August 20, 1908] 



NA TURE 





fed, Englishmen more resistant tlian negroes to tuber- 

 culosis for the same reason, and Polynesians less re- 

 sistant than both races to a multitude of diseases 



because they are worse fed. 



G. Archdall Reid. 



EGYPT AND BABYLONIA. 



Egypt and Western Asia in the Light of Recent Dis- 

 coveries. By L. W. King and H. R. Hall. Pp. 

 viii+480 ; illustrated. (London : Society for Pro- 

 moting Christian Knowledge, 1907.) Price los. 

 THIS handsome volume from the pens of Messrs. 

 King and Hall, of the British Museum, is in- 

 tended as a supplement, or, as the authors modestly 

 express it, "an appendi.\ or addendum," to include 

 all the most recent results of discoveries in Egypt and 

 Western Asia, and thereby bring up to date the three 

 volumes of Prof. Maspero on " The Ancient History 

 of the Peoples of the Classic Orient," which the 

 .Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge issued 

 between 1894 and 1S96. 



The period since the last volume of Prof. Maspero 's 

 history appeared has been one very rich in discovery. 

 and archEeologists have been busy with the spade in 

 the Greek islands and mainland, in Asia Minor, the 

 Euphrates and Tigris valleys, as well as in Egypt and 

 Nubia, with most startHng results. In 1894 we were 

 almost in the dark as to Egyptian history prior to 

 the time of Snefru, the last king of Manetho's Third 

 Dynasty, and prehistoric Egypt was practically un- 

 known. The so-called Minoan civilisation of Crete 

 was undreamt of, and hardly anything was known 

 about the early peoples of Syria and .Asia Minor. Now, 

 thanks mainly to the work of M. dc Morgan, Prof. 

 Flinders Petrie, Dr. .\rthur Evans, and Prot. 

 \\'inckler, we can extend our vista far beyond the 

 horizon of :S96. 



It is with the discovery of prehistoric Egypt that the 

 volume before us opens, and here the authors bring 

 together the latest results of the explorer in the field 

 of prehistoric antiquities in the Nile Valley. They 

 finally dispose of the old theory maintained by Petrie 

 and Blankenhorn that the desert plateaus on both 

 sides of the valley were in Palaeolithic days clothed 

 with forest, and they bring forward the more reason- 

 able one promulgated by Beadnell that the torrents 

 which are sometimes experienced in the desert at the 

 present day would have been enough to have cut out 

 the deep ravines or wadis in the limestone rock such 

 as we see at Thebes in the famous ravine called the 

 Valley of the Tombs of the Kings. Whether Palaeo- 

 lithic man in Egypt — where he is represented by 

 thousands of flint tools from the desert plateaus — was 

 contemporary with the Cave man of Europe we do 

 not know ; nor are there any data whereby even a 

 rough estimate can be made as to when the Palaeo- 

 lithic period was succeeded by the Neolithic. For a 

 considerable time anterior to the First Dynasty, copper 

 as well as stone weapons were in use, so that even 

 before the beginning of the historical age the 

 Egyptians were living in the " Chalcolithic " period. 

 The beginning of the Dynastic age is placed bv Messrs. 

 King and Hall at about 4500 B.C. (p. 13), but this | 

 XO. 2025, VOL. 78] 



does not at all agree with the latest researches into 

 the vexed question of Egyptian chronology, which tend 

 rather to diminish than to lengthen out the hitherto 

 accepted chronology. A most important monograph 

 on this subject was written by Prof. Eduard Meyer 

 in 1904, and is printed in the Abhandhingen of the 

 Konigl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften (with 

 a Nachtrdge. 1908); but this the authors do not seem 

 to know, nor do they refer to Prof. Breasted's concise 

 summary of the facts relating to Egyptian chronology 

 in the first volume of his "Ancient Records." A 

 perusal of Meyer's or Breasted's.works will show that 

 there is very good reason for placing the beginning 

 cl the First Dynasty at not earlier than about the 

 year 3500 B.C. 



Regarding the question as to the origin of the 

 Egyptians, Messrs. King and Hall point out that in 

 the early dynastic period two races lived in Egypt 

 which differed considerably in type and also in burial 

 customs. The Dynastic people, they believe, came 

 originally to the Nile Valley from the shores of the 

 Red Sea by way of the Wady Hamniamat, to Koptos 

 and Kus. 



" From many indications," they say, " it would seem 

 probable that these conquerors were of Babylonian 

 origin, or that the culture they brought with them 

 (possiblv from Arabia) was ultimately of Babylonian 

 origin." 



The Lower Egyptians, who were conquered by the 

 Dynastic race, were possibly of Mediterranean stock, 

 akin to the primitive inhabitants of Palestine, Greece, 

 Italv, and .Spain. 



The second chapter deals with Abydos and the first 

 three Egyptian dynasties, but the authors do not 

 appear to have any very clear idea as to the real 

 history of this early period. On p. 73 it is said that 

 the " King Sma " is " possibly identical with -'\ha or 

 Narmer, more probably the latter." There is, in fact, 

 no evidence whatever that Sma is the name of a 

 king or even of a person at all, while, on the other 

 hand, it is a well-known title meaning "consort," 

 and was often assumed by queens. On pp. 61-62 it is 

 said that Narmer is not represented at Abydos, yet at 

 least half-a-dozen monuments bearing his name have 

 come from there. There has been much discussion 

 as to the validity of Dr. Borchardt's identification 

 of King Aha with Menes, the traditional founder of 

 the monarchy ; Messrs. King and Hall dismiss the 

 subject by saying (p. 76) : " Whether Aha was called 

 Men or not it seems evident that he and Narmer 

 were jointly the originals of the legendary Mena." 

 The nomen of Khasekhem, we note, is given as 

 " Besh," but this is very doubtful; the name of the 

 last king of the First Dynasty is transliterated every- 

 where as Qa, whereas, surely, the right reading is 

 Oa-a, " the high of hand." 



In the third chapter the authors discuss recent dis- 

 coveries relating to Memphis and the Pyramids, and 

 advance the theory that the city of Memphis was built 

 by Merbapa, the Miebis of Manetho's list, and not " by 

 the legendary and confused Mena." In support of 

 this it may be noted that Merbapa heads the list of 

 kings of the Sakkara Canon. 

 The fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters are devoted to 



