DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42080#0127
CHRONOLOGY
107
dynasty (664 + 51 = 715; + 6 = 721).* Breasted
takes 663 for the beginning of the 26th dynasty, and
assigns 49 years to the 25th (663 + 49 = 712; + 6
= 718). Meyer takes 663 B.C. as the beginning of
the 26th dynasty, and allows about 51 years for the
25th (663 + 51 = 714); but as he prefers to give
round numbers when in doubt he gives Bocchoris’
reign as ca. 720-715 B.C., although agreeing with
other writers that Bocchoris probably reigned 6
years. Meyer also points out that the statements of
Sargon show the conquest of Egypt by the Ethio-
pians (coincident with the death of Bocchoris) to
have fallen between 720 and 711 B.C.; and he finds
a check on the dating of the 25th dynasty in a dated
record of a high Nile, recorded as coinciding with
the beginning of a king’s reign.
The weakest point in the chronology of this
period is the lengths of the first two reigns of the
25 th dynasty, for which we have to follow mainly
the somewhat conflicting Greek sources.
My opinion is that 718-712 B.C. may be taken
as correct for Bocchoris’ reign within two or three
years.
The next question which arises is that of the date
of manufacture of the Bocchoris vase, f The scenes
on the Bocchoris vase commemorate his victorious
campaign against the Ethiopians before the disas-
trous campaign in which he lost his life. His vic-
tory then must have been won some time before
ca. 712 B.C. A minor factor in determining the
date of the vase is the place of its manufacture. The
one photograph which has been frequently repro-
duced shows the inscription at so wide an angle that
it is impossible to say whether or no it was written
by a man who understood hieroglyphics, f Helbig,
NS. 1896, p. 17 and Schiaparelli, MonAnt. VIII, col.
94, held that the vase was Phoenician; von Bissing,
however, Der Anteil, p. 87, Karo, AM. 1920, p. 108,
and Byvanck, Mnemosyne, 1936-1937, p. 185, have
regarded it as Egyptian. Byvanck cites LAAA., PL
XXXI, 7, and PI. XXXII, 6-10 as evidence that
faience vases were made in Egypt in just this period,
but this comparison is unconvincing. Fortunately,
however, the style of the painting on the Bocchoris
vase furnishes some evidence on this point. As Pro-
fessor Hermann Ranke has kindly pointed out to me
there are several details of the scene which are
* The 5 years assigned to Bocchoris by Wiedemann is a “round”
number.
f The vase is reproduced in Montelius, PI. 295, 14; AM. 1927,
Beilage to p. 108; MonAnt. VIII, Pis. II-IV; and a good description
of its ornament is given by Maclver, pp. 162 and 163.
J A forged copy in faience of the Bocchoris vase (which de-
ceived even Furtwaengler, Sitzungsberichte, 1905, p. 254) was bought
by Frothingham and is now in the University Museum (cf. AM.
1927, pp. 155 and 156), but it is of course impossible to say whether
the peculiar forms of the hieroglyphs on this copy are due to the
maker of the Bocchoris vase or to the forger.
clearly un-Egyptian; the way the red crown is
drawn on the head of the goddess to the right of the
inscription; the method of drawing the Uraeus-
serpent; the position of the ankh sign; the form of the
stand of offerings; the position of the incense burner
which tops the table of offerings; the rendering of
the pleats of the waistcloths and lastly the muscula-
ture of the king and of the gods who hold his hands,
which is rendered in a manner known in archaic
Egyptian art but not in the art of Bocchoris’ reign
whereas it is known in contemporary Assyrian art.
The conclusion seems clear that the vase was not
made in Egypt, but in Phoenicia, and it is thus per-
haps admissible to suppose a somewhat longer in-
terval between Bocchoris’ successful campaign and
the importation of the vase to Italy. How long the
vase remained above ground in Italy is a matter of
pure conjecture. In other words the Bocchoris vase
furnishes only a terminus post quem and any more
definite date must be based on evidence derived
from the form of the tomb and from its contents
other than the Bocchoris vase.
The Bocchoris Tomb was opened in 1895 in the
course of excavations undertaken by the Munici-
pality of Corneto-Tarquinia but before Helbig who
then held the office of official inspector arrived on
the scene it had already been filled in again. He
ascertained that it was a chamber-tomb with a
gabled roof, a tetto a schiena and that it had pre-
viously been entered by robbers. He made a list
of its contents which he published the next year,
NS. 1896, pp. 15-21, and recorded his opinion that,
because of the presence of an ago crinale, it was the
tomb of a woman, from which it might perhaps be
inferred that he thought that there was only one
burial in the tomb. He dated the tomb to the
seventh century. Akerstrom, p. 49 and Fig. 9, 5, in
his sketch of the evolution of the chamber-tomb at
Tarquinii places the tomb with a tetto a schiena
later than the tomba a corridoio. Since, however,
the tomba a corridoio remained in use throughout the
seventh century, no chronological conclusions can
safely be based on the type of the Bocchoris Tomb
except that it is later than the earliest tombe a
corridoio. Akerstrom’s opinion, p. 50, is that it can by
no means be taken for granted that the tomb should
be dated as early as 700 B.C.
The contents of the Bocchoris Tomb have, unac-
countably, never been completely published. Schi-
aparelli, MonAnt. VIII, cols. 89-100, published the
Bocchoris vase and Montelius, PI. 295, published
drawings of a considerable selection of its contents,
107
dynasty (664 + 51 = 715; + 6 = 721).* Breasted
takes 663 for the beginning of the 26th dynasty, and
assigns 49 years to the 25th (663 + 49 = 712; + 6
= 718). Meyer takes 663 B.C. as the beginning of
the 26th dynasty, and allows about 51 years for the
25th (663 + 51 = 714); but as he prefers to give
round numbers when in doubt he gives Bocchoris’
reign as ca. 720-715 B.C., although agreeing with
other writers that Bocchoris probably reigned 6
years. Meyer also points out that the statements of
Sargon show the conquest of Egypt by the Ethio-
pians (coincident with the death of Bocchoris) to
have fallen between 720 and 711 B.C.; and he finds
a check on the dating of the 25th dynasty in a dated
record of a high Nile, recorded as coinciding with
the beginning of a king’s reign.
The weakest point in the chronology of this
period is the lengths of the first two reigns of the
25 th dynasty, for which we have to follow mainly
the somewhat conflicting Greek sources.
My opinion is that 718-712 B.C. may be taken
as correct for Bocchoris’ reign within two or three
years.
The next question which arises is that of the date
of manufacture of the Bocchoris vase, f The scenes
on the Bocchoris vase commemorate his victorious
campaign against the Ethiopians before the disas-
trous campaign in which he lost his life. His vic-
tory then must have been won some time before
ca. 712 B.C. A minor factor in determining the
date of the vase is the place of its manufacture. The
one photograph which has been frequently repro-
duced shows the inscription at so wide an angle that
it is impossible to say whether or no it was written
by a man who understood hieroglyphics, f Helbig,
NS. 1896, p. 17 and Schiaparelli, MonAnt. VIII, col.
94, held that the vase was Phoenician; von Bissing,
however, Der Anteil, p. 87, Karo, AM. 1920, p. 108,
and Byvanck, Mnemosyne, 1936-1937, p. 185, have
regarded it as Egyptian. Byvanck cites LAAA., PL
XXXI, 7, and PI. XXXII, 6-10 as evidence that
faience vases were made in Egypt in just this period,
but this comparison is unconvincing. Fortunately,
however, the style of the painting on the Bocchoris
vase furnishes some evidence on this point. As Pro-
fessor Hermann Ranke has kindly pointed out to me
there are several details of the scene which are
* The 5 years assigned to Bocchoris by Wiedemann is a “round”
number.
f The vase is reproduced in Montelius, PI. 295, 14; AM. 1927,
Beilage to p. 108; MonAnt. VIII, Pis. II-IV; and a good description
of its ornament is given by Maclver, pp. 162 and 163.
J A forged copy in faience of the Bocchoris vase (which de-
ceived even Furtwaengler, Sitzungsberichte, 1905, p. 254) was bought
by Frothingham and is now in the University Museum (cf. AM.
1927, pp. 155 and 156), but it is of course impossible to say whether
the peculiar forms of the hieroglyphs on this copy are due to the
maker of the Bocchoris vase or to the forger.
clearly un-Egyptian; the way the red crown is
drawn on the head of the goddess to the right of the
inscription; the method of drawing the Uraeus-
serpent; the position of the ankh sign; the form of the
stand of offerings; the position of the incense burner
which tops the table of offerings; the rendering of
the pleats of the waistcloths and lastly the muscula-
ture of the king and of the gods who hold his hands,
which is rendered in a manner known in archaic
Egyptian art but not in the art of Bocchoris’ reign
whereas it is known in contemporary Assyrian art.
The conclusion seems clear that the vase was not
made in Egypt, but in Phoenicia, and it is thus per-
haps admissible to suppose a somewhat longer in-
terval between Bocchoris’ successful campaign and
the importation of the vase to Italy. How long the
vase remained above ground in Italy is a matter of
pure conjecture. In other words the Bocchoris vase
furnishes only a terminus post quem and any more
definite date must be based on evidence derived
from the form of the tomb and from its contents
other than the Bocchoris vase.
The Bocchoris Tomb was opened in 1895 in the
course of excavations undertaken by the Munici-
pality of Corneto-Tarquinia but before Helbig who
then held the office of official inspector arrived on
the scene it had already been filled in again. He
ascertained that it was a chamber-tomb with a
gabled roof, a tetto a schiena and that it had pre-
viously been entered by robbers. He made a list
of its contents which he published the next year,
NS. 1896, pp. 15-21, and recorded his opinion that,
because of the presence of an ago crinale, it was the
tomb of a woman, from which it might perhaps be
inferred that he thought that there was only one
burial in the tomb. He dated the tomb to the
seventh century. Akerstrom, p. 49 and Fig. 9, 5, in
his sketch of the evolution of the chamber-tomb at
Tarquinii places the tomb with a tetto a schiena
later than the tomba a corridoio. Since, however,
the tomba a corridoio remained in use throughout the
seventh century, no chronological conclusions can
safely be based on the type of the Bocchoris Tomb
except that it is later than the earliest tombe a
corridoio. Akerstrom’s opinion, p. 50, is that it can by
no means be taken for granted that the tomb should
be dated as early as 700 B.C.
The contents of the Bocchoris Tomb have, unac-
countably, never been completely published. Schi-
aparelli, MonAnt. VIII, cols. 89-100, published the
Bocchoris vase and Montelius, PI. 295, published
drawings of a considerable selection of its contents,