DOI Artikel:
Griffith, Francis Ll.: Progress of Egyptology: archaeology, hieroglyphic studies, etc.
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11172#0039
Archaeology, Hieroglyphic Studies, Etc.
25
showing that in his 3rd year he fought and defeated Apries at Andropolis (?).
Greeks are referred to as forming the army of Apries. Wiedemann
had been disposed to dispute the fact of this contest for power, which was
recorded only by Herodotus with his usual freedom of representation.
Rec. de Trav. xxii. 1.
Schafer, A.Z. xxxvii. 72, points out a passage in the Vatican inscription
indicating that Darius I. re-organized the medical school at Sais.
Wiedemann, Or. Litt. Zeit., iii. 171, deals with historical personages
mentioned in the rock graffiti at the First Cataract.
Maspero, Comptes Bendus, 1899, p. 132, publishes a female head from
a colossal group believed to have represented Antony and Cleopatra in the
Egyptian style. It was found at Alexandria in the sixties. M. Maspero
believes it to be a real portrait of Cleopatra, and the only one known
beyond the coins. He remarks that the bas-relief portrait of Cleopatra
purporting to be from Dendereh, and well known by photographs from the
cast, is really an Isis or Hathor to which a modern moulder added the
cartouche of Cleopatra.
Earliest Historical Period.
The earliest historical period has received a great amount of attention
during the past year. The tendency has been to deny that the king of the
tomb at Nakadeh was Menes, and Professor Petrie was against that identifi-
cation until the evidence which he himself collected at Abydos appeared to
confirm it strongly. The publication of The Royal Tombs of the First
Dynasty mil probably induce most Egyptologists to accept the identification
as extremely probable. Spiegelberg, Or. Litt. Ztit. iii. 123 ; cf. 190,
writes on the so-called Menes tomb, and Wiedemann gives notes on the
" Nakadeh period " (Nakadeh marking the locality of the tomb of Menes),
ib. 85. F. Legge summarizes the recent discoveries at Abydos and
Nakadeh, P. S. T>. A., xxi. 183. Maspero reviews Amulineau's Fouilles
aVAbydos, 1895-6 (Compte rendu in extenso), and the same writer's
Tombeau d'Osiris : Rev. Crit, Sept., 1899, 209.
Wiedemann contributes an article on the earliest inhabitants of Egypt
to the Umsehau, 1899, 764, 785.
Max Muller writes on the position which these early kings must
occupy in the series of dynasties, giving readings of inscriptions, Or. Litt.
Zeit. iii. 3, and discusses the Manethonian names of the first three
dynasties, Rec. de Trav. xxii. 97. The publication of The Royal Tombs of
the First Dynasty and of Hieraconpolis, by vastly increasing the material
for investigation, leads one to hope that next year many positive results
25
showing that in his 3rd year he fought and defeated Apries at Andropolis (?).
Greeks are referred to as forming the army of Apries. Wiedemann
had been disposed to dispute the fact of this contest for power, which was
recorded only by Herodotus with his usual freedom of representation.
Rec. de Trav. xxii. 1.
Schafer, A.Z. xxxvii. 72, points out a passage in the Vatican inscription
indicating that Darius I. re-organized the medical school at Sais.
Wiedemann, Or. Litt. Zeit., iii. 171, deals with historical personages
mentioned in the rock graffiti at the First Cataract.
Maspero, Comptes Bendus, 1899, p. 132, publishes a female head from
a colossal group believed to have represented Antony and Cleopatra in the
Egyptian style. It was found at Alexandria in the sixties. M. Maspero
believes it to be a real portrait of Cleopatra, and the only one known
beyond the coins. He remarks that the bas-relief portrait of Cleopatra
purporting to be from Dendereh, and well known by photographs from the
cast, is really an Isis or Hathor to which a modern moulder added the
cartouche of Cleopatra.
Earliest Historical Period.
The earliest historical period has received a great amount of attention
during the past year. The tendency has been to deny that the king of the
tomb at Nakadeh was Menes, and Professor Petrie was against that identifi-
cation until the evidence which he himself collected at Abydos appeared to
confirm it strongly. The publication of The Royal Tombs of the First
Dynasty mil probably induce most Egyptologists to accept the identification
as extremely probable. Spiegelberg, Or. Litt. Ztit. iii. 123 ; cf. 190,
writes on the so-called Menes tomb, and Wiedemann gives notes on the
" Nakadeh period " (Nakadeh marking the locality of the tomb of Menes),
ib. 85. F. Legge summarizes the recent discoveries at Abydos and
Nakadeh, P. S. T>. A., xxi. 183. Maspero reviews Amulineau's Fouilles
aVAbydos, 1895-6 (Compte rendu in extenso), and the same writer's
Tombeau d'Osiris : Rev. Crit, Sept., 1899, 209.
Wiedemann contributes an article on the earliest inhabitants of Egypt
to the Umsehau, 1899, 764, 785.
Max Muller writes on the position which these early kings must
occupy in the series of dynasties, giving readings of inscriptions, Or. Litt.
Zeit. iii. 3, and discusses the Manethonian names of the first three
dynasties, Rec. de Trav. xxii. 97. The publication of The Royal Tombs of
the First Dynasty and of Hieraconpolis, by vastly increasing the material
for investigation, leads one to hope that next year many positive results