Part 11

The earliest known Egyptians (before 4000 B.C.) practised weaving and agriculture, performed the operation of “incision” (the prototype of complete circumcision), and probably were sun-worshippers. Long before 3400 B.C. they began to work copper and gold. By 3000 B.C. they had begun the practice of embalming, making rock-cut tombs, stone superstructures and temples. By the mere chance that the capital of the united Kingdom of Egypt happened to be in the centre of serpent-worship (and the curious symbolism associated with it—Sethe, =74=), the sun, serpent and Horus-hawk (the older symbol of royalty) became blended in the symbol of sun-worship and as the emblem of the king, who was regarded as the son of the sun-god.

The peculiar beliefs regarding the possibility of animate beings dwelling in stone statues (and later even in uncarved columns), and of human beings becoming petrified, developed out of the Egyptian practices of the Pyramid Age (circa 2800 B.C.).

By 900 B.C. practically the whole of the complex structure of the “heliolithic” culture had become built up and definitely conventionalized in Egypt, with numerous purely accidental additions from neighbouring countries.

The great migration of the “heliolithic” culture-complex probably began shortly before 800 B.C. [Its influence in the Mediterranean and in Europe, as also in China and Japan, is merely mentioned incidentally in this communication.]

Passing to the east the culture-complex reached the Persian Gulf strongly tainted with the influence of North Syria and Asia Minor, and when it reached the west coast of India and Ceylon, possibly as early as the end of the eighth century B.C., it had been profoundly influenced not only by these Mediterranean, Anatolian and especially Babylonian accretions, but even more profoundly with Eastern African modifications. These Ethiopian influences become more pronounced in Indonesia (no doubt because in India and the west the disturbances created by other cults have destroyed most of the evidence).

From Indonesia the “heliolithic” culture-complex was carried far out into the Pacific and eventually reached the American coast, where it bore fruit in the development of the great civilizations on the Pacific littoral and isthmus, whence it gradually leavened the bulk of the vast aboriginal population of the Americas.

[When this communication was made to the Society my sole object was to put together the scattered evidence supplied by the practice of mummification, and other customs associated with it, in substantiation of the fact that the influence of ancient Egyptian civilization, or a particular phase of it, had spread to the Far East and America. Since then so much new information has come to light, not only in confirmation of the main thesis, but also defining the dates of a series of cultural waves, that it will soon be possible, not only to sketch out in some detail the routes taken by the series of ancient mariners who spread abroad this peculiarly distinctive civilization, but also to identify the adventurers and determine the dates of their greatest exploits and the motives for most of their enterprises. In collaboration with Mr. J. W. Perry I hope soon to be ready to attempt that task.

I have deliberately refrained from referring to the vexed question of totemism in this communication, although it is obvious that it is closely connected with the “heliolithic” culture. I have used the expression “serpent worship” in several places where perhaps it would have been more correct to refer to the serpent-totem; but so far from weakening, the consideration of totemism will add to the strength and cogency of my argument.

When I assigned (p. 65) a comparatively late date for the extension of the “heliolithic” culture to the western Mediterranean and beyond I was not aware that Siret (_L’Anthropologie_, T. 20 and 21, 1909-10) had arrived at the same conclusion.]

FOOTNOTES

[1] These figures refer to the bibliography at the end.

[2] Tylor (“On the Game of Patolli,” _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, Vol. VIII., 1879, p. 128) cites another certain case of borrowing on the part of pre-Columbian America from Asia. “Lot-backgammon as represented by tab, _pachisi_, etc., ranges in the Old World from Egypt across Southern Asia to Birma. As the _patolli_ of the Mexicans is a variety of lot-backgammon most nearly approaching the Hindu _pachisi_, and perhaps like it passing into the stage of dice-backgammon, its presence seems to prove that it had made its way across from Asia. At any rate, it may be reckoned among elements of Asiatic culture traceable in the old Mexican civilization, the high development of which ... seems to be in large measure due to Asiatic influence.”

