Discussion:
"Nefertiti Ressurected" DVD cover
(too old to reply)
Mario
2005-03-19 09:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Hi!

Anybody has the DVD "Nefertiti Ressurected" (from the discovery channel)?
I need that cover, because I bougth that DVD but it's an edition without
cover.

Is it possible for you to scan it and send it to me?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,
Mario
Atheists will burn
2005-03-21 20:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario
Hi!
Hello!
Post by Mario
Anybody has the DVD "Nefertiti Ressurected" (from the
discovery channel)?
Not that I'm aware of. It was a bit one-sided, a lot like
all the other "documentaries" the Discovery Channel
airs.
Post by Mario
I need that cover, because I bougth that DVD but it's
an edition without cover.
The coverless edition?
Post by Mario
Is it possible for you to scan it and send it to me?
Is it just me, or does anyone else buy DVDs for the
videos and not the packaging?
Mario
2005-03-22 21:50:47 UTC
Permalink
I buy for the video but... like to have the cover!

Thnaks for your help!
Post by Atheists will burn
Post by Mario
Hi!
Hello!
Post by Mario
Anybody has the DVD "Nefertiti Ressurected" (from the
discovery channel)?
Not that I'm aware of. It was a bit one-sided, a lot like
all the other "documentaries" the Discovery Channel
airs.
Post by Mario
I need that cover, because I bougth that DVD but it's
an edition without cover.
The coverless edition?
Post by Mario
Is it possible for you to scan it and send it to me?
Is it just me, or does anyone else buy DVDs for the
videos and not the packaging?
Solon
2005-03-21 23:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario
Anybody has the DVD "Nefertiti Ressurected" (from the discovery channel)?
I need that cover, because I bougth that DVD but it's an edition without
cover.
Is it possible for you to scan it and send it to me?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Is that the same TV special, that got Joann Fletcher in so much trouble?
--
***@ilias.ca
JTEM
2005-03-22 06:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Solon
Is that the same TV special, that got Joann Fletcher in
so much trouble?
What got her into trouble was daring to contradict the
almighty Hawass.

Turns out she wasn't even the first to I.D. the mummy
in question as Nefertiti. Her theory may be unpopular
and her evidence not quite as sound as she let on, but
she was hardly "radical."

Hawass himself spewed some pretty wild theories,
in the very same interview in which he smeared
Joann Fletcher.

It's all about power, about control. Joann Fletcher
failed to kiss the royal ass of Hawass, and for that
she got into trouble.
Katherine Griffis
2005-03-23 10:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Solon
Is that the same TV special, that got Joann Fletcher in
so much trouble?
What got her into trouble was daring to contradict the
almighty Hawass.
Turns out she wasn't even the first to I.D. the mummy
in question as Nefertiti. Her theory may be unpopular
and her evidence not quite as sound as she let on, but
she was hardly "radical."
The 'theory' had no verifiable support, period. Fletcher based her
theory that the body was female and thus, Nefertiti, but as the mummy
is that of a male, it _cannot_ be Nefertiti. Even without the DNA test
which showed the mummy to be male, the theory already had difficulty
from Fletcher's own medical expert, Dr. Don Brothwell of York
University, who stated in a broadcast that the body, assumed to be
female at the time, was nulliparous (having never given birth). Since
Nefertiti is attested to have given birth to 6 daughters, the theory
the KV 35 mummy was Nefertiti was already in question for many
scholars.
Post by JTEM
Hawass himself spewed some pretty wild theories,
in the very same interview in which he smeared
Joann Fletcher.
And those would be what? That the mummy was a deformed male? That it
was a young girl? I believe he discussed all those theories as
theories, but the DNA test he commissioned for gender identification
clinched the issue, IMO.

The results of the DNA test, commissioned by the SCA, from Ain Shams
University, found the following:

"RESULT:

The sex was determined to be male because both the the (sic) X specific
and Y specific bands were clearly detected (Fig. 1).

NB: The Y chromosome is present in all the cells of a male individual,
while it is absent in females."

A PDF version of this report can be downloaded from the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation [CBC] website, which did a thorough review of
Fletcher's examination (and of Fletcher):

<http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040113_nef/test.html>

Main website:

<http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040113_nef/main.html>
Post by JTEM
It's all about power, about control. Joann Fletcher
failed to kiss the royal ass of Hawass, and for that
she got into trouble.
Your opinion: unfortunately, not fact.

To gain access to the KV 35 mummy, Fletcher had to acquire SCA (and
thus Hawass') permission. She received that, having laid out that she
was testing a theory about this mummy.

Once she examined the mummy, her group had to file a report of their
findings with the SCA, which they did. In that report, again by Dr.
Brothwell, Fletcher's medical expert and a renowned expert on ancient
remains, stated that (quote)"There is is some confusion over the gender
of this mummy" (end quote). This is from the report as reported by
Reuters, who acquired a copy of the SCA report Fletcher filed in August
2003.

In the end, their determination of a female gender was based upon a)
lack of a phallus, and b) appearance of 'deflated breasts' by sight
observation. The sciatic notch finding, which is dramatically
portrayed within the Discovery programme, was actually within the
male/female ranges, and thus, inconclusive.

Interestingly, these ambivalent findings were not equally portrayed in
the Discovery programme, which was another reason Fletcher got into
trouble with the SCA, which had a report which stated something quite
different than what she stated on the programme.

Finally, any new discovery must be known to the SCA before publication
(and a broadcast counts as a 'publication' to the SCA), which is
clearly stated in SCA regulations which can be found on the ARCE
<www.arce.org> website. This Fletcher did NOT do, in keeping her
Nefertiti theory to herself, and specifically not within the SCA report
(she stated as much on the Discovery website, in its promotional
materials for this programme).

Thus, Fletcher got into trouble with the SCA because a) she filed a
report which said one thing, while her 'publication' said something
quite different; and b) she did not receive SCA permission to 'publish'
her findings by the SCA, which requires independent verification of any
discovery by a team of archaeologists, Egyptologists, and in this case,
forensic experts.

It's easy to 'blame Hawass', who is very colourful and often
contradictory in some things he says. However, in the case of
Fletcher's examination of the KV 35 mummy, this theory was very suspect
long before Dr. Hawass gave interviews about it in August and September
2003, and the DNA report, broadcast in the 2004 Blockbuster Science
report of the CBC, merely clinched much of these suspicions.

Regards --
---
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com
JTEM
2005-03-23 21:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katherine Griffis
Post by JTEM
Hawass himself spewed some pretty wild theories,
in the very same interview in which he smeared
Joann Fletcher.
And those would be what?
| [Hawass] explained that, "Nefertiti was involved in the
| assassination of her husband's successor, Smenkhare,
| and was later in conflict with King Horemhab who
| overthrew the monotheistic cult of his predecessor and
| erased all traces of it. Horemhab would never have
| allowed Queen Nefertari to be buried in the Valley of
| Kings," he concluded.

So Joann Fletcher is attacked by Hawass for saying
something as radical as "I think this is Nefertiti's
body," even as Hawass strings together a number of
wild (and oh so unsupported) claims, which he then
pronounces as fact.

Admit it, the women was punished for failing to
walk in step with the almighty Hawass.

As for the other excuse for punishing her -- that she
failed to comply with his royal edicts -- that matter
is hardly as one sided as his royal majoesty would
have you believe:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O26B45CBA

There. I've addressed both the imaginary issue
regarding the quality of her claims AND the
issue surrounding a supposed violation of the
royal edicts.
Katherine Griffis
2005-03-24 10:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Katherine Griffis
Post by JTEM
Hawass himself spewed some pretty wild theories,
in the very same interview in which he smeared
Joann Fletcher.
And those would be what?
| [Hawass] explained that, "Nefertiti was involved in the
| assassination of her husband's successor, Smenkhare,
| and was later in conflict with King Horemhab who
| overthrew the monotheistic cult of his predecessor and
| erased all traces of it. Horemhab would never have
| allowed Queen Nefertari to be buried in the Valley of
| Kings," he concluded.
I see, this is the quote from the Al-Ahram Weekly interview of 26 June
- 2 July 2003, Issue No. 644, by Nevine El-Aref. This can be found
online at:

<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/644/he1.htm>

I should think the conflation of 'Nefertiti' with 'Nefertari' should
have given you a hint that the reporter likely had the quote confused.
This is made even more clear from the next paragraph in which it is
stated:

"...Nefertiti was a high-profile queen, who, incidentally, appeared
nearly twice as often in reliefs as her husband, the king, during the
first five years of his reign. After this she continued to appear in
reliefs, though outshone to some extent by other royal favourites like
Kiya and her own eldest daughter Mereaten [sic]. In the latter years of
the Akhenaten's reign, however, she disappeared from the scene. So
whether or not the mummy is indeed that of the beautiful queen, the
dearth of convincing evidence means this may remain one of Ancient
Egypt's most enthralling and enduring mysteries."

