corner graphic

Bible Encyclopedias

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

Archaeology Egypt And Western Asia

Resource Toolbox

"ARCHAEOLOGY: EGYPT AND WESTERN Asia. - During 191020 advances in Egyptian archaeological knowledge were sure if slow. Of course, generally speaking, less advance was made than in many previous decades, owing to the interregnum caused by the World War, when all British, French, German, and Austrian work was held up, and only the Americans and to a lesser degree the so-called " Egyptian " Service of Antiquities (manned by French and English) did any digging at all; while in all the European countries the energies of all the archaeologists who were not superannuated were transferred to the field of war, and there was no time left to write little papers, still less big books. And several, especially in France and Germany, made the great sacrifice which summarily closed lives and extinguished brains of great value to science. Nevertheless, advance was made.

In the years immediately preceding the war we have to chronicle first a great advance in our knowledge of the beginnings of Egyptian history, owing mainly to the excavations of Prof. Flinders Petrie at Tarkhan 1 and of the German, Prof. Junker (working for Austria), at Tura. 2 Both these places are in Middle Egypt, well N.; the former being near Kafr `Ammar and the other just S. of Cairo, on the way to Helwan. The point of interest is that their diggings have shown that the Horus kings of Upper Egypt had under the " Scorpion King " (who is not the same person as Narmer or Narmerza, as we now must call him) extended their rule as far as the apex of the Delta, N. of Cairo. The Delta was presumably still independent, and was conquered by Narmerza. A point of importance as to the prehistoric period was scored by the discovery in the same neighbourhood at Gerzeh by Mr. Wainwright of iron beads on a necklace. 3 Now as these beads are admittedly worked metallic iron and must date before 4000 B.C., it is obvious that they are a remarkable confirmation of those who, like the present writer, have in opposition to Prof. Montelius always maintained that iron was known to and occasionally used in a worked state by the Egyptians at a period long anteridr to its general introduction and replacing of bronze for weapons and tools. 4 The Old Kingdom finds of iron are now seen to be nothing very extraordinary. But equally it is now impossible to cast any doubt upon them. The oldest iron weapon known was hitherto supposed to be an Egyptian halbert-head of the time of Rameses III., but Mr. Randall Maclver has recently discovered in a tomb of the XII. dynasty at the Second Cataract an iron spearhead which is eight centuries older; dating from about 2000 B.C.5 Iron was in fact both worked and used sporadically long before the " Iron Age." Interesting conclusions as to the early ethnology of Egypt have been derived from the systematic examination of the necropolises of Nubia, necessitated by the heightening of the Aswan dam, as a consequence of which the northern portion of the valley S. of the dam became flooded, so that a complete examination of the archaeology of the district had to be carried out in order to save historical evidence from destruction. The results published in the Archaeological Survey of Nubia 6 by Messrs. Reisner & Firth have shown that the early culture of Nubia was closely akin to that of the predynastic Egyptians, which no doubt came from the south. After Egypt proper was overrun by the " dynastic Egyptian " people of " Armenoid " stock, who came from Asia and founded the kingdoms of Lower and Upper Egypt, the old barbarous Nilotic culture continued to exist in Nubia. We find an illustration of this in the fact that a red and black pottery, obviously akin to the predynastic Egyptian, but of finer make, was manufactured in Nubia in the time of the XII. dynasty, and introduced into Egypt by Nubian colonists, perhaps soldiers or enslaved prisoners, who preserved also their own native (and really old Egyptian) burial customs, interring their dead in " pan " graves much resembling those of the primitive Egyptians of two and three thousand years before.

Evidence is accumulating, though no completely satisfactory theory can yet be put forward, as to the northern origin of the dynastic Egyptians. Elliot Smith has shown 7 the existence of the two racial stocks in Egypt, the predynastic Nilotic and the invading "Armenoid " from Asia, the man of higher cranial capacity to whom the blossoming of the Egyptian civilization and art out of primitive African barbarism is to be ascribed. This Armenoid " stock must have come from Asia and, no doubt, reached Egypt by the Isthmus of Suez, but whence it came originally we do not know. Whether it was really Semitic we also do not know: whatever its skull may be its facial type is certainly not Semitic, whether of the fine pure Arab or the coarse big-nosed " Hethitized " types. It is sometimes almost central European in look.

