DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0274
ADDENDA
247
The date for Middle Minoan III. that we have assumed in the last sen-
tence suggests an important discovery that has just been made in Egypt.
The Liverpool School of Egyptology, in their last season's work at
Abydo?, found in an unrirled tomb,1 in company with two small cylinder
seals of Senusert II. and Amenemhat III., rive fragments of what
are without doubt characteristic Middle Minoan II. polychrome vases.
Both of these kings belong to the Xllth Dynasty, coming immediately
before and after the Senusert III. mentioned in the Kahun Papyrus.2
The discoverers did not themselves realise the problem involved,
and the fragments were placed unlabelled in their annual July Ex-
hibition at Burlington House, till Mr. Evans saw them and realised
their significance. I saw them myself a day or two later. This new
discovery is a strong support to Professor Petrie's inference from the
similar but less definite evidence from Kahun,3 and seems to cut
the ground away from Professor von Bissing's contention that the
Egyptian objects with which Kamares ware was there found can be
called XHIth, XVth, or XVIIth Dynasty just as well as Xllth.4
The presence in a tomb of two seals from the same Dynasty, and of no
others, gives us little right to use the argument that seals and scarabs
can survive and that they only prove a terminus post quern. It is
probable that we must consider ourselves excluded from our " haven
of refuge," and that we must make our choice after all between the old
traditional view that ignores the astronomical theory of the Egyptian
year, and the two newer views that accept the Sothic date of the
Kahun Papyrus only to draw from it the most opposite conclusions.6
From the Minoan point of view I still remain an advocate of late
dating," and prefer Berlin to Sinai. It should be noticed that Mr.
L. W. King's new book of Babylonian " Chronicles " 7 argues indirectly
in the same direction. It proves that the so-called Second Dynasty
of Babylon did not in fact intervene between the First and Third, but
was contemporary with them. It was, indeed, not Babylonian at all,
but represented an Empire on the Persian Gulf that was at war with
Babylon. This new fact, proved to the hilt by synchronisms of Baby-
lonian and Assyrian rulers and the wars they waged, entirely removes
from Babylonian history 368 years, and brings Khammurabi down to
about 1950 B.C. It shows how easy it was for later Babylonian anti-
quarians to confuse parallel with successive dynasties,8 and throws
doubts on the early dates hitherto assigned on their authority to
Sargon of Agade and his son Naram-Sin.° It has already thrown its
weight into the balance in one problem of Egyptian history where
there is a direct synchronism with Babylonia, and supports Meyer's
1 No. 416. 2 See p. 68.
3 See p. 66. 4 See pp. 74-6.
6 See pp. 67-70, 221-6. 6 See pp. 77-83.
7 See p. 140. It has just been published.
8 Chronicles pp. 10-18. 9 See pp. 139-40.
247
The date for Middle Minoan III. that we have assumed in the last sen-
tence suggests an important discovery that has just been made in Egypt.
The Liverpool School of Egyptology, in their last season's work at
Abydo?, found in an unrirled tomb,1 in company with two small cylinder
seals of Senusert II. and Amenemhat III., rive fragments of what
are without doubt characteristic Middle Minoan II. polychrome vases.
Both of these kings belong to the Xllth Dynasty, coming immediately
before and after the Senusert III. mentioned in the Kahun Papyrus.2
The discoverers did not themselves realise the problem involved,
and the fragments were placed unlabelled in their annual July Ex-
hibition at Burlington House, till Mr. Evans saw them and realised
their significance. I saw them myself a day or two later. This new
discovery is a strong support to Professor Petrie's inference from the
similar but less definite evidence from Kahun,3 and seems to cut
the ground away from Professor von Bissing's contention that the
Egyptian objects with which Kamares ware was there found can be
called XHIth, XVth, or XVIIth Dynasty just as well as Xllth.4
The presence in a tomb of two seals from the same Dynasty, and of no
others, gives us little right to use the argument that seals and scarabs
can survive and that they only prove a terminus post quern. It is
probable that we must consider ourselves excluded from our " haven
of refuge," and that we must make our choice after all between the old
traditional view that ignores the astronomical theory of the Egyptian
year, and the two newer views that accept the Sothic date of the
Kahun Papyrus only to draw from it the most opposite conclusions.6
From the Minoan point of view I still remain an advocate of late
dating," and prefer Berlin to Sinai. It should be noticed that Mr.
L. W. King's new book of Babylonian " Chronicles " 7 argues indirectly
in the same direction. It proves that the so-called Second Dynasty
of Babylon did not in fact intervene between the First and Third, but
was contemporary with them. It was, indeed, not Babylonian at all,
but represented an Empire on the Persian Gulf that was at war with
Babylon. This new fact, proved to the hilt by synchronisms of Baby-
lonian and Assyrian rulers and the wars they waged, entirely removes
from Babylonian history 368 years, and brings Khammurabi down to
about 1950 B.C. It shows how easy it was for later Babylonian anti-
quarians to confuse parallel with successive dynasties,8 and throws
doubts on the early dates hitherto assigned on their authority to
Sargon of Agade and his son Naram-Sin.° It has already thrown its
weight into the balance in one problem of Egyptian history where
there is a direct synchronism with Babylonia, and supports Meyer's
1 No. 416. 2 See p. 68.
3 See p. 66. 4 See pp. 74-6.
6 See pp. 67-70, 221-6. 6 See pp. 77-83.
7 See p. 140. It has just been published.
8 Chronicles pp. 10-18. 9 See pp. 139-40.