In this blog post I will summarize and
critique the information presented in Wade and Nelson’s (2013) paper on the
ancient Egyptian evisceration techniques for mummification. In this study the
authors looked at trends in mummification practices across the different
Egyptian eras and compared with past historical accounts. They conducted a
thorough analysis of published findings and computer tomography (CT) scans to
reach their conclusions.
The
authors began with an account of past descriptions of the Egyptian
mummification process. According to Wade and Nelson (2013), modern theories
about the mummification process have been heavily reliant on the descriptions
provided by the classical historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. The
removal of the organs (evisceration) as part of the mummification process was
previously believed to have been done in one of three ways: transabdominal
incision (via the abdomen), transperineal incision (via the perineum), or anal
cedar oil injection (chemical evisceration via the anus). The removal of the
brain (excerebation) and heart were also said to be important aspects of the
evisceration process. Wade and Nelson decided to test the validity of the
accounts by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus and look at variation in
evisceration methods across social, spatial, and temporal gradients. Wade and
Nelson expected, based on the results of previous studies and the historical
record, that abdominal evisceration would be much more common among the elite,
that most commoners would have been eviscerated by the chemical method, and
that the heart would be present in the vast majority of mummies dating to the
Ptolemaic period (the era during which Herodotus and others described the
process).
Canopic jars - These containers were used
to hold the internal organs of the mummy following evisceration.
Wade
and Nelson (2013) found that there was considerable variability in the
evisceration methods used in across time periods and with individuals of
differing social status. Rather than the expectations of evisceration by means
of a chemical enema, the lower class Egyptians were commonly eviscerated
through a slit in the abdomen. Among the upper class, abdominal evisceration
was also equally common. They found that the only cases of evisceration through
the perineal region were found among mummies of upper class individuals. The
heart was found to be absent in most cases, particularly among more recent
mummies (during the time that Herodotus and others supposedly described the
evisceration process). This was another finding that was contrary to the
previous evidence. Overall, Wade and
Nelson (2013) found that the historical descriptions of evisceration techniques
in Ancient Egypt were vastly inaccurate.
Figure 2 from Wade and Nelson (2013) is a
graphical representation of the changing frequencies in the retention of the
heart following evisceration over time. The red striped bars represent the
frequency of hearts retained, while the blue solid bars represent the frequency
of hearts missing. The percentage denotes the proportion of hearts retained out
of the total sample for that time period.
I found the paper to be very well-written
and strongly supported by extensive research and thorough analytical
techniques. I found it interesting how the authors pointed out some of the
biases of the classical historical sources. As the Greek and Roman historians
possessed an etic perspective, their descriptions were likely skewed by their
own ideas about Egypt. They were not simply documenting what went on. Just as
people in contemporary societies harbour stereotypes about people outside their
own culture, these ancient historians also would have been highly subjective.
Wade, A.D., and Nelson, A.J. 2013.
Radiological evaluation of the evisceration tradition in
ancient Egyptian mummies. HOMO - Journal
of Comparative Human Biology. 64(1): 1-28.
Unknown author, “Canopic Jars,”
photograph, http://students.greensboroday.org/~ravenscroftj/egypt/Dummy%20canopic%20jars%20of%20Padiouf.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment