|
| ||||
ne of life’s
uncertainties is the correct identification of the ancient
human re-mains known collectively as the Royal Mummies of
Egypt. Shortly after the discovery of the first group in 1881,
there was already some confusion over who was who. The
individual now no longer regarded as even
“possibly” Thut- mose I was at first thought by
Gaston Maspero to be Pinudjem I, because one of the coffins in
which he was found had been reinscribed for the priest-king,
having belonged to Thutmose I originally. Photographic and
engraved images of the mummy (No. 61065) were published
as “Pinetum [Pinudjem] I” and even “Pinetum
II,” and engrav- ings of the unwrapped mummy of Pinudjem
I were published as “Pinotem II.” By the time G.
Elliot Smith’s description of these remains was published
in 1912 in The Royal Mummies volume of the Egyptian Museum’s Catalogue
Général, No. 61065 was listed as “The mummy supposed to be that of
Thoutmosis [sic] I.”
One of the reasons for Maspero’s uncertainty
regarding “Thutmose I” was that the mummy’s
arms are pendant, whereas other New Kingdom male rulers were
em- balmed with their arms crossed on their chests, at least
this was true from “Thutmose II” onward. The
“Ahmose I” mummy’s arms also are pendent and
Maspero’s decision to not unwrap the beautifully bandaged
mummy of Amenhotep I left it unknown at the time how that
king’s arms were situated. Thus it was assumed that the
traditional cros- sed-arms position for kings had been
initiated with the mummification of “Thutmose
II.”
When
Smith physically examined the Royal Mummies for the purpose of
pre-paring his Catalogue Général volume, he noted
certain discrepancies, among them that the mummy labeled
“Seti II” by the Twenty-first Dynasty necropolis
priests — who rescued and rewrapped the desecrated New
Kingdom royalty — bore no facial resem- blance
whatsoever to the heavy-jawed Ramesside kings of the Nineteenth
Dynasty (of whom Seti II represented the fifth generation), but
instead had the skull shape, small aquiline nose and pronounced
dental overbite characteristic of the kings of the Eigh- teenth
Dynasty. Likewise, Smith felt that the mummification technique
employed on “Seti II” was consistent with that of
the early part of the latter dynasty rather than of the
Nineteenth.
In his The Royal Mummies,
Smith also noted that his personal estimate of the age at death
of the mummy confidently identified as Thutmose IV was somewhat
lower than was suggested by x-rays taken of that singular king
in 1903 by one Dr. Khayat. Among the discrepancies noted by
Smith in his physical examination of the DB320 and KV35
individuals was that many seemed to be somewhat younger than
the historical re- cord would allow. “Thutmose I,”
again, apparently was a man not more than eighteen or twenty at
death, whereas the king known from the monuments almost
certainly would have been well into middle age when he died.
It was
not until Dr. Douglas Derry — who had assisted Howard
Carter in the dismantlement of the mummy of Tutankhamen in 1925
— x-rayed the still-wrapped re- mains of Amenhotep I in
the 1930s that the question of how that king’s arms were
pos- itioned was answered. Like those of all the extant male
rulers of the New Kingdom, Amenhotep’s upper limbs —
although apparently broken off in antiquity — were,
in- deed, crossed low on his thorax. Thus, “Thutmose
I” with his extended arms represented a definite anomaly
in this regard. The arm position coupled with his apparent
youth, therefore placed No. 61065’s kingly status in
serious question.
X-rays
would play a major role in subsequent considerations of the
possible mis- identification of several of the Royal Mummies.
In 1967 a professor of orthodontics at the University of
Michigan, Dr. James E. Harris, was given permission to
radiograph the individuals who rested in Room 52, the Mummy
Room of the Egyptian Museum. Harris had been involved in
x-raying the craniofacial morphologies of both ancient and
modern Nubians prior to the completion of the Aswan High
Dam, and he consequently per- suaded the Egyptian Antiquities
authorities that the x-raying of a control group of se- veral
generations of related individuals with inherited craniofacial
morphologies — the Royal Mummies — would
provide useful information.
