_ 42 — 
But quite apart from thèse exceptioual cases there is no great 
uniformity in the treatment o£ this séries o£ bodies, nor is there 
auy évidence that any attempt was made to confonn to the 
" statutory " number o£ 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 througli 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 Kmbs 
— that between the great and second toes, but if the statement in 
the Rhind papyrus has any real meaning, is it not more hkely a 
référence to the openings from the body cavity into the legs ? 
The thighs Avere always packed from the abdominal cavity and I 
have seen only one mummy of this séries 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 liis statements 
into harmony with those of the Rhind papy ri 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 " ((rp. cit., p. 93, 94). This quotation is neither a true 
record of the facts as I liave 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 ail and not two for each limb, i. e.,a total of eight, as M. Fouquet 
prétends. In respect of this matter the Rhind papyrus contains 
a much more accurate account of the openings found in thèse 
munnnies of the 21st dynasty than M. Fouquet's memoir présents. 
