70 
probability of tbeir striking upon wells used for the purposes 
of irrigation ; and, lastly, in answer to the statement that no 
bricks were burnt in the valley of the Nile, he quotes Mr. 
Birch as stating that he has under his charge, in the British 
Museum, two bricks, one a small rectangular baked brick, 
which came from a Theban tomb, the style of art, inscription, 
and date proving it to be as old as the eighteenth dynasty 
(about 1450 b.c.) ; secondly, another brick once forming part 
of an arch, having an inscription, partly obliterated, which he 
refers, conjecturally, to the nineteenth dynasty, or 1300 B.c. 
Now, in answer to this, Sir Gardiner Wilkinson, one of the 
highest authorities on all matters relating to ancient Egypt, 
has urged (in reply to the observation) that the bricks and pot- 
tery being found in so many pits far from towns presents no 
difficulty, because of old, as well as now, wells were sunk at 
places far distant from towns and villages, even on the slope 
of the sandy desert, for the purposes of irrigation. Their 
distance from town, and the number of the wells, may be 
accounted for. Some were sunk, especially those near the 
desert, for watering the flocks, and for domestic purposes, 
the water being very frequently carried in jars to a great dis- 
tance, and occasionally used for irrigation also. 
To this I would venture to add the remark, that the borings 
and shafts were confessedly made on the site of an ancient 
town, which must have had a large population. Again, with 
respect to the two bricks in the British Museum, the same 
eminent authority denies that they are bricks which were ever 
used for the purposes of building. That the second spoken of 
never formed part of an arch. That they are burnt clay he admits. 
Their assumed date he does not dispute, but he states that they 
were never used for building purposes, and, like many other 
ancient Egyptian relics made of burnt clay, they do not at all 
invalidate the argument that no bricks were burnt for building 
purposes anterior to the Roman occupation of Egypt. 
What, however, is still more to the point, this eminent 
authority. Sir Gardiner Wilkinson, has seen all the fragments 
upon which Mr. Horner has built his theory, and he states em- 
phatically that he cannot attribute a high antiquity to any one 
of these fragments. The antiquity of several can be fixed. 
In page 59 of Mr. Horner's paper a list of objects found in 
the first shaft and deepest boring at the statue of Rameses II. 
is given. The fragment of a jar found at the depth of eleven 
feet has a stamped ornament on it, of the honeysuckle pat- 
tern, proving it to be of Greek workmanship, to which no 
higher antiquity than 200 years B.c. can be assigned. The 
glass mosaic from the depth of twelve feet is of late, probably 
