Yet interest in collecting Egyptian objects can be found throughout the country, not only in the British Museum. Institutions in centers of learning outside of London gained Egyptian material through gifts and bequests. As the century progressed these institutions became even further entwined with archaeological work in Egypt through the practice of sponsoring excavations through direct subscriptions. This practice was the primary means by which institutions, such as the Egypt Exploration Fund, and individuals, such as Flinders Petrie, funded their work. In return for such support museums were accorded objects found over the course of an excavation based on the amount of money they had paid as a subscription. As a result of both British interest in ancient Egypt and this funding practice a multitude of Egyptian collections can now be found in Great Britain.
Museum archives and correspondence from the 1800s offer intriguing possibilities to the researcher interested in the history of Egyptology. Such documents, for
Example, offer information on the shifting attitudes that surrounded the acquisition of museum objects. These changing systems of selection, sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit, can shed light both on what the institution thought was important to buy and display as well as what that institution thought the museum-going public should be served. The Fitzwilliam Museum, one of the repositories for the University of Cambridge, is one of those British institutions that amassed an Egyptian collection over the course ofthe nineteenth century, and whose archives provide us with a glimpse into its changing priorities.
The museum was founded after Richard VII Viscount Fitzwilliam of Merrion bequeathed to the University of Cambridge his works of art and library, along with a tidy sum of money to take care of both, in 1816. While the initial collection did not contain Egyptian artefacts, material from Egypt found its way into the Fitzwilliam early in its history. The sarcophagus lid of Ramesses III, for example, was given by Belzoni in 1823 and formed a cornerstone of this collection. The most notable influx of Egyptian artefacts, however, occurred in the late Victorian Era. By the end of the nineteenth century the museum had grown to become an important repository for Egyptian material and an active shareholder in privately funded excavations in Egypt, from which it benefited. This thumbnail account of the growth of the Fitzwilliam’s Egyptian material fits nicely into the loose narrative on the development of British Egyptology and Egyptian collections outlined above. It is, however, also misleading. Throughout the 1800s the perceived importance of the Egyptian collection within the institution was not what we might expect when we view it today. The museum’s syndicate papers, the minutes kept for one of the early governing bodies of the museum, indicate that the museum’s main priorities throughout the mid to late 1800s were not on building up its now world-famous Egyptian collection, but rather on maintaining and improving its picture galleries. Apparently created in the 1840s, the responsibilities of the museum’s syndicate evolved and grew over time. Right from its inception, however, it had powers related to the purchase and display of objects in the museum, as well as their maintenance. In May of 1849 the Syndicate gathered and discussed the allocation of funds for insurance purposes. The museum’s pictures are mentioned second on the list of items to insure, for ?8,000, after the building’s fixtures and furniture. The list of categories of items to insure appears to be organized in descending order, from most expensive to least expensive. The second position of the category of the picture collection on the list demonstrates its importance to the museum, as the collection was undoubtedly the largest and most expensive in the museum (SP A: 23 May 1849). Yet the primacy of the picture collection is also evident in other ways. Well into the 1850s the museum had but one curator responsible for all its objects, and his title was Curator of Pictures. In 1853, with the death of the then Curator of Pictures, the museum recognized a need to professionalize further both the position of curator and the museum’s operations. To this effect, a report in the Syndicate Papers states:
The Objects which compose the Fitzwilliam Collection are not only rare and precious, but that many of them, especially in the department of Engravings and Manuscripts, are greatly exposed to damage and loss from unskilful handling... After therefore carefully weighing these and other important considerations... the Management Syndicate are of opinion that the Fitzwilliam Collection requires the constant superintendence of a person of higher station and attainments than are possessed by those who are at present entrusted with the care of the Museum.
The Syndicate therefore recommend...
