Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science News

First Royal Mummy Found Since Tut is Identified 192

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the ancient-grills dept.
brian0918 writes "In what is being described as the most important find in the Valley of the Kings since the discovery of King Tut, a single tooth has clinched the identification of an ancient mummy as that of Queen Hatshepsut, who ruled Egypt about 3,500 years ago. A molar inscribed with the queen's name, discovered in a wooden box in 1881 in a cache of royal mummies, was found to fit perfectly in the jaw of 'a fat woman in her 50s who had rotten teeth and died of bone cancer.' Reuters also reports on the DNA analysis: 'Preliminary results show similarities between its DNA and that of Ahmose Nefertari, the wife of the founder of the 18th dynasty and a probable ancestor of Hatsephsut's.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Royal Mummy Found Since Tut is Identified

Comments Filter:
  • Oh baby... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    a fat woman in her 50s who had rotten teeth and died of bone cancer
    Well don't stop there, I was just getting aroused...
    • by Forge (2456) <`kevinforge' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:59PM (#19666693) Homepage Journal
      I really should stop commenting on Moderation but how did this become off topic?

      The guy is obviously turned on by fat, long dead Egyptians. Now if he was moderated troll or just "-1 sick, twisted, pervert" ...

      What? No such moderation option? OK. I'll take it back.

  • The Irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:47PM (#19665647)
    Anyone else find it ironic that these rulers enslaved entire races of people for generations to build gigantic pyramids so that they would never be forgotten only to have grave robbers steal everything and Western archaeologists show up thousands of years later asking, "Who the fuck were you?"
    • by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:49PM (#19665675) Journal
      Ironically, I agree with you.
    • by sayfawa (1099071) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:58PM (#19665823)
      The fools. They should have had their slaves build something like this [wikimedia.org].
    • Re:The Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:00PM (#19665835)
      I'm not so certain KMT used so many slaves as we once thought. New evidence is coming to light that suggests that the builders of the pyramids were paid employees rather than slaves.

      In addition, the Bibles recording of the Jews as leaving KMT with Moses (A KMT name) is odd because the people of the Nile were meticulous record keepers. If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves.

      There are no records to indicate any such crisis to the KMT economy.

      Anyway, they did achieve a sort of immortality. You do know the names of many of these people despite the fact that you don't know which body belongs to which name.

      • "If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves."

        Do you mean to suggest that something written in the BIBLE might not be literal truth? Boy, them's fightin' words!
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by smaddox (928261)
          You laugh, but my next-door-neighbor just got out his shotgun, white robes, and bible (in that order).
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by operagost (62405)
            Point out to your Klansman neighbor that the Bible never says that the Jews built the pyramids and maybe he'll calm down.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Drachemorder (549870)
        No one that knows anything about Biblical archaeology believes the Hebrews built the pyramids anyway. By all accounts the pyramids were built a good long while before there were any Hebrews around in the first place. There are also a number of interesting theories about where the Exodus fits into Egyptian history, although most of them do require a certain amount of reinterpretation of traditional dates. I wouldn't really expect to see too many accounts of it in Egyptian sources, though, because the phar
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I wasn't trying to suggest that the Hebrews built the pyramids. But if they were slaves they would have done all the menial chores one expects a slave to do. You know, tending cattle, bringing in the crops, hauling things. All the little stuff you want a robot to do for you today like sweeping and mopping your floors.

          No one wants to brag about their low points but the KMT people did keep meticulous records about everything. The only records they would not keep were names. In KMT culture passing your n

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by The_Wilschon (782534)
            It is possible that maybe the Hebrews didn't do such things. The Bible, after all, only claims that they made bricks.
          • But if they were slaves they would have done all the menial chores one expects a slave to do.


            That would be true if they were common slaves, but the Tanach makes it clear that they were owned by the state and were put to work strictly on public works, specifically on building treasure cities, specifically Pithom and Raamses as you'll find in Exodus 1:11.

        • by Denial93 (773403)
          "Theories" you call them? More like speculations and attempts to give some degree of credibility to the one tribal myth that 3 billion people happen to cling to. I'd like to see anyone spend this amount of effort on Little Red Riding Hood.
      • Re:The Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GreyPoopon (411036) <gpooponNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:43PM (#19666471)

        If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves.

        There are no records to indicate any such crisis to the KMT economy.

        A couple thoughts here -- note that I'm only speculating with almost no knowledge to back it up -- perhaps some Egyptian History scholar can provide more information. First, you assume that the tasks performed by the slaves really had much of an impact on the economy. It might be more helpful to know what jobs they actually performed. If all they were doing was building pyramids and monuments for the pharaohs, cessation of such activity wouldn't have much of an impact on anyone but the pharaoh. On the other hand, if they were responsible for the food supply or something, that would have a larger impact. Second, keep in mind that subsequent pharaohs habitually wiped out nearly all mention of certain previous rulers seemingly on a whim. I would imagine that even the most meticulous records could and would suddenly disappear if so ordered by the pharaoh at the time.
        • Re:The Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @03:01PM (#19666715)
          Take all of the slaves out of Georgia in 1840. Just that one state. Imagine trying to hide the impact.

          If you don't like that year pick another. If you don't like that state, pick another. Or pick another society like ancient Rome. Remove the slaves and then try to hide the impact on the economy. Then remember there's a reason we all know of Spartacus.

          If what we call menial tasks don't get done, someone else has to do it or it will not be done. Suddenly menial tasks are so menial.

          • I meant to write Suddenly menial tasks are NOT so menial. :)
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            The thing is, the nile floods for 3-4 months of year (which the egyptians call 'the inundation') Heavy rains from the mountains of ethiopia make their way down the nile and flood everything. People are left with nothing to do during this time so the pharoahs/kings took advantage of this downtime.. it's difficult to say whether they were forced/coerced into building the pyramids during this time. There are some inscriptions within the pyramids that suggest the men building them were proud of their work
            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              There are some inscriptions within the pyramids that suggest the men building them were proud of their work, ie. "Khufu's gang was here and we kicked ass!" (not in so many words.)

              That doesn't imply that they weren't slaves, however. Only that they still had pride, in spite of it.

              But anyway, recent research implies that the pyramids were made out of a primitive form of cement, so it might not have taken nearly as much labor as is assumed...

          • Assuming that the Hebrews were led out of Egypt by Moses and did not appreciably disrupt Egyptian life, there are a couple other possibilities besides "Egypt didn't rely on slaves." One, the number of Hebrews that left was small enough to be inconsequential. And two, the number of slaves that the Egyptians had was so very much larger than the group Hebrews that it was again inconsequential. The existing slaves temporarily fill in for the ones who left (they're slaves, no one cares if they're horribly ove
          • Well, the African slaves were all mixed together so they didn't remember well after a generation or two which type of African they were, but before the American colonies started importing from Africa, they bought slaves from the Indians. So imagine, in ancient colonial times, one Indian tribe that lost a war and got sold to white plantation owners decided to up and leave, and were "guided by God" across the Mississippi River to what is now Kansas. That would have been noticed, yes, but not particularly disa
      • by vertinox (846076)
        In addition, the Bibles recording of the Jews as leaving KMT with Moses (A KMT name) is odd because the people of the Nile were meticulous record keepers. If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves.

        There are some suggestions that the "Egypt" of the Old Testament, is not the same "Egypt" that history refers too. Possibly, d
      • Because the Egyptians used damnatio memoriae [wikipedia.org] to remove heretics, assassins, and other 'unpersons' from their records, it's impossible to show that someone like Moses didn't exist. Something as important as a large group of slaves leaving, though, would probably have an impact that would show up in their records.
      • Re:The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Patoski (121455) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @03:52PM (#19667415) Homepage Journal
        Ancient Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but notorious revisionists. In their written records the ancient Egyptians sought to hide their military defeats.

        Undoubtably the pharaoh would seek to blot out anything connected to what would have been one of Egypt's more embarrassing military defeats.
        • Re:The Irony (Score:4, Interesting)

          by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @04:51PM (#19668221)
          You can try to hide important details but it will be obvious.

          How do you hide the fact that the cows were not milked, or a road was not paved, or homes not painted, or cargo from boats was not offloaded?

          You can remove official mention from all documents but the effect will be felt everywhere and recorded implicitly. For instance, if my boats were not loaded or unloaded while in KMT ports, I'm very likely to shift my fleet to another port leaving cargo in KMT or not bringing them goods they are expecting.

          No matter how you slice it, if an appreciable number of slaves depart, it will be felt and recorded.

