Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Tutankhamun, a new theory on his death


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:02 PM

I thought a new thread based on thoughts about the new documentary "Ultimate Tut", and a nul return from googling "Did Tutankhamun die in a fire"

First an attempt to knock down the two current theories.

For years it has been generally assumed that Tutankhamun's mummy is charred because of the attempts by Howard Carter to prise open the lid of the inner coffin, remove the mummy from the coffin and to remove the mask from the head of the mummy. The documentary says that the charring is the result of the resin used in mummification spontaneously combusting due to hurried and poor techniques. After some thought I see issues with both these theories. The charring of the mummy is uniform over the surface of the mummy. It seems to me that any application of heat during the attempt to seperate the coffin and free the mummy, would likely be rather patchy. For instance, the coffin was not placed inside an oven, and though there is no direct evidence of where Carter applied the bunsen burners, I think it reasonable to assume that the heat was applied to the join of the coffins, not all over. We know Carter used hot knives, after decapitating Tutankhamum's head, to remove the mask. I doubt that in the case of heat applied to the coffin, that the heat would be sufficient to penetrate through the coffin, many tightly wound layers of linen interspersed with large amounts of metalic "bling", and be able to cause such extensive charring. Surely the wrappings would first be turned to ash before damage to the mummy, several cm within the outer layer of wrappings. And surely any heat damage to Tutankhamun's head would be localised to were these hot knives actually made contact with the skin, not all over his skull as is the case. Besides, I do not think a hot knife will cause charring like this. After actually thinking about the theory that Carter was responsible for the charring, instead of taking it for granted, I am now unconvinced and do not believe this.

The theory put forward in the documentary that the resin spontaneously combusted is more convincing, and would explain the overall charring of the mummy, but there are some issues with this theory. Most glaring is that the experiment had a few lumps of resin saturated linen wrapped in unsaturated linen and then left in a room used for experiments with fire. This in no way replicates that actual conditions of a human corpse wrapped in linen and then enclosed in a coffin. That resin has been shown to be capable of spontaneous combustion I do not doubt, but was the resin used in the experiment exactly the same as that used in mummification of Tutankhamun? they do not make this clear, which is either sloppy, or suspicious. And any experiment surely must properly replicate the actual conditions if it is to be taken seriously. Then there is the issue of why has no other mummy been found in such a charred condition. It can be argued that because Tutankhamun laid wrapped and in the same condition as he was intered for 3 300 years, and no other royal mummy has yet been found in their original wrappings, and certainly not covered in resin, that Tutankhamun is a special case, and other unmolested royal mummies may be in the same condition. But until such a mummy is found, we do not know. I think it is generaly agreed that the consequence of being covered with so much resin for millenia is that the resin will set like concrete, as Carter found. The reason given for the resin in Tutankhamun's case combusting, is that he was not mummified as well as was normally the case in 18th Dynasty. Though the only evidence put forward is that the embalming slit is not a neat one on his left side, but a large ragged gash on his abdomen. This is certainly odd and I can give no explanation for this. Though would the embalmers have been in such a rush that it was imperative to make this ugly wound and not the usual discrete slit? how much time would be saved? a few minutes perhaps, but why?. Then if this was a substandard job, then why did Carter write that it was a well formed, or wrapped mummy, I do not remember the exact words. Even in the very few photos we can see everything looks to be well done. We always knew he was buried in a tomb probably meant for Ay, but does this really mean that the burial was hurried, as we are always told. The chaos in the tomb was the result of the robbers turning it upside down, not everything being thrown inside in a rush. Besides, there is no sign of undue haste with what was found within the shrines and never touched by robbers. Yes, there is a problem with the sarcophagus, the foot of the outer coffin has been shaved off to fit. The sarcophagus itself was originally for a woman, as was perhaps the second coffin and the mask except for the face, which is Tutankhamun. And of course many other objects in the tomb are secondhand. But to me this does not signify undue haste. Clearly Tutankhamun died unexpectedly, but would they then wait for well over the normal seventy days. Would they wait until his original tomb was finished? how long would that take, years?, how long to make a new sarcophagus?. The foot of the outer coffin being to big to fit may simply be an error of measurement, not haste.  But all this is conjecture on my part, we will never know for certain. I mention these things because it is said that his mummification was hurried, and this caused the resin to combust. Though no reason is given why the resin would combust for Tutankhamun, and nobody else. So, in the end, this theory of self combusting resin is not destroyed, but rather lacks sufficient credibility.

Now, my own theory to explain death, injuries and charring. We have all these theories over the years to explain death of Tutankhamun, murder, attack by hippopotamus, chariot accident, death in battle. We have two theories to explain why his mummy is so badly charred, attempts by Howard Carter to free mummy from coffin and spontaneous combustion of resin. Over the years I have believed or not believed various of these theories, yet there is an obvious cause of death staring us in the face. His body is badly charred, how do bodies usuallly get badly charred? Yes! by being burnt in a fire, yet I never once read or heard anybody, Egyptologist, documentarian or anything else ever suggest this. No, I cannot offer any proof of this, but is not the obvious answer a better proposition than what we have been told. When confronted with a burnt body is it not the first reaction to assume this is the body of a person burnt in a fire?  So, as to death of Tutankhamun and a posiible explanation of his injuries. If we assume that he was burnt in a fire, then is it not possible that his injuries could have been caused by that fire, could he not have been crushed by falling timbers. This could account for injuries to the chest and legs, but not face for instance, for I do not suggest he was flattened by some huge beam, simply by a pattern of timbers, or other debris, hitting him. I cannot prove this of course, but at least it is something new, something not previously put forward in the last 91 years. It is possible some evidence, other than the obvious charring, remains on his body, but it would I think need an expert on how people die in fires to examine him, and I do not see that happening. So perhaps the CT scans contain sufficient evidence, it would be good if they could be re-appraised. Of course there remain mysteries, the missing heart, sternum and ribs, the missing collar, and all the other miriad Armarna mysteries, but maybe we have looking at his cause of death all these years and have been blind to an obvious solution. I may have missed some obvious things myself, so please, knock me down if you think I am wrong.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 15 July 2013 - 05:16 PM.


#2    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,657 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:03 AM

That the resins "burned" Tutankhamun's body is a common theory in Egyptology. And it wasn't just resins but unguents and other substances, the exact components of which are not fully understood. The body probably never caught on fire, as it were, but underwent a chemical process that burned the tissues which remained around the bones after the body was mummified. Many areas of Tut's bones do somewhat resemble what happens to bones after a person is burned to death, but in whole his body does not.

When a person is burned to death, his skin and subcutaneous tissues are consumed by the fire. This causes the underlying muscles to shrink and contract, and it is common for the body of a fire fatality to be found in distinctly unpleasant, contorted, and twisted positions due to the fire's activity on the muscle tissue and bones.  This isn't really the case for Tut. His is desiccated skin, not burned.

I don't care how often Zahi Hawass has claimed otherwise, it seems clear to me that Tutankhamun was not well mummified. Here is one of Harry Burton's original photos:

Posted Image

Douglass Derry definitely botched the autopsy, but I've always liked this photo because it shows the mummified king how Carter and his men left the body before their work in the tomb was done. His chest is still intact and his penis is still attached. But if you syudy this photo, you will see that the farther down Tut's body you go, the more skeletal he becomes. There is skin around the leg bones (not easy to see in this small photo), but it's cracked and friable. By all appearances, as numerous Egyptologists have noted, whatever the exact unguent cocktail was that the ancient embalmers used, it was way too much. It is mostly likely this embalming cocktail that ate away a lot of Tut's skin and left it so brittle and cracked. It was a postmortem chemical reaction.

The nature of Tut's "burns" have nothing to do with Carter and his heated knives. Most certainly the body was already in that condition. We can also safely dismiss the "theories" that he was killed by a horse's kick to the chest or by a hippo biting his chest—both of which came from a physician who presented his ideas at two separate ARCE conferences but who has no working understanding of ancient Egypt or the ancient embalmers' art. Nor was he familiar with how the body of Tut was found and how it seems to have changed drastically in the years following Carter's discovery (specifically, the mummy's chest). We can also safely dismiss any notions of assassination by a blow to the head: numerous series of CT scans of Tut's mummy have disproved this.

I remain on the side of the most common theory of recent years, given numerous detailed examinations of the mummy: the compound fracture to the left-distal femur. From 2005 on, the CT scans show how resins and unguents entered deep into this wound and coated the inner tissues, showing that the wound already had to have been there. How exactly this wound happened we can never know, but a compound fracture like this in the Late Bronze Age was certainly fatal. Tut either died from sepsis or a pulmonary embolism. Even to this day the latter is an ever-present concern when someone sustains a serious fracture to the femur.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#3    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:32 AM

Until a few days ago I would have agreed with all, but now I am not so sure. Certainly this experiment with resin soaked linen was flawed, as all it did was prove that the resin they used in the experiment would self combust, and as I said, did not replicate all the various substances that Tutankhamun was soaked in, or the conditions in his coffin. Yet I now have the opinion that proof needs to be provided that he was not burnt before mummification. As I wrote, I cannot give even one piece of evidence for my theory, but as I also wrote, when confronted with a burnt body, surely it must first be presumed that burning was the cause of death, or carbon monoxide poisoning if the victim was "lucky". To me it seems odd that he is burnt, but his wrappings are not. This needs an explanation, also why the various ornaments within the wrappings and more importantly, next to his skin, also not show heat damage. Certainly he is desicated, but consider that if he had been burnt prior to mummification, then he would of course still be desicated, in fact I contend that he would, because of being burnt, become even more desicated than normal, which is evident in the pitiful state of his mummy.

About the effects of being burnt I am unfortunately familiar with, the contraction of the muscles, particulary the wrists and forearms to give the "boxers" pose, then later in the process, as the muscles are thicker, the legs contract. What is needed is an expert in deaths by fire to examine him. They could say how much heat is required to begin the distortion process and how much heat they think Tutankhamun was exposed to, and whether he was burnt before mummification, or as a result of mummification. Now, in the documentary Selima Akram says that Tutankhamun was not mummified properly, and I would not argue with anybody of her expertise. Yet the only evidence provided in the documentary is the odd embalmers incision. This is of course an issue, but it hardly closes the lid on this, and as I wrote, putting the incision on the belly and not his side would not save that much time, and surely the embalmers were not so pressed that they had to save a few minutes? it is not credible, more evidence of poor mummification is needed. There has been suggestion that he died away from home and so, like Seqenenre Tao II, he received a bad mummification as decomposition had already begun. Yet I think the discovery of KV63 shows he was mummified at Thebes. And further on any poor mummification, if this was the cause of the charring, then why is Tutankhamun the only example of this, it is not conceivable that he was the only badly mummified body in AE, so were are the other charred mummies. Well, I know that as king he had ingredients used in his mummification that commoners did not, for instance his relatives Yuya and Thuya were not covered in unguents. But would he necessarily have been mummified in a different way to say, Queen Tiye, other than arm position, and she shows no signs of charring, having perhaps spent one hundred years or more being wrapped before being left unwrapped in KV35. Then there is the argument that Tutankhamun was the only king, with exception of Psusennes I with very different burial conditions, who lay undisturbed in his wrappings for so many millenia. Well, perhaps they all would have ended up looking like Tutankhamun if they too had been undisturbed, but we simply do not know, and I think it unwise to extrapolate from just one example. Work needs doing on this issue, work that as far as I see has not been done before. It would be interesting if Tutankhamun's condition could be replicated on a pig, or some volunteer who has left their body for science. I would like expert opinion on the charring of Tutankhamun's mummy and I would like to know the effects of mummification on an already charred body. I wonder if the deep fisures we see, particulary on the face, are caused by a combination of being burnt and then being desicated by mummification. As for his wounds occuring as the result of timbers etc falling on him, well, that is conjecture on my part, but if I am correct about him being burnt in a fire, then that would likely be in a building, and it is quite likely that debris may well have fallen on him. I do not know , nobody knows, but I rather think this scenario should be investigated.

The thought occurs that if I was an author on AE, then my few hundred words here would have been expanded to a 300 page book and at least one documentary. So, publishers, documentarians, here I am, and please have your cheque books ready :)

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 16 July 2013 - 09:25 AM.


#4    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:45 AM

OK. I checked my copy of Carter and Mace The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen but Carter stops his account just at the moment Carnarvon dies.

So, I turn to Nicholas Reeves The Complete Tutankhamun p116. I quote: The blackened, carbonized appearance of the outer shroud had been a sad augury of things to come....the inner wrappings had been reduced to the consistency of soot - according to Lucas, the chemist, the result of some kind of slow spontaneous combustion in which, almost certainly, fungoid growth played a part.

Burton noted that the further they cut into the bandages, the more carbonized the appearance.

I think your theory that the unguents somehow caused spontaneous combustion is quite logical. Lucas suggested fungi as a cause. Certainly, Carter found fungal growth in the tomb.

I think you've presented a sensible theory that can be supported by 1st hand accounts.


#5    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:04 AM

View PostAntilles, on 16 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

OK. I checked my copy of Carter and Mace The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen but Carter stops his account just at the moment Carnarvon dies.

So, I turn to Nicholas Reeves The Complete Tutankhamun p116. I quote: The blackened, carbonized appearance of the outer shroud had been a sad augury of things to come....the inner wrappings had been reduced to the consistency of soot - according to Lucas, the chemist, the result of some kind of slow spontaneous combustion in which, almost certainly, fungoid growth played a part.

Burton noted that the further they cut into the bandages, the more carbonized the appearance.

I think your theory that the unguents somehow caused spontaneous combustion is quite logical. Lucas suggested fungi as a cause. Certainly, Carter found fungal growth in the tomb.

I think you've presented a sensible theory that can be supported by 1st hand accounts.
You found the one obvious thing I missed, which will teach me to write things from memory, and that is the description of the wrappings being carbonised. Still, I would like to know the mechanisms of this self combustion and where did the heat dissipate to, because there was no sign of any heat damage outside of the coffin, unless of course the heat escaped as gases. I think if anything this teaches, is that if an undisturbed royal tomb is ever found again, then the excavators need to put probes into the tomb before entering to analyse the air, and to be particualry dilligent in the openeing of sarcophagus and coffins, though of course they will be. Though I wonder about fungus being a contributory cause of the burning. One of the few new things shown on "Ultimate Tut" was that the fungus spots on the wall paintings have been inert for a long time and that comparison of the photos taken by Burton with photos taken now, show that the spots are identical, that they are not growing as was thought. Anyway, all the other mysteries still remain, the missing collar and sternum etc


#6    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 16 July 2013 - 11:42 AM

I'm not an expert but I've visited Egypt twice, both times to the Valley of the Kings and the Cairo Museum among other places. So at least I have some 1st hand knowledge about what we're discussing. :yes:

Tut's tomb has had serious salt corrosion and although that might not qualify as fungal infestation, it does suggest that organisms have been growing inside the tomb.

I've visited the mummy chamber at the Cairo Museum and those mummies are in way better shape than Tut. Not burnt or blackened.

Tut's tomb was appropriated and his burial quick but certainly not cheap. Although, if Ramses II tomb had ever been found intact, I might just eat my words. The only reason Tut's tomb was so relatively intact was because he was forgotten and other tombs were built on top of his.

I haven't seen the docu you refer to but  your theory about spontaneous combustion is completely plausible. How did the heat escape? Gases, as you suggest.

Have you ever read Philipp Vandenburg's The Forgotten Pharoah? I have my copy I bought in Aswan in 1988 and I must read it again. He has the Pharoah's curse as full on fungal retribution! It's a good read but I doubt it.

Very interesting topic and thanks for posting it.


