The sense of smell is fundamental to our daily lives, but its role in archeology and heritage has thus far been marginal. The history of the past is often presented to the public as odorless, despite the value of smell for artifact interpretation. (1,2) Smells from heritage objects also hold a scientific value, as they can be used to obtain information about the original material, degradation pathways and rates, as well as conservation and restoration treatments and to better understand and interpret the heritage significance.
Ancient Egyptian mummification materials and techniques are a topic of continued interest, as demonstrated through recent publications. (3−6) Furthermore, the smell of mummified bodies has historically attracted a lot of attention from experts and the general public, with sensory descriptions ranging from fragrant to foul. The disparity in perceptual experiences has been interpreted as evidence of the “mummy’s symbolism of both immortality and death”. (7)

While academic studies explored embalming through residue analysis, no study in non-European collections has thus far focused on a collection and analysis of volatile emissions from mummification materials and mummified bodies and their relation with the perceived smell. Conservators have reported the smell of mummified bodies as pleasant, possibly due to balms and resins, but this has never been systematically investigated.

Mummified bodies provide invaluable insights into ancient Egyptian civilization, offering unique opportunities to explore aspects of health, disease, environment, and religious practices. (8) Mummification was not only a social practice and practical method of preserving the body from putrefaction but also a ritual with spiritual significance closely interwoven with religious beliefs. (9) The preservation of the body was crucial to the successful transition of the soul into the afterlife. Here, smells are indicators of the state of purity or corruption of the body. A “good” (intended as pleasant) smell was associated with the bodies of deities, in contrast to dead bodies. Various ancient funerary and medical texts use terms to express the importance of mummification in view of the processes of decay, such as (rpw: rot), (hw3t: putrefaction), and (iwtyw: corruption). (10)

Over time, mummification practices varied greatly, initially reserved for royalty, then gradually extended to the lower socio-economic classes, and eventually becoming accessible to the majority of the population. (11) Social hierarchy was reflected in the quality of burial practices, with the pharaohs and elite members receiving the most expensive and high-quality mummification. In addition, the quality of mummification techniques also differed between and within the historical periods and within workshops using slightly different recipes and balms according to the age, gender, and body part. (12,13) A detailed description of the mummification process is reported in the Supporting Information, SI1.

During natural mummification in Predynastic Egypt (c. 5000 BCE), the body was preserved by exposure to the hot, dry desert sand. The Old Kingdom (c. 2700–2200 BCE) is considered the period when artificial mummification began with the use of natron (mixture of sodium carbonate, hydrogen carbonate, and small quantities of chloride and sulfate), resins, and the removal of internal organs, although there is evidence for the use of embalming agents (such as heated coniferous resins, plant extracts, and gums) in the Predynastic period. (14) The quality of mummification was highest during the New Kingdom (c. 1570 to c. 1069 BCE) and declined during the Ptolemaic and Greco-Roman periods (c. 332 BCE to c. 395 CE) until it was discontinued after the Arab conquest of Egypt in 641 CE. However, due to changes in economy, the preservation state of a mummified body of an elite member of the New Kingdom may be similar to a lower class one from the Ptolemaic period. (15)...