I want my blog to be simple. I want to keep it simple (at least initially) so the focus stays on my words. Maybe I'll change in the future, maybe not. It's my blog. Don't judge me. I've never used a blog before, so we'll see how it goes...
For my first post I'd like to share my bachelor's thesis I wrote for my religious studies degree. What else am I going to do with it? Everyone was required to write one to graduate in my major (all 12 of us). It's about mummies, movies, and mythology. I hope you enjoy.
Disclaimer: it does not sound very academic -- on purpose.
Unwrapping Egyptian Mummies In Modern and Ancient
Mythoi
By: Nathan John
Professor
Mary Kelly
Spring 2012
In
this essay I will attempt to draw the most relevant parallels and discrepancies
between the modern and ancient mythoi within the theme of Egyptian
mummification and resurrection. My sample of modern myths will be in the artistic
medium of film, from the beginning of the 20th century (inception of
the medium) to the present. Egyptian mummies are an exciting and common topic
in the modern Western film industry, primarily since the unearthing of the tomb
of King Tut (discussed later in this essay). I have been interested in Mummies
since I was young – Egyptology and notions of tampering with the dead,
interacting with the divine, has fascinated me for years.
I
will analyze ancient Egyptian philosophies and beliefs on death care and the
afterlife; I will examine their fascinating rituals, myths, and stories, then slowly
unwrap the greater overarching themes and prevailing details that have been
preserved through the millennia and projected on to the silver screen. By
unraveling the genre I will track the most pertinent themes, the most
titillating of details, and present the prevailing characteristics within the adapting
and evolving medium. I will effectively identify persisting themes in Egyptian
mummy mythoi and provide my informed opinion on what mummies are, what they
have become, and what they mean to the living.
What We’re Made Of – Ka, Bah,&Sah
Ka and ba are often mentioned together as a
single idea – one part. However, it must be noted they are distinct aspects of
a person – similar to cake and icing. While together we may call the spongy
loaf and sugar infused paste a delicious cake, they are in fact two separate
foods with separate qualities. Together, they are a cake. Together, ka and ba are distinct pieces of a person, described throughout mortuary texts.
You can eat a spongy loaf by itself, and you can eat a delicious sweet paste by
itself – and you can identify your ka
and ba.
Ka in Egyptian death
philosophy is not a part of one’s physical body – not pertinent to the physical
sphere.
Ka, while difficult to explain
in Western American-English terms, is essentially one’s social status, honor,
or sense of dignity. It is similar to the Western notion of a heart.
[1]This
is our icing.
Ba is
ascribed to the physical sphere.
Ba’s
primary characteristic is movement, but it is not the body. Similar to
ka there is no direct translation to
American-English, but it is more or less a personality – a collective
manifestation of the individual that does not pertain to social status. It is
with the
ba that the dead are able to
leave the tomb and travel, while their corpses remain in the tomb.
[2]
This is our spongy loaf.
Sah is yet another
aspect of you. But it is you in the most uninteresting and basic form. It is
the house for the ka and ba – the capsule, the corpse. The sah was not expected or believed to rise
from the tomb and be physically active after death. Sah is the cold, dead plate on which the scrumptious cake of you is
served.
Ba and
ka are more than just philosophical
notions in Egyptian belief. They are pragmatic components of a person that must
be understood for the resurrection process. And it is only through the survival
and union of sah, ba, and ka that resurrection is possible. Funerary preparations are devoted
to preserving these parts of a person for resurrection.
Resurrection, Rebirth,
and the Word
Preservation was vital in Egyptian death care. The
mummification and subsequent resurrection processes depended on preservation. However, Egyptian mummification was not simply
a method to preserve the body as it was in life – it was understood that the
changing body was a natural part of life. Mummification was a process to help
the dead become what was considered the perfect image of the deceased.
