Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

T. E. Peet, a Mathematician Among Egyptologists?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research in History and Philosophy of Mathematics

  • 243 Accesses

Abstract

During the 1920s, the study of ancient Egyptian mathematics was particularly vigorous, with the emergence of new sources, and new editions of old ones. A central figure, and virtually the only professional Egyptologist in this activity, was Thomas Eric Peet (1882–1934). Before embarking on an archaeological career, Peet had studied mathematics at university, which probably accounts for the major interest that he subsequently took in Egyptian mathematics. Although he never pursued mathematics professionally, he sometimes referred to himself as a “mathematician”, presumably as a means of distinguishing himself among Egyptologists. Elsewhere, however, he used the word in a much less complimentary way to refer to those scholars who took a mathematically focused and uncontextualised approach to the study of ancient mathematics. This article examines three different ways in which Peet employed the word “mathematician”, thereby illuminating both his own career trajectory and self-presentation, and also the way in which different disciplines interacted within the study of ancient mathematical texts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an up-to-date general account of ancient Egyptian mathematics, see Imhausen (2016).

  2. 2.

    Most recently, Imhausen (2021, p. 44) has described it as a “remarkable achievement” (“eine beachtliche Leistung”).

  3. 3.

    In connection with Eisenlohr’s edition, Francis Llewellyn Griffith noted that “time treats Egyptological commentaries hardly” (Griffith 1891/1894, p. 26, n. †, his emphasis).

  4. 4.

    The first easy account of the RMP was that provided by Cantor (1880). Others appeared, for example, in Vashchenko-Zakharchenko (1883), Cajori (1894), and Tropfke (1902/1903).

  5. 5.

    In the case of Neugebauer, see, for example, Ritter (2016) and Hollings and Parkinson (2020).

  6. 6.

    In the interests of brevity, we will omit all background detail save that which is of immediate relevance to the discussion. We plan to write on this topic more fully elsewhere. Some preliminary work in this direction may be found in Hollings and Parkinson (2020). A longer study will appear as Hollings and Parkinson (2023).

  7. 7.

    For biographies of Peet, see Bierbrier (2012, pp. 420–421), Gardiner (1934a), and Gunn and Simpson (2004). For his bibliography, see Uphill (1979). See also Lewis (2014; 2016).

  8. 8.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: Peet MSS 4.4.1, Rev. Canon S. C. Armour to T. E. Peet, 24th October 1904 (testimonial).

  9. 9.

    In some biographical notes on Peet (Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.1, ‘Thomas Eric Peet’), written shortly after his death by an old schoolmate, the economic historian Charles Ryle Fay (1884–1961), we find the following comment: “At Oxford they foolishly (as he and I thought) made him read both classics and mathematics at the same time, and therefore he got two seconds, instead of the first which he could have got in either subject”.

  10. 10.

    In a 1923 letter to the biologist, mathematician, and classicist D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1860–1948), Peet commented: “I have read little [mathematics] since Math. Mods” (University of St Andrews Library, Department of Special Collections: Papers of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Correspondence to Professor Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson from Thomas Eric Peet, m23968, 25th November 1923).

  11. 11.

    See, for example, Peet (1920a; 1923a; 1930c).

  12. 12.

    Gunn and Simpson (2004).

  13. 13.

    Gunn and Simpson (2004).

  14. 14.

    See, for example, Gardiner (1934b) and Anon (1934).

  15. 15.

    Myres et al. (1934, p. 532).

  16. 16.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: NEWB 2/576, 36/36, Peet to Newberry, 2nd October 1913.

  17. 17.

    This is reflected in their correspondence—see, for example, Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.123, Peet to Gardiner, 30th April 1925.

  18. 18.

    Peet and Gardiner discussed Borchardt’s book and his proposed chronology in several letters; see Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.219, 216, 211, 210.

  19. 19.

    Peet (1920b, p. 149).

  20. 20.

