I've heard of the Tisulsky Princess before, but this is the most information I've seen regarding her. A few years ago, I went searching the internet for more information, and there was not much to be had. All I could find was her name, associated with Russia and 800 million years old. This is the first mention I've seen of the find location or coal.
I live in what used to be "coal country", and have collected fossils out of the coal for over 50 years now, and am well acquainted with the timelines involved. I think that the article is probably not very precise, perhaps considering the audience it was intended for. For example, finding the sarcophagus at a depth of 480 meters in the coal seems over-simplified to me. I've seen a lot of coal, mines and seams, and have never seen one 480 meters thick. I've never even seen one 480 feet thick. I think the thickest coal seam I've ever seen was around 15 to 18 feet thick. Most of them around here are just 1 to maybe 5 feet thinck - BUT they are buried under a lot of other stuff, mostly shale and slate, and I would guess that the article is probably accounting for the depth, but oversimplifying the materials layered into that depth.
For example, this mountain I'm on right now used to be 200 feet taller. They cut 200 feet of rock and dirt off of the top off of it to get down to a seam of coal that was only 1 to 3 feet thick. Two seams actually I think - at least there is a rock cliff at the top of the mountain that has two seams exposed. The upper one, at the point it is exposed, is about 9 inches thick, and the lower one is about a foot thick. BUT - they tore off 200 feet of mountain top to get to it.
There may be a problem in the translation regarding the age - OR maybe the depth - OR maybe the material. There isn't any 800 million year old coal, but there are plenty of 800 million year old rocks of other material, some of which may be in some way associated with coal at one level or another. One has to go through a lot of other rocks to get to the coal, and in turn has to go through coal sometimes to get to older rocks.
I'm not saying the Princess doesn't exist, only that the story is not fully developed in English to the point that I can make sense of it without speculating. That's why I went looking for information on her those years ago, and why I appreciate this story which adds to what meager information I found then.
I know a lot more about coal and the carboniferous period than I do about the Princess, and that frustrates me. The place I live now is fairly "young" geologically and relatively speaking. The lower coal seam I mentioned above is 315 million years old, and called the "Eagle seam" - every coal seam around here has it's own name, and that layer can be followed over a wide area by association with outcrops of the same seam in other places. The Eagle seam outcrop, even at 315 million years old, is about 700 feet or so farther up the geologic column than my front yard, which is down in a "holler" carved out of the landscape.
The tortured terrain here was cut out of fairly flat land by water action. It was laid down by sedimentation, then raised like a flat table into a plateau and water cut the landscape into it, cut it down into the plateau, leaving behind fairly flat layers in the steep mountainsides. The location where I was raised, about 30 or 40 miles from here, is lot older at 400 million up to about a billion years old, but it was formed when continents collided and actually folded and buckled the rocks, raising them into mountains which were then further shaped by erosion. There isn't much coal there, but there are hella old rocks. I think - and this is just me speculating - that it may be that the Princess was found in a situation like that. Older rocks near coal outcrops, but not actually IN a coal outcrop if that makes sense to you. Saying she was found IN the coal may be a claim that was lost in translation, or not really specific enough as to the relative location of the coal and the Princess. My best guess is that she was found in rock layers that old, which are UNDER a layer of coal, but not actually IN the coal.
When I was a kid, and had just started collecting fossils out of the coal and rocks close to it, I found a lot of strange things. I found one fossil that was about as wide as a man's forearm, but looked like it had scales. I was convinced it was a fossil snake, but it turned out to be a tree branch. I found another one time that was a "lizard" to my young mind, but was actually an amphibian, like a salamander. it was about 9" long, and has since been lost which is a real shame, since as far as I know it is the ONLY tetrapod animal ever found around here. Both of those were found in massive "slate dumps", massive piles of rocks that were taken out of a mine from between layers of coal and then discarded because they were not economically important.
