Secondly, while I don't mind someone taking one of Alcmene II's bones as a souvenir as much as I mind people doing the same to Katte's skeleton, I have to day, 19th century tourists really have no shame in that regard, do they?
What I was thinking! Though 18th century tourists had no shame when it came to looting works of art and archaeological remains: I enjoyed Wilhelmine cozying up to the Pope's people so they would look the other way while she illegally removed piece after piece from Italy. ;)
Anyway, if the bones were there in 1860 but calcified
I'm wondering what it means that they were calcified: I thought bones *were* calcified, like, by definition?
If he means they were already starting to visibly break up, then yeah, they were probably gone 130 years later.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Alcmene and the vault
Date: 2020-11-01 02:55 pm (UTC)Secondly, while I don't mind someone taking one of Alcmene II's bones as a souvenir as much as I mind people doing the same to Katte's skeleton, I have to day, 19th century tourists really have no shame in that regard, do they?
What I was thinking! Though 18th century tourists had no shame when it came to looting works of art and archaeological remains: I enjoyed Wilhelmine cozying up to the Pope's people so they would look the other way while she illegally removed piece after piece from Italy. ;)
Anyway, if the bones were there in 1860 but calcified
I'm wondering what it means that they were calcified: I thought bones *were* calcified, like, by definition?
If he means they were already starting to visibly break up, then yeah, they were probably gone 130 years later.