In this installment:  The search for Nefertiti, mummies and heart disease, was Tut murdered, mummies and dental care, ancient brain surgery, tracking Lady Tahat and sexing Lady Hor..  Much more..

The Search for Nefertiti

Nefertiti has been the subject of controversy ever since the New Kingdom Period, and as befits an arch-diva, she remains the source of heated contention today.  Did she reign for a season as the shadowy Pharaoh Smenkhkare following Akhenaten’s death?  Should her famous bust be returned to Egypt?  Ask these questions in the right crowd and prepare for fisticuffs!  Well, maybe it isn’t that bad, but one subject that did draw some heat for a while was whether or not the anonymous mummy known only as KV35YL—the Younger Lady—could be the remains of Nefertiti.

Tomb KV35—the tomb of Amenhotep II—was discovered in 1898.  The Eighteenth Dynasty tomb had been used in later years as a repository for royal mummies that had been relocated due to the looting of their own tombs.  Along with an impressive list of fellow Eighteenth Dynasty royals, tucked away in a side chamber were two unidentified female mummies, dubbed the Elder Lady (KV35EL) and Younger Lady (KV35YL).  Rumors almost immediately began circulating that one of the two must be Nefertiti.

KV35YL - the "Younger Lady"

The most popular claims were based on unaided forensic observations (just using your eyes and expertise).  Her head still bears the impression of a headband, which is consistent with the style of headdress worn by Nefertiti and other Eighteenth Dynasty royal women.  Her double-pierced ears are likewise a sign of royalty.  Even more intriguing is a broken-off arm nearby, attributed to KV35YL, which was preserved in a clutching position, as if she held a scepter of office when embalmed.

All of these observations, despite being circumstantial, are valid methods in mummy forensics.  It would certainly seem that the tragically damaged mummy of KV35 Younger Lady was a royal princess, possibly a King’s Great Wife, but can we say she was Nefertiti?  Follow the story and see where more advanced mummy forensics takes us. 

Searching for Nefertiti—Mummies in KV35 are CT scanned to see if one is Nefertiti (no date).

Tracking Nefertiti by Maryalice Yekutchik (Discovery Channel)

Having recently accumulated firsthand scientific data to add to the corroborative evidence that she painstakingly mounted over the years, Joann Fletcher has broken her cryptic silence. She declares that the unwrapped, shaven-headed mummy in KV35 is indeed most likely to be Nefertiti, the stunningly beautiful and powerful 3,400-year-old royal who likely reigned as pharaoh after serving as queen, and whose death and final resting place were ages-old mysteries.

Where’s Nefertiti?  By Mark Rose (Archaeology, September 16, 2004)

Mark Rose critiques Joann Fletcher’s work, and resultant book, regarding her search for Nefertiti and conclusion that she is one of the mummies from KV35.

Nefertiti—Will the Real Mummy Please Stand Up? By James M. Deem (Mummy Tombs)

Could the missing mummy of Nefertiti actually have been discovered a century ago and simply misidentified? A team of British researchers led by Egyptologist Joanne Fletcher conducted a 12-year search for the mummy. In 2003, they claimed that they had identified the missing Queen’s mummy as one discovered in a cache of mummies uncovered in 1898. Case closed? Not quite.

Press Release:  CT Scans of Egyptian Mummies from the Valley of the Kings

One of the most intriguing mummies from the Valley of Kings is the “Younger Lady” from KV35. She has recently, and unconvincingly, been identified as Akhenaten’s chief queen Nefertiti, renowned as one of the great beauties of the ancient world. Traditional scholarship has already successfully debunked this speculative assumption; the latest CT-scan confirms that this identification is indeed highly unlikely.

Mummies and Heart Disease—Evidence of a “Modern” Affliction

Did the ancient Egyptians suffer from hardening of the arteries?  Mummy forensics says the prognosis is critical—heart disease was fairly common, at least among royalty.  But this result came as a surprise to cardiologists, and led to a reexamination of their assumptions about what causes this not-so-modern killer.

Dr. Greg Thomas, Clinical Professor of Cardiology at the University of California, Irvine, started with a problematic observation about what we thought we knew about heart disease.  Conventional wisdom said that heart disease was a modern affliction caused by a lifestyle of bad habits, a high-fat diet, and a sedentary lifestyle.  And yet, in his own practice Dr. Thomas knew of people who led healthy lifestyles and yet developed heart disease nonetheless. 

Dr. Thomas wondered if another variable was causing the problem, unrelated to lifestyle.   He decided that one way to find out was to study a group of subjects who didn’t smoke, avoided fast food, and lived active lifestyles, or at least they did thousands of years ago—ancient Egyptian mummies.  Dr. Thomas’ patients who developed heart disease despite healthy habits suggested that lifestyle was not the only, or even a necessary, cause of heart disease.  If ancient Egyptians, who had none of our modern risk factors, also suffered from heart disease, then this would be further evidence that something besides the modern lifestyle was at work.

The Horus Study Group was thus formed to seek answers to these questions.  An international team of heart specialists and Egyptologists, the Horus Study Group’s goal was to conduct CT scans on 20 royal mummies from the Egyptian Museum at Cairo, looking for signs of heart disease.  The cardiologists were skeptical.  They did not expect to find evidence of arteriosclerosis, the hardening of the arteries associated with modern heart disease. 

