Tag: Expertise

“Nothing New” is “Really Bad”

In their impressive compilation of Assyrian and Babylonian medical fragments JoAnn Scurlock and Burton R. Andersen remark about the āšipu: “like intellectuals everywhere, it was not possible for him to approach a medical problem without bringing to it a bit of preconceived theory.”[1] Their observation holds true for modern intellectuals (in this case, a psychologist and a psychiatrist) just as it did for the magico-medical āšipu, as the recent “Nothing New under the Sun: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders in the Ancient World” demonstrates. When I tweeted about this article a few days ago, I assumed it was another attempt to foist our comfortable diagnostic categories onto the past.

My skeptical tweet about this article.
My skeptical tweet about this article.

Although efforts to retrodiagnose diseases have a long pedigree, they remain fraught with difficulties.[2] Historians of medicine have argued that such efforts are fundamentally flawed, mistaking ontological categories and distorting evidence for modern purposes.[3] Along with such theoretical challenges, attempts to identify in past descriptions of symptoms our modern diseases run into the problem of evidence: the historical record is often too fragmentary and ambiguous and imprecise to justify such identification. Or rather, any number of diagnoses are plausible given the vague and patchy descriptions of illnesses in the past. These difficulties, however, seem to be no impediment for the determined “scissors-and-paste” researcher armed with a pair of sharp Metzenbaums and ready to excise choice quotations in an effort to demonstrate the timeless truths of our current knowledge.

In some ways, “Nothing New Under the Sun” confirmed my suspicions; in other ways it surpassed my wildest fears. The authors brought their preconceived theory to bear on six Assyrian medical fragments and discovered exactly what they sought: PTSD.[4] Where the article broke new ground, however, was its scholarship: the deeply problematic footnotes and the misleading interpretation of what other scholars had written. I checked the two sources readily available to me—A. Leo Oppenheim’s Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1977) and JoAnn Scurlock and Burton R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (Urbana, 2005)—and found a number of problems. I appreciate that these are significant charges, so I offer below a catalog of the issues I consider problematic. If my interpretation of these examples is wrong, please correct me.[5]

On page 551, the authors stake their claim that “Mesopotamian sources mention earlier cases of Post-Traumatic Stress” and refer to the cuneiform texts:

Almost half a million cuneiform tablets written by the ancient Iraqis from that time until the birth of Christ have been discovered to date.[footnote 9: Jean Bottéro, Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Edinburgh, 2001), 90] Several hundred of these tablets comprise medical texts, mainly consisting of handbooks and collections of prescriptions.[footnote 10: A. Leo Oppenheim’s Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1977), 294]

Page 294 Oppenheim’s Ancient Mesopotamia makes no reference to cuneiform texts, per se.

Page 294 of Oppenheim doesn’t say anything about cuneiform texts or how many might deal with medicine.
Page 294 of Oppenheim doesn’t say anything about cuneiform texts or how many might deal with medicine.

The last part of the paragraph, highlighted above, however, is a quotation from page 289 in Oppenheim’s book, though the authors never cite 289. There Oppenheim refers to the types of medical texts but not the number:

Our knowledge of the nature and the extent of Mesopotamian medicine is based on medical texts, consisting of handbooks and collections of prescriptions, supplemented by letters, references in the law codes, and allusions in literary texts.

Back to “Nothing New,” on page 552 we read:

The Ancient Mesopotamians believed that many diseases were punishments from the God(s) because of the patients’ sins or shortcomings.[footnote 13 here adds some information about Mesopotamian dynasties, not the claim just made.[6]] Leo Oppenheim suggested that the Gods, in their turn, allowed demons or ghosts of dead people to attack the sick person. The treatment of disease was holistic and usually involved a combination of religious-magical and pharmacological treatments. The cuneiform tablets discovered from the era suggest the presence of the two different professions that were necessary in order to perform diagnosis and treatment.[footnote 14: Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 294]

While it is unclear to me where or if Oppenheim supports any of these claims, it is clear that page 294 does not corroborate them.

