| Nevertheless, this incident demonstrates that Maspero was not above disregarding evidence, if he so chose, and Dr. Smith is not known for disagreeing with Maspero--at least not in writing. It is already known that Gaston Maspero wanted so badly to have a complete set of early Thutmosid kings that he and Smith, both, evidently overlooked factors concerning "Thutmose I" that would definitely not have argued in favor of this identification. [the mummy is not a king] I would also suggest that, by the time of the publication of The Royal Mummies, Maspero was quite convinced that the remains found in KV55, the so-called "Tomb of Queen Tiye" were those of Akhenaten. [12] In describing these KV55 remains, Dr. Smith wrote: "The mummy under consideration, however, was not rewrapped. It had not been plundered, but was found in its original wrappings, upon which were the gold bands bearing the name of Khouniatonou. It is hardly credible that the embalmers of the Pharaoh's mummy would have put some other body in place of it. Thus we have the most positive evidence that these bones are the remains of Khouniatonou." Since 1912 some doubts have overshadowed this conclusion, yet one can't help but wonder whether "gold bands" once overshadowed other evidence such as that seen by Victor Loret, in situ, in his clearance of KV35. (These gold bands, like the shirts found on the mummy of "Seti II", mysteriously disappeared from the museum.) Loret never waffled on his identification of the name of Akhenaten within this tomb and ends his description of it with the phrase "Khou-n-aten, the most original, perhaps the most picturesque of all the pharaohs of Egypt." NOTES [1] An inscription on the mummy of Amenhotep III, found in KV35, records a date of restoration of Year 12 or 13 of Smendes. [2] The boat was stolen when KV35 was robbed and the anonymous mummy was smashed to pieces within the tomb. [3] Loret first commented that the chamber was "rather large", being three metres by four. [4] Loret had previously explored the tomb of Thutmose III. [5] The legend on the mummy said that in the Year 12, fourth month of winter, day six, the First Priest of Amun-Ra, Pinudjem , (Pinudjem I) wrapped the king Amenhotep. [6] Victor Loret had no way of knowing that this mummy was a woman, "Unknown Woman D". Why Loret said the mummy "resembles that of Setnakhte" is obscure, since he did not see a mummy named Setnakht in KV35 and no Setnakht was recovered from the Deir el Bahri cache. Despite the feminine-appearing hairstyle of this mummy, one has to at least entertain the notion that it may not be a female, after all. Hairstyles, (or rather lack of hair) have fooled Egyptologists as to the sex of certain dead Egyptians before. The mummy has no visible breasts and the genital area is missing, to all appearances. Smith measured the height of the body as being 1m 589 mill., which, admittedly, is quite small even for a man of that time. [7] Generally believed to be the mummy of Queen Tawosret, a putative daughter of Merneptah and queen in her own right. [8] The apparent old age of the mummy at death does seem to argue for its being Merneptah, who was the son of an even more superannuated father, Ramesses II, and who, it is believed, did not become king until after he was past sixty. However, there is nothing to indicate that Seti II was any sort of youngster when he succeeded, either. Rolf Krauss has argued for him a maximum age of 61 at death. [9] Various examiners of the royal mummies seem to have gotten various measurements. [10] The measurements of the KV55 mummy and Tutankhamun were taken by Dr. Douglas Derry, also an anatomist. [11] Smith called Seti II and Siptah "the feeble successors of Merneptah". [12] Discovered by Theodore Davis in 1907. Return to my home page |