How to equate this foreign civilizing race from Asia with the Semitic elements in the ancient Egyptian speech we do not yet know. It may be that these belong in reality to the old Nilotic inhabitants, who were probably related to the true Semites of Arabia; but the hieroglyphic system seems to have developed in the Delta, and is very probably to be ascribed to the " Armenoids. The Osiris cycle of legends seems to belong to these people. Osiris and Isis are closely connected with Syria and the Lebanon in legend; the Ded or sacred pillar of Osiris is doubtless really a representation of a great cedar with its horizontally outspreading branches; 8 another of the sacred Egyptian trees is obviously a cypress; corn and wine are traditionally associated with Osiris, and it is probable that corn and wine were first domesticated in Syria, and came thence with the gods Osiris and Re (the sun god of Heliopolis) into the Delta. Syria in fact is beginning to take shape in our minds as perhaps the most ancient seat of civilization in the world, the common source from which Babylonia and Egypt derived those items of culture in which, in the early period, they resemble one another. It remains for excavation to show whether this hypothesis is or is not correct. And the question whether the " Armenoid " conquerors of Egypt and founders of the kingdoms there, who came from Syria, were Semites still remains unanswered. If they were Semitic speakers, the present facial contours of the northern Semites, which have spread all over the world, are not Semitic at all: for the Egyptian Armenoids in the statues of the Old Kingdom look like Europeans, and must have been of " European " blood.

These new probabilities open up considerable possibilities in research with regard to the relations of the early Minoans and other Aegeans with Syria and Egypt and the undoubted fact of the resemblances of Minoan on the one hand to Syrian and Egyptian religions and funerary practices, and on the other hand to those of the Etruscans.

The facial contours of the modern Jew are predominantly those of the ancient Hittite, who was certainly not a Semite. One has hitherto supposed that he was related to the Mediterraneans, the race to which the Bronze Age Greeks and Italians belonged; but this supposed connexion may well break down in the matter of skull form, as the Hittite skull, like that of the modern Anatolian, probably inclined to be brachycephalic. whereas that of the Mediterranean inclined in the other direction, And now the Bohemian Assyriologist Prof. Hrozny has brought forward evidence s that the cuneiform script adopted by the Hittites from the Mesopotamians expressed an Indo-European tongue, nearly akin to Latin! This conclusion is not yet universally accepted, but it seems difficult on the evidence to avoid the conclusion that Prof. Hrozny is right, and if so the curious resemblances of some of the externals of Roman and Hittite religion, and the legendary and other connexions between the Etruscans and Asia Minor, are seen in a new light.

If the Hittites were Aryans, one can hardly suppose a primeval Aryan element in Anatolia. The Indo-Europeans whom we find in Mesopotamia (the Kassites and Mitannians) * and in Palestine about 1400 B.C. can hardly have entered western Asia before 2000 B.C. or thereabouts, and it is probable that the Hittites belonged to the same wandering. On entering *The fact that the Mitannians venerated Varuna, Indra, and the Asvins is important as showing that Iranian and Indian Aryans had not yet separated as late as 1400 B.C.

Anatolia they probably found the land at least as far W. as the Halys already occupied by Semites. This Semitic population in Anatolia is an important recent discovery. At the time of the great dynasty of Ur (c. 2400 B.C.) in Babylonia, the whole Argaeus region was occupied by these Semites, who seem to have been most kin to the Assyrians. They were no doubt expelled or absorbed by the Hittites, but we have the proof of their existence and of the fallacy of the statement that the Semite never crossed the Taurus, in the cuneiform tablets written in their language which have been found near Kaisariyeh and are now being published by various scholars. 10 No doubt the Hittites learnt the use of cuneiform from these people. Whether the national hieroglyphic system of the Hittites expressed the same Indo-European language as, according to Hrozny, their cuneiform does, we do not know, as further attempts to elucidate it made by Campbell Thompson 11 and Cowley," while in themselves very interesting experiments, do not seem to take us further than previous attempts by Sayce and others. The supposition that the hieroglyphic system belongs to a late age, because it is chiefly found in the 10th and 9th century monuments of Carchemish, is improbable, as it bears all the characteristic marks of Hethitic nationalism, and is evidently a native invention. No people would have abandoned cuneiform for such a clumsy method of writing.

