<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Andrew J. Nelson</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson</link>
<description>Recent documents in Andrew J. Nelson</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:24:00 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>








<item>
<title>A Synthetic Radiological Study of Brain Treatment in Ancient Egyptian Mummies</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/80</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/80</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:39:14 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Variability in brain treatment, as a part of the Egyptian mummification process, is poorly appreciated in the literature, as variability in the details of excerebration have not been addressed comprehensively nor with respect to social, geographic, and temporal variation. The description of Egyptian mummification commonly used in the popular and academic literature is derived largely from accounts by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. However, this normative description does not acknowledge the existence of a wide range of mummification techniques practiced and so stifles the study of geographic and chronological changes in the practice and their causes. Therefore, the goal of this study is to use the classical description as a hypothesis for empirical testing, using published literature and primary radiographic data, with a specific focus on the practice of excerebration. Three primary treatments of the brain in mummification, and their variation over time and across social strata, are discussed in relation to their treatment in the literature, their radiological indicators, and their technical considerations. In order to examine Egyptian mummy excerebration, this study makes use of two samples: (1) a literature-based sample of 125 mummies, and (2) a sample of 6 mummies examined directly using computed tomography. In spite of an apparent high degree of variability, the literature continues to focus on modern and classical stereotypes rather than the rich variability in the Egyptian mummification tradition. Detailed, large-scale examination of this and other mummification traditions, and their meanings, is required to further our understanding of this important early complex society.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew D. Wade et al.</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Assessment of Human Trabecular Architecture in the Pubis by Three Radiographic Modalities</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/79</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/79</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:10:19 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>This poster discusses technical aspects of an investigation into the use of non-destructive radiological analyses of pubic cancellous bone structure to estimate age-at-death from human skeletal remains. This study stems from findings, in X-ray plain films, of increased rarification and orientation of trabeculae with age [1]; likely in concert with the macroscopic remodelling of the symphyseal surface currently used in estimation of age-at-death.</p>
<p>The study uses three non-destructive X-ray imaging modalities: plain film radiography, computed tomography (CT), and micro-CT (μCT). Plain film radiography has greater spatial resolution than CT [2] and is relatively inexpensive, widely available, and, with portable X-ray units, even accessible in the field for archaeological and forensic applications. CT scanners are largely restricted to clinical settings due to the size, sensitivity, and cost of the machine, but offer a greater contrast resolution than plain film radiography [2]. More expensive and more precise, μCTscanners are further restricted in their availability and accessibility, but CT andμCTmodalities provide volumetric data, avoiding the confusion of overlying cortical and cancellous structures and the apparent increases in density with element thickness seen in plain film radiography.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew D. Wade et al.</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

<category>Use of non-destructive imaging in Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The UQAM Mummy – The Use of Non-Destructive Imaging to Reconstruct an Ancient Osteobiography and to Document Modern Malfeasance</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/78</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/78</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:10:17 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>An Egyptian mummy and her coffin dating to the 26th Dynasty were donated to the École de Beaux Arts in Montreal in 1927. This mummy has been in the collection of the Université du Québec à Montréal since 1967. Inscriptions on the elaborate coffin identify the individual as Hetep-Bastet. In 1969, the mummy was attacked by a protester, who caused extensive damage. The mummy was scanned once over a decade ago. However, computed tomography (CT) technology has advanced a great deal since that time, and some conclusions reached were somewhat suspect (e.g. that she suffered from a large dental abscess caused by “drinking too much beer”). Thus, when Hetep-Bastet was transported to Gatineau in the fall of 2008 to be part of the “Tombs for Eternity” exhibit at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, we took the opportunity to rescan her.</p>
<p>The specific goals of our study were:  <ul> <li>to assess the damage done by the protester in 1969 </li> <li>to investigate the specific details of how she was mummified as part of an ongoing study of variability in mummification practice </li> <li>to gather osteological and paleopathological data in order to reconstruct her osteobiography </li> <li>to segment the skull from the CT data in order to create a facial reconstruction </li> <li>to examine her coffin as part of an ongoing study of the use of CT scans to characterize different materials associated with Egyptian mummies Damage</li> </ul></p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson et al.</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

