INVESTIGATION
OF THE THREE MUMMIES IN THE SIDE CHAMBER OF TOMB KV.35 IN THE VALLEY OF THE
KINGS
With
the permission of Dr. Zahi Hawass of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, the
three mummified bodies were studied in situ in side chamber Jc of the burial
chamber of Amenhotep II (KV.35) by visual examination and digital radiography
in February 2003.
The
first general anatomical examination of the bodies was carried out in 1907 when
Elliot Smith “made a hasty examination” published in 1912, whilst further radiographic
details have been provided more recently for the Elder Woman and the Boy by
Harris and Wente (1980). The current detailed study was carried out in order to
confirm, or otherwise, previous findings and to add substantially to the
previous radiographic findings.
Throughout
the project, which was carried out under the full control and supervision of
the Supreme Council of Antiquities, we were greatly assisted by the
collaboration of our Egyptian colleagues in both Cairo and Luxor. This study
has posed a number of research questions which show the need for further
investigation (eg. non-destructive chemical analyses, CT scanning, experimental
trauma simulating the ancient damage to the mummies).
THE
ELDER WOMAN
When
viewed from the entrance to the side chamber this was the body to the left of
the three. No marked changes were observed from the descriptions and
illustrations provided by Elliot Smith in 1912. Ancient damage to the throrax
and abdomen appears to be the same. The long wavy hair remains and is the
individual’s natural hair rather than a wig or false braids, close scrutiny
also revealing the presence of several egg cases of head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis). The
top of the head is stained a brownish colour from the use of resinous materials,
whilst their application to the face has produced a darker colour. A small
amount of linen adheres to the left eyelid. Even allowing for drying of the
soft tissues, the face appears to be finely structured, with the upper facial
height (nasion to inferior nasal spine) 55mm. There is noticeable upper incisor
overjet. The ears are not pierced and are relatively large and intact and the
nostrils are noticeably open.
Post-mortem
skin changes are restricted to small areas of the face and chest, and look like
a skin rash or pitting. There are also small amounts of candle wax (?) on the
face presumably from attempts to light the chamber prior to the introduction of
electricity in 1902. Radiographic examination revealed well defined but small
frontal sinuses. There was no evidence of damage to the nose and the back of
the occipital area on the endocranial surface appears to contain decomposed
brain tissue. The sutures are unclosed, but the epiphyses are all united. The
right humerus head has a width of 47mm and the midshaft cortical bone thickness
is 5.0mm. The right femoral head breadth is 47 mm. Although the team
radiologist has described the mummy as “young, but over 25 years”, the fact
that the pubic symphysis appears to be flat and the teeth are moderately worn
suggests an age of perhaps 35-45 years or even older. This seems to be
confirmed by the moderate osteophyte development on the lowest two lumbar
vertebrae.
The
right arm is covered with shiny black resinous material and fragments of fine
linen, and is laid straight at the side of the body with the hand on the thigh.
The middle finger is missing, some muscle tissue exposed and the hand itself
covered in a 0.3mm layer of resin. The left forearm is covered with a 0.5mm
layer of resin or oil, with parts of the muscle tissue exposed. It is bent up
with the hand near the clavicle, the fingers curved in the original position to
hold a sceptre or similar item of regalia. The hand is also covered in a 2mm
thick layer of unidentified resin, a section of blackened linen adhering to the
back of the hand. The remaining nails have been well manicured and appear to
have been stained with henna. The left scapula is a brownish-red shade.
A thick cake of black
resinous linen adheres to the neck and body, including sections of blackened
resin-impregnated linen adhering to the top right side of the chest just below
the scapula. Although partly obscured by moderately fine linen wrappings, the
internal packing appears granular and heterogeneous. Despite extensive damage to
the abdomen, the embalming incision does not appear to conform to either
clearly defined position set down by Elliot Smith (1912) and may relate to a
different means of removing the viscera. A thick layer of resin covers the
lower abdomen and perineum, whilst the genital area is intact and confirms the
sex of the individual. Other skeletal dimensions measured from the radiographs
include a feminine sub-pubic angle of approximately 120°, and an approximate
sacral index of 120. The acetabular diameter is smaller than the
symphysis-acetabular distance, again a female feature. There is fusion of the
ischiopubic apophysis. A comminuted fracture of the left iliac crest in the
region of the anterior superior iliac spine is probably post-mortem damage
linked to the mummification process or grave-robbing. The first sacral segment
could be relatively unfused, a possible non-metric feature.
