Recollections of Egyptian Princesses

ELLEN CHENNELLS (Continued)

It’s unfortunate that we know far more about what Ellen did during her five years in Egypt than what she did for the rest of her life. After the death of Zeynab, she stayed in Egypt for about a year, finally leaving in the autumn of 1876. She seems to have left mostly for health reasons, particularly a heart condition (which was indeed later to become a contributory factor of her death). Besides, she was by now aged 62, and obviously thinking about retirement.

She chose to live in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, a spa-town in the west of England that was increasingly popular with people who had worked in parts of Britain’s expanding empire, especially the Indian Raj. And here her sister, Anne Lydia came to join her in retirement.

Ellen would certainly have found Cheltenham a very agreeable place to live after the heat and dust of Cairo. Set at the foot of the Cotswold Hills, it is still a quiet, largely Regency town, with plenty of wide streets and parks – as well, of course, as its spa. Cheltenham had long been famous for its “cure”, and attracted many famous visitors, such as Princess (later Queen) Victoria, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Byron. Certainly the taste of the local spa-water can make you believe it must be doing you some good!

The town is now also particularly famous for its annual Gold Cup horse-race.

There was also plenty of reasonably cheap accommodation, to cater for those wanting to visit the spa, or who wished to retire there, and the Chennells sisters found accommodation at Belle Vue Villa, where they are recorded as living in the 1881 Census. The owners of Belle Vue Villa were the young Mr. and Mrs. Packwood, and their paternal grandmother. There were two other lodgers, besides the Chennells, an Edgar Page and his slightly older wife, Emily. A young servant, Georgiana Hall, aged 15, helped with the housework.

The Chennells sisters would most likely have led the somewhat retired life of many such retired “gentlewomen” of the day. They were both described as “annuitants” – presumably meaning that Ellen, at least, lived on the income from her Egyptian Bonds.

Anne Lydia died in 1885, aged about 73, and Ellen, presumably needing only a smaller space to live, moved to her last address, 7 Rodney Terrace Cheltenham. Rodney Terrace is a row of modest 19th Century houses, in the town centre. The houses are all now converted into offices, and have been re-numbered, making it difficult to tell which had been No. 7.

Rodney Terrace, Cheltenham

Here Ellen lived with the Dudge family, Charles, aged 46 in 1891, his wife Elizabeth, 42, and one son, Edward, aged 15. Presumably Edward was merely the only child still living at home at this time. There was another lodger apart from Ellen, Emma Ferris aged 58. There was also a servant, Alma Habits, aged 17.

This photo shows the house that may have been number 7. (It depends on which end of the row you start counting from). In any case, all the houses in the Terrace are identical in size and appearance.

So as you can see, Ellen would have had only modestly sized accommodation, although the house is conveniently placed and no doubt was reasonably comfortable. I wonder if Ellen dreamed there of the time when she had lived in palaces, as the companion of a Princess? Certainly she seems to have always been proud of having once been Princess Zeynab’s governess, as a special mention of it was made in the short notice of her death in the local newspaper.

Ellen died on 13th November 1896. The details on her death-certificate are as follows:

“Registration District Cheltenham. 1896 Death in the Sub-district of Cheltenham in the County of Gloucester.
No. 6.
When and where died: 13th November 1896. 7 Rodney Terrace.
Name and surname: Ellen Mary Chennells
Sex: Female
Age: 82 years
Occupation: Annuitant
Cause of death: Bronchitis & congestion of lungs 9 days. Dilation of heart of long standing. Certified by J.C. Gooding, M.D.
Signature, description and residence of informant: Elizabeth Dudge, present at the death, 7 Rodney Terrace Cheltenham.
When registered: 16th November 1896.
Signature of Reigstrar: J. A. Round, Interim Registrar.”

Presumably she would have been buried, with her sister, in the Cheltenham Cemetery, which is rather delightfully situated beneath Cleeve Hill, one of the Cotswolds. Unfortunately her grave is not listed amongst the Cemetery’s “Graves of Interest”, but who knows, maybe that may one day change (proposals could be sent to Cheltenham Borough Council). Incidentally Brian Jones, a member of the “Rolling Stones” pop-group is buried in the same cemetery.

I have not yet tried to locate her grave, but hope to do so in future. And by the way, if anyone visits Cheltenham in search of Ellen, spa-water, horse-racing, lovely Georgian architecture, the Cotswolds, or even some interesting frock-shops(!), and does visit her grave, I’d love to see a photo, or hear what you may have found out. Cheltenham is easily reachable from London or Birmingham by coach and car, or even by rail, although the station seems to be a bit inconveniently far from the middle of the town.

The notice of her death in the Cheltenham Examiner for Wednesday, 18 November 1896 reads:

“CHENNELLS – November 13, at 7, Rodney-Terrace, Eleanor Mary Chennells, formerly Governess of the Khedive’s family – aged 82 years.”

But now let us return to happier times, when Ellen was in Egypt…

To be continued.

Recollections of Egyptian Princesses

ELLEN CHENNELLS (Ca. 1814-1896)

Introduction and early life
Coincidentally, at the same time as the height of Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay’s archaeological success, in 1896, a woman of a previous generation of western female involvement with Egypt was approaching the end of her life.

Her name was Eleanor Mary "Ellen" Chennells, and, as the culmination of a long career she had been appointed as Governess to Princess Zeynab Khanum Effendi, daughter of Ismail Pasha, Khedive of Egypt and his second wife, Princess Jananyar Berinici Khanum Effendimiz. And she had written a book about her experiences, Recollections of an Egyptian Princess by her English governess, that is now one of the classic sources of information about the Khedival court at an important phase in modern Egyptian history.

Curiously, the first 35 or so years of Ellen’s life are something of a mystery. There are no certain references to her in any Census before 1851 (although there is an inconclusive reference to an "Ellen Channells" [sic] in the 1841 Census, who has approximately the right birth-date). This may suggest that she, and her family, went to live abroad sometime after 1814 – there is a reference in Ellen’s book to residence in Malta.

Records are even unclear about exactly when she was born; the 1851 Census states that it was in "about 1819" and even, in the 1871 Scotland Census, that it was in "about 1820". However, the most reliable sources, e.g. her death certificate, as well as other Censuses, give her birthdate as around 1814 or 1815.

She always stated that her birthplace was Bloomsbury, London, in around 1814. However, although the UK Censuses, and Death Certificates usually give the name of a person’s parents, Ellen’s were, for some unknown reason, never listed. (I guess some more research in to any Bloomsbury parish records that survive may produce further details).

A part of Bloomsbury, London, around the time of Ellen's birth

But why did Ellen never reveal who here parents were? It could not, surely, have been due to any scandal. After all, she lived during the high Victorian era, and any hint of something improper would have meant that Ellen, in particular, would never have been employed, certainly by the kind of families that she did work for. What’s more, Ellen always seems to have had the kind of social confidence that was so obviously lacking in one of her predecessors as Governess to the Khedival family, the mysterious Emmeline Lott (fl. ca. 1865).

(A blog posting about Emmeline Lott, by the way, would be extremely short – the absence of information about her is almost complete, to the extent that some form of deliberate concealment has to be suspected).

The only definitely known fact about Ellen’s family is that she had an older sister, Anne Lydia (ca. 1812 – 1885). In 1841 Anne Lydia was recorded in the Census as working in a girls’ boarding-school on the Isle of Wight. She may indeed have been co-owner of this school, as she and a certain Ann Purks are the oldest (both aged 25), of a group of girls and young women, none of the rest of whom are listed as being older than 15. Towards the end of her life she lived with Ellen, in lodgings.

(Strangely, although Anne Lydia is mentioned in this Census, Ellen is not. So if the family were indeed living abroad, it might suggest that Ellen had not yet moved back to the UK).

Unfortunately I don’t even know what Ellen looked like, having been unable to trace any photos of her. Modesty, perhaps, prevented her from including a photo of herself in her book – but how lovely it would have been if she had!

This photo is of a woman in the 1860s who appears to be of approximately Ellen’s age during that decade, and may give some impression of what she might have looked like at the time.

Woman in clothing of 1860s

The first definite trace that I can find of Ellen is in the 1851 UK Census. Evidently, therefore, she was living abroad before this (in Malta?) The 1851 Census records her as governess to the two young daughters of the Hughan family, Wilhelmine and Louise. Their mother seems to have died, as the only other female Hughan listed is evidently their grandmother, given her age. The Hughans lived in a rather expensive area of London, Hanover Square, a Regency development that had been built in what was then the suburbs of London.

