DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4665#0013
INTRODUCTORY.
aim for the present in view, some advance may be
effected.
This and other sites have yielded undis-
Tnferenc0/ turbed burials, both of the Xllth dynasty
from archa;o-and of the XVIIIth, from which it has
established.2 been possible to assign definite dates to
for the hmits certain archaeological forms, as to objects
of the period. . , , ,& , , ' , ,
of alabaster and marble, beads and pot-
tery, the very nature of the cutting on inscribed
stones, or the architecture of a tomb. If then an
object of like nature be found to correspond in some
respect with the types established for each of the
dates mentioned, such that—-to borrow an illustration
familiar in another science—the curve representing
the changes between them is smooth and continuous,
there is some degree of justification for assigning
such object to the Intermediate Period.
Or, again, a particular form may have become
assigned to a particular date, on account of its resem-
blance to, or common association with, some known
type. If then one such form, called of the Xllth
dynasty, and one such of the XVIIIth, be found
commonly in association in groups from the same
tombs, and certain precautionary tests as to their
limits be satisfied also, there is an increasing pro-
bability that each object belongs rather to the
intervening period.
Results These principles are perfectly general, and
merely in- have been steadily kept in view through-
Difficult out this volume ; but they have been
cases. peculiarly applicable to the problems of
this particular period between the Xllth and XVIIIth
dynasties, inasmuch as the site itself has in many
cases furnished the limiting types from which the
inferences have been possible. The results in this
direction may appear few—a few groups of pottery,
and some half-dozen plates of tomb-deposits assigned
to the period in question—yet they have absorbed a
much larger quantity of material, for the evidence is
necessarily cumulative in character.
There are also many cases, some of which
Analytical . , ,
examination would otherwise lead to interesting con-
of evidence. ciusionSj that have to be rejected in the
process of eliminating from the evidence those factors
of it that admit of ambiguous interpretation. In the
second of the two principles enunciated above, for
example, the solution of the case of association of
two forms supposed to be of different dates, by
assigning each to an intervening date, could only be
accepted when every other factor of evidence from
the two deposits at least admitted the same possi-
bility. The chance of really mixed dates, arising
from re-use of the same tomb for later burial, for
instance, would always suggest itself as a possible
solution ; and any evidence in its favour would lead
to rejection of the case. Cases occur, too, not
infrequently of real survival of forms, which must be
tested for by an examination of the further limits.
The absence or uncertainty of one of the limiting
types, again, admits a greater possibility of error. It
seems well then, in the present volume, with regard
to such inductive results, to await the result of their
comparison with similar cases from other excavations,
to see to what extent they may be confirmed, and
how much they require modification, before using
them as the basis of further argument. To some
extent, indeed, such a comparison is already possible.
The independent results obtained by Mr. Mace in
his excavations at Hu, recently published in Diospolis
Parva, afford some interesting analogies.
The better known periods of the Xllth
results1 and XVIIIth dynasties also are well repre-
sented by the excavated remains. His-
torically the most important discovery is that of an
inscription recounting the deeds of a great soldier,
Sebek-khu, in the Xllth dynasty ; and incidentally
recording some of the early wars of Egypt with the
Retenu on the one hand, and with the people of Nubia
on the other. The other results are for the most part
of archaeological import. By combining some obser-
vations made in more recent excavations, a local
custom has been traced which in some measure ex-
plains the use of the small plaster faces which are
almost peculiar to the Middle Kingdom. A fortunate
preservation of several burials undisturbed, both of
the Middle Kingdom and of the XVIIIth dynasty,
has also rendered possible a detailed study of several
types of burial customs of those periods. The growth
of foreign relations in the XVIIIth dynasty is illus-
trated by several well-dated groups, notably a burial
deposit of terracotta vases of Grecian character, as
well as some types of pottery found generally around
the coasts and islands of the eastern Mediterranean.
In dealing with the objects discovered, a chief
aim has been, where possible, to represent them in
the group as originally deposited, and to draw any
inferences that might be warranted, whether archaeo-
logical or chronological, from the comparisons and
analogies thus afforded. The illustrations, too, have
been arranged with this chiefly in view, which
accounts for some of the objects having been
pictured a second time when it has been found
desirable to compare the specimens of some par-
ticular form. B 2
aim for the present in view, some advance may be
effected.
This and other sites have yielded undis-
Tnferenc0/ turbed burials, both of the Xllth dynasty
from archa;o-and of the XVIIIth, from which it has
established.2 been possible to assign definite dates to
for the hmits certain archaeological forms, as to objects
of the period. . , , ,& , , ' , ,
of alabaster and marble, beads and pot-
tery, the very nature of the cutting on inscribed
stones, or the architecture of a tomb. If then an
object of like nature be found to correspond in some
respect with the types established for each of the
dates mentioned, such that—-to borrow an illustration
familiar in another science—the curve representing
the changes between them is smooth and continuous,
there is some degree of justification for assigning
such object to the Intermediate Period.
Or, again, a particular form may have become
assigned to a particular date, on account of its resem-
blance to, or common association with, some known
type. If then one such form, called of the Xllth
dynasty, and one such of the XVIIIth, be found
commonly in association in groups from the same
tombs, and certain precautionary tests as to their
limits be satisfied also, there is an increasing pro-
bability that each object belongs rather to the
intervening period.
Results These principles are perfectly general, and
merely in- have been steadily kept in view through-
Difficult out this volume ; but they have been
cases. peculiarly applicable to the problems of
this particular period between the Xllth and XVIIIth
dynasties, inasmuch as the site itself has in many
cases furnished the limiting types from which the
inferences have been possible. The results in this
direction may appear few—a few groups of pottery,
and some half-dozen plates of tomb-deposits assigned
to the period in question—yet they have absorbed a
much larger quantity of material, for the evidence is
necessarily cumulative in character.
There are also many cases, some of which
Analytical . , ,
examination would otherwise lead to interesting con-
of evidence. ciusionSj that have to be rejected in the
process of eliminating from the evidence those factors
of it that admit of ambiguous interpretation. In the
second of the two principles enunciated above, for
example, the solution of the case of association of
two forms supposed to be of different dates, by
assigning each to an intervening date, could only be
accepted when every other factor of evidence from
the two deposits at least admitted the same possi-
bility. The chance of really mixed dates, arising
from re-use of the same tomb for later burial, for
instance, would always suggest itself as a possible
solution ; and any evidence in its favour would lead
to rejection of the case. Cases occur, too, not
infrequently of real survival of forms, which must be
tested for by an examination of the further limits.
The absence or uncertainty of one of the limiting
types, again, admits a greater possibility of error. It
seems well then, in the present volume, with regard
to such inductive results, to await the result of their
comparison with similar cases from other excavations,
to see to what extent they may be confirmed, and
how much they require modification, before using
them as the basis of further argument. To some
extent, indeed, such a comparison is already possible.
The independent results obtained by Mr. Mace in
his excavations at Hu, recently published in Diospolis
Parva, afford some interesting analogies.
The better known periods of the Xllth
results1 and XVIIIth dynasties also are well repre-
sented by the excavated remains. His-
torically the most important discovery is that of an
inscription recounting the deeds of a great soldier,
Sebek-khu, in the Xllth dynasty ; and incidentally
recording some of the early wars of Egypt with the
Retenu on the one hand, and with the people of Nubia
on the other. The other results are for the most part
of archaeological import. By combining some obser-
vations made in more recent excavations, a local
custom has been traced which in some measure ex-
plains the use of the small plaster faces which are
almost peculiar to the Middle Kingdom. A fortunate
preservation of several burials undisturbed, both of
the Middle Kingdom and of the XVIIIth dynasty,
has also rendered possible a detailed study of several
types of burial customs of those periods. The growth
of foreign relations in the XVIIIth dynasty is illus-
trated by several well-dated groups, notably a burial
deposit of terracotta vases of Grecian character, as
well as some types of pottery found generally around
the coasts and islands of the eastern Mediterranean.
In dealing with the objects discovered, a chief
aim has been, where possible, to represent them in
the group as originally deposited, and to draw any
inferences that might be warranted, whether archaeo-
logical or chronological, from the comparisons and
analogies thus afforded. The illustrations, too, have
been arranged with this chiefly in view, which
accounts for some of the objects having been
pictured a second time when it has been found
desirable to compare the specimens of some par-
ticular form. B 2