One Foot In The Past
The mummy's curse: historical cohort study
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1482 (Published 21 December 2002)Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:1482All rapid responses
Carter's field diary recorded the Queen of Belgium and her son Prince
Alexander visiting the site. I correctly identified the queen as Queen
Elisabeth. She had no son called Alexander and I surmised it was her
husband Albert. However since the publication of this article I have been
able to identify the other royal visitor as Prince Leopold, later King
Leopold III, the controversial king during the occupation of Belgium
during World War II. He died 25/9/83 aged 81 years the last of the cohort
to die.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Mark Nelson is mistaken when he states that Lord Carnavon was not
exposed to any unusual infection when he worked with Howard Carter in the
Tomb of Tutankhamen in Egypt in 1922.1
The tomb, closed only by a temporary door made of bars, was the abode
of bats at night, to such an extent that Carnavon gave orders that the
bats were to be chased out in the morning before he entered the tomb.
Histoplasma flourishes in bat guano, and can in a hot dry atmosphere
where people are working, form part of the dust, which, when it is inhaled
may cause histoplasmosis with fever, enlarged glands and pneumonia which
may lead to death. These are the symptoms from which Lord Carnavon
suffered.
Carter who worked for many years exploring tombs in Egypt was no
doubt immune to such an infection.2
References :
1. Nelson, Mark R. The mummy’s curse: historical cohort
study. BMJ. 2002. vol 325. pg 21-28
2. Dean, Geoffrey. The Curse of the Pharaohs.
World Medicine 1975. June pg 17-21
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Nelson's (2002)[1] refutation of the 'mummy's curse' provides a humorous demonstration of applying statistical techniques for solving health problems, even those of mythical origins. Nelson used a 'retrospective' cohort design for comparing the survival of 25 'Westerners' who were physically exposed to the curse, with 11 controls who were in Egypt at the time but were unexposed. The data for dates of birth and death for the participants were collected from the various biographical sources and newspapers.
A quick glance at the sample data on page 1483 leads to the appalling impression that the curse had taken its' toll given that the exposed sample died at an earlier age and post-exposed survived for fewer years than controls. Then multivariate statistics and SPSS came to the rescue; demonstrating that the sample differences simply reflected unequal ages at exposure and gender differences between the two groups. As the null hypotheses was retained, Nelson concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the 'mummy's curse' and expressed the hope that the myth would finally be put to rest.
All afficionados of horror films know that it is not so easy to dispose of a mummy. Deciding to retain Ho results in multiple interpretations, including that the study lacked sufficient power and accuracy to identify the patterns in the population [2] as Nelson recognised in 'Limitations of the study' (p.1484). The inferential statistical 'ju-ju' works only under auspicious circumstances. Some of the of the data were based on educated guesses (eg. women's dates of birth). Also, the sample size for one of the groups was very small (n=11); the sample sizes unequal (robustness compromised); and when there is a high variability and skew (survival in years) the parametric inferential analysis loses power. The 95% confidence interval (0.20 to 9.6) for survival for death within 10 years demonstrates the weak inferences afforded by the study. Any odds are possible given such a wide range; the real outcome of the exposure could either be the 'elixir of life' (0.20) or like a good dose of arsenic (9.6) and anything in between! As we cannot be confident one way or the other, the evidence has not dispelled the curse.
Sometimes monsters can be dispatched 'Buffy-style;' a swift kick up the backside followed by a stake in the heart: a simple approach can be effective. It is evident that the average age of death for the Westerners (24 males and 1 female) was 75 years; giving a 95% confidence interval of approximately 65-75 years. Which is not a bad trot for men born in the late Nineteenth Century, considering that life expectancies were little over 50 years [3]. More detailed analyses using historically available mortality statistics could perhaps finally dispose of the myth of this curse. But then, why bother? 'Return of the Mummy 10' is now playing at a cinema near you. Watch and enjoy!
References
1. Nelson, M. The mummy's curse: historical cohort study BMJ 2002; 325: 1482-4.
2. Polgar, S. and Thomas, S. Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences 4th edition Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000, p. 257.
3. Preston and Haines, 1991 in http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~maggiel/Swedlund.pdf
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: "The curse" from an anthropological perspective, with implications for its study using hard scie
I would like to thank Jasmine Day for her erudite comments on the
mummy's curse. I suspect she is correct and that as no curse was
documented, the curse is what a particular culture makes it to be and
therefore it is amenable to investigation using the methods specified.
