Silver, turquoise, lapis lazuli, and carnelian
a. Diam. 9 cm (3 5/8 in.); w. 2.4 cm (1 in.)
b. Diam. 8.8 cm (3 1/2 in.); w. 2.4 cm (1 in.)
Egyptian Museum, Cairo (a) JE 53271, (b) JE 53273
Turquoise, lapis lazuli, and carnelian
L. 12.7 cm (5 in.)
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts Expedition 47.1701
The bracelets of Queen Hetep-heres I, mother of King Khufu, were found among the remains of a large wood box (fig. 106), now restored, that was covered inside and out with gold leaf. The lid of the box bears a hieroglyphic inscription in raised relief identifying it as a «box containing rings» and naming the owner as «Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Hetep-heres.» The twenty silver hoops inlaid with semiprecious stones were still arranged in two rows, as they had been originally. The bracelets would have been extremely valuable: silver, which was relatively rare in Egypt, was thought more precious than gold. Most of them are today in the collection of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, but two complete bracelets and the inlays of a third, in the present exhibition, were given to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston by the Egyptian government.Composed of silver combined with gold (nearly 9 percent) and copper (1 percent), all the hoops are wide and relatively thin. Their diameters range from 6.8 to 7.7 centimeters, and their edges curve slightly inward. Their decoration is unusual both technically and thematically. The placement of the inlays within cavities made in the metal itself, in a technique similar to champlevé, does not appear often in Egyptian jewelry, which in later periods did employ cloisonné. Equally distinctive are the four highly refined stylized butterflies on each bracelet—a rare design achieved through the use of turquoise, lapis lazuli, and carnelian of superior quality1—which are separated by small carnelian disks.
Owning twenty bracelets of the same design may seem surprising, but it must be remembered that several of them, piled up on one or both arms, were commonly worn at the same time. A representation of Queen Hetep-heres, engraved on a chair covered in gold leaf, depicts her with fourteen bracelets on her right arm.2 The practice has been documented as early as the Third Dynasty (Lady Nesa is depicted wearing numerous bracelets on her arms; see cat. no. 13), was in great favor in the Fourth, and remained in use, although less popular, at least through the Fifth.3 Furthermore, the representations of men with their arms laden with multiple bracelets attest that the practice was not confined to women.4
Other bracelets with inlaid decoration appear in a few Old Kingdom representations,5 but only those of Queen Hetep-heres I have been recovered. PR
- Keimer 1934, p. 194, pl. 15.
- Reisner and Smith 1955, pl. 30.
- See the examples given in Cherpion 1989, pp. 70, 194.
- For example, in the Fourth Dynasty mastaba of Nefer, the deceased is pictured seated at his table of offerings with seven bracelets on his right arm. See Junker 1944, fig. 75a,b; and Cherpion 1989, pl. 9.
- For example, a bracelet worn by Snefru, husband of Queen Hetep-heres, is decorated with an emblem of the god Min and with rosettes, probably inlaid. See Fakhry 196 rb, figs. 134, 135.
Provenance: Giza, tomb of Queen Hetep-heres I (G 7000X), Reisner excavation, 1925
Bibliography: Reisner and Smith 1955, pp. 43ff., pls. 36-38
Cypress, ebony, gilded copper, and gold-plated copper electrotypes
L., poles, 207.5 cm (81 3/4 in.); h., seat back, 52 cm (201/2 in.); max. w., seat, 53.5 cm (21 1/8 in.)
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Gift of Mrs. Charles Gaston Smith & Group of Friends 38.874
An elegant carrying chair was found at Giza among the decayed remains of other furniture, including a bed, portable canopy, two armchairs, and several boxes, within the hidden tomb of Queen Hetep-heres I, wife of Snefru and mother of Khufu (fig. 107). Its cypress and ebony woods were poorly preserved, but they were restored by members of the Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; the same team also created the replica shown in this exhibition.1
Examples of Old Kingdom furniture are rare, and Hetep-heres’ original chair is truly outstanding for its clean lines, simple form, excellent craftsmanship, and lavish use of gold. The elements of the frame were connected by mortise-and-tenon joints, and the interior of the frame was rabbeted to allow the seat boards to be set in place. The occupant of the chair rode on the seat boards with knees drawn up, a pose that may be represented in later block statues.
The carrying poles were further secured by leather thongs lashed to copper cleats both in front of and behind the seat. Gold sheathing impressed with a matte design covered the edges of the chair, while gold palmiform capitals—a shape rarely used in furniture—were employed to finish the ends of the carrying poles.
Four identical inscriptions, presented in finely detailed gold hieroglyphs inlaid in ebony panels and probably secured by gesso, give the name and titles of the chair’s owner. Three are vertical and located on the backrest, while the fourth runs horizontally across the chair front. The inscriptions read: «Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Follower of Horus, Director of the Ruler, the Gracious One, Whose every utterance is done for her, Daughter of the God’s body, Hetep-heres.»
The depiction of sedan chairs in reliefs from the Old Kingdom mastaba tombs of Mereruka and Queen Mer-si-ankh III suggest that this form of transportation was not uncommon for members of the Egyptian nobility.2 JA
- The reconstruction of the original chair is now in the collection of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, JE 52373.
- Duell 1938, pt. 1, pls. 14, 53; Dunham and Simpson 1974, fig. 5. For carrying chairs, see also Vandier 1964, pp. 328-51.
Provenance: Original, Giza, tomb G 7000X, Reisner excavation, 1925
Bibliography: Reisner and Smith 1955, pp. 33-34, pls. 27-29, figs. 20, 34; Porter and Moss 1974, pp. 180-81; Lehner 1985; Saleh and Sourouzian 1987, p. 29
Late Third or early Fourth Dynasty
H. 5.7 cm (2 1/4 in.); w. 3.4 cm (3/8 in.)
Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst, Munich ÄS 7086
Like the colossal granite head of a king who may have been Khufu himself (cat. no. 21), this small head sculpted in soft limestone is generally dated to the beginning of the Old Kingdom, between the end of the Third Dynasty and the reign of Khufu. It, too, has no inscription, and its origins remain a mystery. Again we must look to stylistic criteria for clues to its subject.There is a large crack across the crown, and the chin has disappeared; however, the line of the mouth remains visible. The very broad face evokes the visage of a minuscule ivory statue inscribed with the name of Khufu in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (JE 36143). Its fragmentary state and mutilation accentuate the geometric organization of the features: the vertical line of the nose, extended by the fracture, and the horizontal lines of eyes and mouth. Remains of a back support are discernible behind the head. The prominent, wide-set eyes are treated naturalistically, as are the eyebrows. Particular attention was given to the zygomatic muscles, which are pronounced, and to the area under each eye, which is recessed. The strong nostrils have a firm outline, as does the prominent mouth, which is deeply inset at each corner. The pharaoh wears the white crown of Upper Egypt, the eartabs of which are identical to those on the ivory statuette of Khufu and the colossal head.
Despite the differences in scale and material, the similarities between this piece and the colossal head are striking. Here, as in the case of the large example, the securely dated minuscule statuette of Khufu offers suggestive points of comparison. It is gratifying that the series of statues that can be linked to the most famous of all Egyptian kings is becoming ever richer and more diversified. CZ
Bibliography: Schoske and Grimm 1995, p. 44, fig. 42; Grimm, Schoske, and Wildung 1997, p. 56, no. 39; Donadoni Roveri and Tiradritti 1998, p. 266, no. 249
H. 25 cm (9 7/8 in.); w. 72.5 cm (28 1/2 in.); d. 35 cm (13 3/4 in.)
Trustees of the British Museum, London EA 491
The Great Pyramid (fig. 108), built on a superhuman scale, is the tomb of King Khufu. It is the oldest and most imposing pyramid on the plateau of Giza. Between 449 and 430 b.c.e., the Greek traveler and historian Herodotus described the monument, with its causeway in «polished stone, with figures carved on it.» His informants, Egyptian priests, depicted Khufu as a tyrant who reduced the country «to a completely awful condition…. [Egyptians] worked in gangs of 100,000 men for three months at a time. They said it took ten years of hard labour for the people to construct the causeway along which they hauled the blocks of stone. . . .»1 The legend persisted in the popular imagination and was reinforced three centuries later by a different version from another ancient historian, Flavius Josephus, who cited the construction of the pyramids as among the labors the Hebrews performed during their captivity in Egypt. All this has no historical foundation, and we now know that the laborers were free peasants, drafted by the king for the great construction projects.
Although it has lost its apex, the Great Pyramid, which originally measured 146.59 meters (481 feet, 3 inches) in height, is still colossal. The number of stone blocks used in its construction has been estimated at 2.3 million; some weigh 2.5 metric tons. During his expedition to Egypt, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was an accomplished mathematician, calculated that the blocks of Khufu’s pyramid could be used to build a wall 3 meters (10 feet) high and 30 centimeters (a foot) thick around France. Although that may be an exaggeration—we do not know the size of the blocks inside the monument, for example—these often-cited figures are staggering.2 The casing, made of blocks of fine limestone from Tura and long since plundered, must also be mentioned: certain blocks still in place weigh as much as 15 metric tons. The enormous granite slabs, which form the ceiling of the King’s Chamber and cap the five weight-relieving chambers above it, are estimated to weigh between 50 and 80 metric tons each. Based on a reign of about thirty years for Khufu and the scope of the construction undertaken at Giza, Rainer Stadelmann’s calculations show that laborers would have had to set in place 230 cubic meters (300 cubic yards) of stone per day. That means an average of one block set in place every two or three minutes during a ten-hour workday.
And what is there to say about the extreme precision of the execution? The largest difference in the length of the sides, which measure 230 meters (755 feet), is only 4.4 centimeters (1 3/4 inches); the height varies by only 2.1 centimeters (7/8 inch); and the orientation of the faces in relation to the cardinal points differs by only 0°3’6″.
The block illustrated here was brought to England by Richard William Howard Vyse. It serves as mute testament to the extraordinary feat of engineering achieved by King Khufu’s construction team. Vyse was the moving force behind the largest program of scientific explorations at Giza. His first excavations were conducted in 1837 with Giovanni Battista Caviglia and the second with the engineer John Shea Perring. Vyse discovered the casing block shown, along with two others, which are carved of fine limestone, among the accumulated debris at the foot of the north face of the Great Pyramid. They demonstrate that the angle of the sides was a bit more than 510. CZ
- Herodotus, History 2.124 (1998, pp. 144-45).
- Many scholarly books have been devoted to the pyramids and their construction, most recently Lauer 1988; Stadelmann 1990; and Lehner 1997.
Provenance: Giza, rubble from pyramid of Khufu; gift of Colonel Richard William Howard Vyse 1838
Bibliography: Budge 1909, p. 5, nos. 10-12
Probably Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khufu
Diam. 6.9 cm (2 3/4 in.)
Trustees of the British Museum, London EA 67818
The Great Pyramid at Giza is traversed by mysterious passages known as air shafts. During his exploration of the lower part of the air shaft leading from the so-called Queen’s Chamber, Waynmann Dixon discovered three tools: this small stone pounder, a small wood board, and a copper object in the shape of a dove’s tail (cat. no. 37). Now thought to be offerings dating to the age of Khufu, they were either genuine tools or models of tools and are similar to objects discovered in foundation deposits. They may have been placed in the air shaft at Giza to allow the deceased king to magically open the passage and return to heaven. CZ
Provenance: Giza, pyramid of Khufu, north air shaft of Queen’s Chamber, discovered by Waynmann Dixon 1872
Bibliography: Graphic, December 7, 1872, pp. 530, 545, figs. 1, 2, 4; Nature, December 26, 1872, pp. 146-47; Smyth 1880, p. 429; Stadelmann 1994, pp. 287-88, pl. 55; Lehner 1997, p. 112
37. Forked Instrument
Probably Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khufu
H. 4.5 cm (1 3/4 in.); w. 5.2 cm (2 1/8 in.); d. 1.1 cm (1/2 in.)
Trustees of the British Museum, London EA 67819
This object was probably attached to a wood handle. Sometimes identified as a sculptor’s tool, it was more probably used to manipulate ropes, as were similar instruments from the Roman Period. CZ
Provenance: Giza, pyramid of Khufu, north air shaft of Queen’s Chamber, discovered by Waynmann Dixon 1872
Bibliography: Graphic, December 7, 1872, pp. 530, 545, figs, 1, 2, 4; Nature, December 26, 1872, pp. 146-47; Smyth 1880, p. 429; Stadel-mann 1994, pp. 287-88, pl. 55; Lehner 1997, p. 112
Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khufu
H. 46 cm (18 1/8 in.); w. 137.5 cm (54 1/8 in.)
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness Gift, 1922 22.1.3
On this relief block three cattle march sedately one behind the other; of a fourth only the tip of the horn is preserved at the right. The animals are of a lean, long-legged breed with extremely long horns, which the artist has depicted in a beautiful lyre shape. In ancient Egypt such cattle were kept in herds that grazed on the open grasslands in the Delta and at the desert margins under the tutelage of herdsmen who shared their half-wild life. Sometimes longhorn cattle were used as working animals on farms, especially for plowing (however, see the shorthorn breed in the plowing scene [cat. no. 25c]), and, like their fatter counterparts that lived in stables, they were also butchered for offerings and to provide meat for the tables of the wealthy.1 Castration of animals to improve the quality of meat was probably customary, and the cattle on this Fourth Dynasty relief reused at Lisht appear to be oxen.2In the tombs of officials of high status processions of cattle were a common theme; the animals were depicted driven to slaughter as offerings to the dead or being counted and inspected by the tomb owner in life.3 In the royal monuments the cattle were shown either assembled among the booty from military campaigns or presented as offerings. Judging from preserved scenes, booty animals were often grouped closely together so that they overlapped one another.4 Cattle in single file appear for the most part in the context of a presentation of offerings for the funerary cult of a deceased king.5 Thus, the beasts in this relief probably belonged to a scene of the latter kind.
Elaborate names are written above the animals on the Lisht block, a feature that is unique in known representations of this type. These names are difficult to translate, and scholars have advanced various versions of them. Goedicke tentatively translates the first name from the left as «the tribute from Tefrer belonging to Khufu» (Tefrer being the source of lapis lazuli);6 the second ox he calls «the surrounding territories serve (Khufu),»7 and the third «the surrounding lands act for Khufu.»1 Whatever these rather high-sounding appellations may signify in terms of literal meaning, they are strikingly similar to the names of the estates whose personifications frequently appear in rows in pyramid temples and causeways (cat. nos. 22, 41). Perhaps each of the dignified oxen represented an economic entity, such as a particular herd that Khufu had designated to provide meat for his funerary cult in eternity.
Stylistically the cattle relief takes its proper place beside the fragment of a relief with the head of an estate personification from Lisht (cat. no. 41). The outlines of the animal figures are well rounded, and the modeling of the musculature is especially sensitive. Judging from finds in other pyramid precincts, this cattle défilé could have been located at Giza, either in Khufu’s valley temple or in his pyramid temple.2 The oxen would have been placed on a wall in the north half of one of these buildings so that their heads faced the pyramid.
The relief was originally in two parts, which were subsequently joined at the middle of the center cow. DoA
- Stork 1984a, cols. 257-63, with earlier bibliography; Houlihan 1996, pp. 10-21.
- Vandier 1969, pp. 9-10. Representations do not always make a clear distinction between bulls and oxen; see ibid., pp. 13-27.
- Ibid., pp. 13-58.
- Perhaps the most famous example of this type is from the pyramid temple of Sahure; see Bor-chardt 1913, pl. 1. But see also Labrousse and Moussa 1996, p. 97, doc. 57; and Jéquier 1940, pls. 36, 37, 40.
- Jéquier 1940, pl. 55.
- Goedicke 1971, p. 19, n. 44.
- In this appellation Khufu is identified not by his familiar name but by his so-called gold Horus name, which consists of two falcons on a gold hieroglyph; see H. Miiller 1938, pp. 54-62; and Beckerath 1984, pp. 21-26. Dobrev (1992, p. 402, nn. 2, 3) follows Iversen (1987, pp. 54-59), who understood hiw nbw(t), translated by Goedicke as «surrounding territories,» to indicate islands near the shore of the Nile Delta.
- Goedicke 1971, p. 19.