<category>Use of non-destructive imaging in Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Backroom Treasures: CT Scanning of Two Ibis Mummies from the Peabody Museum Collection</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/77</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/77</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:10:16 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Museum collections of Egyptian human and animal mummies have great potential for research and museums often curate larger collections than those on exhibit. Scheduling access for medical imaging projects is often complicated for mummies on display because of the important environmental controls under which they are kept. Consequently, collections in storage are often more numerous and more readily available, in terms of time and physical access, than those on exhibit.</p>
<p>Application of computed tomography (CT) to the study of mummified remains allows for detailed three-dimensional evaluations, without the difficulties of superimposition that characterise plain film radiographs. Three-dimensional visualisation, multi-planar reformats (MPR), maximum intensity projections (MIP), and curve-linear reconstructions of these mummies were especially valuable for close examination of the complex curves of the spine and the contents of the gizzard. These manipulations are no less important in the study of animal mummies than they are in those of humans.﻿</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew D. Wade et al.</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

<category>Use of non-destructive imaging in Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Heart Treatment in Ancient Egyptian Mummification</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/76</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/76</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:10:14 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Descriptions in the popular and academic literature, of the treatment of the heart as part of the Egyptian mummification tradition, are derived from accounts by classical authors.</p>
<p>Our reliance on these normative descriptions, in the absence of Egyptian accounts, has obscured the wide range of mummification practices and the intrasocietal changes occurring in ancient Egypt. It has impeded the study of geographic, chronological, and socio-political variations in ancient Egyptian mortuary practice and ideology.</p>
<p>This study focuses on computed tomography (CT) as a non-destructive gold standard for mummies studies, and in the examination of heart treatment indications and variations with time, sex, and status.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew D. Wade et al.</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The ROM / UWO Mummy Project: A Microcosm of Progress in Mummy Research</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/75</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/75</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:10:12 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>The beginnings of the Royal Ontario Museum can be traced back to the excavations and collections of Charles Trick Currelly, a staff member of the Egyptian Exploration Fund in the early 1900s. Currelly excavated with Sir Flinders Petrie at Abydos and with Edouard Naville at Deir el Bahari. With the assistance of Robert Mond and others, Currelly amassed a rich and diverse collection that became the basis for the ROM, which opened its doors in 1914. Part of that collection included several Egyptian mummies (Currelly 1971) .</p>
<p>The Egyptologicalholdings at the ROM include eight mummies: one dating to the Predynastic Period, five from the Pharaonic Period, one from the Roman Period and one without context. Two of these, Nakht and Djedmaatesankh, have been well studied by Peter Lewin and associates, while three more are the subjects of the current investigation. The objectives of this poster are to review the work and accomplishments of the previous research, to describe the preliminary results of the current research project and to outline directions for future work.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson et al.</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Another Hole in the Head?  Brain Treatment in Ancient Egyptian Mummies</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/74</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/74</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:10:10 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Perhaps the most sensational and best-known feature of Egyptian mummification, the removal of the brain, is commonly attributed to the New Kingdom onward (e.g. [1]). Variability both within and between excerebration techniques, however, is poorly appreciated in the literature [2], and reporting of excerebration is often inconsistent, greatly simplified, or simply absent in descriptions of mummified remains, making detailed comparative studies difficult if not impossible.</p>
<p>The goals of this study were to demonstrate:  <ul> <li> variability in mummy excerebration techniques</li> <li> temporal and status trends in brain treatment </li> <li>the limitations of the literature for large studies </li> </ul></p>
<p>This study focuses on computed tomography (CT), as a non-destructive gold standard for mummies studies, in the examination of three primary treatments of the brain in mummification:  <ol> <li>transnasal craniotomy (TNC) </li> <li>transforaminal craniotomy (TFC) </li> <li>the absence of excerebration </li> </ol></p>
<p>in relation to their radiological indications and their variations with time and status.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew D. Wade et al.</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

<category>Use of non-destructive imaging in Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Incas Unwrapped</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/72</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/72</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:09:15 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>An Egyptian Souvenir</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/71</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/71</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:06:50 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Mummy X-posed</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/70</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/70</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Who’s Your Mummy?</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/69</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/69</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:02:56 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Anthropologie in 3D</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/68</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/68</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:01:04 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Mysteriöse Mumie</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/67</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/67</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:58:47 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Making of a Mummy</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/66</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/66</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:56:46 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>1917 - The Missing</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/65</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/65</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:53:22 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Unwrapping a Mystery</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/64</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/64</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:47:50 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Mummy</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/63</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/63</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:40:38 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Unwrapping a Mummy</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/62</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/62</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:37:56 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Virtual Mummies</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/61</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/61</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:25:48 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrew J. Nelson</author>


<category>Mummy Studies</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Recent Investigations at the Site of &lt;em&gt;Cajamarquilla&lt;/em&gt;: Advances in the Study of Precolumbian Mortuary Practices on the Peruvian Central Coast</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/60</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrewnelson/60</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:47:46 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>R. Segura et al.</author>


<category>Bioarchaeology</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>
