Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> when I wrote:
> > >
> > > Imagine that you are the king out on a
> > hunting field. You have a charioteer
> driving your
> > chariot. You are shooting at game and as,
> > say, the charioteer makes a pass-around
> curve,
> > the chariot hits rock or some obstruction.
> You,
> > the king have a bow in your hand - you are
> not
> > anchored totally into the chariot (as you
> > need to turn and pivot for your arrow shots),
> so,
> > assuming you were in a full rear-turn at the
> time of
> > impact, you have your balance thrown off*,
> > and with padded arm bands and bow in hand,
> you
> > fly out of the chariot sideways, probably the
> lower
> > half of your body first, probably landing on
> the
> > leg and belly-first. You have no time for
> > "defensive" actions as your hands are full
> with the
> > archery equipment.
> >
> > No chances are you're going out head first
> because
> > the upper torso contains most of the bodies
> > weight. If you don't have a chance to extend
> your
> > arms defensivelyyou're going face first into
> the
> > hard desert floor at about 20 miles an hour.
>
>
> Consider what I said: Your chariot, heading
> north, hits a rock or other obstruction. You, as
> king, are thrown backward from that blow, and if,
> you are in a drawn position with a bow at the time
> and turning for a pivot shot, you're going to move
> south and likely land on your belly and chest.

No if you're heading north and you hit a rock or whatever you're going to be moving north in accordance with Newtons laws of motion and object in motion tends to stay in motion in the same direction it's going unless it's acted upon by an outside force. You will go forward over the front of the chariot will you get run over by the wheels.

However, let's consider your "belly flop scenario" even if you fall forward your entire body and since your head is the furthest from your "belly" it will be moving fastest and smash into the pavement with the greatest force. You will have extensive damage to your face, teeth knocked out, broken nose, etc.

> Holding the bow and having padded arm guards
> (which the article notes were present in the
> tomb), could protect your arms if pulled up as you

Hospitals are regularly filled with people who were wearing protective gear and broke their arms jaws etc after skating, skateboarding etc.

> fell, so the face and upper chest/neck may have
> been padded from severe injury (such there was no
> skull fracture, which is attested as not being
> present). But the mid/lower chest and lower body
> would have taken the brunt of the impact.
>
That's an awful lot of conjecture and very few facts.

> > > * Hoffmeier wrote that the ancient
> Egyptian
> > archer of the 18th Dynasty had a peculiar
> archer
> > stance when hunting, such that "the hunter
> (stood)
> > with his front foot planted firmly on the
> ground,
> > while the back foot rests on the ball of the
> foot
> > and toes" (Hoffmeier 1980: 196). This
> widened
> > and non-planted stance would cause an archer
> in
> > a chariot to be off-balance in general, and
> > particularly so in a pivot shot.
> > >
> > > >In addition to that he should have
> been
> > damage to the skull as he undoubtedly would
> have
> > rolled over the desert pavement, or been
> dragged along
> > since iirc they put the reins around their
> waist
> > while they fired their arrows.
> > >
> > > Not if you have your own charioteer.
> No
> > matter what the "official" representations
> show in
> > > Egyptian art, chariots were two-man
> forms of
> > > transport. In Egyptian, there were two
> terms
> > for the inhabitants of a chariot in war:
> /kTn/
> > for the chariot driver, and /snny/ for the
> chariot
> > > warrior. This organisation was the same
> in
> > > hunting as well (Hoffmeier 2000: 411;
> Schulman
> > > 1980).
> >
> > As usual absolutely fascinating. But I
> maintain
> > physics says if you get thrown out of the
> chariot
> > you're going out head first.
>
> As I pointed out to Dawn in another post, the
> chariot is open-backed, the king is NOT lashed in
> and can move his body up to 360 degrees in the
> chariot.
>
> Unless you hit a full wall at full speed (and as I
> noted, you can see that coming and move the
> horse/chariot), there's very little possibility of
> doing a header over the top of a chariot. The
> more likely scenario in that upon impact with an
> obstruction, such as a boulder, the king would
> fall out of the back of the chariot - not go over
> the top of the chariot, into the horses.

That's like saying if I slam into a brickwall I'll be thrown into the back seat of my car. Sorry Newton says otherwise. I'm going through the windshield. Same with the king he slams into a rock or boulder or a pebble for that matter he's going over the front of the chariot. But either way he's going to land head first.

> > > No only that but he probably
> should have had some fractured vertebrae
> > and a smashed up rib cage along with a
> > damaged pelvis
> > >
> > > Assuming my 'belly flop' scenario, I
> suppose
> > it's worthwhile to mention there is chest
> damage
> > to Tutankhamun, such that the manubrium
> sternum
> > and some of the front ribs are missing.
> >
> > But if he did a "belly flop" he would
> undoubtedly
> > would have gone head first and smashed up
> his
> > skull.
>
> No, read above. If the king falls backward out of
> the chariot, and is in a turn while drawing a bow,
> as Tutankhamun could have been, he could even fall
> sideways out of the chariot, never damaging head
> or skull - BUT he would end up with torso and
> lower body damage, as seems to have been the case.
> Nothing I've read to date requires Tutankhamun to
> go out of the chariot head-first.

Try falling and not hitting your head unless you're an acrobat cushioning the blow you can't do it.


wrote:
> > > While there's been some speculation
> that
> > Derry and/or Carter created that damage,
> Burton's
> > photos of the time don't show that either
> touched
> > this area in the anatomical examination.
> See
> > Picture 1, and Picture 2 (Chest detail).
> > >
> > > The damage to the ribs is clean, I
> should
> > add; that is, there are signs the front part
> of
> > the rib tips are cut clean, which to me means
> the
> > bone and cartilage were still alive (as
> opposed to
> > cutting through ancient dead bone in 1925,
> which
> > would show signs of splintering). It's
> possible
> > ancient physicians, seeing the damage ot the
> king's
> > chest (and likely his inability to breathe
> from a
> > flail chest injury), probably cut away the
> tips of
> > the ribs in the centre of his chest to allow
> him
> > to breathe.<<
> >
> > Frankly I find this incredible. I agree that
> the
> > mysteries of Tut's missing ribs is certainly
> one
> > of the more interesting things in Amarna.
> But
> > what instruments would these ancient
> physicians
> > use? Flint knives? Iron was still incredibly
> rare
> > and they didn't have the technology to make
> saws
> > with it or fine scalpels. Copper is too soft
> and I
> > imagine so is bronze.
>
> James Allen, in an interview concerning his 2005
> book about medicine in ancient Egypt, recently
> noted this:
>
> "...Though Egypt had metal tools, its doctors used
> stone knives, because 'They could make flint
> knives much sharper, and a freshly sharpened flint
> knife is sterile.'
>
> Source: New York Times, September 10, 2005
>
> If the flint knife is sharpest and can make the
> cleanest/sharpest sterile cuts, I see no reason
> why surgery with the flint knife couldn't be done,
> particularly if the impact injury caused breathing
> difficulties for Tutankhamun, suhc that possible
> loss of the king's life from asphyxiation was at
> stake.

More speculation. Have you ever tried cutting a bone with a flint knife? I've tried it with a steel knife and it's incredibly difficult.



>
> The Egyptians were surely familar with the idea of
> chest injury to the sternum, as the Edinw Smith
> Papyrus indicates (Case 43):
>
> Case Forty-Three: Instructions concerning a
> dislocation of the ribs of his breast.
>
> Examination: If thou examinest a man having a
> dislocation of the ribs of his breast, (and) thou
> findest that the ribs of his breast are projecting
> and their heads are ruddy, while that man suffers
> continually with swellings in his two sides.
>
> Diagnosis: Thou shouldst say concerning him: "One
> having a dislocation in the ribs of his breast. An
> ailment which I will treat."
>
> Treatment: Thou shouldst bind it with ymrw; thou
> shouldst treat it afterwards with honey every day,
> until he recovers.
>
> Gloss: "A dislocation in the ribs of his breast,"
> means a displacement of the heads of the ribs of
> his breast (sternum), which are fastened to his
> breast (sternum).
>
> "He suffers with swellings in his two sides,"
> means that he suffers in the articulations thereof
> in his breast (sternum) spreading in his two
> sides.
>
> It's very possible that if the injury described
> above led to difficulties in breathing (i.e., the
> "swelling"), I could see that to relieve the
> swelling one might need to create more space in
> the chest cavity, possibly by cutting away damaged
> cartilage (NB: the manubrium sternum is missing
> from Tutankhamun's body, as I recall; similarly
> the same is also missing in the KV 55 mummy as
> well).
>
> > I'm not a doctor but your
> > suggestion of cutting away the ribs to allow
> him
> > to breathe sounds terminally flawed. The
> pain
> > would be absolutely unbearable and the king
> would
> > quickly go into shock and die.

>
> You assume the ancient Egyptian did not have pain
> relief, but if one has dislocated ribs in a flail
> chest situation, such that you cannot breathe,
> then creating space for breathing by surgery makes
> a lot of sense, as I see it. In anticipating this
> surgery, the king is not going to have it without
> medication, however. There is full documented use
> in ancient Egypt with the use of heavy pain
> killers, particularly opium in the New Kingdom (El
> Ansary,Steigerwald, et al. 2003: 84)


> >In addition to
> > that there would be saw marks all over those
> ribs,
> > or chip marks where they chiselled away the
> bone.
> > I honestly believe you've created more
> problems
> > than you've solved.
>
> Not if you have a sharp knife which was very
> sterile, as Allen noted, supra. Further, Nunn
> noted in his book Ancient Egyptian Medicine that
> the flint knife was the equivalent of a disposable
> surgical scalpel used today (Nunn 1996: 155),
> since it could be freshly flaked, making any
> incision a sterile one, and then disposed of after
> use.
>
> There was discussion in the 2005 CT scan that the
> ribs did look as if they were cut clean (which is
> why I said this), which got me to wondering about
> a chest injury. After they found the leg
> fracture, I assumed some for of trauma had taken
> place, and the chest could certainly reflect some
> surgical procedure.
>
> > BTW whatever happened to the Tut was "killed
> in
> > battle" theory? Gone the way of all the
> other
> > theories?
>
> I am guessing here, but I assume they found no
> weapon indications in the wound, such as metal
> residue or cutting blows to the knee and thigh,
> which is why I would guess they went off the "war"
> theory.

All you have to is pile assumptions on top of assumptions to make this work and you're right. However just as soon as somebody analyzes the physics of crashes this one will go into the baloney file too.
>
> Reference:
>
> Allen, J. 2005. The Art of Medicine in Ancient
> Egypt/ Metropolitan Museum of Art Series. New
> York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
>
> El Ansary, M. I. Steigerwald,et al. 2003. Egypt:
> Over 5000 Years of Pain Management—Cultural and
> Historic Aspects. Pain Practice 3/1: 84–87.
>
> Nunn, J. F. 1996. Ancient Egyptian Medicine.
> London: British Museum Press.
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Oriental Institute
> Oriental Studies Doctoral Program
> Oxford University
> Oxford, United Kingdom
>
>