GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL LIBRARY I Call No. 913.^205 J.E.fl. ‘ D.G.A. 79. THE JOURNxVL OP EGYPTIAN ARCHxVEOLOGY ALL EIGHTS RESERVED THE JOURNAI. OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY VOLUME XIV / PUBLISHED BY THE EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY 13 TAVISTOCK SQUARE, W.C. 1 LONDON 19B8 CENTR Au. a " X ilGAli. L-i Sr /A i\ V> i\ vv > i 1 . Ao*. No Z.i 6 ZZ.j - D*u (/ . 9- S CUiKo. • ^ ^ V./ ‘ / PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN CONTENTS The Statues of Sexnemut and Menkheperre''- SENB IN the British Museum H. R. Hall PAGE 1 Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-law •'Ankhkhe- PRURE*" Percy E. Newberry ... 3 The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere Alan H. Gardiner ... 10 A Heart Scarab of the Mnevis Bull W. Spiegelberg ... . . . ... 12 Greek Sightseers in Egypt M. Rostovtzeft’ ... 13 Observations on the Chronology of the Roman Emperors in the Second Half of the Third Century Arthur Stein ... 16 Note on the Foregoing H. Mattingly ... 19 Chronological Pitfalls J. G. Milne ... ... 20 On Egyptian Fish-names used by Greek Writers D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson 22 An Agricultural Ledger in P. Bad. 95 M. Schnebel ... 34 An Ivory Sphinx from Abydos John Garstang ... 46 Who succeeded Ramesses IX-Neferkerei"? ... Giusejipe Botti ... ... 48 The Chronological Problems of the Twen- tieth Dynasty T. Eric Peet ... .52 Objects of Tut<'ankhamCn in the British Museum H. R. Hall ... 74 The New Ptolemaic Papyrus containing Parts of Iliad , xii, 128-263 G. M. Bolling ... 78 The Sons of Tuthmosis IV Percy E. New'berry ... 82 An Egyptian Split Infinitive and the Origin OF the Coptic Conjunctive Tense Alan H. Gardiner ... 86 Notes on the Early History of Tin and Bronze A. Lucas ... ... 97 Mlscellanea Percy E. Newberry ... 109 Some Potsherds from Kassala J. W. Crowfoot ... 112 Note on the Sculptured Slab No. 15,000 in the Berlin Museum Percy E. Newberry ... 117 VI CONTENTS PAGE Five Leases in the Princeton Collection ... H. B. Van Hoesen and A. C. John- son 118 Note ON AN Ancient Egyptian Figure ... Warren R. Dawson 126 David George Hogarth H. R. Hall 128 Bibliography : Graeco-Roman Egypt. A. Papyri (19-26-27) H. J. M. Milne, A. D. Nock, H. I. Bell, J. G. Milne, N. H. Baynes, F. de Zulueta, M. E. Dicker, R. McKenzie ... 131 Bibliography (1926); Ancient Egvpt Jean Capart 159 A Painted Terracotta Head in the British Mu.seum H. R. Hall 209 The Pig and the Cclt-animal of Set P. F. Newberry ... 211 Egyptian Nationalism under Greek and Roman Rule J. Grafton Milne ... 226 The Cemeteries of Abydos: Work of the Season 1925-26. I, Stelae H. Frankfort 235 Ptolemy II W. W. Tarn 246 Some Prehlstorio Va.ses in the British Museum and Remarks on Egyptian Pre- history Alexander Scharff 261 Suez and Clysma J. J. Hess ... 277 A Ramesside Royal St.atue from Palestine H. R. Hall 280 A Royal Stele of the New Empire from Galilee W. F. Albright and A1 an Rowe . . . 281 Three Ptolemaic Papyri C. C. Edgar ... 288 The Letters of Aahmose of Peni.ati .. S. R. K. Glanvillo 294 Silver in Ancient Times A. Lucas ... ... 313 A Latin Petition of Abinnaeus (Papyrus B.M. 447) Seymour De Ricci ... 320 A. G. K. Hayter, M.A., F.S.A ... 323 Notes and News 180,325 Notices of Recent Publications 185,329 List of Plates ... 334 List OF Illustr.ations IN the Text ... 337 Notices of Recent Publications, detailed list 339 Index 340 THE STATUES OF SENNEMUT AND MEAKHEPERRE'SENB IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM By H. E. hall 1 With Plates i-iii. Fourteen years ago, in 1914, I published in Part v of Hicroghjphic Texts, etc., in the British Museum, PL 32, photographs of the three, then newly-acquired, stone figures of Sennemut or Senmut (Nos. 174, 1513) and ilenkheperre<'senb (No. 708) in the Museum, and in Plates 29-31 the texts of the figures of Sennemut and in Plate 33 those of that of Menkheperrecsenb. The three statues were exhibited in the Sculpture Gallery of the British Museum before the war and have been exhibited there ever since. But they do not seem to have attracted the attention that is their due, for I find that in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, XLiv, No. 1, October 1927, Mr. T. George Allen publishes a figure of Sennemut, in the Field Museum at Chicago, obtained by Dr. J. H. Breasted in 1925, which he says is the ninth statue of Senmut known to him (p. 49), whereas it is the eleventh known to us here. I am indebted to Mr. Allen’s courtesy for bringing the Chicago figure to my knowledge, and I hasten to make him and possibly others better acquainted with our British Museum figures of Sennemut than is apparently the case. I therefore republish in Plates i-iii photographs of the three statues already published in Hieroglyphic Texts, v, to which volume I refer readers for their inscriptions. The Chicago statue is unique in that it is the only standing figure known of Sennemut, as is also ours in that it is the only known figure of him sitting on a seat. In this sitting figure of ours (No. 174, PI. ii), Sennemut also holds the princess Neferurer in his arms. In No. 174 Neferurer (who here too wears the side-lock and also a beard, like Khonsu) is held tightly by her male nurse and enveloped in the folds of his long funerary robe, as in the squatting figures Berlin 2296 and Cairo 42,114, 42,115; whereas in the Chicago figure the whole of her is visible, seated in Sennemut’s lap almost as Harpokrates sits in the lap of Isis and as we see her also in the Cairo statue 42,116, which represents Sennemut seated on the ground. Menkheperrersenb’s statue (No. 708, PI. iii) closely resembles No. 174, except that of course there is no Neferurer in his case. Both statues are funerary, as is shown by the long Osirian garment worn and the formal, unfashionable wig (a conventional coiffure of the dead) in both cases, as well as by the hieratic seats on which both sit. And in his right hand Menkheperrersenb holds the curious sacral knot or sash (see also p. 76) which bears so close an analogy to the similar object of unknown though certainly religious import so often met with in the contemporary fre.scoes, etc., of Minoan Crete The two things are not identical, but they are much alike, and may have a common origin. Both figures have an inscribed plinth at the back, rising from the seat. 1 See especially Evans, Palace of Minos, i, 430 ft'., and Nil.sson, Minoon-Miiceiiuean Religion, 137 ff. In Egypt the object was certainly sacral; iIeukhei)errC‘Cseub’s statue is purely funerary and religious in its intention, as is shown by the Osirian garment and formal wig worn (see above). Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 1 o H. R. HALL In style and workmanship, although it generally resembles that of Sennemut, except that it is beardless and that the wig is not ribbed, Menkheperrecsenb’s statue is finer and better. The face is better sculptured than those of either Sennemut or the little princess ; the eyes of both are rather clumsily and staringly expressed, whereas Menkheperrecsenb’s are admirably rendered. Also his face is perfect, without a scratch, whereas Sennemut’s and Neferurec’s are both slightly marred, as is also that of the other figure of Sennemut (No. 1513, PI. i). No. 708 is indeed in beautiful condition, having only one slight chip on its surface. It gives the impression of being the work of a liner school than that of the Sennemut figures of half-a-century earlier (c. 1500 b.c., Menkheperrei'senb being c. 1440). The Chicago statue as well as our Nos. 174 and 1513 seem to have a touch of crudeness in comparison with it. Mr. Allen describes it as “summary” (p. 54). The portraits are not strongly characterized, except possibly originally in the case of No. 1513, which is marred ; the others seem purely conventional of the ushabti-type. The damage to the face of 1513 looks as if it had been inflicted purposely with a hammer. It is not an ordinary casualty. It resembles the (more severe) damage inflicted on the face of the statue of Hatshepsut discovered by 3Ir. Winlock at Der el-bahri [Bull. Md. Mus. N. y., 1928, ii, fig. 52, p. 46), which he considers to have been effected by kindling a fire on the face of the statue, in order to disintegrate the granite. The damage to our statue no doubt dates from the time of the supposed disgrace of Sennemut or his dainnatio memoriae after the death of Hatshepsut (or possibly before, according to Mr. Allen). On the other hand his name survives intact on both our figures, whereas on the Chicago statue it has been hammered out, though not so heavily as to render it illegible. On No. 174 it is spelt on No. 1513 on the Chicago figure without determinative (Allen, op. eit., 53). On both our figures, as on his, the name of Amun is untouched. That means that in the case of our two figures also, as in those of the Chicago figure, Berlin 2296, Cairo 42,116, and Cairo 42,117 (in this last the god’s name has only suffered by accident), Sennemut’s statues were evidently cast out of the temple in which they stood (four of those known were found at Karnak, so that probably all, except the Berlin statue, were originally set up there) \ after his disgrace, since, as Mr. Allen points out, had they been in evidence at the time of Akhenaten’s heresy the name of Amun on them would certainly have been mutilated. But that “incensed royalty” did not entirely succeed in making Sennemut nameless is shown by his name being imtouched on our two statues. In the case of Menkheperrecsenb (No. 708), however, the name of Amun has been erased and afterwards restored. Menkheperrei'senb was never disgraced and his statues thrown out of the temple, so that Akhenaten got at him. No. 1513 (the squatting figure of Sennemut) is of red quartzite sandstone, and measures 21 ins. (53'5 cm.) in height ; No. 174 is of dark grey (“black”) granite, and measures 28 ins. (71 cm.) high ; No. 708 is of the same stone, and is 2 ft. 8 ins. (81’2 cm.) high. ' This is said to have been found by d'Athauasi at Shekh ‘Abd el-Kumah, and .so belonged to Sennemut's tomb there (AVixlock, Bull. Jlet. Mus. M.F., 1928, ii, 56). ilr. Winlock, while noting that two of the Cairo statues at least are from Karnak, suggests, loc. oil., that the British Museum figure.s are both from the tomb. That I doubt: it is much more likely that they were found at Karnak. We have not, by the way, t/co statues like Berlin 2296, as Mr. iTinlock seems to think. There is only one holding Aeferiu'cC and this is not squatting. AKHENATEX’S ELDEST SON-IX-LAW AXKirKKEPRl RE^ By PEECY E. NEWBERRY With Plate iv, fig. 1 and Plates v, vi. At the foot of the hill of the Shekh ‘Abd el-Kurnah at Thebes, and some little distance to the left of the tomb of Ramose, the vizier of Aiuenojjhis R', is the small mortuary chapel of the itrft-priest of Amun, Pere^. This tomb is numbered 1:19 iu Gardiner-Weigall, Topographical Catalogue, where it is doubtfully attributed to the reign of Tuthmosis lY. It is certainly not earlier than that king, nor is it later than the reign of his successor Amenophis III. But whatever the precise date of tin' tomb may be, its chief interest lies in a hieratic graffito written upon the left-hand jamb of the entrance to an inner chamber. Two years ago I traced this graffito and Mr. Harry Burton kindly photographed it on a large scale for me so that the inscrip- tion could be studied at leisure. M}’ facsimile is reproduced iri Pis. v and vi togethei' with a transcription made by Dr. Gardiner in 1912. Dr. Gardiner appends a translation and some notes at the end of this paper (p. 10). It wa-< Bouiiant who first drew attention to this graffito. In a note printed in the Rec. dc trac.. xiv, 70, he s;iys that it is composed of two parts, “la seconde formee de vingt-cim^ lignes renfermant une priere a Ammon composee par le pretre et scribe tre.s inutile, recriture t'tant frequemment effacee. La premiere partie, qui ne comprend quo deu.x lignes. nous doime la date d’un roi jusqu'a present inconnu. Ellc c.st ainsi coneue: Le roi Nefer-nefru-Aten n’est connu que par cette inscription. II est probable qu'on doit le placer parmi les pharaons, appelus communement hereti([ue.s, qui ont regiie entre Amenophis III et Horemheb. C'est sans doute un de ces Cherres ou Acherres que nous donnent les listes grecques et qu’on n’a pu encore identifier. Peut-etre faut-il voir dans 1 In the British iluscurn (No, llSe, Hall, HiirmjJpplai: Te.'ts Jruin [Jgi/i'tuin ,SViA<.', the BritiPi Mijseum, Part vil, PI. 7j there is a lintel from the tomb of a Pere which w.i^ found by Robert IMoiid in 19(J5 near Tomb No. 139 at Thebes. The inscription.s on tlic lintel describe Pere a> ^ | j and f'' I'CnoK, G'n'dc to Uf Egyiition Onllerii-s {Bmlptvre), 1909, 119, tlii.s Pere i.s .^,■lId to be an “Overseer of the (Iranarics of Amen-Ra at Thebe.s," but no such title occurs upon the lintel 1 It is doubtful whether this Pere is the same as the one of Tomb No. 1.39. - The priest and scribe is Pawah son of Atefscnb, not Atefsenb as Bouri.int assorts. 1—2 4 PERCY E. NEWBERRY ce prince le fils de Thoutmes IV que Lepsius signale dans son Konigsbuch (No. 370) et qui porte, lui aussi, le nom de ® .Q,-” In 1894 SclieiP published copies of most of the hieroglyphic inscriptions in Pere’s tomb, but referred only briefly to the graffito, and made no effort to copy it. He simply says that it was written “par le pretre et scribe Atef-senb” (thus repeating the error of Bouriant), and that it was dated in the third year “d’un roi Nefer-nefru-Aten (® l ^ C ^ foot-note to the reading of the first cartouche, he remarks, “M. Bouriant lit 0# je crois ma lecture certaine.” Maspero ^ accepted Schell’s reading and stated that it seemed to him to represent a transitional form of the protocol of Amenophis IV, and not the name of a new king. Petrie® also agrees with Scheil and says “probably this is an early variant of Akhenaten’s name which he after- wards transferred to his queen on marriage.” In Gauthiee, Lime des rots, ii, 344, is the following entry: No query-mark is given to any of the signs, but in a footnote we read, “ Bouriant avait lu le cartouche-prenom | rapprochait ce roi du fils de Thoutmfisis IV . La correction de | en | par P. Scheil est surement exacte, car, en hieratique, le signe ^ n’est jamais ecrit verticalement^.” Gauthier continues “plusieurs hypotheses sont suggerees par le second cartouche; nous avons la, ou bien un roi nouveau, Atonou- nofir-nofru-mer-Atonou, different d’Amenhotep IV (Bouriant), ou bien une masculinisation de la reine, femme d’Amenhotep IV, analogue a celle qui nous est connue pour Hatshepsouit, ou bien enfin une forme intermediaire du protocole d’Amenhotep, entre I’ancien et le nouveau protocole (Maspero). C’est cette derniere opinion qui me parait etre la bonne. Plus tard le roi transfera ce nom, abandonne par lui, a la reine Tadoukhipa, son epouse (Petrie, History, n, 227).” Davies in this Journal (ix, 132) alludes to the graffito, and points out that Gauthier’s addition “meryaten'’ seems “totally unfounded,” and the “grounds for the rejection of the reading | quite untenable.” He further notes that “Schell’s reading is out of the question, the wish having been father to the thought.” Gardiner supported Davies in reading | with Bouriant, and Davies further notes “perhaps might be read if one was pushed to it, but the other reading is certainly the prima facie reading.” The clue to the correct reading of the first cartouche was given last year by Howard Carter. We were discussing certain problems relating to the family of Akhenaten when he drew my attention to the inscriptions upon a box that he had found in the tomb of Tutrankhamun. These inscriptions he has kindly allowed me to publish here from copies made by Gardiner in 1923. On the top of the box is a vertical line of hieroglyphs reading as shown on p. 5: 1 Scheil, Mmioires de la Mission areheologiqiie franmise au Caire, tome v, partie ii, 588. - Maspero, , 'Struggle of the Nations, ed. 1896, 317, ii. 2. 2 Petrie, History, n, 227. * This, of course, is inaccurate, for the |-sign is very often written vertically in hieratic, especially in cartouches, e.g., in the prenomen of TuthinosLs I (Petrie, Medvin, PI. sxxiii, line 7) and in the jirenomen of Amenophis II (Proe. Soc. Bibl. Arch., xxx, 272, with plate). AKHEN ATEN’S ELDEST SON-IN-LAW ''ANKHKJIEPLURE^ Here we have (1) the full titulary of Akhenatcn followed by (2) that of Ankhkhepruref with the nomeii Nefernefruaten Mery-Uanrei", and (3) the name and titles of the Great King’s-Wife, ilerytateu. On a knob on the top of the box there is the prenomen of I O ^ “ Ankhkheprurei", beloved of Xeferkhepruree.” On another knob on the adjoining side of the box is his nomeji ' Nefernefruaten, beloved of Uanrei"." 4C f n, ru 4 1 i i 1 \ t 'A 1 / kN' H ( :■ ■ ' ri / h 1, Immediately I saw this inscription I recognizer I that Nefernefruaten “beloved of Uanree” must be the king of the graffito of Tomb No. 139 at Thebes; he was, therefore, not a new Pharaoh, but the well-known luis- band of Akhenaten’s eldest daughter Herytaten. and the brother-in-law of Tutrankhamun. This young king with his consort is figured in the tomb of lleryrec II at El-‘Amarnah^, and bezels of finger -rings bearing one or other of his cartouches were found by Petrie- in 1892 on the site of the city Akhetaten. The prenomen is the name Ankhkheprurec, sometime.s without epithet and sometimes with an epithet “beloved of Uanrec,” or “beloved of Neferkheprurec.” The nomen or Son-of- Ref-name has, as it now appears, two forms. At El-‘Amarnah the form is Semenkhkarer- Zeserkhepru. At Thebes, on the box from Tutrankhamun's tomb and in the graffito from the tomb of Pere, the form found at El-‘Amarnali is replaced l)y Nefernefruaten “beloved of Uanrer.” The epithets connecting the young king with Akhenaten, and tlie association with that king’s daughter Mervtaten, leave not the slightest doubt that the two forms of the nonien belong to one and the same Pharaoh, namely the obscure successor of Akhenaten and predece.s.sor of Tutrankhamun, the son-in-law of the former, and brother-in-law of the latter. There has been some dispute about the correct reading of the nomen in what is apparently its earlier form. Unfortunately the cartouches in the tomb of i\I<‘rvrer II at El-‘Amarnah were destroyed by native robbers in the eighties of last century. Davies 3, who has published the scenes and inscriptions of this tomb, writes, “For the King's (cartouches) we must have recourse to the four copies, which unfortunately give as many readings for the personal name. There i.s little doubt, however, that the reading of Lepsius, Se-aa-ka-ra-zeser-kheperu. must be adopted, as the others are only imperfect readings of this. A squeeze exists among the papers of L’Hote [Papiers, xviii, 1), and though the third sign is broken, aa (Cf) is much the most satisfactory reading. It appears that the state of the cartouche was due to time and rough cutting, not to mutilation, and that it was fairly legible to a practised eye. The two rings of this king (Pf.trik. Tell el Amarna, PI. xv, 103-4) cannot shake this evidence, since each suggests a different hieroglyph.” In spite of these remarks of Davies I cannot admit the reading c/ in the cartouche in the tomb of Mervrer II, nor do I agree that the copies of the cartouches of ’ Davikm, t'/ a iiiiii-iia, II, I’l. xii. - Petrie, T< /1 el AiiKirim, PI. xv. ' D.win-i, op. rit., II, 44, 11. 1. 6 PERCY E. NEWBERRY f the finger-rings suggest different readings. I give in Fig. 1, a-d, the four existing copies of the cartouches in MeryreC’s tomb. The sign | , it will be seen, exists only in the copy of Lepsius 1 (made in June, 1845), and as his fifth sign is obviously wrong (he gives v-o in place of %J), his copy cannot be depended upon for accuracy. Hay’s copy^ (a), made about 1830, is quite indefinite. Nestor L’Hote® (1839) blunders badly (6), giving Prisse d’Avennes* (1843) gives the hieroglyph |, which shows that the sign appeared to c Fig. I. d him to be broader above than below (c). Lepsius’s | might easily be a careless copy of a 'i'-sign {mnh) with a long blade (d). But the finger-ring bezels are quite conclusive (see Fig. 2). Davies had only the two examples published by Petrie before him, but I have notes of seven, and they all clearly give V mnh, not | c/. There can be no ques- tion that this Son-of-Re<'-name should be read Semenkhkarec, not Saakarec. The graffito in Tomb No. 139 at Thebes is important in other ways. It records the Fig. 2. Scale J , highest, indeed, the only, date of the king’s reign — the year three — and it proves that the cult of Amun was flourishing at Thebes when the graffito was written. Further it shows that Ankhkhepruref was then a devotee of Amun, for the wf^-priest Pawah, for whom the hymn was written, bore the interesting titles (1) “Scribe of the Divine Offerings of Amun in the temple of Ankhkheprurec at Thebes,” and (2) “Scribe of the temple of Amun in the (mortuary?) temple of Ankhkheprurgr.” Pawah’s brother, the scribe who actually wrote the hymn, was also attached to the same temple. Of this building no other record has yet been brought to light. 1 L., B., Ill, 99. 2 British Museum Add. MS. 29,847, foil. 63, 64. 3 See his Fapiers, tome xi, f. 14, in the Bibliotheque Natinnale, Paris, ■* Prisse d’Avenxes, Monuments egyptiens, .3. AKHENATEN’S ELDEST SUN-IN-LAW "ANKHKllEPUUKE^ 7 In 1891 Petrie {Tell el Amarna, 12) suggested that Akheiiaten’s successor Semeiikh- karer “appears to have been associated in the kingdom with his fathcr-iu-law,” basing this supposition on the fact that the young king bore the epithets "beloved of Neferkheprurei" ” and “beloved of Uanref,” and on another page (op. cit., -13) he speaks of Akhenaten’s son-in-law as the “probable co-regent."’ Maspero, two years later, referred to the scene of Semenkhkarec and Merytaten in the tomb of Meryrec II, saying that the young king and his wife “are represented by the side of Akhenateii with the protocol and attributes of royalty,” and speaks of "this double reign” {Struggle of the Nations, ed. 1896, 331, ii. 1). But he is inaccurate in his description, for Akhenateii is not figured bg the side of the young king and his consort, but on a different wall of the tomb. The inscrijitiou on the box discovered by Carter in the tomb of Tutfankhamun is really the first definite evidence relating to a co-regency that had long been suspected. Carter has also drawn my attention to a remarkable stela in the Berlin Museum (Xo. 17,813) (see PI. iv) which has always been supjiosed to represent Akhenateii and his t^ueen Xetertiti, but, as Carter points out to me, the double crown worn by the one figure and the hprs-ciown worn by the other make it clear that we have here two kings, and not a king and his consort. The two royal personages here are undoubtedly Akhenaten and his co-regent Semenkhkarer. The intimate relations between the Pharaoh and the boy as shown by the scene on this stela recall the relationship between the Emperor Hadrian and the youth Antinous. The epithets "beloved of Uanrec” and “beloved of Neferkheprurer” are also remarkable^, and so is the name Xefernefruaten, “Beauty of the Beauties of Aten,” which, originally borne by Akhenateii's queen Xefertiti, was afterwards given to the boy-king. In regard to this love of Akhenaten for the youth it may be pointed out that Gunn- and Woolley noticed a very remarkable fact about Queen Xefertiti at El-Hawatah which perhaps has some bearing on this intimate relationship between the king and the youth. At El-Hawatali, says Woolley “ as nowhere else, the queen's name has in nearly every case been carefully erased and that of her eldest daughter, Merytaten, written in palimpsest U 2 >on the stone, her distinctive attributes have been blotted out with cement, her features re-cut and her head enlarged into the exaggerated skull of the princess royal. This alteration is most thoroughgoing in the case of the little temple and the island kiosks — a group of buildings which seem to have been called the ’Shadow of EeC; in the entrance hall it is limited to the more conspicuous places, but the intention clearly is the same. The ownership or patronage of the precinct was transferred from mother to daughter either during the former's life- time or on her death. But Xefertiti, if alive, could hardly have agreed to so public an aiiront, nor would her death have been seized upon by so devoted a husband as an occasion to obliterate her memorials; are we to suppose that things were not so happy as they seemed in the royal household, and that a quarrel so serious as to lose the queen her position put an end to the idyll which had long been the standing theme of the court artists!” On another page® Gunn refers again to the same subject and remarks that “we are driven to one of two theories to exjilain the facts; (n) the queen died, and was no longer deemed to require her ‘Shade of Rec’..., or (6) she fell into dis- grace or in some other way ceased to play her previous part in the royal family, and ' A woman of this period Ixjrc the following interesting titles : 0 yy n. ; she was obviously a concubine of Akhenaten (Lei:, rain, Auiudes du Serrice, x, lUS). - Peet- Woolley, The City of AUteautca, 123. ^ Op. cit., loo. 8 PERCY E. NEWBERRY that the place was then handed over to her eldest daughter.” The exact date of the disappearance of Nefertiti from the scene of history is not known, but it must be placed some time after the twelfth regnal year of Akhenaten, for a scene in a private tomb at EI-‘Amarnah (Davies, El Amarna, ii, PI. 37; cf. iii, PI. 13) shows that she was then associated with the king in a state ceremonial. There is probably yet another monument which shows Semenkhkarec by the side of his father-in-law Akhenaten. In 18-54 Hekekyan Bey, while digging in the neighbourhood of the great prostrate figure of Ramesses II at Memphis, discovered some fragments of sculptures that dated from the time of the El-‘Aniarnah kings One piece, which is now in the Museum of the University of Sydney, Australia, has an inscription upon it which records a temple of the Aten at Memphis’. A second fragment of sculpture (see Fig. 3) shows the young king holding in his hand an ostrich feather fan and wearing the double ^ Sir Charles Xicholsox, Aegyptwcn, London, 1891, llTseg'. I had suppo.sed that all the blocks figured by Xicholson were in the Museum of the University of Sydney, N.S.W., but Professor Woodhouse of that University inform.^ me that only the fragment mentioning the temple of Akhenaten at Memphis (Nicholson, op. cit., 134, PI. 3) i.s pi-cserved there. I have to thank the Honble. H. D. McIntosh for sending me a photograph of the monument. - Nicholson, op. cit., 2. AKHENATEN’S ELDEST SON-IN LAW ‘’ANKIIKIIEl’LUKE'' D crown, his brow being surmounted by the uraeus: in front of him we see the tdrearni and part of the flowing garments of a much larger figure that obvioush- represented anotlu'r king. Borchardt^ has rightly interpreted this scene a.s showing Akhenaten and his co-regent Semenkhkarei'. A third slab of sculpture 2.12. 1 1 -H H ki X.¥ (HI 5t A^ffCs }(>it .0 <=^*, ' '///' 7 r . , , , / nj; 4///// LV ■ ^ ■> n I \ ■=!. 2. ii Xm 1 ^3 II 1 tx 4f 6 1 41- )-2 -f^r s Htt, 1 V- li\ 4 '<'■'<<, % ;- W;/.., Hieratic graffito from the tomb of Fere at Thebes, 11. i-i8. Sralr of hit •'•tto'. mfher more thou \. Plate VI. I 1 1 I □ a_ft o °^%^ZYi4}m,V>-^ !4 vo/on/^/ -9 U ;/xr li •?/!!. *9 ■ft f(l •^/v; " .. '“',r fif°XQZ(^fe“9~n[irh3> - -Z.T7.irCPi,illUX 3« f 1 37 -U ig>''oLl; 2^ '^"■■iinunA- Hieratic graffito from the tomb of Pere at Thebes, 11 . 19-33. Srnl*f of hicf'ftf i>\ t'ntht'r nmr*' thon i. THE (TUAEFiTO FROM THE TOME. oF FERE I 1 (21) of tJiij giving. Illumine for me, llutl 1(1) mag see tliee{(). .Is tlig .soul endureth. (22) and as tlig beautiful, beloved face endarctlt. thou sJiaU cotne fro)ii afar. {2'A) granting that this servant, the scribe ^yah, mag sec thee, (rive (21) to him "Enduring is ReC. enduring is Rec!” Verilg, the tvorship of thee is good, ('lo) (> Amiln, thou lord great to seek if onlg he be(i) (fd) found. Turn awag fear. Place jog (27) in the hearts of men. Jogful is tin: man (28) that sees thee, 0 Amun. He is in festival everg dag. For the sold «/ (29) the v^ech-prie.st. the .scribe of the temple hr sJin ,ind /< pa fhtm respot tii ely, but some confusion of tlie.so with the more orilinary Late Egyiiti.in form' Jj .iieqcmTM and (pessil'ly pi'tPiiouneed qctuTM; h.is led to the substitution of a wlmlly spjiriou.s im- perative .Ctneip, .Cinp fu' A HEART SCARAB OF THE MNEYIS BULL By W. SPIEGELBERG With Plate iv. Fig. 2. It has long been known that the Egyptian funerary ritual treated the deceased sacred animals in the same way as the human dead. The Apis and Mnevis bulls were em- balmed like men, and their funerary outfits, including the sarcophagus and the funerary gifts, were not much different from those of the Egyptian king or noble. We know that in the Eighteenth Dynasty a cat was provided with a Canopic box [Ttee. cle trav., xiv, 17-1), and that in the Nineteenth Dynasty the dead Apis bull was provided with Canopic vases 1 and even with shawabti figures^ to take his place in husbandry in the other Avorld. I owe to Mrs. Grant Williams the kind permission to publish here a unique scarab of brownish quartzite, now in the Toledo (U.S.A.) Museum of Art, which proves that even a heart scarab was provided for the sacred animals. The inscription® on the bottom of the scarab shown in the figure reads p[«] “thy heart belongs to thee, 0 Osiris Mnevis,” referring of course to Chapter XVI of the Book of the Dead. ' N “chapter of giving the heart to N.” The Mnevis bull is designated by the epithet “Osiris” as the dead bull (Oo-opo/jLvevi<; Serap. Pap.), the contrary of the Mr-wr mh, “the living Mnevis,” who was fed in the Mnevis sanctuary at Heliopolis. Thus there can be no doubt that the scarab belonged to the mummy of a Mnevis bull, who needed after his death this magical weapon in the realm of Osiris just as did any human being. No doubt the object comes from the Serapeuin of the Mnevis bulls in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis, from which site so many monuments have found their way to the dealers' shops in Cairo in recent years. Another Mnevis scarab, though not a heart scarab, published in Petrie, Heliopolis, PI. xxxvi, is noAv in the Egyptian Museum at Manchester (No. 5413). It is of blue faience and has upon its base a bull. Miss Crompton tells me that according to the Museum inventory its provenance is Heliopolis (not Kafr Ammar), and this makes it probable that the bull represented may be the Mnevis. 1 At.VKiETrK, Serapcnm de Mciiiphis, PI. 1 tf. ' Op. '-it., Pl>. 7. 11, 1!) ; some of them show a bull’s head. " It .seems that the iiiseription is not qiiite finished; whether my restoration at the end i.s right may bo doubtful. GREEK SIGHTSEERS IN E(iYRT By M. KOSTOVTZEFF The Zetiou papyri are inexluuisiilile. After many sur])rises a letter ol Apollcniios tellinp Zeiioii to get ready for the visit of two distinguished parties of foreigners who were coming to see the wonders of Fayyiim (H. Inius Bell, Syitthuhie Osloen^vs, v, 1927, Iff. of the reprint) ! Two parties, both of them very interesting indeed. One — the Bewpoi of Argos, the other — the ambassadors of Paerisades, king of Bosporos. Let me say a few words on both of them. Bell in his excellent comni(‘nt.s has not noticecl that we have an excellent ])arall('l to the, dewpoL of Argos in the famous Fudoxos of Cyzicus, a Columbus of anti(piity, the nna'chant- explorer who was for a while in the service of Ptolemy Fuergetes 11. Posidonios (.Jacojsv, Fr. Gr. Hist..S7 F 2S, 10) in speaking at length of the romantic and fascinating .story of Fudoxos says as follows: dfidprupa Si ravr elvai Kai riva Kv^tKtjroi'. Otnpov k al (TIT ovho<^o p ov Tov tCov Kop.6 Loiv dyu)i’o<;, eXOeli’ efs' W'yvTrroi' taropei Kara toi’ SevTepov iLvep'yeT7]V. crva-raOrjvai, Se Ka'i tw jSacnXel Kal rol<{ irep'i avTov. Kal pdXtara Kara tous' uvaTTXovi TOV NetAou d a V pa CTT i K 0 1’ dvra to)v tot7iko)v ihimpdruiv dpa ko'i ovk diraLStv- Tov. It is exactly the same situation as in the case of the Oeojpo’i of Argos. And of course Fudoxos's real reason for coming was not to take part in the celebration of the dyd>ve< or to see the sights but some diplomatic mission under the ])retext of such OewpiaK In ihe case of Argos and of Ptolemy II this is evident. Ptolemy tried by every means in his power to stir up the Greek citie.s against Antigonos Gonatas both before and after the battle of Cos. And the Greek cities greatly needed the grain and the help of Philadelpho,s. And now Paerisades and his ambassadors ' What kind of relations bad he with Ptolemy! Let me remind the reader who Paerisades was and what woe the conditions in which he lived”. Paerisades was the last in the line of the glorious kings of Bosj)oros who made the city of Bosporos aiul the Bosporan kingilom in the Crimea and in the Taman Peninsula strong and rich. I say the last not because he was the last of the Spartocids. but the ‘-last glorious’’ since after his death (exact date unknown, after 2.')n u.c.)® troubled times begin for the Bosporan kingdom. The Spartocids’ mission was to create in the south of Russia a strong and ellicient .state which could stand on its own feet, independent of the Scythians, the forimu suzerains of the Greek cities of the Black Sea. The means for carrying out thi.s mission and keeping alive the fire of Greek civilization in this remote corner of the world were su])plied to the archons or tyrant-s, later, at least since Eumclos, kings of the Bosporus, not so much by ^ The c.a^e of ^liews tluit the O^oypoi of Ai'gos did conic }>ur|‘o.scly i'oi- the colei >iMtion of sn/ur nytoce?. - I have dealt with the hii^tory of the Bosporu,'. in .i hook written in (lennan hefnre the war hut never published. I hope to incorporate it into the second volume of rny *■ Skythien and der Bo^poru.s' plerrnau translation of my Russian hook of the same title jmVilished in Meanwhile the reader may look up the introduction of Latyschev to fos., P . E ., n, or the article Bosporu.s in /’. IPA'.. I !. E . 3 If we may trust the mentions in the accounts of the hieropi at Delos (seep. 14, note 1) of a “ phiale ” dedicated bv Paerisades wo may assume that he was .alive in il-IO ii.c. (the later mentions m 240 and 23.0 B.c. have no chronological valuet 14 M. EUSTOVTZEFF taxes as by a profitable trade with the Greek city-states, especially iu grain. This grain was produced partly on their own estates, partly on the estates of the Greek residents of their cities, and partly on those of the temples. A large amount was bought from the Scythians the Sauromatians and Maeotians and later from the Sarmatians. The Bosporan kings were merchant-kings, not monopohzing the external trade, but playing in it the most prominent part. As long as Athens was politically dominant the Bosporan kings depended entirely on Athens. Athens had always the possibility of opening or closing the straits ! After the Peloponnesian war the conditions changed considerably. However even after this catastrophe the policing of the sea remained the duty and privilege of Athens and Athens remained by force of tradition the greatest market in the world. No wonder that the Bosporan rulers tried to keep up and to improve the relations which existed between them and Athens in the fifth century n.c. Of course there is not the slightest sign of any dependence of the Bosporos on Athens in the fourth century. But there are common interests, interests vital both to Athens, which depended largely on the Bo.sporan grain, and to the Bosporus. After the period of Alexander’s conquest and of the struggle for power between his generals the situation in the Aegean Sea changed considerably. Athens is no longer policing the sea — it is Egypt and Ptolemy Philadelphos. Next in importance comes Rhode.sk For Ptolemy the South-Russian market had but slight importance. Commercial relations between Egypt and the Bosporus existed, as they existed also between Egypt and the south shore of the Black Sea (witness the many Egyptian or Alexandrian articles found in South Russia; on this subject Professor B. Farmakowsky gave an interesting paper at the international archaeological meeting at Alexandria in 1911), and there was a constant exchange of ships betvs’eeii Alexandria and the harbours of the Black Sea-, but in the main Alexandria, iu this unlike Athens, was not the least dependent on the great grain market of South Russia. It might be expected therefore that the Alexandrian kings, grain merchants as they were, would be hostile to their rivals of the Black Sea. Their staple article was also grain, their market was exactly the same as that of the Bosporan kings. And yet as our letter seems to show there was no such thing as rivalry between Alexandria and Pantikapaeum. The relations were friendly. Whyl The explanation is evident. Commercial rivalry did not exist between the Ptolemies and the Spartocids. The production of grain was too small in the ancient world to meet the demand, and there was a certain limit beyond which the exploitation of the customers by those who controlled the market was not supposed to go. To let enemies starve was a recognized right of the ancient states. But to let friends or allies starve or to cheat them beyond measure was against the ethics of Hellenistic times. 1 Oil tlif! rekiticiiis between Rliode.s and the Black Sea >.ee Din Chry,->., Rhod. (xxxi), 103. Compare the inscription set up at Bosporos by the Rhodians in honour of King Paerisadcs II (los., P.E., ii, 35 i Xctc also that Paeri.sade.s II appears as donor of a phiale at Delo.s in 2.50 u.c . I. 0';-., xi, 2, 287, B 127 tf and Add., 1411; cf. P. JJCKRli.vCH, Ltsrriptious de Delos, Comptus des llieropes, 1926, 298, 95-96 (with note'' • 313, 74;. It is however interesting that iu 250 Paerisades appears in the list of donors aloii" with Antigonos Gonatas and Stratonice, the daughter of Denietrios Poliorcotes (comp. G. Glotz, Rev. d Et Gr XXIX, 1916. 315, note 5 ; F. Durrb.vch, Inscr. de Delos, 298, 83-88 with bibliography). Cf. also the Deliaii inscription of the same time in honour of a Bosporan citizen, 1. Gr., xi, 4, 609. Cf. 1143. Does it not show that after the battle of Co.s Paerisades went gradually over to the .side of Antigonos ? - Compare the story of Sarapis and of his Sinopian origin, Fr. Hist. Gr., iii, 487, cf. I’ul>jhiii.<, iv 38 On the recent tinds of Egyptian objects of Ptolemaic and Roman times in S. Russia, see B. Tourviev Rec arch., 1911 ; A. V. iScHillUT, The Sew Orient (Russ.), 13-14, 1926, p. 342 ff. ’ GEEEK SIGITTSEEIES IN EGYPT 15 Now, there is no doubt that Egypt alone was not able to cover all the needs of the various Greek markets. The grain production of Egyjtt vva.s not large enough. No wonder that the second largest productive area of the worlil — the Bos])oru.s — was thriving and prosperous even in the time of the Ptoleniie.s^. The Ptolemies dominated tin- sea and the market, they did not monopolize the market and did not intend to. Of course their toleration of the Bosporan trade was conditioned, exactly as such toleration used to be in the time of Athenian domination. The Ptolemies rlid not object to the Bosporan king selling his grain but did not extend this indulgence to evi'rvbody. To the friends, not to the enemies ! Grain was too powerful a weapon in the hands of Phila- delphos to let it slip out of his hands and to allow the Bosjioran kings to counteract the measures which he took. Thus a frequent interchange of emb.issie.s betwei'n Ale.xandria and Pantikapaeum was a necessity. No doubt the ambassadors — in this exactlv similar to the theoroi of Argos — discussed with Apollonio.'. the dioiketes (bnance minister) of Ptolemy, some jiobtical and economic jiroblems, esjiecially tlie management of the grain market, and this is the reason why Apollonios was so anxious to keeji tlunn in good mooil and to satisfy their curiosity as regards the temples, pyramids and the .sacred ciocodiles of the Arsinoite nome. We must not forget that for Philadelphos in his struggle with Syria and iMacedon the alliance of such a powerful king as Paeris.ides was not indifferent. Paeiisaile- no doubt held under his control the Black Sea and might liavi' interfered any moimuit in the atfaiis of Thrace and of its Greek cities, the neighbours and the vassaP of Macedon. As an aHv of Macedon Paerisades might have been dangerous to Egyjit inasmuch as he could hel]i with his grain many Greek cities, especially those of the Pland.s. and thus make them imbqien- dent of Philadelpho.s. Last but not least, the excellent gold of the Spartocids was welcome in Alexandria, and the Alexandrian merchants were eager to supply with thidr articles the rich customers of the Bosjioius-. As regards the vexed question of the date of the battle of Cos the new document lirings no decisive evidence. The battle of Cos diil not min utterly the inHuence of Egypt on Aegean afl'airs. And thus an embassy to Egy]if is natinal even a short rime after the gieat battle. However as I say no decisive evidence is furthcoming from our document. The only jroint which seems to be evident is, as Bell has |iointod out. that the (unba-sies eoidd not ])()ssiblv be sent at the time of a great naval conteA between Macedon and Egyjit. And I may add that probably the embassy of our document WU' one of the hi't. As the Delian documents show (see p. 14, note 1). Paerisades very soon neglected his old friend Ptolemy for the new .star Antigonos. ' It .shown liy the tie.iutiful :.;r.ive' of the Sp.irt. of thi^ tiino IK'.ir I’.iiitik.ip.ieiuii. liy the enormous ma-'S of gold .nul '.ilver stored in them, and hy the t.ict th.it the Si itliiaii eravtss of tins period are aa rich a.s tho.-5e of the Bo'porua. - Comp, the relations hetween Philadeliiho.s and Zi.iel.is of IVithvni.i, IUttenckroer, S/jU.", t.ttj. I wonder tliat Pomtow has considered it possilile to d.ite tlie Delphi.ui decree, I )[ttk\rhR(.kr, .Vz/f/y, 4 :g), ill honour of Paerisade-. ami Kamasarye in the time nt P.ieri.„ide^ II. It is well known th.it the Paeris.ides of the 1 lelphiaii inscription is one (pf the Pospor.in kiie.'s of the si-cind < entiiri . tlie same who 'jai e so laaiiv gifts to the Didyuiaean Apollo. 16 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROMAN EMPERORS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY By ARTHUR STEIN Although various investigations have shown that to determine with any degree of exactness the reigns of the Roman Emperors from Philip to Diocletian is an enterprise beset with difficulties, it is nevertheless worth while to establish what can serve as a reasonably secure basis for further research. This is the more advisable in view of the remarks of H. Mattingly^, who, in the interests of a hopeless theory, is prepared to sacrifice the solid foundation of facts. The dispute is concerned specially with two points, in regard to which I was com- pelled and, even after his renewed defence, am still compelled to reject Mattingly’s hypothesis; and since he now adduces new arguments I must reply with new counter- arguments, which, I hope, can only contribute to a further clearing of the position. These points are: (1) that Gallus and Volusian in their coinages carried on the regnal years of Decius as their own, and (2) that in the Alexandrian coins of Valerian and Gallienus by the first regnal years of the Emperors was meant the Egyptian year 252/3. I noted as an objection to the first hypothesis the fact that Mattingly, on that assumption, is compelled to postulate for the reign of Gallus and Volusian a period of scarcely a year, whereas they reigned over two years. Mattingly himself, in his new article (p. 16), now withdraws the estimate which he made in Num. Chron., 1924, 119, for Aemilian, whose first year is therefore not 251/2 but 252 3; hence he was not recog- nized in Egypt as Emperor until some time before 29 Augu.st, 253. I can only express surprise that Mattingly did not draw the corollary from this conclusion. For, if his ex- planation be accepted, we are faced with a hiatus; year 3 of Gallus and Volusian would then be 251 2, year 1 of Aemilian, according to his modified view, 252 '3, or rather merely July and August, 253. Then how is the larger part of the year 252/3 to be fill ed, since there are no coins of the fourth Alexandrian year of Gallus and Volusian? Mattingly seems indeed to consider it possible that in Egypt after Gallus at first Valerian and Gallienus were recognized, then Aemilian, and after his fall in the autumn of 253 Valerian and Gallienus once more. But even granting that our literary evidence for Aemilian’s success and end is exiguous, yet we must not so far disregard it as to turn upside down everything that this scanty evidence offers. It is therefore not the fact that this evidence is insufficient to invalidate Mattingly’s conclusions. All the accounts we possess contradict most flatly the assumption that ' My refutation of his criticism in Sian. Chroa., 1924, 119, which I developed in Archiv, viii, 11-13, is assailed by M. in this Journal, xiii (1927), 14-18. Although full recognition must he accorded to the excellent spirit in which he conducts his polemic, his attempt to contest what is well established induces me to offer the above observations. I hope that he, whom I value as a di.stinguished and deservedly esteemed numismatist, will not feel him.self in any way personally affected by my words, which are directed purely to the point at issue. Plato amicus, amicior reritas/ OBSERVATIONS ON C'HRONOLOOY OF ROMAN EMPERORS 17 Valerian was recognized in any part of the Empire, above all in Egypt, so early as 252, Aemilian not till nearly a year later, in July, 253. Specially true i.s this of the state- ment made unanimously (save for the quite obvious clerical error in Syncell. 715, TpieTf) for Tp/yaj/i'w) alike by the Greek historians, the Latin epitomators, and the chrono- graphers. to the effect (with unimportant variations) that Aeinilian reigned about tlii-ee months (see my statement of the evidence in ArcJiiv, vii, 43 f.). Now Valerian was not elevated by his troops until after he had received from Gallus the commission to oppose Aeinilian^. If this event is to be placed, with llattingly, in 252, oiu' must assume that between the elevation of Aemilian and his recognition as Emperor 10-11 months elaj)S('d, which nobody will believe when he reads that Aemilian, as soon as he was hailed Emperor, marched on Italy in great haste (peTci iroWov Se Tay^ov'i, Zosim., i, 2S. 3: avTiKa...taTrev^e, Zonal., XII, 21), and that immediately afterwards occurred the decision against Gallus and Volusian. If then Mattingly admits that Aemilian was not recognized in Egy])t till Julv or August, 253, Valerian cannot have passed there as Emperor so early as 252. On the contrary, the datings in Egypt must have been by Gallus and Volusian till well into the year 253, and there should therefore be coins and papyri of their fourth year, which as a matter of fact is not the case. In this connexion I should like to call attention to another contradiction in which Mattingly involves himself. He answers my reference to the many papyri dated in the second year of Gallus by the statement that there is a double system. (1) the official one of the coins, which describes 251,2 as year F, and (2) the unofficial, according to which the same year was year B. But how does Mattingly account for the fact that we possess papvrus documents of year F of Gallus and Volusian-? Is he going to declare that the dates of all these papyri are those of the official system, whereas, just as uniformly, all the papyri with year B follow the unofficial reckoning? But if the third year in the papyri is that of the unofficial system, then, since such papyri occur from both the beginning and the end of this year, there .should be at least some of the corresponding Alexandrian coins of the fourth year, which, as I have just shown, for another reason also ought to be in evidence if Mattingly’s explanation were sound. That we possess coins of the sixth year of the era of Dacia only for Valerian and Gallienus, not for Gallus, and for Aemilian only of the seventh and eighth years, gives us pause, as Mattingly says. But even here we must in any case reject the idea that dates were reckoned by Valerian more than a year before Aemilian. The mention of the sixth year on the former’s coins is due therefore, as is a-^sumed also by Pick (Antilr Miinzen von Xordyi'iecl/enland. i. 4) and regarded as possible by Mattingly himself, to hastily cut or damaged stamp.s with ■'an. xi. ’ The non-occurrence of a xv year on the coins of Aemilian from Viminacium can prove nothing, inasmuch as we cannot certainly determine either the exact starting- point of this era or the day of Aemilian’s death. Mattingly assumes “before the end of ' Oiilv till' w'luwiicc huf any authority in our ^ource^ : .uiy otlier coinbiiiation is ([uite ui tlie air. Whoever therefore dielare' tlie literary eviffeiiee too scanty to contradict tins renounces the jiosaibihty of usino- these .sources iZo.-iuj., I, oy • Zon.u'., xil, lil, 22; .Joann. Antioch., Ere. de iiisi'd., 110, GO Dt. Boor ; Petr. Patr., Ere. de 264, l.oS Boi.ss. : Epit. de Cae.s., 31, 1 ; Viet, Cae.s., 31-32, 1 ; Eutrop., i.x, 5-7- Hierou,, Clivne Ohf„q,. 2.")S, (Voveua//-. a. 3.‘)4 i at all, even in conne.vion with the official doeuuieiits of the first rank, auiony which, ,is 51. rightly rcin.irks, the coins are to be pl.iced. - P.S.I.. t II, TUi ' 1 Sept. ', G.\y., XIV, 1640 ■ 17 Oct. ■, Vlll, 1 1 lit WlI.CKKX. Chre.M , 3!)7 i'22 Aug.) ; also an o.stracoii, T.mt, An'hir, vii, 224 no d.iy luentioned,. Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 3 18 AETHUE STEIN September”; Pick, op. cii., 25, says, more cautiously, “Herbst 239”; it is therefore quite possible that Aemilian, who, in my opinion (cf. Archiv, vii, 44), reigned until September, 253, had already fallen at the moment when the xv year began at Viminacium. Mattingly’s theory arose purely from the effort to explain the coins of Gallus and Volusian with “tr. pot. ini” and the absence of their Alexandrian coins of the second year ; and it rests solely on these considerations. I do not wish to lay too much stress on the consideration, no doubt a pis-aller, that in the first case there may be an error of the die-cutter, and that for the second attempts at an explanation have been made, which, it is true, do not satisfy Mattingly. But, however that may be, his theory, as will have been seen, is confronted by insuperable obstacles; there is in fact, given the state of the case, nothing left us but to return to the supposition not only that it was not till after August, 253, that Valerian and Gallienus actually came to the throne, but that it was only then that they were recognized even in Egypt. I will not repeat the proofs that Valerian’s year A was 253/4; this holds good for the papyri not only “sometimes” (p. 17) but always: there is no other reckoning either in P. Strassb. 7, 8, 10, 11 (“seem,” says Mattingly) or in Oxy. xii, 1407 (the Egyptian date in this document does not refer to the same year as the consular date); on the contrary, P. Strassb. 10, for example, gives the date 16 Oct. (268) for Claudius’s first year^, and hence reckons Gallienus’s sixteenth year as 268/9, his first year therefore as 253/4. If this is the case, then the coin dates also rest on no different basis; for Macrianus’s year A = Valerian’s year H in P. Lips. 57 just as in the Alexandrian coins (M.’s table, p. 15). A double method of reckoning does not occur, as I have shown in detail in Archiv, vii, and Klio, xxi, 78-82, till the period after the death of Gallienus, although it is just for this period that Mattingly refuses to entertain it If he contests this, with- out bringing for this particular point any really new counter-arguments^, he does so once more on the ground of his thesis, that the first year of Valerian was 252/3, against which therefore the preceding lines are primarily directed. ' M. does indeed call this date “irreconcilable with the evidence of Alexandrian coins”; but it is the “evidence” of M.’.s combinations, not the “evidence” of the coins, that is affected. - It seems to me in, lived loiigenough to have .i year .\l, 2dO-2.")0. flostili.in, who certainly died within a .short tunc of his f.ither. Tr.ij.in Deeius fproliahly died July, has a year xm, 2.ol-2.'>2, which his father ha.s not. Trebonianus G.illus, .Veniilian and Valerian ail have a year xiv (252-2j:f). 3—2 20 CHRONOLOGICAL PITFALLS By J. G. MILNE The arguments used in the discussion on third centur}- chronology suggest some observations on the necessity of investigating the value of Egyptian evidence in such a matter. As regards the use of papyri, there is a risk of giving too much weight to the dates of isolated documents. The Egyptian scribe was liable to err, as we all are : and he was more likely to go wrong in dating than a modern clerk, since dating by regnal years is more difficult than by calendar years, as anyone who has had to do the former can testify: moreover, I should doubt whether the standard of education was as high in the Egyptian local government service as it is in the English. From over thirty years' experience I know that it is not infrequent for a slip to be made in the date of an English official document, and I should expect such slips to be more frequent in ancient Egypt. So, if a date which does not fit in with the received chronology is found on a papyrus, it should not be hastily assumed that it points to the existence of a variant system. In this particular case, much use has been made of the reckonings in P. Strassb. 7, 8, 10 and 11, which are treated as supporting one another: but in fact they should be regarded as representing two separate problems. P. Strassb. 11 is written on the back of 10, and depends on that for its dating : it is not to be taken as an independent jnece of e%ddence. P. Strassb. 7 and 8 must be considered with P. Strassb. 6 : these three give a list of payments of the same tax for the same people to the same official, as a rule in two instalments each year, from 2 Valerian to 1 Tacitus. From the form of the documents and the editor’s description, it would appear that the representatives of the payers from time to time went through the local archives and jotted down copies of the entries they found there: in any case, it is clear that the lists are later compilations from old papers' and the two entries for each year are always treated as coming under the same regnal date, except where a new scribe begins a new list — at the first entries on 7 and 8. It may be assumed that the scribes were working on somewhat the same scheme as the compiler of the table of reigns in P. Oxy. 35 verso, who ignored all broken years: but it is noticeable that the schemes of the three papyri do not fit : the last entry in 6 and the last in 7 if the editor’s restoration is correct, are of years which could not exist on the schemes followed for previous entries: so 7 and 8 start with entries dated on a different scheme. In view of these facts the chronological value of P. Strassb. 6 7 and 8 seems small. P. Strassb. 10 thus becomes isolated: and with regard to it there only needs to be added, to what has been said above about the general liability to error, the further reminder that personal idiosyncrasies in dating are not unknown. There are people who refuse to recognize a change in the calendar, or an alteration in government and persist in adhering to the old system in defiance of official orders: and the conditions of Egypt in the middle of the third century would give much opportunity for such intransigence. CHRUN OLOG I CAL PIT FA LLS L’l On the numismatic side, the use of Alexandrian coins for dating is often marred by the tendency to estimate the activity of the mint by the number of specimens to b(> found in Museums, or, in other words, by the number of different types used in any year. On this theory, coins of 12 Nero would be very rare, as only two types of billon and two of bronze were struck, and the ordinary collection naturally is content with a specimen or two of each: as a matter of fact, the billon coinage of this year was enormous, as may be seen by reference to the tables in Hiistoriad Studies {B.S.A. E(ji/pt), II, 30-4. As I have more than once pointed out, the general rule at Alexandria was that, the busier the mint, the fewer were the types used. The coins of Aemilian. though there are several types, are very rare, and the blundered inscriptions and uncertain portrait suggest that they were struck very soon after the news of his recognition was received at Alexandria, and ceased to be issued before there was time for correct models to come to hand. Further, the fact that no Alexandrian coins of the second vear of (Jallus aie known is no reason for suggesting that another system of dating was used at the Alexandrian mint than that which makes 2 Gallus=251 2. A blank year at that mint is not unique: in the reign of Septimius Severus there were several close together, in years 7, 11, IS and 19: and even when coins were struck, the output varied greatly: under Severus Alexander it dwindled down almost to nothing in years S and 9. So it seems unneces- sary to hunt for Alexandrian coins to be assigned to 251/2. It must also be noted that the Alexandrian hunt did not issue coins at the same rate all through the year, so far as can be judged from the statistics for broken ])eriods, such as 68/9. when the proportions of the i.ssues are, roughly: — 1 Galba (2 months) 6: 2 Galba (5 months) 3: 1 Otho (3 months) 3: 1 Vitelliu.s (2 months) 1: 1 Vespasian (2 months) 2. So the fact that there was a considerable output of coins of 1 Claudius If. almost equal to that of 15 Gallienus, does not prove anything as to the ]'especti\'e amounts of the Egyptian year covered by these two periods: and the joint total of the two is less than that of 2 Claudius. My impression is that the mint of Alexandria was usually busier in the summer than in the winter: and this might be accounted for by the need of coin to pay taxes in the la.st three montLs of the Egyptian year. The foregoing warnings are of general application to the study of the chronology of Roman Egvpt: two notes on questions arising in the present discussion may be added. Some years ago I tried to prove that Gallus continued to use the regnal years of Decius, and brought in the evidence of the coins of Viminacium and Dacia: but I found that this raised more problem- than it solved. And the dating of these coins is hope- les.sly careless: I lately found a coin of Viminacium. of Philip, which was clearly inscribed ANN: the engraver of coui'se meant ANVI, but he did not engrave that. The Egyptian dates of Vaballathus are of no help in this problem. He was not recognized in Egypt till some time in his year 1. which was equated with year 1 of Aurelian. His year.s must run from his assumption of power at Paltuvra. and. unless anv evidence is obtained as to his Palmyrene dating, they rlo not elucidate Egyptian chronology. ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY GREEK WRITERS By D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON From Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, Athenaeus and Xenocrates we can compile a long list of Egyptian fisbes, but of many of these we are told nothing but their names. A few, such as and /ceo-rpeu?, are plain ordinary words, and these offer no ambiguity, for the eel and the grey mullet are common fishes of the Nile. Others, like y\avlY GPtEEK WIHTERS 23 what language, or from what group of languages, such world-old words as tunuji. seine-net or aayi^vT], hijssus, sepia or revdls originally came? As for the Egyptian fishes themselves our stock of knowledge lias hc'cn growing ever since the days of Forskal and of Geoft'roy St. Hilaire, and it may he said to have keen at last completed by Dr. G. A. Boulenger’s exhaustive monograjih k Besides Dr. Boulenger, MM. Claude Gaillard, Victor Loret, Ch. Kuentz. Pierre Montet and others, not to speak of Brugsch, Budge and the other great Egyjitologists. have put many old Egyptian and Coptic fish-naines within our easy reach, and also the vernacular Arabic, in which traces of Old Egyptian speech remain. Here is a rough list of fishes attributed to the Nile by the Gn'ek writers, oiu' or more of them, whom I have mentioned above : d/dpapli X/iToii, XetTcos dXa^y'i, dXXd^rjs, Alabeta X€7riSaiTo<; /3aLo}v (Hesych.) Xv^vo'i /S 0 O 9 (Strabo) paiwTijs ^copev'i (Xenocr.) vdpicy yXavt<; o^vppvyxoe; e'yx,eXvypi<; (Xiimen.. ap. Athen.) iXea}Tpl<; eruTrepSys ei^yTO'i aiXoapos dpiaaa aipos (Xenocr.. Artemid. On. I t) K€12 b. Gcopon.. xi. 7). This is (diviously an Egyptian word, as M. Chassinat and others have already shown-. It represents the O.Eg. r(‘pi. or h-pi, which becomes in Sahidic 'As-feKc, and in Bohairic Aeiqi. M. Chassinat points out that in the Papyrus magique de Londres-Leyde, ix. d. the same word occurs in its demotic form, lbs or labis, and is spoken of as lbs ym, i.e. the black labis. The Egyptian name survives in Modern Arabic, under such forms as labis. labces. labisu, lebsa, lebes. lijj.s. Eorskal rpiotes an Arabic form halavi, which, as Coraes has already remarked {ad Xenocr., 2 ). 176). is not to be distinguished from dXa/By^. Alabeta (Plin.. v, 9) is again the same word. Athenaeus (301 c, d) speaks of a fish Xe/Slas; he describes it as peXas rgv ^poiav, and declares it to be identical with rjiraro^. I have little doubt that Xe^la<; is but another form of the same Egy 2 Aian word ; and the black colour of Athenaeus ’s fish goes some way towards supporting this identification. I am further inclined to susjiect (meo pericalo) that Athenaeus’s synonym yiraTos is also an Egyptian word, and no other than the O.Eg. ahtu, a fish, 4 J word occurring in the Book of the Dead. On the other hand, Arche- • G. A. Boci.enger, Zoology of Egypt, The Fishes ot the Site, London, 1!)07. - E. Ch.\SSIX'AT, Un popyrns nu'dical eopte: Mem. de V Inst. fr. (Tureh. orient, da Cnire, xx.xu, 192], (q\ Ct Gaillard, Iterherrhes sur les poisso/is /■i-pre'sentiis dans ijuehptes toinhetiii.e ei/yptiens : ibid., LI, 41, 1923. 24 D’APtCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON stratus {aj). Athen.) says that the is found round about Delos and Tenos, and if that be so it would be a sea-fish. This runs counter to my snggestion ; but I am not inclined to abandon it, for the transference of a name from one fish to another is a common thing, and Archestratus is no great authority. Another difficult, and perhaps allied word is eXe(/)tTi?, (Hipp.. 357, 45). Coray (ud Xenocr., p. 92) would read dXcjiriaTt]^ here ; but this suggestion is not more plausible than the other. The fish to which these Egyptian names apply is the commonest of Xile fishes, a Cyprinoid or carp-like fish, described as Ciipriims nilotifvx by Forskal (Descr. animfdmm etc., 1775), and re-described as Labeo niloficus by Cuvier. According to Isidore G. St. Hilaire, the name lebse is used generically by the Arabs at Asyut, where the fi.shermen speak of this species as lebse seirn. the •■true lebis.” and have a corresponding specific name for the allied Labeo forskalii, Cuv. n/Spapk or «/3ep/xi>?. This is one of the Nile fishes mentioned by Athenaeus (312 a). That the name is an Egyptian word has long been known; it was known to 8chemseddin Mohammed, an Arab scholar of the early sixteenth century quoted by Schneider^, and •Tablonski^ and Wiedemann® are among those who have called attention to the fact. At the root of dppapL‘s poismns emplayer duar I’errito.re tderoghjpJdgoe: Bull. Last. fr. d’arch. orient, du Caire, .\i, 4U, 1913. ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY GREEK WRITERS ■25 Mr. S. R. K. Glanville has figured {Journal, xii, PL xix. 192(i) two objert'^. one pre- dynastic, the other of the Eighteenth-Nineteenth Rtuia.sty. on lioth of wliicli is rejire- sented a group of fishe.s clustered round and feeding on ii rounded ball of somi'thing or other. And Mr. Glanville correlate.s these anci<'nt drawings (one two thousand rears older than the other) with Herodotus’.s de.serijdion (ii. of the GdAx s or another) both sexes shoukl be found to share this pai'ental charge. In ,inv case, and whether Herodotus be wholly right or no, it si-ems very likely that lu' is .■dludine to this curious habit, and that the same is roughly depicted on the ancient objects which Mr. Glanville figures and describes. KopaKU'o^. This seems to be a plain Greek word, with no trace of Egy])ti.ui or other alien origin, but it is not easy to interpret; it is a])plied both to a sea-fish and to a fish of the Nile, and in neither case is its meaning certain. Athenaeus gives us several synonyms of the Egyptian Coracine. It wa.s called (121 c) rriXTTj'i by some, and i)ixlvripo<; at Alexandria. Another name, according to Euthvdemus (308 c). is aaTrepSr]^'. and again it is called ttXu raf at Ah'xandria (309 a). or, according to Philotimus, TrXaTicrTaKO'^ (308 f). a-aTrepS)}<;, as I have already said, mav' be the Coptic iyi>.qw9pi, whence the Arabic xabdr; and rreXTij-; might well be the same word as survives in the Arabic bolti. Whether this latter word may lurk also in the Alexandrine TrXd-a^ and TrXaTta-Ta/cd? is a question which we may leave alone. Now we have seem that bolti and sabdr are synonymous, and that both undoubtedly refer to Tilapia nilotica, which we have also identified with d^papU', and this identification of Kopaxwo^ is so far supported hy the account which Athenaeus and Martial (xiir. 85) give of its cxcelhmce as a fooil fish. For Tilapia is the best of all the Nile fishes, save perhaps the great Nile Perch {Lates): and there is no better fish than KopaKwoi, says Athenaeus, it is even Kara irdna Tov pvXXov Kpeiaaccv. But again, the name KopaKivo'i (though Athenaeus explains it Sid to rds' K6pa<; Kuieir) suggests a black or dark-coloured fish; and we have seen that the Inbi.i or dXa/3G' {Labrn niloticns) is spoken of in the Papyri as blaik, though we might rather call it dark metallic blue. And lastly Pliny tells us (xxxii, fi9) that ‘ coracini fel rxcitat vi.-iam'’ ] and precisely so does M. Chassinafs medical papyrus recommend, twice over, ciuj nXisfiHc ‘ gall of the black labis ” — as a remedy for defective vision. Such evidence as we have, then, is ambiguous; and we may find reasons for identifying KopaKu'oi either with dXaRG or d(3pap,U, i.e.. with Tilaj)ia or with Labco iiilolicu^;. I think there is some confusion in the Greek: and I suspect that Athenaeus and his friends were none too careful in discriminating these two fishes. XeTTiScoTo?. This again is a difficult fish to explain and identify. It was a sacred fish according to Herodotus (ii, 72) ; and was the oidy .sacrerl fi.sh mentioned by him except the eel. It was identical with the carp, Kvirplno^ (Dorio, ap. Athen., 309 e): it was one of the .leiiru. "1 Arch. SIV. 4 26 D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON three fishes (together with cfxiypo'i and 6^vppvy')(^oped with pink or orange a.s though they had dabbled in blood. The sea-fish meiitioin'il under the same name by Aristotle, and still known by such corrupt names as rraypo^. cf^ayypi, etc., is another thing altogether, a perch-like fish. Spum-i jKigru.-s, L. fSropev^. This fish is mentioned by Xenocrates; he is .speaking of the raplxia fSwpicia which it yields, and saying of the ti.sh itself — of koI muo'i icrOioeTai. I do not know that anybody has pointed out the Egyptian source of the word, but it is plain and simple. The fish is the common grey mullet (Muyil ce/dnilu.',-). the bonn. of the Xile fishermen; the Coptic equivalent is q'Jpi. In early Egyptian the word does not seem to occur, the grey mullet being called adj. or udou^: but 31. 3'. Loret tells u.s that in some late (Ramassid) papyri, the form bun occurs. vdpKg. This word, which in ordinary (freek means the Torpedo or Electric Hay. is included by Athenaeus (312 b) in his list of YeiXpoi Gdue?. and can there be no other than the well-known "electric eel.' Jlrdupfiriti'X'S i lectrieui. \\ hde a few other passages quoted by Athenaeus mav also refer to the Egyptian fish, and while it i.s also j)ossibIe that the I’dp/cg caught by rod and line in Oppian {Hal., iii. 149) may have been that species, the above brief reference in Athenaeus is the only sure and certain one; on the other hand, many pa.ssages in Aristotle and in other writers refer clearly and specifically to the Torpedo. Thus Plato, in the ileno. talks of TrXareia vdpKg t) flaXa-TTia ; and Dioscorides and Galen both talk of f; ffaXarna vapKip as though it were necessary to distinguish it from another and fluviatile species. It is still more curious that that great physicist Hero of Alexandria, discussing the power and penetration of tfn> Torpedo's shock, says never a word of the Egyptian fish, but .speaks only of g daXaTTia. Xo O.Eg. word has been identified with the ilalaptcrurus; in short, the lack of early references to this common and remarkable fish is very .striking indeed. Du Bois Reymond, the vreat and scholarly physiologist who spent his life in the study of electrical physiology, chose as the subject of his college dissertation — Quae apnd celeres de piscibu-'s electneis ‘ r. .Moxtei, iiji. '-it., 40. 4—2 D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON exstant mgumenla (Berolini, 1843). He quoted well-nigh all the many classical references to the vapKT) (save those of Oppian), and declared that, common though Malapterurus is in the Nile, and although " antiquitas posterior ejus jam mentioneni facial.” yet, nequc upiid Aegijptos in scripturis corum hieroglgphicis, neque apud Graecos in mgthologin eorum ex Aeggpto profedu, ulla liujus piscis sube^sc vestigia.” After nearly a hundred years this remains substantially true; even the O.Eg. name of the electric eel is unknown. We have, however, in O.Eg. the word nar, or narou, commonly applied to certain fishes of the same family as the electric eel, now called Clarias and Heterobranchus ; and all these catfishes, including Malapterurus itself, have a strong family likeness, owing especially to their long whisker-like feelers at the sides of the mouth. And this nar may be, possibly, at the root of vapicg. The Coptic name for Malapterurus is Tpencpi, given in the Scula Magna, of which I have nothing much to say; but it does set me a-thinking of a passage in the Historiu Aniinalium (ix, 6:10 b), in that curious ninth book which is none the less interesting that it is non-Aristotelian and that it is replete with foreign influence. Here then we read that the vnpKi] narcoti.'a's, or paralyses, the little fishes which it would overcome, rp rpoirro bv eye« iv rm aropaTi — a phrase which seems to batfle translation, but of which no variant readings are on record. The commentators have tried to mend the text as best they could. Gaza, Camus and Schneider would all read crtbpaTi in place of ajopaTi', and in mv own Oxford translation of the H.A. I went further, and ventured to read rpopcp for rpoirn, taking it to mean what Keaumuri called "cette vertu du tremble." This seemed to make sense of the passage, and brought it into close accord with Gaza’s translation: "Torpedo pisces, quos appetit, afticit ea ipsa quam suo in corporv continet fundtate torpendi.” But in all this eSort to emend we are obviously prejudiced by the belief that the passage must refer to the Torpedo; it would be a different story if we should admit the possibility of the Egyptian electric eel being in que.stion. For the electric eel is conspicuous, like other catfishes, for the peculiar structures, the long filaments, which fringe its mouth, even if they be not precisely iv t® a-bpaTi. As to rpenepi, this so-called Coptic word has a very un-Coptic look. As Mr. W. E. Crum first suggested to me. it may well be corrupt Greek, and it may even help us some day to a better understanding of the Aristotelian passage. On the same page, a few lines further down, we come to another and an analogous difficulty: where Aristotle (or rather the Ps.-Aristotle) tells us that ‘‘the bvos, the ^dros the ■jrgTTa, and the pLvq burrow in the sand, and after concealing themselves angle with the filaments on their mouths which fishermen call their fishing-rods; and the little fishes on which they feed swim up to these, filaments, taking them for bits of sea-weed such as they feed upon.” When I translated the passage, making the best I could of it. I t-ave hake, rag, flat-fish and angel-fish (i.c., squatina) as more or less customary renderings of 6V09 /QnT09, jrgTTa, and piifi: but I knew that the evidence for such identification was worth very little, that any small basis it had was biassed by the confident belief that these must be sea-fishes of the Mediterranean, and I further called attention to the fact that not one of the said fishes has any barbels or oral filaments at all. There is a partial exception it is true, in the case of the Fork-beard Hake; but this is a deep-sea fish, none too common never likely to be watched at close quarters by the fishermen. But the whole family of Catfishes is conspicuous for the long feelers or filaments about the mouth, the Iona whiskers of the "cat”; and several of them are amongst the commonest fishes of the Nile*^ ’ Hist, de VAcad. ropale des sc., aniiee 1714, pp. 21, 22. ON EGYPTIAN ELSll-NA.MES USED BY (;BEEK WIDTEBS 2'J 111 short ive should begin to have some hope of understanding the passage if v'e eould suppose it to refer not to Greek but to Egyptian fishes. Returning to vap/crj, we mav observe that Oppian's aeeount of how tlie slioek travels up rod and line, ai-\^a Se | (TTTret?;? SuraKo^ re B(eSpap.ei' t\' 0 aXi)]o<: Se^iTfptp’ ea-KTjyjre, or Claudian’s account of the fislierman and the torpedo. ” ...daninosum jiiscator onus jiraedamque rebellem Jactat, et amissa redit exarmatus avena.' or Pliny’s (.xxxii. 2. 1 ). are all just like the account given by Abd-Allatif. an Arabian naturalist of tin- twelfth century, of the ra-nd, or thunder-fish, as the .Vrabs still call this eel-lik(' catfish : "A fisher- man who hail caught a ra-nd assured me that when a fish was in the net the same effect was produced without the man’s hand ever touching the fish, and being indeed a span or two away from it, etc.” The Egyptian vdp/crj is mentioned by Horapollo (u. KG), in a passage on which 1 have no light to throw; '' Xvdpanrov aco^ovra ttoXAous ev ffaXdaap deXopre-; a^atjvai, vdpupv top l')(^6vp ^rajpacfrovcriP' aurp yap, drap I'Sp tov<; ttoXXov^ tmp l)(^dv(OP /ri; OvpapLepovi; KnXvp,,3di’, avXXap-^dpei tt/jos’ eavrijp kuI awl^ei. alXovpoi;. This wonl usually means, in Greek (jr Latin, the griait Sheatlish of the Danube and some other European rivers (Au.sonius speaks of it in the Moselle) — a giant member of the Catfish family; it is the great fish which took a yoke td oxen to bring it ashore (Ael.. //.Ah, xrv.25). Its proper name in Greek is yXaid^: though the species described under that name by Aristotle (H.A., vi, 56b a, ti id.) is smaller than, and otherwise slightly different from the common Slieatfish of Central Eurojie (Ael.. xi. 45). The German name of the Slieatfish is ircL. or Seilr\ and I have .sometimes wondered whether this latter word may not be that tlXcov or i^lXcov of which Herodotu.s speaks (v. 16). — -rrd-TrpaKe^ Kal rlXo3ve' ev Oyl/aprvTiKw, iwcvcoTiBea Ka\ei, yeipoi'a o' etrai top Kempii’ijr ica'i cvaooSy) • yrtopi^tcrdai Be i/c Tov Trpos Trj Trpmrp Xocpta e’X^eii' Kei’rpor, twc 6p.oecBdn> ovk e-y(oi'T(oi'. It is not clear how much of this comes from Epaenetus and how much is added by Athenaeus or bv the scribe. We seem at any rate to be told that voiTioavo'i or eTripvTiBeui; is a fish known bv a sharp spine in its front fin, a structure which the allied species — presumably of sharks or dogfish — do not possess. With .sea-fish and ^Mediterranean tisii in our minds it i- of sharks or dogfish that we cannot help thinking; and we find that among these oidv one small family possess spines in their dorsal fins. The only species of this family wliich need concern us are the common Picked Dogfish, or "Spur-dog." .Icanthias rnlparis. Risso {Squalns ncantliius, L.), generally identifieil with the Gk. dKav0la<-. its close relation Spina.!' niger. a fish fairly common in the Mediterranean; and the rarer Centrina Saleiani. But all of these fishes, and all the rest of the sub-family to which they belong, not only possess tiro dorsal fins, but have a strong, sharp, conspicuous sjhne in the fore-part of each of these two fins; the di.stinctive character, according to Epaenetus. of possessing a spine or spur, irpo^ tij TTp-irg Xocpig, does not hold. Not oidy that, but a> soon as we free ourselves from the obse.ssion that we have to do with a shark or dogfish of some sort or other, we begin to see that the words p'lyTiBainni ami eTrii’aiTiSevs can viwy ill bear the meaning we have read into them, namely that of fishes with a spine in tlieir dorsal fin. We do not know for certain, and may never know, to what fish or fishes these names actually belonged; but I am inclined to think that they were Ale.xandrine names, trans- lated or adapted from some older Egyptian name, for the fish we are speaking of. Si/n- odontis batensoda or one of its closest allies. The two Greek words become simple and clear, I think, if we may apply them to a fish which swims upon its back [vonov]'. and our Synodont agrees not only in this character but in other two — being armed with sharp- pointed spines in its fins, and being of poor quality or unpleasant taste. The Synodonts have a spine in the front part of the .single dorsal fin. and they also have a powerful .si)ine in each pectoral fin, close to the hearl. We must admit that \o<^ia ought to mean a dorsal 32 D’ARCY WENTWORTH THOMPSON fin; but in this case the whole three spines make a sort of common armature which, making some allowances for inaccuracy, may be deemed covered by tt/so? irpwTrj Xotj^ia. I would suggest, then, that we might take the Aristotelian fragment over again, and translate it freely: ‘‘There is a certain fish called Notidanus, because it swims upon its back {vwTov)\ it is a fierce, predaceous or shark-like fish (yaXed?); and because it is armed with a sharp-pointed spine (or spines) it is also called the Prickle-fish (KevTpLvrj).'’ All this tallies precisely with what we might say, or might expect to hear, of that close ally of the Schall, S. bntensoda. In the second fragment Epaenetus likewise associates the fish which he calls eTrivcoTiSev^ with KevTpLvrj] and speaks furthermore of the evil taste or smell of one or other. We have not far to seek for confirmation; for M. Gaillard tells us of the Schall: “sa chair est pen estimee; il n’y a guere que les indigenes de tres humble condition qui ne la dedaignent pas." We are reminded of .Tuvenal’s reference (iv, 32) to the Egyptian Silurus, which he says fetches but a poor price: ‘‘magna qua voce solebat Vendere municipes fracta de merce siluros.” As to KevTpivt] or /^ez/T/atT?;?, it is usually taken to mean in Greek the Picked Dogfish {uicai'6ia<;), and that may be its meaning in certain passages. But after all, it is only a simple descriptive word, which suits any "prickly” fish; and it is, as near as may be, the precise equivalent of the Eg. p-slq, and the other words which we have associated with it. TvdiXrj (Athen., 312 b), Tv\im<; or Tvrter indflip ron .Xvtornu ti ni^chrieheii odcr iihersetzt worden sind, Leipzig, 188.3, p. 29 ON EGYPTIAN FISH-NAMES USED BY GIIEEK WIHTEUS o rt f )»■) The word however does occur, in the well-known Coptic- Arabic Glossary, Paris i\IS. 44 : :«o. Whether or no it be connected with /uau'G. at least the meanin" tallies. Matwk, which Hesychius ideiitiiics with a-fxapL, is some small and worthless fi^li. or sometimes the small-fry of larger fish; it was the foo8r)); and this again with the puzzling crocodile-name which MM. Bell and Crum read as i3aiped>Q}0. and which is equated with (be., in their Dioscorus Glo.ssary. This word /3aii’e(pii)T has been lately discussed by Spiegelberg (Zeildihr. f. dg. Spr., 102fi. 35), who accejits the word unhesitatingly, sees in it with as little hesitation the word ,iiai, the soul, and comes to the singular conclusion that the latter {)art of the compound word is the name of the God Nejjhotes, Xfr-htp, out of which (by a mis reading of imec^teT for iift^wT). the word ec^wT has been coined. I prefer to believe that e<^(<)r is a well-authenticated word for a reptile, especially the Snapping Turtle, Chelgdra triungui-i, and is the O.Eg. ;XI‘w, «pe.s^, as Brugsch stated it to be. Mevecjjmr is a curious word, with a curious history. The passage in the Chronicon Paschale relates to the prophet Jeremiah, earth from whose grave was Mijrposed to heal the bites of crocodiles; and it occurs also in Epiphanius and Dorotheus. all of whom borrowed the quotation, according to Du Cange, from a certain "auctor i\IS. de xvi prophetis." Epiphanius has it. ou? xaX. oi XlyvirTtoc "'EXXj^ee? Se KpoKoSeiXov-;. a point in Spiegelberg’s favour. But when wc turn to the others we find oi), rcaX. oi AiyvTTTioi, ^'l€ve'j'{ and Xdroy (especially the former two) are Egyptian words has long been known to scholars. I have suggested that dvOla^, jSaipev^, giraTO^, Xe/Stay, TreXrr;?, crdXTrg. aanrepStp, TviXp, (f>dypo<;, cpvcra are all likewise Egyptian words; and I have suggested, but more doubtfully, that cXta/urG, ^iTnrovpoti (or iTTTTovpo^;), Kuirplvos. vdpKrj and aiXovpo^ may also be Egy 2 )tian. There remain a good many other analogou- cases which I have not discussed in this paper. For instance Mc/peuser = ^fpcH-penuM ; dpia — mehi, mhif: f^dK^o^ = abax', /ier>9 (Strabo) = ; pala = rnr, adpyo^ = srg: xavva^dnar, (pvKi^ = p-akas, Copt. qoT>'Ki.ci (be., pickled fish): all these are examples of apjiarent similarity between the Greek and the Egyptian word, which I suspect (though with varying degree, of confidence or assurance) to be true cases of equivalence. Jourii. of Kfiypt. Aicli. aiv. 0 34 AN AGRICULTURAL LEDGER IN R BAD. 95 By M. SCHNEBEL In P. Bad. 95 Bilabel has made accessible a document of the greatest importance for agricultural procedure. The document in question furnishes the annual balance-sheet of a large estate for four consecutive years, 8th-llth indiction, in the seventh century a.d. The papyrus contains the financial statement of a irpovoTjT}]^. Upovorjrr]^ in later times, according to Gelzer, Stud. c. B^z. Verw. Aegyptens, 87, was “not a standing estate-manager but a tax collector engaged by contract; irpovopcrLa is the tax district within a possessio.” The owners of the estates in our document therefore may very well have possessed other landed property falling within the province of one or several other irpovorjaiai. Here of course we can deal only with the estate for which an account is rendered in P. Bad. 95, and this is the estate meant in the sequel when the “total estate ” is mentioned. From the 10th indiction onwards this estate is divided in the balance-sheet into two parts, IlpoTdp.ov Scoped and Ilpdcro8o9 Ma/tapta?. The reason why will be told immediately. The contents are as follows : 11. 1-152: account of the 8th indiction for the total estate 153-253 : account of the 9th indiction for the total estate^. 254-265 : receipts in kind 266-278: receipts in cash ^ 279-297 : disbursements in kind 298-342 : disbursements in cash 343-395: account of the Scoped for the 11th indiction. 396-407 : receipts in kind of the TrpdcroSos' for the 11th indiction. 408—433 : receipts in cash of the irpoaoSos for the 10th indiction. 434-472 : disbursements of the irpoaoSo^; for the 10th indiction. 476-520: disbursements of the wpocroSo? for the 11th indiction. From this division it becomes obvious in the first place that the papyrus cannot have been written till after the 11th indiction, and this is confirmed by the insertion at 1. 463 of a rebate^ for the 8th-llth ind. into the account for the 10th ind., to the amount of 12 nomismata irapd 48 Kepdria. We shall see later'* that it is a question of an annual rebate of 3 nom. Tvapd 12, which here in the 10th ind. includes also the reckoning for the 11th ind. ; this could scarcely have been done if the account for the 11th indiction had not been drawn up at the same time as that for the 10th ind. Moreover, our document is a fair copy, and so not an original. That seems to me proved by the fact that in 1. 241 the total is given as 77 nom. 15 ker. (in reality it tots up to 77 nom. ker.), while at 1 Bilaliel, P. Bad. 4, p. 148: “[npordpou Swpfd?].'’ That will not suit, since 11. 1-253 contain the receipts and disbursements both for the lands included under the bapca in the 10th and 11th indictions and for those which are counted in these years under the crpocoSos. - Bilabel, P. Bad. 4, p. 148, assigns 11. 265-278 to the wpocrnSos, wrongly, in my opinion, since the receipt total of 1. 278 = 80 nom. 114 ker. is reckoned in the account for the dapca, 1. 341. 2 Kovcf)/ in 11. 115, 116, 2:i5, 236, 3i:l, 314, :326, 370. 374 should be resolved with Wilcken, ArcMr, viii, 92, into Koij<^(a)t')=jars, elsewhere into Knv(j>{i .\.d. is preserved for us in 1’. O.xy. i, I. 'id (=WlLCKEX, Chrext. 38;3)k Only in the 8th and Idth ind. are these details given. On the other hand the receipts in kind of the TrpocroSos' are Jiot stated in the loth ind. l)ut are so stated in the 11th ind. This second detailed statement of receipts after the 0th inil. is probably introduced only for the reason that the loth ind. introduces another ajiportion- ment of the net product (11. -721 If.) and in consequence from the 10th ind. onwards the total estate is divided for accountancy purposes into hmpeti and irpocyohof;. For while the net product of the total estate in the 8th and 0th ind. is divided in e<|ual ])ortions between three comitcs, i.e.. one-third to each, this same division into one-third each is made in the 10th and 11th ind. only in the case of the net product of the TrpocroBo^ (11. -721 31). whereas that of the Saiped falls one-half to one of the coiitilex, Germanos. and to the two others one-quarter each-. The cause of the change in the ratio of .ipportiontnent may have been due to a change of ownership arising in the loth ind.; for while in the 8th and 9th ind. the proprietress of the estate (Kvpa) occurs several times, ami disbursements are made to her order® {e.g.. 11. 75, 181) and payments booked for her private account ' Cf. Gelzer, op. cit., 87. “ That can bo proved by calculation from 39 : w are in any c.cse wrong, and can be corrected from 11. 546, 548, where 371 occur.'. The figure contiin.' a .'inall error of u or 1 such .i.' i.s often found in P. Bad. 95.) The same scale of apportionment can be shown for the net product of the Scoped in ca.sh for the 9th .tnd 10th ind. as for the product in kind. From the toUl net product of the whole estate for the 8th and 9rh ind. as well as from the net product in ca.sh of the TTpSernSns for the 10th .ind 1 1th md. (II. .521 tf. 36.") nom. ,5t ker. are available, according to 1. 531. Of this amount the comes Germ.inos receives (11. 532-1) 121 nom. 2-2 ker., the other two 121 nom. 22 ker. (i.e., 4) e.ich. From the total estate the comes Gormano.s receives in ca'h for the whole four year' 154 nom. 41 ker,, the other two each 138 nom. Ij ker. (11. 544-8). There remains therefore still to be assigned : For the comes Germanos 32 nom. 64 ker., for the other two caih 16 nom. 3} ker. That i' exactly the half and quarter c.ich of 64 nom. 13 ker.=the net product of the Scaped in c.ish for the 10th .tnd 11th ind., i.e., 33 nom. 21 ker. -b 30 nom. 16 ker. (11. 342, 396j. 3 Bilabel supplies (c/i note on 1. 62) e^{oSiaa-pov) and take.s the sen.se to tjc “expensc.s, expenditure." But in 1. 107 occurs: e^'pSiaapoi) rrjs a(iV^S') tI/s yecopy'ias: ’.\p cavosi) Kep aTia) S" {avTrjs = Kvpas from 1. 103), i.e., not expenditure for the Mistress but for agricultural purpo.ses. One could, however, tran.'l.ite e’^oStaerpos by “order for disbursement,” as in Airhie, iv, 117, 14 (rf. Preisigke, Wcjeterbiich, s.v. e^oSiaa-p6s(. In that case such disbursements would be made upon written instructions signed by the Mistress, while the frequently occurring term '' dyp'dcpcav)” viould mean disbursement.s without such written authoritv. i,Cf. 1. 166; dyp{d(j)/ four pay partly in one and partly in the otlier^. Amoiiiuiexion lan he estiblished between the.se two amounts. The item virip Srjpoa-iov nia-Xa always tigures in the same terms at 77 J .ind 74,! art. (11. 158, 280, 340). 38 M. SCHNEBEL 111 the nth ind. also the tax yield is the same, for in my opinion 1. 494 is to be completed : vo{fi[afiara) t [7 ■n(apa) a] Ld. As above remarked, the taxes always stand at the beginning of the disbursement items. Line 495 contains the vavXov for the 104| clean artabas, therefore this entry must have been preceded by the money tax for the kttjo-k ((f. 11. 448-9). The separation of these two entries in the 8th and 9th ind. by the disburse- ment vTrep ^ppLOffiov Ileo-Xa (not, however, in the 10th and 11th ind.) is to be explained by the fact that the latter entry belongs to the account for the Sayped and is quoted there in the 10th and 11th ind. as well (11. 299, 361), while the money tax for the Krrjan: and the vavXov are assessed under the irpoa-oBot;. The wording of 1. 494 I cannot restore; it must have been much shorter than that of 11. 445-8 which have the same purport. Assuming the correctness of the supplement in 1. 494, the same tax total and the same tax items result for the 11th ind. as for the 9th and 10th ind., 11. 346. 365, 477-8, 494-5. Since we shall see that in the 11th ind. the receipts of the total property suffered severely from an insufficient inundation, the continuance of the state burdens at the same figure is very remarkable. Of the total tax yield for the 9th-llth ind., amounting to 38 nom. 16| ker., 17 uom. 22| ker., or almost 47 '36 "/^, are defrayed in kind, while we have seen above that pay- ments in kind figure at only 23-55 °/„ of the quota of receipts. The state obviously, even in later times, set a particular value on receiving the payments in kind, being in need of these for the provisioning of Alexandria and Constantinople. For the 8th ind. we must assume a smaller total yield of taxes, seeing that the yeuypyiov tov 'ClviavLo-Kov was not added to the total estate till the 9th ind. Nevertheless, the money taxes are exactly the same as in the 9th-llth ind. Although therefore the yewpyiov tov 'D.viavLs) 8(ta)] roC diraiT/riTov) mr/iKav) [o-i(roii) (dpTajiai) prjy’]. Since the tax items of 1. a and 1. .56 in the 10th and 11th ind. are counted under the Trpoa-oSos and refer consequently to land thereto belonging, and since the.se pieces of laud underwent no change in the AN AGKICULTURAL LEDGER IN P. BAD. 95 39 which they refer — perhaps because the individual items wore laid down for the ■7Tpovo7}T}'/m the estimate. Further annually recurring rebates are: 15 artabas wheat to the irapaplrp^; of Thalmoon^ (at IJ ker.) = 0 nom. 221 ker. 3 nom. 14^ ker. for hire of stables and KeXXia in Thalmoon® 1 nom. Trapd 5 for a dovecot in Thalmoon^ 3 nom. Trapd 12 to tottlov Kdaropos' ’ 4|^ ker. for cf)6po^ (TTrepp.drwv^ 3 ker. to jempjiov ’IcnScdpov' 1^ ker. for stable hire at Hermupolis* In all and with addition of the balance from Panit 5 13 - 3 .. la .. (I ., 19 ” .. — 2 ,. 12 .. --- f) 4 .’, ., = u ., 3‘ .. --= i» „ i -J .. 8 nom. 5 ker. Total 13 nom. 18 ker. The actual receipts every year arc smaller by this sum than the receipts due''. Oth ind. a.-, compared with tlio &th ind., wo may insert Iti the 8th ind. for those itoin.s the .s,'Oiio liguro', as in the 9th ind., and supply further . 1. 57 [KOV(j>(i(TfiOV t rjair v(ovT{av) (''t. 1. 161). 1. 59 [KOVcf>Ua-fioi)] ‘Arp^-o?, etc., iri Voo; (iiprd,3(U i( (cl. 11. 104, ^85, 318). I. 60 KoXaplas [0«Xpooc o-i(rou) (apra^r];] a [cf. 11. lO-’l, llSl, 34i ). For 11. 7)8, 61 and the figures for 1. 62 I have no ■supplement to [UTipo^o. For 1. 61 the Mippleinent 7 r(apd) seein.s improbable as we are dealing with di.sbursenients. It might po.ssibly tre.it of the s.-mie di.s- bursement as 1. 165 for the 9th ind., but that is quite iincert.iin. For an approximate calculation of the figures for 1. 62 see below, p. 43, note 2. ^ See 11. 44, 87, 192, 402, 405, 423, 453, 499. 1. 44 i.s to 1 h= restored : [tt «/»« ■] rwv yffcopy' dir, IlcirtVj. 2 See 11. 259; 59, 164, 282, 348. ■■ See 11. 26-8, 273-5; 88-97, 191, 194-202, 3(Xi-3o9, 366. * See 11. 33, 276 ; 99, 204, 310, 367. See 11. 30, 410, 463. The rebate of 12 nom. Trapd 48 for the 8th-llth ind., entered under the 10th ind., implies an annual rebate of 3 nom. irapd 12, as is clear from 1. .507, where a further special rehate for the 11th ind. is deducted not from the original p.aymont of 18 nom. irapd 72 hut from 15 norii. rropd 60. Lino 30 mentions a payment of 28 nom. napd 72, which is presum.ibly a clerical ernu- [or a rnis-re.tding. — Eih], for the insertion of 18 nom. wapd 72 in 1. 410 produces the sum total of estimated receipts (222 nom. 16 ker.), which remains con.stant for the 9th-llth ind. <> See 11. 41, 420; 100, 205, 451, 497. • See II. 426; 101, 206, 452, 498. s See 11. 102, 207, 454, 500. The quota of the.se dues is no douht coiiLuned in 11. 50 -3 and 429-32. “ No account is taken of the annual rebate of 1} ker. to the heirs of Sarapion, as this is a c.i.se of com- pensation for a service; sec 1. 98, where prohaldy koX( ) is to lie read KiiXiaptovd, and 11. 203. 450, 496. 40 M. SCHNEBEL The rebates not of annual recurrence are in reality not rebates at all but payments for work performed such as a new plantation, a KaXaixia^. A rebate of 3 ker. in all for three years (8th-10th ind.) to an 6pveoTp6(f)o<: is indeterminate (1. 455). In the 11th ind., however, an exception can be established. In this year the land suffered badly from an insufficient inundation and consequent d^po-y^ia, which compelled the landlords to grant heavy rebates to many of the cultivators of their estates. These rebates are several times expressly designated as virep u^p6')(ov {e.g.. 11. 380, 489, 515); even when that is not the case we may assume djSpo^ia as the cause in the case of rebates which only occur in the 11th ind. The rebates on account of dySpoyfa amount to: Lines Debtor Amount owinp Lehate drht 404, 486 Victor of Peis 134 art. wheat 134 100 207, 309 ye^pyiov UXovriuivos 96 art. wheat 48 50 402, 487 ye^pyiov JJavLT 104 art. wheat 52 50 404, 488 '■> )> 56 art. wheat - 28 50 515 6 nom. Trapa 30’’ 3 nom. trapa 15 = 2 nom. 9 ker. 50 263, 360 TOTTLOV Elfco;^ 44 art. wheat 20 45 -4 .5 262, 361 TUTTLOV ‘'Apeovos 108:1 art. wheat, lOnl barley 361, 331 331 399, 483 yeoypyiov Aovoripuxov 871 art. wheats 291 331 401, 485 TrcopapiTTjs Kcvepl^arov 6 art. wheat 2 331 400, 484 K^rjpOVOpOL 2(lp(t7rLl'OS 80 art. wheat '■ 26i; .331 414, 513 » >» 1 nom. 0 nom. 8 ker. .331 415, 514 5' -7 1 nom. Trapa o 0 nom. 64 ker. 331 403, 489 y€0}pyiOv €v 95 art. wheat 31-5 331 42, 421, 509 77 77 13 nom. Trapa 12 = 16 nom. rrapii 84 51 nom. trapa 28 = 4 nom. 4 ker. 331 410, 507 Tomov Kaerropoj 15 nom. Trapa 60* 5 nom. trapa 20=4 nom. 4 ker. 331 32, 412, 508 Iler/io? y^odpybs *lo)dvov kgi 13 nom. trapa 52 41, nom. trapa 171 = 3 nom. 14isker. 331 Ma/i/aj in Telbonthis 31,411,506 ’irraKiOf y€0)pybs \)i'<)pu)V 11 noni. trapa 44 3r nom. trapa 14H = 3 nom. 11 ker. 331 in Telbonthis 426, 512 yedipytov ^IcnScopov 3 nom. trapa 18 1 nom. trapa 6 = 0 noru. 18 ker. 331 22, 269, 381 Island in the East of 1 nom. trapa 6 0 nom. 6 ker. 331 Thalnioon 267, 380 y^dipyun' V7](T(W QaXpdov 7 nom. trapa 35' 2 nom rrapa 32 = 1 nom. 20 J ker. 331, 42.5, 510 yeojpyLov OcpfoJi 13 Mom. trapa 0 4 nom. trapa 2=3 nom. 22 ker. :fO-72 24 nom. 171 ker. "i 407n art. wheat at 11 ker. 25 nom. Ill ker. !- 331 art. barley at li ker. 1 nom. 164 ker.j Total 51 nom. 21} ker. I See, e.g., 11. 101, 430. - .So reail 1. 488 instead of 57 art. " So road 1. 515 imstead of 6 nom. * In the quota the yfotpyiov Xovatfiu^ov at Ivenembaton figures as debtor, while among the disburse- ments it is the yeapyus ’HXi'as at Kenembaton. There can, however, be no doubt that the two entries have reference to one another, seeing that all the other debtors in kind of the TrpdcroSos, under which the entries in question fall, have their rebate st.ited elsewhere, except the vintagers of Kenembaton, who, however, only pay :? art. barley, and so can have no connexion with a rebate of art. wheat. The .sum due is 80 art. wheat, the rebate granted is on 87.1 art. That is curious. If 1. 61 were completely preserved, an explanation might be got from it and 1. 167), but this is of course quite uncertain. The amount estimated is 90 art. wheat. Since the compen.sation is allowed only on 80 art. presumably a portion of the lands in question was not affected by the a^po^^la. >• Original amount due 18 nom. Trap!, 72, 1. 46.3, annual rebate of 3 nom. napa 12, as above established, remaining annual debt Id nom. Trapa 60, on which sum according to 1. oOT the rebate was allowed. The figures .show that 1. 507 has reference to 1. 410, although in 1. 410 the debtor appears as navruoMos- yeaipydf Toniov Kda-ropos and in 1. 507 the rebate is granted to ’A/3pdp y^capyhs TA/Scirdfcaf as receiver of rebate. That the tuivlov Kdoropos was situated at Telbonthis i.s attested also by 11. 46:3, 465. ‘ It is not certain that 1. .380 ha- reference to 1. 267, but this is very probable ; 2 nom. Trapa 3f is in fact exactly J of 7 nom. napu 35. AN AGIlICULTUrtAL LEDGER IN P. P,AD. 1)5 41 It is most remarkable that the same rate of relief obtains for money as for kind in the case of those debtors who receive rebate on both counts, namely the yeatpyla Uavlr and ev and the heirs of Sarapion, the first at a rate of 50''/ . the last two of 331 '/I . From this we may conclude that prices of produce did not rise, in spite of the d(3po-^la. otherwise the percentage of rebate allowed on money would not have been the same as on produce. Among the disbursements those for irrigation claim considerable amounts^, running in the 8th ind. to 10 nom. 11| ker.- For the 9th ind. the total cannot be ascertained^; in the 10th ind. 14 nom. 18 ker.^ and in the 11th ind. 5 nom. ker. ’ are expt'uded on irrigation, comparatively little therefore in the year of the d/3po;^/a. from which we may conclude that it was not possible to repair its conseiiuences by artificial irrigation. Our document shows also the hiring of parts of the sakkii/nh^ as in P. Bas. Cojj. 1 (likewise from the Hermopolite district and of late date) ; among parts of the sakkii/ah mention is made inter alia of Tvfnrava. e'^ycri's (II. 124. 136. 219. 391) is no doubt to be corrected to sK^vai^. which apparently means a bucket; see Beij.-C’rtvu. Aeqiipl’i'i. VI, 207. Our document shows that the provision and upkeep of the irrigation machines in the case of the present estate also were the business of the landlord, as wo know from various Oxyrhynchus papyri of the 5th and 6th cent, was the case for the Apion family (e.g., P. Oxy. i. 137 ; xvi. 1982) and other landowners (P. Oxy. xvi. 1899. lOOO). Very impoitant are the disbursements for new development and improvements. The amounts are; Fer new devolcipiiieut and reed bed.s For buildings For vat.s F(jr reeds Yarioiis 8?/' ind. 8 Horn. i;3J ker." 2 noin.'' U noni. :31 ker.'" — nom. 12 ker.‘^ 9//( ind. 1 nom. 17; ker.'- ;i noni. 11 ker.'" H nom. 4 ker." 9 nom." — nom. a ker."’ II >t/i ind. 2 nom. ’. ker.'” 3 nom. 10.1 ker." 9 nom. I.-)', ker 10 nom.-" 4 nom. 0 ker.-' IIM ind. — nom. Cl- ker.-- s nom. 14 ker.-’’ 24 nom. ;l ker.-* — nom. I'S ker.-’’ Total 22 nom. 41 ker. 2.3 nom. 14;; ker. :ii> nom. 141 ker. 3:3 nom. 17', ker. * In what follows the artaba of whe.it is throughout reckoned at 1.1 ker., harloy ,it 11 ker. The sums cast in irapii form are oonvorteil into .stand. ird .it tlio r.ite of 24 ker., while fraetions of a keration lower than } are disregarded as m the document itself. - 11. 124-5; 127-9; 131, 134; 13C-9. " 11. 219, 222. 224-6, 228 produce 2 nom. 22?, ker. The figures, however, are lacking for 11. 215, 216. The former concerns the erection of a dam. -t 11.3.3; ;336-8 : 457-8; 4C0 ; 4C4-C ; 1. 4GO no doubt rather th.ui " 11. .385-9; .502. " A.'/.. 1. 12.5 where I would sujiply Te^Triiieoe,), not ru/iTr ni’irrree', 11. 1 27 -S. ■ ty. WiLCKEX, Am/, if, viit, 92 and note 1. ^ 11. 57, 60, 98, 118-9. In 1. .57 it is uncert.iin whether wheat or lurley is meant. In the calcvil.ition I have arbitrarily assumed the former. In the case of the adv.uice p.iyments, 11. 118-9, I have assumed e.xpenditure for new development, although .such is e.\]>rossly stated only at I. 119. " 11.123,126,1.3:3. '"11.11.5-6. u 11. 107 (allowance for a yeaipyia, di’tails ,ire l.-ickingi .and i:30: /nn-dos fncceiKiTlTjr) for the oil mill. Is that perhaps the yoieocis-, the crushing machine in/. IIeil, (Jminrhe, 139.) of the oil-mill ! Its liiro amounts here to 6 ker. ; 1. 220 its Tipi] to the s.mic, yet here, too, rnoie likely we have to do with liire ; for in 1. 329 (10th ind.) the npi] trxwiKiTirjs) eaXpdou ^ costs 18 ker. 'Whether we arc dealing here with two machine.s is not clear from the te.xt as it stands. In the 11th ind. the item no longer appe.ars. If 11. 130 and 220 deal with the hire of a crashing machine, it is que.stionable if thc.se items should be reckoned among the improvements For foot-notes 12-2.5 see ne.xt pa'ge. Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 6 42 M. SCHNEBEL In the case of improvements the reference is mostly to new plantations of vineyards in the lands of Thalmoon and Kenemhaton. The reeds required for supporting the vines are purchased in large quantities, and the colon i are also induced by bonuses to cultivate reeds. Vats are prepared; 1. 313 shows that the production of vats for 61 arourae of vineyards cost 8 nom. 15 her. On this creation of vineyards considerable sums are expended. Most of the veo^vTa were doubtless such plantations of vineyards or reed-beds. Whether corn- land was converted to vineyards or ^^epcro? was brought under cultivation for vines cannot be ascertained from our document, neither does it appear whether wine was grown on the estate even before the four years covered by our papyrus. We find, it is true, in the 9th ind. (1. 227) 18 her. reckoned “ ei? fiera^opav oivov &a\/j.ov ’ and 6 ker. in the lUth ind. for “vavXov OIVOV @aXp,ooi/,” but whether that means wine grown in Thalmoon and trans- ported thence or perhaps wine imported for consumption cannot be determined. Wine does not figure in the account in any part of P. Bad. 95 (it is true the beginning and end of the papyrus have not survived). Here we must observe that the rent for vineyards in all the leases of the later period preserved to us is paid in wine or must. In the main, in our document at least, we must be dealing with new plantations of vineyards, since the figures in 11. 227 and 330 are very low in proportion to the large expenditure for reeds. Apart from this, it may here be remarked, no conclusions can be drawn from our papyrus about agricultural practice except that much more wheat was grown than barley. That oil-producing crops were also cultivated is made probable by the presence of the leased oil-mill in Thalmoon. The entry in 1. 328 [d*; “ i 113. 3 Total expen-ses 121.1 = 43*79 of the actual receipts 113. 3 =.50-13 77 of the Net product 156. *;• = 56*21 = ,) 112.1 31 = 49-87 4 J ■ actual receipts Percentage of Percentage of Incidence of e.vpenm Taxe.s Irrigation Improvements Labour Nora. Ker. .38.16] 14.18 .•?5.1 1] 1«. 5 Actual receipts 13-93 5-31 12-82 656 Net product 24-79 9-45 -22-81 11-67 Costs Nom. Ker. 31-81 38.16} 12-14 5. 44 29-27 .33.174 14-98 20.134 Actual receipts 17-13 2-30 14-94 9-11 Net product .34-36 4-61 29-95 18-27 Costs 34-18 4 -.59 29-80 18-18 Note in this schedule that the addition of the yempyioi’ tov 'D.viavlaicov had a favour- able influence on the total product, to which also the fact contributed that it proved possible, despite the addition of this estate, to keep the total expenses permanently lower in the 9th-llth ind. than the figure for the 8th ind. Whereas in the 8th ind. 55-88°/ of the actual receipts is swallowed up by expenses and only 44-12 ' i, remains as net product the proportion for the 9th and lOth ind. is practically inverted, 45-87 °/. and 43-79 °/’ expenses as against 54-13° ', and 56-21% net product." And even in the llth ind., when the a^poxia diminishes the regular receipts by 18-69%. 50-13 °/. of the actual receipts goes for expenses while 49-87 7, forms the net product, thus achieving a more favourable percentage proportion than in the 8th ind. Naturally savings had to be effected in the AN AGKICULTUIIAL LElXGGl IN I’. BAD. 1)5 45 llth ind. to reach that result, and .so iio .sort of di.shursemeiits are made in this year for plantations, which as already observed were [)articularly low in the 11th ind. for irrigation purposes, but disbursements lor imju’ovements are on the whole continued on a lavish scale despite the a/Spoxl-a, and surpass in total the ])arallel figures for tlu' 8th and 9th ind. (that 7Hny be connected with the change of owner). lagging behind the figure for the loth ind. only by the sum of 1 noni. 20i ker. Indeed, for vat.s and reeds the n^po^la- stricken 11th ind. provides, with a total of .32 nom. 17 ker.. the highest figure for the whole four years. Parallel with the disbursements for imjjrovements. labour expenses also mount up, reaching their highest figure in the 11th ind., the year of the djSpoxLa, when they account for 18'18 ' /^ of the total costs. 9-11 . of the actual receipts, 18'27 / of the net product, a very large figure considering that we are not dealing with personal exploita- tion by the owners, and so not with the regular agricultural operations. Finally, the taxes are very high, amounting in the 9th ind. to 25'7t> . in the loth ind. to 21-79 A . of the net product; and since the state allowed no t.i.x alleviation for d/Spoyia (unlike what we know from the Roman period) the taxes reach in the 11th ind. the height of .'If-.'lb of the net product. 8o it appears that even the great landowner-, and the great nobles (thre(_' comites are involved) had to submit in this period of decline to ])ay very great sums to the state. While papyri already published have ro.-vealed to us much that is ugly about the great nobles of the period of decline, we can assert, on the otlier side, that the co)nUes of our document managed their estate with great wisdom and great humanity. 'Ihey spent a great part of their revenues in improvements (even the expenses for irrigation must partly be claimed as such), and in one year, when an accident of nature severely damaged the produce of their estates, they remitted to the .stricken tenants .'10-72-l(in' . usually 331 ^ . of their liabilities, although themselves allowed by the state no tax alleviation whatever in consequence * It may he further noted, oii the text • 1 . 20 shotlld probably he restored [77 npu, totvIov oii'os y]flo>/)y <'« .■ BaXgiloi] vn- nurfxara, 8 1 . 7 r{apa) Xe. Cf. 1 . 267 , 8 probahly a hip<,i< cnl.iiiii foi' the mere icumiu tli.-it in 'um.s of money with Traph. seldom if ever more is subtraoted tii.ui .111 ker.itia one-tlnril of the previous iiomi'inata 1. 23: instead of Tr(apa) f /. iipa) k, '/■ I. 270. 1. 36: ^apa[-n-i ioDvos) vtt ep Kpi6]wi’, I'J. 1. tl-i. 1. 45: [tt rtpn ] yi}]vas [icnl Jla^Xlov cIttu Oivea)]?. a’. 1, 424. 1. 46: [Tr'apaj XlaTrvnvS: lov yeapy of n77a"Oipfu)r i-u' piirpaTu ly tv u] ptiTpara y tv apft if], a/. 1, 426. 1. 48: \_Tr((ipa} ^Appwpiov yfco]/jy ov'. eti., I'o piirpara rj [tv upn a/. 1, 427. 1. 49: [TTiapa) 'Ki’oiKiTvpos^ npiTT]^oTp(t(p to , af. 1, 42s. These tigures and the at love jiroposod alterati.ni in the niindK-r of noinism.it.i in 1. 3o from 2.8 to hS give exactly the total of 1. .'>4. 46 AN IVORY SPHINX FROM ABYDOS (British Museum, No, 54678) By JOHN GARSTANO With Plate vii. During the course of excavations made in 1908 in the necropolis of Abydos there was found a small ivory object designed like the head of a royal sphinx, which between its fore paws clutches a struggling human victim. This object was originally assigned to the collection of the late Rt. Hon. Russell Rea, 3I.P., and after his death was given, by his widow, to the British Museum, together with other objects from his collection. Artistically of considerable excellence it is possibly also of historical consequence. From its provenance it seems clearly to belong to the period of the late Middle Kingdom, and Dr. Hall has proposed to recognize in it a Hyksos king, possibly Khian, worrying, imperturbably and implacably, a struggling Egyptian. Dr. Hall’s news are all the more valuable in that they are independent of the circumstances of discovery, which tend to the same conclusion as regards the date. He bases his opinion on the character of the royal portrait, which he regards definitely as Syrian and Semitic. This is well seen in the profile. He fails to recognize in it any known royal head of the Twelfth or Thirteenth Dynasty, the kings of which on the other hand are known to have been typically Egyptian without trace of Semitic blood. On account of the obvious interest of the sphinx, this brief note is pubbshed to explain the circumstances of its discovery. The object seems to have formed the handle to an ivory box, being pierced with peg-holes and appropriately shaped on its under-side. It was found in a tomb numbered 477. This was one of a uniform series which, though broken and disturbed, was sufficiently preserved to enable the contents of the adjoining tombs to be separated. They all contained the same class of objects, among which the shape and material of beads and scarabs were the most distinctive, suggesting in them- selves a date not far removed from the Twelfth Dynasty, but with sufficient variation to leave the precise date open. In the immediate vicinity, the discovery of “pan” pottery and other remains indicated the Hyksos period more definitely, and this appears in the following relevant extract from a monthly report addressed to the Excavation Committee on January 30th, 1908, from Abydos. The grouping of objcct> ni tUe tonil>f> has proved of some .spooi.il interest. ...tt'e have also added to our fund of material bearing on the misty “Hyksos” period, .ind have lately eoiue .icross a numlier of tombs containing fine .spocimen.s, in a few ca-^es whole and unbroken, of the curious “pan” pottery, which seems to be a survival (or at any rate revival; of the predyuastic art. We found traces of this in former years at Esnah and in Xubia, and I have made a note of it in the Ann. ,SV,-r. (viii, 1.3d ft'.). ...The be.st piece is un- questionably the .small sphinx in ivory, which is the finest exauqile of Egyptian carving that I have ever had the luck to find. ...Some few objects have been found too recently to be incorporated in thi.s report, e.jr., a fine porphyry vase, a .stone figure, a model of a house, etc AN TVORY SPHINX FROM ARY DOS 47 The groups of “pan"’ pottery mentioned have been published with illustrations under the title Two Nubian Graves of the Mulflle Kingdom at Ahifclos in Liverpool Annals. X, 33, with Plates vii and viii. by Mr. W. B. Emerv, who regards the pottery in the graves as of Nubian origin. While there is no doubt of its Nubian aHinities, fragments of this class of ware have been found as far afield as Sakje-Oeuzi in North Svria. in a provenance of the same period; moreover the large alabaster vessel associated with the deposit is comparable with a similar object of the Middle Bronze Age (i.e., the Hvksos period) discovered in 1925 at Jaffa in Pale.stine. and published in Bulletin No. 2 of tht' Palestine Museum (PI. ii, No. 4941 ). There is evidently more to be learnt about the ramifications of these types. The following is a copy of the inventory cards of the tomb in cpiestion. No. 177. and its neighbours, as recorded at the time. TiOlU 4,(!. -M AUK A Os. '(!) Kohl vase with top and lid. laiai'sTone 1 i ni' A; Kohl vase with top and lid. D.irk stoii(> 4'T i-ms. O'' A few heads of gold. .f; Two .suuill heada of eiiier.ild : 10 nnu. j d.) Two >mall lie.id.s of lapi^ hiznli : 1:1 niin. ' /,! ( hie unall head of lapi.^ l.i/iili • l.■)nlnl. - Tliri'.idi’d. [ij) (file sin, dl head of aold l:l nun. i7( 1 Curious pioec of metal, he, ivy : ;{o niin. ) (/) tlmall hall beads of e,irueh,in and glaze. [ji One long oyhnJrieal he,id Ho rani.; and one h.dl head. Tomi! 477. .Makk a oS. hiaoitovy. uj Searah of lapis l.iziili. iii'inhed, in line void setting- ±o eni'. A; One amethyst bead. !■; Two scarab-form heads of st-me. [(!• Cue small scarab of red 'tone : S mm. i<‘; I’la.'ter eye with gold foil. I fj Curious il. list -hki- be, ul (/I Ivory sphinx clutching \ntim: .'I'.i mm. long, d4 nini. high. Tomb 47'^. M ark A i»8. Iiireatori/. (a) Tubular glazed bead', hl.iek and blue, from collar, (i) A hall bead. (c) Piece of .shell. ■ d) One small bead with rib', 1 due gl.i/.e. pt) Three fragments of a large vase. 48 WHO SUCCEEDED KAMESSES IX-NEEERKERE^ ? By GIUSEPPE BOTTI A prolonged study of the Turin fragments of the Twentieth Dynasty Diary of the Theban Xecropohs, more particularly the portions belonging to the 13th and 17th years of Eamesses IX-Neferkerer and the 3rd year of Ramesses X-Khepermarec^, has led me to some conclusions which may not be without interest for the history of this difficult period. They bear chiefly on the length of the reign of Neferkerei", the identity of his successor and the position of the period known as the wlim mswt or Renaissance. It has frequently been stated that the reign of Xeferkerec was immediately succeeded by the mysterious epoch known as the whm msict, Years 1, 2 and 6 of which have long been known to us, while Years 4 and 5 also occur in an unpublished papyrus (Cat. 1903) in the Turin Museum. Many wTiters^ have assigned all the documents dated in this era to the reign of Khepermarer, the generally accepted successor of Neferkerec. The facts on which this attribution is based are as follows: 1. On the verso of Papyrus Abbott are three lists of thieves bearing the date “Year 1 corresponding to Year 19.” This Year 1 is certainly that of the Renaissance, since the thieves in the lists are actually tried in Years 1 and 2 of that epoch (Pap. Mayer A, Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052 and 10403). The Year 19 to which it corresponds has been ascribed to the reign of Neferkerec solely because it stands on the verso of a papyrus whose recto is dated in his reign. 2. Maspeeo (Les momies royaks, 658) quotes an unpublished papyrus of the Turin Museum containing the accounts of three fishermen, in which, in a running series of dates, the regnal year changes from 1 to 19 between the 27th day of the fourth month of inundation (ro. 1.7) and the last day of the first month of winter (ro. 1.11®). Rely ing on the combination of these two years 19 and 1 in very similar circumstances on the verso of Pap. Abbott, Maspero assigns Years 19 and 1 of the fishermen’s account- papyrus to the reigns of Xeferkerec and Khepermarer respectively. * See 1 pdpiri hratici tl-l Mux/;, d! Turiiio, i ( = 11otti-Peet, If Oiornafi' della Necropuli di Tehe fa.sc. l-:3). The last of the three papyri mentioned is that known as P,ip. t'haba.s-Lieblein Xo. 1. - E.g., tlAUTHiER, Lirre dex rots, in. 1, 216-7 : Petrie. History, in, 185. ■" Fresh fragments have Lately been .iddod by me to this papyrus (Cat. 2075} and I have collated the whole with the utmost care. It mu.st be noted that between the two dates referred to by Maspero .stand, s another (.passed over by him) in front of recto 1.!), n.imely day Kl of the first month of winter. It might be thought that this date is to be .ittributed to Year 1, not to Year 19, the scribe having in.serted it later without noticing that, being the tii-st date in a fre.sh year, it oiight to be accompanied by the year number. That this is not the case is clear from the new fragments, which enable the change of year to be more closely determined than it was by M.ispero. In fact it is clear from v.s. 1.8-9 that the change occurred between day 17 of the first month of winter (Year 19, and day 27 of the same month (Year 1). In line 7 of the same page there actu.-illy appi'ars to .stand the date day 24 of this same month, but close examina- tion reveals the fact that the first 3 of the figure 20 has been crossed out in faint black ink, and the date is conse(|uentb to be read 14, and does not .ifiect the (juestion here under discussion. WHO SUrC'EEDED RiUIESSES 1X-NEFEUKEIH7? 4onable to a.ssign the recto of the papyrus to that king. The verso, written in a cursive script, leaves us in no doubt as to its date, for the two cartouche-names of a king each occur twice, and though in each case one of them is damaged the two occurrences together enable us to restore the full names "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Khe])ermarei'-8etpenrer’' and "Son of Rec Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef.” The papyrus thus proHdes us with a new piece of evidence to be added to that of the Necropolis Diary for Year 17 and to Pap. Chabas-Lieblein No. 1 for placing Neferkerec and Khepermarec very close together in time, for it is highly probable, judging by what we know of the method of using papyrus in the necropolis, that our roll was re-employed immediately after the reign of Neferkerec and not after a con- siderable interval. The other new papyrus bears on its recto two pages. That which stands on the right (Cat. 1939) contains six lines whose beginnings are lo.st, written in large characters. It is dated “A^ear 2, third month of inundation, day 19, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt [Khepermarecj-Setpenrec. Son of Rec Ramesses-Amenher- ' IIotti-Pket, rit ., fa-c. Jouni. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 7 50 GIUSEPPE BOTTI khepeshef. The restoration [Khepermaref] is clearly certain, for no other Ramesside combines the addition Setpenrec in his first name with Amenherkhepeshef in his second. The page on the left (Cat. 1932) contains accounts whose nature does not here concern us. It gives us two dates “Year 19, third month of inundation, day 7” (1. 1) and “Year 19, fourth month of inundation, day 9” (1. 7). A third date in 1. 9 is lost except for the year, which is again 19. The verso bears two pages, of which that on the right is dated in the reign of Khepermarec (the first cartouche is lost but the second, Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef, is complete). The year- and month-dates have unfortunately perished. The position is therefore as follows. We have a papyrus of which the right-hand page of the recto and the whole of the verso are dated to Khepermarec, while the left-hand page of the recto is dated in Year 19 of a king unnamed. The explanation is not difficult to find, for the large script of the right-hand page of the recto marks it out as a true and proper title- docket, written in the characters usual for such a purpose, and inserted, owing to the customary mania or necessity for saving papyrus, on a papyrus which had already been used. This title served to fit the roll to be used for the registration of events in a new reign, as is clear from the contents of the verso. It was inserted either by gumming over the old papjTus a fre.sh .strip (an irregularity in the fibres in the two bottom lines on the left suggests this possibility) or by using a space left unwritten by the accountant of Year 19, without taking the trouble to erase the accounts which stood on the left. To attribute this Year 19 to an epoch later than the page on its right is quite impossible, for we could only ascribe such a year to Menmarei" (Ramesses XI); it would be very strange if among the papyri of that reign, all written in a highly cursive script (the pub- lication of the Turin Papyri now in progress will demonstrate this fact), this one single example should exist which shows a script characteristic of the reign of Neferkeref, a script extremely similar indeed to that of Extract C of the Necropolis Diary of Year 17^. We are thus forced to admit the priority of the left-hand page of the recto over both the right-hand page and the verso to which this latter forms the title-docket, and our papyrus consequently falls into the same category as Pap. Abbott and Pap. Turin 2075, giving the following combinations: Year 19 corresponding to Year 1 (Abbott). Year 19 and Year 1 (Pap. Turin 2075). Year 19 and Year 2 (Pap. Turin 1932+1939). Now since in the relation of dependence between the years above indicated the point of departure remains constant it is clear that the combination 19-1 cannot be accidental: and since we have in Pap. Turin 1932+1939 (though not in Pap. Abbott and Pap. Turin 2075) the name of the king who stands in direct relation with the point of departure it may safely be argued that this king can only be the successor of the king of Year 19. But this king is Khepermarec who, to judge by the evidence above quoted of Pap. Chabas Lieblein No. 1 and the Necropolis Diary of Year 17 of Neferkerec, is the successor of Neferkerec. Consequently the king of Year 19 is Neferkerec. Maspero’s supposition with regard to Pap. Turin 2075 thus acquires a definite value. What is more, now that the attribution of Pap. Chabas-Lieblein No. 1 to Khepermarec is assured. Pap. 2075 provides fresh elements which confirm the succe.ssion Neferkerec- Khepermarec. The two pages of its recto deal with the accounts of three fishermen, Bekentha, ' Botti-Feet, Of), cit., fa.so. 51 WHO SUCCEEDED KAMESSES IX-NEFERKER£^? Kasankh and Amenemopenaklit. The first two are known from the Diary of Year 17, and both, together with Amenemopenakht, occur in Pap. (’lmi)as-Liebleiii. Two of the three thus continued to furnish tish to the necro])olis throughout the period covmred by these three papyri, and the absence of the third from the Diary of Year 17 may be due to nothing more than the fragmentary condition of that document. In lines 10—15 of the second page of the recto of the papyrus a new handwriting appears, identical with that of Pap. Chabas-Liebl(uii Xo. 1 . 'rhi.s again is a fact not to be ignored in determining the chronological relation of the two papyri. On the verso are the accounts of three other fishermen for the same Years 19 and 1, Setekhmose. Ashatikht and Kadet. The first and the la-^t occur both in the Diarv of Year 17 and in Pap, Chabas-Lieblein; Ashatikht, like Amenemopenakht of the recto, is absent from the Diary of Year 17, Should fortune enable u.s to lay hands on some frag- ment of Year '2 of Khepermarer containing allusions to these fishermen the relation to one another of the papyri under discu.ssion and likewise the order of the royal succession would be established beyond possibility of doubt, though from what has already been said it is clear that such further proof is almost ^uperfluou.s. The king of Year 19 then Ls X'eferkerei'-Kame,sses IX and the king of Year 1 is Khepermaref-Ramesse.s X, and we thus obtain from the papyri we have examined the following succession of dates: Diary of Year 17, XAferkeref. Pap. Abbott, verso: Year 19 of Xeferkerei', Year 1 of Khepermarei", Pap. Turin 2075, recto and verso: Year 19 of Neferkere*", Years 1 and 2 of Khepermare''. Pap. Turin 1932 and 1939: Year 19 of Xeferkerei'. Year 2 of Khepermarei*. Pap. Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1 : Year 3 of Khepermarei’. In this series no regnal year of Khepermarei" is missing There remains the problem of the mysterious Renaissance, which manifestly receive.s no fresh light from the two new document.-- which we have been discussing, and with regard to which we are consequently not prepared to give any opinion. For regarding it as immediately po.sterior to the reign of Xeferkcrer and consequently as identical with the reign of Khepermare^ we have nothing but the combined evidence already indicated of Pap. Abbott, verso and Pap. Mayer A, Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052 and 10403. from which it is clear that thieves denounced in ‘"Year 1 corresponding to Year 19” were brought to trial in Years 1 and 2 of the Renaissance. As for Year 2 the evidence of the new Turin PapjTus 1932-fl939 with its mention of Khepermarei' may quite easily be reconciled with that of the group of papyri just quoted by supposing that Khepermarec allowed two methods of dating in his reign. From Pap. Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1, dated in Year 3 of Khepermarei’, we learn nothing in this connexion, nor do the new Turin Papvrus 1903 and Papyrus Ambras of Vienna, both dated in the Renaissance, throw any further light on the matter. It would therefore seem unwise to exclude the possibility that the Renaissance may be subsequent to Khepermarer. It is possible that a solution may be reached when the immense material formed by the proper names of the Turin papyri has been put together and worked out. Even then the results arrived at may well be of the nature of probabilities rather than certainties. 52 THE CHROXOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TATEXTIETH DYNASTY By T. eric feet The Twentieth Dynasty presents serious chronological problems which would have attracted far more attention than they have had this period belonged to a more brilliant e])och of Egyptian history instead of to the decadence. We know very roughly the number of years to be allotted to it, and we possess the names and monuments of a number of its kings. It is when these kings are to be placed in their chronological order and the lengths of their reigns fixed that difficulties begin. Some admirable work has been done on the subject, more particularly by Lepsius^, Maspero^ and Sethe®, but little has been added to their efforts during the last twenty years. This is mainly duo tt) the fact that tho'e who have dealt with the question will not observe that fundamental tlistinction between possibility or probability on the one hand and certainty on the other which must be the basis of any archaeological discussion. Once a single argument has been admitted which does not amount to a certainty, the whole chain of reasoning i.- vitiated. Thus we may read in more good books than one that Rames.ses IX (Xeferkere'') reigned at lea.st 19 years, and that Herihor was the son of Isis, a daughter of Ramesses VI; yet both are pure conjectures. They may both be right, but neither can be proved. The present article makes no pretence of solving once and for all the difficulties connected with this problem. It is merely an attempt to sum up the position as it staucR. and its only claims to carry any weight are that it does clearly distinguish fact froiii theory and that it makes use of a certain number of unpublished documents in the British Mii.^eum and at Turin-*. It is unfortunate that Manetho’s epitomizers have treated us very shabbily with regard to this dynasty, for they only give us the number of kings of whom it consisted, namely twelve, and the number of years which it lasted, 13.5 according to Africanus and 17d according to Eu.'-ebiu.'. It is difficult to attribute any serious value to these figures, especially in view of their divergence. At the same time an examination of the reign- leiigths actually known to us from contemporary monuments, together with the in- dications that some members of the dynasty were very ephemeral rulers, leads one to ■ Li.i'sir.'. I’ls. .x.wviitf. - ll.\sPi,U(i. /,'S’ riiijiilr.t dr iJrir r! -B'l/ui rl, in Mrinoli'r^ dr hi arrlirjjloijhjur ti'UiijuUe an tuinp pi-finier. P.iri.s, isso. ’ Sethe, K,. Uiit(:i-.))ear to hi?n reasonable adjustments in cases of doubt, finds room to allot about flu years to the Twentieth Dvnastv, namely 1200-1090 B.c. The divergence from the lower idanetlionian figure is considerable and that from the higher so great as to throw serious doid)! on the Kus(diian tradition. Let us then leave conjecture ami later tradition both aside and ask what can be gathered from contemporary sources. The first king of the dvnastv. Setnakht. hardly concerns our problem, and as some authorities as.sign him to the end of the previous dynasty we shall follow their e.xamjile. This leaves us with a numlier ol kings all of whom bore the name Eames.ses. In the older liistories tlnw usuallv number ten. but Ma.spero^ has given good reason for believing that the old Eamesses IX. who bore the names Sekhaenret-iliamun and Raniesses-Sijitah. is identical with Akhenrei'- Setpenrec Siptah-ileiieidah of the Xiiteteeiith Dynasty. This erasure leaves us with nine Eames.ses, numbered from III to XI. We shall now take these in order, trying in each case to establish the length of the reign and the position in the dynasty. Foi’ the sake of convenience we shall adopt here and throughont the article the numbering given to these Ramessides by Gauthier in his Lien' dee roie, ni. fasc. 1. 151 if. Harnesses III Psimarei'-Miamfin The length of the reign is certain from the Great IJarris Papyrus. 1. 1. wlieiici' it is clear that the king lived into his 32nd year-. Harnesses IV Hekmarei'-.Setpenamun That this kiirg was the succe.ssor of Rames.st*s III is clear from the concluding sentences of the Harris Papyrus. The length of his reign is aLo certain from a Turin papjTus, Pleyte-Rossi; li-l.v (collated)®. It i' six vears'. Harnesses V rsimarer-SekheperenieC With this king we leave the region of certainty and embark ujum that of con- jecture. In the fir.st place it is not cei-tain that .Sekbepercnrei' was the immediate successor of Hekmarec Eamesses lY. Our sole guide is the so-called List of Princes at Medinat Habu. Some historians. Petrie for e.xain])le. take this list to consist solely of ten sons of Ramesses III. According to these writers tin- list must havi' been made in the reign of Usimarei'-Akhenamun, Ramesses-Setherkhepeshef. our Raines, ses VIII. who 1 Ani>. Scr.. -X, 131-S. For discussions on the exact d.ite see ti.M i hii.e. /,■ /n ■/ . iir, f,.s, . | , i (;:j. authorities there quoted. The a'sieiinieiit to thi' n-i'cn ot tli.- \ i .11 ->1 of [, 10 , M.illet, 1. .i rea.sonahle. That the Turin “.strike' l’.ip\rus. Cat |sso= fU ym-liosM. xx\v-\Km coll.ited;. belongs to this reign is probable troin it.s ndcreni e to tlio M/ior la V.CSPERO, h'S mo,ad.< U(j;? ; SlTI.on.lU.llo, ZrAo-hr. f o,/. .Xy,,-.. XXIX. 7;',; .Aoo eo/. •> To the list of dated inoiiuuieuts given by ( hiuthe-r .eld iww C \imiXKlt-l’i,i:r, I -I fit, iw PL Ixxiv, Xo. 275 tYcar o j. note 2, and sei Ills \er\ of Vr.ir 2'.l X, 1 l!l-.120. ' S ot .S'//o/p 54 T. ERIC FEET is the fourth name and figure in the list and the last to have his name in the cartouche. This will become clearer if we examine the whole list. There are in elfect two lists, forming duplicates, except in a few details, the one of the other. They are on the west or back wall of the second court of Ramesses III s temple at Iledinat Habu. List A runs northward from the central doorway and at the end of the wall turns the corner on to the north wall of the court. It contains eighteen male figures, each of the first ten of which is accompanied by a vertical column of inscription giving the titles and names of a prince (L., D., in, 214 o and h). List B runs southward from the doorway, comprising on the west wall thirteen princes, and turns on to the south wall of the court, where there are thirteen princesses, all unnamed. Of the princes ten are named, just as in List A (L., D., in, 214 c). The names are as follows: 1. Ramesses (in cartouche). No further name. 2. Ramesses (not in cartouche) NebmareC-Miamun (in cartouche). .3. Ramesses-Amenherkhepeshef-Neterhekon^ (in cartouche). 1. List A: Ramesses Setherkhepeshef (not in cartouche), King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Usimarec-Akhenamun (in cartouche). List B: Setherkhepeshef (not in cartouche), Son of Rei", Lord of Risings, Ramesses-lIiamuu-Setherkhepeshef. 5. Praherwenemef. 6. Mentuherkhepeshef. 7. List A: Ramesses Meritum. List B: Meritum. S. Ramesses Khaemwese. 9. Ramesses Amenherkhepeshef. 10. Ramesses Miamun. If we adopt Petrie's attitude towards this list it is not difficult to find in it the names of seven kings of the Twentieth Dyua.sty known from other sources, and they would occur in an order which does not clash seriously with any other evidence. Thus, leaving out the two princes 5 and 6, who possibly died young, and Meritum (No. 7) of whom as a king we have no reliable trace, we should get the following identifications: 1. = King Ramesses IV, Hekmaref. 2. = King Ramesses VI, Nebmarec. 3. == King Ramesses VII, Usimarec-Miamun-Setpenrec, i.e., Ramesses-Itamun- Neterhekon. 4. = King Ramesses VIII. Usimarec-Akhenamun. 8. = King Ramesses IX, Neferkerec-Setpenrec, Raniesses-Khaemwese. 9. = King Ramesses X, Khepermarec-Setpenrer, Ramesses- Amenherkhepeshef. 10. King Ramesses XI, Menmarec-Setpenptah, Ramesses-Khaemwese-Miamun- Neterhekon. * Lepsiu,^ in one case ( Z>., in, 214 «) .show.s a if.imaged t before the word.s Ntr hk! Iwa^ though in the other case (214 r; no .such .sign is indicated. A t would suggest an abbreviated writing of the word It “father and would combine with the Atuuu to foriii It-inin, a name of Ramesses VII, UsimareC- SetpenreC- Miamun. Sethe therefore {IJ liters., i, 60 - 01 ) prefers the reading without t, the more so as the figure of Amun ha.s in iKjth c.ises the /-//epcs/; -sword on its knee, indicating the reading Imu-hr-hps-f raXhev than It-imn. Dr. (>ardiner tells me that there certainly never was a t in the cartouche in List B and that what Lepsius shows as a damaged t in List A is in all probability a mere hole. CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 55 These identifications are in the main not unreasonable a priori, and we need for the moment only remark on the facts that the first is a pure eue.ss. for in tin; last of Princes no name save Ramesses is here given, that Harnesses \', I'simarei'-Sekheperenrei'. is missing, and that the identification of No. 3 with Harnesses \'II involves the acceptance of the incorrect reading Itamun for Amenherkhepeshef (sec p. 51. note 1). It is precisely on these weaknesses that Sethe seizes in his masterly criticism of this reading of the list. He first notes that if the princes an* all sons of Ramesses III it is strange that Praherwenemef. whom we know from other sources to have been the (‘hlest son. should appear fifth in the list. Moreover two^ of them (Nos. .3 and !t) bear the same name Amenherkhepeshef, which Sethe thinks imjrrobable in two brothers. He also finds it hard to believe that no fewer than four- sons of a single king should have followed him on the throne, namelv Ramesses IV. VI. ^'1I and ^TII. the more so as room has to be made among them for Ramesses V. 8ethe argues moreover that the belief that all are sons of Ramesses III is ba.sed on the supposition® that the name.s of the princes are as old as the sculptures of the temple, which date from Harnesses III. This cannot be the case, however, for according to Lepsius the king-names attached to the first three figures are of the same age as the prince-names of these and of the rest, and the only name which is different in style and obviously a later addition i" the king-nanu' added to the prince-name Ramesses Setherkhepeshef in No. 1. If this is true, all the names, with the exception of the later addition ju.st mentioned, nui't date from the rei.gn of No. :D. Now No. 3 has generally been identified with Rame-ses VII. But Sethe jioints out that if the very doubtful reading Itamun be rejected for the more probable Amenherkhepeshef (see p. 54, note 1) then we have here sim]>ly the second cartouche-name of Hanu'sses VI, whose first cartouche-name stands under No. 2. These two cartouclu's together. Nos. 2 and 3, give us the full name of Ramesses VI. Now if the names were set up by Ramesses VI and not by Ramesses III. the names which follow his are far more likely to be his sons than his brothers, and this is the view which Sethe takes. He gives no opinion as to whether any of these sons except No. I ever came to the throne. Ramesses VII, now ousted from ])Osition No. -'I bv the second naim* of Ramesses VI. he places later in the dynasty, and our Ramesses \TII. Fsimaref-Akhenamun, he moves u]) to become Ramesses VII. Who, then, according to this theory, is No. 1 ! He is the father of Ramesses VI, who was never king, but who, according to his son's belief, ought to have been. Consequently he inserted him in the list with a cartouche, but could bnd no more specific name for him than Rames.ses. In su|>port of the fact that Ramesses Vi’s father never reigned, Sethe brings forward the fact that a certain Cueen Isis, who received a tomb by the favour of Ramesses VI, bears the title ’ royal mother" but not that of ■’royal wife.” This woman Sethe takes to have been the mother of Ramesses VI. The absence of Harnesses IV and V from the list can now be explained. We know that Ramesses V was the immediate predecessor of Rames.ses VI, sinci' the latter usurped his tomb®. We also know that Rames.ses \T sub.stituted his own name for that * Sethe s.iy.s three fXns. 2, 3 and !); : I do not luidei'-tand win. - Still more seven, as supposed hy Petrie. "• This i.s not I'litirely true. Pethik. H'Shin/, m. 13!», -.peak.s ot thi* -liu whidi .ill .igri'e must liave been done under Ranies-Os VIII” -'No. 4'i. ■> It is significant that Le]isius adds th.it all the nanie- .ire more lightly < ut than anv of the undoubted liieroglyph.s of Rames.ses III on the .same w.all. ■' R, D., ni, 223 ff. 5G T. ERIC PEET of Ramesses lY on more than one monument^. This establishes the order of these three kings. According to Sethe, Ramesses IV was a son and successor of Ramesses III. He in his turn was succeeded by Ramesses Y, probably his own son. This branch of the family then died out, or at any rate lost the succession, and its place was taken by a collateral branch repre.sented not by a brother of Ramesses IV but by a nephew Ramesses YI, the brother (husband of Isis) being already dead. When Ramesses YI came to fill in the names in the List of Princes he carefully excluded the collateral branch consisting of Ramesses lY and Y, filled places 2 and 3 with his own cartouches, and 4 to 10 with the names of his sons. Xo. 4 afterwards having king-names added. Place 1 he naturally filled with the name of his father, on whom, though he had never reigned, Ramesses YI's own claim to the throne rested. Sethe’s judgment of the lists was entirely founded upon Lepsius’ description and figures of them. In order to test this I asked Dr. Alan Gardiner, on his return to Egypt this winter, whether he would be kind enough to re-examine the walls and give his opinion on a number of points. He has sent me the preliminary results of his examina- tion, which are as follows; 1. The figures are almost certainly of the same date as the main mass of scenes and inscrijfiions on the walls, i.e., they date from the reign of Ramesses III. The princes are represented as worshipping cartouches of Ramesses III, alternately nomen and prenomen. 2. The names and titles of the princes are shown by the method of their insertion in certain cases to have been added later. This was a priori probable from the fact that they intrude between each adoring prince and the cartouche which he is to adore. 3. The cartouches accompanying the titles and names of figures 1, 2 and 3 in each list show no sign of being of different date from the names and titles. 1. The two cartouches accompanying the fourth figure, one in each list, are clearlv later than the others. In List B the cartouche is crowded in between the figure and the column of inscription, which might easily have been made naiTower. 5. The uraei on the foreheads of the first four figures are not visibly marked out by the manner of their cutting as of later date than the figures, though on the evidence of 2 and 3 above they must certainly be so. It will at once be realized that Dr. Gardiner’s examination of the original bears out the accuracy both of Lepsius’ statements and of the theory which Sethe has based on them. Chronologically three stages may be distinguished in the history of the scenes : (1) The cutting of the figures of princes and princesses adoring cartouches of Ramesses III. This mav reasonablv be attributed to the reign of that kini^ * * *^0 (2) The addition of the titles and names, including the cartouche-names of Xos. 1 2 and 3 but not the cartouche-names of Xo. 4. Within this group no sub-division can be discerned, and it may therefore be attributed with comparative certainty to Ramesses VI whose cartouches .stand beside figures Xos. 2 and 3. Xo earlier king could have known the cartouche-names of one of his successors, and any later king would certainlv have added his own cartouche-names. (3) The further addition of the two cartouche-names of Ramesses VIII to the name and titles of figure Xo. 4. That these are later is clear not only from Dr. Gardiner’s observation, but from the fact that they are written in a separate column and not incorporated in the one column as are the cartouche-names of Ramesses VI. Xote too M. . [>.. III. i!i;i in, 130 ; 0/,. , it., ni, ili'J - ' = T^xt, in, 47-4S'i. CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 57 that, unlike these, they are accompanied by the titles “Kinf' of Uppci' and Lower Egypt” and “Son of Ref, Lord of Risings” respectively^. If all the names except those dealt with under (3) above are due to Raniesses YI, those which follow his own are, as Sethe points out, much more likelv to be his sons than his brothers. The omission of Ramesses YII Itainun still remains a j)uzzle. Sethe’s proposal to place him later in the dynasty is not altogether acceptable in view of some evidence to be considered later which makes it likelv tliat he succeeded Ramesses ^T Nebmarec. Two obvious possibilities, however, are cither that be belonged to the col- lateral line and was regarded by Ramesses VIII as a usurper and therefore omitted, or that this latter king, when he inserted his own name, simply did not take tlie trouble to have that of his brother and predecessor inserted as well. Thus there can be little doubt that this ingenious theory of Sethe s must in the main be accepted. It explains, as the more ordinary view cannot, the absence of a distinctive name under No. 1, whose identification with Ramesses I\ was a mere guess. It relieves us from accepting the improbability that no fewer than eight sons of Ramesses III all came to the throne. It explains the absence of the name of Ramesses \ from the list. The most important argument of all in its favour, however, is that drawn from the tomb of Queen Isis. The tomb was given to her "by favour of’ R.imesses \ 1. Of what king was she the mother if not of Ramesses YI himself? Not. on the ordinary theory, of Ramesses lY or V, who are sons of Ramesses III, and therefore had a “royal wife for mother. Nor yet of Ramesses III himself, who was a son of Setnakht-, and whose mother was therefore presumably a royal wife. There seems nothing left but to supjiose that she was the mother of Ramesses YI, and the moment we admit this, in fact the moment we admit the existence at this time of a royal mother who was not also a royal wife, the view that aU the princes of the list are sons of Ramesses III goes to jiieces. I’etrie, in order to escape this disaster, suggests that "she may have been called royal wife in some other part of the tomb.” This is highly improbable, for the double title royal wife and royal mother” formed such an integral whole that it i.s not likely to have been split up. least of all in the formal inscriptions of a tomb, nor is it likely that any ([ueeii 'hould deprive herself of so important a part of her titles. Petrie further finds a chronological difficulty in belie\ing that Ramcs.'-e.s \I va.^ a grandson, not a son, of Ramesses III. He states that the date of the birth of Ramesses ^ I is fixed by his “horoscope” to 1198 n.c., and that Rame.sses III was bom in 122-1 k.c. Quite apart from the question of what reliance may be placed on the horoscope dates, anyone who will look at the arguments on p. 3 of HiMon). in b\ vhich the date 1221 is arrived at from the “horoscope date ’ 1318 for the birth of Rame.sses II will see that we are there dealing with a tissue of mere guesswork, and that such a date a.s the 1221 in question is quite devoid of value. Be it noted, too, that a correction of only ten years backwards would remove the difficulty. We must now turn to a discovery which might reasonably have been expected to throw fresh light on this problem even if it did not solve it once for all. In 1903-5 Schiaparelli conducted an excavation in the Valley of the Tombs^ of the Queen.s at Thebes®. Close to the already well-known tomb of Praherwenemef (No. 11) he discovered ■ Doubtless omitted by Ramesses t I in hi.s own c.isc pioeiseh bi limits of a single eolnmn. 2 L. D., 206 d, 212 a, 21.3 o ; Pap. Harris, 7.3. 6 lb 2 ScHl,\P.\RELLl, Rela:ioi>e mi hicun tlell" R'd. primo, Esplorazione della “ Vulle delle Ree/ine, 11-Jtt. Journ. of Egy’pt. Arch. xiv. •uiso they would ha\r overpassed the in E'lif.t'i .'inni 1003-1020), volume 8 58 T. ERIC PEET the tombs of three more^ of the sons of Eamesses III, namely Setherkhepeshef, Amen- herkhepeshef and Khaemwese. That these four princes are actually sons of Eamesses III is placed beyond doubt by the extravagantly prominent part which that king plays in the scenes of their tombs, taken in conjunction with the titles borne by the princes. Setherkhepeshef is si niswt smsm mr-f, “eldest son of the king, beloved by him,” and si smsm n ht-f, “eldest son of his loins”: he bears the further title Mn n pi ih, “groom of the stable." We do not know the exact relation which the title si nimvt smsm bears to that of Si nisivt tpi n hni-f borne by Praherwenernef. It is possible that the latter was originally the eldest son and that after his early death Setherkhepeshef succeeded to the position. In the tomb of Setherkhepeshef, Schiaparelli found no sarcophagus and no proof that the prince had ever been buried there. He therefore suggests that he may have reigned as king and consequently been buried in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings. The tomb of Khaemwese is similar in style to the last. The lid of a sarcophagus was found in it. The prince bears the titles “sm-priest of Ptah,” as on the Medinat Habu list, and si niswt n ht-f mr-f , “king’s son of his loins, his beloved,” si smsm, “eldest son.” The tomb of Amenherkhepeshef is stated in an inscription to have been “given by favour of King Eamesses III to the great royal children,” which suggests that more than one of them was intended to be buried there. Perhaps Eamesses was by this time becoming tired of the expense of providing a separate burial-place for each of his numerous progeny. The prince bears the titles rpcti hri tp tiwl, “crown-prince at the head of the Two Lands,’’ si niswt n ht-f mri-f, “king’s son of his loins, his beloved” and “born of the god’s wife, royal mother and great royal wife.” The queen’s name is unfortunately not given, but she must clearly have been a recognized wife of Eamesses III, probably Isis. The prince bears the further titles “great chief, overseer of horses of his majesty in the department of chariotry of Eamesses III." The tomb contained a granite sarcophagus, but Schiaparelli is not prepared to say whether the prince had ever been buried there. How do these discoveries bear on the question of the Medinat Habu list ? At first sight they would appear to accord better with Petrie’s theory that all the princes in the list are sons of Eamesses III. Here, it might be said, is clear proof that Eamesses III actually had sons whose names were Amenherkhepeshef, Setherkhepeshef and Khaemwese, three of the names in the list. What is more, even the titles seem to correspond, for Amenherkhepeshef is called “overseer of horses” in both cases, Setherkhepe.shef, described as “overseer of horses” at Medinat Habu, is “groom of the stable” in the tomb and finally Khaemwese is called “sewi-priest of Ptah” in both places. The new evidence thus appears to carry a balance of favour on the side of Petrie’s hypothesis. But this quickly disappears on further examination. In the first place it is by no means impossible in the nature of things that both Eamesses III and Eamesses VI ' LEFfniURK, Zdt^'-hr. / en/-priest of Ptah” because Khaemwese son of Ramesse.^ II had borne the same title. When once this principle is perceived, the similarity of name-, and titles between the occupants of Schiaparelli’s tombs and the princes of the Medinat Ilabu list loses all value, for, if Ramesses YI had sons, it is natural that he should have conformed to the family tradition both in the matter of names and of titles. We may perhaps go further than this. Would there not be a .-erious danger from Petrie’s point of view in claiming the owners of the new tombs as sous of Rame.-ses III If they were buried here^ as youths (for as such the wall-scenes represent them), how can two of them have ruled, in middle life, a.s Ramesse.s IX and X respectively, as Petrie would have us believe? To this it might be replied that they were never buried in these tombs, and that in fact Schiaparelli found no certain proof of burial in any of the three, for a broken sarcophagus proves nothing. YAt, though it is a well-known fact that the Egyptian believed in being ready for death and in beginning his tomb in good time, nowhere have we evidence that he carried foresight to such jiessimistic lengths as to cover the walls of his tomb with representations of himself still wearing the side-lock of youth. That the princes died young .seems therefore highly probable. It is perhaps, however, wiser not to press this point, and to conclude that the discovery in the Y'alley of the Queens leaves the Medinat Habu question much as it found it. Returning now, after this long but necessary digression, to Ramesse.s V, we find that the evidence for placing him after Ramesses IV is as follows. He must have immediately preceded Ramesses VI, who usurped his tomb. But Ramesses H must also have been earlier than Ramesses VI, who has more than once erased his name on monuments and substituted his own. Ramesses IV, however, we have already seen was the immediate successor of Ramesses III. There remains nothing therefore , our lord, amounting to. ..years Complete total, 1364 deben of copper.” No one who has any experience of account papyri will dispute that here a total is being given covering a certain number of years in the reign of Kebmarec and a certain number in that of Usimarec In the portion of the papyrus which precedes this summing up we have dates in Years 4, 5 and 6 of a king not actually named. Thus the summing up was made in or just after Year 6 of Ramesses Usimarec (VII) and covered the whole of his reign up to that date as well as the last year or years of his predecessor Kebmarec. The detail of the years of Nebmarec and Years 1 to 3 of his successor has disappeared in the missing first page or pages of the recto. On p. 74 of the article I have discussed the evidence of the verso of this papyrus, dated in Year 7, and suggested the 2 JOssibility that this year also belongs to Ramesses VII. It would be unwise to press this jjoint, and we may be content with the evidence of the recto, which makes it almost a matter of certainty that Usimarec was the successor of Kebmarec and reigued at least six years. Monuments of this king are so rare that it is worth while to mention a possible one which has escaped notice. The Turin papyrus numbered PI. Ixxii by Pleyte-Rossi is part of the verso of (and therefore later than) the tomb-plan of Ramesses IV. It consists of two texts numbered i and ii by Pleyte-Rossi, quite possibly by the same hand, and both forming part of the Xecropolis Diary. Page i, 11. 2-8 contain a list of clothes given in Year 7 to the citizeness Taurtemheb as her share in a division of the clothes of the scribe Ameunakht between his children and her. Possibly she was his wife. The division was made by the scribe Hori of the necropolis. Lines 9-11 record other matters. In page ii, line 3 we meet a date in Year 1. This page must be later than page i, lying as it does on the left of it. In lines .5-6 we read: ‘•'Twenty-first day of the. ..month of. ..the workmen went up. ..King Itfamun.” The king’s name is slightly obsciued by a fold in the papyrus, but Oerny and myself, when we collated the papyrus in 1926, agreed that it was certain. Kow Itfamun (Itamun) is Ramesses VII, and since he is neither referred to as Pharaoh nor given the epithet pii-n nb, “Our Lord,” he is dead. The phrase to "go up” tsi in the Xecropolis Diary is used almost invariably of going up to the tombs, and consequently it is probably the tomb of Ramesses VII which is here referred to. That it is referred to at all makes it probable that work was ' It is of course just possible that the .short reign of a king intervening between the two i.s included. CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS <)E THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY G1 still in progress there, and therefore that the Year 1 is that of Rainesses VIII. Unless we suppose a large gap between pages i and ii of the papyrus which of course is possible, though not, in view of the homogeneity of content, very probable. Year 7 of page i will be that of Ramesses YII and we should have the implication that he reigned seven years Ramesses VIII Usiiiiarei' - Akheiianiun , Ramesses-Setherkhcpe.shef-.Mia m a n The existence of this king is vouched for only by the cartouche,-, of figure No. 1 in the Medinat Habu List of Princes and by three scarabs. The list indicates no more than that he is later than Xos. 2-3. Rames.ses ^T. There is of course nothing to jirovc that he was his immediate successor, and his place in the dynasty must still be regarded as uncertain. No dates of his reign are known. At this point we are met by a very definite break in the evidence. We do not know who succeeded Ramesses VIII, and we are therefore compelled to work backwards from the end of the dynasty. Four epochs are with certainty to be jilaced towards its end. namely the reigns of Ramesses IX (Xefcrkere''). Ramesses X (Khepermarei") and Ramesses XI (Menmare''), together with the 2 'C‘riod known a^ the v-lun "Renewal of Births,” or, more conveniently. " Eenais.sance." We luu.st now attempt to fletermine the lengths of these four periods and the order of their succession. Ramesses IX Neferkerei'-Setpeiirec, Ramesse.s-.Miamun-Khaeniwe,-,e This reign is commonly stated to have lasted 10 year.-,. The evidence given for the statement is threefold: (a) The dockets on the verso of Pa 2 >. Abbott. These consist of two lists of thieves each dated in "Year 1 corresponding to {IjJt) Year lt». The Year 10 is generally assigned to Neferkerec and the Year 1 to the ivh)ii htxivt. which is .sujuiosed to have immediately followed his reign. (b) Maspero long ago drew attention to a pa}»yrus of tishermenV accounts at Turin- (Cat. 2075) in which dates in Year 10 of an unnamed king are immediately followed by dates in Year 1: he attributed the Year 10 to Xeferkerec and the Year 1 to the reign of Khepermarec, which he held to be identical with the ir/on (c) In this number of the Journal, Dr. Botti refers to a Turin iwiiyrus (Cat. 1932 + 1939) bearing two separate texts on the recto and one on the verso. Of the two on the recto that nearest the right-hand edge of the jiajiyrus is dated in Tear 2 of Khepermarec, and the other in Year 19 of a king unnamed. This king Dr. Botti would ^ Maspero {Les laoniie-i ro>i, iH^te :t, -ittiil'Utes ifie \e.ir 1 <*f iln, [tapyru, 0* Meinn.trC-r un the ground that thp preceding Year 7 is that of KlieperiiiarC-C "liis prodece-'iir Ib; rctuitrks that hi, roa.sons are “too long to lae .stated liere." He i, certainly wo.ng. The entry of Year 7 i, attrihutod hy Krjiax, Zwei Aktenstucke der thehaniichcn ti,d A[uteri*iltctt, n“-4. does not attempt to date it. The scribe Amennakht may be traced back to I ear of Uauiesscs III, when he appears in the two documents published by Ernian, < 7 /. cit. ^ Mvniies royides, 058. <>j ,. , It., lino. 6:3 T. EEIC FEET idciitif}- with K'eferkerei". He is inclined to believe that the whm mswl is identical with the reign of Khepermarec, though he would not exclude the possibility that it followed his reign. ,Xow what does this evidence amount to? Document (a) in itself proves very little. The dockets are obviously later than the recto of Abbott, i.e., than Neferkeref’s 17th year. Consequently their "Year 19'’ might conceivably belong to his reign. On the other hand it might belong to a still later reign, and there is nothing to set against this except the current belief that an added text on a papyrus is never much later in date than the original text, a belief which, even if jastified, is very indefinite. The dockets therefore do not prove that Xeferkerer reigned 19 years. Document {h), the fishermen’s accounts, brought up as corroborative evidence for the attribution of the Year 19 of Abbott to Xeferkerec, is a double-edged weapon, for in it we find that Year 19 instead of "corresponding to’’ Year 1 is succeeded by Year 1. X^one of the historians who have used this piece of evidence appears to have noticed this very important point. It might not unreasonably be adduced as evidence to show that the Year 19 mentioned in the two documents cannot be one and the same. Yet we shall not insist on this, for there is just the possibility that the two apparently in- consistent systems of reckoning may be reconciled in such a way as to allow the Year 19 to refer to the same king in both cases. X'ow Botti has shown that of the six fishermen mentioned as providing the supply of fish for the necropolis in this pap}Tus, four are found in the same employ in the Diary of Year 17 of Xei’erkerec and all six in the Diary of Year 3 of Khepermarec (Pap. Chabas-Lieblein, X'o. 1). The temptation to assign the papyrus to the 19th year of Xlcferkerec and to draw the almost inevitable conclusion that it was succeeded by the fir.'t year of some other king (possibly Khepermarec) or epoch is very strong. If we refuse this we are faced with the necessity of believing that a group of fishermen retained their duties over a period of at least nineteen years: that one man should have so long a tenure is not impossible. That no fewer than six should do so is highly improbable. There is therefore a strong possibility that in this papyrus we should see evidence that the reign of XMerkerec lasted 19 years, and that that of Khepermarec followed it at a not very long interval. With the conclusions drawn by Dr. Botti from Document (c) I find myself in considerable disagreement. Here we have a papyrus on the recto of which are two texts. That on the right, i.e., nearest to the point where a scribe would begin to write, is dated in Year 2 of Khepermarec : it is written in a fine large upright hand. That on the left of it is dated in Year 19 of an unnamed king, and is an account of grain received for the staff of the necropolis. When on the same side of a papyrus we find two pages written the same way np and adjacent the one to the other it is an almost certain inference that the one on the right is the earlier, for a scribe began on the right, and never, except for special reasons, left a large blank space at that end of his sheet. A jjriori, then, one would expect the page dated l’’ear 19 to be later than, not earlier than, that dated in Year 2 of Khepermarec. This judgment seems to me to be in no way invalidated by the ^•erso. Here we find another clocument, a list of the workmen of the necropolis, dated in a year which is lost, of the reign of Khepermarec. This text IS not in my opinion in the same hand as that of Khepermarec on the recto, but in one which resembles it closely. Thus the papyrus as a whole has every appearance of having been originally written during the reign of Khepermarec and of having had a short text added to it on the unused portion of the recto in the 19th year of a later king. At any CHEONOLOGICAL PEOBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY r.3 rate the burden of proof lies with those who wish to assiirn the earlier date to the text of Year 19. I am unable to accept Botti's defence of this view. lie siieeests either that anew piece of papyrus had been glued over just as imieli of tlie doeunuuit of Yi-ar 19 of Neferkerec on the recto as was needed to insert a title-docket' (for such he conceives the text of Year 2 to be) to the Khepermarec document on the verso, or that that part of the text of earlier date which originally covered this space was erased, the rest, on it'- left. being spared since the space was not needial. The (irst ex])lanation seems unlikelv partly because there is no evidence of this kind of wholesale patching of papvnis bv the scribes and partly because I can see no trace of three laviTs of papyrus at this jioint : the second I cannot accept because the papyrus does not show any sign of being palimpsest. There is unfortunately no prosopographical evidence to heljt us. In the' text of Year 19 no persons are mentioned save a scribe whose name either was, or at least began with, Mery. We have therefore no sufficient evidence for assigning this text to the reign of Neferkerec and certain rea.sons for thinking that it may well be later, perhaps from the reign of Menmarec'^. The list of workmen on the verso is of imjiortance for our puipose. for it contains several names which occur both in the list of the I)iarv of Year 17 of Xeferkerec and also in an irnpublished Diary of Year 16. which various indications seem to show should be attributed to the same reign. This makes it difiicult to .separate the reign of Khepermarec by any very great distance from the la.st years of that of XeferkereC. Of the three documents (n). (h) and {<:■). then, none is quite decisive in giving to Xeferkerec a reign of 19 years, though one. (h). j)oints very strongly in that direction. If we except this group of texts the highe.st date which can be with certainty attributed to him is Year 17. the date of the B.M. papyri lOOo:} recto ( ■■ Harris A), looijs recto (see Journal, xi. 162-3) and of the Xecropolis Diary at Turin, where the king's name does not actually occur but may bo deduced with certainty from the fact that the theft dealt with by Harris A is there referred to. Papyrus B.M. lOd.ll giv('s a rlate in Year 18 (recto 3. 7) which is in all probability referable to Xeferkerec. })ut ]iroof is impossible. Consecjnently the AYar 17 tuust stand as the niaximuiu. Ramesses X Khepermarec-Setpenrec. Bamesses-Amenlieikliepcshef Only one dated document exists for thi' leign. flic otliers attributed to this king by the hi.storians, e.g.. Petrie and Gauthier, are all actually dated in the irhni ni'ort and must for the present at least be excluded. The only certain .locument is the Papyrus Ohabas-Lieblein Xo. 1. which has been shown to be dated to the third year of Khejrer- marec3, and ATear 3 i.s thus the highest date yet known to us from the reign. Thi.s same * The text eii the recto tn my mind imt ,i mer'- "tule ’ or ntle-do, ket to tljo text on tlio \rmo but a comj)lete text iu it.self. There remain oulv the il.ate, title.-. ,uid 11,11110-. ot the kimr. and the n.ime ot the necropolis. The rest is lo.st. - Dr. Botti sees an objection to this m the^cri}'t. which for him m ot the type .e-^oeiated with tiie reiun of XeferkerC'C. I have never been in full .e.;reemetit witli liim m hi- belief that definite tendeneie- cm be traceil in the hieratic si ript .us it -ip[u’o.tehe- the end ot the d\ii.i-t\. To m\ mnni .-o much de[tends on the idiosyncrasies of p.irticular scribes th.it over -o -liert a ]ieriod .1-. -,y\. tlnrtv y.u's no moienient in a definite direction can be traced. ^ See Borri-PEET, // O'/'o/'/ed" .Vi , ih T' Tk', f.i-e. 64 T. EEIC PEET papyrus is the only valuable piece of evidence which we have for fixing the position of this king. In 3. 17 there is a reference to King Neferkerec. The vizier had apparently asked the necropolis for men to be used in transporting certain clothes of King Nefer- kerec. The request is refused, the workmen being at the time in a rebellious mood, and a workman replies ''Let the vizier (himself?) carry the clothing of Kin g Neferkerec and the cedar wood." We may safely infer from this that Khepermarei" is to be placed later than Xeferkcreci, though the absence of the title ‘" The Great God,” usual in speaking of a dead king, after Neferkerec’s name is striking, and suggests that he may have been still alive, KhepermareC being a usurper. The fact that of the ten fishermen mentioned in this pap^Tus as supplpng fish to the necropolis no fewer than six were doing the same thing in Year 17 of Neferkerec indicates a proximity between this third year of KhepermareC and the end of Keferkerec’s reign, and this is supported by the fact that we still find Khaemwese as vizier and Pewero as prince of the West of Thebes. The other persons mentioned in this papyrus and also known to us from other sources are the vizier's scribe Amenkhau, who reappears in the Turin papyrus dated in Years 4 and 5 of the wiim msui, and Khaemhezet scribe of the necropolis, who appears, though without the addition of the words ‘'of the necropolis,” in a piece of the Necropolis Diary dated in the Year 16 -, and probably attributable, as the combination of the \dzier Khaemwese. the chief workman Woserkhepesh and the scribe of the necropolis Horisheri shows, to the reign of Neferkerec. Ramesses XI Menmarec-Setpeuptah, Ramesses-Khaemwese-Miamun-Neterhekon The position of this king has always been regarded as certain since Maspero pointed out® how in the temple of Khonsu at Karnak, partly built during his reign, the position and titles of the king were gradually usurped by the chief priest of Amiln, Herihor. The natural interpretation of this evidence is that Herihor was the immediate successor of Ramesses Menmarec, and there is no other evidence which makes such an interpreta- tion impossible or improbable. That Menmarec was later than Neferkerec seems clear from the Papyrus of Wenamun, which Erman^ is surely right in dating to the fifth year not of Herihor but of Menmarec. In this pap\Tus the prince of Byblos reminds Wenamun 1 Maspero had already ob.sorved (Ze.f 7>io/„i»s royn/vs, 6.59-60; that Pap. Chabas-Lieblein showed the priority of NeferkerC-C (mentioned recto 3. 17) to Khei)eni'.arOC, whose name stands on the verso. It is worth while to observe that in the pas.s,age given by him from Champollion, the latter has quoted as occurring under the date Paoni -li in Chab.-Liebl. a passage coming from a totally different papyrus namely Pleyte- Rossi .x.xxiv. No wonder Maspero was puzzled and thought that Champollion must have had access to fragments of Chab.-Liebl. .since lost 1 Where Champollion found the receipt bearing a date in the reign of Ramesses lY HekmareC-Setpenaniun which he transplants to the verso of Chab.-Liebl. I cannot imagine. There are further confusions in his account. The king, a scribe of whose temple is mentioned under Pharmutlu 2."), is Rame.sses III L’simareC-Miamun (Chab.-Liebl. 2. 8) not Ramesses IV- the king whose name occui-s in 6. 7 under the date Me.sore 14 is Ramesses II (not Ramesses III as stated in a parenthesis by Maspero', and the king referred to in 2. 26 on the 26th Pachon is the .same Ramesses II and not “ son fils et succes.seur.” 2 Pap. Turin, P.-R. xc, line 8. This jiapyrus is iu reality part of P.-R. Ixxxiii, line 1 of Col. ii of .xe following directly upon line 4 of Col. ii of Ixxxiii .\. A .scribe Khaemhezet also occurs in P.-R. x line 10 • the papyrus is dated in Year 7, but of wh.at king is uncertain. ZeiUi'hr. f. ii;j. Sp,-., 1883, 75-7. This episode is admirably treated by Breasted, Ancie 7 tt Record time of Khaemwcsei. by whom must surely be meant Neferkerei". and remained tlier** 17 years-. That MenmareC is later than Khepermarec is also clear from the fact that a note dateci in his reign is found on the verso of Papyrus C’habas-Lieblcin®. The position of Menmarec at the end ot the dyna.sty may thus be accepted as almost certain. Several dates from his reign are known. The cotlins of Ramesses II and Seti I^ both bear hieratic inscriptions dated in Year fi, and as Ilerihor still appeals in these as High Priest, and not yet as king, we may saftdy attribute tliem to MenmareC. Turin possesses dated papvri of Years 12 and 17. The former rif tliese is that given by Pleyte-Eossi in PI. Ixv, c. When collating this in 1923 I was .siir])rised to find that it forms part of the long account papyrus. P.-E. .xcvi, xcvii. e. ei. civ. elvi ami elvii. lying to the right of Plate c with a very short gap. Tlie main liistorieal iitterest nf the papyrus is that it shows us the veteran prince nf the \\ c.st Pewcio still living in Menmaret’s twelfth vear. in the company of younger officials such as thi' scribe of the necropolis Dhoutmose. The papyrus dated in Tear 17 is a fine hut incomplete letter. Pleyte-Eossi, Ixvi-lxvii, written from the king to Panehsi the aiiny commander and “Royal Son of Kush.” and mentioning the butler Tenes. The only other date known from this reign is Tear 27. on the stela of a scribe called Hori from Abydos, and this is therefore the minimum length for the reign. The Renaissance {>rhin iiisirt) The indications so far observed point to the fact that Neferkorec reigned certainlv 17 years and possibly 19, that Khepermarec was a successor of his, jxissibly i hough not necessarily immediate, and that Tleiimaret was later than both. The next step in our argument must be to e.xamine the period known as the msict or Repeating of Births. The dates known from this perii.id are as follow,' : (1) Year 1. Pap. Mayer A, 1. 1. (2) Year 2. Pap. Mayer A. 8. 1, 11. 1: Pap. B.M. 10i(»3 ’. 1. I. (3) Years 4 and -5. Mentioned in an unpublished papyrus in Turin (Cat. i'.hi;} 18(»). This is a record of rations of various kinds i.^sued to the necropolis. Ihe officials 1 If the vizier of this name is meant, which is improtul.le. the time im[>’.ic umu' .re mu. ii ti.e '.o.se - It i.s clear from tliis that nmre tlian .si'voiiteeii yc.u-' h.ive elip'ed 'ince tla-e me'seneeiv were 'e,,t, for Wenaniun saw their tomh : in otlier worts they wore 'Ciit more tl.aii twelve ve.u-' l.efmv the ,ieee"ieii of Menrnarci'. Unfortunately this f.ut is not of the least U'C to U' ii' we .h. n..r know m what \eir of NeferkereC they were .sent. - See Boiii-Peei, II (jiomdlv dtU." Itecrupoh di 777,., fasc ^ Maspero, Leg momie^ royuhs, .103-0.3 and Pis. .v-xvi. It needs only cUme .it Iffi, x i, .,nd .xii to see that on the latter the hieratic insciffiition has heen doctored, d.mhth" to en'iire ele.ner repiodm timi. Thus the group which appo.ars on .xii at the end .Tline 1 i' imorn-ct. no vrtii.d stroke .ipi.e ,ni,c in -XB. Consequently the word ^7;^ ■■vizier^ proh.ddy stood at the heginninu of the lorn,.,, perhaps followed by the vizier’s name. We must therefore not ro.id witli llKKXsrEn, An.-d-.t A'- - the vizier, the Hiffii Prie.st...Herihor,” siving the impression th.at Herihor lieM tlie offiee of vi/icr. but r.ither “the vizier [X. and] the hich priest Herihor.'’ It is unfortun.ite that in tlie ni'cription on tie- eoftin of Eamesses II there is a lacuna at precisely the s.ime spot. Masckro. .y,. c,t., .->.-.7, tig. l-u shows ,,t it' beginning “The chief of...,” but it i.s difficult to see Imw this title is to 1 m- completed s,,tis);„ tonly, and it would be well if the coffin were examined ag.iin w.tli ,i view tn testing Ma.spero's reading an.l deciphering, if i)o,s.sible, the rest of tlie phrase. “ Also probably, to .judge by the official personnel. Pap. B.M. I0.3's3, d.ited Ve.ir 2. without king-name. .Tourn. of Egypt. Arch. xtv. 66 T. ERIC PEET mentioned are the overseer of the treasury Wenennefer, the deputy of the treasury Hori and the vizier’s scribe Amenkhau. (4) Year 6. Ambras Papyrus, Vienna. The ivhm mswt then lasted at least six years and was in ordinary use for dating purposes. Most of the historians have avoided the problem by quietly assigning all the dated documents of this period to corresponding years in the reign of Khepermarer, giving as a justification for this the testimony of the Abbott dockets. We have already seen that this is pure assumption. What then are the possibilities with regard to this period? They are as follows: (1) The u'hm niswt was part of Xeferkerer’s reign. (2) It followed this immediately. (3) It is equivalent to the reign of Khepermarer. (4) It followed this reign immediately. (5) It formed part of the reign of Menmarec. Now the astonishing thing about the papyri dated to Years 1 and 2 of this era is that their personnel is entirely different from that of those of the later vears of Neferkerer. In the trial of Mayer A and B.M. 10052 the officials are: The vizier NebmareCnakht. Overseer of the treasury and granary Menmarernakht. Steward and ro_val butler Yenes. Steward and royal butler Pemeriamun, scribe of Pharaoh. Of these persons NebmareCnakht was vizier in Year 14 of Neferkerer (Abbott, 4. 15) and also in Year 1 corresponding to Year 19 (Abbott dockets, A. 20). He is also found along with Menmarernakht and Yenes in Pap. B.M. 10383, a document dated in Year 2 but with no king-name. Menmarernakht occurs also in Pap. Turin, P.-R. Ixi, line 6 (collated), a papyrus where he is associated with the vizier Wenennefer i.- this vizier is dated by a relief at Karnak (Rec. de trav., xiii, 173) to the reign of Menmarer, and, what is more, the pap^TUS itself is marked as coming very late in the dynastv by its reference to the scribe of the necropolis Dhutmose. Pemeriamun is not known elsewhere, but Yenes reappears in a letter of Year 17 of Menmarer in connexion with the famous viceroy of Nubia Pnehe.si (Pap. Turin, P.-R. Ixvii. 15). The connexions of the official personnel of the whm msivt seem thus rather to look forward towards the reign of Menmarer. It has nothing in common with that of the robbery papyri of the Years 16 and 17 of Neferkerer, the chief figures of which are the vizier Khaemwese, the high priest of Aniun Amenhotpe, the prince Pewero the butlers Nesamun and Neferreremperamun, and the prince Pesiur. And yet there are puzzles here. Nebmarernakht was \'izier in Year 14 of Neferkerer (Abb. 4. 15), but Khaemwese was vizier in Years 16 and 17. Again Nebmarernakht was vizier in “Year 1 corresponding to Year 19,” and also in Years 1 and 2 of the whm mswt. A witness in the trial of Pap. B.M. 10052 (8. 19; date whm mswt Year 1) states that he remembers the putting to death of certain tomb-thieves “in the time of the vizier Khaemwese.” Yet in Pap. Chabas-Lieblein No. 1. which is dated in Year 3 of Kheper- marer, Khaemwese is vizier and Pewero Is prince of the West of Thebes ! It is possible that we may get some light in the darkness if we can determine the nature of the period known as lohm mswt. It must have been a remarkable event which > G.VUTHIEK, iPvv Jes ,-ow, III, i, 209, wmiig in assigning this papyrus to the reign of Neferkerer. I had made the same niishike myself and was corrected bv Cenn'. CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY G7 could induce the conservatively-minded Egyptians to abandon the time-honoured custom of dating by king-years. In fact it is only with reluctance that we are jirepared to admit that such a thing really happened, and we wonder whether some king niav not have borne whm mswt ‘'Renewing Births" as one of his names, but of this there is no trace. Two earlier kings used it as a name— Amenemmes I of the Twelfth Dynasty, and Seti I of the Nmeteenth. Both these kings, as Rardmer ha.s pointed out to me. mav well have regarded themselves as founders of dynasties; Amenemmes with considerable right, Seti with somewhat less. As used for dating purposes in the Twentieth Dvnasty the phrase might be expected to indicate a re-establishment of the normal .state of things after a period which had been regarded officially as abnormal. Such abnormality might have consisted in nothing more than the temporary holding of the throne bv a usurper: if this is the case it has left no other visible trace. It might, on the other hand, refer to some event of quite a different type, and two are known to us which seem to call for consideration. The first is the “war of the chief priest of Amun Amenhotpe," and the second is the invasion of Egypt, or at least the Theban area, by foreigners, of which we have such manifest evidence in the Necropolis Diarv. Let us consider first the war of the high priest .\menhotpe. It i.'^ referred to in two passages, firstly Pap. B.M. 10052, 13. 24, where we have a bare mention of ‘ the war of the high priest of Amun,'' and in Pap. ilayer A, 6. 3 tf.. where a witness states that a certain event took place between the si.xth and the ninth months' of "the violence done to Amenhotpe the high priest of Amun." We do not know the nature of this “violence” {iji) but it is not impossible that we are to see in it some kind of attack upon the temporal power of the priesthood of Amun. which was at this time increasing at an alarming rate^. We cannot even fix the date of the event. The witness is speaking in the first year of the wlitti mswt, and the robbery from the portable chest in which he is concerned miBt have taken place some years earlier, for two of the other witnesses, brought up to be questioned concerning the movement.s of their fathers, suspects who have since died, state that they were little boys when the crime was committed. It is not easy to know how much time must be allowed for this, the more so as they would probably exaggerate their extreme youthfulness at the time in order more completely to clear themselves of any suspicion of implication in the thefts. Still a space of four or five years is probably the minimum. Thus the wlun mswt cannot mark a restoration after the war of the high priest, for the facts ju.st related show that the two events are separated by a considerable interval®. We have next to consider whether the ii'Ihh inttwt may not mark a restoration aftei' a period of foreign invasion. The evidence for such an invasion I have published else- where^, and here I need only add two pa.ssages which point in the same direction. The first is Pap. B.M. 10383, 2. 5, where an official exculpates himself with regard to thefts of copper from the doors of the House of Pharaoh by saying, "I left the House of Pharaoh when Paiuhasy came and did violence {th) to my superior oliicer, though ' See Jovni.ijl, xri, 2r>4-9. - See, however, helow, p. (js. ' Tlie .same witiies.-. refers in 0. 9 to .i clearing up of the ili^turhcil temple after the war was over. In my e words, hr ',r tii-t,r Sful, .is "when order w.as restored," hnt this would require and not sprl. C.in the words nie.tn simply "tVlien all w.is over," literally "When one was ready ” ? For spd “ be ready ’’ in the .sense of “finished " the tlerman f-rtitj pro\ ides a good parallel. * Journal, XII, 257-8. See also W.vixwmght, .1/'/!. Serr., xxvn. T6fil 9—2 68 T. EEIC PEET there was no transgression in him^.’’ The other passage is Pap. Mayer A. i. 5, where an accused man says “I fled before the mdw cn when Painhasy made the mdtv fn.” Here it is impossible to guess what is meant by mdw fti, but it was clearly an act of hostility. Painhasy himself, clearly a protagonist in these events, was doubtless, as his name implies, a Nubian^, but there were also Libyans, and specifically Meshwesh, in Egypt at this time. To the passages quoted as e\’idence® for this we should perhaps add Pap. Mayer A, 8. 14, where a man asked to account for his possession of certain gold and silver says, "I got them from the Meshwesh.” The earliest certain date for these ajjpearances of Libyans in Egypt is given by the Necropolis Diary of Year 13, certainly to be assigned to Neferkerec-Ramesses IX b It is possible that the fragment of the Diary for Year 8 referred to among the evidence given in the Journal^ is to be dated to the same king, for it mentions the chief workman Nekhemmut, well known in the reign of Neferkerec. The latest reference to the intruders occurs in Pap. Chabas- Lieblein No. 1, the Necropolis Diary for Year 3 of Khepermarec. It is not at all impos.sible that the suppression of Amenhotpe and these foreign invasions are to be brought into the same context, for in the passage from Pap. Mayer A already quoted the witness states that ‘’the foreigners® came and took possession of the temple” and that six months after the beginning of the suppression of Amenhotpe, “Peheti, a foreigner seized me and took me to Ipip.” It is at the same time difficult to see why the attack of foreigners .should be levelled at the high priest of Amun. Since we can trace these foreign interruptions as far down as the third year of Khepermarei" we must be prepared to admit, if we regard the ivhm mswt as a restoration after the final expulsion of the invaders, that this period must be placed after Khepermarec's reign. It is worth noting in passing that, whatever the Renaissance was, it was orthodox in the matter of religion, for in the new Turin papyrus 1903/180, dated in Years 4 and 5 of the Renaissance, we have a reference to ‘'the vizier and the high priest of Amun,” though unfortunately neither is named. Thus our evidence for connecting the Renaissance with the foreign invasions is extremely incomplete, so incomplete that it would be mere folly to press it. Consequently the line of enquiry suggested by the supposed meaning of the phrase whm mswt may be taken to have failed us®. We are thus thrown back on the prosopographical evidence. I do not propose to deal with this here, because it falls far more within the competence of Dr. Cerny, whose material on this subject is much more complete than mine, he having studied ’ Hardly, I think, “when there was still no damaue iu it,” ix.. iu the Hon.-'C of Ph.lraoh. - Is he perchaiic-e the .same man a.s Eamesses XI’s viceroy of Xuhia * Jouraol, xil, 2.57-8. .See also Waixwbight, Ann. Sen-., xxvil, 76 ff. ^ Botti-Pket, 1! Uioniiilu delta iVeeropoli di Tebe, .9-10. ■' Assiuniiig Gardiner's traii.slation of /ff as .simply “foreigner” to bo correct, Proc. Soc. Bihl. Arch., 1015, 117 tr. " 1 )r. G.irdiner calls my attention to a difficult passage in the Horemhob Decree which might, if one could He be sure erf it.s meanimr, throw light on the .sense of whm nisvt. It run.s as follows - il translates “ If the iread “my' ') period of exi.stence on earth be enduring .it least . isirt) in the making of monuments of the god.s I will repeat births like the moon.” Whatever be the exact ineaiiing of the words, the comp.iri.son must be between the frequency with which the king makes monument.s and that with which the moon is born ag.iin fat e.ich of hi.s monthly risings;. C.in u-h,a mswt mean .simply “birthday”? CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 69 from this point of view large numbers of ostraca of the j)eriod, both at Cairo and elsewhere. It may, however, be worth while to point out very shoitly some of the difficulties involved in the use of prosopographical evidence in the present case. At certain periods of Egyptian history we can establish the succession of several kings from the biographies of great officials tvho recount in due order their careers under each of the kings whom they served : but in our material for the late Twentieth Dynasty there is nothing of this kind, and we have to fall back on chance references to persons or officials in different papyri. Of how little real use these are to us will be apparent from the following considerations: 1. Certain names are extremely common, especially among the workmen of the necropolis, for example, Nesamun. Hori and Pakharu. Confusion is therefore very easy, the more so as it was customary at the period to name the grandson after the grand- father. Thus even the name '‘Hori son of Amenkhau ' occurring in two papyri must not be equated without further evidence, for the Hori of the one may well be the grandfather of the Hori of the other, and similarly with the Amenkhau. 2. The almost invariable prefixing of a title to a proper name goes far to mitigate this difficulty, but does not entirely remove it. Thus though "the scribe Hori" gives a narrower field than simply “Hori" it is still insufficient, for out of every hundred Horis, and there probably were a hundred in Thebes, several may have been scribes. Only when the title is unique or nearly so, v.fj., "vizier" or "scribe of the necropolis,” do we approach certainty. Three further considerations apply S2)ecially to the case under consideration. They are: 3. The periods whose order we are trying to determine are very short, the Renaissance possibly only six years, and the reign of Khepermarec three years on the highest known date. Large numbers of officials may quite naturally have remained in office throughout the whole of the two periods, if they were adjacent. Consequently, even if we possessed complete lists of the chief Theban c)fficials of the two peiiods. they would in all probability prove so similar that nothing could be argued from them as to the order of the two. 4. The few documents which we possess from this epoch are of very different types. Whereas some give us the names of several of the high officials of their period, others are concerned almost entirely with a totally different stratum of society, and name none but cemetery workers or fishermen. Thus the various types of document offer no elements of comparison one with another. 5. A change of government such as was not improbable in these troubled times might lead to a complete change of officials at one blow, from the vizier downwards. Consequently when we find two papyri in which the main offices are held by completely different sets of men we must not argue that they differ considerably in time, for the cause ma}' be nothing more than a change in government. Such are the difficulties with which it is necessary to reckon in an enquiry of this kind. The accompanying table gives a conspectus of some of the material. It is limited to the more important officials in two groups of papyri, firstly a set of documents from the British Museum (with the exception of Pap. Amherst) dealing with tomb-robberies \ and secondly a set of papyri in Turin. It shows very clearly the complete break between the main officials of the end of XeferkereCs reign and those of the Renaissance, but what it cannot show us is whether this break is due to length of time or to change of government. ‘ Fill’ .1 de'criptiiiu of thoe p.ipyri, scu Ju'irwil, xi, :57 11., lU--t. 70 T. EEIC FEET ' Kamesnes ! XI Turin, P.-H. lxi+ Yr. 18 X X i X ' Ramesses X Pa}). C'lialias- Lieblein No. 1 Yr. 3 X X 1 ‘a /. 10383 t Yr. 2 ■ ■ X X X X ilaver A ‘ Yrs. 1-2 •y/i X ■ ■ X X i ^ 1 X 10403 Yr. 2 ■ n X l(Xl.')2 Yr. 1 X ■ ■ X 1 X ‘ X +5 Abbott docket.s Ir. 1 = Yr. 19 X H X 10068 i's. [). 1 No date ■ X l(X)o4 rw. pp. ^-4 Yr. 6 ■ ■ X X X X 10068 i'S. })}). 2-8 Yr. 12 ■ D n ; i 1 X X X X 10053 M. Yr. 9 I 1 i 1 I l-H » c •f. T. C -3 Turin Diary Yr. 17 X 1 1 X 1 i 10053 roA Yr. 17 X X X X ! 1 ! 1 ^ 1 j PX)68 ro. Yr. 17 X X X 10054 fi. p. 1 + Yr. 16 X ' X ; ' X i X 1 1 i 1 1 I Aniher-at I Yr. 10 X ■ ■ B 1 1 1 ! Abbott Yr. 16 D D H fl X ! X i 1 1 i i Title o < '= r. X a -C o o 'S p butler and .scribe of Pliaraoh X a ”§ O ZJ I u tv-. o c; ‘S o X c '5 X N X 9 43 o '43 S c; X p c >■ -S C S u 9 ■VJ O -♦J X V- o ID D 'S 2 3 ■ji O X o -5 o c 5 < o % Zi X r-' X o x § o vT "A .g £ o S ’■*3 "x p 5 s c »p H S •4J c Ip 2 i: S X c c 3 4h Kilig-iiauie not given, but attribution eertain. ^Icntioued, but not as i)oing still in offie(v CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 71 We may now sum up the answers suggested by our enquiry to the questions which we originally put to ourselves concerning the position of the Renaissance. 1. Was it a part of the reign of Yeferkerec ? This po.ssibility cannot be ruled out. If the Year 19 of the dockets of Pap. Abbott is really that of Yeferkerec, and the Year 1 to which it corresponds is that of the Renaissance, then it seems clear that the Renaissance either was a name for the last years of Xeferkerer, from Year 19 onward, or immediately followed his reign, which in this case ended in Year 19. With regard to the two a.ssumptions made here, it may be said that the assignment of Year 1 of the dockets to the Renaissance is very reasonable in view of the fact that the thieves men- tioned in them do actually come up for trial in Year 1 of that epoch (Pap. B.M. lOO.b'Z and Mayer A), and it is hardly likely that a con.siderable time should have elapsed, as for example the reign of Khepermarer with its minimum of three years, between the denouncement and the trial. With regard to the a.ssignment of Year 19 to Xeferkerer. the situation must be faced that if it is not assigned to him it can only belong to Menmarer, and the whole of the Renaissance would thus be transplanted into his reign. This possibility will be considered under 5. 2. Was the Renaissance a separate period immediately following the reign of Xeferkerer? This has practically been dealt with above. It is just possibly the correct solution. Those, however, who hold this view and attribute the Year 1 of the fi.shermen’s account papyrus to the Renaissance will have to explain why this Year 1. which here appears to follow Year 19, is represented in the Abbott dockets as “ corresponding to” it. 3. Is the Renaissance identical with the reign of Khepermarer? This is the one supposition which can be ruled out with comparative confidence The title docket on the verso of Pap. Chabas-Lieblein Xo. 1 shows that during the reign of Khepermarer the years were numbered in the normal manner ; that two different dating systems should be in existence side by side for no less than six' years in the same part of Egypt is unthinkable. 4. Did the Renaissance immediately follow the reign of Khepermarer? If we accept the Year 19 of the Abbott dockets as that of Xeferkerer, the an.swer to this question must be no, unless we are prepared to deny that the Year 1 which there corresponds to it is that of the Renaissance. It is just possible to do this on present evidence or rather lack of evidence, and to suppose that this Year 1 is that of Khepermarer, and that the thieves mentioned in the dockets remained untried throughout the three or more years of Khepermarer’s reign, to be brought to book in the first year of the Renaissance which immediately followed this. Yet this cannot be regarded as very probable, as we saw above. It would be for the advocates of such a theory to explain why Year 19 of Xeferkerer .should be said to "correspond to” Year 1 of his successor Khepermarer. 5. Was the Renaissance part of the reign of Menmarer? This is a highly attractive possibility. If the Year 19 of the Abbott dockets does not refer to Xeferkerer it must refer to a later king, and since we may with great probability rule out Khepermarer, whose highest known date was three years, we should have good reason for attributing it to Menmarer. Such a theory is, however, not without its difficulties. Xebmarernakht was vizier in Year 14 of Xeferkerer (Pap. Abbott, 4. 15) and here again he is found as vizier in Year 19 of Menmarer, at least twenty-five years later. This is of course not impossible, the more so as he was presumably named after, and hence born under, Xebmarer Ramesses VI, and was consequently quite young when he became vizier in the ’ Year G Geing the higlie.st known Renaissanee (kite 72 T. EEIC PEET reign of Neferkerei'. A much more serious difficulty lies in the fact that according to Pap. Turin Pleyte-Rossi, Ixi (collated, together with considerable unpublished portions), a certain Wenennefer was vizier in Year 18 of Menmarer. It is true that the papyrus does not name the king, but we know from the reliefs of the temple of Amenophis III at Karnak^- that this vizier served under Menmaref, and we cannot put him back into Year 18 of Yeferkerer, even if there ever was such a year, without supposing a change of vizier between that year and the previous year when Khaemwese held the office (Pap. B.M. 10053, ro., 1 . 5). Another very strong reason for placing Wenennefer in the reign of Menmarei" is his association in the papyrus referred to with the scribe of the necropolis Dhutmose. This man is dated to the very end of the dynasty by the letters published in Spiegel- berg’s Correspondances des rois-pretres and others (unpublished at Turin) of the same series. Moreover he is frequently mentioned in Pap. Turin, P.-R. xcffi-xcvii, c-ci, clv- clvii, of which Ixv c, which bears the date Year 12 of Menmaref, is actually a part (see above, p. 65). It is therefore difficult to avoid the implication that Wenennefer was vizier in Year 18 of Memnaref, and unless we suppose a change in that year or the next, which would be a remarkable coincidence, Nebmarernakht cannot have been vizier in Year 19. Coincidences, however, do occur, and one may have occurred here. The trial recorded in Mayer A, B.M. 10052 and 10403 certainly took place some time after the crime, for we have already seen that some of the criminals were dead and that their sons, brought up to bear witness in their place, claim to remember nothing, having been mere children at the time. Now I have pointed out elsewhere that the minimum of time which must be allowed to fulfil these conditions is four to five years, but there is practically no maximum, except that period beyond which it would be impracticable to procure witnesses. What is more, we have little evidence as to the date of the crime, and the placing of it in the reign of Neferkerec, which I confess is the date which I have mentally assigned to it, is quite uncertain. On the evidence of Pap. Mayer A^ the attack on the portable chest took place about the period of the war of the high priest Amenhotpe. But when was this war? We do not know. Amenhotpe was still in office in Year 17 of Neferkerec (Pap. B.M. 10068, ro., 4. 1-3), and we do not know how long he continued to be so. All we do know is that in the Year 6 of some king, probably identifiable with Menmarer, Herihor as high priest renewed the burials of Seti^I and Ramesses II®. Thus Amenhotpe may have continued in office until this year. His suppression might have occurred as late as this, and Herihor, with his eyes already on the kingship, may have been the suppressor. In this case the Renaissance of Year 19 may have marked a temporary set back in the fortunes of Herihor and a restoration of Amenhotpe and the king'*. All this is the merest theory, and its only value is perhaps to call attention to the necessity of being prepared to cut ourselves off if necessary from the belief that the suppression of Amenhotpe and the crimes of this trial took place in the reign of Neferkerer. * lice, ch- trar., -xni, li3. “ 6. 3 tt. Maspero, Les aioimes o.j3, .557. ■* The fact that we have a date of the normal type in Year 27 i.s not fatal to this theory, for the Renaissance dating may have been in use only fivm Year 19 to Year 24 { = irhht msiet Years 1-6), after which the ordinary method may have been re.sumed. If, however, normal datings of the years between 20 and 24 inclusive were to be di.-.covereil, they would need a great deal of e.xplaining away. CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE TWENTIETH DYNASTY 73 The results, if such they may be called, of this study may be summed up as follows : Ramesses III reigned 32 years J) IV 55 6 33 5} V >3 4 „ at least )i VI 33 ? 33 55 VII 55 7 „ at least (probably) >3 VIII 55 ? 33 58 IX 53 17 „ at least (po.ssibly 19) 33 X 33 3 ,, at least 55 XI 53 27 ,, at least Renaissance 6 „ at least Total 102 years at least for the dynasty With regard to the order of these kings we may say : (1) That R. IV immediately succeeded R. Ill is certain. (2) R. VI is certainly later than R. IV and R. V, and as there is no trace of any other king at this point the order IV-V-VI seems assured. (3) That R. VII immediately succeeded R. VI is highly probable. (4) R. VIII cannot be with certainty linked up with either his predecessors or his successors. He is probably later than R. VI (List of Princes), and there seems no place for him after R. IX. (5) The order of R. IX, X and XI seems indisputable, but the position of the ivhn msu't in relation to these three reigns is very uncertain. Journ, of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 10 74 OBJECTS OF TUTCCNKHAMUIS^ IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM By H. K. hall With Plates \hii-xi. “Lord of the Two Lands, N eb-kheperu-Rec , beloved of Upuauet, who rules the two lands of the South.” The following notes on some objects of Tutfankhamun in the British Museum may be of interest: 1. A copper bowl, or pan (PL viii), measuring 17 ins. (43 cm.) on the widest diameter of the lip, 6 ins. (15’2 cm.) diameter of base, and 2| ins. (6 cm.) high. The lip is therefore greatly splayed, and on one side is depressed and pointed outwards to enable liquid S W' “Lord of the Two to he poured out; on this depression is engraved ^ g Lands, N eh-kU'peru-Rer , the inscription (see Fig. 1). | ^ beloved of Upuauet, who The signs are well cut; the cartouche enclosed W ^ by a double line. The bowl no doubt belonged !^' = South ” originally to some temple service of the god Ophois ^ in Lykopohs (Asyut). It is not of bronze, but of copper, with traces of lead; no tin or other metal whatever (analysis by Dr. H. J, Plenderleith, of the British Museum Laboratory). [No. 43040.] 2. White fayence kohl-tube (PI. ix, fig. 1), imitating a reed (of the kind seen in No. 51068, also illustrated). On it in manganese-brown (black) are inscribed the prenomen of Tutcankhamun and the name of his queen “the king’s great wife Ankhesenamun.” (See Fig. 2.) The cut round 1 e the tube below the queen’s name is intended to imitate = =j | the joint in the actual reed (c/. No. 51068). Height 7^ g 6 ins. (15'2 cm.); diameter f in. (2 cm.). [No. 2573.] ^ 3. Deep blue fayence kohl-tube of the same reed-type, gi ^ ^ but plainly cylindrical, without any attempt to imitate the reed-joint (PI. ix, fig. 2). On it in black is inscribed | 2 2 “Good God, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Crown- ^ ^ ings, N eb-kheperu-Rec (Tutcankhamun), given life for Igj ever.” (See Fig. 3.) Height 64 ins. (16‘5 cm.); diameter ' — Vr ttt } in. {2 cm.). [No. 27376.] ' rf To these is added for purposes of comparison an S ^ actual kohl-tube of reed, of about the same date (PI. ix, 3- Fig. 4 . fig. 3). The ink inscription, placed between two many-notched year-signs from the ends of which hangs the symbol of gold, reads “Eye-paint of Coming-forth behind the Beauties of Eternity.” (See Fig. 4; the sign ^ should be holding two with two more hanging from his wrists.) This is probably a funerary object solely, whereas the two fayence tubes were intended for actual use. Height 74 ins. (19 cm.); diameter fin (2 cm.). [No. 51068.] " * Fig. 3- Fig. 4- OBJECTS OF TUTSAN KHAMUN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM JO and Fig 5- o - K-r Fig. 6 . 4. Blue fayence funerary throwstick of Tutfankhamun : butt-end only (PI. ix, tig. 4). The rest of the object was broken off in antiquity. It no doubt came from an ancient plundering of the tomb. The object was bought by the late Mr. W. L. Xash many years ago, and was acquired with other objects of his collection in 1920. It was published by him in Proc. Soc. Bihl. Arch., xxxii (1910). 194; PI. xxix, 45. It is decorated and inscribed with the king’s names in the usual form (see Fig. 5), in black. The design is the con- ventional lily. Length 3 ins. (9 cm.). [No. 54822.] 5. Trunk, with left arm, of a portrait-statue in hard gritstone, originally of Tutrankhamiin, usurped by Haremhab (PI. x). The legs below the thighs, right arm, and head are missing ; the left arm is damaged but the hand complete. The king is holding a standard (damaged). The right arm was anciently knocked off and re-fixed by two pegs, for which the holes still remain. There is a deep gash on the stomach. The king was wearing the helm the infulae of which are shown in relief hanging at the side of the plinth. He wears a multiple necklace and a gaufi'red linen kilt, from the cincture of ' which hangs an “apron” of feather-work( f). at the end of which was some- thing in inlay of another material which is lost, leaving the rectangular hole for it empty. In the middle of the cinctmre is cut very small. i ■ , ~f. Neb-kheperu-Rec, beloved of Amen-Rer.” On the sceptre or staff is cut in equally tiny hieroglyphs the beginning of the royal titulary (see Fig. 6)h ending with ^ beneath a cartouche which is quite illegible and has probably been usurped and then erased again. The inscription on the back of the plinth reads as Fig. 7. The group (sic) is the first on the label, as it is right up at the base of the neck of the figure, and the plinth cannot have gone any higher: in fact the cross-bar of the top of the “label” is visible in the photograph. It therefore pre- sumably means “King and Lord,” an unprecedented title before the Insibya, The usurpation by Haremhab is childi-shly clumsy, as may be seen from the photograph. The signs below the cartouche are a restoration by Haremhab. These usurpations are so wretched that they can hardly be regarded as anything else than the work of an absolute beginner, who wa.s presumably stopped or gave up the job after he had tried unsuccess- fully to cut the cartouche and a few signs, which are, however, enough to tell us the name of the king in whose reign Tutrankhamun s name was erased. The mending of the arm (substitution of a new one, now missing) looks as if it dated from the same time. The original hieroglyphs are well cut, and the work of the statuette itself excellent, showing typical traits of the ‘Amarnah period, with slack abdomen, broad hips and shoulders, accentuating the narrowness over the ribs, beneath the rather full breast. It measures ll j ins. (.50 cm.) in height and was originally 5 in. (12’7 cm.) broad at the shoulders; the plinth is If in. (4 cm.) wide, broadening slightly towards the , ^ missing base. Fig. 7 . The figure was given by W. McOran Campbell, Esq., in 1903. [No. 37639.] For comparison with it I publish (PI. xi) a .smaller headless figure of much the same ' > The falcon wears the double crown and ha.s a 7 sign at his feet. •0^ ' L supped ■ 12 =^ 10—2 76 H. R. HALL tj Fig. 9. kind, in steatite, of Amenophis III, the inscription of which, on the plinth behind, has been erased with a view to an usurpation, which has, however, never been carried out. The only signs of the inscription visible are the three first (see Fig. 8), while further down can just be made out the three symbols of the king’s prenomen (see Fig. 9) in a cartouche which has gone. The ^ figure carries the crook of Osiris in the right hand; the hanging left pig's arm holds an uncertain object like a knot or short ‘"sash,” which may be a “sacral’’ knot like that held by the funerary statue of Menkheperre<'seub (see p. 1), which so much resembles the “sacral knot” of the Minoan Cretans. The treatment of the body is reminiscent of that of Xo. 37639, showing the fleshy abdomen and broad hips, which are characteristic of the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty and especially of the ‘Amarnah period. The dress is rather different, the apron having the two uraei at the sides and being represented apparently as of bead-work, not feathers. This figure was funerary in character, as we see from the inscription. It belonged to the Salt Collection of 1835, and measures 5| ins. (14 cm.) in height. [No. 2275.] Of the above objects Nos. 2, 3, 4 (more especially the last) were probably among the objects in the king's tomb, and No. 1, the bronze bowl, may also have belonged to it in spite of its Lykopolite inscription. They mu.st have left it as the result of some ancient plundering, proof of which is seen in the objects of Tutcankhamun and lye (Ai) found by Harold Jones in the Biban el-Muluk in 1907. in a rock-cut chamber that at fir.st was taken to be the tomb of Tutcankhamun. since lye’s was well known as the Turhat el-Kurud in the west valley'. All, with the e.xception of No. 37639, were bought, and have been in the Museum for many years. I have not included the “Prudhoe” lion of red granite in the Egyptian Sculpture Gallery (No. 2; ex 34). which bears Tutcankhamun’s name, in this list, because I regard this as certainly if not an usurpation at any rate an “addition” on his part, for both the lions (Nos. 1 and 2) undoubtedly belonged to Amenophis III and were set up by him at §ulb (Soleb), whence they were removed to Gebel Barkal by the Ethiopian Amonisru, who also inscribed his name upon them. Tutrankhamun merely added an inscription to one of them, recording his restoration of the monuments of his father Amenophis III, P ^ 1 M = S ^ 1 ^ C be (Amenophis) had made as his monument for his father, Amon-Re*’” Both lions seem to me to be undoubtedly by the same sculptor, and it is highly improbable that Amenophis set up only one of them, and Tutrankhamun later on the other in exact imitation of it. Also this would not be which usually means chiefly the restoration of inscriptions. I think that both lions were set up by Amenophis as a pair, as it is natural to suppose, and that Tutrankhamun merely restored his father’s inscription on one of them, which had got battered in the Atenist iconoclasm, when Amenophis’ inscription on the other lion was considerably knocked about, but was not restored by Tutrankhamun. There is no restoration by Tutrankhamun of the inscriptions of the other lion (No. 1). as Breasted, Am. Rec., 896 (ii, 363) implies: Tutrankhamun’s inscription is on No. 2 only. On No. 1 the inscription of Amenophis remains, with a record of Akhenaten’s vandalism in the battered second cartouche of his father, in which the name has been roughly replaced in Akhenaten’s peculiar manner by a repetition of the throne name in which the middle signs are practically invisible. Breasted (op. cit., 364, n. c) assigns this restoration to • fuEO. M. Davi.s and Uabessv, Tombs of HurmUnhi and Toautilnkhamanoa, 1912 2 3 125 ff. lute XI Statuette in .steatite f)f .\mciio[)lii.s III. Hritisli Museum, No 2275. Ili li/hi t)! iiii/ies (14 cm.) OBJECTS OF TUrANKHAMUN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 77 Tuti'ankhamun ; but when Tuti'ankhamiin restored his father's monuments at Sulb he had reverted to Amenism, and would have spelt out the name Amenophis juoperly as in his inscription on No. 2; whereas Akhenaten actually did use a repetition of N eb-rnac at-Re^ as his father’s nomen after his death, so that the two cartouches N eb-mac at-Rec stand side by side, as we see in the British Museum stele No. 57399, formd at ‘Amarnah by the Society’s expedition of 1923-d, on which the dead Amenophis is represented with Tiye and described as in Fig. 10. This stele was certainly made under Akhenaten^. I regard the filial relationship of Tutfankhamun to Amenophis III as proved by this inscription, in default of any evidence to the contrary, and in my Ancient History of the iSear East (1913), p. 308, I wrote that he ‘ ‘was probably a son of Amenophis III by an inferior wife.” In view of the close personal likeness between Tutfankhamun and Queen Tiye. pointed out in the Illustrated London News. Jan. 1, 1927, I should now be inclined to think it more probable that he was her son, and that therefore he and Akhenaten were own brothers, although he was much younger tlian Akhenaten. The fact that Tutfankhamun married his niece, Akhenaten's daughter, is no bar to this conclusion, in ancient Egypt. Mr. Ulanville, in an article to be published in Parts iii-iv of this Journal, notes personal resemblances between Tutcaukhamun and Amenophis III which confirm this view. If we suppose that Akhenaten proclaimed his adherence to the “doctrine” immediately after his father's death, and that therefore he was associated with Amenophis up to his fifth year at least, he will have died, after a reign of seventeen vears, eleven or twelve years after his father. Smenkhkerec probably overlapped both Akhenaten and Tutcankharnun in his three years’ reign 2, so that Tutfankhamun, who probably did not reign more than six years, may, if he died at the age of eighteen or nineteen (as the examination of his mummy shows)®, quite easily have been the son of Amenophis III, even if he were not born posthumously. 1 Griffith, Juuranl, .\ii JOiiCi,, i. - For the reign of SmenkhkerS'' there is no doubt whatever from the evideiiee ot tavenee rnig-litveK, ete., that this is the correct form, and that “SCaakerei" i " i, a nioilern mistake, see Xewberry, in the current Journal, py. 5-6. ^ C.VRTER, Ton'ih of Tuto iditahifii, ii, 160. Fig. lo. 78 THE NEW PTOLEMAIC PAPYEU8 CONTAINING PARTS OF ILIAD, xii, 128-2G3 Bv G. M. BOLLING The British Museum possesses a papyrus (Iiiv. No. 2722a) that has recently been pub- lished by Mr. H. J. M. Milne as No. 251 in his Catalogue of the Literanj Papyri in the British Museum, App., 210-11. Thanks to his kindness and that of Mr. H. Idris Bell (both have also been so good as to answer a number of iny (jueries) I have seen a proof of this publica- tion, and wish to attempt a reconstruction of its text, and to stress the importance of its evidence about the earlier tradition of the Homeric poems. The papyrus is assigned by its editor to the second century n.c., and is to be classed, I shmdd say, with P. Hibeh 20 and P. Jouguet as representatives of a type of text distinct both from the • wild ' Ptolemaic texts and from the later Vulgate. The unique character of the Hibeh ])apyrus was recognized by its editors immediately upon its discovery, and their judgment has been confirmed by the coming to light of a second and third specimen. If my suggestioiP that the “City editions are in reality texts of this, or a closelv related, type shall prove tenable, the importance to be attributed to these papyri will increase greatly. All three types of text seem, however, to rest upon the same foundation, which may be called the Old Vulgate, to avoid terms such as Attic or Pisistratean text, that would raise other issues. Their differences come from the fact that they have all been interpolated but ill different ways and to different degrees. Of the verbal variants- the most important is 7rXe[v]goi/(. in line ISSi*. The word occurs twice (//., IV, 528, xx, 486) in the Vulgate; both times in the same phrase as here. The MSS. all read Trvevpovi. but there is also indirect evidence for TrXeii/ioai that reaches us through Photius and Eustathius, beside a statement of Moeris that TrXeu/iwi/ is the Attic, irvevptov the Hellenistic form. Confronted with this conflicting evidence editors (except Nauck and Pick) have regularly played safe and followed the manuscripts. Linguists, how- ever, have seen that TfKevgmv must be the older form ; if for no other reason® because of the ease with which •jrvtvfxwv can be explained as due to popular etymology; and Wacker- ' Thu External Ecidence ior Interpolation in Horner, 37-41. Oxford: Clarendon Pre.ss, 1925. The ■separate jiosition of P. Hibeh 20 was questioned by Gerhard, Ptolem. Homerfr. 4. TTO 2 129. 7roXv]K07rotT!)r a miscopying of TroXvKoiTrjv I 178. ayrupei/]?) 7 rep avayKTj liy false concord; oil oiiii.ssion of cf. Gerhard, op. cit., 20, n. 3. 188^ ipCpivri[v for .spellings such as vCptvrj cf. Brugmaxn- Thcmb, Onvch. Oram.^, 147 ; and note the effort.s to designate the length of the .sibilant by -Mfx-, -tra-jx- in Hekjiaxx, Silbenbildimy, 118. One may think more remotely of Cretan ^6p^oc, cf. Bechtel, Griech. />ial.,u, 706. If the spelling is more than a graphic blunder (from vpp-t) something like [f-m] would seem to be intended. 250. an^a k fpcot -.avTU' Vulg. ; no interchange elsewhere in the Iliad is reported by Ludwich. 2 But rf the etymologies given s.v. by Boisacq and by IValde, even if they are not free of difficulty For materi.d, cf. Kcehxer-Bla.ss, Griech. Gram., i, 73. THE NEW PTOLEMAIC PAPYRUS, ILIAD, xii, 128 263 70 nageP accordingly pointed to the behaviour of the mss. as indicating nothing but the influ- ence of Hellenistic speech upon the Homeric tradition. The dl.-jcov^ery of a copy, older than all others, that reads irXevfiovi, should now turn the .scales even for the luo.st conservative. Incidentally, too, it settles the form of Alcaeus s re'y'y^ TrXevfiuva^ o'lihii when' flu* last editor, Lobel (108), has chosen more wisely than his immeiliate predecessor Diehl (91) between similar variants. The discovery of this papyrus thus yields an item that mav be added to the lisP of instances in which modern scholarship has been similarly confirmed. Turning now to the larger issues: the hrst fragment contains the ends of lines 128 36 in agreement with the Vulgate, but in the opinion of the editor ••the lines following a]i])ear fo differ from the usual text. ' There is little from Mhich to form an opinion, but the shortness of line 137 (33 letters) seems consistent with the fact that the end of the corresjxmtling line did not reach the extant strip of pap}T:us. Then the next line, in which onlv ]/ia.a[ can he read, probably ditfered merely by having something like KtiXaSw fj,dXa ttoXXm for /revhXft) aXaXyjrm. The third fragment containing the begiuuings of verses 219-63 otfiu’s much the same aspect. For lines 254-5 the editor suggests that there were ••apparentlvnew linc"- sujiplant- ingtheMSS. tradition"; and again I think that it may be sufhcieiit to assume no more than verbal variants®, such as; i) Se /c[aTa vrjoiv Kovirjv ep€V avrdp edeXye dvpov ’A[-)(^atojv Tp&xrl Ka't"FjKTopi /cvSoi oTrd^cor. The column contains also one plus verse (250“) at the close of Hector's speech to Poly- damas. The context leaves little doubt that it musf* have begun dXX' e7r[e-o. It can be completed on the pattern of any one of three lines : TTToXepLOV 8', 0 £ 0 s' TTapo^ evx^ac elvai cf. 11. , iv. 264. TTToXepov Se Ka\ dXXov^ opvvOi Xaov aXkrjai fia^nv efid-^ovro TrvXrja-tv ■} dpyaXeov Se fie ravra Oeov aSy] irdvT dyopelvcrai.] irdvTp yd,p Trep'i T€t')(pt optopei 9e\<7'iTi,Sa,] Xvae [ 8 e yvia. 19 j oes 183->'y. 189^'’: meanwhile in the i.thm verse^ I8l-fi, 190-2 had been added. Then the currents cro-ss, this la A interpolation (190-2) m, iking its way into the other stream of tradition and being there assimilated. Alterwards veIse^ 187 and 193-4 made their appearance in the current that ends in our \ ulgate. The papyrus can show one other thing, though that but dimly. The editor, on the tacit assumption that there was no increment between verses 128 anil 173, could calculate that the columns contained 24 lines. Then between Fr. 2 and Fr. -1 either one coluiun is missing, and between lines 195 and 249 there is a minn> of ] 1 veuses': or two columns with a plus of 10 verses are lacking. In view of the general character of the text, the former seems much the more likelv supposition. Of couri^e the calculation can be changed by modifying the primary assumption, and operating with a column of different length. It seems, therefore, unprofitable to pursue the topic further. The papyrus illustrates again the truth that the value of these early texts will lie not in the extra lines they bring us. but in their refusal to attest lines that have hitherto appeared well established. ' Before lines st.ind end.s from .1 column :] .i’,];'- TliC'c, it 5 uleate Imc'. would 'Cem to l.o 220, 219; then at least three of the.se “minus" verses .sto™l before line 2is. Th.it the “iilus'' ver.se 21!) should appear thu.s mrsplaced is nothin'..; surprising. Journ. of Eg\pt. Arch. xiv. 11 82 THE SONS OF TUTHMOSIS IV By PERCY E. NEWBERRY With Plate xii. N. de Garis Davies, writing in this Journal, ix, 133, remarks that in the Theban Tomb No. 226, the owner, “a royal scribe and steward, is depicted sitting with four nude children upon his lap who wear the side-lock^. A detached fragment shows that one of these, not the youngest, was a King’s son, beloved by him, Akheperrec The painting is a very rough and broken one, and it is impossible to say if all the children meant were boys.” As the tomb contains a portrait of Amenophis III sitting en- throned with his mother Mutemwia, Davies dates it to the first half of that great Pharaoh’s reign. “The appearance of Mutemwia in Tomb No. 226,” writes Davies in another place®, “is not due to the unmarried state of the king. A rough and damaged scene there shows the owner seated with no fewer than four of the royal children on his knee at once Who are these four children? The name of one of them (not the youngest) survives on a fragment as IAkheper(u?)rei'; another may have been Tuthmosis, the heir who died young, and a third Akhenaten.” In the article in this Journal, Davies says, “Here is a brother, and probably an elder brother of Akhenaten.” If, however, we examine all the evidence relating to the prince !Akheper(u)re<’ it will, I think, point to his being a son of Tuth- mosis IV, rather than of Amenophis III. The evidence is this: I. Tomb No. 226 at Thebes is of a “Overseer of the King’s Tutors,” who ' This scene is figured by Davies in the PtnUetin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Dec. lim, Part II, 42, fig. .3. ' . In a footnote to Journal, ix, 1.33, Davies remarks that his “notes do not show whether the form •Akheperarer was pos.sihle or excluded. In any case O^^kheperreC is a variant which Amenophis II also used.” In the Bulletin article (p. 43) Davies gives the reading iAkheper(u)rer. My tracing, made two years ago, shows that the plaster is broken away below the ;^/>r-sign, see Fig. 1. ^ Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Dec. 1923, Part ll, 42-43. Lepsius, KiSnigs- buch. No. 340, makes an i" AkheperureC a son of Tuthmosis IV, and so also does Gauthier, Le livre des rois, II, 304. * This title cannot be “is given by Gardixer-Weigali , Topographical Catalogue of the Private Torahs of Thehes, No. 226. A fragmentary inscription in this tomb reads the second title may be confidently restored “king’s follower” ; the third should be either ' "1 ' * a n 1 i 1 — T™, “overseer of the tutors of the king,” which is found on a shawabti figure of Elekerneheh in the ( 'airo iluseum, No. 46536, from the Biban el-Mulftk, see Journal dentree, 3393, and Mariette, Monuments THE SONS OF TUTHMOSIS IV 83 was also a “royal scribe,” and “steward”; bis name bas unfortunately been destroyed. Davies, no doubt rightly, attributes tbe tomb to tbe earlier half of tbe reign of Amen- opbis III, for in it tbe king’s mother is enthroned with her son. But it is remarkable that no queen of Amenophis III is mentioned in the inscriptions, although there are at least four children whom Davies considers to be children of Amenophis III. The names of two of these children have been partly preserved, as will be seen from the reproduction of my tracing of the original fragments of the inscriptions above the boys (see Fig. 1). The first name perhaps read the second ^^[U]; no trace remains of the third. Were there no other evidence, we might perhaps grant Davies’s surmise that Akhe- per(u)re<’ was a son of Amenophis III. II. Inscriptions in Tomb No. 64 at Thebes name two court otficials — (1) Hekreshui, who was “Tutor of the king’s eldest son Tuthmosis-Khafkhacw (i.e., Tuthmosis IV), and (2) Hekerneheh, who was “Tutor of the king’s son Amenophis,” and “tutor of the king’s children^.” The tomb is dated in the reign of Tuthmosis IV who, in two scenes, is depicted giving audience to his nobles. On the right-hand inner wall of the vestibule there is an important scene® which shows Hekreshu seated on a chair with the king’s eldest son Tuthmosis-Khackhafw upon his knee. This boy has the uraeus upon his fore- head, holds in his right hand the hek -sceptre, wears a pectoral inscribed with the pre- nomen of Tuthmosis IV, and imder his feet is a stool upon which nine prostrate prisoners are depicted. Above the seated figure of Hekreshu was an inscription^ giving his name and titles (see PI. xii); he is here described as “tutor of the king’s son the eldest of his body®, Tuthmosis-Khackhacw.” Above the young prince were three vertical lines of dicers, PI. 36, g; or ' \^iYi — “overseer of the tutors of the king's son,’ whirh is found on a shawabli figure of Huy, Cairo, No. 46548, from AVjydos, see Jotu-iud d’eniree, 4438. It is possible that the Theban Tomb No. 2:16 may be that of the tutor Hekerneheh who, in the reign of Amenophis Ill’s prede- cessor Tuthmosis IV, prepared for himself Tomb No. 64 which is mentioned below. • Hekreshu appears as ® statuette of the king’.s son Tuthmosis which was fumd by Miss Ben.son in the temple of Mut .it Karnak ; I h.ive published the inscriptions upon it in Bensox- Gourlay, TAe Temple of Mut, 328-329. (.Iauihier, Le Here dec rois, ii, 3(i:k makes this king's sun Tuthmosis a son of Tuthmosis IV, but from the data given in the pre.scnt paper ho is certainly to lie identified with King Tuthmosis IV himself. - The title — [fji “tutor of the kings children" appears on one of Hekre.shu's funerary cones. s This is given by L., D., in, Bl. 69, but some important det.iils h.ive been omitted. A pencil drawing of Hekreshu with the young prince upon his lap was m.ade by .lames Burton in the late twenties of last century, and is now pre.served among the Burton M.^S. in the British Museum {.hid. MS. 2.5644, f. 13, 14^. The uraeus is clearly seen in this e.irly drawing. Chaniiiollion has flescribed the .scene in his .Xutices descriptives, I, 863. ^ The inscriptions have been restored from Burtons copy; the first . 3 . in the cartouche, omitted by Burton, is given in Chajicolliox, Notices descriptices, i, 863. The scene was badly damaged befsre 1844 when Lepsius made his drawing. Describing the pectoral, Champollion says that it bore the name of the prince's father; he, therefore, thought that the young prince was a son of Tuthmosis IV and not Tuth- mosis IV himself. ■' On a Canopic jar described by Daressy {^Rec. de tear., .\iv, 174; a i'^1' | j j 1 w mentioned. Daressy .supposed that this prince was a son of Tuthmosi.s IV and identified him with the of the Sphinx Stela; but the of the Sphinx Stela was certainly Tuth- mosis IV himself, see Ekmax, Sitzb. K . A . Berlin, vi, 428-37. Gauthier {Le Here des rois. ri, 336) makes the king’s .son Tuthmosis of the Canopic jar-box a so,, of Amenophis III, but there is no evidence at all for this. 11 —?, 84 PERCY E. NEWBERRY inseription; here he is called ‘‘the king’s eldest son Menkheperure'' ” ; this name, which appears also on the pectoral that the young king wears, is, of course, the prenomen of Tuthmosis IV, and he is here further described as “Lord of the Two Lands.” Behind the young sovereign and facing Hekreshu is figured the “king’s son Amen- ophis,” with his tutor Hekerneheh. Above them are seven lines of inscription (see PI. xii). In front of the prince are the words “king’s son of his body,” but the name, which was obviously Amenophis, has been destroyed. This young king’s son is shown wearing the side-lock, and he had suspended from his neck a pectoral inscribed with the prenomen and nomen of Tuthmosis IV ; a drawing of this pectoral is given by Champollion and is reproduced in Fig. 2. The prince holds in one hand a bouquet of flowers and in the other a sprig of green leaves. This little prince, there can be no doubt, was Amen- ophis, the son of Tuthmosis IV by Queen Mutemwia^, who succeeded his father on the throne of Egypt and was later known as Nebmarec Amenophis III. Behind Hekerneheh were depicted probably six^ young princes arranged in three rows of two each, but the whole of the second row is broken away and the names of all the princes except one have disappeared. The first in the upper row wears a pectoral upon which is the prenomen of Tuthmosis IV and before him is the legend “the king’s son of his body, Amenemhet.” This young prince is known to us from another source, for his Canopic jars (and perhaps his body) were found in the tomb of Tuthmosis IV in 1903®; from this fact we may surmise that he predeceased his father. III. The names of the royal tutors Hekreshu^ and Hekerneheh® appear on other monuments besides Tomb No. 64 at Thebes. On the rocks of the Island of Konosso in ‘ That Xebuiarer Amenophis III was a son of Tuthmo.sis IV by Mutemwia i.s certain from an insorij)- tion in the temple at Luxor (G.wet, Le temple de Lonxow PI. Ixxi, fig. 205). - G-iCTHlER, Le Urre dee rois, Ii, 290, note 1, says ‘‘on voit six princes, disposes deux a deux sur troi.s registres superposes, qui sunt probablcrnent des frtres de Tuthmosis IV; leurs noins sont detruits, et •souvent au.ssi leurs iniage,s.” 3 C.xrter-Xewberry, The Tomh of Thoutmoeis /riod. Theodore Davis), 6-7, Xos. 46037-46039. The l>ody of the boy wa.s found in one of the chambers of thi.s tomb (op. eit., PI. x. fig. 31 Besides the inscriptions naming Hekreshu mentioned in the text of this paper I should note the following; (1) A statuette of the king'.s son Tuthmosis found by Miss Benson in the temple of Mut at Karnak; the inscriptions ujion it have been published by me in Bexsox-Gourlay, The Temple of Mut, 328-329. I originally thought that this “king’.s son Tuthmo.sis” must be a son of Tuthmosis - IV (Benson-(.1ouri.ay', op. cit., 328, n. +), but it i.s now certain that he ought to be identified with the young Tuthmosis (i.e., Tuthmosis IV) who is deiiicted seated on hi.s tutor’s knee in Tomb Xo. 64 at Thebes. I know of no evidence for a sou of Tuthmosis IV bearing the name Tuthmosis. The cartouche above the graffito on a rock in the island of Sehel (L., />., Text iv, 125 ; J. de Morgax, Cataloyue 1, 90, X"o. 84) which names a was examined by Mr. Winlock and myself in 1926, and again by me in 1927, and it does not read as given by de Morgan. (2) Three shawabti figures found by Petrie at Abydos (Royal Tombs I, 33; M.acTver-Mace, El Amrah mid Abydos, PI. xxxix, 3 and 4,i ; these are now in the Cairo Museum (Xos. 4S.329-30). (3) Four graffiti at Kono.sso; Petrie, Season, Xo.s. 21, 23, 39, 44. ■' Other monuments than tho.se mentioned in the text which name Hekerneheh are (Ij A statuette repre.seuting the tutor kneeling and holding before him a stela, found when clearing out the tomb in 1899. (2) Many funerary cone.s from hi.s tomb. (3) Two shawabti figures found in the Biban el-iluluk and now in Cairo (46536) ; cf. Mariette, Monv.raents dicers, PI. 36, f and g. The inscription upon one of the.se gives the name of Bekerneheh’s mother Ment. Fig; 2. THE SONS OF TUTHMUSiS IV 85 the region of the First Cataract, there is a group of graffiti which date from the reign of Tuthmosis IV. One of these (see Fig. 3) names the ‘‘favoured of Amenrei', the divine father, Hekreshu," together with two young prince.s, "the king’s son Amenophis.” and the “king’s son Akheperurefi.'’ There can be no doubt that the Hekreshu here mentioned is the same person who is figured in Tomb Ho. 64 at Thebes, for he bears in both places the title Div'ine Father, and he appears in both places with the prince Amenophis. Another graffito- at Konusso (see Fig. 4) names the king's first herald Ref, the king's •sons Amenophis and Akheperurer, and the Hekerneheh. Here again the tutor bears a title which is also found in Tomb No. 64 at Thebes and he must be the same person who was buried in the cemetery of the capital. The tomb of the king's first herald Eec is at Thebes (No. 201), and it certainly dates from the reign of Tuthmosis H'. A superb model sarcophagus inscribed with the titles and name of Eec is in the Cairo Museum and perhaps came from Tomb No. 201 at Thebes. On the evidence of these Cataract graffiti combined with that of the inscriptions in Tomb No. 64 at Thebes there can be little if any doubt that Akheperure'' was a sou of Tuthmosis I\', and not, as Davies supposed, of Amenophis III. Akheperure'" was probably the third son of Tuthmosis IV, and thus a younger brother of Amen- ophis III, not an elder brother of Akhenateu. The names of the sons of Tuthmosis I\' were therefore (1) Amenophis®, who succeeded his father and became Amenophis III, (2) Amenemhet, who died young and was buried in his father's tomb in the Biban el- Muluk, (3) Akheperuref and (4) Akheper(ka?)re<'. P.S. In Brunton-Engelbach’s recently published memoir on Gurob, there is given on PI. li a list of princes of the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties together with some of their titles. This list is apparently based on Gauthier's Le Hire dcs raid and unfortunately several errors have been perpetuated. The first herald Ref was not a son of Amenophis II: that he is described as a ‘‘king’s son" is due to a misreading of the Cataract graffito that names him (see Fig. 4). Again, Shemsukheper is given in the list of Amenophis Ill's sons, but no such name exists: the reading is due to the faulty copy of a Kono.sso graffito in Petrie, Season, PI. i, No. 23 (for the correct reading see Fig. 3). I note also that Tutfankhamun is given as a son of Amenophis III without any query mark. It would be interesting to know the evidence for such a definite statement. ' Tlii^ gi'.irtito Is iiK'oiTecth- publiblied hy Petkik, I’l. i, N". 2'-i. wiio I'o.i'i' ^ in plun I'f Clklieperurei'. It is cmrcctly given liy L., JJ., 'rcitbaml iv, IS-, .-tud liy .J. OE Mnin j.vx, /, on, Xi>. .'i ; but the Litter gives it ugiiin on p. 10:3 in ,i Hundered form Ironi M.riiiETTE, - First copied by H,p\ in the e.irly thirties of List eeiitiiry llritish Mu.'Ouni, AdJ. MS. i'.iSAT, f. 1:3 v. . Published by Pei'kie, S'J'imji'. PI, i, Xu. :i2 ; L., /A, Te.\tb.ind l\, lilT. .1. I'K /, 70 , X‘o. lb, omits the mimes of the two kings sons but gives their ligures. ■ Wolf in the Aeitsi/o'. /. "y. .'y/-,, l.‘i7 h.is iioteii th.it the ‘'King s Son of Ivu-li, Amenophis, ' men- tioned in ;i graffito iit Sohel. appears alsij in a steLi of Tiithnio.sis I \' at W.idi H.ilfa. He m perlnqis to be ideiititied with the Prince Amenophis son of Tuthmosis IV. Fi,? 4. O \ eta a 1 1 1 Fig. 3- 86 AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE AND THE ORIGIN OF THE COPTIC CONJUNCTIVE TENSE By ALAN H. GAKDINEE At the end of the Eighteenth and the beginning of the Nineteenth Dynasties are to be found examples of a verbal construction at first sight quite ephemeral in its range and not at all easy to reconcile with the known rules of Egyptian grammar. This con- struction is of the type following examples are the only ones known to me^. A. Continuing an imperative. them {scil. the doors) be made of 6 cubits in their height, and thou shalt tell (it) to the builder Amenmose in order that he may make them accordingly,” Pap. Brit. Mas. 10102, 13-14 (Dyn. XVni)2. ( 2 ) to be filled and draw out ,” Pap. Boulaq 15, a 7 (Dyn. XIX). There are two more examples on the side b of this same papyrus, but there the context is even more full of lacunae than is the present passage. B. Continuing an injunction or wish. (3) Tita be brought to thee, and contend with her,” Moscow 3917 b (late Dyn. XVIII) = IlaMflmHUKU MySBH A.ieKCaHdpa III (Moscow, 1912), PI. 2. (-i) “ttou shalt put them over the fire and add to them another 11 hins,” Pap. meH. Berl. 11, 10 (Dyn. XIX). Here the insertion of hr before dit is unique and doubtless a mistake. Mistakes are frequent in this corrupt text. C. Continuing a relative clause, this mostly having future reference. (5) ^^y king who D yet to be and who shall make lasting my acts,” Leps., Denkm., ui, 140, c, 8 (Wadi ‘Abbad; Sethos I). any king who is yet to be, who shall subvert all my plans, and who shall say: The lands are at my disposal,” ibid., 11. ^ “as to any official who shall beseech the king, and who shall give a good reminder to confirm under my name what I have done,” ibid., 14. * The problem here to be discussed presented itself in connexion with example (:3) below, which is drawn from a text shortly to be edited by Kurt Sethe and myself. The examples (4), (6j, and (8) were supplied through Sethe from the Berlin dictionary, - I am indebted to Mr. Glanville for a knowledge of this iutei’esting letter. AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 87 (8) “I have faced thee, thou (disease) smn, I have faced thee, thou who art sunken in^the members of X, the son of Y, like him who flies and takes his stand waiting in a high place (i.e., probably like the sun-god Ee^),” Paf. Leyd. 343, recto 6, 4. Here exceptionally of j)resent time. D. Construction doubtful. (^) “and he takes the boat of any man in the army,” Decree of Haremhah 17. The preceding context is destroyed. Another yet more damaged example, ibid. 26, end, in Max Muller's edition {Egyptological Res^enrchcx. t, 91). When one of the later independent pronouns is found immediately preceding a verb- form, the grammarian’s first thought is to connect the construction with what I have called the participial statement (Egyptian Grammar [henceforth quoted as (lrnmm.\ § 373). the type of which is ■■'it is he who does” so-and-so. Gunn has shown, however, that when future time is in -view, the participle is habitually replaced by the sdmf form. ' ^'^■^ Rare exceptions do exist where «//4- imperfective participle has future sense (Gramm.. § 368), but they are uncommon enough to be practically negligible. Since the construction found in the above-quoted pas.sages in all cases except (8) refers to future time, the participial construction is there virtually ruled outl. But there are other reasons still more cogent. At the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty we are, indeed, on the verge of the period when less importance can be attached to the t in such a form as ^ in examples (4) and (7)^ but the presence of the preposition hr before dit in (4), though not only superfluous, but also in all likelihood faulty, at least shows that the writer had the infinitive in his mind. Nor have we any warrant for supposing that the construction indep. pron. participle could depend directly upon a preposition. We shall have occasion below to refer to certain interesting, and perhaps to some extent relevant, constructions where the indep. pron. follows a preposition. But they do not, so far as we know, extend in Middle Egyptian to the participial .statement 3. Where it is desired to express, by the help of a preposition, some logical nexus between the participial statement and what precedes, the particle ntt has to be inserted, ex. ^ Pap. Kahun 29. 39. and this ntt cannot simply be omitted at will. That the verb-form is in reality the infinitive is proved, not only by _ m (4) and (7), but also by in a development of the construction to be quoted below (22). The form 2.^^ good evidence to the contrary; we are at a period where the omission of t does not count for much, though its presence still does; but further, this verb, ending in d, would be particularly prone to omit its t, and several certain examples of so written in the infinitive occur in the decree of Haremhab (11. 28, 29, 35, 36)'*. Moreover, it seems extremely difficult to dissociate our construction entirely from the very similarly used Middle Kingdom comstruction with /in- -i- infinitive (Gramm.. § 171. 3). This occurs after the imperative or the sdm-hr-f form, inter alia, and serves accordingly 1 It will be shown below that hnC atf spui doe.s not necesi'iriljj refer to future time. However, luy jioint here is that in the.se oases which do refer to future time the [larticipi-il con.'.truotion would h,ue been replaced by ntf sdur-f. 2 Perhaps also in the damaged example from Pap. Bantaq 15, h, see above under (2;. 3 N iwt nhn t_m in Pgr. 1.595 c i.s di.'^po.sed of by Setheb critical note III, 9^2,. For another po.s^ible example of later date, see below example HS y ■* The Haremhab decree omits the <=. also in the infinitives I,,) L 24, I 28 and i 3 in a very special case 1. 18 ibelow e.xample :31). I h.ave not found any case of c. tieing added where it does not beloiw. .so that in 1. 24 (below example iij is undoubtedly an infinitive. 88 ALAN H. GAKDINEE precisely the same conjunctive and prospective purpose as hn^ ntf + infinitive in’our first four examples above. Compare with these: (10) “let there be brought to me 20 women and let (lit. together with causing that) there be brought to me 20 nets,” West car 5, 9-11. (11) “tlioii shalt make and give (fit. together with giving) him remedies,” Ebers 40, 8. Sim. ibid. 78, 19. If in such a construction it had been desired expressly to mention the author of the action, there is no doubt whatever that a writer of Middle Egyptian could have placed one of the later independent pronouns after the infinitive. Sethe was the first to point out this fact in Zeitschr. f. dg. Spr., xxix, 121 ; see too Gramm., § 300. We have no examples of the kind that are parallel in all details to the two last, but my assertion is proved by the two next, taken in conjunction with one another. nnrf-'-i. - - r “contract made by the prince about causing them to go and that they should go (lit. with going on their part) and that they should give (lit. with giving on their part) these two tapers Siut i, 312-3. ‘it shall be m- . ' <=> =2s£= I ' □ 1 1 c=s I .c, c:r ; i , ^ quired through (?) the mouth of one commissioned (?) by him, by means of his saying it in presence of the official concerned,” Sethe, Einsetzung, 7 = Newbeery, Eekhmara, 10. The first of these two examples, though using line, is not after an imperative or contained in an injunction; the .second is contained in an injunction, but uses m in place of hic. Both agree, however, in placing the later indep. pron. after the infinitive. As Sethe {loc. cit.) pointed out, this later indep. pron. is here the pronominal counterpart of the common agential {j— + noun after the infinitive. It is, accordingly, plain that, where the scribes of Dyn. XVIII-XIX actually wrote example 1 above), a scribe of Dyn. XII and onwards might well have written That he did not ordinarily so write was due to the fact that the addition of the pronoun was usually quite unnecessary, the implied agent of the infinitive being clear without it. Later on there seems to have been a tendency to be more explicit in this respect, a tendency nmiiifesfed, not only by but also by such redundancies as l dating from about the same time (Gramm., § 468, 4). In view of the facts above quoted, there can be little or no doubt that | is simply the outcome of the older possibility with transposition of the pronoim from after to before the infinitive. But a purist of English could not fail to be scandalized, and every Egyptian grammarian will certainly be puzzled, bv such an outrageous “split infinitive as with on thy part the saying.” The explanation of this probably lies in various constructions which were current about the same period (late Dyn. XVIII- early Dyn. XIX) and which may very well have influenced the speech of those times in the supposed direction. In the very oldest Egyptian the preposition — is found before sentences with nominal or adjectival predicate introduced by independent pronouns; such sentences then fimction as nouns and are, in the terminology of my Grammar, virtual noun clauses. Examples are: (14) am Horus who avenged his father,” Pgr. 1685 (M; N has n + cartouche). (15) “for thou art Kef,” Pi/r. 1688. Sim. P?/r. 1287c; 20326; in 473 u is written for — . A Coffin-text example is quoted Gramm., § 151. n. 4. AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 8 !) (16) “for she is your god, the daughter of a god,” Vrk. iv, 258, 2, afchaistic text from Der el-Bahri. Examples from the Pyramid-texts with ™ -i- noun are also common (e g Pin 917 « ■ 1139c; 2049). ^ ■ This ancient construction concerns us only inasmuch as it provides the model for a type of construction, employing the later, instead of the earlier, independent pronoun, which appears for the first time at the end of Dyn. XVIII. “according as thou art one true in the house of Ptah,” Dum., Hist. Inschr., ii, 40ff, 28: tomb of Neferhotpe, reign of Av. (18) “according as thou art one who does good things,” Inscr. dedicatoire, 66. This resembles the participial statement, but ir iht is perhaps simplv an epithet used as a noun. The analogy of such examples as these (for other slight variations see further examples quoted Gramm., § 154, n. 5) may have helped to transform our construction "T into though, smce dd is here infinitive, the resemblance is only of the most external, superficial, kind. But there is a quite different construction wGch may also have helped in the same direction. In clauses introduced by 77 ^nd its derivative " the general structural rules of Old and Middle Egyptian demand that the pronominal subject should be one of the dependent pronouns, as after the various non-enclitic particles (mk, ist) and after iwty {Gramm., § 203, 2). But soon the suffixes of the 2nd and 3rd pers. singular creep in, probably imder the influence of the later indep. pronouns Thus we get {a) from the relative adjective the phrase (19) place where he is,” earlier or instead of the hypothetically more correct * actually never found. See Gramm., § 200, end. And similarly we get {b) from the particle ”7 “that” examples like (20) “since he is one among these,” Lac., Sarc., i, 213. The model is that of the sentence with adverbial predicate. (21) ^'22 ^ thou hast come in peace,” Zeitsckr. f. fig. Spr., xix, 18. is the old perfective. Pseudo-verbal construction, following the model of the clause with adverbial predicate. See Gramm., § 223, end. Suppose now that |7777 “together with the fact that” were to be followed bv the pseudo-verbal construction with pronominal subject of the second or third person, this might well take the form or *; and it is perhaps mere chance that our texts do not exemplify precisely these con.structions, which differ from (21) only in the substitution of one preposition for another. But further, it is certain that had ceased to be pronounced *‘ntet and had become *''nte even as early as the end of the Sixth Dynasty, when we find variants like _^"7' for ^”7 ; see Gardiner and Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead, note on iia, 9. We thus see that 77 would be a very possible form of the pseudo-verbal construction after hnr ntt, “together with that ” At first sight we seem to have this actual construction in the passage from the Berlin Medical papyrus cited above (4), but there are various reasons for not con- sidering this the actual origin of the idiomatic construction ^fiich was our starting-point. If we accepted the last-named view, we should have to deny the development of without expressed pronominal subject, which is none the less so obviously its direct ancestor. Further, the existence of only one example with hr before the infinitive would be very strange, seeing that our nine .Touni. of Egypt. Arch. xi\. li' 90 ALAN H. GAKDINEE examples are all relatively early^. Again, parallel to a hypothetical ^ one would expect to find examples with the old perfective like such are not forthcoming. And lastly, I have pointed out that the sense of examples before us, nearly always future, and future or prospective sense is not at all suitable to a construction deemed to have arisen from the pseudo-verbal construction. For all these reasons, I adhere to my contention that the idiomatic construction 17' literally “with on his part the hearing,” arose from “with hearing,” through the knowledge that this could be expanded to *1^ “with hearing on his part,” and under the influence, partly of constructions like (17), and partly of constructions like (or with the pseudo-verbal construction. That hnr-ntt did in reality somehow become connected with the development from hn^ dd to hnr ntf dd is shown by three most remarkable passages from the Haremhab decree, from which one of our examples of actually drawn (9). These examples are: ( 22 ) 'i- >TJ fj i i I I I ! »c= A' I = ( ‘[But as to any man in the army of whom one^(?)] shall hear that they plunder and another comes to report, saying ,” Haremhab decree 24. the last word is of course for In (^3) ” these princes saying ,” ibid. 30. In a very fragmentary context. (24) “[As to any poor man(??) whose boat(?) is] taken away, and his freight is emptied out 3^,1'i i ^ Poor ii^an stands there bereft of his ,” ibid. 19. The restoration of the context is highly uncertain. It looks as though these three examples all formed part of long and complex relative clauses similar to those exemplified in the inscription from the Wadi ‘Abbad (5-7). That ill (^2) is infinitive is hardly open to doubt®, and it is both noticeable and important that no hr stands before it. In (23) and in (24) are probably likewise infinitives, though in the case of f 7^ it would be possible also to suppose that this is old perfective, in which case we should have an instance of the pseudo-verbal construction instanced in (21) above, but with hnc-ntt instead of dr-ntt and with nominal instead of pronominal subject*. The one instance (22) is, however, beyond all doubt, and shows us that the construction 1771 — a verb with feminine infinitive is here substituted for the unenlightening sdm — had as its counterpart with nominal subject the form a form perhaps quite mechanically copied from the corresponding con- struction with pronominal subject. It has only to be added that the writing ^77 for in the Haremhab decree is confirmed by often in the same inscription. To sum up, whatever may be thought of the analogies put forward above to explain the transposition of the independent pronoun, the fact remains that at the end of Dyn. XVIII and the beginning of Dyn. XIX there was a construction 177727^ used as a conjunctive tense with future meaning after imperatives, injunctions, and relative clauses referring to future time (see examples 1-9) and that the corresponding construc- tion with nominal subject had the form | 7'777 7777^^h‘^T~- * S\ e shall .see later that there is a strong statistic argument agaiii.st supposing that /o’ has been omitted before ahm in the example from the Haremhab decree, example (9). ^ Restored from 1. 28. 3 above p. 87, n. 4. ^ However, in a very similar context, 1. 15, r hr is sdm-f, a verb-form expressing action like the infinitive, and not duration like the old perfective. AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE 91 The chief interest of these constructions has, however, vet to be pointed out. If we ask ourselves in what wav, from Dyn. XIX onward.s, the .sen.- highly .significant. That we are unable to carry this compari.son of the two construction.s further is due to the paucity of our examples of hnf ntf irt. However, we can safelv sav that there are no Late Egyptian uses of mtii'f irt which could not in earlier times have been expressed by hnr irt or subsequently by hnc ntf irt. WitJi one .single exception: that exception is the use of mtwf irt in oaths, for example: (29) i n) a .strong bias on the side of history and etymology. I conclude that he is historical also in writing aiid never In the Kheta decree there are only three examples of always with hr; eight or more of always without hr. In the Bilgai stela is always without hr. There are no other relevant constructions. Lastly, the Haremhab decree abounds in verb-forms alike demanding and receiving an etymological hr before the infinitive. Absolutely the only cases where a doubt is possible is in the examples with noun infinitive (above 22-4). where we have decided against hr, and in the one completely isolated case of mtiv-f: (31) “[Kthere is??] ® J Ti; " I Y a poor man without a boat, and he takes to himself A JJ ^ ^^Jsss^ o' i I / ■ ^ a boat for his work from another man, and he sends it forth to fetch wood for him, and he serves [Pharaoh?],” ibid. 18. Here 4_c for is evidently faulty, but there is no (, and thus this example joins the rest in supporting my thesis that takes after itself the infinitive only, not the infinitive preceded by hr. The establishment of this fact, taken alone by itself, goes a very long way towards demonstrating the hypothesis that 7 ^ from ( j_^,) At all events the analogy of rather 1 . Si, for Sethe has taught us that ‘^A^l does not exist, being the true 3rd person forming paradigm with disappears entirely, so that we are left either with my theory of mtw-f sdm or with none at all. But to this argument some might retort that the single example of in the Haremhab decree absolutely annihilates the po.s.sibility of this having originated in sooing that the latter type of writing occurs in the very same inscription (see above 9). Those who are familiar with the vagaries of Egyptian scribes will not be perturbed by thi.s criticism. It is no unusual thing for the same text to spell a phrase in one place in its old historical form, and in another place in the phonetic Late Egyptian fashion. Thus the Annals of Tuthmosis III have both {Vrh. iv. 6-50, 3) and {ibid. 652,6; similarly d'Orbin<‘j/ i, 1) and Anastasi V gives , A in 11, 6 for in 16. 6. It is true that in an official decree would be a particularly crass instance of such variation, but surely the objection will not weigh against the close parallelism in sense, in use, and in construction which has here been established between the two spellings. Moreover, one may well ask why Ax^ found more often in a text that ^ Sl/rilE, ^ ^ 1»5. See >$ 12-1. ALAN H. GAKDINER D4 supplies such scope for its employment. The answer can only be, that it is found more often, but is found in the writing or, with nominal subject, | „ • In Coptic there is another construction which is generally held to contain the con- junctive, namely the temporal tense-form ujjvnTq-covw “until he hears,” before nominal subject with variant forms ujxTeq and ys-re- in Akhmimic and Bohairic. It is in this last form that the construction appears in the oldest examples known to me. (32) “If it were a thief belonging to my land who had come to thy ship. I would have replaced it to thee from my storehouse, until they should find thy thief,” Wenamun, 1, 19-20. (33) gS ■”. “how long shall I remain cast away here?” lit. “until what comes am I here cast away?” ibid. 2, 66^. Demotic appears likewise to ignore the n of Coptic uja-n-fq in most of its writings (see Spiegelbeeg, Demotische Grammatih, § 148). In spite of this fact, it seems quite likely that uj^vurq, though on my hypothesis it could not contain the conjunctive tense, this possessing a suppressed but implicit 7mc, might be a form closely parallel to it. The originals of SMiTq, would then be conjecturally restored as *-=255 and respectively. To sum up our results. The Middle Egyptian method of expressing the sense of the later conjunctive tense was by means of the infinitive. Towards the end of Dyn. XVIII the desire arose to give explicit expression to the pronominal agent hitherto only implied in this construction. Properly speaking, the correct form in which this development should have appeared was *|^-}- infinitive -f 3^, but under the influence of constructions such as £^^-r nominal or adjectival predicate and such as .£.21^+ pseudo-verbal predicate, the actual form adopted was + infinitive. The popularity of I . was confined to the quite short transitional period at the end of Dyn. XVIII and the beginning of Dyn. XIX. In Late Egyptian the preposition lin^ fell out and vras written for . The Bohairic conjunctive tense with iiTeq preserves this ^ in less disguised form. For nominal subject 1 TX N was at first introduced as the counterpart of nty being of course a mere writing of ntt. When the pre- position hnc was suppressed, was written for but here again Coptic supplies a more easily recognizable transcription in nTc-. Finally, ujei.iiTq cwtm may have arisen from *•=■225 on exactly the same lines as Bohairic uTcq-cwTCAi has arisen from POSTSCRIPT. By the kindness of Professor Griffith I have been able to examine the inscription of Xauri (4th year of Seth os I) before its appearance in the Journal^. The evidence from this quarter is interesting. There are four examples of followed by an infinitive without "j in future relative clauses e.xactly like (28) above (11. 48, 67, 94, 116); in one single isolated case of precisely the same kind (1. 90) f of In other words, the position is identical with that of the Haremhab decree, only reversed; in the earlier inscription the old writing with Inc ntf (or 1inr nty) is the rule, and the ’ In 2, .36 occurs the form (? “until I go,” which I am unable to analyse. - See now Joaraal, xui, 193 ff. AN EGYPTIAN SPLIT INFINITIVE :)5 innovation mtiv-f the exception; a very few years later )ntw-f has become the rule, and the exception is hnf ntf. One example of occurs (1. 112), connecting on from a very distant phrase “as to any people to whom anyone... shall come Both here and in the decree of Hareinhab (I omitted to mention this in the body of my articl(') Jn>c + the simple infinitive is still used in contexts like (34) USwV-'l"" 4*^^ “the law shall be exerted against him by beating him and exacting the work from him,’' 11. 4fi-7 ; sim. 79 and with the synonym ^ for 11. 50, 54, 93. Cf. Harcmhnb decree, 1. 28. Here the implicit agent of the infinitive is the indefinite "one.’' Later, when tin' use of the conjunctive tense had been extended, we might probably find ., L/ i mtw-tw sd “and one shall exact ” (from hypothetic L I j'-jj) in its place. But for this the moment was not yet. Still more important than the evidence from the Xauri inscription is that from the Elephantine decree {temp. Ramesses III?) also treated in Professor fTriffith'.s article Here is a passage which, with the help of M. Jequier’s corrections of the published text, reads as follows: ■ A ^ m J B&AAgJi rt] Jf bee-keeper( ?) or any person belonging to the temple who shall be interfered with and who shall say: 'A certain inspector (= is for p) or a certain soldier has interfered with me’ ." De Rouge, Inscriptions hieroghjphiques, PI. 257, 1. 7, cf. Sphinx 16, 4. Either the original has omitted which is very unlikelv. or here we have the missing link (with suppression of the hnc of hnc ntf) for V — the very link required in order finally to prove my case ! An entirely isolated case, where the scribe has taken it into his head to write the pronoun archaically. Professor Sethe, who has kindly read over my manuscript, makes one important point that I had overlooked. In all the cases of and in most of the early ones of -- there is no change of subject. Cases like (30) “they said and he heard mu.st, accord- ingly, be regarded as further developments of the consecutive ten.-^e. This holds good, however, only of pronominal subject. With nominal subject, i.c.. in examjiles of the type or i course there is change of subject. Thus is brought into even greater relief the singularity of the con.struction with nominal subject, apparently quite mechanically copied from the pronominal type. If a scribe of the early Eighteenth Dynasty had wished to employ a construction of this kind, he would have had to write At the last moment Sethe calls my attention to o, passage which shows that the construction postulated by me at least as a theoretical stage in the develop- ment from to the Late Egyptian and Coptic conjunctive, did actually sometimes occur in this form. The passage is from the well-known text relating the Destruction of Mankind : dl - I ' A. i'- A’" “ 1 A'- ' — ^ A _ ,As “Take heed to the snakes of land and water, ainl also make thou writings (i.e.. send letters?) to every region of thy .snakes where (they) are," Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., iv, PL C, opposite p. 18, 1. 58 ^ op. cit., viii. PL 2. opposite p. 118. 1. 41. For the text of Sethos I quote from my own collation: that of Rames-es III has also nth. ' .A. .xiii, lio,. 96 ALAN H. GAEDINER It is noticeable that here nth marks no change of subject, nor does any appreciable degree of emphasis appear to rest upon that pronoun. In other words, the use is practically identical, except as regards the word-order, with that of hnc nth sdm in examples (1) and (2), and that of mtw-h sdm in example (25). We have now. accordingly, good examples of all stages in the evolution of the Late Egyptian conjunctive tense. Those stages, expressed in a paradigm of the second person singular, are: (1) hnc sdm: (2) hnc sdm nth', (3) Jinf nth sdm', (4) nth sdm', (5) as last, but written mtw-h sdm. 'J7 NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE By a. LUCAS Tin. The word “tin” is often loosely used to designate both the metal and the ore. hut in order to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, the term in the present note will l)e restricted to its correct meaning of the metal. In antiqmty the principal use of tin was for making bronze, though occasionally it was employed alone. The early history of tin is very obscure and no e\-idence can be found to show when it was first discovered. The sequence of tin and bronze is also uncertain, though from the fact that the first recorded appearance of tin was in the form of its alloy bronze, as also from theoretical considerations, the probabilitv is that bri)nzc was made some considerable time before tin as an individual metal was isolated, just as brass (an alloy of copper and zinc) was known long before zinc itself was discovered. Either tin or tin ore, however, must have been used to produce bronze, of which tin is an indispensable constituent, though if the ore, as distinguished from tlio metal, were employed, it need not necessarily have been recognized at first a.s being essentiallv different from copper, all the knowledge required being a realization that ore from a certain place produced an improved form of copper. Although tin ore, so far as is known, does not occur in Egypt, the earlie.st u.se of tin, apart from bronze, that has been found is from Egypt and the earliest references to tin that are known are also possibly Egyptian. Thus the first objects of tin of which anv records can be traced, namely a ring^’^ and a pilgrim bottle®, are from Egyptian graves of the Eighteenth Dynasty (1580 b.c. to 1350 b.c.). A ring, consisting of an alloy of tin and silver, is also known from the same period'* and an ore of tin (the oxide) was employed in Egypt in small amount from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards for imparting a white opaque colour to glass®’®. The earliest reference.s to tin that can be found are three that occur in the Harris Papyrus’, an Egyptian document of the Twentieth Dynasty (1200 b.c. to 1090 b.c.). The next references in chronological order are in Homer® (ninth cent. B.c.), then another Egyptian reference of the Twenty-fifth Dvna^ty’ (712 B.c. to 663 B.c.), after which come four references in the Bible®, one in Xumbers ' W. M. Flinder.s Petrie, Th<’ Arh and Crafti< of Aacivut E'j/itit, 1010, 104. .1. H. Gl.\i».stoxe, ()i> Alotallo' Copi^o'^ Tm o ad Antinioay Jron* Aariaat Epy^'t^ in Poin-. Soa_ PiJ,l. Ao' /. XIV, 1S92, 220 ■’ E. Pv. Ayrtox. C. T. r'uRELLY and A. E. P. Weio.vle, Ahyjn.f, iii, 1004, 50. ' C. R. tViLl l.YM.s, Oo/J and Silcea Jioj-alry and Rdatvd 1024, 20, 02. ' B. Xel'M.ixx and (1. Koty 98 A. LUCAS (about fifth cent. B.c.), a doubtful one in Isaiah (either eighth or fifth cent, b.c.) and two in Ezekiel (sixth cent, b.c.), then Herodotus^ (fifth cent, b.c.), Diodorus Siculus^ (first cent. B.c.), Julius Caesar® (first cent, b.c.), Strabo^ (first cent. b.c. to first cent, a.d., in one instance quoting Posidonius of the second to first cent, b.c.), Pliny® (first cent, a.d.) and other classical writers. In the first century a.d. tin was being shipped by way of Egypt to Somaliland and India®, but from where it was obtained is not stated. Por all practical purposes tin may be said not to occur naturally in the metallic condition, since if it does occur, about which there is some doubt, it is in such small quantity as to be negligible. The form in which tin is found in nature is in the combined state as a mineral, the principal and only tin mineral of importance being the oxide (cassiterite or tinstone), though a sulphide combined with the sulphides of copper and iron (stannite, stannine or tin pyrites) is found in small quantity in certain localities. Metallic tin is one of the easiest metals to produce and it may be obtained by simply heating the oxide with coal or charcoal, the latter being the fuel employed anciently, since the former was unknown. Charcoal, too, was the fuel generally used for smelting until about the eighteenth century a.d. The metal, however, cannot be pro- duced from the sulphide by any such simple means, which is proof that this ore was not employed anciently as a source of tin. Tin oxide occurs in two forms, one in veins (lodes), always in granite or granitic rocks and occasionally associated with copper ore, and the other as pebbles, gravel or sand, derived from the disintegration of rocks bearing vein ore, the debris from which has been carried and depo.sited by water. Tin ore (cassiterite) is heavy and usually dark brown or black in colour and, except the weight, there is nothing to suggest that it is a metallic compound. It is frequently found in the same alluvial gravels as gold, and since both are obtained by the same method, namely by washing away the lighter material with running water, it is exceed- ingly probable that when gold was being searched for the heavy tin oxide, which, how- ever, is not nearly so heavy as gold, would be noticed and it seems likely that the alluvial ore was discovered in this manner. On account of this association with gold and also because the alluvial ore occurs in more accessible places and is more easily mined than the vein ore, it was probably alluvial ore that was worked first deliberately as a separate ore’’. The locality where tin ore was first found has never been satisfactorily established and claims have been made for Europe®, Asia® and Africa^® respectively. These may now be examined. From considerations of the state of civilization of various countries the enquiry may be hmited to Egypt, Western Asia, South-Eastern Europe, Central Europe ' III, 11-5. - Historiml Library, v. 11. 3 De Bello Oallico, v, 12. ^ Geography, in, il, 9 and v, 11 ; xv, ii, 10. Natural History, iv, .30, .34, 36; vil, 57 : xxxiv, 47, 48. “ tv. H. ScHOFF, The Pervpl'is of the Erythraean Sea, Xew York, 1912, 33, 42, 45. t Tlii.s doe.s not les.-?en the likelihood that it was the vein ore that was originally employed for making bronze, .since this need not have been recognized at the time as a separate ore and even it.s pre.senco may not have been known, if it occurred, a.s suggested, as an accidental admixture with copper ore. W. M. Flixder.s Pethib, op. cit.. 101. “ G. Elliot Smith, 'u) The Ancient Egyptians, 1923, 12, and (6) Article Anthropology, Ency. Brit., 12th ed., 1922. H. C. Hoover and L. H. Hoover, Note to tran.slation of Agricola’.s De Re Metalliea, 1912, 412. NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE 1 )',) and. Africa, other than Egypt. In this area, so far as can be ascertained, tin ore occurs only in Bohemia, Saxony, Tuscany, Elba, Armenia, Persia. [)o.-;siblv Scria and in \Ve.st, Central and South Africa. Many otherwise likely countries, including Egypt, Turkestan, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Caucasia, Georgia, Asia Minor, Crete, Greece, Cyprus and Palestine, may all be dismissed from the enquiry, since, so far as is known, tin ore does not occur in any of them. BoJietnia and Saxony. Bohemia and Saxony are contiguous and the ore deposits in the two countries aie continuations one of the other and in neither case is there anv evidence of tin-miiiinji before about the twelfth century There is also no trace of any tradi' in tin between these places and the eastern Mediterranean region, which must have taken place at an early date if tin were originally a we.stern and not an eastern product, and any such trade existing in classical times would almost certainly have been recorded. The absence of any mention of a trade in tin from Bohemia and Saxony camifit have been because the ore only occurred in small amount and soon became exhausted, a.s is suggested was the case with the Western Asia ore, since the mines are still productive, though now only on a small scale. The fact that the ore apparently occius only in the vein and not in the alluvial forui^’^ is another slight indication that it was not employed as a .source of metallic tin at an early period. Also, the Bronze Age of this region began later than is to be expected had it been the home of the indastry. Tuscany. MTth regard to Tuscany there is evidence of earlier working than in Bohemia and Saxony, but otherwise the case is much the same. The Tu.scany ore occurs only in very small amount, being sparsely distributed in veins of limonite (an iron ore) and is associated with small quantities of copper minerals-’. Since the ore is in the vein forma- tion and not as an alluvial deposit it is unlikely to have been a very early source of tin and from the fact that the iron ore in which it occurs was apparently worked concur- rently -with the tin oxide it becomes almost certain that thv exploitation of the latter must be dated to the comparatively late period when metallic iron was known and was smelted from its ores in Italy, which was not before the latter half of the second millennium b.c. The two tin buttons from the sepulchral cave of Monte Bradoni in Etruria®, which have been attributed to the third millennium b.c. on account of a dagger of Early Minoan type (E.M. ii) found with them, need explanation, but if the objects can be dated to the latter part of the second millennium b.c., which does not seem excluded by the archaeological evidence, the presence of the tin. even though obtained from the local mines, of which there is no proof, in no way conflicts with an earlier knowledge of this metal elsewhere. * P. vox Lichtex’fei.s, quoted by J. AV. Mellor in o,,,/ 7’/<' o,-. 'b-o/ (.'h- VII, lOiiT, its. - G. AI. Davies, Tin Orn.% 1919, «0. •* J, G. AVilkix’.sOX' in footnote to IT ItawIiiiffonG Ir.-iii'lation , in, llo. The ■^tiitoincnt of writer .seems to lie lia.seJon M.ittliew l’,iri>, who relates th.it a Corui'liiuan tu'.-t ih-ioxert-d tin m I leriu.my in 1241 {Uisturia Miij'ii- Anyli’if, London, 1571,. t \V. R. Jox-E.s, Tinjiddi »J th.: World. 192.-), 14.5. ° W. R. Jox"ES, op. clt., 1-56. ‘ V. Gordox' Childe, Thr Dan-r of Cirdi'^oii,,,,. I92.5. h;?. 13- 2 ]00 A. LUCAS Elba. In Elba only isolated specimens of tin ore have been found and there is no evidence of ancient mining^. Armenia. With respect to Armenia de Morgan says that tin ore has not been found in Russian Armenia^, but Karajian states that this mineral exists in the Kurbaba mountains near Tillek®; between Sahend and the river Araxes associated with copper ore and therefore probably in the vein form; also near Migri on the Araxes and in Hejenan*. Haverfield also says that tin ore is found in Armenia®, but does not give his authority. Persia. As to the presence of tin ore in Persia there can be no doubt. Strabo states that in his day it was foimd in Drangiana® (Khorasan); de Morgan says that it occurs at about 25 kilometres from Tauris and at Azerbeidjan, though not at Khorasan^; Haverfield, however, says that it does occur in Khorasan®, as does the writer of the British Museum Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age, who also mentions two other localities, namely Astrabad and Tabriz respectively®. Moustafa Khan Fateh states that tin ore occurs between Sharud and Astrabad®, while another writer says that it is found in the Kuh-i-Benan mountains and also further north-west along the same belt in the Qara Dagh mountains^®. There is no evidence to show whether the Persian ore is in the vein form or whether it is alluvial or both. Syria. With regard to Syria, Karajian states that “The ancient records show that tin, cassiterite ore, was mined near the present town of Sinous and also near Aleppo and Toll says that “Tin deposits in the Kesserwan district were examined and approved by Australian engineers^^.” This district is a little to the north-west of Beirut. No con- firmation of tin ores near Sinous or Aleppo can be obtained, and that reported from Kesserwan, if present, is probably in very small quantity and there is no evidence that it was worked anciently. Africa. Tin ores are known to occur in Nigeria, the Gold Coast (small amount), Nyassaland (small amount), Belgian Congo, Southern Sudan, Portuguese East Africa (small amoimt), South-West Africa, Rhodesia, Union of South Africa (Transvaal, Cape Province and Natal) and Swaziland In Rhodesia and the Northern Transvaal ancient workings ‘ G. M. Davies, op. cit., 82. - J. DE Morgan, Mi-uion scientifique au Caacase, i, 1899, 15, 34, 35. ^ H. A. K.AR.AJI.AX, Mineral Resources of Armenia and Anatolia, 1920, 186. ^ H. A. Karajian, op. cit. ’’ F. Haverfield, Romano-British Cornwall, 1924, Geography, ii, 10. < J. de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse, in, 1905, 119. ' LniiJon. 1920, 8. “ Moust.afa Khan Fateh, The Economic Position of Persia, 1926. 1" Geog. Section Naval Intel. Div., Naval Staff, Admiraltv, Geol. of Mesopotamia and its Borderlands, 69, 70. . J r ” I. M. Toll, The Mineral Resources of Syria, in Eng. and Mining Joiirn., cxii (1921), 851. W. R. .Jones, op. cit., 254-.302. n G. M. Davies, op. cit., 47-56, 91-93. P. M. L.vrken, An Account of the Zande, in Sudan iVotes and Records, ix (1926), 6. NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY (»F TIN AND BRONZE U)1 for tin ore, the remains of smelting furnaces, small stacks of tin ore (cassiterite) and copper ore (malachite), tin ingots and lumps of bronze have been found At first sight therefore it might appear that there was sufficient I'vidence to raise the presumption of an African origin for the earliest tin and bronze known in Egypt, but on a closer examination of the facts any such origin is seen to be so very improbable as to be practically disproved. Thus except in Nigeria, Rhodesia, and the Transvaal there is no evidence whatever that the deposits of tin ore were even known, much less worked, until quite recentlv. With regard to Nigeria it is stated that the alluvial ore was worked by the native inhabitants before its existence was known to Europeans^, but as this only refers to the modern exploitation by Europeans since 1884 it does not carry tlie matter very far back and it is in no way improbable that the knowledge of tin ore and the methods of treating it to produce the metal were originally derived from European sources, possibly Portuguese. In Rhodesia and the Transvaal, although the remains of the industry are admittedly old, there is no evidence that they are of such antiquity as to link them up with the Bronze Age in Egypt. It should not be forgotten, too, that the Egyptian Bronze Age is indissolubly con- nected with the Bronze Age both in Western Asia and in Europe, and that if the first tin and bronze known in Egypt came from Africa the early tin and bronze of both Western Asia and of Southern Europe must also have come from Africa. It is incon- ceivable, however, that material from countries situated to the south or south-west of Egypt should have been traded in quantity for many years to Egypt and through Egyjrt without leaving any evidence of the traffic or any trace or knowledge of either tin or bronze on the way, and no such evidence or traces are known. Western Europe. No account of tin would be complete without reference to tin from Western Eurojjc. The early history of this is obscure, but the known facts may be considered. Tin ores occur in Spain, Portugal, France and Britain and these sources may now be dealt with. Spain and Portugal. These two countries may conveniently be considered together. The principal deposits of tin ore are .situated in the provinces of Salamanca and Zamora in tlie west of Spain, in the provinces of Orense, Pontevedra and Corunna in the north-west of Spain and in the provinces of Troz os Montes and Beira Alta in northern Portugal. Other and smaller occurrences are found in the provinces of Murcia and Almeria in South-East Spain The tin ores of Spain and Portugal are in the form both of lodes and of alluvial deposits and are still mined, the present-day production, however, being small, especially in Spain'*’®. The date when they were first worked is unknown. The earliest certain references to tin from the peninsula are those of Diodorus Siculus® (first cent, b.c.), Strabo^ (first cent. b.c. to first cent, a.d., who quotes Posidonius of the second to first cent. B.c.) and Pliny® (first cent, a.d.), but very probably the tin trade from the West ' Aaci'JvA Afric'iii Afet'illnri/g, in Mining Mag., 8ei>l. ^6, 1920. - phi; AntigwirAs .Itnii-n., VII (1927,), 74, qtioting Smith Afriom Mining nmt Eng. Jmirn., July 24, 1026, 596. 3 tv. E. JoxES, op. nit., 2-56. 1 G. M. D.'lVies, op. nit.. S2, S4. ‘ tt . R. .roxK.s, op. cit., l.')0-156. Historinal Liimanj, v, 11. ^ tin,„ji\ij,li,/. iii, v, II .uiil li. 9. ’ Jotnrol Ilistorii, xx,\iv, 47. 102 A. LUCAS to Greece mentioned by Herodotus^ (fifth cent. B.c.) was at least in part from Spain- Portugal. Although it is frequently stated that the Spanish-Portuguese tin ores were worked by the Phoenicians, no evidence for this can be found and the only certain connexion between these people (who were essentially maritime traders and not miners) and tin is that Strabo states that they carried on a trade in tin from Gades (Cadiz). This might therefore take the age of tin-mining in the peninsula further back than the earliest date yet mentioned, namely the time of Herodotus, but it could not be before the eighth cent. B.C., since, although tradition assigns the foimdation of Gades to about 1000 b.c., there is no archaeological evidence for the Phoenicians anywhere in the Western Mediterranean before about the middle of the eighth cent. b.c. ^ If the knowledge of tin reached Spain from the Bast, as it almost certainly did, it would be expected that the south-eastern ores, which are nearest to the point where the eastern influence would first penetrate and not very far from the coast, would be exploited first; but no evidence that they were known anciently can be traced. This, however, may be explained on the assumption that these deposits, which are compara- tively small, were soon practically exhausted and after the more extensive deposits of the north-west had been discovered the former became relatively unimportant and were no longer worked. The ores described by Strabo and Pliny were those in the north-west of the penin- sula. The former writer, quoting Posidonius, states that tin was found amongst the Artabri^ (the people of Galicia) and the latter says that it was obtained from Galicia (North-West Spain) and Lusitania* (Portugal and adjoining parts of Spain). According to Diodorus® the tin ore was not upon the surface of the ground, but was dug up. This does not necessarily mean that it was vein ore, but might apply equally well to alluvial ore that was covered, as is usually the case, with some overburden. On this point, however, both Strabo and Pliny would seem to contradict Diodorus. Thus Strabo says that the earth in which the tin ore occurred was “brought down by the rivers; this the women scrape up with spades and wash in sieves®,” while Pliny says of the ore that “It is a sand found on the surface of the earth and of a black colour and is only to be detected by its weight. It is mingled with pebbles, particularly in the dried beds of rivers*.” Manifestly the ore known to both these writers was alluvial. France. The tin ores of France occur in two localities, namely in the centre of the country and in Southern Brittany and, although no longer of commercial importance, there are ancient workings in both places. The former, so far as can be ascertained, are in lodes, while in Brittany both vein and alluvial ores occur Geographically, France, especially Brittany, is situated mid-way between the Spanish peninsula and Britain, and unless tin was discovered spontaneously in different centres in the same chronological order as the countries are situated geographically, of which there is no proof and little * HI, 115. - The Ca/iib. Ancient History, ir, 1!124, 5S1. ^ Geoyraphy, iii, ii, 9. * Satiiral History, xxxiv, -17. ^ Historical Library, v, 11. •> W. K. JoxES, op. cit., 141, 142. " G. M. Davies, op. cit., 76-78. ® C. Daryll Ford, Megaliths and Metals in Brittany, in Man, xxvi (1926'i, 1-37. » M. Gary’, The Greeks and Ancient Trade with the Atlantic, in J.H.B., xliv (1924), 166-179. NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE 103 probability, it seems reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of tin-mining spread northwards from Spain. Although the amount of tin ore in France is very .small, the deposit.^ have been worked intermittently from very early times until a comparatively recent period (19]S)k The classical writers entirely ignore the tin from France, unles.s “the barbarians wlio dwell beyond the Lusitanians” mentioned by Strabo’ were the inhabitants of France, oi- the Oestrymnides of Avienus® were part of Brittany or unless it was off thi.s coast that the Cassiterides were situated. Britain. Britain early comes into prominence as a tin-producing country, and f'ornwall, together with the west of Devon, was for centuries the most important tin-mining region of the world. The Phoenicians are frequently credited with having cruised along the coast of Portugal and the shores of the Bay of Biscay and eventually arriving opposite Britain, crossing to Cornwall and exploiting, and even po.«siblv finding, tin ore, but there is no evidence whatever for anything of the .sort and no Phoenician remains have been found in Britain'*. It is not necessary, however, to introduce the Tfiiomiicians in order to explain the discovery of British tin ore. .since it seems probable that the Bretons, familiar with their own gold and tin ore. may have crossed to their kindred in Cornwall and may have found and worked the similar deposits occurring there. The date when the Cornish tin ore was first worked is a much disj)uted point, but it must have been before the Roman conquest of Britain, since British pre-Roman objects have been found in the ancient workings and tin was used for certain British ])re-Roman coinage®. Even this, however, does not carry the mining very far back, since coinage was only introduced into Britain about 200 b.c. The early ingots and vessels of tin and of pewter that have been discovered in Britain, in those cases in which they can be dated, mostly belong to the third or fourth cent, a.d.’ The lumps of rough tin found by Borlase in Cornwall mixed with bronze celts under conditions stated to indicate the Bronze Age® do not seem to be precisely dated and might have belonged to the very late Bronze Age. The writer of the British Museum Guide to the Antiquities oj tJie Bronze Age states' that tin is rarely included with founders’ hoards of rough copper doubtless because the powdery ore is of a brown colour and not easily di.stinguishable in the ground. Tin ore, however, is not always or even frequently powdery, and it is most improbable that the maker of bronze would ever possess it, powdery or otherwise, since so far as is knovn the ore was smelted at the mine and it was only the metal that pa.ssed into commerce. The principal references by the classical writers to Brithh tin, excluding those to the doubtful and possibly mythical Cassiterides, are by Diodorus® (first cent, b.c.), .Julius Caesar® (first cent, b.c.) and Strabo*® (first cent. b.c. to first cent. a.d.). Diodorus states that the tin ore mixed with earth was dug out of rocky ground, which suggests vein ore, though the statement is so very ambiguous that alluvial ore is not excluded. Thus in one locality in Cornwall the alluvial gra\ els are beneath some 1 W. R. Jones, op. dt., 141, 14J. ' C'-pro ph.,. iii. n, U. s F. Haverfield, op. cit., 20. ^ '■HFIKi.u. 'ip. lU . “ Tin Mining in Spain Past and Pmsent, London, 1S07. (fiiot.-d I.y Hoover th-a M'lritiiiiip I, !)0. 20 , 21 . in the traU'lation of Agricola’s De Re Metallica, London, 1012, 411. ' London, 1920, 113. De Betlo (rallira, v, 12, 5. ' Histork'd Lit>nii';i, v, 11. r* (Ittnjraphg.^ Ill, li, U. 104 A. LUCAS 50 ft. of sand and silt and in another place they are covered with peat, gravel and sand to a depth of 20 ft. ^ As may be seen from the references given, the direct evidence for early tin-mining in Britain is very scanty and only carries it back to the first cent, b.c., or to the fourth cent, if Diodorus’ description of Cornish tin-mining was derived from Pytheas, as may have been the case, or to the fifth cent, if the Cassiterides were part of Britain^. In the absence of direct evidence, therefore, circumstantial evidence, both for the origin and also for the date of tin-mining in Britain, may be considered. The origin will be dealt with first. Manifestly the ancient bronze objects found in Britain, the earliest of which are usually dated to the first half of the second millennium b.c., must either have been im- ported or else made locally or both. Let each of these possibilities be considered. Importation of bronze might either have been in the form of finished objects, such as weapons and ornaments, or of ingots of metal to be fashioned locally into the objects desired, or of both. But the mere importation of bronze, whether objects or ingots, could not possibly lead to the mining and smelting of tin ore, unless it were accompanied by a knowledge of the composition of bronze, its mode of manufacture, the appearance and likely location of tin ore and the method of producing the metal from it. This knowledge neither invaders, using bronze weapons, nor traders, having bronze to barter, would possess, more especially the knowledge of the position of the British tin ore, and if the invaders or traders came from Northern Europe to one of the nearest points on the British coast, which would be somewhere on the east or south-east, this would be far removed from the tin ore region. Importation of bronze is often denied on the grounds that the types of objects found are local and that moulds for casting bronze objects have been discovered, but both these objections are met by the assumption that the bronze imported might have been in the ingot form, with the exception of some comparatively few weapons and ornaments in the first instance, which would serve as object lessons of the superiority of bronze over copper and as an inducement to make it. Local production of bronze must necessarily have been preceded by an acquaintance with this alloy and also by tin-mining, unless tin were imported into Britain, which is so very improbable that it need not be taken into account. Also, before there could be mining the position of the ore deposits and the manner of treating the ore to produce the metal would have to be known. Neither of the possibilities considered therefore accounts for the origin of tin-mining in Britain and the only adequate explanation is that a people familiar with both bronze and tin and having a practical knowledge of tin ore, including its appearance and the methods of mining and smelting it, came to Britain to prospect either for tin ore or for gold, with which tin ore is so frequently associated, and having found tin ore proceeded to mine and smelt it. Such a people are not likely to have come from so far afield as the East, but rather from Spain-Portugal or France, in both of which countries such knowledge is believed to have existed at an earlier date than in Britain, and it has already been suggested that Brittany was probably the place of origin of the discoverers and first workers of British tin ore. The only alternative is to suppose that at first bronze (made by smelting associated ores of copper and tin) and later metallic tin were discovered in Britain and almost necessarily therefore also in Spain-Portugal and Prance (to mention only the coimtries ' G. M. Davies, up. 28, 29. - Herodotus, in, ll.i. NOTES ON THE EAKLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BIUJNZE 105 tliat are being considered) much in the same manner as in the East, but quite spon- taneously and independently, which, though not impossible, is very improbable and contrary to the little evidence that exists. As regards the date of the beginning of tin-mining in Britain the following points may be considered. Assuming that tin was discovered in the East some time after bronze was first accidentally made and that from the East the knowledge of both bronze and tin spread indirectly to Britain, then since bronze in the East can be dated to about the third millennium s.c. and in the West to the second millennium n.c., and tin in the East to the second millennium b.c., it follows that tin-mining in Britain is not likely to have begun at the earliest before the end of the second millennium b.c. or the beginning of the first millennium b.c. and more probably in the second half of the first millennium. The acceptance of an earlier date for the commencement of the Bronze Age in Britain is in no way opposed to this, since as already shown, any bronze, whether object.s or ingots, brought by invaders or traders would not lead to tin-mining, and it would only be after the advent of the prospectors for gold or for tin ore (who if thev came in the first instance for tin ore would necessarily be bronze users) that tin-mining would be undertaken. To account for the trade in tin from the West to the East that certainly existed from at least the fifth cent. b.c. there seems only one explanation that is adequate, namely that the original supply of ore in the East was proving insufficient, which implies that the deposits were small and were becoming exhausted. If such were the case search would naturally be made elsewhere, though it is not suggested that tin ore was originally found in the West as the result of deliberate search. Another po.^sible (>x- planation, however, is that the manufacture of bronze may have shifted from the original locality where copper ore and tin ore were found in clo.se proximity to one another to some place where copper ore occurred alone. It cannot be imagined that the early traders (Phoenicians or others as the case may be) knew that in the West there were countries where tin ore was obtainable and that they searched until thev found it. At the most it could only have been hoped that such countries might exist,'and it is far more likely that the early voyages round the Mediterranean, if not simply for loot of any sort, were impelled by the lure of gold and were in no wav influenced bv a search for tin. Where tin'is mentioned as haffing been obtained from Spain-Portugal or Britain it alwavs appears to be the metal and not the ore that is meant, which indicates that the ore was smelted where found and this is confirmed by the statements of Diodorus i and Plinv ^ in' the outline presented of the early history of tin there are several important links in the chain missing, which onlv hypothesis can supply, namely, whether it was vein or alluvial ore that was first used and, if the former, what caused the change from vein ore in the East to alluvial ore in the West. To assume that the ore first employed was alluvial raises the difficultv that this kind of ore is not found associated witji copper ore and thus the discovery of ‘bronze would be made less accidental and more complex and almost necessarily later thah the production of metallic tin. On the other hand to assume that vein ore was always employed is to ignore the very definite evidence o the early use of alluvial ore in Spain-Portugal, Brittany and Britain. These points will be considered when dealing with bronze. . , , -T I - \x\iv, -IT. Joiirn. "t Kuypt. Arch, xn • 106 A. LUCAS Bronze. The word bronze as used to-day has a wide meaning and includes a number of different alloys consisting wholly or largely of copper and tin, but in some cases contain- ing also small proportions of other ingredients, among which zinc, phosphorus and aluminium may be mentioned. Early bronze, however, was much simpler and consisted only of copper and tin with traces of such other ingredients as happened to be present in the raw materials employed. At a later date an addition of lead was sometimes made, but such an admixture, although of the bronze class, is not a typical or normal bronze. At the present day ordinary bronze contains about 9 to 10 per cent, of tin, but ancient bronze is more variable, the proportion of tin ranging from about 2 per cent, to about 16 per cent. The date of the discovery of bronze is uncertain. It was probably about the third millennium b.c., and although a foreign importation it was used in Egypt about the Twelfth Dynasty (2000 b.c. to 1788 B.c.) and even possibly earlier^. The simplest assumption to make with regard to the discovery of bronze is that it was an accident, and there are only four possible ways in which it could have happened, namely, first, by fusing together metallic copper and metallic tin; second, by smelting a mixture of copper ore and metallic tin; third, by smelting the naturally-occurring com- bined mineral of copper and tin (stannite); and fourth, by smelting either a naturally- occurring or artificially-made mixture of copper ore and tin oxide. The first two methods are out of the question, unless tin was known before bronze, and the little evidence available points to a later knowledge. The third method is most improbable, not only because the combined copper-tin mineral, stannite, occurs only in small 'quanti- ties and in a few localities and because, if it had ever been employed, it could never have led either to the use of the principal and only important ore (cassiterite), for the use of which at a later period there is ample proof, or to the production of metallic tin, but also because the resulting bronze would have contained a much larger proportion of tin and more sulphur than is found in early bronze^. One is thrown back therefore on the fourth method, that is the smelting of a naturally-occurring or artificially-made mixture of copper ore and tin oxide. Such a mixture, if artificial, need not necessarily have been intentional and might have occurred from the accident of the two ores being found side by side or at any rate in close proximity to one another, as is the case in certain places. The matter, however, is not quite so simple as might appear at first sight. Thus the tin ore that is associated with copper ore is the vein and not the alluvial form. The use of vein ore, as already pointed out, raises the difficulty that this was not the kind of ore employed when the western sources of tin appear on the scene and hence an explanation is required for the jump from vein ore in the East to alluvial ore in the West. The simplest suggestion is that both forms occur in the East and that although the vein ore was originally used (at first in the form of an unintentional and unsuspected admixture with copper ore), the alluvial ore afterwards became known and from tffis tin was prepared and that when the alluvial gravels of Spain-Portugal, Brittany and Corn- ^ A. Lrc.\s, Ancient Egyptian Materials, 1926, 74—77. 2 Stannite is smelted on a small scale at the present day in one locality in China and produces a metal containing almost equal proportions of copper and tin, as is only- to be expected from its composition. O. M. Davies, np. cit.. 86. NOTES ON THE EAKLY HISTORY OF TIN AND BRONZE 107 wall respectively were being searched for gold the tin mineral was also found and recognized. But this only carries the matter part way and there is still a gap between the original vein ore and the original alluvial ore. To bridge this gap it is further sug- gested that if a mixed copper ore and vein tin ore were used, sooner or later a mixture very rich in tin ore would have been smelted, when the resultant alloy instead of being the usual bronze containing only a comparatively small proportion of tin would have been a white metal consisting chiefly of tin and containing onlv a little copper. One specimen of such an alloy of Nineteenth Dynasty date has been found in Egypt, which contains 76 per cent, of tin and 16 per cent, of copper’. Thus it would be seen that bronze contained a white metal in addition to copper. In some such manner, therefore, tin might easily have become known without having been prepared in the pure state. If at a later period tin oxide were found during a search for gold, the heavy pebbles might have been smelted experimentally, since heating a mineral with charcoal would by that time have been a well-known process, and so pure tin might have been dis- covered and recognized as the ingredient required for making bronze. To assume that the alluvial ore was employed to make bronze in the first instance would mean an intentional admixture of copper ore with an extraneous material that had no connexion with it and that would have to be obtained from another and possibly even a distant locality, which is very unlikely. In the writer’s opinion it is extremely probable that vein tin ore was used at first to make bronze, originally only in a natural and accidental admixture with copper ore and .afterwards intentionally mixed, but not until a very late period as a source of metallic tin, and that alluvial tin ore was a later discovery than bronze and was never used directly for making this alloy, but only as a .source of tin, after the discovery of which and when probably the naturally-as-sociated ores first employed had become exhausted, bronze was made, as it is to-day, directly from metallic copper and metallic tin. A.s a corollary to the foregoing it would follow that during the first period, when vein tin ore was used blindly, the proportion of tin in bronze would be largely a matter of chance, though it would generally be small, since where copper ore and tin ore are a.ssf)ciated the latter is usually in the smaller quantity. When, however, the nature of the vein tin ore was dimly perceived and more particularly after metallic tin was regularly produced from alluvia] ore, the tin content of the bronze could be accurately fi.xed. It may be pointed out further that the various stages suggested as having occurred in the early history of bronze would have required the lapse of .several generations at least between the first accidental bronze vfith a chance and varying proportion of tin and the intentional and considered alloy containing about 9 or 10 per cent, of tin. The problem of the place of origin of bronze may now be discussed, and it resolves itself into a search for a country (a) where bronze wa.s known at an early date, probably about the third millennium b.c.; (6) where copper ore was being smelted to produce copper, a country therefore no longer in the Stone Age. but in the Copper Age: (c) where tin oxide occurred in veins side by side with copper ore, this latter probably being malachite, since this is the ore that generally occurs on the surface and hence the one first employed, and it is the ore most easily reduced to metal; (d) where there was early commercial intercourse with Egypt, either direct or indirect, since from Egypt the knowledge of copper was derived and to Egypt wa.s passed back part at least of the ’ Bertheliit, in <'i .1. de iloipui, l.su.'i, 141. 14--2 108 A. LUCAS newly-discovered bronze and (e) where the deposits of tin ore were probably very small and comparatively soon became practically exhausted. The only two countries, so far as is known, where tin ore is found and that also fulfil most of the other requirements of the case are Armenia and Persia, in both of which tin ore occurs and both of which are very rich in copper ore. In Persia it is stated that in the province of Khorasan alone there are between 200 and 300 ancient copper workings 1. One objection that might be urged against these countries is that no bronze objects of such early date as that required by the hypothesis have been found, but it should be remembered that very little systematic archaeological excavation has yet been carried out. A further objection in the case of Armenia is the lack of early com- mercial intercourse with Egypt, such as took place between Egypt and Persia. All the evidence therefore points to Persia as having been the country where bronze was discovered. • Mocstafa Khan Fateh, op. cit. MISCELLANEA By PEECY E. XEWBERRY I. A Middle Kingdom Mayor of Byblos. The two scarab-shaped seals ^ given in Figs. 1 and 2 bear inscrij)tions naming a hity-c n Kpn, “Mayor of Byblos,” the famous port of the Lebanon on the coast of Syria. From their style I should be inclined to date them to the period immediately following the Twelfth Dynasty, but it is possible that they may be as early as the reign Fig. I. Scale J . Fig. 2. Scale of Amenemmes III. It is not known where they were found, but it may well be that they came from the cemetery of Byblos, where many monuments of the late Twelfth Dynasty have recently been unearthed by French excavators and have come into the hands of the antiquity dealers. The writing of the name Kpn differs in the two specimens; in the first example it is which is identical with that of the Berlin Papyrus 3022 (Gardixee, Xotes oh the Story of Sinuhe, 20); in the second example it is which, as far as I am aware, has not been found elsewhere. The writing of the name of the official also varies on the two scarabs; in one it is in the other II. A new Vizier of the Eleventh Dynasty. Dr. Bull published in this Journal (x, 15) a note on a new vizier of the Eleventh Dynasty, by name Apa. Another unchronicled vizier of this period was JJ,, Bebi, whose figure appears upon a slab in the British Museum (Xo. 724) from the Temple of Xebhepetrec Mentuhetep at Der el-Bahri. In Xaville-Hall, The Eleventh Dynasty Temple at Deir el Bahari, Part i, 7, this Bebi is described as but on the slab the lower half of the ^ -bird is plainly visible. It is probable that earlier in his career Bebi filled the office of J,.\, CCb “Chancellor,” for one of that name is referred to on a stela of the Mentuhetep period in the Metropohtan Museum of Art, New York (Inventory No. 14.2.7). “ I acquired thc-je two scarabs in the .spring of 1924, and have given the tirst e.\aniple to the Ashuioleau Museum at O.xford and the second to the British Museum 'N'o. ."iTSS.'J in the Egyptian (.’ollection '. - An uiiiiitelligibie sign .stands here. no PERCY E. NEWBERRY III. A new Vizier of the Nineteenth Dynasty. I noticed last spring in a dealer’s shop in Cairo a shawabti figure, with projecting skirt characteristic of the Nineteenth Dynasty, of a “Governor of the city and vizier,” named Authy. In a second dealer’s shop in the same city I saw another monument of the vizier (his name here was written on which he is described as son of the ^ Bastet. IV. A Label of the First Dynasty. In a paper printed in the Proc. Soc. of Bibl. Arch., 1912, 278-289, I noted that the wooden and ivory tablets of the First Dynasty were really labels for objects that had been placed in tombs. One of these, however, did not appar- ently conform to the rest, for it was only known to bear a year-name of King Wdymw (Den), and there was, so far as I then knew, no object-name upon it. It was in the MacGregor Collection and came up for sale in 1921. I then had an oppor- tunity of carefully examining it and found upon the back the engraved sign for a pair of sandals (see Fig. 3). This ivory label, therefore, was made for Wdymw's sandals, which, along with other articles of his apparel, must have been placed in his tomb. It is now in the British Museum (No. 55586 in the Egyptian Collection). Fig. 3. Scale }. V. Two Gold Button-Seals. The gold button-seal Fig. 4 was bought at Luxor in 1912 by a friend who allowed me to make a drawing of it, but very shortly afterwards it was stolen and has not yet been traced. At the top are two falcon’s heads back to back with a ring for suspension between them. On the base are engraved a bee or hornet, a fly, a lizard, and a tortoise (?). This gold button-seal closely resembles one that was in the Hilton-Price Collection and was given to me by the late Lord Carnarvon, except that the design on the base consists of four Set-animals arranged in pairs facing one another (Fig. 5). MISCELLANEA 111 VI. An Official of King Horemheb. The British Museum Ostracon No. 5624, recently published by Dr. Blackman in this Journal (xii, 177), mentions under the date Year vii of King Zeserkheperrei'-Horemheb, a major-domo of Ne named Tuthmosis. This official appears again in a hieratic inscription written on the right-hand wall of the lower rectangular chamber of the tomb of Tuthmosis IV in the Biban el-Muluk at Thebes. The latter inscription is dated in the third month of the summer season of the Year viii of Horemheb, and records the order of the king that the Overseer of the Works in the Place of^Jiternity {i.e., the Necropolis) May and his assistant the Steward of Thebes ~ - 1" i i ) Tuthmosis ” renew the burial of King Tuthmosis I\ . This inscription has been pub- lished by me in Carter-Newberry, The Tomb of Thoiitmosix IV {Theodore Davis series), 1904, xxxiii-xxxiv. VII. The High Priest Dhutihetep. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, there is a very fine lapis lazuli seal (see Fig. 6) of the High Priest of Thoth named Dhutihetep. This Dhutihetep is certainly the same person whose famous tomb at El-Bersheh was published by me in El Bersheh, Part i. L12 SOME POTSHERDS FROM KASSALA By J. W. CEOWFOOT With Plate xiii. The town of Kassala lies a mile or two west of the many-domed mountain mass from which it takes its name, but the only antiquities which have been found in the neigh- bourhood are on the other side of the moimtain at the north-east end. Here there is a secluded recess which is littered with great quantities of ancient, rmpainted, handmade potsherds. The place is almost completely encircled by hills, but at the northern end a camel track leads to it along a gully, and motors can approach it from the south-east, past a few tombs of unknown date and a little stretch of cultivable land. The site covers some acres of broken ground, seamed with deep-cut watercourses, and the pottery is particularly abundant on the higher ridges and close to the boulders of rock which have fallen from the mountain. No traces of building are visible and there is no sign of the artificial accumulation which would result from prolonged occupation, but the abundance of the pottery and the nearness of good, cultivable land indicate that the place was occupied for a few generations at least by sedentary folk, and I picked up a few stone grinders and pounders like those which have been found on the sites of other old settlements in the Sudan. The Hallenga who are regarded as the aborigines of Kassala call the spot the place of Daqlianus, mahal Daqlianus, but they have no traditions about it of which I could learn. A number of potsherds which I brought from the site in 1917 are now in the Gordon College museum: those which are published in this paper were collected in 1926 and are now in the Ashmolean at Oxford. These potsherds fall into two main groups, a small group which shows foreign influ- ence, and a much larger group which is characteristically African in material, shape and decoration. I turn to the smaller group first. Group I. PI. xiii. Nos. a-g. The seven pieces shown are all made of the same material, an impure clay containing many particles of quartz. In fracture the clay is a slaty grey colour in the centre and a light brick pink on the two faces except where it has been accidentally darkened in the baking. One piece, no. h, comes from a small bowl, no. / comes from a large, heavy, shallow dish, and all the others from large jars. All the pots were made by hand, not thrown upon a wheel. Before other decorations were added, all the vessels seem to have been scored with a blunt-toothed comb both inside and outside: most of the combings run horizontally, and they constitute a distinctive characteristic of the ware. Other decorative features are as follows: No. a has a coarse collar below the top and this collar is decorated with a lattice pattern which looks as if it had been cut with a metal blade. The same lattice pattern SOME POTSHERDS FROM KASSALA 1 1;3 recurs twice on no. /, on the border on the outside of the di.sh and on the llattened loj) of the rim, which is not shown in the illustration. Nos. b, c and e. The tops of these jars were pinched between the thumb and finger and dented so as to form a wavy edge. No. d. The knob will be observed. No. g had a bulging rim which is almost circular in section and is decorated with a chevron or herring-bone pattern. In many respects this ware is foreign to other East African wares, but one can hardlv think that large coarse vessels of this kind were carried from a distance to Kassala. and the material of which they are made looks like a local product. It seems probable that they were made on the spot in a factory directed bv people familiar with the appear- ance of similar productions elsewhere and getting this appearance imitated as best thev could in local clay and hand technique. Group II. PI. .xiii. Nos. l-dH. The potsherds of this group are much more varied than those of the first, but tioiu! of them presents features which are foreign to East African traditions. The material of these pieces varies considerably; in some the clay is very coarse and contains large particles of quartz, in others it has been carefully ground or sifted. It varies also in colour: along a fractured edge some pieces show black or grey, others brown, pinkish or yellow, and in -many the colour in the centre is different from that near either face. These differences will not surpri.se anyone familiar with African ceramics, ancient or modern. The varieties in colour and facies come j)artly from the varying proportions of organic matter which individual potters mixed with their clay, partly from different ways of preparing the clay itself, and partly from differences in the baking caused by the varying degree of heat in the fire, the length of time it burned and the position of the pots in the kiln. The relative uniformity of Group I suggested that we were dealing with the products of a single, more or less regulated, workshop: the variety in Group II shows that these pieces are the work of a number of different potters, some much more careful than others. Nos. 1 to 10 come from wide-mouthed bowls with plain moulded rims. Below the rim the body of the bowls was decorated with a series of bold grooves: on nos. 3, 4 and 6 the main grooves run perpendicular to the rim, on nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 they are slanting, on no. 9 a series of horizontal lines has been crossed by a perpendicular serk's, on no. 10 the grooves form a lattice. This use of deep grooves is to be noted as a favourite trick of the Ka.ssala potters. A second characteristic trait is the decorative use of two colours: the inner face of all the pieces except no. 8 is, like the rims, black and wet-smoothed or pebble-polished: nos. 2 and 7 are black on both sides, no. 8 reddish on both sides, but all the others are a dull brown or reddish colour on the outer face below the black rim. In some pieces the black colour forms a.s it were a mere skin on a brownish paste, and on these it must have been produced either by a smear before burning or by the application of some organic matter immediately after the burning while the pots were still red-hot: the black colour on the all-black jtots may have been produced by smothering the kiln — all three methods being in use to-day in various parts of the Sudan. One or two pieces, not shown, were decorated with impressed lines filled with red or white colouring matter. No. 11 comes from a small bowl of much finer workmanship. The pa.ste is grey, the inner face and the part outside above the band of impressed ornament are black, the part Journ. of Egypt. Aivli. xiv. 114 J. W. CROWFOOT below this band is a crimson red. The red on this sherd and on the top edges of nos. 20 and 26 has been produced, I think, by a ferric smear: the black on nos. 11 and 13 has a metallic sheen and leaves a grey smudge when rubbed with a handkerchief, both characteristics of pottery which has been treated with some sort of blacklead. On no. 16 the usual colour arrangement has been reversed, the band with impressed triangles being reddish and the part below it black. Nos. 27 and 28 are interesting because they have been decorated with a blunt -toothed rocker, a method of decoration which has a long history in the Nile valley. Do these fragments of pottery form a new archaeological group or can they be related to any of the fabrics known in the cultural areas which lie nearest to Kassala, namely, the realm of Axum which is some 200 miles to the south-east, or the Nile valley which is even further away to the west ? The German expedition to Axum found a quantity of potsherds, and others have been found by the Italian archaeologists who have explored various sites in Eritrea: superficial resemblances between the Kassala ware and some from the Eritrean Rore published by 11. Conti-Rossini {Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, xxxi, 1923) led me to submit a series of these potsherds to him. M. Conti-Rossini was kind enough to examine them and to give me his considered opinion. The coarse red pottery in Group I, he tells me, resembles a class of Graeco-Roman origin which is found in Ethiopian ruins of the Axum period, for example, at Adulis which was excavated by M. Paribeni, who has also kindly examined the Kassala ware. Of the pottery in Group II M. Conti-Rossini speaks with more hesitation, writing as follows of the characteristic pieces included in' Fig. 2, nos. 1 to 10: “C’est la veritable poterie de Cassala: c’est elle qui presente les difficultes plus sensibles. Apres y avoir longuement reflechi, j’y vois une evolution locale d’un type ethiopien.” Zahn’s account of the pottery found at Axum corroborates this cautious judgement: he describes the various wares at Axum in terms which are verbally applicable to our group {Deutsche AJcsum-Expedition, Berlin, 1913, ii, 199, 201, 205 ff.) and publishes two fragments ‘Anit wagrechten kraftigen Rippen"’ and a third which is red on the outside and brown on the inner face (nos. 70, 71 and 79). The material is scanty but, so far as it goes, it justifies M. Conti-Rossini in summing up the typical Kassala ware as “une variete, une elaboration de types d’Aksoum.” There are also parallels on the Nubian side which must not be overlooked. In the first place. Kassala Group II has certain distinctive characteristics in common with a whole series of ancient and modern Nilotic fabrics: secondly, one or two potsherds have been found in Nubia which are almost identical in decoration with the Kassala pieces. Among the general characteristics it will be enough to note the following: (а) The absence of handles, spouts and knobs for suspension. This is a feature of early Nubian ware and, with some qualifications, of predynastic Egyptian pottery, and is in marked contrast to the early appearance of spouts and handles in the Mediterranean. It is still characteristic of uncontaminated East African ware (Stuhljianx, Handwerh und Industrie in Ostafrica, Hamburg, 1910, 26). (б) The decorative use of two colours on the same pot, black on the rim and the inside, red on the lower part of the outside, which is characteristic of early Egypt and of Nubia from the Middle Kingdom to the Meroitic age. The use of blacklead to give a metallic sheen is found to-day in the Bahr el-Ghazal {Sudan Notes and Records, viii, 1925, 135) and in the Twelfth Dynasty at Kerma (Reisnee, Kerma, ii, 329). (c) The use of the rocker. Reisner {op. cit., 381) writes that this occurs “in the SO^[E POTSHERDS FROM KASSALA Ilf) Kubian C-group and in all subsequent periods in Ethiopia at present known to Tue down to the late Meroitic period”: in the present dav it has survived in the Balir el-Ghazi'd province and in the south of the Nuba Mountains. These are general characteristics, and thev are onlv significant because they are found in an area which it is reasonable on general grounds to connect with Kassahi. The closer parallels to which I referred come from sites in Lower Nubia: at Aniba frag?nent.s decorated with bold grooves like the Kassala ware were found by Maciver (Arpihi, 1909. PL x), and at Faras one piece which might have come from Kassala was found by Griffith (Liverpool Annals, viii, 1921, PI. xii, no. 21). Tlu' latter i)iece was found. Professor Griffith tells me, in the filling of a pit of a f'-group grave, and he descrilx's it in the text as “an example of dotnestic ware used for cooking which has strayed into the cemetery and may be later.” Maclver’s finds apparently belong to the Eight('enth Dynasty. The band ornaments on the smaller sherd.s from Kassala. again, may be compared with another Faras fragment (op. cit.. xiii, PI. xvii, no. .o) and might be regarded as degenerate survivals of the borders round the beautiful hlack-topp(>d howls from the Nubian cemeterv at Kerma. On the other hand it must be admitti'd that the common handmade wares in Lower Nubia, whether of the Meroitic or earlier ])eriod'. do not furnish an exact parallel to the Kassala group. The evidence quoted in the last paragraphs .suggests that the relationship between Kassala and Nubia is very similar to the relationship between Kassala and Axum. and it seems to me that a parallel to these relations can be found in the Southern Sudan to-day: here there are several local varieties of handmade wari' with marked character- istics which one can distinguish at a glance when one compare.s them together, but if one compares the whole group with the products of some distant area, such as West Africa or the Malav peninsula, where the processes of production may be much the 'ame, it is obvious that the local varieties in the Sudan should be classified as members of a single familv. It is suggested that it will be useful to classify the ancient fabrics nf North-East Africa in the same way: Kassala ware will then be designated as a new local varietv of a large family which includes the indigenous .Vxumite ware, several Nubian branches and some of the earliest Egyptian fabrics. The approximate date of the Ka«sala fragments is indicated by the Graeco-Poman or Mediterranean characteristics of Kassala Group I. This indication is further cf)r- roborated by the complete absence at Kassala of any fragments recalling the charac- teristic shapes and decorations which came into vogue at i\Ierf)e and elsewhere in the Sudan after the Meroitic period proper. This post-Meroitic ware is best seen in the numerous narrow-necked globular beer-jars decorated with textile impressions which have been found on various late sites and are still made over a wide area, including not mdy the Central Sudan but Kordofan. Dongola and Kassala itself (Journal, xiii. 149-1.50. and PI. xxxii). On the basis just proposed this post-Meroitic ware will be classified as yet another variety of the great North-Ea.st African family. The date suggested is consistent also with alt we know or can conjecture about this area from written sources. Procopius (Dp BpUo Persipo.i. 19, .59 .v (juoted by Woolley and ilaciver, Karunog. Text 102) says that it was a journey of thirty days for a light traveller (eitohop dvr pi) from Axum to the Roman frontier at AsWiin. and the direct road would naturally pass through Kassala. The scanty historical references to the Eastern Sudan are mainlv concerned with raids of Blemmye.s or Axumites. but the existence of regular communications implied by Procopius, the relations which the Blemmves entertained with Palmvra befort' the time of Diocletian, and the subsequent Byzantine veneer which they 1 e 116 J. W. CEOWFOOT acquired, prove that the desert tribes were not whoUy refractory to culture. It is not surprising therefore to find that about this time there was a settled community at Kassala cultivating the ground and subject, at least indirectly, to Mediterranean trade influences. Graeco-Roman influences in the Nile valley are obvious in the Romano-Nubian pottery: the foreign influences which reached Kassala, though from the same original source, were different because they had come through Axum instead of Egypt. The modern name of the site appears to point to the same culture complex but it would be rash to base any argument upon it : the dwellers in the Nile valley corrupted Ptolemaios into Botlus, and Daqlianus is more likely to be a corruption of Diocletianus than of some otherwise unknown name like Decilianus, but it would be hazardous to see in the name a reminiscence of the historical Diocletian in spite of his connexion with the Blemmyes. The name of Diocletian survived for a long time in Egypt and in the countries under Egyptian ecclesiastical influence because the Coptic era dates from his accession, and it seems to me likely that, being used in this connexion, it became a generic name for any place or person of remote antiquity among the Hallenga, some of whom may have been still Christian within the last century or two, like several tribes across the Eritrean frontier. We may sum up the conclusions of this paper as follows: In the early centuries of our era there was a settled community at Kassala which was in touch certainly with Axum and probably with the Nile valley: the pottery used by this community was made on the spot and decorated with tools and by processes which are familiar to us in several other places in this part of Africa. There is no evidence to show whether these people called themselves Blemmyes or Bega or by some other name. Our knowledge of the past history of this area is so slight that even these meagre facts are welcome. Plate XIV Sculptured slab No. 15,000 in the Berlin Museum. 117 NOTE ON THE SCULPTURED SLAB No. 15000 IN THE BERLIN MUSEUM By PERCY E. XEWBERRY With Plate xiv. In PL xiv is given a photographic reproduction of a sniall sculptured liitiestone slab, No. 15000 in the Berlin Museum. This has been published by Bissing-Briickniann in their Denhndler, Taf. 83, and also by Schaefer- Andrae in their Die Kutist of Tutr.inkli.nuun : .see my p.iiier mi “Tlie Flura! Wreaths” in Carter, The Tonih of Tat-'nikh-unxeii. ii, 192 ft. ^ SlfexHORP, Flora (jraera, in, KJ. 118 FIVE LEASES THE PRINCETON COLLECTION By H. B. van HOESEN and A. C. JOHNSON 1 . Lease of Palm Grove. AM 8951. AvprjXi'a ' AiJLfiayvdpiov Bid N€i«a[i’o]^o[9. . .] (j)L\py. TJapd '\iTrip.d')^ov K.oTTdpa /i[i7Tpo?] 0et&)[i’iSo?(?)] Kal %vpov Aojyivov ^ovXopLeda p^taOwaacrdal^i] irapd (70V (j)oiviKMi’a Xeyofievpv . . .ov J’r? TQV 5 napirov (eTov<;) 6' eKTTiTTTOj'TO? ej? to (ero?) i rpy iveaTOTO<; €TOVfptixchex Verrinxire.xen. Of; Class. Rev. vn. (1M93). 476. On ephebic games see \\ ilckex. Grunihage. 143 ff. 9-10. Cf. Rink. Strasxen- and Viertelnamen van 0.i grhgni has, 39 ll. 120 H. B. VAN HOESEN and A. U. JOHNSON 3. Lease of Farm. AM 8946. [’E/ito']0&)O'€y AvprjXla ' A/M/jil^iovdpcov] [( 7 )€p]Swpou p7][Tpo<;^ nem/x[oOTo>; avro t)}?] XapTrpd<; Kal Xap,TrpoTa[Tr]<; 'O^vpvy^iTwvJ TToXea}!; AvprjXi'o) 'lov[aT(o /iTjrpo?] ; SaTppi'7;?(?) ttTTo Tt;? a[vT^? TToXeci)?] [ei]? 6T?; 8uo dirg tov [eVeffTwro? tVou?] [tp]p inrdp)(pvaav avrfi •7r[epl, umprjv^ 'H[p]a/tXetpp dpovpgv p.\^iav rj oca? eav cocri.] [cK 7]e[]p‘eTpia9 airelpai Kal ^uXa-] lo [/xj}o'a(] pE edv aiptjTai [7]e7'eiTt eKipop^i^gy \_(i\Trg\r^u.KTov Kar eTO) [p/o-J^wcn? Trepl ?;? iirepcoTrjdelt; 6 p\_€]pt(T6(opePojXio<;) ’Iou illage Heracleion ('') for the term of two gears from the 'present gear with the right to cultivafe and harvest whatever crops he chooses. The regular gearlg rental shall be ten artabae of barleg free from all rish, while the annual public tares shall fall to the lessor who shall have ownership of all the crops until she receives the rental. If the lease is guaranteed . the lessee shall pag over new clean barleg in the mo)dh Pauni according lo the ten- measure standard without delag: and the lessor shall have the right of eraction according to law. This lease is valid. The lessee on being formaUg interrogated agreed. Bated the fourth of Tubi in the second gear of the reign of Imperator Caesar Gaius Valerius Diocletianus Pius Felix Augustus. 1. Aurelius Justus, have leased the land and I will pag the rent in barleg as agreed, and on bong formallg interrogated I have con.sented. I , Aurelius Diongsius wrote this agreement or behalf (f the lessor us she is illiterate. 121 FIVE LEASES IN THE PRINCETON COLLECTION Measurements: 13x10 cm. The document is nearly complete excejjt for the loss of the right-hand portion of lines 1-9. In the upper left-hand corner some of the letters are so faint that our reading is far from certain. Dated in the second year of Diocletian, a.d. 28.5. 1. We have here the Oxyrhynchus protocol form of lease in full, ending with signature, and repetition of the covenant clause of the lease. 2, 5. Ileea/xoOTo?, laropvy'i. These names are unknown, but masculine variants and Saropeoi? are quoted by Preisigke, Xnmpnbuch. 8 . The name of the village is highly problematical, as the traces of the letters are almost completely washed out. 19. The fierpov SeKci/ierpov con.sisted of ten measures, each of four chornierx. This measure is rare in Roman times though known to metrologists. f'f. P. ().,!/. 9 rrrxn (p. 77 ). 85: P. Fay. 101; P. Amh. 147. also Hultsch, Arrhir. 2 . 292 If. 4. Lease of Rooms. Dep. 7518. [Tm helvi Tov Beivo} avT?) iroXei eV’ apX t5)v XapirpoTUTUsv e7rd[pytue] 0a)d. . (2nd hand) \vpyXio<; FlaOXos' peplaBiopai [tottoJo? oiVia[ 9 ] yat dtroSaxTO) jy [^ivoi^KlOV TTpOKlTai Kai [eTrep^cprydel^ mpoXoyyaa. From Aurelius Paulus . . .of the illustrious and most illustrious city of Oxyrhyucku.x. I volun- tarily undertake to rent from the first of Thoth of the present year {certain rooms) and the upper room of the property belonging to yon in the Tenth irard of the aforesaid city, and to pay yon for rent 260 siher drachmae a year: which rental, if the lease is guaranteed. I shall pay in semi- annual instalments, enjoying the use of the leased rooms withou' hindram e for the period. On the expiry of the lease I shall restore the property clear \aovia)v. 18. T 0 )v Xa/jLTTpoTarrov eirdpxojv ktX. [This seems to me. from a photograph sent me, almost certain, though the hand is verv cursive. H. 1. B.] 5. Lease of Furnished House. Dep. 7546. Mera rrjv inrareiav A>X(aovi(ov) Eu^aipiou Kai —vaypLov T&y X[a]/i(7rpoTrtTa)i') ’E7rei<^ ig 4>\[a]oi/ico K.pgaireivai oVo TTpanrocriLraiv) 7€[o]u;('o0i'Ti €7r[l T]r/? Xafi(TTpds) Kal XapiirpoTaTg^) TrAefca?) - 7rap[a] .XvpgXlas Noci'a? \KpTepLihd)pp\y\ niro Tri<; avTg^ TroXeco?. 'E«:ou. E,,nP 408 and 971 (= Mitteis, Chrest. 95), P. Amh. 140. (2) Documents where the title clearly refers to the praepo.-itu.s ca.-trorum as in the archives of Abinnaeus, who also holds the oltice of praefectus alae {P. Loud., vol, 2 and P. Gen. passim; P. Oxy. llOl. which is an edict forbidding civilians to have recourM; to the military ollicial: [toj yap rr^panroaLTo} pel' [[tw/]] a-pariioTon' etp^w t^eari, [ici'iiTtoi') oviceTi). (3) Documents where the praepositus performs police duties. Hero the prui pij.-Uus castrorum is probably meant since we know that he exercised such functions (P. Gen. 47. and possibly P. Thead. 13 and 52. Cf. Gelzer, op. at., 59: M ili lex, Grund'.ugi'. 407, 41.5), while we hax-e no definite evidence that the village official did (Prei.sd.ke, P. (’airo G- P. Oxy. 1506). The judicial functions of the two offices certainly ov.Tlappcd— legitimately or by usurpation (P. Oxy. IfOl . P. Loud. 408) -and it is pos.sible that the same may be true of the police authority. A Theadelphian appeals to both (P. Thead. 22 and 2:>). L'nfor- tunately these two documents are fragmentary and their interpretation, therefore, is not definitely certain. But they admit the po.ssibility that the duties of two officials were dis- tinguished a.s judge and police agent respectively. To the praepositus p.ujt the appeal reads as follows: d^ico ottois «t\. dvayicdays [••••] ~o diroKaTaaTadijnu toG [ 1 124 H. B. VAN HOESEN and A. C. JOHNSON Xoyoi'i e’li'a hvvrjOta to 7 rp[. .]a (sc. irpo^ara) a'jroXa^eli . To the praepositus castroTum the appeal is: d^ioj ktX. oVa)? tovtov avvXa/^co/ievoi KaTavayKaap'i avTov airoKaTacTTijaai pot TO. KUKoi^ Ka0rjp7raug}i it be in expedients, in descriptive work of the archaeological and especially the geograiihical kind, and still be distinct in style and, above all. readable. Hogarth always was both, and much of the success of his Xearer East was due to this characteristic style of his. which could condense illuminating information into few words. Some dubbed him a “journalist” on this account. That is then to say that nearly every Oxford man is a bit of a journalist, or ha.s the jh.iir for superior journalism. Xo doubt he has; why notl And Hogarth when on occasion he did act as an aetual journalist was an extremely good one. He had a .sense of the pres.s. and an unfailing power of descrijhion. Of his two travel-books in lighter vein we need not .'peak; there are chapters in them that are almost classical, such as the description of the flood at Zakro in Crete (in Accidents of an Antiqaarifs Life) and of the ridt* in the storm down the Calycadnus Valley (in *f Wandering Ar/iolar in the Lcnait). Others, such as that of the serpent- slavers of the Delta (Accidents, etc.) are delightful, even rollicking, in their humour. Hoearth alwavs saw the humour of a situation, though somewhat grimly at times. Characteristic was the tale ho would tell of his early book Deriu Ci/pria, the story of his wanderings in C'ypru.s, that he believed it was now only to be found in the boxes devoted by cheap booksellers to literature of a very rloubtful nature. Jdui'u lit Eu'pt. -Vivh. XIV. 17 130 H. R. HALL Of his Egyptian work and experiences lie wrote little. His digging at Asyut in 1907 never satisfied him, and he never published its results, although it yielded some very interesting early Middle Kingdom coffins to the national collection. All we hear of it is in a single chapter in Accidents of an Antiquarfs Life. His two seasons’ work at Naiikratis was published with C. C. Edgar in the Annual of the British School at Athens, V (1898), 26 11., and in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxv (1905), 10511. He added a good deal of interest and importance to Petrie’s discoveries. His papyrus-hunting work, with B. P. Grenfell, for the Fund in the Fayyum was published in Fayiun Towns and their Papyri (1900). At Der el-Bahri he did nothing that he considered worth talking about, being there merely as assistant to Naville to gain experience in excavation, and having then no Egyptological knowledge. Hogarth never had the time or probably the inclination to study the hieroglyphs, but he was a very accurate and knowledgeable critic of Egyptian art, which he knew as well as most men, and in which he was always keenly interested. Many younger men. not least among them the writer of this, have experienced real kindness, much more than mere courtesy, at his hands, and will always remember with pleasure the figure with the slight nuance of the country gentleman in its attire, the manner at first abrupt, then with a broadening smile on the face presaging some ironical remark in the unusual and unforgettable resonant yet (except on public occasions) not loud voice, the short phrased, curt sentences in speaking, and the handwriting, neat and scholarly yet swiftly flowing, with the characteristic signature. All will regret his un- timely death. H. E. Hall. 1.31 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAEGO-ROMAX EC^PT A. PAPYRI (1920—1927) [Even after obtaiiiiiiy a^>i.staiice in the preparatnai of tin.. mm. xiii, ‘..I, n.jti' I found it KO exliaubting a ta.bk that I reluctantly decided to .ili.iiidoii it. A.., ho\ve\cr. no 'ingle peiM.n could be found to eontiiiue the work it \va,' eventually airanged to make it' produetion a |oint nnileitakni'.; The scholars who have assi.sted this year, and who will. I hojie, contiiiuo their coH.-d 'oral ion in tin. fullin', are: — Mr. H. J. M. Milne, Mr. A. D. Nock, Mr. .J. (1 Milne, Mr. X. H. H.vvnls, Prof, I-', m. Zi i.i i:i.\. Mi.ss M. E. Dicker, ilr. R. McKenzie. The plan adojded h.i' lieeii to dnide the reading of tlie periodicals used among the contributors, each reader coinniunic.itin.g references which fall out'ide Ins own sphere f.t the proper person. Each collaborator is responsible for the compilation and .iriangemeut of hi' own section (at the end of which his name will be found , though I lia\e made a few editorial i liangc' to seciiie g'reater uniformity of form and have added a few reference' not acces'ible to the author .if the .section' in which they Occur. H.I. B.] 1. Liter.cry Texts. Culhvti'j/ts. Several important cnllectioiis have appeared in the cmiise of the year, e.i'ily headed la the now volume (xvii of the < K'lirhiincltas the literary 'ectmii of whii-h lont-nn' import. mt fr.icment.s of the Aiti'i of Calliiii.iclius, ile'iod's Sapiilm Ilk. ii alre.elc pitl.li'ln-.l ly b.iin.i , S..pl,.Hli'' SiiupUus'!, Euripidosl — Pirith'jJ's, Phlegoii — (7(/'eee.'.' ', Life of Ae'..[>, I'hicomium ..n th.. Kig, .'ll liolia on Euphorion ?, Tre.ttisc on Rhetoric, Glo"ary, L.itin fr.egnient on .^eiMUs TulliU'. L.itin .luri'ti.- livegment. Also additional fragments of lultiifutu-:, EonjpyUi-<, Sapplm. Alc.ieii', Jl.e .. liylidc'. Iby. ii'. Among known works are: Hesiod — T’/ieo^oey and OpiV'U Piiidar — OL ii, Sof.ho,. le'— d/'or, Lycoplir..ii — I'Ji-'i, Herodotus — Bks. i, vii, viii, Thucydides — Bk', iv. v. viii. Cyr'.ip^i' di" i, Plato's Phij'jdr.i.-, Oaius— ti(jMS iv. For the uon-literary te.vts in this volume see .S A. Another batch of fragments from Oxyrhyiicliii'. publi'Iied by Ei'...\r in Jio.o/.., t‘ 'TV of Alexander, Oppiau — Iljiitiixi. The new P.S.I. Vlii contains fragments of Kind an.l Roni.iiae with nainO' ..f KaXXr/.ii'i] .uid Eu,3iorof, Prophecy on 7-dXairci .K’iyvnTns, Multifilicatioii table.s, Lexicon, i.I'tr.ikou with hexameters men- tioning Pleuron and Calydou. P.tUL CoLL.tHT publishes ill La< pniiiii-i's Ett'iriiiiii, Pari'. P.i^U, .in inL[.ort,int tio.iti'e on Aeolic firms. Other pieces include: Historical fr.igmeiit meiitioiiing Ptolenn, more Afd xil, an Invoc.ition to the Xile. inedu.d receipts, biblical texts, theology, etc. At p. 12fi observe that Xo. l.'i:5~P. Here. 1149 ,aml er.isp “ p. 127 Xo. lb4 = P. Here. 1042 and erase “The remainder— X.iples.'"' E. C.W.tiGN.tc gives statistics of aiitlmrs found and ch.incC' of attribution in S-‘r r-iltrdi-iiii-i- fraq'iuei-ts de {Pa-'. d- I h'/. ana., I, I927)-2<. 17(>-‘^1 . IxoRTe's HP la m.-it' .nd-a Di't/.la/iy, 192.), is reviewed be .1, IiI.ei'cKi.n in ic/.o/ze./.. 192,, (,92 li, by- E. Pfeiffer in Phd. H'oc/o, 192»5, OOl-G, .uid by .J. H.vmmlr in t'A/.-.c PUd., 1927, 1 1.7-1>^. 17- 2 132 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) Powell’s Coll. Alexandrina is reviewed by P. Maas iii U nornon, 1927, 689-92, and by E. Cahen in Rev. ei. a DC , 1926, 185-7. Ejiic. In Clci.is. Philology, xxii, 99-100, Oldfather eontirms a reading of Zenodotus and Aristophanes ill Oil. I, ;i8 from Pap. 121 in the Brit. Mils, and Epictetus, in, i, 38 in Cod. Vind. 307 — 'Epfidav TT(fi\jvai.Te SuUroimv. Clekaud's Odysxcy paiiyriis i.s reviewed by Hombert in Rec. Beige Phil. Hist., v (1926), ,215-16. Henri Henne prints in Bull. lu.^tit. Franc. d’Arch. orient., xxvii (1927), 79-82, 11. in, 1-5, from an ostrakoii. Xew reading in 1. 5 poycni', vulgate podav. In Riv. di Filologia, 1926, 572 f., A. E. reviews Wintee'.s edition of '.CkKiidpavros Trepi 'Opgpov (see Journal, XIII, 85). An epic fragment ^1-2 cent. A.D.) with parts of 21 lines, mentioning Egypt and the Nile, is edited bj?^ S. Eitrem in Rynibolae Osloenscs, v (1927). Lyric. Lobel has now followed up his edition of Sappho with a companion volume, AAKAIOY ME AH, Oxford, 1927, 111 which ho subjects the usage of Alcaeus to those rigorous tests which have so dismayed the critics of his Sappho. Eeviewed in the Times Lit. SuppL, 12 Jan. 1928, and by J. M. Edmonds in Camh. Pier., 27 Jan. 1928. J. Sitzler review.s the Sajipho in Phil. Woch., 1927, 993-1004, and makes many suggestions. F. Stiebitz proposes restorations of Sappho 65 (Diehl) in Phil. Woch., 1926, 1259-62. Medea Xors.v publishes FrammcHti di un inno di Philulos, 32 choriambs (right half preserved) of a hymn to Denieter .,3 cent. B.c.j in Stud. Ital. di Fit. Class., 1927, 87-92. Cf. P. Maas in Neues eu Philiskos voii Kerkyra. in Cnoiaon, HI, 439-40. Vol. Ill of Ed.monds’ Lyra Oraecu has now appeared, containing Baochylides, Timotheus, etc. I learn from Aegyptus of two fragments of hymns to Isis published by G. Olivebio in Hot. Arch. Colohie, IV ',1927', 207-12. Bacchylides ill is tran, slated by G. Cammelli in Atene e Roma, 1926, 204-7, and in the same volume, 286-8, N. Russo interprets and translates the Alexandrian Erotic Fragment (P. Greiif. I. 1; — La Fandalla Ahhandonuta. Elegiac. The Berlin Tyrtaeus, text and translation, is re-edited by V. de F.vlco in Riv. Iado-(Jrec.-ltal., X (1926;, 63-76. Edgar publishes in Ann. du Service, xxvii, 31-2, a Greek epitaph of 16 lines from Saqqarah of the Roman period in dialogue form on one Heras. Drama. Togliano re-edits a tragic fragment first published by Vitelli in Rev. e'gyptologique, i (1919 — II fraiiimeiito trugico fiorentiao in Riv. di Fil., 1926, 206-17. IViLAMOwiTZ gives restorations and sugge.sts the Phrixus of Sophocles in Riv. di Fil., 1927, 79. Attributed in Herme.i, 1028, 1-14, by W. Schadew.vldt in a more elaborate discussion to the Phrixus of Euripides. The sources of the Ichneiitae are discussed by L. Previale in BoU. di Fil. Classica, xxxm (1927), 174-82. Ho tiiid.s other origins besides the Hymn to Hermes. I learn from Aegyptus of an article by F. Ageno, Pudicazioni di senso negli Ichneutai di Sofocle, in Raccolta Ramorino (Milano, 1927, 027-59). The Evrypylus is studied by G. Brizi in Aegyptus, 1927, 3-39. The Hypsipyle is shown to he a late play by the resolved 5th foot in col, iv, 35 of P. Oxy., by A. KoRTE in Phil. Woch., 1927, 584, in a review of Th. Zielinski’s Tragodumenon lihri in. liiirsians .Tahreshcricht, Lll (1926j, reports on the recent (1921-25) literature on comedy. The new dis- coveries are allotted a section. Important .studies on Menander appear in Rk. Mus., lxxvi (1927), 1-13, by Ch. .Iensen — Der Anfang des J Aktes der Epitrepontes. He places leaf Z as first of the quaternio and admits the Didot pijais as the speech of Pamphile. Marcel Hombert tran.slates the Uepucapopcvr] as La femme au.e cheveux coupts in Rev. Beige de Philalogie et dHlstoire, vi (1927;, 1-30. The same play, 11. 147-51, is interpreted in Hermes, 1927, by IVir AMuWiTZ — I.,esefrnchte, ccxxvii. The (J largos, 1. 34 {koKov y an e“rf) is translated “a fine thing it would be” (ironically), and in Sarnia, 322-3, TTiBavov is treated as neuter — by O. GufiRAUD in Bull. Instit. Franc. ckArck. onentale, xxvii (1927), 111 - 12 . Capovill.a’s Menander is reviewed by 0. Regenbogen in Or. Lit.-Z., xxx (1927), 854-6. Contents not deemed adequate to .scope. \'ogliano reviews Wilamowitz — Schiedsgericht in Boll. Fil. Class., 1926, 144 53, and Coppola in Rir. di. Fil., 1927, 394-402. I learn from the Cl. Rev. of a new edition of M. by M. G. M ADDELL — Selections from Menander. Pp. xx.xvi-|-182 ; illu-strations. Oxford: Clar. Press, 1927. 7 6 net. A 2-3 cent, papyrus from the Fayyum with the sub.scription MevdvSpov yvapai is edited by K. K-VLiiELEiscH from the Jaiida collection in Hermes, 1928, 100-3. Six of the 10 lines are new. Neither BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (192G-1927) L'.S the Loeh nor the Bi’de Horochis ha.'- appeared a^ yet. Hek/.ouV eilitmii is reviewed hy Knox rather favourably iu the Journal, xill (19:17', and SiTZr.ER review.s H.’s Trmun -40. VoGLIANO re-as.serts in Anxora I rni miiniirinlxj rli llemdu that a woman is th(' .s]icak('r. Thinks a column may be missing and doubts if the pre.sent end really belongs to this mime. W'oulii sera]i 11. 3". 31, dewv aSfXfpoyv Tifievos, etc., in (Mime I — Jiit\ di Pd,, 1927, i l-t^. In Mneniosi/ne, 1927, 104-8, Voi.lgraff discusses tlie meaning of jri'pairrpiji' in Ih rojar, iv, 02. Grammar. By.. Ztsohr., 1927, 181, reviews a publication: Willi (Iobek, Ein .^yita utik. r /’. /y/aae ct- kode.v des Dionysius Thra.r., P. Hah, .75 o. Mitlehdtrrlirhn Ilnndhihrifli',}, F^stipd,, .urn o'o. < him rt slaiy con Bennann Derjeriny. Leipzig, Hier.sein.uin, 1920. S. 111-ls 1 T.d'. Codex ofa Ocem. History. Various historical papyri .ire re-edited by .l.xcnin in lus t,7-, H istnrdur. P. Here. 1418 hs restored by Vogliaxo in Suori Testi 5fo/'0 i' and Ueloch .adds a 'Ujipleuient.iia note on Mithns Riv. di HI., 1927, 310-31. The papyrus on the archaeology of Thucydidc.s is reviewed by Ro.ssii.u h in /V,t to/,, .a Ec/nrs ntu ,■ d yriaiXoydv, (vgT](Tihnyia, fc/tiio'tXoynv. In Boll. Fd. Class. Vour.I.vNO reviews He Falco’s .irticl.. on the Trepi KoXnKdm of Plnlodemus see Journal, XIII, 87). Reviewed also by U. B.vssi in A'gyptus. mu 1927). 19s 9. Regina .Sch.xchter ha.s collected the fivigments of Philoilemu' irtpi nnirnaiTwr, Book 11, fiom rf,L/,/,,'„a Herculanensia. torn. x. in the periodical Eos =C<>/iiineiifarii Sacntafis /‘hdatagae /'olonoru m, cil, R. Oanszyniec, Th. Zielinski, Leopoli [ = Lwow].. xxix 1926 , 1.7 28. /lomancr. In I'hil. VAoch., 1927, 15,58, E. Hofmann notices Li iivikoVskI s h.iok on the Creek romance .see Jonraal, xiu, 8,). 11. .1. .M. Milne. 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 2. Keligiox, Magic, Astrology. {lududiiig Texts.) (JcnernL ^’ol. lxxxii of Revue ties dudes juives coii-sists of Melanges in honour of I. Levi’s seventieth birthday, and opens with a bildiography of hi.s writings (we may note p. 23, on Alexander the Great in Jewish legend). Vol. vi of Jukrhuck fuv Liturgieivissenschaft includes as in previous years a valuable bibliography of liturgical material and has a careful criticism of Lietzmanx, Messe imd Herrenmahl, by 0. Casel (209-1 7 >. The new edition of Religioa in Geschichte und Gegenwavt (Mohr: Tubingen, 1926-) includes a number of relevant articles, as for instance Alehemie by F. E. Strcxtz, 194-200; excellent), Alexandria, Ale.ra adri nische Theologie, AUegorie, Alphabet, and Aegypten, iv. Hopexer's Fontes has been reviewed by K. Preisexdaxz in GdOnwn, 1926, 478-81. E. F. Brick, Totentdl und Reelgerat, has been reviewed by £. Bickel in Phil. Woch., 1927, 721-6 (qualified praise), A. D. XocK in Journ. Hell. Stud., XLVii (1927), 1.51-2, D. M. Robinsox in Aui. Journ. Arch., XXXI (1927), 132-3, K. Preisexdaxz in O.L.Z., xxx (1927), 235-7, Haas in Theol. Lit.-Z., 1926, 505-8. E. Fa.scher, nPO'I’HTHS (Topelmann ; Gies,sen, 1927. 12 M.) discn.sses, pp. 76-101, the use of TrpotftrjTrjs to render “Egyptian priest.” It has been reviewed by J. ill. Creed in Journ. Theol. Stud., xxix, 57 f. Fh. Bilabel, in a review in Pltil. Woch., 1927, 836, promises a Corpus of papyrus texts important for religious history. K. Latte, Die Religion tier Romvr und der S'ynhretisimes der Kaiserzeit {Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebach, Heft 5; Mohr: Tiibingen, 1927. 4 M. 30, or in subscription, 3 M. 90), give.s an excellent collection of texts in translation. Pre-Ptoleuiaic. I leai'ii from a summary in Rev. hist, rel., XLt (1925), 261-2, that the late H. Basset in Melanges R. Ra.iset (Leroux: Paris, 1923', has published an elaborate study of the Libyan Ammon, regarding A. as a Libyan god, akin to Anien-ReC and a.ssimilated to the great divinities of successive conquering peoples. Of Ammon there is a judicious discussion by E. S. G. Robixsox, B.M.C. Cyrenaica, ccxxxiii-ix. Ptohinaic: Te.rts. In IN'. Kcxkel’s Vencaltungsatten aus spatptolenwischer Zeit {Arch. f. Pap., vill) we may remark nos. 11-13 (pp. 207-11) recording the deli\ ery of corn to the prie.sts at Tilothis and also for the adripa or “porridge” daily set like shewbread before the Xomeseis and Adrasteiai, “very great divinities.” H. 1. Bell’s suggestion {Gnuinon, 1926, 569; that was sold by the temple in U.P.Z., 98, is very interesting in this ounnection ; pre.suni.ibly the udrjpa was thought to have acquired .special virtues by this contagiuui (Bell's suggestion is approved by MTlckex in U.P.Z., l, 654). In P. Bovriant reviewed in ;; 3) we may here note no. 12, a letter dated 88 b.c. by Plato to the priests and others at Pathyris. Collart in his commentary has some notes (p. .59) on the loyalty of the priest- hoods to the Ptolemaic dynasty. U. IViLCKEX, Zu den Syrischen GOttern” {Festga.be fur Adolf Deissuiaiiu, 1-19; Mohr: Tubingen, 1927; obtainable separately), first discu.s.ses the existing evidence for their cult in Egv-pt, explaining etrnygtvns in P. Paris, 10 {U.P.Z., I, no. 121) with reference to Lucian de dea Syria, 59, and comparing rd trriyixara Tov in Gal. 6. G, and then publishes P. Fz*eib. (6. 7, eaily 2nd cent, b.c., a complaint about a nocturnal attack on an ’ .\TapyaTi4ov in Philadelphia with mo.st instructive comments. General. E. K. Bev.xx, A History of Egypt under the Ptuleinaic Dynasty (noticed in § 4), gives, pp. 87-90, a good general sketch of religious conditions, 106-8 of the royal cult at Ptolemais, 127-31 of deification, 177-8 of the relations of the government and the native prie.sthoods, 296-9 of the Serapeum papyri in U.P.Z. L. R. Taylor, The “ Proslynesis’'' and the Hellenistic Ruler Cult {.I.H.S., xlvii, 1927, 53-62; cf. g 4), comments, p. 57.^4, on the Ptolemaic oath by the king’s daimon. In the Cult of Alexander at Alexandria {Class. Phil., xiil, 1927, 162-9;, she gives evidence for the identification of Alexander with Agathos Daimon. R. Herzog has some remarks on Ptolemaic cult in the course of a paper on Herodas in PhUologus, LXXXII : he holds that eEQNAAEAQN on the coins from 270 onwards refers to the two pairs, Ptolemy I and Berenice on the one hand, and Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphos on the other ; the title Soter, originally applied to Ptolemy I in his lifetime in cultus outside Egypt and in private cultus in Egypt, became canonical and produced the fixed epithet whence Bto'i uSfXcjjoi was limited to Ptolemy II and Arsinoe (pp. 53-8;. BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (l!)2G-19-27) ]35 H. Jeanhaire, La poUtiqiie l•eli(!ie"se d’Antoiio- ut di‘ C/f'iqu'ifn’ (Iter. , how Antony and Cleopatra used religious prop,ig;uida. This able ,iii.l illimmiatiiig paj.er is eoinpl.'led by H. J. Rose, The Diqtaettn'e ot l)wif>/sos {Ami. Ai'ih. AniJn'^ At, 2.")-30', wbo has disiM\'ered counter- propaganda by Octavian in two stories preserved in IMutarch’s Lde nf Antmn/. R. Reitzea’Steia', D/'' //rVA-a/spse/e.',. /■('<’/)/■' /n/nt>iuviKi or -tKp, Svp[f]ui ((o) '= Stpiri; W. SpIEGELBErg, Der Week-rnf mi die niiiiiitUrhen (I'ltt'i- 'Arch. f. /oC, xxiii, 34Hi, reinark.s that Porphyry, Du ahat., iv, 9. aflbrds evidence for the continued practice in the 3rd century a.d. of greeting or awakening the deity of the temple in the morning. R. Mehlis, Antinovr-[)‘'iikiiiii nzen (PXP. IFoc/o, 1926, li4-)> . [Hits together ooin-tvpf-s rel-itiiig t<» the apotheosis of Antinous. A. O. Nock, Pagan hapttirnta in Tertajk la n iJinirn. J Ik a! . t'^fnd., xxviii, 289-9))', defends the XI.8,s: reading Pelnsiis in De Impt. a and explains it .as referring to the PH.i.d'i.n festival icdebrited on March 20 in Rome. XL ScHEDE, Isiaproze.^sion i.xrrE.AOS. II. 60-1, with plate', imblishes a Potsdani relief showing ,a procession very like that described by ApnI. Met. xi, 1<»-11. J. Leipoldt-K. Reglixg, Arrhaologi.acher znr laiareligioii 'ih., I. 126-3)1, with .7 plates , reproduce the Herculaneum pictures and six relevant eoin-tyjies with bibliograpbx-. I. h RAX'K-K.AMEA*LTZKI, L her die II araer- .//.// Da n mnatiir des (Arina t Arrh. f. lick.. XXIV 1_4;^ iplotes Georgian and C.uic.isi.ui folklore parallels for the myth .as given by Plutarch; 1 feel this empiirv i.s citi.ited by the writer’s f.ulure to recognise that the t.ale as it there appears has sufi'ered Hellenistic tlcvelopment R. B.VRToClIXI, in He Ruggiero, Diztanara) rpagraurn tJi aiitiehitd ruitaiiie. iv, fisc :i Mb'))! 86-91, collects the Latin epigrapliic cvnlence in convenient form. On her connection with the planet Sirius Guxdel has written in Pavhi-Viirrami. m a, .321-2. A dedication of .an image of Diana ai.rvi af ISIDl has been found at Tivoli ' Xrjiizie degt; .a, a.ri. 192)!. 417 . E. GhISI-AXZoXI, P Paetuariu ihlte Dii 'niita .Me.arand rine i Xatiziario .[rrh. Cuk..^ IV, 1927, 149--'uf;'i publishes a most import. int s.mctuary from Gyrene. On the evidence of a coin find Ghislaxzoxi dates it 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) ca. 350 A.D., and he is inclined to connect it with the Julianic re\dval. The finds include two Hecataea, a seated Cybele, the torso of an Eros, a group of Charites, a head of Mithras (PL xx, 7), a statuette of a priestess of Isis, a statue of Zeus Sarapis, and a most interesting statue of Isis with the lower part of her body swathed like a mummy (not later than first century A.D.), an Aphrodite, and a Libya with attributes of Isis. IVe have also a self predication by Isis in iambics, in an inscription dated 103 a.d., closely akin to the texts found at los and Andros, and fragments of a hymn in hexameters (published by Ci, Oliverio, ib., 201-12j. The finds have been di.scussed by F. CT’most, Knuvelles de'cmii-ertes u Cyrhip {Joura. des Sar., 1927, 318-22!. He makes the illumin.rting suggestion that the supposed Isis is not the goddess, but an initiate playing her part, and therefore wearing divine robes, and swathed as a mummy because initiation was a mystic death ; he also shows that the statue illustrates the “ rite of the veiled hand,” as Dieterich called it. A. Taraiielli in his report on Sardinian discoveries {Xotizie degli scavi, 1926, 446-56) raises the que.stion (p. 4.53) whether the crypt called Farcere di S. Efisio was used by worshippers of Isis who fled from Rome as a result of the repre.ssive measures directed by Tiberius against their worship. H. Lehxer, Orientalische Mysterienhdte ini riinuseken Rheinland [Bonner Jahrhiicher, ccxxix, 1925, 36-91 ; obtainable separately^, discusses, pp. 47-50, remains of Egyptian cults in his region ; specially valuable is his tre.itment (pp. 56-8) of the influence of the Oriental cults here on the native cults. He does not rate the imjiortance of the army high as a channel of Eastern beliefs. For a statuette of Harpocrates found in India cf. A. IV. L[awrence] in J.II.S., xlvi (1926), 263. R. Reitzexsteix, Weltuntergangsvorstelbmgen, 36 ff. [ = KyrkohntorUl- Arssknft, 1924, 164 f.), explains P. Fay. II a.s a Helleni.sation of an Oriental Descensus nd inferos myth and suggests col. iii 7 6 8e rbv drjbv els Kpablav (fiipar, 23 Xvypa (rapara b' [eljojad’ vvepOe y^t, 42 Kara yijs i^oa be. E. Peterson, Elf 6e6s eds Zirkusakkla /nation in Byzam [Thexol. Lit.-Z., 1927, 493-6), publishes some .addenda to his valuable EI2 0EO2, noticed here last year (xill, 89) and reviewed by K. Preisexdanz, O.L.Z., XXX (1927), 960-2. H. Leisegang, Der Bruder des ErlOsers (ArrE.\02, I, 24-33), studies a concept in the Hymn of the Soul in Acto Tho/nne and in Pistis /Sophia, and traces it to speculation of a Philonic type. His index to the editio niaior of Philo by CoHS and Wendlaxd deserves a mention here (pars i; Berlin, 1926; de Gruyter. Pp. viii + 338. 30 M.). That it does not cover the fragments and is not exhaustive is the fault of the times and not of the author (commended by 0. Stahlin in Phil. Woch., 1927, 8-13, cf. 281-2), B. A, van Groningen, Insc/dptio dedicato/da Aegyptiaca [Mnemos., lv, 1927, 263-8), puts together three fragments of a dedication at Ooptos of which part was published by Preisigke in Samnielbuch, 5874 ; it is interesting for its de.'^cription of Sai-xpis as rbv 3roAt[€a Ala peyav \ 2npa7r[tv rbv (fiiK^OKala'apa (discus.sed by Groningen, p. 265) and for its reference to the Olympia kept at Alexandria. T. Grassi, Le hste tenipluri nelVEgitto greco-roinano secondo i papiri [Studi della souola papirologica, Yol. IV ; Parte iv: Milano — “Aegyptus”— 1926; pp. 72. 12 1. 50), is an excellent study of temple inventories. J. Vogt’s Terrakotten is commended by W. Schdbart, Deutsche Lit.-Z., 1927, 1301-2. lor E. Bickerji.ann, Ritiud/nord und Eselskult [Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wiss. d. J/ideutums, lxxi, 1927, 171-264) and for the literature called forth by H. I. Bell’s Jews a/id Ch/-istians, I refer to 3 and 4. Magic. S. Eitrem has completed his Die vier EJle/uente in der Myste/denweihe [Synib. Oslo., v, 1927, 39-59) ; this very interesting paper discusses the worship of the elements in Persia and Scythia and tendencies in the same direction in Greece. (For purification by the elements discussed (p. 55), add C. H. Blinkenberg, La chroni/iue du temple Lindien, p. 25 [341] ; a man hanged himself behind the cult-image, and on Delphi's bidding the Lindians removed the roof over the image and left it ea-re ca rpeh aX[i]oi yevavTai xa'i Tolf too irarpos ayv/.a6j). The phrase cited by Eitrem from Hyginus, Fab. 139, iit neque carlo /leqne terra neque inari mueniretur, seems to be a riddle which has become a myth.) In Varia [Syrnb. Oslo.. V, 86 f) he proposes some emendations on P. Leid. J. 395 IV (that edited by Dieterich, Abraxas, 169 ff.). In Ko/iig Ann in Ups/xla und Kronos [Festskrift til Ej. Falk, Oslo, 1927, 245-61), he gives an interesting discussion of a Swedish parallel to the Kronos legend ; p. 25 I 3 he comments on 11. 2844 ff. of the Paris magical papyrus; p. 25:3, (.n 1. 1823 (significance of swallowing an object to heighten its magical properties). The late H. (rRESSM.vNN in Di/‘ Aufgahen der Wis.se/isehaft des nachbiblischen Judentums (in Zeitsekr. altt. 11 G«., .XLiii, 192.), 11) remarks justly that Jewish names in magic texts do not necessarily point BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (192G- 11)27) 127 to Jewish practitioners of the art, and refers to Origen, Cuntra Cehniu, tv, 33, for magi who invoke tlie God of Alti'iiham, Isaac, and Jacoh ; ih. (11 fi ho does collect instances of Jewish niagicians. It should be mentioned here that hicoTi' in his IL'i-im tioi, il, tlh- 1.\ finds rhythmical structure akin to that of llyzantine hymns in P. Par. 1 11.“) -1100. L. Il.ttlltllir.vCHER in ft IffilO, explains (rurop^dfr/, in 1, 103 as met.ithesis for n-wnpixoiTj/. In Jh/u'Ik, v. So, he e.xplanis 1. :13o0. E. BiCKERJt.xxNy in a review in J’/tif. H'oc/i., 10^7, fill, gives pa[iyriis ilhistr.itions of the killing of ,in animal whose power one xvislics to tippropriate. K. Preiskxd-XXZ has remarked 'Si/mh. Osin., iv, t;i)-l ■ th.it P. < »'lo 3 is wrhally identic, d with P. Par. 1G3:)-I09.‘i. L. DeI'BNER .supports II.VDEIIM.VCHER’s deienL*c of jltlTprlyoo' KCKi'dO' 111 Ari.st. A''///., Joy, b\' I Iting P. Oslo i, 233 /Sarpn^ov rf)pnvvov (}I''i'nu‘S, Exit, I 2fs i ; \\ . IvR.XXZ 'lit., 2.7t! adduces ahso yeyHi'cs in Plato, 101 c. Camprell Boxser, Tracer of Thaniniiinnfii' T'rhniq",; t/oj Miroi-hs Unrr. Tl.i:ol A’- <■., x.\, liijy, 171— Bi:. eompare.s sariva^^v, arpi/d^a^ in 7. 34, B. 12 r./. draor-, with P. P.tr. 2192, 7t)*’>tt., Lcid, IV. 21-911'. and for seii.se with P. Par. .337, 62811'. and explains tvf.-ipipuivTr, in Marl 11. 4 ami (I’lSpipiimiTo in Jolij! 11. 33 of inspired frenzy, comparing the historian Menander xiv. 3^1, Bonn , irnpiffv fm rcr ill P. Par. G20ft'., .lud Pint. De dej. e/'oc., p. 437ic; he thus supports the Western te.xt of .lA/r/ I. 41 3. I have not seen J. IV. Haler, />('<• Dhiinhn im noi-dl I'-h’ n t’ni.ildhOiniis nud /Arc /„ d, r sogeiKXi'iitfii MithrusUt'irgie U'jitr. :. hid. n. A''/ , if : Kolilhamnier. Stuttgart : pp 2.'i, 1 .M. so ,, Th. Hopfxer, Dd K< nd‘‘rno>dni'n In d'sn tji'o'i'hisch -tnig^>ti.'■ mj,! rt.iilinitf, p. 17 Gb, and gives an able reconstruction of the rite. IVc may cotnp.n-e the inxocation in (friih.. .1/','/, 900 fti, discussed .A Af./j'., Xtvi, o0-3, wliich supports the placing here of fr. 8 'concerning tlie sai ntu e of a dog', before the invocation. This able paper is important as confirming the view that the magic of Theocr. li substantially follows tlwt of iSophron. S. Eitrem, Ptijji/id Osloenses, I, has been reviewed by K. Pueisendanz, 0 L.Z., x.xx 1927 , '.19-100, C. JoUGUET, Jijiirn. dt’S .S'or., 1928, 32-3; for other reviews, cf. J-v/yy/A/.-x viii 1927;, 2i i8. F. Dornseife, Da.s Alph'ilx.t in MgsttI, vml M'i'iif. i' reviewed la 1>. Hai i.o in PltJ. ir.«A., 192G, 1089-92, 0. M'hxreich in Deiitnhf l.it.-Z.. 1927. 24f*. M. Iilrrx in dnnni. d'S Sot.. 1927, 2^1-2 , H. IIefpinii in Hts.ds.ht PJatti.r, xxiv, 1^3 f. with .iddcnd.i , BidziiaH'KI in Thfl. Idt.-Z.. 1927. l'.)7. K. PreisEXd.vxz, ALt‘ph'ilo.i, has hcen warmly praised by S. Kitri.m in '/cowoc. 1927. 17i; 9 with addenda;. J. Leipoldt in .AITEAOS, li, 159. H. LeIseoam. in o.L.Z.. xxx 1927 . 5i;7. F. Lexa, Lo iiftgle dttvi I'Erttfptt tiittd-itite, is cotnmcn. Brink, Ijn noKiist'Itt R. 0 t-ii'nis ton dt tt A'ltttn tnc. iit lift oiitji' Eifiiptf H. J. P.iris- Aiiistcrd.im, lOJ.'x, wtneh I liaxe not seen. lIio-iiii‘tifn. cte. ScoTl's edition is reviewed by H. IlM.Lii.xYE in Amd lltdltntil . xi.iv ' lOJGi. 409 -12. A. -It'LIc'HER in Tht't,!. Et.-Z.. 1SI27. 175-7 ; v<»]. 2 by Kkitzi.n.sTEIN in O nftnuni . 1927. 2GG-,s3 giving in cfl'ect a eommentary on C. H. i ; vols. 1 ami 2 by AI, lliBEtirs in Z-itit. r. K. <1 , xi.v 192G . note also his review of ( 1. ( h X-, IVEsENnoNK. Urmt i.ich th"! Si.l, n, s is quoted as an authority for the theory of the eight tottoi, i, 19, p. 14, II. 18 ff. Some notes on this pajwrus have been published by A. E, Hou.sman in Class. Phil., xxii / 1927 ), 2oi -03. 1)EL.\TTE, Cat. Cod. astr. gr., X, i.s commended by W. Kroli. in Phil. Woch., 1926, 1076-7. F. H. CoLsox, The fVeeh, is reviewed by R. Kkeglinger in Per. hist, rel., xciii (1926), 335-6, J. M. Creed in Journ. Theol. Stud., xxviii, 328. Boll, Sternglauhe und Stcrndeutung, is reviewed by M. Piepeb in O.L.Z., xxx (1927), 1046-9, B. A. Mi ller in Phd. Woch., 1927, 592-3. F. OisixoER, Der Olohvs, is reviewed by II. Philipp in Phil. Woch., 1927, 1151-2. H. (1ress.m,\xx, Die la-llenistische (lest ini religion, is reviewed by Mh Ex.sslix in Hist. Zeits., c'xxxvi (1927'), 416, K. H. E. de Joxo in Mvsemn, 1927 (Aug.-Sept.), 312. J. (I. IV. il. DE Yreese, Petron .10 und die Astrologie (Inaug.-Diss. Amsterdam. H. J. Pari.s, Amster- dam, 1927. Pp. xvi 4-269 with one plate. 4 fl. 50), gives an elaborate astrological commentary on this chapter of the Cena. VTiilo some of his interpretation.s of Petronius are dubious, the collection of material i.s welcome. Reviewed by IV. Kroll in Phil. Woeh., 1927, 904-5. P. IVriLLErillER, Cirque et astrologie, {Mel. areh. hist., iLiv, 1927, 184-209), draws attention to C.C.A.G. V, 3. 127-8, and publishes with translation and full comment unprinted texts of the same sort from Ambrosianus C 222 inf fol. 42 (13th cent.) and Parisinus graecus 2423 fol. 17 verso (12th cent.), the latter being long ed to pLinet-s (see also p. 188, rov Si '^HXtou rives piv fieg^eiv ria povcriia tiTTeejigvtivTo Siii to nvpiiSes, oi nXeiovs Si saXovri peerirgv rrevoigKatn u>s pi{(T 0 v) sa'i koivov iltTripa, where the theory of the sun's central (i(.isiticin is used (cf. C. H. xvi, 7, and Cumont, La Theologie solaire ; I prefer tliis to translating pia-ov as AVuii.leu.mier, “un astro mixte et oommun”). WuiLi.EtJiiiER argues that the predictions go l-iack to K(jman time.s, and compares de circo astrologos in Cic. de die. i, 134 and the co.smio .symbolism of the circus in Lydus, etc. Christianity. P. Bov riant bsee § 3'. contains: 2, Ps. 39-41, 4th cent, leaf of papyrus codex; 3, Hondh' (noticed in (Jiiouion, 1927, 645-6), si.x fragments of roll, 5th cent.; 4, Homily, 6th cent, (roll or codex?); 25, Christian letter, 5th cent. O.ey. Pap. xx'll includes 2065 (Ps. xc, parchment. 5th-6th cent.) ; 2066 (fragment of Eccl. vi, vii, papyrus, 5th -6th cent); 2067 CNicene Creed, omitting g kthttov in anathema clause, jjapyrus, 5th cent.); 2068 (possibly liturgical fragments, papyrus-roll, 4th cent.); 2069 (apocalyptic fragment, papyrms codex, late 4th cent.) ; 2070 (Christian treatise in dialogue form, directed against the Jews, papyrus, late 3rd cent.) ; 2071 (fragment of dialogue, one speaker d ’Ada[i/dfr(os], 6th cent.); 2072 (fragment of apology, late 3rd cent.); 2073 (fragment of homily, papjTus, late 4th cent.); 2074 f apostrophe, probably to Mhsdom, in elaborate Du-stil, papyrus, 5th cent.). Vol. VIII, Ease. II of P.S.I. (see § 3 below) contains two Psalter texts: no. 921 verso, the early fragment noted last year {.Journal, xiii, 92\ and no. 980, a 3rd-4th cent, papyrus containing Ps. 143. 14-148, 3. A. H. S.XLOXius, Die grieckischen Handschriftenfragmente des Meven Testaments in den Staatlkhen Museen zn Berlin {Z. neat. Wiss., xxTi, 1927, 97-119) publishes with notes and two plates seven vellum fragments, six unpubli.shed (1 of Mattheiv, 1 Mark, 2 John, 3 Acts) and mentions one other Cospel frag- ment, one Acts, and one of 1 Them. H. A. S.xxDERs, An early papyrus fragment of the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Michigan Collection {Harr. Theol. Pier., xix, 1926, 215-26, with txvo plates), publishes P. Mich. 1570, which he dates near the BIBLIOGEAPHY : GBAECO-BUiMAN EGYPT (lU JO- 1 'J-J7) i;!!) end of tlie 3rd century; it gives Motth. xxvi, 19-52, in ,t “western' text. Tlie ,sune writer imlilislic'- .1 paij^rv.-i t I't I tj'iai- tit of iti the Michigov CoRef^tion [I/ttrr. Tltenl. Itee.^ XX, 1927, 1 19. with t\vi> tacsimilos), 1'. Mich. 1571, dated un script 2tre. I'heut. /tee., XX, 1927, 105-16, with two plates], publi.shes a tc.xt of the cml of ni.indate li ,ind the tieginning ol m, approxiiuatclv of the time of ilarcus Aurelius, with peculi.ir readings. 7'he J/aiia.tteei/ of E/iip/uiiiius and ATa- 'I'e.rt.e from (he i/oonMery of St MueariiK. by II. (1. K\ i mn- W'hite, 7V. E. Crum, and II. E. WTnlock are reviewed with high pr.ii'e by K (' I'.i hki i r. ./oa,-,/. '/'he, ft. Stud., .xxviii, 22()-.7 ^instructive coinnient), and E. .1. CoonsrEEH, ./oa/v/o^ ot Itet iijii,,,, \ii 1927 . )s2 3, the first by H. Leclercij in Journal, xiii, 25-7. See too in S 3. The Mouasterieii of ^ytldi'a Xatruu, i, is reviewed by De L.vcy D'Ekauy in Jouruot, xm 1927 . I 2s 9. I have not yet .seen H. A. .S.ynders and C. Schmidt, The Minor I'roph. f.< in tit. /-tv, r ( 'otl, , tim, mid the Berlin Fraijtneu.t of Geae.ds (Univ. of Michigan .Studies, Iluiuanistic Series, vol. xxi. Mucniillaii < 'laiip.iny. N.Y., 1927. Pp. -xiii+436. 7 plates;. E. Burrow.s, D.ei/rhyu.ehu.s Loyion ' /.Vo; i r (Jouru. Tto.ol. Stud., xxvni, |t^i> , ipiotc' 'r.ilniudie p.imlhls for hidden truth being conip.ired with a pearl which must be extracted from its 'hell, siiggcsiinc th.ii \i6ov is a mistranslation for .shell. P. Oxy. 840 has been di.scussod by K. Kiooi.np.ach, Z t. m ut. IIV-s.. XXV, 140 ft'. S. G. Mehcati, Pc'. 00 rieonoxiuto nel Bopiro i..:0 (Bildo", viii, 1927,06 , couti ibutc' .i point on ,i papyrus mentioned in Journal, xni, 92. 739 in his title is .i slip for 7.59 vor.'o. For Wb E. Chum’s important Sotue further Mehtiau dorumeuta ‘JouTual, xiii, 1927, 19 26, I must refer to ); 3. S. G. Mercati, Bit fraiiimeiito della htunjia t.'leuieuti ua in papiro Aeyypt u.<, \iil, 1927, I" 2 . identi- ties P. Kainer 19937, od. 'WesSEI.y in I'atr. Or., xvill, 434, .i' from the ‘‘.lute .^ain tus of the hturgy in Apost. Coast., VIII. H. Lietzmann, Bill, liturgiseher Papyrus des Berliuer Mus‘.uu,s f'estgale jur Adolf Julie/, ir, 213 28; Mohr, Tubingen, 1927 >, publishes with fac.simile P. Berol. 13918 nn 1. 1 read 7Tol]^l^vcl .uid repub- lishes P. Heidelb. 2 ‘' = Ijilabel, P. /iad., iv, no. .58^. Both belong to the la.sf part of the Kucliarist. and repre.seut older and simpler types of liturgy which survived in the country after the othei.d victory of the liturgy of St. Mark. L. St. P. Cirard publishes, witli a translation, an o-tracon containing a fr.ignient of a m.egical liturgy. It con.sists of adjurations to variou.. angels, to the suii, the four winds, etc. Cu fra.yuooit dr litiirgie iu,igl,po; eopte sur odra/eou. in Amt. d't Serr., xxvii, 1927, 62-8. C. Schmidt, Studien zu den adteu. Petrusalrtea, ii. Die Kompr,.Jii,r,i 7,. f. Kiri.he,ig,..sehiel,ie, X.F., \iii, 481-513) deals incidentally with P. Oxy. 849. Ills tr.uislation of /'{.■!({< Sop/da i' comniended by 1!. Violei, TheoL Lit.-Z., 1927, 7. For H. Delehaye, La persoanal ite hi.dorhpue d‘ S. Pavd d< ThUu .s I Anal, /loll., xiiv, 1926, 64 9 , and his 15c laedite de Saint Jean T Autaouier. see 4, AV. Telfer, ''Bees'-' in Clement of Alexandria (Jouru. T/aol. Stud., xxviil. l(i7-7.8 , is .m instructive study of Clementine sjndxilism. Telfer rightly rejects the view that there m htiirgii ,il alhi'ion iu Paedag., i, vi 0,1 fin. P. Alfaric, Onostiqi'es et gu.osticisme (Rer. hi.st. rel., xcill, Pi26, ln8-]5;, is a penetrating critiipie of 1)E F.vye's book noticed Jouruat, xil, 316. It has been reviewed also hy .1. Curi'KNs m At r. dhio. ,ert. xxn 1926 , 822-6, H. Leisegang in (t.I^.Z., xxix . 1926;, 471-2, F. Eoof.s, T/ool. Lit.-Z., 1926, 361 -s , .uhnir.ible survey,. L. Th. LeeoRT, S. Paehonie et Amuti-em-ope (Le Muston, XL. 1927, 6.5-74 . jKuiits out a p.ir.illel between P. s /tide and old Egyptian proverbs, and urges that in a nieasiire old Egy[iti,in liter.itiire lives on in Coptic. I h.ixe not seen Denys Gokce. La " lectio dirimi " des orhjini s du efaotdtisme a S, HeimU , t Caesiodorc I Picard, 1295: 20 fr.; or (4. Baruy, Im vie ehretienue aux III" et I\ ' .siie/r.s .Laprfi Aw papyru.,, , Rreue apologftiipi.e, XLI, 1926, 643-51, 707-21 ; noted in Byz. Zeit., xxvi, 432 . •J. Leiseoam. rcYiews in Phd. 'A'oeh., 1927, 306-7, P. Hkniihix, />e Ale.r,i,t,irljno he hoerislare/i Busilides. E' a liijdr'iije tot tie g, sehiedenis tier Gno.su i Auisterdaiii, 1926, 11. .1. P.iris. Pp. xii + 127 , which 18—2 140 BIBLIOGEAPHY: GRAECO-EOMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) is inaccessible to rue. To judge from the review it would appear to contain material of use but not to be very conclusive. See al-so in ^ 4. J. LniiRETox, Bulhiin cfUixt. di’s origines cJu-etiennen (in Rcch. dc Sc. lic].^ June-Aug. .329-()0), is concei'iied iiifci' alin with ])a]>yrus evidence; on p. 331 n. he refers to an unpublished papyrus. C. I)r.L (hi.cNiiE, in a short review of P. Oxy. xvi, propo.ses a restoration of P. 1927, a liturgical text {RU-. ladn-Gcec. Ihd.. xi, 1927, 165). Ton der Goetz, in reviewing Lietzm.xnx, Messe und Rerrenmaid (TheoL Lit.-Z.. 1927, 149-51), has some remarks on the Der Balyzeh liturgical papyrus. He thinks that the invocation n-Xij/xoa-or rjfias ■n-feifinTos aycov (in place of the usual irXripaxrov Trjv dvulav ravTTjv tt. a.} represents an older form, whereas LiETZM.iXX urged (j)p. 74-5) that t. 6. t. wa.s earlier. H. Deensixo, in reviewing Bil.vbel, Koptisc/ie Fragmcnte iiher die Beijrx uder des Mimicluiisinua, in Th'cJ. Lit.-Z., 1926, 18.5, regards the fragments as “eine glos.siorte Kezonsion des Stiiekcs vi 22 Endo bis 24 aus Cyrills Cateche.se” and publishes some suggestions on readings. A. D. Nock. 3. Publications of Nox-Literary Texts. {X.B. MUcdlaneons notes and corrections of documents preriouslg pehlished nre phtced in 9 helov:. Rerieu-s ore noticed here.) rioRiiioic-Rinontine. Part i of the third volume of the Sommeibuch, whose publication was recorded last year, has been reviewed by J. U'olff (O.L.Z., xxx, 1927, 1063-4; and W, Schubaex {Gnomon, ill, 1927, 180-1 ; laudatory). I know only from the bibliography in Aegyptv.s (vill, 208, no. 6143) a volume, probably a manual for .schools or university students, by W. Schubart, Griechisehe Popyri: Urlcundeii und Drufe vom .J. Jk. v. Chr. bis ins S. Jh. n. Chr., Au.'gew. u. erkl. Text; Kommontar, Bielefeld, AVelliagcn u. Klasing, 1027. ” P. Cornell i, whose appearance was noted la.st year, has been reviewed by Wilckex {Archie, viii, 294-8 ; valuable; numerous corrections and suggestions), S. R[eix.vch] {Rer. Arch., .xxv, 1027, 401 ; this part is not at present acce.ssible to me), W. Schubart {Gnomon, iii, 1927, 552-5; very severe), J. G. Milxe {J.R.S., XVI, 1926, 275-6), H. B. van Hoesex {Am. Jouni. Phil., xxxi, 1927, 277), F. Bil.abel {Phil. Vi'och., XLVii, 1927, 1294-7; favourable on the whole; some sugge.stion.s), and H. I. Bell {Class. Rev., XLi, 1927, 188 and J.H.S., xlvii, 1927, 281-2). Hombekt’s pulilication of miscellaneous texts {Journal, xill, 97) has been reviewed by Wilckex {Archie, viii, 298-302; favourable; valuable suggestions), Schubart {Phil. Woch., xlvii, 1927, 16-17; suggo.stioiis) and E. Kuhx {O.L Z., xxx, 1927, 1064-5), and part iv of P. Baden by F. Z[ncKER] {By:. Z., xxvii, 1927, 174-5), E. Kiesslixo {Phil. WocL, xlvii, 1927, 684-5) and Lehmaxx-Haupt {Klio, xxi, 1926, 110-12; all favourable). The .second fasciculus, completing Vol. vui, of P.S.I. has been is.sued during the year, and contains nos. 921-1000. As one or two Ptolemaic papyri are included it is noticed here, but the majority of the texts are of the Roman and Byzantine periods. The tir.st section, nos. 921-939, consi.sts of the Alexandria papyri edited by M. Nors.v {Journal, xili, 100), who.se edition is here reprinted. Of the remainder the majority come from Oxyrhynchu.s. Many are fragmentary or of inferior interest, but others are com- ILiratively well preserved, and there are several which contain material of value. Sjiecial reference may be made to nos. 953-956, a usefid series of accounts from the Apion archive, .supplementing those in P. Oxy. XVI ; 961. part of a composite roll containing a lease of geese dated a.d. 176 and a receipt dated a.d. 178 ; 963, a lease of an orhiopolion dated A.D. 581; 968, a rather interesting late Ptolemaic private letter; and 975, 976, which are re-editions respectively of 504 and 632, fi'om the Zeno archive. There are also some ostraca, edited by Viereck. Indexes for the whole volume follow. The part contains also some literary text.s and two P.salter fragments, which are noticed in 1 and 2 above. Pnhhlicazioni della Socictd Italiana: Papiri greci e latini, Vol. viii, Fa.sc. ll. Firenze, Auonima Libraria Italiana, 1927. Pp. 89-274. L. 120. The previous part has been reviewed by F. Z[ucker] {Byz. Z., xxvii, 1927, 176-7). An important volume of papyrus texts, which has been edited by P. Cullart, contains both literary works (noticed in §§ 1 and 2 above) and documents, the latter ranging in date from the 2nd century B.c. to the 5th or 6th century of our era but for the most part belonging to the Roman period. These are the Bouriant papyri, a collection which wa.s formed a considerable time ago and several texts of which had previ1 .1 it* ^ . which includes '1* a opy <.f the it>clf, (2, an acH>un* .>t 'ivni, rtf. owin- b^ tlir ]( ->. r-. i'3) directions to Zcnn\ agent for tlie conduct of tin* Aeod. in Ronl-. VI flh-7 g 21 pp., 2 plates. H. I. Bell has publi.slied some Ptolcm-iic wa.xcd tahlets. p.nt of -I m 1889-00 anil now in Cniversity (.'ollege, London. They arc of .special iiitcro't as hcing tiie e.nlii.st examples of such tablets yet found in Egypt ,nid aKo bec.iuso th<' wax in tw,. cases is ,.ol„mvd red .is usual, black; but the coiitetits are also hy no means witliout interest. They (ontain ,ie, omits, winch clearly relate in part to .i journey to the Delta; .nid in a shm-t .irtich- .nme.xed to the pul.ln ..tioi, I'l ii;ii develojis, porhajis more ingeniously th.ui convincingly, tlm view th.it tlie |•.■fi•l■en' e w.is to ,i juriin p.u t , of schoolboys. Wuxed TiUeP of the T/urd r-id.iry r.e .. and .1 I't'd.jn.oi. 11, lid.,,,, in /nm/.h I'.i27. Sept., t)5-74, aiul 75-0. A publication by P. JcvcoCET of a Magdol.i papyrus is at present in ■cce.ssible to me but 's rel'c ied to in the liibliography in Jiy/y/da--. vili. 20^1 im. blSu . I'n’’ cm/eD/, ,h .I/.e/,/.,/,/. in A'...- o//./ l{i?pfp4s. Archie, viir, 287-8. Uonvia. Olssox's Papyrashriefc has been reviewed by W. Otto {Phil. Woch., xlvii, 1927, 50-1), A\'. ScHUBART {O.L.Z., XXIX, 1926, 407), and M. Hombert {Rev. beige de Phil., vi, 1927, 287-9). H. Hexxe has continued his [niblication of the Graux papyri, his new instalment containing iios. 3 to 8, which are as follows ; 3. Oath of a.d. 51, that a she^iherd from Philadelphia is not being concealed. A new strategus occurs. 4. .v.d. 248, Philadeljjhia. An interesting petition in a case of assault (an ’Apa^oTo^hrrjs of 80 years (jf age occurs). 5. a.p. 44. Bank Stey>3oX^ (a difficult document, as the formula is not clear). 6. A.D. 148. The .same class of document as P. 0.\y. 1639, etc. 7. a.d. 221, Philadeliihia. Loan of money (in 1. 1 for ifwhos qu. j:iuy{<6}Xns l}. 8. A.D. 221, Philadelidiia. Rejmdiation of a lea.se in consequence of dfipoxia. This and the previous instalment are reviewed together by Wilckex {Archie, viil, 310-12). IViLCKEX reviews {Archie, viii, 308) Boak's Alimentary Contracts (see Journal, XIII, 101). C. C. Edgar has published some j>apyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus, all but one of which arc literary and have therefore been noticed in § 1 above. The exception is a letter from Tcos, a UpoyKvfios and probably the [lerson who occurs in P. Oxy. 1029, to his father Onnojihris about a summons from the centurion at Akoris to the iepoyXiifmi to go uji to that place. It dates from the reign of Domitian. Fragments vj Papyri from 0.>yrynchos, m Ann. Sere., xxvi, 203-10. Reviewed by MTlckex {Archie, VIII, 309-10). A review in .Moiareior, III (1927), 184, of Thuxell’s Sitologen-Papyri is known to me only from the bibliography in Aegyptus (viii, 209, no. 6146). The Michigan ephebic document edited by Bell {Journal, xii, 245 ff.) is reviewed by MTlc'Kex {Archie, VIII, 309). It has occasioned the publication of two other documents relating to ejiliebi. One, at Berlin, which furnishes a useful jiarallel to P. Oxy. 477, is edited from Schdbart’s transcrijit of the original by H. I. Bell. A Parallel to Wikken, Chrest. Uf iii Journal, xiil, 219-21. The other, at BIBLIOGEAPHY : GEAECO-EOMAN P:GYPT (1!»2G l!»27) 14;’, Michigan, is edited, with a more detailed commentary, l>y A. E. K. 1 !i)\k, TUr Epikn'ait It.rord of ,tii Ephehe of Antinoopohs fnmd ot honim.^, ibid., l.">l-4. JJutli are of the ind century : the Mulligan document is particularly useful, yielding .several new jiieees of information R. Cagsat review.s the Latin document jiulilished by Samikks isee .lonnuiJ ^ xili, lOiii, reprochuinc the text and adding some notes (one suggestion for reading). .Voaivo,, pn lutm iVEa fxciaplum) ad h Detain'. Ej;trait.i dn Sai.taince Ei/i/pta nc, ibid., 1927, 19;? 2hia. Ketiewed by Wlia'KKN (.in /nr, \ m, ;tl2i .T. G. M'inter has jmblished .i small but extremeh interesting collection of huters from the Michigan collection. They are miscellaneous in origin, but they bate a certain common interest in tli.it they relate in one way or another to persons on niilit.iry service The first two, which are also thosi. most likely to make a popular appeal, are two excellently jireserved letters found to-gether at K.iranis in the .uitunin of 1926, both from a youth named Apolin.tris (kici to his mother and written, the tirst from Ostia, the second, a few d.tys later, from Rome. IVe io.irn that he h.al been drafted to Mi'enuni .md th.it he thought .Rome “a fine place." The date i.s about .v.n. 2i,(,. Xo. is from Sempronius to his son G.iiiis on his enlistment; early 2nd century, tiempronius is much miset by tlu' repoit that his .son h.id not enli'led in the fleet. 4. Time of H;ulrian. Juliu.s (Tenieii'. a centurion of tlie legm ,x.\ii Deiotcri.inu to Soi r.ition .0. Time of Trajan i Interesting letter written from I’selkis to K.ir.mis. 6. ;?rd eentuia , Longinus ( 'elcr to hi.s brother Maximus, Refers to the supply ot bre.id to soldiers .it Taposiris, one d.iGs journey from Alexandria. In t/m Service of lionu- : Lettcin from the Miihiijan CoUn tion of Papiiri. in t'/a.n. I'hV.. xxii (1927), 2:37-76. I know only from a review by I'. ([oLLani, (I'fid ll'o../,.. .xi.vii, 1927, 979 s] , .i public, ition b\ G. Zeuetkli of a 2nd century letter from Ammoniiis to Ajiion eoneerning fish ,'ni Itriioil (!,'h,'lir . WtLCKEN reviews the ;?rd century lea.so published by Van lloi.si.x .md .Iohn.'on fsei. ./...oneo', xin. 101). A,-(,7n'r, VIII, :3bi. J. G. AVinter has publi.shed an extremely interesting small archive of ftmily letters fiom the .Michigan collection. They date from the time of 1 tiocleti.m, and consist of : four letters from P.iniscU' to his wife Plutogenia ; one from the same to his wife and d.iiighter; one to Ids lirother; one from Pliitogeni.i to her mother. Tin' letters .ire rich in human interest and h.ive nioreocer othei interesting features. Xotiblv, though in most the f.iniily is cle.irly ( 'hri'ti.ui, one letter is ,is obuoU'lj. p.ig.in. is this ,i c.i'C of con- version or of rel.ipse under persecution' If WTi.i ken is right, .is he well m.i\ be, m suggesting tint the Achilleus mentioned in one of the letters is the well-known usurper of the ii.uiie /nr (,'d, /,„■■/, tr , U.'oirpator.i Achil/eiis, in Stif/.^hcr. I’r. Ak., 1927, 270 6 . the hist ide.i must be rejected. T/o Eomd n Lettcra of Pa nU/rog, in Jovcnal, xin 1927,, .■)9-74. :? plates, Roiiian-Bjjznntini.. The Rritisli Museum volume. ./. »■< amJ f'hri.alaix in Eappt. is the subject of an intere.sting and v.iluable review by AV, HENiiSTi.Niu.itG ( Piij:. E.. xxvii. 1927. Id^'-do;. See also below, in the following division {Biizantincj and in 9. The chief item in thi.s division, and probably the nmst im|iortant iiiisi ell.iiieous collection of |iaii\ri published during the year is P, (h\y. .xvii, i.s.siied as a memorial volume to Prof. ( !kenfi.i.i. and cont. lining, .i.s a frontispiece, an excellent portrait of Inm. The x.diiable literary texts in this volume are dealt with in 1, 2, 6, but the non-liter.ary texts are in their own way not less noteworthv. A rcscrij.t of Severus Alexander (no. 2104 i is unfortun.itely too niuch niutil.ited to yield much definite information, and even more imperfect is an edict by a prefect relating to a trienni.d contest in honour of Livia and .some other person (210.7,', but 2106. a dth-century letter from .i prefect ordering tlie collection of a ijii.intitv of gold to be sent to Xicomedi.i, is well preserved, though the prefect's n.inie is lo.st. Three other important official documents follow, and still more valuable is 21 1<', a well-preserved papyrus recording proceedimgs in the .sen, cte in .\.D. 3i0. 2111 is .i re]iort of cases Indore the jirid’ect Petronius M.imertiniis ; 211:3-2115 arc offici.il letters, each with something of importance; and there are .several other papvri among the offici.U document.s which otfer points of outstandin.g intere.st. Among the petitions ni.iy be mentioned 2l:?9, an apphc.ation 'a.p. 267, > to the board of gymn.isiarcbs of Oxyrhytichu.s from a .senator of Antinoopolis; 2131, .1 doi iimont of the .s.inie nature as li.G.U. 979 but better iire.served ; and 2134, a long and well preserved application for the n>gistratioii of a mortgage (about A.n. 17<)j. Among the contrai ts, 2136, 144 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) a .sale of a boat in tlie form of a lease (a.d. 291), calls for special notice. There are a number of letters, several of them offering points of iiitere.st ; 2153, concerning an intended voyage by j) fiiKt] (“the little Lcirl' 2154, 2155, .ind 2156 are .specially worthy of mention. The Oxyrhynclins Papyri, Part xvil. Edited bv Ahthuu .S. IluXT. London, Egypt Exploration Society, 1927. Pp. xv + 313. 4 jilates and portiait. ,M. XoK.s.v'.s edition of .some Alexaiidi’ia pajiyri, which as already mentioned has now been reprinted in P.S.I. vm, i.s reviewed by IVilckex {Archir, viir, 312-14). ( t. il.vxTKurrEL, a new recruit to the ranks of papyrologv', has produced a meritorious edition of .some private letters in the Berlin collection. The.se are; — 1. Pap. Berol. 13897, early 4th century. Chri.stian, proli.ibly from the same persons as P. Oxy. 1774 (which he reprints) ; 2. P. Berol. 13989, mid 3rd century. A .'Ot of four letters on one sheet. Both papyri are distinctly interesting. Epidvlae priraiue meditae, in Ecs, x.\.\ (1927 211-1.5. Py:iriitiiie. ITii-CKEN reviews the fr.igment relating to liturgies edited liy Vax Hoesen and Johnson I see Jiiiiniah xill, 101), which he holds to date from the early 4th century rather than the o.irly 3rd a.s the editors sup[>osed {Arrhir, vili, 314). W. E. (.‘huji edits another Coptic Meletian letter from the archive published in Jem and Christians in Egypt which has been acquired by the British Museum .since the appearance of that volume. A facsimile i' given, and the Coptic is translated. In connection with this letter he notes further references to the Meleti.uis supplement, iry to those collected in Jews and Christians, and publishes two Coptic theological te.xts. Pome F'lrtli'-r Meletian Documents, in Journal, xiii (1927), 19-26. Ens.slin’s Prozcssrerglekh f.seo Journal, xiii, 116) is reviewed by AVilcken [Archir, viil, 314-15) .and F. Z[vcker] ^Byz. Z.. xxvii, 1927, 177-8). The Metropolitan Museum volume. The Monastery of Epiphanivs fsee Jounud, xiil, 102) has been reviewed by C. H. Kraeling (Am. Journ. of Arch., xxxi, 1927, 129-30), IV. Spiegelberg (O.L.Z., xxx, 1927, 678-9 'i, and P. P. (Anal. Bolland., XLV, 1927, 393-8). See too in 5; 2. Aral). Jernstedt'.s P. Po.ss.-Georg. iv (.see Journal, xni, 103) has been reviewed by M'ii.cken t Archie, viir, 315-16' .uid f[. 1. Bl.i.l. (Journal, xill, 1927, 269-71); BellIs Two Oficial Letters (ibid., 103) by l\ li,CKEN {.[re/tir, vjH, 316' and F. Z[uckek] (By:. Z., xxvn, 1927. 179-SO); and Gkohjiann’s vol. l of the Arabic Scries of Corpus Pap. Raineri by M. Sobernheim (D. Lit.-Z., 1927, 256-8). Among some Coptic ostraca from Thebes published by A. Mallon are four of the 7th-8th century which ccuitain harvest account.s, and one ("7111 century) which contains a letter. Qoelqui’s Ostraca copies de Thebes, in Rer. de I'Ea. an.e., I (T925-7), 1-52-6. H. I. Bell. 4. I’oi.iTicAi. History, Biography, Adjiinistration, Topography, Chronology. General. Tile fourtli volume of Petrie's Histary of Egypt, originally written by Mah-affy, has been put into the capable hands of E. R. Bevax for revision, with the result that the third edition i.s practically a new book, giving a comjilete survey of our present information on the Ptolemaic period. A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. London, Methuen, 1927. C. F. Leh.m.xnn-Haupt contributes to the memorial volume '’S.ttitvimSiov Ileinrirh Sinthodn dargebracht lleichcnberg, 1927\ pp. 142-65, an article Vom pyrrischen uad ersten syrischen zuin chrenwnideischen Eriige. cnticiriiig Sidney Smith's Babylonian evidence and linking up the Syrian war with the struggles ill Europe. The .second volume of K.yerst’s GeschicMe des Hellenisrnus is reviewed by C. 5V. in Historisches Jahrbaeh, XLVii (1927), 126, by ML \V. Tarn in Class. Rer., xli (1927), 149, and by H. Philipp in Phil. fVoeh., XLVII '1927), 1246-7. AV. Si’IKGelbehg's Die Gla uhvnrdigkeit eon Herodots Bericht nher Aegypten is reviewed by P. A. A. BoKser in Mnseum, 1927, 244. ('. Edgar review.s .(orouET’s L’inipe'rialisiae nmeidonien (hoc Journal, .xiir, 103) in .Tournal, xiii, 26S -9. The Hellenistic Age (.see Journal, xi, 97) is reviewed by J. E. Lukes in Phil. Work., XLVll (1927), 1144-7. Of general works upon the history of Egypt under the Chri.stian emperors it would .seem that there is nothing to report. Thus M.ytthi.ys Geezer’s appeal (cf. Journal, xiii, 104) for a renewed study of this cchensn verg.uigeiiheitsbolastcte wie zukuuftsweiscnde Epoche’’ is timely. Hist. Z., CXXXV (1927), 173-87. ()iLu ShhCk's Regesten li.is lit'iMi re\ lowed liy p, IIoi.gkr in Byz. Z., xxvi (1926), 393-8. He questions some BIBLIOGRAPHY; GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (19;>G-1 927) 145 of the principles on which Seeck corrected the text of the iinj>erial constitutions. O. Harpexhewkh’s Oeschichte der cdtkirchlit'hen Literatur (vols. 3 and ha.s been reviewed with bibliographical snpplciiieiits by F. Drexl, ibid., 391-3, and E. Schw.xrtz’.s Acta Canciliorum oecvmeniciiruin, t. i, vol. v (on the Coiincil of Ephesu.s) has been reviewed by Lebon ui /{erne d'/iistoire ecclesiantii/iie, x.xil (Ibihj}, 83:* (i. For the development of the imperial cult reference may be made to the review by K.\hrstei>t in /fi.it. Z., cxxxvi (1927), 90-6, of F. Kampers’ Vom Werdegnng der ube/idlundi.ic/ien KaisermyatUr i Leipzig, 1921 and to the review of the same work by Hahald Fuchs in Gnomon, ii (1926), 612-16. Jean Maspeko's Ilisloiri' di n patriarch.es, etc., has been reviewed by Lebon in Revue d'kistoire ecclhi«stikh\v. {Gnomon, 192i, 12/ 8 i, by F. Heichelheim {Hist. Zeits., 135, 1927, 316-17), and by R. W agnkr I'F/iif. IlocA., xi.vn. 1927, .391-3 .. Kornemann’s Satrapenpolitik des ersten Lagiden {atx Journal, xiii, 104; is reviewed by ('.I. Lkhmann- Haupt m Klio, XXI, 1926, 108-10. The article by E. Cuq, La condition juridique de la Coele'-Syrie au temps de PtolenJe Epiphane ' .'T in Klio, xxi i'1926), 107-8. Heichelheim’s Auswartige Rerolkerung im Ptolemaerreuh (see. Journal, xill, lo5) is revieweil by H. Kee.s in G.G.A., 1926, 172, by H. Philipp in Petermans Mdt., LXXll 11926;, 29, and by 11. Blrve in Phil. Woeh., XLVi (1926), 1116-21. L". Kahrstedt’s Syrische Terrltorien in hellenistiseher Zeit is reviewed by R. Laqceur in Gnomon, 1927, 527-36. ScHCBARt's Griechen in Aegypten (sec Journal, xill, 105) is reviewed by P. Collart (Rer. de philol., .ser. 3, I, 1927, 272-3;, by A. Lesky 'Z>. Lit.-Z., 1927, 1199-1200), by F. Munzer Or. Lit.-Z., xxx. 1927, 937-9), by A. Godina {Aegyptus, VIII, 1927, 200-201), by H. 1. Bell (Journal, xin, 1927, 272 , by J. R. Lukes (Listy Filol., liii, 1926, 291-3;, by F. Vi. von Bis.sing {Phil. H'o' A., xi.vii, 1927, 1553-6;, and by E. Bickermann (fJnomon, iii, 1927, 671-5;. Van Groningen's llellenisme op Yreemden Roden (.see Journal, xiii, 105; is reviewed by A. Kraemer {Phil. Woch., XLVII, 1927, 118-29) and by M. Hombert {Rer. Relge L‘hd., v, 1926, 217). Pridik's Mitregent des Konigs J’tolernaios II (see Journal, xill, 105), is reviewed by E. Kuhn i Or. Lit.-Z., xxx, 1927, 161-6;. Journ. of Kg;pt. Arch. xiv. 19 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) Erxst Meyer’s Die Grenzen der hellenistiscken Staaten in Klemasien is reviewed by M. Engers in Museum, xxxiv, 1927, 102-3. The Jewish question at Alexandria continues to excite some interest. S. Eeixach criticizes Stuart Jones (see Juurnal, xill, 107) and holds to his own theory. Claude et les Juifs Ale.randrins in Rev. Arch., XXV (1926), 242. E. Laqceur, in Griechische Urkunden in der j udisch-helleaistischen Literatur [Hist. Z., 136, 1927, 229-52) refers to the letter of Claudius and Willrich’s theory of two .Jewish embassies, which he rejects. E. Brecci.a gives a summary of the interpretations of the letter in a lecture delivered on 18 April, 1927. JuiU et Chretiens de Vancienne Alexandne. Alexandria. Soc. de Puhl. Egypt. 1927. Pp. 30. 6 plates. From Aeijyptus we have references to H. Lichtenstein, Zv.r Geschichte der Juden in Ale.nindrien in Mon. Schr. Gesch. IFiss. Jiid., LXIX (1925), 357-61, and to E. Matta, Gli “Atti di martirV' Alexa ndrini in Didnskaleion, N.S., iv (1926‘), 49-84. Bell’s Juden vnd Griechen (see Journal, xili, 106) is reviewed by S. E[einach] in Rev. Arch., xxv (1926;, 276, by M. IYellnhofer in Hist. Jahrb., XLVii (1927), 1.30-1, by .S. Gaselee in Class. Rev., xli (1927), 87, by H. IYillrich in D. Lit.-Z., 1927, 1.50-1, by F. Heichelheim in Phil. Woch., xlvii (1927), 1148-51, in Xurn. Lit. B., xLvi (1927), 2128, by A. Julicher in Christl. Welt, xli (1927), 440-1, by J. Vogt in Or. lAt.-Z., xxx (1927), 759-61, by J. G. Milne in Journal, xiii (1927), 124-5, and by E. Bickermann in Gnomon, III (1927), 671-.5. Yon Preherstein’s Alexandrinischen Mdrtyreralten is reviewed by F. Bilabel in Phil. Woch., xlvii (1927), 836-9. The technical sense of the term Jotoi is discussed by E. Bickermann, who concludes that it denoted the citizens of Alexandria enrolled in demes, wherea.s ’Xhc^avSpeis, under the later Ptolemies and the Eomans, were “ citoyens de moindre droit,” not members of demes. A propos des da-rol dans VEgypte greco-romaine in Rev. de Phil., 3 .Ser., i (1927), 362-8. Administration. The con.stitutional inscription of C,iTene (see Journal, xill, 107) has been discussed in several papers, two by G. de Sanctis, La Magna Charta della Cirenaica in Riv. di Filol., Liv (1926), 145- 76, and Le Decretale di Cirene in Rir. di Filol., lv (1927), 185-212, by F. Heichelheim, Zum Verfassungs- diagramma ron Kyrcne, in Klio, xxi (1927), 175-82, who dates it in 308, and by Th. Eeinach, La charts PtoUmaiqve de Cyr'ene, in Rev. Arch., xxvi (1927), 1-32, who places it in 322 or .321. CoLLOMP’s Chancellerie et diplomatique des Lagides (see Journal, xni, 107) is reviewed by lY. lY. Tarn in Class. Rev., xli (1927), 201-2. H. Henne publishes in Bxdl. Lust. fr. cV Arch. Or., xxvil (1927), 25-7, Motes sur la stratigie. l, Sur les strapges de lArsino'ite uu P' siecle apres J.C. ii, Mote sur le Pe'rithebes a I’epoque romaine. G. Flore, Sulla Bi;3Xio8ijki; tS>v iysrlfafav (Aegyptus, viii, 1927, 4.3-88) should be noted here as well as in § 6. Biography. Reference may be made to R. Pfeiffer, Ar.sinoe PhUadelphos in der Dichtung, in Die Antike, ii, 3, 161-74. V. Aimj^-Giron finds the name of a new epistrategus in an inscription of Denderah. Refection du nvur d'enceinte du grand temple de Denderah sous Tibere {Ann. Sen-., xxvi, 1926, 109-12 and xxvii, 1927, 48). L. Cantarelli’s paper Per V amministrazione e la storia delV Egitto Romano, v, Jl viaggio di Seneca in Egitto in .{egyptus, viii (1927), 89-95, comes under this head. C. CiCHORiu.s writes on Der Astrologe Ti. Claudius Balbillus, Sohn der Thrasyllus, in Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., N.F., Lxxvi (1927), 102-5. B. a. van Groningen reconstructs a fragmentary inscription from Koptos, with the name of a new prefect — Valerius — in 3 Severus Alexander. Inscriptio dedicatoria Aegyptiaca in Mnemosyne, lv (1927) 263-8. U. JYilcken, dealing wdth the Pani.skos letters (see Journal, xiii, 59-74), traces their connection with the revolt of Achilleus and finds in Firmu-s and Achilleus nationalist leaders against R(.me. Zur Geschichte des Usurpators Achilleus in Sitztmgsb. Pr. Akad., 1927, 270-6. P. Hendrix, De ale.xandrijnsche haeresiarch Basilides, has been reviewed by J. Coppen.s in Revue d’his- toire eccUsiastiqve, xxiii (1927), 73-75. ISee also § 2.) Augustine Fitzgerald’s The Letters of Synesius of Cyreae has been reviewed by N. Terzaghi in Byz. Z., xxvi (1926), 381-4. Terzaghi accentuates the doubts which surround the chronology of the life of Synesius. That chronology is largely based on arqumenta e sdeniio, and the validity of such arguments depends upon our answer to the question ; How far is our collecti.ai of letters complete ? M hat if many letters have not been preserved 1 It is indeed impi-obable that Synesius only wrote 150 letters. Fitzgerald contends in his preface that Synesius was a Platonist, 147 BIBLIOGUAPHY : GBAECO-KOMAN EGYPT (l‘J2G !!)