Talk:Mummy/Archive 1

modern mummies

I once heard a Cambridge professor say that in the colonial period an indigenous person from somewhere or another was 'taxidermed' and put on display in a colonial museum/exhibit. Does anybody have any leads on this? 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC) R.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.177.137 (talk)

Tarim mummies

I tried doing this myself, but I was terrible at putting this together, so I'll suggest so someone can do it. I think there should be a reference to the Tarim mummies in this article. They are mummies of caucasoid origin, found in northwestern China that are as old or older than the Egyptian mummies, which makes them very interesting! Besides, the simple fact that they were a people of european origin found to have lived in chine around 5000 years ago by itself is very curious. Sorry for being unable to do this, and thanks in advance for the help. - Comment added byThereallarkas on 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

forged mummy

Under deliberately embalmed mummies. There is a sentence that says the following: The body of a Persian fart which surfaced in 2001 in Pakistan turned out to have been forged.

I think we should take that sentence out because it is irrelevant in the topic of that section. It just gives trivia rather than fact here is a poll:

take it out --Sp0 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic images

Given how images of human remains who died in contemporary times would not be displayed on wiki. Why is it alright for explicit photos to be displayed on the page (as opposed to inside of links)? It can be very upsetting to see humans that condition.

Yes, they are displayed as museum artifacts, but they are usually placed in divided sections to isolate those who do not wish to see such things.

Should all graphic photos of actual mummies be held on links rather than directly displayed on page?

Roswell Crash Survivor 09:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my youth in Chicago, the 1960s, I used to frequent the Field Museum, and the mummies there were a special attraction. Disturbing and fascinating.

Upon visiting the place in the later 1970s, I was susprised to find the human mummies missing. I believe that this was due to rising sensativity towards other cultures. The idea was probably: You wouldn't put a dead caucasian American on display, so why should it permissible to do so with dead Latin Americans, Asians and Africans.

But last time I went there, circa 2000, the mummies were back. There may be an interesting story here.WHPratt (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy April Fool - or not?

Reference for the steam locomotive fuel myth....

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020222.html

I heard one a lecture once - granted, the lecturer is known for practial jokes - that they were used for steam *ship* fuel, and also exported to Victorian England not to museums but to higher class as trinkets etc. Can anybody verify - or disprove this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how about a thing for mumification process

Ok..I guess I was wrong about the fuel...but Caput Mortem is correct. http://www.universityart.com/news102.htm

Thank you rs3

Motivations

Can we have more about why they did it?

I have come up with this silly idea (and i am definitely not an authority on the subject) that they weren't actually doing it so that "gods" could resurrect them in the future, but simply preserving them with the best preservation they knew how,in the hopes that future humans would have the technology to repair them and bring them back to life, like modern day cryonics. pictograms because of dead languages, etc. Inspired by talk like this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0711_020711_yuccaspikes.html http://downlode.org/etext/wipp/

Like I said, it's a silly idea. Does anyone professional promulgate this sort of stuff though? It should be in the article if they do... - Omegatron 03:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I am a student in high school. I added some information from my research paper. Thanks!

Works Cited

Egyptian Belief in the Afterlife-Coffins-Mummy Masks.18 Nov. 2004 <http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptafterlife.html>.

David, Rosalie, and Rick Archbold. Conservation With Mummies: New Light on the Lives of Ancient Egyptians. New York: William Morrow, 2000.

Hart, George. Ancient Egypt: Discover the Nile Valley Civilizations from the Riches of the Pharaoh’s Court to the Daily Life of Priests and Workers. New York: Dorling

Kindersley Publishing, Inc., 2000.

Lassieur, Allison. Lost Civilizations: The Ancient Egyptians. San Diego: Lucent Books, 2001.

Mackenzie, Donald A. Egyptian Myths and Legends. New York: Gramercy Books, 1980.

Netzley, Patricia D. The Greenhaven Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

Putnam, James. Mummy: Discover the Eternal Secrets of Mummies from the Embalmed Dead of the Ancient Egypt to Bodies Preserved in Bogs, Sand, and Ice. New York: Dorling Kindersley Publishing, Inc., 1993.

My edits

What do you think?

