Site Section Links
The Third Story
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Origin of Modern
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions
Modern Mythology Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors
KRONOS Vol II, No. 4
PEOPLES OF THE SEA: AN ART HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Copyright © 1977 by Lewis M. Greenberg
Associate Professor of Art History
Chairman - Dept. of Art History and Social Sciences
Moore College of Art, Philadelphia
My approach to Peoples of the Sea will be confined primarily to the art historical aspects and
implications of Velikovsky's historical reconstruction. It is hoped that the discourse presented here
will spur other art historians and archaeologists to enter into a rational discussion of the revised
chronology. The gauntlet is there and must be taken up.
"The Mound of the Jew"
In 1870, E. Brugsch discovered a large number of enamelled tiles in a palatial ruin of Ramses
III at the Lower Egyptian site of Tell el-Yehudiya (the Mound of the Jew). The tiles had served as
architectural embellishment and included as many as "3600 disks of various sizes and a great number
of tiles more or less broken, bearing either flower ornaments, or birds, animals, and portraits of
Asiatic or negro prisoners."(1) Many of the tiles were also inlaid with hieroglyphic legends only. Of
these, some bore the name and titles of Ramses III.*
[*It is difficult to ascertain an exact inventory of the tiles. This writer, for one, would like
to see more detailed descriptive information on the manifold aspects of the different tile
A rosette motif was frequently found on the obverse side of the tiles, while the reverse side
sometimes possessed incised signs, made before firing, which were clearly recognizable as Greek
letters akin to those of the fourth century B.C. (see Peoples of the Sea, p. 7).
Greek letters were also distinguishable on a couple of the figure tiles as well as a few of those
decorated with flowers (see Peoples, p. 9 and plate 3). The class of tiles with only hieroglyphic
inscriptions revealed "no specimens with 'Greek' letters."
The supposedly anachronistic appearance of late Greek letters, found in conjunction with the
name of Ramses III (presently dated in the twelfth century B.C.), posed a definite problem to the
archaeologists. Various interpretations of the situation ensued, only to be followed by disagreement
One of the late nineteenth century excavators of Tell el-Yehudiya– Naville – after conceding
that it was unlikely that later rulers such as the Ptolemies would have expended the effort to build a
palace chamber for Ramses III, still theorized that "one of the subsequent kings, possibly a Ptolemy,
may have had it [the chamber of Ramses III] repaired in the same style by the hands of Greek
workmen. The disks which adorned the friezes of the chamber were the pieces the most likely to fall
off and be lost; a great number would therefore have to be renewed, and that would account for the
fact that it is chiefly on the disks that we find the Greek letters."(2)
Yet, Naville's explanation openly ignores the presence of Greek letters on other tile samples
from Tell el-Yehudiyah (see Peoples, plates 2-3). Furthermore, Griffith, Naville's equally eminent
colleague, considered all of the enamelled decorative devices of Ramses' chamber to be of the same
period – Ramesside.
"That they are natural representatives of Ramesside work is shown . . . by the enamelled
cartouches of Seti II from Khata'neh and elsewhere. A few very similar enamelled tiles from Nimrud
[once the capital of the Assyrian empire] are of the ninth century B.C., and it is not unlikely that this
was an Asiatic art introduced by the conquerors of the New Kingdom. But are they imitations made
for a Ptolemaic restoration? This seems to me very improbable, even when the king to be thus
honoured was Rhampsinitus [Ramses III] himself. ,(3) Thus wrote Griffith.
According to the revised chronology, however, Seti II should be placed in the seventh century
B.C. and Ramses III in the fourth century B.C. The artistic problem of stylistic influence is thus
chronologically reconciled (Cp. this to Velikovsky's discussion of Assyrian hunting scenes, pp. 73-74
of Peoples of the Sea).
Velikovsky has rightly refocused attention on the perplexing enamelled tiles of Ramses III,
and in Peoples of the Sea (pp. 6-12) he carefully leads the reader to a compelling and logical solution
of the dilemma.
The disagreement between Naville and Griffith over the tiles of Ramses III, as well as the
dating of objects discovered in the necropolis of Tell el-Yahudiya (Peoples, pp. 12-17), parallels
similar scholarly disputes previously discussed by Velikovsky.