1. That there shall be three Curators of the Fitzwilliam Museum.
(a) The Curator of the Pictures, Sculptures, and Antiquities
(b) The Curator of the Library
(c) The Curator of the Building (SP A: 18 May 1853)
Perhaps tellingly, this attempt to professionalize may once again demonstrate the foremost concern for the picture collection, as the word ‘‘picture’’ remains the first part of the curators new title. In 1873 the opinion that the picture gallery was, and should be, the main concern of the museum was made explicit in a passage from the Cambridge Undergraduate Journal. This passage is a scathing critique of the syndicate and its management of the all-important gallery:
The Syndicate are at present spending their money on altering and finishing the building. . . The Picture Gallery is the most important part of the Museum, and we believe that there are few who would wish it to remain in its present condition. It contains about 500 pictures; and if twenty per cent were removed, the value of the collection would be as much enhanced. We might as well teach our children to admire the leading articles of the Daily Telegraph, as specimens of classical taste, as to hang up many of the offending daubs at present exhibited on the walls of the Fitzwilliam Museum. . . Can we have any reasonable hope of the better management of the Fitzwilliam Museum, when bad pictures continue to be hung and good ones refused? We are inclined to think that the Slade Professor should be invested with almost autocratic authority, and we should like to see the Curatorship of the Museum in the hands of an M. A. of artistic tastes. We think it right that the building should be beautified and handsomely finished; but the true object of the endowment should ever be kept in view - the care of the objects of art contained in it, and the improvement of the collection. Before long, we hope that some portion ofthe income will be laid aside annually for the purchase of pictures. . . There is another minor point we would notice - the need ofa good descriptive catalogue of the pictures. (SP B: 5 November 1837).
Such concern for the picture gallery is fitting because, as this last passage states, the Fitzwilliam was established to be, and in many ways continues to be defined as, an art-historical, rather than a scientific or archaeological, museum.
The 1853 attempt to professionalize the museum, and the new title accordingly given to the curator of objects, might also indicate a second, early priority over the museum’s antiquities, and therefore the Egyptian antiquities: sculpture. Along with a marked concern for the welfare of the picture gallery, the museum syndicate papers demonstrate a concern for establishing and maintaining a collection of casts of classical sculpture. In 1850, a letter from a Mr Edmund Oldfield of the British Museum to Mr Mathison of Trinity College, Cambridge, highlights this focus. Oldfield was apparently under instruction from the Dowager Lady Wombwell to secure a new home for her cast collection. For possibly sincere reasons stated in the following passage, Oldfield thought the Fitzwilliam an appropriate venue for this collection:
A few days since I was informed by Lord Colborne, that a friend of his, the Dowager Lady Wombwell, had a collection of casts from the Antique, which from a change of residence she was no longer able to accommodate with house-room... With your Museum therefore in my mind, I proceeded to examine Lady Wombwell’s Collection... In the first place, it includes a few figures, which, with my views of art, I should not wish to see in the University Collection. Were the primary object to produce an ornamental effect, or even to give pleasure to nine-tenths of your visitors, I could not object to any part of the series. But regarding Art, as I do, as an educational instrument, I would not willingly admit into my Academy any thing which does not tend, either by its intrinsic excellence to elevate public taste, or by some peculiarities of style on treatment to supply materials for information whether aesthetic or historical. The number of casts however, which my own judgement would reject, is but small, and their value probably not one-tenth of the whole... It does not appear therefore to me that the collection, as a whole, is materially depreciated by the possession of some inferior portions. On the other hand, it is very naturally enhanced in value by the inclusion of one or two figures, which it would be difficult or impossible to procure from any other quarter... The interest I feel... arises from three considerations: firstly, I believe this collection may eventually be made more useful to the cause of Art at Cambridge, than in any other place upon which I can now fix: secondly, it may also, in my view, be useful to the cause of Education, by tending to promote the recognition of the study of Ancient Art as an essential branch of Classical Learning: and thirdly, it would be a great and unfeigned gratification to me to be instrumental in rendering any service to the University where I passed two of the happiest and most instructive years of my life and formed many of my most valuable and endearing friendships. (SP A: 25 May 1850).
The museum’s immediate response, despite the fact that the museum wished to acquire the collection, was that it lacked the funds to complete the transaction. Fortunately, a third party, evidently in contact with Oldfield, presented himself in June of that year to assist with the acquisition. As stated in a letter forwarded from Mathison by Oldfield:
I am very glad to be able to reopen my correspondence with you on the subject of Lady Wombwell’s Casts with more auspicious prospects than before. I mentioned all that had taken place, with what I understood to be the present position of the University, to [John] Fitzpatrick, whom you no doubt recollect at Trinity, as a Pensioner two years senior to yourself. He is so interested in the cause of Art, and so entirely concerned in my views of the importance of a good collection of Antique Casts, especially in a seat of classical learning that he has very nobly resolved to present them to the Fitzwilliam. (SPA: 19 June 1850).
