The Egyptian significance surrounding death is evident through the mummification of the deceased––throughout their history, the “trend” of manifesting this practice has undergone many modifications, specifically seen in the usage of canopic jars. The Set of Canopic Jars for the Royal Scribe Khera, speculated to be dated around the Late period to the Ptolemaic period (712-332 BC), works to be an example of shifting methods of representation. The evolution of the canopic jar throughout the time frame between the Old Kingdom to Roman Egypt showcases the adaptable quality of the Egyptians regarding their own traditions, as well as the deferential attitude of the Graeco-Romans towards the preservation Egyptian practices and integration of religion/culture into their territorial occupation.
Canopic jars are dated to have existed since as early as the Pharonicc Kingdom and as late as Roman Egypt; traditionally, canopic jars were made for the purpose of storing the four major organs of the human body (liver, lung, intestine, stomach) after death in order to preserve the physical body (khat) of the deceased. The two main entities of the afterlife, the life force (ka) and the personality/soul (ba) of the individual, would need a preserved body to return to for a life of eternity––hence why mummification of the physical body was so integral to Egyptians (Taylor 2001: 16-17). The representation of canopic jars has gone through significant external refashionings throughout time––in the Old Kingdom, canopic jars were simply a wooden chest divided into quarters to be placed within the coffin, in the Middle Kingdom, the lids of the jars were sculpted to represent the four tutelary Goddesses (Isis, Selkhet, Nephthys, and Neith), and in the Late Kingdom and Ptolemaic period, the lids sported the heads of the Four Sons of Horus (Imsety, Qebehsenuef, Hapy, and Duamutef). Each son of Horus would protect their respective organ: the human head God, Imsety, protected the liver, the falcon head God, Qebehsenuef, protected the intestines, the Jackal headed god, Duamutef, protected the stomach, and Hapy, the baboon headed God, protected the lungs. The heart was the exception to this practice; the heart was not taken outside of the body––it had to stay within the deceased so that it could be weighed against a feather by Anubis to judge the deceased morality in life, specifically if they had upheld maat. With the exterior evolution of the canopic jar, invoking the protection from the four tutelary Goddesses and then the Four Sons of Horus, demonstrates the belief that the viscera must be protected through the journey to the afterlife as well as be nourished.
In the instance of the Set of Canopic Jars for the Royal Scribe Khera (fig. 1), the viewer can tell that it was probably made from the Late~Ptolemaic period due to its appearance––the lids of the jars are sculpted to depict the Four Sons of Horus. The jars are made from the medium of travertine (Egyptian alabaster) which was favored at the time due to its translucent color and easily workable quality. Observing the canopic jar represented by Imesty, there are the iconic facial qualities of Ptolemaic figure sculptures and busts: almond shaped eyes, a fleshy looking nose and ear, and a slight but almost forced smile of the lips. In the jar of Hapy and Duamutef there are also stylistic elements specific to the facial features of Imesty, such as the smile, the round eyes, and the oval and plump nose. The Ptolemaic representation of style is repeated through these canopic jar heads. The smooth and soft rounded looking medium of travertine is worked specifically to augment this flesh like quality of the figures. Within the jars, the surviving remains of Khera’s organs were found wrapped and washed, encased in a dark resin for preservation. There are hieroglyphs in the front reading an excerpt of the Book of the Dead, asking for protection of the deceased through the journey of the afterlife by the sons of Horus. The fact that Khera has the canopic jar of his remains points out that he must have been significant as a royal scribe during in his time, enough to have had the traditional process of being mummified and taken care of after post-mortem with such detail.
