time added far more that is inaccurate and misleading; so that 
the errors of observation and inference utterly obscure the few 
new facts. 
We have no definite information as to the time when the 
practice of mummification was first attempted : nor is there much 
chance of ever being able to speak decisively on this subject. 
For it is only natural to suppose that the earliest attempts at the 
artificial preservation of the body would yield crude and imperfect 
results, which would be the least likely to persist and give us 
the information we need. 
We can assert without any fear of reasonable contradiction that 
there is no evidence whatever to suggest the idea that the 
oxcellont state of preservation of many bodies buried during the 
earlier })art of the Ancient Empire and in predynastic times is 
anything else than the result of the action of natural agencies 
unaided by art. Xor have we any cerfai/i evidence that any 
attempts were made at any period of the Ancient Empire to resist 
by artificial means the natural decay of the body. I am well 
a.ware that there is a well preserved body in the Cairo Museum 
said to be the "Momie du roi Mihtimsaouf — Métésonphis 1'^'', fils 
de Papi 1^'' découverte à Sakkarah dans sa pyramide (VP dy- 
nastie ) " ^ ; but no definite reasons have yet been given for 
regarding this body as a mummy or for excluding the possibility 
that it may not have been put in the pyramid at a much later 
time than that assigned to it. Until such information is forth- 
coming concerning this specimen and other supposed early mum- 
mies mentioned in the catalogue of the British Museum their value 
as evidence must be ignored. 
With reference to the body (now in the Cairo Museum) found 
in a 5th dynasty coffin at Deshasheh by Professor Flinders Petrie, 
1 G. Maspero, •'Guide du VUiteiir au Musée du Caire," 1902, p. 397. 
