Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:24:49.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who's That Lying in My Coffin? An Imposter Exposed by 14C Dating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Karin Sowada ,
Geraldine E Jacobsen ,
Fiona Bertuch ,
Tim Palmer  and
Andrew Jenkinson
Karin Sowada*
Affiliation:
Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Geraldine E Jacobsen
Affiliation:
Institute for Environmental Research, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, NSW, Australia.
Fiona Bertuch
Affiliation:
Institute for Environmental Research, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, NSW, Australia.
Tim Palmer
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, NSW, Australia.
Andrew Jenkinson
Affiliation:
Institute for Environmental Research, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, NSW, Australia.
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, many museums acquired Egyptian coffins containing mummies from private donors who bought them from dealers in Egypt. Owing to the unknown context of such acquisitions, it cannot be assumed that the mummified individual inside the coffin is the same person named on it. Radiocarbon dating is a key diagnostic test, within the framework of a multidisciplinary study, to help resolve this question. The dating of an adult mummy in the Nicholson Museum at the University of Sydney was therefore checked using 14C dating. For over 150 yr, mummy NM R28.2 was identified as Padiashaikhet as per his coffin, dated to the 25th Dynasty, about 725–700 BC. 14C results from samples of linen wrappings revealed that the mummy was an unknown individual from the Roman period, cal AD 68–129. The mummification technique can now be understood within its correct historical context.

Type
Archaeology
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , 2011 , pp. 221 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © The American Journal of Science 

References

Aufderheide, A. 2003. The Scientific Study of Mummies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beinlich-Seeber, C. 2006. Painted judgement scene on wood, R344. In: Sowada, KN, Ockinga, BG, editors. Egyptian Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. p 27–43.Google Scholar
Bonomi, J. 1858. Egyptian and other Antiquities collected by Sir Charles Nicholson, D.C.L., LL.D. &c &c. London: Reynolds and Co.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockburn, A, Barraco, RA, Reyman, TA, Peck, WH. 1975. Autopsy of an Egyptian mummy. Science 187(4182):1155–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damon, PE, Donahue, DJ, Gore, BH, Hatheway, AL, Jull, AJT, Linick, TW, Sercel, PJ, Toolin, LJ, Bronk, CR, Hall, ET, Hedges, REM, Housley, R, Law, IA, Perry, C, Bonani, G, Trumbore, S, Woelfli, W, Ambers, JC, Bowman, SGE, Leese, MN, Tite, MS. 1989. Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature 337(6208):611–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, R, editor. 2008. Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, WR, Gray, PHK. 1968. Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum I. Mummies and Human Remains. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dee, MW, Brock, F, Harris, SA, Bronk Ramsey, C, Shortland, AJ, Higham, TFG, Rowland, JM. 2010. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(4):687–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filer, J. 1997. If the face fits: a comparison of mummies and the accompanying portraits using computerised axial tomography. In: Bierbrier, ML, editor. Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press. p 121–6.Google Scholar
Fink, D, Hotchkis, M, Hua, Q, Jacobsen, G, Smith, AM, Zoppi, U, Child, D, Mifsud, C, van der Gaast, H, Williams, A, Williams, M. 2004. The ANTARES AMS facility at ANSTO. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:109–15.Google Scholar
Gove, HE. 1990. Dating the Turin Shroud—an assessment. Radiocarbon 32(1):87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gove, HE, Mattingly, SJ, David, AR, Garza-Valdes, LA. 1997. A problematic source of organic contamination of linen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1–4)3:504–7.Google Scholar
Graefe, E. 1997. A mummy portrait of Antinous from Thebes. In: Bierbrier, ML, editor. Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press. p 54.Google Scholar
Hatté, C, Morvan, J, Noury, C, Paterne, M. 2001. Is classical acid-alkali-acid treatment responsible for contamination? An alternative proposition. Radiocarbon 43(2A):177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, KC, Newton, GWA. 1979. Radiocarbon dating. In: David, AR, editor. Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains. Manchester: Manchester Museum. p 137–47.Google Scholar
Housley, RA, Srdoč, D, Horvatinčić, N. 1989. AMS and radiometric dating of an Etruscan linen book and associated mummy. Radiocarbon 31(3):970–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hua, Q, Barbetti, M, Jacobsen, GE, Zoppi, U, Lawson, EM. 2000. Bomb radiocarbon in annual tree rings from Thailand and Australia. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):359–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hua, Q, Jacobsen, GE, Zoppi, U, Lawson, EM, Williams, AA, Smith, AM, McGann, MJ. 2001. Progress in radiocarbon target preparation at the ANTARES AMS Centre. Radiocarbon 43(2A):275–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikram, S, Dodson, A. 1998. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt. Equipping the Dead for Eternity. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Kieser, J, Dennison, J, Anson, D, Doyle, T, Laing, R. 2004. Spiral computed tomographic study of a pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian mummy. Anthropological Science 112(1):91–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, EA, Broecker, WS. 1958. Sample contamination and reliability of radiocarbon dates. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences Series II 20:593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Edwards, RL, Friedrich, M, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Hajdas, I, Heaton, TJ, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, McCormac, FG, Manning, SW, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Southon, JR, Talamo, S, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4):1111–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowada, KN. 2006. Sir Charles Nicholson: an early scholar-traveller in Egypt. In: Sowada, KN, Ockinga, BG, editors. Egyptian Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. p 1–13.Google Scholar
Sowada, KN, Matheson, C, Spigelman, A, Spigelman, M. 2005. An interloper revealed: DNA analysis and the identification of an Egyptian mummy. Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 16:101–16.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. 2002. The decoration of the coffin and other inscriptions. In: Dawson, DP, Giles, S, Ponsford, MW, editors. Horemkenesi May He Live Forever! The Bristol Mummy Project. Bristol: Bristol Museums and Art Gallery. p 38–54.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, A. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. 2006. The coffin of Padiashaikhet. In: Sowada, KN, Ockinga, BG, editors. Egyptian Art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. p 263–91.Google Scholar
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 2000. Textiles. In: Nicholson, PT, Shaw, I, editors. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 268–98.Google Scholar