On page 554, the authors assert that trauma was commonplace in Mesopotamia, and that most of our medical texts on trauma concern war wounds:

More specifically, trauma was also commonplace in Iraq’s ancient civilizations. This involved not only traumata associated with daily life, industry and farming, but also traumata associated with warfare. Ašipu seemed to be working with armies, particularly in the Assyrian period (between 1300–609 BC). The majority of cuneiform medical texts on trauma were concerned with war wounds.[footnote 29: Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 345.]

Their source here, Scurlock and Andersen, do mention trauma and warfare on page 345 of their book, where they say: “The armies of Assyrian kings contemporary with the bulk of the surviving medical texts were protected by shields, ….” In other words, most of our medical texts come from a period when armies had shields, helmets, and suits of armor. It seems a rather significant misreading to say “the majority of cuneiform medical texts on trauma were concerned with war wounds.” Maybe there is another source that backs up the claim made in “Nothing New,” but the page cited in Scurlock and Andersen doesn’t.

Page 345 in Scurlock and Andersen doesn’t seem to say what “Nothing New” thinks it does.
Page 345 in Scurlock and Andersen doesn’t seem to say what “Nothing New” thinks it does.

Further down the same page, “Nothing New” refers to the frequency of wars during the Assyrian period:

However, because of the frequent wars during the Assyrian period, the male population of the kingdom was exposed to significant trauma associated with the battles being fought in every third year during their military service. It was this engagement in regular fighting (which the military would describe nowadays as being high “op-tempo”[footnote 33: C.A. Castro and A.B. Adler, “OPTEMPO: Effects on Soldier and Unit Readiness,” Parameters (Autumn 1999), 86–95.]) that was probably the main cause of post-traumatic stress disorders.[footnote 34: Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 438]

The causal, “because of the frequent wars during the Assyrian period,” is again a rather significant misreading (over interpretation grounded in a preconceived theory?) of Scurlock and Andersen, who qualify their interpretation in two ways, saying: “in periods when [my emphasis] wars were frequent, a significant portion of the male population was subjected to the stress of battle in one campaign season out of every three” and “…it is likely that a portion of these draftees [my emphasis] experienced battle fatigue (post-traumatic stress syndrome)” (438).

Turning now to the evidence itself, the authors of “Nothing New” write:

Scurlock and Andersen mention three cases which they found in the series of diagnostic and prognostics.[footnote 35: Ibid. [Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses], 351. See René Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et prognostics médicaux (Leiden, 1951).] They describe post-traumatic stress disorders as mental health manifestations of severe mental and/or physical (traumatic) stress that does not usually cause the death of the patient:[footnote 36: Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 351.]
14.34 “If his words are unintelligible for three days […][footnote 37: Square brackets denote broken entries or texts (Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses,
576).] his mouth [F…] and he experiences wandering about for three days in a row F…1.”
14.35 “He experiences wandering about (for three) consecutive (days)”; this means: “he experiences alteration of mentation (for three) consecu- tive (days).”
14.36 “If his words are unintelligible and depression keeps falling on him at regular intervals (and he has been sick) for three days F…]”

The text cited in footnote 36, Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 351, does discuss post-traumatic stress syndrome, but qualifies it saying the “quotes below may [my emphasis] be describing this syndrome [PTSD].” The careful qualification has been lost in “Nothing New.” Further, the highlighted section above is a word-for-word quotation without quotation marks.

Note 37 is wrong. The explanation of square brackets on page 576 refers to the tables that follow, not the translations of the texts. Square brackets and ellipsis in the translations are explained on page xvi: “An ellipsis in square brackets indicates a missing section of text whose restoration is uncertain” (Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, xvi). These unrestored parts of the translation further highlight the fragmentary nature of the texts.[7]

Moving on, “Nothing New” asserts:

They furthermore list the following symptoms associated particularly with post- traumatic stress disorders as a result of military operations (military casualties):[footnote 38: Ibid. [Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses], 429–430.]
19.32 “If in the evening, he sees either a living person or a dead person or someone known to him or someone not known to him or anybody or anything and becomes afraid; he turns around but, like one who has [been hexed with?] rancid oil, his mouth is seized so that he is unable to cry out to one who sleeps next to him, ‘hand’ of ghost (var. hand of […]).”[footnote 39: Hands of Gods or hand of ghosts are seen by the Mesopotamians as a cause of illness; see Pangas, “La mano.”]
19.33 “[If ] his mentation is altered so that he is not in full possession of his faculties, ‘hand’ of a roving ghost; he will die.”
19.34 “If his mentation is altered, forgetfulness(?) (and) his words hinder each other in his mouth, a roaming ghost afflicts him. (If) […], he will get well.”

Pages 429–430 cited in note 38 say nothing about PTSD or military operations. Instead, there is a rich discussion about ancient efforts to name disease patterns. The reference in note 39 may or may not be accurate, but it does not apply to the quotation, which is on Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 438. The other two quotations, which receive no reference, are from Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 439. In their zeal to find PTSD, the authors of “Nothing New” seem to over interpret these quotations. Scurlock and Andersen group these three quotations in a section on ghosts, though they do say that some of these symptoms “are compatible with this stress syndrome [PTSD].” When Scurlock and Andersen offer a modern diagnosis, however, they are more cautious: attributing 19.32 to “nightmare,” 19.33 to “mental status change,” and offering no diagnosis for 19.34.[8] When the authors of “Nothing New” gesture to ghosts, their citation is again wrong:

It looks as if, in the case of military casualties, the responsible ghosts were usually assumed by the treating ašipu to be the ghosts of the enemies whom the patient had killed during military operations.[footnote 41: Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 429.]

Page 429 of Scurlock and Andersen’s Diagnoses mentions ghosts among gods, goddesses, demons, demonesses, and demonic forces, e.g., curses and sorcery, but nothing about the ghosts of killed enemies. In fact, warfare and enemies are absent from that page, and the following one.

After checking a third of the notes in “Nothing New,” I am suffering from Post-Traumatic Article Disorder, which prevents me from finding the other scholarship cited and checking the references to it. Of the sixteen notes I was able to check, nine are wrong or problematic (another three or four are worrisome, but not egregious). I don’t want to impute malfeasance to the authors of “Nothing New.” I will, however, deplore the scholarship that doesn’t rise to the level I would demand of an undergraduate. If my reading of this article and its notes is accurate, I cannot understand how or why a history of science journal accepted and published it.


  1. JoAnn Scurlock and Burton R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (2005), 429.  ↩

  2. I have worried about those difficulties in the past, see Retro-Diagnosing Fictional Plagues and Paleopathology and Retrodiagnosis. To be fair, some efforts to analyze past diseases are really interesting and produce interesting information, whether or not it helps us understand the past or deal with the present.  ↩

  3. See, for example, Charles Rosenberg “Disease in History: Frame and Frames” in C. Rosenberg and J. Golden, Framing Disease (1989), 1–16 or Andrew Cunningham’s “Transforming Plague: The Laboratory and the Identity of Infectious Disease” in A. Cunningham and P. Williams, The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge, 1992), 209–44 or Roger French et al., The Great Pox<Yale, 1997>.  ↩

  4. The title is, I suspect unintentionally, funny. In addition to its claim that PTSD is “Nothing New,” “Nothing New” also describes the contents of the article, which extracts from Scurlock and Andersen’s volume the three fragments that they, Scurlock and Andersen, already group under the heading “Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome” and suggest “may be describing this syndrome” (351).  ↩

  5. The authors bear the bulk of the responsibility for the sloppy scholarship. It worries me that nobody else bothered checking the notes more carefully.  ↩

  6. The author’s claims about disease being punishments for sins seems to be at odds with what JoAnn Scurlock argued in Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illness in Ancient Mesopotamia (Leiden, 2005), at least according to Scott Noegel’s review of that book in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, where he writes:

    Perhaps the most important contribution of these volumes is that they offer a healthy corrective to many long-held assumptions concerning the Mesopotamian medical profession. For example, they illustrate that disease was only rarely viewed as a punishment for personal action (A, pp. 73–74)—indeed, “sin” (especially in the Christian sense), is a concept that would have been wholly foreign to ancient Mesopotamians.  ↩

