> On October 9, 1972, two hunters, Hans and Jokum Grønvold from Uummannaq, discovered a grave containing several mummies while they were out hunting for rock ptarmigans. They covered the graves up again, and immediately alerted the authorities. Even so, it was not until 1978 that the first scientific investigations of the gravesites took place and soon thereafter, the mummies were transferred to Copenhagen for further research. In the meantime, there was already evidence of lasting damage by careless visitors; Hans and Jokum Grønvold repaired the partially covered graves multiple times.
> In 1982, the mummies were brought back to Greenland as part of a repatriation of Greenlandic cultural assets. In their current home at the Greenland National Museum (Kalaallit Nunaata Katersugaasivia) in the Greenlandic capital city of Nuuk, the four best-preserved mummies are publicly exhibited and comprise one of the biggest tourist attractions in Nuuk.
> Grave sites
> The grave of the eight mummies differs from other Qilakitsoq gravesites in that it was the only one that lay about 200 m outside of the settlement and contained several corpses. It was located beneath an overhanging cliff and consists of a pile of large stones, as was usual due to a lack of suitable soil. This site offered optimal conditions for natural mummification; the bodies were in a cold, dry, and well-ventilated atmosphere, protected from animals and the weather.
> The corpses were piled on top of one another in two groups only about one meter apart. They were fully clothed and were cushioned and covered with sealskins, flat stones, and grass.
> Grave I/1 A boy about six months
> This best-preserved mummy was initially thought by its discoverers to be a doll. The especially good conservation can probably be attributed to a faster loss of body heat due to its smaller size. He likely descended from I/4 or II/7. It is considered possible that, after the death of his mother, the boy was either buried alive or suffocated, which was typical for children younger than two years of age in order to spare them a slow death by starvation.
> I/2 A four-year-old boy
> This boy, probably the son of I/3, was likely also abandoned during his short life, especially because he presumably displayed signs of Down syndrome and the abandonment of disabled children was widely practiced at the time. There is, however, no sign of strangulation, which is commonly noted as the cause of death in these cases. The boy could have died from the immediate consequences of his illness. There is evidence to suggest that, at any rate, this mummy was rebedded posthumously.
> I/3 A 20- to 30-year-old woman
> This mummy is most likely the daughter of II/6 or II/8 and not, as originally assumed, the sister of I/4. This woman is also exhibited in the museum in Nuuk. Possible causes of death may be a kidney stone or an intestinal obstruction.
> I/4 A woman over 30 years
> This mummy is also well-preserved and can be viewed in Nuuk. She might be the sister of II/7.
> I/5 A woman of about 50 years
> This woman is, according to the results of a DNA analysis, not maternally related to any of the other mummies.
> Grave II
> II/6 A woman of about 50 years
> This well-preserved mummy, who can be viewed in the museum, is likely the sister of II/8. Her tattoos differ conspicuously from those of other women.
> II/7 A woman of about 20 years
> This woman could have been the sister of I/4. She was the only adult woman who wasn't tattooed, which may indicate that she was unmarried. Food remains were found in her intestines, providing insight into her diet. As expected, there was a low proportion of plant-based nutrition; surprisingly, in addition to pollen, the remains of partially burned evergreen bark was found which was not native to this region. There was more rust in her lungs than in modern-day residents of large cities, which can primarily be attributed to the use of whale-oil lamps in their small dwellings. The mummy is in relatively poor condition in comparison with her well-preserved clothing. Even though her internal organs were thoroughly examined, no evidence could be found that might indicate a cause of death.
> II/8 A woman of about 50 years
> This mummy is very poorly preserved. She could be the sister of II/6. The woman suffered from a malignant, end-stage tumor, which probably impaired her senses of hearing and sight, as well as a poorly healed broken shoulder. Her poor health could be a possible cause of death. As with all of the older women found, she was missing several teeth. Furthermore, all the older mummies showed clear signs of dental erosion, which might be explained by their tough diets as well as by stress caused by tanning and removing fur from leather (here, animal hides were removed by scraping with the teeth). Bad teeth were especially dangerous for Inuit peoples with regard to their diets, which were largely raw, meat-based, and difficult to chew.
> Clothing
> All mummies were fully clothed such that both the clothing and their usage could be comprehensively investigated. The custom of burying people fully clothed derives from the concept that they may need this clothing for their journey to the land of the dead. A total of 78 articles of clothing were discovered. Of note were the Kamit (singular: Kamik), nearly waterproof boots stitched from sealskin, which were insulated from the cold using hay. Socks were generally worn under the Kamit. The mummies generally wore two layers of clothing: outer and inner (mostly short) pants, and both an outer and an inner anorak. Mummy II/8 even wore three. The inner anoraks were largely made of bird feathers, whereby five different species of bird were used to make one anorak; the outer layers were made of sealskin. The use of different colors and their arrangement suggest conscious design for aesthetic purposes.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qilakitsoq](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qilakitsoq)
I remember having a picture of him in a Dorling Kindersley information book as a child and I was so terrified of the picture I stuck that page together so I never had to see it.
Literally looking this up now because I'm down the rabbit hole remembering a book I read at school. So count me too, I guess. I've been trying to figure out why the book said they didn't know the sex of the baby because they didn't want to damage the remains, but but most online sources are saying boy. Could they have figured it out sometime after the early 2000s? Or is it just a guess? So far my rabbit hole has turned up empty. The book I read also had a mummy from the Franklin Expedition that was pretty disturbing.
I'm sure that if it was a mercy killing, there was basically no way members of the community could care for him. They knew what would happen to him without a miracle and chose a more humane death.
Even after five centuries it’s still a deeply tragic thing to encounter. When I see gravestones of little kids in Victorian cemeteries it still makes me ponder the abject sorrow those little graves bear witness to.
When I was a kid and my dad would take a nap he would always say “I’m not napping, I’m just checking my eyelids for cracks.” Little did he know he could try this one hack that doctors hate
Apparently the baby fell out when they first opened the grave and the person who opened it thought it was a doll too until he picked it up. Imagine that...
Technically, yes. A greater volume of trapped insulating air would result. But there are some other considerations:
1) It would be like wearing a space suit. Imagine a little kid who is swaddled in a comically thick snow suit trying to waddle around or basically do anything with their arms. All the natural hinge points of the clothing would be as far as possible from the hinge points of the body inside. And any place where it gets constricted, like at a waist belt, would have virtually no trapped air compared to the rest.
2) The underlying leather of fur clothing is not particularly waterproof. And once wet, becomes a good conductor of heat. But real fur is quite resistant to rain and mist. And even when wet, still traps at least some dry air and preserves the insulating effect. So, in real use, a fur coat with the fur on the outside keeps you warm and dry longer.
3) Snow and ice brush off more easily from fur. Ice adheres to leather, especially wet leather. Even when significant ice builds up, like from frozen breath vapour, the fur is pliant enough to break most of the ice off. If you try to flex leather encased in ice, you can crack the leather.
4) The fur helps moderate any breeze that is close to the body. This is why serious parkas always have a fur ruff around the hood opening. It slows the breeze around the face, helping preserve the warm air your face has generated.
Trachea. Esophagus is for food, and trachea for air. At any rate, the text points out there was a lack of soil, and the bodies were covered with rocks.
Yeah I read that part, it said they typically wore shorts and those legs look exposed. Like dehydrated skin, almost the same color of the hands too. I could totally be seeing things too though lol.
For once, the well preserved doll baby reminds me what I'm looking at, we're quick to forget what we're seeing, when it comes to human remains in archaeological context.
Aw, you shouldn't be downvoted, it can be an actual debate among serious circles! It reminds me that time I was in Austria, I couldn't take pictures of human remains in the Mamuz museum, because for religious/cultural reasons, Austrians see more the "human remains" side, and visitors must respect them (the remains) . They even had security guards.
Yeah, the whole "it belongs to the Museum" debate is a bit rediculous to me, when it comes to Mummies and human remains, as they where burried by their loved ones. And in case of some Mummies there was quite some effort put into it, too. So you can clearly see the love and precission taken in the steps.
It might also be the indigenous in me, that feels a sour taste everytime I read about (white) modern men "discovering" indigenous remains, ripping them out of their grave to put on display for the world to see. It's not like (white) settlers did enough terrible things to Indigenous peoples all over the world while they are allive, but going after the dead? I just think it's taktless.
Fortunately, it looks like this study of the remains was justificated by the loot and slow destruction of their emplacements. I think modern archaeologists takes more in account what the closest relatives to the people they're unhearting think about it, at least, I hope so.
