Ancient Egyptian princesses knew their way around weapons of war 38%

By Tom Metcalfe5%

7/17/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 31.2% saturation with 153 hits. Analysis detected 1,099 faulty-reasoning hits from 490 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.8% and a BS Rank of 38% (10,726 of 17,095 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.70% of the article peer group.

It seems some Egyptian royal women really were warrior princesses. 
Examinations of almost 4,000-year-old mummified princesses suggest that they were skilled users of the daggers, bows and other weapons buried with them, researchers report July 17 in Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology. 
“These princesses were active practitioners of hunting or athletic skills rather than merely symbolic owners of the weapons found in their tombs,” says bioarchaeologist Zeinab Hashesh of Egypt’s Beni Suef University. 
Some Egyptologists have dismissed armaments in females’ graves as “token” objects for the afterlife, but characteristics of the female mummies showed they had performed intensive martial activities, Hashesh says. 
The six mummies in the study were excavated in 1894 and 1895 from the Dahshur funerary complex, about 40 kilometers south of Cairo. 
Their tombs were carefully cataloged, and included impact weapons like flails  jointed clubs  and maces. 
But the mummies were removed and then overlooked at an Egyptian museum; they were thought lost until their rediscovery in 2020. 
Hashesh and her colleagues examined the mummies by measuring their bones to determine sex and age at death, and used X-rays and other techniques to search the remains for signs of illness and trauma. 
Their investigations confirmed handwritten notes from the 19th century excavators at Dahshur. 
The one male mummy was an obscure 13th Dynasty pharaoh, while three  Ita, Khenmet and Itaweret  were probably daughters of the 12th Dynasty pharaoh Amenemhat II, who ruled approximately between 1929 and 1895 B.C. 
One mummy had no notes, but the researchers tentatively identified it as that of Sathathormeryt, a fourth sister to the three princesses. 
The other mummy was also a princess, but was not one of the sisters. 
All six mummies shared a rare cluster of inherited spinal defects, indicating they were related. 
The team hopes to carry out DNA studies in the future. 
But the researchers also saw clear evidence of “robust” muscle attachments  where connective tissue once joined the muscle and the bone  and some telling skeletal developments. 
For instance, enlarged areas of the forearm bones indicated that Itaweret had often drawn bows. 
Some of the women had healed from traumatic injuries, possibly sustained while training, hunting or in battle. 
“These princesses were not leading sedentary lives of luxury,” Hashesh says. 
“They were well-conditioned athletes whose bodies were hardened by the same skilled force and disciplined movement as the men of their time.” 
Egyptologist Nicholas Brown, who was not involved in the study, says Egyptian princesses used bows in the royal ritual of shooting arrows in the four cardinal directions  north, east, south and west  during the Sed festival of renewal. 
However, the evidence for the princesses’ use of weapons is indirect, says Brown, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City. 
“The bones aren’t preserving the behavior directly, but the muscle attachments are clearly indicating some kind of habitual, repeated activity.” 
Confirmation Bias
24.7%
Anchoring Bias
7.3%
Availability Heuristic
3.5%
Representativeness Heuristic
5.9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
28.8%
Framing Effect
10.4%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
2.2%
Pessimism Bias
2.2%
Negativity Bias
5.9%
Self-Serving Bias
4.3%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
4.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
4.3%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
31.2%
False Dilemma
14.5%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
8.4%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
2.2%
Begging the Question
5.7%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
6.1%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
8.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
21%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
4.3%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
2.2%
Biased Writer Voice
14.1%
Indoctrination
2.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

490 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.