You must log in or register to comment.

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


2fhqwhgads1cup t1_iwo8s4s wrote

Kinda wish it was the brett favre meme instead. Thats kinda gross looking.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


__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.”


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?


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.


svarogteuse t1_iwm0tno wrote

King Tut's tomb is in the Valley of the Kings, thats an 8 hour drive from Saqqarah/Cairo/Giza. Thats near? Way to actually match the article title to the story.


diablosinmusica t1_iwmctxi wrote

If you read the article it says the pyramid is in Giza and the mummies are in the Valley of the Kings. It is pretty weird to have a single article about sites so far away from each other. The confusion in the title makes a little more sense then.

Edit: I was mistaken. For some reason I thought the title of the article was different than the post here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


svarogteuse t1_iwmghhf wrote

Proper English grammar on "and pyramid of an unknown queen unearthed near King Tut's tomb" in says that either both the mummies and the pyramids are near Tut's tomb or the pyramid is near his tomb but not just the mummies. Phrases like that do not refer to only the first element of a list, its either all or the last.

So no the title still doesn't make sense if the mummies are near his tomb.


[deleted] t1_iwmjl72 wrote



svarogteuse t1_iwmpxj4 wrote

Yes I know what you said. The confusion in the title makes no sense unless you just have a bad editor who didnt bother to read the article.


razzec_phone t1_iwn2xi3 wrote

Dude, I'm pretty sure he is saying that "Confusion in the title makes sense" means "it makes sense you'd get confused because of the way the title is written". You're both agreeing over the same thing.


juwyro t1_iwmlt0o wrote

Arent the Pyramids and Valley of the Kings completely separate eras for Egyptian history?


svarogteuse t1_iwmpkad wrote

The famous pyramids and the Valley of the Kings yes. Pyramids were built in several eras of Egyptian history from the 3rd dynasty (2600 B.C.) to the last being built in the 18th Dynasty (1150 B.C.) which was the same era as Tutankhamun (1341-1323 BC). I don't know what era the one in question came from.


SnakeCharmer28 t1_iwmjr4v wrote

It's all about perspective. An 8 hour drive is close if you think about how far away Jupiter is.


Feynnehrun t1_iwn8lbh wrote

And Jupiter is close when you consider how far out in space whoever wrote this title is.


bravestar3030 t1_iwn1iwh wrote

Man I'm from Canada and even here that's not near, at all.


rickie-ramjet t1_iwngxop wrote

Yeah- no pyramids in the valley of kings… And no kings they dont know about remains except the one they left in place. There is one king unaccounted for. Ramses VIII - he may be there in the valley as those before and after are. They lookin!


OuidOuigi t1_iwn16ai wrote

600km is close to Americans, 372 miles. And that is measured distance to Cairo so this is 30 miles closer.

I guess their road is slow to be an 8 hour drive. Unless I am wrong on the locations.


piponwa t1_iwnk23t wrote

The article is completely wrong.

>Just a stone's throw from King Tut's tomb, archaeologists have unearthed the pyramid of a never-before known ancient Egyptian queen; a cache of coffins, mummies and artifacts; and a series of interconnected tunnels.

They say it's a stone's throw away. The pyramid, the coffins, the mummies, the artifacts...

I don't know who can throw a stone hundreds of kms but I'd like to meet them.


svarogteuse t1_iwpx97q wrote

Google maps said just short of 8 hours.

372 miles is much closer when you have well built roads like interstates. Even taking American state roads can add significant times to a trip. My trip to see the family is about 2:15 by interstate, yet almost 4 hours by state road that parallels and continuously crosses the interstate. I've drive both routes as many as 6 times a year for nearly three decades, the times are pretty consistent.


erinraspberry t1_iwn41ov wrote

Secrets of the Saqqara on Netflix is one of my favorite docs about that region and their excavation of ancient Egypt.


ShitFapShower t1_iwntz8o wrote

Most definitely absolutely a great documentary I've watched it like 5 or 6 times it's truly jaw dropping to watch them uncover ancient Egyptian history right on camera. The scene where they are digging into the side of that hill and straight up uncover an untouched tomb right in front of the camera it's mind blowing for sure I highly recommend watching it if you haven't yet, well worth the watch 💯


Important_Collar_36 t1_iwp7my1 wrote

I personally preferred the cat mummies


erinraspberry t1_iwwfgwk wrote

Not just the cat mummies but a MF LION CUB MUMMY!!!!! The little kid in me who was obsessed with ancient egypt as a child just about died from excitement


Netsuko t1_iwn1rgt wrote

I have just one question: How do they keep finding these things there. Every stone must have been turned around twice by now.


TrevorsMailbox t1_iwn4w18 wrote

I think you underestimate how big earth is big, how many stones there are and how long people have been hanging out here.

In places like Egypt, check out old black and white photos (and old drawings made before we had cameras) of things like the sphynx and old temple structures... They were so buried in sand it's a miracle anyone even saw half this stuff. There's a lot of sand and dirt dude. Then you add in things like floods...cities get abandoned and in a few decades they were forgotten even by locals because they got buried so deep so fast.

Think land is big? Try the oceans and seas. Humans have been surfin' them waves like bosses for millenia...aaannnddd been drowning for millenia. Ancient ship wrecks offer more context but they're still rare (to discover) and incredibly hard to get to. Sometimes we can't get to them and we have to send WALL-E.

Places like ancient costal cities allllll over the world and huuuuge swaths of land like Doggerland are places 100000x harder to locate, let alone get artifacts from. Managing to discover them is hard enough to begin with, and if we find anything it's usually accidentally stumbled on while diving or fishing. Even then we almost never have much context for those finds.

Rivers man, rivers move over time. Settlements on the banks of rivers and coastlines are now 20 feet under dirt and 5 km inland from where the coast was a few thousand years ago or miles away from where a river may be flowing now. It's hard to find old river settlements when the damn rivers won't sit still. Like the Nile, parts of that bitch have been moving constantly over time. Happens in Europe a lot, they find a settlement that was clearly by a water source like a river at some point, but the damn river is gone...And the coastal villigaes and cities are sooo cool. You can just imagine them all dry and shit and bustling with people. We've found some and know where a few are, but 9 times out of 10 most of the older sites are probably miles out from the modern coast and scattered 100 meters under the sea by now.

Hell, there's still shit locked up in glaciers and permafrost! Unfortunately we're melting them like pros, but yeah, we're finding stuff that's been frozen under ice for thousands of years as the glaciers receed.

And bogs?! Bogs are cool as fuck bro! People don't generally go playing in bogs, that's a bad idea, especially in crazy remote places like Northern Russia or deep in the Congo. Buuuutttt those places weren't so remote to the people who used to live there thousands of years ago and they 100% tossed all kinds of shit in the bogs. We find awesome stuff in bogs all over the world when we go looking...and again, there's a whole bunch of bogs...bogs not on any places humans haven't set foot anywhere near since the time when ancient bog dudes were chilling, just tossin' other ancient bog dudes in bogs.

Cities and construction. This shit is so irritating, I mean I get it, but damn. Look at places like Mexico city that have been inhabited for thousands of years up until now. They just found some buried 800 year old Aztec shit this year when a pawn shop was being renovated. I mean Mexico city is huuuuge and coooovered in buildings, imagine all the badass stuff that's hiding beneath. It's the same all over the world, when ancient people found a good place to kick up their feet they tended to stay...and so did the generation after them... And after that... And after that... Until you're finding fucking Kings buried under parking lots. Hell, do you know how many damn Tells there are? Cities built on towns built on villages built on settlements and then forgotten for sooo long they're just big ass dirt mounds, sometimes with new stuff built on top of them too! People just thought, oh cool a mound and walked on by, and didn't realize that that mound represented centuries of occupation. Layers and layers of history. Aleppo is another good example. Dude Aleppo is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world; it may have been inhabited since the sixth millennium BC! and there's STILL mother fuckers pumpin' gas and getting groceries there! How insanely mind blowing is that?!

Climate plays a big part too, places that used to be rainforest or lush savannah or forests thousands or even seas hundreds of thousands of years ago have completely changed. To the point where the ancient people who lived there wouldn't even recognize it. Bro, fucking ice ages and come and gone since we started poking each other with pointy sticks.

Caves? Humans and our ancestors have always loved caves just as much as we do now. But caves are hard to find, explore and them shits disappear in over growth or collapse, never to be found again. It's been what, like less than 100 years since we discovered Lascaux and that awesome place had people painting in it like 17,000+ years ago when there were still rhinos in France.

I'm not even going to start talking about how up until very very recently we thought humans had only been in the America's for like 16,000 years...until they found some damn foot prints of humans walking for miles with giant sloths... Those foot prints are 23,000 years old! And if there were humans there at that point you can almost say with 100% certainty that there were humans there before 23,000 years ago.

That just shows you how little we know and how much we have yet to find.

Yo, aboriginals of Australia have been there so long they have stories (that the still tell!) about straight chillin' with mega-fauna...stories about walking through valleys and mountains...stories so old that those mountains are under the ocean least 60,000-75,000 years they've been there, AT LEAST.

BRUH...The San people of Southern Africa...those straight up hardcore badasses...Their culture is estimated to have been active for 140,000-100,000 years, if not longer...and they're still doing their damn thing with bows and arrows man, chasing prey to exhausting like the good old days...100,000 years PLUS that they've been doing the stuff their still doing TODAY.

It helps that there's been a huge leap in technology in the past 20 years, like LiDAR and GPR. Even then, I'd say most of the stuff we've discovered using tech are still a "mystery" because they're damn hard to get to....too deep into jungles or too remote (like all those cities we've found in the Amazon) to explore for years to come.

We've still got lifetimes of stuff to discover and we've already been digging up old shit and trying to figure out the lives of those that came before us for thousands of years.

Like ancient dudes used to have museums too. They dug up stuff from people who were ancient to them too and filled the museums. Ancient dudes wrote books that are ancient to us about the old stuff they found from dudes that were ancient to them. Ancient museums dude, how crazy is that to think about. Ancient libraries too. Just love this shit.

Since this started there's always been someone who came before us... We've always been fascinated, in one way or another, with things that are older than us made by us.

Humans and our biological ancestors have been playing the game of life for millions of years and it's only in the past few thousand years that we've been doing the archaeology thing and only a hundred years since we've been good at it. We've found and then lost and then found and lost again more stuff than you can wrap your head around.

Archaeology is a trip.


YsoL8 t1_iwn7opy wrote

I think there is still at least one old capital of Egypt that remains completely unlocated. Let alone all the less important places and secret / ritual sites.


BigGrayBeast t1_iwng323 wrote

Interestingm What is it's name so we can read further?


Bentresh t1_iwo5qt4 wrote

I suspect they’re referring to Itjtawy.

There are many other royal cities like Per-Ramesses and Tanis that have been located but scarcely excavated. I am optimistic that an archive of cuneiform tablets will eventually be found at Per-Ramesses.


sugarplumbuttfluck t1_iwnjsw8 wrote

I'm going to sound really dumb here, but can't they do some sort of sonar locating of tombs? Like man there sure is a giant hole 5 ft under the surface over there maybe we should see what's in it?

Isn't this how stud finders work? Like finding the less dense areas?


mouse_8b t1_iwnkrkv wrote

That's ground-penetrating radar. The trick is you have to scan the land before you know if something is there, and there's a lot of land.

Also I don't know the technical limitations of that kind of radar.


sugarplumbuttfluck t1_iwnl6bj wrote

Yeah, I figured it was impractical since the image in my head was some giant space laser from the ISS scanning Egypt

Thank you for explaining though!


TrevorsMailbox t1_iwoa16t wrote

There's a few ways to do it with GPR. Carry it on a back pack and hold a antenna pole while you walk. Planes/helicopters can use it, subs and rovs, and now remote control cars and drones.

We're getting smart about this stuff and it's opened up so much. Making maps of things we can't see like roads and trenches and tombs we never knew were even there.

Still have sooo much to scan but it's an exciting time for archaeology.


mggirard13 t1_iwoa4n2 wrote

That's all well and good but I'm still not gonna show you the way to Hamunaptra.


can-o-ham t1_iwn4vg7 wrote

I'd imagine sand covering structures and flooding, depending on what part of Egypt, would hide a lot over time.


drbeavi5 t1_iwofau3 wrote

In addition to the other replies, the weather there is really, oppressively hot. Going out in the middle of nowhere to search for sites requires lots of resources like fuel, water, food as well as the equipment to excavate sites. It's not like many gas stations or restaurants are nearby. So it's actually quite dangerous if you get lost. They must be funded really well with professional people so it often comes down to just how much money one is willing to pour into hunting needles in a hay stack.


mcdoolz t1_iwo3k57 wrote

Haha you sound like me in like every open world game.

It doesn't take a lot of space to hide something.


fapsandnaps t1_iwo8tku wrote

IIRC, Egypt has discovered a ton underground using magnetic and ground penetrating radar. However, they haven't dug them all up because they feel like they should leave stuff for future generations to find.


pathfinder1342 t1_iwnxfys wrote

You can throw a spade into the ground at Saqqara and probably hit a mummy at this point.


Zalthos t1_iwo02vm wrote

Looks like mummies back on the menu, boys!

Seriously, I'm sure some crazies will still try to eat those things...


Czexxi t1_iwnye3t wrote

Oh good. My tube of mummy brown oil paint is just about empty.


EvilCalvin t1_iwmygng wrote

'stones throw from King Tut's tomb'

...and it took THIS long to know there was another tomb nearby?


Minscandmightyboo t1_iwn87sv wrote

I've been to the Valley of the King's and Tut's tomb, there is a lot of stuff going on in there.

It's completely reasonable to me that there would be things they are still discovering (and will continue to discover) in that area


EarlGreyTea-Hawt t1_iwnqynf wrote

Giza could be reasonably considered a stone's throw from where this site is located, but neither Giza nor this site is a stone's throw away from the Valley of the Kings (e.g. where Tut is), unless ppl are want to throw stones many, many miles. How unnecessarily confusing that is...


Banana_Ram_You t1_iwnkq7g wrote

Eh, Egyptian Council of Antiquities isn't really big on trying to discover anything that might undermine the current understandings on history.


wrx_2016 t1_iwoicgl wrote

History = tourism, and that’s really their only export.


Important_Collar_36 t1_iwp872n wrote

But wouldn't revolutionizing the understanding of history kinda make them relevant again, you know like when the Valley of The Kings was first discovered???


jezra t1_iwn7nva wrote

let the looting and grave desecration begin!


UoFSlim t1_iwn8jg4 wrote

>let the looting and grave desecration begin continue!


atjones111 t1_iwpmpps wrote

Many people aren’t aware but a lot of people look down on this in the archaeology field including me, it’s literally just grave robbing and it’s not done for the knowledge that comes with it, it’s done to be able to sell your name and whatever artifacts and such you can pocket, rule number one of archaeology is you don’t profit off the dead’s belonging, and not mention in many cultures digging up and taking their things, ruins their souls in afterlife’s, and whether you believe it or not it must be respected


yomancs t1_iwpwb3e wrote

Yeah been thinking about this, like why not just leave the dead people alone.


atjones111 t1_iwq3g7t wrote

Ego and pride it’s something in archaeology they try to teach to get over but a lot of people don’t, I’ve left projects before because my team wants to keep digging or is taking things archaeology has a major ethics problem


Gareth009 t1_iwox7lv wrote

For god’s sake, can’t the dead be left alone to rest in peace ?


GothMoon t1_iwp8zvb wrote

Is this the one they think is Cleopatra? Cleopatra once stated “no man shall find my tomb” and the person who discovered it was a woman?


truthseeeker t1_iwq4mqy wrote

I would have sworn that when I visited King Tut's Tomb, I was near Luxor, but this article is talking about discoveries near Giza, which is hundreds of miles north. I don't get it.


GraphicDesignMonkey t1_iwq6meu wrote

Why do they say it's 'near Tut's tomb' when it's outside Cairo, he is in the Valley of the Kings, hundreds of miles away in Luxor. What does he have to do with it, do they just drop his name to generate clicks?


yesyesitswayexpired t1_iwz2jfm wrote

This shouldn't be concerning to anyone. I'm glad these artifacts were found and I'm sure they will be studied for days if not weeks to come.


Iamthejaha t1_iwpo8tv wrote

And the grave robbing community strikes again.


Justredditin t1_iwpvb19 wrote

Archeology is happening in Egypt again!? Did Zahi Hawass die or something? Old stick in the mud that man..


Veefox369 t1_iwq8sj6 wrote

Great reading this thread right after watching Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix. Think about all of the other stuff we still haven’t unearthed


albundyhere t1_iwn9wsn wrote

is that where they buried Freddy Mercury?


Rogaar t1_iwnfmx0 wrote

Can we not just leave graves alone? Let these people rest in peace.


TheRedCometCometh t1_iwnkl7w wrote

It's been at peace for like 3000 years, it probably wants to be out on display by now!


Prerogativ t1_iwo4u5c wrote

Those people are dead bro. They don’t have feelings and haven’t had them for thousands of years

I get the sentiment but it’s been thousands of years


PeanutArtillery t1_iwolqdx wrote

They aren't resting, they are dead. They ain't getting back up, man.


Pregogets58466 t1_iwo58ii wrote

Who cares. They are all dead. Let the dead bury the dead and let the dead dig them back up.


PeanutArtillery t1_iwolmlo wrote

>Let the dead bury the dead

So like.. Just don't bury anybody? We just gonna start leaving bodies where they die or something, because that sounds pretty unsanitary. And if the dead start digging the dead back up I think we got some more serious matters at hand.