Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

How True is this?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
EgyptianRose
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 251
Location: Australia. Down Under.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:58 am    Post subject: How True is this? Reply with quote

site --------> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/are-king-tuts-moobs-a-clue-to-his-early-death/story-fneuz9ev-1226474098400
_________________
It is of course the hieght of irony that, after this intensive campaign to expunge them from the annals of Egypt, the Amarna pharaohs are today probably the most recognized of all the country's ancient rulers!

Quote 'Amarna Sunset' by Aidan Dodson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting theory about religious visions caused by epilepsy, though I think that Atenism is nothing to do with visions caused by illness. I think he has mistaken weird Armarna iconography for reality when it comes to female characteristics in Thutmosid males. Their actual bodies simply don't show this at all. So for me I give his theory a thumbs down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Damn this not being able to edit... Well, I don't dispute his theory about the effects of the various medical conditions because I am not a physician. I simply dispute his theory as it applies to Akhenaten's "visions" and a contributary factor in Tutankhamun's death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After a sdetailed examination of Tut's mummy, showing a shattered knee-cap, a broken leg bone, a ripped out rib cage, a malformed foot, slight curviture of the spine--etc. etc. It would seem to me that "man-boobs" would not be a significant cause of his death. To me, the theory is a wild grasp at a straw.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The rib cage was the result of tomb robbery that is thought to have occurred during WWII?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To date we have no physical evidence for the presence or absence of man-boobs in either KV55 or Tutankhamun because the latter`s chest wall is missing and the former is only a heap of blank bones.
I know that AIII is usually described as having been generally overweight, but I don`t think he is credited with real man-boobs.

The JAMA report stated that no proof positive could be found for any condition that could have caused a feminine appearance or physiognomy. I guess that epilepsy was not mentioned by them but the same should be applicable here- hardly possible to prove it beyond doubt.

The religious changes brought about by Akhenaten do IMO not bear any resemblance to extra-ordinary religious visions but much more to well calculated moves, and so does Tut`s return to the old values.


It is quite a moot point to discuss the physical appearance of the Amarna kings based on the contemporary representations as there is certainly more agenda behind them than reality.
And where are the representations of Tut which show him with unusual breasts ? He is most often depicted in the conventional breast-less manner, and where there is a slight tendency towards emphasized breasts (for example on the golden throne) it can be clearly identified as an overhang from Amarna art.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sa-Sobek
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 13 Sep 2012
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I know, none of the mummies of the male members of the 18th Dynasty show such exaggerated hips based on bone structure alone. The sculptures and murals depicting such could just be artistic license, or the way they wished to be depicted. On the other hand, bone structure doesn't necessarily correlate to how body fat is distributed...

All in all the theory sounds silly. The article goes from talking about a form of epilepsy causing man-boobs to the effects of obesity in men; I don't think we should be forcing modern health concerns on people who lived and died 3,000 years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 562
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to mention, the practice of trying to diagnose a person's supposed diseases from his or her statues probably says more about the person doing the diagnosing than it does about the person being studied... Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

herper wrote:
The rib cage was the result of tomb robbery that is thought to have occurred during WWII?


No, both the CT scan report and later studies show that the rib cage was cut, either perimortem or post-mortem. The cuts to the ribs are clean, which shows they were not dried bone when cut.

This rules out later grave robbers taking part of the rib cage when the floral collar (probably covering the chest to hide the cuts: Burton's photo show an extensive covering to Tutankhamun's chest, and the collar was practically "glued" to the chest by resin, which both Carter and Derry were loathe to remove during their examinations), was taken from the body some time between 1926 and 1968, which is when the collar's loss was first noted.

This is from Harrison's X-ray in 1968 (via Leek 1972):



The gynecomastia (male breast) development among Amarna males has been studied before. See:

Paulshock, B. Z. 1980. Tutankhamun and his brothers. Familial gynecomastia in the Eighteenth Dynasty. JAMA 244/2: 160-4.

Reference:

Harrison, R. G. and A. B. Abdalla. 1972. The remains of Tutankhamun. Antiquity 46/181: 8-14.

Harrison, R. G. 1973. Tutankhamun Postmortem. The Lancet /February 3, 1973: 259.

Leek, F. F. 1972. The Human Remains from the Tomb of Tut'ankhamun. Tut'ankhamun Tomb Series. Oxford: Griffith Institute/University Press.

Williams, A. R. 2005. Modern Technology Reopens the Ancient Case of King Tut. National Geographic/June 2005: 2-19.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don`t quite get what the circled areas mean. They don`t seem to be the spots where the ribs were cut off because the ribs extend on either side of the circles. Or maybe I don`t see it the right way ,I am a layperson after all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sothis wrote:
I don`t quite get what the circled areas mean. They don`t seem to be the spots where the ribs were cut off because the ribs extend on either side of the circles. Or maybe I don`t see it the right way ,I am a layperson after all.


I suspect you are not looking at it the right way.

Consider that 24 human ribs (12 each side) basically attach to the 12 thoracic vertebrae of the spine and then curve around to "embrace" the lungs of the thoracic cavity. The upper seven true ribs (costae verae, vertebrosternal ribs, I-VII) are attached in the head to the sternum by means of costal cartilage. while the 8th, 9th, and 10th ribs, called false ribs (costae spuriae, vertebrochondral ribs, VIII-X), and join with the costal cartilages of the ribs above. The final ribs, 11 and 12, are known as floating ribs (costae fluitantes, vertebral ribs, XI-XII), as they do not have any anterior connection to the sternum.

The image I showed earlier represent that ribs 1-6 (that is, (costae verae, true ribs), which should be attached to the sternum, have in fact be cut cleanly through and are not attached to either cartilage or the sternum (which is missing).

So, here's a a representation of human ribs, and now compare this image with the image before:



Does this make it any clearer now?
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The boney part of the ribcage is more or less intact. What seems to have happened is that the ribs were cut where they become the cartilage part that connects directly to the sternum. As Neseret says, this was done before mummification and when the ribs were still "soft" and could be cut cleanly. After mummification they would be brittle and there probably would be some splintering had they been cut then. As to why his sternum was removed, well, we'll probably never know, unless this is the first evidence of open heart surgery, but I doubt it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guess i should pay more attention to the dates and sources on these tv shows
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vangu Vegro
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
As to why his sternum was removed, well, we'll probably never know, unless this is the first evidence of open heart surgery, but I doubt it...


For what it's worth, W. Benson Harer has a theory that Tutankhamun had his chest kicked in by a horse or bitten off by a hippo. Interesting theory, perhaps not the most plausible one but interesting nonetheless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vangu Vegro wrote:
Ikon wrote:
As to why his sternum was removed, well, we'll probably never know, unless this is the first evidence of open heart surgery, but I doubt it...


For what it's worth, W. Benson Harer has a theory that Tutankhamun had his chest kicked in by a horse or bitten off by a hippo. Interesting theory, perhaps not the most plausible one but interesting nonetheless.


The Harers` (there are two of them the younger of which recently wrote about the Hippo bite in Ancient Egypt Magazine) theory is IMO interesting stuff not so much for the suggested cause of the injury but more for some little discussed details.
They had access to the CT-scans and claim to have found out that the diaphragm shows two peculiarities: first that it is inverted (pushed downwards towards the abdominal cavity) what suggests that the chest was packed first.
The second peculiarity is that the diaphragm is intact. The removal of the lungs via the abdominal incision usually required either its complete destruction or its being punctured in two points. Evidence for this practise is seen in many other mummies and has even been reported by Elliot Smith.

The Harers argue that Tut`s chest must have been wide open so it was not necessary to puncture the diaphragm.

As far as I know no other experts have commented so far on their findings nor have they been challenged.

If true (and the Harers seem to be quite certain of their cause) this is another strong indication for a violent impact on the body, especially the chest, around the time of death.

To neseret:
Thanks for the additional info.
Although the x-ray shows an anterior view due to the removal of the front it is basically the back part of the ribcage that is seen, right?
That makes me still wonder what the circled areas mean.
Do they show damage to the back part of the ribs, maybe broken or partly broken ones?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pharaohs and Queens All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group