Thus,
over a period of five years, Harris took precise lateral
cephalometric ra-diographs of the mummies in question,
analyzing the data obtained on a computer. In 1980 he
coauthored with Egyptologist Edward F. Wente of the University
of Chicago’s Oriental Institute An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, a volume which presented their mutual conclusions
regarding Harris’s data and the historical record as
reexamined by Wente. Therein, and subsequently, they noted
several problems with the ancient identification of certain
ones of the Royal Mummies, and offered some possible identity
reassignments based on the craniofacial morphologies of the
problematic kings.
With
the exception of so-called “Seti II,” Harris and
Wente concluded that the remains of the consecutive Nineteenth
Dynasty kings — Seti I, Rameses II and Mer- neptah
(Rameses I’s mummy being missing) — were
correctly labeled and represented a consistent father-to-son-to
grandson relationship, based on their similar craniofacial
morphologies. Likewise the apparent age at death of mummies
Nos. 61077-79 corres- ponded with the historical record of
their probable ages when they died. (Interestingly, the mummy
of the boy-king Siptah was not factored into their discussion,
possibly be- cause Siptah’s exact parentage is uncertain:
was he the son of Seti II or of the usurper Amenmesse?) Harris
and Wente found themselves in agreement with Elliot Smith: the
“Seti II” mummy clearly was not craniofacially
related to the individuals supposed to be his father,
grandfather and great-grandfather. Indeed, No. 61081 was almost
certainly a Thutmosid in type; and they would reassign him
accordingly.
It
was with the kings of the preceding Eighteenth Dynasty that
Harris and Wente found the greatest discrepancies. Because of
their craniofacial similarities, they accepted the
identifications of Seqenenre Tao II and Amenhotep I. But the
mummy labeled “Ah- mose I” presented a distinct
problem. “The Liberator” was the son (or less
likely the grandson) of Seqenenre, and he was the father of
record of Amenhotep. Yet the cranio- facial morphology of mummy
No. 61057 was quite dissimilar from the individuals who
historically were his immediate ancestor and descendent.
Likewise, he bore no resem- blance to the craniofacial
morphology of the female mummy thought to be his full sister
(and wife), Ahmes-Nefertari. These inconsistencies coupled with
the extended-arm po- sition of No. 61057 (Seqenenre having been
mummified in his death throes, so his arm position was not a
factor), caused Harris and Wente to discount the
“Ahmose” identific- ation, placing No. 61057 in the
anonymous category and leaving the mummy of Ah- mose I unknown.
Turning
to the problematic “Thutmose I,” they concluded
that No. 61065 was, indeed, almost certainly a Thutmosid
because of his craniofacial morphology, but not a king.
Analysis of Harris’s x-rays concurred with Smith’s
original estimate of the indi- vidual’s age at death
being eighteen or twenty years — far too young for
the historical Thutmose I. And then there was the
aforementioned problem of the mummy’s extended arms.
Since the arms of Amenhotep I and the individual thought to be
Thutmose II were in the kingly crossed position, it seemed
wholly unlikely that those who mummified “Thutmose
I” would have broken with established tradition (inasmuch
as the so-called “royal position” was apparently
not a New Kingdom innovation, the skeletal remains of ephemeral
King Hor of the late Middle Kingdom having been found at
Dahshur by Jacques De Morgan with the arms crossed). Thus,
Harris and Wente relegated No. 61065 to anonymity, leaving the
“Thutmose I” slot open for another candidate.
This they proposed is “Thutmose II,” No.
61066, who both Smith and recent x-ray analysis found old
enough to fit the probable middle age of the historical
Thutmose I. That No. 61066’s craniofacial morphology
differs markedly from that of Amenhotep I was not a problem for
Harris and Wente, inasmuch as the latter king and Thutmose I
apparently were not related by blood, at least not directly.
With No. 61066 now Thut- mose I by Harris’s and
Wente’s reassignment, what of Thutmose II? As noted
above,
the orthodontist and Egyptologist accepted
Smith’s suggestion that “Seti II” was Thut-
mosid and not Ramesside. Because No. 61081 would seem to have
been younger at death than No. 61066, he would be a likely
candidate for the vacant spot of Thutmose II, who historically
died at an earlier age than his father; and the craniofacial
morphol- ogy of No. 61081 was consistent as seemingly
transitional between No. 61066 and No. 61068, Thutmose III, his
son.
