Slashdot Mirror


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."

39 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. I, for one... by flogic42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...welcome our new linen-wrapped overlords.

    --
    Check out my women's designer clothing store.
    1. Re:I, for one... by Magdalene · · Score: 2, Funny

      would be more willing believe the pyramids were created by ufos if they were pointy side down.
      *grin*

      --
      -Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
  2. cool.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    so the go'auld missed one, eh?

    1. Re:cool.. by cammoblammo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe, maybe not. When archaeologists go missing or die in freak accidents and pyramids start flying we'll know for sure.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    2. Re:cool.. by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny
      That's where SG-1 dropped the ZPM. The one that they never had to go back for after all, and encounter the geekazoid versions of SG-1.

      Check O'Neil's pond for fish.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:cool.. by EngMedic · · Score: 4, Funny

      provided that the pyramids (also known as "time capacitors") don't get too large, rotate the R^4 field the Old Kingdom exists in by 90 degrees and vanish into nothingness, leaving only mathematically inclined camels to figure it out - sure, great!

      Otherwise, better check the Assasin's Guild for help.

      --
      filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    4. Re:cool.. by davidmcw · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
  3. You've got to be kidding me! by Dan+Guisinger · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hot on the heels of the recent news about the death of King Tut"

    ??? What?

    I must have missed it. King Tut died? When!?

    1. Re:You've got to be kidding me! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny

      I must have missed it. King Tut died? When!?

      Sure kid, that's what they all say.
      Now where were you on the night of 1325BC?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:You've got to be kidding me! by xdroop · · Score: 4, Funny
      Now where were you on the night of 1325BC?
      Damn, my air-tight alibi is only good up to 1326BC.
      --
      you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
  4. Radar shortcomings by lifeisgreat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm wondering why a thorough surveying of the valley with radar/sonar hasn't been performed. Or has it? The best reference for tomb-finding via radar was the no. 1 google hit for "radar valley kings", indicating that a rather large tomb was located thanks to ground-penetrating radar.

    Is the technology itself just really underwhelming when it comes to below-ground imaging? I'd assume so, but then perhaps the valley itself is just too great an area to survey accurately.

    Anyway.. I want more gold-filled tombs! Shiny!

    1. Re:Radar shortcomings by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yea, GPR isn't a magic bullet for this stuff because of soil variations, rubble, etc. Kind of like how differences in the water can effect SONAR.

      Here is an ugly site that seems to have some interesting stuff about GPR

      http://www.g-p-r.com/

      "Depth of investigation varies from less than one meter in mineralogical clay soils like montmorillonite to more than 5,400 meters in polar ice. Depth of investigation increases with decreasing frequency but with decreasing resolution. Typical depths of investigation in fresh-water saturated, clay-free sands are about 30 meters. Depths of investigation (and resolution) are controlled by electrical properties through conduction losses, dielectric relaxation in water, electrochemical reactions at the mineralogical clay-water interface, scattering losses, and (rarely) magnetic relaxation losses in iron bearing minerals. Scattering losses are the result of spatial scales of heterogeneity approaching the size of the wavelength in the ground (like the difference between an ice cube and a snowball in scattering visible light). Detectability of objects in the ground depends upon their size, shape, and orientation relative to the antenna, contrast with the host medium, as well as radiofrequency noise and interferences. "

  5. The Curse! by bmo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "an /unlooted/ ...18th Dynasty tomb"

    Until now.

    That's my great great great great great *breathe* great great great granddad. It's a sad day when grave robbing is a profession. You shall reap what you sow. There's a curse been put upon that dig, and whoever disturbs the bones shall have "Safety Dance" by Men Without Hats playing forever in his or her head until the end of days.

    You have been warned.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:The Curse! by bmo · · Score: 5, Funny

      S-s-s-s A-a-a-a F-f-f-f E-e-e-e T-t-t-t Y-y-y-y
      Safety, troll!

      I can troll if I want to
      I can leave your posts behind
      'Cause your posts don't troll and if they don't troll
      Well they're no posts of mine
      I say, we can troll where we want to
      A goatse they can always find
      And I can act like we come from the GNAA
      Leave the moderations far behind
      And we can troll.

      --
      BMO - My Karma is "FABULOUS, DAHLING!"

  6. breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    A bit behind current news, aren't we? - this has been reported for two days now...

  7. Check the jars by Cliffy03 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope someone remembers to check those "coptic storage jars" for Gao'uld symbiotes.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
    1. Re:Check the jars by jpetts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm assuming they mean canopic jars. Coptic is a term for orthodox Egyptian Christians, derived from Aegyptos (Greek for Egyptian). Copticism was considered a heresy for a long time, but *LOTS* of the early Copts were *VERY* influential in what became the Catholic church. Also, for some reason, a lot of Egyptian politicians are/were Copts too. See http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Coptic_Christ ianity or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  8. Great.... by zakarria · · Score: 5, Funny

    Previously undiscovered, unlooted tomb, discovered and looted! W00t!

