But in the early part of the New Kingdom the God’s Wife and the Divine Adoratrice were two separate offices within the temple hierarchy at Karnak, which can cause some confusion when exploring the history of these unique institutions.  This article will endeavor to disentangle this relationship as we seek to understand what these two offices were and how they came to be merged into a single position, or at least a single career track.

Note:  At the end of the last article in this series, The God’s Wives of Amun – Royal Women and Power Politics in the Eighteenth Dynasty, I said that this article would also cover the details of the Donation Stele and exactly what was endowed to the House of the Adoratrice.  After some revision it became clear that these were two separate articles.  The properties of the House of the Adoratrice will be explored in Part 2: The Demesne of the God’s Wife.  This present article will focus on the parallel development of the God’s Wife and the Divine Adoratrice, as well as the House of the Adoratrice as an institution.

At first it seems a little convoluted.  During the New Kingdom Period, the God’s Wife (Hemet Netjer) and the Divine Adoratrice (Duat Netjer) were two different positions within the temple hierarchy.  But the House of the Adoratrice (Per Duat) was not the estate of the Divine Adoratrice, who had no estate of her own, it was instead the estate of the God’s Wife.  That is sort of like calling Buckingham Palace the house of the Prime Minister while only allowing the Queen to live there!

To make matters even more confusing, while the offices of God’s Wife and Divine Adoratrice were two separate offices, they could be held by the same person—sometimes the God’s Wife was also a Divine Adoratrice.  At other times she seems to have started off as a Divine Adoratrice, only to become the God’s Wife later, a sort of God’s Wife in-training.

But sense can be made of all of this if we keep in mind that the periods of evolution (and de-evolution) of the offices of God’s Wife and Divine Adoratrice are tied to the changing statuses of women in ancient Egypt.  When the social status of women improved, their positions within the ecclesiastical hierarchy became more specialized and empowered.  When their status diminished their titles became more generalized and their duties less prestigious. 

The House of the Adoratrice and the wealth and influence that came with it was a means for royal women to act with some autonomy and exert some influence over religious and political matters.  Women were able to possess property in ancient Egypt, and royal women possessed wealth of their own.  And as we shall see, women were able to hold religious offices at different times.  But it is not until the God’s Wife of Amun and the House of the Adoratrice that women held both wealth and political and religious power at the same time, independent of the temple and palace.

As later pharaohs attempt to curb this power, the status of the God’s Wife as High Priestess and consort to Amun becomes secondary to her status as the mother and wife of the king.  In other words, as the status of women diminishes, the God’s Wife is no longer defined in terms of her office and influence, but rather in terms of her relationship to the pharaoh.    

Of course, the story of the God’s Wives of Amun cannot be reduced simply to gender politics, and ultimately the convergence of God’s Wife and Divine Adoratrice into a single office is not a sign of a loss of power, but instead marks a phase when the office becomes second only to the pharaoh.  But keeping the subplot of gender politics in mind makes the rest of the story, and the motivations of some of the players, a lot easier to follow.

Holy Women from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom

Egyptian temples were not simply religious institutions, they were also the local cultural center, the community college, the office of social services, and the court of law.  As such, they employed a very large staff with a wide variety of non-priestly jobs.  Written and visual accounts of temple life show that women filled many of these roles from the earliest days of Egypt’s history.

A Fourth Dynasty princess and priestess named Nefertiabet making offerings (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

At least as early as the Old Kingdom Period there were women who also held clerical positions within the temples, although usually as priestesses of female deities, particularly Hathor and Neith.  Richard H. Wilkinson observes that there were some notable exceptions to this rule—occasionally royal women were known to have held positions as priestesses in temples of Thoth and Ptah and within the funerary cults of kings, and may have performed the same duties as the male priests (P. 93). 

Beginning late in the First Intermediate Period and early in the Middle Kingdom Period we begin to see more specialized roles for women in temples.  As we discussed in The God’s Wives of Amun – Royal Women and Power Politics in the Eighteenth Dynasty, the Tenth Dynasty saw the emergence of the position of God’s Wife in temples where particular deities were venerated as creator gods.  The God’s Wives of this period were non-royal women, which indicates that this improved status reached beyond the royalty, extending at least as far as noblewomen. 

Other titles for women within the temple hierarchy begin to appear at this time as well, such as Watcher of the God (Wereshy-Netjer) and wabet, the female counterpart of the wab priests.  Wab priests carried out various tasks such as purifications, overseeing the lay-staff, and carrying the ceremonial barque which housed the statue of the god.  The wabet priestesses were probably not given this latter task, but would have held influential positions in the middle management of the temple.

By the Twelfth Dynasty even the Priestesses of Hathor seem to disappear (Photo by Guillaume Blanchard)

But as the Middle Kingdom approaches the Second Intermediate Period, the role of women in religion begins a gradual decline.  It would be a mistake to attribute this to general instability, as Egypt remained pretty stable throughout the Twelfth and even Thirteenth Dynasties.  But by the middle of the Twelfth Dynasty even the Priestesses of Hathor, an ancient and well-established institution, had practically disappeared. 

Wilkinson suggest this may have been due in part to changing attitudes regarding childbirth and menstruation as being “impure,” but notes that it could just as easily reflect general societal changes during that time (p. 93).  Either way, the loss of status was reflected in the virtual disappearance of female titles in temple administration during the Second Intermediate Period.  Specific titles for women in the temples were largely replaced with the catchall of shemayet—chantress (Wilkinson, pp. 93-4).

The Divine Adoratrice and God’s Wife of Amun in the New Kingdom

Pharaoh Ahmose I, the Great Reformer (Photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)

With Ahmose I’s restoration (and reformation) of the institution of the God’s Wife at the beginning of the New Kingdom we see a triumphant return of women to professional religious life.  This elevation in status again reached beyond royal women and extended to noblewomen.  There was an increasing revival of specialized roles for women in temple functions, and one of the new titles was that of Divine Adoratrice.  According to Anneke Bart, 

The divine adoratrix was a priestess ranking slightly below the God’s Wife and she may have served as a deputy or stand in for the God’s Wife…The position of divine adoratrix could be held by non-royal women as well.  (Ancient Egypt:  God’s Wife of Amun)

Reproduction of a tomb painting of the Divine Adoratrice Seniseneb (Painting by Norman de Garis Davies, courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

While this may indicate a change in status for upper-class women, it should not be viewed independently as evidence that the lot of women in general had improved.  While not necessarily of royal blood, the Divine Adoratrices were high-ranking temple officers and invariably came from influential families usually associated with the temple.  An Adoratrice named Seniseneb, for example, was the daughter of Hapuseneb, a High Priest of Amun and vizier of Hatshepsut.  Another Eighteenth Dynasty Adoratrice, Maetka, was the wife of the Head Goldsmith of Amun (Bart, God’s Wife of Amun).  

Other temples and deities had Divine Adoratrices of their own, also drawn from the ranks of the religious and political nobility. One such noblewoman was Hui, an Adoratrice of the gods Atum and Re (as well as Amun), and the mother of Merytre-Hatshepsut, herself a God’s Wife of Amun and the queen of Thutmose III (Bryan, 2003, p. 6; 2000, p. 248).  Another was Tey, who was an Adoratrice of Min and may have been a wife of Pharaoh Ay (Dodson and Hilton, p. 151-3; 157).

Do not call me queen—Pharaoh (formerly God’s Wife) Hatshepsut (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

During the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty the pharaohs sought to put limitations on the office of the God’s Wife, most likely in response to Hatshepsut, who had utilized the authority and wealth that came with the position and its estate to support her ascent to pharaohood.  By the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty, pharaohs were choosing their wives outside of the royal line and the position of God’s Wife disappears altogether for several generations.

The absence of [royal] wives might be considered a conscious rejection of the dynastic role played by princesses as queens and ‘god’s wives of Amun’ from the establishment of the dynasty through to the reign of Hatshepsut.  Perhaps Thutmose III and Amenhotep II now realized that queens like Hatshepsut, who represented the dynastic family, could be dangerous if they were too wealthy and powerful.  (Bryan, 2000, p. 253).

Regardless of what the underlying motivation may have been, the last clearly attested God’s Wife from the Eighteenth Dynasty is Tia’a, the mother of Thutmose IV.

It is unclear if other female positions within the temple hierarchy suffered a comparable loss of prestige, although the position of Divine Adoratrice does seem to have remained active.  The aforementioned Adoratrice Maetka held office during the reign of Amenhotep III, even though the office of God’s Wife was apparently vacant.  Lacking the power of the God’s Wife, the Adoratrices may have simply not posed enough of a threat to warrant the unwelcome attention of the pharaoh.

God’s Wife and Queen, Mut-Tuya (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

The Eighteenth Dynasty comes to a close with the death of Pharaoh Horemheb, who dies without a blood-heir.  The throne goes to Horemheb’s vizier, Ramesses I, whose short reign marks the beginning of a new dynasty and what is called the Ramesside Period, which spans the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties.  The Nineteenth Dynasty also sees the return of a clearly attested God’s Wife of Amun—Sitre, Ramesses I’s Great Royal Wife and the mother of Pharaoh Seti I.  Seti’s own wife and mother of Ramesses II, Mut-Tuya, likewise becomes a God’s Wife of Amun.

The Ramesside Years and the Third Intermediate Period

Queen Duatentopet, Divine Adoratrice, but not God’s Wife (Drawing by Lepsius Denkmahler)

The offices of God’s Wife and Divine Adoratrice seem to have remained separate institutions throughout the Ramesside Period.  Queen Duatentopet, wife of Ramesses IV and mother of Ramesses V, held the title of Adoratrice but is nowhere attributed with the title of God’s Wife.  On the other hand, a daughter of Ramesses VI, Iset, is attested as an Adoratrice on a stele from Coptos and as a God’s Wife on a block from the Karnak temple complex (See Bart, God’s Wife of Amun).  This seems to indicate that the two offices were still distinct from one another.

Iset was followed as God’s Wife by Tyti, believed to have been the queen of Ramesses X.  Tyti did not hold the title of Divine Adoratrice, which also seems to indicate that the two offices had not yet become fused into one.  But changes were underway that would once again affect the status of the God’s Wife, and which would eventually lead to a redefinition of the Divine Adoratrice as well. 

The hawkish young Ramesses II—great at leading armies, not so great with the royal budget (Photo by Jon Bodsworth)

During the early Nineteenth Dynasty the Ramesside Pharaohs enjoyed a continuation of the stability and prosperity established by the Thutmosid kings of the Eighteenth.  But military campaigns, particularly those of Ramesses II, would take their toll on the royal coffers, and midway through the dynasty rivalry between Pharaoh Merneptah’s sons, Amenmesse and Seti II, would have a destabilizing effect on Egyptian politics.  The royal intrigues carried over into the Twentieth Dynasty, where drought and famine conspired to make a bad situation intolerable. 

The internecine conflict which defined the latter part of the Ramesside Period, along with corruption and a general lack of confidence in royal leadership, brought an end to the New Kingdom.  On the death of Ramesses XI the kingdom again fell into factions and Egypt entered its Third Intermediate Period.  While not as tumultuous as the previous Intermediate Periods, Egypt at the beginning of the First Millennium BC was a nation divided. 

Pharaoh Pinedjem I (Photo by Lamerie)

As authority at the capital in Memphis collapsed, a member of one of the powerful noble families of the Delta Region, Smendes, proclaimed a new ruling house.  The Twenty-First Dynasty, based at Tanis, would assume control of Lower (northern) Egypt.  Meanwhile, the current High Priest of Amun, Pinedjem I, would use the influence of his office to declare himself ruler of Upper (southern) Egypt, establishing a sort of theocracy based at Thebes.

Relations between the two ruling factions were actually highly integrated early in the Third Intermediate Period.  Pinedjem I was not entirely without a connection to the previous dynasty, having married a daughter of Pharaoh Ramesses XI named Henuttawy.  Smendes I likewise married a daughter of Ramesses XI, Tentamun, making the two kings brothers-in-law via the royal house.  Psusennes I, the third pharaoh to sit on the throne at Tanis, was actually the son of the Theban ruler Pinedjem and his wife.

Divine Adoratrice and God’s Wife, Maatkare (Drawing by Lepsius Denkmahler)

On proclaiming himself Pharaoh of Upper Egypt, Pinedjem I named his daughter, Maatkare, God’s Wife of Amun and Divine Adoratrice.  While it is not certain that this was the point where the two offices merged into one, all clearly attested God’s Wives following Maatkare also held the title of Adoratrice.  It is also during the tenure of Maatkare that the tradition of the God’s Wife remaining celibate and “adopting” her successor began.  Although the God’s Wife and Adoratrice Iset had never married, her successor Tyti did, so celibacy as a requirement does not seem to begin until Maatkare.

The celibacy requirement undoubtedly had religious significance, but very likely served a political purpose as well.  As we saw in The Rise of Thebes, The Rise of Amun, one way Ahmose I controlled access to the royal throne was by prohibiting royal princesses from marrying anyone except their brothers, thus preventing anyone from marrying into the line of succession.  Celibacy would have certainly achieved the same result.  As Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson observe regarding the God’s Wives of this period:

She was barred from marriage, remaining a virgin; therefore she had to adopt the daughter of the next king as heiress to her office.  In this way the king sought to ensure that he always held power in Thebes and also prevented elder daughters from aiding rival claimants to the throne.  (p. 113)

Princess Henuttawy, adopted by Maatkare to succeed her as Adoratrice and God’s Wife (Drawing by Lepsius Denkmahler)

As mentioned above, another link with the succession of pharaohs was the practice of the God’s Wife adopting a daughter of the future king as her own successor.  As with both celibacy and royal intrafamilial marriages (which sounds so much more polite than incest), the practice of adopting the next God’s Wife from within the royal lineage kept power consolidated to the immediate family of the king.  These adoptions became increasingly important as having a daughter in the position of God’s Wife of Amun became associated with the king’s legitimacy.

