Queen Hatshepsut

 Queen Hatshepsut, a Pharoah almost erased from history by her stepson, was one of the most successful and prosperous leaders Egypt ever had. Most of us have heard of Cleopatra, but let's dive into the story of Hatshepsut. 

Before we go into what nearly destroyed her memory in Egyptian history, here is a brief introduction to her success and how she got into the position of Pharoah. Keep in mind, Pharaohs were "gods" and once you got the throne you couldn't be voted out. She was the 6th Pharoah of the 18th dynasty and ruled from 1479 to 1458 BC. Evidence of her reign as most successful woman Pharoah was found around 1927, when a pit of all her artifacts, most of them destroyed and broken, was found. She was the widowed queen of her half-brother Thutmose II, and when he died she was named regent ruler until her stepson (most likely a harem child) would be of age to rule. 
        

This is the point in the story where she gets a bad name from some scholars, while others say she was not a malicious woman. The story told previously to new evidence says she declared herself Pharoah, was sleeping with her chief minister Senenmut who helped her climb the ladder, and insisted on being portrayed as a man. While it is true she'd need a man to back her to get the throne, this highly fictitious story is not what a lot of scholars believe happened. Now that you heard the story of her ascent to leadership from the rumor mill we can move on to what evidence says. 

The Truth, As Much As We Can Prove 

Upon marrying Thutmose II, she got the position of god's wife of Amun, which gave her power. She could dictate policy, preside over festivals, and engage with (and this is just what Egyptians thought) Amun directly. This meant she had power and she just became more powerful. 

Thutmose III, her stepson, was most likely a harem child. A male heir to the throne was not found from the womb of Hatshepsut, who had one daughter, Neferure. She was not able to give a male heir to Thutmose II. Thutmose III was not old enough to take the throne. As Regent, Hatshepsut was a place-holder for her child until he could rule. Thutmose II died young and was known for being frail and ineffective. He was probably able to be controlled by his wife, historians say, but she was portrayed as a supportive wife in various images and artifacts found. The stepson was said to have destroyed the artifacts of his stepmother at the start of his reign after her death, but it was closer to the end of his reign that they were destroyed, according to the evidence found. 

Around the seventh year of her regency, the image of Hatshepsut went from helping the future Pharoah to her being the full-fledged Pharoah. Egyptologists don't think this was a woman showing her true ambition, but instead was a way to save the throne for her stepson because a competing branch of the family wanted the throne. They say it was a political crisis that propelled her into the role of Pharoah, not her vanity. I said before that kingship here means you can't just step down like a president. You were in for life. It is entirely possible she was teaching him how to rule and couldn't step down - once a Pharoah you resign when you are mummified and dead. She gave him control of the armies and co-ruled with him. I think that if she'd wanted to completely overshadow him she wouldn't have done that. 

Tomb of Hatshepsut

Posing as a man may have had the benefit of authority and may have happened at the advice of a male co-ruler, but she never claimed she was male if you look at the inscriptions of her statues. "His Majesty, Herself." As well as changing her appearance, she also took a new name, Maatkare, meaning "truth is the soul of the sun god". Maat is the expression for "order and justice as established by the gods". She was assuring her people she had a legitimate claim to be Pharoah. She claimed that her father Amun, in the form of Thutmose I, named her successor. She had her daughter marry Thutmose III because being his mother-in-law had quite a few benefits. By claiming she was Amun's daughter she was considered a demi-god, so she made herself look legitimate. She put up the temple at Deir El-Bahri and that is actually where they first found her name. She built things to a grand scale and only Ramses II can top her structures.

Senenmut got something out of this, too - a magnificent tomb in the valley of the kings, near Hatshepsut. He apparently never used it. They are not sure what happened, but it looks like a combination of tomb robbers, natural collapse, and religious upheaval. Hatshepsut made room for her father, and reburied him with her, in her tomb cut into the cliff. Other Pharaohs thought it was so beautiful they wanted to be buried near it and thus started the valley of the kings. Her tomb was empty when archaeologists found it. Her mummy was found in 2007 and is housed in Cairo, Egypt.

Deir El-Bahri

Why Destroy Her Memory?

One doesn't try to destroy evidence of a political ruler, let alone one considered a god, on accident. It was on purpose and we know that for sure. He was almost successful, too. Was it revenge or hatred, like other scholars assumed? Not if it happened so late in his reign. They think that he wanted to make it look like the throne went from his father to him, without Hatshepsut's reign in the record. She may have been "too successful" and it was to be erased so women wouldn't want Pharoahship later on. (If that was the reason, I'm glad he failed.) Hatshepsut may have anticipated this misunderstanding of her actions and being forgotten. She made two obelisks at Karnak, and one reads "Now my heart turns this way and that, as I think what the people will say—those who shall see my monuments in years to come, and who shall speak of what I have done." 

Something Egyptians believed was that one lived as long as one was remembered. The people did actually forget her for a time. They attributed her temple to others at some points in time. They liked their tradition modeled from Osiris and Isis, that women supported the men and not the other way around. 

Sources:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-queen-who-would-be-king-130328511/

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/hatshepsut

https://www.ancient.eu/hatshepsut/

Images:

Reddit

Ancient Egypt Online

Viator

Car warnings for the mechanically challenged

 If you are anything like me you know next to nothing about what noises your car should and shouldn't be making, or what warning lights mean. While a picture is worth a thousand words, this post should clarify what the car warning lights actually mean. 

First of all, let's put them in priority order. The most important lights are at the top of the list. 

Oil pressure  - It looks like a genie's lamp dripping. Something is wrong with the car's oil pressure system. You are running low on oil or it isn't pumping correctly. This is not something to ignore. 

Engine Temperature - The image to picture is a thermometer with waves below it. Your engine overheated. You may need coolant. This is urgent and should be addressed immediately. 

Antilock Brake System - In case anyone thought a light with the letters ABS was Airbag Safety System (I did, so no shame at all if you have), it is not. If it comes on for a few seconds and disappears all is well. If it stays on you need to do something about it. Antilock brakes are more important than you may think, mostly because it keeps your car on the road surface. 

Traction control malfunction - This can also mean an ABS problem, but it is exactly what it says. It is a triangle with an exclamation mark inside it, all surrounded by an arrow going from right to left. The traction system is broken. Go get that fixed. 

engine - So, if you see this pull over at Autozone and have them check it for free. It is shaped like an engine, literally. Your gas cap may not be fully on, your oil could be low, or you could be overheating the engine. Definitely don't let this one go unchecked. 

battery - It looks like a car battery - a square with a plus and minus sign on it. It means your car battery is low, or a cable is damaged. Wait too long and you need jumper cables from a fellow driver to start up your car to get home. 

low fuel - If you see this indicator, that usually explains itself, you clearly need to go get gas. I thought about leaving this one out, but it is actually important to remember your car runs on fuel. Ignoring this light can leave you stranded at the side of the highway, on a dirt road, or anywhere at all. I tend to get gas at a half or quarter tank. Nancy Drew may forget to get gas, but you shouldn't. 

traction control light - The image of a swerving car is evidence the road is slippery or it is winter. If it is not winter and the road is not slippery, it is your tires that are the problem. 

engine start/ automatic shift - A shoe angled upward with a circle around it means you are trying to shift gears or start the car without a foot on the brake. 

seat belt reminder - This one is the law. Please wear a seatbelt while on the road. If this light is on and you do have it on, get your car checked out. 

airbag indicator - A person with a bubble in front of them is the airbag indicator, showing the airbag has something wrong. Go see a mechanic. 

washer fluid low - It is a windshield with a dotted line coming up the middle like water. It means you need to stop somewhere at some point for washer fluid. This one is not particularly urgent compared to the rest of these lights. 

Noises Your Car Shouldn't Be Making

Your car is making noises, right? Your audiobook is getting harder to hear? Well, let's think about that for a second. Let's talk about those noises your narrator is trying to drown out. 

Your car should not roar when speeding up. This can indicate exhaust system problems, including leakage. Short answer, take it to a mechanic for a check-up. 

Grinding under the hood is never good. Grinding metal anywhere is generally not good. Take stock of the situation with the following questions before going to get it fixed:
1. Are sounds after or before turning it on?  2. Are the brakes wonky or not working correctly?
3. Does how you turn make any difference? 

If it makes sounds when turning you are legitimately in danger and it may have to do with power steering. If it is a shifting gears situation, check transmission fluid, as well as getting it checked over. Scraping brakes are never, never, never normal, so go get brake pads replaced. Knocking noises in an engine is a clear sign to go to the shop, like immediately, since you might strand yourself. 

Rattling underneath needs some investigation. First, check the exhaust system (if so, the sound will be louder at red lights or stop signs). After that, the muffler is your next stop. 

Squealing in cars may be in the movies, but if you accelerate and it is squealing you should be worried. Your serpentine belt is loose or worn-out. Handle this sooner, not later.