The excavation of Carchemish, lately suspended owing to political uncertainty in Syria, has been very interesting. The palace with its great relief-lined court and its water-gate of Hittite construction, the later Assyrian fortress, and the Hittite tombs with their characteristic pottery, are important results, and the whole work has been one of the major excavations of the last ten years, and has been fitly carried out by the British Museum, under the direction of Dr. Hogarth and Mr. Woolley.° The excavations of Dr. Garstang for the university of Liverpool at SakchegOzii, 14 further N., not far from Sinjirli, the seat of earlier German work, have also produced interesting results. The peculiar characteristics of Syro-Hittite art, and its relation to that of Assyria, are matters of great interest to the student of the civilization and art of the Nearer East. Equally interesting are the relation of the Syro-Hittite with the Minoan, and we seem to find in certain objects found in Egypt and Cyprus and dating probably from the 14th to the Toth centuries, proof of the existence of a mixed art of Syrian origin, probably in Cilicia (Alashiya) at that time. l5 Baron Oppenheim's excavations at Tell Halaf have resulted in the recovery of reliefs of barbaric style, simulating the Syro-Hittite, from the palace of a local king, Kapara, of about the same period as Sinjirli and Sakchegozii (Toth-9th centuries B.C.), and pottery of all ages, going back to the chalcolithic period.ls The neolithic and chalcolithic pottery of Mesopotamia and Persia is one of the chief archaeological discoveries of late years in the Near East, and attention has recently been directed to it again by the important finds at Abu Shahrein (the ancient Eridu) and Tell el `Obeid, near Ur. The excavations carried out for the British Museum at Shahrein by R. C. Thompson in 1918 17 and by Hall in 1919, and at El `Obeid by Hall in the latter year," have shown us that the painted ware of Susa and Musyan, discovered by de Morgan was not confined to Persia, but was the ordinary pottery of Babylonia in the prehistoric (chalcolithic) period. It seems characteristic of the neighbourhood of the gulf; the French excavations at Bandar Bushir "on the Persian coast have revealed exactly similar ware. And small finds of it on other sites have shown that it was usual all over Mesopotamia, and connects on the one side with the early pot fabrics of Asia Minor and on the other with the pottery of Anau and the kurgans of Turkistan, found by Pumpelly. 20 Its place of origin is not yet known. Rostortzeff in his article drawing attention to the undoubtedly Sumerian or sumerizing " Treasure of Astrabad "'` 1 in N. Persia (which, it must not be forgotten, may have been an importation from Babylonia and not local art at all), seems to think a northern origin as probable as any other. But as a matter of fact an exclusively Elamite origin is not improbable, from the fact that its earliest and first types are found at Susa. Whether we should deduce from its common occurrence in Babylonia the existence of an Elamite population there in early times, later displaced by the Sumerians, we do not know. Sumerian pottery is different, but there are traces of a transition period. One thing, however, is pretty certain, and that is that the enormous dates B.C. assigned to it by de Morgan and Pumpelly cannot be accepted.

