The scent of a mummy: Research discovers ancient Egyptian remains smell nice
At first whiff, it sounds repulsive: sniff the essence of an ancient corpse.
But researchers who indulged their curiosity in the name of science found that well-preserved Egyptian mummies actually smell pretty good.
'In films and books, terrible things happen to those who smell mummified bodies,' said Cecilia Bembibre, director of research at University College London's Institute for Sustainable Heritage. 'We were surprised at the pleasantness of them.'
'Woody,' 'spicy' and 'sweet' were the leading descriptions from what sounded more like a wine tasting than a mummy sniffing exercise. Floral notes were also detected, which could be from pine and juniper resins used in embalming.
The study published Thursday in the Journal of the American Chemical Society used both chemical analysis and a panel of human sniffers to evaluate the odors from nine mummies as old as 5,000 years that had been either in storage or on display at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
The researchers wanted to systematically study the smell of mummies because it has long been a subject of fascination for the public and researchers alike, said Bembibre, one of the report's authors. Archeologists, historians, conservators and even fiction writers have devoted pages of their work to the subject — for good reason.
Scent was an important consideration in the mummification process that used oils, waxes and balms to preserve the body and its spirit for the afterlife. The practice was largely reserved for pharaohs and nobility and pleasant smells were associated with purity and deities while bad odors were signs of corruption and decay.
Without sampling the mummies themselves, which would be invasive, researchers from UCL and the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia were able to measure whether aromas were coming from the archaeological item, pesticides or other products used to conserve the remains, or from deterioration due to mold, bacteria or microorganisms.
'We were quite worried that we might find notes or hints of decaying bodies, which wasn't the case,' said Matija Strlič, a chemistry professor at the University of Ljubljana. 'We were specifically worried that there might be indications of microbial degradation, but that was not the case, which means that the environment in this museum, is actually quite good in terms of preservation.'
Using technical instruments to measure and quantify air molecules emitted from sarcophagi to determine the state of preservation without touching the mummies was like the Holy Grail, Strlič said.
'It tells us potentially what social class a mummy was from and and therefore reveals a lot of information about the mummified body that is relevant not just to conservators, but to curators and archeologists as well,' he said. 'We believe that this approach is potentially of huge interest to other types of museum collections.'
Barbara Huber, a postdoctoral researcher at Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Germany who was not involved in the study, said the findings provide crucial data on compounds that could preserve or degrade mummified remains. The information could be used to better protect the ancient bodies for future generations.
'However, the research also underscores a key challenge: the smells detected today are not necessarily those from the time of mummification,' Huber said. 'Over thousands of years, evaporation, oxidation, and even storage conditions have significantly altered the original scent profile.'
Huber authored a study two years ago that analyzed residue from a jar that had contained mummified organs of a noblewoman to identify embalming ingredients, their origins and what they revealed about trade routes. She then worked with a perfumer to create an interpretation of the embalming scent, known as 'Scent of Eternity,' for an exhibition at the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark.
Researchers of the current study hope to do something similar, using their findings to develop 'smellscapes' to artificially recreate the scents they detected and enhance the experience for future museumgoers.
'Museums have been called white cubes, where you are prompted to read, to see, to approach everything from a distance with your eyes,' Bembibre said. 'Observing the mummified bodies through a glass case reduces the experience because we don't get to smell them. We don't get to know about the mummification process in an experiential way, which is one of the ways that we understand and engage with the world.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Peanuts or almonds? Rice or millet? Planet-friendly grocery shopping choices go beyond cutting meat
It's one of the most impactful climate decisions we make, and we make it multiple times a day. The U.N. estimates about a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the main driver of climate change, come from food. That pollution can come from several links in the food supply chain: how farmland is treated, how crops are grown, how food is processed and how it's ultimately transported. Maybe you've already heard the short answer to minimizing your diet's impact on the planet: eat more plants and fewer animals. The data backs up that suggestion. Emissions from meat-rich diets are four times higher than that of vegan diets. But so much focus on meats overshadows many other food choices that also impact the environment and can contribute to global warming. Here is a look at other important grocery store decisions: Swapping one serving of chicken per day for beef cuts a diet's emissions nearly in half. Ruminant animals such as cows, sheep and goats are the top drivers of emissions. Those animals 'are associated not only with nitrous oxide emissions, but they're also related to direct methane emissions because they burp them up while they digest food,' said Marco Springmann, professorial research fellow in climate change, food systems and health at University College London. Springmann said processed animal products have a higher impact on the planet, too: 'You need 10 times the amount of milk to make one unit of cheese.' So — and this is true of most food groups — the less processed the food, the smaller the environmental impact. Plant-based proteins like legumes, beans and nuts all boast a much lower climate impact. The standout here is rice, and not in a good way. 