Undead mummies

Mummies, as reanimated corpses, play an important role in many horror fiction tales, videogames, movies, etc. Would it be prudent to make a separate article, Mummy_(undead), or should we put it on this page? --Fourthgeek 07:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Mummification

The Egyptians thought the brain was a waste of space and may not have been burried with the body. (http://www.angelfire.com/wi/egypt/mummy2.html) Shouldn't this be mentioned? The Egyptians ones the body was dead they put some kind of liquid for kiping the body fromuncomposing and then they but some kind of towel.The piramid were made for the farons body also queens prince and princesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.65.24 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summum

Recently added section on Summum seems spammy to me. Anon editor has dropped a lot of links all over. Anyone else agree that this either needs to be edited down and reworded or removed as nonnotable self-promotion? DreamGuy 06:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what good it is doing here. It's not much more than an ad. Rien Post (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that this section seems out of place, especially since it is titled "commercial mummification" but only makes mention of the Summum practices. It seems fishy to me, and is a deterrent to getting this article back in good standing. I believe it should be improved with more verifiable information about other commercial practices, as well as having some of the current information pruned. If that cannot be done, then I agree it should be removed altogether. Saint Soren (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed it. I've brought it up to WP:FTN due to the statement "Nowell founded Summum following an experience he describes as an encounter with highly intelligent beings". Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally made an edit to merge a pruned-down and cleaned-up mention of the Summum practices with the section on "Modern mummies" to remove the seemingly extraneous mentions of the organization. I did find that it is important as the only "commercial mummification business", but since there is already an article dedicated to Summum I do not feel it needs its own dedicated section. Please correct this if I am wrong. I know I have been making a lot of clean-up edits, but this is a subject I love and am very concerned about its demotion from good article status! Saint Soren (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin?

Vladimir Lenin is one of the most famous modern mummies. He is a political icon and, in my opinion, should be included under "Other" famous mummies. Any suggestion on where else to put it?

My fault, sorry. Yes it should be included. I just overlooked what it was listed under. I have reverted it to include the link. --Kf4bdy 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of "Lumpers",working on the subject

You all seem to be compulsive "lumpers". There are two discreet subjects here... at least. Natural Mummies, and more important...historically, Egyptian Mummies. You gloss over the millions of Egyptian mummies that were prepared, some with great art works associated with them. Mummies were prepared in Egypt for about 2500 years. There were many variations of style and circumstances in 2500 years. Everybody wasn't a Pharaoh. Give us Art History folks a chance to cover our area.Nativeborncal 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be reserved to a description of the physical mummy, that is, the preserved body. It is true that some art pieces associated with Egyptian mummies such as sarcoghagi, death masks, and burial amulets are incredible works, but we should keep things focussed on the mummy itself. As I'm sure you are very knowledgeable in art history, consider developing the Art of Ancient Egypt article where any information on art associated with Egyptian mummies would be fitting.--tut 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaloi mummy (philippines)

May I suggest to the author of this section to create an entirely new article about these mummies and include just a brief summary in this article as its focus is mainly mummies in general. The content of your addition is very interesting, however I believe that much of it should be moved to an entirely separate article. --tut 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastination

Is it worth including a link to plastination somewhere in the article, as a sort of reference to "modern mummification"? GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Why has the etymology section been removed? --Grumpy444grumpy 16:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.225.39.237 Made three edits. The first was a minor punctuation change, the second removed the section, and the third corrected the punctuation change. If you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mummy&diff=44550461&oldid=44542543 you will see the result of the three changes. If all someone did was look at the most recent change, it they would see the correction to the punctuation error. This was either an amazing coincidence of errors, or a rather clever vandal. I'm willing to be open minded about it, but I have my own opinions. Regardless, I'm restoring it. If it was removed for a good reason, please remove it again. --Straif 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European Mummies

I'm working to fix links to the disambiguation page "Indo-European".

Under the Chinese mummy section, there is a reference to Indo-European mummies. Since the only other mummies in the article are Egyptian (Afro-Coptic language), Tibetan, Japanese, and South American, I can't see why they are referred to as Indo-European, and if they should be, how to make the link more direct. Dpv 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving preservation for aesthetic reasons?

I'm not sure that it's correct to say that the Egyptians began to 'clean up' the mummification process because naturally preserved corpses weren't aesthetically pleasing. Where did this fact come from?

Chinese Mummies

The part about Xin Zhui is mainly the same that appears here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/25/content_368631.htm

In 1971, at the height of the cold war, workers digging an air raid shelter near the city...(to)...and an overlyrich diet were as much a health problem in ancient times as they are today. is the same as in the mentioned article...question is who copied it from whom?

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious intro

I've cut this text:

After the fall of the Egyptian empire, the Christians soon dominated along with the Arabs. Most mummies that were collected by the Arabs were used as pagan symbols, while the Christians cast aside the bodies. The Arabs, who learned of Ancient Egyptian enchantment, saw the mummies as tools of magic and medicinal purposes. Used as medicine, the mummy powder or mummy oil was to be applied externally or taken internally. These false superstitions lead to many thousands of mummies to be destroyed. The Europeans imported mummies by the ton, and collected oils from boiled mummy bodies. This oil, which was skimmed off the top of the water, was used to stop bruising and was used to cure a variety of disorders. Many of the monarchs relied upon it. Although used as medicinal purposes by Europeans and Arabs, the Americans used the linen for paper -- the material used in wrapping the mummy. The cholera epidemic broke our soon after and it was seemingly reported that the paper was the cause. Production was halted.

from the article, as it is not written in an encyclopaedic style, is un=wikilinked, and apparently has no supporting citations. If the original author objects, could he or she provide properly referenced citations for the staements made? WLD 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity

From The Straight Dope:

First, Egyptian mummies really were--and are--available by the truckload. Originally reserved for the upper classes, mummification eventually became popular with the proles; by modern times, mummies numbered in the millions. A single burial ground discovered not long ago is thought to contain 10,000.

Could you find an estimate of the quantity of Egyptian mummies (known, conserved, destroyed, whatever you find)? --84.20.17.84 10:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard in a TV documentary an estimation of 70 million Egyptian mummies ever with many millions not yet found. No source though. --Error (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest mummies in chinchorro culture

Hi. What about the oldest non-natural mummies? The oldest mummification process was used by the Chinchorro culture, about 6000 BC in north of Chile and south of Peru. See the main article Chinchorro_mummies. Maybe, a mention of this would be necessary. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikilespinoza (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removal of text

Someone removed the following text without any explanation: --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, mummies have demonstrated that even 5,000 years ago, humans were anatomically indistinguishable from their present-day counterparts. This has had important repercussions in the study of human evolution.

I removed this text. There was a factual assertion with no backing cite and a qualitative statement on the importance to evolution. 5,000 years is insignificant in terms of human evolution and it is unlikely that any repercussions based on anatomical analysis (mummies had their internal organs removed) were of any significance. I admit I could be wrong but the loaded language of the passage on what some people consider a touchy subject set off red flags of misinformation for me. I did document what I did in the history so it would be easy to revert or replace. If this statement referred to the type of analysis and explained why a lack of significant change in 5,000 years was important to evolutionary theory it would be ok to include.

uneditable vandalism!!!! URGENT

in the etymology section there is a phrase "(brandon is gay)" i tried to delete this but the code had nothign entered for the text! i refreshed the page and it still showed so i could tell it hadnt just been erased.... THIS NEEDS MODERATOR HELP! -Forcefieldmaker87

Incidental?

I don't understand why it is said "intentional or incidental exposure to chemicals". Shouldn't it be "accidental"? AFAIK "incidental" means something of less importance, for example incidental detail. 84.50.38.99 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and fixed! Saint Soren (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine, THC and nicotine

In the early '90's, cocaine, hashish and nicotine were found in Egyptian mummies (Naturwissenschaften 79, 358 (1992)). This discovery is an indication of trade between Egyptians and civilizations from South America around 1000 B.C., since both nicotine and cocaine are indiginous to America. However, the average Egyptologist still does not accept the possibility of trans-Atlantic travel by the Egyptians in this period. Cocaine (coca) and nicotine (tobacco) were not imported to Europe before the Spanish introduced it around 1500 AD. Should the controversy this caused be discussed in this article, or just in the article on Egyptian civilization?

