DOI Artikel:
Griffith, Francis Ll.: Progress of Egyptology: archaeology, hieroglyphic studies, etc.
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11172#0038
24
Progress of Egyptology.
cases inserted in the defaced cartouches of Hatshepsut, whose rule he did
not recognize, the name of her predecessor Thothmes II.
M. Naville's opinion, supported as it is in the main points by many who
have visited Der el Bahri, is naturally of the greatest possible weight in
this question. His theory would seem to account for all the facts.
Professor Sethe's theory, constructed on the evidence of drawings, notes,
and very ambiguous texts, required above all things testing by the
evidence of the actual handiwork of the destroyer and restorer upon the
original monuments. A brilliant and clear-sighted philologist too readily
frames an elaborate theory, invoking archaeology upon book-evidence only,
without sufficiently realizing the nature of the evidence required to prove
it, unless he has worked face to face constantly with the material remains.
There can be little doubt that Sethe's theory is in the main finally con-
demned. It has, however, received considerable support in the Berlin
school, and Steindorff's BUUhezcit is strongly influenced by it.
M. Naville also considers (lice, cle Tram. xxi. 201) that Thothmes II.
was father, not half-brother, of Thothmes III. ; also that Thothmes III.'s
reign while Hatshepsut was alive was only nominal, and that he began to
count his regnal years from after her death.
Breasted, P. 8. B. A. xxii. 96, deals with an episode in Thothmes'
campaign against Megiddo, and in A.Z. xxxvii. 123 attempts to determine
the length and season of the first campaign by the festivals mentioned.
The Syrian campaigns seem generally to have taken place during the
summer. The first campaign should be from about April 17 (on the
frontier) to Oct. 9 (return to Thebes).
In A.Z. xxxvii. 130, the same writer shows that the figures of the sons
of Sety I. represented in the bas-reliefs of Karnak as having been present
in the campaign of Sety's first year, are due to later inssrtions. He
concludes that Barneses II., who had few scruples, wished to represent
himself as chosen to succeed his father from the beginning of the latter's
reign; but that as a matter of fact he was of little importance in his early
years.
Groff, Pec. de Trav. xxii. 136, describes the final identification of the
name of Merenptah at the Gizeh Museum, in the presence of witnesses,
on the mummy which had been attributed by Loret to Akhenaten.
Max Muller, Or. Litt. Zeit. iii. 81, proposes to read " Thosoris " for
" Thoueris " in Manetho as the name of Queen Ta-usert.
Hastings, P. S. B. A. xxi. 280, writes a note on a date in the
XXIInd Dynasty; controverted by Bead, ib. 309. -
Daressy has succeeded in reading a much-worn stela of Amasis II.,
Progress of Egyptology.
cases inserted in the defaced cartouches of Hatshepsut, whose rule he did
not recognize, the name of her predecessor Thothmes II.
M. Naville's opinion, supported as it is in the main points by many who
have visited Der el Bahri, is naturally of the greatest possible weight in
this question. His theory would seem to account for all the facts.
Professor Sethe's theory, constructed on the evidence of drawings, notes,
and very ambiguous texts, required above all things testing by the
evidence of the actual handiwork of the destroyer and restorer upon the
original monuments. A brilliant and clear-sighted philologist too readily
frames an elaborate theory, invoking archaeology upon book-evidence only,
without sufficiently realizing the nature of the evidence required to prove
it, unless he has worked face to face constantly with the material remains.
There can be little doubt that Sethe's theory is in the main finally con-
demned. It has, however, received considerable support in the Berlin
school, and Steindorff's BUUhezcit is strongly influenced by it.
M. Naville also considers (lice, cle Tram. xxi. 201) that Thothmes II.
was father, not half-brother, of Thothmes III. ; also that Thothmes III.'s
reign while Hatshepsut was alive was only nominal, and that he began to
count his regnal years from after her death.
Breasted, P. 8. B. A. xxii. 96, deals with an episode in Thothmes'
campaign against Megiddo, and in A.Z. xxxvii. 123 attempts to determine
the length and season of the first campaign by the festivals mentioned.
The Syrian campaigns seem generally to have taken place during the
summer. The first campaign should be from about April 17 (on the
frontier) to Oct. 9 (return to Thebes).
In A.Z. xxxvii. 130, the same writer shows that the figures of the sons
of Sety I. represented in the bas-reliefs of Karnak as having been present
in the campaign of Sety's first year, are due to later inssrtions. He
concludes that Barneses II., who had few scruples, wished to represent
himself as chosen to succeed his father from the beginning of the latter's
reign; but that as a matter of fact he was of little importance in his early
years.
Groff, Pec. de Trav. xxii. 136, describes the final identification of the
name of Merenptah at the Gizeh Museum, in the presence of witnesses,
on the mummy which had been attributed by Loret to Akhenaten.
Max Muller, Or. Litt. Zeit. iii. 81, proposes to read " Thosoris " for
" Thoueris " in Manetho as the name of Queen Ta-usert.
Hastings, P. S. B. A. xxi. 280, writes a note on a date in the
XXIInd Dynasty; controverted by Bead, ib. 309. -
Daressy has succeeded in reading a much-worn stela of Amasis II.,