Archaeologica.org

Egyptian tomb discovered with 'spells helping travel to afterlife'

Archaeologists have unearthed the intact sarcophagus of Egypt's Queen Behenu inside her 4,000-year-old burial chamber.

Published: 12:01AM GMT 04 Mar 2010

The tomb was discovered near her pyramid in Saqqara, 20 miles south of Cairo, chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass announced.
The Old Kingdom queen's chamber was badly damaged except for two inner walls covered with spells meant to help her travel to the afterlife, he said in a statement. [...]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rlife.html

I'll be interested in the contents of that sarcophagus, and the state of the mummy that is suggested to still be in there. And what it may reveal after careful measurement, scanning, and analysis.
But that'll probably be a few years, I fear.

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/a ... vered.html

Although the mummy of the queen was destroyed and little remains of the burial, the team found two inner walls which contain hieroglyphics engraved on white stone known as the "Pyramid Texts."

How can a mummy be destroyed while the sarcophagus was described as found "intact"?

More to the point.....

What about this line?

The tomb was discovered near her pyramid in Saqqara, 20 miles south of Cairo, chief archaeologist Zahi Hawass announced.

"Near" the pyramid? Not in it?

Strange story.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:Strange story.

Maybe something was lost in translation?

Rokcet Scientist wrote:How can a mummy be destroyed while the sarcophagus was described as found "intact"?

I suspect that they are infering that the sarcophagus was undamaged. Oftentimes, sarcophagi are opened and the contents are removed without damage to the sarcophagus itself.

*edit: awkward wording

circumspice wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:How can a mummy be destroyed while the sarcophagus was described as found "intact"?

I suspect that they are infering that the sarcophagus was undamaged. Oftentimes, sarcophagi are opened and the contents are removed without damage to the sarcophagus itself.

*edit: awkward wording

"Awkward" is a euphemism, it is plain wrong! "Intact" to me means that it has not been touched/opened since it was closed (at, or even before the burial), and definitely means that everything that was in there in the first place is still in there, undisturbed.

Yeah but we don't know what the author meant by "intact." He may simply have meant "undamaged."

Yeah, and then there are the other 'loose ends', like finding that sarcophagus near but not in her pyramid. As if it almost, but ultimately never quite made it there...
Which might go some way to explain how it was empty.

We'll simply have to wait for a better write-up.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

circumspice wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:How can a mummy be destroyed while the sarcophagus was described as found "intact"?

I suspect that they are infering that the sarcophagus was undamaged. Oftentimes, sarcophagi are opened and the contents are removed without damage to the sarcophagus itself.

*edit: awkward wording

"Awkward" is a euphemism, it is plain wrong! "Intact" to me means that it has not been touched/opened since it was closed (at, or even before the burial), and definitely means that everything that was in there in the first place is still in there, undisturbed.

Ahem... I was stating that my wording was awkward, not the article's wording. Sheesh!

circumspice wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

circumspice wrote:
I suspect that they are infering that the sarcophagus was undamaged. Oftentimes, sarcophagi are opened and the contents are removed without damage to the sarcophagus itself.

*edit: awkward wording

"Awkward" is a euphemism, it is plain wrong! "Intact" to me means that it has not been touched/opened since it was closed (at, or even before the burial), and definitely means that everything that was in there in the first place is still in there, undisturbed.

Ahem... I was stating that my wording was awkward, not the article's wording. Sheesh!

So apparently both were, weren't they...