And this, then, starts to give us a picture of the Chennells sisters. Both had been born in a good-class area of central London, Bloomsbury (an area of London which was to attract writers, universities and museums). Both had enough money – and social contacts – to either set up their own school, or to work for upper-class (even, later on, Royal) families. Both were able to invest consideraby – but unfortunately somewhat unwisely - in bonds. They had to work for a living, but do not appear to have led the somewhat wretched lives of many other governesses of the period, as depicted in the writings of, e.g., Charlotte Brontë.

That both the Chennells sisters earned their livings as teachers, or governesses, is explained by the fact that this was, at the time, just about the only form of employment for women of their social class. Women’s role in society had been continually restricted since the end of the 18th century, narrowing the range of "respectable" work available to them. Technological inventions such as the typewriter and telegraph, which provided so much work for women later in the century were still some way in the future.

Ellen’s next known employment was with a far more important family; in the 1861 Census we find her employed by John Rous, the Second Earl of Stradbroke and sometime Lord Lieutenant of Suffolk, at his seat, Henham Park in Suffolk, England. (His descendants now live in Australia). It would seem her charges were the Earl’s two youngest daughters, Augusta Fanny and Sophia Evelyn Rous.

The Earl’s brother, the Hon. Henry Rous, was an Admiral in the British Royal Navy, and this, just possibly, may have provided Ellen with the introductions for her next post, as Governess to Sir Alexander Milne, First Lord of the Admiralty from 1872 to 1876 and Admiral of the Fleet from 1881.

Sir Alexander came from an already distinguished Naval family - his father had also been an Admiral – and in fact become one of the most notable figures in the Victorian Navy. He was rewarded with his Baronetcy in 1876.

Ellen lived with the Milnes at their home, Walne Lodge, Inveresk, Midlothian, Scotland, where she is recorded in the 1871 Scotland Census, evidently looking after Margaret Milne, then aged 12, and Grace Milne, 10.

Ellen herself was aged 56, and might well have been expected to be thinking about retirement. Certainly working in the different climate and culture of Egypt might have been something of a physical challenge.

And yet, later in 1871, she was to accept the post of Governess to Princess Zeynab. No doubt she felt that it was simply too good an opportunity to pass up. Besides, in only a few years the Milne daughters would reach the age when they no longer required a governess, and then Ellen would have had to seek new employment in any case.

Princess Zeynab, ca. 1870

Certainly she herself must have believed herself – at least at first - equal to the physical demands Egypt. And indeed, it was, indeed, to prove somewhat physically demanding on occasion; Ellen describes how, in 1871, Zeynab "suddenly disappeared down the opening [of the Third Pyramid] with surprising alacrity. Of course we all followed immediately… You were always going up, or down and generally on all-fours…" What made things worse was that Ellen was wearing a "crinoline and fashionable high bonnet".

(I can tell you from personal experience that even now going into the Third Pyramid is pretty strenuous, even in modern hiking boots and clothing!)

But how did she obtain such an important post? Certainly she would have been able to provide the very best references. And the Khedival family had, it seems, long employed British tutors for their children. Emmeline Lott suggests that she had been recruited by "The Viceroy’s [i.e. the Khedive Ismael’s] agent in London", who then, somewhat curiously, passed her onto the Alexandria, Egypt, branch of a bank.

However, Ellen gives no clue as to how her employment with the Khedive was arranged, although I would expect that the Ottoman Embassy in London was involved. (Egypt was then part of the Ottoman Empire; this is why Emmeline Lott states that Ishmael was a "Viceroy", although in fact the position of the Egyptian Khedive was somewhat more powerful than this, at the time). In any case, Ellen’s employer at the time, Sir Alexander Milne, would of course have been in an excellent situation to recommend her.

However, Ellen was in no hurry to accept even such a prestigious post. She wrote in her memoirs, Recollections of an Egyptian Princess by her English Governess (published by William Blackwood and Sons, 1893) that: "it was the beginning of quite a new life, and I was anxious to obtain every possible information before undertaking the duty."

No doubt she had Emmeline Lott’s books in mind. Not only do these – at least on the cover – present a somewhat sensationalist picture of "The English governess in Egypt and Turkey", with an emphasis on harems, but Emmeline Lott also complained – at considerable length – about the conditions she worked under.

Emmeline Lott(?) in Ottoman dress, ca. 1867

However, times had changed since Emmeline Lott had been employed. Furthermore, Ellen was obviously a practical and adaptable individual, who coped with difficulties and inconveniences in a far less uncomplaining way than Emmeline Lott.

Indeed, had not Princess Zeynab unfortunately died in 1875, then Ellen would have remained a part of her household. Certainly Ellen, unlike Emmeline Lott, had experience of life outside Britain, as she states in Recollections of an Egyptian Princess that she ‘had always been in the habit of keeping a journal when travelling or residing in foreign countries.’

The families that she worked for would have travelled, certainly to the watering-places of Europe, and as governess she would have accompanied them. They may even have spent considerable periods abroad, between the annual London "seasons". If only Ellen’s journals had survived! How interesting they would now be! And of course, they would also solve the mystery as to which country or countries she resided in.

To be continued...

Recollections of Egyptian Princesses

Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay - concluded

The 1896 season
The following year the expedition’s work-force was increased in number, employing from eight to twelve men, twenty-four to thirty-six boys, guards, a water-carrier and of course a reis.

They were learning fast; it’s hard to believe that Maggie, at least, did not study archaeology during the summer, if only learning from her brother Fred. They certainly read fairly widely about Egypt and Egyptian history, including books by Amelia Edwards, Petrie, Naville, and a Professor Wiedemann. They also realised that they needed more help on site.

They state that they had been assisted in some way during their first season by a Miss Katharine Gent, possibly a friend. For their second and third seasons they obtained the help of a Colonel Esdaile, the husband of one of Maggie’s cousins, in supervising their workmen.

Anyway, having more-or-less excavated the first court of the temple the year before, the expedition then turned its attention to the pylon beyond it. This presented them with their first real archaeological challenge.

Of course we need to remember the circumstances that they were working under; they were not excavating a structure, as such, but mounds of sand and gravel, below which fragments of foundation survived. What was more, the site had been rebuilt several times.

This picture of the site, taken just before the present Johns Hopkins and Museum of Brooklyn excavations started, give some idea of what Maggie and Nettie faced:

They had started out in a comparatively straightforward part of the site, which had besides already been investigated, if only ineptly, by Mariette. But at this point they came to one of those parts of the dig that are all too familiar to archaeologists, where it seems as if every succeeding century has, higgeldy-piggeldy, added and demolished something.

They described the wall in which the gateway was set as a "composite structure", as the eastern section was not keyed into the pylon, as it would have been if built at the same time as the pylon. Furthermore, parts of the wall were obviously built in different ways, at different times. The wall to the west of the pylon was "completely destroyed". They describe that they "found here the remains of more than one row of hollow pots, which may have been used as air-bricks in some later rebuilding. But it is probable that the western side of the pylon was on the same plan as the eastern side at present."

In fact they were misled; the pots had simply been stored there at some time, in space hollowed out of the mud-brick infill of the temple wall at some time.

To begin with, the excavation found fragments of statues, including one bearing the (then) "very rare" cartouche of Tutankhamun, as well as a number of what they termed "Piankhŷ blocks", which were believed at the time to depict an expedition "to some country to the south of Egypt", led by a certain Piankhy, which had brought back many precious goods.

One of the "Piankhy Blocks"

"Piankhy blocks" are now known to be in fact carvings showing the arrival at Karnak of Nitocris, later the God’s Wife of Amun, Nitocris I (reigned ca. 655-584 BCE), accompanied by a powerful military force transported on ships, in ca. 654-656 BCE (sources vary as to the precise date).

Nitocris was the daughter of Psammetichus (Psammetik) I, the Persian vassal ruler of Egypt, who by sending both force and, it seems, considerable amounts of valuable items, forced the reigning God’s Wife, the Kushite Shepenupet II, to adopt her as her successor. This is seen as marking the end of Kushite (i.e. Nubian) influence in Egypt, following the XXVth "Kushite" Dynasty. Until that point Thebes had still regarded itself as a Kushite vassal city.

