as
published.]

After him, Fig. 3, N. F. J. B. Rosellini began the publication of his
great work (_I Monumenti dell' Egitto_, Pisa, 1832-1844). The
similarity between the comparatively few drawings published by
Cailliaud and the very large number published by Rosellini is very
great. It is of course quite possible Rosellini may have made use of
some of Cailliaud's drawings. Five years after Rosellini's publication
came that of C. R. Lepsius (_Denkmaeler_, Leipzig, 1849), Fig. 4, his
drawings having been made in the years 1842 to 1845. Since the time of
Lepsius until quite recent years I can trace no further copying until
we get the illustration, Fig. 5, in Prof. Percy Newberry's _Beni
Hasan_, London, 1910. In this work the reproduction is about one
twentieth of the original, or about three fifths of the size of that
of Wilkinson, and unfortunately so crude as not to be available for
our present purpose.[B] Lastly we have the reproduction, Fig. 6, from
Mr. N. de Garis Davies' drawing made in 1903, and now first published
by kind permission of Mr. F. Ll. Griffith.

[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Horizontal Loom, Tomb of Chnem-hotep. Size of
original: Height of the figures 9-1/4" = 24.4 cm. Drawn by Mr. N. de
G. Davies, and now published for the first time by permission of Mr.
F. Ll. Griffith.]

In the various reproductions by the above explorers, the only three
which agree very closely are those of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies.
The others vary considerably and in essentials do not agree with the
above nor with one another. The differences may in the first instance
be due to difficulties in copying the original in the tomb. Others may
be due to ignorance of detail on the part of the secondary
copyist--the man who prepared them for publication--so that he was
unable to follow up the clues on the drawings laid before him. The
differences may also be due to careless copying and to "touching up"
of the copies when made; they may be slightly due to deterioration and
obliteration of the original in the course of time.

The _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ gives a variant from all six illustrations,
but approaching nearest to that of Cailliaud, Rosellini and Davies. It
is misleading in so far that the drawing has been made to suit
Professor Kennedy's idea as to what it should be.

Some of the differences are of minor importance, but a comparison will
help materially to our understanding of the method of weaving adopted
by the Egyptian