Figure 1
The Illustrated London News report on Petrie’s first Hawara exhibition3 (public domain).
Table 1
The Hawara Evidence.
| PETRIE’S WORK BY HIS OWN STANDARDS | |
|---|---|
| PETRIE’S PERSPECTIVE | THE HAWARA EVIDENCE |
| METHODS & AIMS SECTIONS | EXCLUSIVELY FROM PETRIE’S DOCUMENTATION |
| 1. ‘The Excavator Personal background, motivations and skills | Funding only from Haworth and Kennard (1889: 3; 1932: 84) ‘Control’ visits from Kennard (J1: 29; DD: Jan 27) and many others stakeholders (DD). |
| 2. ‘Discrimination’ Discernment and site identification | Fayum alloted by Grébaut, to work for the museum (J1: 11) Pyramid and ‘labyrinth’ primary aims, but shift to Roman tombs (J1: 29–30) Evaluating and chosing spots in the first days (1889: 3) |
| 3. ‘The Labourers’ Selection criteria and management | 53 staff (DD: Jan 23), drilled in 3 weeks (1932: 88) 22 staff in second season (J2: 13) Workmen from a distance and locals (1889: 3) Dismissal for laziness (J1: 20) Control over workmen (J1: 47) Payroll lists (NB 38, 39a, 39b), groceries and furnitures (NB 39a, 39c) Payment anecdotes (J1: 61; 1890: 10–11; 1932: 89) Extortion case by reis (J2: 69–70; 1932: 104) – never a reis again Health issues (J1: 85–87; 105–106) Reward system (1932: 97–98, 101) Constant commute between different sites (J1; J2; 1890) |
| 4. ‘Arrangement of Work’ Excavation organisation and method | Buying from locals (J1: 19, various NB) Camp on spot, village too far – better and more secure to manage workmen (J1: 28; 1889: 3; 1893: 81) Camp sketch (NB 39a: 35) Many references to classical authors (J1: 26) Trench cutting (J2: 34, 39) Tunnel to the middle of the pyramid (J1: 42; 1893: 85; 1932: 91) Fending off potential thiefs (J2: 48) Break in the roof to the pyramid chambers (J2: 50) Hands-on, personal intervention (J2: 47, 51; 1890: 10) Abandonment of sites when they ‘produce little’ (J2: 62), losing interest rapidly (J2: 133) Health issues (J1: 85-87; 105–106) Difficult weather conditions (J1: 89–90) Stone sarcophagus quite damaged by forceful opening (J2: 98–99; 1890: 10), progress and damages in Petrie’s absence (J2: 110, 114) |
| 5. ‘Recording In the Field’ Content and quality criteria | All NB Portraits numbered with letter codes (J1: 23) Physiognomic descriptions (J1: 34, 56, 58, 63–64), deduction on racial origins Detailed sketches (J1: 43, 83; NB37: 4–45, 38–39; NB 38: 28–43; NB 39a: 10–11; NB 39b: 24, 28–31; NB 39d: 71), a few from in situ finds. Mummies described as ‘lumped together’ (J1: 59) Mummy cases simply brought without findspot recording (J1: 81) |
| 6. ‘Copying’ Techniques and requirements | Copying himself a sarcophagus (J1: 39; 1893: 96), waxed tablets (J1: 60) Plates in publications (1889; 1890; 1911) |
| 7. ‘Photographing’ Technology and settings | Only a dozen published portraits (1889; 1890), photographed back in Cairo (J2: 16). Few in Griffith Institute and Petrie Museum archives Later addition of photographs (1911; 1913) No in situ finds |
| 8. ‘Preservation of Objects’ Material techniques | Poor regard for lower quality finds (J1: 33), discarding mummies and keeping skulls ‘for comparison’ (J1: 53), resulting in headless mummies (J1: 73) Interest in keeping skulls associated with portraits (J1: 34) – Skullery (J1: 41) Damages by workmen (J1: 37–38) Conservation on site, sometimes in own tent (J1: 36, 54) or at locals’ (J1: 45) Preservation work, experiments of new wax techniques (J1: 37–38, 48), with failures (J1: 60; 1893: 96, 100) Preservation effort (J1: 59) Mummies ‘cut open’ (1889: 9; 1890:10) |
| 9. ‘Packing’ Preparation and containers | Box-making and packing (1932: 94) Portraits packed separately form mummies (J1: 40) Shipment by rail (1893: 96) |
| 10. ‘Publication’ Content, arrangement and process | Publication in the following year (1889; 1890) First Hawara season in ca 50 pp. and 23 pl., arranged in labyrinth, cemetery, decoration and burial of mummies, inscriptions, papyri, pictures, botany-with 4 specialists (1889) Second Hawara season in ca 25 pp. and 9 pl., arranged in abstract, pyramid, tombs, botany, with 1 specialist (1890) |
