Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini (Probleme Der Agyptologie)

Servant of Mut

Probleme der Ägyptologie Herausgegeben von

Wolfgang Schenkel und Antonio Loprieno

28. BAND

Richard A. Fazzini

Servant of Mut Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini

Edited by

Sue H. D’Auria

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on http://catalog.loc.gov.

ISSN: 0169-9601 ISBN: 978 90 04 15857 3 Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rita E. Freed and Jack A. Josephson

vii

Biography of Richard A. Fazzini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary McKercher

ix

Bibliography of Richard A. Fazzini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diane Bergman

xi

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Egyptian Art—A Performing Art? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dorothea Arnold

1

The Puzzling Stela of Userpehtynesu and Panetjer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward Bleiberg

19

Mut or Not? On the Meaning of a Vulture Sign on the Hermitage Statue of Amenemhat III . . . . . Andrey O. Bolshakov

23

A Newly Discovered Statue of a Queen from the Reign of Amenhotep III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Betsy M. Bryan

32

Decoration and Architecture: The Definition of Private Tomb Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Violaine Chauvet

44

An Old Kingdom Bowl from Mendes in the Brooklyn Museum of Art: A Preliminary Investigation of Its Archaeological Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madeleine Cody

53

Androgynous Bronze Figurines in Storage at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathlyn M. Cooney

63

The Foundations of Hibis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eugene Cruz-Uribe

73

A Statuette of Psamtik I with a Spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mamdouh Eldamaty

83

Tell me, Richard—Did the Ancient Egyptians Really Wear Suspenders? (Thoughts on the Vizier’s Insignia and One of the Men Who Wore It during Amenhotep III’s Reign) . . . . . . . . . . . Biri Fay

89

Writing Ramesside Hieratic: What the Late-Egyptian Miscellanies Tell Us about Scribal Education . . 102 Ogden Goelet, Jr. The Drexel Collection: From Egypt to the Diaspora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 W. Benson Harer, Jr. A Vignette Concerning the Deification of Thutmose IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Melinda Hartwig A Fragment from a Lost Monument of Amenirdis I in the Gayer-Anderson Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Salima Ikram

vi

table of contents

A Demotic Stela from the First Court of Luxor Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Richard Jasnow A Fragmentary Scene of Ptolemy XII Worshiping the Goddess Mut and Her Divine Entourage . . 134 W. Raymond Johnson and J. Brett McClain The Portrait of a 12th Dynasty Nobleman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Jack A. Josephson and Rita E. Freed Some Thoughts on Religious Change at Deir el-Medina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Cathleen Keller Ramesside Vessels from Sinai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Christine Lilyquist An Unusual Wooden Statuette of Osiris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Jadwiga Lipinska A Contribution to the Second Style in Old Kingdom Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Karol My´sliwiec A Funerary Papyrus of Paul O’Rourke

in the Brooklyn Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

A Long-Neglected Example of Ptolemaic Relief Carving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 William H. Peck “Cow Statues” in Private Tombs of Dynasty 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Elena Pischikova Some Old Kingdom Sealings from Mendes: I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Donald B. Redford Overview of the Current State of the Dynasty 21 Amun Temple at el-Hiba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Carol A. Redmount and Maury Morgenstein Male Bodies and the Construction of Masculinity in New Kingdom Egyptian Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Gay Robins Small but Beautiful—The Block Statue of Khaemwaset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Regine Schulz A Seated Statue of Sekhmet and Two Related Sculptures in the Collection of the San Antonio Museum of Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Gerry D. Scott, III A Family of Priests of the Deified Amenhotep I (Chicago OIM 11107) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Emily Teeter The Goddess Mut and the Vulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Herman te Velde A Colossal Statue Base of Nefertiti and Other Early Atenist Monuments from the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in Karnak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Jacobus van Dijk Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

PREFACE

It is both an honor and a pleasure to present this volume of studies as a tribute to Richard A. Fazzini. We, his colleagues, believe his contributions and commitment to the field of Egyptology, as well as his generosity in facilitating the work of others, have earned Richard a unique position among us, and view this Festschrift as a small way of acknowledging and thanking him. The fact that most of his career, first as a curator, and then chairman of the Department of Egyptian, Classical and Ancient Middle Eastern Art in the Brooklyn Museum involved administrative responsibilities which demanded much of his time and energy, particularly in the present-day atmosphere where fund raising is a necessary adjunct, makes his substantial scholarly accomplishments all the more remarkable. While his interests in Egyptology are far ranging, two are particularly noteworthy. One is centered in his knowledge of the religious iconography of the Third Intermediate Period, an arcane and complicated time about which his book, Egypt Dynasty XXII–XXV, clarified many difficult issues. The second is his long-standing excavations at the Mut precinct in Karnak, where he has shed new light on the significance of this important monument. These endeavors, one purely academic, the other “dirt archaeology,” demonstrate, in part, his eclectic mastery of the discipline. To this list of Richard’s interests, anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting his house would surely add Egyptomania. There, every room is decorated with all manner of things Egyptianizing, ranging from rare Napoleonic medals to pure kitsch, including posters from every Cleopatra movie every produced. Richard and his wife, Mary McKercher, have elevated a hobby to a serious discipline, and both are acknowledged authorities on Egyptian Revival. Richard’s comprehensive knowledge of bibliography is equaled only by that of his former teacher, Bernard V. Bothmer, and his generosity in sharing this knowledge with others is unsurpassed. Richard takes obvious pleasure in assisting anyone who questions him about any Egyp-

tological topic, no matter how obscure or tedious the inquiry might be. His good humor and easy manner have made him many friends and admirers as well as an “easy mark” for difficult, and often unappreciated, tasks. He was, for example, a board member, member of the Executive Committee, vice president, and president of the American Research Center in Egypt. How he so skillfully managed those activities while running a large museum department and publishing numerous books and articles bears testimony to his extraordinary capabilities and energy. While serving as ARCE’s president, he suffered the first of two life-threatening illnesses, namely lung cancer. Its dire prognosis caused him to resign his ARCE position because he did not expect to survive very long. The second, a brain aneurysm, came close to destroying his remarkable intellect. Although the principal credit for his extraordinary recoveries must be given to his sturdy constitution, an equal amount should be ascribed to his wife, Mary, whose sheer willpower and devotion made it possible for him to regain his mental acuity in record time. We can never forget the remark made by his late friend and colleague, James Romano, after Richard’s miraculous recovery from an extremely malignant form of cancer: “In a hundred million years the only survivors left on earth will be cockroaches and Richard Fazzini.” We wish Richard many more years of happiness, good health, discoveries at Mut, and publication, and will always be grateful for the opportunity to have him as a friend and colleague. May the following articles serve as a testament to our admiration of Richard and his accomplishments. We are grateful to Jaap Van Dijk, who was instrumental in obtaining the cooperation of Brill Academic Press, publisher of this volume, and to an anonymous donor who assisted with its funding. Finally, we would thank the editor, Sue D’Auria, who, with great skill and patience, made its publication possible. Rita E. Freed and Jack A. Josephson

RICHARD A. FAZZINI

Mary McKercher

Richard Fazzini was born in the Bronx, New York in 1942. Although he claims he was an indifferent student, he graduated from high school at 16 and went on to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees in art and art history (the City College of New York) and in ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern art and archaeology (Institute of Fine Arts, New York University). Richard’s main Egyptological interests are ancient Egyptian art, religious iconography, and archaeology, particularly of the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and Late Period. He has also developed an abiding interest in the ways Egypt has been viewed by the West from Roman times to the present, known as Egyptomania. He has written extensively on Egyptian art and art history, religious iconography, archaeology and Egyptomania; has taught ancient history and art at the college level; and has lectured in North America, Europe, and Egypt on a variety of Egyptological subjects. He is also a talented artist, designing the Brooklyn Museum’s first and very successful hieroglyph t-shirt and the t-shirt for the exhibition Cleopatra’s Egypt, and contributing line drawings to several publications. Richard has spent most of his professional life at the Brooklyn Museum, whose staff he joined as assistant curator in 1969. He became curator-in-charge of the museum’s Department of Egyptian, Classical and Ancient Middle Eastern Art (ECAMEA) in 1983 and chairman in 1989. In July 2006, he retired as curator emeritus but remains with the museum as director of the museum’s archaeological expedition to the Precinct of Mut at Karnak, which he inaugurated in 1976. While he was responsible for significant additions to the Egyptian collection, Richard is equally proud of making the resurrection of important objects from storage a departmental priority. He has overseen several museum installations, including the critically acclaimed 1993 re-installation that incorporated art from the Amarna through early Roman Periods; a thematic gallery, Temples, Tombs and the Egyptian

Universe, exploring the links between “funerary” and “temple” art; and 31 Gallery Guides on various aspects of ancient Egyptian history, civilization and art, several of which he wrote. He exercised general oversight of the 2003 installation Egypt Reborn, for which the late James Romano was coordinator. Richard was the principal author of Ancient Egyptian Art in The Brooklyn Museum (1989), showcasing 100 major works in the museum’s collection, and has also published a number of scholarly articles on Brooklyn objects. Over the years, Richard has assisted with or been responsible for many special exhibitions, including Art of Ancient Egypt. A Selection from The Brooklyn Museum (Hofstra University, 1971) for which he was curator and catalogue author; Akhenaten and Nefertiti (Brooklyn and Detroit, 1973); Images for Eternity: Egyptian Art from Berkeley and Brooklyn (San Francisco, 1975) for which he was guest curator and author; Neferut net Kemit: Egyptian Art from The Brooklyn Museum (Tokyo, Osaka, Saga and Kagoshima, 1983–1984), of which he was curator-in-charge and the main author; and Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies (Brooklyn Museum, 1988), which traveled to Detroit and Munich. In 1995–1996, he was a consultant and author for the Cincinnati Art Museum’s Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, and the organizer of the exhibition’s 1997 Brooklyn venue. Richard is also a field archaeologist. He was a member of the New York University-Brooklyn Museum Expedition to Mendes in Egypt’s northern Delta (1965, 1966, 1976), and the New York University-Metropolitan Museum of Art excavations at Al-Hiba (ancient Lagash) in Iraq (1975). In 1972, he was field investigator for an American Research Center in Egypt-sponsored “Study of the Reliefs and Paintings of Dynasties XXI– XXIV,” and in 1975 was field investigator for a Brooklyn Museum study of the tomb of Ramesses II. In 1976, he initiated the Brooklyn Museum’s archaeological expedition to the Precinct of the goddess Mut at South Karnak, a project

x

mary mckercher

he continues to lead. The Mut Expedition has focused on elucidating the site’s history, the interrelationships of its buildings, and the preservation and restoration of its monuments. Since 2001, the Brooklyn expedition has shared the precinct with an expedition led by Dr. Betsy Bryan of Johns Hopkins University. The two expeditions work independently but collaborate on conservation and restoration efforts, thereby increasing the scope of work possible at this important site. Richard has served as a consultant to several academic institutions and has been active in many professional organizations, most notably the American Research Center in Egypt, on whose board he served from 1982 to 2001. He was elected vice president in 1996 and president in 1999, resigning in the fall of 2001 when diagnosed with lung cancer. During his tenure as vice president and president, Richard spearheaded efforts

to reorganize and revitalize the organization. In recognition of his work, ARCE presented him with its Distinguished Service Award in 2004. Richard has been married twice, first to Barbara Giella, an architectural historian, and then to Mary McKercher, his present wife, whom he first met in 1979 when she was the photographer for the Mut Expedition, a role she continues to fill. A ruptured brain aneurysm almost killed Richard in 2003, and for awhile it was unclear if he would ever resume a normal life. However, using the same courage, humor, and determination he applies to everything he does, he was able to make a full recovery. He continues to study, write, and work on the Mut Expedition, and is looking forward to many more productive years in the field he loves.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RICHARD A. FAZZINI

Diane Bergman

Art of ancient Egypt: a selection from The Brooklyn Museum [Exhibition 22 February through 6 April 1971] Hempstead: Emily Lowe Gallery, Hofstra University, 1971. Catalogue of an aborted exhibition: ancient art in Cairo Review of: Terrace, E.L.B. and H.G. Fischer, Treasures of the Cairo Museum. London: Thames and Hudson, 1970. IN: Yale review 60, no. 4 (June 1971), pp. 600–605. Review of: Pritchard, J.B. The Ancient Near East: Supplementary texts and pictures relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. IN: Artibus Asiae 33 (1971), pp. 143–144. Some Egyptian reliefs in Brooklyn IN: Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1 (1972), pp. 33–70. Akhenaten and Nefertiti: the age of Egypt’s Sun King. Detroit: Institute of Arts, 1973. “Text adapted from the age of Akhenaten by RAF” for the Detroit Institute of Arts venue of the exhibition Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Art from the age of Akhenaten. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1973. Written in conjunction with the exhibition Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Art from the age of Akhenaten. IN: Archaeology 26, no. 4 (October 1973), pp. 298–302. Brief guide to the Department of Egyptian and Classical Art Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1974. Chronological charts by RAF. The Egyptians: pharaohs and craftsmen by J. van Duyn. London: Cassell, 1974. Introduction by RAF who acted as the historical advisor for the book. Une statue thébaine de la fin de l’époque ptolémaïque by H. de Meulenaere and B.V. Bothmer. IN: ZÄS 101 (1974), pp. 109–133. Inscription on plate 4 drawn by RAF. Images for eternity: Egyptian art from Berkeley and Brooklyn [Exhibition at the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, July 26 – October 18 1975]. San Francisco and Brooklyn: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco and The Brooklyn Museum, 1975. Review of: Björkman, G. Kings at Karnak (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Boreas 2) Uppsala: Universitet; Almqvist & Wiksell (distr.), 1971. IN: The Art bulletin 57, no. 2 (June 1975), pp. 271–272. Egypte éternelle: chefs-d’oeuvre du Brooklyn Museum: exposition organisée par le Service de la Diffusion des arts du Ministère de la culture au Palais des beaux-arts de Bruxelles, 9 décembre 1976–20 février 1977 Bruxelles: Palais des beaux-arts, 1976. For the Brussels venue of the exhibition Images for Eternity. Egypte’s glorie: meesterwerken van het Brooklyn Museum: deze tentoonstelling wordt georganiseerd door het Ministerie van cultuur in het Paleis voor schone kunsten te Brussel, 9 december 1976–20 februari 1977 Bruxelles: Palais des beaux-arts, 1976. For the Brussels venue of the exhibition Images for Eternity. Archaeological work at Thebes by The Brooklyn Museum under the auspices of The American Research Center in Egypt, 1975–1977 IN: NARCE 101/102 (Summer/Fall 1977), pp. 12–27, with J. Manning. Mwt temple, Karnak (Excavations of the Brooklyn Museum, 1978) IN: Bulletin de liaison du groupe international d’étude de la céramique égyptienne 3 (1978), p. 10. Tutankhamun and the African heritage: a view of society in the time of the Boy King New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1978. The precinct of Mut IN: Ancient Egyptian art. Ivoryton, Conn.: Hollycroft Press, 1979. Special issue of The art gallery: the international magazine of art and culture 22, no. 2 (Dec./Jan. 1979), pp. 88–91, 110, 112, 118. Theben-Ost, Mut Temple IN: AfO 27 (1980), p. 307. Dedication IN: BES 2 (1980), frontispiece, brief note in honour of Elizabeth Riefstahl. Mut temple expedition: Archaeology in Egypt 1980 IN: NARCE 112 (Fall 1980), pp. 39–44, with W.H. Peck. Mut-Tempel, Karnak (Mut Precinct) IN: Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4 (1982), cols. 248–251.

xii

diane bergman

The precinct of Mut during Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI: a growing picture IN: JSSEA 11, no. 3 (May 1981), pp. 115–126, with W.H. Peck. The Art of the ancient world IN: Apollo 115, no. 242 (April 1982), pp. 230–236. The 1982 season at Mut IN: NARCE 120 (Winter, 1982), pp. 37–58, with W.H. Peck. Un chapelle de magie guérisseuse sur le parvis du temple de Mout à Karnak by Cl. Traunecker with an introduction by RAF and W.H. Peck. IN: JARCE 20 (1983), pp. 65–67. Excavating the Temple of Mut IN: Archaeology 36, no. 2 (March–April 1983), pp. 16–23, 80, with W.H. Peck. Inscriptions tardives du Temple de Mout à Karnak by J.-Cl. Goyon; with an introduction by RAF and W.H. Peck. IN: JARCE 20 (1983), pp. 47–50. A monument in the precinct of Mut with the name of the god’s wife Nitocris I IN: Artibus Aegypti: Studia in honorem Bernardi V. Bothmer a collegis, amicis, discipulis conscripta. Brussels: Musées Royaux d’art et d’histoire, 1983, pp. 51–62. Neferut net Kemet: Egyptian art from The Brooklyn Museum Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1983. Introduction and description of objects shared by RAF, R.S. Bianchi and J.F. Romano for this exhibition in Japan. Face to face with the Egypt of the pharaohs IN: The Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (December 1985), p. 4. Museum ends season’s “dig” in Egypt IN: Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (Summer 1985), p. 3. Report on the 1983 season of excavation at the precinct of the goddess Mut IN: ASAE 70 (1984–1985), pp. 287–307. A Sculpture of King Taharqa (?) in the precinct of the goddess Mut at south Karnak Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar = Bibliothèque d’Étude 97, pt. 1 (1985), pp. 293–306. New Egyptian galleries to open IN: Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (May 1986), p. 1. The 1986 season of fieldwork in the precinct of the goddess Mut at south Karnak IN: Memphis State University, Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology, Newsletter (Summer 1986), p. 14. Thebes and Karnak IN: Site drawings by Martyl: The precinct of Mut at Luxor. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1986. An exhibition mounted at The Brooklyn Museum and the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, pp. 11–12. Ancient Egyptian art IN: The Collector’s eye: the Ernest Erickson collections at The Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1987, pp. 97–100 with R.S. Bianchi. Ägyptens Aufstieg zur Weltmacht [exhibition] Hildesheim: Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum, 1987. Catalogue entry 289 written by RAF. The Brooklyn Museum, Department of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Middle Eastern Art IN: International Association of Egyptologists Newsletter, Section “Museums and Collections” 6 (1986), pp. 11–12. The Collector’s eye: the Ernest Erickson collections at The Brooklyn Museum Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1987. Catalogue entries 71, 73–74, 76, 81–84 written by RAF. The Brooklyn Museum: some recent projects of the Department of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Middle Eastern Art IN: Memphis State University, Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology Newsletter (1988), pp. 3–4. Cleopatra’s Egypt: age of the Ptolemies [exhibition director, RAF; exhibition curator, R.S. Bianchi]. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1988. Catalogue entries 3–9, 12–13, 19–21, 29, 107–108, 121, 125–127, the drawings for figs. 8–13, and maps 1–2 by RAF. Demotic ostraca from the Mut precinct in Karnak IN: Enchoria 16 (1988), preface by RAF; text edition by R. Jasnow. Egypt Dynasty XXII–XXV (Iconography of religions. Section XVI: Egypt 10) Leiden: Brill, 1988. Masterpieces in The Brooklyn Museum Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum in association with Harry M. Abrams, 1988. Catalogue entries 11–12, 14–15, 17–18 written by RAF. Pharaonic art and the modern imagination IN: Egypt of the pharaohs = Unesco courier 9 (September 1988), pp. 33–35. Recent acquisition: Divine family of Thebes and a high priestess IN: Brooklyn Museum Newsletter (December 1988), p. 4. Ancient Egyptian art in The Brooklyn Museum by RAF, R.S. Bianchi, J.F. Romano and D.B. Spanel. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1989. Kleopatra: Ägypten um die Zeitenwende [exhibition director, RAF; exhibition curator, R.S. Bianchi]. Mainz: Zabern, 1989. Catalogue entries 3–9, 12–13, 19–21, 29, 107–108, 121, 125–127, the drawings for figs. 8– 13 and maps 1–2 by RAF. For the Munich venue of Cleopatra’s Egypt.

bibliography of richard a. fazzini

xiii

“Amenhotep II and the Mut Temple Karnak” (VA 3 [1987]): a correction IN: VA 6 (1990), p. 121. Khaemwaset underfoot IN: VA 6 (1990), pp. 123–138. A note on the statuette of Osiris, the protector of Padihorresnet IN: GM 121 (1991), pp. 55–56. Precinct of the goddess Mut: south Karnak IN: Archaeological News 16, no. 1–4 (1991), pp. 71–72, 97. Continuity and change: the new Egyptian installations in Brooklyn IN: K.M.T. 4, no. 4 (Winter 1993–1994), pp. 72–85. Egypt: a capsule history (The Brooklyn Museum West Wing Egyptian gallery guides) Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1994. Egypt and the Egyptocentric universe (The Brooklyn Museum West Wing Egyptian gallery guides) Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1994. In memoriam: Bernard V. Bothmer, 1912–1993: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 6 February 1994 New York: Institute of Fine Arts, 1994, pp. 5–11. Kings and kingship (The Brooklyn Museum West Wing Egyptian gallery guides) Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1994. The Reinstallation of the Brooklyn Museum’s Egyptian collection IN: Minerva 5, no. 1 (January–February 1994), pp. 40–43. The Reinstallation of the Egyptian collection at The Brooklyn Museum IN: Antiques (January 1994), pp. 144–153. Ancient Egyptian temples I: images and abodes for deities (The Brooklyn Museum West Wing Egyptian gallery guides) Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1995. Ancient Egyptian temples II: the universe and its protection (The Brooklyn Museum West Wing Egyptian gallery guides) Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1995. Bernard V. Bothmer (1912–1993) IN: JARCE 32 (1995), pp. i–iii. Egyptian women, mortal and divine (The Brooklyn Museum West Wing Egyptian gallery guides) Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1995. Presenting Egyptian objects: concepts and approaches IN: Museum international 47, no. 2 (April–June 1995), pp. 38–43. Recent acquisition IN: The Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (July–August 1995), p. 7. The American discovery of ancient Egypt [exhibition] Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1996. Catalogue entries 13 and 107 by RAF. The Egyptian collection and its reinstallation IN: Arts of Asia 26, no. 6 (1996), pp. 80–91. L’Égyptomanie dans l’architecture américaine IN: L’Égyptomanie à l’épreuve de l’archéologie = Actes du colloque international organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 8 et 9 avril 1994. Paris: Louvre, 1996, pp. 227–278, with the assistance of M. McKercher. Mistress of the house, mistress of heaven: women in ancient Egypt New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996. Catalogue entries 7, 41, 47, 56, 61, 65, 67 by RAF; catalogue entries 59a–59c by RAF, A. Capel and G. Markoe; catalogue entries 64a and 64b by RAF and G. Markoe. Sculpture, Third Intermediate Period IN: The Dictionary of art 9. London: Macmillan, 1996, pp. 886– 888. Some American contributions to the understanding of Third Intermediate Period and Late Period Egypt IN: The American discovery of ancient Egypt: Essays. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1996, pp. 110–129. A Statue of a high priest Menkheperreseneb in The Brooklyn Museum IN: Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 1. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996, pp. 209–225. A Brief history of the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s collection of ancient Egyptian art IN: The Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (March–April 1997), p. 5. Brooklyn Museum of Art Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum of Art, 1997. Entries on the statues of Senenmut and Sakhmet, the painting of Lady Tjepu, and the reliefs of a nobleman and a high official, pp. 24– 29. Mistress of the house, mistress of heaven: women in Ancient Egypt IN: The Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (January–February 1997), p. 2. Mistress of the house, mistress of heaven: women in Ancient Egypt IN: NARCE 172 (March 1997), pp. 2–3, 8–9. Preface to Egyptian royal sculpture of the Late Period: 400–246 B.C. (DAIK Sonderschrift 30) by J. Josephson. Mainz: Zabern, 1997, pp. vii–viii. Recent acquisition IN: The Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (January–February 1997), p. 13.

xiv

diane bergman

Searching for ancient Egypt: art, architecture and artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997. Catalogue entries 17 and 47 written by RAF. Several objects, and some aspects of the art of the Third Intermediate Period IN: Chief of seers: Egyptian studies in memory of Cyril Aldred (Studies in Egyptology) London: Kegan Paul International, 1997, pp. 113– 137. Some fragmentary images IN: Essays on Ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde (Egyptological memoirs 1) Groningen: Styx, 1997, pp. 69–78. Two New Kingdom stelae from the collection of Charles Edwin Wilbour in The Brooklyn Museum IN: Iubilate Conlegae: Studies in memory of Abdel Aziz Sadek = VA 10, no. 2–3 (August–December 1995), pp. 91–100, with Addendum in VA 11, no. 1 (April 1996), p. 81. The Wilbour plaque at the Brooklyn Museum IN: Antiques (January 1997), pp. 218–221. A Brief history of the collection IN: Art for eternity: masterworks from Ancient Egypt by RAF, J.F. Romano and M.E. Cody. Brooklyn; London: Brooklyn Museum of Art in association with Scala Publishers, 1999, pp. 9–11. Karnak, precinct of Mut IN: Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 397–400. Message from the president: some changes in ARCE IN: NARCE 178 (Winter 1999), p. 1. Pharaohs of the sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1999. Catalogue entries 135 and 170 written by RAF. Reinstallation of important Egyptian and Classical objects IN: The Brooklyn Museum [Newsletter] (January 1999). Alan Richard Schulman (January 14, 1930 – July 20, 2000) [obituary] International Association of Egyptologists, 2000. http://web.archive.org/web/20041109010447/http://www.iae.lmu.de/ via Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/ viewed 21 June 2006. Sheshonk III relief now on view IN: Previews: news and events for members of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (November–December 2000), p. 7. Brooklyn in Egypt: in search of the queen of the gods IN: Brooklyn Museum of Art Members Bulletin (May– June 2001), pp. 6–7. The Collector’s eye: masterpieces of Egyptian art from the Thalassic Collection, Ltd.: courtesy Theodore and Aristea Halkedis Atlanta: Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, 2001. Catalogue entries 19 and 84 written by RAF. Egyptomania IN: The Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 458–465, with M. McKercher. Eternal Egypt: masterworks of ancient art from the British Museum London: British Museum Press, 2001. Catalogue entries 49, 113 and 116 written by RAF. Four unpublished ancient Egyptian objects in faience in The Brooklyn Museum of Art IN: Papers presented in memory of Alan R. Schulman = JSSEA 28 (2001), pp. 55–66. Mut Precinct IN: The Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 455–457. New York, Brooklyn Museum of Art IN: Neue Pauly Enzyklopädie der Antike 15, no. 1 (2001) cols. 946–951. Some reliefs of the Third Intermediate Period in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo IN: Egyptian Museum collections around the world: studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo I. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, distributed by the American University in Cairo Press, 2002, pp. 351– 362. The Quest for immortality: treasures of ancient Egypt Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 2002. Catalogue entries 43 and 85 written by RAF. Some aspects of the precinct of the goddess Mut in the New Kingdom IN: Leaving no stones unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in honor of Donald P. Hansen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2002, pp. 63–76. “Egyptomania” and American architecture IN: Imhotep today: Egyptianizing architecture. London: University College Press, 2003, pp. [135]-159, with M. McKercher. Nubia: los reinos del Nilo en Sudán Barcelona: Fundación “la Caixa,” 2003. Catalogue entries 8, 10, 77, 92, 141 and 224 written by RAF.

bibliography of richard a. fazzini

xv

Two images of deified Ptolemies in the temple precinct of the goddess Mut at south Karnak IN: Egypt, Israel, and the ancient Mediterranean world: studies in honor of Donald B. Redford = Probleme der Ägyptologie 20. Leiden: Brill, 2004, pp. 287–301. Pharao siegt immer: Krieg und Frieden im Alten Ägypten Bönen: Kettler, 2004. Catalogue entries 13, 92 and 212 written by RAF. The Doha head: a Late Period Egyptian portrait IN: MDAIK 61 (2005), pp. 219–241, with J. Josephson and P. O’Rourke. The precinct of the goddess Mut at south Karnak 1996–2001 IN: ASAE 79 (2005), pp. 85–94. Two Semi-Erased Kushite Cartouches in the Precinct of Mut at South Karnak IN: Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Memphis, Tenn.: University of Memphis, Department of History, 2007. http://history.memphis.edu/murnane/ Fazzini.pdf (viewed 28 September 2007)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ÄA ÄAT ADAIK ÄF AJSL AOAT APAW ArOr ASAÉ AV BÄ BASOR BdÉ BeitrageBf BIFAO BiAe BiOr BMMA BSÉG BSFÉ CAA CdÉ DFIFAO EA EtTrav FIFAO GM HÄB IFAO JARCE JEA JEOL JNES JSSEA KÄT LÄ LD MÄS MDAIK MDOG MIFAO MMAF MMJ NARCE OBO OEAE

Ägyptologischen Abhandlungen Ägypten und Altes Testament Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo Ägyptologische Forschungen American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Archiv Orientální Annales du Service des Antiquites d’Égypte Archäologische Veröffentlichungen / Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo Bibliotheca Ägyptiaca Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bibliothèque d’Étude Beiträge zur Ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie Genève Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie Corpus Antiquitatum Ägyptiacarum Chronique d’Égypte Documents de fouilles, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale Egyptian Archaeology, the Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) Études et Travaux Fouilles de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire Göttinger Miszellen Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Kleine Ägyptische Texte Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, Wolfhart Westendorf, 7 vols., 1972–1992 Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, ed. Richard Lepsius, 6 vols., 1849–1859 Münchner Ägyptologische Studien Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Mémoires publiés par les Membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Cairo Mémoires publiés par les Membres de la Mission Archéologique Français au Caire Metropolitan Museum Journal Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald B. Redford, 3 vols., 2001

xviii OIP OLA OLP OLZ OMRO PAM PM PSBA RdÉ RecTrav SAGA SAK SAOC SDAIK TAVO UGAÄ Urk. VA Wb. ZÄS ZDMG

list of abbreviations Oriental Institute Publications, The University of Chicago Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, ed. Bertha Porter, Rosalind L.B. Moss, and Jaromír Málek, 7 vols., 1960–1981 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Revue d’Égyptologie Recueil de Travaux Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Sonderschrift, Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, ed. Kurte Sethe et al, 8 vols., 1927–1958 Varia Aegyptiaca Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, ed. Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, 7 vols., 1926–1931 Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Arnold Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Relief block from Lisht North: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1915 (15.3.1164), photograph by Bill Barrette. Relief block from Lisht North, drawing by Julia Jarrett. Fording of cattle, from the mastaba of Kaemrekhu, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen AE.I.N. 1271 (Mogensen, 5, fig. 4). Fording of cattle from the mastaba of Ti, Saqqara (Wild, Tombeau de Ti, pl. 124). Cattle emerging from the papyrus thicket, from the mastaba of Nefer and Kahay, Saqqara, drawing by Julia Jarrett after Moussa and Altenmüller, Nefer, pl. 5. Kitchen tent with man roasting a duck and man plucking a duck from the mastaba of Neferseshemptah, Saqqara, drawing by Julia Jarrett after Wreszinski, Atlas 3, pl. 80. Man plucking a duck or goose from Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 1562, drawing by Julia Jarrett after Wreszinski, Atlas 1, pl. 397. Men performing the offering ritual from the mastaba of Perneb, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Edward S. Harkness, 1913 (13.183.3), drawing by Julia Jarrett after Caroline Ransom Williams, The Decoration of the Tomb of Per-N¯eb (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1932), pl. 10. The offering of a goose and four ducks from the mastaba of Perneb, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Edward S. Harkness, 1913 (13.183.3), drawing by Julia Jarrett after Williams, The Decoration of the Tomb of Per-N¯eb, pl. 10.

Bleiberg Fig. 1

The stela of Userpehtynesu and Panetjer, from Saqqara, limestone and paint traces, 141/2 × 10 × 3 inches (36.8 × 24.8 × 7.5 cm) 37.1353E, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, Courtesy Brooklyn Museum.

Bolshakov Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum. Statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729, detail. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum. Inscriptions on the vertical front surface of the throne of the statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum. Fig. 4, a–b Inscriptions on the upper surface of the base of the statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729. (a) proper left, (b) proper right. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum. Fig. 5 Vulture signs on the Hermitage statue of Amenemhat III. Bryan Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

Cairo JE 99281, Mut Temple queen’s statue. Proper left showing statue’s bodily proportions. Bust of queen’s statue. Sportive writing of Amenhotep III premonen on front of modius, and festival glyphs. Vulture head with double crown. Inscription on back pillar of queen’s statue. Vatican, Inv. 22, recarved statue inscribed for Queen Tuya. Side view of Vatican Inv. 22 showing high buttock and long abdomen.

xx Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9

list of illustrations Hent-aa, wife of Hormose, Hierakonpolis tomb, reign of Ramesses XI. CG 609, Queen of Amenhotep III. Detail of Cairo colossus of Amenhotep III and Tiye with daughters. Vulture head at brow wearing plumed white crown of Nekhbet.

Chauvet Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Chapel of Khenu (Saqqara, Unas Cemetery), west wall. Mastaba of Khenu (Saqqara, Unas Cemetery). Chapel of Ti (Saqqara), south wall, vignettes framing the east serdab squint. Portico of Ti (Saqqara), east wall, serdab squint and associated decoration.

Cody Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Brooklyn Museum 80.7.15, Gift of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization (Mendes Field no. 4M49.13; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP28). View of the pottery deposit in situ, excavation photograph, Mendes Field Archive, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University. Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36222 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.20; Mendes Pottery Type 3MP3). Detroit Institute of Arts 80.90 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.14; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP29a). Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36218 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.16; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP30). Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36216 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.12; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP32). Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36219 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.17; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP31). Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36213 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.9; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP45).

Cooney Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

Pantheistic figurine with ram’s heads. LACMA M.80.198.136. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Lioness goddess syncretized with a dwarf-bird. LACMA M.80.198.56. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Horus the Child syncretized with a lioness goddess. LACMA M.80.198.167. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Nilotic flood figurine syncretized with a bird. LACMA M.80.203.168. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Ithyphallic male-female divinity with a lizard on the back. LACMA M.80.198.14. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Amulet combining male and female genitalia. LACMA M. 80.198.46. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Cruz-Uribe Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Plan of Hibis temple complex with location of Winlock trenches and modern contractor trenches. Drawing based on Winlock, Temple of Hibis, pl. 30, used with permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. View of foundations of quay, looking east. All photographs by author. View of OAO trench 4, looking west. Note foundation corner of earlier temple. OAO trench 5, view of southwest corner of temple, looking east.

list of illustrations Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9

xxi

OAO trench 6, looking south. OAO trench 6, view to west—foundation is to left side. (Not to scale.) OAO trench 6, view to east—foundation is to the right. (Not to scale.) OAO trench 7, view of foundation stones. OAO trench 8, inscribed block.

Eldamaty Fig. 1, a–b Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Statuette of Psamtik I. Photos courtesy of Jack Josephson. Detail of fig. 1, a. Portrait of Psamtik I, Cairo Museum JE 36915. Detail from Chassinat, Dendara 2, pl. 127. Detail of fig. 4. Detail from Davies, The Temple of Hibis in El Kargeh Oasis (New York, 1953), Pl. 50. Detail of fig. 6. Detail of fig. 1, a.

Fay Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18

Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe. Vizier, inscription on back pillar. Richard Parkinson. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe. Dagi, TT 39. After Davies, Five Theban Tombs (1913), pl. 32. Dagi, TT 39. After Davies, Five Theban Tombs (1913), pl. 34. Vizier, Boston, MFA 11.1484. Photo: B.V. Bothmer. Vizier, Ex-Collection Stoclet. Photo: Heini Schneebeli. Courtesy: Rupert Wace. Vizier Ankhu, Cairo CG 42206. Photo: B.V. Bothmer. Vizier, Musée cantonal de Beaux-Arts de Lausanne Inv. Eg. 11. Photo: Courtesy Antiken Museum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, Basel. Clasp at back of neck. After Cairo CG 590. Vizier Amenhotep, reign of Amenhotep III: Bodil Hornemann, Types of Ancient Egyptian Statuary 2–3 (Munksgaard, 1957), no. 392. Vizier Renseneb, after his stela from Abydos, New York, MMA 63.154. Vizier Renseneb, after his stela from Abydos, Copenhagen, AEIN 964. Thutmose, from his false door, Florence Inv. 2565. Vizier Ramose, TT 55, after Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London, 1941), pl. 31. Vizier Ramose, TT 55, after Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London, 1941), detail of pl. 21.

Harer Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Rear view of shabti showing Drexel/Winlock number 870 at top, packer number 533 in middle, and MIA number 16.400 at base. Stela of Taser, sold without provenance. Drexel catalogue entry from 1895 for stela of Taser, showing location of find as Hassai.

Hartwig Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Tomb of Tjenuna (TT 76), right focal wall, PM 5 with vignette in dotted rectangular box (Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, fig. 21). Detail of vignette of Menkheperure Thutmose IV censing statues of himself and Tiaa.

xxii

list of illustrations

Ikram Fig. 1

Sandstone block inscribed with scene of Amenirdis and Amun, Gayer-Anderson Museum, Cairo. Photo F. Dzikowski.

Jasnow Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Demotic stela from the First Court of Luxor Temple. Detail of Demotic inscription on stela from Luxor Temple. Facsimile of Demotic inscription on stela from Luxor Temple.

Johnson and McClain Fig. 1

Fragmentary relief group of Ptolemy XII worshiping an enthroned figure of the goddess Mut accompanied by standing figures of Hathor, a goddess wearing a red crown (name broken), and Isis. Epigraphic Survey eastern blockyard, Luxor Temple. Photo by Ray Johnson.

Josephson and Freed Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11

Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), proper right profile, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), proper left profile, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244. Head of a Queen from a Sphinx, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2002.609. Head of Senusret III from Medamud, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, JE 66569. Head of Senusret III from Medamud, Louvre, E. 12962. Head of Senusret III from Karnak, Luxor Museum, 40. Head of Senusret III, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, 62–11. Head of Senusret III, Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim, 412. Detail of a statue of Senusret III from Deir el-Bahri, British Museum, London, EA 684.

Lilyquist Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5

Vessel I, situla with Ramesses III receiving floral offerings, BM 41787, including 13297. Vessel II, situla with king receiving floral offerings and floral composition with nest, Ash. E3409. Fragments of situla with arbor scene, V&A 717–1905. Fragments of several vessels: d, BM 13306; f, BM 13215; all others, V&A 719–1905. Vessel 1, left, and part of vessel II, right.

Lipinska Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Figure of Osiris, National Museum in Warsaw inv. nr. 143346, Louvre N 670; 22; 207, photographs © Zbigniew Dolinski, ´ National Museum, Warsaw. Text on front and back pillar.

Mysliwiec Figs. 1–2

The tomb of Ny-Pepy in Saqqara. Wooden figurines in the niche on the shaft’s north side. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

list of illustrations

xxiii

Figs. 3–6

The figurine (1) no. S/04/16 c, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University. Figs. 7–8 The figurine (2) no. S/04/16 b, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University. Figs. 9–10 The figurine (2) no. S/04/16 b, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Jarosław D˛abrowski. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University. Figs. 11–13 Upper part of the figurine (2). Photographs by Jarosław D˛abrowski. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University. Figs. 14–15 The figurine (3) no. S/04/16 a, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University. O’Rourke Fig. 1

Funerary papyrus of Ankhefenmut: P. Brooklyn 37.1826E-A.

Peck Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Ptolemaic relief, Detroit Institute of Arts, Courtesy of Detroit Institute of Arts. Line drawing of relief, from W.M.F. Petrie, Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898–9, pl. 43.

Pischikova Figs. 1–4 Figs. 5–8

Head of a cow from the tomb of Nespakashuty (TT312) at Deir el-Bahri, MMA 23.3.751, Rogers Fund, 1923. Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo: Bill Barrette. Bottom part of the cow statue of Nespakashuty, 2002.139, found in the tomb of Nespakashuty in 2002. Photo: Carlos De La Fuente.

Redford Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3, a–c Fig. 4

Mendes excavations, Temple of Banebdjed, units AJ-A/B and AJ-U. Old Kingdom seal from Mendes, AJ-A 280. Three Old Kingdom seals from AJ-U 127. Old Kingdom seal from AJ-R II, 7.

Redmount and Morgenstein Fig. 1

Overview of the el-Hiba Amun Temple after clearing, looking south.

Schulz Figs. 1, a–d Statue of Khaemwaset, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, acc.no. 22.68. 2, a–d Fig. 3 Reconstruction of a statue platform (1) with offering plate (3) and the statue of Khaemwaset (2). Scott Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, San Antonio Museum of Art 2005.1.28. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, side view. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, detail of head. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, detail, Inscription A. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, detail, Inscription B. Line drawing of Inscription A.

xxiv Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10

list of illustrations Line drawing of Inscription B. New Kingdom sculpture fragment of Sekhmet, San Antonio Museum of Art 2005.1.24. New Kingdom sculpture fragment of Sekhmet, left 3/4 view. Late Period-Ptolemaic Period bronze lion-headed goddess, San Antonio Museum of Art 86.138.223.

Teeter Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Oriental Institute Museum 11107. Limestone. Dynasty 20, reigns of Ramesses V– VII. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. Divine procession of the deified Amenhotep I naming the “priest of the lord of the Two Lands in the Place of Truth, the deputy, Kedakhtef ” and the “chief of the gang, ˇ Inherkau.” Dynasty 20. Louvre 338, after Cern y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 190, fig. 15.

van Dijk Fig. 1a Fig. 1b Fig. 2a Fig. 2b Fig. 3a Fig. 3b Fig. 4a Fig. 4b Fig. 5 Fig. 6a Fig. 6b Fig. 7a Fig. 7b Fig. 8 Fig. 9a Fig. 9b Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12

Statue base 19ME.1: just after its discovery. Statue base 19ME.1: front. Statue base 19ME.1: back (photo: Mary McKercher). Statue base 19ME.1: inscription on the back pillar (photo: Mary McKercher). Statue base 19ME.1: left side. Statue base 19ME.1: right side. Statue base 19ME.1: detail of the feet. Statue base 19ME.1: detail of the feet. Remains of the inscription on the back of the statue. Head of a colossal statue 19ME.1a: front. Head of a colossal statue 19ME.1a: left side. Inscribed architectural fragment: front. Inscription on architectural fragment. Inscription on a pink granite block from the Mut Precinct. Sandstone block 5MWB.16: three-quarter view showing reused side. Sandstone block 5MWB.16: front. Early Atenist inscription on a sandstone block from the Mut Precinct. Relief on the reused side of the same block. Suggested restoration of the inscription on the sandstone block.

EGYPTIAN ART—A PERFORMING ART?

Dorothea Arnold Metropolitan Museum of Art

It is a great pleasure for me to dedicate the following tentative observations to the eminent art historian and museum curator Richard Fazzini. It gives me the welcome chance to thank him for maintaining such good, neighborly relations between the Brooklyn Museum Egyptologists and the institution I work for, and for enriching our lives with his exceptional personality. When I was a young student moving back and forth between the departments of Egyptology and Classical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen, Germany, I was repeatedly told by the classicists that Egyptian art was “not real art,” because it was created by groups of “artisans,” not single artists.1 Even then, a suitable reply to this now long-outdated, single-genius attitude was the question: “Is the playing of a symphony orchestra, or the performance of a dance group, not art?” It has repeatedly occurred to me since that it might be useful in an even more general way to identify the features of a performing art in the phenomenon that we call “Egyptian art.” A closer look at the Middle Kingdom relief block (figs. 1 and 2) in the Metropolitan Museum may serve to explain what I mean with this suggestion. The block was excavated by MMA archaeol-

ogists in a house at Lisht North, where it had been reused as part of a doorway by the late Middle Kingdom inhabitants.2 Since many of the relief blocks found in and around the Lisht North pyramid were reused from Old Kingdom monuments, it is first necessary to establish the date of the piece: was it created in the Old or the Middle Kingdom? The late Henry Fischer, with his unequaled eye for detail, observed more than 30 years ago that both the form of certain hieroglyphs in the inscription and the presence of the neck and head of the duck on the roasting spit are unmistakable indications for a Middle Kingdom date.3 Indeed, the sign for hr (Gardiner ¯ T 28) shows only in Middle Kingdom inscriptions the hourglass-shaped interior pattern seen here,4 while in the Old Kingdom it is usually inscribed with a Y-shaped interior figure.5 Examples for the presence of the head of the goose on the spit also appear to be confined to the Middle Kingdom.6 In addition to these paleographic and iconographic details, the style of the Metropolitan Museum block perfectly fits Rita Freed’s description of characteristic features in early Dynasty 12 reliefs. Chief among these is the shallowness of the relief and the lack of elaborate interior details

1 On the various issues concerning the existence of “art” in our sense in ancient Egypt see John Baines, “On the Status and Purposes of Ancient Egyptian Art,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4,1 (1994): 67–94. Most recently, Adela Oppenheim has dealt with the question of creative cooperation in Egyptian tomb decoration in an essay entitled “Identifying Artists in the Time of Senwosret III: The Mastaba of the Vizier Nebit (North Mastaba 18) at Dahshur” in Abusir, Saqqara, Dahshur 2005, ed. Miroslav Verner et al. (Prague: forthcoming). She quotes in that article in detail the various recent treatises on artists in New Kingdom tombs. 2 Arthur C. Mace, “The Egyptian Expedition: Excavations at the North Pyramid of Lisht,” BMMA 9 (October, 1914): 220, fig. 12 on 219. William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, part 1, 5th printing, rev. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1990), 68. The block has the credit line and number: Rogers Fund, 1915 (15.3.1164). Height 37 1/2” (95.2 cm); width 28 1/4” (71.7 cm); thickness 6 3/4” (17.2 cm).

The material is limestone of Tura quality. 3 Entry in Das Alte Ägypten, ed. Claude Vandersleyen, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 15 (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag, 1975), 295, 300–301, pl. 270B. 4 See, for example: Aylward M. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir 2 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915), pl. 17; Percy E. Newberry, El Bersheh 1 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893), pl. 27. 5 See, for example: Norman de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi 1 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902), pl. 3; vol. 2, pl. 19; Aylward M. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir 4 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1924), pl. 7; vol. 5 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1953), pls. 13, 19, 30, 41 (all 6th Dynasty); Naguib Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish 4 (Sydney: Macquerie Ancient History Association, 1983), pl. 14 (Dynasty 8-FIP). 6 Percy E. Newberry, Beni Hasan 2 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893), pl. 36.

2

dorothea arnold

in the hair, jewelry, and garments of the human figures, the feathers of the birds, or the various hieroglyph signs.7 An early 12th Dynasty date for the relief on the Lisht block can, therefore, be accepted with good confidence. Dieter Arnold, in his recent study of the tomb architecture at Lisht, has assigned the relief tentatively to the tomb of Nakht (493) at Lisht North, a structure that is dated to the reign of Senusret I.8 Luckily, a fairly complete scene is preserved in the upper register of the block from Lisht, and the section covered by the remains in the lower register provides the essentials of another scene. The iconographical context of both scenes was a depiction of life in the Egyptian marshes. On still-standing walls, such representations are invariably dominated by a large figure of the tomb owner, who towers over the various outdoor activities of his subordinates. Since the registers on the Lisht block here under discussion are about 18 3/4” (47.6 cm) high, and we probably have to assume three registers in front of the tomb owner’s figure, that man’s figure must have been more than half lifesize (plus inscriptions). Ultimately, the images of the Egyptian marshes’ seemingly endless supplies of fish and fowl, birds, reeds and grapes for wine, as well as the procreative vigor of the bulls, and the birthing and milk feeding of the cows, served to stress the rejuvenating powers of nature in the face of human mortality.

Both sections of relief decoration preserved on the Lisht block are standard components of Old and Middle Kingdom representations of the life in the marshes. In the lower register, a tightly echeloned group of cattle keep in close body contact, their agitation expressed by a jumble of lyre-shaped horns with needle-sharp ends. At the head of the herd, a man carries a calf on his back. The little animal turns back, stretching its tongue to touch its mother’s muzzle. But the head of the cow is too far away, because a second small calf walks between herdsman and mother cow. The inscription explains what is going on: the herd is leaving the wetland marshes of the Nile Delta to gain higher grazing grounds during the time of the annual inundation:9 “Coming forth from the reeds b[y the herds]man carrying his male calf. Do not be unaware (?)…”10 The calf on the herdsman’s back serves as decoy to bring the mother cow—and thus the whole herd—along. Why they should not linger will become clearer through the representations described below. There were basically three ways in which artists of the Old and Middle Kingdom depicted the fording of cattle on tomb walls.11 In the most dramatic first version (table 1 and fig. 3), the cattle are up to their necks in the water, and the decoy calf is either tethered to a boat, or held over its side. An important role in this type of scene is played by the crocodiles that hide under water,

7 Rita E. Freed, “The Development of Middle Kingdom Egyptian Relief Sculptural Schools of Late Dynasty XI: with an Appendix on the trends of Early Dynasty XII (2040–1878 B.C.)”, (PhD diss., New York University, 1984), 191–192. 8 Dieter Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture at Lisht, Publications of The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 28 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007) 75, pls. 144–145. 9 See Lothar Störk, “Rind,” in LÄ 5, 259–262; Wolfgang Helck, “Weidewirtschaft,” in LÄ 6, 1166–1167; Heck, “Viewirtschaft” in LÄ 6, 1036–1038; Janice Kamrin, The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan (London: Kegan Paul International, 1999), 75. These scholars assume the “coming forth from the marshes” to have happened in fall at the end of inundation. It is, however, not obvious how the cattle could have survived in the flooded plains of the Nile Delta during the inundation (see Karl W. Butzer, Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976], 24, fig. 4, for flood levels in the delta). This is why Douglas J. Brewer, Donald B. Redford and Susan Redford, Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins (Warminister: Aris & Phillips, 1994), 86, are more convincing in assuming a removal of cattle herds to “better pasture” in the “marshes in the north” during the “unproductive dry season.” With the coming of the flood (in July–August), the herds would then have to be removed to higher grounds. See also Pierre Montet,

Les Scénes de la vie privée dans les tombeaux égyptiens de l’ancien empire (Strasbourg: Librarie Istra, 1925), 67, and Ahmed M. Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977), 155. It is, of course, a situation that might also be described in the “Hirtengeschichte”: Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Die Erzählung des Sinuhe und die Hirtengeschichte (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1902), 15, pls. 16–17. 10 This and the following translation by James Allen. On similar inscriptions: Moussa and Altenmüller, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, 155 with references. 11 For fording scenes see: Luise S. Klebs, Die Reliefs des Alten Reiches (2980–2475 v. Chr.): Material zur ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1915), 60–61, and Klebs, Die Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches (VII.– XVII. Dynastie ca. 2475–1580 v. Chr.): Material zur Ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1922), 87–88; Montet, Les scénes de la vie privée, 66–73; and Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne 4, part 2 (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1969), 96–128. More recently Yvonne Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Orientation and Scene Content (London: Kegan Paul, 1987), 349; Hartwig Altenmüller, Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 141–142; Moussa and Altenmüller, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep 155–156, and Moussa and Altenmüller, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-hay (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1971), 22, have interpreted such scenes. See also the scholars quoted in note 13.

egyptian art—a performing art?

3

threatening to attack a cow or ox any moment. To avert the danger, a herdsman stretches his finger toward the beast in a magical, apotropaic gesture, and the inscription gives him additional magical support: “Oh you herdsman! Pay great attention to the sˇy (‘that one in the lake’) who is coming unseen in the water” (fig. 3).12 This first version of a fording scene has a long,

uninterrupted history, with examples dating to the 5th and 6th Dynasties, the First Intermediate Period, and the Middle Kingdom (table 1).13 The reason for this long life may well be the scene’s importance in the framework of Egyptian funeral beliefs. Emphasizing the existence of life-threatening dangers in an otherwise peaceful environment reflected both general living condi-

12 For this type of inscription see Altenmüller, Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu, 141–142 with further references. On the apotropaic gesture against the crocodile, see Brigitte Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden in Darstellungen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches, SAGA 10 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1994) 131–143 with further reference and many fine illustrations. 13 Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 349, also cites the picture of a crocodile in a painting in the tomb of Hesire. If that painting is indeed part of a fording scene, the history of this first version would even go back to Dynasty 3. The lists in tables 1–4 are based on Harpur, ibid., 348–350; table 5 is based on Vandier, Manuel 4, part 1, 256–271, and vol. 5, part 2, 320–381. More recently published examples have been added. The lists in tables 1– 5 are by no means exhaustive, but cover the main arthistorical phases. Old Kingdom dates follow Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, and the recent publications. The following abbreviations have been used in tables 1–5, column 3: Altenmüller, Mehu: see above note 10; Baines-Malek: John Baines and Jaromír Málek, Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt, rev. ed. (New York: Facts on File, 2000), 129; Blackman, Meir 1–6: Aylward M. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir 1–6 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1914–1953); Borchardt, CG: Ludwig Borchardt, Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den Statuen) im Museum von Kairo, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nr. 1295–1808 (Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1937); Brovarski: Edward Brovarski, The Senedjemib Complex, Giza Mastabas 7 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 2001); Capart, Rue: Jean Capart, Une rue de tombeaux à Saqqarah (Brussels: Vromant & Co., 1907); Davies, Antefoker: Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sesostris I, and of his Wife, Senet (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1920); Davies, Theban Tombs: Norman de Garis Davies, Five Theban Tombs: being Those of Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga, Nehemawäy and Tati (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1913); Davies, Gebrâwi 1, 2: Norman de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi 1, 2 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902); Davies, Ptahhetep: Norman de Garis Davies, The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1901); Davies, Sheikh Saïd: Norman de Garis Davies, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1901); de Morgan, Recherches: Jacques de Morgan, Recherches sur l’origines de l’Égypte 1 (Paris: E. Leroux, 1896); Hassan, Giza 2: Selim Hassan et al., Excavations at Giza 2, 1930–1931 (Oxford: University Press, 1936); Idout: Riskallah Macramallah, Fouilles à Saqqarah: Le mastaba d’Idout (Cairo: IFAO, 1935); Junker, Gîza 4: Hermann Junker, Gîza 4 (Vienna: Hölder-PichlerTempsky, 1940); Kanawati-Abder-Raziq: Naguib Kanawati and Mahmoud Abder-Raziq, The Tomb of Hesi, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara 5 (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1999); Kanawati, Hawawish 1–4: Naguib Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: the Cemetery of Akhmim 1–4 (Sydney: Macquerie Ancient History Association, 1980–1983); Kanawati-McFarlane: Naguib Kanawati and Ann McFar-

lane et al., Deshasha: the Tombs of Inti, Shedu and others (Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University, 1993); LD: Richard Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien (Berlin: Nicolai, 1849–1859); Mackay, Bahrein and Hemamieh: Ernest Mackay et al., Bahrein and Hemamieh (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1929); McFarlane: Ann McFarlane, The Unis Cemetery at Saqqara (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 2000); Mereruka: Prentice Duell (field director), The Mastaba of Mereruka (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938); Mogensen: Maria Mogensen, Le mastaba égyptien de la Glyptothèque Ny Carlsberg (Copenhagen: Gylendal, 1921); Mohr: Herta T. Mohr, The Mastaba of Hetepher-akhti (Leiden: Brill, 1943); Moussa-Altenmüller, Nianchchnum: Ahmed M. Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977); Moussa-Altenmüller, Nefer: Ahmed M. Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-hay (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1971); H.W. Müller, Felsengräber: Hans Wolfgang Müller, Die Felsengräber der Fürsten von Elephantine aus der Zeit des Mittleren Reiches, (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1940); Newberry, Beni Hasan 1, 2: Percy E. Newberry, Beni Hasan 1, 2 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893); Newberry, El Bersheh: Percy E. Newberry, El Bersheh 1 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893); Petrie, Athribis: W.M. Flinders Petrie, Athribis (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1908); Quibell, Ptah-hetep: James E. Quibell et al., The Ramesseum, and The Tomb of Ptah-hetep (London: B. Quaritch, 1898); Roth, Palace Attendants: Ann M. Roth, A Cemetery of Palace Attendants, Giza Mastabas 6 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1995); Schürmann: Wolfgang Schürmann, Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pyramidenvorstehers Ii-nefret (Karlsruhe: Müller, 1983); Simpson, Qar and Idu: William Kelly Simpson, The Mastabas of Qar and Idu, Giza Mastabas 2 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1976); Simpson, Western Cem. 1: William Kelly Simpson, Mastabas of the Western Cemetery, Part 1, Giza Mastabas 4 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1980); Vachala, Abusir 8: Bretislav Vachala, Abusir 8: die Relieffragmente aus der Mastaba des Ptahshepses in Abusir (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, 2004); Vandier, Manuel 5: Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne 5, part 2 (Paris: A. and J. Picard, 1969); Vandier, Mo"alla: Jacques Vandier, Mo"alla: la tombe d’Ankhtifi et la Tombe Sébekhotep (Cairo: IFAO, 1950); Varille, Ni-Ankh-Pepi: Alexandre Varille, La Tombe de Ni-Ankh-Pepi à Zâouyet el-Mayetîn (Cairo: IFAO, 1938); Verner, Abusir 1: Miroslav Verner, Abusir 1: The Mastaba of Ptahshepses, Reliefs 1/1 (Prague: Charles University 1977); Weeks, Cemetery 6000: Kent R. Weeks, Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000, including G 6010 (Neferbauptah); G 6020 (Iymery), G 6030 (Ity), G 6040 (Shepsekafankh), Giza Mastabas 5 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1994); Wild, Tombeau de Ti: Henri Wild, Le Tombeau de Ti, fasc. 2: La Chapelle (Cairo: IFAO, 1953); W 3: Walter Wreszinski, Atlas zur Altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, vol. 3, Gräber des Alten Reiches, ed. Heinrich Schäfer (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1936); Ziegler: Christiane Ziegler, Le Mastaba d’Akhethetep: une Chapelle Funéraire de l’Ancien Empire (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1993).

4

dorothea arnold

tions in the Nile valley and the Egyptians’ conviction that such dangers can be held in check by human endeavor and magic.14 Such convictions boded well for overcoming the dangers of the afterlife. In the more sedate second fording scene version (table 2 and fig. 4), the cattle wade through shallower water with only their legs immersed. It is in this type of scene that the herdsman often walks in front of the cattle, carrying the decoy calf on his back. Inscriptions describe what is going on: “The coming out from the delta marshes.” Occasionally, an admonitory remark is added, such as “Oh, you dirty fellow, make walk these cattle that are coming forth from the marshes!” (fig. 4).15 The scene is prominently—and on the highest artistic level—displayed in some of the most famous tombs of Dynasty 5, such as Akhtihotep and Ti (fig. 4), and a few magnificent 6th Dynasty examples follow (see table 2). After that, artists appear to have ceased making use of this version. The same is true of a sub-group of version 2, in which the boats of the first version are combined with the shallower water of the second (table 3). Indeed, in one provincial example (table 3: Sawiet el Meitin), the two versions of a herd swimming and a herd wading both appear flanking the representation of a boat from which a herdsman spears a crocodile. The accompanying inscriptions contain appropriately both the crocodile spell above the deeply immersed herd and the “coming forth” formula above the wading cattle. The third variant of a fording scene (table 4) was rarely used, and the few examples keep less strictly to a specific iconographic scheme than was the case with versions 1 and 2. The late First Intermediate Period image from tomb 29 at Beni Hasan, moreover, is sui generis, and may be depicting not the “coming forth” but a return

to the marshes.16 Of the two most important examples from the 5th and early 6th Dynasties, the first (fig. 5) shows a herd that is just leaving the water so that most of the cattle are already on dry ground, while the herd of “mother cows” in the other (table 4: Mehu) has entirely left the water. Only the inscription informs the viewer that a “coming forth from the marshes” is actually depicted. Interestingly, both latter scenes are unmistakably associated with the goddess Hathor. Every ancient Egyptian would, indeed, have recognized the relief in the Nefer tomb (fig. 5) as a replica of the appearance of Hathor as a cow from the papyrus thicket, and the Mehu image refers explicitly to milk feeding. Looking back to some second-version fording scenes, one realizes that Hathoric associations were to some extent also present there. Female and male cattle are represented in separate groups, and a part of the inscription in the Ti image (fig. 4) is addressed to a mother cow: “This calf is raised, mother cow!” There can be no doubt that in the tomb environment, such associations with Hathor, motherhood, and feeding were aimed at stressing the concept of rebirth. The relief in the lower register of the block from Lisht North is clearly neither an example of the dramatic and long-lived first version of fording scenes, nor does it belong in the category of the more sedate second version. With no water represented around the legs of the cattle, the Lisht scene doubtlessly joins the examples of version 3, in which the animals are partly— or fully—on dry ground.17 A reconstruction of the missing left part of the scene could, in fact, either follow the representation in the tomb of Nefer and Kahai (fig. 5), envisaging the depiction of a papyrus thicket from which the last of the cattle just emerge, or, one might imagine that all the Lisht cattle were already on dry ground,

14 Another example of this kind of worldview is presented by the predatory animals (ichneumons, wild cats, etc.) that climb up to birds’ nests in numerous marsh scenes. 15 For other admonitory speeches see: Altenmüller, Mehu, 142 with references especially to Waltraud Guglielmi, Reden, Rufe und Lieder auf altägyptischen Darstellungen der Landwirtschaft, Viehzucht, des Fisch- und Vogelfangs vom Mittleren Reich bis zur Spätzeit (Bonn: In Kommission bei R. Habelt, 1973). 16 Newberry, Beni Hasan 2, pl. 28. For a date: Friedrich Junge, “Beni Hasan” in LÄ 1, 695–698. Jacques Vandier, Manuel 5, part 2, 109 has dealt with this scene. In the Beni Hasan image, the herdsman with the calf is just stepping into a boat, and since the cattle are behind him on dry

ground, it appears sensible to understand that this herd is not leaving the marshes but turning back into them after the inundation receded. Both this novel idea and the strikingly realistic pose of the herdsman mark the designer of Beni Hasan 29 as a notable innovator. In spite of the fact that this might—at first glance—be similar to what is represented on the Lisht block, it must be stressed that the Lisht herdsman does not enter a boat, and the inscription designates the image unequivocally as a scene of leaving. 17 Even close examination does not reveal any trace of painting that might have indicated an area of water. There is also no example that this important part of the scene was ever merely indicated by painting in a relief.

egyptian art—a performing art?

5

as in the Mehu tomb (see table 4). Whichever reconstruction may be the right one, the fact remains that the designers of the Lisht scene chose not to follow the most common version 1 that was still in use up to their time, but reached back to some much rarer prototypes of the 5th and early 6th Dynasties. “Archaism” is a term often used to describe incidents where a previously established artistic model is re-introduced at a later time without an intervening tradition.18 In the particular case of a work of art from early 12th Dynasty Lisht, moreover, a general tendency to look back to Old Kingdom prototypes is usually understood as an attempt to re-establish the “glories” of the Old Kingdom.19 It is, however, worth inquiring somewhat more deeply into the particulars of the Lisht relief ’s relationship with Old Kingdom models. One striking point, for instance, concerns the freedom of choice enjoyed by the artists (and patrons) at Lisht. Such freedom would hardly have been possible at a time when the political, social, and artistic systems of the Old Kingdom were still fully intact. Only after the disintegration of at least some of those systems did the Lisht patrons and artists enjoy a sufficiently independent position, from which they were able to choose with relative freedom among all the artistic achievements of the past. Another interesting point about the appearance of the version 3 fording scene in the Lisht relief is the fact that the Hathoric associations linked to this version may well have played an important role in the decision process. If only a reference to a recognizable artistic manifesta-

tion of the Old Kingdom had been intended, the first, most common version of fording scene doubtlessly would have been chosen. Since the patrons and artists of Lisht chose the much less familiar Hathoric version 3, veneration of that goddess must have played a role too. Indeed, at Lisht, the Hathoric aspects of the scene may have been of special dynastic and local relevance. A local cult of Hathor is attested at the northern part of this site by the find of a fragment from a vessel that was originally dedicated by King Mentuhotep II of the 11th Dynasty to Hathor of Dendera, then re-inscribed with the name of King Amenemhat I.20 A special relationship between the goddess Hathor and Mentuhotep II, the founder of a united Middle Kingdom state, is amply attested at Thebes and other places,21 and in appropriating that special relationship for himself, Amenemhat I would have stressed the legitimacy of his takeover of power from the Mentuhotep dynasty. The existence of a Hathor sanctuary at Lisht South22 indicates that Amenemhat’s son Senusret I, owner of the Lisht South pyramid, followed his father’s politically advantageous devotion to this deity. The form under which the goddess was worshiped in the Lisht South sanctuary was the one of Hathor of Atfih Tp-ı"hw (Aphroditopolis). This site is called Atfih today and is located not far from Lisht. In the Middle Kingdom, the place functioned as the principal city for the most northern, 22nd Upper Egyptian nome, whose area was confined to land on the east bank of the Nile, while the Lisht site, cemetery of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom capital Itjtawy, was situated in the first Lower Egyptian nome

18 The most recent clear and convincing description of archaism is by Edna R. Russmann, “Aspects of Egyptian Art: Archaism,” in Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum (New York: American Federation of Arts and University of California Press at Berkeley, 2001), 40–44. 19 Hans Goedicke, Re-used Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, 1971), 5–7. 20 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1909 (09.180.543): Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, part 1, 167, fig. 102. The 11th Dynasty king mentioned on this stone vessel fragment is usually understood to be Mentuhotep IV (see also Do. Arnold, “Amenemhat I and the Early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes,” MMJ 26 (1991), 14–15, with figs. 15–17 on p. 12; most recently: Lilian Postel, Protocol des souverains égyptiens et dogme monarchique au début du Moyen Empire, Monographies Reine Élisabeth 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 371. A closer look at the preserved portion of the royal names on the outside of the bowl leads to the suggestion that an attribution to Mentuhotep II is at least as well founded. From

the Horus name only the two last signs are preserved, and they could also well be the last part of the Horus name of Mentuhotep II. A comparison with, for instance, one of the plaques from Mentuhotep II’s foundation deposits from Deir el-Bahri (Dieter Arnold and Herbert Winlock, The Temple of Mentuhotep at Deir el-Bahari, Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 21 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979), 55, fig. 12, MMA 22.3.188) shows that the serekh of the Horus name could on occasion be drawn considerably higher than the cartouche beside it. This would provide enough room for the sm A sign above the preserved tawy. Mentuhotep II’s connections with Dendera are well known, of course (Labib Habachi, “King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep: His Monuments, Place in History, Deification and Unusual Representation in the Form of Gods,” MDAIK 19 (1963), 19–28. I thank Peter Jánosi for informative discussions on this topic. 21 See Shafik Allam, Beiträge zum Hathorkult (Berlin: B. Hessling, 1963), 92–93. 22 Dieter Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988), 17.

6

dorothea arnold

on the opposite, west bank of the river. But these different administrative dependencies of ancient Atfih and Lisht notwithstanding, there are actually only about 12 miles between the two places, making the goddess of Atfih almost a local deity of the Lisht region.23 Under these circumstances, the choice of the Hathoric version 3 for a fording scene in a Lisht tomb becomes more than just a re-uptake of Old Kingdom iconography: the tomb owner clearly bowed to royal preferences and local customs. In the upper register of the Lisht block, another integral element of Old and Middle Kingdom representations of outdoor life is depicted: the preparation and roasting of fowl in a kitchen tent (figs. 1, 2). As table 5 shows, the tradition of this type of scene continued without interruption from the Old Kingdom into the 12th Dynasty, even if the direct predecessors of the Lisht scene handled the iconography rather freely.24 In general, the inclusion of this particular scene into tomb representations of outdoor activities is, of course, based on the age-old human experience that festive meals have a life-affirming function. And not only ancient Egyptians felt that outdoor settings enhance the rejuvenating and community-building effects of such meals. Many representations of hunting, fishing, bird catching, and the care for the herds were, therefore, combined with depictions of festive banquets. We see the host and his wife sitting under a pavilion, the guests at small tables, while music is played and dances are performed. In the kitchen tents, the busy work, with its cleaning and plucking, cooking and roasting, evoked the anticipatory pleasures that customarily precede such feasts.25 The structure of outdoor kitchen tents in Old and Middle Kingdom reliefs and paintings is not always easy to understand, owing to the constrictions of ancient Egyptian two-dimensional art. Most images—and the Lisht scene is among

them—depict only two vertical poles supporting another horizontal one (the latter is not preserved on the block). In some of these instances, one might be tempted to take the image at face value and understand the structure as indeed only consisting of these three elements. This is especially the case when the horizontal pole appears to be used directly to hang pieces of meat and plucked fowl (fig. 6). It does not make sense, however, for the kitchen personnel to sit under such gate-like pole structures, and indeed most detailed images make it clear that the prepared fowl and pieces of meat are actually suspended from a rope that has been fastened below the horizontal part of the structure. Jacques Vandier26 was, therefore, certainly right to interpret these pole structures as tents whose flat roofs are supported not by two but by four (or more) poles. This interpretation is especially convincing when the supports are shaped like columns with veritable capitals at the upper ends.27 The function of such tents was, of course, to shelter the roasting and cooking activities, as well as the suspended pieces of meat and fowl, from direct sun and the all-pervasive wind of the Egyptian countryside. The latter effect may have been further enhanced by the addition of curtains to the sides of the tent. In most representations, one or two men squat or kneel on the ground inside the kitchen shelter, roasting the fowl on spits over trays with glowing coals, or overseeing the skimming of a meat stew on an oven (see table 5). As seen on the Lisht block (figs. 1, 2), the heat of the fire under the roasting bird is often increased by the cook waving a fan over it. Opposite, on the right of the Lisht representation, another man kneels on the floor, plucking a strikingly large goose. Similar activities of feather plucking are found in a number of Old and Middle Kingdom tombs (table 5, fig. 7), but the men who do the plucking usually sit outside, not inside the shelter (fig. 6).28

23 Farouk Gomaà, Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches, vol. 1, TAVO, Reihe B, 66/1 (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1986), 379–383 and vol. 2 (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1987), 44–45, 47. 24 For outdoor kitchen scenes in Old and Middle Kingdom tombs see: Klebs, Die Reliefs des Alten Reiches, 77–78 and Klebs, Die Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches, 102– 105; Vandier, Manuel 4, part 1, 256–271. More recently Altenmüller, Mehu, 91–92, 109–110 with references to other literature. 25 For this and the issues discussed in the following paragraphs see: Dorothea Arnold, “The Architecture of Meketre’s Slaughterhouse and other Twelfth Dynasty Wooden

Models” in Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture, ed. Peter Jánosi (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005), 1–76. 26 Vandier, Manuel 4, part 1, 258. 27 See, for instance, Blackman, Meir 4, pl. 8. 28 For instance: ibid., pl. 8; Blackman, Meir 5, pl. 13. The man (not in a kitchen tent) close to the roasting in Davies, Sheikh Saïd, pl. 10 is not plucking the bird under his hands but cleaning it out with a knife; and the same is clearly true of the man in the tomb of Iymery: Weeks, Cemetery 6000, pl. 35. In Ti (Wild, Tombeau de Ti, fasc. 2, pls. 121, 122) the man who plucks a bird sits in a compartment of a shelter on his own.

egyptian art—a performing art?

7

In a number of New Kingdom scenes, the men who pluck a bird occupy the tent alone, and no fire is present.29 This distance between the fowl plucking and the fire in most images makes a lot of sense, because in the situation depicted by the Lisht relief, loose feathers must have been flying onto the glowing coals, thus totally ruining the appetizing smell of the roasting bird. A certain lack of direct contact with reality, already apparent in the distance between the calf and its mother in the lower register, can be observed in the Lisht relief.30 Another peculiarity of the scene on the Lisht block is the representation of only one leg in both men’s figures in the tent. This is a striking divergence from normal artistic conventions. Ordinarily, two-dimensional Egyptian representations show both legs of kneeling male figures. If the near lower leg is flat on the ground, as in the Lisht scene, the other is usually in an upright bent position behind it.31 Kneeling male figures that show only a single leg occur in rare cases when the space above the lowered leg is filled with objects, such as the writing materials of a scribe, or where space is generally tight, as in the case of the cook in the Lisht relief (figs. 1, 2) and some of its Old Kingdom prototypes (fig. 6).32 Most often, however, such one-leg representations occur with many male figures functioning in ritual scenes. Indeed, in depictions of the standard offering ritual, a single-leg kneeling priestly figure is as good as the rule, albeit usually with the foot resting on the toes only (figs. 8, 9).33 Single one-legged figures with the foot flat on the ground are, of

course, common among depictions of women— especially elite women—whose close-fitting garments, and possibly also sense of propriety, forbade a spreading of the legs.34 Since the figures in the Lisht relief are male, and no lack of space would have prevented the depiction of the other leg, we have to deduce that the designer wanted to invest his image with the flair of a ritual performance.35 Once observed, another ritualistic aspect of the Lisht tent scene becomes apparent: the gesture with which the man on the right holds the goose in his right hand, while plucking its feather, is decidedly not a very practical way to handle a heavy bird, and most Old Kingdom scenes show much more sensible ways of handling the bird (figs. 6, 7). The gesture of the man in the Lisht relief, on the other hand, closely resembles the manner in which funerary priests hold the neck and head of a goose in the offering ritual (fig. 9).36 It is now possible to describe more in detail the special character of the scenes on the Lisht block. Representations of Egyptian outdoor life and feasting are based on iconographical scene configurations that had either come down to the early 12th Dynasty artists by direct tradition from the Old Kingdom (in the case of the kitchen scene), or were deliberately chosen from isolated Old Kingdom prototypes (in the case of the fording scene). Both types of motifs were, however, thoroughly re-evaluated. While the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period representations always carry the flair of fresh observations of real life, the early 12th Dynasty images are

Vandier, Manuel 5, 441–444; see also figs. 171–173; 192,

32 See, for instance, Davies, Deir El Gebrâwi 1, pl. 19, and the instances quoted in the previous note. 33 For an overview on priests’ positions: Vandier, Manuel 4, part 1, 106–109, fig. 30 and Junker, Giza 3, 103–111. 34 See William Stevenson Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1946), 295. 35 It is worth noting, however, that single-leg figures in non-ceremonial contexts similar to the ones here under consideration seem to be relatively more often represented in Middle Kingdom tombs than in the ones dating to the Old or New Kingdoms. For examples see: Davies, Five Theban Tombs, pls. 37, 38; Davies, Antefoker, pl. 8; Newberry, El Bersheh 1, pl. 23 (also a tent scene). It may well be that the tendency to treat subjects of daily life more ceremoniously, which is attributed in the present study to the relief designers at Lisht, was to a certain extent characteristic for Middle Kingdom art in general. 36 Arne Eggebrecht, “Gänseopfer,” in LÄ 2, 371–372. The right hand of the man offering the goose in fig. 9 appears curiously shortened in this relief; the full hand was probably painted, but the colors have faded in this particular spot.

29

2–3.

30 A few tiny remains of relief at the sides of the preserved part of the upper register (figs. 1 and 2) may indicate on the upper left the tail or feathers of a bird, and near the bottom the ends of a wing or leg of a trussed fowl. On the left, therefore, the depiction of preparation for roasting fowl seems to have continued. On the right edge, one might suggest reconstructing at the top the upper end of a pole and at the bottom the leg of a small hoofed animal. If the latter identifications are right, they might indicate that the scene on this side of the preserved section included the depiction of the skinning of a goat, as in Moussa and Altenmüller, Niankhchnum, pl. 76; or (in this case hanging on a tree): Davies, Deir el Gebrâwi 1, pls. 9, 12. However, since the animal leg (if such it is) appears to touch the ground, there may have been shown a tethered goat or gazelle that was expected to be slaughtered later. Compare: Blackman, Meir 3, pl. 7. 31 See for instance the overview of scribes’ positions in Vandier, Manuel 4, part 1, 196, fig. 83 and 202, fig. 84, where only one example each of the Old and Middle Kingdom show only one leg.

8

dorothea arnold

shaped in a decidedly more conceptualizing manner. In the reliefs on the Lisht block, the humans seem to perform their everyday-life tasks as if they were priestly functions, and the animals— although as stirringly alive as all creatures in ancient Egyptian art—are treated as if they were hieroglyph-like single figures, or groups of figures, rather than interacting partners in a lively narrative. While the Old Kingdom images evoke the forces of nature as a memento vivere, an affirmation of life, the 12th Dynasty representations convey a sense of awe, inspired by the divine in nature as well human life and death. Let us then come back to the initial proposal that the creative processes of Egyptian artists and designers might usefully be described as performing arts. The book in front of me—more or less chosen at random—contains reminiscences on performances of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, experienced over 65 years by a major theater critic in Britain: John Courtney Trewin, Five & Eighty Hamlets.37 The following general points become apparent to the reader of this book:

play. In such moments, the audio-visual aspects (the physical appearance of an actor, his or her voice and manner of speaking, the sets, costumes and lighting) combine with gestures and demeanor in expressing not only a particular understanding of the play and role, but also a general human background that the audience shares with the performers.38 It is easy to see how these points equal the creation of works of art in environments such as the one of ancient Egypt. 1. Patrons and designers of reliefs or paintings had to make a selection of scenes that would be depicted in a certain tomb and adapt the selected iconography to the space available on the tomb walls. If the tomb was fairly small, cuts became necessary.39 2. A role equal to the one of a theater director was played by the chief designer of a tomb’s decoration. 3. As is well known, the locality of a tomb (Giza, Saqqara, Lisht, etc.) had a strong impact on the choice of scenes, their iconography and the style of execution. 4. Beside the tomb owner’s situation in life, his—and his peers’—specific beliefs concerning the afterlife were of the greatest importance throughout the work. 5. The choice of sculptors and painters who would execute the relief and painting work was of great importance for the final result, but so were artistic tradition and the style and abilities of the workshop employed for the task. 6. What in the end is most expressive of the intended meaning and—to speak in emotional terms—moving for the viewer are details such as postures and gestures of figures, combinations of figures and objects, as well as the fine-tuned human life associations raised by the motifs and their execution.

1. The first step in every performance is the selection of the play, followed by its adaptation, which usually includes cuts of the text (the full Hamlet lasts four and a half hours) as well as whole figures, and certain rearrangements in the sequence of scenes. 2. An important figure (at least in modern theater) is the director, who may or may not be also an actor in the play and even the set designer. 3. The place of a performance is of great importance, since each place and theater house (London, Stratford, Elsinore, New York) all have their own traditions, atmosphere and audience. 4. A particular interpretation and understanding of the play permeates all steps of the performance and its preparation. 5. Casting is an important part of the performance, but a strong director and a strong acting tradition also play major roles. 6. What remain in the end in the memory of the viewer are above all specific moments that illuminated a role, or indeed, a whole

If thus all representational artistic work in ancient Egypt can be understood to a certain extent

37 Paperback edition: New Amsterdam Books (New York, 1992). 38 See Trewin, ibid., 22, 36, 47, etc.

39 On the adaptation of scenes to wall spaces in individual Old Kingdom tombs and related subjects see Yvonne Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs, 62, 223–231 and passim.

egyptian art—a performing art?

