Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Modern Technology Reveals Mummy's Past

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the keep-him-shackled-or-protect-your-children dept.

mamamia writes "The baby mummy had a European mom, and likely came from a wealthy family. But where he lived and why he died — and at such a young age — remain a mystery. The mummy, exhibited for the first time Thursday at the Saint Louis Science Center, has been the year-long focus of an international team of investigators. The museum said it may be the most extensive research project ever undertaken on a child mummy."

36 comments

  1. mortality by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

    I assume everyone died a lot more often back then. What was the life expectancy? 30?

    --
    Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
    1. Re:mortality by brassman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nonsense.
      "What's the death rate here?"
      "Same as everywhere - one each."

      --
      "Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
    2. Re:mortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Stolen from Wiki:

      Neanderthal 20 Homo neanderthalensis is actually a different species from modern humans but is still in any case a fellow member of the genus homo.
      Upper Paleolithic 33 At age 15: 54[1][2][3]
      Neolithic 20
      Bronze Age 18[4]
      Classical Greece 28
      Classical Rome 28
      Medieval Britain 33
      End of 19th Century Western Europe 37
      Current world average 66 [5]
      Present Day Native Groups 34 At birth: 34
      At age 15: 54
      At age 50: 67[2][6]

    3. Re:mortality by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wikki is wrong. While there were genetic differences, neanderthalensis was very much the same species as modern humans. Modern theories places the demise of the neanderthal under the control of asimulation and not something that extinguished him. Thats right, he married/mated into what we consider normal humans and his genetic traits disolved through time.

      Neanderthalensis is no different of a species as an oriental person is different then a western European or American. He retain sub-species classification for much the same reasons we have subspecies in people living today but he isn't a different species. Well, to be more correct, We are a sub species considering Homo neanderthalensis is the same species but could be considered a different race.

      One of the science channels (history or discovery- they are the same) recently did a series based on new/recent findings on this. They suggest that neanderthalensis wasn't as crude as once thought, they suggest he was a thinker, used tools, and had a sophisticated life. They also go onto show burials containing both homo-neanderthalensis and Homo-sapien and they they produced children quite often.

      I can understand text books being out of date. I can understand the schools still using the older materials. I can understand people not caring enough to know the difference when it has been recently updated. I cannot understand Wikkipedia getting this wrong unless it has to do with the recent controversy involveing a tenured proffeser living in moms basment and poping zits for fun somewhere in the backhills of KY. I know it is differen't, the point is that a minimum amount of checking could have avoided it. The minimum amount of checking on this could have stated this problem with neanderthalensis corectly.

    4. Re:mortality by Ramze · · Score: 1

      Do you have some facts to back this up? I confess I'm not up on the cutting edge in palaeontology, but the last I heard the interbreeding theory had almost no evidence to support it. This article from Discovery's web site from November of 2006 states there is no evidence for this so far and that the two species separated over 500,000 years ago:

      http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/15/neanderth al_hum.html?category=archaeology

      I'm guessing from your harsh criticism of Wiki and the author of the specific page that you must have some pretty solid evidence that I haven't stumbled across yet.

    5. Re:mortality by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here is a story claiming we still have the genes present in modern humans. If it was a seperate species, we would find simular genes but not the same ones. I cannot find the refernce to the movie making the claim. It would probably help if I could remeber the name. I'm sure someone else will help us with it.

      A quick google search lead me to this site hosted at Natural History Museum but claims This is the web version of a Smithsonian publication on Natural History for Educators. Museum professionals write articles on current topics in natural history and include a teacher resource section to help translate these articles into the classroom. It also includes links to backs issues. in the authors notes. It seems to be the actual Smithsonian Institution so I'm not sure how much credit you will give it. I'm not ditching the Smithsonian Institution, It is just that it is government funded and that could skew the results.

      Surpisingly, It seems to indicate that people were suggesting we are the same species a lot longer then I originaly thought. The paper cites the 60s I think.

      OK, I think I might have found it. It apear to be called "Neanderthal, the rebirth". I don't know if it is the same one, but after clicking on the link, it describes some of what the one I watched showed. And It looks like we are in luck. It is going to be on this month. I saw it last year.

    6. Re:mortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously never watched Stargate...

    7. Re:mortality by Fex303 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nonsense. "What's the death rate here?" "Same as everywhere - one each."
      If recent documentaries such as The Mummy Returns have taught us anything, it's that those who are mummified actually likely to come back to life (and die again) many, many times.

      Please, try to keep up with modern Egyptology.

