|
The Discoverers, part 1 The modern discovery of ancient Egypt dates from Napoleon's expedition
to Egypt in 1798, but researchers, travellers and writers had taken
an enthusiastic interest in Egypt since Classical times, and the revelation
of this civilization owed much to them as well as to the later scholars.
Since Egypt's ancient history stretches back' for well over four thousand
years, some of the Egyptians were themselves students of their own past,
although they were prompted by the desire to discover religious wisdom
rather than to reconstruct and understand earlier events. In this sense,
the first recorded historian of Egypt was Khaemwese, a son of King Ramesses
II, who lived c.1250 BC. He was a High Priest of the god Ptah and a
noted magician who devoted much time to seeking out magical texts; a
papyrus in the Louvre contains magical formulae which are attributed
to him, and his quest led him around the tombs at Sakkara, to study
inscriptions on temple walls, and to examine sacred books in the temple
libraries. A visit to King Unas' pyramid at Sakkara inspired Khaemwese
to record his interest in antiquities in an inscription there, discovered
by the archaeologist J. P. Laur in 1937; it states that Khaemwese has
inscribed the name of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Unas, since
it was not found on the face of the pyramid, because the priest Prince
Khaemwese loved to restore the monuments of the Kings of Upper and Lower
Egypt. The first major source from antiquity, however, is the Classical writer Herodotus (c. 484-430 BC), who is regarded as the Father of history. His account - the first attempt to separate fantasy from reality - was based on his firsthand observation of the monuments and on facts and evidence obtained from his discussions with the people, such as the priests, whom he met there. His work certainly contains inaccuracies, but he became one of the few authorities on whom medieval and modem European travellers could rely and was then quoted in their own works. He was born at Halicarnassus between 490 BC and 480 BC, and his extensive travels took him to Egypt in c.450 BC, during a period when the country was ruled by the Persians. Eventually, in retirement at Thurii in Italy, he added to his work The Histories which gave an account of the conflict between Greece and Persia and in Book II (called 'Euterpe') he examined Egypt and its civilization. His book was mainly an account of the country's history and geography, and his lively mind eagerly grasped the many peculiarities he encountered there: he wrote, 'There is no country that possesses so many wonders, nor any that has such a number of works that defy description.' This is the first factual account written by a foreign observer of Egypt to survive intact. However, some modern scholars have questioned its accuracy, speculating that his visit to Egypt may not have included all the places he mentions; they also doubt that his informants were always truly knowledgeable. It nevertheless formed the basis of all later accounts of Egypt, and was translated by such Classical writers as Diodorus Siculus and Strabo. Some of the facts he gives have been investigated by modern researchers and have been shown to be accurate, although others have not, but for the later periods of Egypt's history, when archaeological evidence is relatively scarce, he remains one of our most important sources. His travels in Egypt probably took him as far south as the first Cataract, although his omission of Thebes and its monuments is surprising, and the work generally concentrates on the north. He provides his reader with a lively narrative, letting him see these wonders through his own personal and enthusiastic experience. Regarding the features of the landscape, he says: 'My own observation hears out the statement made to me by the priests that the greater part of the country I have described has been built up by silt from the Nile.' He is intrigued by the truth about the source and inundation of the river: 'About why the Nile behaves precisely as it does I could get no information from the priests or anyone else. What I particularly wished to know was why the water begins to rise at the summer solstice, continues to do so for a hundred days, and then falls again at the end of that period, so that it remains low throughout the winter until the summer solstice comes round again in the following year. He also shows a lively interest in the flora and fauna; he notes that 'they gather the water-lilies (called lotus by the Egyptians) which grow in great abundance when the river is full and floods the neighboring flats, and they dry them in the sun; then, from the centre of each flower, they pick out something which looks like a poppy-head, grind it, and make it into loaves which they bake.' Other descriptions provide information about their food: Some kinds of fish they eat raw, either dried in the sun or salted; they also eat quads raw, as well as ducks and various small birds, after pickling them in brine; other kinds of birds and fish (except those which are considered sacred), they either roast or boil. When the wealthy give a party and the banquet is finished, a man carries round amongst the guests a wooden image of a corpse in a coffin, carved and painted to resemble the real thing as closely as possible... he shows it to each guest in turn, and says: 'Look on this body, as you drink and make merry, since you will be just like it when you are dead!'Regarding animals, some curious creatures such as the hippopotamus, the ibis, and crocodiles are of particular interest to Herodotus. He says:
The mythical phoenix is also mentioned:
His historical details are sometimes correct, such as identifying Menes as the first king who founded Egypt's earliest capital; about he, says:
However, the characters and actions of kings such as Cheops and Chephren who built their pyramids at Giza are probably based on embellished hearsay. Herodotus' informants (priests who lived some 2,400 years after these kings ruled!) told him that Cheops closed all the temples, and then, not content with excluding his subjects from the practice of their religion, forced them without exception to work as slaves for his own benefit. The work continued in three-monthly shifts, a hundred thousand men in a shift. It took ten years of this oppressive slave-labor to build the track along which the blocks were dragged. To build the pyramid itself took twenty years.With kings such as Amasis (Dynasty 26) where Herodotus is the main source it is difficult to assess the accuracy of information relating to the king's frequent drunkenness. Herodotus also provides an account of the monuments he visited, including the Giza pyramids (which, unlike some other writers, he identified correctly as royal burial places), the Labyrinth and Lake Moeris in the Fayoun, the city of Memphis and temples at Sais and Bubastis. He mentions the hieroglyphic system of writing, and gives a description (the first by a foreign writer) of Egyptian religious beliefs and customs. These include festivals, magical rites, dream interpretation and animal cults, but his detailed account of the techniques of mummification is of special importance because, with Diodorus Siculus' later work, it provides our only surviving written source. In this instance, modern scientific investigations have shown that his details are, for the most part, accurate. He was obviously deeply impressed by this ancient culture and, despite his observations that many customs were the reverse of those found elsewhere, he nevertheless believed that the Egyptians were the most religious of ancient peoples and tried to identify the gods from which the Greek divinities were derived. Herodotus' account provides a stimulating insight by a man who was both a traveller and the world's first historian and is still well worth reading. His genius for experimenting with this new approach attempting to sift fact from fantasy and his good fortune in seeing the monuments when they were so much more complete combine to give the modem reader a unique view of Egypt. Another Greek writer, Diodorus Siculus (late 1st century BC), spent time in Egypt in c.59 BC. The first book of twelve volumes of his Universal History is devoted to Egypt; although he used his own firsthand experience in this, he also drew heavily on earlier writers such as Hecataeus of Abdera, Agatharchides of Cnidus and most particularly, Herodotus. His compilation of information from other sources is often inaccurate, and it is not a history that can be taken seriously. His subjects include the Osiris myth (documented much more fully by Plutarch), religious customs such as animal worship and funerary beliefs, and administration, law, education and medicine. The plants and animals are discussed, and the possible causes for the inundation of the Nile; some interesting details are given regarding forced labour camps which were brought in as a policy to rehabilitate criminals. The practice of cannibalism which Diodorus claimed to occur at times of famine - is also mentioned. He provides information about many of the subjects already dealt with by Herodotus, such as mummification, hut as he often gives fresh details, his work, although less interestingly written, supplies some additional facts. For the later periods, when other material is limited, his account is an important source. Although these remain our major Greek authors, an important historical source, written in Greek, has survived in the work of an Egyptian priest, Manetho (305-285 BC). His Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt) was written in the reign of Ptolemy II, but no complete copy survives and the text is only preserved in edited extracts in the later writings of Josephus, and in abridged versions in Sextus Africanus, Eusebius and George called Syncellus. Africanus (c.AD 220) was a Christian chronographer, who preserved the writings of Josephus and Eusebius; the latter - also a Christian writer (c.AD 320) - provides a biased view of Egypt, representing it as a land of superstition, while Syncellus (c.AD 880), a Christian monk, provides the latest known version of Manetho's work. Manetho was a priest who lived at the Temple of Sebennytos in the Delta, and he may also have had some associations with the town of Mendes and the temple at Heliopolis. Knowledge of Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs, as wll as firsthand experience of Egyptian religious beliefs and customs, gave him the background to write eight books of which the most important was Aegyptiaca. This chronicle of the kings of Egypt, when complete, included the earliest times when the gods and demi-gods ruled Egypt, followed by the historical dynasties from Narmer (Menes) down to Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt. Manetho apparently based his record on registers held in the temples to which he, as a priest, had special access. Although the facts of kings' names, year dates and lengths of reigns are often incomplete and inaccurate, and Eusebius and Africanus preserve sometimes divergent accounts, this still remains our basis for Egyptian chronology. However, other anecdotes about the different rulers are not deemed reliable as they were probably derived from popular stories. Manetho's chronology nevertheless helped Champollion in 1828 in his decipherment of Egyptian royal names, because these lists allowed him to see where a particular ruler appeared in the dynastic sequence and thus to confirm his reading of that name. In later times, the country was firmly administered as part of the Roman Empire, and many tourists, able to move around the country, now visited Egypt's ancient sites. They usually followed a route from Alexandria to Memphis, calling at the Giza pyramids, before moving south to the Valley of the Kings at Thebes and down to the Island of Philae with its wealth of temples. As they travelled, many left behind a record of their journeys in the graffiti they scrawled on the monuments. This general interest led to further historical accounts. In 25 BC, the geographer Strabo (64 BC-AD 22), accompanied his friend, the Roman prefect Aelius Gallus, on his expedition to Egypt. They probably travelled as far as the First Cataract, a journey which inspired his interest in many aspects of Egypt. The seventeen books of his Geographia (written in Greek) contain an enormous compilation of facts about the Roman world, and the last book provides a short account of Egypt's geography. This is primarily a topographical list of towns and resources, although there are references to pyramids, tombs, temples and religious and historical facts within this context; most information is provided about Alexandria and the Delta, and there are interesting comments about his visit to the Theban tombs and the famous Nilometer at Elephantine. He was the first to comment on the 'singing statue' at Thebes (one of the Colossi of Memnon: two great statues that had once flanked the funerary temple of Amenophis III), but he was sceptical about this supposed 'wonder' which first occurred after 27 BC. The phenomenon has since been explained as the result of an earthquake in 27 BC which damaged the statue, so that sudden changes in humidity and temperature at dawn caused an internal vibration, with the result that the statue seemed to 'sing'; when the crack was repaired in AD 199, the singing ceased. It was Strabo's account which, nearly two thousand years later, provided the French archaeologist Auguste Mariette with a description of the avenue of sphinxes leading to the Serapeum at Sakkara which helped him to discover and correctly identify this site. Strabo says:
Another Roman writer, Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79), gives another account; although much of the information given in his Histona Naturahs is drawn from earlier authors, he was one of the first Roman writers to describe the Great Sphinx at Giza; he comments not only on monuments within Egypt but also on those brought out of Egypt and set up in Rome, such as the obelisks. Following the example of Herodotus and Diodorus, he also provides an account of mummification. In terms of Egyptian religion, a particularly important work is preserved in the Moralia of Plutarch (c.AD 50-12O) of Chaeronea where the most complete version of the Egyptian myth of Osiris and Isis is given. No extant Egyptian version survives, although there are numerous references and allusions to the myth in Egyptian texts on temple walls and papyri. Although Plutarch's text has been criticized by scholars as a Greek rather than an authentically Egyptian version of the myth, the outline of the story is probably fairly accurate and it does provide the only complete account of Egypt's most important myth. This was one of the few detailed texts relating to Egyptian religion which gave European scholars some accurate insight into these beliefs during the Medieval and Renaissance periods. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c.AD 70) also supplied much basic information about Egypt for Renaissance researchers. His works include, in addition to edited extracts from Manetho's writings, comments on people and events - such as the Hyksos invasion, Joseph, Moses and the Exodus - which have biblical associations. Particularly for the Hyksos, where other source material is scanty, Josephus' material has to be considered, although it is difficult to ascertain its level of accuracy. He theorized that the invasion into Egypt of the Hyksos (he erroneously interpreted their hieroglyphic name to mean Shepherd Kings or Captive Shepherds, whereas it has since been shown that it should be translated as 'chieftains of foreign lands') was actually the descent into Egypt and sojourn there of the Hebrews in the biblical account. Their later expulsion, he believed, correlated with the Exodus, but there is no alternative evidence to support this theory. The Classical authors provide a unique view of Egypt and despite their shortcomings, they remained the most reliable source for ancient Egypt until Champollion's decipherment of Hieroglyphs ushered in the modem age of Egyptology. In the mean time, knowledge of the old civilization made few advances. When Egypt became a Christian country in the early centuries AD, the ancient monuments suffered defacement: the figures of deities and the accompanying inscriptions on the temple walls were destroyed by the people who now believed that they were idolatrous. With the original wall scenes damaged or covered over with plaster, parts of some temples were now turned into churches or filled with houses. In the next centuries, few travellers visited Egypt, and Christian pilgrims who did reach there almost always interpreted the pyramids and monuments in terms of biblical stories. The earliest account left by a European visiting the ancient sites at this period recalls a journey undertaken between AD 378 and 388 (when Egypt was still a Christian country). The traveller, identified as Lady Etheria, has left a manuscript which was discovered