same time that, in the United States, there was no<- sinologist to whom we oould refer the
inscriptions themselves. Nor, indeed, was it until the writer studied at Paris, (301) in the
winter of 1845-6, that appeal had ever heen made from the learned opinion of Davis. (802)
In the letter cited at foot, the Chinese scholar defends his view against the “ Quarterly,"
(February, 1835) ; which maintained that these wases could not have heen found in ancient
Egyptian tombs — that the supposition of their being so found depended upon hearsay;
neither Lord Prudhoe, Mr. Wilkinson, nor Mrs. Bowen (quondam Mrs. Col. Light), having
seen those specimens they had purchased at Coptos and Thebes, extracted from any ancient
tomb. To repel which attack, Davis exhibits a letter from Rosellini to the effect, that he
saw one withdrawn from an ancient tomb during the Tuscan excavations at Thebes, in
1828-9. And thus, the only archteological process of determining the vastly important fact
of Pharaonic intercourse with China, so far as depended upon these vases, stood over until,
at the writer’s suggestion, and in his presence, four specimens were submitted by his valued
colleague, Prisse, at the iatter’s apartments, to their mutual friend, the high sinologue,
Pauthier. It is also desirable to note, that the question of the authenticity of these vases
arose amongst Us at Paris, in consequence of their forming a prominent feature in the
“ Notice” which M. Prisse was at that time preparing of the identical “ Collection of M.
H. Abbott;” (303) — a collection that, rejected by Europe, has “ fata profugus” since been
transferred, with the augmentation of a Chinese padlock, in 1852, from Egypt to New York.
“ Iisdem in armis fui ;” although M. Prisse’s own doubts first prompted him to consult the
opinion of so old an Egyptian fellow-sojourner as the writer.
M. Prisse had already projected the substance of the following in manuscript :
“ It is pretended that these little flasks have been found in Egyptian tombs : but as the
fact is contestable, I think it useful to discuss it. Whenever an error is met with in your
path says Bacon, fail not to eradicate it, as à traveller cuts doyvn a bramble passing. I
ought to strain myself the more to destroy this error that I have aided in its propagation,
by cooperating in the % Collection of Dr. Abbott,’ and by giving to N. L’Hôte two of those
little flasks for' the Royal Museum of the Louvre, where they figure under the title of
‘ Vases Chinois trouvés dans les tombeaux de l’Egypte par MM. Champollion et L’Hôte.
Champollion had bought one of these little vases at Thebes (Monuments de l’Egypte et de la
Nubie PI 424, No. 28.) N. L’Hôte received from me the two others ; and none of them,
to my knowledge, had been found in an Egyptian tomb. Rosellini, the only one who pretends
to have found a similar one himself (Monumenli Civili, vol. iii. p. 397), in a tomb of
which he makes the epoch ascend to the XVIIIth dynasty, is not an author very worthy
of credit Sir G. Wilkinson (Man. and Oust., iii. p. 108) believes that these little flasks
which held perfumes, had been brought into Egypt by the commerce of India, with which
country the ancient Egyptians appear to have been in relation from a very remote epooh:
but he does not discuss the authenticity of these vases. Upon the testimony of these two
authors and upon that of the Arabs, I had believed for a long time that these flasks issued
from the excavations, and I bought many that I gave away. Soon after, a traveller having
assured me that he had seen similar vases at some ports of the Red Sea, (304) I began to
conceive doubts. Pressed by questions, the Arabs avowed to me that the greater number
of these vases came from Qous, from Qeft and from Qosseyr, successive entrepots of Indian
commerce. This avowal seemed to mè peremptory.”
It was here that M. Pauthier’s call with the writer led opportunely to the sequel.
“ Nevertheless, the stability of the arts in China might have caused repetitions of the
foims of these vases from early centuries ; and the nature of the characters employed in
the inscription could alone remove all objection. I consulted at Paris two learned sinolo-
' gists MM Stanislas Julien and Pauthier, who assured me that the characters thsao,
painted upon these vases, dated solely from the second century of our era. M. Pauthier
has been pleased to indite a note upon this subject, which I hasten to publish in order to.
terminate the discussion.”
From" Pauthier’s “ Note upon the Chinese vases found in Egypt,” we have condensed the
(301) P r i s s e : Recherches .sur les légendes de. SCKAI: Revue Arehêol., 1845 ; p p . 457-475, note.
(302) Lettre et M. Bunsen sur les Vases C/nncS irmvés dam à’Anciens Tombeaux: translated from the English
in Annali dell’ Instituto di Carr. Archeol. di Rama, 1836 ; p. 322, se j, and plate G.
