Discussion:
Amenhotep III - special embalming process. WHY?
(too old to reply)
Lars Wilson
2008-01-19 12:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Here's a statement regarding the unique embalming process using "resin" for
Amenhotep III:

The embalmers had packed the skin of the deceased king with a resinous
material, and Smith's description of this as being "analogous" to embalming
techniques used in the 21'st Dynasty led Douglas Derry to question the
identification of the mummy as being that of Amenhotep III. Edward Wente,
however, points out that the resinous material used here for packing was
quite unlike the materials employed by 21'st Dynasty embalmers. Long before
the controversy regarding the identity of this mummy had arisen, Smith
himself had noted (in the same report in RM that caused Derry's
uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's
mummy is altogether unique, and takes special care to distinguish it from
21'st Dynasty practices which, he goes on to explain, utilized linen, mud,
sand, sawdust, or mixtures of fat and soda for packing materials, but not
resins. Therefore, there is nothing about this mummy that would point to the
21'st Dynasty as the time of its original embalming.
Smith expresses the interesting theory that the novel style of embalming
used on the mummy of Amenhotep III (whose identity he doubts not in the
least) was part of the general cultural revolution sweeping Egypt toward the
end of the 18'th Dynasty and which culminated during the reign of Amenhotep
IV-Akhenaten. That resin-packing was not employed during the 19'th and 20'th
Dynasties is explainable in terms of the anti-Amarna reaction that set in
after Akhenaten's death.

http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/18B.htm)

I'm still researching this, but apparently resin is used as a connector and
solidifier. As noted above the use of resin was unique to the embalming of
the body of Amenhotep III. But the question is why? What was unique about
the body of Amenhotep III which prompted the embalmers to use resin in the
embalming process under the skin?

I think it would be safe to presume that there was "something uniquely
wrong" with this particular body at the time it was embalmed, that is, the
body was already damaged at the time of embalming to require resin.

My theory is, since we know Amenhotep III now was the pharoah who died in
the Red Sea, is that this probably had something to do with his perhaps
having been dead in the water for an extended period of time. His skin
might have been waterlogged and perhaps falling apart or perhaps extremely
wrinkled and the resin was used to help hold together the skin or smooth it
out or both. Maybe someone else can shed more light on this.

Also of note, the age of the body as determined by x-ray estimation was
about fifty years of age. So he didn't necessarily die of old age.

L.W.
JTEM
2008-01-19 22:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
Here's a statement regarding the unique embalming process
#1. It wasn't all that unique.

#2. This was all explained to you back in 1996... July of 1996.

#3. The fact that you're raising it here again, effectively
pretending
that all the facts, all the answers you had previously been given
never existed, demonstrated your dishonesty.

You're promoting your literal-bible agenda here, and you're not the
least bit interested in facts.

Here's a cut-and-paste of the reply I posted to you in July of 2006:

A not-very-careful glancing at the other 18th dynasty
mummies would have revealed that resins were frequently
used, including in efforts to preserve the shape of some
body feature (the nose, as one example).

Amenhotep III was depicted late in life (presumably not too far
from death) as overweight. It's likely that, post-desiccation,
he would have resembled more of a dried prune than a human,
and required some efforts to restore/preserve his kingly shape.

It's a simple fact that if you desiccate the body of a fat person
the end result is something that looks like a giant scrotum.
That's because you've got all this skin that /was/ needed to
cover a big fat body, but little more than a skeletal frame to
actually cover.

Here's the URL to the thread this took place... a thread in which
a real Egyptologists -- not an obsessive compulsive bible thumper
like you -- explained things to you:

http://tinyurl.com/2q8stm

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.ancient-egypt/browse_frm/thread/31011288e1870a36/b67d45de13bbfc59?#b67d45de13bbfc59

Anyhow, please get some integrity. Thanks in advance.






using "resin" for
Post by Lars Wilson
The embalmers had packed the skin of the deceased king with a resinous
material, and Smith's description of this as being "analogous" to embalming
techniques used in the 21'st Dynasty led Douglas Derry to question the
identification of the mummy as being that of Amenhotep III. Edward Wente,
however, points out that the resinous material used here for packing was
quite unlike the materials employed by 21'st Dynasty embalmers. Long before
the controversy regarding the identity of this mummy had arisen, Smith
himself had noted (in the same report in RM that caused Derry's
uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's
mummy is altogether unique, and takes special care to distinguish it from
21'st Dynasty practices which, he goes on to explain, utilized linen, mud,
sand, sawdust, or mixtures of fat and soda for packing materials, but not
resins. Therefore, there is nothing about this mummy that would point to the
21'st Dynasty as the time of its original embalming.
Smith expresses the interesting theory that the novel style of embalming
used on the mummy of Amenhotep III (whose identity he doubts not in the
least) was part of the general cultural revolution sweeping Egypt toward the
end of the 18'th Dynasty and which culminated during the reign of Amenhotep
IV-Akhenaten. That resin-packing was not employed during the 19'th and 20'th
Dynasties is explainable in terms of the anti-Amarna reaction that set in
after Akhenaten's death.
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/18B.htm)
I'm still researching this, but apparently resin is used as a connector and
solidifier. As noted above the use of resin was unique to the embalming of
the body of Amenhotep III. But the question is why? What was unique about
the body of Amenhotep III which prompted the embalmers to use resin in the
embalming process under the skin?
I think it would be safe to presume that there was "something uniquely
wrong" with this particular body at the time it was embalmed, that is, the
body was already damaged at the time of embalming to require resin.
My theory is, since we know Amenhotep III now was the pharoah who died in
the Red Sea, is that this probably had something to do with his perhaps
having been dead in the water for an extended period of time. His skin
might have been waterlogged and perhaps falling apart or perhaps extremely
wrinkled and the resin was used to help hold together the skin or smooth it
out or both. Maybe someone else can shed more light on this.
Also of note, the age of the body as determined by x-ray estimation was
about fifty years of age. So he didn't necessarily die of old age.
L.W.
Lars Wilson
2008-01-20 00:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Lars Wilson
Here's a statement regarding the unique embalming process
#1. It wasn't all that unique.
Oh, please! Now YOU'RE playing the misleading game. All I can do is
provide a quote for the basis of statement that this was a unique embalming
process:

" "What his mummy does reveal, however, is that special measures were
taken by the embalmers to restore his corpse some of the semblance of his
appearance in life by packing a *mixture of resin and natron* under the
skin, an innovation which is not repeated until four centuries later...."

Note: SPECIAL MEASURES
Note: INNOVATION which is not repeated until four centuries..."

And you're saying this still qualifies as not unique? Business as usual?
You're biased, clearly. But inconsistent. What YOU have to prove is that
ALL the mummies from this time were embalmed EXACTLY like Amnehotep III and
there was nothing at all different with this embalming. Which you can't,
obviously. All you can do is try to minimize the significance that the
researchers themselves tells us was first and unique for over 400 years.

"Smith himself had noted (in the same report in RM that caused Derry's
uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's
mummy is altogether UNIQUE..." (same source)
Post by JTEM
#2. This was all explained to you back in 1996... July of 1996.
Sorry, claiming past debate victories doesn't count. The way I see it, you
did NOT win that argument back then just like you are not winning it now.
For instance:

YOU SAID: "Amenhotep III was depicted late in life (presumably not too far
from death) as overweight. It's likely that, post-desiccation,
he would have resembled more of a dried prune than a human,
and required some efforts to restore/preserve his kingly shape."

The forensics say he was only about 50 years of age. Historically, he
ruled for about 37 years but was a boy when he started to rule. If he was
13 years of age then he would have only been about 50 years of age, the same
age as is claimed by the forensic team.

