Examinations of a baby boy mummy

I think it’s about time we introduce you to a special occupant of the Artifact Lab.

This baby boy mummy, who dates to the Third Intermediate Period (1075-656 BCE), has been in our collection since 1898, when he was donated to the museum by Dr. Henry Shurtleff.

Photograph of the baby boy mummy from the museum Archives

Photograph of the baby boy mummy ca. 1930

In the University’s 1898-1899 Annual Report of the Provost to the Board of Trustees, it states that Dr. Shurtleff presented the infant mummy to the museum on Christmas Day, as an “admirably preserved specimen and an interesting pathological subject”.

It seems that this mummy came into the collection unwrapped – he only has small amounts of textile preserved on his body (and there is currently no evidence that the cloth partially covering his body in the image above is related to his remains, but this remains to be determined). While the fact that he is unwrapped is unfortunate, it allows us to see how well preserved his remains are and evidence of how his body was mummified, including evisceration through an incision on the left side of his torso.

The open incision on the left side of his body reveals a mostly empty body cavity, containing small bundles of linen.

The open incision on the left side of his body reveals a mostly empty body cavity, containing small bundles of linen.

A CT scan in 2009 further reveals how this boy’s body was mummified, and also reveals damage not visible from the exterior. For example, it is clear that his brain was removed, likely through the nose (but due to the small side of his nasal bones it is not possible to see evidence of this). The scan also reveals a large hole in the left lower side of his skull, and the piece of missing bone resting inside his skull.

Two CT still images show the child mummy's skull with a piece of bone resting inside the cranium (left) and the hole on the lower left side (right).

Two CT still images show the child mummy’s skull with a piece of bone resting inside the cranium (left) and the hole created as a result of this loss (right).

Oddly, this damage to his skull is not visible from the exterior, but it may be the result of trauma. His cause of death has still not been determined, but this damage may provide a clue.

The information from the CT scan tells us that this child was less than 2 years of age when he died, based on the fact that his fontanelle (the soft spot) is still open, and also on the development of his teeth.

The open fontanelle on the top of the baby's head is indicated in these 2 images with blue arrows.

The open fontanelle on the top of the baby’s head is indicated in these 2 images with blue arrows.

The excellent preservation of his body is not the only remarkable thing about this baby boy. While examining his remains, we noticed traces of a green substance in areas, including on his face and fingers.

A detail of the green substance under the boy's right eye (left) and an overall view of the boy's face, highlighting the locations of the green substance in green (right)

Left: A detail of the green substance under the boy’s right eye. Right: An overall view of the boy’s face, highlighting the locations of the green substance in a brighter green color.

This substance resembles copper corrosion, and it may either be corrosion from copper that was once in contact with his body (during burial), or may be traces of a green copper-based pigment. How do we know this green substance is copper-based? We tested it with our portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer, which showed high peaks for copper in these areas.

While we’re still working to interpret some of this information, I can tell you one thing for certain: this baby boy mummy sure is special. And if you visit the lab, you just might catch a glimpse of him.

 

Losing it and faking it: investigations into our animal mummies

Hello! I’m Anna O’Neill, a summer intern working in the Conservation Department at the Penn Museum. I’m currently studying to get my MSc in Conservation Practice from Cardiff University in Wales. This summer, I’ve been helping Molly in the Artifact Lab a few days a week and she asked me to write a little bit about one of my projects.

The Egyptians often made votive animal mummies—small, mass-produced animal mummies that pilgrims could offer to the gods. Cats were especially popular as they represented Bastet, the cat-headed goddess of protection, fertility and motherhood. The Penn Museum has several cat mummies in their collection. A few are below:

cat mummiesWe recently started working on E16205, a cat mummy from Abydos (seen below in the image on the left). It was excavated in 1901-02 through the Egypt Exploration Fund through financial support of the Penn Museum, and dates to ca. 381-343 BCE. The linen wrappings are in bad shape—loose, torn and powdery—but that is the least of its problems. After a light cleaning, it became clear that something was missing.

overhead and vertebraAs you can see in the image on the upper right, the linen is damaged and there is a bone exposed at one end of the cat mummy. Zooarchaeologist and Penn professor Dr. Kate Moore confirmed that it’s a cervical vertebra visible at the narrower end of the wrappings.

Dr. Kate Moore examines the exposed cat mummy bone

Dr. Kate Moore examines the exposed cat mummy bone

Animal mummies occasionally lose their heads, as the neck is the weakest point of attachment to the body. Back in March, Molly wrote about our falcon mummy’s floppy head.

