Understanding the news: More scans on Tutankhamun's tomb
You are excused from having a feeling of déjà vu with this story. This is the third foray into scanning the interior walls of KV62 (Tutankhamun) to understand more about the tomb's structure and manner of construction.
A brief timeline of what's happened so far:
2015
Japanese Radar specialist Hirokatsu Watanabe said that he had located voids beyond the burial chamber and further "claimed that his equipment also sensed metallic and organic objects within those voids." [1]
(Meanwhile the media goes... Well. Bonkers.)
2016
Engineer Eric Berkenpas carried out further scanning, sending raw data to multiple experts in the United States and Egypt for review. "Dean Goodman, a geophysicist who developed the GPR-SLICE software used by many specialists, analyzed the data and found no evidence of hidden chambers. All of the other analysts came to the same conclusion." [1]
At the time of writing, Watanabe has not released his raw data for review, claiming "he has customized his equipment to such a degree that its data is unreadable to others." [1]
Now, if you only learn one thing from my posts, and this post in particular, let it be that this is NOT how modern Egyptology works.
I'm no GPR-SLICE expert but when someone claims their data (never published for peer review) from their obsolete equipment (it's not been on the market for 20 years) is only readable to them, then alarm bells about the accuracy of such claims definitely start ringing!
2018
After experts reviewed the available data in 2016 [1], a further non-invasive GPR scan was commissioned by Egypt’s Minister of Antiquities Khaled El Enany. The work will be carried out by the Polytechnic University of Turin, and aims to "resolve those [earlier] results and verify whether or not there are voids behind the walls." [2]
So let's all be patient and see what the Turin team come up with, and remember that in the world of today's Egyptology, that we examine our results carefully, in a transparent and scientific manner.
[1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160509-king-tut-tomb-chambers-radar-archaeology/
[2] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/king-tut-tomb-hidden-chamber-scan-egypt/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/king-tut-tomb-hidden-chamber-scan-egypt/
You are excused from having a feeling of déjà vu with this story. This is the third foray into scanning the interior walls of KV62 (Tutankhamun) to understand more about the tomb's structure and manner of construction.
A brief timeline of what's happened so far:
2015
Japanese Radar specialist Hirokatsu Watanabe said that he had located voids beyond the burial chamber and further "claimed that his equipment also sensed metallic and organic objects within those voids." [1]
(Meanwhile the media goes... Well. Bonkers.)
2016
Engineer Eric Berkenpas carried out further scanning, sending raw data to multiple experts in the United States and Egypt for review. "Dean Goodman, a geophysicist who developed the GPR-SLICE software used by many specialists, analyzed the data and found no evidence of hidden chambers. All of the other analysts came to the same conclusion." [1]
At the time of writing, Watanabe has not released his raw data for review, claiming "he has customized his equipment to such a degree that its data is unreadable to others." [1]
Now, if you only learn one thing from my posts, and this post in particular, let it be that this is NOT how modern Egyptology works.
I'm no GPR-SLICE expert but when someone claims their data (never published for peer review) from their obsolete equipment (it's not been on the market for 20 years) is only readable to them, then alarm bells about the accuracy of such claims definitely start ringing!
2018
After experts reviewed the available data in 2016 [1], a further non-invasive GPR scan was commissioned by Egypt’s Minister of Antiquities Khaled El Enany. The work will be carried out by the Polytechnic University of Turin, and aims to "resolve those [earlier] results and verify whether or not there are voids behind the walls." [2]
So let's all be patient and see what the Turin team come up with, and remember that in the world of today's Egyptology, that we examine our results carefully, in a transparent and scientific manner.
[1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160509-king-tut-tomb-chambers-radar-archaeology/
[2] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/king-tut-tomb-hidden-chamber-scan-egypt/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/king-tut-tomb-hidden-chamber-scan-egypt/
Blu Croix Scanning does provide the details we want if there is nothing there, it answers the question :D
ReplyDeleteI know it's very frustrating, but try not to buy into the media hype, there's plenty of great discoveries being made all the time that I will happily share, without sensationalism and speculation. Just solid science!
Aakheperure Merytsekhmet it's not an exact science and there have been anomalies that in the past gave incorrect results. The only way to really be sure if there's another room is to drill & slide a scope or camera through. Even if the imagining shows a room exists it's highly doubtful they'll excavate it. They won't destroy the wall in Tut's tomb because they'll never be 100% sure there is something of value on the other side using just scanning. Do you know anyone working on this effort? You keep saying "we" which is why I'm asking.
ReplyDeleteBlu Croix +Blu Croix 1. Do you mean scans which detected anomalies? So far in this tomb its 1 for claims of something there for 1 finding nothing. See OP for details. This is inconclusive - Therefore under scientific methodology, further testing is required in order to ascertain if the results can be replicated. [Perhaps you refer to the Muon scanning of pyramids which is a different process, and is a separate discussion]
ReplyDelete2. The results will be reviewed by a committee of experts and further decisions will be taken based on evidence. As above: "Without definitive repeatable results, the Ministry of State for Antiquities (formerly known as the Supreme Council of Antiquities) is unlikely to authorise any invasive procedures at the site."
3. I'm not aware of anyone in my network currently working on this project, if I spot a name I recognise I will let you know. :)
4. I refer to "people with qualifications in Egyptology" and those working in the field as "we". Also in more general terms: "we now call the Amarna period." That is a standard nomenclature for the period in general usage.
In case you missed it on my pinned post: "I'm a graduate in Egyptology (University of Manchester, UK 2011-16)"
I don't claim to be an expert on everything, or indeed anything, but I do have have 5 years of skills and knowledge gained from formal study in Multi-disciplinary Egyptolology and am sharing my passion and knowledge with a broad audience as best I can.