#imywt

(Although the whole study is fascinating, the pages relevant to this subject are pp.24-30, and are those from which the following is derived and/or quoted. I've tried to extract some of the more relevant bits for those not inclined to academic reading, but would recommend reading these 7 pages in their entirety if it is a matter of interest.)

Within CT155 there is a passage mentioning a corpse having been damaged at the hand of Anubis and a ‘night of covering the claws and day of binding what is in his mouth’ (i.e., his teeth), “… [which] can be interpreted as [referring] to actions taken to prevent Anubis from doing further damage; this is said to happen when something was found missing from Osiris…”

A footnote quoting some of Kees’ commentary on the spell translates to: “Anyone who knows the habits of the desert dog knows, however, that he likes to dig up the graves and carry the bones away. According to this, the Egyptians completed the elimination of the evil habits of the animal and turned to the opposite by the elevation to the care of the dead.”

“In her study of the Imiut-fetish, Köhler also saw Anubis as the one responsible for the missing part, but explained his actions as part of his mortuary functions. These are a direct consequence of the jackal’s habit of eating accessible corpses. In prehistoric times the Egyptians were simply buried in the desert and scavengers would eat their flesh and bones. In Köhler’s interpretation, this was originally seen as something positive - as a prerequisite for the proper transition. This changed, however, with the introduction of idea of preserving the body of the deceased in order to preserve his life. In this period Anubis was reinterpreted as the embalmer but some of his old character lived on in the Imiut.”

"When we compare the narrative [= a god stealing the efflux of Osiris] in P. Jumilhac to CT spell 155 we see that the act committed by Anubis himself in spell 155 is replaced by an act committed by Seth in the guise of Anubis. In this way the negative side of Anubis is transferred to Seth. This reflects a growing tendency to avoid the ambiguous aspects of many gods. It is most marked in the case of Seth. In some of the earliest of the pyramid texts this god is seen as Horus' equal, but already in later texts of this corpus he is restricted to the role of archenemy of Horus and Osiris. In purification scenes, where he originally formed a pair with Horus, Thoth replaces him and in the late period he could even be identified with Apophis, his former enemy, as the dangerous aspects of other gods, among them Anubis, were transferred to him.”