ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
[Sidenote: Nature of proof.]
The nature of proof is more complex than it seems to be at first sight.
True enough, all proof is merely a matter of common sense; it does
not appeal to any different faculty. And though a proof may follow as
simply as possible from the facts, yet it cannot be understood by one
who is not familiar with the facts to begin with. Trigonometry is the
most obvious common sense to any one familiar with the formulae; and
the formulae themselves are only common sense to any one who takes the
trouble to argue them through. Yet, for all that, trigonometry is not
obvious to the ignorant. In the same way the evidences about the past
of man are simple and clear when the facts and methods from which they
are deduced are already known. Yet it requires a good familiarity with
the material before the conclusions can be felt to be self-evident
results.
[Sidenote: Legal evidence.]
To follow clearly what evidence and proof means, it is best to refer
to a class of evidence which is most familiar to the reader. What is
commonly called _legal evidence_ is the best-known example, as it is
met every day in law cases and police reports. Evidence is based on
the same principles, in whatever subject it may be; there is not one
logic for the present, and a different logic for the past. But the
kind of evidence, the exactitude, the certainty, which is considered
enough to determine a property or a life, is rightly looked on as
conclusive for all reasonable purposes. The laws of such evidence have
been threshed over for generations past; and it is well known what kind
of proofs may be relied upon, and what are dubious. If we then compare
this class of evidence with that which we accept in studying the past
history of man, we shall see more clearly what kinds of proof are
admissible, and how far it is reasonable to depend upon our results.
In examining legal evidence we see that it all falls under one of
four heads--(1) witnesses, (2) material objects, (3) exhaustion, and
(4) probabilities. These four kinds of evidence are of very different
values; any one of them may be stronger than the others in a given
case, and each kind has its own special weakness.
1. _Witnesses_ provide the most clear and connected proof, and the
least liable to misunderstanding; but yet a proof which is entirely
dependent on veracity, on intelligence, on absence of prejudice, and
on clear memory, and is hence the least dependable kind of evidence in
some cases.
2. _Material facts_, which may be very conclusive; such as A’s
footprint in B’s garden, or A’s chisel left in B’s house, at a
burglary. If the fact is certain, the conclusion is proved; but the
danger lies in misunderstanding the fact.
3. _Exhaustion_, which may prove A guilty because no one else could
have done the deed; as when A and B are seen in a railway carriage at
one station, and at the next stoppage B is found murdered and A leaves
the carriage. There may be not a trace of other evidence, but this is
enough.
4. _Probability_, as when A is last seen with B, and B proceeds to deal
with the property of murdered A. This kind of evidence is enough to
hang a man, solely from presumption.
Now let us look at these kinds of evidence about the past of man.
[Sidenote: Witnesses.]
1. _Witnesses_, the documents, which give a clear and connected
statement. They may be either primary, as a stone inscription or an
autograph letter; or secondary, as compiled histories or subsequent
copies. No other kind of evidence is so easy to follow; yet this is
a proof in which we are entirely at the mercy of the prejudices, the
ill-will, the frauds, and the blunders of others, and it is hence
the least dependable kind of evidence in some cases. The speeches of
Thucydides, the bias of Suetonius, the wonders of Livy, the romances of
William of Malmesbury, and the forgery called Richard of Cirencester,
each plunge us deeper and deeper into the doubtfulness of written
documents; to say nothing of the casket letters or Ossian.
[Sidenote: Material facts.]
2. _Material facts_, when rightly understood, are the most conclusive
evidence. They may be in a single object, as a palaeolithic flint
rechipped over and over in later ages; or a foreign ornament used on an
object of dated style, as a Maori tatued head in a daguerreotype would
prove the tatuing to be known between 1840 and 1860; or a restruck
coin with one type over another, as Barchocheb over Hadrian; or an
added inscription, so familiar on Egyptian statues. Or the evidence
may consist in a collocation of objects, such as a group of things
found together in a tomb; or the superposition of strata of ruins in
a town. In the case of a single object there are few possibilities
of misunderstanding the evidence; but in strata or tomb-groups there
is a chance of older things being reused. Such chances of error
are, however, extinguished by the recurrence of instances; and the
finding of certain things together in several cases under different
circumstances is one of the strongest kinds of evidence, such, for
instance, as the name of Amenhotep III often found with the Mykenaean
pottery, both in Greece and in Egypt.
[Sidenote: Exhaustion.]
3. _Exhaustion_ may prove a point; as, for instance, the Iconoclasts in
Greece or Reformers and Puritans in England were the only destroyers of
images and pictures, or Akhenaten was the only man who erased the name
of Amen. Such destructions therefore are evidence of the age and the
man.
[Sidenote: Probabilities.]
4. _Probabilities_, as, for instance, the fact that the Saxons erased
the Romano-Britons, makes it probable that Silchester, Uriconium, and
other late Roman towns which were burnt, were destroyed by the Saxons.
We see thus that each kind of proof which is accepted legally is also
used archaeologically, and is subject to much the same failings. Legal
evidence may fail by mistaking the nature of the facts, such as that
some rabbit’s blood on a knife is human blood; so may archaeology
mistake by ignorance, as when the Mykenaean treasure was called
Byzantine.