          Hell, I just had a thought. Let's remove all Mexicans from the United States right now. Do you think you could hide that even if you wanted to? Whose gonna' break their backs picking my damn strawberries? Even if you could find someone dumb enough to do it, what's going to happen to the price of strawberries? Do you really think I'm not gonna' notice that a basket of strawberries now costs me twelve dollars? Do you really think that's not gonna' make it into many varied records even though you don't specifically mention that we kicked all the Mexicans out?

          Yeah, I'm being a smart-ass with that analogy, but I think it works. :)

          • Of course the departure of the Mexicans would be noticed. But did Egypt have as many Hebrews as we have Mexicans? If the Salvadorians all left, would we notice? It would be forgotten even if we did want to record it at the time.
          • by Patoski (121455)
            No matter how you slice it, if an appreciable number of slaves depart, it will be felt and recorded.

            Consider these points: The egyptians would have done their best to erase any mention of the Israelites, these events occurred thousands of years ago, and mummies (to say nothing of their written records) were used as kindling in Europe.

            It is almost a certainty that we don't know about major events in ancient history, especially in Egypt.

            There was a vigorous debate whether or not King David was a even a real p
      • And they almost all got cameo roles on Stargate!
      • by sacrilicious (316896) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @05:40PM (#19668795) Homepage
        If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves. There are no records to indicate any such crisis to the KMT economy.

        One of the tasks previously performed by the slaves was that of record-keeping.

      • by CODiNE (27417)

        In addition, the Bibles recording of the Jews as leaving KMT with Moses (A KMT name) is odd because the people of the Nile were meticulous record keepers. If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves.

        There are no records to indicate any such crisis to the KMT economy.

        It would be more accurate if you had said "There are no re

      • I believe archaeologists have found lots of people babies that were buried beneath houses, which could be sync up with the Bible. Egypt was also invaded by foreign warriors who ruled over Egypt for some time with records from that time extremely spotty. Its possible they were in charge when the mass-Exodus happened, thus the lack of records.

        The slavery myth also came from the Romans who asked the priests what the Pharaohs of ancient times had been like. The priests didn't like the current rulers (and some o
    • by statusbar (314703)
      Daniel Jackson knows...

      --jeffk++
    • The goal was to be remembered. They succeeded. Where's the irony?
    • by Colin Smith (2679)
      This is the truth for anyone who wants to make a name for themselves. 90% are forgotten within their own lifetime. 90% of the remaining are forgotten within a generation. Rinse and repeat until we have just a few names from history.

       
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Paradise Pete (33184)
        his is the truth for anyone who wants to make a name for themselves. 90% are forgotten within their own lifetime. 90% of the remaining are forgotten within a generation. Rinse and repeat until we have just a few names from history.

        And the attributes that make people temporarily extremely popular are almost completely different from the attributes that last.

    • by Yazeran (313637)

      Anyone else find it ironic that these rulers enslaved entire races of people for generations to build gigantic pyramids so that they would never be forgotten only to have grave robbers steal everything and Western archaeologists show up thousands of years later asking, "Who the fuck were you?"


      Sorry to point out, but you are Wrong! The egyptians who build the pyramids and the royal tombs were highly skilled and decently paid workers. Archeologist have found the work camps of both the pyramid builders and the
      • by spun (1352)
        Also, considering that these were tombs for God-Kings it would be rather an admission of being less than well loved to have to force people to work on them. Rather, I imagine working on the pyramids was something of an honer to be fought over by the common Egyptian.
    • by b0r1s (170449)
      Uh ... considering the alternatives, I think they succeeded. If they didnt try to build the massive pyramids, they'd have been forgotten like, say, the millions of slaves who worked for them, who's bodies will never be found/identified at all.

      It may take time for the west to identify these mummies, but at least they have a chance. Those without such wild resources have no chance.
    • by Plutonite (999141)

      Anyone else find it ironic that these rulers enslaved entire races of people for generations to build gigantic pyramids so that they would never be forgotten only to have grave robbers steal everything and Western archaeologists show up thousands of years later asking, "Who the fuck were you?"
      Is this why you post as A/C, the futility of it all? :)
    • Not to take away the philosophical aspect you'd posted, but from TFA:

      Hatshepsut's tomb, for example, was found looted and without any mummified female, possibly because her son and successor, Tuthmosis III, tried to wipe out all traces of her memory after she died in about 1482 BC.