The expedition had problems with salts damaging pottery and statuary – salt has since become a huge and extremely serious problem at not only Karnak but other sites – which they managed to control by soaking items in water.

In fact in one interesting passage they reveal that De Morgan once had had a scheme for flooding the entire Karnak site, using the water that he thought flowed from the Nile into the sacred lakes. However - unsurprisingly - "the practical difficulties were so great… that it was never carried out."

Still in search of foundation-deposits, they dug at the eastern corner of the wall, a likely spot for them. Although they did not find foundation-deposits, they did find a great number of statues, which they believed were deliberately buried there. (Indeed, sometimes temples did have a "clear-out" of statues, which they buried in the temple grounds").

In the search for foundation-deposits they made excavations at points around all the walls of the Temple; they were also to do this during the following year. And it was whilst doing so they found a tiny underground room, which they described inaccurately as a "crypt", at the lake end of the Temple.

It seems very significant of their state of mind that, on finding a hole leading from this, they jumped to the conclusion that it was a "treasure-chamber". At the back of how many minds over the years has been that gleam of gold everywhere which Howard Carter described when first looking in to King Tut’s tomb, more than 20 years later!

Excited, they took elaborate precautions overnight, spreading sand, in which they wrote their initials, around the entrance, and placing an armed guard in front. And then came disappointment; the "treasure-chamber" only contained a few fragments of ancient rubbish!

The 'Treasure-Chamber" as it appears now

Maggie and Nettie – like other Egyptologists of the time - had to learn fast on the job, not least how to cope with overbearing officials, who were possibly motivated by the Anglo-French rivalry noted above.

At this time the rest of the Precinct of Amun at Karnak was being excavated by the French-run Antiquities Service, work being directed by a M. Legrain. In early February 1896, Legrain descended on the Temple of Mut, and demanded that all the various pieces of statuary that had been discovered there, which were being kept by the expedition at the Luxor Hotel, should be taken to the Antiquities Service magazine at Karnak. Not only would this deprive Maggie and Nettie of the pleasure at being able to look at what they had found, but would have also prevented the pieces from being photographed, drawn, and described by presumably not only Maggie and Nettie, but other Egyptologists, too.

Maggie described in a letter to her mother what happened. "I very nearly wept, and called Fred [her brother], who was slightly rude. M. Legrain became much more polite and finally said that if we chose to take the whole responsibility of their safety, we could take them back…"

They chose the last week of February to close the dig on, and were intending to travel to Cairo, and then home, during the first week of March. They therefore ceased to employ a number of the boys. One of these, however, still hanging around the site, was to make a significant discovery at the rear, southern, end of the temple on the bank sloping down to the lake. Investigating a half-buried block of stone that had been thought of no importance, he felt a carved foot underneath.

The expedition worked hard to excavate this statue before sunset, as it was Ramadan. They managed it, and found that it was a rare (for the site) complete statue, with another statue buried beneath it. They left two armed guards to protect it overnight (a by no means unreasonable precaution, in fact), and the next morning found Percy Newberry already examining the statue. He was able to reveal to them that it was of Senmut, an official to Queen Hatshepsut; later he was to be revealed as the architect of the Temple.

Legrain by this time seems to have been more co-operative, as he helped the expedition, together with a Mr. Dixon of the Land Taxing Commission at Luxor, to move the statues up the bank.

As a slightly hurried end to their season, Maggie and Nettie decided to "cut down" the southern bank of the lake, in the hope of finding more, and a remarkable photo was taken of them doing this.

Maggie or Nettie supervises work on the southern bank; photo by Nettie's father

Although their contract with the Antiquities Service had specified that their finds were sent to the Cairo Museum, it was however customary for expeditions to be allowed to keep certain duplicate items for themselves (in fact this was still allowed up to the mid 1980s). Unfortunately, Egypt has occasionally lost some valuable antiquities in this way, sometimes through dishonest behaviour on the part of the excavator, as was the case with the famous head of Nefertiti, or simply through a misunderstanding of what the item actually was.

And so, the Antiquities Service let Maggie and Nettie keep the head of a God, thought to be Min, a statue of Ramesses II, and the head of a statue of Ramesses III.

The "Million Dollar" head of Amun

However, the head of "Min" was, much later, found to in fact be the head of Amun, and was one of only two that have ever been discovered. It was sold in 1991 at Christies for no less than £572,000 (the equivalent of approximately $1 million at the time)!

This was by no means all. The expedition was also given a 26th Dynasty statue of Ser, a son of a pharaoh, which was sold in 1977 for $190,000.

Ironically, then, their treasure turned out to be not in their imagined "treasure-chamber" (most likely in fact a store for sacred vessels), but the "duplicate" statuary that they were given.

The season’s excavation had been a success. Much had been found and done, and accurate plans of the temple continued to be drawn. What was more, it had improved Maggie’s always delicate health. Fred wrote in February 1896 that: "Maggie is so much better; doesn’t get tired and was so lively the other night at dinner with the Whites and Lady Galloway, that I don’t think you would have known your own daughter. I think the winter has just crystallized all the cure set up before."

So far, so very good, then. However, in October 1896 Archbishop Benson died suddenly – appropriately, perhaps, during a church-service - whilst visiting the Gladstones at their home, Hawarden.

Maggie had always been close to her father, and it is possible that in some way his death may have contributed, if only indirectly, to her later mental illness. However, for the moment, continuing the excavations in 1897 was the perfect reason for a Benson family holiday in the country, and so Maggie, her mother Mary, and her brothers Fred and Hugh (who was later to convert to Roman Catholicism) set off for Luxor together.

The Benson and Gourlay expedition was by now well-established, and was determined to do even better this time. They sought funds, and help with supervision, and employed "over eighty boys and sixteen or seventeen men" (presumably including the reis) and plus a water-carrier. The need for site security also increased, as more finds were made.

They now knew what to expect, and this allowed them to set firm aims – to continue uncovering, and making an accurate plan of the temple, to continue searching for the important foundation-deposits that would allow them to date it, and – after the previous year – to try to find more statues. They also had a good idea of the precise points they wished to excavate.

Workmen were hired on January 9, 1897. To make the most of the time available they started the very next day, even before they could be fully supervised. They instantly made a discovery, and sent a message to Maggie and Nettie, who came as quickly as they could to the Temple. The discovery was of parts of two block statues, the head of one and the body of another, of the Fourth Prophet of Amun, Mentuemhat, dating from around the 25th – 26th Dynasties, at the south-east corner of the temple.

The head of Mentuemhat

It was an important find; in fact the head is one of the great works of Egyptian portraiture. This alone would have made the entire season a success, and so we can imagine that everything must have looked extremely promising indeed to Maggie and Nettie. Indeed, it can only make us wonder just what might have been were they able to continue; indeed, how it all might have come to affect the history of Egyptology itself.

Certainly it seemed that Nettie’s career had been well-launched; indeed, she and Percy Newberry were to work together on the inscriptions of the Mentuemhat statue, later jointly publishing a paper about it, in a French scholarly journal, Recueil de Travaux (Vol. XX, 1898) .

Indeed, had she lived now she could undoubtedly have expected a bright future in the profession. Then, however, it was still difficult for a woman to make a career on her own; most women of the time were able to do so because they married other Egyptologists.

In fact by this time we can get something of a picture of the roles that the two women had. Maggie, the more outgoing one, the administrator and organiser; her family’s excellent connections had been vital. The rather shy Nettie, on the other hand, seems to have taken on the role of the expedition’s Egyptologist and scholar, working with Percy Newberry on deciphering the inscriptions that would make sense of the finds. Indeed, Maggie was to write some years later that "I always wanted her [i.e Nettie] to do the Egyptology." Both roles were key, and the fact that they could be filled no doubt added to the expedition’s remarkable success.

The Ptolemaic Shrine at the rear of the temple during the dig

The expedition now, unsurprisingly, concentrated its effort around the rear, southern wall of the Temple, an area that contained a Ptolemaic era shrine. And yet again they found large numbers of statues. On the first day alone, they record, they found fourteen pieces of statue, including a Saite period head, which they believed to be female, but which is now known to be in fact of a man.

The Saite Head

They also found a pot containing forty-nine Greek coins from the reign of Nero.

Their aim was also conservation, and as they had during the previous season tried to replace stonework in what they believed to be its original position, and to repair statues.

