| Author | Message | ||
     Budhotep (152.163.194.193) |
Hello everyone, Recently we were assigned in school a research paper, and I of course being the Egyptophile that I am wrote mine on a very interesting and very controversial subject in the world of Egyptologists etc -- the royal mummies, a subject that I find most intriguing. I have reproduced here the main body of the report, but was unable to reproduce my extensive footnotes that accounted for nearly half or more of the report. Oh well. It would be most helpful if those who come accross this could read it and point out any errors or give suggestions or additional sources that might be of help in the production of this paper. I thank you for your time. -- Budhotep The Royal Mummies of ancient Egypt are very enigmatic figures in the modern world, partly so because many of the various articles and books written about them for the large part, are rather scarce. The Royal Mummies of Ancient Egypt are very well known to the modern ring of Egyptophiles and are a showcase exhibition in the famous Cairo Museum of Egyptian and Islamic Antiquities. These noble and stately figures reside in the second floor royal mummies room and the restoration room number 52, but are their currently accepted identifications correct? A prominent Ancient Egyptian belief was that of life after death. Often, amateurs say that the Ancient Egyptians were obsessed with death, when in fact they were obsessed with life. The Ancient Egyptians were a people who loved life so much that they wanted it to continue after death, so they created in their extremely elaborate religion The Fields of Iauru, or paradise (figure I). The fields were an exact copy of the land of Egypt, but they were one hundred times better. No one ever had to work, get sick, or suffer from earthly worries. However, the only way to get to the Fields of Iauru was to enter the underworld (the duat), face the demons of the twelve gates of the night (figure II), and eventually arrive at the Hall of the Double Truths. There, a person testified before the tribunal of forty-two gods and have their heart weighed by Anubis at the Great Balance called makhat which weighed their soul against maat, the feather of truth to test if the deceased were worthy to enter the fields (figure III). It was for these reasons that the Egyptians created the famed “book of the dead”. This sacred document held in it the many magic spells that were needed to pass the gates of the night, as well as the names of the guardians who guarded them. (Hornung 13-22) However, in order to be able to even get to the underworld, the body needed to be mummified. Mummification was an artificial way to preserve the bodies of the dead, which would be needed by the dead person’s four souls: the Kha, Ba, Akh, and Kaibit. The Kha was the deceased’s spiritual identical that lived on in the tomb and in the fields, which was basically in essence, the personality (figure IV). The Ba was the human headed bird that could fly forth from the tomb to watch over living relatives (figure V), while the Akh went to the heavens and sailed across the sky and through the underworld (every day and night) with Ra on sun barque, on his continual journey of birth, death, and rebirth. Lastly, the Kaibit was the evil in a person and was represented by the shadow (figure VI). In order for the souls to survive for eternity, they would need a recognizable body to reside in periodically. It was for this reason that mummification was practiced in the land of Egypt. It was also for this reason, that those who could afford it, purchased Kha-statues which looked like the person in life. If the body was destroyed, the Kha-statue could act as its proxy (figures VII). (Bunson 41, 130, 10, 11) The process of mummification as it was performed during its heights of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, is still unclear. The processes read about today in books about mummification only give rough skeletons of what the processes themselves really were, as a papyrus has never been found which explains the entire ritual. Mummification was a process that continually changed. It was developed and perfected over thousands of years, and the embalmers together with the lector priests who presided over the process fiercely guarded its secrets, one reason that the process was never written down. Another reason that the process was never committed to papyrus was that the positions of lector priests and embalmers, like many other ancient professions, were mostly hereditary . Today, there are only two direct sources from the Ancients about the mummification process: the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus from his Histories , and the outer coffin of one Djedbastiufankh ca.600 B.C.E. that shows four steps of mummification on its abdomen and thorax . Together from these, a rudimentary idea of what the complete process was like, is presented. When the body first came to the embalmers, the brain was removed and thrown away, and all of the viscera were removed to prevent the spread of bacteria in the abdomen. Next, both the internal organs and the body were dried out in resin and natron salt baths for forty days. At the end of the prescribed period the body was washed and rubbed with oils and fragrant spices, and the inside was stuffed with resin, natron, and linen. Then the face was sometimes painted red with rouge to make it look more lifelike, and the hair was arranged. Finally, the mummy was wrapped in resin soaked linen bandages so that it would hold its shape. Fingers and toes, legs and arms were first wrapped separately, then all other parts of the body bound together. The finished mummy was placed in a wooden coffin, or a nest of coffins, and was ready to be buried. The process of mummification itself on average took about seventy days, but it sometimes took even longer; according to the lintel of the mastaba of Queen Meresankh III, it took 273 days for her mummification to finally be finished and her body to be buried (figure IX). (Brier 31-78) The place of burial of the Royal Mummies is equally as important to the story as the mummies themselves. The Biban el-Muluk is the Arabic name for the place today called the Valley of the Kings, the very name brings up mystic images of the past (figure X). The Valley, as noted by Nicholas Reeves, was a ravine chosen by the Egyptians for both practical and symbolic reasons------ “’Certainly the site was relatively remote and its narrow access points easily guarded, but the symbolic points were even more compelling. When viewed from the city of Thebes across the Nile, the whole Theban massif resembles in its shape a giant or ‘horizon’ hieroglyph –the symbol used by the Egyptians to represent the area of the rising and setting sun; and the sun does not set in this western region from the perspective of Thebes. Throughout much of the New Kingdom, a royal funerary cortège deliberately followed this western passage of the sun, processing from the king’s mortuary temple in the Nile Valley, over the Theban cliffs and down into the Valley of the Kings behind the western horizon, assimilating the king into the solar cycle… Another symbolic attraction of the valley may well have been its situation at the foot of a pyramidal peak known to the ancients as and today as . The 450-m. (1,500-ft.) mountain was sacred to Hathor and later to its own special goddess Meretseger, ’She who loves silence’. Its shape would certainly remind Egyptians of those earlier royal burial places, the pyramids. Little effort was made, however, to enter the mountain from the northern side, as was traditionally the case in man-made pyramids, and the tombs cut around it were not connected with – or usually even oriented towards – the mortuary temples in the Nile Valley. In this respect the New Kingdom royal tombs decisively broke with the past.’” (Reeves 16-17) ------This was the place, where for over three hundred years, the pharaohs of the Ancient Egyptians were entombed in death. In the two small valleys (the Eastern and Western) that make up the Valley of the Kings, there are over sixty tombs , all dating from the three different dynasties that made up the period of Egyptian History called the New Kingdom , which was truly one of the greatest bloomings of any of the Ancient Civilizations. It was Egypt’s last great flourish, before the eventual fading and crumpling of the great civilization, that can be thought of as “the phoenix enfeebled”(Mertz 249). The art from this time period, however, gives a great impression of what was going on at the time. Here, Egyptologist Wolf interprets a banquet scene from the tomb of the vizier Ramose (figure XI)------ “’The fine, harmonious faces, the dazzle of wigs and the marvelously flimsy pleated garments all belong to the most refined and most intellectualized metropolitan society, the sensitive, but almost morbid representations of an over ripe culture approaching its end. These people lived lives enshrouded in beauty and dignity, celebrating a never-ending banquet. Their attitude toward life is expressed in the beautiful, softly rounded lines . . . . One suspects that the age must have a fin de siècle mood, and the boredom with life itself was concealed behind their luxury and elegance, a fatigue which threatened to break through the balanced delicacy of these beautiful faces.”’ (Wolf 504) ------ In other words, the country of Egypt, at that time had become so wealthy, that it was the richest in the entire world. In fact, Egypt was so wealthy that other rulers of the ancient world sent letters to the pharaoh of Egypt telling him that in Egypt, gold is as dust on the ground, so it would be no trouble to send them any . In a way, Egypt was like a bank; it often gave loans to other countries, and when those loans were not repaid with interest, Egypt took its investments back forcefully, with the help of its military, which in its time was the greatest of all armies. This, however, was before the fall of government and the collapse into chaos of the Third Intermediate Period . The Third Intermediate Period was unlike the previous two intermediate periods for two main reasons. The first reason was that there was some form of organized government – that administered by the Northern Kings and the Southern High Priests of Amun. Secondly, Egypt did not fall into complete chaos. It is true that much of Egypt’s foreign land holdings that had stayed loyal through the chaos of the Amarna period were dissolved by the Mittanians at this time, but the mainland did not fall, and neither did the artistic canon and many of the other civilization defining advancements that so often slumped during the Intermediate periods. However, one major problem with the Intermediate periods was that corruption soared, often-affecting important people. An example of some of the most problematic of all the corruption was the guards of the Valley itself. Who can say what makes a man shirk his duty and commit one of the all time blasphemies, thereby committing himself to all-time damnation and loss of access to the Fields of Iauru (Such a sacrilegious act could only result in the soul of the dead being consumed by the devourer Ammit in the Hall of the Double Truths. If this happened the soul of the dead was forever lost to oblivion.)(figure XII). This was a total opposite of what most Egyptians wished for. However, for the guards it was an issue of greed. As it was a time of economic decline, all employers took on a parsimonious attitude to their employee’s wages. Sadly, the guards of the Royal Valley were rather low on the pay list, and lured by the thought of the untold wealth buried for the use of the ancient dead, they began to raid the tombs of the Valley hand in hand with the tomb robbers themselves, and in their search for treasure, they were destroying the mummies of the deceased pharaohs, thereby taking away the ability for the pharaohs to have eternal life in the fields. In a brilliant solution, the most faithful of the mortuary priests gathered together, in order to salvage, restore, and rebury in mass the last earthly remains of their dead masters for safekeeping. The priests chose two known, possibly three , well-hidden tombs to reinter their lords. These two were the family vault of the priest-king Pinudjem II and the tomb of Amenhotep II. The tomb of Amenhotep II is located in the VOK, however, the family vault was located in the cliffs of Deir el-Bahri, it is known today as DB320 (Deir el-Bahri tomb number320).DB320 was the first Royal Mummy cache to be discovered. It was first entered by members of the Abd el-Rassoul family from Gourna (A town literally where every inhabitant’s profession is illegally tomb robbing and selling of artifacts.)(figure XIII) who successfully robbed the tomb of small pieces for about eight years, until the appearance of objects bearing royal names on the antiquities black market arose the suspicions of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. (Incidentally, this is how the British Museum got some of its finest royal papyri, through black market purchases .) Gaston Maspero (figure XIV), the head at that time, hired an American named Charles Edwin Wilbour to help find the successful tomb robbers. Eventually Wilbour, tracked down the finds as coming from the Rassouls in Gourna, and Maspero took swift action in apprehending them (Mohamed Rassoul was beaten so badly on the soles of his feet that he never walked without a cane for the rest of his life.) However, through the torture that was wreaked upon them they did not crack and tell all, it was only after a family feud in 1881 that Mohamed Rassoul (figure XV) came and told all. (The next day found Mohamed leading Èmile Brugsch* and a group of other Antiquities servicemen to the tomb –Maspero had gone to France for the Summer- which was cleared in a matter of days to prevent further pilfering. –Brier 104-111) *(figure XVI) The tomb of Amenhotep II however was a different