9

as “performance,”40 the creative re-enactment of the Lisht artists differs only by its more deliberate approach from the ones of the Old Kingdom. Less directly involved in the historical environment that shaped the artistic creations of the Old Kingdom, the Lisht artists had the chance to re-interpret the old forms and iconographies in new ways. If one wants to choose another parallel from present-day theater, the Old Kingdom works were—so to speak—in the repertory, while the Lisht artists created a new production. The question remains then: who were the “Shakespeares” of all the scenes and themes that were “performed” again and again by Egyptian artists? A proper treatment of this topic could well fill another article. Suffice it here to remind the reader of a famous artist who lived during an early phase of western culture: the Greek epic

poet Homer. This “author” has always been so difficult to pinpoint as an individual that in the past, scholars have seriously questioned his very existence. At present, a consensus appears to have been reached, according to which a long epic tradition existed in the Aegean that began probably not long after the historical events around the siege and capture of Troy by Mycenean Greeks. After several centuries, the cumulative achievements of many generations of “singers” finally came together and took their ultimate form in the Iliad and Odyssey. While the name of the final author may well have been Homer, the names of the previous singers were lost, and their individual input is extremely difficult to separate out. The final work, however, survived the millennia, inspiring poets, playwrights, visual artists and the public to the present day.41

40 There is no need to stress that ultimately this attitude of Egyptian artists toward the past is another example of the ancient Egyptian cyclical concept of time so admirably described by Erik Hornung, Geschichte als Fest (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), English translation:

“History as Celebration” in Hornung, Idea into Image, trans. Elizabeth Bredeck (New York: Timken, 1992), 147–164. 41 For a recent treatment of the “Homeric question” see Joachim Latacz, Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

10

dorothea arnold Table 1 Fording Version 1: Herd is submerged up to necks

tomb owner

publication

place

date

Hetepkherakhti

Mohr, p. 63, fig. 33

Saq. west of Step Pyr.

Nyuserre-Izezi

Kaemnefret

Hassan, Giza 2, fig. 124

Giza

Nyuserre-early Izezi

Irukaptah

McFarlane, pl. 46

Saq. around pyr. Unis

Menkauhor-Izezi

Kaiemrekhu

Mogensen, p. 5, fig. 4

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

Izezi

Rashepses

LD 2, pl. 60

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

Izezi

Senedjemib Inti

Brovarski, pls. 22, 23, 29, 30

Giza

Izezi

Zaib

Roth, Palace Attendants, pl. 181

Giza

Izezi

Tjezet and husband

Roth, Palace Attendants, pl. 185

Giza

Izezi

Hezimenu

Kanawati, Hawawish 4, fig. 18

Hawawish

late 5th Dynasty, prob. Izezi

Sepedhetep

Borchardt, CG 1555

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

late Nyuserre-Unas

Ti

Wild, Tombeau de Ti, pl.124

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

Izezi-Unas

Senedjemib Mekhi

Brovarski, pls. 97, 105

Giza

Unas

Ptahhotep

Quibell, Ptahhetep, pl. 30

Saq. west of Step Pyr

mid – late Unas

Akhtimerunesut

Hassan, Giza 2, fig. 124

Giza

Unas – Teti

Idout

Idout, pl. 7

Saq. around pyr. Unas

Unas – Teti

Mehu

Altenmüller, Mehu, pl. 39

Saq. around pyr. Unas

Teti

Kagemni

W 3, pl. 92

Saq. around pyr. Teti

mid Teti

Mereruka

Mereruka 1, pl. 20

Saq. around pyr. Teti

mid-late Teti

Hesi

Kanawati-Abder-Raziq, pl. 25, 55

Saq.around pyr. Teti

late Teti

Ankhmahor

Kanawati-Hassan, pl. 37a

Saq.around pyr. Teti

late Teti – early Pepy I

Shedu

Kanawati-McFarlane, pl. 46

Deshasha

Teti

Ibi

Davies, Gebrawi, pl. 6

Deir el-Gebrawi

early Pepy II

Kaihep

Kanawati, Hawawish 1, pl. 12

Hawawish

Pepy II or after

Pepiankh Khenikem

Blackman, Meir 5, pl. 30

Meir

Pepy II and following king

Djau

Davies, Gebrâwi 2, pl. 5

Deir el-Gebrawi

late Pepy II

Shesipumenu

Kanawati, Hawawish 2, fig. 22

Hawawish

late 6th Dynasty-8th Dynasty

Hemra Izi

Davies, Gebrâwi 2, pl. 20

Deir el-Gebrawi

late 6th Dynasty-FIP

Ankhtifi

Vandier, Mo"alla, 109, fig. 53

Moalla

FIP

egyptian art—a performing art?

11

tomb owner

publication

place

date

Sobekhotep

Vandier, Mo"alla, 280-281

Moalla

FIP

unknown

Baines-Málek, 129 top right

Ihnasya

FIP

Dagi

Davies, Theban Tombs, pl. 38

Thebes

11th Dynasty

Amenemhat

Newberry, Beni Hasan 1, pl. 12

Beni Hasan 2

late Senusert I

Sarenput I

H. W. Müller, Felsengräber, fig. 18a

Aswan

Senusert I

Khnumhotep II

Newberry, Beni Hasan 1, pl. 29

Beni Hasan 3

Senusert II

Table 2 Fording Version 2: the cattle wade through shallow water, a) without boat tomb owner

publication

place

date

Ptahshepses (frgmt.)

Vachala, Abusir 8, 99: C 173

Abusir

Nyuserre-early Izezi

Akhtihotep, Louvre

Ziegler, pl. 133-134

Saq. east of Step pyramid

Niuserre-Izezi

Ti

Wild, Tombeau de Ti, pl.114

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

Izezi-Unas

Iinefret (fragmentary)

Schürmann, 54-55, fig. 7a, b

Giza

Merenre-early Pepy II

Kaemankh

Junker, Gîza 4, fig. 8

Giza

6th Dynasty

Table 3 Fording Version 2: the cattle wade through shallow water, b) plus boat tomb owner

publication

place

date

Nebemakhti (frgmt.)

LD 2, pl. 12

Giza

Shepseskaf-Userkaf

Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep

Moussa-Altenmüller, Nianchchnum, pl. 76

Saq. around Unas pyr.

late NyuserreMenkauhor

Sepedhotep

Borchardt, CG 1557

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

Nyuserre-Unas

Akhtihotep

Davies, Ptahhetep, pl. 14

Saq. west of Step Pyr.

late Izezi-early Unas

Khunes

LD 2, pl. 105b

Sawiet el Meitin

Izezi-Unas

Nimaatre (also under version )3

Hassan, Giza 2, fig. 236

Giza

Unas

Anonymous, Dresden

W 1, pl. 394

Saqqara

5th Dynasty

Anonymous, Dahshur

de Morgan, Recherches, 175, fig. 517

Dahshur

Teti ?

12

dorothea arnold Table 4 Fording Version 3: cattle partly or fully out of water

tomb owner

publication

place

date

Nefer and Kahay

Moussa-Altenmüller, Nefer, pl. 5

Saq. around pyr. Unas

Nyuserre

Nimaatre (also under version 2b)

Hassan, Giza 2, fig. 236

Giza

Unas

Mehu

Altenmüller, Mehu, pl. 17

Saq. around pyr. Unas

Teti

Baqet

Newberry, Beni Hasan 2, pl. 28

Beni Hasan 29

late 11th Dyn.Amenemhat I

Table 5 Outdoor kitchen tents, roasting and cooking tomb owner

publication

place

date

Iymery

Weeks, Cemetery 6000, pl. 34, 35, color pl. 7

Giza

late Neferirkare

Ptahshepses

Verner, Abusir 1, pl. 43

Abusir

Nyuserre to early Izezi

Hetepherakhti

Mohr, 78, fig. 43

Saq. west of Step Pyr.

Nyuserre to early Izezi

Niankhkhnum + Khnumhotep

Altenmüller, Nianchchnum, pl. 77

Saq. around Unas pyr.

late NyuserreMenkauhor

Niankhkhnum + Khnumhotep

Altenmüller, Nianchchnum, fig. 9

Saq.around Unas pyr.

late NyuserreMenkauhor

Kajkhenet

Mackay, Bahrein and Hemamieh, pl. 23

Hemamieh

Izezi

Senedjemib Inti

Brovarski, pls. 42

Giza

Izezi, mid-late

Tjezet and husband

Roth, Palace Attendants, pl. 185

Giza

Izezi

Anonymous Cairo CG 1562

W I, pl. 397

Saqqara

5th Dynasty

Ti

Wild, Tombeau de Ti, pl.124

Saq. north of Step Pyr.

Izezi-Unas

Seshemnefer

Vandier, Manuel V, fig. 163

Saq. around Unas pyr.

6th Dynasty

Kaiemankh

Junker, Gîza 4, pl. 8

Giza

6th Dynasty

Tjetu

Simpson, Western Cemetery 1, pl. 23

Giza

6th Dynasty

Neferseshemptah

Capart, Rue, pl. 87

Saq. around Teti pyr.

Teti and after

Idu

Simpson, Qar and Idu, pl. 38

Giza

Merenre-early Pepy II

Niankhpepi

Varille, Ni-ankh-Pepi, pl. 14

Zawiyet al-Amwat

6th Dynasty from Pepy I

Pepiankh Heny kem

Blackman, Meir 5, pl. 30

Meir A2

Pepy II and following king

egyptian art—a performing art?

13

tomb owner

publication

place

date

Niankhpepi kem

Blackman, Meir 5, pl. 13

Meir A1

6th Dynasty

Ibi

Davies, Gebrâwi 1, pls. 9, 12

Deir el-Gebrawi

early Pepy II

Pepiankh Heriib

Davies, Gebrâwi 4, pl. 8

Meir D2

late 6th

Shedu

Kanawati-McFarlane, pl. 43b

Deshasheh

Pepy II

Werirni

Davies, Sheikh Said, pl.12

Sheikh Said

early Izezi

Mery

Petrie, Athribis, pl. 8

Hagarseh

FIP

Baqet

Newberry, Beni Hasan 2, pl. 36

Beni Hasan 33

late FIP

Senet

Davies, Antefoker, pl. 8

Thebes 64

Senusert I

Amenemhat

Newberry, Beni Hasan 1, pl. 12

Beni Hasan 2

late Senusert I

Djehutinakht (tent only, no roasting)

Newberry, El Bersheh 1, pl. 23

El-Bersheh 2

Senusert III to Amenemhat III

14

dorothea arnold

Fig. 1. Relief block from Lisht North: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1915 (15.3.1164), photograph by Bill Barrette.

egyptian art—a performing art?

Fig. 2. Relief block from Lisht North, drawing by Julia Jarrett.

15

16

dorothea arnold

Fig. 3. Fording of cattle, from the mastaba of Kaemrekhu, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen AE.I.N. 1271 (Mogensen, 5, fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Fording of cattle from the mastaba of Ti, Saqqara (Wild, Tombeau de Ti, pl. 124).

egyptian art—a performing art?

17

Fig. 5. Cattle emerging from the papyrus thicket, from the mastaba of Nefer and Kahay, Saqqara, drawing by Julia Jarrett after Moussa and Altenmüller, Nefer, pl. 5.

Fig. 6. Kitchen tent with man roasting a duck and man plucking a duck from the mastaba of Neferseshemptah, Saqqara, drawing by Julia Jarrett after Wreszinski, Atlas 3, pl. 80.

Fig. 7. Man plucking a duck or goose from Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 1562, drawing by Julia Jarrett after Wreszinski, Atlas 1, pl. 397.

18

dorothea arnold

Fig. 8. Men performing the offering ritual from the mastaba of Perneb, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Edward S. Harkness, 1913 (13.183.3), drawing by Julia Jarrett after Caroline Ransom Williams, The Decoration of the Tomb of Per-N¯eb (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1932), pl. 10.

Fig. 9. The offering of a goose and four ducks from the mastaba of Perneb, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Edward S. Harkness, 1913 (13.183.3), drawing by Julia Jarrett after Williams, The Decoration of the Tomb of Per-N¯eb, pl. 10.

THE PUZZLING STELA OF USERPEHTYNESU AND PANETJER

Edward Bleiberg Brooklyn Museum

Introduction

Description of the Stela

The stela of Userpehtynesu and his wife Panetjer (Brooklyn Museum 37.1353E) presents a number of problems in epigraphy and art history, making it a worthwhile subject for examination. Richard Fazzini brought the stela to my attention while I was searching for a representation of an ancient Egyptian family in Brooklyn’s collection. I am happy to pay tribute to my dear friend’s distinguished career at the Brooklyn Museum and his contributions to Egyptology by adding this short study to this volume honoring him.

The stela is round topped and the lunette is carved in low, raised relief with a central shen sign flanked by eyes of Horus (see fig. 1). Starting from the left, a female and a male figure sit together on chairs before an offering table. Above the male figure is the name Userpehtynesu. Above the female figure, the artist carved a name that is perhaps to be read Panetjer. Both names are carved in crude, sunk relief. A standing male figure on the right side of the stela pours a libation on the offering table with his right hand and holds a sistrum with his left hand. Behind the standing male at the far right of the lunette, a female figure sits on a chair. Her legs overlap the rear leg of the standing male figure. Neither of these figures is labeled. Finally, three lines of text at the bottom of the stela, in sunk relief on a surface slightly higher than the lunette surface, represent a nearly standard hetep-di-nesu formula. The translation of the inscription is as follows:

History of the Stela Henry Abbott first collected this stela in Egypt during the 1820’s or 1830’s. It came to New York in 1849, part of Abbott’s Egyptian Museum in Manhattan. The New–York Historical Society purchased it with Abbott’s collection in 1860. Thus the earliest published comments on the stela are found in the Catalogue of the New-York Historical Society. Here the author calls it a votive tablet and says it comes from Saqqara.1 In 1937, the entire N-YHS Egyptian collection was loaned to the Brooklyn Museum. The museum then purchased the collection in 1948. In 1974, T.G.H. James reproduced the inscription in the corpus of texts that he had copied.2 He accurately dated it to the early 18th Dynasty, but his reading of the names of the individuals represented on the stela points to the epigraphic difficulties in the text (see below).

1 Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities of the New-York Historical Society (New York: Printed for the Society, 1915), 13, no. 178.

1. A gift which Osiris, ruler of eternity, and the king give. May he give invocation offerings (consisting of) bread, beer, 2. beef, fowl, alabaster, linen, incense, and every good and pure thing to the ka(s) of 3. Iyadjru and his wife Panetjer, by her/his(?) son that his name might be caused to live.

2 T.G.H. James, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1974), 71, no. 165.

20

edward bleiberg Discussion

The individuals honored in the text are a certain Iyadjru and his wife Panetjer, not the same male individual named in the lunette. Thus the first epigraphic problem concerns both the proper readings of the names and the identities of the individuals honored by the stela. It is clear that the male figure named in the lunette is not the same individual named in the inscription below. Moreover, the female figure’s name is written in the lunette with the netjer sign first, while in the inscription below the female name is written with the pa sign first and the netjer sign second. This confusion adds to the difficulty of reading the woman’s name. Moreover, there are distinct difficulties with the final formula at the end of the inscription. As James noted, the expected text would be “by his son that his name might be caused to live.”3 The following discussion considers these epigraphic difficulties. The male name written in the lunette is more likely read Userpehtynesu than James’ reading, Suuserpeh. As James noted, the name Userpehty is recorded by Ranke, found in the Theban tomb of Userhat.4 Thus Userpehtynesu would be nearly a parallel. The only difficulty in reading in honorific transposition as I have done, is the inconsistency in the text with regard to this convention in the writing of the female name in the lunette and in the third line of text. The female name in the lunette also is most likely written in honorific transposition. One possible suggestion for the discrepancy between the lunette and the text is that the names in the lunette were added to the stela some time after the text below was written. Indeed, if two different scribes carved the names in the lunette and the text of the inscription, there is less difficulty in assuming that the scribe of the lunette more “correctly” wrote with honorific transposition while the scribe of the text did not. Consistency would be even less likely than if only one scribe had written the text. The name Iyadjru, though damaged in the text, nearly certainly is the original male name carved here. There are no traces of another name where this name is written. Moreover, it fits comfortably in the space provided for it. The name Userpehtynesu, in the lunette, could easily James, Corpus, 71. Hermann Ranke, Die ägyptischen Personennamen 1 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935), 85, no. 12. 3 4

have been a secondary addition, since there is plenty of space for it. The woman’s name, as already noted, is written in honorific transposition in the lunette and in phonetic order in the text. As James wrote, it appears to be “unfeminine” and is unparalleled. This writer once assumed that the name is properly read “Netjerpay,” meaning something like “a god who is ancient.”5 This would eliminate the difficulty of naming a woman “the (masculine singular) god” or even less likely, “the (masculine) one who belongs to the god.” However, it would be easy to assume that a scribe could neglect to write a name in honorific transposition. It is extremely difficult to explain why a scribe would write the pa bird first in the inscription if it were not read in that order. Thus the reading “Netjerpay” must be rejected. I am no closer to explaining how a woman received a name meaning “the (masculine) god” than James was. The final formula in the text also requires discussion. It reads:

The arrangement of the signs does not conform with expectations (see above). Some signs are out of the expected order while others seem superfluous. First, it seems somewhat surprising that the “f ” needed to yield “his son” follows the “s,” presumably the causative particle in the word “cause to live.” Moreover, it is difficult to explain the presence of two “r’s” following the ankh sign to write the word “rn.” The form of the “f ” snake under the “s” also differs considerably from the form of the “f ” and the word snake that follows both the word in the same line. The “f ” under the “s” widens in the middle, unlike the other two “f ” signs, which are nearly straight cuts. It is also poorly spaced, too close to the feet of the sa bird. Thus it seems possible that this sign is a later addition and that the original text read “sa.s,” “her son.” The “s” could then be read a second time to yield the causative of “to live,” the expected formula. The second difficulty is the arrangement of the two “r” signs after the ankh sign. The second “r” is smaller than the first “r” and is poorly spaced. It adds nothing to the meaning of the text and perhaps was an error later covered with plaster. 5 Edward Bleiberg, Jewish Life in Ancient Egypt (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 2002), 14, fig. 5.

the puzzling stela of userpehtynesu and panetjer Finally, if the inscription originally read “her son,” why does “his” follow the word “name?” Here it seems possible, at least, that a previous bolt “s” has been altered to become an “f.” The suggestion then is that the text originally read, “by her son in order to cause that her name might live.” This understanding of the text might explain a slight art- historical anomaly in the lunette. Careful examination of the figures in the lunette under a microscope reveals that both the male and female figures bear traces of reddishbrown paint. It is of course a truism of Egyptian art history that male figures are painted reddish brown while women are painted yellow. In fact, this truism was sometimes violated in at least two reigns of the 18th Dynasty, including the reign

21

of Hatshepsut (a possible date for this stela) and the Amarna Period. Not only is Panetjer’s figure painted reddish brown, but she is also slightly larger than the male figure seated next to her. This observation leads to the suggestion that the stela was originally dedicated primarily to the well-being of the female figure. Moreover, the stela might well represent Panetjer named in the inscription with her first husband and in the lunette with her second spouse. This sequence of events might explain why the offering figure is “her” son. Careful study of such a modest stela might reveal that the practice of altering such texts was common. This short article is meant to stimulate the discussion of altered private stelae in order to understand their history.

22

edward bleiberg

Fig. 1. The stela of Userpehtynesu and Panetjer, from Saqqara, limestone and paint traces, 141/2 × 10 × 3 inches (36.8 × 24.8 × 7.5 cm) 37.1353E, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, Courtesy Brooklyn Museum.

MUT OR NOT? ON THE MEANING OF A VULTURE SIGN ON THE HERMITAGE STATUE OF AMENEMHAT III

Andrey O. Bolshakov Hermitage Museum

Richard Fazzini was one of the first colleagues whom I had the pleasure to guide in the Egyptian gallery of the Hermitage as its keeper. At that time, he was much engaged in excavations of the precinct of Mut at Karnak and, of course, an inscription on the Hermitage statue of Amenemhat III that may be interpreted—or not—as the earliest known record of Mut was one of the subjects of our discussions. More than 15 years have passed since that time, but the problem of the beginning of the cult of Mut is not much clearer now than it was in the eighties, and the nature of the “Hermitage vulture” still remains obscure. This makes me write this small paper and dedicate it to Richard, an excellent museum Egyptologist and a kind and brave man. A statue of Amenemhat III in the Hermitage Museum (fig. 1)1 occupies a special place in the history of Egyptology: a comparison of its face (fig. 2) with that of one of the Tanis sphinxes made by Golénischeff in 18932 initiated stylistic and iconographic studies of Middle Kingdom royal portraiture. Golénischeff was interested mainly in the facial features and the name of the king represented and, thus, he paid only minimal attention to other aspects of the inscriptions on the throne. He reproduced one of them in standard typographic hieroglyphs;3 the

last preserved sign of both inscriptions, that of a vulture with a flagellum, of which only the upper part survives in either case, was shown as complete. The meaning of the vulture sign was beyond any doubt for Golénischeff, who translated the inscription as “Le dieu bon, source de richesses (mot à mot: faisant les choses), M¯aa-nR¯a, fils du Soleil, issu de son flanc, Amenemh¯a-t, ami (ce mot est emporté par une lacune) de la déesse Maut.”4 Very little was done for the study and interpretation of the statue after Golénischeff, in spite of its obvious importance as one of the best portraits of Amenemhat III, attributed to him not only stylistically but also on the grounds of inscriptional evidence. Although its general view was repeatedly reproduced (mainly by means of reprinting Golénischeff’s photograph),5 only one publication touched upon the inscriptions—and in a very unsatisfactory manner. In the catalogue of Egyptian sculpture in the Hermitage by Lapis and Matthieu (the entry written by the latter), the vulture signs are lacking in the handwritten copy of the texts and their existence is not reflected in the translation either6—the mistakes unfortunately characteristic of that poorly published and badly edited book. Traces of the signs, however, are visible on a photograph in a picture-book

1 Inv. no 729. Black granite, h. 87 cm. Provenance unknown, modern history uncertain; the earliest record of its presence in the Hermitage is G. Treu, Ueber die ägyptische Sammlung der Eremitage (St. Petersburg: Schmitzdorff, 1871), S. 24. Matthieu supposed that it could have been bought by the Russian Academy of Sciences with the collection of Carlo Ottavio Castiglione in 1825 (Ирма Александровна Лапис, Милица Эдвиновна Матье, Древнеегипетская скульптура в собрании Государственного Эрмитажа [Москва: Наука, 1969], 43 [Irma Aleksandrovna Lapis and Militsa Edwinovna Matthieu, Ancient Egyptian Sculpture in the Collection of the State Hermitage (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), 43]), but this is only a conjecture, possible but unconfirmed by the early museum documentation.

2 Wladimir Golénischeff, “Amenemh¯ a III et les sphinx de ‘Sân’,” RecTrav 15 (1893): 131–136. 3 Ibid., 133. Actually Golénischeff published a reconstructed combination of two similar mirroring inscriptions: it is oriented as the proper left column, but the cartouche with the name "Imn-m-h. A.t is shown undamaged, as it is in the proper right one. 4 Ibid. The same translation had earlier been published in Wladimir Golénischeff, Ermitage Imperial: Inventaire de la collection égyptienne (S. l., 1891), 85. 5 See PM 8, 15: 800-365-700. 6 Лапис, Матье, Древнеегипетская скульптура…, , табл.  (кат.№ ). The translation is inexact also in other respects.

24

andrey o. bolshakov

devoted to the Hermitage pharaonic collection published five years later by Landa and Lapis,7 but their shapes are too indefinite for sure reading if based only on the photograph. The inadequateness of publications might be the reason why the inscriptions were not discussed as a possible source for the early history of the cult of Mut for a long time. Only 65 years after Golénischeff, Vandier devoted some words to them in Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne,8 but since he had never seen the original, he entirely relied upon Golénischeff’s reading and understanding. Due to the alleged presence of Mut, Vandier supposed that the statue came from Thebes (i.e., from the temple of Mut at Karnak). Thirty more years passed, and at last the Hermitage sculpture was discussed by Fay in her most thorough manner9 as the closest parallel to the figure of Amenemhat V from the sanctuary of Heqaib at Elephantine split between the museums of Vienna and Aswan.10 According to her, the two monuments are so similar that they seem to have been made in the same workshop; however, she definitely and convincingly discarded the possibility of the manufacture of the Hermitage statue in a Theban workshop (although admitted that it could have been made for Thebes elsewhere) and cast doubt on the interpretation of the vulture sign as the name of Mut.11 In a later paper, Fay demonstrated that the “slight upward pull at the corners of the lips” of the St. Petersburg statue is characteristic of the images of Amenemhat III produced in Lower Egyptian workshops.12 In a paper by Polz devoted to the statuary of the last kings of Dyn. 12, it is mentioned as an example of

7 Natalia B. Landa and Irma A. Lapis, Egyptian Antiquities in the Hermitage (Leningrad: Aurora, 1974), no. 21 (better in the proper right inscription, worse in the proper left one). 8 Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne 3 (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1958), 201–204, pls. 67, 3 and 68, 2. 9 Biri Fay, “Amenemhat V—Vienna/Assuan,” MDAIK 44 (1988): 67–77. 10 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 37: ibid., Taf. 18–20, 23; Eva Rogge, Statuen des Neuen Reiches und der Dritten Zwischenzeit, CAA Wien, Lief. 6 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1990), 5–10 (with bibliography down to 1990); now also Wilfried Seipel, Gott–Mensch–Pharao: Viertausend Jahre Menschenbild in der Skulptur des alten Ägypten (Wien: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1992), 172–173; Helmut Satzinger, Das Kunsthistorische Museum in Wien: Die Ägyptisch-Orientalische Sammlung, Antike Welt, Sondernummer 1994 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994), 18–19; Dietrich Wildung, ed., Ägypten 2000 v. Chr.: Die Geburt des Individuums (Munich: Hirmer, 2000), 138, 184. Aswan 1318: Labib Habachi, The Sanctuary of Heqaib, Elephantine IV, AV 33 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1985), 113– 114, 126, pls. 198-cd–200; Fay, “Amenemhat V,” Taf. 21–23.

the “stilisierende Stil” in the sculpture of Amenemhat III,13 but is not interpreted at all. Thus, although there is obvious progress concerning the artistic aspect of the issue, a new discussion of the inscriptions is no doubt a must. The inscriptions (fig. 3) are identical, placed symmetrically on the front surface of the throne at either side of the king’s legs and continued on the horizontal upper surface of the base;14 unfortunately, the front of the base, with feet and the terminal parts of the inscriptions, is lost. They read:

ntr nfr ı"r(ı") (ı")h.t N(ı")-m A #.t-r#(w) s A R#(w) n h.t.f ¯ ¯ "Imn-mh. A.t ˘/// 15 16 “Younger God who performs rites Nimaatre, son of Re of his body, Amenemhat17 ///”.

11 12

132.

Fay, “Amenemhat V,” 75–76. Biri Fay, “The ‘Abydos Princess’,” MDAIK 52 (1996):

13 Felicitas Polz, “Die Bildnisse Sesostris’ III. und Amenemhets III. Bemerkungen zur königlichen Rundplastik der späten 12. Dynastie,” MDAIK 51 (1995): 232. 14 This arrangement is characteristic of the statuary of Amenemhat III; ibid., 248. 15 On the meaning and translation see Oleg Dmitrievich Berlev, “Two Kings—Two Suns: On the Worldview of the Ancient Egyptians,” in Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D. Berlev, ed. Stephen Quirke (Berlin: Achet Verlag, 2003), 1–33. 16 On ı"r("ı) ("ı)h.t see now Carolyn Diane Routledge, An˘ Practice: ı"r-ht and nt- #, PhD diss., Unicient Egyptian Ritual ˘ versity of Toronto (Toronto: National Library of Canada, 2001). 17 The cartouche, its contents, and parts of the preceding hieroglyphs are broken off in the proper left inscription, perhaps with a single blow that could be intentional.

on the meaning of a vulture sign on the hermitage statue of amenemhat iii The shape of the upper parts of the signs is still visible in spite of the badly damaged surface of the stone, and it obviously is Gardiner’s G 15, a vulture with a flagellum (figs. 4 and 5). As already mentioned, Golénischeff without hesitation read as the name of the goddess Mut.18 However, nowadays the problem appears much more complicated and important than it seemed in the nineteenth century: it seems that there are no reliable records of Mut before the Second Intermediate Period,19 and thus, the Hermitage statue either offers the earliest known record of Mut in a royal context, or it bears a name of another vulture goddess. Both options deserve consideration. As te Velde has demonstrated,20 it is impossible to read the name of Mut in the Pyramid and Coffin Texts21 or in the Hammamat inscriptions, while the understanding of some Middle Kingor dom personal names including the element 22 is equivocal.23 As the earliest evidence on Mut, te Velde24 regards a representation (unfortunately damaged) of a leonine deity standing on its hind legs and laon the Second Intermediate Period beled “magic wand” in Nationalmuseet Copenhagen,25 but this object creates more problems than it

18

133.

Golénischeff, “Amenemh¯a III et les sphinx de ‘Sân’,”

19 Herman te Velde, “Mut,” in LÄ 4, 246; te Velde, “Mut,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 2, ed. Donald B. Redford (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 454; Barbara S. Lesko, The Great Goddesses of Egypt (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), 130. 20 Herman te Velde, “Towards a Minimal Definition of the Goddess Mut,” JEOL 26 (1979–1980): 4–5. 21 The authors of Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen regard CT V, 295 f. as the only reference to Mut in the Middle Kingdom; Lexikon 3, ed. Christian Leitz, OLA 112 (Leuven–Paris–Dudley: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2002), 251–252. However, the context makes it possible to understand (B6C), (S1C) and (S2C) as spelling variants of mw.t, “mother;” cf. Raymond O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts 2 (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977), 77. 22 Hermann Ranke, Die ägyptischen Personennamen 3 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1977), 58–59. 23 “Mut” or “mother,” e.g., (Ranke, Personennamen 1 [Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935], 188:16)—Nb.t(."ı)mw.t, “(My) Lady is Mut” or Nb.t(."ı)-mw.t(."ı), “(My) lady is (ibid., 282:3)—s A-mw.t, “Son of Mut,” (my) mother;” or s A-mw.t(."ı), “Son of (my) mother;” “Mut” or another goddess, e.g., (ibid., 152:1)—Mn(w)-mw.t or Mn(w)—Mw.t-h. tp."ı or Nhb.t-h. tp."ı (ibid., 148:13); “Mut” nhb.t, ˘ ˘ either alternative: or (ibid., 258:10)—Htp-mw.t, , . “Mut is satisfied,” or Htp-n hb.t, “Nekhbet is satisfied,” or . ˘ Htp-mw.t(." ı), “My mother is satisfied.” . 24 te Velde, “Mut,” LÄ 4, 246. 25 Inv. no. 7795; George Francis Legge, “The magic

25

solves. Hsm is a rare name of a lion-demon,26 one . of the protectors of Re, but the meaning of remains obscure or, at least, not as obvious as it was for te Velde. First, it can be Mut, who in the later times was often considered a lioness27 and a protector of the Solar God, his Eye.28 Second, it can be not Mut, but another deity associated with a vulture. Third, it can be a determinative referring to a complicated, both leonine and avian nature of Hsm. The latter option seems preferable to me, . is really Mut, her presence on such but even if a specific object as a “magic wand” bears only a very slight relation to the cult, and especially to the royal cult. Another possible early record of Mut may be in the Middle Kingdom “Hymns to Diadems” preserved on a Second Intermediate Period pais included in the list of 29 serpyrus, where pent goddesses of the Hymn h.29 Although Troy is absolutely sure of the presence of Mut in the hymns,30 the spelling is too indefinite for unambiguous conclusions,31 and in any case the context is purely speculative and not cultic. Much more important is the evidence of the late Middle Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period stela of "Ib-rs32 mentioning

ivories of the Middle Empire,” PSBA 27 (1905): pl. 3, fig. 48; Percy E. Newberry, Catalogue of the MacGregor collection of Egyptian antiquities (London: Davy, 1922), pl. 13; Hartwig Altenmüller, Die Apotropaia und die Götter Mittelägyptens: Eine typologische und religiongeschichtliche Untersuchung der sog. “Zaubermesser” des Mittleren Reichs 2, Dissertation (S.l., 1965), 45; Daniel Polz et al., “Bericht über die 6., 7. und 8. Grabungskampagne in der Nekropole von Dra" Abu el-Naga/Theben-West,” MDAIK 55 (1999): Abb. 19. 26 Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 5, ed. Christian Leitz (Leuven–Paris–Dudley: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2002, OLA 114), 488. The name (without an association with a vulture) appears also on a magic wand of Dyn. 17 (Polz et al., “Bericht über die 6., 7. und 8. Grabungskampagne,” 390) from Dra" Abu el-Naga (ibid., Abb. 18). 27 E.g., as the lady of Asheru at Karnak. On Asheru as a designation of the cult places of lioness goddesses see Serge Sauneron, “Villes et légendes d’Égypte,” BIFAO 62 (1964): 50–57. 28 On Mut as an eye of the Solar God and, thus, his protector, see Lana Troy, “Mut Enthroned,” in Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde, ed. Jacobus van Dijk, Egyptological Memoirs 1 (Groningen: STYX Publications, 1997), 301–315. 29 Adolf Erman, Hymnen an das Diadem der Pharaonen aus einem Papyrus der Sammlung Golenischeff, APAW philos.-hist. Klasse, 1911, Abh. 1 (Berlin, 1911), 50. 30 Troy, “Mut Enthroned,” 306–310. 31 Erman (Hymnen an das Diadem, 51) had already read Mut, but with some doubt. 32 Leipzig 5128 (lost in the Second World War). Renate

26

andrey o. bolshakov

,33 Mw.t nb.t mgb, “Mut, lady of Megeb.” This is an unequivocal record of a relatively early provincial cult of Mut, but, again, it has nothing to do with the royal cult. Thus, even though we may suppose with some—rather insignificant—degree of probability that Mut could already be adored in the Middle Kingdom, she played no role of importance, and her name can hardly be present on a royal cult monument like the Hermitage statue of Amenemhat III. Then in the beginning of the lost epithet of the king must be a name of another vulture goddess closely related to royalty. The most probable contender for this role is the sky goddess Nekhbet, who is often represented above the king in mural compositions as protecting him with her outstretched wings.35 However, these compositions are not of much interest for us here since they are commonplace, icons of the world order in general, as it must be, but not evidence of the cult of Nekhbet or of her presence in the royal cult. Representations and records of Nekhbet as an independent, non-heraldic deity are surprisingly infrequent on the monuments of Amenemhat III, but they still do exist. One of them is an interesting but enigmatic piece—the lower part of a colossal headless lime-

stone statue of a vulture from Coptos36 that, according to Keimer,37 could have a female head. Both the provenance and the appearance of the statue make it more than probable that it represents Nekhbet, but the inscription on the , #nh base reads: Hr(w) #A-b A.w n(ı")-sw.t bı".t(ı") [N(ı")-m A #.t-r#(w)] mr˘ı"ı" . Shm.t nb.t #nh-t A.wı", “Live Horus great of bau, ˘ ˘ dual king [Nimaatre] beloved of Sekhmet, lady of Ankhtaui.” The syncretism of Nekhbet and Sekhmet is well known,38 but the need of the presence of Sekhmet in the temple of Coptos remains inexplicable.39 More explicit and important is the evidence of the stela from Elkab,40 dated to the year 44 of Amenemhat III and devoted to his building activities in the city. Amenemhat III is named , mrı" Nhb.t nb.t p.t, “Beloved of ˘ Nekhbet, lady of the sky, given life.” Records of Nekhbet are rare, besides the heraldic contexts, during the rest of Dyn. 12 as well,41 and seem to be present only on the monuments of Senusret I. On a lintel from Karnak,42 he is represented in front of several deities, one of them being , Nhb.t h. d.t nhnı", “Nekhbet, ¯ ˘ ˘ the white one of Hierakonpolis.” A relief fragment from Coptos43 bears the names of Senus-

Krauspe, “Eine heute verlorene Stele der Leipziger Sammlung (Ägyptisches Museum der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 5128),” in Festschrift zum 150 jährigen Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums, Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 8 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974) S. 160, Taf. 18-a. 33 Handwritten reproduction of the inscription in ibid., 160, is inexact. 34 On mgb/mgb.t, a site situated somewhere in the tenth Upper Egyptian nome, not far from Qau el-Kebir, see Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947), 62–64; Farouk Gomaà, “Probleme der Lokalisierung von ägyptischen Ortsnamen,” ZDMG Supplement 3/1 (1977), 26, Nr. 9, 10; Gomaà, Die Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches 1, TAVO, Reihe B, 66/1 (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1986), 241–243; Jaromír Málek, “A New Sculpture from Mgbt, the town of Mut,” GM 29 (1978): 71–77. 35 See data collected in Eileen Hirsch, Kultpolitik und Tempelbauprogramme der 12. Dynastie: Untersuchungen zu den Göttertempeln im alten Ägypten (Berlin: Achet, 2004), 110–137, 339–374. 36 JE 30770-bis. PM 5, 131; W.M. Flinders Petrie, Koptos (London: Quaritch, 1896), pl. 9–1; Hans Gerhard Evers, Staat aus dem Stein: Denkmäler, Geschichte und Bedeutung der ägyptischen Plastik während des Mittleren Reichs (Munich: Bruckmann, 1929), Taf. 119, 126; Ludwig Keimer, “Sur un fragment de statuette en calcaire ayant la forme d’un oiseau (vautour?) à tête de reine,” ASAE 35 (1935): 182–192. 37 Keimer, “Sur un fragment de statuette.” 38 E.g., they may be interchangeable in the Coffin Texts; see Hirsch, Kultpolitik, 116–117.

39 It is of interest that the shape of the statue corresponds to Nekhbet, the determinative to the name of the goddess stresses her leonine nature, while the epithet refers to the Memphite hypostasis of Sekhmet. Can it be a result of a centralized rationalization of the cults characteristic of the reign of Amenemhat III? 40 “Stobart Stela” (now lost). Henry Stobart, Egyptian Antiquities Collected on Voyage Made in Upper Egypt in the Years 1854 & 1855 (Berlin: Värsch & Happe, 1855), pl. 1 = Georges Legrain, “The king Samou or Seshemou and the enclosures of El-Kab,” PSBA 27 (1905): plate facing p. 106. 41 From the preceding First Intermediate Period we know a stela of Htp" . ı from Elkab (Gawdat Gabra, “Preliminary Report on the Stela of Htp" . ı from El-Kab from the time of Wakhankh Inyôtef II,” MDAIK 32 (1976): 45– 56), where the lord of the owner, Inyotef II, is named , “Horus enduring life, dual king, son of Re Inyotef born of Nefru, beloved of Nekhbet” (l. 1). Below, Htp" , “temple of the . ı mentions his service in lady of the universe, Nekhbet” (l. 8). In either case, the name of the goddess must be read as Nekhbet and not Mut, due to the provenance of the stela. For the reference to this monument, I am indebted to Dr. Arkadi E. Demidchik, Novosibirsk. 42 Françoise Le Saout, Abd el-Hamid Ma"arouf, and Thierry Zimmer, “Le Moyen Empire à Karnak: Varia 1,” Cahiers de Karnak 8 (1987): pl. 6. 43 Lyon, Musée des Beaux Arts E 501; Les reserves de pharaon: L’Égypte dans les collections du Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (Lyon: Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon, 1988), 41, 43.

34

on the meaning of a vulture sign on the hermitage statue of amenemhat iii ret I, Hpr-k A-r #(w), and several gods (representa˘ lost) including tions are , Nhb.t nb.t p.t, “Nekhbet, lady of the sky.” On a ˘jamb fragment from Coptos,44 Senusret I is depicted as receiving life from Bastet and Nekhbet, who says: dı".n(.ı") n.k snb rnp.wt Hr(w) m . #nh nb, “I give you health / and / the years of Ho˘ as every / kind of / life.” rus as Mut in the inscriptions on Thus, reading the Hermitage statue is hardly possible, while the existence of the monuments of Amenemhat III revealing his interest, although limited, in the cult of Nekhbet, makes the understanding of the ideogram as Nekhbet the most probable option. The end of the titulary may be reconstructed as “Amenemhat [beloved of]

44

Petrie, Koptos, pl. 10–12.

27

Nekh[bet, lady of the sky]” or similar—at least the lost part of the base was large enough to bear a passage of this size. With this reading, it is possible to speculate on the provenance of the Hermitage statue as Coptos or Elkab, the only places where the monuments of Amenemhat III mentioning Nekhbet were found. Fay’s hypothesis on the Lower Egyptian production makes it safe enough to suppose that the statue was made within the framework of a certain state-wide project; the same could be the case of the Elephantine statue of Amenemhat V. If considering the data from the rest of the dynasty, Karnak must not be excluded as another place for which the Hermitage statue could have been intended.

28

andrey o. bolshakov

Fig. 1. Statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum.

on the meaning of a vulture sign on the hermitage statue of amenemhat iii

Fig. 2. Statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729, detail. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum.

29

30

andrey o. bolshakov

Fig. 3. Inscriptions on the vertical front surface of the throne of the statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum.

on the meaning of a vulture sign on the hermitage statue of amenemhat iii

Fig. 4, a–b. Inscriptions on the upper surface of the base of the statue of Amenemhat III, Hermitage 729. (a) proper left, (b) proper right. Courtesy of the Hermitage Museum.

Fig. 5. Vulture signs on the Hermitage statue of Amenemhat III.

31

A NEWLY DISCOVERED STATUE OF A QUEEN FROM THE REIGN OF AMENHOTEP III

Betsy M. Bryan Johns Hopkins University

In January 2006, a statue of a queen (figs. 1–4) was discovered during the clearance of debris in the platform porch of the Mut Temple at Karnak.1 It was associated with a small amount of Roman pottery and other late debris, and therefore may have been part of the last adjustments to the temple’s foundations. Found lying on its face, the statue was first visible only by its back pillar, which carries an inscription of Queen Henuttawy, added in the 21st Dynasty. Only when the headdress was uncovered did the repeated name of Amenhotep III become visible, demonstrating that the statue was made for one of his wives. Richard Fazzini has represented the Temple of Mut for more than three decades now, and his work there and his work on the Third Intermediate Period generally have contributed to a great broadening of our understanding of both. Like Richard, this statue represents both the Temple of Mut and the TIP. It is with affection and admiration that I offer this discussion to him.

The granodiorite statue of 1.6 meters in height is preserved from the top of the modius to the knee area, although the break is higher in the front than in the back. Thus the back pillar inscription is intact, while the entire lower leg area is missing. Small fragments were retrieved during the clearance, only one joining directly, an uninscribed fragment of the back pillar. A portion of a beautifully worked right foot was

recovered some days later to the east of the area where the queen was found. Since the lower legs are missing, this fragment cannot at present be confirmed to belong to this statue, but it can be eliminated from the ubiquitous Sekhmet corpus. The queen wears a close-fitting dress with a shawl, indicated only by the lack of negative space between the jutting elbow and the body. A comparison for much of the statue in size, material, dress and regalia may be seen on the Vatican statue inscribed for Ramesses II’s mother Tuya (Inv. 22, figs. 5–6). That work was recarved in the 19th Dynasty from an image of a royal woman of Amenhotep III and transformed again as late as the eighteenth century CE.2 The new statue may have depicted the same queen as the Vatican one, but the body types are quite different. The Mut Temple queen has marguerite flowers on her breasts that are surrounded by roughened circles. The likelihood is that both the breast and collar were formerly gilded, and the roughened areas facilitated that application. The swell of the breasts is gradual, and the flowers cover nearly all of them. Although there is no wrinkle line beneath them, the breasts point just slightly downward. In contrast, the breasts of the Vatican queen are distinctly sculpted as separate bosoms, and the marguerites are small and centered as nipples. The marguerites are high on the bosom and emphasize that the breasts are firm. There is an indication of two wrinkle lines beneath the proper right bosom, but this feature appears on the limestone figure of princess Henuttaneb as well and should not be understood as a certain

1 The statue has been accessioned in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, as JE99281 and was briefly published in an entry by Betsy M. Bryan, in American Contributions to Egyptian Archaeology, ed. Gerry D. Scott, III (Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt, 2006), no. 50. 2 Giuseppe Botti-Pietro Romanelli, Le sculture del Museo Gregoriano Egizio (Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotta Vati-

cana, 1951), 18–21, no. 28; Jean-Claude Grenier, Museo Gregoriano Egizio (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1993), 49, V.8 and pl. 14; Arielle P. Kozloff, “A Masterpiece with Three Lives,” in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 2, ed. Peter Der Manuelian (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996), 477– 485. The original crown had the triple uraei, as does the new statue, but Ramesses II converted it to a single cobra.

Style and Iconography of the Mut Temple Statue

a newly discovered statue of a queen from the reign of amenhotep iii

33

age indicator.3 Thus, the Mut Temple statue has the breasts of a mature woman, while that of the Vatican queen could well portray a younger female. This is also the case with the two body types. Although both are incomplete, their original parts are preserved quite similarly. Both statues were broken below the knee area and have more proper right leg than left.4 The Mut Temple queen5 holds her left arm at a true right angle, such that it cuts the distance between neck and hips nearly in half. On the glazed steatite figure of Tiye from the Louvre, the arm is angled upward, resting over the high-waisted belt just beneath the bosom.6 Yet the hand still nearly perfectly divides the distance between neck and hip. The Vatican queen also holds the arm at an acute angle, but here it shortens the distance from neck to hand, while the belly down to the hips is lengthened. Seen from the side, the Vatican statue has a higher buttock and thinner thigh than does the Mut Temple statue. Indeed the bodily proportions of young women in sculpture during the reign of Amenhotep III are characterized by short upper torsos, high buttocks, and thighs less thick than mature women. For example, the statue of queen and princess Isis is quite comparable.7 The proportions of clearly identified representations of Tiye, however, define those of mature females.8 On the Mut Temple statue’s neck is an elaborate necklace of pendant floral elements terminating in a band of shuty plumes, a visual reference to the queen’s own crown in its most com-

plete form. A double band above the broad collar is suggestive of the shebyu, or gold award collar. It is not bordered by a flat string, as are the necklace segments of the broad collar, and it is therefore likely to be a separate piece of jewelry. A shebyu worn above the broad collar would be highly unusual for a queen of Amenhotep III, although the king himself wore the combination.9 These narrow gold-ring necklaces were, however, worn by women at the end of the New Kingdom and in the 21st Dynasty. They are well paralleled in two dimensions in the Hierakonpolis tomb of Hormose, reign of Ramesses XI, where they are worn by nearly all the women depicted, including Hormose’s wife Hent-aa (fig. 7).10 Like the double rings on the statue, the Hormose examples are small in size, unlike the shebyu examples worn by Amenhotep III himself. Given the rarity of women wearing the shebyu in the 18th Dynasty, it is perhaps best to see this as a 21st Dynasty addition. The queen has the almond-shaped and obliquely set eyes so associated with Amenhotep III. These are specifically to be described as either “natural rimmed” or “buttonhole.”11 The relative narrowness of the eye conforms entirely to the group of granodiorite statuary of Amenhotep I termed “Group 1” in Table 4a of Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, being slightly wider than the “Group 2” granitic examples, and far wider than the eyes of the ruler in quartzite.12 The eyeballs, as on many of the king’s statues, are carved to cut back the bottom of the eye more than the top and middle. This is quite visible in profile, but

3 On the colossus M 610, where the princess has the number JE 33906. It is possible, but not likely, that this was an addition when the statue was retouched for the king’s mother Tuya. 4 The lower leg and socle of the Vatican statue are later restorations. 5 The reconstructed proportions of the Mut Temple queen are as follows, following the format of Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan with Lawrence M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), Table 3, 466. 18 grid squares from bottom of foot to hairline: 162 cm. Height of the buttock is 8.55 grid squares; the width of the hips is 4 squares; the shoulders 4.6. The younger female figures combined buttock heights above 9.5 squares with hip measurements of 3.5–4.0. Mature women had lower hips (8.4–9.0 squares) but of similar widths, 3.7–4.0. The visual impression would then be of heavier hips. 6 Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 22, Louvre E25493, 202–203, color plate 16. 7 Ibid., no. 24 of Princess Isis, 206–208, for specific discussion of the youthful figure. Table 3, 466, for proportions of women generally.

8 Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 22, Louvre E25493, 203, describes the body type. Height of buttock 9.0; width of hips 3.7 squares. 9 In the round on Durham University Oriental Museum N 496. Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 21, 200–202. In relief, eg., east face of the north wing of the Third Pylon at Karnak, illustrated in ibid., 98, fig. IV.20. 10 Betsy Bryan, “Painters in the Tomb of Hormose,” in Nekhen News, ed. Renée Friedman (London: Friends of Nekhen, Fall 1999). 11 Bernard V. Bothmer, “Eyes and Iconography in the Splendid Century: King Amenhotep III and His Aftermath,” in The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. Lawrence Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990), 84–92, esp. 84 and 89, arguably either a “buttonhole” or a “naturally hooded” eye, according to Bothmer. The latter category consists for him only of JE 59880, but the distinction is actually in the size and materials. His “buttonhole” examples are in soft stones and small scaled so that the eyelids are largely incised and do not show any trace of “hooding.” Another example will be British Museum 43a, a head of Mutemwiya, discussed further below. 12 Bryan in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 468–469. All facial

34

betsy m. bryan

from the front gives the appearance of the statue’s downward gaze. As with other traits, the queen’s vertical eye profile falls with the granitic statuary.13 The statue belongs to the Group 1 granite statues generally, since its decorative details rely more on shallow incision than on dramatic surface contrast.14 The queen’s mouth is carefully lined, with the telltale pursed upper lip of the ruler. The mouth turns up slightly.15 Yet the face, without the enveloping wig entirely framing it, is less rounded than many of the king’s own images, and this emphasizes the strong jaw. Although this stubby chin is the striking facial characteristic of the face, it is pure “Amenhotep III,” being a physical feature seen on several of his well-known statues, such as Louvre A25, MMA 56.138, and CMA 52.513.16 There is one granodiorite queen’s head that has all of these traits and may well have been carved by the same sculptors as our queen. This is the Cairo statue head CG 60917 (fig. 8), where we can also see the natural rimless eyes, the slightly smiling mouth, and the stubbed chin, along with the flat raised-relief eyebrows, as here. The triple uraei are also well preserved and detailed in the same manner as on the new statue, although the overall headdress is different. Unfortunately, the body of this statue has not been identified. Its scale is slightly larger than that of

the Mut Temple statue. Although CG 609 cannot be well provenanced, the strong similarity of its facial features to the new queen’s face does suggest a shared production environment. As is commonly the case with major royal monuments, the iconography of the Mut Temple statue has been painstakingly designed. The queen’s head regalia are unique as combined here—at least for queens of Amenhotep III. For that reason, a careful description follows. On her head, the queen wears the tripartite wig, the vulture headdress with a vulture and two cobra uraei, and a tall modius or cylindrical crown at the top. The wig was also shown with two fillets, one encircling the top of the head and representing hanging lotuses, and the other consisting of a band with marguerites running around the broadest point of the wig. The specific combination we have on this statue is not otherwise known for Queen Tiye or any other queen of Amenhotep III, but parallels exist for several of the elements. Similar fillet bands may be seen on several queens’ statues from the reign, but all are decorating the enveloping rather than the tripartite wig. A small-scale head of a queen now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,18 wears both the lotus and the marguerite fillets, but without the

features were minutely measured and the heights of the eye as a percentage of the width were summarized. Heights of Group 1 granitic statue eyes all fell between 28 and 33 % as a percentage of width. The new statue’s eye height is 32 % of the width. CG 609, not included on the appendix that only listed the king’s statues, had a slightly wider eye at 36 %. This compares to Group 2 granitic, lying between 22 and 27 % of width, and Group 1 quartzite eye heights lying between 23 and 27 % of width, while the most extreme examples are eye heights in the Group 2 quartzite, between 17 and 22 % of width, for those deriving from the king’s Theban statues. 13 The “vertical angles of the eye” were documented in Table 5 of Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 472–473. Granitic statues of Amenhotep III ranged between 15° and 35°. The queen’s angle is 28°. 14 A description of the groups may be found in Bryan, Chapter 5 essay for Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 138–146, and is continued in the entries. 15 Group 1 mouths in granitic stone show the height of mouth as between 28 and 39 % of width. The queen statue’s mouth height is 32 % of the height. The queen’s statue head, CG 609, the closest comparison, is at 31 %. This compares with Group 2 granitic: 37–43 %; Group 1 quartzite at 30– 33 %, and Group 2 quartzite 27–39 %. Indeed, the thicker mouth is one of the characteristics of Group 2 statues. Further, a comparison with other New Kingdom rulers: Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, 26–38 %; Ramesses II, 35– 44 %. One outlier is British Museum EA 15 of Ramesses II, recarved from Amenhotep III. It is at 100 %. Ibid., 468– 469.

16 Louvre A25, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 10, 164–165 and color plate 11, is the most similar example. Slightly rounder but with the same short, stubbed and indented chin are Cleveland 52.513, ibid., 166–167, color pl. 12; and the quartzite example, Metropolitan Museum of Art 56.138, ibid., no. 9, 162–163, color pl. 10. Another example in plastered mud is JE 38597 from the Karnak Cachette. The round childlike face here nonetheless has the short stubby and indented chin. 17 Ludwig Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten 2, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire nos. 1–1294 (Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1911–1936). See notes on eye and mouth proportions, 12–15, above. CG 609, overall height of 53 cm, has a facial height, neck to hairline of 24.5, thus indicating an overall height from bottom of foot to hairline of 220.5. (The statue would have stood considerably taller, with 15.5 from hairline to the break at the bottom of the modius, the modius of perhaps another 16–18 cm, plumes, and a socle of some 30 cm.) The complete statue may have stood more than 3 meters. This compares with the new statue as follows: overall height from top of modius to break at lowest point is 1.6 meters. From shoulder to hairline is 18 cm, thus making the bottom of foot to hairline height around 162 cm, plus the height from hairline to modius of 11 cm; of the modius, 11.5, plumes, and a socle of some 30 cm. The complete statue may have stood between 2.5 and 2.75 meters. 18 BMFA 21.2802 of peridotite, from the Sudan. The regalia here does not include the vulture headdress but a low modius, horns and a sun disk over an enveloping wig with the two fillets. Bryan in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 15, 175–176.

a newly discovered statue of a queen from the reign of amenhotep iii

35

vulture headdress. Mutemwiya wears the fillet bands on a small granodiorite head in the British Museum.19 On the steatite image of Tiye in the Louvre, the queen does wear the vulture addition to the enveloping wig, along with a lotus forehead fillet, topped by a modius and plumes.20 However, on the Mut Temple statue, the fillet is visible only from the sides, so that the vulture headdress dominates the front view. Like the Louvre figure, however, a slot at the back of the new statue’s crown demonstrates that it was once fitted with the double plumes—quite possibly made of a precious metal. The type of wig is known for Amenhotep III’s female family members only rarely in statuary, but it is not uncommon in relief. British Museum 948 is a colossal limestone bust from a queen’s statue. It apparently derived from the temple of Merenptah.21 The poorly preserved statue wears the wig with a single uraeus and a cylindrical modius atop. The identity of the royal woman is unknown, but the association of this wig with goddesses does suggest that the wearer played a divine role. On the southern stela at the king’s mortuary temple of Kom el-Heitan, Tiye appears twice, in both cases wearing the tripartite wig topped by the vulture headdress.22 In this case, a difference is seen in the type of base, or modius,

worn. As is seen in several other examples, Tiye wears a short base for the plumes that flares out from bottom to top. Examples in the round include a granodiorite privately owned statue and a small peridotite head in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.23 On the granite head in a private collection, the queen is shown with the modius, horns, sundisk, and plumes over the enveloping wig.24 This base appears as a low flaring circle upon which the upper portion of the headdresses rest, while in two- dimensional representations it may resemble a cornice shape.25 For example, at Soleb, Tiye is shown behind the king at the dais ceremonies that preceded the king’s sed festival. She is wearing the tripartite wig with the corniceshaped modius and plumes. She wears the same combination on the west gate, where the central sed rituals are depicted.26 In the tomb of Kheruef, Tiye sits with Amenhotep III in the kiosk at the third sed. She appears to wear a larger version of the flaring modius with the tripartite wig, a combination similar to the scenes at Soleb.27 The second type of modius, a cylindrical form, was worn by women of royal and non-royal birth during the reign of Amenhotep III, and is attested for the king’s female family members by a number of examples.28 On the new statue, the front of the modius is decorated with a central

19 EA 43a, probably deriving from a seated figure of Amenhotep III. Gay Robins, Reflections of Women in the New Kingdom: Ancient Egyptian Art from the British Museum (Atlanta: Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, 1995). 20 Louvre E25493. Bryan in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 22, 202–203, color plate 16. 21 Maya Müller, Die Kunst Amenophis’ III und Echnatons (Basel: Verlag für Ägyptologie, 1988), IV-29, and literature given there, cites Strasbourg IES 965 as another example of the queen in this wig. 22 Gerhard Haeny, “Die beiden grossen Stelen im Peristylhof,” in Untersuchungen im totentempel Amenophis’ III, ed. Gerhard Haeny, BeiträgeBf 11 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1981), 70–83, pl. 5. Also the head of Queen Tiye in the scene on the left is in the Berlin Museum, Inv. 23270. PM 22, 451. Other examples of Tiye in this wig and headdress occur on the carnelian plaques MMA 26.7.1339–1340. Lawrence Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 123, 442–444, color plate 16. 23 Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 13, 170–171; BMFA 21.2802, ibid., no. 15, 175–176. 24 Ibid., no. 13, 170–171. Formerly in the collection of Robin Symes. Present location unknown to the writer. 25 Ibid., no. 28, Munich ÄS 5873, a gilded wood appliqué of the queen holding the lotus whisk and a small bouquet. 26 Ibid., fig. IV.30, 109. The Oriental Institute, The 1905– 1907 Breasted Expeditions to Egypt and the Sudan: A Photographic Study 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), P 3200 and 3237.

27 Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt: Scenes from Private Tombs in New Kingdom Thebes, trans. David Warburton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), figs. 152– 153 (photo); PM 12 1, 299. 28 A few examples include a non-royal one from the tomb of Menna, TT 69, showing the daughter of Menna wearing it with gold plumes at the forehead. Photo detail at Arielle P. Kozloff, “Theban Tomb Paintings from the Reign of Amenhotep III: Problems in Iconography and Chronology,” in Berman, The Art of Amenhotep, fig. 10, pl. 16. The “royal children” in the tomb of Kheruef, TT 192, also wear this modius, but the painted decorative details have disappeared. See Kozloff, no. 57 in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 290–291, with context of fragment Berlin 18526, showing two “princesses” with sidelock wigs and modius. Epigraphic Survey, The Tomb of Kheruef: Theban Tomb 192, OIP 102 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980), pls. 47, 57. A princess wears a tall version on the carnelian plaque MMA 26.7.1340, Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 442–444, color plate 62. See also Mutemwiya, mother of Amenhotep III, wearing a slightly shorter form of this modius atop the vulture headdress in TT 226 (now Luxor Museum J 134). On the colossi of Memnon, both she and Tiye wear tall versions as they stand at the chairside of the king. On the newly retrieved quartzite statue of Tiye in similar position from Kom el-Heitan, she wears the shorter form. Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, pl. 27; PM 22, 449. Hourig Sourouzian et al., “The Temple of Amenhotep III at Thebes: Excavation and Conservation at Kom el-Hettan, Third Report on the Fifth Season in 2002/2003,” MDAIK 60 (2004): pl. 26b.

36

betsy m. bryan

sed-festival glyph flanked by two heb-festival ones. The jubilee kiosk contains two prenomens of Amenhotep III written in a sportive form also known from Malkata during the period of his sed festivals, and underlining the king’s identification with the sun god.29 The seated-god glyph, read as “nb,” is twice shown back to back, as if seated on the two jubilee thrones. As Johnson has noted with respect to the Malkata examples, the identity of the deity (with divine beard) is made apparent by the sun disk (r #) on the head and the possession of the maat feather (m A #t), all yielding the prenomen Nebmaatre, but picturing the sun god Re.30 Continuing around the modius are cartouches containing the prenomen and nomen of Amenhotep III, alternating twice on each side. Yet, the name of Tiye does not appear, nor that of any other queen. Since her name does appear on the small head of Tiye from the Sinai and on the head of Mutemwiya on the Memnon Colossus, as well as on her statue head in the British Museum, it might have been expected on the Mut Temple crown.31 The modius decoration most similar to that of the Mut Temple statue is found on the limestone colossus M610 in the Egyptian Museum. Although it is damaged on the front of the modius, the cartouches of Amenhotep III also ring this cylinder, apparently without the jubilee glyphs. The queen’s name may have been written there, but a similar modius is worn by Princess Henuttaneb on her smaller figure that is part of this colossus. That modius is also ringed by cartouches, but the front appears to continue

the names of her father. She wears a single cobra uraeus.32 The decoration of this type of modius varies, and it need not include a name.33 In the tomb of Userhat, Tiye appears in the kiosk beside Amenhotep III. She holds the flywhisk and wears a tripartite wig with modius and plumes above.34 The modius here is ringed with uraei, and it flares slightly at the top. However, a three-dimensional parallel from the colossal Sekhmet statue in the Mut Temple indicates that this is to be understood as a cylindrical modius with a separate ring of uraei fitted around it.35 Tiye’s limestone figure on M610 also has an analogous set of uraei to those of the Mut Temple statue. On the colossus, the cobras and vulture are crowned, the proper right in the white and the proper left in the red crown. The central head emerging from the vulture headdress wears the white crown flanked by feathers, apparently invoking the goddess Nekhbet36 (fig. 9). The Mut Temple statue similarly shows the central vulture crowned, but here with the double crown of Mut. The trio on the Cairo granite head CG 609, referred to above, shows the white crown on the central vulture, with white and red on right and left. On the Louvre steatite figure of Tiye, the heads are uncrowned.37 Since the vulture in the center is the head for the vulture headdress, it is absent when the queen does not wear that feathered diadem. For example, the queen wears two cobra uraei at the front of a low cylindrical modius over an echeloned wig on JE 38257 from

29 W. Raymond Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: Styles and Intentions,” in Berman, ed., The Art of Amenhotep III, 26–46, especially 38–39, figs. 4–5. William Hayes, “Inscriptions from the Palace of Amenhotep III,” JNES 10 (1951): 157 ff. 30 It is interesting to note that the sculptural details of the kiosks and the elements within them suggest that two sculptors were at work on the modius. The figures of the seated god are differently conceived both as to their heads and their sitting positions. More obvious are the two heb glyphs. That on the left is curved topped and its central element is the #A pillar, perhaps emphasizing the “greatness” of Amenhotep III. The heb shrine on the right is nearly angled at the top and supported by a simple column. 31 JE 38257, Mohamed Saleh and Hourig Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1987), no. 144; Labib Habachi, in Haeny, ed., Untersuchungen, 48; British Museum 43a. 32 See Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, fig. II.5; Henuttaneb’s statue has a separate number, JE 33906. Ibid., 207, figs. 24a,b. 33 Louvre E 25493: Sourouzian et al., “The Temple of Amenhotep III at Thebes,” pl. 26b, c. See also the nu-

merous examples of the cylindrical modius on the chair of Sitamun, where the heads on the throne arms do not include the princess’s name. Egyptian Museum CG 51113: André Wiese and Andreas Brodbeck, eds., L’or de l’au-delà: Toutankhamon: trésors funéraires de la vallée des rois (Basel: Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, 2004), no. 33, pp. 196–201. In two dimensions, see above, n. 26; the tomb of Kheruef, Queen Tiye at the first jubilee with the uraei encircling the cylindrical modius. Mutemwiya in TT 226; likewise Ahmose-Nefertari in TT 181 of Nebamun and Ipuki, Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Two Sculptors (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1925), pls. 9–11. Painting in Hannover, Kestner-Museum, 1962.70. 34 TT 47, Brussels E 2157: Kozloff in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 56, 289–290. A photograph of the fragment still in situ is also shown in the entry. 35 For example, see Bryan in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 215, fig. VII.2. 36 Bryan in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, no. 22 n. 2, mentions the uraei on this statue but concluded incorrectly that there were three cobra uraei and the maat feather. 37 Louvre E25493 and M. 610 and JE33906.

a newly discovered statue of a queen from the reign of amenhotep iii the Sinai.38 In the tomb of Userhat, TT 47, the seated figure of Tiye does not wear a vulture headdress, but the cobra uraei nonetheless wear the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt. In this example, Tiye additionally wears a fillet backed by the Horus falcon, over the tripartite wig.39 Although Tiye frequently wears the double uraei in both relief and statuary, she need not. The new quartzite image of Tiye from the colossus at Kom el-Heitan has a single large uraeus in front of the cylindrical modius.40 Yet the documentation so far appears to indicate that Tiye was the only royal woman to wear the double cobras in the reign of Amenhotep III. This may not be due solely to her position as major wife of the king, since Thutmose III’s mother Isis wore double cobras, crowned with the white and red diadems, below a cylindrical modius on her granodiorite statue now in the Egyptian Museum.41

37

It was common for the iconography of Amenhotep III’s reign to suggest divine associations, so the intended significance of the Mut Temple statue must consider all the elements presented.42 The tripartite wig, an archaic and conservative headdress, was less common for Tiye in statuary than the enveloping wigs. However, in relief she appears with it frequently. Normally in those wall scenes, the tripartite wig signals Tiye in a ritualized goddess’s role. For example, with this wig she performs as Hathor in the jubilee festivals at Soleb and in the scenes of the third sed in the tomb of Kheruef.43 In those contexts, she accompanies the king as his solar renewal is

accomplished. In another Kheruef tomb scene of the first jubilee, Tiye, labeled as being “like Maat following Re,” stands behind the seated king and Hathor and wears this wig.44 Her association alludes to the nightly journey of the sun god, where Hathor was his companion in the boat (here paralleled by the goddess sitting with the ruler), and Maat(y) was his protectress, whose dual nature defined and straightened the sides of the path on which the god traveled. Indeed, the very prenomen of Amenhotep III, Nebmaatre, “the lord of Maat is Re,” suggests that Tiye would have been equated with Maat, as the king was identified with Re. On the mortuary temple’s southern stela, Tiye, wearing the tripartite wig, short modius, and plumes, shakes a sistrum as Amenhotep III is granted life by the gods. The double uraei on her diadem wear the disk and horns on the right, before Amun-Re, and a single uraeus the white crown on the left, before Sokar-Osiris.45 Thus, as Hathor protecting Re, and as Isis protecting Osiris, Tiye provided protection to her husband, assisted by the cobra goddesses. Indeed, this may be understood as the primary purpose of the double uraei in their association with the queen’s crowns. The queen mothers and queens shown standing behind the king visually represented the magical rubric, “all protection and life, all stability and dominion behind him like Re forever,” and the double uraei may have been another element expressing this apotropaic function.46 Just as the cobras formed the protection and illumination for the king during his journey through the hours of the netherworld, their appearance on the crowns of his queens signals their divine presence empowering the royal women in their roles.47 It is not surprising, therefore, that the

38 Saleh and Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo, no. 144. 39 Brussels E 2157, and n. 34 above. 40 Sourouzian et al., “The Temple of Amenhotep III at Thebes,” pl. 26b, c. 41 CG 42072, Georges Legrain, Statues et Statuettes de rois et de particuliers 1, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire nos. 42001–42250 (Cairo: IFAO, 1906), pls. 41–42; PM 22, 144. 42 “Statues of pharaohs were the same kind of hieroglyphic markers, the individual features serving to define the king while the statue pose and insignia identified the role assumed…The line between king and deity as defined by statuary is often blurred, and sometimes it is impossible for us to tell whether a statue with the insignia of a deity but an inscription naming Amenhotep III was intended to represent the god or the ruler temporarily assuming the characteristics

of a divinity.” Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 126. 43 For Soleb, n. 26 above; tomb of Kheruef, HodelHoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt, figs. 152–153. 44 Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt, 213, n. 10 and fig. 143. 45 Berlin 23270 from the southern quartzite stela, KarlHeinz Priese, no. 136 in Bettina Schmitz, ed., Nofret die Schöne: Die Frau im Alten Ägypten (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1985), 85. 46 Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt, figs. 152– 153. Between the king and Tiye is the vertical inscription: s3 #nh nb dd w3s nb h. 3.f nb m"ı r # dt. ˘ 47 ¯For example, in Erik ¯Hornung, Die Nachtfahrt der Sonne: eine altägyptische Beschreibung des Jenseits (Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 1991); Erik Hornung and Theodor Abt, Knowledge for the afterlife: the Egyptian Amduat—a quest for immortality (Zurich: Living Human Heritage Publications, 2003).

Iconography and Significance of the Mut Temple Statue

38

betsy m. bryan

double uraei are also seen on the diadems of goddesses in their roles of protector of the king and gods. For example, the cylindrical modius worn by the large Sekhmet statue in the Mut Temple Second Court is ringed by uraei topped by sun disks. On the front, however, are the two cobras performing their protective role together with the goddess—who is herself one of the uraeus goddesses. Similarly, at Abydos, two images of Isis depict her wearing double uraei with the vulture headdress topped by the cylindrical modius surrounded by uraei.48 In the Osiris chapel, on the headdress of the seated goddess, the double uraei are set before the sun disk that fronts the crown’s plumes. On a relief outside the chapel, Isis holds a “young” Sety I on her lap to nurture him. There, her crown includes the double uraei with horns and disks hanging at her forehead, together with the vulture of the headdress. The serpent-ringed modius is topped by the horns and disk, with another uraeus hanging down from it. Here the placement of the protective cobras has been carefully determined, so that in the chapel the uraei protect the sun disk itself, that is, the sun god. In contrast, on the relief outside they are placed to hover over Sety I himself, who here is Re-Osiris. These additional hanging uraei further guarantee his care. The iconography of the Mut Temple statue as analyzed here may suggest that the queen was portrayed in the ritualized role of a goddess in a manner similar to that represented in relief. It is likely that the statue represented Queen Tiye49 enacting the duties of Mut as she honors and protects Amenhotep III and Amun-Re. The statue’s body, face, and iconography emphasize the queen’s position with respect to her husband, viz., his loyal follower (facial style); his procreative

alter ego (fertile body form); his consort (queen’s regalia); his divine protection (divine regalia). Although certainly fashioned in concert with one of the king’s jubilees, the statue’s creation for the Mut Temple appears likely, given the fashioning of the double crown on the vulture headdress. The ritual event for which the image might have been created cannot be identified, but it certainly encourages further inquiries regarding its connection with the retouched seated statue of Amenhotep III in the Second Court, and the dedication of the Mut Temple Sekhmet statues.50

48 Hedwig Fechheimer, Die Plastik der Ägypter (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer Verlag, 1914), pls. 148–149. 49 In the absence of indications that other royal women were represented with the double uraei during this reign. 50 PM 22, 259, called Tutankhamun. The eyes of this statue have been recarved in a manner familiar from the Ramesses II images. A cartouche added on the shoulder of this statue was later erased, so even the original reuse cannot be exactly identified. A large corpus of new Sekhmet statues was discovered in 2006 at the king’s mortuary temple, following recent finds already published, as in Sourouzian et al., “The Temple of Amenhotep III at Thebes.” The association of the emplacement of carefully designed statuary for Amenhotep III with rituals has been discussed by Betsy M. Bryan, “The Statue Program for the Mortuary Program of Amenhotep III,” in The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research, ed.

Stephen Quirke (London: The British Museum, 1997), 57– 81. 51 A Sekhmet statue in the First Court of the Mut Temple has a dedication to Mut by the adoratrice of Hathor Henuttawy, and it mentions Pinudjem I: LD III, 249. Niwinski ´ and others identify her as this same woman, but that title does not appear on the new statue, although the other titles are those of the adoratrice: Andrzej Niwinski, ´ “Problems in the Chronology and Genealogy of the XXIst Dynasty,” JARCE 16 (1979): 49–68, esp. 50–51. Cf. Edward F. Wente, “Chronology of the Twenty-first Dynasty,” JNES 26 (1967): 155–176, esp. 160–164, with the adoratrice of Hathor Henuttawy as daughter of Smendes and Tentamun. Saphinaz-Amal Naguib, Le clergé féminin d’Amon thébain (Leuven: Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1990) concludes in agreement with Kitchen, although with further discussion.

Inscription from the Back Pillar A presentation of the added inscription is in order here, although no space is available for commentary. It will be seen, however, that the text is entirely compatible with the understanding of the statue’s iconography presented above. It may well be that Henuttawy enlarged upon epithets of Tiye that originated on the statue’s socle. The back pillar does not appear to have been inscribed before the 21st Dynasty. It is intriguing to note that the later queen did not remove or change the name of Amenhotep III, but rather was content to add her text on the rear. Henuttawy, a king’s daughter (Ramesses XI?) and queen’s daughter (Tentamun), wife of Pinudjem I, is considered to be identical with the adoratrice of Hathor Henuttawy who left a dedicatory inscription on a Sekhmet statue at the Mut Temple. She was also mother of the god’s wife Maatkare, as well as king’s mother (Psusennes I), queen’s mother (Mutnodjmet) and greatest of the entertainers of Amun-Re.51

a newly discovered statue of a queen from the reign of amenhotep iii Left column (begins about twenty centimeters lower than right column): h. mt nı"swt wrt sm Ayt nı"swt mr.f hnmt Hr . h. ry-ı"b #h. h. m ˘ nı"swt mrr bı"ty n rp#tt " ntr Hwth r s mst ı b n n tr nfr mrr ˇ . . m¯ pr nı"swt sˇmst f h. r h¯ Ast nb s At-nı"swt s At-h. mt-nı"swt mwt n h. mt-ntr h. mt-nı"˘swt wrt mr.f mwt-nı"swt ¯ Right column: … n wr-h. k Aw h. sw.s mn.t r# nb nı"s.t.s m hnt r hnt n ˘ wr n mrt .s n nı"swt #At n¯nr dsrt ı"dt ı" #rt s A˘wt Hr . s At¯ nı"swt s At-h. mt-nı"swt mwt n h. mt-nı"swt wrt wrt hnrwt ˘ tpt "Imn Left Column: Great royal wife, consort of the king, beloved of him, she united with Horus within the palace, the priestess of Hathor, she who follows the desire of the good god, whom the king of Upper Egypt loves, whom the king of Lower Egypt loves: for the noblewoman in the royal house, she who follows His Majesty over every (foreign) country, The king’s daughter, the queen’s daughter,52 mother of the god’s wife, great royal wife beloved of him, king’s mother. Right Column (book roll above col. line): … for Weret-Hekau. She is favored, enduring every day.53 She is summoned, entering and going forward because of the greatness of her love for the king; she great of terror,54 she sacred of dew/fragrance, the uraeus

52 Georges Daressy, Cercueils des cachettes royales, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, no. 61001–61044 (Cairo: IFAO, 1909), 65, provides an example of Henuttawy as both king’s daughter and daughter of king’s wife, as she does on the Mut Temple statue. 53 How to take this incomplete phrase is uncertain. Other possibilities may certainly be considered. 54 A common epithet for lioness goddess. Christian Leitz, ed., Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 2 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 61–62 for #At nrw. Wb. 2, 278. 4–5, for masculine examples of gods and the king. See also Wb. 2, 278, 12 citing the Book of the Dead, Todb. Nav. 146, 42 (Lc): nrwt nbt ı" Adt. “The terrible one, mistress of pestilence/dew.” 55 For ı" Adt, see Wb. 1, 36, whose conflation with idt is an

39

who guards Horus,55 king’s daughter, queen’s daughter, mother of the great royal wife, greatest of the first harem of Amun. The epithets near the end of the statue’s inscription refer to several roles of queenship. As the one “great of terror,” the queen’s power to perform as an agent of Amun and the king is stressed. Her activity is apotropaic, like the instruments associated with her in rituals—the sistrum, the menat, the uraei. Not surprisingly, this same epithet, “great of terror,” is applied to the menat and the sistrum themselves.56 The queen is also the king’s protection in the form of the uraeus— an undoubted association of the queen with Mut herself, particularly as regards her role as god’s mother and god’s consort.57 The queen’s epithet as “sacred of fragrance/dew” may be intended to allude to the divine birth episode in which the queen, approached by Amun in the form of her husband, speaks to him, acknowledging his true identity: “You have united my person with your ‘akh’; your dew/fragrance (ı"dt) having pervaded all my limbs.”58 In this manner the queen’s role as potential mother to the next ruler—and literal Hathor or “house of Horus”—is underlined. The statue’s epithet indicating the holiness of her fragrance or dew may then suggest the god’s semen, which here pervades the limbs of the queen and will bring about the birth of next king. In sum, the inscription clearly reinforces the image of Queen Tiye on the statue proper. Both queens identified with the goddess who was wife, mother, mistress of the two lands and the lady of fear— that is, the goddess Mut.

early one; for ı" #rt, Wb. 1, 42. 1–4. ı"dt and ı"dw, Wb. 1, 152. ı"dw for “pestilence” of Sekhmet is found as well as ı"dt-ntr “divine ¯ to deny scene.” Intentional mixing of these words is difficult for goddesses such as Sekhmet and Mut. 56 Leitz, Lexikon, 61, B. nos. 21 and 23. See also scenes of Isis with this epithet in scenes of granting necklaces and amulets. 57 Mut was connected with the uraeus goddesses on the version of the Hymn to the Diadems inscribed on Hapuseneb’s statue, and this would have been a common connection for her: Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten 2, CG 648. Urk. 4, 478–480. 58 Kurt Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, 4, Band 1 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1906), 221:3–5.

40

betsy m. bryan

Fig. 1. Cairo JE 99281, Mut Temple queen’s statue.

Fig. 2. Proper left showing statue’s bodily proportions.

a newly discovered statue of a queen from the reign of amenhotep iii

Fig. 3. Bust of queen’s statue. Sportive writing of Amenhotep III premonen on front of modius, and festival glyphs. Vulture head with double crown.

41

Fig. 4. Inscription on back pillar of queen’s statue.

42

betsy m. bryan

Fig. 5. Vatican, Inv. 22, recarved statue inscribed for Queen Tuya.

Fig. 6. Side view of Vatican Inv. 22 showing high buttock and long abdomen.

a newly discovered statue of a queen from the reign of amenhotep iii

Fig. 7. Hent-aa, wife of Hormose, Hierakonpolis tomb, reign of Ramesses XI.

