October 17,2002
THE SAGA OF TUTANKHAMEN'S SKULL X-RAYS
Before reading further I suggest that you print
this
"Epistle to the World" because I shall refrain from highlighting
special aspects; the details are important and the eleven pages cannot
be
properly digested by cursory glances at a screen. Although I had
mentally
committed myself to monthly installments there are occasions in these
fast
moving times when one feels forced to deviate from this pattern. Too
much is
happening which deserves to be commented upon. The evening of Sunday,
October 6
was one such event when the Discovery Channel presented "The
Assassination of King Tut." In this pseudo-documentary the
English-speaking world finally received the answer as to who had
murdered
Tutankhamen, the last descendant of Egypt's fabled 18th Dynasty. The
mystery of
the king's sudden death, which has puzzled Egyptologists for decades,
was
solved by none other than a pair of detectives from my neighboring
cities of
Provo and Ogden. We were told that a set of skull X-rays had been
released to
them from England for their investigation. These produced "vital
evidence
for the detectives" and allowed them to finger the killer. Now at long
last "justice has been done" for the unfortunate victim and he
"can rest in peace." It had been Ay, the Prime Minister, who in the
waning years of his life, killed the frail handicapped Tut in order to
usurp
the throne. Since I made a more or less "cameo" appearance in this Machwerk
(the word has no direct English counterpart but denotes a piece of fake
artistry), I owe it to my friends and readers to set the record
straight.
I have had a long standing interest in Egyptian history and when I saw
on one
of my periodic trips to Vienna a book by Vandenberg Nofrete,
Echnaton und
ihre Zeit, I bought it right away. What I read in this book during
the
middle 1980's literally set this whole show in motion. It's obvious
that God's
mills grind slowly. The key sentences when translated from German read:
"Radiologic examinations of the mummy revealed that the young pharaoh
did
not die of natural causes and, therefore, urgently needed this tomb
[which had
been hastily prepared and was not originally intended for him].
Tut-ench-Amun
has a hole [Loch] in the posterior portion of his skull [Hinterkopf]
as it might have resulted from a club or spear tip. Did the little king
die
from the hand of a murderer? Many regard Eje [Ay] the 'Father of the
God' and
successor of Tut-ench-Amun, as the murderer; an assumption which has
not yet
been fully validated."
The words "hole in the skull" clearly raised the interest of the
professional neurologist and I immediately decided to follow through on
this.
Where are these X-rays and what do they really show? was the question.
But
Vandenberg had written for the general public and had, therefore, not
provided
references for his statement. There are, however, other sources and the
Cambridge
Ancient History has a well deserved excellent reputation. It
contained a
statement by Cyril Aldred, a highly respected Egyptologist:
"He [Tutankhamen] died in his nineteenth year, perhaps as the result of
a
wound in the region of his left ear which penetrated the skull and
resulted in
a cerebral haemorrhage.
How this lesion was caused must remain a mystery, but the nature and
seat of
the injury make it more likely to be the result of a battle wound or an
accident than the work of an assassin."
Now we no longer have just a skull defect but also
a brain
hemorrhage. Furthermore it is not in the back of the head but in the
region of
the left ear, and young Tut wasn't murdered after all. Where did Aldred
get his
information from? As a scientist he gave the reference which read "The
Times, Science Report, 25 October 1969." A trip to the public library
followed, the article was located and printed. The headline of this
brief note
read "Violent death of Tutankhamen." The essential sentences were:
"Examination of the mummy by Professor R.G. Harrison and Dr. R.C.
Connolly
of the anatomy department at Liverpool University, has revealed wounds
that
resemble brain damage sustained by a violent blow on the head.
X-rays of the pharaoh's head have shown up a thinning of the bone at
the back
of the skull, Professor Harrison said yesterday. His diagnosis is that
the
thinning was caused by a cerebral haemorrhage resulting from a blow to
the
head."
I found out later that the statement was based on a BBC documentary
which had
been shown in the UK in 1969 and will be discussed later.