story. The tomb was discovered by Victor Loret (figure XVII), a student of Gaston Maspero, as he was conducting a comprehensive survey of the VOK (eight years after the discovery of the first mummy cache. He discovered the first steps to the entrance in the late morning and worked with his men until the entrance itself was uncovered that evening. He entered the tomb that night, and from all appearances it was plundered, until he reached the burial chamber, where with delight and surprise he discovered the (supposed) mummy of Amenhotep in its sarcophagus. That night he also discovered twelve other royal mummies in side rooms off the burial chamber, bringing the grand total of discovered (more or less complete) Royal Mummies up to exactly fifty-three. (Brier 111-117) In 1912, all of the available royal mummies were studied and autopsied by a man named G. (Grafton) Elliot Smith. Smith was born in 1871 in Australia, and was a noted specialist in the history of mummification. He had formerly been a professor of Anatomy at the Cairo School of Medicine (1900-1909). He also held appointments at the University of Manchester (1909) and University College London (1919-1936). After autopsying the Mummies he wrote The Royal Mummies which today continues to be a standard in the collection of any who wish to study the Royal Mummies. Smith was knighted in 1934 and died three years later in 1937. (Reeves back cover of The Royal Mummies, 2000 ed.) The Royal Mummies of the different Dynasties that have been discovered have many different defining qualities that differ them from mummies of another dynasty. The mummies concerned here are mainly from the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties. (Although Royal Mummies of the Twenty-first and second dynasties were also discovered in the two caches, they are not a main concern. The reason for this is that these mummies had not been salvaged and restored, and in the process possibly getting mixed up with other mummies. The mummies of these newly deceased personages went to the beautiful house, were then given to the mortuary priests, and then taken straight to be secretly buried. This schedule left no room for any mixing up.) The mummies in question from the Eighteenth Dynasty are as follows: Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thuthmose I, Thuthmose II, Thuthmose III, Amenhotep II, Thuthmose IV, Amenhotep III, [Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen], Aye, and Horemheb. (In all truth, Ahmose and Amenhotep I are the last strains of the Seventeenth Dynasty and the Tao bloodline, Ahmose is the son of Seqenenre Tao II and the brother of Kamose, who in Manetho’s chronology is the last ruler of the Seventeenth Dynasty. Amenhotep I was the son of Ahmose, who became pharaoh on the death of Kamose in the Egyptian-Hyksos Wars (KMT 11/4: 50-60). (Amenhotep I, however, on his death after a reign of twenty-one years was left without an heir because of the premature death of his son Amenemhet. So he was succeeded by a very distant cousin who bolstered his claim to the throne by marrying Ahmes the sister of Amenhotep I. A new dynasty should have started with the Tuthmosid blood of Thuthmose I, however in the conventional {Manetho } chronology the first two rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty are Ahmose and Amenhotep I. –Grimal 207) Mummies of the rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty can be recognized by a slight overbite, and a small aquiline nose, two characteristics that seemingly ran in the family. The Nineteenth Dynasty Mummies for the most part seem to be in good order, with the exception of Sety II for reasons discussed below. The mummies of the Nineteenth Dynasty include: (Ramses I?), Sety I, Ramses II, Merenptah, Sety II, Siptah, {Tworset, and Bey} . The mummies of Nineteenth Dynasty pharaohs almost always appear as “orthognathous and heavy jawed,” not to mention that most carry a sharply hooked nose (Sety I, Ramses II, and Merenptah). Lastly, the Twentieth Dynasty mummies (most of which are yet to be discovered) include those of Ramses III, Ramses IV, Ramses V, Ramses VI, and Ramses IX . (The Twentieth Dynasty ended with the death of Ramses XI. -Grimal 393) As mentioned above, one of the main causes for the funerary priests of the Third Intermediate Period to join together in order to save the Royal Mummies was the problem of the tomb robbers. Also, during the Twenty-first Dynasty, (The first dynasty of the Third Intermediate Period)------ “’the eroding authority of the pharaoh lessened his ability to ensure the security of the Valley of the Kings and its surrounding necropolis. Consequently, a series of tomb robberies occurred, which are recorded in several papyri that deal with the trials and punishments of the offenders. These fascinating documents give insight into the minds and motives of the plunderers. What emerges clearly is that the robbers felt little respect for the bodies so painstakingly preserved by the embalmers of previous dynasties. (However, one effect of such pillage in the necropolis at Thebes was that for the first time, the results of earlier embalmers could be observed first hand…Inspecting the violated tombs and examining the damaged mummies gave the embalmers an impetus to better follow craftsmen from earlier dynasties.)”’(Brier 91-92) ------ As noted by Bob Brier above, the power of the pharaoh had weakened during the Twenty-first Dynasty (partly because the High priests of Amun had gained control of all of the Upper Egyptian nomes and had declared themselves as priest-kings or demi-pharaohs . -Clayton 175) However, despite the fact that the Kings’ Valley Guards had become corrupt the pharaohs were still able to excise the power to capture at least some of the tomb robbers. The papyri discussed above concerning the trials of the “desecrants” are interesting documents. The testimony itself most likely motivated the priests a great deal, informing them of the urgency of their secret project. An excerpt from one of the papyri is below------ “’The noble mummy of this King was all covered with gold, and his inner coffins were bedizened with gold and silver inside and outside with inlays of all kinds of precious stones. We appropriated the gold which we found on this noble mummy of this god and on his eye amulets and his ornaments which were at his neck and on the inner coffins in which he lay. We found the royal wife just [?] likewise and we appropriated all we found on her too. We set fire to their inner coffins. We stole their outfit which we found with them, consisting of objects of gold, silver, and bronze, and we divided them up amongst ourselves. We made this gold which we found on these two gods, and on their mummies, their eye amulets and their ornaments and their inner coffins into eight parts. (Herodotus Book II 85-87) ------This papyrus goes onto tell of the horrible acts that the vandals committed on the Royal Mummies. It was trials like these increased the growing