| Title |
The embalmed heart of Richard the Lionheart (1199 A.D.): a biological and anthropological analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep01296 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Philippe Charlier, Joël Poupon, Gaël-François Jeannel, Dominique Favier, Speranta-Maria Popescu, Raphaël Weil, Christophe Moulherat, Isabelle Huynh-Charlier, Caroline Dorion-Peyronnet, Ana-Maria Lazar, Christian Hervé, Geoffroy Lorin de la Grandmaison |
| Abstract |
During the Middle Ages, the partition of the cadaver of the elite members was a current practice, with highly technical treatment given to symbolic organs such as the heart. Considered mostly from a theoretical point of view, this notion of dilaceratio corporis has never been biologically explored. To assess the exact kind of embalming reserved to the heart, we performed a full biomedical analysis of the mummified heart of the English King Richard I (1199 A.D.). Here we show among other aspects, that the organ has been embalmed using substances inspired by Biblical texts and practical necessities of desiccation. We found that the heart was deposed in linen, associated with myrtle, daisy, mint, frankincense, creosote, mercury and, possibly, lime. Furthermore, the goal of using such preservation materials was to allow long-term conservation of the tissues, and good-smelling similar to the one of the Christ (comparable to the odor of sanctity). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 143 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 21 | 15% |
| United States | 17 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 6% |
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| France | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Argentina | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 77 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 134 | 94% |
| Scientists | 4 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 35% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 327. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#103,630
of 25,660,026 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#1,326
of 142,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#545
of 205,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#3
of 502 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,660,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 142,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 502 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.