In the hope that maybe the head had simply been misplaced, we sent an email to Egyptian Section curator Jen Wegner. A few hours later, Jen turned up in the Artifact lab, smiling and toting a small, tissue-wrapped package. Inside was this little beauty:

Cat head 3quarterIt is evident that this head does not match our cat mummy’s body. The colors and weaves of the linen are different, and the head has carefully articulated features while the body is rather haphazardly wrapped. But the main difference is that there doesn’t appear to be any cat parts within the sculpted wrappings! Inside, the mask contains bundles of linen and resin, but no bones that we could see. A quick look at the records for the head showed that it was X-radiographed in the 1980s and contains “no bony skull”. It is a fake—but an ancient one!

Cat head above below

Additional views of the cat mummy head from above (left) and below (right)

Faking mummies, particularly animal mummies, was not uncommon in ancient Egypt. The materials to make a mummy, like myrrh and natron, were costly. Instead of embalming, the expense could go towards elaborate wrapping and detailing. Once the linen was in place, a religious pilgrim wouldn’t know whether or not there was an actual mummy inside. Several other Penn Museum animal mummies were X-radiographed along with the false head, and it turned out that the middle cat mummy in the image at the very top of this post doesn’t contain any skeletal matter, either. A clue is in the shape of its body—it is wide at the top and narrow at the feet, upside-down in comparison to the real cats.

So, were the mummy-makers pulling the, ahem, linen, over devotees’ eyes?  It is unclear whether the pilgrims knew that the votive mummies they offered to the gods were impostors, and nor do we know if it mattered. The qualities represented by the animal sacrificed may have been more important than its physical body. This way, a fake mummy representing the “idea” of a cat was an equally valid gift as the mummy of a real cat.

We’re disappointed that we can’t reunite our cat mummy body with its head, but Molly and I are going to work to stabilize the wrappings so that it can be CT-scanned and studied. In the meantime, it’s been interesting to see which of the Penn Museum’s votive mummies are real and which are (ancient) fakes.

 

Unwrapping mummies?

If there is one thing that I try to emphasize to visitors to the Artifact Lab, it is that we are NOT unwrapping or cutting open mummies. While this type of examination may have been appropriate and acceptable in the past (think PUM I) we don’t do this anymore. As you may gather from the title of this blog and our project, we are focusing on the conservation of our mummies, and we do this by aiming to use non-invasive and reversible examination and treatment techniques as much as possible. Our ability to carry out our work with much less interventive procedures than those used in the past is due in part to advances in technology. And when you see what is possible with new technology, you can see why autopsying mummies just doesn’t, errr…cut it.

Take, for example, one of our mummies that was CT-scanned back in 2009.

Hapi-Men on display in the Secrets and Science exhibit

Hapi-Men on display in the Secrets and Science exhibit (Hapi-Puppy is by his feet!)

As part of a larger CT-scanning project funded by the National Science Foundation, Hapi-Men, along with his puppy (Hapi-Puppy) was CT-scanned at the Department of Radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) (a special thanks to Felicia Williams and Erica Durham for this work!).

Although Hapi-Men had been x-rayed in the past, this type of examination is limited in that it does not provide much detail of any of the preserved soft tissue and other materials (like amulets) included in the mummy’s wrappings. But CT-scans can help reveal these details, and they also allow for 3D reconstructions, like the one you can see below, created by Penn graduate Samantha Cox under the supervision of Dr. Janet Monge.

CT-scanning, combined with other imaging techniques such as photogrammetry and laser scanning, leads to some pretty amazing virtual representations of mummies. Most recently, such work has been carried out in a collaborative effort between The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities in Stockholm, a group of Swedish visualization researchers, FARO (a 3D technology company) and Autodesk (a software company focusing on 3D design). This collaboration has resulted not only in the capture of new information for researchers, but the creation of an interactive exhibition for museum visitors, scheduled to open in Stockholm in February 2014. The interactive part of the exhibit, created using Inside Explorer will allow both museum staff and visitors to use simple gestures to virtually unwrap the mummies and to explore their multiple burial components.

You can read more about this exciting project, and see several images and videos of the process by following this link.

Our current work to conserve the mummies and funerary items In the Artifact Lab will stabilize some of these fragile objects enough to allow us to CT-scan them, and hopefully so that we can create some of our very own interactive exhibition features in the future.

 

The “conservation story” of Nefrina’s Funerary Mask, Part 1: Condition

Now that Nefrina is on display, I thought it might be helpful to discuss the condition of the mask as well as the treatment it underwent in 2011. Just as a bit of background, the mask has been in the Penn Museum’s collection since 1893 and was recently on display at the Reading Public Museum in Reading, PA.  Below you can see the mask before treatment.

nefrina image 1When the mask arrived to the conservation lab in 2011, it was a return visit. In 1993, the mask was stabilized for in-house photography, but this treatment did not address the many structural and surface issues that really needed to be taken care of before the mask could travel to Reading or be displayed.

As was mentioned in the previous posting about Nefrina’s funerary mask, it is made of cartonnage which is a composite material consisting of layers of linen and papyrus impregnated with glue that has been covered with plaster and painted. This type of material is prone to damage because of the differences in properties of the layers: the linen is flexible and the paint and gesso layers are rigid and brittle. As a result, when the mask is moved or stored unsupported the textile will bend causing damage to the gesso and paint layers.

The damage that the mask had sustained is highlighted in these condition maps, prepared during examination prior to the 2011 conservation treatment:

nefrina image 2nefrina image 3As you can see the cracking and loss to the paint is worse on the sides; this is likely because prior to 1993 the mask had no storage mount and probably rested flat on its back with the face pointing up. This position would have allowed the linen to flex and bend on the sides causing the paint to crack and detach from the surface. Areas on the front and back of the mask were also distorted and dented, also likely as a result of lack of proper support.

In addition to these surface issues, the mask also had tears and losses to the linen support. The tears and losses were temporarily stabilized in 1993 with the addition of internal patches made of spun bonded polyester lightly tacked in place with an adhesive. Again, these details are highlighted in the condition map below:

nefrina image 4The goals of the treatment in 2011 were to stabilize and realign the tears, compensate structural losses, and stabilize cracks, which will be discussed in an upcoming post.

- posted by Tessa De Alarcon

 

Elephant and giraffe hair? No problem!

There are many reasons why I love working at the Penn Museum, and this is one of them: just the other day, I was casually talking to some colleagues during a break, and mentioned that I’d love to get my hands on some elephant and giraffe hair to use as a reference to compare to some of the material included in our Predynastic mummy Bruce‘s bundle.

“What’s that you say?” quipped Egyptian Section Curator Dr. Jen Wegner. “Why it just so happens that we have a drawer with some elephant and giraffe hair down in storage!”. After working here for 9 months, this should come as no surprise to me. And what a delight – just the next day I ran down to storage and brought this drawer of goodies up to the lab.

Contents of the drawer, containing bits of elephant and giraffe hide, with the hair intact.

Contents of the drawer, containing bits of elephant and giraffe skins, with the hair intact

In addition to the animal skins, this drawer also contains a small woven basket, made of either elephant or giraffe hair and dating to the early 18th Dynasty, according to it’s catalog card.

Overall view of the small basket made of elephant or giraffe hair

Overall view of the small basket made of elephant or giraffe hair

These materials will be useful to compare to the animal skins and the basket that we have documented in Bruce’s bundle. We will provide updates as we learn more about our Predynastic mummy and the materials he was buried with.

 

From the Archives

The Penn Museum Archives is an incredible resource for us here at the museum.

A view into the Penn Museum Archives

A view into the Penn Museum Archives

When we begin working on objects in the conservation lab, we carry out preliminary research, which often includes searching for related materials in the Archives. Among the materials we may be interested in are archaeological field notes, letters between curators and archaeologists or collectors about the acquisition of specific artifacts, and old photographs.

Recently, Senior Archivist Alex Pezzati scanned some images for me, including this one, a shot of the Egyptian “Mummy Gallery” in 1935.

31011_mummyroom_1935_compressed

I was excited to see some of the artifacts we’re working on in the Artifact Lab right now in this photo. Can you pick some of them out? In the image below I’ve circled some of them in red.

The objects circled in red above are either being worked on in the Artifact lab or are on display in our accompanying exhibit

The objects circled in red above are either being worked on in the Artifact lab or are on display in our accompanying exhibit

These old exhibition photographs can be extremely valuable to conservators. Not only does this particular image tell us that certain artifacts were definitely on display, and when (which may not be recorded elsewhere), but it also shows us how they were displayed. In some cases, seeing the way that artifacts were previously displayed may help to explain damage, such as excessive fading on one side or adhesive residues left behind by an old mount. We can often make good guesses about this type of damage, but it’s always nice to have some proof!

What particularly excited me about this photograph is that it shows the coffin of Tawahibre in the gallery. We are currently working on this coffin in the lab, but it is still too fragile to separate the lid from the base to allow for examination of both pieces individually.

The coffin of Tawahibre in the Artifact Lab.

The coffin of Tawahibre in the Artifact Lab.

Just recently, Curator Dr. Jen Wegner was up in the lab and we were discussing the coffin and some of my observations, and she wondered out loud if the back had any text written on it. I had wondered the same thing myself but I knew that until we carried out further work, we wouldn’t be able to know.

BUT, since this 1935 photograph shows both the lid and the base of the coffin on display, we don’t have to wait any longer!

The lid and the base of Tawahibre's coffin, side by side in the Mummy Gallery in 1935.

The lid and the base of Tawahibre’s coffin, side by side in the Mummy Gallery in 1935.

As you can see in the above image, there is writing on the back! Now only if we could just hasten the conservation treatment so we can examine it for ourselves…

Another thing that is useful about this image is that is shows that much of the damage we’re seeing on the coffin today was present in 1935. This includes both major structural damage and extensive paint loss in areas. It is likely that the coffin came into our collection with this damage, which is somehow reassuring to me. I will also note this in my documentation.

Tawahibre's coffin in 1935 (left) and today (right). Much of the major damage we see today had already occurred by 1935. To highlight this, I've circled some of the damaged areas in red in both images.

Tawahibre’s coffin in 1935 (left) and today (right). Much of the major damage we see today had already occurred by 1935. To highlight this, I’ve circled some of the damaged areas in red in both images.

We continue to plug away on the treatment of the coffin and we are hoping to soon reach the point where we can separate the lid. I will provide an update shortly about some of the more recent work we have been carrying out on this artifact!

 

 

New discoveries

When “In the Artifact Lab: Conservation of Egyptian Mummies” was envisioned, we knew that there were a lot of unknowns – the idea was that this would be a working lab, so we would be carrying out much of the work that normally goes on behind-the-scenes to prepare objects for exhibition, in full public view. Many of the artifacts selected for examination and conservation in the lab had not been examined very closely for a long time. What we did know is that we needed to do a whole lot more research, documentation, and conservation on these pieces before they would be ready for display.

We're not just trying to look good-we're actually working!

We’re not just trying to look good-we’re actually working!

Anyone who has been following this blog knows that we have made several discoveries about some of these artifacts – the discovery of the fact that our mummy PUM I had a beaded shroud, for instance. Another artifact, or assemblage of artifacts actually, that we knew we’d be learning much more about is the outer coffin of Ahanakht.

One of the boards from Ahanakht's outer coffin, showing the side covered with columns of Hieratic inscriptions.

One of the boards from Ahanakht’s outer coffin, showing the side covered with columns of Hieratic inscriptions.

We currently have 15 pieces (all dissembled) from this coffin up in the Artifact Lab, and 2 more are on exhibit. We also have Ahanakht’s inner coffin, which is assembled and on exhibit here on the 3rd floor of the museum as well.

Ahanakht's inner coffin on exhibit in the museum

Ahanakht’s inner coffin on exhibit in the museum

Previously on this blog we posted some photos of some of the smaller “coffin boards” – or at least, that’s what we thought they were. There are 4 of these smaller boards and they were acquired with the other pieces of the outer and inner coffins. They are made of the same wood, have similar bands of hieroglyphs on one side, and have similar construction methods as the larger boards.

3 smaller pieces previously thought to be part of the outer coffin

3 smaller pieces previously thought to be part of the outer coffin

These boards haven’t required extensive conservation – so other than some examination and very minor treatment, most of the work on them so far has been curatorial.

Curator Dr. David Silverman has been working with Penn graduate student Leah Humphrey to transcribe and translate all of the inscribed text on the coffin boards. Dr. Silverman has determined from the text on 3 of the smaller boards that they are actually a part of a canopic box, not a coffin. These wooden containers usually were square in shape and held 4 jars, each of which had one of the 4 mummified parts of the deceased: the lungs, liver, stomach, and intestines. The 4th small board, however, remains problematic since its dimensions make it clear that it does not belong to either of the 2 coffins of Ahanakht. In addition, its size and the nature of the text inscribed on it, make it also clear that it is not part of the canopic box. Its text indicates that it is part of yet another coffin.