Loud banging while driving. Yeah, not good. It is your catalytic converter or your engine is backfiring. Check for the latter first. Check your distributor cap to see if it is cracked. 

Hissing, much like the hiss of a poisonous snake, should be a major warning. Engine hoses are damaged. Go get it fixed if you have no idea how to fix this hose yourself. It will only get worse from here. 

Safe Travels!

I hope you enjoyed the overview of what your car should and shouldn't be doing. With all of us mechanically-challenged humans out there driving I felt we should all have a crash course on it. Some of us (cough, cough - me - cough, cough) generally don't know when to stop drowning our car sounds in audiobooks and radio, so I learned with the rest of you today. Be safe drivers out there and look out for the less safe drivers while shopping! Black Friday is crazy enough. 

Pictures:

go mechanic

Facebook

Sources:

https://www.gregs.com/10-noises-car-shouldnt-making/

https://vatire.com/car-maintenance-tips/what-all-the-symbols-on-your-dashboard-mean/

Fallen Women - a brief history

Pregnant and single? Today's society may not be as harsh on you as it was before. If you thought single parenting was hard, let's look at how things could be worse.

A "fallen woman" was, put in simplest terms, one that had sex outside of marriage and didn't fit into domestic society. It is an archaic term that we no longer use - and for good reason. Whether it was rape, consensual sex, prostitution, or being sold for sex, it didn't matter if they were pregnant outside of marriage. What you have to understand is that women were seen as falling away from God if they were being referred to as fallen women. "Fallen men" is a term that has never existed because only women were held to sexual purity. Women, especially in Victorian era, were held to a maidenly status until marriage, then were held to a standard of being a home-body.

The status of women is important here. Way back before women were allowed into the workforce like they are today you could not feed your family yourself. Men worked and women were in the domestic sphere, otherwise known as the home. Women did not leave the home. If you got pregnant unmarried it was assumed you were doing wrong before that, so you probably aren't getting support from anyone if it is the 18-1900s. The only support you could get was a man "saving your honor" by marrying you, even if that man was the one whom you were sold to, raped you, or you simply hate the guy's guts. Women were trapped if they were unwed and pregnant. With this clarified, let's see what happened to these women. 

Ireland - Magdalene Laundries

Catholics have been deemed the bad guys in this situation, but I am not saying all Catholics were guilty of mistreating others. I don't want to say that all Catholics are evil, nor am I going to say that the Catholic church has been perfect. If you are Catholic, I want it to be clear that I am only reporting recorded history. Protestant churches also supported some of these institutions, at first. 

In Ireland, Magdalene laundries were run by convents and nuns, worked by women who volunteered themselves and women who were sent by their families. Some of them had nowhere else to go. Some had disabilities, as well, so you can imagine that the world had little promise for them around the years 1837- 1900s. Believe it or not, they ran until 1992. Some chose to stay. 

They found a mass grave at the Donnybrook Laundry, a mass grave of women (According to History Channel, not a rumor). The Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam was where 796 babies were found dead in a septic tank. It didn't start out this way. It was meant to rehabilitate the women who had "fallen" from society's approval. While I don't recommend getting pregnant single, and I don't think it was how it was supposed to work, what happened in Magdalene laundries was wrong. The raped women, having no choice in the matter, were especially wronged. 

The fallen women were supposed to redeem themselves through work, including lacemaking, needlework, and laundry. It was reported that it was prison-like as time went on. Some were sent here to hide pregnancies from the eyes and ears of the neighbors. Some came voluntarily and learned "respectable" occupations. It started with good intentions. Inmates were routed into the institutions, along with women with disabilities, victims of rape, women deemed tempting and flirtatious, and pregnant teens. Irish government funneled money into it. Most Asylums can tell a similar tale.

Prison-like is defined as forced silence, beatings, forced hair cuts, overwork, and bad living conditions. They were stripped of their names, in some cases, as well. Women escaped, were brought back, or spent their lives here. It was reported that women were mistreated, some even starving. Pregnant women transferred to homes where they temporarily lived with their babies and worked in similar conditions. Babies were handed over to other families. Religion left this unchallenged and women were shamed for their abuse. 1996 was when the newspapers found the mass grave, after property was sold and searched, and shut the place down. 

Victorian Britain

Victorian times wanted to control deviance. There was a penitentiary for reforming prostitutes in Britain. It was entered voluntarily, not for punishment of crimes, and the place was run by Anglican nuns. Anglican nuns embraced celibacy and rejected the marry-and-reproduce life that women were encouraged into. 1806 in London was the first one to open. Only women were to reform these ladies, it was determined, because only women could influence them for the better. Religious women were perfect because religion was deemed a requirement for reform. The nuns thought chastity and faith was the answer. 