      ...seems that her kid was hell-bent on making sure she wasn't remembered at all (considering the story on the relationship between the two, I could see where the guy would get all butt-hurt about his mom's successes, and the fact that she ruled for decades after he was old enough to have taken on the job (which was traditionally a male slot after all), and...

      That she managed to have her name survive in spite of her own son's best eff

      • by Knara (9377)
        "Steve Harris unavailable for comment (due to the fact that he mumbles in all his interviews)"....?
    • by rleibman (622895)
      Anyone else find it ironic that these rulers enslaved entire races of people for generations to build gigantic pyramids so that they would never be forgotten only to have grave robbers steal everything and Western archaeologists show up thousands of years later asking, "Who the fuck were you?"

      Nitpicking but you are doubly wrong... As far as I know the pyramids were not built by slaves. The XVIII dynasty occurred roughly 1000 years after the pyramids were built, when Egyptian rulers were being buried in t
    • Anyone else find it ironic that these rulers enslaved entire races of people for generations to build gigantic pyramids so that they would never be forgotten only to have grave robbers steal everything and Western archaeologists show up thousands of years later asking, "Who the fuck were you?"

      People have noted the irony before.

      Ozymandius
      by: Percy Bysshe Shelley

      I met a traveler from an antique land
      Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
      Stand in the desert... Near them, on the sand,
      Half sunk a shatter

  • Queen Sut (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jozxyqk (16657) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:48PM (#19665667)
    Born in Arizona,
    Moved to Babylonia,
    Queen 'Sut.
  • Inscription (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kevin_conaway (585204) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:50PM (#19665691) Homepage

    A molar inscribed with the queen's name...

    Interesting. Did the Egyptians do that after she died or when she was alive? I feel kind of silly asking if it was done while she was alive but they did some other bizarre stuff, at least by todays standards.

    • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:51PM (#19665717)
      This was the original "Grill." That's right.. Kickin' it *really* old school, egypt-style.
    • Re:Inscription (Score:5, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:00PM (#19665853) Journal
      FTFA:

      During the embalming process, it was common to set aside spare body parts and preserve them in such a box.
      I other words: After she was dead, they put her tooth in a box.

      It's lucky they did, because as TFA also explains, her tomb was looted and the mummy removed, though not in the article is the fact that her son removed her cartouche and representation from all the monuments and temples he could find.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by timelorde (7880)
      Nice editing in the summary. The actual article says that the Queen's name was on the box, not on the tooth.

      Sheesh.

      I do love that Egyptian stuff, however.
      • Nice editing in the summary. The actual article says that the Queen's name was on the box, not on the tooth. Sheesh. I do love that Egyptian stuff, however.

        Thanks, I missed that in the article.

    • Right now some college girl in Jamaica is drunk and having that done. It'll go well with her ass-tat.
  • Bad Teeth (Score:5, Informative)

    by StefanJ (88986) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:52PM (#19665727) Homepage Journal
    I recently finished listening to a lecture series on the history of ancient Egypt. Fascinating stuff. As I recall, Queen Hatshepsut was kind of erased from history by a later pharaoh. Lady leaders just didn't fit in with the Way Things Were Supposed to Be.

    Lots of ancient Egyptians had bad teeth. Flour tended to have lots of sand in it thanks to the grinding process, and chewing wore away tooth enamel very efficiently.

    Stefan
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kevin_conaway (585204)

      I recently finished listening to a lecture series on the history of ancient Egypt. Fascinating stuff. As I recall, Queen Hatshepsut was kind of erased from history by a later pharaoh.

      The TFA mentions that it might have been her son [wikipedia.org]

      Lots of ancient Egyptians had bad teeth. Flour tended to have lots of sand in it thanks to the grinding process, and chewing wore away tooth enamel very efficiently.

      Just like modern day meth heads

      • by Rolgar (556636)
        The Smithsonian had a great article [smithsonianmag.com] on this late last year. (Hit cancel on the single page print dialog.)
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        The TFA mentions that it might have been her son

        I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but do you read The TFA before you go extract cash from an ATM Machine?

    • by rleibman (622895)
      The one from the teaching company? Funny, I just finished it yesterday!
  • Queen Hatshepsut (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mad Dog Manley (93208) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:53PM (#19665743)
    I'm sure many here remember Queen Hatshepsut from Civilization IV!
    • by Gospodin (547743)

      Heh. I'm in the middle of a game right now and Hatshepsut is "cautious" towards me. She keeps wanting to make crazy trades, like I give her "Flight" and she gives me "Military Tradition". Come on, Queen 'Sut, I'm not going for that!

