Undisturbed Tomb found in the Valley of the Kings

akahige writes "Hot on the heels of the recent news about the death of King Tut comes a new story about the discovery of an unlooted and previously unopened 18th Dynasty tomb in the Valley of the Kings. American archaeologists found five mummies resting in sarcophagi, funerary masks, and coptic storage jars. It is the first such discovery since Howard Carter's discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922."

Comments

Nice

[OverlordQ]

It's nice to know there are still undiscovered troves of rich history out there waiting to be found.

Re:Nice

[cp.tar]

I open the tomb and see what's inside.

My respect for the dead (providing that I actually find one in a Christian tomb) will be shown in the fact that I will try to find out about him and his long-forgotten god will make some kind of a note about it.

The only kind of respect you (or at least, I) can pay to any dead is remembrance. Everything else is just prejudice, taboo and show.

I mean, you defeat your argument in the very second sentence, and I quote: "You are an archaeologist (...)"
If an archaeologist found an intact grave, he will bloody well look what's inside; he had probably been waiting his entire life for that opportunity.

Sheesh.

Re:Nice

[EtherealStrife]

I mean, you defeat your argument in the very second sentence, and I quote: "You are an archaeologist (...)" If an archaeologist found an intact grave, he will bloody well look what's inside; he had probably been waiting his entire life for that opportunity.

Not necessarily. Many sites are set aside and intentionally preserved for future archaeologists to excavate (with more advanced technology). The act of excavating destroys the site, so modern archaeologists will often forego instant gratification in the name of science.

Some light reading for the doubtful/curious:
http://www.usi.edu/extserv/archlgy/whatsarch.html
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~jerwin/Week2.html

That said, I'd have no issues with digging into a modern christian's tomb. Unfortunately modern man just doesn't have the skeletal robustness of earlier "models," so there wouldn't be much left of him/her to look at.
Possessions on the other hand... :) I wonder how many years an ipod will hang in there...

True.

[jd]

They could improve on the techniques, though. Throwing out rubble??? Most of that "rubble" was described as having been put there only 100 years after the tombs were dug. That means there may well have been valuable archaeological data in that "trash".

(This style of archaeology was common in Victorian times, when the only "important" things were trinkets and other artifacts. Bones - especially animal bones - were often just ignored as unimportant. In consequence, a lot of what is now considered "essential data" to an archaeologist is lost forever. Egyptology, from the sounds of it, is still back in those Victorian days.)

Other posters wondered why they didn't use X-Rays, etc. Ground penetrating radar is great and invaluable as a tool, but it's only good for a few feet at most. Where there's a lot of rubble sending back fractured images, it would be next to useless even for that small distance. The recent discoveries in Worcester Cathedral (such as the tomb of Edward the Confessor and several mysterious underground chambers) were done using GPR.

This certainly required excavation, but it was evidently done in a manner that was ham-fisted and incompetent. How do I know that? Because they're already in the chamber AND already drawing conclusions from pathetically little data.

A careful, thorough site study would have taken considerably longer, obtained much more data, caused far less disruption, need not have "robbed" anything (all you need is information, not objects - the objects are merely that which carries the information you're wanting), drawn far fewer conclusions yet - once fully analyzed - been vastly superior.

I don't agree that archaeology is "grave robbing" - we are quite capable of taking portable labs to the site to conduct all the analysis you could ever want, so the idea of actually taking objects is unnecessary. It has nothing to do with the studies or science in question.

I will make one exception. If you're using imaging techniques, like the ones used to get Archimedes writings off a palimset by using a particle accelerator and X-Ray fluorescence, you're not going to be able to lug a linear accelerator into these small chambers. By and large, though, that kind of work is unusual. Although there are many damaged ancient manuscripts, I know of no other read by this method.

By and large, you're doing routine work that involves precise measurement and precise imaging. For organic remains, you might want to use DNA testing. A pair of ultra-sterile tweezers and a 100% airtight, sterile, DNA-preserving sample tube should be sufficient.

I believe that much of the degredation recently noted for King Tut during his MRI scans was caused by exposure to modern contamination and slap-dash handling. I believe that was 100% avoidable.

I don't believe in avoiding damage out of respect for a person who died 3,000 years ago. They're past caring. Their civilization is past caring. This does NOT equate to having no respect at all - respect is important, but it is the person who deserves the respect, not organically-deposited lumps of calcium and phospherous. Likewise, true respect for an artifact comes from respecting the care, skill and artistic "personality" placed upon it, not from any copper, iron or gold atoms that may be attached.

Further, I do believe in avoiding damage out of respect for history. You've only got one history - you can't take it to WalMarts and get a replacement if you damage it. I also believe in avoiding damage out of respect of the future - they've a right to learn, too. We should not deprive them of that, out of greed or negligence.

Many monuments in England have been destroyed to make way for roads, or to be used as construction material. Laws in Greece requiring archaeological surveys before construction are routinely ignored, with untold masses of knowledge wantonly destroyed as a matter of course. Do I like that? No. Wanton destruction, in

Re:True.

[Bing Tsher E]

Yes, it's a very important discovery, but unless the site is in threat of destruction or degradation, there's really no reason that scientists couldn't take a slow approach, as the grandparent suggests. I grow tired of hasty 'scientists' apparently badly in need of their tenure and under 'publish or perish' threats bulling their way into any body of perisible evidence there is and ripping it up to fill their needs.

Remember, the thing that makes this site 'valuable to science' is that the ham-handed 'scientists' of the past never discovered it. Isn't it likely that the 'scientists' a century from now will wish the current pack of ham-handed 'scientists' hadn't discovered it??

I grow tired of archaeologists who think it's prudent to transfer relics and remains from stone enclosures where they have been preserved for centuries to steel-and-glass boxes with a proven history of lasting a few decades. At least they should admit they're doing it for reasons of personal prestige and advancement.

grave robbers?

[globaljustin]

What's with some slashdotters criticizing the excavation of this tomb as 'graverobbing'?

What a dumb thing to criticize! Of course it's not grave robbing...whatever they find will be used for science/history, just like Tut's stuff.

it's not like this guy is going to auction off what he finds in the tomb...

just more /. counterpoint cabal bs...

Re:cool..

[davidmcw]

If there's one thing Slashdot really needs, it's more references to Terry Pratchett