- Labrousse and Moussa 1996, p. 78, doc. 26 (valley temple); Borchardt 1913, pl. 55 (pyramid temple). A fragment found near Khufu’s pyramid temple between the small pyramids G 1 a and G 1 c shows the head of a bull or an ox and the remains of the arm of a man who leads this animal by a rope; see Reisner and Smith 1955, p. 5, n. 6, fig. 7: 26-2-24. The muzzle of the animal, if drawn correctly, is broader than the strikingly small muzzles on the Lisht block.
Provenance: Lisht North, pyramid enclosure of Amenemhat I,* foundation of a large mastaba at southwest corner, Metropolitan Museum of Art excavation, 1920-22
Bibliography: Hayes 1953, p. 63, fig. 39; Goedicke 1971, pp. 18-19
*This was called the «French Mastaba» because it had been explored by the French expedition of 1895-96; see Gautier and Jéquier 1902, pp. 100-103. The Metropolitan Museum expedition used the numbers 372 and 384 for this mastaba. The name Rehu-er-djersen on a block found here may identify the tomb owner; see Mace 1922, pp. 10-13, with plan on p. 5.
Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khufu
H. 38 cm (15 in.); w. 40 cm (15 3/4 in.)
Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto 958.49.2
Goedicke has convincingly demonstrated that this fragment,1 found reused in the pyramid of the Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh Amenemhat I, was originally part of the relief decoration of King Khufu’s pyramid temple at Giza.2 Indeed, it has the roundness and smooth surfaces typical of the reliefs of Khufu’s pyramid precinct (cat. nos. 38, 41) and shows many similarities with the fragment of an estate personification that carries the name of this king (cat. no. 41). The differentiation between the smooth surfaces of the man’s body and the main part of the shade and the grooved wig, for example, is comparable to the play between areas of contrasting texture on the estate relief.The man grasps the pole of a lotus-leaf-shaped sunshade,3 which rests on his shoulder, and enough is preserved of another shade behind him to tell us that he is the first of at least two shade bearers. Of an inscription on the right only parts of the hieroglyphs for «Upper Egypt» and «protection» remain, which are not sufficient to allow us to reconstruct the whole. Lotus-leaf-shaped sunshades were customarily carried by attendants of the pharaoh in Old Kingdom Egypt, especially at performances of rituals.4 We can assume, therefore, that the scene to which the Toronto fragment belonged involved a ritual and that a large figure of the king was depicted close by. The sky symbol with rather large stars that crowns the relief is a common feature in wall representations of religious character.
The Toronto relief is one of only a few reused blocks from Lisht on which substantial amounts of color remain. The black in the wig and the dark red of the skin alone have survived, but the intensity of these colors helps us imagine the original impression that was conveyed when the traditional bluish gray background and the probable green of the shade and blue and yellow of the sky were still in place. DoA
- The fragment was formerly in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 22.1.22.
- This attribution is convincing even though the eyebrow and wig shapes that Goedicke (1971, pp. 56-57) cites also appear in Fifth Dynasty reliefs; see, for example, Cherpion 1989, pls. 43-45.
- The only difference between a sunshade and a fan of the type that imitates the form of a lotus leaf is size; see Fischer 1977a, col. 81; and Fischer 1984b, col. 1104. The object in the present relief is large enough to be called a shade. In practice, one and the same instrument may have provided movement of air and served as a shield against the sun.
- See Borchardt 1907, p. 84, fig. 62c; Bissing and Kees 1923, frontis., pls. 9 (foot washing of king), 11 (king being carried in palanquin), 16 (king on throne being adorned), 17 (throne), 18 (king on throne); and Bissing and Kees 1928, pl. 3 (king carried by officials in priestly garment and with insignia). For the early history of the shade, see Goedicke 1971, p. 57 n. 147.
