Rameses: Wrath of God or Man?
Dec 05 09:00pm

Egypt Week Live
Dec 06 08:00pm

Mysterious Death of Cleopatra
Dec 06 09:00pm

Nile: Land of the Crocodiles
Dec 07 08:00pm

Mummy Autopsy
Dec 07 09:00pm

The Sphinx Unmasked
Dec 08 09:00pm

Pharaoh's Revenge: Egypt's Lost Treasure
Dec 09 09:00pm

This one already appears more scholarly than the Nefertiti movie...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
facial reconstructions of Ramses and his son http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/rameses/faces/faces.html

---

First of all I must agree that the actress playing Nefatari was indeed a beauty. Where is she from Morocco?

Secondly I was disappointed in the process that went into the ocnstruction and well as the quality of the construction. Its seems like they were hesitant about adding colour to them whether it was brown or pink. They did not even look like modern humans. I also expected a blinded reconstruction of both Rameses and his son. The criminal forensic anthropology was a blind reconstruction but the construction of the skulls were not. The tip of the nose that was placed on Rameses' son was not human like and I am sure they exaggerated that.

It almost seems to me that it was a reactionary reconstruction to balance the images of Tut and the mummy believed to be that of Nefertiti. If this was a blind study I would have nothing to say reguarding the outcome. As soon as I realized that it was not a blind reconstruction I knew what to expect.

quote:

---

The actress playing Nefertari is freakin beautiful...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:

Secondly I was disappointed in the process that went into the ocnstruction and well as the quality of the construction. Its seems like they were hesitant about adding colour to them whether it was brown or pink. They did not even look like modern humans. I also expected a blinded reconstruction of both Rameses and his son. The criminal forensic anthropology was a blind reconstruction but the construction of the skulls were not. The tip of the nose that was placed on Rameses' son was not human like and I am sure they exaggerated that.

---

I agree. I have seen other reconstructions that protray Ramsese with white skin and red hair (likening him to some type European looking Scottsman/Irishman) But hey, maybe he could have really looked like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:

It almost seems to me that it was a reactionary reconstruction to balance the images of Tut and the mummy believed to be that of Nefertiti. If this was a blind study I would have nothing to say reguarding the outcome. As soon as I realized that it was not a blind reconstruction I knew what to expect.

---

Keino:
Question, how do you know it was not a blind reconstruction?

- The dramatizations were great. Very cinematic, yet realistic. I wish Hollywood movies could aim to gain this kind of realism when portraying ancient Egypt. Good cinematography, and great narration by Morgan Freeman.

What I didn't like about the show:

- The movie gives the impression that there is no doubt that Rameses II was the Pharoah of the Exodus. This is not true. The Bible never names the Pharoah of the Exodus and there are several different theories about whom it may be. I would have liked Kent Weeks to explain why he believes Rameses II is the unnamed Pharoah.

- The subject of the film is the killing of Rameses' son but in order to prove his death was related to the Exodus, you have to first prove that Rameses and only Rameses was the Pharoah of the Exodus...

- At one point in the movie there was seemingly misleading information about Rameses II and Akhenaten. I believe the narrator said that Rameses was reponsible for erasing Akhenaten from history. This is false. Horemheb was responsible for wiping Akhenaten from Egyptian history.

Other than that, it was a very entertaining movie and I wouldn't mind seeing the actress who played Neferteri a few more times

Still, I found the movie's findings very unconvincing...

quote:

---

Originally posted by anacalypsis:
I agree, that she was REAL pretty.

Keino:
Question, how do you know it was not a blind reconstruction?

Also, do you have a link or picture of the Tutt and Nefertiti recontruction??

---

We've actually touched on the topic of facial reconstructions before, and I had posted some pictures from Discovery Channel in this thread:
Mummy Facial Reconstructions

quote:

---

Keino...
The woman portraying the queen is a native of one of the countries listed below:
-Egypt
-Somalia
-Nubia (N. Sudan)
-Etheopia
I know because I cast her.

---

Okay, I'll bite:

I am for the most part new to the forum. I've been reading it for quite a while now, but I've only posted a couple times before!

I also saw the Rameses documentary tonight on the Discovery Channel. And I can honestly say I agree with some of you on key points.

