Despite your hubris in your comments Psusennes I don’t think you’re making such good points at all. Or is this another attempt like in the homework section where you’re just spewing stuff and hoping people buy it?
Thank you, my friend Merytre-Hatshepsut, for having the patience and acuity to put it into words better than I, because frankly I've grown weary of Psusennes I's transparent diatribe. As I said to him before, (though originally in kinder words), he's become so zealous in this neurotic anti-Hawass crusade that his arguments have grown progressively unreasonable and subjective. They lack substance.
Psusennes I wrote:
I feel it silly for you to point out such minor incongruencies in what seems to me to be a completely valid argument. I am perfectly aware that in the particular photograph that I displayed Hawass was not utilising a bladed implement.
Silly? It is you
who wrote in reference to that photograph (and again I quote):
The Big Zee quite literally takes an axe to the Valley of the Golden Mummies. My uncle was there floor managing on set, and was truly horrifed at Zahi's lack of care.
If you were perfectly aware that Hawass was not using a bladed instrument, then why did you write "The Big Zee quite literally takes an axe to the..."? It serves no purpose for you to try to backtrack when you've been caught out and rearrange your argument when it was you who framed it in the first place.
I have neither seen nor heard of any of the evidence you provide for Hawass's supposed malfeasance in excavations. I personally have seen no more than a few minutes of footage of Hawass at Bahariya, and I know nothing of Salah's quotes, so I cannot comment in this particular matter. I cannot take your word for it alone. I'm not saying you're making it up--I simply have no corroboration for any of it myself. And frankly I'm more interested in researching ancient Egypt, not engaging in aimless, one-sided libel. I've better things to do with my time.
In response to your slightly confused analysis of safety protocol regarding Egyptian mummies...The DNA detected on Mummy 61072 by the SGC could be Hawass’ own. It could be Victor Loret’s or Grafton Elliot Smith’s.
Indeed, in spite of your unnecessary and somewhat puerile slight against me, this DNA could have come from Hawass or Loret or Smith or some tourist who sneezed 10 yards away. That's irrelevant. Which is why when DNA is taken from ancient remains, it is not just scooped off the surface of some mummy's desiccated skin, which is unlikely to render a sample, anyway. DNA is extracted from teeth or the marrow channels of bone or similar areas where it is much more likely to be found. I'm
I understand that safety may not be an issue when dealing with the sort of globally unimportant remains that the Field Museum of Chicago has to examine, but for the remains of Tutankhamun and other Royal mummies what precious little DNA might remain must be protected at all costs.
(Bold emphasis mine.)
Here again you use slight and insult to try to prove a point, but the only point you've made is that you're not sure just how much nonsense that sentence contains. This offends me, and that's not an easy thing to do. Most glaringly you seem to narrow the scope of important remains to "Royal mummies," when actually the human remains of the royals are not nearly so important to us as the mummies of commoners. They provide us a much
better and more balanced idea of what ancient Egypt and its people were. Royal mummies constitute a microscopic percentage of the information obtained about the ancient population.
What offends me, though, is your slight against the Field. I don't know if you've ever been there, but if you have, you clearly toured it with your eyes closed. The Field possesses one of the most important ancient Egyptian exhibits in the United States. Most of our Egyptologists are professors and researchers from the Oriental Institute and University of Chicago (just down the road), and you might just remember that this particular university has been one of the world leaders in Egyptology since the very beginning...or have you somehow never heard of the Chicago House? In any case, if you narrow your scope to the royals, we have plenty of their stuff, but I personally don't consider it the
most interesting. The Field possesses one of the world's finest collections of stone-wear vessels, particularly from predynastic times, as well as one of the finest Third Intermediate Period collections. We have one of the best-preserved mummies ever found, the Late Period man named Harwa. And speaking of mummies, we have more Egyptian mummies than any museum but one: the Egyptian Museum in Cairo itself. All of this is what led me to go through the rigorous process of becoming a docent there. And it's been one of the happiest experiences of my life. That's why I was offended by what you wrote. Please, broaden your horizons about what certain museums have in their collections before you write something so patently false.
The Egyptian collection is just one, of course. The Field is a world leader in its anthropological collection, its botanic collection, its entomological collection, its mammals collection, and numerous others. The Field is a world-renown research institution whose scientists and anthropologists are studying all corners of the globe at this very moment. I'm shocked you had no idea but evidently you don't, and that ordinarily would be no big deal...until you go and write something as thoughtless as "globally unimportant." Please, think before you write.
I could go on and on, but I won't. There's no need to. Your unkind comment bears out your lack of understanding. I've been very impressed with many things you've written both here and at the E.D. forum where I first met you, but never before have I seen such a pretentious side of you.
For my part I apologize if my last post or this post has offended you. But to close this matter, I think I shall refrain from conversing with you any longer, at least for a while. This is something I rarely
do. I come to these forums to learn and share and laugh, not bicker and engage in conspiracy theories. That's a waste of my time.
Best of luck to you Psusennes I. You write good stuff, but please divorce yourself from the uber-scholar complex. It does not suit you. You're better than that.