In the 1880's, Ramsay and Petrie argued over the dating of the Lion Gate at Mycenae,(4) at
the turn of the century Murray and Evans locked horns regarding the dating of Cypriot art of the
Mycenaean Age (5) Dorpfeld and Furtwangler had a bitter feud when it came to dating archaeological
material uncovered at Olympia;(6) the excavation of Tiryns, likewise, gave rise to its share of
In all cases, the common denominator was the fact that internal evidence had to be
disregarded in favor of the time scale of Egypt. Apparently, as Velikovsky so lucidly demonstrates
in Peoples of the Sea, this holds true for Egypt itself.
"The Problem of the Greek Letters"
With regard to the problematic letters, found on the tiles of the palace of Ramses III,
Velikovsky also quotes the conclusions of Mahmud Hamza, an Arab Egyptologist of the early
twentieth century (Peoples, P. 9). Hamza definitely ruled out the idea of a Ptolemaic restoration and
supported the Ramesside authenticity of the tiles. His attempt, however, to interpret the letters as
hieratic signs proved abortive and unwarranted.
For the Egyptologists, the presence of a distinctly Persian rosette motif on the obverse side
of the Ramesside tiles added yet another dimension to the problem (Peoples, pp. 11-12 and plate 2).
As Velikovsky points out, this "adds a 'Persian problem' to the 'Greek problem' if the tiles were
manufactured more than six hundred years before Cambyses subjugated Egypt."
A rosette design, totally analogous to those found on the tiles of Ramses III, appears as early
as the ninth century B.C. in Persian art. It can be seen as the dominant element of a chariot wheel
depicted on a silver beaker from Hasanlu.(8) By the time of the Achaemenid empire, the rosette motif
was so prevalent on the walls of the Persian palace at Persepolis (6th-5th centuries B.C.) that
instances numbered in the thousands.(9) Yet, except for the decorated tiles of Ramses III, this
distinctive motif is essentially non-existent in the repertoire of Egyptian art; and any additional
appearance seems to be solely due to Persian influence (see below).
Some flower designs, sculptured on a column base found northwest of Shiraz, bring to mind
not only the rosette and floriate motifs of Ramses III's palace, but the method of decorative
employment as well.(10) The Persian example is dated from the fifth to the fourth centuries B.C.
Furthermore, a rosette pattern, extremely similar to the ones that are shown on the Ramesside
tiles, appears on the bottom of a bronze bowl found at Thebes. The art expert who examined the
bowl believes that Persian influence is unquestionable.
"In the center of the rosette there is ... a point which would seem to be the mark of a lathe."
This bowl, along with another, "establishes the use of Persian forms in Egyptian metalwork from
perhaps the middle of Dynasty XXVII to Dynasty XXXI .... [The bowl] at least seems to give
evidence for the existence of the lathe in Egypt during the fourth century B.C."(11) As an aside, it
should be noted that the lathe mark found on the Theban bowl looks somewhat like the embossed
center of the Ramesside rosette tiles.
An additional piece of artistic evidence, having a direct bearing on the thesis of Peoples of the
Sea, is the badly battered wooden head of a lion found at Sakkara sometime between 1832 and 1843.
The lion-head was originally "attributed to the New Kingdom because [of] its similarity to the
comparable heads on the chairs painted on a chamber of the Theban tomb of Ramesses III. gl( 12)
According to Cooney, who considers the initial comparison to be justified, the wooden head
"can be no earlier than Dynasty XXVII and may be slightly later." "The basis for this dogmatic
assertion is the open mouth of the lion .... The snarling, enraged or aggressive lion, typical of
Mesopotamian and in turn of Persian art, was introduced into Egypt only under Persian domination.
"The open mouth, the ridged roof of the mouth and the peculiar modelling of the ear
are all borrowed from Persia presumably first in Dynasty XXVII.,,(14)
Cooney views this particular lion-head to be important for a quite different reason than our
"Entirely apart from its very great importance as an object revealing so many Persian
traits this head has a unique position in the history of Egyptian cabinet-work. Egyptian
furniture, is fairly well documented through the close of Dynasty XVIII and even, in reliefs
and paintings, through the New Kingdom. After that almost nothing is known of the subject
as scenes of daily life disappear and furniture was no longer placed in the tombs . . . . This is
the sole scrap of furniture known to me dating from Dynasty XXVII and the only evidence
we possess that these chairs of New Kingdom type were still made at so late a date. Thus,
Bonomi's comment made in 1843 calling attention to the chairs of Ramesses III was an acute
observation. ,( 15)
We are now faced with a most curious situation. A wooden lionhead found in Egypt has been
redated to a time period covering the years 525-404 B.C., and possibly later. Recognizable Persian
affinities demand this. Yet, "comparable heads" on painted chairs in the tomb of Ramses III, which
once determined an earlier dating for that same lion-head, are left in the twelfth century B.C. How
can this be?
With Ramses III properly moved down in time to the fourth century B.C., Bonomi's
observation proves to be acute indeed! Additionally, Velikovsky's historical reconstruction is now
provided with fresh artistic support.
On pp. 72-74 of Peoples of the Sea, Velikovsky draws attention to the relationship between
the hunting scenes of Ramses III at Medinet Habu and those of the Assyrian kings - Ashumasirpal
II and Assurbanipal (ninth to seventh centuries B.C.) - at Nimrud and Nineveh, respectively.(16)
Simply put, the problem is this: Did Egypt influence Assyria or did Assyria influence Egypt?
From the purely artistic viewpoint, the latter appears to be true; from the conventional chronological
standpoint, the former would seem more plausible. Velikovsky cites the earlier work of Speleers
(1923) who recognized the greater strength of the Assyrian claim. Yet, conventional chronology
does not permit such a claim. On the other hand, the revised chronology, which places Ramses III
in the fourth century B.C., verifies this claim.
It should be noted that the late W. Stevenson Smith subscribed to the notion of an Egyptian
origin for the lion hunt motif. But, in this respect, he was merely following the lead of Breasted and
"Breasted and Wreszinski, in studying the subject of the lion hunt, and more recently
Moscati, in tracing the development of narrative art, have seen in the Ramesside battle and
hunting scenes a source of stimulus to the Assyrian artist. They agree that the action of
Ramses III at Medinet Habu, where he turns to spear a lion attacking his chariot from the
rear, is the origin of a motif which appears in the reliefs of Ashumasirpal II (who shoots an
arrow) and Ashurbanipal."(17)
Breasted's case, for one, is far from convincing. After a detailed comparison between a lion-hunt scene of Ramses III at Medinet Habu with one of Assurbanipal repulsing a charging lion,
Breasted had this to say:
"To conclude that an elaborate composition of this kind would be developed in these
two different countries with such extraordinary identity of detail both in temporal and local
relations, while the artists were working in complete independence of each other, is hardly a
possibility. It would seem that we must accept this Assyrian relief as evidence that the art of
Nineveh was influenced by the relief sculpture of Egypt. At the same time it is evident at the
first glance that the work of the Assyrian is no mere slavish copy . . . . Ramses III's lion-hunt
is far from being equally successful and the fleeing lion is hard and mechanical. The lions of
the Assyrian sculptor are far superior in vigour, movement, and especially in the powerful
representation of animal savagery."(18)
Thus, the Assyrian lions display artistic originality, whereas the Egyptian example appears
derivative and unoriginal.
Breasted assumed the Egyptian influence to be present in Assyrian relief sculpture only
because the conventional dating of Ramses III and Medinet Habu places them some five centuries
earlier than the time of Assurbanipal. Yet, the artistic evidence clearly denies a copyist posture.
Moreover, Breasted also theorized that "the mere existence of [the lion-hunt] scene on a
Ramessid temple-wall suggests with much probability that the composition is older and was in all
likelihood not uncommon on the walls of the XVIIIth Dynasty temples. The lionhunting Amenhotep
III is hardly likely to have omitted from his temple-walls similar scenes disclosing his prowess against
the lions, which he was so fond of recording on scarabs and distributing among his favourites. The
sculptors of Ramses III have here revealed to us another important illustration of what we have lost
in the destruction of the XVIIIth Dynasty temples, not to mention the Ramesseum, which was in all
probability similarly embellished."(19)
Is this not a clear-cut example of sheer guesswork and a case of petitio principii?
Breasted believed the lion-hunt composition to be Egyptian in origin. Yet, by his own
admission, it was decidedly inferior to its "later" Assyrian counterpart while the appearance of a lion-hunt on the temple-walls of Amenhotep III and Ramses II is wholly conjectural. Even if such scenes
did exist, they are eminently more credible within the framework of the revised chronology. For, by
that scheme, Amenhotep III would be an exact contemporary of Ashumasirpal II while Ramses II and
the Ramesseum would post-date Assyrian lionhunt scenes as would the art work at Medinet Habu
(the Ramesseum would have been constructed only a few decades after Assurbanipal began his reign,
and Medinet Habu would not have existed until 250 years after Assurbanipal); and once again art
history and history would properly and logically harmonize.
