The financial imperative and the EES excavations at Amarna in the 1920s and 30s
By Chris Naunton
Funding is a constant issue for archaeology and Egyptology: money for research is generally in
shortly supply, and the need to identify and cultivate sources of it is an essential part of the job for
most who are actively engaged in the field, perhaps never more so than in today's troubled
economic times. The extent to which these concerns have affected work undertaken in the past, and
in turn how this has affected what we know about the history of Egypt and other countries, is a
crucial aspect of the study of our subject.
This paper considers the case of Egypt Exploration Society which was founded in 1882 and
remains, today, the leading British organization undertaking field research in Egypt. It was one of
the first foreign institutions granted permission to excavate in Egypt by the Egyptian Antiquities
Service, and one of the first whose principle objective was the recovery and dissemination of
information rather than physical material. It set new standards in archaeological fieldwork, thanks
largely to Finders Petrie whose pioneering work was undertaken under the auspices of the EEF
from 1883 to 1886 and again from 1896 to 1905. It also set a new benchmark for publication in
terms of the punctuality, quantity of information and quality of presentation of its Excavation
Memoirs which were from the beginning circulated widely to subscribers who included both
specialists and non-specialists alike.
The Society was formed by a group of amateur enthusiasts for ancient Egypt led by the writer and
traveller Amelia Edwards. They had become concerned at the rapid destruction of Egypt’s
monuments and had decided that something must be done at least to record what was left before it
disappeared completely. They established the Egypt Exploration Fund to provide the means for an
explorer to visit Egypt to excavate and record a site or sites considered to be most at risk and/or
which had the potential to provide the greatest gains in knowledge, and then to publish the results.
The money to do this would come from like-minded private individuals and institutions, and, once
the division of objects to the Society became an established practice (see below), from Museums
with an interest in growing their collections. Contributions of all sizes were encouraged but for a
minimum contribution of £1 subscribers were entitled to receive the annual Excavation Memoir –
the report on the season’s archaeological work and the equivalent of the modern final excavation
report.
The focus on knowledge and not on the recovery of physical material is exemplified by the final
line in the announcement of the Society’s founding which appeared in The Times on the 1st of
April, 1882:
“It must be distinctly understood that by the law of Egypt no antiquities can be removed from the
country.”
Nonetheless an exception to this rule would be made at the end of the Society’s first season of
excavation as was reported during the first Annual General Meeting:
“The President then communicated to the meeting the donation to the Society of two important
monuments discovered by M. Naville at Pithom-Succouth-a granite hawk bearing the name of
Ramses II, and a squatting statue of a Recorder of Pithom.”1
Both objects were passed to the British Museum where they remain to this day.
1
Egypt Exploration Fund. Report of First General Meeting and Balance Sheet (1883), 4.
The distribution of objects from 'source' countries such as Egypt to Museums and other collections
around the world is a very important contributing factor in the development of our understanding of
the ancient past. Collectors of antiquities, and the objects they amassed, which often subsequently
passed to Museums, played an important role in this. Collectors needed money to buy their objects
of course, and in many cases the same people also helped to finance organisations like the EES
whose primary aim was the recovery of information, but which also acquired and distributed objects
- the material remains of the civilisations they were devoted to - as part of the process. Of course, in
some cases these collectors may have not have been motivated purely by a desire to support
scientific endeavours alongside building their own collections but also in the hope of influencing
the movement of objects if not to their own collections then to public institutions in their local area,
whether that be a particular country or even more specifically to a particular town or city. And so,
collectors and excavating institutions were intimately linked - by money and in the process by
which objects came to be scattered across the world.