alarm of the priests for the safety of the Royal Mummies. It was during the Twenty-first Dynasty that definite action took place to salvage the mummies, however, it may have started even earlier, towards the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. At first, the battered remains of the past royals were gathered by the high priesthood of Amun, and the mortuary priests who would lovingly restore and rewrap the mummies (This initial motivation was to become dramatically less pious as time went on. )as is evidenced by many of the mummies when they were unwrapped in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s by Gaston Maspero in Bulaq (Reeves 202). For example, on the mummy of Ahmose I the right arm has been apparently splinted and is enclosed in a cast-like contraption, or as on the mummy of Sety I, who was decapitated by tomb robbers. When it came time to restore him, the priests created a device that acted somewhat as a head brace; it still holds his head to his body today. Some of the mummies were so badly damaged however, that there was little the priests could do to improve the situation but provide new linen wrappings. Thuthmose III fits into this category; his mummy was so horribly damaged that it had to be supported by variously sized wooden oars. (Dodson and Ikram 24, 30, 39) One particularly useful method that the priests employed in order to prevent further damage to the faces of the mummies incorporated the use of melted resins and oils which were poured onto the face. After a while, this mixture would harden into an impenetrable black mass. Because of these techniques, some of the pharaoh’s faces were hidden from modern view until techniques sophisticated enough to allow removal of the resins and oils without damage to the faces of the mummies were developed. (KMT 11/1: 64) After the restorations were finished, the mummies were often stored in safe places in the temples or they were actually stored in tombs deemed safe by the priests until sufficient amounts of the Royal Dead had been gathered for a true mass burial, together with some of the original grave goods (Such as ushabtis, Books of the Dead, canopic jars, and food offerings.) Of the two caches, the 1881 cache was most likely assembled first on the basis of the evidence gathered from the dockets (see below) on the mummies themselves. This cache is located in Deir el-Bahri on the Western bank of the Nile near Thebes. It was Djeseru-Djeseru to the Ancient Egyptians, a name which meant the “Holy of Holies.” The present name of the site comes from Arabic, meaning the “Monastery of the North,” to denote an early community of Coptic Christian monks who established a religious house there. Montuhotep II built his mortuary complex here, as did the female king Hatshepsut (Bunson 63). However, the tomb itself lies to the Southwest of both mortuary temples in the tall, weathered cliffs that surround the main plain that encompasses Deir el-Bahri. To reach the tomb, a winding path must be taken that occasionally overlooks the VOK, maze-like passages of chimney shaped rock outcroppings in the elevated cliffs of Deir el-Bahri must be followed, until, at the base of one of the ‘chimneys’ a shaft opening may be seen. The shaft leading to DB320 was ten feet by eight feet, and forty feet deep. At the base, a small wooden door led into the passage of the tomb. Immediately inside, was a small hall filled to capacity with coffins and other small funerary objects. Despite the fact that the cache was cleared quickly, and no official notes were made about the objects from the tomb in-situ, from the descriptions of the eyewitnesses, it is believed that the positions of the first few coffins and their inhabitants may be identified. The supposed order would start with the coffin and mummy of the man Nebseni, followed either by the coffin of the Lady Rai containing the mummy of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari or the mummy and coffin of Seqenenre Tao II, next were the coffins and mummy of Queen Henettowy, and then the coffin and mummy of Sety I. Finally, there were objects of Henettowy’s funerary equipment scattered all over the right side of the passage which culminated after 7.4 meters. At the end of the passage, the folded leather shrine-canopy of Isiemkheb leaned against one wall. After this, the eyewitnesses become more confused on their accounts so as to make it increasingly difficult to reconstruct object positions. (Reeves 195 & Forbes 559) As mentioned above, it was Èmile Brugsch who made the official discovery of the Deir el-Bahri cache; he made this description in an interview some time after the discovery about his first sight of the tomb’s contents------ “’Soon we came upon porcelain funerary offerings, metal and alabaster vessels, draperies and trinkets, until, reaching the turn in the passage, a cluster of mummy cases came into view in such number as to stagger me. Collecting my senses, I made the best examination of them I could by the light of my torch, and at once saw they contained the mummies of royal personages of both sexes; and yet that was not all. Plunging on ahead of my guide, I came to the end chamber…, and there, standing against the walls or lying on the floor, I found even a greater number of mummy-cases of stupendous size and weight. Their gold coverings and their polished surfaces so plainly reflected my own excited visage that it seemed it seemed as though I was looking into the faces of my own ancestors!”’(Nicholas Reeves 194) ------ The golden coffins Brugsch speaks of were those of the family of Pinudjem II and his family for whom the DB320 vault was originally built. Beyond the passage which was concerned above, there was a second passage at a ninety-degree angle to the first (this passage was 70+ feet long). Filling this corridor were more coffins and all manner of funerary equipment. Faience ushabtis littered the floor, along with faience cups, and canopic jars and chests. All manner of burial equipment was represented here. At the end of the passage stood a room about seventeen feet square. Almost every foot of space was covered with splendid coffins containing kings of the New Kingdom. Here lay Amenhotep I, Thuthmose I, Thuthmose II, Thuthmose III, Ramses I , his son Sety I, and his son Ramses II plus others. Further back in the tomb was another room much higher than the others and about twenty feet long. It was here the tomb ended, but that was not a disappointment. This was the crypt of the Twenty-first Dynasty Royal Mummies (priest-kings). Here lay Pinudjem I and II, Masaharta, Queen Nodjmet, Neskhons, Djedptah-ifankh, Nestanebt-asheru, and others: all who had been high priests and priestesses (or adoratrixes ) of Amen.(Brier 107) The second cache assembled by the priests was that in the tomb of Amenhotep II (also known as KV35 or Kings Valley tomb number 35.) According to hieratic dockets, the Amenhotep II cache mummies were gathered for burial sometime between years twelve and thirteen of the reign of Smendes when the mummy of Amenhotep II himself was being rewrapped. (The last of the DB320 mummies had been interred into the Deir el Bahri cache by year eleven.) (Reeves 197, 199) The mummies gathered by the priests for burial in KV35 included those of Amenhotep II, Thuthmose IV, Amenhotep III, Merenptah, Sety II, Siptah, Ramses IV, Ramses V, and Ramses VI. Also included were four unknown mummies (one male, three females), and a ghastly, grinning, mummified corpse that was found flung into a model boat (a position it had maintained since it was flung there by tomb robbers thousands of years before.) The tomb of Amenhotep II is a typical tomb of the New Kingdom, particularly of the Eighteenth Dynasty . Fifteen steps lead down to the entrance, which is immediately followed by a hallway of about ten meters, a second flight of stairs and another hallway just short of about six meters. A well-shaft, characteristic to tombs of the period, comes in order after the second hallway, followed by a room with two pillars, a third staircase and hallway, and finally the burial chamber . The burial chamber has two layers, an upper and a lower; the top part having six pillars, and the bottom: the location of the sarcophagus. Meanwhile, along the walls are located four chambers, which today are identified as rooms J a-d (The letter assigned to the burial chamber is that of J, all the preceding rooms and hallways being A-G.). The rooms run clockwise as: d, a, b, c, and it was in rooms b and c in which mummies were discovered. (Reeves 101) As mentioned above, it was Victor Loret who discovered the tomb in the year 1898, as he was conducting a survey of the VOK . Loret’s workmen happened upon the tomb in the morning of March 9th, and worked on clearing the entrance passageway until dusk, when it was completely clear. At this point, Loret ordered that the sealed door be opened for further progress and exploration, although it was obvious that this tomb had been plundered from the broken bits of funerary paraphernalia that littered the entrance passage (Brier 112). The tomb itself, and its contents had been badly rifled in Ancient times, as Loret was about to discover. However, there were many objects left in this tomb that were still of historical and archaeological interest . From the description of Monsieur Gaston Maspero we can get an idea of what the tomb was like before its excavation and clearance------ “’The floors of the chambers themselves were hidden by a perfect litter of…debris, wooden statuettes of the king and of various gods, Answerers …, handled crosses …and didu of wood and blue enamel , and a thousand other articles…”’ (Reeves 100) As Loret continued his exploration of the tomb of Amenhotep II, he came into the first pillared hall (This was the location of the grinning mummified corpse). From his description of what he saw there, we can clearly tell that he was overtired and let his imagination overtake him------ “’I went forward [between the two columns] with my candle and, horrible sight, a body lay there upon a boat, all black and hideous, its grimacing face turning towards me, its long brown hair in sparse bunches around its head. I did not dream for an instant that this was just an unwrapped mummy. The legs and arms to me seemed to be bound. A hole exposing the sternum, there was an opening in the skull. Was this a victim of human sacrifice? Was this a thief murdered by his accomplices in a bloody division of the loot, or perhaps killed by soldiers or police interrupting the pillaging of the tomb? (Brier 112) ------ What Loret saw, depending on various sources was either the mummy of a prince discarded by robbers, or the mummy of Setnakhte, the founder of the Twentieth Dynasty . When Loret reached the burial chamber, he discovered that the rewrapped and restored mummy of Amenhotep II still lay in the sarcophagus in the burial chamber among the heaps of rubble that once made up his funerary equipment. Next, Loret explored the side rooms, one of which was blocked up with large stones. He entered two and found only broken statuary and amphora, but the next chamber he entered contained three of the four unidentified mummies from the tomb------ “’We passed to the rooms to the right. In the first one we entered, an unusually strange sight met our eyes: Three bodies lay side by side at the back in the left corner, their feet pointing towards the door…We approached the cadavers. The first seemed to be that of a woman. A thick veil covered her forehead and left eye. Her broken arm had been replaced by her side, her nails in the air. Ragged and torn cloth hardly covered her body. Abundant black curled hair spread over the limestone floor on each side of her head. The face was admirably conserved and had a noble and majestic gravity . The second mummy, in the middle was that of a child about fifteen years. It was naked with the hands joined on the abdomen. First of all the head appeared totally bald, but on closer examination one saw that the head had been shaved except an area on the right temple from which grew a magnificent tress of black hair. This was the coiffure of the royal princes [called the Horus lock]. I thought immediately of the royal prince Webensennu, this so far unknown son of Amenophis II, whose funerary statue I had noticed in the Great Hall, and whose canopic fragments I was to find later. The face of the young prince was laughing and mischievous, it did not at all evoke the idea of death. The last corpse nearest the wall seemed to be that of a man . His head was shaved, but a wig lay on the ground not far from him. The face of this person displayed something horrible and something droll at the same time. The mouth was running obliquely from one side nearly to the middle of the cheek, bit a pad of linen whose two ends hung from the corner of the lips. The half closed eyes had a strange expression, he could have died choking on a gag, but he looked like a young, playful cat with a piece of cloth. Death which had respected the beauty of the woman and the impish grace of the boy had turned in derision and amused itself with the countenance of the man. The remarkable fact was that the three corpses, like the one in the boat, had their skulls pierced with a large hole, and the breast of each one was opened.’” (Brier 113-114) ------There was still one last surprise waiting in the tomb for Loret after he entered chamber Jc, and that was hidden in the final side chamber (Jb). This was the chamber that had been blocked up (probably sometime in year 13 of Smendes) to close off the entrance from via the burial chamber. Loret, however, did not let this stop him, he ordered the top of the wall torn down so that he could enter and inspect the room’s contents. This chamber held a further nine bodies. At first Loret assumed that these must be relatives of the king, but on further inspection------ “’The coffins and mummies were a uniform gray color. I leaned over the nearest coffin and blew on it so as to read the name. The gray tint was a layer of dust, which flew away and allowed me to read the nomen and prenomen of Ramses VI. Was I in a cache of royal coffins? I blew away the dust of a second coffin, and a cartouche revealed itself, illegible for an instant, painted in matte black on a shiny black ground. I went over to the other coffins – everywhere cartouches!”’-Victor Loret 1899 (Reeves 198) ------ In that small side room were nine coffins, eight belonging to pharaohs of the New Kingdom, and one carrying the remains of an unidentified woman thought to be Queen Tworset. These were last of the Royal Mummies to be discovered in mass . Ancient tomb robbers were in all reality, probably the first to unwrap mummies in their search for treasure; later, modern unwrappers searched more for answers than for gold (This of course was after the pioneering work of Margaret Murray in paleopathology and multidisciplinary mummy studies.) After the Roman occupation of Egypt, Europe lost ties with that part of the world, so by the Middle Ages, mummification had become a long forgotten process. It was not until the Renaissance, with its renewed interest in Science, that attention again focused on the subject. But few Egyptian mummies were available for study; most had been ground into medicine by apothecaries in a terrible mix up with the mineral mumia. However, by the 17 and 1800’s unwrappings became a very popular pastime at parties given by the rich. Records were often set for layers of linen and amulets found. When unwrapped, the mummy was disarticulated, and the guests would keep interesting “parts” as grisly conversation pieces. (Brier 149 & David 22-23) Often, as mummies were being wrapped, the embalmers would employ the use of prayer dockets on the wrappings, but the dockets were not always prayers. Sometimes, the dockets would record the name of the deceased, their date of birth and their date of death. This was the case of the Royal Mummies. Almost all of the mummies found in the caches were labeled by dockets. However, there are two basic types of dockets that are encountered in the study of the Royal Mummies. The first (Type 1) is a simple identifying text displayed prominently on the coffin lid or on the shroud covering the mummy’s chest, containing a record of the deceased’s name, often with details of status; for example: “Nebmaatre-Amenhotep, Life! Prosperity! Health!” (The docket used on the coffin of Amenhotep III.) The second kind of docket (Type 2), is more informative than the first, and usually contains a date, a record of work undertaken, and the names and titles of the personnel involved: “Year 12 [or 13] [of Smendes], 4th month of the peret-season , day 6. On this day of renewing the burial of King Nebmaatre, Life! Prosperity! Health! By the high priest of Amun-Re, King of the Gods, Pinudjem [I], son of the high priest of Amun-Re, King of the Gods, Piankh…[by?]…Wennufer[?].” (The docket used on the mummy of Amenhotep III.) It is mainly on these dockets that the Royal Mummies were identified, still, today many of the identifications given by the dockets seem improbable, especially when the discovery that several of the bodies had become separated in antiquity from their intended coffins during restoration and replaced in cases to which they had no legitimate claim (Reeves 202 & 203). However, as Herbert Winlock, one of the clearest thinking Egyptological minds ever known, once pointed out------ “’…the dockets written by the ancient officials must be accepted unless there is very, very strong evidence against them…”’ (Reeves 202) ------ Despite the fact that not a single docketed corpse can be proved to be wrongly identified, it is still widely believed that the restoration parties made frequent errors in their identifications of the mummies------ “’The juggling act of bodies and identities which has ensued (from the beliefs of incorrect identifications), based variously on mummification method, craniofacial variation, and estimations of age at death, is more like a lottery than science.”’ (Reeves 204-205) ------ The mummies in question are numbered as Cairo Museum CG 61051-61100 (CG meaning Cairo Museum Catalogue Général) Some identifications of mummies are suspected to be more false than others, however, the mummies considered here are those of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, [and Twentieth Dynasties], therefore, the mummies 61057 (figure ), 61058 (figure ), 61065 (figure ), 61066 (figure ), 61068 (figure ), 61069 (figure ), 61073 (figure ), 61074 (figure ), [61075] (figure ), 61077 (figure ), 61078 (figure ), 61079 (figure ), 61080 (figure ), and 61081 (figure ) shall mainly be concerned. Also considered will be the mummies: 61083 (figure ), 61084 (figure ), 61085 (figure ), 61086 (figure ), 61091 (figure ), 6170 (figure ), and those of Tutankhamen (figure ). The first mummy whose identification is in dispute is that docketed as Ahmose I, the founder of the New Kingdom. This mummy was unwrapped on June 9th, 1886 under the supervision of Gaston Maspero, and it was immediately obvious that it had suffered at the hands of tomb robbers; the head was broken away from the neck and the nose was smashed. Like the other early Eighteenth Dynasty Royal mummies, his head is rather small and narrow, and his upper teeth are prominent (A common family trait of the rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty.) However, this classification is challenged, for two important reasons. First, the mummy of Ahmose I is uncircumcised, which was a common practice in the elite of Ancient Egypt (especially in the Royal Family), and secondly the mummy’s arms are laid out at the sides of the mummy as opposed to being crossed over the chest, giving rise to the controversy. (Smith 15-18) The supposed mummy of Amenhotep I (CG 61058) has also debated about. This mummy was never unwrapped by Maspero because its wrappings were in such perfect condition, with complete garlands in place, that he decided to let it remain untouched, preventing close inspection of the mummy’s actual features. This particular mummy was rewrapped twice, once during the pontificate of Pinudjem I, and once during that of his son Masaharta. From x-rays taken of the Amenhotep I mummy, it has been determined that the arms of the mummy were crossed over its chest before they were ripped away by ancient tomb robbers, strongly implicating that this mummy is who its dockets stated it as. The mummy now resides in a mid-Eighteenth Dynasty coffin, a replacement of the original. (Forbes 698 & Dodson and Ikram 26) The mummy docketed as Thuthmose I (61065) is currently considered to have a false identification. This assumption is made on several points firstly and foremost because of the position of the arms. The arms of number 61065 are pendant at its sides like those of Ahmose. This is a direct breaking with the custom of arm placement employed on Hor, Amenhotep I and on. In x-rays it was found that this mummy had characteristics common with the people of Nubia, and they (the x-rays) also indicated that the epiphyses of this individual’s knees were still patent or open. This meant that he was not yet in his twenties at death, which suggests that the age of this mummy at death was younger than the historical records of Thuthmose I would allow . (Harris. KMT 1:2 pages 38-42) The mummy known as Thuthmose II, or CG 61066; like the “Thuthmose I” is also most likely not who he is identified as in the dockets. He was unwrapped by Maspero on July 1, 1886, and was found to have been badly damaged by tomb robbers. (His left arm was broken off at the shoulder joint, and forearm separated at the elbow joint. His right arm was chopped off above the elbow . The much of the abdominal wall, and thoracic wall had been hacked away, and the right leg was completely severed.) This particular mummy is older (at least 58?) than the historical Thuthmose, who supposedly was struck down by disease in his prime, meaning that this mummy is almost definitely not who he is identified as. (Forbes 699 & Smith 28-30) The Thuthmose III mummy (CG 61068) is generally accepted as correctly identified. The face of the mummy itself for the most part has been remarkably preserved , and allows for comparison with sculpted portraits (An extremely good match.) However, when the mummy was discovered it bore no clear identification, with the exception of a shroud bearing the names of Thuthmose III folded on top of the mummy. The Thuthmose III mummy was unwrapped by Èmile Brugsch in July 1881 to be found in a terrible state of disarticulation, with all of its limbs and extremities being broken off . (Wente 4) The supposed mummy of Amenhotep II (CG 61069), the son of Thuthmose III, is one of the most troublesome of all of the Royal Mummies to precisely identify. Although this mummy was discovered in the coffin, sarcophagus, and tomb all attributed to Amenhotep II , the ‘long-ovid face’ of this mummy is very different compared the face of the Thuthmose III mummy, making it very difficult to believe that the Thuthmose III IS the father of the Amenhotep II mummy, as he should be according to ancient records. However, the structure of the Amenhotep II mummy’s craniofacial morphology is rather similar the supposed mummy of his son Thuthmose IV, both have the virtually the same head shape, ‘”curious sloping forehead,” and slender but prominent nose. (Smith 36-38) Mummy 61073 was unwrapped on March 26, 1903, and today is known as the mummy of Thuthmose IV. This is the body of a younger , emaciated individual, very well preserved with post mortem injuries to the legs and feet. The head is long and oval with a narrow chin, a sloping forehead, a small aquiline nose, and thin lips. The mummy bears a resemblance to the supposed mummy of its father Amenhotep II. (Smith 42-46) In more recent studies however, it was proven that despite the resemblance between the mummies of Amenhotep II and Thuthmose IV it is most likely that they are not father and son. In fact, the mummy of Thuthmose IV bears the closest resemblance in craniofacial morphology to the mummy of Tutankhamen and the skeleton found in tomb 55 in the VOK. (Wente 5) The craniofacial morphology of the mummy thought to be Amenhotep III or CG61074, makes it difficult to identify as the son of Thuthmose IV, who historically, he should be. Of all of the Royal Mummies, only that of Amenhotep II is close enough in craniofacial morphology to “Amenhotep III,” to be the mummy’s father, and further, it has been discovered that the skull of the Amenhotep III mummy is two standard variations, too large for the mummy’s body, making it extremely similar to sculpted portraits of Akhenaten that have been discovered. This mummy was unwrapped on September 23, 1905, and was discovered to be the most severely damaged of all the Royal Mummies, with its head, arms, legs, and extremities broken away. Also, almost all of the soft tissue of this mummy was gone. (Smith 46-51) The Royal Mummies of the early Nineteenth Dynasty are for the most part undisputed in their identifications. This includes the mummies of Sety I, Ramses II, and Merenptah . The only exception to the basically complete order is the mummy that supposedly represents Sety II. The mummy of Sety II was unwrapped on September 3, 1905, to reveal the remains of a young middle-aged man who did not resemble his supposed first three ancestors at all . In fact, the characteristics of this mummy do not resemble the orthognathous heavy-jawed, hook-nosed rulers of the dynasty it is assigned to at all, it more resembles the rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty, especially those of the earlier part. This mummy has two of the most distinguishing characteristics of the preceding dynasty, the projecting upper teeth of the “Royal Overbite,” and the small, narrow, high-bridged aquiline nose common to most rulers of the same. This mummy has caused much controversy in which dynasty it truly belongs to, most favor an Eighteenth Dynasty identification. (Smith 73-81) Most of the mummies of the Twentieth Dynasty are also undisputed in their identifications. Seemingly, the most controversial of all of the Royal Mummy groupings is that of the late Seventeenth, early Eighteenth Dynasty. Most of the mummies of the Twentieth Dynasty are missing, however, we do have those of Ramses III (CG 61083), Ramses IV (CG 61084), Ramses V (CG 61085), and Ramses VI (CG 61086). Over all, the effectiveness of the mummification techniques on most of these mummies seems to have entered a small slump between two of the great mummification epochs: that of the early and mid- Eighteenth Dynasty, and that of the Twenty-first Dynasty. Based on contradicting and supporting evidence for the different identifications of the Royal Mummies , three schemes of identifications can be formed: Scheme One Scheme Two Scheme Three Ahmose I ? ? ? Amenhotep I himself himself himself Thuthmose I Thuthmose II Thuthmose II Thuthmose II Thuthmose II Sety II Sety II Sety II Thuthmose III Thuthmose III Thuthmose III ? Thuthmose III Amenhotep II ? ? Thuthmose III ? Thuthmose IV Amenhotep II Amenhotep II himself Amenhotep III Thuthmose IV Thuthmose IV Amenhotep II Akhenaten KV55 Skeleton ? Amenhotep III Smenkhare ? KV 55 Skeleton KV55 Skeleton Tutankhamen himself himself himself Aye Amenhotep III Amenhotep III ? (Wente 6) Early on, it has been concluded that the mummy of Ahmose I cannot be who the dockets label him as, so for now, it can be assumed that his mummy is yet to be discovered, and the mummy of Amenhotep I has been concluded as being the same as his dockets proclaim, on the basis of his crossed arms . The mummy labeled that of Thuthmose I cannot possibly be that pharaoh, as he was too young to fit the historical record. Also, because of his Nubian ties, he could not possibly be Thuthmose I, who came from a full-blooded Egyptian family . To fill the empty slot of Thuthmose I the mummy of Thuthmose II is proposed. This mummy was found