Fig. 8. CG 609, Queen of Amenhotep III.

Fig. 9. Detail of Cairo colossus of Amenhotep III and Tiye with daughters. Vulture head at brow wearing plumed white crown of Nekhbet.

43

DECORATION AND ARCHITECTURE: THE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE TOMB ENVIRONMENT

Violaine Chauvet Johns Hopkins University

The conception of Old Kingdom mastabas as the afterlife environment for the soul of the deceased and a place of ritual for the living rests on a complex, planned interplay between text, image and architecture.1 The fact that it is often difficult to identify far-reaching, general patterns in the layout of the decoration of complex tombs is not contradictory.2 By the 5th Dynasty, the monuments were commissioned by the tomb owners themselves and individually designed to function on their behalves.3 Specific case studies into the design of individual tombs have successfully identified the existence of a “grammar” governing the structural, decorative, and functional components of the monuments.4 In the tomb of Ti at Saqqara,5 it has been accurately demonstrated that iconographic motifs were located and oriented so as to complement the architectural setting, and function both as a processional guideline for the living and as an embodiment of the deceased’s daily circumlocution.6

The present paper considers how the decoration technique in the portico of the mastaba of Ti integrates into the tomb discourse to create a three-dimensional ritual environment. Evidence will be presented showing how the combined use of raised and sunk relief generally defined visually the exterior, secular vs. the interior, sacred parts of monuments.7 The exclusive (but for the pillars) use of raised relief in the portico of Ti suggests that other considerations came into play in the design of this space, such as the presence of a serdab squint in the southeast corner, transfiguring this open space into an “interior” place of ritual. The technical ability to carve sunk relief in stone was mastered early in the Old Kingdom.8 Yet this medium was at first only sporadically used, and essentially for the carving of hieroglyphs.9 The earliest figurative sunk reliefs recorded by W.S. Smith10 come from the rock-cut chapels of Meresankh and Debehen, both dated to the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th Dynasty.11

1 Jürgen Brinks, Die Entwicklung der königlichen Grabanlangen des Alten Reiches: eine strukturelle und historische Analyse altägyptischer Architektur, HÄB 10 (Hildesheim, 1979), 46. 2 Yvonne Harpur, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom (London: Kegan Paul, 1987), 106–110. 3 Violaine Chauvet, The Conception of Private Tombs in the Late Old Kingdom (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2004); René Van Walsem, Iconography of Old Kingdom Private Elite Tombs, Mémoires de la Société d’Études Orientales “Ex Oriente Lux” 35 (Leiden: Peeters, 2005), 58. 4 Martin Fitzenreiter, “Grabdekoration und die Interpretation funerärer Rituale im Alten Reich,” in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, ed. Harco Willems, OLA 103 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 67. 5 PM 32/2, 468–478 (no. 60, D22). 6 Nathalie Beaux, “Le mastaba de Ti à Saqqâra. Architecture de la tombe et orientation des personnages figurés,” in Études sur l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, ed. Catherine Berger and Bernard Mathieu, Orientalia Monspeliensia 9 (Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, 1997), 89–98. 7 I would like to dedicate this study to Richard Fazzini in recognition of his significant contribution to the study

of raised and sunk relief. Richard Fazzini, The use of Sunk Relief in Egyptian Art (MA thesis, Institute of Fine Arts, 1967); Fazzini, “Some Egyptian Reliefs in Brooklyn,” Miscellanea Wilbouriana 1 (1972), 33–70, part. pp. 48–49; Fazzini, Images for Eternity: Egyptian Art from Berkeley and Brooklyn (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1975), xxiv. 8 As noted by Yvonne Harpur, The Tombs of Nefermaat and Rahotep at Maidum (Oxford: Oxford Expedition to Egypt, 2001), 164–165, though different in nature, the craftsmanship for the paste-filled reliefs in the early 4th dynasty chapels of Nefermaat and Atet at Meidum is the same as that used for sunk relief. 9 William Stevenson Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), 162. 10 Ibid., 166–167, 250–251. 11 Respectively PM 32/1, 197–199, and PM 32/1, 235– 236. Cherpion’s assignment of the mastaba of Tjetji (PM 3/2: 302) to the reign of Khafre (Nadine Cherpion, Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire: Le problème de la datation [Bruxelles: Connaissance de l’Egypte Ancienne, 1989], 100–102) might push the terminus post quem back to that reign (Claude Vandersleyen, “Relief,” in LÄ 5, 227). This mastaba is otherwise

the definition of private tomb environment

45

The increasing use of sunk relief in the 5th Dynasty may well have been motivated by economic reasons. The fact that this medium was adopted later in the tombs of “the most important [thus wealthier] individuals” suggests as much.12 The influence of financial constraints can also be identified in the quality of tomb construction (cost efficient use of mud brick and decoration in sunk relief), all the more so when a son came to be responsible for providing a tomb for his father after his untimely death.13 The idea that sunk relief became increasingly popular to ensure the preservation of one’s name14 also derives from economic considerations: monument usurpation to acquire a tomb at lesser cost. The increasing occurrence, in the 5th and 6th Dynasties, of curses meant to prevent degradation of the tombs15 indicates that this phenomenon had become a problem and that the “ownership” needed to be protected by all available means. The combined use of sunk and raised relief, side by side, in many monuments suggests that an elaborate rationale governed those technical choices. The differentiation in the layout of sunk or raised figures acting as determinatives16 shows that the two mediums were not interchangeable but marked a semiotic distinction between hieroglyph and figurative representation. Evidence of artistic experimentation at that time has been recognized in scenes integrating both mediums, as a means to utilize the three-dimensional modeling

capacity of relief carving.17 It is also in the course of the 5th Dynasty that we start seeing a semantic distinction being made in the carving of relief between scenes set on the outside and those on the inside of a monument. This pattern is actually often identified as a landmark of the decoration of Old Kingdom monuments.18 Moreover, Lacau’s study of Old Kingdom false doors has revealed that, by the end of that period, this configuration had been developed into a concept: sunk relief was used for scenes or parts of tombs that were considered exterior, regardless of their actual locations in or outside the tomb.19 The architectural context thus becomes a determining factor in the layout of the decoration.20 The development of new architectonic features in private tombs, such as open courtyards, stairways to the roof, multiple serdabs and entrance porticoes, further coincide with a redefinition of the functionality of the monument.21 The tomb was not only the eternal abode of the deceased, thus a private and protected space; it became a place of ritual and worship, and so needed to be designed to be somewhat public and open to visitors. This tension between accessibility and restriction is particularly sensible in the design of entrance porticoes. Nineteen private tombs in the greater Memphite area are known to have been fronted by pillared entrances.22 Whether a distinction should be made between porches supported by square

dated to the 5th Dynasty (Hermann Kees, “Zur Datierung von Grabteilen im British Museum,” OLZ 57 (1962): 345– 346; Dietrich Wilding, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewußtsein ihrer Nachwelt, vol. 1, Posthume Quellen über die Könige der ersten vier Dynastien, MÄS 17 [Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1969], 201, n. 9). 12 Nigel Strudwick, The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest Titles and their Holders (London: Kegan Paul International, 1985), 24. 13 The examples of Washptah and Duare cited by Strudwick (Administration, 24) are only two of at least 50 similar instances documenting this pattern (Chauvet, Private Tombs). 14 Strudwick, Administration, 24; the idea being that inscriptions in sunk relief were more difficult to erase or modify than raised relief. 15 The curse from the tomb of Tjetu Kanesut is very specific in this regard: “As to any man who will take or tear out a stone or brick from this tomb, (I) will be judged with (him) in the court of the great gods, (I) shall put an end to him on account of it for the living ones who are upon earth to see” (William Kelly Simpson, Mastabas of the Western Cemetery, Part 1, Giza Mastabas 4 [Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1980], 8, fig. 15, pl. 17). Scott Morschauser, ThreatFormulae in Ancient Egypt: A Study of the History, Structure and Use

of Threats and Curses in Ancient Egypt (Baltimore: Halgo, Inc., 1991), 38–40. 16 Fazzini, Miscellania, 49; Fazzini, Images for Eternity, xxiv. 17 Fazzini, Miscellania, 49; Claude Vandersleyen, “De l’usage du relief dans le creux à l’époque ramesside,” BSFE 86 (1979): 16–36. 18 M.F. Laming Macadam, The Temples of Kawa II: The History and Archaeology of the Site (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), xiii; Jean Leclant, “Les colonnades-propylées de la XXVe dynastie à Thèbes,” Les Cahiers Techniques de l’Art 10 (1957): 40, n. 93. 19 Pierre Lacau, “Le tableau central de la stèle-porte égyptienne,” RdÉ 19 (1967): 39–50. 20 Henry G. Fischer, “Archaeological Aspects of Epigraphy and Palaeography,” in Ancient Egyptian Epigraphy and Paleography (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976), 31– 33. 21 Peter Jánosi, “The Tombs of Officials: House of Eternity,” in Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1999), 34–37. 22 Inkaf–Giza, EF (PM 3/1, 214); Ankhisesi / Isesiankh (no. 85)—Saqqara (PM 3/2, 489); Ptahshepses—Abusir (PM 3/1, 340); Ptahhotep I (D 62)—Saqqara (PM 3/2, 596);

46

violaine chauvet

pillars or entrance porticoes with columns remains to be determined.23 Columns are certainly predominant at Giza;24 the use of limestone lotus columns in the complex of Ptahshepses at Abusir is unparalleled,25 while only square pillars are found in Saqqara. Though visually different, the choice of pillars or columns in entrance porticoes does not appear to reflect an essential difference in character. The size and layout of the tombs are not determining factors26 and, when decorated, common themes can be identified regardless of the shape of the support.27 It has long been argued that the introduction of entrance porticoes in private tombs was an emulation of royal funerary architecture, such as it is first attested during the course of the 5th Dynasty in the Valley Temple of the pyramid complex of Sahure at Abusir, or the Sun Temple of Nyuserre at Abu Gurob.28 The term “Temple d’accueil,” used in French to designate the Valley Temple, best translates the nature of this edifice: a place of reception.29 The decoration program sets it as the stage for ritual meetings between the deceased king and visiting divinities.30 As the sole point of entrance to the mortuary complex, the Valley Temple was also the point of transit for all people, goods, supplies and offerings necessary for the funerary cult. The presence of apotropaic scenes—griffins trampling enemies, depictions of bound prisoners, marsh scenes— meant to magically protect the complex from evil

incursion contribute to defining the liminality of the Valley Temple as a point of transition between the world of the living and the world of the dead, the secular vs. sacred spheres, the public vs. private realms, the pure vs. impure/evil states.31 We find expression of that same dichotomy embedded in the design of the porticoes in private tombs. As a structural composition, the portico is a liminal point,32 an architectural compromise between open/public and protected/private space. The iconography further contributes to reflect the transitional nature of the space.33 Similarly, the decoration technique strengthens the syntax of the portico by providing an additional visual definition of the monument for the benefit of an audience that was not necessarily educated and literate. The design of the entrance portico in the mastaba of Senedjemib Inti at Giza is quite informative in this regard. While the decoration on the façade is carved in sunk relief and the scenes and inscriptions on the back wall of the portico are in raised relief, both types of carving are used, side by side, on the lateral walls: sunk relief in the front section, raised relief at the rear.34 The carving technique is clearly used to mark a meaningful distinction in the program of the portico. The rationale behind the choices made for the modeling of the decoration goes beyond

Ptahhotep Desher and Ptahhotep (no. 41–43 / C6–7)— Saqqara (PM 3/2: 462); Meruka—Giza, WF (PM 3/1, 118); Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep—Saqqara, Unas causeway (PM 3/2, 641); Neferbauptah (G6010)—Giza, WF (PM 3/1, 169); Neferked (G 1151)—Giza, WF (PM 3/1, 56); Nekhebu (G2381)—Giza WF (PM 3/1, 89); Rawer—Giza CF (PM 3/1, 265); Rashepses (LS 16)—Saqqara (PM 3/2, 496); Hesi—Saqqara, Teti Cemetery (Naguib Kanawati and Mahmoud Abder-Raziq, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, vol. 5, The Tomb of Hesi [Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1999], 17, pl. 2, 47–48); Senedjemib Inti (G 2370)—Giza WF (PM 3/1, 85); Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378)—Giza WF (PM 3/1, 87); Seshemnefer IV (LG 53)—Giza, GIS (PM 3/1, 223); Kaemtjenent (G 7411)—Giza EF (PM 3/1, 195); Kaemtjenent (no. 84)—Saqqara (PM 3/2, 489); Ti (no. 60)—Saqqara (PM 3/2, 468). 23 Edward Brovarski, The Senedjemib Complex, Giza Mastabas 7 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 2001), 12, accurately points out that “portico chapels,” i.e., open chapels protected by a portico (George A. Reisner, A History of the Giza Necropolis [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942], 285–288), are different in character from the entrance porticoes discussed here. 24 The tomb of Meruka is not a “portico chapel” and therefore should not be set aside (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 12,

n. 25). G 1151 is another tomb with an entrance portico supported by square pillars. 25 Jánosi, in Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids, 36. 26 Entrance porticoes are primarily associated with multi-roomed funerary complexes. Yet this feature is also found in front of single-room chapels such as Inkaf and Meruka at Giza and Hesi at Saqqara. 27 Harpur, Decoration, 52, 56–57. 28 Friedrich W. von Bissing, Das Re-Heiligtum des Königs Ne-woser-re (Rathures), Band 1: Ludwig Borchardt, Die Bau, (Berlin: Duncker, 1905), 8–10, 19–24; Hermann Junker, Giza 11, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 74. Band, 2. Abhandlung (Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1953), 100–105. 29 Dorothea Arnold, “Royal Reliefs,” in Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids, 94. 30 Dieter Arnold, “Royal Cult Complexes of the Old and Middle Kingdoms,” in Temples of Ancient Egypt, ed. Byron E. Shafer (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 51–52. 31 Ibid., 63–65. 32 Catherine Smith, “Looking for Liminality in Architectural Space,” in http://limen.mi2.hr/limen1–2001/ catherine_/smith.html (with extensive bibliography). 33 Harpur, Decoration, 52, 56–57. 34 See Brovarski, Senedjemib, pl. 18.

the definition of private tomb environment

47

physical,35 economic, chronological,36 or even semiotic37 considerations. The carving technique physically breaks up the decoration of the portico, setting aside the elements pertaining to the life of the tomb owner from those contributing to the afterlife of the deceased. The texts and scene in sunk relief are historical in nature: they consist of (auto-)biographical narratives relating to the career of the tomb owner,38 letters written by King Izezi to Senedjemib Inti,39 and biographical statements by Senedjemib Mehi on behalf of his father40 relating his involvement in the construction of the monument and the favors that his father earned from the king. The episode relating the royal gift of a sarcophagus is accordingly illustrated in sunk relief.41 In contrast, the scenes and captions carved in raised relief are ritual/funerary in nature: Senedjemib Inti is depicted as the recipient of rituals performed by his son on the rear of the side walls, in conjunction with marsh scenes; the back of the portico presents a “fishing and fowling” scene spread symmetrically on each side of the doorway.42 The symbolism of this type of scene is multifaceted.43 Whether an allusion to eroticism, fertility, and ultimately rebirth, or the idealized depiction of an aspired afterlife, an apotropaic representation of the repelling of evil, or even a “manipulative image” symbolically securing food for the deceased and his family, the “fishing and fowling icon” functions in a funerary setting and on behalf of the deceased tomb owner.44

In conclusion, we see in the design of Senedjemib Inti’s portico that the architecture, the iconographic program, and the decoration technique all participate in the creation of a liminal environment that echoes the physical transition of the visitor from the outside, secular world of the living into the inside, sacred funerary setting of the deceased tomb owner. Evidence of a similar interaction between architecture, decoration, and the audience is visible in the design of the mastaba of Khenu, at the top of the Unas causeway in Saqqara.45 The decorative program of the west wall of the chapel is divided in two sections (fig. 1). On the right, the offering table scene facing towards the false door is carved in raised relief. The left portion of the wall, which includes a long address to visitors at its far end, is carved in sunk relief.46 Even though the chapel is not structurally divided, the decoration technique conveys the dual nature/function of that space, such as determined by the icons framing the wall: the false door on the north is the sacred place of ritual intended for the deceased; the “address to the living” on the south, as its name indicates, speaks to the public. Thus the decoration technique translates the dichotomy between public and private space, accessibility and restriction: sunk relief on the south, raised relief on the north. The monument, which was cleared by the Antiquities Service during the winter of 1939/40, remains largely unpublished.47 The tomb as it

35 The use of sunk relief in areas not touched by direct sunlight in other porticoes indicates that the impact of the sun on the reading of the decoration was no longer a determining factor (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 21). 36 There is evidence that Senedjemib Mehi brought modifications to the original decoration of the portico (for depictions of Mehi in surcharge, see Brovarski, Senedjemib, 39–40). An argument could thus be made that the front section of the portico, attributed to Senedjemib Mehi, was made at a later date, using a faster and cheaper carving technique. 37 The use of sunk relief for inscriptions is a feature that has already been mentioned. Yet, the distinction between figurative art and writing does not here follow the divide established by the decoration technique. 38 Text A1 (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 90–92), inscribed on the façade of the mastaba to the north of the portico. 39 Texts A2 (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 92–94), also on the façade, north of the portico; B1, B2 (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 94–101) carved on the front part of the north side-wall of the portico. 40 Text C (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 101–108), inscribed on the façade, south of the portico; and D (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 108–110). 41 Brovarski, Senedjemib, text figure 4 (before p. 105),

figs. 21–22, pls. 75–80. 42 Brovarski, Senedjemib, 38–42, pls. 14–18, figs. 17, 22–27, 29–30. 43 Though most studies focus on New Kingdom scenes, the symbolism applies to Old Kingdom private tombs as well. See extensive references in: Melinda Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient Thebes, 1419–1372 BCE, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 10 (Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 2004), 103–106. 44 The lack of realism in the depictions of these outdoor sports invalidates their identification as actual representations of daily-life activities (Hartwig Altenmüller, Darstellungen der Jagd im alten Ägypten (Hamburg: Parey, 1967), pls. 14–15; Dimitri Laboury, “Une relecture de la tombe de Nakht,” in La peinture égyptienne ancienne: un monde de signes à préserver, ed. Roland Tefnin, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 7 (Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1997), 68–71. 45 PM 3/2, 625 with incorrect plan on pl. lxiv. 46 Hartwig Altenmüller, “Zur Vergöttlichung des Königs Unas im Alten Reich,” SAK 1 (1974): 6–8; Nigel Strudwick, Texts from the Pyramid Age, Writings from the Ancient World 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 291–292 [217]. 47 Zaki Y. Saad, “A Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Saqqara, 1939–1940,” ASAÉ 40 (1940): 675–714, mentions the discovery in this area of false doors “some

48

violaine chauvet

stands today (fig. 2) has been significantly reconstructed, and the accuracy of the current architectural layout remains undocumented. Yet, rare published photographs48 seem to confirm that the south end of the chapel was, in its original state, only closed by a screen wall. This architectural configuration is not only in compliance with the above-mentioned decorative program of the chapel, but moreover directly contributes to the design of the chapel as a public yet private place of ritual. The screen wall gives direct access to the text meant to be read by passers-by (in sunk relief), yet prevents physical intrusion into the sacred space of the chapel. The public rituals requested in the text could be performed for the benefit of the figures of the deceased facing outward (also carved in sunk relief) in the open court without requiring the officiant to actually enter into the chapel, thus preserving its purity. Finally, the mastaba of Ti in north Saqqara presents a configuration which a priori contradicts the conceptual patterns that have been identified in the previous case studies. But for the figure of the tomb owner on the front pillars, the decoration on the walls of the entrance portico is carved exclusively in raised relief. Though not unique,49 this configuration nonetheless raises questions, since this portico is otherwise identified as an outside space. The defining feature is the “appeal to the living” written on the east thickness of the entrance doorway, at the back of the portico.50 One of the components of the text is an invitation for any passer-by to carry out the rituals; the second element is a curse or threat meant to dissuade any visitor in an impure state or with impure intention to enter the tomb. Thus,

this document is a literary embodiment of the dichotomy discussed in this paper: the tension between accessibility and restriction. The location of these inscriptions within the architectural setting is very significant: they are placed at a liminal point to identify the boundary between the outside/public/impure world and the inside/private/sacred sphere. The consistent use of sunk relief for the carving of “appeals to the living” in most monuments is meaningful.51 Those texts were designed for public viewing; therefore the space in which they were displayed was considered public, which consequently called for that decoration technique. This feature is noticeable in the tomb of Hesi in the Teti Cemetery at Saqqara,52 which is fronted by a portico supported by square pillars. Why, then, is the portico in the mastaba of Ti, including the “appeal to the living,” decorated in raised relief, when it was in fact not only identified as a public space, but was architecturally an outside, open area, without any structural access limitation? What differentiates the entrance of the tomb of Ti from the other porticoes in which we see the dual use of sunk and raised relief ? The answer, I would suggest, lies in the presence of a serdab squint at the south end of the east side-wall in the portico. The evidence indicates that this feature determined the functionality of this space, and affected the decoration program and technique accordingly. By design, a serdab operates in conjunction with an offering place;53 de facto the opening of a serdab squint in the entrance portico of the tomb of Ti transfigures this architectural space into a place of ritual. As such, the portico required the same considera-

thrown out of their original places” and “some found in situ” (681–683) without, however, any specific reference to the tomb of Khenu. 48 Wolfgang Helck, Geschichte des alten Ägypten (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pl. 2, no. 7; Ursula Schweitzer, “Archäologischer Bericht aus Ägypten: Saqqara,” Orientalia 17/2 (1948): 264, pl. 19, fig. 4. 49 The entrance to the final stage of Nianhkhnum and Khnumhotep’s tomb in Saqqara is similarly decorated (Ahmed M. Moussa and Hartwig Altenmüller, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep [Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977]: 46–65). Interestingly, the original portico (now “Vestibul des Felskammer”, 115–125) was decorated using both raised and sunk relief. 50 Urk. 1, 173–174; Jean Sainte Fare Garnot, L’appel aux vivants dans les textes funéraires égyptiens des origines à la fin de l’Ancien Empire (Cairo: IFAO, 1938), 5–6; Elmar Edel, “Untersuchungen zur Phraseologie der ägyptischen Inschriften des Alten Reiches,” MDAIK 13 (1944): 59–70; Henri Wild, “L’adresse

aux visiteurs du tombeau de Ti,” BIFAO 58 (1959): 101–113; Strudwick, Texts, 235–237 [150]. 51 This configuration has already been noted in the tomb of Khenu. Also noteworthy is the fact that Ti’s “appeal to the living” was copied at the entrance of the tomb of Mereruka in the Teti Cemetery, in sunk relief (Edel, “Untersuchungen zur Phraseologie,” 59–70). The examples that do not conform to this pattern are: the text from the tomb of Inti from Deshasha (Garnot, Appel, 11–18 [3]), located on the right wall of the shrine; Nihetepptah in Giza (Garnot, Appel, 19–20 [no. 4], carved on an inside pillar and the false door of the portico-chapel of Mehuakhet (G 2375 Edel, “Inschriften des Alten Reichs” MIO 1 (1953): 327– 333 to be published by Brovarski). The location of those inscriptions in relation to the place of cult is likely a key factor in the choice of medium. 52 Kanawati and Abder-Raziq, The Tomb of Hesi, 38, pls. 33a, 59a. 53 Edward Brovarski, “Serdab,” in LÄ 5, 874–879.

the definition of private tomb environment

49

tion as a chapel or sanctuary. While the purity of the open outside space could not be structurally guaranteed, the sanctity of the place of ritual was symbolically implemented by adopting the same decorative technique as would be used in a sacred space. But for the mastaba of Ti, all recorded examples of serdabs opening on the outside of a tomb are from Giza.54 The tomb of Qednefer (G 1151) is the only parallel in which a serdab is linked to an entrance portico. The discovery of a statue of the tomb owner and his wife in that portico confirms the function of the space as a place of cult.55 But for an occasional line of text giving the name and title of the tomb owner,56 no decoration is otherwise associated with outside serdab squints. The mastaba of Ti thus stands out as a unique creation. The extent to which the decoration program of this portico was impacted by the presence of the serdab squint will now be examined. The architects who designed the tomb of Ti were interested in creating several “stations” in the tomb for the performance of statue rituals. The serdab squint in the portico is one of five such features in the tomb: one in the open court, and three in the south wall of the chapel. The easternmost serdab in the chapel was found intact. It offers a rare opportunity to ascertain that the decoration directly adjacent to the squint was complementary:57 two vignettes depict the presentation of incense offerings to the serdab squint

(fig. 3). It has also been argued that the orientation of the figure of the tomb owner at the east end of the wall was meant to underline the presence of the serdab.58 The impact of this feature on the decoration program of the north wall in the open court is even more pronounced: the rows of offering bringers converge towards the serdab squint instead of steadily moving forward towards the chapel.59 The disposition of the serdab squint in the east wall of the portico is somewhat similar: it opens at the end of three rows of an estate procession (fig. 4).60 A matching scene decorated the bottom of the east wall. The depiction of estate processions is unquestionably reminiscent of the decoration of royal monuments, going back to Snefru’s “Statue Temple.”61 However, this motif is rarely seen on the outside or at the entrance of a private tomb. It belongs to the inside repertoire of the tomb, and is most often found associated with the false door.62 Consequently, the use of raised relief for the decoration of the entrance portico of Ti is not unwarranted. On the contrary, it is in keeping with the interior setting in which the iconographic motif was usually found in private tombs. In the mastaba of Ti, we find extensive evidence that the monument was designed as a structured environment shaped to accommodate the interaction between the dead and the living. In every aspect, the portico reflects the dichotomy

54 Idu (G 7102): PM 3/1, 185; Menhebu (LG 30): PM 3/1, 168; Messa: PM 3/1, 254; Nimaatre Neferisre: PM 3/1, 282; Rawer (PM 3/1, 265), Rawer [I] (G 5270): PM 3/1, 158; Rawer [II] (G 5470): PM 3/1, 162; Khumbak (Babaef) (G5230): PM 3/1, 155; Seneb: PM 3/1, 101; Seshemnefer: PM 3/1, 249; Qedfy: PM 3/1, 75; Qednefer (G 1151), PM 3/1, 56; Kahif (G 2136): PM 3/1, 76; Kaswedja (G 5340): PM 3/1, 149; Tjezet (G 2097’): Ann M. Roth, A Cemetery of Palace Attendants, Giza Mastabas 6 (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 1995), 136, fig. 74; G 6027: Kent Weeks, Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000, including G 6010 (Neferbauptah); G 6020 (Iymery), G 6030 (Ity), G 6040 (Shepsekafankh), Giza Mastabas 5 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1994), fig. 2. 55 The Giza Archives Project, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: www.gizapyramids.org. Expedition photo, negative numbers: A10883_/OS, A10884_/OS, A10885_/OS. 56 Rawer I, frieze text JE 43963: Hermann Junker, Giza 3 (Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky A.G., 1938), 119–122, pl. 13[a], figs. 11, 42[a]; Alexandre Moret, “Serdab et maison de Ka,” ZÄS 52 (1915): 88–89. 57 PM 3/2, 473–474 (36IV). In the mastaba of Senedjemib Inti, the figures of the men censing on either sides of the serdab squints are inserted in a program otherwise devoted to fieldwork (Brovarski, Senedjemib, 63, fig. 53). 58 Beaux, Études Lauer, 90. 59 Georg Steindorff, Das Grab des Ti (Leipzig: Hinrichs,

1913), pl. 14; Lucienne Épron, Le tombeau de Ti, fasc. 1, Les approches de la Chapelle, MIFAO 65 (Cairo: IFAO, 1939), pl. 15 (bottom); Harpur, Decoration, 55. 60 Épron, Ti, pl. 4. The immediate vicinity of the slot is destroyed, but there is not enough space to envision a vignette with incense-offering. 61 Ahmed Fakhry, Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur 2/1 (Cairo: General Organization for Government Printing: 1961), pls. 12–15; Rainer Stadelmann, Die Ägyptischen Pyramiden (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997), 98–99; Arnold, in Egyptian Art, 84–85. Processions of royal estates have been located in the entrance portico of the complex of Sahure (Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sáh. ure# vol. 2, Die Wandbilden, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 7 [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913], 105–111, pls. 26–28, 31), and along the causeway in the complex of Unas (Audran Labrousse and Ahmed M. Moussa, La chaussée du complexe funéraire du roi Ounas, BdE 134 [Cairo: IFAO, 2002], 87–107, figs. 120–160, pls. 17–21) and Pepy II (Gustave Jéquier, Le monument funéraire de Pépi II, vol. 3, les approches du temple [Cairo: IFAO, 1940], 14– 17, pls. 21–28). 62 Helen Jacquet-Gordon, Les noms des domaines funéraires sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien, BdÉ 34 (Cairo: IFAO, 1962), 32– 34.

50

violaine chauvet

between outside vs. inside, secular vs. sacred, public vs. private. On the one hand, the open form of the architecture and the location of the “appeal to the living” identify the portico as an

“exterior” space. On the other hand, the serdab squint, the iconography, and the use of raised relief are tantamount to the setting of an interior chapel or ritual environment.

the definition of private tomb environment

Fig. 1. Chapel of Khenu (Saqqara, Unas Cemetery), west wall.

Fig. 2. Mastaba of Khenu (Saqqara, Unas Cemetery).

51

52

violaine chauvet

Fig. 3. Chapel of Ti (Saqqara), south wall, vignettes framing the east serdab squint.

Fig. 4. Portico of Ti (Saqqara), east wall, serdab squint and associated decoration.

AN OLD KINGDOM BOWL FROM MENDES IN THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF ITS ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT1

Madeleine E. Cody Brooklyn Museum

My earliest memory of Richard Fazzini is a chance meeting after an ARCE-sponsored lecture in downtown New York. As a new arrival to the city and its Egyptological community, I was understandably nervous. A few fumbling questions led to an impromptu lecture on Third Intermediate Period art that I will remember all my life. Since then, I have been fortunate to know Richard as a Doktorvater in many ways. Working for him at Brooklyn, studying the excavations at Mendes where he worked as a young archaeologist, and delighting in him as a generous colleague and a friend have shaped my subsequent life in New York. A font of bibliography surpassing the Annual Egyptological Bibliography, the wisest and most patient of mentors, and someone who can see the humor in any situation, however dire, Richard has molded and influenced me as a scholar and as a person; he is a blessing in my life. Mendes is located in the eastern central Delta between the modern towns of Mansura and esSimbillawein, approximately ninety miles north of Cairo. From 1964 to 1981, an archaeological

expedition from the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University excavated at the two koms or tells that comprise the site. The archaeological remains from the North Kom, modern Tell el-Rub#a, date to the Pharaonic Period (3000– 332 BCE); those from the South Kom, Tell Timai, date to the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods (332 BCE – 395 CE). The finds from the Mendes excavations were subject to a division before 1979, thus some were given to the Institute of Fine Arts; this collection is now part of the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago.2 Two other institutions that supported the excavations, the Detroit Institute of Arts3 and the Brooklyn Museum, also received objects. Richard has often asked me to work on the context of the Brooklyn objects, particularly those from the Old Kingdom, and it is my great pleasure to begin to do so here. Between 1964 and 1978, remains of a major Old Kingdom cemetery were discovered at Mendes.4 Work at the site was interrupted by the 1967 war; excavations resumed in 1976 and continued for two additional seasons until 1978.

1 I thank the late Donald P. Hansen and David O’Connor of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, for their permission to work with the Mendes excavation records. I am immeasurably grateful to Christine Lilyquist for organizing these records so efficiently and for all her patience in introducing me to them. Edward Ochsenschlager kindly provided information relating to the Mendes pottery records. Matthew J. Adams, of Pennsylvania State University, generously shared his expertise on Old Kingdom Mendes and its pottery with me. Thanks are also due to Diana Craig Patch and Claudia Farias at The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Alexander Wallace, Art Reference Library, Brooklyn Museum, for their assistance with sources, Jason Michael Varone for his scanning expertise, and Kathy Zurek at Brooklyn, as always, for all her invaluable assistance. 2 I thank Geoff Emberling, director, for his gracious per-

mission to discuss and illustrate them here and Raymond Tindel, registrar and senior curator, for his help with accession information. 3 I thank Sylvia Inwood, Rights and Reproductions Department, for her assistance with permission and accession information. 4 The only publications of this material are the reports for the first three seasons and later summaries. See Donald P. Hansen, “Mendes 1964,” JARCE 4 (1965): 31–37; Donald P. Hansen, Christine L. Soghor, and Edward L. Ochsenschlager, “Mendes 1965 and 1966,” JARCE 6 (1967): 5– 51; Susan J. Allen and Karen L. Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976–1979,” in L’Égyptologie en 1979 1 (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1982), 139–151; Donald P. Hansen “Mendes, Dynastic Evidence,” in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Katheryn A. Bard (New York: Routledge, 1999), 497–498.

54

madeleine e. cody

The late Donald P. Hansen was the field director for all these seasons.5 In 1976, Richard was part of the team returning to the site and was present when a cache or deposit of twenty Old Kingdom pottery vessels and one copper vessel was discovered in early August of that season. One of the vessels from this deposit, a carinated bowl (fig. 1), is now in Brooklyn and its context is the subject of this preliminary study.6 Remarkably, all of the pottery vessels from this deposit except one remain in American museums as a result of the division.7 The pottery deposit was found below the Northern Mastaba or Mastaba I, which was discovered in 1966.8 A false-door stela in the central niche of the mastaba façade was inscribed for #h. #-pw-B A, a priest of the ram god of Mendes.9 The excavators dated the mastaba to Dynasty 5 or 6, preferring the earlier date on the basis of stratigraphy.10 The clearing and dismantling of the mastaba superstructure began in that year, and the mastaba was completely excavated during the 1976 season. In the eastern central part of the mastaba, approximately behind the false door, two groups of pottery were uncovered, laid out on the ground underneath the lowest course of the mastaba brick.11 The brick must have been laid before drying completely, as it was molded to the shapes of the vessels.12 In the northwest corner of the mastaba, also just below the lowest course of brick, were eight burials.

Unlike the other mastabas excavated in the earlier seasons, this one had no limestone burial chamber.13 The pottery was deposited in two groups, separated by a thirty-five centimeter space (fig. 2). In the excavation photograph illustrated here, the larger group to the north, with a large flat bowl containing charcoal at its center, comprises a row of ovoid jars on the west side and three flat bowls tilted on end on the east (see fig. 2, viewer’s right). To the south is the small copper bowl and a white deposit, perhaps salt or limestone flakes, according to the excavators. Visible in the smaller pottery group to its south are seven vessels: two fragmentary bowls or plates; an ovoid jar; two bowls, the smaller of which is tilted like those in the northern group; the Brooklyn carinated bowl; and a single ovoid jar further to the south (see fig. 2, viewer’s left). The total number of vessels visible in all the excavation photographs appears to be only eighteen including the copper bowl, but the final record for the deposit in the Object Register lists twenty pottery vessels and the copper bowl.14 Once the deposit was fully excavated, it yielded ten ovoid jars in total, eight of which must come from the sherds in the row of jars from the northern group and only two of which seem to belong to the southern group. Also in the southern group is a pottery ring stand, which is not visible in the photograph.15 The excavators characterized the

5 From 1979 to 1981, further work was conducted by a new field director, Karen L. Wilson. 6 80.7.15; Gift of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization; h. 8.7 cm; d. of rim 18.2 cm (Mendes Field no. 4M49.13). 7 Cairo: ovoid jar, accession number not known (4M49.2); Detroit Institute of Arts: ceramic bowl, 80.90, Gift of the Mendes Excavation (4M49.14); Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago (abbreviated as OIM below): copper bowl, 36206 (4M49.1); ovoid jars: 36207 (4M49.3), 36208 (4M49.4), 36209 (4M49.5), 36210 (4M49.6), 36211 (4M49.7), 36212 (4M49.8), 36213 (4M49.9), 36214 (4M49.10), 36215 (4M49.11); pottery ring stand, 36216 (4M49.12); carinated pottery bowls: 36217 (4M49.15), 36218 (4M49.16); large pottery bowl, 36219 (4M49.17); shallow pottery bowls: 36220 (4M49.18), 36221 (4M49.19), 36222 (4M49.20), 36223 (4M49.21). 8 Hansen, Soghor, and Ochsenschlager, “Mendes 1965 and 1966,” 11–13. 9 Ibid., 12, 24. 10 Ibid., 13. A terminus post quem during or after the reign of Neferirkare of Dynasty 5 for the construction of the mastaba belonging to Nfr-ˇswt-B A, the son of #h. #-pwB A, supports this conclusion; personal communication from Matthew J. Adams. 11 Mendes, North Kom, X180/Y185, Mastaba I, Level IIIc. 12 Allen and Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976–

1979,” 141; Mendes 4M Field Book, Mendes Field Archive, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University: 19, 25. 13 “A Brief Report on the 1976 Season,” Mendes Field Archive, 2–4. See also Allen and Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976–1979,” 141. 14 See Mendes 4M Field Book, Mendes Field Archive: 32 and 33; Allen and Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976–1979,” 141; Mendes 4M Object Register, Mendes Field Archive: nos. 4M49.1 – 4M49.21. 15 I have attempted to reconstruct the numbers for the pottery in the photograph, beginning with the copper bowl at the center as 4M49.1. The northern group, from viewer’s right to left, includes ovoid jars 4M49.2 (Cairo, accession number not known) and .3–.9 (OIM 36208 – OIM 36213), the large central bowl, 4M49.17 (OIM 36219) and three tilted bowls, 4M49.19, .18, and most likely .21 (OIM 36221, 36220 and 36223). The southern group, again from right to left, probably includes the fragmentary plate, 4M49.16 (OIM 36218), an ovoid jar, 4M49.10 (OIM 36214), the carinated bowl in Brooklyn at the center, 4M49.13 (80.7.15), a tilted bowl below, probably 4M49.20 (OIM 36222), two deeply carinated bowls, 4M49.14 (Detroit 80.90) below and 4M49.15 (OIM 36217) at the south end, and an ovoid jar to the far left, probably 4M49.11 (OIM 36215). Not visible is the pottery ring stand, 4M49.12 (OIM 36216), which supported the plate in the southern group.

an old kingdom bowl from mendes in the brooklyn museum

55

pottery as typically Old Kingdom with a “fine sealing-wax red color slip”; all the pots are wheel made.16 Apart from the copper vessel, to be studied at another time, a very general overview of the pottery in the deposit yields a total of seven bowls with varying degrees of carination, two large dishes, one pottery ring stand and ten ovoid jars. The excavators identified eight pottery vessel types as represented in the deposit, according to the system of pottery classification developed for excavations at Mendes in Egypt and Al-Hiba in Iraq.17 The Brooklyn carinated bowl (fig. 1) is the only example of its kind in either deposit group and is placed at the center of the southern group. A bowl of the same type was found in a burial from the northwest corner of the mastaba at the same level.18 Classified by its excavators as pottery type 4MP28,19 the Brooklyn pot is a fine example of so-called Meidum bowls. An excellent recent study summarizes their use and wide distribution and is paraphrased here. These bowls were used in daily life by the living and are found in domestic, temple, and funerary contexts. In the latter, they are found as funerary equipment placed directly with the dead, in offering or storeroom contexts outside the burial chamber, and even in deposits near burials, perhaps used by the living for “funerary meals.”20 This suggests

that Meidum bowls were used for food; the study argues persuasively that they were used for fermented milk.21 Because of their widespread use, probably beginning earlier than the standard date of Dynasty 3 and continuing throughout the Old Kingdom, Meidum bowls are difficult to date with certainty and are the subject of ongoing research.22 Bearing this in mind, a sample of published parallels for the Brooklyn bowl nonetheless could indicate a date for it that is closer to Dynasty 5 than Dynasty 6, thus supporting the excavators’ preference for an earlier date for the mastaba (see note 10 above).23 Pending further research on the mastaba’s contents, however, a date in early Dynasty 6 should not be excluded. Four of the bowls from the deposit24 belong to the Mendes pottery type 3MP3 (see fig. 3), shallow bowls with plain flared rims, set off by a groove on the interior surface, and rounded, rough bottoms.25 This type occurs in both the northern and southern groups of the deposit. Conservation of one example revealed that despite its rough bottom, the interior bore a fine red slip that extended over the rim and over about one inch of the exterior.26 This is interesting in view of the placement of the bowls in the deposit. The three in the northern group and the single example in the southern group were all placed at a tilt, displaying their interiors and with their bottoms hidden.

16 “A Brief Report on the 1976 Season,” Mendes Field Archive: 3, and Mendes 4M Object Register, Mendes Field Archive: nos. 4M49.2–4M49.21. 17 Edward L. Ochsenschlager, “The Mendes-Al-Hiba System of Pottery Classification” in Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik, ed. Dorothea Arnold (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1981), 79–84. Note that all color references listed below are from the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Baltimore: Munsell Color Co., Inc., 1954). 18 Mendes 4M Object Register, Mendes Field Archive: 4M81.1, carinated bowl, h. 8.3 cm, rim d. 20.6 – 21.2 cm. From Burial no. 4MB15, X170–180/Y170–180, Level IIIc, see Mendes 4M Field Book, Mendes Field Archive: 69, 73– 75, 78. 19 Dimensions: h. 8.7 cm; d. of rim 18.2 cm. Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP28 (1 of 2), Mendes Field Archive: carinated bowl, everted rim, tapered lip, rounded base; fabric type 2MP1268; paste color range, core and borders 10R 6/8 light red; surface color range 10R 3/6 dark red, 4/8 red, 6/8 light red. 20 Stan Hendrickx, Dina Faltings, Lies Op De Beeck, Dietrich Raue and Chris Michiels, “Milk, Beer and Bread Technology during the Early Dynastic Period,” MDAIK 58 (2002): 277–278. 21 Ibid., 277–290. But see also the suggestion that they were used as “fine table-ware” and flower vases; Janine Bourriau, Umm El-Ga #ab (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1981), cat no. 87. 22 Lies Op De Beeck, “Restrictions for the Use of Maidum-bowls as Chronological Indicators,” CdÉ 75 (2000): 5– 14 and n. 31. See also Pascale Ballet, “Essai de Classification des Coupes Type Maidum-Bowl du Sondage Nord de #AynAs¯ıl (Oasis de Dakhla): Typologie et Évolution,” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 1 (Cairo: IFAO, 1987): 1–16. 23 See, for example, the Dynasty 5 parallels cited by Anna Wodzinska, ´ “Some Remarks on the so-called “Meidum” bowls found at Tell el-Fara #in-Buto,” in Proceedings of the First Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, Egypt 1999: Perspectives of Research, ed. Joanna Popielska Grzybowska, Warsaw Egyptological Studies 3 (Warsaw: Insitute of Archaeology, Warsaw University 2001), 170 and n. 10, and Bourriau, Umm El-Ga#ab, cat no. 6. 24 Dimensions: 4M49.18 (OIM 36220) h. 6.1 cm, rim d. 21.2 cm; 4M49.19 (OIM 36221) h. 6.3 cm, rim d. 21 cm; 4M49.20 (OIM 36222) h. 5.8 cm, rim d. 21.5 cm; 4M49.21 (OIM 36223) h. 6.5 cm, rim d. 21.5 cm. 25 Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 3MP3, Mendes Field Archive: paste color range, pink with gray core, surface color range dark, dull red, thin wash or slip on interior and part of exterior. The type example is a sherd. 26 Odile Madden, “Conservation Report for 4M49.19 (1997),” (now OIM 36221), Conservation Reports, Mendes Field Archive: 2. I thank Odile Madden for permission to cite her study here.

56

madeleine e. cody

Both examples of another type of bowl come only from the southern group of the deposit and are placed next to one another at the south end of the group. These large bowls27 were characterized as variants on the same type, 4MP29 (see fig. 4). They are larger and less shallow than those of type 3MP3, with a deep carination.28 Two more pots complete the southern group, and each is the sole representative of its pottery type. A large, badly broken plate is placed to the north end of the southern group (fig. 5);29 it is assigned to pottery type 4MP30.30 The pottery ring stand31 (fig. 6) represents pottery type 4MP32.32 Not visible in the photograph, it is described by the excavators as supporting the plate in the southern group. The northern group is largely composed of the shallow bowls, Type 3MP3 described above, and

the ovoid jars discussed below. A large carinated bowl (fig. 7)33 at the center of the northern group occurs only in that group and defines pottery type 4PM31.34 The bowl was filled with charcoal, visible in the excavation photograph.35 All ten ovoid jars (see fig. 8) are classified as pottery type 4MP4536 and are roughly the same size.37 All but two seem to have come from the northern group. According to the excavators, at least one and probably more of the ovoid jars contained grain.38 Conservation of some of the jars also indicated that they contained organic or vegetal material.39 Dirt on the interior of one ovoid jar may be an indication of its contents or simply may have adhered to the broken sherds while in the ground.40 Similar jars, sealed and intentionally filled with earth or clay, have been found in Old Kingdom tombs at other sites.41 At

Pottery type 4M29a is 4M49.14 (Detroit 80.90), h. 11.5 cm, rim d. 30.5 cm; Pottery type 4M29b is 4M49.15 (OIM 36217), h. 11.7 cm, rim d. 32 cm. 28 Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP29a, Mendes Field Archive: deep carinated plate, everted rim, slightly thickened lip, rounded base; fabric type 2MP114; paste color range, core 10 YR 4/1 dark gray, borders 9.5R 5/6 red— 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; surface color range for interior and exterior, 10R 4/8 5/6 red—6/6 light red. Pottery sheet for type 4MP29b, Mendes Field Archive: convex base; fabric type 2MP114; paste color range, core 7.5YR 6/0, borders 7.5YR 6/4; surface color range for interior and exterior, 2.5 YR 5/6. 29 Dimensions for 4M49.16 (OIM 36218), h. 8.4 cm, rim d. 29.6 cm. 30 Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP30, Mendes Field Archive: carinated bowl, flaring rim, tapered lip, concave base; fabric type 2MP169; paste color range, core 7.5YR 5/0, borders 7.5YR 6/6; surface color range interior and exterior 10R 5/4. 31 Dimensions for 4M49.12 (OIM 36216): h. 10 cm, rim d. 11.4 cm, base d. 20.6 cm. 32 Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP32, Mendes Field Archive: pot stand with rounded lip, rim of base rounded with groove; fabric type 2MP23; paste color range, core 10R 5/3, borders 2.5YR 6/6; surface color range interior and exterior 10R 5/6. The exterior slip does not cover the lower interior half of the stand. 33 Dimensions for 4M49.17 (OIM 36219): h. 6.5–8.5 cm, rim d. 35–38 cm. 34 Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP31, Mendes Field Archive: carinated bowl with rounded lip and flat base; fabric type 1MP83; paste color range, core 10R 5/1, borders 10R 6/6, 7.5YR 6.4 at surface; surface color range interior 10R 5/6 and exterior 5TR 5/4; a slip of 10R 5/6 runs down to the carination. 35 Among the pottery deposited in the burial chamber of Merefnebef at West Saqqara is a bread mold containing charcoal. Rzeuska points out that this is not a case of reuse for burning, and that the find is unparalleled. She suggests that this could indicate a magical practice, perhaps symbolizing the baking of bread. See Teodozja I. Rzeuska, “The Pottery from the Funerary Complex of Vizier Merefnebef

(West Saqqara), The Evidence of a Burial and Cult of the Dead in the Old Kingdom” in Grzybowska, ed., Proceedings of the First Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, Egypt 1999, 162. It is possible that a similar practice connected to the preparation of food is intended here. 36 Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP45, Mendes Field Archive: ovoid jar, thickened lip, rounded handle, concave base, true slip mostly worn off, paste color range, core 2.5YR 5/0, borders 2.5YR 6/8; surface color range for interior and exterior, 2.5YR 4/6. 37 4M49.2 (Cairo, accession number not known), h. 31.2 cm, rim d. 9.2 cm; 4M49.3 (OIM 36207), h. 29.8 cm, rim d. 8.3 cm; 4M49.4 (OIM 36208), h. 32.2 cm, rim d. 9.1 cm; 4M49.5 (OIM 36209), h. 32 cm, rim d. 9 cm; 4M49.6 (OIM 36210), h. 30.8 cm, rim d. 8.6 cm; 4M49.7 (OIM 36211), h. 30.1 cm, rim d. 8.3 cm, interior of vessel and much of its exterior are blackened; 4M49.8 (OIM 36212), h. 30.5 cm, rim d. 8.4 cm, interior and much of exterior are blackened; 4M49.9 (OIM 36213), h. 33.8 cm, rim d. 8.5 cm, much blackened on shoulder and body; 4M49.10 (OIM 36214), h. 30.8 cm, rim d. 8.2 cm; 4M49.11 (OIM 36215), h. 26.9 cm, rim d. 8 cm, some dark discoloration and white incrustation. 38 See Mendes 4M Field Book, Mendes Field Archive: 33. 39 In reference to 4M49.7 (OIM 36211), the conservator notes: “There are several kinds of accretions on the vessel as well. The most abundant is a grayish brown, crusty, soiled coating over much of the interior of the vessel, which may be related to the jar’s original contents. These areas fluoresce a bright yellow color under ultraviolet examination, often an indicator of organic material.” Ellen Roblee Carrlee, “Conservation Report for 4M49.7 (1998),” (now OIM 36211), Conservation Reports, Mendes Field Archive: 4. I thank Ellen Roblee Carrlee for permission to cite her study here. 40 The conservator treating 4M49.4 (OIM 36208) notes: “The interior surface of the jar is covered with a thin layer of dirt that is not museum related but probably from the archaeological context.” See Esther H. Chao, “Conservation Report for 4M49.4 (1999),” (now OIM 36208), Conservation Reports, Mendes Field Archive: 2. I thank Esther H. Chao for permission to cite her study here. 41 See the list of examples compiled in Rzeuska, “The

27

an old kingdom bowl from mendes in the brooklyn museum

57

least three of the jars have noticeably blackened exterior and interior areas.42 This discoloration is most likely due to the firing process.43 Evidence for rituals associated with Old Kingdom burials has been assigned to two possible temporal divisions by Nicole Alexanian; that which takes place during interment, and that which is performed thereafter as part of daily or festival cult practice.44 The Mendes pottery deposit clearly belongs to the first category. According to the excavators, its location in the eastern central part of the mastaba placed it approximately behind the false door on the exterior.45 On the western side, in the northwest corner of the mastaba, also placed below the lowest course of brick, were seven or eight burials in two parallel rows.46 These burials were not associated with a shaft or limestone burial chamber. All of the seven recovered adult burials were placed with the head to the north and the face or body facing east; two were contracted (4MB7 and 11) and the remaining extended.47 One male burial was placed in a wooden coffin;48 the rest were wrapped in reed matting within the collapsed remains of reed coffins.49 Beads and an amulet were found with one burial (4MB11).50 Only one burial, 4MB15, is associated with its own pottery, comprised of a carinated bowl, almost identical to the Brooklyn bowl from the pot-

tery deposit, and a large shallow plate; these are placed at each end of the extended body.51 The presence of these two pots in an individual grave at the level of the large pottery deposit raises interesting questions regarding the association between the burial and the pottery deposit. The smaller section of the pottery deposit is directly south of the burials,52 but it is difficult to believe that the entire deposit is not in some way connected to the burial ritual if not to the individual graves. Furthermore, neither the deposit nor the two pots from the grave exactly matches the “pottery set,” composed of two bowls and one plate in red slip polished ware, defined by Teodozja Rzeuska based on her observations of pottery in late Old Kingdom burials.53 The burial deposit is incomplete and the large pottery deposit much more extensive. Indeed, the large pottery deposit from which the Brooklyn bowl comes appears to be unusual in a number of respects. Parallels to its size, its location within the mastaba, the manner in which it was laid out, the pottery types that it contains, and its probable association with the burials from the same level are not easily found. It is tempting to posit that regional burial practices peculiar to the Delta or to the site of Mendes itself are reflected here. Material from later excavation at the site, as yet not fully published, may well provide support for this possibility.54

Pottery from the Funerary Complex of Vizier Merefnebef,” 158–162. See also Rzeuska, “The Case of Beer Jars with Ashes,” in Timelines, Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak 1, ed. Ernst Czerny et al., OLA 149 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 291–298. I am indebted to Matthew J. Adams for the latter reference. 42 Blackening is noted on 4M49.7 (OIM 36211), 4M49.8 (OIM 36212), and 4M49.9 (OIM 36213) in note 36 above. 43 “The vessel appears to have been packed closely in the kiln with others during its firing. Black ovoid areas (15 mm length and 10.5 mm width), due to localized reduction, are seen near the bottom and along its body [and] may indicate the intentional use of spacers. Two larger and roughly ovoid areas of reduction are found opposite each other on the shoulders (24 cm long and 22 cm wide) and may indicate stacking of at least two vessels directly above this one.” See Marc S. Walton, “Conservation Report for 4M49.9 (1998),” (now OIM 36213), Conservation Reports, Mendes Field Archive: 3. I thank Marc S. Walton for permission to cite his study here. 44 Nicole Alexanian, “Ritualrelikte an Mastabagräbern des Alten Reiches” in Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Festschrift R. Stadelmann, ed. Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz (Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1998), 3. 45 “A Brief Report on the 1976 Season,” Mendes Field Archive: 3. 46 Burial sheets exist for seven burials; the eighth, perhaps that of a child, was too decayed for the skeleton to be

recovered, see Allen and Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976–1979,” 141, and “A Brief Report on the 1976 Season,” Mendes Field Archive: 4–5. 47 Allen and Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976– 1979,” 141. 48 Mendes Burial Record Sheet 4MB8, Mendes Field Archive. 49 Mendes Burial Record Sheets 4MB7, 4MB11–15, Mendes Field Archive. 50 Mendes Burial Record Sheets 4MB11, Mendes Field Archive. 51 4M81.1: Cairo, accession number not known, see note 18 above. Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP28 (2 of 2), Mendes Field Archive: slightly flaring rim, tapered lip, rounded base, surface color range for interior and exterior 10R 5/6–5/8. 4M81.2 (now OIM 36227): shallow plate, h. 3.8 cm, rim d. 23.7 cm, see Mendes 4M Object Register, Mendes Field Archive. Mendes Pottery Type Sheet 4MP59, Mendes Field Archive: direct rim, raised interior lip, concave base, true slip extends over 2 cm of interior rim, surface color range for interior 2.5YR 6/6, exterior 7.5YR 7/4. 52 Allen and Wilson, “Excavations at Mendes, 1976– 1979,” 141. 53 Rzeuska, “The Pottery from the Funerary Complex of Vizier Merefnebef,” 162. 54 Donald B. Redford, “The Eighth Campaign of Excavations at Mendes,” The Akhenaten Temple Project Newsletter

58

madeleine e. cody

A full discussion of the Mendes deposit in terms of all similar recorded deposits from Old Kingdom mastabas must wait for another, longer study. However, more recent excavations and studies of Old Kingdom cemeteries, both in Memphite and provincial areas, have drawn attention to pottery deposits in tomb contexts and to the reflection of funerary rituals and cults in the archaeological record.55 This is a most heartening trend, as such deposits have tended to be

subsumed into the find lists of excavations, and their value as reflections of ancient Egyptian funerary customs has thus been obscured. For the lesser elite, such deposits may have played a more important role in funerary ritual and as funerary offerings than previously realized. As part of such a deposit, the Brooklyn bowl will continue to be part of ongoing studies of the evidence for such practices at Mendes.

3 (1998): 1–2. Another potential parallel, as yet not fully excavated, is suggested by a personal communication from Matthew J. Adams. 55 For a discussion including a list of tombs from various sites, see Alexanian, “Ritualrelikte an Mastabagräbern des Alten Reiches,” 3–22; for Abusir South see Miroslav Bárta,

“Funerary rites and cults at Abusir South,” in Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstück: Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Nicole Kloth, Karl Martin and Eva Pardey, SAK, Beihefte, Bd. 9 (Hamburg: Buske, 2003), 17– 30; for West Saqqara see Rzeuska, “The Pottery from the Funerary Complex of Vizier Merefnebef,” 157–167.

an old kingdom bowl from mendes in the brooklyn museum

Fig. 1. Brooklyn Museum 80.7.15, Gift of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization (Mendes Field no. 4M49.13; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP28).

Fig. 2. View of the pottery deposit in situ, excavation photograph, Mendes Field Archive, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University.

59

60

madeleine e. cody

Fig. 3. Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36222 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.20; Mendes Pottery Type 3MP3).

Fig. 4. Detroit Institute of Arts 80.90 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.14; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP29a).

Fig. 5. Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36218 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.16; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP30).

an old kingdom bowl from mendes in the brooklyn museum

Fig. 6. Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36216 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.12; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP32).

Fig. 7. Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36219 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.17; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP31).

61

62

madeleine e. cody

Fig. 8. Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago 36213 (Mendes Field no. 4M49.9; Mendes Pottery Type 4MP45).

ANDROGYNOUS BRONZE FIGURINES IN STORAGE AT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART

Kathlyn M. Cooney Getty Research Institute

In celebration of a superb Egyptologist, a personal mentor, and a fine teacher,1 I present six Late Period to Ptolemaic2 bronze figurines and amulets in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), originally from the George Michaelides Collection in Cairo.3 I believe that their varied and composite nature as well as their overt combinations of sexuality will appeal to Richard, who has always been interested in the unusual and often bizarre religious innovations of the Late, Ptolemaic, and Roman Periods in ancient Egypt. Each of these six figurines depicts an unusual composite divinity, often termed “Mischwesen” or “pantheistic deities” by Egyptologists.4 All of these LACMA bronzes combine human and animal elements. Most incorporate male sexual at-

tributes with the female gender. All of these figurines and amulets were once in private ancient Egyptian ownership, almost certainly to protect their owners from dangers and misfortunes of all kinds.5 By combining numerous divine forms into a complex composite, these creative divinity figures incorporate as many magical and divine powers (b Aw)6 as possible into one small statuette. The religious meaning of these pantheistic divinities is still a matter of some debate. Erik Hornung questions:

1 It is with profound happiness that I write this article for my good friend Richard Fazzini, who has cheated death at least twice. I also dedicate it to his wife Mary McKercher, who has stood by him in the manner of a proper Egyptian goddess of protection. 2 Because all are unprovenanced, I have been very careful with date assignments. They are dated broadly and generally from the Late Period to the Roman Period. 3 George Michaelides’ name is also spelled Michaelidis in some publications. See Warren R. Dawson, Eric P. Uphill, and Morris L. Bierbrier, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 3rd rev. edition (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1995), 286. In 1980, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art received gifts from four different donors (Frank J. Fertitta, Coletta Miller, Jerome Snyder, and Carl W. Thomas), comprising hundreds of ancient Egyptian artifacts and texts purchased from the private collection of George Michaelides, a collection assembled in Cairo in the early twentieth century. Michaelides died in 1973, after which most of his Egyptian artifacts were purchased by antiquities dealers who then sold lots to individuals, other dealers, and various institutions. In 1976, the British Museum purchased a group of Demotic and other Egyptian papyri. In 1977, Cambridge University Library bought a number of manuscripts in hieratic, Demotic, Coptic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic, as did the British Library and the Oriental Collections in 1979. See Sarah J. Clackson, “The Michaelides Manuscript Collection,” Zeitschrit für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994): 223–226. These bronzes be-

long to that original collection. I would like to thank Nancy Thomas for permission to publish these pieces. 4 See Erik Hornung, “Komposite Gottheiten in der ägyptischen Ikonographie,” in Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Christoph Uehlinger (Göttingen: University Press Fribourg Switzerland, 2000), 1–20. 5 Marc Étienne, Heka: Magie et envoûtement dans l’Égypte ancienne (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 2000), 55; also see Luc Delvaux, “Les bronzes de Sais, les dieux de Bouto et les rois des marais,” in Egyptian Religion, the Last Thousand Years: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur, ed. Willy Clarysse, Antoon Schoors, and Harco Willems (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 551–568. As a specific example of the ownership of a statuette, see Joris F. Borghouts, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 29, Spell no. 31, which reads: “His wife was nearing her time. I made the calling one stop his weeping. The woman had shouted to the man for a dwarf-statue of clay—‘Come, let somebody betake himself to Hathor, mistress of Dendera, in order that there may be brought to you her amulet of health and that she may cause to give birth, the one who is to give birth!’ ” 6 Jan Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 244; for the specifically magical aspect of the b A, see Robert Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1993), 23.

Is the purpose of these combinations a clever priestly “equalization” of conflicting religious claims, as Bonnet … assumed? Must gods be “equated” with one another until one finishes with a vague, solar-tinged pantheism? Such an

64

kathlyn m. cooney interchange of attributes, which leads toward uniformity is un-Egyptian; if anything it is Hellenistic.7

winged Bes figure, described most fully in a Late Period-Ptolemaic magical papyrus now housed in Brooklyn:12

Instead of believing pantheistic images to be “Hellenistic,” Hornung claims such syncretic images were a means through which “… the awareness is sharpened that the divine partner of humanity is not one but many.”8 Jan Assmann, on the other hand, argues that as early as the Ramesside Period, Egyptian theologians were developing a “transcendent, universal god,” whose form is mysterious and whose b A, or elemental power, is ultimately unknowable.9 Geraldine Pinch takes a more practical approach and claims that Late Period innovations in the depiction of pantheistic divinities are “not so much a theological development as an advanced magical technique.”10 An examination of these bizarrely complex LACMA bronzes suggests that there were increasingly complex approaches to the Egyptian religious system amongst certain social groups, in this case amongst people who could afford bronze. It is not until the Late Period that most images of pantheistic gods were created, and religious texts from the Late Period to Roman times support new theological development in the notion of divinity, particularly how god protects and interacts with his human creation.11 These late bronze figures are physical evidence of increased personal interaction with a kind of pantheistic divinity. Their size suggests individual commission, ownership, and use as a personal cultic or votive object. The bronze material out of which the pantheistic divinities are usually formed suggests ownership by a select and educated part of the ancient Egyptian population. The most famous of such representations is the multi-headed,

The Bes with seven heads … it embodies the bas of Amun-Re, … lord of the sky, the earth, the netherworld, the water, and the mountains who keeps his name mysterious before the gods, the giant of a million cubits, the mighty one who fastens the sky on his head, […] from whose nose the air emerges to give life to all noses, who rises as the sun to brighten the earth, from the effluxes of whose body the inundation flows to give life to every mouth.13 LACMA has one bronze example of such a figure (fig. 1)14 It is poorly cast, making identification of each element difficult, but the figure is winged, has a ram’s head, and wears a rough version of the double-plumed headdress associated with Amun-Re. The headdress is placed atop the solarizing ram’s horns extending out to the side of the figure. Hanging from each ram’s horn are two more rams’ heads with sun disks between their horns, presumably representative of the god Amun-Re. A uraeus with a large solar disk on its head extends from the base of the headdress. On either side of the double plumes are attached two more larger uraeus figures, each originally with a sun disk atop, although the disk on the left cobra is broken. In the top center of the double-plumed headdress is represented another animal head, possibly belonging to another ram. It also has a sun disk between its horns. The ramheaded god’s naked body is dwarf like, reminiscent of the god Bes, and from his genital region extends the head of another animal, perhaps another ram. If one turns the piece around, it becomes apparent that the figure is double headed;

7 Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John Baines (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 97, citing Hans Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1952). 8 Hornung, Conceptions of God, 98. 9 Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 242. 10 Geraldine Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994), 36. 11 Hornung, “Komposite Gottheiten in der ägyptischen Ikonographie,” 17–18. 12 For the god Bes in general and recent bibliography, see Jocelyne Berlandini, “Bès en aurige dans le char du dieusaveur,” in Egyptian Religion, the Last Thousand Years, 31–55; Véronique Dasen, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

13 For this papyrus, see Serge Sauneron, Le papyrus magique illustré de Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum 47.218.156 (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1970), 12–13. This English translation from Assmann, The Search for God, 243. 14 LACMA M.80.198.136. Late Period to Ptolemaic Period (664–30 BCE); l. 11.3 cm; w. 6.3 cm; Gift of Frank J. and Victoria K. Fertitta; solid cast bronze with a broken suspension loop at the top of the headdress. For similar pieces, see Günther Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 6 (Berlin: Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, 1956), 100–103; Georg Steindorff, Catalogue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1946), pl. 105; Georges Daressy, Statues de divinités, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. CG 38001–39384, (Cairo: IFAO, 1905– 1906), pl. 37.

androgynous bronze figurines in storage at the los angeles county museum of art another animal head faces backwards. At the feet on the back side of the figurine is a bird-like element that joins with the shape of the wings. In all, this ram-headed dwarf figurine has at least five heads, six if the back figure is included. Serge Sauneron suggests that such multi-headed pantheistic figures are not the traditional image of the god Amun, but a personification or a form that encapsulates powers that are not normally visible.15 The winged, multi-headed Bes figure is said in the Brooklyn papyrus to represent the many b Aw of the god Amun-Re (see fig. 1). In this LACMA bronze, artisans combined a series of masculine elements together into one winged, ram-headed, solarizing, sexualized, Bes-like divinity. In a sense, each of these pantheistic images can be thought of as a composite of hieroglyphic elements, each incorporating a different divine b A power.16 These bronzes confirm the Egyptian notion that divine form is transitory, ever changing. For example, the last portion of the morning hymn to the god Khnum from Esna temple reads: Wake, one rich in forms, who changes shape at will, in peace awaken yourself peaceably! Wake, Khnum who fashions as he wishes, who sets every man in his place!17 A Demotic magical papyrus addresses syncretized, pantheistic divinities specifically for their magical attributes (the very reason Geraldine Pinch suggests that such figurines were created),18 and each element of the god’s manifestation represents another aspect of his power, a power that will help the person in whose name the spell is performed: Sauneron, Le Papyrus magique illustré de Brooklyn, 13. Hornung, Conceptions of God, 124; also see László Kákosy, “Bemerkungen zur Ikonographie der magischen Heilstatuen,” in Images as Media, 45–49. 17 Serge Sauneron, Esna, vol. 3, Le Temple d’Esna (Cairo: IFAO, 1968), 156–158, col. 261; translation found in Serge Sauneron, Esna vol. 5, Les Fêtes Religieuses d’Esna, (Cairo: IFAO, 1962), 364–366. For this English translation, see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2, The Late Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 110– 111. 18 Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 36. 19 Francis Llewellyn Griffith and Herbert Thompson, eds., The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (London: H. Grevel & Co., 1904), 68–69, col. 9. 20 But see the image of an androgynous ithyphallic female god in the Book of the Dead, chapter 164, probably dating to the Third Intermediate Period, if not the late New Kingdom. For the same, see Heather Lee McCarthy, “The 15 16

65

Chons-in-Thebes-Nefer-Hotep, the noble child that came forth from the lotus, Horus, lord of time (?) … whose name is not known, nor his nature, nor his likeness (?). I know thy name. I know thy nature. I [know] thy likeness. Great is thy name. Heir is thy name. Excellent is thy name. Hidden is thy name. Mighty one of the gods is thy name, “he whose name is hidden from all the gods” is thy name. Om, Mighty Am is thy name, “All the gods” is thy name.19 Giving form to such a pantheistic being, as a figurine or amulet, encapsulates this all-encompassing power, and, by extension, gives its owner some access to this magical power. Rarely, however, do we see anthropomorphic forms that take this all-encompassing power another step further and syncretize male and female powers.20 The next five LACMA bronze examples combine and marshal these two specific powers of creation: 1) male potency for creation and 2) female protection, as the catalyst and vessel for healing.21 Androgynous divinities are rarely mentioned in Egyptian religious texts, and when they are, they seem to refer specifically to the creator god.22 Serge Sauneron writes: Les Égyptiens qui s’entendaient à merveille à combiner dans un même être des éléments humains et animaux semblent avoir assez généralement répugné à grouper en un dieu des attributs masculines et féminins.23 But such male-female divine forms were within the imagination of the Egyptian theologian and practitioner.24 Erik Hornung states:

Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration,” JARCE 39 (2002): 173–195, especially 193. 21 See Ann Macy Roth, “Father Earth, Mother Sky: Ancient Egyptian Beliefs about Conception and Fertility,” in Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. Alison E. Rautman (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 187–201. 22 Jan Zandee, “The Birth-Giving Creator-God in Ancient Egypt,” in: Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992), 169–185. 23 Serge Sauneron, “Remarques de philologie et d’étymologie: le créateur androgyne,” in Mélanges Mariette (Cairo: IFAO, 1961), 242–244. 24 For example, see the androgynous pantheistic divinity depicted on Naples statue 1065 in László Kákosy, Egyptian Healing Statues in Three Museums in Italy (Turin, Florence, Naples), Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino 9 (Turin: Meseo Delle Antichità Egizie, 1999), 134–135, fig. 25.

66

kathlyn m. cooney In addition to diversity in time, space, and form, there is the difference of sex. Like all beings, a deity is male or female; fusion of the two sexes is largely restricted to the primeval god, the one, and is thus characteristic of the undifferentiated unity before creation. The creator is androgynous, male-female, “father of the fathers and mother of the mothers.”25

a side lock. He stands in a spearing pose atop a crocodile and is depicted ithyphallically as the fully potent creator male god. If one turns the piece around, the back of the youthful god is merged with a female lioness goddess. She wears a tall but indistinct crown and a tripartite wig. Her lower body extends into the bird tail of the male god behind her. This bronze figure combines youth and fertility, male and female, as well as human and animal, providing its owner with many divine aspects in one small figurine, if not in one divine body. Temple texts from the Ptolemaic-Roman Periods provide some theological explanation for these male-female combinations and the notion that the source of life comes from god as well as goddess. A hymn to the goddess Neith at Esna reads:

These unusual hermaphroditic bronzes from LACMA may therefore represent the undiversified god, the god who had not yet separated from creation,26 in visible form that is accessible to worshipers, as referenced in the Late Period Memphite Theology: “Ptah-Nun, the father who [created] Atum” and “Ptah-Naunet, the mother who gave birth to Atum.”27 The first bronze example of a male-female divinity (fig. 2)28 is a strange syncretic image of two figures melding together front to back: a dogheaded dwarf with bird’s wings and tail enfolds a standing lioness-headed goddess. The nose of the dog’s head touches, and is cast to, the back side of the goddess. The dwarf ’s squat and fat legs and buttocks are just visible beneath his bird’s tail. The lioness goddess once wore a sun disk on her head as the daughter of Re, now broken. The goddess has tall, highly placed ears and a somewhat pointed snout. Parallels suggest that she once held a sun disk aloft between her hands, now broken from the figure, indicating that the male protective deity’s wings are surrounding the rebirth of the sun disk. This bronze does not explicitly combine male and female in one body, but the gods are conceptually connected in one bronze figurine. A second and similar example (fig. 3)29 is a small bronze figure that combines a youthful god, perhaps a form of Horus the Child, with a lioness goddess, standing back to back. The male divinity has the front position and wears

Here, the creator goddess is said to be two-thirds male and one-third female, a primeval androgynous goddess who came into being before creation. She is the mother of Re, and she herself gives off her own light. These two LACMA bronze figurines contain male and female elements combined together into one statuette, as if to say that the creative, primeval divinity is part male and part female.

25 Hornung, Conceptions of God, 171, citing epithets of Ptah-Tenen at Philae. 26 Ibid., 176. 27 Kurt Sethe, Das “Denkmal memphitischer Theologie,” der Shabakostein des Britischen Museums, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964); For this English translation, see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1, The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1973), 51–57. 28 LACMA M.80.198.56. Late Period to Ptolemaic Period (664–30 BCE); h. 7.2 cm; w. 2.1 cm; Gift of Frank J. and Victoria K. Fertitta; solid cast standing on a rectan-

gular sled-shaped base of rough shape with the remains of a tenon on the underside, suggesting that this piece was once attached to a larger group. For similar figures, see Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, 495; Daressy, Statues de divinités, pl. 53. 29 LACMA M.80.198.167. Probably Ptolemaic Period (323–30 BCE); h. 4.5 cm; w. 1.8 cm; Gift of Frank J. and Victoria K. Fertitta; solid cast bronze; for similar figures, see Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren: 101–104. For the naked Horus youth, ibid., 108–109. For gods standing on animals, ibid., 501–502. 30 Sauneron, Le Temple d’Esna vol. 3, 137, col. 252; translation found in Sauneron, Les Fêtes Religieuses d’Esna, 110.

Tu es la maîtresse de Saïs, c’est-à-dire Tanen, dont deux tiers sont masculine, et un tiers féminin; déesse initiale mystérieuse et grande, qui commença d’être au début, et inaugura toute chose (?). Tu es la voûte céleste dans laquelle […] celle qui enfanta les astres tous tant qu’ils sont, et les éleva sur leurs nattes (?); le souffle qui calcina la terre de la flamme de ses yeux, de l’ardeur sortie de sa bouche; la mère divine de Rê, qui brille à l’horizon, la mystérieuse qui rayonne de sa propre lumière (?).30

androgynous bronze figurines in storage at the los angeles county museum of art The third LACMA bronze of an androgynous divinity (fig. 4)31 is a kind of Nilotic flood figure and is much more explicit in combining male and female in one image; it represents a creature with the head of a cat, body of a hermaphrodite, and wings of a bird. The cat head with small mane and female wig is representative of a Bastet/Sekhmet-like goddess. The figure has a protruding belly, in the manner of the pregnant hippo goddess Taweret or perhaps the Nile god Hapy,32 yet the body also displays an erect phallus. This syncretic deity stands on two crocodiles whose bodies are curved under the feet. The hermaphroditic figure holds two indistinctly cast fish or geese in its outstretched hands. The back of the figure is representative of a bird with closed wings. This bronze figurine encapsulates both male and female fertility in one form, a form that brings forth the bounty of the Nile, which it holds in its hands. Late Egyptian texts describing the Nile flood and floodlands include reference to both its male and female aspects: C’est là l’image du ‘Nil’, dont une moitié est homme, et dont l’autre moitié est femme; [c’est l’eau qui est homme,] c’est la terre irrigable qui est femme; (ensemble) ce sont le Père et la Mère.33 The fourth androgynous example in LACMA (fig. 5)34 is overtly sexual and depicts a syncretic god made up of male and female, human and animal elements. Unlike the last bronze, this one is not Nilotic, because it lacks a pregnant belly and pendulant breasts. Instead, this composite deity has a human body, animal’s head, and wears the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. The exact animal depicted by this figurine’s head is unclear,

31 LACMA M.80.203.168. Late Period to Ptolemaic Period (664–30 BCE); h. 4.4 cm; w. 2.4 cm; Gift of Carl W. Thomas; solid cast standing on a rectangular base with a suspension loop behind the figure’s head. For similar syncretic figures with bird wings, animal heads and human bodies, see Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, 101–103. 32 For the god Hapy and fecundity images, see John Baines, Fecundity Figures: Egyptian Personification and the Iconology of a Genre (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1985). 33 Sauneron, “Remarques de philologie et d’étymologie,” 242, based on Wolja Erichsen and Siegfried Schott, Fragmente Memphitischer Theologie in Demotischer Schrift (Pap. Demot. Berlin 13603) (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1954), 382. 34 LACMA M.80.198.14. Probably Ptolemaic Period (332–30 BCE); h. 6.4 cm; w. 1.6 cm; Gift of Frank J. and Victoria K. Fertitta; solid cast bronze with a small suspension piercing between the lizard’s mouth and the white crown.

67

but the long snout suggests a ram, in the manner of Amun or Khnum. Most of the human body is feminine, given the tight ankle-length dress and breasts; however, the god grasps an erect phallus in his right hand, adding multi-sexual dimensions to this small piece. On the back of the deity is a lizard or salamander, positioned as if climbing up the back of the deity towards the head. Its mouth is open and it is swallowing another element—probably the tail of the uraeus from the back of the royal crown, recalling the ouroborus “snake in mouth” cycle of eternity and the non-existence that lies beyond creation,35 also reminiscent of funerary texts with possible reference to auto-fellatio during the world’s creation by Atum.36 This hermaphroditic syncretic amulet would have provided its owner with the fertile power elements of the masculine and the protective, magical elements of the female. Jan Zandee notes the hermaphroditic qualities of the god Khnum in hymns: Khnum-Re in Esna is equated with PtahTatenen as primeval god: ‘He has moulded man, he gave birth to the gods (nh. p.n.f rmt ¯ ms.n.f ntrw). Another Esna text speaks of ¯ who moulded men, who gave birth #Khnum, to the gods (ms ntrw), who engendered (wtt) ¯ the bisexual creator god, ¯ all living people.’ As Khnum (who usually moulds men on his potter’s wheel, nh. p) gives birth like a mother and begets like a father.37 Likewise, a hymn to the goddess Neith from Esna infuses the primeval goddess with male powers, as the source of all life, as the very being who engendered Shu and Tefnut, thus equating her with the creator god Atum:

No good parallels, but see Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, 100–104. 35 Hornung, Conceptions of God, 178–179. 36 For example, see the selections from Papyrus Bremner-Rhind: “All development developed after I developed, developments becoming many in emerging from my mouth …” and “For my part, the fact is that I acted as husband with my fist, I copulated with my hand, I let fall from my mouth by myself, I sneezed Shu and spat Tefnut.” For these translations and commentary, see James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts, Yale Egyptological Studies 2 (San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1995), 28. 37 Zandee, “The Birth-Giving Creator-God in Ancient Egypt,” 169–185, quoting Sauneron, Le Temple d’Esna, vol. 3, no. 250, 14 and no. 259, 2.