If Nefertiti 'disappeared' in the latter years of Akhenaten's reign,
it's not very likely that she was still around when Horemheb took over
from Ay (who in turn had succeeded Tutankhamun), some 20+ years later.

Hawass, to me, is discussing one of many of the theories that have been
proposed - nothing is known for a fact, after all. I personally don't
believe this one (and I think few Egyptologists do), but it has as much
weight as Fletcher's theory that the body in KV35 is that of Nefertiti
- that is, none.
Post by JTEM
So Joann Fletcher is attacked by Hawass for saying
something as radical as "I think this is Nefertiti's
body," even as Hawass strings together a number of
wild (and oh so unsupported) claims, which he then
pronounces as fact.
<shrugs> Anybody can discuss any theory they want: it's one thing to
claim one thing in an official report and then say something else to
television cameras and call it fact.
Post by JTEM
Admit it, the women was punished for failing to
walk in step with the almighty Hawass.
Your opinion, not fact, and no, I don't happen to agree with it.
Post by JTEM
As for the other excuse for punishing her -- that she
failed to comply with his royal edicts -- that matter
is hardly as one sided as his royal majoesty would
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O26B45CBA
There. I've addressed both the imaginary issue
regarding the quality of her claims AND the
issue surrounding a supposed violation of the
royal edicts.
No, you haven't: you've given one secondhand account of an anecdotal
story (I have read the Buckley account in full first-hand (when it
first appeared on the Guardians Net discussion list), not in a
second-hand fashion as you have here, which is given from (IMO) a
not-so-reliable source), whereas the SCA report she gave, as written,
conflicts with her 'published' theory on Discovery. Even Buckley
acknowledged that the SCA rule requiring SCA approval of 'publications'
was in place from "...the previous year." However, I do understand that
it was not his responsibility to do or know about it as well (as he so
stated). It was Fletcher's, as the head of the expedition team.

Fletcher was aware of the March 2003 SCA rule on publication of 'new
discoveries' when she allowed Discovery to make the announcement in
June _2003_ that Nefertiti had been "found," and hyped as a "new
discovery." She had, IMO, a professional responsibility to make it
clear to Discovery that if she did not mean that as a _factual
statement_, she should have had that statement removed, and awaited SCA
review/approval of her work.

Further, when one publishes in an official report that 'there is a
confusion over the gender of this mummy,' as Dr. Brothwell did in the
SCA report, and then say in the Discovery programme, for a _fact_, mind
you, there was _no doubt_ the mummy was female (when in fact it was
shown by DNA PCR testing as male) then, you have a serious breach of
SCA regulations.

So, you still haven't addressed these issues. Further, as I noted,
until the Discovery programme, Fletcher herself admitted that she did
not divulge the identity she suspected of the KV 35 mummy, even to
professional colleagues. See:

<http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/nefertiti/story/story.html>

or

<http://tinyurl.com/4rwpf>

The SCA could not have failed to have noted this when it compared her
report against her Discovery programme 'publication,' and that she
admitted in an interview, published by Discovery, she had withheld her
conclusions from them, apparently in hopes of giving the Discovery
Channel (who funded her examination, BTW, as per
<http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040113_nef/introduction.html>)the
'first crack' at her conclusions.

Further, the report sent by Fletcher's team to the SCA contained only
vague report allusions of identity, which did not conclusively state
the mummy was that of Nefertiti - in fact, the Fletcher science team
could not agree if the gender of the mummy was even female, and based
their "best estimate" on the lack of phallus, deflated breasts, and a
notched sciatic arch (which in this case, was within both male and
female ranges, and thus inconclusive).

To me, I can see why the SCA found her later statements in the
Discovery programme of theory on gender and identification as "fact"
very frustrating, based upon the less definitive and vague allusions
they had in that SCA report. It was for these reasons noted above that
she was suspended from further expedition work in Egypt by the SCA.

In her recently published book, _Search for Nefertiti_, issued Aug. 16,
2004, Dr. Fletcher does not address a _single objection_ to her theory
about the KV 35-Nefertiti identification, as controversial as it was.
Nor, in particular, did she address the DNA report identifying the KV
35 mummy as male, which was issued in January 2004 by the SCA through
the CBC Blockbuster Science program (URL given earlier). This is, to
say the least, extremely odd, assuming that she felt her theory was
valid, and tends to be at odds with usual academic debate when faced
with objections to a theory.