In this case, the church did well. They didn't dismiss these women as worthless, but instead did their best to destroy the division between virtuous women and prostitutes. They used the gospel to do so. The women were sometimes alcoholics that fought with knives and fists when slightly provoked. Women who had sex with no intention of marriage, mentally unstable women, abandoned women, thieves, rape and incest victims, and bigamists came here. They did not return women to their homes because one of the reasons for homelessness in women was incest. They did not deny anyone entry, in most cases, and the younger the woman the more she could be reformed. They only denied entry for lack of room. Generally, they stayed two years, but they went on a case-by-case basis. Alcoholics sometimes never left and no one was forced to leave. Servants with bad experiences were often found here. Upon leaving they were given a complete outfit, references, and help in finding a position. 

Not all women were sincere in reform, I'll note, and used them for a place to rest until they decided to return to their profession. Some would sneak out, walk out despite the appeals of the sisters, and even steal. The place was not a prison. Not one was kept against their will. 

They were taught and worked in a variety of ways, so that they wouldn't get tired of their work.  At least one institution was giving spending money for sewing recreation. The women were taught manners, as well as cleanness. They often became servants, nurses, and teachers until marriage. The sisters taught them to act like sisters, both in discipline and recreation. They, unlike Ireland Magdalene Laundries, didn't abuse them. They loved the women like they were their children. Religion was not forced down their throats. The sisters did not see themselves as above the women. Former prostitutes could be allowed to be nuns. Ironically, both Anglican nuns and prostitutes were social deviants. After world war I the institutions became mother and baby homes, run with the same love until the 1960s. 

The Foundling Hospital

The Foundling Hospital is now a children's charity Coram. Women submitted forms to the governors of the hospital, told their stories, and were allowed to give their children to the Foundling Hospital. It was on the same site as the Foundling Museum is now. They had to convince those reading their stories of their repentance and that they could return to respectable society. Not all were accepted. The women took a chance of rejection. Most would be disgraced if they did not hide and conceal their pregnancy and their "fall". Eventually, petitions were used for entry, as the admission process changed.

In lots of cases, the family and friends of the "fallen" woman would reject her and leave her all alone. This caused thoughts of suicide and suicide in some. With no support, it was almost impossible to return to a respectable life with a child in your arms, a child that was born out of wedlock and proof of your "sin"(even if you did not willingly have sex). This hospital would take in the children, given they were accepted and the women could return to living an appropriate life and sex wasn't consensual, making it possible to not be shunned and not be abandoned by family and friends. Giving your child to a hospital was a way out and a way to regain a good reputation. The child was often the "proof" of a fallen woman, so to keep their child from suffering they gave them up. Children were, periodically, found abandoned for this same reason. 

Closing Thoughts

Fallen women, as illustrated by the above institutions, had few places to go other than the streets. No support, in some cases, from family was a major problem. While I'm sure that some families didn't abandon their daughters, those with reputations and money probably did, at least until they could get rid of the proof of sexual deviance. Even then I am sure the women suffered emotionally in the home. I can't imagine the pain and trouble these women faced. While some did voluntarily come into this state, I'd say the majority did not. My sources are truly fascinating, so feel free to click them and explore further. The Irish laundries and convent experiences truly broke my heart.

Pictures: 

Foundling Museum 
Day Out Guide

The New York Times

Medium

Sources:
 https://www.history.com/news/magdalene-laundry-ireland-asylum-abuse
https://oro.open.ac.uk/82/1/NOT_WORSE_THAN_OTHER_GIRLS.pdf
https://foundlingmuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Fallen-Woman-exhibition-guide.pdf
https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/8130
http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/fallen2.html

Is Jurassic Park Possible?

 We all know how Jurassic Park ends. Death, blood, dinosaurs loose in the world where they shouldn't be.....etc. But is it possible to do it? Can you actually, with genetics, bring back an extinct species? 

Jurassic Park and Jurassic World books and movies claim that mosquitos that drank the blood of animals got stuck on tree sap and that is where they get their DNA. They also claim they filled in DNA gaps with frog and other animals' DNA. Now that we know the claims, let's see if cinema and literature told the scientific truth.

DNA in blood

Starting at the beginning, let's see what science says about DNA and blood. For starters, Amber doesn't preserve soft tissue, and therefore they have no blood to harvest for DNA. Aside from that fact, there are bugs with blood in them that were found, just never in amber. Surprisingly, it's not all that ridiculous that blood residue would be found from the time of dinosaurs in a mosquito. Neanderthal and Mammoth DNA are the only types to be isolated, actually, and only one of which is a dinosaur.

Does that mean there is DNA in it? Sadly, that is never a guarantee. Soft tissue does not equal DNA. DNA breaks down rapidly, especially when water and sunlight are involved. The oldest DNA found is one million years old. We need 66 times older to get to dinosaur times. I don't think John Hammond has enough DNA to even create even one dinosaur, if we follow the scientific evidence.

Filling in DNA Gaps

Okay, we are going to ignore the previous section just to see if, given enough DNA, we could fill in short gaps with frog or other animal DNA. Assume it is possible to gather enough DNA for a dinosaur from here to the end of this section. 

Problem one, how do you know where the holes are? Without the full genome you can't find where the holes are, which puts serious holes in the plot of Jurassic Park. Assuming you found a whole genome, we go on myth-busting. We have to acknowledge that frogs are not what you would use, but instead birds because frogs are amphibians, with the noted exception of crocodiles due to common ancestry. In case you didn't know, a chicken is the closest we have to a dinosaur and birds are dinosaurs - surprise! You collect eggs from a dinosaur and made your omelet with a dinosaur egg today. 

Cloning and reverse-engineering

Cloning is off the table for dinosaurs, even if we managed to create one. Why? Because DNA is sensitive stuff and old DNA can't handle it. It is, oddly enough, possible to reverse-engineer one. Going back to the chicken point, reverse engineering from the starting point of your backyard egg-layers is strangely more possible. This involves trying to undo years of evolution. Even if you succeed, it is not a true dinosaur at all, simply because it was reverse-engineered. They are actually trying to do this for the wooly mammoth, starting from an Asian elephant. 

Ethics 

The character Ian Malcolm said that scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they never thought about whether they should. Let's break down the ethics of attempting anything close to Jurassic Park. Anyone watching the movies is likely saying "duh! The carnivores will eat us when they get out!", but you have to consider that not all dinosaurs were carnivores.

First of all, growing teeth back in a bird is terrifying. Do you want to live with whether you should question if that goose, swan, or pigeon has teeth? I don't. In fact, let me introduce you to a "Murder-Swan", a real prehistoric dinosaur that has raptor feet, and it looks like a swan. 

By the way, Murder-Swan has teeth. Isn't that fun (sarcasm)? While I can get behind bringing back a passenger pigeon or condor, I can't advocate for a raptor that can navigate land and sea. Can you? 

Putting the subject of Murder-Swans aside, I do think that the wooly mammoth would be totally okay to bring back. The only problem with bringing certain dinosaurs back is the world around us. Birds? They have a sky to fly into and trees to land on, but land animals - in a modern world, at that - would be hard to find a place for. We also need to care for them, if given a sanctuary. Our world is not the place for these creatures if we look into what would actually be required to let them back into it. While it would be fun to ride a mammoth at the zoo, it is unlikely to be helpful to their species at this point in time. Rewatch Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom for more evidence of this. This is partially why scientists are hesitant to attempt anything close to Jurassic Park. They seem divided on de-extinction. 

If you have not watched Fallen Kingdom Stop Reading Now! Spoilers below! 

Fallen Kingdom Bonus Round

Here's the bonus round of today's blog - can you recreate a human with their DNA? Maisie, a character that was cloned, is shown in the second Jurassic World movie. Is it humanly possible to clone someone? Scarily, yes, and it is illegal. Monkeys and sheep have successfully been cloned. Science says it would not be the same person, even as a copy. While some studies suggest cloning may help clone cells and have various other medical uses, a whole person is not going to go well. There are ethical issues involved with editing DNA, which is probably why Hammond had fallen out with his former partner long before the original park opened. Copying your dead child and calling them your grandchild is generally not healthy, and Hammond was rightfully not okay with it.

Sources:

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/could-scientists-bring-dinosaurs-back.html#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20Jurassic%20Park,weren't%20found%20in%20amber. https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/8/16752344/dinosaurs-fossils-murder-swan-halszkaraptor-escuilliei-velociraptor-paleontology https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jurassic-world-can-we-really-resurrect-a-dinosaur/ https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/science-behind-the-fiction-are-we-any-closer-to-jurassic-park-actually-being-possible https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/clonings-long-legacy-and-why-itll-never-be-used-on-humans

Pictures:
Yahoo

Empire

Reddit

Heroes wiki fandom