In the earliest known (Second Dynasty) examples of Egyptian attempts at
mummification
2 the
corpse was swathed in a large series of bandages, which were moulded into shape
to represent the form of the body. In a later (probably Fifth Dynasty) mummy,
found in 1892 by Professor Flinders Petrie at Medlin, the superficial bandages
had been impregnated with a resinous paste, which while still plastic was
moulded into the form of the body, special care being bestowed upon the
modelling of the face
3 and the organs of reproduction, so as to leave no room for doubt as to the identity and the sex. Professor Junker has
described
4 an
interesting series of variations of these practices. In two graves the bodies
were covered with a layer of stucco plaster. First the corpse was covered with a
fine linen cloth: then the plaster was put on, and modelled into the form of the
body (p. 252). But in two other cases it was not the whole body that was covered with this layer of stucco, but only the head.
Professor Junker claims that this was done "apparently because the head was
regarded as the most important part, as the organs of taste, sight, smell, and
hearing were contained in it". But surely there was the additional and more
obtrusive reason that the face affords the means of identifying the individual!
For this modelling of the features was intended primarily as a restoration of
the form of the body which had been altered, if not actually destroyed. In other
cases, where no attempt was made to restore the features in such durable
materials as resin or stucco, the linen-enveloped head was modelled, and a
representation of the eyes painted upon it so as to enhance the life-like
appearance of the face.
These facts prove quite conclusively that the earliest attempts to reproduce
the features of the deceased and so preserve his likeness, were made upon the
wrapped mummy itself. Thus the mummy was intended to be the portrait as well as
the actual bodily remains of the dead. In view of certain differences of opinion
as to the original significance of the funerary ritual, which I shall have
occasion to discuss later on (see
p. 20), it is important
to keep these facts clearly in mind.
A discovery made by Mr. J. E. Quibell in the course of his excavations at
Sakkara
1 suggests
that, as an outcome of these practices a new procedure may have been devised in
the Pyramid Age—the making of a death-mask. For he discovered what may be the
mask taken directly from the face of the Pharaoh Teta (
Fig.
3).
About this time also the practice originated of making a life-size portrait
statue of the dead man's head and placing it along with the actual body in the
burial chamber. These "reserve heads," as they have been called, were usually
made of fine limestone, but Junker found one made of Nile mud.
2
Junker believes that there was an intimate relationship between the
plaster-covered heads and the reserve-heads. They were both expressions of the
same idea, to preserve a simulacrum of the deceased when his actual body had
lost all recognizable likeness to him as he
was when alive. The one method aimed at combining in the same object the
actual body and the likeness; the other at making a more life-like portrait
apart from the corpse, which could take the place of the latter when it
decayed.
Junker states further that "it is no chance that the substitute-heads …
entirely, or at any rate chiefly, are found in the tombs that have no
statue-chamber and probably possessed no statues. The statues [of the whole
body] certainly were made, at any rate partly, with the intention that they
should take the place of the decaying body, although later the idea was
modified. The placing of the substitute-head in [the burial chamber of] the
mastaba therefore became unnecessary at the moment when the complete figure of
the dead [placed in a special hidden chamber, now commonly called the
serdab] was introduced." The ancient Egyptians themselves called the
serdab the
pr-twt or "statue-house," and the group of chambers,
forming the tomb-chapel in the mastaba, was known to them as the
"
ka-house".
1
It is important to remember that, even when the custom of making a statue of
the deceased became fully established, the original idea of restoring the form
of the mummy itself or its wrappings was never abandoned. The attempts made in
the XVIII, and XXI and XXII Dynasties to pack the body of the mummy itself and
by artificial means give it a life-like appearance afford evidence of this. In
the New Empire and in Roman times the wrapped mummy was sometimes modelled into
the form of a statue. But throughout Egyptian history it was a not uncommon
practice to provide a painted mask for the wrapped mummy, or in early Christian
times simply a portrait of the deceased.
With this custom there also persisted a remembrance of its original
significance. Professor Garstang records the fact that in the XII Dynasty,
2 when a painted mask
was placed upon the wrapped mummy, no statue or statuette was found in the tomb.
The undertakers
apparently realized that the mummy
1 which was provided with the life-like mask was therefore
fulfilling the purposes for which statues
were devised. So also in the New Empire the packing and modelling of the
actual mummy so as to restore its life-like appearance were regarded as
obviating the need for a statue.
I must now return to the further consideration of the Old Kingdom statues.
All these varied experiments were inspired by the same desire, to preserve the
likeness of the deceased. But when the sculptors attained their object, and
created those marvellous life-like portraits, which must ever remain marvels of
technical skill and artistic feeling (
Fig. 4), the old
ideas that surged through the minds of the Pre-dynastic Egyptians, as they
contemplated the desiccated remains of the dead, were strongly reinforced. The
earlier people's thoughts were turned more specifically than heretofore to the
contemplation of the nature of life and death by seeing the bodies of their dead
preserved whole and incorruptible; and, if their actions can be regarded as an
expression of their ideas, they began to wonder what was lacking in these
physically complete bodies to prevent them from feeling and acting like living
beings. Such must have been the results of their puzzled contemplation of the
great problems of life and death. Otherwise the impulse to make more certain the
preservation of the body by the invention of mummification and to retain a
life-like representation of the deceased by means of a sculptured statue remains
inexplicable. But when the corpse had been rendered incorruptible and the
deceased's portrait had been fashioned with realistic perfection the old ideas
would recur with renewed strength. The belief then took more definite shape that
if the missing elements of vitality could be restored to the statue, it might
become animated and the dead man would live again in his vitalized statue. This
prompted a more intense and searching investigation of the problems concerning
the nature of the elements of vitality of which the corpse was deprived at the
time of death. Out of these inquiries in course of time a highly complex system
of philosophy developed.
2
But in the earlier times with which I am now concerned it found practical
expression in certain ritual procedures, invented to convey to the statue the
breath of life, the vitalising fluids, and the odour and sweat of the living
body. The seat of knowledge and of feeling was believed to be retained in the
body when the heart was left
in situ: so that the only thing needed to
awaken consciousness, and make it possible for the dead man to take heed of his
friends and to act voluntarily, was to present offerings of blood to stimulate
the physiological functions of the heart. But the element of vitality which left
the body at death had to be restored to the statue, which represented the
deceased in the
ka-house.
1
In my earlier attempts
2 to interpret these problems, I adopted the view that the
making of portrait statues was the direct outcome of the practice of
mummification. But Dr. Alan Gardiner, whose intimate knowledge of the early
literature enables him to look at such problems from the Egyptian's own point of
view, has suggested a modification of this interpretation. Instead of regarding
the custom of making statues as an outcome of the practice of mummification, he
thinks that the two customs developed simultaneously, in response to the twofold
desire to preserve both the actual body and a representation of the features of
the dead. But I think this suggestion does not give adequate recognition to the
fact that the earliest attempts at funerary portraiture were made upon the
wrappings of the actual mummies.
3 This fact and the evidence which I have already
quoted from Junker make it quite clear that from the beginning the embalmer's
aim was to preserve the body and to convert the mummy itself into a simulacrum
of the deceased. When he realized that his technical skill was not adequate to
enable him to accomplish this double aim, he fell back upon the device of making
a more perfect and realistic portrait statue apart from the mummy. But, as I
have already pointed out, he never completely renounced his ambition of
transforming the mummy itself; and in the time of the New Empire he actually
attained the result which he had kept in view for nearly twenty centuries.
In these remarks I have been referring only to funerary portrait statues.
Centuries before the attempt was made to fashion them modellers had been making
of clay and stone representations of cattle and human beings, which have been
found not only in Predynastic graves in Egypt but also in so-called "Upper
Palæolithic" deposits in Europe.
But the fashioning of realistic and life-size human portrait-statues for
funerary purposes was a new art, which gradually developed in the way I have
tried to depict. No doubt the modellers made use of the skill they had acquired
in the practice of the older art of rough impressionism.
Once the statue was made a stone-house (the
serdab) was provided for
it above ground.
1 As
the dolmen is a crude copy of the
serdab 2 it can be claimed as one of the ultimate
results of the practice
of mummification. It is clear that the conception of the possibility of a
life beyond the grave assumed a more concrete form when it was realized that the
body itself could be rendered incorruptible and its distinctive traits could be
kept alive by means of a portrait statue. There are reasons for supposing that
primitive man did not realize or contemplate the possibility of his own
existence coming to an end.
1 Even when he witnessed the death of his fellows he does not
appear to have appreciated the fact that it was really the end of life and not
merely a kind of sleep from which the dead might awake. But if the corpse were
destroyed or underwent a process of natural disintegration the fact was brought
home to him that death had occurred. If these considerations, which early
Egyptian literature seems to suggest, be borne in mind, the view that the
preservation of the body from corruption implied a continuation of existence
becomes intelligible. At first the subterranean chambers in which the actual
body was housed were developed into a many-roomed house for the deceased,
complete in every detail.
2 But when the statue took over the function of representing
the deceased, a dwelling was provided for it above ground. This developed into
the temple where the relatives and friends of the dead came and made the
offerings of food which were regarded as essential for the maintenance of
existence.
The evolution of the temple was thus the direct outcome of the ideas that
grew up in connexion with the preservation of the dead. For at first it was
nothing more than the dwelling place of the reanimated dead. But when, for
reasons which I shall explain later (see
p. 30),
the dead king became deified, his temple of offerings became the building where
food and drink were presented to the god, not merely to maintain his existence,
but also to restore his consciousness, and so afford an opportunity for his
successor, the actual king, to consult him and obtain his advice and help. The
presentation of offerings and the ritual procedures for animating and restoring
consciousness to the dead king were at first directed solely to these ends. But
in course of time, as their original purpose became obscured, these services in
the temple altered in character, and their meaning became
rationalized into acts of homage and worship, and of prayer and supplication,
and in much later times, acquired an ethical and moral significance that was
wholly absent from the original conception of the temple services. The earliest
idea of the temple as a place of offering has not been lost sight of. Even in
our times the offertory still finds a place in temple services.
Footnotes
16:2 G. Elliot Smith, "The
Earliest Evidence of Attempts at Mummification in Egypt,"
Report British
Association, 1912, p. 612: compare also J. Garstang, "Burial Customs of
Ancient Egypt," London, 1907, pp. 29 and 30. Professor Garstang did not
recognize that mummification had been attempted.
16:3 G. Elliot Smith, "The
History of Mummification in Egypt,"
Proc. Royal Philosophical Society of
Glasgow, 1910: also "Egyptian Mummies,"
Journal of Egyptian
Archæology, Vol. I, Part III, July, 1914, Plate XXXI.
16:4 "Excavations of the
Vienna Imperial Academy of Sciences at the Pyramids of Gizah, 1914,"
Journal
of Egyptian Archæology, Vol. I, Oct. 1914, p. 250.
17:1" Excavations at
Saqqara," 1907-8, p. 113.
17:2 The great variety of
experiments that were being made at the beginning of the Pyramid Age bears ample
testimony to the fact that the original inventors of these devices were actually
at work in Lower Egypt. at that time.
18:1 Aylward M. Blackman,
"The Ka-House and the Serdab,"
Journal of Egyptian Archæology, Vol. Ill,
Part IV, Oct., 1916, p. 250. The word
serdab is merely the Arabic word
used by the native workmen, which has been adopted and converted into a
technical term by European archaeologists.
19:1 It is a remarkable fact
that Professor Garstang, who brought to light perhaps the best, and certainly
the best-preserved, collection of Middle Kingdom mummies ever discovered, failed
to recognize the fact that they had really been embalmed (
op. cit. p.
171).
The reader who wishes
for fuller information as to the reality of these beliefs and how seriously they
were held will find them still in active
p. 20 operation in China. An admirable account of Chinese
philosophy will be found in De Groot's "Religious System of China," especially
Vol. IV, Book II. It represents the fully developed (New Empire) system of
Egyptian belief modified in various ways by Babylonian, Indian and Central
Asiatic influences, as well as by accretions developed locally in China.
19:2 The reader who wishes
for fuller information as to the reality of these beliefs and how seriously they
were held will find them still in active
p. 20 operation in China. An admirable account of Chinese
philosophy will be found in De Groot's "Religious System of China," especially
Vol. IV, Book II. It represents the fully developed (New Empire) system of
Egyptian belief modified in various ways by Babylonian, Indian and Central
Asiatic influences, as well as by accretions developed locally in China.
20:1 A. M. Blackman, "The
Ka-House and the Serdab," The
Journal of Egyptian Archæology, Vol. III,
Part IV, Oct., 1916, p. 250.
20:2 "Migrations of Early
Culture," p. 37.
20:3 Dr. Alan Gardiner
(Davies and Gardiner, "The Tomb of Amenemhēt," 1915, p. 83, footnote) has, I
think, overlooked certain statements in my writings and underestimated the
antiquity of the embalmer's art; for he attributes to me the opinion that
"mummification was a custom of relatively late growth".
The presence in China of the characteristically Egyptian beliefs concerning
the animation of statues (de Groot,
op. cit. pp. 339-356), whereas the
practice of mummification, though not wholly absent, is not obtrusive, might
perhaps be interpreted by some scholars as evidence in favour of the
p. 21 development of the custom
of making statues independently of mummification. But such an inference is
untenable. Not only is it the fact that in most parts of the world the practices
of making statues and mummifying the dead are found in association the one with
the other, but also in China the essential beliefs concerning the dead are based
upon the supposition that the body is fully preserved (
see de Groot,
chap. xv.). It is quite evident that the Chinese customs have been derived
directly or indirectly from some people who mummified their dead as a regular
practice. There can be no doubt that the ultimate source of their inspiration to
do these things was Egypt.
I need mention only one of many identical peculiarities that makes this quite
certain. De Groot says it is "strange to see Chinese fancy depict the souls of
the viscera as distinct individuals with animal forms" (p. 71). The same custom
prevailed in Egypt, where the "souls" or protective deities were first given
animal forms in the Nineteenth Dynasty (Reisner).
21:1 The Arabic word conveys
the idea of being "hidden underground," because the house is exposed by
excavation.
21:2 Op. cit. supra,
Ridgeway Essays; also
Man, 1913, p. 193.
22:1 See Alan H. Gardiner,
"Life and Death (Egyptian)," Hastings’
Encyclopædia of Religion and
Ethics.
22:2 See the quotation from
Mr. Quibell's account in my statement in the
Report of the British
Association for 1914, p. 215.
fig. 2
WATER-COLOUR SKETCH BY MRS. CECIL FIRTH, REPRESENTING A RESTORATION OF THE EARLY
MUMMY FOUND AT MEDÛM BY PROF. FLINDERS PETRIE, NOW IN THE MUSEUM OF THE ROYAL
COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN LONDON
fig 3
A MOULD TAKEN FROM A LIFE-MASK FOUND IN THE PYRAMID OF TETA BY MR.
QUIBELL
fig 4
PORTRAIT STATUE OF AN EGYPTIAN LADY OF THE PYRAMID AGE
Book: Evolution of the Dragon, by G. Elliot Smith, [1919], at
sacred-texts.com
_-_front_-_timea.jpg)
