A three-dimensional CT scan of the feet of Ramesses III, showing the thick linen wrappings. Credit: Sahar Saleem and Zahi Hawass.
Posted on 03/31/2016 12:28:49 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
The reign of Ramesses III, the second pharaoh in Egypt’s 20th dynasty, was not the most stable chapter in the empire's history. There were endless wars with the “Sea Peoples”... which drained the treasury, bad weather that interrupted food supplies, along with political unrest...
In 2012, eminent Egyptologist Zahi Hawass and Cairo University radiologist Sahar Saleem scanned Ramesses III mummy and revealed that an assassin cut through his esophagus and trachea, killing him almost instantly. But a new book by the pair... makes the story a little more complicated, suggesting that the pharaoh was likely murdered by multiple assailants.
The mummy scans show that Ramesses III had one of his big toes hacked off, as Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience reports, and that the wound never had time to heal, meaning it likely happened at the same time his throat was slit...
But it seems Ramesses III's embalmers didn’t want the royal squabble to follow the pharaoh into the afterlife. According to Discovery News they attempted to hide Ramesses wounds, performing a little post-mortem cosmetic surgery. They fashioned a fake toe out of linen and covered it in heavy layers of resin. When researchers in the 19th century tried unwrapping the mummy, they couldn’t get the linen off his feet. It wasn’t until the CT scan that researchers found out why...
The scans also reveal materials were stuffed under the deceased pharaoh's skin to make him more plump and attractive for when he met Osiris, a little nip and tuck trick that's found on several other mummies, including King Tut.
(Excerpt) Read more at smithsonianmag.com ...
A three-dimensional CT scan of the feet of Ramesses III, showing the thick linen wrappings. Credit: Sahar Saleem and Zahi Hawass.
[this is one of *those* topics for the Catastrophism list, as well as being a GGG topic]The Assyrian Conquest: The Sequence of DynastiesThe transition of power from the Eighteenth to the Nineteenth Dynasty is regarded as an obscure period of Egyptian history. The circumstances under which the Nineteenth Dynasty was established are said to be unknown. This Dynasty is one of the most famous successions of pharaohs—Ramses I, Seti I, Ramses II, and Merneptah. Still another name is preserved, that of Haremhab. He belonged neither to the Eighteenth nor to the Nineteenth Dynasty; he was not a descendant of Akhnaton, nor was he an ancestor of the Ramessides. He is supposed to have ruled Egypt during an interregnum. It is not apparent why he was “chosen to be king” and to administer Egypt. Nothing is known of his end. The idea so often expressed that Haremhab was a successor of Ay is baseless. We shall encounter Haremhab later in this volume—but he lived one hundred and fifty years after Ay... the Libyan and Ethiopian dyansties followed closely the Eighteenth Dynasty and preceded the Nineteenth and the Twentieth. This result of the present reconstruction is probably the most unexpected of all. Yet in Peoples of the Sea (1977) the time of Ramses III and with him the entire Twentieth Dynasty have already been shown to belong into the fourth century; and the volume Ramses II and His Time (1978) has carried the task of identifying the Nineteenth Dynasty as synonymous with the Twenty-sixth, that of Necho I, Psammetichus, Necho II, and Apries. The so-called Nineteenth Dynasty will be found to have been displaced not only by the five hundred and forty years of error in the dating of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but also by an additional one hundred and seventy years—the duration of the Libyan and Ethiopian dominations over Egypt: and the total error will be found reaching the huge figure of seven hundred years
Immanuel Velikovsky
