Paolo:
It is currently the year, 1312 and I paolo Eleccion have just discovered three historical objects from the year 2012. Though these objects are a thousand years old, they seem to have been preserved by the minerals within the earth's soil. Of the three objects, one seems to be from a transportation device of some sorts, another appealing to be a piece of clothing, and the last item a weapon. With these new items discovered this could open up our eyes to how much we as the human race has changed with the course of a thousand years. From what I know the part of the transportation device, was a part of something that known as a bike. A bike in those times was a man powered, single seated, transportation cehicle. People in those times must have been simple minded and slow in getting to their destination, from their location. Comparing a bike to what we use today, would not even be considered as a comparison. We have vehicles that carry many person that travel at the speed of light. After a thousand years, the human race has gotten smarted and more convenient. Cooking at the piece of clothing, I first recognized that it wasn't made of metal like our suits today, but made of pieces of cloth. How do they keep their bodies from tearing apart at high speeds? Could they really be traveling that slow? Were the clothing in those times made more for comfort instead of protection? Thats a possibility. With our metal suits today, we are protected by everything that could potentially cause us harm. In a thousand years, has the human race become more adaptive or just less favored of comfort? And finally the weapon. Weapons have been around ever since the earlier times of the planet earth. From research that I've done, in the 2000's and earlier years, there were many weapons scattered around the globe. While as of today, they're are little to no weapons in existence. What could this mean? Was violence that big of a deal back then? Were the weapons strickly used to hunt? Have we the people of the world finally reach "peace" or have we lost the need to depend on ourselves and more on technology? A tousand years have past and we the people of the world have made some advancements compared to life in 2012. But at the same time we have lost important skillx that the survival of humanity depends on. WE have come a long way, but there's still a long road a head of us.
Daniel:
Arifacts often exemplify how exhistance was at the time specific to people of that era. One thing however stays universal-that is the human mind. Nonetheless, the human mind is a fickle thing. Furthermore, where a fully solid gold statue weighing at an impressive five and a half tons might have had some significance to those indigenous to Thailand (around 1700's) far into the future, as well as taking to account the perspective of a person who is not even indigenous to that era, our minds might vae even surpassed the restrictions of greed. Although this sculpture was plared in plain sight, from the late 17th century, until the 1950's, not a single soul had any clue of such a statue, thus not knowing of even its existence. this status is an exemplification of how forgetfuly really society is. Also revealing the thirst for gold, in which could have no meaning in the future. Our second object weighs in no way near the gigantic golden statue of Buddha, however in current day, its importance remains unmatched. That object is the iphone. The iphone, in addition to all "i"-product revolutionalized how society once communicated. It is the advocation for simplicity, a cleaner, sleeker look in which further influenced the technological age. THe iphone reveals the newfound relationship between man and electronics. Now I mentioned human minds earlier, and without a doubt, or a hint of indeccisiveness, the brain of steven Hawkins would be an invaluable find. He, today represents the smartest mind of all smart minds, this revealing the current capacity of human brain work.
Claudette:
The story of the life of King Tutankhamen, also known as King Tut, is one that many archaeologist, scientist and historians have tried to uncover for quite some time now. They have discovered that he was about 18-19 years old when he died, became king at the age of 8, and that his father wasn’t much liked because he promoted a different perspective that was completely different form from what the Egyptians believed. Also, they discovered that there were several theories about his death. Some say he died of an illness, fell off from his chariot and died, or he was murdered. The evidence can suggest many things but we can conclude that he wasn’t murdered because there is a newfound evidence that he could’ve died from an injury, and there are no motives against the young king personally for murder to occur.
According to National Geographic, studies have found that King Tut would’ve most likely died from an illness. They found a crack on his bone that was believed to have occurred a few days before the mummification. Knowing that antibiotics didn’t exist back then, he could’ve died from an infection or the injury caused his immune system to fail and a simple disease could’ve killed him. He could’ve fell off his chariot during hunting which caused a bone fracture. This evidence is clear that his death was not murder. Accidents happen. The young king just didn’t have good enough luck to continue his life. The hecticness of the situation he was in as a young king just made t seem like his death wouldn’t be from something as mere as an accident. If it wasn’t an accident, his father would’ve been the one to blame.
His father, Akhenaten, forced Egypt to believe that there is only one god to worship (Aten meaning “sun”) and that religious view went against all that was normal, so he was basically called “crazy” for it. Many rebelled and hated him for it, so it was believed that King Tut was murdered because of his father’s actions. Evidence shows, however, that when King Tut began his reign, his plan was to go back to the old Egyptian religion. There was no reason for anyone to murder him unless they wanted the throne for themselves. If he was the king, it wouldn’t be so easy to kill him because he would be well protected, so those who even try to kill him would have failed to do so.
National Geographic also mentions that there would be no way that the skull injury on his head caused his death. It could’ve been the mummification process. That skull fracture is what the evidence of his “murder” was. Unless someone fractured his bone in plain sight, King Tut was not murdered. There was no motive for anyone to kill him, and evidence shows that he died from an illness. All these things conclude that he died from an accident. Accident or not though, his life and death were things that made history. His death gives historians clues about how humans were back then, which makes King Tutankhamen’s story worthy of uncovering.
Rhea:
Unlike the great kings of ancient Egypt, children rarely appear in the iconography prior to the late 18th dynasty. Princesses are not shown until the time of Ramses the 2nd. Pharaoh’s burials were extravagant and generally took 30 days to prepare. Pharaoh’s fate, however, was different for the boy king, Tutankhamen. His early death led to a hasty burial in a small almost undecorated tomb. No grand ceremonies took place for him. No funeral cult was established to keep him alive. For the Egyptians, Tutankhamen did not exist. Yet it is his tiny tomb, his banned name, and his hidden treasures that people envision when they hear of Egypt’s pharaoh. Tutankhamen did not exist. Yet it is his tomb his banned name and his hidden treasures that people envision when they hear of Egypt’s pharaoh. Tutankhamen’s memory will live on. In 1968, Professor R.G Harrison and his team x-rayed the mummy of Tutankhamen.
For years people have wondered how the young king died. That idea that Tutankhamen died under mysterious circumstances took hold in public imagination. Harrison remarked that some of Tutankhamen’s skull, “could have” been caused by a blow to the head. Two bone fragments loose in the skull as seen in early X- rays were matched to the fractured bones near the base of the skull. Some tests also revealed that Tutankhamen had necrosis- a bone disease- in his foot, and that he suffered from malaria, both in which way may have contributed to his early death. A team of Egyptian specialists found no evidence that the young king was murdered. He died around unknown causes when he was 19 years old. Although early scientists may have thought Tut was murdered by a blow in the head by his political enemies, a later scan soon revealed that the dislodged skull fractures must have happened after the pharaoh’s remains were prepared for burial. Scientists have come to the conclusion that king Tut must have died from necrosis or a leg infection, because the CT scan revealed a broken. Regardless of how he died, Tutankhamen unlike any other pharaoh attained an eternal afterlife thanks to the lovers of science, research and history.
Cindy:
The first historical object that was found would be a menu from a fast food restaurant. From the menu archaeologist could suggest that since prire for food was so low that many people would turn to fast food places for food. Knowing that prices were so low they could infer that many people were becoming obese. From the menu archeologist can infer that in order for people to sale money, they had to turn to fast food restaurants instead of a home cooked meal. the main inference that archeologist can infer is that fast food restaurants played a big well roll for life in 2012. The second historical object that was found would be an advertisement promoting surgery to remove unwanted for from the body. Looking at this newly discovered object and the menu that had already been discovered, archeologist have evidence to prove their inference that many people were becoming obese. If more and more people were becoming obese, the many people would want a way to remove all the fat that they had accumiliated over the years. Finding this advertisement, arises a new inference that people would do anything to look like the rest of society. Which is to look sknny and be fit. From this inference, archeologist and infer that people living in 2012 are self-concious of what they look like and what people think of them. Archeologist and others from the fat future can think that people in 2012 judge people on how they look. That the only thing that matters is whats on the outside that people in 2012 don't care about who people truely are on the inside. THe third historical object that was found was a piece of paper with words writen on it thatt said "don't judge people on the outside. Judge people on who they are on the inside." From this object archeologist can infer that not everybody in 2012 judged others for what they look like. The main inference arccheologsit can make from this historical object is that there are some people who were concerned about how they looked and other who saw past their appearance and saw the hearts of others. They can see that peopl ein 2012 were all different. Putting all three objects together archeologist can predict that people in 2012 had to find ways to save money, relied on fast food, had way to remove unwanted fat and that some people cared about how they looked and how people saw them and some who looked past the skin and into their hearts. There were different types of pepole in 2012. Each with their own way to live life in 2012.
