Finding Hama: On the Identification of a Forgotten Queen Buried in the Nimrud Tombs
2017; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 76; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/690911
ISSN1545-6978
Autores Tópico(s)Eurasian Exchange Networks
ResumoPrevious articleNext article FreeFinding Hama: On the Identification of a Forgotten Queen Buried in the Nimrud TombsTracy L. SpurrierTracy L. SpurrierUniversity of Toronto* Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreNo one later may place herein (anyone else), be it a palace lady or a queen, nor remove this sarcophagus from its place. Anybody who removes this sarcophagus from its place, his spirit will not receive funerary offerings with (other) spirits: it is a taboo of Shamash and Ereshkigal! Daughter of Assur-nirka-da’’inni, chief cup-bearer of Assurnasirpal, king of Assyria. Anyone later who removes my throne from before the shades of the dead, may his spirit receive no bread! May someone later clothe (me) with a shroud, anoint (me) with oil and sacrifice a lamb.1—Inscription from the tomb of Mullissu-mukannishat-NinuaIntroductionWhen Queen Mullissu-mukannishat-Ninua passed away and was buried in her tomb, she left a curse to those who would dare disturb her final resting place. Despite her warning, late 1980s excavations in the Northwest palace of King Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud conducted by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities revealed the existence of her burial, and those of a number of other Neo-Assyrian royal queens. These were extraordinary finds, containing gold and elite goods rivaling those in King Tutankhamun’s tomb in Egypt. Unfortunately, this discovery was made on the eve of the Gulf War which overshadowed the excavations; consequently, these burials, and the queens themselves, did not get the full recognition—or in some cases even the identifications—they deserved.The tombs, located in the ancient Assyrian capital city of Kalhu, offer a unique opportunity for scholars to go beyond exclusively studying the material culture of this period, to studying the ancient people themselves through their physical remains. Not many burials have been excavated in this region, or for this time period; thus the Nimrud queens’ tombs—which contain the remains of over a dozen individuals, found in four chambers, three stone sarcophagi, two clay coffins, and three bronze coffins—are an exceptional discovery.Over the past three decades, a number of publications have examined various individual aspects of the tombs—the texts, skeletons, jewelry, grave goods, coffins, royal women, genealogy, history, etc.—but most do not combine data sets and studies to fully reconstruct the lives of the particular individuals buried in them. By taking a multidisciplinary approach examining the archaeological, skeletal, and textual data from these tombs in tandem, as well as the post mortem history, I argue that it is possible to identify the woman buried in one of the bronze coffins who was found wearing one of the more famous artifacts from the Nimrud tombs: a crown of gold leaves, flowers, grapes, and female winged genies (Fig. 1). This is Queen Hama, wife of Shalmaneser IV, daughter-in-law of Adad-nerari III,2 as indicated by a gold stamp seal pendant that was likely placed around her neck at the time of her burial.3 A reconsideration of available archaeological evidence presented here proves that this was a primary interment, and that she was the sole occupant of Bronze Coffin 2.4Figure 1. Gold crown from Coffin 2, Tomb III. Photo by SSgt Noreen L. Feeney, 318th Public Affairs Operation Center (PAOC), US Army, Baghdad, 2003.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointNimrud: Uncovering the TombsThe site of Nimrud, ancient Kalhu, is located in modern day northern Iraq on the Tigris River. During the 9th century bc, Assurnasirpal II (883–859 bc) moved his capital from Assur northwards to Kalhu, which remained the primary residence of many Assyrian kings. In furnishing the citadel mound that overlooked the newly enlarged city, he constructed the Northwest Palace, the first of several royal palaces to be founded by Neo-Assyrian rulers, providing a template on which later builders would expand.In 1988, while continuing preservation and restoration work at the site, the Iraqi Department of Antiquities began cleaning the private residential quarter of the Northwest Palace, known in Assyrian as the bētānu.5 As the debris was swept away, the archaeologists noticed unevenness in the floor. Upon further investigation, they discovered that vaulted tomb chambers had been built below, and that the crowns of the vaults were pushing the flooring bricks upwards. On account of this discovery, excavations were conducted from 1988 through 1990 to explore and document several tombs found to belong to Neo-Assyrian queens and royalty which had been constructed below the bētānu area.6Four unique tombs were uncovered containing numerous coffins and sarcophagi (Fig. 2). Within Tomb I, there were two clay coffins containing the remains of older adult women: one coffer was under the floor in a corner of the hallway which led into the main chamber, where a second clay coffin was set into the floor against the back wall. Tomb II contained the remains of two female skeletons placed in the same stone sarcophagus. An empty stone sarcophagus looted in antiquity was found in the main chamber of Tomb III, and three bronze coffins filled the antechamber. Coffin 1 held the partial remains of an adult woman and numerous children, while Coffin 2 was documented as the final resting place of a young woman and child. In Coffin 3, the excavators discovered partial, fragmentary remains of five to six adult men and women. A stone sarcophagus was also discovered in Tomb IV, but it too had been looted in antiquity and was empty at the time of excavation (see Fig. 3 for diagrams of the coffins and sarcophagi).Figure 2. Northwest Palace at Nimrud southern area showing location of tombs. Plan by author.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFigure 3. Coffins and Sarcophagi in the Nimrud Tombs (by author).View Large ImageDownload PowerPointTexts present in the tombs named a few of the buried queens, such as in Tomb II, which contained gold bowls, a curse tablet, and other cosmetic objects inscribed with the names of Yabaʾ, Banitu, and Ataliya, said to be the wives of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 bc), Shalmaneser V (726–722 bc), and Sargon II (721–705 bc), respectively.7 According to an inscribed curse tablet found in the tomb antechamber and the inscription on the top of the stone sarcophagus, Tomb III was built for Mullissu-mukannishat-Ninua, the wife of Assurnasirpal II (883–859 bc).8 However, objects bearing the name of the deceased were not found in all of the burials. The bronze coffins in the antechamber of Tomb III, for example, were believed to contain the fragmentary remains of more than one individual, and scant textual information indicating who these people were. Based on available inscriptional data, all of the bronze coffin interments date to the late 9th and 8th c. bc (810–721 bc) during the reigns of Adad-nerari III, Shalmaneser IV, Assur-dan, Assur-nerari V, and Tiglath-Pileser III (see Fig. 4 for Neo-Assyrian King chronology chart). The limited textual information as well as the co-mingled and fragmentary nature of the artifacts and bones has subsequently resulted in few attempts at a thorough analysis of these coffins and their puzzling contents.Figure 4. Chronology Chart (by author).View Large ImageDownload PowerPointUnfortunately, no osteological work was conducted in situ, thus the bones were only later examined out of context. The available data is based on an analysis undertaken in 1997 by osteologist Michael Schultz (from the Zentrum Anatomie at the Universität Göttingen), who spent ten days in the Iraqi Museum analyzing the bones and doing a complete palaeopathological study before a rumored ceremonial reburial.9 This was a somewhat difficult task, because once skeletons are removed from their burial environment and exposed to air, in any archaeological setting, they begin to deteriorate more rapidly and in some cases it can be more difficult to handle and analyze fragile bones.The Tombs and CoffinsThe tombs were purposely built, in advance of the queens’ deaths, under the floors of the southern area of the Northwest Palace’s domestic quarter, the bētānu, which was where the residential suites were located.10 Construction of the earliest tombs began in the 9th century bc during the reigns of Assurnasirpal II and his son Shalmaneser III, as indicated by inscribed bricks found in the walls of Tombs I and III.11 Although different in appearance, all of the tombs followed a similar organizational layout: they were vaulted and made with baked brick. There was a shaft with stairs at one end leading into the main chamber where the stone sarcophagi were interred. The chambers were sealed shut by a double stone door that pivoted on stone rings.12 The sarcophagi were so large that they had to be placed into the tomb during construction before the vaults were finished.13 In the antechamber to Tomb III, which was constructed for Mullissu-mukannishat-Ninua, the excavators found three bronze coffins containing skeletal remains and an abundance of elite grave goods.14 According to the excavators, these coffins were set against the main chamber door, obstructing entry and filling the room wall to wall. Coffin 2 was placed against the east wall and the door of the tomb, while Coffin 3 was placed adjacent to it on the west. Coffin 1 had been deposited on top of Coffin 2, but with an opposite orientation.15 The main chamber was sealed shut from the antechamber with two courses of bricks and plaster (see Fig. 5 for the layout of Tomb III with the stone sarcophagus in the main chamber and Coffin 2 placed in the entryway).16Figure 5. Drawing by author after M. Hussein and Amer Suleiman, Nimrud: A City of Golden Treasures (Baghdad, 2000), 127, 373. Object 480 is the gold crown, 334 is the gold stamp seal of Queen Hama, 288 is the gold bowl.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe Contents of Bronze Coffin 2As indicated before, Bronze Coffin 2, which held the burial of a petite female individual, also contained some of the most spectacular finds. The young woman was wearing a large gold crown decorated with pomegranates, rosettes, flowers, grape clusters, and winged female genie figures made of gold and precious stones (Fig. 1).17 Along with the gold crown, this coffin contained an abundance of jewelry and gems, as well as gold bowls, gold pots, bracelets, rings, anklets, brooches, carnelian stamps and cylinder seals with lapis lazuli and gold caps, gold leaves, frit, and gold cups. According to the published Nimrud Catalogue by M. Hussein and A. Suleiman,18 the crown (IM 115619/Nimrud catalogue 480, see Fig. 5)19 was located at the end of the coffin where the head would have been.In light of the spectacular nature of the crown, some of the smaller items from this coffin such as the stamp seals, cylinder seals, jewelry, and a small juglet featuring narrative relief strips of kings in battle, hunting, and performing rituals, found very little attention until recently.20 This is unfortunate, for while the crown offers no clue to the name of the deceased, one of the smaller items might shed light on the ownership of this coffin. Before delving into details, it is important to mention that the provenience for the artifacts found in the bronze coffins is not always known and many publications differ about find spots.21 Despite these difficulties, upon my own examination of the catalog, Hussein and Suleiman22 do give the find-spots for the majority of larger individual artifacts such as the cylinder seals and vessels, but not for each individual bead or earring regarding small jewelry pieces piled together in large quantities. In the catalog, they included diagrams with a number of artifact locations, though the numbers are difficult to read. According to these diagrams, one of these artifacts, a gold royal stamp seal ornament found in the tomb (IM115644/Nimrud tomb catalogue 334), does have a documented findspot: it was found near the head, as indicated in the coffin plan23 (see Fig. 5), but may originally have been placed on a chain around the young woman’s neck (Figs. 6 and 7).Figure 6. Hama seal, Photo SSgt Noreen L. Feeney, 318th Public Affairs Operation Center (PAOC), US Army, Baghdad, 2003.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFigure 7. Hama seal, side view, Photo SSgt Noreen L. Feeney, 318th Public Affairs Operation Center (PAOC), US Army, Baghdad 2003.The text reads: šá míḫa-ma-a munus.é.gal šá mšul-man-maš man kur aš kal !-lat mu-érin.daḫ Cuneiform signs by author after original transcription and translation by Farouk N. H. Al-Rawi, “Inscriptions from the tombs of the queens of Assyria,” in J. E. Curtis et al., eds. New Light on Nimrud, Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th–13th March 2002 (London, 2008), 136.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointThe true significance of the gold stamp seal lies in the inscription carved around its rim (Figs. 6, 7, 8), which reads šá míḫa-ma-a munus.é.gal šámšul-man maš man kur aš kal!-lat mu-érin.daḫ, “Belonging to Hama, queen of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, daughter-in-law of Adad-nerari.”24 It is most probable that the young woman buried in Coffin 2, who was found wearing the extraordinary gold crown, can therefore be identified as Hama, wife of a king named Shalmaneser. 25 We know him to be Shalmaneser IV, since an inscription of his father Adad-nerari III identifies him as Hama’s father-in-law (see Fig. 4 for chronology). This conclusion identifying the young woman buried in Coffin 2 as Hama is reinforced by several indications of royal status in her coffin, such as the presence of elite grave goods, its placement within another queen’s tomb, and the presence of a royal crown. Yasmina Wicks has also made a similar conclusion about the identification of the individual buried in Coffin 2 as Hama; however, she does not believe this to be a legitimate identification because she thinks that “to assume without question that the seal had belonged to this woman would be overly simplistic as such items need not necessarily be buried with the person whose name they bore.”26 However, identifications made for individuals in burials in the ancient Near East have often been made in this or a similar manner, sometimes with even less reliable inscriptional material. Regarding Mesopotamian burial contexts, individuals in the Nimrud Tombs as well as those found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur dating to the Early Dynastic Period (2900–2350 bc) were identified by inscribed objects. Wicks further argues against using heirloom items found in the Nimrud tombs as evidence—and clearly a female skeleton from the Neo-Assyrian period should not be identified as the Kassite King Mardukzakir-shumi (from an heirloom item found in Tomb II at Nimrud). But when the skeletal remains, dates, and context match, as is the case for Hama and her seal, then an identification is much more reliable. A stamp seal necklace is a very personal item, and when found in a context where it was worn at the time of death, the most logical answer is that it belonged to Hama.Figure 8. Line drawing of Hama seal; drawing by author.