-J7) rather than a Xeoplatonist, and reduce.-^ to a uiiniinmn the influence of Plotinux Tkuz icaii would lav nu'ro weight upon the Alexandrian period of the life of Synesius; Plato is n,>t the only source of his thought : to explain the hymns or such works as the /tc In^nhuiinti not even Xi‘<)platonisui I'v Plotinus siitiici's, I lerc we must include gnosticism and magic, “o p astrologi.i orient. ile in gcncrc cil cgi/iana in is]iccic'' ; cf, the letter to Peoinus de dotto ut^trnhjhii. d h<‘ contacts arc too dose *• pin* non farci credere che tutto il tiorire di letteratura gnostica e niagioa non fosse hen noto ,i lui <• non fo^-se anchi', jicr niolta paite, passato a constituire uu nucleo centrale e sostanziale del lavoro iiitellettuale di ipic'to .uitore.' Nohman II. Baynes, in a review of the .same book, Eny. Hist. Recieic, xi.li 1 1927;, 419 -IK, has supiileniented the hiblm- graphy of recent work on Syne.sius. ,1. Geffckex has written .i (latier on A7 „, Hiiyutio mid dn' gi'Schichtliidtei' Hiaienji'ii nd., in A ems J t/ZirAarcAc/', ii , l!>2ti;, 1 .“ii l ."i. The article of d'n Koi m ik 1 1 i.it m an n. Ziir Chrouologie des KyriU rou Sci/t/iufjotis, in Z. fur Ktrr/i<;iiiii'.-74. This is derived from M.K. i ir. 319 of the Library of S, Mark at Venice. The Venice text, concludes Pere Dh.ehwe, is like that of the Metaphrast, a compilation in which the biography of Leontius ha.s been conil>ine.l with that of .Sophioinus; it is older than the Metaphrastic version which is derived from it .uid it prcseiwcs intiiuteh better th.ui the Metaphrastic text the account of Sophronius. Topograph/. H. 1. Bell ha.s published the interesting lectiiie on .\h\ra,,dria which he delivered to the Society last year, adding references where m.vterial. dovnad, xiii 'T927,, 171-K4 Some useful information as to Jewish buri.ds at Alexandria m included in Bkeccia's ./,/!>.< rt Chr-'tien.s mentioned above. (.hrOHology. ErNsT Meyer .s L uter.-iudi'figjen zar t 'hroiadogo' dor orsten Ptotemai.r see Juiiriad. .Xlil, 110) is reviewed by \V. Ensslin in Plul. Woeh., xi.\ii ■ 1927 , k76-k. A. E. R. Boar Jiscu.sses the Egyptian n.inies of the months under C.iligul.i. .MUN APOYil \ \HOS. Jonraal. XIII (1927), lSu-6. C. E. VAN Sickle, for The Ternniud Dates ot the rotgu ot Alexandor .Vc/’v/v/., imes the eiideme of Egyptian papyri. (??««. Phil., xxil i,1927;, 31.'i-17. H. Mattingly continues the argument about the regn-il years of the Emperors in tiie third centurv fsee Journal, xiii, 110) in Motes on the Chronology of tin lionian Einpu-ors trom Valnram to Donlniiaa {Journal, xiii, 1927, 14-18). isee .ilso the pro~ent numher. J. C. Milnl. N. II IlAVNK.s. 5. .Social Life, Education. Art, Economic Hlstoky, NumisM.vtic.s ani. Meuiolooy. (Innerat. V. Otto'.s K "Itn rgesch nhte des Altertiims 'see Journal, xill, 110 is reviewed hv B. MeissNLK \Ur. Lit.Z , x.xix, 1926, 398-400) .iiid A. Cai.iilkini < Aegygtus, viii, i;»27, 201 ."i M. Rosl'ovi/.KFF .s Sorod and Eronouln IDstory .see Journal, .XIll, 1 lO 1 1 > Is reviewed bv R ( ' VON \T .Journ. d‘sSae., 1926, 426-.8;, F. Mi NZhll ftr. Lit.-Z., XXIX, 192<;. 982 .1 , C. RahkI Pur. ,'t. anC., iilX, 1927, 119-21;, and C. hl .SancTIs ' /Ac. di Filot., l.iv, l!t26, .■)37 .ot;. E. Cavaignac, Snr I attribution d- s jraguo nts isqu. J. G. Milse discusses The Ale.randrian coinage of Angustus in Journal, xiii 1927), 13.") 40. L. L.vffbaxchi refers to the Alexandrian nunii.smatic evidence on p. 117 in a paper entitled />/<■ Datcn der Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian. Xum. Zeit., xix (1926', 113 18. H. Mattingly quotes the letter piibli.shed in Meyer, Jur. Pay., 249, 73 note, and points out its bearing on the circulation of Egypt at the end of the third century .x.D. Sestertius and denarius under Av.relian in Kura. Chron., vil (1927), 224-6. A rexdew by J. Vogt of Max Bernhard's Haiulhuch zur Mnnzku nde d. rmn. Kaiserzeit should be noticed. Gnomon, 1927, an 8. Arturo Anz.xni has in preparation a Corims of Axumitc (oins, which are of interest to the student of Roman Egypt: a preliminary article has appeared. Xumisuaitica A.ruinita in Rir. hat. Xvm., in, ser. 3 (1926), 5-110. There are also .some remarks on Axunnte coins in G. F. Hill's Gn-ek coins aeqmred hy the British Museuyn in lOX in Xum. Chron., vi H92fi), l.'14-6. J. G. Milne. X. H. Baynes. 6. Law. A. General. i. Bihliographies. The most comiilete bibliography is that of E. Perrot, lOr. hi.J. dr. fr. et Gr., X.S., V (1926), 8»-25* In that of H, L^vy-Bruhl, liec. hist., cLiv '1927;, 231-6, there is little that concerns us. In Z. Sa.r.-St., xi.vii 11927), 513-79, IV. Kunkei. continues from previous volumes the review of Italian legal literature, 1915-22, and ihid., 586-94, he coutrihute.s an impre.ssive bibliogra]ihy of J. Part.sch, to whom V. AkangIo-Ruiz devotes a Xerrohnjio m Bxdl. 1st. hir. Bom., xxxv il927), 227-37. Less relevant here is the bibliography of Paul Kruger Ly Fritz Schulz in the same number of the Z. Sav.-Si., xxxiii-ix. ii. Lexicographical . Egon Weis.s, Z. f. rgl. Rechtsu-., xlii H926;, 291-.3, warmly welcomes M. Sax X lcoLo’s Greek part of the Yocahidarium Cod. Just, \fourn.al, xiii, 113). It conlirms the continuity of Greek legal terminology and also contributes to the solution of the basic ]irnblein of Roman law, namely its re-thinking into Greek during the fourth and fifth centuries. It is no merely mechanical index : thus the proiier Latin term is often supplied (sec vnyos iroXiriKbr, f’yyvij, dymyii;. In Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., xxxv (1927), 177-89, O. Gradenwitz illustrate.s the utility of I’reisigke's Worterhuch by deriving from it rectifications of B.G.l'. 61.3, 14 and 41-2, B.G.U. 592, 11-16, P. Ainh. 67 and B.G.L*. .361. Intero.sting suggestions are made for the further organi.sation of papyrology. Again m Archie, vill, 27)0, the .same writer argues in favour of his own completion of B.G.L*. .38, s, ii, 38: rals dX[i;^fi]ms against L. Mitteis's (Chrest., p. 109): rais dX[7)0ti']aIf. u.sing the data of the index to .lustinian's Novels which is being prepared at Munich. And lastly, reviewing Araxoio-Ruiz and Olivieri's Inscrip- tiones Graecae Sicilioe et Infimae Itnliae (Milan, 1925), in Z. Sav.-St., XLVii (1927), 490-502, O. Gradexwitz elucidates djinwKrfya, a airal Xtyhyfvnv which occurs on the recto of Tah. Herucl. 1. 109, with the help of the new Lidiiell and Scott r. dcoTroiXftr. iii. Xc’r fe.rts. New pnblu'ation.s of papyri arc catalogued alsivc in .3, and some inilividu.al docu- ments from them are mentioned incidentally in the course of the pre.scnt section. Special interest attaches to P. Oxy. XVII on account of its inclusion (2103) of fragments of a third-century papyru.s showing pirtions of the text of Gaius, Inst. iv. Fr. 1 gives a few words of .s. 57 ; frs. 2 and 3 cover from the middle of s. 68 to the middle of s. 72 a, thus coinciding at the end with .an illegible p.age of the Vorone.se palimpsest. Unfortunately they break off ju.st where we can now see that information ;as to the formula of the actio de peculio cl dc in rem cerso, .suppressed hy Ju.st., Inst, iv, 7, w;us given by Gams. Hence the new part is 150 BlBLlOGKxU^HY: GRAECO-RUMAN EGYPT (1026-1927) less iiinxii't.int th.iii tlio second ci>j)y now .ivailalile of the earlier sections, for this greatly discredits the \iew of I ert.iin nmdei'n writers that the Veronese Gains contaiii.s material additions by post-Gaians. Kiel; in tliis matter we might have been more fortunate, since the sections found do not appear to have been speeiliealiv attaekerl in any serious point. Xo. 2 (J!S 9 is another juristic fragment, in a fourth-centuiy hand, dealiiie, so far its mutil.ited state allow.s one to speak, with legacies: joint legacies per oind. and a wife's right to take under the will of her hu.sband. See further under G, below. iv. M ,h 1 , 11 ^ reri'f /'s-. L. V’enuer's Der heutitje fit'nul der rontisehea Rechtso’isseiiseluift is reviewed helow, |i. ISll. In f. ''.'/k xi.ii {19df!', 289-91, I’EU. liisorKiUKs notices shortly the inaugural lecture of the first holder of the eh, nr of Gi-eek Legal History at Athens, a lecture which incliideei in its .survey the intluence of Egyptian on Gieek law: P. S. Photiades, EiVirijpiof Xiiyo?, Yearbook of the Athenian Lav: Fartjltn, In Avijiiptiie, VII 1926', 1.14-63, V. Araxgio-Ruiz reviews Raccolta Lvnibrom [Journal, xill, 115), espeei.illy the legal l■olltril)utions : P. de FRAXCl.sct on P.S.I. 55, contesting P. Colliset’s thesis that it is pre-.Justinian : S. Soi.azzi, who maintains that P. Ryl. 117 is not a degenerate in ivre eessio, but a a, ^s'e, berseding it by a projier agoraiiomic document or by allowing an fugaprcpijo-is- of it before him.solf. The first case jiresents no difficulty, but in the .second where do we get the e-icrraApa of the ^iglXiodijci; iyKTrjaeav recluired for the effect in reni of contracts of .sale or hyjiothecation I SectrL thinks that the presentation to the ayoranonwi of the document drawn iv dyviii was accoiipianicd by a recjuest for itria-TaKjia. Though the forms in which the agoranomus 1 oiumuiiic.ited to the .iiiXiodijKii .ind the iyKVKXdov are not known, the control of the latter i.s frroved by I', G\y. 241-3: 327-40. Si ore's second article (69-104 A’ote ntdla fonna del doemnento greco-roniano, deals with the con- \ergeiice of the Greek and Roman forni.s to a uniform tyjie, the Byzantine tabellionary in.strument, a much wider subject, less successfully i>reseuted. The first .section trace.s the decay of the objective double ■^yngraphn and its rejilacement by subscribed duplicate documents, one cojry being deposited in a piublic archive : illustrated from the Deljihic mamimission.s. The second .section, on the imjierial period, makes more usc of jiapvri. Evcui before the Const. Antnniiiian.a the Roman olurograiih, with scriptara interior ,iml e.i'i' rinr is di[il(,i„aticall,v very close to the ( Ireek. Secirk's e.xi>lanatiou of the regulation of this form by ,i SC. of Xci'o (Full Snnt. 5, 2.5, 6 ) slumld be noted 141 . 80), But from the third century the Roman chu'ogr.q.h w.is ahsorbeci by the Greek. In epi.stolary form it underwent little change till the fourth century .section 3), when begins the evolution towards the tabellionary instrument. This i.s considered chiefly in light ..'f the iinjiyri, subject to the reservation that the evolution there is rather special. There .pgiears to be a misuiiclerst.incling (j). 100) of G. 4, 21 , 17, 1. Segre ends with an account of the nomicus I)io..i orus ot Aiitiiioipiolis iP. Lond. v) and an ajijiendi.v on the tahellionvs oi Byzantine jiajiyri (pj). 102-4). Bn aatik'M tirihidlagen dnr frnhniittelaJterlirhnn. Priraturkvnde (Teuhiier, 1927), by H. Steix.icker, 1 bavc only ..ceil enough of to note the title of section 10 : Das 'irdko-agypti.sehn U rknndeniresea Neither Seuke imr Stlixackek could take account of B. U\y. xvil, 2131, showing the survival as late as A 1 ). 207 of the olil double document. Ill Mnenio^yne, LV 192i , , 1.8 (- 238 , J. C. X.abek goes on with his Obserratiuacidae ad papyros iuridicae, the 'ubject being the official entries on documents known a.s irraifiaTa and p^apdypnra. The jiresent article continue' the Litter totuc .lud more is to follow. S lb, after discu.ssiiig the exact significance of ^prjfia- t'Juv ,iud iTvyxpr]paTi(eiv, de.ds with the offices connected with the census. 16 treats of iiTliTTdKp.a, TTpniTuyyf'Kui, tuc lecture of the offici.d examination of title, the moment when civil title jia.sscd, napddeaii and pcTf-iyp.itjej. I , coii'idcrs various offices connected with the validation of instrument.s, and § 18 the ex.iet piuiiosc and ettect of brjpna-iaan. The article ends with a rich elenchus fo ntiurn for 11-18. BIBLIOGRAPHY; GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 151 B. Law of person-^. i. Corporations. To ’Ti7riTvfx,iwv Heinrich Swohoda dargettrachi f lleicheiiberg, li>27' M. San Xk olo coiitriLutes (p}). 255-300i an article on the internal jurisilictinn exercisotl bv’ corporations in Btoloinaic times: 2ur } ereinsgerirktsharhcit iin heUenistischcn Agyptcn. The material, c'hietly demotic and conhned to religious corporations, is eked out by Greek analogies. Successive sections treat of the con''titutiun of the corporate courts, their competence, offences dealt with, penalties inflicteil, procedure up to judgement and execution. For Roman corporations the (juestion is too comjilex to admit of a .siniiilo -oliitiou, but in Greece and F.gypt the corporate statutes formed a sort of contract between tlie members, so that the jurisdiction was in e.ssence arbitral. IVithin the law the sbite recognizeil corporate autonomy. ( Ireek law sanctioned distress for execution of arbitral decisions, and rc.sist.iuce would, at Athens, ground the (Sik;; e ^ ov \ i ] s . The Egyptian evidence is defective, but corporate statutes contain a clause which, .1. Pautsch has shown, corresponds to the Kadairep H SiVi;s clause of later contracts. P. \T. Durr’s The charitable foundation^: of By:" ntiunt, in Cambridge Legal Essays. (Heifer, Cambridge, 1926), contains a good account of the statute law of the earlier Byzantine jieriod, but hardly uses the papyrological materials. ii. Status Uhertatis. Important corrections of P. Frcib. In, published by .]. P.xrtscm, Stcgslnr. Heahi- herger Ah., 1916, 3.") ff. ( = P. Mkyf.r, Juristische J‘a/,yri, no. 7 ; cj. .1. Pautsch, P. Stra^sb. a, 112, IF are given by U. Wilckex in his Apjiendix !T05-7,' to .1. Partsch’s P. Freib. in (1927 : see above, S 3.'. iii. Statn-s ciritatis. E. Bickebmann-, AA’/iiC, Vlll, 216-39 : Der Hciriiatsrermcrh and die sfaaisrerhtliche Stellung der Hellenen i>n ptolernaischen Agypten, is an important study i.f the light thrown on the legal position of Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt by the “ home-styles ■’ appended to their names. The home-style was for the natives a Greek innovation : .r Greek is Atoreinos Atoreirioc MuKeScor, leiuentary edict of 213. [bir him the only question is of the exact extent of population covered by the exeeptiirii of dediticii in 1. 0. Hero he comes near to Bickeriiaxx, holding that what is meant is not the mass of the peas.iiitry, the Xnoypa- (jioipevoi in Egypt, the capite ceusi elsewhere (P. Meyer's view;, hut only harbariaii.s who, having .surrendered at di.scrction, had been incorporated in the army' or been settled within the ernjiire. G. DE Sanctis, on the other hand, accejits substantially Bickermann’s whole [losition, adding th.it the Const. Ant., even condensed, must have been too long for our jiapyrus. The strongest objection made by A. SegrL is in the matter of date. If we move the date of P. Gies.sen 40, i to late 213, how comes it to I.e followed by a second constitution of 212 and that by a third of 215 1 De Sanctis therefore revises Bickermann’s chronology : the defective preamble refers to the Geta episode, and if the word vIkij in 1. 4 is unsuitable, it i.s after all only a conjecture. The same word in 1. 10 refers, ho holds, iierh.-qis to no ■specific event, but to hojies for the coining ( ternmii canqiaigii. In conclusion he ob.servcs that Bickeum.xnn’s interpretation squares with the policy of tlie Severi, with Caracalla'.s militarism and with Kostovtzeff’s general conception of inqierial history. J. X"ogt, reviewing Bickermann’.s the.sis in O'nomon, iii (1927), 328-34, jironounees against its jiositive side, and controverts it.s arguments more directly than A. Segre. Thus he denies that the religious 152 BIBLIOGKAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) luutivps alleged in the preamble are incompatible with the Const. Ant., and he defends the view that the vUt] of 1. 10 is the Geta episode; against the enigmatic words of 1. 6 : [do-]dicis ear i)[7r]e}(rc'Xd[aicr]ir eif tovs f/j-oi's ilr[dp](ii7ria)f, which form Bickermann’s strongest argument, he sets the generality of the phrase [Kara oi/tovpe'r^r. But on the exception of dediticii in 1. 9 he fully accepts Bickeriiann’s criticism of the usual view, which is much too wide, especially if dediticii is taken, as in a constitution it must be, in its strict legal sense. In that sense the Greeks in Egypt were dediticii too. The exception must be taken, as G. SEGRh said, with the words immediately preceding it, though what those words may be is now quite uncertain. Thus there was no exception of dediticii in the Const. Ant., though some exceptions were left to be implied by the general principles of Roman law, and that is why our literary tradition of the Const. Ant. says nothing al>out them. In Rec. hist., CLV (1927), 403-4, Ch. Lecrivaix regards Bickerm.xxn as having established the universality of the Const. Ant., but is not satisfied with the corollary that Caraoalla in the present supplementary edict excluded a class of soldiers. An even more radical view than Bickermaxx's is adopted by R. L.xqceur : Das erste Edikt Caracallas mif deni Papyrus Gissensis .tp) {Xachr. d. Giessener HochschvlgeseUschaft, vi, 1927, 15-28). The text has nothing at all to do with the Const. Ant., for the motives in the preamble have, according to Roman ideas, no possible connection with an extension of the eiritas. It is un-Roman to imagine that the glory of the gods is increa.sed by an extension of their worshippei-s, and, for that matter, cii'es were not necessarily of the state cult (Jews), and non-citizens were not exempt from duty to the .state gods. He holds then that the clause of 1. 6 : [oajaiciff iav v[jr]eaTeXd[£t)o-]jr els tovs ifiovs dr[dp]&)7rovff, refers to the infiltration of non-Roman cults, and that what tlie emperor projioses to do in gratitude is to endow them with otficial recognition and to abolish the police measures {alrlas 1. 2) against their exercise. This position is very attractively .supported in the body of the article, but we must not forget that even before the discovery of the papyru> a connection between tlie extension of eiritas and that of the state cults had been observed (U. IIiLCKEX, Archiv, V, 1913, 428). And it remains for Laquel'r to make what he can of the rest of the paiiyru.s. He doe.s this with great ingenuity, but ail depends on his as.sertion that the r of the supposed 7r[oXir]v('ar in 1. 8 is irreconcilable with the remains before etm. Till this is admitted, his whole hypothesis nuLst be rejected. iv. Marriage. E. CT-q’s article mentioned below (G) deals with an application of the Egyptian law of dowry to international relations. In O.L.Z., .x.x.x (1927), 217-21, M San Nicol6’s Vorderasiatisches Rechtsgut in den agyptischen Eherertragen der Perserzeit traces into Egypt an old Babylonian procedure for divorce imti.ited by a formal declaration of “h.atred”: this, in contra.st to Jewish law, is made more frequently in our examples by the wife than by the husband. The fifth century Aramaic papyri of Elephantine show the Semitic colonists following the Babylonian version of the custom, and the technical word for “ hatred " recurs between the Persian conquest and Alexander in each of the four demotic papyri dealing with marriage. In Ptolemaic times the technical word is not so generally used, and only by the husband. It occurs neither in the pre-Persian hieratic documents nor in the Greek Ptolemaic papyri, though in the latter we have similar expressions. It follows that the technical “ hatred ” was an orientalism introduced by the Persians and expelled by Greek influence, and it is to Persian influence that we should attribute the independence of the Egyptian wife, including her right to divorce. In demotic papyri of the latei Ptolemies we find the wife owning separate property, and against L. Mitteis (Gritndz., 211) P. Lonsdorfer i (363 B.c.) shows this feature before the times of Greek influence: it has its origin in Iiirther Asia, where the con.stitution of a wife’s .separate property is seen as early as the Hamurabbi dynasty. Important new illustration of the adaptation of the Greek marriage in Egypt is furnished by P. Freib III, 29AJ1 (§ 3 above). According to J. Partsch’s brilliant introduction they form a bridge between the primitive Greek document seen in P. Elephantine 1 and the hellenistic P. Tebt 104 (end of second century B.c.), In his appendix (p. 60) U. Wilcken accepts and reinforces Partsch’s general conclusion that we have in the present documents Greek marriage contracts which, under the influence of native law, create a free marriage, to be followed by a full marriage : distinction between hgoXoyia yhgov and i, avvoiKiaiov, which reappears 150 years later in the Alexandrian avyxo>pi,aeis of B.G.F. iv, 1050 ff. V. .S’taPo, familiae. In Ptolemaic times soldiers despatched on duty enjoyed, as did their wives and children (o! iWoaKev,,), privileges which recall the medieval pririlegium ermis. These are studied bv E. Kiessi.ing, Archir, viii, 240-9; Aposkevai uad der prozes-weehtJ iche Stellung der Ehef raven im ptole- vvnirhen Agypteu. He contribut.-s to the more exact interpretation of P. Hal. i, 124-56, with the help of BIBLIOGRAPHY : GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 153 P. Bad. IV, 48, but hi.s chief thesis, again.st Sejieka, Ptoleni. Pi-ozessrecht, '2^o, is that the wife of an absent soldier would neither have been specially protected against being .sued, nor in certain cases have been secured a right to sue, unless in general a wife would have been in the.se niatter.s under the tutelary ov'ersight of her husband. He thinks that the argument may be extended to Egypti.ins as well as to Greeks. Taking ;is his text F. Mahoi's article on Ej'po^iti (above, A iv), 1’. Focrxier draw.s a gruesome picture of this ancient form of ^Malthusianism, .showing how moderate and indirect the legislation even of a Constantine had to be in the face of so inveterate a practice. The article doe.s not deal with papyrological material ; M propos ties e.vptisiti. Rev. hUl. dr. fr. et etr., X.S. v i 3U2-M. Albertoni, Lti apoleruxis. Contriheto tdln sturin delln fiimiijlni , so cited HnU. 1st. Dir. Rum., XXXV (1927), 247, I have not .seen. C. Property. The only topic to be mentioned under this head is the .system of publicity applied to the transfer of interests in land. Discussion has mostly taken the form of reviews of the recent works of .1. Partsch, E. ScHoNBACEH and Friedr. vox IVoe.ss {Journtd, xi, 99; xiii, IIG. See P. Meyer’s Berir/a, Z. Ritr.-Sf., XLVI, 192G, 323, 333). There is however in Aegyptus, viil 11927', 43-88, a substantive .irticle by G. Flore :_Sull'i jii^XwdijKri tqiv lyKTria-fatv, and current literature has not yet had time to take account of U. AVilckex’s new edition of P. Freib. iii, 36-7 (above, § 3,i, with an important commentary. There is also B.G.U. VII, 1573, published at the end of 1926, to be reckoned with. This considerably mutilated text of A.D. 141-2 contains the official documents relating to an epi3a&(la up to an advanced stage of the process. It shows several novelties in detail, but the general scheme, as outlined by A. B, .Schwarz {Hypothek uad Eypallagmu, 111 etc.) and L. Mitteis yUrnudz., IGlj on the strength of P. Flor. 56, is contirmed. P. 0.xy, xvil, 2134 furnishes a fresh dhistration of an application by a creditor for the registration at Ale.xandria of a secured loan (c«. a.d. 170). G. Flore’s article agrees in principle with E. Schoxbauer in depreciating the Ptolemaic publicity system, maintaining that it was the Romans who realized the legislative ideal, by creating in the /3i3Xio- 6r]Kr{ fyKTrjfTfaiv a Central office for the collection of deeds, to which notaries and parties could appeal with confidence. After examining the Edict of Mettius Rufus, P. Oxy. 237, he has sections on kutoxiu iimpedi- ments to enitjTdkpa), diru'ipatf)!] (notiticatioii to parties of the perfection of the contract; also inscription of the property in the ^morpcoparn), irapddfirif ('marginal entry;, and the special registers of catoecic land. He concludes that the function of the was not that of a registry of title or of deeds, but simply the prevention of frauds by publicity given to the traiismi.ssiou of re.d rights. In Z. f. vgl. Rechtsw., xlii (1926), 301-2, M. .Sax Nicolo gives a very short and rather unfavourable review of E. Schoxbaheh's Beitr. z. Oesdc. d. Liegeitsc/iafisrecldrs ort. cites no papyri. In the volume dedicated to Swoboda (325-35, above B i), EfioN 'Weiss under the title 'Upa Svyypacpii studie.s from the juristic side a Delian inscription published in full by Ziebahth {Hermes, lxi, 87). It is a lt.v locafioiiis of temple land offered under the Athenian administration of Delos, which began in 166 b.c. Some papyrological parallels are adduced. iii. Ride. Jlentioned in Re,-, hist. dr. fr. et etr., X.S. v (1926), 152, is a Paris thesis by E. Popesco: La fonctioii penitentiel/e di-s arrhes dans la rente sons Jnstinien ; much the .same subject was exjiounded by (1. C'oHMi. in an address reported ibid., 585-7. P. O.xy. svii, 2136 of .a.d. 291 should be noted: a sale of a boat is put in the form of a lea.se for 50 years pnr^iurpacri'a'i. The explanation must be, as the editor says, some special advantage attaching to the nominal ownership of a boat. iv. ti'iaroiitee. Caution nemevt uiutuel et solidarite {Melanges Cornil, i, 157-80), by E. Cuq, treats of ciXKTjXeyyii]. ,i form of obligation which first appears late in the Ptolemaic period. CuQ holds that it came from .Mc.sopotami.i, having at first oidy the eflfect which it had in its birthplace, namelv to guarantee the creditor against the ab.sence of one of the debtors, not again.st his insolvency. That last risk would be met either by a special cl.iuse or by the guarantee of a third party. But in the long run dWriXfyyvrj came to be employed in Egypti.m practice to set up Roman solidarity. The difficult responsum of Papinian D, 45. 2, 11 pr, is in point, also Nov. 99, which Cuq explains as an attempt to reduce dXXijXeyyi'i; to its original function. E. Ldieritance. The Rer. hist. dr. fr. et etr., N.S. vi (1927), 589-91, reports an address by .J. Pirexse : (Rielques observations sur le regime des successions dans Fancienne Egypte. Denying the alleged matriarchal character of even the earliest known Egyptian law of .succe.s.sioii, Pirenne discerns in its evolution from Dyn II to Ityii. X.KV an oscillation between individualism, understood in the sense of division amonp^ ' of Tiin-os, with reference to P. Oxy. 1492, 11. K. AIcKenzie. BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO-ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) 157 9. Gexerat. Works, Bibliography, Miscellaneous Motes on Papyrus Texts. M. Hohlwein, opening a course on papyrology in the Faciilte de Philosophie et Lettres at Liege, lectured on 27 Jan. 1927 on Ln papyruloglt; yrecgue. The lecture is published in Musee Beige, xxxi (1927), 5-19. J. M.ynteupfel, whose publication of some private letters at Berlin is noted above in S 3, has also published in Polish an introduction to the study of piapyrology with .i select bibliography and an account of discoveries. \V iajmaosri 'i-stepiie ; mLi-i-sh pupyrulogji ui Prieyhicl Histurye.ny, vi, 234-57. L. iM.VLHA has published a .sinnlar general .article in Arabic, the title of which is translated into French as Les Papyrus, lew fahriratinn, h-ur histoire, leur decoueerie, ce qu'ils eoatienaeut etc. in Bull. t, with suggestions for restoration. Preisigke’.s Wurtcrbvch und die Papyrologie in Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom., 1927, 177-89. Reference may also be made to the .same scholar’s note Tois aXTjSituLS oder rats' aXijOwais I .on B.G.U. 388, etc.) in Ar<'htr, vill, 250 (see 6, 8 above}. P. Jeknsiedt has publishcHl an interesting note on two of the Coptic letters (P. Loud. 1920, 1921; in Jews and Cliri.diaw in Egypt. He makes some ingenious suggestions for reading.' but several of these are irreconcilable with the pai'yri. Zu den koptischen Briefen an. den AR'letianer Paieil in C.-R. de V Acad, d. .Vc. de rU.R.S.li., 1927, 65-8. 11. C. Horn mtikes an acute and on the whole convincing attempt to explain the ubscurilies in the very illiterate letter P.S.I. 835. Interpretation of a Papyru.s jAetter P.R.I. 835 Chaeremon to Philo.ceniis in Class. Phil., XXII (1927), 296-300. There are some papyrus references in a review by E. Herm.ynn {Pkd. Woeh., xLvn, 1927, 870-.5) of the Eestsehrift for P. Kketschiieh (1926). II. I. Bell. 10. Miscellaneous and Personal. In the article on Pheisigke’s M’orterbuch referred to in the previous section Ghadenwitz makes three useful sugge.stioiis for papyrologieal subsidia. One is for a contrary-index, in which the words are arranged the opposite wat' to an ordinary index. This would often be a very great help in lestoring a mutilated word of which only the conclusion remains. Caitier’s Gazophylaciuni is of very little u.se for this purpose, as it is too full, contains many “ ghost ’’ words, and naturally does not include the many words which occur only in papyrus texts. The .seccjiid is for an index of vermicular Yvords with tlieir Greek equivalents. His idea is that a German-Greek index should lie coniiiilcd, with key-numt>ers to the words, and that from this should be prepared indexes in the other priiicijial languages, so that ou looking up, e.g., an English word one would readily tind the corresponding German and so the Greek. This also would he of great service to editors. The third proposal is for a “ C’entralstelle ” in each country to which .scholars engaged in papvro- logical work could notify their results in the correction of texts, etc., and which could transmit such results to an international centre. This suggestion deserves hearty support, though it may he difficult to carry out. Who in this country, for example, where papyrologists are so few, can be found to undertake the responsibility '. I am glad to learn from Ghadenwitz himself that the iii-st scheme at least is secured. Prof. Kalufleisch informs me that Kling is engaged on the second Heft of the Giessen papyri, which is to include juristic texts prepared by O. Eger (mostly Byzantine, largely from the Archive of Flavia Anastasia). In a third Heft Glaue will publish an unknown Early Christian text. The Janda papvrus collection has now acquired some Zeuo papyri, many of them fragmentary. 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY: GRAECO- ROMAN EGYPT (1926-1927) JL HojtBK.RT gives .111 iiccount of the acquisitions of the Bibliothequo de papyrologie grecque of the Foudation egyptologique reiiie Elisabeth y W. Kunkel (Gnomon, ii, 1926, 495-6;. H. I. Bell. 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT By jean CAPART Ce n’est pas sans une longue hesitation que j’ai accepte, ii la doniando du professe\ir K. LI. Griffith, do continuer la hib]iograT)hie de I’Egypte aneienne dans Ic Jwifiwl of Egyptimi Archaeology. La tache en ello- nieme est lourde, et je no suis pas sur de pouvoir y cojisacrer tout le temps qii’il faudrait. S'il fallait reellement analyser tons los travaux p\tblit^, elle serait impossible. Llais coiume, de plus en plus, tons los materiaux bibliographique.s sur I’Egypte se concentrent a la Bibliothtique de la Fondation Egyptologiqiie Heine Elisabeth, je me suis lai.sse convaincre jiar mon savant predecesseur qui m’a.ssurait que les outils de travail se groupaient plu.s coinpletement entre mes mains qu'entre le.s siennes. Je vais essayei’ done de mettre k la disposition des travaillours dans le dom.iine egyptologiqiie les renseignemeuts qui nous arrivent de toutes parts. J’espere que les auteurs voudront bion m’aider en me communicant au nioiiis la notice bibliographique de leurs travaux publie.s dans les revues non-egyptologique.s. Pour des rai.son.s pratiques, je demande de pouvoir presenter en un premier bulletin sommaire le tableau des publications parties en 1956 ot qui n’oiit pas encore ete citees dans la bibliographie 1925-0 publiee au volume XII. Une remarque encore. Faut-il lais.ser tomber de tros courts articles qui, ii premiere vuc, n'apporteut rien de nouveau? Ou bien, puisqu’il s'agit de bibliographic, faut-il au contrairo chercher a ne rien negliger de ce qui a ete public ? Colui qui fait une etude dctaillee d’un point a souvent constate qu’il pent y avoir int^rC't k confronter toutes les idees cniises par divers auteurs et qu'une remarque accessoire doniie qiielque- fois la solution d’un problenie. A regarder d’ensemble la bibliographie de 1926, on ue peut s’empecher de relever le iiomliro consideraUe de petites notes qui out ete publiees de toics cotes. On relevera, par contre. pen do litres importants de doctrine. A notre epoque, il semble que les chcrcheurs eprouvent, plus qu’autrefoi.s, le besom de publier sans retard toutes les remarques de detail qu’ils font au cours de leurs travaux. Xotre science, conime beaucoup, a une tendance k s’emietter. De la, peut-ctre, I’utilite qu'il y a de publier des bibliographies au.ssi completes que possible. Sauf indication contraire, la date des publications et des volumes de revues est toiijours 1926. ( 'oXSERV.VriON. Knrnah. Le rapport de M. Pii.lkt sur les fmilles de 1924-.') et I’ctude d’A. Ll'C.ts, sur le ‘‘damage caused by salt” sont analyses dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 54. H. Chevrier, dams le Rapport sur les tramu.v de Karnnk (mars — niai, 1926) dans les ,!«)!. Serv., xxvi, 119-30, decrit ses travaux de recherches k Finterieur du III' pylono, veritable carriere archcologique et epigraphique. II donne des details sur le temple et le.s statues d’Akhenaten trouves k I’est du grand temple d’Amon. Grand Sphin.r de Oizah. La polcmique au sujet de.s tr.ivaux de consolidation du sphinx de ( iizah a ilonnc naLssance a toute une stale d’article.s: .1. Mkier-Graefe, The Destna tion of the Sphinx, in Burlington ilng., XLIX, no. 281, 90-4 ; Seymour df. Ricci, Le Sphinx et M. Meier-Graefe, dans la Recue arcMologiipu;, xxiv, 270-1 ; A disaster prerented : the Sphinx saved from collapse. The Sphin.r before and after excavation : secrets rexealed, in The Illustrated London Reus, no. 4541, 8tX)-l ; Le desensahlement du grand Sphinx, dans le Bulletin de Vart ancien et moderne, no. 725, 61 ; Autour da grand Sphinx, ibid., no. 727, 133 ; Le desen- sahlement du Sphinx, dans Beaux- Arts, 4' annee, no. 4, 51 ; Patehing up the Sphin.r, in .1 rt and d rchaeology, XXII, 194 ; Repairing the Sphinx, in Ancient Egypt, 1920, 14. Fodilles et Travaux- .1. H. Breasted expose sous le titre de Ln.vor and Armageddon. The Expansion of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, in Art amd Archaeology, xxii, 154-66, le-s projets et les realisations grandioses que la liberalite de J. D. Rockefeller, juii., lui permet d’entreprendre. Sous la direction d’A. M. Lythgoe, les travaux du Metropolitan Museum of Art de New York out cti' poursui^s pendant la campagne 1924-5. Les fouilles a DOr el-Babrt sont d'-crites par H. E. Wixlock 160 JEAN CAPART celles de Lisht par Ambrose Lansing, les releves graphiques dans les tombes thebaines par X. de G. Davies: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Egyptian Expedition. 192Jf-T.i2o. Part II of the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Xew York. March. Les resiiltats generaux des fouilles de I’Egypt Exploration Society et de la British School of Archaeology in Egypt sont exposes Atms, Exhihition of Antiquities from Ahydos and T ell-el -Araarna 19:25-1926 ; Cata- logue of prehistoric antiquities from Upper Egypt., the Fayum and the Persian Gulf. 1926 ; British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Report of the 32nd year. London. Pierre Lacau, Les Trarrobleme des troubles qui suivirent la precuce disi)arition de Toutankhamen. A. Moret, La Cmnpagne de Seti F' ati nord du Carmel, est analyse dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 59. T. Eric Feet, The Supposed Iterolution of the high-priest Amenhotpe under Rarnesses IX [Journal, ill, 254-9), souleve une serie de jiroblemes ot niontre combien nous ignorons les base.s meme de I’liistoire des derniers Eamessides. M. A. ibcHHAY), Ancient Egypt, 1926, 122-3, analyse le memoire de V. Struve sur le grand Papyrus Harris .Aegyptus, vii;. T. Eric Peet, Journal, xii, 322-4, fait l uloge du livre de J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus (1925). H.iROLD il. IVlEiEH, The Historical Character of the Exodus, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 104-15, discutc les theories de Gardiner sur I'exode. G. F. H., Tachos, King of Egypt, dans The British Museum Quarterly, no. 1, 24-5, reproduit une monnaie unique du roi Tachos, decouverte a iMemj)lns Signalons Ithude de E. .Mariox Smith, Xaukratis, a, chapter in the History of the HellenUation of Egypt, dans le Journ. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 119-207. (luelques ouvrages sur I’histoirc d’Eg\q)te a I’cqioquo grcco-roinamc luais quo les egyptologues con- sulteront avec int<'ret : V. Ehre.xberg, Alexander and Aegypien (Beiheft zuni Alten Orient, 7), Leipzig. (Recensions: J.H.S.. 282-3; F. Jacoby, Onomon, 459-63; Ernst Meyer, Deutsche Literaturzeitvng (X.F. Ill;, 1799;; G. Hadet, Notes sur Vhistoire cP Alexandre, vi. Le pelerinage av sanetuaire d’ Ammon, dans la Revue des Etudes anciemies, .i.wiii, 213-40; F. Jouguet, L’Lnperialisnie rnacedonien et Phelleni- sution. de VOrient, Paris. Compte-rendu de B. A. van Gkooningen, Hellenisme op creemden hodein, par M. Homuert, Rievae beige de philologie et dhistoire, 217 ; B. A. van Gkooningen, L’Egypte et VEmpire, dans Aegyptus, vii, 189-202, est iJutOt, comme I'indique le .sous-titre, une Etude de droit public romarn. A. Kammerer, Essai sur Vhistoire antique de V Abyssinie. “Le royaume d’Aksum et ses voisiius d’ Arable et de Mdroe," Paris, 198 pp. et 45 pL, consacre un chapitre, le IX, des pages 67-83, aux rapports des Abvssins avec Meroe. Remarques sur I'etude de H. Gauthier, Le roi Zadfre, dans Ancient Egypt, 56 ; ce serait un co-regent de Khtqjhren. V. SiRUtVE, Zv.„i Namen des Konigs dans la Zeitschr. f ag. Spr., Liii, 6.5-6, explique le num comme devant se vocaliser Talot-Amuu>Talt-Amun ce qui s’aecorderAit avec la transerlTition cuiieiforme : Tastamani, Taltauiani. ^ B. Gunn, Notes on tvo Egyptian Kings, dans le Journal, iii, 250-3, cherche eu premier lieu ii con- firmer la tradition egyptienne du c.iraet^ro aiiii.ible et bieuveillaut dn roi Snct'roii; il e.xplique ensuite les raisons qui I'empccheiit d'admettre i)our le iiom de Toutankhamen la traduction liabituello “Livin'’- Image of Amun.” II prefere “ The Life of Amnn is Plea.sing.” Ancient Egypt, 60, donne I'analyse du memoire d’E. Chassinat, La Princesse Nouherntekh. Geographie. Je irai pas vu Fr. Hommel, Ethnologie und Geographie des alten Orients, P jiart. Henri Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms geogra plaques coatemis dans les textes hie'roglyphiques iii poursuit regulierement la publication de son utile repertoire. Le volume iii comprend les lettres ^ a <=> Aux jjp. 143-55, nombreuses additions et corrections aux trois premiers tomes. Compte-rendu du tome jiar P. iMoNTET daiis la Rerue des Etudes anciennes, ixviii, 58-9. ^ ^ Alexes ilAULON, Za Geographie de VE.rode. Congres international de Geographie, Le Caire avr'l 1925, V, 84-9. .s’appuyant .sur les eUides rcceiites de Clddat et de Gardiner cherche h montrer que’“loin redire. la cconranhie de Ihsthine s'harrnonise n^ii-Palteniont ^ do le contredire, la geographie de I’isthrne s’harinonise iiarfaitemeut avec le texte sacrc G. Dahessy, Rccherches geogra phiqnes, dans les Ann. Serr., xxvi, 246-72 av nombreuse de j)oint.s de detail sur la geographie dn nord du Delta. H. G. L[yoxs], The Geographical Journal, 67, no. 3, analyse Omar Toussocn, Memoire du. Nil. ec 1 carte, lilucide une serie sur Vhistoire BIBLIOGEAPHY ( 1926 ): ANCIENT EGYPT 165 Je no connais pas le» articles suivauts rulatilN au Fayyum et aux Oasis libyennes : G. AV. Graham, The f uyum lakes, dans Mature, 25 dec., 911-12; A. E. R. Boak, Irriyatioa and pop^datioa in the Fn/juni, the Garden of Egypt, in Geographical Review, xvi, :l53-64 ; L. AV. Collet, L Oasis de Khurga dans I’Oasis lihyque, dans Annales de Ge'ographie, uov., 527-34; E. Ol'BUC, Les Oasis perdnes, dans La Geugraphie, sept. — oct., 220-2 ; AA’. F. Hume, The lost Oases by A. J/. llassanein Bey, Londres, 1925, dans le Bull, de la Soc. roy. de geographie d’Egypte, xiv, 31-4 ; AV. J. Hardixg King, Mysteries of the Libyan desert (1925). Comjjte-rendu dans Sudu/i Sates and Records, ix, 143-4; M. Tilho, Du- Sil aii.v cnnp’ns dn Tibesti par le centre du desert Ubyiae, dans les Coinpte-rend'is de I’Acarl. Jes Scicnees, Paris, decenibre. Cituns encore vine scrip de travaux u’intere.s.sant I’egyptoiogue cpie dame luaniere indirecte : H.Heheraix, Les Oeographes franeais dans le Levant, dans Rev. uiternat. de i’ Enseignenient, 116-23 et 160-71 ; A'ivielle, Rote sur une carte rnanuscrite du voyage de Ibiul Lucas a.u.v cataractes dv Sil dessiuee par Jean. Baptiste Solin (1703-4), dans Congr'es international de Geograpjhie, Le Ctiire, 1925, v, 67-75, avec 2 pi. ; in.. Sole sur la carte rnanuscrite des deserts de la Basse- The'buide par le R. B. Ricard, li lil, ibid., 76-8; S. Hetole, L'ltiiierariuin del P. Rernedio Prvtcky, riaggiatore e inissioiuirio francescano {Alto Egitto) ed A suo viaggio in Ahissinia, .11 febbraio lid 2 — 22 aprile liSl, ibid., 157-95. Citons ici dcjii E Opera degli Italiani per la conoscenza dell' Egitto e per il suo risoryimento civile ed econoniico, .scritti di v.u'i aiitori, raccolti e coordinati a cura di Kobertu Almegia. Parte prana. Rome. Cumpte-rendu par A. Calderixi, Aegyptas, vn, 321-2. Quelques voyages en Egypte piiblies eu 1926: H. BethgE, Aeyyptisehc Reese. Eia Tagehui.h, Berlin; Ludwig Diehl, Sphinx. Erlehnisse, Studien und Gndanken a.us tneincin Anfenthalt ini La.n.d dnr Wunder, Hamburg; AC d. Eekexbeemi, diet eeau-iye Pharaonetda ml, ill, iv, dans Opigang, 4' aiiuee, 07-113, 145, 150-7, 196-210, 289-303 ; John Fh.ienkel, Eva SUen til Jordan, Copenhague, 170 pp. et figg.; J. Heix, Auf biblisehen Pfaden im Reich des Pharao. Kidtarbilder a.ns dem alten Aegypten-. J. d Ivkay, Coup died sur V Egypte pittoresque, dans Sciences et Voyages, 21 Janvier: Alfred Kaufmanx, Eiciyes Stronda ml. Land und Mensch in Aegypten, Stuttgart; J. A. Sfexdek, The ehangtng East. Travels in Turkey, Egypt and India. A''oir eu outre Hexry Bordeaux, Voyageurs JOrb'nl, Paris, 2 vol. Aleiitioimons deux guides : EusTace Reyx’oLDs-Hall, Cairo of to-day. A practical guide to Cco, u'a.nn, icenn, da, veil,'' dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., LXII, 42-3, complete son etude aiitcrieure dans le Rec. de True., xxvi, 38. Quelques travaux sur la phoiietique; Aaron Ember, Partial Assiinilntian in Old Egyptian, dans Paul Haupt Festschrift, Leipzig, 300-12 ; id,, s to s before a labial in Egypt; Egypto-Semitir names for parts of the body, dans Jouni. Amer. Oriental Soc., XLVI, 351 ; AA'. F. Albright, Another case of Egyptian a = Coptic e, dans Xo. Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., lxii, 64; K. Se;the, Die angebliche Bezeichnang des Vokals i im Deniotischen, ibid., 8-13. H. Ranke, Tiernarnen als Personenna men hei den Aegyptern, est re.sume par L. B. Ellis, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 31. Deux etudes de K. Sethe .sont coiisacrees a eclairer la que.stioii de uoms royaux ; Der Horns- und der nh-tj-Aame des Ko nigs Cheops ; die mit den Bezeiehnungeii der Schtffergerdte ^ and J gebildeten A'arnen der Mentuhotp-Kbnige, dans la Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., LXII, 1-3 et 3-5. PALflOGRAPHlE. Eduard N.vville, UEcritare egyptieaae. Essai sur Vorigine et la fomiation de I’une des premi/res ecritures me'diterraneeniies, expose une fois encore ses idees sur les principes fond.ameiitaux de lecriture 168 JEAN CAPAKT hidrogh'phique et combat ardemment les transcriptions generalement admises dans I’eoole egjq)tologique, (Compte-rendu par D. 'RbvRXOTTE dans la Rev. de I' Inst, de Sodologie, Bruxelles, 565-6.) Wox Kexx, Origine et erolvtion de Vecriture hierngl gphique et de Veenture chinoise, Lyon.s (Etudes et documents publie.s ])ar I’ln.stitut franco-ehinois de Lyon, i). btudie oe qu’il appelle les “ ecritures soeur.s.” “ Cbacune d’elle a connu uii developpement particulier qui la fit independante de rautre”et pour re- preudre une ex2)res,siou de Panthier, “ .si elles out de grands raiJjjort.s de ressemblances, ce fait e.st du aux lois generale.s de I’e-sju-it humain.” Siegfried Schott public en un texte autogr.-qihib d’une iiianiero nialheureusement jieu agreable sa these: Vntermfhv.iigen zur Schriftge.ichichte der Fy/-(imideiite:ete,Iie\Ae\hevg. En se .servant des variante.s des textes de.s pyramides il presente une serie de remarques fort inqiortantes sur I’histoire et I’anciennete de ces textes fameux. W. SriEGELnERG, Pluturch-^ Deutiidg der Jlieraglyphe der Binse, dans Paid Huupt Festschrift, :313-14, montre jiar I’exenqile du cbapitre 30 du traite de Iside et O.siride cotnbien Plutarqne etait exactement renseigne du .sens de.s hieroglyjihe.s. S. A. B. Mercer, dans Jov.rn. Poe. Oriental Research, x, 106, lone D. P.vton, Aniraah of Ancient Egypt (1925). Religion. Voioi d’abord quelques ouvrages generaux foisant une jiai't a la religion egyiitienne : H. Ouxkel et L. ZscHARNACK, Pie Religion irn Geschichte vnxl Oegenwart, Tubingen, col. 95 et .s. ; R. Krkglisgeb, E Evolution religteuse de Ihumanite, Pari.s: Chaxtei'Ie de la S.vus.s.iye, Lekrhach der Religionsgeschichte, 4® edit. (C.-R.: van der Leeuw, Mienire Theolog. Ptndicn, ix, 146-8), la jiartie egyi)tienne jjar H. 0. Lange (1924); M. SoDERBi.OM, cThUtoire des religions, Paris (1925) (C.-R. j>ar R. Krf.glinger, Revue de Phistorre des religions, xcill, 17.3-4): H. ^ orw.xhl. Die Rehgioneu des Ostens. 2. Aegyptische und seniitische Religionen, Breslau. L'atlas de H. Bonnet, Aegyptische Religion (Bilderatlas zvr Religionsgeschichte hrsg. von H. Haas Lief. 2-4), e.st I’objet do quelques reniarque.s de J. W. Hauer, O.L.Z., xxix, 326-7. Le tr^s utile recueil de Th. Hopfner, Fontes historiw religionis aegyptiacie, est I'objet de plusieurs compte-rendas : K. Preisendanz, dans Gnomon, ii, 478-81 ; J. .J lthner, dan.s Theologische Reeve, xxv, 85 : S. A. Mercer, dan.s dovrn. Poe. Oriental Research, x, 108. L’ouvrage classique de H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Te.ete zvrn Alter Testament, paralt en une seconde edition revi.stfo et augmentee. Berlin. La partie egyi)tienne est Tceuvre de H. Ranke (pp. 1-107). Th. Friedrich, Israel und seine Religion im Rahmen der corderasiatisch-agi/ptischen Knltur, Leipzig i'1925), e.st analyse 2 >ar F. ScH.... dans Bayer. Blatt. f. d. tlymn. Pchnlv:., lxii, 55. Le li\ re de Sir J.viies ir. Fk.vzer, The v'orship oj A ature, l, Lundres, contient de iiombreiises pae^e,s consacrees a la religion egyiitienne. Dans 'VY. Engel, Die Pchiclsalsidec iia Altertuni. Religionsmiss. Untersuchang {VeroffeHtlichuagen des Indogermanischen Seminars der Unirersitat Erlangen, Bd. 2), Erlangen, on trouvera un cbapitre sur I’idee du destin chez les Egyptieu.s. S. A. B. Mercer, Growth of Religion and Moral Ideas in Egypt, est analyse par J. Hoschaudeb dans Jew. Quart. Rev., xvii, 204-5. II e.st douteux que H. P. Block, Eine Gotterstatiie aus der Spatzeit, dans Acta Orientalia, 1926 v 74-5 et 1 ) 1 . i, represente un dieu egyptien. Anion. 4Y. Spiegelberg, Der Heilige Widderkopf des Arnon, dan.s la Zeitschr. f ag. Pp-,-., lxii, 23-7 avec 4 fig., donne la preuve que la tete de belier conime embleme d’Amon rare sous la XYIIP dynastie s’est repandue depuis la XIX“. Apis. Fr. \Y. V. Bissing publie Eine Apisfigur in der Haltang der Adlocntio dans Festschrift f. P. Hav.pt, 295-9, une statuette en bronze de sa collection, et une autre piece analogue d’Athenes : Apis Irnperator, dans .Archie fur Orientforschung, III, 119-20. Hathor. A. M. Hocart consacre une note aux O/eroijr.s- fo Ilathor" Aa,ns Man xxvi 192 II s’agit d’ex-vutos trouves a Dgr el-Bahrl. Imhotep. Le dieu de la mbdecine Imhotep a ete I’objet d'un livre bien fait de Jamieson B. Hdrry Imhotep. The vizier and physician of King Zoser and afterwards the Egyptian God of Medicine. On en trouver.i des compto-rendus par A. Calderini, dans Aegyptus, vii, 342 ; H. O. Lange, dans Deutsche Lite- ratarzeitang, XLvii. no. 51; M. A. M(l'rr.ly), dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 126. Voir un resume sous le titre de Imhotep. Egyptian deity oJ healing, dans The Antiquarian Quarterly, 1926, 221-4, 3 fig 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY ( 1926 ); ANCIENT EGYPT Le livre de W. Addison .Tavxe, The hmlhif/ gods of ancient cii'ilizations, 1925, est I’objet de compte- rendus par W. R. Hallidat, dans Journal, xti, 324-o ; R. Kreglisger, dans Recue de I’histoire des re- ligions, xciv, 196-9; S. E(eixach', dans Rer. Arch., xxiii, 370. Isis et Osiris. L’etrange livre de L. Chisda-Goldberg, Ber Osirisaamc ‘■'•Roi.” Ein Osirisaame in der Bihel, 1925, est resume par S. A. B. iM(ERCER) dans Jovrn. Soc. Orivnhd Research, x, 322, et execute par A. CuXY, La Bible et Osiris, dans Rer. des Etudes anciennes, xxviii, 203. Jo n'ai pas vu le compte-rondii de X. ScHLuciL, dans W.Z.K.HL, x.xxm, 252-74. L. B. Ellis, Lsis at Cologne and Air, dans Ancient Egiipt, 1926, 97-101, avec 4 tig., illustre le eulte d Lsi.s dans la region rhenane. Le livre cla.ssique de J. G. Frazer parait eu traduction francaise: Atgs et Osiris. Divers compte-rendus : JLercure de France, no. du 15 diioembre 1926; A. Calderixi, dans Aegyptus, vili, .342-3 ; R. Kreglisger, dans Rev. de I'hist. des religians, xcui, 334-5; S. K(Elx.\e'H), dans Rer. arch., xxiv, 295. H. JuxKER, Die Osirisrel igion and der Erlosungsgeda.nk-e l>ei den Aegyptern, dans Seinaine Internationale d' Ethnologic religieu.ith or the Voice of Osiris. Set down in the House of El Eros-El Erua, they being rnale-femate, born according to the laics governing the Dkinnun- Adamic race, this being their fourth Incarnation ! Heureux editeur. . ..Pauvres lecteurs ! Kolanthes. Le dieu sur lequel IV. Spiegf.lberg attira I’attention dans la Zdtschr. f. ag. Spr., lviii, 155, est I’objet d’une note de J. Bilabel, Der Gott Kolanthes, dan-s Archiv f. Papynisforschmg, vin,62. Xephotes. Vi. Spiegei.berg, Der Gott Xephotes \,Xfr-htp) und di-r KvtifpvrjTrjs des Xds, dans Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., l.xil, 35-7, eclaireit plusieurs points relatifs an dieu Xfr-litp et aux fetes du Xil a Silsilis dout le KvSepvrjTTis etait sans doute un pretre. Pe-neb-onch. Vi. Spiegelbehg, Der Schlangengott Fe-neb-oneh, dans Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., LXll, 37-8, deuiontre que le diou Pe-neb-onch ii’cst autre chose qu’un serpent dont rremiere importance, non seulement ijour 1 etude des antiquites, raais aussi iiour I’histoire des sciences. Citons entin quelques articles sur diver.ses questions techniqiie.s se lattachant aux sciences. Ch. Beauge, Les Carriires antiques en Haute-tgyptc', dans Bulletin de la Societe des Ingenieurs eoloniaux, no. 87, Paris, 1926 20-34; J. Barthoux, Les Fards, pommudes et coaleurs dans I'antiquite, dans Congres international de Geographic, Le Caire, iv, 251-62; Earle Radcliffe Caley, The Leyden Papyrus A', dans Journal of Chemical Education, ill, 1926, 1150-66 ; Willy B. Xiemann, Das Eisen im alien Aegypten, dans Technik and Kultur, xvii, 1926, 61-4 ; Besse H. Schulze, Bier und Bierbereitung bei den Vulkern der Urzeit, fasc. 1: Bahylunien und Aegypten, 1926. Litter.ature. Les etudes en langue arahe ne pourraient-elles ctre accomiiagnces d’un bref resume en franjais ? Cela jiermettrait au moins de les classer sans risque d’erreur : L. Malha, Les papyrus, leur fabrication, leur histoire, leur decourerte, ce qiCils contiennent, etc., dans le Bulletin de la Societe archeologique df Alexandrie, xxii, 1926, 212-36. Les travaux dA. Erjian, Die Literatur et Die agyptischen Schulerhandschriften, sont analyses, le premier par W. Engelkemper, dans Theologische Reviid, xxv, 1926, 438-40, le second par H. O. Lange, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 632-3. H. Ranke reedite une .serie importante de traductions dans H. Gressmann, Altorientaliscke Texte zuni Alien Testament. 2= edit., Berlin, 1926, 1-107. H. Gbafow, Die bildlichen Ausdriicke des Agyptischen (1924) est I’objet de compte-rendus de S. A. B. Mercer, dans Jov.ni. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 107-8, et T. Eric Peet, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 320. F. Lexa, Les Ornements poetiqv.es du langage, resume dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 58. B. Gunn, Some Middle- Egyptian Pro-verbs, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 282-4, a retrouve tres habilement un certain nombre de “citations implicites” sous la plume des anciens scribes. Je n’ai pa.s vu Horace M' alpole. Hieroglyphic Tales, 1926. D. C. SlJli'SON, The Psalmists. Essays on their religious experience and teaching, their social background, 22-2 172 JEAN CAPART md their place ia the developnieiit of Hehrev: Psalmody pav H. (tRESSmaxx, H. W. Robinsox, T. H. Eobix- sox, G. R. Driver, A. M. Blackman, Londres, 1926, traitc dii probleme si important des relations entre la litterature egyptienne et la litterature hebraique. La Sagesse d’Amenemope reste au premier plan des etudes : F. Ll. Griffith, The Teaching of A'meaophis the son of Kanakht. Papyrus B.M. 10474, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 191-231, en donne une nouvelle traduction commentee que D. C. Simpson fait suivre d'une etude sur les rapports aveo le livre des Provorbos : The Hebretp Book of Procerhs and the teaching of Amenophis, dans Journal, xil, 1926, 232-9. L. Keimer, ThcWisdom of Amen-em-ope and the proverbs of Solomon, traito lo meme sujet dans American Journrd of Semitic Languages and Literature, xliii, 1926, 8 -21. S. E. K. Glaxville, A Ahew Duplicate of the Hood Papyrus, dans Jounud , xir, 1926, 171-i>, attire I'attention sur le document B.M. 10379 qui donne un duplicata du ‘‘ nianuel de hiLU-arehie.” L’auteur fait e.sperer comnie prochaine I’edition par Gardiner du fameux Glos.saire Golenisclieff. IV. R. Dawson, The Papyrus Lansing, dans Zeitschr. f ag. Spr., lxii, 1926, 64-5, siguale deux passages du Piqiyrus Lansing coniius dejii d’autre part; ce sont 7, l-4 = Sallier I, 6, 5-8 et Anastasi Y, 16, 5-17, 1, et 11, l-7 = Ana.stasi IV, 8, 7-9, 2. Je me contente de signaler N. Mescerski.i (sur la traduction de I’entretion d’uu dtlsabusc avcc son amo [en russe]) dans Zapiski Kollegii Vostokoeedor pri Azjatskorn iivsei Rossyskoj Akademi A"auk, Leningrad, II, 1926 (?i, 365-72. Fhax(,'OI.s Lexa, Papyrus Insinger. Les enseignements moraux d'tm scribe egyptien du premier siecle apres J. C., Paris, 1926, 2 vols., a donne son edition, attenduo depuis lougtemps, du fameux papyrus de Leydc. Un bon article de I'ulgarisation a etc ecrit par G. Roder, Enichnng und Unterricht im alien Aegypten. dans Voikerkirnde. Beitrdge zur Erkenntnis von Mcnsch und Kultur, ir, 1926, 85-90. Liox Kiox, Le ciril Ex-Libris. Conte de VEgypte ancienne, dans Bulletin de V z\ssociation beige des collection neurs et dessinateurs d’ Ex-Libris, ll, 1926, 21-3, e&t une ainusante fantaisio a propos de I’ex-libris d’Amtuiopliis IV {Journal, xii, 1926, 30-3,'. Archeologie. Prihistoire. L’ouvrage de J. de Morg.an, La Prehistoire orurntale, l, ost I'objet do plusieurs conipte- rendus : L. Capitax, dans Journal des Savants, 1926, 4-50-2; .1. Charpextier, dans Journ. of the Royal Asiatic Soc., 1926, 269-73, 358-62; G. Roder, dans LiterarUche Wochenschrift, 1926, 1131 ; A. VixcEXi', dans Revue des questions historiqucs, Liv, 11126, 148-5,5; Jou,rn. oj Hell. Studies, 1926, 141—2. Le deuxiemc volume intitule: EEgypte et V Afrique du Sord a paru, Paris, 1926, vi, 435 pp., 5 pi. et tigg. Quelques notes .sur Fhomme prehi.stc)rique ; Flixdek.s Petrie, Early man in Egypt, dans Oriens. The Oriental Revieic, Paris, l, 1926, 19 ; Report of the Proceeding.^ of Section H of the British Association, O.rford Meeting, dans Man, xxvi, 1926, 171-2; S. Reix.xch, HHornme prehis^orique en Egypte, dans Revue arche'ologique, xxiv, 1926, 269. E. 8, Thomas etudie comparativement les de.ssins de l Egypto, de la Libye et de FEspague primitive : A eompanson. of drawings from ancient Egypt, Libya and the South Sqjanish Caves, dans Journ. of the Royal Anthrop. Inst., lvi, 1926, 385-94, 7 fig. Le probleme du prehistorique du Fayouni a ete eclaire par les remarciuables etudes d’E. 4V. Gardner et G. Catox Thompson. The Recent Geotogif and XeoUthic Industry of the Xortherii Fayum Desert, dans Journ. of the Royal Anthrop. Inst., lvi, 1926, 301-23, pLs. xxxiv-xli, carte ; voir en suite : Flix’ders Petrie, Observations on "the recent geology and neolithic industry" The history of the Fayurn Lake, ibid., 325-6. P. Lovier Lapiehre signale diverses stations : Les gisements pale'olitkiques de la plaine de P Abhassieh, dans Bulletin de Vlnstitnt d’Egypte, VIII, 1926, 257-75, figg.; Stations pre'historiques des environs du Caire, dans Congr'es international de geoyraphie, Le Caire, iv, 1926, 298-308; Une Xoiirelle station ne'oUthique {El-Ornari) au nord d'Helov.an, ibid., 268-82. Les probities generaux du prehistorique et du passage a la periode historique sont etudies 2 >ar A. ScHARFF, dans Georg Moller, Die archaeologischen Ergehnisse des Vorgeschichtlichen Criiberfeldes von Ahusir el-Melecq, Leijizig, 1926. Citons encore ; C. Calice, Zur Vorgeschichte der agyptischen Kultur (en hougrois avec traduction alle- mande), dan.s Archaeologiai Ertesito, XL, 1923-6, Budapest. Musees: Berlin. Eru-erbungen vorn Marz und April Aegyptische Ahteilung, dans Berliner Miiscen XLVil, 1926, 73-4. BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT 173 British Musecji. H. B. IB all) ^ignule de receiites acquisitions dans The BritM Museinn Quarterly, l, iy26, 42-3, pi. xxiii et 65-6, pis. .xxxv-xxxvi. Caire. G. Roder doniie une noiivelle edition du Guide : Fnhrer dnrch das iluseiiui der afptisdaai AlUrtumer in Kairo, 1926. Darmstadt. Landesmusev m Darnistadt. Kanst- mid histurische Saniiiiluiajeii. Ver^eichniss den agyptl- sehen Sammhmg (1925). Hamburg, il. Sauerlaxdt, Benkhi uher die Xenerieerhungen des Ja/avs Jastus Bnneknia nn GeseUsehaft. Hamburg, 14-33 a\ec 11 tig. Leiden. llijlcs-Miiseinn cvn (Judheden. Egypt ische K mist en heschaiing i,is Rijks-Miiseuiii fun Ond/ieden. GUIs foof de cgyptiscke Afdeeting, Le Have, 1026. Le volume XII de la grande publication fl925) est I'objet d’un eompte-rendu par T. G. Allen, dans Amer. Jovrn. of Seniit. Lang., xlii, 1926, 69-72. W. D. VAX A\^yngaarden publie le volume xiii ; Lijkcazen en lijkcazenJeisteii, reproduisant et dccrivaut les canopes et les eoffres a cauope.-. Louvre. Ch. Bokeux, Aniiqn Ues egyptiennes, dans Bean.f ^1/2^, iv, 1926, 261-2, 3 tig. Mo.sc'ou. Musee de Moseun, i, no. 2, 1926, Moscou (cn rus.se), 8-10 et 3 ill.; acquisitions nouvelles de la section egypticnue. Nem’ York. il. Lambrixo, Eiuiehisseinents des niusees de Akw York et de Cleveland, dans Bean.f Arts, IV, 1926, 107 ; A. L.ansing, da Old Eingdom senibe, dans Ballefin of the Metropolitan Alaseum of Art, xxi, 1926, 38-43, 2 tig. ; A. M. Lyihgue, d Gift to the Egyptian Colleetion, ibid., 4 et 6, 2 tig. Philadelehia. The Eekley Brinton Co.ve Junior Egyptian Wing, dans The Maseuin Jotimal, Phila- delphia, XVII, 1926, 101-27 et 13 pi. Turin. G. di Casamichela, Eerst ceuwfeest van het Egyptisehe AIvsemn te Tnryn, dans Opga.ng, iv, 1926, 594-600, article sur le jubilii oentonaire du inu.see de Turin. Ventes de Colleetions. Plusieurs collections ont ete dispersees en 1926 chcz Sothoby : Catalogue of the Colleotions funned by the lute Lord Carmichael of Skirli/tg (8 juin et s.j ; Catalogue of the palaeolithic implenients, Egyptian, Greek, Cypriot and Roman antiquities. ..the property of John Bateman (21 juin); Catalogue of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Cypriot and Indian antiquities, etc., comprising Egyptian objects, collected by Airs John Garstang (22 juillet et s.t ; Catalogue of Egyptbin, Babylonian, Greek and Roman, antiquities formed by Baron A'ugent...noiv the prop>erty of Lord Vernon. (16 dccembre et .s.). Trois ventes a rHOtel Drount a Paris inbritent d’etre signalce.s, surtout la premiere ; Catalogue des antiquite's egyptiennes, grecques et romaiiies...procen.ant dn Ca.hiaet de curiosites de C. L. F. Fiyinekou.cke) (25 mars) ; Catalogue des antiquite's egy pto-pheniciennes, grecques et ilaliotes...proveu(.int de I'aueienne col- lection Knight dljuiigi; Catalogue des antiquite's egyptiennes, grecques ct rornaines (6 et 7 dccembre;. On trouvera des details sur le Cabinet Pauckoucke dans le Figaro illustre des 20 et 27 mai 1926, 506-7 et 522, 3 fig. Art. Rc'pondaiit an gout d’un public toujours plus nombreux, les ouvrages d’art egyptien se multiplieiit ; Ch. Boreux, EArt Egyptien, Paris, 1926. Compte-rendu.s de C'ostenau, dairs le Alerenre de France, 1926, 216-18 ; Ancient Egypt, 1926, 92. Jean Capart, EArt Egyptien. Etudes ct Llistoire, i, est analy.se par W. CV'olf, Deutsche Literatur- zeitung, 1926, col. 762-3. Le recueil Architecture du mcme par S. A. B. Mercer, dans Joara. Soc. Oriental Research, x, 1926, 216-17. L. CuRTics, Antike Kvnst, I. Aegypten und Vorderasien, e.st I’objet d'articles par TY. von Bissing, dans Berliner Phllol. fVockenschrift, XLVi, 1926, col. 56-66, et R. Mocterde, dans ALekrnges de 1' Unicersite' St Joseph, XI, 1926, 374-6. Le petit livre de Hermann Kees, Aegyptische Kunst, Breslau, 1926, est tres bien fait et plein de remarques fort justes. Par centre Henry ^Martin, EArt egyptien, VArt assyrien, I' Art perse (La Gram- maire des Styles), Paris, 1926, est sans valour reelle. Quelques tris belles planches d’art egyptien sont a sign,aler dans George Kowalczyk, Decorative Sculpture, with an introduction by A. Foster, Londres, 1926. Signalons la nouvelle edition (avoo un chapitre supplementaire) de Flinder.s Petrie, Les et ALe'tiers dans rancienne tlgypte, traduit par Je.yn Capart, Bruxelles, 1926. A. A. Qcibell, Egyptian History und Art, est I’objet dun compte-rendu par G. Roder, dans O.L.Z., XXIX, 1926, 254-5 ; H. Schafer et 4V. Axdhae, Die Kunst des alten Orients, par N. de Garis Davies, dans 0.Z.2'., xxix, 1926, 122-5 et par A. Schahff, dans Der Cicerone, iviii, 1926, 546 -7 ; Anton Springer, Die Kunst des Altertums (edit. 1923), par L. Glrtius, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 117-22 ; F. W. v. Bissing, 174 JEAN CAPAET Da Oo&t<:i'&’'he (Ji •oiullay der Kiuislycsc/iieJeius (1925), par Robert Heidenreich, dans Archiv far Orient- forschaiiff, III, 1926, 83-1; H. Schafer, (Jrundlagen dvr dyijptisalim Ituudhddaeru (1923), par H. “Wolff, dans O.L.Z., xxix, 1926, 31-4. Feknaxd VAX GoETHEil, Het Zinnebeeld in de Kunst ot De Symholen der Alytholugie in de egyptische A'u/i-st, Anvers, 1926 (autographie), ne sont guere que d’ingenieuses reveries. Art d’El-A/iiarna. James Baikie, The Amama Age. A Study of the crisis of the ancient world, LonJres, 1926, donne uno excellente idee d’enseuible du proBleme de Tart d’Anieaiophis IV dans son eadre liistorique. On lira avec iin vif interet Tetude spdciale de H. Schafer, Das Wesen der '■‘■Amarna- hunst,’’ dans Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Oesellschaft, no. 64, 1926, 56-61, pis. ii-v. ^ oir sur les etranges tetes de Karnak, une courte note de S. Reixach dans Revue archeologirjuc, xxiii, 1926, 129. G. Benedite, Sur tuie tite de princesse d'‘ Akhoiuiaten, dans ilonunients Riot, xxvii, 1926, 113-18, pi. xi, edite la rernarquable tete aequise par le Louvre. La petite piece en pate de verre publiee par le meme auteur {Rec. de I’Egypte Ancienne, l, 1925) ost appreciee dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 59. H. Schafer, Kopf einer Konigin uus Amarna, dans Hauptvxrke aus den Staatlichen Unseen za Berlin, Agypt. Abt., pi. 5, edite un des plus fins morceaux de la .serie. La statuette trouvee par PEgypt Exploration Society et attribueo an Museo do Brooklyn est publico par Th. Whittemore, ^1 Statuette of Akhenaten, dans Recueil d’etudes dediees ii la rnenioire de N. P. Kondakov, 1926, 259-62 et pi. xxix. Ce u’e&t pas sans plaisir que Pon etudie la publication do Clara Sieuexs et Geeihe Auer, KOnig Echnaton in El-Aniarna, 1926, 16 pi., dans laquelle les auteurs out cssayc de nous donner la vision de la capitale d’Amcnopliis R'. Touihe de Tovtaakhamon. Lc Musee du Caire edite unc Notice sommaire sur les ohjets provenant de la toinbe de Toutankhuinon actuellenient e.rposes an Muse'e dn Caire par Vaduiinistraiion du Mitse'e avec tra- duction anglaise : ^1 short description of the objects from the tomb of Tutankhamun now ewhibited in the Cairo Alvseam published by the Museum authorities. h’ R! ast rated London News, no. 4550 du 3 juillet et no. 4552 du 17 juillet, ot V Rlustration, de Paris, nos. du 6 fcH’i'ier et du 3 juillet, donnent des photographies des cercueils et des bijoux. Voir aussi IV 1\'olf, Zur Of mtng des Surges Tutancharnons, dans Rlastrierte Zeitung, no. 4226, 11 mars 1926, 319-21 et fig. Ch. BoREC.x, Les deconcertes recentes au iomheau de Toutankharnon, dans Beaux Arts, IV, 1926, 77-8; Tuatankhainoii {La decov.certe du tombeau de), Asms, Larousse mensuel illustie, no. 232, juin 1926, 157-8, 2 tig.; Rexe la Bruyere, Une Visits it Tout-ank-Amon, dans Rente des deu.c mondes, xcvi, 1926, 921-30, et TiU-a nch-Aiiioiis Grub, dans Archiv fitr Orientforsehung, III, 1926, 201 ; trois articles seulemont ; Pintcr6t pour la fameu.se decouvorte a subi un moment d’arret. Architecture. F. W. vox Bissixg, Zur Oeschichte der “roten N'ischen” in El Arnanxa, dans Archiv fur Orientforsehung, III, 1926, 174-6, oxpliquo les niches dites “ decoratives ” des maisons d’El Amarna, comme etant le lieu du culte domestique. (Voir me.s Le^'ons sur VArt Egyptien, p. 288.) La nouvelle edition de il. L. Gothein, Geschichte der Gartenkunst. I. Von Aegypten bis zur Rena.issance in Itcdien, Spanien und Portugal, Jena, 1926, contient une importante etude sur les jaixJins egyptiens. Nombreux compte-reudus : d’E. Baumgartel, Dolmen und Mastaba, par Th. Dombart, dans Hist. Jfjhrb., XLvi, 1926, 443 et s., par T. Eric Feet, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 321-2 ; de H. Bonnet, Zur Baageschichte des Mentuhoteptenxpels, et de N. de G. L).yvies, The Place of audience in the palace, par L. B. Elli.s, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 30; do G. Jequier, H Architecture et la decoration dans f Ancienne Egypte, par P. iiloxiET, dans Revue des Etudes aixeierxnes, xxviii, 1926, 59-61 ; id., Manuel d’archeologie egyp/tienne. Les elements de V Architecture, par P. Moxtet, ibid., xxxviii, 1926, 66-7, par A. Bacdhillart, dans Larousse mcnsuel, avril 1926, 90-1, par A. van Genxep, dans Mercure de France, 1926, 471-3. H. Lacoste, Une Zeyo/t du passe pour le temps present, dans E Emulation, Bruxelles, xlvi, 1926, 145-53, a\ ec 15 ill., est un compte-reudu par un arehitecte de J. Capart, Thebes. La Gloire d’un grand passe. Citous une etude de vulgarisation de M. Weebrocck, La Maison egyptienne, dans La Femme beige, no. 10, mai 1926, 739-45. Xou.s devons a E. A. Wallis Budge uu ouvrage d’ensemble sur la question des obelisques; Cleopatra’s Needles and other Egyptian Obelisks, Londre.s, 1926, xxiv, 308 pp., 17 pi. et 22 fig. Pyra nudes . L. Borc.o.ardt a public un important travail sur les dimensions reelles et I’orientation de la grande pyramide de Gizeh : Etngeii u. Richtungen der cier Gruxxdkanten der grossen Pyretmide hei Oise. 175 BIBLIOGRAPHY (1926): ANCIENT EGYPT Mit Bemerkiuigen iiber d. Besvcherinschriften an d. Pt/ramide r. E. ilittiKovh u. E. Sittiy, Berlin, 1926. Quelques remarques sur Tarticle de R. Exgelbach, On the Size and Orientation of the Great Pyramid, dans Ancie7it Egypt, 1926, 56. O. Gillaix, La Grande L'yramide (LEyypte, Bruxelles (Collection PEglantine, no. 12), e.st une petite brochure de vulgari.sation d’mie lecture trfes iiitere.s.saiitc. E. Boisacq, Brelan d’etynwlogier, dans Rente de V Unirersite de Brn.rGle.i, xxxii, 1926, 79-81, pivsente une etymologie du mot pyrumide. Quelques ouvrages a ajouter a la bibliographie dej,\ si copieuse de la “Religion de la Pyramide”; Ch. Laghaxge, La Ghronologie egyptienne de Mone'thon et »a concordance de fait orec to chronologic litterale du texts hebreu de la Bible (Extr-iit du tome lll des Lecone sur la Parole de Dieu), Bi-uxelles, 1926 ; “ Dis- CIPULUS,” The Great Pyramid: its construction, symbolism and chronology. With (t ft re word by D. Daridson, Londrcs, 1926; Edgar Mortox, The Great Pyramid: I'tlJf .i.u. and the Great Pyramid, i. Its scientific features, il. Its time features. III. Its spiritiud symbolism, Lo\\(hLe:S,\Wll). Tonibes. F. W. vox Biatil'SG, Bu-ei Graher eines Toten, Anns. Zeitschr. f. ay. Spr., LXil, 1926, 65, exprime le vueu de voir quelqu’un etudier cn detail le probl^me des “deux tombes'’ pour uii seul mort. Dans la sagesse d’Amenemope le sage est dit avoir une pyramide a Panopolis et uu hypogee eu Abydos. La belle edition de la Tombe des deux Sculpteurs a Thebes par Js. de O. Davies est louee par H. R. Hall, dans The Burlinyton Magazine, xlix, 1926, 249 et S. A. B. Mercer, dans Journ. Soc. Oriental Re- search, X, 1926, 215-16. L’ouvrage de (4. Leff.bvre .sur le tombeau de Petosiris est Fobjet de notes par P. Moxtet, dans Rente des Etudes ancienn.es, xxviii, 1926, 61-3 et Ch. Picard, Sculptures d'Egypte, dans Revue des Etudes greegues, 1926, 156-7. G. Rodkh deerit le mastaba trausporte de Gizah a Hildesheim ; Die Grahkarnmer des Chemka. im Pelizaens- Museum zu Hildesheim, dans Alt-HUdesheini, no. 7, nov. 1926, 55-66 et tig. Une couide note de H. T. signale La Vhambre se'pulcrale du. prinee Canjnjsouti au Muse'e de Vienne, dans I' Amour de V Art, Paris, 1926, 36, ill. H. F. Lutz, Lintel and Jamb of the Hypogemn of Sn-ndrn, dans Oriens, i, 2, 1926, 17-20, 6 iig., publie des fragments arrives au Musee de San Francisco de la colebre tombe de Seu-nedjem a Der el-Medinah. Dotvs Duxhaii, Two Royal Ladies of Meroe, e.st I’objet d’un compte-reiidu par E. B. dans The Bur- lington Magazine, XLViii, 1926, 161. Mb D. VAN Wyngaaedex publie et comiaeiite Een stele ran Horeniheh dan.s Oudheidkundige Mcde- deelingen uit ’s Rijksrnuseum can Oudheden te Leiden, vil, 1926, 1 fig. Mamies et cercueils. Le grand ouvrage d'E. .1. Smith et Mb R. Dawsox e.st aniioncc par S. A. B. Mercer dans Journ. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 104—). H. Schafer publie un cercueil peint du Musee de Berlin, contenant une momie de serpent saore : Das Schlangensa'rgehen no. Hit der Berliner agyptisdien Sammlung, dans Zeitsekr. f. ag. Bpr., i.xil, 1926, 39-42, 4 fig. On doit a A. M’iedemaxn I’eMition detaillee d un cercueil saite aveo coininentaires religicux lUissi precieux qu’abondants : Ein ligyptiseher Sarg der Saitenzeit im akademi-iehen Kunstmuseum zn Bonn, dans Bonner Jahrbiicher, 1926, 148-79, pis. iv et v, Quelques curiosites : Fragments de sarcophagi's e'gyptiens en carton peint et dore...provenaut de rancienne collection de M. Daninos Pacha, Hotel Drouot, vente du 7 m.ii 1926 ; Revue des ventes du moi.s d'avril : Momie thebaine, dans Figaro artistigiie, 2t m.ii 1926, 523 1; Ch. Leleux et M. Gouixeau, Qtie rerilc la radiographic dune momie, dans Je sais tout, Pari.s, no. 243, mat’s 1926, 32-6, no. 244, avril 1926, 93, figg. Ouchabtis. L. B. Ellis, dans Ancient Egypd, 1926, analyse F. E. Ges.s, Ushahti and sarcophagi in the Hermitage Museum ; P. Moxtet, dans Rente des Etudes anciennes, xxviii, 1926, 64-6, fait le compte-rendu de L. Speleers, Les Figurines funeraires. H. G.acthier, Mote sur le.s statuettes funeraires trouvees dans les tombes de Tehneh, dans Ann. Serv., xxvi, 1926, 41-3, apporte une intere-ssante contribution a IV'tude du nombre de statuettes deposees dan.s une meme tombe. Beliefs. G. de Viaxxa Kelsch croit etre le premier qui ait dticouvert la loi d’isocephalie dans les reliefs egyptiens: Applicaeoes praticas do canon Tiburtius na rectifi cacao de erros tradicaaiaes, dans Boletin do Instituio Brasileiro do Sciencias (Rio de Janiero), i (1925), no. 3; ii (1926), no.s. 2, 4, 5 ; iii (1927), no. 1, avec nombreuses figures. H. Schafer, The angebliche Entstehung der itgyptuehen Watidbilder mts Wa ndbehang, dans DenUche Literaturzeitung, iii, 1926, 1879-86, fig., rejette Fidee que les reliefs des tonibes seraient la copie de tapisseries. 176 JEAN CAPAET Ch. Boreux, Un bas-relief ail nom d’line princesse royale de la 1V‘ dyaastie, est resume dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, 59. Pierre Moxtet, Les Scenes de la. vie privee, est I'objet de plusieurs compte-rendus : de J. Cai'art, dans Recue beige de philulogie et d’histotre, v, 1926, 1050-2 ; de S. A. B. Merceh, dans Journ. Soc. Orient. Research, x, 1926, 105-6; de T. Eric Peet, dans Licerpoal Annals, xiil, 1926, 97. H. Schafer, Zicei Flachbildnisse : Bildnis des Besitzers ernes (Jrabes der Ryranuden Zeit. Bildais des Besitzers eines Grahes des Neuen Reiches, dans Ilan pticerke ans den Staatlichen Miiseen -M Berlin, Aegypt. Abt., pi. ii, publie deux beaux reliefs du Musee de Berlin. L. B. Eli.is, dans Ancient Egypt, 1926, .30, enregistre I'attributioii par W. .SriEOEt-EERCT du beau relief fuueraire de Berlin, a Pepeque d'Horemheb. IV. SriEGEEBEHG, daiis Afnnch/ier Jahrh. d. bildenden Kunst, X.E., iv, 1926, 126-S, attire I’attention ,sur un fragment de relief de Tnutankhainon a niettre en relations avec les .scenes peintes du co&ret fameux. II iiisi.ste sur le caractbre egyptien de ces representations oil certains ehercheiit trop faeileiiient une in- fluence L^rangere. F. IV. vox Bissixg, Ueber cine Gnibaiind ans Alemphis in der Glyptuthek Kniiajs Ludojigs, dans Alirnehner Jahrbnch der bildenden Kimst, X.F. I, 1926, 207-24, 4 fig., publie un reinaiquable fragnient du tombeau du clief des artistes du Koi, Anieneniin, an ilu.see de Munich, et un panueau du Kestner Museum de Hanuvre. II etudie longueiuont le theme de la deesse dan,-, I'arlire aupres duquel viennent s’alimenter les laorts et leurs anies. H, P. Blok, Vijf G rafreliefs vit het nkiwe Rijf, dans Bulletin can de Vereeniging tat becordering der dennis van deantieke beschacing, Le Haye, I, 1926, 17-2t), 3 tig., siguale cinq fragments du tombeau du chef do.s orfc\-re.s du temple de Sethi Pq Sai-m-peter. F. IV. vox Bissixg, Bas Verhaltnis des Ibi-Grabes in Theben zu deni Ibi-Grabe run Dvir el -Gebraici, dans Archil' fur Orientforschiuig, III, 1926, 53-5, montre que le decorateur de la tumbo tht'-baine d'epoque •■-aite n'a pas copie la lombe plus anciomie de Der el-Gebrawi, mars qu'il --'e.st servi san^ doute de.' meme.s cahiei's do modules. Ch. Dcoas, Bas Relief greco-egypticn, dan.s Revue de.s Etudes grccgues, 1926, 264, se refere ii Lefebvhe, dans Monuuients Riot, xxv, pi. xvii. C. C. v.xx Essex, Hellenistiscli Relief met I’roeessie coor Offer, dans Bulletin can de Vereeniging tot becordering der dennis van de antiede beschacing, l, 1026, 11-15, jiublie un relief ii representations egyptiennes de .style givco-italique. Peinture. Les relei’es executes par Mile Baud, au emirs de ses mission^ ii Thebe-,, out ete ex 2 )o,se.s avoc grand succes a Paris, a Bruxelles et ii Leydc: Marcelle Baud, Bueuments d'art egyptien. Dessins de tohibeaux thebains de la XVIIB it la XXVP dynastie. Miisee de.s Arts decuratifs, jauvier — fuvrier 1926. Voir CoxiEXAF, dans le Mercure de France, 15 mars 1920, 713-14 ; Beau.r Arts, no. 2, 23-4, fig. ; Bulletin de I' Art cineien et rnodeme, fevr. 1926, 49 ; Art et Decoration, fe\'r. 1926, Chronniuo, 1-2. Le Metroiiolitan Museum edite separeinent des iil.inohes ooloriees de.s toinbcs thelj.iiucs : Coloured reproductions of Egyptian Wa.ll paintings, 9 sujets diflerents. Sculpture. G. Ruder, Die Voryeschichtliche Plastld Aegypteus in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Bildung des aegyptischen Stils, dans Iped. Jahrbuch fur prahi.storische und ethnographisehe Kunst, 1926, 64-84, pis. 25-31, (itudie le.s dtflmts de la plastique en Egyjitc et cherche une fois de plus ii cTablir de.s raiqiorts entre le lu-ehistorique de Haute Egypte et Fart iiharaonique. Le livre de Mine iM. Wetxaxts-Rokday, Bes Statues ricantes. Bitrud'iction it I'e'tade des statues egyptiennes, cherche avant tout a reiioiidre a la que.stion ; Pourquni les Eg\-ptien.s faisaiout-ils des statues ? Comjite-reiidus dans Papi/ue biblioyraphicie, I, 1926, 263; S. Reixach, dans Revue areheologiqne, xxiv, 1926, 291; P. Schebasia, dan.s Anthropos, XXI, 1926, 1054-5; Bulletin de V Art aucien et moderne, nov. 1926, 304. H. Schafer imblie iflusieurs .scul[)ture.s d’animaux du Musee de Berlin : Rundbild eines liegenden Luirea aus deiii Beginn der geschichtlichen Zeit — Ztrei Tierdopfe: Loicendopf der Pyramidenzeit — Wolfsdopf dcs Xeiien Reiches, dans Hauptirerde aus den Staatlichen APaseen zu. Berlin. Aegiqit. Abt., jjI. 1 et 3 ; Fine Statue des Schnuiniridders aus der Zeit des Cheops, dans O.L.Z., X.XI.X, 723-7, j)!. ii et 6 fig. Dans L. Mexiuri, La Collezione Gualino, i, jjI. lii, est reproduit im groupe de famillo d’ancien empire. H. Gadthieh, Une Statuette aatirieure a la. XP dynastie, dans Aim. Serv., xxvi, 1926, 273-4, publie le texte grave sur la base de la statue d'uii Antef, aiipartenaut depuis plusieurs aimees k un marchand do Thebes. H. Fkaxkfort, a Alasterpiece of early middle Kingdom sculpture, dans Journal, xii, 1926, 143-4, 111. xxi, met en valeur le fin moreeau de sculpture decouvert en Abydos et conserve maintenant ii k Glyptothek de Copeuhague. 177 BIBLIOGHAPHY ( 1926 ): ANCIENT EGYPT A propos de I’arrivee au Louvre de .sculptures royales trouvees itedamud on lira : G. UiiNEDiTE, Encore Se'sostris III {Dehats du 3 janvier 1926), dans Rerve orcheolaijiij^uc, xxiii, 1926, 318-22 ; Coxtenau, dans le Mercure de France, 15 mars 1926, 714-15; Art and Archaeuhniy, xxir, 1926, 196. H. Schafer public une tete royale et une statue de Reine du Mu-^ee do Rerlin : Ein Knniitskopf dcs rnittleren Reiches — Standhild einer Konigin der SjjtiReit, dan.-, Haiiptn'erkn S''t(2un Notes and Records, viii, 1926, 243-5; W. F. Hume, The Contributions of Dr. Schweinfurth to the knowledge of Egyptian geology, dans Bulletin de la Sodete Royale de Gtographie dEgypte, xiv, 1926, 135-7 ; L. Kbiiier, Bibliographic des oucrages de G. Schweinfurth, ibid., 73-112; H. Munier, Notice biograpkique {lSoO-19-to), ibid., 65-72 et 2 portraits; A. Osborne, dans Bulletin de la Sode'te archeol. d’ Alexandrie, XXII, 1926, 240-4 ; S. ReinaCH, dans Revue Archeologique, xxill, 1926, 124. Reimpres.sion de G. Schweisfurth, Discours prononce uu Caire a la seance d’ inauguration, le .ijuin 1875, dans Bulletin de la Sodete Royale de Oeographie dEgypte, xiv, 1926, 113-27. Varia. Signalons les importants travaux de Mi.s.s S. W. Blackman sur Fethnograpliie de I’Egypte moderue ; The Karin and Karlneh, dans Journ. of the Royal Anthrop. Inst., LVI, 1926, 163-9, 1 fig. et pi. xiv ; A Lertihty rite in modern Egypt, dans Maji, xxvi, 1926, 113; Some social and religious Customs in Modern BIBLIOGKAPHY (1<)26): ANCIENT EGYPT 179 Eijiipt, with i^pecial references to survirals front Ancient Tunes, dans Bulletin de In Societe' Royale de Geo- graphic d’Egypte, xiv, 1926, 41-6, 4 pis. Deux conipte-rendiis d’A. Kennett, Bedouin Justice, ont etc ecrits par D. X., dans Sudan Xotes and Records, ix, 1926, 140-2 et Th. Arnold, dans Asiatic Review, XXII, 1926, 71. Voici de la litterature sur I'Egypte ancienne: Leon Barry, La Derniere Epoiisee d’Arnmon, Paris, 1926; A. E. Phillpots, Akhnato/i. A Play, Londres, 1926 ; (.1. de la Fouch.yrdiere, A la recherche d’un dien, Paris, 1926 ; L. Lamprey a eerit sous deux litres difi'A-eiits une jnlie liistnire d’enfants : Children of Ancient Egypt et Long Ago in Egypt, Bo.ston, 1926; E. Raivlixs, The hidden treasures of Egypt: a Roniance, Xew Fork, 1926. Une poesie sur un mastaba; M. T. Ritter, ^Vithin the 'niastaha of an Egyptian Princess, dans Art and Archaeology, xxil, 1926, 19.3. D’autre.s romans: C. W. LeaDBEAter, Glimpses of Masonic History et The Hidden Life in Freemasonry, Adyar, Madras, 1926 ; E. M. Stewart, Syinbo/isni of the Gods of Egypt and the light they throw on Free- masonry, Londres, 1926. A noter: J. Gattefosse et C. Roux, Bibliographie de V Aflantide 'et des questions comne.res, Paris, 1926. .J’ai releve aussi : H. F. Lutz, The. Analysis of the Egyptian Mind, d.-ins Oriens. The Oriental Review, I, 1926, 19-21 : L. Keimer, Die Angst der Aegypter ror der ^Ynste, dans Hamburger Fremdenhlatt, 6 jam’. 1926 ; A. H. Forster, Sidelights on the life of an Egyptian wording man in the days of Jesus of Xazaretk, dans Anglican Theol Reciew, 1926, 24-8. B. Michel, Le Folklore dans le Sihayat al Arab de Xowayri, encyclopedic arabe dv. XI V‘ si'ecle, recueille des legendes relatives a quelques anciens uiomiments, le.s pyr.imides ot les tcuiples dans Congris inter- national de Geographic, Le Cairo, 1925, iv, 1926, 239-42. Citons entin : Antiquitis et temips inodernes. A bord du Marictte pacha, daii.s Rcvoc de I’ Art, decembre 1926, 1-16. La dc.stinee de toute Bibliographic est d’etre enimyeuse, et il est a craindre memo qu’olle le .soit dans la proportion oil elle vise a Stre complete. Je crains que celle-ci parai.sse presque un modelc du genre*. Si eependant le travail qu’elle m’a route pent dispenser d’autres de faire des recherches fastidieuses et souvent inutiles, je n’aurai pas perdu mou temp.s. Me permettra-t-on en terminant d’attirer une fois encore 1 attention sur \», Fondation Egyptologique Reinc Elisabeth dont la Chronique d’Egypte est le Bulletin periodique (5 numeros ont parn) ? Nous nous eftbr^ons de reunir tout co qui se publie sur l’£gypte, depuis I’cpoque paleolithique jusqu’ii I’epoque arabe (celle-ci exeluo). Nous demandons instainment aux auteurs de nous envoyer toutes leurs publications, soit a titre d’hommage, soit centre paiement des la reception, En repondant u mon appel, ils aideront eu m&me temps a la redaction de la Bibliographie du Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. L’adresso de la Fondation Egyptologique est ; Musees Royaux du Ciiiquantenaire a Bruxelles. Jean Capart. * .Je tiens a marquer les services rendus a eette bibliogi’aphie par VOrientalistische Literaturzeitung, dont les depouillements de revues sont eminemment preeieux. Le travail de preparation sur fiehes est I’ceuvre de Mr. G. Bovy, biblioth^caire de la Fondation Egyptologique Eeine Elisabeth. 23—2 180 NOTES AND NEWS Although no excavation is being carried on this winter at Tell el-‘Amarnah, the work on the temple of Seti I at Abydos continues. Miss Calverley has proved an able draughts- woman, and her copies of the reliefs and inscriptions are regarded by those who have seen them as highly satisfactory. She has gone to Abydos in order to compare the copies made in this country with the original scenes, and also, with the help of Dr. Heathcote, to take further photographs which were found necessary to complete the series. Dr. Gardiner- visited the camp at Abydos early this year and reported most favourably upon the progress of this important undertaking. The Society is greatly indebted to Dr. Heathcote for devoting part of his vacation to the work. Lack of funds is seriously hampering the activities of the Society, and, unless sub- stantial donations are forthcoming, its publications, as well as its excavations, will have to be considerably curtailed. The lectures of the series announced in our last number have all been well attended, and our thanks are due to the Council of the Royal Society for the use of the Lecture- Room. One change was made in the list : Mr. Norman H. Baynes asked to be allowed to withdraw his lecture owing to considerable pressure of work, and Mr. Bell therefore kindly consented to lecture in his place on St. Athanasius ; he gave an exhaustive account of the life and influence of the saint, introducing several new facts concerning him recently discovered in a papyrus in the British Museum. Although it is impossible to publish these lectures in extenso, some of the more important of the newly discovered facts will be published from time to time in the form of short articles in the Journal. Thus points from the lectures given by Dr. Hall, Mr. Glanville and Dr. Frankfort are expected to appear in due course. The Society is concentrating on publications this year, since the interruption of the excavation work provides an opportunity for completing various tasks which have fallen into arrear. The Newton Memorial volume. The Mural Paintings of Tell el-'Amarnah, is in active preparation, and if the various contributors send in their manuscript as promised it ought to be ready by the autumn. Messrs. Emery Walker have already finished some of the magnificent coloured plates which will form an outstanding feature of the volume. A subscription list has been opened at the offlce, the cost before publica- tion being £3. 'ds. Od.; after publication it will be increased to £4. 4s. Od. The Cenotaph of Seti I (Osireion) will be a substantial and important addition to the series of excavation memoirs. Besides the treatment of the architectural features, and of the much discussed purpose of the building, it is mainly the preparation of the numerous and extensive texts which makes the pubhcation of this monument such a laborious task. Dr. Frankfort hopes, however, to have the work ready in manuscript before he leaves for Tell el-‘Amarnah next autumn, so that the volume should be in the hands of subscribers in 1929. NOTES AND NEWS 181 The results of the cemetery work at Abydos. carried out as a secondary task during the winter of 1925-26, are ready for publication in the Journal in two or three instalments. Dr. Frankfort is also working up the results of last season's work at El-‘Amarnah, but this will not be published until the remainder of the northern portion of the site has been excavated, so that it may appear as a whole. The final report on the North Palace will be included in this volume, which will, presumably, form the third part of the t'dy of Akhenaten, Professor Griffith’s work at El-’Ainarnah forming Part ii. Thus it will be seen that this vear promises to be productive, although no excavations are being carried on. The Graeco-Roman Branch has just issued Ox/jrh/jncJius Pap/jri XVII, an important volume and well up to the standard of this invaluable series. \ olume i of Mr. J. G. Tait's Ostraca, which includes all those of the Ptolemaic period in the Bodleian Library and several other collections, is now passing through the press. Volume ii will contain those of the Roman and Byzantine period and the indices. It is, however, expected that between the publication of these two volumes the Society will bring out a volume prepared by Mr. Johnson and Professor Hunt, containing the important Theocritus papyrus found by the former, and some smaller fragments. Egyptologists will learn with deep regret the death of Ernesto Schiaparelli, which took place, after a short illness, on February 14th. Schiaparelli, son of the historian Luigi, and cousin of the astronomer Giovanni, had been for many years past Director of the Egyptian Museum at Turin, and all those who have worked there will remember his kind and courteous manner, even during recent years when he was often visibly suffering. He was a pupil and follower of Maspero, to whose generation he belonged rather than to the vounger. His greatest contribution to his subject was his well-known Libro deifunerali. He was in charge of the Italian Expedition to Egypt of 1903-20 and worked at Kau, at Heliopolis and in the Valley of the Queens at Thebes, where he discovered the "untouched tomb of the engineer Kha the contents of which form the chief glory of the Turin Museum. During the last few years he had been engaged on the publication of these excavations, and two magnificent volumes had actually appeared, the second less than a year before his death. It is greatly to be hoped that the completion of the work from the notes and records which he has doubtless left behind will not be long delayed. Schiaparelli was not only an Egyptologist but a Senator of the National Parliament, a great lover of his country and advancer of her prestige, and, last but not least, one of the central figures in the Italian missionary world. As a colleague of his has well said: “Grande, dotto ed umile italiano. Questo fu lo Schiaparelli.” The new fount of hieroglyphic type devised by Dr. Alan Gardiner primarily for the printing of his Egyptian Grammar has already been referred to in these Notes. In order to facilitate its use Dr. Gardiner has now issued a catalogue of it imder the title Egyptian Hieroglyphic Printing Type. From matrices in the possession of Dr. Alan H. Gardiner. This book, printed and published by the Oxford University Press, is a very fine specimen of the printer’s art. The signs are arranged in five columns numbered from a to e according to size. These five sizes provide every size of sign which can possibly be needed in printing either in 18-point or in 12-point. In 18-point a is the full-sized sign, while c is used when the grouping demands a smaller form; an intermediate size useful 182 NOTES AND NEWS in certain combinations is provided by b. In 12-point c serves as the full size, e being the small size and d an intermediate. Not every sign is made in all five sizes, for there are many signs, mostly determinatives and word-signs, which are never grouped; these are made only in sizes a and c. A short Introduction explains the genesis of the fount and gives some most valuable hints as to its proper use, with which both authors and compositors ought to make themselves thoroughly acquainted. It is the duty of all who use the fount to use it in a manner worthy of the vast amount of thought and labour which Dr. Gardiner himself and his collaborators have devoted to its production. Supplements to the Catalogue will be published from time to time to cover the additions which it is intended to make to the fount. The volume of Essays iv Aegaean Archaeology presented to Sir Arthur Evans in honour of his 75th birthday contains three articles closely relating to Egypt. Keftin. and A prcdynustic Egyptian Double-axe by H. E. Hall, and The Egyptian Writing-board B.M. 5647, bearing Kcftiu mimes by T. E. Peet. In his article on Keftiu, Dr. Hall, while not denying ‘'the possibility of the existence of 'Syro-Keftians in Cilicia, which may have been included in the term Keftiu (=Kaphtor),” maintains that '’it is surely just as possible that all these Keftian representations of the fifteenth century b.c.,.. .are, whether good or bad, pictures of iCnoan Cretans and not of hypothetical Cilician semi-Minoans, and that Keftiu means then, and had for a thousand years meant, primarily Crete.” With regard to the curious phrase rendered tentatively “wine for merrymaking,” on the Keftiu writing-board, the recently published Relazione sui lavori della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egitto, 1903-20, volume ii, by the late Professor Schiaparelli, records on p. 153 the finding of a large wine jar bearing in hieratic the following inscription: - I ^ I n I ' £1/ The determinative of fire here as against that of the sun on the writing-board is puzzling and certainly tells against the proposal to read hi as an incorrect writing of hriv, “day.” Possibly other occurrences of this phrase are known. The colleague who suggested taking the words in their literal sense, “wine which goes down nicely,” and regarding the fire determinative as indicative of the warmth thereby generated was perhaps not wholly flippant. Instead of ©, however, we might of course read ©, and interpret hi nfr as the name of a vineyard or town, though in this case it is not easy to explain the (]_ of the Turin example. Dr. Gardiner has pointed out that the partially erased text on the recto of the tablet is a version of Pap. Petrograd 1116 B, recto 9-12 (see Journal, i, 106). jVIr. Eobert Mond’s publication of the Theban tomb of Eamose, to which we referred in our last Notes and News, is now in active preparation. It has not been possible for Mr. Emery to work this winter in the tomb itself, for the Service des Antiquites is engaged in constructing a roof to protect the new portions of the tomb recently cleared by Mr. Mond. In consultation with Mr. de Garis Davies, however, a system of publication has been worked out which involves the principle of drawing over photographs, after the manner of the American work at Medinat Habu, rather than tracing direct from the NOTES AND NEWS 183 original walls. The difficulty of the method lies in the fact that, when a wall is so large that it must be photographed in several sections on separate plates, the prints are never found to fit perfectly at the edges, however careful the precautions taken to secure accurate registering and parallelism. Mr. Emery has been experimenting with a very ingenious device designed to overcome this difficulty. Instead of drawing in Indian ink on the actual photographic print, he makes a lantern slide, projects it on to a sheet of drawing paper pinned to the wall, and draws in pencil over the projected image. The advantage of this system is that any distortion in the negative can be rectified by placing the lantern slightly out of parallel with the sheet of paper. The drawings can, moreover, be made on whatever scale is desired, and there can be no doubt that even the most skilled draughtsman can produce a better result by drawing on a large scale and sub- sequently reducing than by drawing over a print at the actual size required. The results certainly form an admirable testimony to the efficiency of the method. They will of course be corrected in front of the original walls before being passed for press. Professor Kurt Sethe has published a second and improved edition of his Sigyptinche Lesestilche (Hinrichs, Leipzig) which originally appeared in 1924. All those who are engaged in the teaching of Egyptian will be glad that a new supply of this most useful book should be available. The texts which it contains are all of the Middle Kino'dom. and it is to be 'hoped that Professor Sethe will shortly make time to give us a series of New Kingdom texts equally well chosen. If he does, might we tentatively suggest that none but complete texts should be included. M^e realize that the appalling difficulties of parts of such Middle Kingdom texts as Prisse and The Peasant makes it inadvisable to insert them complete in a book mainly intended for learners. In the case of New Kingdom texts, which as a whole are less difficult, there is not the same excuse for omissions, and if one could rely on finding every text in its entirety the book would form a most invaluable place of rapid reference and would supjdy what is at present one of our most urgent needs. In this number appear two old friends in new dresses, the Bibliography of Ancient Egypt and the Bibliography of Graeco-Roman Egypt. The first is the work of Professor Jean Capart, who among his other qualities possesses that of a bibliographer of the first order. His work has been printed in the language in which he wrote it. The labour of not merely translating it but of giving it the somewhat different turn which it would require in English would be so immense that it ought to be undertaken only if it could be regarded as absolutely necessary. Since all those likely to make use of a bibliography of this kind obviously possess the necessary knowledge of French, the labour involved in the change could not possibly be justified. The Bibliography therefore appears in French, in which language we are convinced that it will prove not a whit less useful than in English. The Bibliography of Graeco-Roman Egypt, so long furnished by Mr. H. I. Bell unaided, comes this year from the hands of several contributors, all of whom we thank for their collaboration in a dull but very important task. Mr. Bell is kindly acting as editor of the whole. The Society’s library has received a copy of Harmsworth's Universal History, edited by J. A. Hammerton, in the illustration of which a certain number of the Society's photographs and colour drawings have been used. The names of the contributors to this work form a very remarkable list of scholars, and one may hope that the fact that 184 NOTES AND NEWS such men can be gathered as contributors to a popular work of this kind indicates not merely great initiative on the part of the editor but also a real desire on the part of the public to draw its knowledge from the best sources. The sales of the History might throw an interesting light on this. Immense pains have clearly been taken to produce a really scientific publication and its value is much increased by the almost extravagant scale of its illustration. Since the above Notes were first set up we have had to deplore the deaths of two Egyptologists, Mr. A. C. Mace and Mr. A. G. K. Hayter. We hope to print in our next number some record of the life and work of both. Dr. Hall sends the following note: In connexion with Mr. Winlock’s publication in the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, of the new Hatshepsut statues found by him, the colossal limestone portrait of the queen {op. cit. fig. 47), is of great interest, since, so far as can be judged from the photograph, it seems to bear out the contention of Dr. Howard Carter and Mr. Newberry that the Tuthmosid head in the British Museum (No. 986), published in the Journal, xiii, 133, is a portrait of Hatshepsut rather than Tuthmosis III. The likeness seems great. Dr. Hall writes: The stone of the British Museum head No. 986 was wrongly given in Journal, xiii, 134, as ‘'green basalt.’' It is in reality that characteristic Egyptian green ‘"slate,” a stone that has often been mistaken for basalt, and is actually. Sir Flinders Petrie thinks, of volcanic origin. He calls it ‘"a metamorphic volcanic mud, much like slate in composition but not in fracture” {Scarabs and Cylinders, p. 8). He names it “durite”; but as it was so often used to make heart-scarabs (a green stone being prescribed for this purpose), the name “kheprite” has been suggested for it [Journal, v, 75). Mr. P. E. Newberry sends us the following: The death occurred at Luxor on April 6th of Mohammed Bey Mohassib, the veteran dealer in antiquities who was known to, and esteemed by, all Egyptologists. During the summers that I lived at Luxor (1895 and 1896) he was very often my guest, and he then told me much about his early career. Born in 1843, he started life as a donkey-boy, and among others whom he served in that capacity was Lady Duff Gordon, who taught him English. He then became an itinerant dealer in antiquities and it was the inadequately supervised excavations at Thebes and elsewhere that laid the foundations of his success as a merchant. In the early eighties of last century he opened his shop at Luxor, and through his hands have passed many of the most important Egyptian monuments that now enrich the museums of Europe and America. He was a man of fine character, generous, and beloved by all who knew him, especially by the poor of his native village. The Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, to which Egyptology already owes much and of which it hopes still more, has made a generous offer to the Society. The whole of the profits on sales in this country of the English translations of Professor Capart and Mile Werbrouck’s Thebes. The Glory of a Great Past, and of the “album” for children based on it (published by Allen and Unwin) are to be presented to the Society for its excavations at Tell el-‘Amarnah. It is hoped that readers of the Journal will do what they can to encourage the sale of these two books, for they will by this means be doing a service to the Society. A notice of Thebes will be found on p. 202 of this number. 