> How convenient that Verner left out the best part.
What did Verner leave out? Be specific.
> Read it from those who did the test[.]
What do you mean, “the” test⸮ First test of the body was reported in 1960, by Barker and Mackey of the British Museum Research Laboratory:
A shorter report appeared in the British Museum Quarterly:
The sample was submitted by I. E. S. Edwards, Keeper of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities.
It’s scarcely to the credit of Strouhal et al. that their paper fails to mention this earlier investigation and gives the impression that theirs was the first.
'STROUHAL E, VYHNÁNEK L, GABALLAH MF, SAUNDERS SR, WOELFLI W, BONANI G, NĚMEČKOVÁ A, 2001: Identification of Royal Skeletal Remains from Egyptian Pyramids. Anthropologie (Brno) 39, 1: 15-23'.
A coffin with a mummy in the depository of the British Museum were attributed to King Mycerinus. According to our examination in 1990, the Egyptological dating of the coffin was confirmed by 14C date (range 12th-9th cent. BC), while the mummy was found to be a natural one and as late as from 7th-9th cent. AD.
I read “the Egyptological dating of the coffin was confirmed”.
Did you miss that⸮
> Notice the use of the name "Mycerinus". Still...
> in 1990 they are linking it to Herodotus.
Talk about overinterpretation.
> Why doesn't the British Museum give the RCD dates?
> I'm guessing it's too embarrassing of a mistake to
What mistake? Be specific.
We may note (in addition to all of the above) that the British Museum page on this object references the work I quoted, Masterpieces of Ancient Egypt (British Museum Press, 2006).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Mar-17 15:33 by Martin Stower.