Hi JTEM.
Thanks, again, but this is just "propaganda" if you do not quote
"specifically" in rebuttal to my SPECIFIC quote. That is an archaeologist
examining the mummy of A III saying:
1) A unique embalming process was carried out.
2) Tha the mummy matched the presumed historical age for Amenhotep III
who
began in his youth and ruled for 37 years. If he was 13 when he began to
rule then he still would have been only around 50.
This contrasts with your direct statement in rebuttal that he was very old
and near the time of his natural death.
"JTEM" <jtem01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:bf5b5b7c-99f9-47e1-a695-e037b6b2689c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Oh, please! Now YOU'RE playing the misleading game.
As I already pointed out once, here's a thread FROM A YEAR
AND A HALF AGO in which everything was explained to you.
You're pretending that this thread never happened, that a real
Egyptologists didn't answer your questions on this subject,
set you straight... totally debunk that insane wishful thinking
you call a theory...
http://tinyurl.com/2q8stm
Thanks, but again, all you give if a long thread that include my counter
arguments. It is only your presumption and *****sment that the issues
were
adequately addressed. So just posting the thread and "saying" I was
rebutted is no different than just saying we argued about this in the past
and you won, showing no more proof than that. But thanks for the memory.
Here's Marianne Luban's short response to this, which of course, since you
are not specific, I can't tell if this is the reference from an
"archaeologist" that you had in mind. She comments nonspecifically and
inconclusively. This is just her suspicion:
"The mummy of Amenhotep III could have received special attention
because, going by some of his statues, he was quite a fat man. After
dehydration with natron, all that remains is loose skin over bone. The
thinner the person had been in life, the closer the skin adhered to the
bone. Rather than have all that skin, stretched out by fat, just
hanging there in folds, someone may have gotten the idea to fill that
in with some handy compound--like liquid resin--and attempt to give the
body a more normal shape, resembling the king in life. However, for
whatever reason this was done, it was a disastrous idea--because the
mummy of A III is one of the worst preserved specimens of the kings of
Egypt--unlike those mummies of the 21st Dynasty, limbs stuffed in a
different manner. They are very well-preserved, indeed."
Luban presents her idea as to why the special process might have been used
but does not dismiss that, indeed, Am III was embalmed with a special
process. Further, she says it is is the "worst preserved" of all the
specifics. This also suggests a delay in the embalming process, all other
kings being readily available for immediate embalming.
So if you're going to quote the past and then give your "own *****sment"
of
a rebuttal, it's not working. I could just as easily say, and rightly
so,
those issues were inadequately or poorly addressed in those same threads.
Understand?
In the meantime, I'm directly quoting others about this special embalming
process. I didn't invent it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.ancient-egypt/browse_frm/thread/31011288e1870a36/b67d45de13bbfc59?#b67d45de13bbfc59
Some IS being misleading here, you shameless skank hole,
and it's you!
NO. You can call names, accuse, fine. BUT where is your REBUTTAL? It's
missing!! You want more from the above quote from Marianne?
For A III to have been the one drowned, one has to IMAGINE him being in
the position to personally get in his chariot and chase after some
people. MY GUESS would be that this king never even went to war in his
life against any people. His reign was known for diplomacy and
personal indulgence. When he was younger, it is said, he liked to hunt
animals. Even when he died, A III was probably not a very old man. He
came to the throne young and reigned 38 years. Probably, he was under
50 at death--but, come to think of it, that was considered an "old" man
in AE"
An opinion is fine, but that doesn't dismiss other opinions. The FACT is
I
am not misrepresenting the facts as you say:
1) Everybody (except you) accept the mummification process was unique.
2) Everybody (except you) accept that he was 50 or under when he died.
So sorry, JTEM, this time you're "out of the loop" of reality here and the
quotes you provided are just some other opinions as to WHY the special
embalming process might have been undertaken. That's fine. My only point
is that this king's mummification and preservation had already been noted
compared to all the other mummies was poor and involved special measures.
We don't specifically know why. It could have been related to his being
obese, maybe, but that could have been complicated as well if he drowned
and
his body was not recovered for a couple of days.
Again, I misrepresent nothing and claim only two things:
1) The exact cause of death is not known and there was a special
embalming
process used with this pharaoh.
2) He died at 50 or slightly younger, which forensics say, thus he did
not
die of extreme old age.
Thanks for the response in rebuttal, but you haven't rebutted anything.
Lars Wilson
|