An argument for discontinuity of race is found in the fact that whereas the Sumerians are never represented as using the bow, their predecessors certainly made flint arrowheads. The stone knives, arrowheads, celts, hoe-blades, hammers, nails, awls, etc., associated with this pottery are of kinds which though simple and often crude in type are nevertheless not early, but date from the transition period to the age of metal and the earliest centuries of the latter period. Flint and chert were employed for knives, etc., but with none of the marvellous skill and artistry of the predynastic Egyptian flint-knapper; the early Babylonian used comparatively simple flakes and the wonderful serration of the Egyptian knives was unknown to him though he made the saw-blades. Obsidian and rock crystal were also used for knife making. Celts, of the usual late neolithic type, were generally of green jasper; hoe-blades (looking almost exactly like palaeolithic haches a main ) of chert or coarse limestone; hammers of granite; mace-heads, of identical type with the early Egyptian, of diorite and limestone; nails of obsidian or smoky quartz, often beautifully made. All these stones were of course imported, as the Babylonian had no stone (except a rough coral rag) at hand as the Egyptian had. And many must have come from far afield. In later days, in the time of the Sargonid kings of Akkad or the monarchs of Ur, stones such is granite, basalt, diorite and dolerite were probably brought from the Sinaitic peninsula, if not from the western desert of Egypt, if the Red Sea coast is to be identified, as seems very probable, with Magan, " the place to which ships went," the land whence the Babylonians got some of their first stones for sculpture and architecture. Magan originally was probably a land on the S. coast of the Persian Gulf, but as the early navigators pushed their voyages further, the ships rounded the coast of Arabia, and came into the Red Sea, and the names of Magan and the neighbouring Melukhkha gradually extended westward, with the result that in late times to the Assyrians Melukhkha meant Ethiopia. Magan, however, probably never meant Egypt proper, the Nile land itself, or Egypt, would have been called Magan by the Assyrians in later times; it was called Musri then and probably in early times also. So that we are not disposed to accept a recently propounded theory 22 that a certain King Manium of Magan who was overthrown by the Akkadian king Naram-Sin about 2850 B.C., was none other than Merles, the earliest king of Egypt, who is generally identified with Narmerza. " Manium " is a common Semitic name. We need not even suppose that this Manium was a chief of the Egyptian Red Sea coast or even of Sinai. The Magan of which he was king need have been no further afield than the Oman peninsula. And the whole equation seems to break down on the matter of date, as it is quite impossible to bring Narmerza down to 2850 B.C. Naram-Sin was in reality a contemporary of the kings of the V. dynasty.

The question how far connexion was kept up between early Egypt and Babylonia by way of the Red Sea or across the desert is a very interesting one. An important piece of evidence on this point has recently come to light in the shape of the carved hippopotamus-tusk handle of an Egyptian predynastic stone knife, said to have been found in the Wadi el 'Araq, on the right bank of the Nile opposite Nag`Hamadi, and now in the Louvre.23 On this remarkable object, which is certainly of predynastic Egyptian date (before 3500 B.C.), we see representations of early Egyptians and perhaps other tribes fighting, with ships, some like those represented on the Egyptian predynastic pots and others different, with high prows and sterns, and we also see a strange deity of Babylonian aspect. He is not identical with any known Babylonian deity, but he is the god of a people belonging to the Babylonian culture circle, probably of the inhabitants of the Red Sea littoral. The object is of Egyptian workmanship, representing this powerful deity of the foreign sea people with whom the predynastic Nilotes no doubt often fought. This, by the way, points to the conclusion that Babylonian (Sumerian) culture and art were considerably older than the Egyptian; but we have no definite evidence yet on this point.24 Later points of artistic connexion may be seen when we compare the well-known bronze statues of Pepi I. and his son found at Hierakonpolis by Quibell with the copper lions discovered at Tell el `Obeid near Ur by Hall two years ago. 25 Dr. Reisner is of opinion that copper was first used in Egypt, and bronze certainly seems to have been used there first. The lions of `Obeid date from about the Ur-Nina period of Babylonian history, i.e. about 3000 B.C. or a century or two earlier; the Pepi statues are two or three centuries later. We see however the similarity of the metal-working of both countries at approximately the same time; both are in the same style of artistic development, the Egyptian perhaps the more advanced of the two, and (if the published analysis by Mosso is to be relied upon) with the additional technique of the alloy with tin, making the metal bronze, and so easier for the heads to be cast. The Sumerians cast the heads of their lions in copper, not always with successful results, and filled them with bitumen and clay (like the image in " Bel and the Dragon," which was " clay within and brass without ") to give them solidity. The bodies (or so much of them as ever existed, as only the fore parts remained) were hammered and wrought, like the bodies of the Egyptian figures. The eyes in both cases were inlaid, those of the lions with red jasper, white shell and blue schist: this imitation of the eyes in stone as well as metal figures was a feature common to both arts, which were at this time assuredly not without direct or indirect connexion. Whence the Egyptians and a little later on the Babylonians got their tin for the alloy we do not yet know.

The question as to whether copper really was first used in Egypt is not yet resolved, and many arguments can be brought against the theory of Egyptian origin and in favour of one in Syria or further north.26 Egypt has also recently been credited with being the inceptor of the whole " megalithic (or heliolithic, as the fashionable word now is) culture " of mankind, from Britain to China and (literally) Peru or at any rate Mexico via the Pacific Isles.27 The theory is that the achievements of the Egyptians in great stone architecture at the time of the pyramid-builders so impressed their contemporaries that they were imitated in the surrounding lands, by the Libyans and Syrians, that the fame of them was carried by the Phoenicians further afield, and that early Arab and Indian traders passed on the megalithic idea to Farther India, and thence to Polynesia and so on so that both the teocalli of Teotihuacan and Stonehenge are ultimately derived through cromlechs and dolmens innumerable from the stone pyramid of Saqqara, built by Imhotep, the architect of King Zoser, about 3100 B.C. (afterwards deified as the patron of science and architecture). This theory of Prof. Elliot Smith's is very plausible and " fascinating," but whether it will prove to be true remains to be seen. The Babylonians apparently refused to be impressed by the Egyptians in this matter, and went on building temples in brick, probably for the good reason that they could not get any stone. The only stone building in southern Babylonia is the town wall of Eridu (Abu Shahrein), which is built of rude lumps of a local coral rag. 28 The granites and dolerites from Magan were too fine and too expensive to build with.

Megalithic town walls were naturally common in that stony land, Palestine, and very typical specimens of them were found in the Palestine Exploration Fund's excavations at Bethshemesh (`Ain Shems) directed by Dr. Duncan Mackenzie, 29 whose work also threw new light on the phenomenon of the appearance in Palestine between the 12th and 10th centuries B.C. of subMycenaean (Greek) pottery, which can only be ascribed to the Philistines, whose historical position as a foreign invading force from the Aegean area (Lycia and Crete-Kaphtor) is now entirely vindicated. 30 Another important excavation in Pales tine in the period preceding the World War was that of Dr. Reisner at Samaria, which is not yet fully published. Very interesting examples of Israelite written inscriptions on potsherds, dating from the 9th century B.C. and probably from the reign of Ahab, were found that are of great palaeographical importance. 31 Continued work at Samaria should reveal some trace of the civilization of Israel, which we know was considerable, unless the devastation of the Assyrian sieges has destroyed it all. This is possibly the case with regard to the older culture of Canaan in the preceding millennium, of which Palestinian excavations have yielded few traces, though we know it existed.32 War destroyed it: Palestine was the cockpit of Asia. An interesting discovery seems to have been made in the identification by Drs. Gardiner and Cowley of the earliest Semitic script in the hieroglyphic signs found in Sinai.33 Since the war a new British school of archaeology in Jerusalem has been founded under the direction of Prof. Garstang, who has begun for the Palestine Exploration Fund excavations at Ascalon, which have resulted in the discovery of interesting late buildings 34 and this year (1921) in that of a statue of Herod the Great. It is to be hoped that continued work will discover traces of the Philistine period at Ascalon, and relics of the same age will no doubt be discovered at Bethshan (Beisan), for a time the furthest eastward outpost of the Philistines, which is about to be explored by the American School at Jerusalem. The new conditions in Palestine should be very favourable to archaeological work there, and it is to be hoped that in Syria the French will give every facility for international work.

