posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:36 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra
Hiya Xcathdra, after reading those articles yesterday, I intended to search out the academic paper/s to add to the thread today. Sadly, it appears
that 'lazy journalism' has conjured a story out of nowhere and it was then spammed by other media outlets without any due diligence. Believe it or
not, this happens often with science journalists.
The story appeared in January 2004 in the New York Times
following the dig that
(apparently) took place in 2001.
Why 'apparently?' Well, it's difficult to see any paperwork on these findings.'Natalie Fedorova of Russian Academy of Sciences' doesn't appear
to have published any papers on the site or contributed/co-authored any papers at all. That name of the river is associated with the original article
and doesn't help to trace academic papers or book citations. Dr Bill Fitzhugh vouches for the site and was present at one time and even he seems to
have no written commentary or research on the findings.
It would appear that these mummies and grave goods were removed from the site in poor circumstances:
Journalist's notes - Charles Q Choi
Endless arguments took place on how to preserve the mummies that threatened to lead nowhere, Fedorova said. In the end, the researchers p acked
each mummy in bandages and foil. "They began to resemble the Egyptian ones," she said. Everything was videotaped and photographed.
There could be papers in Russian. However, given the novelty of the mummies, we could expect a reference to such a paper in the English language and I
can't find them.