It was, archaeologically, an outstanding season, and they certainly intended to return the next year. Nettie wrote to Percy Newberry saying that they were planning to build an excavation-house on the site, for storage and accommodation. They also tentatively planned to dredge the Lake for objects (this in fact was not done until this year, 2008).

But unfortunately it was all never to be, as Maggie’s health was soon to seriously break down, to the extent that her life was threatened.

A previous posting in this series has related how most of the Bensons were taken ill a at the same time. Maggie at first had little more than a chill. This may have turned in to pneumonia, as pleurisy followed. An emergency operation took place in her hotel room to drain the fluid around her lungs was drained by a doctor. She survived this only to suffer a heart-attack; her brother Arthur was later to write that "her recovery was thought impossible, her death being for an hour momentarily expected."

The family had to remain in Luxor until June, with the Luxor Hotel being kept open especially for them "at much expense after all [other] visitors had departed."

The 1900 trip to Egypt
In fact even after the publication of The Temple of Mut in Asher, Maggie’s career in Egyptology was not quite over.

In 1900-1901, Maggie and Nettie, together with "Aunt Nora" – a Mrs. Sidgwick, who was the elder sister of British politician Arthur Balfour - were to visit Egypt again, and stayed with Newberry in his rented house on the West Bank at Luxor.

(Coincidentally they were to make a torch-light visit to the Valley of the Kings on the same evening that the news of the death of Queen Victoria. Like so many other Victorians, Maggie realised that it was the passing of an age).

It has long been thought that they were travelling merely as tourists. However, the Egyptologist Herbert Winlock, writing much later about a bowl found by Newberry at this time, mentioned that Newberry had said in a letter to Theodore Davis (see below) that: "My friends Miss Benson and Miss Gourlay are going to join me at Thebes where we intend to work together."

Plainly the trip must have been arranged with Newberry, as they stayed at his house. But had, in fact, Maggie and Nettie actually decided to work with him?

Maggie put it this way: "Our plans both for Egyptology and travelling must seem rather like the ‘glittering chameleon.’ Here is a new departure, the most definite thing, in a sense, that has yet turned up. Mr. Newberry has been planning to write a history of Egypt - a big history and a standard one – to be more complete, but especially more literary than Petrie’s. It appears that he approves of my literary (!) powers, and he has asked me [and presumably also Nettie?] to help him. He is going to try to get his American millionaire to finance the work…"

The "American millionaire" was Theodore Davis, who was to finance a number of archaeologists working in the Theban area. He is best known for his attempts to fully excavate the Valley of the Kings. In 1900, the year of Maggie and Nettie’s visit, Davis had given Newberry £250, to excavate Theban Tomb 100, made for an Eyptian called Rekhmire, as well as ten other tombs in the area of Abd el-Qurna village.

Newberry expected that the book would take two years to write, and it would involve Maggie visiting museums in Britain and in Europe. She was also busy at the time with editing a book of sermons by her father. What was more, she (at least by now) seems to have been in two minds about Egyptology, writing that "I can’t feel that Egyptology is the thing most worth doing in the world, though I feel that about most other things while I’m doing them… things… like Egyptology, opened just when I could do nothing else."

However, Percy Newberry made it clear that what he valued above all was Maggie’s literary style. After all, she had written several, quite popular books. And in fact her writing-style is very good; she could avoid the stiff, wordy Victorian style, when necessary; her communication-skills were undoubtedly excellent. (And it does raise the question whether Newberry hoped for her help in getting funds from Davis).

Newberry did not press her for an answer, allowing her time to think it over, but she obviously declined, in the end. Still, she seems to have at least seriously considered the proposal, even seemingly changing her travel-plans when journeying back to England in order to travel up through Italy to "See the museums there".

It is a great pity that, in the end, she did not write the book. Despite her beliefs that Nettie was the Egyptologist, rather than her, she had exactly the sort of questioning, analytical mind and methodical approach, able to learn from mistakes and experience, that is needed. And furthermore, there is no doubt that she had great intelligence; it was often said at the time that if she had been allowed to read for a degree at Oxford she would have obtained one.

Consider, for example, her approach to Egyptian religion, a subject which it is plain from The Temple of Mut in Asher fascinated her. She was to write when seeing the ritual texts on the walls of tombs in the Valley of the Kings that "I wish one could work out this religion question". She criticises the standard guide-book of the day, Baedecker, for its inadequate descriptions of the scenes, writing that it "sounds like Lear’s Nonsense Book!"

Given that she was the daughter of a Victorian Archbishop of Canterbury, she might well have taken the opinion that Egyptian religion was all simply "nonsense." But on the contrary, she understood that all religions have far more in common than their practitioners would often like to admit. Brought up amongst cathedrals, she seems to have had an inner understanding of what made the essential nature of all religion.

‘A hope deferred, but sure’
More and more, the Egyptological work of Maggie and Nettie is being appreciated, in an age when women’s achievement can be recognised. They appear on lists of famous Egyptologists; they have Wikipedia entries, and other internet sites about them.

And yet, how much more there could have been! Had Maggie not fallen so ill… had the expedition continued (as it fully intended to do)… had the Benson and Gourlay team (for it would surely have been something of a joint effort) gone on to write Percy Newberry’s book… had, simply, the abilities of women been more fully recognised at the time!

However their work has been carried on at the "Temple of Mut in Asher". Brooklyn Museum and Johns Hopkins University carry on the work there, under the supervision of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, and perhaps, if you seek the epitaph of Maggie and Nettie as Egyptologists, it with the carrying on of the work they started.

Large statue of Sekhmet at the Temple

‘Over all the temple, from where the Goddess guardians sit above the steps down which priests once carried the sacred bark, and where kings burned frankincense before the emblem of the god, to where the sphinx head still smiles out of the dust of the centuries, lies that air of expectation, still and assured, which so inspires the remains of that people, who built not for time but for eternity. All through the land the spirit of the race prisoned in stone lives in grave figures which wait through immeasurable years for a hope deferred, but sure, looking with level eyes into a distance between earthly horizons, as those that watch in the darkness before dawn, for the far-off sunrise which brings in an everlasting day.’

Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay, The Temple of Mut in Asher, Chapter V, pp. 78-79.

The Temple of Mut in Asher

Recollections of Eyptian Princesses

Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay (Continued)

Two women at the Temple of Mut, 1898; drawing by C. D. Gibson

The partnership with Nettie
Who introduced Margaret to Nettie Gourlay? This is intriguing. As Nettie had been one of Petrie’s pupils, then it may have been Petrie. But of all his current and past female pupils, did he propose Nettie? Did he, just possibly, gain some insight into the two women's nature?

It is possible that the introduction may have been made by Lady Jane Lindsay, a family friend; Maggie's account is somewhat ambiguous. She wrote her mother on January 31, 1896, from "Mut" (evidently the Temple itself, as she describes hiring workmen in the letter): "Yesterday morning Jeanie [Lady Lindsay] came with me, and a Miss Gourlay who is going to help…"

This gives too little information. Would it be reading too much into a probably hastily scribbled note to note a difference between "who is going to help" and "who I have asked to help"? In other words, was Nettie, a trained Egyptologist, merely someone who Maggie was told that she needed? The fact that they later became such close friends being coincidence?

Certainly they do not appear to have been close friends at first. It was not until almost a month later, on February 23, that Maggie wrote her mother that: "I found unexpectedly that Miss Gourlay shared my sentiments about [the author Robert Louis] Stevenson… I like her extremely; not the least - not the slightest touch of Schwärmerei [enthusisam] but through interested liking."

Evidently she needed to make it clear to her openly lesbian mother that it was not – yet – Schwärmerei. But it seems to have been by at least May 15, when she wrote her mother again (from Aix-en-Provence, France): "I like her [i.e. Nettie] more and more – I haven’t liked any one so well for years." Interestingly, this letter indicated that Nettie suffered from depression: "I never knew of any one [i.e. Nettie] whose theory of life so disregarded enjoyment – too much I think – and though I don’t suppose she is happy, you couldn’t call her unhappy because in a sense, she is bigger than that."

From the letters it is clear that the time they spent together in Aix, on their way home from Egypt, confirmed their friendship. From then on, every letter Maggie sent to her mother mentions Nettie, and with increasing Schwärmerei. The published letters that she sent to Nettie herself, although carefully chosen and heavily edited, are, quite frankly, love-letters.

