— 42 — 
lîut quite apart from these exceptional cases there is no great 
uniformity in the treatment of this series of bodies, nor is there 
any evidence that any attempt was made to conform to the 
" statutory " number of seventeen openings or incisions referred to 
in the Rhind papyrus : — seven for the head, four for the thorax, 
two for the legs, two for the arms and one each for the abdomen 
and back. 
The one incision for each arm is fairly constant : it is very rare 
to find a second arm incision and I have never seen the arm 
packed in any other manner than through the shoulder incision. 
In three cases the arms were not packed, although the rest of the 
body was stuffed. 
In most cases there is only one skin incision for the lower limbs 
— that between the great and second toes, but if the statement in 
the Rhind papyrus lias any real meaning, is it not more likely a 
reference to the openings from the body cavity into the legs ? 
The thighs were always packed from the abdominal cavity and I 
have seen only one mummy of this series that had no leg-packing 
whatever. I have already cited several exceptions to the rule of 
only one skin incision. In his attempt to bring his statements 
into harmony with those of the Rhind papyri M. Fouquet makes 
the strange assertion : " J'en ai toujours trouvé une à chaque 
bras et à chaque avant-bras, une pour chaque cuisse et pour 
chaque jambe, total pour les membres, huit à la partie latéro- 
interne " (op. vit.., p. 93, 94). This quotation is neither a true 
record of the facts as I have seen them, nor does it conform to 
the account in the Rhind papyrus. The ancient Egyptian writer 
speaks of two incisions for the legs and two for the arms — four 
in all and not two for each liml), i. e.,a total of eight, as M. Fouquet 
pretends. In respect of this matter the Rhind papyrus contains 
a much more accurate account of the openings found in these 
mummies of the 21st dynasty than M. Fouquet's memoir presents. 
