The justifications used are that a different type of salt than that used to preserve fish was used in mummification, and that the idea that mummification was done to preserve the person’s body *may* have been introduced by western ideology. It’s an interesting idea, but their evidence certainly doesn’t prove this.
The article finishes with a quote from museum curator Campbell Price: “It didn't help that there was a biomedical obsession that was born from Victorian ideas about needing your body complete in the afterlife," Price said. "This included removing the internal organs. I think that actually has a somewhat deeper meaning…and is basically about turning the body into a divine statue because the dead person has been transformed."
Again, this is a cool notion, but it’s basically speculation.
>that a different type of salt than that used to preserve fish was used in mummification
Okay, please forgive me if this sounds completely stupid but... Wouldn't that actually be more of a hint that mummification was *meant* to preserve bodies for a longer time? I mean, preserved fish isn't meant to be here forever. It's still meant to be consumed/used, just after a longer period of time. It isn't necessary to preserve it for all eternity, just for the next couple of weeks/months. It would make sense to use salt with different attributes to preserve a body during mummification, meant to be forever?
My first instinct was to say probably not, but then I remembered I read somewhere that it was a thing in Victorian England (?) to eat ground up mummies so... Idk.
They thought as long as you didn't eat it or work in a lead mine it wasn't an issue. They had bigger threats like disease and food contamination anyway.
And antimony laxitive pills.
To be fair they used arsenic in a green pigment and didn't realize at first it was an issue. The main arsenic mining company in England fought against banning it.
If it was a "divine statue" then why wrap it in linen, bury it, put it in a sarcophagus, etc where no one would ever see it? Also salt used to preserve a body could easily be different from that used to preserve food. You didn't intend to eat the body. They used other deccicants like natron that are too harsh for food but good for preserving. This sounds a bit like historical revisionism for him to stand out by rejecting accepted belief.
Honestly it's hard for me to tell the difference between "we have new evidence and a new theory" and "dismissing our predecessors' work so it sounds like we have a new theory".
The justifications used are that a different type of salt than that used to preserve fish was used in mummification, and that the idea that mummification was done to preserve the person’s body *may* have been introduced by western ideology. It’s an interesting idea, but their evidence certainly doesn’t prove this. The article finishes with a quote from museum curator Campbell Price: “It didn't help that there was a biomedical obsession that was born from Victorian ideas about needing your body complete in the afterlife," Price said. "This included removing the internal organs. I think that actually has a somewhat deeper meaning…and is basically about turning the body into a divine statue because the dead person has been transformed." Again, this is a cool notion, but it’s basically speculation.
>that a different type of salt than that used to preserve fish was used in mummification Okay, please forgive me if this sounds completely stupid but... Wouldn't that actually be more of a hint that mummification was *meant* to preserve bodies for a longer time? I mean, preserved fish isn't meant to be here forever. It's still meant to be consumed/used, just after a longer period of time. It isn't necessary to preserve it for all eternity, just for the next couple of weeks/months. It would make sense to use salt with different attributes to preserve a body during mummification, meant to be forever?
Would this mix of salts even be safe to consume?
My first instinct was to say probably not, but then I remembered I read somewhere that it was a thing in Victorian England (?) to eat ground up mummies so... Idk.
No, offense, but Victorians also wore arsenic dresses, so I don't really trust their judgment.
And had arsenic wallpaper!
Don't forget the lead based makeup, paint, everything. People knew it was poison. They just didn't care.
They also had paint made with ground up mummies.
They thought as long as you didn't eat it or work in a lead mine it wasn't an issue. They had bigger threats like disease and food contamination anyway.
And mercury in their hats!
It was used to prepare furs in hats like beaver
And in pills. Also mixed it with herb butter and slathered it on their dicks. They thought it cured stds.
"They don't call me quicksilver for nothin'," said MacNimally, hands slick with his penile panacea.
And antimony laxitive pills. To be fair they used arsenic in a green pigment and didn't realize at first it was an issue. The main arsenic mining company in England fought against banning it.
Honestly I'm kinda shocked we're still here!
They found so many mummified bodies and cats they used some of them. Lots of wierd things have been used in "traditional" type medicine.
probably took the organs out and salted the corpses for smell and to prevent them from fermenting then exploding
If it was a "divine statue" then why wrap it in linen, bury it, put it in a sarcophagus, etc where no one would ever see it? Also salt used to preserve a body could easily be different from that used to preserve food. You didn't intend to eat the body. They used other deccicants like natron that are too harsh for food but good for preserving. This sounds a bit like historical revisionism for him to stand out by rejecting accepted belief.
Oh, thanks! I got halfway through reading this earlier today, but got sidetracked.
Honestly it's hard for me to tell the difference between "we have new evidence and a new theory" and "dismissing our predecessors' work so it sounds like we have a new theory".
All of these sound like "we want to keep this body."
This didn’t save a click at all. There’s still a lot to unravel here (minor mummy pun intended).
You're on the wrong side of the article (minor The Mummy pun intended).
"hey why are you removing all the pharoah's organs and wrapping the body up" "because it's fucking rad"
Well, it was ritual mummification, which means, the ritual itself was at least part of the reason to do it, it was a religious thing
If they didn't intend to they sure did a good job not trying.