mate alike, were possessed of a Ka or "double," which followed them like a shadow, with the difference that whereas a shadow is inseparable from the object to which it belongs, the Ka had the power of maintaining an independent existence, and so continuing to live after the death of the body. Professor Petrie thinks that the theory of the Ka is inconsistent with the theory of mummification; here, however, I cannot follow him, as though the Ka was separable from its body it could not be thought of apart from the body, so that annihilation of the body brought with it annihilation also of the Ka. Historically, nevertheless, Professor Petrie must be right in believing that the theory of the Ka and the practice of mummification had different origins. Recent discoveries have shown that mummification was not practised by the Pharaohs of the First and Second Dynasties, and the practice may have been due to the accidental fact that at El-Kab, opposite the early capital of Upper Egypt, the ground is impregnated with natron, which would have preserved the bodies buried in it from decay. The Pyramid texts state that as late as the age of the Sixth Dynasty it was still customary in the case of royal interments for a little of the natron of El-Kab to be brought to Memphis and mixed with the better and more abundant natron of the north.
The Egyptian Ka corresponds exactly with the Zi of the Sumerians of primaeval Babylonia. All that was believed and taught about the one was equally believed and taught about the other, and the philosophical doctrines associated with the Ka and the Zi were identical. Indeed, the identity is such that I have long been convinced of their connection with one another. Doubtless, as every folklorist knows, the conception of the Ka itself is common among all primitive peoples; but the philosophical system based upon it is, so far as I am aware, peculiar to ancient Egypt and the pre-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia, though it is also found in a modified form in China.
Professor Petrie's account of Egyptian morality is excellent, and affords much opportunity for reflection. The following description of the Egyptian character sums up the evidence neatly and well:—"The family duties are very little dwelt on; and there seems no sense of the wider range of duties to relatives that carries so much with it to our notions. In dealing with equals, besides the obvious crimes of murder and theft, cheating and
Z 2