to be too old to be the traditional Thuthmose II, but his age fits perfectly in the position of Thuthmose I. Also, the new Thuthmose I’s craniofacial morphology is markedly different from that of both Ahmose and Amenhotep I, but this does not present a problem because Thuthmose was not related (at least not closely), to either of the former. In order to fill the now empty position of Thuthmose II, the controversial Sety II, is brought forward. This Ramesside with Tuthmosid features was younger at death than his traditional father, and the new Thuthmose I. So logically, he may be put into place as Thuthmose II. All craniofacial morphology of this mummy matches that of the new Thuthmose I, and of the mummy of Thuthmose II which has been left in place as [probably] correctly identified. At this point, the schemes begin to differ on opinion of who is who. The identification of the supposed mummy of Amenhotep II a difficult one, with the mummy of Thuthmose III identified as himself. According to the craniofacial morphologies of this mummy (Amenhotep II), he can in no possible way be the child of Thuthmose III, because the measurements of their faces and cranium differ to such an extent. The main question however is how did such a mix up occur. This mummy that was thought to be Amenhotep II was discovered in the tomb, sarcophagus, coffin, and wrappings all bearing the names of Amenhotep II. Leading experts in the field can offer no explanation for this mystery. (In the third scheme, there is a possibility that the mummy labeled a Thuthmose II might be Amenhotep II, but that theory is supported by very few people.) The mummy of Thuthmose IV is another mystery. Once again, the craniofacial morphologies are incompatible, but only this time it is between the “Amenhotep II” mummy and the Thuthmose IV mummy. Because a close father-son-grandson arrangement between Thuthmose III, Amenhotep II, and Thuthmose IV is “improbable biologically,” a gap might be inserted between Thuthmose III and Amenhotep II in schemes one and two, making the Amenhotep II mummy – Thuthmose IV, and the Thuthmose IV mummy – Amenhotep III, which could be a possible arrangement. But in scheme three, the mummy of Thuthmose IV stays in the same position, while the mummy docketed as Amenhotep II actually becomes Amenhotep III, and the Amenhotep III mummy is identified as Akhenaten . In all actuality, the mummy identified as Thuthmose IV has the most in common Craniofacially speaking with the mummies of Tutankhamen and the KV55 Skeleton that is probably Smenkhare. This recalls the controversy about the parentage of Tutankhamen (and Smenkhare). Ever since the Tomb of Tutankhamen was discovered on November 4, 1922 (Carter and Mace VII) it has been argued if the parents of Tutankhamen are Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye or Akhenaten and his Secondary Queen Kiya. (Reeves 9). If Amenhotep III were the true father of Tutankhamen, this would be a good place to insert the mummy of Thuthmose IV. He then would have been father to both Akhenaten (as the KV55 Skeleton) and Tutankhamen (also, possibly Smenkhare). Scheme two works rather similarly, Thuthmose IV is again Amenhotep III, and he is still father to Akhenaten (whose mummy is yet to be discovered), and Tutankhamen. Now however, he is also father to Smenkhare (as the KV55 Skeleton). Finally, in both scheme one and two the Amenhotep III mummy is thought to be Aye, an assumption made because of its dissimilarity to all of the mummies with the exception of Amenhotep II who is now Thuthmose IV. ({all of the above} Forbes 698-702 & Wente 6-8) In 1966, a massive project was undertaken in the Cairo Museum, under the direction of the University of Michigan’s School of Dentistry, called the X-ray project. This project was headed by medical scientists and Egyptologists of the day, whose purpose was to x-ray the Royal Mummies. From the x-rays, the craniofacial morphologies of the mummies were observed to try to see if the identifications, of the ancient pharaohs, from the dockets had any correctness in relation to the chronology of pharaohs that by that time had been set up (Of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties). Much of the information used for this paper was compiled from their efforts. Other things the x-ray project shed light on included: various diseases suffered by the New Kingdom Royalty, ancient medical and dental problems, the causes and ages of death of the pharaohs, and secrets of the process of mummification. (Harris and Weeks front cover of X-raying the pharaohs, 1973 ed.) The secrets that the Mummies of the Pharaohs still hold about their identifications could be revealed through new processes that have been developed to test the DNA of the ancient dead. However, the Egyptian Government in collaboration with the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities has banned such experimentation, for fear of damaging the mummies and of disrespectful treatment. The secrets of the mummies shall have to wait for some future day for their genetic secrets to be uncovered (newspaper clipping) The Royal Mummies of Ancient Egypt are eternal reminders to us of the wish of the Ancient Egyptians to live on after death, when at the same time they are priceless cultural treasures. In their amazing journey through time, and their continual elusion of those who would destroy them, they have lasted on as the very symbols of their great country, eternal reminders of the greatness that once was Egypt. From the tomb to the museum, they have helped us to better understand the Egyptian wish for life after death, they have continually inspired generation after generation of young Egyptophiles to study them and try to unlock their long held secrets of life in our world, but only a younger more primitive world. These are our roots, and it is through the efforts of such as the X-ray project that we strive to better understand our ancestors and the lessons of the past they have to teach us. In conclusion, the currently accepted identifications of the Ancient Egyptian Royal Mummies are for the most part correct (the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties). It is only in the Eighteenth Dynasty chronology that possible errors may be found especially around the late part of the dynasty during the Amarna interlude. However, through craniofacial morphology, a fairly certain reconstruction of the dynasty may be made of the mummies. (C) Dolan 2002 | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.158.57) |
Excellent and thank you for posting your article ! I guess we'll have to wait for DNA research to be allowed, to settle the matter ! JD | ||
| Budhotep (205.188.195.38) |
So, I may assume by your reaction J.D. that I have made no monumental errors that are in need of correction? Thanks for saying it is excellent despite the fact that I just saw that none of the words that I had printed in italics came out, therefore making some of my sentences hard to understand. |
