Doubt — and a reportedly royal severed head — haunts a murky corner of forensic science these days, as researchers squabble over an unearthed packet of mummified remains thought to have belonged to King Henry IV of France. 
 
 The mystery has produced a frightful case of regret among two researchers who were part of the first team to investigate the purportedly royal noggin. This week, French pathologist Geoffroy Lorin de la Grandmaison and Leslie Eisenberg, an American forensic anthropologist, wrote to the British Medical Journal and urged the retraction of the 2010 study that first identified the disembodied head as belonging to Henry. 
 
 At the heart of the macabre drama is an embalmed head with several vertebrae still attached. The remains were found in 1919 in the Royal Basilica of St. Denis outside Paris and reportedly secreted away by a civil servant. Reappearing almost a century later, the specimen still had its soft tissue and organs intact, right down to the open mouth and partially closed eyes. 
 
 On the basis of CT imaging and digital facial reconstruction, French medical examiner and forensic osteo-archaeologist Philippe Charlier and a multidisciplinary team — including Eisenberg and Lorin de la Grandmaison — in 2010 identified the head as that of the charming and rakish monarch known variously as "the Green Gallant" and "Good King Henry." 
 
 Even a mushroom-like growth on his nose and evidence of a pierced right ear seemed to point to King Henry IV. Though beloved by most of his people, the Bourbon monarch was assassinated in 1610 after 21 years on the throne. 
 
 That was just the beginning of his misfortune. In 1793, marauding revolutionaries sacked Paris' churches and desecrated the graves of many a purported royal. Legend had it that Henry's remains got the same treatment that befell his descendant Louis XVI: Dead or not, it was off with his head. 
 
 But researchers from the University of Leuven in Belgium were not so sure the head belonged to Good King Henry. 
 
 Obtaining a sample of the mummified tissue, they conducted a genetic analysis and compared it with DNA samples given by three male descendants of the House of Bourbon. Analyzing the Y chromosome of the three descendants, as well as genes that reveal matrilineal descent, they found clear similarities among the three descendants. But none of those matched the DNA of the disembodied head. 
 
 The team further compared the Y chromosome taken from the mysterious head with that taken from a blood-soaked handkerchief said to contain the genetic material of Louis XVI. (That "sample" was collected on Jan. 21, 1793, when a spectator at La Place de la Revolution in Paris thrust out the cloth to capture blood gushing from Louis' headless body.) The two samples did not match. 
 
 Though widely used in genealogical research, paternity testing and forensics, the Y chromosome's pattern of repeated DNA letters is not as definitive a test of genetic relatedness as are the patterns found on other chromosomes. So perhaps this still was Henry's head? 
 
 "Impossible!" declared Jean-Jacques Cassiman, an emeritus professor at the University of Leuven and coauthor of the Belgian team's study, whose results were published in the European Journal of Human Genetics this month. 
 
 The findings came on top of an earlier dismissal by French historian Philippe Delorme. Among other things, Delorme noted that the head bore no sign of craniotomy, as would be typical for a member of the royal family at that time. In such an esteemed person, craniotomy incisions would have been made in life (as a treatment for infection, head trauma and other ills) and in death (as a means to harvest "rondels," diskettes of bony tissue that were subsequently worn around the neck as an amulet). 
 
 Charlier, the lead investigator of the 2010 study, has been stout in defense of his findings. Illegitimacy — not of his methods but among many princelings of the French court — may explain the genetic mismatch, Charlier has argued. Extramarital liaisons among members of the court make it "hopeless," he said, to ascertain lineage using DNA tests over so many generations. 
 
 Such protests have failed to discourage defections from Charlier's team of researchers. Hence this week's letter by two of Charlier's coauthors and two others who have challenged the 2010 findings, saying that "robust scientific arguments ... negate the conclusions." 
 
 "The retraction of the article is now justified, as a rigorous scientific anthropological study should have excluded the hypothesis (and the findings) that the head belonged to" Henry, the four wrote. 
 
 Nailing down the identity of long-lost bones is tricky, and disputes among forensic scientists are common, said Alison Galloway, a forensic anthropologist at UC Santa Cruz who has followed, but not been involved in, the royal kerfuffle. 
 
 "The original analysis looked good," Galloway said. But Charlier's team should have known that its conclusions would be challenged, she said. 
 
 "If you had a group of 100 skulls — all men of European ancestry, let's say — and you had a photograph of a person, about 10 of those skulls could superimpose pretty well on that photograph," she said. Although facial reconstruction makes for great visuals in a TV drama, "it's a technique much better used to exclude somebody" than to identify him definitively. 
 
 With grieving relatives, criminal defendants and judges looking on, forensic scientists typically stick with conclusions that will hold up in a court of law. Only rarely do their disputes become the object of royal speculation and historical ghost stories. 
 
 Charlier's investigation, and the ensuing fracas, may be more of a divertissement than a serious professional debate, Galloway said. "Why are we so worried about whether it's Henry's head?" 
 
 melissa.healy@latimes.com ||||| This photo dated Thursday Dec. 16, 2010 and provided by Galaxie Presse shows what is believed to be the head of former French King Henry IV pictured in the 1930s. A 400-year-old skull that French researchers believe was the head of celebrated King Henri IV was squirreled away for decades in the attic of a now-retired public servant, and now has been handed over to one of his Bourbon dynasty descendants. (AP Photo/Galaxie Presse) NO SALES Three years ago, French researchers declared that a centuries-old mummified head was that of the beloved King Henri IV. But now a new study says, "Non!" 
 
 The original conclusion was based largely on facial reconstruction techniques and signs the skull had injuries similar to those suffered by the monarch. The new study looked at DNA instead. 
 
 It found a genetic mismatch between the head and three living male relatives of the 17th-century French king. The researchers concluded the head didn't come from anybody in the royal lineage. 
 
 Henri IV was one of France's best-loved kings, credited with bringing religious peace to the country and building Parisian landmarks like the Pont Neuf bridge during his reign from 1589 to 1610. He was the first of the Bourbon monarchs and grandfather of the Sun King Louis XIV. 
 
 It's "impossible" that the head belongs to Henri IV, said Jean-Jacques Cassiman, an emeritus professor at the University of Leuven, one of the authors of the new study. The research was published online Wednesday in the European Journal of Human Genetics. 
 
 The same study also found a blood sample previously attributed to King Louis XVI, one of Henri's descendants, lacked any royal ties. Louis XVI died on the guillotine during the French Revolution and many spectators reportedly soaked their handkerchiefs in the king's blood. But Cassiman and colleagues found the lingering traces of powdered blood on the handkerchief they tested did not match the Bourbon family DNA. 
 
 Cassiman said he wasn't sure who the head or the blood sample belonged to. The DNA from both failed to match samples from other royal families on record. 
 
 This is a schematic representation of the paternal line of the three living Bourbons and the French kings Henry IV and Louis XVI. Credit: KU Leuven 
 
 Amid the frenzy of the French revolution, the royal tombs at Saint Denis near Paris were dug up and some accounts claim Henri IV's head got chopped off and stolen. Cassiman and his co-authors dispute that Henri was decapitated and believe the king is still buried in Saint Denis after the tombs were resealed in 1817. 
 
 "That is impossible to verify," said Michael Rowe, a senior lecturer in European history at King's College London, who was not connected to either study. He said there wasn't much evidence one way or the other to suggest what happened to Henri's head. But Rowe said that Henri IV's reputation as one of France's best kings might have saved his body from decapitation. "If the revolutionaries were going to spare any of the kings, it would have been Henri IV." 
 
 This is a schematic representation of the maternal line of the French kings Henry IV and Louis XVII. Credit: KU Leuven 
 
 Philippe Charlier, author of the 2010 study that identified the head as Henri IV, dismissed the new research. He said he and colleagues have found an exact match between a three-dimensional comparison of the ancient head and Henri IV's death mask. He said the work will be published soon in a forensic journal. 
 
 Charlier added there were numerous doubts about the paternity of various kings in the Bourbon line, which might explain why there was no link between the DNA of modern-day descendants and the ancient head. 
 
 "It is hopeless to try to match a family tree and a series of genetic links (over) such a long period," he said in an email. 
 
 Frank Ruehli, of the University of Zurich and the Swiss Mummy project, agreed there could be questions about paternity in the Bourbon line and also raised concerns about the authenticity of the ancient DNA samples, as he said it was very difficult to get good data from a sample several centuries old. 
 
 "The best would be to look at (Henri IV's) heart as well," he said. "If you have multiple tissues from the same body showing the same results, that would be a positive identification," he said. Ruehli said given the lack of complete data, it was impossible to know for sure whom the head belonged to. 
 
 Charlier said the mummified head is currently in a Parisian bank vault awaiting reburial but that there are no exact plans yet. 
 
 Explore further: Dried squash holds headless French king's blood, study finds 
 
 More information: www.nature.com/ejhg ||||| If the F.B.I.'s scientists could extract DNA from the 4,000-year-old mummy, they would add a powerful tool to their forensics arsenal and also unlock a new way of deciphering Egypt’s ancient past https://t.co/a1em2dIpBG — NYT Science (@NYTScience) April 2, 2018 
 
 A team of forensic scientists has managed to extract DNA from a 4,000-year-old mummy, and their finding has solved a century-old mystery of its ransacked tomb. 
 
 The Egyptian mummy wasn't a fully preserved corpse, but rather a decapitated, mutilated, bandage-wrapped head that archaeologists found on top of a coffin when they excavated a tomb back in 1915. And that was the source of the mystery. 
 
 As the researchers explained in a paper published March 1 in the journal Genes, the tomb belonged to an Egyptian Middle Kingdom governor named Djehutynakht. But by the time modern scientists found the tomb, it had been ransacked; it was robbed in ancient times. In an article describing the discovery, The New York Times reported that the robbers had set the place on fire "to cover their tracks." [Gallery: Amazing Egyptian Discoveries] 
 
 All that remained of the tomb's occupants was a dismembered torso in one corner of the tomb and a head placed on top of Djehutynakht's coffin. For more than a hundred years, researchers have wondered and disagreed about whether these mummified remains belonged to Djehutynakht himself or to his wife. 
 
 Deepening the mystery, the head had been altered during the mummification process, with several bones removed from the jaw and cheek in an effort to enable the deceased to eat and drink in the afterlife, the Times reported. Those bones might have offered clues as to whether the body was male or female. 
 
 That left DNA analysis. But extracting DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies, after centuries in hot, DNA-degrading environments, had never been achieved before. The Times reported that earlier attempts failed or produced contaminated results. 
 
 This is a good article by @SciFleur . You should read it. 
 
 
 
 But I can't be the only person who looks at this picture of the mummy's head and kind of sees a roast chicken. 
 
 
 
 Sorry (not sorry).https://t.co/28hbBGLeCe pic.twitter.com/AJjznpfodi — Kendra "Gloom is My Beat" Pierre-Louis (@KendraWrites) April 2, 2018 
 
 Still, FBI forensic researchers gave it a shot. They had access because the head, along with many artifacts from the tomb, had long since made its way to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. (Shipping artifacts out of Egypt would be illegal today under Egyptian law.) They drilled into a molar extracted from the head "in pristine condition" back in 2009, producing 105 milligrams (0.004 ounces) of tooth dust. After exposing the dust to a liquid mixture designed to copy and amplify existing DNA, they found that it came from a biological male. The head, in other words, most likely belonged to Djehutynakht and not his wife. A team at the Department of Homeland Security, working with a smaller tooth-dust sample, later confirmed the results. In both cases, the DNA was damaged, demonstrating that it came from the ancient mummy and not modern contamination. 
 
 Interestingly, it remains unclear which Djehutynakht the head (and tomb) belonged to. Two governors with that name ruled an area call Hare Nome, and, the researchers wrote, "while they shared the same name (which means Thoth [the main local deity] is Strong), there is no evidence they were related." 
 
 Originally published on Live Science.
– Forensic researchers have a royal dispute on their hands: They can't agree on whether a mummified head belongs to France's Henry IV, explains the Los Angeles Times. The question seemed settled in 2010 when a team of researchers used facial-reconstruction techniques to conclude that it was indeed "Good King Henry," who was assassinated in 1610. But now a second team of scientists says it isn't so because DNA tests don't match Henry's living relatives. They wrote this week to the British Medical Journal urging a retraction of the earlier study, and, in fact, two members of the 2010 team agree that their conclusions were faulty. Not so, says the lead researcher from 2010. He explained to phys.org in an earlier story that it's useless to make conclusions based on DNA results in part because the French royals were such philanderers. "It is hopeless to try to match a family tree and a series of genetic links (over) such a long period," he said. Until things get settled, the mummified head is resting in a bank vault in Paris. (In other mummified news, click to read about a big find in Peru's capital.)