murray - evidence for the custom of killing the king

8/11/2019 MURRAY - Evidence for the Custom of Killing the King

1/8

12. Evidence for the Custom of Killing the King in Ancient Egypt

Author(s): M. A. MurraySource: Man, Vol. 14 (1914), pp. 17-23Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2788958.

Accessed: 14/03/2014 14:16

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.216.37.2 on Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:16:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2788958?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2788958?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/8

1914.J

MAN. [Nos.

11-12.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES.

Bactria: Bronze

Age.

With Plate B.

Read.

A Bactrian Bronze Ceremonial

Axe. By Sir C.

Hercules

Read.

44

An example of a ceremonial (or perhaps votive) axe obtained in the

II

N.W. Provinces

of India, and recently dded to the collectionsof

the British

Museum,

is so remarkable

from several points

of view that it may serve

a

good purpose

to

bring it before the readers of

MAN.

The design

of the axe

is

singular,

and a mere description

could

bardly

convey

a clear impression to the reader; the

illustration will, however, supplement

the

inadequacy

of the words. From the Plate it will be seen

that the axe

is

entirely

composed of the

figures

of

three ani-mals,

boar, a tiger, and an ibex.

The

cutting

edge

is

formed

of

the back

of

the first,which is attacking

the

tiger,

who

is

turning

a remonstrant ead

while he

grips

with his fore paws

the flanks of a crouching

ibex, who is also regardant. Below the bodies of the two last are the flangesthat

formthe

opening

for

the

handle

of

the weapon, which

did

not

pass through

the

axe,

but

was held

in position

by

two rivets, the holes for

which are clearly

seen

in'

the illustration.

That it was never intended

for active use is clear from the entire

inadequacy of the

edge. It is evident that the back of the

boar could cut nothing,

and that the makerhad no intention

that it should cut, for

to grind or hammerthe

edge

to a

practicable

state would entirely

destroy the admirablemodelling

of

the

body of the boar.

Hence the reasonable deduction that

the object had a

votive

or

ceremonial purpose.

Our

present

very exiguous knowledge

of the

archaeology

f

Afghanistan

n

the centuries preceding

the Sassanian dynastydoes not admit of

any

definite tatementof the uses to which an object of this kind might be put, nor

are

we

able

to

interpret

he

symbolism

of the conjunctionof these three animals.

The artist

bas sbown no small amount of ingenuity n

making the contours

of

the beasts serve

his

purpose while preseiving the characters

of their anatomy.

The

two

faces are

equally

finished and

complete,

and are fully as satisfactory rom

the

artistic standpoint

as if the artist had

had no end in

view but to

portraythem

as

they stood.

It would

appear, however,

from

a comparison

with

other

existinlg xes

from

the same region

that the

contour

scene

in

the present

specimen

is

a charac-

teristic one.

Some of these are figured

in

Arch/eologia

(Soc. Antiq., Lond.),

Vol.

LVIII., page

1,

where some unusual

tyvpes

f

weapons

are

dealt

with.

Among

these is one which illustrates the present example, and in some ways amplifies t.

This

is an

axe from

Kerman,

n

Persia,

presented

to the

British

Museum

by

Major

P.

M. Sykes.

In

this the animal forms are

degraded

and

almost

lost,

but

a

second

axe

of

the same find

has the

beasts

standing

free

and well

defined,

hough

by no

means

of the artistic

excellence of those

on

our

present

example.

After

comparison

with

the

Oxus

treasure

in

the

Museum,

t

seems

to me

highly

probable

that

this is a

specimen

of the art of Bactria of

about

the time of

Alexander.

Further

discoveries

may

render this

attribution

apable

of

greater

precision,

nd

such

precision

can

be

best

attained

by

publication.

C.

H.

READ.

Egypt. Murray.

Evidence for the Custom of Killing the King in Ancient Egypt

1

By Af.

A.

Murray.

In Egypt there

s

no

absolutely irect

vidence, o definitetatement

n

so

many

words, hat the king

was

sacrificed,o actualrepresentation

n

sculpture

r

painting

of such a sacrifice. Yet there re many

llusions,more or less clear,

from

iterary

sources-some early, some late-which, as I hope to prove,

how the

ceremonial

survival

f

that ancient

nd

barbarous sage.