The future of archaeological study in Mesopotamia depends upon the political conditions, which have not hitherto been considered favourable to the resumption of excavation in that country. The great German excavations at Babylon 35 and Assur (Qal°at Shergat), 36 under the direction of Koldewey and Andrae, will probably not be resumed for many years. They were admirable work, and at Sherqat especially have produced results of the greatest historical and archaeological importance. We now know something of the early history of Assyria and of the succession of Mer kings from monuments found at Sherqat. It is not, however, proposed to give here a list of the newly discovered names 37 of the Babylonian kings on tablets from Nippur, published by Poebel 38 and others, as results of this kind belong to the realm of history rather than to that of archaeology. The new series of " Creation " and " Deluge " tablets from Nippur, published by Poebel & Langdon, 39 also belong to the realm of the historian and anthropologist rather than to that of the archaeologist, so are merely mentioned here; the excavation in which they were found being now ancient history. In Mesopotamia more than any other country literary results have been regarded as archaeology, owing to the enormous mass of the written material recovered, which has caused the study of the art and general civilization of different periods to be neglected in comparison with the same subjects in Egypt.

In Egypt the succession to the work of the Deutsch-Orient Gesellschaft, which excavated Babylon and Assur, has fallen to the Egypt Exploration Society, which has taken up the excavation at Tell el Amarna where it was laid down by the Germans at the outbreak of war, after they had recovered from the houseruins several wonderfully fine examples of the art of the period of Akhenaton, now in Berlin. 40 The first season's labour, under the direction of Prof. T. E. Peet, resulted in interesting discoveries, some of which tend to show that the cult of the Aten or Solardisk was not so rigidly enforced by the heretic king Akhenaton as has been supposed, and that ordinary people were allowed to worship other gods than the sun-disk, at any rate in connexion with funerary ceremonies. The great excavation of the Osireion at Abydos, begun for the Society (then the Egypt Exploration Fund) by Prof. Edouard Naville, 4 ' but suspended owing to the war, it has not been possible to resume at present, owing to the commitments of the Amarna site and the heavy expense of such work as that at the Osireion, which cannot vet be contemplated. This building, the date of which is not yet finally settled, though its excavator believes it to be of the Old Kingdom like the temple of the Sphinx at Giza, is one of the most remarkable in Egypt, and the completion of its excavation is much to be desired. For such a work, however, considerable funds are necessary, and all archaeological study has had to struggle along with insufficient means.

Prof. Petrie resumed operations in Middle Egypt after the war:, and made interesting discoveries (1921). By the autumn of 1921 conditions for work were improving.

Dr. Reisner, working for Boston, was not held up by the war, but continued his excavations in the Giza pyramid field and in Nubia, making good finds in both places. His determination from the study of their pyramids at Napata (the Barkal region) of the succession of the Ethiopian kings, 42 and his revelations of the colonial dominion of the Egyptians in Nubia under the XII. dynasty, derived from his work at Kerma and Defufa,43 are of great historical importance.

