Hi have just found the 2007 National Geographic documentary "Nefertiti and the
Lost Dynasty" has been posted to youtube and the first part can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3i-jTvyEms

It was interesting but of course no definite conclusions. However I was
surprised to see that the younger mummy from KV35 was ruled out at being
Nefertiti.

This was decided upon as the flexed forearm identified as belonging to the mummy
in the Joann Fletcher investigation was here deemed not to belong to it. Instead
the also found straight arm was a fit for the her missing limb. With neither arm
therefore flexed on this mummy this was not a royal pose and so therefore could
not be Nefertiti.

However the same was not said for the KV55 mummy which was stated could indeed
be Akhenaten. Now this mummy only had one arm bent across the chest when found,
not two as all the other kings of the period.

Therefore if Akhenaten, then this posture would be a break from the norm for
male royal mummification. Why then couldn't there have been a variation for
royal females as well? I'm not saying the younger mummy is Nefertiti but the
logic here was not that scientific or logical at times.

Anyway so for those who have not seen it take a look and see what you think. I
wonder how long before all the new DNA evidence may shake things up again?

Kind regards,
Jon Wicken



--- In royalmummies@yahoogroups.com, "marianneluban" <Mluban@...> wrote:
>
> This evening the National Geographic Channel treated North
> American viewers to a documentary with the title "King Tut
> and the Lost Dynasty". Once again, CT-scans was the focus
> and unidentified mummies came under scrutiny. Most attention
> was paid to the "Younger Lady" from KV35. The mummy is
> definitely a female and a wide age-at-death range was assigned,
> that being 22-45. The lady was determined to have borne children,
> seemingly scotching the "nulliparous" theory of another investigator.
> Not only that but it was suggested that the "Younger Lady" had
> probably been murdered, this being indicated by signs that the severe
> damage to her face was antemortem and also a wound on her torso.
> The mouth was packed with linen, in this case, in order to "seal off
> the wound" and fix up the face somewhat. I am still left wondering
> how the entire flesh of the cheek was removed from the living person.
> Axed-off? Quite a gruesome demise, in that case, and an
> unnecessarily brutal way to get rid of a royal woman when there are
> other, perhaps "neater", ways to murder someone if that is the intent.
>
> But the "Younger Lady" was most emphatically declared by Zahi
> Hawass not to be Queen Nefertiti. The only reason given was
> that a loose right arm with a clenched hand "did not fit to the body"
> when the break was examined. I suppose I'm not certain, given
> the rest of the information, why that should disqualify this female
> mummy from being Nefertiti. Thus far, we have only seen *left*
> arms being raised in a queenly pose. The left arm of the "Younger
> Lady" is not raised--but now there appears to be *no* right arm
> that originally belonged to her. In this program the theory was
> advanced that this could be Kiya on account of a skull anomaly
> like that of Tutankhamun. However, I have noticed that, on a
> relief depicting Kiya and subsequently altered for Meritaten, the
> elongated head seems not to have been there originally but
> corrected to fit to the head-shape of the eldest Amarna princess
> beneath a wig. Regardless, Kiya supposedly required no raised
> arm at all.
>
> Also scanned was the "Elder Lady" from KV35 but, even though
> Susan James was onhand with her theory that this is Nefertiti, that
> doesn't pan out according to the examiners. Much was made of the
> beauty of the features of this mummy, but her age was concluded to be
> from 40-60 due to mild degeneration of the spine and other joints. In
> other words, too old to be Nefertiti and probably still Queen Tiye.
>
> The KV55 skeleton received its share of radiological attention--a
> male of "at least 25" with a dolicephalic skull like that of
> Tutankhamun and also a cleft palate--like Tut's. The program stated
> there was "only a fraction of a centimeter" difference in the two
> skulls--but I, personally,wonder if this is really so, since Derry
> measured them and came up with a bit more of a variation. At any
> rate, conclusion--Akhenaten, himself.
>
> I don't know why the "Little Prince" from KV35 was not scanned.
> Something to learn there, too, perhaps.
>
> Marianne Luban
>