[

17

]

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

No.

12.] MAN.

[1914.

Dr.

Frazer deduced

the practice of

killing

the

king

from

iterary

ources,

from

legend,

and from ceremonial survivals a theory not at first

received by all, but

triumphantlyonfirmed

n

the end by

Dr. Seligmann's discoveries among the Shilluks

of

the

Nile

Valley.

In the same

way we may

follow the

converging lines of

evidence in ancientEgypt, and possess our souls in patiencetill the finalconfirmatory

proof is

found.

I

have divided my subject into five parts: (1) the

parallels

in

neighbouring

countries;

(2)

the

meaning

of

the name Osiris (the identification

f

the king with

Osiris

being already established) (3) the literary vidence

from

he

Pyramid Texts, the

Book of

the

Dead,

and legends both Egyptian and

Arab;

(4)

the representations n

Art,

i.e.,

the Sed-festival and the Drowned Men of

Dendur;

and (5) the modern

survivals.

(1)

For the parallels in neighbouring

ountries,

Dr. Frazer's

books are the great

storehouse. He has shown that the

custom of killing the king can be inferred n

Greece

(Athamas) and

in

Crete,

and was known

in

Babylon,

Syria,

and

Ethiopia.

These

countries either bordered on Egypt or were in close

connection with her, so

close that

the Greeks themselves considered their own religion to

be derived from

the

Egyptian. Under these

circumstances t is not likely that Egypt alone would be

exempt

from a custom commonamong all her neighbours.

The

case for human sacrifice n

Egypt has been abundantly

proved,

in spite

of

Herodotus's

indignant

denial

that

so humane a

people

could be

guilty

of

such

blood-

thirsty

deeds.

The instance which

bears most

upon

our

subject

is

the sacrifice of

harvest

victims at Eileithiya (El Kab), the primitive kingdom of Upper Egypt. For the

fundamental

dea

underlying he sacrifice

f the

king

is the belief that

n him

the

god

of

fertilitys

incarnate,

nd

that on his

health

and

strength

he

prosperity

nd

welfare

of his

country

are

dependent. On the

approach

of old

age,

or at

the end

of

a

term

of

years,

the

king

had

to be

put

to

death,

in order

that

the

deity might pass

into a

younger stronger

body,

and

thuis never

suffer

decay

or

degeneration.

The

actual

method of

sacrifice varies

in

different ountries;

but

in,

many

cases

it is

followed

by

dismemberment; he

tearing

of

the

body

limb

from imb

in

a

savage

and

barbarous

maniner,

he

pieces being

buried in

the

fields when

the victim

was

human,

beilng

devoured

by

the

worshippers

when the

victim was animal.

(2) The Name of Osiris.-In spite of Plutarch's sarcastic remarks on the

dull

souls

and

vulgar minds who

identify

Osiris

with

vegetation,

it

is

only by

applying

this

very theory

to the

cult of Osiris

that we are

able

to

understand the

many aspects

of

this

god.

I

have shown

in

my study

of

Osiris

in

The

Osireion

at

Abydos

that

the

king

is

the

incarnate

god,

that

Osiris

is the

king

and

the

king

is

Osiris:

in

other

words,

that the

spirit

of

fertility

s incarnate in the

king.

This

view

is

absolutely

confirmed

y

Professor

Erman's researches

on

the

meaniiig

of

the

name

Osiris.*

The

hieroglyphs

which

form the name are

a

throne

and a

human

eye

the same throne which

appears

in

the name

of

Isis. The actual

reading

of

this

sign

is

S

with

a

preceding

and

succeeding vowel; the

following

vowel is

certainly e, the preceding vowel appears to vary, probably according to rules of

pronunbciation.

Thus in

the name,

Isis,

it would

be Is';

in

Osiris

Use.

The

eye

reads

Yr in

this

connection

Yri; the

throne and the

eye together reading

Usiri.

The

meaning

of Yr

is

To

do,

to

make,

to

occupy ;

in

the

participle,

the

doer, the

maker,

the

occupier. Thus

we

get

the

meaning

of the names,

Isis

or

Is6, She

of the

throne, '

the throne-woman

;

Osiris,

or

Usiri,

the

occupier

of

the

throne,

n

other

words the

king.