#7    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,657 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 17 July 2013 - 02:50 AM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 16 July 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Until a few days ago I would have agreed with all, but now I am not so sure. Certainly this experiment with resin soaked linen was flawed, as all it did was prove that the resin they used in the experiment would self combust, and as I said, did not replicate all the various substances that Tutankhamun was soaked in, or the conditions in his coffin. Yet I now have the opinion that proof needs to be provided that he was not burnt before mummification. As I wrote, I cannot give even one piece of evidence for my theory, but as I also wrote, when confronted with a burnt body, surely it must first be presumed that burning was the cause of death, or carbon monoxide poisoning if the victim was "lucky". To me it seems odd that he is burnt, but his wrappings are not. This needs an explanation, also why the various ornaments within the wrappings and more importantly, next to his skin, also not show heat damage. Certainly he is desicated, but consider that if he had been burnt prior to mummification, then he would of course still be desicated, in fact I contend that he would, because of being burnt, become even more desicated than normal, which is evident in the pitiful state of his mummy.

<<Snip>>

I probably don't have too much to add at the moment but would like to agree about the tenuous nature of the experiment with resins and linen. While very interesting, it doesn't accurately duplicate the real-time conditions of either Tut's mummification or the conditions of his interment. As I previously mentioned, resins were unlikely the only substances used on the mummy and its wrappings. It would take a sophisticated scientific, chemical analysis to determine, if even possible, the kinds of unguents, oils, and other substances applied to the body and wrappings. More than that, the precise quantities and densities would need to be determined. Moreover, no one can know precisely when the outer bodily tissues and some of the bandages carbonized. Was it within days of interment? Weeks or months? All of this would need to be nailed down, as well as a solid understanding of the climatic and environmental conditions within the tomb at that point in the fourteenth century BCE.

It would indeed be interesting to have even more specialists examine the body. It might even happen at some point—if Egypt ever gets its act together. More than likely, in the future, there will be many more extensive studies of the mummies in Egypt's possession. That was the whole point of the program Hawass begun, but it ended abruptly with Mubarak's ouster. The so-called Muslim Brotherhood achieved considerably less in its short tenure over Egypt. LOL Let's see what next week's ruling faction can do, or the one after that.

I do not think Tut burned to death, in my own opinion. As many specialists who've studied every square centimeter of Tut's body, none have ever posited the fire-fatality angle either, to my knowledge. I was fortunate in my days as a paramedic never to have encountered a fire fatality (one of the few gruesome things I didn't see), but between my medical training and my own research in forensic science, I do not see real evidence that Tut burned to death.

Believe it or not Tut is not the only mummy that looks this way. Quite a few do, although most not quite to his extent. The application of resins and unguents caused a chemical oxidation that turned the bodies black, and given that the resins adhered to the skin like glue, once the resins dried out and began to flake, so did the mummy's desiccated flesh. You'll see quite a few mummies with cracked and friable skin tissue.

They really need lotions and skin moisturizers. :w00t:

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#8    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:59 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 17 July 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

Let's see what next week's ruling faction can do, or the one after that.
I would never presume to tell Egyptians what government they should have or how they should live, though from selfish point of view concerned only with AE, I think it is probably a good thing that the army has "returned". And though we laugh at Hawass for his excrutiatingly embarassing TV performances, I think it would be good if he returned to his job, as nobody else seems to be capable or has the passion and energy.

Without making another thread, I had thought about a moral issue with Egypt. A rhetorical question. If situation in Egypt becomes worse and it seems large scale anarchy or even civil war breaks out, then will the outside world have a moral imperitive to intervene. There are two issues about intervention, first for humanitarian reasons, but I put that to one side. Second is the moral dilema about intervening to save AE from warring modern Egyptians. To seem cold blooded, I can say that there are rather a lot of humans and we replicate easily and are not about to die out. But the remains of AE are finite, and once destroyed can never be replaced. Can a value in human lives lost be put on Karnak or the GP? If thousands die in any intervention to save the monuments and treasures, will that outweigh the need to save them, or would it be an unpleasant, but necessary cost. To be very brutal and blunt, we are "ten a penny" can be easily replaced and live only a short time anyway. Are we, in our countless billions, worth more than the great treasures of the past. For example, imagine a mob of ten thousand advancing on the GP to tear it down. We let this happen, but in 100 years all of this mob will be dead and forgoten, and we have no GP. But if we kill the mob, we keep the GP, and in 100 years the mob is still forgotten, the incident a dusty footnote in history, but the GP still stands. Which is more important? What will we do if the dilema occurs, as it may well do.