Harris
and Wente left “Thutmose III” in place, as
(probably) correctly identified. But their next problem was
with “Amenhotep II,” No. 61069. Harris’s computer-gener-ated
x-ray analyzes convinced him that the mummy so labeled
“Amenhotep II” could not have been the son of No.
61068 and the father of No. 61073, “Thutmose IV,”
which was the historical fact. How could he not be Amenhotep
II, having been found in that king’s tomb, resting in
that king’s sarcophagus, with both the cartonnage
replacement and Wente could offer no
explanation for this apparently extreme misidentification of
some other Thutmosid king for Amenhotep II; but they were
convinced that No. 61069 was not the second Amenhotep. What did seem likely
to them was that, of all possible Royal Mummies candidates,
only he could have been the father (craniofacially speaking) of
the peculiar remains labeled-but-questioned as those of
Amenhotep III. But was No. 61069 really Thutmose IV? More
importantly, was No. 61074 actually Amenhotep III?
Skipping ahead chronologically, Harris and
Wente turned to Tutankhamen as the only one of the Royal
Mummies who was found in a totally undisturbed context within
his own tomb. The sole problem with the occupant of KV62 is
that his parentage is debated. It is agreed by Egyptologists
generally that he was the son of a king — based on a
single textual inscription which describes him as such. But
which king? Of all of the extant remains of Thutmosid males,
the one nearly identical craniofacially to Tutankhamen is the
unnamed individual whose (now) skeletal remains were found in
problematic Tomb 55 in the Valley of the Kings, the so-called
“Amarna Cache.” Although even the sex of this
person was confused initially, it is agreed by most scholars
today that the skeleton in question represents the mortal
remains of ephemeral King Smenkhkare, the short-lived coregent
and successor of Akhenaten — although a minority
view continues to hold out for an identification with Akhenaten
himself. Therefore, it seemed clear to Harris and Wente, based
solely on their very alike craniofacial morphologies, that
Tutankhamen and the KV55 individual were closely related,
either as brothers or as father and son (with Tutankhamen in
the latter position, clearly).
So, which of the Thutmosid male mummies
between Thutmose III and Smenkhkare/Tutankhamen is most like
the latter craniofacially? Harris concluded that this was No.
61073, “Thutmose IV.” Historically, the fourth
Thutmose would have been either the grandfather or
great-grandfather of Tutankhamen, depending on which candidate
is favored as the latter’s father (the two most often
touted being Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, with majority opinion
in the Heretic’s camp). But what, Harris and Wente
pondered, if “Thutmose IV,” No. 61073, was, in
fact, Amenhotep III, and therefore arguably the father of both Smenkhkare
and Tutankhamen (which would account for the similarities in
craniofacial morphologies of all three)?
Harris and Wente were convinced that the
mummy labeled “Amenhotep III,” No. 61074, was not
that king. Certainly, the analysis of his craniofacial
morphology proved that he was wholly unlikely to have been the
father or even the grandfather of either Tutankhamen or
Smenkhkare. Study of the No. 61074 remains subsequent to An X-Ray Atlas has
convinced Harris (and apparently Wente) that the skull of that
individual — too large for the body by two standard
deviations — has craniofacial features consistent
with sculpted portraits of Akhenaten. Should No. 61074, in
fact, be the heretic pharaoh’s remains, it would help
explain two factors regarding their condition when discovered
in 1898: the terribly battered state which they are in (having
suffered more violence at the hands of tomb robbers than any of
the Royal Mummies except Rameses VI); and the embalmers’
insertion of resinous material under the skin of the limbs and
neck to give them a more life-like appearance, a practice
otherwise unknown in the New Kingdom and not seen again until
the Twenty-first Dynasty. But Akhenaten was historically, and
inarguably, the son of Amenhotep III; and the only one of the
Thutmosid mummies which Harris and Wente saw as possibly the
father of No. 61074 is the individual found in the sarcophagus
of Amenhotep II, and clearly thought by the ancient necropolis
priests to be that king. Thus, was “Amenhotep II”
actually Amenhotep III? If so, which of the Royal Mummies
is Amenhotep II’s?
