posted
Obese and ruthless, the pharoah who was King AND Queen of Egypt By GLENYS ROBERTS - More by this author » Last updated at 11:09am on 28th June 2007
Queen Hatshepsut as she would have looked
The mummified remains of Egypt's first and most powerful female pharaoh have been identified by archaeologists.
They said the discovery was the most important since Howard Carter unearthed Tutankhamun's grave nearly a century ago.
The much more modest resting place of Hatshepsut was also dug up by Carter - but no one suspected her mummy was one of a pair found inside.
The breakthrough came when a tooth known to belong to the queen but found elsewhere was matched to the much larger of the two bodies.
Other evidence confirmed the mummy as that of the ruthless ruler who was famously "both king and queen". Detailed examination showed she was obese with rotten teeth and pendulous breasts.
Zahi Hawass, Egypt's chief archaeologist, said: "This is the most important discovery in the Valley of the Kings since the discovery of King Tutankhamun and one of the greatest adventures of my life.
"Queens, especially the great ones like Nefertiti and Cleopatra, capture our imaginations.
"But it is perhaps Hatshepsut, who was both a king and a queen who was most fascinating.
Egyptian authorities using DNA analysis and a tooth identified a mummy found a century ago as the remains of pharaoh Queen Hatshepsut
A woman monarch who called herself a pharaoh and dressed like a man, Queen Hatshepsut ruled over Egypt during the 15th century B.C
"Her reign during the 18th dynasty of ancient Egypt was a prosperous one, yet mysteriously she was erased from Egyptian history.
"Our hope is that this mummy will help shed light on this mystery and on the mysterious nature of her death."
Born into the most advanced civilisation in the ancient world, Hatshepsut commandeered the throne of Egypt from her young stepson, Thutmosis III, and, in an unprecedented move, declared herself pharaoh.
To cement her position as the first female ruler, she donned the traditional clothes, head-dress and even the false beard traditionally worn by the male ruler of Egypt.
During her famed 18th Dynasty rule, Queen Hatshepsut wielded more power than Cleopatra or Nefertiti
When Queen Hatshepsut's rule ended, all traces of her mysteriously disappeared, including her mummy
She is thought to have reigned with little opposition for more than two decades before dying in around 1458 BC.
On taking power, Thutmosis attempted to erase all record of her from public monuments and her final resting place remained a mystery until now.
But using their knowledge of royal Egyptian mummification techniques and clues from two known tombs linked to Hatshepsut, Dr Hawass and his team narrowed their search to just four mummies from thousands of unidentified corpses.
The search then came down to two mummies - one fat, one thin - from the tomb discovered by Carter in 1903 - 19 years before he opened the tomb of boy-king Tutankhamun.
One body belonged to Hatshepsut's wet nurse. However, the tooth held in a box bearing the female pharaoh's name has determined that the second, larger body was that of the ruler herself.
The molar, thought to have been set aside during the embalming process and kept in a nearby temple since its discovery in 1881, was almost an exact match to a gap in the monarch's upper jaw.
Yehya Zakariya, an orthodontics professor, said: "The identification of the tooth with the jaw can show this is Hatshepsut.
"A tooth is like a fingerprint. It is 100 per cent definitive."
As a woman living in Egypt's golden age, Hatshepsut was not destined for kingship.
She was prohibited by her gender from ascending the throne even though she was of royal lineage.
Egypt's gods had supposedly decreed that the king's role could never be fulfilled by a woman. And although a pharaoh needed a queen to reign with him, she could never rule alone.
Hatshepsut refused to submit to this and, to get round the rule, claimed she was married to the king of the gods and therefore had as much right to sit on the throne as any previous pharaoh.
Her brazen approach worked. She had herself crowned around 1473BC, changing her name from the female version Hatshepsut - which means Foremost of the Noble Ladies - to the male version, Hatshepsu.
She reinforced her power by decorating the temples of the gods with portraits of herself in the pharaoh's traditional kilt, wearing all his symbols of office including the black pointed royal beard.
While conducting affairs of state surrounded by male courtiers, she may even have worn men's clothes - just as women's libbers have done in modern times.
Yet judging by other statues of her that have survived, at times she could be all woman.
She had a distinct preference for tight-fitting gowns which showed off her figure and a habit of bedding her cabinet ministers.
Hatshepsut was the first but not the only woman ruler of maledominated ancient Egypt.
Nefertiti followed her and then Cleopatra took power 1,500 years later. Neither, however, took the title pharaoh like Hatshepsut.
She showed ruthless ambition and exceptional tenacity for the times in which she lived.
As a result this mysterious and courageous female ruler rewrote the early story of her country and has been called the first great woman in history.
Hatshepsut insisted she had been made official heir to the throne by her father, the pharaoh Thutmosis I.
The pharaoh had several sons who predeceased him and turned to his daughter to safeguard the throne.
What immediately followed was not unusual. Hatshepsut married a much younger half-brother, also called Thutmosis, whereupon she became queen.
Marriages between siblings were the custom in those days and at first the couple reigned together.
But then her brother/husband died, with the markings on his mummy suggesting he suffered from a hideous skin disease.
Hatshepsut became regent for another Thutmosis, her husband's son by a harem girl.
By now she was was not content simply to be regent. Within two years she had taken all the power for herself and was running the country from its capital Thebes, donned in her false beard and all the traditional regalia of kingship.
For many years she and her stepson seemed to have lived happily with this arrangement.
She ruled while Thutmosis concentrated on his military career. So successful was he that historians know him as the Napoleon of Egypt.
He is recorded as having taken massive numbers of prisoners, horses and spoil from the lands he attacked.
Historians suspect these cambonepaigns were an excuse to escape from the influence of his merciless step-mother.
She was becoming so powercrazed in her last years that Thutmosis even feared for his life.
In his absence, Hatshepsut built breathtaking temples in her own honour. They were decorated with reliefs telling how she came to the throne of Egypt and with farfetched stories about her divine connections.
Hatshepsut ruled as a master politician and stateswoman for 20 years, outliving all her male ministers and, it seems, putting on weight.
She died around the age of 50 of cancer, according to Dr Hawass's research.
She expected to be buried in her finest and best known temple near the Valley of the Kings.
Reminiscent of Third Reich architecture and a forerunner of the Parthenon, it is one of the most famous tourist destinations in the world.
But with her death, Thutmosis III finally come into his own, getting his own back on the woman who had usurped his throne.
He outlived Hatshepsut by 40 years and seems to have set out on a campaign to erase her name from history.
Was he jealous, was he threatened by her memory? For whatever motive, he erased many of her images.
He threw her statues into the quarries in front of the grand temples she built and even defaced the images of her courtiers.
By the time Carter came on the scene at the beginning of the 20th century her body had been removed from the tomb she had been destined to occupy.
The only bodies that seemed to correspond with the royal remains were two mysterious elderly women in a much more modest tomb in the Valley of the Kings.
Was her body removed from the tomb to foil grave robbers or even to save it from mutilation by her stepson? Did he have it disinterred and condemned to anonymity?
These mysteries remain. But the broken tooth preserved in a box inscribed with Hatshepsut's name has at last revealed her identity.
posted
Incredible pictures and much valuable information. Thank you, Undercover.
So where was her mummy kept for 100 years; in the cellars of the Egyptian Museum?
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well first and foremost, she did not look like a white European woman. On top of that, what makes Hatshepsut ruthless? Based on what? She was no more/less ruthless than any other ruler of Egypt. She was also not the first woman to hold the throne as pharaoh either. The fact she was a pharaoh and ruled for 20 years uncontested shows skill and courage but to her ruthless is going beyond the facts. She ruled because her brother Thutmosis was too young to rule. If she was ruthless she would have killed the boy to become the ruler.
All that aside, I was sure it wouldn't be long before someone slapped the obligatory Eurocentric white image of an Egyptian royal onto Hatshepsut.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatesheput, obese? Excuse me? She was slightly overweight thank you very much, lol.... jus kiddin, seriously, whats the obesession with weight these days?
Anyways, Doug is right about Hatesheput not being ruthless, although her fellow countrymen seem to have viewed her that way, since she suffered a damnatio memoraie (most of her monuments were defaced) years after her death, an act which could have been started by Thutmose....
And Hatesheput was faaar from the first female regent to grab power for herself. Truth be told, the first "Hatesheput" in Egyptian history goes back to the First Dynasty! That's a fact not often discussed in egyptology, sad Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let the whitewash begin. When was the picture drawn? 1920?