All right; now we no longer have a skull defect but only a thinning of
the bone
caused by bleeding in the brain. Thus, the question remained what did
these
X-rays really show? But at least there were now two names and an
address. This
is how my correspondence with Mr. Connolly, Senior Lecturer at the
Anatomy
department of Liverpool University, started and which thanks to my
compulsive
nature survived the trip from Michigan to retirement in Utah. He was
one of the
key members of Harrison's expedition which actually had as its goal to
investigate the kinship of Tutankhamen with a mummy that had previously
been
thought as belonging to Akhenaten but is now regarded as that of the
ephemeral
Smenkhare, who was either co-regent or for a short time successor of
the
heretic pharaoh. Precise data are lacking. As a result of their
examinations Harrison
suggested on anatomic and Connolly on serologic grounds that
Tutankhamen and
Smenkhare may have been brothers. This important scientific finding
was,
however, in the public mind overshadowed by the sensation the skull
X-rays had
caused. When I wrote to the Chairman of the anatomy department in the
summer of
1986 my letter was answered by Mr. Connolly who wrote:
"Before Professor Harrison died, we were working on an extensive
analysis
of the x-rays of several Dynastic specimens including Tutankhamun but
this is
still incomplete. I have all the x-rays and am hoping to complete the
study in
the not too far distant future and I shall give you the information
about
publication.
We haven't published anything beyond the 1972 Antiquity but I may
produce a
report before publication of the main comparative study because several
workers
have been seeking information specifically about Tutankhamun."
I thanked Connolly for his information and asked him to inform me about
the
final results of his investigations. I also made a trip to the
University
Library in Detroit and unearthed two relevant articles by Harrison.
One, dated
1971, was hidden away in a journal called Buried History
under the
title "Post Mortem on Two Pharaohs. Was Tutankhamen's Skull Fractured?"
The second article was the mentioned 1972 report in Antiquity
with the
simple title "The Remains of Tutankhamun." This article is a classic
because it provides most valuable evidence about how Carter and Derry's
"autopsy" of the pharaoh in 1925 was really carried out. The details
would take me too far afield now, suffice it to say that due to an
excessive
use of unguents the king's mummy was found to have been solidly glued
to the
bottom of the third coffin and even the gold coffin itself was stuck to
the
bottom of the second coffin. Carter's team had to literally chisel the
mummy
away from the coffin to get at all the artifacts which now grace
museums around
the world. They severed the limbs, sawed the trunk away from the pelvis
and
decapitated the mummy at the seventh cervical vertebra. Mr. Filce Leek,
a
member of the expedition, produced a book afterwards under the title The
Human Remains of Tutankhamen where he details the condition in
which
Harrison's team found the mummy of the king. Unless one has read the
Antiquity
paper and Leek's book in detail no worth-while opinion can be
formulated about
the meaning of the X-rays and a possible cause of death.
While the paper in Antiquity did not enter into speculations
how
Tutankhamen may have died, Harrison did write in the Buried History
article:
"While examining X-ray pictures of Tutankhamen's skull I discovered a
small piece of bone in the left side of the skull cavity. This could be
part of
ethmoid bone which had become dislodged from the top of the nose when
an
instrument was passed up the nose into the cranial cavity during the
embalming
process. On the other hand, the X-rays also suggest that the piece of
bone is
fused with the overlying skull and that this could be consistent with a
depressed fracture which had healed. This could mean that Tutankhamen
died from
a brain hemorrhage caused by a blow to his skull from a blunt
instrument.
This evidence taken together with the fact that the pharaoh was only 18
when he
died, and considered against the troubled times during which he lived,
poses an
intriguing question: was Tutankhamen murdered?"
It was this sentence and one other sentence on the mentioned BBC
documentary
which started all the speculations about murder. Without any new
evidence since
1969, Tut's death is now being declared not only a homicide but we even
have
the murderer according to the Discovery Channel.