The excavation’s first season, 1895

The first court of the Temple of Mut during the excavation

But back to the excavation at Mut. For Maggie, at least, it seems to have been largely a case of learning on the job. To begin her excavations in 1895, she followed a map of the Temple published by Aguste Mariette in 1875 in his book Karnak: étude topographique et archéologique.

Mariette is best known today for his discovery of the Serapeum at Saqquara, and for writing the plot of the opera Aida. Little more than a looter, he is notorious for using dynamite in his operations, resulting in massive destruction of monuments. His map, unsurprisingly, quickly proved to be inaccurate. However, its existence does once again throw doubt on Maggie’s statement that it was unlikely that anyone believed there were no discoveries to be made at the site.

First Gateway of the Temple during the excavation

She began work on January 1, 1895, for a period of five weeks, with four men, sixteen boys and a girl water-carrier, under the control of a reis (foreman), as well as a night-watchman. Supervising them was not easy for her at first, especially as she knew very little Arabic, and had to use a donkey-boy as an interpreter. She felt, indeed, that her main role was to simply pay the workmen.

The wages she paid were 2 piastres, which she said was the equivalent of 5d. (old money) for men, 1½ piastres for boys, per ten hour working day. She claimed that this was the equivalent in purchasing power to the then current British agricultural wage of half a crown a day. (A roughly contemporary rate of exchange gave 97½ piastres to a British pound).

It had become the practice for Egyptologists to pay the workmen baksheesh for any finds made, partly to encourage them to report, rather than conceal and sell objects. But Margaret was not sure quite how much to pay. Flinders Petrie, at the Ramesseum, paid the full black market value of the object. The Antiquities Service work at nearby sites in Karnak, on the other hand, did not pay much baksheesh, increasing security instead. The EEF, at Deir el-Bahri, paid a day’s wages as baksheesh. Maggie and Nettie eventually followed Petrie’s idea, and "roughly proportioned the baksheesh to the value of the find and the opportunities for theft… for certain large finds we gave baksheesh to all the men." It seems to have generally worked; there was only one known theft from the site, of the head of a statue, in 1897.

However, they suspected that other thefts took place, and this did not improve their opinion of their workmen. Again, we have to remember that Margaret and Nettie were Victorians; they did not think like us. They held an attitude of imperialist superiority: "we realised" they wrote "that the Arabs were like naughty children", who had "singularly little method in their work".

On the other hand, they generally attempted to treat their workmen well, paying them themselves, to ensure that the right "proportion of the sum reaches the right person". They were in fact advised to do this, possibly by Flinders Petrie, who always did so. They also replaced any worn coins if asked.

Some of the excavation work took place during Ramadan, especially during the first season. Maggie thought that it was possible to prevent fasting during Ramadan, but did not do so, in order to allow the workmen to continue "such religious observances". (Maggie was genuinely interested in various theologies, writing approvingly about Ancient Egyptian religion). Instead, she allowed a two hour break at mid-day "without loss of wages" on Friday, the Moslem holy day, for the workmen to attend services at the Mosque. The workmen were also allowed "at their own request" to stop work an hour early on each day.

She struggled against ill-health (in fact she had come to Egypt in the first place to convalesce), theft, and the complete unfamiliarity of everything. None the less, she made good progress, going over the part of the temple that had been dug in by Mariette, and noting his errors.

Interesting finds turned up, in particular an important sitting block figure of a royal scribe of Amenhotep II (1427-1400 BCE), called Amenemhet (now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo). She also found a statue of Sekhmet, and various other small pieces.

Statue of Amenhet, photos taken by Margaret and Nettie themselves.

Finally she undertook conservation-work, repairing some of the Sekhmet statues with plaster, and replacing them in what she thought was their original position.

One of her aims had been to ascertain the date of the foundation of the temple (The Temple of Mut describes how during the excavations they continually sought unsuccessfully for the "foundation deposits", which would have established this). Finally, she dated the temple on the evidence of the statue of Amenemhat being found without any debris being found between it and the floor of the temple. It was a reasonable assumption, based on stratigraphy, to make, especially for the time. However, in fact it would only, at best, provide a date for the last use of the Temple, and then only if the Temple had been a "sealed context", i.e. undisturbed since that time, which it was not.

In fact no harm was done; they were later to find out, following the discovery of another statue, that of Senmut, architect to Queen Hatshepsut Maatkare (1473-1458 BCE) (see below) that the temple was founded considerably earlier, during the reign of Hatshepsut. (In fact most of its construction took place under Amenhotep III Nebmaare [1390-1352 BCE]).

During all their stays at Luxor, Maggie and Nettie stayed at the Luxor Hotel, about a mile and a half away from the Temple. This was as convenient as they could get, although it did mean a donkey-ride commute each day. Besides, the Luxor Hotel certainly offered them the entertainment, and comfort that they could expect; on one occasion Maggie attended a fancy-dress ball there dressed as the Goddess Mut, even down to the Vulture head-dress, worn by all Queens and Goddesses who were mothers. Where she obtained the materials for this remains something of a mystery!

Maggie's brother Fred, incidentally, had also been busy with work of his own in Egypt. Not only had he helped at the Temple of Mut, but he also worked at Alexandria for the EEF, investigating the possibility of archaeological work there. (Some publications mistakenly say that he did this work for the Hellenistic Society).

The Book

The Temple of Mut in Asher was published by the old-established and highly-regarded firm of John Murray, London, in 1899. It is an attractive book, lavishly filled with photographic plates, and a fold-out plan of the Temple. A special hieroglyphic typeface was produced for Percy Newberry's section, which reproduced the hieroglyphs as they appeared, rather than to a standard shape, as now.

The cover design is simple, yet effective, and, interestingly, includes a small piece of Egyptological history in its own right - the drawing of the vulture is by a young Howard Carter, taken from the Shrine of Anubis at Deir el-Bahri.

And yet the book very nearly did not come about at all. Although Maggie enjoyed a reasonably successful, if short, first season, she did not propose to write an excavation-report. She intended to make a new plan of the Temple, and no more.

Indeed, she said in The Temple of Mut in Asher that she "began without any idea of publishing our [sic] work", and this is quite evident from the rather inadequate chapter on the 1895 season of work. Furthermore, she went on to say that she wished to continue without making records: "we began our second season in the same mind".

It should be pointed out, however, that Egyptologists were under no obligation to publish an excavation report (in fact even fairly recent excavations in Egypt have never published excavation reports). The Antiquities Service’s contract with her simply required her to send any portable finds to the Cairo Museum.

However, the second (1896) season was to see the arrival of Nettie Gourlay, no doubt full of Petrie’s urgings about publication. It is also likely that the various archaeologists working in Luxor attempted to persuade Maggie to keep at least basic notes. Yet even so, a publication such as The Temple of Mut in Asher still seems to have been far from Maggie’s mind. In the book she says that she simply wished to record what she was finding at Mut: "unexpected discoveries demanded publication, and the third year added more material". However, "Our idea [even] then was not so much to publish our undertaking as to preserve the names and histories that Egypt had committed to our charge. We intended therefore at first to put forth these results simply for the use of the expert".

Where, then, did the idea of The Temple of Mut in Asher come from? There is no doubt that Maggie, at least, would have been only too pleased to come up with something for a general readership; the Benson family were prolific writers, and Maggie was already a published – and indeed quite popular - author.

In its overall approach and style it seems to have been influenced by other "popular" Egyptological works of the time, such as Amelia Edwards’ Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers (1891), a work which Maggie and Nettie acknowledge that they had read. It also certainly filled a gap; there were so few books on the history of Ancient Egypt available at the time that in 1892 Flinders Petrie had regarded the writing of an up-to-date one for his students a priority. And as we shall see in due course, Maggie and Nettie were to be asked to help write a general history.

The Temple of Mut in Asher is a mixture of excavation-report and general history. Information about discoveries at the temple is scattered throughout the book, as illustrations of points of Egyptian history. This is frustrating for the modern reader, who would expect to read a general history and an excavation report separately, but would not necessarily be so for a contemporary audience; indeed something of the same approach was taken by Amelia Edwards in Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers.

And indeed, as at the time a background knowledge of Ancient Egypt would not be common, it can also be seen as an actual strength of the book in that it places the discoveries in their wider context. (In fact, truly a work of its time, it presupposes Biblical knowledge, but little Egyptological knowledge on the part of its readers).

Furthermore, the book is advanced for its time in giving a detailed site description, as well as (from 1896 onwards) an almost day-to-day account of the work that took place, including various anecdotes. It is, in fact, almost an early blog; and this approach is still used by the current excavators of the site, the Brooklyn Museum, who publish a weekly excavation blog about their ongoing work.

The Temple of Mut in Asher is divided up into five parts: "Introduction"; "History of the excavation"; "The religion of Egypt"; "History" [of Ancient Egypt]; and "Inscriptions". The last part, "Inscriptions", was written by Percy Newberry, and was plainly meant only for specialists.

In her Preface, Maggie described Newberry’s contribution as "the most essential part of the publication". Significantly, however, she crossed these words out in her own copy of the book.

Interestingly, in her own copy of the book, Maggie noted who wrote which chapters. She claimed sole authorship of chapters I-IV, VI-VIII, X, XII, and XIV. Nettie was the sole author of chapters IX, XI, XV, and XVI, which included a description of a statue of Mentuhemat that she and Newberry were later to publish a paper on (see below). Nettie was also the principal author, with Maggie’s help, of Chapter XIII. Maggie and Nettie wrote chapters V and XVII together.

Indeed, it is possible to notice the differences in Maggie’s and Nettie’s writing-style. Maggie’s is very much the rounded, descriptive style of the popular author, whilst Nettie has a somewhat drier, ‘academic’ style, tending to concentrate simply on facts.

A discussion of wages, prices, the value of labour, and the payment of baksheesh (tips) appears in the book. This was in fact one of Maggie's many iterests; four years previously she had published a work on economics titled Capital, Labour, and Trade.

A number of photographers are credited. Maggie and Nettie, as well as Nettie’s father took photos themselves. Others were taken by Emile Brugsch. Some were evidently taken by visiting academics, such as the Dr. Page May who is credited for several photos. The majority, however, were taken by a J.F. Vaughan, who may have had a photography business in Luxor. The quality of photos varies; Vaughan obviously used professional equipment, whilst Maggie and Nettie seems to have used their box-cameras.

They would certainly have been encouraged to use photography by Flinders Petrie, who had in fact been using it extensively during his excavations during the early 1880s.

Indeed, an interest of the book is that it shows how much photos were being used by archaeologists of the time. Brugsch was obviously a trained photographer, using such techniques as oblique lighting to reveal faint details. Several photographs are uncredited, and may have been taken by the Government Antiquities Service as a record, as they are plainly the work of trained photographers, using techniques such the use of three-quarter profiles of statues.

Unfortunately the book did not go beyond a single edition (though it may have had more than one printing, as on some books the vulture design appears in gold) although a facsimile edition is currently in print.

To be continued...

News from the Two Lands - shock horror crime special!

Egypt donkey jailed for theft
5 days ago

CAIRO (AFP) — An Egyptian donkey has been jailed for stealing corn on the cob from a field belonging to an agricultural research institute in the Nile Delta, local media reported on Thursday.

The ass and its owner were apprehended at a police checkpoint that had been set up after the institute's director complained that someone was stealing his crops, the state-owned Al-Ahram daily said.

The unnamed ungulate was found in possession of the institute's corn and a local judge sentenced him to 24 hours in prison. The man who had his ass thrown in jail got off with a fine of 50 Egyptian pounds (nine dollars, six euros).

(Source: Egypt Daily News).

Hmm, we can only hope that the miscreant moke has now learned its lesson, and will not re-offend. But knowing Egyptian donkeys all too well, we are not at all sure of it!

Recollections of Egyptian Princesses

Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay - continued.

For a long time the Benson and Gourlay expedition tended to be disregarded. It was seen as little more than the temporary amusement of a wealthy and well-connected Victorian woman, achieving little in comparison with the professional - male - Egyptologists of the time.

More recently, however, it has been re-evaluated, and its – considerable – achievements are increasingly recognised. Rather than being just an amateur meddler, Maggie Benson can now be given her due credit as the nucleus around which a pioneering, and effective team was built.

It is, in fact, a remarkable story.

The Precinct of Mut

But firstly, where did it all take place? The Precinct of Mut is one of the self-contained religious areas (known as "Precincts") of the Karnak temple complex. Each of the three deities that made up the Theban Triad have a precinct at Karnak. The God Montu, the original deity of the region, has a small area and temple to the north of the main area, the Precinct of Amun. The Precinct of Mut, the Consort of Amun in Theban theology lies about 300 yards to the south, and was connected to the 10th Pylon of the Amun Temple by an avenue of sphinxes.

The Precinct of Mut is a comparatively poorly-preserved site, although an important one. It is not, at the moment, open to the public, though is to be in the future.

Most visitors to Karnak, herded in groups through the main Amun Temple then shooed around the giant scarab, will not venture south, through what seems to be no more than a huge stone-mason’s yard, in the half an hour or so that their tour-guide allows them to explore for themselves. And would probably be disappointed if they did so; even if they managed to get a glance through the boundary fences towards the area of the Precinct of Mut, several hundred yards distant, they would see little more than what appears to be a few overgrown mounds.

There would have been even less visible in the 19th century, apart from a huge number of half-buried statues of the lion-headed Goddess Sekhmet (an aspect of Mut, at Thebes). This old photo of the site, taken by the French photographer Henri Bechard, in the 1870s – 1880s shows an almost surreal landscape, with rows of statues emerging from the mounds. This would have been the appearance of the site when Margaret Benson first started work there.

The Precinct as a whole covers around twenty feddans (acres), and contains three temples and a large, horseshoe-shaped (though now partly silted) Sacred Lake, an important part of the worship of Mut. Sacred Lakes of Mut were called Isheru (transliterated as "Asheru" in the 19th century). That the name referred to a type of Sacred Lake rather than a specific area of Karnak was not understood in the 1890s, giving rise to the misunderstanding which led Maggie and Nettie to call their book The Temple of Mut in Asher.

The three temples in the Precinct are the Mut Temple, which was to be the main object of Maggie and Nettie’s work, the Temple of Khonsupakherod ("Khonsu the Child"), to the east, and a temple of unknown dedication, built by Ramesses III, to the south-west.

Little attention had been paid to the site before the Benson and Gourlay expedition. A plan of it had been drawn by the Savants who accompanied Bonaparte’s ill-fated military expedition to conquer Egypt in the late 18th century, and had been investigated by Lepsius’s royal Prussian expedition in the mid 1840s. But Maggie and Nettie were the first to make any significant excavations there. Indeed, the site was not excavated again until the 1920s.

However, since 1976, the situation has changed enormously, with excavation, conservation and research being undertaken by the Museum of Brooklyn and the Johns Hopkins University – who only this year, in fact, bravely undertook an unusual summer expedition, to investigate the lake. They publish the results of their excavations online, and give full acknowledgement to Maggie and Nettie.

It is unclear why Maggie chose to excavate the Temple of Mut. She herself claims in The Temple of Mut in Asher that: "there was something about the place so beautiful, even so romantic, that a suggestion casually made about digging in Egypt came to mind."

She also attempts to make light of her aims, stating that "our first intention was not ambitious. We were desirous of clearing a picturesque site. We were frankly warned that we should make no discoveries; indeed if any had been anticipated it was unlikely that the clearance would have been entrusted to inexperienced direction." (Note the use of the plural here is misleading, as Nettie Gourlay was not at this point involved). She declares herself surprised at the "unexpected discoveries" that she and Nettie made.

The Politics
She was not, however, being fully sincere. It’s plain from the Bechard photo alone that the site was obviously rich in antiquities. Indeed, there is an entire chapter of The Temple of Mut in Asher called "previous plans", which lists the work done there by earlier archaeologists and explorers. So it was fully evident that the site was important, even if little had been done there.

But why should she, of all people, a woman of exceptionally strong moral ideals, want to mislead? And the answer is, politics. We need to remember just who she was; the daughter of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate of All England, the highest ranking churchman and commoner in Britain and a member of the government. Her family were close friends of the Gladstones, the most famous of who was William Gladstone, one of the most outstanding and long-serving Prime Ministers of the Victorian era. Whatever she did, or wrote, or said, would not pass un-noticed, especially at a period when war with France threatened, following the Fashoda Incident.

Although Egypt had been under British occupation since 1882, parts of its administration, including the Antiquities Service (now the Supreme Council of Antiquities), were run by the French, who had previously been the main colonial power. The Director of Antiquities in 1895, when Margaret commenced work, was M. Jaques de Morgan (Antiquities Director 1892-1897).