185 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS \_Ei'ery effort is made to secure a rerteu\ or at least a notice, of erery serious u-ork sent fo us, so long as it lies within the scope of our Journal. The Editor cannot, howerer, yuarantee that any hook will be reviewed, for many of those who alone are capable of doing this work properly are already orrrburJened with it. .I book which is dejinitely unsuitajjle for review m our pages is returned to the publisher.^ Greek Papyri in the Library of Cornell Unirersity. By W. L. Westermanx and C. J. Kraemeb, Jr. 1926. x-\ + 287 pp. 810. One of the recent developments of Papyrology is the formation of considerable eollection.s of papyri at various centres in the United States. Prom time to time ,i few .specimens from these .icquisitions have appeared in periodicals, but no attempt had hitherto been made to edit them in bulk. Cornell now leads the way with a .substantial volume, which is assured of a hearty welcome. It compn.ses bb text-s, of which only one, a small fr.igment relating to mythology and perhaps a .school exerci.se, has any literary- preten- sion. Five are of the Ptolemaic period, two, if not three, of these l ielonging to the great Zenon .irehive ; the remainder are miscellaneous documents of the Roman age, mo.stly from the Arsiiioite nome. A.s might be expected, they conform generally to types more or less familiar ; but though none are of great imiiortance and one or two of the more attractive have been previously published, points of interest are by no means lacking. Thus Xos. 19-20 are useful additions to the extant land-returns of the IJiocletiau period, and Xo. 24, a list of absconding defaulters from whom poll-tax and dyke-t,ix were due, incidentally disposes of the view that Roman Egypt supplies any analogy to the modern poor-rate. On the other hand, certain pieces are included which have but slender claim.s, e.specially when economy, as one learns witli some sur- prise from the preface, had to be considered. Owing to that necessity the volume was produced by the singular process of photographing type-written pages. The outcome is anything but soothing to the eye, and it is much to be hoped that this experiment, which moreover has not resulted in a low price, will -not be repeated. Its one advantage from the reader’.s point of view is that it porhap.s tends to multiply facsimiles, which however, if of no .special palaeographical interest, are less desirable than legible print. Economy might have been better studied by means of .some compression of the commentary and traiisln- tions, as well as of sundry omissions. With texts of greater importance awaiting publication, the exjiendi- ture of valuable time and space upon items like Xos. 27-8, 32, 02, 54 appears regrettable. Successful decipherment is largely a matter of practice, and a rapid perception of what can or cannot be right is the product of ample experience. That the texts here presented should .idmit of improvement is therefore no more than natural. A number of corrections have been made by (I. Vitelli ,ind M. Xorsa in Studi italiani di Fil. Class, v. i, and may still be added to. For instance, in No. 11 the unread adjective in the middle of 1. 9 looks like appivys. In 17. 28, 30, 32 a is probably (wpiirepov), not the numeral, and 1. 32 should accordingly run rjais tovtihv aSehepdis, (irporepor) 7-o0 w{aTpus) ( !) alrmv ; ill 1. 34 ]y is not dire- paiTTjdei'js but a remnant of a personal name, plrpco ktX. in 44. 8 is a statement of the particular measure used in the transaction concerned ; wpocrpffpuvpcva) is therefore certainly wrong, and nWys is more likely to conceal a personal name than to be connected with ryXis ; KaptVij in 1. 2 is of course for Xapiry. In 4,0. 9 the reading adopted is, as oli.served by Vitelli, unsatisfactory ; perhaps iwep t5>]v xporaw rdv uwo would fit. Should TiTpaeppl^di) in 33. 6 be rerpadlpppra) ' Inconsistencies between text and commentary are occasionally observable. At 17. 17, for example, where K{v)ripia, i.'s read, a note .states that the first letter may be (3, but in that case the k should have been marked in the text as uncertain : no doubt the word is really j3yp{aTt), as in e.g. B.G.U. 667. 20. If, as rightly pointed out in the commentary, [..]giaKa 7 -ta in 29. 2 is evidently [o-aj/dacuna, why not make that restoration m the text and eliminate the note ? The editors do not seem always happy in their selection of points for comment, e.g. in No. 39 two lines are devoted to the everyday spellings cnrovblov and Karaytto, whereas in 26. .3 a (^cXa/oViys (not -arrys in papyri) of the second century a.d., and the form a-noXiKov in 29. 1, pass without comment; or one would be glad to know how the abbreviation resolved as (airov) in 17. 25, &c., is written. Indices are commendably full, following closely the lines of E.E.S. publications. Whether the insertion of date with all proper names was worth while is open to question. idpocpvXa^ is out of place among military terms. Joum. of Egypt. Arcli. XI v. Arthur S. Huxt. 24 186 NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS Les Papyrus Bouriant. By Paul Coixart. Paris, 1926. 254 pp. 160 fr. Tlie Bouriant papyri are a small collection formed by U. Bouriant while director of the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology at Cairo. Excerpts from one of them, a school exercise-book containing verses of Menander, &o., were printed as long ago as 1898, and the texts of a few others have apjieared since then at intervals, but they are only now published collectively in a .systematic and handsomely produced volume. A few are literary. Of the novelties in this category the most valuable is Xo. 8, fragments from ,i treatise on dialects, with quotations from Sappho and Alcaeus fcf. Lobel’s edition of the latter, p. 75). Col. iv is fairly consecutive but not yet fully intelligible ; a fecsimile of it might with advantage have been included in the four excellent collotype plates. Restoration would also have been assi.sted by an approximate indication of the number of letters lost in the lacunae. No. 3, which consists of several columns from a Christian homily, gains considerably in interest through Wilcken’s recognition of it {Archil- VIII 304} as belonging to a codex from Achmim of which further portions are preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale ; a piece of that MS. copied by Wilcken in 1887 follows immediately on Col. ii of the Bouriant papyrus. The two sets of fragments should now be brought together and studied afresh. Homiletic literature is further represented in Xo. 4, part of a 6th-century leaf in which the names of Paul and Theda occur among others. Of a small group of Ptolemaic documents, three letters from Pathyris of the year 88 b.c. had been previously published ; X'o. 9, as pointed out by Wilcken, ?.c., contains signatures to a will. Xos. 13-63 are miscellaneous documents of the Roman period, some very fragmentary (of 43-63 descriptions only are printed), but several of much interest. The mo.st imposing is 42, a long roll inscribed on both sides with a survey-list drawn nj) by the comogramrnateus of an Arsinoite village m the year 167. Xumerous specimens of similar documents are to be found in other collections, but lack the comprehen.sive- ness of these 29 oolumn.s, which afford an insight into the local tenure and cultivation of laud in the middle of the second century a.d. comparable with that given by the Tebtuuis papyri three centuries earlier. The information to be derived from this important text has been skilfully drawn out in M. Collarfs elaborate commentary. The MaK( ) ovaia mentioned in 1. 82 and elsewhere is no doubt the domain of Maecenas, which is known to have been situated in the district under considei’ation ; for the dropjiing of the first iota cf. P. Ryland.s 207 introd. Several unsolved difficulties are presented by the two (.niening columns of the ver.so. In 11. 423 and 439 pu followed by a suspended tt must be pviT{apoi), not 7rvp(o)i, and pov in 11. 422 and 424 .should repre.sent .some similar epithet. v(l)o(v) in 1. 435 &o. is unconvincing : can it be To(C) ? Another welcome acquisition is 13, which .seems to be the first example of an agreement of partnership in the exploitation of a monopoly. Unfortunately it is in a poor state of preservation ; perhaps .some of the lacunae may yet be healed by further study. In 15, a series of abstracts of contracts, 11. 44 f. refer to a contract of marriage, and should run rar fie Siacpopas airois yfva{pivys) {)(vTm ?) ott’ aWriXav, (iTroBoira) avTrj Trjv (jxpvtjv {cf.e.g. C. P.R. 27. 16) ; 1. 104 is presumably 7re[pi -tv(Ttpa;([t]fia. In 16, an analogous document, a few emendations are sugge.sted by the accompanying partial facsimile : 1. 10 prjTpLKQV yaka (but the preceding verb is not clear), 13 7rp€O']/3(vr€p0a) avrov dfieX((^oC)...ra)r 7rpor(epor) fivj3\{ios) before rTea~rjp{(loipai) in 1. 18. Xos. 23 and 25 are well preserved private lettens, the latter, in which a daughter announces her mother’s death, written from (Syrian ?) Apameia ; fie&' [ejaur^y in 1. 9=p€7-’ epaur^y and belongs to the protasis. In 23. 13 fVilcken seems right in querying the name Tda-pr; : perhaps ru (Ta)poiVa el pfj kt\. shoidd be read. A rather lengthy list of misprints is given on pp. 253-4, but i.s neither exhaustive nor itself quite irreproachable. Arthur S. Huxt. Ber heutige Stand der roniiicken Rechtswissenschaft. By Professor Leopold Wexger. Munich, 1927. viii-f 113 pp. This work is an expanded lecture, in which the free expression of personal points of view naturally predp. 102 ff.). F. DE ZUI.UET.V. Thu TohJi of Hut/, Viceroy or JVvhia in the reign of TvJC anhharnua. {No. 40.) {The Thehna Tombs Series.) By XiXA DE Garis Davies and Alan H. G.vrdinf.r. Publi.shed under the auspices of the Egypt Exploration Society, London, 1926. Egyptology will very shortly be faced with a problem in regard to the private tomb.s of Thebes. If they are all to be published in full their literature will form a wood which cannot be seen for the trees. The time is probably ripe now for the appointment of some kind of commission to decide which tombs are worth copying and piublishing in full, which are worth copying in jiart, and which are not worth copying at all. Such a commission might even make recommendations for the apiportionment of the work worth doing between the various .societies, institutions and pirivate individuals intcre.sted in this particular class of pniblication. In the meanwhile we welcome the fourth volume of the Thehnn Tombs Series, piartly because it deals with a tomb almost all of whose contents deserve pmblication, partly because it is the jiroduct of that combination which alone is competent to do such work, namely, a first-rate draughtsman w'orking with a first-rate pihilologist. The story of the deterioration of the puivatc tombs during the 19th century is a sad one, but the authors have done their best to repiair the lo.ss by making full use of such early documents as the Hay and AVilkinson MSS., the note-books of Xestor I'Hutc and Weidenbach'.s origin.rl drawings for Lepi.sius’ BenTcnidler. The tomb itself has a spiecial interest, for it is not only the most con.siderable and most tangible monument of the reign of Tutc ankhamun, but it also gives us some information, pierhaps little more than corroborative of what we already had, about the administration of Nubia under the Now Empire. What is more, it is a particularly fine specimen of Egypitian decor.itive art, the two tribute- ■scene.s, that of the Asiatics and that of the Southerners, being admirable e.\amp>les of the Egyptian artist's ability to seize and render faithfully the national characteristics of surrounding nations. The Asiatic scene is also interesting historically. If we may believe Akhenaten, Syrian tribute was .still being received in his twelfth year, and here in the tomb of Huy TutGrnkhamun make.s a similar claim, which we cannot lightly dismis.s, though the tribute be piresented .strangely enough by a viceroy of Nubia, whose onlv title to pirc.side over this ceremony is the veiy indefinite one of “king’s env'oy to every land.” Professor Gardiner, who is responsible for the te.vt, has earned out hi.s task in the scholarly wav ivhich we have learned to expieot from him. Ho has revealed himself in the.se volumes not only as an admirable translator and commentator of difficult and defective texts, but also as an acute and painstaking interpn-eter of the scenes which the texts accompany. Particularly striking is his explanation of the pjosition occupiied by the various scenes and by the x’arious piai-ts of the .same scene. On pi. 29 there occurs what we now know to be an overstatement, and if wc draw attention to it here it i.s only as an interesting example of how the best may err when relying on negative evidence. It i.s .stated that in PI. XIX a certain Huv is seen holding a gold pector.il “the size of which has been ludicrously exaggerated.’’ When these words were written they were true within the limits of our cxpierience. Since then, however, the tomb of TutCankhamfin has piroduced a golil pectoral — not the hapipiiest exampile of the Egypitian designer's art — more than twelve inches in breadth, that is at least three times the size of any pirex'iously known to us. Consequentlv Huy’s artist was guilty of no exaggeration. 24 2 188 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS As for the drawing of the scenes, the name of Mrs. Davies is in itself a guarantee that they are of superlative merit. There are five excellent coloured plates, of which the finest is PI. XXVIII, “ The Homage of the Nubian Princes. '' IVe are inclined to think that this is the best piece of colour reproduction from an Egyptian tomb which has yet appeared. Both Mrs. Davies herself and the makers of the plate are to be congratulated on the result. One suggestion in conclusion. Among plates nearly all of which are double it is difficult to turn quickly to any particular plate desired, because the alternate blank pages give one no clue as to one’s whereabouts. Thi.s difficulty could be very simply avoided by printing the number of each plate not only on the front but on the back, in such a way that it appeared at the top right-hand corner of the blank page preceding the plate. We believe that this is not at all a costly operation, and we know by experience that it makes reference to isolated plates five or six times as rapid. T. Ekic Peet. Ancient Egyptian Matcrio.ls. By A. Lucas. London : Edward Arnold and Co., IhSfi. Ancient Egyptboi Mchillvrgy. By H. G.vrlaxd and C. 0. Baxnister. London: Charles Griffin and (V, 19i7. I’hese two books are both written by specialists in exact sciences who have had exceptional opportunities of studying their re.spoctive subjects in relation to Egyptology. Consequently they both have a great deal of invaluable information to offer the Egyptologist of a kind which is normally beyond his reach. Archaeologi.'ts are realising more and more the nece.s.sity of calling in outside .specialists, and no two experts could in their own line.s be better oho.sen than Mr. Lucas and the late Major Garland. But both the books under review are marred by an underlying attitude to the reader which is thoroughly unscientific. It seems that Mr. Lucas is so impressed with the inexactness of archaeology that he feels that he can talk down to us ; that he can in short lapse from the exact standards of his own science to the loose ones of ours. Only on such a .supposition can we explain the extraordinary ineft’ectiiality of his references throughout this book. Although there are references on about three-quarters of the pages of the text, frequently to several auth(.>rs and their works, in no single case, so far as I am able to discover, is the page indicated; and thi.s in sjiite of the fact that the majority of the references are to isolated objects which in many oases one could not possibly expect to find in the index of the volume cited. On p. 142 there is a reference to an article by Noel Heaton in the Papers of the Society of Mural Decorators and Painters in Tempera. Not only is the title of the article omitted, but there is no mention of the fact that this article occurs in the soeoiid of the two volumes published — at some interval between one another. The liearl of this collection of almost usele.ss references occurs, appropriately enough, on a page headed “shells” (213). The passage re.ids : “A few objects of tortoi.se.shell.. .among which may be mentioned... a .soundboard for a small harp,” to which is appended a note of three words : “ British Museum Guide ” ! Which guide ? The principle underlying this grave fault has a deeper significance and has led to a vital misconception of the proper treatment of the subject. Mr. Lucas i.s entirely justified in accusing Egyptologists of repeating initial mistakes made in the past “without inquiry or verification” until, from constant repetition they have become accepted without que.stion (pp. iv and v) ; and we cannot be too grateful for the many in.stance.s in which he has pointed out the.se errors and corrected them, both in journals and in the present volume. But this does not mean that he may ignore the work of archaeologists, as he confesses that he does (pp. iii, iv), in the matter of translations from the ancient records. If authorities differ in their translations, then at least he should consider the merits of the various sides in the light of his own investigations. Nor is it clear why “the ancient records” can “at best only have been second-hand originally " (p. iv), unless he is referring to classical writers solely ; in which case his neglect of the actual Egyptian record is the more downright. Nor, again, has he the right, when dealing with precious stones, to say that although some of the names have been translated, the possibility of mistranslation excuses the author fi-om taking any notice of this sort of information (p. 157). If in a matter which must clearly contain some element of conjecture no attempt is made to harmonise or sift divergent opinions, how can archaeologists be expected to pay due respect to the author when he impugns a fellow-chemist. Dr. Reutter, on account of such a materialistic investigation as the analysis of resins (pp. 118-19) ? In short it is usele.ss for Egyptologists to call in scientific experts or for these experts to preach to Egyptologists, unless the two are prepared to work together— the more literally so the better. And the NOTICES OF REGENT PUBLICATIONS 189 chief objection to Mr. Lucas’ book is that, because he has refii.sed to take the archaeologist into his confidence he has failed to do ju.stice to many of the subjects which he discusses. Xot only is the scientific value of what he has to say frequently invalidated by the incomplete nature of his references, but the book itself is far too small for the scope envisaged by him. Our chief hope is that the present volume is a sketch for a much bigger book — prefer.tbly to be written in collaboration with an Egyptologist — which is to follow. UnforLinately this is not likely to happen, as in sj)ite of its faults. Ancient Egyptian Materials is itself too useful to be neglected by any Egyptologist, and will thus le.sscn the demand for a better book. Mr. Lucas’ frequent correction of traditional errors has been noted above. In .some cases these have already been dealt with by him elsewhere — e.g., the nature of Egyptian iilaster: of the stone used for the Great Pyramid; of materials used in iiuimmitication with special reference to the absence of bitumen. His remarks on the distinctions in stones i^the nomcncl.iture of which would appear to hold a dift'ereiit “ble.sscd word ” for every archaeologist) arc very .salutary, though clearly the be.st description will not enable the layman to acquire proficiency in identifying different kinds without considerable practical experience of the stones. Mr. Lucas shows frequeiith" that objects and materials which have regularly been called foreign by archaeologists, are almost certainly home products, or at least that there is no reason to look outside Egypt for their origin. An important example in the latter connection is the “fat” in the wavy- handled jars of Xakadah, with obviousl}- far-reaching pos.sibilitics. His statements as to the possibility of hardening copper by boating alone, and his definite assertion 'in complete agreement with Garland) that there wa.s no secret process of hardening the metal Ijoyond the hammered stage, must be taken as final. On the other hand his view qi. 21o,i that coiipcr was first produced in Egypt is based on the misinformed statement that “in every other country copper appears at a later date.” Putting aside archaeological arguments for the origin of copper working outside Egypt, which at least demand a more careful ex.iuiination of the subject than Mr. Lucas has given it, the quotation above can liardly stand against the evidence from the first civilisation at Susa. Presumably Mr. Lucas himself will be le.s.s certain of his opinion after .seeing the amazing wealth of copper tools from the earliest graves (certainly before 3000 b.c.) excavated last sea.son by Mr. AVoolley at Ur. Clearly those graves represent a civilisation which presupjxises a very considerable antecedent period of apprenticeship in copper- working, besides showing in their own copper contents a great superiority of technique over the contemporary cojiper remains from Egypt’, Similarly, through his neglect of Mesopotaniian evidence the author has been led to make a much too definite attribution of the invention of glaze (with le.ss definitely — as a rider — the origin of glass) to Egypt. Even were the lump of blue glass of about 240(’ ii.c found by Dr. Hall at Abu Shalirain and now in the British Museum the only ei’ideiice for early glass work in Mesopotamia it could not be so easily dismissed as is implied by ilr. Lucas’ assertion. A few smaller points are worth noting. P. 21, the implication that the Egyptians did not knov: of lime- burning till the Eomans brought it from Europe is probably misleading, since the Cretans were burning Ume for their frescoes at Knossos at the period of greatest contact between Crete and Egypt. Indeed there is the evidence of the painted pavements from Amenophis Ill’s palace at Medinat Habu and from those of Akhenaten at Tell el-‘Amarnah, to show that the Egyptians had to .some extent acquired the ’ Since this review was written Mr. Lucas ha- published {■fminnil, xiii, 162 if.) a somewhat longer plea for the discovery of copper in Ancient Egypt, but he does not there give us any reason to modify our criticism. It is not generally denied that copper-working existed in Egyptian territory during the Middle and Old Kingdoms and even earlier, but it is regrettable that Mr. Lucas should dispute the opinions of such a well-known expert on copper- mining as Mr. T. A. Eickard in order to prove ins view tliat Egypt supplied all her own copper up to the Twelfth Dynasty. Mr. Lucas dissociates himself fronr the “ diffusionist ” theory of a “single centre for the knowledge of copper.” It is not clear, however, that he is not prepared to demand just such a primary position tor Egypt, for his statement " but all stages of evolution from the simplest [copper] objects to the more complex have been found in proper sequence, and unless it can be clearly proved that copper was known outside Egypt at a period anterior to its use in Egypt, which has not yet been done, it is only reasonable to credit the Egyptians witli the discoverv ” certainly implies that, icere there proof that copper was known outside Egypt at a period anterior to its use in Egypt, we should have to conclude that the Egyptians (in spite of their sequence of copper objects) did acquire copper-working from outside. This seems to bring us back to the “diffusionist” theory. Whether that is a ri^ht view in this particular instance is perhaps a matter of opinion, but the most recent copper finds from Mesopotamia are matters of very bulky fact. For some persons they may not preclude the possibility of an independent discovery of copper by the Egyptians (though certainly precluding the discovery of copper by them) ; but if we are to take Mr. Lucas at his word, he at least will now have to admit that Egypt boiTowed the art of copper-working from abroad. 190 NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS technique of true fresco at this time — clearly from Crete. P. 50, not all red glass, at all events during the Eighteenth Dynasty, is of the cuprous oxide type which show.s green breaks when corroded. P. 90, the red discoloration of gold was not always, a,s is here implied, accidental owing to impurities in the metal, though doubtles.s this was the origin of the discovery of the mean.s to produce this red tint. Ulr. Harold Ridge and later Ur. Alexander Scott have pointed out that the colour of the red sequins in a robe of Tut<'ankhaniiin was intentional, being cau.sed by the admixture of a small amount of iron with the gold. P. 130, also sriine of the cosmetic found in Tutfankhamun’s Tomb has been analysed bj' Mr. Chaston Chapman and Dr. H. J. Plenderleith (Jonni. of the Ckem, Soc., Oct. 1926). Pp. 137, 138, in the New Kingdom pink colour was regularly obtained by simply mixing red and white. Pp. 141, 142, there is a cylinder seal in the British Museum of blue frit of the Sixth Dynasty. P. 149, the comparatively late date of the introduction of the domestic fowl into Egypt is surely no ai'gument for deining the possibility (for which there seems to be some material evidence) of the use of albumen as a medium in painting ! The duck wa.s the Egyptians’ “domestic fowl,” .ind they' doubtless counted at least one or two good laying strains among the various breeds. As a producer of albumen the “ Egyptian Runner ” could probably hold her own with the “ Buff Orpington.” 3Iajor H. Garland was, before the war. Superintendent of Laboratories at the Citadel, Cairo, where he h. id “exceptional oppurtuuitie.s for the collection and thorough examination of ancient metal specimens not ea.sily obtained ly other metallurgists.” After distinguished .service in Arabia during the war, ho was with Lord Allenby at the Residency in Cairo, as Director of the Arab Bureau. In 1921 ill-hcalth compelled his return to England, where he died suddenly, six days after his arrival. This tragic incompleteness of hi.s life is painfully mirrored in the book under review. Major G.irland was at work on the manusci'ipt when he died, but it was still in such an unfinished state that the publi-.liors handed it over to Profc.s.sor Banni.ster, of the L’^niversity of Liverpool, to put in order. Pmfessor Bannister is a metallurgi.st, and evidently very ill acquainted with ancient history. It i.s .1 great pity that ho did not submit his proofs to the scrutiny of an Egyptologist before allowing the book to go to press. This would have saved it from “howlers” and ineptitudes which may well damn it outright for an archacologi.st who happens to open it at certain passages. “ Piupi ” for Pepi (passim), “Professor Flinders Petrie” (p. 6} and “Dr. Budge of the British Museum” (p. 86) are merely anachronistic ; to say that in the Eighteenth Dynasty “Asia was .subdued” I'p. 10), and to call the wife of Takeloth I "just pro-.Saitic” are inaccuracies; to de.scribo a bronze foot as engraved on each side with “the Ankle or symb.jl of life” may be the printer's error, but looks very much as if it might be the editor’s; but to confuse Syria and A.s.syria on the .same page, as he does on two occasions (pp. 15 and 5.')), is a real offence. It may he some palliation that the book is written primarily for metallurgists (though they also will be handicapped by the extraordinary lack of references, and their unhelpfulness where they occur, c.g. of the object “generally alluded to as the Brazier of Khety, and now in the Louvre,” we arc told “ ia the catalogue of the British Museum it is sjiokeu of, etc.”). Moreover the book is sufficiently intelligible to the layman — the important chajiter on the metallography of antique metals is highly technical but presents its results clearly — to be obviously of lirst-rate importance for the study of metallurgy. Nor on the other hand should the Egyptologist he put off by the superticial if glaring faults enumer.itcd above. The book contains .six chajitei-.s, of which II and III (“Bronze Industry of Ancient Egypt'’ and “Iron Age in Egypt.” respectively) are far the most important. The essential fiict to lie learnt from the former i. s that the cire perdae or waste wax jtrocess of ea.sting copper and bronze objects was in far greater use • ind Listed much longer than li.is generally been suppo.sed, and that “raising,” i.e. the “gradual shaping of .1 vessel by hanimering” I'as oppo.sed to roughly casting and then tinishiug off with the hammer) was very much less in use th.ni it is frequently .stated to have been. One of the details in the evidence adduced to prove these facts is peril, ips of more interest than the facts themselves, namely the use of iron struts to hold the core in place when easting by the above method. The.se iron struts go some way to secure our confidence in Major Garland's thesis put forward in the next cliapter — easily the most important for Egyptologists. His thesis is that the Iron Age began with the (Jld Kingdom in Egypt, that is about a millennium aud a half before it begins in Europe. In a long chapter he states his ease forcibly, with nothing but the short list of four or five iron specimens dated before the New Kingdom as material evidence — the .same list from which Lucas and Waiuwright before argued for a late arrival of the Iron Age in Egypt, more in keeping with the European date and the slightly more frequent occurrence of iron specimens in Egypt from the late New Kingdom down to Roman times. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 191 lYainwright implies {The Lubt/rinth, Ger-ph niv} M'lzghuveh, 17) that the smelting of iron is a more difficult process than the smelting of copper. Actually copper is “far more difficult to obtain from its ores” than iron (Garland, p. 85). But given the two metals, iron is the harder to work, particularly if the smith has not got handled hammers, as appears to hiive been the case with the ancient Egyptians, because it has to be worked hot. But this is a further 2 )oint in favour of Garland's view, for it lielias to .iccount for the one real difficulty in the way of accepting an early date for the Iron Age, i.p. the e.vtraordinary rarity of iron remains. Garland argues that the difficulty of working the met.il confined its iwe to ,i few and skilled craftsmen, as well as to those purjioses only which could not bo .served by' coyii'er or bronze. These practically amount to one thing — j)roviding the .stone-cutter’s chisel. But copper and in its turn bronze, hardened by beating, were sufficient for the ordinary stones, limestone, sandstone, alaba.ster, etc., and were used for this purpose even after iron i.s genei'ally considered to have been in regular use. Hei'ix the still rumpariiticidy rare orcurre/ice of iron reniain.i even after Ir’UOn.c. — a 2 (oint to which Egyiitologists have not alloweil due weight. Moreover the sinijilies of the inet.rl were ju’obably not abundant. And finally, iron rusts and disintegrates much faster than, e.g., cojuier. This ijo.stulating of an early Iron Age in Egyjit is no mere academic challenge. To the metallurgist it i.s the least difficult solution of a jjroblem of which archaeologists have all been aware for some time ; to exjilaiu how the ancient Egyjjtians were able from the Thii’d Dynasty onwards to incise the hardest stones they knew with clear-cut hieroglyphs, with airparently no harder metal th.in c(jiiper. IVith a view to its solution Mr. Lucas reminds us of the following iioints (Aneient Egggtian Mat'o-iah, p. 82): 1. Tools of flint and other hard stone were in common use. 2. Abrasives were used. 3. The Egyirtian.s used other tools besides the chisel, p.g. drills and saws which could be fed with aliiMsives, 4. The infinite patience of the Egyptian worker. Take point 3 first. Major Garland shows that it i.s inconceivable that certain details, notably in the cutting of small hieroglypihs in granite “ with sides and bottoms jierfectly flat and corners sliarii,’’ were done by any tool but a chisel, though he would certainly admit in general an extended u.se of saws and drills. Now he has found (Lucas’ point 2) by e.xi.ieriment. that a chisel of the best copiior fed with emery is entirely ineffective again.st this stone. As to jioint 1, it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about flint, that its use as a chiml on hard .stone is quite impracticable because of the tendency of flint to flake ; and it would certainly not be possible to obtain a sufficiently fine edge on any other .stone of .sufficient hardness to cut granite, exoep)t with a still harder metal tool. On the other hand Mr. Lucas’ fourth jiuint is one to be stres.sed, and has scarcely been taken into account by Major G.u’land. The latter “ .strongly begs” us to try the cojipcr-emery method ourselves, .uid describes the results as “to say the lea.st, dis- heartening.” L'nles.s “disheartening’' is a eufflieinistn, it rather gives away the less conijirnmising jihrases of his iireviou.s paragraph. One can imagine few more di.sheartening thing.s than grinding out a large breccia jiot in those still earlier days when even he would not jiostulate the use of iron. Nevertheless, weighing both sides of the argument it seems to the iiresent writer that Garland has the better of it. And now fresh archaeological evidence is coming to his aid. Mr. Carter’s dagger from the tomb of Tutfankhamun caused a considerable .sensation when it wa.s jmblished. A less interesting find (but still an important addition to the list)' of about the s.ime jioriod was made by Professor Griffith at Tell el-‘Amarnah in 1924, when he discovered in a house a lumii of iron oxidi.sed on to a bronze axe-head. How much more to the point than both the.se objects are the considerable remains of an iron we.qion or tool, from one of the earliest tombs (before b.c. 3000) excavated by Mr.M oolley last .season at L"r, and recently on exhibition in the British Museum ? The chances of iron of that or later dates jiersisting in anything like recognisable form down to the present day, are far more remote in Mesoi>otamia than in Egyjit, and it is therefore useless to argue that this wa.s a unique sjiecimen. Iron rem.iiiis are just a.s rare in Mesojiotamia at a much later date — during the fourteenth centuiy b.c. — when there is amjile in.scrqitional evidence for it.s use — a date which incidentally is well antecedent to that commonly as^umed for the general use of iron in Egypt. There is not yet enough evidence to prove Major Garland’s contention, but it merits, if not [jro-s isional acceptance, at least the very careful consideration of Egyi)tologi.sts. For this cluqjter on the Iron Age, if for no other, this book should be read. .8, B. K. Gl.vnville. ' Dr. Hall tells me that there is a pair of iron hnieelets of the Eighteenth Dynasty in the collection of Mrs. .T. H. Piea, roughly worked with dogs’ heads. 192 NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS Kings and Queens of Ancient Egypt. Portraits by Winxifred Bruntox. History by eminent Egyptolo- gists. Foreword by Professor J. H. Breasted. London ; Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 163. 18 plates. In this delightful book Mrs. Brunton has publi.shed colour reproductions of her miniatures representing some of the rulers of Egypt. In the Foreword her work is announced as a contribution to history. This is hardly correct and to review this work in an Egyptological journal brings with it the same difficulties a.s the di.scussion in a historical journal of a literary biography, such as those by Andre Maurois or Emil Ludwig. The literary biography deals with its hero for his own sake, while history is only concerned with him in so for as he has influenced the course of events in his time. Portraits however are biographies condensed in one significant moment, pregnant of the pa.st which it explains and of the future which it foreshadows. Both portrait and biography therefore, once a.ssuming that proper use is made of all the available data in their conception, find their value H. Fraxkfort. The Credibility of Herodotus' Account of Egypt. By Wilhelm Spieselberg, translated from the German by A. M. Bl.vckmax. Oxford : B. Blackwell. 1927. Pp. 40, 2 plates, 5 figures in text. This little book is a translation of a lecture delivered by Professor Spiegelberg and published by Winter of Heidelberg in the series Orient iind Antike. The discussion is mainly confined to testing the credibility of the historical statements of Herodotus with regard to Egypt, since it is in this respect that his account has been mostly called in question. The circumstances of Herodotus’ tour in Egypt are reviewed, and the very probable conclusion reached that he never came into contact wdth the upper classes of the country, but that his informants were innkeepers, dragomans, and minor officials of the temples ; just the types in foct with whom the tourist in any land comes most into contact. On this supposition rests the whole of Spiegelberg’s argument, for his main the.sis is that the marvellous tales which are embodied in Herodotus’ history and which have earned for him so much disrepute as a romancer are just those folk-tales which were current in his time among the lower classes, to which his cicerones chiefly belonged. An apt com- parison is made with the extraordinary tales told by the modern dragoman to tourists in Egypt today. Herodotus is thus acquitted of the charge of deliberate lying, but one must admit that by the insertion of such stories in a serious work he shows a lack of the critical faculty which is in marked contrast to the acuteness of his observation in other matters. Nevertheless, as Spiegelberg points out, his very cre- dulity has enshrined for us folk-tales which would otherwise have been lost, and thus enables us to catch something of the spirit of the Egjqit of the fifth century B.c. NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS 193 This lecture is to be recommended to all, Egyptologists and others, who are interested in the classical accounts of the Ancient East, and Dr. Blackman has done a gi’eat service in rendering Spiegelberg's paper available to those to whom German is either an obstruction or a stumbling-block. The translator’s foot- notes are of value in supplementing the text at certain points. E. 0. Faulkner. Etudes d’egyptologie : Bases, me'thndes et resultnts de la ehrdHologie vgyptieaue. Par Eay.vidnd Weill. Paris ; P. Geuthner. 1926. Pp. 216. M. Weill begins this book with a brief account of the .systems of Egv’ptiau chronology current prior to Meyer’s exjwsition of the Sothic method of date-determination in 1904, and describes the steps which led up to MeyePs work. He re-states the grounds on which the Sothic system is based and submits it to a fresh examination. For this system to have any value for fixing Egyptian chronohpgy, it must be first demonstrated that the slow revolution of the Egyptian civil year on the fixed Sothic year pursued its course undisturbed throughout the jieriod with which chronologists arc concerned, and a chapter is devoted to discussing this point, the conclusion reached l)oing that there was no adjustment of the two calendars within the dynastic period. The date for the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty given by the astronomical calculations is sufficiently in accord with the historical evidence to .show that there was no interference with the calendar as far back as that date, and .ilthough there is no decisive evidence of non- adjustment during the Second Intermediate Period, the argument.s advanced by M. Weill against the possibility of adju-stment of the calendar are very weighty. A.s a result of his re-examination, the author accepts the Sothic chri>nology, and, in accordance with his views previously e.xpre.-ised elsewhere, adhere.s to the ‘‘short’' il.vting of Meyer. The corruption of the “ Manethonian ” figures for the Second Intermediate Period is demonstrated by the remarkable arith- metical relations which exist between them, but M. Weill goes further, and attempts from those relations to establish the prototype of the dynastic figures of the Greek writers for the Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties. The result at which he arrives allows 2o9 and 151 years for the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties respectively, and an unknown number of years for the Thirteenth, while the Fourteenth and Sixteenth drop out completely. Results, however, which are derived solely from the manipulation of figures are very precarious, and Weill himself take.s no account of these totals in the scheme of chronology. The Turin Papyrus of Kings is entirely ignored in the di.scussion of this period. With regard to the period prior to the Twelfth Dynasty, the auth"-)!- accepts Meyer’s datings, but with the reservation that they might perhaps be reducible by a century, the burden of dift'erence falling on the Seventh to Tenth Dynasties. Assuming a mean date of b.C. 2500 for the Sixth Dynasty, he iioints out that the dates of working expeditions to Sinai and Hammamat recorded during that period fall between February and July of the Gregorian calendar, whereas the normal season for exiioditions during the Middle Kingdom lay between January and April. Meill is inclined to bring the date of the Sixth Dynasty down a century to obtain agreement between the season.s, but the discrepancy mac be due simply to the paucity of records in the Old Kingdom, and as we lack the conclusive evidence of a Sothic date in the Old Kingdom it is safer to accept Meyer’s figures, which are ba.sed on the Turin Papyrus. Borchardt’s theory, which would date Jitenes in b.c. 4186, is rejected in toto, Meill denies Borchardt.s supposed high Kile datings in the early Annals, and equally rejects the latter’s view that the Palermo and the Cairo fragments come fi’om two different monuments. He is of opinion that they are portions of the .same document and supports his view by a comjiarative table of measurements. These measurement.s, though only approximate in the case of the Palermo stone, agree so closely that it is ditfieult to believe that the two fragments are not connected. F’rom the general historical chronology the author proceeds to the difficult questions of the month- names and their corresponding feasts. In discu-ssing the apparent discrepancy between the arrangement of the monthly feasts shown by the Ebers calendar and that shown in the later temple-calendars and the Graeco-Roman month-names he rejects the theory advanced by Gardiner and supported by Meyer, according to which there was a backward shift of all the feasts in the calendar to the extent of one month at a date subsequent to that of the Elters list, and adheres to that of Sethe, whose view is that the feast after which a given month was named was celebrated at the end of that month and culminated on the first day of the following month, so that for example the feast of the “ Birth of Ref ’ after which the twelfth month was named, was actually dated on 1st Thoth. The feast-calendars of the temples, as well as of the Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 25 194 NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS Ebers Papyrus, seem to have referred to a fixed (Sothic) year which was used for religious events alone, the corresponding months of the civil year being named in accordance with those of the religious Cirlendar. Just before the beginning of the Christian era, the Alexandrine calendar was introduced, with its Kew Year's Day on the 29th or 30th August (Julian), so that for a while there were three calendars in use at the same moment. This remarkable state of affairs renders it necessary to ascertain to which calendar a given date refers, and this point is illustrated in this book by a discussion of the dating of the feasts of Osiris, stated by Plutarch to have taken place in the month of Athyr. These feasts however are date Liverpool AnnaU, xii, 59. ’ Op. cit., XII, 63 ff. and PI. xx. 1* Op. dt., XIII, 50 ff., Pis. XXXI ff. *** Liverpool AnnaU, xiv, 57 ff. ' Op. cit., \iii, IX. •* Op. dt., X, 119. •* Cf. Arch. Nurveij oj Xubia, Eeport for 1908-9, ii. Pis. xxfi. Op. dt., XI, Pis. xivff. *' Op. dt., XII, 69 ff. w Op. dt., XIII, 17 ff’. *** Quibell, E.rcavutions at Satppira 1906-7, Pis. xl ff. 25 — 2 196 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS sepulchres'' with Christian burial is very widespread and its use survived in this country almost within living memory’ . Other Christian burial-grounds were explored on the western side of Faras. On the high desert to the west of Faras is a small group of grottoes dating from the New Kingdom. One of these had been appropriated by a Christian anchorite who had converted the chamber into a decorated cell'C On the whitewashed wall is inscribed a series of texts in square compartments. These texts, which have been known since the time of Wilkinson^, have been copied by various modern scholars, and they include the Nicene Creed and the sayings of saints and holy men of the type known to us from the largo manuscript collections : in many cases the names and dates of the writers are appended. Another group of Christian sites was explored on both sides of the Nile in the neighbourhood of Paras'*. The arrangement of this extensive series of reports, which has now reached an aggregate of 509 pages and 316 plates is excellent, for the account of each locality worked and of the antiquities there discovered is preceded by a history of Lower Nubia during each successive period. By these historical introductions and by his frequent discussion of conclusions. Professor Griffith has rendered the report— which in other hands might have been no more than a tiresome catalogue of sites and finds — a most valuable and in- teresting account not only of the work done by the Oxford Expedition, but of its bearing upon the history and culture of the localities explored and of the periods that they represent. The collotype plates are excellent. 'Warren B. Dawson. .1 History of the Ancient Il'y/'W. Vol. i. The Orient and Greece. By il. Rostovtzeef. Translated from the Russian by J. D. Duff. 418 pp., lxxxix plate.s, 36 figs., 5 maps. Oxford Press, 1926. Orientalists must have turned to this book already with interest. AVritten by an eminent scholar whose special theme has led to considerable researches in the history of Egypt and Asia Minor in classical times, this book has much to recommend it. The outlook is broad, the style free from the worst vices of the “ scientific hi.story, the translation into English excellent, the illustrations better than in any current book of the kind. The most natural question to ask is. What purpose will it serve ? It originated as a course of lectures to Freshmen at a University; but the chief object was to collect Professor Rostovtzeff’s own fundamental views and ideas on ancient history. It is in fact an introduction to an immense subject, but is intended to give a single view, designed both for .students and the general reader ; it is devoid of the baggage of learning, but has a good bibliography. The book has, then, a unity of conceirtioii which will make it attractive reading. The first part of the work dealing with Oriental history down to Darius occupies about 1T5 pages, and is a fair and impartial summary. The present writer must confes.s to having found the section cramped ; the effort to put in all the known facts together with a broad view of the historical trend has led perhaps to a lack of that easy mastery noticeable when Professor Ro.stovtzeff turn.s to the classical world. There is little to be said about the statements contained. Time will doubtless bring the necessary corrections. Ill the next edition doubtless the Kharri or Khiu-ri (p. 67) will be associated with the Subaraeans on the score of language ; the use of mercenaries (p. 144) should be specially restricted to Egypt, for there is no proof of it ill Assyria, or in Babylonia, unless an isolated Greek adventurer be counted such ; Persian tolerance of Babylonian religion (p. 153) probably ceased shortly after the reign of Darius, for the wide- spread de.struction of Babylonian temples to be seen at Babylon, Borsippa, Ur, can only be dated to the Persian iieriod ; “ incantations against these spirits are ” not “ found in thousands among the cuneiform texts on Babylonian cylinders ’’ (p. 166) but on stone amulets and clay tablets — a point of archaeological importance; “Tiamat and his monstrous brood” (p. 167) may be a momentary lapse; I rather doubt the description of the divine symbols as “ ,sceptre.s ” (p. 169, fig. 14). In general, Professor Rostovtzeff takes a more generous view of ancient Oriental religion than some will be inclined to do; surely the words “ ...religion passes out of its primitive chaos to order aud system; and. ..its moral and spiritual aspect becomes, especially in the more enlightened classes, more and more predominant over the primitive terror a;id superstition born of terror ” constitute a .serious mis-statement of the facts 2 May the book pass through many editions! No better fate can befall it than to fall into the hands of schoolboys in leisure hours ; we believe that it will give them something that books confined to classical hi.story cannot give, a wider outlook on the ancient world, and a keener appreciation of the true genius of the Greeks. Sidney Smith. ’ J. E. Vaux, Church Folk-Lore, 2nd ed., London, 1902, pp. 162-3. “ I'oyv^iraphy oj Thebes, ly3-5, p. 498. ^ Liverpool Annals, xrv, 81 ff. * Liverpool Annals, xrv, 97 ff. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 197 The Pmlmistg. By Hugo Grbssmann, H. \V. Robinson, T. H. Robinson, G. R. Driver, and A. M. Blackman. Edited with aii Introduction by D. C. Simpson. 0,xford University Press, 1926. The main interest to Egyptology of this group of essays consists in a section written by Dr. Blackman on the Psalms in the light of Egyptian research. This is a sober and dispassionate exposition of the facts concerning the reputed borrowings from Egyptian literature in the Hebrew Psalms, In view of the extravagant statements ivhich have l)eeu made on this subject, especially since the publication of the Amenope papyrus, Dr. Blackman’s calmly reasoned ess;iy is of very great value. Though not denying the direct influence of Egyptian works on Hebrew literature, he draws attention to the evidence of borrowing.s in the contrary direction, and attributes to Semitic origins that element in Egyptian religion of the New Empire which consists in the realization of the foct of sin and the need of fljrgivenes.s. It is thi.s, combined with the native cheerfulne.ss and love of nature of the Egyptian, which explains the religious outlook of the Eighteenth and following dynasties, “an outlook so closely resembling that of the Psalmists that it can almost be said that the Songs of Sion were being snng in a strange land Ijefore they were sung in Sion hei-self.” T. Eric Peet. The Fellahiii of Upper E'pjpt. By IVinifbed S. Blackman. London : Harrap, 1927. Miss Blackman’s work is of the highest interest and inuxirtancc to anthropologists at large and to Egyptologists in particular. Eor six years she has .spent several months annually among the jieasants of Upjier Egypt, endeavouring to rescue for science information about their methods of life and thought before these become completely deformed and destroyed by lieing forced into the vulgar and uniform mould of advancing civilization. One of the difticulties of the sciences of ethnology and anthropology is that their material consists to a large extent of evidence which is, to say the least of it, susi>ect. Much of our knowledge of the rites and customs of modern tribes rests on the report of traders, missionaries and travellers almost devoid of any equipment which might suit them for the task of collecting anthropological evidence. The two most essential requisites — apart from the more intimate personal qualities such as that aptly styled by Dr. Marett “a genius for hobnobbing” — are firstly a sound training in the principles of ,inthropology, and secondly an intimate knowledge of the language or language.s concerned. With the firet Miss Blackman equipped herself by a serious coui'se of study including the taking of a Diploma in Anthropology in the University of Oxford. That she also possesses the second is clear from a close examination of the List of Arabic Words at the end of her volume, where she reveals that .scrupulous accuracy and regard for small differences of sound and pronunciation which show that a language has been studied not only with care but with affection. th to those who do not know Egypt and to those of us to whom the guttural bickerings of the Alexandrian dock-labourer as our ship nears the quay are among the most tuneful music in the world. From the Egyptological point of view the value of the book lies in the fact that so much of w'hat is at first inexplicable in Ancient Egypt receives light and explanation from this study of the modern customs and lore. This is a subject touched on in the last chapter, but one which is naturally capable of much greater development, which either Miss Blackman or her brother will no doubt eventually give it. Its full imixirtance can be best realized by those of us who have excavated an ancient Egyptian town site, such as that of Tell el-‘Amarnah, where many features which were obscure to us were at once intelligible to the native workmen, who are still using precisely the .same thing in their villages. The volume is well and fully illustrated. Most of the photographs are quite excellent ; a few only, e.g. Figs. 27, 36, 41, 127, and 148, are les.s good. A photograjiher friend who .saw the book ottered the opinion that in some oases the photographer, anxious to get the figure as large as pos.sible, had advanced too clo.se for the focus of the snapshot camera which must of necessity be used for such work, with conse- quent loss of sharpness to the image. He suggested that rather than do thio it would be better to secure a 198 NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS sharper if smaller image and have it enlarged to the required size. I give this opinion for what it i.s worth. To my less sophisticated eye, however, it looks as if in some cases at least the old old difficulty of holding the camera steady, which most of us know so well, had caused the defect. Some people get over this by always resting the camera on something solid, others acquire almost at once the trick of a steady grip, and then marvel at those of us who cannot. The anthropologist is occasionally witness of unique scenes, and it is important that he should be so complete a master of the art of snapshot photography that failure is impossible to him. tVe welcome the book most cordially, and look forward to seeing not only more of its kind, but also the more specifically scientific work at which Miss Blackman hints. Xo doubt she is possessed of a divine au.xiety to get as much as possible collected before it is lost for ever, but we need not remind her that knowledge stowed away in a scholars notebooks is often just as effectively lost as that which has never been gathered. It will shortly become her duty to review her ptositiou and to make some definite apportion- ment of lier time between collection and publication. T. Eric Feet. A Hisioiy of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. By Edwyn Bevan. London : Methuen and Co., 1027. This book, which reiilacos MahaflTy’s work of the same name in Sir Flinders Petrie’s series, is to be em-dially welcomed as the only up-to-date account in English of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Dr. Bcv.in, while jjaying a well-deserved tribute to the work of his predecessor, has wisely decided to re-write the history in his own way, inserting here and there a characteristic passage from MahaSy in inverted commas. I notice that on p. 3o2 he has been misled by Mahaffy into confusing the sakiya or water-wheel with the Ai-chimedcan screw, but this is an exceptional slip ; in general he has sifted the contents of the earlier book very carefully and critically. The dynastic history is recounted in eleven pleasantly written chapters, uo easy task, while as an interlude between the reigns of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III wo have a long description, largely derivetl from papyri, of the internal organization of the country. Dr, Bevan seems to liave utilized all the material that has come to light in recent years. Inevitably some of his remarks and judgments will have to be uiodifed when this material has been more thoroughlj- scrutinized. For instance, the theory (p. 77) that on Nov. 12 or 13, 247 B.c. Ptolemy III became co-regent with his father is already discredited, and I have noted I'arious other erroneous or disjmtable statements, which are of no great interest except to the specialist. But in the imperfect light of our present knowledge we may say that the author has given us as goi}d a sketch of the Ptolemaic state as the scope of his work permitted. It seems to rue a very successful achievement. Dr. Sevan’s views are for the most part sane and sober, but be lias iiropounded one or two new theories on which I find it hard to agree with him. As regards the vexed question concerning the vios who appears as co-regent with Ptolemy II from 266 to 259 B.C., he rejects two of the former explanations on the ground that they are irreconcilable with the statement of the scholiast on Theocritus xviii, 128, that Ai-sinoe II died uTSKvos. His own view i.s that the vi6s was an elder and short-lived brother of Euergetes. But the scholiast has carefully given us the names of the children of Ptolemy and Arsiuoe I, and this elder brother is not among them. Xor is it correct to say that Arsinoe II adopted these children. It was the king who adopted her as their mother, probably long after her death. Nor, again, need otskvos in the passage referred to mean more than that Arsinoe died without bearing any children to her last husband. On the whole, the view of Beloch that the vi6s was the sou of Ly.simachiis and Arsinoe accords better with the evidence and with tlie political situation than any other that has been proposed. Another new suggestion made by Dr. Bevan is that the dd€\ buried in the tomb) at Derwah, near Ashmunen, which has been published in extenso by M. Lefebvre {Ann. Seri’., 1920, 41 ff. ; Le Tombeau de Petosiris, Cairo, Service des Antiquites, 1923-4). Its reliefs are of extraordinary importance on account of their combination of Greek with Egyptian elements ; they are documents inestimable in the history of Egyptian art as proof that Greek art could and did influence Egyptian artists in a way and to an extent we had hardly deemed possible hitherto. Xo doubt there were other examples of this really Graeco- Egyptian art besides the tomb cf Petosiri.s. We have e.xamples of its earlier stages in the tombs of Zanefer and Psamatik-nefer-seshemu, described by Maspero; but in none is the foreign art so largely adopted as in that of Petosiris. Yet we .see that the artist is an Egyptian. He was not a Greek imitating Egyptian motives. He was an Egyjjtian openly and intelligently expanding his artistic repertory by the admission of the artistic ideas of the foreign rulers of the laud, and doing it more successfully than his successors in the Roman i>eriod, not at all unnaturally, in fact. The result can be .seen in M. Lefebvre’s plates, of which examples arc reijroduced in the rather curious book before us by Pere Suys, who at the instance of M. Gapart, who prefaces it, has written it to popularize not only the art of Petosiris’s sculptor, but also, apparently, Petosiris himself, who does not really interest us so much. However M. Suys gives us a more or less imaginative sketch of the probable life of Petosiris, which takes a good deal for granted, especially as regards the precise period at which he lived. We agree that the probable period of his life is the latter part of the fourth century B.c. It is a very probable deduction from the style of his artist, which can liardly be any later than the very beginning of the Ptolemaic period, owing to the comparative puritv of 200 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS its Egyptian elements, but, on the other hand, cannot possibly be so early as the date to which M. Montet ascribes it {Rec. Arch. 5« serie, t. xxiii, 1926, 161 ff.), c. 500 B.C., on account of its strongly emphasized Greek elements, which, besides, show no trace whatever of archaic Greek style: a mere glance at Jr. Suys’s Plate i is enough to show the veriest tjTO that the Greek art imitated is that of the fourth, not the sixth century B.c. I see no reason to suppose that this relief (which is strongly Graecizing, but not pure Greek) is of any later date than the rest of the tomb, though M. Suys apparently does (p. 18). If this is so, we are afraid that M. Montet’s learned argument about the calendar must go to the wall in face of the facts of Greek art, and we agree with 51. Lefebvre’s date for the monument, c. 300 b.c., which is also followed by M5I. Gapart and Suys. But there are iinpoiiderahilui to be considered, nevertheless. We do not hiimr that Petosiris was a contemjK)rary of, let us sav, Ptolemy Soter, though with M. Lefebvre, we think it extremely probable that he was, and that the foreign tyranny to which he refers in his inscrip- tions was that of Artaxerxes Ochus. But he might be later : a tine artist like his might have lived in the third century : there is nothing in his Graecizing style against this, though his Egyptian style seems a little too good. And he may have been referring to tbe Macedonian conquest, though this does not seem probable. The possibility however remains, just as does the other possibility also, that the reliefs may date earlier in the fourth century, as early as the time i>f the Nectanebos, and that it is the earlier Persian domination that he refers to. So that it is perhaps a little risky to speculate too much as to what events in the history of Egypt Petosiris may have .seen or taken part in. The book therefore lacks the element of reality, and is to be treated not as a .serious contribution to archaeology, but as a didactic romance, of admirable intention and undoubted use as a Tueans of interesting tbe unlearned in Egyptian matters. The only thing that is really interesting, however, in connection with Petosiris is the extraordinary style of his tomb sculpture, and on this 51. Suys does not, we think, lay nearly enough stress. We note an error on p. 19, on which, referring to Plate vi, the mummy-case of Petosiris is .said to have the head “coiffde de la perruque royale iklaft) ” ; it is, of course, not the royal headdress nemes (the so-called “ klaft,” which was incidentally not a wig at all, but a hair-bag), but the usual conventional coiffure of the dead. And why, on p. 14, should the writer of the Greek graffito An-oXXwroj be “ Phoebis, fils d’Ajwllon” : the name is the Egyptian Phih, “the ibis,” and has nothing to do with Pheebus, although his father was called Apollon (=II!or). “ Phoebis” in Greek would have to be a feminine name. H. R. Halu L’ Art egyptien. Par Charles Borecx. Bibliotheque d’histoire de I’art ; Paris and Bru.ssels Van Oest 1926. Pp. 62 ; 64 plates. 5Ionsieur Boreux has written a very acceptable appreciation of Egyptian art in its chief aspects at all periods, as preface to an interesting anthology of pictures of Egyptian works of art of all kinds, arranged in 64 plates. Naturally and rightly he has cho.sen the majority of his examples from the collections of the Louvre, now, since the regretted death of the late 51. Benedite, under his care. The remainder are chosen from the Cairo 5Iuseum, with the exception of two from Berlin (Nefretiti, of course, and an ‘Amamah relief), two from Tui'in (Rames.ses II and a Sebennytite royal head), and one from Florence (the well-known Nineteenth Dynasty stone head of a lady). The Briti.sh 5Iuseum does not appear at all in the plates and its name is not mentioned in the preface, so far as .sculpture is concerned ; for although the portrait-statues of Sesostris III from Dgr el-Bahri are mentioned, no hint is given that the three be.st of the four are in the British 5Iuseum. In other branches of art the only objects in our national collection to which reference is made are the fiimous little ivory statuette of a First Dynasty king (No. 37993) found by Petrie at Abydos, and our “cuillers-a-fard,” which were published not long ago in the Journal (xiii, 7 ff.) by Mme Fredericq The great blue glaze «a«-sceptre in the 5rictoria and Albert 5Iuseum (placed there by Petrie on account of its remarkable technical interest as a triumph of glazing) is also mentioned. We are surprised that one at least of the Prudhoe lions was not illustrated, and that the little ivory king was not illustrated as weU as mentioned, for there is nothing like him of his date anywhere else. However, one knows the difficulty of compiling an anthology such as thi.s, and everyone has his own preferences in art. It is imp(xssible to s.ttisfy everybody, and we are grateful to 51. Boreux for his admirable selection of the master- pieces of the Louvre and of Cairo. Of those of the Louvre that are not well known here, we welcome for instance, the fine Fourth Dynasty head of king Dedefrer (Didoufri), PI. xx ; the bust of Akhenaten PI. xxxviii : the granite group of Tutrankhamun and the god Amun (PI. xli), of which the only drawback is the fact that the king’s head is broken off : the face of the god however is no doubt an idealized portrait NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 201 of him ; and, above all, the remarkable little portrait-head of a princess in two shades of blue glass, of about the time of Amenophis III (PL Ixi). From Cairo, besides the well-known masterpieces, we welcome the small statue of Amenemmes III from Karnak (PL xxx). The Tuti'ankhamun treasures arc well represented by two plates (Iv, Ivi). From the Louvre we are given the old favourites, such as the always cheerful atid welcome little “scribe accroupi,’’ and the rest, including that remarkable head of a man of high cheekbones in i)ainted limestone from the Salt Collection (PL xxiij which is always ascribed (as it is by JI. Boreux) to the Fourth Dynasty, though personally I believe it to behuig to the end of the Eighteenth. It seems to me that the piercing of the ears makes it impossible to date it before the middle of the Eighteenth at earliest ; and its general appearance otherwise inclines me to ascribe it to the time of Akhenaten, or at any rate to that of Amenophis III. I notice that M. Boreux accepts the current attribution of a well-known royal head at Copenhagen to the Twelfth Dynasty (p, 24) : it seem.s to me (_it also does to von Bissiug and to LVeigall) to be undoubtedly late Saite or Sebennytitc (sec Journal, xiii, 66), like another rather similar head at Bologna, which is or was unaccountably reganled there as a portrait of Horemheb (!), but is certainly Sebennytite or even po.ssibly early Ptolemaic. The.se two are the only criticisms of date-attributions by JI. Boreux that I would make, and they are merely matters of opinion, of course. There appears to be a slip on p. 33, where M. Boreux speaks of the bust of Xefretiti at Berlin as “passe d’Egypte en Allemagne pendant la derniere guerre, et expose depuis quelques aniiees au Musce de Berlin.” But how could it be j>ossible for anything to pass from Egypt to Germany during the war? The bust with the other things from El-‘Amarnah can only have gone to Berlin hrforc the war, in full time of peace. H. R. H.vli.. Die Kunst der Agypter. Von Georg Steixdorff. Leipzig, Insel-Verlag, 1928. Pp. 104, 17 text-illustrations, and 200 plates. Prof. Steiudorff’s book is more catholic than M. Boreux’s. The majority of its illustrations are of objects at Berlin and Cairo, it is true, as most of M. Boreux’s are at Paris and Cairo ; but Prof. Steindorft' does not ignore England wholly ; both the British Museum and the Ashmolean contribute representative pieces to his plates. One of the Prudhoe lions appears, for instance, and an e.xamplo of the archaic objects from Hierakonpolis at Oxford. Several object.s from the Louvre are given, including, of course, the “scribe accroupi.” Prof. Steiudorff’s book is very up-to-date. He not only includes most of the chief of Tutc ankhamun’s treasures in his repertory, but also the lately found statue of king Zo.ser at SaVkurah : the first good illustration we have seen of it (p. 173), showing well the strange and clumsy shape of the /(C«iei-headdress at that early period, and giving a good idea of this rather terrifying, spectre-like figure. Then at the other end of the scale he includes the strange reliefs of the tomb of Petosiris at Derwah, with their mixture of Egyptian and Greek art and their delicate arabesques, reminding us of nothing so much as of the wall decoration of some Italian house of the oinquecento. The Middle Kingdom Mer reliefs appear, and it is interesting to compare them with Petosiris or earlier Saite work. The Old Kingdom is well shown. ‘Amaruah naturally bulks largely, and is well illustrated with several of the famous casts from the living and from statues found in the “ House of the Sculptor,” So also is the late Eighteenth Dynasty generally, Is it certain that the head of a king on p. 211 is really of the Eighteenth Dynasty 1 It does not give me that impression, though I should not like to date it. The head of a young man at Florence on p. 212 i.s called by Prof. Steindorft’ a “ Madchenkopf,” as it was by Frau Fechheimer {Plastik, p. 63, “ Kopf einer Frau ”). To me it has the face of a young man, not of a woman, and the method of wearing the hair parted in the middle was used by men under the Eighteenth Dynasty, as we .see from the statue of Amenophis, son of Hapu (p. 214), and that of Horemheb at New York, published by Witdock in Journal, x (1924), Pis. i-iii, and naturally flowing in the same way under the Twentieth, a.s we see from the .sketches of the painter Hui published by Erman in Zeitsckr. f. dg. Spr., XLli (1905), 130, and Spiegellxirg in op. cit., Liv (1917), 78, Can it any longer be maintained that this head is that of a woman, in face of the Horemheb statue which it so closely resembles ? LVe may regret that Prof. Steindorff did not include that statue in his anthology, for America would be better represented by it than it is by the gold Amuu from the Carnarvon collection in the Metropolitan Museum (p. 219). The collection of famous reliefs of the time of Amenophis III and Horemheb at Berlin, Leiden and Bologna is most welcome. Of Saite sculpture one is inclined to doubt w'hether the head of an elderly priest on p. 258 is not later .lourn. of. Egypt. Arch. xiv. 26 202 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS than “urn 500 v. Chr.* From the extraordinarily naturalistic style, especially the quite un-Egyptian treatment of the ear, I should myself be inclined to date it rather about 350. Prof. Steindorff includes the smaller arts in his scope, and illustrates them well. The golden dagger of Tutrankhamun and the chased gold sheaths appear for the first time in a general work here. And we may specially commend his beautiful illustrations on p. 275 of four of the finest examples of Eighteenth Djmasty blue glaze bowls that are known. One with a figure of a girl squatting on a cushion and playing a rabab, with a monkey at her side, beneath a trellis of plants, is surely unique : almost Persian in effect. Personally, I could have dispensed with those dreadfully ta.steless and ugly painted alabaster monstrosities of Tutfankh- amun’s, pp. 271-73; mais chucun t> son goat. The translucent lamp with its picture (p. 272) is at any rate a Kariosum ; but the lion on the lid of the box on p. 273 looks as if he were a sweetmeat, and intended to be eaten. Egyptian taste was not always impeccable, and personally I would not be the one, in my anthology, to draw attention to its lap.ses. However, let us make up for this with the beautiful little wooden “ Salbschalen ” or “ Cuillers-a-fard” of pp. 283-4, and the “ SpiegelkapseP’ of p. 287, not to sjjeak of our well-known old friends of the grand time of the Twelfth Dynasty, the gold-work and the jewels from Dahshfir (pp. 291 S.). Like M. Boreu.x, Prof. Steindorfif includes architecture in his scope, and gives a good selection of views of buildings of various periods, including the recently discovered Third Dynasty buildings at Sakkarah. Xeetlless to say, his text, forming a complete introduction to his plates, is admirably written and will be most icseful alike to the archaeologist and to the general reader. His description of the development of the tomb-temple is specially clear. A translation of the book, with an anglicized transliteration of the Egyptian names (avoiding the German “ch” and “j” and such forms as “Edjdjet” or even “Wedjujet” (p. 193) for king^^), and with additional plates illustrating the British Mu.seum more worthily, would probably find a considerable sale here. It could not of course be recommended without these additional plates. A book on Egyptian art, if pul ili.shed in England, should devote more space to examples in our collections. But we wish cordially to acknowledge Prof. SteiudorfPs courtesy as well as acumen in publishing those English objects that ho has included in the German edition. H. E. Hall. Animals of Ancient Egypt. E. By David Paton. Princeton University Press: Humphrey Jlilford, Oxford L'niversity Pres.s. The conception and intended scope of this work are undoubtedly good, but the production and style are so poor that we are afraid it will be of little use to the student. Although this book is the first volume of the series, no introduction descriptive of the method of its use has been given. The chief fiiult, however, lies in the illustrations and the hieroglyphic text. The figures of the animals to which the text refers should have been reproduced on a much larger scale, and where it is possible notes of the colouring should have been added, so that the reader would easily be able to distinguish the peculiar features of each type. To take one examjde, page 2, nos. 6 and 7. Where is the distinction between E. 3. A. and E. 3, B. ? The illustrations in the text are much too small and very badly drawn. On page 23 (E. 72. B.) we have a copy of Mrs. Davies’s painting of a hippopotamus at bay from the tomb of Amenemhet. This js a typical example of the careles.s drawing and absurdly small scale of the illu.strations throughout this work. To sum up, Mr. Baton’s book puts us in mind of a ,student’.s note-book, quite intelligible to the writer but of little value to the reader. W. B. Emery. Thehes. The Olory of a Great Past. By Jean Capart and Marcelle Wekbhouck. London, 1926. This comprehensive survey of the Empire capital of Egypt will be of great value both to the specialist in Egyptian art and architecture and to the visitor who hitherto has been only able to turn to Baedeker for reference. The photographs are excellent, both in quality and selection, and M. Capart is himself to be congratu- lated on a number of these which come from his own camera. We notice a mistake on page 250 which is of some importance. “■ Eamosis was in office at the end of the reign of Amenophis III and during part of the reign of his predecessor.” Surely this last word should be successor. In the event of a further edition of this book we would like to suggest the iusertion of a number of plans of the temples and tombs, which would be Of immense value to the visitor to Egypt. For a non-specialist work on Thebes this book is unique. W. B. Emery. NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 20o Relazione sui lavori della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egitto {Anni 1903-1920); II. La tomba intatta del! arohitetto Cha. By E. Schiapakelli. Torino : R. Museo di Antiohiti'i, 1927. Pp. 187 ; ■ 169 illustrations. One of the most pleasant variations of a ride through Western Thel)es is to turn up sharply to the left between Medlnat Habu and Kurnat Mur‘ai into the Valley of the Queens’ Tombs and then strike off right up the little desert valley that leads to Der el-lledlnah. Crowds of tourists are left behind : one is in the real solitude of a rocky desert valley, along the side of which our narrow path runs to the head of the little pass, where stands within its high wall of unbaked brick the little temple of Der el-Medlnah. Further on the path, avoiding the enormous hole which was dug probably for the tomb of some noble or king of the Eleventh Dynasty, goes on by the rocky dale behind Shekh ‘Abd el-Kurnah to Der el-bahri. In this region fruitful tomb-excavations have been carried on by the Americans and the Italians, and more recently by the French. The excavations of M. Bruyere and of Dr. Schiaparelli in the valley were situated near the temple of Der el-Medinah and between it and the Valley of the Queen.s, where Schiaparelli had already dug. The present volume describes the important contents of the intact tomb-chamber of KhaC, a chief royal architect under the Eighteenth Dynasty, and of his wife Meryt, which was discovered and excavated in 1906. The chapel of this tomb (No. 8) has always been known; for references see Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography, i {The Theban Necropolis), 57. The objects found in the chamber have been at Turin for twenty years, and it is odd to our thinking that their publication should have been delayed for twenty years. But all things come to those that wait. However, by this delay Schiaparelli has mi.ssed his market. Tutfankhamun has intervened, and our appetite for the contents of intact Egyptian tombs has beeti somewhat jaded. However, despite Tuti'ankhamun and luya and Tuyu, the contents of the tomb of Khaf are of very great interest, and tell us several things that we did not know before or illu.strate more completely things that we did know. Khaf, the ' [U j ^ I ^ ^ chief royal architect at the end of the reign of Tuthmosis III, confirmed in ofllce under his two sucees.sors, and died in the reign of Amenopbis III. If he died about 1405 b.c. and was already chief of the works under Tuthmosis III, i.e. before 1450, he will, if he was appointed to his office at about the age of thirty, about 1460 (let us say), have been eighty-five at hi.s death, which is a good age, quite good enough, one would think. But Schiaparelli for some reason (jc 190) make.s him born under Tuthmosis I, which would mean that he was at least a centenarian at his death, probably about 110 years old, which is not at all probable. It would interesting to have his mummy examined ; but this Schiaparelli tells us nothing about : there i.s no description in the b()ok of any scientific examination of it. It is not probable that he wa-s more than 85, and he may have been five years younger, at his death. Nor is there any description of the mummy of Merj’t. Of their splendid coffins (Figs. 17 ffi), however, and of the remarkable objects buried with them, Schiaparelli gives general descriptions and very good photographs. The contents of the tomb were found heaped up much in the same way as they were in the tomb of Tut'' ankhamuu, so that the chamber looked much like a furniture-rei)ository. The same linen covers were found stretched over important objects, such as the coffins. The funerary papyri, which are very finely written and vignetted, are fully deserilied and illustrated (Figs. 31 ff.). But the discoverer thinks too much of the wooden figure of Khai" (Figs. 32 ffi), which is not a good exami)le of the art of the time. The chair on which it was found .standing with .some ushabtis (Fig. 38) is a good example, the other furniture numerous but normal, with the exception of a little “gai-den-table” of reed (Fig. 103) which might have come from modern Japan. The many and various funeral boxes are all good and interesting. But (with the exception of the golden cubit, to be mentioned later) the mo.st interesting things of all in the tomb are the clothes, bedclothes, towels, etc., of which there were a great number, placed in rolls (Figs. 64-67). The clothes es{)ecially are most interesting and rather di.sconcerting : they do nut quite tally with ideas derived from the statues and paintings. The heavy winter sleeveles.s tunics, for instance, are a surpri.se, ■so are the coloured bordem, and, to a less extent, the long fringes. We should have liked Schiaparelli to illustrate lay-figures with some of these things on, to see how they look. Of course one has to allow for st.irching and gauffering, which would make a difference in their ap£)earanc-e. A queer touch is the laundry- mark on each garment. Jleryt’s wig (Fig. 74), with its cover and basket, is a good example of its kind. Of the vases the painted pottery funnel (Fig. 45) is unique, and most interesting, as are also the metal strainers. Fig. 52, with the accompanying drinking-apparatus of metal and fayence. We can compare the Icctden drinking-syphon with its strainer-end found at ‘Amamah in 1921 and now in the British Museum 26—2 204 NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS (Xo. 55,14S; exhibited in the Fifth Egyptian Room, case E). Of the pottery Schiaparelli notes (p. 140) forms almost indistinguishable from some of the Middle Kingdom ; another proof of the shortness of the period separating the Twelfth from the Eighteenth Dynasty. The metal vase-stands are very fine, especially one in openwork that proves the Eighteenth Dynasty date of the similar but more elaborate stands at Loij)zig published by Steindorff [Blutezeit'^, p. 146; and Kunst der Agypter, p. 300j as Eighteenth Dynasty, which otherwise might have been thought to be Ptolemiiic. The wash-hand basin and ewer of bronze (Fig. 117) are singularly beautiful, and might well be Japanese. The wooden case of the curious leather object (Fig. 51), supposed to be a level, looks oddly Roman or Coptic with its incised design, but the zigzag round the rosette is not Roman. The most interesting instrument, and in some ways the most valuable object found in the tomb, is the golden cubit-rule with in.scriptions of Amenophis 11, referring to his opening of royal buildings at Hermoiiolis, which wa.s no doubt presented to Khai" by that king on that occasion (Figs. 155, 156). “E...di lamina d’ oro, sostenuta internamente da anima di legno’’ (p. 168i. The incised insciiptions are very unusual, especially that referring to Hermopoli.s : ^ ■I i ^ P ^ ^ fe Schiaparelli thinks this refers to the starting forth of the king on the Asiatic campaign of his second year (c. 1446 B.c.); on his way north from Thebes; “Came H.M., his heart rejoicing, into the house of his venerable father Amun. His soldiers with him were as locusts. He stayed at Hermopolis ; he built Uk) the walled house of ('Aa-khcperu-Rc*'' on the second day of the inundation, when the I'iver rose at the time of (its; widening.” It is not a case of a ‘piccolo tempio,’ as Schiaparelli says, but of a secular building, probably little more than a walled royal kiosk. Xo doubt Kli.i*" built it, but whether he did it in one day we do not know. Perhaps he did, and that was why he was git en the golden cubit-mcasuro. Another pre.sent from royalty was a .small handled saucer of electrum, with the incised prcnomen of Amenophis III ;Fig. 157), no doubt given to KhaC in his old age as a mark of the young king's favour, and with a further inscription in black, t£j ' \ U j 1^^, added after hi.s death, unless it was a special post- mortem gift from the king's store of .such things to the funeral equipment of his distinguished subject, which is equally possible. A scribe’s palette with inscription of Amenmes, a very important court officer, llabellifer on the right hand, superintendent of all the works of the jialace and of the treasurio.s, decorated with the golden fly, in the reign of Tuthmosis 11', was no doubt a present from him to his more humble colleague. Rut the great situla (Fig. 158) with the inscription of the scribe L’serhct, priest of the deceased queen Mutnofrit and hem-ka of the prince.ss Sitamun, w.is perhaps not a present from anybody, though wo do not know how it came into Kha''’.s po.sscssion : it was m.tdc probably some time before he was born about a century before it found its last resting-place in his tomb. Other objects in the tomb cited by Schiaparelli as presents can hardly be such: we may instance the draughts-box of ,i certain rather reverend gentleman, devoted to the service of Amun, named Mery-benret, (j'A J (not ‘Benor- merit,’ as Mchiaparelli says; which would be a woman’s name), which bears funerar\- in.scriiitions for Mery-bcnret, and so was no business of Khat’s, properly speaking. Xor had it, properly speaking, anythin"- to do with another person, the superintendent of the king's works Xeferhebef, who is represented on it .seated with his wife and receiving funerary offerings from his son, who.se name, so far as I can read it from the illustration (Fig. 161; is Mery-benret. I may be wrong, as it is difficult to see, and Schiaparelli does not give the name of the son, which however is certainly and so 2>resumably J although this ha.s not occurred to Schiaparelli. It e,xplains the occurrence of the iicimes of both Xeferhebef and Mery-benret on the .same object : Mery-benret commemor.ues his father and mother on his own' funerary draughts-box. Besides this box, a walking-stick with a long funerary inscription of Xeferhebef cut on it was also found in the tomb, and the stick of a Khatemuas, who bore the same title as Kh-if Xow KhaC may be the .same jierson as Khar emuas : names were shortened at that time in this way : we may instance User- Amun, of tomb Xo, 131 at Shekh ‘Abd-el-IIurnah (recently published by de Garis Davies BidL Met. Mue. N.Y., 19:16, ii, 4:1) who was usually called iilain ‘User.’ So we may discount the separate existence of this Khaf emuas, and supiiose with reason that this stick was a iiresent to Khar from himself, or rather from his executors, as it too bears a funerary inscription ( j.^), like the stick and draughts-box of Xeferhebef and Mery-benret. The most probable e-xxilanation of the existence of the two latter objects in Khab.s tomb is that it was not originally made for Khar, but housed the burials of Xeferhebef and his NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 205 soil Mery-benret, who were evicted from it for some reason by Kha^", when two pieces of their tomb-furniture were left behind. The fact that Neferhebef was apparently a predecessor of KhaC in office (he was I not supplj' a hint as to motive. He lived not very long before Kha<', for the inscriptions of Mery-benret are to my mind no earlier than the reign of Tuthmosis III, though the scene of offering to Xeferhebef looks older. The only other explanation is that Khaf bought from the maker the draughts-box whicli Mery-benret had had inscribed for his and his father’s tomb, but had rejected for some reason, and that Khar foi’got to .substitute his name on it for that of the original owner, before he died, and his heirs omitted to do so after his death. Such an explanation, although possible in the case of one thing, becomes less probable when we are dealing, as now, with two : for Neferhebef’s stick has also to be taken into consideration. Anyhow there can be no question of any present fi-om a benevolent friend of KhaC’s in this case. Among other things in the tomb the provisions are also worthy of .special notice, especially the loaves and above all the cakes and biscuits in various forms, three-cornered scones (like the loaf from Der el- bahri [Brit Mus. No. 40,942], published by me in Naville and Hall, Deir el-bahari, Xlth Di/n., ill, p. 24, pi. xix), ^cs-va.se.s, figs, papyrus-flowers, |-.signs (?), and goats (Fig. 1.35), reminding us much of the similar “mixed biscuits” found by Sir Aurel Stein at Astana, near Turfan in Chinese Turkestan, and dating from the T’ang Dynasty, c. 6.'i0-750 .t.D., which were exhibited at the British Museum last year. A very remarkable thing is an alabaster vase in which is a medicament: an oil or ointment (p. 154) containing iron and morphine (“un grasso di natura vegetale, continente ferro ed oppio”). The opium is understandable ; but the iron is a surprise. However, iron was now well known to the Egyptians, though very precious, as the dagger of Tutf ankhamun shows so far as arms are concerned. And it would appear that its medical use was also known. There remains little more to be said with regard to the objects found, except to mention a formidable leather truncheon left behind by a taskmaster of the workmen (Fig. 14) and to note that there is a contri- bution to the vexed question of Egyptian lighting in a bronze lamp in the form of a bird, mounted on a slender wooden stand in the shape of a lotus-column (Figs. 127-8). The outer chapel of brick, originally pyramidal, which has been known since the time of Wilkinson, was well painted, .so far as the vaulted roof is concerned (Figs. 164, 166), and has recently attracted the attention of Mr. DE Garis Davies {Bull. Met. Mics. N.V., 1922, ii, 51). The stele “che da oltre un secolo fa parte delle collezioni del Museo di Torino ” (p. 184), where it is No. 162, is remarkably poor. On it Khaf and Meryt receive ofterings from their son Amonemopet (Fig. 165). From the above it will have been seen how interesting the contents of this tomb are. Schiaparelli’.s account is easy and flowing, but lacks precision. It is readable, which too many accounts of excavations are not, and which this deserved to be. But it is not scientifically precise. We do not want the whole book to be a dry catalogue ; but we do ask nowadays for an inventory of all the objects foimd, with the measurements of everything, and we do ask for the complete text of every inscription, so that one has not to guess at a reading with a magnifying-glass as in the case of the probable name of Mery-benret in the scene of the offering to Neferhebef and his wife on Mery-benret’s draughts-box (above, p. 204). And in the illustrations we do ask for a scale again.st every object. Schiaparelli not only does not give us a single one, but he does not mention in his text the measurements of all the objects described, by any means. Schiaparelli is an Egyptologist of the older school, and the strict discipline in these matters of the yomiger archaeologists (which to them is second nature) is not adopted by him. Apart from this, however, we have nothing but praise for this fine iiublication. Schiaparelli may be of the older school, and so lack the scientific precision that the younger school demands, but he is an Egyptologi.st of great position and knowledge, and he has given us of his best in this edition of the treasures of ancient civilization which he was lucky enough to discover in the tomb of Khaf, and which the museum of Turin is to be congratulated on possessing. IVe cannot close this appreciation of the book (which the Ministry of Public Instruction, General Direction of Antiquities and Fine Arts, has forwarded to us through the Embassy and the Dh-ector of the British Museum) without a further reference to the excellence of the photographs and of their reproduction in photogravure, which is a credit to Italian workmanship. We wish we could say the same of the printing of the hieroglyphs, which is very bad : they are of an ancient fount, and sometimes look as if they were wood-blocks. The other printing is so excellent that we would suggest that Schiaparelli should not in future disfigure his books with so bad a fount, but should advise the “O.P.E.S.” (his printers) to invest in Dr. Gardiner’s new fount which we use in the Journal. H. E. Hale. 206 NOTICES OF EEGENT PUBLICATIONS Kinderspielzeiig am alter Zeit. By Karl Gkobek. Berlin. l)r. Karl Grober, of Munich, has published with the Deutscher Kunstrerlag, of Berlin, an interesting volume on children’s toy.s of all age.s fi-om Twelfth Dynasty Egypt to the nineteenth century, which devotes a short section to ancient Egyptian toys. Several examples in the British Museum -are illustrated, notably the well-known wooden walking lioness with the moveable lower jaw (Xo. 15671), the jerking toy (on the monkey-on-a-stick principle) of a bound and prostrate negro prisoner being worried bv a hound (No. 26254), and several dolls. The lioness is described as a tiger; although the toy is of the Roman period, when the tiger had no doubt become known to the Egyptians, we think it more prcjbable that a lioness was intended. The prisoner-and-hound toy, which is of the Nineteenth Dynasty or possibly of the Eighteenth, throws rather an unjJeasant reflection on the sort of royal pa.stime that was considered appropriate then to be reproduced a.s a child’s toy. Other toy.s illustrated, of the same type, are the very remarkable wooden ichneumon (mongoose) pouncing on a snake, in the Leyden Museum, the early figure (Twelfth Dynasty ?) grinding corn or kneading bread, also at Leyden, and the crocodile with moveable lower jaw (Roman) at Berlin. The common Roman homes on wheels of coume appear. But of the two supposed toys from the Louvre, a stone lion and faience hedgehog mounted on wooden four-wheeled carriages, we Irelieve that the lion and the hedgehog cannot originally belong to the carriage.s. These are no doubt both Roman; but the hedgehog is Saite and the lion is difficult to date, but probably not Roman. M’e believe that here is an examine of the way in which in pre-arcliaeological days unrelated things wore often put together to “look pretty.” Whether the lion and the hedgehog themselves are to be regarded strictly speaking as toys is doubtful ; certainly the Sixth-Eleventh Dynasty wooden figures of servants, alsc) illustrated, are not; they are, of course, funerary models, placed in the t(unb, and should not have been included. The book is finely got up, the photograph.s are excellent, and the descriptive text interesting. H. R. H-vll. I papiri ieratici del Maseo di Toritio. 