Wild Wizard (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are possible Old World sources for nicotine and cocaine, and such travel would have left other evidence at both ends. See [1] Doug Weller (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mummy's Tea"

I heard this phrase somewhere, and was curious about the etymology of it. Might it have anything to do with embalming or the preservation of mummies? Could anyone possibly shed light on where the phrase comes from? 74.242.99.221 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleutian mummies?

It doesn't make any mention (as far as I'm concerned)or Unangan (Aleut) mummies found in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska... Moocowsrule (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule[reply]

www.jopacama.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.40.235 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mummy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hello, this is being reviewed as part of the Good Article sweeps. A quick glance over the article shows a few concerns that will need to be addressed if the article is to retain its GA status.

The lead section is far too short. It should summarize the main points of the whole article, and an article of this length should have a lead of three to four paragraphs.
Much of the article is unreferenced, which is a major concern.
Large portions of the article were removed last month with no explanation (see these three diffs. Is there a reason for this? I think it hurts the comprehensiveness of the article.

this has been fixed. laurap414 (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fair use rationale for the Three Stooges picture (I believe it should be removed, as it doesn't even show a mummy, so it seems disingenuous to claim that it contributes to the reader's understanding of mummies in fiction).

Fixed Saint Soren (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mummies in fiction" section should be updated to include a discussion of the recent "The Mummy" movies.
In the "Natural mummies" section, the "In" could be removed from the subsection names (eg. "North America" rather than "In North America").
The "References" section should be consistently formatted, and more information is needed in some cases. I strongly recommend visiting Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates.

These would be a good start toward retaining GA status. If these can be dealt with in a timely fashion, I will go through the article in more detail to make sure that it meets the criteria. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response, I am delisting the article. I encourage future editors to use these suggestions to help guide future editing, and I hope to see this article back as a GA some day. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was absolutely saddened to see that this article has had so many issues for so long with little resolution. I will do everything I can to help improve this article! It is a very important section that needs a definite overhaul! Saint Soren (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Mummification

I removed Dashi-Dorzho Itigilov. He doesn’t belong in this article at all. His corpse is not a mummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk-Office (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. His corpse is definitely a mummy. laurap414 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antartica

Natural mummies of penguins and seals can be found on the dry regions of Antartica. That should be included on the natural mummies section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.152.217 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has an entire article for animal mummies, which I have linked in the article as of today. I do see that the animal mummies article does need some major editing, however, and will keep this suggestion in mind if I get to edit that article. Saint Soren (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zanjan mummies

Please also mention the Zanjan mummies (in Iran) in this article!!!! They were conserved by salty atmospheres in underground cavernes, 2000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.122.149 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

mummies are really interesting, i wonder how long it takes for a bog body to be preserved.--216.56.11.5 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyesockets?

Why do the eye sockets of mummies turn black? I couldn't find it anywhere within the article. Maybe I missed it. --Landfish7 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The eye sockets turn black because of the decaying and how long it has been there- they might have taken the eyeballs out because sometimes they would make fake eyeballs- it's creepy

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mummy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.228.245 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig to Mother

There needs to be a disambiguation to the Mother article as Mummy is also the UK equivalent of the US Mommy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.129.1.42 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A mummy is a corpse whose skin and organs have been preserved by either intentional or incidental exposure to chemicals... Wikipedia is sick!

Mummies are warm hugs and shouting at you for staying up past your bed time. Wikipedia is too evil for words! Stop giving me nightmares!!

Cleanup Needed

First, please see the reasons for cleanup mentioned when this was de-listed (above) in Talk:Mummy#GA_Reassessment, such as issues with the intro, lack of citations, etc. Other work needed includes:

General Copywriting: Sentences like "It takes 70 days to bury them and finish doing all of their work"
Accuracy: I just finished reading a book on mummies called "The Mummy Congress" and I believe that the idea of the brains being removed by a hook is no longer correct. Also I believe the technique described for embalming is not entirely accurate. However, I am not an expert on the subject.
Self-Mummification section needs to be expanded and renamed "Incorruptibles"
Any other ideas are welcome.

laurap414 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this the Primary Topic instead of a dab?

I need a little help here. Can anyone directly reference either a WP Policy/guideline or simply a thorough logical explanation as to why Mummy is a primary topic about the embalmed corpse as opposed to a dab with either a simple definition or link to wiktionary listed at the top? Anything other than "it's already a good article, so we should keep it" please. Thanks! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The purpose for this request concerns a WP policy amendment currently being discussed here. Thank you.

What is a mummy?

It's not clear to me why we have links such as [2] which says "31-year-old New Garden Township man Hu Qinglin, for over a month is not out of the house, neighbors smelled the strange odor, police view has already found dead several days, the body has become a mummy." A mummy only a few days old? Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-mummification

I've just removed a quote from Pravda.ru, home of UFO sitings, 100 million year old maps, etc. I've found a good source, [3] for fixing this section. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal mummies

This article could benefit from having a section on animal mummies, no? Both natural (dinosaur mummies for example) and man made. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this into consideration as I'm attempting a major editing spree to bring this article up to the best standard. In the meantime, I have added a "see also" link to the animal mummy article. Saint Soren (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Famous" mummies

The article says "The most famous Egyptian mummies are those of Seti I and Rameses II." How can anyone make such a statement with a straight face? Most people have never heard of those two pharaohs. The most famous mummy is obviously King Tut. Muldrake (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this line is very subjective. Removed it. The entire section on Egyptian mummies is a huge mess, in my opinion. Saint Soren (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend remove this article

I was redirected to this page after a search for "mummification". The page is tagged from March 2010 This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. This is a very poor article, badly written and with few citations to support such statements as "The mummified remains of what turned out to be Rameses I ended up in a Daredevil Museum near Niagara Falls on the United States–Canada border; records indicate that it had been sold to a Canadian in 1860 and exhibited alongside displays such as a two-headed calf for nearly 140 years, until a museum in Atlanta, Georgia, which had acquired the mummy along with other artifacts, determined it to be royal and returned it to Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities. It is currently on display in the Luxor Museum"

This article contains elements of scientific and popular culture references and processes of natural mummification with ritualistic processes of mummification.

In its present state, this artilce is a mish mash. I do not have the expertise to write an appropriate article, but would be willing to support anyone who has the time and patience to do this.

I appreciate that many contributors to this article have done so in good faith and I am always grateful to those who support Wikipedia, but this article does not reflect the best Wikipedia can offer.

Wikipedia offers a great opportunity for all of us to do something special. My comments are not meant as a criticism, but if you want to share your interests and enthusiasm, ask for support to make your contibutions as reliable as you would like them to be.

I remain, in good faith, Proxxt (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)proxxt[reply]

I completely agree that this article needs a major clean up. I am now in the process of attempting to do such a major overhaul and hope my efforts will be satisfactory. Saint Soren (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section about Mummies in Egypt

Just a quick note: The section (3.2 on April 4th) with "Drying of dead bodies without the use of chemicals is the secret of mummification, which was retained by the pharaohs more than thousands of years ago..." is not only written in very poor English, but also seems to be bordering on the pseudo-scientific [ I'm sure an expert can comment ]. Looks like an attempt to bring in publicity more than anything else, especially so because of the presence of a direct link to an outside site (which is unusual on wikipedia). Should probably just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.74.205 (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & Done. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protect the Mummy

If an administrator is reading this, I'd like to request some level of protection on this article. Anonymous users vandalize the article pretty frequently. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that this page needs protection, but when I proposed for it to be semi-protected the proposal was denied because there hadn't been enough vandalism for the article to qualify.--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 02:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South America

On the South America section it says "Main Article: Chinchorro mummies". Should that be there when the section shows several different kinds of South American mummies such as the children of Llullaillaco and Mummy Juanita? Maybe the Chinchorro mummies should be moved to a "See Also" section.--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a general paragraph describing the practices of mummification in South America. I also updated the Chinchorro mummies section, as well as merged the section on the Inca with the South American section so it appears as a subsection for better organization. Saint Soren (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North American Mummies

Article states the oldest NA mummy is 550 years old from a Yukon ice sheet.

Spirit Cave Man from Nevada -- is approximately 9400 years old, and qualifies as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.55.139 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into that. Regards --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]