  • Medical procedures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ushering05401 (1086795) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @01:53PM (#19665749) Journal
    I am interested in what medical techniques they might uncover by examining the evidence. It is reported that this lady not only had bone cancer, but probably liver cancer and diabetes.

    What lengths did the Egyptians, so often given credit for advanced medicine for their era, go to to save a ruler considered divine?

    Regards.
    • by Dunbal (464142) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:56PM (#19666655)
      It is reported that this lady not only had bone cancer, but probably liver cancer and diabetes.

            I'm not a forensic anthropologist, but as a physician I can say there are a lot of signs to tell you that a patient has cancer even if you only recover a fragment. Especially osteosarcoma (bone cancer), which tends to produce lytic lesions (areas where the bone is less dense) in most of the bones of the body. A quick x-ray of the jaw could reveal this. Plus osteosarcoma will alter calcium and PTH levels and dramatically change bone formation and reabsorbtion. See, bone is LIVING tissue. It's constantly being absorbed and recreated.

            Now I don't know where they get liver cancer from - it's very unlikely that a patient will have TWO separate types of cancer. But the liver lesions are probably just metastases of the primary osteosaarcoma.

            The egyptians were rather advanced in the field of medicine - FOR THEIR DAY. There is no possible way they could approach the level of medicine we had say 200 years ago, much less today. Diabetes is a complex disease that is eventually lethal when left untreated. I doubt very much they had discovered that feeding patients pig pancreases could mitigate this disease somewhat, since this was discovered early last century. We won't talk about sulfonyl-ureas and other oral hypoglycemiants.

            They were pretty good at basic surgery, they had a pretty good idea of which tumors NOT to touch (because they got worse if you touched them), and it's rumored that some were even capable of drilling burr holes in patients' skulls to treat subdural hematomas (from trauma/battle injuries) or encephalitis/meningitis (to relieve the pressure inside the skull from a swollen brain/membranes). However we MUST bear in mind that we have NO record of what their actual success rate was with these procedures. It's easy to attribute supernatural powers to a vanished culture, however reality is they had no antibiotics, precious little by way of anesthetics, and more importantly no scientific method.
  • So wait... This mummy, was a daddy [wikipedia.org] who has been discovered as a mummy? I am guessing her kids needed therapy and might be a good candidate for the Jerry Springer Show, or the a match for Paris Hilton
  • by Short Circuit (52384) <mikemol@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:10PM (#19666021) Homepage Journal
    Can I get my inheritance, now?
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      Can I get my inheritance, now?

            Considering the fact that a lot of them were executed/assassinated, your inheritance might just consist of a short length of rope and a dangle on the gallows.
  • by Cragen (697038) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:13PM (#19666067)
    The mummy "was found in 1903 in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings, where the young Pharaoh Tutankhamun was buried, and Hawass himself thought until recently that it belonged to the owner of the tomb, Hatshepsut's wet-nurse by the name of Sitre In.

    But the decisive evidence was a molar in a wooden box inscribed with the queen's name, found in 1881 in a cache of royal mummies collected and hidden away for safekeeping at the Deir al-Bahari temple about 1,000 metres (yards) away.

    During the embalming process, it was common to set aside spare body parts and preserve them in such a box.

    Orthodontics professor Yehya Zakariya checked all the mummies which might be Hatshepsut's and found that the tooth was a perfect fit in a gap in the upper jaw of the fat woman.

    "The identification of the tooth with the jaw can show this is Hatshepsut," Hawass said. "A tooth is like a fingerprint."

    "It is 100 percent definitive. It is 1.80 cm (wide) and the dentist took the measurement and studied that part. He found it fit exactly 100 percent with this part," he told Reuters

    So, no new mummy discovery, just new understanding of the evidence, as is often the case with the PYRAMIDS of data that science-types have still to de-cypher. (If I understand the articles right...)

    • by brian0918 (638904)
      What are you talking about? You seem to have misread the submission. What gave you the impression that the mummy was a new discovery??? The only thing that's new is the identification.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Cragen (697038)
        Well, I read the HEADLINE ("First Royal Mummy Found Since Tut is Identified") as /.'s editors saying someone found a new mummy.

