Four sisters, the offspring of the Middle Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhat II, were interred at Dahshur approximately 4,000 years ago, accompanied by bows and various weapons \u2014 specifically, arrows retrieved from at least one of the four, as well as from a fifth royal female buried in proximity. A recent examination of their skeletal remains posits that those weapons had a practical function rather than being mere ceremonial items. The study highlights distinct muscle attachment sites on the bones of several of the women, indicating the type of sustained, intense strain that is associated with years of drawing a bowstring. Other bioarchaeologists interpreting the same evidence are not persuaded that the bones can differentiate between an archer and an individual who engaged in nearly any other kind of physically demanding repetitive activity.<\/p>\n
## What the Skeletons Actually Reveal<\/p>\n
The investigation, spearheaded by Zeinab Hashesh from Beni-Suef University and published on 17 July 2026 in *Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology*, scrutinized the remains of Princess Ita, Princess Khenmet, Princess Itaweret, and a tentatively identified Princess Sathathormeryt, in addition to a fifth royal woman, Noub-Hotep, and one male burial, King Hor. All were interred in the royal necropolis at Dahshur, the chosen site of Amenemhat II for his pyramid complex during a reign typically recognized in the nineteenth century BCE, an era that Egyptologists view as one of relative stability and increased royal construction activities. The team\u2019s primary evidence is entheseal changes, which refer to the roughened and enlarged bone texture that develops where tendons and ligaments attach, potentially thickening over years due to sustained mechanical strain.<\/p>\n
Ita displayed enlarged attachment sites on her right shoulder, arm, and hand. Noub-Hotep\u2019s forearm and right hand attachments were notably robust, and arrows were specifically recovered from her burial site. Itaweret exhibited significant development in the shoulder and chest areas, along with well-healed fractures in her ribs and foot, suggesting a life characterized by physical activity rather than a sedentary lifestyle. Hor\u2019s remains indicated asymmetry between the left and right sides of the body, a kind of one-sided wear pattern that would align with the repeated use of a bow predominantly with one arm.<\/p>\n
Hashesh presents the argument succinctly: \u201cMembers of the royal family, particularly the women, engaged actively in skilled, physically taxing activities such as archery and hunting,\u201d she stated. In her view, the bows, arrows, and maces discovered in the tombs were \u201cnot merely symbolic gifts but tools they frequently employed.\u201d<\/p>\n
## Why Other Researchers Are Hesitant to Concur<\/p>\n
The entheseal evidence aligns with archery practices. However, it is not exclusive to archery, and this distinction is precisely the concern of skeptics. Sonia Zakrzewski, a bioarchaeologist from the University of Southampton, articulated the main objection directly in remarks to Live Science: \u201cThe true cause of that use remains uncertain. Therefore, we cannot assert that these skeletal changes are necessarily linked to the use of weaponry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Grinding grain, weaving, carrying loads, and various other repetitive activities from the Middle Kingdom could produce similarly generalized marks on bones, and in broader terms, the research into entheseal changes has encountered challenges in reliably connecting specific patterns to unique activities rather than to general physical exertion.<\/p>\n
Scott Haddow, a bioarchaeologist at the University of Turin, expressed a more precise technical concern: archery is fundamentally asymmetric, employing one arm differently than the other, yet certain skeletal changes noted in the study appear as generalized, bilateral robustness rather than the expected one-sided pattern typically associated with archery. Age, body size, and genetic variation all affect how pronounced these attachment sites become, independent of the activities performed, complicating any effort to directly interpret a specific sport or skill from skeletal evidence.<\/p>\n
S\u00e9bastien Villotte from the French National Centre for Scientific Research raised a potentially more significant issue regarding the study’s methodology rather than its conclusions: the analysis lacks a comparison group. Without skeletal data from non-elite individuals\u2014both women and men\u2014from the same era and geographic region, there is no point of reference to determine whether the entheseal changes observed in these specific royal burials were out of the ordinary or simply indicative of typical physical life impacts on anyone\u2019s bones in Middle Kingdom Egypt, irrespective of class or occupation. A finding that a princess\u2019s bones exhibit wear only becomes meaningful when there is a standard for comparison, which this study currently lacks.<\/p>\n
## What Is Truly at Stake in the Dissent<\/p>\n
None of the skeptical bioarchaeologists contend that women in Middle Kingdom Egypt categorically did not engage in archery or hunting. Their objection pertains to methodology: entheseal change analysis, based on current evidence, more effectively demonstrates that a skeleton endured sustained physical strain rather than specifying which particular activity caused it, and a study fundamentally centered on this perspective…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Four sisters, the offspring of the Middle Kingdom pharaoh Amenemhat II, were interred at Dahshur approximately 4,000 years ago, accompanied by bows and various weapons \u2014 specifically, arrows retrieved from at least one of the four, as well as from a fifth royal female buried in proximity. A recent examination of their skeletal remains posits […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":374530,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[179],"class_list":["post-374529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-source-scienceblog-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=374529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374529\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/374530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=374529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=374529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=374529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}