  9. Wikipedia by adriantam · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a slashdot article with almost all the links are linking to wikipedia articles!

    --
    http://www.ieaa.org/~adrian/
  10. It belongs to SCO! by Crouty · · Score: 5, Funny
    In other news today:

    SCO claimed ownership of the tomb. They could not find any evidence in their own records but somewhere in the pharao's records must be a proof....

    --
    On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    1. Re:It belongs to SCO! by barefootgenius · · Score: 2, Funny

      More likely Intel.

      "Interred Inside"

      --
      /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
    2. Re:It belongs to SCO! by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're no doubt going to file for an extension of discovery because the Pharoah's plainly had adequate time to appear for deposition, but failed to answer the subpeona.

      KFG

    3. Re:It belongs to SCO! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Archaeologists today confirmed there are infact hieroglyphs pointing towards SCO ownership.

      They read:

      Bird
      Fish
      Lawyer
      CamelShit
      CamelShit
      CamelShit

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:It belongs to SCO! by simcop2387 · · Score: 2, Funny

      i think you're mistaken it goes like this

      Bird
      Fish
      CamelShit
      CamelShit
      CamelShit
      Lawyer

  11. Soon to be followed by... by masdog · · Score: 2, Funny

    So when do we hear the news reports of five previously undisturbed mummies running amuck in downtown Cairo?

  12. Re:Ooh er. Coptic by jejones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Coptic is the surviving language closest to ancient Egyptian, if memory serves. I think the poster meant "canopic" jars, the jars where the Egyptians would put the organs that they took out of the body being mummified.

  13. Re:Tomb Building by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The old fashioned way, with misinformation of course! With all the information that flies at you in a day, how often can you actually check out the source of that info? Or it's reliability. Just flood the net with rumors while keeping the actual knowledge down to as few people as possible.

  14. Yeah, yeah, we've ALL heard this story before.... by d474 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "American archaeologists found five mummies resting in sarcophagi, funerary masks, and coptic storage jars..." and then they found a stargate and sent an elite commando team through the worm hole and they got lost.... *yAwn*

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  15. True. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:True. by Slarty · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are YOU an archaeologist? You seem to know some history, sure, but cut the people some slack. This is a very very important discovery in the land of Egyptology, and believe me, they know that. They get to publish their findings and be subjected to the gauntlet of peer review, from peers who know a whole lot more about how to handle these things than you do. I'm not saying they're doing everything perfectly, but I'd be wary of condemning the entire team as "ham-fisted and incompetent" based on a frickin' MSN article.

      My sister, by the way, is ON that team - a fact which is causing me and my family no small amount of pride! She's a grad student, so definitely doing more grunt work than actual discovering right now... but she's a careful person, and she has literally been preparing for this for most of her life. We are just so far beyond excited for her. :-)

      --
      Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
    2. Re:True. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  16. Mad rush!! by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Funny

    An undisturbed tomb? Quick! Let's disturb it!

  17. Re:Nice by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  18. Re:Tomb Building by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Burial chamber made out of granite walls with some steel sheets between the granite layers. A nice dark granite, something from Spain maybe. Floor would be granite as well, polished smooth and then buffed so it's extra smooth, then covered with a couple thousand little ball bearing, just to mess with people walking in. There needs to be a mechanism so that after the tomb is breeched aerosol anthrax is delivered into the tomb, not sure of a power source to run this system, perhaps a RTG running off an isotope with a long half life.

  19. grave robbers? by globaljustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  20. Be fair... by aug24 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you're being overly harsh on the diggers.

    They found the shaft last year, after they had found and dug the workmen's huts, and they haven't entered the tomb, they've opened a small space in the blocked door and looked inside.

    But I only RTFA, what do I know.

    Justin.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  21. Re:Nice by EtherealStrife · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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...

  22. Mummie, come back! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Informative
    This modern attitude about mummies is really different. Back a few centuries ago, Egypt was apparently just swarming with mummies all over the place. So many that for a while they were being used as steam locomotive fuel.

    I imagine they got pretty blase about tossing mummies into the firebox.:

    Aw shucks, this load is mostly skinny servants, we'll be lucky to get one MPM (mile per mummy) from these.

  23. Coptic? by kbahey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Coptic is the wrong term. The correct term is "Canopic jars".

    Intact tombs are indeed rare, and I have posted the other day on why King Tut became famous in the last century despite him being a minor figure in history, and why undisturbed tombs are a rarity. You can read it at this Slashdot comment.