What were some techniques and effects that the archeologists in the 1900s used in the Egyptian Mummy projectt, and how do these techniques and effects contrast with the archeologists techniques and effects today? ANSWER FAST, ILL MAKE U BRAINLIEST

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

In the past, archeologists used basic elements to dig the soil and start the excavations. Let's have in mind that the first Egyptian discoveries were made by the Napoleonic troops during their campaigns in North Africa, specifically, Egypt.

Then, archeologists from France and later Britain visited the zone to start their excavations projects based on the information, codes, and maps collected in those years.

It was until some French discovered the Rosetta Stone, close to Rosseta, Egypt, that archeologists could decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs. This allowed a full interpretation of the Egyptian scripture and made archeologists locate sites such as the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens in Luxor, Egypt. Places, where most of the tombs, have been found.

Once there, archeologists hired many people to start excavations and that is basically how they found the tombs and the mommies.

The Egyptian mummy project used CAT scans, a forensic technique to collect information about the gender and time of the mummies.

Modern-day techniques and state of the art technology have increased the finding of new discoveries in Egypt. We are talking about Computer Tomography or CT. It is a non-invasive technique that allows scientists and archeologists to study mummies and get valuable information because it uses a scanner that provides three-dimensional information without affecting the mummy.

so the story tells of someone named kaushik choudhuri, but he does not narrate the story, a girl named hema does. hema tells the story in a second person point of view because you (the reader) are supposed to be the boy named kaushik.

here's an excerpt i found: "i was ushered into the fitting room, your mother watching approvingly as i took off my coat and sweater and tried on the bra."

source:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is