#9    Nefer-Ankhe

Nefer-Ankhe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 165 posts
  • Joined:21 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Female

  • "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Posted 20 July 2013 - 08:46 AM

Quote

If situation in Egypt becomes worse and it seems large scale anarchy or even civil war breaks out, then will the outside world have a moral imperitive to intervene.

If the outside world were to intervene with Egypt in such an outcome, Egypt will ultimately end up similar to Afghanistan.


On topic, I thought it was pretty much assumed, to some extent, that Tutankhamun broke his left leg (possibly via falling off a chariot whilst hunting), then from that and a weakened immune system from Malaria (I predict), suffered an infection, which ultimately lead to his demise approximately 24hrs later. As for the broken ribs, such a chariot accident could have resulted in such inflicted injuries, or were a result of much later mishandling. In any case, that's my theory, as for the "burnt body", I do not know.

"It is of course the height of irony that, after this intensive campaign to expunge them from the annals of Egypt, the Amarna pharaohs are today probably the most recognized of all the country's ancient rulers."

--- from Amarna Sunset, Aidan Dodson.

#10    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 20 July 2013 - 09:05 AM

View PostNefer-Ankhe, on 20 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

If the outside world were to intervene with Egypt in such an outcome, Egypt will ultimately end up similar to Afghanistan.


On topic, I thought it was pretty much assumed, to some extent, that Tutankhamun broke his left leg (possibly via falling off a chariot whilst hunting), then from that and a weakened immune system from Malaria (I predict), suffered an infection, which ultimately lead to his demise approximately 24hrs later. As for the broken ribs, such a chariot accident could have resulted in such inflicted injuries, or were a result of much later mishandling. In any case, that's my theory, as for the "burnt body", I do not know.
Ah, I forgot about Carter's description of the wrappings being like soot. So another theory thrown in the dustbin of history...... :blush:

I certainly think foriegn interference in Egypt would be a nightmare, and very unlikely. My post was realy about a matter of concience. Could we stand by and watch the Egyptian Museum pillaged and destroyed, or various sites destroyed. I don't think the pyramids are in real danger, but it would be a very easy task with a few big dozers to destroy Karnak for instance. Could we stand aside IF this happened, I don't know.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 20 July 2013 - 09:05 AM.


#11    CHRIS_UK

CHRIS_UK

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yorkshire

  • Humour is the key :D

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:33 AM

Another excellent, very interesting thread, tyvm to the OP


#12    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:40 AM

Though I had to knock down my own theory   :cry:
Thanks anyway, and perhaps you were referring to the moral question about defending Egypt from chaos?


#13    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 20 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

Hey, you put up a position for people to discuss. That's a great thing to do. :yes:

Unless the Egyptian authorities release Tut's remains again, we have to go with what we know. And honestly, I really think we've reached the limit of what medical science can deduce from Tut.

I don't think he was murdered. I think he was a product of inbreeding and not physically strong enough to survive.

But, you know, no-one ever seems interested in what, to me, is the most wonderful part of Tut's story. And that's Carter's painstaking search for his tomb and the way in which Carter began what is modern archaeology by systematically drawing and plotting every find in the tomb.

Yes, I know there are some dodgy dealings but it was still a remarkable piece of detective work.


#14    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 20 July 2013 - 01:19 PM

View PostAntilles, on 20 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Hey, you put up a position for people to discuss. That's a great thing to do. :yes:

Unless the Egyptian authorities release Tut's remains again, we have to go with what we know. And honestly, I really think we've reached the limit of what medical science can deduce from Tut.

I don't think he was murdered. I think he was a product of inbreeding and not physically strong enough to survive.

But, you know, no-one ever seems interested in what, to me, is the most wonderful part of Tut's story. And that's Carter's painstaking search for his tomb and the way in which Carter began what is modern archaeology by systematically drawing and plotting every find in the tomb.