However in my defence I reiterate the saying attributed to Galileo after
appearing before the inquisition "Eppur si muove" ("And yet it moves").
That is whatever its manifestation it is still valid to look for physical
outcomes.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Mark Nelson concluded his excellent paper by suggesting that finally
the curse "may be put to rest". I doubt that will be so. It would take
much more than an article in the BMJ to put an end to this nonsense. After
all, in the mid 1970s a complete book put to rest the ridiculous Bermuda
Triangle myths, but they have been repeated time after time since then.
("The Bermuda Triangle Mystery - Solved" by Lawrence Kusch, New English
Library, c1976).
James Randi (www.randi.org) did similar research to Mark Nelson in
1978 ("King Tut's 'Revenge'", The Humanist, March/April 1978). Randi
included a table showing the deaths of twenty-two of the people involved
in the opening and excavation of Tutankhamen's tomb. I revised that table
for my co-written book "Bizarre Beliefs" by Simon Hoggart and Mike
Hutchinson, (Richard Cohen Books, 1995). This table and the full text from
our book can be seen at www.hutch.demon.co.uk/bizarre.
In addition to Randi's twenty-two people I added Richard Adamson who
claimed that he had guarded and slept in the tomb for seven years. His
story was told in the "Daily Mail" (29 August, 1980). Adamson claimed
that, in order to keep away 'armies of curious people' a journalist was
encouraged to write about a curse.
The curse of Tutankhamen is a manufactured one. With no good evidence
that the people who excavated the tomb of Tutankhamen were victims of a
curse, and no good evidence that there even was such a curse, I am
surprised that people try to find rational explanations for one. But then
again, people have tried to find rational explanations for ships
disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle; ships which were seen to sink,
disappeared in severe storms, or were nowhere near the Bermuda Triangle
when they were lost.
Competing interests:
Co-author of "Bizarre Beliefs" which included a chapter on the curse of Tutankhamen
Competing interests: No competing interests
As a young child, I had always been interested in King Tut's tombs,
the artifacts, etc.
The issues of biological, spiritual, are definitely true and needed
concerns.
The above appear to be diversions or reasons why some of the peoples
involved may have been set up or killed.
Reason? Monies, gold, finances involved. The same thing happened in
Hawaii....the stealing of TREASURES, lucrative money making ventures by
GRAVE ROBBERS, etc.
Hawaii had a three way PROTECTORATE: Great Britain, United States
and Germany with France as a friend closeby.
The undertaking/excavation of the King Tut's tomb involved GREAT
BRITAIN, AMERICAN and GERMANS due to the book(s) kept and translated from
the German language. See GODS, GRAVES AND SCHOLARS The Story of
Archaeology by C. W. CERAM, translated from the German by E. B. Garside
New York Alfred A. Knopf (1952). The book has an intense accounting of
the history as early as 1903 where the Egyptians allowed American Davis to
excavate, taken over by the Englishmen and Germans.
Wars were gotten at the expense of the Kingdom of Hawaii's
monies....U.S. was bankrupt in 1893/depression in 1893 and Congress
celebrated at the dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, called her
NIGGER, etc. Germany owed LOTS OF MONEY, needed money.....Great Britain
BORROWED MONEY from the U.S.
The Issues of MONEY, DIVERSIONS, DECEIVING the public even using the
idea of an ancient or claimed CURSE is also part of this picture.
World War II fought by Americans is based on FRAUD due to the FRAUD
CLAIMS over Pearl Harbor, which is based on a FRAUD DEED entered in courts
only three years ago...many died NEEDLESSLY.
Germany, owing monies over time, was funded by Prescott Bush,
grandfather of current President Bush. Adolph Hitler was funded by
American(s) Bush and killed 6 million Jews. English were part of the
Masons, Freemasons, like the Bush family and others to breakdown MONARCHY
governments, ANCIENT SOCIETIES with a foundation of WEALTH, CULTURE,
RESOURCES, etc.
Notice how there appears to be a DIVERSION meant to MISLEAD many,
used as ENTERTAINMENT in the past.....the DIVERSIONS used today are the
entertainment/Hollywood, actors, singers, etc.