68

kathlyn m. cooney Tu es la maîtresse d’Esna, au sein de la campagne [mystérieuse] au Nord de la [butte] des deux oiselets; celle qui allaite les deux crocodiles, en leur nom de Chou et Tefnout, la Gardienne-de-ses-châteaux, qui tient embrassé le cou des deux crocodiles dans ses bras— c’est-à-dire Rê et Osiris, les deux oisillons, (enfants) de son fils Rê dan Pi-Sahourê; et qui fournit les offrandes divines des dieux et des déesses.38

The last androgynous bronze (fig. 6)39 is a small amulet representing the female sexual triangle combined with the male sexual organs. The female portion has two horizontal incisions. Below this is a flaccid, uncircumcised male phallus and testicles. Although the date of the piece is far from clear, the syncretism of male and female is obvious in this small amulet, which represents the source of all creation, father and mother, the All Lord, the complete god. To explain these strange combinations of male and female divinity, it is useful to consider Hans Bonnet’s statement that the power of syncretism is about accommodating the power of opposites. Superficially, we see the opposites of male and female. Bonnet, however, was referring to the opposition of the immaterial and the material in ancient Egyptian divinity.40 This tension results in a solution:

derstands the multi-faceted power of god, and which a person could manipulate to magically change their present-day circumstances through cultic and votive activity. The question still remains, however: Do these bronzes represent an ancient Egyptian idea approaching monotheism, that divinity has one source, as implied by Assmann? Or are they, as Hornung suggests, a window into the Egyptian mind that continually combines and recombines aspects of divinity, as a reflection of its unknowable and undeniable polytheistic source? These two notions—monotheism and polytheism—seem inherently oppositional, but are only mutually exclusive in the Western mind of the Axial Age of one true God;42 nor should we expect the Egyptian mind to have chosen one or the other. For that select part of the population that read and understood the written texts, the abstract All Lord could exist side by side with its many manifestations of human and animal, male and female. There was no conflict, and these small bronze figurines attest to the coexistence of divinity as both abstract and physical. An excerpt from the late New Kingdom Papyrus Leiden I 350 refers to the god Amun as:

People require something visible. They cannot imagine an effect with no active agent behind it. Religious sensibility, like other forms of apprehension, yearns for something tangible. People require to interact with the deity; ultimately they can do so only insofar as he is similar to them. So the emergence of a tangible form necessarily results in anthropomorphization.41

Secret of development but glittering of forms, wonderful god of many developments. All gods boast in him, in order to magnify themselves in his perfection, like his divinity. The Sun himself is joined with his person. He is the Great One in Heliopolis, who is also called Tatenen. Amun, who emerged from the Waters that he might lead mankind. Another of his developments is the Hermopolitans. Original one who begot the original ones and caused the Sun to be born, completing himself in Atum, one body with him…

As religious belief and magical practice began to combine the various powers of divinity into one abstract being, people then began to envisage these new manifestations as form, in this case, as bronze figurines through which a person un-

Amun is one, concealing himself from them. He is hidden from the gods, and his aspect is unknown. He is farther than the sky, he is deeper than the Duat. No god knows his true appearance, no processional image of his is

38 Sauneron, Le Temple d’Esna, vol. 3, 138, col. 252; translation found in Sauneron, Les Fêtes Religieuses d’Esna, 111. 39 LACMA M.80.198.46. Probably Ptolemaic Period to Roman Period (323 BCE – 200 CE); l. 3 cm; w. 1.6 cm; Gift of Frank J. and Victoria K. Fertitta. The solid cast bronze seems Egyptian in style and technique, although the date of its production is probably quite late. At the top of the amulet

is a suspension loop. No known parallels. 40 Hans Bonnet, “On Understanding Syncretism,” Orientalia 68, 3 (1999): 191. 41 Ibid. 42 Karen Armstrong, A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), 27–78.

androgynous bronze figurines in storage at the los angeles county museum of art unfolded through inscriptions, no one testifies to him accurately.43 These unusual male-female bronze figurines from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art show that the Egyptians allowed themselves creativity in the way that they viewed divinity, that they continually tried to express in a material cult form an abstract concept of god that could not be contained or understood.44 Very little is known about the actual creation of such bronzes, in particular the conception and authorship of the various forms. Significantly, most pantheistic figures are preserved in bronze, rather than cheaper materials. There are some faience examples, but bronze seems particularly associated with the expression of profound religious thought

43 200th Chapter. For this translation, see Allen, Genesis in Egypt, 52–53. Emphasis by Allen. 44 Tangentially, it is also interesting to note that these images have never been displayed at LACMA. Not only are such images shocking to a modern Western audience in their overt sexuality, they are confusing in their combination of so many divine attributes that cannot be easily categorized and labeled within a hierarchical pantheon of male and female gods. Some of these bronzes are also not of the highest quality casting and technique.

69

in a material form,45 strongly suggesting that only the most educated and wealthy portions of Egyptian society commissioned and understood these pantheistic and often male-female divine manifestations. Only they could afford bronze, and so their expressions of personal piety took on a more intellectualizing form. The small size of these bronze figurines also suggests a personalized and pious context. Rarely are such male-female images found in formal temple contexts, and when they are, they are usually depicted textually, not in visual form.46 These unusual bronzes undoubtedly represent artistic and religious innovation, but they also mirror an informed and growing complexity that is proportionate to elevation in social status and education.

45

Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren; Daressy, Statues de divini-

tés. 46 For example, at Esna temple, where divinity is said to be 1/3 feminine and 2/3 masculine (Sauneron, Le Temple d’Esna, vol. 3, 137, col. 252; Sauneron, Les Fêtes Religieuses d’Esna, 110), few of the formal images of gods reflect this male-female understanding in artistic relief. Possible exceptions are the traditional images of the Nile flood god Hapy on the lower part of interior west and north walls (Sauneron, Esna vol. 6, Le Temple d’Esna [Cairo: IFAO, 1975], 181–184).

70

kathlyn m. cooney

Fig. 1. Pantheistic figurine with ram’s heads. LACMA M.80.198.136. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Fig. 2. Lioness goddess syncretized with a dwarf-bird. LACMA M.80.198.56. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

androgynous bronze figurines in storage at the los angeles county museum of art

Fig. 3. Horus the Child syncretized with a lioness goddess. LACMA M.80.198.167. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Fig. 4. Nilotic flood figurine syncretized with a bird. LACMA M.80.203.168. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

71

72

Fig. 5. Ithyphallic male-female divinity with a lizard on the back. LACMA M.80.198.14. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

kathlyn m. cooney

Fig. 6. Amulet combining male and female genitalia. LACMA M. 80.198.46. Courtesy of Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF HIBIS

Eugene Cruz-Uribe Northern Arizona University

During the past several decades, the temple of Hibis in Kharga Oasis has undergone severe environmental degradation. A “shifting underground” and related issues, brought on by increased agricultural activity in the private lands that completely surround the temple, have caused significant changes in the water table with concomitant effects on the temple structure. Such effects have been partially documented by the Supreme Council of Antiquities, and efforts were made to shore up the walls of the main part of the temple by the use of scaffolding. In discussions over the years, especially with members of the SCA, fault for the shifting was partially placed upon the ancient builders of the temple, suggesting that the ancients had not provided suitable foundations for the temple proper during the Saite Period when the oldest part of the current structure was built. These techniques supposedly then carried over when subsequent additions to the temple were made during the Persian, Ptolemaic and Roman Periods.1 Arnold notes that the types of foundations used in earlier pharaonic structures might have been insufficient in some cases, but in most cases seemed to provide suitable support, given the number of structures that have survived since ancient times.2 During the late 1990s, the SCA provided funds for the removal of Hibis temple from its present location to a new site upon which a suitable and stable foundation would be provided for the re-erected temple. As part of the work done

by the contractors (Osman Ahmed Osman), a series of trenches was dug as preliminary work to determine the condition of the substructure and how much material would need to be removed as part of the reconstruction efforts.3 The existence of these trenches provided the opportunity and information to conduct this small study. In an earlier study, I had investigated the types of reconstruction conducted at Hibis temple during ancient times.4 It became clear with that study that the ancients had dealt with repair work on temple structures in ancient times, repairing and rebuilding structures on a regular basis. It is a testament to the building skills of the ancient craftsmen that so many structures survived from pharaonic times. In the case of Hibis temple, the external walls were “relatively” intact up until Winlock’s excavations in 1908–1911. It was only after the sand dune which had overcome the south wall of Hypostyle N was removed that any structural weaknesses were exposed. It is interesting to note that the sand dune at this location significantly undermined the integrity of this wall, and after Baraize’s modern temple reconstruction,5 the SCA was compelled to shore up the wall with a modern set of wooden scaffolding. When I first visited the site in 1980, the only section of Hibis temple supported by scaffolding was that section of the south exterior wall. Currently (2005), the entire temple has been encased in temporary scaffolding. My earlier study suggested that the ancients did a reasonable job in

1 For a discussion of the building phases see Herbert Winlock, The Temple of Hibis in el-Khargeh Oasis, vol. 1, The Excavations (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1941); Eugene Cruz-Uribe, “Hibis Temple Project: 1984–1985 Field Season, Preliminary Report,” JARCE 23 (1986): 157–166; and Cruz-Uribe, “Hibis Temple Project, Preliminary Report of 2nd and 3rd Field Seasons,” VA 3 (1987): 215–230. 2 Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 109–115, esp. no. 31. 3 The trenches were dug sometime between 2000 and

2002, after which work on the temple was halted. As far as I can determine, the trenches were dug mechanically without reference to archaeological methods or finds. It was also decided that the temple would not be taken down and relocated, but conserved and restored by other means. 4 Eugene Cruz-Uribe, “The Ancient Reconstruction of Hibis temple,” in Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture, ed. Peter Jánosi (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005), 247–261. 5 Winlock, Temple of Hibis, e.g., 15, 31–32, pls. 4–7, 12–14, 18, 20–23.

74

eugene cruz-uribe

making repairs and additions to the temple. With the digging of these trenches, we can get a better idea of what the ancients were working with and how that may have affected what happened to the temple. During the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s excavations, Winlock did dig at several areas in and around the main temple and investigated the foundations of the walls in Hypostyles N and B.6 Winlock argued that there was a ridge of shale under the entire complex, and the temple complex was at the highest position in the vicinity. He dug a series of trenches on the north side of the temple, starting at the north edge of his excavated area and going south up to the girdle wall.7 He also investigated the pit found inside the temple in room K2.8 He then argued that the entire temple was built on the compressed soil and clay levels on top of this shale bedrock.9 He said that these soil and clay levels varied from 1.5 to 2.5 meters below the foundations of the walls.10 It appears also that Winlock looked closely at the foundations of the columns in Hypostyle N.11 Lastly, he observed closely Baraize’s reconstruction of the portico Q and noted that the bedrock below the foundations of the walls of that section was nowhere less than 2 meters from the bottom of the foundations. He suggested that was the reason for the collapse of the entire portico.12 The first item to note is that the type of stone found as bedrock is not shale as Winlock suggested. Its variable and much coarser texture, its uneven depositional character (lacking clear consistent layering), and its larger granular size suggest that this is to be understood as siltstone. This type of stone is found uniformly at the temple site. The siltstone is not a particularly stable rock and would be unstable when excess water permeates and/or surrounds the layers. Consequently, we never see it as a building stone in Egyptian structures.13

What is most interesting to this author is the leap of faith that Winlock made concerning the foundations of the temple proper based upon his scant evidence. Since he only dug his trenches up to the girdle walls, he never bothered to dig pits along the exterior walls of the temple itself. He also ignored his own comments concerning the pit in room K2, which he noted had “descended through the massive foundations to bedrock 3 m. below the floor.”14 Likewise, it seems clear that the time frame for the subsidence of the temple and concomitant destruction must have been extensive.15 Such a lengthy time frame suggests that the foundations of the temple proper were done in some manner that allowed them to remain relatively stable for long periods of time without problems. The more recent work by the modern contractors resulted in eight (8) trenches being dug (fig. 1). One surrounds the quay on the east end of the complex. The second is on the south side of the Roman Gateway. The third is on the north side of the Inner Gateway. The fourth is on the south side of the south exterior wall. The fifth is at the southwest exterior corner of the temple. The sixth is on the north side of the north exterior wall. The seventh is on the north side of the north exterior wall near the gate coming out of Hypostyle N. The eighth trench was dug in the interior of the temple in Hypostyle M on the west wall south of the east-west axis near the first column.

Ibid., 16–17, pl. 30. Ibid., pl. 30. These are labeled trenches 1–5. 8 Ibid., 13 and 16, no. 26. 9 Perhaps following the idea of placing the temple on “clean sand” like the primeval ground of the point of creation. See Arnold, Building in Egypt, 113. 10 Winlock, Temple of Hibis, 16–17. 11 Ibid., 21. 12 Ibid., 31–32. 13 I want to thank Dr. David Best, Geology Department at Northern Arizona University, for his assistance in identifying the composition of the bedrock and its characteristics. Additional information on siltstones can be found at: “Siltstone,” CSU Long Beach, Dept. of Geological Sciences,

http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/bperry/Sedimentary%20Rocks %20Tour/siltstone.htm. 14 Winlock, Temple of Hibis, 13. 15 Winlock (ibid., 25) states that the damage found in Hypostyle N occurred six centuries after the hypostyle was constructed. 16 Ibid., pl. 1b. 17 Winlock identified this structure as a quay, saying it was an area where boats from the adjacent ancient lake could dock as part of the religious rituals at Hibis temple. All authors since then have accepted this. I would venture that this structure is to be understood as a “cult terrace,” following Dieter Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 288–292, esp. no. 25.

6 7

OAO Trench 1 (fig. 2) The first trench examined was that surrounding the “quay” at the east end of the complex.16 The contractors removed several layers of the extant structure,17 so that only a few blocks of the lower foundation remain. It is evident that the

the foundations of hibis

75

foundation was excavated down to the siltstone bedrock and built directly thereupon. The remaining blocks are large, averaging .5 meters in height and 1 to 1.5 meters in length.

area. A more detailed examination of this fill is presented with trenches 6 and 7.

OAO Trench 2

This trench is located at the southwest corner of the exterior wall of the temple. The contractors only dug down 1.5 meters, removing three layers of stone below the paving stones. At this point, they came upon large foundation blocks measuring approximately 2 × 1 meters.20 It is not clear whether these blocks were put in place as the southwest corner foundation for the current temple, or were left over and reused from the earlier temple structure noted above. Likewise, we cannot see how far down these foundation blocks go.

The second trench is located on the south side of the remains of the Roman Gateway.18 Inspection of the trench shows that the foundations of the gateway consisted of six courses of sandstone going down approximately 2.5 meters to bedrock. OAO Trench 3 The third trench is located on the north side of the inner gateway. The trench as excavated does not go down to bedrock as it only was excavated to a depth of approximately 1.5 meters. It does show that the entire fill along the side of the foundation is clay/compressed soil. The foundation stones vary from those of the Roman Gateway in that each course is close to .5 meter in height.

OAO Trench 5 (fig. 4)

OAO Trench 6 (fig. 5)

The fourth trench is located on the south side of the exterior wall of the temple, approximately 10 meters from the southwest corner. Two noteworthy items can be seen immediately from the photograph. The first is that the trench uncovered the corner of the foundation for one of the earlier temples that was thought to be under the current structure.19 This corner stone suggests that the earlier temple was located under the southwestern corner of the temple and possibly extending west of the current structure. None of this area has been excavated, as most of it lies under modern cultivation. At this point on the south exterior wall, the current temple is placed directly upon the earlier structure. Again, the foundation stones are extremely thick (.5 meters) where visible. One can also see the various items used as fill in the

This trench is located approximately 10 meters from the northwest corner of the temple along the north exterior wall. Visible in the trench are eight courses of foundation stones going down to a depth of 1.59 meters. The lowest course of foundation stone lies directly on bedrock. The illustrations of the west and east sides of the trench (figs. 6 and 7) give very different pictures of the composition of materials backfilled into the trenches used next to the foundations. The trench measures approximately 1.7 meters at the top. At the bottom, it is approximately 1 meter wide. We can see how the trench was dug by viewing the area with undisturbed clay soils on the north or “outside” of the trench. The upper layers of rubble and stone mixture fill show an attempt to fill with a relatively “stronger” group of materials than simply soil, and the fill probably represented available materials around the building site. The trench was not filled with foundation stones, as it was not supporting walls. We instead have just one course of paving stones. The one unique area of the fill is the lowest layer on the west side of the trench. Here we see several courses of mud brick. This is not seen on the east side of the trench. I would postulate that

18 This gateway has the famous inscriptions of Tiberius Julius Alexander and Gnaeus Vergilius Capito. See H.G. Evelyn White & James H. Oliver, Temple of Hibis II: Greek Inscriptions (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1938), 1–18 and 25–45.

Winlock, Temple of Hibis, 4–5, pl. 9. The measurements are approximate as the edges of the block lengthwise are covered by other foundation blocks. If they are like other large blocks at the temple, they are probably .5 meters deep.

OAO Trench 4 (fig. 3)

19 20

76

eugene cruz-uribe

this mud-brick level was placed here as part of the foundation construction of the “old” temple evidenced in trench OAO 4 (see above). Thus by accident the OAO trenches 4 and 6 were dropped just at the area near a “corner” of the “old” temple. OAO Trench 7 (fig. 8) This trench is located 1.5 meters west of the door to Hypostyle N, on the north exterior wall of the temple. Several differences between trenches 6 and 7 are very obvious. First, we should note that there is a more pronounced “lip” after the second course of stone. This suggests that the foundation stones were several courses wide, and the wall was placed on the middle of those courses. Second, the foundation blocks used in these two trenches are much different in size. For trench 7 we have only five courses of stone, versus eight courses of stone for trench 6. The following diagram gives the height for each course for the two trenches. Heights in cm Course 1 Course 2 Course 3 Course 4 Course 5 Course 6 Course 7 Course 8

Trench 6 15 33 29 21 21 21 20 20

Trench 7 40 62 24 27 22 – – –

OAO Trench 8 (fig. 9) The last trench excavated is found in Hypostyle M on the west wall of the hypostyle, opposite the first column near the southwest corner of the hypostyle. The contractors removed the remains of the paving stones and excavated out one level of stone.21 It was discovered that the entire floor was made up of uniform-sized blocks and no further work was done. The single block below the paving stone that was pulled up is a carved/decorated block belonging to the “old” temple. Winlock had noted several blocks from that earlier structure that had been rebuilt into the walls of the temple.22 This block contains several portions of hieroglyphic text and the very top of the double-plumed crown of the god Amun. The text on the right hand side of the block reads: dd mdw ı"n Mw.t wr.t nb(.t) "Iˇsrw h. r-ı"b Hb.t ¯ “Words spoken by Mut, the great, lady of Isheru23 who dwells in Hibis.” The text on the left hand side of the block reads: dd mdw ı"n "Imn-R# nb nsw.t t A.wy hnty m "Ip.t-sw.t ¯ntr #A hr-[ı"b] Hb.t ı"r.n.f dı" #nh d[t] ˘ . ¯ ˘¯ “Words spoken by Amun-Re, lord of the thrones of the two lands, foremost in Karnak, great god, who dw[ells] in Hibis, he has made a giving life forever.”

This strongly suggests that the section of the wall at trench 7 was built by different builders than the section of wall further to the west at trench 6. Third, we should note that the fill is much simpler along this trench at this section. It is composed of a 44-cm-deep (along foundation) rock rubble fill with a 100-cm-deep soil rubble fill on top of the bedrock (west face of trench).

When we attempt to date this block, we can be sure that it was composed prior to the building of the main temple by Psamtik II.24 The small remains of hieroglyphs and the Amun crown suggest that we should date this to the very earliest part of Dynasty 26, probably during the early part of the reign of Psamtik I (664–610 BCE). Unfortunately, we have such a small portion of the scene that further proof for dating will have to await further clearance in this area.

21 The paving stones are approximately 15 cm thick inside the temple and have suffered a great deal of damage over the centuries, so that in many places they are completely broken up into rubble and/or have been replaced with modern gravel following the MMA excavation. 22 Winlock, Temple of Hibis, 4–5, pl. 9. 23 The signs n,t and city determinative are to be understood as an expanded city determinative rather than as

Niw.t, “Thebes.” 24 On the dating of the temple see my “Hibis Temple Project,” VA 3 (1987): 215–230. Richard Fazzini (personal communication) was kind enough to comment on these blocks and agreed that very early Saite Dynasty or late Kushite Period would be a reasonable date, but very little survives on the block to be diagnostic.

the foundations of hibis This survey of the non-archaeological trenches excavated in and around Hibis temple provides us with a wealth of information, as well as raising an equal number of questions. A) The first conclusion that we can determine immediately is that the Egyptian architects and builders did place the foundation stones of all of the walls of the structure, as well as the gates and cult terrace, directly upon bedrock, contra Winlock’s earlier suggestion. The one area that still needs to be examined and may not ever be is the portico Q , which Winlock notes was given a modern foundation of cement by Baraize when he reconstructed the temple. B) The techniques used by the builders varied over time. Each foundation that we could examine showed some variation in construction. OAO trench 6 used eight courses of stone for the foundation, which gives a standard for the main part of the temple (dating to the Saite Period). Later (as evidenced from OAO trench 7), the builders used fewer and larger blocks to support the walls of Hypostyle N (dating to the reign of Achoris). OAO trench 3 shows very large blocks as well, suggesting that the Inner Gateway, decorated by Darius I (522– 486 BCE), was not built when the main temple was constructed, but was built later, since the foundation stones are so large.

25

Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs, 288–292.

77

C) OAO trench 1, around the cult terrace, shows that the stones used for the foundation were extremely large in size. Most of the cult terraces mentioned by Arnold25 date to the Roman Period, but the foundation blocks for our cult terrace are much larger than those seen for the Roman Period gateway (OAO trench 2). It is tempting to date the terrace to be contemporary with the construction of Hypostyle Hall N and the avenue of sphinxes (reign of Achoris), but further work is needed before we can be certain. D) OAO trenches 4 and 8 confirm that there was a sizable temple structure at Hibis prior to the building of the main temple during the Saite period. What the corner of the foundation seen in OAO trench 4 does not give us is any clue on specific dating. Additional clearance is needed. Likewise, clearing and extracting additional blocks around OAO trench 8 would increase the likelihood of a dated decorated inscription. In conclusion, I would remark that whatever damage has occurred to Hibis temple throughout the years was not in any way caused by insufficient foundation construction. In all cases that we could examine, the ancient Egyptian builders placed the walls firmly upon bedrock. Unfortunately, the stone of the bedrock itself had its own structural problems beyond the scope of the builders’ ability to determine.

Fig. 1. Plan of Hibis temple complex with location of Winlock trenches and modern contractor trenches. Drawing based on Winlock, Temple of Hibis, pl. 30, used with permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

78 eugene cruz-uribe

the foundations of hibis

Fig. 2. View of foundations of quay, looking east. All photographs by author.

Fig. 3. View of OAO trench 4, looking west. Note foundation corner of earlier temple.

79

80

eugene cruz-uribe

Fig. 4. OAO trench 5, view of southwest corner of temple, looking east.

Fig. 5. OAO trench 6, looking south.

the foundations of hibis

Fig. 6. OAO trench 6, view to west—foundation is to left side. (Not to scale.)

Fig. 7. OAO trench 6, view to east—foundation is to the right. (Not to scale.)

81

82

eugene cruz-uribe

Fig. 8. OAO trench 7, view of foundation stones.

Fig. 9. OAO trench 8, inscribed block.

A STATUETTE OF PSAMTIK I WITH A SPEAR

Mamdouh Eldamaty Ain Shams University, Cairo

One of the unique statues from the Late Period is a royal statuette of the 26th Dynasty showing the king holding a spear.1 The legs of the standing statuette are missing. It is made of graywacke, h. 22 cm., h. of the back pillar 19.5 cm., l. of the spear 14.3 cm. The king stands with his left leg, which is now missing, forward (fig. 1, a-b). He grasps a spear firmly with both hands. His body is powerfully built and particularly well defined, with broad shoulders. The king’s torso is finely modeled and slightly muscular. The distinct median line below his pectorals is unclear behind the spear. His abdomen swells slightly below the waist, and he has a circular navel. He wears a khat-headdress and a short bipartite pleated kilt. The uraeus upon the forehead has a single symmetrical loop; the cobra’s tail emerges on top of the head. The king’s face is nearly intact, with only a small part of the nose missing. It is idealized, expressionless, and displays little modeling. His mouth is small, straight, fleshy lipped and flanked with drill holes on each side. The intact nose is undistinguished. The eyes alone are noteworthy. They are almond shaped, with their plastically rounded upper rims continuing past the outer canthi to form downwardly sloped cosmetic lines. The eyebrows also are in raised relief. Between the eyes is a slightly raised triangular space. The back pillar is uninscribed. The features of the statuette are those of Saite

portraits.2 By comparing the statuette’s features with the features of the well-known royal portraits of the Saite Period, we find that the face of this statue is very close to the sphinx of Psamtik I (figs. 2–3) in the Cairo Museum (JE 36915),3 which might have been made only a few years after the end of the Kushite Period. These sculptures clearly show influences of the art of the 25th Dynasty, such as the signs of fleshiness along the sides of the nose near its midpoint, and the folds seen on slightly earlier Kushite sculpture. These flesh folds specifically point to an origin early in the reign of Psamtik I, when the influence of the Nubian kings’ workshops was still strong.4 Therefore this statuette can be identified as Psamtik I, one of the few sculptural representations of this king who reigned for 54 years.5 The attitude of the statuette represents the king spearing his enemy, a pose previously unknown in stone sculpture. The spear is hurled into the flesh of a missing enemy. It is an exceptional occurrence in the history of royal statuary. The hunt in the marshes is a theme known from reliefs or paintings in private tombs and royal temples. The theme of spearing an enemy is related to the triumph over evil, which is usually personified by one of the different representations of Seth, for example, as a crocodile or hippopotamus. The victorious king defeats the forces of chaos, and preserves the universal order that it is his duty to insure. The development of this

1 Formerly in the private collection of Jack Josephson, New York, until 2003 (bought from Daedalus Gallery October 1, 1991); now in the private collection of Sheikh Saud el Thani in Doha. 2 Bernard V. Bothmer et al., Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C. to A.D. 100 (New York: Brooklyn Museum, 1960), 29 ff.; Karol My´sliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI–XXX (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988), 51 ff.; Anthony Leahy, “Saite Royal Sculpture: A Review,” GM 80 (1984): 59–76. For a possible explanation, see Jack Josephson, “A Portrait Head of Psamtik I?”, in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 2, ed. Peter Der Manuelian (Boston, 1996), 429–438.

3 For more details see Josephson, “A Portrait Head of Psamtik I?”, 430 f.; Jack Josephson and Mamdouh Eldamaty, Statues of the XXVth and XXVIth Dynasties, Catalogue général of Egyptian Antiquities in the Cairo Museum (Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 1999): CG 48630. Cf. another bust of Psmatik I in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York X 358), Josephson, “A Portrait Head of Psamtik I?”, 432, figs. 3–5. 4 Josephson, “A Portrait Head of Psamtik I?”, 435. 5 See Leahy, “Saite Royal Sculpture,” 62. For a possible explanation, see Josephson, “A Portrait Head of Psamtik I?”, 430.

84

mamdouh eldamaty

theme in the Late Period leads Horus to grapple with his enemy Seth in a series of episodes. In the end, Seth is finally vanquished.6 One of these episodes is the spearing of Seth by Horus, which is often represented in reliefs, especially on the walls of Egyptian temples. These representations reveal several attitudes, a striding pose with left leg forward or a standing pose with left leg forward. The arms are separated from the body and grasp the spear strongly with both hands,7 or grip the long spear in one hand while holding a rope with which to capture the defeated animal in the other hand.8 This emphasizes the dynamism of the triumph of Horus or of his representative upon the earth, the pharaoh. The mighty god could be represented standing on board his boat,9 or upon the representation of his enemy,10 or in front of his enemy.11 However, this attitude is very rare in threedimensional figures. We have only the twin statues, in gilded wood, of Tutankhamun12 standing upright on a papyrus raft and engaged in the mythical hunt for the hippopotamus that symbolizes evil. The pharaoh is represented as the incarnation of the god Horus, who, according to the legend, fought in the swamps against the evil god Seth, who was transformed into a hippopotamus and was finally defeated. Figures with arms holding the spear show one arm raised and the second extended downwards,13 or the two arms raised separately in front of the body.14 It is easy to represent these figures in reliefs, but difficult in three-dimensional stone figures because of the nature of the stone, which is liable to break. Perhaps for this reason we do not find stone statues in this attitude, with the exception of this statuette of Psamtik I. The artist tried, in this piece, to deal with the problem of the arms and the spear being raised separately in front of the body, and thus

being liable to break, by joining the arms and the spear to the body of the statuette. It is likely that the statuette is the representation of the incarnation of triumphant Horus, originally standing on or before a representation of Seth, similar to a relief of Horus standing on a crocodile on the wall of the Sokar-Osiris chapel in the temple of Dendera15 (figs. 4–5). The presentation of the king in this attitude is intended to guarantee the power and victory of the king over his enemies. This ideology of the triumphant divine king was needed by the new king, Psamtik I, the founder of the 26th Dynasty, who eliminated local rulers in Lower Egypt (23rd Dynasty) and ended the authority of the Napatan kings at Thebes (25th Dynasty), thereby reunifying Egypt. At the start of his reign, he was a vassal of the Assyrians, but later, as their power collapsed in Asia, he became the independent ruler of Egypt and played an important role in the reunification of Egypt.16 This is the most logical explanation for the king’s pose in this statuette, through which he might be shown to have established his rule as one who has become powerful and victorious over all his enemies. As the incarnation of triumphant Horus, the king wears the divine bipartite kilt of Horus, which is sometimes pleated like the kilts of the figures of Horus in the temple of Hibis in Kharga Oasis. The latter is very similar to the kilt of Psamtik I in our statuette17 (figs. 6–8). Additionally, the ka of the king has special characteristics, particularly appearing as one of the manifestations of the god Horus. The Hibis temple representation shows the ka of the king wearing the same short kilt of Horus.18 I believe that our figure represents either the divine ka of Psamtik I, or the king as the incarnation of the triumphant Horus.

6 Cf. Dieter Kurth, Treffpunkt der Götter: Inschriften aus dem Tempel des Horus von Edfu (Zürich: Artemis, 1998), 196 ff. 7 Émile Chassinat, Le temple d’Edfou 13 (Cairo: IFAO, 1934), pls. 441–442; Edfou 14 (Cairo: IFAO, 1934), pls. 634, 659. About the origin of the spear and its role in ancient Egypt see A.E. Reymond, “The origin of the spear I,” JEA 49 (1963): 140–146; II, JEA 50 (1964): 133–138; Reymond, “The Cult of the Spear in the Temple at Edfu,” JEA 51 (1965): 144–148; Jan Zandee, “Seth als Sturmgott,” ZÄS 90 (1963): 144–156. 8 Edfou 9 (Cairo: IFAO, 1929), pls. 76; 105. 9 Edfou 13, pls. 495, 497–506. 10 Ibid., pl. 512; Émile Chassinat, Le temple de Dendara 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 1934), pl. 127, see also pl. 129. 11 Edfou 9, pl. 46a. 12 Howard Carter, The tomb of Tut-ankh-Amen 3 (London: Cassell, 1933), pls. 13, 60; Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt,

Tutankhamen, Life and Death of a Pharaoh (London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1965), pl. 45. 13 Edfou 13, pls. 494, 508, 510, 513. 14 Dendara 2, pl. 127, see also pl. 129. 15 Ibid.; Mamdouh Eldamaty, Sokar-Osiris-Kapelle im Tempel von Dendera (Hamburg: Dr. Kovac, 1995), 86. 16 See Anthony Spalinger, “The Concept of the Monarchy during the Saite Epoch: an Essay of Synthesis,” Orientalia 47 (1978): 16–17; Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. Ian Shaw (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 57; Günter Vittmann, “Die Familie der saitischen Könige,” Orientalia 44 (1975): 375–387; Spalinger, “Psammetichus, King of Egypt: I,” JARCE 13 (1976): 133–147; II, JARCE 15 (1978): 49–57. 17 Cf. Norman de Garis Davies, The Temple of Hibis in El Kh¯argeh Oasis vol. 3, The Decoration (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), pl. 50. 18 Cf. ibid., pl. 48.

a statuette of psamtik i with a spear

Fig. 1, a–b. Statuette of Psamtik I. Photos courtesy of Jack Josephson.

85

86

mamdouh eldamaty

Fig. 2. Detail of fig. 1, a.

Fig. 3. Portrait of Psamtik I, Cairo Museum JE 36915.

a statuette of psamtik i with a spear

Fig. 4. Detail from Chassinat, Dendara 2, pl. 127.

Fig. 5. Detail of fig. 4.

87

88

mamdouh eldamaty

Fig. 6. Detail from Davies, The Temple of Hibis in El Kargeh Oasis (New York, 1953), Pl. 50.

Fig. 7. Detail of fig. 6.

Fig. 8. Detail of fig. 1, a.

TELL ME, RICHARD—DID THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS REALLY WEAR SUSPENDERS? (THOUGHTS ON THE VIZIER’S INSIGNIA AND ONE OF THE MEN WHO WORE IT DURING AMENHOTEP III’S REIGN)

Biri Fay Berlin/East Sangerville

This fine limestone bust (figs. 1–6),1 presumably broken from a seated statue,2 offers tantalizing clues to the identity of the person it represents. Stylistic features and the man’s attire, taken together, identify the subject as one of the viziers who served Amenhotep III. The man’s shoulder-length, striated wig, traces of his short beard, and the cloak, edged with looped fringe that encircles his shoulders,3 recall Middle Kingdom representations of officials.4 The heart-shaped face, however, and the almond eyes with fine, double lid folds, tapering cosmetic lines and arched, tapering brows, are stylistic features that could only have been created during the New Kingdom in one of Amenhotep III’s own sculpture studios.5 A cord worked in raised relief is visible at

both sides of the man’s neck. This feature, which occurs in relief and painting as well as sculpture, was part of the vizier’s official attire at least as early as Dynasty 11; it has often been mistakenly identified as straps, or even “suspenders.” Reliefs in the tomb of the vizier Dagi at Thebes (TT 39) clarify the purpose of the cord (figs. 7–8). Dagi, who served Mentuhotep II toward the end of his reign, wears a white cord around his neck in each preserved representation.6 A large blue (lapis lazuli or glazed steatite?) cylinder-shaped seal, with caps at each end, probably of precious metal, hangs from the cord. The prominence of these representations in Dagi’s tomb may be a reflection of the novelty of the “necklace”—as if this badge of the vizier’s office were something new.7

1 Ex-collection, Sir Sidney Nolan (artist: Melbourne 1917–London 1993). Fine hard limestone, with some quartz (?) veins, cream to light raw sienna in color. Present whereabouts not known. Height 21 cm, width 18 cm, depth 15 cm, height of face circa 5.5 cm, width of face 6 cm, height of eye 0.56 cm, width of eye 1.73 cm, width of mouth 2.38 cm, height of ear 3.45 cm, width of beard bridge 1.63 cm, width of cord 0.32 cm, width of cloak fringe 0.32 cm, width of back pillar 8.5 cm, depth of back pillar at break edge 2.2 cm, width of break along diagonal 20.5 cm, depth of break from neck edge to bottom of back pillar circa 11 cm. Condition: nose, mouth, chin, beard, earlobes, and front left of head smashed away. Numerous chips over surface. I thank Marianne Eaton-Krauss, Georg Meurer, and L. Joseph Stecher for reading versions of this text. Jürgen Liepe, Berlin, prepared all photographs for publication. 2 The slight forward projection of the preserved left shoulder, notable in profile, suggests that the bust belonged to a seated statue, since the upper arms of seated figures consistently extend slightly forward. 3 Discernible as a series of short, incised loops; the initial attempt to carve the cloak edge was abandoned in favor of a higher placement. Presumably, the sculptor realized his first angle would have taken the cloak around the back of the sculpture instead of upward around the neck, where it customarily disappears beneath the wig. 4 Official vestments are often intentionally archaizing,

in order to associate the subject and his office with long and honorable traditions of a particular office or occasion. 5 See Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan with Lawrence M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), 146–147, for a discussion of the characteristics of Amenhotep III’s limestone and calcite sculptures. 6 Norman de Garis Davies, Five Theban Tombs: being those of Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga, Nehemawäy and Tati), Archaeological Survey of Egypt 21 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1913), 28–39, pls. 32, 34, and 38,4, the latter now New York, MMA 12.180.243. Detailing in red indicates the twisted strands of the material of the cord. Wolfram Grajetzki, Die höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches: Prosopographie, Titel und Titelreihen, Achet Schriften zür Ägyptologie A2 (Berlin: Achet, 2000), 10–11, I.2, provides a thorough record of this vizier. 7 William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, Part 1 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 162, col. 2, draws attention to the “cord from which was suspended the seal of his exalted office,” but does not apply the identification to later representations, where only the cords are represented and the seal is tucked into the front of the skirt. Vizier’s vestments are also discussed by Wolfram Grajetzki, Die höchsten Beamten, 40. A relief fragment in the Metropolitan Museum (39.1.5) found near the South Pyramid at Lisht preserves the torso

90

biri fay

During the Old Kingdom, viziers are not represented in any medium wearing this insignia,8 and few statues are preserved from Dynasty 12 that include it; when well enough preserved, they show the cord tucked under the front edge of the kilt (figs. 9–10).9 Statues of viziers with the insignia are more common in Dynasty 13, when these officials are depicted wearing a skirt (as opposed to a kilt) wrapped high on the chest (occasionally with a cloak);10 the seal is tucked under the upper edge of the skirt so that only the cord is visible (figs. 11– 12).11 By the reign of Amenhotep III, a “clasp” appears at the back of the vizier’s neck (fig. 13). Ostensibly to secure the ends of the vizier’s cord, it is depicted in both relief and sculpture, where it may be decorated with the name of the king under whom the vizier served. The skirt wrapped high on the chest is also worn by other officials, not just viziers. Usually

mounded at the front as if covering a large belly, it has been interpreted as symbolic of high status (corpulence = plentiful food = wealth). A few contemporary reliefs show that full-front skirts do not necessarily conceal impressive bellies, but were created by layering garments (figs. 14–15).12 A kilt is the undermost garment; over it, skirts of increasing length are wrapped, the end folds overlapping at the front, until the desired girth is achieved. The skirt with the mounded front is a symbol of status and wealth not because it conceals a large belly, but because an abundance of garments documents the wearer’s position and wealth. The vizier, who performed the duties of prime minister and chief justice, was probably more powerful than any man in ancient Egypt except the king himself.13 Since the reign of Thutmose III at the latest, the vizier’s duties were

of the tomb owner wearing a Bat symbol and cords like those worn by Dagi. Unfortunately, the lower part of the relief, where the seal would have been represented, is not preserved. This relief may derive from the tomb of the famous Mentuhotep who served Senusret I (Biri Fay, “Custodian of the Seal, Mentuhotep,” in GM 133 [1993]: 19–36, esp. p. 19, no. 3 for the relief fragment). The work of the Metropolitan Museum Lisht Expedition may provide clarification. 8 A few Old Kingdom reliefs depict a cylinder seal on a short cord either held in the hand or worn around the neck. The men who hold or wear the necklace are not viziers, Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sáh. u-re#, vol. 2, Die Wandbilde, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 1902–1908, vol. 7 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913), pl. 53. Hans Goedicke, Re-Used Blocks From the Pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 20 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1971), 86–87, New York, MMA 22.1.16. 9 Boston, MFA 11.1484, granite, height 11.5 cm, about mid Dynasty 12, Rita Freed kindly provided information about this bust; Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’achéologie égyptienne 3 (Paris: A. and J. Picard, 1958), 246, n. 3, and 582. ExBrussels Collection Stoclet, gneiss, height 47 cm, about reign of Senusret III; Adolphe Stoclet Collection, Part 1, Selection of the works belonging to Madame Feron-Stoclet (Brussels: J.P. van Goidsenhoven, 1956), 232, illustrated in black and white, with previous bibliography. I thank Rupert Wace, London, for permitting me to study and illustrate the unfinished statue of a vizier. 10 Cairo CG42206, granite, from Karnak. Musée cantonal de Beaux Arts de Lausanne, Inv. Eg 11, presently on loan to the Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, Basel, basalt, height 18 cm, ex-collection Widner; Paris, Hotel Drouot, Auction Catalogue, Paris, June/July 1913, p. 14, pl. 7, lot 148, late Dynasty 12/Dynasty 13. André Wiese kindly provided photographs and information about this object. Other statues and fragments representing viziers of Dynasty 12 and 13 include: Avignon A. 44, basalt, MariePierre Foissy-Aufrère, Egypte & Provence: Civilisation survivances et “Cabinetz de Curiositez” (Avignon: Fondation du Muséum Calvet, 1985), 50, § 83, fig. 99, on p. 213 and p. 270.

Brussels E 2308, wearing cloak, not published; Cairo CG 427 (ANOC 51.2); Cairo CG 42034, 42207; Heidelberg 274, Erika Feucht, Von Nil zum Neckar: Kunstschätze Ägyptens aus pharaonischer und koptischer Zeit an der Universität Heidelberg (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1986), 65; New York, MMA 14.2.1, from Lisht; Paris, Louvre 125, Vandier, Manuel d’achéologie égyptienne, pl. 88,1; Turin Supl. 1220. 11 Once standardized in the late Middle Kingdom, the vizier’s attire remained the same. In the Late Period, the vizier Psamtikseneb (Cairo 682) wears an image of the goddess Maat on a cord around his neck. Bernhard Grdseloff, “L’insigne du grand Juge Égyptien,” ASAÉ 40 (1940): 189, and others following him, for example, Wolfgang Helck in “Amtsinsignien,” LÄ 1, 229, deduce that the image is the vizier’s badge of office. It seems more likely that Maat is the insignia for the office of judge, a title also held by viziers. For what may be an example of such a necklace with Maat pendant, see Carol Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1994), fig. 38 (b), London, BM 48998, Late Period. For a New Kingdom representation see n. 22, below. 12 New York, MMA 63.154 and Copenhagen, AEIN 964. Both published by William Kelly Simpson, Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13, Publications of the Pennsylvania–Yale Expedition to Egypt 5 (New Haven: The Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University and The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1974), pl. 81: ANOC 59.1 (New York, MMA 63.154) and ANOC 59.2 (Copenhagen, AEIN 964), Renseneb’s monument from Abydos. For the stela in Copenhagen, see also Mogens Jørgensen, Catalogue Egypt 1 (3000– 1550 B.C.) (Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1996), 190–191, no. 79, color. “Transparent” representations of the mounded front skirt are not common, but several others are documented for Dynasty 13. In the New Kingdom, slightly different arrangements of the mounded front skirt are represented, but they are rare, i.e., CG 34050. 13 On the office of vizier in general, see Eva MartinPardy, “Wesir, Wesirat,” in LÄ 6, 1227–1235, and G.P.F. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom, Studies in Egyptology (London: Kegan Paul International, 1988), 309–331 (Chapter 3).

tell me, richard—did the ancient egyptians really wear suspenders?

91

divided between two men, one for the north and one for the south.14 The names of several men are known who were viziers under Amenhotep III: Thutmose,15 Amenhotep-Huy, Ptahmose, Ramose, and possibly Aper-el.16 This bust should represent one of these men. Only the beginning of the offering formula carved on the statue’s back pillar is preserved, reading “… a boon which the king gives, that Amun …”. Since worship of the state god Amun was centered at Thebes, this statue is presumably from the owner’s tomb in the Theben necropolis. Each of Amenhotep III’s viziers is known from various documents and monuments—unfortunately none of these records help identify the bust. Thutmose’s false door in Florence (Inv. 2565) depicts him wearing the traditional vizier’s garments (fig. 16), but sculptures of the man are not known.17 Amenhotep-Huy’s unfinished tomb has been identified at Thebes, but except for a number of inscriptions, little is preserved.18 Two statues from Bubastis depicting him wearing the

vizier’s high-wrapped skirt with cord are headless.19 Ptahmose is known to have been buried at Thebes, but his tomb has not been located, and both statue fragments bearing his name are headless.20 In his Theban tomb (TT 55), Ramose (and the representation of his statue on the east wall) wears the traditional vizier’s garments (figs. 17– 18), but sculptures preserving his image are not known.21 Finally, Aper-el, who is depicted in his tomb at Saqqara wearing the standard garments of the vizier,22 might have dedicated a statue at Thebes, regardless of where he was buried. Thus far, however, no sculptures of him seem to have survived. Unfortunately, no inscribed statue preserves the likeness of any of Amenhotep III’s viziers for comparison to the limestone bust. Which one of them it represents is not yet known. However, the intentional damage to the face of the sculpture suggests that the owner’s memory was denigrated, a clue that may eventually help narrow the candidates for the bust’s ownership.

14 Beatrix Geßler-Löhr, “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches von Saqqara vor der Amarna-Zeit 1: Gräber der Wisire von Unterägypten,” in Gedenkschrift für Winfried Barta, ed. Dieter Keßler and Regine Schulz, Münchener Ägyptologische Untersuchungen 4 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995), 133. 15 Following Geßler-Löhr, “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches,” 144–145. For an earlier dating, see Kozloff and Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 65, n. 78. 16 Beatrix Geßler-Löhr, “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches,” 151, no. 7, points out that it is not certain whether Aper-el began his service under Amenhotep III, or his son, Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten. 17 Ibid., 144–149, no. 5. 18 Ibid., 149–150, no. 6. 19 For these statues, see Kozloff and Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 51, fig. II.10 (Cairo CG 590), and Edouard Naville, Bubastis (1887–1889), Memoir of the Egyptian Exploration Fund 8 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1891), pls. 13

where both Cairo CG 590 and London BM 1068) are illustrated, and 25,B (back of scribe statue Cairo CG 590). 20 For Ptahmose, see Geßler-Löhr, “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches,” 135–143, no. 2. 21 For Ramose’s career, which bridged the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, see Kozloff and Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 49–50 and Geßler-Löhr, “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches,” 149. 22 Geßler-Löhr, “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches,” 149. For Aper-el’s tomb at Saqqara, see AlainPierre Zivie, Découverte à Saqqarah; le vizir oublié (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1990). On a pillar in his tomb, Aper-el wears a skirt wrapped high on his chest and a cord around his neck. Zivie (pp. 59–61) illustrates this relief and states that a pendant of the goddess Maat hangs around his neck. The published view of this relief (fig. 24 on p. 60) was taken at an angle, and the area under discussion is not visible. See n. 11, above; the Maat pendant is associated with the office of judge, not vizier.

92

biri fay

Fig. 1. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe.

tell me, richard—did the ancient egyptians really wear suspenders?

Fig. 2. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe.

93

94

biri fay

Fig. 3. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe.

Fig. 4. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe.

Fig. 5. Vizier, inscription on back pillar. Richard Parkinson.

tell me, richard—did the ancient egyptians really wear suspenders?

Fig. 6. Vizier, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III. Photo: Jürgen Liepe.

95

96

biri fay

Fig. 7. Dagi, TT 39. After Davies, Five Theban Tombs (1913), pl. 32.

tell me, richard—did the ancient egyptians really wear suspenders?

Fig. 8. Dagi, TT 39. After Davies, Five Theban Tombs (1913), pl. 34.

97

98

biri fay

Fig. 9. Vizier, Boston, MFA 11.1484. Photo: B.V. Bothmer.

Fig. 11. Vizier Ankhu, Cairo CG 42206. Photo: B.V. Bothmer.

Fig. 10. Vizier, Ex-Collection Stoclet. Photo: Heini Schneebeli. Courtesy: Rupert Wace.

Fig. 12. Vizier, Musée cantonal de Beaux-Arts de Lausanne Inv. Eg. 11. Photo: Courtesy Antiken Museum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, Basel.

tell me, richard—did the ancient egyptians really wear suspenders?

Fig. 13. Clasp at back of neck. After Cairo CG 590. Vizier Amenhotep, reign of Amenhotep III: Bodil Hornemann, Types of Ancient Egyptian Statuary 2–3 (Munksgaard, 1957), no. 392.

Fig. 15. Vizier Renseneb, after his stela from Abydos, Copenhagen, AEIN 964.

Fig. 14. Vizier Renseneb, after his stela from Abydos, New York, MMA 63.154.

Fig. 16. Thutmose, from his false door, Florence Inv. 2565.

99

100

biri fay

Fig. 17. Vizier Ramose, TT 55, after Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London, 1941), pl. 31.

tell me, richard—did the ancient egyptians really wear suspenders?

Fig. 18. Vizier Ramose, TT 55, after Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London, 1941), detail of pl. 21.

101

WRITING RAMESSIDE HIERATIC: WHAT THE LATE-EGYPTIAN MISCELLANIES TELL US ABOUT SCRIBAL EDUCATION

Ogden Goelet, Jr. New York University

Introduction I first met Richard Fazzini an unmentionable number of years ago when we sat next to each other in class, reading Middle Egyptian texts with Henry Fischer. So, on the occasion of his Festschrift, I think it would be fitting to return to the school milieu as a way of reminding us of the wisdom and insights he has taught us all on such a wide range of subjects, from his excavations at the Mut precinct and his contributions to the study of Third Intermediate Period iconography and religion, to say nothing of his delight in Egyptomania and popular perceptions of Egypt. Above all, I offer this essay as a small repayment to Richard’s generosity to students and colleagues alike. We know more about Egyptian education in the Ramesside Period than for any other period,1 yet there are still many important questions that remain unresolved. As part of a much broader study that I am in the process of prepar-

ing, I would like to address one aspect of this vast and complex issue—how did Ramesside scribal students learn to write their Late Egyptian dialect? Although some of our most important manuscripts of Middle Egyptian texts were produced for didactic purposes during the New Kingdom, instruction in Late Egyptian must certainly have been the chief objective of scribal training for the vast majority of students. After all, what could be more practical than the ability to read and write in the contemporary dialect of one’s era? To be sure, instructional material in Middle Egyptian comprises a substantial portion of the evidence on Ramesside education overall, but skill in what had essentially become an obsolete dialect in daily usage most likely would have represented a later specialization in the curriculum.2 During the Ramesside Period, the vast preponderance of Middle Egyptian texts with known provenances, whether on ostraca or papyri, derive from the specialized environment of Deir elMedina (and the Theban West Bank generally),3

1 The literature on Egyptian education generally, and in the Ramesside Period in particular, is too sizable to list here, but a good synopsis has been provided by Helmut Brunner, “Erzieher,” LÄ 2, 20–22, and “Erziehung,” LÄ 2, 22–27. The present study has drawn especially on John Baines and Christopher Eyre, “Interactions between Orality and Literacy in Ancient Egypt,” in Literacy and Society, ed. Karen Schousboe and Mogens T. Larsen (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989), 91–118; Helmut Brunner, Altägyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957); Adolf Erman, Die ägyptischen Schülerhandschriften, APAW, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1925, 2 (Berlin, 1925); and Alessandro Roccati, ed., La scuola nell’antico Egitto (Turin: Museo Egizio di Torino, 1997). 2 Jac J. Janssen has suggested that one factor in the persistence of Middle Egyptian in a community such as Deir el-Medina might have been the status associated with knowledge of the “classics” of Ancient Egypt, rightly akin to a similar status accorded knowledge of Latin and Greek texts in Europe over the past few centuries; see Jac J. Janssen, “Literacy and Letters at Deir el-Medîna,” in Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium “Texts from Deir el-Medîna and their Interpretation,” ed. Robert J. Demarée and Arno Egberts,

CNWS Publications 13 (Leiden: Centre of Non-Western Studies, Leiden University, 1992), 81–94. In a similar vein, Andrea McDowell has suggested some texts like Kemyt, among the most common of all Middle Kingdom didactic texts found at Deir el-Medina, were used primarily with the intention of training students in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony, the vertical mode of tomb inscriptions, The Book of the Dead, and other funerary equipment, see McDowell, “Teachers and Students at Deir el-Medina,” in Deir elMedina in the Third Millennium AD, ed. R.J. Demarée and A. Egberts, Egyptologische Uitgaven 14 (Leiden: Nederlands Insituut voor het Nabje Oosten, 2000), 217–233, esp. 231– 232; I would like to thank Dr. Deborah Sweeney for this reference. For similar conclusions about the purpose of the Kemyt and related texts, see Ogden Goelet, “Ancient Egyptian Scripts—Literary, Sacred, and Profane,” in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 20–21. 3 For a survey of the provenances and dates of many of the Middle Egyptian texts dating to the Ramesside

what the late-egyptian miscellanies tell us about scribal education where the older dialect still had an important function as the formal language, an “officialese,” so to speak, employed in a wide range of highregister texts such as royal inscriptions, tomb texts, the religious afterlife works such as the Book of the Dead, and other materials connected with what one might rightly describe as the mortuary industry of Thebes.4

What Identifies a Manuscript as Didactic? My discussion here shall concentrate on the collection of the student texts generally known as Late-Egyptian Miscellanies,5 with some occasional references to The Satirical Letter.6 Some of the literary tales published in Gardiner’s Late-Egyptian Stories may have also come out of the didactic process, but since most of those papyri lack what are probably the most reliable indications of didactic materials—a high degree of repetitiveness and preservation in many copies or editions—we can not be certain as to their nature. In this preliminary study, I shall restrict the discussion almost entirely to papyri, since, with few exceptions, we identify texts on ostraca as being thematically didactic because they possess parallels on papyri, rather than the other way around. The individual papyri among the Miscellanies are essentially collections of works with a similar tone and subject matter; many are model letters or Period, see Stephen G. Quirke, “Archive,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, ed. Antonio Loprieno, Probleme der Ägyptologie 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 379–401. 4 For an excellent overview of the vagaries in the usage of the Middle and Late Egyptian dialects in both the documentary and literary registers during the Ramesside Period, see Friedrich Junge, Late Egyptian Grammar: An Introduction, trans. David Warburton (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2001), 15–25, and especially 31–45; henceforth abbreviated as Junge, LEG. For a shorter discussion that is focused more on the peculiarities of documentary Late Egyptian, see Jaroslav ˇ Cern y´ and Sarah I. Groll, A Late Egyptian Grammar, 4th ed., Studia Pohl, Series Maior 4 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1993), 1–10. A brief treatment that covers the interaction between the hieroglyphic system, hieratic script, and the orthography appears in Antonio Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 21–22. 5 Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, BiAe 7 (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1937); Ricardo O. Caminos, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, Brown Egyptological Studies 1 (London: Oxford University Press, 1954). 6 Hans-Werner Fischer-Elfert, Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I: Textzusammenstelluung, KÄT (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983); and Fischer-Elfert, Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I: Übersetzung und Kommentar, ÄA 44 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986).

103

else texts thematically similar to The Satire on the Trades. These texts share several characteristics: repetition or copying of certain texts; specialized vocabulary and stock phraseology connected to this milieu; and marked references to teachers and student-teacher relationship in titles, as well as to the learning process and the schoolroom milieu. In addition, we can speak of a distinctive appearance that these papyri present: frequent use of rubrics, particularly at the beginning of each section; rubricized grh. -signs to mark their close; dates that most probably indicated the completion of a lesson unit;7 and a special orientation of fiber and text common to nearly all “literary” papyri.8 A frequently present, but less reliable, feature of didactic materials is the presence of “verse points,” a detail that I shall examine at greater length near the end of this paper. At the risk of exaggerating somewhat, one might say that the contrast in quality between the fluid, clear, elegant handwriting and the numerous orthographical and grammatical inaccuracies in these texts is one of the most curious aspects of these papyri.9 The scripts are usually quite studied, to use an appropriate description. In fact, the high quality of handwriting is often such that these documents sometimes can appear like exercises in calligraphy, even if the hieratic forms used are hardly free of errors.10 These papyri leave one with the impression that the chief objective at this stage of instruction was to produce documents 7 See Andrea G. McDowell, “Student Exercises from Deir el-Medina: The Dates,” in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 2, ed. Peter Der Manuelian (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996), 601–608. 8 For a description of the manner in which documenˇ tary papyri were handled, see Jaroslav Cern y, ´ Late Egyptian Letters, BiAe 9 (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1939), xvii–xx. The reason for this arrangement perhaps lay in the fact that papyrus was available in rolls, where the side with the horizontal fibers running parallel to the outside upper edge was normally placed on the inside surface of the roll. Apparently, this arrangement allowed for easier storage of rolls. Consequently, the surface with this fiber orientation was always the better protected of the two surfaces. 9 Significantly, Alan H. Gardiner, in his introduction to his edition of the major Late Egyptian student papyri, frequently uses the word “uncial,” to describe the handwriting, thereby employing a term frequently used to describe the calligraphic hands of classical and medieval manuscripts; see Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, xii–xxi passim [henceforth cited here as Gardiner, LEM]. At the same time, he also rightly descries “the extreme carelessness of the orthography,” ibid., xi. 10 These inaccurate forms are catalogued in Gardiner, LEM, 140a–141.

104

ogden goelet, jr.

in an elegant hand, since the students’ later additions to the texts more frequently focused on correcting the style or form of a hieratic character instead of attempting to emend the orthography or grammar. One can view the work of the “pupils” Inene and Pentawere as among the most attractive and clear of all Ramesside scribal hands, indeed, as models for modern students learning hieratic.11

The Concept of Orthography in the Context of the Egyptian Language The great majority of student mistakes are orthographic errors, so called—i.e., forming words with inappropriate letters, or putting those elements in an incorrect sequence. Yet, how applicable can the term “orthography” be to these Ramesside texts? What we mean by orthography and correct spelling when applied to modern languages is essentially the conventional representation of a word in the written form of high-register texts, regardless of how it may sound. Of course, the problem is far more complex than this simplified definition, because orthography, particularly in the context of English, is in many ways a cultural phenomenon. In general, orthographical problems are a reflection of how phonological developments in the spoken, living language of a culture usually outstrip the development of the written language. English, for example, has many conventional—some would say fossilized— spellings of words dating back centuries. Imported foreign vocabulary can also cause a disparity between the way in which words sound and the way in which they are written. On these grounds alone, we can see that the types of orthographical errors that a modern European or American student might make while working with a vocalized and alphabetically based writing system would not have good counterparts in the context of the Egyptian language. Oddly enough, some of the same features of handwriting and

11 In this respect, I follow Möller’s estimation of the hand of “Ennene,” the scribe who produced pAnastasi IV, pAnastasi VI, and pAnastasi VII among the Miscellanies, as well as pAnastasi II (The Tale of Two Brothers) and pSallier II (a collection of several Middle Kingdom texts). Möller employed “Ennene” and “Pentoere” as exemplars for the Merenptah-Sety II columns in Georg Möller, Hieratische Paläographie 2, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927); and Möller, Hieratische Lesestücke für den akademischen Gebrauch 2, Literarische Texte des Neuen Reiches (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927), pls.

format that characterize Ramesside didactic papyri, with the obvious exception of fiber orientation, can also be found with materials on ostraca.12 This fact strongly suggests that the underlying didactic process was fairly independent of the text medium employed. Largely due to the space available and the often uneven writing surface, elegance in handwriting is less evident on ostraca. The concept of orthography has two additional deficiencies when applied to the Egyptian language. First and foremost, when orthographical variations appear in modern languages, particularly when they are connected with dialectal differences, the diverse spellings are expressed mostly through changes in vowels—e.g., British English has “plough,” which appears as “plow” in American English, yet vowels were not indicated in the Egyptian writing system. Consonants, of course, may also vary, but except for d/d ¯ and t/t, such shifts occur far less often in Egyp¯ tian. Consequently, substantial dialectal variants in orthography are readily seen while browsing through a Coptic dictionary, but are considerably harder to identify in earlier stages of the language. Secondly, a text’s register had a marked effect on the way in which Egyptian words were written. Register, in turn, was often connected with the medium of the text. For instance, a word could have quite a different form on a royal stela than it would in the hieratic of a documentary papyrus. In order to understand what lay behind the disparity between orthography and calligraphy in the Miscellanies, we must also consider two other closely related problems—who were the students and how were they taught how to write?

Who were the Students and How Did They Learn to Write? The scribes who wrote the Miscellanies appear to have been relatively advanced in their training and can be justly called apprentice scribes. 1–20 (pD’Orbiney) and pl. 25 (pSallier II). 12 It is often possible to distinguish between literary and non-literary ostraca by such external features as handwriting and presentational format; see Annie Gasse, “Les ostraca hiératiques littéraires de Deir el-Medina: Nouvelles orientations de la publication,” in Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium “Texts from Deir el-Medîna and their Interpretation,” ed. Robert J. Demarée and Arno Egberts (Leiden: Centre of Non-Western Studies, Leiden University, 1992), 52–53.

what the late-egyptian miscellanies tell us about scribal education

105

In colophons and the headings of their model letters, they identify themselves with the title “scribe,” the same rank held by their instructors, although the difference in status is palpable throughout the Miscellanies. The subject matter of many of these model letters gives the game away, since they are frequently styled as instructions and admonitions from the master scribe addressed to the student, who was the person actually writing out the text. The great scarcity of what appears to be the work of true beginners in the art of writing— pieces that one might compare to the exercises of modern elementary school students practicing their ABCs—is probably not simply due to accidents of preservation.13 Among other factors, the very size of the Egyptian character set would have made practicing individual characters impractical. It appears that the beginners’ practice exercises instead involved reproducing whole phrases such as lines of titulary, gods’ epithets, and occasionally stock phrases. Examples of that sort, significantly, are found on ostraca, which were eminently disposable;14 writing boards may have also been employed in the early stages of instruction, since these were readily erasable. The very phrase “writing practice” implies repetition based a model, yet we are not certain how that reproduction was effectuated, for no papyrus has yet come to light that we can confidently identify

as a teacher’s model.15 Several possibilities offer themselves—students may have simply copied a model text supplied by an experienced scribe; or else they may have first committed a passage to heart, then attempted to reproduce it from memory; finally, there is the possibility of an Egyptian equivalent of the French dictée, whereby the teacher slowly dictated an exercise that the student would be required to write down correctly.16 Other evidence indicates that students may have been required to produce a pensium, or a quota of lines on a daily basis.17 Since we are so uncertain about the mechanics of didactic practice, it is probably best that we use the neutral term “reproduction” to describe the process. Nonetheless, all three methods of instruction—direct copying, copying from memory, and taking dictation— were probably employed at various times during a scribe’s training, because each process developed a necessary scribal skill. Of the three processes, Egyptologists probably are apt to devalue the importance of simple transcription in didactic exercises, not appreciating the difficulties that this sort of exercise would pose for someone learning and dealing with hieratic on a daily basis. We probably greatly underestimate how important copying was for scribes who probably frequently needed to produce accurate “fair copies” from drafts, particularly for documentary purposes.18 In the final analysis, it is impossible to be

13 Turin Ostracon CGT 57300 (= S. 6389), excavated by Schiaparelli at Deir el-Medina, is marked off on both sides in a grid-work pattern of small rectangles, into which a beginning student has practiced writing individual hieratic signs; see Roccati, ed., La scuola nell’antico Egitto, 79 and Jésus López, Ostraca ieratici n. 57093–57319, Catalogo generale del Museo Egizio di Torino, vol. 3, 2 (Milan: Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1980), 69 with pl. 95a. 14 For an example of this more typical sort of beginners’ exercise, where the student has repeatedly written whole phrases, such as fragments of official titulary or divine names and epithets, rather than focusing on single characters, see the ostraca CGT 57101 and 57471; see Roccati, La scuola nell’antico Egitto, 77–78. 15 A possible example of a teacher’s master copy, but not one on papyrus, might be the oversized Ashmolean Ostracon of Sinuhe, which has been described by one observer as the equivalent of a classroom blackboard, see Richard Parkinson, “The History of a Poem: Middle Kingdom Literary Manuscripts and their Reception,” in KonTexte: Akten des Symposions “Spurensuche—Altägypten im Spiegel seiner Texte.” München 2. bis 4. Mai 2003, ed. Günter Burkard et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 61, and Jochen Kahl, “‘Es ist vom Anfang bis zum Ende so gekommen, wie es in der Schrift gefunden worden war’. Zur Überlieferung der Erzählung des Sinuhe,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf ”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Festschrift Oswald Loretz, ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, AOAT 250

(Ugarit-Verlag: Münster, 1998), 392–393. I would like to thank Dr. Richard Parkinson for these references. 16 Presumably, this instructional method would lead to errors caused by students mishearing or similarly misunderstanding what the instructor had said, leading to the socalled “Hörfehler,” an idea that has been sharply critiqued by Wolfgang Schenkel, “Kritisches zur Textkritik: Die sogenannten Hörfehler,” GM 29 (1978): 119–126. Simple copying errors are more probable in the majority of cases. 17 Hans-Werner Fischer-Elfert, “Vermischtes II,” GM 135 (1993): 32–34; Georges Posener, “Les ostraca numérotés et le conte du revenant,” in Drevnii Vostok 1, Fs. M.A. Korostovtsev, ed. Iuri S. Katsnelson (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Nauka, 1975), 105–112; and Andrea G. McDowell, “Student Exercises from Deir el-Medina: The Dates,” in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 2, ed. Peter Der Manuelian (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996), 606. 18 Shafik Allam, “Sind die nichtliterarischen Schriftostraka Brouillons?” JEA 54 (1968): 121–128, has raised the possibility that many “documentary” ostraca were used as drafts for later transcription as more formal documents, most likely on papyri. This question has been extensively studied in the recent work by K. Donker van Heel and B.J.J. Haring, “Did the Deir el-Medina scribes use drafts in daily scribal practices?”, Chap. 1 in Writing in a Workmen’s Village: Scribal Practice in Ramesside Deir el-Medina, Egyptologische Uitgaven 16 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut vor het Nabije Oosten, 2003), 1–38.

106

ogden goelet, jr.

truly certain as to whether a student was simply transcribing a document or attempting to reproduce it from memory, but a survey of spelling errors can reveal many insights.

Late Egyptian Orthography and the Trend towards Abstraction For reasons we probably will never know, sometime during the reign of Ramesses II, Late Egyptian, which had doubtlessly long been the spoken language of daily life, replaced the antiquated Middle Egyptian dialect for most documentary purposes in official and civil life. Middle Egyptian continued to be employed, but predominantly in a rather restricted register, and in specialized contexts such as the reproduction of Middle Egyptian literary texts, some royal inscriptions, funerary objects and texts, and a wide variety of religious materials. We should note that these were also roughly the same contexts in which hieroglyphs were apt to be used at this moment in Egyptian history. There seems to have been something of an established orthography in the Egyptian language—words with similar consonantal structures were frequently distinctively written. It is fair to say that we actually have little grasp of why a given word should be written with certain signs, but not with other characters, particularly when biliteral signs and their phonetic complements were concerned. For instance, a limited number of words containing the consonants m + r might show some variation between (Sign-list U7) and (Sign-list N36), yet these words seldom interchange either of these signs with (Signlist U23), which can equally represent mr. Thus, or mr, “pyramid” is normally written appear. Yet but no variants in the form * (Sign-list another possibility—writing mr with O5) instead—occurs only in a very limited number of terms. Similarly, a very high percentage of words containing the letters m + n together write mn rather than these using the combination , whereas another biliteral sign (Sign-list T1) with the value mn was used only in inscrip-

19 James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) § 16.2.4. 20 For a discussion of the transliteration problems, exclusive of those that arise out of group writing, faced by those dealing with the Late Egyptian dialect, see Junge, LEG, 33–

tional texts as a more compact writing of the common ritual phrase m n.k “take to your.19 In the latter inself,” more fully written stance, we can sense the influences of aesthetics and compactness in the choice between alternative writings. Nonetheless, the difference between the Middle Egyptian and Late Egyptian orthography is considerable. As anyone who has taught even very adept students can attest, there is considerable distress when they first attempt to look up Late Egyptian words and find that their old friend, Faulkner’s Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, has become pretty much unusable. On the other hand, it is quite telling that most modern grammars and dictionaries of Late Egyptian have adopted a transliteration system that is heavily based on the Middle Egyptian forms of those words, where they existed. Egyptologists today, well aware of both the apparently erratic nature of Late Egyptian orthography as well as the palpable disparity between graphical representation and pronunciation, have almost universally adopted some expedient mixture of the two dialects. Overall, there are several trends in Late Egyptian orthography that have led scholars to this transliteration strategy:20 superfluous signs appear frequently in many writings where they functioned essentially as space fillers; there was also a growing trend for determinatives to function less as sense signs (semograms or taxograms)21 and increasingly as word dividers; finally, some grammatical features of Late Egyptian allowed the writing system to treat nouns and verbs more as immutable elements. For example, a Late Egyptian word might have two or three determinatives, whereas its Middle Egyptian counterpart might have had only one. Furthermore, when one compares a Ramesside word to what was clearly its Middle Egyptian equivalent, the Late Egyptian version frequently substitutes biliteral signs for simple alphabetical characters, probably due to the increased influence of hieratic on the orthography overall. Similarly, phonemic or grammatical terminations such as -w, -t, -ı", -y, and various combinations of the same, often have

41. It is perhaps significant that a most influential Late Egyptian grammar, Adolf Erman, Neuägyptische Grammatik, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1933, repr. Hildesheim, 1968), seldom accompanied its discussions with transliterations at all. 21 For these terms, see Junge, LEG, 39.

what the late-egyptian miscellanies tell us about scribal education

107

no discernable function, yet are consistently attached to words in which they were absent in Middle Egyptian. One can encounter examples of this phenomenon in such common words such hpr, “become, exfor #k. , “enter,” as ˘ " " ıı, “come, arrive.” Junge describes ist,” and such endings as redundant, saying, “… the writings do not fulfill any linguistic role, and can consequently be ignored.”22 Similarly, Coptic and other evidence indicates that the - A in the definite article p A, etc., though consistently written, was almost certainly not pronounced by this stage. Although such terminations had no phonemic or grammatical function, by Ramesside times these endings had nonetheless become intrinsic parts of the words in which they appeared and were rarely omitted. In a parallel development, the initial sign or signs in a word tended to be written in such a fashion as to stand clearly out from the rest of the text, so as to bracket off the individual words visually.23 In sum, the Late Egyptian orthographical system seems primarily intended to make it simple to identify individual words by sight, rather than to represent any distinctive sounds that the words might contain. In fact, grammatical aspects of the new dialect, such as the use of the definite article and genitival adjectives in the form of p Ay.f, etc., before nouns, combined with a shift towards analytic rather than synthetic structures in the verbal system, meant that many syntactical features of a sentence could be now conveyed by means other than phonetic representation alone. The result, from the ancient apprentice’s viewpoint, was that once a vocabulary item had been acquired, it seldom had to be modified internally for use. A Ramesside scribal student probably faced a much easier task than did his Middle Kingdom counterpart. In addition to this somewhat irregular system of orthography, words could also be represented according to a stricter form of spelling, the so-

called syllabic orthography, wherein words were written out according to a limited system of twophoneme signs complemented by an “alphabetical” value, each sound having an explicit value represented by this sharply reduced repertoire of signs—the very appearance of these words sets them apart from the more standard vocabulary.24 In group writing, each phonemic element consists of two signs—either two alphabetical signs or else a biliteral sign followed by its phonetic complement or a small vertical stroke (Sign-list Z1). Junge aptly described the purpose of this system as follows: “It must again be emphasized that group writing was intended primarily to enable the specification of phonemes, replacing the earlier ‘alphabetic’ / one-phoneme graphemes, because these were no longer able to fulfill their roles due to historical sound change.”25 Group writing was employed primarily for foreign names, toponyms, and loan words, but occasionally too in the spelling for specialized, technical terminology—words associated with botany, medicine, mineralogy, etc.—as well as with a few well-established Egyptian roots, such as r-bl “outside” (Coptic ebol).26 Significantly, in didactic texts, many such examples of normal Egyptian terms written by means of group writing are not true allographs, but appear rather to be instances where a scribe most likely forgot the standard writing of that word and therefore resorted to spelling it out according to the principles of “group writing,” phoneme by phoneme. Even though “group writing” distinctly did not involve an abstract rendering of the word in question, the term itself emphasizes the Late Egyptian scribe’s tendency to think of words more in terms of groups of strokes rather than as sequences of graphemically distinct elements. As a consequence of these and several other factors, a sizable proportion of Late Egyptian hieratic vocabulary became increasingly divorced from both its graphemic and phonemic bases,27

Junge, “Sign redundancy,” LEG, 33, § 1.1.1. John Baines and Christopher Eyre pointed out the importance of initial signs in an apt description of some hieratic handwriting, “… the initial signs in a word retain distinct shapes, while subsequent signs tend to deteriorate into series of squiggles”; see “Interactions,” 97. 24 The most detailed description of this system, its development, and its underlying phonology is contained in James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 399–512. 25 Junge, LEG, 43 (§ 1.2.2).

26 Junge, LEG, 43–44 (§ 1.2.2, (3)), with special attention to the shaded sidebar. 27 The recognition among scholars of the disparity between writing and the actual function of signs in Late Egyptian has had a profound effect on how texts in this dialect are transliterated. The tendency has often been to base the transliteration on a theoretical Middle Egyptian counterpart of the word or words in question. Confronted with the problem of transliterating Late Egyptian, in his important Neuägyptische Grammatik, Adolf Erman adopted what one might call a counsel of despair and rarely supplied complete transliterations for his examples.

22 23

108

ogden goelet, jr.

This reform, if it can be so described, of Egyptian orthography meant that scribal training could be accomplished by teaching students to learn words as entire units rather than to concentrate on rendering (and understanding) the individual characters. Here we can see echoes of the “whole words” versus “phonics” controversy in teaching contemporary American students how to read and write. Although this didactic method must have allowed for rapid instruction in the sizable Egyptian character set, it did lend itself to certain types of errors because words were almost mechanically reproduced. For instance, whatever else one may say about student mistakes with determinatives—be they simply miswritten, wrongly substituted, or even omitted altogether29—it is highly unlikely that such errors arose from confusions between homophones. wd A, When a scribe wrote the adjective ¯ the “house” deter“healthy,” mistakenly with minative, resulting in the word “storeroom” instead,30 he was in effect confusing the all-important terminal mnemonic/classification devices rather than similar sounds. In the context of the Egyptian language, the student was thus not making a careless slip similar to when we today write “there” for “their,” but, rather, it meant that

the scribe had ignored a critical signal that he had written a word belonging to a category entirely different from the intended term. A goodly number of the student “corruptions” that Gardiner listed in his index to the Miscellanies involved blunders of this sort. The most reasonable explanation for the frequency of such determinative errors is that the student knew the meaning of the phrase he was writing, but he had at best a tenuous knowledge of the significance of the individual components of the words; he most likely was substituting one wd A-shaped word in hieratic for a ¯ similarly formed wd A-word. ¯ One can generally extend these observations about determinative errors to nearly all of the remaining categories of Gardiner’s “corruptions”— transpositions or omissions of letters, mixtures of two unrelated but common words, confusion arising from partially homophonous words, and, especially, confusion due to hieratic signs of similar appearance. Thus, when a scribe wrote the nonexistent sfnd for the common word sft, “slaughter,” in the phrase “oxen are slaughtered and wine is opened,”31 he inadvertently provides us with the underlying cause for a great many of these “corruptions.” As he wrote sft, he more or less automatically interpolated another common word, fnd, “nose,” in place of the correct ft, even though he certainly would have known both the meaning and the sound of what he was writing. This type of error is more correctly described as a writing error than a spelling mistake in our sense of the term, because it is highly unlikely that an incorrect understanding of phonetics played much of a role in this instance or with any of the other “corruptions.” At this juncture, it is important to bear in mind that the students were working in hieratic, not hieroglyphs, so their mistakes involved employing erroneous groups of brushstrokes, almost surely because they only had visual, not phonetic, memories (or models) of the words—this would be the natural result of a “whole word” method of instruction. These “orthographical” errors ironically demonstrate that the student scribes usually had a rather shallow knowledge of the component characters underlying their hieratic script, and occasionally

28 The diagonal strokes or slashes in this document seem to be more frequent in the more “contemporary” sections in this papyrus and less in the passages based on older, wellknown exercises. 29 When it comes to errors with determinatives, these are listed under Gardiner’s index of “corruptions,” types 1–3,

see Gardiner, LEM, 139–139a. 30 pAnast. III 4, 7, see Gardiner, LEM, 24, a text that significantly has “verse points,” increasing the probability that it was copied; see my remarks on “verse points” below, p. 109. 31 pAnast. IV 3,7 – 3,8, see Gardiner, LEM, 37–38.

a reflection of a universal tendency for written forms of languages to change at a slower pace than the phonetic shifts occurring in their spoken forms. By the 20th Dynasty, the introduction of large and small diagonal strokes as sign abbreviations in common words and formulaic expressions heightened the level of abstraction in hieratic. The use of these strokes or slashes can be quite extensive in official documents, and occasionally occurs even in student material. As a rough measure of the growing frequency of replacing distinctive characters with strokes, it is interesting to compare the overall appearance of P. Lansing, which dates to the end of the 20th Dynasty, with the earlier didactic papyri in LateEgyptian Miscellanies.28

Orthography and Ramesside Instruction

what the late-egyptian miscellanies tell us about scribal education

109

In closing this survey of the didactic methodology of Miscellanies, I would like to make a few brief remarks on a rather complex and controversial aspect of these texts and many other Late Egyptian literary sources, namely “verse points,” those red dots placed slightly above the line on hieratic texts. It is not my purpose here to rehearse all the complex arguments, pro and con, as to whether these marks are actually indications of an Egyptian metric system.34 However, one thing is unde-

niable about their usage. They appear most frequently in two categories of documents—didactic texts and late copies of Middle Kingdom literature. As Tacke has shown in his detailed study of the verse points in Miscellanies, their use is rather irregular, appearing in some papyri and not in others. In the papyri that contain verse points, these marks do not necessarily appear throughout the documents.35 Furthermore, even within the Miscellanies, one must wonder about the very terminology “verse points,” since they are absent in places where they would be most expected, such as some hymns, yet are present in some in rather mundane, un-poetic letters and similar documents.36 The latter case is not surprising, since similar dots can be found on real accounts papyri and comparable documentary materials, including two of the “scholarly” Amarna tablets.37 Anyone who has made a copy of a detailed financial account, or who has transferred a lengthy roster of names from one piece of paper to another, will understand one possible use for such marks—these might well be the scribe’s check marks that allowed him to insure that all the relevant entries on the master document had been correctly transferred over to the copy.38 In the case of the Miscellanies, we can suppose that either the student scribe or his teacher has checked the completion (and accuracy) of the copy against the master document, unit by unit. This procedure

32 The errors in the versions of The Satrical Letter have been analyzed and categorized by Hans-Werner FischerElfert, Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I: Übersetzung und Kommentar, 249–260. One of the chief conclusions of this examination is that, “Es wurde im textkritischen Kommentar vorliegender Arbeit mehrfach darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß sämtliche Textverderbnisse des Anastasi I auf Abschreibefehler nach direkter Vorlage zurückzuführen sind,” ibid., 249. 33 Ibid.: “Die zahlreichen Belege des Zeichens statt , die sich über den gesamten Textverlauf erstrecken, lassen an dem technischen Vorgang der Kopie, nämlich Abschrift nach Vorlage, überhaupt keinen Zweifel aufkommen.” For the usual forms of these characters in Ramesside hieratic, see Möller, Hieratische Paläographie 2, #253 (Sign-list K1) vs. #132 (Sign-list E34). 34 The literature on the subject is vast, but thorough overviews have been presented by G. Burkhard, “Metrik, Prosodie und formaler Aufbau ägyptischer literarischer Texte,” in Loprieno, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature, 447–463, and Joachim F. Quack, Die Lehren des Ani: Ein neuägyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen Umfeld, OBO 141 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 67–70. Briefer and quite useful discussions of the underlying problems can also be found in Richard B. Parkinson, Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt: A Dark Side to Perfection, Athlone Publications in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies (London: Continuum, 2002), 115–117, and Baines and Eyre, “Oral-

ity,” 106–107. For a detailed treatment of the use of these markers in the Miscellanies, see Nikolaus Tacke, Verspunkte als Gliederungsmittel in ramessidischen Schülerhandschriften, SAGA 22 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2001), henceforth abbreviated Tacke, Verspunkte. 35 See the overview of usage in Tacke, Verspunkte, 137–145. 36 On the types of literary papyri in which verse points appear, ibid., 145. 37 In this respect, it is particularly informative that examples of “verse points” can be found on two literary tablets— the Adapa and Ereshkigal epics—among the Amarna archive of cuneiform texts. Although it is conceivable that these dots conform to some metrical scheme, it seems much more likely that ancient Egyptian foreign language students, by inking points onto the finished tablets, were importing and imposing a didactic/scribal technique from their culture into the realm of Akkadian. For discussions of these literary texts and their use of points, see Anne F. Robertson, “Word Dividers, Spot Markers, and Clause Markers in Old Assyrian, Ugaritic, and Egyptian Texts: Sources for Understanding the Use of the Red Ink Points in the two Amarna Literary Texts, Adapa and Ereshkigal, found in Egypt,” (PhD diss., New York University, 1994), and Schlomo Izre"el, The Amarna Scholarly Tablets, Cuneiform Monographs 9 (Gronigen: Styx, 1997). 38 For an example of this practice on a documentary papyrus, where items a thief had stolen were checked off, most likely against a list on a more extensive papyrus,

were simply trying to write out something with a similar shape. In his studies on the roughly contemporary Satirical Letter, the other major Late Egyptian didactic text, Fischer-Elfert also noted many errors of this type. He came to the conclusion that a sizable proportion of these and many other errors in pAnastasi I, the most complete and bestpreserved source for this text, could likewise be ascribed to mistakes in transcription,32 most likely from a teacher’s model manuscript. Particularly telling in this respect were the frequent substitutions of (Sign-list K1) for (Sign-list E34), errors which would certainly arise from the close similarity of their forms in hieratic and not through any vocalic confusion.33

“Verse Points” and Didactic Texts

110

ogden goelet, jr.

would be appropriate for documents of virtually any type, and would explain the presence of division points in many contexts where they might otherwise seem inappropriate. In sum, the need for checking the accuracy of one’s work is perhaps the best reason for the extensive use of verse points in the Miscellanies, an explanation seemingly confirmed by two quite significant observations of Tacke’s. He has convincingly demonstrated that the verse points were added subsequent to the writing of the main text and often seem to have been inserted rather hastily; in a few instances the dot was inserted at the same time that an emendation was made.39 These facts are hardly surprising, since it would

be highly impractical for a scribe to switch between red and black brushes and still maintain a fluid ductus. It probably can never be definitively proved in a given instance whether students at this stage of their training were reproducing from memory, transcribing from model papyri, or writing dictées. Nevertheless, when the evidence supplied from the verse points, in addition to the “corruptions” that Gardiner studied, are evaluated together, in most cases the likeliest choice between the possible methods would be direct copying from a model papyrus produced by the teacher. Of course, as they gained skill and confidence, this picture would probably change.

see Ogden Goelet, “A new ‘Robbery’ Papyrus: Rochester MAG 51.346.1,” JEA 82 (1996): pls. 9–10, with pp. 112, note (a) and 119; similarly, William Kelly Simpson, Papyrus Reisner I: Records of a Building Project in the Reign of Sesostris I (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1961), 23 and 32. Posener

too once proposed that the system of verse points may have had their origin in such practices in documentary materials; see Georges Posener, “Sur l’emploi de l’encre rouge dans les manuscripts égyptiens,” JEA 37 (1951): 77. 39 Tacke, Verspunkte, 137–145.

THE DREXEL COLLECTION: FROM EGYPT TO THE DIASPORA

W. Benson Harer, Jr. California State University, San Bernardino

Even professional Egyptologists may be surprised to hear that at the turn of the last century, one of the largest American collections of Egyptian antiquities resided at Drexel University in Philadelphia. I stumbled upon this fact in 1975, and have enjoyed tracking down its fate as it was sold from Drexel to the Minneapolis Institute of Fine Arts (now Minneapolis Institute of Arts) in 1916, and then dispersed without fanfare on the art market in the 1950s. The story behind this collection is of interest in its own right, but furthermore, provides basic information that will permit curators and collectors of Egyptian antiquities to identify pieces from the original collection and restore some of their lost provenance. Francis Martin Drexel was an artist who fled military conscription by Napoleon in Austria early in the nineteenth century. He traveled through Europe, North America, and South America as an itinerant portrait painter. Of necessity, he became an expert in currency exchange. In his later years, he converted this skill to formal banking in Philadelphia with such success that by the time of his death in 1863, he ranked among the wealthiest men in America. His descendants have carried on a tradition of charitable largess to this day, but the key figure in this tale is his grandson, Col. Anthony J. Drexel, Jr. His banker father founded the Drexel Institute of Art, Science and Industry in 1891.1 Col. Drexel donated the Egyptian collection to the Institute’s Museum in 1895.2 The popular fascination with ancient Egypt that captivates us today was just as strong then. Col. Drexel had the cash and the contacts to quickly acquire a spec-

tacular collection of antiquities, and he did. In a single purchase he bought a shipment of about 9,000 pounds of antiquities—mummies with their sarcophagi, stelae, papyri, bronzes, pottery, glass, jewelry, amulets, scarabs, coins, sculpture, shabtis, tools and utensils from Predynastic to Roman Period—a panoply of the ancient civilization.3 Prior to the tightening of Egyptian laws in 1928 in the wake of the discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo freely sold genuine antiquities that were regarded as superfluous. Col. Drexel knew this and contacted the director of the Antiquities Service, Auguste Mariette, to purchase a representative collection. Mariette’s co-worker for many of his early expeditions was the preeminent German philologist, Heinrich Brugsch. Brugsch was a towering intellectual whose prolific scholarly writings had enormous impact on the developing field of Egyptology.4 Heinrich’s brother, Emile, was 15 years younger. In 1870, he came to Egypt to assist Heinrich in the khedive’s newly founded School of Egyptology. The school was closed in 1879, but Emile stayed on. He became a friend of Mariette, and in 1883 was appointed keeper of the antiquities in the Bulaq Museum and later the Cairo Museum.5 He remained in that position until he retired in 1914. From that position, Brugsch managed all sales of antiquities. Col. Drexel paid him $ 3,000 to produce a collection for him to donate to the new school’s museum.6 These dry facts do not begin to tell the story of this colorful and powerful character. The younger Brugsch had a reputation for being versatile, adventurous and scheming.7 He did the photo-

1 Dan Rottenberg, “The Drexel Century,” Town & Country, November, 1991. Gives history without mention of museum. 2 Drexel University Archives, “Catalogue of the Collection made by Brugsch,” presented 1895. 3 Letter from Hollis Godfrey to Joseph Breck, dated Jan. 11, 1916, Minneapolis Institute of Fine Arts Archives. 4 Warren R. Dawson, Eric P. Uphill, and Morris L.

Bierbrier, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 3rd rev. edition (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1995), 67–68. 5 Ibid., 66. 6 Letter by A.J. Drexel, Jr., dated March 8, 1895, MIA Archives. 7 Margaret S. Drower, Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1985), 99, 129, 329.

112

w. benson harer, jr.

graphy and lithography for some of the early catalogues of the Bulaq Museum and the Catalogue Général.8 He chivalrously did the photography and otherwise assisted Janet Benson and Margaret Gourlay in their excavation at the Temple of Mut from 1895 to 1897. This was the first women’s expedition to Egypt.9 Brugsch conducted excavations and, in the absence of the director, served as his surrogate. To top it all, he endeared himself to Ismail Pasha, who rewarded him by marrying him to a woman from his harem.10 He was successively awarded the titles bey and pasha. While a succession of directors came and went over the next 33 years, Emile Brugsch held firmly to his post and his power until he retired in 1914. The younger Brugsch had achieved international recognition in 1881 as the government representative who was the first to view the spectacular cache of royal antiquities discovered by the tomb-robbing Abd el-Rassul family a few years earlier. He supervised the safe transport of this hoard to Cairo. He later included in his sale to Drexel a number of these items, as well as many from the second Deir el-Bahri cache, more recently discovered in 1891. The timing of Drexel’s purchase was also fortunate for both parties. The two Deir el-Bahri caches brought in so much material that storage was a serious problem. Brugsch solved that in part by having the government donate many objects to major national museums, such as the British Museum, the Louvre and the Smithsonian. This bounty also permitted him to select a broad variety of representative items for Drexel. Much of Brugsch’s power derived from his authority to decide what antiquities could be legally exported to other countries. Over the years, the regulations and terms of contracts with excavators have varied with bewildering frequency. One feature has remained constant. The Egyptian Museum can claim any and all items it wants. Thus, for a third of a century, Brugsch was positioned to indirectly shape the content of all foreign collections formed of legally exported antiquities. I believe that the Drexel collection is

the only one that he personally formed and that would accordingly reflect his own connoisseurship. Only those objects that might be approved by the director of the Antiquities Service without Brugsch’s scrutiny could legally slip by. Therefore, it is hardly surprising to learn that Emile Brugsch was not held in the high esteem accorded his brother. British archaeologists, such as Flinders Petrie, disliked him and distrusted him. He was believed to be making personal profits from the museum sales of antiquities.11 The early nineteenth-century treasure hunters, such as Giovanni Belzoni, sought to return to Europe with spectacular large finds for sale. By the end of the century, smaller antiquities were more desired. Brugsch wanted them for sale in his museum store. Excavators, such as Petrie, wanted them because they were easy to transport and divide among the many small contributors who supported his work. Petrie was actually disappointed when he was allowed to take large pieces, while many small objects were taken for the museum. Petrie suspected Brugsch would simply sell them to tourists in the museum shop.12 The sale of antiquities was legal and open. A number of dealers in Cairo and Luxor competed with the Cairo Museum shop. Many excavators, such as Petrie, purchased from them to supplement their finds in order to build collections or obtain more items to give their backers, or to sell for funds to continue their excavations.13 The Egyptian Antiquities Service also purchased from them.14 It was a common practice for excavators to pay their poorly supervised workers extra for the artifacts they unearthed. It was sound policy, providing extra incentive for the diggers to be both productive and careful. Furthermore, it preserved the provenance of the excavated pieces. In some instances when the number of finds was insufficient, workers would bring them from other sites or sell forgeries to an unsuspecting official. Still, it was better than losing the pieces to dealers.15 An informal relationship existed until the recent past whereby the fellahin sold their finds to well-established dealers. The dealers in turn

Dawson and Uphill, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 66. Margaret Benson and Janet Gourlay, The Temple of Mut in Asher (London: John Murray, 1899), viii. 10 Drower, Flinders Petrie, 37. 11 Ibid., 84, 209, 225. 12 Ibid., 37. 13 Ibid., 71.

14 Percy E. Newberry, Funerary Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi, Catalogue généneral des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Cairo (Cairo: IFAO, reprint, 1957), Index of Provenances, 427–429, lists purchased objects. 15 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), 161–162.

8 9

the drexel collection: from egypt to the diaspora provided these items to the Antiquities Service or, if unwanted, to collectors and foreign museums. Recent draconian laws essentially put legitimate dealers out of business. Regrettably, there is much evidence of black-market digging, dealing, and smuggling.16 At the turn of the century, several well-known dealers were selling antiquities in Cairo. N.D. Kytikas sold Frank Griswold the collection donated to the Troy Public Library.17 The American Ralph H. Blanchard operated a “museum” shop next to the Shepheard’s Hotel.18 André Bircher sold many pieces to James Henry Breasted for Chicago’s Oriental Institute collection.19 Reputable dealers in Luxor included Idris Effendi, Jan Herman Insinger, Muhammad Mohassib, and Boulos Todrous.20 Nevertheless, it was Emile Brugsch who was ideally situated to assemble an extensive collection of authentic antiquities. He was chosen by Drexel.

American Collections at the Turn of the Century When modern Egyptologists think of major American collections, their thoughts travel to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, The Brooklyn Museum, The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the Oriental Institute and Field Museum in Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the Walters Art Museum (formerly Gallery) in Baltimore, and the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology (formerly Lowie Museum) in Berkeley. But when the Drexel collection was formed in 1895, these museums had yet to be founded or had minor holdings of Egyptian antiquities. At that time, the Egyptophile would think of Drexel, Johns Hopkins, Yale, and the New-York Historical Society. A notable public American collection in the 1890’s was at The Johns Hopkins University, which in 1884 received a bequest of about 700

16 Bernard V Bothmer, “A Letter from the Egyptian Organization of Antiquities and a Response,” Journal of Field Archaeology 10 (1983): 103–112. Discusses counterproductive effects of new policy. 17 Letter from Gaston Maspero to Frank Griswold, undated, Troy Public Library Archives. 18 Dawson and Uphill, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 50. 19 Ibid., 46. 20 Ibid., 214, 290, 417. 21 Ellen Reeder Williams, The Archaeology Collection of the

113

antiquities collected by Mendes Israel Cohen in 1832. These were supplemented by others from the week-long sale of over 1,000 antiquities collected by Henry Salt and sold at Sotheby’s in 1835.21 This collection was the first traveling exhibition in America. George R. Glidden, credited as the first American writer on Egyptology, borrowed it to illustrate his lectures in the middle 1800’s and took it as far west as St. Louis.22 The New-York Historical Society owned about 450 items collected by Henry Abbott in the middle of the century.23 This was probably the major New York collection in 1895. It was transferred to The Brooklyn Museum, where it now resides, in 1948. Caroline Ransom Williams served as curator of Egyptian antiquities to the New-York Historical Society from 1917 to 1924. It was she who evaluated the Drexel collection at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts in 1935.24 The Peabody Museum at Yale University purchased the Barringer collection in 1890. Victor Way Barringer was an American lawyer who served on the Court of Appeals of the Mixed Tribunals in Alexandria, after being proposed to the khedive by President Ulysses S. Grant. He acquired 948 items during his tenure. The Yale Collection has been catalogued by Dr. Gerry Scott.25 The Troy Public Library, Troy, New York, once boasted an impressive collection, but it was not formed until 1902. It was purchased by Frank B. Griswold from the Cairo dealer N.D. Kytikas. The director general of the Antiquities Service, Gaston Maspero, authenticated it.26 Griswold donated it in honor of his father, John A. Griswold, who manufactured the iron plate armor for the Union’s first ironclad vessel, the Monitor. This collection was auctioned by Sotheby’s, New York, on May 4, 1973. Charles Edwin Wilbour acquired an impressive collection and an extensive library on Egyptology. However, from 1876 until his death in 1896, he divided his time between France and Egypt. Between 1916 and 1930, his family

Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984). 22 Dawson and Uphill, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 169. 23 Ibid., 1, 2. 24 Ibid., 445. 25 Gerry D. Scott, Ancient Egyptian Art at Yale (New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1986). 26 Undated letter from Maspero to Griswold, assures authenticity. Troy Public Library Archives.

114

w. benson harer, jr.

donated both artifacts and books to the Brooklyn Museum collection, which continues as one of America’s finest.27 The Chicago collections at the Field Museum and the Oriental Institute were formed through the first half of the twentieth century. The situation was similar at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. That collection instantly catapulted to a premier position with the donation of the collection of Lord Carnarvon in 1927. Those pieces are correctly identified as gifts of Edward S. Harkness. It is doubtful that the casual visitor associates these items with Lord Carnarvon, the famed sponsor of Howard Carter, discoverer of the tomb of King Tutankhamun. In Boston, the Reverend William Copley Winslow started the American Branch of the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF) in 1883. In recognition of this support from 1883–1891, a number of splendid antiquities came to the Museum of Fine Arts, and some were of monumental proportion.28 Smaller objects, such as shabtis and pottery, were distributed to subscribers in other cities. Dissension in the American Branch of the EEF at the turn of the century led to the dismissal of the Reverend Winslow as honorary secretary for the United States. In 1895, there were about 500 American subscribers.29 The twentiethcentury expeditions of George Reisner and Albert Lythgoe and their successors would build the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to its premier status. Reisner’s expeditions from 1899–1905, sponsored by Phoebe Hearst, yielded a large important collection that now resides in storage at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley.30 Available mainly to scholars, these treasures are largely unpublished. The Archaeological Association of the University of Pennsylvania obtained some objects from Petrie.31 However, the early acquisitions were almost all small objects. Sara Yorke Stevenson, curator of the Egyptian section of the University

27

441.

Dawson and Uphill, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 440–

28 William Copley Winslow, The Truth about the Egypt Exploration Fund (Boston: Privately published, 1903), 153– 156. 29 Ibid., 176, For the history of the American Branch, see Sue D’Auria, “The American Branch of the Egypt Exploration Fund,” in The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor 1, eds. Zahi A. Hawass and Janet Richards (Cairo: Publications du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte, 2007), 185–198.

Museum at the University of Pennsylvania, visited Petrie in Egypt in 1897 to arrange acquisition of antiquities in return for support of his work.32 A colossal sphinx, over 12 feet long, was acquired in 1913 through support of Petrie’s British School of Archaeology in Egypt, which he formed after severing relations with the EEF.33 Eckley Brinton Coxe, Jr., Esq. was honorary secretary of the Philadelphia Branch of the EEF in 1895.34 He later funded the major expeditions of the University Museum to Egypt. These provided most of the monumental pieces of that collection.35 The splendid Egyptian collection of the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore was formed by Henry Walters. That collection reflects his connoisseurship through over 700 purchases in the twentieth century prior to World War II. This brief survey shows that Col. Drexel entered the big time in grand style with the opening of his museum in 1895. It clearly ranked with the best in America at that moment.

The Exodus from Drexel Hollis Godfrey was a dynamic, aggressive graduate of Harvard and MIT who took over as the second president of Drexel Institute in 1913. School and museum were both transformed in his hands, and the course of each was set for most of the rest of the century. The institute was promoted to the status of a degree-granting college, with major expansion that continues to this day. The museum had little place in Godfrey’s vision of the future. To gain both space and funds, President Godfrey sold the entire Egyptian collection, as well as other items, to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts in 1916 for $ 5,000.36 In an era of stable currency, this would be regarded as a nice profit. With the removal of the Egyptian collection, one of the two large rooms comprising the museum was converted into the main reception room for the institute. Apparently, Col. Drexel

30

352. 31 32 33 34

170.

Dawson and Uphill, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 351– Drower, Flinders Petrie, 167. Ibid., 246. The Museum Journal 2 (June, 1914): 49–54. Winslow, The Truth about the Egypt Exploration Fund,

35 The University of Pennsylvania published eight volumes re The Coxe Expeditions, 1909–1911. 36 Letter from Bursar to Hollis Godfrey dated January 27, 1915, MIA Archives.

the drexel collection: from egypt to the diaspora

115

agreed to this deaccession,37 although his feelings are unknown. The museum became a fragment of the institute and went without a director until 1950. A cadre of wealthy, civic-minded residents of Minneapolis had a keen interest in the arts. They formed the Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts in 1883. Their efforts resulted in building a splendid state-of-the-art, fireproof museum that opened to the public on January 7, 1915. The newly purchased Egyptian collection went on display in the fall of 1916.38 Joseph Breck, the first director, negotiated the purchase of the Egyptian collection with Hollis Godfrey. Herbert Winlock, from the Metropolitan Museum in New York, was retained to catalogue, assess, and evaluate the contents. Documents in the archives of both institutions refer to his service.39 Unfortunately, neither party can locate the actual document he prepared. On arrival in Minneapolis, the objects were assigned new accession numbers, and black or white paint was used to label each piece. The year of acquisition was recorded, followed by their new consecutive numbers. In addition, the source, whether Drexel or other, was noted on each accompanying file card. Objects may have as many as three numbers on them: one in red crayon from the packers, a black number from Winlock’s list, which corresponded with the Drexel accession catalogue number, and the new Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) number starting with “16,” the year of acquisition (fig. 1). The 112 Greek and Roman coins were excluded from the sale, but a possible Coptic(?) coin mold was included. The coins were packed away and forgotten. In 1975, I visited the existing small museum of Drexel University. The director, Geraldine Staub, was very cordial and unsurprisingly had little knowledge of the long-gone collection. When later information in Minneapolis archives indicated that the coins were not included in the sale, a search unearthed the longforgotten hoard.40 About 1935, Caroline Ransom Williams was retained by the MIA to catalogue and provide expert commentary on the Egyptian collection. By this time, it had expanded significantly by dona-

tions from Lily Place and to a lesser extent from Thomas B. Walker, who later founded his own museum, The Walker Art Center. All items were photographed, measured, dated, and described in detail. Hieroglyphic translations were provided as needed. Fortunately, the file she developed using the original accession numbers is still in existence. The MIA has been generous in granting me access to it. It is clear from Dr. Williams’s notations that the list produced by Herbert Winlock was available to her as she worked with the collection. She refers to it in several places in her descriptions. Sadly, there is no record as to the disposition of that catalogue, which might provide further useful information. The surviving Drexel Museum catalogue records accession numbers from 638 to 948. This gives a deceptively low impression of the number of objects, as a single number often represents multiple objects. The entry no. 942 is for “Pottery—various ages,” and includes 99 pots. Entry no. 748 notes 52 scarabs, while entry no. 923 has 57 pieces of glass, and so on.

37 Stated by Joseph Breck in his report on the newly opened Egyptian Collection in Minneapolis, October, 1916. 38 Letter from Joseph Breck to Hollis Godfrey, dated July 3, 1916, MIA Archives. 39 Letter from Joseph Breck to Hollis Godfrey, dated July

12, 1916, MIA Archives. 40 Verbal report from Robert Bambic, Curator, Drexel Museum July 21, 1989. 41 Discussion with Ruth Blumka, July 11, 1989.

The Diaspora from Minneapolis Richard Davis was director of the MIA from 1956 to 1959. He had a passion for modern art, and scant interest in the ancient, much of which he put in storage. In order to finance purchases of the former, he quietly deaccessioned many of the Egyptian pieces, along with Greek and Roman art acquired in the museum’s early days. Leopold Blumka owned Blumka Gallery in New York. He had an Oskar Kokoschka painting that Davis wanted. Lacking funds, Davis quietly traded many Egyptian objects to Blumka around 1956.41 Blumka did not aggressively market these items. He sold a number of these to individual collectors, but after his death in 1973, his family concentrated on other areas of art. His widow, Ruth Blumka, sold the Egyptian items in quantity, and most surfaced in the gallery of Superior Stamp and Coin Company in Los Angeles, directed by Ira Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg has since relocated to Beverly Hills as Goldberg Coins, Inc.

116

w. benson harer, jr.

Mr. Goldberg sold most of the Egyptian objects from the gallery floor to private collectors. Some were sold through consignment to the shops of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Skirbal Museum in Los Angeles. Others were also auctioned by Superior on June 9, 1975. Most went to collectors in Southern California, but several are known to have reached new homes in England.42 I purchased the last of the Blumka material in 1976. A number of objects were similarly acquired by another New York dealer, Michael Abemayor, who also sold them piece by piece. The last of the Abemayor items were sold by his estate without additional provenance at the Sotheby’s New York sale on December 11, 1976. Nevertheless, stray pieces regularly surface on the art market in both the United States and Europe. However, I have never seen an item linked with its Drexel provenance. On May 15, 1958, Parke-Bernet Galleries in New York held a large sale of Egyptian and Classical antiquities “Belonging to a Midwestern Museum, Sold by Order of the Trustees.” There was no identification of the MIA and no reference to Drexel. Only one item—Lot 115, Sculptured Limestone Stele—had a provenance, and that was from R.H. Blanchard, Cairo. Davis felt that objects that were “archaeological” or “decorative” lacked artistic merit, so between 1955 and 1958, he sold over 4,500 objects through dealers. His activities finally alarmed the board of trustees, and in June 1959 they hired a full-time president, Carl J. Weinhardt, Jr., to supervise all activities. Davis promptly resigned. A subsequent special report showed that Davis’s disposals had “bad results.” The sales were financially disastrous and tarnished the museum’s image with professional colleagues in other museums, as well as with scholars and dealers. It concluded that it is “an error to sell quality merchandise that may not fit into a personal scheme of esthetics or fashion.” Furthermore, Davis “sold into a low yet rising market.”43 Minneapolis did retain a handful of the antiquities, including the spectacularly attractive sarcophagus of the Lady Tashat. This continues as a major attraction. Her mummy is of particular in-

42 43

Personal communication from Ira Goldberg, post-sale. Jeffrey A. Hess, Their Splendid Legacy: The First 100 Years

terest, as x-rays taken in 1980 through the efforts of Gerry Scott showed an extra skull wrapped between her thighs below her pelvis. The Rosicrucian Museum in San Jose acquired the other mummies and their sarcophagi. In his antiquities purge, Davis also deaccessioned a number of the objects donated by Lily Place. They are also encountered on the market, and are identified by similar painted identification numbers, starting with the year indicators 25, 26 or 27. Lily Place was a maiden lady who lived with her sister in Cairo during the mid 1920’s. She was a prodigious shopper in the Suq, and shipped numerous cartons of handicrafts, textiles, Islamic artifacts and antiquities to the MIA. Her similar, concurrent, donations to the Metropolitan Museum in New York merited an honorary membership. The antiquities she donated were all small and varied widely in quality. They were all included in the file generated by C.R. Williams. Her death in London on April 28, 1929, with a brief account of her contributions, was related in an obituary in the Bulletin of the MIA the following month. It seems clear that she eschewed the dealers in Cairo, as none of the Place donations would be regarded as major pieces. Nevertheless, many are interesting in their own right, as well as a reflection of what was in the Khan el-Khalili in that era. Providing that little extra provenance makes an interesting footnote to the Drexel collection story. Identification of these pieces and review of the early catalogues can restore some interesting provenances. An example is the stela of Taher from Hassai near Edfu, whose find location would otherwise be unknown. See fig. 2, with a copy of the Drexel catalogue entry (fig. 3). More than a century has passed since Emile Brugsch assembled this splendid collection for Anthony J. Drexel, Jr. It is almost half a century since Richard Davis dispersed them without provenance into the art market. It is my hope that recounting the story of the exodus and diaspora of the Drexel Collection of Egyptian antiquities will lead to more of the pieces being reunited with their history.

of the Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts (Minneapolis: Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, 1985), 63–64.

the drexel collection: from egypt to the diaspora

Fig. 1. Rear view of shabti showing Drexel/Winlock number 870 at top, packer number 533 in middle, and MIA number 16.400 at base.

117

118

w. benson harer, jr.

Fig. 2. Stela of Taser, sold without provenance.

the drexel collection: from egypt to the diaspora

Fig. 3. Drexel catalogue entry from 1895 for stela of Taser, showing location of find as Hassai.

119

A VIGNETTE CONCERNING THE DEIFICATION OF THUTMOSE IV

Melinda Hartwig Georgia State University

The tomb of Tjenuna (TT 76) contains an intriguing vignette of four royal figures, which appears on the top register of the western back wall of the transverse hall of his chapel (figs. 1 and 2).1 The first, labeled “the perfect god Menkheperure” (ntr nfr Mn-hprw-r #) has yellow skin, and ˘ wears the¯ khepresh crown and a uraeus, a golden collar with armlets, a yellow- and red-striped royal kilt, and a sporran with pendant uraei. This figure of Thutmose IV is shown censing a black statue wearing a yellow- and red-striped royal kilt with a pendant-uraei sporran, a golden collar and armlets, and a khepresh crown with a uraeus. He carries in his hand a staff, and his other hand is raised in a gesture of address.2 Behind stands a smaller, yellow statue identified as the “great royal wife, Tiaa, may she live!” (h. mt wrt tı"- #A #nh.tı"). ˘ Tiaa wears a yellow dress and a vulture crown, and carries a sistrum and a menat in one hand, and a lotus in the other. Behind her is another statue of a king, this time of red stone. He wears the khepresh crown with a uraeus, a golden collar and armlets, and a blue- and red-striped royal kilt with yellow frontlet and a pendant-uraei sporran. This vignette is part of four registers of gifts that were presented to the king during the New Year’s festival. These gifts include pectorals composed of solar-crowned lions or uraei, collars with falconheaded terminals, sphinx statues, mirrors, vases of Egyptian and foreign manufacture, and royal implements of power such as the mace and sickle. Adjacent to the New Year’s gifts, Tjenuna and most likely a family member offer a pectoral to Thutmose IV, who is seated in a kiosk.3 The scene sustained damage from damnatio

PM 1,1(2), 150, (5). Betsy M. Bryan, “Portrait Sculpture of Thutmose IV,” JARCE 24 (1987): 18–19, n. 33. 3 See discussion in: Melinda Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient Thebes, 1419–1372 BCE, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 54–73, 79–81, esp. 71, 79. 1 2

memoriae and environmental factors. Early in the nineteenth century, Jean-François Champollion visited the tomb and wrote in Notices descriptives about the scene in context, stating it was “un tableau représentant des meubles précieux et des ornements, parmi lesquels sont des statuettes en or du roi A et de la reine B.” King A corresponded to Thutmose IV, and Queen B referred to Tiaa.4 Beside the cartouche of Tiaa, Champollion also drew a copy of the queen’s statue, facing left. Some time later, Robert Hay’s assistant traced the statues while they were still visible on the wall. In Torgny Säve-Söderbergh’s 1957 publication of the tomb wall, Nina de Garis Davies reconstructed the statues by following these tracings, and the author and Davies deduced the following: The statues certainly belong to the first register, as part of the censer is still in situ. The left group, consisting of a smaller figure of Thutmose IV in front of statues of the king and Queen Ti"a…is joined together in Hay’s tracings and its location is thus clear; the third statue is too high for the second register and therefore can only belong here.5 These tracings show Thutmose IV raised on what appears to be a plinth, censing three statues, all of which stand on similar bases on a continuous reed mat. Säve-Söderbergh and Davies identified this figure as Thutmose IV and not a statue of the king, but gave no reasons for this assignment. When one looks at the drawing, the top of Thutmose’s “plinth” roughly joins the

4 Jean-François Champollion, Notices descriptives 1 (Paris: Didot Frères, 1835), 481. 5 Torgny Säve-Söderbergh, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, Private Tombs at Thebes 1 (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957), 50, n. 4. A visit to the tomb by the author in 1996 confirmed the presence of the censer, which still remains on the wall.

a vignette concerning the deification of thutmose iv

121

bottom of the statue bases, suggesting that this plinth was actually a continuation of the reed mat that underlay the entire register. In tracing the censing figure of Thutmose, Hay’s assistant may have mistaken the tie of the reed mat, as it remained on the wall, for the end of a separate base, thus creating a plinth for a figure that originally had none. While two of the statues are identified, the black statue of the king facing the censing figure has engendered some debate. Several scholars have assigned this black statue to Amenhotep II.6 However, the “great royal wife” title that identifies the statue of Tiaa was not one that she held during the reign of her husband, Amenhotep II. She only received it upon the accession of her son, Thutmose IV, to the throne.7 This, and the iconographical similarities of both the unnamed red and black statues with portrayals of statues of Thutmose IV, suggests that the statues belong to this king.8 Säve-Söderbergh also conceded that these two statues belonged to Thutmose IV.9 The owner of the tomb (TT 76) in which this vignette occurs was Tjenuna, who bore the title “chief steward of the king” and called himself the “true foster child of the king, beloved of him” (sdty nsw m A # mry.f ).10 Tjenuna is identified as one ¯ of the king’s most powerful officials, who also had a close, personal relationship with the ruler. The vignette occurs on the back wall of the tomb, the most sensitive indicator about the identity, life,

and larger social world of the deceased, as well as how the tomb owner desired to be remembered to the living, and maintained in the hereafter. It is important to note that back wall scenes, as well as other images in the tomb chapel, also reflected historical, religious, and cultural influences present at the time of the painting’s creation, all within the dictates of decorum.11 Occurring as it does in a mortuary installation, this vignette is also governed by djet time, or the permanent, static eternity ruled by the god of the underworld, Osiris. At first glance, the image of the king offering to himself is an unusual motif, and not usually associated with the art of the 18th Dynasty. Later kings such as Ramesses II are shown offering to their statues or divine manifestations.12 During the reign of Ramesses II, this motif was found on private stelae,13 and in relief in the king’s temples at Abu Simbel and Wadi es-Sebua.14 On private stelae, Ramesses II appears twice, once as a statue on a plinth and again as a supplicant, censing or offering to himself. During the reign of Amenhotep III, images of the king censing or praying to his deified form are preserved in the Soleb Temple in Nubia, but not in Egypt proper.15 On private stelae, Amenhotep III is worshiped in various divine guises by officials, but to date there are no examples of the king worshiping himself.16 Instead, Amenhotep III is venerated as a manifestation of a divine force,

6 Cyril Aldred, “The ‘New Year’ Gifts to the Pharaoh,” JEA 55 (1969): 79, n. 2; and Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “Concerning Standard-Bearing Statues,” SAK 4 (1976): 70, n. 11. 7 On titles of Tiaa: Betsy M. Bryan, The Reign of Thutmose IV (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 108; Bryan, “Antecedents to Amenhotep III,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, ed. David O’Connor and Eric Cline (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998), 44–45. 8 Compare the statue named “Menkheperure, beloved of Amun” in Norman de Garis Davies, The Tombs of two Officials of Thutmosis IV (nos. 75 and 90) (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1923), pl. 12, with the black statue in TT 76; and both statues with those on the upper register of Thutmose IV’s Peristyle Court (see Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, fig. 19, pl. 18,3). 9 Säve-Söderbergh, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, 51. 10 Urk. 4, 1578, 12–1579; Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, 79, n. 219. 11 Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, 15–19, 51–54. 12 Labib Habachi, Features of the Deification of Ramesses II, ADAIK 5 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1969), 34–35; Dietrich Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt 1: Posthume Quellen über die Könige der ersten vier Dy-

nastien, MÄS 17 (Munich: Bruno Hessling, 1969), 112–113; Amin A.M.A Amer, “Some observations on the statue-cults of Ramesses II,” JSSEA 26 (1999): 1–7. 13 Stela of Rahotep in the Aeg. Seminar of Munich, in: Habachi, Features, 33–34, ill. 21, pl. 13b; Hild. 377, in Labib Habachi, “Khatâna-Qantir: Importance,” ASAÉ 52 (1954): 536; J.J. Clère, “Nouveaux documents relatifs au culte des colosses de Ramsès II dans le Delta,” Kêmi 11 (1950): 36–38, pl. 3A; Leiden F 1963/2.1 in Ali Radwan, “Einige Aspekte der Vergöttlichung des ägyptischen Königs,” in Ägypten, Dauer und Wandel, SDAIK 18 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1985), Abb. 9. 14 Habachi, Features, 5, 12, 43, pl. 2. Rolf Gundlach, “Das Dekorationsprogramm der Tempel von Abu Simbel und ihre kultische und königsideologische Funktion,” Systeme und Programme der ägyptischen Tempeldekoration, 3. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung Hamburg, 1.–5. Juni 1994, Akten der ägyptologischen Tempeltagungen1, ÄAT 33 (1995): 47–71. 15 LD 3, 84a, 84c. See also Peter Pamminger, “Zur Göttlichkeit Amenophis’ III,” BSFÉ 17 (1993): 83–92. 16 For examples, see: Ali Radwan, “Amenophis III, dargestellt und angerufen als Osiris (wnn-nfrw),” MDAIK 29 (1973): 71–76; Radwan, “Einige Aspekte,” Abb. 10, 25; Susanne Bickel, “Aspects et fonctions de la déification d’Amenhotep III,” BIFAO 102 (2002): figs. 8–12.

122

melinda hartwig

linked in various ways with the major gods of Egypt.17 What evidence do we have concerning the deification of Thutmose IV? During his reign, Thutmose IV associated and identified himself with the gods, in particular with the sun god, Re. On non-funerary monuments such as the Dream Stela, Thutmose IV worships the Great Sphinx and stresses his divinity textually by identifying himself with Horemakhet, calling himself the son of Atum of his body, the heir of Khepri, and the image made by Re.18 On his throne, Thutmose is assimilated with the god Horus, and in statuary and relief, he is represented as a diurnal god, dressed as a falcon.19 On his chariot, the ruler is depicted as the manifestation of the sun god,20 and private stelae show the winged sun disk, Horus-Behdety, protecting the nomen of Thutmose IV.21 The king is also depicted in the guise of Amun-Re on the southern face of the Lateran obelisk.22 On his funerary monuments, Thutmose IV emphasized his connection and assimilation with Amun, Maat, Osiris, and perhaps, the Aten.23 In Nubia, the king stressed his closeness with the solar gods Amun-Re and Re-Horakhty in

particular. The pillars of Hall C in the Amada Temple, which Thutmose IV decorated, contain texts reading “the first occasion repeating the jubilee sed festival, may he perform very greatly.” These texts occur above and below images of the king receiving life from Anukis, Re-Horakhty, Atum, and Amun-Re; being received by Khnum; and standing before Ptah.24 At the same time he emphasized his association with the solar divinities, Thutmose also accentuated his role as intermediary between god and man. Thutmose IV was the first king to depict himself as a standard-bearing statue.25 Likewise on private stelae, the king appears as the primary offerer to the Abydene gods, followed by the stela owner(s).26 On a number of non-funerary objects, the king is represented wearing the shebyu collar. This was a necklace of gold disk-beads that was presented to private individuals as a reward by the king, and denoted their elevated status. According to W. Raymond Johnson, when the shebyu collar was worn by the king on non-funerary monuments, it indicated the ruler’s completed deification while alive, his upraised status in relationship with the gods. Thutmose IV wears the shebyu

17 Amenhotep III was identified with Amun, Aten, Atum, Geb, Hapy, Hathor, Horakhty, Horus, Montu, Osiris, Re, Seth, Thoth, and a number of secondary deities; see Ali Radwan, “Zur bildlichen Gleichsetzung des ägyptischen Königs mit der Gottheit,” MDAIK 31 (1975): 99–108; Radwan, “Einige Aspekte,” 53–69; W. Raymond Johnson, “Amenhotep III and Amarna: Some New Considerations,” JEA 82 (1996): 68; Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, ed. David O’Connor and Eric Cline (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998), 88–89; Erik Hornung, Akhenaten and the Religion of Light, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 26; Bickel, “Aspects et fonctions,” 67–72, 79–83. 18 Bryan, Thutmose IV, 144–150, fig. 10. 19 Throne, CG 46095–46096 and 3 pieces: Howard Carter and Percy Newberry, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire (Westminster: Constable, 1904), 20–23, pls. 6–8; interpretation in Cathie Spieser, Les noms du Pharaon, OBO 174 (Fribourg and Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2000), 63, figs. 203–204; Statue, CG 42081: Georges Legrain, Statues et Statuettes de rois et de particuliers 1, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire nos. 42001–42250 (Cairo: IFAO, 1906), 47–48; CG 747: Ludwig Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten 3, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire nos. 1–1294 (Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1930), 72; Radwan, “Zur bildlichen Gleichsetzung,” Abb. 9; Bryan, Thutmose IV, 179–180, figs. 27–28; Dominique Valbelle, “Le faucon et le roi,” L’Impero Ramesside, Convegno Internazionale in onore di Sergio Donadoni, Vicino Oriente-Quaderno 1 (Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1997), 205–220.

20 Bryan, Thutmose IV, 193, who notes that the chariot is closely paralleled by Amenhotep III in a stela from his funerary temple (CG 34026). 21 Spieser, Les noms du Pharaon, 65, figs. 157–159. 22 Bryan, Thutmose IV, 177. 23 Susanne Bickel, “Les domaines funeraires de Thoutmes IV,” BSÉG 13 (1989): 23–32. On an offering table, the king associates himself through his names with the major national gods of Egypt; see CG 23088: Urk. 4, 1558; Ahmed Kamal, Tables d’offrandes, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 23001–23256 (Cairo: IFAO, 1909), 72. On the question of whether “House of Menkheperure in the House of Aten in Akhetaten” was an ancestral funerary shrine or reflected Thutmose’s manifestation of the Aten in life and assimilation in death, see Bryan, Thutmose IV, 161–162; and Bickel, “Les domaines funeraires,” 30–31. 24 Paul Barguet and M. Dewachter, Le Temple D’Amada 2 (Cairo: Centre de documentation et d’études sur l’ancienne Égypte, 1967), 6, pls. 21–26; vol. 4, C11–12, C17–18, C22–23, C26–27, C32–33, C37–38. 25 JE 43611: Betsy Bryan, “Portrait Sculpture of Thutmose IV,” 13–20. The statue of Thutmose IV holding a standard of Amun is identified as “[Amun] who hears prayers” after a depiction in the tomb of Amenhotep-si-se (TT 75). Both the statue’s name and form indicate its intermediary function. 26 See, for example CG 34022 belonging to Neferhet, and CG 34023 belonging to Tjuna, in Pierre Lacau, Stèles du Nouvel Empire, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Nos. 34001–34189 (Cairo: IFAO, 1909– 1957), pls. 13–14.

a vignette concerning the deification of thutmose iv collar on the Dream Stela, on an ivory wristlet,27 on a royal wooden chariot,28 and on a stela fragment from Giza, on which the king offers nw jars to two back-to-back images of the Sphinx raised on a pedestal.29 All of these objects are also associated with the late style of Thutmose IV, which is typified by the king’s large oblique almondshaped eyes, longer face, and fuller lips. The late style of Thutmose is also associated with monuments such as the Barque Shrine and Peristyle Court of Thutmose IV in the Temple of Amun-Re at Karnak,30 as well as Hall C of the Amada Temple in Nubia.31 Each of these structures contains inscriptions that describe the “first occasion” of Thutmose IV’s jubilee and wishes for its repetition. The evidence that Thutmose IV celebrated a sed festival has been convincingly disproved;32 however, as Bryan states, he clearly enacted some type of festival that emphasized his rejuvenation: He (Thutmose IV) held some sort of festival with Heb-sed connotations and for which the iconography of that celebration was appropriate. The rejuvenation aspect of the Sed would have suited Thutmose’s associations with solar deities as well as with his great ancestors such as Thutmose III.33 Three centuries after his death, the funerary cult of Thutmose IV still flourished as one of the strongest in the New Kingdom, indicating that this king held not only economic but religious importance to the Egyptians.34 With this discussion in mind, we return to the tomb chapel of Tjenuna and the image of Thutmose IV censing his own statue. While the two representations wear almost identical regalia, the skin of the censing figure is colored yellow, and the color of the statue it censes is black.

27 Ludwig Borchardt, “Ausgrabungen in Tell el-Amarna,” MDOG 55 (1914): 30–34, pl. 5. 28 Carter and Newberry, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, 24– 33, pls. 10–11. 29 Selim Hassan, Great Sphinx and Its Secrets, Excavations at Giza, vol. 8 (Cairo: Government Press, 1953), 31, fig. 17. 30 Barque shrine: François Larché, “Reconstruction of the barque shrine of Thutmose IV at Karnak,” EA 13 (1998): 19–22. Peristyle court: Bernadette Letellier, “La cour à péristyle de Thoutmosis IV à Karnak (et la “cour des Fêtes” de Thoutmosis II),” Hommages à la mémoire de Serge Sauneron 1, BdE 81 (Cairo: IFAO, 1979), 64; and Letellier, “La cour à péristyle de Thoutmosis IV à Karnak,” BSFÉ 84 (1979): 33– 49; Dennis Forbes, “The Portico Court of Thutmose IV at Karnak: A Photo Essay,” KMT 11 (2000): 42–47.

123

Royal images exist with black skin, and often signify the king’s association with Osiris, and through the god, transformation and rebirth; while the color yellow related to gold, the flesh of the gods, the sun, and luminosity.35 As discussed earlier, imagery in the private tomb reflected the time in which it was created, set within the realm of djet time or permanent, static eternity. In this context, iconography produced a bridge between what is represented and what is signified, and between the actual world of the living and the potential world of the dead. Iconography also reflected societal and religious forces that shaped Egypt, albeit within the dictates of decorum. When examined within this context, including color and material symbolism, the vignette of Thutmose IV censing himself could relate to his participation within the solar cycle, as the sun that appeared yellow in the day sky and dipped into the black of the underworld at night to be rejuvenated. In this symbolic context, the king was joined with Re and Osiris. Thutmose’s offering to his own statue is paralleled by later imagery associated with the self deification of Ramesses II. This offering action appears to reflect a trend toward deification that was documented in the iconography of Thutmose IV’s non-funerary monuments. Particularly at Giza, Thutmose’s acceptance by local and national gods may have been a preliminary step towards deifying himself while alive, in essence to become and present himself as the son of the sun god. In the latter part of Thutmose’s reign, an ideological and religious transformation appears to have taken place, which was anchored by the king’s changed physiognomy in art. The ruler’s divinity was accentuated through his non-funerary identification with the sun god and other national gods, and through the prominent wearing of the shebyu collar; he was the first king

31 Barguet and Dewachter, Le Temple D’Amada 2, pls. 12– 13, 21. 32 See discussion in Bryan, Thutmose IV, 20–23. 33 Ibid., 351. 34 Bickel, “Les domaines funeraires,” 23–32. 35 Emma Brunner-Traut, “Farben,” in LÄ 2, 125; Winfried Barta, “Materialmagie und -symbolik,” in LÄ 3, 1235; Richard Wilkinson, Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994), 108–116; Sydney Aufrère, “Les couleurs sacrées dans l’Egypte ancienne: vibration d’une lumière minérale,” Techne 9–10 (1999): 26–29; Gay Robins, “Color Symbolism,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 1, ed. Donald B. Redford (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 292–293.

124

melinda hartwig

to do so in such a context.36 Furthermore, the appearance of the sed-repetition formula in monuments bearing the late style of Thutmose IV suggests that the root of the king’s ideological and religious change lay in the celebration of a sedlike festival whose rites rejuvenated and solarized the king. Occurring as it does in the tomb of one of Thutmose IV’s closest courtiers, one has to assume that the censing vignette reflected royal ideology. This vignette is nested among precious objects intended for the royal New Year’s Festival, a time at which gifts were given to the ruler by high officials in celebration of the beginning of the civil year, which was also associated with the rebirth of the king. Seen thus, the image of Thut-

mose IV censing his statue shows the ruler’s participation in his own rebirth: his renewal as a king, his rejuvenation as a divine manifestation in the realm of the living, and, in the potential time of the afterlife, reborn and assimilated with the sun god. It is clear that at some point late in his reign, Thutmose IV prepared the foundations for his deification while alive, which he did not achieve during his short lifetime. He did, however, raise the divine associations of kingship, thus laying the foundation for the deification of his son, Amenhotep III, and later, the self deification of Ramesses II. In the tomb of one of Thutmose’s closest and most powerful courtiers, Tjenuna, the deification of the king was rendered as complete within the potentialities of djet time.

36 W. Raymond Johnson, “The nfrw-Collar Reconsidered,” in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, ed. Emily Teeter and John A. Larson, SAOC 58 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago, 1999), 232. In a funerary context, Amenhotep II was the first king to wear the shebyu collar; see Peter Brand, “The Shebyu-collar in the New Kingdom, Part 1,” JSSEA 33 (2006): 22, figs. 13–24.

a vignette concerning the deification of thutmose iv

Fig. 1. Tomb of Tjenuna (TT 76), right focal wall, PM 5 with vignette in dotted rectangular box (Hartwig, Tomb Painting and Identity, fig. 21).

Fig. 2. Detail of vignette of Menkheperure Thutmose IV censing statues of himself and Tiaa.

125

A FRAGMENT FROM A LOST MONUMENT OF AMENIRDIS I IN THE GAYER-ANDERSON MUSEUM, CAIRO1

Salima Ikram American University in Cairo

The position of god’s wife of Amun was one of extreme power, prestige, and significance in Thebes during the 25th Dynasty.2 These women were not only priestesses of the highest order, but also politically powerful women in their own right who virtually ruled the southern part of the country and were closely related to its Nubian rulers. As such, they erected a significant number of monuments during their time in office, especially in the Theban area, often using royal iconography. Indeed, Amenirdis I (active ca. 740–700 BCE, with many depictions continuing until 670 BCE)3 and her successor, Shepenwepet II (ca. 695–655 BCE) amongst the best known of these women, have left behind significant funerary monuments located within the temple enclosure wall of Medinet Habu.4 Given their relationship with the god Amun, one might expect a density of buildings at Karnak temple, and elsewhere in Upper Egypt in particular (see below).5 However, many of the monuments erected or commissioned by them were dismantled, usurped, or destroyed by subsequent rulers, as was frequently the case throughout Egyptian history. Thus, sometimes tantalizing fragments of unprovenanced reliefs appear in museum collections.

One such piece (fig. 1) is in the collection of the Gayer-Anderson Museum in Cairo, and has recently been conserved and prepared for display in the “Pharaonic Room.” This unprovenanced fragment of sandstone relief (GA 3308) is broken at the bottom, and either side has been cut off, leaving the scene incomplete, with the figure of Amenirdis vertically severed in half. A relatively fresh break (now restored) mars the top righthand corner of the relief. As it exists today, the piece measures 54.7 cm × 47.3 cm × 3.2 cm. It is carved in sunk relief, with a minimum of interior modeling; most likely, details were added in paint. The panel depicts Amenirdis and the god Amun-Re, facing each other in an embrace, with two vertical columns of text to the viewer’s left. The scene, on the right side of the panel, shows Amun with his back support, crowned by the double feathers, and wearing a broad collar. The feathers extend beyond the frame. His torso is covered by an upper garment typical for the period, and knotted at the shoulders; below he wears a kilt. Part of Amun’s tail and thighs are preserved. He embraces the partially preserved figure of Amenirdis. She wears a dress with straps that are also knotted at the shoulder, from which her right breast protrudes. A vulture headdress,

1 Little did Richard Fazzini know some 17 years ago when he generously gave a student of Egyptology who wandered into his office at the Brooklyn Museum a picture of a lion drain and the advice, “I don’t know what you want to do with drains, but have fun! That’s about all you can hope to get with this subject,” that he had unwittingly (and perhaps unwillingly) acquired a fan for life. He has always been most generous with his time and knowledge (including numerous queries concerning the piece presented here), and invariably been good-humored, regardless of the circumstances. I dedicate this article with admiration and grateful thanks to Richard, and inshallah will one day actually produce the “Great Work on Drains” that he so generously contributed to so long ago. 2 Michel Gitton and Jean Leclant, “Gottesgemahlin,” in

LÄ 2, 792–812. 3 Richard A. Fazzini et al., Ancient Egyptian Art in the Brooklyn Museum, (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1989), no. 70. 4 For a recent examination of this monument, see Mariam Ayad, The Funerary Texts of Amenirdis I: Analysis of Layout and Purpose (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 2002). 5 For an overview of these, see Jean Leclant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne (Cairo: IFAO, 1965), Richard A. Fazzini, Egypt Dynasty XXII– XXV, Iconography of religions, Sec. 16, fasc. 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), as well as Robert Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers (London: Rubicon, 2000), 221, 226, 243, 247–248.

a fragment from a lost monument of amenirdis i in the gayer-anderson museum

127

surmounted by a modius from which emerge double feathers, crowns her long wig, and her brow is marked by a uraeus. There is no interior detailing of the feathers of the headdress or on the wig. Her jewelery consists of a broad collar and a wide bracelet. The god, facing to his left, embraces the adoratrice with his left arm. As her figure is only partially preserved, his hand is not visible on her left shoulder. The god’s left arm is summarily carved, giving the impression that it is too thin. With his right arm he clasps the adoratrice’s right arm above at the elbow. Amenirdis’s right arm crosses over the god’s body, clasping a ritual object. This is probably a nehbet wand or a hetes scepter.6 Each figure is identified by a hieroglyphic legend: “Amun-Re”; “Amenirdis, god’s hand, may she live.” Both figures show the slightly elongated limbs and slender proportions often found in the art of this period. The faces are very different from one another. Amenirdis has a sloping forehead, slightly puffy face with a snub nose with the typical “Kushite” fold of the period, plump lips, a rounded jaw line, and a fleshy neck. Her eyes are narrow, with a pronounced droop to the inner canthus and an extended (slightly damaged) cosmetic line. The ears are placed high on her head and show little detailing, save for a hint of a depression, indicative of pierced ears. Amun’s profile is slightly different from the more Nubian face of the god’s wife. The god’s head and crown are more deeply carved than that of Amenirdis (perhaps due to corrections made by the sculptor?). He has a straight, almost vertical forehead going down to a nose that projects very definitely and is straighter and more prominent than that of Amenirdis. The face is only slightly puffy, the brow and cosmetic lines well defined. The eye, like that of Amenirdis, is also narrow. The lips are thick, and slightly damaged. Amun’s jaw is clearly defined, and his beard curls down from his chin. His ear seems to be slightly lower on his head

than that of Amenirdis, and has a different, less curving shape. This could be a male/female difference, or due to the nature of the crown, but might also imply that the god is listening. The two columns of hieroglyphs behind the figure of Amun-Re, oriented in opposite directions, suggest that this scene was balanced, to the left, by another similar scene. The first column of text is straightforward and reads: wnn ntr ¯ dw At "Imnı"rdı"s hnt k A(w) [ #nkh], and is fairly stan˘ dard, “May the divine adoratrice live, Amenirdis, foremost of the kas.” The second column is, however, more obscure, and thus far this author has found neither a parallel, nor a satisfactory translation for it. Given the composition of the block, it is probably an utterance spoken by Amun-Re. It possibly reads as: dd mdw ı"w ı"b.ı" (or ı"w.ı"b) shtp.f ¯ be translated as: “Utwrd n.ı" s A(sic), and might terance, my heart it is pleased/propitiated when my daughter is steadfast for me.” An alternative might be (ignoring the final bird glyph): “Utterance: My heart. It appeases the great one” (or) “Utterance: My heart that appeases the great one. I have sworn.”7 The appearance of the ı"w in this context is definitely unusual. No doubt there are other possible interpretations of this line, which the author is glad to leave to more philologically minded colleagues. The verso of the piece is also interesting, as it is covered with pairs of incised lines in the form of two rectangles, one inside the other, acting as a frame, with the interior marked by an X. The reasons for this are unknown. Perhaps these marks were made to key in plaster, or this side was used later for some other building purpose, or the marks have something to do with the dealer. Although the provenance is unknown, it is quite possible that this piece originally came from Karnak temple. Most of the known sandstone buildings depicting Amenirdis I, either by herself or in conjunction with others,8 come from a number of areas of Karnak. Her images

6 The wand is D 45 in Gardiner’s sign list (Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957), and the scepter is Wb. 3, 202. See the discussion in Henry G. Fischer, “Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt,” Ancient Egypt in the Metropolitan Museum Journal, supp. vol. 12– 13, 1977–1978, (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980), 5–32. There is a remote possibility that this is a stylized lettuce, but this interpretation is fairly unlikely. 7 In all respects this piece seems legitimate, save for this one line of text that does not translate elegantly. Some scholars have questioned its authenticity on the basis of this text.

However, as it fits the prototype for the art of this period and is paralleled by other works, this author would fault our ability to read the text, rather than question the veracity of the piece. Certainly, such questions do underscore the problem of authenticating pieces that are unexcavated and unprovenanced. My thanks to Fayza Haikal for commenting on the text. 8 Some of these are in scenes commissioned by her successor, Shepenwepet II, and also possibly by King Taharqa long after Amenirdis I had died, as mentioned by Morkot in Black Pharaohs, 243.

128

salima ikram

appear in the temple of Osiris-Hekadjet; possibly in a chapel to the south of the enceinte of Montu; in a series of chapels devoted to the cult of the god’s wives on a road leading to the north of the Ptah temple; in the chapel of Osiris-Nebankh, dating to the reign of Taharqa; in the chapel of Osiris-Wennefer-who-is-in-themidst-of-the-persea-tree; and that of Osiris-Pedeankh/Nebdjet.9 She also appears on a few blocks from Medamud,10 and of course in her funerary chapel at Medinet Habu, built for her by Shepenwepet II.11 The closest parallels to the Gayer-Anderson relief are in Brooklyn,12 although the Cairo relief shares many elements in common with other relief carvings of the 25th Dynasty, including the Medinet Habu funerary monuments of the god’s wives. The Brooklyn sandstone fragments might have come from the same monument (currently undetermined) as the Cairene example. The style of sunk relief is very similar, as are some of the details: Amun’s feathers, which extend beyond the frame; and the heavy Kushite features, especially the puffiness of the face of Amenirdis, and her nose with the typical Kushite fold. The Brooklyn pieces have been dated to the second half of Dynasty 25 (ca. 710–690 BCE). The rear surfaces of the Brooklyn piece have not been photographed and are not visible due to their display. However, when the Brooklyn Museum conservators examined them, they noted that one had a “smooth, relatively fresh surface,” while the other block “has a mud-like substance over much of it, including the two areas of repair and in a roughly round area above the lower

repair. It seems as though the back was deliberately smoothed over with this brown fill material.” Perhaps the scoring on the uneven verso of the Cairo block was in preparation for a smoothing over with some other substance? Its edges, like those of the Brooklyn panels, look as if they were cut in the modern period. Circumstantial evidence also points to the same origin for these pieces; they were acquired by the Brooklyn Museum from R.G. GayerAnderson through the auspices of Jean Capart.13 For some reason this third piece, perhaps because it was less well preserved than the other two, did not make its way across the ocean. A sandstone relief fragment in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, showing the figure of a god’s wife of Amun with the hand of a divinity might also be linked to the Cairo fragment, as it too was a gift of Gayer-Anderson.14 Although this piece is more finely carved with interior details and the scale is larger, it might have come from another area of the same monument, perhaps carved by a different artist. The fact that it came via Gayer-Anderson suggests that he had several pieces from this period, some of which he kept and others that were sold or gifted to museums.15 Although the original position of the Cairo piece is unknown, one can safely conclude that it is Theban in origin, either the Karnak complex or perhaps even from Medinet Habu. It may join up with other pieces in museums, magazines, or on a site. If these links can be established, perhaps we will have a more complete picture of another monument of the god’s wives of Amun.

9 Jean Leclant, “Amenirdas,” in LÄ 1, 196–199; Leclant, Recherches sur les Monuments, pls. 21–28, 53, 57, 58, pp. 50–54, 89–96; Morkot, The Black Pharaohs, 221, 226, 243; Donald B. Redford, “An Interim Report on the Second Season of Work at the Temple of Osiris, Ruler of Eternity, Karnak,” JEA 59 (1973): 16–30, Saeed Gohary, “Minor Monuments from Thebes,” BIFAO 86 (1986): 176–181. 10 Leclant, “Amenirdas,” 196–199; Leclant, Recherches sur les Monuments, pls. 132–133. 11 Morkot, The Black Pharaohs, 247–248. 12 Brooklyn 87.184.1 and .2, measuring 73.5 79 4.5 × × and 72.5 × 69 × 5.5 cm, respectively; see Fazzini et al., Ancient Egyptian Art, no. 70; Fazzini, “Divine Family of Thebes and a High Priestess,” Brooklyn Museum Newsletter (December 1988): 4; Masterpieces in the Brooklyn Museum (New York: Brooklyn Museum in association with Harry N. Abrams, 1988), no. 17, Richard Fazzini, James Romano, and Madeleine Cody, Art for Eternity: Masterworks from Ancient Egypt, (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum of Art, in association with Scala Publishers, 1999), 122–123. I am deeply indebted to Richard Fazzini for gener-

ously sharing information and opinions on the Brooklyn and Cairo pieces. 13 My thanks to Richard Fazzini for this information. The only other pieces that were acquired from GayerAnderson (brokered through Jean Capart) are two stone bracelets in the Brooklyn Museum (36.263–264). 14 E.G.A. 4542.1943, 52 35.5 4.5 cm; see Eleni Vassi× × lika, Egyptian Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 106–107. 15 Many museums have pieces that were bought from or given by Gayer-Anderson. The author is currently attempting to compile a list of these. Chief among them are the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the British Museum; the Portland Museum of Art; the Victoria Museum, Australia; the Medelhavsmuseett (Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities) in Stockholm; the GayerAnderson Museum, Cairo, and the Brooklyn Museum, to name but a few. I would be grateful for any additions to this list.

a fragment from a lost monument of amenirdis i in the gayer-anderson museum

Fig. 1. Sandstone block inscribed with scene of Amenirdis and Amun, Gayer-Anderson Museum, Cairo. Photo F. Dzikowski.

129

A DEMOTIC STELA FROM THE FIRST COURT OF LUXOR TEMPLE

Richard Jasnow Johns Hopkins University

Few scholars can rival Richard Fazzini in his knowledge of the monuments of ancient Thebes. He may be a New Yorker by birth, but certainly he feels equally at home in Luxor, where he has excavated for so many years. I have thought it fitting, therefore, to offer to him in this Festschrift the publication of a rather puzzling object from Luxor Temple. In 1981, the Egyptian Antiquities Organization carried out clearance operations in the First Court of Luxor Temple.1 Among the objects found upon reaching the original floor level was the Demotic stela presented here (fig. 1).2 It is the upper portion of a sandstone block now measuring 28.7 cm high and 41 cm wide. At the instigation of the then director of the Epigraphic Survey, Professor Lanny Bell, the much-fractured stone was conserved by Epigraphic Survey conservators Richard and Helen Jaeschke, who observed traces of gold leaf in the course of their examination.3 There is no indication of a lunette, and we have here, presumably, the original shape of the stela. I would not venture to be more precise

than later Ptolemaic or Early Roman Period with regard to its date.4 The stela shows two male figures facing one another, both holding what are probably palm branches in their hands. The Demotic inscription above and between them reads P A-tı"-Wsı"r s A(?) P Asˇr-Mnt, “Petosiris, son(?) of Pashermont” (figs. 2 and 3). Since the transliteration of the s A is uncertain, one might, alternatively, understand “Petosiris (and) Pashermont.” If so, these could be the names of the two individuals shown. I tend, however, to think it preferable to render “Petosiris, son(?) of Pashermont,” which would then designate the person responsible for the stela. The scene itself presents problems. A search through the literature has produced no exact parallels.5 There are, to be sure, reliefs showing mirror images, particularly of deities. The jubilar himself has published a New Kingdom stela, probably from Luxor, displaying “two confronted gods,” with a format not very dissimilar from that of the Demotic stela.6 The two figures of the stela

1 I know of no published description of this specific work, but for an overview of clearance activity from this time period at Luxor Temple, see El-Sayed Hegazi, “Quelques découvertes fortuites récentes,” in Egypte-Louqsor Temple du Ka Royal: Dossiers Histoires et Archéologie 101 (1986), 18, with other similar small finds of stelae. For earlier clearance at Luxor Temple in the 1950s, which also revealed Late Period stelae, see Labib Habachi, “Two More Stelae of King Tiberius Unearthed in the Eastern Side of Luxor Temple,” Miscellanea in Honorem Josephi Vergote, OLP 6/7, 247–252; and Habachi, “Clearance of the Area to the East of Luxor Temple and Discovery of Some Objects,” ASAÉ 51 (1951): 447–468. 2 I thank Dr. Mohammed el-Sughair for the original permission to publish the stela. I am very grateful to Professor Lanny Bell for encouraging me to work on this object, when I was a student-epigrapher during the 1981– 1982 season of the Epigraphic Survey. Dr. Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, kindly reconfirmed this permission in January of 2006. Professor Raymond Johnson, the director of the Epigraphic Survey, graciously allowed me to publish the Epigraphic Survey photographs of the stela (taken by Diana Olson).

The finished drawing of the facsimile (figure 3) is the work of Dr. Johnson and Thad Rasche, senior artist for the Epigraphic Survey in 1981–1982. I thank also my colleague, Professor Betsy Bryan, for helpfully discussing the stela with me. 3 See Lanny Bell, “The Epigraphic Survey,” in The Oriental Institute 1981–1982 Annual Report, ed. Robert McC. Adams (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1982), 7. This gilding or paint seems to be chiefly on the left figure. On the use of gilding for Graeco-Roman Period stelae, see Robert Bianchi et al., Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988), 75, where it is observed that gilding is “for the most part associated with deification.” 4 It was stated in Bianchi et al., Cleopatra’s Egypt, 87, that “there are few detailed studies on Ptolemaic relief styles,” and this still seems to be the case. 5 For a very useful comprehensive collection of Demotic votive inscriptions on stelae and similar monuments, see Sven Vleeming, Some Coins of Artaxerxes and other Short Texts in the Demotic Script found on various Objects and gathered from many Publications, Studia Demotica 5 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001). 6 Richard Fazzini, “Two New Kingdom Stelae from

a demotic stela from the first court of luxor temple

131

published here are almost identical. Their bodies are strikingly thin.7 They are wearing broad necklaces as well as armlets. The clothing and jewelry are those often worn by deities in Graeco-Roman Period stelae,8 and are too generic to provide helpful dating criteria. They both boast the same baggy wigs of traditional type.9 They were possibly holding ankh symbols, now destroyed, in their extended arms.10 While these are presumably two distinct individuals, there is clearly an intimate association between them. One is reminded, indeed, of the hieroglyph of the two facing men holding hands (often read snsn, “to join, associate with”)11 and of the various possible Egyptian representations of twins.12

A distinctive feature is the branches. These are most likely palm fronds, although it can be admittedly difficult to distinguish, for example, between palm and sycamore.13 The significance of the palm tree in Egypt is well documented and often discussed. The palm is associated with numerous deities, such as Thoth,14 Anubis,15 Hathor,16 Taweret,17 Min,18 Osiris,19 and Re.20 The palm can play a role in the temple,21 royal,22 and private funerary cult.23 Deities or priests carry palm branches.24 Thus, in one Roman Period scene, a priest of Isis(?) holds a palm frond.25 Several striking Roman Period reliefs from Coptos show young men bearing palm branches.26 The palm branch is a rather common motif in Graeco-

the Collection of Charles Edwin Wilbour in the Brooklyn Museum,” in Iubilate Conlegae: Studies in Memory of Abdel Aziz Sadek, ed. Charles C. van Siclen, VA 10/2–3 (San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1995), 96–97. The two deities there are Horus and Shed. He cites another stela displaying two confronted gods, discovered near Luxor Temple, illustrated in Hegazi, “Quelques découvertes fortuites récentes,” 18. Fazzini suggests that there too the gods are Horus and Shed. 7 Cf., for example, the equally thin figures in Roman Period Cairo Stela 31122, Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Die demotischen Denkmäler 30601–31166. I. Die demotischen Inschriften, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Leipzig: W. Drugulin 1904), 48 and pl. 11. 8 E.g., Horus, as illustrated in Ahmed Kamal, Stèles ptolémäiques et romaines, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos. 22001–22208. (Cairo: IFAO, 1905), pl. 83, no. 114. 9 Cf. Bianchi et al., Cleopatra’s Egypt, 65 and 68. 10 On the holding of ankh signs by gods, see Philippe Derchain, “Anchzeichen,” in LÄ 1, 268–269. 11 Penelope Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, OLA 78 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 869. On this hieroglyph, see also Günter Vittmann, “Bemerkungen zum Festkalender des Imhotep (Statuenbasis BM 512),” in Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westendorf überreicht von seinen Freunden und Schülern 2, ed. Friedrich Junge (Göttingen: Hubert & Co., 1984), 952; John Baines, “Egyptian Twins,” Orientalia 54 (1985): 476. 12 Baines, “Egyptian Twins.” 13 The basic reference is still Ingrid Gamer-Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten: Eine Untersuchung ihrer praktischen, symbolischen und religiösen Bedeutung, MÄS 1 (Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1962). For the possible confusion between the two trees, see, for example, Nathalie Baum, Arbres et Arbustes de l’Égypte ancienne: la liste de la tomb thébaine d’Ineni (no 81), OLA 31 (Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1988), 81, where the sycamore in an illustration of the “goddess of the sycamore” does not look much different from what our two men are holding. See Edna Russmann, “The Motif of Bound Papyrus Plants and the Decorative Program in Mentuemhat’s First Court (Further Remarks on the Decoration of the Tomb of Mentuemhat, 1),” JARCE 32 (1995): 118, on the problem of misidentification of plants, e.g., lotus for papyrus.

Gamer-Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten, 97–104. Nadine Guihou, “Génies funéraires, croque-mitaines ou anges gardiens? Étude sur les fouets, balais, palmes et épis en guise de couteaux,” in Encyclopédie religieuse de l’Univers végétal: Croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypte ancienne 1, ed. Sydney Aufrère, Orientalia Monspeliensia 10 (Montpellier: Université Paul Valery-Montpellier III, 1999), 387. 16 Gamer-Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten, 105–106. 17 Ibid., 106–108. 18 Ibid., 108–110. 19 Pierre Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 3 (Liège: Centre informatique de philosophie et lettres, 1994), 270–274. 20 Gamer-Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten, 110–113. 21 Eleni Vassilika in Ptolemaic Philae, OLA 34 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 379; PLT 7, illustrates a palm branch on offering table. Given the stela’s discovery within Luxor Temple, one may at least observe that the palm plays a role in the Opet festival (Guilhou, “Génies funéraires,” 387), without pressing that possible connection. 22 Gamer-Wallert, Die Palmen im Alten Ägypten, 114–126. 23 Ibid., 126–128 and, at the tomb, 129–139. See also Edmund Hermsen, Lebensbaumsymbolik im alten Ägypten: Eine Untersuchung, Arbeitsmaterialien zur Religionsgeschichte 5 (Cologne: Brill, 1981),109–112. A similar palm branch decorates the pylon of a tomb from the Saqqara tomb of Horemheb (Sylvia Schoske, Barbara Kreissl, and Renate Germer, “Anch” Blumen für das Leben: Pflanzen im alten Ägypten, Schriften aus der ägyptischen Sammlung 6 (Munich: Karl M. Lipp Verlag, 1992), 115. Mark Smith, in Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7) (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2005), 141, remarks: “The palm branch is presented to the deceased as a symbol of eternal life.” 24 An excellent discussion with many illustrations is Guilhou, “Génies funéraires.” She studies those guardian figures that hold palms or other kinds of branches in addition to, or instead of, knives. Underworld deities carry palm(?) branches in the Ninth Hour of the Amduat (Erik Hornung, Die Unterweltsbücher der Ägypter [Zurich: Artemis Verlag, 1992], 155). 25 Bianchi et al., Cleopatra’s Egypt, 240. 26 Claude Traunecker et al., Coptos: L’Egypte antique aux portes du désert (Paris: Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon/ Réunion des musées nationaux, 2000), 134–136. These are from the “Maison des Palmyréniens” (second-third centuries CE). 14 15

132

richard jasnow

Roman Period graffiti, for example at Luxor27 and Gebel Silsila.28 It also appears as the decoration on a Roman Period sarcophagus from Thebes.29 Even mummy labels can exhibit the religious symbol of the palm branch.30 While not common on Demotic stelae, one Roman Period Demotic stela from Dendera in the Cairo Museum (31120), containing a funerary scene and a short inscription, is adorned with a palm frond.31 Graeco-Roman Period Demotic texts provide further evidence for the cultic use of b#y, “Palmenzweig, Palme, Stab.”32 Thus, in the Demotic London and Leiden Magical Text, Osiris is called one “in whose hand is this palm staff of command.”33 In the Demotic Myth of the Sun’s Eye, the “b#ypalm staff or branch” is associated with the cult of Hathor: (22/30) ı"n t.k b#ı" wt n tr.t.k n H.t. h. r nb Ks . ¯ “Have you taken a fresh palm branch in your hand for Hathor, Mistress of Cusae?”34 Clearly, however, the palm branch by itself possesses too general a significance to aid in determining more precisely the nature of this stela. More helpful, perhaps, is the close similarity, indeed virtual identity, of the two figures. There is a strong possibility that they are deities, particularly if one supposes that they were carrying ankh symbols in their hands. Now, from the GraecoRoman Period we do know of an important cult celebrating two closely associated deities, namely,

27 Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, vol. 2, The Façade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 116 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pl. 210, graffito no. 56. 28 Friedrich Preisigke and Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Ägyptische und Griechische Inschriften aus den Steinbrüchen des Gebel Silsile (Oberägypten) nach den Zeichnungen von Georges Legrain (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1915), 5–6, pl. 1, number 21 (palm frond); similarly numbers 40–42, 46, 47, 51 on pl. 3. 29 Monique Nelson and Francis Janot, “Une ‘Gisante’ renaissant de ses cendres,” BIFAO 93 (1993): esp. 376–378 (“Le symbole de la palme et de la vigne”). 30 Jan Quaegebeur, “Mummy Labels: An Orientation,” in Textes Grecs, Démotiques et Bilingues, ed. E. Boswinkel and P. Pestman, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 240. 31 Spiegelberg, Die demotischen Denkmäler, 47 and pl. 11; Aly Abdalla, Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1992), 117, who mentions

Amenhotep and Imhotep. Already Hurry remarked that “Amenophis was in many respects the counterpart of Imhotep.”35 Both of them possess, of course, sacred shrines in Thebes; indeed, the Deir el-Bahri chapel is dedicated to both Imhotep and Amenhotep.36 The two are not infrequently represented in text and image as counterparts in the Theban area, a relationship well described by Laskowska-Kusztal, “Les liens entre Imhotep et Amenhotep fils de Hapou sont surtout soulignés par leur image commune dans une scène provenant de la région thébaine, aussi bien de la rive orientale que occidentale.”37 I would suggest, therefore, that the two figures represent Amenhotep and Imhotep, in whose honor Petosiris, son of Pashermont, offered the stela. I emphasize, however, that I can neither cite an identical scene featuring these two gods nor other examples of their holding such palm branches. Still, within the theological character of their relationship, I believe it would be perfectly plausible to display Amenhotep and Imhotep as virtual twins. Moreover, since the palm is closely associated with deities, it would hardly be surprising for the two saints to possess this symbol. For all its obscurities, this stela from the First Court of Luxor Temple is eloquent testimony to the rich tradition of personal piety at Thebes. As such, it will, I am sure, find appreciation and, I hope, further elucidation from a distinguished specialist in Late Period religion, Richard Fazzini.

this stela, suggests that “the fronds symbolized victory over death with its promise of future life in the Graeco-Roman world.” 32 Wolya Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen: Ejnar Muntsgaard, 1954), 113. 33 Janet H. Johnson, in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 229. 34 Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Der ägyptische Mythus vom Sonnenauge (der Papyrus der Tierfabeln- “Kufi”) nach dem Leidener demotischen Papyrus I 384 (Strassburg: Strassburger Druckerei und Verlagsanstalt vorm. R. Schultz und Co., 1917), 55. 35 Jamieson Hurry, Imhotep (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926), 43. 36 Dietrich Wildung, Imhotep und Amenhotep, MÄS 36 (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1977), 220. 37 Ewa Laskowska-Kusztal, Deir el-Bahari III: Le sanctuaire ptolémaïque de Deir el-Bahari (Warsaw: PWN- Éditions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1984), 53.

a demotic stela from the first court of luxor temple

Fig. 1. Demotic stela from the First Court of Luxor Temple.

Fig. 2. Detail of Demotic inscription on stela from Luxor Temple.

Fig. 3. Facsimile of Demotic inscription on stela from Luxor Temple.

133

A FRAGMENTARY SCENE OF PTOLEMY XII WORSHIPING THE GODDESS MUT AND HER DIVINE ENTOURAGE W. Raymond Johnson and J. Brett McClain Epigraphic Survey, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

In 1995, the Epigraphic Survey of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, inaugurated a protection, conservation, and documentation program in the Luxor Temple blockyards, with the assistance of a generous grant from the Egyptian Antiquities Project (EAP) of the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE); the World Monuments Fund (WMF) now supports the continuation and expansion of that work.1 The inscribed stone fragments, totaling in the hundreds of thousands, had been recovered in the late 1950s and early 1960s from the foundations of medieval and later buildings in the tell to the north of Luxor Temple, when it was cleared away to expose the southernmost section of the avenue of sphinxes linking Karnak and Luxor.2 Tradition tells us that as inscribed material was found, it was heaped in a huge pile in the center of the sphinx avenue. When the clearance of the sphinx road was finished, 400 men stacked the fragmentary material in holding areas all around the temple precinct in two days, quite thoroughly mixing it all up in the process. The Epigraphic Survey became interested in the fragmentary wall material in the mid-1970s,

when the great Colonnade Hall of Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun became the focus of its epigraphic documentation program. Numerous inscribed fragments from the Colonnade Hall were noted in the blockyard and collected for incorporation in the publication. By the time the Survey’s two volumes devoted to the hall were published in 1994 and 1998,3 over 1000 inscribed fragments had been identified as coming from the missing side walls. Those belonging to the famous scenes of the Opet festival in the first register were published with the drawings and photographs of the standing wall scenes of that register in RILT 1; fragments from the façade and doorjambs of the hall were included in RILT 2. A third volume will be devoted to the upper register fragments and fragment groups from the hall, including a strip more than 25 meters long that preserves the upper half of three offering scenes from the second register, west wall; and major sections of a Great Ennead offering scene from the west wall, third register.4 In the 1990s, the Epigraphic Survey became aware that rising ground water was threatening all of the fragmentary material stored on the bare, increasingly wet ground in the Luxor Temple blockyards.5 Wherever the stone material

1 On behalf of the present and future generations of scholars who will now be able to access the blockyard material, the Epigraphic Survey wishes to thank the American Research Center and the World Monuments Fund for their invaluable support of the Luxor Temple blockyard preservation program. 2 The clearance of the temple itself in the nineteenth century produced many, many more fragments, all of which were deemed useless and discarded. They appear to have been utilized as the underpinnings of the Corniche Boulevard, which runs parallel to the temple along the Nile, and recent work on that road, during which many inscribed fragments were revealed, supports this hypothesis. 3 Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, vol. 1, The Festival Procession of Opet in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 112 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994);

and Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, vol. 2, The Façade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 116 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 4 For provisional analysis of some of the upper register material, see W. Raymond Johnson, “Honorific Figures of Amenhotep III in the Luxor Temple Colonnade Hall,” in For His Ka: Essays in Memory of Klaus Baer, ed. David Silverman, SAOC 55 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1994), 133–144. 5 The rising ground water was the direct result of expanded irrigation in the three kilometers of cultivated fields east of Luxor. As the years passed, we observed the ground growing increasingly saturated from the east to the west as the excess irrigation water drained toward the Nile.