Other work of importance in Nubia immediately before the war was that of Mr. Randall Maclver and Mr. Woolley for the Eckley B. Coxe (Philadelphia) Expedition, 44 that of Oxford at Farras, directed by Mr. F. U. Griffith, 45 which has resulted in an unrivalled series of Nubian pottery from the earliest to the latest times, and that of Prof. Garstang at Meroe, 46 in the far S., which has shown us a barbaric culture of Egyptian origin, strongly influenced by the Ptolemaic and Roman civilization of its time: this is the culture of the Candaces. The great bronze head of Augustus Caesar, now in the British Museum, is one of the trophies of this excavation, and is very interesting as being either a trophy of war carried off perhaps from Syene, or was actually set up at Meroe by the independent native ruler in honour of the Emperor. Mr. Griffith has added to our knowledge of the ancient languages of the world by his interpretation of the Meroitic inscriptions, 47 to which Prof. Sayce has also contributed.48 Returning to the N. and early times again, we have to chronicle besides Reisner's excavations, 49 those of the university of Pennsylvania (Eckley B. Coxe Expedition), 50 and of Junker for Vienna, 51 all in the pyramid field of Giza. These explorations of the mastaba tombs of the III.-VI. dynasties have had interesting results. Among other important archaeological finds of the past decade are those of several new fragments of the " Palermo Stone " and similar annalistic monuments of the V. dynasty,52 which are of high importance for the early period. The New York Museum has further investigated the Middle Kingdom pyramid field at Lisht and its neighbourhood, 53 and Prof. Petrie and Mr. Brunton have found fine XII. dynasty jewellery at Lahun 54 (now in New York). At Thebes, New York has also carried out work at Qurnet Murra`i and Sheikh `Abd el Qurna, as well as at Dra t Abul Neqqa and Deir el Bahri, 55 where the Earl of Carnarvon, assisted by Mr. Howard Carter, has also dug with remarkable success, recovering some of the most beautiful relics of the art of the XII. and XVIII. dynasties that we possess. 56 Among other tombs Lord Carnarvon has found the long-sought sepulchre of Amenhotep I. 57 At Thebes important work in the copying of tombs has been done by Mr. and Mrs. de Garis Davies for Dr. A. L. Gardiner, who publishes with them the tombs of Amenemhet and Antefoker, under the auspices of the Egypt Exploration Society. 58 The French Archaeological Institute at Cairo has also excavated Theban tombs 59 and at Dendera a naos of the XI. dynasty, with interesting sculptures of Neb-hepet Re (the king whose tomb temple at Deir el Bahri was excavated by Naville and Hall for the Egypt Exploration Fund in 1903-7) has been found,. and taken to Cairo. 60 An interesting discovery of the late period in Upper Egypt, that of images and other temple objects of precious metals, was also made at Dendera by the diggers for natron (sebakh) and recovered by the Service des Antiquites for the Cairo Museum.61 Outside Egypt proper the work of editing and publishing all the Egyptian inscriptions of Sinai has been begun by Dr. Gardiner and Mr. Peet.62 A worthy completion of the record is the wonderful exhibition of all the finest examples of Egyptian art in Britain outside the British and Ashmolean Museums, held by the Burlington Fine Arts' Club in London in the summer of 1921.63

Bibliography

(I) Tarkhan I. and IC, 1913-4; (2) Denkschr. der kais. Akad. Wiss. in Wien., Phil. hist. Klasse, LVI. (1912); (3)  The Labyrinth, Gerzeh, and Mazghunch, 1912; (4) Hall,  Oldest Civilisation of Greece (1901), p. 198;  Man, Oct. 1903, 86, May 1905, 40; Montelius,  Man, Jan. 1905, 7; (5)  Buhen, P. 193, pl. 88; (6) Survey Dept., Cairo, 1908-11; (7)  The Ancient Egyptians (1911); (8) This is the view of Mr. P. E. Newberry, with whom on early Egyptian connexion with Syria the writer agrees. (The only other serious explanation of the  Ded is that of Sir E. Budge, who believes it to be a representation of the vertebrae of Osiris, which would be a holy relic); (9)  Ilethitische Studien, I., II., Berlin, (1916-9); (I o) Contenau,  Trente Tablettes Cappadociennes (1919); S. Smith,  Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum, 1921; (II)  Archaeologia, Lxiv.; (12)  The Hittites (Schweich Lectures, 1918); (13) Hogarth,  Carchemish I., 1914;  Proc. Brit. Acad. 

V.; Woolley, Ann. Anthr. Arch., Liverpool, IV. 87 (" Hittite Burial Customs "); (14) Ann. Anthr. Arch. V.; (15) Hall, Manchester Eg. Or. Journ., 1913; (16) Brit. Miss. North Semitic Gallery; (17) Archaeologia LXX.; (18) Proc. Soc. Ant., Dec. 1919; (19) Pezard, Mem. Deleg. Perse, XV. (1914); (20) Hall, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1909, p. 311, ff., pll. 48, 49; King, Mist. Sum. Akk. p. 351, ff.; (21) Journ. Eg. Arch. VI. (1920) p. 4, ff.; (22) Allbright, Journ. Eg. Arch. ibid., p. 89, ff.; VII. (1921) p. 80, ff.; Sayce and Langdon, ibid., VI. 295 ff.; (23) Bhnedite, Fond. Eug. Piot.; Mon et Mem., XXII., I (1916); (24) Hall, in Camb. Anc. Hist. (forthcoming); ( 25) Proc. Soc. Ant., Dec. 2919; Camb. Anc. Hist.; (26) Camb. Anc. Hist.; (27) " The Influence of Ancient Egyptian Civilization in the East and in America," Bull. John Rylands Libr., Jan.-March 1916; (28) Proc. Soc. Ant., Dec. 1919; (29) Palestine Expl. Fund Annual, 1911, 1912-3; (30) Hall, Anc. Hist. Near East (1921), p. 71, ff.; (31) Lyon, Harvard Theol. Rev., Jan. 1911; (32) Hall, A nc. Hist. Near East, p. 44 1; (33) Journ. Eg. Arch. III. (1916); (34) Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly Statement, April 1 9 21, p. 73; (35) Koldewey, Das wiedererstehende Babylon (1913); Excavations at Babylon, 1914; (36) Andrae, Festungswerken v. Assur and Stelenreihe v. Assur (Deutsch OrientGesellschaft, 1913); (37) Schroeder, Zeits. Assyr., Dec. 1920, p. 52; (38) Historical Texts (Univ. Penna. Publ. IV., V., 1914); King, Schweich Lectures, 1916, p. 20, ff.; (39) Poebel, loc. cit. cf. Langdon, ibid., X.; Poeme du Paradis (1919); King, loc. cit., p. 52, ff.; (40) Mittlg. der Deutsch Orient-Gesellschaft, Nos. 55 (1914) and 57 (1927); (41) Journ. Eg. Arch. I. (1914), p. 1 59, ff.; (42) Harvard African Studies, II.; Boston Museum Bulletin, Feb. 1918; Sudan Notes and Records, II. 35, 2 37; (43) Boston Museum Bulletin, April 1914, Dec. 1915; (44) Karanog, 1910; Buhen, 1911; (45) Ann. Anthr. Arch. viii. (1921) No. 1.; (46) Meroe, 1911; (47) Griffith, in Meroe, P. 58, ff.; Karanog: Meroitic Inscr. 1911; (48) Meroe, p. 49, ff.; (49) Boston Museum Bulletin, Nov. 1913, April 1915; (50) Phila. Mus. Journ., June 1915; (51) Journ. Eg. Arch. I. p. 250, ff.; (52) Gautier Musee Egyptien, 1915; Gardiner, Journ. Eg. Arch. III. p. 143, ff.; Petrie, Anc. Egypt, 1916; (53) N. Y. Mus. Bulletin, 1914, p. 207, ff.; (54) N. Y. Mus. Bulletin, Dec. 1919; Brunton, Lahun I. (5920); (55) N. Y. Museum Bulletin, 1918 (Supplements), 1920 (do.); Journ. Eg. Arch. VI. p. 220; (56) Five Years' Excavations at Thebes, 1912 and Journ. Eg. Arch. passim; (57) Carter, Journ. Eg. Arch. III. p. 147, ff.; (58) Amenemhet, 1915; Antef-oker, 1920; (59) The Tomb of Nakht (1916); (60) Gautier, Ann. du Service, 1920, p. 1., ff.; (61) Daressy, Ann. du Service, 1917, p. 226, ff.; (62) Journ. Eg. Arch. V. p. 68; (63) Inscriptions of Sinai, I. (1917); (64) Newberry and Hall, Catalogue of an Exhibition of Ancient Egyptian Art; London, Burlington Fine Arts' Club, 1921. (H. H.*)

<< Joseph Arch

Archaeology: Greece And Greek Sites >>

Retrieved from "http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Archaeology:_Egypt_And_Western_Asia"


Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.

Bibliography Information
Chisholm, Hugh, General Editor. Entry for 'Archaeology Egypt And Western Asia'. 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/bri/a/archaeology--egypt-and-western-asia.html. 1910.

Search for…
Enter query in the box:
 or 
Choose a letter to browse:
A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M 
N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  Y  Z 

 
To report dead links, typos, or html errors or suggestions about making these resources more useful use our convenient contact form
Powered by Lightspeed Technology