The museum accepted this assistance even though it had to absorb the cost of the collection’s transportation. Before its transport Fitzpatrick, whose name henceforth was attached to the collection, wrote to the museum, assuring the institution of the collection’s value for educational purposes: ‘‘In reply to a part of your letter I beg to say, I make the gift free from any condition, having no doubt that the University will use the Collection as a means of instruction both in art and literature, and also as a means of acquiring a knowledge of some of the noblest works of human imagination and skill’’ (SP A: 11 July 1850). Upon its arrival in Cambridge, this collection would have been incorporated into the already existing Disney cast collection within the museum. Three years later, the Fitzwilliam’s cast collection was further expanded, this time from material offered by Lord Stratford (SP A: 26 April 1853). By the 1880s, both the size and perceived importance of the cast collection had grown to such an extent that the museum was forced to consider plans to re-house it. The decision to make a formal application to purchase land for the purpose of erecting a new, ‘‘archaeological’’ gallery and lecture room was recorded in 1881 (SP B: 22 October 1881). The following year, a two page report was issued, stressing the need for new premises:
In the opinion of the Syndicate an adequate museum of Greek and Roman Art, consisting principally of casts from works of ancient sculpture historically arranged, is urgently needed in the University alike for the study of Art and for that of Classical Antiquity... A Museum of this kind in question forms part of the educational apparatus of nearly every important University on the Continent and of some in America: one such is in course of formation in London, another at Oxford. . . The collection thus formed remains, however, quite inadequate for the purposes of systematic study and teaching: at the same time it is already too extensive for the room in which it is placed. This room, moreover, is not well suited to the exhibition of sculpture, and might, if the casts were moved elsewhere, be turned to better account for the exhibition of other portions of the Fitzwilliam Museum collections. (SP 2: 14 March 1882).
The report goes on to discuss a possible site, citing old malt houses that might be converted for the purpose of a museum:
These buildings cover an area of about 5000 square feet; they are in good repair, and could be converted at a comparatively trifling cost into excellent sculpture galleries. The site is moreover well adapted for the erection of additional buildings, which might be made sufficient to accommodate not only the required collection of ancient sculpture, but also, for some time at least, the archaeological collections of the University, as well as a library and lecture-room for the study of ancient art and archaeology.... The Fitzwilliam Museum Syndicate on Nov. 17, 1881, unanimously agreed that it was desirable to purchase the leases. . . They further caused plans to be prepared showing how the present and the proposed additional buildings might be divided between the Fitzwilliam Museum collection of Ancient Sculpture and the Archaeological Collections. These plans have been submitted to, and unanimously approved by, the Archaeological Collections Syndicate. (SP B: 14 March 1882).
There is nothing in the syndicate papers to suggest that the Egyptian material was included in plans to re-house objects in the categories of ‘‘Ancient Sculpture’’ or ‘‘Archaeological Collections.’’
Despite the priority given both to the picture and cast collections, Egyptian material continued to find its way into the Fitzwilliam throughout the nineteenth century. One example is the sarcophagus lid of Ramesses III, now a centerpiece of the collection. While it was no less famous at the time of its acquisition its acceptance by the Fitzwilliam raised eyebrows. Questions as to what purpose it might serve in the Fitzwilliam were asked. A letter dated 3 December 1834 from Francis Chantrey and addressed to George Peacock, concerning its transportation highlights this sentiment:
The proper way to convey the granite sarcophagus to Cambridge will be by employing some person in London accustomed to move heavy blocks of stone... But what you will do with it I know not. Its weight - size and rough workmanship render it unfit for furniture in the Fitzwilliam Museum - This is your concern - I think it would be better placed in the British Museum - look before you leap! (FC: E.1.1823,
3 December 1834)
Although accommodated as part of the collection, dissatisfaction with the lid was once again expressed fifty years later. In 1875, the British Museum’s Samuel Birch undertook a study of the lid (SP B: 9 and 23 October 1875). Upon the completion of this study, and upon Birch’s recommendation, the museum syndicate began laying the groundwork to exchange casts of the lid for casts of the sarcophagus’ trough, still held in the Louvre (SP B: 6 November 1875). The lid’s size, workmanship, and incomplete nature appear to have been ongoing cause for concern from the time ofits acquisition. An un-signed letter, dating to the 1950s, in the Fitzwilliam’s Department of Antiquities discusses this very issue, and proposes transferring the lid to the Louvre in exchange for a statue of the goddess Sekhmet. Several reasons in favor of a transfer are listed, including the fact that the lid cannot be considered an ‘‘artistic’’ piece and therefore is inappropriate to the museum’s perceived mandate:
The reasons which have weighed with the Syndicate in making this recommendation are as follows. The sarcophagus lid, though from the archaeological point of view one of the most important objects of Egyptian antiquity belonging to the Fitzwilliam, and one of its earliest possessions, is bound always, owing to its great size and horizontal shape, to take up a much greater amount of space than the Museum can afford to allot to an object of primarily archaeological importance. The value of the lid in this respect is appreciably diminished by its severely damaged state, for at least one third of it is made up with modern concrete. Its utility to students is much diminished by its being separated from the much larger, better preserved and more interesting body of the sarcophagus in the Louvre. Finally, in making this recommendation, the Syndicate have had in mind the character and purpose of the Fitzwilliam’s collection of Egyptian antiquities as it has developed in the century and a quarter since the lid was accepted. The character of the collection was at that early date clearly undecided. It has not in fact followed the lines which the acceptance of the sarcophagus lid might suppose. In keeping with a uniform tendency throughout all departments of the Fitzwilliam, the Egyptian collections have developed along lines of aesthetic rather than of strictly archaeological interest. It is, however, certainly not due to the deference to any mere change of taste and fashion that the Syndics consider it not now necessary, in the circumstances, to insist upon retaining the lid in the Museum. Considering that the Fitzwilliam is not a Museum ofarchaeology, and that in due time other primarily archaeological objects from its Egyptian collections, may well have to be transferred to another Department in the University; considering also that the recent acceptance of the Gayer-Anderson gift and of the Greg bequest has enlarged the collections by several thousand objects and permanently determined the character of that part of the Museum as a collection chiefly of works of art; and considering that these numerous accessions have created a most acute problem of exhibition space, the Syndicate conclude that they may properly submit that it would be to the advantage of the museum to exchange the lid for an admirable work of art more in keeping with the character of the rest of the collections and very much more economical of space.
The Professor of Egyptology, as Honorary Keeper of the Museum’s collections, and likewise the Director, have both in the course of their duty visited the Louvre to inspect the Sekhmet statue. They have reported to the Syndicate that it is an object of high artistic merit, of the finest period of Egyptian sculpture in the round, the best, and the best-preserved, of the several Sekhmet statues belonging to the Louvre, and an example of sculpture which would most strikingly enhance the interest of the Fitzwilliam’s collection, which very noticeably lacks monumental sculpture of the best period. Owing to its vertical form it could be happily exhibited in the narrow confines of the Museum’s larger Egyptian Room, as the sarcophagus lid never can be. (FC: E.1.1823).
A footnote after the last mention of the Louvre in this passage states: ‘‘Eighty-five examples are known in all; of these comparatively few are undamaged; ... No small museum possesses a single example’’ (FC: E.1.1823). This letter has a note stapled to it, dated to 1956, and signed by Stephen Glanville, Honorary Keeper of the collection in 1950 and Chairman of the Fitzwilliam Syndicate from 1955-56, endorsing the exchange (FC: E.1.1823). From a conversation with Ms Janine Bourriau, former Assistant Keeper of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, I understand this tension between the museum’s perceived archaeological material versus its art-historical material to have persisted well into the 1980s, the last time the museum considered exchanging the sarcophagus lid for an object with more aesthetic value.
With the above information in mind, it might be fair to say that, at times, the Egyptian material within the museum was considered to be ‘‘second-best’’ to other material, such as the cast and picture collections, during the mid-to-late 1800s. If this were the case, such opinions would not be out of character for British institutions. Stephanie Moser’s study of the collection of Egyptian material in the British Museum suggests that similar attitudes pervaded that institution. More specifically, Moser argues that Classical material in the British Museum was given more value and greater academic attention as a subject in its own right than its Egyptian collection for much of the 1800s (Moser 2006).
In many ways, the British Museum has, since its founding, been the foremost British institution for the collecting of antiquities. As such, its influence and personnel would have been able to affect the tone, at the very least, of the collecting practices of other institutions. The institutional study of Egyptian antiquities, after all, was undertaken by a relatively small number of people in the 1800s, as it still is today. Those people working for institutions with such material would generally have been aware of staff at institutions with similar material, or people with links to institutions with similar material, and the practices undertaken by those institutions. Edmund Oldfield’s letter from 1850, cited above, concerning what became known as the Fitzpatrick cast collection, proves this point. To begin with, Oldfield himself was associated with the British Museum. In his correspondence, he mentions the idea of the collection going to one of the ‘‘great provincial towns, for their Athenaeums or Institutes’’ but then stresses his preference that it go to ‘‘an institution, both of higher interest to me, and of greater influence on public education and taste than any at Liverpool or Manchester’’ (SP A: 25 May 1850). These statements indicate, provided he was not simply playing to the academic sensibilities of those attached to the Fitzwilliam, that Oldfield had very high regard for the Fitzwilliam’s potential to educate, more so than he had for institutions in the major urban centers of
Liverpool and Manchester. The possible influence of the British Museum is also evident in the 1853 syndicate papers entry involving the increased professionalization of the staff. While discussing changes to the museum, the Syndicate holds the British Museum up as an ideal model, stating: ‘‘That Collections like that in our Museum are always most scrupulously guarded elsewhere, as must be well known to all who have had occasion to consult Manuscripts or examine Engravings in Foreign Libraries, or in similar Collections in our own country, such as the British Museum and Bodleian Library’’ (SP A: 18 May, 1853). By the 1880s, as will be discussed shortly, the influence of the staff at the British Museum on the Fitzwilliam and its Egyptian collection became particularly clear.
While the Fitzwilliam’s concern for its picture and cast collections remained constant throughout the 1800s its interaction with the wider public changed throughout this period. As part of the university, the Fitzwilliam demonstrated an early concern for its collections to be used in the instruction of students. As stated above, Oldfield’s 1850 correspondence refers to the instructional value of the Fitzpatrick cast collection. Yet the syndicate papers show an early concern for the Fitzwilliam’s galleries to be opened to the public and for those galleries to become generally more accessible. The syndicate regulations of 1849, for example, establish two ‘‘public days’’ in every week for the galleries (SP A: 27 March 1849). A particularly striking account related to the museum engaging with and instructing the public takes the form of a letter from the Vice-Chancellor in 1856, in which he outlines his discomfort over the display of paintings in the galleries and their removal:
The exhibition of nude figures in a public gallery is always a matter of some embarrassment. Even where the gallery is visited by those only who are habituated to regard merely the pictorial interest of such, they ought not, it would seem, to be obtruded on the eye of the visitor. But since, in recent times, we have opened the Fitzwilliam Gallery to the public indiscriminately, and to very young persons of both sexes, it appears to be quite necessary, for the credit of the University, that it should be possible to pass through the Gallery without looking at such pictures; and therefore, that they should not be in prominent places in the Large Room by which the spectator enters. When I was Vice-Chancellor on a former occasion, I received a strong remonstrance, in a letter from a highly respected Member of the Senate, on the subject of three such pictures, belonging to the Museum; and especially, of one, which has, on such grounds, been repeatedly removed by preceding Vice-Chancellors. (SPA: 22 January 1856).
In 1857 the Syndicate requested, and was granted, an increase in the number of days on which the public might view the collection free of charge (SP A: 31 March and 30 April 1857).
A similar concern for how the museum was to instruct the public about, and possibly through, its objects, this time Egyptian, is evident in a passage written by Budge in his Catalogue of the Egyptian Collection in the Fitzwilliam Museum, dated 1893. Budge writes:
In December 1886, the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Swainson, Master of Christ’s College, informed me while in Egypt that a sum of ?100 had been voted by the University for the purchase of Egyptian antiquities and asked me to expend this money as advantageously aspossible. With the permission of Dr Edward A. Bond... I did so, and purchased as large a number of objects which I knew to be unrepresented in the collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum as the funds placed at my disposal would allow. . . This attempt to fill up gaps in the collection was continued by the Rev. Greville J. Chester. . . which have helped to make the Egyptian collection more representative. The expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money would now make it a valuable instrument for teaching purposes, and as complete as any collection without constant government support. (Budge 1893: vii).
Precedents for this sort of catalogue are stated in the syndicate papers. As early as 1849 the museum laid plans for a catalogue of its pictures and curiosities (SP A: 12 November 1849). Nor does Budge’s passage indicate an entirely new means of acquiring objects for the museum. In 1876 money was allocated ‘‘to supply deficiencies in the existing collection of the University.’’ Which obj ects were purchased with these funds is not, regrettably, listed in the syndicate papers (SPB:27May 1876).In1886, however, 175 scarabs appear to have been reluctantly purchased from Greville Chester (SP C: 5 June 1886).
