as the ancients, and in another segment we find that women in ancient Egypt had superior rights and equality to much of the world today. 

And the Monty Python alumnus has his trademark moments of humor, such as when he dons his ancient Egyptian kilt and robe, along with traditional makeup and a stylish (by Old Kingdom standards) wig, for a walk around the modern streets.  Judging from the reactions he gets, some things have clearly changed over the millennia.

But The Hidden History of Egypt is by no means cheeky, it easily stands toe to toe with the best Egyptological documentaries.  The humor is functional in supporting the thesis that not only have the tools and trades of the ancients survived the ages, the sometimes quirky and sometimes sublime character of the Egyptian people endures to this day.  Mr. Jones concludes that while the pharaohs and their riches have been preserved as public property in the world’s museums,

Perhaps the real immortality is to be found among ordinary men and women, living lives that have changed very little since the days of the pharaohs.  Perhaps the hidden history ancient Egypt has been here all along, under our noses.

After viewing The Hidden History of Egypt, I am inclined to agree.

See Also

• Hemienu to Houdin: Building A Great Pyramid – Introduction
• Coptic Cairo: A Complex Design of Many Parts
• Dance of the Ancient and the Modern: The Streets of Cairo

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

The clips “Intro”, “In the Tomb of Ti”, and “Lunch with Sennedjem”, are taken from the Discovery Channel video “The Hidden History of Egypt,” copyright by the Discovery Channel, 2002, all rights reserved.  These clips and the related still images are used in accordance with the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act in that they are used for purposes of education and critique.  The fair use clause provides that the reviewer has the right to use as much of an original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny, so long as the reviewer analyzes, comments on, or responds to the work itself, and such use does not satisfy the consumer’s need or desire for the original.

Tangled roots, the passed-over prince, aging them bones, lack of control, and Kate Phizackerley’s Quest for Accuracy.

Mark Rose, the online editor for the Archaeological Institute of America and co-writer (with Heather Pringle) of Archaeology Magazine’s blog, Beyond Stone and Bone, was one of the first to look a bit askance at the media coverage of the new analysis of Tutankhamun.  “I suspect they are overdoing it a bit,” he said with regard to their characterization of the Boy King as a frail young man (“Tut: Disease and DNA News”).

Mark was also fast out of the gate to call attention to the age problem with the mummified skeleton from KV55 that was identified by the JAMA article as Akhenaten.  Initial analysis of the mummy based on dental and skeletal analysis suggested a time-of-death in the early 20’s, whereas Akhenaten is believed to have lived into his 30’s. 

In making the attribution of Akhenaten to KV55, the JAMA report simply says:

The mummy in KV55 was previously thought to be in his 20s when he died.  However, our new computed tomography investigation revealed that he lived to be much older.  (JAMA, Table 1, footnote b, p. 640).

In “Time for the Great Pyramid”, Mr. Rose states that he is working on a piece about the results of the JAMA study, set to run in the May/June issue of Archaeology Magazine.  He hopes to get some answers regarding questions he (and we) has about the DNA analysis and CT scan/tomography.

Mark was also kind enough to offer in the Comments section to take his readers’ questions to Dr. Carsten Pusch when he interviews him.  In particular, he stated that he has been following Kate Phizackerley’s articles (below) very closely and will present some of her questions to Pusch. 

Incidentally, I have passed on some of your questions, Gentle Readers, as well as a few of my own.  Mark’s offer in effect places us just one handshake away from one of the primaries of the JAMA article.  Behold the power of the Internet!

Kate Phizackerley, of News from the Valley of the Kings, began her own contribution practically before the ink on the JAMA report was dry.  Beginning with the question of how accurately geneticists can generalize from the data, given the incest issue, Kate went on to pen the first published scholarly critique of the study’s conclusions.

Kate’s work has become the nerve center of the critical analysis of the JAMA study on the Egyptological blogosphere.  Much of it has already been linked from Em Hotep, but for the sake of this compendium I have assembled all of her relevant articles to date:

• The Consanguinity Problem, February 24, 2010
• An example of my consanguinity concerns, February 28, 2010
• DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten, March 02, 2010—Kate’s opus magnum detailing her doubts regarding the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten
• Genetic Sudoko, March 3, 2010
• Questions Roundup and a Combative Zahi, March 7, 2010
• Akhenaten Museum Planned, March 11, 2010
• I’ll do a larger DNA table when I get chance – implications for Egyptological, March 13, 2010
• More on Tutankhamun Family DNA, March 26, 2010

Mummies expert Dylan Bickerstaffe has also referenced Kate’s work on the blog section of his website, Exploring Ancient Lands.  In “HAVE THE DNA TESTS PROVED AKHENATEN WAS TUTANKHAMUN’S FATHER? Or have they told us something else?” Dylan raises a brow over the methodology of the study as it was detailed in JAMA.  He is especially concerned over why the study was not conducted blind, as is typically done to prevent the researchers’ expectations from biasing their conclusions. 

Dylan also questions why the control group was so small, and why mummies from other periods were not included to help monitor accuracy.  As he puts it, “Thus if Tutankhamun turns out to be descended from a Ptolemaic mummy, you know you have a problem!”  And then there is the matter of why KV21A and KV21B were in the study rather than the control group.

Speaking of inclusions and exclusions, Tim Reid of The Egyptians wonders why the mummy of a young boy from KV35 was not included in the study at all.  In “The Forgotten Boy,” Tim points out that there are good reasons to suspect that the mummy could be that of Prince Webensenu, a son of Amenhotep II.  The article details some of the adventures and misadventures of the occupants of KV35, and includes some informed speculation about the identity of Smenkhkare, a name that continues to haunt the JAMA study in various and sundry ways.

And while not a blog, Egyptian Dreams is an Egyptology forum with very knowledgeable moderators and participants.  For a number of excellent threads on the JAMA study check out the Evidence from Amarna section.  Some of the threads you will want to explore include:

• Implications of DNA results + KV55=Akhenaten
• Reconsideration of the Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty
• Tutankhamen’s family
• Amarna family tree
• KV 21 and mummies KV21A and B

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

So which is the true Tut?  What if both versions are accurate?  Could this perfect storm of physical challenges and adventurous behavior have led Tutankhamun to a heroic but early grave?

When Howard Carter discovered Tutankhamun’s tomb in 1922 he was surprised by the number of canes that had been interred with the young pharaoh.  Finding a walking stick in a royal tomb was not unusual by itself.  According to Dr. Emily Teeter of the Oriental Institute, walking sticks were “primarily decorative, and every well-dressed Egyptian man carried a cane — just like a man in the 1940s with a pocket square” (Source:  Los Angeles Times: King Tut’s mundane death).

Tutankhamun leaning onto a walking stick

But Tut had 130 of them, many of which show signs of use.  Tutankhamun is sometimes depicted using a cane, and there are images of him seated while participating in activities such as hunting, where one would expect to see him standing.  These, plus the abundance of canes provided for his use in the afterlife, have always hinted at some sort of foot problem, but the extent of his mobility issues has always been a matter for speculation (JAMA, p. 645).

The recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (“Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family.” Hawass, Zahi, Yehia Z. Gad, Somaia Ismail, et al, JAMA. 2010; 303(7):638-647) summarizing the two-year forensic study on Tutankhamun and other Eighteenth Dynasty royals has shed light on this question.  As part of the on-going Family of Tutankhamun Project, the study sought to identify certain unnamed mummies who were thought to be members of Tutankhamun’s bloodline, along with their pathological profiles, with special attention going to the Boy King.

The JAMA article paints a picture of a young man with a variety of foot problems, the cumulative effect of which would have caused him considerable pain and difficulty in getting around.  Taken individually his foot maladies are not too bad, but for poor Tut, they formed a perfect storm. 

Freiberg-Kohler’s Disease

Some of Tutankhamun’s problems were more readily observable than others.  He suffered from a mild clubfoot on his left side, along with mild scoliosis, which would have given him some problems but would have been fairly manageable in an otherwise healthy young man. Both of these conditions were common in the other mummies of the study.  But Tut had other problems with his left foot.

With the aid of tomographic imaging, the researchers detected a bone condition called Freiberg-Kohler’s disease in Tutankhamun’s left foot.  Freiberg-Kohler’s is a bone disease, but its catalyst is actually a circulatory condition.  It begins when blood flow to the end of one (or more) of the metatarsals becomes compromised.  The metatarsals are the long bones of the feet that connect the highest part of the arch to the toes.

Usually the second and/or third metatarsals are affected, and the condition manifests on the end that points toward the toes.  In a healthy metatarsal, the end of the bone is rounded and rests against cartilage that serves as a shock absorber between the metatarsal and the proximal phalange, the adjacent toe bone.   

But as the blood flow to the end of the metatarsal is cut off, the bone material begins to die, a process called bone necrosis, or osteonecrosis.  Living bone is spongy and flexible, but dead bone is brittle and more susceptible to breakage and collapse.  As the bone at the end of the metatarsal dies, it begins to crack and split.

As more of the bone dies, the end of the metatarsal begins to collapse.  The round surface begins to dimple inward and what would be normal pressure from usage becomes an unending series of minor traumas.  As more bone dies, the crown of the metatarsal continues to crush inward as the edges are forced outward, forming a trumpet shape.

With continued wear and tear the edges of the metatarsal head wear down, flattening the end of the bone.  By this point the cartilage between the metatarsal and the toe bone has become disconnected.  The cartilage and chips of bone become loose bodies that irritate and damage the surrounding tissue, and the already-damaged metatarsal may begin to rub directly against the toe bone.

As the living part of the bone attempts to heal and compensate for the dead part, the metatarsal develops areas of unusual thickness and density.  This causes problems because the foot is a pretty complex mechanism with a lot of moving parts that depend on each other having specific shapes and sizes.  When one or more of these parts change, the whole machine suffers.

The deformed metatarsal puts even more stress on the surrounding tissue.  Muscle and connective tissue become inflamed, fluid begins to build up and exert pressure, and loose cartilage and bone fragments may become absorbed, leaving sensitive areas completely unprotected. 

If caught early, Freiberg-Kohler’s disease can usually be corrected with physical therapy.  So long as it does not proceed to the latter stage even untreated Freiberg-Kohler’s seems to clear up on its own, as very few adults ever present with the condition.  Although not an ideal form of therapy, most sufferers simply favor the other foot, giving the bad one time to heal before too much damage is done.  For Tutankhamun, however, this strategy didn’t work so well.

A Perfect Storm of Podialogical and Political Problems

In Tutankhamun’ case, both the second and third metatarsals of his left foot were affected by Freiberg-Kohler’s, and the analysis showed that he was still suffering from serious complications at the time of his death. His club-footedness may or may not have predisposed him for Freiberg-Kohler’s, although it is certainly not a prerequisite for the condition.  But causative or not, his already compromised foot didn’t help matters.

The combination of these problems resulted in an accumulation of defects in Tut’s left foot that would have caused sharp pain when he placed any weight on it.  The tomographic images showed that there was marked soft tissue damage along with bone necrosis and deformity, especially in the second metatarsal.  Out of sheer reflex, Tutankhamun would have avoided putting weight on his left foot.  But our unfortunate pharaoh had problems in the other foot as well.

Tutankhamun suffered from hypophalangism in his right foot, which means he was missing toe bones.  This can be challenging under the best of circumstances because it results in an unnatural distribution of stress throughout the foot.  By shifting his weight from his painful left foot onto his fragile right foot, Tut was literally stacking problem upon problem upon problem.

As mentioned above, Freiberg-Kohler’s is treatable with physical therapy, but in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt this would have probably been no more sophisticated than walking with assistance and avoiding standing as much as possible.  The combination of dysfunction in both feet would have made taking things easy highly advisable.  But as a haughty young king, a living god, Tutankhamun would probably have been loath to take even these minimal precautions. Pharaohs did not show weakness.

Tutankhamun seated while bird hunting

Indeed, images of Tutankhamun seated while hunting suggest a young man struggling against his challenges while appearing as nonchalant as possible.  Other images show Tut participating in similar activities without such restraint.  One might interpret this as the king having good days and bad days, but the condition of his mummy’s feet suggest he probably didn’t have many good days but chose to exert himself anyway.

The analysis of Tutankhamun’s mummy revealed that he was flatfooted in his right foot, which makes perfect sense if he was regularly placing extra weight on it.  Tut’s right foot wasn’t even suited to bear its normal share of weight, so the added burden was simply too much on the arch.  But even if Tutankhamun had wanted to lead a more reserved lifestyle, he may have had no choice but to flex.

Consider his political situation for a moment.  He came to the throne at a young age which raised concerns about his competency from the beginning.  It had fallen upon him to reverse the unpopular policies of his father, Akhenaten, which undoubtedly exerted a constant pressure for Tut to prove himself—changing his name from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun, for instance.   He probably felt a need to assert at least a symbolic independence from his ambitious advisor, Ay, who many believe was really calling the shots.

Tut as a marauding sphinx (Photo courtesy of ThutmoseIII)

In this atmosphere Tut may have, in a combination of youthful indiscretion and a very real need to minimize his weaknesses, pushed himself to dangerous limits.  The evidence published in the JAMA report shows a young man with many physical challenges. 

But some of the iconography seems to show a robust young king sowing his royal wild oats.  Which is the real Tut?  Could he have been both, and could this perfect storm of hindrances and determination have played a role in his death?

One Sick Kid, Warrior King, or Both?

Freiberg-Kohler’s disease undoubtedly caused Tutankhamun a good deal of pain and mobility issues, and while its underlying causes are unknown, its manifest effects were not good.  “Necrosis is always bad,” advises Dr. Carsten Pusch, one of the co-authors of the JAMA report, “ because it means you have dying organic matter inside your body” (Source:  National Geographic Daily News:  “King Tut Mysteries Solved: Was Disabled, Malarial, and Inbred”).  But it would not have directly caused Tut’s death.

The bone necrosis caused by Freiberg-Kohler’s is aseptic, which means that by itself it does not result in infection, which is the real threat of dead matter in the body (see Kinderradiologie-online:  “Kohler’s Disease II, Bilateral Freiberg-Kohler Disease”).  Dr. Albert Zink, another of the JAMA authors, stated emphatically that it was not a fatal condition by any stretch (Source:  University of Tubingen:  Tutankhamun’s parents identified). 

So as painful and malformed as Tutankhamun’s left foot may have been at the time of his death, there was nothing about the condition itself that was life-threatening.  But overall, the JAMA article reports that King Tut was indeed, as Emily Teeter summarized, “one sick kid” (Source: Physorg:  “Tut’s ills won’t kill fascination, historians say”). 

So this returns us to the question, What if Tut pushed through his physical challenges, possibly a bit too far?  In two articles published pretty much simultaneously with the JAMA report, one in Archaeology and the other in KMT (citations below), Dr. W. Raymond Johnson, director of the Oriental Institute Epigraphic Survey, describes evidence of Tutankhamun living rather dangerously. 

A relief of Tutankhamun at Luxor Temple (Photo by Crucifixion)

Dr. Johnson has spent the last twenty years transcribing narrative imagery from the walls of Luxor Temple and from talatat-style blocks recovered from the area, many of which deal with Tutankhamun and his deeds.  The descriptions portray Tut as “much more active than was thought, and [he] may have led military campaigns against the Syrians and Nubians before he died” (Source:  Archaeology:  “Warrior Tut”).

Dr. Johnson’s work with the battle narratives of King Tut have brought to light scenes depicting the young king riding a chariot in an assault on a Syrian-style citadel, participating in battles with Nubians and Asiatics, and otherwise behaving in ways a frail young king ought not to act. Charioteering on a battlefield is tricky business.  Whether actually mixing it up in battle or just making an appearance to rally the troops, Tutankhamun would have been encumbered with armor and weapons and performing athletics for which he was not well suited.

Dr. W. Raymond Johnson thinks that images such as this, taken from a chest found in Tutankhamun’s tomb, are accurate depictions of an active young pharaoh

Something to keep in mind is that during Tutankhamun’s day there really were no minor wounds.  Any cut which broke the skin could result in an infection, and there were no antibiotics.  While it is true that Tutankhamun was buried with a fully stocked pharmacy (see the JAMA article appendix), ancient medicine was more about management than cure.  They could reduce pain, lower fevers, and had some relatively effective local antiseptics, but trauma and infections were either survived or not.

One of the top theories regarding the cause of King Tut’s death points to a vicious leg injury he sustained in the days just before he died.  The wound, incidentally, was a compound fracture of his left thigh, the same side as his clubfoot and necrotic bones.  The broken thigh ripped through muscle and skin, opening a gash that would have resulted in a really nasty infection and almost certain death, which seems to be supported by the forensic evidence.

Did Tut eschew his walking sticks for throwing sticks, only to learn his limits the hard way?  Whether indulging in the popular pastime of hunting on the Giza Plateau, a terrain fraught with hazards for man and horse alike, or gallivanting about battlefields, Tutankhamun would have encountered many opportunities to take a bad fall.

Replicas of throwing sticks found in Tutankhamun’s tomb, which would have been used for hunting (Photo by Dr. Günter Bechly)

It is easy to imagine a brash young pharaoh handing his cane to a servant as he climbed aboard his chariot, insisting on taking the reins himself.  Tut was surrounded by decorated military leaders such as Ay and Horemheb, both of whom would eventually take turns at the throne.  Perhaps Tut was cognizant of their ambitions and wanted to show that he, too, could lead an army, just as he is depicted doing at Luxor Temple.  Dr. Johnson raises a similar question:

The recent analysis of Tutankhamun’s mummy which indicates traumatic injury to his leg—possibly the result of a chariot accident—that appears to have led to infection and premature death gives one pause.  Could Tutankhamun’s tragic accident have occurred during a military campaign?  (Source: Kmt:  “Tutankhamun-Period Battle Narratives at Luxor.”  Vol. 20,  no. 4, pp. 20-33:Winter 2009-10.)

Dr. Johnson’s question is all the more plausible in light of the even more recent analysis of Tutankhamun’s feet.   The conclusions in the JAMA report show that if Tut had participated in dangerous activities such as charioteering he would have been extremely vulnerable to the type of accident that seems to have felled him.

The heart craves certitude, but science speaks in probabilities.  Simply put, we can outline likely scenarios, but we will never know what killed King Tut.  He may have died from an infected wound received in an attempt to prove himself at war or sport.  Then again, he may have fallen from weakness brought on by a lethal case of malaria, or when a duplicitous courtier whacked him in the back of the head.  Maybe, as some still suggest, the broken leg occurred with Howard Carter’s rough handling of the mummy.

Dr. Johnson closes both of his articles with the observation that we may never know what killed Tutankhamun, at least not from the narratives themselves, because it would be impolitic to document the accidental death of a pharaoh, a living god.  That would count double if the living god’s death was the result of a frail young man acting like a badass. 

Then again, given his challenges, maybe he really was a badass.

See Also

• The Terrible Table Three Tut Toe Typo Tallies Another Textual Tragedy!
• Families and Frailties of the Eighteenth Dynasty
• The Mummies Gallery
• For a more complete treatment of the “Deadly Wound” thesis, see “King Tut’s Death: Solved, Resolved, or Just Restated?”

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photo “Tut with cane” modified from “Anuk” which is in the public domain due to expired copyright.  Photo “Metatarsals” modified from “footx” courtesy of Jlcruse and is used in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.  Photo “TombofTut-ench-Amun” adapted from Fischfang und Fischkult im Alten Ägypten, by Dietrich Sahrhage, is in the public domain due to expired copyright.  Photo “Kingtut2” (both left and right) courtesy of ThutmoseIII and is used in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.  Photo “Tut-tuxure 407” by Crucifixion is in the public domain.  Photo “Ägyptischer Maler um 1355 v. Chr. 001” is in the public domain.  Photo “Tut bumerangs” by Dr. Günter Bechly and is used in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

In The Mummies Gallery we will take a look at each of the mummies in both the study and control groups and pull together the familial and pathological data for easy referencing.

Before we meet the mummies, I should point out that the purpose of this article is only toprovide an easily readable summary of the data in the Journal of the American Medical Association report (“Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family.” Hawass, Zahi, Yehia Z. Gad, Somaia Ismail, et al, JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647).  In this article I will not be critiquing or challenging the work, but neither do I wish to communicate that I am in 100% agreement.  For the current article, I am but the humble messenger.

The JAMA report is understandably heavy with medical jargon which I have attempted to present in non-technical terms.  However, I am not a physician, so when in doubt, double check my work.  If you find mistakes, please by all means report them in the Comments section!  You will be doing us all a favor!

As stated above, I will not be taking positions in this article on the data presented, but that does not mean I will not do so in future articles.  You, however, are encouraged to provide as much exegesis as you feel compelled to share.  Where you disagree with the data, speak your mind.  The whole purpose of The Mummies Gallery is to promote intelligent discussion by putting the JAMA report into layperson’s terms as much as possible.

I should also point out that I will not be delving too deeply into the genetic analyses in this current work.  Again, I reserve the right to do so in the coming weeks, but there is enough data to wade through by just sticking to the JAMA report’s conclusions.  Methodology shall be taken up, if at all, elsewhere.

Finally, I want to point out that there is a lot of repetition because I wanted each mummy to serve as a stand-alone entry.  In other words, I want the reader to be able to zip straight to a specific mummy and take in all the data in a glance without having to search through the full article to find the definition of a particular term.  However, even in the repetition there are subtle differences from mummy to mummy, so just because a paragraph starts off the same way it did for the last mummy, don’t assume the entire paragraph was cut-and-pasted!

So, without further adieu, I present the who’s-who of the chosen few of the Eighteenth Dynasty!

Tutankhamun (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Tutankhamun’s identity was known prior to the study.

Genetic fingerprinting on Tutankhamun was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of Tutankhamun’s genetic fingerprints showed: 

• KV55 (Akhenaten) is 99.99999981% likely to be Tutankhamun’s father.
• KV35YL is 99.99999997% likely to be Tutankhamun’s mother.
• Tutankhamun is 99.97992885% likely to be the father of Fetus 1
• Tutankhamun is 99.99999299% likely to be the father of Fetus 2

Cells in human males have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome.  The Y chromosome, present only in men, is passed from father to son and is used to trace paternal genetic lines.  The Y chromosomal DNA from Tutankhamun was used to identify the mummy from KV55 (Akhenaten) as his father, and Amenhotep III as his paternal grandfather.

Tutankhamun’s mother, KV35YL, is possibly either Nebetah or Beketaten, two of Amenhotep III’s daughters not known to have married their father, making them possible wives of Akhenaten.  Nefertiti and Kiya have been excluded as candidates for Tutankhamun’s mother.  Whoever KV35YL proves to be, the JAMA report states that she is a full sister of Akhenaten, making her a daughter of Amenhotep III.  Neither Nefertiti nor Kiya are believed to be daughters of Amenhotep III.

Blood type is a categorization of blood based on the structure of red blood cells.  Blood tests have been conducted on both Tutankhamun and KV55 (Akhenaten) and it was determined that both were in the A2 human blood group.  Blood categorization is further subdivided by analysis of a pair of genetic markers called antigens.  There are 46 different antigens, and both Tutankhamun and Akhenaten had the M and N antigens.  Thus, sharing the A2 blood type with the MN antigen pair suggests a close familial relationship between KV55 and Tutankhamun.  (See Nunn, John F. Ancient Egyptian Medicine. London: Red River Books, 2002.  P. 84.)

Congenital Disorders

• Cleft and highly arched palate, mild left clubfoot, crowded teeth, recessed (short) lower jaw, mild scoliosis, slightly hunched back.
• Tut’s flat-shaped skull (brachycephalism) is attributed to a family trait rather than defect or disease.
• Missing bone segments in left foot.
• A diagnosis of gynecomastia—female-like breasts—or Marfan syndrome, a genetic condition which can also manifest in enlarged breasts, was not possible due to the condition of Tutankhamun’s mummy, which lacks the frontal part of the chest.  However, the normal development of Tutankhamun’s penis tends to cast doubt on any condition that would elevate estrogen (female hormones) or lessen testosterone (male hormones).

Acquired Disorders

• Freiberg-Kohler’s disease in the left foot, resulting in bone deterioration and collapse at the ends of the metatarsals—the long bones of the foot.   This would have been a painful condition which would have probably required the young pharaoh to use a cane.  Although the condition results in bone death, it is aseptic, which means it would not normally result in an infection. 
• The combination of club footedness, missing bone segments, and Freiberg-Kohler’s disease in the left foot, along with flat-footedness in the right foot, would have resulted in serious mobility issues for Tutankhamun.
• Malaria tropica, multiple infections.  The presence of multiple strains of malaria tropica in Tutankhamun is open to interpretation.  He may have survived one or more full-blown infections, or it may have never progressed to a symptomatic stage.  It may have played a role in his death, or he may have never even known he was infected.
• Compound fracture to the left thigh.  Of all the probable causes of Tutankhamun’s death, this seems the most likely.  It occurred shortly before his death, as evidenced by the lack of healing, and was probably not postmortem due to the presence of embalming fluids in the fracture.  It would have resulted in the bone tearing through the muscle and skin, and would have caused a severe infection.

Yuya (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Yuya’s identity was known prior to the study.

Genetic fingerprinting on Yuya was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of both Yuya’s and Thuya’s genetic fingerprints showed they are 99.99999929% likely to be the parents of KV35EL (Tiye)

Congenital Disorders

• Yuya’s head is slightly longer than normal (Dolichocephaly), which is attributed to a family trait rather than defect or disease. 
• Yuya has fingers which are long and slender in relation to the width of his palm (Arachnodactyly), which may be a result of the embalming process or a natural variant rather than a disorder.

Acquired Disorders

• Non-infective dental abscesses.
• Like Tutankhamun, Yuya shows evidence of multiple infections with malaria tropica which may or may not have ever developed into full-blown malaria.  The fact that Yuya lived to an advanced age suggests that he either acquired the disease late in life, survived an earlier bout/bouts, or may have developed partial immunity from environmental exposure (see JAMA, p. 646).
• Incisional hernia.  As the name suggests, this is a hernia where the tissues of the abdomen, and sometimes even abdominal organs, push through the muscle layer where an incision has occurred.  The result is a painful bulge at the spot under the skin where the tissue breaks through.  An incisional hernia is usually a postoperative complication resulting from abdominal surgery.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that Yuya had undergone some form of medical procedure, the presence of incisional hernias in seven of the sixteen mummies in the study seems suspicious.  It is possible that what is being called an incisional hernia is a postmortem result of the embalming process.

Thuya (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Thuya’s identity was known prior to the study.

Genetic fingerprinting on Thuya was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of both Thuya’s and Yuya’s genetic fingerprints showed they are 99.99999929% likely to be the parents of KV35EL (Tiye)

Congenital Disorders

• Severe scoliosis with hunched back, recessed (short) lower jaw.

Acquired Disorders

• Non-infective dental abscesses, hardening of the arteries.
• Thuya has fingers which are long and slender in relation to the width of her palm (Arachnodactyly), which may be a result of the embalming process or a natural variant rather than a disorder.
• Malaria tropica infection which may or may not have ever developed into full-blown malaria.  The fact that Thuya lived to an advanced age suggests that she either acquired the disease late in life, survived an earlier bout, or may have developed partial immunity from environmental exposure (see JAMA, p. 646).
• Incisional hernia.  As the name suggests, this is a hernia where the tissues of the abdomen, and sometimes even abdominal organs, push through the muscle layer where an incision has occurred.  The result is a painful bulge at the spot under the skin where the tissue breaks through.  An incisional hernia is usually a postoperative complication resulting from abdominal surgery.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that Thuya had undergone some form of medical procedure, the presence of incisional hernias in seven of the sixteen mummies in the study seems suspicious.  It is possible that what is being called an incisional hernia is a postmortem result of the embalming process.

KV55—Akhenaten (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

The idenification of Akhenaten was a key element of the Family of Tutankhamun Project because he ties the two previous generations to the two following generations.

Genetic fingerprinting on KV55 was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of KV55’s genetic fingerprints showed:

• KV55 is 99.99999981% likely to be the father of Tutankhamun.
• Amenhotep III is 99.99999999% likely to be KV55’s father.
• Amenhotep III and KV35EL (Tiye) are 99.99999964% to be KV55’s parents.

Cells in human males have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome.  The Y chromosome, present only in men, is passed from father to son and is used to trace paternal genetic lines.  The Y chromosomal DNA from the KV55 mummy was used to identify it as the son of Amenhotep III and the father of Tutankhamun.

Blood type is a categorization of blood based on the structure of red blood cells.  Blood tests have been conducted on both KV55 (Akhenaten) and Tutankhamun and it was determined that both were in the A2 human blood group.  Blood categorization is further subdivided by analysis of a pair of genetic markers called antigens.  There are 46 different antigens, and both Tutankhamun and Akhenaten had the M and N antigens.  Thus, sharing the A2 blood type with the MN antigen pair suggests a close familial relationship between KV55 and Tutankhamun.  (See Nunn, John F. Ancient Egyptian Medicine. London: Red River Books, 2002.  P. 84.)

Congenital Disorders

• Cleft and highly arched palate, scoliosis, recessed (short) lower jaw, crowded teeth, facial asymmetry.
• No proof was found of gynecomastia, Marfan syndrome, or any other congenital disorder which would have resulted in Akhenaten having a feminine body type as depicted in Amarna-style reliefs and statuary.  These depictions seem to be defined by artistic, religious, and political conventions rather than Akhenaten’s actual appearance.
• A diagnosis of gynecomastia—female-like breasts—was not possible due to lack of observable tissue.  Akhenaten’s mummy is actually a mummified skeleton.

Acquired Disorders

• Abnormal bone growth in the sinus cavity, degenerative bone loss and abnormal bone growth in the femurs.

Amenhotep III (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Amenhotep III’s identity was known prior to the study.

Genetic fingerprinting on Amenhotep III was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.”  The GenoProof analysis of Amenhotep III’s genetic fingerprints showed:

• Amenhotep III is 99.99999999% likely to be KV55’s (Akhenaten’s) father.
• Amenhotep III and KV35EL (Tiye) are 99.99999964% to be KV55’s (Akhenaten’s) parents.
• KV55 (Akhenaten) is 99.99999981% likely to be Tutankhamun’s father, making Tutankhamun Amenhotep III’s grandson.

Cells in human males have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome.  The Y chromosome, present only in men, is passed from father to son and is used to trace paternal genetic lines.  The Y chromosomal DNA from Amenhotep III was used to identify the mummy from KV55 (Akhenaten) as his son, and Tutankhamun as his grandson.

Congenital Disorders

• Recessed (short) lower jaw, highly arched palate, clubfoot.

Acquired Disorders

• Non-infective dental abscesses, progressive bone degeneration, erosions in the inner structure of the right side of the skull, degeneration of spinal disks.

KV35YL (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Genetic fingerprinting on KV35YL was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of KV35YL’s genetic fingerprints showed KV35YL is 99.99999997% likely to be Tutankhamun’s mother

KV35YL is not considered to be Nefertiti because the genetic fingerprinting shows that she is a full sister of Akhenaten (KV55), making her a daughter of Amenhotep III.  Since Nefertiti is not listed anywhere as a daughter of Amenhotep III, this seems to rule out KV35YL being Nefertiti.  Likewise, Kiya is not attested as a daughter of Amenhotep III, so she can be marked off the list.  Of Amenhotep III’s daughters, neither Nebetah nor Beketaten are known to have married their father, making them possible wives of Akhenaten, and thus, viable candidates for KV35YL.

It should be noted, however, that GenoProof data supporting the likelihood that KV35YL and KV55 were full siblings was not provided in the JAMA report.  It is not clear if this is a limitation of the test itself, or if the case for siblinghood between KV35YL and KV55 (Akhenaten) is not as strong as other relationships proposed in the JAMA article.  If the latter, then there may be room for some doubt about the positions in the above paragraph, and KV35YL may yet be identified as Nefertiti.

Congenital Disorders

• Scoliosis, recessed (short) lower jaw, crowded teeth, facial asymmetry.

Acquired Disorders

• Trauma (likely fatal) to the face and cranium.

KV35EL—Tiye (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

The identification of Queen Tiye was one of the major accomplishments of the project.

Genetic fingerprinting on KV35EL was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of KV35EL’s genetic fingerprints showed:

• Yuya and Thuya are 99.99999929% likely to be the parents of KV35EL (Tiye)
• Amenhotep III and KV35EL (Tiye) are 99.99999964% to be KV55’s (Akhenaten’s) parents.

Congenital Disorders

• Mild scoliosis, misshapen ears.
• Tiye has fingers which are long and slender in relation to the width of her palm (Arachnodactyly), which may be a result of the embalming process or a natural variant rather than a disorder.

Acquired Disorders

• Thyroid dysfunction\goiter.
• Incisional hernia.  As the name suggests, this is a hernia where the tissues of the abdomen, and sometimes even abdominal organs, push through the muscle layer where an incision has occurred.  The result is a painful bulge at the spot under the skin where the tissue breaks through.  An incisional hernia is usually a postoperative complication resulting from abdominal surgery.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that Tiye had undergone some form of medical procedure, the presence of incisional hernias in seven of the sixteen mummies in the study seems suspicious.  It is possible that what is being called an incisional hernia is a postmortem result of the embalming process.

Fetus 1 (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Genetic fingerprinting on Fetus 1 was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of Fetus 1’s genetic fingerprints showed Tutankhamun is 99.97992885% likely to be the father of Fetus 1

Complete genetic data sets for Fetus 1 could not be obtained after repeated attempts.  Part of the ongoing work of the project involves more rigorous examination of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA, which could provide more data about Fetus 1.

Congenital Disorders

• No detectable congenital disorders.

Acquired Disorders

• Stillbirth.

Fetus 2 (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Genetic fingerprinting on Fetus 2 was analyzed by a software package called GenoProof which calculates the likelihood of paternity and/or kinship.  A probability of more than 99.73% is regarded as “practically proven.” 

The GenoProof analysis of Fetus 2’s genetic fingerprints showed Tutankhamun is 99.99999299% likely to be the father of Fetus 2

Complete genetic data sets for Fetus 2 could not be obtained after repeated attempts.  Part of the ongoing work of the project involves more rigorous examination of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA, which could provide more data about Fetus 2.

Congenital Disorders

• Mild scoliosis

Acquired Disorders

• Stillbirth.

KV21A (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Complete genetic data sets for KV21A could not be obtained after repeated attempts.  Part of the ongoing work of the project involves more rigorous examination of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA, which could provide more data about KV21A.

KV21A could possibly be Ankhesenamun, but will require further analysis to be sure.  The possibility that she is Ankhesenamun was certainly not ruled out.

Congenital Disorders

• Scoliosis, clubfeet.

Acquired Disorders

• None diagnosed.

KV21B (Study Group)

Identification and Kinship

Complete genetic data sets for KV21B could not be obtained after repeated attempts.  Part of the ongoing work of the project involves more rigorous examination of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA, which could provide more data about KV21B.

Congenital Disorders

• Scoliosis, clubfeet.

Acquired Disorders

• None diagnosed.

CCG61065 (Control Group)

Identification and Kinship

Identifying the mummies of the control group was not a stated goal of the current phase of the study, and genetic information on the control group was not provided in the JAMA article.  Mummy CCG61065, previously thought to be that of Thutmose I, remains unidentified.

Congenital Disorders

• Scoliosis, hunched back, misaligned pelvis.
• CCG61065’s head is slightly longer than normal (Dolichocephaly), which is attributed to a family trait rather than defect or disease. 

Acquired Disorders

• Malaria tropica.  It seems unlikely that CCG61065 was suffering from full-blown malaria at the time of his death, as he died of an arrow wound, a fairly good sign that he died in battle.  Someone suffering from malaria tropica, the most severe form of malaria, is not going to have much fight in him.
• Incisional hernia.  As the name suggests, this is a hernia where the tissues of the abdomen, and sometimes even abdominal organs, push through the muscle layer where an incision has occurred.  The result is a painful bulge at the spot under the skin where the tissue breaks through.  An incisional hernia is usually a postoperative complication resulting from abdominal surgery.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that CCG61065 had undergone some form of medical procedure, the presence of incisional hernias in seven of the sixteen mummies in the study seems suspicious.  It is possible that what is being called an incisional hernia is a postmortem result of the embalming process.
• Traumatic arrow wound, presumed to be fatal, to the chest.

Thutmose II (Control Group)

Identification and Kinship

Thutmose II’s identity was known prior to the study.

Although in the control group, Thutmose II was not included in the genetic control group.

Congenital Disorders

• Scoliosis, hunched back, hollow feet (high arches), recessed (short) lower jaw, crowded teeth, misshapen ears.
• Thutmose II’s head is slightly longer than normal (Dolichocephaly), which is attributed to a family trait rather than defect or disease. 

Acquired Disorders

• Calcified heart valves
• Incisional hernia.  As the name suggests, this is a hernia where the tissues of the abdomen, and sometimes even abdominal organs, push through the muscle layer where an incision has occurred.  The result is a painful bulge at the spot under the skin where the tissue breaks through.  An incisional hernia is usually a postoperative complication resulting from abdominal surgery.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that Thutmose II had undergone some form of medical procedure, the presence of incisional hernias in seven of the sixteen mummies in the study seems suspicious.  It is possible that what is being called an incisional hernia is a postmortem result of the embalming process.

Ahmose-Nefertari (Control Group)

Identification and Kinship

Ahmose-Nefertari’s identity was known prior to the study.

Although in the control group, Ahmose-Nefertari was not included in the morphological control group

Congenital Disorders

• None reported in the JAMA article.

Acquired Disorders

• None reported in the JAMA article.

Hatshepsut (Control Group)

Identification and Kinship

Hatshepsut’s identity was known prior to the study.

Congenital Disorders

• Recessed (short) lower jaw

Acquired Disorders

• Slipped disk (L5-S1).
• Infective dental abscesses.  Hatshepsut’s abscesses were serious enough to have caused fatal blood poisoning (septicemia).  This may have caused or contributed to her death.  In the very least, her final days were not pleasant. 
• Probable metastatic bone cancer of the left hip/pelvis.  As with her dental abscesses, Hatshepsut’s cancer was serious enough to have caused or contributed to her death.

Sitra-In (Control Group)

Identification and Kinship

Sitra-In’s identity was known prior to the study.

Congenital Disorders

• Scoliosis, hunched back, misshapen ears.

Acquired Disorders

• Incisional hernia.  As the name suggests, this is a hernia where the tissues of the abdomen, and sometimes even abdominal organs, push through the muscle layer where an incision has occurred.  The result is a painful bulge at the spot under the skin where the tissue breaks through.  An incisional hernia is usually a postoperative complication resulting from abdominal surgery.  While it is not outside the realm of possibility that Sitra-In had undergone some form of medical procedure, the presence of incisional hernias in seven of the sixteen mummies in the study seems suspicious.  It is possible that what is being called an incisional hernia is a postmortem result of the embalming process.

See Also 

• Families and Frailties of the Eighteenth Dynasty
• King Tut’s Feet Fatale: Did Frail Feet Fell the Famous Pharaoh?
• Your Mummy and Your Health: The Swiss Mummy Project Unravels Ancient Illnesses
• The Swiss Mummy Project Wraps Up Current Experiment 

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photos “Tutankhamun” from The Griffith Institute (Howard Carter Archive), “tuyu2” from Davis, Theodore M., Maspero Gaston, and Carter Howard. The Tomb of Iouiya and Touiyou. London: Archibald Constable and Co., 1907, pl III, “TutChildMummy1” and “TutChildMummy2” from Reeves, Nicholas. The Complete Tutankhamun: The King, the Tomb, the Royal Treasure. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990, “Yuyacolor”, and “Hatshepsut7” courtesy of The Theban Mummy Project.  Photos “Amenhotep iii”, “amenhotep iv akhanaten”, “KV35YL”, “kv35el”, “ccg61065 thutmose I”, “thutmoses ii”, and  “Ahmose-Nefertari” courtesy of the University of Chicago’s Electronic Open Stacks copy of Catalogue General Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire: The Royal Mummies, by G. Elliot Smith (Cairo, 1912).  Photos “41_tut”, “Mummy mask of Yuya”, “32_tuya”, “34_akhenaten_small”, and “amenhotep III” by Jon Bodsworth are copyright free.  Photos “QueenTiy01-AltesMuseum-Berlin” by Keith Schengili-Roberts and “Hatshepsut_1” by Postdlf are used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License.  Photo “Ahmesz_Nefertari2005” courtesy of Leoboudv and is used in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

Featuring Mark Lehner, Zahi Hawass, Rick Brown, Gunter Dreyer, Richard Redding, Rainer Stadelman, and Fathi Mohamed.

Riddles of the Sphinx primarily features Dr. Mark Lehner, but we also have significant face time with ancient tools specialist Rick Brown and informative snippets with Gunter Dryer, Richard Redding, Rainer Stadelman, and the obligatory sequences with Zahi Hawass.  It was written and produced by Gary Glassman of Providence Pictures for the PBS series NOVA (Original air date—January 19, 2010).

As the title suggests, the program addresses several timeless riddles of the Great Sphinx, namely, who built it, why, and how?

Who Built the Great Sphinx?

The question of who built the Great Sphinx is tackled by Rainer Stadelman, who makes the case for Pharaoh Khufu, and Mark Lehner, who makes a pretty convincing argument for Khufu’s son, Khafre.  Lehner points to the Sphinx’s location on the Giza Plateau.  Granted, it is located between the pyramids of both Khufu and Khafre, but Lehner explains that at the equinox the sun is aligned with the Sphinx, the Sphinx Temple, and Khafre’s Pyramid, which seems to associate these three monuments together.

Rainer Stadelman makes a much simpler, but nonetheless potent, argument:  the face of the Sphinx looks a lot more like Khufu than Khafre.  Incidentally, Em Hotep looks at this question in the article “The Great Sphinx: What We Know, What We Think We Know, What We Will Never Know”.  I have to admit, I didn’t get any further than Drs. Lehner and Stadelman in settling the question of who built the Sphinx, which isn’t too surprising!  But the face does seem to look an awful lot like Khufu.

One possibility the video does not address is that Khafre built the Sphinx, but may have attached his father’s face to it.  Some see this as a bit of a stretch, and Lehner’s geographic argument is pretty tight.  But there are geographic reasons for associating the Great Sphinx with Khufu as well, which are detailed in the Em Hotep article.

Why Was the Great Sphinx Built?

To explore why the Great Sphinx was built, the video first looks at what it represents.  We start with a trip to Abydos with Dr. Gunter Dreyer of the German Archaeological Institute.  Excavations of the tomb of Aha, the second pharaoh of the First Dynasty, revealed that along with human servants, lions were sacrificed and buried with the king.  This shows that even in the earliest days of Egyptian history, lions were associated with the monarch.

The video states that these leonean sacrifices are the first clue to the meaning of the Sphinx’s form.  The lion was a symbol of pharaonic power, but the Great Sphinx was also a god.  The Egyptians often depicted their gods as human/animal hybrids, but typically with human bodies and animal heads.  But the sphinx has the body of a lion, to represent power and ferocity, and the head of a man, to represent intelligence and good judgment.

Riddles of the Sphinx goes on to explain that by the Eighteenth Dynasty, after a thousand years of obscurity and neglect, the Sphinx was back in style.  After being rescued and restored by Pharaoh Thutmose IV the Sphinx becomes associated with the god Horemakhet (the video says Horus Akhet—same god), who is the personification of “Horus on the Horizon.”  The horizon is the gateway to the afterlife, and thus, the Sphinx is the guardian—and gatekeeper—of the afterlife.

Building on Lehner’s theory of who constructed the Sphinx, the video concludes that the reason for its construction was to assure Khafre’s passage into the afterlife.  Just as the sun aligns on the horizon with the Sphinx, its temple, and Khafre’s Pyramid during the equinox, the time of both rebirth and harvest, so the Sphinx as Horus on the Horizon guides the deceased Pharaoh into the hereafter.

But this is where I think the video glosses over some other possibilities.  A thousand years is a long time.  Egypt experienced a lot of development, along with a couple of Dark Ages, in the gulf between the Fourth Dynasty, when the Sphinx was presumably built, and the Eighteenth Dynasty, when it was clearly associated with Horemakhet. I don’t think the video makes a convincing case for the Eighteenth Dynasty interpretation of the Sphinx being a revival of the original beliefs and practices surrounding the Great Sphinx.

The Fourth Dynasty is silent with regard to the Great Sphinx.  There are no textual or graphic representations of what it meant or how it was revered within the Sphinx Temple, the pyramids, or on the Sphinx itself.  What we know comes from the time of Amenhotep IV, and may be more of a contemporary interpretation than an ancient revival. After all, everything Amenhotep IV knew of the Sphinx he learned in a mystical vision.

