Manchester Memoirs, Vol. lix. (19 15), No. 10. 27 



and most direct means, did he restrict his choice to the 

 two most difficult sites for his incision ? We know why 

 the Egyptian made the opening in the left flank and in 

 other cases in the perineum ; but is it likely the Papuan, 

 once he had decided to cut the body, would have had 

 such a respect for the preservation of the integrity of the 

 front of the body as to impel him to choose a means of 

 procedure which added greatly to the technical difficulty 

 of the operation ? We have the most positive evidence 

 that the Papuan had no such design, for it was his usual 

 procedure to cut the head off the trunk and pay little 

 further attention to the latter. Myres' contention will not 

 stand a moment's examination. 



As to the use of red-ochre, which Myres rightly 

 claimed to be so widespread, no hint was given of the 

 possibility that it might be so extensively practised 

 simply because the Egyptian custom had spread far and 

 wide. 



It is important to remember that the practice of 

 painting stone statues with red-ochre (obviously to make 

 them more life-like) was in vogue in Egypt before 3000 

 B.C.; and throughout the whole "heliolithic" area, wherever 

 the conception of human beings dwelling in stones, whether 

 carved or not, was adopted, the Egyptian practice of 

 applying red paint also came into vogue. But it was not 

 until more than twenty centuries later — i.e. when, for quite 

 definite reasons in the XX 1st Dynasty, the Egyptians 

 conceived the idea of converting the mummy itself into a 

 statue — that they introduced the procedure of painting 

 the mummy (the actual body), simply because it was 

 regarded as the statue (78). 



After Professor Myres, Dr. Haddon offered two 

 criticisms. Firstly, the incisions in the feet and knees 

 were not suggested by Egyptian practices, but were 