Kelly:
Whether King Tut had been murdered or died of natural causes is still a controvesy that s often disputed over seeing that there is a little we know abou his death. Although concluding the king tut had been murdered is reasonable considering that many had thought king tut not suited for the role he was given at such a young age and hate towards him may have developed leading to murder. Though it is debuted over by historians and can be for the time being, I believe thatking tut had diedd of natural causes. There is little evidence that is completely reliable supporting the fact that king tut had been murdered. He introduced monotheism which had gone against the belife system, creating an unfriendly and tense enviroment for those how had hated the new ways. To add king tut was very young when he had cleaming the throne and many have been seen as not developers enough to rule. It is possible king tut dream had been a solution to restore the new ways with a new ruler. However, though this theory does sound logical. There is no substantial evidence on king tuts body that would prove he had been killed by someone else, quickly disproving this improbable idea. There is now new evidence that has surfaced surrounding king tuts death and proof in his death being of natural causes. King tuts body had shown that he likely died of bone disease and malaria based on DNA tests and CT scans. Earlier it had been thought that the hole in king tuts head was caused by force but it now seems as if it was just a result of a mummification process. All new evidence now points to his death being caused by infection and also deformed areas being in his foot which caused walking problems and traces of that maliria parasite which was fatal. Overall, although king tuts death had been disputed over many years of research by experts more logical to say that king tut death must have been caused by natural complication used on the evidence that points to malaria and disproves that king tut had been murdered.
Joerene:
Was it regicide? Or just a life -long series of medical maladies that killed King Tut? On one hand, killing off the pharaoh would have been revenge for the radical changes made by his father. There are suspects, but I don’t believe there’s enough solid evidence to support this theory. The pharaoh’s life was more likely to have been taken by several bouts of malaria and a broken leg.
If the teenage king had been killed by someone, it was either his prime minister Ay or military general Horemheb. Their motives would’ve been similar; to take Tut’s position for themselves. And for Ay, he really did become Ay’s successor. Some say that Ay had given a blow to the back of the King's head to and his life- backed lap by the crack found at the base of King Tut’s skull. This crack is now to be believed to have been made after he was embalmed. Horemheb (who taught the young king chariot riding and hunting) could have Tut doe in a chariot accident. But again, types of injuries that would arise from that (many broken bones, a snapped neck) don’t appear on King Tut. Also, if Horemheb truly wanted the throne, he could’ve taken it immediately, backed up by his army. The only other likely killers of the King are illness or a chest injury.
According to recent DNA studies, more than one strain (types of DNA from malaria parasites were found in King Tut’s bones. With his weak immune system, King Tut’s body would have been susceptible to infection- especially in a broken leg, which researchers saw was snapped before his death (based on the embalming fluid that leaked into it). Another non- murder theory was that King Tut was mauled by a hippo while hunting. Pharaoh’s were known for doing this back then, as hippos were territorial, violent, and associate with duties they say as evil. Statues of him carrying a spear and hunting hippos were found in his tomb too. Ct scars provide further evidence; Tut’s heart, parts of his sternum and his ribs were missing. To fill the empty chest cavity, the King appeared to be stuffed with linen and resin as well. “Why was the event not recorded?” You might think. Getting killed by a hippo definitely was not the most noble way to die, considering how Egyptians felt about hippos at the time.