Examination of one of the canopic box pieces and the "mystery" board underway

Examination of one of the canopic box pieces and the “mystery” board underway

Research progresses in the hopes that we can figure out where/what the 4th mystery piece is from. This particular project is a good example of how “In the Artifact Lab” is an exciting and sometimes perplexing work-in-progress.

 

A step a- “head”: improving storage for our mummified heads

As I mentioned previously, we have several mummified heads in the Artifact Lab. Luckily, all of them are stable and do not require much in the way of conservation treatment – instead we have focused on examination, documentation, and some light surface cleaning, and in one case, the removal of an old exhibit armature.

We have a lot of things going on at the moment, so thankfully, I’ve gotten some help with this work. A couple weeks ago we had a group of 5 undergraduate art conservation students from the University of Delaware in the lab – they spent the month of January interning in our department on a project focused on documenting and cleaning a group of Arctic boats in storage.

Ellen Nigro and Rebecca Selig condition reporting a kayak

They wrapped up that project a day early, and so on the last day of their internship, they got to work on something totally different – and several of them elected to help condition report one of the heads.

Rebecca Cruz, Emily Cummins, and David Brickhouse examining a mummified head

After fully documenting the heads and carrying out any necessary treatment, our main goal is to construct new storage mounts for these remains. Our Egyptian storage areas are fairly packed with artifacts, and because of this, many things are stored in a way that makes them hard to access or see without a lot of handling.

An example of artifacts wrapped nicely in acid-free tissue in a drawer – unfortunately, there is a lot of handling required to see these objects

New storage supports will improve access and provide better protection for these remains. Our plan is to make handling trays for the heads, which can then be housed within custom-made boxes.

An example of a handling tray, made using acid-free corrugated board and Volara polyethylene foam

I’m getting some help with this as well – Artifact Lab intern Melissa Miller has been working on the first tray and box.

Melissa working on creating a custom-made box for one of the heads

We will be sure to post photos once we’ve completed them!

 

Don’t just DO SOMETHING, SIT THERE!

Artifact Lab Conservator Molly Gleeson, just sitting there (with laptop)

by Lynn Grant
Last month, Artifact Lab Conservator Molly Gleeson was talking about her experiences being the public face (and hands, and body) of Conservation at the Penn Museum to PACA, a group of Philadelphia Area conservators. She said that one of the occasionally difficult things about work in the ‘fishbowl’ is that visitors expect to see her “doing something” (ie., interacting directly with the mummies or other artifacts in the lab) and she worries about disappointing them when she’s just sitting at the computer or thinking quietly. I’ve noticed the same thing on my stints in the Artifact Lab (although Molly is the Main Attraction, the other Penn Museum conservators all spend time in the lab when Molly’s off).

Assistant Conservator Nina Owczarek, hard at work on the Artifact Lab computer, as seen through the glass enclosure.


But In the Artifact Lab: Conserving Egyptian Mummies isn’t meant as performance art; we want to give our visitors a real look at how conservation happens and that includes the fact that we don’t spend 100% of our time actually laying hands on ancient artifacts. Before a conservator does touch any object she’s working on, she’ll spend a lot of time:
Examining the object carefully to see how is was made, how it was used, what’s happened to it over time, what needs fixing and (as importantly) what doesn’t.
Writing up her findings. Conservators document everything we see, think, or do with regards to an object. This is essential for various reasons: other researchers may be interested in our observations; if the treatment doesn’t go as planned, knowing what was done will make it possible to undo; if the treatment is a success, knowing what was done makes it possible to apply the same knowledge to other objects. I often find that this process really helps clarify treatment issues in my own mind.
Researching the artifact’s past and conservation research and treatments on other, similar artifacts. If you look at the books, blue binders in the seating corner of the Artifact Lab space or at some of these sites shown on the right sidebar, you’ll see examples of the kinds of resources we use every day. The Internet is a wonderful tool, as well. There are many online resources for conservators, especially a series of discussion groups where conservators all over the world pool their information about materials, treatment options, experience, etc.

And the ‘sitting time’ doesn’t end there. With a whole host of options for treatment at her fingertips, the conservators needs to spend time just thinking through all the possible results and repercussions of her active treatments. Many of the treatments carried out by conservators are not that difficult or complex (rolling a cotton swab across a surface isn’t rocket science) but the decision-making process behind choosing the treatment is why we need to spend years preparing to get into conservation training, years in that training, and continuing to learn every day of our working lives.