The Luxor Temple Fragment Project

a fragmentary scene of ptolemy xii

135

The sorting process of the last few field seasons has resulted in our growing comprehension of exactly what lies in the Luxor Temple blockyard. In addition to the fragmentary Colonnade Hall material from the time of Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb, and Sety I incorporated into our publication program, the sorting revealed thousands of other fragments that had been quarried from all of the other parts of Luxor Temple: Amenhotep III raised relief from his firstphase sanctuary and second-phase back court, Ramesses II sunk relief from inside and outside his first court, and Ramesses III sunk relief (very different in style from that of his predecessor) from the exterior walls of the sanctuary. Whenever possible, we stored individual categories in

proximity to the walls from which each had been quarried. This has facilitated analysis and eventual restoration, since the ultimate aim of the fragment project is to integrate the material into the overall epigraphic recording of the monument, and to restore whenever possible the fragmentary material to the walls from which it came. Reassembly restores context and meaning, and is the best way to protect fragments from further decay. We were surprised, however, to realize that perhaps as much as 50 % of the blockyard material does not come from the Luxor Temple precinct at all. A good example is the corpus of approximately 5000 sandstone talatat of Akhenaten, now stored on designated platforms directly east of the Colonnade Hall. Inscriptions on the blocks all refer exclusively to known structures of Akhenaten at Karnak, and the iconography of the decoration matches published groups reused by Horemheb in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Pylons at Karnak.8 Other categories include wall fragments from the Amenhotep II shrine in the Ninth–Tenth Pylon court and additional talatat that were reused by Horemheb in the side walls of that same court and in the adjoining EighthNinth Pylon court as well. These were reinscribed by Horemheb with religious procession scenes on the interior of the courts, and on the exterior by Ramesses II with another version of his Qadesh battle narrative on the western face of the western wall. We have found in our blockyard gigantic-scale, quartzite sculpture fragments that match the shattered fragments of the Amenhotep III colossus that originally stood against the south wall of the Tenth Pylon, and we have even found a handful of broken-up Re-Horakhty Temple blocks of Amenhotep IV, which Horemheb used as the fill in the Tenth Pylon. The fragmentary material in the Luxor Temple blockyards provides clear evidence of post-pharaonic quarrying activities in southern Karnak, which supplied medieval Luxor’s growing need for building stone.9 Preliminary sorting and analysis in the Luxor

6 Conservators John Stewart, initial project supervisor; and Hiroko Kariya, who now supervises the expanded project. 7 For reports on the Epigraphic Survey’s conservation activities at Luxor Temple since 1995, see The Oriental Institute Annual Report, from 1995–1996 to the present. The results of the first seven seasons’ activities will be published in a forthcoming ARCE / EAP publication series volume.

8 See Chapter 1: “Description of the Project,” in Ray Winfield Smith and Donald B. Redford, The Akhenaten Temple Project Volume, vol. 1, Initial Discoveries (Warminster: Aris and Phillips 1976), 1–18. 9 The well-preserved Luxor Temple structure is evidence that the temple itself continued to serve as the civic center of medieval Luxor and therefore was not itself totally quarried away. The Ramesses II court continued to function

was in contact with the wet ground, dissolved salts and minerals in the ground water were leaching into the porous sandstone and causing accelerating decay. It was therefore decided to broaden the scope of the Survey’s work at Luxor Temple to include protective storage measures, conservation where needed, and eventual reconstruction whenever possible. With the aid of the Luxor Fragment Project EAP grant and subsequent WMF support, stone conservators were added to the Epigraphic Survey staff;6 special damp-coursed brick platforms were constructed for protected storage of the material; and all of the fragments were systematically raised off the wet ground, roughly sorted, and placed on numbered platforms by category. Deteriorating fragments were isolated and grouped on special “hospital” platforms, which were further protected with aluminum frames, an additional level of shelving, and fiberglass roofing against the rain. Severely decaying but reconstructable fragments have been, and continue to be, consolidated by the conservators in a special covered treatment area in the central blockyard east of the Amenhotep III court.7

The Nature of the Fragmentary Material

136

w. raymond johnson and j. brett mcclain

While the immediate priority of the Epigraphic Survey has been to protect and consolidate the fragmentary material in the blockyard for future documentation and analysis, we have partly reassembled some recognizably reconstructable groups in the Luxor Temple eastern blockyard to facilitate analysis. The focus of this paper is one of those Ptolemaic fragment assemblages, a small group of 16 fragments from a scene dedicated to the goddess Mut and a series of attendant goddesses, which we have partly restored on platform no. 17. It is with great pleasure that we dedicate this preliminary study to our dear friend and colleague Richard Fazzini, faithful Bak-en-Mut, in this celebratory volume honoring him. The scene is part of a sandstone wall section 1.90 meters in width and 1.50 meters in height,

and is carved in incised relief (fig. 1). The sixteen fragments join to form the better part of five blocks, each of which is 47.5 cm in height and of varying width.10 The lower part of the king is preserved on the right, facing an enthroned figure of the goddess Mut and attendant goddesses behind her on the left. The far left side of the scene is not preserved. Beneath the offering scene is an area of vertical text columns, of which the beginnings of nine columns are preserved. The first two columns from the right, directly under the king, are oriented with him and face left; the other seven columns face right with the goddesses above, and form part of a hymn to Mut.11 To the right of the king is a vertical border line demarcating the right edge of the scene, and this line continues downward to the right of the text as well. There is no identifiable architectural element to the right of the vertical border line; the adjacent edges of the blocks are rough and give no indication of architectural provenance. The king’s body is preserved only from the waist down, including his lower forearms and outstretched hands, which are extended diagonally palms-down toward the goddess in the “worship” pose. There are no offerings between the king and the goddess. The king wears a short kilt that ends well above the knees, a long overskirt that terminates above the ankles, and a bull’s tail that hangs along the outside of the back leg. The execution is very simple, with little interior carved detailing beyond the outline of the body and costume. However, the limbs are carefully modeled within the carved outlines, and intricately patterned paint traces between the king’s legs from the painted decoration of the overskirt hint at the elaborate painted details of the figures on the finished wall. To the immediate left of the king is a seated figure of the goddess Mut, enthroned on a raised platform. The goddess wears a simple tripartite wig, vulture crown surmounted by the double crown, and a collar. The goddess grasps an ankh with her right hand and a tall staff in her left

as a place of worship in the Christian and Muslim periods (and remains a place of worship today in the form of the Abul Haggag mosque); tethering emplacements along the walls of the Colonnade Hall show that it was used as a storage area for livestock; and the back Sun Court of Amenhotep III was used as a granary up until the late nineteenth century. 10 Fragment #s P60, P61, P132, and P59 form block #1, h. 47.5 cm and w. 107.5 cm; #s P54 and P56 form half of block #2, original h. 47.5 cm and w. 95 cm; #s P62, P63,

P58, and P57 form block #3, h. 47.5 cm and w. 102.5 cm; # P64 is all that remains of block #4, original h. 47.5 cm and w. 60 cm; and #s P68, P67, P129, P141, and P142 form the better part of block #5, h. 47.5 cm and w. 122.5 cm. Fragment #s P56, P54, and P132 are not shown in the accompanying photograph of the joined group, taken by W. Raymond Johnson. 11 It may be that other same-scaled text fragments found in the blockyard are part of this group; it is hoped that future analysis will add more material to the assemblage.

Temple blockyard have also revealed a surprising number of Ptolemaic and early Roman blocks and fragments. Identified (so far) are the names of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Ptolemy IV Philopator, Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos, and even Augustus Caesar, none of whose standing monuments are attested anywhere in the Luxor Temple precinct. The majority of the textual references on these blocks are to Mut and Khonsu, and our working hypothesis is that most of this material was perhaps quarried from southern Karnak, and more specifically from the vicinity of the Mut and Khonsu temple complexes there. Included in this category are fragments of gates of Ptolemy II, VI, and VIII, column drums of Ptolemy IV, and a great many miscellaneous architectural fragments in a variety of scales, from petite to colossal. One of the primary goals of the Epigraphic Survey is eventually to establish the original location of this material and return it for reconstruction on site whenever possible.

A Scene Dedicated to the Goddess Mut and Attendant Goddesses

a fragmentary scene of ptolemy xii hand; while the hand and upper part of the staff are missing, she was probably holding the papyrus staff, which the other goddesses also hold. The body of the goddess is simply incised with little carved interior detail; from the evidence of the king’s figure, the painted detailing would have been quite elaborate. Mounted in front of the goddess on the throne platform are a lily plant and a papyrus plant, around each of which is the coiled body of a cobra; the upper bodies of the cobras are broken away. Standing behind Mut is a series of goddesses holding papyrus staffs in their left hands, ankhs in their right, starting with the goddess Hathor (named in the text above her). She is simply carved with no interior detailing and sports a long tripartite wig, vulture crown, simple collar, and detailed cobra modius surmounted by the horns and disk; a cobra rears from the front of the horned disk on the right, and its tail hangs from the back at the left. A second goddess, whose name is lost in damage, stands behind Hathor; she wears a red crown, and her collar is more detailed, with an upper row of differentiated round beads, and a terminus row of differentiated drop beads. A third goddess, Isis (named in the text above her) follows the unnamed goddess. Isis sports a vulture crown and horned-disk headdress that appears to be identical to Hathor’s; the crown and face are the only parts of the goddess that survive. We do not know if additional goddesses followed Isis, or indeed how far to the left the scene extended. The cartouches of the worshiping king are missing, as is his entire upper body, but fortunately the second vertical column of text from the

12 The beginning of the prenomen also matches that of Ptolemy XV Caesarion (J. von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49 [Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999], 247), but it is unlikely that he is the sole officiator depicted here. 13 Additional fragments, if found, would help clarify this broken inscription, which would have formed part of the next register above. 14 The transliteration and translation offered here should, given the incomplete and/or damaged nature of most of the text columns, be considered preliminary. The discovery of more fragments, especially of the inscription below the scene, of whose columns only the beginnings are present, would be essential for a full understanding of these texts. 15 For this epithet applied to Mut, compare Norman

137

right, below the king and goddesses, preserves the upper part of what is undoubtedly the prenomen of Ptolemy XII.12 The rest of the text to the left forms the upper part of a hymn to the goddess Mut, the main focus of the scene above. The main scene is surmounted by a horizontal skysign, above which is the lower half of a horizontal text that reads from the right to left (not presented here).13 The texts within and below the scene may be read as follows:14 Above Mut dd mdw (ı")n Mw.t ¯ […] 2 R#.t m sˇnw n "Itn […] 3 nb.ty wrr.t [nb.t …]16 1

4

p#.t […]

1

Recitation by Mut […]

Raet in the circuit of the sun disk15 […] 3 (she of) the Two Ladies of the double crown,16 [lady of…] 4 (of) the pat-folk […] 2

Before Mut 5

[…]18

5

[…]

Above Hathor dd mdw (ı")n ¯ Hw.tHr . . nb.t […] ı"r.t R# hnmw.t h. r ı"t=s ¯ 7 Mw.t dr.t ntr ¯ ¯ wtt t Aw.w=s ¯ Hns.t(?)19 8˘ […]n […] 6

Recitation by Hathor, lady of […], the eye of Re, united with her father, 6

(and?) Mut, hand of the god who engendered her children, Khensit(?) 8 […] of/for (?) […] 7

de Garis Davies, The Temple of Hibis in El Kh¯argeh Oasis, vol. 3, The Decoration (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 71; on the usage of the epithet in general, see Christian Leitz, ed., Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, vols. 1–8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002–2003, henceforth LGG), 4, p. 647a–b. 16 The upper left corner of a nb basket seems to be visible here. 17 This epithet is otherwise unknown, but compare nb.ty Atf.w #A.w (LGG 4, 174a); note that Mut wears the double crown with vulture headdress (associating her with Nekhbet and/or Wadjet) in this scene. 18 A line of text would have appeared here before Mut. 19 Damage to the text here makes the reading uncertain; for Khensit see LGG 5, 760.

138

w. raymond johnson and j. brett mcclain

Before Hathor h. nk. =(ı") tp=k m w Ad.ty […] ¯

9

Above the King “(I) shall bind your head in the double uraei20 […]”

9

Above the Third Goddess […] wr.t […] 11 [ntr].w h A[…] ¯ 10

nh.t ı"my[w]t(y) wp.t=s 12

19

[…] the great one, […] [the god]s, the sky(?)21 […] 12 she who protects the one who is between her horns,22 10

wh(ı") sˇsr r bw hr=s […] ¯

ntr ms(w) [n ¯ ı"t?]=f […]26

16

the arrow missing the place where she is,23 […]

13

Recitation by Isis the great one, who bore (and) placed Horus24 15 upon the throne of his father, who protects his birthplace with (her) wing(?),25 […] 16 the god born to his [father? …] 14

Before Isis 17

[…]27

Behind the King [s A #nh nb] dd w As nb˘h. A=f ¯mı" R# d.t ¯ 20

[The protection of all life], all stability and dominion surrounds him like Re forever.

20

Text Below Scene

Above Isis 14 dd mdw (ı")n As.t ¯ wr.[t] ms.[t] rdı".[t] Hr . 15 h. r ns.t ı"t=f sˇsr.t mshn.(t)=f m ndb ¯ ˘

s A R# nb [h#.w…] ˘

The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the two lands, […] 19 the son of Re, the lord of [appearances…] 18

11

Before the Third Goddess 13

ny-sw.t-bı".ty nb t A.wy […]

18

[…]

20 For parallels see Penelope Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 208; compare also Christophe Thiers, Tôd: les inscriptions du temple ptolémaïque et romain 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 2003), 173/2. 21 The context is insufficient to be sure whether h Ay, “sky/ceiling” is the word in question here; for writings see Wilson, Lexikon, 598. 22 Compare LGG 4, 259b: nh.t.n=s s A=s ı"mywt(y) wp.t=s, “She who protected her son who was between her horns”; for this text from Dendera see also Johannes Dümichen, Geographische Inschriften altägyptische Denkmäler 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1885), pl. 74. 23 This phrase is otherwise unknown, but thus rendered it follows logically after the previous line, indicating the goddess’s protective attributes. 24 The phrasing is odd, but both ms("ı) and rd"ı must surely

(ny)-sw.t-bı".t(y) nb t A.wy "Iw#-np( A)-ntr-nt(y)-nh. m ¯ […] 2 […] nhnt28 dmd=sn˘ r r[…] 3" ¯ ı( A)w n Mw.t n Hnsw29 […] 4˘ r h. k. A m T A-mrı" (ny)-sw.t […] 5 […]30 Psd.t n=s ı"my […] ¯ 6 tp(y).w-t A m hms ¯ […] 7" ı( A)w n Mw.t Hw.tHr . . […] 8 hr=[s] sbk. .t ı"r(ı").n ˘"Itm32 […] 9 n m Awy34 "Iw=s- #A=s […] 1

The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the two lands, heir of the god Soter (II), […] 2 […] Hierakonpolis, as they join with(?) […] 3 Praise (be) to Mut and to Khonsu […] 4 to be ruler in Egypt, the king […] 5 […] the Ennead for her therein […] 6 those who are upon the earth bowing down31 […] 7 Praise (be) to Mut and Hathor […] 8 with [her], the wise one,32 Atum having made […] 9 anew, Iusaas […] 1

indicate actions of Isis vis-à-vis Horus. 25 The word is written as ndbndb, “(whole) earth,” (Wil¯ homophone ndb, “wing” son, Lexikon, 561–562), but the seems to make more sense in this context. 26 The reading of this line is uncertain. 27 A line of text would have occupied the space here before Isis. 28 For the writing of nhn with otiose t see Wb. 2, 310. ˘ 29 This particular writing of the name of Khonsu is unattested, but compare LGG 5, 761b. 30 A low broad sign is written here, perhaps mr, m, or the like. 31 See Wb. 3, 367/3–4. 32 Compare LGG 6, 256. 33 For this writing see LGG 7, 411c (ref. 99). 34 For m m Awy.

a fragmentary scene of ptolemy xii

139

There are relatively few monuments of Ptolemy XII in Thebes,35 and additional unpublished, fragmentary material inscribed for him has recently been discovered in the area of southern Karnak. It is our hope that this group in the Luxor Temple blockyard might eventually prove

to be an important piece of the puzzle of the later history of this area. In honor of this festival occasion for our friend, we present this fragmentary hymn to Mut to one of that goddess’s most favored servants.

35 Chapel of Osiris of Koptos at Karnak, (PM 22, 207); addition to the temple of Ptah at Karnak, (PM 22, 196); Opet Temple reliefs (PM 22, 246); additions to the Hathor Temple

at Deir el-Medina, (PM 22, 401); and the Ptolemaic pylon gateway to the Small Temple of Amun at Medinet Habu, (PM 22, 462).

140

w. raymond johnson and j. brett mcclain

Fig. 1. Fragmentary relief group of Ptolemy XII worshiping an enthroned figure of the goddess Mut accompanied by standing figures of Hathor, a goddess wearing a red crown (name broken), and Isis. Epigraphic Survey eastern blockyard, Luxor Temple. Photo by Ray Johnson.

THE PORTRAIT OF A 12TH DYNASTY NOBLEMAN

Jack A. Josephson1 American University in Cairo Rita E. Freed Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

We are pleased to dedicate this article to the distinguished Egyptologist Richard A. Fazzini, chairman of the Department of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Middle Eastern Art at the Brooklyn Museum, and our good friend. Scholars who have undertaken research at the unequaled facilities of the museum, including the Wilbour Library, the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture, and the superb collection itself, are greatly indebted to Richard for his cooperation, patience, and good humor. No one could be more generous in sharing knowledge and exploring ideas. His command of Egyptological bibliography is legendary, and we are among Richard’s many colleagues whose writings have benefited from his assistance. In this brief study, we endeavor to articulate a plausible argument for the provenance of a fragmentary statue with neither inscription nor archaeological context, and to suggest a name for its subject—a methodological

exercise in art-historical analysis we trust will be of special interest to Richard. While the holdings of museums in Egypt are continuously enhanced by excavation finds, institutions in other countries, of necessity, must rely on gifts or purchases to enrich their collections. The diminishing availability of fine objects with legitimate provenance makes meaningful additions infrequent at best. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston was fortunate in its recent acquisition of a sensitively modeled Middle Kingdom private head carved in a fine-grained red quartzite (figs. 1–4).2 Although the museum is renowned for its splendid collection of Egyptian antiquities, many excavated over a period of four decades in the early twentieth century, few of its sites yielded significant Middle Kingdom material, particularly late 12th Dynasty sculpture. When the quartzite head, along with the head of a Middle Kingdom queen from a sphinx (fig. 5),3

1 We gratefully acknowledge the editing of this manuscript by Magda Saleh. 2 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 2003.244 (the Josephson Head); quartzite, h. 18.5 cm, w. 24 cm, d. 21 cm; Partial gift of Magda Saleh and Jack A. Josephson and museum purchase with funds donated by the Florence E. and Horace L. Mayer Funds, Marilyn M. Simpson Fund, Egyptian Curator’s Fund, Norma Jean and Stanford Calderwood Discretionary Fund, Otis Norcross Fund, Helen and Alice Colburn Fund, Norma Jean Calderwood Acquisition Fund, William E. Nickerson Fund, Frederick Brown Fund, Arthur Tracy Cabot Fund, Elizabeth Marie Paramino Fund in memory of Boston Sculptor John F. Paramino, Morris and Louise Rosenthal Fund, Arthur Mason Knapp Fund, Miguel and Barbara de Bragança Fund, John Wheelock Elliot and John Morse Elliot Fund, Walter and Celia Gilbert Acquisition Fund, Brian J. Brille Acquisition Fund, Barbara W. and Joanne A. Herman Fund, and by exchange from an anonymous gift; see Dietrich Wildung, ed., Ägypten 2000 v. Chr.: Die Geburt des Individuums (Munich: Hirmer, 2000), 167, no. 90.

3 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 2002.609; quartzite, h. 27 cm, w. 24 cm, d. 22 cm; Partial gift of Magda Saleh and Jack A. Josephson in honor of Dr. Rita E. Freed, John F. Cogan, Jr. and Mary L. Cornille Chair of Art of the Ancient World, and museum purchase with funds from the Florence E. and Horace L. Mayer Fund, Marilyn M. Simpson Fund, Norma Jean and Stanford Calderwood Discretionary Fund, Mr. and Mrs. James M. Vaughn, Jr., The Vaughn Foundation Fund, Egyptian Deaccession Fund, Mr. and Mrs. John H. Valentine, Jane Marsland and Judith A. Marsland Fund, Ernest Kahn Fund, Susan Cornelia Warren Fund, Samuel Putnam Avery Fund, Mary L. Smith Fund, John Wheelock Elliot and John Morse Elliot Fund, Mary E. Moore Gift, Mrs. James Evans Ladd, Frank Jackson and Nancy McMahon, Alice M. Bartlett Fund, Benjamin Pierce Cheney Donation, Frank M. and Mary T.B. Ferrin Fund, Meg Holmes Robbins, Mr. and Mrs. Mark R. Goldweitz, Allen and Elizabeth R. Mottur, Barbara W. and Joanne A. Herman, Clark and Jane Hinkley, Walter and Celia Gilbert, Mr. and Mrs. Gorham L. Cross, Mr. and Mrs. Miguel de Bragança, Honey Scheidt, Mr. and Mrs.

142

jack a. josephson and rita e. freed

became available, the museum seized the opportunity to add to its holdings two indisputable masterpieces from a period noted for its exceptional sculpture. The red quartzite head appeared on the art market prior to 1947, the year it was photographed by John Cooney, then curator of the Egyptian collection at the Brooklyn Museum, on the premises of Khawam Brothers, an antiquities dealership in Cairo.4 By 1951, it was in the Koffler collection in Lucerne, remaining there until its purchase by a New York collector in 1984. Prior to its appearance on the art market, the sculpture was coated with shellac, presumably to disguise a repair to the wig, probably damaged by the blow that severed the head from the body. It may have also caused minor chipping on the left eyelid, the tip of the nose, and the chin. The shellac sealed foreign material, identified by a scanning electron microscope as soil accretions, into the pores of the stone,5 and altered the color of the quartzite from its original reddish hue to an unnatural, slightly orange tint. As a result, the surface of the stone had assumed an artificial luster. This resin was removed by the Department of Objects Conservation of the museum. The use of a red stone for sculpture is noteworthy. In both 2- and 3-dimensional representations, red was the usual painted skin color for males in ancient Egypt, and in all likelihood red stone had special meaning when used for sculpture in the round, perhaps obviating the need for painting the figure.6 Quartzite also had particular worth to the Egyptians, who referred to it as biat, “a noble stone,” associated with the sun.7 A smooth bag wig, which pushes the oversize, sketchily rendered ears forward, covers the top of the head. Underpinned by a firm, square chin, the facial features are intact, apart from the minor damage noted above. A distinct line

G. Arnold Haynes and Margaret J. Faulkner; see Dietrich Wildung, Sesostris und Amenemhet: Ägypten im Mittleren Reich (Munich: Hirmer, 1984), 88, fig. 75, in which the head is described as having been found in Matariya (Heliopolis); Biri Fay, The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 64, pl. 84 f.; Richard A. Fazzini, “Head of a female sphinx,” in Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven, ed. Anne Capel and Glenn Markoe (New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996), 107–108, no. 41; Christiane Ziegler, “Une Nouvelle Statue Royale du Moyen Empire au Musée du Louvre: La Reine KhénémetNefer-Hedjet-Ouret,” Monuments et Mémoires de la Foundation Eugène Piot (Paris: Documentation français, 2001), 21, n. 24; Rita E. Freed and Jack A. Josephson, “A Middle Kingdom Masterwork: Boston 2002.609,” forthcoming.

of muscle is visible above the tightly set mouth, whose curvilinear, sensuous lips taper into thin straight lines. The rounded eyeballs protrude noticeably, causing the man to appear goitrous. The hooded upper eyelids, surmounted by barely discernible natural eyebrows, are thickly rimmed. A slight swelling on the forehead over the slender, aquiline nose marks its root. Apart from this singularity, the forehead is smooth. Fleshy pouches below the eyes and prominent, organically carved nasal labial folds create signs of age and define the boundaries of the cheeks. The pronounced high cheek bones, extending almost to the temples, wrap around the upper sides of the face. This unusual sculptural device served to avoid the customary discontinuity that resulted from the method of drawing the three aspects of the face, front and two profiles, on a block of stone as a guide to carving. The subtle modeling adds strong elements of personality and expressiveness to this lifelike representation, clearly the work of a master sculptor. Because of its individualized traits, the head may be described as a portrait, used here in the modern sense as a recognizable likeness of a subject.8 In the absence of an inscription or archaeological context, information regarding its date, origin, and identity can only be inferred from art-historical evidence, and more specifically by comparison to inscribed and excavated examples. While we attempt to propose a name for the man portrayed, any such suggestion is of course speculative. The features of the Boston head unmistakably parallel representations of Senusret III, whose reign was the dating first suggested for it in print by Dietrich Wildung,9 and which we, among others, subscribe to. In seeking a possible origin, we refer to Felicitas Polz’s exhaustive treatment of the statuary of Senusret III, in which she

4

From the archives of the Brooklyn Museum. Department of Objects Conservation report, dated Sept. 13, 2003, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 6 See Melinda Hartwig, “Painting,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 3, ed. Donald B. Redford (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1. 7 See Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan with Lawrence M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), 138 ff. 8 For an excursus discussing this often vexatious word, see Jack Josephson, Paul O’Rourke, and Richard Fazzini, “The Doha Head: A Late Period Egyptian Portrait,” MDAIK 61 (2005): 219–241. 9 See Wildung, Ägypten, 167. 5

the portrait of a 12th dynasty nobleman

143

identified seven find spots.10 Prominent among them was Thebes, which she subdivided into three specific locations: Karnak, Deir el-Bahri, and Medamud. At the last-named site, a number of sculptures relating to the Boston head were excavated and are discussed in the following paragraphs.11 The Medamud excavations yielded six remarkably expressive royal portraits and fourteen headless statue fragments, numbers in excess of those found at any other site.12 This proliferation suggests that Senusret III maintained a considerable presence in the Theban region, and particularly in Medamud, where a temple dedicated to Montu, the patron god of Thebes, was located.13 On the statues with preserved heads, Fernand Bisson de la Roque identified various stages in the long life of the king, ranging from youth to old age.14 Two of them, now in Cairo (fig. 6 = JE 66569),15 bear signs of middle age and display both a strong physiognomic resemblance to, and detailing extraordinarily analogous to, the Boston head. The distinctive heavy rims on the upper eyelids, the shape of the eyes and mouths and the modeling surrounding them, as well as the idiosyncratic wrap-around cheekbones, are extraordinarily alike. The foreheads of the Medamud statues are smooth, lacking the “worry” lines often associated with portraits of Senusret III.16 A fragmentary head from Medamud (fig. 7),17 now in Paris, also shares significant parallels with the Boston head. The treatment of the thickly rimmed eye, the curvilinear mouth with its encircling modeling, the lower part of the cheek, and

the remains of a prominent cheek bone demonstrate a strong affinity between them. The compelling mutual resemblance of these four sculptures, including the Boston head, suggests a common workshop, and the hand of a master sculptor, or team of sculptors, who imparted lifelike features upon some of the hardest stones then in use. Several characteristics found on these three-dimensional images are also seen on relief portraits recovered from the Medamud excavation. One example depicts the king with heavily rimmed eyelids and a prominent line of muscle surrounding his mouth.18 In contrast, other royal statues from the Theban area differ substantially from the Medamud examples. A beautifully fashioned, colossal red granite head bearing the name of Senusret III (fig. 8), now in the Luxor Museum, was discovered at Karnak in front of the Fourth Pylon of the Amun Temple.19 The king wears both a double crown and a plaited beard, the latter indicating either his deification, or, more likely because of the crown, the celebration of a heb-sed ceremony. The herringbone eyebrows engraved on an otherwise smooth forehead—an early manifestation of this unusual feature—constitute another interesting detail.20 The sides of the damaged aquiline nose are indented, emphasizing the distinctive shape of the nasal cartilage. The small mouth is carved with a drooping, sensuous lower lip. The squarer shape of the face, smaller mouth, delicately rimmed upper eyelids, the herringbone eyebrows, and more anatomically detailed ears distinguish this head from other Theban

10 Felicitas Polz, “Die Bildnisse Sesostris’ III und Amenenhets III. Bemmergen zur königlichen Rundplastik der späten 12. Dynastie,” MDAIK 51 (1995): 234. 11 This group of objects is not intended to be a complete list of Theban royal sculpture from the reign of Senusert III. 12 Fernand Bisson de la Roque et al., Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud, FIFAO 3–9 (Cairo: IFAO, 1926–1933). 13 No trace of the Middle Kingdom temple survives, it having been replaced by Late Period and Graeco-Roman edifices. The Middle Kingdom remains were found in a pit near the outer wall of the temple. See the preceding note. 14 Bisson de la Roque, FIFAO vol. 4, part 2 (1927), 105. 15 Cairo, the Egyptian Museum CG 486, gabbro, h. 29 cm; Ludwig Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten 2, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire nos. 1–1294 vol. 2 (Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1925), pl. 81, p. 65; Hans Gerhard Evers, Staat aus dem Stein: Denkmäler, Geschichte und Bedeutung der ägyptischen Plastik während des Mittleren Reichs 1 (Munich: Bruckmann, 1929), pl. 86, and JE 66569, granite, h. 29 cm; PM 5, 148; Evers, pl. 92. 16 For example, two well-known statues with deep fur-

rows above their noses in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: a diorite sphinx, no. 17.9.2, l. 73.7 cm, William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, part 2 (Cambridge, MA: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 196, fig. 119; PM 8, part 1, 13–14, no. 800-364-500, with bibliography; and a red quartzite facial fragment, 26.7.1394, h. 16.5 cm, Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 198, fig. 120, PM 8, part 1, 33–34, no. 800-494-420, with bibliography. 17 Musée du Louvre E. 12962, diorite, h. 15.5 cm, Elisabeth Delange, Statues égyptiennes du Moyen Empire: 2060–1560 avant J.-C. (Paris: Ministère de la culture et de la communication, Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1987), 29 with extensive additional bibliography. 18 Bisson de la Roque, FIFAO vol. 5, part 1 (1928), 48, fig. 40. 19 The Luxor Museum 40 (formerly J. 34), red granite, h. 80 cm, James Romano, The Luxor Museum of Ancient Egyptian Art (Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt, 1979), 32– 35, figs. 28–31 with additional bibliography. 20 See Bernadette Letellier, “Découverte d’une Tête Colossale de Sésostris III à Karnak,” KÊMI 21 (1971): 172, 174–175.

144

jack a. josephson and rita e. freed

representations of Senusret III. While this portrait is surely one of the finest ancient Egyptian royal sculptures known from this era, and undoubtedly carved by a master artist, it differs sufficiently from the Medamud heads to convince us that it is not from that atelier. Two colossal red granite statues of Senusret III, the bodies found in front of the Eighth Pylon of the Amun Temple and the heads near the Karnak Cachette, are now in Cairo.21 Although James Romano believed that they are closely related to the Luxor Museum head, in our opinion, they are not comparable in artistic achievement and expressiveness.22 Two other colossal royal heads in quartzite attributed to Senusret III, one in Kansas City (fig. 9),23 and a fragment in Hildesheim (fig. 10),24 may also have originated in Karnak. They exhibit less organic modeling and more complex rendering of the ears than the Medamud images. The foreheads of both sculptures have vertical grooves engraved above the noses, while the Kansas City portrait has a horizontal furrow as well. The similarity of the eyes, eyebrows, mouths, the shapes of the pouches under the eyes, and the organically carved nasal labial folds descending from the sides of the noses suggest a common workshop origin for both heads. Their hooded upper eyelids, although not rimmed, are comparable enough to the Karnak colossal images to recommend that provenance for them. Four inscribed granite statues portraying Senusret III were found in the funerary temple of Mentuhotep II at Deir el-Bahri.25 Their faces, rendered with flat, inorganically carved eyes and

plastically raised eyebrows, lack the delicate modeling and expressiveness of the Medamud and Karnak statues. One Deir el-Bahri statue, now in London (fig. 11), appears to have an aquiline nose with its root on the forehead, and frown lines extending from the top of the nose into the forehead.26 The nose, rimmed upper eyelids, and curvilinear mouth are somewhat reminiscent of the Medamud heads, but upon closer examination, appear to be derivative of statuary from that location. These statues probably represent the production of artists associated with the funerary temple of Mentuhotep II. Numerous hypotheses, including references to contemporary literature and Egypt’s political situation, have attempted to explain the careworn expression often associated with the three-dimensional images of Senusret III.27 According to a recently proposed theory, his appearance is related to the realism developed during the early Old Kingdom, implying Middle Kingdom archaizing.28 Whatever its cause or meaning, this expressive approach to portraiture heralded a revolutionary advance in Middle Kingdom sculpture. In the reign of Senusret II, royal sculpture, exemplified by the head from a female sphinx in Boston (see fig. 5),29 first displayed a degree of animated realism, a stylistic approach that came to full fruition during the sovereignty of his son.30 The distinctive features, whether characterized as careworn, worried, introspective, or stern, appear to expose his emotional state. It is also possible that they may have faithfully reproduced the actual appearance of Senusret III. The deeply hooded eyes and strong emphasis on diagonal

21 Cairo, the Egyptian Museum CG 42011 and 42012; PM 2, 179, CG 42011; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein, 80–81. 22 Romano, The Luxor Museum, 34. 23 The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 62–11 (Purchase: Nelson Trust), yellow quartzite, h. 45.1 cm, w. 34.3 cm, d. 43.2 cm, Ellen Goheen, “Head of Sesostris III, Middle Kingdom, Late Dynasty 12, reign of Sesostris III, 1836– 1818 B.C.,” The Collections of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (New York: H.N. Abrams in association with the NelsonAtkins Museum of Art, 1988), 22–23. 24 Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum 412, PM 8, part 1, 30 with bibliography; William H. Peck, Splendors of Ancient Egypt (Detroit: Detroit Institute of Art, 1993), 53, illus.; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein, pl. 88. 25 Edouard Naville, XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari vol. 1, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 28 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1907), pl. 19 (F), pp. 37, 57; and vol. 3, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 32 (London, 1913), 10–12. 26 The British Museum EA 684, granite, h. 142 cm; PM 2, 384; Evers, Staat aus dem Stein, pls. 83–85; Edna

R. Russmann, Eternal Egypt (London: British Museum Press in association with the American Federation of the Arts, 2001), 101–104, illus. with additional bibliography. Although it is difficult to discern the shape of the nose from the photographs, Russmann takes particular note of its aquiline contour and forehead root. In the catalogue, the museum number given is EA 686, but according to Nigel Strudwick, deputy keeper of the Egyptian collection at the British Museum, that number is erroneous. 27 For example, see William Kelly Simpson, “Sesostris III,” in LÄ 5, 905. 28 Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “A Source for the Sculptures of Sesostris III and Amenemhat III,” GM 194 (2001): 17– 19; regarding archaism, see Jack A. Josephson, “Archaism,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 1, ed. Donald B. Redford (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 109– 113. 29 See n. 2, above. 30 Rita E. Freed and Jack A. Josephson, “A Middle Kingdom Masterwork,” forthcoming.

the portrait of a 12th dynasty nobleman

145

lines differentiate his portraits from those of his son, Amenemhat III, rendering the identification of uninscribed sculptures of the two monarchs relatively straightforward. While the “official portrait” of the king often served as the model for private sculpture, never, to the best of our knowledge, did a Middle Kingdom artist achieve a more faithful emulation of the king’s features than that of the Boston head. Rather than the burdened look of his pharaoh, the expression on the face of the nobleman displays what we interpret to be a demonstration of character strength. While the name of the subject portrayed by the Boston head is not preserved, he was evidently a man of wealth and influence. His superb portrayal in an expensive stone could only have been commissioned by an individual with access to the king, whose permission would have been required for access to a royal atelier, where

this sculpture was undoubtedly produced.31 This implies that the nobleman was an official of the highest status, possibly a vizier, the most important position in the empire after the king.32 Abundant comparanda from the Theban area, specifically Medamud, suggest that the Boston head was made and installed there. The vast quantity of royal and private contemporaneous material discovered in that region, coupled with the recent discovery of Senusret III’s burial at Abydos,33 emphasize the importance of Upper Egypt during his reign.34 The man immortalized by this extraordinary portrait was a person of eminence, and thanks to his new home at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, this masterwork will continue to occupy a prominent place in our understanding and appreciation of ancient Egyptian art and culture.

31 On a number of his statues, Senmut, Hatshepsut’s steward, claims to have enjoyed such access. See Cathleen A. Keller, “The Statuary of Senenmut,” in Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh, ed. Catharine Roehrig (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 117 and notes 1–3. 32 The importance of the vizier in the Middle Kingdom is discussed by G.P.F. van den Boorn in The Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom, Studies in

Egyptology (London: Kegan Paul International, 1988), 346. 33 From the presentation of Joseph Wegner at the April, 2005 ARCE meeting in Boston, MA. 34 For a different opinion of where the seat of power resided in this reign, see William C. Hayes, “Notes on the Government of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom,” JNES 12 (January–October, 1953): 32 ff.

146

jack a. josephson and rita e. freed

Fig. 1. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244.

Fig. 3. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), proper right profile, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244.

Fig. 2. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244.

Fig. 4. Head of a Nobleman (Josephson Head), proper left profile, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2003.244.

the portrait of a 12th dynasty nobleman

Fig. 5. Head of a Queen from a Sphinx, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2002.609.

Fig. 7. Head of Senusret III from Medamud, Louvre, E. 12962.

Fig. 6. Head of Senusret III from Medamud, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, JE 66569.

Fig. 8. Head of Senusret III from Karnak, Luxor Museum, 40.

147

148

jack a. josephson and rita e. freed

Fig. 9. Head of Senusret III, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, 62–11.

Fig. 10. Head of Senusret III, Roemerund Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim, 412.

Fig. 11. Detail of a statue of Senusret III from Deir el-Bahri, British Museum, London, EA 684.

SOME THOUGHTS ON RELIGIOUS CHANGE AT DEIR EL-MEDINA

Cathleen Keller University of California, Berkeley

It gives me very great pleasure to contribute to a volume in honor of Richard Fazzini, a fellow Egyptomania enthusiast and aficionado of ancient Thebes. I feel reasonably certain that the characters mentioned in this paper, though residents of the Western Side, were as familiar as he with the Temple of Mut at Karnak. The title of Keith Hopkins’s recent work on the religions of the Hellenistic Mediterranean, A World Full of Gods,1 aptly describes the religious life of the workmen of Deir el-Medina as well. From the inception of the study of this organization, the votive monuments of the sdm.w- #ˇs m s.t-M3#.t ¯ have attracted the attention of scholars.2 The sheer quantity of the monuments, as well as the variety of the deities depicted3 (a list that includes divinities of both indigenous and foreign origin), has led to their being used to illustrate general compendia on Egyptian religion.4 Indeed, it is difficult to know what we would do without them. Attempts to link these (all too) portable monuments to individual cult places at Deir el-Medina proper, and to the North Chapel area in par-

ticular, have met with some success: Baraize’s excavations in the Ptolemaic temple area;5 the clearance of the “oratorio” sacred to Ptah and Meretseger;6 Davies’ investigation of the “high place,” situated above the path between Deir elMedina and the Valley of the Kings,7 and the Italian, German and French excavations of the village itself, have yielded up some in situ material.8 In addition to general surveys of religious cult and practice at Deir el-Medina,9 religious studies of the Deir el-Medina “pantheon” have frequently focused on individual deities, notably the deified Amenhotep I10 and AhmoseNefertari11 and Meretseger.12 Others, however, remain understudied, including Hathor, the dedicatee of Deir el-Medina’s major sanctuary, and her interaction with her local sister-divinities, such as Meretseger and Henutimentet. These three deserve reexamination as well, building upon the pioneering work of Bruyère. For example, since at least Dynasty 11,13 Hathor appears to provide local access to the west (at, for example, Deir el-Bahri) in her aspect of

1 Keith Hopkins, A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity (New York: Penguin Books, 1999). 2 Battiscombe Gunn, “The Religion of the Poor in Ancient Egypt,” JEA 3 (1916): 81–94, and Adolf Erman, “Denksteine aus der thebanischen Gräberstadt,” Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften 1911: 1086–1110. 3 Giorgio Noberasco, “Gli Dei a Deir el Medina,” Oriens Antiquus 20:4 (1981): 259–275. 4 Such as: Stephen Quirke, Ancient Egyptian Religion (London: British Museum Press, 1992). 5 Émile Baraize, “Compte rendu des travaux exécutés à Déîr-el-Médinéh,” ASAE 13 (1914): 19–42, and Bernard Bruyère, “Quelques stêles trouvées par M.E. Baraize à Deir el-Médineh,” ASAÉ 25 (1925): 76–96. 6 Bernard Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el-Médineh, MIFAO 58 (Cairo: IFAO, 1930), 5 ff. 7 Norman de Garis Davies, “A ‘High Place’ at Thebes,” in Mélanges Maspero, MIFAO 66, part 1 (Cairo: IFAO, 1935– 1938), 241–250. 8 Rudolf Anthes, “Die deutschen Grabung auf der Westseite von Theben in den Jahren 1911 und 1913,” MDAIK 12 (1943): 1–72; Bernard Bruyère, “Fouilles de l’Institut

français à Deir el-Médineh,” RdÉ 5 (1946): 11–24 (for early work at Deir el-Medina); Bernard Bruyère, Le Village, les décharges publiques, la station de repos du col de la Vallée des Rois, FIFAO 16 (Cairo: IFAO, 1939). For a recent summary, see Guillemette Andreu, “La site de Deir el-Médineh,” in Les artistes de Pharaon: Deir el-Médineh et la Vallée des Rois (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2002), 19–41. 9 As that of Dominique Valbelle, “Les ouvriers de la tombe”: Deir el-Médineh à l’époque ramesside, BdÉ 96 (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), 313–331. 10 Jaroslav Cern ˇ y, ´ “Le culte de Amenophis Ier chez les ouvriers de la nécropole thebaine,” BIFAO 27 (1927): 159– 203; Teresa Moore, “The Good God Amenhotep: The deified king as a focus of popular religion during the Egyptian New Kingdom” (PhD diss., UC Berkeley, 1994). 11 Michel Gitton, L’épouse du dieu Ahmes Nerertary: Documents sur sa vie et son culte posthume, Annales litteraires de l’Université de Besançon (Paris: Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne, 1975). 12 Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el-Médineh. 13 According to the stela of Wahankh Intef II (MMA 13.182.3) and depictions in the temple of Nebhepetre

150

cathleen keller

“mistress of the Red Mountain,” whereas Meretseger was associated with the further western peaks.14 Meretseger’s increasing importance in the 20th Dynasty royal necropoleis, already noted by Bruyère,15 was subsequently confirmed by Erik Hornung in his publication of the tomb of Horemheb, where he documented the prominence of Hathor in the 18th Dynasty royal tombs, and her systematic replacement, initially by Henutimentet “the Western Goddess,” and finally by Meretseger, in the royal tombs of the 20th Dynasty.16 In the private realm, we can see a parallel development in the larger number of Deir elMedina monuments dedicated to Hathor in Dynasty 19 and to Meretseger in Dynasty 20.17 But with the removal of the royal necropolis from Thebes, and the concurrent disbanding of the formal organization of The Tomb, the number of votives dedicated to Meretseger declines,18 and Hathor reasserts her importance as the patroness of the Theban West Bank. A second focus of research on religious life at Deir el-Medina is that of the religious personnel19 attached to the local shrines. Beyond the title of sdm- #ˇs, religious offices current at Deir el-Medina ¯ include several groups of titles that appear to be associated with specific divinities, such as: w#b, b Ak, h. m-ntr, h. m-ntr tpı", ı"t-ntr, and h. sı" (associated with ¯ w#b¯ and hsı" (associated ¯ Amun); with Ptah); ı"t-ntr . ¯

n Pth. -Skr (of Ptah-Sokar); a w#b k. nı".t n Dh. wtı" (in ¯ the cult of Thoth) and the b Ak n Mrtsgr (associated with Meretseger). Important aspects of the Deir el-Medina priestly offices and functions are also understudied, however, including that of the female clergy.20 The largest corpus of frequently cited religious titles at Deir el-Medina pertains to the cult of the deified Amenhotep I. This mateˇ rial has been examined by Cern y. ´ 21 Associated with Amenhotep I: w#b, b Ak, sˇmsw, #A-n- #, hrı"-h. ( A)b.t, ı"mı"-hnt, ı"t-ntr, h. m-ntr, and h. m-ntr ¯ ¯ a barque¯ ˇ tpı". Already in 1927,˘ Cern y´¯ identified related “set” of servitors through the examination of such documents as a column base in Cairo,22 which lists: a b Ak n Dsrk Ar #, a hrı"-h( A)b.t n "Imnh. tp, ¯ ¯ an #3-n- #, six w#b priests, and one h. bs-bh.t, each with assigned positions around the barque of the god.23 He identified the w#bw as both carrying out the cult of Amenhotep I in general, and as the actual bearers of barques (of other divinities as well) that made oracular decisions, and noted that the title was limited largely to specific families.24 A third approach to studying the religious life of the Deir el-Medina workmen has been reconstructing the beliefs and practices of individual members of the Crew. Naturally, this can be undertaken only for well-attested workmen, and here the scribe of the tomb Ramose has taken pride of place.25 Often described as the richest

Mentuhotep II at Deir el-Bahri. See Wolfgang Schenkel, Memphis, Herakleopolis und Theben: Die epigraphische Zeugnisse der 7.-11. Dynastie Ägyptens, ÄA 12 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965), 96–99; William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, part 1 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 151– 152, fig. 90; and Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Nebhepetre Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahri, vol. 2, Wandreliefs des Sancktuares, AV 11 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1974), Tf. 15, 18, 25–28, 28. 14 See Bruyère, Mertseger à Deir el-Médineh, 202–209. On stela BM 278 of Kenherkhepeshef (see conveniently, Quirke, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 136–137, fig. 80), Hathor is securely situated at Deir el-Bahri, while in st. Turin 50058 (Mario Tosi and Alessandro Roccati, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir elMedina [Turin: Edizioni d’Arte Fratelli Pozzo, 1972], 94–96 and pl. on 286), Meretseger is identified with the summit of the Theban mountains (el Qurn). 15 In Mert Seger à Deir el-Médineh, 276. 16 Erik Hornung, Das Grab des Haremhab im Tal der Könige (Bern: Francke Verlag, 1971), 28. 17 The reason for this change is discussed immediately following. 18 Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el-Médineh, 276–279. 19 Any study of this topic must begin with the list in: Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el-Médineh (1929), FIFAO 7, part 2 (Cairo: IFAO, 1930), 12–15, from which my numeration is largely derived. 20 Cults of the female divinities, as expected, seem to

feature both male and female servitors, as in the case of Meretseger; see Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el-Médineh, 234– 235. Barbara Richter recently completed a study of the female clergy of Hathor at Deir el-Medina: “The Priesthood of Hathor at Deir el-Medina: Devotion to the goddess by the clergy and their families,” (unpublished research paper, University of California, Berkeley, 2006). My thanks to Judy Shattuck for access to this study. 21 Cern ˇ y, ´ “Le culte de Amenophis Ier,” 159–203. 22 Cairo JdE 51512; ibid., 194–195 and pl. 9. 23 For excellent depictions of their arrangement, ibid., 186 ff., especially figs. 13 and 14. 24 For example, OC 25364 lists the porters of the barque of Amenhotep I as 6 w #b.w and 1 h. m-ntr, who is positioned r-gs=f, “beside it”; also in O.JdE 51517¯ there are 6 w #b.w at an oracular decision of Amenhotep I, implying their role as barque bearers during the oracular process; in TT2 the barque of Amenhotep is borne by 8 bearers. 25 For the cultic activities of Ramose, see most recently: Andreu, Les artistes de Pharaon, 228–233. For the life and career of Ramose, see also Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1935–1940), Fascicule 2, Trouvailles d’objects, FIFAO 20 (Cairo: IFAO, 1952), 13–20; Jaroslav ˇ Cern y, ´ A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period, BdÉ 50 (Cairo: IFAO, 1973), 312–327, and Benedict G. Davies, Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina: A Prosopographic study of the royal workmen’s community, Egyptologiche Uitgaven 13 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,

some thoughts on religious change at deir el-medina

151

individual ever to have lived at Deir el-Medina, he was fortunate to have lived during the earlymid portion of the reign of Ramesses II, when the prosperity of the village was at its height. He is associated with no less than three tombs in the western cemetery (TTs 5, 7 and 250), and with a host of dedications in his own name, as well as many made in the service of his king. These monuments were dedicated to an impressive variety of divinities: Amun, Hathor, Min, Qadesh and Reshef. Still, even Ramose appears to have had his favorites among the divine residents of the commuˇ nity. As scholars from Cern y´ to Valbelle and Andreu have noted, his dedications to Hathor are particularly numerous. Part of this attraction may have been a result of his “brief ” as the official chiefly concerned with her temple there, which appears to have been a royal foundation, and where he dedicated a royal ka chapel.26 And, as ˇ Cern y´ and Kitchen, among others, have noted, it was his unfulfilled desire for a son to succeed him as scribe that led to what was surely one of the most curious monuments ever erected at Deir el-Medina—a sturdy, red-hued limestone phallus, whose base inscription entreats: “O Hathor, a man is remembered by his memorial. Grant abiding in your house as a ‘rewarded one’ to the scribe Ramose. O golden one, who loves the one who desires her, favor me…Let me receive a recompense of your house…”27 However, I have decided to take a slightly different approach to the study of religious development at Deir el-Medina. The remaining portion of this paper combines some of the above categories by looking at the religious development at Deir el-Medina through familial religious associations. In other words, to combine both synchronic and diachronic perspectives by tracing the religious preference of Deir el-Medina families through several generations—not only to observe changes in the “fortunes” of the divinities worshiped, but also to see whether or not a pro-

longed period of living in close proximity to one another (and the village provided for the closest of proximities!) might have been one of the factors responsible for religious change at Deir el-Medina. In particular, it occurred to me that, whatever a workman’s religious preference might have been when he was recruited to the Crew— and the wide variety of deities worshiped there from all parts of the country clearly demonstrates that geography was no barrier to joining the royal workmen—the mere act of living and working together in close quarters over several generations (not to mention intermarriage) might have had important effects on the composition of the Deir el-Medina “pantheon.” The number of divinities worshiped by the Crew might be more likely to decrease, with Theban and local deities gaining adherents at the expense of other gods, now that the workmen’s families were no longer in proximity to their place of origin and were full participants in the area’s rich cultic and festival cycles. In the interests of brevity, and because this study is still in its initial stages, I selected one extended family from among the Deir el-Medina workmen to illustrate some of the changes that took place in the popularity of some of the village’s cults: that descended from the draftsman Pay (XIX), son of Ipu. This family was chosen both because of its rich monumental documentation and the fact that it can be traced over several generations. The family of the draftsman Pay28 is extremely well attested at Deir el-Medina in both the monumental and textual corpus. Pay was the son of a draftsman Ipu, who himself was not a part of the crew, appearing only in monuments of his son. In fact, Pay’s appearance (with the sculptor Piay) in a graffito reverencing the cartouches of Horemheb, Ramesses I, and Sety I29 places him among the first generation of Deir el-Medina workmen—someone who was not actually born in the village, but most of whose career was spent there. A review of his religious attestations reveals

1999), 79–84. The monuments of Ramose are translated into English by Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Translations 3 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 419–436. 26 For the excavation and finds from the Ramesside Hathor Temple and the Khenu of Ramesses II, with both of which Ramose was associated, see: PM 1, 695–698. And for Ramose’s role in the foundation of the royal cult at Deir elMedina, see the recent study by Karen Exell, “The Senior Scribe Ramose (I) and the Cult of the King: a social and historical reading of some private votive stelae from Deir el Medina in the reign of Ramesses II,” in Current Research

in Egyptology 2004: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium, University of Durham, ed. Rachael J. Dann (Oxford: Oxbow, 2006), 51–67. 27 Cairo TN 29/4/26/3 = Cern ˇ y, ´ Community of Workmen at Thebes, 325 and Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, 434. 28 For the family of Pay, see most recently Davies, Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina, 149–155. 29 Gr. 817; see Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Aegyptische und andere Graffiti (Inschriften und Zeichnungen) aus der thebanischen Nekropolis (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1921), 66.

152

cathleen keller

some interesting things about his religious orientation. First: It is noteworthy that Pay selected theophoric names containing that of the god Re for many of his sons: Nebre, Perahotep, Peraemheb, and (possibly) Raweben—not to mention his daughters Baketre (i) and (ii). Second: nearly all of his monuments, both votive and funerary, are directed towards divinities with solar, astral or celestial associations. In his sole dedications, references to the cults that will practically become synonymous with Deir el-Medina— Amenhotep I, Ahmose-Nefertari, and Meretseger—are conspicuously absent. They begin appearing only in dedications that also mention his sons.30 On Pay’s finely executed “lucarne” stela31 dedicated to Re-Horakhty, a kneeling figure of the draftsman greets the hawk-headed divinity as his barque appears at sunrise:32

lower left, facing right towards the accompanying prayer, while above, a celestial barque containing the solar disk approaches the western horizon.

“Adoring Re as he rises from the eastern horizon of the sky by the draftsman of Amun in the Place of Truth Pay, son of the draftsman of Amun in the Southern City, Ipu, he says: ‘Hail to you O Re, when he rises, who illumines the two lands when he goes forth! I shall give praise for love of you, in accordance with all truth.’”

“Giving adoration to Khonsu in Thebes Neferhotep, Horus, lord of joy. I praise him and propitiate his ka. May he be merciful to me everyday. See, you cause me to see the darkness of your making. May you be merciful to me, so that (I) might say: ‘How sweet is your mercy to the poor one of your city!’ For the ka of the lady of the house Wadjytrenpet. It is her son who made this stela in the name of his lord Khonsu: the draftsman Pay.”

“Giving adoration to Shu, kissing the earth to Re-Horakhty: ‘I give adoration to you when I behold your beauty. I adore Re when he sets, O god noble, beloved and merciful, who hears prayers, who hearkens to the poor, who comes at the voice of the one who pronounces his name,’ by the draftsman Pay.” Pay also dedicated a well-carved stela to the lunar divinity Khonsu in honor of his mother Wadjytrenpet, possibly on the occasion of her being struck down with illness, or upon her death.34 It is Pay himself, however, who comprises the focus of the inscription, and the urgency of his appeal is accentuated by the extra pairs of eyes and ears with which the stela is provided.

Pay’s example is typical of the genre, and indeed solar imagery is to be expected in this context. In fact, if this were the only extant monument dedicated by Pay, there would be no reason to ascribe a celestial orientation to this family. But there are further monuments to add to his solar dossier. A theological counterpart to Pay’s stela to Re-Horakhty is represented by a votive dedicated to “Shu, at his setting, the great living god.”33 In contrast to the lucarne stela, this monument is a rather clumsy piece of work. Pay stands at

A small stela in the British Museum depicts “Haroëris, the great god who hears prayers” seated at an offering table.35 Below, a single line of dedication text proclaims that the votive was “made by the draftsman Pay” for Haroëris. And although no monumental dedication to Amun by Pay alone is known to me, a brief memo to his son Pera(hotep/emheb) preserves the statement that “…my lord Amun is protecting me!”36

30 As, for example, BM 186, the bottom portion of a doorjamb mentioning Amenhotep I and Khonsu and containing the names of Pay and his son (Pe)rahotep; see Morris Bierbrier, ed., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae etc., part 10 (London: British Museum, 1982), 33–34 and pl. 78. 31 The lucarne stelae were set into niches carved on the front (eastern-facing) sides of the pyramid superstructures of the Deir el-Medina tomb chapels, and typically depict the tomb owner adoring one of more solar divinities, such as Re, Re-Horakhty, Shu, and the solar barque. The type has been most recently studied by Heleen Wilbrink, “Hymns to the Sun in the Tomb-Chapels of Deir el-Medina,” Résumés des IXe Congrès International des Egyptologues, 6–12 September, 2004 (Grenoble, France), 124.

32 Stela Turin 50048; see Tosi and Roccati, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el-Medina, 82–83 and pl. on 281. 33 Stela Turin 50042; ibid., 76–77 and pl. on 278. 34 Stela Turin 50052; ibid., 87–88, 283, and Enka Elvira Morgan, Untersuchungen zu den Ohrenstelen aus Deir el Medine, ÄAT 61 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), 124–127 (no. 19), with bibliography. 35 Stela BM 373, see: T.G.H. James, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc., part 9 (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1970), 56–57 and pl. 44, 2. And more recently, Morgan, Untersuchungen zu den Ohrenstelen aus Deir el Medine, 92–94 (no. 10). 36 O. Berlin P. 11247; see: Hieratische Papyri aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 3 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1911): 52–53,

some thoughts on religious change at deir el-medina

153

It is not until the latter part of Pay’s career that one of the local Theban divinities makes a first attested appearance among Pay’s private pantheon. A statuette of “the god’s wife of Amun, great and beloved royal wife, hereditary princess, rich in favors Ahmose-Nefertari,” now in Berlin, was co-dedicated by the elder draftsman and his sons Perahotep and Nebre.37 The requests made of the deified queen include “a happy lifetime, endowed with health, happiness and joy and a goodly burial after old age,” as well as “that my body might be strong and my step in its (proper) place until I reach the venerated state in peace”—perhaps references to Pay’s anticipation of permanent retirement from the Crew. It constitutes a “nod” towards the royal patrons of the workmen’s village, who are otherwise not well represented in the first generation of this family’s monumental corpus. The monuments of Pay’s sons demonstrate both continuity with Pay’s own celestial leanings and increasing allegiance to local divinities. They were almost certainly born and raised in the village and show the effects of living in the necropolis environment. Textual and pictorial sources record their full participation in village affairs, such as an appearance of Nebre in TT 250 (belonging to female relatives of the scribe Ramose) serving as lector priest at the funeral ceremonies.38 “Like father, like son” might have been said of Nebre, son of Pay, who also has left us a numerous and interesting corpus of personal religious dedications. A painted limestone depiction of Nebre holding an image of Osiris is now in the British Museum and constitutes one of our few three-dimensional depictions of a draftsman.39 This piece almost certainly was made for his tomb. In general, Nebre’s votives are characteristic of those of the second generation of Deir el-Medina workmen, in that, as might be

expected of anyone from the Theban area, the Theban triad looms large in his corpus. In addition, since he was almost certainly brought up in the village, his dedications begin to show the effects of living in the necropolis environment. His allegiance to both the east and west bank cults is exemplified by his mention on the Cairo column base (JdE 51512), where he is identified as: “draftsman of Amun of Opet and lector priest of (Amenhotep).”40 Like his father Pay, Nebre also dedicated a stela to Haroëris. His stela is more elaborate, however, comprising two registers of decoration.41 In the upper register, the hierokoncephalic deity is again seated before an offering table,42 while below “the draftsman in the Place of Truth on the West of Thebes Nebre, son of Pay” kneels to offer a prayer to “Haroëris, lord of heaven, ruler of the Ennead,” in which he is “giving adoration to Horwer, kissing the earth to the one who hears prayers. May he give to me my eyes for seeing the road and my stride for walking.” It is on the dedications of Nebre that serpent goddesses appear for the first time on the family’s monuments. On a small stela now in Turin, Nebre kneels in adoration of a serpent goddess, here Meret, “lady of food, mistress of provisions,” perched upon a pylon-shaped base.43 MeretsegerRenutet, with the same epithets, appears on an offering basin, also dedicated by Nebre, which was found at Deir el-Medina itself.44 Most notable among Nebre’s religious dedications is a votive stela dedicated to Amun-Re, containing a long “penitential” hymn to the divinity. The stela was made and displayed in gratitude for the forgiveness of his son Nakhtamun after the latter had pilfered a cow belonging to the god.45 The king of the gods is depicted against a backdrop of a Karnak Temple pylon, instead of the more usual blank (timeless) background, making this piece an unusual example of site-specific

tfl. 35. For the translation, see Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, 372–373. 37 Statuette Berlin 6908. For bibliography, see: Andreu, Les artistes de Pharaon, 263 (no. 213). 38 Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir elMédineh (1926), FIFAO 4, part 3 (Cairo: IFAO, 1927), pl. 6. 39 Statuette BM 2292; see Bierbrier, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, 34 and pl. 79. 40 Cairo JdE 51512; see Cern ˇ y, ´ “Le culte de Amenophis Ier,” 194–195 and pl. 9. 41 Stela BM 276; see Bierbrier, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, 34 and pl. 79. 42 It is worth noting that the depictions of the lunette

scenes on both stelae are stylistically very similar. 43 Stela Turin 50063; see Tosi and Roccati, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el Medina, 101 and pl. on 290. 44 Bernard Bruyère, Mert Seger a Deir el-Médineh, 297, fig. 15. 45 Stela Berlin 23077, see Adolf Erman, “Denksteine aus der thebanischen Gräberstadt,” 1087–1097 and Tfl. 16. The literature on this text is voluminous, and is far better known to Egyptologists than the object itself. One recent translation is that of Edward F. Wente, in The Literature of Ancient Egypt, ed. William Kelly Simpson, 3rd rev. edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 284–286.

154

cathleen keller

composition. Since his son Nakhtamun also bears the title of draftsman, the stela must date well into the lifetime of Nebre. The other monuments of Nebre also contain mention of his sons—the third generation of this draftsman family—in the form of their inscriptional presence in shared dedications. The junior member of the Theban triad, Khonsu in Thebes Neferhotep, is honored on a small stela now in Turin.46 In the lower register, the draftsman of Amun in the Place of Truth Nebre appears, together with “his beloved son Amenemope.” And a small, hastily executed stela, also in Turin, was co-dedicated by Nebre and his sons the draftsmen Nakhtamun and Khay to “the perfect, most enduring swallow” and “the perfect, most enduring cat,”47 theriomorphic symbols that have solar associations. The religious devotion of Pay’s second(?) son, Perahotep, is much less well attested. A small wooden statuette of the goddess Taweret, codedicated by Perahotep and the latter’s own son Ipu, adds a new divinity to the Pay family dossier.48 This devotion to Taweret was not a oneshot deal for the family, since a letter49 written by the draftsman Khay (son of Nebre) also mentions the goddess50 (as “your mistress”), along with the Theban triad and Ramesses II. Members of the later generations of the Pay family, such as Nakhtamun, the wayward son of Nebre, have left few votive monuments of their own. One of these is a small stela to Meretseger, now in the Louvre, which depicts “the draftsman in the Place of Truth Nakhtamun, his father the draftsman in the Place of Truth Nebre” kneeling before “Meretseger-Renenut, the good lady of food and mistress of provisions.”51 The Turin offering table of Ipu, son of Perahotep, is not particularly indicative of this generation’s cultic preferences, since, with its dedications to Osiris

and Anubis, it might be viewed as “(funerary) business as usual.”52 One final monument pertaining to the Pay family must be mentioned before we close our survey, namely their family offering table, now in Turin.53 This object was certainly dedicated late in his lifetime, for its texts include mention of his grandchildren. The offering prayers provide complete insurance for the Hereafter in that they invoke all manner of divinities: Amun-Re, Nut, Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari, ReHorakhty, Atum, Nun and Thoth, Ptah-Sokar, Anubis, Isis, Horus and Hathor, Re and Geb, Hathor (again) and Osiris (twice). There are also two short lines where the names of the deities have been lost. All of the bases are covered and all divinities of the solar, astral, celestial, terrestrial, subterranean and Theban persuasions have been included. Local and national deities appear together. It is clear that, despite evidence of increased attention paid to the community’s divine patrons by the family’s later generations, the solar divinities so honored by Pay himself have not been entirely forgotten. It is quite possible, of course, that the changes seen in the religious preferences of Pay’s family may not hold true for all of the workmen. It is interesting, however, that as one of the founding generation of the Deir el-Medina workmen, Pay’s solar and celestial emphasis does appear to give ground to Theban divinities, who figure more prominently in the monumental dedications of his sons and grandchildren. Preliminary research on families who appear to have come into the village later, or at the very least become prominent only in Dynasty 20,54 suggests, however, that there was a pronounced swing towards the cults of Meretseger, in particular, and a continued prominence of the Theban triad.

46 Stela Turin 50036; see Tosi and Roccati, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el Medina, 70 and pl. on 275. 47 Stela Turin 50056; ibid., 92 and pl. on 285. 48 Statuette Turin 526; see Mario Tosi, Un stirpe di pittori a Tebe (Turin: Edizioni d’Atre Fratelli Pozzo, 1972), 11, fig. 6. 49 O. DeM 581; see Serge Sauneron, Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques non littéraires de Deir el-Médineh (Nos. 550–623), DFIFAO 13 (Cairo: IFAO, 1959), pls. 16–16a. 50 The relevant section reads: “Another matter for Meryre (and?) for Mahu: ‘In the praise of Taweret, your mistress. I am lying, ill…’” (ll. 6–8).

51 St Louvre Inv. 4194; see Andreu, Les artistes de Pharaon, 151 (no. 94). 52 Offering table Turin 22028; see Labib Habachi, Tavole d’offerta are e bacili da libagione 22001–22067 (Turin: Edizioni d’Arte Fratelli Pozzo, 1977), 32–33 and pl. on 135. 53 Offering table Turin 22029; ibid., 34–37 and pls. on 136–137. 54 Such as the families of the scribe of the tomb Amennakhte, son of Ipuwy, and that of the chief draftsman Hori. See Davies, Who’s Who at Deir el-Medina, 105 ff. and 168 ff., respectively.

RAMESSIDE VESSELS FROM SINAI

Christine Lilyquist Metropolitan Museum of Art

I am happy to dedicate this study to Richard Fazzini—fellow student, archaeologist, and curator—who has offered unparalleled collegial generosity and friendship for over forty years.1 The faience vessels considered here were highlighted by Flinders Petrie in his excavation account from Serabit el-Khadem2 and by Geraldine Pinch in her wide-ranging work of votive offerings for Hathor.3 Petrie noted that fragments of two situlae in relief—nos. I and II below— were scattered widely in the temple, and that the inscription on one of them identified the main subject as Ramesses III (second king of Dynasty 20, 1184–1153 BCE). The king held a dd ¯ and received floral bouquets from women in floral crowns. Petrie was reminded of scenes in the private apartments of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, and also of the colorful glazed tiles of Ramesses III at Tell el-Yahudiyeh. In addition, he found vessel fragments with scenes and motifs but without relief, and estimated the height of each situla to be about a foot. Porter-Moss4 and Pinch traced Petrie’s vessel

fragments to Oxford, London, and Brussels, and Pinch additionally mentioned fragments without relief in the British Museum from Major Charles Kerr Macdonald’s work at Serabit el-Khadem (nos. III and IV below). She also cited fragments from Petrie’s work that had entered the Victoria and Albert Museum.5 Like Petrie, Pinch compared the multicolored faience fragments to raised-relief tiles at Tell el-Yahudiyeh from the reign of Ramesses III.6 In addition, she cited tiles of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu,7 tiles of Ramesses II at Qantir,8 and a faience relief vessel from the Sekhmet shrine at Abusir.9 She suggested that the workmanship and fabric of the Sinai pieces most likely spoke for manufacture in the Nile Valley. Iconographically, Pinch, like Petrie, was reminded of the reliefs in the High Gate at Medinet Habu10 but also cited scenes on the earlier gold shrine of Tutankhamun.11 She followed Wolfhart Westendorf in interpreting the shrine scenes as having an erotic character, where the queen acted in the role of Hathor. Referring to the High Gate

1 W.V. Davies and Marcel Marée in the British Museum, and Reino Liefkes and Terry Bloxham in the Victoria & Albert Museum kindly allowed permission to study, draw, and publish objects in their care. Helen Whitehouse facilitated and gave publication permission in the Ashmolean Museum; Dirk Huyge of the Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire in Brussels supplied information and digital photography for study. The drawings here were expertly made by William Schenck. 2 W.M. Flinders Petrie and C.T. Currelly, Researches in Sinai (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1906), 151–152, pls. 157–158. Negatives of the lower vessel on pl. 157 are in the offices of the EES and were kindly made available by Patricia Spencer and Christopher Naunton. 3 Geraldine Pinch, Votive Offerings for Hathor (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1993), 305–308. 4 PM 7, 364. 5 Previously listed by Barbara Adams, Egyptian Objects in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1977), 36, nos. 717–1905, 719–1905.

6 William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, part 2 (Cambridge, MA: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1959), 367–368. 7 Uvo Hölscher, The Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 4, The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III, 2, OIP 55 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 42–47, pls. 30–38; Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 367. 8 Hayes, Scepter of Egypt, 334–338. 9 Ludwig Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sáhu-re#, . vol. 1, Der Bau, Ausgraben der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 1902–1908 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1910), 130–131, fig. 178, pl. 14. The colors used are yellow, kelly green, blue, and gray. 10 For the complete group, see Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, vol. 8, The Eastern High Gate, OIP 94 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), pls. 630–658, with key in figs. 2–8. 11 Marianne Eaton-Krauss and Erhart Gräfe, The Small Golden Shrine from the Tomb of Tutankhamun (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1985).

156

christine lilyquist

reliefs, Pinch followed the work of Rosemarie Drenkhahn and Lana Troy, who felt the younger royal women there had a Hathoric role. Before describing the vessels and discussing their iconography, it should be noted that Alan ˇ Gardiner, T. Eric Peet, and Jaroslav Cern y´ did 12 not mention the vessels, although those scholars referred to other small objects found at the Sinai temple with Ramesses III’s name.13 Raymond Weill remarked on the fact that there was little evidence of Ramesses III at the site, in comparison with Ramesses IV and VI, and in consideration of Ramesses III’s account of an expedition to the mines in papyrus Harris; however, Weill’s work predated Petrie’s.14

Description

a chair with brown-dotted cushion, wears a billowing skirt, and has a sash draped over the side of his lion-footed chair. He places his feet on a small footrest. In front of his uraeus is a cartouche with a nomen restored to be that of Ramesses III and part of a second cartouche. (The last sign in the complete cartouche looks more like a nfr than a ı"wn, but no other Ramesside royal name fits.) Using the scene on the right as a guide, the left scene can be understood as the king holding a dd with four ridges along ¯ the top. Facing him is a female in a flowing garment and billowing shawl. On the basis of the scene to the right, this figure can be restored to show that she held two staves wrapped by vines and cobras. b. Seated king faces left, by comparison his body higher, the chair cushion thinner, and the feet placed on a double footrest. He wears a bracelet on his [right] wrist and holds a dd with an elaborate ankh above ¯ it. The woman’s costume includes flared sleeves and shawl; she holds her arms up, bracelets on each wrist, presenting two vine-wrapped staves [topped by cobras]. A blossom on each staff is pointed toward her, and at the top of the leftmost staff, a blossom droops downward as the staff separates. It appears that a loop at that point is a cobra’s body. On her head is a modius or calathos with four stiff blossoms (termed a papyrus or floral crown by Troy.)15

I. Situla with a mirrored scene, a seated king receiving floral offerings. British Museum 41787, including 13297 (figs. 1, 5 left). The pieces are illustrated in the lower half of Petrie’s pl. 157 with the exception of fragment BM 13297, brought back by Macdonald. It and Petrie’s fragments were restored by C.N. Reeves. The height of the situla is currently 27 cm but has been drawn at 24.3 with slight adjustments. The rim, 3 cm high, is comprised of two parts: an upper turquoise band decorated with manganese rosettes, and a lower band of green-blue color with manganese olive leaves. The base is comprised of a dark bluish gray band of olive leaves, and a lotus comprised of kelly green outer leaves, blue middle leaves, cream inner leaves (with black tips), and cream interstices. Between the rim and base regions, the ground of the vessel is cut back and colored a lighter bluish gray, allowing figures to appear as raised relief. The relief is glazed with yellow highlighted by manganese; an orange layer covers various parts, perhaps resin.

While the women are placed back to back, it is not certain that the kings are, for there is a small unidentified shape behind the leftmost king’s head. Further, there is a small loose fragment that was not incorporated into the restored vessel but which, by its physical characteristics, should belong to it.16

a. Seated king faces right, wears cap crown (with traces of dots?) and uraeus. He sits on

II. Situla with king receiving floral offerings, combined with floral composition including nest,

12 Sir Alan H. Gardiner and T. Eric Peet, The Inscriptions of Sinai, Part 1: Introduction and Plates, 2nd ed. rev. and augm., Egypt Exploration Society, Forty-Fifth Memoir, 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), 16, nos. 272–273, pl. 73, cf. p. 21; Part 2: Translations and Commentary, 2nd ed. rev. and augm., Egypt Exploration Society, Forty-Fifth Memoir, 2 (London: EES, 1955), 186–187, no. 273. 13 See also below for possible additional objects in the British Museum and Bolton.

14 Raymond Weill, Recueil des inscriptions égyptiennes du Sinai (Paris: Société nouvelle de Librairie et d’édition, 1904), 221– 222. 15 Lana Troy, Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History, Boreas 14 (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1986), 122. 16 BM 41787; 1.6 2.5 .8 th. The background is bluish × × gray and the raised relief yellow with traces of orange coating.

ramesside vessels from sinai Ashmolean E3409 (figs. 2, 5 right). The unrestored fragments are illustrated in the upper half of Petrie’s pl. 157. The museum’s restoration today divides the vessel into two parts, no doubt because of the difficulty in making alignments without all parts present. The vessel is restored here to be 19.2 cm high, and is similar to vessel I in having its rim and base on one plane while the area between them is cut back so that the scenes appear in raised relief. This vessel uses blocks of manganese glaze and has a king receiving floral items; yet it is smaller than vessel I, has two quite different scenes rather than a mirrored one, and has less-varied coloration. Altogether it is less refined than vessel I. There is a dark green band at the rim, 1.2 cm high, and a more blue band at the base above the lotus leaves. The outer lotus leaves at the base are turquoise, those in the middle dark blue, the innermost are black, and the interstices are green. The background for the king’s scene is medium blue with the raised sections in turquoise; the background for the floral/nest scene is dark blue to black.

157

in a striated umbel and is wrapped with a blossom oriented to the king. Vertical lines are behind the king and the woman; these form part of the two stacks of striated papyrus umbels (floral bouquets) that divide this scene from the second scene, floral bouquets framing a nest. b. The scene on the right has a dentilated border and a series of olive leaves at the top. Below these are three “baskets”: the topmost has a spotted duck, the middle has persea or mandrake fruits, and the lowest has olive leaves. The duck’s wings are spread (the throat is not preserved); behind it is a tray, a fruit, and a duckling’s open beak.

a. On the left, a king sits on a throne, his feet on the ground line. The throne is traditional, although it is striated as if it were rush work, and it lacks the plants of Upper and Lower Egypt. The king’s left arm is bent in front of his chest to hold a flail; his right fist is on his knees. The two bands projecting from his knees are sashes; his cap is dotted, and a long dark scarf hangs from his head. He wears a broad collar. The two strips above his head are a puzzle; they must belong with this vessel but their position is not clear. Facing the king is a female with cloak edged in manganese; she wears a broad collar, shawl, and modius with stiff papyriform flowers. (An area in front of her neck may be a wig.) A girdle suggests that this woman is nude except for her cloak, but this is not certain.17 In each hand she holds floral elements. Below her right hand are three papyrus stalks that line up with the halfumbel at the top; in her left hand she holds another papyrus stalk that culminates

III. Fragments of situla with arbor scene, Victoria & Albert 717–1905 (fig. 3). Part of the scene is illustrated in the upper section of Petrie’s pl. 158 and as Pinch’s pl. 64. Nine fragments are restored here to a height of 19.5 cm.18 Judging by the profile and wall thickness, this vessel was larger than vessels I and II.19 Although the lotus petals around the base and the horizontal band above them are in relief, the scene above them is rendered only in glaze by means of a light turquoise ground with manganese delineation. The sepals of the lotiform base are light and dark turquoise, the interstices are white, and the highlights are manganese. Above the sepals are two bands: a turquoise one on top and a blue-gray one below. The scene shows an enclosure of thin posts wrapped with vines having arrow-shaped leaves. Within it is a man with long pleated skirt and sandals, sitting on a folding stool with animal skin, his feet on a rush footrest. Before him stands a woman with long tripartite wig, broad collar, two sets of bangles, and a girdle. Her pubic triangle is indicated. She raises her right arm towards the man, and with her left hand holds open and forward a very thin cloak that has pointed sleeves. As in situla II, the girdle suggests that the female is nude, but this scene is more overtly sexual. This vessel also differs in having determinatives for a name written between the two people, signs that would conclude a name for her. It is not clear, however, where the rest of the

17 See Berlin stela 15,000 as photographed in color: Biri Fay, Egyptian Museum Berlin (Berlin: Ägyptisches Museum, 1985), 99. The queen has a pleated overgarment edged with a band, gathered up, but there is a smooth white garment

below it. 18 A tenth fragment, of the base, was not drawn. 19 Pinch projected the height of the vessels to be 40 to 50 cm, but they were probably not that large.

158

christine lilyquist

signs could be in relation to her raised right arm. To the right of the arbor are two vertical lines, and further right, a scale or feather pattern.

