The Year's Work in Oriental Archaeology

Abstract

I have been asked by the Editors to write a resume of the year's work in the archaeology of the Orient. As one whose interest in archaeology, and knowledge of the subject, is confined primarily to the Classical branch, I feel a certain diffidence in trying to tell Orientalists about a subject in which they know so much more than I. I trust, therefore, that they will pardon any errors (of which there will undoubtedly be many) and forgive also the intrusion of a Greek archaeologist into the sanctum sanctorum of the East. It is to Egypt that the student of the Orient should look at present for active archaeological investigation. The Babylonian field was covered by European workers prior to the war; and of course the war has put an end to the bulk of their researches. Save for the expedition of the University Museum in Philadelphia to Nippur, an exploration conducted many years ago, but of which the fruits have not yet been exhausted, American interest has not been in Babylonian archaeology. On the other hand, Egypt has always cast a spell over our people, and American expeditions have been sent time and again to excavate Egyptian sites. There are to-day in Egypt two of these expeditions, whose work has been in no wise hindered by the war. A third, that of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, has practically completed its work; but the objects allotted to that Museum are still in storage in Egypt. The Museum has just announced, however, the publication of The Tomb of Senebtist at Lisht, by Arthur C. Mace and Herbert E. Winlock, Assistant Curators of its Department of Egyptian Art. A short summary of this book will be found in the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum.' This is the tomb of a noble lady who lived in the reign of King Amenemhet I, or between 2000 and 1950 B. C. The writer commends the readers of this Journal to the summary in the Bulletin, or, better still, to the book itself, and will pass on to other news in the Egyptian field.