At first, the CT scans seemed to confirm their suspicions.  Initial analysis of the results failed to turn up the tell-tale calcium deposits that indicate arteriosclerosis.  But as they had more time to delve into the results, the Horus Group researchers began to see patterns emerge that were missed on the first sweep.  Not only did many of the mummies have atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries exacerbated by plaque buildup), in some instances the condition was advanced. 

In this study, mummy forensics taught us something about a condition that we considered a modern affliction.  We found that not only is heart disease as old as civilization itself, we learned that while lifestyle might contribute to, or even cause heart disease, something else (such as genetics) is involved. 

Of course, the mummies in this study group came from a privileged class, where lifestyle factors such as a high-fat diet and a less physically active regimen, cannot be ruled out as contributing factors.  While the Horus Study opened new ways of looking at what turns out to be an old disease, further work is required for a more solid conclusion.

Egyptian Mummies Unwrap Secrets of Medical Mystery—The Horus Study Group is an international team of Cardiologists and Egyptologists who are determined to learn more about modern medicine by unwrapping secrets found in Egyptian mummies.  This clip is an introduction to their work.  (March 30, 2011).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Heart Disease Found in Egyptian Mummies—It turns out heart disease has been a problem for thousands of years. Recently researchers took a closer look at a 3,500-year-old mummy and found out this Egyptian princess along with more than a dozen other mummies suffered from a buildup of plaque in the arteries (April 11, 2009).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Heart Disease Found in Egyptian Mummies by staff (Science Daily, November 17, 2009)

Hardening of the arteries has been detected in Egyptian mummies, some as old as 3,500 years, suggesting that the factors causing heart attack and stroke are not only modern ones; they afflicted ancient people, too.

Mummy Scans Show Heart Disease was Rampant by Laura Sanders (Wired/Science News, November 18, 2009)

Among 22 mummies who received full-body computed tomography scans, 16 had hearts or arteries preserved enough to study. Of those, nine had evidence of blockage from atherosclerosis.

The Mummy Study Returns by Tom Vasich (University of California, Irvine/University Communications, April, 2011)

While the American and Egyptian researchers first identified atherosclerosis in a smaller 2009 mummy study, this effort involved whole-body CT scans on 52 mummies housed in Cairo’s Museum of Egyptian Antiquities. Of the 44 with identifiable arteries or hearts, 45 percent had calcifications either in the wall of an artery or along the course of an artery highly suggestive of atherosclerosis.

Egyptian Mummy’s Curse:  Oldest Heart Disease Case by Stephanie Pappas (Live Science, May 17, 2011)

An ancient Egyptian princess would have needed bypass surgery if she’d lived today, according to researchers who examined the mummy and found blocked arteries in her heart in what’s now the oldest case of human heart disease.

Egyptian Princess Mummy Had Oldest Known Heart Disease by James Owen (National Geographic News, April 15, 2011)

An ancient Egyptian princess might have been able to postpone her mummification if she had cut the calories and exercised more, medical experts say.  Known as Ahmose Meryet Amon, the princess lived some 3,500 years ago and died in her 40s.

Egyptian Princess Needed Bypass Surgery, Mummy Study Shows by staff (History in the Headlines/History Channel, May 18, 2011)

The daughter of Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao II and the brother of Pharaoh Kamose, the Egyptian princess Ahmose-Meryet-Amun lived in Thebes—now Luxor—between 1540 and 1550 B.C. When she died in her 40s, the royal mummy-to-be may have been suffering from heart disease so severe that today’s doctors would have performed bypass surgery. Her mummy was examined during a larger study that shed new light on the history of the heart condition known as atherosclerosis, suggesting that the disease may have been around much longer than previously thought.

Was King Tut Murdered?

Poor Tut inherited a mess.  His father, Akhenaten, had turned Egyptian political and religious life on its head, establishing the reclusive and elitist New World Order at Amarna.  Now, with the collapse of the Amarna court and the rush to restore the old government and religious institutions, Tut seems to have been wedged into a power vacuum as little more than a placeholder. 

Tutankhamun was surrounded by envious enemies and potential plotters from the outset.  Indeed, his two closest confidants, Ay and Horemheb, were each waiting for their own turn on the throne.  To the aging vizier Ay, the nine-year-old king was a serious long-term cramp in his personal ambitions.  Horemheb, commander of Egypt’s armies and Tut’s official heir, would have likewise seen the young king as an unpredictable variable susceptible to Ay’s manipulations at court while the general was away fighting battles.

And then there were the grudges.  Tutankhamun’s father had stripped the Amun priesthood of all power and authority.  Of course, Akhenaten had inflicted this humiliation on all of Egypt’s established religions, but the Eighteenth Dynasty had a special relationship with Amun, who was seen as their deliverer from the Hyksos.  The New Kingdom arguably owed its establishment to the covenant between Ahmose I, Amun, and the institution of the religion of Amun.  Tutankhamun’s father had spat upon that arrangement. 

