It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Advanced Surgical Implant Found in Egyptian Mummy

page: 2
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

further analysis confirmed that the implant was installed after the death of the mummified individual


The fact that it was positioned post-mortem makes it much less impressive imo.

When I first read the article on this I was HORRIFIED, doing surgery of that nature in those days would have surely killed the patient, maybe it did, and they just finished the job.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
How was it determined the patient was already dead, and the surgery took place for religious reasons rather than medical?

I mean...isn't it just as likely the guy died on the table as a result of the operation?


edit on 28-7-2015 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
How was it determined the patient was already dead, and the surgery took place for religious reasons rather than medical?

I mean...isn't it just as likely the guy died on the table as a result of the operation?



Finding post mortem repairs in mummies is common. Finding bodies which have survived procedures like this is unheard of. Either way, Iron is toxic when used like this, so if they did try to do it to a live subject, they would have killed him



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for that, and this could certainly be as the experts think, a religious practice.

But post mortem repairs being common at that time and place, doesn't necessarily mean this repair was post mortem does it? Really, this is speculation then, as opposed to some kind of medical evidence proving he was already dead?

There's speculation on ATS about the Iron having possibly once been coated with pure gold, that would have negated the toxicity angle, and could even be an explanation for the use of items like the so-called 'Baghdad batteries'.

They might have used many of them connected together to gold plate common metals for surgical procedures, knowing the Iron alone would kill the patient?

Without proof of him being already dead, and i'm not sure how they could tell he was dead, since they could only tell he died soon after the surgery because no new bone growth would be present around the surgical site.

This guy could have died on the operating table during surgery, through heart failure (pain), blood loss and so on, and not be connected to a ritualistic burial practice (at that moment) at all.

Let's face it, maybe the gold plating failed, leaking Iron into the body and it was the pin itself that actually did end up killing him?


edit on 28-7-2015 by MysterX because: added info



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for that, and this could certainly be as the experts think, a religious practice.

But post mortem repairs being common at that time and place, doesn't necessarily mean this repair was post mortem does it? Really, this is speculation then, as opposed to some kind of medical evidence proving he was already dead?


Um, no, this is clearly an insertion by the embalmer, you don't fix a leg in real life by putting an iron bar joining the lower and upper legs through the kneecap. The pain alone would have made him wish for death.


There's speculation on ATS about the Iron having possibly once been coated with pure gold, that would have negated the toxicity angle, and could even be an explanation for the use of items like the so-called 'Baghdad batteries'.?

The idea that they were batteries is a long debunked fringe theory which didn't take into account that they were used to store scrolls. Some others have been found with scrolls in them, that's pretty conclusive


They might have used many of them connected together to gold plate common metals for surgical procedures, knowing the Iron alone would kill the patient?.?

No, firstly they were not constructed properly to even hold a charge and secondly you get more juice from a citrus fruit




Without proof of him being already dead, and i'm not sure how they could tell he was dead, since they could only tell he died soon after the surgery because no new bone growth would be present around the surgical site.

When you cut into a dead body, the wound looks completely different from a live one. There is no blood flow from a corpse and so it won't bruise around a wound, being able to tell if a body was alive or dead when something happened to it is a very well understood part of forensic science.


This guy could have died on the operating table during surgery, through heart failure (pain), blood loss and so on, and not be connected to a ritualistic burial practice (at that moment) at all.

No, you are ignoring the facts.


Let's face it, maybe the gold plating failed, leaking Iron into the body and it was the pin itself that actually did end up killing him?


There is no evidence of any gold plated object from the ancient world. Electroplating wasn't discovered until 1805CE. What you are doing here is called "cultural diffusion" which is where you are attributing things from your culture onto the ancient Egyptians. This is only possible to do if you don't know much about the culture you are talking about. Any wound could be fatal, the AE didn't understand disinfectant, or surgery, or electroplating. If they did, there would be tons and tons of evidence. The tons and tons of evidence we do have from their culture says otherwise.

Speculation is fine, being open minded is great, but be careful that you aren't so open minded that your brain can escape through the gap



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


Not a lot of that, since it essentially screwed the femur to the tibia.

Good morning, Lieutenant Obvious. Your battlefield promotion is in the mail.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I would probably point to the ancient Egyptians close relationship with higher beings giving the medical knowlesge. If the implant had been installed while the patient was alive. How ever, I do not believe that's the case. The implant is almost certainly place because of their belief in after life and the body being as important in death as it was in life.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: impish
I would probably point to the ancient Egyptians close relationship with higher beings giving the medical knowlesge..

What higher beings ?
What medical knowledge ?



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

You know the answer. Google and WebMD. Both created and eventually lost by the ancient egyptians.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Bedlam


Not a lot of that, since it essentially screwed the femur to the tibia.

Good morning, Lieutenant Obvious. Your battlefield promotion is in the mail.


Hey, I'm not the one acting like he got a nice knee replacement.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: ShortNoodle1
a reply to: FamCore

Or

The subject was alive and iron was covered by something body wouldn't reject

But the mainstream scientist are only willing to say subject was dead at the time

ShortN


ROFL, why use iron in the first place then?


Maybe the subject was dead, and they were using iron to create a prototype for testing purposes on corpses. When they perfected the design, then they would use a more expensive metal like gold for use in live subjects.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
This is only possible to do if you don't know much about the culture you are talking about. Any wound could be fatal, the AE didn't understand disinfectant, or surgery, or electroplating. If they did, there would be tons and tons of evidence. The tons and tons of evidence we do have from their culture says otherwise.



Just to split hairs, they understood antiseptic and disinfectant properties. Cow urine was a popular disinfectant, but they certainty hadn't developed the asceptic conditions necessary to conduct any form of invasive surgery.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk


Um, no, this is clearly an insertion by the embalmer, you don't fix a leg in real life by putting an iron bar joining the lower and upper legs through the kneecap. The pain alone would have made him wish for death.


(LONG post..includes alternative ideas ..don't read if this is likely to annoy or agitate you into spiteful ad hominem attacks, as that is NOT my intention...so with that in mind read on if you can stand alternative ideas and control yourself afterwards..agreement with ideas contained within is NOT required)

No, unsurprisingly, I don't agree with you that this is clear at all.

For starters, your stating we don't fix a leg by joining the Femur and Tibia together is incorrect...we still do in some cases.

We no longer use this procedure as a primary technique when knee joints are injured or diseased, but we used to perform this fusing fairly recently as a primary option, and in some cases, in order to preserve the lower limb, we do still use the technique of fusing the Femur and Tibia together today.

It's a valid medical technique that will obviously mean the limb is no longer able to bend at the knee, but it is a technique that does preserve the lower leg intact, which, with consideration to the decrease in mobility of the leg, was often seen as a preferable alternative to amputation and a prosthetic lower leg.

This could have been the same reason this AE guy could have elected to undergo this surgery at the time, whether it was experimental or not. Wishing to remain 'intact' for personal pride or vanity, or attempting to appear favoured by the Gods, or strong for leadership or political reasons are several good reasons why someone might decide to try alternatives to simply having their lame leg hacked off.


When you cut into a dead body, the wound looks completely different from a live one. There is no blood flow from a corpse and so it won't bruise around a wound, being able to tell if a body was alive or dead when something happened to it is a very well understood part of forensic science.


Are you saying there actually is medical proof this AE guy's leg wasn't damaged before death? Your claiming there is no evidence of bruising to the wound, implies as much. If that's is so, why then one wonders, did the AE embalmer have a need to reattach the lower leg in the first place if it wasn't indeed damaged before death? Or are you saying that attached limbs were routinely or arbitrarily hacked off and then painstakingly reattached after death? Bizarre, but not impossible..although in such cases, a more likely situation would be they were attempting to repair the leg while the patient was alive, but failed to save the him..for long at any rate.

Who knows what the AE medical research of the day was involved with. Citing lack of other examples as proof this guy was already dead is just guessing and claiming the guess to be the right answer. This could simply have been a one off medical experiment or a special case of some kind.

Perhaps the guy dying soon after or during implantation of the pin meant the experiment was deemed a complete failure and so was not practised widely, if it was even attempted again until the modern era. We do the same thing with failed experiments today of course.

Today, all over the world we try out new theories, or techniques for every pursuit under the sun, if they don't work as hoped, we abandon the method and look for alternatives to try..the lack of evidence of our failed experiments doesn't mean we didn't attempt the experiment at least once does it?

The same *could* be true here in this AE case is all I’m saying, you'll notice I’m not claiming to have any special knowledge about this case or AE medical techniques, or saying this *is* what went down, I only challenge the seemingly arbitrary explanation arrived at, when the truth *could* have had nothing to do with the common burial practices of the time.

It may seem a trivial matter and splitting hairs, but small misinterpretations in anthropology and archaeology can lead to huge mistakes and incorrect assumptions in our understanding of the past.

As there is obviously no one around from that period to actually ask, I realise we have to make certain assumptions and educated guesses based on previous finds...we have to, but we ought to properly consider all reasonably probable and possible options before ruling them out individually, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

It is more like a case of "oh we see this a lot post mortem, so this must be why the guy had an iron pin fusing his legs bones together".

There are always other possibilities, sometimes probabilities.

There are millions of cars in the West. Most people of driving age drive a car fairly regularly...whereas a relatively small percentage of people prefer to walk instead. In the future, archaeologists may find the remains of many examples of motor vehicles and conclude that this is how everybody got around, driving in these machines they once called cars...except they'd be wrong, or at least miss a crucial detail wouldn't they.

They would be making a rational assumption based on previous evidence, which would be inaccurate, as not everyone does use cars to get around, just most people.

Like our AE friend in this thread, he could have been one of the relatively few people, who 'didn't drive'.

We can't always rely absolutely on other examples discovered in order to conclude every future similar find or example must be the same and performed for the same reasons. Therefore any absolutist arguments, formed or backed up exclusively by previous evidence without seriously considering possible alternatives, is always going to be a risky undertaking, for this reason among others.

The exception to the majority, in cases where it could highlight incredible medical techniques, even failed experimental techniques which may have been completely overlooked by science and history, are the important cases to notice. Without them, our picture is distorted and incomplete.

You say the pain alone would have killed him?

Maybe the pain DID kill him ultimately, maybe within hours or days of the experimental surgery..we can't know. But for whatever reason he may have endured that pain, whether out of necessity or as part of a medical experimental procedure we can only guess at.

We can speculate though...perhaps it was a tumultuous period in their society, perhaps in that time and culture, to appear weak and lame at that time when overt displays of strength and vigour were preferable, may have been catastrophic for his heirs and family, perhaps to the point where they would have lost their inheritance or societal position..if it was deemed the Gods were looking unfavourably on the man due to his misfortune and lameness, the dominant priests may have confiscated his wealth, titles or lands and properties as 'the will of the Gods' leaving his family destitute.

There are literally myriad reasons for why he may have seen this experimental and extremely painful surgery as an essential last resort, even knowing it might end him. I won't say to preserve his 'leg-a-cy', but it might have been so, in more ways than one.

There have been examples of ancient advanced metal plating techniques discovered, from Mesopotamia and from Ancient Egypt.

[continued below]



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX
Antimony plating of copper has been discovered from AE, and reported on in 1933 of a copper bowl and jug plated with very thin and fine coatings of plated Antimony (c. 2500BC - 2000BC.) (Colin G. Fink and Arthur H. Kopp
Metropolitan Museum Studies Vol. 4, No. 2 (Mar., 1933), pp. 163-167)

While the above example is indeed an early example of plating techniques, it is thought by some to have been accomplished using chemical plating methods, as opposed to electroplating.

