Mummification In Anthropology

more ties into the literary research of being the product of culture that faced instability and was dependent upon seemingly supernatural events to sustain their life (Thames & Hudson, 2013). Present research on mummification is primarily focused on collecting data and tissue samples of the deceased in order to obtain information on disease, diets and physiological history of our Ancient ancestors ( ). Furthermore, while there is much evidence for the wealthy Egyptians, archaeologist are asking more questions about the individual person, their role in the funerary cult, and what happened to them after they died (Baines and Lacrova, 2002). All of which is not known.
Future
Phyllis Palgi and Henry Abramovitch postulated that anthropologists have apprehensions toward studying death, due to its intrusive nature, and that this regard has in some factors hindered anthropologist from understanding its true nature past or present. However, Robert Chapman (2003) justified this in study of Death and Culture by presenting death to be part of the social construct, and therefore crucial. Robert Chapman (2003) additionally theorized that archaeologist need to move past statistical data and the development
Moissidou et.al (2015) propose that mummies represent the most anthropological material that ancient cultures have provided us with. They discuss in length the positive and negatives associated with non-invasive verses invasive techniques on mummification, finding that noninvasive techniques do render full results. However their conclusions vie for a solid methodology for assuring respectful testing on the dead, which vies for respect, necessary intervention (not testing just to test), and the overarching theme (does this test implicate the bigger