IslandChillin OP t1_iwlftqc wrote
"For the past two years, archaeologists have been working at Saqqara, an archaeological site in Giza, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Cairo. Recently, they discovered a trove of coffins and mummies, which may belong to some of King Tut's closest generals and advisors during his reign (1333 B.C. until his death in 1323 B.C.).
Buried within these shafts, archaeologists found a "huge limestone sarcophagus" along with "300 beautiful coffins from the New Kingdom period."
0ldgrumpy1 t1_iwnxhqc wrote
Yeah, but they lost me with..
"the New Kingdom period lasted from the sixth century B.C. to the 11th century B.C."
big_duo3674 t1_iwny3ky wrote
Time traveling mummies are actually a square on my apocalypse bingo card
UnicornHorn1987 t1_iwo7gem wrote
I recently read about a 2,000-year-old chinese mummy preserved in an acidic solvent. Her skin and hair fully intact. Her limbs still supple. Blood in her veins appeared to be in well preserved condition. You can see the mummy here.
simloi t1_iwohv89 wrote
>They also assume that melons were the last item she consumed before she passed away since her corpse was so perfectly preserved.
I almost dismissed this article when I thought they were talking about melon's magic powers of preserving mummies. They can't be saying that, right? The body was so well preserved that the remains in her stomach look like melons. Right...?
corkscream t1_iwoipl4 wrote
Yeah weird wording on their part but they mean that she was so well preserved they can tell what she last ate by the contents of her stomach
[deleted] t1_iwpjc4b wrote
[deleted]
2fhqwhgads1cup t1_iwo8s4s wrote
Kinda wish it was the brett favre meme instead. Thats kinda gross looking.
HoyAlloy t1_iwol153 wrote
They're the same picture.
zorokash t1_iwpinit wrote
The article did say the mummy was instantly deteriorating when opened and current images was taken a lot later and doesn't do justice to how well she looked immediately after opening. Sad that we dont have a reference to it.
ThatsWhatPutinWants t1_iwqv28n wrote
Sad that we opened it. RIP all of that mummies efforts.
AsassinX t1_iwpdxk1 wrote
Incredible. This made me sad to read though: >“When Xin Zhui’s preserved body was discovered, it was instantly compromised, and her body began to deteriorate. As a result, the photos we see now don’t do justice to the first finding.”
Griffin_da_Great t1_iwpjezw wrote
Just makes me wonder why archeologists don't just leave these mummies where they lie? They were doing good for thousands of years! Why compromise the integrity of the specimen?! Or, if you're feeling ethical, the wishes of the long dead?
DHFranklin t1_iwpxjr6 wrote
Because that isn't what archeology is for.
Archeology is the study of past human behavior through artifacts. If we leave those artifacts including anthropological ones where they are we can't study them. We can't learn from them and us.
That doesn't mean you can't put it all back when everything is recorded. However, that's your answer.
redness88 t1_iwq0zek wrote
Archeology is destructive. You usually only get one shot at it. I mean. Did you read on how they "found" the city of Troy?
DerWaechter_ t1_iwqb2rt wrote
It used to be destructive in the early days, because it was essentially just a way of committing "totally not grave robbery"
Modern day archeology is extremely conscious about the potential to destroy uncovered pieces, and will handle them with care. The priority is to not destroy things in the process
[deleted] t1_iwq2nbj wrote
[removed]
DHFranklin t1_iwqrnz6 wrote
Any time you go to a museum and learn something from the artifacts, you yourself are doing archeology.
I think we would all agree that the cool roman mosaics and other art buried under long forgotten farm houses need to be excavated.
IgotCHUbits t1_iwpvjac wrote
Because it might have been full of gold…. We had to check, for science.
corkscream t1_iwoimiz wrote
That’s so sad that she started to deteriorate when it was opened. Imagine being in disturbed for 2000 years looking gorgeous and all of the sudden some Europeans pop you open ahaha
maceilean t1_iwp09ux wrote
What makes you think it was European archaeologists?
Ender_Keys t1_iwputav wrote
It was Chinese archeologists and high school students
p00pdal00p t1_iwq04nj wrote
The coconut that they have on a line between them.