As with who built the Sphinx, the video does not really settle the question of why it was built either.

How Was the Great Sphinx Built?

The question of how the Great Sphinx was built takes up a generous portion of the video and is some of the most enjoyable viewing.  Operating on the philosophy that experience is the best teacher, the subjects of the video divide into two teams who attempt to reproduce various aspects of the building process. 

On one team we have Egyptologist Dr. Richard Redding of the University of Michigan working with local sculptor and stonemason, Fathi Mohamed.  Team One sets about sculpting a miniature sphinx from the same limestone that was used to construct the head of the original, which happens to also be the hardest layer of the strata from which the Sphinx was carved.  Redding and Mohamed use modern steel hand tools in their project.

On the other team, Mark Lehner joins Rick Brown, a specialist in ancient tools, who reproduces the pounders and copper chisels that would have been used by the original stonecutters.  For their project, Lehner decides to attempt to reproduce a scaled-down model of the Great Sphinx’s missing nose using only the tools employed by the Fourth Dynasty builders.  This idea turned out to be better on the strategic level than on the tactical level.  Implementation had… mixed results.

Right off the bat Mohamed and Redding discover that the hard limestone is bending their steel tools.  As for Lehner and Brown, their copper chisels are faring much more badly.  They find they can only get a few dozen strikes out of each chisel before it is fouled beyond use.  They discover very quickly that the process of reheating and reshaping the chisels back at the forge is at least as labor intensive as the actual stonecutting itself.

One of the unexpected joys of watching Riddles of the Sphinx was how surprisingly musical the hammering and pounding were.  Not the chisels so much, but the sound of the harder stone pounders striking the limestone was actually very resonate and pleasing to the ear.  Striking varying densities of stone would produce different tones, so one can only imagine what a symphony the workers must have produced.  It is something you have to hear to understand, and is one of the several reasons I recommend you check out this video for yourself.

The effects of the limestone on the tools themselves, however, was decidedly less pleasant, and by the end of the video Lehner and Brown are forced to resort to a pneumatic chisel and a circular saw designed to cut stone.  But even using modern power tools they find that the methods for cutting the stone are the same.  Parallel cuts are made in the stone, and then a chisel is used to remove the material between the cuts.

This method of carving away the limestone by making cuts and then chiseling away the material between is actually very similar to how the layers of surrounding strata were cleared from the Sphinx enclosure.  The video explains that the ancient workers started out by cutting a horseshoe-shaped trench around what would become the Sphinx enclosure.  Then parallel lines were cut into the plateau and blocks were cut away from the material between.

In working this way the stonecutters carved through the strata, downward and inward, until a large central block was isolated, from which the Great Sphinx itself was then carved.  The blocks that were removed in the process were carted off for other projects such as temple and pyramid building.  In fact, by matching layers of strata, Lehner seems to have demonstrated that the blocks which make up the Sphinx Temple were quarried from around the Sphinx itself.

Although we may not know who made the Sphinx or why, we have a pretty good idea of how.  And even though Lehner and Brown had to abandon their ancient-style tools, they were able to complete enough work with them to calculate how long the project would have taken.

They counted an average of about 200 strikes with the stone pounders per five minutes, and given a constant supply of replacement chisels, a worker could remove one cubic foot of stone in about 40 hours.  Lehner projects that it thus took about 1 million man-hours to carve the Great Sphinx, or three years for 100 men.  But that is only counting the stonecutters.  There were also the smiths who reworked the spent chisels, the people who gathered fire wood for the forges, the runners carrying tools, etc.  As we shall see in the in-progress Pyramid City series, entire towns emerged around these construction projects.

Redding and Mohamed were also successful in completing their miniature sphinx, but given that Lehner and Brown also ended up resorting to modern tools, I am not really sure of what Redding and Mohamed contributed to the program. 

Riddles Upon Riddles

There are other riddles addressed in the video as well.  For example, Dr. Zahi Hawass addresses another question people often ask about the Sphinx—If it was carved from one massive block, straight out of the living stone of the Giza Plateau, then why are there so many smaller blocks visible?  The answer is simple:  thousands of years of repair work by various cultures.  In addition to the original project by Thutmose IV, the Sphinx has undergone renovations right up to modern days.

Part of the problem in modern times is the pollution and vibrations caused by tourists, traffic, and near-by construction.  But the main destructive force, and one which has been in progress since the Sphinx was first built, is the process of rising ground water forcing residual salt up into the limestone.  The salt then dries and crystallizes, which is literally pushing the grains of limestone apart from within.

The effect is devastating.  In one particularly wince-worthy scene, Mark Lehner pulls a flake of limestone the size of his hand from the surface of the Sphinx and literally crumbles it to dust.  The effect of viewing this is akin to hearing fingernails on a chalkboard, but Lehner gets his point across—the Great Sphinx is in great peril.

(Author’s Rant:  If Albert Zink and Carsten Pusch can drill holes into royal mummies, and Mark Lehner can tear chunks from the Great Sphinx and crush them in his bare hands, then why is Jean-Pierre Houdin not allowed to, in effect, take high tech photographs of the Great Pyramid?  Is someone afraid that Houdin’s work might drill holes in, or crumble to dust, something more personal?  Hmmmm?)  

Riddles of the Sphinx, which I had the privilege of viewing in high definition, is beautifully filmed and edited.  In addition to the above-mentioned musical stones, there are many scenes which make its viewing well worth your time.  In one scene, for instance, we see Zahi Hawass walking down the back of the Sphinx toward its head.  This is an angle of the Sphinx we normally do not see, and it drives home how long and narrow the structure is.  The odd shape of the Sphinx—its long body and disproportionately small head—has spawned its own series of queries and riddles.

I highly encourage you, Gentle Reader, to check out Riddles of the Sphinx for yourself.  I am not convinced with all of the answers it proposes, but sometimes the fun is in not yet knowing.  I tend to enjoy journeys more than arrivals, myself.

Transcripts of the video are available here.

See Also

• The Great Sphinx: What We Know, What We Think We Know, What We Will Never Know

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Drawing “Stone-cutters finishing the dressing of limestone blocks” Drawn by Faucher-Gudin (Maspero, Gaston. History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria. Vol. II, Part A. London: Grolier Society) courtesy of Project Gutenberg.

This article is the first of several in which we will attempt to put the research into layperson’s terms.  First we will take a look at the what, who, where, why and how of the study itself.

The study was conducted as part of the Family of Tutankhamun Project, a mission aimed at identifying the mother and wife of Tutankhamun, along with matching names to other anonymous Eighteenth Dynasty mummies. This particular phase of the project began in September, 2007, and was concluded in October, 2009. 

The results of the two-year study were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) as “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family” (Zahi Hawass, Yehia Z. Gad, Somaia Ismail, et al, JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647), and was made available in electronic form beginning February 16, 2010, from www.jama.com.

The research was sponsored by the Discovery Channel, which in turn was allowed to premier the findings in a two-part series called King Tut Unwrapped, which aired on Sunday, February 21, and Monday, February 22, 2010.  Discovery Channel has posted clips from the program here.

Who and Where?

The project brought together seventeen researchers from Egypt, Germany, and Italy, and included some of the top names in Egyptology, anthropology, human genetics, radiology, and mummy forensics.  The tests were carried out at two labs in Cairo, primarily by Egyptian scientists at the insistence of Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities and director of the project.

Zahi Hawass (Photo courtesy of Archeologo)

“I am not against foreigners,” Hawass explained, “I simply wanted more equality” (Source:  AFP:  “Zahi Hawass, media-savvy guardian of Egypt’s past”).  Hawass has made the promotion of native Egyptologists a part of his mission.  However, even his “all Egyptian” teams are often more international than they are presented.

The genetic analysis team was headed up by anthropologist Albert Zink, of the European Academy of Bozen/ Bolzano (EURAC), and Carsten Pusch, a human geneticist from Tübingen University. 

Dr. Zink is also the head of the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, a EURAC program founded in 2007 to serve as a clearing house for all scientific data on Ötzi, a 5,300-year-old mummy found in the Ötztal Alps in 1991.  Dr. Pusch is the head of the Institute of Anthropology and Human Genetics at Tübingen University and is a world-renown expert in neurobiology and hereditary human diseases.

Ötzi the Iceman (Courtesy of Mesa Community College)

Dr. Paul Gostner, head of the Department of Radiology at Bolzano General Hospital at Bolzano, Italy, helped with the diagnosis of Tut’s illnesses.  Dr. Gostner has also helped with the analysis of Ötzi, and is co-author of “The Iceman: Discovery and Imaging” (Radiology, March 2003, pp. 614-629).

On the Egyptian side, Dr. Yehia Zakaria Gad, of the Department of Medical Molecular Genetics at Cairo’s National Research Center, supervised the DNA lab at the Egyptian Museum where the work was conducted.  Dr. Gad was a key member of the team credited with identifying the mummy of Queen Hatshepsut and is Egypt’s Top Doc on human genetics, both ancient and modern.

To summarize the places and people involved in the research:

• Supreme Council of Antiquities, Cairo, Egypt (Zahi Hawass, PhD, and Hisham Elleithy, MA)
• Institute of Human Genetics, Division of Molecular Genetics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany (Rabab Khairat, MSc, Markus Ball, MSc, and Carsten M. Pusch, PhD)
• Department of Radiodiagnostics, Central Hospital Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy (Paul Gostner, MD)
• Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, EURAC, Bolzano, Italy (Albert Zink, PhD)
• National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt (Yehia Zakaria Gad, MD,  Somaia Ishmail, PhD, Hany Amer, PhD, Naglaa Hasan, MSc,  and Amal Ahmed, BPharm)
• Ancient DNA Laboratory, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt (Yehia Zakaria Gad, MD,  Somaia Ishmail, PhD, Dina Fathalla, MSc, Rabab Khairat, MSc, Naglaa Hasan, MSc,  and Amal Ahmed, BPharm)
• Learning Resource Center, Kasr Al Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt (Fawzi Gaballah, PhD, Mohamed Fateen, MD, and Sally Wasef, MSc)

Objectives

The study is distinguished by the fact that, rather than making inferences about the subjects based on diagnosing artifacts, the research directed its focus on the people themselves.  For instance, rather than making assumptions about the physical attributes of Akhenaten, the study began with identifying his mummy through genetic fingerprinting then proceeded to conduct a detailed physiological study.

According to the article in JAMA, the specific objectives of the study were:

To introduce a new approach to molecular and medical Egyptology, to determine familial relationships among 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom, and to search for pathological features attributable to possible murder, consanguinity, inherited disorders, and infectious diseases. (p 638)

Introducing a New Approach

The new approach refers to both the tools employed and the subjects made available.  Many of the tools and methods employed by Egyptologists were perfected centuries ago and still serve their purpose.  But the Computer Age has resulted in a new generation of tools and processes to help Egyptologists and archaeologists know where to look, what to look for, and how to interpret what they find.

Mummy forensics, like criminal forensics, is a science which has been developing since the Victorian Age.  Like its hardboiled cousin, mummy forensics has benefitted from the technological boom, especially in the realm of genetics.  Analysis of ancient DNA is a young discipline, but this study could mark its entry into puberty. 

