Stephen Buckley, an archaeologist and analytical chemist at the University of York, explored ancient Egyptian mummification practices through a series of experiments. His work raises questions about how the brain was removed from the skull during the mummification process. Buckley and his colleagues examined the traditional view that a long hook inserted through the nose was used to extract the brain piece by piece, challenging the notion with experimental evidence.
In their studies, Buckley and team simulated mummification techniques on sheep to test the practicality of extracting brain tissue via the nasal passage. The results suggested that manually pulling the brain out with a hook could be difficult and time consuming. The researchers proposed an alternate possibility: that early embalmers might have liquefied brain tissue before its removal, a method that would ease extraction. The team demonstrated a technique that involved beating and liquefying brain tissue to facilitate removal, a process that could explain certain archaeological findings more plausibly than the traditional hook method.
Historically, ancient Egyptians understood that removing internal organs helped slow the onset of decay, though the precise practices varied. Some corpses were staged with organs placed in canopic jars, while other organs were treated and stored differently as part of the mummification rite. The investigation noted that even among well-preserved mummies, brain material is sometimes found intact. Notable examples include the remains associated with high-status individuals, such as Pharaoh Amenhotep and members of his court, where brain preservation has been observed in some cases.
These insights contribute to a broader discussion about ancient Egyptian funerary science. They highlight how modern experimentation can illuminate past techniques while also acknowledging the limits of reconstruction from fossilized remains. The ongoing dialogue between archaeologists and chemists emphasizes the importance of employing controlled methods to test long-held assumptions about ancient practices, always with careful attention to the archaeological record and the potential for alternative explanations. Researchers present their findings with careful qualifier language and attribution to the original sources, inviting further study and cross-disciplinary collaboration to enrich our understanding of mummification rituals. [Citation: Buckley, University of York; peer-reviewed discussions in archaeochemistry and Egyptology literature]