Yet when one looks at what has been presented so far in regard to the
interpretation of the crucial X-rays we have two different locations
for the
supposed "fracture" and "hemorrhage." One is in the
posterior portion of the head, namely the occipital bone and the other
higher
up in the parietal bone. A scientifically inclined mind might ask: well
which
way is it? Let's give these X-rays to a panel of neuroradiologists and
let them
decide what the proper interpretation of the radiographs should be. Let
us
remember, also, that Harrison was Head of the Department of Anatomy at
the
University of Liverpool and although an excellent scientist he was not
necessarily a specialist in neuroradiology.
The years went by, Martha and I had retired from our jobs, moved to
Utah and I
kept checking the literature intermittently whether or not new
information had
come out from Liverpool about the final interpretation of the X-rays.
When this
was not the case I asked, in December of 1995, my friend and colleague
Dr. Ted
Reynolds, Director of "The Institute of Epileptology" at the Maudsley
Hospital in London, if he could find out who the current Chairman of
the
Anatomy Department at Liverpool University is because as time moves on
people
have a tendency to die. Lo and behold in April of 1996 I received a
letter from
Connolly. It was dated April 1, 1996 and stated:
"Your letter to Dr. Reynolds has been passed to Professor Chadwick, who
passed it to Professor Wood who passed it to me. Reports of my death
have (as
the man said) been greatly exaggerated!
I enclose a positive and a negative print of the original lateral
radiograph of
the badly damaged head and neck of Tutankhamen.
I am afraid there is really nothing beyond our original publications on
the
subject which I can add about these radiographs. They have been
examined
recently by several eminent radiologists, and apart from the obvious
features
referred to in previous publications they really do not contribute
anything
particularly significant either to the procedures for mummification in
the 18th
Dynasty or, more importantly to the cause of death."
The letter ended with the request that in any publication credit should
be
given to the Department and that there is a standard University charge
for
publication in popular magazines or in non-academic books.
I thanked Connolly for his pictures and also mentioned that this view
of the
head has in the meantime already been published by Nicholas Reeves in The
Complete Tutankhamen. In the text Reeves wrote, "Sadly Harrison
did
not live to publish fully his thoughts on this feature [the obvious
bone
splinter in the parietal area], and it is not clear whether he believed
the
damage to have been sustained before or after death, accidentally or
intentionally. That the king was murdered, however, seems increasingly
likely." How Reeves, who was a Curator in the British Museum's
Department
of Egyptian Antiquities, arrived at the likelihood of murder was not
elaborated
on.
Photographs in hand I proceeded to show them to my colleagues Dr.
Richard
Boyer, Head of the Department of Medical Imaging at Primary Children's
Hospital
(Salt Lake City's Pediatric Hospital for the University of Utah) where
I still
worked as a consultant, Dr. Anne Osborn a highly respected specialist
in
Neuroradiology at the University Hospital, and the Medical Examiner of
the
State of Utah, Dr. Todd Grey. This was done on separate occasions to
obtain
unbiased independent opinions. The verdict was unanimous: the splinter
is in
all probability due to post-mortem artifact, there is no evidence for a
skull
defect but unless one had the actual radiographs a final opinion could
not be
rendered merely on photographs. The visit to Dr. Grey was prompted by
the
desire to discuss my own ideas, on how the king might have died, with a
forensic pathologist. In a subsequent letter, dated September 30, 1996,
he
confirmed that they were reasonable. The X-ray information was promptly
relayed
to Connolly with the request that he should continue to keep my
interest in
mind and let me know if and when something new developed.
Something did, but not in Liverpool. I had attended the American
Clinical
Neurophysiology Meeting in Boston and during a break in the proceedings
wandered across the street to the Public Library. Everything was nicely
computerized and not quite knowing what I would be most interested in I
typed
"Tutankhamen." Much to my surprise up came a brief article written by
David Stout for the New York Times June 30, 1996. The
headline was
"The violent Death of King Tut." This was obviously the same as that
of the 1969 London Times article except that irreverent
American
journalists are loath to use the king’s full name. The article stated:
"After studying the X-rays of Tutankhamen's skull, two scientists said
last week that he might have been bludgeoned, and that his death at the
tender
age of 19, might have been slow.
The discovery was made when Bob Brier, an Egyptologist at the C. W.
Post Campus
of Long Island University, asked Dr. Gerald Irwin, a physician and
trauma
specialist at the university, to examine the X-rays of King Tut that
were taken
28 years ago at the boy Pharaoh's tomb.
Dr Irwin said the X-rays showed that King Tut, who ruled Egypt more
than 3,000
years ago, could have died of a blow to the head. And a line on the
skull could
indicate a blood clot, meaning Tut may not have died right away."
Immediately upon returning home a Fax went off to Connolly asking him
whether
or not Brier and Irwin had been members of the team of "eminent
radiologists" whom he had mentioned in his previous letter. The answer
was
that this had not been the case. Brier and Irwin did not even have the
X-rays.
What Brier had done was to enlarge the same photograph Connolly had
sent me
previously, placed it on an X-ray viewing box, "made up to look like an
actual radiograph - which it is not." To add emphasis not was
underlined three times. Well, so much for the integrity of the New York
Times
but it was sad that one of our medical colleagues had allowed himself
to be
used in this spoof. Nevertheless a new wrinkle had appeared in this
ongoing
saga: What was the reason for assuming that Tut's death had not been
sudden but
that he had lingered for some time before succumbing to whatever had
ailed him?
The answer was provided by a Father's Day present from my good and
faithful
wife in June 1998 in form of a book The Murder of Tutankhamen. A
True Story
by Bob Brier, Ph.D. The dust jacket tells us that Bob Brier is one of
the
country's most respected Egyptologists, whose specialty is
paleopathology and
that he has conducted autopsies on many ancient mummies. We are
informed
furthermore that "Now Egyptologist Bob Brier uses modern forensic
techniques and ancient documents to reveal the crime, identify the
killer of
Tutankhamen, and bring the tumultuous world of ancient Egypt and its
young pharaoh
alive."
The historic information Brier provides can be found in other texts on
the 18th
Dynasty but what is new is an explanation for David Stout's article.
Brier
wrote:
"Given the omissions and confusions surrounding Tutankhamen's X rays,
it
was clear that a careful reexamination of the material relating to
Tutankhamen's death was necessary. My first step was to get a copy of
Harrison's X ray, but he had died in 1979. His colleague R. C. Connolly
was
still at the University of Liverpool and he kindly sent me prints of
the X ray
along with a friendly note that was far from encouraging.
'I am afraid there is really nothing beyond our original publications
on the
subject which I can add about these radiographs...Apart from the
obvious
features referred to in previous publications they really do not
contribute
anything particularly significant either to the procedures for
mummification in
the Eighteenths Dynasty or more important, to the cause of death.'"
Brier referenced the letter as having been sent on April 1, 1996. An
attentive
reader of this Hot Issues installment will immediately have experienced
a
profound déja vu sensation and this is the reason why
I have presented
Connolly's letter to me in full which had precisely the same date. What
has
happened here? Connolly is a busy man who has a heavy teaching load, in
addition to his research efforts, and has little time to spare for
numerous
requests from all over the world about Tut's X-rays. So he apparently
sent the
same letter and photos to insistent petitioners. But Brier did
something which
is not quite kosher in scientific circles, especially when he subtitled
his
book "A True Story." He had replaced the statement about the
"eminent radiologists" who had examined the pictures recently with
ellipsis! The reason is obvious because what doesn't fit a hypothesis
is not
allowed to exist. If there is one message in all of this it is: Beware
of
Ellipsis! They can be used to hide the truth and whenever an ellipsis
is
encountered it behooves a scientist to go to the original text and find
out
what has been omitted.
But there is more. Figure 25 shows the by now famous photograph which
is
labeled as "X ray" and an arrow "points to the location of the
possible blow to the back of the head." It is nowhere near the left ear
as
had been suggested by earlier authors and is so close to the neck that
it would
seem highly unlikely for an assassin to strike this spot which is
extremely
well protected by the neck musculature. Figure 26 shows the blowup of
the
photograph on the view-box Connolly had mentioned in his Fax. Brier can
be seen
pointing to the bone splinter in the parietal area (which is regarded
as
artifact), while Dr. Irwin watches attentively. The legend to the
picture
states that "Irwin was the first to suggest Tutankhamen may have
lingered
before dying from a blow to the back of the head."
Irwin's opinion was based on the BBC documentary of 1969 which I had
not seen
until after the interview for the recent Assassination video. In this
documentary, which by the way is excellent, we are shown under what
conditions
the X-rays had been obtained by Harrison's team in 1968. On the film
Harrison
explained in detail the skull X-ray findings in regard to the splinter,
which
he regarded as artifact. But subsequently he added a fateful sentence
when he
described an "eggshell thinning" of the occipital bone, "This is
within normal limits. But in fact, it could have been caused by a
hemorrhage
under the membranes overlying the brain in this region, and this could
have been
caused by a blow to the head, and this in turn could have been
responsible for
death."
Here is now the proverbial "smoking gun" for the cerebral hemorrhage
or more properly called subdural hematoma, in neurologic circles. But
Harrison
was a scientist, as such cautious and not given to apodictic
statements. The
sentence is laced with "could." The only time a definitive
"is" was used occurs in relation to the finding being "within
normal limits." Now let us fast forward to 1998 and Brier's book where
he
wrote in regard to Dr. Irwin's opinion:
"First, I showed him the BBC video of Harrison's explanation of the X
ray.
Then he studied the X-ray print of Tutankhamen's skull. He agreed with
Harrison. There could indeed have been a blow to the back of the head;
the X
ray was evidence [sic] for a hematoma; an accumulation of blood beneath
the
skin. But then Dr. Irwin noticed something else. Inside the skull, near
the
location of the possible blood clot, an area of increased density
showed. This
is what would be expected from a calcified membrane formed over a blood
clot.
Physicians call it a chronic subdural hematoma - a phenomenon that
takes
considerable time to develop."
Although Brier goes on to state correctly that the X ray "does not
prove
he was murdered," because X-rays can't reveal intentions, he had to
justify the title of his book. He, therefore, continued:
"In Tutankhamen's case, two renowned experts saw evidence [sic] of a
hematoma in the skull. Did Tutankhamen trip and hit his head? Given the
location of the hematoma, that is unlikely. By itself, evidence of a
fatal blow
to the back of the skull in a place where an accident is unlikely would
never
convince a jury to convict. But it would certainly be enough to cause a
thorough investigation by the police to see if they could turn up
additional
evidence. They would label the X ray 'indication of suspicious
circumstances.'"
This is where the saga ended for the time being. Although the murder
theory was
not regarded as proven it was initiated by a set of X-rays which had
never left
Liverpool and had never been published in the medical literature so
that the
pros and cons of the various interpretations could have been discussed.
Brier
devotes the rest of the book to his literary detective work with the
final
conclusion that the assassin had been Ay. This would not have come as a
great
surprise to those Egyptologists who subscribed to the murder theory on
the
flimsy X-ray "evidence." I discussed this new "evidence"
again with my radiology colleagues who regarded the idea of a calcified
posterior fossa subdural hematoma as highly unlikely because they had
never
seen one in that location especially in a person of that age. Since my
own
efforts to get the actual X-rays had not been successful I dropped the
matter
and devoted myself to more attainable purposes.
But to paraphrase Shakespeare "uneasy rests the head that wore a
crown." In August of 2001 a call came out of clear blue sky and a lady,
who identified herself in a wonderful British accent as Kate Botting,
asked me
if she could talk to me in regard to Tutankhamen. She was making a
video about
Tutankhamen for Atlantic Productions to be shown on the Discovery
Channel and
would appreciate it if I could give her a few minutes to discuss the
project.
She was in town and could come to our house if this were agreeable.
Obviously
it was agreeable and over a couple of glasses of wine Martha and I
discussed
with Kate, and her camera crew supervisor Lance, all my efforts to find
out
what the X-rays really showed. I also told them that the evidence for
young Tut
having been murdered, as presented in Brier's book, is inadequate and
pointed
to various other more probable scenarios. She was enthused and asked if
I would
be willing to be interviewed for the film. I agreed but only on the
condition
that she bring along copies of the X-rays from Liverpool so that our
experts
could go over them and come to their own conclusions. She agreed and
filming
was set for September 15. But the whole world knows what happened on
September
11. Air travel came to a standstill and the project had to be
postponed.
After several delays Kate arrived on September 19 at 12:30 a.m. and by
8:30
a.m. I had finally at long last 3 X-rays in my hand. They consisted of
the
famed lateral view, a front to back view and one taken from the chin
up. I
headed immediately for what used to be called X-ray department of
Primary
Children's and now has the less descriptive but more flowery name of
Medical
Imaging. As usual Boyer was busy and there was no time for detailed
inspection.
I left the X-rays with him so that he could at least glance at them
prior to
the interview which was scheduled for the late afternoon of the same
day.
Filming took place, most appropriately, in the morgue of the Medical
Examiner's
building. I was first in line and explained for about half an hour the
reasons
why the "evidence" for Tut's murder does not necessarily hold up and
that a key element of Carter's findings may not have been properly
interpreted
in the past. Moisture had damaged not only the second coffin (the third
one was
pure gold) but even the bandages with which the body had been wrapped.
Carter
also reported that the closer to the body one came the worse the
condition of
the bandages and it seemed that the moisture had come from the body
itself.
Carter blamed this moisture on an excessive use of unguents for
religious
purposes and they had over the millennia introduced spontaneous
combustion
which accounted for the massively decayed state the mummy was found in.
Inasmuch as the whole purpose of mummification was to preserve the
deceased in
as intact a state as possible, and the ancient embalmers had been
experts in
their art, I found it difficult to believe Carter's explanation. It
seemed more
likely to me that the body may have been already in the process of
decay by the
time it reached the "House of Vigor" or "Vitality," as the
workshop of the embalmers was euphemistically referred to. Under these
circumstances even experts may have been confronted with an impossible
task.
Desiccation with natron, the usual procedure, would have been no longer
effective and a hasty disposal of the remains may have been imperative.
Anyone
who has had the unfortunate experience of viewing a decaying body knows
that
this process is accompanied by a terrible odor and I reasoned,
therefore, that
the clearly excessive use of unguents, by the bucketful, may have been
to mask
this dreadfully foul smell. I also suggested that there may well have
been an
accident during hunting or fishing in the desert or marshes
sufficiently far
away from the palace and even a few hours in the Egyptian sun can lead
to the
decay of a dead body. Another possibility could be related to the
unexplained,
and now no longer mentioned, nature of "the scab" on the left cheek
which Derry had noted at the original autopsy. It might have been due
to an
insect bite which had become infected leading to sepsis which likewise
hastens
bodily decomposition and makes proper embalming difficult if not
impossible.
This is precisely what I had discussed with Todd Grey in 1996 and he
had felt
that these were reasonable ideas. I did not talk about the skull X-rays
during
the TV interview but left that to Dr. Boyer.
My comments were, however condensed in the movie to two brief snippets
and
since they clearly interfered with the murder idea they were treated
with a
curt statement, "But Cooper and King [the detectives] think it unlikely
that Tutankhamen died in an accident, someone was always looking after
him." On TV, just like in newspapers, the editor always has the last
word
and that is all the public ever gets.
The same mangling of the interviews occurred also especially in regard
to Rich
Boyer's skull X-ray explanations. He spent about twenty minutes
explaining the
various features which were all due to post-mortem artifact but he then
became
attracted to the seeming lack of intervertebral disc spaces. He
interpreted
this finding as suggestive of a congenital condition called Klippel
Feil
syndrome where the neck is fused and movement of the head thereby
limited. This
was precisely what the producers had been longing to hear because with
a normal
skull X-ray the murder theory loses much of its luster. When it was
further
said by Boyer as well as Grey, whose turn had come next, that even a
relatively
minor fall or blow to the head might, therefore, be fatal the murder
story was
again on track and a brand new piece of "evidence" could be added.