It was a very uneasy time in Anglo-French relationships. As one book says: "During these years… Anglo-French imperial rivalry ran rampant, culminating in the showdown at Fashoda on the Sudan in 1898."

At this point, I need to explain the Fashoda Incident, a temper-tantrum of the imperialistic mindset. A French force had occupied the small Sudanese town of Fashoda, with the intention of adding the Sudan to the French Empire. A larger British force sailed up the Nile to confront them, with the intention of instead adding the Sudan to the British Empire, and allowing the map to be printed red from Uganda to the Mediterranean. Outnumbered, the French force were obliged to withdraw from Fashoda, but then followed a lot of blustering, threatening and general posturing between the French and British governments. However, neither side could hope to win a war; the French army was larger than the British, yet the British fleet larger than the French, resulting (fortunately) in stalemate. Besides, both countries soon realised that there was a greater threat to both of them – Germany – and so eventually calmed down and made friends.

The Fashoda Incident took place only the year before The Temple of Mut in Asher was published. Therefore, with Franco-British ill-feeling still at its height, M. de Morgan might have been heavily criticised at home for having given permission for an amateur Englishwoman to excavate an important site under his protection. So Maggie had to be careful for his sake what she wrote about how he came to his decision.

According to her account in The Temple of Mut, de Morgan initially refused her application to excavate, but was persuaded to change his mind by the intervention of the famous Swiss archaeologist, Eduard Naville, who was at that time excavating the Hatshepsut Temple at Deir el-Bahri, on the West Bank at Luxor.

But did she perhaps over-emphasise his initial refusal of her application to excavate? Given that he approved the excavation as soon as Naville supported her application, did he merely insist that it was supervised by a competent archaeologist? It seems possible, as in The Temple of Mut in Asher we are told that in 1895, when Maggie was beginning her excavation "M. Naville had been with us [i.e. at the time Maggie alone] a day or two previously, to interview our overseer and to show us how to determine our course of work"

However, we need to ask why Naville supported her application. I shall return to that question below.

Maggie and Nettie were in any case very diplomatically careful to give effusive thanks in their book to both de Morgan, and M. Georges Daressy, the Secretary General of the Antiquities Service.

They also acknowledge help from other distinguished archaeologists. These included Emile Brugsch, (also known as "Brugsch Bey", from an Egyptian title that he held), who was the discoverer of an important "mummy cache" near Luxor, and who was to have a long career in the Egyptian museums service. There was also Ludwig Borchart, then Cultural Attaché of the German Embassy, who later, as Director of the German Archaeological Institute, was to gain notoriety for removing the famous head of Nefertiti to Berlin.

And of course there was Flinders Petrie. At the time Petrie was working nearby, at the Ramesseum, and is acknowledged by Maggie and Nettie as having made "important and most helpful suggestions". Indeed, it’s possible that he may have been responsible for recommending, if not actually introducing Nettie to Maggie Benson. Nettie had been one of his first students at University College London following his acceptance of the Chair of Egyptian Archaeology and Philology in 1892.

In fact most of Flinders Petrie’s first students were women. And what was more, in a spirit of equal opportunities that was almost unique at the time, he encouraged his women students to join his and other excavations.

At the Ramesseum, for example, his expedition included two of his students, a Miss Paget, and a woman who was to go on to have a successful Egyptological career of her own, Annie Abernethie Pirie (1862-1927). She married the notable Egyptologist James Quibell, and was to assist both her husband and Petrie in further digs. She published books on Egyptian art, and on her experiences in the country, as well as illustrating other books. She also undertook work in the Egyptian gallery of the Aberdeen museum.

Percy Newberry, from a passport photo, 1925.

But the greatest help came from the Egyptologist Percy Newberry (1868-1949). In fact an entire section of The Temple of Mut in Asher, Part V, "Inscriptions", was written by him. This describes the inscriptions found at the site, and prints them in hieroglyphs, as well as in English, another feature of the book which was progressive for its time, and which greatly increases its value for specialists.

Newberry’s academic career included appointments as Brunner Professor of Egyptology at Liverpool University in 1906, as Fellow of King’s College London in 1908, and as Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology at Cairo in 1929. Between 1884 and 1905 he was employed by the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF) (now the Egypt Exploration Society), and from 1890 onwards directed the Fund’s "Archaeological Survey". The Survey, rather over-ambitiously, aimed to survey every ancient site in Egypt, though was never able to do so. The Survey started off with tombs at Beni Hassan. Newberry published the inscriptions found there, and no doubt this is why Beni Hassan is mentioned so frequently in "Inscriptions."

From The Temple of Mut in Asher we learn that Newberry was staying in Luxor at the time when Maggie started work, most likely assisting Eduard Naville, who was also at that time employed by the EEF. Naville himself may have become interested in the inscriptions found at the Temple of Mut, as he was one of the outstanding hieroglyphic scholars of the time. And this might in fact have been the reason for his persuading de Morgan to allow Maggie to excavate the site.

Maggie, plainly, could not have worked without help. She would at least had a rough idea from her brother Frederick’s archaeological work what she needed to cope with. And this raises various (unanswerable, unfortunately) questions. Did she indeed decide to excavate in the Mut Precinct on little more than a impulse, as she claims in her book, or was she at least pointed in a certain direction?

After all, once she had the concession for the site, then the way would have been open for organisations like the EEF to unofficially step in – as indeed they did. This may explain why the EEF evidently gave Naville and especially Newberry leave from their work for such a time-consuming project.

And besides, having the Archbishop of Canterbury’s daughter (and thereby the British Establishment) on their side would have been more than welcome to not only the EEF, but also to Petrie.

This was because de Morgan’s immediate predecessor as Head of the Antiquities Service, M. Eugène Grébaut, had been unwelcoming towards the EEF, stating that he would not "abandon Ancient Egypt to the English societies and become the humble servant of English tourists". What was more, even the British Consul-General of Egypt, Lord Cromer, did not support British Egyptologists, preferring "deferring to France in Egyptology in return for concessions elsewhere".

Under these circumstances, British Egyptology plainly needed all the support in high places it could get, and at that time few were more highly placed than the Bensons.

Finally, of course, there is the possibility that – and remember this was an age when people competed to put their flag on various pieces of ground – that the Benson and Gourlay expedition planted, as it were, a small Union-Jack (with an EEF symbol sewn onto it) on what was otherwise the exclusive French territory of Karnak Temple. This is hardly imaginable to us, living in an era when Egyptology is truly international, but of course this is history, and we have to try to think like people in the 19th century.

Finally, perhaps Maggie had a certain advantage, in all these politics, of being a woman. Men such as de Morgan, Naville and Newberry were, of course, gentlemen, in the old-fashioned sense; they might have found it personally disagreeable to disoblige a lady. Besides, we know that Maggie, as were most upper-class women of the time, was taught French and German; no doubt Nettie was too. So when speaking to men like de Morgan and Naville, they would have done so in their own languages, which can only have eased things further.

There is also the question of Maggie Benson’s own personality. Was she, in fact, a person who it was easy to say "no" to? We might wonder, in fact, if anyone in her social position was ever told "no", especially by some mere civil servant, even if he was the head of the Antiquites Department! Certainly until her illness in 1896 she seems to have been exceptionally energetic, and not one to let difficulties stand in her way.

To be continued...

The 'bride of the corn'

I’d like to add a bit to Rosie’s post on corn-dollies, with some information about a very ancient sort from Egypt, known as arūset el-kamh ‘the bride of the corn’. This may, perhaps, be the most ancient sort of corn-dolly known, and – happily – they are still made, in a thousands year old tradition, to the same ancient design.

I bought this example a couple of years ago at Abydos, from a woman selling them just outside the temple. How I wish I’d bought a few more, now, and encouraged a true, surviving, Pharaonic tradition!

Well, Goddess willing, I shall one day go back, and if I can, shall put that right!

(Abydos, by the way, is easily reachable from Luxor by train; maybe an option for the free day that many tours offer. The ever-helpful Tourist-Police will spot you, and help you to get from station to temple, and back again).

The best information about ‘brides of the corn’ comes from that great classic of Egyptian life during the last century, Winifred Blackman’s The Fellahin of Upper Egypt, first published 1927, and now re-printed by the American University in Cairo Press, 2000. (It is a fascinating book, and really is a must-have for your Egypt shelf).