The Cairo Museum (Photo by Keith Payne)

Ground Zero for the study was a laboratory set up in the basement of the Cairo Museum.  The lab, which was also funded by the Discovery Channel and equipped by Applied Biosystems, was specifically designed to analyze ancient DNA.  Staffed with scientists and doctors from the Department of Medical Molecular Genetics at Cairo’s National Research Center, the lab is the frontline of forensic Egyptian mummy studies.  Work was also carried out in a lab at Cairo University.

The new approach also refers to the subjects of the study.  According to Dr. Hawass, this is the first time royal Egyptian mummies have been sampled for DNA analyses (Source:  “Press Release – The Discovery of the Family Secrets of King Tutankhamun”). 

The scientists who conducted the study have high hopes for the application of genetic fingerprinting in identifying mummies and fleshing out the family trees of Egypt’s ancient dynasties.  “This will open to us a new era,” Hawass told National Geographic Daily News (Source:  “King Tut Mysteries Solved: Was Disabled, Malarial, and Inbred”).

Familial Relationships—The Study Group

Ten mummies were selected for the study based on their known or suspected relation to Tutankhamun, for a total of eleven in the study group.  Besides Tut, the identities of only three other mummies in the study group were known—Tut’s grandparents or great-grandparents, Yuya and Thuya, and Amenhotep III, father of Akhenaten. 

Among the suspected relatives were two miscarried fetuses that were discovered in Tutankhamun’s tomb, thought to have been his children.  Producing a genetic profile for either or both of these young princesses was a priority because if they did prove to be Tutankhamun’s offspring then Dr. Hawass hoped to use their genetic fingerprints to identify the mummy of Ankhesenamun, Tut’s sister-wife.  

Also in the study group were two unnamed noblewomen discovered in tomb KV21, known only as KV21A and KV21B, one of whom could possibly be Ankhesenamun.  Two other anonymous noblewomen included in the study, recovered from tomb KV35, are known as KV35YL, the Younger Lady, and KV35EL, the Elder Lady.  One of the goals of the study was to determine if either of the latter noblewomen could be the famous bride of Akhenaten, Nefertiti.

The final mummy in the control group came from tomb KV55 and was suspected to be the mummy of either Akhenaten or Smenkhkare.  The mummy from KV55 was an important link because, if he did prove to be Akhenaten, then he could link the two generations before him to the two generations that followed.  Five generations of Tut’s family were plotted by the study.

In all there were sixteen mummies in the study—eleven in the study group and five in the control group.  The details of all sixteen mummies will be outlined in the up-coming article, The Mummies Gallery.

Maladies Inherited and Acquired

The study also sought to determine what genetic conditions, infectious diseases, and violent traumas may have bedeviled the Eighteenth Dynasty royals.  Of the many pathologies detailed in the study, the media seem to have had a morbid fascination with the role of incest.  Although intermarriage and interbreeding were evident in the test group, the significance of this rather lurid detail may have been overstated for shock value.

For example, Times Online grabbed attention with the headline “Incest was true curse of Tutankhamun.”  According to their story, “The boy king was the product of an incestuous relationship that may have led to a weakened constitution and his early death, the first DNA study of the pharaoh’s remains has concluded.”  But did the study actually reach this conclusion?

In the appendix to the JAMA article, under the heading Pathology in the Royal Mummies, the writers state that bone diseases such as flat and club feet, cleft palate, scoliosis, hunched back, bone and joint degeneration and tumors were all observed.  The appendix further indicates that these conditions seemed to accumulate pretty rapidly in the five generations of the study group.  But what were the actual conclusions regarding the relations between the ailments and consanguinity?

Further research will show if this is suggestive of a disadvantageous genetic background resulting from interfamilial marriage in the royals. As can be seen in the genetically distant mummy control group (ie, TT320-CCG61065, TT320-CCG61066, KV60A, KV60B), there is also an obvious high frequency of disorders of the spine and feet. This makes it highly unlikely that the discussed conditions are indeed inherited.  (JAMA appendix)

In other words, the frequency of bone disorders was suspiciously high in the family of Tutankhamun, high enough to warrant further study.  But many of the same disorders were also frequent in the control group.  The control group is a control group specifically because it is not related to the family of Tutankhamun.  Observing the same conditions in both groups suggests intermarriage may not have been a significant contributor to the conditions observed in the study group.

Another misstatement of the Times Online article has to do with an affliction of King Tut’s royal tootsies, Freiberg-Kohler’s disease.  Talking about the results of the genetic fingerprinting, the article states that Tutankhamun:

…suffered from several disorders as a result of his family history.  These included a painful, degenerative bone condition known as Koehler’s disease and a club foot which meant that the pharaoh was “a young but frail king who needed canes to walk” (Source).

While his club footedness may or may not have had a genetic cause, Freiberg-Koehler’s disease almost certainly did not.  While we do not know exactly what causes Freiberg-Koehler’s disease, a degenerative bone disease of the foot, there is nothing in the literature to suggest a genetic connection, incestuous or otherwise.

There is, however, one bit of trivia I am surprised the media did not pick up on:  Freiberg-Koehler’s disease is generally an affliction of teenage girls.  This leads us to another concern of the study, whether or not the men of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten in particular, suffered from some condition which resulted in a feminine body type. 

Do these curvy and maternal depictions of Akhenaten reflect reality or something more symbolic? (Photo by Gerbil)

Akhenaten, and to a lesser degree, Tutankhamun, are sometimes depicted with features such as female breasts and voluptuous hips.  It has also been suggested that there is something abnormally unmanly about Akhenaten’s displays of intimacy with his family.  While this latter may have more to do with the psychology of those doing the asking, the underlying question is a fair one:  Are these accurate depictions or artistic convention?

Another surprising find was that several members of both groups had suffered exposure—sometimes multiple exposures—to malaria tropica.  The most severe form of malaria, tropica is now one of the two main contenders for the cause of Tutankhamun’s death, with the other being a severe leg injury which probably led to an overwhelming infection.

In order to do these elements of the research justice, the pathology of both groups of mummies will be covered in detail in separate articles.

Reception and Criticism

The DNA

The scientists who conducted the study were amazed by how intact the ancient DNA seemed to be, which they chalked up to the mummification process itself.    A news brief from the University of Tubingen states:

The scientists were surprised by how well, comparatively speaking, the ancient DNA had been preserved, and the special embalming techniques reserved for kings may well have caused this phenomenon.  (Source:  Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen:  “Tutankhamun’s parents identified”)

Dr. Pusch suggests this notion is supported by the superior condition of the DNA from the royal mummies as opposed to samples taken from non-royal mummies.  As he stated to National Geographic:  “The ingredients used to embalm the royals was completely different in both quantity and quality compared to the normal population in ancient times,” (Source).

This conclusion, however, was met with some qualified skepticism.  Dr. Stephen Buckley, an archaeologist from the University of York who holds a Ph.D in archaeological chemistry specializing in Eighteenth Dynasty mummification practices, does not seem convinced.  Speaking with Discovery News, Buckley muses:

It is surprising that DNA should survive in these mummies given the very harsh conditions the bodies have been subjected to over the last 3000 years. I’m referring, for example, to the methods of embalming, the relatively high temperatures and oxidising environments. Hopefully, closer independent scrutiny by ancient DNA experts might help explain these very surprising results.  (Source:  “Controversy Arises Over King Tut Findings”).

Pathologies

Another perennial controversy was the cause of Tutankhamun’s death.  Certainly the study was not rash in making any specific conclusions regarding the deaths of any of the subjects.  “Caution must be taken when interpreting cause of death in these mummies,” (JAMA, p. 646).  But fatal conditions in some of the mummies were decidedly less ambiguous.

The head injuries sustained by KV35YL, assuming they were not postmortem, would surely have resulted in her death.  One of the mummies from the control group, previously thought to be Thutmose I but for now known only as mummy CCG61065, took an arrow to the chest, hardly a mere flesh wound.  Another more famous member of the control group, Queen Hatshepsut, may have died as a result of a malignant tumor, blood poisoning from an abscessed tooth, or a combination of both.  (See JAMA article appendix)

Tutankhamun’s death continues to generate the most attention, if for no other reason than name recognition.  But generalizing from the critical analyses of his pathologies can provide an informative backdrop to the entire study. 

One of the conditions King Tut seems to have suffered from is osteonecrosis—bone death.  Osteonecrosis can result from genetic and environmental causes and may have played a role in his death.  “Necrosis is always bad, because it means you have dying organic matter inside your body,” Dr. Pusch said regarding Tutankhamun’s Freiberg-Koehler’s disease (Source).  Tut’s foot condition was not itself life threatening, but more generalized osteonecrosis could point to something more serious at work. 

However, Dr. Gino Fornaciari, director of palaeopathology at the University of Pisa, questions whether or not the published images of Tut really warrant a diagnosis of osteonecrosis.  Even if Tut did suffer from osteonecrosis, Dr. Fornaciari suggests that it may have been a result of a malarial infection rather than bad genes (Source).

Indeed, King Tut was one of the mummies who showed the genetic markers for malaria tropica.  However, Dr. Robert Connolly, a physical anthropologist from the University of Liverpool who has himself worked with Tut, points out that the presences of the parasite in Tut’s blood does not necessarily mean he ever developed full-blown malaria (Source:  Pattaya Daily News:  “New Speculations Over King Tut’s Death”).

Dr. Frank Ruhli, head of Applied Anatomy at the University of Zurich and front man of the Swiss Mummy Project, questions whether we will ever be able to answer the question of what killed King Tut.  The condition of his mummy and the lack of internal organs will always leave room for uncertainty.  Dr. Ruhli observes:

This is a major work in Egyptian mummy studies.  It proves the value of modern methods such as CT and molecular testing. Yet, one needs to be cautious in stating any definite medical diagnosis.   (Source)

Overall, reception has been positive.  At the risk of committing an appeal to authority fallacy, the study’s acceptance into the Journal of the American Medical Association is itself a ringing endorsement.  But as stated near the beginning of this article, genetic and radiographic analysis of ancient mummies is a young science.  Continuing critical analysis, along with independent verification and replication, are vital for its growth.

The Future of the Project

The Family of Tutankhamun Project is an ongoing endeavor which will undoubtedly grow in both depth and scope as the field continues to mature.  Some specific short-term goals have already been enumerated.  Writing in Asharq Alawsat, Dr. Hawass points to the continuing work with the two fetuses and the search for Ankhesenamun, as well as the search for Nefertiti (Source:  “Tutankhamen’s Dynasty in the Valley of Kings”).

Drs. Zink and Pusch are also enthusiastic knights in the Egyptological Grail Quest.  “And we shall continue our research: Nefertiti will be our next project. We have moved our research onto a new and so far unexplored level!” (Source)

In terms of a timeframe, Dr. Hawass suggested in an article with News Trends Today that additional results could be released within six months (Source:  “Tutankhamun: one part of the mystery cleared up, but many riddles”).   Such projections have historically been dubious, but most of us are willing to exchange timeliness for accuracy and transparency.  So long as King Tut continues to enchant the popular imagination, the work—and show—must go on.

See Also

• The Mummies Gallery
• King Tut’s Feet Fatale: Did Frail Feet Fell the Famous Pharaoh?
• Your Mummy and Your Health: The Swiss Mummy Project Unravels Ancient Illnesses
• The Swiss Mummy Project Wraps Up Current Experiment 

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photo “Zahi_Hawass” by Archeologo is used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License.   Photo “Akhenaten and child” is adapted from this photo by Gerbil from de.wikipedia.org and is used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License.  Graphic “family tree scroll” adapted from “Tutankhamun’sAncestry-MostProbableGeneticLineage.svg” by Captmondo is used in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license, and is altered in accordance with the same.  Photo  “OetzitheIceman” courtesy of Mesa Community College is used in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine.  Mr. Mackey appears courtesy of South Park Studios, m’kay?

All the world is abuzz with the long-awaited release of the current genetic study of the Eighteenth Dynasty, particularly as it relates to the goose that continues to lay the golden eggs—King Tut. 

Your humble scribe is still mulling over the subject before attempting his own contribution, but in the meanwhile, here are a few excellent pieces from some of the most excellent writers in the Egyptology blogosphere.  In the spirit of parsimony, I have narrowed my selection down to the three which I found to be the most unique in their approach and thought provoking in their implications.  Enjoy!

The Egyptians

In After Nefertiti, Tim Reid summarizes some of the questions inferred by the new data.  Who (and to a certain degree, what) was Smenkhara?  Are there some new inductees into the narrow circle of the Amarna Revolution?  Who are the most likely candidates for Tutankhamun’s mother?

News from the Valley of the Kings

In The Consanguinity Problem, Kate Phizackerley raises some questions about the reliability of some of the conclusions drawn from the genetic data.  In particular, she asks how confident can we be about specific relationships in a population where genetic variation has been so narrowed by inbreeding.  Is Kate revealing the elephant in the room—that the data may be more difficult to interpret than we are being led to believe?

The Time Traveler Rest Stop

In The Genealogy of Tutankhamun, writer Marianne Luban shares her own informed speculations about the relationship between Tutankhamun and the Younger Lady of KV35.  She makes an interesting argument for the possibility that Nefertiti may have been the mother of Tut after all.

Bonus Story:

On a related note, Marianne also delivers a fair critique of the world premier-style mass media delivery of “Egyptological announcements” in The SCA and Pharaonic DNA.  Is the Supreme Council of Antiquities serving its wine before its time? 

And of Em Hotep?

Ok, so articles on Em Hotep have been admittedly few and far between in 2010, but that is no indicator of things to come!  The new year has brought a banquet of news from Egypt, a boon to be sure, but it has caused me to review my focus and mission with this website.

As the masthead says, we are all about Egypt(ology) for the curious layperson and the budding scholar, but what does that mean?  What I intend is to provide news and analysis about Egyptology—what we know and what we are learning—that is a cut above mass media but accessible to persons of varying levels of education and expertise.

In that definition I would include high school students who have a fascination with Egypt and her history, college students who may or may not be intending to focus their graduate studies on Egyptology, scholars who appreciate an interdisciplinary approach to this field, and the auto mechanic who spent a decade building a scale model of the Giza Plateau that fills her entire attic.

In other words, I want to provide news and reference material which is interesting and digestible to amateur Egyptologists without dumbing things down, while also providing articles that are relevant and enjoyable to those who are a bit further along in the field.

In order to approach this goal with both the tenacity and humility which it deserves, I attempt to pull from the most interesting and reliable sources, to explore the subjects and ask the questions I think will interest my readers, but to also know and honor my own limitations.  This means being inclusive on the one hand, and selective on the other.

Inclusivity

When I first began Em Hotep I had a weekly feature called the Blogroll Roundup, wherein I would point readers to stories on other blogs which I felt were interesting and important.  My objective was also to “promote the Egyptology blogosphere in general.”  In this process I made some excellent connections with other professional and non-professional writers. 

I also discovered that some of the writers I was promoting, quite frankly, wouldn’t give me the time of day!  For the last 4-5 months I have eschewed the Roundup format in favor of specifically promoting sites with whom I feel I have a more reciprocal relationship.  Call me petty, but time is money!

This brings me to the matter of the avalanche of news and my limited ability to weigh in on everything which I think you, Honorable Reader, would find of interest.  But I’m not big on link lists.  From the very beginning I was determined not to become a glorified version of Google news alerts.  I should be quick to clarify that I am not referring to those who provide links to stories which require more digging than simple news alerts  (hello, Tim Reid, Vincent Brown, and Jenny Hale!).

My point is this:  you will either find original writing and analysis on Em Hotep, or links to others who are doing the same.  In order to bring you, Honorable Reader, the stories which I think you will enjoy but which are not covered here, I will be including more topical compendiums of links such as the one above.  Thus inclusivity—I will be including more links to respected peers both to promote their work and to tighten my focus.  Which brings us to…

Selectivity

In order to remain true to my goals for Em Hotep I will be focusing on in-depth feature-length articles and reference material.  This is why my reference material on, say, the Great Temple of Horus at Edfu is more than just a rehash of the Wikipedia article with some of my own photography tossed in.  It begins with Dr. Nadine Moeller’s Tell Edfu Project and the implications of her work there, and then progresses on to the as-of-yet unfinished article on the Great Temple itself.  Speaking of that article…

Narrowing my focus will prevent me from landing in the situation in which I currently find myself:  five pots of stew on a four burner stove.  The Edfu series should have been finished by now, ideally with the article on the temple and maybe even an interview with someone from the Tell Edfu Project before everyone jets off for the 2010 digging season. 

Blogging (I still detest that marginalizing term and use it under duress!) has certain occupational hazards, not the least of which is an obsessive-compulsive drive to “be current.”  That is all good and well within boundaries, but left unchecked can lead to burnout.  It can also result in immersing oneself in a new series before closing the open accounts.

Being inclusive of the work of one’s peers is a salve for that obsessive-compulsiveness.  So long as I am pointing you, Honorable Reader, to others who are covering the news which I am not, then I can be selective in my focus without feeling like I am shirking my duties.

And so

So my immediate goals are to finish up the open accounts, in particular, the Tell Edfu/Temple of Horus series, the Pyramid City series, and a series of articles I am cooking on the new genetic studies of the Eighteenth Dynasty.  Most of the research is already completed for these serials, all that remains is translating several stacks of 50+ pages of notes into several articles which might actually hold someone’s attention!

You may have noticed that I did not mention the Hemienu to Houdin series.  That is because I consider Jean Pierre Houdin’s work to be significant enough that I don’t intend to ever actually finish covering it.  Of course, the current series will be completed, in fact, it is my highest priority.  But I genuinely think that his work on the Great Pyramid in particular and the Memphis Necropolis in general is the number one story in Egyptology. 

This is a bold statement, and I can appreciate that not everyone shares my opinion, especially considering that Tut continues to lay golden eggs.  But Tutankhamun’s claim to fame is managing to stay hidden until someone other than a common grave robber discovered his tomb.  Golden treasures are a huge draw, and tracing the genealogy of the Eighteenth Dynasty and placing famous names on previously anonymous mummies are fascinating and worthy pursuits.

But the pyramids and other monuments of the Memphis Necropolis represent human ingenuity and resolve at their best.  Explaining how they were built does not just answer questions which have perplexed us for thousands of years, it shows that determined but otherwise ordinary human beings are capable of solving nearly impossible problems and achieving epic feats.  These are important things to remember about ourselves these days.

Another up-coming series will be a set of reference articles covering Abydos and what Egyptologists are up to there, partially inspired by David O’Connor’s new book Abydos:  Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osirus, which Amazon just delivered into my eager hands last week.

It may appear that I am off to a slow start in 2010, but I assure you I have been working like crazy!  Of course, I have myself to blame for this perception.  I spread myself too thin to keep fresh material rolling and was too self absorbed to point you, Honorable Reader, toward the work of my fellows in the Egyptology blogosphere.  Mea culpa!  Bear with me while I reorient the ship and I promise fun times ahead!

Your humble scribe has a few stories up his sleeve…

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

In 2005 a team of top radiologists conducted a series of CT scans on Tutankhamun’s mummy, and when the results were announced the following year at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, the results were not 100% conclusive.  Most of the team felt they had settled the question of what had caused Tut’s early death, but there were some holdouts. 

So when Zahi Hawass announced last August that he was on the verge of announcing the exact cause of Tut’s death, Em Hotep! took notice.  So does a new article and video on Dr. Hawass’ website finally put the question to rest?

Pharaoh Tutankhamun (Photo by P. A. Hudson)

As Em Hotep! readers have been reminded, perhaps to the point of tedium, Dr. Zahi Hawass declared to a sold out crowd in Indianapolis on August 7, 2009, that the “exact cause” of Tutankhamun’s death would be revealed in ”one month.”  This was exciting news because, despite the best efforts of the radiological team that conducted the 2005 CT scans, there was still just a tiny bit of doubt about the “exact cause.” 

Of course, this wasn’t exactly what you might call a scandalous controversy.  Most of us were fairly satisfied with the majority opinion of the team—that Tut had died of a secondary infection resulting from a traumatic compound fracture to his left thigh.  But the fact that Dr. Hawass had raised the issue again, with a promise of a conclusive answer, led to speculation that some new study had been conducted that resolved any remaining doubt.  We have been following the story very closely ever since.

In late November Dr. Hawass posted a story and video clip to his website entitled “VIDEO: How Did King Tut Die?”  Following on his August announcement, the title seemed pretty self explanatory.  But before we evaluate this latest offering, let’s have a quick review of the controversy, minor though it may be.

Murder Most Foul?

Ever since Howard Carter first introduced us to Tutankhamun in 1922, there has been conjecture regarding the cause of his death.  Here we had an apparently healthy young man from the absolute top strata of privilege who died in his late teens.  By itself this would have been unfortunate, but not unheard of.  However, given the tumultuous political climate he had inherited from his heretical predecessor, and the Eighteenth Dynasty’s penchant for court intrigue, speculation of regicide was inevitable.

Pharaoh Akhenaten (Photo by Szczebrzeszynski)

Tutankhaten, as he was then known, grew up amidst controversy.  His father (or older brother, by some accounts), Akhenaten, had made some rather unpopular changes in Egyptian politics and religion during his reign.  He moved capital from Memphis to Amarna, and suppressed Egypt’s traditional religions in favor of a sort of monotheism based on Aten, the deification of the solar disk.  Memphis had long been the administrative center of Egypt, and Thebes, the Holy City of Amun, was Her spiritual center. 

This sudden disenfranchisement of the political and religious elite did not win Akhenaten many friends.

Young Tut spent the first decade of his life cloistered with his parents in a sort of counter-culture retreat.  It is tempting to imagine Amarna as being like Southern California during the Sixties, when a lot of social elites joined new religions and moved to communes.  Even the art of the Amarna Revolution went through a shift away from the conservative idealized forms of the past in favor of a radical new realism encouraged by Akhenaten and his glamorous wife, Nefertiti.  Meanwhile, the elder statesman Ay, was the Richard Nixon waiting in the wings.

Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and their children being blessed by Aten (Photo by Gerbil)

When Tutankhaten was only eight or nine years old, Akhenaten died and the Summer of Love came to an end.  Monarchies abhor a vacuum, especially when the political and religious apparatus of the state, not to mention the citizenry, are already close to a revolution of their own.  To preserve the peace (and the dynasty), Tut was hastily put on the throne through the machinations of his crafty grandfather, Ay.   

Pharaoh Ay (Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)

Ay undoubtedly had political ambitions of his own dating back to his days of advising his son-in-law, Akhenaten, and he exerted his influence through Tut.  On Ay’s advice, the Boy King moved the capital back to Memphis and began the process of restoring the old religion of Amun.  He even changed his name from Tutankhaten to Tutankhamun to reflect this return to the Good Old Days.  But Ay was getting on in years, and if he was going to have his turn on the throne, it would have to be soon.

Fortunately for Ay, it was soon.  Tutankhamun conveniently died at around age 19, allowing Ay to finally ascend to the throne, where he reigned as pharaoh for a grand total of four years before he died.

Given these circumstances, and Tutankhamun’s early demise, we can be forgiven for thinking the worst.  When an X-Ray performed on his mummy in 1968 found a hole in the base of his skull, apparently delivered from behind, images of Caesar dead on the floor of the senate leapt into our fertile imaginations.  We had our smoking gun.

Only, we didn’t.

New Study, New Conclusions, New Possibilities

When the radiology team conducted the CT scans on Tut in 2005, they also revisited the hole in his skull.  On closer examination, it appeared that the hole was a result of either the embalming process or damage that occurred shortly after the mummy was discovered, most likely the latter.

The team found that the bone fragments from the hole were loose and rattling around inside Tut’s skull.  If the damage had occurred prior to or during the embalming process, then the bone fragments should have been stuck in, or at least covered with, resin.  Neither was the case.

“The damage probably occurred because of the bad handling of the mummy” says Ashraf Selim, a radiologist who worked with the team that conducted the scan (National Geographic News:  “King Tut Died From Broken Leg, Not Murder, Scientists Conclude,” p. 2).  So while the hole may have occurred during the embalming process, the most likely explanation seems to be Howard Carter’s notorious abuse of the mummy while trying to remove its wrappings (and gold).

So it seemed that Tutankhamun wasn’t murdered after all, at least not by a blow to the head.  But the CT scans did raise another possible cause of death.  Tutankhamun’s left thighbone had suffered a traumatic break which, if it had occurred while he was alive, would have caused a nasty puncture wound.  Lacking effective antiseptic treatments, such a wound have become infected, likely resulting in his death. 

So how does a healthy young regent acquire a deadly compound fracture?

In spite of the depictions of the young pharaoh riding into battle on his chariot, Richard Covington, writing for The Smithsonian, postulates that Tut probably spent much of his time attending to religious functions at Thebes, with the occasional hunting foray on the Giza Plateau (The Smithsonian Mysteries of the Ancient World, Fall 2009:  “Looking into Tut,” p. 69). 

Despite such valiant depictions as this, Tutankhamun was probably not a casualty of war (Photo courtesy of The Yorck Project)

A fall from a galloping horse, particularly if the horse ends up on top of you, could easily produce the sort of break found on Tutankhamun’s leg.  So while Tutankhamun may not have suffered a mortal wound at the hands of the Nubians, it has been suggested that he may have died as a result of a hunting accident.  But the question remains, did the wound occur before or after he died?

Pre- or Postmortem:  That is the Question

When the radiology team analyzed their scans, they were looking for certain indicators that would tell the story of Tut’s life and death, and what happened to his body after he died.  By observing the condition and location of the bone fragments in his skull, for example, they were able to conclude the hole was made after Tut had died.  Because the fragments were not covered with embalming resin, they were able to conclude that the hole was likely a product of mistreatment rather than mummification. 

The break in Tutankhamun’s thigh told a story as well.  The job of the radiology team was to interpret the evidence in order to translate that tale.  Most of the evidence seemed to indicate that the broken left thigh occurred prior to death.  Two very convincing observations led the majority of the team to this conclusion. 

First, there is the shape and appearance of the break.  Living bone is moist and somewhat pliable.  Like a living tree branch, when live bone breaks it tends to splinter and have ragged edges.  Dead bone is dry and brittle.  Like a dead twig, it tends to snap and leave sharp edges.  Unlike the damage that was definitely caused by Carter, the broken thigh has ragged splintery edges.  Tutankhamun’s thigh was more branchy than twiggy.

The second indicator of the fracture having occurred prior to death is the presence of resins inside the fracture itself.  According to most of the radiology team, the embalming fluids could only have gotten into the break if it had occurred while Tut was alive. 

If the break had been done by Carter, then the resin should have been on the surface only and the break should have been clean.  Again quoting Ashraf Selim, “The resin flowed through the wound and got into direct contact with the fracture and became solidified, something we didn’t see in any other area,” (Source).

There is no sign of the break having begun healing, but the team offers two possible reasons for this.  First, infection may have set in early causing a rapid deterioration and quick death.  Second, the embalming process may have obscured any signs of healing.

But not every member of the team agreed with this interpretation.  Some of the radiologists felt that the break could only have occurred as a result of Howard Carter’s mishandling of Tut’s mummy.  Had the wound occurred while Tutankhamun was alive, they insist, there would have been clear evidence of hemorrhaging and/or hematoma in the scans.  The lack of internal bleeding and massive bruising, they contend, point to the damage being postmortem (Source: “Press release, Tutankhamun CT scan, 8 March, 2005”).

As for the resin inside the fracture, they feel this could have occurred while Carter’s team was breaking the mummy apart.  As the broken edges of the bone grated against the resin-coated surfaces, resin could have been deposited into the break.  And the lack of healing seems to speak for itself—dead bones don’t heal. 

So the CT scanning team offered a very probable answer to how King Tut died, but it still wasn’t quite conclusive.  As National Geographic writer Brian Handwerk summarized it:

While scientists were unanimous in concluding that there was no evidence of head trauma, they differed when interpreting a fracture found in the mummy’s left thigh.  Some researchers felt that the break represented a serious injury that Tut had sustained shortly before death, perhaps resulting in an open wound and the possibility of a life-threatening infection. Others dismissed the broken bone as yet another example of damage inflicted by Carter’s team.  (National Geographic News:  King Tut Not Murdered Violently, CT Scans Show)

So the story of the 2005 CT scans was essentially a story without an end, which brings us back to Zahi Hawass’ promise to reveal the “exact cause” of Tutankhamun’s death, supposedly in September, 2009.

The Wait

When Dr. Hawass promised back in August to disclose in one month what killed Tut, I took him at his word and reported the news both on Em Hotep! and in an article I wrote for Heritage Key (Lecture Review: Zahi Hawass’ Mysteries of King Tut Revealed).  When one month came and went, I wrote a follow-up article (King Tut: And the Cause of Death is… To Be Announced) and continued my vigil. 

Toward the end of September I assembled a list of items Dr. Hawass had “promised, hinted, or suggested” would occur by October, 2009 (A Banner Month for Egyptology? October Promises, Hints, and Teasers).  The promised announcement of Tutankhamun’s cause of death was on the list. 

A follow-up to this was written on November 4, 2009 (Nefertiti, the Life and Death of King Tut, and KV64: The October Checklist).  As of then, despite several public speaking engagements, including the opening of the Carter House (named for Howard Carter, a rather obvious connection to Tutankhamun), no news of Tut’s cause of death had been made public.

Finally, without the customary fanfare of a Zahi Hawass announcement, an article and video clip entitled VIDEO: How Did King Tut Die? appeared on Dr. Hawass’ blog.  So was this the revelation Dr. Hawass had promised three and a half months ago?

And The News Is:  Old and Contradictory.

There is no new information in the article on Dr. Hawass’ website.  He makes mention of a “recent” CT scan, which is apparently a reference to the scan that occurred in 2005.  No new analyses are detailed, no new interpretation is offered.  The video clip was recorded in March, 2008, nearly a year and a half before his announcement in August, 2009, that the “exact cause” of Tut’s death would be announced in “one month.”

With regard to the hole in the back of Tut’s head, Dr. Hawass states in his article that “studies of the CT scans show that this hole was made in the back of his head in order to pour the liquid used in mummification into his body after he died.”  This is in contradiction to Ashraf Selim’s statement that the bone fragments were not covered in resin, and the hole probably occurred as a result of Carter’s mishandling of the mummy (source).  In fact, due to how the resins pooled in the skull, the team concluded that the embalming fluids had been poured in through the nasal cavity once the brain was removed.

With regard to the fractured leg, Hawass states in the article on his site that “Previous scholars thought this fracture in the leg was caused by Howard Carter, but we discovered it was the result of an accident that happened shortly before [Tut] died.”  This statement is troublesome on a number of levels.

The fracture was not detected until the 2005 CT scan, so who are the “previous scholars”?  If the previous scholars are the members of the radiology team who held a dissenting opinion, then is Dr. Hawass saying that a new study has been conducted?  When?  Where?  Who is the “we” who discovered that the cause of death was the broken thigh?  If it is the radiology team that conducted the 2005 scan, then how can the dissenters be “previous scholars”?

Hawass offers more detail in the video, where he declares:

[Howard Carter] damaged the mummy to 18 pieces. And this is why many people could think that this fracture could happen because of that damage that Howard Carter did. But radiologists found that’s not true. They found that this fracture is an accident that happened to Tutankhamun one day before he died.  (source—in the video)

But not all of the radiologists “found that’s not true.”  Nowhere in the video (or the article) does Hawass mention that the “previous scholars” who disagreed were part of the radiology team itself.  The team did not reach a consensus.  They did not find that the fracture occurred before he died; most of the team interpreted the evidence as being consistent with a pre-mortem accident.

So how did Tutankhamun die?

Frankly, I agree with Zahi Hawass with regard to the cause.  I believe that the majority opinion of the radiology team that conducted the 2005 CT scan is the most convincing interpretation of the evidence.  I believe that Tutankhamun suffered some terrible accident before he died that resulted in a compound fracture which became infected, resulting in his death.

Where I disagree with Zahi Hawass is the level of certainty he claims for this conclusion.  I do not believe we can prove with absolute certainty what killed Tutankhamun with the evidence that we posses and the tools at our disposal.  I feel that a case has been made for the fracture-and-infection theory that is reliable and likely enough that I choose to believe it.  I think that in the article on his website and in the 2008 video clip Dr. Hawass withholds some of the facts in an attempt to portray a level of certainty which is not there.

As for what Dr. Hawass had in mind on August 7, 2009, when he promised to reveal the exact cause of Tut’s death in one month, I can’t speculate.  As I said above, I took him at his word and what he has offered us is a three-year-old theory and a year-and-a-half old video clip presented as something new.  “At least we can know the cause of his death for the first time,” Dr. Hawass concludes in his video clip.

Why?  Apparently because Zahi Hawass says so, and contrary opinions are to be dismissed for no good reason.

See also

• King Tut’s Feet Fatale: Did Frail Feet Fell the Famous Pharaoh?
• Families and Frailties of the Eighteenth Dynasty
• The Mummies Gallery
• Zahi Hawass and Beyonce: Pay No Attention to the Story Behind the Curtain
• Zahi Hawass to Announce Results of DNA Tests this Fall
• Shemsu’s Interview with Zahi Hawass

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.

Photograph “Head of Tutankhamun” by P. A. Hudson is used in accordance with this Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.  Photo “PortraitStudyOfAy” by Keith Schengili-Roberts  is used in accordance with this GNU Free Documentation License.  Photograph “Pharaoh Akhenaten” by Szczebrzeszynski is used in accordance with this Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Share Alike license.  Photograph “Ägyptischer Maler um 1355 v. Chr. 001”  is part of a collection of reproductions compiled by The Yorck Project and is in the public domain.  Photo “Akhenaten, Nefertiti and their children” by Gerbil is used in accordance with this GNU Free Documentation License.