11 (Jianiaht della Seerupoli di Tebe, ^'o]. i, a cura di Giu.sepi’e Botti e T. Eric Rest (fa.scicolo 1). Torino, Fratelli Boeca editori, 1P28. (Obt.iinable from Hodder and Stoughton, London, and Geuthner, Paris.) The appearance of this first part of a systematic publication of the papyri of Turin, one of the most important collections of ancient Egyptian paiiyri in e.xistencc, is certain of a warm welcome from Egyptologists. So fragmentary is the condition of most the p.tpyri that an adequate publication of them wa,s hardly possible until now when Egyptology has exercised itself upon them more or less for a whole century, and a combination of skill in reading the hieratic, fitting the fragments and reproducing the result by photography has found also a publi.sher willing to undertake the heavy cost of issuin” the work. “ While, in November 1824, Champollion was at Turin studying the Di'ovetti collection of Egyptian antiquities, he relates that after examining those papyri that were well preserved ho was brought "to a table ten feet long covered “at least six inche.s deep” with fragments. In this heap of hieratic writim^s (only some thirty months after bis first decipherment of a hieroglyphic siguL his practised eye and keen intelligence recognised the remains of a chronological ILst of king.s and many other important documents bearing royal names, discoveries which he briefly describes in hi« Seconde lettre au due de Blaeas In 1826-7 the erratic scholar .Seyfiu'th extracted from the mass every fragment of the Papyrus of Ivinas and fitted them all together with great ingenuity in a .series of which first Lepsius and then Gardner 'Wilkinson published facsimiles. Forty years after Champollion’s visit a new period of activit%- commenced Lepsius Lieblein, Chabas and Deveria published some important documents from the collection and in 1869-76 Ros.si, the acting director of the museum, hetving summarily catalogued the fragments and supplied Pleyte m HoUand with tracings of many of them, the latter issued no le.ss than 158 large plates of firc-similes with commentaries and translations. About thirty years ago Professor Schiaparelli, the present director of the museum bevan a systematic sorting and fitting together of the fragments, most of which proved to be of the Twentieth Dynasty Signor Botti in his spare time ha.s continued this work (excluding only the fra.rments of funerary documents) and has lately published notes of several very intere-sting discoveries-remnauts of a reffister of household.^, and of a hymn celebrating the deeds of Tuthmosis III in Asia, a precursor of the so-called “ Poem of Pentaur” of Ramesses II. Now, collaborating with Professor Peet, our tireless Editor who^ we all know has made a special study of the judicial papyri of the Twentieth Dynasty Botti has Ugan the NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS 207 publication, commencing with a group of fragments which has been brought into a final state of preparation, the publishing house of Fratelli Bocca most nobly supporting the enterprise. The necropolis of Thebes with its sumptuous private tombs and its fabulously rich royal sepulchres was a centre of great activity during the New Kingdom and the home of a large population of priests and workmen emjfioyed at the tombs and temples The most valuable and extensive series of the fragments at Turin (excluding the Papyrus of Kings) is that which belongs to journals, which when complete probably gave a recoi-d of the principal events concerning the necropolis during the later part of the Twentieth Dynasty. W ould that some of them had lieen complete I The construction of ro 3 ’al tombs, the robberies from them, the commissions of enquiry, the equipment and composition of the office of management, the days of accession of the obscure Eamesside kings would all have been read in black and white (or rathoi- brown) on the papyri, but alas! only tattered pages of .some i.solated jiortions have been preserved. In this first instalment we are given a piece of a joiu-nal of the end of year 13 and the beginning of year 14 written on back and front of two fragments. The editors show that the reign is that of Xeferkcre^, commonly' known as Rame.s.ses IX. The remains of the recto are entirely occupied by a list, in three pages, of boats and other equipment valued in silver deben and h'te. On the three pages of the verso is a diary from the fifth epagomenal day of year 13, apparently’ with little break in the fragments, to the twenty-fourth day or more of the first month of inundation of year 14, i.e. about one month; yet the editors point out that there are serious difficulties as to the date on which the change from year 13 to year 14 took place. Beside the photographic plates there is a very useful diagram of the fragments and of the pages of writing. There is a diagram also of a much longer series of about thirty fragments, large and small, of the journal of year 17, of which sixteen pages are recognisable on the recto and about the .same number on the verso. The entries for each day vary from one line to twenty and for months together the principal and often the only item was that the workmen were not working, the reason being apparently that their wages or food supplies were in arrears all the time. Absence of “strangers” or of “ Libyans ” is also often noted, but the exact significance of this tantalising entry is not yet apparent. At the same time enquiries were being conducted into robberies of tombs, which were indeed likely to have taken place in such a disorganized state of things. About one-third of this papyrus is published in the fasciculus. Four pages give the names of eight persons imprisoned for tomb robbery and the rations allowed for them and for others ; the other pages record many particulars from the middle of the first winter month to the middle of the third of year 17 during which the workmen were still starved and doing nothing and the mo.st important business was that of the robberies, the confessions of some of the thieves being recorded. The.se fragmentary journals mention people and events that appear also in other papyri in Turin and the British Museum. Very little of all thi.s had been published previously — only parts of two pages by Pleyte and Rossi in a tracing and with little understanding of the contents. It is not until the whole has been published that we can realize its contribution to the picture of Ancient Egyptian life at an alarming crisis. The authors’ method of publication is the most complete possible : the fragments are carefully listed and described, and all the writing is turned into hierogl^-phic in plates coiTesponding to the facsimile and i.s translated with brief but learned commentary'. The following corrections and suggestion.s have occurred to me in reading the fragments. Journal of year 13 : Page 3, recto, 1. 10. A must be the jercr-boat of Nauri stela, 11. 24, 25 ; of. Brugsch, ^Vb. 1466. Page 1, verso, 1. 6. “ This day the wazir arrived (back ?) from the south (lit. ‘ going north ’), whereas he had gone to bring the second priest of Amun.” — o is for Ib., 1. 11. “The inspector of the province departed saying ‘ We will report to the vizier’ {i.e. ‘intending to report to the vizier’), as the scribe Pbe.s was waiting for them.” Page 3, verso, 1. 3. “ The workmen came.” Journal of year 17 ; Page 1, B. recto, 1. 2. Certainly not ; 1. 4, 1 1 seems to me the real equivalent of this common late group; 1. 9, “himgry, short of their {m-my for m-imy) provisions”; 11. 10, 17, 1. 18, “regarding (/«) all prortsions ” ; 1. 25, add before loCrtw. Page 2, B. recto, 1. 17. Omit “pescatore”; 1. 30, ; 1. 31 , for “andar su” rather “mount,” “ride.” We shall all look forward to the continuation of the “Journal” in thi.s fine publication. F. Ll. Gkifpith, 209 A PAINTED TERRACOTTA HEAD IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM By H. E. hall W ith Plates xvi and xvii. The head in the British Museum (No. 21820) of which photographs are published in Plates xvi and xvii is an interesting piece, unpublished previously, so far as I am aware. It is said to have been found in the Fa 3 yum, but for this there is nothing but the word of the man who sold it to the Rev. Greville Chester, from whom it was acquired in 1887. ^rom the facial traits it has usually been taken to be a portrait of a woman. Its date has generally hitherto been assumed to be Roman, but for no very cogent reason that I can see. It is odd and difficult to place, but it can hardly be of the Roman period. The treatment of the features makes this unlikely, and I cannot believe it to be Roman, and am inclined to assign it to the Eighteenth Dvnastv. It looks to me like a work of the reigns of Tuthmosis IV or Ameno 2 )his III, between 1125 and 1375 b.c. The way in which the nose, mouth, and chin are modelled is to m_v eye distinctly reminiscent of work of the end of the fifteenth century. If so, is it a man or a woman? One would say, certainly a woman. But an Egyptian lady of that time should have a much longer coifi'ure, parted in the middle. This short wig or hair with the square fringe over the forehead (not worn then by women) looks more like that of a man. The head may represent a young man. Young male portraits at this period not seldom present a rather feminine contour. But the point cannot be definitely decided, as it can in the case of the well-known bust of a young man of this period in the Birmingham Museum of Fine Arts (cast in the British Museum) which is of course with- out doubt male, despite the fact that it has mistakenly been attributed to the opposite sex^. The coiffure in No. 21820 is not quite of the regulation male type, as is that of the Birmingham figure, but is very like it. But if the head is not of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and is that of a woman, the only suggestion I can make is that it belongs to the Old Kingdom (Fourth-Sixth Dynasty), like the wife of the SJiekh el-beled (who has “bobbed,” though parted, hair), and that does not seem to me to be at all so probable as an Eighteenth Dynasty origin. It is a curious piece. For one thing, it is not the broken off upper part of a figure. It is a bust, intended to be fitted either on a simple pedestal-block (and so be a simple bust), or possibly on to a body of a different material, wood perhaps. For the shoulder- part is hollow, to fit over the tenon of the body (?) below; and the edges of the bust are carefully rounded off and the paint covering the whole is carried round them into the cavity. But there are no arms. This is then a true bust. And so it is in all probability just a sculptor’s model, and had no body. 1 See Petrie, Ahc. Eg., l (]914), 48. Thi.s is part of a seated group of a man and his wife, of a type common at that time ; his wife’s hand is seen on the man’s back, in the usual affectionate position. Joum. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 27 210 H. R. HALL It is half life-size, measuring 14 ins. (0'355 m.) in height; the head from chin to crown 6 ins. (O’ 152 m.). Its material is terracotta, well baked brown-red pottery with a deep red surface reinforced by red paint; this is best preserved on the lower part. The hunched appearance of the right shoulder is due to the rubbing away of the softer material where, as can be seen in the plate, the red surface has flaked off. On the face the original surface has mostly gone, but there are remains of red paint on the forehead, of black on one eye, and of black on the fringe of hair over the forehead. Luckily the features, however, are intact, showing an individual portrait with large mouth and short upper lip. The short wig or hair was originally painted black over the red surface. At some time the head has been partially burnt so that the whole of the wig on the right side has been charred and has broken away, leaving a blackened surface. It is evident that the wig was slapped on to the clay head when the latter was getting dry ; it is not altogether of one piece with the rest of the head, and was inclined to separate from it. The head had broken off from the shoulders, and is mended with modern glue, two streaks of which run down the front of the bust and should not be mistaken for darker ancient paint. Whether the burning is due to bad firing on the part of the potter or is later is difficult to say. Is it a potter's failure? The style is summary: the fringe of hair over the forehead for instance is indicated by a rough succession of marks. The treatment of the eyes with the dipping line next the nose, and with careful outline cut out with the knife, is noticeable. The portrait is obviously well characterized. Is it of the Eighteenth Dynasty or of the Old Kingdom? I think, on account of the facial characteristics and the treatment of the eyes, that it is of the Eighteenth Dynasty, about the time of Amenophis III, and that if so it is probably intended to represent a man. The coiffure seems to me male, with the typical square-cut fringe of the men of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Men sometimes parted their hair in the middle then too, but women always have their hair parted in the middle even when it is “bobbed,” until under the later New Kingdom and the Saites we find them wearing short coiffures (probably wigs), not parted. But that coiffure is quite different from that of this head, which seems to me to be very like the ordinary Eighteenth Dynasty male hairdress minus the two lappet-like locks or masses of hair that usually fall from behind the ears on to the shoulders. It is a question whether these two locks did not originally exist on the head, but have flaked off. I doubt this, however, as the “bob” is square and not rounded off so as to show part of the ear, as it normally would. The red colour of the bust is also an argument in favour of its representing a man. The face (though, of course, much coarser and rougher) is, with its short upper lip, curiously reminiscent of that of the Birmingham head, the date of which is undoubted. It is an “Eighteenth Dynasty face,” in my opinion. And from the date of its acquisition, 1887, I should say that it is highly likely that it really came from EI-‘Amarnah. Plate XVII Eighteenth (?) Dynasty Terracotta Bust; British Museum. Sfalr i Plate XVI II (1) The Sha-animal. I'roni tlie mace-head of the Scorjiion Kin_L,^ (2) Model of a )-oung pig showing the stripes ^o'lc 1 (3) Faience model of a sow with young. B.M. riQ/d. r. (4) Glazed figure of a sow. h’irst D>’nasty ■sli’)6-foxes towing the boat of Horakhuti (Pleyte, Set dans la hacqae du soleil, t.rv, 1 ; cf. L.vxzone, Dis. mit., PI. ecclx.txii) ; also on a Ptoleniaio saroophagu.s publishcinv, who is certainly identical with the earlier S) The capital of the Hypselite nome was Shashotep, ujwth, the modern Shuteb; Greek, Hypselis, rhy-p-s] this name can only ‘ The sealings upon which the name .ind figure of thi.s god appear have been, for the most part, inaccurately publi.shed. I have examined specimens of all the .scalings, e.xcoiit the one of Hetepsekhemui figured in A?in. Serv., ni, 187, and find that the g riL Hi u A 11—6 iff ' u IL^ IS li/ cnrp -<3Z>* riLi?’- /V <= ■ So we find sometimes the disk-shaped mace-head and the pear-shaped side by side e s El-Mahasna PI. XX, 3. o , SOME PREHISTORIC VASES IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM 275 Semitic-Nearer- Asiatic, than by the assumption of an exotic “dynastic people.” The numerous relations with Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and even Crete which for the most part first become evident in the Late Predynastic Period are sufficiently explained by the increasing cultural and political importance of an Egypt no longer confined within the old frontiers. On this point it is not necessary to enter into any detaiP. I refrain, too, from attempting here any historical reconstruction of the period before the First Dynasty or entering upon any questions of detail concerning the Early Dynastic Period, however attractive such questions may be^. My aim in this article has been to derive my conclusions so far as possible solely from archaeological evidence. In conclusion a word on the question of chronology. Many scholars are sceptical about admitting relations, not in themselves incredible, between finds from Egypt just before and during the First Dynasty and identical or similar finds from Jericho, Byblos®, Assur, Susa, to mention only a few sites out of many, because the Egyptian finds cannot be placed later than in the middle of the fourth millennium while those from Nearer Asia hardly reach back to 3000 B.c. Even those who admit the relations claim Egypt in each case as the originator*. Now in the first place Eduard Meyer in the appendix to Vol. i of his Geschichte des Altertums has brought Menes down to 3197 b.c., though he expressly allows for an error of two centuries either way {i.e., 2997-3397 B.c.)®. On the other side the finds of recent years have tended to confine into an ever narrower area the Nearer Asiatic culture referred to above, and that without reference to Egypt and quite unin- fluenced by her chronology : it is firmly fixed within the limits of the chronology of Babylonia, which at present does not go back beyond 3000 b.c.®. The Egyptian and the Nearer Asiatic sides are by no means so far apart in date, especially if we adopt the lower limit allowed by the margin of error of 200 years offered by Eduard Meyer for the date of Menes. The chronology of the Old Kingdom, extremely problematical owing to our lack of a Sothic date, depends for the earliest period on the figure 955 in the Turin King List, of which no acceptable explanation has yet been given. This figure is taken by Eduard Meyer as the total of the years from the First to the Eighth Dynasty. The figure of 419 derived from this for the 18 kings of the first two dynasties whose names have survived seems remarkably high. The lengths of lives which can be determined from the various tomb inscriptions naming kings of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties show clearly that Eduard Meyer’s figures represent an extraordinarily high estimate^. I can suggest nothing more certain in their place, but I should like to emphasize the fact that the Egyptian chronology of the third and fourth millennia b.c. accepted by most scholars is open to the gravest doubts. The archaeological fact that a lively interchange of products and culture between Nearer Asia and Egypt existed just before and during the First Djmasty appears to me on the other hand more important precisely because it is more certain. Since Babylonian chronology is more * Cf. Frankfort, Studies, i, 93 ff. ^ Cf. Grundziige, 46 ff. A reconstruction of the historical conditions in the earliest times on the basis of religious texts of the late era, particularly with reference to the Osiris myth, is given by J unkeh. Die Mysterien des Osiris, in Internat. Woche f Religions- Eihnologie, ill, 1922, 414-426. ^ I would draw special attention to the figure of a baboon in Montet, Fondation Piot, xxv, 247, Fig. 10 right, which exactly resembles the early dynastic baboon-figures from Abydos. * Ed. Meyer, Die dltere Chronologie Bahyloniem, Assyrie7is und Agyptens, 192.5, 40. ® Op. cit., 68-9. ® Op. cit., 39 ; further Christian in Mitt. d. Anthropol. Ges. Wten, liv, 37 and lv, 186-7. Andrae, for example, dates Stratum H at Assur, which shows many connexions with Egypt, about 3000 b.c. ’’ Cf. for details on this point GrundzUge, 51 If. and O.L.Z., 1928, 73. 35—2 276 ALEXANDER SCHARFE firmly settled and does not allow us to go back beyond the figure 3000 I see no other choice except for us on the Egyptian side to accommodate ourselves to that figure. So long as no compelling chronological grounds for the contrary appear we shall not need to go further back than 3000 b.c. for the date of Menes. If we now, as a pure supposition, allow the fourth millennium for the spread of the Second Civilization in Upper Egypt, and the fifth for the development and bloom of the First, including perhaps Badari and the Fayyum, we should get a date of about 5000 b.c. for the dividing line between this and the immediately preceding Capsian culture of Egypt and North Africa (see p. 266), which according to Schuchhardt^ corresponds to the end of the post-glacial period in Europe (Tardenoisian, Maglemosian). APPENDIX. Since I wrote the above paper in the autumn 1927, some new material has come to my knowledge, which I wish shortly to record. M. le Pere Bovier-Lapierre has been excavat- ing during the last few winters in a neolithic settlement with cemeteries in the north- eastern desert near Helwan (Oompte rendu du Congr. Internal, de Geogr., Le Caire 1925, IV, 268-282). One of his most important results in relation to this paper is the discovery in the graves of several blackened pots of the same kind as those mentioned above from the Turah Railway Station (see above p. 272). Sherds of a similar black pottery were found last winter in the Western Delta, near the entrance of the Wadi Natrun, together with sherds of a polished and an unpolished red pottery. Of this we await a preliminary report from Professor Junker, which will appear soon in the papers of the Vienna Academy of Science. Thus the possibility of a special First Civilization in the Delta is becoming greater and greater, and it is of the highest interest to recognize that this possible First Delta Civilization is linked with the neolithic Fayyum-groups by its flint material, axes, saws, and “Libyan arrow-heads. On the other hand, the pottery, as will be seen, is somewhat different from the Badarian, from the Nubian and from the pottery of the First Upper Egyptian Civilization. The neolithic culture of the Fayyum, belonging to the Hamitic or African culture-circle, seems to be the parent both of the First Civilization in Upper Egypt with Badari and Nubia and also of the different First Civilization in the western part of the Delta. Now since the Western Delta and the Helwan-region also belong to this group, only the north-eastern part of the Delta remains for the origin of all the new material of the Second Civilization (see above p. 273). As, however, finds are still lacking from this part of the Delta, this conclusion is a mere hypothesis, however possible. I must mention in conclusion a study of Professor Junker on the same subject, which appeared this spring in the Festschrift P. W. Schmidt, 865-896. On some points Junker is certainly right, on others I am unable to follow him, as I have explained above. There is no room in the present article for a detailed controversy. Besides, the discrepancy of detail between our results is to my mind completely outweighed by our general agreement on the main issues (Junker, op. cit., 890 and my Grundzuge, 46). This agreement is of the more value in that we started from totally different standpoints. Junker working mainly on mythological material and I entirely on archaeological. Let us hope that further excavation in the Delta will throw fresh light on the dark problems of Egyptian prehistory. * Alteuropa, 2nd edit., 1926, 34. 277 SUEZ AND CLYSMA By J. J. HESS In an article on the Isthmus of Suez in Antiquity^ Professor H. Guthe seeks to prove two things: (1) that the Bed Sea reached as far as the Birkat et-Timsah or thereabouts, and not merely to Suez as is held by Kiithmann, Eduard Meyer and others; (2) that Clysma, Al-Kulzum in Arabic authors, did not lie at the modern Suez. The first of these two propositions is true, the second I believe to be false. In favour of no. 1 is the following passage from Yakuts who, after narrating how the canal from Fostat to the Bed Sea was made in the year 23 of the Hegirah, and was used down to ''Omar ibn ^Abd al-^Aziz (86-93 of the Hegirah), continues “Then the sand filled it up and it was blocked and came to an end at Danab at-Timsah [i.e., ‘ Crocodile’s Tail’) in the neighbourhood (or in the direction) of the sand of Al-Kulzum.” This passage is out of Al-Kindi, who died in the year 961 a.d. Danab at-Timsah, “Crocodile’s Tail,” is meaningless unless the Birkat et-Timsah was then connected with the sea (see below). As to no. 2, in the passage concerning Al-Kulzum quoted by Guthe® from Al-Mukaddasi* (a.d. 988) it is stated that “ Water is brought by ship, and other, of bad quality, comes on camels from a place that is distant one harid (i.e. ‘ two parasangs ’ or ‘ one station ’) and is named Suwais.” Some remarks of Carsten Niebuhr® will serve for commentary on this; he says that the inhabitants of Sues draw their water from Bir Sues which lies nearest to them, from “ the spring of Moses ” and a spring called Naba. The last two, still named flyan Mika (^^>« En-Ndh^a (aajUl), lie on the east side of the Bed Sea at a greater distance than Bir es-Swes. The water of all these springs was bad, that of Bir es-Swes the worst; but the last was fortified because it was the nearest®. I fixed the position of this well exactly at five kilometres north-east from Suez. By the Bedouin of the neighbourhood (El-Hawetat) it is called Bir el-Kizmil j^). Now KizmiD is certainly the old Al-Kulzum which would become El-Kilzim in the Bedouin dialects, and metathesis is very frequent in them, especially in words containing a liquid. The spring which is called Suwais and Bir es-Swes respectively in the tenth century and by the present inhabitants of Suez can have obtained its Bedouin name Bir el-Kizmil only because Al-Kulzum=Es-Swes. This is confirmed by Linant-Bey’s map®, where Tell es-Swes is named Tel el Glismel, and by the Tag al-farus®, the largest of the original Arabic lexicons, compiled about 1765 1 Die Landenge ron Sues ivi Altertum in Zeitschrift des Deutschen PaVdstina- Vereins, 1927, 67-92. ^ Oeographisches Wbrterhuch (edit. Wustesfeld), ii, 466. ® Op. cit., 70. ■* Edit. DE Goeje, 195, 13-196, 8 = Yakut iv, 160, 2.3-161, 6. ® Reiseheschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegendea Liindern, Kopenhagen (1774), 220. ® Op. cit., 217. ^ Bir el-Qizmil is marked on the map of Egypt, 1:250,000 South-eiist Delta, sheet 2-F, Survey Depart- ment, 1912, in which the whole route Cairo — Es-Swes is drawn from my survey. ® Memoires sur les principawc travaux execute's en Egypte, Atlas, PI. iii, “Carte de I’lsthme de Suez tel qu’il etait en 1858.” 9 Vol. IX, 32, 18. 278 J. J. HESS from various sources, where we read “ They say Al-Kulzum was a city in the east of Egypt near the mountain Al.-Tur, which has long lain in ruins, and in its place another locality has been built which is named As-Suwais.’’ In any case the name As-Suwais did not exist in the fourteenth century as a designa- tion of the c/7//; for Ibn Dukmaki (f 1391) gives an exact description of Al-Kulzum lying at the end of the western, as Ailah did of the eastern, of the two ‘‘arms’’ of the Red Sea which stretched into the land, but without mentioning the name As-Suwais. The name Danab at-Timsah is already to be found in El-Mas^udi (f 956)^, who writes of the canal which a king wished to dig through the isthmus, but was obliged to give up on account of the high level of the Red Sea: “and the place which he dredged out on the sea of Al-Kuhu m is known as Danab al-Timsdh, ‘ The Tail of the Crocodile,’ and is a mile from the town of al-Kulzum.” Ibn Dukmak says®: " •'Amr ibn al-cAsi wished to cut through the land between the Sea of Ar-Rum (Mediterranean) and the sea of Al-Kulzum, a matter of sixty miles, at a spot (or place) which is called Danab at-Tinisdh, but ''Omar al-Khattab prevented him....” This passage, which is taken from Ibn Sa''id (| 1274), is also to be found in Abu ’1-fidah There can hardly be a doubt that the perplexing name Birkat et-Timsdh is derived from the Danab ut-Tinisdh at a time when the connexion with the Red Sea was broken and the name “Crocodile’s Tail” had no longer any meaning. I consider that the name, apart from several other reasons, is proof that the Red Sea in Arab times still reached to the Birkat et-Timsdh. I should like to criticize three more of Guthe's statements, in regard to the Tabula Peutingeriana: 1. On p. 78 he states that after Clisma the road-line has a hook downwards, thus Clisma XL and that “ the number after Clisma belongs to the preceding piece.” That is impossible. There is no trace of such a hook on the photograph (Fig. 1). "What is visible after XL is a dot or the remains of an X; if it is the latter XIX must be read instead of XL. 2. On p. 76 he states that the Tabula Peutingeriana pictures the conditions of the fourth century a.d. That is not correct. The period of the Tabula is best defined by ' See his Description de VEgypte (Lc Cairo, 1803), V, 53-54. 2 Les Prairies dOr, iv, 97. 3 Op. cit, v, 53. line 11 from below. ' Geograpkie dAhoidfeda, traduite par M. REtNAUn, ii, i, 146. SUEZ AND CLYSMA 279 Kubitschek in Ms very valuable article “Karten” in Pauly- Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopddie\ He places the composition of tbe originals of the Tabula and of the Itinerarium Antonini which is related to it in the time of the Emperor Caracalla (211-217). 3. When Guthe makes use of the drawing of the sea to support his assertions, he shows that he has not read W. Kubitschek’s Itinerarsl adieu-, where it is proved that the courses of the rivers, many parts of the sea, and the lakes were added to the Itinerary at a later date, and generally incorrectly, 1 Vol. X (1919), pp. 2117 S. 2 Denkschrifteii der Jfi'ene/- Akademie, LXi, 3, Vienna, 19111, especially pp. 7-G4. 280 A RAME88IDE EOYAL STATUE FROM PALESTINE By H. E. hall With PL xxix, fig. 1. The upper part of an Egyptian royal statue illustrated in Plate xxix, fig. 1 was found recently either in Palestine or Syria, more probably the former (the precise locality is uncertain), and is now in the British Museum (No. 118544). It is of the usual Egyptian alabaster or calcite, and on it there are extensive traces of the original painting. As can be seen in the photograph, the head has the short round wig very common on royal figures of the Nineteenth Dynasty and later. The uraeus is broken away, and the face damaged, the nose and mouth being considerably knocked about. At the back is a rectangular plinth. There is no inscription on the figure, no cartouche either on the plinth or on the upper arms, to tell us the precise identity of the king represented; but there seems to be little doubt that it is intended for Ramesses II or possibly for Meneptah. It is of course a purely conventional official figure, without pretence to being a real portrait; but from the analogy of other royal statues I should guess this to be meant for Ramesses II or his son, possibly, though not so probably, for Ramesses III, judging by the style. It is an interesting example of the official royal portrait, set up in some town of Palestine as a mark of the Egyptian imperimn, as it might be at Bethshan or at Megiddo or Gaza. It is 9^ ins. (24 cm.) high. A ROYAL STELE OF THE NEW EMPIRE FROM GALILEE By W. F. ALBRIGHT and ALAN ROWE 281 With PI. xxix, fig. 2. One of the most unexpected features of recent Palestinian archaeology is the rapid increase in the number of Egyptian royal inscriptions from a land supposedly poor in epigraphic monuments of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. In this paper we publish a fragment of a coarse basalt stele accidentally discovered on Tell el-‘Oreimeh in January, 1928, by the Rev. Charles T. Bridgeman of St. George’s Close, Jerusalem. Mr. Bridgeman has kindly given us permission to publish it, for which we wish to thank him most heartily. Our fragment is about 27 by 18 cm. and 16 cm. thick. Fig. 1 and PI. xxix, fig. 2. It was broken in antiquity and re-used as a door-socket, as shown by the rounded edge of the socket cavity, originally some 12'5 cm. in diameter, at the upper left-hand corner of the face. The absence of wear around the edge of the socket suggests that it only served a short time in this capacity, after which it was broken again, and one fragment rolled about a third of the way down the hill, where Mr. Bridgeman found it. That it cannot have been carried here from another site is shown by the following considerations. There are no other Bronze Age mounds less than five miles away, and the nearest mound occupied during the Late Bronze Age is Kurun Hattin, six and a half miles away in a straight line, but by road considerably farther. Since this region is full of blocks of lava (coarse basalt), there would be no object in such transportation, least of all to Tell el-‘Oreimeh. Moreover, our fragment weighs about 25 kg., and cannot have been transported except for a short distance, and certainly not to a hill-top already strewn with blocks of basalt. Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 36 W, R ALBRIGHT and ALAN ROWE [W1 II The text runs as follows: (2) P ^ ^ 5*^ | Pt^^Pv^™ ^ ^ /io?)^ My-t-n my nty nn ivn-[f?] irt-[n-]y , “There was recited to him the royal decree I hav'e repelled the foreigners of Mitanni (so that it has become) as one that never existed that which I have done(?) ’ Apparently thi‘ words of the third and fourth lines belong to the royal decree, which was couched in the first person. In this case n-f, “to him,” refers to a royal envoy or district officer, who was commanded to erect the stele. For the expression s^si hihvt, properly if Si hiityw, “to repel the foreigners,” cf. Pap. Harris, I, 57. 12, 58. 8 (see Brughch, Wortarbuch, v, 283): r sfSi hiityw Ty-h-nw, “to repel the foreigners of Tehenu.” The expression my nly nn wn \f?\ stands for classical Middle Egyptian itiy nly n wn\ cf. the full discussion by Gunn, Syntax, 189-90, 122-3. Gunn cites the substitution of my nty nn hpr-in (properly my ntyw nn hpr-in) for the more correct my nty n hpr in later copies of the Song of the Harper. A clue to the date of our inscription is provided by the reference to Mitanni in 1. 3. Nearly all the allusions to this country under its native name Mitanni occur in the in- scriptions of Tuthmosis III. The passages where the name Mtn occurs have been collected by Muller, Asien und Europa, 280 ff., and Burchardt, Die altkanaandischen Fremdworte, No. 541. In two other passages {Urlcunden, iv, 589, 931) Tuthmosis III speaks of the “lands of Mitanni” (tiw My-t-n)^', in our text the word hiswt, “foreign lands, foreigners” ( = hiityw) is used instead of tiw, “lands.” The spelling ^ of our te.xt corresponds to io other inscriptions, Mitanni (also written in cuneiform Mitani and Mittanni) was the native name of a state in Northern Mesopotamia, called by the Assyrians Hanigalbat, and by the Semitic Syrians “Eiver-land,” Nahrim or Naharim in Canaanite, Nahrin or Naharhi in the Amorite dialect. It is also possible that the dual Nahamn, etc., was used by the Syrians of the Bronze Age, just as Naharaim (in Aram Naharaim) was later by the Hebrews*. The cuneiform spelling Nahrima in the Amarna Tablets reflects a Canaanite Nahrvm or Nahrem, while the Egyptian orthographies N-h-ry-n and N-hi-ry-m, etc., seem to reflect ' Tlie upjior part of the first cliaraeter is damaged, it i.s not certain whether it is | (as seems most likely), |, or p. The trau.sposition of ^ and ^ is graphic. For J ^ u'd, “command,” see Ermax-Gkapow, Worterlmch, I, col. c; for v:d nsw, loc. cit. 2 It IS not quite clear whetlier hisat i.s to be taken here in the sense of “inhabitants of foreign lands,” a.-^ often, or whether we are actually to read hiUijic as in the parallel pa.ssage from Pap. Harris cited below. The e.\pres.-'ion kfs! hiswt may be due to contamination between the phrase s^ki hi'sttjw, “to repel the foreignor-s,"' and .such expressions a.s sksh tiw My-t-n, “to destroy the lands of ilitanni” {Urk., iv, 931), and ptpt Ijikirt, which may mean either “to trample down foreign lamls,” or “to trample down foi-eign people.s.” Un a .scarab found by Kowe at ISeth-.shan in 1927, Kames.se.s II is represented as smiting a I 'anaanite, while before the king i.s written ptpt hikwt, which here must mean “ treaJer-down of foreigners.” ^ Cf. also Urk., iv, OKi, in the Song of Triumph, where we have tiw nw m My-t-n, “the land.s which arc in Mitanni.” * There is nothing strange in the use of the dual to denote the Land of the Two River.s. Throughout the history of Mesopotamia we find the duality of the region watered by the two great rivers Tigris and Etqihr.ites constantly emphasized. Sam.si-Adad I of As.syria, about bS.tO B.c., calls him.self “ruler (or the like) of the country' Ijotwcen the Tigris and the Euphrates,” and the .siibsecpient kings of Mitanni, who controlled both upper river valleys, must have stressed the duality of their country in the same way. A EOYAL STELE OF THE NEW EMPIRE FROM GALILEE 28 ;! the pronunciations Nahrin and Naliarhi^. In view of our present knowledge concerning the history of Mesopotamia in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries n.c., we can assert with confidence that Nhrn and Mtn are absolutely synonymous terms. Eecent discoveries have greatly increased our knowledge of Mitaunian history in the fifteenth century b.c. About the middle of the century we find Saussatar-. the great- grandfather of Tusratta, ruling a kingdom which extended at its apogee from the Gulf of Issus to the Zagros Mountains. In the treaty between Mattiwaza of Jlitanni and the Hittite king Subbiluliuma we are told that San.ssatar was the overlord of Assyria, and that he removed a gate of gold and silver (electrum) from its capital .4ssur. It is probably to this period that the stelae of officials mcTitioning service under the king of Hanigalbat, stelae discovered by Andrae at Assur, belong. The excavations carried on during the winter 1927-8 in the region of Kerkiik (Arrapha) by Chiera have proved that Saussatar was also the overlord of Arrapha, south-east of the Lower Zab. The date of Saussatar is fixed approximately by the fact that his .son Artatama gave his daughter to Tuthmosis IV (Amarna-KNUDTZox, No. 29. IG), while his grajid.son Suttarna gave his daughter to Amenophis III. It follows that Artatama was probably contemporary with Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV, while Saus.satar was probably contemporary with Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II, and may be dated approximately 1170-1110, or 1480-1440 if he had a long reign, as seems likely. It was, at all events, probably he with whom Tuthmosis III carried on the long conflict over the control of Northern Syria. During the second campaign of Tuthmosis III (1477 b.c.)®, before there is any mention of a war with Nhrn, we find the land of Assur (Assyria) sending gifts to the Pharaoh, presumably in order to enlist his aid in the unequal conflict with Mitanni. Since there is no further allusion to the lands beyond the Euphrates until the eighth campaign (1468), it would seem that Tuthmosis was either too cautious to intervene, or had been worsted in making the attempt. The conquest of A.s.sur by Saus.satar may then perhaps be dated in the decade between 1477 and 1468. In the latter year the Egyptians again invaded Nhrn, but the official account of the campaign {Urkunden, iv, 697) is so chary of details that the expedition can hardly have been very successful. However, the prince of Sngr, which corresponds to cuneiform Sanhar, south-east of the Khabur^, sent * One of the writens (IV. F. A.; i.> now eonvinced tli.at tlio syll.diic orthogi'apliy of the Eightoeiith Dynasty w.as a .seiioiis effort to reproduce the Vowcl.s intolligihly, a.s alw.ays believed by Vla.x Miiller. Thanks to our new knowledge of the Egyi)ti.in voc.diz.ation .it this tune, as well ,is to a much more inten- sive .study of the Wst-Semitic ili.ilect.s of the .second millenniuin n.c., it is pos.sililo to olimin.ite nearly all the remaining ditfiLultie.s. 2 Since we do not yet know the ex, act ch.aracfer of the Mitinnian .sihil.ants, it is safer to give them their conventional cuneiform tran.scription. The Hittite.s are known to have u.sed i for .s, following the Xortli Mesopotamian orthography, but they did not possess a sh at all, while the Mitannians may have ; .see Journal, XI, 20, n. 1. It is likely th.at Suuiintar, for example, was actiwlly' pronounced Saussatar-, cf. Journal, xll, 187. ^ The chronology follows the gener, ally accepted system of Mev'er, based on the view that the new moon dates given by Tuthmo.sis III arc to lie reckoned from the first appear.ince of the moon, and not from its astronomical conjunction, as held by Mahler, and more recently by Sf.the, Gott. O^s. d. IlYss., Phil. -hist. Klas.^e, 1919, 289. * F]i’a)v KXecotu ■xaipeiv. to vScop to t'[c rrji Sicopvyi ovk dm];8e'/37/[«-]fi/ TrXei'w p [iri/jx!"'. ware pr] Svvaadai air avTrj^ 7roTife[cr0a{ Trje yi)v. Ka\u>i av o]w 7 r[o]/;cra (9 avoi^af Tfl? Ovpas, (va Trori^TjTai rj ’yrj. eplpwao. LJkt;, Mecrop^ kj. Verso: L K-rj, Meo-op?; 7cS. K'Keo)vi. ajv vS... ...[ Translation: “Zenon to Kleon greeting. The water in the canal has not risen more than a cubit, so that the land cannot be irrigated from it. Please then open the sluice- gates in order that the land may be irrigated. Farewell. Year 28, Mesore 23.” The author of the letter writes like a person of some authority, and we are tempted to identify him with Zenon the confidential agent of Apollonios the dioiketes and to regard the land of which he speaks as the great Btoped at Philadelphia. It is true that Zenon did not settle down in Philadelphia till the end of year 29. We know, however, that he visited the Fayyum along with Apollonios in year 28 and that their party was in Krokodilopolis about the 1st of Thoth, or within a fortnight of the date of the letter (see P. Cairo Zen. 59087); and we may certainly assume that they inspected the estate and gave instructions about the work to be done there. It seems highly probable then that the present letter THREE PTOLEiLAIC PAPYRI 28 S) was written by Zenon during or after a visit to Pliilade]j)liia. iMorcover w(' know of no other 2 )ersoii of that name important enouyh to have sent sueli a rei[uest to the chief engineer. It may be objected that the letter is not in Zeuon's usual hand and that it is dated by the Egyptian month, whereas at this period he was accustomed to use the Macedonian calendar. But in fact his other letters are not all in one and the same hand, and it is certain that he often employed a scribe. Tlnne is nothing unreasonable in tlie assumption that he dictated the jjresent letter to a hjcal seriix", leaving him to date it by the calendar which the Greeks domiciled in the interior of Egvpt had alreadv adopted. No. 2. This is a formal petition to the king, of the type which the Magdola papyri have made so familiar. IVe may reconstruct the case somewhat as follows. The comi)lainant Attalos had brought an action against Apollonia for the recovery of forty-three drachmas, and a certain Apollonios, a horse-breaker, perhaps the ladv's brother, had become surety for her, undertaking to produce her in court by a certain date or. failing that, to |)ay the sum claimed himself. See the introduction to No. 3. In the event of Ajjollonios not fultilling his contract the TrpaKToop ISlcotikuv had been ordered by Serambos. the local representative of Aristomachos, to e.xact the money from Apollonios. The TrpuKreap had failed to do this, and now Attalo.s asks the king to order Aphthonetos the arpaTpyo^ to write to Serambos bidding him e.xact from the TrpuKTwp and hand ov('r to the plaintilf three times the amount claimed from Apollonios in accordance' with tlie edict. A similar provision of tlie same edict is referred to in P. Ihh. 34, 9, in whicli an ap)(tv\aKLTp'^ who prevented an e.xecution is said to be liable for three times the amount of the debt: and no doubt all State officials who failed to carry out their duties with regard to the recovery of private debts were threatened with the same penalty. Aj)hthonetos mentioned in 1. 7 aj)pears in the Petrie papyri, vol. ii, 12 and vol. lit, 29, as strategos in year 0 of Ptolemy III and again (for there is little doulit that it is the same person) in a document of year 19 {P. Petr., nr, 25). The petition.s addressed to him prove that he was the governor of a district and not-a purely military commander. From the present text and from P. Petr., ii, 12, in which he writes to Agenor about the owners of (TTadpLoi in Krokodilopolis. one might suppose him to have been strategos of the Arsinoite nome. But that is not possible. The Zenon papyri show (piite clearly that from at least year 36 of Ptolemy II to at least year 7 of Ptolemy III the Arsinoite strategos was Agenor. We must therefore conclude that Aphthonetos belonged to another district, perlmps the Herakleopolite. The fact that we have several petitions addressed to him among the Petrie papyri does not invalidate this argument; for Gurob, where the papyri were found, lies midway between the two nome-capitals. and it is only natural that the material used for making the cartonnage should have come from the south as well as from the north. Besides Aphthonetos, another strategos called Aristomachos a 2 >pears in the petition (whether the words KaOeffrapevov aTparrjyov go with ' \piaTopd-^ov or with ’Sppetp/Sov), and ho too, unless I am mistaken, is not altogether unknown to us. For he is probably the colleague to whom Aphthonetos writes in P. Petr., iii, 29 (i) and probably also the strategos of the Arsinoite nome mentioned in P. Gurob, 2, 7, which dates from year 21 of Ptolemv III. If these identifications are right, Aristomachos succeeded Agenor as strategos of the Arsinoite nome sometime after year 7 of Ptolemy III and continued in office till year 21 or later, after which he was himself succeeded by Diophancs (P. Mayd., pmsim ). According to this theory Jourii. of Egypt. Arch. XI v. ;J7 290 0. 0. EDGAR the strategos of a nome in early Ptolemaic times held office for a much longer period than in Roman times; for Agenor the fact is certain, for Aphthonetos nearly certain, and for Aristomachos highly probable. For though the present text might be as late as year 20, its date is more probably nearer to that of the bulk of Zenon’s correspondence, among which it seems to have been found ; I woidd therefore place it not long after year 7, the latest in which we find a mention of Agenor. It may be asked how, if Aphthonetos was not the Ar.sinoite strategos, the petition should have found its way to Philadelphia in the Fayyum. The probable solution of this difficulty is that the petitioner belonged to the district of Aphthonetos and therefore sought redress through his own strategos, while the defendants were domiciled at Philadelphia, where the exaction of the money would be entrusted to the local agent of the Arsinoite strategos. A Serambos appears in P. Petr., ii, 18 and P. Gurob, 9 as owner of a in the 'HpuKXeiSov pepK and, as the name is not common, may possibly be the agent mentioned in our text. The left half of the papyrus is in the Cairo Museum (Journal d’entree, 48937) and the right half in the Michigan collection (Invent. 3138); when complete it measured about 13 X 29 cm. This is a case in which the dispersal of the fragments is of little consequence; the text could not be clearer if the two halves were again joined together. Unfortunately it is not always such a simple matter to identify and combine the separate pieces of a document, especially if they happen to be distributed over three continents. ffatriXel IlTo\ep,aia)i, 'yaipeiv "ArraXo?. dSiKovp,ai vtto IlToXe/iaio[i' p,eC]gv<; tov IIto- \ep.alov irpaKTopo^ lBi,(OTtKa>v. 'ypd\jravTo<; 'yap 'Erjpdpi^ov tov -rrapd 'Apicrropdixov Ka6earap,evov cnp(aTr)y\ov TTpocrraypLa IlToXe/iatan, eVetS^ ’AttoXX&Iwo? ovB eri Kal vvv KadearrjKev ’A‘7roX\a>viav, idp, p,r) eri /cal vvv KaracrTpcrijc ii> ripcipai^ I, elcrrrpd^avra ' AttoXXwvlov Trci)XoBap,acrTrjv h pry diroBovvai poi, /cal Xa^oiv to Trpoarayp.a /cal TOV ' AtoXXoviov 5 ov KaOea-T-pKOTOi; ttjv 'AjroXXcoviav /cal e^eXdovcrwv to)v rjpepwv /cal dXXov TrXelcp eTTvyevo- pevov y^povov dTrat,Tovp€vo<; into pov Tas p'y I- ovk uiroBiBcoai. Beopai ovv crov, et croi Bo/cel, pt] TrepuBrj'; pe dBi/crjdei’Ta vtt avTov, dXXa -TTpoard^ai 'A(f>6ovi]Tw[t tw] aTparrjyMi jpdyjrai 'S.ijpdp^an, dv dXrjdT], eicnTpd- ^avTa IlToXe/iafoi' TpnrXrji/ rrjv Trpd^Lv KaTa to Btdypappa h pKd diroBovvaL pgi, Kal w Bid ak tov BiKaiov TeT€vyd)<;. evTvyei. 3. There is an empty space before Kal vvv KaTaarycrpi. 4. elaTTpd^avTa: ba above the line over a deleted letter. 6. OVK aTToBiScoai: added above the line. 7. dv rji dXr}6rj'. added above the line. 8. poi is not quite certain, but it does not seem possible to read Tva or ott®? and more- over the phrase Kal without a preceding conjunction seems to have been regularly used in such petitions (cf. P. Cairo Zen. 59351). Translation: “To King Ptolemy greeting from Attalos. I am being wronged by Ptolemaios the younger, son of Ptolemaios, exactor of private debts. For Serambos agent of Aristomachos, who holds the post of strategos, having written an order to Ptolemaios to the effect that, since Apollonios had not even till then produced Apollonia, if he did not even now produce her within ten days, Ptolemaios was to exact from Apollonios the horse- THREE PTOLEMAIC PAPYRI 291 breaker forty-three drachmas and pay them back to me; though he received the order and though Apollonios has not produced Apollonia and the days have expired and a further period has gone by, in spite of my requests he does not attempt to pay me back the forty- three drachmas. I therefore beg you, if it seems good to you, not to overlook the wrong which he has done me, but to order Aphthonetos the strategos to write to Serambos that, if the above be true, he is to exact from Ptoleniaios in accordance with the edict three times the amount of the claim and pay to me one hundred and twenty-nine drachmas; and so by your help may I obtain justice. May you prosper.” No. 3. This text, which also belongs to the Michigan collection {Invent. .3106), is a royal order headed by the usual formula ^aaiXeox; irpoaTd^avro'i. It is written in clear characters across the fibres, and the papyrus, which measures 23 12‘5 cm., is folded horizontallv. Starting from a particular case which had been submitted to him, the king decrees that whoever becomes surety for the appearance of another person by a certain date shall be released from his bond if he produces the body of the defendant even after the appointed term. The surety usually bound himself, by contract with the plaintiff, to produce the defendant within a given time or else pay the sum claimed (e.g., P. Cairo Zen. -59323), while in P. Hib. 93 he makes himself liable for the additional charges of rd eTrtSvKara kuI TO, yivofieva. The language of the present decree is .somewhat ambiguous, for to (Td)/j,a might mean "the person” (as in P. Hib. 34, 8) or "the corpse" of the defendant, whose death had prevented tlie surety from fullilling liis contract ; b\it the latter meaning seems more probable and makes the appeal to the king more intelligible. The heading adds that the royal order was communicated to Zenon by Aischylos agent of Sostratos. This Sostratos is probably to be distinguished from Zenon’s friend of the same name with whom he shared a vineyard and with whom he had many common interests at Philadelphia. But without doubt he is the Sostratos who writes to Zenon from Alexandria in year 28 of Ptolemy II, asking him to give some help to his friend Aischylos (P. Mic/i. 3107, unpublished); the appearance of Ai.schylos iu both texts makes this evident. Further, in P. Petr., in, 20, col. 4 and verso, col. 1 we have two other decrees of the same nature, dating from between year 16 of Ptolemy II and year 2 of Ptolemy III, one of which is officially delivered by Theon irapd laiarpaTov and the other by Diodoros ( () rrapd 'S.uxrrpd- rov. This is evidently the Sostratos of our text, while the occurrence of his name in the heading of these three documents shows that he had something to do with the publication of the royal irpoardynara. Now a fragmentary letter composed of P.S.I. .505 and a smaller scrap in the British Museum speaks of a certain jarwco? rov eVl tmv TTpoaTayfidTuv in year 29, and it seems to me probable that Sostratos was the succe.ssor of this man in the office denoted by the above title. Though the date of the two decrees in P. Petr., in, 20 is not quite certain, Smyly remarks with reason that they should perhaps be assigned to the first or second year of Euergetes, which would accord very well with the above suggestion. The iiri TMv irpocnayp.dTav was a Court official, like the eiriaToXoypd^o^; and the virofivi]- fiaToypd(f) 0 ‘;; probably he had to draft the trpoaTdypaTa in accordance with the king’s instructions and then submit the draft for approval, as described in the Epistle of Aristeas, 26 1; and another of his duties was to see that the orders were delivered to the persons concerned by one of his agents, as we see from the headings of the three documents. ^ flaboOivTos Se Tov TTpoardyixaTOSt ottcos iTravayvioo'di^i /SafrtXet, ra dXXa irdvr* €;^oj/rt>s‘ 7r\i)v rov ‘‘fcal ft TiV€S TTporjerav 17 Kai perd ravra €l(Tr^yp€voi rSnv avTos tovto d ^aa-iXevs TrpoaeBTjKC peyaXopepeia KOI peyaXoyjzvx^f} xpijirdpevos. 37 292 C. C. EDGAR The pre^icnt text is dated year 10, Audnaios. no doubt the date on which the order was drawn up. As it was iiought with a large lot of Zenon papyri, we cannot doubt that Z/jvcopi in 1. 3 is tlie Zenon of the correspondence. And if, as presumably was the case, the order was communicated to Zenon shortly after being drawn up, year 10 must refer to the reign of Ptolemy III, for the correspondence does not go back beyond year 25 of the previous reign, nor is it at all probable that Sostratos was in office in year 10 of Ptolemy II. It might perhaps be maintained that what we have here is a copy, made and guaranteed by Sostratos, of an earlier decree preserved in the records of his office ; but such a suggestion seems unnecessary and unlikely, and the name of Euklcs in 1. 7 is an argument in favour of the later date. Until recentlv we had no documents from Zenon’s files indubitably later than year 8 of Ptolemy II, and it seemed natural to suppose that that was the date of his death or of his departure from Philadelphia. But Hunt has now published a taxingdist (this Journtil, XII, 113) in which Zenon appears as a tax-payer in year 18, the tax-collector bc'ing Achoapis. Taken by itself, this evidence would not bo conclusive, as Zenon is not an uncommon name ; but the British Museum possesses a letter from Zenon to the same Achoapis, dated year 13 and acquired along with a large number of other papyri which certainly come from the archive. This is evidence that cannot be disregarded, and we mu.st admit it to be highly probable that Zenon was alive and resident in Philadelphia as late as year 18. If so, the date of the present text jiresents no ditliculty. /Sa(7tXe&)? irpoard^avro^, i\.ic!-)(y\ov Tov irapa ’SoicrTpuTov d-TrayyeiXai'TO^ Zpvuivt. inrep ov iveTV)(^ev 'IIi'to^o[ 9 ] 5 tS)v ' ^vdiTTiTov Ta^iap)(^o<;, el eyyvo^ yeyevrjTai 7rapap.ovP)<; KaWlov Trpo? KaTaaT>jcra<; to erwpLa (t(f>ec(T0u> T)}? vTTeppp.epla';, Kara lo ravra Se Kal oaoi eyyvwvrai 7rapap,ovPjuceeeded by Ari'toma- chos and that the hitter was succeeded by Diophane-N. wlio held the appointment till at least year I of Ptolemy IV. It may si'cm to cottilict witli this tlieiiry that in P. Pi h.. lit. .'SI and P. 6 we find a strategos called Agatliis acting administratiwly in the Kayyum in years 4 and 7 of Ptolemy III. But as it is ipiite certain that Agenor was still in ollice at that period (P. Cairn Zen. dO.'lol, oftlGti). we are led to infer tluit Agathis. who bears the unusual title of crrpaTriyh^ Ka\ iTr-TrdpxP'f, must have been a subordinate .strategos, stationed somewhere in the country. This again suggests tliat Serambos may have been an officer in a similar po.sitioii atid that the words Kadecrrap-trov arparijyov really reter to him (cf. Di lai loitiala . 42, o vrapd rod vop.o^v\aKo^ Kadecrro)^). though witlioiit doubt Aristomacho.s was the metrojiolitan strategos. Pcrha])s w(‘ may also compari’ li.C.I . 1297, Tov Trporepov vtt'o '['n''n\6vLKov]\ arparpypaavro^ tv ()^vpv'/)^oi<; (a village in the Fayyum). As regards Ajihthonetos. it should be noted that his letter (P. Petr., ii. 12) reaclu'd Agenor within two day.s and that he cannot Therefore have been residing far from Krokodilo])olis. 294 THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PENIATI By S. R. K. GLANVILLE With Plates xxx-xxxv. The British Museum Papyri Nos. 10102, 10103, 10101 and 10107^ contain four letters, or parts of letters, written at a period of which we have very few epistolary remains. They come almost certainly from the correspondence files of a single man, a certain Aahmose, whose name is known to us from other inscriptions, and from whose corre- spondence two other documents, now in the Louvre^, have already been published by Maspero®, Spiegelberg'* and Peet®. Hitherto the chief interest of these two published letters has lain in their date, and in the scarcity of their kind. Palaeographically and linguistically they exhibit a mixture of cla.ssical and New Egyptian, while in their own genre they give us an example of the formulae employed at this transition stage in the language. The publication of four more letters of this period should therefore be valuable, both as confirming our knowledge of the nature of these formulae, and as further illustra- tion of the palaeographical and linguistic peculiarities of the Middle Eighteenth Dynasty. The six letters taken together have also considerable historical interest. The central figure of this correspondence is a scribe called Aahmose®; and the only reasonable explanation of the coincidence of their interrelation and preservation is that all six letters come from the same dossier. The proof of this is to be found in the fact that of the six, four are addressed to Aahmose by different persons, i.e., one of the two Louvre papyri’ and B.M. 10102, 10103 and 10107, while the remaining two, ostensibly written hg AahmSse to two different individuals, were never meant to be delivered. They were in fact fair copies. The name Aahmose occurs in every letter. In the four letters addressed to him (and in those only) it is accompanied by the title “scribe.” In three cases Aahmose is described as “of Peniati,” n pniHy, (namely in both the letters written by him, and in B.M. 10103,) while in B.M. 10102 he is described as “He of Penit, piy Pnit, where Pnit is certainly a mis-spelling of Peniati. In the two remaining letters, Louvre 3230a and B.M. 10107, where the addressee is called simply the “Scribe Aahmose,” the identification of this man with him “of Peniati” may be considered certain. The arguments put forward by Peet® in the case of Louvre 3230 a also hold good, mutatis mu- tandis, for B.M. 10107. And as subsidiary evidence we may note the similarity in the forms ' I am indelitcd to Ur. Hall for j>eriuission to publish the.se papyri for the first time. - Pap. Louvre 3230. ^ Notices et e.viroits des rnnnuscrits de la Bihliotliique Nationale, xxiv, jjremifere partie, 105-113. ■* Zeitschc. f. nj. fipr., I.v, 84-0. Only one letter i.s treated here: that//-o»J Aahmose. ^ Journul, xir, 70-74. I retain, without comment, the form Aahmose u.sed by proviou.s writers. ' These are both “gummed down on to a mummy wrapping” (Peet, ibid., 70) and .share a single number, Louvre 3230. For the sake of clearness I propose to refer to them henceforward a.s Louvre 3230 a and b in the order in which they are taken by Professor Peet; i.e., Louvre 3230a = Teti to Aahmose, and 3230b = Aabrno.-^e to Tai. * ibid. 73. THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PEN I ATI •2i)b of the two letters. Both begin with the name of the writer, with no titles attached; both are written to the “Scribe Aahmose.” In the circumstances such coincidences can only indicate that they both belong to the larger group. The following table of the letters showing the writer and addressee in each case will be useful for reference, and helps to correlate the evidence for a single correspondence. B.M. Ijoinre 10102 loio:s mint 10107 ) a ;!2;ioi, AVriter’.s name j Mentuhoti’ii ; Mcntidiotepl* Hori (Hori) Aaluiiose J’t.ihii ( Pt.ilin 1 'i'eti A:ihiuuM‘ A’riters title | or and (leMcription 1 Jiityr of Peniati (if I’lTlLlti Addre.ssee’s f naino ( AalirnO^e (.■\ahni0se) AaliinO.'ie lAahinO.ee ' W.azlrenput AaliniOso ('itahnio.soi x\aluii0se Tai Addre.s.see’.'' title and/or description 1 Scribe (Scribe) pig PaU {piij Pm[t]) (Scribe) iof Peniati ■ t'omptroller of the Household Serilie V Seri lie; Sen lie t Trea-'iirer * Xame.s in Imvcket.s freiu the a.s to the hudy of tlio lettoi.s in (piestion. t “Beloved brother,” etc. Aahmose of Peniati, then, is the central figure of all six letters. This fact is of im- portance in itself, but chiefly because we know Aahmose as an historical ^^erson. The identification of our scribe with a man whose professional diploma^ in the shape of a wooden palette^, bearing his name and a suitable prayer, is now in the Louvre, is due to Professor Spiegelberg The palette also explains the elliptical phrase “Aahmose of Peniati,” for his full title as given there is lif ^ ffl ‘fP '““'ll© ^ "the scribe (■V'p) Aahmose, assistant of the Director of Works of Hermonthis, Peniati.” When Aahmose speaks of himself, or is addressed as n PniUij, we are probably to understand an emphasis on the personal relation of Aahmose to Peniati in his official position®. From Sethe, JJrk., iv. No. 18 (p. 52) we learn that this Peniati held office under five successive rulers, namely Amenophis I, Tuthmosis I and II, Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III, and the later half of this period we may assume, in agreement with the evidence of the writing, was the period of Aahmose’s activities. The two inscriptions which supply these facts about Peniati’s life are both in the Shatt er-Rigal, on the West bank of the Nile, just below Silsilah. They are very short: the names of the Pharaohs (three in one case and two in the other) above the name and titles of Peniati. The second, which contains the names of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis only, is “far up the ravine on a rock round a corner turning to the S.E.”® Presumably a faithful servant, perhaps Aahmose himself, had ■ PiRJIAN, Die acg. Sch/ilee/iandschrifte/i, 24. - Lduvro E. :?2;52. 3 Zeitsc/ir. f. ag. i^pr., Lv, 84. ^ Sethe, OL, iv, .■)2 ; Xi>. 10. ■' Zeitschr. f (nj. Spr., i,v, 81). “ Aiiiasis, iui Dienstc (od. a.l.’' ® Petkie, Season in Egypt, PI. Ixiv, 357. S. R K. GLANVILLE •J96 written it ; for Peniati was dead, his name being followed by 1 1 . Hatshepsut was also dead^ and Petrie argues therefore that as her name is not erased she can only recently have died, and that Peniati’s death must have followed close on her own^. The equation of Peniati who was Director of Works of Hermonthis with Peniati who left his name in the Shaft er-Rigal as Director of Works in the temple (or estate) of Aniun under Hat- shepsut and Tuthmosis III, cannot be doubted for a moment. Who would be a more likely person to be sent south, to the most productive of sandstone quarries, Silsilah, than a director of works under two of the greatest builders of the Eighteenth Dynasty? His duties would have carried Peniati well beyond the immediate range of the worked quarries, in search of better stone: hence our inscriptions. Returning to Aahmose him- self, Sethe^ (f(dlowed by Spiegelberg^) has suggested another identification. In the sand- stone of Silsilah on the west side are a number of tombs, one of which, copied by Sir Flinders Petrie and Professor Griffith^, contains inscriptions chiefly devoted to a man called Aahmose, and described once as “Director of works,” or “Director,” and once as ,fl|53= ''Scribe of the Nome.” We have seen that it is highly probable that Aahmose of Peniati did accompany his superior to Silsilah on his expeditions to the quarries; but the uncertainty of the reading of the sign after f makes us hesitate at first sight to accept the titles of the man whose tomb (cenotaph?)® is in West Silsilah as sufficient evidence to justify the identification of him with Peniati’s lieutenant®. The fact that the same tomb contained two more shorter inscriptions for two Theban officials^® (and their wives), may be taken as evidence for supposing that Aahmose also came from that city. It is indeed possible that the words “of Hermonthis” of the Louvre palette refer to the native town of Peniati and not to the sphere of his activities : it is far more likely that his actual headquarters from which he directed the work, e.g., on the Temple of Aniun, would be in Thebes. However, any uncertainty in the equation of the descrip- tions of Aahmose of Peniati and of Aahmose the Scribe of the Nome is considerably lessened by the existence of two inscribed objects in the British Museum. These are a shabti-figure and a kohl-pot, both inscribed with the name of a Director of Works, Aah- mose. The shabti, B.M. 24427, (height 8 inches,) is of alabaster (PI. xxx, fig. 1). The inscription is incised and filled with blue frit, largely vanished, and is set between narrow lines filled with red paint; it consists of the usual text of the Vlth Chapter for the Osiris The style of the figure and inscription, and the spelling ® V !’ object to the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty. ‘VI it- - PiiTBlE, iiji. cit., 14. The force of this aigunieiit i.> lost when »e rcuiciiibcr tli.it the inscription \v;is the farthest from the i-iver, and a considerahle distance beyond all the otlier.s {ihiil ). Tuthmosis’ officials inioht ho excused for not turning that Iasi “corner.” At the .same time Peniati can hardly have survived her lon;,c sini-c he would have been an old ni.in at the time of Ilat.shep'Ut’s death. ^ Urk., IV, 466, no. 144. t Zuitschr. f. Ug. nv, 94. = flRiFriTH, Priic. Sor. EM. Arch., xn, 94. '' So Sethc, following the earlier re.iding of L., />., te.xt, ix, 89. ■ So ( iRU'l'IlH, ihld. ” SllTHi;, up. fit., IV, 66. Surely Professor Sethe has hogged the ipiestion of their identity by calling Aahmoso (eye cit., iv, 66) “Gausehreiber und Loiter der B.iiiten miter Hatsche^soirct uikI Thutuums III” 'it, dies mine), since the only eviilonce for his h.iving served iiinler these ruler.s is in the tiossihle identification of him with the Aahiiioso of the Louwe jialette E. :5212, whose master we h.ivo seen worked under them ; whereas he apt>ears to deduce the identification from the remark already riest may also have been AalimOse. THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PENIATI 21)7 The wooden koU-pot, B. M. 5337, is of the quadruple-cylinder type (PL xxx, figs. 2 and 3) with five separate wells. Height over all inches. A button (PI. xxx, fig. 2) was to hold the lid of the pot (now lost) in place. A metal loop (same fig.), if part of the original object, was doubtless to retain the kohl-stick. The pot is inscribed with a single line of hieroglyphs on each cylindrical face as follows (PL xxx, fig. 2): “Fine eye-paint for every day — (from) the first month of Inundation to the fourth month of Inundation, (from) the first month of Winter to the fourth month of Winter, (from) the first month of Summer to the fourth month of Summer.” Down the plinth at the back runs (PL xxx, fig. 3) “An offering which the King gives to Amen-Rec, that he may give every good and pure thing for the Ka of the Director of Works, the .scribe Aahmose, justified.” The delightful cutting of the hieroglyphs determines the date of the pot, which is much the same as that of the shabti, with perhaps the possibility of greater range on either side. Both objects are therefore covered by the period during which Aahmose of Peniati lived. We thus have a series of inscriptions from this period giving the following table : 1. Louvre palette: . 2. Silsilah graffito; f ^ (or and (|j P . 3. KoH-pot, B.M. 5337: 4. Shabti, B.M. 24427: Without evidence to the contrary it is difficult to avoid seeing in the Aahmose of these four inscriptions a single person — the Aahmose of our letters. The table represents the chronological order of the inscriptions (3 and 4 are more or le.ss contemporary), and the letters would belong to the same period as the Louvre palette. Summing up all the evidence, we may say of the Scribe Aahmose, with whose correspondence we have to deal, that he was the clerk, or assistant, or secretary to a Director of Works, Peniati, whose headquarters or more probably place of origin was Hermonthis ; that he almost certainly lived at Thebes — the bulk of the Anasta.si collec- tion is believed to have come from there, and it is improbable that his letters were moved after his death — and worked there under Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III, surviving well into the reign of the latter, since he was presumably a younger man than Peniati. It seems probable that in later years, after the death of Peniati, he took over some of his duties, being promoted to be Director of Works, and was given the rank of Scribe of the Nome. As Peniati’s deputy he must have made many visits to the quarries at Sil- silah, and there would be nothing unusual in his having prepared for himself a tomb on the west bank which bears his name. We must turn to the letters themselves for further information. Papyrus B.M. 10102 L Pis. xxxi, xxxii, fig. 2 and xxxv (facing p. 312). Translation. Recto (1) The Noble Mentuhotep greets the scribe Aah-{2)mdse of Penit, in life prosperitg and health; and in the favour of {S) Amen-Ree, King of the Gods, of Atum, Lord of Heliopolis, Rec-{i)Hara]chti, Thoth, Lord of the Divine tvords, Seshat (?)^, (5) Ladg of urifing, and of ' The papyrus is 9 iuchc.s long, and varies in width from 4j inche.sat the top to 4,'. inches at tlio hottoin. It has been attacked by the w'orm and is torn in placo.s. Its legibility is only seriously .ifteeted along a strip about | inch thick down the length of the left-hand edge. Here the papyrus is not only full of holes and tears, but its surface also has been badly rubbed, the signs being almost obliterated even where the Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. .38 298 S. E. K. GLANYILLE tJiy revered God^, who loves thee: may they grant thee favour (6) and love, and enterprise in all thy undertakings. Further: (7) please have^ erected the matting^ and beams of (8) the storehouses and back of the house. (9) The wall is six cubits (10) high. Then, as to the doors of (11) the storehouses, let them be five cubits (12) high; and^ as to the doors (13) of the living-room, let them be (11) six cubits high. And thou (15) shalt tell the builder Amenmose to do it thus, (16) and to hurry on the building of the house hard^. (17) How fortunate that my brother is with thee; two heads are better than one!"^ Verso (1) Further: 1 will send thee the height of the (2) house, as cdso its breadth. Further: let (3) a shelter be made from some of the matting and (i) let it he given to Benya. Further: let (5) the price^ of the property be given to (G) its owner; let his heart be satisfied, mind! (7) See that he does not quarreP ivith me when 7^“ arrive! (Address) Mentuhotep to the scribe. Aahmose^^ of Penilt}. Notes on the Translation. 1. The ^ is certain ; -\ extremely probable ; but is possible ? 2. Peet ( joMniai,xii,70) takes /itr-it A-psy inapposition to Amen-Eec, as indeed is possible on the evidence of the single example provided by the Louvre letters. Clearly, however, it cannot refer to Amen-Ref in the present context : nor can it be taken in apposition to the preceding deity since that is a goddess. (Even if the difficulty of concord could be overlooked, the point of the phrase would be lost, since two different deities would both be referred to as “thy revered god” in addressing the same man.) Surelythe words must mean something like “thy patron saint,” and in the two mo.st formal greetings (B.M. 10101 and Louvre 3230 a) are appropriately coupled with the name of Amen-Rec — as if to emphasize at the outset the two extremes of possible worship, the official first god of the state and the private god of the individual. This interpretation is clinched to my mind by the words mr tw which follow. Peet took the verb as sdmf with optative sense, and the names of the gods which followed as subject. With the new examples before us (B.M. 10102, 5 and 10101, 3) it is clear from its position that the phrase mr tiv is to be taken with ntr-k spsy “thy revered god who loves thee.” The word-order in both cases makes it impossible to take mr tw as sdmf. But we should expect the more idiomatic form of the participle, the geminating mrr\ and that is precisely what we find in Louvre 3230 a, 2. If further proof were needed that mr in the B.M. letters is the participle and not sdmf, it would be found in the omission of mr tw altogether from the one lengthy greeting which also omits ntr-k spsy. 3. See Gardiner, Eg. Gram., § 410, who suggests that the force of the imperfective sdm-f in such a case is diffidence or politeness. The form with the r is quite anomalous {op. cit., § 289, 1). It is possible that the scribe meant to use the introductory phrase r ntt (as in vs. 1) and accidentally omitted the second word. 1. The word in, which occurs again (I's. 3) in the plural, is, I believe, unknown. It is clearly an object sometimes used in house construction, and from its determination appears to be made of wicker or wood, rather than stone. It occurs here in juxtaposi- tion to s!w, “beams,” and should therefore be connected with the process of roofing. From its use in vs. 3, and the presence of the plural article m, we should read it as a plural here also. The reference in the second passage is still more definitely to roofing, since the inw are to be used to make a shelter (lit. “protection”). The modern inhabitants papyrus itself has nut been torn. The surface of the recto (H/V) only i.s thus .aftecteJ. The writing on the verso is very clear, and as the scribe has started again at the original tu]j of the page (i.e., the top of the reeto is also the top of the verso), and allowed himself a small margin, thei'e is no difficulty in reading it. THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PENIATl 299 of Lpper Egypt roof their mud brick houses by laying palm fibres on wooden beams and plastering them together with mud, weighing down this layer with broken jjottery. A similar process must have been in use among the ancient Egyptians, but the determina- tive of in shows that the word means something actually maile rather than reeds or leaves simply. It must therefore have been some kind of basket work or matting which was placed on the beams and then plastered, both sides, with mud. We can probably define the word even more certainly, in the light of the excavations of the palace of Amenophis III at Medinat Habu. The very important description given by Tytus^ of the different types of roofing construction in use in the palace, shows that the liglitcr kind was identical in principle with that employed to-day in Egypt. More than that, it tells us the exact nature of the in, viz., ‘‘heavy mats of palm fibre,” the gerld of the modern Egyptian, used by him for this purpose 2 . We may therefore translate in{w) “mat ” or “matting.” Si{iv)\ ^ is probable, but the traces of the plural strokes are doubtful. 5. See Gardiner in this Journal, xiv, 8fi ff. 6. I owe the reading of the signs after J „ to Dr. Gardiner. The phrase occurs again below vs, G; see Worterbuch, sub voc. and Gardiner, Lit. Texts, i'2, n. G, with his reference to Erman in Zeitschr. f. ag. Spr., xlii, 107. 7. The second lir in the phrase didi-i hr-i hr-k is certain. The imperfective -sdun/suggests that the whole phrase may be a proverbial saying: perhaps literally “let me jilace my head and thy head (together).” At any rate something like “Two heads are better than one” is indicated by the context, and seems possible. 8. For Sbt see Feet, Journal, xii, 71. inin n pr, literally the “land of the house," seems to be the land on which the house is being built, and “property” is the word nearest in sense to the Egyptian phrase. I took iuin at first in the more technical sense of “flooring,” “floor” (see Borchardt, Zur Baugeschichte des Atnontempels in Kaniak, 40, line 4, and cf. Worterbuch, sub voc.), translating, 'Jet the price of the flooring [mwAtiXes, perhaps painted] of the house be given to his (Benga's) master.” The translation above (p. 298) is Feet’s suggestion, and to my mind much happier in the context. 9. Cf. Gardiner in Zeitschr. f. dg. Spr., XLViii, 43, n. to 1. 16. 10. In FI. XXXV read for 11. The stroke here does duty for the determinative used as ideogram. See Gardiner, Eg. Gram., Sign-list, Z. 5, where he quotes examples of this name so written. Cf. below, B.M. 10107, the writing (1. 5) of Tetisheri and (1. 9) of Ram6.se. ComiENTARY. The general sense of this letter is quite clear. A certain Mentuhotep, a person of some small importance, writes to Aahmose to give him instructions about a house which is in the proce.ss of building. (Our letter is presumably not the first on the subject.) Aahmose is superintending the operation — he may have been the contractor, hardly the architect — and is to pass on his information to the actual builder, Amenmose. The first part of the letter is taken up with detailed instructions for the building of the house, which is to be carried on with as much speed as possible. The writer then congratulates himself on having a brother with Aahmose who can give an eye to his (the writer’s) interests. The second part of the letter looks further ahead. Mentuhotep promises to send further instructions with regard to the building operations and he gives orders for the putting up of a hut for a workman^ ( ?) who is, one supposes, to as,si,st in the building. ' Rocb PE P. Tytu.s, .1 pi'd'i mlnu I'll rtpioi'i on the re-c.i'euviitiuu of the Patiicc of Amcnhotep HI, l:?. 2 Cf. Pi:HT and Woolt.ky, City of .M.henaten, i, nT ami 73. 3 Or does ileutuhotep mean that .some of the van' .xre to he reserceJ fur Benya t (Peet). 300 S. K. K. GLANVILLE Finally he arranges for payment to be made for the land on which the house is being built and urges that this should be satisfactory to the recipient, who is (evidently) a neighbour of his with whom he wishes to be on good terms when he comes to live in his new house. Several points, however, require discussion. Mentuhotep himself is, as far as I can discover, unknown. He was probably a Theban since the capital was the centre of Aahmose’s activities, and Mentuhotep proposes (us., 11. 1-2) to inform him of the progress of the building, proving that he cannot have been far from the spot. Feet’s suggestion^ that the invocation of Ptah of Memphis in Louvre 3230 a may imply that the writer’s home was at Memphis seems to me unfounded. Throughout these letters the invocations are to the Great Gods of the Empire, Amen-Eer of Thebes, Ptah of Memphis and Atum of Heliopolis ^ (with possibly a local reference to Thebes in the “Gods and Goddesses who are in Karnak” of B.M. 10103, 10101), and to Thoth® (and his female counterpart?) as Patron of Scribes. Ptah may indeed have been envisaged as Patron of Building, as well. Rec-Harakhti simply stresses the solar side of the state cult of Amun. The recipient of the letter was Aahmose, here called “(he) of Penit.” The name itself, Penit, is sufficiently close to the probable pronunciation of Pniity to be explainable as an attempt to spell that name. This fact, taken into consideration with the strong evidence already cited for the equation of the two names — namely, the common origin of all four letters in the British Museum, the rareness of letters at this period, and the mention of Aahmbse (with or without n Pniity) in the five other letters, is sufficient to convince us that Mentuhotep was writing to the man we know as Aahmose of Peniati, even though he was not so certain as ourselves how to spell the name of his corre- spondent’s superior. Aahmose’s official position as confidential clerk to Peniati can scarcely have been gained without some knowledge of the duties of a builder and contractor, and even of an architect. And the inscription at Silsilah (see above p. 296) shows that though his routine work may have lain in a Theban office, he was not merely a Civil Service clerk. There is nothing surprising, then, in a friend appealing to him personally to superintend the building of his house near by. The house would be built chiefly of sun-dried mud bricks and we know that stone was very little used in private houses except for the doorways® and certain internal fittings. Now the details emphasized by Mentuhotep in the first half of his letter to Aahmose are the respective heights of two doorways. It is very possible that Aahmose had undertaken to supply the stone needed for the house, which he would no doubt be able to get at “wholesale” prices®. There are several difficulties connected with the interpretation of Mentuhotep’s instructions in r. 7 and 8, “Please have erected the matting and beams of the store- houses and back of the house”; we should expect the word si{w) (beams) to come before in (matting), that being the natural order of construction. This is not so serious ' Journal, xil, 7.3. 2 (jf Grifjjth in Journal, xiii, 195. 3 Profe.s.sor Peet agrees that the signs after the god’s name in Louvre 3230a should read | ^ not a.s he read them. Journal, xii, pi. xiii, top piece, 1. 3. •* See Peet and Woolley, City of Akhenaten, l, 37. s At El-‘Amariiah, the only site from which we have concrete evidence of normal housing construction in cla.ssioal Egypt, stone doorways are as a rule only found for the main entrances of the large houses, partly owing to the poor quality of the nativ'e limestone, and partly owing to the speed with which building was carried out there. But there is no reason why doorways of stone should not have been the general rule for all rooms at Thebes in the middle of the Eighteenth Uyn.asty. 301 THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PENIATI an objection as the awkward phraseology after wih. If we had Jtr instead of n at the beginning of line 8, we should translate simply “cause the matting and beams to be placed on the storehouses, etc.” Can the preposition n be used in this way with U'lh ? Certainly the sense of the whole passage is improved if we take n as the preposition (if only with the meaning “for” or “to”), rather than the genetival adjective But whatever the precise phraseology may have been, the general meaning is clear, that the beams and matting for the roof were to be put in position on the (already standing) walls of the storehouses and back of the house. ” What are we to understand by the storehouses ■’ and the “back of the house”? For each phrase two explanations are possible. First, the storehouses may be granaries or other sheds standing outside and (generally) unconnected with the main house; or they may be rooms inside the house which, we know 2 , contained cupboards, and were obviously used as storerooms. The “back of the house” might similarly refer to the complex of kitchen and general rooms, etc., which stood outside, and detached from, the main house on any fair sized middle- class estate, and which is generally considered to have been the servants’ quarters. These rooms are usually at the back of the house. Or, again, the phrase pliU'i/ n pi pr may simply refer to the hindmost rooms of the house. For the Egyptian house of modest size, although built round a central room, so as to form a square building, was divided into three essentially different parts, each part becoming more intimate and less public the further in one went^. This can be well seen by a study of Mr. Newton’s plan of the house of the Vizier Nakht at Akhetaten^. Now, immediately after speaking of the phu'y n p) pr, the writer goes on to give the height of the wall, which was presumably either literally a single wall, or at any rate a series of continuous walls. And since this wall has clearly something to do with roofing the storehouses and back of the house it follows that the snet and the phicij n pi pr were parts of the same architectural complex. The height of the wall would naturally condition the addition of the roof (/a, si) ; and the meaning of this whole sentence must be : Please roof the storehouses and back of the house now, as the wall is already high enough, be., 6 cubits. The part of the building thus referred to is more likely to have been the back of the house itself than a complex of kitchens and storerooms outside and separate from it. This is borne out by the allusion to the hmst, “living-room,”® which by its nature is certainly the “central hall ” of the private side of the house (not the large “Central Hall” in which guests were received), and which is mentioned in parallelism with the “storerooms.” The wall referred to therefore probably formed the outside of the livdng-room and a number of storerooms, and the beams for the roof were to rest on this and at points an equal height from the ground in the wall of the Central Hall (which was allowed a greater height than the rest of the house to enable it to be lighted by clerestory windows), and thus to condition the height of the roof of the “ back of the house,” as opposed to the height of the great central hall next door. The difference in height between the doors of the “storerooms” and of the “living- * Cf., however, r (rth vhrt n wil nsivi, “for Imilding the docky.ard of the royal barge,” B.M. KjO.'iG, verso, col. 9, 11 ('luipiiblitjhed), and Berlin Worterbuch, I, 256, sub voc. F. nr. - Feet and IVoolt.ey, op. cit., 47. 2 The phrase hr-l r plnnj pr occur.s as a woman’s oath in Oardixer, The Inser. of Mes, 51, N. 35, ‘qlf I speak falsely) may I be .sent to the back of the house.” Gardiner interjircts thi.s as being the servants’ quarters, i.e., that the wife was to be r elegated to the company of tire .servants .she wa.s accustomed to com- mand. But it might equally refer to the harini part of the hou.se it.self, and .simplv mean that the lady was in disgrace and must not come into the public room.s with her husbatrd and his gue.sts. ^ Feet and Woolley, op. cit., FI. iii. ■’ Cf. .St hms[t), Pap. B.il. 10052, 8, 9, an in. and 7 ft. 1 in. res])ectively. The most concrete piece.s of evidence from these are the few stone doorways found complete. See Peet and WooLi.EY. op cit., 18, .ind Bokch.vudt in M.D.O.O., i.v, IS. " Buring the Egypt Exploration Society’s excavations at Tell el-‘Am,arnah in 1923-4, it was found necessary to build a new house for the excavators. .A convenient .site was chosen and some men detailed for the work. The site of the new house was four miles from the old, and so the men who were working on it wore told to live by the new building. They lived in two rooms, which consisted in jiart of the ruin of the outhiaises of the ancient house, and they' had to add a lew bricks to the walls (to make the top level), ami put on a roof of reeds and mud pl.rster. As e.ich room was to hold a squad of men, they could not dispen.se with beam.s to suppoi't the reeds. In all other respects this was a perfect modern parallelism to the Benya incident. i Griffith, Kahnn Papyri, 70. Plate XXXIII. I- Pap. British Aluseum roiO/, recto. 2. Pap. British Museum 10103, recto. Nearly natural size. THE LETTEES OF AAHMUSE OF PENIATI 303 Papyrus B.M. 10103 Pis. xxxii. fig. 1, xxxiii. fig. '1 and xxxv. Tr.vxslatiox. Eecto (1) Hori greets his [masterY, AiiJimose, in life, prosperitg and health, and in the favour of Anien-{2)Re<', King of the Gods, of Ptah, S, n. 1. THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PEN I ATI ;305 5. See above n. 2. 6. The second hiJcl is presumably a redundancy, not the slave’s name. 7. Nfy must be a nickname or second name of Mini; it can bardly be another person. 8. Cf. Gardiner, Ey. Gram., § 468, 2 (Faulkner). Commentary. If it stood alone this letter might well be no more than an exchange of gossip. There is no indication that the writer, still less that the recipient, was implicated in the action of the story. But the fact that in Louvre 3230 b Aahmose is personally concerned in some dispute about a slave girl makes one wonder whether it is not more than a coincidence that the present letter deals with a similar subject. There is, however, no clue in B.M. 10107 to enable us to formulate any theory of Aahmdse’s part (if any) in the action, and it is best therefore to leave him and Ptahu out of it. It is not easy to reconstruct the situation from this brief note describing a single phase in what must have been a long drawn out affair. Ptahu obviously assumes that his reader is thoroughly acquainted with the beginning of the story, and is only con- cerned to keep him up to date. From the laconic greeting and omission of any title but the word ‘’scribe” for Aahmose, one gathers that the two men were friends and equals. The situation thus recorded I believe to be as follows. A certain chief labourer, Ramose, has a grievance against a man of some position (a hiUj-f, whatever the exact significance of that word is at this time), called Mini Nefy (“The Captain”), in respect of a slave girl belonging to the latter. Ramose has challenged Mini to take the matter to Court. Mini has refused to do so, and in consequence Ramose has been going about pro- claiming Mini’s refusal to his friends (11. 11, 12). At this point our letter takes up the story. An overseer of the slaves (presumably those of whom the girl in question was one) is sent (by whom?)^ to a second hitij-r, Tetisheri, with whom the slave girl has taken refuge. This man is clearly a patron in some way of Ramose, and is now approached by the overseer of slaves with the suggestion that he (Tetisheri) should hale Mini before the court, on account of the girl. That apparently was as far as they had gone in the matter when Ptahu wrote. We cannot therefore know the result of the suit. If, however, my reconstruction is right, one very interesting small point of legal pro- cedure at this time appears. Ramose might go about vilifying Mini, but he could not sue him in a court of law. When his taunts failed to provoke Mini, he had to go to a man who was Mhii’s social equal and persuade him to sue Mini. In other words a fellah could not sue a Bey. Further it appears that a slave who considered that she had a real grievance (one which would conceivably be sustained in a court of law) might leave her master and take refuge with a third party. But there is not sufficient information in the letter to make it clear whether this was a legal privilege or merely a custom which worked reasonably well in practice and was therefore tolerated. Unfortunately a lavish use of pronouns in the first part of the letter, where we should have preferred at least one more personal name, nece-^sarily leaves us uncertain as to the 1 Since this w;is written Dr. Frankfort has siiggC'-tod to nio tb.it the sense of the passage is: He iT('tisheri) has sent Alnii...to summon Mini to come to Court, “but he does not answer for Mini’s appearance” bw irsb-f Jfiiii, because of the statement of Ramose that ilini has already refused his challenge to ap[io,ir in Court. This seems to me just as compatible both with the grammar of the jiassage and with the sense of the whole letter as the version given above. It means of course throwing over the first point made in the following paragraph : but in any case the hyi)othetical evidence of a single letter would not by itself be sufficient to establish a theory such as that I have put forward. Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 39 306 S. R. K. GLANVILLE exact reason for the overseer of slaves being sent to Tetisheri (or to Mini ?), and certainly unconvinced that this is precisely what did happen. But as the clue to the past history of the case lies in Ramose’s accusation, quoted in oratio recta, we cannot be far wrong in our general presentation of the affair. Some small evidence certainly emerges for a study of the relationship between master and servant in the terms used to convey that re- lationship in our letter. The girl in question^ is said to be m-c “in charge of,” “in the possession of,” or simply “with” Tetisheri, but nt “belonging to” Mini. That this is no casual distinction is proved by the use of the same terms in the same circumstances in the Louvre letter 3230 b. In 1. 8 of this letter, where the mother of the slave is represented as charging Aahmose with responsibility for her daughter, she is quoted as using m-(, “in charge of” (so Beet); although the same relationship is described 11. 2 and 7 by the noncommittal Tinc. The fact that m-c is used when the mother wishes to stress the responsibility of the person in charge certainly suggests, in combination with the B.M. letter, that the phrase has at least a semi-technical sense in both cases. Similarly in 1. 6 of the Louvre letter nt refers to the possession of hiht by their master, Tai^. But although these two terms m-c and nt appear to have in such contexts a constant and almost technical signification, they do not provide us by themselves with sufficient material for any theories of the exact nature of slavery or servitude in Egypt at this date. Further evidence for the study of this subject is to be found in the Louvre letter, some points in which are discussed below, p. 309 foil. As a final word before leaving B.M. 10107, it is interesting to compare its style with that of B.M. 10102. The lengthy formal greetings and handsome script of the latter contrast strongly with the comparatively abrupt introduction and untidy but more business-like hand of the former. The one suggests the man of breeding and leisure, and at the same time the semi-official tone of the communication (it is after all first and foremost a business letter, even if between friends) ; the other a man whose time is not all his own, whose education has been mainly acquired in his own lifetime, and whose pen is unhampered by any consideration of personal dignity or social etiquette. The contrast appears again in the marked retention of classical idiom in the former, as opposed to the introduction in the latter of such usages from colloquial language as hw for the negative. And it all agrees extraordinarily well with the difference in the positions of the two men : the one a landed proprietor of the old ruling class ; the other probably a clerk, of humble birth, with little or no interest in the traditional literature, but alive to reactions in his own environment. Before we turn to the letters written by Aahmose himself, it will be worth while to glance at the first of the two letters in the Louvre, published by Maspero and Peet, and to see if we can add anything to what has already been said about it, in the light of the information gained from the B.M. letters. Louvre 3230 a. Though the gist of the letter is intelligible, the first part of it lacks coherence as a result of the lacunae. The end, too, is lost. To this fact we probably owe the absence of an address, and the slight objection felt by Peet to the letter being an original one * It will be generally agreed that we are dealing with the same .slave all through the letter, in view of the repetition of the technical word tr.pt in close connexion with the girl at the beginning and at the end. - Cf. also the B.M. Stele 1628 ([Hall], Hieroglyphic Texts, v, PI. i, 1. 13), where nt (after rmtt) is used of people (i.e., .slaves or household serv.ants) belonging to the writer’s grandfather. In the next line, however, the direct genitive is used to expres-s the same relationship. 2 . Fap. British Museum 10104, recto (i) and verso (2). Nearlv natural size. THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PEN I ATT .307 (instead of a model) is removed, since we see from B.M. 10102 and 10103 that in the Eighteenth Dynasty the address could be written parallel with the text of the letter as well as at right angles to it. We have noticed, too, that the tendency was so to fold the letter that the address was written towards the bottom rather than the top of the page, even when the verso was un-inscribed ; so that it may well be that the piece of the Louvre 3230 a which is lost contained the address on its verso. Another difficulty felt by Maspero and Peet was the absence of any title before the writer’s name. This is paral- leled in B.M. Papyri 10103 and 10107. There is, as far as I can see, no point of contact in the substance of the Louvre letter with that of any of the others. Papyrus B.M. 10104*. Rectu^. Pis. xxxiv and xxxv. Translation. (1) Aahmose of Peniati informs^ his lord, (2) the Comptroller of the Household, Waztrenput, in life and prosperity (sic)^ and in the favour of Amen-Rec, (3) King of the Gods, and of thy revered god who loves thee^,and in the favour of Alum, Lord of Heliopolis, (4) Ptah, South-of-his-W all, and of the gods and goddesses who dwell in Karnak. May they grant (5) thee favour and love and enterprise in all thy undertakings (rest lost"*). Notes on the Translation. 1. It is difficult to see what could be inserted between ■O’ and d^. It is a small sign written over the □. From the traces, and perhaps ^ are possible. The latter sign would surely be an error. The alternative might be a determinative after the whole phrase swdi ib. 2. I cannot parallel this variation from the usual formula, except in B.M. 10107, where precisely the same phrase occurs, 1. 2. 3. See above, B.M. 10102, n. 3, p. 298. , 4. Traces of 1. 6 (see PI. xxxiv, fig. 1) are visible, from which can be certainly made out towards the middle of the line. Commentary. It will be seen that we have here only the opening formulae of the original letter, which we have good reason to believe, from the name and titles of the person to whom it is addressed, must have contained information of archaeological if not of historical interest. The mention of this official constitutes the chief point of interest in the letter. The irny-r pr wr n nswt, “Great Steward of the King,” Waztrenput, is an historical person known to us from a single inscription, which shows that he held office under the co-regency of Tuthmosis III and Hatsheiisut®. The inscription, which was copied by de Morgan^, states that Waztrenput (whose title is here written ^ “again prospecting” (for stone), and is to be found in the face of the Gebel el-Hamam, > Width 7 inches, length 44 inche.s. Originally, the papyru.s wa.s probably double its present length, but it has teen torn in half in ancient tinie.s an the writing of which would have been quite consistent with the wholesale assumption of masculine titles by Hatshepsut. It seems probable, therefore, that Waztrenput and Senmut were contem- poraries for a part of Hatshepsut’s reign and that the definitions after the title imy-r pr wr represent genuine distinctions in their offices, which did not conflict. Waztrenput’s then would be a personal appointment of Tuthmosis to the Great Steward- ship of his own household, a post which, of small consequence during the queen’s reign, would on her death be one with considerable power attached to it^®. ‘ Ur}:., IV, .394. - UrL, iv, 382, No. 118. ^ de Morgan, op. cit., l, 206. * I have not 1 leeii .able tofind a hingle occurrence of it elsewhere, excepting in the Nebti-name of Hat.shepsut. •’ See Lieblf.in, Diet., sub voc. Always written so, Gacthier, Livre des rois {Mera. de Vhistit. fran^. d'arcli. orient, du Cairo, xvill), 236 f., excejit once where the o is placed after instead of after J {ibid., p. 24.5, No. xl). In the Gebel el-Hamum inscription, Waztrenput also spells his name thus, .is oppo.sed to the spelling of our papyrus. " GrA, IV, 396, No. 2. « Ibid., and Hall, Hier. Texts, v, PL 29, etc. " Uric., iv, 398, 8. This attempt to define the historical position of Waztrenput takes as it.s basis Dr. Hall’s reconstruc- tion of the Tuthmosid succession in his Ancient llistory of the Xear East, p. 286 f. as opposed to that of Professors Sethe and Bieasted in Untersuchungen I and ll respectively. It is, in fact, another piece of THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PENIATI 309 Of the rest of the letter there is little to say. The opening formula, though differing slightly from that of the other letters, is sufficiently reminiscent of the Lahun letters of the M.K. and the Gurob letters of the Eighteenth Dynasty not to require further comment, than that it is here used, presumably, because Aahmose is writing to a person in a high position ; swd) ib is a more formal and perhaps politer phrase than nd hrt. Two important points must be noticed, however, as bearing on the next problem for solution, which is: How does it happen that this letter and the Louvre 3330 b, though both” apparently written by Aahmose for delivery to other persons, are found with letters sent to him^? The first point is the writing of B.M. 10104. It is much larger than that of any of the other letters under discussion, and it has a peculiar formality about it which distinguishes it in a marked way from the handsome script of 10102, and the rather simple hand of 10107. Moreover, from a study of Maspero’s facsimile alone, it is easy to see that there is nothing in common betiveen the miting of B.31. 10104 and Louvre 3230 b. The second point is that on what remains of the verso of our papyrus there is no address^, but, instead, notes of accounts, in a smaller and careless hand®. Taken in conjunction with the fact that the letter has come down to us with others received by Aahmose, the presence of these accounts admits of one conclusion — that the letter was never dispatched. Two alternative explanations could account for this : Either the letter was written with the intention of delivery and was afterwards held up owing to later information received by the writer, or for some other reason which could make the letter unnecessary or insufficient. (If we had the whole of the original piece of papyrus, and it bore traces of the address, underneath or below the accounts^, we should be fairly safe in assuming this to be the correct explanation.) Or our present paprTus was never meant to be more than a draft from which the real letter would be copied. For the moment we can leave the point and simply note that, whatever the reason, Aahmose’s letter was never dispatched, but was turned over for use as scrap paper, in which capacity it was finally used to receive jottings of accounts. [Louvre 3230 b.] The second letter from Aahmose, Louvre 3230 b, is addressed to the Treasurer Tai. Aahmose calls him “his master,” but as he uses the same phrase in addre.ssiug Waztrenput it is clear that this is a title of respect and does not mean that Aahmose was necessarily under Tai’s jurisdiction. The letter is about a slave who was in Aahmose’s charge and who has been taken away by Tai, and given to someone else. The contents of the letter may be discussed later on. For the moment we must notice three points. First, as in B.M. 10104, the addressee is a high official, one to whom Aahmose referred as “his master.” Secondly, unlike B.M. 10104, which opens in an essentially formal manner which is familiar to us, N. informs N., the Louvre papyrus opens with so unusual a phrase as to make Professor Peet question for a moment whether the document could really be a letter®. As he points out, the reading, dd-tn, gives us the phrase used in the New Kingdom “to evidence iu favour of Hall’.s view ; for if the otlier were true we should have to Mi[)p()so tint tVa/treuput was appointed pr in- n usict and .sent down to the quarnc.s at (lebel el-Hauiam tiefore ho wa.s seven- teen, in order to allow for the five years of Tuthmosis Ill’s reign which elapsed before Hatshejisut had herself recognized a.s full .sovereign with him. * The “o.'cact parallel” to thi.s (cf. Peet, .Tounud, xii, 73), iu the Hekanakht pa))ers, has a special explanation (see IVixLoCK, Balt. Met. Mur., Ii, Dec., 35> which we have no evidence for as.suniing here. - See note 4. See Ailditional Note, p. 311. •’ The addrc.ss would probably have been on the lost part, cf. above, p. 307. Jouniid, XII, 73. 310 S. R. K. GLANVILLE introduce a deposition in a court of law^.” He goes on to say that the contents of the letter and the fact that dd-tn is followed by n nb-f, shows that the phrase has not this technical sense here, and translates literally, “what so-and-so said. ’ He thinks it natural enough that a man who obviously had something to say should have cut the empty salutations and introduced his business by the simplest statement. Thirdly, although the letter was complete, there was no address, since the verso has been gummed down on to mummv wrapping. But, with Professor Peet, we need have no doubt that this is not a model letter; therefore this letter was probably never meant to be dispatched. The implication of all this is clear: B.il. 10104 is a real letter, written by Aahmose himself, originally meant to be posted, but held back for some reason unknown; or, but less probably, a careful draft of a real letter; while Louvre 3230 b is a copy, eventually to be filed for reference, made by a junior scribe in the same office as Aahmose, of a letter which had been written by Aahmose^. There is, then, nothing surprising in the letters being found together. The difference in the two hands is important, for assuming that Aahmose himself wrote B.M, 10104^, he could not have written the Louvre papyrus; which accounts for the unusual opening phrase of the latter. That was the work of a clerk whose business it was to see that the contents of Aahmose’s letters were safely filed, but to whom the polite salutations used by him were of no importance. Further, it is impossible to believe, in the face of the salutations used in .the other letters — even the most economical, that between the two equals, Ptahu and Aahmose — that Aahmose could have written to so superior a person as the Treasurer without the proper respect- ful salutations. Indeed, B.M. 10104 shows us that he must have departed from the common phrase of the day, nd hrt, and used a longer and more formal greeting in this case. These considerations may tempt us to .see in the phrase dd-tn a slightly more technical meaning than we had supposed. Although we must translate “What so-and-so said,” or similarly, dd-tn may well have been regarded by the Egyptians at this time as a stereotyped phrase for technical use in business correspondence: an interesting stage, in fact, in the evolution of its still more technical sense in legal documents'*. The contents of Louvre 3230 b are discussed by Professor Peet, who does not, however, consider that much can be inferred from them, in view of our ignorance of the subject of slavery and servitude in Ancient Egypt. But it is perhaps worth noticing some of the difficulties in the letter, only the general sense of which is clear. The main difficulties lie in the translation of the phrase, 1. 4, iwi ssptw sbt-s kn^-i. Professor Peet translates, “Let her value be taken along with mine” and explains in a note that he assumes here that “Aahmose is offering to do extra work himself to represent the contribution of the girl.” But in that case, the sentence in 1. 5 “Or let my lord command that I .should be made to deliver her task, etc.” is redundant, for the two alternatives make exactly the same offer. But in any case, is it conceivable that Aahmose, a civil servant, and confidential clerk to Peniati (as the opening words of the letter * Journal, ihiJ. - Professor Peet sugj,'ests th.it letters of liotli side.s in .a bu.sinoss corrcsponilonce were eventuallv filed in a public office, and tb.at this would e.\]ilain the lettecs to and fi’orii Aahino.se being found together. The evidence of the two letters taken together favours the .simplei’ e.xplanation given above. ^ This assumption is jiustified, to iny mind, by the full spelling of the n.inie, Peniati, a spelling which is unique in these letters. Naturally A.ahinose would be likely to make the nio.st of his high-.soundirig title, “Aahmose of Peniati,” particularly in writing to a superior. ^ Cy. B.M. 10107, 1. 8, above n dd-tn, etc., where there is a suggestion of a scmi-toidinic.al meaning, “allegation” perhaps. THE LETTERS OF AAHMOSE OF PENIATI 311 remind us), would think for one moment of offering to do the work of a slave girl? We should perhaps get a more reasonable translation if we took htic-i closely with sbt-s as “her exchange with me," i.e., the handing over of the girl to Aahmose {in return for money), in which case the alternative suggestion, that Aahmose should provdde (vicariously) her work, would be opposed to the idea of price present in the word Sbt. But we do not know if this is a possible Egyptian construction. Perhaps hnf-i may be taken with ssptw to mean “from me" [lit. “from my means"). At all events the sense of the passage must be that Aahmose offers the price of the girl (which he implies should be small as she is only a girl!), or to provide someone else to do her work. It is curious and disappointing that two out of six letters from one man’s correspondence should both deal with disputes over slave girls and yet apparently have no connexion with one another. Their only possible common ground — the use of technical terms — has already been touched on (p.30G). We have not sufficient material here to justify further speculation. ADDITIONAL NOTE. Papyrus B.M. 10104, verso. Aahmose’s letter to Waztrenput (above p. 307) was not dispatched, and the back of the sheet on which it was written was eventually used to receive jottings of accounts (PI. xxxiv, fig. 2). These consisted in a column and a half of entries. The entries, with the ‘ Sec Brugsch, Woftri-huch, 660. - The n appear.'! to iiidic.ite the .s.xuie type of relationship here as in “A.ihiuo.so H Peniati.” 2 It i.s hardly po.s.sible to I'ead^ though this uiu.st have l>een intended. 312 S. R K. GLANVILLE exception of the third, give a person’s name followed by a number — the latter referring to bundles {n^h) of flax {rnJi). A little below the end of the half column is a line in a larger hand, giving the total number of bundles, namely 700. As our papyrus is only a fragment and the numbers on it only amount to -115, we may surmise that the lost piece contained at least four or five more entries in the first column. The letter of Aahmose on the recto was therefore probably long enough to fill a normal “page.” The handwriting of these accounts is much clumsier and more irregular than that of the letter, but it appears to be of the same date. Fig. 1 is a transcription of the hieratic, so far as I can decipher it^. ' The break.s in the papyrus make the readiiiLj of the la.st .sijrn^ in tlie total uncertain ; while the faint- nc.ss of the writing similarly affects the sigii.s after ,Si>-nfr ii in column 2, 1. 4. Later. Profe.s.sur Peet .saved mo from reading the sign after ^ (col. 2, 1. 2) a.s iii.stead of the correct if£;. Plate XXXV, Hupyru.s H M Kuos, I'lipyrus n.M. lOiil?. Ui-fti) Papyrus B.M. lulU4, Kecto. M [■ WiryTT-' Papyrus B.M. 10102, Becto. 1 •2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 3 4 5 6 7 Transcriptions of Papyri B.M I0I02, 10103, 10104 and 10107. 313 SILVER IN ANCIENT TIMES By a. LUCAS That silver is found in nature in two conditions, namely, as metal and in the non-metallic state as ore, is well known, but it will be shown that there is also a third condition, not generally recognized. Native metallic silver is practically pure and occurs only in very small quantity, generally in the crystalline form, as needles, filament.s, network or arborescent shapes, though also, but more rarely, ma.ssive, in nuggets and thin plate.s. The princijml ores of silver are silver sulphide, either alone or associated with the sulphides of antimony or arsenic, and silver chloride. These, however, yield only one- third of the world’s supply of silver, the remaining two-thirds being obtained, not from silver ores proper, but from what are primarily lead, zinc and copper ores containing a very .small proportion of silver (usually less than O'S per cent.), which may therefore be considered a.s low-grade .silver ores. The ore of silver for the working of which there is the earliest evidence is argen- tiferous galena, and the ancient mines of Greece, Spain, Britain and other places that are called “.silver” mines were in reality lead mines, the ore being sulphide of lead (galena) containing a very small proportion of silver. The most ancient “silver” mines of which there is any record are those of Mount Laurion in Attica^ (Greece). The date when the mines were first worked cannot be traced, but they were po.ssibl}' in operation in the time of Solon (seventh century b.c.), though, since he mentions the scarcity of silver, this would not indicate any considerable output. Xenophon- (f{)urth century n.c.) states that the Mount Laurion mines were ancient in his day and they certainly date from before 500 b.c., for about that period the royalties from the mines began to figure in the Athenian budget 3, and in 484 b.c. they produced about 83,700 ounces of silver^. From this time onwards the mines are frequently mentioned by Greek writers until Strabo® (first century b.c. to first century A.D.) wrote that they were exhausted. In this, however, he was mistaken, for they were re-opened by a French company about 1860 and are believed to be still working. The ore is argentiferous galena associated with sulphide of zinc (blende) and contains from about 40 to about 90 ounces of .silver to each ton of lead®»" (about 0T3 to 0-3 per cent.). Herodotus® (fifth century b.c.) mentions rich silver mines in the island of Siphanos (the modern Siphanto), one of the western Cyclades. There were also silver mines in Thrace that were being worked about the end of the fourth century b.c.® In addition to the mines mentioned, other important ancient “silver” mines of which there are records are those of Spain and Britain. 1 E. Aun.MU.uN, i'-'.s mnif-f dn Litvnuii daiis lUntinnite, P.'U'L, l.SOT. - Essmj Oil the Revenue of Athcnv, iv. Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, xlvii. J H. C. lloovra and L. H. Hoover, Xotc.s to Iraii.slatiou of (looryius Agricola’.-i l)e Re MetalUea, 1!J12, 27. 5 Geograplnj, IX, r, 23. c Hoover and L. H. Hoover, -ye cit., 2S. t H. B. Croxsh.vsv, Sdeer Ores, London, IU21, 74. " m, 57. Journ. of Egypt. Arch, xiv, jO 314 A. LUCAS The Spanish mines are referred to by Strabo^, Pliny- and other classical writers. Strabo (first century b.c. to first century a.d.) in his account quotes Polybius (second century b.c.) and Posidonius (second century to first century b.c.), both of whom described the mines. Pliny states that silver was found in nearly all the Roman provinces, but that the best was obtained from Spain, and also that the mines opened by Hannibal (third century to second century b.c.) were still being worked: he refers both to veins of silver ore- and to silver being obtained from lead®. The Spanish sih'er ores include several kinds, the principal, however, being argentiferous galena, and in the Cartagena district, where the mines exploited by Hannibal are supposed to have been situated, the ore is entirely argentiferous galena. The ‘"silver” mines of Britain, the ore of which was also argentiferous galena, were actively worked by the Romans. Strabo^ (first century b.c. to first century a.d.) mentions British silver. Silver also occurs in western Asia: in Anatolia and Armenia® there are many ancient mines, the working of which unfortunately cannot be dated, the principal being situated in the provinces of Trebizond, Erzerum, Diarbekr, Adana and Hudavendighar. The silver is mostly in the form of argentiferous galena associated with sulphide of zinc. In Georgia and Caucasia there are also lead-zinc mines containing silver®, but whether these were worked anciently or not cannot be stated. In Persia, too, lead ores containing silver are widely distributed'’'*^ but again it is not known whether thev were exploited anciently. Lead ores containing a small proportion of silver are found in Egypt at Gebel Rusas® (a few miles inland from the Red Sea and some 70 miles south of Koser) and also about 2 miles south of Safaga Bay on the Red Sea^®. The former consist of mixed carbonate and sulphide of lead (galena) associated with carbonate of zinc, and the amount of silver is so small that it has never been found worth while to express it numerically; the latter is galena and contains about 3 ounces of silv'er to the ton of lead^®. Lead ores occur, too, in small quantities in other localities, as at Ranga on the Red Sea coast®, near Aswan* and in Sinai but whether these contain silver is not known, though it would be very astonishing if they did not, since lead ores practically always do contain a little silver. Although silver occurs in such small proportions in argentiferous galena (usually less than 0 5 per cent.) and though at first sight it might appear strange that its presence should have been detected anciently, the discovery was almost inevitable, once galena was known. This mineral, which is heavy and metallic-looking and therefore does not readily escape notice, was used in Egypt from predynastic times onwards for painting round the eyes, it easily yields lead on heating in a wood or charcoal fire and this fact must have been discovered soon after galena was first used, as small objects of lead have been found in predynastic graves i®. When lead was produced from galena it seems 1 Geogmphi/, iii, 11. 8, 9, 10. 2 Xatural xxxill, .31. ■* Op. cit., XXXIV, 47. I (Jeo'jraphy, IV, !’>. 2. H. A. Kahajian, Mutend Kesources of Ai-iiie,na and Anatolia, Now York, 1920, 149-160. “ D. ( Ihamuashidzk, Mineml R/’sourccs of Georgia ami Caucasia, LiiuiIdu, 1919, 44-49. (.eog Section, Naval Intell. Uivision, Admiralty, London, Geology of Mesopotamia and its Border- lands, 69. '* Moustafa Khan Fateh, The Economic Position of Persia, London, 1926, 32. A. Ldcas, Ancient Egyptian Materials, 102—3. >" C. .J. Alford, Gold Mining in Egypt, in Joitni. Inst. Mhiing and Metallurgy, 1901 , 13 . “ G. W. Morray, The Hamuda Country, in Cairo Sci. Jonrn., vi (1912), 268. W. M. Flinders Petrie, (a) Descriptive Sociology, Ancient Egyptians, 49; (b) Prehistoric Egypt, 27, 43. SILVER IN ANCIENT TIMES 315 highly probable that it was not always removed at once from the fire and since the metal oxidizes when strongly heated and the molten oxide is absorbed by any porous material, such as ashes, on which it may rest, leaving behind the silver it contains in the form of a tiny metallic bead, it is reasonable to suppose that sooner or later a quantity of lead was oxidized and that the oxide disappeared, leaving the silver. The amount of silver, however, produced from a small quantity of lead would have been so minute that its presence would not ordinarily have been noticed and it would not have been until a considerable amount of lead rich in silver was oxidized that the residue of silver would have been sufficient in amount to have attracted attention. When and where this discovery took place cannot be stated, but it is likely to have been some con- siderable time after lead was first produced and almost certainly not in Egypt, because of the poorness in silver of the Egyptian lead ores. The earliest evidence for the employment of the method that can be traced is in Greece about the seventh century b.c. It is probable that at first the lead was entirely wasted, but eventually it would be discovered that the lead oxide need not be discarded, since the lead it contained could easily be recovered. It is frequently stated that the silver that occurs in nature as metal is not in suffi- cient quantity to account for the amount known to have been used in ancient times and that, therefore, all such silver mast have been obtained from an ore^. It would follow from this, if the statement were true, that from the earliest period in which silver was used, not only must silver ore ^ have been known, but also the method of extracting the silver. This statement, however, contains two fallacies, arising from the neglect to define what is meant either by native silver or by ancient times. Admittedly, such native metallic silver as the pure or practically pure variety already described is not found in sufficient quantity to have provided even the small amount of silver employed in the earliest days of the use of the metal. The alternative, however, is not an ore^, since as already shown silver was not extracted from ore^ until comparatively late, but in the writer's opinion it was a natural alloy of gold and silver, of the nature of electrum, containing sufficient silver to have a white or practically white colour. That the early Egyptian silver consisted of such an alloy is evident from the following analyses of early gold, electrum and silver objects. The division between gold and electrum is entirely arbitrary and when the alloy contains less than 20 per cent, of silver it is here called gold and when it contains 20 per cent, or more of silver and is of a light-yellow colour it is called electrum, which accords with Pliny's definition of electrum^. Ancient Egyptian Gold. A 79-7 B C D K F c / G =■/ H I Gold 84-2 S4-n 78-0 81-7 /o 92-3 02-2 yo-.') 92-7 Silver 13-4 13 A 13 0 18 0 161 3-2 3-9 4v) 4-9 Copper nil nil nil — trace nil nil nil — Not determined 6-n 2-3 30 1-0 2’2 4'.o 3-9 ."rO 2-4 100-0 lOti-0 lOOiJ 100-0 lai-O 100-0 llHl-O 10( >0 100-0 > I.e. , argontiferou.s g.aleria or silver suli>liide or chloride. - Natural lliMurij, .xxxiir, 23. 316 A. LUCAS Ancient Egi/ptinn Gold. .T K L M X () 1> Q Gold 900 S->d S5-9 Of! -4 sii Til-l sir.') 99-8 Silver — lG-6 i;is 1-9 i4-:i 17-i 11-2 — Gopper — or, 0.-} pro-. 1-.') i;5-i nil — Not deterniiiied 10-0 — — 1-7 1-9 -- — 0-2 loo-O 100-0 loo-o loo-o llKI 0 100-4 100-7 l(K»-0 Elect nun. .1 m lent Eijii I'tit! » .V"f Etft/^>ft‘ 'll, It s T u 'V' W' \ A A ilu ( 'C Gold 80 1 78-7 77-3 7S-2 CT-ii 71 0 00 0 Silver ... 20-3 20 9 22-3 21-1 :>(>■:> 29 0 31 1-0 23-4 33 4 Copper ... — — — [ao.-'. S'() — 100 — — Not detorniined — 0 4 0-4 0-7 - — - 7'i 0 oo-c 100 4 loo-O 10i)-o loo 0 loo-o pMMl 100-0 10)0 i(Hpn loo-O 1)1) Ancient Egyptian Silver. EI-; l-T GG nil II . 1.1 K K J.L Gokl 3S-1 / !-(!> 1 -i-es. .s-7 .s-4 .■)-! 3-2 1 7-9 Silver 00-4 90-1 74-.') 00-2 S2-.') S J 9 90-2 92 4 S2-1 Copper 1-.') 1-0 — — h it 1 3 4 3-9 — Lo,-i)l — ml _ 0 2 o*.*) Not clotci'iiiineil — — 10() 3( ) s — 2-4 . _ loO-o loo-o 1000 pMl-O |00 1 lIMfl) 100-0 loo-o A, B, C, First Dynasty. Analyses by Dr. Gladstone, F.R.S. In The Rcnjnl Tomhft of the Enrlioit Dynasties, W. M. I’lixdkks PktPvIi:, ii, 10. D, E, Sixth Dynasty. Analyses by Dr. Gladstone, F.R.S. In Dcndcrch. W. i\I. Flixder.s Fktrie, 62-3. F, G, Eleventh Dynasty; II, I, J, Twelfth Dynasty: R, S, T, V. FF, Eleventh or Twelfth Dynasty; Q. Persian period. Analyses by M. Berthelot. Sxr Tor crji/pticn, in A)H). Seri'., ii (1901), 157-63. K, L, Twelfth Dynasty; GG, Eleventh or Twelfth Dynasty. Analyses by M. Berthelot. Etude sur Ics nictaux, in Fonillcs a Dahehnur, J. de MoRfnvN, 1 15-6. M, X. 0, P, V, HH, II, Eighteenth Dynasty. Analyse.s by W. B. Pollard. In The Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu, J. E. Quibell, Cairo Cat., 78-9. W, JJ, Eighteenth Dyna.sty. Analyses by Dr. Alex. Scott, F.R.S. In The Tomb oj Tut-ankh-Amen, Carter, ii, 210, 211. X, Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty; KK, Nineteenth Dynasty; LL, fifth to fourth century b.c. C. R. Williams, Gold and Silver Jcwclnj and Related Objects, No. 45, p. 29 and No. 81. SILVER IN ANCIENT TIMES 317 DD, probably early dynastic. Analysis by C. Friedel. In Fouilles d’Abi/dos, E. Amelixeau. 271. EE, Third Dynasty. Analysis for the writer by Dr. H. E. Cox, F.I.C. From the tomb of Hetepheres at Gizah, discovered by Dr. G. A. Rei.sner. AA, fourth millennium b.c. From Ur. C. L. Woolley, The Antiquaries Journal, viii (1928), 21. BE. From the Royal Tombs at Mycenae. Analysis by Dr. Percy. In Silver in Roman and Earlier Times, W. Gowlaxd, Archaeolocjia, lxix (1920). CC. From Ilios. Analysis bv Dr. Roberts Austin. In Silver in Roman and Earlier Times, W. Gowlaxd, Archaeologia, lxix (1920). From a critical examination of these analyses the following facts emerge: 1. The gold was essentially an alloy of gold and silver containing approximately from 72 to 96^ per cent, of gold and from 3 to 18 per cent, of .silver, with occasionally a little copper. 2. The electrum was essentially an alloy of gold and silver containing approximately from 60 to 80 per cent, of gold and from 20 to 30 per cent, of silver, with occasionally a little copper. 3. The silver was essentially an alloy of gold and silver containing approximately from 3 to 38 per cent, of gold and from GO to 92 per cent, of silver, with occasionally a little copper. It is evident, therefore, that the gold, electrum and silver as used anciently, certainly in Egypt and probably elsewhere, were all varieties of the same alloy and only differed in the relative proportions of the principal constituents. That the gold and electrum were natural products that still occur in Egypt ^ will generally be admitted, and it is not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that the silver was also a natural product, though the fact that an alloy of gold and silver, containing so large a proportion of silver as to have a white colour, is still to be found is not usualh' recognized. Nowadays, however, such an alloy is clas.sed as a poor quality of gold and its real character is ma.sked by the manner in which it is reported. Anciently the case was very different; silver was scarce and was several times the value of gold, and hence it would have been the object of diligent search and even the smallest amount found would have been highly prized and would almost certainly have been worked until it was exhausted. Alford^ gives the results of the assay of 26 specimens of modern Egyptian gold from quartz, and when the ratio of silver to gold is calculated it is found that in 15 instances this is 1 part or more of silver to 1 part of gold, the highest ratio being 3 ’3 parts of silver to 1 part of gold. All these specimens would be silver- white, since a silver-gold alloy containing 50 per cent, or more of silver has a white colour. Mellor^ mentions a specimen of natural silver-gold alloy from Norway that contained 28 per cent, of gold and therefore, by inference, 72 per cent, of silver and this, also would be white. Another reason, in addition to its composition, for considering the most ancient silver to have been a natural product and not to have been obtained artificially from ' Tlie one .specimen of the Persian period with !J9'S per cent, of gold is exceptional. 2 A. Lucas, .1 m ii-nt Ei/t/ptidri Materials, 84-9t. ^ C. J. Ai.FoKn, A Report on Ancient and Prospective Gold Mining in Eggpt, 19u<), a 2 ) 2 )ondi.x. ■* J. W. Mellor, Inorganic and Theoretical Chcniistry, III (1923;, 299. 318 A. LUCAS ore, is that at the period when silver was first employed (in Egypt in predynastic times) metallurgy was in its infancy and it is highly improbable that even the existence of silver in argentiferous galena (which was the earliest silver ore used) should have been known, much less the method of separating it. Such knowledge as this would only be acquired after galena rich in silver had long been in use for the production of lead. Apart, however, from theoretical considerations, it may be shown that the most ancient silver is not of the nature or purity of that separated from ore. Thus, some of the ancient Egyptian silver is not of a uniform white colour, as would be the case had it been obtained from ore, when it must necessarily have been melted and well mixed, but has yellowish patches, manifestly due to the unequal distribution of the gold present. This has been observed by the writer in silver objects from as early as the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty and as late as the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Also, the analyses of silver objects of a date corresponding to the period when it is known that silver was obtained from argentiferous galena show it to contain much less gold than the earlier examples (the small amount present being that occurring in the galena) and also a small proportion of lead. Further, metallic lead, although known, was very little employed until a comparatively late period, whereas had lead ore been extensively mined and smelted for the production of silver, lead would almost certainly have been in fairly common use. The following analyses bring out clearly the points mentioned: a h C 7o 7o Silver 90-6 95-6 95-2 Gold 0-2 0-.3 0-5 Copper :l4 .3-2 .3-4 Lead 0-2 0-4 0-3 Iron 0-4 0-1 0-1 Not determined ... 0-2 0-4 0-5 100-0 100-0 100-0 a. .Silver bar frnui the “burnt’’ city of Troy. b. Silver vessel from Mycenae, c. Roman patera. W. Gowlasd, The Met'da in AntiipiiO/, 1912, 2<>'5-6. Seven other silver objects of late date analysed by Gowland^ contained from 92’5 to 95'6 per cent, of silver, but whether they contained lead is not stated. The two Egyptian silver objects of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties respectively, the analyses of which are given previously under the letters JJ and KK, are very ambiguous, the proportion of gold present suggesting a natural alloy, while the lead seems to point to their derivation from argentiferous galena. At the date repre- sented by these specimens they need not have been of Egyptian origin and might well have been imported and if so, and if they were derived from silver-lead ore, this throws back the working of argentiferous galena to a date earlier than has yet been supposed. The questions raised, however, must remain undecided until detailed analyses of many more objects are available. Conclusions. 1. That the earliest Egyptian silver and, by inference, also that of Mesopotamia, was a natural alloy of silver and gold containing sufficient silver to have a white colour, and was not obtained from an ore*. ^ \V. Gowlani), The in Antiquity, 20G. ^ /.(?., argentiferous galena or silver sulphide or chloride. SILYEIl IN ANCIENT TIMES 319 2. That the earliest ore employed for the production of silver was argentiferous galena, but this was not used as a source of silver until a comparatively late period in the history of the metal. 3. That silver was obtained from argentiferous galena by the Greeks about the seventh century b.c., but of any earlier production of silver from this ore there is as yet no evidence, though the ore occurs extensively in western Asia and its use would have been possible. 320 A LATIN PETITION OF ABINNAEUS (PAPYRUS B.M. 447) By SEYMOUR DE RICCI With Pis. xxxvi and xxxvii. It is not generally known that the Abinnaeus archives contained, in addition to the Latin papyrus at Geneva, a second and longer document in Latin which has belonged for some thirty-five years to the British Museum (Papyrus 447). PL xxxvi. It has been twice briefly described by Sir Frederic Kenyon^, who, however, has never published the text doubtless owing to the considerable difficulties encountered in deciphering the badly damaged papyrus. I first copied the text in January 1901 and revised it on several occasions, notably in 1905. Subsequently, while preparing their new edition of the Abinnaeus documents, Messrs. H. I. Bell and Victor Jlartin made independent copies of the same papyrus and kindly placed them at my disposal. The text given hereafter is founded on my earlier copies but embodies many readings of the more illegible passages first correctly deciphered by Martin or by Bell. I myself tested their readings in 1924, with the assistance of Bell. The novice will be surprised that it has taken thirty years to read a papyrus and that even now much of it remains undeciphered. If both Martin and Bell, and myself, now venture to print a provisional text, it is in the hope that other workers may be more successful than we have been in reading and interpreting the document, which is one of the most important extant examples of Latin cursive dating from the middle of the fourth century. The following is an attempt to transcribe the above copy and to fill in a few of the more obvious gaps. PI. xxxvii. 1. dementia 'piet\cttis\ uestrae, Domini fer^fectissimit ... gap of at most 30 letters] 2. Constanti et Con[sta]ns, uictores semper [about 30 letters ]6ms suis praesertim ex protectoris, immo his 3. qu[i] ala[c]riter [o]bseqinum suum exh[ibuerint ? gap of about 18 lettersjcmia [ ~\ere uidentur, prouide[n]s c[a]s«s uenit 4. ego rem que[ — ]e — excu{s]p ti.io [14 letters] gente.[ ]e.e. traditus in uexil- latione Parthusagittariorum 5. degentium Diosp[ol]i prouincia[e] T\h'\e\ba'\i[d'\os super{i\oris de.eo se[ ] triginta et tres, directus a Senecione, antehac 6. comite limitis e[i]usdem prouinciae, ducere Liciniorum gent[e]s refiig[i] ad sacra uestia pietatis uestrae Constantinopolim 1 Catalogue of additions to the uianv scripts in the British Museum in the years 1888-1893, p. 449, 11 . ccccXLVil and Greet- papyri in the British Museum, ll, p. xxxix, n. ccccXLVii (see p. 267). See also C. Haeberlix, Bert. Phil. Woch., xix (1899), col. 294. A LATIN PETITION OF ABINNAEUS 321 7. ed.f.r.Um cum legatis memoratae ge{ntis} lim[it]is et c[o)ni]te eiusdem atque obtulitis eis clementiae uestrae 8. r.ee. ducem[ril]q diuinitas uestra uenerandam furpiiram suam ado[rar]e [/Jmss;!, praeceptusque itaque producere memoratos 9. Le\cinios'\'\ i[n pa^riam suam, cum quihus Irienni tempus exigi, remeandoque [ad salcrum comitatum uestrum tirones ex prouincia 10. Thebaid[os\ [e]t [«]/[i'o].s quos Hierapoli tradidi, et ita data uacatione mild [promo}- uere me dementia praejectum alae Dionusada 11. pro[id]nciae Aegup{ti)] uestra dignata est, iienim insin[. . s...itper c.o comiti officium respondit allegasse 12. a[li]osq[ii\e [h]uiuscentodi [e'\qnsliilas homines [ dde...~\ c[u]mq[u . . ex sujfragio eo spq[ ]cuere me ucro iudicio sacro idea" 13. soliti contemplatione mcmoratonim \Jahorum meorum et quos sedes ...o idde[o'\r habere, prouidere mild largissima 14. jB«eta[.s] uestra dignetur unde possim cotidianum uiclum adquir[cre']'] iuxta [11 lettersjes uestros trihii..[. . pr]nefecturac alae Dionusiados am per sujfragium habentibus ipsorum castrorum promotionem me constitiii dementia uestra iubere dignetur'’ et hoc con- secutus agam aeterno imperio uestro maximas gratias. The following notes are reduced to a minimiini. Line 5. Diosp[ol]i was tirst read by Bell and Martin. Line 6. Liciniorum. The name of this Bedouin tribe i.s very doubtful; Martin thought he could read it as Lemniorum. It apparently occurs again at the beginning of line 9 where the second letter is clearly an E. — ycstia was first read by Bell and Martin. Line 11. AEB[.]VP~. Aeg/ip(ti) a.s read by Martin is possible; TE5[S]YP' though unlikely would also suit the traces of the letters. It is not known exactly in which province Diony.sia.s was in .\.i). .3.50. There are grounds to believe that lower Egvpt at one time was called Aeggptus in opposition to Thebais. In the same line ger c.o might perhaps be read uer[o iudi]c[i]o. The deletions and insertions in lines 12 — 11 prove this papyrus to contain a rough draft of the petition actually sent by Abinnacus to Constantinople. The language he uses, with the many involved periphrases, may be paralleled from many passages in the Codex Theodosianus. Appendix. Before passing on Mr. de Bicci's article to the editor I looked again at some of the more difficult places, with, I regret to say, very little result, but I think it well to add a few uote<. It was unknown to Mr. de Bicci that the transcript by Alartin and myself had profited in one or two place.s by the assistance of Professor Hunt, who looked at the papyrus on a brief visit to the British Aluseum; but he had no time for a systematic examination. Line 1. After per part of a downstroke is visible which suggests /, thus tending to confirm perfectissimi. Line 4. After que, almost certainly o. This is difficult to fit into the context if rem que is read, but the r is by no means certain. Line 5. Instead of de .eo se either Martin or I, I think the former, read ue[s]tr[a]e, and this still seems to me at least as good as de Ricci’s reading. Journ. of Egypt, Arch. xiv. 41 SEYMOUR DE RICCI •J -J Line 6. IJciniomm seems to me very probable, but between tbe visible upstrokes read as I and i there seems to be a stroke curving backwards to tbe left which is not eas}- to reconcile with I and suggests b. Bicitiiorum wmuld be, so far as I am aware, as unrecorded a name as Liciniorum, and against it may be alleged the beginning of line 9 if de Ricci’s reading there is accepted, hut see note on that line. The reading gent[e]s I cannot accept; geiitis seems to me clear. After it one would expect refiigas, and as seems to me to suit the very minute traces at least as well as i. The space is not too ample but, I think, sufficient. Line 7, beg. A verb should come here. I think eo perr[exi] could be read, but it would hardly till the space before cum. Line 9. An alternative to which I personally am inclined is /e[gatos] (cf. line 7). The loiver part of g might be expected to be visible, since the surface of the papyrus is not much damaged, but in several cases the ink has disappeared to a surprising extent, and I am not .sure that there is not a trace which suits a portion of the curve of g. Line 10. Thchitul{/}s) read by Hunt before we had seen de Ricci’s tramscript, where the reading was also given. The deletions and in.sertions prove, as Mr. de Ricci says, that the document i.s a draft; hut the regular, hand.some hand, the neatness of the upper portion and the quality of the papyrus make it probable that it was not originally so intended; that in fact it wa.s begun a.s a fair copy but changed to a draft owing to an error or (more probably) di-^satisfaction on the part of Abinnaeus or the clerk with the wording. H. I. Bell. Plate XXXVII DIPLOMATIC TRANSCRIPT CLEMENTIAPIET[. . . .]VESTRAEDOMINIPER[ at most 30 letters ] CONSTANTIETCON[. . .]NSVICTORESSEMPER[ about 30 letters jBVSSVISPRAESERTIMEXPROTECTORISIMMOHIS QV.ALA.RITER[.]BSEQVIVMSVVMEXH[ about 18 letters ]CIATA[ JEREVIDENTVRPROVIDE.SC.SVSVENIT EGOREMQVE[. . . .]E. . . .EXCV. OTLIO[ about 14 letters ]GENTE.[. . . .]E.E.TRADITVSINVEXILLATIONEPARTHVSAGIT TARIORVM 5 DEGENTIVMDIOSP[..]IPROVINCIA[.]T.E..I. 9 SSVPER. 9 RISpE.EOSE[ jTRIGINTAETTRESDIRECTVSASENECIONEANTEHAC COMITELIMITISE,VSDEMPROVINCIAEDVCERELiaNIORVMGENTISREFVG[.]ADSACRAVESTIAPlETATISVESTRAECONSTANTINOPOLIM ED.F.R.LpiCVMLEGATISMEMORATAEGE. . . .LIM. .ISETC[. . .JTEEIVSDEMLIM.T.SATQVEOBTVLITISEISCLEMENTIAEVESTRAE R.EE.DVCENA..9DIVINITASVESTRAVENERANDAMPVRPVRAMSVAMADO...E.VSSITPRAECEPTVSQVEITAQVEPRODVCEREMEMORATOS LE I...TRIAMSVAMCVMQVIBVSTRIENNITEMPVSEXIGIREMEANDOQVE....CRVMCOMITATVMVESTRVMTIRONESEXPROVINCIA 10 THEBAID..T.L..SQVOSHIERAPOLITRADIDIETITADATAVACATIONEMIHI VEREMECLEMENTIAPRAEFECTVMALAEDIONVSADA PRO. . NCIAEAEB[.]VP~VESTRADIGNATAESTVERVMINSIN[. . .]MS. • .IT9ER C. OCOMITIOFFICIVMRESPONDITALLEGASSE C.MQ_, . . .EXSFFFRAGIOEOSPg EVEREMEVEROIFDICIOSACROIDEO A[..]OSQ[.]E[.]VIYSCEMODI.PISTVLASHOMINES[[ DDE...]] IFXTA {. .]...[ \ESFESTROSTRIBF . . . .^AEFECTFRAEALAEDIONFSIADOSAM . . . . PERSFFFRAGIFMHABENTIB FSIPSORFM SOLITICONTEMPLATIONEMEMORATORVMRLABORVMMEORVMETQVOSSEDES. . . OVIDE. RHABEREPROVIDEREMIHILARGISSIMAJ] • ••••••• • CASTRORFM PROMOTIONEM [[PIET.SVESTRADIGNETYRVNDEPOSSIMCOTIDIANVMVICTVMADQVIR...]]ETHOCCONSECVTVSAGAMAETERNOIMPERIO VESTROMAXIMASGRATIAS MECONSTITFl CLEMENTIA FESTRAIFBERE DIGNETFR Papyrus B.M. 447 323 A. G. K. HAYTER, M.A., F.S.A. Died October 15th, 1927 A. G. K. Hayter was bom in 18G3 and educated at lligligate Sciiool. lie was a Classical Scholar of Queens’ College, Cambridge, and took Honours in the Classical Tripos, followed by Diplomas in German and French. He then settled down to the profession he had chosen, that of a schoolmaster, and for nearly twenty-five years he taught modern languages, first at King William’s College in the Isle of Man, then at Eastbourne College, and finally at Forest School, Walthamstow. As early as 1901, however, he had become interested in Egyptology and attended classes at University College, London, on the archaeology and language of Ancient Egypt. Con.sp([uently, when in 1910 he found himself in a position to renounce teaching, he was fitted to assist Sir Flinders Petrie in excavations at Hawarah and Memphis 1910-11 ; in the winters of 1912-13 and 1913-14 he worked with Quibell at Sakkarah. The war found him far past military age, but capable of useful work, for his acquaintance with German enabled him to serve at first as c(*nsor of letter.s in a Prisoneis of War Camp, from which he was soon transferred to the Head Censor's Office in London, where the knowledge of Modern Greek which he had acqnir(>d as a hobby proved of great value, in addition to his knowledge of more tisual languages. In 1919 he had to face the problem of an income diminished in value by economic changes and courageously returned to schoolmastering. Release however was at hand, for in the winter 1921-22 he was in Egypt excavating with the Egypt Exploration Society at Tell el-‘Amarnah, and in 1922 he was appointed to lecture in Egyptology for the Board of Extra-Mural Studie.s of Cambridge University. During the next few years he proved himself not only an indefatigable but a highly succe.s.sful lecturer : he knew his subject, he had personal acquaintance with Egypt and with excavation, and he had for Egyptology an enthusiasm which none of his audience could fail to catch. The winter of 1925-26 found him again in Egypt with the expedition of the University of Michigan at Korn Aushim in the Fayyiim. He resumed his lecturing on his return to England but was unable, owing to illness, to complete the courses which had been arranged for the following winter. His condition went from bad to worse, and he died on October 15th, 1927. Such briefly was his career as an Egyptologist. But this was not all. He was an enthusiastic and learned student of Roman Britain. As early as 1912 he had excavated at Wroxeter, and between that time and the year of his death he worked at Richborough, Kenchester, Ariconium, Capler Camp, Caer Llugwy and Carnarvon. His work on these sites is recorded in a series of articles in various archaeological journals. On the Egyptian side his published work seems very modest in quantity, for much of it is embodied in publications on which his name does not even appear as part author. Thus he provided some of the material for Roman Portraits and Memphis (IV), and whole sections of The City of Akhenaten I, as one of the authors can testify, came straight out of his beautifully kept field note books. He shared with Quibell the authorship of The 324 T. ERIC PEET Teti Pyramid, North Side, and a corpus which he made of Romano-Egyptian pottery, found at Kom Aushim, will, it is to be hoped, be used in the publication of that site by the University of Michigan. Meanwhile a copy of this corpus is in the hands of Mrs. Hayter at 39 Netherhall Gardens, London, N.W. 3, where it lies at the disposition of any future excavator who could make use of it. A work of his, however, which is certainly of more magnitude, and perhaps of greater importance than any of these, is one which has not yet seen the light. Since 1914 he had been compiling a corpus of the potters’ stamps on Samian ware. His list is the most complete in existence and was used for reference by scholars in all parts of the country. It is in good order, the stamps being drawn in facsimile, for Hayter was, among other things, a clever draughtsman. It is very much to be hoped that those interested in Roman Britain will see to it that this valuable work does not remain unpublished. For the pre.sent it is being kept up to date and added to by Mr. Hayter’s son, in whose hands it remains just as freely accessible to those who wish to make use of it as it did during his father’s lifetime. Those studies which are supposed to be without direct application to the needs of modern life lead in the.se days a precarious e.xistence, and they only survive at all by the enthusiasm and devotion of those who profess them. There could not be a more enthusiastic or devoted Egyptologist than Hayter. Nothing was too much trouble, and if he had the faintest suspicion that a piece of work which he had done could be improved upon, however minutely, it was thrown ruthlessly aside and the whole done over again from start to finish. He was a kind and generous camp-fellow, and, if he had a fault, it was that he expected too much of himself and allowed himself too little mental and physical relaxation. Yet this spirit of modest self-sacrifice was not a mere by-product of his love of archaeology, which was great, but lay deep in the man himself, and it is certain that if one could question his old pupils one would find that he was no less devoted as a teacher than he was as an archaeologist. T.E.P. 325 N0TE8 AND NEWS Field work is to begin at Erment early in November. The party will be under the direction of Dr. H. Frankfort, and will include ilr. 8. R. K. Glanville, i\Ir. A. W. Shorter, who has just taken his final Schools at Oxford, and Mr. J. 1). Pendlebury, who has been excavating for the British School at Athens in Macedonia, and joins as a volunteer. Mr. Mond has generously given leave to Mr. W. B. Emery to join the ex- pedition. The work will start with an attempt to find the burial-place of the sacred Buchis-bulls, the existence and position of which were surmised by Mr. Mond and Mr. Emery from their discoveries made last year. Hermonthis. the ancient town on the site of Erment, was closely related to the dynasties of tlu' dliddle and New Kingdoms, most of whose kings, including Akhenaten, were crowned tlnu’e. Town and temple ruins, as well as cemeteries, await exploration, for the site has never been worked by a scientific expedition, having been neglected owing to its proximity to Thebes, which has absorbed the attention of archaeologists. In the beginning of January the expedition will be transferred from Erment to Tell el-‘Amarnah. The party there will include Mr. E. B. O'Rorke as architect. It is intended to complete the planning of what remains of the large .Vten Temple and to continue the excavation of the northern part of the town. The work of the Archaeological Survey is to be continued at Abydos. Miss Calverley has made considerable progre.s.s in copying the reliefs and inscriptions in this country and hopes to recommence her work in Abydos about the middle of September, probably remaining in Egypt for nearly six months. The Newton Memorial volume. The Mnrnl Pnitilings of Tell el-‘Amarnah, will be ready for publication before the end of the year. Proofs of some of the colour plates were exhibited at the Oriental Congress at Oxford and evoked great adiniration. The manuscript of the Naville Jlemorial volume. The Ceunlciph of I at Abydos, will also be ready this autumn, so that the book should go to pre.ss at the beginning of the new year. A series of lectures is being arranged for the winter, the majority of which will deal with Egyptian history during the decay and after the fall of the native dynasties. As an experiment, for the benefit of those to whom the evening lectures are impracticable, two of this series will be given in the afternoon. That the Congress of Orientalists held at Oxford in the last week of August was an unqualified success will not be denied by anyone who had the good fortune to be there. The attendance of foreign delegates and members was very numerous. In the Egyptian section this was especially noticeable. America sent us Professor Breasted, France 326 NOTES AND NEWS Professor Moret and Mile Baud, Belgium Professor and Madame Capart and Mile Werbrouck, Germany a long list of scholars, among whom were Drs. SteindorlT, Spiegelberg, Hess, Boeder and Grapow, while from Denmark we had Professor Lange and Dr Till, and from Czecho-Slovakia Dr. Cerny. Our own country was well represented, and among the most crowded meetings were those at which papers were read by Professor A. H. Gardiner and Dr. Hall. Professor Gardiner read on the Sinaitic script and the origin of the alphabet, giving some details of the three most recently discovered inscriptions in the new script, and reviewing shortly the work of other scholars on the subject since the time of his first publication of his discovery in this Journal. The room provided for the reading of this paper proved too small for the numbers who wished to hear Dr. Gardiner, and many people were unable to obtain admission. Dr. Hall’s paper dealt with the ever-increasing co.st of archaeological publications, more especially reports of excavations and editions of papyri. A resolution, the adoption of which would tend to mitigate this evil, was submitted to, and carried in, all sections of the Congress. Professor Newberry’s paper on the crook and flail (more correctly ladanislerium) of Osiris, which was illu.strated by some interesting exhibits, we hope to print later in this Journal. Judging from what one heard on Friday there seemed every prospect of the Congress being unofficially continued over the week-end at his place in Kent. We trust that those of our colleagues in allied branches of archaeology who are kind enough to send us copies of their books for our Library will neither take offpnce nor dis- continue their generous gifts if we are often unable to notice these in our review columns. The influx of books for review has become so great — there is a very long list outstanding at the present moment — that we have been obliged to limit our notices to those works which deal quite specifically with Egypt. At the same time there appear occasionally books of such importance that some notice of them cannot be omitted from the Journal. Such is, for example, Sir Arthur Evans’ second volume on the excavations at Knossos, which has just appeared in two parts. A stranger to Sir Arthur who read the book and was asked to assess the age of its author would certainly err by a quarter of a century at least, for the work shows no abatement of that combination of sound scholarly ob- servation with well-balanced and controlled imagination which have always made its author one of the most successful of excavators and one of the most attractive of talkers and writers. Another book which we cannot leave unnoticed is Sidney Smith’s Early History of Assyria to 1000 b.c. Of this we need only say that it is fully worthy of the series, begun in such masterly fashion by King, of which it forms the official continuation. Dr. Hall’s Ehind Lectures for 1923 have now appeared under the title The Civiliza- tion of Greece in the Bronze Age (Methuen). Mr. Campbell Thompson’s Epic of Gilgamesh (Luzac, 1928) is naturally a book with no direct bearing on Egypt. It has, however, a value for those Egyptologists who occupy themselves with the study of comparative mythology, and it is of interest to all archaeo- logists as an attempt to render an ancient text into metrical English. Professor Sayce has written for the Proceedings of the British Academy (Vol. xiii) an appreciation of the life and work of David George Hogarth. It is far more complete than the short notice which we printed in our last number, and is a fine tribute to a distinguished scholar and man of action. NOTES AND NEWS 327 We had intended to publish in this number an obituary notice of Arthur C. Mace, and Dr. Lythgoe, who probably knew more of Mace’.s career and work than any other Egyptologist, had very kindly undertaken to write this. Unfortunately Dr. Lythgoe has been far from well during the summer and it has been quite impossible for him to carry out his promise. We wish him a rapid and complete recov'cry. The Editor has had of late to meet a certain amount of good-natured criticism of his policy in printing Professor Capart’s Bibliography in the last double number of the Journal in French. This departure from the Society’s custom of using only English in the Journal was dictated by sheer force of necessity. The translation of a long piece of technical matter of this kind is, as we know from exj)erience, a thing which cannot be put into the hands of a professional translator, but must be undertaken by one who is himself a scholar in the subject. It is in any hands a .slow busine.s.s, and there is no Egyptologist who can or who ought to be expected to spare time from his own researches in order to undertake a task of this length. At the same time it must be distinctly understood that the printing of this Biblio- graphy in French does not indicate an intention on the part of the Journal to give any preference to that language over any other foreign language. Had this Bibliography been done for us, as might easily have happened, by one of our German colleagues, it would have been necessary to print it in German. In the present number is an article by Dr. ScharfE which was sent to us in German, and which has been translated into English only because it was of such high general interest that it was felt that it ought to be made accessible to every reader. Perhaps it may not be out of place to state here, for the benefit of those who would rule out entirely the use of foreign languages, that the translation of Dr. Scharff’s article into satisfactory English, together with the arrange- ment of the illustrations, cost the Editor exactly six long days. To turn into readable English a highly technical archaeological di.scu.ssion in German is a very different matter from translating a few pages of a novel. Experlo credo. And so it comes that readers may occasionally be asked to bear with the intrusion of French or German. The occasions will be rare, and neither will in any case be used for articles of general interest: they will be limited to such things as the Bibliographies, possibly here and there a review of an abstruse publication, and, it may even be, a short article on a highly technical point of purely specialist interest. The policy of the Society still is to avoid so far as possible the use of foreign languages. Had this policy, however, been too rigidly adhered to the Bibliography of Ancient Egypt would, when Professor Griffith found himself forced to give it up, have ceased to appear, which would have been a great misfortune both for the Journal and for Egyptology. In the same way we may find ourselves obliged occasionally to break our rule in favour of German, but the infringements will be kept within such limits that the general reader will not suffer. An interesting little event which took place at the Congress of Orientalists at Oxford was the presentation by Professor Capart to Dr. Gardiner of the first copy of the French edition of Dr. Gardiner’s Egyptian Hieroglyphic Printing Type, a work referred to in our last Notes and News. The Fondation Egyptologique Heine Elisabeth has acquired a fount of this type and has marked the occasion by producing this French edition of the catalogue. 328 NOTES AND NEWS A new Egyptian Museum is to be erected in Stockholm. To this end a Committee has been constituted, the President of which is H.R.H. the Crown Prince of Sweden. The remaining members of the Committee are the King’s Custodian of Antiquities in Sweden, Dr. S. Curman, and Dr. A. Lagrelius. The collections of Egyptian antiquities already existing in Stockholm, which until now have been divided between different institutions, are to be transferred to the new Museum, for which numerous purchases have already been made last winter. The well-known Swedish art collector and donor. Dr. Otto Smith of Karlshamn, has presented to the new institution a selection from his excellent Egyptian collection. Dr. Pehr Lugn, Keeper of the Victoria Museum of Egyptian antiquities in Upsala, Pas been appointed to organize and conduct the new Museum. 329 NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis. By Henry A. Sanders and Carl Schmidt. (University of iliebigan Studies, Humanistic Series, xxi.) New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927. The two Biblical papyrus MSS. brought together in this publication of the University of Michigan are of quite di.stinct origin. The Minor Prophets MS. was bought, together with a group of Coptic MSS., for the late Mr. Charles Freer in 1916, and now forms part of the Freer Collection of the Smithsonian Institution at Washington. The Genesis MS. was acquired by Prof. Carl Schmidt in 1906, and presented by him to the Royal Library at Berlin. Its publication was delayed through various misadventures, of which the war was only one, and by a contretemps into which it is not necessary to enter the edition by its discoverer was anticipated by a collation and full description in Prof. Rahlfs' Genesis, which appeared at Stuttgart in 1926. It is now fully published by the collaboration of Prof. Schmidt and Prof. Sanders, with specimen facsimiles ; and full facsimiles of both MSS. are published separately. Both MSS. are of considerable bibliographical and palaeographical interest. Both belong to that early type of papyrus codex, in which the whole book consists of a single quire, conqiosed by laying a number of sheets one on top of the other with the recto side of the papyrus uppermost, and then folding the whole mass in the middle. The result is a .single-quire codex, in which verso precedes recto for the first half of the book, and recto precede.s verso in the second half. It was a cumbrous form of book-production, which failed to realize most of the advantages of the codex form, and was soon superseded by the method, which then became universal, of quires of a moderate compass placed in juxtaposition and joined by sewing. Its use accordingly affords at least a presumption of a relatively early date. The Prophets MS., when put together (and here a tribute is due to the skilled restorers of both ilSS., which were each acquired as a mass of fragments), and when allowance is made for the leaves containing Hosea, of which only a few small pieces remain, appears to have consisted originally of 24 sheets of papyrus, forming, when doubled, 48 leaves or 96 pages. Since, however, Malachi ends on the 68th page, either 14 leaves were left blank at the end, or (as is more probable) some other book followed the Minor Prophets, of which no fragment has survived. No other explanation, however, is possible if, as stated by Sanders, every leaf up to and including the 24th has the verso side preceding the recto. A single-quire codex of 24 sheets is large, and must have been inconvenient to fold and bind, but is not unprecedented ; for Schmidt quotes a Coptic gnostic codex of 36 sheets, and Sanders state.s that the Hermas papyrus in the Michigan Library had over 40 (perhap.s 50) sheets and seems to have formed a single quire. A third- century Homer in the Morgan Library is said to have 31 .sheets. The Cxyrhynchus St. John, now in the British Jluseum, which was the first papyrus codex of this type to be discovered, must originally have had 25 sheets. The Genesis MS. is of more moderate size, comsisting of only 16 sheets (32 leaves). Here, however, a new phenomenon appears; for the codex ends at Gen. xxxv. 8, in the middle of a verse, the title yeveais Koa-pov being appended at the foot of the last page. This suggests that a second codex must have followed, containing the remainder of the book, amounting to about one-third of the whole, and requiring therefore only' about eight sheets. This is no doubt possible, or the second codex may have proceeded to include part of Exodus ; but since single-quire codice.s of 24 sheets were not unknown, it may seem strange that the whole of Genesis was not included in a single book. A possible, and indeed a probable, explanation may be offered. The length of text, Gen. i.-xxxv. 8, is approximately the same as that of one of the longer Gospels, Matthew or Luke, and this, as is generally recognized, is about the extreme amount that could be included in a single papyrus roll. It therefore seems probable that the scribe of our codex stopped where he did because he had reached the end of the roll from which he was copying, and began a new codex to take the contents of a new roll. The irregularity of the script, which the editor rightly explains as due to the scribe’s efforts to make his papy-rus fit a prescribed quantity of text, seems to confirm this theory. Both MSS. are a.ssigned by the editor to the latter part of the third century. For the Minor Prophets MS. this may stand, though a date a little on either side of a.d. 300 would seem possible ; but the Genesis Journ. of Egypt. Arch. xiv. 42 330 NOTICES OF EECENT PUBLICATIONS MS. seem.s definitely referable to the 4th century. The Abinnaeus papyri (c. 340-350) provide several hands of this type. Both MSS. are written in cur-sivo, uon-literary hands, the Minor Prophets being both better written and more correct than the Genesis. The scribe of the latter, in particular, was clearly an ignorant and untrained writer, and the irregularities of the script (sometimes with two columns to the page, sometimes with one, and with much variety' in the number and length of lines) relegate the MS. to a humble rank as a piece of book production. They also weaken its authority in cases of doubtful readings though they' absolve it from any suspicion of deliberate editing. Textually the Minor Prophets MS. shows several cases of accommodation to the Hebrew (the editor reckons 33 instances), but none that are otherwise known as Hexaplaric. There are four or five agreements^ with Symmachus, one with Aquila, none with Theodotion. Among the uncials this MS. (W) shows mo.st affinity with Q (the Marchalianu-s, which is of Egyptian origin), and next with B ; but it frequently diflers from both, and the MSS. with which it shows most frequent agreement are those numbered 407 and 410 in Rablfs’ list. Of the versions the Coptic, as one would expect, is decidedly the nearest to it, and among the Coptic versions (so far as the very' fragmentary nature of the evidence permits a conclusion) the Akhmimic and Sahidic. The reiidings require fuller examination and analy'sis; but the substantial fact remains that we have in M' a pre-Origenian Egyptian text of the greater part of the Minor Prophets. IVhen Brooke and M''Lean reach this part of their great work, the W a.shington MS. must play an important part in their apparatus. The Gene.sis MS. comes too late for the Cambridge Septuagint, but it has been utilized in advance, as e.xplained above, by Kahlfs. This, again, is definitely not Hexaidaric, though there are a few independent accommodations to the Hebrew. The only early uncial that contains any considerable portion of Genesis is A, and this comes very low in the list of agreements with the Berlin papyrus. Its most marked affinity, according to the editors, is with the cursives 29, 108, 344, which are classed by Swete as Lucianic^ while of the versions the Armenian heads the list, followed by the Bohairio, Ethiopic and Sahidic. So far as can be gathered from a first ins}>ection the papyrus does not throw much light on the textual problems of the Pentateuch ; but its age makes it a welcome addition to our authorities, in spite of the many errors which obscure its evidence, making it of little value, in particular, in respect of omissions. F. G. Kenyon. Fhiladdpheia. By Paul Viereck. (No. 16 of the series called Morgenland, edited by "VV. Schubart.) Leipzig: Verlag J. C. Hinrichs, 1928. Pj). 70, with 10 plates and 4 figures in text. Thi.s study of the foundation of a Helleni.stic town in the Fayytim is divided into two parts. The first contains a description of the ruins of Philadelphia and of the objects found by the author and his colleague Profe.ssor Zucker in the excavations which they made there nearly twenty years ago. Very interesting is the plan on PI. i, which shows how the tow'n was originally laid out by Apollonios’ architect in parallel row.s of streets crossing each other at right angles. Though much of the site has been demolished since the German excavations, the main lines of the streets are clearly distinguishable in a photograph taken from the air in 1925. It seems surprising that of the many temples mentioned in the papyri not more than two have been located. A sketch in a Michigan papyrus shows the house of Artemidoros the physician on the bank of the canal alongside the temples of Hermes and Premarres, and as other temples are known to hav'e been situated Trapa ttjv Siwpvya, it is probable that this part of the site, now much destroyed, contained a long row of the more important buildings, private as well as public. The second part of the book describes the foundation of Philadelphia, the development of Apollonios’ estate and the w'ork carried on by Zenon. In fact, it is a summary of the contents of the Zenon papyri, clearly written and enlivened by an abundance of well-chosen quotations and references. One may not agree with the author’s views on every detail ; I doubt for instance if he is right in calling Kriton an admiral of the king’s fleet ; his explanation of eyicavrijs as a baker of pottery is disproved by the papyri, in which it clearly means an encaustic painter ; and his statement that Zenon was the general farmer of the ^vine taxes in three nomes, though supported by the authority of Rostovtzef, does not seem to me to be based on sound evidence. But mistakes in detail are inevitable in dealing with such a mass of new and undigested material, and in its main lines the l)ook is quite reliable and up to date. Viereck has given a good general picture of the early days of Philadelphia, making use of all the published matter and adding a very welcome account of his ow'ii work on the site. C. C. Edgar. NOTICES OF KECENT PUBLICATIONS 331 The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians. Poems, narratives, and nianunls of instruction, from the third and second millennia b.v. By Adolf Erman. Translated into English by Aylward M. Blackman. London : Methuen & Co., Ltd. The original German edition of this book was reviewed in the Journal (x, 193 ft’.) at considerable length by its present translator. A.s Dr. Blackman wa.s not allowed to alter the .sen.se of Pi’ofe.ssor Erman’s renderings, the bulk of his comments on the latter’.s book hohts good for his own. At times he is in the unenviable position of having to give a translation in 1927 which he has already condemned in 1924. In such cases he indicates the sources of correction by footnotes. Dr. Blackman intended to make independent translations of all the texts offered in this volume : it was not to lie expected that Professor Erman would be willing to .see these translations published as the English version of his own ; but it is disappointing in the circumstances that it was not possible for Dr. Blackman to make an independent .selection of Egyptian texts as well and thus produce a completely new book. English readers unaccustomed to German would then have lost Professor Erraan’s introduction — perhaps with the exceiition of Dr. Blackman’s additional references throughout the book the nio.st valuable part of the English eilition — but they would have gained improved and, which is more important, fuller translations of the Egyptian literature. In short the book can hardly be considered .seriously as a new publication of translations for the specialist, since he is better off with the German edition and Dr. Blackman ’.s review. But although its justification as a pre.sentation of Egyptian literature for the layman is challenged by the existence of Sir Ernest Budge’s The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians — for the two books cover a largo amount of ground in common, and where that is so Ernian-Blackman is to be preferred only if it ofl'ers a more correct translation ; and since it stands self-confessed as a second-best attempt, the layman is likely on principle to prefer Budge — yet there remains a considerable divergence in the choice of texts, and to some the literary bias of Erman-Blaoktnan will be more acceptable than the autobiographical and magical oxcor]its and the generally wider range of Budge. y. R. K. Glanvillf. Arabia before Muhammad. By De Lacy O’Leary, D.D. (Triibner’.s Oriental Serie.s.) London, 1927. Price 10«. Qd. net. In this work Dr. O’Leary covers a wider field than the title will probably suggest to most people. lie does not confine himself to the condition of Arabia immediately before the appearance of Muhammad ; but .seek.s to summarize what is known of Arabia from the earlie.st times down to Muhummad’.s day. Thus he devotes a chapter to the Egyptian penetration of Arabia, founded upon what is known from ancient monuments of Egyptian sea-trade and commerce in the Red Sea. Another chapter deals with the Mesopotamian penetration of Arabia, summarizing the evidence of the cuneiform inscriptions. Considerable attention is also devoted to the notices of Arabia in clas.sicerg. Translated from the German by A. M. Blackman .... Etudes d’egyptologie : Bases, methodes et resultats de la chronologic egyptienne. Raymond Weill The Oxford E.\cavations in Xubia. F. LI. Griffith A History of the Ancient World. Vol. l. The Orient and Greece. M. Rosto\’tzeff. Translated from the Russian by J. D. Duff The P.salmists. Hugo Gressmann, H. W. Robinson, T. H. Robinson, G. R. Driver, and A. M. Blackman The Fellahin of Tapper Egypt. Winifred S. Blackman .... A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Edwyn Bevan Vie de Petosiris, grand-pretre de Thot. Emile Suys L’Art cgyptien. Charles Boreux Die Kunst der Agypter. Georg Steindorff Animals of Ancient Egypt. David Baton Thebes. The Glory of a Great Past. Jean Capart and Marcelle Werbrouck Relazione sui lavori della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Egitto (Anni 1903-1920). E. Schiaparelli ......... Kinderspielzeug aus alter Zeit. Karl Grober ...... I papiri ieratici del Museo di Torino. II Giornale della Xecroiwli di Tebe. Vol. I. Giuseppe Botti and T. Eric Peet The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis. Henry A. Sanders and Carl Schmidt ..... Philadelpheia. Paul Viereck The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians. Poems, narratives, and manuals of instruction, from the third and second millennia B.C. Adolf Erman. Translated into English by Aylward M. Blackman .... Arabia before Muhammad. De Lacy O’Leary ...... Coptica consilio et impensis instituti Rask-Oerstediani edita. iv. Die Achmimisohe Version der zwblf kleinen Propheten. Walter Till L’Administration civile de I’Egypte byzantine. Germaine Rouillard . Reviewed by PAt:E Arthur S. Hunt 185 Arthur S. Hunt 186 F. de Zuliieta 186-187 T. Eric Peet 187-188 S. R. K. Glanville 188-190 S. R. K. Glanville 190-191 H. Frankfort 192 R. 0. F'aulknor 192-193 R. 0. Faulkner 193-194 Warren R. Dawson 194-196 Sidney Smith 196 T. Eric Poet 197 T. Eric Peet 197-198 C. C. Edgar 198-199 H. R. Hall 199-2(X) H. R. Hall 200-201 H. R. Hall 201-202 AV. B. Emery 202 AV. B. Emery 202 H. R. Hall 203-205 H. R. Hall 206 F. LI. Griffith 206-207, 332-333 F. G. Kenyon 329-330 C. C. Edgar 330 S. R. K. Glanville 331 Richard Bell 331 F. LI. Griffith 332 H. 1. Bell 333 43—2 340 INDEX A Aahmes, stela of time of, 242. AahmOse of Peniati, The Letters of, S. R. K. Glas- viLLE, 294-312. fAakheprure^', 10. Abinuaeus, 320. Abiii...?, 304. Abiislr el-Melek, 264, 266, 272. Abvdos, The Cemeteries of : M’ork of the Season 1925-26, H. Frankfort, 235-245. Abydos. 180, 181, 211, 264. ivory sphinx from, 16. models of pig in predynastic graves at, 211. stela of Hori at, 65. survey of, 325. temple of Seti I at, 30. Acheulian implements, 265. Aohille.s, Aurelius, 119. Achoapis, 292. Adad-mrari I, 285. Adonis, 215. Adulis, 114. Aelian, 29, 32, 213. Aemilian, 16, 17, 18, 21. Egyptian coins of, 19. Africa, tin ore in, 99. African elephant, 267. Africanu.s, 52. Agatharoides, 253. Agathis, 293. Agathodiunion canal, 252. Ageiior, 289, 290, 293. Agricultural Ledger in P. Bad. 95, An, II. Schnebel, 34-45. Ai, sfr Ive. Ailah, 278. Aischylo.s, 291, 293. Akhenaten, 82, 222, 325. and Semenkhkare^, stela of, 7. Akhenaten’.s Elde.st Son-in-law, ^^Aiikhkheprure'’, Percy E. Newberry, 3-9. ('Akheper(ka?)reL 85. I'AkheperlulreC 82, 83, 85. Akhetaten, 301. Ai.briuht. \V. F. and Alan Rowe, A Roy-al Stele of the New Empire from Galilee, 281-7. Alcaeus, 79. Aleppo, 284, 285. tin ore from, 100. Alexander, 14, 226. worship of, 248. Alex.uider .Severus, lease of reign of, 118. Alexandria, 129, 227. Black Sea, commercial relations with, 14. provisioning of, 38. temple of Sarapis at, 229. under Ptolemy II, 252. Alexandrian coins of Valerian and Gallienus, 16, 18. objects in South Russia, 14. Al-Kindi, 277. Al-Kulzum = Clysma, 277. Allen, T. George, 1. Al-Mukaddasl, 277. Alypius, 225. Amenemhah, 243, 284. Amenemhet, 84, 85, 221. Amenemmes I, ichm wjfirt, 67. Amenemopeuakht, 51. Anienherkhopeshef, 58. Amenhotep, 66, 68, 70, 72, 243. high priest of Amun, 67. roy'al scribe, 211. son of Kenna, 49. Amenkhau, 64, 66, 70. popular name in Twentieth Dynasty, 69. Kedakhtef .son of, 49. Anienmessu, 243. Amenmo.se, 86, 298, 299 Aniennakht, 60. Amenophis I, 295. Amenophis III, 3, 83, 84, 85. lion of, 76. palace of, 299. portrait of, with Mutemwia, 82. propertv given to temple of Ptah at Memphis by, 211. reliefs of, at Karnak, 72. steatite figure of, 76. terracotta head of period of, 209. tomb of time of, 3. Amenophis IV, 4, 117. Ramose, vizier of, 3. Ameny, 239. Ammoiiarion, Aurelia, 118, 120. Amonisru, 76. Ancient Egyptian Materials, A. Lucas (reviewed), 188. Ancient Egyptian Metallurgy, H. Gari.and and C. O. Bannister (reviewed), 188. Aniba, 115. Aninakht, 70. CAnkhesenamun, 74. <" AnkhkheprureL 5, 6, 10, 11. ^Ankhkhepruref, Akhenateu’s Eldest Son-in-Law, Percy E. Newberry, 3-9. CAnkhsenpaten, 117. Anthippos, 292, 293. Aiitigonos Gonatei.s, 13, 15. Antinous, 7. Antioch, 234. Antiochus I, 250. Apa, 109. Aphrodite, 215, Aphthonetos, 289, 290, 291, 293. Apion, 35. INDEX 341 Apollonia, 2S9, 291. Apollonios, 13, 1.^ 253, 254. 288, 289, 291, 292. Arab inva.sioii of Egypt, 233. Arabia, 129. Arabs, Ptolemy II and relations with, 251. Arcbestratus, 23. Archimedes, 253. Argos, OeoipoL of, 13. Aristarchus of Samos, 253. Aristeas, 291. Aristeas letter, 246, 260. Aristides, 213. Aristomachos, 289, 290, 292. Ari.ston, 251. Aristotle, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32. Armenia, bronze m, 108. tin ore in, 99. Arrapha, 283, 284. Arsinoe (Suez), 251. Arsinoe II, 248, 250, 253. cult of, 256. Artatama, 283, 284. Artemidorus, 123. Arthur, King, 233. Ashatikht, 51. Ashmolean Mu.seum, 128. Assur, 283. relation.s with Egyptian finds, 275. Astrabad, tin ore from, 100. A.swun, 264. Roman frontier at, 115. Asyfit, see also Lycopolis, 74, 128, 130. Atef-senb, 4. Athanasius, St., lecture on, 180. Athenaeus, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32. Athenian use of mandrake as amulet, 117. Athens and Bosporus, relations between, 14. Atoiiou-notir-nofrii-mer-Atonou, 4. Attains, 289. Augustus, favour to .lews at Ale.vandria, 230. Aurelian, 21. subjection of Egyjit under, 231. Ausoniu.s, 29. Authy", vizier of Nineteenth Dynasty, 110. Asum, German Exjiedition to, 114, 115. period, Graeco- Konian pottery of, 1 14. Axumite.s, raids of, 115. Azerbeidjan, tin from, 100. B Babylon, pigs unknown to .Surneri.uis of, 215. Babylonia, pe.ir-shajied type of club in, 273. Badarl, 266, 270. Bahr el-Ghazal, blaoklead sheen on pottery at, 114. Baxxister, C. O. and H. G.ckland, Ancient E‘/i/fitian Metallarrjii (reviewed), 188. Baikal, Gebel, 76. Burton, Harry, 3. Bastet, 110. Batbay, 10, 11. Baynes, Norman H., 180. with Milne, J. G., Bibhograjihy : Graeco-Roman Egypt. A. Papyri (1926-7J- 4. Political History, Biography, Administration, Topography, Chronology, 144-7. 5. Social Life, Education, Art, Economic H istory, Numismatics and Metrology, 147-9. Bebi, tomb of, at El-Kab, 213. vizier of Eleventh Dynasty, 109. Behnesa, 26. Bekeiipitah, 243. Bekeutha, 50. Bell, H. L, 78, 183. Bibliograpliv : Graeco-Roman Egypt. A. Papyri (1926-7)'; .3. Publications of Non-Literary Te.vts, 140-4. 9. General Works, Bililiograjihy, Miscellaneous Notes on Papyrus Texts, 157. 10. MiscellaneoiLs and Personal, 157-8. lecture by, 180. review by, 333. Bell, Rilhaud, review by, 331. Beni-Ha.san, 225. Benya, 298. Both-shan, 285, 286, 287. Bevan, Edwyn, History of Egi/fd under the I'tolcniaic Dynasty i reviewed), 198. Bibliography (1926) : Ancient Egypt, Jean C.ypakt, 159-179. Preservation of inonuinents, 159. Excavatii ms, 1 59-1 6 1 . Publication of te.xts, 161-162. History, 162-164. Geography, 164-165. Foreign relations, 165-167. Palaeography, 167-168. Religion, 168-170. Science, 170-171. Literature, 171-172. Archaeology', 172-178. Biography, 178. Miseell.inooas, 178-179. Bibliography: Gr.ieco- Roman Egyjit. A. Papyri (1926-7), 131-158: 1. Literary Te.xts, 131-4. 2. Religion, Magic, Astrology, 134-140. 3. Publications of Non-Literary Te.xts, 140-4. 4. Political History, Biograjiby, Adiiiinistratiuii, Topography, Chronology, 144-7. 5. Social Life, Education, Art, Economic His- tory, Numismatics and Metrology, 147-9. 6. Law, 149-155. 7. Palaeogr.ipliy and Diplomatic, 156. 8. Lexicography and Grammar, 156. 9. General Works, Bibliography, Misoellaiieuu.s Notes on Papyrus Texts, 157. 10. Miscellaneous and Personal, 157-8. Bilgai stela, 93. Birfcat et-Tinisah, 277. Black Sea, Greek cities of, 13. relations with Egypt, 14. Blackman, .4. M., with Hugo Gress.mann, H. W. Robinson, T. H. Robix.son and G. R. Driver, The Dsahaists (reviewed), 197. Blackm.ax, W. S., The Fellohin of Upper Ein/pt (reviewed), 197, Blemmj'es, raids of, 115. Bohemia, tin ore in, 99. Bolling, G. M., The New Ptolemaic Pajiyrus con- taining Parts of Iliad, xil, 128-263, 78- 81. Bouecx, Charles, V Art egyptien (reviewed), 200. Bosporus, Paerisades king of, 13. relations with Greece and Egypt, 14. 342 INDEX Botti, Giuseppe, Who succeeded Ramesses IX-Ne- ferkere^?, 48-51. with Peet, T. E., I papiri ieratici del Museo di Torino (reviewed), 206, 332. Breasted, Dr. J. H., 1. Britain, silver mines of, 313. tin ore from, 103. Biiuntox, VV., Sdn/JK and Queens of Ancient Egypt (reviewed), 192. By bios, A Middle Kingdom Mayor of, P. E. New- berry, 109. prince of, and envoys from Egypt, 64. relations with Egyptian finds, 275. relief from, 286. stele from, 287. Byzantine influence in Sudan, 115. C Caesar, Julius, tin mentioned by, 98, 103. Cairo, ostraca of Twentieth Dvnasty at, 69. Callimachus, 246, 252, 253. Calveriey, Miss, 180, 325. Calycadnus, 129. Canaanite temples, cult-stands from, 285. Canopus, decree of, 228. Capart, Jeax, 183. Bif)liography (1926), Ancient Egypt, 159-179. with Werurouck, M., Thebes, The Glory of n Great Past (reviewed), 202. Capsian implements, 265. Caraoalla, edict of, 119. Careheniish, 284. excavations at, 128. Cartagena, mines at, 314. Carter, Howard, 4. Cassiterides, 1U3. Cemeteries of Abydos, The: dVork of the Season 1925-26, H. Fhaxkfort, 235-245. Chalcedoii, Council of, 232. Chelleaii implements, 265. Chinnereth, 285. Chronological Pitfalls, J. G. Milxe, 20-21. Chronological Proiileuis of the Twentieth Dynasty, The, T. Eric Peet, 52-73. Claudius, 18, 21. Cleitarchus, 253. Clemens, 213. Clement, 234. of Alexandria, 27. Clysma, Suez and, J. J. He.ss, 277-279. Coeli-Svria under Ptolemy 11, 249. CoLLART, P-AUL, Les Papyrus Bov.riant (reviewed), 186. Constantine and Egypt, 232. Cnn.stantinople, provisioning of, 38. Coptic Conjunctive Tense, Notes on the, Alan H. Gardiner, 86-96. Coptic language, origin of, 234. Cos, battle of, 13, 15. Crespius, Flavius, 123. Crete, relations with Egypt in Predyna.stic period, 275. Crowfoot, J. W., Some Potsherds from Kassala, 112-116. Curman, Dr. S., 328. Cyprus under Ptolemy II, 249. Cyrene under Ptolemv II, 249. Cyril, 21.3. CyzicuB, Eudoxos of, 13. D Dacia, 17, 21. Dalion, 25.3. Danab at-Timsah, 277. Daqliauus = Diocletianus?, 112, 116. Darwin, Charle.s, 215 ff. D.avies, Nina de G.aris and Alan H. Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the reign of Tuft ankhamun (reviewed), 187-8. Davies, Nh de Garis, 82, 182. Dawson, Warren R., Note on an Ancient Egyptian Figure, 126-127. review by, 194. Decius, 16, 21. Dedtu, 238. Delos, 24. Delta, Ptolemaic temple in, 248. Demeter, 215. Demetrius of Phaleron, 253. Demetrous, Aurelia, 119. Den, ivory label of, 110. Dendera, temple at, 230. Der el-Bahri, excavation at, 128. statue of Hatshepsut at, 2. temple of Nebhepetre^ Mentuhetep at, 109. Dor Rlfah, New Kingdom tomb at, 220. Dhutihetep, 111. Dhutmose, 65, 66, 72. Dicker, M. E., Bibliography : Graeco-Roman Egypt. A. Papyri (1926-7 j : 7. Palaeograpiiy and Diplomatic, 156. Didymus, 80. Diocletian, 16, 115. Egypt under, 231. lease of time of, 120. Di.xlorus, 22, 220, 251, 291. Diodorus Siculus, tm mentioned by, !I8, 101, 102, 103. Dionysias, 321. Dionysius, 251. Dionysius, Aurelius, 120. Dionysius (Heraclianus), 119. Dionysus, 213. Diophanes, 289, 293. Dioscorides, 27. Diospohs pottery, 267. Dorotheus, 33. Dorotheus, Aurelius, 123. Driver, G. R., with Hugo Gressmaxx, H. W. Robinson, T. H. Robinson and A. M. Blackji-an, The Psalmists (reviewed), 197. Diinhani, Dows, 126. E! Edfil, temple at, 214, 230. Edgar, C. C., 130. Three Ptolemaic Papyri, 288-293. review by, 330. Egypt invaded by Arabs and Persians, 233. Egypt and Black Sea, commercial relations, 14. Egypt and Bosporus, commercial relations, 14. Egypt under Constantine, 232. INDEX 343 Egy^it, coined metal adopted by, 227. u.se of bronze in, 106 ft’, use of tin in, 97. Egyptian Fish-Xanaes used by (Jreek Writers, On, D'Arcy Wentworth Thojipson, 22-3.3. Egyptian Xationalism under Greek and Roman Rule. J. Grafton Milne, 226-234. Egyptian Split Infinitive and the Origin of the( 'optic Oonjunetive Ten.se, Alan H. Gardiner, 86-96. Egyptian envoys to By bios, 65. objects in South Russia, 14 El-‘Amarnah, .5, 8. Elba, tin ore in, 99. El-Bersheh, tomb of Dliutihetep at, 111. Elephantine, elephant standards belong tol, 264. decree (Ramesses III), 95. El-Hawatah, 7. El-Kab, Renni mayor of, 211, 212. tomb of Belli at, 213. tomb of Paheri at, 212, 221. El-Khozam pottery, 267. El-Mas^'ftdl, 278. Emery, W. B., 47, 182, 325. reviews by, 202. Epaeuetus, 31. Ephesus, excavations at, 128. Epimachus, 118. Epiphanius, 33. Eratosthenes, 253. Ergamenes of Memo, 254. Eritrea, 114. Erman, Adolf, Litemture of the A ariertt Egiiptwos . Translated by A. M. Blackman (reviewed), 331. Erment, e.xcavations at, 325. Esneh, 26. Essays in Aegean Archaeology, 182. Ethiopia, Graeco-Roman piottery in, 114. Etruria, tin found in, 99. Euoherius, 12.3. Euclid, 25.3. Eudoxos of Cvzicus, 1.3. Eukles, 292-293. Eumelos, 13. Eu.sebm.s, 52. Eustathius, 78. Euthydemus, 25. Evans, Sir Arthur, Palace of Mmos at Kuosso.s, 326. essays presented to, 182. Ezekiel, tin mentioned in, 98. P Faras pottery, 115. Farmakowsky, Professor B., 14. Faulkner, R. 0., reviews by, 192, 193. Fayyum, 13. Five Leases in the Princeton Collection, 11. B. Van Hoesen and A. C. Johnson, 1 18-125. Flavius, 121, 123. Fostat, 277. France, tin ore from, 101, 102. Frankfort, H., 181, 325. lecture by, 180. review by, 192. The Cemeteries of Abydos : Work of the Season 1925-26. 235-245. Frazer, Sir James, 221. G Galba, 21. Galen, 27. Gallienus, 16, 19. Gallus, 16, 17, 21. Gardiner, Alan H., .56, 180, 181. paper by, .326. An Egyptian Split Infinitive and The Origin of the Coptic Conjunctive Ten.se, 86-96. The Grattito from the Tomb of Pere, 10-11. with Davies, Xina de Garis, Tho Tomb of //«//, Viceroy of Suhin in the reign of TutCankhiiinuii i' reviewed), 187 -8. Garland, H. .ind C. O. Bannister, Ancient Egi/ptiiin Metallurgy I'reviewed). 190. Gar.stang, John, An Ivorv ,8phinx from Abvdos, 46-7. ( iaza, 287. Gebel ol-Haiiuitn, 307. Gemellae, inscription from, 19. Germano.s, 35, 41. Gerzah, 264. Gezer, sundial of Meiiephthes at, 286. Giluheiia, 28.5. Glanville, ,S. R. K., 261, 325. reviow.s by, 188-191, .331. lecture by, 180. The Letters of Aahmo.se of Peniati, with addi- tional note, 294-312. Glaucias, Ptolemy .son of, 229. Graeco- Roman pottery in Ethiopia, 114. Grattito from the Tomb of Pere, The, Alan H. Gardiner, 10-11. Greece, silver mines of, 31,3. Greek .Sightseers in Egypt, M. Ro.stovtzeff, 13-15. OUESS.MANN, Hugo, with H. W. Robinson, T. H. Robin.son, G. R. Driver and A. M. Black- man, The E-ialuiistr (reviewedl, 197. Griffith, P'. LI., 181. reviews by, 206, 332-3. Oxford E.vearationr in .Vubia (reviewed), 194. Grober, Kari,, Kinderxpieheug avs eshef Usimarci'-Akhen- amun, 53 ft'. Ramesses IX, 48, 53 ft , 61 ft’. Ramesses X, KhepermaruC-Setpenrci', Ramesses- Amenherkhepe.shef, 54 ft'. Eamesses XI, Menmarei" -Setpenptah, Eamosses- Khaemwesc-Miamun-Neterhekon,50, 54, 60 ft'. Eamo.se, tomb of, 3, 182. Eaphia, defeat of Syrians at, 228, 259. Eebecca, 117. Renni, mayor of El-Kab, 211, 212. Eel" pu, 239. Ehaetia, 19. Rhodes, 14. DE Ricci, Seymodr, A Latin Petition of Atiinnaeus (Papyrus B.M. 447), 320-322. Robinson, T. H., with Hcgo Gressmann, H. W. Robinson, G. E. Driver and A. M. Black- man, The P.-«ihnist.i (reviewed), 197. Roman compiest of Egypt, 230. Roman period, terracotta head of supposed, 209. Rondeletius, 22. Ilo.setta stone, 228. Rostovtzkff, .M., (!reek Sightseers in Egypt, 13-15. History of the Aarient World. Vol. I. The Orient and (Jreece (reviewed), 196. Rouillard, Germaine, L’ Administration civile de Vflyypte hyzantine (reviewed), 333. Rowe, Alan and W. F. Albright, A Royal Stele of the New Empire from (ialilee, 281-287. Royal Stele of the New Empire from Galilee, A, W. F. Albright and Alan Rowe, 281-287. Rus.sia, 13. S Sahurei', annals of, 214. mortuary temple of, 220. Saite time.s, faience sow.s as amulets in, 211. Sakje-Geuzi, pottery from, 47. Sanders, Henry A. and Carl Schmidt, The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis (reviewed), 329-330. Sanhar, 283. Sarapion, 41, 119. Sarapis, 227. Sarmatian.s, 14. Satorne, 120. Sattuara, 285. Sauromatians, 14. Sau.ssatar, 283, 284. Saxony, tin ore in, 99. ScHARFF, Alexander, Some Prehi.storic Va.ses in the British Museum and Remarks on Egyptian Prehistory, 261-276. Schiaparelli, Ernesto, obituary of, 181. Relazione sui lacori della Mi.ssione Archeologica Italia na in Egitto (reviewed), 203. Schnebel, M., An Agricultural Ledger in P. Bad. 95, 34-45. Scythians, 13, 14. Se-aa-ka-ra-zeser-kheiieru, 5. 44—2 348 INDEX Sebekemheb, 238. Seleucid Hellenizatioii of Syria, 230. Semeiikhkarsr, 5, 6, 7, 117. with Akhenaten, 8. Semenkhkarer, building of, at Memphis, 9. Semites, 215. Semitic portrait of late Middle Kingdom, 46. Senebtef (Senebtyfy), 242. Senebu, 239. Senmery, 239. Seninut, see also Sennemut, .308. Senna, 218. Sennemut and MenkheperreCsenb in the British Mu.seum, The Statues of, H. R. Hall, 1-2. Septimius Severus, lease of reign of, 118. Serambos, 273, 289-91. Serenus, Aurelius, 119. Sesostris III, stele of time of, 240. Sesostris, .son of Hetept, 241. Setekhmose, 51. Sethe, Kurt, 183. Seti I, 65, 67. at Abydos, excavation of temple of, .30, 180. renewal of burial of, 72. the Cenotaph of, 180. Setnakht, 52, 57. Shalmaneser I, 285. Shashotep (Shuteb), 220. Shatt er-Rigal, 295. Shemsukheper, 85. Sheiiay, 235. Shepenhor, 245. Shishak, 287. Shorter, A. W., 325. Shuteb (Shashotep), 220. Silsilah, 295, 296, 308. Silver in Ancient Times, A. Lucas, 313-319. Sinai, civilization from, to Egypt, 274. Sinous, tin ore from, 100. Siphanos, 313. Sitkherti, 239. Sitsneferu, 239. Smenkhkerei", 77. Smith, Otto, 328. Smith, Sid>’ey, Early History of Assyria (notice), 326. review by, 196. Solon, 313. Somaliland, tin shipped to, 98. Sons of Tuthmosis IV, The, Percy E. Newberry, 82-85. Sostratos, 247, 291-.3. Spain, silver mines of, 313. tin ore from, 101. Spartocids, 13. Spiegelbero, W., The Credibility of Herodotus’ Ac- count of Egypt (reviewed), 192. A Heart Scarab of the Mnevis Bull, 12. Statues of Sennemut and Menkheperrei" senb in the British Museum, The, H. R. Hall, 1-2. Stein, Arthur, Observations on the Chronology of the Roman Emperors in the Second Half of the Third Century, 16-18. SiEiNDORFF, Georg, Die Kunst der Agypter (re- viewed), 201. Strabo, 22, 26, .30, 100, 31.3. tin mentioned by, 98, 101, 102. Straton, 247. Subbiluliuma, 283-5. Sudan, pottery of, 113. Suez and Clysma, J. J. Hess, 277-279. Suidas, 260. Sulb (Soleb), lions of Amenophis III at, 76, 77. Susa, relations with Egyptian finds, 275. Suttariia, 283, 285. Suwais, 277. SuYS, Emile, Vie de Petosiris, grand-pretre de Thot (reviewed), 199. Syagrius, 123, 233. Syria, Hellenization of, 230, 234. Its relations with Egypt in Predynastic period, 275. Philadelphos’ struggle with, 15. pottery from, 47. revolts against Egypt, 284. tin ore in, 99. Syrian defeat at Raphia, 228. portrait of late Middle Kingdom, 46. Syro-Keftians, 182. Syrus, 118. T Tabghah, 285. Tabriz, tin ore from, 100. Tacitus, 20. Tadiogas, 119. Tadoukhipa, 4. Tai, 306, 309. Tait, J. G., 181. Taman peninsula, 13. Tarkhan, 265. Tarn, W. W., Ptolemy II, 246-260. Tauris, tin from, lOu. Taurtemheb, 60. Tehenu, 282. Tell el-‘Amarnah, The Mural Paintings of, 180. Tell el-‘Oreimeh, 281, 285. Tell-esh-Shihab, 286. Tell Nebi Mendu (Kade.sh), 286. Telmessus, 258. Terekhy, 245. Tetisheri, 304, 305, 306. Thalmoou, 39, 42. Thay, 10. Thebans and Herakleopolitaus, civil ware between, 211 . Thebes, 3, 26. excavations in valley of Tombs of Queens at, 57. Greek gymna.sia in, 227. invasion of, by foreigners, 67. PewerO prince of West of, 64. temple at, 230. temple of Amun at, 296. tomb of Inena at, 219. tomb of Nebamon at, 219. Theocritus, 181, 246, 252, 253. Theodorus, 120. Theon, 291. Theonis, 118. Theta, 239. Thompson, Campbell, Epic of Gilgamesh, 326. Thompson, Miss Caton, 271. Thompson, D’Ahcy Wentworth, On Egyptian Fish- names used by Greek Writers, 22-33. INDEX 349 Thothmes, 4 ; see also Tuthmosis. Thrace, 15. silver mines of, 313. Three Ptolemaic Papyri, 0. C. Edgar, 288-293. Thutinekht, 211. Till, W alter, Coptica Consilio et impeasis institvti Rask-Oerstediani edita. IV. Die Arhiiiiuiisrhe Version der zirolt kleinen Propheten (reviewed), .332. Tita, 8fi. Tiye, mother of TutCaukhamun, 77. Tomb of Hup., Viceroy of Nubia in the reign of Tut- ( ankharami^ The, Nina de G.tRLs ll.wiKsand Alan H. Gardiner (reviewed', 187-A Trebonianus Gallus, 19. Trojans, 80. Tudhalias I, 284. Tunip, 284. Turah, 265, 272. Turin fragments of Twentieth Dynasty Diary, 48. king list, 275. Tuscany’, tin ore in, 99. Tusratta, 283, 284. Tuttankliamun, 4, 7. Objects of, in the British Museum, H. R. Hall, 74-77. Tuti'ankhaten, 117. Tuthtnosid Head in British Mu.seum, 184. Tuthmo.sis, major-domo of Horeraheb, 111. Tuthmosis I, 295. Tuthmosis II, 295. Tuthmosis III, 228, 284, 285, 295, 307. Tuthmosis IV, 4, 84, 85. The Sons of, Percy E. Newberry, 82-85. terracotta head of period of, 209. tomb of time of, 3. Tyre, 252. U Uga, 240. Unis, 127. Urnero, 91. Usirhatmer, son of Maanehktef, 49. V Vaballathus, 21. Valerian, 16, 17, 19, 20. Vespasian, 21. Victor of Pois, 39. ViERECK, Paul, Philadelpheia (reviewed), 330. Vimiuacium, 17, 18, 21. Vindusara, 251. Vitellius, 21. Volusian, 16, 17. W Wfidl ‘Abbad, 90. Wah, 11. Wanret, 10. IVa/trenput, 307, 309, 311. Weili,, K, Etudes degyptologie: Bases, methodes et resultats de la ehronoloyie e'gyptienne (re- viewed), 193. Wenamun, 64. Wenennefer, 66, 70, 72. Wenger, L., Der hevtige Stand der nimisehea Reeht.s- wissensehaft (reviewed;, 186-7. Wenta, 239. Werbrouck, M. and J. Gapart, Thebes, The (jlory of a Great Past , reviewed;, 184, 202. Westermann, W. L. and G. J. Kraemkr, Greek Papyn in the Library of Cornell University (reviewed), 185. Who succeeded Ramesses IX-Noferkerc<'?, Giu.seppe Both, 48-51. Williams, Mrs. Grant, 12. MTnIock, 11. E., 184, 219. Woserkhepe.shef, 64, 70. X Xenocrates, 22, 27, 32. Xenophon, 313. Y Ya^dt, 277. Yenes, 65, 66, 70. Z Zakro, flood in, 129. Zambesi, 218. Zenodorus, 80, 246, 253. Zenon, 255, 288, 289, 291-3. Zenon papyri, 13, 288. Zo.ser, Set the tutelary deity of, 220. deZulueta, F., Bibliography: Graeco-Roman Egypt. A. Papyri (1926-7). 6. Law, 149-155. review by, 186-7. CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY W, LEWIS, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS I \ '>■