In the years that followed, the Society acquired a much greater proportion of the objects it
excavated each year, with the blessing of the antiquities service, through the system of ‘division’ or
‘partage’. At the end of each season all portable objects recovered would be brought before the
curators of the Egyptian Museum for inspection. All objects which were considered by them to be
of national importance either because they were unique or displayed exceptional quality of
workmanship or as works of art, were retained for the national collection. The Society would be
entitled to claim a portion of the remaining objects. In practice this meant that in some cases
thousands of objects were taken back to London. They would then be exhibited to the public for a
few weeks over the summer to raise awareness of the Society’s work and to encourage popular
interest and new subscriptions. After this the objects would be redistributed to Museums and other
public institutions throughout the UK and beyond who had or would support the Society’s work
through subscriptions and donations. The more substantial the amount of money passed the Society
the more likely the institution would be to have its choice of objects or to receive pieces of
particularly high quality or in large numbers. The nature of the transaction was not one of sale /
purchase - in most cases the objects were dispatched to institutions that had helped Society the work
during which the pieces were found, no ‘prices’ were agreed, and the institutions were not involved
in the decision as to which objects would be sent. The difference was only subtle however.
Despite this it should be emphasized that objects were never passed to private collectors as part of
this process; the Society insisted that the objects should be given only to public institutions where
they would be publicly displayed or at least made accessible for study. It should also be
acknowledged that the Society’s insistence on high standards of excavation, recording and
publication meant that the objects entering these collections came with secure, accurate and detailed
information as to their provenance – their archaeological context - contrary to almost everything
that had gone before. Previous to this, very little archaeological work in Egypt had been
documented as thoroughly as that of the EES and a very significant proportion of objects leaving
Egypt prior to the Society’s beginnings were purchased on the antiquities market by which point
any information about provenance would have been lost and even willfully obscured to protect
‘source’ sites for the dealers, as happened famously in the case of the cache of royal mummies and
associated equipment discovered by the Abd Er Rassoul brothers some years before the antiquities
Service became suspicious enough to launch the investigation which brought it to the attention of
the wider world.
Importantly, however, it is clear that the Society’s need to raise money to continue the work, meant
that the acquisition of objects which could then be divided to Museums in return for subscriptions
and donations, became much more important than would otherwise have been the case. While the
Society never abandoned the principle that the recovery of information was of paramount
importance the opportunity to acquire objects must have influenced key decisions from time to
time. The Society must have known that its choice of sites and excavators would have affected the
quantity and kind of objects it would bring home, and such decisions may not therefore have been
based purely on the aim to preserve sites and monuments and gather knowledge.
It seems likely that certain institutions - those making the most substantial donations - may have
held a degree of influence over the division and an intriguing additional dimension to this is
provided by the possibility that particularly generous subscribers may also have been able to
influence the choice of destination for particular pieces, i.e to their preferred, perhaps nearest,
public institution.
The case of Tell El-Amarna
The tomb of Tutankhamun was discovered in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 and its burial
chamber containing the mummy of the king and the famous golden death-mask were revealed in
1923, causing a global sensation. Ancient Egypt was suddenly very popular and the public appetite
for anything related only partially sated by coverage of Howard Carter’s discoveries on which The
Times had a monopoly. The EES had begun working at Tell El-Amarna in middle Egypt in 1921.
This was the site of the capital city of Egypt’s heretic pharaoh, Akhenaten, who had, during a reign
of approximately sixteen years, introduced sweeping reforms worshipping one god, the Aten, to the
exclusion of all others and established an entirely new capital city on virgin ground. This great
project would not last long and the old ways were quickly restored after his reign had ended but for
various reasons the story has always exerted a particular hold over the popular imagination.
Furthermore, the story is connected to Carter’s discovery as Akhenaten is commonly identified as
Tutankhamun’s father.
Wishing to meet the public demand for ancient Egypt but unable to deliver news of Carter’s latest
discoveries thanks to The Times’ monopoly, its rivals turned to the EES’ excavations at Amarna –
the city in which Tutankhamun may have been born and lived as a child – as the next best thing.
Though not comparable to the sensational material being brought to light in the Valley of Kings the
Amarna excavations, which lasted from 1921 to 1936, yielded vast quantities of archaeological
information and physical material, providing the press with copious images and the basis for
intriguing stories about Akhenaten and his people.
Interestingly, the recovery of objects to enrich Museum collections was, from the outset, one of the
stated aims of the project, which were: ‘to gather details of the architecture and arrangement of the
houses, to learn more of the daily life, and to secure objects for museums’.
Popular interest in the Society’s work therefore reached something of a peak at this time and yet,
though considerable efforts were made in this direction, new subscriptions and donations were still
insufficient to provide the excavations with any financial security. In 1930 John Pendlebury was
appointed director of the Amarna excavations and during his time it was the big Museums,
particularly in the United Dates of America which provided the most substantial contributions to the
work, in return for a share of the objects recovered.
At the end of the 1930-31 season, Pendlebury was pleased with the discoveries made, but it is clear
that one of the measures of ‘success’ of the season would be the effect on fundraising: “On the
whole I think we can look back on a really wonderful season. A Mycenaean House. Gold and
Silver. The Princess’s head. A splendid house … Excellent small finds. Bronzes which should clean
up as well as those Cairo has kept. A stone chapel with the second biggest house at Amarna. The
finest wall paintings ever waiting until next year. A palace waiting likewise… If that doesn’t bring
in the money what will?’2
The exhibition in London of the finds divided which followed the end of the season was very well
attended, however, this not bring about the desired increase in subscriptions and donations, and
there were only just enough funds to get the team back to Amarna the following year.3 The constant
shortage of funds began to have a direct effect on the expedition personnel in advance of the 1932-3
season. The Society’s Assistant Secretary, Mary Chubb, who had joined the team in previous
seasons to look after the administration and also played a significant role in cataloguing and
drawing the small finds, could no longer be accommodated and instead went to work in Iraq for the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago which was funded by the American industrialist and
philanthropist, John D Rockerfeller. Two further members of Pendlebury’s team were also almost
tempted away from Amarna by generous offers from the Oriental Institute prompting EES Secretary
Mary Jonas to write ‘It is impossible for a poor Society like ours to vie with the Chicago Institute,
and it really seems as if we have become a training ground for recruits for Chicago.’4
The discovery of objects and the subsequent division of finds, and the management of relations with
influential individuals and institutions, especially the Brooklyn Museum, remained of paramount
importance in the final years of the excavation. In 1933 a generous proposition from Copenhagen
was withdrawn: the museum there had offered around three hundred pounds on the understanding
that they would have top priority over the acquisition of finds but a clerical error put Brooklyn at
the top of the list, prompting Copenhagen to cancel their contribution entirely.5
Pendlebury himself was determined that the Society should do more to raise funds and gave much
energy to the promotion and publicising of the excavations partly for this purpose.6 He was also
regularly require, during the course of the season, to entertain visitors who might be influential in
the division or in eliciting support from museums. These included Jean Capart, Professor of
Egyptology at the University of Liège as well as Director of the Belgian Musées Royaux du
Cinquantenaire a passionate advocate of the Amarna dig who also had great influence with
Brooklyn.7
The Society’s Committee decided it would end the expedition to Amarna after the 1935-6 season in
favour of a new project at the ancient Egyptian colonial outpost at Sesebi in Sudan. During the final
season the financial situation at times seemed quite desperate. Pendlebury telegraphed the Society
for more funds but his request was turned down, Mary Jonas writing: “I am sorry the Committee
could not see its way to send further cash, but after all the Shweich Fund won’t even be granted
until the new year, Mrs Hubbard8 seems silent as the grave, and up to date no promises have come
from America.”9 In the end £50 was donated by a Mrs Hopkins Morris for the completion of the
season’s work but Pendlebury’s frustration was clear in his letter thanking her: “I’m sorry Museums
don’t want scraps. It always seems funny that they are willing to buy things in the market for
hundreds of pounds – yet if they subscribe to a dig a fiver they expect a Nefertiti head.”10
2
Grundon, I, The Rash Adventurer. A Life of John Pendlebury (London, 2007), 139.
Grundon (2007), 145.
4
Grundon (2007), 156-7.
5
Grundon (2007), 168.
6
Naunton, C, ‘The ‘Film Record of the Egypt Exploration Society’s Excavations at Tell-El-Amarna’’ KMT: A Modern
Journal of Ancient Egypt 21,3 (Fall 2010), 45-53.
7
Grundon (2007), 171.
8
The most generous individual supporter of the Amarna dig.
9
Grundon (2007), 211.
10
Grundon (2007), 212.
3