Brown Fedora
New member
I have serious problems with the conclusions drawn, as a result of the work of Dr. Zawi Hawas, as do other (far more senior) archaeologists. Now, granted, I don't have my PHD yet, so I'm not trying to be a definitive last word on this, but.. I just want to point out the major problems with this conclusion.
Forgive me if this seems a bit disjointed. Have been up for most of the week with a flu that won't go away.
Hawas didn't allow anyone from outside Egypt to participate in the work. He didn't share x-rays with colleagues outside his own government, nor did he allow foreigners to take part in the exhumation or the autopsy. Dow Chemical, for example, offered to provide modern equipment for the autopsy. Dr. Hawas refused. So, part of the Egyptian work on Tut must be held up as suspect because the scientific process was not transparent.
Secondly, Hawas has conveniently neglected to mention that, upon exhumation, they would have dealt with the fact that Tut had -already- been exhumed and subsequently damaged.
When Carter excavated the tomb and attempted to remove Tut's body, he found that the materials used to help preserve Tut's body had been applied rapidly and with great carelessness. As a result, Tut's body was firmly affixed to the bottom of the inner coffin, and had to be removed... with a saw and an axe. While great care was taken (Carter was no hack), the body had to be cut into pieces for removal, and these pieces were then re-assembled for examination. So, we're faced with three problems that Hawas fails to analyze in his conclusions (as far as I understand them).
1. Why was Tut's body so rapidly interred, and with such carelessness?
2. Would the careless nature of his mummification damage the body post mortem?
3. Would Carter's own exhumation, cutting the body into more than a dozen pieces, make an accurate autopsy difficult or even impossible?
These issues truely bother me, and others, and as such I don't accept the current conclusions.
Anyway, as to the Old Testament stuff...
One of the earliest candidates for being the Pharoah of the Exodus (proposed in the 19th century) was Merenkere, who built the third pyramid at Gaza. I can't remember the logic behind this theory, but I believe certain Stone Masons still adhere to it.
As sort of a weird corollary, if you go with the 'New Chronology' theory of things, the Pharoah of the Exodus could not have been Rameses II. He may, actually, have been Pharoah 'Shishak' who attacked Jerusalem, as Rameses II's nickname was 'Shishi' (so was that of his father).
Oddly, there is compelling evidence that the Hebrews may have come in with or been welcomed by the Hyksos, which would explain why the new rulers "knew not Joseph" and why the Hebrews were, suddenly, personas non gratis. The Pharoah of the Exodus might well then have been Ahmose I, who founded the New Kingdom (I think it was Ahmose I... don't exactly have a reference in front of me).
However, and this is what throws a wrench into the mix, an autopsy was performed on Rameses II a few decades ago. The conclusion?
He died of drowning.
-Fed
Forgive me if this seems a bit disjointed. Have been up for most of the week with a flu that won't go away.
Hawas didn't allow anyone from outside Egypt to participate in the work. He didn't share x-rays with colleagues outside his own government, nor did he allow foreigners to take part in the exhumation or the autopsy. Dow Chemical, for example, offered to provide modern equipment for the autopsy. Dr. Hawas refused. So, part of the Egyptian work on Tut must be held up as suspect because the scientific process was not transparent.
Secondly, Hawas has conveniently neglected to mention that, upon exhumation, they would have dealt with the fact that Tut had -already- been exhumed and subsequently damaged.
When Carter excavated the tomb and attempted to remove Tut's body, he found that the materials used to help preserve Tut's body had been applied rapidly and with great carelessness. As a result, Tut's body was firmly affixed to the bottom of the inner coffin, and had to be removed... with a saw and an axe. While great care was taken (Carter was no hack), the body had to be cut into pieces for removal, and these pieces were then re-assembled for examination. So, we're faced with three problems that Hawas fails to analyze in his conclusions (as far as I understand them).
1. Why was Tut's body so rapidly interred, and with such carelessness?
2. Would the careless nature of his mummification damage the body post mortem?
3. Would Carter's own exhumation, cutting the body into more than a dozen pieces, make an accurate autopsy difficult or even impossible?
These issues truely bother me, and others, and as such I don't accept the current conclusions.
Anyway, as to the Old Testament stuff...
One of the earliest candidates for being the Pharoah of the Exodus (proposed in the 19th century) was Merenkere, who built the third pyramid at Gaza. I can't remember the logic behind this theory, but I believe certain Stone Masons still adhere to it.
As sort of a weird corollary, if you go with the 'New Chronology' theory of things, the Pharoah of the Exodus could not have been Rameses II. He may, actually, have been Pharoah 'Shishak' who attacked Jerusalem, as Rameses II's nickname was 'Shishi' (so was that of his father).
Oddly, there is compelling evidence that the Hebrews may have come in with or been welcomed by the Hyksos, which would explain why the new rulers "knew not Joseph" and why the Hebrews were, suddenly, personas non gratis. The Pharoah of the Exodus might well then have been Ahmose I, who founded the New Kingdom (I think it was Ahmose I... don't exactly have a reference in front of me).
However, and this is what throws a wrench into the mix, an autopsy was performed on Rameses II a few decades ago. The conclusion?
He died of drowning.
-Fed