Mary_Pick_A_Ford t1_iwpomrj wrote
“You up?”
DramaOnDisplay t1_iwpf2d2 wrote
Well that’s definitely a way to find yourself cursed by a mummy lmao!
harmboi t1_iwoyb03 wrote
they should clone her
[deleted] t1_iwp8p6p wrote
Imagine that conversation when the clone is old enough to understand lol "Yeah youre a scientific reanimation of some lady who was alive 2000 years ago haha"
Initial_E t1_iwpc7z2 wrote
> "There's a time, Leto, a time when you're alive. A time when you're supposed to be alive. It can have a magic, that time, while you're living it. You know you're never going to see a time like that again." Leto blinked, touched by the Duncan's distress. The words were evocative. Idaho raised both hands, palms up, to chest-height, a beggar Asking for something he knew he could not receive.
>"Then . . . one day you wake up and you remember dying . . . and you remember the axlotl tank . . . and the Tleilaxu nastiness which awakened you . . . and it's supposed to start all over again. But it doesn't. It never does, Leto.”
Comprehensive-Ad-172 t1_iwpn30v wrote
I know the guy that directed the new Dune only had plans to get to the second book but my good imagine if this book ever got adapted
madchad90 t1_iwpl79e wrote
Doesn't look a day over 1000 years old
hand_truck t1_iwnyrtx wrote
This comment made me deader than the mummies, thanks for the laugh.
pancarte t1_iwotsfr wrote
As long as Brendan Fraser is alive you don't have to worry about the mummies.
frank_mania t1_iwodxz8 wrote
Yeah, a typo. 16th to 11th.
0ldgrumpy1 t1_iwogi0z wrote
Ah, thank you.
[deleted] t1_iwp1pir wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwtvbg8 wrote
[removed]
__Seris__ t1_iwodv2m wrote
The most famous Pharaoh in history and he only ruled for 10 years. That is just crazy to me
Wuffyflumpkins t1_iwoj3mh wrote
Thus proving that more important than your accomplishments in life is leaving a super cool grave.
Initial_E t1_iwpchij wrote
I met a traveller from an antique land, Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Lampmonster t1_iwpuyle wrote
I choose the path of Ozymandias.
[deleted] t1_iwp2hoo wrote
[removed]
Gulanga t1_iwpmrxq wrote
He's actually one of the least famous pharaohs in history. The only reason we know much about him is that he was so forgotten that even his tomb was lost, and therefore it avoided being looted until we discovered it in modern times.
So when we look at all the treasure that was found in Tutankhamen's tomb, we have to remember that this was the tomb of one of the most insignificant and un-famous (as much as that can be said of a pharaoh) rulers of his time. Just imagine what Rameses the 2nd was buried with.
DHFranklin t1_iwq6kas wrote
Most famous in our time, not his.
Tut was initially so famous that his traveling exhibit gave birth to the "block buster" museum exhibit. His artifacts have to this day been seen more than any other by a looooong shot compared to other pharaohs.
Maybe the Wright Flyer in the Smithsonain Air and Space museum has seen more vistors in the same amount of time.
Gulanga t1_iwq7omx wrote
> Most famous in our time, not his
No one said that though.
I'm also pointing out that in history, that is the written record of the past, he is very unknown.
DHFranklin t1_iwqsq6c wrote
It is the centennial of his discovery though. Sure the forgotten son of Akenaten was all but lost to history until his discovery. He is the most famous pharaoh in the last century's history.
We don't need to be unnecessarily pedantic. Anyone being generous in understanding, gets it.
Gulanga t1_iwr2nqg wrote
I was giving some insight into how strange it is that we consider perhaps the least famous pharaoh the most famous, which I think is quite interesting. At the same time as I underline why we see him as famous.
You are the one responding trying to correct something that was already showing both sides, by arguing for a statement no one made. So who is trying to be pedantic here?
Taleya t1_iwmqza6 wrote
Did they find the ones that were looted for Tut?
[deleted] t1_iwnani9 wrote
[removed]
Euphoric-kano3182 t1_iwpr9zo wrote
He’s only famous to us because he grave survived relatively in tact. Imagine what the tomb of a “real” King may have looked like.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments