VOL. LXXXIV.] PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. 309 



the lineaments of the face, though the faces of munimies of both sorts be gene- 

 rally covered with cotton cloth to the thickness of nearly a man's hand *. 



These authors, though they have both been in Egypt, had probably their in- 

 telligence merely from hearsay ; for, on the other hand, it would no doubt be 

 too paradoxical to assert, that all the mummies we are now acquainted with have 

 been made since the days of Diodorus, and that none of those described by him 

 and by Herodotus should have reached our time. Count Caykis rather conjec- 

 tures, that no mummies were made since the conquest of Egypt by the Romans, 

 about the time of Diodorus ; but in this he is manifestly mistaken, since we 

 learn from St. Augustin, that so low down as his own times, viz. in the first half 

 of the 5th century, mummies were certainly made in Egypt -jf. But that among 

 the mummies that now exist, especially the hard ones, which are entirely done 

 over with rosin, there cannot but be many of a much greater antiquity, will, 

 among other proofs, appear particularly from the style of workmanship of seve- 

 ral of the little idols contained in them. At least it may be admitted, without 

 much hesitation, that the mummies we now possess, which differ so much in 

 their preparation and characteristic structure, are at least of a period including 

 1000 years. 



But it were much to be wished that we might have certain criteria, to deter- 

 mine with some accuracy the precise age of any particular mummy that may hap- 

 pen to fall into our hands. Before however we can expect to obtain this object, 

 the 2 following pia desideria must first be accomplished, viz. (a) A more accu- 

 rate determination of the various, so strikingly different, and yet as strikingly 

 characteristic, national configurations in the monuments of the Egyptian arts, 

 with a determination of the periods in which those monuments were produced, 

 and the causes of their remarkable differences, (b) A very careful technical ex- 

 amination of the characteristic forms of the several skulls of mummies we have 

 hitherto met with, and an accurate comparison of those skulls with the monu- 

 ments above-mentioned. 



This, at least, I consider as the surest method of solving the problem ; being 

 persuaded that, especially after what has just now been said of the fraudulent 

 restorations, it can hardly be expected that we should be able to draw any just 

 inferences from the mere style, and the contents of the painted integuments of 

 the mummies we may have opportunities to examine. Still less can we infer 

 aught from the sculpture or paintings on the sarcophagi, as to the contents of 

 the mummies sent us into Europe; Maillet having about 6o or 70 years ago 

 detected the fraud of the Arabs, who he says are in the practice of breaking in 

 pieces the mummies contained in the catacombs in the more ornamented sarco- 



* This had alreai'.y been noticed by Middleton, 1. c. — Orig. 

 I August. Serm. 50 1 . (Oper. t. 5, p. ys 1 .) — Orig. 