Or legal evidence may fail by wrong inferences from facts, such as that
some human blood on a knife is due to a murder, while it has come from
the owner’s finger. So archaeology erred from a wrong inference in
calling the treasure of Troy “the treasure of Priam.”
Or legal evidence may fail owing to mere prejudice, thus ignoring the
truth. So archaeology has suffered from the prejudice that nothing in
Greece can be older than the VIIIth century B.C.
[Sidenote: Legal proof.]
It is supposed sometimes, by those unfamiliar with the subject, that
archaeological evidence is so doubtful or so slight that it cannot
be relied upon, and is not to be compared with the certainties of
legal proof. Let us see then what legal proof is in important cases.
In one case a will was lost, and the mere memory of its contents,
stated by a survivor who had assisted in writing it, was accepted
as sufficient proof of what had been in it, and the property was
distributed accordingly. In another case property was left by A to B,
or failing B to C; B also made a will leaving it to D. A and B were
killed together in an accident, and the slightest observation of which
moved last, determined whether C or D had the property. Again, there
are innumerable cases of setting a will aside because of the testator
not being of a sound mind for disposing of property; and various
assertions of irrelevant facts by various interested parties are held
to reveal the true mental capacity of a person to a judge and jury. In
a murder trial the question of whether one or both of the assailants
were guilty was held proved by the deceased having been tied by two
different forms of knots. In another trial the mere presumption due to
concealing a body and dealing with the property of a murdered person
was enough to hang a man. Such are some of the evidences which are held
good in law to settle questions of life and property.
Happily archaeology is relieved from the terrible dilemma of being
bound to come to a conclusion at once, as the law has to do. Questions
can be left pending, and it is not peremptorily needful to act one
way or another. An open mind can be kept on difficult and obscure
points; and a matter can be discussed in fresh lights, without keeping
a prisoner standing in the dock the whole time. Legal conclusions are
often wrong; though, as the law can do no wrong, a free pardon is all
the sufferer gets when his innocence is proved. But if legal proofs,
arguments, and conclusions were kept freely open to revision for years;
if they were printed in every textbook for beginners; if all students
were encouraged to find fresh evidence, and to upset what was laid
down, and if the high-road to position lay in reversing the decisions
of past authorities, it seems only too likely that there would be a
greater wreckage of bad cases and bad law than there now is of bad
archaeology.
[Sidenote: Egypt and Europe.]
For an example of the nature of archaeological evidence it will be
best to study the connections of Egypt with early Europe. This subject
is not only a fascinating one historically, but it includes a great
variety of different kinds of evidence,--from paintings, from groups
found in tombs, from remains of palaces, from objects exactly dated by
royal names, from objects dated by their nature and style; and evidence
which is of various degrees of certainty. Moreover this evidence has
been more actively and continually attacked than any other class of
discoveries of late years, and hence the most that can be argued
against it is well known.
[Sidenote: In XXVIth Dynasty.]
Until 1883 nothing was known of the Greeks in Egypt before the
Ptolemaic age; the accounts of Herodotus about the Greek mercenaries,
and their connection with the XXVIth Dynasty, stood solely as a
literary statement, without a scrap of tangible evidence. At the close
of that year I bought an archaic Greek statuette in Cairo (Fig. 56);
and on enquiring about the source of it, I heard of Nebireh, and hunted
out the site in the Western Delta. There I found the ground covered
with archaic Greek pottery dating throughout the XXVIth Dynasty, and
it was evident that a great Greek city had existed there. Next year,
at the close of 1884, I began exploring it, and found on the first day
there, a decree of the people of Naukratis. Here then the evidence of
Greek occupation depended upon the presence of thousands of pieces
of Greek pottery and sculpture; and to imagine that these had all
been imported by Egyptians was beyond any possible supposition. A
town containing almost entirely Greek remains, and with only clumsy
imitations of Egyptian subjects, was certainly occupied by Greeks. And
as there is no instance or probability of Greeks having imported great
quantities of vases made in earlier times, this place contained good
evidence for Greeks having lived there from the VIIth century B.C. As
such it was generally accepted; but the dedication by the Naukratites
was withheld from the public for six months by over-cautious
authorities, for fear that something else might contradict it. This is
a case where what was undoubtedly good evidence should rather have been
stated at once, with a reservation that it was very improbable that
the stone had been brought from another site, or dedicated anywhere
except in Naukratis. The evidence of the pottery shewed that Naukratis
dated from the middle of the VIIth century; and this agrees with the
statement by Athenaeus that a statue was dedicated there in the 23rd
Olympiad, 688 B.C.
In the next season, the spring of 1886, I went down to Defeneh, and
there found a great mass of Greek pottery of the same period as that
of Naukratis. Here again, then, the Greeks had inhabited the site; and
the evidence was clear that this was a great camp of Greek mercenaries.
The modern name Defeneh so closely agrees to the ancient Daphnae that
no one hesitated to accept their equivalence. Here the identification
rests, then, not on a contemporary inscription, but on a modern Arabic
name.
Important evidence about the manufactures of these places is given by
the pottery. Although the two sites were occupied at the same period
by Ionian Greeks, yet the bulk of the pottery on one site differs from
that on the other. The conclusion is that probably it was made locally
by Greek potters, and not brought by traders from Greek towns, as
trade would probably have imported from the same sources to both sites.
The evidence here is from the difference of classes.
Another conclusion is drawn from the few varieties of painted pottery
which are found in common at both sites. From the levels at which they
were found at Naukratis these varieties were dated at various years
between 610 and 550 B.C.; and such varieties were found together in a
chamber at Defeneh with jar sealings bearing royal names of Psamtek
II and Aahmes, and therefore dated between 595 and 565 B.C., as the
Greeks were removed from the camp in the latter year. The evidence
here is from the collocation of objects; those dated by the levels at
which other things were found at Naukratis agreeing with those dated by
mixture with Egyptian sealings at Defeneh.
[Illustration: THE GREEKS IN EGYPT.
Fig. 56. Warrior, in alabaster. Naukratis, XXVI Dyn.]
[Illustration: THE GREEKS IN EGYPT.
Fig. 57. Graeco-Egyptian vases. Abydos, XVIII Dyn.]
[Sidenote: XVIIIth Dynasty paintings.]
We now turn to the great group of dating of the XVIIIth–XXth Dynasties;
and as the nature of the evidence is our present consideration we shall
classify it according to the kind of source of the evidence. The most
certain dating is that of offerings painted on the walls of tombs, as
it is always agreed that such represent objects which were in current
use when the tomb was decorated; they therefore are not older than the
tomb, nor can the paintings have been added later. Of this class are
the paintings of vases in the tomb of Rekhmara, under Tahutmes III in
the XVIIIth Dynasty; these vases are shewn as being brought in by the
Kefti foreigners, and strongly resemble the vases found in Cyprus,
Mykenae, and other Greek sites. Here the connection of Egypt in
the XVIIIth Dynasty with people who made such vases is certain; but
the vases might be older than the scene, or such vases might continue
to be made to a later time, hence the connection with any given epoch
on Greek soil is only a strong probability but not absolute. Another
dated painting is that of stirrup vases (to use a more convenient word
than “pseud-amphorae,” “false-necked vases,” or “_bügel kanne_”) among
the offerings in the paintings on the tomb of Ramessu III of the XXth
Dynasty. That such forms were familiar at that date is absolute; but
they might be older vases preserved in the Royal Treasury, or might be
imitations by Egyptians of older foreign forms, like English repetition
of Chinese patterns.
[Sidenote: Burnt groups.]
The next class of evidence is that of objects which have been placed
in such conditions that they cannot have been disturbed after a given
date. This evidence is given by several deposits of groups of vases,
clothing, etc., which were burnt in pits sunk in the floors of houses,
and then earthed over. Such groups cannot possibly have been disturbed
later on to insert objects, as the charcoal and ashes are undisturbed,
and the foreign objects are likewise burnt. Hence the evidence of the
Egyptian objects if clearly dated must carry the foreign objects to the
same date. Several such groups have been found at Gurob. In one were
many Egyptian objects all agreeing well to the date of Amenhotep III,
as fixed by a glazed pottery kohl tube; in another a group agreeing
with the date of Tutankhamen, which was shewn by some fragile pendants
which could not have long survived in use; another group agrees to
the age of Ramessu II, who is named on a pendant of glazed ware; and
a fourth group agrees to the rougher style of Sety II, which is dated
by a dish with his name. The character of the Egyptian objects thus
points to each of these dated objects being contemporary with the rest
of their group, and therefore truly dating the group. Now in these
groups were first, five well-made globular stirrup vases (see Fig. 59);
second, pieces of several stirrup vases of a later form; third, the
neck of a later and coarser stirrup vase; and fourth, two much later
coarse and unpainted stirrup vases. Here the changes in the character
of the vases agree with the relative dates given by the Egyptian
objects. The stirrup vases might be all older than the Egyptian
dates, but that is very improbable by the regular degradation of them
according with the dates; and the groups cannot be later than the dated
objects as they agree well with the date of such Egyptian things fixed
in other cases. It is then extremely improbable that the stirrup vases
should not belong to the periods of the Egyptian kings whose names are
found with them. Variation in either direction is prohibited by these
limitations.
We may add that there are two other burnt groups without kings’ names,
and the connection of stirrup vases with Egyptian objects in these
agrees well with the connection shewn by the other groups. Another
such grouping was in a burial in open ground at Abydos; there several
examples of Graeco-Egyptian ware (Fig. 57), two figures and a ring vase
with pomegranates and lotus flowers, were found with Egyptian pottery
and beads of the XVIIIth Dynasty.
[Sidenote: Rubbish mounds.]
A somewhat similar grouping is afforded by the rubbish mounds of the
palace of Akhenaten at Tell el Amarna. There the palace was entirely
deserted after the reign of his successor, about 1360 B.C., and the
town ruined finally by Horemheb, 1330 B.C. It seems then impossible to
suppose anything later being mixed up with the rubbish heaps, which
contained nearly a hundred dated objects, none later than 1360 B.C.
The supposition has even been suggested that some unknown people,
who left no other traces, have at some later time come laden with
hundreds of potsherds, and dug over the rubbish mounds to mix them
together. Such are the wild fancies which must be resorted to if the
evidence is to be upset. The rubbish mounds consist of some thousands
of tons of potsherds and dust; and among these, entirely mixed with
them, were found nearly a hundred rings and objects of Akhenaten and
his successor, and over 1300 pieces of Aegean pottery, representing
probably 800 vases. The palace, which was deserted after 1360 B.C.,
also contained several pieces of the same pottery. Here the great
quantity of the material of all kinds precludes all the suppositions
that might be made about isolated specimens. The mounds are too large
for later material to be mixed with them; the dated objects are too
many to be accidental, or to have been older than the mounds; and the
Aegean vases are too many to have been preserved from earlier times.
The whole conditions prove that all the objects were in common use
contemporaneously.
[Sidenote: Houses.]
A somewhat less certain dating is given by remains found in houses.
At the palace of Akhenaten the definite date of its ruin fairly shews
the Aegean pottery in it to be contemporary with his generation. In a
house at Gurob, Aegean pottery was found with wood-carving of the XIXth
Dynasty and a ring of the late XVIIIth Dynasty, and also under the
walls of a house which was built at the close of the XVIIIth Dynasty.
These are not precise datings, and are open to claims that the houses
were later than the evidence shews; but such connections give a strong
presumption.
Similar, but converse, evidence is given from the Greek side. At
Mykenae was found a figure of a monkey in violet glaze (No. 4573
Athens); this is of Egyptian work and bears the name of Amenhotep II.
A piece of glaze found in a building by the lion gate has the name of
Amenhotep III. A scarab of Thyi, his queen, was found in the palace of
Mykenae. And three large jars of drab-coloured Egyptian pottery (4569
Athens), such as is quite unknown from Greek sources, were also found
at Mykenae. Now these examples prove the import of Egyptian things of
the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties before the fall of Mykenae; they do
not give an exact dating as their time-connection on the Greek side is
unstated, and they might belong to any part of the history of the town.
But their agreement in age gives a strong presumption that the latter
half of the XVIIIth Dynasty was contemporary with some part of the
flourishing period of foreign trade at Mykenae.
[Sidenote: Scarabs.]
At this point we should notice an assertion often made, that Egyptian
objects, especially scarabs, often bore the names of kings who were
earlier than the date of the manufacture. This is sometimes the
case, and on this ground it has been attempted to discredit all
evidence about scarabs. Now an exactly similar case occurs in Roman
coinage, where at eight different periods restorations of coins of
earlier emperors took place, no less than twenty emperors being thus
commemorated. Yet no one has impugned the evidence of Roman coins
in dating an excavation, on the ground that as some were restored
therefore none are of certain value. Similarly seven kings restored
the scarabs of earlier times, twelve different kings being thus
commemorated; but that is no reason for discrediting the age of the
remaining ninety-nine scarabs out of every hundred. The restorations,
say of the XIIth Dynasty kings by Tahutmes III, are as obvious as the
restorations of earlier emperors by Gallienus. No doubt to a person
ignorant of coins the subject would seem uncertain and confused; but
then scientific evidence is not expected to appeal to those who are
ignorant of the subject, whether it be coins or scarabs. We must then
credit the evidence of scarabs for dating, although there are some
restored in a different style, and although some case might be found
where a scarab had been reused at a much later date than that of its
manufacture. Such exceptions are certainly not one per cent of the
whole, and cannot therefore be invoked to explain away the whole of
the instances.
[Sidenote: Tombs in Egypt.]
The largest class of evidence is that from collocation in tombs.
The weak points of this are (1) reuse of tombs so that primary
and secondary interments may be mixed; this should be obvious in
any properly conducted excavation, and cannot be brought in as an
hypothesis unless some mixture of date can be otherwise proved: (2)
the tomb contents being older than the dated object, and so brought
to too low a date, which is very unlikely, as a whole group of things
would not be preserved for long together: (3) the dated object being
older than the tomb, which is practically the only danger. A few rare
examples have been seen of older objects being reburied, but so rarely
that only a very small proportion of cases could be thus explained. The
great majority of things in hand at any one time belong to within a
generation or two. In our own time, although we treasure older things
more than did the people of any past age, yet not one per cent of what
we have is over a hundred years old. In late Roman coinage the waste
was such that in a hundred years only an eighth survived in use, and
in half a century more only a twenty-fifth remained. It is very rarely
that beads or pendants of very different ages are mixed in ancient
necklaces, or that scarabs of reigns far apart are buried together. I
do not remember a mixture of more than two contiguous reigns in any
group of scarabs that I have found. Hence this possibility of an older
object being reused may occur rarely, but cannot be called upon in the
whole of the cases, or even for any perceptible proportion of them.
In certainly nine cases out of ten we must expect that a dated object
was buried within less than two or three generations from its original
period.
The tomb groups containing Aegean pottery are, it so happens, not so
well dated as the burnt groups; and are therefore inferior to the burnt
groups, both on this account, as well as by the greater possibility
of mixture. The Maket tomb at Kahun is the principal example. The
dated objects in that are of Tahutmes II and III; and though at first
I supposed it to be of later age on the strength of some beads not
then known before the XIXth or XXth Dynasty, yet as such beads were
afterwards found in a deposit of Tahutmes III at Koptos, there is
no reason for questioning that the whole is of his age. Also the
experience of the past dozen years has shewn that such a date agrees
well to all the other objects in the tomb. The absence of blue painted
pottery does not imply a date after the disuse of it in the XXth
Dynasty, but before that style came into use in the middle of the
XVIIIth Dynasty. In this tomb was a fine Aegean vase (Fig. 58) with
ivy-spray pattern, which is thus dated to about 1500 B.C. The burials
were quite undisturbed and therefore the vase cannot belong to a later
date, but might possibly be earlier.
Other examples have not this precise dating. At Kahun a burial in the
open ground, and undisturbed, had scarabs and objects of the style of
the middle or end of the XVIIIth Dynasty, with a stirrup vase from
the Aegean (_Kahun_, p. 32). The undisturbed tomb at Gurob containing
the beautiful wooden statuette of Res, certainly of the XVIIIth
Dynasty, had in an opposite chamber a stirrup vase, which must have
been buried at the same period. Another burial at Gurob had a piece
of a stirrup vase with beads exactly like those of Ramessu II. And at
Naqada a tomb which by the style of the painting, must have belonged to
the beginning or middle of the XVIIIth Dynasty, had been so entirely
plundered that the only object left was a fine globular stirrup vase.
In these cases there is no exact dating, but a consensus of style in
each case of the XVIIIth or early XIXth Dynasty; and the connection
of the Aegean pottery with it is in some cases absolute and in others
only presumptive. The argument for date of the pottery rests then in
these cases on the uniformity of the period connected with it, and the
absence of any discrepant dating.
[Illustration: FIG. 58.--Aegean vase of Tahutmes III. Maket tomb. 1:3.]
[Sidenote: Tombs in Greece.]
Now this argument is greatly reinforced if we can shew that the same
connection of period exists on the other side. At Ialysos in Rhodes
a tomb with Aegean pottery contained a scarab of Amenhotep III. At
Mykenae, grave No. 49 contained also glazed ware of Amenhotep III. At
Enkomi in Cyprus in grave 93 a scarab of Queen Thyi was found with
Aegean pottery. And from the same cemetery comes a metal ring of her
son Amenhotep IV. These cases therefore connect one period of the
Aegean remains with the Egyptian reigns from 1414 to 1365 B.C. If on
one hand it might be supposed that the single Greek objects in Egyptian
tombs were older than the time of their burial, here on the other hand
the possibility is reversed, and the single Egyptian objects in Greece
could only be older and not later than the group with which they were
buried. As on both sides the dating is the same--the latter part of the
XVIIIth Dynasty--it shows that in both countries the groups contained
objects of contemporary date. If we were to further refine on the
question, and enquire whether the differences of date of the reigns
in Egypt correspond to equal differences in Greece, we are met by the
lack of all relative dating yet assignable to the Greek tombs; on that
side we have only a vague statement of “Mykenaean period,” or some such
generality; and it is therefore only that period in general that we can
assign to the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty in Egypt.
[Sidenote: Variation with date.]
We may, however, see a little further into detail on the Egyptian side
by observing how the stirrup vases vary in form and work. At Naqada,
probably under Tahutmes III, was a globular form, with simple broad
bands, and dull face. At Gurob under Amenhotep III the vases have more
broad bands and a polished face (Fig. 59). Under Tutankhamen there
were fine lines appearing between the bands. Under Ramessu II the form
is coarser. And under Sety II is only a coarse unpainted imitation.
Lastly, under Ramessu VI at Tell el Yehudiyeh were some rude debased
copies. Here the relative style of the vases agrees with the varying
date of the objects found with each; and hence we are justified in not
only placing one general period in Greece as contemporary with another
period in Egypt, but also in connecting the varied forms with the
reigns which are named with them. The evidence which we gain from the
mere general admixture, without any proof of the objects originating in
the generation by which they were buried, is here further carried on
into evidence for the exact age of each type by the sequence of style
agreeing to the sequence of the dated objects.
[Illustration: FIG. 59.--False-necked vases from Egypt.
XVIIIth Dyn. Amenhotep III. Tutankhamen.
XIXth Dyn. Ramessu II. Sety II.
XXth Dyn. Ramessu III. Ramessu VI.]
[Sidenote: Style.]
We now turn to a question of style alone. In grave 93 at Enkomi was
found a gold collar of Egyptian work with nine different patterns in
it; of these, eight are well known as designs of the time of Amenhotep
IV, and the ninth is a variant of such. As these designs are not known
in such forms at a century later or earlier, this collar cannot have
been made far from 1400 B.C.; and as it is of slight and tender fabric
it cannot have long been in use. Hence the date of its burial and of
the tomb must be in the fourteenth century B.C. Of other examples of
style, which may be quoted as important, is a great group of blue
glazed ware of the same form, colour, and designs, as the vases of
Ramessu II, but found in grave 66 at Enkomi; a gold pin, with a hole
in the middle, of the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty found at Gurob, like one
from grave 66 at Enkomi; a group of bronze vases with lotus handles
found in the Idaean cave in Crete, exactly of the fabric of those of
the XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty; a figure of a swimming girl holding a dish,
carved in bone, from the Idaean cave, a favourite design in the XVIIIth
Dynasty; and some other instances of similar style, ornament, and
processes, which need hardly reinforce the general argument.