One:

I thought the women who portrayed Nefertari was absolutely gorgeous. Plane and simple, "The Woman is FIERCEEEEE" and in my own personal opinion should be in more adaptations of AE.

Two:

The reenactments were so/so I guess, I mean they were great at sum points. At other points they were laughable, or in other words.....Some reenactment scenes were very realistic, and others were not. But all in all, it was satisfying to some extent!

Three:

As for the facial reconstructions, I also think they could have taken more time with the reconstruction. The final results of the reconstructions of Rameses and his son, in my opinion were not very good at all. I mean Rameses's son, didn't even look human in some aspects. The only word to totally describe the way he came out looking is "Freaky", especially that nose, that they placed on him. I mean to be honest with the way the face looks, the eyes bulging out, and with that nose as well. Almost looks like a Halloween mask if you ask me, but then again, that's just my opinion. As for Rameses himself, I would say that is a fairly accurate representation of him, compared to other facial reconstructions I have seen of him on the web. The only thing different from this facial reconstruction, and the others I have seen is the skin pigmentation, which ausar referred to earlier in a previous post.

So all in all, from a scale of 1-10, I'd give the program a six. I should say though, it will be interesting to see the rest of the AE programs airing threw out this week. Also, is it just me, or do they seem to do this every December? Seems like every December they air a series of AE specials on discovery channel. They've done it for the previous 2 years, so I wonder is this going to be a recurring theme for every December to come?

quote:

---

Originally posted by theborg:
Keino...
The woman portraying the queen is a native of one of the countries listed below:
-Egypt
-Somalia
-Nubia (N. Sudan)
-Etheopia
I know because I cast her.

---

Rameses: Wrath of God or Man?
Dec 05 09:00pm

Egypt Week Live
Dec 06 08:00pm

Also here in the UK, they are starting the Egypt season on the 11th Dec. Be sure to watch it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
On the reconstructions, I think they're pretty accurate if you've seen Rameses II's mummy. His mummy is pretty well-preserved. I'll admit that they do look a bit semitic with the hooked nose and all but you have to remember that the royal family of the 19th dynasty was from the Delta and possibly of mixed Libyan and Canaanite ethnicity. Rameses II's height and facial features were not typical for ancient Egyptians.

---

I think the reconstruction of Ramses face may well have been accurate given the look of his mummy, his place of origin, the location of where he built his capital, etc. But the rest of the program is another story, no offense Borg, not your fault.

- I don't remember any evidence that suggested the skull was Ramses' first born?

- Where was the evidence that the Exodus even happened?

- Where was the evidence that Ramses son rebelled against him?

- They said Ramses was too old to be the Pharaoh that pursued the Israelites, if the incident did indeed happen. But Ramses reigned 67 years. It could have happened while he was still young.

- Kent Weeks did not even seem to support the arguments made by the program. He was just concerned with the skull and the contents of the tomb. The commercials made it seem like we would learn more.

- For some reason they keep casually forgetting to include any mention of Egypt's matrilineal culture, and instead imply that kingship is passed thru the male.

I did like that they showed the connection between Akhenaten and Moses, and the special effects were beautiful. All in all, I thought the Nefertiti program made a stronger argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The theme of the show was silly. There is not one scrap of archeological evidence that supports the Exodus as a historical event. It seems to me the program was attempting to be all things to all people. There was not even any acceptable proof that the skull in question belonged to Ramses eldest son. It could have just as easily been his 10th son.

---

The sad fact is that shows like the following only distort instead of helping the general public become more literature of ancient Egyptian soceity and culture. My suggestion for people is to read the Egyptology journals and books instead of relying upon television to inform you about ancient Kmt[Egyptian] soceity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by theborg:
Keino...
The woman portraying the queen is a native of one of the countries listed below:
-Egypt
-Somalia
-Nubia (N. Sudan)
-Etheopia
I know because I cast her.

---

Anyway its about an egyptian mummy whom they found along with her possible child. She dated back to the 17th dynasty. She wore Nubian Gold and used nubian pottery. The commentators asked why would an egyptian royal be "so closely linked to the arch enemy nubians? They were thinking that the mummy was of Nubian orgin but did a radioisotope of her teeth to find if she was egyptian. The isotope would tell if she grew up in nubia or egypt. It proved that she was indeed Egyptian.

