I read a book about James Butler ‘Wild Bill’ Hickock several years ago. It was called The Legend of Wild Bill Hickock, The Legend of James Butler Hickock, Aces and Eights, or something like that. (As I said, it’s been a a while since I’ve read it.)
Anyway, it said that Hickock’s body was exhumed, and they found that it had been infiltrated by limestone-laden water. After three (?) years, it still looked as it did the day it was buried – but it weighed 300 pounds.
On a recent History Channel programme about embalming, they related the same story; but they said ‘Had embalming been available, the body would not have been so deteriorated.’
So which is it? Did the minerals preserve the body? Or did they (and the water) make it deteriorate faster than it would have? (I’m guessing the former, because I assume it would be pretty bad after three years anyway.)
IANABDE*, but that makes it sounds as if he was “fossilized”, as in the shape of his body was preserved by the limestone but not the body itself. Had he been embalmed, the limestone wouldn’t have gotten into his corpse. Its a fascinatingly morbid image in my head though…thanks.
Embalming is the infusion of formalin (4% formaldehyde solution) into the blood vessels. I assume that much of it makes its way into the tissues. It’s got terrific antimicrobial activity, but I can’t imagine that it either prevents of promotes mineral leaching.
Perhaps what they meant was that the corpse was relatively well-preserved for having been soaked in water, and would have been worse if it hadn’t been embalmed.
OK, I looked up a few things: Hickock’s body was moved to a new cemetary two years after his death; observers said it was “petrified” by calcium carbonate. I don’t know how reliable this judgement is, but any frontier doctor ought to recognize chalk. It also appears that they judged that his body was “imperfectly embalmed” because it was petrified, and I don’t see how that makes any sense.