[this is one of *those* topics for the Catastrophism list, as well as being a GGG topic]The Assyrian Conquest: The Sequence of DynastiesThe transition of power from the Eighteenth to the Nineteenth Dynasty is regarded as an obscure period of Egyptian history. The circumstances under which the Nineteenth Dynasty was established are said to be unknown. This Dynasty is one of the most famous successions of pharaohs—Ramses I, Seti I, Ramses II, and Merneptah. Still another name is preserved, that of Haremhab. He belonged neither to the Eighteenth nor to the Nineteenth Dynasty; he was not a descendant of Akhnaton, nor was he an ancestor of the Ramessides. He is supposed to have ruled Egypt during an interregnum. It is not apparent why he was “chosen to be king” and to administer Egypt. Nothing is known of his end. The idea so often expressed that Haremhab was a successor of Ay is baseless. We shall encounter Haremhab later in this volume—but he lived one hundred and fifty years after Ay... the Libyan and Ethiopian dyansties followed closely the Eighteenth Dynasty and preceded the Nineteenth and the Twentieth. This result of the present reconstruction is probably the most unexpected of all. Yet in Peoples of the Sea (1977) the time of Ramses III and with him the entire Twentieth Dynasty have already been shown to belong into the fourth century; and the volume Ramses II and His Time (1978) has carried the task of identifying the Nineteenth Dynasty as synonymous with the Twenty-sixth, that of Necho I, Psammetichus, Necho II, and Apries. The so-called Nineteenth Dynasty will be found to have been displaced not only by the five hundred and forty years of error in the dating of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but also by an additional one hundred and seventy years—the duration of the Libyan and Ethiopian dominations over Egypt: and the total error will be found reaching the huge figure of seven hundred years
Immanuel Velikovsky
He did manage to fight off the sea people invasion, but a lot of people in Egypt were starving so when he got home, his wife and others tried to kill him for ignoring his own people's problems.
My apologies for the double post above, also I might have considered correcting the headline misspelling, had I noticed it before. [blush]
I clipped out that part due to length. The harem plot wasn't about ignoring problems, it was a straight-up power-play political assassination, for which they were caught and punished.
Now why the hell would anyone ever want to “unwrap” a mummy?
Haremhab's ContemporariesAccording to this reconstruction, Haremhab began his career under the last kings of the Libyan Dynasty. We get a first glimpse of him in the tomb of the prince Sheshonk, son of Osorkon II and his wife Karoma. The prince, named as successor to his father, died young, still during his father’s reign, and never assumed the royal diadem. The king built for him a funerary chamber in Memphis, where the prince had served in his lifetime as the high priest of Ptah. The excavations of Samaria, discussed above, revealed that the Libyan king Osorkon II was not a contemporary of Ahab, as is usually asserted, but reigned after the time of Jeroboam II—i.e., after ca. -744, which marks the death of Jeroboam II, but before the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrians in -722... Haremhab and Tirhaka, the Ethiopian, are contemporaries; in the conventional version of history they are separated by more than six centuries, Haremhab being dated to the late fourteenth and Tirhaka to the early seventh. A certain scene, carved on one of the walls of a small Ethiopian temple at Karnak, shows them together. The scene proves not only the contemporaneity of Haremhab and Tirhaka, but also permits to establish a short period in their relations from which it dates.
People who study mummies aren’t wrapped too tight? /rimshot!
Not bad
One of *those* topics (I think I pinged the wrong one as I was dozing at the kbd).
|
It would appear that the Egyptians were adept at dealing with a tyrannical ruler.
Et tu, Anubis?
****. He was killed by one of his not-too-loving wives in order to put her son on the throne. They also tried to kill the heir to clear the path.
A lot of scholars consider Immanuel Velikovsky a crackpot. I don’t know of anyone who accepts his radical redating of dynasties. The fourth century is pretty well-documented by ancient standards.
>>A lot of scholars consider Immanuel Velikovsky a crackpot. I don’t know of anyone who accepts his radical redating of dynasties. The fourth century is pretty well-documented by ancient standards.
A crackpot that was an intimate colleague of Albert Einstein with whom he co published “Scripta Universitas”, the 1920’s scholarly journal based in Jerusalem, in pre-statehood Israel. They were neighbors in Princeton and their wives played in a string quartet together. THAT Velikovsky? Of course you refer to him as a crackpot without ever reading a word he wrote. Typical.
>>[this is one of *those* topics for the Catastrophism list, as well as being a GGG topic]
What Catastrophism List would that be? How do I join?
You must know the SECRET HANDSHAKE!!! ;’) Welcome aboard, also see your FReepmail box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