---
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com
Jesus saves!
2005-03-24 18:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katherine Griffis
I should think the conflation of 'Nefertiti' with 'Nefertari' should
have given you a hint that the reporter likely had the quote confused.
I should think that the context, alone, should have convinced
you otherwise.

After all, you are in every way/shape/form my superior on
this subject, so I needn't remind you that Horemheb was
dead & buried long before Nefertari became queen.

It not only is Nefertiti that they are obviously speaking of, but
it has to be.
Post by Katherine Griffis
If Nefertiti 'disappeared' in the latter years of Akhenaten's
reign, it's not very likely that she was still around when
Horemheb took over from Ay (who in turn had succeeded
Tutankhamun), some 20+ years later.
Exactly. And yet the almighty Hawass spewed such unsupported
nonsense even as he smeared Joann Fletcher.

You've got it.

Joann Fletcher's claims are positively conservative in
comparison to those of Hawass.

She wasn't punished for wild claims -- Hawass himself
is fast approaching the new agers in that department --
she was punished for something else.

Please don't be confused. At issue here isn't the quality
of Joann Fletcher's claims, the soundness of her "Theory."
The issue is whether or not this is the reason she was
punished.
Post by Katherine Griffis
Post by JTEM
So Joann Fletcher is attacked by Hawass for saying
something as radical as "I think this is Nefertiti's
body," even as Hawass strings together a number of
wild (and oh so unsupported) claims, which he then
pronounces as fact.
<shrugs> Anybody can discuss any theory they want: it's
one thing to claim one thing in an official report and then
say something else to television cameras and call it fact.
Media is media. As I demonstrated, Hawass himself has
spewed far wilder claims in the media.
Post by Katherine Griffis
Post by JTEM
Admit it, the women was punished for failing to
walk in step with the almighty Hawass.
Your opinion, not fact, and no, I don't happen to agree with it.
The evidence appears to contradict you.

Wild claims from Hawass are okay, not quite so wild
claims from Joan Fletcher are punished.
Post by Katherine Griffis
[....] whereas the SCA report she gave, as written,
conflicts with her 'published' theory on Discovery.
Is it your position that Hawass' wild claims regarding
Nefertiti appear in a SCA report exactly as stated by
him in the media?

If so, that would support your position. If not, it
support that conclusion that his royal majesty,
Hawass, is punishing Joann Fletcher for contradicting
his own wild claims.
Post by Katherine Griffis
She had, IMO, a professional responsibility to make it
clear to Discovery that if she did not mean that as a _factual
statement_, she should have had that statement removed,
and awaited SCA review/approval of her work.
By this logic, Hawass was representing his own wild
claims to the media, regarding Nefertiti, as _factual
statements_.

Hawass is guilty of everything Joann Fletcher was
punished for. Even more so, considering that Joann
Fletcher's claims were not quite so wild.
Post by Katherine Griffis
So, you still haven't addressed these issues.
You're confused.

You want me to view the "issues" surrounding Joann
Fletcher's claims in isolation.

Not only is it unnecessary but it is wrong. It is completely
wrong.

The issue isn't whether or not her conclusions were
sound -- whether the evidence was there -- but whether
unsound/unsupported claims in the media are responsable
for Joann Fletcher's fate.

They are not.

Hawass made wilder claims IN THE MEDIA, as I
have already documented. So even if you can prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joann Fletcher's
claims were wild, we must discount the quality of
her theories as the reason for her punishment.

As bad as her claims were they could have been
worse, and she would not have been punished...
so long as Hawass agreed with them.
Post by Katherine Griffis
Further, as I noted, until the Discovery programme,
Fletcher herself admitted that she did not divulge
the identity she suspected of the KV 35 mummy,
Irrelevant. She wasn't the first to identify the mummy
as Nefertiti. The theory had already been put forth.
It was already out there. You can't withhold information
that people already have.
Post by Katherine Griffis
To me, I can see why the SCA found her later statements
in the Discovery programme of theory on gender and
identification as "fact" very frustrating,
And what of Hawass himself? His statements -- in the
media -- as "fact" regarding Nefertiti?
Post by Katherine Griffis
In her recently published book, _Search for
Nefertiti_, issued Aug. 16, 2004, Dr. Fletcher does
not address a _single objection_ to her theory
about the KV 35-Nefertiti identification, as
controversial as it was.
You're still confused.

