1,400-year-old tomb featuring giant owl sculpture discovered in Mexico(cnn.com)
cnn.com
1,400-year-old tomb featuring giant owl sculpture discovered in Mexico
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/29/science/zapotec-tomb-mexico-scli-intl
36 comments
I wish this article shared more about how this tomb was discovered. Was it buried under mountain of dirt? Under a jungle canopy no one explored? Has it been there all along at an existing ruins site but was hidden in some way? Give us details man!
They likely do not want to give any details that allow third parties to figure out its location. It's frustrating, but their main goal right now needs to be imaging and preserving the art, and dating and identifying artifacts.
I wonder if locals have always known about the tomb, but never realized it could be of interest on an international level.
Sites are tracked by cultural ministries using restricted site inventories that are only open to government officials and established researchers. There are many more known sites than there is funding to excavate them so this one was likely known for decades before they got around to it.
These site inventories are generally filled using cultural resource management records submitted by surveyors, miners, construction companies, etc. who are often legally required to file them. A few tour guides I’ve used in Mexico found new ruins in the jungle and submitted their records with GOS coordinates and pictures. If locals knew about it, someone likely recorded the location a while ago.
These site inventories are generally filled using cultural resource management records submitted by surveyors, miners, construction companies, etc. who are often legally required to file them. A few tour guides I’ve used in Mexico found new ruins in the jungle and submitted their records with GOS coordinates and pictures. If locals knew about it, someone likely recorded the location a while ago.
This is fascinating, I had no idea it worked this way. I just always sort of assumed people happened upon random places that eventually make the news, not that there's a backlog of places to explore.
The backlog has actually gotten really bad in the last decade because of all the LIDAR surveys. There are many large settlements in the jungles of Central and South America that have been discovered in recent years that are both more expensive to study because they're so inaccessible and much larger so they're difficult to keep secret.
The Zapotec civilization pre-dates the Aztecs and Maya and were the first to develop a writing system in Mexico.
Benito Juarez, President of Mexico during their revolution, was Zapotec.
The Zapotec people are still around today and a large number still speak their ancient language. A large number moved to LA and another group in New Jersey, but they're all over the US.
Benito Juarez, President of Mexico during their revolution, was Zapotec.
The Zapotec people are still around today and a large number still speak their ancient language. A large number moved to LA and another group in New Jersey, but they're all over the US.
How many are "pure Zapotec" vs a blend of Spanish/Aztec/Mayan/Tlaxcalan/Cempoaloan/Texcocan? Is it a genetically identifiable trait or just cultural?
There is no such thing as “pure X” when it comes to organisms.
Yes we can play the semantic game all the way to absurdity, but its also quite true that genetic ancestry is heritable and traceable. We know that many unique native american ancestries have been diluted down to very small percentages over the centuries so its not an unreasonable question.
I think they are a /people/ with common history, culture, and community bonds... The idea of pure races is a stupid one.
The idea of pure cultures is even dumber. One is genetically traceable, the other is fluid and depends more on family upbringing and influence from local population interactions and social networks and mass media exposure. Unless Zapotec has remained uniquely isolated from quite strong Spanish/Mexican cultural identity and influence.
But it's also like, we know what we mean, if the Zapotec people/community are fairly insular or at least in marriage/procreation like to be with their own then that's for casual purposes 'mostly pure'.
Otherwise I can't even say I'm 'British', because who knows what mix I am if I go back further than I have record of, which is just silly, we know what we mean.
Otherwise I can't even say I'm 'British', because who knows what mix I am if I go back further than I have record of, which is just silly, we know what we mean.
You're very close to following that line of enquiry to its logical conclusion, which is that our nationalities tell us little of any real value except what our home culture was like where and when we grew up. Personally I've come to regard identifying as any nationality as silly except for legal purposes.
We're humans, and humans have always and always mixed between cultural groups, except in rare instances of total isolation; such people are not 'pure' anything, but they would likely be inbred. There is no 'pure' genetic strain of any race or indeed any organism. Whatever divisions there are between us are extremely blurry and constantly changing.
We're humans, and humans have always and always mixed between cultural groups, except in rare instances of total isolation; such people are not 'pure' anything, but they would likely be inbred. There is no 'pure' genetic strain of any race or indeed any organism. Whatever divisions there are between us are extremely blurry and constantly changing.
I don't think it's silly for all purposes, it's silly to be racist about it, to say that 'pure x' is more desirable, or all that's 'allowed' in 'your' country etc., but that doesn't mean there's never any value in communicating 'what our home culture was like where and when we grew up'.
I'm British, my wife isn't, and her parents emigrated from a third country before she was born. Our hypothetical children will not be 'purely' from any one of those cultures (nor would she even say she was 'purely' of her birth country not her parents'), and I think that does convey information.
I'm British, my wife isn't, and her parents emigrated from a third country before she was born. Our hypothetical children will not be 'purely' from any one of those cultures (nor would she even say she was 'purely' of her birth country not her parents'), and I think that does convey information.
OK, so if you don't mind, let's take your family as a good example of what I'm saying, and let's further posit a world where Britain completely halts all immigration today, so from some near future point, every child born in Britain is born of British-born parents. Now let's suppose that you have children, and that they remain in Britain, marry locals, and have children of their own, onwards forever, never leaving the country except for holidays.
Since, as you say, your hypothetical children would not be purely British, at what point are your descendents 'pure Brits'? Is it 50 years from now? 100? 500? Now think about what life was like in Britain 50, 100 and 500 years ago. How close would you say the lives of children today are, compared to children in those times? Closer than to children born today in, say, Norway? Consider that 1986 is as far away from today as it was from 1946; someone born today is as distant from someone born in the 80's, as someone born in the 80's was from the end of World War 2.