Budge’s statement is a clear indication that by the late 1800s the museum had grown concerned that its Egyptian collection was no longer on par with that of other institutions. It was no longer sufficient to have Egyptian material in one’s museum, nor was it sufficient to await for objects to find their way into the museum: it was now necessary to engage an agent to flesh it out. Budge’s statement also brings two immediate questions to mind: of what does a desirable, ‘‘representative’’ Egyptian collection consist in the late 1800s in Britain?; and exactly which objects did he consider to be unrepresented in the Fitzwilliam? The first question is difficult to answer succinctly at this stage in our understanding of Egyptian collections. The second question, however, can be addressed through correspondence concerning Budge in the Fitzwilliam. A letter to the Vice-Chancellor from one Alec Macalister states:
From the copies of inscriptions which have been brought home we know that the district at and about Assdan [Aswan] is rich in monuments of the twelfth dynasty, a period quite unrepresented by anything in the Fitzwilliam. Mr Budge is a very judicious man, who knows the kind of monuments which would be useful for the collection, and who could well be trusted to expend a little money to the best advantage. (FB: 2 December 1886).
Macalister wrote again the following month, authorizing ?100 for Budge’s purchase, and once again re-iterating that Budge understands the ‘‘requirements’’ of the museum (FB: 10 January 1887). The museum contains two lists of the objects brought back by Budge from Egypt, one of which states ‘‘All the objects are from Luxor, the modern representative of ancient Thebes, & Ahmim, in ancient days called Panopolis. They represent some of the best artistic work of the 18th and 19th Dynasties (about 1400 bc)’’ (FB: 1886-7). What happened to the supposed Twelfth Dynasty material from Aswan requested by the museum? Why did Budge bring back nineteenth dynasty material from Thebes and Akhmim? Did Budge disagree with Macalister’s assessment of what the museum needed, or were his actions mitigated by other factors?
By the end ofthe century, Budge was not the sole agent who had worked on behalf of the museum to acquire Egyptian objects and build up areas considered to be unrepresented. Other professionals were commissioned to acquire objects on behalf of the museum. The opinions of these professionals were also sought when the museum considered purchasing from a third party. Lastly, it was at this point in time that the museum began to buy subscriptions to excavations for the express purpose ofacquiring newly-found material. The syndicate papers and correspondence in the Fitzwilliam reveal that Petrie functioned in all of these capacities. The museum bought a subscription to his Egyptian Research Account in 1895, increased the amount that it paid to it in 1896 (SP C: 29 October 1895 and 27 October 1896), and bought a portion of his finds in 1898 (SP C: 5 February, 3 and 31 May 1898). That same year Petrie responded to a request by the Fitzwilliam to purchase objects while in Egypt:
I shall be very glad to help in getting together some suitable things for Cambridge.
I have but little that I should care to let go of my own things; here and there a specimen wanted to supplement others I might have to spare. But broadly it would be best for me to buy in Egypt some suitable things, which I should be very glad to do. I always keep account of prices, so that I could say exactly what things cost. And we hope to send from excavations from time to time such things as are most suitable. We sent this year both from Exploration Fund and Research Account & hope for some subscriptions. What classes of things however should you definitely aim at?
Sculpture of various ages will come from excavations
Pottery likewise, + ostraca
Beads say 5 to 10 ? of typical string of each age
Writing material palettes, papyrus, etc.
Funeral furniture a set of ushabtis boxes, headrest, etc.
Any small objects characteristic of style in each main period.
That’s what I should suggest as a good aim to begin with. (FB: 12 November 1898).
The museum renewed its subscription to Petrie’s excavations (SP C: 22 November 1898, 5 December 1899, and 1 December 1903) and used him as a source ofinforma-tion for the purchase of objects. Other excavations were also supported, including: the British School at Athens’ work at Naukratis (SP C: 7 February 1899); the Egypt Exploration Fund’s excavations (SP C: 28 February 1899); John Garstang’s work at Beni Hasan (SP C: 21 October 1902); and the Graeco-Roman branch of the Egypt Exploration Fund’s efforts (SP C: 27 January and 20 October 1903).
An analysis of the Fitzwilliam’s syndicate papers and correspondence reveals a history very different from the one we might imagine when we consider Britain’s long interest in ancient Egypt and when we today view the museum’s important Egyptian collection. Despite the early presence of Egyptian material in the museum it does not appear to have been accorded the same status or priority as other material for most of the 1800s. Similarly, it would appear that the museum did not make the same effort to use Egyptian material, as it did other material, for the education of Cambridge students and the wider public. Lastly, the above information suggests that major efforts to flesh out the Egyptian collection, to make it more ‘‘representative’’ for educational purposes, only began to appear in the 1880s.
World History