This makes for a very poor argument on her part, as those
who come to her book with objections will leave it with
those same objections.

But it's also irrelevant to the issue here. Again, it's not
about the quality of the claims, it's about whether or not
the quality of her claims got her into trouble.

It didn't. Hawass himself demonstrates that wild,
unsupported claims are perfectly acceptable, so long as he
approves of them.
Katherine Griffis
2005-03-25 09:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesus saves!
Post by Katherine Griffis
I should think the conflation of 'Nefertiti' with 'Nefertari' should
have given you a hint that the reporter likely had the quote
confused.
Post by Jesus saves!
I should think that the context, alone, should have convinced
you otherwise.
After all, you are in every way/shape/form my superior on
this subject, so I needn't remind you that Horemheb was
dead & buried long before Nefertari became queen.
Or that reporters get their names confused, which was MY point?
Reporters are notorious for not getting their quotes right in many
instances. However, I did point out that, even as stated, Hawass was
speaking of one of _many_ theories concerning Nefertiti. It's not one
most adhere to, FWIW, but you don't seem to want to allow Hawass to
even _repeat_ a theory out there?
Post by Jesus saves!
It not only is Nefertiti that they are obviously speaking of, but
it has to be.
Post by Katherine Griffis
If Nefertiti 'disappeared' in the latter years of Akhenaten's
reign, it's not very likely that she was still around when
Horemheb took over from Ay (who in turn had succeeded
Tutankhamun), some 20+ years later.
Exactly. And yet the almighty Hawass spewed such unsupported
nonsense even as he smeared Joann Fletcher.
Yet, there ARE theories which say Nefertiti did NOT disappear: are you
aware of those? I don't think you can take el-Aref's reporting as the
final word of anything that anyone (including Hawass) is stating as a
'fact.'

There are as many theories about Nefertiti's presence/non-presence in
the period of the post-Amarna period as there are authors.

That is FAR different than scientifically examining a mummy, stating it
is 'undoubtedly' female as a _fact_ on a television programme (while
the expedition's own report said there were ambivalent features, there
was 'confusion' over the mummy's gender, and later DNA testing showed
it to be male), and then basing your entire identification of this
mummy based upon that 'fact,' even through your 2004 printed
publication. That isn't the same as merely spouting a conjecture, but
possible abuse/misuse of scientific information, IMO.

One is a matter of conjecture about historical events, in which all
tend to have their opinions, where the other is a matter of hard
science. The mummy is either female or male; it is 15-20 years of age,
or it is 30+ years of age. Period. Conjecture is not required to make
these decisions, as science has _hard tests_ to establish this.

However, it appears that Fletcher overrode her own team's reservations
and more importantly, stated _something different than her own report
to the SCA_, which is supposed to be a true and factual report of the
examination, by making statements to support her theory, which
contradicted the report.
Post by Jesus saves!
Joann Fletcher's claims are positively conservative in
comparison to those of Hawass.
Fletcher's theory as presented on Discovery Channel was a direct
contradiction of her own report to the SCA and of her own science
team's reservations stated in the report. She (by her own admission)
withheld information from the SCA as to her theory of the identity of
the mummy, to present it as a 'new discovery' on the Discovery Channel
programme, in violation of SCA regulations concerning 'new
discoveries,' of which she was aware(and so apparently was her team, as
per Dr. Buckley's comemnts).

THAT is what got her into trouble with the SCA, and NOT some streak of
'jealousy' by Hawass because 'she found it and he didn't,' as you are
so quick to imply.

I'm not about to repeat what I have set out before: YOU have your
opinion; it's not mine and not the opinion of most in Egyptology from
my observation. It also doesn't square with the facts of the
situation, but why let that stop you from ranting and raving?

---
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com
JTEM
2005-03-26 08:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katherine Griffis
However, I did point out that, even as stated, Hawass was
speaking of one of _many_ theories concerning Nefertiti.
If you really need me to go out on the limb (so you can smack
me down with your expertise), so be it. I've learned a long
time ago that you never learn anything new playing it safe...

Please, though, keep in mind that I don't find Joann Fletcher's
theories compelling, and have frequently implied as
much. What I have never implied is that his royal majesty,
Hawass, was somehow jealous of Fletcher because she
beat his to a discovery.

Personally, I find Joann Fletcher's theory unremarkable.
The Discovery Channel "documentry" was equally
unremarkable, no more or less one-sided than any of their
other "documentries".... and certainly no less accurate.

What I will say of Joann Fletcher is that I believe she
is on the right track with her "Thinking outside the box."

I don't think we know how old Nefertiti was. I don't think
we know anything with certainty, and that we're taking a risk
when we insist on accepting wall carvings as literal
truths. One thing I am absolutely certain of is the fact that
the truth would hold many surprises, many conflicts with
what we now believe.
Post by Katherine Griffis
but you don't seem to want to allow Hawass to
even _repeat_ a theory out there?
The theory was far wilder than anything Joann Fletcher
offered, and equally unsupported. He also misrepresented
it as fact to the media.

It's all about control. It's not about science, it's not about
the quality of Joann Fletcher's theories (Hawass easily
surpasses her in the kooky idea department), it's about
control.

Please don't kid yourself. There is no "SCA tree" were
regulations grow. It's Hawass. It's all about him.

Hawass put on his SCA finger puppets and dictated the
rules that Joann Fletcher supposedly violated.

Why?

Control. It's all about control. And not controlling
Egypt's treasures either, it's control of information.

The "regulations" are not necessary. They do nothing
to protect or promote Egypt's treasures. They are
unethical. A glorified media hound -- appointed by
a corrupt, despotic government -- is literally controlling
an entire branch of science. Egyptology is at the
mercy of a self-glorified government hack.

No, not the treasures, not the artifacts, but what scholars
are saying.

Joann Fletcher challenged that control. She may not have
meant to, she may not even understand it, but it is exactly
what she did.

That's why Hawass threw his tantrum. That's why he
disgraced himself with his infantile attacks on the
woman, even as he spewed far worse nonsense. Hawass
is king of the hill, and she challenged him with her
actions.
JTEM
2018-01-20 22:02:47 UTC
Permalink
On the subject of Hawasstology...
Post by JTEM
Post by Katherine Griffis
However, I did point out that, even as stated, Hawass was
speaking of one of _many_ theories concerning Nefertiti.
If you really need me to go out on the limb (so you can smack
me down with your expertise), so be it. I've learned a long
time ago that you never learn anything new playing it safe...
Please, though, keep in mind that I don't find Joann Fletcher's
theories compelling, and have frequently implied as
much. What I have never implied is that his royal majesty,
Hawass, was somehow jealous of Fletcher because she
beat his to a discovery.
Personally, I find Joann Fletcher's theory unremarkable.
The Discovery Channel "documentry" was equally
unremarkable, no more or less one-sided than any of their
other "documentries".... and certainly no less accurate.
What I will say of Joann Fletcher is that I believe she
is on the right track with her "Thinking outside the box."
I don't think we know how old Nefertiti was. I don't think
we know anything with certainty, and that we're taking a risk
when we insist on accepting wall carvings as literal
truths. One thing I am absolutely certain of is the fact that
the truth would hold many surprises, many conflicts with
what we now believe.
Post by Katherine Griffis
but you don't seem to want to allow Hawass to
even _repeat_ a theory out there?
The theory was far wilder than anything Joann Fletcher
offered, and equally unsupported. He also misrepresented
it as fact to the media.
It's all about control. It's not about science, it's not about
the quality of Joann Fletcher's theories (Hawass easily
surpasses her in the kooky idea department), it's about
control.
Please don't kid yourself. There is no "SCA tree" were
regulations grow. It's Hawass. It's all about him.
Hawass put on his SCA finger puppets and dictated the
rules that Joann Fletcher supposedly violated.
Why?
Control. It's all about control. And not controlling
Egypt's treasures either, it's control of information.
The "regulations" are not necessary. They do nothing
to protect or promote Egypt's treasures. They are
unethical. A glorified media hound -- appointed by
a corrupt, despotic government -- is literally controlling
an entire branch of science. Egyptology is at the
mercy of a self-glorified government hack.
No, not the treasures, not the artifacts, but what scholars
are saying.
Joann Fletcher challenged that control. She may not have
meant to, she may not even understand it, but it is exactly
what she did.
That's why Hawass threw his tantrum. That's why he
disgraced himself with his infantile attacks on the
woman, even as he spewed far worse nonsense. Hawass
is king of the hill, and she challenged him with her
actions.
I'm so freaking brilliant that I sometimes wish I
could be me...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119826496483

JTEM
2005-03-24 18:45:38 UTC
Permalink
A thousand pardons, but ignore the "Jesus saves!"
from the last response. I was satirizing the
religious whack jobs over in alt.atheism, and
forgot to switch back.

Anyhow, same response only shorter. This one
isn't as redundant and repetitive...
Post by Katherine Griffis
I should think the conflation of 'Nefertiti' with 'Nefertari' should
have given you a hint that the reporter likely had the quote confused.
I should think that the context, alone, should have convinced
you otherwise.

After all, you are in every way/shape/form my superior on
this subject, so I needn't remind you that Horemheb was
dead & buried long before Nefertari became queen.

It not only is Nefertiti that they are obviously speaking of, but
it has to be.
Post by Katherine Griffis
If Nefertiti 'disappeared' in the latter years of Akhenaten's
reign, it's not very likely that she was still around when
Horemheb took over from Ay (who in turn had succeeded
Tutankhamun), some 20+ years later.
Exactly. And yet the almighty Hawass spewed such unsupported
nonsense even as he smeared Joann Fletcher.

You've got it.

Joann Fletcher's claims are positively conservative in
comparison to those of Hawass.

She wasn't punished for wild claims -- Hawass himself
is fast approaching the new agers in that department --
she was punished for something else.

Please don't be confused. At issue here isn't the quality
of Joann Fletcher's claims, the soundness of her "Theory."
The issue is whether or not this is the reason she was
punished.
Post by Katherine Griffis
[....] whereas the SCA report she gave, as written,
conflicts with her 'published' theory on Discovery.
Is it your position that Hawass' wild claims regarding
Nefertiti appear in a SCA report exactly as stated by
him in the media?

If so, that would support your position. If not, it
support that conclusion that his royal majesty,
Hawass, is punishing Joann Fletcher for contradicting
his own wild claims.
Post by Katherine Griffis
She had, IMO, a professional responsibility to make it
clear to Discovery that if she did not mean that as a _factual
statement_, she should have had that statement removed,
and awaited SCA review/approval of her work.
By this logic, Hawass was representing his own wild
claims to the media, regarding Nefertiti, as _factual
statements_.
Post by Katherine Griffis
So, you still haven't addressed these issues.
You're confused.

You want me to view the "issues" surrounding Joann
Fletcher's claims in isolation.

Not only is it unnecessary but it is wrong. It is completely
wrong.

The issue isn't whether or not her conclusions were
sound -- whether the evidence was there -- but whether
unsound/unsupported claims in the media are responsable
for Joann Fletcher's fate.

They are not.

Hawass made wilder claims IN THE MEDIA, as I
have already documented. So even if you can prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joann Fletcher's
claims were wild, we must discount the quality of
her theories as the reason for her punishment.

As bad as her claims were they could have been
worse, and she would not have been punished...
so long as Hawass agreed with them.
Post by Katherine Griffis
Further, as I noted, until the Discovery programme,
Fletcher herself admitted that she did not divulge
the identity she suspected of the KV 35 mummy,
Irrelevant. She wasn't the first to identify the mummy
as Nefertiti. The theory had already been put forth.
It was already out there. You can't withhold information
that people already have.
Post by Katherine Griffis
In her recently published book, _Search for
Nefertiti_, issued Aug. 16, 2004, Dr. Fletcher does
not address a _single objection_ to her theory
about the KV 35-Nefertiti identification, as
controversial as it was.
You're still confused.

This makes for a very poor argument on her part, as those
who come to her book with objections will leave it with
those same objections.

But it's also irrelevant to the issue here. Again, it's not
about the quality of the claims, it's about whether or not
the quality of her claims got her into trouble.

It didn't. Hawass himself demonstrates that wild,
unsupported claims are perfectly acceptable, so long as he
approves of them.
M***@aol.com
2005-04-15 14:59:25 UTC
Permalink
The sex was determined to be male because both the the (sic) X specific

and Y specific bands were clearly detected (Fig. 1).


NB: The Y chromosome is present in all the cells of a male individual,
while it is absent in females."


A PDF version of this report can be downloaded from the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation [CBC] website, which did a thorough review of
Fletcher's examination (and of Fletcher): >

Better not be in such a hurry to accept this conclusion.


I am skeptical of the likelihood of the "Younger Lady" being a *he* for
the following reasons: While Victor Loret, judging by the bald head of
the corpse, at first assumed it was a male, G. Elliot Smith, a
professor of anatomy at Cairo University, thought otherwise. In his
unvaluable tome, �The Royal Mummies� (1912), Smith wrote:
�...it requires no great knowledge of anatomy to decide that the
excellently preserved naked body is a young woman�s.� Futher, the
doctor observed �As in the other mummies left in this tomb a large mass
of resin was spread over the whole perineum. Both in this mummy and the
other woman (Elder Lady) the rima pudendi was widely open and plugged
from the inside with linen...� The term �rima pudendi� can only refer
to the female anatomy. Smith noted no sign of masculine genitalia on
the remains in question whatsoever�not even the �leaves� that were the
remnants of male equipment he saw on male royals from the Deir el
Bahari cache. Among the three individuals discovered in the
side-chamber of KV35, the tomb of Amenhotep II, Professor Smith
expressed no doubt as to the sex of anyone.

Recently, a Canadian reporting team was sent a fax from Egypt of an
undated report of a DNA �quick test� of the mummy�s gender.

[www.cbc.ca]

The result was �male� and the sample indicated on the report was simply
described as �bone and mummified soft tissue�. The presence of the word
"bone" in the report aroused my suspicion. When Prof. Scott Woodward
took samples from the royal mummies for DNA testing some years ago, he
did not take a piece of bone from any of them because that would have
been considered too invasive. Woodward, insofar as I can recall, tried
to take samples from body parts that had not been contaminated by
already having been handled by others. If so, the DNA of the handler
could be present. Woodward prefers to work with teeth and extract DNA
from their pulp. The URL

[www.egyptstudy.org]

confirms that only small bits of detached tissue were allowed to be
taken from the royal mummies by Woodward. Nothing invasive was allowed,
not even endoscopy. In his article in the Sept/Oct 1996 issue of
"Archaeology" magazine, Woodward wrote "The samples are extremely
small, however, and the analysis has been difficult. The salts and
perfumes used by the Egyptians in the embalming process can make the
tissue unsuitable for DNA analysis. Contamination is another problem;
the mummies have been handled by embalmers, tomb robbers, priests,
archaeologists, and museum curators. We have been able to recover DNA
from some of the 18th Dynasty mummies...which we will test using mtDNA
analysis..."

As matters stand, there is a �loose right arm� associated with the
�Younger Lady�. It was described by Smith who remarked �the hand was
clasped�--and another unattached right arm, as well. This flexed right
arm would have been an unusual pose for a royal lady and, indeed, it is
the left arm of the �Elder Lady� that has the clasped hand. During the
filming of the documentary aired by Discovery Communications, starring
Joann Fletcher, a right arm with a clasped hand was found among the
wrappings of the �Younger Lady�. Whether or not this is the same limb
mentioned by Smith in his book is not clear but chances are that it is.
However, since this arm exists only from below the elbow, I can't be
sure it was actually "flexed"--but the fingers are poised as though
having been curled about something. Loose arms have been seen in the
wrappings of a royal mummy before. The missing right forearm and hand
of the putative Seti II were discovered among the ragged bandages of
Ramesses VI�as well as the hand of a woman. Assuming that the corpse in
question here is that of a male of the 18th Dynasty, a raised right arm
and a straight left one poses some problems, too, as it would be
anomalous for a king, prince or commoner of that period. In fact, that
the mummy of a young person in KV55 was reported to have had a raised
left arm before the body disintegrated into a heap of bones remains
something that casts some doubt on the remains being masculine, even
though this is the consensus. To my mind, there must exist some margin
of doubt as to whether either of the loose arms associated with the
�Younger Lady� actually belongs to this mummy. Also, because it would
seem doubtful that any other bone sample would be extracted from the
corpse, it stands to reason that the samples used for the DNA test came
from a detached arm--the least invasive procedure. Of course, had the
test report included the source of the samples, that would have been
helpful but, under the circumstances, not finally conclusive as to the
sex of the mummy-- should a loose arm have been that source.
JTEM
2005-04-15 15:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
Better not be in such a hurry to accept this conclusion.
Wait a minute here. Are you saying that Hawass (a man
who stated on camera that he wouldn't allow DNA
testing on the mummy) had non-scholarly motives for
the DNA testing he ordered?

Personally, I don't know how anyone connected to
Egyptology is capable of defending Hawass.

It's one thing to control Egypt's historical treasures.
But, he's not stopping there. He's also trying to
control information.

That is unforgivable. It's undefendable.
Katherine Griffis
2005-03-22 08:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Solon asked:

RE: Nefertiti Resurrected DVD:

"Is that the same TV special, that got Joann Fletcher in so much
trouble?"

The same. Last I heard, one could get copies of the DVD for as little
as $1.99 at Wal-Mart not long ago.

---
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com
Loading...