Talk:Manchester Mummy

fear of death
"despite Beswick's fear of being buried alive," - the article doesn't really qualify this statement other than the anecdote about her brother - is there any way it can be expanded upon? I also suggest that it be moved closer to her actual burial, rather than the conclusion that she was dead. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That "Despite ..." sentence has also been criticised in the FAC, so I've somewhat recast the whole paragraph. There really isn't any more material that can be added to this article though, or at least none that I've been able to find. But I don't have any difficulty in believing that if you saw your brother "come back to life" just as his coffin was about to be sealed, that would make a powerful impression. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

revenant
This is an interesting article but it totally misses the English folkloric tradition of revenant (folklore) which is really the proper context in which to describe and understand the Manchester Mummy as a cultural phenomenon. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Hannah was afraid of being burried alive, not of her corpse coming back, as I would have thought the article makes quite clear. Nev1 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After she died the "cold dark shadow of her mummy hung over Manchester" for many years. And the ghostly visions of her returning to the spot of the hidden treasure. All very much in the revenant tradition. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Her corpse never came back to life, and neither was that her fear. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * * sigh* Green Cardamom (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all very well sighing, but Malleus is right and you've misinterpreted a metaphor and a ghost as reference to Hannah's body coming back from the dead. Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. You have though. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "A revenant is a visible ghost or animated corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living." In no way does that describe Hannah Beswick's apparition. The "cultural context" for this article is the fear a premature burial. Beswick's ghost was by all accounts quite helpful, pointing out where her treasure was buried, and her corpse was verifiably never animated. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Harpurhey Cemetery?
Where exactly IS Harpurhey Cemetery? I've looked around and can't find it. --RyanTee82 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in Rochdale Road, Harpurhey, now called Manchester General Cemetery. Details here. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Technicalities
The article is quite interesting and shows a lot of thought and work that went into it! However, a couple of minor things.. The phrase "apparently eccentric will" sounds strange and is repeated through the article. Also a couple of the same points are made twice. A couple of words are wikified twice in the article. I'm somewhat puzzled that this made it to FA-status without dealing with such tiny issues.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article makes quite clear, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not Beswick requested that her body be embalmed. Although many sources claim that she did, the surving copy of a will dated the year before her death makes no mention of it. Hence I think that "apparently eccentric" is an accurate description of the situation. The phrase is not "repeated through the article", as you claim, but occurs only twice; one in the lead and once in the Display section. As for the couple of duplicate wikilinks, wouldn't it have been quicker for you just to fix them rather than whinging here? But if you're referring to a couple of things that are wikilinked in the lead and in again the body of the article, then that's quite normal and perfectly proper. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What points are made twice? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, it's perfectly legitimate to wikify words twice on a selective basis. Perhaps not so much in a shorter article, but still. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro logic
"Following her death in 1758 her body was embalmed and kept above ground, to be periodically checked for signs of life." Surely no one was so foolish as to check an embalmed body for signs of life? Apparently the details of the whole matter are rather uncertain, but maybe that could be stated differently. Everyking (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Difficult though it may be to believe, that's exactly what happened. According to Bondeson there was an annual get-together at White's house each New Year's Eve when he and a few of his friends checked Hannah Beswick's mummy for signs of life. In other words, the lead is perfectly accurate. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, add that to the article, then. Everyking (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? It's not necessarily true; other sources have different stories. The only commonality is that she was regularly checked for signs of life, which is what the article says, and all that can be reliably sourced. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So report all the stories. The article is short by FA standards, and we need to be comprehensive. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain? The article is short, and I was going to say something about that, but I figured there probably wasn't really anything more to say about something so obscure, so I let it slide. But here you're telling me there are a bunch of stories related to the "mummy" that have been omitted from the article. Everyking (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm telling you nothing of the sort. What I'm telling you is that different authors have differently interpreted "regularly checked for signs of life", without attributing their interpretations to reliable sources. Just as many authors have claimed that Hannah Beswick requested in her will to be embalmed, something for which there is no evidence, other than that she actually was embalmed. Authors copy one another, and embellish each time, but it's rather more difficult to establish the facts. The only fact here is that Bondeson, for instance, described a rather unlikely ceremony for which there appears to be no independent reliable evidence. If you feel that this article isn't comprehensive, and thus fails to meet the FA criteria, then feel free to take it to FAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter whether these sources state something "reliably", because we won't be reporting any of it as established fact. We ought to simply record the various stories, legends and theories surrounding the "mummy". Doesn't the article already discuss the legend of her ghost and the buried money? Everyking (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd made my position clear, but apparently not. If you have good reason to believe that this article is not comprehensive, and thus fails the FA criteria, then take it to FAR. Comprehensive does not mean including every known "fact", but if you believe that it does then good luck at FAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You expressed your position, and I was expressing mine. I like the article, but I think it should be expanded. I didn't say anything about FAR; I don't participate in those processes. Everyking (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You think it should be padded, not quite the same thing. I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA aftermath
74,100 views and this is the net effect of the day's edits. Looks ok to me, although does L'Inhumation précipitée translate as "the hasty burial" or "the premature burial"? Nev1 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "hasty" is a better translation. Thanks to you and everyone else who kept an eye on the article today. At one point it was driving me mad. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are fine, but "premature" is better. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. As the past participle of précipiter, which means "to hasten", "hasty" is clearly a better translation. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Premature" is a more idiomatic translation. Also, an official page for the Wiertz Museum calls it "The Premature Burial". Everyking (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez Louise, I really don't give a fuck. Change it if you like, I couldn't care less. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Embalming
This is an interesting article about a little-known artificial human mummy (ie non-natural). However, we should be concerned with the description of the embalming process, which is not verifiable. The paragraph cites an article from 1953 ('Some Eighteenth Century Experiments in Embalming'), and this is used to infer a possible process used on the corpse of Hannah Beswick. But, this is only an inference, and is not based on any evidence that can be related to this individual mummy, which has not been scientifically investigated. The article clearly states that the preservation technique used is unknown, and that is where it should end, as to do anything else is pure speculation. I suggest reworking this para to avoid inference and guesswork. What do others think?Rhodian (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The author of that 1953 paper specifically describes the process that he believes would have been carried out on Hannah Beswick, and he specifically uses her as one of his examples. The process itself is historically verifiable, of course. The article makes it clear that the exact method of embalming is unknown, and will likely forever remain unknown now that Beswick has been buried in an unmarked grave, and so I think this account of the likely process gives a useful insight for the reader. The inference is not drawn from that 1953 paper, it is specifically described in that paper, of which the embalming account given here is a summary. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jessie Dobson, author of the 1953 paper was herself speculating. Please have a look at this text which, although unreferenced, seems to draw on some useful source material, in particular referring to the body being "embalmed in tar":


 * It would be very wise to consider this, as coating with tar (or bitumen) was widely practised by embalmers. The point is, this reference counters Dobson's speculation, and serves to highlight the danger of promoting that source at the expense of others. We would be on safer (neutral) ground to avoid speculation, and leave the process as 'unknown' or 'uncertain', which is the fact in this case. Rhodian (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, on the one hand we have a paper in the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences by the Recorder of the Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons of England; the author explains a long association between White and John Hunter and goes on to describes Hunter's known method for doing this kind of thing. On the other hand we have a posting at on an internet forum, which opens "The ghost of Madam Hannah Beswick is still thought to be regular visitor to the industrial estate in New Avenue".  You don't really think we should give them equal weight, do you?  Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That referenced posting contains so many factual inaccuracies that's it's laughable anyone would take it seriously. For instance: "This event made such an impression on Hannah Beswick’s mind that she immediately made out her will, leaving the whole of her estate to Doctor White on the condition that he and his descendants were to receive the income from the Birchen Bower estates as long as her body was not buried." That's complete and utter rubbish. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't it just as dangerous to take Dobson's 60-year-old account too literally, given she never examined the mummy? She has to have been speculating. The arterial embalming method picked up by Dobson, and repeated here, was William Hunter's, but that only came to attention in 1776 following (a) publication, which is detailed here, and (b) his brother John's 1775 embalming of Mary Butchell, wife of Martin van Butchell. EB gives a brief overview here: . So, not only does the Wiki Intro and Embalming para verge on being opinionated (use of the word 'probably'), but there might also be a chronological problem -- Beswick died 18 years before Hunter's use of arterial embalming was published. As none of us know the embalming method White used, it seems completely wrong to infer the arterial method pioneered years later by William Hunter. Who's to say White didn't cover the corpse with tar? He may well have been familiar with Egyptian mummies which, at the time, were thought to have been coated with tar / bitumen -- but I'm only speculating! A few tweaks is all it needs to tighten up this otherwise good article. Rhodian (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't I made it clear enough that I think you're talking bullshit? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For those of us who don't have access to the duke journals source, could you reproduce the portion of the text which supports the claim that Hunter pioneered this particular method of embalming? Also, a bit of background information on the author would probably be of use. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Britannica article confirms that arterial embalming was developed and reported on by William Hunter (1718–83) as a way of preserving bodies. Charles White studied under William Hunter in the 1740s, at least 10 years before Hannah Beswick's death, so it seems rather unlikely that he wouldn't have been familiar with Hunter's methods. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's good enough for me. BTW, I know you haven't sourced anything from EB, but I wouldn't trust it tbh, it isn't the most reliable of sources. Parrot of Doom 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never sourced anything from EB, and I've often complained when others do. This is all in Dobson's paper anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of Zigarovich's paper: Mr Stephen (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that arterial balming was the the most likely method used. Interestingly, even Zigarovich has got some of the details wrong though. White died in 1813, but the Manchester Natural History Museum wasn't founded until 1821, so Beswick's mummy couldn't have left to the museum on his death, and it wasn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr Stephen -- thank you for posting this extract. It's clear that Zigarovich favours arterial embalming for Beswick, which would be a very early, but unproven, case for this technique being used in modern times. Note, he also says the body was 'preserved in tar', which is an ancient method used to create an impervious hard outer layer, thus preventing attack from fungus, insects, larvae, rodents, and so on. The article quotes a description of Beswick's mummy as 'shrivelled and black', which would support the corpse having been coated in tar or bitumen.


 * Malleus -- would you be happy to add in a mention of the preservation in tar, citing Zigarovich? Could you also explain that the embalming method you describe is the arterial method, as pioneered by William Hunter, and that Beswick's corpse may have been one of the first in modern times to undergo the procedure. This will avoid readers thinking the technique was well established, which it wasn't.


 * Can I also point out that Jessie Dobson (1906-1984) is more usually cited as 'Curator of the Hunterian Museum, Royal College of Surgeons of England', rather than the obsolete title of 'Recorder'. Rhodian (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The witness account does indeed say that she was "shrivelled and black", so I agree it's quite possible that she was coated in tar—except for her face IIRC—and I've no objection to mentioning that possibility. Dobson's title is the one given in the paper, so perhaps that was her title at the time it was written/published? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, this BBC link plus Dobson's paper contain a chunk of that section of Zigarovich's paper. The tar bit is from the BBC link, the embalming method from Dobson. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My biggest problem with this article was sorting out the fact from the fiction, which that BBC article reminds me of. There's a surviving copy of Beswick's will apparently, and it makes no mention of her desire to be embalmed, or to have her body regularly checked for signs of life. White's motivation for embalming Beswick are going to remain a mystery for ever I fear. Bondeson tells a rather colourfully macabre tale of an annual New Years Eve ritual of inspecting Beswick's body, for which there appears to be absolutely no evidence whatever. Others claim that she was to be inspected ever 21 years, but I ask you, what would be the point of that? And could anyone seriously believe that after having had all the blood drained from their body and replaced with turpentine that they might conceivably still be alive? So many stories, so much nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Apparently "He was acting on her phobia of being buried alive."  He certainly would have made sure that there was no chance of that.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)