Lastly, the world under the microscope is indeed an unexplored area
of study, however; greed, political maneuvers, economic reasons are
actually the true issues, the GRAVEROBBERS, EXPLOITERS, with political,
economic interests are areas which cannot be set aside in analyzing the
FULL STUDY OF THE MUMMIES CURSE.
Aloha. From One of Kamehameha's descendants, a Royal person
Competing interests:
Chronological History of Hawaii, Abroad, and the United States
Competing interests: No competing interests
"The curse" from an anthropological perspective, with implications for its study using hard sciences
I would like to thank Mark Nelson for using science to
remind gullible people and sensation-seeking
journalists that the “curse of the pharaohs” does not
physically exist. Every so often the media concocts
another case of a curse, so such occasional reminders
never go amiss. However, Nelson’s capacity to
undertake a statistical medical evaluation of
Tutankhamun’s curse derives from his particular
definition of it. My doctoral anthropological research into
the representation of Egyptian mummies in British and
American popular culture and museums since the early
Nineteenth Century (Day 2001 MS) demonstrates that
definitions of “the curse”, including its alleged causes,
manifestations and results, have changed over time. In
effect there have been many curses, not a single curse
(“the curse”) as is often stated, but Nelson has
evaluated only one of them.
Nelson states that ‘[t]he mummy's curse is assumed to
be a physical rather than a metaphysical entity’, some
unknown but tangible phenomenon able to be
identified through scientific study. In fact, since its
inception in early Nineteenth Century fiction (Montserrat
1998; Montserrat cited by Keys 2000), “the” curse has
never assumed a single, fixed manifestation. In popular
culture (from fiction books and films to everyday
conversations and some very fanciful newspaper
reports), curses have been said to operate via a variety
of means. These include scientifically unverifiable,
esoteric means – such as attacks by living mummies
or by ancient magic spells – as well as by physical
means potentially able to be scientifically studied, such
as poisons in the air inside tombs or secreted within
artefacts. Only the consequences of being cursed,
which range from sudden death to illness, injury and
"bad luck" according to various sources, constitute
physical, observable phenomena which are invariably
associated with curses in popular lore.
It is only in recent times that "the” curse has been
treated as a predominantly physical, potentially
scientifically verifiable phenomenon, albeit mainly by
pseudoscientists. No study has convincingly linked it
exclusively or with certainty to any known force or
substance. Philipp Vandenberg attempted to explain
The Curse of the Pharoahs (1976) as radioactivity or
poisons, but assumed from the outset that it did exist,
and used subjective methodology and reasoning. This
latest paradigm of “the” curse as a physical
phenomenon in disguise is the only curse definition
which is amenable to scientific study, earlier definitions
having been associated with magic.
Such emphasis upon the manifestation of “the” curse
appears to have evolved as popular faith and interest in
its original ideology waned in the late Twentieth
Century. For “the” curse originated as a (possibly
Christian-influenced) moral tale that disturbing the
dead was sinful and would bring doom. This belief was
so ingrained in Britain, Europe and the United States
throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth
Centuries that even though the various curse legends
which preceded that of Tutankhamun claimed that
curses worked in different ways (caused not only by
entering tombs as Nelson assumes, but by owning
cursed artefacts, dissecting mummies or visiting
museums), they all agreed that the hubris of disturbing
the dead deserved nemesis. Hubris was not always
measured in the “doses” of tomb visits which Nelson
discusses; one incident of tomb-trespassing was
regarded as sufficient to cause death. However, with
the growth of public interest in archaeology there arose
a need to disavow guilt at exhuming the dead, so
cinema began to depict curses as evil by representing
horrible living mummies as the means of their
execution. People no longer supported mummies’
revenge, but were curious to know how it occurred –
and appropriated (and refashioned) scientific
methodologies to find answers. This appropriation,
incidentally, vented public frustration at the
concentration of scientific, especially archaeological,
authority in the hands of a few (Frayling 1992:39, 46).
So only the evolution of mummies and curses from
justified avengers to evildoers, with its resulting shift of
focus from the causes to the means of curses’
execution, makes a study such as Nelson’s possible.
In this sense he is working not beyond, but well within
the domain of popular discourse because it has
dictated the terms of his research. This introduces
sources of bias; for instance, the fact that
‘documentation of [Westerners] was more likely to be
complete’ results from many Europeans’ disinterest in
the welfare of “inferior” colonised peoples and their
fascination with the doings of their upper classes. As
narratives invented both by and for Westerners, curses
usually were not said to strike down non-Westerners. It
may be said that an academic study of the curse is
bound to disprove its physical existence, but I would
add that it is impossible to speak from outside popular
culture – from a “purely” scientific perspective – in order
to conduct such a study and reach this conclusion!
Egyptian mummy curses are clearly not physical
phenomena but what social scientists call discourses,
and in my view they can therefore be most productively
studied with a social scientific approach rather than a
medical or other hard scientific approach.
Dr Jasmine Day
Department of Anthropology
University of Western Australia
REFERENCES:
Day, J. 2001 The Mummy’s Curse: the origins,
development and roles of popular visions of Egyptian
mummies and their relationships with representations
of mummies in museums in Britain and the United
States of America during the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries. Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, The University of Western Australia,
Australia. MS.
Frayling, C. 1992 The Face of Tutankhamun. London,
Boston: Faber and Faber.
Keys, D. 2000 Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb Invented By
Victorian Writers. Independent.co.uk News, U.K.
Available online:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/This_Britain/2
000-12/mummy311200.shtml> 31 December.
Montserrat, D. 1998 Louisa May Alcott and the
mummy’s curse. KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient
Egypt 9(2):70-5.
Vandenberg, P. 1976 [1973] The Curse of the Pharaohs
(trans. T. Weyr). London: Book Club Associates.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
As an archaeologist I ask for some indulgence to my opinions. Perhaps
it's some kind of real risk digging ancient tombs from 'dormant' or alive
bacteria or viruses, but the most significant risk come from fungi,
specially those related to 'aspergillosis', a quite lethal disease non
linked to ancient corpses or artifacts, but to modern climatic conditions
of ancient caves and tombs: humidity level, organics, etc.
Coming back to the team digging Tut's tomb, Lord Carnavon, if I am not
wrong, suffered from asthma (that's the reason because he went in Egypt in
many occasions, looking for a drier climate than in Britain) and this is a
possibility to investigate: that his suffrance could get to the worst due
to an hypothetical fungical affection.
All the others, as the Nelson paper perfectly states, seems too far
to be linked to any 'curse', that must be considered substantially as
geting a modern (!) infection from an ancient 'dirty' place.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In reply to Harper the curse quoted is not associated with
Tutankhamon's tomb. The 'curse' was any death, however tenuous, linked to
this excavation by the press. The Times of London was granted exclusive
rights to the find and hence it is not too difficult to imagine the rival
press being deperate for any copy and being worked into a frenzy by the
death of Lord Carnarvon soon after the initial exploration of the tomb.
White is correct in pointing out that I dismissed the possibility of
a metaphysical effect. I did this under the epidemiological principle of
biological feasibility. I certainly hope there is not one as I visited the
tomb in 1985! Howard Carter, the most likely of those exposed, to my
knowledge did not suffer any of the effects that White proposes.
In reply to Kamat. There was some concern at the time about a
biological agent being a risk to those who entered the tomb. As pointed
out in the paper specimens were taken and were reported as sterile. My
understanding is that it is very unlikely that biological specimens could
survive millenia, even those that form spores. There was a rumour that
wheat left as food for the afterlife was germinated by scientists and
gained the name 'mummy's wheat'. I recall that an article in New Scientist
magazine debunked this.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Could it be that the "MUMMY's CURSE" is based on "dormant", shell
covered bacteria and/or viruses that proceed to infect it's host, anyone
who opens burials?
Life under the microscope is indeed a whole new adventure, a whole
new world that remains uncovered today.
The perspective of viewing the "MUMMY's CURSE" should be taken
seriously,as with other removals of those who died with some disease. (ex.
leprosy, smallpox, and other vicious disease of the past....)
The disregard or failure to study the females in Society shows and
maintains social/political issues diverting from seriously looking at the
issue "MUMMY's curse".
Important Note: Females in the U.S. were not regarded as
persons/equal to men until 1921. The Queen of Hawaii, Queen Liliuokalani
who was wrongfully dethroned, was our Kingdom of Hawaii's leader, an
intelligent female yet BIASED against by men, especially those from the
U.S., England, France, Germany, etc. called a "NIGGER" by Americans who
rooted in the English and other cultures (as noted above). As with ALL
FEMALES of the time, likened to property along with children from the
"OUTSIDE" perspective, the American and other countries perspective.
Females were/are intelligent too and CAN CONTRIBUTE too, in aged
statistics too. HISTORICAL BIAS IS NOT OK, AS WITH PRESENT DAY BIAS
AGAINST FEMALES. THIS LEADS TO DEFECTS IN THE OVERALL STUDY of the issue
"MUMMY' curse", etc.
Female names documented in the time of the "MUMMY's curse" could be
"dug up" in archival files, followed up through records and conclusions
about their decease could ALSO be made.......similar to genealogy
research. (of course, as a avid researcher, am always interested in
"digging up the past" through information documented---have done
Microbiology research, biochemistry research in the past as well and have
certain ideas, views because I am a FEMALE in a BIASED, male dominated
society---opinion:)
I think that a FOCUS should ALSO be funded towards the BIOLOGICAL
world instead of doing studies based on evidence gathered on the outcome
of the MALES in the group/people.
The studies should also be conducted with the publics backing and
knowledge rather than allowing individuals to run amok on the findings
which could be a harmful issue to all......do you suppose American's
President Bush will then be charging ALL Scientists as being TERRORIST
too?
This is just one of the fields of study that seems to remain
undeveloped at this time.....an opinion, not meant to "ruffle any feathers
of the academia".
Aloha from Hawaii...Check out:
http://www.geocities.com/hawaiianhistory or email:
hawaiianhistory@yahoo.com or hanuna25@yahoo.com
Competing interests:
CHRONOLOGICIAL HISTORY OF HAWAII, ABROAD, AND THE UNITED STATES by Amelia Kuulei Gora (2001)
Competing interests: No competing interests
The mummy's curse: historical cohort study
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1482 (Published 21 December 2002)Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:1482All rapid responses
It is a good paper and the so called curse may be a metaphor for some
secret "biosecurity" measures which could have been built in the defense
system of the tomb to guard it from the looters. Micro-organisms could
survive for many years especially under the conditions of the tomb and it
would be interesting to know whether the air samples and artefacts
recovered from the tomb were analysed microbiologically. Can we
emphatically rule out possibility of any crude microbial infectious agent
inside the tomb in some form, when ancient Egypt was known to have the
"black death"?. Although speculative, it would be interesting to explore
the possibility of recovering archaic strains of microbial pathogens from
the tomb contents/samples and verify whether the so called curse had any
microbiological basis. With latest molecular tools it should be possible
to profile even non-culturable microbial diversity and identify
concentration of any specific microbiological agent. Considering the
innovativeness of the ancient Egyptians and their familiarity with
fermentation technology, use of embalming agents, herbs and spices etc. we
can not rule out such a possibility. This is a dimension which might have
been missed before the sealed tomb was opened and got contaminated with
exposure to outside environment and by anthropogenic sources.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
This well thought-out paper does good service to the topic of the
mummy's curse, assuming that any curse is only a physical phenomenon. I
would certainly question the assumption that a curse has no metaphysical
influence; and I would go as far as to say that an essential part of a
'real' curse is the metaphysical aspect that allows it to transcend space
and time.
A question that this paper raises for me concerns not so much those
that were present at the opening of tomb and sarcophagus but rather those
that may have had the intent to disturb the Pharaoh's remains.
I would be interested in discovering whether those people involved in
the opening of the tomb suffered from subsequent nightmares, visitation,
paranoia, or degraded health. I doubt that this information is easily
accessible though unless the author had access to private diaries of those
involved.
A good paper, Thank you
Michael White
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I did not spot anywhere in the article where it mentioned what the
mummy's curse was, so how can a reader put into context the conclusions?
I don't beleive in curses but I also don't believe in junk science. There
is no defintion of what "exposure" to the curse in means. I believe the
curse was:
"Death Shall Come on Swift Wings To Him Who Disturbs the Peace of the
King"
Does this defintion limit the recipient of the curse to a male and to one
person only?
The conculsion is based on dishonest a premise; Quote:
"What this study adds
There was no association between "potential exposure" to the mummy's curse
during the excavation of Tutankamen's tomb and death within 10 years.
No evidence was found for the existence of a mummy's curse"
"Potential exposure" should not have been the the focus of the study;
it should have been focussed on actual exposure and 10 years hardly seems
to fit in with the "swift wings" part.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
No comments:
Post a Comment