Conservators Julie Lawson (left) and Nina Owczarek, with intern Naomi Shohami (foreground) consulting over a laptop in the Artifact Lab.


So
• if you see the Artifact Lab conservator at the computer, she is probably still doing conservation. She could be: documenting her work; consulting other experts; researching web resources; writing a blog post(!); or even answering a question on our blog. Got a question? Post it here.
• If you see her talking to someone, she is probably still doing conservation. She could be: seeking advice or information from a colleague; teaching an intern; communicating a cool new finding; or asking them to contribute a blog post.
• If you see her just sitting or standing looking into thin air, she is probably still doing conservation. She could be: thinking about treatment options; deciding to consult a resource; considering the results of a recent treatment; or planning a blog post.

Of course, she could also be checking her Facebook page; calling a friend; making plans for lunch; or even just taking a rest because conservators are real people too and, even in the Artifact Lab, no-one is ‘on’ 100% of the time!

More about those beads

Hello fellow readers! My name is Melissa Miller and I am pleased to say I recently began interning in the Artifact Lab here at the Penn Museum. I am currently a junior at the University of Delaware studying art conservation and anthropology. Needless to say when I heard about the In the Artifact Lab project, I jumped at the opportunity to help out in any way I could. Who wouldn’t love the opportunity to work with 4,000 year old human remains and funerary objects?

Melissa working at the binocular microscope, as viewed from outside of the lab

So far I have spent my first two weeks here doing everything from making support cushions for PUM I’s chest wrappings to making impressions of scarab beetle amulets. Currently, I am examining the beads Molly and the other conservators found in PUM I’s coffin and remains. There are two kinds; tubular and circular. Molly also pointed out to me several areas on the leg and face wrappings of PUM I where there are distinctive impressions of beads in a diamond shaped pattern. This has led us to believe that PUM I had a beaded shroud! Beaded shrouds became popular in the 25th dynasty and continued until the Roman period, and both men and women have been found with these decorations.

Being buried with a beaded shroud would have been very expensive due to cost of materials and labor, and imitations were sometimes made by painting the diamond pattern on the mummy or with a net of knotted string. It is evident, however, that PUM I had a real beaded shroud, which indicates that he was probably wealthy in his lifetime. This surprised me because PUM I is in pretty poor condition and his coffin (which admittedly may not be his original burial case) has little to no decoration.

Three tubular beads recovered from the bottom of PUM I’s coffin

The beads themselves, especially the tubular beads, are encrusted with some mysterious substances and soil particulates. On some of the larger tubular beads, there is a white crystalline substance on the exterior – likely salt. Were it not for small sections on the tubular beads without this encrustation it would be difficult to see the material underneath. The material below is glassy and dark blue in color. This leads me to think that they are made of Egyptian faience, which is defined as a glazed, non-clay ceramic. To me that means that faience is a sort of cross between ceramic and glass technology. The smaller beads also appear to be faience, but in different colors, including this red bead:

As seen in the image above, some of the beads also have a granular, slightly waxy, light-dark brown substance on their surfaces-this mysterious substance is also present in some areas on the surface of PUM I’s wrappings. It can be removed rather easily from the beads, especially with the help of some mineral spirits, and as you can see it tends to come off in substantial chunks.

There are at least a few possible scenarios that would explain its presence.

1) It could have been a part of the technology of the time to adhere the beads to the mummy. In fact, there is 1 circular bead adhered/stuck to the surface of PUM I’s wrappings, which we found after some initial cleaning! However, it seems to be stuck on in kind of a strange location, and we are finding that it was more common to sew or tie these beaded shrouds in place.

A red circular bead stuck to the linen on the side of PUM I’s chest

2)  It could be the remains of a wax or other adhesive method that was known to be used by Petrie, and likely other archaeologists, to fix the beads in place during excavation and recovery. As was usually the case, their original thread had long since disintegrated, so this method would allow the beads to be removed from the mummy in one piece, without losing their organization. To compare, we examined some beads in storage that are stuck together with wax-they were most likely acquired this way.

Beads stuck together with wax – note the dark, shiny appearance of the wax, quite different from what we’re seeing on PUM I’s beads.

3) The substance may be related to a material intentionally applied to the mummy at the time of mummification.

4) The substance accumulated sometime after burial.

As of right now I am not sure what this substance is and what purpose it may have served, but Molly and I will be investigating the beads and this mystery further. I will keep you updated as we learn more!