in Tuscany in 1883. She was a nun from Gaul who made the journey to identify sites she had read about in the Bible, and she went to Alexandria, Tanis, and the district around Thebes. With the arrival of the Arabs under their general Amr in the 7th century AD, the indigenous population was found to have very little memory of their early civilization, and the ability to read the hieroglyphic script had been lost. The new conquerors themselves did not pay much heed to ancient Egypt; there was little to be learnt about it from the native Egyptians, and the Arabs believed that their monuments - massive in concept and scale - had been constructed by giants or magicians. However, there were still travellers to Egypt who were not Muslim. Bernard the Wise and two monks went there in AD 870, and Rabbi Benjamin ben Jonah of Tudela in Navarre, who made the journey in AD 1165-71, was the first to note that the annual Nile inundation was the result of the rains falling on the Abyssinian highlands. However, the most significant travel account of this period is by an Arab writer. Abd' el-Latif was a doctor from Baghdad who taught medicine and philosophy in Cairo, and around AD 1200, he visited Giza, where he entered the Great Pyramid and viewed the Great Sphinx which was still intact. At Memphis, the one-time capital of Egypt, the ancient buildings were still extensive and he noted, 'It requires a half-day's march in any direction to cross the visible ruins.' His account is particularly interesting since he was in the area at a time when most sites were not visited by European travellers because of the Crusades; and since his observations on the monuments were not taken from a Christian standpoint, they provide a different perspective. However, since his account was not translated from the Arabic until the early 19th century, he had no impact on later European travellers. When the Crusades ended, interest in the Near East was rekindled; Europeans could travel there more readily and the Crusaders who returned home had aroused interest with their tales of the region. Guidebooks were produced for pilgrims visiting Jerusalem, and the best known of the 14th century accounts was The Voyage and Travel of Sir John Mandeville, Knight. It contained quite erroneous information, identifying the pyramids as the biblical granaries of Joseph, for example, but it continued to be used for five hundred years before it was discovered that the author was fictitious and had certainly never visited Egypt. This man - almost certainly Jean d'Outremeose of Liege - had not ventured out of his own country but had based his work on a compilation of many earlier sources. In 1517, when Selim I invaded Egypt, it became a Turkish province. He confirmed a treaty signed by the former Sultan which had allowed the French and Catalans to trade there; they were given religious protection, and it now became relatively safe to travel in Egypt. Merchants and diplomats began to arrive from abroad, but pilgrims also came to visit the holy sites, and some travellers also interested themselves in the ancient monuments. This freedom to travel was now coupled with a new interest in the treasures and philosophies of the ancient civilizations, which the free-thinking of the renaissance encouraged, as rigid medieval attitudes were gradually relaxed. Increasingly, merchants and pilgrims coming to Egypt led the way for antiquarians and collectors who had an avid interest in the ancient treasures. One of the most curious commodities Europeans sought from Egypt was 'mummy' for use as a medicinal ingredient. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was one of the most common drugs found in the apothecaries' shops of Europe, and in 1658 the philosopher Sir Thomas Browne commented, 'Mummy is become Merchandise, Mizraim cures wounds, and Pharaoh is sold for Balsams.' However, it seems that from as early as AD 1100, and probably before, mummy was prescribed as a medicinal ingredient. The word 'mummy', according to Abd' el-Latif the Arab physician who was writing in the 12th century, was derived from the Persian term mumia which meant pitch or bitumen. In Persia this substance flowed from the mountain tops and, mixed with the waters that carried it down, coagulated like mineral pitch; the resultant liquid was purported to have medicinal properties and indeed may have had some real benefit as an antiseptic. The Mummy Mountain became famed for this healing substance, and even the Queen of England received a gift of mumia from the King of Persia in 1809. However, the demand rapidly exceeded the natural supply, and so other sources were sought. The blackened appearance of some of the preserved bodies of the ancient Egyptians (particularly those prepared in the later periods) led to the erroneous assumption that this was the result of the bodies being soaked in bitumen, and so it was believed that they would provide an alternative supply of mumia for medicinal use. Indeed, Abd' el-Latif claimed, 'The mummy found in the hollow corpses in Egypt differs but immaterially from the nature of mineral mummy and where any difficulty arises in procuring, the latter may be substituted in its stead.' The word mumia was consequently applied to these preserved bodies, and they have since come to' be known as 'mummies'. The history of the trade in mumia thus goes back over several centuries. In the earliest days, a flourishing business was established at Alexandria and since large profits were to be made, many foreigners began to trade in mumia, exporting complete mummies or packages of fragmented tissue from Cairo and Alexandria. Soon, demand began to exceed supply and in his History of Mummies written in 1834, the surgeon Thomas Pettigrew commented, 'No sooner was it credited that mummy constituted an article of value in the practice of medicine than many speculators embarked in the trade; the tombs were sacked, and as many mummies as could be obtained' broken into pieces for the purpose of sale.' The Egyptian authorities had to limit export of mummies, but this only exacerbated the problem and led to fraudulent solutions. Pettigrew explains how Guy de la Fonteine of Navarre investigated the mummy trade in Alexandria in 1564; when he looked into the stock of mummies held by the chief dealer there, he found that the supply was augmented by preparing the bodies of the recently dead, often executed criminals, by treating them with bitumen and exposing them to the sun, to produce mummified tissue which was then sold as authentic mumia. Later in the 18th century, when the nature of such supplies was eventually revealed to the authorities, traders were imprisoned, a tax was levied, and it became illegal to remove mummies from Egypt. The actual benefits of the ingredient were disputed. On the one hand, it was used to treat amongst other ailments, abscesses, fracture, concussion, paralysis, epilepsy, coughs, nausea and ulcers. It also received royal approval when King Francis I of France reputedly always carried with him some mumia mixed with pulverized rhubarb to treat his ailments. However, according to the physician Ambrose Pare', writing in 1634, it had no beneficial effects:
The strict measures introduced to curb the mummy trade did in fact
reduce the worst excesses, but the ingredient continued to be in demand,