        So, if I read that wrong, I apologize, but I doubt that I am the only one who read it like that.

        Cheers

        • by brian0918 (638904)
          Thank slashdot for not giving enough space to use proper grammar. "The first royal mummy found since the discovery of Tut has been identified."
    • by curunir (98273) *
      This makes the Slashdot title even more incorrect since the mummy of Ramses I has been identified since Tut Ankh Amon's mummy was discovered.

      That mummy was sold to a tourist in the mid 1800's and eventually made it's way to a small museum near Niagra Falls. Only recently was it realized that what was assumed to be little more than a side-show attraction was actually a royal mummy.
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @02:36PM (#19666363) Homepage Journal
    The Metropolitan Museum of Art had a special exhibit on Hatshepsut last year. It was not located with their egyptian wing but in a separate location. I had taken my parents there as my mom is our resident egyptologist and there were two other exhibits I wanted to see (the arms and armor permanent collection and the travelling tibetan armor exhibit).

    It was certainly interesting seeing all the pieces from her reign that had been destroyed in an attempt to erase her memory from history. Despite the pieces having been carved by hand, my dad would bring up the subject of how hard it is for him to use a dremel tool to carve things and how he would like to know how they did the intricate carvings. Needless to say, we would look around after he would say that and hope no real egyptologist was around.
  • Did they find an amulet?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_of_Isis [wikipedia.org]

  • King Tut? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BigBadBus (653823)
    Why do Americans call the boy king "King Tut"? His full name was Tutankhamun (or Tutankhamen)! Is this name so hard to spell or pronounce? Tut makes him sound like some fifth rate Batman villain! Grrrrrr!
    • 1. There is a popular song

      2. It has four syllables, roughly two more than the average American can pronouce. Add to that the kh in there and that excludes about 95% of the US population from ever getting the pronunciation correct.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        It has four syllables, roughly two more than the average American can pronouce. Add to that the kh in there and that excludes about 95% of the US population from ever getting the pronunciation correct.

        Exactly. My lady's last name is Photinos. Guess how many phone monkeys can get that right, out of a hundred? Hint: It's not very fucking many.

        My last name, as is fairly obvious, is Espinoza. My first name is Martin. I've gotten mail for Maria, Martina, Martine, Martn, Marti, and so on. Last names vary widely

        • by Plutonite (999141)
          Nonsense! The person who called you Martina Estinova was incredibly funny and I would be his friend. You on the other hand, with your "glottal" stops, are painfully lame. Plus..German? Oh the humanity.

          [insert grammar-Nazism joke here]
    • by TechnicolourSquirrel (1092811) on Wednesday June 27, 2007 @04:21PM (#19667829)

      Why do Americans call the boy king "King Tut"? His full name was Tutankhamun (or Tutankhamen)! Is this name so hard to spell or pronounce? Tut makes him sound like some fifth rate Batman villain! Grrrrrr!
      I'm afraid I must object to your use of this one-syllable colloquialism, 'Grrrrrr!' Would it have been so difficult to type 'This makes me very angry,' in proper English?
    • by Old Wolf (56093)
      I suppose so; there are two common and quite different pronunciations of the name!
      In my area "tootin' carmen" is usual but I often hear "tut anchor min"
  • "Preliminary results show similarities between its DNA and that of Ahmose Nefertari, the wife of the founder of the 18th dynasty and a probable ancestor of Hatsephsut's."

    Of course there were similarities. All Ancient Egyptian royalty was related; they usually married each others cousins and siblings. Since it was a bunch of royal mummies, they're all going to be similar.
  • Sorry but Hatshepsut just doesn't sound right...


    "Queen Hatshepsut [lyricskeeper.com]
    Buried with a donkey
    She's my favorite honkey"

    Nope, sorry

  • Hatshepsut is a very interesting historical figure.

    She reigned during Egypt's New Kingdom, a little after Ahmose drove out the Asiatic Hyksos from the north, and unifying Egypt again under native rule, and bringing Egypt to it final age of glory in ancient times.

    She was the Pharoah of Egypt, marrying her half brother, Thutmosis II (a common practice then), who had a son, Thutmosis III by a lesser wife, and co-ruled with her nephew.

    She sent ships and explorers to the Land of Punt [telecomtally.com] (thought to be Somalia).

    The

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...