Second, it illustrates the incredibly long and incredibly frustrating lag time in publication of classical archaeology. Hood's reproduction of the mummy painting - which he presented at a conference in 1990,

... and then the

. Just strange.

And finally

, it speaks to the way classical archaeology was taught in the late 20th century, at least in my experience: I'd never heard of a mummy being found at Mycenae, and I've been studying the skeletal remains and burials of the classical world for the better part of 20 years. Granted, I've moved on from my early grad school fascination with Mycenae, but it can be incredibly difficult to find specific information on burials from famous classical sites. The skeletons just aren't a part of the classical canon in the way that the Mask of Agamemnon is.

This article fascinated me for three reasons: first, because it shows that Schliemann was interested in the physical, skeletal remains he found at Mycenae. Many of his contemporaries wouldn't have bothered to make a painting of the mummy.