Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Osiris and His Rites by G. D. Hornblower; Osiris and the Fertility-rite by G. D. Hornblower Review by: J. Gwyn Griffiths The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 28 (Dec., 1942), pp. 70-71 Published by: Egypt Exploration Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3855533 . Accessed: 09/03/2012 06:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
(70)
71
has the function of guardian, as with Chephren: the two falcons, one at the head and the other at the feet of Osiris, surely represent Isis and Nephthys as the drty. Again, it is not true to say that the king wears Osiriandress at the Sed-festival. Mr. Hornblower'sideas, especially in the third article, are neverthelessstimulatingand suggestive, and it will be interestingto see whether this Mesopotamianand Upper Egyptian Osiris will be countenanced
by future researchers. J. GWYN GRIFFITHS
Museumof Art, Papers No. io). Materials used at the Embalming of King Tut-rankh-aman (Metropolitan and I8 IO half-tone line plates. By H. E. WINLOCK.New York, I94I. pp., This short monograph,written in the vivid style of which its author is a past master, gives the detailed o the some thirty-four years ago. The of the Tombs of account of a discovery made in the Valley Kinglls discovererwas Edward Ayrton, then working for Theodore M. Davis, and with one exception (a painted miniature mask of which the purpose is obscure) the objects were deemed so unimportantthat Winlock was allowed to carry off to New York a goodly portion. A small and shallow pit had been cut in the rock t of the tomb of Tutankhamun. Here, packed in a dozen or more large jars, all some I o m. to the south exactly alike, had been buried the remnants of embalming materials,together with the bones of a cow, nine ducks, and four geese consumedat a funeraryrepast,to which also belongedhalf-a-dozenflowercollars used to adorn the necks of thehe guests. Pots of many shapes and sizes formed, however, the great bulk of the find, and these had all been brokenso as to find a place in the great containingjars. Those who have had personal experience of Winlock's archaeologicalmethods or who have read his reportswith carewill not need to be assuredthat every detailhas been studiedand recordedwith the minutest attention, and interpreted from as wide a backgroundof knowledge as is possessed by anyone in the world. But indeed, though it is not possible alwaysto distinguishbetween the pots used by the embalmers and those that did service at the feast, the two great categoriesof objects could not fail to be recognized by anyone. To the former category belong many bags filled with natron or chaff, three kerchiefs used over wigs to protect them from the dust, and scraps (in Winlock's own words) 'torn from the bandages at the time of the king's wrapping'. A piece of a sheet markedas made in year 8 of Tut(ankhamun's reign dates the find with certainty,as do also some sealings. Winlock'scomment upon the embalmingmaterials is plausible enough; they were too impure, he says, to be buried in the tomb, but had to be put not far away from the body, since this had been in contact with them. So too the remains of the funeraryfeast carry their own explanation. The difficulty, as I see it, lies in the combinationof both categories. The embalmingand wrappingof the mummy, the work of many months, had doubtless been carriedout in the embalmers' workshops. Were they in the Valley? And did the funerary feast take place there too at the terminationof the task? The mud impressionsfrom seals with the name of Tutcankhamun'broken from tomb furniture'add to the complexity of the problem. The book contains but little for the mere philologist. I must confess to having misled Winlockover one point on which he consulted me many years ago: the first word on the jar inscription G (p. 14) should
ALANH. , swt 'wheat'. und erklartvon C. E. SANDERNeu herausgegeben Die religiosenTexte auf dem Sarg der Anchnesneferibre. HANSEN. Kopenhagen,Levin & Munksgaard,I937. Sm. folio. III58 pp. One of the most strikingobjects in the Egyptian Sculpture Gallery of the British Museum is the magnificent basaltsarcophagus (found at Thebes in 1832) of the God's Wife, Votaressand God's Hand Ankhnesneferibre, daughterof PsammetichusII and Takhawetand adopted daughterof the God's Wife Nitocris, but not, as has often been assumed,wife of Amasis. What gives this monument specialimportance,however, is not so much its beautiful workmanshipas its inscriptions, which, covering most of the external or coffinand and internalsurfaces,form a body of religiousand magicaltexts found on no othersarcophagus with these from been have of interest. and most the for acquainted long Egyptologists great part unique marred in which The by many though appeared 1885; Sarcophagus of Ankhnesrdneferdb, Budge'spublication were made mistakesof copying, and by the fact that in severalcases the texts runningroundthe sarcophagus of lines given below), it gave an excellentgeneralidea of the to begin in the wrongplaces(see the concordance few not is still and Egyptologicalworksever are!); it shows the many curious texts, wholly superseded(how modificationsby which a Ptolemaicmale usurperof the tomb tried to adaptsome of the inscriptionsto his have been read pet GARDINER