Legs of Nefertari
Among the windswept cliffs of the Valley of the Queens lies the shattered splendour of one of Egypt’s most magnificent tombs. It belonged to Nefertari, Great Royal Wife of Ramesses II, the pharaoh who would come to be known as “the Great”. Revered not only for her beauty but for her wisdom and influence at court, Nefertari was the pharaoh’s most cherished consort, immortalised in temples and verses that speak of a love rare in the ancient world.
Yet when Schiaparelli entered her tomb in 1904, he found it desecrated by robbers, its treasures plundered, its sarcophagus smashed; with only a few fragments of her mortal remains left behind. What survived were not the regal splendours of a queen, but the humble remnants of her knees and legs, now in the Museo Egizio at Turin, offering a poignant glimpse into both her life and the fate of her burial.
Museo Egizio. Suppl. 5154 RCGE 14467
Nefertari’s tomb (QV66) in the Valley of the Queens was discovered by Ernesto Schiaparelli in 1904. The burial had been robbed in antiquity; what remained were shattered pieces of a pink-granite sarcophagus, dozens of ushabtis bearing Nefertari’s name, fine sandals, and three fragments of mummified legs (distal femur, patella and proximal tibia; plus two smaller pieces).
These human remains, now in the Museo Egizio, Turin, were found amid debris in the tomb rather than resting intact in a coffin; consistent with violent tomb-robbery rather than an undisturbed burial.
In 2016 a multidisciplinary team analysed the leg fragments with radiography, chemical tests (GC-MS of embalming residues), aDNA attempts, and radiocarbon dating. The X-rays and measurements match an adult woman of around 165cm stature; palaeopathology suggests age at death around 40–60 years of age.
Chemical analysis showed high-status embalming with ruminant animal fat impregnating high-quality linen; there was no bitumen, and the mummification style fits a Nineteenth–Twentieth Dynasty elite rather than a later period. Attempts at DNA profiling were inconclusive.
Strikingly, radiocarbon on the textiles yielded calibrated ranges around 1607–1450 B.C., earlier than Nefertari’s lifetime; the authors discuss known offsets in Egyptian radiocarbon, possible contamination from embalming agents or sediments, and conclude the overall contextual and scientific indicators best fit Nefertari herself.
Contemporary summaries and the 2016 paper agree the legs were found as disarticulated, wrapped fragments within the burial suite; i.e., not in a coffin but among broken equipment and mummification scraps in the burial chamber area, precisely what one expects after ancient looting. The associated finds in Turin (inscribed sarcophagus fragments, named ushabtis, coffers, and the famous sandals sized for a person approximately 165 cm tall) reinforce the identification.
The 2016 team (including Joann Fletcher) judged the identification “highly likely”, while stressing it cannot be absolutely certain; Fletcher has said the converging lines of evidence make the queen “quietly” the most probable owner of the legs.
Popular and specialist outlets echoed this cautious consensus, while noting the awkward radiocarbon result.
Alternative hypotheses considered by the authors include:
(1) remains of Nefertari plus a daughter; dismissed for lack of any secondary burial traces in QV66
(2) an intrusive later burial, ruled out by chemistry and style
(3) bones washed in from an earlier tomb, judged unlikely because QV66 sits higher than earlier burials and flood-debris would not move “uphill.”
Was the tomb flooded, and could that explain “washed-in” legs?
The Valley of the Queens has suffered periodic flash floods which damaged decoration and deposited mud; QV66 shows flood and moisture impacts. But the topography makes inward, upward transport from earlier, lower tombs improbable, which is why the “wash-in” theory is generally set aside for QV66 specifically.
How do the legs’ condition compare with Ramesses II’s mummy?
Ramesses II’s body, found separately at Deir el-Bahrai and now in Cairo, survived in remarkably complete condition (despite ancient and modern handling) and was famously conserved and studied in Paris in 1975. By contrast, Nefertari’s mummy appears to have been torn apart by robbers, leaving only knee/leg portions and wrappings in situ. That stark difference reflects circumstance more than status: the king’s mummy happened to escape the worst of looting; the queen’s did not.
Where is the rest of her body, and were other remains found?
No securely identified additional human remains from QV66 are known today. The likeliest scenario (advanced by the 2016 study) is that robbers smashed the stone sarcophagus, dragged out the coffins and tore the mummy, carrying off valuables and leaving stray wrapped parts behind; subsequent water intrusion added debris and further disruption. In other words, the “just the legs” puzzle is the grim outcome of plunder plus later environmental damage, not evidence of a second burial.
What about neighbouring burials? Was Nefertari buried alone?
Some daughters of Ramesses II had their own tombs in the Valley of the Queens (e.g., Meritamun in QV68, Nebettaui in QV60). The 2016 paper briefly considers whether a daughter might have been interred with Nefertari but finds no archaeological trace to support that, and the daughters’ independent tombs argue against it.
In summary, the Turin leg fragments, with science and context strongly support Nefertari as their owner, with radiocarbon quirks and DNA limits preventing absolute proof to certify. Flooding harmed the tomb, but probably did not import bones from elsewhere; and no other parts of her body have been securely identified.