So I have found strange things in the rocks between, above, and beneath the coal myself, and I'm not saying the Princess is fake, just that there is not enough information about her to satisfy my curiosity.
.
I live in what used to be "coal country", and have collected fossils out of the coal for over 50 years now, and am well acquainted with the timelines involved. I think that the article is probably not very precise, perhaps considering the audience it was intended for. For example, finding the sarcophagus at a depth of 480 meters in the coal seems over-simplified to me. I've seen a lot of coal, mines and seams, and have never seen one 480 meters thick. I've never even seen one 480 feet thick. I think the thickest coal seam I've ever seen was around 15 to 18 feet thick. Most of them around here are just 1 to maybe 5 feet thinck - BUT they are buried under a lot of other stuff, mostly shale and slate, and I would guess that the article is probably accounting for the depth, but oversimplifying the materials layered into that depth.
For example, this mountain I'm on right now used to be 200 feet taller. They cut 200 feet of rock and dirt off of the top off of it to get down to a seam of coal that was only 1 to 3 feet thick. Two seams actually I think - at least there is a rock cliff at the top of the mountain that has two seams exposed. The upper one, at the point it is exposed, is about 9 inches thick, and the lower one is about a foot thick. BUT - they tore off 200 feet of mountain top to get to it.
There may be a problem in the translation regarding the age - OR maybe the depth - OR maybe the material. There isn't any 800 million year old coal, but there are plenty of 800 million year old rocks of other material, some of which may be in some way associated with coal at one level or another. One has to go through a lot of other rocks to get to the coal, and in turn has to go through coal sometimes to get to older rocks.
I'm not saying the Princess doesn't exist, only that the story is not fully developed in English to the point that I can make sense of it without speculating. That's why I went looking for information on her those years ago, and why I appreciate this story which adds to what meager information I found then.
I know a lot more about coal and the carboniferous period than I do about the Princess, and that frustrates me. The place I live now is fairly "young" geologically and relatively speaking. The lower coal seam I mentioned above is 315 million years old, and called the "Eagle seam" - every coal seam around here has it's own name, and that layer can be followed over a wide area by association with outcrops of the same seam in other places. The Eagle seam outcrop, even at 315 million years old, is about 700 feet or so farther up the geologic column than my front yard, which is down in a "holler" carved out of the landscape.
The tortured terrain here was cut out of fairly flat land by water action. It was laid down by sedimentation, then raised like a flat table into a plateau and water cut the landscape into it, cut it down into the plateau, leaving behind fairly flat layers in the steep mountainsides. The location where I was raised, about 30 or 40 miles from here, is lot older at 400 million up to about a billion years old, but it was formed when continents collided and actually folded and buckled the rocks, raising them into mountains which were then further shaped by erosion. There isn't much coal there, but there are hella old rocks. I think - and this is just me speculating - that it may be that the Princess was found in a situation like that. Older rocks near coal outcrops, but not actually IN a coal outcrop if that makes sense to you. Saying she was found IN the coal may be a claim that was lost in translation, or not really specific enough as to the relative location of the coal and the Princess. My best guess is that she was found in rock layers that old, which are UNDER a layer of coal, but not actually IN the coal.
When I was a kid, and had just started collecting fossils out of the coal and rocks close to it, I found a lot of strange things. I found one fossil that was about as wide as a man's forearm, but looked like it had scales. I was convinced it was a fossil snake, but it turned out to be a tree branch. I found another one time that was a "lizard" to my young mind, but was actually an amphibian, like a salamander. it was about 9" long, and has since been lost which is a real shame, since as far as I know it is the ONLY tetrapod animal ever found around here. Both of those were found in massive "slate dumps", massive piles of rocks that were taken out of a mine from between layers of coal and then discarded because they were not economically important.
So I have found strange things in the rocks between, above, and beneath the coal myself, and I'm not saying the Princess is fake, just that there is not enough information about her to satisfy my curiosity.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’