|
Post by Admin on Sept 16, 2016 21:07:12 GMT
With the help of an imaging specialist, Pilbrow and her team used the scans to create a 3D-printed replica of the 's skull. Then, the scientists studied the specimen's facial-bone features, such as the size and angle of the jaw and characteristics of the eye sockets, to determine that the head belonged to a female. The researchers are calling the specimen Meritamun. They say she was probably not more than 25 years old at the time of her death and was important enough to be mummified. The true origins of the mummified head are still unknown, though. Scientists think it belonged in the collections of Frederic Wood Jones, a professor who conducted archeological work in Egypt before joining as the head of anatomy at the University of Melbourne in 1930. From the distinctive style of the linen bandaging and embalming of the specimen, the researchers think Meritamun was mummified in Egypt and that she may have lived at least 2,000 years ago. They will now use radiocarbon dating to date the specimen more precisely, the scientists said. Meanwhile, the CT scans and 3D-printed replica of the skull are revealing other details about Meritamun, including her dental abnormalities and diseases she might have had.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2016 20:43:29 GMT
A pair of dismembered legs uncovered in an Egyptian tomb are finally giving up their secrets. First found during excavations in the Valley of Queens more than a century ago, the mummified limbs have lain in a museum in Turin ever since. Now, archaeologists analysing the 3,000-year-old remains believe they could belong to Queen Nefertari, a royal wife of Pharaoh Ramesses the Great. The researchers found the legs belong to a middle-aged to older woman who was around 5 feet 5 inches (165cm) tall and may have had arthritis. They believe the person was between 40 and 60 when they died - the same age range as Nefertari. The height is also consistent the size of ancient sandals found in the tomb, thought to belong to Nefertari. Writing in a paper published this week in the online journal PLOS One, they say: ‘the most likely scenario is that the mummified knees truly belong to Queen Nefertari’.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 10, 2016 21:00:45 GMT
Queen Nefertari, the favourite Royal Consort of Pharaoh Ramses II (Ancient Egypt, New Kingdom, 19th Dynasty c. 1250 BC) is famous for her beautifully decorated tomb in the Valley of the Queens. Her burial was plundered in ancient times yet still many objects were found broken in the debris when the tomb was excavated. Amongst the found objects was a pair of mummified legs. They came to the Egyptian Museum in Turin and are henceforth regarded as the remains of this famous Queen, although they were never scientifically investigated. The following multidisciplinary investigation is the first ever performed on those remains. The results (radiocarbon dating, anthropology, paleopathology, genetics, chemistry and Egyptology) all strongly speak in favour of an identification of the remains as Nefertari’s, although different explanations—albeit less likely—are considered and discussed. The legs probably belong to a lady, a fully adult individual, of about 40 years of age. The materials used for embalming are consistent with Ramesside mummification traditions and indeed all objects within the tomb robustly support the burial as of Queen Nefertari. The tomb of Queen Nefertari (QV 66), the second Great Royal Wife of King Ramses II (lifetime ca. 1303–1213 BC), was discovered by Ernesto Schiaparelli (1856–1928) in the Valley of the Queens in 1904. Her burial had been looted in antiquity, so no trace of the original entrance had been preserved. Besides the famous wall paintings, a series of broken remains (e.g. a damaged pink granite sarcophagus, broken furniture, jars, shabtis, other various small items), a pair of sandals and two fragmented mummified legs (parts of tibiae and femora) are preserved. All these items and the human remains are currently housed in the (Museo Egizio Turin, Suppl. 5154 RCGE 14467) [1–3]. (Table A in S1 File). Nefertari was the most beloved wife of King Ramses II and played an active role in foreign politics. Her ancestry is unknown. Based on the legible/decipherable inscriptions on a fragment of a faience knob head or pommel found in her tomb, speculations were raised [4,5]. The item carries the throne name ‘Kheper-Kheperu-Ra’ and, is, therefore, connected with King Ay [6], who ruled Egypt for a few years after Tutankhamun (Turin Mus. Egizio Inv. Suppl. 5162) [2,7]. However, Nefertari did not carry the title ‘Daughter of a King’, which suggests that she was probably not from the main royal line. Because of the chronology, it seems quite unlikely that she was King Ay’s daughter, perhaps she was Ay’s grand-daughter [6,8] (Fig 1). Other scholars emphasize that both Ramses II’s royal wives, Isisnofret [9] and Nefertari, had a non-royal background [10]. Nefertari married Ramses when he was crown prince during the reign of his father Sety I. The age at which Ramses II succeeded to the throne of Egypt is uncertain, possibly around his 25th year [10]. Nefertari was then presumably the same age as her husband or slightly younger (ca. 20–25 years). She gave birth to four sons (Amun-hir-khepeshef, Pa-Ra-wenem-ef, Mery-Ra and Mery-Atum) and four daughters (Baketmut, Nefertari, Merytamun and Henuttaui). Within the succession line, Nefertari’s sons were always preferred to Queen Isisnofret’s although, in the end, the crown went to Merenptah, a son of Queen Isisnofret. Queen Nefertari, as attested by reliefs, attended the opening ceremony of the rock-cut temples of Abu Simbel in the year 24 of Ramses II’s reign (ca. 1255 BC) (Fig 2) [11]. After that event, she disappeared. She was absent at the Sed-festival of Ramses II’s 30th regal year. She probably died around his 25th year of reign [10]. As reconstructed from historical records, Nefertari probably reached an age of about 40 to 50 years (minimum 16 + 24 years or maximum 25 + 25 years) whereas Queen Isisnofret I died later, in year 34. Subsequently Ramses II married three of his daughters: Bint-Anat, Merytamun and Nebettaui [10]. DNA analysis Mitochondrial sequences were only obtained from Primer Set 3, and only from the left fibula (bone) and the upper right (bone and soft tissue) samples. All samples showed multiple mtDNA sequences, with the soft and bone tissue from the upper right sampling area showing different sequences from each other. This indicated that there are at least two contamination events in these samples. The sexing assay showed a weak amplification of the X-chromosomal target in the left fibula bone sample (twice) and the left femur soft tissue sample (once), and one strong signal in the upper right soft tissue sample. The clear evidence of allelic drop-out, together with the evidence of contamination from the mtDNA data, means that no conclusions can be drawn on these data. The inappropriate genetic behaviour exhibited in these samples (for example, strong amplification of nuclear DNA with no mtDNA amplification as seen in the upper right soft tissue sample) is further evidence that these samples are not suitable for further DNA analysis. Radiocarbon dating The radiocarbon ages obtained on the 2 targets are in a very close agreement (ETH-67019.1: 3261±24 BP; ETH-67019.2: 3227±24 BP). The combined age of the sample is 3244±17 BP, X2-Test: df = 1 T = 1.0(5% 3.8). The calibration of this combined radiocarbon age results in a wide range of calendar ages. In some cases due to the shape of the calibration curve in the region of interest, the age of the sample falls into a period, where more precise information about the true age cannot be given [20]. Such is the case of this sample (Fig 13) and all the intervals between 1607BC and 1450 BC (95.4% conf. level) has to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2016 20:26:29 GMT
Discussion on the radiocarbon dating of the remains The obtained radiocarbon age is older than historic date of the tomb QV 66 but a discrepancy between 14C based chronology and Egyptian calendar has been debated ever since Minoan Eruption of Thera was dated by 14C (ranging 2σ 1663–1599 B.C.) [41,42]. In addition, fish diet could have possible effect on the 14C age of the tissue as discussed in the study of mummified Ibis [43]. Such discrepancies between 14C dates and assumed chronological models are observable for several time periods [44]. The results appear slightly older than the assumed lifespan of Queen Nefertari (early 19th Dynasty). The potential contamination sources could be older embalming agents used for mummification as well as intruding sediment during the recorded several mudslides in antiquity [8]. Such potential contamination would make the sample appear older. Although the old (stored) conservation agents cannot be excluded the treatment of samples removed potential contamination with carbonates and humic acids, which could originate from sediments. Furthermore, the geography of the valley and the location of tomb QV 66 make it unrealistic that older remains were washed in uphill. Rather a later dating of the remains in QV 66 would be problematic for identification as Nefertari. Hypothesis 1: The mummified legs belong to Queen Nefertari Reconstruction is based on ancient Egyptian funerary customs and recorded evidence found in QV 66. Nefertari died aged 40 to 50 years after the 24th year of Ramses II’s reign and was embalmed. Her was decorated with funerary jewellery bearing her name as the deified Osiris (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Inv. 04.1954, Inv. 04.1955, Inv. 04.1956). Her was placed in gilded wooden coffins (splinters were found in QV 66). The coffins were placed in a stone sarcophagus (Turin, Mus. Egizio S. 5153 RCGE 17494) bearing her name. The niches in the burial chamber were equipped with magical bricks (Turin Mus. Egizio S. 5163 RCGE 14473). Statues of Gods made of black-coated wood were placed in her tomb (Turin Mus. Egizio S. 5202 RCGE 14477) along with other funerary goods, some of which bear her name (coffers: Turin Mus. Egizio S. 5198, RCGE 14474, S. 5199 RCGE 14475). The reason why the faience knob or pommel inscribed with Kheper-Kheperu-Ra’s (= King Ay) name was found in QV 66 remains a mystery. It is possible that Nefertari was a surviving descendant of the 18th Dynasty royal family. The tomb robbers smashed the stone sarcophagus, pulled the coffins out and ripped the into pieces. The remains were thrown on the ground; the funerary equipment was plundered and only the wooden, clay and stone objects were left behind. Some of the funerary jewellery was lost during the looting. Later water intrusions badly damaged the tomb leaving a layer of debris over the objects. The basic anatomical observations and the mummification methods and materials are consistent with a high status burial from the 19th Dynasty. Hypothesis 2: The remains Nefertari and one of her daughters Following a second hypothesis, the tomb looters took away all objects belonging to Nefertari´s children and only those of Nefertari remained in the debris. The tomb robbers smashed the stone sarcophagus, pulled the coffins out and ripped the mummies of Nefertari and her children into pieces. As a matter of fact some of Nefertari´s daughters were buried in their own tombs in the Valley of the Queens: Merytamun in QV68 (her broken sarcophagus is preserved in Berlin) and Nebettaui in QV60. Even if one of her daughters, Baketmut or/and Henuttaui may have been buried at the side of their mother, there is no archaeological indication of an additional burial in QV 66. The likelihood of this hypothesis is considerably low. Hypothesis 3: A secondary burial The radiocarbon dating, chemistry and archaeology rule out a later burial in the 3rd Intermediate or Late Period entirely. Hypothesis 4: The remains are washed in from an earlier burial The results from the radiocarbon dating offer the possibility that remains from a burial of the 17th or 18th Dynasty were washed in the tomb after it was open. Archaeological material found does not support such a hypothesis (e.g. material from other time periods and inscriptions naming other individuals). Tomb QV 66 is on higher ground at the side of the Valley of the Queens, while the burials from the 17th and 18th Dynasty are on lower ground, mostly at the bottom of the valley. Mudslide and heavy rains would have washed remains out of the valley but unlikely upwards and towards the end of the valley. Conclusion The first hypothesis seems to be the most credible and realistic and is coherent with the findings of the excavators and with the inscriptions found on the funerary objects. Thus, the most likely scenario is that the mummified knees truly belong to Queen Nefertari. Although this identification is highly likely, no absolute certainty exists. A list of default criteria was made to test the likelihood of the first hypothesis (Table 1). Certain default criteria were not found, which would exclude the identification of the knees as those of Queen Nefertari (default criteria by chemistry or aDNA with reservation). The fitting criteria are in the majority (Table 1). Habicht ME, Bianucci R, Buckley SA, Fletcher J, Bouwman AS, Öhrström LM, et al. (2016) Queen Nefertari, the Royal Spouse of Pharaoh Ramses II: A Multidisciplinary Investigation of the Mummified Remains Found in Her Tomb (QV66).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 1, 2017 19:20:33 GMT
An international team of scientists, led by researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, successfully recovered and analyzed ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies dating from approximately 1400 BCE to 400 CE, including the first genome-wide nuclear data from three individuals, establishing ancient Egyptian mummies as a reliable source for genetic material to study the ancient past. The study, published today in Nature Communications, found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East. Egypt is a promising location for the study of ancient populations. It has a rich and well-documented history, and its geographic location and many interactions with populations from surrounding areas, in Africa, Asia and Europe, make it a dynamic region. Recent advances in the study of ancient DNA present an intriguing opportunity to test existing understandings of Egyptian history using ancient genetic data. For this study, an international team of researchers from the University of Tuebingen, the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, the University of Cambridge, the Polish Academy of Sciences, and the Berlin Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory, looked at genetic differentiation and population continuity over a 1,300 year timespan, and compared these results to modern populations. The team sampled 151 mummified individuals from the archaeological site of Abusir el-Meleq, along the Nile River in Middle Egypt, from two anthropological collections hosted and curated at the University of Tuebingen and the Felix von Luschan Skull Collection at the Museum of Prehistory of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Stiftung Preussicher Kulturbesitz. In total, the authors recovered mitochondrial genomes from 90 individuals, and genome-wide datasets from three individuals. They were able to use the data gathered to test previous hypotheses drawn from archaeological and historical data, and from studies of modern DNA. "In particular, we were interested in looking at changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq," said Alexander Peltzer, one of the lead authors of the study from the University of Tuebingen. The team wanted to determine if the investigated ancient populations were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination during the time period under study, and compared these populations to modern Egyptian comparative populations. "We wanted to test if the conquest of Alexander the Great and other foreign powers has left a genetic imprint on the ancient Egyptian population," explains Verena Schuenemann, group leader at the University of Tuebingen and one of the lead authors of this study. Close genetic relationship between ancient Egyptians and ancient populations in the Near East The study found that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient populations in the Levant, and were also closely related to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe. "The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300 year timespan we studied, suggesting that the population remained genetically relatively unaffected by foreign conquest and rule," says Wolfgang Haak, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena. The data shows that modern Egyptians share approximately 8% more ancestry on the nuclear level with Sub-Saharan African populations than with ancient Egyptians. "This suggests that an increase in Sub-Saharan African gene flow into Egypt occurred within the last 1,500 years," explains Stephan Schiffels, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena. Possible causal factors may have been improved mobility down the Nile River, increased long-distance trade between Sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt, and the trans-Saharan slave trade that began approximately 1,300 years ago. This study counters prior skepticism about the possibility of recovering reliable ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies. Despite the potential issues of degradation and contamination caused by climate and mummification methods, the authors were able to use high-throughput DNA sequencing and robust authentication methods to ensure the ancient origin and reliability of the data. The study thus shows that Egyptian mummies can be a reliable source of ancient DNA, and can greatly contribute to a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt's population history. Ancient Egyptian genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications (2017).
|
|