THE ETHICS OF DESECRATION
With the awakening of a world-wide interest in the tomb of Tutankhamen
there has been a good deal of not altogether relevant discussion about
the ethics of desecration, which is none the less unfortunate because
it is inspired by ignorance of the real facts of the case. By inflaming
feeling it may help to defeat the object everyone concerned is doing
his utmost to achieve, that is, to secure the adequate protection and
reverent treatment of the dead pharaoh and his fellow-sleepers. Hence
it is necessary to put the issue in its true light.
It seems to have been overlooked by those who write about leaving the
royal mummies in their own tombs that in the past only one of them was
actually found in his own tomb, and that this pharaoh, Amenhotep II,
was left there reposing in his own sarcophagus. It is equally important
to note that it was Mr Howard Carter, who is in charge of the present
work for the late Lord Carnarvon, who was at that time Inspector of
Antiquities at Luxor and was largely responsible for this decision. Nor
is it any secret that those responsible for the present work propose to
leave the mummy of Tutankhamen in the tomb, provided that the risk of
damage can be guarded against.
The issue raised by the oft-repeated protests against desecration is
complicated by the fact that in every case the mummies of the pharaohs
were plundered and grossly maltreated by their own subjects more than
thirty centuries ago; and, except in two or three instances, were
unceremoniously removed from their own tombs and hidden away in any
place that happened to be convenient.
If archæologists did not open and examine these tombs there is no doubt
that in time the native tomb-robbers of Luxor, the most experienced
members of their craft to be found anywhere, would in time discover the
hidden tombs, plundering them and destroying the historical evidence.
There can be no question that the work of the archæologist when
conscientiously done saves the ancient tombs from wilful destruction
and gives the mummies and the furniture a new lease of assured
existence. So long as these tombs are left alone there is always the
risk that they will be desecrated at any moment.
The problem which the archæologist has to solve, once he has opened
a tomb, is what is the proper course to take with reference to the
mummies and the funerary equipment. It is claimed by many writers to
the Press that at any rate the bodies of the kings ought to be restored.
But even if it were possible to replace the royal mummies in their
own tombs, and to persuade the museums of the world to return their
sarcophagi and funerary equipment, it would still be a moot point
whether such procedures would save them from desecration. For, unless
large sums of money are spent in equipping the tombs against the
attacks of robbers and providing guards, such measures would defeat the
purpose that prompted them. For the mummies would become the lure for
the greed of the Theban population, which for sixty centuries and more
has been habituated to tomb-robbing, and has shown little respect for
the mummies of even the most famous of its rulers. In fact, the most
powerful sovereigns of Egypt have suffered worst at the hands of the
people of their own metropolis. The mummies of the greatest emperors
and wisest statesmen of the eighteenth dynasty, such as Thothmes
III and Amenhotep III, were stripped and badly mutilated; and it is
more likely than not that the mummy of the famous Hatshepsut, the
Queen Elizabeth of Egyptian history, was totally destroyed. Even when
Amenhotep II (together with the mummies found with him) were left in
his own tomb, it was not long before the tomb was entered by plunderers
and wanton damage inflicted on the bodies left in it. In my volume of
the Official Catalogue of the Cairo Museum, dealing with the royal
mummies, gruesome evidence is given of the mutilation effected upon the
bodies of a prince and two princesses in this tomb, both by ancient and
modern robbers.
The moral of all this is that unless the tomb is rendered
burglar-proof, and in addition is protected by adequate guards, it is
inviting desecration to leave the mummies in them. Everyone immediately
concerned with the problem of Tutankhamen’s mummy agrees that, if it is
feasible, it should be left in its own tomb and adequately protected
there after a thorough examination of it has been made, and all the
information as to age and infirmities which the X-rays can afford has
been obtained. The late Lord Carnarvon was strongly in favour of this
course of action, and Mr Howard Carter has always been in favour of
leaving the mummies in their tombs. But if this is done they must be
adequately guarded. For it is not an exaggeration to claim that in the
past the removal of the royal mummies to the Cairo Museum saved them
from destruction, or from being broken up for disposal to tourists, as
in former centuries some of them were sold to druggists. For, as Sir
Thomas Browne expressed it two and a half centuries ago, “The Egyptian
mummies, which Cambyses or time hath spared, avarice now consumeth.
Mummy is become merchandise, Mizraim cures wounds, and Pharaoh is sold
for balsams.”
But, apart from such considerations, the fact has not received due
acknowledgment that the archæologists who are investigating the tomb
of Tutankhamen are clearly not engaged in a work of destruction or of
desecration, but are striving to preserve his remains and his treasured
possessions, and to secure his name and his record from the oblivion
which he himself and his representatives strove so hard to avert.
The relatively slight disturbance of the antechamber holds out the
prospect that the mummy also may have been spared that wanton
destruction which was the fate of so many pharaohs of his dynasty,
although it is to be expected that the valuable gold objects upon the
body are not likely to have escaped the plunderers.
If the mummy is found, an examination of it by means of the X-rays will
be made; but, whatever measures are adopted for wresting from it the
story it has to tell, no one need be anxious about its desecration.
No damage of any sort will be inflicted upon the body; but every
precaution will be taken to assure that prolongation of its existence
within its own sarcophagus which the embalmer of thirty-two centuries
ago aimed at achieving.
In the commentary on the discoveries in Tutankhamen’s tomb I have dealt
mainly with aspects of the new revelation of Egyptian customs and
beliefs that to most readers may seem less impressive than the dazzling
display of artistic treasures which has aroused in them an interest in
archæology.
But to the student who is interested in tracing out the origin of
the customs and beliefs which have shaped the fabric of civilization
and influenced the trends of even our own thoughts, the objective
expression of ancient beliefs displayed in Tutankhamen’s tomb is the
most important outcome of Mr Howard Carter’s discovery.
For it enables us to realize more vividly than before the relentless
and persistent logic with which the ancient Egyptian theologian strove
by any and every device he could think of, to make as certain as any
physical or magical procedure could make it, to give a new lease of
life or existence to the dead. Many modern scholars object to the use
of the word logic to apply to a series of procedures inconsistent the
one with the other except in their ultimate aim, and are constantly
emphasizing and marvelling at their lack of cogency and consistency.
But the modern psychologist has recently been insisting that we
ourselves, and, in fact, all mankind, are just as illogical as the
Ancient Egyptian priesthood. In our everyday life we are hourly doing
things as glaringly inconsistent the one with the other as anything
that the Egyptians ever did. It is merely that our wider acquaintance
with the nature of matter and the properties of living creatures
enables us the more readily to hide our inconsistencies and rationalize
our statements so as to hide our ignorance and lack of cogency.
In this connexion it is important to try and put ourselves in the
position of the theologians of Tutankhamen’s time, and ask whether it
is likely that they really imagined the ceremonial couches to be potent
to transfer the dead king to the sky. They knew perfectly well that the
couches could not effect this physical transference to a topographical
heaven. But long usage had accustomed them to attach a definite
symbolic meaning to the ceremonial practice of placing the mummy of the
king upon such couches. This was supposed to confer upon the dead king
immortality and divinity, to identify him with the sun-god Re in the
sky.
The problem which is perhaps responsible for most disagreement between
Egyptian scholars to-day is the relationship of the two gods Osiris
and Re, with both of which the dead king was identified as a means of
attaining immortality. The obvious connecting link between them is the
rôle assigned to Horus, who, as the son of Osiris, is charged with the
function of securing for the dead king the same boons which he was
able to confer on Osiris. Yet as a sun-god, intimately associated with
Re, Horus could also secure for him the solar heaven and enable him to
dwell with Re, if not be identified with him, in the sun.
There is a profound difference of opinion whether Osiris or Re was the
earliest god. Philologists like Professor Breasted and Dr Blackman, who
derive their knowledge from the literary texts (which, however, were
not put into writing until all thought and expression were dominated
by the sun-cult and the Pyramid Texts were actually written by
Heliopolitan priests) insist on the priority of the sun-god Re.
Ethnologists who know how relatively recent is the belief in a
sky-world and in sun-worship insist upon the priority of the god
Osiris, who was originally a king on earth. To my mind the whole
conception of deity and the attributes of the earliest gods can be
understood and explained only if we admit that Osiris was the first god
and that Re acquired his reputation secondarily from Osiris.
In Tutankhamen’s tomb the one idea that informed the funerary ritual
and equipment was this identification with Osiris, and the solar
embellishments are clearly additions to the more ancient practices. I
have entered in detail into the interesting problems of the funerary
couches in order to bring out in a definite and concrete form the
essential meaning of the whole equipment of Tutankhamen’s tomb.
What renders the obtrusiveness of the Osirian element in Tutankhamen’s
ritual additionally significant is the fact that he had been a
worshipper of the sun’s disc, the Aton, and had just been converted
to that denomination of the Re-cult which was associated with Amen.
But although these different forms of the sun-cult were in turn his
confessed beliefs, it is a striking demonstration of the fundamental
nature of the Osirian cult that it dominates the ceremonies of
Tutankhamen’s death and burial.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Ancient Records of Egypt_, Vol. II. pp. 420-427.
[2] This was written in January 1923.
[3] See Egypt Exploration Fund publication, _Deir el Bahari_, II,
Plate LI.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
THE EDINBURGH PRESS, 9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET, EDINBURGH
_BY PROF. G. ELLIOT SMITH, F.R.S._
----------------------------------
=ELEPHANTS AND ETHNOLOGISTS.= With numerous woodcuts by A. H.
GERRARD. Sm. 4to. [_May._
A series of remarkable woodcuts by Mr A. Horace Gerrard afford
ocular demonstration of the fact that certain sculptures made
in Central America between the fourth and ninth centuries A.D.
were inspired by Asia. Unmistakable representations of the Indian
elephant with a characteristically turbaned _mahout_ and certain
arbitrary appendages distinctive of the Asiatic home of the
designers are shown. Prof. Elliot Smith discusses the interesting
psychological problem of the refusal of ethnologists to admit so
patent a fact.
=THE DIFFUSION OF CULTURE.= [_In prep._
Explains the nature of the culture and its method of transition
from Egypt over many parts of the world in ancient times.
=THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MYTHS.= [_In prep._
An account of the states of mind of ancient peoples and the myths
they made.
• • • • •
_BY W. H. R. RIVERS, F.R.S., ETC._
----------------------------------
=PSYCHOLOGY AND POLITICS.= 12/6 net. [_Ready._
Contains an important essay summarizing the evidence for the
theory of Egypt as the ancient home of a culture (Sun-Worship,
Megaliths, Mummy-Making, etc.) which spread thence over Oceania
and the Pacific.
=CONFLICT AND DREAM.= 12/6 net. [_Ready._
The best scientific account of the psycho-analytical theory of
Dreams, with a note by Prof. G. ELLIOT SMITH.
=PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY.= [_In prep._
A description of the relation of these two sciences by an expert
in both.
=THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION.= [_In prep._
Regarded by the author as his most important contribution to
knowledge.
• • • • •
_BY B. MALINOWSKI, PH.D., D.SC., ETC._
--------------------------------------
=ARGONAUTS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC.= With 65 plates, 5 maps. Royal
8vo. 21/- net. [_Ready._
“No better book about a savage people has ever appeared.”—_Pall
Mall Gazette._
“This remarkable record of anthropological research.”—Sir J. C.
FRAZER in the _Preface_.
• • • • •
=BOOKS BY=
=SIR E. A. WALLACE BUDGE, LITT.D.=
KEEPER OF EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES IN THE
BRITISH MUSEUM
• • • • •
=AN EGYPTIAN READING BOOK FOR BEGINNERS.= 8vo, 16/- net.
=BOOKS ON EGYPT AND CHALDÆA=, the Archæology, History, Religion,
etc., of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians. Illustrated.
Printed uniformly in crown 8vo.
=Egyptian Religion.= 5/- net.
=Egyptian Magic.= 5/- net.
=Egyptian Language.= 6/- net.
=Book of the Dead.= English Translation. 3 vols., 21/- net.
=The Book of the Dead.= Egyptian Text. 3 vols., 21/- net.
=Vocabulary to the Book of the Dead.= 12/6 net.
=EGYPTIAN LITERATURE=:
Vol. I.: =Legends of the Gods.= 7/6 net.
Vol. II.: =Annals of Nubian Kings.= 7/6 net.
=FIRST STEPS IN EGYPTIAN.= [_New ed. shortly._
• • • • •
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO. LTD.
BROADWAY HOUSE: 68–74 CARTER LANE, LONDON, E.C.
• • • • *
Transcriber’s Notes:
- Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
- Text enclosed by equals is in bold (=bold=).
- Blank pages have been removed.
- Redundant title page removed.
- Some hyphenation variations made consistent.
- “Taurt” changed to “Tauert” for consistency, although both seem to
be in use.
- “The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatankhamanou” changed to “The Tombs of
Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou” to match actual book title.
- “The Life and Times of Akhanaton” changed to “The Life and Times of
Akhnaton” to match actual book title.