'Rice uses a ton of water. It uses gobs of fertilizer. There's flooded rice paddy fields, and that water actually breeds all kinds of bacteria, and those bacteria produce methane gas,' said eco-dietitian nutritionist Mary Purdy. Purdy said the most planet-friendly alternative is just eating a bunch of different grains. 'The wheat, corn and soy world is very, very familiar to us because we've been seeing it. It's been heavily marketed. When was the last time you saw a commercial for millet or buckwheat?' she asked. Diverse diets, Purdy said, incentivize biodiverse agriculture, which is more resilient to erratic weather — a hallmark of climate change — and makes healthier soil. When it comes to produce, minimizing impact is less about choosing between foods and more about buying based on the way that food was grown. Conventionally grown produce 'very likely is using pesticides, fertilizer, and maybe more water because the soil isn't healthy,' said Purdy. Purdy said organic labels, such as Regenerative Organic Certified, indicate those foods had a smaller climate impact when they were grown. The tradeoff is that organic food has a lower yield, so it requires more land use and is often more expensive. Local and 'in season' foods also have a smaller climate impact, but not just for one of the reasons you may be thinking of: emissions from international shipping. Every day, thousands of large ships transport goods, including produce, around the world, and the fuel they use is heavily polluting. However, 'it's mostly those local emissions on trucks that are actually impactful, not the international shipping emissions,' Springmann said. Also, food grown nearby tends to be grown in a way that fits with the local climate and is less harmful to the environment. 'We're not trying to grow oranges in some place in a greenhouse,' Purdy said. Plants win out over animals, again. Vegetable oils are less impactful than butter or lard. Springmann also said tropical oils are healthiest in moderation, such as those from coconuts or palms, because they have a higher fat content. Plus, palm oil is associated with deforestation. As for nut butters, almonds might be a great option for limiting carbon emissions, but they require a lot of water. One study out of Tulane University found that a serving of peanuts has an emissions footprint similar to almonds but 30% less impact on water use. Throwing less food away might sound obvious, but roughly a third of food grown in the U.S. is wasted. Meal planning, freezing leftovers and checking the fridge before heading to the grocery store all help cut waste. 'The climate impact, the embedded water use, all of the labor and different aspects that went into producing that food, that all gets wasted if we don't eat it,' Nicole Tichenor Blackstone, a professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Peanuts or almonds? Rice or millet? Planet-friendly grocery shopping choices go beyond cutting meat
It's one of the most impactful climate decisions we make, and we make it multiple times a day. The U.N. estimates about a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the main driver of climate change, come from food. That pollution can come from several links in the food supply chain: how farmland is treated, how crops are grown, how food is processed and how it's ultimately transported. Maybe you've already heard the short answer to minimizing your diet's impact on the planet: eat more plants and fewer animals. The data backs up that suggestion. Emissions from meat-rich diets are four times higher than that of vegan diets. But so much focus on meats overshadows many other food choices that also impact the environment and can contribute to global warming. Here is a look at other important grocery store decisions: Proteins Swapping one serving of chicken per day for beef cuts a diet's emissions nearly in half. Ruminant animals such as cows, sheep and goats are the top drivers of emissions. Those animals "are associated not only with nitrous oxide emissions, but they're also related to direct methane emissions because they burp them up while they digest food,' said Marco Springmann, professorial research fellow in climate change, food systems and health at University College London. Springmann said processed animal products have a higher impact on the planet, too: 'You need 10 times the amount of milk to make one unit of cheese.' So — and this is true of most food groups — the less processed the food, the smaller the environmental impact. Plant-based proteins like legumes, beans and nuts all boast a much lower climate impact. Grains The standout here is rice, and not in a good way. 'Rice uses a ton of water. It uses gobs of fertilizer. There's flooded rice paddy fields, and that water actually breeds all kinds of bacteria, and those bacteria produce methane gas,' said eco-dietitian nutritionist Mary Purdy. Purdy said the most planet-friendly alternative is just eating a bunch of different grains. 'The wheat, corn and soy world is very, very familiar to us because we've been seeing it. It's been heavily marketed. When was the last time you saw a commercial for millet or buckwheat?" she asked. Diverse diets, Purdy said, incentivize biodiverse agriculture, which is more resilient to erratic weather — a hallmark of climate change — and makes healthier soil. Fruits and vegetables When it comes to produce, minimizing impact is less about choosing between foods and more about buying based on the way that food was grown. Conventionally grown produce 'very likely is using pesticides, fertilizer, and maybe more water because the soil isn't healthy,' said Purdy. Purdy said organic labels, such as Regenerative Organic Certified, indicate those foods had a smaller climate impact when they were grown. The tradeoff is that organic food has a lower yield, so it requires more land use and is often more expensive. Local and 'in season' foods also have a smaller climate impact, but not just for one of the reasons you may be thinking of: emissions from international shipping. Every day, thousands of large ships transport goods, including produce, around the world, and the fuel they use is heavily polluting. However, "it's mostly those local emissions on trucks that are actually impactful, not the international shipping emissions," Springmann said. Also, food grown nearby tends to be grown in a way that fits with the local climate and is less harmful to the environment. "We're not trying to grow oranges in some place in a greenhouse,' Purdy said. Butter and oil Plants win out over animals, again. Vegetable oils are less impactful than butter or lard. Springmann also said tropical oils are healthiest in moderation, such as those from coconuts or palms, because they have a higher fat content. Plus, palm oil is associated with deforestation. As for nut butters, almonds might be a great option for limiting carbon emissions, but they require a lot of water. One study out of Tulane University found that a serving of peanuts has an emissions footprint similar to almonds but 30% less impact on water use. Don't waste food Throwing less food away might sound obvious, but roughly a third of food grown in the U.S. is wasted. Meal planning, freezing leftovers and checking the fridge before heading to the grocery store all help cut waste. 'The climate impact, the embedded water use, all of the labor and different aspects that went into producing that food, that all gets wasted if we don't eat it,' Blackstone said. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
8 hours ago
Peanuts or almonds? Rice or millet? Planet-friendly grocery picks beyond nixing meat
It's one of the most impactful climate decisions we make, and we make it multiple times a day. The U.N. estimates about a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the main driver of climate change, come from food. That pollution can come from several links in the food supply chain: how farmland is treated, how crops are grown, how food is processed and how it's ultimately transported. Maybe you've already heard the short answer to minimizing your diet's impact on the planet: eat more plants and fewer animals. The data backs up that suggestion. Emissions from meat-rich diets are four times higher than that of vegan diets. But so much focus on meats overshadows many other food choices that also impact the environment and can contribute to global warming. Here is a look at other important grocery store decisions: Swapping one serving of chicken per day for beef cuts a diet's emissions nearly in half. Ruminant animals such as cows, sheep and goats are the top drivers of emissions. Those animals "are associated not only with nitrous oxide emissions, but they're also related to direct methane emissions because they burp them up while they digest food,' said Marco Springmann, professorial research fellow in climate change, food systems and health at University College London. Springmann said processed animal products have a higher impact on the planet, too: 'You need 10 times the amount of milk to make one unit of cheese.' So — and this is true of most food groups — the less processed the food, the smaller the environmental impact. Plant-based proteins like legumes, beans and nuts all boast a much lower climate impact. The standout here is rice, and not in a good way. 'Rice uses a ton of water. It uses gobs of fertilizer. There's flooded rice paddy fields, and that water actually breeds all kinds of bacteria, and those bacteria produce methane gas,' said eco-dietitian nutritionist Mary Purdy. Purdy said the most planet-friendly alternative is just eating a bunch of different grains. 'The wheat, corn and soy world is very, very familiar to us because we've been seeing it. It's been heavily marketed. When was the last time you saw a commercial for millet or buckwheat?" she asked. Diverse diets, Purdy said, incentivize biodiverse agriculture, which is more resilient to erratic weather — a hallmark of climate change — and makes healthier soil. When it comes to produce, minimizing impact is less about choosing between foods and more about buying based on the way that food was grown. Conventionally grown produce 'very likely is using pesticides, fertilizer, and maybe more water because the soil isn't healthy,' said Purdy. Purdy said organic labels, such as Regenerative Organic Certified, indicate those foods had a smaller climate impact when they were grown. The tradeoff is that organic food has a lower yield, so it requires more land use and is often more expensive. Local and 'in season' foods also have a smaller climate impact, but not just for one of the reasons you may be thinking of: emissions from international shipping. Every day, thousands of large ships transport goods, including produce, around the world, and the fuel they use is heavily polluting. However, "it's mostly those local emissions on trucks that are actually impactful, not the international shipping emissions," Springmann said. Also, food grown nearby tends to be grown in a way that fits with the local climate and is less harmful to the environment. "We're not trying to grow oranges in some place in a greenhouse,' Purdy said. Plants win out over animals, again. Vegetable oils are less impactful than butter or lard. Springmann also said tropical oils are healthiest in moderation, such as those from coconuts or palms, because they have a higher fat content. Plus, palm oil is associated with deforestation. As for nut butters, almonds might be a great option for limiting carbon emissions, but they require a lot of water. One study out of Tulane University found that a serving of peanuts has an emissions footprint similar to almonds but 30% less impact on water use. Throwing less food away might sound obvious, but roughly a third of food grown in the U.S. is wasted. Meal planning, freezing leftovers and checking the fridge before heading to the grocery store all help cut waste. 'The climate impact, the embedded water use, all of the labor and different aspects that went into producing that food, that all gets wasted if we don't eat it,' Blackstone said. ___
