Mummy-fried! Tutankhamun's body spontaneously combusted INSIDE his coffin

The mummified body of Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun burst into flames inside his sarcophagus after a botched attempt to embalm him, according to scientists in a new documentary.

After his death in 1323 BC, Tutankhamun was rapidly embalmed and buried, but fire investigators believe a chemical reaction caused by embalming oils used on his mummy sparked the blaze.

A fragment of flesh from the boy pharaoh, whose tomb was discovered in 1922 by Howard Carter and the Earl of Carnarvon, was tested by researchers who confirmed his body was burnt while sealed in his coffin.

Tut has long fired the public imagination. He became pharaoh at the age of 10 in 1333 BC and ruled for just nine years until his death.

He was the last of the royal line from the eighteenth dynasty of the New Kingdom, one of the most powerful royal houses of ancient Egypt.

The discovery of his nearly intact tomb, complete with a gold coffin and gold funeral mask, was a worldwide sensation and sparked public interest in ancient Egypt.

Note: this topic is from 11/03/2013. Thanks again afraidfortherepublic for posting the topic.

King Tut suffered 'massive' chest injury, new research reveals [Friday, November 5, 2010]
One possibility that Dr. Harer ruled out is that of a chariot accident. "If he fell from a speeding chariot going at top speed you would have what we call a tumbling injury -- he'd go head over heels. He would break his neck. His back. His arms, legs. It wouldn't gouge a chunk out of his chest."
King Tut's Chariots Marvels of Engineering
King Tut's Leftover Bandages Yield New Clues
Tutankhamun died of gangrene
THE "EGYPTIAN WATERGATE"
Case closed on the end of King Tut (Scan Suggests No Murder)
King Tut Not Murdered, but Leg Fracture May Have Caused Infection, Tests Show
Egypt Hopes to Solve Riddle of Tutankhamun Death
Curses! Mummy Tale Not True

The Sequence of Dynasties
...Haremhab...belonged neither to the Eighteenth nor to the Nineteenth Dynasty; he was not a descendant of Akhnaton, nor was he an ancestor of the Ramessides. He is supposed to have ruled Egypt during an interregnum. It is not apparent why he was "chosen to be king" and to administer Egypt. Nothing is known of his end. The idea so often expressed that Haremhab was a successor of Ay is baseless. We shall encounter Haremhab later in this volume -- but he lived one hundred and fifty years after Ay...

The so-called Nineteenth Dynasty will be found to have been displaced not only by the five hundred and forty years of error in the dating of the Eighteenth Dynasty, but also by an additional one hundred and seventy years -- the duration of the Libyan and Ethiopian dominations over Egypt: and the total error will be found reaching the huge figure of seven hundred years.

Since the pharaohs of these dynasties waged wars and maintained peaceful relations with the kingdoms and peoples of the north, the transfer of these Egyptian dynasties to a time much more recent carries an enormous tide into the histories of the entire ancient East, including Asia Minor and Greece...

...Osorkon could not have reigned in the beginning of the ninth century and that Shoshenk could not have been the biblical Shishak because he was the Biblical Pharaoh So referred to in the Scriptures during the closing days of Samaria, in the time of King Hezekiah.

The Libyan Dynasty endured for about one hundred and twenty years and the Ethiopian rule for close to fifty years, the latter being repeatedly interrupted by Assyrian conquests of Egypt. Thus in our view the only Dynasty correctly placed in the conventional scheme is the Ethiopian.

join or quit
view topics
view or post blog
bookmark
post new topic
subscribe

Thanks again for this comment, Fred Nerks:

If oil fell on the desert of Arabia and on the land of Egypt and burned there, vestiges of conflagration must be found in some of the tombs built before the end of the Middle Kingdom, into which the oil or some of its derivatives might have seeped.

We read in the description of the tomb of Antefoker, vizier of Sesostris I, a pharaoh of the Middle Kingdom:

"A problem is set us by a conflagration, clearly deliberate, which has raged in the tomb, as in many another. ... The combustible material must not only have been abundant, but of a light nature; for a fierce fire which speedily spent itself seems alone able to account for the fact that tombs so burnt remain absolutely free from blackening, except in the lowest parts; nor are charred remains found as a rule. The conditions are puzzling."
Worlds in Collision, pp 70-75, 'Naptha'

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.