*

Zeitschrrft

urAegyptisehe

prache,

1909,

p.

92.

[

18

]



4/8

1914.) MAN. [No. 12,

Having reached

this

point

of

the identification f the

king

with the

great god

of Egypt,

we turn

to

the

legends

of the death of

Osiris.

The coasecutive accounts

are those of

Diodorus

and Plutarch

(De

Iside et

Osiride).

In Plutarch's dramatic

story Osiris

was

treacherously

murdered

by being

shut

up

in a wooden

chest,

which

was then throwni nto the Nile; Diodorus does not mention the manner of death.

Plutarch drags

in,

after the

murder,

n

episode

which

has

nothing

to do with the

story

of

Osiris,

but

expresses

the

fact

that

ani

interval

elapsed

between the death

and the

next

event,

which was the

tearing

of the

body

in

pieces

and the

scattering

of them

broadcast

over

Egypt,

i.e.,

over the cultivated land. Isis searched for

the

fragments, ollecting

alnd

oining

them

together,

nd thus caused

Osiris

to

rise

again.

There

are

two

special points

to

notice:

first,

hat

Osiris

practically

met

his

death

in the

water; second,

the dismemberment f the

body.

(3)

The

Literary Evidence.-What little literary

evidence

remains in

Egyptian

recordsconcerningthe death of Osiris, points to its having been effectedby water.

It

is

unfortunately

f late

date.

In a stela of

the

Persian period,

about

the 6th

or

5th

centuryn..c. (now in

the

British Museum), the cemetery

of

Memphis

is

said

to

have

been called

AnkAh-

Taui, Life of the Two Lands (the niame

s

significant) because of the fact that

Osiris

was

drowned

in

its

waters. *

In another

ate

text,

the

so-called

Lamenta-

tions of

Isis, the goddess

describes

her

ourney

n search of

Osiris,

I

have

traversed

the

seas to the confines

of the

eaith,

seeking

the

place

where

my

lord

is

.

.

.

I

have sought

him

who

is

in

the

water;

I

have

found

the

Drowned One.

In

the legend, Menes,

the

first

historic

king

of

Egypt,

was

killed by a hippo-

potamus according to Manetho, carried into safety by a crocodile according to

Diodorus. Here we appear

to have

a faint

echo

of the

sacrifice of the

primitive

kings by water; the water itself being symbolised by

one of

the destructive

water-beasts.

For

dismemberment here

is much

evidence

from

iterary ources;

a

few quota-

tions will

suffice.

In the earliest

hieroglyphic texts,

those inscribed

inside the

pyramidsof the 6th dynastykings, dismemberment

s

continually mentioned. In the

inscription of Unas, the earliest,

there is an invocation to

various

goddesses,

0

Neith,

0

Ani,

0

Urt-hekau,

0

Urt,

0

Nesert,

cause

that

Unas

be

cut

in

pieces

as

thou (fem.) art

cut

in

pieces.

In

the

inscriptions

of Teta

and

Pepy,

0 Teta, thou hast received thy head, thou hast collected thy bones, thou hast

united

thy

limbs. And of a goddess it is said She gives to

thee

thy head,

slhe unites

for thee thy bones,

she

joinis

for thee

thy

limbs,

she

brings

to thee

thy

heart

in thy body.

0

O Pepy Neferkara, leader of the gods, equipped as a

'; god,

he has

gathered his

bones

like

Osiris.

Again

in

the Book of the Dead the religious

texts

in

use

from

the 18th

to

the

26th

dynasties there occur the words, On the night of

the

Great Mystery,

the thigh, and the head, and the backbone. and the leg of Unnefer are on the

coffin.

~

)

I am

a

prince,

son of

a prince, fire, son of fire; to whom was given

his

head after it had been cut off (ch. 43); the rest of this chapter is occupied

with

the identificationi f the deceased with Osiris, for at -this time all the

dead

were identifiedwith the god of the dead. Thereforethe dismemberment,f which the

*

Zeitschriftfi4r

egyptische

pracete, 901,p. 41.

[

19

]



5/8

No. 12.] MAN. [1914.

Book of

the

Dead constantly speaks, is probably an echo of that early

time

when

Osiris

in

the

person

of

the king was

tornin pieces, and the fragments scattered

broadcast.

The Arab legends of the ancient kings of Egypt mention the disappearance

of

two kings, Kalkoum ben Khariba, and Misram ben Naqraush, the latter being the

seventh

in a

direct

line from

Adam.

Tthese legends would appear to preserve the

ancient

tradition

of the divine spirit leaving

the world.

(4)

We now

come to

the

representations

n Art. It must be remembered hat

in

many countries the actual killing of

the king was, as civilisation advanced, often

not enforced. If a human victim were required, the king's place might be taken

by

a

volunteer,

or

a criminal

might be

pressed

into

the service. Sometimes

a

religious

ceremonial took the place of

the actual sacrifice; and sometimes the reli-

gious ceremonial and the sacrifice of the substitute might be contemporary.

Dr. Frazer has collected so many instances

all over the world that I need not do

more than mention this and pass on to the examples in ancient Egypt.

First, then,

for

the

human

substitute.

Here we get no help from art till

Roman times. The

temple

of Dendur

in

Nubia, built under Augustus,

is

dedicated

to two

deified

men,

named

respectively

Petese and Pi-bor,

who met

their death

by drowning.

There are two

significant

facts

which

are brought out

clearly

in

the

sculpturedl eliefs.

In

the

scenes of the worship

he

deified men are

represented,

sometimes

with the

insignia

of

rovalty,

ometimes

with the

insignia

of

Osiris. Where

they

are

shown

as

kings

the

inscription

peaks of them

as

The

Drowned ;

where

tljey

are

represented

s

Osiris

they

are called

P-shai,

or

Agathodaimon.

We

can,

I

think, only

conclude

that these men were

sacrificed

s

kings,

as the incarnationsof

Osiris, the spiritof fertility.

The ceremonial

s,

perhaps,

less

easy

of

proof.

The

great royal ceremony,

the

one

celebrated

with

most

pomp

anid

circumstance

was not

tlhe coronation

as

one

might

expect,

but

the Sed-festival. The meaning of the Sed-festival has

been

greatly

obscured

by the

earlier

Egyptologists,who looked upon

it

as

purely calen-

drical, occulrring very thirtyyears when the shiftingcalendar had lost a week.

This

theory being proved untenable,

nother theorywas advanced

that it was

the

thirtieth

anniversary

of the

king's

accession;

and this theory

n a

modified

form

s

still held

by many Egyptologists,

the

Sed-festival being considered by

them

as the thirtieth

anniversary

of

the

king's appointment

as crown

prince.

It

is,

however,

worth

notingthat almost every king who erected temples or decorated them on any large

scale, represented

himself

n

the

Sed-festival

(and

in cases where lhe cannot

have

had

thirtyyears

for heir and

king),

or that Rameses

If.

had

six

Sed-festivals.

The

points

to

be observed

in

scenes

of the

Sed-festival

are

these

(1)

the

king

is

the principal figure, lways represented

s

Osiris; (2)

before

him is carried

the

figure

of

Up-uaut,

the

Opener of

the

Ways,

the Jackal-god

of

Siut

who

appears

to

have been

a

god

of

death; (3)

the

royal

daughter,

seated

in

a

litter,

s the

most

importantfigure

after

the

king; (4)

and

in

most

instances there

are

one or more

running

or

dancing men.

This

presence

of

the

royal

daughter

and

the running

men is due

to the scene

being one of marriage. We must bear in mind that the throne of Egypt went in

the female

line. This is

very

clear wherever

we have sufficient

ata

to enable

us

to

trace

genealogies

with

any accuracy.

The

king

was not necessarily

royal,

but he

became the

legal

ruler

by marriage

with

the

heiress.

To

put

it

shortly,

he

queen

was

queen by right

of

birth,

the

king

was

king by right

of

marriage.

We can

see, then,

that

the

marriage

of

the

queen's daughter,

the

princess

who was the

heiress,

was an

event

of

the utmost

importance.