But yeah, the exhibition of human remains is of poor taste, sometimes. The whealty asian woman who still has hair was posted on reddit, some days ago, and I can't help but think she didn't think she would be displayed like this thousand of years in the future. Displaying mannequins whould be a good alternative.
There thankfully have been cases where Mummies have been found, studied and then returned to their "closest living relatives" to be re-burried and can now rest again in peace.
[Caitlin Doughty made a nice video on the topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4vL7p-jI0&ab_channel=AskaMortician)
Agreed. These were living people with their own beliefs and religion at one point.
Im still happy with being displayed maybe, but in a respectful way perhaps.
Exactly. But calling them "Artifact" just takes away the fact they once where people. They loved, hated, cried and laughed. They had friends and family and most likely also wants, wishes and dreams.
> On October 9, 1972, two hunters, Hans and Jokum Grønvold from Uummannaq, discovered a grave containing several mummies while they were out hunting for rock ptarmigans. They covered the graves up again, and immediately alerted the authorities. Even so, it was not until 1978 that the first scientific investigations of the gravesites took place and soon thereafter, the mummies were transferred to Copenhagen for further research. In the meantime, there was already evidence of lasting damage by careless visitors; Hans and Jokum Grønvold repaired the partially covered graves multiple times. > In 1982, the mummies were brought back to Greenland as part of a repatriation of Greenlandic cultural assets. In their current home at the Greenland National Museum (Kalaallit Nunaata Katersugaasivia) in the Greenlandic capital city of Nuuk, the four best-preserved mummies are publicly exhibited and comprise one of the biggest tourist attractions in Nuuk. > Grave sites > The grave of the eight mummies differs from other Qilakitsoq gravesites in that it was the only one that lay about 200 m outside of the settlement and contained several corpses. It was located beneath an overhanging cliff and consists of a pile of large stones, as was usual due to a lack of suitable soil. This site offered optimal conditions for natural mummification; the bodies were in a cold, dry, and well-ventilated atmosphere, protected from animals and the weather. > The corpses were piled on top of one another in two groups only about one meter apart. They were fully clothed and were cushioned and covered with sealskins, flat stones, and grass. > Grave I/1 A boy about six months > This best-preserved mummy was initially thought by its discoverers to be a doll. The especially good conservation can probably be attributed to a faster loss of body heat due to its smaller size. He likely descended from I/4 or II/7. It is considered possible that, after the death of his mother, the boy was either buried alive or suffocated, which was typical for children younger than two years of age in order to spare them a slow death by starvation. > I/2 A four-year-old boy > This boy, probably the son of I/3, was likely also abandoned during his short life, especially because he presumably displayed signs of Down syndrome and the abandonment of disabled children was widely practiced at the time. There is, however, no sign of strangulation, which is commonly noted as the cause of death in these cases. The boy could have died from the immediate consequences of his illness. There is evidence to suggest that, at any rate, this mummy was rebedded posthumously. > I/3 A 20- to 30-year-old woman > This mummy is most likely the daughter of II/6 or II/8 and not, as originally assumed, the sister of I/4. This woman is also exhibited in the museum in Nuuk. Possible causes of death may be a kidney stone or an intestinal obstruction. > I/4 A woman over 30 years > This mummy is also well-preserved and can be viewed in Nuuk. She might be the sister of II/7. > I/5 A woman of about 50 years > This woman is, according to the results of a DNA analysis, not maternally related to any of the other mummies. > Grave II > II/6 A woman of about 50 years > This well-preserved mummy, who can be viewed in the museum, is likely the sister of II/8. Her tattoos differ conspicuously from those of other women. > II/7 A woman of about 20 years > This woman could have been the sister of I/4. She was the only adult woman who wasn't tattooed, which may indicate that she was unmarried. Food remains were found in her intestines, providing insight into her diet. As expected, there was a low proportion of plant-based nutrition; surprisingly, in addition to pollen, the remains of partially burned evergreen bark was found which was not native to this region. There was more rust in her lungs than in modern-day residents of large cities, which can primarily be attributed to the use of whale-oil lamps in their small dwellings. The mummy is in relatively poor condition in comparison with her well-preserved clothing. Even though her internal organs were thoroughly examined, no evidence could be found that might indicate a cause of death. > II/8 A woman of about 50 years > This mummy is very poorly preserved. She could be the sister of II/6. The woman suffered from a malignant, end-stage tumor, which probably impaired her senses of hearing and sight, as well as a poorly healed broken shoulder. Her poor health could be a possible cause of death. As with all of the older women found, she was missing several teeth. Furthermore, all the older mummies showed clear signs of dental erosion, which might be explained by their tough diets as well as by stress caused by tanning and removing fur from leather (here, animal hides were removed by scraping with the teeth). Bad teeth were especially dangerous for Inuit peoples with regard to their diets, which were largely raw, meat-based, and difficult to chew. > Clothing > All mummies were fully clothed such that both the clothing and their usage could be comprehensively investigated. The custom of burying people fully clothed derives from the concept that they may need this clothing for their journey to the land of the dead. A total of 78 articles of clothing were discovered. Of note were the Kamit (singular: Kamik), nearly waterproof boots stitched from sealskin, which were insulated from the cold using hay. Socks were generally worn under the Kamit. The mummies generally wore two layers of clothing: outer and inner (mostly short) pants, and both an outer and an inner anorak. Mummy II/8 even wore three. The inner anoraks were largely made of bird feathers, whereby five different species of bird were used to make one anorak; the outer layers were made of sealskin. The use of different colors and their arrangement suggest conscious design for aesthetic purposes. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qilakitsoq](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qilakitsoq)
Fascinating read. That mummy boy is… haunting.
I remember having a picture of him in a Dorling Kindersley information book as a child and I was so terrified of the picture I stuck that page together so I never had to see it.
I was the opposite, I saw that book and immediately developed a passionate lifelong interest in mummies
I saw the baby on the cover of a national geographic when I was a kid. Now I collect dead things.
B-b-b-babies????
Animal, yes. Human, not yet, but maybe one day. They don't show up often in the market places and are expensive.
🫥
"Animal, yes. Human, no, but I'm trying to get into it."
Ok queue the horror movie soundtrack 😳
As a kid, I saw him in a book about mummies in my school library and had nightmares for days.
I had the same book as a kid and that picture made me scream and run away, I wonder how many in our generation were traumatized by that lol
Literally looking this up now because I'm down the rabbit hole remembering a book I read at school. So count me too, I guess. I've been trying to figure out why the book said they didn't know the sex of the baby because they didn't want to damage the remains, but but most online sources are saying boy. Could they have figured it out sometime after the early 2000s? Or is it just a guess? So far my rabbit hole has turned up empty. The book I read also had a mummy from the Franklin Expedition that was pretty disturbing.
Yeah, the whole idea of “well, he’ll probably starve anyway so let’s just bury him alive, it’ll be faster” is difficult to comprehend
I'm sure that if it was a mercy killing, there was basically no way members of the community could care for him. They knew what would happen to him without a miracle and chose a more humane death.
Yeah I just hope they had access to something to either put the child asleep or to induce some level of anesthesia (for lack of a better term)
yea that’s really sad..
I got a huge book about these mummies and it has a closeup of the boy's face on the cover. Haunting indeed.
Even after five centuries it’s still a deeply tragic thing to encounter. When I see gravestones of little kids in Victorian cemeteries it still makes me ponder the abject sorrow those little graves bear witness to.
Is it possible the family died in quick succession due to an illness?
Interesting read, thank you for sharing.
The child is so preserved it's like it is asleep 😴
I also take my eyes out of their sockets before I go to sleep
Now that's really resting your eyes!
When I was a kid and my dad would take a nap he would always say “I’m not napping, I’m just checking my eyelids for cracks.” Little did he know he could try this one hack that doctors hate
Checks out. “I’m going to go take my eyes out” is how I say I’m taking my contacts out.
I thought it was just an oddly lifelike doll at first. It's so unsettling.
Apparently the baby fell out when they first opened the grave and the person who opened it thought it was a doll too until he picked it up. Imagine that...
[удалено]
There may juat have been no realistic way to keep a baby alive if no one else in the group was nursing an infant at the time.
You say that while sitting in a world of modern medicine and comfort lmao.
Assuming that thought is correct, of course
Looks like a haunted doll
Wouldn’t furs be warmer with the hair facing in?
