'Green Magic' Protected Egyptian Child Mummies

[WebenBanu]

Full article and pictures at: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/05/child-mummy.html

'Green Magic' Protected Egyptian Child Mummies
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

Feb. 5, 2009 -- A rare mummified child from the early period of Egyptian history was discovered buried with a bright green amulet stone once believed to hold magical powers, according to a new study.

The finds help to explain why hieroglyphics and historical texts record that Egyptian children wore green eye makeup. It also adds to the growing body of evidence that ancient Egyptians thought color itself held sacred energy that could help or hurt individuals.

Lead author Raffaella Bianucci explained that the first Egyptian colored amulets occurred as early as the predynastic Badarian period, from 4500 to 3800 B.C. The recently analyzed child mummy, containing the remains of a 15- to 18-month-old toddler, dates to 4,700 years ago.

"Even in limited forms and materials, these earliest amulets give a good indication of the dangerous forces that the early Egyptians felt were present in their world and needed to be harnessed by magical means," said Bianucci, a scientist in the Department of Animal and Human Biology at Via Accademia Albertina in Turin, Italy.

She and her colleagues first examined the child's remains, which were wrapped in linen bandages. Immunological evidence determined that the youngster died from an acute malarial infection.

The researchers then turned their attention to a fossilized leather bag tied with linen twine, which was wrapped in the bandages with the mummy. Two stones were found within the bag. The researchers focused on a bright green one, found poking through the fossilized leather.

Powerful X-rays, as well as scanning electron microscope analysis, revealed that the stone was chrysocolla, or hydrated copper silica, according to the paper that will be published in the March issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science. To this day, chrysocolla is valued as an ornamental stone that, in its bluer forms, is sometimes confused with turquoise.

Bianucci said malachite was a more common green mineral in early Egypt, since chrysocolla ores were limited to very few in the Sinai and the Eastern Egyptian Desert. Chrysocolla may have been special for children, as archaeologists previously unearthed a small figure of a child made of the green material in another grave.

"In ancient Egypt, color was an integral part of the substance and being of everything in life," she said, explaining that green -- the color of new vegetation and growing crops, including the treasured papyrus plant -- was linked to health and "flourishing." Chapter 30 of the Book of the Dead, an ancient Egyptian funerary text, instructs that a scarab beetle amulet be made of green minerals and placed at the heart of mummies.

Bianucci continued that, based on such records, red was the color of life and victory, white suggested omnipotence and purity, black was a symbol of death and the night, blue symbolized life and rebirth and yellow was thought to be eternal and indestructible, like the sun and gold.

In terms of the child mummy's green amulet, she said, "We can hypothesize that (the parents) wished their child to be protected from unwanted influence and to be healthy in its afterlife."

Salima Ikram, a professor of Egyptology at the American University in Cairo, told Discovery News that "the study was very well executed" and "is just what we need to shed light on the cultural practices and beliefs of the ancient Egyptians."

"The fact that the child was buried with a chrysocolla bead is very interesting as it is rare to have such an identification," Ikram added. "Clearly this was an amulet that was interred with the child in an effort to ensure its safety in the afterworld -- a pity it did not protect the infant in this one."  

[WebenBanu]

This is particularly interesting in view of the first article of the "Through a Glass Darkly" collection, entitled "Display of magic in Old Kingdom Egypt." The article itself begins with a discussion of the relative rarity of the depiction of amulets on paintings and carvings of Old Kingdom Egyptians when compared to the amount of amulets one finds in burial chambers- amulets which were likely worn during life as well as death. Why were these items not shown? Was it because of artistic convention, limiting the amount of jewelry to be displayed? Was it because the images represented an ideal world where the prophylactic magic was not needed? Was it because only the king was really supposed to have them? It's an interesting question.

However, the article soon becomes a discussion of one particular amulet type which does seem to gain representation in some situations- but which had not yet been discovered on an actual mummy. It seemed to be a little pouch worn on a cord around the neck. There was much speculation as to what this pouch amulet was- how was it made? What was inside it? What was its purpose? When I read of the new discovery, I immediately thought back to that article. Is it possible that we have finally found one of these elusive pouch amulets?

The main difference I see so far is that our "pouch amulet" was found on the mummy of a child- the article supposes that it may have been a special kind of amulet for children. But none of the men portrayed wearing the pouch amulet in "Display of magic in Old Kingdom Egypt" was a child- none of them had the sidelock of youth; all of them were clearly established men, frequently nobles or kings. Still, it is exciting to think that we might have finally found a glimpse inside one of those pouches! It contained at least two "beads" or small stones, I suppose it's possible there may have been something else in there which was less durable, but we know there were at least the two stones. What I find particularly fascinating about these stones is that they were not inscribed with anything, and they are not carved into any particular shape. It is clearly just the stones themselves which were magical. I'm also intrigued to find an amulet made from leather- I'd always assumed that leather should be avoided in heka because of heka's close relationship with religion, where leather is taboo. I'm also interested to see chrysocolla represented there, just because I have a piece on my altar- I picked it out as an offering for Amun, but didn't know of its use in ancient Egypt. Way cool!  

[Katie Tatie Tot]

Thanks for sharing ! That was really neat to read because I know a lot about chakras and their colors. Chakra colors have the ability to heal and protect as well and there are stones that match different chakras. Very interesting. I'd easily give up computers, cell phones, and tvs to go live back then !!! Must have been so intense !  

[Nevira Shadowfire]

Green magic, huh...? So the ancient Egyptians wanted to be environmentally friendly, too? *insert global warming satire here*

Hmm. Perhaps that one particular type of amulet was the right one to use for a short time and that's why there are so few of them. Kind of like buying up a bunch of wards/crystals in a new age-type fad.  

[bluerain202]

As green is a color of new life and perhaps growth as well, the child might have such a stone to foster more development in the afterlife. I guess I wonder what "age" the Egyptians percieved the dead to be in (I'm assuming prime adulthood because of Osiris, although I wonder if his green color would also apply... whether or not a person will look like themself as they die). If they look like themself in death, I wonder if a child could age in the afterlife.
If the amulet pouches of the men had a green stone inside it could be for virility. Which makes me wonder if the Egyptians saw both men and women as being active parts of reproduction, eg if men made offerings, performed magic in hopes that it would help to get their wives pregnant. I think there is evidence for this in the worship of Min, but I don't know much about it.

So those are big "ifs"... if there is any knowledge to help fill in those blanks it will help ^_^  

[Glory of Sekhmet]

WebenBanu

This is particularly interesting in view of the first article of the "Through a Glass Darkly" collection, entitled "Display of magic in Old Kingdom Egypt." The article itself begins with a discussion of the relative rarity of the depiction of amulets on paintings and carvings of Old Kingdom Egyptians when compared to the amount of amulets one finds in burial chambers- amulets which were likely worn during life as well as death. Why were these items not shown? Was it because of artistic convention, limiting the amount of jewelry to be displayed? Was it because the images represented an ideal world where the prophylactic magic was not needed? Was it because only the king was really supposed to have them? It's an interesting question.
.........

........ I'd always assumed that leather should be avoided in heka because of heka's close relationship with religion, where leather is taboo. I'm also interested to see chrysocolla represented there, just because I have a piece on my altar- I picked it out as an offering for Amun, but didn't know of its use in ancient Egypt. Way cool!

- it might even be considered that hte entire image functioned, on one level, AS an amulet in of itself. Everything seen would be amuleti, in a way.


- I have never heard of *leather* as being taboo - I have only heard that of *wool* (that priests on their period of active priestly duty were not supposed to wear wool). DO you mind if I ask for a source on the leather thing? I am interested to find out more on that.  

[evolvingwolf]

I remember reading somewhere that during some periods in Egyptian history, children were buried with green objects to bring them closer to one of the mother goddesses, Bast. Green is her sacred color. ^_^ I hope that helps at all.