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointHama’s BonesDuring excavation, all of the skeletal remains found throughout the tombs were placed into plastic bags sorted by tomb or coffin. As a result, some bags contained the remains of more than one individual. 27 After the excavations ended, the bones sat in the Mosul museum for a decade before examination.28 This was not the best environment to ensure suitable preservation, even though many of the bones were preserved with a resin coating when they were taken out of the ground to try to reduce deterioration. In this case, the quick thinking on the part of the excavators to preserve the bones as best they could with resin, which lessened the long-term deterioration allowing for the palaeopathologist to do a more thorough examination. In general, when skeletal remains are found unexpectedly during archaeological excavations, it is fairly common for bones to be placed in storage for an extended period of time. It takes time and money to have an osteologist travel to a specific location to examine the bones, and this often happens in later seasons when enough samples have been collected to make a specialist’s visit most worthwhile.With regard to this particular skeletal assemblage, Schultz’s aforementioned palaeopathology study noted the remains of at least seventeen individuals in three tombs and three coffins represented by full skeletons, fragmentary skeletons, or in some cases single bones or teeth. The macroscopic conditions were relatively poor with some exceptions. Where possible, the individuals were analyzed for age, sex, stature, dental and skeletal indicators of stress, and the presence of pathological conditions.29With regard to the bronze coffins, the bones from them had green staining due to the impregnation of copper ions which leached out of the bronze.30 The darker green the staining, the closer the bones were to the edge of the coffin. This information helps determine the initial burial placement of the bones within the coffin as well as the time of interment. Also, copper ions are bactericidal (meaning they kill micro-organisms) which leads to better bone preservation on both a macroscopic and microscopic level.31 This suggests that the bones that showed moderate or poor preservation were placed in the coffin after the body had already begun the decomposition process. Coffin 2, where the seal of Queen Hama was found, contained the almost-complete and well-preserved skeleton of a young woman who was approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall, and who died between the ages of eighteen and twenty years old (see skeleton diagram below, Fig. 9, which shows the present and preserved adult female bones from the coffin).32 The bones were all stained a dark green color from contact with copper ions in the bronze material. When viewed microscopically, it could be seen that this was not a superficial copper patina as was found on some of the other skeletal remains, but that copper had been absorbed into the vascular channels of the compact bone.33 The copper component in the bronze reacts with hydrogen ions which are a natural byproduct of body decomposition. This reaction creates copper carbonate (CuCO3) that can seep into the porous spaces of bones and teeth, and the affected material then resembles the color of the copper carbonate (green to blue in the color spectrum).34Figure 9. Preserved bones of Coffin 2 skeleton A (Hama), Drawing by author after Manfred Kunter Michael Schultz, “Erste ergebnisse: 107, fig. 22 (black represents preserved bones, hatched fragmentary).View Large ImageDownload PowerPointMisconception #1: Secondary BurialMy ongoing analysis has shown that there are a number of misconceptions, in particular in publications referring to Coffin 2, that need to be addressed. Several previously mentioned discussions state that all of the bronze coffins represent secondary depositions of fragmentary skeletons from a number of individuals.35 The individuals upon death were first interred elsewhere, and their bones were moved and combined in a bronze coffin at a later point.36 However, for the copper to be absorbed into the bones of the young woman in Coffin 2, it had to be present during the entire decomposition process which, I argue, shows that this individual was interred in a bronze coffin as her primary burial, and not buried in a sarcophagus, clay coffin, or other burial vessel, and moved to the bronze coffin later. The palaeopathologist notes in his findings that this young woman would have originally been buried in a bronze