posted 14 May 2005 02:29 PM            

Four Egyptian individuals objected to the recent examination of King Tut. Their objection was not based on scientific evidence. Rather, one of the objectors wanted his name in the media and used his objection as an excuse to be in the newspapers. The second was upset because in the past he had wanted to do DNA testing on the mummy but the minister of culture, Farouk Hosni, refused his request because DNA testing had not been found to be accurate when dealing with mummies. He was therefore upset that another team was being allowed to do an examination of the mummy. This person acted like the devil. When he was on TV, his face was filled with fire, jealousy and hatred. It was a case of sour grapes. The third was a young archaeologist who believes he is an expert in mummies when in fact he is a novice who has the knowledge in archaeology of a recent graduate from university. The fourth, however, is a good friend of mine whom I respect. He was the one who first initiated the project, but resigned because of a disagreement we had. He wanted to control the reading of the CT-scan, and I wanted experts to read it to ensure it was read accurately without any speculation.

The whole world respected this scientific work and admired the Egyptian team who conducted the research, and it became a hot topic of discussion in newspapers all over the world. Yet one of the objections raised was to the effect that the examination did not follow scientific methods, and that no one on the team was a specialist in mummies. This was crazy! The team that conducted the research was a group of top archaeologists and experts in conservation from the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), and this elite team was lead by me personally.

We moved the mummy carefully to the CT-scanner, which was operated by an expert in the use of this machinery, Hani Abdel-Rahman. The data was to be analysed by top radiologists, pathologists and anthropologists. The objecting group believes the mummy should be put on a table to protect it. The mummy is in 13 pieces, consisting of isolated blocks. We could not, therefore, move the pieces that were put in a wooden tray above sand.

We did not announce the exact time of the research because we did not want thousands of people in the tomb disturbing the work. I made a deal with the Egyptian media and TV so they would be the first to publish the research, and we had local reporters at the site as well as French, Japanese and National Geographic TV reporters. National Geographic and Siemens donated the CT- scanning machine for the project. We gave National Geographic TV the story, like other TV stations from all over the world. We have to thank National Geographic for their cooperation and support in this important project.

While we were making preparations we had held a competition between National Geographic and the Discovery channel. We chose National Geographic because their proposal was better for the SCA. This shows the amount of competition between respected channels around the world to work in Egypt.

It is hard to believe how many issues were raised without anyone contacting us to learn the truth. We are doing scientific research on royal and non-royal mummies to understand important scientific information about their life, health, and diseases. Our work will be remembered and history will record that this seminal scientific work was carried out by an Egyptian team. People should be proud of the significant scientific work that is being done in Egypt and not raise objections in the newspapers just to cause a stir.

posted 14 May 2005 03:46 PM            

Since there are any number of conveniently long-held (read: "profitable") cultural, racial and religious illusions (read: conflicts) that require impetus and continual maintenance and an Ancient Egypt that could easily dissolve several of them if even half the known facts were made public, we can expect continued attempts at recidivism.

For media mavens and moguls it is a simple case of dividing and conquering what has already been rendered either obtuse or deliberately obscure through the work of past generations. Upon that alter alone too many exploitative barriers contort to serve political and economic ends, war itself being the "Health of the State" and the easiest way to accrue profit via the exploitation of artifically induced ethnocentric differences, fears and other tensions. Moreover, the current connection between American mainstram media and anything even remotely touching upon it (particularly client states like Egypt) amounts to an ideological contamination. Hawass' Tut appears to be more colonial whitewash and I think we can expect a continued outpouring of his nonsense regardless of how the archaelogical facts contradict the official party line.

posted 14 May 2005 03:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pimander:

Since there are any number of conveniently long-held (read: "profitable") cultural, racial and religious illusions (read: conflicts) that require impetus and continual maintenance and an Ancient Egypt that could easily dissolve several of them if even half the known facts were made public, we can expect continued attempts at recidivism.

For media mavens and moguls it is a simple case of dividing and conquering what has already been rendered either obtuse or deliberately obscure through the work of past generations. Upon that alter alone too many exploitative barriers contort to serve political and economic ends, war itself being the "Health of the State" and the easiest way to accrue profit via the exploitation of artifically induced ethnocentric differences, fears and other tensions. Moreover, the current connection between American mainstram media and anything even remotely touching upon it (particularly client states like Egypt) amounts to an ideological contamination. Hawass' Tut appears to be more colonial whitewash and I think we can expect a continued outpouring of his nonsense regardless of how the archaelogical facts contradict the official party line.

a bientot
DMc

---

Thought Writes:

Well said.

posted 14 May 2005 04:24 PM            

Haq, hâq, HAQ

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/standard/hawass1.jpg
ah, Dr hazizi hawass,
are you from Texas?

twt was darker, trust the artists& scribes, i would contest too, Dr hawass, monopolising and spreading ideas once again.
out burst, you should be ashamed.

grain of salt, or sand?

(I'll always remember that strange dream i had one night where he and Mr Mubarak were in military tunnels under the ground of a big Egyptian city, and many antiques were stocked there, some of which they agreed on taking.
A giant jade scarab was one of the items.)

posted 14 May 2005 06:00 PM            

quote:

---

(I'll always remember that strange dream i had one night where he and Mr Mubarak were in military tunnels under the ground of a big Egyptian city, and many antiques were stocked there, some of which they agreed on taking.
A giant jade scarab was one of the items.)

---

I agree with what you guys say. There is definitely some socio-political bias going on!

As an up and coming scientists to be, I can certainly tell you that there are discrepancies:

• Not only are there now 3 reconstructions, but you would expect that each newer one would be more accurate, instead this recent bears little resemblence to the tomb portraitures, let alone ancient Egyptians!
  
• Speaking of tomb portraitures, it seems that the artists did not them into account at all, even though they were made during Tut's lifetime. It's like doing a reconstruction of George Washington and totally ignoring painted portraits that Washington actually posed in!
  
• The cranial features were described as African, yet the nose alone was called European on account of the nasal index being narrow! As if a narrow nose is a European feature, considering that there are non-"caucasoid" populations around the globe that have such noses including peoples in East as well as North Africa!!

  ex:
  this Berber woman
  

• Another facial feature highly noted is his "overbite" or protruding teeth, which archaeologist use as a family trait linking him with other members of the 18th dynasty. But as already mentioned numerous times this feature is maxillary prognathism and prognathism is another trait associated with "negroids". Maxillary prognathism, in which the dental lining protrudes, was common among African peoples especially in East Africa!! I've actually seen on other forums, some whites who made racists remarks about "buck-toothed" Somalian immigrants!
  
  
• How did the artists reach the conclusion as to how soft tissue structures like the nose and lips look? The lips look somewhat smaller than the previous 2 constructions.
  
• It is said the artists base the skin color on modern day Egyptians, when we know that the people of modern day Egypt are, for the most part, different from ancient Egypt. If they were going to use a modern Egyptian they should have used a Fellahin, specifically one from Upper Egypt where Tut's family originated, if not, at least a Baladi. Instead the coloring looks like that of an Arab Egyptian from Cairo or Tell el Daba or something!
  
• Considering all these discrepancies, I really think the forensic artists were not at all objective in their reconstruction were not double blinded. I'm not surprised that they had full clearance to the knowledge that not only is the skull and Egyptian mummy, but that of king Tut. And that the further forensic analysis as to how Tut died--that it was caused by an infection due to a broken leg, was all the excuse needed to do a re-re-reconstruction that would be more "satisfying" to Hawass's folk.

posted 15 May 2005 12:34 PM            

It makes it seem as if you're trying to bump your remarks to the top of the forum.

posted 15 May 2005 12:36 PM            

These are all the discrepancies with the Tut reconstruction issue!

posted 15 May 2005 12:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QUOTE](I'll always remember that strange dream i had one night where he and Mr Mubarak were in military tunnels under the ground of a big Egyptian city, and many antiques were stocked there, some of which they agreed on taking.
A giant jade scarab was one of the items.)

---

I agree with what you guys say. There is definitely some socio-political bias going on!

As an up and coming scientists to be, I can certainly tell you that there are discrepancies:

• Not only are there now 3 reconstructions, but you would expect that each newer one would be more accurate, instead this recent bears little resemblence to the tomb portraitures, let alone ancient Egyptians!
  
• Speaking of tomb portraitures, it seems that the artists did not them into account at all, even though they were made during Tut's lifetime. It's like doing a reconstruction of George Washington and totally ignoring painted portraits that Washington actually posed in!
  
• The cranial features were described as African, yet the nose alone was called European on account of the nasal index being narrow! As if a narrow nose is a European feature, considering that there are non-"caucasoid" populations around the globe that have such noses including peoples in East as well as North Africa!! ex:
  this Berber woman
  
• Another facial feature highly noted is his "overbite" or protruding teeth, which archaeologist use as a family trait linking him with other members of the 18th dynasty. But as already mentioned numerous times this feature is maxillary prognathism and prognathism is another trait associated with "negroids". Maxillary prognathism, in which the dental lining protrudes, was common among African peoples especially in East Africa!! I've actually seen on other forums, some whites who made racists remarks about "buck-toothed" Somalian immigrants!
  
  
• How did the artists reach the conclusion as to how soft tissue structures like the nose and lips look? The lips look somewhat smaller than the previous 2 constructions.
  
• It is said the artists base the skin color on modern day Egyptians, when we know that the people of modern day Egypt are, for the most part, different from ancient Egypt. If they were going to use a modern Egyptian they should have used a Fellahin, specifically one from Upper Egypt where Tut's family originated, if not, at least a Baladi. Instead the coloring looks like that of an Arab Egyptian from Cairo or Tell el Daba or something!
  
