DOI Artikel:
Smith, Cecil: Progress of Egyptology, [2]: Greco-Egyptian Antiquities
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.10055#0043
Gf«co-Egyptian Antiquities.
20
B.—GRiECO-EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.
Outside the province of palaeography the past twelve months has been a
comparatively uneventful period. We have nothing to record which can
compete with the brilliant discoveries in classical papyri. In one sense
this is perhaps not wholly a misfortune, for time is still needed for a
complete digestion of the very full share which in previous years has
fallen to this branch of archaeology.
It is almost exactly ten years since Petrie's excavation of Naukratis
opened up a new field of Graeco-Egyptian research. In the meantime
every year has brought us its harvest, until Greek and Roman archaeo-
logists have begun to regard Egypt as the land of their promise also,
and one high authority, greatly daring, proposes openly to move the
British School from Athens to Alexandria. Curiously enough, the new
results concern almost every important classical period hut the one which
we should naturally expect, the age of the Ptolemies, the age which the
literary discoveries most richly illumine. Roughly speaking, they fall into
three groups, cori-esponding to three great epochs of intercourse between
Hellas and Egypt. First, the Mycenaean (to give it the most convenient
term), in which a splendid store of new material for enquiry (and con-
troversy) has come forward at Kahun, Gurob, and Tell el Amarna.
Secondly, the great historical epoch of Greece from the sixth to
the fourth century, of which Naukratis and Daphnae have taught us so
much. And lastly, the Giaeco-Rornau epoch, in which a new chapter of
ancient life has been opened up, principally in the mummy portraits
from the Faiyum.
In the first of these periods, the new discoveries undoubtedly go far
towards elucidating the difficult problem of the date of the Mycenaean
civilization. The question around which controversy has arisen is, how
far the new evidence can be relied upon for chronological purposes. On
the one hand, it is urged that the Aegean or Mycenaean pottery fouud in
Egypt enables us to assign a date of about 1400 b.c. to the Mycenaean
civilization. The principal critic on the other side, Cecil Torr, denies
that this conclusion is warranted by the facts. In the Classical Review
for 1892, p. 462, I gave a summary of the points at issue and the argu-
ments advanced on either side. The latest contribution to the con-
troversy has appeared ibid., 1894, p. 320, where Torr, reviewing Petrie's
Tell el Amarna, returns to the charge once again. With regard to the
20
B.—GRiECO-EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.
Outside the province of palaeography the past twelve months has been a
comparatively uneventful period. We have nothing to record which can
compete with the brilliant discoveries in classical papyri. In one sense
this is perhaps not wholly a misfortune, for time is still needed for a
complete digestion of the very full share which in previous years has
fallen to this branch of archaeology.
It is almost exactly ten years since Petrie's excavation of Naukratis
opened up a new field of Graeco-Egyptian research. In the meantime
every year has brought us its harvest, until Greek and Roman archaeo-
logists have begun to regard Egypt as the land of their promise also,
and one high authority, greatly daring, proposes openly to move the
British School from Athens to Alexandria. Curiously enough, the new
results concern almost every important classical period hut the one which
we should naturally expect, the age of the Ptolemies, the age which the
literary discoveries most richly illumine. Roughly speaking, they fall into
three groups, cori-esponding to three great epochs of intercourse between
Hellas and Egypt. First, the Mycenaean (to give it the most convenient
term), in which a splendid store of new material for enquiry (and con-
troversy) has come forward at Kahun, Gurob, and Tell el Amarna.
Secondly, the great historical epoch of Greece from the sixth to
the fourth century, of which Naukratis and Daphnae have taught us so
much. And lastly, the Giaeco-Rornau epoch, in which a new chapter of
ancient life has been opened up, principally in the mummy portraits
from the Faiyum.
In the first of these periods, the new discoveries undoubtedly go far
towards elucidating the difficult problem of the date of the Mycenaean
civilization. The question around which controversy has arisen is, how
far the new evidence can be relied upon for chronological purposes. On
the one hand, it is urged that the Aegean or Mycenaean pottery fouud in
Egypt enables us to assign a date of about 1400 b.c. to the Mycenaean
civilization. The principal critic on the other side, Cecil Torr, denies
that this conclusion is warranted by the facts. In the Classical Review
for 1892, p. 462, I gave a summary of the points at issue and the argu-
ments advanced on either side. The latest contribution to the con-
troversy has appeared ibid., 1894, p. 320, where Torr, reviewing Petrie's
Tell el Amarna, returns to the charge once again. With regard to the