The scent of the afterlife: how museums are reconstructing ancient Egypt through smell

/ General / By

Walk into most museums and you’ll get the same deal: glass, labels, quiet lighting, and a strong suggestion that you should look — not touch. But human history didn’t happen in a vacuum of odorless air. Temples burned incense, workshops reeked of resins and oils, bodies were prepared with balms that were engineered to preserve (and to signal ritual meaning), and everyday life had its own unmistakable “signature” of food, smoke, animals, and plants.

A new wave of “olfactory museology” is trying to bring that missing layer back — and it’s being powered by the same analytical chemistry that has been reshaping archaeology for decades. Researchers are using molecular traces left in ancient residues to infer ingredients, then working with trained perfumers to translate those chemical hints into scents that can be safely deployed in modern museum settings.

This isn’t gimmicky scratch‑and‑sniff nostalgia. Done well, it’s a careful chain of reasoning: residue sampling → biomolecular analysis → interpretation → perfumery formulation → visitor experience design. And it’s forcing museums to grapple with some surprisingly hard questions: what counts as “authentic” when your source material is a few degraded molecules? How do you avoid turning sacred funerary practices into horror-movie vibes? And what happens when smell, more than text, becomes the thing visitors remember?

Why smell matters more than museums have admitted

Museums are historically “ocularcentric”: built around vision as the primary route to knowledge. That bias makes sense — artifacts can be displayed without being consumed, and the eye is easy to manage at scale.

Smell is different:

  • It’s chemically physical. You are literally inhaling molecules.
  • It’s emotionally loud. Odors link strongly to memory and affect.
  • It’s hard to standardize. People vary in sensitivity, associations, and allergies.
  • It’s hard to contain. Scents leak, linger, and cross-contaminate.

But those downsides are also what make smell powerful for interpretation. A label can tell you embalming required complex balms; a scent can make you feel that “complex” wasn’t an abstract word. It can shift the visitor’s default mental image of mummification away from dry, dusty sterility — or away from pop-culture rot-and-curses — toward something closer to what practitioners may have experienced: sticky waxes, smoky resins, aromatic oils, and a deliberate craft aimed at transformation and preservation.

The science: extracting “scent archives” from ancient residues

The enabling trick is that many “smelly” substances are made of organic compounds that can leave long-lived residues: waxes, fats, oils, resins, tars/bitumen, plant gums. Over time, the most volatile aromatics evaporate, but molecular fingerprints can remain embedded in porous materials or stuck to vessel walls.

In the “Scent of the Afterlife” case study described by Barbara Huber and colleagues, the team analyzed residues from ancient Egyptian canopic jars associated with Senetnay (a high-status woman connected to the royal court of the 18th Dynasty). Canopic jars held embalmed organs removed during mummification — a context where one would expect rich mixtures of preservation agents and aromatics.

The analysis discussed in reporting on the work highlights ingredients consistent with what we’d expect from high-end embalming:

  • Beeswax
  • Plant oils
  • Animal fats
  • Bitumen (a tar-like petroleum product)
  • Conifer resins (pine/larch-type signatures)
  • Compounds like coumarin (vanilla-like) and benzoic acid (common in fragrant resins/gums)

Importantly, the “output” of biomolecular archaeology is not a perfume recipe. It’s a list of signals — sometimes clear, sometimes ambiguous — that have to be translated into a coherent reconstruction.

From chromatography to perfumery: the translation step

Here’s where the project gets unusually honest: reconstructing a historical scent isn’t like restoring a broken pot where you can glue the same clay back together.

A perfumer has to make judgment calls:

  • What does “conifer resin signature” mean in odor terms — pine needles, resinous wood, tar smoke?
  • Which notes should be foregrounded so a museum visitor notices them quickly?
  • What should be softened so the scent is tolerable and safe in a public space?
  • How do you represent ingredients that are historically plausible but not directly detected?

Carole Calvez, the perfumer involved in the project, frames the task as more than replication: biomolecular data provides clues, but the perfumer creates the whole. That’s less like copying a sound recording and more like reconstructing music from a partial score.

The result, as described in coverage of the work, was a fragrance with a strong pine-like woody character, a sweeter beeswax undertone, and a smoky bitumen edge — a blend that reads like “ritual workshop” rather than “corpse.”

How do you deliver smell in a museum without making everyone miserable?

Even if you can make a plausible scent, you still have to deploy it.

The research team tested two practical formats:

1) Scented cards (guided, controlled exposure)

A scented card is basically a low-tech interface for a high-tech idea. It has a few advantages:

  • It’s opt-in (a guide hands it to you; you choose to smell it).
  • It’s localized (the scent doesn’t fill the entire gallery).
  • It’s cheap and portable (usable in tours, education programs, temporary exhibits).

This format also supports interpretation: it’s easier to pair the “sniff moment” with an explanation, so visitors don’t just get hit with a smell and guess incorrectly.

A fixed station can create a more immersive experience, especially if it’s embedded in the narrative flow of an exhibition. The downside is operational: stations must be maintained, calibrated, and designed so the scent doesn’t drift into unrelated spaces.

At Moesgaard Museum, the station reportedly helped visitors understand embalming with more emotional and sensory depth than text alone.

Authenticity: what does “real” mean when you’re smelling an interpretation?

Whenever museums reconstruct something — a color palette, a missing statue arm, a soundscape — they negotiate authenticity. Smell makes that negotiation more visible, because people treat smell as intimate and “true.”

But in these projects, authenticity is layered:

  1. Analytical authenticity: Are the detected molecules real, and are the interpretations scientifically defensible?
  2. Material authenticity: Are the reconstructed notes based on historically plausible substances and methods?
  3. Experiential authenticity: Does the scent create a meaningful, non-misleading experience for a modern visitor?
  4. Ethical authenticity: Does the interpretation respect the cultural and funerary context?

A reasonable goal isn’t to claim “this is exactly what a priest smelled in 1450 BCE.” It’s to say: this scent is a rigorously informed reconstruction that helps you understand a practice that was fundamentally sensory.

The “horror movie problem”: mummification is not supposed to smell like decay

Western pop culture often frames mummies as monsters: dust, rot, curses. That framing is emotionally sticky — and smell can either reinforce it or correct it.

The interesting curatorial move described in the EurekAlert release is that scent can shift interpretation away from scare-factor clichés toward motivations and outcomes: preservation, ritual transformation, and the belief that the body (and organs) were necessary for the afterlife.

From a chemistry standpoint, it also makes sense. Many embalming ingredients are antimicrobial or desiccating; they’re not selected to produce the odor of decomposition. A reconstructed scent that emphasizes resins, wax, smoke, and oils can communicate “process” and “craft” rather than “rot.”

What the ancient ingredients can tell us about trade, status, and technology

Even if you never make a museum scent, the molecular work is archaeologically valuable.

Complex mixtures imply:

  • Specialization: knowledge of materials and how they behave.
  • Supply chains: resins and aromatics can be local, imported, or traded long-distance.
  • Status signals: elite burials may use more complex or expensive substances.
  • Technological choices: bitumen vs. plant resins vs. animal fats aren’t interchangeable; they have different preservation and symbolic properties.

Ancient incense mixtures like kyphi (documented in later sources and temple inscriptions) show that Egyptians treated scent as both religious technology and medical/cosmetic practice — a compound product with recipes, proportions, and ritual meaning.

Accessibility: smell is a feature, not a side quest

A museum that relies exclusively on text and visuals quietly excludes:

  • visitors with low vision
  • visitors who struggle with long reading
  • visitors who benefit from multisensory learning

Smell isn’t a magic fix, but it can be a serious accessibility tool when used intentionally. Crucially, it can also make exhibitions more sticky: visitors may remember a scent‑anchored idea long after the wording of labels has faded.

That said, accessibility cuts both ways. Some visitors have migraines, asthma, scent sensitivities, or trauma associations. “Inclusive olfactory design” means:

  • clear signage (“this gallery contains scented elements”)
  • opt-in delivery where possible
  • ventilation and containment planning
  • non-irritating concentrations
  • staff training

Operational reality: the museum as a “smell platform”

If you zoom out, scent projects force museums to behave like a platform with new constraints.

They need policies and procedures for:

  • materials and safety (IFRA-style thinking even if not formally applied)
  • conservation conflicts (will scent oils interact with artifacts, cases, textiles?)
  • maintenance (cartridges, printed scent cards, shelf life)
  • visitor flow (queues, dwell time at stations)
  • evaluation (did visitors learn more, stay longer, remember better?)

The Frontiers case study is useful because it doesn’t just say “smell is cool.” It proposes a workflow a real museum can execute, bridging lab science, perfumery craft, and exhibit design.

What’s next: beyond Egypt, toward “molecular storytelling”

The Egypt example is compelling because mummification is already vivid in the public imagination — but the larger idea is broader.

Once you accept that objects can be “scent archives,” a lot of possibilities open up:

  • the smell of ancient workshops (tanning, dyeing, metallurgy, shipbuilding)
  • the scent environment of religious spaces (incense and resins across cultures)
  • historic urban odor-scapes (sanitation, industry, food markets)
  • conservation science for modern heritage (documenting and preserving characteristic smells)

This is also where the tech angle becomes explicit: advances in analytical chemistry, data interpretation, and controlled diffusion systems turn smell into a medium museums can manage — not perfectly, but plausibly.

Bottom line

Smell is one of the most direct ways to make the past feel like a lived environment instead of a silent display. The “Scent of the Afterlife” work shows a pragmatic path from biomolecular archaeology to public interpretation: identify molecular traces, translate them through perfumery into a coherent reconstruction, and deliver them through visitor-safe formats like scent cards or stations.

The result isn’t a time machine. It’s a disciplined, multisensory hypothesis — one that can correct pop-culture misconceptions, deepen understanding of ancient technologies and beliefs, and make museums more accessible and memorable.

Sources

n English