Yes, I know there are some dodgy dealings but it was still a remarkable piece of detective work.
Thank you.
And you are absolutely correct about Carter. I mentioned in a previous post that he was between a rock and a hard place in how to extricate Tutankhamun from his coffin. But we are very lucky that Carter was the man who found him, in fact there was nobody better, as he was, in my opinon, ahead of his times, particulary in gathering together such a team of experts to help him.

Hmm, though I knocked down my own theory, there is of course a possibility, no matter how small, that he did indeed die in a fire and was perhaps "singed", then further burnt as a result of the various resins and unguents self combusting. I clutch at straws I know, but we all know that sometimes bizarre things do happen. I still think experiments should be carried out, if not least to prepare people for what they may find if, or when, another royal burial is found.


#15    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,910 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 20 July 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 17 July 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

I would never presume to tell Egyptians what government they should have or how they should live, though from selfish point of view concerned only with AE, I think it is probably a good thing that the army has "returned". And though we laugh at Hawass for his excrutiatingly embarassing TV performances, I think it would be good if he returned to his job, as nobody else seems to be capable or has the passion and energy.

Without making another thread, I had thought about a moral issue with Egypt. A rhetorical question. If situation in Egypt becomes worse and it seems large scale anarchy or even civil war breaks out, then will the outside world have a moral imperitive to intervene. There are two issues about intervention, first for humanitarian reasons, but I put that to one side. Second is the moral dilema about intervening to save AE from warring modern Egyptians. To seem cold blooded, I can say that there are rather a lot of humans and we replicate easily and are not about to die out. But the remains of AE are finite, and once destroyed can never be replaced. Can a value in human lives lost be put on Karnak or the GP? If thousands die in any intervention to save the monuments and treasures, will that outweigh the need to save them, or would it be an unpleasant, but necessary cost. To be very brutal and blunt, we are "ten a penny" can be easily replaced and live only a short time anyway. Are we, in our countless billions, worth more than the great treasures of the past. For example, imagine a mob of ten thousand advancing on the GP to tear it down. We let this happen, but in 100 years all of this mob will be dead and forgoten, and we have no GP. But if we kill the mob, we keep the GP, and in 100 years the mob is still forgotten, the incident a dusty footnote in history, but the GP still stands. Which is more important? What will we do if the dilema occurs, as it may well do.

I have to disagree with you here.  One human life is worth a million dead human lives.  The
loss to the world of ancient Egypt would be incalculable but it shouldn't affect a decision to help
or intervene in Egyptian affairs.  Let's pray it never becomes an issue.

I'm still highly optimistic that Egypt will become the Egypt best suite to Egyptians of their own doing.

I strongly agree that the ancient ruins are very worthy of any help or protection the rest of the world can
offer.  

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 17 July 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

I would never presume to tell Egyptians what government they should have or how they should live, though from selfish point of view concerned only with AE, I think it is probably a good thing that the army has "returned". And though we laugh at Hawass for his excrutiatingly embarassing TV performances, I think it would be good if he returned to his job, as nobody else seems to be capable or has the passion and energy.

Without making another thread, I had thought about a moral issue with Egypt. A rhetorical question. If situation in Egypt becomes worse and it seems large scale anarchy or even civil war breaks out, then will the outside world have a moral imperitive to intervene. There are two issues about intervention, first for humanitarian reasons, but I put that to one side. Second is the moral dilema about intervening to save AE from warring modern Egyptians. To seem cold blooded, I can say that there are rather a lot of humans and we replicate easily and are not about to die out. But the remains of AE are finite, and once destroyed can never be replaced. Can a value in human lives lost be put on Karnak or the GP? If thousands die in any intervention to save the monuments and treasures, will that outweigh the need to save them, or would it be an unpleasant, but necessary cost. To be very brutal and blunt, we are "ten a penny" can be easily replaced and live only a short time anyway. Are we, in our countless billions, worth more than the great treasures of the past. For example, imagine a mob of ten thousand advancing on the GP to tear it down. We let this happen, but in 100 years all of this mob will be dead and forgoten, and we have no GP. But if we kill the mob, we keep the GP, and in 100 years the mob is still forgotten, the incident a dusty footnote in history, but the GP still stands. Which is more important? What will we do if the dilema occurs, as it may well do.


Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users