Let's face it, white people by and large will always depict Ancient Kemet in THEIR image. I'm sorry, but this is beginning to piss me off because all they're doing is taking some old picture they can find and slapping it on the page. You KNOW there's going to be a facial reconstruction, and when it's done it was not be dark-skinned and represent the people from Southern Egypt at all. Which is why it's a whitewash...PR pure and simple!!!
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You guys getting too worked up over the all too obvious.
Yes that modern portrait of Hatshepsut was just one of many paintings created by the white South African artist Winifred Brunton who was the wife of Egyptologist Guy Brunton who was a colleague of Sir Flinders Petrie. Yes, she and her peers are white Westerners of the early 1900s at which time Europe, (and especially England) was at the height of Egyptomania. So of course the portrait is whitewashed!
Getting back to the article. The article does give a rather negative outlook not just on Hatshepsut but on Egyptian society. It speaks of Egyptian society as being "male dominated" as if to mean patriarchal, when we know this isn't the case at all.-- Egyptian women had the same rights as men and even held certain priviliges that women in contemporary Western Asia Europe could only dream of. True, the role of Pharoah was considered a male's role but this does not mean women had no part to play in government. And of course the article calls Hatshepsut "ruthless". As if she killed people to get to power or something! LOL There were male pharoahs who have actually done harm to others to get and/or maintain their throne, why is Hatshepsut called "ruthless"? Ambitious would be the fitting word for her. As for "obese", the article claims she got that way in her later life but was once thinner. Although such an image of the famous female pharaoh does seem interesting to me...
Hatshepsut with some thickness to her.
I wonder how Hawass would react if they made a reconstruction of Hatshepsut being the big black woman she was before she died! LMFO I'm sure he would have an anurism! Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You guys getting too worked up over the all too obvious.
Yes that modern portrait of Hatshepsut was just one of many paintings created by the white South African artist Winifred Brunton who was the wife of Egyptologist Guy Brunton who was a colleague of Sir Flinders Petrie. Yes, she and her peers are white Westerners of the early 1900s at which time Europe, (and especially England) was at the height of Egyptomania. So of course the portrait is whitewashed!
Getting back to the article. The article does give a rather negative outlook not just on Hatshepsut but on Egyptian society. It speaks of Egyptian society as being "male dominated" as if to mean patriarchal, when we know this isn't the case at all.-- Egyptian women had the same rights as men and even held certain priviliges that women in contemporary Western Asia Europe could only dream of. True, the role of Pharoah was considered a male's role but this does not mean women had no part to play in government. And of course the article calls Hatshepsut "ruthless". As if she killed people to get to power or something! LOL There were male pharoahs who have actually done harm to others to get and/or maintain their throne, why is Hatshepsut called "ruthless"? Ambitious would be the fitting word for her. As for "obese", the article claims she got that way in her later life but was once thinner. Although such an image of the famous female pharaoh does seem interesting to me...
Hatshepsut with some thickness to her.
I wonder how Hawass would react if they made a reconstruction of Hatshepsut being the big black woman she was before she died! LMFO I'm sure he would have an anurism!
Right. She was a Eurocentric artist from South Africa. I called it exactly right. Her work is not any sort of accurate depiction of the Queen and the fact that they posted it in the article is what I was referring to not the obvious fact of Brunton being a fairly well known artist.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Times said the search for Hatshepsut's mummy will be featured in a television program, "Secrets of the Lost Queen of Egypt," scheduled for Sunday, July 15, 2007, at 9 PM (ET/PT) on the Discovery Channel.
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tigerlily: So where was her mummy kept for 100 years; in the cellars of the Egyptian Museum?
The tomb was first discovered by Howard Carter in 1903, but it had been ransacked in antiquity and he resealed it. It was re-opened in 1906 and one mummy was removed and identified as Sit-ra, royal nurse of Hatshepsut.
The mummy now said to be of Hatshepsut herself was left behind and did not see the light again until 1990.
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to a listener question Hawass also reveals that Queen Tiye will be CT Scanned and DNA tested in September. [NPR Radio, USA, June 27, 2007. Ten minutes and thirty-one seconds in total. Audio Here
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps, the artist should have reserved this for Cleopatra, but this would have relatively been like a compliment to her, considering the coin and some other images of her.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is a bunch of BS; it's the North African Caucasian ruling Kemet Nonsense Again,this is a straight up Distortion of Africa History.
I'm starting to become a little irritated about this.