It is also instructive to point out the fact that Breasted made no reference whatever to the
earlier work of Speleers (and neither did Stevenson Smith).
The great mortuary temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu is ably and succinctly discussed
in Peoples of the Sea (pp. 74-76). From its architectural style, the argument for a fourth century B.C.
placement is difficult to dispute, and, as Velikovsky indicates, this could also account for Medinet
Habu's relatively good state of preservation and its ability to survive the many destructive invasions
of Egypt that occurred after the twelfth century B.C.
Further investigation of Medinet Habu and its environs tends to reinforce Velikovsky's
conclusions. Where Ramses III is concerned, there is absolutely no solid evidence for any Libyan
presence at Medinet Habu; reused bricks of Ramses III have not been discovered among the remains
of domestic architecture of the Ethiopian XXVth Dynasty at Medinet Habu; Assyrian and Persian
artifacts appear to be non-existent.(20)
If the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu had been built in the twelfth century B.C., as
believed, one would certainly expect the situation to be otherwise - the more so since one of the
supposed reasons for its preserved state "is that under the successors of Ramses III, Medinet Habu
became the seat of administration for the west of Thebes and therefore was more important than other
The Ptolemaic period, however, "is imposingly represented in the Small Temple" at Medinet
Habu. Indeed, the author of the Medinet Habu excavation report seems to have expected more. "It
is surprising that practically no building remains of this half millennium [525-30 B.C.] were found -
except in the vicinity of the Small Temple."(22)
or those who follow the revised chronology, the apparent absence of building remains at
Medinet Habu is hardly surprising. However, the redating of the monuments of Ramses III to the
fourth century B.C. bridges the "surprising" five-hundred year "gap" in the architectural history of
Another architectural item of interest at Medinet Habu was found in the area outside the Small
Temple. There, the excavators discovered "a large well which in many respects resembled wells of
the time of Ramses III. "(23) The name of Nekht-hor-heb, identified as Nectanebo II [sic] (see
Peoples, pp. 90-93 for the identification and time of Nekht-hor-heb), appears on the doorjambs of
the well's small entrance pylon.
After the well was built, its entrance was lowered at a later period about 70 cm. to coincide
"with a paved walk in front of it, and the five steps of the upper flight [of its stairway] were
removed." According to the scheme of conventional chronology, wells of Ramses III influenced the
architectural form of a well built eight centuries later. This presupposes both a certain degree of
obvious preservation for the wells of Ramses III and an inclination to copy an 800 year old well on
the part of a late Pharaoh.
By the revised chronology, the well in question would have been built only some thirty years
prior to the time of Ramses III-Nectanebo I. Most likely, it was even altered and copied by him since
it was the style of the time.
"Aspects of the Mortuary Temple of Ramses III"
"In its original, more modest form Medinet Habu on the whole resembled the great mortuary
temples of the Nineteenth Dynasty, as far as our knowledge of them goes. There are, however, in
the details differences in principle which are interesting from the viewpoint of architectural and
The first court, second court, and temple proper of Ramses III were fused into one
architectural unit for the first time, as far as we know, at Medinet Habu."(25) Interestingly, at Edfu,
the "almost perfectly preserved temple of Horus from the Ptolemaic era .... Built and decorated in
stages between 23 7 and 57 B.C., . . . is singularly harmonious in line .... In the vicinity of the
southeast comer of the temple are the remains of a pylon that formed part of a preexisting temple of
During the second half of his reign Ramses III "enlarged the temple layout on a grand scale,
bestowing upon it to an even greater degree the character of a fortress. What was the reason for
enlarging Medinet Habu?" "The enlargement was undertaken more for the convenience of the royal
household than for the sake of actual temple management.
In other words, the temple of Ramses III was not enlarged "for the benefit of the temple, that
is, because of demands of the cult or on account of increased income, but rather in the interest of the
royal court, to provide accommodation for the staff, and to strengthen the fortification and complete
the architectonic composition of the palace."(21)
The palatial and fortress-like aspects of Medinet Habu would seem to reflect Persian and
Assyro-Babylonian architecture. Under the conventional chronology, this is an impossibility.
According to the revised chronology, as presented in Peoples of the Sea, it is architecturally sensible.
The building activity of Ramses III and his concern for an enhanced palace architecture brings
to mind the elaborate Persian palaces of Pasargadae, Susa, and Persepolis. "Persian art under the
Achaemenians was monarchical. In the capitals of the great King of Kings, it reflected the fortunes
of the empire; hence its dazzling magnificence under Cyrus and Darius and, thereafter, its long
stagnation, save for brief revivals under Xerxes and Artaxerxes. Its outstanding monuments are the
The elevated architectural approachway which leads to the Fortified Gate of Ramses III's
palace-temple at Medinet Habu may be an echo of the great Persepolitan Apadana stairway. (30)
More striking still is the so-called broken lintel doorway at Medinet Habu which, though it "went
back to an earlier prototype, common in the domestic architecture of Tell el-Amarna", is "another
persistent feature of Ptolemaic and late dynastic temples."(31)
It is also worthwhile to compare the colorfully glazed Prisoner Tiles from Medinet Habu(32)
with the richly clad figures of Archers of the Royal Guard (composed of glazed brick(33)) from the
palace of Darius or Artaxerxes Memnon at Susa.
The reciprocal influences of Persian and Egyptian art are particularly pronounced at
The Fortified Gate of Ramses III is a unique structure. "We know of no other place in Egypt
which creates so strongly the impression of a fortress as Medinet Habu."(34) The architectural style
is distinctly reminiscent of Sargon II's palace gateway at Khorsabad or the Ishtar Gate at Babylon of
E. Baldwin Smith came close to the art historical truth of Ramses III's fortress gateway, but
then shrank back into vaguery and speculation. "In origin this gateway has been at times described
as an architectural intrusion borrowed from the brick architecture of the East, because of its
designation by the Syrian name migdol,* its vaulted chambers, and its vertical instead of battered
walls. While its use and even its adoption at Medinet Habu may have been influenced by Ramses'
wars in the East, the tradition of a towered gateway goes back to the beginnings of Dynastic
[*See Peoples of the Sea, p. 51 for Velikovsky's commentary on the term "Migdol (Migdal)".]
The architectural links are all missing, however, and, in the end, Baldwin Smith was reduced
to supposition. "It is probable that Zoser's defensive walls about his mortuary palace at Saqqara had
towered portals, and it is a strong possibility that other fortified palaces, such as the early 'fort' at
Hierakonpolis, had similar towers. By the New Kingdom, there are too few preserved fortifications
to prove this type of gateway was not indigenous. As Hölscher says, 'Especially at the frontiers, in
the Delta and in Lower Nubia, there must have been similar structures, ruins of which will perhaps
later be recognized'."(37)
Is all of this naught but a testimonium paupertatis? The last statement by Hölscher, in
particular, merits comparison with the remark of frustration made by Griffith when faced with the
seemingly impossible archaeological dilemma posed by the Ramesside tiles from Tell el Yahudiya -
"Light will be thrown on the question someday". As Velikovsky so aptly commented: The tile
problem "is handled very much as though it were a parapsychological phenomenon" (Peoples, p. I
1). That is also true for the fortress gateway of Ramses III as well.
In conclusion: The chronological revision offered by Velikovsky in Peoples of the Sea
presents absolutely no inherent difficulties for the history of art. Rather, it solves a number of art
historical problems and brings a coherent picture to them. A variety of art historical features now
make total sense within the framework of the "universal parallels"(38) established by the revised
chronology. Additionally, archaeology and art history lend greater credence to the revised
chronology than they do for the present "scheme of things".
Peoples of the Sea poses a massive challenge to those individuals who would still cling to The
Cambridge Ancient History. For others, it should prove to be a most enlightening account of that
period of time that both preceded and eventually witnessed the marriage of Egypt and Greece.
1. E. Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias
(Egyptian Exploration Fund,
London, 1890), p. 6.
2. Ibid., p.
7. For an example of late classical Greek letters, see W. MacQuitty, Island of
(N.Y., 1976), p. 87 and compare with plate 3 in Peoples of the Sea.
Note particularly the
peculiar form of the alpha
in both cases. Unfortunately, the exact date of the Greek letters
from Philae is uncertain. Suffice it to say, they can be no earlier than the last quarter of the
fifth century B.C.
3. F. L. Griffith in Naville, Ibid., p.
41 (emphasis added); T. H. Lewis had suggested that "the
patterns and make of the tiles might have been introduced from Persia or Assyria by the Jews
of Alexandria: that the tiles were there made and used for decorating their temple on the site
of, or even on the ruined walls of 'Rameses' building." Neither Naville nor Griffith accepted
this interpretation. (See Transactions of the Society of Biblical
London, 1882, p. 188.)
See I. Velikovsky,
"The Lion Gate of Mycenae," Pensee
III (Winter, 1973), P. 31; L. M.
Greenberg, "The Lion Gate at Mycenae," Ibid., pp.
5. I. Velikovsky, "The Scandal of Enkomi," Pensee
X (Winter, 1974-75), pp. 21-23.
6. I. Velikovsky, "Olympia," KRONOS 1,
4 (April, 1976), pp. 3-7.
7. I. Velikovsky, "Tiryns," Pensee
VI (Winter, 1973-74), pp. 45-46; also see 1. M. Isaacson,
"Applying the Revised Chronology," Pensee
IX (Fall, 19 74), pp. 10-12.
8. See E. Porada, The Art of Ancient Iran
(N.Y., 19 65), P. 113.
9. See R. Ghirshman, The Art of Ancient Iran
(N.Y., 1964), pp. 160-165, 170-172, 174-175,
10. Ibid., pp.
224 and 429; A. Godard, The Art of Iran
(N.Y.., 1965), p. 128 and Fig. 62; also
see T. H. Lewis, op. cit.,
Plate VI, Fig. 2.
11. J. D. Cooney, "Persian Influence in Late Egyptian Art," Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt,
Vol. IV, 1965, pp. 41-42 and Plate XXIII, 4 - compare with Fig. 2 in
Peoples of the Sea.
p. 39 (emphasis added) and Plate XXII, Figs. 1-2.
13. Ibid., pp.
39-40 (emphasis added).
14. Ibid., p.
40; Compare with Ghirshman, op. cit.,
pp. 144, 216, 219, 250, 25 3, and 262.
p. 40 (emphasis added); Also see Bonomi, Catalogue of a Collection of Egyptian
(Cairo, 1846), no. 72 (no. 259 in editions of 1853 and ff.). The head is presently
in the Brooklyn Museum (3 7.26 IE).
16. See E. Strommenger, 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia
(N.Y., 1964), Plates 202, 203,
17. W. Stevenson Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East
(London, 1965), p. 46 and
18. J. H. Breasted, "Assyrian Relief Sculpture and the Influence of Egyptian Art," Studies
Presented to F. Li. Griffith
(London, 1932), pp. 270-271 (emphasis added).
20. See U. Ho1scher, "Post-Ramessid Remains," The Excavation of Medinet Habu -
(Chicago, 1954), pp.
6, 8, 14, 16-17, and 34.
21. U. Hölscher, "The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III - Part I," The Excavation of Medinet
Vol. III (Chicago, 194 1), p. 4
22. Hölscher, op. cit.,
Vol. V, p. 34; But see Ibid.,
p. 16, ftnt. 57 and p. 17.
p. 34 (emphasis added).
24. U. Hölscher, "The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III - Part II," The Excavation of
Vol. IV (Chicago, 19 5 1), p. 26 (emphasis added).
P. 27 (emphasis added).
26. Sergio Bosticco, "Egypt," Encyclopedia of World Art,
(N.Y., 1958), p.
27. Hölscher, op. cit.,
Vol. IV, pp. 27 and 1.
p. 27; Cp. Ghirshman, op. cit.,
29. Ghirshman, op. cit,
p. 130 (emphasis added); But see the remarks of E. Baldwin Smith,
Egyptian Architecture as Cultural Expression
(N.Y., 1968, new ed.), pp. 217-225.
30. See Ghirshman, Ibid.,
pp. 160-165; Compare this with Plate LXXIII, Fig. I in Smith, Ibid.
and K. Lange and M. Hirmer, Egypt
(N.Y., 1968), Fig. 74 on p. 51 1.
31. Baldwin Smith, Ibid.,
p. 181 (emphasis added) and see Plates LVI, LVII, LIX, LX, LXII,
32. Hölscher, op. cit.,
Vol. IV, Plates 30-32 and Plate 5.
33. Ghirshman, op. cit.,
p. 14 1; Porada, op. cit, p.
153 gives a date of 404-35 8 B.C. and calls
it the palace of Artaxerxes Memnon.
34. Ho1scher, Ibid., p.
35. Strommenger, op. cit,
pp. 445-448, 461-462.
36. Baldwin Smith, op. cit.,
(emphasis added); also see C. Aldred, The Egyptians
(N.Y., 1961), pp. 145-146.
38. See Alan Gowans, On Parallels in Universal History
(Victoria, British Columbia, 1972).