Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-22
ROYAL MUMMIES.
Interesting Facts Brought Out in an
Official Report on the Extraordinary
Discovery Of Thebes.
Profound Reverence in Which Priest
Kings Held Their Predecessors
Curious Transfers.

NJ Maspero ; official report upon the recent
discovery at Dayr-el-Bakari takes the form OF
a letter addressed to the minister oil public in
struetion, and will be illustrated with twenty
photographs by Herr Emil Brugsch, assistant
keeper OF the museum OF antiquities at Bou-
lax. The letter-press Of the report ia already
in type, but the process of printing from the
negatives is necessarily tedious. The main
historical interest OF NJ Maspero's report
centers in the third part, wherein he gives
ue1bdtim TRANSACTIONS Of the inscriptions re-
lating to the transfer OF the royal mummies
and discusses the causes which may have in
duced their successors to remove them from
their original tombs The great kings Of the
eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties were for
the most part, magnifcently inferred, each in
his own sculptured and painted catacomb.
The sites of some of these tombs are known
from contemporary documents, while others
are to this day visited by every traveller on
the Nile. How, then, does 1t happen that
We find the bodies of Ahmes /, Amenhotep
|, Thothmes II, Thothmes III, Seti /,
Rameses II, etc, laid in one common
sepulcher with TIE mummies of the far
more recent priest-kings OF the Her-Hor
line? The Egyptians, says NJ. Maspere,
have themselves to some extent furnished
reply to this question Upon the mummy
rases and bandages OF several OF the earlier
uuu nlSEdllC leSil-
Tying to various visits paid by government
inspectors of tombs, and others recording the
dates and circumstances OF the removal of
the bodies. These Inscriptions, written by
contemporary officials, are in some instances
indorsed BY witnesses. The PharaoLs thus
registered are AmeAhotep | and Thothmes
II eighteenth dynasty, Ramesss ], Seti l,
and Rameses II nineteenth century,, the
last three standing TO each other in the rela-
nf fat
their to-Ilbs being extant in the Valley OF
the Tombs of the Kings. The earliest of
these ofieial inscriptions dates from the
sixth and sixteenth years of the reign OF Her
Hor Se-Anep, founder of the priestly line;
the last from the sixteenth year of the pom
tificate of his great-great-grandson, Prince
and High Priest MasahIrti. The broken
mummy-csse of Rameses bears but one
entry, much defseed; the mummy leases of
Set / and Rsmeses III are each charged
with three almost identical entries. Now, if
we take the trouble to compare these entries
We determine few very singular, but very
precise, facts. At the beginning of the
priestly dynasty when Her-Hor counted
his sixth regual year, but had apparently
not yet ventured to assume the regal style;
Seti /. still occupied his own magnificent
sepulcher, known as "Belzoni's," in the Val
ley of the Tombs of the Kings In all prob
ability Rameses i and Rameses ii we're
then each in his own tomb in the same val
ley; but on this head we have no informa-
ton. The next entry brings US to the six
tecntn year of Her Hor, who now styles him
self "the King Se-Amen." BY this time a
great change has taken place. The bodies OF
Intermediate date been removed to the tomb
of Ssti !. Here they visited by COM
mission of priests, who proceed to trans
fer all three mummies TO the
tomb Of Queen Ansera. In this
tomb one of the Amenhoteps would seem
already to have taken refuge. We are not
told which Amenhotep this was, but ii would
be reasonable to conclude that it was Amen
hotep |, whose mummy was ultimately
found with the rest at Dayr-el Bahari. Even
in the tomb OF Queen Ansera, however, our
Ramessilles are not left in peace. In the
tenth year of some sovereign who has sue
ceeded Se-Ameu (almost certainly Pinotem
L. Seti | and Rameses III are transported to
a tomb belonging to one of the Amenhoteps.
Again, in the sixteenth year of Pinotem i,
Rameses III is actually carried back to the
tomb of his father, Set, in the Valley of the
Tombs of the Kings. Whether this last re-
moval was really the last but one, or whether
he made other intermediate migrations be-
fore being finally laid in the hiding place at
Dayr-el Bahari, we know not. Neither do
we know whether the mummIes OF Rase-
kenen, Ahmes ], Thothmss III and the rest
were periodically visitel in the same
manner those which bear the
foregoing inscriptions. There can, how
ever be little doubt that the priest
kings held their predecessors of the
earlier dynasties in profound reverence,
deeming it a sacred duty to renew their
wrappings, to repair or replace their dilapi-
dated collins, and to guard their remains
from dissertation. Why these pious observ-
ances should have been recorded in some
and not in others it is impossible to
guess, nor can we be sure that the unin-
scribed royalties were shifted like the
Ramessides from tomb to tomb. But it may
be taken for granted that all these
royal mummies of the seventeenth and
eighteenth dynasties, together with the three
royal mummies of the nineteenth dynasty,
were regarded by the priest-kings as forming
a single group, and that they were all finally
at the same time 10 the hiding
place at DAyr-el- Bahari. This hiding-place
was not, however, merely hiding place. 1t
was the family vault of the kings Of the Her
Hor line. Some leading members of that
line are absent: Her-Hor himself; his
direct successor, Piankhi, and Pine
tenn 1, the direct successor of
PiaDkhi, being among those whose mum
IiSs were either not deposited in this vault
Dr have been distracted by the Arabs But
Queen Notem- Maui, wife OF Her Hor; Queen
Honttaui, mother of Pinotem II; Pinotem
ii and his two wives, Queen Makera and
he Princess Nsitnibashrou; Masahirti, eldest
ton of Pinotem III and his two wives; Queen |
Isi-em-Kheb, wife of King Menkheperra,
econd son of Pinotem ii and other mem bers |
If this royal family were among those found |
he other day in the mortuary chamber at |
he further end of the excavation at Dlyr.el- |
3ahari. The last buried therein was Queen |
81. em-Kheb She died during the lifetime |
# Menkheperrs, whose seal is impressed on
he basket containing her food offerings.
after her interment the vault would seem to |
rave been finally closed, Menkhepsrra and
'inotem III beiag buried in some other
,lace unknown. For the reasons
which induced the priest-kings so
ar TO depart from the immemorial custom |
4 the Pharaohs as to inter themselves and |
heir families in a single vault instead OF in
eparate and costly sepulchers, and for the
easons which moved Se-Amen and Pinotem
to remove their predecessors from the
plendid tombs which those monarchs had
repaired tor themselves, we refer our readers
, NJ. Maspero's lucid and elaborate aryu-
lent. Two important historical facts stand
ut, at all events, in this report with une-
uivocal distinciness-frst, the hieratic in
criptions which attest the various removals
the mummies contain no reference what
yer TO foreign invasion" Second, the
ne OF priest-kings was maintained in regu-
n descent from fathers TO sons, through six
eneratious, during which period the mon
rchy was probably Impoverished and prob
bly, feeble, but was evidently not crushed
sneaih the heel OF Semitic conqueror.