[3]
This was initially left to the desert’s natural processes. Before popular
funerary innovations, Egyptians buried corpses in shallow oval graves and the
sand would act as a natural protecting agent; the dry environment would
preserve the corpses well. But as early as the second half of the fourth
millennium BCE, corpses were being wrapped in linen or hides.
[4]
Graves grew more elaborate, with vertical walls and covers. And the funerary
processes evolved, also growing more elaborate, and widespread over time.
How
then does the resurrection occur? With the most important tools of all – words,
language, and literature. Identified as “mortuary liturgies” and “mortuary literature”
by German Egyptologist Jan Assmann, both provided the means by which Egyptians
cared for their dead beyond immediate needs such as preservation, tools, food,
etc. (It was custom for the living to include provisions for the afterlife with
those whom they buried.) The Egyptian custom of mortuary literature, text
written or engraved on tombs, sarcophagi, papyri, or the Books, dates to King
Wenis of the 5
th dynasty
[5]
(circa 2500 BCE
[6]).
His pyramid was the first to bare such literature.
It
was believed that these liturgies performed on earth, and literature plastered
on our dead, were also performed in the divine realm of the gods.
[7]
So, if Isis had not awoken her formerly dismembered and deceased husband, Osiris,
with her lamenting words (and the composition of his body parts), and had she
provided him rebirth to his new form, the ritual liturgies performed on Earth
would be of no use (discussed in the following section). Words in Egyptian
mortuary liturgy and death rituals were highly revered, and the vital agent by
which resurrection and rebirth were facilitated.
Isis,
Osiris, and the Egyptian Pantheon
The
divine realm belongs to the pantheon of gods and goddesses – the commanding
deities of the Egyptian land. These are the characters of Egypt who were
essential to understand in said culture. The Egyptian people would emulate
these deities in everyday life based on their myths. And the legend of Isis
reviving Osiris is one of the most beautiful and well known.
To
appreciate the legend of Isis and Osiris however, we must also understand how
they fit into the pantheon. As a disclaimer to the reader and acknowledgment to
any Egyptologists, I must establish a caveat – there is more than one version
to every story in Egyptian mythology. This consistent inconsistency is due to
the fact that two main cities in Egypt acted as the centers of religious and
mythological doctrine. One was Heliopolis, the City of the Sun, and the other
was Memphis. These two cities, due to geographic proximity, maintained a lot of
mythological similarities, yet were dissimilar enough to be distinct in their
own ways.
Isis
originally belonged to the aforementioned city of Heliopolis. However, this is
not held exclusively, except in Heliopolis.
[8]
Isis was a part of the
Ennead, or the
Nine (9). The Nine were the first deities to emerge at and after the genesis.
Atum (or Ra/Re), who rose from the primordial waters, gave birth to Shu (who
represented air, life, space, and light) and Tefnut (who represented moisture,
and order). Shu and Tefnut then gave birth to Nut (the sky goddess) and Geb
(the earth god). Nut and Geb then had five offspring in five days. The first
day bore Osiris, the second Arueris, third was Seth, then Isis on the fourth
day, and last on the fifth day was Nephthys. Isis was sister-wife to Osiris and
Osiris was husband-brother to Isis. They loved each other even in their
mother’s womb before they were born.
Osiris,
as the oldest male, became the first king of Egypt, created civilization,
established justice throughout the Nile, taught the Egyptians about agriculture,
was an international traveller, and generally very popular. Seth, his younger brother,
became jealous of Osiris’ fame and virtue. Seth decided to create a chest the
size of his brother and trapped him in it, sealed it with molten lead and threw
it into the Nile. The chest floated down to the sea. Isis, as Osiris’ wife and sister
became overwhelmed with grief. She cut off her hair, dawned mourning garb and
searched relentlessly up and down the Nile. She eventually found Osiris in the
chest, then wept, mourned, then changed form to a bird and gave birth to her
son Horus (who is depicted as a falcon). Isis then hid the chest containing the
body of Osiris in the delta. Days later, Seth discovered the chest and tore the
body to fourteen pieces, and scattered them all around the country. Some
versions of this myth say that he threw Osiris’ penis into the Nile. When Isis
learned of this, once again she searched for her brother-husband. This time,
she travelled on the Nile in a boat of papyrus along with Seth’s wife, who was
Isis’ sister and consort, Nephthys, and Nephthys’ son, Anubis. Also with them
was Thoth, the moon god and Isis’ son Horus. Together, they found all of
Osiris’ parts except his penis, which was believed to have been swallowed by a
fish. Isis made a replica of the missing phallus to take the place of the
original, and consecrated it in ceremony. Isis’ words in ceremony (and sitting
on Osiris’ penis, according to variations of the myth) brought Osiris back from
the dead. Osiris then became the Ruler of Eternity in the underworld.
Isis
was the most important goddess in Egypt and was worshipped for over 3,000
years, from pre-dynastic times (before 3,000 BCE) until the second century CE.
Isis originated in Egypt, but was worshipped across several cultures and
traditions, including Greece in the third century BCE, the Roman Empire, and
even to Danube and Rhine.
[9]
Similar to other Egyptian deities, she was represented in various forms with an
array of responsibilities, such as: a milk-giving cow-goddess, goddess of
serpents of the primeval waters, a star goddess, accumulator of the Nile
waters, fertile pig goddess, bird goddess, goddess of power, goddess of the
Tree of Life, and the giver of life to Osiris.
The Films – Our Modern Mythoi
Disclaimer: I
recognize that artistic liberties are taken to alter stories and traditions
(particularly ancient ones that might have less appeal to the non-ancient
audience) to attract to a wider fan base and/or make money. I am not
persecuting filmmakers for being wrong, unknowledgeable, or inaccurate (though
they may be). However, it should be noted that my interjections (and objections)
will be primarily based on the historical and philosophical accuracies and
inaccuracies observed in the films pertaining to Egyptian afterlife ritual and
philosophy.
Egyptomania!
The appropriately named craze of the early 20
th century for all
things Egypt, with particular attention to tombs, mummies, pharaohs, and
afterlife relics occurred in response to the unearthing of King Tutankhamun
(named “King Tut” for short) in 1922.
[10]
This event was highly intriguing and enticing to the popular culture. The craze
caught on, and received further attention due to mysterious stories surrounding
the tomb’s discovery, such as the disappearance of several of project workers
during the trip to Tut’s tomb. This was exciting! And this exciting event is
accepted by film scholars as the beginning of Egyptomania. An influential
fiction and non-fiction author of the 1920s, Jon Manchip White, claimed that
King Tut in fact was among the least esteemed of pharaohs in his time. Noting
the irony that he is now, in the 20
th century, among the most famous
of Egyptian pharaohs and characters. King Tut was not resurrected as perhaps
was planned – he (or, his
ka and
ba) has been transformed. But regardless
of Tut’s social standing in this or his previous life, the theme was reborn, repackaged,
and became palatable to the Western film audience. A sub-genre was born from
this event that permeated other film genres – literally hundreds of films
[11]
(either as motion pictures, television shows, television episodes, pornographic
films, or film shorts) were created with the focus of Egyptian mummies.
The
most intriguing theme I sought to analyze as I watched and read about the
mountains of modern mummy myths was the uniting of the mummy, the corpse, the sah, with his or her (primarily his)
“soul.” I was careful to not get swept away by my childhood love for the genre.
As a child I loved mummies. I loved Egyptology. And having grown up in American
culture, I understood and accepted the melding of the ghost-like spirit entity
into a corpse as a spirit entering the body. I approached with fresh eyes and a
healthy skepticism. Yet again I observed a plain spirit entering the body in as
I re-watched my favorite childhood mummy film, The Mummy (1999). However, as discussed earlier in this essay,
Egyptian afterlife philosophy did not prescribe to the modern Western notion of
soul. This was the problem. There would logically be no incantation or spell to
simply put a soul back into its shell as two parts. The Mummy (1999) completely corrupts my cupcake analogy. They are
taking the ka and the sah as one part – the social status and
the corpse are analogous in this film. The ka
and sah, are acting as the spongy
cake and the ba as the icing – that
is inaccurate. And yes, perhaps I am taking the defamation of my analogy too
personally, but that example of a person’s properties is not “correct” in ancient
Egyptian afterlife beliefs.
Some
films do however continue the powerful theme of mortuary liturgy and
literature. The character of Imhotep, the revived priest, in both the 1932 and
1999 Mummy films, is often using his
words or reading from ancient literature on stone, books (of the Dead), etc.,
either to create something ridiculous, like a sandstorm in the shape of his
face, or as preparation to revive his love for whom he was killed, Anaksenamun.
As noted earlier in this essay, words in Egyptian mortuary liturgy and death
rituals were highly revered, and essential to resurrection and death
preparation. This attention to the power of the word, is just one of the reasons
why The Mummy (1932) is the most
accurate and authentic of the mummy films I have seen. The characters use their
words. One of my favorite examples is in penultimate scene of the film, when lead
actress Helen faces her death to be transformed into Imhotep’s lost romantic
partner Anaksenamun, prays to Isis. In praying to the goddess, Helen recognizes
Isis’ importance in mortuary ritual and process, and in life, as she faces her
own death.
The Mummy
(1932) and (1999) are my primary focus of the modern mythoi. These two films act
as bookends to the 20th century mummy genre. Both have similar
content and themes: the characters Imhotep and Anaksenamun, in deep passionate
love that persists through millennia of death; mortuary liturgy and literature,
(although they are used in different ways); and of course the excitement of
unearthing a mummy. Yet with these similarities both represent different appeal
to the audience from the times in which they were made. The 1932 film is a more
historically and spiritually anchored thriller. Imhotep quietly incants in the
museum on his knees, hovering over the Book of the Dead, slowly preparing for
the return of his lost love, Anaksenamun. 67 years later, the 1999 Mummy is an action thriller packed with
death-defying stunts and incredibly long gun fights. Yes there are spells, yes
they impact the story, but they are used extravagantly, not in liturgical or
ritual form.
Admittedly,
these analyses may be a narrow focus. The deep and complex theme of Egyptian
afterlife is forced and molded into a select group of Western culture-infused
films. Each film is further adapted with artistic liberties, resource
restraints, and mass appeal based on its source culture’s (primarily U.S.
culture) status in the evolution of the 20th and 21st
centuries.
Additionally,
a notable difference in the evolution of Egyptian mummy mythoi is the reversal
of gender roles from the deistic resurrection of Osiris by Isis to the
modernized Imhotep, Anaksenamun tale. The modern Western audience is
misogynistic, patriarchal; Isis and Osiris are ancient. Isis transcends an
array of cultures and customs, and was revered as one of the most important
figures in the world in more egalitarian eras.
[12]
This shift in gender roles from 3000 BCE to 2000 CE is obviously an important
factor that impacts who plays the leading role – who saves whom. Small details
like these further add to the complexity of the evolution of the Egyptian mummy
mythoi.
Furthermore,
it is crucial that I present what I believe is lost from these films due to the
aforementioned restraints and likely filmmaker inconsiderations. These films, provided
more mythological background, more connection to the divine realm from which
the Egyptian mortuary literature was dependent upon (and upon which Helen
referred to in the 1932 Mummy), could
provide a much richer and more intellectually/spiritually engaging experience
for the audience. I consider the 1932 Mummy
the crown jewel of mummy films to which I am well acquainted. In other films,
there is hardly a mention of the divine actions that are so crucial to Egyptian
afterlife practices. I imagine a perfect mummy film, full of creepy thrills and
haunting atmosphere, yet fully cognizant of the deistic forces that are the
true backbone of afterlife belief and spirituality. To include exciting
characters like Anubis, perhaps mention to the ever-important Ennead (nine
original gods and goddesses), Horus, or even the cunning Seth, would be a story
worth diving in to. These complex relationships between the gods and goddesses,
and between the pantheon and the people whom they reside over, would be a rich
and colorful story.
Concluding Thoughts
Based
on the history of death preservation and the importance of the afterlife in
Egyptian culture and mythology provided, I posit that mummies are in fact a
preservation of us. As one cares for their dead, they care for themselves.
This
notion, this mythology of routine and ritual in raising the dead – what is
understood in Western culture as a mummy – holds at its crux not fear or terror
as suggested by panic instilled in the film characters or audience of the 20th
and 21st centuries, but love and passion. The undying need to reunite
with (by reconstruction and revival) a romantic partner, as with Imhotep and
Anaksenamun, as with Isis and her brother-husband Osiris, through their words
and focus on reassembling whom they love so dearly, is the purpose of mummies.
Mummies are preservation of love. And yes, preservation of the self and
provisions for one’s life after death can be selfish, but I suggest that the
mythoi that has transcended the millennia, that is most prevalent, is one
associated with romance – the most classic of themes.
Thus,
in the broadest spectrum of mummification practices, the mummy of Isis and
Osiris, accepted as any reanimated or rebirthed being (Osiris), was a tale of
passion, then was emulated in Egyptian practice as preservation of the self and
society – particularly those of the utmost importance, pharaohs and alike, and
now, in the 21st century, as highlighted in the artistic medium of
film, have been reprised as figures of passionate devotion. This devotion in
action films like The Mummy 1999 is
also apparent, as the destruction of human life and environment occurs only
when Imhotep is unable to revive Anaksenamun.
Supplementary
Reading and Viewing
Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to
Writing About Film. 7th ed. New York: Longman, 1998. Print.
Hart, George. A Dictionary of
Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1986. Print.
The Mummy.
Dir. Karl Freund. Perf. Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners. Universal
Pictures, 1932. Film.
The Mummy.
Dir. Stephen Sommers. Perf. Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah.
Universal Pictures, 1999. DVD.
Bubba Ho-Tep.
Dir. Don Coscarelli. Perf. Bruce Campbell, Ossie Davis, Ella Joyce. Silver
Sphere Corporation, 2002. DVD.
Blood From The Mummy's Tomb.
Dir. Christopher Wicking. Perf. Andrew Keir, Valerie Leon, James Villiers.EMI
Films, 1971. Film.
References
[1]Assmann,
Jan. "Death as Dissociation."
Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. 87-110. Print.
[2]Taylor,
John H.. "Death and Resurrection in Ancient Egypt."
Death and the
Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
10-45. Print.
[4]Taylor,
John H.. "The Eternal Body: Mummification."
Death and the
Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
46-92. Print.
[5]Assmann,
Jan. "Mortuary Liturgies and Mortuary Literature."
Death and
Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.
237-252. Print.
[6]Taylor,
John H.. "Chronology."
Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. 266. Print.
[7]J.
Assmann, “The Search for God in Ancient Egypt.” Ithaca, 2001. 40-52. Print.
[8]Baring,
Anne, and Cashford, Jules. "The Bronze Age: The Mother Goddess and Her
Son-Lover."
The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image. London,
England: Viking Arkana, 1991. 145-174. Print.
[9]Baring
and Cashford. 225-272.
[10]The
Mummy. Dir. Karl Freund. Perf. Boris
Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners. Universal Pictures, 1932. Film.
[11]van
den Berg, Hans. "The Ancient Egypt Film Site."
The Ancient Egypt
Film Site.N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2012.
<http://www.ancientegyptfilmsite.nl/>.
[12]
Baring, Anne, and Cashford, Jules. “Isis of Egypt: Queen of Heaven, Earth and
Underworld.”
The Myth of the Goddess:
Evolution of an Image. London, England: Viking Arkana, 1991. 225-272
