Arthur E. P. Brome Weigall
The Treasury of Ancient Egypt
UUID: 8127d540-cf3f-11e5-83aa-0f7870795abd
This ebook was created with StreetLib Write (http://write.streetlib.com)by Simplicissimus Book Farm
Table of contents
PART I
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
PART II.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
CHAPTER VI.
PART III.
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHAPTER IX.
PART IV.
CHAPTER X.
CHAPTER XI.
CHAPTER XII.
A statue
of the hawk-god Horus in front of the temple of Edfu.The
author stands beside it.
PART I
THE
VALUE OF THE TREASURY."History
no longer shall be a dull book. It shall walk incarnate in every just
and wise man. You shall not tell me by languages and titles a
catalogue of the volumes you have read. You shall make me feel what
periods you have lived. A man shall be the Temple of Fame. He shall
walk, as the poets have described that goddess, in a robe painted all
over with wonderful events and experiences.... He shall be the priest
of Pan, and bring with him into humble cottages the blessing of the
morning stars, and all the recorded benefits of heaven and earth."Emerson.
CHAPTER I.
THE
VALUE OF ARCHÆOLOGY.The
archæologist whose business it is to bring to light by pick and
spade the relics of bygone ages, is often accused of devoting his
energies to work which is of no material profit to mankind at the
present day. Archæology is an unapplied science, and, apart from its
connection with what is called culture, the critic is inclined to
judge it as a pleasant and worthless amusement. There is nothing, the
critic tells us, of pertinent value to be learned from the Past which
will be of use to the ordinary person of the present time; and,
though the archæologist can offer acceptable information to the
painter, to the theologian, to the philologist, and indeed to most of
the followers of the arts and sciences, he has nothing to give to the
ordinary layman.In
some directions the imputation is unanswerable; and when the
interests of modern times clash with those of the past, as, for
example, in Egypt where a beneficial reservoir has destroyed the
remains of early days, there can be no question that the recording of
the threatened information and the minimising of the destruction, is
all that the value of the archæologist's work entitles him to ask
for. The critic, however, usually overlooks some of the chief reasons
that archæology can give for even this much consideration, reasons
which constitute its modern usefulness; and I therefore propose to
point out to him three or four of the many claims which it may make
upon the attention of the layman.In
the first place it is necessary to define the meaning of the term
"Archæology." Archæology is the study of the facts of
ancient history and ancient lore. The word is applied to the study of
all ancient documents and objects which may be classed as
antiquities; and the archæologist is understood to be the man who
deals with a period for which the evidence has to be excavated or
otherwise discovered. The age at which an object becomes an
antiquity, however, is quite undefined, though practically it may be
reckoned at a hundred years; and ancient history is, after all, the
tale of any period which is not modern. Thus an archæologist does
not necessarily deal solely with the remote ages.Every
chronicler of the events of the less recent times who goes to the
original documents for his facts, as true historians must do during
at least a part of their studies, is an archæologist; and,
conversely, every archæologist who in the course of his work states
a series of historical facts, becomes an historian. Archæology and
history are inseparable; and nothing is more detrimental to a noble
science than the attitude of certain so-called archæologists who
devote their entire time to the study of a sequence of objects
without proper consideration for the history which those objects
reveal. Antiquities are the relics of human mental energy; and they
can no more be classified without reference to the minds which
produced them than geological specimens can be discussed without
regard to the earth. There is only one thing worse than the attitude
of the archæologist who does not study the story of the periods with
which he is dealing, or construct, if only in his thoughts, living
history out of the objects discovered by him; and that is the
attitude of the historian who has not familiarised himself with the
actual relics left by the people of whom he writes, or has not, when
possible, visited their lands. There are many "archæologists"
who do not care a snap of the fingers for history, surprising as this
may appear; and there are many historians who take no interest in
manners and customs. The influence of either is pernicious.
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!