Of course, Tutankhamun was the public face of the reversal of Akhenaten’s policies, but for some people this may have been too little too late.  Some high-ranking government officials, powerful clergy, and wealthy nobles had lost virtually everything in the restructuring of Egyptian society based at Amarna.  Many people just a few years older than Tut had seen their families disenfranchised and their inheritances swept away, and it is not difficult to envision machinations of revenge.

So what is the evidence for regicide?  Are there alternative explanations?  If King Tut wasn’t murdered, why did he die so young?  In the case of Tutankhamun’s death, mummy forensics led to suspicion when a potentially lethal wound was discovered at the back of his head, and then eventually led to an explanation for this and other wounds, and a deeper understanding of the process of royal mummification during the New Kingdom Period.  As for what did kill him, do your own analysis of the following sources and reach your own conclusion.  There are still several to choose from!

Mummy Forensics:  Was Tutankhamun Murdered?—Mummy forensics turned up a possible cause of death for Tutankhamun, one which may have been purposely inflicted.  But on reexamination, the process of mummification itself may explain the hole in Tut’s head.

Who Killed King Tut?  (King Tut Website)

A review of the theories and possible suspects regarding Tutankhamun’s death.

Was Tutankhamun Murdered?  By Jenny Hill (Ancient Egypt Online)

Unfortunately, Howard Carter and his team were not particularly careful with the body of Tutankhamun when they investigated his tomb. They were more interested in removing the jewellery and amulets that were placed within the mummy wrappings than in preserving his body for posterity and in their haste they caused a huge amount of damage. Since then Tutankhamun’s mummy has been X-rayed three times (in 1968, 1978 and in 2005) but these scans have been unable to confirm beyond a reasonable doubt, the cause of his death.

Was Tutankhamun Murdered?  By Kate Ravilious (The Guardian, November 18, 2004)

The scan provides information about the density of all parts of the mummy, ranging from the wrappings to the skin and bone. “The scan will give a clear view of any bones that are not in the correct position and any signs of injury,” says John Taylor, an Egyptologist at the British Museum, who has carried out CAT scans on about 20 mummies.

King Tut Not Murdered Violently, CT Scans Show by Brian Handwerk (National Geographic News, March 8, 2005)

Detailed CT scans of King Tutankhamun’s mummy found no physical evidence of murder, Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities announced today. But the scans did reveal unusual features, including a broken leg, which some experts think may have led to the boy king’s death.

King Tut Felled by Malaria, Bone Disease by Rosella Lorenzi (Discovery News, February 16, 2010)

King Tutankhamun was most likely the child of the “heretic” pharaoh Akhenaten..and was afflicted by several diseases, including malaria, according to a major genetic investigation into the boy king’s family.  “We have found so many curious conditions and pathologies in King Tut that it is really a problem to define what killed him,” author Carsten Pusch at the Institute of Human Genetics of Tubingen University, Germany, told Discovery News.

King Tut Died From Broken Leg, Not Murder, Scientists Say by Stefan Lovgren (National Geographic News, December 1, 2006)

A CT scan of King Tutankhamun’s mummy has disproved a popular theory that the Egyptian pharaoh was murdered by a blow to the head more than 3,300 years ago. Instead the most likely explanation for the boy king’s death at 19 is a thigh fracture that became infected and ultimately fatal, according to an international team of scientists.

A 3,000-Year-Old Mystery is finally solved:  Tutankhamun Died in a Hunting Accident by Steve Connor (The Independent, October 22, 2007)

The mystery behind the sudden death of Tutankhamun, the boy king who ruled Egypt more than 3,000 years ago, may have been finally solved by scientists who believe that he fell from a fast-moving chariot while out hunting in the desert.

Tut:  Disease and DNA News by Mark Rose (Archaeology, February 16, 2010)

News reports are coming out today about Tut, malaria, and his family DNA. Here’s a quick take based on an early cut of the Discovery documentary and the Journal of the American Medical Association press release.

Lady Tahat—Musical Mummies or a Matched Wrap?

The Carlos Museum at Emory University has received a female mummy in a coffin that identifies her as Tanakhtnettahat (Lady Tahat for short), a Chantress of Amun.  But sometimes less reputable antiquities dealers stick unidentified mummies into empty coffins to increase their value.  How can we be sure the mummy is really that of Lady Tahat?

Mummy forensics draws on specialists from a wide range of disciplines.  Can a textiles specialist match the mummy to the coffin?

How Mummy Identification Works—Narrated by Bob Brier, this clip from the Discovery Channel describes how specialists sought to verify the identity of a mummy by matching it to its coffin.  The coffin belonged to Lady Tahat (Tanakhtnettahat), a Chantress of Amun, but does its current occupant belong there?  A scrap of wrappings, presumably from the original owner, is stuck to the bottom of the coffin.  Does it match the wrappings of the mummy currently within? (No date).

Coffin and Coffin Board of Tanakhtnettahat (Carlos Museum/Emory University)

This exquisite coffin belonged to the Lady Tahat, a chantress in the temple of the god Amun at Karnak. Such women were usually of high rank, as this unusually fine coffin indicates.