Although, if the clay jar battery was used as a energy source to power electroplating enterprises, but is denied or unrecognised as an actual bona-fide battery by institutionalised archaeology, other researchers in the field may understandably, if incorrectly conclude that the chemical plating method was used to plate base metals when trying to discern the methods used.

Although, if archaeology accepted them as batteries, many would then opt for recognising electroplating was in evidence, which would lead to the inevitable conclusion AE's were in fact perfecting electroplating techniques alongside chemical plating.


The idea that they were batteries is a long debunked fringe theory which didn't take into account that they were used to store scrolls. Some others have been found with scrolls in them, that's pretty conclusive


You say that some clay jars have been discovered to contain papyrus scrolls. And you're using this as conclusive proof that the clay jars containing copper tubes, iron rods, pitch tar and remains of acetic or citric acid cannot be batteries, instead scroll storage containers?

Why? Because some clay jars contained rolled scrolls?

Forgive me, I’m not being rude here, but that is frankly a weak, and fairly illogical argument against the evidence for them having been batteries.

It's like saying a tea caddy wasn't designed or used for storing tea leaves or tea bags, because some had been found with personal letters in them, or coins or collectables..a tea caddy, perhaps like an AE clay jar, has many uses or can be re-purposed after it's original function is no longer working or desired. So we don't or cannot know if the jars had been re-purposed, some made specifically for one purpose, like general storage containers, or for another more specialised usage like electroplating devices.

Some also contained thin copper cylinders, and an Iron rod inside the copper tube, remains of a tar like pitch used to seal the jar opening and copper tube base, and remains of weak acids, vinegar, or citrus juice within..all of the essential components needed to construct a working battery, able (determined by replication testing in the 70's) to develop and deliver a charge of between 0.8V – 1.1V.

Multiples hooked together, would have been easily capable of plating base metals with gold and silver over a period of a day or so.

We don't know if the papyrus scrolls you mention were used as a crude dielectric or electrical insulator between the copper tube and the iron rod! It's entirely possible it could have been, as it would have made an efficient insulator, behaving much like the dielectric used in some capacitors. It's also possible the jars had many other uses besides becoming the housing for electroplating batteries, scroll storage being just one possible use.

It's often said, especially by text book groupies, that these batteries have been debunked time and again by mainstream science, and those proponents of the status quo. But of course it's that very mainstream science, as is always the case, that have been found to overlooked or scoff at alternative theories that have ultimately turned out to be of merit and hold a relevancy to discovering new paths and areas of research. Simply because some theories and thinking may be outside of traditional scientific thinking, is absolutely no reason to ignore or not properly consider them.

While a simple citrus fruit with attached electrodes will produce a voltage, the amperage required to electroplate a metal object, spread over several days, would probably not suffice. Besides, it would waste a hell of a lot of precious fruit, when the juice acting in concert with the copper, dielectric and Iron rod, found within some of these clay jars, would have delivered a higher milliamp current than a simple whole fruit, and left the squeezed fruit to be eaten, and not present a health hazard rotting out in the heat of a few Egyptian days. Several reasons then, to not simply use a fruit with two copper electrodes stuck into it, and use a sturdy, clean and altogether better option of using a clay jar with all the necessary components to generate a charge.

Electroplating is also believed to have been carried out on at least some precious objects unearthed from Royal and official's tombs and such, one of them being a gold plated belt buckle from King Tut's tomb.

There are also records of a problem of rife coin forging in the Middle East and in Egypt in antiquity. Records from the Roman empire also talk of this problem, citing the severest of penalties for those caught in the enterprise of disguising cheap bronze coins into appearing as silver or gold coins, by electroplating them with a thin coating of precious metal. This was considered such a problem, that ultimately the Royal and official mints and treasuries were actually producing their own plated versions of coins apparently in competition to the forgers.

This forging of coins made the practice of cutting nicks and grooves into the sides and edges of ancient coins popular, as a means to see if the coin was actually solid gold or silver and not just base metal plated with gold or silver.

There are numerous examples of this in museums all over the place.

WE might have rediscovered the skills and knowledge of electroplating in the early 19th century, a discovery which of course does not in any way require that no other culture may have also discovered similar skills and techniques to accomplish the same ends far earlier, and then subsequently lost the art to the trials and tribulations of history.

There are also many other examples of lost arts and knowledge from ancient periods, in many other Human endeavours.

So really, despite the dogmatic official opposition to it, all the discovered evidential ingredients necessary to perform electroplating, including anomalous metal artefacts and artworks having micron thick precious metal platings upon them, leads to an educated assumption regarding surprising technological achievements in AE and the wider regions of the time. Advanced surgical procedures, even relatively rare examples of experimental and ultimately unsuccessful procedures could be another of those surprising achievements.

Nothing is known until it is discovered. This sounds obvious, but it is often forgotten when thinking something cannot be a certain way, based solely on whether or not it's been found in great quantity before or not at all.

[continued below]



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX
If we wear theoretical blinkers when looking at the evidence, we will surely miss crucial aspects of our history, and our picture will be incomplete and incorrect, leading us down winding paths that result in dead ends.

If we overlook probabilities and possibilities in evidence as a matter of routine, it becomes a pointless exercise to even continue to call archaeology a science and instead it becomes more of an ignorant, self supporting belief system.

Exceptions do not nullify the rule, they are just exceptions to the rule.
Both can coexist and be equally valid. Because it was common for body parts to be reattached to make the body whole for the AE afterlife, doesn't mean that THIS particular case or other future cases have to necessarily have been performed for the same reasons. This could just as well be the exception the coexists alongside the rule.


No, you are ignoring the facts.


Well, I am not ignoring the facts, with respect, I am using the evidence and drawing different personal conclusions on what may have been the actual facts. In any case, dogma or not, many thousands of years old 'facts' are tenuous to say the least, and frankly you're ignoring both evidence and other possibilities based upon that evidence, in an apparent effort to reinforce dogma based upon those tenuous facts.


Speculation is fine, being open minded is great, but be careful that you aren't so open minded that your brain can escape through the gap


And yet, a mind is like an umbrella..it works better when needed, when it isn't closed. That and the mind isn't actually the skull..but still.

Just saying.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
You know, if there is an afterlife, and whatever it may be, I believe there is something... The Egyptians make me ever fearful of just burying/burning my body.

Shall I request mummification upon death? Will I be THAT guy?

Anyway, the Egyptians were remarkable. Beyond our comprehension.... and taught history.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta

Very interesting, apparently it's important after death to have the body in working order for the resurrection or afterlife.



I wouldn't consider a fused knee joint to be working order myself, but it is nonetheless fascinating that they took the time to do that.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
It's fascinating to find something like this, but like most of you have said, the Ancient Egyptians treated the afterlife as more important than the one they were currently living.
Although I'm not sure if this is the first though. Have they found anything similar before?


We're finding more and more amazing things about history with each passing year.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Marduk

Thanks for that, and this could certainly be as the experts think, a religious practice.

But post mortem repairs being common at that time and place, doesn't necessarily mean this repair was post mortem does it? Really, this is speculation then, as opposed to some kind of medical evidence proving he was already dead?

(continued)

Little probelm with your thoughts. Quoted here:

While further analysis confirmed that the implant was installed after the death of the mummified individual, the advanced design of the pin, and the surgical care taken to insert it, speaks toward the Ancient Egyptian's belief in the body's role after the individual is resurrected. "How fascinating that the technician took such considerable thought constructing the pin," professor Griggs says. "The technician could have just simply wired the leg together and assumed that in the resurrection it would knit back together."

Read the original source: www.unknowncountry.com...

It's not speculation, it's an analysis-- I assume backed by rigid science discipline. Locate that analysis and show how it's wrong. Speculations mean little to me if evidence already handily refutes it.
edit on 31-7-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join