I can’t do better than to quote at length from the book:

‘Before any of the corn is cut some of the villagers go into the fields and pluck the finest ears by hand. These are plaited into a special form, and this object, called the ‘bride of the corn’ (arūset el-kamh) is used as a charm. One may be suspended over the house-door as an antidote to the evil eye; another may be hung up in the room containing the stores of food, as a charm to ensure abundance. Many tradesmen hand such objects in their shop-windows, believing that this will bring them plenty of customers.

Again, in some parts of Egypt, the ‘bride of the corn’ is placed on the heaps of grain after the winnowing is completed, as a charm to secure a good harvest the following year. … The ‘bride’ may be left hanging until it is replaced at the next harvest, or again, it may be allowed to remain in its place until it falls to pieces.

(pp. 171-172)

This photo from the book illustrate ‘brides’ made in the 1920s; as you can see, they are perfectly identical to my modern one.

However, in the history of ‘brides of the corn’, a mere 81 years is less than the blink of an eye!

Winifred’s brother, Aylward Manley Blackman, was a famous Egyptologist, and information gained from him encouraged her write a chapter of her book called ‘Ancient Egyptian Analogies’, which showed how ancient many of the customs, and traditions, etc., that she noted were. After all, every nation is founded on its past.

So another quote, and two more photos from the book:

‘The object now known as arūset el-kamh ‘the bride of the corn’ is depicted in several Theban tomb-chapels of the 18th Dynasty, and can possibly be traced back to the Old Kingdom in a different form.
…

According to several ancient representations of winnowing this object was placed on the winnowing-floor while the winnowers were at work and that an offering was laid before it consisting either of a vessel of water and dishes containing cakes, etc., or of a bowl of water only.’
(pp. 307-308)

So as you can see from these photos, the ‘bride of the corn’ from Abydos is a design that is around 3,500 years old! Similar ‘brides’ would have in fact been familiar to the ancient worshippers at Abydos.

It was one of those moments, in fact, that you sometimes experience in Egypt, where millennia fall away in an instant…

Corn Dollies.

Isn’t it funny how one train of thought leads to another it’s as if the Goddess is taking us on some journey of unfolding so that we may become enlightened in some way that She wishes for us.This month I have been interested in learning all about wire wrapping & weaving as part of my current handicraft obsession. I’m intent on making woven/wrapped semi precious & natural stones into lovely jewellery which led me to discover some interesting facts about corn dollies.

I read with interest that whatever you can do with weaving in basketry can also be applied to working with wire for jewellery making.

I had it in mind to practice with copper wire first until I get the hang of the various weaving techniques & then use sterling silver and gold at some future point for my gemstone pieces.Then you know how sometimes you wake up with mad harebrained idea’s about trying to apply some new technique to an old problem (a bit like a Galileo ‘Eureka’ moment without the bath)Well this happened a couple of weeks ago when I suddenly awoke with the compulsion to look at how ‘corn dollies’ were constructed & somehow apply the same weaving principle to wire.Corn Dollies here in England can be quite elaborate affairs, from my folklore studies I learned that every region throughout the UK (and further a field also) has its own particular signature corn dolly, evident by the design itself & colour of the decorative ribbons attached. No deviation was ever made from the characteristics of the corn dollie construction of that particular village.

All of these old customs were particularly significant to this time of the year – September -Time of the Harvest.

Corn Dollies were sacred offering made to honour the Goddess in her spirit of Bountiful Mother. Both Demeter and Ceres are examples of more ancient archetypal corn Mothers.

Many, many traditions surround the corn dollies themselves; probably the most important for the farmer & community would be that of ‘giving thanks’ for a plentiful harvest of the all important corn. When the final wheat sheaf had been cut it was from this that one big dolly called ‘The Kern baby’ be made, sometimes they were built into huge either giant size effigies or at least life size and decorated with white clothes and brightly coloured ribbons, these represented the next Springtime and were kept until then & usually ploughed back into the field to ensure another plentiful harvest.Smaller corn dollies were made for the individual homes to ensure a good year ahead like a lucky charm they were hung up in the home.Another quaint custom of countryside youth was that of ‘Countryman's Favours’ these were small plaited corn motifs such as hearts, that were made by a young gentleman or lady and given to a member of the opposite sex to wear over the heart. Which indicated that they were definitely interested and noticeably so if the favour be worn.Incidently the word ‘Doll’ derives from the ancient Greek word ‘eidolon’ translated as ‘idol’.With all my corn dollie inspiration gathered I think I shall be making some little plaited wire versions of my own at the very least I shall be having a go at making a ‘Bridget’s Cross’.

Happy Harvest time everyone.

by Rosie Weaver

http://witchcrafter.blogspot.com/

For further references see:

www.strawcraftsmen.co.uk/project03.html


paganwiccan.about.com/.../ss/Brighid_Dolly.htm



hubpages.com/hub/Mabon/

Book Review - Current Research in Egyptology 2007

This is the most recent of the increasingly important series of Current Research, first started in 2000, when it was published by British Archaeological Reports. These days it’s published, in a slightly different format, by Oxbow Books (David Brown Books in the USA) and obtained from their website, price £28.00. Back numbers in the series are also available.

Each book is the proceedings of the yearly Current Research in Egyptology Annual Symposium. These offer a chance for graduate students in Egyptology around the world to present papers, and to have them published – something that is often unavailable to students.

In 2007, a total of 40 students, from 10 different countries, presented papers at Swansea University, Wales, whose Egypt Centre has an important place in European Egyptology. Of these, 13 papers are published in Current Research, which was edited this year by Egyptologists Kenneth Griffin and Meg Grundlach. (Different editors are chosen each year, avoiding any potential bias in favour of someone’s favourite subjects).

Ideas like Current Research, a short-run and cheaply available paperback, are one way of overcoming the problem of Egyptological publication. Another, equally valid, is online publication, e.g. the British Museum’s British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan (BMSAES) series, available on http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/ (or of course via a search-engine under “bmsaes”).

Which papers to choose to appear in the book must be a considerable problem each year. Some papers can be excluded as they are part of a larger work in progress. The rest are generally chosen to represent as wide a range of topics as possible.

Still, I can’t help but wish that such papers as, for example, Are you sitting comfortably? Purges and Proctology in Ancient Egypt, by Jacky Finch of the University of Manchester had found a place in print! Papers not published are listed, and every year there are one or two gems that you sincerely hope will appear one day.

Still, what is published is certainly worth the price of the book, and I found the 2007 edition particularly full of absolutely fascinating information, from which even the most knowledgeable Egyptologist can learn.

One of my own favourites was Divine determinatives in the Papyrus of Ani, by Rachel Aronin, of the University of Pennsylvania. The Papyrus of Ani is, of course, the best-known example of the so-called “Book of the Dead”, having appeared in print. Its vignettes, particularly those of the Double Judgement scene, have often been reproduced.

But as Rachel Aronin points out, these were meant to be far more than mere illustrations; there is a close relationship between the text, the pictures, and the determinatives for the deities present. It is with the determinatives, of course, that the essay is most concerned; the ways in which the names of Goddesses and Gods were written. Why, for instance, does Hathor never have the familiar snake determinative for Goddesses after Her name?

Other fascinating reads are Wells and cisterns in Pharaonic Egypt, by Henning Franzmeiter, and The central halls in the Ptolemaic temples by Amr Gaber.

And there is so much else to read here, such as the question Did Ramesses III settle the Sea-Peoples in Canaan? by Pawel Wolinski, and Monuments in context: Experiences of the colossal in Ancient Egypt, by Campbell Price. Just how did Egyptians regard those huge colossi… in a world where we are familiar with the huge, and the means to move huge things, we can often overlook just how amazing such things as giant statues and obelisks must have been.

Here the author asks if colossal structures were far more than just Pharaonic egocentricity. Did the huge communal effort of assembling, moving, and then looking at them provide a means of binding society together?

What were the origins of astronomy? The subject may be considerably older than you think. In The first Decan, Rosalind Park looks at its possible Predynastic origins, 5,500 years ago.

And there is far more, of course. Worth the price? Well, you would need to have a more than superficial interest in Egyptology to appreciate the books. They are not aimed at the general reader. However, this certainly does not mean that they are written in an inaccessible, scholarly way, and the books are good for dipping into for quite short reads – the essays are, on average, around 10 pages long.

Treat yourself to a copy? Well, why not. I do each year, anyway…