• Considering all these discrepancies, I really think the forensic artists were not at all objective in their reconstruction were not double blinded. I'm not surprised that they had full clearance to the knowledge that not only is the skull and Egyptian mummy, but that of king Tut. And that the further forensic analysis as to how Tut died--that it was caused by an infection due to a broken leg, was all the excuse needed to do a re-re-reconstruction that would be more "satisfying" to Hawass's folk.

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 15 May 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed! I think this obviously forced and strategic new reconsturction is going to let the cat out of the bag so to speak about the cover up and suppresion about well known facts about ancient egyptians. I watched a programme on the discovery channel on saturday that blended the "Who killed King Tut" with small parts of what eluded to this new case on The natinal geographic channel. The american forensic team still seem pretty sure that Tut was killed and that there CT methods were correct based on their double blinded forensic reconstruction. Hope someone watched it too.

p.s. Not to get focused on nose because africans vary in nose morphology as others do ( except europeans whom vary to a much lesser extent), but wideness of the nose is easy to get from the skull. The problem is the fleshy portion of the nose. There must have been some blatant manipulation of the nasil indicies on the part of either forensic anthropologist in order to come up with such a different nasal indicies. Why would one team of forensic scientist exaggerate while the other reduce the wideness of the nose? 1+1 does not equal 2 here!

posted 15 May 2005 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

The objections to dr. hawass by some on this board is based on nothing more than the fact that he does not support the silly ideas put forward here. Its really as simple as that.

---

Thought Writes:

Actually no, the basis of the objections to the Hawas view is that he uses discredited, psuedo-scientific racial classification systems such as 'North African Caucasoid'.

posted 15 May 2005 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The objections to dr. hawass by some on this board is based on nothing more than the fact that he does not support the silly ideas put forward here. Its really as simple as that.

---

And exactly what ideas are you referring to and what is so silly about them? As if your ideas of indigenous African caucasians is makes perfect sense!

You have not even attempted to address the discrepancies I have posted, nor have you addressed any of what I repeated about the peoples of North Africa!

posted 15 May 2005 01:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

You have not even attempted to address the discrepancies I have posted, nor have you addressed any of what I repeated about the peoples of North Africa!

---

Thought Writes:

Djehuti, if you are anticipating some substantive response from Horemheb don't hold your breath.

posted 15 May 2005 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Actually no, the basis of the objections to the Hawas view is that he uses discredited, psuedo-scientific racial classification systems such as 'North African Caucasoid'.

---

Of course Hawass defensive posturing is in response to Egyptians criticisms of his non professionalism - one of his critics is an Egyptian archaeologist, and another he describes as a good friend whom he respects.

Hey, don't blame me. I PRAISED Hawass for his timing, tactics and Machiavellian approach to disinformation.

But if he keeps whining about being picked on by his peers and countrymen, I may have to recant.

posted 15 May 2005 01:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Thought, He doesn't use the spin you want to use, that is the problem.

---

Thought Writes:

The point is modern anthropology has rejected the idea of racial classifications based upon taxonomy. Hence the Hawas comment that Tut was a 'North African Caucasoid' falls within the realm of psuedo-science.

posted 15 May 2005 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Thought, He doesn't use the spin you want to use, that is the problem. You discredited yourself beyond repair with the absurd ideas on Greece you put forward. After that, any objective person is going to question every position you take.

---

Horemheb, regardless of what these guys say about Greece, we are discussing Egypt, and what you say about Egypt(caucasians in North Africa) is no different from what they say about Greece(negroes in southern Europe)!!

And you still have not addressed any of my claims which are valid!

posted 15 May 2005 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Thought, I am not going to get into a silly argument like that. It would be like saying the Incas were decendants of the Vikings and lets discuss it. The problem is that like most Afrocentrics you go too far. It is one thing to have different views out on the edges of history, its quite another to try to rewrite history at the most basic level. Until you get the modern politics out of your scholarship you are always going to be frustrated with people like Dr. Hawass.

---

hrems hasnt really proven anything since im a new member of this forum...him and others i need not name ...havent really proven much but opinions....

unlike others..trolls.. who have attempted to put forth some material..flawed and out dated... dont expect horem to contribute... with a tad bit of modern, scientific, proof to his opinions..

posted 15 May 2005 05:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Thought, I am not going to get into a silly argument like that. It would be like saying the Incas were decendants of the Vikings and lets discuss it. The problem is that like most Afrocentrics you go too far. It is one thing to have different views out on the edges of history, its quite another to try to rewrite history at the most basic level. Until you get the modern politics out of your scholarship you are always going to be frustrated with people like Dr. Hawass.

---

horem....eurocentric fool... your the last to comment on afrocentrism...since anything that doesnt fit in the paralysis of your eurocentric imagination is automatically considered afrocentric...

Yes...Egypt was a African Civilization...

whether you can swallow those words whole or bite sized....

seems unfortuante that eurocentrics as yourself supposedly were in no shape or form neither Responsible for the Incas or the pyramids...