  7. The authors of “Nothing New” are probably not responsible for the wonky formatting in these quotations, e.g., [F…] and F…1, but they should have checked the page proofs more carefully. They are, however, probably responsible for the missing half brackets ( and )19.32 and 19.33  ↩

  8. The latter portion of the book includes tables relating ancient diagnoses to modern for the many quotations. For 19.32 see Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 643, #83–85; for 19.33 see Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 651, #47a; for 19.34 see Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 651, #53–54.  ↩

Martin Rundkvist’s Enlightenment Project

The following is essentially a guest post by Martin Rundkvist. He is responding to my comments a few days ago about “Scientific Progress and the History of Science,” which was a response to his “Historians of Science Need to Know Current Science.” Dr. Rundkvist was polite and invited me to respond to his comments. Although I have not yet had time to think through his comments and to respond, I did not want to delay any longer posting his reply. In the next day or so I will collect and post my thoughts (I have now posted my thoughts. See “Resigning from the Enlightenment Project”).

I am a participant in the Enlightenment project. Based on the evidence I see around me, I believe that science (in the wider German sense of Wissenschaft) adds cumulatively to our knowledge about the world, past and present.

For instance, I believe that Darin Hayton’s work to date on Renaissance astrology means that we have better, more extensive, more detailed, more accurate knowledge about Renaissance astrology than if he had not performed that work. Dr. Hayton has not just produced more text or additional contingent perspectives on his subject. He has investigated it in a scholarly rigorous manner, illuminating a part of the world that we might want to know about. He has made certain interpretations of the subject impossible in the future by showing them to be factually incorrect. Willingly or not, he too participates in Enlightenment.

In fact (and I know that many scholars in aesthetic disciplines wouldn’t agree here) it is my opinion that a scholar or discipline that doesn’t add to cumulative knowledge like Dr. Hayton does should not be funded.

I agree with Dr. Hayton that his discipline should investigate scientific debates of the past in a fair and historically contextualised manner. That is the central part of the job. But in my field (prehistoric archaeology) we still routinely enter into dialogue with the writings of 19th century colleagues. I see the debates that Dr. Hayton studies as a still on-going concern. Therefore I think there is a second important part of his job: to put the investigated debates into the context of how they were later resolved – or not. It needn’t take more than a sentence or two:

  • “By the 1930s, this debate had been resolved in Newton’s favour thanks to the discovery of XXX (Smith 1938, pp. 123–124)”, or
  • “Though the terminology has changed, this issue has still not been settled, over 300 years later (Smith 2013, pp. 123–124)”, or
  • “The discovery in the 1960s of XXX laid this debate to rest as scientists abandoned the assumptions that propelled it (Smith 1975, pp. 123–124)”.

My field of study is abstruse and is followed by few outside academe, and I trust that Dr. Hayton would agree that his field is similar to mine in this sense. I submit that neither of us can afford to alienate large groups of potential interested readers. In Dr. Hayton’s case, I’m thinking of scientists such as myself, working in a cumulative Enlightenment framework today. I care a lot about the history of science. But I do not enjoy the suggestion that my generation of scholars knows as little about our part of the world as our predecessors did in 1750. And I would also object strongly to anyone who said that historians of science know as little today as they did in 1750.

UPDATE: See Resigning from the Enlightenment Project for my response.

Scientific Progress and the History of Science

In “Historians of Science Need to Know Current Science” Martin Rundkvist rants about those annoying “knowledge relativist historian[s] of science.” Those degenerates are ignorant and lazy, and mock the hard intellectual work and real accomplishments of science. They are also hypocritical. They don’t really believe all that relativist claptrap.

Rundkvist wants, instead, a history of science that begins and ends in today’s scientific concerns. He wants histories that trace issues scientists are still debating, and he wants those histories to judge people in the past by the criteria, evidence, and standards scientists know today to be true, “because we have learned so much since then.” Rundkvist doesn’t want history. He wants triumphalist genealogy.

Rundkvist has every right to prefer one genre over another, but let’s be clear that what he is asking for is not history in any rigorous sense. Like other disciplines, history is grounded in evidence, a subset of possibly relevant phenomena. Possibly relevant phenomena include artifacts of all sorts from the past, inter alia: letters, diaries and notebooks, texts (published or not), paintings and drawings, instruments, buildings, gardens, fountains. Historians need to be able to justify why they have privileged some artifacts and dismissed others. Historians also need to be able to justify the meaning they ascribe to that evidence.

Here is where Rundkvist (and like-minded consumers of history of science) and historians part ways. Rundkvist assumes that “scientific debates” exist outside of time. Or rather, whatever scientific debates mean today is what they have always meant. Such an assumption can only be justified by ignoring numerous artifacts that don’t fit neatly into our current worldview. It takes very little effort to show that most historical actors were not (and could not have been) concerned in the least with our worldview. It takes only marginally more effort to show that today’s science differs in profound ways from natural philosophy, that historical activity we often call “science” (the same holds true for most specific activities: astronomy today is not the same as astronomy in 1500 because the people involved understood their activity in different terms and intended it to answer different questions — the research program has changed).

Rundkvist’s position is analogous to contemporary scientists today ignoring uncomfortable evidence and other aberrant data that doesn’t support the conclusions they intend to demonstrate. Such a position is intellectually parochial and conservative. It is antithetical to the intellectual rigor and the habits of mind (that “scientific method” bantered about so casually) that scientists like to claim for themselves and on which they build their castles of intellectual and moral superiority (see, for example, Steven Pinker’s recent essay).

History of science should not be a tool to bolster today’s ideologies. Instead, it can give us the tools to examine those ideologies, cf. Peter Broks comments about science communication and Peter Dear’s argument about the purpose of the history of science (behind paywall). The history of science does not serve some triumphalist genealogy. If that makes some readers uncomfortable or annoys them, so be it.

History Beyond the Walls of the Academy

As Adrian Bingham points out in his recent post, Is anyone listening? History and public policy, historians have not been terribly successful in contributing their expertise to debates beyond the walls of the academy. The recent overhaul of the history curriculum in England illustrates this point, as do the new science curriculum standards in the U.S. that trivialize history of science. The problem reciprocal: On the one hand, for various, sometimes defensible reasons, the “real world” doesn’t often seek the opinions of academic historians (I doubt the situation differs much in other humanities disciplines). Widely held prejudices discourage the public from seeking academic input. On the other hand, academics don’t seem all that interested in talking to the “real world.” I suspect strong cultural forces within the academy dissuade academic historians from public engagement.[1]

Bingham is a senior editor at History & Policy, which seeks to connect historians, policy makers, and journalists. They hope to demonstrate the relevance of history to contemporary policy and to get people to listen:

Too often policy reflects unexamined historical assumptions and clichés. History is incorrectly assumed to be less relevant to current policy than the social and natural sciences. At best, policy without history fails to learn past lessons and, at worst, repeats past mistakes. Given the opportunity, historians can shed light on the causes of current problems – and suggest innovative solutions. History & Policy is committed to overcoming a reluctance among some policy makers to ‘let historians in’.

While there are two historians of medicine among the founding members and senior editors at History & Policy, I don’t see any historians of science listed (historians of science might have contributed articles to History & Policy, I haven’t yet had the time to look). Surely historians of science could participate in such an endeavor and have something important to add—think about Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book, Merchants of Doubt. I am convinced that historians of science have something meaningful to contribute to broader discussions. History matters for more than just the skills it teaches students. History matters because it is a political activity that people used to justify current policy choices and guide future decisions (a point I’ve tried to make before).


  1. For various reasons, faculty in the sciences do not seem to suffer the same fate. Neither does the public disregard their input, at least not to the same degree, nor do they seem as hesitant to speak to the public.  ↩

Scientists Prove that Herodotus Lied

Flushed with their success in proving when the Iliad was written, scientists have now proven that Herodotus’s Histories do not necessarily reflect universal practices and timeless truths. A pair of anthropologists recently compared Herodotus’s account of Egyptian embalming practices to some scholarly descriptions of and a handful of their own CT scans of surviving mummies. They found that Herodotus’s account, written sometime in the mid-fifth century BC, doesn’t to reflect mummification practices over the course of three millennia stretching from the Old Kingdom to the Roman period. They conclude, therefore, that Herodotus’s account of Egyptian practices was neither accurate nor adequately representative of what really happened. Classicists and historians everywhere are sleeping easier now that science has confirmed their centuries-old conclusions grounded in nothing more than historical analyses.

