Manchester Memoirs, Vol. lix. (191 5), No. 10. 89 



skull, to which special importance was attached (for the 

 definite reasons explained by the early Egyptian evidence). 

 In his survey Hertz (33, p. 66) calls attention to the 

 widespread custom of temporary burial throughout 

 Indonesia, but, instead of recognising that such procedures 

 have come into vogue as a degradation of the full rites 

 incidental to mummification, he regards it as part of a 

 widespread "notion que les derniers rites funeraires ne 

 peuvent pas etre celebres de suite apres la mort, mais 

 seulement a l'expiration d'une periode plus on moins 

 longue" (p. 66); and regards mummification simply as a 

 specialised form of this rite which is almost universal 

 (p. 6y) : — " il parait legitime de considerer la momifica- 

 tion comme un cas particulier et derive de la sepulture 

 provisoire." (p. 69). This is a remarkable inversion of the 

 true explanation. For the enormous mass of evidence 

 which is now available makes it quite certain that the 

 practice of temporary burial was adopted only when 

 failure (or the risk of failure) to preserve the body com- 

 pelled less cultured people to desist from the complete 

 process. 



I am in full agreement with Hertz when he says : — 

 " L'homologie entre la preservation artificielle du cadavre 

 et la simple exposition temporaire paraitra moins difficile 

 a admettre si Ton tient compte du fait qui sera mis en 

 lumiere plus bas : les ossements sees, residu de la decom- 

 position, constituent pour le mort un corps incorruptible, 

 absolument comme la momie." (p. 69). But does not this 

 entirely bear out my contention ? It is quite inconceivable 

 that the practice of mummification could have been 

 derived from the custom of preparing the skeleton ; but 

 the reverse is quite a natural transition, for even in the 

 hands of skilled embalmers (see especially 39J, not to 

 mention untutored savage peoples, the measures taken for 



