Analysis reveals the potential of 3D imaging techniques for cultural heritage conservation, highlighting ethical concerns around terminology in mummified remains.
This article contains images of deceased human remains to which some readers may be sensitive. The pictorial representation of the deceased individuals in this volume is reduced, but full documentation is included in the supplementary materials. The remains are currently housed in an anthropological collection with a complex and often problematic colonial history. We chose to present our findings on the digital preservation of the presented remains for a number of reasons. These included enhancing data sharing with potential collaborators for provenance research, reducing direct physical interaction with the remains themselves for future conservation, and finally, promoting three-dimensional surface imaging as an effective tool for cultural heritage conservation practices. We have deliberately avoided using the term "mummy" in our article in favor of alternative descriptors such as "mummified remains / individuals / corpses / bodies (etc.)" to acknowledge the discussion behind the misuse of the word, its problematic colonial connotations, and the often dehumanizing misrepresentation of such remains in modern public media as monstrous, demonic, or mystical in the context of modern idealization and transfiguration. While the primary goal of this paper is not to initiate a discourse on proper terminology in mummy studies, the authors feel that this is an important aspect to consider as such discussions have not yet formally begun in this subfield.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Göldner et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: