The Milan’s Mermaid N. Bagnasco1 and G. Bardelli2 1 CICAP, Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences 2 Civic Museum of Natural History, Milan The 30 centimetre-long body of an alleged mermaid kept at the Civic Museum of Natural History in Milan has been analysed through microscopical and radiographic observations, that allowed us to determine the method of construction of this typical fake of which other specimens have been known for at least two centuries. I. INTRODUCTION in America by a showman called Phineas Tay- lor Barnum. Barnum passed it off as the prop- erty of a London naturalist at a ”famous” (but non-existent) British academic body. In 1931, on the twenty-second issue of ”Natura”, the his- torical magazine of the Civic Museum of Nat- ural History of Milan and the Italian Society of Natural Sciences, E. Ninni made the point FIG. 1. The ”mermaid” of the Civic Museum of on the ”mermaids” back then known in an arti- Natural History of Milan. Photographed by Giorgio Bardelli. cle called ”Ancora sui mostri marini” (”More on sea monsters”)[2]. A few issues later the same The curious and bizarre specimen was found author will publish a second article on Nature, at the beginning of the eighties in an archive of entitled ”Altri due ’Mostri marini’ rinvenuti nel paleontological collections in the basement of the Veneto” (”Other two ’Sea Monsters’ found in the Civic Museum of Natural History. We have no Veneto”), in which he describes a similar finding information about its origins, other than the cer- to the one kept today in Milan. Ninni reports tainty that it is part of a very widespread type of artefacts, generically described as of Eastern or Japanese origin, although with confused in- formation about it. One of the earliest docu- mented cases of such chimeras was in London in FIG. 2. a) Photograph in the article on “Natura” 1822, when the ”mermaid” of Captain Samuel in which Nanni describes the Venetian mermaid, (b) Photograph of the mermaid currently on display in Barrett Eades was shown to the public for a Venice[3] long time. He brought it to London after buying it in Indonesia during a trip for the company a very accurate description of the mermaid he he worked for, the ”Perkins Co.” of Boston, examined and claims that an identical specimen Massachusetts[1]. This kind of artefacts got the would have been owned by Mr. Asta, of Venice. name of ”Feejee Mermaids” after the death of For the characteristic elements in common be- Captain Eades, when with a fraudulent adver- tween the specimen examined by Ninni and the tisement about his ”mermaid” it was exhibited Venetian, the author assumes that the two arti- 2 facts were the work of a single artificer. Among the museum as part of their collection and have these elements I think are peculiar and therefore miraculously escaped the destruction of the lat- significant for the attribution of the two artifacts ter. To date I have no sources or documents to to the same artificer the presence of a fake white confirm or to refute this supposition, except for beard on the chin, of hair to cover the junction a further article published in the twenty-first is- area between the front and the rear and the po- sue of Nature, in which the author B. Parisi lists sition of the anal fin, removed from the original the four artificial monsters present at the Civic location and placed between the dorsal fin and Museum. Among these, unfortunately, the mer- the caudal fin. All these characteristic features maid is not present[6]. Although the mystery described by Ninni can be found in the ”mer- about the history of the artefact before 1980 is maid” preserved today in the Museum of Natural not solved, from his analysis we found many in- History of Venice Giancarlo Ligabue (Figure 2b) teresting elements. which leads me to suppose that it is one of the two described in the article on ”Natura”. How- II. ANALYSIS ever, these same peculiar traits are absent in the case of Milan. For this reason I do not think The specimen, about 31 cm long, weighs 197 that the artifact kept at the Civic Museum is grams. The body is made almost entirely of one of the two described by Ninni, nor that it artificial materials. Most likely it is made of was created by the same person. In the book painted papier-mâché, given the density of the of 1957 ”Mermaids and Mastodons, a Book of material and the characteristic wrinkles visible Natural Unnatural History”, written by Richard on the lower part of the artefact, much less cured Carrington, an interesting trace is provided that than the upper part. This difference in accuracy could lead us to our finding. The author tells between the upper and lower parts is plausibly that in the thirties of the nineteenth century a due to the purely expositive function of the ob- famous specimen of mermaid exhibited at the ject. The papier-mâché has also been used in Egyptian Hall in London would be bought for a the making of other similar ”mermaids”, such as large sum of money by two Italian brothers[7]. the ”Japanese Monkey-Fish” of the Horniman Arises therefore the hypothesis that these two Museum in London[4]. On the artefact of the brothers could be Antonio and Giovanni Bat- Civic Museum of Natural History in Milan we tista Villa, naturalists and geologists who grav- carried out three x-ray examinations, one from itated around the Natural History Museum of above (which I will call axial), one of the left Milan. The Villa brothers were also known for side centred on the head and the last of left side collecting taxidermic finds and works similar to almost integrally. Unfortunately none of the ra- the mermaids of the Feejee as well as numerous diographies, kindly conducted free-of-charge by naturalistic specimens. These brothers donated the veterinary practice Risorgimento in Milan, their collection of fossils, minerals, insects and do contain a scan of the caudal fin. Inside, two shells to the museum, which was unfortunately types of internal supporting structures are vis- destroyed due to unknown causes. The mermaid ible thanks to these examinations: segments of could then, at first hypothesis, have arrived at iron wire in the hands and several wooden slats. 3 In the limbs there are in fact ten segments of iron age of the X-rays exams is not very clear, due wire (Figure 3a), 5 per hand, about one millime- to the poor sharpness of the bent arm and the tre thick and between four and five centimetres very low radiodensity (the material is essentially long. These wire segments extend from the in- transparent to photons of the X radiation). The only elements of the ”mermaid” of certain bi- ological source are the claws, the fins and the teeth. The claws, five by hand and five or six millimetres long, probably come from a chicken or some similar farm-raised bird. One of these claws, in the left hand (Figure 4a), is missing and reveals the tip of the wire inside. The fins, two FIG. 3. Magnification of the X-rays carried out at the specimen: (a) left hand, (b) wooden insert in the FIG. 4. Photographs of the specimen: (a) left hand, neck, (c) wooden insert inside the body. (b) dorsal fin. side of the claws to the base of the wrists. The ventral, one dorsal and one caudal, are authen- remarkable parallelism between the portions of tic fins of dried fish in extended position. This wire inside the palms of the hands suggests that effect can be easily achieved, for example, by they are firmly embedded in a material almost keeping the tail and fins ”stretched and in good invisible to X-ray radiation. There is a wooden position, up to drying with cardboard pressed by strip inside the body that extends from the cau- iron wire springs or with pins”, as the naturalist dal fin to the base of the neck (Figure 3b), about Pietro Zangheri[5] wrote in the eighties. twenty centimetres long. A third strip about The dorsal fin (Figure 4b) retains a base of four and a half centimetres long and with the underlying original tissue that probably helps lower terminal pointed connects the inside of the maintain the alignment of the spiniform rays. head to the neck (Figure 3c). This detail is evident in the axial and lateral The junction between these two parts is ex- x-ray exams centred on the body, while to the tremely well visible in X-rays, in which it ap- naked eye it is identifiable as a slight protrusion pears as a slightly narrower ring at the base on the back of the artifact below the fin. At the of the head, in the lateral X-ray examinations. base of all the fins are visible some small traces With the naked eye are only visible traces of glue probably of glue. The teeth are perfectly aligned near this junction. A fourth strip about four and and from one to two millimeters high. They a half centimetres long is visible inside the right are in all likelihood attributable to a fish, seen forearm (that of the extended arm) in the ax- their shape, the size and the conformation of ial radiography. It is therefore possible that one the mandibles. As the radiographic examination is also present in the left arm despite the im- shows, in fact, the teeth are still inserted in the 4 original mandibular and maxillary structures, a tion. From the eighth pair of ribs to the caudal condition that has also allowed the perfect align- fin the surface of the specimen becomes smooth, ment between them. However, the two dental to simulate half of the body of a fish. Scales are arches in both the jaw and maxilla have been drawn along the entire surface, and this drawing separated to allow a greater angle between them, is not visible in X-ray exams (Figure 6b,c). The and thus avoid the narrow and elongated shape high radiodensity of these areas when subjected of these structures typical in fishes. This division to X-radiation suggests the presence on the sur- face of a putty or a varnish of mineral or metallic origin, such as white lead (basic lead carbon- ate(II), (P bCO3 )2 · P b(OH)2 ) or chalk (calcium sulphate dihydrate, CaSO4 · 2(H2 O)). This hy- pothesis has been confirmed by Marco Nervo, FIG. 5. (a) Oral apparatus radiography, (b) oral ap- paratus, (c) magnification of the teeth. the Responsible for Scientific Laboratories at the Conservation and Restoration Center ”Centro is clearly visible in X-rays examinations (Figure Conservazione e Restauro La Venaria Reale” in 5a) and to the naked eye especially between the Turin. However, further exams are planned to lower arches (Figure 5c). The presence of the investigate further on this topic. Mainly in the complete bones of the jaw and the maxilla also front there are numerous small holes comparable explains the protrusion of the false oral appara- to those of woodworms, which, however, were tus. The teeth are more opaque in X-rays than probably created on purpose to give the artifact the nails and fins are because they are made of a false sense of antiquity. Until now, in fact, I a mineral substance, calcium phosphate, instead have not been able to find sources according to of keratin. Of very probable but not certain bi- which the papier-mâché is subject to the infesta- ological origin are the hair, probably identifiable tion of woodworms. These holes are not visible in hair of some animal. We’re conducting scan- in any X-rays, and their diameter is comparable ning electron microscopy tests to investigate this to the diameter of the iron wire in the mermaid’s topic. The bust has eight pairs of protrusions hands. that imitate a rib cage (Figure 6a) without, how- ever, a vertebral column, with the first and last ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pair of ribs less pronounced than the others. No internal structures of any kind beyond the lath in We thank the veterinary clinic ’Risorgimento’ Figure 1c are evident during the X-ray examina- in Milan for the X-ray examinations. [1] Bonderson, Jan. The Feejee Mermaid and Other sile di scienze naturali, Società Italiana di Scienze Essays in Natural and Unnatural History. Cornell Naturali, nº22, 1931 University Press, 1999. [3] Venice’s mermaid photos, [2] Ninni, E. Ancora sui mostri marini. (Italian) https://www.naturamediterraneo.com/forum/ [More on sea monsters]. Natura: rivista men- Topic 28059 5 [4] Viscardi, Paolo. Hollinshead, Anita. MacFar- 1930 lane, Ross. Moffatt, James. Mermaids Uncov- [7] Carrington, Richard. Mermaids and Mastodons, ered. Journal of Museum Ethnography. 27. 98- a Book of Natural and Unnatural History. Rine- 116, 2014. hart and Company, Inc., New York, 1957. [5] Zangheri, Pietro. Il Naturalista. Esploratore, [8] Bardelli Giorgio. La misteriosa “sirena”. (Ital- Raccoglitore, Preparatore, Imbalsamatore. ian) [The mysterious mermaid ]. Museo delle mer- Hoepli, 1981. aviglie: curiose rarità dalle collezioni del Museo [6] Parisi, B. Mostri Artificiali. (Italian) [Artificial di Storia Naturale di Milano. Natura, Soc. it. di monsters]. Natura: rivista mensile di scienze nat- Sc. nat. e Mus. civ. di St. Nat. di Milano, n° 106 urali, Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali, nº21, (2016), Vol. 2, p. 52
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-