[3] See also =2=; =3=; =7=; =8=; =9=; =10=; =16=; =20=; =21=; =24=; =29=; =30=; =38=; =48=; =49=; =50=; =51=; =61=; =73=; =103=; and =105=.

[4] For proof that it was reached see =3=; =8=; =9=; =10=; =20=; =21=; =38=; =49=; =50=; =51=; =73=; =102=; =103=; and =105=.

[5] Dr. Fewkes’ discourse is essentially a farrago of meaningless verbiage. Later on in this communication I shall give a characteristic sample of the late Professor Keane’s dialectic; but the whole of the passages referred to should be read by anyone who is inclined to cavil at my strictures upon such expositions of modern ethnological doctrine. The obvious course for any serious investigator to pursue is to ignore such superficial and illogical pretensions: but the ethnological literature of this country and America is so permeated with ideas such as Fewkes and Keane express, that it has become necessary bluntly to expose the utter hollowness of their case.

[6] For if any sense whatever is to be attached to this phrase it implies that man is endowed with instincts of a much more complex and highly specialised kind than any insect or bird—instincts moreover which impel a group of men to perform at the same epoch a very large series of peculiarly complex, meaningless and fantastic acts that have no possible relationship to the “struggle for existence,” which is supposed to be responsible for the fashioning of instincts.

But William McDougall tells us that the distinctive feature of human instincts is that they are of “the most highly general type.” “They merely provide a basis for vaguely directed activities in response to vaguely discriminated impressions from large classes of objects.” (“Psychology, the Study of Behaviour,” p. 171.) There is nothing vague about the extraordinary repertoire of the “heliolithic” cult!

[7] It is a curious reflection that the idea of stone living which made such a fantastic belief possible may itself have arisen from the Egyptian practices about to be described.

[8] How insistent the desire was to make a statue of the mummy itself is shown by the repeated attempts made in later times; see the account of the mummies of Amenophis III. (=86=) and of the rulers and priests of the XXIst and XXIInd Dynasties (=78= and =87=).

[9] For an account of the geographical distribution of serpent-worship and a remarkable demonstration of the intimacy of its association with distinctive “heliolithic” ideas, see Wake (=103=).

[10] Sir William Thiselton Dyer informs me that in all probability it was not _cedar_ but _juniper_ that was obtained by the Ancient Egyptians from Syria [and used for embalming]. The material to which reference is made here would probably be identical with the modern ‘huile de cade,’ and be obtained from _juniperus excelsa_.

I retain the term “oil of cedar” to facilitate the bibliographical references, as all the archæologists and historians invariably use this expression.

[11] Since this memoir has been printed Dr. Alan Gardiner has published a most luminous and important account of “The Tomb of Amenemhēt” (N. de Garis Davies and Alan Gardiner, 1915), which throws a flood of light upon Egyptian ideas concerning the matters discussed in this communication.

[12] Mr. Crooke has called my attention to a similar practice in India. Leith (Journ. Anthr. Soc. of Bombay, Vol. I., 1886, pp. 39 and 40) stated that the _Káší Khanda_ contained an account of a Bráhman who preserved his mother’s corpse. After having it preserved and wrapped he “coated the whole with pure clay and finally deposited the corpse in a copper coffin.”

[13] Jackson refers the suggestion to Curzon’s “Persia and the Persian Question,” 1892, where I find (Vol. II., pp. 74, 79, 80, 146, 178 and 192) most conclusive evidence in proof of the fact that the body of Cyrus was mummified and all the Egyptian rites were observed (see especially Mr. Cecil Smith’s note on p. 80). In Persia, under Darius (p. 182), the Egyptian methods of tomb-construction were closely copied, not only in their general plan, but in minute details of their decoration (see p. 178)—also the bas-relief of Cyrus wearing the Egyptian crown (p. 74). Cambyses even introduced Egyptian workmen to carry out such work (p. 192).

There are reasons for believing that India also was in turn influenced by this direct transmission of Egyptian practices to Persia, but only after (perhaps more than a century after) the Ethiopian modification of Egyptian embalming had been adopted there.

[14] See, however, p. 69. At some future time I shall explain what an important link is provided by the ancient culture of the Black Sea littoral between Egypt and the civilizations of the Western Mediterranean on the one hand and India on the other.

[15] Reutter (=63=) quotes the statement from Tschirch that Neuhof has described the embalming of bodies in Asia. In Borneo camphor, areca nut and the wood of aloes and musk are used; and in China camphor and sandalwood.

[16] For this and certain other references I have to thank my colleague Professor S. J. Hickson, F.R.S. So far I have been unable to consult the full reports of Lorenz’s expedition.

[17] A curious feature of these models is the representation of faces on the shoulders. Similar practices have been recorded in America (Bancroft, =3=).

[18] For the whole driving force of the so-called “psychological” ethnologists is really a reverence for authority and a meaningless creed.

[19] Recent literature has thrown some doubt upon its occurrence in Western Europe.

[20] It is quite possible this may refer to the relatively modern incursion of Norsemen and other Europeans into America by the North Atlantic.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Many other bibliographical references have been added in the text while this memoir was in course of printing.

=1.= D’ALBERTIS, L. M. “New Guinea.” London, 1880, Vol. I.

=2.= ALLEN, F. A. “The Original Range of the Papuan and Negritto Races.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 8, 1878-9, p. 38.

=3.= BANCROFT, H. H. “The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America.” London, 1875.

=4.= BENT, T. “The Bahrein Islands in the Persian Gulf.” _Proc. R. Geograph. Soc._, 1870, p. 13.

=5.= BLACKMAN, A. M. “The Significance of Incense and Libations in Funerary and Temple Ritual.” _Zeitsch. f. Ægypt. Sprache_, Bd. 50.

=6.= BREASTED, J. H. “A History of Egypt.” London, 1906.

=7.= BROWN, J. MACMILLAN. “Maori and Polynesian.” London, 1907.

=8.= BUCKLAND, A. W. “The Serpent in Connection with Primitive Metallurgy.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 4, 1874-5, p. 60.

=9.= _Ibid._ “Ethnological Hints afforded by the Stimulants in use among Savages and among the Ancients.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 8, 1878-9, p. 239.

=10.= _Ibid._ “On Tattooing.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 17, 1887-8, p. 318.

=11.= CAPART, J. “Une Rue de Tombeaux.” _Brussels_, 1907.

=12.= CROOKE, W. “Northern India.” 1907.

=13.= _Ibid._ “The Rude Stone Monuments of India,” _Proc. Cotteswold Naturalists’ Field Club_, Vol. XV., May, 1905, p. 117.

=14.= DAVIDS, T. W. RHYS. “Buddhist India.” London, 1911.

=15.= ELLIS, W. “Polynesian Researches.” Vol. I., London, 1832.

=16.= ENOCH, C. R. “The Secret of the Pacific.” London, 1912.

=17.= FERGUSSON, J. “Rude Stone Monuments in all Countries.” London, 1872.

=18.= FEWKES, J. WALTER. “Great Stone Monuments in History and Geography.” Presidential Address delivered before the Anthropological Society of Washington, February 20th, 1912.

=19.= FLOWER, W. H. “Illustrations of the Mode of preserving the Dead in Darnley Island and in South Australia.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 8, 1878-9, p. 389.

=20.= FOX, A. LANE. “Remarks on Mr. Hodder Westropp’s Paper on Cromlechs, with a Map of the World, shewing the Distribution of Megalithic Monuments.” _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, Vol. 1, 1869, p. 59.

=21.= _Ibid._ “On Early Modes of Navigation.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 4, 1874-5, p. 389.

=22.= FRAZER, JOHN. “The Aborigines of New South Wales.” Sydney, 1892.

=23.= GARDINER, ALAN H. Article, “Life and Death.” _Hastings’ Dictionary of Religion and Ethics_, 1915.

=24.= GLAUMONT, M. “Usages, Moeurs, et Coutumes des Néo-Calédoniens.” _Revue d’ethnologie_, 1888, p. 73—Summary in Cartailhac’s “Materiaux pour l’histoire de l’homme,” Vol. 22, 1888, p. 507.

=25.= HADDON, A. C., and MYERS, C. S. “Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits.” _Funeral Ceremonies_, Vol. VI., Cambridge, 1908, p. 126.

=26.= HAIGH (MISS). “Some Account of the Island of Teneriffe.” _Trans. Ethnol Soc._, New Series, Vol. 7. 1869, p. 112.

=27.= HAMLYN-HARRIS, R. “Papuan Mummification.” _Memoirs of the Queensland Museum_, Vol. I., 27th Nov., 1912.

=28.= _Ibid._ “Mummification,” _loc. cit. supra_.

=29.= HARRISON, J. PARK. “On the Artificial Enlargement of the Earlobe.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 2, 1872-3, p. 190.

=30.= _Ibid._ “Note on Phœnician Characters from Sumatra.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 4, 1874, p. 387.

=31.= HARTMAN, C. V. “Archæological Researches in Costa Rica.” Stockholm, 1901—a Review in _Nature_, March 16th, 1905, p. 462.

=32.= HASTINGS’ _Dictionary of Religion and Ethics_.

=33.= HERTZ, R. “Contribution à une Étude sur la Représentation Collective de la Mort.” _L’Année Sociologique_, 1905-6, p. 48.

=34.= HODSON, T. C. “Funerary Rites and Eschatological Beliefs of the Assam Hill Tribes.” _Third Internat. Congress Hist. Religions_, Oxford, 1908, Vol. 1, p. 58.

=35.= HOUGH, W. “Oriental Influences in Mexico.” _American Anthropologist_, Vol. 2, 1900, p. 66.

=36.= _Ibid._ “Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila River Region, New Mexico and Arizona.” _Bulletin 87, Smithsonian Institution_, 1914, p. 132.

=37.= HRDLIČKA, A. “Some Results of Recent Anthropological Exploration in Peru.” _Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections_, Vol. 56, No. 16, 1911.

=38.= HUTCHINSON, T. J. “Anthropology of Prehistoric Peru.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 4, 1874-5, p. 438.

=39.= JONES, F. WOOD. _In Report on the Archæological Survey of Nubia_ for 1907-8, Vol. II., p. 194.

=40.= JUNKER, H. “Excavations of the Vienna Imperial Academy of Sciences at the Pyramids of Gizah, 1914.” _Journ. Egyptian Archæol._, Vol. I., Oct., 1914, p. 250.

=41.= KEANE, A. H. “Ethnology.” Cambridge, 1896.

=42.= _Ibid._ “Man, Past and Present.” Cambridge, 1900.

=43.= LORENZ, H. A. “Eenige Maanden onder de Papoea’s.” 1905, p. 224.

=44.= LUBBOCK, J. “Notes on the Macas Indians.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 3, 1873-4, p. 29.

=45.= MACE, A. C. “The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr, Part II.” 1909.

=46.= MOLL, HERMANN. “Modern History.” Vol. I., Dublin, 1739.

=47.= MYERS, C. S. “Contributions to Egyptian Anthropology: Tatuing.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. XXXIII., 1903, p. 82.

=48.= NADAILLAC DE. “L’Amérique Préhistorique.” Paris, 1883.

=49.= NUTTALL, ZELIA. “The Fundamental Principles of Old and New World Civilizations,” Archæological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 1901, p. 602.

=50.= _Ibid._ “A curious Survival in Mexico of the Purpura Shell-Fish for Dyeing.” Putnam Anniversary Volume, 1909.

=51.= OLDHAM, C. F. “The Sun and the Serpent.” London, 1905.

=52.= PAGE, H. “Post-mortem artificially-contracted Indian Heads.” _Journ. Anat. and Phys._, Vol. 31, 1897, p. 252.

=53.= PARTINGTON, EDGE. “Ethnographical Album of the Pacific Islands.” 3rd series, August, 1898, p. 94.

=54.= PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS. “Tarkhan.” 1913 and 1914.

=55.= PERROT and CHIPIEZ. “History of Art in Phœnicia.” London, 1885.

=56.= PETTIGREW, T. J. “A History of Egyptian Mummies.” London, 1834.

=57.= PIORRY. Article “Massage,” in _Dictionnaire des Sciences Médicales_. 1819.

=58.= PRESCOTT, W. H. “Conquest of Peru.”

=59.= _Ibid._ “Conquest of Mexico.”

=60.= QUATREFAGES, A. DE. “Hommes Fossiles et Hommes Sauvages.” Paris, 1884.

=61.= READ, C. H., JOYCE, T. A., and EDGE-PARTINGTON, J. “Handbook of the Ethnological Collections” (British Museum), 1910.

=62.= REISNER, GEORGE A. _Bulletin of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts._ Vol. XII., No. 69, April, 1914, p. 23.

=63.= REUTTER, L. “De l’embaumement avant et après Jésus-Christ.” Paris, 1912.

=64.= RIVERS, W. H. R. Presidential Address to Section H. _Report Brit. Assoc._, Portsmouth, 1911, p. 490, or _Nature_, 1911, Vol. LXXXVII., p. 356.

=65.= _Ibid._ “The Disappearance of Useful Arts.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1912, p. 598 [Abstract of a memoir published in _Festsscrift Tillägnad Edvard Westermarck_, Helsingfors, 1912, p. 109].

=66.= _Ibid._ “Survival in Sociology.” _The Sociological Review_, October, 1913, p. 292.

=67.= _Ibid._ “Massage in Melanesia.” _Report of the 17th International Congress of Medicine_, London, August, 1913, Section XXIII., History of Medicine.

=68.= _Ibid._ “The Contact of Peoples.” Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway. Cambridge, p. 474.

=69.= _Ibid._ “The History of Melanesian Society.” Cambridge, 1914, Vol. II.

=70.= _Ibid._ “Is Australian Culture Simple or Complex?” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1914; also _Man_, 1914, p. 172.

=71.= ROTH, W. E. “North Queensland Ethnography, Bulletin No. 9, Burial Ceremonies and Disposal of the Dead.” _Records of the Australian Museum_, Sydney, Vol. VI., No. 5, 1907, p. 365.

=72.= ROSCOE, J. “Further Notes on the Manners and Customs of the Baganda.” _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, Vol. XXXII., 1902, p. 44. [Also his book entitled “The Baganda.”]

=73.= SEMPLE, ELLEN C. “Influences of Geographic Environment on the basis of Ratzel’s System of Anthropo-Geography.” London, 1911.

=74.= SETHE, KURT. “Zur altaegyptischen Sage vom Sonnenauge das in der Fremde war.” _Untersuchungen zur Gesch. u. Altertumskunde Aeg._, Bd. V., Heft 3, 1912, p. 10.

=75.= SMITH, G. ELLIOT. “On the Natural Preservation of the Brain in the Ancient Egyptians.” _Journal of Anatomy and Physiology_, Vol. XXXVI., pp. 375-380. Two text figures. 1902.

=76.= _Ibid._ “The physical characters of the mummy of the Pharaoh Thothmosis IV.” _Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte_, 1904, [and in Carter and Newberry’s “Tomb of Thothmosis IV.” London, 1908].

=77.= _Ibid._ “Report on four mummies of the XXI. dynasty.” Ibid., 1904.

=78.= _Ibid._ “A Contribution to the Study of Mummification in Egypt.” _Mémoires presentés à l’Institut Égyptien_, Tome V., Fascicule I., 1906, pp. 1-54, 19 plates.

=79.= _Ibid._ “An Account of the Mummy of a Priestess of Amen.” _Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte_, 1906, pp. 1-28, 9 plates.

=80.= _Ibid._ “Report on the Unrolling of the Mummies of the Kings Siptah, Seti II., Ramses IV., Ramses V., and Ramses VI., in the Cairo Museum.” _Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien_, 5ᵉ Série, T.I. pp. 45 à 67.

=81.= _Ibid._ “Report on the Unwrapping of the Mummy of Menephtah.” _Annales du Service des Antiquités_, 1907.

=82.= _Ibid._ “Notes on Mummies.” _The Cairo Scientific Journal_, February, 1908.

=83.= _Ibid._ “On the Mummies in the Tomb of Amenhotep II.” _Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien_, 5ᵉ Série, Tome I., 1908.

=84.= _Ibid._ Account of the Mummies of Yuaa and Thuiu, in Quibell’s “Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu.” Catalogue Général du Musée du Caïre, 1908.

=85.= _Ibid._ “The History of Mummification in Egypt.” _Proc. Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow_, 1910.

=86.= _Ibid._ “The Royal Mummies.” Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caïre, 1912.

=87.= _Ibid._ “Egyptian Mummies.” _Journal of Egyptian Archæology_, Vol. I., Part III., July, 1914, p. 189.

=88.= _Ibid._ “Heart and Reins.” _Journal of the Manchester Oriental Society_, Vol. I., 1911, p. 41.

=89.= _Ibid._ “The Earliest Evidence of Attempts at Mummification in Egypt.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1912, p. 612.

=90.= _Ibid._ “The Ancient Egyptians.” London and New York, 1911.

=91.= _Ibid._ “The Influence of Egypt under the Ancient Empire.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1911; also Man, 1911, p. 176.

=92.= _Ibid._ “Megalithic Monuments and their Builders.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1912, p. 607; also _Man_, 1912, p. 173.

=93.= _Ibid._ “The Origin of the Dolmen.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1913; also _Man_, 1913, p. 193.

=94.= _Ibid._ “The Evolution of the Rock-cut Tomb and the Dolmen.” Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway. Cambridge, 1913, p. 493.

=95.= _Ibid._ “Report on the Physical Characters of the Ancient Egyptians.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1914; also _Man_, 1914, p. 172.

=96.= _Ibid._ “Early Racial Migrations and the Spread of Certain Customs.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1914; also _Man_, 1914, p. 173.

=97.= _Ibid._ “The Rite of Circumcision.” _Journ. Manchester Egy. and Oriental Soc._, 1913, p. 75.

=98.= SMITH, PERCY. “Hawaiki.” London, 3rd Edn., 1910.

=99.= TALBOT, P. AMAURY. “Some Ibibio Customs and Beliefs.” _Journ. African Soc._, 1914, p. 241.

=100.= TAYLOR, MEADOWS. “On Prehistoric Archæology of India.” _Journ. Ethnol. Soc._, New Series, Vol. I., 1868-9, p. 157.

=101.= THURSTON, E. “The Madras Presidency,” 1913.

=102.= TYLOR, E. B. “On the Diffusion of Mythical Beliefs as Evidence in the History of Culture.” _Report Brit. Assoc._, 1894, p. 774.

=103.= WAKE, C. S. “Origin of Serpent Worship.” _Journ. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. 2, 1872-3.

=104.= WEEKS, J. H. “Anthropological Notes on the Bangala of the Upper Congo River.” _Journ. Roy. Anthropol. Inst._, Vol. XXXIX., 1909, pp. 450 and 451.

=105.= WILSON, THOMAS. “The Swastika.” _Report of Smithsonian Institution_, 1896.

=106.= YARROW, H. C. “A further Contribution to the Study of the North American Indians.” _1st Report, Bureau Amer. Ethnol._, Washington, 1881.