Wasn't there an anomalous carbon dating of an Egyptian mummy?
The Manchester Museum located at the University of Manchester, according to the museum's website is
home to one of the largest and most important collections of ancient Egyptian artifacts in the United Kingdom. The collection includes objects from prehistoric Egypt (c. 10,000 BC) to the Byzantine era, up to around AD 600 . . .
It is also known to many as the museum of mummy controversy.
One controversy pertains to Mummy 1770. The museum is unsure how or from whom it received the mummy, only that it did so in 1896. It wasn’t naked. It had not been unwrapped by Lord Longsberry or at any champagne and canapés event. See: Naked mummies of the Manchester Museum
X-rays suggested that the mummy was the body of a girl Allahabout 13 years old and that her legs had been amputated. It was thought by Egyptologists to have been from the Hawara excavation site in central Egypt. It was thought to be from the Hellenistic or Roman era.
In 1975, the museum decided to unwrap the mummy. What they found was quite unusual. There was a pair of decorated gold nipple covers, the sort used for females. There was an artificial phallus of the sort used when wrapping deceased males. Did the embalmers not know the sex of the mummy, and if not, why not? When researchers at the museum carbon dated bone pieces and pieces of the linen wrappings they found extraordinarily different dates. The bones seemed to be from about 1000 B.C. while the linen wrappings appeared to be from about A.D. 300, a difference of about 1300 years.
- Wasn't there an anomalous dating of an ibis mummy?
- What was the reaction to the 1988 carbon dating?
- What led to the bioplastic coating hypothesis?