TUTANKHAMEN’S TWO TOMBS: REPLICA CREATION AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. There are two tombs of Tutankhamen both located in Luxor, Egypt: one in the Valley of the Kings, excavated into the Theban bedrock and decorated with wall paintings, dating from 1323 BCE; the other, installed 3 km away, opened in April 2014 and is considered to be an ‘exact facsimile’ of the original tomb. Tutankhamen’s tomb is just one example of a cultural heritage site that has been replicated. This list is steadily growing as replicas are finding renewed favour fuelled by technological advancements in three-dimensional recording, capture and fabrication which has enabled the production of highly accurate replicas in both physical and virtual form. Comparisons drawn between the two tombs of Tutankhamen—the original and the replica—aim to highlight the differing approaches of parallel preservation projects and intends to prompt questions surrounding the commissioning and use of replicas in the cultural heritage field and the growing role that 3D digital technology is playing in the preservation/conservation sector. Sites and cultural heritage organization are scrambling to be part of the 3D digital revolution. But, has the transition to 3D and the revival in replicas happened too quickly and at the expense of a site’s other conservation needs? Is technology being used in the service of conservation and preservation or is it the other way around? How can those working with heritage balance the benefit of 3D technology with the overall conservation needs for a site? Using the example of Tutankhamen’s two tombs this paper aims to provoke discussion on these topics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it