Provenance: Lisht North, pyramid of Amenemhat I, west side of core, Metropolitan Museum of Art excavation, 1920-22
Bibliography: Needier 1959, pp. 32ff.; Goedicke 1971, pp. 56-57
Limestone with remains of paint
H. 28 cm (11 in.); w. 90 cm (35 3/8 in.)
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia 58-10-3
Ancient Egypt, although not rich in trees, nevertheless had enough wood to supply material for the manufacture of furniture, coffins, and many other commonly used articles. And although most ships of state were probably made from imported cedar,1the overwhelming number of vessels that sailed the Nile must have been made of indigenous wood.2 No wonder that time and again Old Kingdom depictions of shipbuilding include scenes of lumbermen cutting trees for the men who make the boats. Often we see herds of goats that have come to feed on the foliage of trees (see entry for cat. no. 42), which are felled and trimmed by lumbermen and then transported to the shipyard.3 The present relief block4 comes from such a representation. It preserves only part of the uppermost register of the original scene and shows the leafy tops of two magnificent trees whose trunks must have been carved on the block below. Like the traditional figure of the pharaoh, the trees towered over two or more registers; in these registers their felling and trimming and the eventual building of a ship (or ships) must have been depicted. A man whose head and raised arms were carved on the block above strides with legs far apart and left foot lifted from the ground. He was undoubtedly engaged in a forceful action— probably the swinging of an ax over the fallen tree trunk whose end is visible behind his forward leg.
As Goedicke has noted, the detailed depiction of the foliage is without parallel in Old Kingdom art.5 Remarkable also is the liveliness of the plants. The tips of the branches at the left side of the tree nearest the man are more loosely distributed than those on the right, as if a wind was blowing them toward the left, and the central branch of the other tree is bent in an utterly natural way. There can be no doubt that a master sculptor was at work here. Taking this into account and considering that the original composition must have been of large size, given the remains of the trees that extended over two or even three registers, we almost certainly can assign the relief to a royal monument. There is also enough evidence to indicate that the monument in question belonged to the pyramid complex of Khufu at Giza: the roundness of the sculpted areas and their subtle relationship to the background, as well as the sparsely indicated musculature of the fully rounded limbs and torso of the woodcutter, firmly place the work in the same group of reliefs from Khufu’s pyramid precinct that includes representations of a procession of cattle, a man with a sunshade, and a personification of an estate (cat. nos. 38, 39, 41).6
Assigning the woodcutter relief to the funerary complex of Khufu—most likely the pyramid temple—runs counter to the general belief that full representations of shipbuilding did not belong to the repertoire of scenes included in royal funerary structures. It is true that no monument from a royal funerary complex has a similar scene that is preserved, and it seems that in the tombs of officials depictions of woodcutters began to appear only about the time of Sahure’s reign, in the Fifth Dynasty.7 Boat building, however, was already widely shown in the reliefs and paintings of the Meidum tombs from the time of Khufu’s father, Snefru (cat. no. 24c).8 And among the tantalizingly small relief fragments found near the site of Khufu’s pyramid temple and upper causeway were some bits that indicate the presence of scenes with boats.9 DoA
- In addition to cedar, Nour et al. (1960, pp. 45-46) note that juniper and thorn-tree wood, which are indigenous, are present in the royal boats.
- Lucas and Harris 1962, p. 442; Haldane 1992, p. 104.
- Vandier 1969, pp. 86-90, 661-64; Diirring 1995, pp. 92-95. The most important parallels to the scene discussed here are Hassan 1943,p. 115, fig. 60 (tomb of Seshemkare, time of Sahure); Moussa and Altenmuller 1971, p. 27, pls. 20, 21, 22b (early Niuserre); Moussa and Altenmuller 1977, p. 74, pls. 20, 21, fig. 8 (late Niuserre to reign of Menkauhor); Lepsius 1849-58, vol. 2, pl. 108 (Sixth Dynasty); and Varille 1938, pl. 16 (Sixth Dynasty).
- The fragment was formerly in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 22.1.1 1.
- Goedicke 1971, p. 120.
- For examples of royal reliefs of the Fifth Dynasty, see cat. nos. 112, 113.
- See note 3 above.
- See, above all, Petrie 1892, pls. n, 25.
- Reisner and Smith 1955, p. 5, fig. 7: 24-11-889, 24-12-14, 24-12-545.
Provenance: Lisht North, pavement west of pyramid of Amenemhat I, Metropolitan Museum of Art excavation, 1920-22
Bibliography: Goedicke 1971, pp. 118-20