The Gender-Bending Case of “Lady” Hor

On June 23, 2009, a team from the Brooklyn Museum transported four mummies to North Shore University Hospital for CT scans.  Two of the mummies were from the Roman Period, including Pasebakhaemipet, a former mayor of Thebes, and two were female mummies from the Twenty-Second Dynasty, named Lady Hor and Thothirdes.  Or so the researchers thought.

The researchers were looking for the typical sorts of things CT scans tell us about mummies—verification of sex, diagnoses of any potential health issues, and a determination of the cause of death, if possible.  The study also sought to compare how the process of mummification differed from period to period and between different social classes.

Both Lady Hor and Thothirdes showed signs of receiving lower-quality mummifications than the Roman-era mummies, evidenced in part by the fact that both women were missing their hearts.  The heart is left intact with higher-quality mummifications.  But the researchers were even more surprised by what was not missing!  Both Lady Hor and Thothirdes were men, not women!

Taking the example of “Lady” Hor, this study shows the advantages of being able to look “under the wrappings” with x-rays and CT scans.  Hor, which incidentally is a masculine name—a pretty good clue!—was originally assumed to be female based on the portrait on his sarcophagus, which depicted a beardless face with delicate features.  Most Egyptian men from this period wore beards, so the researchers who made the original determination assumed that Hor was female.  It was only after looking under the wrappings with CT scanning that the truth was discovered.

Under the Wrappings:  The “Lady” Hor—Video from the Brooklyn Museum describing the CT scan that revealed Lady Hor to be Sir Hor instead.  We learn about the difficulties of transporting the mummies from the Brooklyn Museum to North Shore University Hospital, along with an explanation by Dr. Edward Bleiberg  of the misdiagnosis and subsequent proper diagnosis of Hor’s sex (April 1, 2010).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Scan Reveals Mummy is Male—An Associated Press clip on the CT scan and diagnosis of Hor.  Commentary with Dr. Edward Bleiberg of the Brooklyn Museum and Dr. Jesse Chusid of North Shore University Hospital in this gender-bending discovery made possible by CT scan (June 24, 2009).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Unwrapping Brooklyn’s Mummies: Interview with Edward Bleiberg (Archaeology, July 23, 2009)

Dr. Edward Bleiberg discusses the Brooklyn Museum’s fascinating mummies and their CT scans with Archaeology‘s Morgan Moroney. He describes what has been learned so far and the future plans for the scans, while emphasizing the importance of non-intrusive mummy unwrappings, the open exchange of scholars, excavating in museum storerooms, and public outreach.  Dr. Bleiberg also discusses the study that revealed Hor’s gender.

Report on the Mummies’ Trip to the Hospital by Vincent Brown (Talking Pyramids, June 24, 2009)

Vincent Brown’s live coverage via social media of the Brooklyn Museum mummies’ trip to the CT scanner at North Shore University Hospital.

Hey, That Mummy is a Daddy by Erik Badia (Newsday, June 23, 2009)

Egyptologists from the Brooklyn Museum and doctors from North Shore University Hospital learned Tuesday through a CT scan that a 2,500-year-old mummy previously thought to be a woman – and named Lady Hor – actually was a man. Dr. Jesse Chusid said that while the mummy’s body wrap of linen covered in plaster, called cartonage, bore the shape of a woman, the body within had the anatomy of a man. When Lady Hor’s image appeared on the screen, “we knew almost immediately that it was not a woman,” Chusid said.

Mery—Four out of Five Mummies Agree:  Brush Your Teeth

Mery (“beloved”) is the name given to an anonymous female mummy acquired by the Walters Art Museum of Baltimore in 1941.  Although her real name is unknown, we know that she lived in Thebes around 850-750 BC, came from a middle class professional family, and lived to between 50-60 years of age.  We also know that her final years would have been miserable.

Mery’s teeth were in terrible condition at the time of her death.  Of 28 remaining teeth, half were abscessed and her gums show signs of infection.  Her problem wasn’t cavities—her teeth were too worn and broken for many cavities to form.  At any given time, several of Mery’s teeth would have been throbbing with pain.  Her abscesses were so severe that her cause of death was likely septicemia, blood poisoning from her infected teeth and gums.  But her condition was not so unusual. 

At least after death, teeth are the most durable part of the human body, surviving even better than bones.  Orthodontic studies of mummies can tell us about their diet and lifestyle, and blood preserved in the pulp can provide DNA, so a good dental checkup is one of the first steps in a forensic mummy study.  But the most comprehensive study of mummy teeth came in 2009, when the Swiss Mummy Project did a massive forensic study of the dental records of over 3,000 mummies that had been analyzed over the previous 30 years. 

X-ray of Hatshepsut's teeth show Mery was not alone in her misery

The Swiss study concluded that 18% of the mummies had problems that would send even the most squeamish of us running to the dentist.  Necrotizing periodontal disease, infected cysts leaking toxins into the bloodstream, tooth and bone degeneration leaving nerves exposed, constant dull ache punctuated by moments of intense explosive pain…  Mery and the unlucky 18% experienced this and more.  But the ancient Egyptians had a diet fairly low in sugar, so why were bad teeth so prevalent?

The main culprit was the sand that surrounded them, which found its way into everything, including their food.  Bread was a staple of the ancient Egyptian diet, and bread required stone-milled flour.  When grain was tossed on the grinding stone there would inevitably be a small amount of sand that would also be pulverized into the flour.  Over the course of a lifetime this fine silicon abrasive slowly wore away at the teeth’s enamel and dentin.

Mummy forensics has also revealed signs of ancient Egyptian dentistry.  For the worst abscesses, hollow reeds would be used to lance and drain the gums.  Mery herself shows signs of an attempt to fill one of her teeth, probably with a resin mixture.  Unfortunately, Novocain was still a few millennia away.

The Walters Mummy Gets a Checkup—In spring 2008, the University of Maryland and the Walters Art Museum performed a CT scan on Mery, a female mummy from the museum, to conduct a “virtual autopsy” discovering more about the person’s age, possible illnesses and cause of death. She most likely died of blood poisoning from severe dental abscesses.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Mummified:  The Walters Art Museum Mummy Gets Scanned (Walters Art Museum)

The Walters Art Museum webpage concerning the “virtual autopsy” of Mery.

Bad Teeth Tormented Ancient Egyptians by Rosella Lorenzi (Discovery News, December 3, 2009)

Worn teeth, periodontal diseases, abscesses and cavities tormented the ancient Egyptians, according to the first systematic review of all studies performed on Egyptian mummies in the past 30 years.

Don’t Fear the Mummy?  Fear Her Dentist by Karl Hille (The Washington Examiner, November 27, 2008)

Judging by the state of Mery the mummy’s teeth, dental hygiene likely wasn’t a top priority 2,800 years ago, and it may even have been the cause of her demise.  Deep abscesses, broken teeth and intensely infected gums filled Mery’s mouth, leading researchers to believe she died from blood poisoning stemming from multiple infections.

Head Check No. 1: The Mystery of Tomb 10A

The head sat atop the sarcophagus as if to greet them—pleased to meet you, won’t you guess my name?

In 1915 a tomb was excavated by a joint Harvard University/Museum of Fine Arts Boston expedition working in the necropolis of Deir el-Bersha.  Labeled 10A, this was the tomb of Djehutynakht and his unnamed wife.  Djehutynakht was a local governor and priest from the Middle Kingdom Period, and his tomb goods, despite the shinier stuff having been looting ages ago, show that Djehutynakht and his wife enjoyed a life of refinement.  He left behind a huge cache of delicately executed funerary models, and his coffin may be one of the best examples from the Middle Kingdom Period.

The mystery revolves around a head found resting on Djehutynakht’s coffin.  Tomb robbers destroyed the mummies of Djehutynakht and his wife looking for the valuable amulets and jewelry that would have been included in their wrappings.  When the spoilers had finished, the remains of both mummies lay scattered about the tomb, with the head perched atop Djehutynakht’s coffin like a macabre signature to their deed.

So who does the head belong to?  Djehutynakht?  His wife?  Mummy forensics has its limits.

Can Modern Science Solve an Ancient Mystery?  The Secrets of Tomb 10A—Clip from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.  Four thousand years ago, an Egyptian dignitary and his wife were interred in a tomb on top of a rugged cliff. When excavators from the MFA opened the tomb in 1915, tomb robbers had already ransacked it. Amid the disarray, a severed mummy’s head was found. Was it the governor (Djehutynakht) or his wife? What could it teach us about mummification practices?  Scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital studied the mummy’s head to find clues.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Secrets of Tomb 10A:  The Mummy (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

Scientists from Massachusetts General Hospital examined the head using medical imaging techniques. This revealed dramatic new information about Egyptian mummification practices; for example, this mummy is one of the earliest to show evidence that embalmers removed the brain through the nose, a process that later became common.

Exhibition at Museum of Fine Arts, Boston to Unlock the Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC by staff (Artdaily.org, September 3, 2009)

This find represents the largest Middle Kingdom burial assemblage ever discovered and sheds light on the grand lifestyle enjoyed by local governor and priest Djehutynakht and his wife, Lady Djehutynakht. The conservation and reconstruction of many of the items—damaged by grave robbers in antiquity—have taken almost a century to complete. For the first time since they were placed in the tomb, the assemblage will be displayed in its entirety.

The Tomb of Djehutynakht by Tim Reid (The Egyptians, October 17, 2009)

I have long been fascinated by tomb 10a at el Bersha, the tombs occupant a Governor was buried in what may be the finest surviving coffin of the middle kingdom, his wife in the tomb next to him and what might be the largest collection of funerary models ever found in Egypt.

Head Check No. 2:  Djed-Hor and Ancient Brain Surgery

In the days leading up to the procedure, the priest Djed-Hor was much given to fits of screaming. 

Who knows how it began?  A slip down the temple stairs ending with a nasty bump to the head?  A sucker punch from a drunken parishioner?  A beer jug thrown by an angry Mrs. Djed-Hor, no longer buying the “But I’m a priest of the fertility god!” excuse for that unfamiliar perfume on his vestments?  Somehow, Djed-Hor took a vicious knock to the eye that broke bone and seems to have led to a very bad infection that spread to his brain.  The result was a pressure inside his skull that was so dreadfully painful that his fellow priests resorted to a drastic measure—brain surgery.

Djed-Hor was a priest of Min who lived at Akhmim, a prominent town sacred to that deity, around 2,600 years ago.  His mummy was found during excavations of a cemetery to the east of Akhmim which began in 1884 and continued for over a decade, uncovering thousands of mummies that have since made their way into museums all over the world.  Djed-Hor’s head found its way to the Milwaukee Public Museum where mummy forensics revealed evidence that he had possibly been subjected to trepanation, a procedure where a hole is made in the skull to relieve pressure on the brain.

So was it successful?  Dr. Carter Lupton, Head of Anthropology and History at the Milwaukee Public Museum, and Dr. Jonathan Elias, his research partner, decided to learn what they could.  When Djed-Hor’s skull was originally scanned back in 1986, researchers did not have sufficient computer power to generate the sort of 3D images and virtual fly-throughs that we have today.  As part of the Akhmim Mummy Studies Consortium, Dr.s Lupton and Elias revisited Djed-Hor’s head.  If they could find evidence that the hole had begun to heal, then the Good Priest may have lived to scream for a few weeks longer.

Mummy Mystery—A collaboration between the Milwaukee Public Museum and GE Healthcare to scan three mummies from Egypt and Peru reveals evidence of ancient brain surgery (April 20, 2011)

Museum Mummies to get CT Scan by staff (Associate Press/WTMJ)

An Egyptian man may have survived brain surgery around 600 B.C. and the Milwaukee Public Museum wants to find out for sure.  Officials there plan to do computerized tomography, or CT scans, on three mummies on Tuesday. The Egyptian man may have had a procedure called trepanation — which involves scraping or drilling into the skull to possibly relieve pressure on the brain — and survived for at least a short time.

Scanning Mummies:  GE Healthcare Unlocks Secrets of the Past by staff (GE Reports, April 19, 2011)

One of the Egyptian mummies, named Djed-Hor, was first scanned in 1986. Then again in 2006, another scan using better technology revealed a silver dollar-sized hole in his skull, leading the anthropologists to conclude he had undergone a primitive form of brain surgery. Now they hope 3D imaging can confirm a new theory that Djed-Hor survived the horrific procedure, and even lived for a time afterwards.

CT Scans Help Unravel Mummy Mystery by staff (GE Healthcare, April 20, 2011)

One of the museum’s mummies, a 2,600 year old named Djed-Hor from the Akhmim region in Egypt, appears to have had a precise section of his skull removed through trepanation – an ancient, rudimentary procedure designed to relieve pressure from the brain.

Incredible Journey:  Identifying of the Mummy of Ramesses I

It all started with a lost goat.

One bright day in the mid-1800’s a man named Abd el-Rassul was searching for his wayward goat near the ancient site of Deir el-Bahri, the location of Hatshepsut’s remarkable temple Djeser-Djeseru (“Holy of the Holies”), near modern-day Luxor.  Abd found his goat bleating up to him from what turned out to be the shaft of a tomb—and Abd’s meal ticket for the next few years.

This was no ordinary tomb.  Abd and his goat had stumbled upon a cache of noble and royal mummies, forty in all, dating from the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Periods.  They had been relocated to this central cache—one of two—during the Twenty-First Dynasty in an effort to restore mummies whose tombs had been robbed.  Now they were here, along with what remained of their funeral goods and treasures, before a wide-eyed Abd el-Rassul and his lucky goat.  Or at least that is the story.

This could have been a great moment for Egyptology, as it eventually would prove to be, but to Abd el-Rassul antiquities were only worth what someone was willing to pay in cash.  Calling the Egyptian government to report the discovery would pay him little, if anything.  But a treasure trove like this could be parceled out and sold on the black market as needed, which is exactly what Abd and his brothers did, at least until the authorities caught onto their game. 

Abd el-Rassul (in white on the left) with Gaston Maspero (on right, reclining) at the entrance to DB320

The el-Rassul brothers had a pretty good run while it lasted, pawning small items like amulets and shabtis to collectors.  But when the tomb was fully excavated and catalogued in 1881, it seemed that some of the el-Rassuls’ scores were bigger than what could fit into a rucksack. 

Cataloging the site is standard to all archeological digs, and is of extra importance in mummy forensics because this is usually where you begin to get an idea of whose mummy you have found.  Sometimes this is as easy as reading the name on the walls, but in a situation like the cache at Deir el-Bahri (now officially called DB320, or alternately TT320), where scores of mummies have been relocated, knowing what artifacts were found in the proximity of which mummies might be the only clue to who is who.  But in DB320, the team working the site was intrigued by what mummy was not found with a particular artifact.  

When the mummies had been relocated the priests in charge made lists of who had been interred in which cache.  The list for DB320 included Pharaoh Ramesses I, and sure enough, a coffin bearing his name was found within the site.  But the coffin was empty, and none of the other mummies in the cache could be attributed to Ramesses I.  At some point between the Twenty-First Dynasty and the 1881 inventory, the mummy of Ramesses I had gone missing.  Could the Rassul brothers have actually sold the mummy of Pharaoh Ramesses I?

Enter Thomas Barnett, Niagara Falls’ answer to P. T. Barnum.  Barnett had opened a gallery of curiosities that was part museum and part carnival sideshow, the Niagara Falls Museum and Daredevil Hall of Fame.  While obviously having an element of kitsch, Barnett seems to have made a serious attempt to blend local history, world culture, and shock value into something akin to an educational experience.  It was in this spirit that, between 1857 and 1861 he dispatched his son, Sidney, on three separate expeditions to Egypt to acquire Egyptian… stuff.

No Egyptian Wing is complete without a mummy, and in 1860 a member of Sidney Barnett’s party, James Douglas, acquired a mummy for the Niagara Falls Museum for a grand total of seven pounds.  Barnett’s party was known to have purchased artifacts from a dealer named Mustapha Aga Ayat, who was known to have done business with Abd el-Rassul.  The year—1860—is a good match.  When DB320 was “officially” discovered in 1881 the going story was that it had actually been discovered in the 1860’s.  Did the mummy Ayat sold to Douglas come from Abd el-Rassul?  Could it have been Ramesses I? 

Was seven pounds a king’s ransom?  Again, we turn to mummy forensics. 

First there is the simple unaided visual analysis.  Although far from scientific, anyone can see that the mummy bears a very strong resemblance to the mummies of Ramesses I’s son and grandson, Seti I and Ramesses II.  The trained eye of an Egyptologist can ascertain other details that may not be as obvious.  In the 1980’s Dr. Arne Eggebrecht noted that the mummy’s posture was appropriate for a royal man from the time of Ramesses I.  The positioning of the arms crossed over the chest, with the right hand on top, does not appear until the New Kingdom, and is exclusive to royal males.

Other signs pointed to a royal embalmment.  Although not confirmed beyond unaided observation, the mystery mummy’s fingernails appear to have been painted with henna, an indicator of high status.  The toes appear to have been individually wrapped, which also indicates a pricy mummification.  The mummy’s left hand appears to have once clutched something, such as a scepter.  The mummy was definitely looking like royalty.

The opportunity for more comprehensive forensic analysis came in 1999, when the Niagara Falls Museum permanently closed its doors and the Egyptian collection, mummy included, was acquired by Dr. Peter Lacovara for the Carlos Museum at Emory University.  Dr. Lacovara was also intrigued by the possibility that the Niagara Falls mummy could be Pharaoh Ramesses I, so he decided to take forensics to the next level.  In March, 2000, the mummy had its day with the CT scanner at Emory University Hospital.

The CT scan of the mystery mummy shows that the internal organs were expertly removed and replaced with rolls of linen. Solidified resin (see arrow) finishes the picture of an Eighteenth Dynasty royal mummification (Courtesy of RadioGraphics)

The CT scan added further weight to the theory that the mystery mummy was a New Kingdom royal male, and thus likely the missing Ramesses I.  The embalming incision (the cut from which the body’s entrails were removed) was expertly done and consistent with New Kingdom practices.  The scan also revealed that expert care was given to assuring the mummy’s heart was left in place and the brain properly removed, both indicators of high-quality mummification.  X-ray analysis of bone degeneration in the mummy’s spine suggests an age of at least 45 at the time of death. 

It seems very likely that the mystery mummy from the Niagara Falls Museum and Daredevil Hall of Fame could be that of Ramesses I.  Further analysis, such as genetic testing, could close this case for good.

The Mummy Who Would be King: NOVA/PBS—The unusual search for Ramesses I, from the holy site of Deir el-Bahri to the Niagara Falls Museum and Daredevil Hall of Fame to the Carlos Museum (January 23, 2010).

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Mummy Who Would Be King (Nova/PBS)

The companion website to the Nova documentary.

Ramesses I: The Search for the Lost Pharaoh (Michael C. Carlos Museum/Emory University)

Official website dedicated to the history of Pharaoh Ramesses I, how his mummy came to the Carlos Museum, and how he was identified.

The Mystery Mummy by Mark Rose (Archaeology, March/April 2003)

If this is a royal mummy, how can we identify which pharaoh it is? Scholars are debating the evidence from a close examination of the mummy and the mummification techniques used on it; from accounts of the mid-nineteenth-century antiquities trade in Luxor and the discovery of a royal mummy cache at Deir el-Bahri; and modern scientific techniques including X-ray images, CAT scans, and facial profiling.

U.S. Museum to Return Ramesses I Mummy to Egypt by Hillary Mayell (National Geographic News, April 30, 2003)

The royal mummy and four fragments are part of a 145-piece collection of mummies, coffins, and artifacts the Carlos museum purchased in 1999 from a tacky museum in Niagara Falls that also featured a “Freaks of Nature” exhibit.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2011.  All rights reserved.

I had based my contention on a typo in one of the tables in the JAMA report, a typo that is contradicted in numerous places throughout the rest of the article, a series of dots which I somehow failed to connect.  As a result, Gentle Reader Monica gently but concisely took me to task for my mistake in the Comments section of the article.

Now a writer for a much more high-profile (at least for now) outfit than Em Hotep has made the same mistake.  So shamey-shamey on us.  But how did the same mistake make it past the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association?

It seemed like a pretty good thesis at the time:  the combination of a painful foot condition in Tutankhamun’s left foot, a right foot weakened by a missing toe bone, and a brash young prince given to occasional risky behavior led to a traumatic fall and an untimely death. 

It’s still a pretty good thesis, for the most part.  Missing toe bone or not, the pain from Tutankhamun’s left foot was sharp enough to cause him to overcorrect on his right foot so much that the arch collapsed.  Add this to riding a chariot while hunting or onto a battlefield and you have a good case for suiregicide (break it down… sui…regi…cide).

But not catching the mistake was just sloppy on my behalf.  Under the heading of Malformations, Table 3 lists “oligodactyly (hypophalangism) right,” with regard to Tut’s tootsies.  But the text states that the hypophalangism (missing toe bone –ism) was in the second toe of the left foot (JAMA, p. 645), and the text under Figure 5. Analysis of the Pathology in the Feet of Tutankhamun repeatedly states the right foot shows “no pathological findings” (p. 644).

But while I may be in err, I am also in good company.  Writing for Discovery News on April 7, 2010, Rosella Lorenzi writes about Tutankhamun’s sandals, which analysis reveals were specially crafted to account for his clubbed foot.  The story comes with a very cool slideshow, and if you haven’t checked it out yet, you oughta.  Unfortunately, Ms. Lorenzi repeats the Table Three Tut Toe Typo:  “Indeed, the second toe in King Tut’s right foot lacked the middle bone, making it shorter, while the left foot was clubbed, rotating internally at the ankle” (Discovery News:  “King Tut Word Orthopedic Sandals”).

The mistake was pointed out, as Egyptological mistakes nearly always are, in the missives of EEF News, an Egyptology forum mailing list moderated by A. K. Eyma, where it evoked a response from Lorenzi herself:  “Confusion around King Tut’s hypophalangism wasn’t generated by my article in the first place.”  She goes on to explain the source of the mistake (JAMA Table 3) and to assure her readers that a correction is forthcoming.

Rosella Lorenzi and I both made a mistake, and that is on us.  But the mistake also made it past the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and to my knowledge no correction or clarification has been presented.  And lest it sound as if I am being defensive here by nitpicking the JAMA article, others have pointed out much more serious issues with the research covered in the JAMA article, including the methodology and conclusions of the study (See:  “The Blogroll Roundup: Critiquing the JAMA Article” here on Em Hotep).  One would think these issues would have prompted some editorial remarks from JAMA.

The introduction of groundbreaking work to the professional and lay public always engenders a variety of responses and interpretations.  The research presented in the JAMA article has certainly accomplished that, and the dialogue has been a delight to follow and participate in.  But differing interpretations should be based on a study’s conclusions, not its presentation.  As we have seen, a mistake at the source easily snowballs into a chain of mistakes and retractions.

*Note:  “JAMA” refers to Journal of the American Medical Association:  “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family.” (Hawass, Zahi, Yehia Z. Gad, Somaia Ismail, et al. 2010; 303(7):638-647)

See Also

• King Tut’s Feet Fatale: Did Frail Feet Fell the Famous Pharaoh?
• The Blogroll Roundup: Critiquing the JAMA Article
• Families and Frailties of the Eighteenth Dynasty

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2010.  All rights reserved.

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.

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.

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.

It would seem we have found the infamous Curse of King Tut, and it is us…

The Supreme Council of Antiquities has entered into a partnership with the Getty Conservation Institute to implement some much-needed restoration and preservation work on the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62).  According to an Associated Press article, King Tut’s tomb set for 5 year renovation project [story no longer online], the venture was prompted by brown moisture spots on the walls, damage which has been exacerbated by the humidity from the thousands of visitors that crowd into the rather confined space every month.

Humidity from visitors threatens to ruin the painted walls of King Tut’s tomb (Photo by Hajor)

The Getty Conservation Institute has a long history of collaborating with the SCA in the preservation of everything from tombs to the mummies they contain.  According to an article by France 24, King Tut’s tomb to get a facelift, the paintings which adorn the tomb’s walls will receive special attention.  “I am happy that Getty will look at the tomb and preserve its beautiful scenes,” stated Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Secretary General of the SCA (Source).

Dr. Hawass has made site preservation and conservation a priority and his recent appointment as Vice Minister of Culture will only help further that goal.  Dr. Hawass has announced he also intends to continue his post at the Supreme Council of Antiquities, which he had previously planned to vacate in accordance with Egyptian law.  His term was set to expire in the spring of 2010.

As an aside, the AP article cites the 2005 CT scan done of Tutankhamun’s mummy, stating “The results ruled out that Tut was violently murdered — but stopped short of definitively concluding how he died around 1323 B.C.”  Dr. Hawass promised an audience at Butler University’s Clowes Hall on August 7, 2009, that the exact cause of Tut’s death would be revealed “in one month.”

Amateur and professional Egyptologists alike patiently await further news.

Copyright by Keith Payne, 2009.  All rights reserved.

Photographs “Egypt.KV62.01.jpg” by Hajor, and “Tomb of Tutankhamun sign.jpg” by Joshdboz are provided courtesy of Wikimedia Commons  and are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 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 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