coffin, though he also states that it cannot be determined from examination whether or not it was this same coffin.37 My own in-depth analysis of the available evidence suggests that this bronze coffin was the primary (not secondary) burial for young Queen Hama. Copper ions are bactericidal, thus they kill micro-organisms which led to better preservation of this skeleton.38 The cranial bones were not impregnated with copper or well-preserved—shown on the bone diagram Fig. 9 by the absence of black fill—which is the result of the woman wearing the gold crown, and the gold blocking the copper from getting to the skull.39The excavators of the tombs describe the position of jewelry pieces in the coffin as corresponding to the body parts where they would have been worn.40 This would suggest that the body was placed in a common burial position, most likely on her side with knees tucked in, before decomposition. One can thus infer that disarticulated bones were not moved to this coffin at a later time. The simplest explanation is often the most logical: it does not make much sense to think that an entire skeleton with grave goods would have been moved from one bronze coffin to an identical bronze coffin, and the body then re-placed in a standard foetal burial position. Furthermore, once the body had decomposed, the process of moving it alone would have disrupted the articulation of the skeleton. We know from the other bronze coffins in Tomb III and other cemetery sites (such as at Assur) that when bones were moved, they were usually deposited carelessly and haphazardly.41 If this had happened to Queen Hama, then her remains would have been disarticulated and co-mingled with the grave goods, which was not the case.Additional evidence to support the primary nature of this burial might be seen in an amulet that was found in one of the bronze coffins outside Tomb III. Like the seal of queen Hama, it shows a woman standing in front of a goddess with her hands raised in reverence.42 Unfortunately no findspot or Nimrud Tomb catalogue number were assigned to this object. According to the photograph label in the catalogue published by Hussein and Suleiman, it is thus difficult to determine in which coffin it was found. However, the only gold amulets registered in the catalogue finds list (ND 372 IM 118090 and ND 373 IM 118091)43 fall within the range of item numbers for Coffin 2 objects, ND 285 to at least ND 486,44 so it is highly likely that this amulet was also in Coffin 2, and portrays Hama standing reverently before a goddess.45 The styles and depictions of the individuals on the aforementioned Hama stamp seal and this amulet are very similar. As Lamia al-Gailani Werr notes, these are the only two objects from the royal tombs showing a female worshipper,46 lending further support to the idea that they belong together and portray the same person. The presence of these items, both depicting a woman almost identical in appearance, in a coffin with one adult female skeleton, makes it likely that they represent her, and hence were intentionally included as part of a feminine assemblage intended for the interment of an elite woman, and not accidental additions placed within in order to fill a coffin with arbitrary burial goods to accompany fragments of numerous individuals.Misconception #2: Two Bodies in One CoffinSeveral scholars, including Damerji, Oates and Oates, Schultz, and Sherry Lou MacGregor, have described the skeletal remains in Coffin 2 as those of a young woman and a child47 because the bag of bones in the museum storeroom contained the remains of an adult female and a few bones of a child approximately 6–12 years old at death.48 In a conference talk summarizing the palaeopathology finds, Müller-Karpe, Kunter, and Schultz have stated that there were only a few fragmentary bones of a child, not an entire skeleton.49 The full report by Kunter and Schultz documents the finds as fragments of a child’s bones,50 but the English summary of the conclusions is misleading in that it lists seventeen individuals discovered in the tombs, and states that Coffin 2 contained an adult female and child.51 To a reader not familiar with either German or osteological analysis, this information could be interpreted as a full child’s skeleton. In addition, the summary states: “Of course, one coffin is large enough to take the corpse of a young woman and a child,” with a footnote reference to the individuals in Coffin 2, which again would suggest the presence of a complete child.52 The only evidence for a child’s skeleton, however, consists of a first rib and various quite small fragments of long bones (see Fig. 10 bone diagram for the sub-adult bones present in the coffin).53 Such a minuscule assemblage of bone fragments makes it highly unlikely that they represent a primary child burial alongside the young woman.Figure 10. Fragments of juvenile bones present in Coffin 2, drawing by author after Schultz, “Erste ergebnisse”: 109, fig. 25 (black represents preserved bones, hatched fragmentary).View Large ImageDownload PowerPointMoreover, the child’s bones were only superficially stained green, which shows that the bones were not deposited in any bronze coffin until after reaching an advanced stage of decomposition.54 As argued above, the young woman in Coffin 2 was deposited soon after her death, so it is unlikely that a handful of child bones was tossed into the coffin with her at that time. The extremely fragmented nature of the bones suggests that they infiltrated the coffin at a later date.This theory is supported by the fact that, in the plastic bags of bones labeled “Coffin 2,” there were also a few miscellaneous adult hand and foot bones from various individuals which did not belong to the young woman. The extra adult bones present in the coffin are bones that the young woman is missing according to her bone diagram. I do not have an explanation for this, but feel it is important to note. Of all the 206 bones in an adult skeleton, it seems highly unlikely that the only extra adult bones in the coffin are ones not present in her skeleton. During excavations, did someone notice her ankle bones were missing and add some, thinking they were hers? Or perhaps it is possible that the storage environment resulted in different levels of decomposition and copper patina on some of the hand and foot bones, leading to the osteologist being unable to definitively associate these bones to the rest of Hama’s skeleton? Publications have not suggested a second adult in the coffin based on these few fragments of bones, so consequently a child should not be attributed to the coffin either, based on a similarly small number of pieces.While I do not have a definitive answer as to why these extra bones were present in the coffin, it is conceivable that the few child bones were combined with Hama’s at a later time, after the young woman’s initial interment. Over the course of the ten years that the bone bags were in storage, some information was lost about their contents. When Schultz began his analysis, for example, he discovered an unlabeled bag of bones and humus containing the fragmentary remains of a female aged 45–50 years at death.55 Their contents likely correspond to several large bones found in the dirt beside Coffin 3, found next to ceramic and glass vessels, that were mentioned in Damerji’s report.56 It is unclear when these bones were dropped there, but their presence well illustrates the fragmentary and disturbed contexts for all the skeletal remains in the Nimrud Tombs. Both Coffins 1 and 3 contained comingled fragments of adult female skeletons around the same age at death as the extra bag of bones, so perhaps these are the remainder of one of those individuals.In archaeological contexts, teeth preserve far better than bone, a point of significance when looking for evidence of children, whose bones are not fully developed and much more fragile than their adult counterparts. Even if their fragile, delicate bones deteriorate or decompose altogether, their teeth are often still preserved and present. If a child had been buried in Coffin 2 with the young woman, at least some of its teeth would have survived; however, no children’s teeth were recorded. On the other hand, children’s teeth were noted for Coffin 1, which contained the remains of at least seven (and likely more) individual fetuses, infants, and adolescents.57 A number of these children were documented by the presence of teeth alone, and there were various other teeth and tooth fragments belonging to yet more children found in this same coffin which could not be identified as belonging to the individuals already recognized. Two of the fragmentary children’s skeletons were identified by both bone and tooth fragments. They were each 7–11 years old at death, the same ages indicated by the bone fragments found in the plastic bag with Hama’s bones from Coffin 2. I propose that these bones may actually belong to one of the older children identified in the Coffin 1 bone bag. The fragments found with the Coffin 2 material are absent from the skeletons of the children identified from Coffin 1, and hence could further complete one of those skeletons.Misconception #3: the Crown on the Head of a ChildVarious archaeological reports stated that the gold crown in Coffin 2 was found on the head of a child,58 which fostered the previously-mentioned belief that a child was buried with Hama. One of the excavators described the skull as that of a child when it was discovered because he thought that the crown was too large to fit the head.59 As pointed out above, however, no juvenile cranial bones were recorded for this coffin. The palaeopathology report, on the other hand, records the crown as having been found on the young woman’s head.60 As pointed out above, the lack of copper absorption in the young woman’s cranial bones suggests that her head had been kept away from the coffin walls—just about the effect that wearing a crown would have had on her skull.Regarding the statement by the excavators that the crown was too
Referência(s)