The changing process of mummification, as well as the change in power/occupation of Egypt, signals as a reason why the practice of using canopic jars also shifted. The process of mummification and preserving the viscera became much more complicated and organized as time progressed, which could have also have been a reason for the decline of using canopic jars in their more traditional way. To maintain a fidel representation of the dead, the process of mummification changed in the Third Intermediary Period (focusing on the immediate carcass and physical aspect of the body) and with this, the usage of canopic jars also changed––instead of leaving the four organs inside the jar, Egyptians opted to wrap them with resin amulets with the images of the Four Sons of Horus. These newly rendered viscera called “canopic packets” were placed inside the chest or abdominal cavity of the body and then sewed back up (Dunand & Lichtenberg 2006: 27-28). In the Ptolemaic period to the Roman period, canopic jars were still used but not exactly for its “intended” function. The tradition of placing the canopic jar with the corpse was upheld but the jars were often empty. Although at first glance it may seem like the practice of tradition for its intended sake was diminishing, the significance of what the canopic jars symbolized stil was ever-pertaining––the jars were manifestations of the Four Sons of Horus, guarding the dead for a safe journey through the afterlife. Egyptians still placed canopic jars with the corpse even if they were empty; these jars were called “dummy canopic jars”––some jars have been found with dummy organs placed inside them. The symbolic meaning behind canopic jars seems to have been so much more significant enough to trump over the functional and practical aspect of it. Although the use of canopic jars were not utilitarian at this period since the organs of the deceased were being kept inside the body, the traditional meaning behind the jars, one that ensured protection of the dead into the afterlife, were deserving of reverence and continued practice to the eyes of the Ptolemies as well as the Romans.
The erosion of Egyptian practices following the Ptolemaic period into Roman Egypt could be interpreted, in a way, as a decline of interest in the general public’s implementation of traditional religious affiliations and customs due to a stronger inclination towards Greco-Roman ones. For example, Graeco-Romanized items such as mummy portraits were being placed inside coffins in lieu of traditional funerary masks in Roman Egypt. In these mummy portraits (also known as Faiyum Portraits), the figures were represented visually in a more Greco-Roman manner, deviating away from the more fluid, universal style of depiction for a more detailed and individualized one (Dunand & Lichtenberg 2006: 72-75). However, it could also be interpreted that since these mummy portraits could have been made not at the time of the deceased lifetime, an argument that this demonstrates the greek artistic influence of idealization more than realistic representation can be posed. As a whole, the coffins found during this time period seen with the mummy portraits, not separated, proves to show how much integration and assimilation of both Graeco-Roman and Egyptian visual styles are represented (fig.2). Mummification became much more a symbol of power and social status rather than of religious/spiritual affiliation––thus the exterior of the coffin became more and more ornate with criss-crossing wrapping patterns and intricate geometric designs, but the interior and the body itself was not well practiced––they were hastily drained and stuffed with cotton which did not successfully translate for preservation (Ikram & Dodson 1998: 50-51) (fig.3). This does not mean, however, that the practice of mummification was abandoned or disrespected, in fact, there is evidence of yet another form of amalgamation and integration of Graeco-Roman customs with traditional Egyptian ones––certain mummies of monks and priests were excavated with wool robes and a leaf crown, representing the influence of Romans (Taylor 2001: 90-92). Although the Roman occupation presented a challenge to Egyptian tradition and religion, especially with the introduction of Christianity and Islam later on, there are many proofs of evidence showing the successful integration and assimilation of the two cultures, further emphasizing their shared respect and sympathetic attitudes for each other’s differences.
The visual transition of the canopic jar from the Old Kingdom to the Roman Period serves to show that the Egyptians were not tied down to a specific visual concept of canopic jars; on the contrary, they adapted and changed the jars to fit better the trends of their respective time period as well as the conditions of the deceased for their journey into the afterlife. Canopic jars, as well as the general practice of mummification in Egypt, is proof of their love for living, contrary to the belief that they are obsessed with death. The Egyptians wanted to live far into death, and death was seemingly another form of life, another journey––something that the living had to aid the dead in, through the process of mummifying and invoking the protection of the Gods. Although the idea of this afterlife and the traditional practices affiliated with Egyptian religion may have not been perfectly comprehended, the adoption of Graeco-Roman customs into Egypt and vice-versa, the Graeco-Roman tolerance and integration with Egyptian customs, prove to show that there was a mutual, perhaps symbiotic understanding and deference towards religion and tradition.