    8. Re:mortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not like this is the first time any of this shit has been determined about a mummy.

      carbon dating suggested the child had lived between 30 B.C. and 130 A.D

      How long have we had carbon-dating technology? Almost 60 years?

      Three-dimensional images from CT scans of the child's bones, skull, teeth and body cavity suggested the child lived to be seven or eight months.

      How long have we have we been using CT scaning technololy? 40 years?

      After that, she extracted DNA using routine methods. Tests showed the boy's mother was European.

      How long have we been able to test genetics? 20 Years?

      It seems that we supposed to be amazed that the CT scans were able to determine the child's age, detect a hole in the skull used to drain the brain, find incisions used to remove the organs, locate a wooden rod along the spine, all without having to remove the wrap, but boring a hole into a petrified mummy using a thick needle is still considered an invasive procedure, innit?

      By the headline, I was expecting to read about technology discovered withing the last few years, not technology that's, on average, almost half a century old. Considering these timeframes, shouldn't mummification be considered a modern technology? Hasn't all this been done before? Is this news?
    9. Re:mortality by Ramze · · Score: 1

      While I follow your line of thinking... it really comes down to the definition of "species" -- which is really a difficult thing to define these days. I hear the definition itself is under review for changes. Some people define different species as being more than 5% different genetically -- enough to where they can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring. There's no easy rule for this anymore, though. Hybridization is more common than scientists once thought -- even between species that were thought to be unable to produce fertile offspring. I think the gist of the point people are trying to make is that humans evolved separately from Neanderthals and that true Neanderthals no longer exist. Sure, some cross-breeding with the human population in the area likely happened, but how often and to what extent, no one can really say -- yet. If I recall correctly, the difference between Neanderthals and humans is the same percentage as the difference between humans and chimpanzees. Some scientists say that a human/chimp hybrid might be possible, but clearly we consider ourselves to be separate species. I think there's not enough evidence to say whether Neanderthal slowly died out as modern humans advanced into their territory... or if they intermingled and merged into one race. Some genetic evidence shows there were some hybrids, but there's no way of knowing how common an occurrence that was. For all we know, it happened once or twice and those offspring spread their genes to more children and so on for a thousand years -- and evolution selected those genes as superior for whatever reason. Thank you for the links, though -- very informative stuff.

  2. Depends by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    The life expectancy was surely higher if you belonged to the wealthier classes, as it is today.

  3. Probably why they revered cats by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I assume everyone died a lot more often back then.

    While I know of no evidence that people died more often than once each, we do know that they worshipped cats. Thus, you may be right. Perhaps they learned the secret and had nine lives each.
    1. Re:Probably why they revered cats by real+gumby · · Score: 1

      (not a joke): Yeah, in English, cats have nine lives, but in German (for example) they have only seven. I wonder how many they have in Coptic / ancient Egyptian, or other languages for that matter.

      For this reason in our house we use English while speaking with the cats, completely weirding out some visitors.

  4. OK, so we can get the dirt on Mummy... by bcat24 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but what about Daddy? I'm sure he's got quite a history.

    1. Re:OK, so we can get the dirt on Mummy... by sarathmenon · · Score: 1

      RTFA. This one is about Sonny.

      --
      Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
    2. Re:OK, so we can get the dirt on Mummy... by WombatDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: Why was the Egyptian boy confused?
      A: Because his daddy was a mummy. ...fine, I'll get my coat.

  5. So even then, blonde Euro-chicks were hot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that wealthy Egyptian dude knew what he wanted.

  6. Amazing by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    Bowcock said it was amazing to get anything at all from 2,000-year-old DNA.

    More accurately: it is amazing to get anything at all from something 2,000 years old.

    researcher: Hello kiddo, what's your name?
    mummy: .....
    researcher: Who's your daddy?
    mummy: .....
    researcher: Do you know where you are?
    mummy: .....
    researcher: What is 1+1 ?
    mummy: 3 ?
    researcher: Holy shit... let's get the hell outta here!

  7. News Flash by bokmann · · Score: 1

    Child mummy had an egyptian mom? That's news?

    1. Re:News Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Egypt is in Europe? Yeah, I'd say that's news.

    2. Re:News Flash by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      eh... if egypts in europe... sure...

  8. Oh that's easy by metlin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Daddy was a Goa'uld and baby was Harcesis.

    Too bad Mommy Desala wasn't around to ascend the kiddo.

  9. European mother is not surprising by ucblockhead · · Score: 5, Informative

    Given that this mummy died well after the time of Alexander the great, having a mother with European ancestry is not at all surprising. Since the Ptolomies, who ruled Egypt from Alexander's conquest to the time of Cleopatra were all descended from a Macedonian general, one would expect lots of Macedonian genes in the Egyptian aristocracy. This would only be interesting of the mummy was from before the time of Alexander, i.e. before 323 BCE. Hell, given how much inbreeding those guys did, it'd be more surprising if there were Egyptian genes.

    This is not to say that the proofs are impressive...this sort of testing is cool stuff. But the results are pretty much what you'd expect knowing the history of the area.

    (The death at a young age is also hardly surprising given the mortality rates for children in that era.)

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:European mother is not surprising by saforrest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that this mummy died well after the time of Alexander the great, having a mother with European ancestry is not at all surprising.

      Yes, it would not be surprising, but I have to question the conclusions. It is impossible, yes, impossible to conclude from genetic evidence that the mother was European. There is simply too much gene exchange between Europe and Egypt over the preceding centuries for mitochondrial genes to be so perfectly segregated.

      Presumably the child had a mitochondrial haplotype associated with Europe, such as H or V, and that is where the "Europe" label comes from. But even if this haplotype is associated with Europe and not with Egypt, no one can say for sure whether it was this child's mother, grandmother, or great-great-great-45-times-over-grandmother who emigrated from Europe to Egypt.

      There were many documented historical interactions between Egypt and the Middle East prior to the Ptolemaic period, including the time when it was ruled by the Hyksos. As well I recall some suggestion that the ancient Minoans might have had connections with Egypt, and certainly the Greeks did even before Alexander's conquest of Egypt. And all it takes is one migration to leave a "foriegn" genetic signature.

    2. Re:European mother is not surprising by sgtrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And all it takes is one migration to leave a "foriegn" genetic signature.

      Migration isn't even all that necessary. All it takes is one sweet talking sailor and a careless bar maid. :)
    3. Re:European mother is not surprising by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Migration isn't even all that necessary. All it takes is one sweet talking sailor and a careless bar maid. :)

      Well, in this case our enterprising adventurer needs to have been a woman (because mitochondrial DNA is female-line): a sweet-talking Xena of the waves, if you will.

    4. Re:European mother is not surprising by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Would you buy the possibility of a captured slave, then?

    5. Re:European mother is not surprising by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Would you buy the possibility of a captured slave, then?

      Sure, that would work. (And we know from historical records that it happened regularly, too.)

  10. History: Science or Fiction ? by Delifisek · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are some guy named Anatoly Fomenko. He was Mathematician. Somehow he try to resolve dates of Ancient Egyip Zodiac's then found interesting dates. Most of them shown after 1000 A.D.

    If we believe thim, entire choronogical history was Fiction...

    He says,
    Jesus born 1053 and Died 1086 A.D. First Crusade was punishement action against his death and so...

    Even he says, Real Jarusalem was Constatinopole...

    Scared, so scared...

    --
    [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
    1. Re:History: Science or Fiction ? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Please report to the Illuminati reconditioning chamber.
      All white is black.
      Freedom is Responsibility.
      That is all.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    2. Re:History: Science or Fiction ? by Hooya · · Score: 1

      > Even he says, Real Jarusalem was Constatinopole...

      Istanbul was Constantinople
      Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
      Been a long time gone, Constantinople
      Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

      Every gal in Constantinople
      Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
      So if you've a date in Constantinople
      She'll be waiting in Istanbul

      Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
      Why they changed it I can't say
      People just liked it better that way

      So take me back to Constantinople
      No, you can't go back to Constantinople
      Been a long time gone, Constantinople
      Why did Constantinople get the works
      That's nobody's business but the Turks

  11. Bad title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? My mummy was a saint!

  12. A bleak piocture by mattpointblank · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this our future? Our corpses will be discovered in thousands of years, only for science to experiment and announce that our mothers were just Eurotrash? For shame, anthropology.

  13. Re:A bleak picture by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    Thank you. I was just thinking the same thing. I would not like my dead body to dug up, poked and prodded, and then researched even further.

        Some people have no respect for the dead.

    --
    \
  14. Come to the UK by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

    We've got more child mummies than we know what to do with!

  15. Re:A bleak picture by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was just thinking the opposite. What is it with this 'respect for the dead' nonsense? It's not as if the dead body minds, or will even notice.

    I mean, I can understand the mantra to a certain extent when it's about recently-deceased people, although in practice that's more about respect for the next-of-kin (and incredibly annoying even then, at least that's my reaction to the CSI scenes where they ask for permission to do an autopsy and the family refuses). But a 3-ky old mummy? Who cares?