Mark Morgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After Joann Fletcher announced the mummy was
> Nefertiti and the ensuing row blew up, Hawass
> arranged a PCR DNA test for a simple 'sexing' of
> the mummy DNA and produced a fax of the results
> saying the DNA was from a male ( ) and was
> therefore obviously not Nefertiti.
>
> From what I gather it has been proven that the
> previous DNA test was faulty - due to
> contamination from modern sources - and the mummy
> is again female. I have no reference for this
> though... Maybe Katherine G.G. can clarify.

In Al-Ahram, 17 - 23 May 2007, Issue No. 845, Hawass has claimed, without further explanation, that "...The CT scan confirmed that the mummy known as the 'young lady' was a female and not a male as previously suggested. Fletcher also concluded that the young lady was 30 years old. The CT scan concluded that the mummy was actually between 25 and 35 years of age. The last two points of evidence are similar, but all the other evidence suggests that this mummy cannot be Queen Nefertiti."

Part of this "other evidence" included the following:

Concerning the double piercing on the left ear of the young lady, Fletcher stated that this double piercing occurred only in depictions of Nefertiti and one of her daughters, and not on other females. The mummy does indeed have a double piercing in her left ear. However, she is not the only known mummy to have a double piercing. For example, it also occurs on the mummy of Thuya, mother of Queen Tiye.

Fletcher also stated that the finds associated with the embalming of the mummy showed evidence that the mummy dated to the 18th Dynasty. The presence of what appeared to be nefer beads was noticed on the X-ray; these were used on necklaces in a later part of the 18th Dynasty. In the report on the mummy, we also noted that the mummification style was very different from that of King Tut.

Concerning Fletcher's main point, that she has found the missing right arm and that this arm was flexed in the royal position of a king, the CT scan showed that both arms were actually extended beside the body and that the right arm had two breaks, one in the upper arm and one at the wrist. The flexed right arm was completely separated from the body, and Selim said that it definitely did not belong to that mummy.

My basic understanding of the most recent report, from Dr. Zahi Hawass' website, states in further detail on these points:

In fact, this arm position is also seen for non-royal women, and the recent CT-scan performed by the EMP indicates, based on the density of the bones and the relative lengths of the arms, that it is the straight arm that goes with the mummy, not the bent one. Another point raised by the Nefertiti enthusiasts is that the lower portion of the Younger Lady’s face is badly damaged, taken as evidence of an extreme form of damnatio memoriae appropriate for someone as controversial as Akhenaten’s great wife. However, the team’s radiologist, Dr. Ashraf Selim, argues that if the mummy’s face had indeed been smashed after embalming, one would expect to see bits of dried bone and flesh within the wound; the CT-scan performed by the EMP revealed very few pieces of the relevant broken bones within the sinus cavity, suggesting that the damage to the mummy’s face occurred before embalming, most likely even before death.

Dr. Hawass reiterates that other points made in support of the identification of the Younger Lady as Nefertiti can be refuted without referring to the CT-scans. These include a wig of a type worn by Nefertiti found in the tomb and the fact that the mummy has a double-pierced ear; both of these attributes are seen in non-royal women of the New Kingdom, so do not at all prove that this is Nefertiti. The age range suggested by the CT-scan is between 25 and 35; again, this would fit any number of important New Kingdom Dynasty females. In summary, Dr. Hawass concludes that there is no convincing reason to identify the Younger Lady as Nefertiti. (underlining added for emphasis of point)

Don Brothwell is stated to have given his opinion on the nulliparous nature of the KV 35 "Younger Lady" mummy back in Summer 2003, in a radio interview in the US. Dr. Ikram and others have indicated the widening of the hips, which occurs in childbirth, is not apparent on this mummy, something of which even Dr. Brothwell admits. Brothwell's report to the SCA did not even unequivocally identify the gender of the mummy. The general shape of the mummy indicated that it could be a male. However, due to its deflated breasts, the wide space of its sciatic notch, and the absence of a penis, the report concludes that it probably belongs to a female with an estimated age between 18 to 25 years. On the other hand, Samia El-Marsani, head of the SCA's anthropology lab, who also accompanied the expedition, revealed in her report that during the studying and excavation work carried out, no Nubian-style wig,which was part of Fletcher's main argument for identifying the individual as Nefertiti (who wore such a wig on occasions, but then, so did other Amarna females such as Meritaten, Ankshenamun, Kiya, etc.), was found near the mummies. Such a wig was found in KV 35 by Loret, but as Hawass noted in the Al-Ahram article, "...However, there is no evidence to connect the wig with the "young lady" just because it was found in the same tomb."

---

Roxana Cooper wrote:

> If it is indeed a nulliparous female then how about Sitamun or Iset or Henuttaneb or even
> Nebeta/Baketaten??? none of whom are recorded as bearing a child and all of whom make
> logical companions for Tiye.

As Dr. Hawass' article at Guardians notes, "...The age range suggested by the CT-scan is between 25 and 35; again, this would fit any number of important New Kingdom Dynasty females..

So, your point that the KV 35 "Younger Lady" mummy could be the daughters of Tiye and Amenhotep III is well-taken, and provided the body IS nulliparous, it could also be some of the Amarna females for which we have little information, such as Neferneferuaten-tasherit, whom James Allen argued could be the ephemeral "King Neferneferuaten." The age is the issue, as the body has been aged at time of death from teens to 25 years of age, and now to 25-35 years of age. I would need to see how they come to this age determination, though, as earlier studies seemed to argue for an earlier age. *

Hawass has made the comment in both the Al-Ahram article and the present Press Release on the CT Scans of the KV 35 Mummies that the facial wound on the KV 35 "Younger Lady" mummy is pre-mortem, with the suggestion in the Al-Ahram article that "...Paul Gustorer, another radiologist, suggested that this trauma was very similar to a wound that he had seen on a patient who had been kicked in the face by a horse."

Considering the recent information we have that Tutankhamun's cause of death could have been something as mundane as a fall from a chariot (though warfare is also a possible cause of death, due to the fabric still found in the knee wound), the idea that the "Younger Lady" could have died from a kick from a horse shows how fragile life was in ancient times, when a single tragic incident could change the course of history. It doesn't require damnatio memoriae, or even murder, to explain horrendous injuries during ancient times.

---

* Indeed, the same must be said of the KV 55 remains as well, which is why I think Aidan Dodson still holds these remains to be those of Smenkhkare, who may have been brother or uncle to Tutankhamun. The cranial and serological (blood) connection between these two mummies has been known about for over 30 years, and has been published as

Harrison, R. G. 1966. An Anatomical Examination of the Pharaonic Remains Purported to be Akhenaten. JEA 52: 95-119.

Harrison, R. G., R. C. Connolly, et al. 1969. Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun Demonstrated Serologically. Nature 224/(October 25, 1969): 325-326.

From what little is published on the Hawass website at Guardians about the CT scan results and their caution about identifying the remains as any particular royal, I think the National Geographic's brouhaha that the KV 55 remains are those of "Tutankhamun's father" are a bit OTT and very possibly misleading.

HTH.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2007 04:28AM by Katherine Griffis-Greenberg.