    Glanville (1934, pp. 63–64).

  21. 21.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.177(1), Peet to Gardiner, 28th September 1921.

  22. 22.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.176(1), Peet to Gardiner, 7th December 1921.

  23. 23.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.176(1), Peet to Gardiner, 7th December 1921. The problem in question was no. 43, which appears in Peet’s edition of the RMP (p. 82) as: “A circular container of 9 cubits in its height and 6 in its breadth. What is the amount that will go into it in corn?” Two pages of commentary follow, which Peet prefaced with the remark: “This is one of the most difficult problems in the papyrus”.

  24. 24.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.176(1), Peet to Gardiner, 7th December 1921. By the time the first volume of Chace’s edition appeared in 1927, Chace had evidently learnt of the work that he had previously overlooked (principally, Schack-Schakenburg 1899). Chace (1927/1929, vol. I, p. 88) fully accepted Schack-Schakenburg’s solution, and dismissed the concerns that Peet had earlier raised about it in his commentary on the problem.

  25. 25.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.176(1), Peet to Gardiner, 7th December 1921.

  26. 26.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.39, Peet to Gardiner, 19th May 1930.

  27. 27.

    Peet had earlier made similar comments about his own edition of the RMP (and perhaps, by extension, the whole topic of Egyptian mathematics): “[t]he interest is almost more mathematical than Egyptological” (University of St Andrews Library, Department of Special Collections: Papers of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Correspondence to Professor Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson from Thomas Eric Peet, ms23967, Peet to Thompson, 2nd November 1923).

  28. 28.

    Peet was probably the only Egyptologist with an interest in reviewing Chace’s edition and to have written a critical Egyptological review that would have implicitly asserted the superiority of Peet’s own edition would not have been in his character, which was exceedingly modest where his own published works were concerned. For example, upon seeing Neugebauer’s completed doctoral dissertation, which drew upon Peet’s edition of the RMP, he wrote to Gardiner: “his is an admirable piece of work and makes me if possible more dissatisfied with my Rhind than I was before” (Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.92, Peet to Gardiner, 16th October 1926).

  29. 29.

    The original text of the papyrus reads from right to left, but Egyptological practice is to write the standardised transliteration of the Egyptian script from left to right, for ease of reading. Chace’s edition, however, includes transliterations that run from right to left, matching the direction of the script.

  30. 30.

    See, for example, the recent comparison of the editions in Imhausen (2021).

  31. 31.

    See Hollings and Parkinson (2020).

  32. 32.

    See, for example, Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.92, Peet to Gardiner, 16th October 1926 (quoted in Hollings and Parkinson 2020, p. 90).

  33. 33.

    Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.39, Peet to Gardiner, 19th May 1930. ‘Struve’ is the orientalist V. V. Struve (1889–1965), who published an edition of the MMP under the encouragement of Neugebauer (Struve 1930). The edition was reviewed critically but politely by Peet (1931c) and discussed more forthrightly in private correspondence (Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford: AHG/42.230.42, 39, 38, 29; University of St Andrews Library, Department of Special Collections: Papers of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Correspondence to Professor Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson from Thomas Eric Peet, m23969).

  34. 34.

    See, for example, the comments in Stedall (2012).

  35. 35.

    Imhausen (2018) has used the term “(mathematical) expert” in the ancient Egyptian setting.

  36. 36.

    Peet (1931b, p. 420, n. 2).

  37. 37.

    Peet (1931b, pp. 440–441).

  38. 38.

    Elsewhere, for example, we find the Egyptologist Alexander Scharff (1892–1950) referring to Neugebauer as “the mathematician” (“der Mathematiker”) (Ritter 2016, pp. 155, 159).

References

  • Anon (1934) [Thomas Eric Peet]. Chronique d’Egypte 9(18):323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon (1949) C. H. Thompson (1865–1948). The Queen’s College Record 3(3):4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierbrier ML (2012) Who was who in Egyptology. 4th revised edn. Egypt Exploration Society, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchardt L (1917) Die Annalen und die zeitliche Festlegung des Alten Reiches der Ägyptischen Geschichte. Behrend & Co., Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cajori F (1894) A history of mathematics. Macmillan & Co., New York; London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantor M (1880) Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik. Vol. I. Leipzig.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chace AB (1927/1929) The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, British Museum 100578 and 10058: photographic facsimile, hieroglyphic transcription, transliteration, literal translation, free translation, mathematical commentary and bibliography. 2 vols. Mathematical Association of America, Oberlin, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenlohr A (1877/1891) Ein mathematisches Handbuch der alten Aegypter: Papyrus Rhind des British Museum. 2 vols. J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, Alan H., Egyptian grammar: Being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner AH (1934a) Thomas Eric Peet [obituary]. J. Eg. Arch. 20(1/2):66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • G[ardiner] AH (1934b) Thomas Eric Peet. The Queen’s College Record 2(2):7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanville SRK (1934) Thomas Eric Peet 1882–1934. Ancient Egypt and the East, 63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith FLl (1891/1894) The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch. 13:328–332; 14:26–31; 16:164–173, 201–208, 230–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunn B, Peet, TE (1929) Four geometrical problems from the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus. J. Eg. Arch. 15(3/4):167–185.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gunn B, Simpson, RS (2004) Peet, (Thomas) Eric (1882–1934), Egyptologist. In: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/35456 Published online 23 Sept 2004. Accessed 10 Sept 2021.

  • Hollings CD, Parkinson RB (2020) Two letters from Otto Neugebauer to Thomas Eric Peet on ancient Egyptian mathematics. Hist. Math. 52:66–98.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hollings CD, Parkinson RB (2023) Contrasting aims and approaches in the study of ancient Egyptian mathematics in the 1920s. To appear in Rev. hist. math.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhausen A (2016) Mathematics in ancient Egypt: A contextual history. Princeton University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Imhausen A (2018) The cultural context of (mathematical) experts in Ancient Egypt. In: Jones A, Taub L (eds) The Cambridge history of science. Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhausen A (2021) Der mathematische Papyrus Rhind — damals (im 19. Jahrhundert v. Chr.), früher (im 19./20. Jahrhundert n. Chr.) und heute (im 21. Jahrhundert). In: Dils P, Fischer-Elfert H-W, Hafemann I, Richter S (eds) Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftler im Alten Ägypten: Gedenkschrift für Walter Friedrich Reineke. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Beiheft 9. De Gruyter, Boston, pp. 35–67.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis C (2014) Peet, the JEA and the First World War. Egypt Exploration Soc. Newsl. (London Edition) 11:8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis C (2016) Inaugural lectures in Egyptology: T. E. Peet and his pupil W. B. Emery. Bull. Hist. Arch. 26(1): article 9, 15pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller GA (1905) The mathematical handbook of Ahmes. School Sci. Math. 5:567–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M[yres] JL, G[riffith], FLl, G[rensted], LW (1934) Thomas Eric Peet. Oxford Magazine, 1 March, 531–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, O (1925) Review: Peet, T. E., The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: British Museum 10057 and 10058. Mat. Tidsskr. A, 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, O (1926) Die Grundlagen der ägyptischen Bruchrechnung. Doctoral dissertation, Göttingen [published by Springer the same year].

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1920a) The Mayer papyri A & B; nos. M. 11162 and M. 11186 of the Free public museums, Liverpool. Egypt Exploration Soc., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1920b) Review: Die Annalen und die zeitliche Festlegung des Alten Reiches der Ägyptischen Geschichte by Ludwig Borchardt. J. Eg. Arch. 6(2):149–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1922) The antiquity of Egyptian civilization: Being a plea for some attempt to formulate the laws which should form the basis of archaeological argument. J. Eg. Arch. 8(1/2):5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1923a) The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: British Museum 10057 and 10058. Hodder & Stoughton for Liverpool University Press, London.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1923b) Arithmetic in the Middle Kingdom. J. Eg. Arch. 9(1/2):91–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1929) Review: Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, herausgegeben von O. Neugebauer, J. Stenzel und O. Toeplitz, Abteilung B: Studien, Band 1, Heft 1, Berlin, 1929. J. Eg. Arch. 15(3/4):275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1930a) Review: Die Grundlagen der ägyptischen Arithmetik in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der 2 : n-Tabelle des Papyrus Rhind by Kurt Vogel. J. Eg. Arch. 16(3/4):270–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1930b) Review: The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus by A. B. Chace, L. Bull and H. P. Manning. Math. Gaz. 15(210):266–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1930c) The great tomb-robberies of the twentieth Egyptian dynasty: being a critical study, with translations and commentaries, of the papyri in which these are recorded. 2 vols. Published in conjunction with the Provost & Fellows of Worcester College, at the Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1931a) A problem in Egyptian geometry. J. Eg. Arch. 17(1/2):100–106.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1931b) Mathematics in ancient Egypt. Bull. John Rylands Lib. 15(2):3–35.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1931c) Review: Mathematischer Papyrus des Staatlichen Museums der Schönen Künste in Moskau by W. W. Struve. J. Eg. Arch. 17(1/2):154–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet TE (1931d) A comparative study of the literatures of Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia: Egypt’s contribution to the literature of the ancient world. Published for the British Academy by H. Milford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter J (2016) Otto Neugebauer and ancient Egypt. In: Jones A, Proust C, Steele, JM (eds) A mathematician’s journeys: Otto Neugebauer and modern transformations of ancient science. Springer, Cham, pp. 127–163.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schack-Schakenburg H (1899) Die angebliche Berechnung der Halbkugel. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 37:78–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedall J (2012) The history of mathematics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Stedman AMM (1878) Oxford: Its social and intellectual life. With remarks and hints on expenses, the examinations, the selection of books, etc. Trübner & Co., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struve WW [VV] (1930) Mathematischer Papyrus des Staatlichen Museums der Schönen Künste in Moskau. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Abteilung A: Quellen, Band I, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tropfke J (1902/1903) Geschichte der Elementar-Mathematik in systematischer Darstellung. 2 vols. Verlag von Veit & Comp., Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uphill EP (1979) The bibliography of Thomas Eric Peet (1882–1934). J. Eg. Arch. 65:144–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vashchenko-Zakharchenko ME (1883) History of mathematics. Historical outline of the development of geometry. Vol. 1. Imperial University of St Vladimir, Kiev (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel K (1929) Die Grundlagen der ägyptischen Arithmetik in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der 2 : n-Tabelle des Papyrus Rhind. Doctoral dissertation, Universität München.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the staff of the Griffith Institute, Oxford, and of the University of St Andrews Special Collections for their help in accessing the letters that are cited in the present paper. Thanks are also due to Keith Hannabuss for providing us with details of mathematics teaching in Oxford at the end of the nineteenth century.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematical Institute, Oxford, UK

    Christopher D. Hollings

  2. The Queen’s College, Oxford, UK

    Christopher D. Hollings

  3. Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Oxford, UK

    R. B. Parkinson

  4. The Queen’s College, Oxford, UK

    R. B. Parkinson

Authors
  1. Christopher D. Hollings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. B. Parkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christopher D. Hollings or R. B. Parkinson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematical Information, and Computer Sciences,, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA, USA

    Maria Zack

  2. Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France

    David Waszek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hollings, C.D., Parkinson, R.B. (2023). T. E. Peet, a Mathematician Among Egyptologists?. In: Zack, M., Waszek, D. (eds) Research in History and Philosophy of Mathematics. Annals of the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Mathematics/ Société canadienne d’histoire et de philosophie des mathématiques. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21494-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation