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 

No sign of Queen Tut as tomb reveals 3,000-year-old secret
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Smartie
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 250
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:16 pm    Post subject: No sign of Queen Tut as tomb reveals 3,000-year-old secret Reply with quote

LINK

Quote:
Archaeologists hoped the first tomb discovered in the Valley of the Kings in 80 years would hold the mummy of King Tut's mother.


We don't even know who Tut's mom was? and there is still debate on who is father was..for all we know Tut didn't even know who his parents were Laughing I just had a thought of little tut with a friend:

Boy-Who's your mommy and daddy?
Tut-uh...I don't know.[/url]
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In one of his all-seeing, all-knowing pronouncements, Zahi Hawass has said that the last coffin from KV63 is Kiya's, Tut's mother.
Where he gets this information is unknown. As far as I've understood, there has been no mummy found in the burial. There IS evidence that the last coffin did contain a mummy. I will wait for further news...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawass does grab one's attention, doesn't he? You never know what he'll say next, but it's certain to be entertaining. Laughing
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if Hawass' motives are to just make sure he gets as much publicity as he can? He did generate a few headlines, didn't he? Laughing


I don't see how anything in the find links the tomb/embalmers storehouse/whatever to King Tut's mother.

There are several theories about Tut's parentage. Akhenaten & Kiya, Akhenaten & Nefertiti, Amenhotep III & Tiye, Smenkhare and Meritaten, etc. And there's no conclusive evidence, just hints and circumstantial evidence.

It would be nice if we could find out who his parents were Smile

The last coffin seems female? So maybe all we can say is that the last coffin belonged to an "important" female. I'm not sure we can even say that the find is linked to royalty?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hoepfully the resin can be cleaned to the point that they can read the inscriptions on this coffin. Then we can at least know for whom the coffin was built, even if the remains in there now may not be that person. And I haven't heard word yet, come to think of it, if the bones they've found are conclusively human. Confused
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ImageOfAten
Priest
Priest


Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 604
Location: Horizon of the Aten

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was not aware any bones were found. Are there any links out there relating to the matter? Speaking of Hawass, yesterday I was watching a program on the Travel Channel and he was on it talking about curses and such. He seemed really excited (as usual) while he was telling his story. One thing is for certain though, he is a very entertaining person!
_________________
"You made heaven far away just to rise in it, to see all you make, Being unique and risen in your aspects of being as 'living Aten' manifest, shining, far yet near".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
<...>

It would be nice if we could find out who his parents were Smile



Even nicer to understand why someone went to a great deal of trouble to make sure this information was not easily available, or perhaps Tut himself (and his advisors) didn't wish to advertise his connection to Amarna. I guess I could see that.

Quote:

The last coffin seems female? So maybe all we can say is that the last coffin belonged to an "important" female. I'm not sure we can even say that the find is linked to royalty?


Last one looks like it's going to be the most interesting. Last one to be opened, anyway. I think this is Coffin E. Big one, totally resined, arms crossed, filled with garlands and a couple of bones, rib fragments, a radius, etc. I'm going to go out on a limb and say these are the smashed-up remains of Kiya and Hawass is basing his latest theory around someone finding part of her name inscribed somewhere.

Wonder what's going on w/the names, whether there aren't any or Hawass is gating them because he wants to be the one to announce it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Wonder what's going on w/the names, whether there aren't any or Hawass is gating them because he wants to be the one to announce it.


I never thought of that. So, what if Hawass is privy to some information on the coffin to which the rest of us are not? I was getting a good chuckle out of it and just chalked it up to his usual "Hawassisms" because there didn't seem any solid footing for such an argument otherwise.

If this is true, it should be an announcment made by Otto or one of his people, because Hawass is not part of this team. Confused
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:
Quote:
Wonder what's going on w/the names, whether there aren't any or Hawass is gating them because he wants to be the one to announce it.


I never thought of that. So, what if Hawass is privy to some information on the coffin to which the rest of us are not? I was getting a good chuckle out of it and just chalked it up to his usual "Hawassisms" because there didn't seem any solid footing for such an argument otherwise.

If this is true, it should be an announcment made by Otto or one of his people, because Hawass is not part of this team. Confused


But Hawass is part of *every* team. He's like the Stalin of Egyptology, as we saw from the way he treated Fletcher. Cross him or speak out of turn and you can find yourself given the boot. One thing I've been noticing in the articles is a kind of nervous tension:

NY Times:
Ms. Lokma was asked a question about the contents and she looked up, saw Dr. Hawass and seemed a bit nervous. "Please," she said, "ask Dr. Hawass."

Hawass also yanked his team lead (I've forgotten the name) and replaced him sometime after an article came out in which the original team lead was doing some interesting speculation. I wish I could find the article where he's interviewed and the article where Schaden mentions the new lead. And Schaden himself appears increasingly ill at ease, although this is blamed on his relations with the University of Memphis.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking that Hawass' funny side hides a controlling, extremely vindictive personality, but he really bothers me sometimes, and this is one of those times. It feels like he wants to be the spokesperson for everything, that he will be the only one allowed to reveal key details and the only one allowed to speculate. This wouldn't be such a problem if he didn't have such a lamentable track record of being totally wrong most of the time. I keep telling myself that this is about KV 63, not about "Zowie" Hawass, but he's deeply involved in this site, and this is not a minor find by any means. I'm worried that he's going to downplay or hide information that does not conform to whatever theory he's proposing at the moment. Right now, he's convinced that Tut buried his mommy here (nevermind the other six adult coffins and the infant Coffin G). What happens when it turns out to be Nefertiti and her daughters and the embalming materials match up perfectly with the remaining wrapping on the KV35 mummies? If evidence comes from KV63 confirming Fletcher's hypothesis, will the Big Z eat his words? Or will he play around with sketchy DNA reports and continue to insist the "younger lady" is male?

Back to the coffins...

The one at the back, "E" I believe, has inscriptions running in the same places that the KV55 coffin had them. It's a larger coffin with crossed arms. The official story is that the inscriptions are unreadable for the moment because of the pitch, but I bet some of them *are* readable and that they're female titulary, so Hawass decided that meant Kiya, because, of course, Tut would have wanted his tomb near his mom's. I really must applaud Hawass' profound psychological insights into the mind of an 18yr old Egyptian monarch who, despite loving his mommy so much he had to be buried near her, nevertheless chucks her in a hole with seven other people and their burial refuse.

If this does turn out to be Nefertiti, her six daughters, and the two mysterious "tasherits" it's going to be interesting to see how Hawass plays this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel that the concept of Hawass is getting a bit out of control here, so I would like to share my opinion of him.
I've attended several of his lectures, both in L.A.'s ARCE chapter and at UCLA, where he teaches in the summer. I've met him personally, talked to him privately, and meet with him at least once a year.
I realize that he has a supreme ego, can be very dictatorial, "rules" the SCA, and thinks his word, on any subject, is nothing but the absolute truth and final statement.
But I also know that he is a man extremely dedicated to Egypt. It is under his authority that so many good things have occurred there--a new museum planned for Cairo, rebuilding of the Alexandrian library and museum, the excavation and reconstruction work that is being done at so many sites. His enthusiasm for Egyptology is very apparent in the first five minutes you are talking to him.
He is criticized for his stance on various subjects, and I think his notification that Egypt's "looted" treasures should be returned by all the various museums that have such things is hopeless and will never occur. But supreme in his demeanor is his efforts to get more recognition for Egypt--both ancient and modern-day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
<...> But supreme in his demeanor is his efforts to get more recognition for Egypt--both ancient and modern-day.


I've never liked these kinds of arguments as they never take into the account the possibility of doing all this good work without being a dictator about it. How does Hawass' borderline hysterical denunciations of Fletcher and the University of York team advance the cause of recognition for Eqypt? How does his mugging for the TV cameras in KV63 advance the cause of anything but Zahi's ego? Again, it would be tolerable if it were done for the reasons so many people say it is. But I don't believe it. I think the benefits to Egypt are a byproduct of Hawass' campaign to establish himself as the world's foremost Egyptologist (a title I notice he seems to be awarding himself with greater frequency of late).

KV63 is a once-in-a-generation chance to shed some light on the end of the Armarna Atenist period. It worries me that Hawass is so in charge here and that he's making these wild declarations without sharing the evidence he's basing them on. I'm also worried that given his iron fist control over work being done there, and his demonstrated willingness to actively distort if not dismiss out of hand the York expeditions painstaking work at KV35, that he'll cherry-pick the site to support whatever theory he finally settles upon, and suppress anything that contradicts it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...so Hawass decided that meant Kiya, because, of course, Tut would have wanted his tomb near his mom's. I really must applaud Hawass' profound psychological insights into the mind of an 18yr old Egyptian monarch who, despite loving his mommy so much he had to be buried near her, nevertheless chucks her in a hole with seven other people and their burial refuse.


LOL Thanks for the chuckle, and well put. I still outright dismiss this argument for Kiya as rather silly because KV62 is certainly not the tomb where Tut would've wanted to be buried. This was not a king's tomb, simply stated. That argument falls to pieces the moment it's uttered because it's based on emotion and sentiment, not logic or evidence.

I do have to agree with Osiris II that Hawass has done a lot for Egypt. No one can argue that. Likewise no one can argue the fact that he's an attention-craving megalomaniac (hmm, just like the pharaohs of old), but he does work hard for the preservation and study of his nation's antiquities.

I've never met Hawass so I cannot say I like or dislike him personally; I have only his words and actions on which to base an opinion. Being involved with Chicago's Field Museum and Oriental Institute and having become acquainted with a number of Egyptologists who work there or used to work there, and who have worked with Hawass themselves, I can say that some influential scholars in the field of Egyptology would rather undego root canal than work further with Hawass. He is simply not well liked or respected by many of his colleagues. Then again, there are many Egyptologists who do support and respect him, and their word is equally important.

With the Tut exhibit now in Chicago, I had hoped to meet Hawass so I could at least get a first impression, but I haven't been able to be at the Field whenever he's stopped by. All I know is, he made quite an ass of himself at the initial press gathering when he turned the forum into a personal tirade about certain antiquities being returned to Egypt. He is right to struggle for that goal, but some settings are inappropriate. It demonstrates a lack of focus and maturity.

Finally, I do know one man who is personally familiar with Hawass and has known him for years. This man is a dear friend and a colleague of mine at the Field, and he was born and raised in Egypt. He is a leading biochemist and helped to establish the blood-bank system now in place in Egypt, and he is a dyed-in-the-wool Egyptophile. This friend of mine has related that Hawass was an easy man to know when he was a field archaeologist, and was widely popular and approachable. It would seem that at the time when Hawass took over the SCA, his ego quickly got away from him. It's snowballed from there to the Hawass that is so controversial and difficult today.

Quote:
How does Hawass' borderline hysterical denunciations of Fletcher and the University of York team advance the cause of recognition for Eqypt?


It seems clear that there was more going on here than the public ever knew about, and I am referring to Fletcher. I think there had already been "bad blood" between this Brit and Hawass before the Nefertiti fiasco. But the sad truth is, Fletcher could hardly have approached the Nefertiti event more poorly. She rushed to publish (including the Discover Channel special) and from the start had based her arguments on very shaky ground. This is not to say the mummy in question can't have been Nefertiti, but the cons outweigh the pros. I was silly enough to have bought her book, even after reading the scathing KMT review of it, and her theories are full of holes. She was too green and unestablished in that point in her career to go out on such a limb.

Fletcher is no idiot. She is clearly a very intelligent woman with a great deal of potential, so I hope in the future that the SCA will lighten up on her; this may have to wait till Hawass is no longer its leader, however. I don't know how the sexual-harassment allegations arose, but it was a very bad idea that made the situation only worse for her. And all of this is partly why the ARTP found itself in such a state that their excavations in the Valley came to a grinding halt, leading to the University of Memphis team's discovery of KV63.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:

LOL Thanks for the chuckle, and well put. I still outright dismiss this argument for Kiya as rather silly because KV62 is certainly not the tomb where Tut would've wanted to be buried. This was not a king's tomb, simply stated. That argument falls to pieces the moment it's uttered because it's based on emotion and sentiment, not logic or evidence.


I've resolved not to be mean to Zahi anymore, since no matter what I think of his management style, a lot of very exciting things have been happening since he took charge. Even if he later got in some kind of feud, he *did* allow the studies in KV35 to take place. He commissioned that major new study of Tut himself, even though it came to the baffling conclusion that Tut broke his leg and died of gangrene(??). And I do appreciate his work in getting information out rather than letting it vanish into the limbo of the ivory tower, to be published years later, if at all. Amarna brings out the passion in us all (3500 years later!), and he's not going to be immune.

Quote:

he does work hard for the preservation and study of his nation's antiquities.


An area of major concern. So much has been lost. I wish they'd do more w/the mummies like vaccuum seal them in plexiglass (like the KV55 coffin). I think it's a great idea to leave them where they were found, but they really do need some protection.

Quote:
, I can say that some influential scholars in the field of Egyptology would rather undego root canal than work further with Hawass. He is simply not well liked or respected by many of his colleagues. Then again, there are many Egyptologists who do support and respect him, and their word is equally important.


That root canal business cracked me up. Egyptology is a pretty fractious field. For all I know, a guy in Hawass' position has to choose sides, that remaining neutral isn't possible.


<...>
Quote:

It would seem that at the time when Hawass took over the SCA, his ego quickly got away from him. It's snowballed from there to the Hawass that is so controversial and difficult today.


Well, let's hope he strikes a balance and regardless of his own opinions, makes sure the facts are out there for others to form different ones.


Quote:
How does Hawass' borderline hysterical denunciations of Fletcher and the University of York team advance the cause of recognition for Eqypt?


Quote:

It seems clear that there was more going on here than the public ever knew about, and I am referring to Fletcher. I think there had already been "bad blood" between this Brit and Hawass before the Nefertiti fiasco. But the sad truth is, Fletcher could hardly have approached the Nefertiti event more poorly. She rushed to publish (including the Discover Channel special) and from the start had based her arguments on very shaky ground. This is not to say the mummy in question can't have been Nefertiti, but the cons outweigh the pros. I was silly enough to have bought her book, even after reading the scathing KMT review of it, and her theories are full of holes. She was too green and unestablished in that point in her career to go out on such a limb.


I actually liked her book since I admire someone taking a bold stand, putting the facts out there, and then building a theory from them. I especially appreciate that she's put the focus on these three mummies since I think they're among the most important in Egyptian history, tightly related to Amarna. But I can also see how she might have deceived Hawass as to the true aim of her studies. Alas, I can also understand *why* she might have done this given that Hawass just does not want that body to be Nefertiti. I definitely agree that there seems to be something very personal going on as well.



Quote:

Fletcher is no idiot. She is clearly a very intelligent woman with a great deal of potential, so I hope in the future that the SCA will lighten up on her; this may have to wait till Hawass is no longer its leader, however. I don't know how the sexual-harassment allegations arose, but it was a very bad idea that made the situation only worse for her. And all of this is partly why the ARTP found itself in such a state that their excavations in the Valley came to a grinding halt, leading to the University of Memphis team's discovery of KV63.


The gods do work in strange ways. If it turns out those bones in Coffin E correspond to the parts of the body of the Younger Lady that are missing, this new discovery is going to be explosive. I can't tell yet. One picture had annotation on it indicating that a radius and a metatarsal were in the coffin. But it sounds like YL's forearm(s) are intact (all three of them). Fletcher says YL's feet were "detached" but I can't tell if that means they're separate from the body, or missing. Anyway, we've got a body that has been stripped of practically everything that could possibly identify it, and had an arm ripped off, and now we have a coffin with garlands and body pieces. It's so tempting to believe they're related.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kmt_sesh
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Posts: 7099
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
. He commissioned that major new study of Tut himself, even though it came to the baffling conclusion that Tut broke his leg and died of gangrene(??).


You really find that one hard to swallow? It's the conclusion I've come to accept as most probable, and Hawass himself wasn't part of the process of determining this scenario; that was the province of the team of anatomists and forensic scientists who studied the body.

The last gallery in our Tut exhibit at the Field is all about the mummy and the modern tests that have been conducted on it since 1968. There are life-sized prints of the CT-scan images produced in January 2005, and you can clearly see the severe fracture of the left distal femur. The scientists who examined this injury noted the inflammation of the bone at the wound site, indicating the boy-king survived for approximately five days after he suffered this fracture.

The Egyptians were advanced at treating all manner of trauma, but when it came to bacterial or viral infections, they were helpless. Without treatment gangrene is nearly always fatal, and there was no effective way to treat gangrene 3,300 years ago in Egypt. Now, exactly how Tut suffered this severe fracture is anyone's guess. Chariot accident, battle wound, serious dancing mishap? Hard to tell.

National Geographic put out an excellent DVD called King Tut's Final Secrets. It covers the findings of the forensic team in detail, and touches on numerous other things related to Tut and his tomb. I highly recommend it.

Quote:
An area of major concern. So much has been lost. I wish they'd do more w/the mummies like vaccuum seal them in plexiglass...


That's one of the very reasons the Tutankhamun exhibition is touring the world again. Much (if not most) of the proceeds is going straight back to Egypt so that they may be better funded to take care of their antiquities and the languishing condition of their museums--as well as the construction of new ones (including the new museum slated for Giza). And it's also why the current exhibition is so expensive; the SCA is determined to make a profit, and I support them in this.

Quote:
Egyptology is a pretty fractious field. For all I know, a guy in Hawass' position has to choose sides, that remaining neutral isn't possible.


You sure got that right. I didn't know to what degree this was true till I became a docent and started meeting some of the scholars and the people who work with and for them--much of the gossip comes from the latter group. Very Happy Down the road from the Field Museum is the Oriental Institute, and although this is one of the world's most prestigious institutions for the study of the ancient Near East, it's also the hub of a great deal of hush-hush infighting among its scholars. Much of it is professionally motivated, much of it is political, and some of it is pure personality conflicts. I try to stay clear of it all. I'm just a happy peon. Razz

Quote:
I actually liked her book since I admire someone taking a bold stand, putting the facts out there, and then building a theory from them.


Of course stretching out one's neck for one's theories is a necessary part of academia, but as I see it Fletcher was not a solidly established Egyptologist to go to such lenghts. This is especially true when you're working with a personality such as Zahi Hawass, who runs everything in Egypt with an iron fist. In a way it kind of reminds me of how Carter promised exclusives to the London paper without first consulting the Egyptian government--just not the kind of thing a professional ought to do. I seriously hope all this bothersome mess blows over because I think Fletcher would otherwise have a successful career.
_________________


Visit my blog!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RobertStJames
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kmt_sesh wrote:

You really find that one hard to swallow? It's the conclusion I've come to accept as most probable, and Hawass himself wasn't part of the process of determining this scenario; that was the province of the team of anatomists and forensic scientists who studied the body.


Yet another team of scientists (those working w/Brier) and in fact every team prior to that did not come to the conclusion that gangrene killed Tut. Just like everyone who examined the younger lady in KV 35 concluded that she was female--until an Egypitan DNA lab hired by Hawass decided she wasn't. I'm seeing a pattern here--Brier/Fletcher get big headlines w/their theories, and Hawass comes along later to refute those theories


I find it very difficult to believe that the last of the Thutmosid male line conveniently fell down hard enough to fracture his leg and then died of the injury. The guy was a cripple as those walking sticks in his tomb make clear (as do numerous depictions of him using a cane). I just don't see him riding a horse, nor going solo in a chariot, and definitely not riding off into battle.

Even more disturbing is that Thutmose V (if that's who he is, the boy in KV35) also has extensive damage to one of his legs which was all but torn out of its socket. That's a lot of bodies (T5, "Nefertiti", Tut) at the end of the XIIIth dynasty showing signs of perimortem violence.


Quote:
The scientists who examined this injury noted the inflammation of the bone at the wound site, indicating the boy-king survived for approximately five days after he suffered this fracture.


I'm curious as to how this conclusion was arrived at. One thing Egyptology has taught us is that experts can arrive at very different conclusions.


Quote:

Chariot accident, battle wound, serious dancing mishap? Hard to tell.


Yet the kneecap is also missing and I doubt that happened naturally, nor can I see any reason why embalmers would remove it. Plus I know that Carter and others totally abused this skeleton with their primitive techniques. It strikes me as more than a little interesting that X-rays and scans are now being interpreted as a perimortem leg fracture and not as postmortem handling; especially given that these new findings are being advertised as putting to rest the rumor that Tut was murdered.

I think what bothers me the most is that the new theories are being refuted w/o offering anything in their stead. Their purpose is to disprove a theory, nothing more. This fits in very much with Hawass' stated mission of refuting the "pyramidiots." What I'm afraid of is that this group has grown to include anyone who does not agree with Zahi's current theories.

RstJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
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