Written in the book X-raying the Pharaohs states that Donald Redford, a modern Canadian Egyptologist. . . . "believes Hatshepsut's attainment of the throne represents the final attempt in the Eighteenth Dynasty to establish a strong matrairchate in Egypt. He cites the unusual importance of earlier queens in this period --Tetisheri, Ahhotep I, Ahmose-Nefertari--as evidence of such a tendency, and here suggest that the influences for such a matriarchally determined order of succession might have come from Nubia. The possibility that the rulers of the Seventeenth Dynasty were themselves at least part Nubian".
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tigerlily: So where was her mummy kept for 100 years; in the cellars of the Egyptian Museum?
The tomb was first discovered by Howard Carter in 1903, but it had been ransacked in antiquity and he resealed it. It was re-opened in 1906 and one mummy was removed and identified as Sit-ra, royal nurse of Hatshepsut.
The mummy now said to be of Hatshepsut herself was left behind and did not see the light again until 1990.
.
Thank you, Myra.
Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
(note how the mummy of mahiperi, is not different at all from those of the royal women.)
The 17th and 18th dynasty hailed from the South and sealed a bond between themselves and others from the south through marriage. But these southerners werent "Nubians" they were southern clans and populations that were physically not much different than the Egyptians in the first place. The Egyptians turned to the south in the same way America turns to Britain, because of a common kinship. This is why they intermarried with the south, as this was the greatest sign of a common bond by blood.
But the 17th and 18th dynasties werent unique in this respect, as Egypt has ALWAYS had a bond with people from the South, meaning between Aswan and the 1st cataract. Parts of this area was called Ta Seti, the 1st nome of Egypt itself so it was the "first state" to speak.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: [Written in the book X-raying the Pharaohs states that Donald Redford, a modern Canadian Egyptologist. . . . "believes Hatshepsut's attainment of the throne represents the final attempt in the Eighteenth Dynasty to establish a strong matrairchate in Egypt. He cites the unusual importance of earlier queens in this period --Tetisheri, Ahhotep I, Ahmose-Nefertari--as evidence of such a tendency, and here suggest that the influences for such a matriarchally determined order of succession might have come from Nubia. The possibility that the rulers of the Seventeenth Dynasty were themselves at least part Nubian".
. [/QB]
Um Yeeeeeah about that Redford quote, he's wrong about that. How did he come to the conclusion that Hatesheput's attainment of the throne was somehow the result of "Nubian influence" in Egyptian royalty? And why did the inspiration for matriarchy have to come from Nubia? Didn't Redford know that Egypt itself was a very non-sexist society, and that women had basically all the rights men had? And that Nubia and Egypt arose from a similiar cultural (and ethnic) base? And most of all, doesnt Reford know that the Hatesheput was not the only female regent to grab power for herself, and that the first example of one goes all the way back to the first dynasty? I guess the first dynasty royalty had "Nubian" inspiration too lol.... Redford is just another Eurocentrist. And Myra you might want to think twice before using people like him as authoritative references, but I like your website though . Peace.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: The 17th and 18th dynasty hailed from the South and sealed a bond between themselves and others from the south through marriage. But these southerners werent "Nubians" they were southern clans and populations that were physically not much different than the Egyptians in the first place.
You are contradicting yourself here, you first say they were egytians from the south and then you say they looked not different from egyptians. Why do you have to emphasize that these egyptians looked no different from egyptians, its like saying the southern swedes looked no different from swedes, almost as if you think northern egyptians are more authentic, quite odd.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you guys think when they take the dna that they are going to lie?
What if it turns up to be European DNA..what next?
What if this is a fake and Hawass knows it is not her and it is a non African because of DNA..then what?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: The 17th and 18th dynasty hailed from the South and sealed a bond between themselves and others from the south through marriage. But these southerners werent "Nubians" they were southern clans and populations that were physically not much different than the Egyptians in the first place.
You are contradicting yourself here, you first say they were egytians from the south and then you say they looked not different from egyptians. Why do you have to emphasize that these egyptians looked no different from egyptians, its like saying the southern swedes looked no different from swedes, almost as if you think northern egyptians are more authentic, quite odd.
No I think you are misreading what I said. The idea that Northern Egyptians and Southern ones had differences in appearance is not something I came up with and that is what I am commenting on, especially the earlier post referencing that the 17th and 18th dynasties were somehow more "Nubian" than other dynasties, which is misleading in many ways.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The point is that the Egyptians were not ethnically one people but there was some diversity among them with each locality having certain nuances among them. Upper Egyptians were as different from Lower Egyptians as Lower 'Nubians' were from Upper Egyptians and Upper 'Nubians' etc. Again there were regional differences. Egypt or Kemet was a unified nation consisting of different groups. They may have shared similarities in language and culture, but there were also differences. And Doug is correct that the earliest capitals lay in the south and that Ta-Seti was the first sepat (nome).
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: Do you guys think when they take the dna that they are going to lie?
What if it turns up to be European DNA..what next?
What if this is a fake and Hawass knows it is not her and it is a non African because of DNA..then what?
I don't know, but I won't hold my breath.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Djehuti Hatesheput was not obese, aiight?
Well didn't the forensics say that her mummy (if it is Hatshepsut) was that of an obese person?? She died that way, but that doesn't mean she was never thin.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Um Yeeeeeah about that Redford quote, he's wrong about that. How did he come to the conclusion that Hatesheput's attainment of the throne was somehow the result of "Nubian influence" in Egyptian royalty? And why did the inspiration for matriarchy have to come from Nubia? Didn't Redford know that Egypt itself was a very non-sexist society, and that women had basically all the rights men had? And that Nubia and Egypt arose from a similiar cultural (and ethnic) base? And most of all, doesnt Reford know that the Hatesheput was not the only female regent to grab power for herself, and that the first example of one goes all the way back to the first dynasty? I guess the first dynasty royalty had "Nubian" inspiration too lol.... Redford is just another Eurocentrist. And Myra you might want to think twice before using people like him as authoritative references, but I like your website though . Peace.
I seriously doubt that Redford is a Eurocentric since his work in craniometry shows that Egyptians, or at least the royal mummies were indigenous Africans. His quote about the matriarchy is just a speculation based on history or culture which aren't really his specialties.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had photocopies of an article about Hatchepsut's statuary that dealed with her color complexion that varied from an period to another of her reign, and if I recall well it started to be yellow skin with female features, then right after that red with male features, and then a intermediate "orange" with less pronounced masculine features at the last period of her reign. I'd love to compare these facts with the anthropological infos from her mummy when more facts about it come out.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does there have to be such taboo-twisting, and eroti-romantization over this:
Obese and rutheless, the pharaoh who was both King and Queen of Egypt"
Indeed, it's as if Hatsepshut was both part male and female, AND INDEED, it's as if she had to be ruthless to get to power in such a patriarchal state.
-When I know a number of European roayalties involved in events like these - Cleopatra one of them.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The idea that Northern Egyptians and Southern ones had differences in appearance is not something I came up with and that is what I am commenting on, especially the earlier post referencing that the 17th and 18th dynasties were somehow more "Nubian" than other dynasties, which is misleading in many ways.
Yes, they did differ in appearance a bit, BUT NOT really in population origins as pointed out here before:
"Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.********The various craniofacial patterns *discernible* in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.********"
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: Why does there have to be such taboo-twisting, and eroti-romantization over this:
Obese and rutheless, the pharaoh who was both King and Queen of Egypt"
Indeed, it's as if Hatsepshut was both part male and female, AND INDEED, it's as if she had to be ruthless to get to power in such a patriarchal state.
-When I know a number of European roayalties involved in events like these - Cleopatra one of them.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The idea that Northern Egyptians and Southern ones had differences in appearance is not something I came up with and that is what I am commenting on, especially the earlier post referencing that the 17th and 18th dynasties were somehow more "Nubian" than other dynasties, which is misleading in many ways.
Yes, they did differ in appearance a bit, BUT NOT really in population origins as pointed out here before:
"Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.********The various craniofacial patterns *discernible* in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.********"
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060
The problem is sentences like this:
quote: Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.
The ancient neolithic and holecene Africans all had AFRICAN phenotypes. The use of the term European means EUROPEAN DERIVED or DERIVED FROM EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, which therefore allows speculation of a EUROPEAN PRESENCE or APPEARANCE for populations in Africa with NO EUROPEAN contact, which is ridiculous. The variation in Africa had NOTHING to do with EUROPE and EVERYTHING to do with BIOLOGICAL diversity. Africans can come in all shapes and sizes WITHOUT having ANY contact or influence from EUROPEANS or any other foreigner. Therefore such sentences as a basis for trying to explain AFRICAN diversity in terms of FALSE typologies like EUROPEAN phenotypes, only promotes FALSE understanding of African diversity.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^People apparently still dont get the thing about ancient lower egyptians/maghrebian ethnicity.. sigh..... the "northern coastal peoples" were african descended groups who gradually mixed with near eastern populations over time .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ The point is that the Egyptians were not ethnically one people but there was some diversity among them with each locality having certain nuances among them. Upper Egyptians were as different from Lower Egyptians as Lower 'Nubians' were from Upper Egyptians and Upper 'Nubians' etc. Again there were regional differences. Egypt or Kemet was a unified nation consisting of different groups. They may have shared similarities in language and culture, but there were also differences. And Doug is correct that the earliest capitals lay in the south and that Ta-Seti was the first sepat (nome).
Keita, on centroid values of cranial series:
"Badarian (8) occupies a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series by centroid values and territorial maps. The Nagada and the Kerma series are so similar that they are barely INDISTINGUISHABLE in the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series in Abydos… The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly “southern”; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups…No Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the European series, and few grouped with the “E” series…Nutter (1958) found that they [the Nagada] are essentially identical to the Badarian series. The classification of crania into specific groups does NOT imply identity with those specific series, only AFFINITIES with broad patterns connoting COMMON ORIGINS..." - Keita, Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, they did differ in appearance a bit, BUT NOT really in population origins as pointed out here before:
"Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.********The various craniofacial patterns *discernible* in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.********"
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060
The problem is sentences like this:
quote: Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.
The ancient neolithic and holecene Africans all had AFRICAN phenotypes. The use of the term European means EUROPEAN DERIVED or DERIVED FROM EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, which therefore allows speculation of a EUROPEAN PRESENCE or APPEARANCE for populations in Africa with NO EUROPEAN contact, which is ridiculous. The variation in Africa had NOTHING to do with EUROPE and EVERYTHING to do with BIOLOGICAL diversity. Africans can come in all shapes and sizes WITHOUT having ANY contact or influence from EUROPEANS or any other foreigner. Therefore such sentences as a basis for trying to explain AFRICAN diversity in terms of FALSE typologies like EUROPEAN phenotypes, only promotes FALSE understanding of African diversity.
I agree, but in reference to Willing Thinker's citation, actaully a Keita piece, it is worth noting the finer details:
"Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern.********The various craniofacial patterns *discernible* in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.********"
First of all, "late" dynastic is the timeframe in question. Secondly, even Keita realizes the arbitrary nature of using European 'metric' phenotype, which is why elsewhere he placed the term in quotation marks. That said, your point remains taken.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Interesting. Unfortunately, I take it all of those people crowding around the mummy and taking pictures do not at all get the true impression that the mummy (whether it is Hatshepsut or not) is African and Hatshepsut an a powerful African ruler.
By the way, is it just me or does anyone else notice a similar pattern in other times in African history, in other parts of Africa, where a female takes powerful as sole ruler of a nation even if the title was traditionally held by males and so adopts the male regalia and titles. I have seen this with Nzinga of the Congo and I believe the Hausa queen Amina.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mystery has it right, and I believe he was the one to first catch this and point it out to a few here.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: ^People apparently still dont get the thing about ancient lower egyptians/maghrebian ethnicity.. sigh..... the "northern coastal peoples" were african descended groups who gradually mixed with near eastern populations over time .
Yup, but I don't think Doug's post exemplifies that that "people" don't get it.
quote:Mystery:
worth noting the finer details
Indeed, and not only the time frame 'late dynastic', also that
quote:********The various craniofacial patterns *discernible* in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.********
Doug was just noting the in-accurate implications that come along with the use of: European metric phenotypes lest some Eurocentric nut read it and prematurely ejaculate.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Okay, as for the last couple of words of the post above,... that was gross!
Getting back to the topic title, I find the whole description "obese and ruthless" to be silly if not hilarious!
So they are making Hatusu into some devious fat lady! LMFO @ the whole phrase "obese and ruthless" !
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: What if it turns up to be European DNA..what next? What if this is a fake and Hawass knows it is not her and it is a non African because of DNA..then what?
Good question! But what is European DNA? All representation of DNA are variation of their African loci i.e. East Africa, Central Africa or N. Africa!
Hawass has to be very clever because results may not lie but the sample can be manipulated to represent or not represent a thing! One will be looking at location, vestments worn or not worn, and similar characteristics of the other pyramids to come to some definite conclusion.
I came across a University of Chicago newsltter where one professor saw the results of a dig and he noted that the results did not match the surroundings of a find but he was recently proved right after many years!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ When it comes to DNA testing for ancestry, the specific thing they look for are certain genetic markers that denote lineage. The goal is to identify these markers and assess them as to their origin and time of derivation.
That said, all genetic studies show that modern Egyptians carry native African lineages that date to the Neolithic or earlier, with other foreign (non-African) lineages that date later than that. We know the Egyptians royals were native Africans and we know they did not include foreigners (let alone Europeans) into the immediate family, if there were any European women at all in the Pharaoh's harem. That said, the chances of a royal mummy, let alone that of a great ruler like Hatshepsut, to have European lineage is highly unlikely.
By the way, I have seen sneak previews of the Discovery channel program premiering July 15th, Secrets of Egypt's Lost Queen. And it appears our old friend Borg probably isn't directing this one, cuz the actress for Hatusu looks white (as in European and not even Arab)! Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't be overemphasized that patrilineal or mitochondrial DNA markers from ancient mummies are easily subjected to contamination or degradation. Break down of certain bases on the strand of the DNA segment amplified, may lead to misleading conclusions.
posted
The fact of the matter is that this WHOLE idea of "needing" DNA to "prove" who the Egyptians were is an absolute farce. NOWHERE ELSE on the planet have archaeologists and anthropologists "needed" DNA to know who the people were or where they came from. It is blatantly offensive to say the least, therefore, for someone to suggest, that with all the evidence we have, somehow there is still a "mystery" about the origins of the Egyptians. Being in Africa isn't good enough. Leaving mummies with obvious African features isn't good enough. Leaving artwork that speaks for itself isn't good enough. Evidence from historical artifacts showing continuity with older cultures from the South and West aren't good enough. But the SAME things are good enough everywhere else. Nobody needs DNA for ancient Chinese remains, Mayan remains, Greek remains, Babylonian remains or most of the remains found anywhere else on earth. THAT is why this seems more like a quest to find some foreign, non black African connection to ancient Egypt, by any means necessary that makes this whole sham a joke. Like what are they trying to find in the DNA? We know that the Egyptians were Africans. We know that many of them hailed from the South. We know the family trees. So WHAT are they looking for that they DON'T already know? How is the DNA REALLY providing anything NEW that we DON'T know? It is more like they are trying to find ways that the Egyptians WEREN'T Africans as opposed to accepting what is obvious from the facts already available.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually Doug, the main reason for the DNA tests on mummies is not to acess their ethnic ('racial') identity but their specific individual identity and familial relations. The whole goal of Hawass DNA project was to make a complete genetic profile of all the royal families of Egypt and therefore verify who is related to whom.
That said, I find it unlikely they will be looking for overall population ancestry like whether or not the males have E lineages or females having some African mt ancestry. In all likely hood, since the mummies do have African ancestry, Hawass's scientists will just keep silent on that part; that and the fact of easy degradation on the lineage markers that Mystery stated above.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When it comes to DNA testing for ancestry, the specific thing they look for are certain genetic markers that denote lineage. The goal is to identify these markers and assess them as to their origin and time of derivation.
That said, all genetic studies show that modern Egyptians carry native African lineages that date to the Neolithic or earlier, with other foreign (non-African) lineages that date later than that. , if there were any European women at all in the Pharaoh's harem. That said, We know the Egyptians royals were native Africans and we know they did not include foreigners (let alone Europeans) into the immediate family the chances of a royal mummy, let alone that of a great ruler like Hatshepsut, to have European lineage is highly unlikely.
By the way, I have seen sneak previews of the Discovery channel program premiering July 15th, Secrets of Egypt's Lost Queen. And it appears our old friend Borg probably isn't directing this one, cuz the actress for Hatusu looks white (as in European and not even Arab)!
Do you have proof that there are no non African lineages in Royal Egyptians and that they were native to Africa? Source?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No, this is just a hypothesis based on genetic tests of modern day Egyptian populations as well as historical documents, anthropology, and archaeology.
We can't be 100% certain until we get actual DNA samples from the royal mummies themselves.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm sure he would have an anurism! 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Well didn't the forensics say that her mummy (if it is Hatshepsut) was that of an obese person?? She died that way, but that doesn't mean she was never thin.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic