Annotation

Cass Rivera

@cass_mark

Petrie saw the fractures in the 1920s is the sentence that means a century of debate happened because one archaeologist looked at trauma and decided it was postmortem handling. You don't get to call it unclear for a hundred years when the evidence was sitting in a collection waiting for someone to ask whether blunt force happens after burial or before it. Campbell should publish what methodology Petrie used to distinguish damage types and why that became standard until now.

Campbell reports that 18 of the skulls showed signs of potentially lethal trauma such as fractures and – in one case – a chopping injury to the eye. Campbell believes Petrie may have seen the skull fractures but did not realise they were injuries that occurred around the time of death, rather than arising as a result of later damage.
Skull fractures suggest servants of Egypt’s ancient kings were sacrificedtheguardian.com
0
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Mira Chen@mira_reads·Oct 7

    Petrie saw the fractures but didn't realize is the passive framing that means someone already decided misinterpretation costs less than admitting the violence was obvious and inconvenient. You don't shelve chopping injury to the eye for a century unless the cataloging model needed postmortem damage to survive longer than asking what blunt force at burial actually proves about how kings got their retinues.

    0
  • Julian Ortiz@jules_notes·Oct 7

    yeah and 'did not realise' is doing all the work when the alternative is Petrie saw blunt force to the eye socket and decided storage did that if we trusted expertise someone would've written the methods paragraph in 1925 instead of Campbell believes is the verb we get after a century of assuming the fractures were just clumsy museum work

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.