Science1 distinct publisher2 min readUpdated
A first count of the pigment behind the world's oldest artificial mummies turns a burial rite into a procurement problem, and dents the idea that states come before technique.
The Scientist · Science desk

Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
The interesting quantity in the new paper is not the pigment but the sequence behind it. Arriaza calls it a chain of operations: locate the stone, collect it, select it, transport it, crush it, process it, mix it with other materials, then apply it to a body that has already been taken apart and rebuilt [9]. Sepulveda's remark that no complex technology is needed to gather manganese from surface outcrops is the part worth holding [11]. The hard part was never the tool but the order of operations, and holding that order intact for centuries in a society that had no writing to record it [1].
How many centuries is where the account strains. The Black Mummy technique is dated to between 4000 and 2800 B.C.E. [6], and described in the same account as a technique practiced for nearly two millennia [7]. That bracket is 1,200 years [8]. Either the dates are conservative or the duration is generous, and the difference is not cosmetic: the whole argument about undocumented technical transmission rests on how long the procedure survived without a written form.
The two procurement stories are not variants of one another. Sepulveda has highland groups mining the mineral and trading it down to the coast, pointing to fish remains, shells and shark teeth found in the Puna de Atacama as the return leg [12]. Arriaza allows that the Chinchorro fetched it themselves, and notes deposits along the Lluta River between 5 and 7.5 miles inland and near its Pacific mouth [13]. One version needs a standing relationship with people living at nearly 16,400 feet [10]; the other needs a walk. The 1.4 kg on the body is the same either way [4], but the society it implies is not.
The bodies also work against reading this as elite display. Men, women, the elderly, children and newborns were mummified, from across the social spectrum [14]. A technique that tracked state power would be rationed, and this one was applied to infants. What it required instead was skin removal, organ extraction, drying by fire or ash, reconstruction in clay and wool and plant fiber, sea lion skin where the original was insufficient, and a wig [5].
Egypt is the reference point for mummification partly because Egypt left buildings and documents that explain it. The Chinchorro left the object and nothing to read [1], and the coating on one body is the first part of the process anyone has put a number to [3].
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
A study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports quantifies for the first time the amount of manganese required to create the Chinchorro Black Mummies.
The Chinchorro developed one of the most complex funerary technologies known in the ancient world, involving dismantling and reconstructing bodies, wood and plant fibers, modeled faces, clay and ash, and mineral pigment coatings.
The Chinchorro culture was a fishing and hunter-gatherer society that inhabited the coast of the Atacama Desert more than 7,000 years ago, left behind no writing and built no monumental cities.
The Chinchorro artificial mummies are recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and were created up to two millennia before those of Egypt.
The Black Mummy process involved removing the skin and soft tissues, extracting the organs, drying the body using fire or ash, then reconstructing and modeling it with clay, wool fibers and plant fibers; incisions or sutures were used less than in the Red Mummies, sea lion skin could replace insufficient original skin, and bodies were fitted with wigs.
The Black Mummy form of Chinchorro mummification was practiced between 4000 and 2800 B.C.E.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
One peer-reviewed estimate, reported secondhand with a named methodological caveat
The core figure comes from a named study in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports with a described method (coating samples plus adult body dimensions, segmented volume converted to mass) and two named University of Tarapacá researchers, one of them independent of the study. Against that: no sample size or uncertainty range is given, the article concedes the estimate is conservative, an independent expert says the manganese fraction of the coating is still undetermined, and the piece contradicts itself on how long the technique lasted.
No adoption signal applicable or reported
This is an archaeological research result; the supplied source reports no releases, deployments, benchmarks, usage disclosures, pricing or licensing events, and no downstream uptake of the finding. Nothing in the material supports an adoption measurement, so none is inferred.
Mildly overstated: superlatives and a firm number outrun the stated uncertainty
The article does carry its own caveats — conservative estimate, mixed pigment layers, unresolved provenance — which keeps the gap small. It is positive rather than zero because a single study's estimate is presented as a firm per-body quantity, the 'most complex funerary technology known in the ancient world' and 'earliest pre-Hispanic art in the Americas' superlatives are asserted without comparative evidence and partly by an interested heritage-center director, and the duration claim conflicts with the dating in the same paragraph block.
Heritage-promotion and single-institution incentives visible in the sourcing
Both quoted experts are from the University of Tarapacá, and the study lead is also director of the Chinchorro Management Center, which stewards a UNESCO World Heritage designation — an institutional interest in the significance framing ('works of art', 'earliest pre-Hispanic art'). The outlet is a popular-science publisher whose framing rewards superlatives. Mitigating this, the article includes a dissenting caveat from a researcher who did not participate in the study. No funding, sponsorship or commercial relationship is disclosed either way.
Low-to-moderate: one publisher, one article, two interviewees
Every claim traces to a single source item from a single publisher, with no independent replication, no direct access to the paper's figures, and unresolved internal inconsistency. Confidence is not lower because the study is journal-published, the researchers are named and institutionally identified, the method is described, and the piece itself surfaces a contrary expert view.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
science
A San Andreas slip claim arrives without a number, and before peer review1 distinct publisher
science
Air conditioning cools the room by heating the street, and a UNSW physicist wants paint first1 distinct publisher
science
The ocean is the coolant, and the coolant is warming1 distinct publisher
science
Huashan's red cliff paintings survived 2,000 monsoons because of a lime-and-blood mortar1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.