Ancient Egyptian Forum • View topic

Si-amun · **Posted:** Fri May 13, 2005 3:18 am

Exactly, that is the reason I haven't bothered to write an answer to Claude II's post, frankly I can't be bothered to argue against a brick wall and am fed up with being accused of all manner of horrible things. The answer to solve a row Claude is to drop it completely, not try and carry it on hoping it might "resolve itself".

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Fri May 13, 2005 5:06 am

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the topic has rather "drifted" a bit? :shock:

As far as I've read, this group is a civil one (Which is a major relief!). I don't like fights, and I hope Cluade II can see that not everyone on here likes to discuss a matter in which people CAN get offended by some things, and thier opinons are thiers, regardless. Actions speak louder than words, but in the case of the internet, typing speaks louder than words. ^_^; Heh heh.
As for me, the topic: Zahi Hawass means to do well, though he tends to have a big head sometimes, I think he's a self-confident and self-assured man and a well-respected Egyptologist (Honestly...I'm trying to settle this conflict by talking about something else, which is what the forum topic was. Though, I fear this may not work, and I want this to be as peacefull as humanly possible. ^_^; ).

maatkara · **Posted:** Sat May 14, 2005 12:53 pm

oh, dear! You are completely right and think I am responsible as well as Claude....I apologise!
It's nice that we can have somebody sensitive like you are!!
:wink:

....you've got the right feeling! :wink:

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sat May 14, 2005 2:13 pm

Hatshepsut76 · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 12:49 am

I agree on what you say: my friend maatkara didnt't ever insult anyone here :wink:

; besides, critics must be CONstructive...

Psusennes I · Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am Posts:912 Location: England

I quite agree. In fact I think that the title of this thread was itself counter-productive.

maatkara · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 4:11 am

wow! thank you so much to you all! :oops:

Dark_Meryetamun_28 · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 8:30 am

*sigh* TOPIC. No more flaming. The next one who flames gets on my bad list and this topic will be closed after that.

maatkara · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 8:41 am

Psus!
I think that it is not the title of the topic but the way it has turned....we all should try to respect the other :wink:

Anyway, I started the topic proposing an article in which Doctor Saleh was arguing with Hawass..By that time they still had to decide who was going to take part of the Scientific Team....now the game is over: tests on Tut are already done, and other themes are now going on about ..."Arguing with Hawass...."...
I believe that we should wonder why they didn't make a DNA test on King Tut's Mummy and toxic (?) test to see if he was poisoned....but this matter is already treated in other topics.... :wink:

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 9:25 am

^_^ I'm glad that all is well now. Flames are definately NOT welcome. It can be peacefull, now. And I'm happy everyone is in agreement that criticism should always be constructive. I hate it when all people are insulted. I just wonder, to reply to maatkara's point, if Tut's mummy should've had a DNA test...or something like that.

Unas · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 9:41 am

Well, it might be interesting, but what would it prove? That Tut has CG AT thingies? ...Perhaps they could start a worldwide search for "Tut's lost kin" ..? :wink:

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 10:22 am

Osiris II · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 6:12 pm

the_tutness_is_here · **Posted:** Sun May 15, 2005 6:46 pm

The only evidence I can think of that can link Tut and his family is a stele--I read this according to Nicholas Reeves' "The Complete Tutankhamun"--that said: "The king's own bodily son, his beloved, Tutankhaten". (The king, of course, being Akhenaten.). Which, might I add, was found in Akhetaten, in the North palace, I believe. ^_^ That's what I've read, but I think there should be more evidence on it.

Osiris II · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2005 11:50 am

I agree--the stele that was found spoke of "the king's own bodily son" and meaning Tutankhamen, but there is no mention of the king to which is being refered. If Amenhotep III had been his father, Tut would have refered to him as his bodily father. Actually, it was not unheard of for a king to refer to his ancestors as his "bodily father," as Tut had done in reference to Tuthmosis IV, his great-grandfather.