Then they were doing forensic reconstruction of the royal mummy and her child. The reconstruction was horrible and they showed the general feature of both and they had it colored gold! It was not even a blind reconstruction! Why didn' they go all the way and do a descent representation of the reocnstruction including the process?

The actress playing the royal lady and child were more likely African-American or Ehtiopian and she was dark brown as the wall paintings depict many royal She was beautiful too but they didn't show much of her to get a really good look.

The jewelry and pottery were gerogous and honestly look like precious jewelry that exist today. I thought AE got most if not all of their gold from nubia, so why did the commentator made it seem like its was unlikely for an Egyptian queen to wear nubian gold and have nubian pottery?

Why is there misinformation that Nubians and AE were arch enemies without putting it into an era/time perspective? Nubia and AE were not always enemies just how America and Japan were not always ememies or allies. The context of the information is VERY IMPORTANT and I wounder how the discovery channel would allow such shoddy presentation of the realationship between nubia and AE.

Overall the programme was good but the reconstructions were poor.

The second part of the show is about an peruvian mummy and they are not hesitating to announce the orgins and race. They are analyzing the textiles and discovered that it was from china. Interesting show!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
Why is there misinformation that Nubians and AE were arch enemies without putting it into an era/time perspective?

---

quote:

---

Anyway its about an egyptian mummy whom they found along with her possible child. She dated back to the 17th dynasty. She wore Nubian Gold and used nubian pottery. The commentators asked why would an egyptian royal be "so closely linked to the arch enemy nubians? They were thinking that the mummy was of Nubian orgin but did a radioisotope of her teeth to find if she was egyptian. The isotope would tell if she grew up in nubia or egypt. It proved that she was indeed Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Bones from Egypt's Valley of the Kings are a sure-fire attention getter, but a big budget and lots of computer-generated images are not guarantees of a great program as the Discovery Channel's heavily promoted Rameses: Wrath of God or Man shows. Here, what could be an interesting, if less ambitious, documentary about trying to identify the human remains from KV 5 is hijacked by the biblical tale of the plagues and Exodus. The two threads--bones and Exodus--are followed by Kent Weeks (excavator of the tomb designated KV 5) and Charles Sennott (a Boston Globe reporter).

Sennott travels up and down Egypt like a junior detective looking for clues about Moses, the plagues, the Exodus, etc. A brief review is not the place to argue about whether such things happened; suffice it to say that after showing scholar Israel Finklestein say there's no evidence for it in the archaeological record, the program assumes that it and the plagues did happen and took place in the reign of Rameses II. Moses, who is shown as an adherent of the Atenist religion, kills Amun-her-khepeshef, Rameses' first-born son and commander of the army, in hand-to-hand combat during the flight from Egypt.

Sennott's investigation includes some pretty silly stuff, a low point being when he inquires if an encrustation of natron on the mummy of Merneptah, another of Rameses sons and his eventual successor, could be salt from the Red Sea, deposited when the waters overwhelmed the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites. How the Egyptologist asked that question kept a straight face is beyond me. Another problem with this production is the repetitive use of re-enactments and computer-generated biblical plagues. Not only are they over-used, they are at times confusing. For example, Moses is shown at an age of around 60 years confronting a youthful Rameses, while shortly before he is shown as a child playing with Rameses' son Amun-her-khepeshef. Rameses lived a long time, but he wasn't ageless. The scenes of Nefertari and Rameses making love might have come from another program, perhaps with the title Spicey Sex Lives of the Pharaohs, or something like that.

The bones from KV 5 are what's really of interest in this show, but there are lots of unanswered questions about them. They come from a pit dug into the floor of chamber 2 in KV 5, which is near the tomb's entrance. In addition to a cow foreleg (which had been mummified as a food offering) the pit yielded the skulls of three males, beneath which was the fully articulated skeleton of another male. This individual, it should also be noted, had his arms crossed in the pose seen in many of the royal mummies. In his book KV 5: A Preliminary Report (2000), Kent Weeks suggested that all four individuals might have been brought from chambers deeper in the tomb and been redposited here by looters in antiquity.

The show, at least in the advanced copy reviewed here, does not make it clear which of the four individuals Weeks believes is Amun-her-khepeshef, nor why he believes it is that prince in particular. Weeks is shown pointing out an inscription and relief near the entrance of the tomb naming Amun-her-khepeshef and showing him being led before Osiris, god of the underworld. Presumably that is the connection. If so, does that that means Weeks now suspects the body was originally buried in the chamber 2 pit? A skull fracture that happened around the time of death (whether it was the cause of death can't be proved, but it looks likely), might link with the prince's role as army commander--possibly he was a battlefield casualty, suggests Weeks.

Much of the time devoted to the bones is taken up with the examination and facial reconstruction done by Caroline Wilkinson. In a particularly interesting segment, we see Wilkinson and her assistant looking at a comparison of the heads of the supposed Amun-her-khepeshef, two of the other KV 5 skulls, and Rameses (from his mummy). Wilkinson points out that the proportions from eyes to nose and nose to chin are very close in Rameses and the other two skulls, but that the supposed Amun-her-khepeshef skull is much shorter nose to chin. Then she says that they all are long viewed in profile and have long, thin faces. She concludes "they do look to be of a type, certainly." The narrator says there's a "high statistical probablity" that all three are from the same family. I wish that Wilkinson had made her conclusions more clearly (not that I don't trust the narrator). For example, does "look to be of a type" mean immediate family, extended family, or something else? Is the difference in proportions significant or not?

This is important for two reasons. First, no DNA analysis was carried out, so one way that a family connection might be proved was eliminated before it was tried (success in recovering a usable sequence not, of course, guaranteed). Second, Weeks stated in KV 5: A Preliminary Report that "It is possible that chambers 1 and 2 of KV 5 together originally constituted a small Eighteenth Dynasty tomb that was later usurped and enlarged by Ramesses II." Are the skulls and the near complete articulated skeleton from chamber 2 all of 19th Dynasty date, the dynasty of Rameses II? If the shape of the supposed Amun-her-khepeshef skull doesn't quite match the others, could he be earlier (assuming it is from the skeleton)? There's no mention of radiocarbon dating the bones, which potentially could clarify this.

Who the gentlemen from the pit in chamber 2 are is an intriguing question. It's unfortunate that so much of this show is spent chasing the plagues and Exodus instead of going into more detail about the bones. Weeks is reportedly working on a publication of these remains, and I look forward to seeing his full presentation of the evidence and his interpretation there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
We've actually touched on the topic of facial reconstructions before, and I had posted some pictures from Discovery Channel in this thread:
[b]Mummy Facial Reconstructions

[/B]

---

I was staying overnight in Montreal after picking up the overstock of my third collection of my Egytpian themed comic book SHEBA (plug), when "Egypt Week" kicked off with the massively over-hyped "Ramses- Wrath of God or Man"

I have to say, this is like the worst Egypt documentary to come down the pike in a while.

What struck me first as extremely irritating was how after each commercial break, Morgan Freeman would ask the same rhetorical questions, almost as if it was still the beginning of the program (Possibly intended to hook in people who landed on the Discovery channel after channel surfing). I wonder how this endless repetition will play when one watches a tape of it?

Even more atrocious was how they showed the same bad computer animation/special fx/computer cloned guys on chariots over and over and over and over again.. Evidently the stucture of the program was designed for short attention spans, or maybe just people with short term memory loss.. About an hour into it I was yelling at Morgan Freeman to shut up and just GET TO THE POINT ALREADY!! Then I was like, how long is this going to be, three hours long?

Geez, they must have used that oh-so-cool computer animated footage of the first born's gettin' The Wrath o' God on their asses, like 17 times.. Even worse was the shot where they showed Ramses or whoever standing in front of a crowsand then they pulled the camera out WAY WAY WAY back so would see how much money they spent on computer animation.. Don't remember that shot? Well that's okay, they played it a couple of times in reverse too so they could get their money's worth out of it.

By the time you eliminate the redundant footage and the same questions asked after each commercial break, you're left with about 15 minutes of meat to the program. And all for what? For a weak arguement that maybe, well, maybe the guy with the HUGE nose is Ramses son- which doesn't prove anything biblical anyway. And oh yeah, a bunch of theories which were pretty much already known, and then one huge leap that that Boston Globe guy (can't remember his name) was making that maybe it wasn't Ramses but his son that followed Moses etc..etc.

Would someone please tell me how, if you've got just a skull and obviously you don't have any cartilige left off the nose, how do you end up with a honker that reaches all the way from Memphis to Upper Egypt? I mean, that nose didn't look anything like Ramses's ...s's'ss'' (How many "s"'s are there in his name anyway???).. The rest of his face didn't look too much like Ramses, but yet they were saying that maybe they were related, and even they seemed really shaky on that point... I guess if you're like most Westerners, you might think all Egyptians look the same .. But hey, they spent all that money on computer reconstructions on the skull, so we better use them anyway. Why don't they just do the DNA testing.. Do the Egyptian authorities not allow that? Note to producers- take some of that computer animation budget and use it to pay the Egyptian authorities to let you do DNA testing.

And yeah, just ignore the fact that poor Kent Weeks (I wonder if he saw the final docu-crap) said that there were like 2 other skeletons in the little room where they found Ramses' first born..

Amidst all the sensationalism here, It was nice to see them mention the whole Moses & Co. crossing the Sea of Reeds area (which makes a heck of a lot of sense since and Israelites would have most likely lived in the delta, and not way down south where Gee-if-we're-lucky-this-guy-Moses will part the Red Sea for us so we can get back home) Obviously changing "We got away because they got their chariots stuck in the swamp" to "You won't belive it! Moses Parted The Red Sea!" makes a much punchier story.. It's called embellishment, and hey, Homer used it too, to make the Trojan War lot lot cooler.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans who are watching this documentary probably had their intrest piqued by the whole Exodus thing and are watching it from a Every Word of the Bible is True and Darwin is the Devil perspective (the same ones who want to teach Creationism in public schools).

And even though the conclusion of "Ramses, Wrath of Man, God or maybe Khan?" seemed to suggest that it was probably gettin' whacked in the back of the head with a sword that killed Amun-her Khepeshef, the arguments were SOOO weak, the target audience can just go back to beliveing whatever they want to, ten plagues etc. etc..

For a good documentary with Biblical stuff that actually uses a scientific method to ask questions and admits that the real stories of the Old Testament might have gotten tarted up, check out "Pharoahs and Kings", by David Rohl. While I don't completley buy all his theories surrounding his alternate timeline for Egypt, it sure does make a lot more sense that what we're using today. I really like the connection he made with the plagues and statues of Amenemhat III where he looked pretty bummed out.

Anyway, it was also nice to see Ken Kitchen still kicking around in this new documentary.. He managed to get his 2 cents into there. I think he's been in every Egytpian documentary I've seen. Though he's certainly doesn't love the camera as much as Zawi Hawass, who's like everywhere. Though I seem to remember old Zawi in some godawful thing with Maury Pauvich that was about 100 times worse than the Ramses one.. I taped that one and actually stopped taping it half way through. Better to save that precious VHS tape for something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sheba:
Why don't they just do the DNA testing.. Do the Egyptian authorities not allow that? Note to producers- take some of that computer animation budget and use it to pay the Egyptian authorities to let you do DNA testing.

---

The Egyptian government has yet to permit DNA testing on mummies. There are pros and cons to DNA studies as well...

quote:

---

I thought they had done some testing on some of the late 18th Dynsaty family.. like Queen Tiye or something like that.. am I remembering that right?

-Wally

---

The problem with testing Dna from mummies is its extraction. The goal if extracting Dna is to get it from fresh material. Dna found in very ancient remains can often times be unreliable instead of fresh Dna. The tissue on mummies is often bad samples because its decayed and ruined from embalming materials.

The only reliable source of Dna on very ancient mummies is from the teeth. I believe there have been some testing on mummies by Scott Woodard and Nasry Iskander.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Sheba, Kent Weeks did not really want to do a biblical themeed production. The people behind the documentary are the people to blame for the sensationalism invovled with the production. Weeks just want the documentary to be a show piece for his findings in KV5. Discovery took it and ran with it. I think its sad that people rely on Discovery channel to get their Egyptology information instead of from books and Egyptology journals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
The Egyptian government has yet to permit DNA testing on mummies. There are pros and cons to DNA studies as well...

