TIME.com - Did someone sabotage the Egyptian king's mummy to hide his less-than endowed genitalia? A new report from The New Scientist presents the possibility of a anatomical conspiracy.
Earlier this year, scientists speculated the cause of famed King Tutankhamen's death to be due to a bone disorder and a bad case of malaria, but just last week a group of German researchers overruled that diagnosis. Instead, they say the 19-year-old pharaoh suffered from sickle-cell anemia, a genetic abnormality in red blood cells that ultimately causes organ failure.
While researching the new prognosis for The New Scientist,journalist Jo Marchant uncovered another proposed ailment of Tut's. A letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that Tut could also have suffered from Antley-Bixler syndrome, a genetic mutation that yields strange physical effects, such as elongated skulls and even under-developed genitalia. (Some researchers support the theory and use artistic depictions of Tut and his relatives, often show with elongated faces, as proof.)
Egypt's chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass dismisses the theory, claiming that Tut was, in fact, well-developed. However, as Marchant points out, Tut's penis is no longer attached to the body. After some digging, Marchant was able to confirm that the king's genitalia was attached to the mummy during its first unwrapping in 1922, meaning the postmortem castration likely occurred in modern times. Interestingly, Tut's penis was declared missing in 1968 until a CT scan discovered it hidden in the sand that surrounded the mummy.
This evidence has lead some, including Marchant to believe that Tut's penis was swapped sometime after his body was embalmed, suggesting a conspiracy existed to save him from embarrassment of the locker room variety, even in the afterlife.
Ah, the age old tale of 'where did the penis go?' Seriously though, this is some bizarre shit. I read this and all I could say was 'are you kidding me.' King Tut's penis went missing OR perhaps he had a tiny dick. My favorite part of this whole story was when Zahi Hawass, some "famed archeologist" immediately dismissed accusations that Tut's member was small but was in fact, "well-developed". I'm not sure how decaying bodies and mummification work but wouldn't his junk be fairly decomposed? Unless Zahi was giving Tut's dead member HJ's and ZJ's while the lights were out how does he know his member was so well-developed.
I think the real story should be how this necrophiliac has a job while my ass is still unemployed.
As if that wasn't good enough the story continues about some crazy conspiracy where Tut was unwrapped and then his dick was there but then it was gone...and then it was in the sand but some people think someone replaced it and is now running around the streets with his dick probably tied around their neck. Like WTF people... This is some serious shit. Can someone call up Michael Moore and get him to reveal this terrible case of whodunnit in a documentary?!
Now, I read this article and I could only think to myself the same thing..."Are you kiddin me?" But then I thought longer and harder..(no pun intended)Did someone who robbed king tuts penis replace him with a real penis from say, a cadaver...or did they pull the old take the penis and replace it with a fake penis (dildo in more scientific terms). If a fake penis had been found in the place of king Tut's real manhood, I think that there would be no argument in saying someone is rockin a new sort of retro mantelpiece. It would be harder to tell if the suspected robbers had replaced his member with that of a cadavers penis...in that case..I can only imagine how hard it would be to tell due to many years of the natural decomposing of dead tissue(I really don't like picturing this anymore than I have to)that may leave his penis in another part of the tomb in the first place. Either way, it's going to be interesting seeing how this whole controversy plays out. Another great post my friend. Keep em' comin' (also no pun intended).
ReplyDelete