DOI Artikel:
Griffith, Francis Ll.: Progress of Egyptology: archaeology, hieroglyphic studies, etc.
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11503#0061
ARCHAEOLOGY, HiEKOGLYPHIC STUDIES, E'TC.
49
book, are contrary to the author's theory and so have to be set aside as
not sufficiently exact, yet anyone who will look through the records in
Ka/iun, IllaJiun, and Tell el Amarna will see that, unless an enormous
mistake has been made, sickles set with flint flakes were in use in the
XVIIIth Dynasty, and that in the Xllth Dynasty knives and tools
of stone were as abundant as those of metal, a fine specimen with its
rush-wrapped handle being found in actual association with metal tools.
Moreover, the axes found at Lisht, the great site of the beginning of the
Xllth Dynasty (see p. 101 of M. de Morgan's book), are identical with
those found at Kahun. It is incredible that such specimens are really
neolithic tools which were lying on the surface of the ground when
the city of Kahun was built in the Xllth Dynasty, and were afterwards
mixed up with the handiwork of its inhabitants. We may therefore take
it that in the Middle Kingdom, though bronze was common enough to be
regularly used by the tool makers, it was still sufficiently scarce to be
supplemented by stone for any purpose to which the latter was well
adapted. Doubtless the further back we go the more indispensable shall
we find stone to have been, but as yet few observations have been made
bearing on this remoter period. The " New Eace " with its splendid
flint work is of course treated by M. de Morgan as neolithic, aud not
unjustly, for bronze is of the greatest rarity in connexion with it. Here
the highest skill was applied to working the flint, which was then the
best material to be had, while at a later period that skill was applied to
metal work. I have little hesitation in following M. de Morgan and
placing the " New Eace " in the prehistoric age. The facts which Mr.
Quibell observed at Ballas, and which are now published, were in-
sufficient to sujiport a theory that two races could live side by side for
centuries, the one familiar with the potter's wheel, the art of the metal-
worker in bronze, &c, and the other practising the highest art in
the making of flint tools and the moulding of pottery by hand, without
making use of metal or of the wheel. Mr. Quibell's discoveries during
the past year at El Kab threw fresh light on the subject, and we may
hope that he will thoroughly reconsider it and help to settle this most
important question of the "New Eace."
According to M. de Morgan, the Bronze Age was introduced
into Egypt by the " Egyptian conquest," i.e. by the race who
entered from the East, suppressed the aboriginal inhabitants, and
founded the monarchy. It practically extends throughout Egyptian
history down to the XXVIth Dynasty. Most of the bronze arrow-
heads on p. 210 are of the XXVIth Dynasty or later; but figs. 569,
49
book, are contrary to the author's theory and so have to be set aside as
not sufficiently exact, yet anyone who will look through the records in
Ka/iun, IllaJiun, and Tell el Amarna will see that, unless an enormous
mistake has been made, sickles set with flint flakes were in use in the
XVIIIth Dynasty, and that in the Xllth Dynasty knives and tools
of stone were as abundant as those of metal, a fine specimen with its
rush-wrapped handle being found in actual association with metal tools.
Moreover, the axes found at Lisht, the great site of the beginning of the
Xllth Dynasty (see p. 101 of M. de Morgan's book), are identical with
those found at Kahun. It is incredible that such specimens are really
neolithic tools which were lying on the surface of the ground when
the city of Kahun was built in the Xllth Dynasty, and were afterwards
mixed up with the handiwork of its inhabitants. We may therefore take
it that in the Middle Kingdom, though bronze was common enough to be
regularly used by the tool makers, it was still sufficiently scarce to be
supplemented by stone for any purpose to which the latter was well
adapted. Doubtless the further back we go the more indispensable shall
we find stone to have been, but as yet few observations have been made
bearing on this remoter period. The " New Eace " with its splendid
flint work is of course treated by M. de Morgan as neolithic, aud not
unjustly, for bronze is of the greatest rarity in connexion with it. Here
the highest skill was applied to working the flint, which was then the
best material to be had, while at a later period that skill was applied to
metal work. I have little hesitation in following M. de Morgan and
placing the " New Eace " in the prehistoric age. The facts which Mr.
Quibell observed at Ballas, and which are now published, were in-
sufficient to sujiport a theory that two races could live side by side for
centuries, the one familiar with the potter's wheel, the art of the metal-
worker in bronze, &c, and the other practising the highest art in
the making of flint tools and the moulding of pottery by hand, without
making use of metal or of the wheel. Mr. Quibell's discoveries during
the past year at El Kab threw fresh light on the subject, and we may
hope that he will thoroughly reconsider it and help to settle this most
important question of the "New Eace."
According to M. de Morgan, the Bronze Age was introduced
into Egypt by the " Egyptian conquest," i.e. by the race who
entered from the East, suppressed the aboriginal inhabitants, and
founded the monarchy. It practically extends throughout Egyptian
history down to the XXVIth Dynasty. Most of the bronze arrow-
heads on p. 210 are of the XXVIth Dynasty or later; but figs. 569,