...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Tut-ankh-amun's lineage
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: Supercar, how about giving Jim a little "help" in understanding what you mean and to what questions you addressed.[/QUOTE]Already, you're right that this drilling has gone long enough unanswered. Hence, I'll cut to the chase; as I had presented earlier: Jim makes a rather claim that: [QUOTE]Posted by Jim: Your site is interesting in focusing on the mummy’s teeth,[/QUOTE]...which [i]according to him[/i], had led the author in the link I had provided, to make a determination that the mummy from KV 55, was that of an individual who had died at about the age of 35 years old. This of course raised a red flag, for I had found nowhere in the link, that the age was determined according to Jim's assessment. This prompted me to ask Jim the following question, for which a specific and coherent answer is still pending: [b][i]Whoever or whatever gave you that idea?[/i][/b] I asked the question above with the understanding, as I had provided earlier on, that the following was specifically stated about the mummy from KV 55: From the link: [i]...comparison of the cephalograms and cluster analysis revealed that the mummy supposed to be that of Thutmose IV bore the closest resemblance in craniofacial morphology to the remains of Tutankhamun and the skeleton from KV 55, often considered to be Smenkhkare. In 1984 the [b]nearly complete skeleton from KV 55[/b] was reconstructed, and the jaw was remounted in its correct position. As a result of further examination, the age at death of this individual has been estimated to be about 35 years, and the facial skeleton is even more similar to Tutankhamun's than had previously been thought.[/i] Jim doesn't tell us wherein the above, it is stated that the age of the specimen was determined from "focusing" on its "teeth". Moreover, I probed Jim further, and you guessed it...still no answer from him, other than the usual strawmen: [b][i]Ed Wente relies on James Harris, a bio-anthropologist/geneticist. Are these "Egyptologists" you talk about, bio-anthropologists?[/i][/b] The Deal: Jim tells us that the article I cited was focusing on the KV 55 mummy's teeth, so as to reach the conclusion that the remain is estimated to be that of an individual who died at an age of about 35 years. I followed Jim's comment with some questions, as demonstrated above, because as I said, as far as the KV 55 mummy is concerned, it is mentioned nowhere in the cited link, that the age of this mummy was specifically determined from 'focusing' on its 'teeth', or which parts of the remain had been analyzed for that matter, so as to come to that conclusion. Nor does it even state therein the citation, that this was determined by James Harris. Now, even if Jim's claims were true, his notion that the age mentioned in the link for the KV 55 mummy couldn't be valid, simply on the account that "many" Egyptologists supposedly "disagree" with it, doesn't hold water. This prompted me to bring to attention, Ed Wente's partnership with bio-anthropologist/geneticist James Harris. If the so-called "many Egyptologists" disagree with the age of 35, the question becomes, how many of these "Egyptologists" are bio-anthropologists, and have actually conducted tests on these mummies. Even then, how does their methods become any more valid than the analysis which determined the KV 55 mummy to be that of a 35 year old individual. These are questions that Jim needs to bear in mind. However, Jim was too busy arguing that this mummy must have been that of Smenkhkare vs. presumably, Akhenaten, such that my actual questions caught deff ears, just to make the point that this mummy would have been younger, and therefore, has to be that of Smenkhkare. He was so caught up in making in this case, that he even tried to [i]artificially[/i] pull me into his argument about the KV 55 mummy being Smenkhkare vs. Akhenaten, by attributing claims to me, which I had not made. The link I cited, provided a set of scientific possibilities based on examinations of crania of several royal mummies, not a single possibility. It also underlies uncertainties that have followed as a result of years of tempering with mummies throughout history, whereby even the labels of some mummies appear to have been misplaced. Hope this helps. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3