Pinch of Pigment: Mummy Brown

Many of the early Pre-Raphaelite paintings may have paint made from dead Egyptians. Considered to be a highly variable pigment between raw umber (almost greenish brown) and burnt umber (a ruddier brown), Mummy Brown was a transparent brown good for mixing.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Temperantia by Edward Burne-Jones, 1872.

Many of the early Pre-Raphaelite paintings may have paint made from dead Egyptians.

Considered to be a highly variable pigment between raw umber (almost greenish brown) and burnt umber (a ruddier brown), Mummy Brown was a transparent brown good for mixing. And it was appalling. Made from ancient Egyptian human and feline mummies


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


grave-robbed investigated as antiquities in Europe, there was a craze to use the bodies for everything from fertilizer to beauty creams to fine art paint pigment.

Edward Burne-Jones was reportedly, appropriately disturbed when informed of the pigment's true nature by fellow painter Alma-Tadema (and in the company of Burne-Jones' nephew, a young Rudyard Kipling) that he performed a ceremony for his paint tube there in the yard, and buried it.¹

"...When assured that it was actually compounded of real mummy, he left us at once, hastened to the studio, and returning with the only tube he had, insisted on our giving it decent burial there and then. So a hole was bored in the green grass at our feet, and we all watched it put safely in, and the spot was marked by one of the girls planting a daisy root above it”

-from Philip McCouat, "The life and death of Mummy Brown", Art in Society

The pigment itself wasn't easily imitated. It wasn't just made regular long-dried out corpses. The mummification process involved asphaltum or bitumen, often in place of the removed organs. Whole mummies were then ground for commercial and just plain wrong use.² Mummy Brown was a fugitive colour, meaning it faded easily. While it was easy for 19th century painters to give up using it due to ick, gross it was still manufactured long after. That practice didn't end until the 1960s, when paint companies more or less ran out.

Today, you can get a wholly mineral imitation of Mummy Brown made from hematite, calcium carbonate, iron oxide, kaolin and clay silica; similar in colour, but likely with many different properties.

References:

  1. Philip McCouat, "The life and death of Mummy Brown", Art in Society

  2. Ray Smith, The Artist's Handbook. Alfred A Knopf, (7th printing). ISBN 0-394-55585-6;p14

  3. Image Temperantia by Edward Burne-Jones, 1872, Wikipedia.

Note: I do not know if Burne-Jones painting Temperantia contains Mummy Brown; that could only be determined by mass spectrometry or historical notes. It is however, one of his earlier paintings so it is possible.

________________________________

Did you enjoy this Pinch of Pigment? If you enjoyed it, let me know, and I'll continue this as an irregular but frequent series on Symbiartic! All fine art paints are pigment particles bound in a sticky medium: vegetable oil, gum arabic or acrylic polymer. The stories behind the pigments are odd and surprising.

Find 'em all by clicking Pinch of Pigment in the tags below.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe