On Jun 27, 7:37 pm, Horace LaBadie <hwlabadi...@nospam.highstream.net>
wrote:
> In article <46829443$0$32175$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> HWL
Many Thanks for the link.
But I'm affraid that the way Dr Zahi Hawass has done the job will
raise doubts and controversy. For instance, he "justifies" that all
the DNA search has been done SOLELY by an Egyptian Laboratory (No
European or American scholar admitted) because a Laboratory in St
Louis find that a mummy was European, adding that it was because "you
can have a 40% rate of error due to contamination". And what about a
contamination, in an Egyptian Laboratoty, by other mummies ??? On the
other hand the Dr Hawass' desire to be the one who made a "BIG
DISCOVERY" in egyptology, his will to work alone with only HIS team,
are such that one may suspect some bias in the conclusions of the
study...
grapheus
Kendall K. Down - 28 Jun 2007 06:57 GMT
> But I'm affraid that the way Dr Zahi Hawass has done the job will
> raise doubts and controversy. For instance, he "justifies" that all
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> are such that one may suspect some bias in the conclusions of the
> study...
As well as his treatment of Joanne Fletcher, who made a similar
identification a couple of years back. Her great crime was that she didn't
give the great Zahi enough publicity.
Ken Down

Signature
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================