User talk:Captmondo/Archives/2007/March

Ay
I have given crystal clear reasons to show that Tutankhamun was not killed by a blow to his head by Ay as Brier thought in his book. I also have cited my sources here. I doubt Egyptzo will accept this final word on the subject though. Pity. We don't know what killed Tut--other than perhaps a broken leg, poison or an infection--but it definitely wasn't a blow to his head! The bone fragments to Tut's head was post-mortem damage since it wasn't stuck in the embalming fluid. So, Hawass is right to state it was likely caused by Carter's careless examination of Tutankhamun's mummy. Anyway, Tut was a healthy man when he died; if Ay really wanted the throne he wouldn't have waited 9 long years to take it. PS: Brier is an anatomist and a good one--but he is not an Egyptologist. I wish Egyptzo notes this distinction. Leoboudv 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The pictures you took are great. I hope you will upload a picture of the statue of Mentuhotep III since there is nothing on this king. The reason Ay killed Tut? Presumably to seize the throne because he couldn't manipulate the adult king Tutankhamun anymore as he could the child king. Bob Brier did a show 10-11 yrs ago on The Learning Channel with the same theory. see here: See especially the review comments! It was all based on RG Harrison's mid-1960's X-ray scans of Tut's head which discovered bone fragments within the phaaroh's skull; hence, the theory of death due to a blow to the head. However, the latest CT scans by National Geographic show the bone fragments occured after Tut's death--this leaves Carter as the main culprit for damaging Tut's bones long after the embalming resins had hardened. I wish Egyptzo will accept this new evidence and leave it at that. Did you know Citizendium is now active--I just noticed yesterday? IMO, the main problem with Wikipedia is that there is way too much vandalism and trolls leaving stuff embedded within Wikipedia articles. And some of this nonsennse can last for days if not weeks until someone notices it! Leoboudv 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to include the excellent photo you took of Mentuhotep III in his article. Pls. check and see if it is done correctly when you have the time Leoboudv 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A pharaoh info box for Mentuhotep III would only be worth it if we could find significant info--on his wives, titulary, etc. I'm afraid the only king of the 11th dynasty who warrants this special treatment would be Mentuhotep II who unified Egypt, changed his prenomen 2 to 3 times and ruled for 51 years!

I hope to read Erik Hornung's new book on Ancient Egyptian Chronology soon. If I can, I'll forward you some copies privately in the following weeks. Here are 2 links on the book: and  The price is very high at more than $200 Cdn--as one would expect for an academic book destined for University libraries. It may be the new gold standard on Egyptian Chronology; all periods of Egyptian history are written by specialists. Karl Jansen-Winkeln will write the Third Intermediate Period portion. Hopefully it is all in English since I have been told Karl concludes--after much analysis--that Shoshenq II was a son of Shoshenq I partly because the only funerary objects from this king's intact burial to name a separate king all name only Shoshenq I. (The burial of Dynasty 21 and 22 kings frequently contain objects naming their parents--see the article on Takelot I which I mostly wrote) This is contra Kitchen's conventional view that Sh. II was the High Priest of Amun Shoshenq, son of Osorkon I and Queen Maatkare even though not a single object from Shoshenq II's tomb ever mentions Osorkon at all. It is an important book; its a pity pity the book was published after the Year 4 stela of Setnakht was found late last year! That's the great thing about Egyptian archaeology: you find new DATED documents, stelas and papyri under the desert sands or the ruins of Egyptian temples almost every year. The 14th year of Takelot III was found on a stela in 2004 or 2005 at Dakhla. Before this find, his highest date was only his Year 7. With Wikipedia, you can update the new discoveries within minutes but with major publications and journal articles, its too late. Zahi Hawass once estimated that only 30-40 percent of Egypt's monuments have been located; the rest are buried under the desert sands of Egypt or under the rubble of ancient Egyptian temples just waiting for someone to excavate them. Regards, Fabian Leoboudv 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)