| 11. ‘Systematic Archaeology’ Corpus, sequence and conservation | Dating and sequencing (J1: 31–37, 76–80) Horuta ushabti classification (NB 39d: 43–44; 1890: 19) Gilded masks as predecessors of portraits (J1: 42), considered inferior (J1: 74) Greek/Roman work considered as inferior to Egyptian (J1: 74–75) Painted jewellery corpus (1889: pl.XI) Mummy decoration sequencing (1889: pl.lX) Pottery sequencing (1889: pl.XIV–XVI; 1890: pl.XII–XIII) Scarab corpus (1890: pl.X) Plans (1889: pl.XXV; 1890: pl.II–IV,VI–VII) Critic of museum conservation (1889:4; 1932: 90,94), desaster with boxes in Cairo (J1: 119) |
| 12. ‘Archaeological Evidence’ Evidence value and interpretation | Rarity and money value of the portraits (J1: 30) Absence of grave goods as indication of reburials (J1: 39,70) Speculation on use of portraits during life time (J1: 74, 83; 1932: 88) Later burials with clothes and possessions (1893: 101) Survey of the ‘labyrinth’ (1889: Ch.I) Cemetery finds from D12, 20, 26, 30, Ptolemaic, Roman (1889: Ch.II) Decoration and burial of mummies, with sequences (1889: Ch.III) Greek papyri (1889: Ch.V) Pictures (Smith in 1889: Ch.VI) Botany (Newberry in 1889: Ch.VII) Pyramid survey (1890: Ch.I) Further tombs and finds (1890: Ch.II) Further botany (Newberry in 1890: Ch.VII) Names for identification (1893: 90) |
| Petrie, Methods & Aims Content synthesis by the author | Aggregated from Petrie’s ‘Journals’ 1887–1888 (J1), 1888–1889 (J2); ‘Notebooks’ 1887–1889a (NB) and ‘Day Diaries’ 1887–1889b (DD); Petrie 1889; 1890; 1893; 1911; 1913; 1932. Ordered chronologically by first occurence |
Figure 2
A ‘Journal’ page, in fact a letter to Petrie’s stakeholders19 (courtesy of the Petrie Museum, UCL).
Figure 3
The Fayum sites21 (public domain).
Figure 4
A payroll list (courtesy of the Petrie Museum, UCL).
Figure 5
The Hawara site30 (public domain) and excavation phases by starting point (by the author).
Figure 6
Plan of Horuta’s family tomb46 (courtesy of the Petrie Museum, UCL).
Figure 7
A copy from a sarcophagus lid, first recorded by Petrie himself in the field48 (public domain).
Figure 8
Attempt to organise Horuta’s ushabtis into 17 categories68 (courtesy of the Petrie Museum, UCL).
Figure 9
Mummy decoration sequence dating69 (public domain).
Table 2
Petrie’s work by modern standards.
| PETRIE’S WORK BY MODERN STANDARDS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| PETRIE’S PERSPECTIVE | A MODERN PERSPECTIVE | ||
| METHODS & AIMS SECTIONS | ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROCESS | INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH | TECHNOLOGY IMPACT |
| 1. ‘The Excavator’ | |||
| 2. ‘Discrimination’ | hypothesis creation survey and site location prospection | high | |
| 3. The Labourers’ | management excavation data collection and recording | medium | |
| 4. ‘Arrangement of Work’ | archaeological biological inorganic | medium | |
| 5. ‘Recording in the Field’ | high | ||
| 6. ‘Copying’ | high | ||
| 7. ‘Photographing’ | high | ||
| 8. ‘Preservation of Objects’ | laboratory and conservation | low | |
| 9. ‘Packing’ | 0 | ||
| 10. ‘Publication’ | publication | low | |
| 11. ‘Systematic Archaeology’ | typology spatial analysis chronological, social, cultural, environmental interpretation | chronometric biomedical bio molecular degradational environmental statistical and computational | high |
| 12. ‘Archaeological Evidence’ | |||
| After Djindjian (1991), Renfrew and Bahn (2020), Archaeological Institute of America (no date) | After Brothwell and Pollard (eds) (2001) | Author’s assessment | |
Figure 10
The archaeological processing of Horuta’s family tomb and artefacts (from left to right: field sketch, journal report, typological analysis and epigraphy/publication).94