As for the merging of the offices of the Divine Adoratrice and the God’s Wife, one possible explanation is that the adopted successor may have been called the Adoratrice while in a sort of apprenticeship to the current God’s Wife.  This would mean that the two positions were not technically the same post, but it would explain why all God’s Wives after Maatkare also held the title of Adoratrice.  To explore this possibility, let’s take a brief jump ahead to the Late Kingdom Period.

Synthesis via Adoption?  The Late Kingdom Period

Pharaoh Psamtik I, from the tomb of Pabasa (Photo by Neithsabes)

Pharaoh Psamtik I, the first king of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, was in many ways the Ahmose of the Late Kingdom Period.  He even had a Kamose-like forerunner, Necho I, who is sometimes credited with being the first king of the new dynasty.  A delta king from the Saite line of nobles, Psamtik reunited Egypt after the Third Intermediate Period by peacefully reclaiming Thebes and declaring independence from the Assyrians.

Also like Ahmose, Psamtik erected a stele that was similar in function to the Donation Stele, called the Adoption Stele.  At the time when Psamtik re-annexed Thebes, a God’s Wife of the previous ruling dynasty named Shepenwepet II was still in office.  Complicating matters further, Shepenwepet had already adopted a successor—Amenirdis II—who held the title of Adoratrice apparently as an indicator of her status as the heir apparent to Shepenwepet’s office. 

Princess Nitocris, from the tomb of Pabasa (Photo by Neithsabes)

In the Adoption Stele, Psamtik lays out the conditions under which his own daughter, Nitocris, was to be adopted into the line of God’s Wives.  Rather than depose Amenirdis, the new pharaoh worked within the existing system to introduce his daughter into the fold.

Now indeed I heard that a king’s daughter is there, the Horus high of crowns, the good god [Pharaoh Taharqa, father of Amenirdis II], true of voice, whom he gave to his sister [God’s Wife Shepenwepet II] to be her eldest daughter [i.e., her adopted heir to the position of God’s Wife] and who is there as Divine Adoratrice.  I will not do, namely, what is not to be done, removing an heir from his [in this case “his” refers to the Adoratrice Amenirdis II] throne, since I am a king who loves just order (Ma’at)…Now then I will give her [his daughter, Nitocris] to her [Adoratrice Amenirdis II] as an eldest daughter [i.e., adopted heir] like she was made for the sister of her father [God’s Wife Shepenwepet II].  (Bryan, 2003, p. 8, bracketed statements are my additions)

Shepenwepet II, the Nubian God’s Wife when Thebes surrendered to Psamtik I (Photo by Néfermaât)

This is not really as complex as it sounds.  When Thebes, previously under the control of the Nubian Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, surrendered to King Psamtik I, there was a Nubian God’s Wife named Shepenwepet already in place.  Shepenwepet had already adopted Amenirdis as her heir, and as such, Amenirdis held the title of Divine Adoratrice.  When Shepenwepet died or stepped down, Amenirdis would then become God’s Wife, and would then adopt an heir of her own who would become the Divine Adoratrice.

As part of legitimizing his claim as pharaoh, Psamtik wanted to install his own daughter, Nitocris, as the God’s Wife of Amun, but as “a king who loves just order,” he promised in the Adoption Stele to not remove the current God’s Wife or her heir from office, instead offering Nitocris to be adopted by Amenirdis as her own heir and Adoratrice.  Thus, the line to God’s Wife becomes Shepenwepet II to Amenirdis II, then Amenirdis II to Nitocris.

One thing that we can draw from all of this is that, at least at the time of the Adoption Stele, it seems that the Divine Adoratrice may have been a title associated with the adopted heir of the current God’s Wife.  From this perspective it might be more accurate to say that rather than merging into a single position, the Divine Adoratrice and God’s Wife had been combined into a single career track.  But even this would not be entirely correct, as full-fledged God’s Wives were sometimes referred to as the Adoratrice. 

Both possibilities are not mutually exclusive—the adopted God’s-Wives-in-training may have been called Adoratrices, and upon becoming full-fledged God’s Wives may have employed both titles interchangeably.  What is undeniable is that by the Late Kingdom Period there were no Divine Adoratrices who did not go on to become the God’s Wife.  In this sense, the two titles became inseparable, whether synonymous or not.

We can also see from the Adoption Stele that Psamtik understood the significance of having a daughter in the post of God’s Wife.  Since the God’s Wife adopted as her successor the daughter of the future king, the lineage of God’s Wives should logically reflect the royal line.  Although Psamtik was already king, and had chosen not to usurp the existing line of God’s Wives, he wanted assurances that his daughter would become a God’s Wife of Amun in her turn. 

While it could be argued that Psamtik was driven more by the symbolic importance of Nitocris becoming a God’s Wife than by any social status women may have held, he at least respected the office itself, as evidenced by his decision to have his daughter adopted into the line.  Rather than “do that which is not to be done,” removing the legitimate claimant to the position of God’s Wife, Psamtik played by the rules.

In the next article, House of the Adoratrice Part 2:  Demesne of the God’s Wife, we will take our closest look yet at the Donation Stele as we pay a visit to the Court of Pharaoh Ahmose on the auspicious occasion of the purchase of the office of the Second Priesthood of Amun for his wife, Ahmose-Nefertari, who was already the God’s Wife.  We will conduct a detailed inventory of the stele and put the wealth and influence of the House of the Adoratrice into context before looking at each Eighteenth Dynasty God’s Wife of Amun individually.

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 Stds, 2003.  Available for download here.

Dodson, Aidan, and Dyan Hilton.  The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson, 2004.

Shaw, Ian, and Paul T. Nicholson.  The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt.  London: Harry N. Abrams, 2003.

Wilkinson, Richard H.  The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt.  New York: Thames & Hudson, 2000.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

Photo “Egypte louvre 011” by Guillaume Blanchard is used in accordance with the Creative Commons 1.0 Generic License.  Photo “Pinedjem I – 221511956_38f5635ff2_b” by Lamerie is used in accordance with the Creative Commons 2.0 Generic License.  Photos “AhmoseI-StatueHead MetropolitanMuseum” by Keith Schengili-Roberts and “Shepenwepet II” by Néfermaât are used in accordance with the Creative Commons 2.5 Generic License.  Photos “Psammetique_Ier_TPabasa” and “Nitocris_Ier_TPabasa” by Neithsabes are in the public domain, as are the illustrations “maatkare 03082480”, “Duatentopet”, and “Henuttawy” by  Lepsius Denkmahler.  “Adoratrice Seniseneb,” a reproduction of a tomb painting by Norman de Garis Davies, is from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and is used in accordance with the Fair Use doctrine—all rights reserved.  Photos “Neferetiabet”,   “colossal head of Hatshepsut”, “08 Ramesses II and Horus”, “Queen Mut-Tuya”, and “Thutmose iii B” are by Jon Bodsworth and have been kindly released to the public domain.

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.

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!”

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.

But with all the jars now opened, work on KV63 is far from over and the most exciting discoveries are certainly yet to come.

Dr. Schaden had three major goals for the 2009 season:  finish mapping the KV63 complex, open and examine the sixteen jars that remained sealed, and get as far as possible into the process of removing the resin from the coffins (Source: Schaden, Otto J.  “KV63 Season 2009.”  KMT vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 18-29).  On March 17, 2009, Dr. Schaden announced that the mapping had been completed.  With the opening of the remaining jars, that leaves the coffins.

Of course, treatment and analysis of the coffins is just one part, albeit a major one, of the work ahead.  We still have no idea of what purpose KV63 originally served.  It was probably intended to be a tomb, but for who?  It appears to be constructed in a style consistent with Eighteenth Dynasty tombs.  Was it temporary storage for the mummy of someone we may have heard of? The removal of the resin from the coffins could reveal clues as to who they were made for, which may tell us something about KV63.

The journal entry states that in addition to the work on the coffins, Dr. Schaden’s team will begin more specialized studies of some of the other artifacts in early 2010.  There is also a section on the symposium held to mark the opening of the Carter House back in November, and some additional projections about 2010.    You can read Dr. Schaden’s journal and follow the team’s progress at the official KV-63 website.

There is an article in the works for Em Hotep! which will serve as a reference point for future discoveries, stories, and announcements about KV63.  The reference article will begin with Dr. Schaden’s serendipitous discovery and will bring the reader up to the current season.  If you have been following the story of KV63 as it unfolded, then the coming reference article may not have much news for you, but if you don’t know KV63 from R2D2, then expect a full account here in early January!

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  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.