The
right leg is covered with a mass of brown and black-coloured linen, with traces
of a white fungus(?) on the skin. The left leg is coated in a resinous layer
between 0.5-1mm thick, in places cracked to reveal muscle tissue, and with only
some blackened resinous linen remaining on the left thigh the leg itself is
largely exposed.
The
feet have been broken off, the left foot placed between the thighs
disarticulated through the talo-navicular and talo-calcaneal joints and the
distal phalanx of the first toe is missing. It also displays pathology or
post-mortem changes, Elliot Smith describing ulceration on the left heel of the
foot, although there is no evidence for this in the X-rays of the bones of the
foot.
THE
BOY
When
viewed from the entrance to the side chamber this was the body in the centre of
the three. This is a generally well preserved mummy, but with some ancient
regional damage.
The
age of this boy is given as a little over 11 years by Elliot Smith (1912) and
12 to 13 years by Harris and Wente (1980). The critical dental features are
that he had developed and erupted permanent canines, his second molars were
nearly completely formed and partly erupted, and his third molar crowns are
only partly formed. Considering the period and environment, the dental evidence
suggests an age of 12 years ± 6 months. In terms of the post-cranial age
evidence, the proximal epiphyses of the humerus are not fused, the scapular rim
epiphyses can be seen, the proximal radius head epiphysis is separate but close
to fusion, the iliac crest epiphyses are visible and unfused and the proximal
femoral epiphyses are not fused. The age given by the post-cranial radiographic
evidence is approximately 14-15 years, so the overall age estimate is 12-14
years.
Elliot Smith alluded
to the boy’s exceptional brachycephalism (Smith 1912), his head nearly as broad
from side to side as from front to back. The head is shaved, except for a long
side lock of hair on the right of the head which is highly desiccated and
requires conservation to prevent further loss. The top of the head is darkened
by the application of resinous materials. On the right side of the frontal area
is a large sharp-edged hole, with fragments of bone visible and lying inside
the skull. The brain has been removed, Elliot Smith (1912) suggesting that
damage to the base of the skull indicates the unusual removal of the brain
through the sphenoid, not ethmoid area.
The
ears are clearly pierced. Part of the left eyebrow is visible. The eyes are
widely set apart, the lips are broad and the chin prominent. The nostrils are
again noticeably open and the nose remarkably similar to that of the Elder Woman,
X-rays of their profiles confirming a remarkable facial similarity suggestive
of a close family relationship. Parts of the face have been discoloured by the
use of resinous materials, with small splashes of candle (?) wax again present
on the face.
Both
hands are arranged over the genital area, the left hand clasped with the thumb
extended, beneath the fully extended right hand with its smallest finger bent
back.
The
chest and thorax had been covered in a thin layer of resin between 0.5-1mm
thick, which still retained the slight impression of some sort of regalia or
costume once worn close to the skin. There were also pieces of linen adhering
to the chest and abdomen, with various thicknesses of linen of various shades
(quite possibly due to their impregnation with various unguents associated with
the mummification) used as internal packing in the thorax.
There is severe
damage to the chest area, mainly to the upper left side, which poses some
interesting forensic questions. This is by no means a single “large gash”
briefly referred to by Elliot Smith (1912), but a large pear-shaped hole
resulting from an axe-size weapon being driven into the chest at least five
times (see figure A). The blows have cut cleanly through the sternum, the left
clavicle and six ribs. As a result of blows 3 or 5 (as listed), the upper chest
wall was dragged and bent back, exposing the thoracic cavity and upper chest
packing. Of note is the fact that this severe damage did not cause collapse or
splintering to the chest, and the segment of chest pulled back appears to have
been soft and malleable. If this is the case, then the body was relatively
‘fresh’ when the damage took place. Could this have been only weeks or months
after mummification? Indeed, lack of fragmented linen in the cuts suggests that
the axe damage occurred before the body was wrapped. Does this mean that the
body was still being prepared when the individual was hacked into, and thus
could this be malicious damage and not simply the result of grave robbing? From
a forensic point of view, this seems to be an interesting question deserving
further investigation.
Once
again the embalming incision does not appear to conform to either clearly
defined position set down by Elliot Smith (1912) and may relate to a different means
of removing the viscera, as in the Elder Woman. There is a mass of
resin-impregnated brown-black linen over the hip and around the area of the
embalming incision, the packing material in the abdomen made up of a
combination of linen of various shades, vegetable matter and mud.
The
lack of resin around the lower abdomen and perineum makes it possible to
confirm Elliot Smith’s comment that the boy was not circumcised.
The
left leg and corresponding foot are a reddish colour. The right leg appears to
be slightly shorter than the left, and in X-ray it can be seen that the right
hip is severely dislocated with the femur head displaced superiorly, located
out of the acetabulum and driven on to the iliac blade posteriorly. There
appears to be additional bone density surrounding the femur head and situated
on the pelvis, suggesting a post-traumatic reaction in life. There is also an
associated fracture of the right superior pubic ramus, extending from the
obturator foramen through the ischium to the acetabulum. This form of
dislocation is not congenital, which produces distinctive changes to the femur
head and acetabulum. This massive injury could have occurred in life, and needs
further investigation by CT scanning.
There
is additional minor damage at the left hip. Both feet have been broken off, the
right foot disarticulated through the talo-calcaneal and talo-navicular joints,
and both phalanges of the first toe, two and a half phalanges of the second toe
and terminal phalanx of the fourth toe are missing. The left foot is
disarticulated through the ankle joint and both phalanges of the first toe are
missing. In both feet all the metacarpal and phalangeal epiphyses are present
and unfused, although some of the proximal phalangeal epiphyses seem close to
fusion, with expected fusion at 18 years for phalanges and 20 years for
metatarsals. The calcaneal and fifth metatarsal apophyses are present and
unfused, with expected fusion at 12-22 years, whilst the tarsal bones are adult
in appearance.
THE
YOUNGER WOMAN
When
viewed from the entrance to the side chamber this was the body on the right of
the three. This was generally a well preserved mummy, although displaying areas
of severe ancient damage. There has been confusion as to the sex of this
individual, but there is no evidence of male genitals, and the female
structures are deformed by the mummification procedures with linen and resin.
Although
the X-rays revealed some similarity between the Younger Woman and the two
individuals buried with her, the likeness was not as marked as it was between
the Elder Woman and the Boy.
There are unerupted
lower left and upper and lower right wisdom teeth, third molar development
displaying the crown and some root which usually suggests an age of 15-19
years. Due to facial damage, the only erupted teeth are present on the right
side, some of which could show the presence of dental caries. The post-cranial
evidence of immaturity includes a slightly corrugated pubic symphysis, an
ununited rim to the iliac crest, a proximal humerus head without union, a
distal humerus epiphysis unfused and the distal femoral epiphysis appears only
to be partly united. On the other hand, the proximal radius epiphysis appears
to have united with the radius shaft and the general condition of the spine and
the major joints and the fact that all the long bone epiphyses are fused gives
an age of approximately 25, although she could have been as old as 30. The
dental and post-cranial maturation evidence would seem to suggest an age range
for this individual of 18 up to 30 years. It should be noted that
interpretation of the union of epiphyses is difficult from X-rays alone.
The
head is completely shaven and the top of the cranium covered by a 0.25mm layer
of mid-brown resinous material. A hole in midline of the frontal bone, roughly
triangular in shape, has smooth, slightly scalloped edges which could suggest
some healing but it is almost certainly a post-mortem injury. A mass of
desiccated brain tissue remains within the cranium.
The face is fairly
gracile, with a prominent nasal bridge, prominent upper lip and chin with
evidence of maxillary prognathism, described by Elliot Smith as “such a
constant and distinctive trait of the royal family of the XVIIIth dynasty”
(1912). Although the nose appeared to have once been plugged, the nostrils are
now empty and the nasal septum is visible. There are faint traces of both
eyebrows. The face is covered with a very thin layer of resinous material,
which has retained the impression of a tight fitting band around the forehead
and ears. Although the right ear is missing, the left ear lobe is intact and
displays two small perforations. The left part of the mouth is severely
damaged, and on close inspection it is clear that an axe, short sword or
machete-type weapon was hacked into the face. This has cut fairly cleanly
through the maxilla, carried away some upper teeth and probably breaking off
some lower teeth.
Below
the long thin feminine neck the remnants of the chest area are covered in a
thin 0.3mm layer of resin and are brownish in colour with smaller areas grey in
colour. There is severe irregular damage in the central thoracic area, exposing
the diaphragm and heart and the internal packing of linen overlaid with mud.
The weapon which caused the facial damage may also have produced what appears
to be a superficial, fairly straight cut of about 12cm in length into the
thoracic area, just below the collapsed left breast (Figure B). On careful
examination, it appears to be more than a fold of tissue, and a small exposed
area of adipocere would confirm a break in the skin. The position of this
apparent cut is problematic, in that it is into the side of the thorax, and
would not have been produced by a blow to the front of the body (as in the case
of the facial damage). However, it could have been produced by an angled stab
injury which glanced off the ribs. In such a situation, the rib damage would be
too superficial to be revealed by the current X-rays. It is possible that a
careful search whilst CT-scanning the mummy might eventually reveal fine cuts
on the ribs. Again, it is relevant to ask if this thoracic injury is the result
of tomb robbing, or an indication of malicious injury.
The
left arm and shoulder blade are intact, with the arm extending down the side of
the body and the left hand directed inwards over the upper thigh. The arm is
covered in fine linen and a 0.5mm layer of resin, with blackened resin also
noted on the skin under the left arm. There is an undisplaced spiral fracture
of the left humerus shaft, and the sharpness of the edges suggests an injury
near death or post-mortem.
The
right arm had been torn or hacked off in ancient times just below the shoulder
joint. There is an undisplaced fracture of the blade of the scapula. Elliot
Smith (1912) remarked on a well preserved right hand and forearm associated
with this mummy, with flexing at the elbow and the hand in a clasped posture.
This was relocated beside the right leg of the mummy, and covered with a thin
0.3-0.5mm layer of resin, its proportions suggest it is the forearm of a female
adult.
Although
not seen by Elliot Smith in 1907, there is now a second right arm present,
partly covered in brown linen at the top and minus the hand. Incorporating the
shoulder of the Younger Woman, the length of this extended right arm is 57cm as
compared with 55cm from the top of the shoulder to the wrist of the intact left
arm. This 2cm discrepancy suggests that the extended right arm may not have
belonged to the Younger Woman. The appearance and position of the fine textured
linen impregnated with resin located at the top of the extended arm again
suggests that it does not correspond with the right shoulder of the Younger
Woman. Given that the right arm of this mummy had clearly been forcefully
removed in ancient times, it is also questionable whether the extended arm
would have survived in such a relatively intact state, particularly at the
elbow. Relating one or other arm to this mummy would demand further analysis
and tests.
The embalming
incision does not appear to conform to either clearly defined position set down
by Elliot Smith (1912) and may relate to a different means of removing the
viscera, as also noted in the Elder Woman and Boy. The abdomen is packed with
many rolls of linen padding, whilst the area inside and beneath the incision is
packed with mud and what appears to be small pieces of limestone.
As with the Boy, the
Younger Woman does not have a thick layer of resin over the lower abdomen and
perineum as noted in the case of the Elder Woman, although there is an area of
shiny resin around the anus and the rear of the hips has blackened in colour.
The width, shape and
depth of the sciatic notch is consistent with a female. There is a sharp-edged
and slightly displaced fracture of the right pubic ramus, and with no sign of
healing this possibly occurred close to death or post-mortem. There is also a
fracture of the blade of the left ilium, extending from a defect in the crest,
with a section of the bone probably excised (no bone fragments are visible). This
is possibly post-mortem and may have occurred during the mummification process.
The
last lumbar vertebra appears to be abnormally angular and is associated with
some degree of lumbar scoliosis, concave to the right. This is unlikely to be
post-mortem malpositioning, and the disparity between the position of the spine
and those of the chest and pelvis suggests a true scoliosis, causing abnormal
back posture in life CF ASYMMETRICAL BUST!!!!!!!
Both
legs were wrapped in fine brown linen. Several metal (gold?) objects are
scattered through the jaw area and the lower rib cage contains a scatter of
similar objects, probably at least 12 small beads.
CONCLUSIONS
The discovery of the
three bodies within the burial chamber of a royal tomb obviously suggests their
royal status. Yet their burial within the tomb of Amenhotep II does not mean
they were his contemporaries, since other royal mummies from this tomb (from
Side Chamber Jb) are known to date from 1390-1136 BC. Although Elliot Smith
(1912) also suggested that the three must be contemporaries of Amenhotep II on
the basis of “mummification techniques”, our close visual scrutiny of the
mummification materials used on all three bodies has demonstrated that this is
not the case. The application of the resins, position of embalming incisions
etc. are consistent with mummification techniques used throughout the mid to
late 18th dynasty, and although the individual unguents and
ingredients appear to have been quite different for each individual, the
incredibly high standards of mummification seen in each of the three bodies
confirms their elite status. The information provided by a visual examination
of the hairstyles, pierced ears and evidence of royal regalia once worn/carried
by the three also confirms a late 18th dynasty date.
