Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 27 - CHI-ELD.pdf/780

 724

EGYPTOLOGY 20

of Tell-el-Amarna, and whole vases in many tombs; and in Mycenae and Cyprus many objects of Amenhotep III., and copies of designs of his age, show the common intercourse. The connexions of Egypt and Greece are the foundation for all accurate knowledge of early European chronology. In the XIXth Dynasty the largest monument lately found is the black granite stele of Amenhotep III., reinscribed by Merenptah (22), giving an account of his triumph over the Libyan invaders (Plate, Fig. 9). At the close is a mention of “ the people of Israel being spoiled and having no seed,” an allusion the sense of which has been much disputed, but which is the only instance of the name Israel on any ancient monument. The probability of the Exodus having taken place in this reign is discussed, and the short period of Judges advocated, in a paper in S.B.A.P. xviii. 243. The succession of the XXIst Dynasty kings is still obscure (see Recueil, xxi. 9). In the XXIInd Dynasty began a series of observations on high Nile levels at Thebes, during three centuries (see A.Z. xxxiv. 95, 119). These corroborate the general rising of the Nile plain by the mud of the inundation. The origin of the XXIInd Dynasty was formerly attributed to Assyria, on the ground of the names Takeloth (Tiglath), Usarkon (Sargon), and Namuroth (Nimrod); then these were disputed, and a Libyan origin advocated because the eldest sons were princes of the Mashuash (Libyan Maxyes). This fact, however, does not preclude their eastern origin; and the recent discovery of Shushanqu as a Babylonian name strongly corroborates the Mesopotamian origin of this dynasty. Of the XXVth Dynasty are the important inscriptions at Karnak about the royal estates, the female priesthood of Amen, and the adoption of royal heiresses (see A.Z. xxxv. 12). For all later periods see Maspero (3) and Wiedemann (5). The ruling family of the XXYIth Dynasty was certainly foreign, as shown by their names, and probably Libyan. The type was quite un-Egyptian, as seen in the head of Psamtik I. (A.Z. xxxiii. 116). The co-regency of Apries and Amasis is described on a monument, which shows that Apries was still in authority until slain in a rising in the third year of Amasis (Recueil, xxii. 1). The early historic Greeks in Egypt have been traced in their great settlement at Naukratis (23), from which a large number of very early inscriptions were obtained, and also in their fort and camp at Daphnse (24). These were the two main posts of mercenaries, west and east of the Delta. The Greek and Homan periods are so well known that there is no ground for great discoveries. But the large quantities of papyri found in recent years, in the Fayum and at Oxyrhynchos (27), have made us familiar with the details of government and daily life, as well as providing some very valuable literary remains. Some mention should be made of the chronology. It is generally agreed that as far back as the beginning of the XVUIth Dynasty (1587 b.c.) there is certain dating by the occasional records of the day of the rising of Sirius in the movable calendar, which shifted through all the seasons in 1460 years (4). A recent discovery of a papyrus (A.Z.), which seems by the same method to date the Xllth Dynasty to about 2000 b.c., is, however, still debated ; as such a date would leave an impossibly short time for the Xlllth-XVIIth Dynasties, it would seem rather that (if this record be accurate) the date must go back a whole cycle of 1460 years, and place the Xllth Dynasty about 3400 b.c., which would closely accord with the full chronology of Manetho as given by Africanus. There is also a vague dating of the inundation in the reign of Pepy I., which would place that VIth Dynasty about

[archaeology.

3400 B.c. Other datings have been proposed by Mahler : (1) in connexion with the new moons for Tahutmes III., which has lately been amended by working from the visible new moon and not the theoretical; and (2) by the star diagrams in the Ramesside tombs — but as these do not accord well with the safer dating by Sirius, it seems that they were probably copied from diagrams drawn up a generation or two before. (See several papers in A.Z.) In the shorter periods, within a dynasty, much help is gained by studying the family relations (4); even vague facts of the ages of mummies of the kings are of value in working out the family genealogies and the possibilities of lengths of reigns. In several instances the accuracy of Manetho has been well verified : the kings of the 1st Dynasty are in their right order; and in the later periods the family histories accord well with the lengths of reigns which he states; in one case, where most writers had discredited a reign of 26 years (Amenhotep II.), it has lately been entirely confirmed (22). Archaeology. When the article in the ninth edition was written, scarcely anything was known of the ages of Egyptian products; even the commonest, such as pottery and beads, were entirely undated. The work of the period since 1880 has especially been the accurate dating and history of every kind of handwork. The large amount of carefully conducted and recorded excavation by English workers has given opportunity for this, and we now can date most objects to within a single dynasty, and sometimes to a single reign. Pottery is the most important material for dating, as it is so common, so variable, and so short a time in use. The principal varieties are shown in Fig. 10. Of the prehistoric age there are several different kinds of pottery more or less contemporary, and there is such a great variety of form that over 900 are drawn for reference. All is hand-made. It is from this variety that the relative dating of the prehistoric periods is obtained; and the range of each form in an adopted scale of “ sequence dates ” is published (8) (9). The later prehistoric pottery leads us to the forms of the 1st Dynasty (12). Those of the IVth and Vth are well known (13), and the wheel became almost universal in this age. The decay of this pottery in the following dynasties has been traced (15), until the rise of a new style in the Xllth Dynasty (drab pottery). That class modified gradually into the XVIIIth Dynasty, when a new class of highly polished hard pottery appears (18). After the XIXth the periods are not accurately known till the XXVIth, when new classes appeared (24); the Ptolemaic is not well known, but the Roman is very familiar, especially the ribbed amphorae beginning in the middle of the 2nd century, and the Constantine ware. Beads have been carefully studied also. In the prehistoric age there is great variety, both in stone and in glazed stone and pottery. Few have been found in the Old Kingdom, but in the Vlth and Vllth Dynasties discs of black and green glaze, and minute beads of carnelian and gold are usual (9). In the Xllth Dynasty are mostly large ball beads of amethyst, carnelian, and blue glazed pottery (9). In the XVIIIth Dynasty the beads are smaller; glass begins, and is very varied and common at the close. Green glazed beads and amulets are usual in the XXIIIrd Dynasty. Little is known about beads after that, until the Roman age, when a profusion of glass beads again appears. The only dated collections of beads and of pottery for study are in University College, London. Stone vases are usual from the beginning of the prehistoric age (8) (9), at first cylindrical and later barrel-shaped.