(303) Notice sur le Music du Kaire,et sur les CdOectigns Égyptiennes de MM. Abbott, Clot Bey, et Marris : Iteva»
Archéol., 15 Mars, 1846; tirage à part, pp. 3-28, and wood-'cuts, pp. 18,19.
(304) C o m p a r e P ick eb jn g : Races of Men and their Geographical Distribution: 1848; p . 400.
subjoined. In his work, “ The Chinese,” under the article “ Porcelain,” Gov. J. F. Davis,
of Hong-kong, refers to the exceptions taken by the Quarterly Review, citing Wilkinson
i and Rosellini for the fact of the disoovery of such vases in Egyptian catacombs.
" “ M. Letronne, when giving account, in the Journal des Savans,(Nov. 1844, p. 665,) of
the work of Mr. Wilkinson, thus expresses himself: ‘ The author believes in the Chinese
origin of certain porcelain vases, found in the tombs at Thebes, of which one is of the
XVIIIth dynasty. He gives the figures of four of these vases, with Chinese inscriptions,
which Mr. Davis flatters himself with having read. We know that other sinologues doubt
this origin. fi The fact deserves to be cleared up by a contradictory discussion. . . . There
is nothing in it impossible, but it seems little verisimilar. . . . Yet, if these inscriptions are
really Chinese, the fact must be accepted. All lies in that.’ ”
It is merely justice to Morton’s memory here to remark that his “ Crania Ægyptiaca ”
had appeared in the spring of 1844, at Philadelphia. Nor is his discrimination amenable,
on questions alien to his special studies, to the charge of hastily adopting, in good faith,
that which Parisian science had not begun to ventilate for six months later.
After stating that no sinologist doubted that these vases “ are really and purely Chinese,”
M. Pauthier holds that all the question does “ not lie in that;” and then eliminates the
facts as follows :—
1. The inscriptions upon these vases are in the cursive Chinese character called thsao.
2. This cursive character was not invented in China until the second century after
Christ. Hence “ it is materially impossible that vases, bearing inscriptions in that
writing, could have been manufactured and transported to Egypt in the time of the
XVIIIth dynasty ; that is to say, about 1800 years before the said epoch ! ”
Gov. Davis, “ well versed in the study of the vulgar Chinese (language), seems, like
some other sinologues, to have completely neglected the study of Chinese arehasology.”
Nevertheless, on the vase published by him (No. .4 of Wilkinson, and of M. Prisse),
one reads easily :---. . |
3. “ Ming youê soung tchoung tchao : ‘ the brilliant moon, is resplendent through the
pines.’ ”
4. This is a line from a “ strophe composed by Wang-gan-ehi, who lived under the
Soung dynasty, in 1068 of our era ; and corrected ifl the last syllable by Sou-toung-po,
who flourished fifty years later.”
6. The highest antiquity of the cursive character on these vases being 200 years after
Christ, and the verse written upon them being from an author who lived early in the
twelfth century of the same era — it follows that the. vases in question have been
transported into Egypt since the year 1100 a . d . M. Pauthier gives reasons, from
Chinese history, why some of them may have been brought back from China by Arabian
embassies in the fifteenth century after Christ ; to which age probably belong the
two specimens recently exhumed from the Khabour mounds by Dr. Layard.
Bqt, as the writer, and Mr. Bonomi, and M. Prisse, and others, have known for these
twenty years, such vases abound in Egypt ; especially after the annual return of the Hadj,
or Mecca pilgrims, to Qossbyr and Cairo. The Mosaic Theban tombs are supplied through
the former ; the ante-Abrahamic catacombs of Memphite Saecàra through the latter mercantile
channels ; while the drug bazaars of Cairo and of Qenneh have always a stock on
hand —price fluctuating, according to the demands of antiquaries, between two and a half
and three and a half cents apiece, retail. Arab curiosity-mongers are thus enabled to furnish
imbecilities travelling along the Nile with Sinico-Ægyptian vases even of ante-diluvian
antiquity, on application. In the meanwhile, archaeologists are aware of the sort of proofs
Of “ early communication between Egypt and China ” the New York collection embraces.
To close the digression. The reader will duly take note that the New Yoi-k catalogue,
above cited, refers to the “ Revue Archceologique, by Mr. E. Prisse.” The proprietor of
he invaluable “ Revue Archéologique ” is M. Leleux ; but while the author of the “ cata-
ogue ” aforesaid mentions both the work and the savant whose inquiries, seven years ago
demonstrated a “ Chinese vase with 17 others” to be, as antiquities, spurious ; readers
of that document need not wonder at the appropriate association, in the same unique
cabinet, of similia similibus.
82