---

-First off, I am not the director of the film. I'm much, much higher on the food chain (although I am a member of the Directors Guild of America and a screenplay writer).
-Ausar...you've got to stop believing stuff you read on the net. That thing you keep quoting about Kent Weeks referring to the Rameses film as rubbish, etc., well I was with Kent and his wife at the Essex House Hotel in NYC, the whole week leading up to the night the film premiered, at a private event at The New Yorker magazine for an audience of his peers and others including the Egyptian Delegation to the UN, and he not only did not say that or anything approaching it, but we actually had two private screenings in London, one for Kent and one for Charles Sennott, so both men could make any changes they deemed necessary. After some minor word changes, both men signed off on the film as it aired. Also, someone raved that somewhere in the film Kent endosed the Exodus, not true. Not once in the film does he endorse or support either the bible, the torah, or the koran's telling of that story. He did tell Charles Sennott, he had his work cut out for himself trying to find proof of the Exodus and the characters connected with it. You don't have to believe me, write Kent and ask him for yourself. He did say the reconstructed head of the son needed thicker lips and a broader, flatter, nose, and I think he said the skin should have been darker. I will agree with you, the reconstructed head of the kid looked a little freaky. But, hey, what can I tell ya'? Ugly rich guys in my business get the best looking babes "all the time". Mel Brook's said it best "it's good to be the king".
-DNA testing in Egypt on mummies is a no-no. Salima never, ever, did any DNA tests on Nefertiti (that's right; Nefertiti). I bet she won't take a lie detector test. And Zahi won't be doing any DNA testing on Tut either. The Egyptian government shut him down on that front and on any possible movement of Tut from KV-62. By the way, I just optioned a great screenplay titled "KV-62" to an "A-list" producer in Hollywood. The script is hot. It's a movie, not a documentary. You guys will probably hate it. Of course an option does not mean it will get made, but, this is my 5th option, maybe I'll get lucky this time. If not, I get my script back and I get to keep the money.
-Anti-Arab, anti-white and anti-African racism on this forum is kind of disturbing. This soap-box is too important to be held hostage by bigots like Horemheb (how can a British guy who hates Africans, call himself Horemheb?) Ho, there's a couch and a guy wearing a white coat waiting for you somewhere, pal.
-Sheba - you wild and crazy critic you. Keep writing those comic books, kid, because you know absolutely zip about film-making. Though I will admit, you got me so upset, I went right out and purchased a new Range Rover. I gotta' tell ya', I feel "much better" now. Thanks.
-Cleopatra....I think someone said we didn't consult any experts on our film about the murder of Cleopatra. Not true. The very first expert is the Egyptian curator at the library at Alexandria. He agree's that Plutarch(sp?), in his writings, admits that he had absolutely no idea how Cleopatra met her end.
-This Forum...Ausar, you've got some really smart, heavy thinkers debating on this forum. You're lucky. Don't let it turn into Storm Front Junior.
-Nefertari....sorry bro's. I'm not telling.
-I almost forgot....the wig worn by the High Priest in "Nefertiti: Resurrected", was not something we "made up". It is modeled on the wigs in the Cairo Museum, which were made from the kinky hair of the priests.
-Finally....Watch "Pompeii" on Jan. 30th, and coming in April, the Discovery Channel movie "SuperVolcano" (both are mine!).

quote:

---

DNA testing in Egypt on mummies is a no-no. Salima never, ever, did any DNA tests on Nefertiti (that's right; Nefertiti). I bet she won't take a lie detector test.

---

quote:

---

-Nefertari....sorry bro's. I'm not telling.

---

This forum,theborg, started off as a racial fiasco that carried over from a debate in the LIving in Egypt section. The moderator's of this forum created this forum to divert attention from the mother forum. We are the outcasts of Egyptsearch,but it seems that Egyptsearch itself has went down the drain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by theborg:
DNA testing in Egypt on mummies is a no-no. Salima never, ever, did any DNA tests on Nefertiti (that's right; Nefertiti). I bet she won't take a lie detector test. And Zahi won't be doing any DNA testing on Tut either. The Egyptian government shut him down on that front and on any possible movement of Tut from KV-62.

---

Zahi Hawass was apparently lying about the DNA test on the mummy believed to be Nefertiti. He himself said during the Discovery Channel "Nefertiti Resurrected" program that DNA testing on the mummies is not accurate.

Why then commission a DNA test to prove the mummy's gender if he doubted the efficacy of DNA testing? Sounds like a conspiracy against Dr. Fletcher.

The facial reconstruction definitely looks female.

If he did allow a test which violated all professional ethical standards, and yet has the 'nerve' to publicly 'promote' the alleged results knowing full well that they are unverifiable...then he is corrupt.