In “Radiological Evaluation of the Evisceration Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Mummies” (behind Elsevier’s ubiquitous paywall, but the abstract should be free) A. D. Wade and A. J. Nelson offer what seem to be new findings about Egyptian mummies, such as which organs were removed, which were replaced into the body, and who was mummified and how.[1] These findings, in turn, raise some interesting questions, some of which the authors tentatively answer. For example, the authors found that over nearly three millennia Egyptian embalmers commonly removed the same set of internal organs—lungs, liver, stomach, and intestines. They speculate that these organs were removed because their physiological functions would have been clear “even to the anatomically gifted but physiologically challenged knowledge of the Egyptian embalmer.” Although they do admit that this explanation doesn’t work so well for the liver.[2]

What I don’t understand is why the authors cast their work as a corrective to Herodotus.[3] On the one hand, since antiquity scholars have questioned Herodotus’s veracity and accuracy and have pointed out his errors and lies. In his scathing critique, Of Herodotus’s Malice, Plutarch accused Herodotus of the worst kinds of deception: lies dressed up in elegant prose and engaging style that will attract readers. On the other hand, Herodotus was a traveler, a tourist, a collector of strange oddities. As Wade himself remarked to Live Science, many of Herodotus’s “accounts sound more like tourist stories.” Historians and Classicists have long considered Herodotus a collector and teller of stories. Yes, Cicero anointed him the “Father of History,” but his history did not conform to our modernist standards of factual veracity and accuracy. So then, who is responsible for creating Herodotus’s “normative descriptions … [that] impede the investigation of a wide range of variation in Egyptian mummification techniques” that bother Wade and Nelson? And what benefit is there in demonstrating that Herodotus’s report of embalming practices in the 5th century was neither accurate nor adequately representative of embalming practices centuries earlier or centuries later?

Maybe Herodotus didn’t get it wrong. Maybe modern scientists got Herodotus wrong. After all, Herodotus couldn’t have been writing for 21st-century scientists, speaking to their intellectual concerns and interests in terms that they understand. So maybe modern anthropologists and scientists have misunderstood what Herodotus was doing when he wrote his Histories. They should not assume that they can treat Herodotus’s text as an unproblematic source out of which they can fish particular terms and then impose their meaning onto those terms.

And maybe Herodotus got it right. In his account Herodotus distinguishes between embalming and wrapping the body in linen, i.e., mummification. He seems to have been most interested in embalming practices, not mummification. In his Histories, he describes three methods of embalming. In his Histories, book 2, ch. 86 he recounts the most expensive method:

(86) There are men whose sole business this is and who have this special craft. When a dead body is brought to them, they show those who brought it wooden models of corpses, painted likenesses; the most perfect way of embalming belongs, they say, to One whose name it would be impious for me to mention in treating such a matter; the second way, which they show, is less perfect than the first, and cheaper; and the third is the least costly of all. Having shown these, they ask those who brought the body in which way they desire to have it prepared. Having agreed on a price, the bearers go away, and the workmen, left alone in their place, embalm the body. If they do this in the most perfect way, they first draw out part of the brain through the nostrils with an iron hook, and inject certain drugs into the rest. Then, making a cut near the flank with a sharp knife of Ethiopian stone, they take out all the intestines, and clean the belly, rinsing it with palm wine and bruised spices; they sew it up again after filling the belly with pure ground myrrh and casia and any other spices, except frankincense. After doing this, they conceal the body for seventy days, embalmed in saltpetre; no longer time is allowed for the embalming; and when the seventy days have passed, they wash the body and wrap the whole of it in bandages of fine linen cloth, anointed with gum, which the Egyptians mostly use instead of glue; then they give the dead man back to his friends. These make a hollow wooden figure like a man, in which they enclose the corpse, shut it up, and keep it safe in a coffin-chamber, placed erect against a wall.