[Sidenote: Recapitulation.]
To recapitulate the evidences of the XVIIIth–XXth Dynasty:--
_Evidence of paintings._ Tombs of Rekhmara and Ramessu III.
Result. Aegean objects possibly older than the paintings.
_Evidence of burnt groups._ Four, from Amenhotep III to Sety II.
Result. Aegean pottery possibly older than the groups.
_Evidence of rubbish heaps._ Tell el Amarna.
Result. Aegean pottery certainly contemporary with Amenhotep IV.
_Evidence of houses._ Tell el Amarna, Gurob, Mykenae.
Result. Aegean pottery probably of XVIIIth Dynasty. Greek houses
probably of XVIIIth Dynasty.
_Evidence of tombs._ Maket tomb; tombs at Gurob, Mykenae, and Enkomi.
Result. Aegean pottery possibly older than Tahutmes III; probably
of XVIIIth–XIXth Dynasty or possibly older; Greek tombs of
XVIIIth Dynasty, or possibly later.
_Evidence of style._ Gold collar. Idaean vases and carving.
Result. Importations to Greece of XVIIIth Dynasty, and perhaps
XIXth; copy of XVIIIth Dynasty design, possibly later.
The possible deviations from the probable results are thus seen to
balance one another, some leaving the limit only open to earlier times
and some only to later times, so that change cannot be accepted in
either direction.
[Sidenote: XIIth Dynasty, Kahun.]
We now go back to an earlier stage in the history, that of the XIIth
Dynasty. Some ten years ago the stage which we have already discussed
was the “fighting frontier” of the subject; five years ago the XIIth
Dynasty was the fighting frontier; now this is almost pacified, and the
struggle against prepossessions is carried back to the still earlier
periods.
The view back to the XIIth Dynasty was first opened out in excavating
the rubbish mounds of the town of Kahun. This town was entirely built
at one time for the workmen employed on the pyramid of Usertesen II,
this then is the starting date. While the houses were fully occupied
a large rubbish mound was accumulated outside of the walls. When the
official work of building ceased at the finishing of the pyramid, we
may conclude that the town began to dwindle, as I found many of the
houses and streets had been used as rubbish holes for waste of the
XIIth Dynasty. Therefore the less convenient and accessible rubbish
heap outside of the walls is probably entirely of the reign of
Usertesen II. As it does not contain any Egyptian material that could
be dated later than that, the evidence of the shrinkage of the town
should be accepted as giving a probable limit to the age of the outer
heaps.
In these heaps the great bulk was of regular Egyptian pottery of
the XIIth Dynasty, filling up a depth of 6 or 8 feet in parts, and
therefore very unlikely to become mixed with later objects dropped by
accident. Now with this pottery thus certified as to its age, were
found pieces of several kinds hitherto entirely unknown. Black ware
decorated with white spiral lines, and with yellow and red lines and
circles of dots, red pottery with white returning spirals, and with
painting in red, white, and green. The style was obviously of the
Aegean family, so much so that even the best authorities asserted that
these were pieces of Naukratite pottery of the XXVIth Dynasty and shut
their eyes to the great difference of fabric and material. For some
years I protested that the evidence of finding was absolute for the
XIIth Dynasty date, and that no such pottery was known at a later date
to which this could be compared. But some general resemblance to the
style of the XXVIth Dynasty was allowed to calm the archaeological
conscience of my friends into ignoring all the positive evidence. No
such pottery was known on Greek soil at an early date; therefore none
existed; therefore this could not be of that date. This argument is
still in full favour for other and earlier periods. But a shock of
surprise came when delicate black pottery with white painting and red
was found at Kamares in Crete, and published by Mr. Myres in 1895;
and later the same style of pottery was so largely found that Messrs.
Hogarth and Welch write in 1901 that “so far from that ware being a
rarity, it is to be looked for in Crete wherever any strata of remains
underlie the Mykenaean. It occurred in our digging at Knossos at all
points at which the early town was probed to the rock” (_J.H.S._ xxi.
78). The pre-Mykenaean period is now before us and is found to agree
entirely with the dating already reached on unimpeachable grounds at
Kahun. That we may recognise connections between Greece and Egypt in
the XIIth Dynasty is now orthodox, and we may proceed to see what
further evidence appears for this dating.
[Sidenote: XIIth Dynasty, Crete.]
At Knossos was found a portion of an Egyptian seated figure in diorite
bearing an inscription of Ab-nub-mes-uazet-user, which from the style
is probably of the XIIth Dynasty.
At Praesos were found several globular beads of carnelian and of
amethyst such as are well known in the XIIth Dynasty, and the latter
material is not found dated to a later period in Egypt.
At Knossos was found a globular alabaster vase of the regular type of
the XIIth Dynasty; and also the alabaster vase lid of King Khyan,
whose date is unfortunately not fixed on the Egyptian side, but who is
probably of the XVIth Dynasty, though perhaps of the XIth.
The long period now known in Greece before the civilization which is
dated to the XVIIIth Dynasty compels such a presumption of connection
with far earlier periods, and the connection is so well shewn by the
Kamares ware, that the evidence for the XIIth Dynasty relationship
scarcely needs further support. It depends on identity of style of
highly decorated pottery, and of beads; and the transport of two pieces
of Egyptian work.
[Sidenote: Pan graves.]
Another connection of this age is shewn by the “pan-grave” pottery
found in Egypt. This class of shallow circular graves is dated to
the close of the XIIth Dynasty by several discoveries of worn and
damaged objects of the XIIth Dynasty in the graves, without anything
that could be fixed to a later date. In these graves is a large class
of non-Egyptian pottery; some of it black and red, highly polished;
others, rude thick pottery with incised patterns. The similarity of
the black and red to the style of the prehistoric pottery of Egypt is
obvious; it is a later branch of the same fabric. And when we consider
from what other land that may have come into Egypt, we naturally look
to the similar forms found in the Celtic pottery of Southern Spain by
Bonsor (Fig. 60), as indicating that it belongs to the western Libyan
culture. Again, the rough incised pottery is of the same Celtic family
found in Spain, showing a western source. The suggestion lately put
forward that these may have come into Egypt from the East is wholly
baseless. It is in Spain and the allied Celtic pottery of Europe that
we find the types which were brought into Egypt by the rude invaders
at the close of the XIIth Dynasty. So that a connection of the western
barbaric culture of the bronze age with the close of the XIIth Dynasty
must be concluded, from the evidence of similar pottery intruded into
Egypt, and associated in graves with the objects of that age.
[Illustration: FIG. 60.--Celtic and pan-grave pottery and ornament.
Central Europe. Yorkshire. (_J. Anth. Inst._ xxxii., pl. xxvii.)
South Spain. (_Rev. Arch._ xxxv. 121–2.)
Diospolis, Egypt. (_Diospolis_, xxxviii., xl.)]
It is probably then to the same invaders that we should look for the
source of the black incised ware (Fig. 61) with patterns filled with
white, and of characteristically western--Italic or Greek--forms, which
is found in Kahun in the XIIth Dynasty, and in burials at Khataaneh
of the XIIIth Dynasty. It is the latest stage of a class of imported
pottery which recurs at intervals from the early prehistoric age
onwards. A piece of this pottery was found in one of the “pan graves,”
thus linking it with the other foreign pottery brought in at that
period. It has been found at Hissarlik in the lowest levels, in Bosnia
at Butmir, and of prehistoric to XIIIth Dynasty age in Egypt.
[Illustration: FIG. 61.--Black incised pottery, with white filling.]
[Illustration: FIG. 62.--Buttons of ivory, carnelian, glazed steatite,
etc. VIIth Dyn.
The upper row with misapplied Egyptian designs.
The lower row with entirely un-Egyptian designs. 2:3.]
[Sidenote: VIth to IIIrd Dynasties.]
On going back another stage to the Old Kingdom, of the IVth to VIth
Dynasties, we still find links between Egypt and the West. In the
VIth dynasty is found a class of non-Egyptian buttons (Fig. 62) with
devices, which in some cases may have been used as seals; more than a
hundred of these are now known, and in no case are they of Egyptian
fabric, as when an Egyptian subject was copied it was always in a
mistaken manner. Now a close parallel to many of the designs is found
on Cretan engraved stones, and it is therefore to that civilisation
that we must look for the source of a considerable foreign importation,
which probably accompanied a movement of population at the overthrow
of the civilisation of the Old Kingdom. The actual incomers may have
passed by sea from the islands, or by land along Africa.
On turning to Crete we see in the noble lamp with lotus capital found
at Knossos, a type which cannot have been derived from anything that
we know of the XIIth Dynasty in Egypt. The free buds around the band
had long since become lost at that time; and even in the Vth Dynasty on
the Abusir capital they are less distinct. A form belonging to the Vth
Dynasty is the only one that is at all likely to have been the origin
of this fine Cretan capital. Again a vase with two handles from Knossos
is certainly an exact copy in local stone, of the regular Egyptian type
of the Old Kingdom, which was quite unknown later. And two pieces of
the brims of bowls, one of Egyptian diorite, the other of liparite,
are of exactly the type made in the close of the IIIrd Dynasty at
Medum, and in the early IVth Dynasty at Gizeh; this might perhaps last
until the Vth Dynasty, but we could not suppose it to come later, as
it would have been quite out of the run of later forms. The copying of
motives and forms which passed entirely out of use, is a strong form
of evidence; a single object might survive to later times, but for a
form to be copied it must be the familiar and usual form at the time
when the copy is made. Hence we cannot place the familiarity with these
Egyptian types in Crete later than the Vth or perhaps IVth Dynasty.
Still earlier, the Western influence on Egypt is seen by the black
incised bowls, of which one piece was found inside a mastaba of the
time of Sneferu (end of IIIrd Dynasty), and another piece between two
mastabas of about the same age at Dendereh, where it must have been
buried in sand at the period of the building. Another piece of such
black incised pottery was found in the tomb of King Zer of the Ist
Dynasty; see Fig. 61.
[Sidenote: Ist Dynasty, Aegean.]
This brings us back to a surprising series of pieces of painted
pottery from the Royal Tombs of the Ist Dynasty (Fig. 63). The forms
are Aegean; the material, the facing, the colouring, the varieties
of pattern, all belong distinctively to the Aegean. The opinion of
Professors Furtwängler and Wolters is that these belong to the earliest
type of Island pottery. Certainly there is nothing like them found
in Egypt, except the confessedly Aegean pottery of later times. One
prehistoric Egyptian vase has been compared with them, but it has
no resemblance in form, material, facing, or colouring, and only an
approximation to one of the patterns. They stand unquestionably in line
with other Aegean ware. These pieces are found scattered in several of
the Royal Tombs; and those from the earlier tombs are of an earlier
style. Thus there is no absolute proof, but only a strong presumption,
that these belong to the age of the tombs of the Ist Dynasty.
Further evidence is, however, given by a portion of the original tomb
offerings of King Zer, which were left untouched by all the plunderers
and destroyers. In one corner-chamber of his tomb were an alabaster
vase of regular Ist Dynasty type, four pottery jars of the same age,
and nine jars of foreign ware, different in forms, in material, and in
facing, from any Egyptian pottery of that age, but agreeing in all
these characteristics with Aegean pottery, and including a vase of the
same nature as the painted pottery, but without decoration. The whole
group was cemented together by the burning of the unguents which had
been buried in the jars.
[Illustration: FIG. 63.--Pottery of earliest Aegean style. From Royal
Tombs of the Ist Dynasty, Egypt.]
Here is then a case like that of the Kamares pottery at Kahun. The
evidence is clear, there is no visible loophole for avoiding the
archaeological conclusion. And the only argument against it is that no
such pottery has been found in Greece, but only more advanced styles
of such fabric under later conditions. Now that the Knossos finds have
led all those who see their value to grant a connection in the IIIrd
or IVth Dynasty, we may soon see the fighting frontier pushed over to
include this great and distinctive group of the early Ist Dynasty.
[Sidenote: Ist Dynasty, Cretan.]
Nor does this stand alone. This year another class of foreign pottery
has been found in the ruins of the temple of Abydos, of the Ist
Dynasty, and perhaps somewhat before it (Fig. 64). The material is
unlike any in Egypt, a dense black pottery; the facing of it is usually
highly burnished, unlike Egyptian of that age; the forms are wholly
un-Egyptian, the long pointed amphora with curved neck, and the hollow
feet to vases, being unmistakably of the Greek family. Exactly similar
pottery in material and finish, is found in fragments of the later
Neolithic period at Knossos; a piece from Egypt and one from Knossos
when seen side by side seem as if they had been broken from the same
jar. The forms of the Cretan examples are not yet re-established, but
some at least are the same as the Egyptian examples. As most of the
cups of this type at Abydos had contained a brilliant red haematite
paint, it is very likely that the pottery came over as vehicles for
trade products.
Yet again in the Ist Dynasty deposit of ivory and glazed objects in the
temple of Abydos, was a cast copper figure of foreign style which is of
the same family as the copper figures found in the Diktaean cave.
[Illustration: FIG. 64.--Polished black pottery of Cretan origin.
Temple of Abydos. Dyn. I.]
[Sidenote: Prehistoric.]
And all this leads us back to the Egyptian prehistoric age. There
we see commonly painted on the pottery, and on walls of a tomb, the
large ships then in use. Some had as many as 60 oars, yet we see the
greatest of the Venetian fighting galleys had only 24 on a side. A
rowing ship is useless on the Nile, except for sometimes getting down
stream, as no rowing would suffice to take a large vessel continuously
up against the current. But the rowing galley has been the vessel of
the Mediterranean, from the French navy back to the Phoenician, and
no one knows how long before. These great vessels, which bore various
ensigns showing the ports from which they started, must have been
concerned in important business; probably trading the oil and skins
and wood one way, and the dates and corn of Egypt in return. Among
their imports were probably the foreign bowls of black incised ware,
filled in with white, which are found even as far back as near the
beginning of the prehistoric civilisation. They clearly belong to that
foreign class which is found as far apart as Spain, Bosnia, and Troy;
and the original home of this pottery has yet to be found, in that
Mediterranean region about which we are just beginning to discover our
own ignorance.
If at present our evidence of connection between Egypt and the West,
before the XIIth Dynasty, rests upon the identity of styles and
fabrics, we must remember how that same class of evidence in later
periods has been amply reinforced by dated objects with inscriptions,
found in most unequivocal positions. And we may then at last reach the
conception that after all, civilisation started at much the same time
all round the Mediterranean, but advanced rather sooner in Egypt than
on the northern shores.
In this study of the facts which link together the early history of
Europe with that of Egypt, we have now seen the varied sources and
values of the different kinds of archaeological evidence; and the modes
by which the accumulation of different evidences may reinforce the
conclusions, and render them more exact.