For reasons they did not make clear,
Harris and Wente also offered another candidate for No. 61074:
King Ay, Tutankhamen’s immediate successor,
who was not related by blood to the Thutmosid line. By taking
“Amenhotep III”
completely out of the sequence of pre-Tutankhamen rulers, the
orthodontist and Egyptologist were able to move “Thutmose
IV” sequentially closer to Tutankhamen and Smenkhkare,
casting No. 61073 (“Thutmose IV”) as actually
Amenhotep III. But where does that leave No. 61069, the
putative “Amenhotep II”?
Because their Royal Mummies musical chairs
was quite clearly complicated — and in some ways
internally contradictive — Harris and Wente came up with
three separate “schemes” to reorder the
identifications of the Eighteenth Dynasty kings. In all of
these the mummy of the founder of the dynasty, Ahmose I, is
unknown; and the mummy labeled “Amenhotep I”
remains Amenhotep I. In Scheme 1, “Thutmose II” is Thutmose I;
“Seti II” is Thutmose II; “Thutmose
III” is Thutmose III; Amenhotep II is unknown;
“Amenhotep II” is Thutmose IV; “Thutmose
IV” is Amenhotep III; Akhenaten is the KV55 individual;
Smenkhkare is unknown; Tutankhamen is Tutankhamen; and
“Amenhotep III” is Ay.
Scheme 2 has “Thutmose II” as Thutmose
I; “Seti II” as Thutmose II; “Thutmose
III” as Thutmose III; Amenhotep II unknown;
“Amenhotep II” as Thutmose IV; Akhenaten unknown;
Smenkhkare as the KV55 individual; Tutankhamen as Tutankhamen;
and “Amenhotep III” as Ay.
In Harris’s and Wente’s Scheme 3,
“Thutmose II” becomes Thutmose I; “Seti
II” becomes Thutmose II; Thutmose III is possibly
unknown; “Thutmose III” becomes possibly Amenhotep
II; “Thutmose IV” remains Thutmose IV;
“Amenhotep II” becomes Amenhotep III;
“Amenhotep III” becomes Akhenaten; Smenkhkare is
the individual in KV55; Tutankhamen is Tutankhamen; and Ay is
unknown. To help explain the problem that Tutankhamen and
Smenkhkare would not seem to be the biologic sons of either the
reassigned “Amenhotep II” or “Amenhotep
III,” Harris and Wente proposed that Tutankhamen, at
least, was the product of a marriage between a son of Thutmose
IV and a daughter of Amenhotep III, the assertion that he was a
king’s “bodily son” notwithstanding. This
rather startling concept would go to explain
Tutankhamen’s claim in a text that Thutmose IV was his
“father’s father.” Wente pointed out that
even in the Old Kingdom the title “king’s son of
his body” was used to refer, occasionally, to a
king’s grandson.
Certainly, by their implied
admission, there is nothing conclusive in James Harris’s
and Edward Wente’s well-meaning attempt(s) to
scientifically sort out the apparent misidentifications made in
the Twenty-first Dynasty of several of the Royal Mummies.
Indeed, some of their suggested reassignments of identity seem
implausible, especially their wish to see both Nos. 61071
(“Amenhotep II”) and 61073 (“Thutmose
IV”) as possibly Amenhotep III, when neither set of
remains bears any resemblance to the third Amenhotep as
represented in the scores of representations of him which have
survived from antiquity. Elliot Smith described “Thutmose
IV” as an extremely emaciated individual at the time of
his death, whereas several extant art works strongly suggest
that the historical Amenhotep III was somewhat corpulent in his
last years. Additionally, there is in the Luxor Museum a small
limestone ostracon with raised-relief sketch portraits of two
kings, one to a side. Albeit uninscribed, these are generally
thought to represent a young Amenhotep III (at the time of his
accession?) and Thutmose IV at the end of his reign. The latter
image is of a rather gaunt individual and bears an uncanny
resemblance to the “Thutmose IV” mummy in profile,
suggesting that the plump-cheeked fourth Thutmose (as he was
represented in the famous pair-statue with his mother from the
outset of his reign) may have suffered some sort of wasting
debilitation towards the end of his life, caused by a disease
that ultimately killed him.
