JTEM wrote:
> mmcs_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > There is an awful lot of conjecture on this period in
> > Egyptian history, but it certainly seems that the
> > powers that be are in no hurry to move this debate
> > forward Would be intersted to hear anyone else's
> > thoughts on the matter.
>
> I think the problem is that this is one of those rare
> instances where a debate would be useful, and not
> necessarily an example of the 'Old Guard' protecting
> their idea of the truth.
>
> Well, okay, Hawass regularly inflicts his personal
> ideas on the world, tries to enforce them. But I
> think that most people -- real archaeologists and
> historians -- aren't so much used to a debate as
> they are with working with the evidence. And because
> of that they're uncomfortable with anyone who wants
> to label a mummy on the basis of good debating
> skills.
>
> I'd say that Joann Fletcher was on to something when
> she set out to identify Nefertiti. Oh, sure, he laid it
> heavy with the speculation, but she was thinking outside
> the box. After all, she is one of the few that set idea the
> idea that hieroglyphic inscriptions record the absolute
> truth & must be interpreted literally.
>
> Then again, that is a bit of a slippery slope...
Would somebody like Nefertiti still be given the crossed forearm,
under the possible cir***stances under which her reign ended? Even if
she'd held onto power as Smenkhare after Akhenaten's passing, there
would still have been some question as to her legitamacy.
If that facial wound were inflicted before death, it is likely that
her attacker was aligned with those who took power afterwards. They
might have been inclined to downgrade her status by denying the
crossed arm.
One thing that arises when appraising this mummy--the bandages inside
the exposed mouth. Was the mouth typically filled with a rolled
bandage, or only in the case of a gaping gash across the cheek?
|