Families who paid for the most expensive method received an embalmed and wrapped body. Families that opted for the cheaper method or the cheapest method received correspondingly fewer services. Rather than remove the organs, the embalmers dissolved them using oils and then returned the bodies without wrapping them in any way.

Herodotus leaves out a few useful and important pieces of information.

  1. He doesn’t tell us what happened to the unwrapped bodies after they were returned to the families. Perhaps the families wrapped them in linen, perhaps they didn’t. We can only guess.
  2. Herodotus also doesn’t tell us how many people opted for each of the methods, so we have no way of knowing what sort of distribution we should expect. Once again, we can only guess.
  3. He also doesn’t give us any idea about how long these methods had been used. And he couldn’t see the future, so he couldn’t tell us how long they would continue to be practiced. We can only guess.

We should now be able to “formulate a hypothesis that can be empirically tested.” If the account by Herodotus is correct, then evisceration by abdominal incision should be found in some portion of Late Period mummies. Let’s turn now to the authors’ data and test this hypothesis. Table 1 selects out the Late Period mummies from Table 1 in the article.

Table 1
(compiled from the article)
Examples of evisceration in Late Period Egyptian mummies.[4]
Status Total Eviscerated Per anum Perineal Abdominal
Elite 10 10 1 1 7
Common 5 5 0 0 5
Unknown 10 9 0 0 6
Total 25 24 1 1 18

24 of 25 mummies showed signs of evisceration. 18 of those were through an abdominal incision. Those numbers, 96% and 72% respectively, seem to agree pretty well with what we would expect if Herodotus’s story is accurate and adequately representative of 5th-century practices: some mummies show signs of abdominal incision and evisceration, some don’t. The hypothesis constructed from the stereotyped account by Herodotus is confirmed by the data. And if the data wasn’t sufficiently convincing, as further proof I offer The Historyteachers’ video Mummification.

Despite framing the article as a correction to Herodotus, neither the authors nor the journal editors nor even the reviewers seem to have thought to consult a classicist or historian. Consequently, we get a rather simplistic straw-man argument that adds nothing to but overwhelms their real contributions about mummification practices. The authors and journal editors missed a chance to contribute to an interdisciplinary discussion about how we understand the past and how we can use scientific techniques to refine and extend our understanding of that past.


  1. A.D. Wade and A.J. Nelson, “Radiological evaluation of the evisceration tradition in ancient Egyptian mummies”
    HOMO – Journal of Comparative Human Biology 64(2013): 1–28 — http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchb.2012.11.005.  ↩

  2. Rather than assume Egyptian embalmers had some impoverished and incomplete knowledge of modern physiology, a more fruitful approach might be to ask: “What function did these organs play in Egyptian medicine?” Perhaps Egyptian humoral medicine assigned these organs important functions—later humoral medicine associated the lungs with phlegm and the liver with blood.  ↩

  3. The authors also refer to Diodorus Siculus, and both Plutarch and Porphyry receive a few mentions. But their main target seems to be Herodotus’s “normative descriptions”—excluding citations, they mention Herodotus 12 times, i.e., 41.3% of the total references to classical authors. By contrast, they mention Diodorus 7 times, or 24.1% of the references (Porphyry and Plutarch garner only 5 (17.2%) and 4 (13.8%) references each).
    When Live Science first reported on the article, they cast it as a corrective to Herodotus. Scientific American’s 2,400-Year-Old Myths of Mummy-Making Busted, CNBC, and others merely reproduced the Live Science.  ↩

  4. Two notes about the data in this table:
    First, the socio-economic status indicated needs further justification. The authors rely on B.J. Kemp’s distinction, which he developed in studying the Old and Middle Kingdoms and the Second Intermediate Period, roughly 1,100 years before Herodotus wrote. It would be nice to see the authors justify the applicability of these categories, which they treat as static and timeless.
    See B.J. Kemp, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686–1552 BC” in
    B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O’Connor, A.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1983), pp. 71–182.
    Second, whether or not Herodotus would not have recognized the distinction between “per anum” and “perineal” is an open question. And if he recognized it, we still don’t know if he would have bothered to make that distinction in his Histories.  ↩