and was still in use in medicines in 19th century Europe. Increased public interest in Egyptology in the 18th century led to specialist books on the subject. Here, Thomas Greenhill's Nekrokedeia or the Art of Embalming (1705) shows the usual method of bandaging a mummy. This was based on knowledge gained from contemporary public mummy 'unrollings'. From the Renaissance until the expedition to Egypt of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798, an ever increasing number of people journeyed to Egypt. Some came as travellers who were simply interested to view the ancient monuments and to make a record of the wall scenes, but others were beginning to realize that Egyptian antiquities could be sold to royal or noble patrons in Europe at great profit. The Renaissance had inspired a fashionable interest in knowledge, and from the 17th century scholars were sent to Egypt to search out coins, manuscripts and antiquities for their wealthy European patrons, of whom the French were the most enthusiastic. Indeed, the Kings of France were the most active collectors of these antiquities. Embassies and consulates began to undertake duties additional to diplomacy, and their officials were used as local agents to acquire collections of antiquities. Gradually, foreign collectors also sought permission from the Turkish rulers of Egypt to undertake their own excavations, so that they could acquire and remove inscriptions, statuary and tomb goods. This in turn led to international jealousy and rivalry between the different factions who were all anxious to supply the most desirable antiquities for their wealthy clients. Some of the great private collections now being compiled eventually became the bases of fine national collections in later centuries. This was particularly the case in Italy and France, and also in England where the British Museum was established by an Act of Parliament in l756. Here, the Egyptian collection developed from the relatively modest group of artifacts from the collection of the physician, Dr Hans Sloane. These collections amassed material which would become an invaluable resource for later scholars, but at that time, since the hieroglyphs had not yet been deciphered, the inscriptions added no major contribution to existing knowledge of ancient Egypt. However, Renaissance travellers able to visit the country and explore the sites and monuments left written accounts of their journeys, which supplied firsthand information about Egypt, so that readers were no longer dependent upon accounts derived from Classical sources and from hearsay. There was a steady stream of such visitors, but some are of particular interest. The French made a major contribution to the field: the first of these 'modern' travellers was Jean de Thévenot whose journey is recorded in his Voyage au Livat (1657). Some years later, in 1692, the French Consul in Egypt, Benoit de Maillet, made extensive investigations, entering the Great Pyramid Giza more than forty times; he also declared the need for scientific exploration - an idea which was eventually realized by Napoleon's expedition. Some men were specially commissioned h the French king to undertake scholarly explorations in Egypt. Paul Lucas, who became the official traveller for Louis XIV in 1716, was instructed to examine antiquities at several site and to explore a pyramid by excavation, in order to discover its contents. Some forty years before Louis XIV's chief minister had instructed a German, J. B. Vansleb, to visit Egypt to acquire antiquities for the royal collection and to copy the hieroglyphic inscriptions. He also visited the mummy-pits at Sakkara; many years later, Lucas described his own experience in seeing these pits, believing that he had made a 'new' discovery. One of the most significant of these early French travellers was the Jesuit Father Claude Sicard. He arrived in Cairo as the Supervisor 0 the Jesuit Mission, but his enquiring mind and ability as an Arabic scholar provided him with the background to respond to the command of the Regent, Philippe of Orleans, to make at exact investigation of Egypt's ancient monuments, and between 1707 and 1726 he travelled widely in Egypt. Essentially, his mission was to visit the Coptic communities, but he also observed the monuments, reaching as far south as Aswan. The information he gathered from twenty-four temples, over fifty decorated tomb and twenty major pyramids was unparalleled at that time. In the Valley of the Kings, he was able to identify ten of the tombs from the total number described in the writings of Diodorus Sicilus, but perhaps his most important contribution was to identify Karnak and Luxor temples as part of the site of the ancient capital of Thebes. His significance as an early scholar is partly obscured however, because information about his discoveries is only preserved in some letters and a map prepared to accompany his own manuscripts. This manuscript, which would doubtless provide much valuable information about his explorations, was not published during his lifetime and has subsequently disappeared. English travellers also left some interesting accounts. George Sandy's journey was published in his Sundy's Travells in 1621; it is subtitled 'A Relation of a journey begun An. Dom. 1610' and the four books tell of his travels in the Mediterranean and in Egypt: However, despite this opportunity to see the monuments at first hand, be adds little that is new, and draws extensively on earlier sources such as Herodotus. Nevertheless, there were accounts that moved knowledge of Egypt forward; the first scientific study that investigated and compared the true facts about one group of Egyptian monuments with the stories that had grown up around them was made by John Greves. He was Professor of Astronomy at Oxford and his background in mathematics and oriental languages prepared him well for the task. In his Pyramidographia (1646), he set out to investigate the true purpose of the pyramids knowledge which had been lost for centuries; his critical appraisal of the writings of Classical, Arab and later authors on this matter set new standards, and by considering both the literary and archaeological evidence (he published the most accurate survey of the Great Pyramid until then), he was able to draw conclusions about this group of monuments in an innovative way.
This frontispiece is from Sundy's Travells (1621), an account of George Sandys' journey through the Mediterranean and Egypt. He had the opportunity to observe the monuments at first hand, but his writtings rely heavily on earlier Classical sources rather than supplying new information. Another English traveller, Richard Pococke, visited Egypt in 1737, and reached Aswan; in northern Egypt, he went to Busiris (the ancient centre of the worship of Osiris) and Sakkara, and on his Nile journey he viewed the temples at Denderah, Thebes and Armant. His Travels in Egypt was published in 1743, and already comments on the damage to the monuments: 'They are every day destroying these fine morsels of Egyptian Antiquity, and I saw some of the pillars being hewn into mill-stones.' At the same time as Pococke's journey, a Danish artist and marine engineer, Frederick Lewis Nordem, was also exploring Egypt and attempting to reach the Second Cataract. His expedition, sent by the King of Denmark, Christian VI, only reached Derr in Nubia, but Norden was able to publish in his Voyage (1755) a detailed description of Egypt, with excellent and accurate plans and drawings of the monuments. He also provided advice to other travellers: 'Begin by dressing yourself in the Turkish manner. A pair of mustachios, with a grave and solemn air, will be very proper companions by which you will have a resemblance to the natives.' For the first time, this kind of information became available to scholars and general readers. Another interesting narrative is provided by the great 18th century traveller James Bruce, who reached Egypt in 1768 and proceeded to sail up the Nile. In the Valley of the Kings he discovered the tomb of Ramesses III, although it was only years afterwards, when the Hieroglyphs were eventually deciphered, that it could be identified as this king's tomb. It was often referred to as Bruce's Tomb. After he returned to England in 1774, he published his memoirs in five volumes in 1790. They include the description of his travels through Egypt in an attempt to reach the source of the Nile, but this fascinating travel narrative does not make any major contribution to knowledge about ancient Egyptian civilization. By 1798, when Napoleon Bonaparte went to Egypt in search of an empire, the foundations of the study of Egyptology had already been laid: the extensive journeys throughout the country had enabled travellers to discover all the principal monuments above ground, and in many cases these were already accurately identified with ancient sites. Some excavation had also been carried out, revealing burials at Sakkara and Thebes. The rush to obtain antiquities for great collections abroad had already led to the destruction of monuments and archaeological material, but there were now extensive groups of objects outside Egypt which could be studied by scholars. Interesting and increasingly accurate contemporary written accounts also existed and these augmented the Classical sources and replaced the older, derivative travel books. However, to carry the study forward, it was now necessary first to develop scientifically organized archaeology, rather than treasure hunting, so that new facts could be derived about Egypt's ancient history and civilization; and secondly, to decipher Hieroglyphs and the related scripts of Hieratic and Demotic to provide the key to understanding the inscriptions which adorned not only the tombs and temples but also many of the artifacts. Napoleon's expedition, which was a military disaster, nevertheless provided the catalyst for the development of Egyptology; one direct result was the production of the first detailed account of ancient Egypt, and indirectly, the expedition also led to the decipherment of Hieroglyphs. It was truly a watershed in the development of Egyptology. Egypt's geographical position made it important to both England and France. Napoleon Bonaparte persuaded the French Government that control of the country was of great significance, since it lay on the land route to the British possessions in India. The Turkish rule there weak and the French were fearful that the British might attempt to take Egypt in order to consolidate their lines of communication. Against this background, Napoleon was authorized to proceed to Egypt where, seizing Malta en route he landed on 1 July 1798. Under their energetic, twenty-nine-year-old leader, the French soon succeeded in defeating the Mameluke army in the Delta and at the battle of the Pyramids. They pursued their victory into Upper Egypt, forcing the Egyptian troops to retreat into Nubia. However, it was two peaceful innovations brought in by Napoleon that ultimately had the most profound effect upon Egypt, rather than these initial military successes. He introduced the printing press, and also established a special Scientific and Artistic Commission to accompany the military expedition; this was it inaugurated to obtain both cultural and technological information about Egypt which would facilitate Napoleon's plans to colonize the country. The Commission undertook this research with the aid of a library and scientific apparatus brought from France. It consisted of 167 scientists technicians, who included mathematicians, astronomers, chemists, engineers, mineralogists, naturalists, botanists, surgeons, physicians, artists, musicians, writers and antiquarians. These savants recruited by Claude-Louis Berthollet, produced as one of their major achievements the publication in nineteen volumes of the Description de l'Egypte (1809-28). The various members of the Commission worked for three years in different parts of Egypt, mapping and gathering information about the natural history and resources, the irrigation system, the customs of the people, and the ancient monuments and antiquities. This provided the basis for the publication; works were also produced independently by members of the Commission, such as Vivant Denon's Voyage in lower and Upper Egypt during the campaigns of General Bonaparte (1801). Denon (who eventually became Director of the Louvre in Paris) was a diplomat and an artist who travelled as an ex officio member of the Commission. These publications, well-researched and beautifully illustrated, made a great impression in Europe and were the foundation for the serious study of Egyptology which would now emerge. Denon's descriptions capture some of the wonderment he and his colleagues felt when they first encountered Egypt's great monuments. Of the pyramids at Giza, he says:
At the Temple of Denderah, he is again overwhelmed:
He also records the action of the army division to which he was attached when they came in sight of the temples of Luxor and Karnak:
Napoleon also established and became the vice-president of the Institut d'Egypte in Cairo; this brought together scholars from different disciplines and encouraged an exchange of ideas. Scholars read papers at seminars and generally promoted the concept of research in Egypt. It was these intellectual and academic legacies rather than Napoleon's ephemeral military success which were to produce long-term results. The work of the Commission was a turning point in Europe's perception of Egypt and its ancient civilization; the savants acquired a vast collection of specimens and antiquities from their stay in the country, but more importantly, they amassed knowledge which had not been hitherto available. In political terms, the Egyptian rulers now became aware for the first time of the impact their country had on Europe, both geographically as a corridor to the East and as a source of ancient culture and antiquities. It was the political dimension, with the French forces ensconced in
Egypt, which now led the British to attempt to remove them. Under Nelson,
they defeated the French fleet at the Battle of Aboukir, thus cutting
off Napoleon's army, and, by enlisting the aid of the Turks, they were
able to force the French to leave Egypt. Under the terms of their capitulation,
the French had to agree to give the British all the natural history
specimens and antiquities that the Commission had collected, but the
savants objected so strongly, claiming that they would prefer to bum
their collections rather than transfer them to the British, that the
British general Hutchinson eventually agreed that they should keep their
material, with the exception of a fascinating inscribed stone which
had been discovered near the town of Rosetta in the Delta. The Commission
finally sailed from Alexandria with their wealth of study-material in
1801, but Britain retained the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of this stone, which was to prove to be the key to the decipherment of Egyptian Hieroglyphs, was itself a direct result of the war between the French and the British. In 1799, as part of the French attempt to consolidate the coastal defences against the British navy, Lieutenant Pierre Francois Xavier Bouchard, an officer of the Engineers, was in charge of gathering stone to strengthen the ramparts. At Fort Rachid near Rosetta, one of his men dug up a stone with three horizontal panels of inscription, later identified as Hieroglyphs, Demotic and Greek. Although he recognized that it might be of some importance, the French officer could hardly have foreseen its impact on the development of Egyptology and its crucial role in enabling Champollion (then a child in France) to decipher the script of ancient Egypt. The officer sent the stone to the Institute in Cairo; the Greek was readily translated and the scholars realized that the contents of this inscription were repeated in the other two texts Hieroglyphs and Demotic - on the stone. This trilingual inscription provided the first real possibility of decipherment. The study of ancient Egypt had by now reached an impasse; knowledge of the monuments and antiquities, carefully researched, still did not enable scholars to determine the history, with the names and order of the kings, nor understand the religion or many aspects of the lives of the people. An understanding of the way the language worked and the consequent ability to read the texts still eluded them. There had been many attempts to penetrate the hieroglyphic system but most researchers drew wrong conclusions, claiming that the signs were symbols; they did not understand that some signs (we now call these phonograms) were alphabetic, conveying the sounds of a word, whereas others (known today as ideograms) stood at the end of a word to depict its meaning. By attempting to translate the hieroglyphs as individual ideas rather than as the written version of the language of ancient Egypt, these early writers laid a false trail and effectively prevented further investigation. The Greek writers Horapollon and Chaeremon were amongst the first to produce these erroneous ideas but a Jesuit scholar, Athanasius Kircher (1602-80), became perhaps the best-known exponent of the symbolic theory of Hieroglyphs. He went from his native Germany to Rome where he became Professor of Mathematics of the Roman College (1635-43), subsequently devoting his energies to various research projects. He was intellectually well equipped for this work with wide-ranging interests in philosophy and oriental languages as well as mathematics, and his contribution to the field of Coptic Studies (the last stage of the ancient Egyptian language) was notable. Between 1643 and 1676 he produced at least six works, the largest being his Oedipus aegyptiacus (1652-4), and he attempted to read the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the obelisks in Rome. Under the Romans, a number of these had been removed from Egypt: the granite obelisk now standing before the Aya Sophia Mosque in Istanbul was taken there during this period, and Rome also acquired seven obelisks. However Kircher's attempts with these inscriptions added nothing to knowledge of decipherment, since he continued to regard the individual signs as symbols.
On the Rosetta Stone, Champollion was able to start deciphering Hieroglyphs by using the royal names. Having identified a name in the Greek text (which was easily read), he looked for it in the Hieroglyphs, recognizing that all royal names were enclosed in the cartouches (ovals) shown here. Only one writer discarded the symbolic theory; this was William Warburton (1698-1779) who became Bishop of Gloucester in 1759. A prominent scholar, he recognized that Hieroglyphs were a written language, and believed that a simpler script had evolved from them for everyday use. His essay on the decipherment of Hieroglyphs formed part of his Legation of Moses, published in 1738 and translated into French in 1744. It seems that he was the only scholar before Champollion to indicate the correct way in which inscriptions should be read, but his immediate successors reverted to the symbolic interpretation. William Stukeley, an English physician who founded the first recorded Egyptian Society in London in 1741, presented two papers to the London Society of Antiquaries (of which he was Secretary) in 1762. He claimed that the Egyptian hieroglyphs on a statue in Turin were quite different from Chinese characters (some scholars were now trying to prove that Chinese was derived from Egyptian), but that they were symbolic and therefore impossible to understand completely. Some progress was made, however, by a Swedish diplomat and orientalist, Johan David Akerblad (1763-1819). While he was at the consulate in Paris, he pursued his studies under Silvestre de Sacy, and his knowledge of Coptic and his attempts to decipher Phoenician and Runic inscriptions provided a good background for his work on the Egyptian scripts. After the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, wax impressions of the inscriptions had been taken and circulated amongst scholars in Europe. Sylvestre de Sacy studied the Greek and Demotic texts on the stone and in 1892 indicated his belief that certain sign-groups in the Demotic corresponded to the names of Ptolemy and Alexander which had been easily identified in the Greek. Akerhlad's own studies had also enabled him, by comparison with the Greek text, to identify these and other proper names in the Demotic, and he also made some other important observations. These significant steps towards the decipherment of the Demotic text were set out in his Lettre á M. de Sacy (1802) but he made no further headway. A major pioneer in the search for a breakthrough in decipherment was the English physician and physicist, Thomas Young. His wide knowledge of many languages was coupled with his pursuit of medicine and scientific studies, where his greatest achievements were made in the field of physiological optics. In mid-life, his interest in Egyptology was kindled and, having obtained copies of the Rosetta Stone, he turned his attention to deciphering the texts. He made several very important discoveries; these included the realization that some of the Demotic characters, as well as linear hieroglyphs and Hieratic, were derived from the Hieroglyphs. The significance of this was that it indicated that Demotic was not entirely an alphabetic script (as Akerblad had claimed), and Young was thus the first to recognize that the Egyptians used both alphabetic and non-alphabetic (ideograms) signs in the texts. A further important step was his claim (also made independently by other researchers) that the oval cartouches found in the hieroglyphic inscription contained the names of kings and queens. The parallel Greek text provided him with the royal names of Ptolemy and Berenice and he was able to attribute the sound values of the Greek letters in those hieroglyphic signs within the cartouches. From a list of thirteen signs in the two names, he made identifications of six, three were partly right four were wrong, but this limited set enabled him to read the name of Ptolemy correctly in the Hieroglyphs. He was also able to propose a close relationship between Hieroglyphs and Coptic, and to identify some other hieroglyphic names. His work on the translation of the Demotic on the Rosetta Stone was published in his Remarks on Egyptian Papyri Rosetta and on the Inscription of Rosetta (1815), while his other major ideas were advanced in an article entitled 'Egypt' which appeared in the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1819). His contributions - to begin a comparison of Greek, Demotic and Hieroglyphs, and to conclude that Demotic was a cursive form of Hieroglyphs - had a major impact on the development of the decipherment process, but financial problems and ill-health prevented further commitment to these studies, and it was the French scholar Champollion who would eventually achieve the breakthrough. Jean Francois Champollion (1790-1832) was born on 23 December at Figeac in France, one of five children of Jacques, an impoverished bookseller, and his invalid wife, Jeanne Francoise Gualieu. He was prodigiously talented, teaching himself to read when he was five years old. When he was eleven, he made a visit to the mathematician Jean Baptiste Fournier, who had been one of Napoleon's savants, and this may have inspired his interest in Egyptology and his desire to decipher Hieroglyphs To prepare himself for this task, he learnt Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Chaldean, Sanskrit, Zend, Pali, Parsi and Persian before he was seventeen. His early education was undertaken by his elder brother, Jacques Joseph Champollion, who was a historian with a great interest in Egyptology and it was probably his influence, at least as much as the visit to Fournier, which led to Jean Francois' initial enthusiasm for the subject. In later years, the elder brother devoted much of his considerable talent to furthering Champollion's success contributing to the actual decipherment of the hieroglyphs, and often preparing and editing his works and ensuring that they were published. The younger Champollion continued his education at the Lyceum in Grenoble, and when he was sixteen, he read a paper to the Grenoble Academy, claiming that Coptic (which he had also learnt) was in fact the same (but written in different characters) as the ancient language of Egypt (which had been written in Hieroglyphs, Hieratic or Demotic). In 1807, he went to Paris to begin his studies with the Orientalist Sylvestre de Sacy. A teaching post in History and Politics took him back to Grenoble in 1809, and after several advancements in his career, he was appointed to a chair in History and Geography at the Royal College at Grenoble in 1818. His success in deciphering Hieroglyphs ultimately resulted in the creation for him of the first chair in Egyptian history and archaeology at the College de France in 1831. Champollion's self-allotted task - to decipher Egyptian Hieroglyphs - took many years to achieve and was beset by the misconceptions of earlier scholars. The language of the ancient Egyptians had developed through various stages and scripts, and although its origin remains obscure because of its extreme antiquity, the earliest form of the writing is the script we call Hieroglyphs; this was in use at least as early as 3100 BC. Hieroglyphs were developed from pictures and they always retained their pictorial form, but by 3100 BC they were already used as a script to convey a fully developed language, with its own syntax, grammar and vocabulary. The great mistake of most scholars before Champollion was to miss this point and to suggest that Hieroglyphs were merely symbols which represented concepts or ideas. Hieroglyphs continued to be used for inscriptions on papyrus, wood and stone for more than three thousand years, but even in the earliest historical period, a need arose for a simpler script which could be written down more rapidly. A cursive script - known today as Hieratic - was developed from Hieroglyphs and was widely used until c.800 BC. Each Hieratic character was a simplified version of a hieroglyphic sign and whereas Hieroglyphs were mostly employed for religious or formal inscriptions and were often carved on stone, Hieratic was used for religious, literary and business texts, where speed was required. For these purposes, the cheaper materials of papyrus, wood, leather, or potsherds and limestone flakes (ostraca) were found to be most suitable. From c.700 BC, another cursive script, Demotic, was evolved from Hieratic, and Thomas Young was able to demonstrate the links between these two writing forms. Demotic, also cursive, became the usual script for business, legal and literary documents for nearly a thousand years, while Hieroglyphs continued to be employed for inscriptions on stone, and religious texts were mainly written in Hieratic. During the late period of its history, when Egypt was ruled by a line of Macedonian Greeks, the kings and Greek residents who now settled in Egypt introduced Greek as the language for administration throughout the country, although the Egyptian language continued to be widespread amongst the native inhabitants and for religious inscriptions, particularly on walls in the Egyptian temples. The final stage of the Egyptian language, known as Coptic, developed when Egypt became a Christian country. The ancient Egyptian dialects were now written in Greek characters with the addition of a few new signs, taken from Demotic, to express those Egyptian sounds that did not occur in Greek. Coptic played an important role in early Christianity in Egypt: it was the medium for the translation of biblical texts and was still used as the language of the Christian inhabitants of Egypt long after the Arab invasion in the 7th century AD, when Arabic became the official language of the country. It still continues to be the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. Once it was realized that Coptic was the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language, it became an important tool in the decipherment of Hieroglyphs; it threw light on the grammar and the vocabulary, and, since it conveys the vowel sounds through the Greek characters, whereas Hieroglyphs and the other scripts preserve only the consonantal sounds of each word, it has also assisted in understanding something of the pronunciation of the ancient language. As Christianity grew and spread throughout Egypt, knowledge of ancient Egyptian, written in Hieroglyphs, Hieratic or Demotic, was finally lost, leaving Coptic as the only link with the past. However, Coptic was of little assistance until it was realized that it had developed directly out of the earlier scripts. It is not surprising that early travellers and scholars, viewing the hieroglyphic signs still visible on the temple and tomb walls, deduced so mistakenly that they were purely symbolic in function, claiming that they hid mystical doctrines rather than expressed the mundane verbs, nouns, adjectives and other grammatical elements of the long-dead language of ancient Egypt. The Rosetta Stone was to be the key: various scholars had attempted to make sense of the hieroglyphs using the old 'symbolic' theory, but no headway could be made in trying to fit this in with the accompanying Greek inscription. The Rosetta Stone was in fact a decree by the priesthoods of Egypt in honour of King Ptolemy V Epiphanes. which dated to 196 BC. Eventually it would be shown that this same decree was issued here in three scripts: Greek (the current official language) Hieroglyphs (the ancient sacred script of Egypt) and Demotic (the usual legal and business script). When scholars turned their attention to the Demotic text, they identified it correctly as an alphabetic script representing the language 0 ancient Egypt, although, as we have seen Akerblad's conclusion that it was purely alphabetic was soon overturned by Young, who showed that, like the Hieroglyphs from which was derived, it combined both alphabetic sign (sound values) and ideograms (symbols). At first, Champollion himself followed the false belief that hieroglyphs were symbolic, setting on this view, which opposed Young, in his De l'eriture hieratique des anciens Egyptienn (1821); he concluded that the writing was not alphabetic and that both Demotic and hieroglyphic character represented 'things' rather than 'sounds'. However, a short time later he adopted the alphabetic approach and soon found that he could make great progress in deciphering names and beginning to compile a hieroglyphic alphabet. His next major discovery came in September 1822, when he was studying copies of an inscription from the temple at Abu Simbel. Using the established phonetic principles he was able to identify the name of the Egyptian king Ramesse II, and he suddenly realized that the Egyptians used hieroglyphs phonetically not only to write the names of foreign rulers such as Ptolemy and Alexander, but also to render the names of their own kings, such as Ramesses. The truly phonetic nature of many of the hieroglyphs thus became apparent to him, and his conclusions were give in his famous Lettre a M. Dacier, secretaire perpe'tuel de l'Academie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettre. relative a l'alphabet des hieroglyphes phonetiques (1822). Although this marked a turning point in his decipherment, the results received only partial acceptance. At the time, some scholars mistakenly refused to believe that he had succeeded in uncovering the key to Hieroglyphs. Also, there has continued to be dispute about the extent to which Champollion appropriated Young's initial discoveries. He gave Young no credit for his contribution, but Young believed that his own work had laid the foundations for Champollion's major discovery. In 1824, Champollion was able to publish his Precis du systeme hieroglyphique in which he showed that the script combined phonetic and ideographic signs - an understanding which eventually allowed the language to be read. In his later works - particularly the Grammaire (1836-41) and the Dictionnaire (l841-4) - his major discoveries were further formulated, and the true contribution of his work became fully apparent. Nevertheless, his system was only finally accepted in 1837, when Karl Lepsius wrote to Champollion's pupil, Rosellini, stating that he acknowledged it as a true analysis. Having laid the foundations of reading the inscriptions, Champollion was now anxious to obtain firsthand access to more material. He went to Turin in 1824 to examine the collection built up by Drovetti; he also visited museums in Rome, Naples, Florence, and Leghorn, where he acquired another Drovetti collection which came to form the nucleus of the Musee Egyptien at the Louvre, where he was appointed Conservator in 1826. Champollion's travels around Europe were followed in 1828 by an expedition he led to Egypt. The party numbered fourteen and included his first student, Niccolo Rosellini, as well as architects and artists. Their brief was to conduct the first systematic survey of the monuments, and to copy the inscriptions with the aim of contributing further knowledge about Egypt's history and geography. Altogether, the expedition spent seventeen months in Egypt, travelling as far south as Nubia and copying the scenes and inscriptions from the monuments. Again, as with Denon, their experience of the temple at Denderah was overwhelming: one night they rushed ashore from their boats and, after a two-hour march, they approached the temple, which was bathed in moonlight, in a state of ecstasy. One expedition member wrote that it was a picture that made us drunk with admiration. On the way, we had sung songs to ease our impatience, but here, in front of the propylon, flooded with a heavenly light - what a sensation! Perfect peace and mysterious magic reigned under the portico with its gigantic columns and outside, the moonlight was blinding! Strange and wonderful contrast!
Young recognized that Demotic was derived from Hieroglyphs; he showed that both scripts combined alphabetic signs and symbols This table from Champollion's Précis (1824) shows the sound values given to some of the hieroglyph's by Young and Champollion. For the first time, scholars visiting these sites were able to
read the inscriptions correctly, and Champollion was able to obtain
new material to confirm his theories. Because he could now read the
inscriptional evidence, particularly the royal names, he was able to
deduce the correct historical context of the monuments. Champollion's life was of paramount importance to Egyptology. His decipherment enabled serious study to commence, so that today Egyptian can be read and studied as readily as any other ancient language. Its literature, one of the world's largest and most comprehensive ancient written sources, has opened up to the modern world the ideas and beliefs of a people who lived long before the Greeks and Romans. Doubtless if he had continued with his work, he would have made further advances, but in January 1832 he suffered a stroke and died, aged only forty-two, two months later. His unfinished works, including his Dictionary and Grammar and the volumes of drawings from his Egyptian expedition, were published by his devoted brother. These volumes now inspired others to continue with the arduous task of recording and studying the hieroglyphs, and the German scholars Karl Lepsius and Karl Heinrich Brugsch took up this challenge. Whilst Champollion had been assiduously pursuing the decipherment of Hieroglyphs, political events in Egypt had ensured that the country became increasingly accessible to foreign travellers, explorers and antiquarians. After the conflict with Napoleon's troops, the British had handed Egypt back to the Turks, and in 1805 the country was taken over by Mohammed Ali, a man of humble origin from Macedonia who rose through the Turkish army in Egypt to become the Pasha or Viceroy. Although he remained nominally subject to the Turks, the force of his character ensured that he became virtually independent ruler. An ambitious though autocratic leader, he sought to open up his country to foreign merchants, diplomats tourists and dealers, and to introduce European advances and technology. His modernization programme included the construction of canals water-wheels and other irrigation devices; hi introduced new industries such as cotton, and encouraged small factories to open up. Egyptians were also sent abroad to study medicine, engineering, agriculture and industry. This openness had a marked effect upon the development of Egyptology. On the one hand the new freedom to travel coupled with the impetus of Champollion's discoveries inspired serious scholars to visit Egypt; but it also encouraged a rapid increase in the rush to acquire antiquities an activity now pursued on a hitherto unknown scale. Treasure seeking had always been an important industry in Egypt. In antiquity, the ransacked burial places and the tomb robbers papyri, giving accounts of trials of the culprits. testify to its widespread occurrence; by the 15th century AD, the Arab writer Ibn Khaldoun recorded that treasure seeking was so commonplace that it was classified as an industry and it was taxed. Books were written in Arabic which purported to give instructions for discovering the places where the treasure was hidden, and these also supplied spells and fumigations to overcome the magical safeguards that were supposed to protect the treasure. The most famous of these was known as the Book of hidden pearls and precious mystery concerning the indication of hiding places, findings and treasure; this was considered valid for centuries, and as late as 1907 the French archaeologist Maspero published it in order that it would receive widespread condemnation because of its ridiculous contents. With the opening up of Egypt to western ideas and technology under Mohammed Ali, the collectors were able to intensify their search for antiquities; these included not only small objects such as scarabs and papyri but also mummies, coffins and even large inscribed blocks from tombs and temples. Excavation was carried out on behalf of the dealers and collectors and was essentially a treasure-hunt; large and spectacular pieces were required for private collections and museums and little heed was paid to more mundane objects which were nevertheless often vital to the understanding of the archaeology and history of a site. It was argued by the collectors that they were saving the heritage by removing the material from Egypt, since the quarrying of stone from temples and pyramids was causing considerable destruction, and the increasing numbers of tourists, all eager to obtain souvenirs of their visit, were buying many of the smaller items. Since there was no national museum in Cairo where the finds could be placed, the foreign museums argued that they were at least preserving the ancient treasures. Nevertheless, the random excavation techniques, with no systematic rescue scheme, resulted in the loss of material which was of great importance in understanding this ancient civilization. Mohammed Ali realized that the antiquities were assets in gaining the goodwill of countries whose technological expertise he was keen to obtain, and gifts were made to important visitors. Also, the system of issuing firmans (permissions) to allow excavation by foreign collectors or their agents did not sufficiently protect the material. When, for example, the King List was cut from the wall of the Temple of Krnak in 1843 and removed to France the following year, this was done without a firman because the export would have been forbidden under the terms of Mohammed Ali's Ordinance of 1835. Nevertheless, the Ordinance, despite problems in enforcing its conditions, did place some control on the export of antiquities. Some of the greatest collections were made in this era, and the names of the men associated with them have become famous in Egyptology. Some foreign diplomats of the early 19th century devoted much of their time to collecting antiquities in Egypt. The best known are Bernardino Drovetti (1775-1852) and Henry Salt (1780-1827). Drovetti was an Italian-born diplomat who took French citizenship and fought in Napoleon's Egyptian campaign. He was French Consul-General in Egypt from 1802 to 1814 and again from 1820 to 1829. Salt was appointed as British Consul-General in Egypt in 1815, and the two men frequently found themselves in conflict in the hunt for antiquities. Since both France and England were politically important to Mohammed Ali, both Drovetti and Salt were granted the necessary firmans to excavate, and they and their agents gained virtual monopoly at this time. Drovetti's most important acquisition was the Turin Canon of Kings which was taken to Italy; this helped scholars to establish the chronology of Egypt. Other antiquities were obtained by purchase from local diggers and from his agents' excavations, and ultimately his material made a major contribution to three great European museums. The first collection, rejected by the French, was sold to the King of Sardinia and became part of the Turin Museum; the second was bought by France and entered the Louvre; and the third was bought by Karl Lepsius for the Berlin Museum. Drovetti's life ended in a mental asylum in Turin; his methods of dealing with his rivals and acquiring antiquities have been criticized, but his energetic enterprises certainly established the basis of some of the world's major research collections. Henry Salt similarly enhanced a number of European museums. His main aim was to acquire material for the British Museum, and he also built up his own substantial collection. He used the services of agents to excavate and remove the antiquities. European collectors now frequently employed local agents in Egypt -often Armenians, Greeks or Italians - as dealers and excavators. One agent was Giovanni Battista Caviglia (1770-1845), an Italian sailor, employed to investigate the Pyramids and Sphinx at Giza, while Giovanni d'Athanasi (1799-1850), a Greek who had settled in Cairo, was taken on to excavate at Thebes (1817-27). Salt encountered many adventures in his quest for antiquities. On one occasion, he had set his sights on acquiring the famous Zodiac ceiling from the Temple of Hathor at Denderah, but a French collector, M. Sebastian Saulnier, decided to obtain it and employed an engineer, Lelorrain, to remove it from the temple and arrange its transportation to France. Under the 'gentleman's agreement' between France and England, the sites on the west bank of the Nile (including Denderah) were allocated to Britain while the French had the east bank. However, through a series of manoeuvres Lelorrain acquired the Zodiac which eventually entered the Louvre, and Salt was unable to claim his prize. In Britain, Salt also encountered difficulties. The large collection of antiquities he sent back to the British Museum in 1818 was, in the Trustees' opinion, overvalued, and they ultimately gave him only a modest sum which did not cover the cost of excavation and transport. They refused to buy the fine alabaster sarcophagus of Sethos I which Belzoni had obtained from the king's tomb at Thebes, and this was purchased by Sir John Soane; today it forms the impressive centrepiece of his museum in Lincoln's Inn Fields in London. Salt's second collection was bought by the King of France and entered the Louvre, while the third was sold at Sotheby's in 1835, when many of the objects were purchased by the British Museum. |
| Questions or Comments? Email me B.Precourt This page was last updated on September 1, 2004 |