The detectives then took over. With the help of a "profiler" and by
visiting the wall paintings of various tombs in Egypt the narrator told
us that
they were able "to right a wrong and nailed a killer." Ay had come
upon the sleeping Tut, lifted his head by the stiff neck and then
smashed it
down. Murder solved!!!
When I saw this fantasy I cringed, but I had been forewarned. Connolly
had sent
me from England newspaper extracts which detailed the contents of the
movie.
Even our own Time magazine had a long article on "Who Killed Tut?"
While my emotional tone was one of annoyance for having been misled in
believing that the movie would be a documentary where the various
possibilities
of Tutankhamen's death would be discussed in a scientific manner, I can
imagine
how Egyptologists must have felt when they saw how previously published
information was used by the producers to declare an old theory as a
brand new
fact. Since it was Bob Brier's book that apparently had been the
inspiration
for this video he may well have been particularly unhappy for not
getting his
name mentioned in the program. Although the content of the film was
misleading
my good Martha, who always finds a rose even among weeds, said: But the
photography was good! That was correct and Lance deserves
congratulations.
A few days after the filming Rich and I went over the X-rays in detail
especially in regard to the supposed Klippel Feil syndrome. The
impressive
fusion of the cervical spine turned out to have likewise been a
post-mortem
artifact due to the resin. The neck was encased in a consolidated mass
of resin
which became apparent when we saw Harrison's original
video-documentary, given
to me by Kate. For this, as well as for bringing the X-rays from
Liverpool I am
grateful. The bone splinter in the skull which had given rise to the
skull
fracture theory is in all probability, as Connolly has pointed out to
me, a
piece of the first cervical vertebra which was dislodged when Derry
stuck some
instrument through what is called the foramen magnum on the
bottom of
the skull to explore the skull cavity. The "thinning" of the occipital
bone is normal and exaggerated by the tilt of the head when the X-ray
was
taken, this applies also to the suspected "calcified membrane," which
was taken by Brier as evidence that the pharaoh had not died suddenly.
Thus the
side view of the skull X-ray, which can be found in books around the
world, is
normal. Detailed explanations of the findings, which have been so
puzzling, are
now being prepared by us for a presentation to the medical community.
So much
for the "groundbreaking evidence" and the "motive for
murder," the video tells the world about.
What can be learned from this adventure in science fiction? The first
lesson is
that persistence pays off even if it takes 15 years to see some X-rays.
The
second is that what you get afterwards may not be what you had
expected, and
the third that you cannot trust what you are being told on TV even from
respected programs which masquerade under the name of History or
Discovery. All
the producers want is ratings which translate into money and that is
what makes
the world go round. By the way I was asked by a friend if they had paid
me for
my performance. Yes they did. I received $300. But Grey and I paid
afterwards
for dinner at an upscale French Restaurant where the entire party of
about
eight people was invited. Since Rich Boyer had to leave immediately
after his
interview he did not receive his $300. I, therefore, gave him half of
my
"honorarium," which he was loathe to take but I felt guilty and
forced it on him anyway. He has a great many more children than I do,
gets only
a meager salary from the hospital, and he can use every penny he so
richly
deserves.
It is obvious that this saga is far from over. Tutankhamen's death will
continue to give rise to further speculations and a new book which
supposedly claims
that he had hit his head against the throne during an epileptic seizure
is to
become available in November. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that
the
meager medical evidence has been distorted to such a degree that I
might even
write a book of my own. I would not only critically examine each one of
the
numerous theories that have been proposed and point out their
shortcomings, but
also discuss how and why the conclusions, which dot the literature,
were
arrived at. This aspect would actually be the most important one
because the
methods by which people are led to believe what they believe have
general
validity and clearly transcend the fate of Tutankhamen.
|