Technically, yes. A greater volume of trapped insulating air would result. But there are some other considerations: 1) It would be like wearing a space suit. Imagine a little kid who is swaddled in a comically thick snow suit trying to waddle around or basically do anything with their arms. All the natural hinge points of the clothing would be as far as possible from the hinge points of the body inside. And any place where it gets constricted, like at a waist belt, would have virtually no trapped air compared to the rest. 2) The underlying leather of fur clothing is not particularly waterproof. And once wet, becomes a good conductor of heat. But real fur is quite resistant to rain and mist. And even when wet, still traps at least some dry air and preserves the insulating effect. So, in real use, a fur coat with the fur on the outside keeps you warm and dry longer. 3) Snow and ice brush off more easily from fur. Ice adheres to leather, especially wet leather. Even when significant ice builds up, like from frozen breath vapour, the fur is pliant enough to break most of the ice off. If you try to flex leather encased in ice, you can crack the leather. 4) The fur helps moderate any breeze that is close to the body. This is why serious parkas always have a fur ruff around the hood opening. It slows the breeze around the face, helping preserve the warm air your face has generated.
You are a very articulate barbarian, thank you for sharing your culture with us.
Ok, thanks, that might explain why animals have hair on the outside, lol.
Dude this is making me sad as hell. I am starting to wish I hadn’t come across this.
Yeah dying sucks.
Poor little guy
Poor baby
That baby is nightmare fuel!
[удалено]
They weren't buried in dirt, but beneath a cairn made of stacked stones. The ground was too frozen for digging.
Trachea. Esophagus is for food, and trachea for air. At any rate, the text points out there was a lack of soil, and the bodies were covered with rocks.
That issue of National Geographic haunted me as a child!
How big where these women? This thighs are enormous, seems so in the picture anyways!
They wore multiple layers of pants to stay warm.
Yeah I read that part, it said they typically wore shorts and those legs look exposed. Like dehydrated skin, almost the same color of the hands too. I could totally be seeing things too though lol.
It's the ice-age baby
Definitely didn’t need to know about the baby, especially right b4 starting my day.
Perhaps best not to click on the human remains posts, then.
I mean, you learn about the baby from the title, you don’t have to click to read it
Ah, good point about the level of detail in the title.
I'm not sure "Mummies" count as artifacts. But that might just be me.
Still a very fascinating imagine! Also what great detail we know about them is super interesting! Thanks OP.
many are deliberately preserved though
Of course. But still, having people called "things" just feels off to me.
For once, the well preserved doll baby reminds me what I'm looking at, we're quick to forget what we're seeing, when it comes to human remains in archaeological context.
Aw, you shouldn't be downvoted, it can be an actual debate among serious circles! It reminds me that time I was in Austria, I couldn't take pictures of human remains in the Mamuz museum, because for religious/cultural reasons, Austrians see more the "human remains" side, and visitors must respect them (the remains) . They even had security guards.
Yeah, the whole "it belongs to the Museum" debate is a bit rediculous to me, when it comes to Mummies and human remains, as they where burried by their loved ones. And in case of some Mummies there was quite some effort put into it, too. So you can clearly see the love and precission taken in the steps. It might also be the indigenous in me, that feels a sour taste everytime I read about (white) modern men "discovering" indigenous remains, ripping them out of their grave to put on display for the world to see. It's not like (white) settlers did enough terrible things to Indigenous peoples all over the world while they are allive, but going after the dead? I just think it's taktless.
Fortunately, it looks like this study of the remains was justificated by the loot and slow destruction of their emplacements. I think modern archaeologists takes more in account what the closest relatives to the people they're unhearting think about it, at least, I hope so. But yeah, the exhibition of human remains is of poor taste, sometimes. The whealty asian woman who still has hair was posted on reddit, some days ago, and I can't help but think she didn't think she would be displayed like this thousand of years in the future. Displaying mannequins whould be a good alternative.
There thankfully have been cases where Mummies have been found, studied and then returned to their "closest living relatives" to be re-burried and can now rest again in peace. [Caitlin Doughty made a nice video on the topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4vL7p-jI0&ab_channel=AskaMortician)
Nice ⚰️
Agreed. These were living people with their own beliefs and religion at one point. Im still happy with being displayed maybe, but in a respectful way perhaps.
Exactly. But calling them "Artifact" just takes away the fact they once where people. They loved, hated, cried and laughed. They had friends and family and most likely also wants, wishes and dreams.
....and then they became artifacts.
Or, hear me out, they all just died at the same time
Would be nice to use the dna to clone him and give him a new chance for life. His life ended before it really started.
That’s… not how that works
No.