Just to be clear, Cleopatra was not all that attractive. Yet another example of assuming women in power must be bombshells.

Also, they found Hatshepsut? EEE! *Classicist dance*

Just to be clear, Cleopatra was not all that attractive. Yet another example of assuming women in power must be bombshells.

Also, they found Hatshepsut? EEE! *Classicist dance*

I think she was merely saying that one shouldn't judge a woman's abilities by what she looks like, period.

I think society typically underestimates attractive women/blondes.

I think she was merely saying that one shouldn't judge a woman's abilities by what she looks like, period.

I think society typically underestimates attractive women/blondes.

That is true Maggie. Just take a look at this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17157862

It's funny how scholars make a big deal out of the physical appearance of Cleopatra and Hatshepsut. Since they're women, I guess they are more valuable as leaders if they're better looking. You don't see scholars debating about the attractiveness of male historical figures.

Jeremy:

If they did there would be nothing else to do.

"So maybe Mark Antony loved Cleopatra for her mind."

I love how tongue-in-cheek that's supposed to be. The Ptolemies are supposed to have been freaking brilliant. Cleo didn't survive at least two assassination attempts by being stupid.

And while we're (supposedly) on-topic, and speaking of smart people, Hatshepsut couldn't have run the kingdom by just her looks, anyway. The whole "portray me as any other pharoah" thing? Gotta love it.

Just chiming in to agree with others have already pointed out: That while Cleopatra was certainly not hideous, she wasn't a renowned beauty. Rather she had such intelligence, wit, grace, elegance, and charm that nearly everyone who met her saw her as beautiful anyway. Kind of like Scarlett O'Hara: the very first sentence of Gone With the Wind is "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful." But most of the men in the book spend the next thousand pages falling all over themselves trying to please her.

Can I just say how irritating it is that a.) I have seen almost no stories on this and b.) all the stories I'm looking at through a search at Google news are talking about her looks?

WHO CARES ABOUT HER LOOKS!

Why isn't the topic of interest that we've found the first Pharaoh mummy since 1922 and not that she was some fat, bald chick?

If anyone wants to hear more information on the find, the Discovery Channel's running a special on the it called "Egypt's Lost Queen" this sunday night (the 15th) at 9pm (EDT).

I don't work for Discovery, I'm just a Mythbusters/ How It Works addict and they're running the commercials for the special every 10 minutes. Given the advertisments focusing on her power, and the fact that her name was erased from history by future pharohs, hopefully it'll be a little less vapid than the other coverage.

"Hatshepsut also suffered from what all women over 40 need -- a stylist."

Trying to be playful, maybe, but not doing a very good job of writing in general. Besides the fact that it's offensive to say that all women over 40 need a stylist, this sentence says that Hatshepsut suffered from a stylist. Good job.

And yeah, I'm sick of how any women in power are subject to critiques of their looks, whereas men in power rarely are - occasionally, yes, but only if they're especially good-looking and people theorize that that makes the public like them more, or if they have some particularly salient feature. But with women, it's run-of-the-mill, the story isn't complete without picking apart her appearance.

When I was a kid I wanted to be an Egyptologist, and Hatshepsut was my idol. I cried when I read this because a) girl, they found Hatshepsut!!! b) wait, why didn't I hear about that anywhere else? and c) what's with the hating on 50-year-old fat ladies? Personally I love them. Anyway, hooray for Hatshepsut.

Well, for a little good news, I had read about this somewhere, I think in the newspaper, and I even think that the story didn't talk about her being ugly. It did say that she wore men's clothes and a fake beard, though, which made me kind of sad after I got excited about her being a powerful woman, because it made it sound like she could only get away with being powerful if she was seen as really masculine.

Oh man, I love Hatshepsut. From what I've read of her, she's regarded as one of Egypt's best Pharaohs, which makes it all the more shameful that almost all the media has written about is her looks. She ushered in an era of amazing architectural projects and a revolution in the way temples were built -- the book "Hathor Rising" calls her reign "the crucial turning point in New Kingdom sacred architecture." It's more than a little depressing that the ancient Egyptians seem more enlightened when it comes to women than we are today.

Hatshepsut was fucking awesome. I remember the worlds greatest book- The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, by Will Cuppy- and ever since I read it, I have loved Hatshepsut. She was power hungry, and killed her brother/brother-in-law, if I remember correctly. She made it in a man's world, and I think that is fantastic.

Aside from the irritating and unfunny editorializing, that is simply a poorly written article, something that I see more and more frequently even on reputable news sites. How do these people get jobs? I don't understand it.

This one's half decent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2717271.ece

It mentions her weight and probable diabetes, but it's just one sentence thrown in there, not the focus of the article.

This one's half decent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2717271.ece

It mentions her weight and probable diabetes, but it's just one sentence thrown in there, not the focus of the article.

Genny, I'm a Discovery Channel addict too (Man vs. Wild = my new favorite show), but I HATE how those commercials for the program on Hatshepsut start out "Thousands of years ago, the most powerful man on earth ... WAS A WOMAN!" like, OH MY GOD, not a WOMAN! It just irritates me to no end.

Genny, I'm a Discovery Channel addict too (Man vs. Wild = my new favorite show), but I HATE how those commercials for the program on Hatshepsut start out "Thousands of years ago, the most powerful man on earth ... WAS A WOMAN!" like, OH MY GOD, not a WOMAN! It just irritates me to no end.

soupcann; yeah, the opening bugs. But they're to draw in all the non-history fans who haven't the smallest clue who Hatshepsut was. Still, I think the show might be slightly more in depth about the discovery and her history. I mean, they've got an hour to fill, it can't all be about how she looked, right? I hope.

Oh, just saw a new commercial that starts out "It's been called the most significant find since King Tut's tomb..." which is a little better.

The physical appearance of pharoahs in general is a bit of an issue for historians, whether they are male or female, because most of them were depicted with stylized art that made them good looking whether or not they were. The dynasty Hatsheput came from is unusual in that they allowed some relatively realistic art of themselves (from which Hatsheput deviated by having herself usually depicted as male in renditions of herself). Thus, if you look at depictions of her dynasty (Thutmose I, II, III, etc), you can watch them become more and more inbred as certain physical features grow more pronounced. If they were going to talk about her appearance, I'd have been curious to see how she fit into that progression, as the book I learned this from didn't have any art of the women of the family.

Mmmmm haha, the museum where I work had an exhibit about Hatshepsut a few months ago. After she died, most of the art representing her as Pharaoh was destroyed or reworked to make her back into a "woman." Anyway, everyone there was like, "WHAT HORRIBLE TIMING archeologists! You could not have found her while the show was here?"

The museum where I work now had an exhibit of art of Hatshepsut and Egyptian artifacts from the general area and era come though a few months ago. So this is pretty bad timing for us. The shop manager was all, "You couldn't have found her while the show was here?"

The museum where I work now had an exhibit of art of Hatshepsut and Egyptian artifacts from the general area and era come though a few months ago. So this is pretty bad timing for us. The shop manager was all, "You couldn't have found her while the show was here?"

Another gender bending pharaoh: Akhentaten!

Another gender bending pharaoh: Akhentaten!

"You don't see scholars debating about the attractiveness of male historical figures."

Actually, when I was finishing my lower division Philosophy classes, my professors never failed to mention how ugly Socrates was. But you're definately right; I have heard more criticism of the appearances of female historical figures.

"You don't see scholars debating about the attractiveness of male historical figures."

Actually, when I was finishing my lower division Philosophy classes, my professors never failed to mention how ugly Socrates was. But you're definately right; I have heard more criticism of the appearances of female historical figures.

Why don't any of these articles talk about different standards of beauty throughout history or across cultures? I don't know that much about egyptian history but I read somewhere that some egpytian women were into hair removal, including making themselves bald. Also, in some cultures being "fat" is a status symbol and can be very attractive (though Hatshepsut's weight may have been due to her diabetes).

There may not be much to my observations, but it just seems like the articles focusing on her appearance are looking at it through a very modern, western lense. Does anyone have more information about beauty standards from her time?

Well, Ancient Egyptian women and men from multiple eras shaved or plucked off all hair on the body and head to curtail the spread of lice, I'm given to understand.

This story reminds me of an article in December about a 50-year old porn star ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/fashion/31porn.html?ex=1325221200&en=ccba792aa4c305aa&ei=5088&partner=r

Rachel--

yeah, that was my first thought, too

If I remember correctly, Merletto, she wore the beard because it was culturally/traditionally necessary. Even the men wore a fake beard over their own. Keep in mind that when anything is created with no thought that a woman could EVER use it, it stands to reason that it would involve traditionally masculine clothes, etc.

I got excited about her being a powerful woman, because it made it sound like she could only get away with being powerful if she was seen as really masculine.

If I remember correctly, Hatsepshut was the first or second woman to claim the title of "Pharoah" (or something equal to it) in Egyptian history. Women usually had the title of "Divine Consort" or something like that, and the males usually ruled. As with all monarchy-type institutions, all related art was heavily based in symbolism, so it would make sense that Hatsepshut would represent herself as a man, purely to honor what had up until then been a completely masculine office. (Which, I do agree, really sucks... at least Cleopatra and the women of her dynasty were able to be up front about her gender).

Think of it as Elizabeth I calling herself a prince and rhetorically separating her "feeble woman's" body from the androgynous body politic.

Regarding Cleopatra's looks: I do remember reading that Cleopatra was not a conventional beauty for her time, but I would like to point out that, again, like all royal portraits, the coinage that someone referenced above, that bear her and Antony's likenesses, were heavily steeped in symbolism. These coins were meant to commemorate Antony's victory in Armenia and also sell his alliance with Cleopatra to the Roman public. It probably helped this cause to make them both look like good, respectable Roman matriarchs and patriarchs (since a major reason people didn't like Cleopatra was because she was foreign and therefore incredibly Other). I would be interested to see the differences between her likeness on that coin and her likeness on other pieces of artwork that she gave to her own people.

I got excited about her being a powerful woman, because it made it sound like she could only get away with being powerful if she was seen as really masculine.

If I remember correctly, Hatsepshut was the first or second woman to claim the title of "Pharoah" (or something equal to it) in Egyptian history. Women usually had the title of "Divine Consort" or something like that, and the males usually ruled. As with all monarchy-type institutions, all related art was heavily based in symbolism, so it would make sense that Hatsepshut would represent herself as a man, purely to honor what had up until then been a completely masculine office. (Which, I do agree, really sucks... at least Cleopatra and the women of her dynasty were able to be up front about her gender).

Think of it as Elizabeth I calling herself a prince and rhetorically separating her "feeble woman's" body from the androgynous body politic.

Regarding Cleopatra's looks: I do remember reading that Cleopatra was not a conventional beauty for her time, but I would like to point out that, again, like all royal portraits, the coinage that someone referenced above, that bear her and Antony's likenesses, were heavily steeped in symbolism. These coins were meant to commemorate Antony's victory in Armenia and also sell his alliance with Cleopatra to the Roman public. It probably helped this cause to make them both look like good, respectable Roman matriarchs and patriarchs (since a major reason people didn't like Cleopatra was because she was foreign and therefore incredibly Other). I would be interested to see the differences between her likeness on that coin and her likeness on other pieces of artwork that she gave to her own people (see what was emphasized, and what was smoothed over in each).

I caught part of the special on the Discovery channel last night, and in the portion of it I saw they happily made no mention at all of her attractiveness. They did mention (more than once, I think) that she was probably the most powerful woman in history, and also theorized that she was killed by her stepson because she was grooming her daughter to succeed her instead of him. They also speculated that this may have been why all the images of her were destroyed--her rule and her ideas were "too radical."
Overall I'd say the special treated her more like a feminist than a beauty pageant contestant. At least that was my impression from the portion of the special I saw--probably about 30-45 minutes worth. Yay!

I saw most of the special and would have to agree with Vervain.

I suppose I shouldn't be so shocked that the media is focusing on her looks, but I still get surprised that that kind of BS every time.