The

dancing

men were

probably

the

suitors

for

her

hand;

but whether

the

dance

was

a

contest

before

marriage

or

t

20

]



6/8

1914.]

MAN.

[No.

12.

a fertility ance after marriage is uncertain. From the fact that in the representa-

tion of the Setl-festival f theXIJth dynasty found by ProfessorPetrie at

Memphis),

the king

dances

alone before

Min,

the

god

of

generation,

t would

seem

to be

a

fertility

ance to

promote

the increase and welfare of the

crops, animals,

and

people

of his kingdom.

The figure

on the throne is

evidently

that of the

king,

the

reigningking. On

the mace-lhead

f

Narmer,

the

earliest

representation

f

the

Sed-festival,

the king

is

on a throne

under

a

canopy,

he holds the

insignia

of

Osiris,

and he

is

clothed

in

the

long tight-fitting

obe

which is

characteristic

of

the

mummiform

siris. He is

essentially

Osiris,

the

Occupier

of

the

Throne.

We

can

hardly

suppose that he

is

representedhere merely

as

blessing

the union of

the princess-who is perhaps not

his own daughter-with

his

successor. On the

contrary,

he grim idea is forced

upon us that the appointment

of

the new king

was coincident with the death

of the

old,

and that

in the Sed-festival

we

have

the

two

events combined

in one great

ceremony.

Taking

this view

of the

Sed-festival

we

obtain an

explanation

of some of

the

obscure points concerning

t. The

key

to some of

these puzzles

is to

my nmind

the descent

in

the

female

line.

If the

king ruled only by right of marriage

with

the

heiress,

what

took

place

if she

died

first.?

was

he put to death

?

did he

abdicate

?

And as

the

mortality

f women in childbirth

has

always been

great,

we can

imagine

that

this

difficulty

must have

constantly presented itself. One

solution

was the

marriage

of

the

king

with the

next

heiress; andl

this

is apparently

what

happened

to Rameses

II.

His

six

Sed-festivals

probably represent

six

marriages;

we

know

for certain

that he was married four

times;

first to a

ladv,

probably

his

sister,

and

then to three of his daughters in succession. Another solution of the difficulty

appears

to have

been arrived at in the

Xllth

dynasty

n

the

numerous co-regencies

which

occur

at that

period.

But the Sed-festival is

only

concerned

econdarily

with

the

princess;

its

primary

reason,

its

principal figure,

s

the

Osirified king, before whom is borne

in

procession

the Jackal-god

of death.

This

combination

points to the originalmeaning

of

the

ceremony, he

sacrifice

of

the

king

as the

incarnate

deity

of

fertility.

This

aspect

of

the

Sed-festival

is borne out

by,

the

inscription

on

the obelisk

of

Senusert

I

at

Heliopolis,

which

was

erected to commemoratehis Sed-festival.

The

phrasing

is

very significant.

After

the

titles and names

of

the

king

come

the

words

?

l

Sp tpi sd-kb (and this

is

the

important

iece)

zD ti i yr-f dy

ankh zt.

Taking

this last

phrase

as a

temporal

clause,

which from

its

position

it

might

well

be,

and

translating yr

as

the unin-

flected

passive,

the

whole sentence

would

read,

The first ime

of

the

Sed-festival,

when he

is made

(to be) gifted

with

life for

ever.

The

inscriptions

lso

on

the

scenes of Osorkon's Sed-festival

at Bubastis

carry on the same idea (I quote from

Breasted's translation),

1

he appearance

of

the king in the temple

of Amon and

the

assumption of the protection

(

^-P)

of the Two Lands by the king,

the

protectioni

f the sacred women of the houLseof

Amon,

and the protection

of

all the women of his city. The inscription eems to me to show clearly

that

the object of the festival was the promotion f fertility.

If,

as I suppose,

the

ceremony

was

al

so

a

substitute

for the actual sacrifice,

renewinig

f the

divine

spirit within the

kinig,

we should expect its periodical

occurrence;

and this may

account

for the fact that in quite late times it certainly does seem to

occur at

definite ntervals.

E 21 ]



7/8

No.

12.]

MAN.

[1914.

The Arab legend

given by Maqrizi is perhaps an echo from ancient

times,

containing the tradition not only of the

Sed-festival

but also

of the still earlier

and

more savage ceremony

f the actual sacrifice f the king. Misram, son of Naqraush,

disappeared from the eyes of men for thirtyyears. He

then appeared upon a

throne enriched with all manner of ornaments, nd in an alarming array, which

filled all hearts with

terror; his subjects prostrated

themselves before him and

adored him. Misram caused

a

feast

to be prepared

for them,and they ate

and

drank; after which

he ordered them to returnto theirhomes and was

lnever

een

again.

In connection with

some of the ceremonies of the Sed-festival, must mention

in passing the curious

object to which Professor Petrie has called attention n the

representation f the Sed-festival of the XlIth dynasty

found at Memphis. In the

scenes of a later period this object is represented as a

scorpion (or at any rate it

is

often so drawn by

the modern copyist). But in the XIIth dynasty

it

is

undoubtedlythe upper part of a headless human body. Professor Petrie sees in it

the remains, the actual

dried body, of a primitiveking,

probably one who was sacri-

ficed; and it is

certainly ignificant hat

in

laterrepresentationishe arms are decorated

with the

'Ankh the

sign of life, that it

is

supported

on

the emblem of long

duration

of

life, and

that it occurs

in connection

with

the

emblem

of

Osiris. The

work I

have

already

done with

Dr. Seligmann

on

this strange figure leads

me

to

suppose

that Professor Petrie

is

right,

but

as

yet

I

have

no actual

proofs

to

offer;

for

the

subject still

requires

a

great

amounit

f

careful

study.

(5)

We now

come

to the survivals

in

modern

times.

I

need

hardly enlarge

on

the sacrificeof the Shilluk kings. In some ways the

Shilluk religion appears

to

retain traces of the ancient Egyptian religion whetherderived fromi gypt through

the priests of Ethiopia, or whether t is part of the same

primitive religion

still

preserved

dowln

to our

own times it is not yet possible to say. But the sacrifice f the

Shilluk

king is proof positive

that

the natives of

the Nile Valley believed the king

to

be the incarnate

deity, the author of all life and fertility.

The

extraordinary everence

in

which

the

modern

Egyptian,

democratic

as

all

Mahommedans are,holds the Khedive, is perhaps the remains

of

the old

belief

in

the

divinityof the Pharaoh.

But

the

most

striking survival

is

one witnessed

by Klunzinger

in

1867

or there-

abouts. On the

Coptic New Year's Day, the day of High Nile, every

town and

village chose for itself a Lord of Misrule, whom they called Abu Nerfus, ather

of the

New

Year.

For

three

days he was vested with

supreme

power,

and for those

three

days

he

was dressed

in

a tall

cap,

a

long beard

made of

flax,

and

a

peculiarly

shaped garment, and

he

carried

a

sceptre

in his

hand. This

description rresistibly

reminds one

of the figures

of

Osiris.

At the end of three

days

he

was

condemned

to

die,

and

was actually set

on fire,but

was

always

allowed to

escape, though

his

clothes,

the

insiginia

of his

royal office,

were consumed

by

the

flames.

In

this

ceremonywe have the last survival of the

custom of

killing the king

in

Egypt.

I

will now run over very shortlythe gradual growth of

our knowledge

of

this

subject.

The

beginning

of this

knowledge

dates back to the

translation

f

the

Greek

inscriptionon the Rosetta Stone, where the cycle of

thirty years

is mentioned

(Kvptov

rptaKovraer7pt8&ov).

Later it was suggested-and the

suggestion was accepted

for

many years-that

the

festival was the

thirtieth

nniversary

of

the

king's

acces-

sion;

in

1898

this

theory, being

found

inadequate, Sethe

brought

forward

a

good

deal of

evidence to prove

it

the thirtieth anniversaryof

the.king's appointment

s

crown

prince.t This,

however,

does

not

cover the fact that

Thothmes I.

had

a

*

MaSrizi, pt.

II., ch. 2, Bouriant,Mission

Archiologique

Frangaise,

XVII.

t Zeitcklrift

ur Aegyptisehe pracke,

1898,

64,

note 3.

[ 22 ]



8/8

1914.]

MAN.

[Nos.

12-13.

Sed-festival,

though he was never crown-prince nd did

not reign thirty

years; nor

that

Tut-ankh-amon had a

Sed-festival,

though

the

sum of his predecessor's

reign

added to

his own does not amount to thirty

years.

The

basis for the present interpretation f this

festival was laid in

Frazer's

firstedition of The Golden Bough. The connection of the royal daughterwith the

Sed-festival, f the Jackal-standard with the

ostrich-feather f the apotheosis of

the

king,

and the appearance of

the king as Osiris in the ceremony,was

shown

by

Moller

in 1901. In 1904

I

published a list of

festivals

dated in different eigns

and

identifiedthe scene on the

mace-head of

Narmer

with the Sed-festival

in

1905

Frazer's

lectures on the Kingship laid the

foundation of a comparative view

by

showing

what customs of king

killing existed in various countties round Egypt.

In

1905

Petrie brought forward the

connection

of the

Sed-festival of 30 years and

the Henti-festival f 120 years

with the well-known

shiftof the calendar in a week

or a

month;

he also connected

the marriage of the

royal daughterwitlh he

festival,

pointedout that the deification f the king as Osiris was the substituteforan earlier

sacrifice

of the king;

anid

called attention to the survival of king-killing

in the

Coptic

Abu Nerus.

In 1911

Dr. Seligmann discovered the practice of

king-killing

still

in

use among the Shilluks of Fashoda. At the

beginning of this year

Moret

published

his

Mysteres

Egyptiens, in which he says

that the Sed-festival

renewed

for

the

king

bis

dlignity

oyal and divine, and that

several rites of re-birth an

be

recognised in

it (p. 73).

He

also collects together

various instances of

the

Egyptian

belief in the Pharaoh's powers

over fertility nd famine. In the present paper

con-

nections

are shown between the drowning of Osiris and.

the death of the early

kings

and

their

later substitutes; it is

also

pointed

out

that the several Sed-festivals

of

one king belong to several marriages; and that traditions of the ceremonystill

remaini n mediaeval Arab

legends.

The main questions still to

be

aniswered

are

four:

(1) the meaning

of

the

gods

giving

to the king 'millions

of Sed-festivals, whether implying ength of

reign,

frequentroyal marriages, or

re-incarnationl;

2) whether

the thirty-year eriod was a

uniform

calendar-cycle

down to the XIXth dynasty;

(3) whether the

twelve-year

Sed-festival named in the XXIInd

dyDasty*

has the

same astronomical basis as

the

twelve-year king-killing festival in India; (4) what

stages the ceremony of

the

prince's

marriage and

successionl

went through n

different

eriods.

M. A.

MURRAY.

Africa,

West.

Tremearne.

Marital

Relations of

the

Hausas as

shown

in

their

Folk-lore.

By

Major

A. J.

N.

Tremearne,M.A.,

Dip.

Anth.

EU

The

marital

relations

lhave been

explailned

fully

in

Hausa

Superstitions

and

Customs,

but these

stories

(which

could lnotbe

included

in that

book)

throw

more

light

upon

the

estimation

in

which

wifely

fidelity s

held.

A

Hausa

woman

is

supposed to

be

incapable

of

upright

coilduct,

and

story

1

explains

why this is

so.

Any

man

who

imagines that

he

will be

able

to

keep hlis wife from

adultery

is

consideredto be an idiot, and even a chief will encouragge is subjects to hold

sIch

a

man

up to

ridicule.

A

wife

makes no

secret

of her

infidelity,

nd is quite

ready

to

prove

it to

her

husband

should he

believe her

true,

even should

the

proof

require

thLe

ct

to

be

committed

n the

husband's

presence.

Sometimes

the

lovers

of

the

wives

have

narrow

escapes,

and they

may

have

to pay

pretty

leavily

if

the

husbaud is

senisible,

and

agrees to

trade

upon

his wife's

unlawful

amours.

Tphe

*

Base

of a

basalt

statue

with

cartouches f

Osorkon

L,

mA

n

-

o

now n the

Petrie

Collection

t

University

ollege.

murray - evidence for the custom of killing the king

Documents