And think about British culture in the 90's and 00's - it was heavily influenced by US culture at that time; today I imagine things like K-Pop are having an increasing influence. Britain (as indeed most other nations) has for thousands of years been a melting pot of different cultural inputs. In fact, the very notion of 'Britain' has changed over time - the British empire once spanned the globe and included places as diverse as India, South Africa and Singapore. Even the Britain of today is not a single country; would you say that, say, Northern Irish and south-eastern English people are culturally homogeneous?
So, while I do agree that telling me you were born in Britain, or China, or Zimbabwe would help me to calibrate broad expectations about you, I can't see how any of those things is or ever was 'pure' in any way.
Since, as you say, your hypothetical children would not be purely British, at what point are your descendents 'pure Brits'? Is it 50 years from now? 100? 500? Now think about what life was like in Britain 50, 100 and 500 years ago. How close would you say the lives of children today are, compared to children in those times? Closer than to children born today in, say, Norway? Consider that 1986 is as far away from today as it was from 1946; someone born today is as distant from someone born in the 80's, as someone born in the 80's was from the end of World War 2.
And think about British culture in the 90's and 00's - it was heavily influenced by US culture at that time; today I imagine things like K-Pop are having an increasing influence. Britain (as indeed most other nations) has for thousands of years been a melting pot of different cultural inputs. In fact, the very notion of 'Britain' has changed over time - the British empire once spanned the globe and included places as diverse as India, South Africa and Singapore. Even the Britain of today is not a single country; would you say that, say, Northern Irish and south-eastern English people are culturally homogeneous?
So, while I do agree that telling me you were born in Britain, or China, or Zimbabwe would help me to calibrate broad expectations about you, I can't see how any of those things is or ever was 'pure' in any way.
Living memory, the three or four generations that people generally know about.
The schoolyard 'I'm 25% Portugese', meaning 'one of my grandparents is Portugese, but the others and parents were born here'. It would be tedious to say 'well I can't offer you a percentage, because I only know about a few generations of my family history, but as far back as I know everyone has been born in the UK'.
The schoolyard 'I'm 25% Portugese', meaning 'one of my grandparents is Portugese, but the others and parents were born here'. It would be tedious to say 'well I can't offer you a percentage, because I only know about a few generations of my family history, but as far back as I know everyone has been born in the UK'.
Oaxaca and its surroundings are still identifiably Zapotec! The idea of an urban landscape that’s still culturally and aesthetically indigenous to such an extent is super mindbending to this gringo.
Mexico’s historical relationship to indigenous groups is incredibly complicated and problematic in its own ways, but it’s completely and frankly unimaginably different from the analogous relationships in the U.S. or Canada.
Mexico’s historical relationship to indigenous groups is incredibly complicated and problematic in its own ways, but it’s completely and frankly unimaginably different from the analogous relationships in the U.S. or Canada.
Does anyone know how to get past the CNN popup that only gives you the choice "Agree to collecting any and all private information"? There is no way to opt out, no way to disagree. I refuse to press it, and have not read CNN articles for the last year or so.
Replace "edition." subdomain with "lite." and you get a very lightweight website, clocking less than 100kB transferred: https://lite.cnn.com/2026/01/29/science/zapotec-tomb-mexico-...
The lite version is actually quite nice and just has news item in one big list, no fuzz, no glam, just text and some cover images.
The lite version is actually quite nice and just has news item in one big list, no fuzz, no glam, just text and some cover images.
You can read any article on CNN with Firefox reader mode. Probably works with similar features in other browsers as well.
I get a choice, at least in the EU. Admittedly you need to scroll down a bit on mobile, which is not clear at first.
Heh (in the EU at least) the div container has a `has-reject-all-button` class.
<div id="onetrust-button-group-parent" class="ot-sdk-columns has-reject-all-button ot-sdk-two">
<div id="onetrust-button-group">
<button id="onetrust-accept-btn-handler">
Accept All
</button>
<button id="onetrust-reject-all-handler">
Essential Cookies Only
</button>
<button id="onetrust-pc-btn-handler" aria-label="Show Purposes, Opens the preference center dialog">
Show Purposes
</button>
</div>
</div>
It is not present in the DOM at all in my location (US).
The "EasyList – Cookie Notices" filter list for ublock origin seems to also work well on this site.
Most of browser has reader mode, toggle it. In safari you can even set it to automatic.
NoScript fixes the broken web.
OMG, Duolingo has been following us for 1400 years
It’s a tomb. Looks like the owl finally caught up with someone who didn’t do their lesson.
Hopefully one of the researchers was able to save the dead guy’s streak. Wonder what language he was learning and why.
Duolingo LOL. I was thinking Bohemian Grove.
the title says 'giant owl sculpture' - how giant is it, I don't see any reference
There has to be a Bohemian Grove joke in here somewhere.
I just hate CNN subscribe screen. It completely locks my iPhone chrome browser. I have to kill the browser and reopen it to go back.
I recommend AdGuard. Blocks tons of annoyances like that
* https://www.inah.gob.mx/boletines/el-gobierno-de-mexico-anun...
Better than CNN english language reporting based on primary release:
* https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/01/an-intact-1400-yea...
Lack of location details and surrounds is deliberate in this type of work given the activities of looky lous and treasure hunter types, however there has been many years of prior work grinding through funery sites, burial "high rises", and cities of the dead: