— u — 
the Gizeli Museum four years ago by M. Maspero in the presence 
of Sir Frederick Trev es we have an example of the same kind 
of packin<>' of the legs, back, arms and neck with earth or mud, 
which is interesting because this girl is described as being " a 
contemporary of the last Ramses of the 20th dynasty. " This 
indicates that the peculiar practice commenced in the 20th dynasty ; 
but as none of the royal mununies of this time were stuffed in 
this way it nnist lun e been quite late in the dynasty when it was 
begun. The fact that I have not been able to find any such 
packing in nuuinuies of the later dynasties (i.e. after the 22nd) 
does not exclude the possibility that the practise was still in 
vogue, because most of these later mummies were completely 
disiutegrated, nothing but bones and an abundant quantity of 
brown powder being found inside the wrappings ; in the later 
Ptolemaic and Roman mummies the molten pitch has destroyed 
and permeated all the wrappings, flesh and bones, in such a manner 
that it is difficult to obtain auy evidence as to the exact manner 
in which the embalmers practised the details of their art. 
In several mummies of the oOth dynasty and of the Graeco- 
Roman period that I have examined there had certainly been no 
packing. 
In his memoir to which I have already referred M. Fouquet 
says that the })r.actice of b(nirra<je was not in vogue in the 23rd 
dynasty, as the mummies of the family Sen Notems exhumed by 
M. Maspero in ]88o show. Nor was there any question of it 
being employed in the 26th dynasty [op. cit. sujjra, p. 95) ; 
yet M. Fouquet, without noticing the discrepancy, quotes an 
account of such practices from the Rhind papyrus in reference to 
nuimmification in the time of Ptolemy Philopator (p. 91), three 
hundred years after the 26th dynasty. 
The Rhind papyrus which seems to refer to this practice has 
been translated by several philologists: but I need refer to only 