The absence of Harris
Lines in the long bones of all three suggests that they had suffered no periods
of growth delay/retardation in life, again suggesting high status, well-cared
for individuals. Nor was there any evidence of severe bone disease or arthritic
change in their skeletons, the apparent ‘calcification’ in the invertebral
discs of each one possibly being the result of desiccation during the
mummification process.
It should be noted
that the approximate ages given for the three bodies are based on European
standards, Elliot Smith stating that he had employed “the ordinary European
standards of ossification” (1912), “with my present experience of the
variability of the relative dates of the epiphyseal unions in ancient Egyptian
bones, I would make the reservation that the anatomical evidence, when based
upon the penultimate stage of consolidation of a single bone, cannot be
regarded as conclusive” (Smith 1912, p.ix). During Harris and Wente’s
radiographic studies on the Royal Mummies it was noted that “a comparison of
our results… reveals that the pharaohs' ages at death as determined by the
biologists are generally younger than what the written sources suggested. Part
of this disparity may be attributed to a somewhat slower maturation in
antiquity - as it is among modern Nubians, who reach puberty two to three years
later than modern Americans” (Wente 1995). Egyptologists now tend to treat
these varying ages with a certain degree of caution, and “although it is
tempting to assume that the estimated ages of death of the royal mummies can be
used as a starting point for establishing chronology, it appears that we must
accept that not only the estimates given by Maspero and Smith, but also those
based on recent scientific examination are not accurate enough to be used
absolutely for this purpose, and that no historical or chronological arguments
based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid…
Certainly, if it goes against what can be deduced from other sources, priority
should be given to the latter” (Robins 1981).
Regardless of the
range put forward for their ages, identities for all three mummies have been
previously suggested. The mummy of the Elder Woman has been identified as Queen
Tiye by Harris et el. (1978) on the basis of matching hair evidence, cranial
morphology and the position of the left arm bent up in queenly pose to hold a
sceptre. Our estimated age of “over 25 years”, “perhaps 35-45 years or even
older” would also support such an identification, as would the distribution of
embalming resins and other materials which are very similar to those employed
in the embalming of Queen Tiy’s parents Yuya and Tuya and later individuals. A
recent suggestion that this is the mummy of Nefertiti (James 2001) seems rather
less likely, since Nefertiti is repeatedly shown with headgear, wigs and
tight-fitting crowns requiring a shaven or closely cropped head, and is also
shown wearing earrings requiring pierced ears which the Elder Woman clearly
does not have.
Although Elliot
Smith (1912) suggested that the boy may be Prince Ouabkhousenou (Webensenu), a
son of the tomb owner Amenhotep II, this again seems unlikely. His exceptional
brachycephaly may be favourably compared to that exhibited by the mummies of
Amenhotep III, Akhenaten/Smenkhkare from KV.55 and Tutankhamen. The
distribution of embalming resins and other materials are completely different
to those employed for Amenhotep II, yet are very similar to those employed for
later 18th dynasty mummies. The impressions in the embalming resins
on his torso suggest he may once have worn some sort of royal corselet of the
type found in the tomb of Tutankhamen. The length and thickness of his sidelock
suggests a mid to late 18th dynasty date, whilst his clearly pierced
ears reveal a practice amongst royal males only found from the reign of
Tuthmosis IV onwards (Andrews 1990). On the basis of these factors we believe
that this is a royal prince of the late 18th dynasty.
Although the mummy
of the Younger Woman has usually received less attention than the other two, in
part because of the extensive damage to her face and chest, she is in many ways
the most intriguing. Although her head is completely shaven, a fragmentary wig
originally found beside the body and examined by a member of the team could
well have once formed the so-called ‘Nubian Wig’ worn by royal women of the
Amarna Period, most particularly Nefertiti, her daughters Meritaten and
Ankhesenamun and Akhenaten’s minor wife Kiya. The mummy’s remaining left ear
clearly has two holes forming a double-pierced lobe, a most unusual feature
only found on the statuary of Nefertiti and possibly Meritaten. The presence of
a woman’s right arm, bent up to hold a sceptre in its clenched fist, again
suggests a royal female wielding kingly powers, whilst the gold(?) amulets and
beads revealed by the X-rays inside the mummy reveal the original presence of a
jewelled collar comparable to that found on the male mummy in KV.55 (Davis
1910).