Sorry JTEM, mistaking and misrepresenting the facts out of desperation or
claiming you effectively countered in the past when you are ineffectively
countering now doesn't cut it. Your position tells far more about you and
your biases than it does about Amenhotep III, I'm afraid.
Post by JTEM
#3. The fact that you're raising it here again, effectively
pretending
that all the facts, all the answers you had previously been given
never existed, demonstrated your dishonesty.
They were not answered and cannot be contradicted (as above). So it's YOUR
dishonesty we're dealing with here. Now I give you the benefit of the doubt
that you might THINK you may have effectively addressed this, but that's
just your opinion, and certainly not mine. The difference is, I was merely
reflecting the basic facts. Claiming a king was "late in life" and near
death anyway when his historical rule of 37 years begun when he was a youth
is shameless. Trying to minimize an embalming process that others have
described as "unique" is ridiculous. Sorry, you lost that argument back
then and you've lost it again, 400 years later... and you will continue to
lose it 400 years from now.
Post by JTEM
You're promoting your literal-bible agenda here, and you're not the
least bit interested in facts.
That's YOUR characterization, you're opinion. You're entitled to it.
However, the fact is, you just don't like my opinion and have not adequately
refuted anything I'm saying. Someone who knows someone is about 50 years
old and claims they are "near death"? Now that is what I call "dishonest."
Post by JTEM
A not-very-careful glancing at the other 18th dynasty
mummies would have revealed that resins were frequently
used, including in efforts to preserve the shape of some
body feature (the nose, as one example).
I am quoting DIRECTLY for the reference to a "unique" embalming process.
You say nothing. This is a special reference to this unique process that
you are not addressing. You may as well say that like "...all the other
mummies he was placed in a coffin. See! Nothing unique about his burial at
all!" Address the SPECIFICS. Dismissed.
Post by JTEM
Amenhotep III was depicted late in life (presumably not too far
from death) as overweight. It's likely that, post-desiccation,
he would have resembled more of a dried prune than a human,
and required some efforts to restore/preserve his kingly shape.
HA! Everybody knows, as stated, that he was a child when he begun a 37-year
rule and was thus close to 50 when he died. You're description fits someone
who is 80 or 90.
Post by JTEM
Anyhow, please get some integrity. Thanks in advance.
Sorry, but saying someone is OLD and CLOSE TO DEATH when he was only about
50 is where the lack of integrity lies.

There is NOTHING you can do about this JTEM. It would have been better to
accuse me of "exploiting" the evidence than misrepresenting it.

Besides that. The pharaoh did die in the Red Sea near age 50. The Amarna
Letters suggest that his death was quite an event and quite famous as he
heard about it in detail from others than the king. It was a huge PUBLIC
event and embarassing. Why else would one king tell the other that "I know
what happened" unless it was indeed something unusual? Why wish to
exchange 10,000 others, as if a "ransom" exchange, unless he died with
others in a punitive manner? That is absolutely consistent with his dying
in the Red Sea at the hands of a powerful and real God. So the king is just
saying, basically, it was inevitable the king had to be punished by
destroying him and his army, but he would have preferred that more people
were killed as part of the punishment and the king himself were spared.

So THANKS for your process, but I'm perfectly capable of finding and
distorting the facts for myself in this case.

ciao

Lars Wilson

Scores:
Lars: 3
JTEM: 0

...but whose counting?
JTEM
2008-01-20 04:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Oh, please!  Now YOU'RE playing the misleading game.
As I already pointed out once, here's a thread FROM A YEAR
AND A HALF AGO in which everything was explained to you.

You're pretending that this thread never happened, that a real
Egyptologists didn't answer your questions on this subject,
set you straight... totally debunk that insane wishful thinking
you call a theory...

http://tinyurl.com/2q8stm

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.ancient-egypt/browse_frm/thread/31011288e1870a36/b67d45de13bbfc59?#b67d45de13bbfc59

Some IS being misleading here, you shameless skank hole,
and it's you!
Lars Wilson
2008-01-21 08:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi JTEM.

Thanks, again, but this is just "propaganda" if you do not quote
"specifically" in rebuttal to my SPECIFIC quote. That is an archaeologist
examining the mummy of A III saying:

1) A unique embalming process was carried out.
2) Tha the mummy matched the presumed historical age for Amenhotep III who
began in his youth and ruled for 37 years. If he was 13 when he began to
rule then he still would have been only around 50.

This contrasts with your direct statement in rebuttal that he was very old
and near the time of his natural death.
Oh, please! Now YOU'RE playing the misleading game.
As I already pointed out once, here's a thread FROM A YEAR
AND A HALF AGO in which everything was explained to you.

You're pretending that this thread never happened, that a real
Egyptologists didn't answer your questions on this subject,
set you straight... totally debunk that insane wishful thinking
you call a theory...

http://tinyurl.com/2q8stm

Thanks, but again, all you give if a long thread that include my counter
arguments. It is only your presumption and assessment that the issues were
adequately addressed. So just posting the thread and "saying" I was
rebutted is no different than just saying we argued about this in the past
and you won, showing no more proof than that. But thanks for the memory.
Here's Marianne Luban's short response to this, which of course, since you
are not specific, I can't tell if this is the reference from an
"archaeologist" that you had in mind. She comments nonspecifically and
inconclusively. This is just her suspicion:

"The mummy of Amenhotep III could have received special attention
because, going by some of his statues, he was quite a fat man. After
dehydration with natron, all that remains is loose skin over bone. The
thinner the person had been in life, the closer the skin adhered to the
bone. Rather than have all that skin, stretched out by fat, just
hanging there in folds, someone may have gotten the idea to fill that
in with some handy compound--like liquid resin--and attempt to give the
body a more normal shape, resembling the king in life. However, for
whatever reason this was done, it was a disastrous idea--because the
mummy of A III is one of the worst preserved specimens of the kings of
Egypt--unlike those mummies of the 21st Dynasty, limbs stuffed in a
different manner. They are very well-preserved, indeed."

Luban presents her idea as to why the special process might have been used
but does not dismiss that, indeed, Am III was embalmed with a special
process. Further, she says it is is the "worst preserved" of all the
specifics. This also suggests a delay in the embalming process, all other
kings being readily available for immediate embalming.

So if you're going to quote the past and then give your "own assessment" of
a rebuttal, it's not working. I could just as easily say, and rightly so,
those issues were inadequately or poorly addressed in those same threads.
Understand?

In the meantime, I'm directly quoting others about this special embalming
process. I didn't invent it.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.history.ancient-egypt/browse_frm/thread/31011288e1870a36/b67d45de13bbfc59?#b67d45de13bbfc59

Some IS being misleading here, you shameless skank hole,
and it's you!

NO. You can call names, accuse, fine. BUT where is your REBUTTAL? It's
missing!! You want more from the above quote from Marianne?

For A III to have been the one drowned, one has to IMAGINE him being in
the position to personally get in his chariot and chase after some
people. MY GUESS would be that this king never even went to war in his
life against any people. His reign was known for diplomacy and
personal indulgence. When he was younger, it is said, he liked to hunt
animals. Even when he died, A III was probably not a very old man. He
came to the throne young and reigned 38 years. Probably, he was under
50 at death--but, come to think of it, that was considered an "old" man
in AE"

An opinion is fine, but that doesn't dismiss other opinions. The FACT is I
am not misrepresenting the facts as you say:

1) Everybody (except you) accept the mummification process was unique.
2) Everybody (except you) accept that he was 50 or under when he died.

So sorry, JTEM, this time you're "out of the loop" of reality here and the
quotes you provided are just some other opinions as to WHY the special
embalming process might have been undertaken. That's fine. My only point
is that this king's mummification and preservation had already been noted
compared to all the other mummies was poor and involved special measures.
We don't specifically know why. It could have been related to his being
obese, maybe, but that could have been complicated as well if he drowned and
his body was not recovered for a couple of days.

Again, I misrepresent nothing and claim only two things:

1) The exact cause of death is not known and there was a special embalming
process used with this pharaoh.
2) He died at 50 or slightly younger, which forensics say, thus he did not
die of extreme old age.

Thanks for the response in rebuttal, but you haven't rebutted anything.

Lars Wilson

Loading...