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.

It is kind of hard to say someone had a bad month when they successfully reclaimed five artifacts from the Louvre and were appointed Vice Minister of Culture.  So call me a taskmaster, but those two things were not on the list…

In the last week of October Zahi Hawass was named Egypt’s Vice Minister of Culture by decree of President Hosni Mubarak.  Dr. Hawass was set for retirement from the Supreme Council of Antiquities next spring, although he certainly had no plans to slow down.  With at least a half dozen books planned to be released in the next year, and a list of projects to be completed in the Valley of the Kings, Zahi Hawass was full steam ahead in both his professional and public life.  But with the sort of legacy he was leaving, he was concerned over who might end up replacing him at the helm of the SCA.

With a clear preference for blue-collar archaeology, Dr. Hawass was worried that his replacement might be an academician with no practical experience, rather than someone who had come up through the ranks at the SCA.  In particular, he was…

“…concerned that the government might decide to appoint someone from the University to fill my position who did not have experience in archaeology.  Such a person might be impressed by the glory of the job and not focus on the monuments, and all the projects I have initiated would be abandoned.” (source)

Although not stated explicitly, Dr. Hawass’ new position with the Ministry of Culture will assure that he has some sway over who will be appointed as his replacement.  Rather than a book-smart professor type, more interested in glory and fame, Dr. Hawass’ trademark khakis, denim shirt, and Indiana Jones fedora will be handed down to someone not afraid to get his hands dirty.  Or at least they would be, if Dr. Hawass wasn’t planning to return to the field himself.

Dr. Hawass’ new position will also allow him to continue with other projects of particular importance to him.  The construction of new museums, not to mention the renovation of old ones, will continue under his guidance, as will the training programs he initiated for museum personnel and archaeologists.  Site management has been one of Zahi Hawass’ priorities, and as Vice Minister of Culture he will be able to maintain a watchful eye over these programs as well.

Another priority for Zahi Hawass has been the repatriation of Egyptian artifacts that have found themselves in foreign lands under questionable circumstances.  October saw an agreement by France’s Louvre to return a set of five wall paintings hacked from the tomb of Tetaki (TT 15), an Eighteenth Dynasty court official buried in the Tombs of the Nobles section of the Theban Necropolis. 

The agreement was reached after Dr. Hawass suspended the Louvre’ s activities in Egypt, citing a letter that had been sent eighteen months earlier requesting the return of the tomb paintings.  Frederic Mitterrand, France’s Minister of Culture, was sympathetic and agreed the fragments should be returned, but noted that France had only been aware of the fact they had been stolen following the rediscovery of the tomb in November, 2008 (source).  Oddly enough, this would have been seven months after the letter was supposedly sent, but regardless of such minor details, a victory is a victory. 

Efforts to reclaim another much higher profile Egyptian artifact have been less conclusive, which leads us to the October Checklist.

Ludwig Borchardt’s “Unethical Tactics”

Back in August, when I interviewed Zahi Hawass on behalf of Heritage Key, I asked about the status of his campaign to have the bust of Nefertiti returned to Egypt.  In particular, I asked him when he intended to reveal the evidence of “unethical tactics” Ludwig Borchardt allegedly used to obtain the bust of Nefertiti for Germany.  Dr. Hawass responded that the evidence was still being gathered, and would be publicly revealed when he wrote to Berlin in October to request the return of the artifact.

October did see changes in Nefertiti’s status.  For their part, the Germans moved her to her “new permanent home” in Berlin.  For his part, Dr. Hawass seemed to lower his expectations, stating to Spiegel Online that he was “not by any means” insisting that Nefertiti be removed from her new home (source).  But it wasn’t Nefertiti’s return we were looking for with the Checklist, it was Dr. Hawass’ evidence that Borchardt was dishonest in his dealings. 

There has been legitimate debate over whether or not the bust of Nefertiti should be returned to Egypt, even if Borchardt did remove her under false pretenses.  On the one hand, there are those who say that regardless of the circumstances under which she came to Berlin, she is safe and well cared for, open for public viewing, and too fragile to transport to Egypt.  On the other hand, there are those who say that she is an important and unique artifact and part of the heritage of the Egyptian people and belongs in an Egyptian museum.  But whether or not she should return home or remain in Berlin was not the point the October Checklist was trying to address.

What makes an artifact an artifact is its history, and that history includes not only the circumstances of its creation, it includes how that artifact and its discovery have changed our understanding of the past and how we view ourselves in the present.  An important part of Tutankhamun’s history is his tour of the world’s museums thirty years ago, and is why Dr. Hawass includes him among the world’s ambassadors.  Likewise, the history of the bust of Nefertiti consists of not just the early years of its existence, it includes the story of all that has happened ever since.

Is she, as some have insisted, a forgery foisted on the German people by Borchardt?  Is she the real deal, smuggled quietly out of Egypt by Borchardt and only revealed to the world a decade later when her kidnapper deemed it safe to do so?  Or was she acquired under what were the standards of the day with regard to which discoveries archaeologists were allowed to take back to their home countries, and which were to be left in Egypt?  All of these questions are as much a part of the bust’s history as everything thing that led up to them. 

If the Supreme Council of Antiquities is privy to the answers of some of these questions, then they should make them public.  What is the advantage of hanging on to evidence of an alleged crime that occurred a century ago?  It’s not as if the prosecution is going to call some last-minute surprise witness who will burst into the courtroom with the Damning Evidence, as everyone turns and gasps.  Nor is the evidence, if it exists, the private domain of a few men to distribute arbitrarily.  It is not the task of historians and archaeologists to hide secrets, but rather to unearth them.

King Tut’s Daughter

When Howard Carter discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922 he also discovered the mummified bodies of two young girls—one who is believed to have been miscarried at about six months, and another believed to have been stillborn.  The fact that they had been interred with the young king suggests they may have been his daughters.  This potential link is vital to the genetic mapping of the Eighteenth Dynasty, because if they are the daughters of Tutankhamun and his wife, Ankhesenamun, then their genetic profile could help identify Ankhesenamun’s mummy.  This could open an entire branch of the family tree, possibly leading to the identification of Nefertiti and other Eighteenth Dynasty celebrities.

A DNA sample was taken from the older of the two and subjected to testing in 2008, and again in 2009, supposedly with encouraging results.  On August 7^th, 2009, at a lecture at Butler University’s Clowes Hall which I covered for Heritage Key, Dr. Hawass stated that both tests had indicated that Tutankhamun was likely the father of the child.  He further stated that the results would be published in a paper “next week” (source).

August passed with no further word.  Six weeks later, in a September 20, 2009, article for the Sacramento Bee, spokesperson Jill Lynch stated “this fall, Dr. Zahi Hawass is going to announce the results of a DNA study that will determine the parenthood of the two fetuses found buried with King Tut.”  According to the article, the DNA results would be announced in “the next few weeks.”  It has been yet another six weeks, with no announcement.

The declaration that a paper detailing the DNA studies would be published “next week” was met with applause at Clowes Hall because people follow the story with excitement.  We want to know the ongoing status of this work, even if such reports only announce that the results so far are inconclusive.  Stating that a paper is to be published next week, or an announcement is coming in a few weeks, implies that the work has been done, so why continue to withhold it from the public? 

Nobody is suggesting that a researcher doesn’t have a right to hold back their work until it is ready for publication, and nobody wants to deny an archaeologist his or her much-deserved moment in the sun.  And everybody can appreciate the fact that sometimes things come up and schedules change.  But when we are told that an exciting event will happen by a certain date, the date passes without the event or an explanation, only for the same exciting announcement to be repeated again a little later, people begin to wonder if these announcements are really worth the excitement they generate. 

A New Tomb

Again quoting the above-cited lecture at Clowes Hall, Dr. Hawass stated in August that he hoped his “all Egyptian team” would be announcing the discovery of a new tomb in October of 2009 (source).  This new tomb, which according to the naming conventions for the Valley of the Kings is already known as KV64, is a favorite topic of discussion and speculation in Egyptological community, particularly on the blogosphere.  It is known that Dr. Hawass has been in hot pursuit of the tombs of Nefertiti, Ramesses VIII, and Queen Tiye in recent years. 

And although the lecture seemed to imply that the discovery would be made at the Valley of the Kings area (the proclamation was made in the context of discussing recent work in the Valley of the Kings), it is entirely possible the next tomb to be announced may not be KV64.  Rather than the Valley of the Kings, what if the new tomb is in Alexandria?  Work was to resume in October at (or near) Alexandria on a tomb Dr. Hawass believes may belong to one of ancient history’s most famous femmes fatales, Cleopatra VII (source).  It is entirely possible this year’s digging season may uncover the tombs of both Cleopatra and Nefertiti, two of the most powerful women in Egypt’s history.

But wishful thinking aside, no new tombs were announced in October.  One might point out that the operative word above was hoped, as in, Dr. Hawass hoped to make the announcement in October, but made no promises.  Fair enough, but again, why keep us in the dark?  Why not give us an update?  “We hoped to make an announcement this month, but ran into problems.  We hope that we will be making an announcement in January.”  Instead, another date passes without an explanation, or even an acknowledgement. 

What Killed Tut?

Again, to return to the lecture at Clowes Hall, on August 7^th, 2009, Dr. Hawass assured the audience that contrary to popular belief King Tutankhamun was not murdered, and that he would be announcing the cause of Tut’s death “in one month” (source).  It has been nearly three months now, and to my knowledge Dr. Hawass has made no announcements regarding the cause of Tutankhamun’s death.

A little later today (November 4, 2009) an important event is scheduled to take place in Luxor, Egypt—the opening of the Carter House to the public.  Dr. Hawass will be present and is scheduled to address those gathered for the occasion.  In the comments section of a previous Em Hotep! article on this very subject, King Tut: And the Cause of Death is… To Be Announced, one of our readers (Ann) suggested that this event would be an ideal time to announce the cause of Tut’s death, seeing as how Howard Carter discovered his tomb.

I am inclined to agree with Ann.  It makes perfect sense to hold onto this news for the opening of the Carter House.  The two events are related and it would pay double homage to a famous and beloved Egyptologist, Howard Carter.  But once the decision was made to postpone this historic revelation, why not announce the change?  The earlier date had been set in a public forum, why not relate the change in an equally public manner, such as an announcement on Zahi Hawass’ blog that instead of September the cause of Tutankhamun’s early demise would be disclosed at the opening of the Carter House?

This, of course, presumes that Dr. Hawass will be sharing this knowledge later today at the Carter House.  Without the facts, all we can do is speculate.

Zahi TV

This item on the Checklist was sort of tongue-in-cheek.  There were rumors that The History Channel might be filming a sort of archaeology reality show with Dr. Hawass beginning in October of 2009 (source).  There has been no further mention of these plans that I have been able to track down, but it is easy enough to find Zahi TV as it is.  Not just The History Channel, but The Discovery Channel, National Geographic documentaries, possibly even the Weather Channel have all featured Dr. Hawass and will undoubtedly continue to do so for years to come.

And that’s ok.  Even the grand-standing is ok because it generates interest in Egyptology.  Zahi Hawass seems to have the ability to pull a press conference out of thin air.  Even he has joked about arriving unannounced at dig sites only to find the cameras already there waiting for him.  The desire to always have some exciting news to break must be quite compelling.  It is certainly understandable that he is concerned his replacement might be someone who is merely “impressed by the glory of the job.”

Maybe the October Checklist delivered more of a bite than I originally wanted.  It was intended to be fun, and I had really hoped to see the “inventor of the twenty-four hour workday” knock these five (ok, make that four) pitches out of the park.  They were, after all, things he himself had “promised, hinted, and suggested.”  But I can’t help but note that these major announcements were made so lightly, and apparently forgotten with the same ease. 

I sincerely hope that the cause of Tutankhamun’s death will be revealed at the Carter House in a few hours.  Otherwise, it is just another announcement dropped and then, well, just dropped.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.

Photographs “Egypt.Zahi.Hawass.01.jpg” by Hajor, ”Nefertiti berlin.jpg” by Zserghei, ”DSC093719.JPG” by E. Michael Smith, and “Rubble being cleared” by drewnoakes are provided courtesy of Wikimedia Commons  and are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of those files under the conditions that you appropriately attribute them, and that you distribute them only under a license identical to this one. Official license 

It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say the event had the feel of a rock concert.  We were there to see a star.  What secrets would he reveal tonight?  What announcements would he make?

Shemsu scoops the news for Heritage Key. 

I have already written about the interview with Zahi Hawass, which naturally was the main event for me.  But Heritage Key also sent me to cover the event, Zahi Hawass’ Mysteries of Tutankhamen Revealed.  It was an exciting night all around, and Dr. Hawass made several announcements.

What is the status of the probing of the “secret doors” inside Khufu’s Pyramid, and when can we expect an update?  How far did he get with the Osiris Shaft?  What is going on with the CT scans and genetic testing of Tutankhamen and his family?

Dr. Hawass addresses these questions and more, and I detail them in my blog entry on Heritage Key.  Read about it here:  Lecture Review: Zahi Hawass’ Mysteries of King Tut Revealed.

This is a separate article from the interview, so hop over and check it out.  I can’t reproduce it in full here because it was written while on assignment, but I can say that I ruminate about who might rest in a new tomb to be revealed in October, 2009, and I discuss Hawass’ promise to reveal in one month some very, very interesting information about King Tut…

Copyright 2009, all rights reserved.