While it is very likely that the
necropolis priests who rescued and rewrapped the New Kingdom
royalty (and others) mistook one individual for another —
as the latter were shuffled from hiding place to hiding place —
it seems almost incredible that the desecrated mummy of
Amenhotep II was removed from his tomb to be rewrapped (in a
workshop at the Medinet Habu Mortuary Temple of Rameses III?)
and, in the process, another king’s mummy was
inadvertently mistaken as his, mislabeled on shroud and
replacement coffin, and returned to KV35 and Amenhotep
II’s sarcophagus. While they are but minor works of art,
the sculpted faces of two figures depicting Amenhotep II found
in the funerary refuse of KV35 (a bitumenized wooden ka figure [CG
24598] and a calcite group-statue of the king being lustrated
by two deities [CG 24157] both bear a rather strong resemblance
to the mummy “Amenhotep II,” in profile and full
face. Something so simple as the apparent correspondences of
“portraits” of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep II to the
mummies thought (by the ancient necropolis priests) to be
theirs should give pause to any rush to judgment about the
latter’s identities as suggested by apparent
discrepancies in their craniofacial morphologies.
How did it happen that the seeming
misidentifications occurred in the first place? When the rulers
of the Twenty-first Dynasty made the decision to dismantle the
plundered interments in the Great Place (Valley of the Kings),
the accomplishment of this did not happen overnight, but
evidently over several years. When the royal tombs were entered
by those assigned to recover the human remains therein and to
collect whatever was salvageable or recyclable (bullion-wise)
from the vandalized funerary furnishings that remained, they
were confronted by much the same scenes as Victor Loret found
in KV35 when he first entered it in 1898: total chaos.
Certainly the mummified royal occupant(s) in each tomb had been
rapaciously denuded of their trappings and often were found
with a limb or two detached, the body cavity broken open, even
the head severed in some instances. Anything that might have
borne the name(s) of the tomb owner had been stripped from the
body and carried off, leaving the mummy(ies) in question
essentially anonymous, save for the context of the sepulcher
itself.
It appears that the probably never-used
tomb of Rameses XI (the latter having been interred in the
Delta in all likelihood) served as a makeshift workshop wherein
paper-thin gilding was stripped with some effort from furniture
parts and coffin fragments, etc. The recovered human remains
were carried up out of the Valley of the Kings and across the
flood plain to the Mortuary Temple of Rameses III, where
necropolis priests set about reassembling (as necessary) each
body, rewrapping it — often without great care,
frequently incorporating some of the original bandaging —
and inscribing in inked hieratics on the outer shroud the nomen
and/or prenomen of the presumed ruler before them. The
reconstituted mummy bundle was then placed in a coffin at hand
(these for the most part salvaged from various plundered
burials, not necessarily royal and — with a couple of
exceptions — not original to the individual being
enclosed within). The replacement coffin then was itself
inscribed in ink with its new occupant’s name(s), and
very probably put in storage at the temple, its reinterment to
be dealt with at some later time — when it was
moved, eventually, to either the family cache of Priest-King
Pinudjem I or to the Tomb of Amenhotep II (or some other
yet-to-be-found place) where, hopefully, it would be safe for
all time to come.
Further resolution of the actual
identities of the several disputed Royal Mummies awaits two
future developments: (1) refinement of DNA testing, whereby
accurate results can be gotten from mummified tissues (samples
of same for the Royal Mummies being presently in sterile
storage in Cairo); and (2) discovery of the Third Royal Mummies
Cache, which likely will be found to house many — if not
all — of the still-missing New Kingdom rulers:
Ahmose I (?), Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III (?), Akhenaten (?),
Horemheb, Ay, Rameses I, Seti II, Tausret (?), Setnakht,
Rameses VII-VIII-X-(?)XI and Herihor; plus any number of royal
wives, princes and princesses of the period, including
Neferure, Mutemwiya, Nefertiti, Meritaten, Ankhesenamen,
Nefertari, Isetnofert, etc.; and unaccounted for Pinudjem
family members, particularly the high-priests Piankh,
Menkheperre and Nesbanebdjed (Smendes) II.
| |||||