Although extensive
damage to the chests of all three mummies can be regarded as post-mortem damage
during robbery, the malicious damage to the Younger Woman’s face cannot be
explained in the same way, the use of an axe or machete-type blade to destroy
the mouth instead suggesting an attempt to deprive her of the breath of life.
It is also striking
that all three mummies had been treated completely differently to the other
royal mummies reburied elsewhere in the tomb. Left unwrapped, unidentified and
placed directly on to the floor of their own separate chamber without coffins,
the three had obviously been separated from the others and treated in an
undignified manner.
If the Elder Lady is
indeed Queen Tiy, mother of the so-called ‘Heretic’ pharaoh Akhenaten, it
follows that the two individuals buried close beside her in exactly the same
circumstances exhibiting similar mummification techniques and bearing a close
resemblance should be regarded as members of her family.
We would like to
take this opportunity to thank Dr. Zahi Hawass and the Supreme Council of
Antiquities and all our Egyptian colleagues in Cairo and Luxor who were
involved in this fascinating project.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brothwell, D.R. 1981, Digging Up Bones, London
Brothwell, D. &
Higgs, E. eds., 1963, Science in Archaeology, London
Brothwell, D.R.
& Sandison, A.T. eds., 1967, Disease on Antiquity, Springfield
Buckley, S.A. & Evershed, R.P. 2001, The
Organic Chemistry of Embalming Agents in Pharaonic and Graeco-Roman Mummies,
Nature (vol.413, issue 6858), p.837-841
Cockburn, A., Cockburn, E. & Reyman, T.A.
eds. 1998, Mummies, Disease and Ancient
Cultures, Cambridge
Davis, T.M. 1910, The Tomb of Queen Tîyi, London
Fletcher, J. 2000, Hair, Ancient Egyptian
Materials and Technology (eds. P.Nicholson & I. Shaw) Cambridge, p.495-501
Fletcher, J. & Montserrat, D. 1998, The
Human Hair in the Tomb of Tutankhamun: a re-evaluation, Proceedings of the
Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, (ed. C.Eyre), Leuven,
p.401-407
Gray, P.H.K. 1972, Notes concerning the position
of the arms and hands of mummies with a view to possible dating of the
specimen, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58, p.200-
Harris, J.E. & Wente, E.F. eds. 1980, An
X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, Chicago
Harris, J.E., Wente, E., Cox, C., Nawawy, I.,
Kowalski, C., Storey, A., Russell, W., Ponitz, P. & Walker, G. 1978, Mummy
of the ‘Elder Lady’ in the tomb of Amenhotep II: Egyptian Museum Catalog Number
61070, Science 200, p.1149-1151
James, S.E. 2001,
Who is the Mummy Elder Lady, KMT: a Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt
Vol.12, No.2
Robins, G. 1981, The
value of the estimated ages of the royal mummies at death as historical
evidence, GM 45, p.63-68
Smith, G.E. 1907, On
the Mummies in the Tomb of Amenhotep II, BIE 5th serie 1, p.221-228
Smith, G.E. 1912,
The Royal Mummies, Catalogue General des Antiquites Egyptiennes de la
Musee du Caire, Nos. 61051-61100, Cairo
Wente, E. 1995, Who
Was Who Among the Royal Mummies, The Oriental Institute News &
Notes, No. 144, p.1-6
Wente, E. &
Harris, J. 1992, Royal Mummies of the Eighteenth Dynasty: a Biological and
Egyptological Approach, in N. Reeves, ed. After
Tut'ankhamun, London, p. 2-20
TEAM MEMBERS
Professor Don
Brothwell,
Department of
Archaeology, The King's Manor, York University, York
Dr. Samia
El-Merghani,
Anthropologist, Center
of Researches & Conservation of Antiquities, Cairo Museum
Dr. Stephen Buckley,
Archaeological
Scientist, Department of Archaeology, The King's Manor, York University, York
Dr. Joann Fletcher,
Egyptologist,
Department of Archaeology, The King's Manor, York University, York
Andrea Bates,
Senior Radiographer,
Department of Medical Engineering & Physics, King's College Hospital,
London
Dr. David Allen,
Consultant
Radiologist, Department of Medical Engineering and Physics, King's College
Hospital, London
https://www.york.ac.uk/media/archaeology/documents/staff/research/Official-Report-to-SCA-on-the-KV35-Project-2003.doc
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario