by Ahmed Osman
In order to challenge Derry’s conclusions, Aldred ‘referred the whole question of the pathology of Akhenaten as represented in these and other sculptures to Dr A. T. Sandison, Senior Lecturer in Pathology in the University of Glasgow and Honorary Consultant Pathologist to the Western Infirmary, Glasgow’, and was ‘greatly indebted to him for his expert comments’. Sandison was asked:
a) If the monuments, especially the Karnak Colossi, show that Akhenaten was abnormal, and, if so, what was the probable nature of his disease;
b) If the skeletal remains, as examined and described by Elliot Smith and Derry, show that the subject was likely to be abnormal, and, if so, what was the probable nature of the disease; and
c) If the answers to questions (a) and (b) could be ‘reconciled’.
Sandison did not disappoint Aldred: ‘The evidence of the monuments strongly suggests that Akhenaten suffered from an endocrine abnormality presenting hypogonadism [deficiency of one of the sexual glands] and adiposity, and with residual evidence of an earlier phase of hyperpituitarism [over-function of the pituitary gland in the brain, resulting in gigantism] manifested by cranial and facial changes. The skeletal remains found in Valley Tomb No. 55 have not been described or illustrated as fully as is desirable. Nevertheless, the pelvic abnormality and facial and cranial structure support a diagnosis of hypogonadism and pituitary cranial dysplasia [abnormal development or growth]. Pending fuller publication, the two groups of phenomena those derived from study of the monuments and those derived from study of the remains seem to be reconcilable. This gives considerable support to the view, long held, that the alleged remains of Akhenaten from Valley Tomb No. 55 are indeed those of that Pharaoh. One consequence which must receive consideration, however, is the virtual certainty that Akhenaten was incapable of procreation at the time of death and for many years previously. It is, however not inconceivable that during an earlier period of hyperpituitarism, e.g. shortly after puberty, his potency and fertility might not have been grossly impaired.’
Fairman reacted with an article in the same issue of the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology: ‘In view of the amount of prejudice and contradictory statements provoked by the skeleton found in the coffin it would be the height of folly for one like myself, who has no medical competence, to argue on anatomical matters. It is useless even for a medical man, in the present circumstances, to argue on the sole evidence of the published descriptions, measurements and photographs of the body, and there is a most pressing need for a new and exhaustive anatomical and pathological examination of the body, using anthropometric and radiographic techniques.’10
The latest examination, which started in 1963 under the supervision of R. G. Harrison, the late Derby Professor of Anatomy at the University of Liverpool, confirmed Derry’s conclusion that the remains were those of Semenkhkare. He further decided that the skeleton belonged to a man about 5ft 7in in height whose death occurred in his twentieth year.11 Harrison also confirmed Derry’s conclusions regarding the similarity in facial appearance with Tutankhamun.12
Not only did the result of Harrison’s re-examination disappoint Aldred’s expectations by proving that the remains could not have belonged to Akhenaten: Harrison also concluded: ‘It is possible to be certain that there is no evidence of hydrocephalus in the skull of these remains … The presence of a pituitary tumour may also be excluded … The bodily physique and proportions are also within normal limits and unlike those which occur in established endocrinopathies.’
Regarding Aldred’s above-mentioned statement that ‘if the profiles of the two heads [that of the skeleton and Tutankhamun’s] are superimposed upon each other … it will be seen how sharply they also differ’, Harrison stated: ‘When photographs of the vertex of the two skulls are compared, there is a similarity in their shape, both skulls being brachycephalic. Not only are the measurements of the skull vaults similar, but there is also a close correspondence in the width between the angles of the mandibles.’13
As for the attempts by Aldred and Sandison to diagnose Akhenaten’s anatomical physique from his portraits, Harrison said: ‘In a scholarly but purely theoretical treatise, they make extensive conclusions in trying to see in the strange artistic Amarna representation of Akhenaten a representation of a case of Fröhlich’s Syndrome (dystropia adiposogenitalis). They make extensive conclusions based only on already published opinions, theories and dates, and an examination of the Akhenaten monuments. These monuments depict a king with an elongated face, prominent and pointed chin, large full lips, coarse nose, wide pelvis, prominent abdomen, buttocks, thighs and breasts. The thighs are large, but the lower legs and arms are slim, and the hands and fingers not excessively large.
‘Aldred and Sandison regard these changes in the trunk and limbs as feminisation, occasioned by a disorder of the pituitary gland. They hypothesise a transitory phase of pituitary hyperfunction going on to hypofunction: in the hyperfunctional phase acromegaloid changes were manifested in the skull (found in Tomb No. 55) and soft tissues in the face. They do not imply that Akhenaten was a true acromegalic (sufferer from gigantism), however, since there is no enlargement of the extremities or gigantism. They also consider that the changes in the trunk and limbs of the Akhenaten monuments are consistent with those occurring in dystrophia adiposogenitalis. From the published evidence of the remains (found in Tomb No. 55), they concluded that the findings go some way to sustain a provisional diagnosis of pituitary cranial dysplasia, and that they are reconcilable with the evidence they have deduced from the monuments of Akhenaten.’14
While agreeing with Aldred and Sandison that the monuments display an interesting physique, and that certain interpretations may be made from it, Harrison pointed out; ‘It is important to ascertain whether his monuments depict a true likeness. Even if this is so, only limited and qualified clinical interpretations are admissable.’15
Nor does the archaeological evidence agree with Aldred’s assumption regarding Akhenaten’s representation. His argument has focused on one of the four Osiride statues of Akhenaten, made during the early years of his reign when he was still at Thebes, to be placed at the entrance of the temple he was building at Karnak for his new God. Although in three of these statues the king is wearing a kind of kilt, the fourth, which has larger lower parts, has no kilt. Aldred has argued that the king is shown here in the nude, without genitalia, indicating a true physical state. However, Julia Samson of University College London, found evidence to contradict Aldred’s explanation in ‘the actual method used for carving the kilt, which settles the long controversy as to how it could have been added to the king’s nude statue from Karnak. The belt is made by cutting back the surface of the abdomen to leave a ridge, and the linen folds of the kilt are then carved over the hips, curving up to the belt buckle. On the one unfinished colossal statue of Akhenaten found in Karnak, the only one that is nude, his kilt would have been added in this way, because the stone is already recessed around the Aten plaques at the waist and would have been further cut back, as on the finished colossi, to make the ridge for the belt.
‘There would have been (then) no necessity for further delineation of the king’s figure, about which there has been so much conjecture … This underlines the fallibility of theories about his physical build and condition being based on unfinished statues. Rather than the son of the sun choosing to be represented as unable to father his children, the probability is that the one nude, unfinished statue was never raised to a standing position. It is unlikely that the Amun priests left in Thebes after the royal removal to Akhetaten (Amarna) would have exerted every effort to finish the Aten temple and, if Nefertiti’s daughters were the children of someone else and not Akhenaten, it is inexplicable why a son was not introduced into the royal household as an heir.’16
APPENDIX F
Some Further Evidence Of Survival
(i) The Shrine
A LARGE wooden shrine of gesso (gypsum) and gilt, like those surrounding the sarcophagus of Tutankhamun, was dis
covered, dismantled, in Tomb No. 55. The sides, one of which was found in the corridor, had been taken to pieces as if an attempt had been made, then abandoned, to move the shrine out of the tomb. The shrine is decorated with reliefs showing Queen Tiye and her son, Akhenaten, making offerings to the Aten. The engraved copper tangs (handles) give the names and titles of the queen and the inscription states that the shrine was made for Queen Tiye by her son, whose own cartouche and figure have been carefully erased. There is no doubt or disagreement that this shrine belonged to Queen Tiye.
(ii) The Small Objects
A number of small objects, mostly toilet articles and the like, were found among the Tomb No. 55 debris. Some of these objects are inscribed with the name of Queen Tiye or her husband, Amenhotep III, making it likely that most, if not all, of these small objects belonged originally to the queen.
(iii) The Coffin
The coffin in Tomb No. 55 was made of wood, covered completely with gold leaf and inlaid with semi-precious stones. It resembles closely the second of the three coffins of Tutankhamun. However, instead of the head of the coffin wearing the usual royal head-dress, this one has a Nubian wig. Originally the coffin had been laid over a bier, but, as this had rotted away, the coffin collapsed and the mummy jerked partly out of the lid. The coffin is inscribed with a now damaged text that includes titles and cartouches of Akhenaten, which have been erased.
Much of the speculation and disagreement about the identity of the original owner of the coffin has arisen from the excised cartouches and titles of Akhenaten, evidence that the text on the coffin has been adapted to suit the present occupant, Semenkhkare, and a possibility that the royal emblem, the uraeus, was placed later on the coffin’s forehead. The differing views on the matter are:
• Georges Daressy, the French Egyptologist, concluded that the coffin had been made originally for a woman whom he believed to be Queen Tiye;
• Weigall thought, because of Akhenaten’s cartouches, that the coffin belonged to him;
• Engelbach, about a quarter of a century later, tried to prove that the coffin belonged originally to Semenkhkare, dated from a time before he became coregent and was then changed to indicate his royal status;
• Gardiner argued in 1957 on philological grounds that the original owner of the tomb was Akhenaten himself;
• Aldred and Fairman put forward the view in the 1960s that the coffin had been made originally for Akhenaten’s eldest daughter, Merytaten, then adapted for her husband, Semenkhkare.
Inside the coffin, sheets of gold, which had apparently formed the lining, lay over the mummy. A pectoral sheet of gold had been placed on the mummy’s head, similar to the one discovered on the body of Tutankhamun. A necklace and a piece of gold, each inscribed with the early name of the Aten, used before Year 9 of Akhenaten’s reign, were found among the debris. According to both Weigall and Smith, the mummy was also enclosed in bandages inscribed with Akhenaten’s name, but these were later lost in Smith’s laboratory.
Although the Aldred-Fairman suggestion regarding the original owner of the coffin seems on balance to be more probable, there is no certain evidence to support any of the above-mentioned conclusions.
(iv) Canopic Jars
Four canopic jars were found near the coffin. They contained black material consisting of a hard, compact, pitch-like mass surrounding a well-defined central zone of different material, brown in colour and of a friable nature. This core was made up of nitrogenous material containing a small proportion of fatty matter, thus being the remains of viscera.
The lids of these jars were carved with heads wearing a wig. As the heads did not have beards it was thought that the jars had been made originally for a woman. It was also thought that the uraeus coils, the royal sign, were cut into the striations of the wigs later, indicating that this woman was not royal. As the texts that had been incised on the body of the jars have been ground away, this confirms that the original owner was different from the one who eventually used them. A. Lucas, a chemist, was able to prove that the inside of the jars indicates that the jars were used only once.1
Although some scholars have suggested that the jars belonged originally to Akhenaten, this seems unlikely as his name did not figure on the jars, which had been used only once, plus the fact that, had they been his, only his cartouches would have been erased from the text, as in the case of the shrine and coffin. Furthermore, the fact that the pattern of the wig used for these jars is very similar to that appearing on the coffin found in the same tomb suggests that both the jars and the coffin were made originally for the same woman, in this case Merytaten, Akhenaten’s eldest daughter, before she was married to Semenkhkare and became a queen.
(v) Magical Bricks
Four bricks of dried, gritty mud were found in situ, distributed around the tomb. Although they have suffered, like everything else in the tomb, from the effects of damp, Akhenaten’s name could be read on at least two of the bricks, whose function was to protect the dead person from intruders. The four bricks form a complete set, each having to be placed in a certain position in relation to the mummy in order to fulfil its protective function.
That these magical bricks belonged originally to Akhenaten is not the subject of dispute, and the fact that they were found in situ in Tomb No. 55 was one of the strong points that led Aldred and others to believe that the remains in the coffin were his. However, the skeletal remains have since been shown to be those of Semenkhkare. Why, then, was no attempt made either to erase Akhenaten’s name or adapt the text to suit Semenkhkare? It is now agreed that Akhenaten’s reign ended a few months, if not a few days, before the death of Semenkhkare. In this case, had Akhenaten’s reign ended with his death, his funerary arrangements, which would have taken seventy days, might not even have ended when the arrangements for Semenkhkare’s burial began. How then does one explain that Akhenaten’s original magical bricks, which formed an essential part of the funerary rituals, were found in situ in Semenkhkare’s tomb? The only possible conclusion is that they were not needed by Akhenaten who, although he had fallen from power before Semenkhkare’s death, was himself still alive.
Fairman was opposed to using the evidence of Akhenaten’s magical bricks to prove that the remains found in Tomb No. 55 were those of the king. He therefore tried to weaken this conclusion by suggesting that, although they had been made originally for Akhenaten early in his reign, the king could have changed his mind later and rejected this traditional practice as a result of the development of his religious ideas: ‘For the testimony of the magical bricks to be incontrovertible two things are necessary: it must first be proved that the use of such magical bricks was still retained in the funerary practices of the end of the Amarna Period; and it must also be proved that the texts themselves are such as could reasonably be expected to have been employed when the Aten cult was fully developed.’2
Fairman is not justified in these objections. First of all, Semenkhkare’s burial was an ‘end of the Amarna period’ burial, the only one we have. If Akhenaten had died when he fell from power in his Year 17, it would have been Tutankhaten’s responsibility to bury him, just as it was his responsibility to bury Semenkhkare. This is confirmed by the remains of the young king’s seal found in Tomb No. 55. At the time, and up to his Year 4, he was still called Tutankhaten and his capital and residence were at Amarna. There is no evidence that the old Egyptian gods, especially those usually associated with the underworld, were represented in Tomb No. 55. At this early stage of his rule Tutankhamun would have followed the same burial procedure with Akhenaten as he did with Semenkhkare.
Then again, if Akhenaten, having originally ordered the magical bricks to be made, later changed his mind, he would not have left the bricks forgotten in the stores. He would either have ordered any changes he thought necessary to be made or even have ordered their destruction if his developed religious beliefs caused him to reject their use. This was the course he followed in changing his own name from Amenhotep IV to Akhe
naten and erasing the name of Amun in his father’s name. He would not have left his name on objects that offended his monotheistic belief, for it was the Egyptian creed that, as long as an inscription existed in the wrong form, the wrong beliefs lived.
(vi) Tutankharnun’s Tomb
Some funerary objects – small items, such as statuettes and bracelets – made originally for Akhenaten, but evidently never used for any burial of his, were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, who was not buried until nine years after the end of Akhenaten’s rule. A list of these objects was given by Martin.3 The numbers cited referred to objects as they appear in A Handlist to Howard Carter’s Catalogue of Objects in Tutankhamun’s Tomb, compiled by Helen Murray and Mary Nuttall of the Griffith Institute, Oxford, and published in 1963: ‘Those connected with Akhenaten appear to be nos. 54ee, 54ff, 54vv, 256 4t, 261a, 281a, 291a, 300a, 596a, 620(40) and an unnumbered sealing. Cf. also objects of Akhenaten, Semenkhkare or Merytaten nos. 1k, 46gg, 48h, 79 + 147, 101s, 256a, 256b(4), 261(1), 262, 405, 448, 620(13), 620(41), 620(42) and unnumbered gold sequins.’
Thus not only does the evidence from the royal tomb at Amarna prove that Akhenaten was never buried there: at Thebes, where it was thought that he was either buried originally in Tomb No. 55 or that his mummy was moved there from Amarna, it is now accepted that the skeleton in Tomb No. 55 is that of Semenkhkare, not Akhenaten. Then, as some original, essential parts of the funerary equipment of Akhenaten were found in situ in Tomb No. 55 they could not have been used for Akhenaten, reinforcing the belief that he was still alive at the time of Semenkhkare’s burial.
APPENDIX G
The Hebrews
THE word for Hebrew in the Hebrew language of the Bible is ‘Ibri. Scholars have differed about its specific meaning, but the most common view is that the word is related to the Hebrew preposition ‘ibr meaning ‘across’ and that it was modified to describe Abraham, the founder of the tribe of Israel, and his descendants because of their migration from Ur in Mesopotamia across the river Euphrates to the land of Palestine-Jordan.