— 4 — 
time added far more that is inaccurate and misleading ; so that 
the errors o£ observation and inference utterly obscure the £ew 
new facts. 
We liave no definite information as to the time when the 
practice o£ mnmmification was first attempted : nor is there much 
chance o£ ever being a1)le to speak decisively on this subject. 
For it is only natural to suppose that the earhest attempts at the 
artificial préservation o£ the body would }'ield crude and imper£ect 
results, which would be the least Kkely to persist and give us 
the information we need. 
We can assert without any fear of reasonal^le contradiction that 
there is no évidence whatever to suggest the idea that the 
excellent state o£ préservation o£ many bodies buried during the 
earlier part of the Ancient Empire and in predynastic times is 
anything else than the resuit of the action of natural agencies 
unaided by art. Nor liave we any certain évidence- 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 
aware that there is a well preserved body in the Cairo Muséum 
said to be the "Momie du roi Mihtimsaouf — Métésonphis 1^'', fils 
de Papi 1^'' découverte à Sakkarah dans sa pyramide (VI" dy- 
nastie )"'^; but no definite reasons have yet been giveu for 
regarding this hoày as a mu\nmy or for exclnding the possibility 
that it may not have l)een put in the pyramid at a much later 
time than that assignée! to it. Until such information is forth- 
coming concerning this spécimen and other supposed early mum- 
mies mentioned in the catalogue of the British Muséum their value 
as évidence must be ignored. 
With référence to the body (now in the Cairo Muséum) found 
in a 5th dynasty cofSn at Deshasheh by Professor Flinders Pétrie, 
• G. Maspero, "GiLide du Y'mteuv au Musée du Cah-e," 1902, p. 397. 