Interpretations and Dating 21

IV. Related vessel fragments (fig. 4). Parts of at least two other decorated faience vessels were found at Serabit el-Khadem with designs created only by manganese on smooth glaze. The most complete group can be seen in Petrie’s pl. 157 (upper right and lower half), today restored as Brussels E2458 with a height of 19.9 cm. Most of this jar is cream colored. The middle bands at the rim and base are blue-green, while the base leaves alternate cream with blue-green and the interstices are white. Not only do these fragments show a less ambitious technique than the vessels above, they show quite different subject matter. There are two zones: one with an open lotus framed by lotus pads and vertical bands of olive leaves, and one of ankhs, papyrus, and a h. h figure holding rnpt fronds. The second group of fragments, represented in Petrie’s pl. 158, top center, is also less ambitious. These have yellow rims, white glaze ground, and manganese lines that create scale or feather patterns, pendant olive leaves, and stick plants (see fig. 4). Most are V&A 719.1905, but the British Museum has two fragments of this type as well (13215 and 13306). Jeffrey Spencer kindly took the latter to the V&A to study possible joins, along with Will Schenck, and reported that differences in the thickness of the walls ruled out joins but suggested that two or even three separate vessels were represented.20

Both situlae I and II can reasonably be assigned to Ramesses III’s reign: their shapes, techniques, subject matter, and iconography are similar. Further, we may conclude that the king is deified in both vessels, witness the dd and ankh as well ¯ as the cobra staves.22 This view is supported by the findings of Bojana Mojsov in a dissertation integrating visual and textual sources from the reign of Ramesses III.23 She sees evidence of the king’s self-deification as early as year 2, when he set out on a program to align himself with Dynasty 18 and 19 predecessors24 at the same time that he began to present himself as benefactor and divine intermediary to his people. That the women in the first two situlae are royal is suggested by their floral offerings to the king (a very frequent offering after the late 18th Dynasty),25 by the rosette headdress that—in the Ramesside Period—is worn by royal women,26 and by the fact that blossoms are oriented toward them, as twice at Medinet Habu.27 In QV 51, queen Isis, in the netherworld, wears this headdress and raises her hands in adoration of Ptah-Sokar.28 In QV 42, a tomb for a son of Ramesses III, a queen offers papyrus stalks wrapped with cobras of Upper and Lower Egypt, the umbels of the stalks directed at Osiris.29 Other examples of the rosette headdress are in QV 7430 and the tomb of Theti, QV 52.31 The latter tomb offers many iconographic parallels to the women on vessels I and II, although the Serabit el-Khadem vessels appear to be unique in having a living queen offering to a

Communication 9 Nov 2005. I have benefited from the publications of Lana Troy, Patterns of Queenship, and Ruth Antelme and Stéphane Rossini, Sacred Sexuality in Ancient Egypt (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2001), originally published as Les Secrets d’Hathor (Paris: Éditions du Rocher, 1999). 22 See examples offered to Sety I by goddesses in his chapel at Abydos: Sir Alan H. Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos, 2 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1935), pl. 36. 23 The Sculpture and Relief of Ramesses III, PhD diss., New York University (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1992). Especially on deification, see pp. 1–2, 46–68, 280– 281, and chapter 4 nos. 66, 70. Her study of the king’s tomb will appear in an anthology concerning the reign of Ramesses III published by the University of Michigan and edited by David O’Connor and Eric H. Cline. 24 See, for example, Ramesses III’s much-admired predecessor Ramesses II, in Labib Habachi, Features of the Deification of Ramesses II, ADAIK 5 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1969); and Rosemarie Drenkhahn, “Ramses III,” in LÄ 5, 117. For the general subject, Hans Goedicke, “Vergöttlichung,” LÄ 6, 990.

Emma Brunner-Traut, “Blummenstrauß,” LÄ 1, 838. Heather L. McCarthy kindly informs me that all Ramesside royal women with this headdress are h. mt nswt wrt, while some are s3t nswt as well; I am grateful to her for reading this manuscript. Other instances of the headdress are in QV 60 (Nebettawy, daughter-wife of Ramesses II) and Tausret (KV 14) (communication 10 May 2006). Earlier examples of the headdress are collected in Christine Lilyquist, The Tomb of Three Foreign Wives of Tuthmosis III (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2002), 160–161, 347–348. 27 See, for example, the queen of Ramesses III holding up sistra and blossoms that face her: Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, vol. 5, The Temple Proper, 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), pl. 310. 28 Christian Leblanc, Ta Set Neferou: un Necropole de ThebesOuest et son Histoire 1 (Cairo: Nubar Printing House, 1989), pl. 112. McCarthy informs me that the queen offers ointment cones to an unidentified male deity in the same room. 29 Ibid., pl. 85. 30 Ibid., pl. 200. 31 Georges Bénédite, Le tombeau de la reine Thiti, MMAF 5 (Paris: Ministère d’Instruction publique et des Beaux Arts, 1891), 397, particularly pls. 2, 6.

20 21

25 26

ramesside vessels from sinai

159

living but deified king, and are probably earlier.32 The Serabit el-Khadem scenes may be considered somewhere between those of the shrine of Tutankhamun,33 where the king and queen are living, and the Ramesside queens’ tombs cited above. Troy suggests that the women on the situlae are acting in the role of daughter in the Hathoric sense—as a regenerative agent of the father.34 Certainly the floral crown is elsewhere associated with Hathor.35 By comparison, the scenes on these two vessels are more ritualistically formal than the sexually intimate scenes in the private apartments at Medinet Habu.36 In the latter, the king only rarely has clothing on his body and the relation between him and the young women is very personal. Although they may wear a modius (sometimes with rosettes) and fillet (sometimes with a lotus over the brow) they are nude, wearing only echeloned wigs and long sidelocks, beads or broad collars, earrings, and sandals with upturned toes. These young women present papyri, fans, baskets of fruit, and jewelry; hold fans; raise their hands in adoration; and play musical instruments and senet. They may also touch and embrace the king, but only once do they appear clothed, and never do they present cobra staves.37 It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the decorative scheme of the harem apartments,38 but for the moment it may be contrasted with the scenes on the Serabit vessels. That said, the

iconography of vessel II is less formal but also more symbolic than that of vessel I, as the royal scene is juxtaposed with a scene of vegetation and wildlife. As for vessel III, it has similarities with vessel I (male in long kilt sitting on folding stool covered by an animal skin; scale and type of vessel; technique), and the type of scene is again evocative of East Gate reliefs at Medinet Habu. But there are a number of features that distinguish it, if not make it unique. First of all is the setting, which is a bower of vines with arrow-shaped leaves. Such a place is often associated with women who have given birth,39 although Dorothea Arnold has more recently discussed a wider meaning in connection with the Amarna royal family.40 Vines alone commonly appear with dancers and musicians and in various funerary contexts, especially during the Ramesside Period; they are also received by deities, as Montu and Meretseger sitting in a shrine.41 Whether these plants are convolvulus, ivy, or birthwort42 is probably not as important here as the fact that vine-like plants evoke generation and life.43 Yet while Pinch has identified the male in vessel III as a king (thus, as established here, the deified Ramesses III), there are unusual features. The garment does not display any royal insignia and the stool beneath can be used by private men while the woman is named (the nfrwt at Medinet Habu are termed only “children of the king”) and we do not know what she

32 Aidan Dodson, “The Takhats and Some Other Royal Ladies of the Ramesside Period,” JEA 73 (1987): 224–229. 33 See Eaton-Krauss and Gräfe, Small Golden Shrine, pls. 8–9. 34 Communications, 24 January and 6 February 2006. 35 Lilyquist, Three Foreign Wives, 160–161; Maya Müller, “Die Göttin im Boot—Eine iknographische Untersuchung,” in Menschenbilder—Bildermenschen; Kunst und Kultur im Alten Ägypten, ed. Tobias Hofmann et al. (Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2003), 84–86, and see J.E. Quibell, Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire 51001–51101 (Cairo: IFAO, 1908), pl. 36. In a later period, see Epigraphic Survey, The Temple of Khonsu, vol. 1, Scenes of King Herihor in the Court, OIP 100 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1979), pls. 58, 84. Colleen Manassa kindly informs me that in the Middle Kingdom, there is worship of deified kings in quarry areas, specifically tied in with the worship of Hathor (communication 8 May 2006). 36 Epigraphic Survey, Eastern High Gate, passim, pls. 630– 658. 37 A different type of scene occurs above the north door of the third-floor room in the central tower where a woman with floral crown and robe offers two vessels: ibid., pl. 655. 38 See recently David O’Connor, “The Eastern High Gate: Sexualized Architecture at Medinet Habu?” in Struc-

ture and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture, ed. Peter Jánosi (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005), 439–454. 39 See Geraldine Pinch, “Childbirth and Female Figurines at Deir el-Medina and el-#Amarna,” Orientalia 52 (1983): 405–414; and J. Vandier d’Abbadie, Catalogue des ostraca figurés de Deir el Médineh, Documents de fouilles 2 (1–4) (Cairo: IFAO, 1937, 1946, 1959), passim. 40 Dorothea Arnold, “Aspects of the Royal Female Image during the Amarna Period,” in The Royal Women of Amarna: Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996), 99–100. 41 Norman de Garis Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1927), pl. 11. 42 Lise Manniche, An Ancient Egyptian Herbal (London: British Museum Publications, 1989), 78–79, 160–162. 43 See the catalogue and discussion of Sydney Aufrère and André Lopez-Moncet, “Réprésentations végétales énigmatiques du Nouvel Empire; La liane à feuilles sagittées,” in Encyclopédie religieuse de l’univers végétal: Croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypt ancienne 2, ed. Sydney Aufrère (Montpellier: Université Paul-Valéry, 2001), 39–78. The subject is also discussed by Jean-Claude Hugonot, “Le liseron et le lierre dans l’Égypte ancienne,” GM 142 (1994): 73–81. Both authors stress the connection with Hathor, papyrus, and fertility.

160

christine lilyquist

had in her upraised hand. Could the male be a prince or person of high rank?44 Against this interpretation is the size and quality of the vessel and the scale/feather pattern, often used on royal objects. In all events, sexual potency is the intent of the scene. Likewise the fragments in Brussels with h. h figure holding rnpt fronds refer to continuing life.45 As both of these situlae were found in the Hathor sanctuary at Serabit el-Khadem, one must think that the iconography of them too is connected with Hathor. As for the date of the vessels, Mojsov places the construction of the High Gates at Medinet Habu, Ramesses III’s removal of the Delta residence to Medinet Habu, and the construction of tombs for princes in the Valley of the Queens at the end of the king’s third decade. This chronology would suit vessels I and II (as well as III and IV), for it would be a time that the king desired libations be poured for Hathor, contributing to his renewal through h. b-sd. The technique of the vessels certainly matches what is known of Ramesside faience work. Their delicacy and ambitiousness are known in Egypt46 and the east Mediterranean as well.47 However it is easiest to think that the vessels were manufactured in the Nile Valley, and perhaps brought on the occasion of the turquoise expedition in papyrus Harris, where Ramesses III states,

See Epigraphic Survey, The Temple Proper, pl. 301. See also the painted pottery fragments of a vessel from Deir el-Medina with Nile god, rnpt fronds, and arrowshaped leaves: Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (années 1948 à 1951), FIFAO 26 (Cairo: IFAO, 1953), 56 no. 55, pl. 13a. 46 In addition to the references in fns. 7–9, see Florence Friedman, ed., Gifts of the Nile (Providence: Rhode Island School of Design, 1998), 86–87, 152, 156; Annie Caubet and Geneviève Pierrat-Bonnefois, eds., Faïences de l’antiquité: de l’Egypte à l’Iran (Paris: Musée du Louvre, 2005), nos. 129, 242, 245–246 for representative colors and scale. Hayes considered the faience of Ramesses II to be finer than that of successors (Glazed Tiles from a Palace of Ramesses II at Kant¯ır (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1937), 42–43. 47 P.E. McGovern, S.J. Fleming, C.P. Swann, “The Late 44 45

I dispatched butlers and magistrates to the turquoise mountains of my mother, Hathor, mistress of turquoise. Silver, gold, royal linen, mak-linen, and profuse things were brought for her into her presence, like the sand. There were brought for me marvels of real turquoise in numerous bags. …48 It is not known whether the single Ramesses III stela attested at Serabit was set up at that time,49 but it is logical. Mojsov convincingly dates it to year 29 rather than year 23, as the king is said in it to be “great of h. b-sd’s” and there is room for extra strokes.50 Surely the other small objects of faience with this king’s name found at Serabit el-Khadem could have been brought at the time of the expedition. Pinch states that the Ramesside material at this site outnumbered that of Dynasty 18 by a ratio of about 4 to 1. She further states that more inscribed material was found there than at Deir el-Bahri, Timna, Faras, Gebel Zeit, and Mirgissa.51 Of those faience items with the name of Ramesses III at Sinai, she lists fragments of a sistrum, bracelets, throwstick, and marsh bowls.52 Some of these might be included among items identified by Marcel Marée in the British Museum53 and Tom Hardwick in Bolton.54 All were for Hathor, mistress of the turquoise, that her radiance and vitality would fill those who worshiped her.

Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: Glass and Faience Production in the Late New Kingdom,” BASOR 290–291 (1993): 1–27. 48 See W. Erichsen, Papyrus Harris I: hieroglyphische Transkription, BÄ 5 (Bruxelles: Édition de la Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1933), 95, lines 78,6–7. 49 See fn. 12. It was inside the entrance on the west side of the temple. 50 Sculpture and Relief, chap. 4, no. 72 (pp. 44–45, 236–237). 51 Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, 53–58, 304–308. 52 Ibid., 145–146, 273–274, 296, 309. 53 Those from Macdonald are 13219 (rounded rim fragment with inscription on inside) and 13220 (patera with inscription on inside); those from Petrie are 41782 (beaker) and 41798 and 41812 (bangle fragments). 54 Fragment of a lotiform chalice, Bolton 1905.68.33.

Fig. 1. Vessel I, situla with Ramesses III receiving floral offerings, BM 41787, including 13297.

ramesside vessels from sinai 161

Fig. 2. Vessel II, situla with king receiving floral offerings and floral composition with nest, Ash. E3409.

162 christine lilyquist

Fig. 3. Fragments of situla with arbor scene, V&A 717–1905.

ramesside vessels from sinai 163

Fig. 4. Fragments of several vessels: d, BM 13306; f, BM 13215; all others, V&A 719–1905.

164 christine lilyquist

ramesside vessels from sinai

Fig. 5. Vessel 1, left, and part of vessel II, right.

165

AN UNUSUAL WOODEN STATUETTE OF OSIRIS

Jadwiga Lipinska Warsaw

An almost perfectly preserved mummiform figure (fig. 1), property of the Louvre Museum (N 670; 22; 207) is now kept on long-term loan in the National Museum in Warsaw, Poland (inv. nr. 143346).1 It is made of one solid piece of wood, together with the plinth, but the hemhem crown was made separately and fixed on top of the head. It has been suggested that the crown was added in modern times to the “normal” Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, but there are no traces of such changes, and the crown seems to have been pegged before the wig was painted. Most probably the crown is original. The figure wears a tripartite wig, divine beard, and simple semicircular collar of colored plain bands terminating with falcons, reaching down low upon the chest. The arms are folded with the hands kept close against the chest, one above the other in a position usually characteristic of holding the flail and crook. In this case, however, there are no insignia present. The elbows are widely drawn aside. The figure presents a round face and a rather slender body with narrow knees and well-defined shins. The texts (fig. 2), in cursive hieroglyphs, are written in two columns, one on front, between the hands and toes, the other on the back pillar. The general appearance is similar to Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues described by M.J. Raven as the type IV, especially IV B,2 but there are also some differences. Two features make the statuette unusual: the hemhem crown instead of the usual white crown, atef or two ostrich feathers; and empty fists. The

positioning of the hands (left above the right one) is also infrequent. I was not able to find any representation of Osiris in a hemhem crown. But closest are representations of the falcon-headed Osiris-Sokar or Sokar-Osiris on two papyri dated to ca. 300 CE.3 Several kings and gods were wearing such a crown4 in the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, so there is no reason why Osiris could not have worn this crown, as it was considered to be a symbol of resurrection. Lack of insignia in the hands of the figure is not so easy to explain. Possibly the painter forgot to paint them. Also, the unusual position of the hands awaits explanation. Some of the bronze figurines of Osiris also have the hands mistakenly represented, but such small mass-produced votive bronze statuettes were apt to be not quite up to the standards. Wooden sculpture of moderate size should conform to the iconographic principles. But this one does not. The text on the front of figure contains data about the owner. She was the “chantress of Amun-Re, named Isetemkheb, daughter of the god’s father, prophet of Amunrasonter, Mentuemhat” (ı"h. ı"t n "Imn-R# As´t-m- Ah-bı"t s At n ı"t ntr h. m[ntr] ¯ ¯ "Imn-R# nı"swt ntrw Mntw-m-h. A˘t). ¯ ¯ The text on the back pillar contains a corrupt, abbreviated version of the first clauses of a hymn to Osiris. The name of the deceased owner of the statue is very common in the Late and Ptolemaic Periods,5 as is the title “chantress of Amun-Re.”

1 Total height: 51.5 cm, without crown, 40 cm; width across the elbows 11 cm; across the shins 5.5 cm. Colors: dark red—body; yellow—face, ears, fists, foreground for texts, back of crown; black—eyes, wig, horns of the crown, cursive signs and vertical lines framing them. Crown details—green, red, and black; bands of collar—dark green, yellow, dark red, contours black, falcons yellow. 2 Maarten J. Raven, “Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-SokarOsiris Statues,” OMRO 59–60 (1978–1979): 267.

3 Pap. Berlin 10477: Peter Munro, Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen, Tafelband (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1973), ill. 191; pap. Medelhavsmuseet 1981:22: Beate George and Ove Kaneberg, Kärlek till Egypten (Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet, 1999), 98. 4 Raven, “Papyrus-sheaths,” 276–281. 5 Hermann Ranke, Die ägyptischen Personennamen 1 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935), 4,3.

an unusual wooden statuette of osiris

167

There is evidence for seven such persons with the same names and titles found in the tomb of Ankhhor at Asasif,6 but only one of them had a father named Mentuemhat, with the same priestly titles as on the statuette discussed here.7 One of the finds also bears the name of the mother: “Takereret, called Heres.” One of those objects is the base for a statue with a hollow casket, inscribed with an offering formula to “Osiris, the first of the West”8 and with all three names of parents and daughter. It evidently once

belonged to the discussed statue, and it would be interesting to join the objects again. Another object, a funerary papyrus in Turin,9 is inscribed with the names of all three members of the family. The date for this extraordinary statue is provided by its shape, graphical peculiarities of the hieroglyphic signs, and the archaeological context of finds in the Ankhhor tomb: it is Dynasty 30 or early Ptolemaic Period.10

6 Manfred Bietak and Elfriede Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des #Anch-Hor 2, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 5 (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982), esp. 267. 7 G 10 and G 89. 8 Letter dated April 20, 2004 from Dr. E. Haslauer, to

whom I express here my sincere thanks for helping me. 9 A. Fabretti, F. Rossi, and R.V. Lanzone, Regio Museo di Torino: Antichitá Egizie (Turin: Paravia, 1882), no. 1793. 10 This date is given for the second phase of using the tomb (Bietack and Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des #Anch-Hor, 252).

168

jadwiga lipinska

Fig. 1. Figure of Osiris, National Museum in Warsaw inv. nr. 143346, Louvre N 670; 22; 207, photographs © Zbigniew Dolinski, ´ National Museum, Warsaw.

an unusual wooden statuette of osiris

Fig. 2. Text on front and back pillar.

169

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE SECOND STYLE IN OLD KINGDOM ART Karol My´sliwiec Polish Academy of Sciences

Constituting a turning point in art-historical approach to the arts of late Old Kingdom, and particularly that of the 6th Dynasty, the study by E.R. Russmann on the “Second Style”1 encourages a preliminary publication of newly discovered material enriching the documentary base, especially in cases where both the archaeological context and the date of the artifacts are well attested. Among the new records corroborating Russmann’s observations are the wooden figurines found recently by the Polish-Egyptian archaeological mission in Saqqara, directly west of the Netjerikhet pyramid’s enclosure.2 All these figurines originally belonged to the equipment of the burial chambers hewn in the rock at the bottom of burial shafts3 in mastabas of 6th Dynasty noblemen. Some of the figurines were still found in situ, but most of them were displaced to the shafts by robbers who ravaged these tombs in the final phase of the dynasty, probably soon after the funerals.4 The most complete and interesting group of figurines was discovered in 2004 beside the burial chamber of the mastaba (burial shaft no. 32, connected with the cult chapel no. 5) belonging

to the majordomo of the royal palace, inspector of the great house, master of secrets of the robing-room, called Ny-Pepy.5 The partly preserved, mud-brick superstructure of this mastaba, excavated in 1999,6 yielded inscribed limestone blocks that originally framed a false door that must have been standing in its cult chapel.7 The tomb’s subterranean part was explored in 2004,8 and a number of various objects was found in the debris filling its burial chamber. There are, among others, fourteen objects made of copper, including ten miniature vessels. Preserved on nine of these is an incised inscription containing always the name and a title of the tomb owner: h. rı"pr pr-nı"swt Nı"-Ppı"ı", majordomo of the royal palace, Ny-Pepy.9 His identity is, therefore, beyond doubt, in spite of the presence of a limestone false door found in the secondary filling of the shaft, inscribed for a priestess of Hathor named Khekeret.10 Displaced by ancient robbers, it was doubtless brought here from a neighboring mastaba. Among the other, anepigraphic objects found in the debris filling Ny-Pepy’s burial chamber, as well as in a niche hewn in the shaft’s north and east walls at the same level (figs. 1–2), were three tools and a small plate(?) made of copper,

1 Edna R. Russmann, “A Second Style in Egyptian Art of the Old Kingdom,” MDAIK 51 (1995): passim. 2 Karol My´ sliwiec et al., The Tomb of Merefnebef: PolishEgyptian Archaeological Mission, Saqqara I (Warsaw: Editions Neriton, 2004), 43–44; for the figurines found in the shaft no. 27, cf. Karol My´sliwiec, “West Saqqara, Excavations 1999,” PAM 11 (2000): 97 (figs. 7–8), and Karol My´sliwiec, “West Saqqara 1999: Polish-Egyptian Mission,” ASAÉ 77 (2003): 154 and pl. 6. 3 Which should be distinguished from the “ritual shafts” of the same mastabas, cf. Teodozja Izabela Rzeuska, “The Necropolis at West Saqqara: The Late Old Kingdom Shafts with no Burial Chamber. Were they False, Dummy, Unfinished or Intentional?” ArOr 70, no. 3 (2002): 377–402. 4 Cf. Teodozja Izabela Rzeuska, The Pottery of the Late Old Kingdom, Saqqara 2 (Warsaw: Editions Neriton, 2006), 494. 5 My´ sliwiec et al., The Tomb of Merefnebef, 44, n. 43; for its location, cf. ibid., pl. 2, square 2103.

6 My´ sliwiec, “West Saqqara, Excavations 1999,” 92 (fig. 3), 95 (fig. 5) and 96 (fig. 6); My´sliwiec, “West Saqqara 1999: Polish-Egyptian Mission,” 153–154, 162 (fig. 5), 163 (fig. 6), 167 (fig. 10), and pls. 1b, 5. 7 Kamil O. Kuraszkiewicz, “Two Fragments of Falsedoor Frame of Ny-Pepy from West Saqqara,” EtTrav 19 (2001): passim; see Kuraszkiewicz, “Inscribed objects from the Old Kingdom necropolis west of the Step Pyramid,” ArOr 70 (2002): 361–363. 8 Karol My´ sliwiec, “Saqqara 2004: Archaeological Activities,” PAM 16 (2005): 153 and 156–157; for the dating of the tomb, based on ceramic materials found in its subterranean parts, see Teodozja Izabela Rzeuska, “The Pottery, 2004,” PAM 16 (2005): 175–176. 9 Kamil O. Kuraszkiewicz, “Inscribed Material from Saqqara, 2004,” PAM 16 (2005): 168. 10 Ibid., 165–167; cf. Zbigniew Godziejewski, “Saqqara 2004: Conservation Work,” PAM 16 (2005): 162–163, fig. 1.

a contribution to the second style in old kingdom art

171

1. Excav. no. S/04/16 c (figs. 3–6)

three miniature models of various objects made of limestone, four models of vessels used in the ceremony of “opening the mouth,” made of various kinds of stone, a fragment of a small faience plate, three beads made of bone, a faience bead, tiny fragments of golden leaf, and various parts of at least five wooden statuettes. All of these represent male individuals, including one wearing a long skirt with protruding triangular front part, shown in striding position. Given their good state of preservation and remarkable artistic quality, three of these statuettes, representing nude males11 with individualized facial features, deserve particular attention. Made of an extremely light sort of wood having dark brownish hue, they were very fragile upon discovery, and necessitated immediate treatment to be performed by conservators.12 Two of them represent a nude man standing with his legs placed together and his arms pendant; the third one shows a man in striding position and holding two insignia (now missing), probably a staff and scepter.13 Each of them preserves a small part of the wooden base on which it originally stood, and which seems to have been carved in the same piece of wood from which the figurine was sculpted. The striking features of their physiognomy are: a) a narrow, small-waisted torso, with hardly any indication of fleshiness in the frontal view, but, instead, relatively large hips with a rounded convexity between them and the waist, probably indicating the upper edge of the pelvis; and b) a large head with overemphasized eyes, thick lips and deep furrows marking the labio-nasal surface.14 The sexual organs of each are modeled plastically, with a great deal of anatomical exactitude. Whenever preserved (figs. 3 and 14), the penis is circumcised.15 The proportions of the body, facial features, and some iconographic details vary. Remains of polychromy are very scanty.

Found in the niche on the shaft’s north side. Dimensions: h. 0.159 m; w. at shoulders 0.035 m. Both hands are missing, and large damages are found on the face and the torso’s left side. Like the preceding figurine, this one shows a nude man standing with his arms pendant, with his torso and head slightly inclined to left side. Remains of white paint are preserved on the lower part of the legs. Unlike in the parallel figurine

11 For representations of the nude male in Old Kingdom statuary, cf. Russmann, “A Second Style,” 272, n. 34; 275, n. 62–64; 276, n. 74; and 279; Julia C. Harvey, Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom: A Typological Study (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 27– 28 (D. 4 – D. 4 b); Julia C. Harvey, “Old Kingdom Wooden Statues: Stylistic Dating Criteria,” in L’Art de l’Ancien Empire égyptien: Actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 3 et 4 avril 1998, ed. Christiane Ziegler (Paris: Documentation française, 1999), 361–362; Marianne EatonKrauss, The Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old

Kingdom (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984), 33, § 39. 12 Godziejewski, “Saqqara 2004: Conservation Work,” 162 and 164. 13 Harvey, “Old Kingdom Wooden Statues,” 362, n. 17; Harvey, Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom, 42 (Ac. 3) and 44 (Ac.9). 14 Cf. Russmann, “A Second Style,” 274. 15 Cf. Harvey, Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom, 27 (D. 4 – D. 4 a). 16 Ibid., 12–13 (W. 3).

Found in the niche on the shaft’s north side. Dimensions: h. 0.195 m; w. of the shoulders 0.049 m. The left hand was made separately and attached with a dowel or plug(?). Parts of limbs, seat, nose, and mouth are missing. The body’s upper part is markedly inclined to its left side. The legs are unnaturally long and thick in proportion to the small torso and thin hands. The preserved part of the left hand indicates that the fingers were very long. The only part of the trunk modeled naturalistically is the slightly convex belly and the sexual organ, delineated from the background with two deep furrows marking the groin. The head seems too voluminous, particularly in proportion to the torso. Its roundness is emphasized by the close-fitting coiffure, which is painted yellow, a color leaving doubts as to whether it is close-cropped hair or a kind of clinging cap.16 The facial features are dominated by the overemphasized eyes, with large eyeballs carved below thick, slightly slanting eyebrows modeled in relief and painted in black. The convex labio-nasal surface is delineated with deep furrows on both sides of the nostrils and at the angulus oris. The broad mouth is separated from a tapering chin with another deep furrow. 2. Excav. no. S/04/16 b (figs. 7–13)

172

karol my´sliwiec

(figs. 3–6), the head is shaven, without any traces of hair in either relief or painting.17 The proportions and the modeling of the body resemble those of the preceding statuette, but the shape of the head is different. It is set on a relatively high and thin neck (fig. 13). In frontal view, its upper part is almost square (figs. 7–10, 15), the impression emphasized by the flatness of its top and the vertical surface of the temples. Further down, it gradually narrows to finish with a pointed chin. In profile view, on the contrary, its roundness is accentuated as a globular protrusion of the occiput (figs. 11, 13). The profile of the forehead prolongates that of the long straight nose in an almost continuous line (fig. 13), which reminds one of the much later heads from the Amarna Period. Leaving the ears in a preliminary stage of elaboration (figs. 11, 13), the artist visibly concentrates his attention on the facial features, which are rendered in an expressionistic and naturalistic way. They are dominated by the huge wideopen eyes and the thick-lipped mouth. The semiglobular eyeballs are framed with precisely delineated stripes of the lids. The broad upper lid recesses upwards and finishes with a half-circular furrow, separating it from the eyebrow, which is rendered in bas-relief (figs. 9–12). The lower lid is modeled as a hem, emphasized by the depression under which protrudes the extremely fleshy cheek. Deep incisions separate the roundness of the cheeks from the labio-nasal surface, particularly on the face’s left side (figs. 9–11, 13). The broad, thick-lipped mouth is set between two depressions, marking it off from the nose and the double chin (figs. 11, 13). The exaggeratedly thick lips are precisely outlined, and remarkably differentiated in their shape. Their volume diminishes abruptly at the corners of the mouth. With respect to its facial features, this figurine should be associated with many wooden statuettes, male as well as female, dated to the 17 Ibid., 13 (W. 3 a—all examples known so far date to the reign of Pepy II). 18 E.g., ibid., 230–231 (A 59); 234–235 (A 61); 236–237 (A 62); 240–241 (A 64); 242–243 (A 65); 244–245 (A 66); 246– 247 (A 67); 248–249 (A 68); 250–251 (A 69); 266–267 (A 77); 276–277 (A 82); 448–449 (B 39); 486–487 (B 58); 488–489 (B 59); 490–491 (B 60); 492–493 (B 61); 494–495 (B 62); 526– 527 (C 2). 19 E.g., Dahshur: ibid., 254–255 (A 71); 258–259 (A 73); 260–261 (A 74); 262–263 (A 75); 264–265 (A 76); Sedment: ibid., 270–271 (A 79); 272–273 (A 80); Naga ed-Dêr, the tomb of Tjetji: ibid., 330–361 (A 109 – A 124); Akhmim: ibid., 418–419 (B 24); 434–435 (B 32); 436–437 (B 33); 438–439

very end of the Old Kingdom, especially the second half of the long reign of Pepy II, both from Saqqara18 and from other sites.19 Particularly striking is its affinity to the numerous figurines from the tomb of Tjeteti in Saqqara, dated to last years of Pepy II at the earliest.20 3. Excav. no. S/04/16 a (figs. 14–15) Found in the filling of the niche in the shaft’s northern wall. Dimensions: h. 0.30 m; shoulder width 0.066 m. Missing are: a large part of the base, the front part of the left foot, fragments of the chest’s and the head’s left side, as well as the right hand and the front part of the left hand. Long vertical fractures cross the middle of the face, the belly above the genitals, and the right arm. Deep though thin horizontal crevices are found on left knee, left elbow, and right forearm. Part of the body between the neck and the chest is irregularly broken off. There are remains of black paint on the surface of the short-cropped hair. This remarkable statuette, taller than the two pieces described above, represents a nude man in striding position. His left arm, held in front of the body, is bent at the elbow, while the right one is outstretched behind the body. Although diagnostic parts of the hands are missing, the position of the arms clearly indicates that the man was shown holding a staff in his left hand, and a scepter in his right.21 The modeling of the body of this statuette, and particularly the soft shape of the musculature, approaches that of the two figurines discussed above, although the disproportion between the exaggeratedly long legs and the relatively short torso is even more striking in this case (fig. 14). Contrasting with the other figurines is, however, the shape of the head. Set on a surprisingly high and thin neck, it is unusually elongated (fig. 15). (B 34); 452–453 (B 41); Giza: ibid., 446–447 (B 38); Luxor: ibid., 456–457 (B 43); Lisht(?): ibid., 476–477 (B 53); Sheikh Farag: ibid., 484–485 (B 57), as well as some figurines of unknown provenance, also dated to the second half of the reign of Pepy II: ibid., 426–427 (B 28); 444–445 (B 37); 458– 459 (B 44); 464–465 (B 47); 472–473 (B 51); 498–499 (B 64); 506–507 (B 68); 508–509 (B 69); 528–529 (C 3); 572–573 (D 7); 574–575 (D 8); 576–577 (D 9); 578–579 (D 10); 592–593 (AS 3). 20 Ibid., 278–315 (A 83 – A 101); for the dating of the tomb, cf. ibid., 74–78. 21 Cf. n. 13.

a contribution to the second style in old kingdom art

173

Nothing but the highly individual, and still very “classical,” form of the latter head (figs. 14–15) could be considered a convincing argument in favor of Edna Russmann’s opinion that the “Sec-

ond Style” in Old Kingdom art does not signify a decadence, but, on the contrary, a sublimation and refinement, implying some deformations introduced purposefully. Thus, its role in the evolution of ancient Egyptian aesthetics seems similar to that of the “unnatural sophistication” of the Amarna Period, the specific style that may be defined as naturalistic and unnatural in the same time. Like the specific manner developed one millennium after the 6th Dynasty, the “Second Style” must have had a social, cultural, and religious background. The suggestion made by Wolfgang Helck, that an invasion of new ethnic elements in the middle of the 5th Dynasty caused durable changes in Egyptian religion and culture in general,22 sounds as plausible as does Russmann’s supposition that the appearance of the “Second Style” toward the end of 5th Dynasty was a consequence of this development.23 The style was just one of many innovations that came to be in both turbulent periods, their most remarkable inventions being some literary works: the “Pyramid Texts” at the end of the 5th Dynasty and the “Hymn to Aten” in the Amarna Period. Each of these works appears, in fact, as a compilation based on various traditions that had been evolving for centuries. There are many missing links. But with respect to religion, architecture, and pictorial arts, some direct connections between the late Old Kingdom and the Amarna Period have recently been suggested.24 It is doubtless too early to make the next step by asking whether reminiscences of the “Second Style” could not be discerned in pictorial arts of the Amarna Period, but one has to keep in mind that retrospection in various fields of ancient Egyptian creativity occurred constantly, sometimes resulting from a long continuation of specific traditions, and sometimes as “archaisms” inspired by admiration and respect toward old patterns. The context in which the figurines under discussion were found has a diagnostic value in many respects. First of all, it determines their

22 Wolfgang Helck, “Überlegungen zum Ausgang der 5. Dynastie,” MDAIK 47 (1991): 166–168. 23 Russmann, “A Second Style,” 279. 24 W. Raymond Johnson, “Images of Amenhotep III in Thebes: Styles and Intentions,” in The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, Papers presented at the International Symposium held at the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, 20–21 November 1987, ed. Lawrence

M. Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990), 45; W. Raymond Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, ed. David O’Connor and Eric H. Cline (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 77–78; Karol My´sliwiec, “Reading a Statue of a Statue: A Testimony of Three-Dimensional Cryptography,” in: Imago Aegypti 1 (2005), 83–84.

It has neither the roundness characterizing the head of the first figurine (figs. 3–6) nor the square outline of the second one (figs. 7–10). Its broad upper part gradually, almost rectilinearly, narrows toward the chin, leaving much space between subsequent elements of the face. Both the proportions of the head and its facial features contribute to a noble general expression. The eyes are overemphasized, but their shape looks natural. The large eyeballs are framed with clearly outlined relief stripes, which are visible particularly well on the right eye (fig. 15). The eyebrows, rendered in bas-relief, draw a semicircle high above the orbits, which causes the expression of reserved astonishment. No other features reveal the exaggeration characterizing the two other figurines. The protrusion of the cheeks is moderate, and it connects smoothly with the neighboring surface. The furrows beside the nostrils of the small, shapely nose, are more discrete and natural than in the case of the other figurines (cf. figs. 3 and 7). More sensitive also is the modeling of the mouth. Both the volume and the shape of the lips contrast with these elements in the second figurine, where the mouth is also well preserved (figs. 9–10). In the statuette under discussion (fig. 15), its size is natural in proportion to that of the whole face. The volume of the lips is also differentiated, but—unlike in the other figurine— the upper lip appears thinner than the lower one, and its thickness diminishes gradually toward the corner of the mouth. These elegant, delicate shapes have none of the slightly vulgar sensuality expressed by the facial features of the two other figurines found in the same tomb.

Conclusions

174

karol my´sliwiec

date. Epigraphic premises, based on inscribed architectural elements discovered in the cult chapel of Ny-Pepy, dictate a date within the late 6th Dynasty,25 while the ceramic material found in the funerary chamber and shaft of his tomb has been dated to the second half of the reign of Pepy II.26 Close stylistic affinities with many wooden statuettes datable into the long reign of Pepy II27 indicate a date within this period. Another feature corroborating this dating is the characteristic inclination of the torso to its left side (figs. 4 and 8). Similar inclination of either the torso or the whole body to its left or right side, exceptional in three-dimensional sculpture from the first half of the 6th Dynasty,28 becomes almost a rule in wooden statuary from the time of Pepy II, not only in the representations of nude males standing or striding, but also in all other types of figurines.29 The statuettes in question, as well as the tomb of Ny-Pepy itself, may therefore be ascribed

to the reign of the last king of the 6th Dynasty, possibly to its second half. It is noticeable that these substitute bodies for the ka of the deceased,30 like many similar figurines from the same period, were found in a subterranean part of the tomb: not exactly in its burial chamber, but in a niche hewn in the walls adjoining it. If this was their original place,31 the niche may have played a role similar to that of a serdab, which would not be surprising in times when the funerary chamber took over several functions of the cult chapel.32 Both the number and the location of these ka effigies, in a possibly hidden place, would then be one more witness of the fears pervading the Egyptians who lived in the insecure times when multiplication of threeas well as two-dimensional doubles, in both the accessible and “inaccessible” parts of the tomb, seems to have become a maniacal obsession of many tomb owners.33

25 Kuraszkiewicz, “Two Fragments of False-door Frame of Ny-Pepy from West Saqqara,” 133. 26 Rzeuska, “The Pottery, 2004” (cf. n. 8). 27 Cf. n. 17–19. 28 Harvey, Wooden Statues of the Old Kingdom, 164–165, 170– 171, 204–205, 206–209. 29 Ibid., 218–221, 224–225, 234–235, 242–243, 248–249, 254–255, 264–265, 272–273, 286–287, 292–293, 300–309, 320–321, 330–331, 336–337, 340–345, 362–363, 438–439, 444–445, 460–461, 476–477, 484–487, 494–495, 512–515, 572–575. 30 Slawomir Rzepka, “Some Remarks on the Rock-Cut Group-Statues in the Old Kingdom,” SAK 22 (1995): 229, n. 9; cf. Sabine Albers, “Die Rundplastik der 6. Dynastie: Kunst oder Chaos?,” Kemet 141 (January, 2005): 21.

31 They could have been displaced by tomb robbers who plundered the shaft and burial chamber. 32 Peter Jánosi, “The Tombs of Officials: Houses of Eternity,” in Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1999), 36–37; Albers, “Die Rundplastik der 6. Dynastie,” 21–22; Karol My´sliwiec, “The Tombs of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties at Saqqara,” in The Treasures of the Pyramids, ed. Zahi Hawass (Vercelli, Italy: White Star Publishers, 2003), 325. 33 Karol My´ sliwiec, “The scheme 2 × 4 in the decoration of Old Kingdom tombs,” in The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, ed. Zahi A. Hawass and Janet Richards (Cairo: Publications du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte), 195–202.

a contribution to the second style in old kingdom art

Fig. 1, 2. The tomb of Ny-Pepy in Saqqara. Wooden figurines in the niche on the shaft’s north side. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

175

176

karol my´sliwiec

Fig. 3–6. The figurine (1) no. S/04/16 c, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

a contribution to the second style in old kingdom art

Fig. 7, 8. The figurine (2) no. S/04/16 b, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

Fig. 9, 10. The figurine (2) no. S/04/16 b, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Jarosław D˛abrowski. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

177

178

karol my´sliwiec

Fig. 11–13. Upper part of the figurine (2). Photographs by Jarosław D˛abrowski. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

Fig. 14, 15. The figurine (3) no. S/04/16 a, from the tomb of Ny-Pepy. Photographs by Maciej Jawornicki. © Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University.

A FUNERARY PAPYRUS OF

IN THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM1

Paul O’Rourke Brooklyn Museum

It is a privilege for me to offer this short article to the scholar honored by this volume. Since the spring of 1988, when he hired me to work for him in Brooklyn, Richard has become much more than a department chairman for me. He has been a role model, an important mentor, and a friend. It is my sincerest hope that the publication of this papyrus, with its fortuitous and fortunate coincidence of Brooklyn, the Third Intermediate Period, and a theophoric name containing that of the goddess Mut, will afford him some pleasure. Among the papyri in the collection of the Department of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Middle Eastern Art in the Brooklyn Museum is a funerary text of the Third Intermediate Period2 prepared for a man named #nh-f-n˘ mwt.3 The object consists of a single sheet of papyrus inscribed with a single vignette on the right, followed by one column of eight lines of hieratic text (see fig. 1).4 The vignette is outlined on the

bottom and both sides with a single line in black. The top borderline of the vignette consists of two lines, the lower of which angles downward at both edges to form a sky sign.5 Above the vignette are eleven columns of text in cursive hieroglyphs. The lower right half of the vignette has been lost. The vignette shows the deceased on the right, facing left, offering an incense burner6 to a seated falcon-headed god. The deceased wears a shoulder-length, non-striated wig surmounted by a perfume cone and a lotus petal. The wig is bound by a fillet with a trailing streamer.7 The owner sports a broad collar illustrated in simple outline. He wears a diaphanous garment with sleeves that reach the elbows.8 The damage to the papyrus begins at his waist, precluding a study of the lower part of his garment or footwear. There is no evidence of pleating on the extant portion of the lower garment. Between the owner and the god is an offering table laden with a single fowl, several loaves of bread of different shapes,

1 The author would like to thank Richard Fazzini, chair of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Middle Eastern Art (ECAMEA) at the Brooklyn Museum, for permission to publish this papyrus. I thank Kathy Zurek, departmental assistant, ECAMEA, for her invaluable aid with photographs and many other matters. Thanks are also due to Mary Gow, assistant librarian, Wilbour Library of Egyptology, and the staff of the Museum Library for all their help. As always, I thank my colleagues in ECAMEA, Richard Fazzini, chairman; Ann Russmann, curator; Edward Bleiberg, curator; and Madeleine Cody, research associate, for all of their collegial assistance. 2 The object bears the accession number 37.1826E-A. It was formerly part of the Egyptian collection of the NewYork Historical Society that came as a loan to Brooklyn in 1937 and was subsequently purchased in 1948. It cannot be determined to which of the subdivisions of the New-York Historical Society collection the papyrus once belonged. The papyrus is cited in Andrzej Niwinski, ´ Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri of the 11th and 10th Centuries BC (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1989), 344 as Catalogue Nº New York 3. Niwinski ´ dates it to “22nd Dyn. or later.”

3 On the name, see Hermann Ranke, Die ägyptischen Personennamen 1 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935), 67, 8. 4 Its dimensions are: h. 23.5 cm; w. 35.6 cm. 5 The sign , for which see Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957), 485 (Sign list N1). 6 In vignettes like this one, the deceased is shown in a variety of poses: with both hands raised in a gesture of adoration; with one hand raised and the other holding an offering; with both hands holding a single offering; or with each hand holding an individual offering. The pose found here compares most favorably with that in the vignette of Djedtjenetdiipetweret, pBM 10330. See Niwinski, ´ Studies, pl. 5b and 331 (London 57). 7 A similar treatment of the wig is found in the funerary papyrus of Amunmes, pBM 9918, ibid., 320 (London 3) and pl. 1a. The wig in the funerary papyrus of Ankhefenkhonsu, pBerlin 3013, compares favorably as well, although the wig there is striated, ibid., pl. 2a and 246 (Berlin 10). 8 Again, compare the vignette in the funerary papyrus of Amunmes, pBM 9918; ibid., pl. 1a and 320 (London 3).

180

paul o’rourke

two h. s jars, and a basket.9 Between the offering table and the seated god stands an ı"my-wt fetish.10 A falcon-headed god11 sits on a low-backed chair that stands on a platform. The side of the chair is decorated with a small rectangle within which is written , a single sm A sign, unelaborated.12 The base of the platform is decorated with the signs #nh and w As.13 The signs are ar˘ ranged in groups where two w As signs flank one #nh sign.14 The god holds a crook and flail;15 his ˘ is surmounted by a solar disk with a single head uraeus.16 The god’s garment shows a belt at the waist with two ribbons of cloth running vertically from the tie of the belt towards his feet, terminating just above his ankle.17 The five lines of text above the deceased read: dd mdw ı"r sntr ¯ ¯ wdb-ht 18 nb pt ¯ ˘ ı"n Wsı"r ı"t-ntr "Imn-r # nsw ntrw ¯ #nh-f-n-mwt¯ m A #-hrw ˘ A #-hrw s A˘ mı" nn wn-nfr m ˘ “To be recited: performing censing, a reversion-offering for19 the lord of heaven by the Osiris, the god’s father of Amun-Re,20 king of the gods

9 Many of the offering tables in scenes like this show a water lily on top of the pile of offerings, an element that has been omitted here. The vignette in pBerlin 3013 offers a good example of this element, for which see Niwinski, ´ Studies, pl. 2a and 246 (Berlin 10), as does that of the funerary papyrus of Penmaat, pBM 10029. For this text see Niwinski, ´ Studies, pl. 5a and 331 (London 40). 10 For a similar arrangement, see the funerary papyrus of Amunmes, pBM 9918, ibid., pl. 1a and 320 (London 3). The offering table in the London vignette, however, is much less elaborate. 11 A falcon-headed mummiform figure whose head is surmounted by a solar disk is commonly encountered in such vignettes. He is routinely identified as Ptah-SokarOsiris, Re-Horakhty, Re-Horakhty-Atum, or even simply as Osiris. See the discussion of Niwinski, ´ Studies, 99–102. In the Brooklyn papyrus, the god is designated once as Re-Horakhty-Atum and once as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris. See the translation of the text below. 12 See Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 544 (Sign-list F36). 13 Ibid., 508 (Sign-list S34) and 509 (Sign-list S40) respectively. 14 For a similar grouping of these signs on a chair base, see the funerary papyrus of Djedmehitiuesankh, pBerlin 3009, Niwinski, ´ Studies, pl. 1b and 245 (Berlin 6). The #nh ˘ and w As signs in the Berlin papyrus, however, sit atop nb baskets. See Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 546 (Sign-list V30). 15 The vignettes in these texts show two treatments of the upper body of the seated god. In one, the shoulders and upper torso are squared towards the viewer, as is the case with the figure in the Brooklyn papyrus. In the other,

Ankhefenmut, justified, son of the like-titled one Wennefer,21 justified.” The owner bears the title ı"t-ntr n ı"mn-r # nsw ntrw: ¯ ¯ “god’s father of Amun-Re, king of the gods.” In the first line of the hieratic text to the left of the vignette, his title is also clearly given as ı"t-ntr n ¯ ı"mn-r # nsw ntrw: “god’s father of Amun-Re, king ¯ of the gods.” This title is commonly encountered in the Theban priesthood in the New Kingdom and later.22 The title(s) of his father, Wennefer, is simply given as mı" nn: “the like-titled one.” A search for these men in the published record has come to naught, not surprisingly, given the common occurrence of the names Ankhefenmut and Wennefer in this period and the title “god’s father of Amun-Re, king of the gods” as well.23 The six lines of text above the figure of ReHorakhty read as follows: dd mdw ı"n R#-h. r- Ahty tm ¯ hnty "Iwnw h. Aty- # n˘ tr pr ˘m Aht Wsı"r nb nhh ¯ .. hnty˘ ı"mntyw ˘ntr ı"my #h #.f . ¯ pth. -skr-Wsı"r nb dw At

the shoulders and upper torso are shown in natural profile. For the former pose, see the funerary papyrus of Amunmes, pBM 9918, Niwinski, ´ Studies, 320 (London 3) and pl. 1a; and the funerary papyrus of Ankhefenkhonsu, pBerlin 3013, ibid., pl. 2a and 246 (Berlin 10). For the latter pose, see the funerary papyrus of Djedtjenetdiipetweret, pBM 10330, ibid., pl. 5b and 331 (London 57). 16 A good parallel for the representation of the solar disk as found in the Brooklyn papyrus can be seen in the vignette in the papyrus of Buhar, pBM 9974. See Niwinski, ´ Studies, pl. 4b and 323 (London 11). 17 For a similar treatment, see the funerary papyrus of Djedmehitiuesankh, pBerlin 3009, ibid., pl. 1b and 245 (Berlin 6). 18 It is impossible to tell whether wdb-ht is a nominal or ¯ ˘ verbal form here. If it is verb, the translation should read: “diverting offerings to…” 19 The phrase nb pt may be a dative, as I have translated it here, or a direct genitive, in which case the translation would be “a reversion offering of the lord of heaven.” 20 The papyrus is frayed here, and the left edge of the column is difficult to read. The vertical sign after the sign ntr does not look like h. m. Thus, the title h. m-ntr n "Imn-r # can ¯ ruled out. This vertical sign appears to be¯ the reed leaf be a likely abbreviation of ı"t in the writing of the title ı"t-ntr ¯ “god’s father.” See further the discussion below. 21 On this name, see Ranke, Personennamen, 79, 19. 22 Apparently beginning with Ay. See LÄ 2, 825–826. 23 That being the case, a date in the Third Intermediate Period of Dynasty 22 or later will have to suffice for now.

a funerary papyrus of “To be recited by Re-Horakhty-Atum foremost one of Heliopolis, noble one,24 god who comes forth from the horizon, Osiris lord of eternity Khenty-imentiu god who is in his lifetime Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, lord of the Duat.” The hieratic text gives the titles and name of the owner in the first line, followed by an abbreviated version of a solar hymn.25

dd mdw ı"h A Wsı"r ı"t-ntr n ı"mn-R# nsw ntrw #nh-f-n¯ ¯ ¯ ˘ mwt m A #-hrw ˘ pr.k r pt d A.k bı" A snwy.k m sb Aw.s ı"r.tı" n.k h. knw m wı" A nı"¯s.tw.k m m #ndt m AA.k Abd sp.f ¯ For h. Aty- # as an epithet of Osiris, see Wb. 3, 25, 23–24. The text is based mostly on a section of BD 15, given in Thomas G. Allen, The Book of the Dead, or Going Forth by Day, SAOC 37 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1974) as 15B f. All of the textual citations in the discussion below follow the numbers and letters given in Allen. See also Niwinski ´ (Studies, 113–118 and pls. 1b– 6a), who places manuscripts with a single vignette and hieratic text from the corpus of the Book of the Dead—like the Brooklyn papyrus published here—under the category heading “Type BD I.2.” 26 The writing of the interjection ı"h"ı as is not known to the Wörterbuch. It may be a conflation of the writings of several interjections that have essentially the same meaning and purpose. The hieratic sign that follows is clearly the sign (Sign-list F18). The same writing can be found at the end of the second line in the writing of the word , for which the sign is a well-established determinative from Dynasty 22 onwards. See Wb. 3, 179, 6–19. The sign is not given as a determinative by the Wörterbuch for any of the interjections ı"h"ı, h A, and h"ı, all of which are written with the sign . The particle h. wy, given at Wb. 3, 45, 8–11, “ach, ach doch” and normally written , has essentially the same meaning, and the sign has the phonetic value h. w. It may be that the scribe has conflated or confused the writings of ı"h"ı and h. w here, two words with a similar syntactical application. There are a number of peculiar writings in this section of the text. See nn. 30–36 below. 27 i.e., “heaven’s.” 28 Reading sb Aw here. There remains the possibility that the group in this Book of the Dead chapter should rather be read ntrw: “gods.” See Wb. 2, 358. 29 In ¯the break in the papyrus, one can see the traces of the sign (Sign-list N36). The writing of sw is a Late Egyptian writing of the feminine suffix pronoun .s. See 24 25

in the brooklyn museum

181

hpr #pp hr hft srt n.f dg A.k ı"n m hpr.s ˘ hr dw ˘sˇsm sı"wn ˘ m˘ mw.s m AA.k ı"tn wbg.f . ¯ Ahw.f sk As.s k. rr.k ntrt.tı" Ah.tw t Aw m fnd.k ˘ k¯Ab.f sˇbw rwd mtt.k k˘A ı"w.tw(?) nw h. nk.f rnpwy . Ahw Ahywt dı"t.sn Ah.k n ı"mntt Wsı"r #nh-f-n-mwt ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ “To be recited: O26 Osiris, god’s father of Amun-Re, king of the gods, Ankhefenmut, justified. May you go forth to the sky. May you cross the firmament. May you fraternize with its27 stars.28 Acclaim is made for you In the barque. You are summoned in the daybarque. You see the Abdw fish, its fate ¯ is fallen as was Having come to pass. Apep foretold for him. You see the bulti fish in its form Guiding the swift ship in its water.29 You see the solar disk (when) he shines30 upon the mountain, His solar rays lighting31 your cavern (so that) you may be divine, efficacious, (with) breath in your nose.32 Then the flood33 (?) will come34 (?), and he35 Friedrich Junge, Late Egyptian Grammar: An Introduction, trans. David Warburton (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2001), 52. 30 The writing here of wgb is metathesis for wbg: “leuchten,” the verb given at Wb. 1, 296, 14–15. 31 The hieratic text clearly shows sk As.s, presumably an attempt to write the verb sksk given at Wb. 4, 319, 5 with the meaning “einen Art erhellen.” 32 The text that follows here presents some difficulties. The standard text version continues “All the gods are jubilant when they see Re come in peace to revive the hearts of the blessed. Osiris N is with them.” For this translation, see Allen, Book of the Dead, 14: BD 15 f. S5. We are clearly dealing with a different text here, one that is apparently not part of the tradition of BD 15. 33 Beneath and following the sign seems a pretty clear nw: “water; flood,” given at Wb. 2, 221, 3– writing of 13. It is possible that the scribe was trying to write the word nw: “time,” Wb. 2, 219, 1–15, and actually wrote nw"ı: “flood.” The sign may have been added as an afterthought, as a determinative to correct the reading of the word. I can make little sense of this group otherwise. 34 The hieratic sign that follows the writing of the verb ı"w: “come” appears to be a writing of , , or . Neither of the latter two readings makes much sense here. The problem with reading the group as is that the sign seems to be written differently elsewhere in the papyrus. If the following sign (Sign-list N5) is a writing of the name of the sun god, highly unlikely given the lack of the determinative , one could construe a reading of this sign with verb ı"w, giving the Old Perfective ı"w.tw/t"ı r # with a meaning like “You are come, Re…,” a translation that in that follows. no way helps explain the group 35 The “he” refers either to the solar deity who is the subject of the hymn or to the “flood,” if that is the correct reading here.

182

paul o’rourke

will present fresh plants, he will increase food, making your vessels (?) firm.36 The efficacious males (and) the efficacious females, may they give your akh to the West, Osiris Ankhefenmut.” As can be seen from the outset, the text is a solar hymn based on BD 1537 but shows a number of variations, some of which follow and some of which seem to diverge from the known traditional variants of this text. The Brooklyn version of the hymn begins with text traditionally found at BD 15 f.:38 pr.k r pt d A.k bı" A snwy.f m sb Aw.s ı"r.tı" n.k h. knw ¯ m wı" A nı"s.tw.k m m #ndt ¯ “May you come forth to the sky. May you cross the firmament. May you fraternize with its stars. Acclaim is made for you in the barque. You are summoned in the day barque.” The “standard” text continues with “Thou seest the bulti in its (true) form at the turquoise pool; thou seest the Abdw fish, its fate ¯ having come to pass. The evil one is fallen, as had been predicted for him.”39 The Brooklyn text shifts things slightly, however, following a different variant:40 m AA.k Abd sp.f hpr #pp hr hft srt n.f dh A.k ı"n m hpr.s ˘sˇsm sı"wn ˘ m˘ mw.s ˘ “You see the Abdw fish, its fate ¯ Having come to pass. Apep is fallen as was foretold for him.41 You see the bulti fish in its form Guiding the swift ship in the water.” The text returns to the version of BD 15 f:42

36 rwdw may be a participle modifying sˇbw. In that case, the translation would be, “…food which makes strong/firm your vessels.” 37 By BD 15, I mean the version so named and the variants that Allen has collected under the heading BD 15A. See Allen, Book of the Dead, 13–20. 38 Ibid., 13. 39 Ibid., 13: BD 15 f S2–3. 40 For this variant, ibid., 13: BD 15A1 b S4. The text that Allen cites is stated in the first person. In the Brooklyn text,

m AA.k ı"tn wbn.f h. r dw ¯ Ahw.f sk As.s k. rr.k ntrt.tı" Ah.tw t Aw m fnd.k ˘ ˘ ¯ “You see the solar disk (when) he shines upon the mountain His solar rays lighting your cavern (so that) you may be divine, efficacious, (with) breath in your nose.” At this point, the Brooklyn text departs from the known versions. It is also difficult and perhaps corrupt in places.43 k A ı"w.tw r # nw h. nk.f rnpwy k. Ab.f sˇbw rwd mtt.k Ahw Ahywt dı"t.sn Ah.k n ı"mntt Wsı"r #nh-f-n-mwt ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘ “The flood shall come (?), and he will present fresh plants, increase food, make your vessels firm.44 (?) The male akh’s (and) the female akh’s, may they give your akh to the West, Osiris Ankhefenmut.” The first line of text here faintly echoes a section of BD 185A, a hymn to Osiris, which, in a description of the god Horus, states: “What the disk has circled is under his supervision: the north wind, the Nile, the flood, the plants, (that constitute) the staff of life, all that the Grain God renews. He gives all his vegetation, the produce of the field…”45 We appear to have here a hymn that was created from several different sources by a scribe. We do not know enough about the methods employed by scribes in the composition of religious texts like the Book of the Dead, or even short sections from that large corpus. The evidence to date does seem to amply illustrate, however, that the scribes enjoyed quite a bit of latitude in the construction of a hymn like that found on the Brooklyn papyrus of Ankhefenmut. How and why the scribe chose the selections from the textual tradition that we call BD 15 must remain a curious mystery, at least for the moment. One

the second person pronoun forms the subject. 41 #pp hr hft srt n.f : “Apep is fallen as was foretold for him” ˘ BD 15A1 b S4 but rather BD 15 f S3. is not part˘ of 42 See Allen, Book of the Dead, 13: BD 15 f S5. The Brooklyn text is somewhat abbreviated, omitting several of the phrases of the text cited by Allen. 43 See the discussion above at n. 32. 44 On the reading of this line, see above at nn. 33–36. 45 See Allen, The Book of the Dead, 204: BD 185A S4.

a funerary papyrus of

in the brooklyn museum

183

key to a better understanding of a text like this and the workings of the religious scribal tradition would be a more diligent publication of texts like the Brooklyn papyrus, no matter how seemingly insignificant they may appear to be. A greater

number of published exemplars would afford us better means to study the methods employed by scribes working in the Book of the Dead traditions.46

46 Much thanks is owed to Dr. Irmtraut Munro for her work of the past decade to rectify some of these problems through the publications of early New Kingdom Books of the Dead in Cairo. Her ongoing work on the Totenbuch-

Projekt in Bonn and the publications of the scholars working on this project will continue to give aid to anyone working in this area of Egyptian religious studies.

Fig. 1. Funerary papyrus of Ankhefenmut: P. Brooklyn 37.1826E-A.

184 paul o’rourke

A LONG-NEGLECTED EXAMPLE OF PTOLEMAIC RELIEF CARVING

William H. Peck

Richard A. Fazzini, friend and colleague, was one of the first Egyptologists I had the good fortune to work with in a field excavation. In 1965, as a graduate student, he joined the work at Mendes in the eastern Nile Delta then being carried out by the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, the Brooklyn Museum, and the American Research Center in Egypt. He continued to excavate in Egypt, went on to also excavate in southern Iraq, and eventually formed his own mission to the precinct of the goddess Mut, Karnak, where Elsie Holmes Peck and I joined him. It is our honor to be included among those paying tribute to him with this small offering on a relief of the Ptolemaic Period. Almost from its founding in 1885, the Detroit Museum of Art, predecessor to the Detroit Institute of Arts, had Egyptian artifacts on display.1 These included a broad range of materials from amulets to mummies, almost all either lent or donated by Frederick Stearns, a local pharmaceutical manufacturer who had traveled in Egypt. In 1900, the museum received a shipment of artifacts from Egypt as part of the return for some financial support of the Egypt Exploration Fund. This material, sent from recent excavation, was a small but important contribution toward the building of a larger Egyptian collection and contained, among 145 objects, a quantity of Predynastic pottery and one sandstone relief sculpture clearly of Ptolemaic date (fig. 1). The Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF, later the Egypt Exploration Society, EES) was a relatively

new entity, having been organized only 18 years before this material was sent to Detroit.2 Early in its history, it supported the work of William Matthew Flinders Petrie, the doyen of British archaeology, and it is from one of his excavations that the objects in question came. How the fledgling Detroit museum came to contribute to the EEF is not recorded in the archives or Annual Reports of the museum at the time, only the fact that such contributions were being made. It is most likely that it was a result of two lectures given in Detroit by Amelia Edwards, one of the founders of the EEF, when she was on a promotional tour of the United States in 1889.3 As a possible result of her proselytizing, the museum was awarded a selection of finds over a few years from several excavations carried out by the Fund, including work at Deir el-Bahri, Dendera, Abydos, the Fayum region, and Abadiyeh. Record keeping in the new museum, after only 15 years of experience, was not particularly thorough in 1900. The Annual Report for that year mentioned only that the objects came from some of the “most prominent sites”4 in Egypt. For about 75 years, the exact source for that year’s award was unknown. There were some clues, most importantly the year of the contribution. A.C. Mace, who collaborated with Petrie, wrote to the museum in a letter dated May 28, 1899, that he had dispatched to Detroit six cases of antiquities from Egypt, including “New Race” pottery and “two pieces of a slab of Ptolemaic date.”5 Given the date and the identifications in

1 See William H. Peck, The Detroit Institute of Arts: A Brief History (Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1991), and Peck, “Archaeology and the Detroit Institute of Arts,” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 79, nos. 1/2 (2005), 5–11. 2 For the history of the Egypt Exploration Fund/Society see T.G.H. James, ed., Excavating in Egypt: The Egypt Exploration Society 1882–1982 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1982. 3 Margaret S. Drower, “The Early Years,” in James,

ed., Excavating in Egypt, 23. Miss Edwards gave 115 lectures in five months and succeeded in creating great interest in the organization in the United States. Only four other lectures were sponsored by the Detroit Museum that year, in addition to the two given by Miss Edwards; see The Detroit Museum of Art Historical Report, May 1891. 4 Annual Report of the Detroit Museum of Art, 1899, 7. 5 Letter in the curatorial files, Detroit Institute of Arts. A very similar letter describing other material dispatched

186

william h. peck

the letter, it was possible to assume that the objects had come from a recent excavation, and one that was central to Petrie’s erroneous designation of material from the Predynastic Period as “New Race.”6 The most likely prospect was doubtlessly the excavation at the site of Abadiyeh, 75 miles north of Luxor, published by Petrie and Mace in Diospolis Parva in 1901.7 A careful examination of the plates in that publication made the identification of the source definite. A drawing there represents the Detroit fragment with the upper part of a female figure and parts of two columns of text (fig. 2).8 This discovery also provided a major clue for the provenance of the associated ceramics.9 How the two pieces described by Mace were broken into a number of smaller fragments is not known, but when the present author joined the staff of the museum in 1960, they were a disassembled group in storage and further missing the fragment with the face of the female figure. It was not much later that, on a visit to storerooms of the Cranbrook Museum of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, the missing fragment was identified; it had been taken there as a gift. The face was reunited with the other fragments and the sandstone, filthy from 75 years of museum dust and grime, was cleaned and a small amount of fill was added. In its present condition, the coarse-grained sandstone block represents a female figure, queen or goddess, facing right, backed by two columns of vertical hieroglyphic text in raised relief, with a faint trace of the end of another column on the upper right. Only one of the extant columns is part of the scene with the figure; the reason will be explained below in a discussion of the text. The figure wears a vulture headdress with pendant wings over the lappets of her wig. Her garment is indicated only by a neckline, and her two arms are extended slightly, probably in a ges-

It is clear from van Dijk’s comments that the two vertical columns are parts of two separate statements, one emanating from the “goddess,”

from the same site was sent to the University of Sydney, Nicholson Museum: “six boxes, five containing pottery and one containing portions of a mummy case,” quoted in Karin Sowada, “The Politics of Error: Flinders Petrie at Diopolis Parva,” Bulletin of the Australian Center for Egyptology 7 (1996), 84–96. 6 When Petrie first discovered Predynastic material at Naqada and Ballas, it was so little known to excavators and so unlike typical Egyptian artifacts of the historic period that he postulated an invasion of peoples he designated “New Race.” He placed this incursion between the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and he clung to this theory for several years until it became obvious to him that the material was indigenous but of an earlier period than he had thought. See Margaret S. Drower, Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology

(London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1985), for a popular account of the excavations at Ballas and Naqada and the subsequent theory and refutation of it. 7 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898–1899, with chapters by Arthur C. Mace (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1901). 8 Ibid., pl. 43, second register, left. 9 See William H. Peck, “A Newly Discovered Example of Decorated Pre-dynastic Pottery in the Detroit Institute of Arts,” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 55, no. 4, (1977): 216–218, for a discussion of the excavator’s pottery marks designating the source graves at Abadiyeh and how they relate to the pottery Detroit received. 10 Personal communication from Jacobus van Dijk, for which he is here thanked.

ture of receiving an offering. The image is deeply modeled and, from the shape of the face and single breast, is clearly of the Ptolemaic Period. The attribute on the head can be interpreted as the bottom of an Isis throne, the bottom of the house hieroglyph of Nephthys, or most probably the beginning of an element like an attenuated Hathor capital. There is not enough to positively identify this iconographic element except that it suggests a goddess rather than a queen. Highly fragmentary Ptolemaic inscriptions such as the one discussed here are particularly susceptible to problematic translation. I have turned to my colleague, Jacobus van Dijk, for aid in this case, and his suggestions are as follows: … behind her is the concluding column of the text belonging to her. The missing portion may have begun with “Words spoken by [name of goddess, epithets, etc.]: I herewith give you […,]”, which is then continued in the surviving column: “… victory in the arena (mtwn), slaying [your] enemies …” The other ¯ column is more difficult to translate. It is probably the last column of the text belonging to the king who stood before the deity in the adjacent scene on the left and was originally inscribed behind him. It may be part of a series of epithets of the king defining his role in the ritual. Such a concluding text often begins with “The King of Upper and Lower Egypt (or: The Son of Re) NN is …” The fragment of text on your block may refer to “… [providing?] all [the inhabitants?] of Egypt (?— reading Kmt) with their needs, taxing [all] foreign lands (?) …”10

a long-neglected example of ptolemaic relief carving

187

offering the rewards of victory, the other identifying a donor of offerings who makes a petition to provide for the needs of the people. This was part of a typical Ptolemaic temple decoration, a wall with repeated images of rulers making presentations and obeisance to deities. As such, it is one among a small number of surviving fragments from the Ptolemaic Period at Abadiyeh, long overlooked and never before published in full.11 The original placement of the block is impossible to determine. The Ptolemaic temple on the site had been converted, as described by Petrie, into a fortification in the Roman Period with the addition of corner bastions to the mud-brick walls.12 Virtually all he could say about the temple itself was that it had the “traditional” deep foundation of sand in a ten-foot-deep pit cut into the native marl. No stone of the foundations remained, so no plan of the division of areas and spaces was possible; “only a few blocks were found in the rubbish.”13 The “traditional” deep foundation is generally found in the Late and Ptolemaic Periods and is not so prevalent before Dynasty 26.14 The Detroit block probably came from the rubbish mentioned.

The dating of this relief is also somewhat problematic. Petrie could not place the Ptolemaic material on the site any earlier than the time of Ptolemy VII (145 BCE), an assumption based on the finding of an inscribed architrave.15 From the context, the best that can be said is that the relief possibly dates from the middle to the late Ptolemaic Period. Since the modeling of the remaining figure is not preserved in a crisp state, it is difficult to make comparisons with other, better-preserved Ptolemaic reliefs. A precise date for the relief will probably always be a matter for argument, but the possibility exists that it could be assigned a date somewhat earlier than Petrie’s evidence suggested. As an example of Ptolemaic temple relief, this object can be considered typical, but still imbued with some artistic quality and presence, even after considerable neglect and near destruction. The female figure and face are in rather deep relief, but executed with care and skill. This work of art serves as the single example of relief carving from the time of the Ptolemaic Period in the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts, and as such, complements a collection meant to represent the greater artistic expressions of Egyptian history.

11 Katherine Bard has observed that there are still blocks of Ptolemaic date on the site; see Katherine Bard and Sally Swain, “Hu/Hiw (Diospolis Parva)” in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Katherine Bard (London: Routledge, 1999). 12 Ibid. 13 Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 55. 14 See “Foundations,” in Dieter Arnold, Encyclopedia of

Ancient Egyptian Architecture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 94, where he says deep foundations did not become the norm until the Ptolemaic Period, although at times they can be found earlier. The foundations for the four naoi at Mendes dating to Dynasty 26 offer a good example of an earlier use (personal observation). 15 Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 54.

188

william h. peck

Fig. 1. Ptolemaic relief, Detroit Institute of Arts, courtesy of Detroit Institute of Arts.

a long-neglected example of ptolemaic relief carving

189

Fig. 2. Line drawing of relief, from W.M.F. Petrie, Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1989–9, pl. 43.

“COW STATUES” IN PRIVATE TOMBS OF DYNASTY 26

Elena Pischikova Metropolitan Museum of Art

I am honored to dedicate this piece of research to Richard Fazzini, one of the leading archaeologists and scholars in contemporary Egyptology. His work on the religion, iconography, and style of art of the Third Intermediate and Late Periods is an encyclopedic body of knowledge and a continuous source of inspiration for scholars of the first millennium BCE. The present paper is an attempt to catalogue and interpret a type of private sculpture that remains underestimated as a component of 26th Dynasty tomb decoration. It is called a “cow statue” throughout the article and refers to a sculptural image of Hathor as a cow with a figure of a king or a private individual standing under her chin, with an occasional addition of an image of the same person as an infant suckling from her udder. The group of known cow statues dated to Dynasty 26th is very limited. Existing examples vary in stages of completion and preservation. The best-preserved cow statue dated to this period is that of Psamtik from his tomb at Saqqara.1

Stylistically it belongs to late 26th Dynasty, probably the time of Amasis.2 The cow statue in the tomb of Basa (TT 389) in Asasif is still recognizable, although badly damaged.3 Two partially preserved statues in the Cairo Museum can be dated to the same period. The statue inscribed for Padisematawy shows a body of a striding cow and remains of feet that suggest a kneeling figure under her head.4 The body of the cow was recently reunited with the head identified in a private collection in Paris.5 The statue was found at Kom Abu-Yasin, a cemetery near Horbeit in the eastern Delta.6 If Padisematawy, who commissioned the statue, is the general who served Psamtik II, the statue may be considered to be securely dated.7 The second cow statue in the Cairo Museum is headless and uninscribed.8 Recently, an unfinished and very fragmentary cow statue of the vizier Nespakashuty (TT 312) was identified at his tomb at Deir el-Bahri.9 The tomb as well as his sculptural images are dated to the early reign of Psamtik I.

1 Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 784, graywacke; 96 cm × 104 cm × 29 cm, see Ludwig Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten 3, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire nos. 1–1294 (Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1930), 91–92, pl. 144; Edna R. Russmann, Egyptian Sculpture: Cairo and Luxor (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992),185–188, fig. 86. 2 Bernard V. Bothmer et al., Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period, 700 B.C. to A.D. 100 (New York: Brooklyn Museum, 1960), 64. 3 Jan Assmann, Das Grab des Basa (Nr. 389) in der thebanischen Nekropole (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1973), 61–63, pl. 6. 4 Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 676, graywacke, 98 cm × 132 cm × 37 cm, see Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, 21–22, pl. 124; Bodil Hornemann, Types of Ancient Egyptian Statuary 4–5 (København: Munksgaard, 1966), no. 1346. 5 Biri Fay, “The Head of Pa-di-sema-tawy’s Cow Goddess Reunited with its Body,” MDAIK 59 (2003): 145–148. 6 The provenance given in CG is Tell el-Timai (Central Delta), yet JE gives a different provenance “said to be from Tell Abu-Yasin”; see Edward L.B. Terrace and Henry G. Fischer, Treasures of Egyptian Art from the Cairo Museum:

a centennial exhibition, 1970–1971 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1970), 168. The Tell Abu-Yasin provenance is accepted by scholars as the most probable; see Fay, “The Head of Pa-di-sema-tawy’s Cow Goddess,” 147–148, Jean Yoyotte, “Contribution à l’histoire du chapitre 162 du Livre des Morts,” RdÉ 29 (1977): 200–202. 7 The connection between the graywacke sarcophagus of general Padisematawy found with his burial in Kom AbuYasin and the cow statue inscribed to a person with the same name is discussed by Fay, “The Head of Pa-di-sema-tawy’s Cow Goddess,” 148, Yoyotte, “Contribution à l’histoire,” 201. 8 Egyptian Museum, Cairo CG 683, limestone, l. 84 cm, see Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, 28, pl. 125. The provenance “Saqqara Serapeum” given in CG suggests rather an Apis bull. The quality of work is described as rough and unmodeled. 9 Klaus P. von Kuhlman and Wolfgang Schenkel, Das Grab des Ibi, Obergutsverwalters des Gottesgemahlin des Amun (thebanisches Grab Nr. 36) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), 56–63, pl. 8; Elena Pischikova, “Two Ostraka from Deir elBahri and the Lily Flower Motif in Twenty-sixth Dynasty Theban Tombs,” JARCE 39 (2002): 197–206.

“cow statues” in private tombs of dynasty 26

191

The group of 26th Dynasty cow statues, assembled according to today’s knowledge, may look small and insignificant, yet it represents an important aspect of Late Period tomb decoration and funerary religion.10 Our information is limited by a largely incomplete archaeological survey of the tombs of this period, and most probably will be expanded in the nearest future. Most of the known cow statues are inscribed to the goddess Hathor. The cow statue of Padisematawy is inscribed to the cow goddess Ihet, although it wears Hathor’s headdress, composed of the sun disk and double plume, and a menat collar around its neck. This is understandable, as in the New Kingdom a number of cow goddesses, including Ihet and Mehet-weret, were identified with Hathor.11 Thus the Late Period Hathor combines powers of numerous goddesses, including Nut and Isis.12 Two of the known Late Period cow statues were found in northern cemeteries; the other two were discovered in Theban tombs. It reflects an ancient tradition of Hathor worship in different religious centers of Egypt. Iconography of the cow-statue type has ancient roots as well. Hathor’s cult and imagery were always prominent features of the Theban necropolis. Although the cult of a cow goddess, mistress of the necropolis, probably dates back to the Old Kingdom, her association with Hathor is not registered before the 11th Dynasty, when the temple of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep, Akh-isut, was built.13 The actual place for the shrine of the goddess is not determined, but it was probably located under the platform of Hathor’s shrine in Djeser-Djeseru.14 Supposedly it contained a statue of Hathor as a cow, with a figure of King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep standing under her chin.15 Although the original statue has not survived, a votive stela and

votive cloth from Deir el-Bahri, dated to the late 18th Dynasty, depict a cow statue of Hathor of Akh-isut suckling and protecting the king standing beneath her head.16 Another important piece of evidence is the head of a cult statue of the goddess Hathor found in the rubble of the mortuary temple of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep.17 Stylistically, this beautiful lifesize head dates to the early 18th Dynasty. The eyes, with long cosmetic lines and eyebrows, were inlaid with rock crystal and lapis lazuli; the horns holding the sun disk and the ears were probably made of gilded bronze. Together with the statue of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep, also found in the temple and dated to late Dynasty 18, it could have been a replacement for the missing parts of the cult cow statue of Akh-isut.18 Another possibility is that the alabaster head of a cow was once part of a cult statue of Hathor in her manifestation as a cow, made at the time of Hatshepsut for the Hathor chapel of Djeser-Djeseru.19 Damaged, it could have fallen down onto the platform of the 11th Dynasty temple.20 In any case, Hatshepsut’s Hathor chapel could have contained a “cow statue” with two images of Hatshepsut, one standing under the chin of the cow and another suckling the goddess. Numerous images on the walls of the chapel show this scene with a cow figure mounted on a base that suggests a statue.21 The best-preserved royal cow statue of the 18th Dynasty was found by Naville in 1906 in the ruins of the temple of Thutmose III, DjeserAkhet. The goddess is shown walking out of the mountain of the necropolis while protecting King Amenhotep II, who stands under her chin, and also suckling the king as an infant, shown crouching under her belly.22 It is hard to say which of these cow statues could have been seen by the artists of the Late

10 B. Fay also mentions an unpublished statue in the San Antonio Museum. 11 Geraldine Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1993), 175, 177. 12 Ibid., 215–216. 13 Eberhard Otto, Topographie des Thebanischen Gaues, UGAÄ 6 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1952), 51. 14 Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari, vol. 1, Architecture und Deutung, AV 8 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1974), 83–84. 15 Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el-Bahari, vol. 2, Die Wandreliefs des Sanktuares, AV 11 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1974), 31–32. 16 Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, 5. 17 The British Museum EA 42179, Egyptian alabaster; h. 35.5 cm; see color photograph in Regine Schulz, “The

Eighteenth Dynasty Temple Complexes,” in Egypt: The World of the Pharaohs, ed. Regine Schulz (Köln: Könemann, 1998), 186, fig. 74. 18 Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep 2, 31– 32. 19 Schultz, “Temple Complexes,” 186. 20 Edouard Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir elBahari 1, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 28 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1907), 69. 21 Edouard Naville, The Temple of Deir el-Bahari 4, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 19 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1899–1900), pls. 104, 105. 22 Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 38574–38575, see in Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple, 27–31; Mohamed Saleh and Hourig Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1987), no. 138.

192

elena pischikova

Period, and what the condition of the statues may have been. The temples of Deir el-Bahri suffered numerous damages over time, and their condition was undoubtedly worsened by a rockfall during the 20th Dynasty. Yet Deir el-Bahri would remain an important religious center for worshiping Hathor and a stylistically influential depository of art. The tradition of a royal group-statue depicting Hathor as a cow with a king standing under her head continued in a number of Ramesside temples.23 During the Ramesside Period, the use of royal cow statues spread to private tombs.24 Recent discoveries at the late New Kingdom necropolis of Saqqara have brought a lot of attention to the history and development of cow statues in private tombs of the New Kingdom.25 Two royal cow statues of Ramesses II, placed as focal sacred images, were found in rock-cut private tombs.26 Dated to the Ramesside Period, they were inspired by Theban imagery and probably even executed by a Theban artist from Deir el-Medina.27 The earliest-known cow statue with an image of a private person standing under her chin is dated to the 20th Dynasty, and probably originated in Memphis.28 A number of the late New Kingdom votive offerings to the chapels of Hathor, although in a fragmentary condition, suggest the existence of other private cow statues.29 More statues that belong to this group are hopefully yet to be found. The rise of the importance and popularity of the cult of Hathor in the north and south of Egypt during the Ramesside Period is also

evident from the large number of private statues with Hathoric images and symbols dedicated to various temples or tombs. An image held by a worshiper is usually the emblem of Hathor in a naos or a sistrum.30 In the Third Intermediate Period, the cult of Hathor continued to grow in popularity. The evolution of a “mammisiac religion” and a “theology of birth” in this period is seen in the newly prominent cultic role of divine families, images of child gods, and child kings nursed by Hathor or Isis-Hathor.31 The prominence of the motif of Isis protecting the young Horus in the marshes of Chemmis near Buto may reflect the shift of political power to the Delta beginning in Dynasty 19. From Dynasty 21 on, this motif became increasingly important iconographically and ideologically. With the lack of private decorated tombs during this period, images of Hathor as a cow became a prominent feature on painted coffins.32 In cosmological mythology, Hathor was seen as part of a solar cycle identified with Nut carrying an aging Re to the heavens on the journey of rejuvenation.33 Her role as a “ferryboat” to the place of judgment was emphasized on coffins and painted textiles by the image of Hathor as a cow carrying the deceased on her back.34 Hathoric imagery returns to Theban tombs with the revival of private tomb construction and decoration in the 25th–26th Dynasties. Hathoric references become a constant feature of tomb decoration of this period in Asasif, starting in the 25th Dynasty. Such major tombs of the period as Mentuemhat35 and Petamenophis36 start a revival of Hathoric imagery in private tomb decoration.

Pinch, Votive Offerings, 180. Ibid., 180–181. 25 Tomb of Nétchérouymes, see Alain Zivie, Les tombeaux retrouvés de Saqqara (Monaco: Rocher, 2003), 134–141, nos. 52– 55. 26 Ibid., 134–140. 27 Alain Zivie, “Un détour par Saqqara: Deir el-Médineh et la nécropole memphite,” in Deir el-Médineh et la Vallée des Rois (Paris: Éditions Khéops, 2003), 67–82. 28 Jacques Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne 3 (Paris: A. and J. Picard, 1958), 464, pl. 155; Pinch, Votive Offerings, 182. 29 Pinch, Votive Offerings, 160–161. 30 Hans D. Schneider, Life and Death under the Pharaohs: Egyptian Art from the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, The Netherlands, trans. Julia Harvey (Perth: Western Australian Museum, 1997), no. 93; Vandier, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, pls. 45 (5, 6), 40 (4), 138(6). 31 Richard A. Fazzini, Egypt Dynasty XXII–XXV, Iconography of religions, Sec. 16, fasc. 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 9–

10, pl. 6: 1–2. Examples provided by Fazzini: Sheshonq I suckled by Hathor on the Bubastite portal of the Amun Temple, Karnak; Child god nursed by Hathor on the obverse of a faience necklace spacer, Brooklyn Museum of Art (49.30). 32 Pinch, Votive Offerings, 182. 33 Erik Hornung et al., Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh: eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen, OBO 46 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1982), 98–99. 34 Pieter Adriaan Aart Boeser, Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden, vols. 8–11, Mumiensärge des Neuen Reiches (Haag: M. Nijhoff, 1905–1932), pl. 8; Pinch, Votive Offerings, 182. 35 Nancy K. Thomas, “A Typological Study of Saite Tombs at Thebes” (PhD diss., University of California, 1980), figs. 90, 103, 156. 36 Johannnes Dümichen, Der Grabpalast des Patuamenap in der Thebanischen Necropolis 2 (Leipzig: J.S. Hinrichs, 1884), pl. 22. Petamenophis is shown guided by Anubis, Maat, and Hathor as a cow walking out of the mountain.

23 24

“cow statues” in private tombs of dynasty 26

193

One of the highest points in developing Hathoric imagery in 26th Dynasty tombs is a pillared hall with Hathoric capitals (R2) in the tomb of Ibi.37 A group of Hathoric images and features in Late Period tombs was complemented by the extreme popularity of Chapter 148 of The Book of the Dead in Saite tombs. Already by the New Kingdom, a group of seven cows that appears in the vignettes to this chapter was associated with Hathor when shown standing instead of in the traditional recumbent pose.38 This chapter became one of the most popular in the 25th–26th Dynasty tombs and appears in practically every one of them, including Petamenophis, Mentuemhat, Basa, Pabasa, Ibi, and Nespakashuty in the Theban necropolis, and Psamtik at Saqqara.39 It remains mostly a Theban feature. Out of 72 known cases of using this chapter in a tomb or temple decoration in the New Kingdom and Late Period, 49 are Theban.40 The high importance of the cult of Hathor at the end of the 25th Dynasty is evident from numerous references to the goddess in private sculpture of the period, including the large group of the statues of the mayor of Thebes, the fourth prophet of Amun, Mentuemhat. Many of his numerous statues are adorned with amulets and symbols of Hathor, and some show him as a worshiper of Hathor.41 According to current knowledge, the cow statue regains its popularity during the reign of Psamtik I. From the beginning of the 26th Dynasty on, it develops as a type of private sculpture made for private tombs. The newly discovered example of a cow statue in the tomb of Nespakashuty (TT 312), dated to the beginning of the reign of Psamtik I, proves to be the earliest among securely dated statues of Dynasty 26.42 The head of a cow (figs. 1–4)

was found in the tomb by the Metropolitan Museum Egyptian Expedition, led by Herbert Winlock in 1922–1923.43 In 2002, during the reexcavation of the tomb, two more fragments of the statue were found in the debris in the first chamber.44 These two fragments, joined together, form the bottom part of a figure of Nespakashuty and a section of the statue’s base (figs. 5–8). Unlike the traditional iconography, the figure of Nespakashuty was mummiform.45 This unusual iconographic version could have been inspired by the Osiride statues of Hatshepsut in her temple at Deir el-Bahri. It is preserved almost up to the knees. The section of a base looks like it was broken out of a larger slab of stone. Although the carving of the figure looks complete, the statue was undoubtedly unfinished, judging by the column of inscription on the front part of the figure. It was left in the preliminary drawing executed in red paint with wide brushstrokes. The paint has faded to the extent that it is almost impossible to read most of the signs. What is recognizable are some of Nespakashuty’s titles, such as high official, overseer of Upper Egypt, and overseer of the city. Although badly damaged, a hoof of a cow is clearly visible on the right side of a standing figure. The leg on the other side is not preserved, as it was represented far behind the figure in a walking posture. The head of the cow is the best-finished fragment out of the whole group.46 The elegantly elongated head widens around the nostrils with a distinctive curved line. The nostrils, although broken, were clearly carved in high relief. Bulging eyes protrude to the extent that the whole eyeball is visible under the skin. Upper eyelids and eyebrows are represented as five plastically carved wrinkles of skin above the eyes. The shape of the

37 “The Hathoric shrine (Basa) and Hathoric pillars (Ibi) are unique elements which were most likely inspired by the nearby mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri,” in Thomas, “A Typological Study of Saite Tombs at Thebes,” 187. 38 Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, 173–174; Ramadan el Sayed, “Les sept vaches célèstes, leur taureau et les quatre gouvernails,” MDAIK 36 (1980): 357–390. 39 el Sayed, 388. 40 Ibid., 357–358. 41 JE 37176, see Francesco Tiradritti, ed., Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Vercelli: White Star, 1998), 350; Jean Leclant, Montouemhat: quatrième prophète d’Amon, prince de la ville (Cairo: IFAO, 1961), docs. 10–13, 30. 42 See Pischikova, “Two Ostraka,” figs. 10, 12.

43 MMA 23.3.751, limestone, h. 21 cm, Rogers Fund, see PM 1:2, 388; Pischikova, “Two Ostraka,” 205. 44 2002.139.1–2, limestone, h. 33, w. 20 cm, d. 24 cm, see Pischikova, “Two Ostraka,” fig. 12. 45 What is more characteristic for this time period is a tomb statue of the mummiform Osiris inscribed for the tomb owner as his protector, see Boyo G. Ockinga, “A Statuette of Osiris, the Protector of the Majordomo Padihorresnet,” GM 98 (1987): 67–73; Richard A. Fazzini, “A Note on the Statuette of Osiris, the Protector of Padihorresnet,” GM 121 (1991): 55. 46 The head measures h. 21 cm, w. (between the horns) 13 cm, w. (between the eyes) 10 cm, w. (between the nostrils) 5.5 cm, d. 10.5/7 cm.

194

elena pischikova

break on the top of the head suggests a headdress, probably consisting of two feathers and the sun disk with uraeus enclosed by two horns. The fine dense limestone has vivid red markings of baked stone as a result of fire in the tomb. The quality and condition of the stone are proof that the head was made for Nespakashuty. It was left unfinished, as were many other parts of the tomb’s decoration. There are red lines of a preliminary drawing on top of the head, marking the boundary of the forehead, and probably on the left horn. The character of breaks and joins suggests a cow figure carved in high relief, rather than a free-standing statue. Most probably the cow statue was placed into a false door frame on the north wall of the second chamber, representing Hathor walking out of the cliff. A small rounded break under the chin of the cow leaves very little space for the head of Nespakashuty. Considering that the bottom of the statue belongs to a mummiform figure, the size of the break may suggest an atef crown on the head of the figure standing under the cow’s head. Most probably, the figure under the chin was an Osiride image of Nespakashuty. Unusual as it is for private individuals, it is still a possibility, considering how many features of royal iconography were used in Late Period private tombs. The original composition thus consisted of the head and front legs of a cow protruding out of the wall of the niche, with an Osiride statue of Nespakashuty standing between the hoofs. The second dated cow statue remains in its original place in the tomb of Basa (TT 389) in Asasif. Only the head and front feet of the cow walking out of the niche were carved in high relief. The head was carved almost three dimensionally. Despite the extensive damage of the head, Assmann remarks on its close similarity to the cow’s head from the tomb of Nespakashuty.47 Its chest is adorned with a large necklace with the ends shaped as the heads of Horus.48

Two northern examples of 26th Dynasty cow statues are the statue of Padisematawy of the time of Psamtik II, and Psamtik of the time of Amasis.49 The cow statue of Psamtik was found by Auguste Mariette in 1863 in the shaft tomb of Psamtik at Saqqara, south of the Unas causeway. It was found in one of the pits of the tomb, together with statues of Isis and Osiris.50 It has been suggested that the sculptor of Psamtik could have seen Theban analogies.51 In fact, the treatment of the cow’s head—the overall shape of the head, bulging eyes, five wrinkles above the eyes—is quite similar to Nespakashuty’s cow head and probably to Basa’s cow head as well. It is possible to assume that the Theban style was more than an influence, and that the statue itself was executed by Theban sculptors. A cow statue is rather a Theban iconographic tradition. If the first known cow statue at Saqqara of the Ramesside Period was carved by the sculptors of Deir el-Medina, the revival of cow statues at Saqqara in the 26th Dynasty could have been brought by the sculptors of Asasif.52 It has been assumed that the cow statue of Psamtik, together with the statues of Osiris and Isis, were meant for the temple and put into the tomb later on “for unknown reasons.”53 This opinion is based on the assumption that in this period, tomb sculpture was rare. In fact, there was a revival of monumental tomb sculpture in the 25th–26th Dynasties. Having a cow statue of a tomb owner and a statue of Osiris made specially for the tomb would be in accord with a contemporary Theban practice. Iconographically, this type of cow statue refers to Hathor as the goddess of the Western mountain, sometimes in a combination with the “marshes of Chemmis” motif. The Hathor-ofthe-mountain motif is a vignette to Chapter 186 of the Book of the Dead.54 As the mountain was identified with the Theban necropolis, this

Assmann, Das Grab des Basa, pl. 6. An example of a Saite private statue of an emblem of Hathor is a statue of Amenemopeemhat. Executed in the Memphite area in the early 26th Dynasty, the statue represents the overseer of singers of Amun of Luxor. Although made in the north, it has a Theban connection, see MMA 24.2.2, Edna R. Russmann, “The Statue of Amenemopeemhat,” in Ancient Egypt in the Metropolitan Museum Journal (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1977), 99–112. 49 Bothmer et al., Sculpture of the Late Period, 64. 50 Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten, 91–92, pl. 144; Saleh and Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum, Cairo, nos. 250–252;

Russmann, Egyptian Sculpture, 185–188, fig. 86; Terrace and Fischer, Treasures of Egyptian Art from the Cairo Museum, 165– 168, no. 38. 51 Terrace and Fisher, Treasures of Egyptian Art from the Cairo Museum, 165. 52 Zivie, “Un detour par Saqqara,” 69–76. 53 Terrace and Fischer, Treasures of Egyptian Art from the Cairo Museum, 168. 54 For an example, see Thomas G. Allen, The Book of the Dead, or Going Forth by Day, SAOC 37 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1974), 209–210.

47 48

“cow statues” in private tombs of dynasty 26 iconography is mostly attributed to the Theban area; examples from the other regions are scarce.55 The symbolic aspect of cow statues and cow imagery in the tombs evokes the concept of a divine cow guiding a deceased person to the place

55

Pinch, Votive Offerings, 179.

195

of judgment, therefore assisting in the transition from life through death to rebirth and regeneration.56 At the same time, a divine statue itself is an object of worship. This dual meaning of a cow image reflects the dual function of a Late Period tomb, as a tomb and a temple.

56

Ibid., 182.

196

elena pischikova

Fig. 1–4. Head of a cow from the tomb of Nespakashuty (TT312) at Deir el-Bahri, MMA 23.3.751, Rogers Fund, 1923. Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Photo: Bill Barrette.

“cow statues” in private tombs of dynasty 26

Fig. 5–8. Bottom part of the cow statue of Nespakashuty, 2002.139, found in the tomb of Nespakashuty in 2002. Photo: Carlos De La Fuente.

197

SOME OLD KINGDOM SEALINGS FROM MENDES: I1

Donald B. Redford Pennsylvania State University

The current excavations at Mendes have concentrated on the royal necropolis (1992–1995), the two harbors (1991, 1994, 1997), and the main temple of Banebdjed (1996, 1999 to present).2 While the first two areas have largely escaped the ransacking of modern treasure hunters, the temple was extensively pillaged of its statuary and reliefs both in the Middle Ages and in the nineteenth century. Such depredation notwithstanding, a number of significant fragments of texts and reliefs has come to light in recent seasons from the area of the temple. Five Old Kingdom sealings in particular are chosen for publication here, for the light they shed on certain specific historical and stratigraphic problems. Excavations due west of the entry to the naos court3 were carried out in units AJ-A/B and AJ-U, and provided the deepest stratigraphic sounding of third millennium materials to date at the site (fig. 1). Placed so as to abut the western wall of the temple, these units penetrated through c. 4.5 meters of domestic deposition beginning at the top with the First Intermediate Period and terminating with the Early Dynastic Period. At this, the lowest level so far reached,4 a series of light, mud-brick structures with curvilinear walls came to light.

Scattered over floors and adjacent surfaces associated with these were a series of about a dozen fragments of clay sealings. Several pieces seemed to represent impressions of the same seal, and these are offered here for the reader’s perusal.

1 It is a pleasure to be able to offer this brief study as a tribute to my old, dear friend Richard Fazzini, who worked so long ago at Mendes, and whom I first met at the site in the mid-’60s. 2 See Donald B. Redford et al., “Three Seasons in Egypt, 3. The First Season of Excavations at Mendes [1991],” JSSEA 18 (1988 [published 1992]): 49–79; Redford, “Interim Report on the Second Campaign of Excavations at Mendes (1992),” JSSEA 21/22 (1991–1992 [published 1994]): 1–12; Redford, “Mendes,” in L’Égypte du Delta: les capitales du nord, ed. Jean Yoyotte, Dossiers d’Archéologie 213 (Dijon: Ed. Faton, January 5, 1996); Redford, The Excavations at Mendes, vol. 1, The Royal Necropolis (Leiden: Brill, 2004). See also the forthcoming “Interim Report on the Temple of the Ram-god at Mendes,” in Delta Notes and News 1 (2006), and Excavations at Mendes, 2: The Temple of Ba-neb-djed and Environs, Leiden, 2007. 3 See Donald P. Hansen, “Mendes 1965 and 1966,” JARCE 6 (1967): fig. 2.

4 Corings suggest that Predynastic occupation extends to as much as 4 meters below the Early Dynastic levels. 5 Peter Kaplony, Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit 3, ÄA 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1963), Taf. 10–12; Wolfgang Helck, Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit, ÄA 45 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987), 144–151; Jürgen von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999), 38–39. 6 Cf. Kaplony, Inschriften 3, Taf. 5, Abb. 5 (Ashmolean E 3915 [Narmer with baton]), Helck, Thinitenzeit, 146 (Horaha with hoe). 7 Perhaps part of a second impression of the clay. 8 Elmar Edel, Altägyptische Grammatik (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1958), § 630bb. 9 Rather than ı"tt, “to fly,” Ranier Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch 1 (Mainz: ¯Philipp von Zabern, 2003), 240. 10 Elke Blumenthal, Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Königtum des Mittleren Reiches 1 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970), 173–174; M. Schade-Busch, Zur Königsideologie Amenophis’ III

AJ-A 280 (fig. 2) This small lump, with perforation for suspension, shows the serekh of Hor-aha5 as its principal feature. The falcon’s feet are extended down within the rectangle and are transformed into a sweeping arm holding the shield, and beneath a horizontal “bar” for the arm with weapon. Unless it is a flaw in either the seal or the clay, which both seem unlikely, the bird is also equipped with a baton held diagonally.6 Before the serekh, at a slightly different angle,7 is a reed leaf, which in another fragment is accompanied by two cˇima (Gardiner V 13). The resultant i tt is undoubtedly an imperfective active participle8¯ from the root ı"tı", ¯ “to seize”9 in the sense of “take rightful possession of.”10 Word groups in the first part of the Early Dynastic Period that stand next to serekhs, or

some old kingdom sealings from mendes: i

199

expected in the Delta, under the attraction of such words as ity (“sovereign”), and Tty (personal name).14 Other suggested derivations of the Greek do not do justice, either to the phonetic structure of the word, nor the social context in which the word came into existence.15

between repeating serekhs, have been taken to be names of princes, sons of the king denoted by the serekh.11 This is unlikely. First, these are not plausibly understood as names; they have no currency nor obvious derivation during the time period in question. Second, in numerous cases where signs appear in association with a serekh, the result is not a phonetic group, but a mnemotechnic device designed to trigger an idea.12 Third, in a “Big Man” society, such as the incipient kingship certainly was, reference to members of the family, nuclear or extended, apart from the mother, was not countenanced. It is much more likely that these ancillary groups are to be construed as qualifiers of the presence signified by the occupant of the serekh, and stand in direct line with earlier protoliterate devices conveying the power and swiftness of the “Big Man.” It is tempting to see in ı"tt, “the Seizer,” the ¯ , second king of origin of the later name Αωις the 1st Dynasty, in the king-list tradition in the stage of its development reflected in Manetho.13 By the New Kingdom, the faulty transmission of the remembered epithet had produced a form with a voiceless alveolar, aspirated as would be

Four sealing fragments come from this locus. Three, apparently showing impressions of the same seal, are given in fig. 3. Common to all three is the writing of what appears to be the sh. shrine (Gardiner 0 21).16 Once (b) it is accompanied by the sign of a building with a vaulted roof, presumably the pr-nw (Gardiner 0 20).17 The shrine appears to be flanked on the left by what could be taken to be the white crown on a dish.18 Above is a partly preserved group which may be restored mı"[t]r,19 although to find this title alone— is there a hrp lost?20—might pose a problem for ˘ the Early Dynastic Period.21 One might also construe it as htm.ty, “sealer.” ˘ Two possible writings of place names are too questionable to be insisted upon: it would be

(Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1992), 370; José M. Galan, Victory and Border: Terminology related to Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty, HÄB 40 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1995), 25; cf. Wb 1, 149:6, 16–19, 150:5; Kurt Sethe, Ägyptische Lesestücke (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1928), 65:23, 67:13; Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch 1, 237–240; for its use in personal names in the Early Dynastic Period see Jochem Kahl, ed., Frühägyptische Wörterbuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 65. 11 Kaplony, Inschriften 3, Taf. 29, Abb. 78(A–D) (ht), 79 (rhyt), 80 (s A "Ist), 81 (ity); Helck, Thinitenzeit, 179; von ˘ Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, 32–33. 12 Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 44; examples from the Early Dynastic Period include stakes (Kaplony, Inschriften 3, no. 26A–B), mace (ibid., no. 34), standards (ibid., nos. 175A– B), “yellow-face” + mace + running king (ibid., no. 211), bull (ibid., no. 18); M. Berger, “Predynastic Animal-headed Boats from Hierakonpolis and Southern Egypt,” in The Followers of Horus, ed. Renée Friedman and Barbara Adams (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1992), 108, fig. 1. 13 W.G. Waddell, trans., Manetho (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940), 28, 30. The medical treatise with which he is credited (Dietrich Wildung, Die Rolle ägyptischer Könige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt 1: Posthume Quellen über die Könige der ersten vier Dynastien, MÄS 17 [Berlin: Hessling, 1969], 20) apud Manetho is not reflected in the traditions of the pharaonic period, when the reign of Den is credited with similar textual discovery and invention: P. Ebers C 111, 1; P. Berlin 3038.xv.1 ff.; E.A.W. Budge, Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1910), pl. 42; Thomas G. Allen, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Documents in the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of

Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), pl. 37. 14 Wolfgang Helck, Manetho und die ägyptischen Königslisten, UGAÄ 18 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956), 9–10; Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic Kinglists, Annals and Day-books (Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1986), 210 n. 22; von Beckerath, Handbuch, 38. 15 Few will wish to introduce Gardiner’s putative itr.ty, his “personal” name for “King Serpent” (Sir Alan H. Gardiner, “The Personal Name of King Serpent,” JEA 44 [1958]: 38– 39): apart from the dubious nature of its status as a “name,” the sequence i + t + r would have produced a phonemic evolution which would not have led to Αωις, as Heb. ø å à é attests. It seems very doubtful that the Greek derives in any manner from h. t (N. Dautzenberg, “Zum König Ityi der 1. Dynastie,” GM 69 [1983]: 33–35). More likely h. t is to be explained as h. (w).t(y), “smiter,” in which t(y) is the affix of expected or customary action: Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957) § 364; Edel, Altägyptische Grammatik § 682. 16 Jochem Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, Göttinger Orientforschungen 4, Reihe: Ägypten, 29. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 634. 17 Ibid., 634 (Hotepsekhemwy). 18 Cf. Pierre Lacau and Jean-Philippe Lauer, La Pyramide à degrés, vol. 4, Inscriptions gravées sur les vases (Cairo: IFAO, 1959), no. 78 (Ny-neter), flanked significantly by a sh. -ntr. 19 Dilwyn Jones, An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles, ¯Epithets and Phrases of the Old Kingdom (Oxford: Archeopress, 2000), no. 1571. 20 Ibid., no. 2611. 21 Henry G. Fischer, “A Scribe of the Army of the Fifth Dynasty,” JNES 18 (1959): 262.

AJ-U I 27

200

donald b. redford

daring to reconstruct Ddt (a), which would yield ¯ the earliest attestation of the name;22 and tendentious to read (the town) St.wy23 out of the two ani¯ mals (c). While the two shrines put us in the context of the Residence,24 it is unclear how they are to be read. If the sh. -booth could do duty for the pr-wr, we might be confronted by a writing of ı"tr.ty, “the row (of national shrines).”25 On the other hand, if the white crown is correctly identified, we could have representations of the two shrines wherein the national diadems were kept and revered, perhaps in the hypostasis of the “Two Ladies.”26 AJ-R II, 7 This fine sealing (fig. 4) shows the imprint of a seal of five columns. The second and fourth contain the serekh facing left; the remainder contain the epithets and titles of the owner and face right. The text reads (from the right): (1) “[… s] Ab, [pr]aised (? h. sy) of his lord, (2) [Hr . N ]try-h#w, (3) [scr]ibe of the Broad Hall,27 ¯ beloved of his lord,28 (4) [Hr . ntry]— h #w, (5) ¯ every ˘ case who renders sound judgment (in) 29 of the king’s house(?).” In format the seal approximates other examples of 6th Dynasty date,30 but, in the case of Mendes, it adds a royal name, viz. that of Pepy II, to the roster of kings known from the site. More

22 PT 288 (Unas); Henri Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms géographique contenus dans les textes hiéroglyphiques 6 (Cairo: IFAO, 1931), 136; K. Zibelius, Aegyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches (Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1978), 278–279; Helen Jacquet-Gordon, Les noms des domaines funéraires sous l’Ancien Empire Egyptien, BdÉ 34 (Cairo: IFAO, 1962), 182 no. 131 (Unas), 424 no. 25 (Teti); Auguste Mariette, Abydos: Description des fouilles executées sur l’emplacement de cette ville (Paris: A. Franck, 1880), no. 1464 (Teti). 23 Zibelius, Ägyptisches Siedlungen, 235–236; Donald B. Redford, “Some Observations on the Northern and Northeastern Delta in the Predynastic Period,” in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke, ed. Betsy Bryan and David Lorton (San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1994), 206. 24 Barbara L. Begelsbacher-Fischer, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des Alten Reiches, OBO 37 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1981), 262. 25 Selim Hassan, Hymnes religieux du Moyen Empire (Cairo: IFAO, 1930), 47–50; Peter Kaplony, “Gottespalast und Götterfestungen in der ägyptischen Frühzeit,” ZÄS 88 (1963): 15 n. 3; Helck, Thinitenzeit, 245, 262; Hannig, Wörterbuch 1, 236. "Itr.ty wrt in PT 938 and 1992 has been understood as a reference to the royal palace: Kurt Sethe, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den altägyptischen Pyramidentexten 4 (Glückstadt: J.J. Au-

importantly, it helps to define a point of (relative) chronology more closely. In anticipation of a forthcoming interim report, and the second volume of Excavations at Mendes, let the basic facts of the circumstances surrounding the end of the Old Kingdom at Mendes be briefly adumbrated. 1. The Old Kingdom temple of the ram god Banebdjed had stood on a podium of mud brick 2 meters high, apparently oriented to the south. 2. The temple had met its end in a conflagration and collapse, somehow associated with the massacre of approximately three dozen individuals.31 3. Abutting the western perimeter of the temple, rooms for storage and food production (pr-ˇsn #) had stood during the high Old Kingdom. 4. These had been abandoned—there are some traces of burning— and were overlain by two mud-brick mastabas and several small, vaulted burials. To judge by the pottery, the mastabas and vaults (4) date to the First Intermediate Period. The date of the last period of use of the storerooms (3) is fixed by a type of bread pot with interior horizontal ridge known from the 5th and early 6th Dynasties.32 It is not certain that the conflagration (2) and the abandonment (4) coincided in time, although this is not unlikely. All that could be said about the disaster, failing further inscriptional evidence, was that the pottery indicated that it took place between the second half of the 6th Dynasty and the middle of the First Intermediate Period. The present sealing helps greatly to narrow the gap. It was found in a sealed locus, directly

gustin, 1934), 220. Rather what one senses is the sacred space of the totality of the Egyptian gods, transplanted to the capital and conferring never-ending approbation upon the Horian occupant of the palace. 26 Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 901 (Hor-edjo). 27 Probably read sˇ s wsht: Patrizia Piacentini, Les scribes ˘ dans la société égyptienne de l’Ancien Empire (Paris: Cybèle, 2002), 712, 1414. 28 Jones, Index, no. 1659. 29 Read sm A # wd #-mdw nb n pr-nsw: Jones, Index, no. 3256; ¯ cf. no. 1509. 30 Peter Kaplony, Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reiches 2B, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 3 B (Bruxelles: Fondation égyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1981), pl. 107–113. 31 See “Report on the 11th Season of Excavations at Tel er-Rub"a (Mendes),” Akhenaten Temple Project Newsletter, September (no. 3), 2001. 32 The bd A form: Dina Faltings, Die Keramik der Lebens¯ im Alten Reich (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orimittelproduktion entverlag, 1998), Abb. 10a (esp. nos. 12–14, 23–25). The ridged variety abounds in Mendes units AJ-Q and R (= area of the putative pr-ˇsn #).

some old kingdom sealings from mendes: i above the administrative building associated with the food-production unit, thus postdating the abandonment of the latter. It is plausible to con-

201

clude, therefore, that the abandonment (and perhaps the conflagration) took place some time during Pepy II’s reign.

202

donald b. redford

Fig. 1. Mendes excavations, Temple of Banebdjed, units AJ-A/B and AJ-U.

Fig. 2. Old Kingdom seal from Mendes, AJ-A 280.

some old kingdom sealings from mendes: i

Fig. 3. Three Old Kingdom seals from AJ-U 127.

Fig. 4. Old Kingdom seal from AJ-R II, 7.

203

OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT STATE OF THE DYNASTY 21 AMUN TEMPLE AT EL-HIBA Carol A. Redmount and Maury Morgenstein University of California, Berkeley

It is both a pleasure and a privilege to offer this brief contribution on the current state of the elHiba Temple to Richard Fazzini, who has done so much to further our understanding of the Third Intermediate Period. In 1901, two pioneering Egyptologists, one Egyptian (Kamal), one French (Daressy), published accounts of their work at a small, picturesque limestone temple located at the archaeological site of el-Hiba.1 El-Hiba lies on the east bank of the Nile River in northern middle Egypt in Beni Suef Governorate, approximately 165 kilometers south of Cairo and 55 kilometers south of Beni Suef. The site is dominated by the comparatively well-preserved remains of a strongly walled ancient Egyptian provincial town that was founded on an irregular limestone outcrop at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period.2 Current archaeological work at the site suggests that the town enjoyed its greatest prosperity and reached its greatest extent during the Third Intermediate Period. Desert necropoleis surround the settlement on three sides; the fourth, western, side faces the present narrow floodplain and the Nile River. The limestone temple is nestled within a small hollow at the southern end of the town mound, in what is today the lowest-

1 Ahmed Kamal, “Description générale des ruines de Hibé, de son temple et de sa nécropole,” ASAÉ 2 (1901): 84– 91; Georges Daressy, “Le Temple de Hibeh,” ASAÉ 2 (1901): 154–156. 2 The earliest confirmed, securely dated material at the site comes from the beginning of Dynasty 21; evidence for New Kingdom remains is not compelling. 3 Daressy, Temple, 154. 4 Kamal, Hibé, 85–89. 5 Hermann Ranke, Koptische Friedhöfe bei Karâra, und der Amontempel Scheschonks I. bei el Hibe (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1926), 58–68. Finds from the expedition, including objects recovered in the temple, are now in museums in Heidelberg, Mainz, Freiburg, and Cairo, and have been published gradually throughout the intervening years since the original fieldwork. See especially the following catalogues:

preserved surface area of the tell. It is surrounded on three sides by a substantial mud-brick temenos wall still standing in places as high as approximately four meters.

History of Exploration of the el-Hiba Temple In 1892, Daressy visited the temple, recorded the inscriptions, and observed that the structure was in ruins, half full of sediment, and further endangered by tree growth.3 In 1901, Kamal, the first scholar to excavate at Hiba, explored and planned the temple structure and described its decoration and inscriptions.4 In the winter of 1913/1914, a German team directed by Ranke cleared, planned, and recorded the temple, completely clearing its interior and trenching around at least the back part of the exterior.5 This German mission also recorded the temple inscriptions and some, but not all, of the temple relief decoration. Several high-quality relief blocks uncovered during this work were sent to Heidelberg.6 Not until 1980 would the temple again be investigated, when a University of Washington team, led by Wenke and Sheikholeslami, reexamined the structure and excavated a small trench

Eberhard Otto, Aus der Sammlung des Ägyptologischen Institutes der Universität Heidelberg (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1964); Wolfgang Kosack, Alltag im Alten Ägypten: aus der Ägypten sammlung des Museums (Museum für Völkerkunde der Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau, Freiburg (i. Br.): Städt. Museen, 1974); Erika Feucht, Vom Nil zum Neckar: Kunstschätze Ägyptens aus pharaonischer und koptischer Zeit an der Universität Heidelberg (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986); and, most recently, Claudia Nauerth, Karara und El-Hibe: die spätantiken (‘koptischen’) Funde aus den badischen Grabungen 1913–1914, SAGA 15 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996). 6 Erika Feucht, “Zwei Reliefs Scheschonqs I. Aus elHibeh,” SAK 6 (1978): 69–77; Feucht, “Relief Scheschonqs I. beim erschlagen der Feinde aus El Hibeh,” SAK 9 (1981): 106–117.

overview of the current state of the dynasty 21 amun temple at el-hiba in the interior (north side of the pronaos) that revealed over a meter’s accumulation of unstratified silts and clay from Nile inundations.7

Summary of the Temple Plan and Decoration The Hiba temple is oriented east-west, with the entrance facing the Nile River to the west. The original structure seems to have consisted of a hypostyle hall with eight square pillars, followed by an offering room with a stairway leading to the roof, and then a sanctuary for the processional barque of the god, as well as four additional rooms for cult images, beneath one of which was a crypt for the temple treasure. A pronaos was apparently added later in Dynasty 30, perhaps under Nectanebo II.8 The temple relief and inscriptions have been partially published to date, but unfortunately, neither has ever received a comprehensive scholarly review and analysis.9 Kamal and Daressy both published a cursory description of the wall relief and reproduced all the hieroglyphic inscriptions they could make out, as did the German expedition that completely excavated the temple in 1913/14.10 The temple inscriptions inform us that the temple was erected by Sheshonq I, first king of Dynasty 22, and dedicated to an idiosyncratic local form of the god Amun, “Amun great of bleatings/roarings, lord of the Crag,” who is depicted as a ram-headed god.11 Preserved scenes in the temple’s interior dominantly included Sheshonq I offering to a series of deities. In addition, Sheshonq’s expansionist foreign pol-

7 Robert J. Wenke, Archaeological Investigations at El-Hibeh 1980: Preliminary Report, American Research Center in Egypt Reports 9 (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1984), 6, 123; see also Douglas J. Brewer, “A Faunal Sample from El-Hibeh,” JSSEA 15 (1985): 55–67. 8 Dieter Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 33. 9 Forthcoming works by Troy Sagrillo and Robert Ritner that deal with Shoshenq I and Third Intermediate Period inscriptions (including a translation of the Hiba temple inscriptions), respectively, should help alleviate this unfortunate situation. 10 Daressy, Temple; Kamal, Hiba, 85–89; Ranke, Amontempel, 58–68; see also the brief overview of the temple in Arnold, Last Temples, 33–36. 11 Frances Llewellyn Griffith, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester 3 (Manchester: University Press and B. Quaritch, 1909), 38–39. The same distinctive form of Amun in association with el-Hiba is also known from the so-called Chronicle of Prince Osorkon at

205

icy and ambitious program of royal building evidently combined at el-Hiba, as part of the temple relief seems to have included a scene depicting Sheshonq’s campaign into Palestine.12 Sheshonq’s son and successor, Osorkon I, seems to have completed the original temple, as he was responsible for the decoration on the exterior back wall, today barely legible, where he presents to deities. Art-historical analysis of the temple relief suggests that the dominant source of stylistic inspiration was the Thutmoside kings up to Amenhotep II, with some additional Ramesside iconographic influences.13 This temple, dedicated to a local form of the god Amun, apparently was restored at least once and remained in use at el-Hiba until Roman times, over a time span of more than one thousand years, although we do not know whether or not it was used continuously throughout that time period.

Current State of the Temple In 2001, a team from the University of California, Berkeley began work at el-Hiba, including an ongoing program of investigating and monitoring the condition of the limestone temple (figure 1).14 Although the full plan of the temple may still be traced, and remnants of relief may still be seen, the passage of time, the hand of man, and the ravages of nature have not been kind to the structure. The structure still stands, but the decomposing limestone blocks and partially collapsing walls attest to considerable loss of structural integrity and relief decoration. Some relief remains visible to varying extents on the exterior rear wall

Karnak. See Ricardo A. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1958), 17–19, 152, 174. 12 Depicted more famously and more extensively also on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak and recorded in the Hebrew Bible in I Kgs 14:25–26 and 2 Chr 12:2–9. The el-Hiba relief, not well preserved when Daressy saw it and almost certainly now destroyed, evidently duplicated at least part of the Karnak scenes (Daressy, Temple, 155). 13 Karol My´ sliwiec, Royal Portaiture of the Dynasties XXI– XXX (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988), 19–21; My´sliwiec characterizes the representations of Shoshenq I as “a return to the best traditions of New Kingdom art” (p. 19). See also Feucht, “Zwei Reliefs” and “Relief Scheschonqs” for a more detailed stylistic and art historical analysis of the temple reliefs currently in Heidelberg. 14 This program was directed by Dr. Maury Morgenstein, and the following paragraphs summarize salient results of his work on, and analysis of, the temple and its condition.

206

carol a. redmount and maury morgenstein

of the temple, on a few blocks within the temple itself, and on occasional scattered surface blocks lying outside the temple but within the mudbrick temenos wall. Most of this relief is poorly preserved. Tree and other extensive vegetation growth within and around the temple walls is a continuing concern; the temple interior has been entirely cleared twice, but because of the high local water table, the vegetation always returned. The water-table levels fluctuate due to modern irrigation practices in the immediate area of the site, but lie well above the limestone floor level of the temple, at times even reaching current ground level, which augur corings indicate is approximately 1 meter above the temple floor. Augur coring within the temple also provided access to data on fluctuating water levels, as did water samples that were analyzed for chemical composition.15 The analyzed samples indicated that the vadose zone water contains a high dissolved salt content; this is accompanied by a capillary fringe that extends into the limestone blocks of the temple. On-site geological examination confirmed that the limestone used to construct the elHiba temple came from a local source belonging to the Qarara Formation limestone facies of the Mokattam Group (lower upper Eocene to upper middle Eocene). This local source is a massive foraminiferal packstone-limestone with interbedded wackestone-limestone-marls.16 Temple blocks vary in quality, which is reflected by color. The greater the amount of iron-stained clay in the packstone, the poorer its quality and the more yellow its color. The front, western part of the temple seems to be composed of better-quality packstone blocks than the back, eastern part. This may explain the better relief preservation on blocks in the front of the temple.

The prognosis for the temple and the survival of its buried relief in particular is problematic and generally poor. The deteriorating lower limestone courses of the structure, built of an inadequately cemented local limestone containing significant concentrations of expandable clay, are currently saturated with sodium chloride salts (halite), derived from the local ground water of the Nile flood plain. The temple’s upper courses have been weathered by intensive solar radiation heating, with the assistance of humidity and dewdrop. Damage to the limestone blocks of the temple is attributable to tensile fracturing due to stress release, and a resulting debris accumulation of a limestone gruss can be found at the base of the walls. Limestone rock stresses result from volume expansions caused by: 1) hydration of encapsulated clays; 2) introduction of ground water into the limestone and subsequent crystallization of sodium chloride salts; and 3) solar radiation. Any intervention to promote temple stabilization must address the full range of monument illnesses. The high water table makes it impractical to clear the interior of the temple to the floor level, and the fluctuating nature of the water table makes the survival of relief in the interior of the temple below current ground level unlikely. Sadly, any extended study of the temple relief and inscriptions must be undertaken based on previous documentation, although future discoveries of reused relief may provide additional details on the decorative program of the temple. To date, four additional relief blocks, almost certainly belonging to the temple, have been found in secondary archaeological contexts at the site. These include the blue-crowned head of a king, the upper torso of the god Min, the torso of a striding king, and one block with fragments of hieroglyphs.

15 Water analyses were performed in the field by Dr. Mahmoud Saleh. 16 Rosemarie Klemm and Dietrich D. Klemm, Steine und

Steinebrüche im Alten Ägypten (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1992), 76–77.

overview of the current state of the dynasty 21 amun temple at el-hiba

Fig. 1. Overview of the el-Hiba Amun Temple after clearing, looking south.

207

MALE BODIES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF MASCULINITY IN NEW KINGDOM EGYPTIAN ART

Gay Robins Emory University

It is with great pleasure that I offer this paper to Richard Fazzini on the occasion of his 65th birthday. In ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic script, words usually end with a final hieroglyph that indicates, in a general way, the meaning of the word.1 The word t Ay, meaning “male/masculine,” ends with ¯ the image of an erect, often ejaculating penis,2 making clear that the condition of being male in ancient Egypt was linked to the erect phallus. When we turn to images of the male body found in formal New Kingdom art, depictions of figures with erect phalli are common. Throughout the temples of Amun at Thebes and elsewhere, figures of the god in ithyphallic form alternate with non-ithyphallic ones.3 Although Amun only came to prominence in the 11th Dynasty, he was already at that time linked to the much older sun god, Re, under the form of Amun-Re.4 Through this solarization, Amun, whose name means “hidden,” acquired a visible form in the world that linked him to the divine creator and maintainer of the universe. Although there are no known images of Amun from before the 11th Dynasty, we know he acquired his ithyphallic form from the god Min, a much older deity, who was already depicted on vase fragments dating to the Early Dynastic Period.5 While the full significance of

Min as a deity has still to be satisfactorily defined, there is little doubt about the nature and roles of Amun. The two most important aspects of the god for understanding the significance of his ithyphallic image are the connected roles of creator god and k Amwt.f.6 In one explanation of the creation, already recorded in the Old Kingdom and still current over 2,000 years later, the creator god brought the ordered world into being through an act of masturbation.7 This account provided a way for the Egyptians to visualize the solution to the problem of how one could get to the plurality of creation from the singularity of a creator. They speculated that before the moment of creation there were only the primeval waters, in which the potential creator floated without consciousness. The creation of the ordered universe took place when the creator god came into being, of himself, on a mound that arose out of the waters. There, he masturbated and produced the first male and female pair of deities. The creator god had contained everything within himself, including the male and female principles. Once these were separated from the creator as a divine couple, they were able to interact sexually and produce another pair of deities, who in their turn produced two more. Thus, the plurality of the

1 James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 28. 2 Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Wb. 5, 345; Rainer Hannig, Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), 945. 3 E.g., Helmut Brunner, Die südlichen Räume des Tempels von Luxor (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977); Harold H. Nelson, The Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak vol. 1, part 1, The Wall Reliefs (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1981). 4 Dieter Arnold, Der Tempel des Königs Mentuhotep von Deir el Bahari vol. 2, Die Wandreliefs des Sanktuares (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1974), pls. 1, 6. 5 Ann McFarlane, The God Min to the End of the Old

Kingdom (Sydney: Australian Centre for Egyptology, 1995), 176. 6 Lanny Bell, “Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka,” JNES 44 (1985): 258–259; James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts, Yale Egyptological Studies 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 48. 7 PT 527; Raymond O. Faulkner, “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus—III” JEA 23 (1937): 172, 27.1; Raymond O. Faulkner, “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus—IV,” JEA 24 (1938): 41, 28.27–29.1, 29.2; Allen, Genesis in Egypt, 13–30; Tom Hare, ReMembering Osiris: Number, Gender, and the Word in Ancient Egyptian Representational Systems (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 111–124.

male bodies and the construction of masculinity in new kingdom egyptian art created world came from the singularity of the creator god.8 Since the creator god was a form of the sun god, the first sunrise occurred at the time of creation, initiating the endless solar cycle in which the sun set every evening in the west and reappeared in the east next morning. The Egyptians speculated on the mechanism that allowed this to occur, and developed, as one solution, the idea that in the evening the sky goddess swallowed the sun god who, in entering her, impregnated her, so that he could be reborn of her in the morning. Occasionally, the young sun god was shown as a child with an erect phallus to symbolize his procreative abilities.9 The concept of the god who renewed himself by impregnating and being born of a goddess, who was thus both his consort and his mother, was expressed through the notion of k Amwt.f, and this epithet was frequently applied to the ithyphallic forms of both Amun-Re and Min.10 The erect phallus is also used to symbolize the resurrection of the god Osiris after his murder by his brother Seth. Ithyphallic figures of Osiris sometimes appear in depictions of the dw At, the realm ruled by the resurrected god.11 In temple contexts, scenes show the conception of Horus, after the goddess Isis has brought her murdered consort back to life.12 Similarly, the male dead who pass successfully to the realm of Osiris, where they become divine, are promised the renewal of their sexual capabilities.13 By contrast, the damned are depicted as bound prisoners and rendered impotent by being shown naked without any genitalia.14 Thus, the evidence of the hieroglyphic script shows that in general the concept of masculinity was embodied by the erect phallus, while texts and images make clear that in the divine world, the erect phallus was a highly potent symbol of creation, self regeneration, and resurrection. Yet when we turn to New Kingdom formal images of the non-divine male body, that is, the body of the king and the elite male official, the erect phallus is nowhere in evidence. The aim of this paper 8

Allen, Genesis in Egypt. Erik Hornung, The Valley of the Kings: Horizon of Eternity (New York: Timken Publishers, 1990), 90, 98 no. 65. 10 Christian Leitz, ed., Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 7 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 258–260. 11 Hornung, The Valley of the Kings, 159, no. 113; Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 87 and fig. 49, 110 and fig. 61. 9

209

is to explore the means by which New Kingdom artists conveyed the notion of masculinity in elite males without displaying the erect phallus that is its primary marker. The patrons who commissioned monuments were the king and the elite scribal class from which officials were drawn to staff the government bureaucracy. This group formed no more than five percent of the population and probably less, but produced virtually all of the textual and visual material that survives. Within the elite, only men could hold government office, which gave them a higher status than women of the same social group. The vast majority of the population— the illiterate non-elite—contributed little to the written or visual record of ancient Egypt that has come down to us; what we know of this group comes largely from elite sources. My discussion, therefore, necessarily relates to the views of the small elite group. Furthermore, the images that this group has left to us were made almost exclusively for religious and funerary purposes. They represent an ideal, decorum-bound view of the world suitable for such contexts and avoid the imperfections, complexities, and untidiness of the lived world. The world represented within a funerary context must have related in some way to the lived world, since it was the latter that provided the vocabulary and context for constructing the world represented on funerary monuments. Nevertheless, my investigation of the male body and construction of masculinity can only be an investigation of these things in the represented world of religious and funerary art as visualized by the elite. This is because, despite the fact that this represented world must have been rooted in the social norms and world view held by the elite group in life, one cannot read it as a direct reflection of the lived world of the elite, and, in fact, there are real problems, which I cannot explore here, in understanding how the two relate. The first thing that is apparent on examining figures of elite New Kingdom males is that the penis is never shown. In fact, the genital area is always covered by an opaque white kilt 12 Eberhard Otto, Egyptian Art and the Cults of Osiris and Amun (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968), pls. 16–20. 13 Hornung, The Valley of the Kings, 137; Kent Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings (Cairo: American University Press, 2001), 269. 14 Hornung, The Valley of the Kings, 152, 161, nos. 119–120, 162, no. 122; Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 267.

210

gay robins

representing linen, even if the rest of the body is unclothed. Not only does the kilt hide the genitals, but it is never rendered to show their shape underneath the garment.15 When other clothing is worn in addition to the kilt, the linen is often treated as transparent, but not so the linen of the kilt.16 As clothing became more complex during the course of the New Kingdom, additional layers often cover the genital area, hiding and protecting it, yet also, by their very extravagance, drawing attention to the region.17 By contrast, in female figures, artists often find a way to reveal the genital area. At the beginning of the New Kingdom, women are depicted in a type of garment often called a sheath dress, because of the way it hugs the contours of the body. Since in reality such a garment would have restricted all movement, it has to be assumed that it is in large part an artistic construct designed to show off the female body.18 In addition to displaying the shape of the body, the inner line of the forward thigh is sometimes depicted, and this leads the eye of the viewer to the pubic region.19

In statues, the shape of the body may be modeled under the dress.20 From the middle of the 18th Dynasty, the sheath dress gives way to a loose, pleated, wrap-around dress, often with a shawl draped over it. In two-dimensional images, artists frequently render the material as transparent, so that the body beneath stands revealed.21 In three dimensions, the clothes cling to the modeled body, revealing its shape, including very often the pubic triangle.22 Thus, female figures throughout the New Kingdom are often treated so as to draw attention to or reveal the genital region. The emphasis on showing the female body relates in part to the importance of female fertility, the female body’s ability to stimulate the heterosexual male, and a woman’s child-bearing capabilities, all of which have significance for the belief that the dead are reborn into the afterlife. But the rendering of the female figure in such a way as to reveal the pubic area has another significance, for it shows that these figures lack a penis, that they are not male. In other words, male and female figures are

E.g., TT 1, Abdel Ghaffar Shedid, Das Grab des Sennedjem: Ein Künstlergrab der 19. Dynastie in Deir el Medineh (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994), 69; TT 52, Abdel Ghaffar Shedid and Matthias Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht: Kunst und Geschichte eines Beamtesgrabes der 18. Dynastie in Theben-West (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1991), pl. 8; TT 56, Christine Beinlich-Seeber and Abdel Ghaffar Shedid, Das Grab des Userhat (TT 56) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1987), pls. 1, 8–9; TT 79, Heike Guksch, Die Gräber des Nacht-Min und des Men-cheper-Ra-seneb: Theben Nr. 87 und 79 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), pl. 36; statue, Silvio Curto, Il Senso dell’arte nell’antico Egitto (Milan: Electa, 1990), 98, no. 45. 16 E.g., TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht: 34–35, 46, 56–57, 77; TT 54, Daniel Polz, Das Grab des Hui und des Kel: Theban Nr. 54 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997), color pls. 1, 16; TT 56, Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid, Das Grab des Userhat, pls. 2–4; TT 79 and 87, Guksch, Die Gräber des Nacht-Min, 27, 29, 41, pls. 9, 11; TT 81, Eberhard Dziobek, Das Grab des Ineni: Theben Nr. 81 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1992), pl. 17; TT 96, Christiane Desroches Noblecourt, Sen-nefer: Die Grabkammer des Bürgermeister von Theben (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1986), 47–50, 52, 54–55, 57–58, 70. 17 E.g., TT 1, TT 296, Erika Feucht, Das Grab des Nefersecheru (TT 296) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1985), color pl. 1a; Geoffrey T. Martin, The Tomb of Tia and Tia (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1997), pls. 142, 157; Martin, The Tombs of Three Memphite Officials, Ramose, Khay and Pabes (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 2001), pl. 56; TT 54, Polz, Das Grab des Hui, color pls. 5, 7–9; Shedid, Das Grab des Sennedjem, 57, 72, 79, 97, 104; Mohamed Saleh and Hourig Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1987), nos. 152–153; André Vigneau, Encyclopédie photographique de l’art 1: Les antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Louvre (Paris: Éditions Tels, 1935), 80, 99. 18 Gay Robins, “Problems in Interpreting Egyptian Art,” Discussions in Egyptology 17 (1990): 45–46. 19 E.g., TT 1, Shedid, Das Grab des Sennedjem, 58, 70;

TT 87, Guksch, Die Gräber des Nacht-Min, pl. 12; TT 100 and 192, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 384, 422– 423; stelae, Sergio Bosticco, Le stele egiziane del Nuovo Regno, Museo Archeologico di Firenze (Rome: Istituto Polografico del Stato, 1965), 5–7, 10, 12, 15. 20 E.g., CG 42118, Georges Legrain, Statues et statuettes de rois et de particuliers 1, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire nos. 42001–42250 (Cairo: IFAO, 1906), pl. 69. 21 E.g., TT 49, Norman de Garis Davies, Paintings from the Tomb of Rekh-mi-r¯e at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1935), pls. 36–37, 41 (= vol. 2, pl. 6 color); TT 181, Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Two Sculptors at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1925), pl. 1; TT 41, Jan Assmann, Das Grab des Amenemope (TT 41) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1991), pls. 34b, 35– 36; Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt: Scenes from Private Tombs in New Kingdom Thebes, trans. David Warburton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), fig. 165; Eva Hoffmann, Das Grab des Neferrenpet gen. Kenro (TT 178) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), color pls. 4a, 5b, 6b, 9a,b; Geoffrey T. Martin, The Tomb Chapels of Paser and Raia at Saqqara (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1985), pl. 25; Martin, The Tomb of Tia and Tia, pls. 136–138, 157, 165; Martin, The Tombs of Three Memphite Officials, 52, 55, 57; Boyo G. Ockinga and Yahya al-Masri, Two Ramesside Tombs at el Mashayikh 1 (Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1988), pls. 5a, 12, 19, 40a; Karl-Joachim Seyfried, Das Grab des Paenkhemenu (TT 68) und die Anlage (TT 227) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1991), color pl. 5b; Karl-Joachim Seyfried, Das Grab des Djehutiemhab (TT 194) (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), pl. 11. 22 E.g., Jaromír Málek, Egypt: 4000 Years of Art (London: Phaidon Press, 2003), 154; Saleh and Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo, nos. 152, 154–155, 196.

15

male bodies and the construction of masculinity in new kingdom egyptian art

211

constructed in opposition, with the male marked by concealed genitals and the female by the revealed absence of the penis. Another conspicuous difference between male and female images lies in skin color, for the elite male is usually shown a darker color than the female.23 Most commonly the male is a dark reddish brown and the female a lighter yellow brown, although the precise color tones used vary from monument to monument. This distinction goes back to at least the Old Kingdom and continues into the Graeco-Roman Period and would seem to express something fundamental about notions of male and female. Although portrayed skin color is often taken as naturalistic, since both the male and female skin tones lie within the range of reality, it is unlikely that skin pigmentation was uniform throughout the whole population in ancient Egypt anymore than it is in Egypt today, or that it so neatly differed between men and women. Indeed, it is quite possible that a woman from the south could have been darker than a man from the north. Therefore, it is likely that skin color in ancient Egyptian art was largely symbolic, even though it is hard to understand exactly what the difference between male and female figures signified.24 In part, it may have been based on notions of male and female roles, since ideally women’s responsibilities kept them indoors, while men’s activities

took them outside into the hot sun. Nevertheless, there was almost certainly a deeper significance, since the color distinction was frequently, though by no means always, maintained both for male and female household servants25 and for men and women working together outdoors at the harvest.26 Visually, the darker, stronger skin color of the male has a greater impact on the viewer than the lighter female color, and draws attention to male figures at the expense of female ones. In addition to skin color, gender distinctions are also made through contrasts in pose and physical proportions. Male figures stand with their feet apart, one well in advance of the other. They often carry a staff in one hand and a folded cloth or scepter in the other. The figure of a standing man holding a staff and cloth forms the determinative for the word sr, “official,”27 while, as a hieroglyph, the scepter determines the words shm, “power,” and hrp, “to control.”28 Thus, the ˘ ˘ staff, cloth, and scepter are symbols of authority, referring to the elite male’s role in the ruling bureaucracy. By contrast, figures of women normally stand more passively, with their feet together or with one foot only slightly advanced, but with no clear space between the two feet. Their arms are often held passively at the side of the body with their hands open and empty, but even when they carry items, as they increasingly do in the New Kingdom, they are never shown

23 E.g., TT 51, Norman de Garis Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1927), pl. 7; TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 34–35, 46, 56–57, 74, 77; TT 61, Eberhard Dziobek, Die Gräber des Veziers User-Amun, Theben Nr. 61 und 131 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994), pls. 4–7; TT 63, Eberhard Dziobek and Mahmud Abdel Raziq, Das Grab des Sebekhotep: Theben Nr. 63 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1990), pls. 7, 11, 13, 25a; TT 79, Guksch, Die Gräber des Nacht-Min, pls. 27, 37–38, 42a; TT 100, Nina Davies, Ancient Egyptian Paintings 1–2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), pl. 19; TT 178, Hoffmann, Das Grab des Neferrenpet, color pls. 4–5, 9; TT 181, Davies, The Tomb of Two Sculptors, pl. 8. The basic color distinction is most consistently observed in the first half of the 18th Dynasty. By the reign of Amenhotep III, female figures have a wider range of skin color. For instance, while the skin color of Nakht’s wife in TT 52 is always lighter than his, it varies in tone from yellow to brown; compare Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 34–35 and 56–57. Sometimes the skin color can be the same as that of the male figures they accompany, e.g., TT 69, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 406–407; Zahi Hawass and Mahmoud Maher-Taha, Le tombeau de Menna [TT. No 69] (Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities, 2002), pl. 71 A–B; TT 49, Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1933),

pl. 6; TT 1, Shedid, Das Grab des Sennedjem. Divine female figures remain the traditional color, e.g., TT 69, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 405. The reason for this variation in the skin color of female figures has never been fully studied. For a pioneering analysis of the variations in the skin color of queen Nefertari in her tomb, QV 66, see Heather Lee McCarthy, “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration,” JARCE 39 (2002): 173–195. 24 Gay Robins, “Color Symbolism,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 1, ed. Donald B. Redford (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 291–294. 25 E.g., TT 79, Guksch, Die Gräber des Nacht-Min, pl. 37; TT 82, Davies, Ancient Egyptian Paintings, pl. 17. 26 E.g., TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 35; TT 69, Davies, Ancient Egyptian Paintings, pls. 50–51, but see Hawass and Maher-Taha, Le tombeau de Menna, pl. 19, where a woman bringing food to a group of harvesters has dark brown skin; however, although not lighter, it is still differentiated from the red-brown skin tone of the male laborers. 27 Sir Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957), 444, A21. 28 Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 509, S 42.

212

gay robins

with the scepter and staff.29 They sometimes carry the cloth, but with far less frequency than their male counterparts. In comparison to female figures, male figures have broader shoulders, a longer back, and more musculature. Although female figures can be shown the same size as the males they accompany, they are frequently depicted as shorter. Since women in life have on average smaller bones, less musculature, and a shorter stature than men, these differences in size are ultimately based on nature, but in art, they serve to enhance the physical presence of male figures. In life, there must have been couples where the man was shorter than the woman, but their existence is not acknowledged in the world of visual imagery. Male figures, then, with their darker skin color, more active standing pose, larger proportions, and possession of the staff and scepter of authority, contrast with female figures with their less visually stimulating skin color, passive pose, slighter build, and absence of the staff and scepter. The elite male figure displays the authority vested by the king in his male officials, while the contrasting representation of the non-masculine female figure signals, as part of its meaning, the lack of participation by women in the governing bureaucracy. Although the genital area of male figures is deliberately hidden and protected, so that the erect phallus, source of masculinity, is not displayed, its presence is alluded to through the treatment of female figures, by which their lack of a penis is revealed, denying them the possibility of the masculinity that resides in the erect phallus.

In addition to elite male figures, ancient Egyptian artists also depict non-elite males, mainly in the context of tomb chapels made for elite officials. These are not, therefore, images of how the non-elite saw themselves, but of how the elite saw them, so that the way in which they are represented is part of the elite vision of the world in the context of funerary representations. Nonelite males are usually shown actively laboring on behalf of the elite tomb owner as household servants, craftsmen, or workers in the fields and marshes. Unlike elite figures, they are seldom named as individuals, but are instead generic figures whose importance lies in what they are doing and not who they are. The wide variety of active poses that their work demands contrasts with the static standing or seated poses of their elite superior, who watches their labors.30 This is the visual equivalent of texts that describe officials as the ones who give the orders to others who do the work.31 Thus, the contrast between the poses of elite and non-elite males immediately establishes the status of the elite male as the one in authority. This distinction is further enhanced by the contrast in dress. The elite male owner wears elaborate clothing and jewelry unsuited to physical labor. The non-elite are depicted without any jewelry, with only a kilt or loincloth, so they can be unhampered in their work. The elite are always carefully groomed with close-cut hair, shaven head, or elaborate wig.32 They are never shown with signs of baldness or their own gray hair.33 Sometimes they wear a carefully shaped short beard on the point of the chin, but otherwise they display no body hair. Archaeological

29 There is a hieroglyph that shows a woman holding or leaning on a staff, found mostly in the Old Kingdom, Hannig, Grosses Handwörterbuch, 1127, B 68, that is used with words referring to old age. The image, however, can be regarded as a feminized version of the more normal hieroglyphs relating to old age in men, Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 444, A 19 and A 20, which show the figure of a bent man leaning on a stick with nothing in the other hand. 30 E.g., TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 35; TT 69, Davies, Ancient Egyptian Paintings, pls. 50–51. 31 Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature vol. 2, The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 171. 32 For the significance of hairstyles, see Gay Robins, “Hair and the Construction of Identity in Ancient Egypt, c. 1480–1350 B.C.,” JARCE 36 (1999): 55–69. 33 Occasionally wigs of gray or white hair are represented, but these are not normal. In TT 3, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 359, TT 162, Nina Davies, Scenes from some Theban Tombs (Nos. 38, 66, 162, with excerpts from 81) (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1963), 18, pl. 20; TT 290 and 218,

Dominique Valbelle and J.-F. Gout, Les artistes de la Vallée des Rois (Éditions Hasan, 2002), 78–79, 155, and on a stela from TT 290, Guillemette Andreu, Les artistes de Pharaon: Deir el-Médineh et la Vallée des Rois (Paris: Éditions de la réunion des musées nationaux, 2002), 117, no. 58, figures shown with gray or white hair belong to an older generation than the tomb owner, suggesting that hair color here is making a generational distinction. In TT 1, Andreu, Les artistes de Pharaon, 307, Sennedjem, with black hair, is led by Anubis toward Osiris, and is then shown with graying hair kneeling before the god. Similarly, in his Book of the Dead, Any is shown after the weighing of his heart with black hair, when he is led by Horus to Osiris, but with gray hair when he is kneeling before Osiris, E.A. Wallis Budge, Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani (London: The Medici Society, 1913), pl. 4. The distinction here may be marking the generational transformation of the deceased, who approaches Osiris in the role of Horus, but after passing successfully into the duat, takes on the role of Osiris (personal communication of Ann Roth). In TT 218, the owner with white hair and his wife with black kneel before a hymn to the sun, Bernard Bruyère, Rapport

male bodies and the construction of masculinity in new kingdom egyptian art

213

finds of wigs, combs, and razors in elite burials suggest that in life such grooming was part of the elite experience and expressive of elite status,34 and medical texts contain remedies for gray hair and baldness,35 showing that these were concerns for the elite in life, even if they could be banished from images in their tombs. By contrast, some figures of non-elite men display ungroomed, balding, or gray hair, stubbly beards, and occasionally body hair on the chest.36 Although most non-elite men wear at least a loincloth, there are a few tomb-chapel scenes showing workers in the marshes who are practically naked, wearing no more than a sash round the waist. The exposed genitals are shown with small flaccid penises,37 or in some cases, they appear to be omitted altogether.38 This exposure of the genital region is in marked contrast to the carefully covered and protected genital area of the elite male. Although the flaccid penis, when shown, marks these non-elite figures as biologically male, it contrasts strongly with the erect phallus that embodies masculinity. For the elite, the epitome of masculinity is the male official who embodies the authority of the state and for whom the non-elite labor. The lack of authority and low status of the non-elite renders them powerless, and it is this condition that is displayed in these instances by the flaccid penis or no penis

at all. They are men, but in contrast to the elite, they are not masculine. Even when the penis is covered, the unadorned, sometimes ungroomed body of the non-elite laboring male stands in contrast to the perfect body of the elaborately dressed, well-groomed, non-laboring elite male in authority, highlighting the contrast between the empowered elite male and the disempowered non-elite. Of course, this lack of masculinity on the part of the non-elite is an elite construct designed to enhance the authority and superiority of the elite male. Outside this restricted context, in their own lived world—a world never shown in the images of the elite—non-elite men were obviously sexually active, fathering children and ensuring the continued population of Egypt, and undoubtedly they constructed their own ideas of what constituted masculinity. Finally, if we look at images of children, we find that they were rendered according to a number of conventions that had been developed long before the New Kingdom.39 They were traditionally shown nude, on a smaller scale than adults, and with the head shaved, or shaved except for a single fall of hair on one side—in three-dimensional images always the right side— and occasionally a fringe.40 In the 19th Dynasty, images of children show, in addition to the single side lock, styles that consist of several short

sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1927) (Cairo: IFAO, 1928), 81, fig. 55. In the banquet scene in TT 181, Davies, The Tomb of Two Sculptors, pls. 1 and 5, Nebamun sits with his mother and is offered a drink by his wife; Nebamun, but not his mother, is shown with gray hair, even though his mother belongs to a senior generation. In TT 49, Davies, The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep 1, pl. 41, 2, pl. 6 (color), the owner with black(?) hair receives a bouquet in the temple of Amun; he is then shown with gray hair leaving the temple and presenting the bouquet to his wife, who has black hair. Although in TT 3 and 290, women as well as men are shown with gray or white hair, in TT 162, 181, and 218, and on Irynefer’s stela, only the male figure in the couple is shown in this way. 34 Edward Brovarski, Susan Doll, and Rita Freed, eds., Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom 1558– 1085 B.C. (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1982), 189–198. 35 Bendix Ebbell, The Papyrus Ebers: The Greatest Egyptian Medical Document (Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard 1937), 78–79. 36 E.g., TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 41, 68–69; TT 69, Hawass and Maher-Taha, Le tombeau de Menna, pl. 67A, detail in Robert Boulanger, Egyptian Painting and the Ancient Near East (London: Heron Books, 1966), 59 (straggly hair, balding, stubble, chest hair); TT 100, Davies, Paintings from the Tomb of Rekh-mi-re, pl. 17 (chest hair); TT 181, Davies, The Tomb of Two Sculptors, pl. 13; TT 217, Davies, Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes, pls. 33, 35. 37 E.g., TT 39, Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art,

1922), pl. 15; TT 82, Arpag Mekhitarian, Egyptian Painting (Geneva: Skira, 1954), 42; TT 178, Hoffmann, Das Grab des Neferrenpet, color pl. 11 (nude porters in the storeroom of the Treasury of Amun). In the Old and Middle Kingdoms, it was normal to show non-elite men working in a marsh environment with exposed genitals. By the 18th Dynasty, this convention had changed, and such images became infrequent. 38 TT 52, Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1917), pl. 22 (line drawing), pl. 26 (color facsimile). Compare with the rendering of male children in the tomb that clearly show their genitalia, pls. 21 and 24. 39 Erika Feucht, Das Kind im Alten Ägypten (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1995). 40 E.g., TT 1, Shedid, Das Grab des Sennedjem, 68, 70 (detail, reversed); TT 3, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 358, bottom, and 361, top right; TT 38, Davies, Scenes from some Theban Tombs, pl. 2; TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 34, 60–61; TT 55, Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1941), pl. 49, top; TT 69, Davies, Ancient Egyptian Paintings, pl. 51; TT 218, Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1927), 81, fig. 55; Valbelle and Gout, Les artistes de la Vallée des Rois, 155; Curto et al., Il Senso dell’arte, 98, no. 45 (statue), 105, no. 52 (stela); K. Dyroff and B. Pörtner, Aegyptische Grabsteine und Denksteine aus süddeutschen Sammlungen 2: München (Strassburg: Verlag von Schlesier und Schweikhardt, 1904), pl. 17, no. 25 (stela); Andreu, Les

214

gay robins

tufts of hair on the otherwise shaven head, sometimes together with one or more side locks.41 Like the single side lock, these are distinct from adult hairstyles. Elite children often wear jewelry that can be quite elaborate.42 Archaeological finds of children’s clothing show that children, at least sometimes, wore clothes in real life, and during the New Kingdom, images of clothed elite children are also found.43 These figures are still recognizable as children by their distinct hairstyles and small scale. Although nude images of male and female children are distinguished by their skin color and genital regions, gender lines are somewhat blurred by their common nudity and hairstyles, and by the fact that male children are sometimes shown wearing earrings,44 items that were frequently shown worn by adult women, but only exceptionally by adult men.45 It would seem, then, that while male and female children are differentiated, the fully constructed gender distinctions that are applied to adult figures were not in force, at least for young children. Since children before puberty are not yet adult, male children cannot be constructed as fully masculine, since they lack the status and authority of the adult male official. The exposed, flaccid penis symbolizes this lack of adult status on the one hand, while on the other, it marks the child as biologically male but not yet masculine, for the truly masculine elite male must hide his penis.

The question then remains as to why the elite male must hide his penis. Why are there no ithyphallic images of elite men, as there are of gods? If we look again at divine ithyphallic figures, we find they are distinct in costume and pose from non-ithyphallic figures of deities with a bipedal stance. The difference can be seen clearly in the two distinct types of image used to represent the god Amun-Re. In the bipedal one, the god wears a version of the typical male kilt and stands in the same pose that is used for an elite male figure with the feet well apart and the left hand holding a was scepter in place of the official’s staff. The ithyphallic figure is completely different.46 The body is swathed in a white cloth with the legs undifferentiated. The right arm is raised above the head, while the left is held under the wrappings, supporting the erect phallus, which juts out in front of the god through the wrappings. The testicles are not shown and presumably remain covered.47 This form of the divine ithyphallic figure is already found in the Early Dynastic Period,48 and clearly relates to other wrapped images of deities and divine kings with undifferentiated legs that are often described as mummiform, because of their resemblance to a wrapped mummy.49 These images, too, go back to at least the Early Dynastic Period,50 but continue to be used for specific deities, such as Ptah, Khonsu, and Osiris, as well as for underworld demons, for the next 3,000 years.

artistes de Pharaon, 101, no. 38 (ostracon), 117, no. 58 (stela of Irynefer)—the middle register shows three generations: Irynefer’s parents receive offerings from Irynefer with his wife Mehytkhati and her daughter Hathor, who is shown as a child, nude and small. In the bottom register, Irynefer and Mehytkhati receive offerings from Hathor, now shown as an adult woman. 41 E.g., TT 3, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 361, top right; TT 359, Cyril Aldred, L’Empire des conquérants: L’Égypte au Nouvel Empire (1560–1070) (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1979), 133, fig. 124. In the post-Amarna tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49), children wearing this type of hairstyle are associated with groups of musicians. 42 E.g., TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 60– 61; TT 78, Annelies and Artur Brack, Das Grab des Haremheb: Theban nr. 78, AV 35 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1980), pl. 1; tomb of Nebamun, T.G.H. James, Egyptian Painting and Drawing in the British Museum (London: British Museum Publications, 1985), 27, no. 25; Arpag Mekhitarian, La misère des tombes thébaines (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1994), pl. 8. 43 E.g., TT 1, Shedid, Das Grab des Sennedjem, 68, 88—all figures of girls wearing adult-style dress together with a long, thick side lock that falls over the shoulder and down the back. The longer side lock may mark a later stage of childhood than shorter styles, perhaps even adolescence. The dress, as opposed to nudity, may carry a similar meaning.

However, this type of side lock is also worn without clothes, TT 3, Alain-Pierre Zivie, La Tombe de Pached à Deir el-Medineh [No 3] MIFAO 99 (Cairo: IFAO, 1979), pl. 16; Valbelle and Gout, Les artistes de la Vallée des Rois, 155. It is possible that this type of lock is gendered and not worn by boys; compare the figure of a boy with a shorter side lock in TT 3, Zivie, La Tombe de Pached, pl. 22. 44 E.g., TT 52, Shedid and Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht, 62; Tomb of Nebamun, Mekhitarian, La misère des tombes thébaines, pl. 8; TT 3, Weeks, The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings, 361, top right. 45 E.g., TT 96, Desroches Noblecourt, Sen-nefer. 46 An exception is the body of Osiris in the third section of the Book of Caverns, Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 93, fig. 49. 47 E.g., Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, vol. 4, Festival Scenes of Ramses III, OIP 51 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pl. 208. 48 McFarlane, The God Min, 176. 49 The wrapped body of the dead may originally have been intended to imitate this type of divine image; Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John Baines (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 107. 50 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Tarkhan I and Memphis V (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1913), pl. 3, no. 1.

male bodies and the construction of masculinity in new kingdom egyptian art The wrapped image is not used in the depiction of living human beings. The appearance of the erect phallus with the wrapped image only, and not with images of kilted deities in the bipedal pose, suggests that it was inappropriate to depictions of the active, “living” body. Thus, although masculinity lies first and foremost in the erect phallus, images of elite males are not shown as ithyphallic. Nor is the kilt treated so as to show the non-erect penis, in contrast to the dresses of female figures that are often rendered to display their pubic region, because the non-erect penis is ambivalent in its message, signifying a lack of empowerment in non-elite males and a lack of adulthood in the figures of male children. Instead, the source of maleness is always hidden and protected, yet at the same time attention is called to it by the very fact that it is the one part of the elite male body that is never shown uncovered. In the absence of the erect phallus, masculinity must be constructed on the body by alternative means. Elite male figures are conceived and read in opposition to representations of female figures, non-elite males, and children. Contrasting poses, skin colors, and proportions display male figures as more active, visible and stronger than female ones. They are more elaborately dressed and groomed than non-elite men. As adults, they have moved beyond the nudity and less clearly gendered status of children. While non-elite men and male children can display a flaccid penis, the penis of elite male figures is regularly hidden from view. This concealment hides the dichotomy between the flaccid penis and erect phallus, for if

51 Allen, Genesis in Egypt, 50B. I would like to thank Brian Winterfeldt for his generous support and encouragement of my work.

215

the erect phallus symbolizes masculinity, authority, and procreative abilities, the flaccid penis has just the opposite meaning, signifying lack of status, authority, and adulthood. Thus, on the one hand, the displayed absence of a penis from female figures and the flaccid penis of non-elite males and children imply by opposition the erect phallus of elite males. On the other hand, images of elite male officials transfer reference to their masculinity from the site of the concealed penis to the revealed body, constructing their masculinity instead through skin color, proportions, and pose. Further, as male dress becomes increasingly elaborate, the very means of concealing the penis becomes a way of drawing attention to it, and the layers of cloth that build up and jut out in front of the body, as they never do in female figures, become a substitute for what is hidden beneath. In addition, male, but not female, figures frequently carry the staff and scepter, symbols of authority that mark them out as government officials, a position denied to women, non-elite men, and children. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the scepter in particular serves as a phallic substitute with the meaning of the erect phallus displaced onto it. At the heart of elite masculinity, then, lies the concept of authority and empowerment embodied in the erect phallus that forms the hieroglyph used to write the word for “male,” and symbolizes the creative and regenerative powers of the creator, sun god, and god of the dead, which every elite man must draw on to father children in this world and bring about his rebirth into the next.51

SMALL BUT BEAUTIFUL—THE BLOCK STATUE OF KHAEMWASET

Regine Schulz Walters Art Museum

The Walters Art Museum in Baltimore has a small statue that was acquired by Henry Walters for his collection before 1931. The figure belonged to an official of the 18th Dynasty with the very common name Khaemwaset, and was probably placed in the Amun-Re temple at Karnak. I hope that my thoughts on this small monument will find the interest of the honored colleague, who has not only worked for many years in Karnak, but is also one of a very few real experts on Egyptian art. 1. Object Information Walters Art Museum, acc.no. 22.68 Measurements: h. 8.6 cm, w. 4.1 cm, d. 12.5 cm Material: black serpentine Technique: carved in the round with incising Condition: The figure is well preserved, but the right elbow is lost, and additional losses are visible at the lower-right front corner and at both lower-back corners of the base. Many minor scratches affect the surface. Date: New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, reign of Amenhotep III, 1391–1353 BCE (based on typological and stylistical arguments, see below). Provenance: unknown; assignment: Egypt, probably Karnak.1 Publications: Georg Steindorff, Catalogue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1946), 44, no. 121, pl. 26; Regine Schulz, Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus, HÄB 33/34 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1992), 59, pl. 3 c; PM 8, 599.

1 Acquired by Henry Walters from Dikran Kelekian before 1931.

The figure is an example of an advanced type of Egyptian block statue (figs. 1 and 2). It combines the traditional squatting posture with knees drawn up, arms crossed above the knees and hands outstretched (figs. 1a, 2b), with a small rectangular seat (figs. 1c,d, and 2a) and a neck-high back pillar (fig. 1b). The iconography is characteristic for the 18th Dynasty, especially for the reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III. Khaemwaset has a tripartite wig with a wavy upper part, curled lower-front parts, and uncovered earlobes, as well as a small beard. His ankle-length kilt is long and smooth, the upper edge broadly turned down, and higher at the back of the waist than at the front. He has no further attributes in his hands or at the garment. The back pillar is neck high and rectangular, and the seat cubic and less wide than the base.

Inscriptions The figure contains several inscriptions: two columns of left-reading text on the front of the garment (fig. 1a), two columns on the back pillar (fig. 1b), a single left-reading line on top of the base (fig. 2c), and a partly left-, partly rightreading line around the base (fig. 1a–d); on the upper right arm the name of the temple is incised (fig. 2b). The line on top of the base completes the left-reading inscription on the sides of the base. It is interesting to realize that the texts on the front of the kilt and on the front of the base relate to Amun and the offering ritual, and the texts on the sides and back to Khaemwaset’s social status, personal qualities, and needs.

the block statue of khaemwaset Front:

217

Upper right arm:

Hw.t "Imn . “Temple of Amun.” Base, front →

pr.t nb.t h. r wdh. w n "Imn k. bh. sˇw(.t) n k A (n) t Aı"-hw H#ı"-m-W As.t ¯ ˘ ˘ “All that goes forth on the offering table of Amun, who grants water and shadow2 for the ka of the fan bearer Khaemwaset.”

Base, left side →

Base, back →

Back: h. tp dı" nswt (n) "Imn-R# k. bh. sˇw.t dı"=f #nh nfr h. r sˇms k A=f r ph. .tı"=f ı"m Ah ˘ nfr n k A n t Aı"-hw˘ H #ı"-m-W A #s.t ¯ ˘ ˘ “A royal offering to Amun-Re, who gives water and shadow, he may give a perfect life after following his ka until he reaches perfect venerable status for the ka of the fan bearer, Khaemwaset.” ← Base, right side

← Base, front

w# ı"k. r m- # bı".t nfr(.t) w Ah. -ı"b ı"w.tı" sp mhı" w#r(=f) t Aı"-hw n P A-s A-n-nfr-d Am.w H#ı"-m-W As.t ¯ ¯ ˘ ˘ “The excellent unique one of good character, friendly, not negligent and evasive, the fan-bearer of the troop “The recruits are perfect”,3 Khaemwaset.”

2 The structure of the formula makes it necessary to understand the phrase k. bh. sˇw(.t) as name(s) of a god, or an epithet of Amun. Nevertheless, there is no parallel for such an epithet for Amun, and k. bh. alone is normally used for Osiris or Khnum, and not for Amun. The writing of sˇw(.t) with two read leaves and without sunshade is well proven in the New Kingdom.

← Base, top

3 For the translation of the title with the name of the troop, cf. Pierre-Marie Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égpytiens du Nouvel Empire (Antony, France: P.-M. Chevereau, 1994), 116 (doc. 15.90); cf. also Alan R. Schulman, Military Rank, Title, and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom, MÄS 6 (Berlin: B. Hessling, 1964), 69– 71.

218

regine schulz

h. tp dı" nswt (n) "Imn-R# nswt ntr.w dı"=f #nh nfr n ı"rı" h. r mw=f wr n dd sw m ¯ ı"b=f 4 n k˘A n h. rı" k A.wt ı"mı".wt hw.t "Imn H#ı"-m-W A.st ˘ “A royal offering to Amun-Re, that he may give a perfect life to his devoted one, the great one, who puts himself in his heart for the ka of the chief of the works in the temple of Amun, Khaemwaset.”

which the left eye is missing. The inscription is executed by a well-experienced hand; the signs are precisely incised, and their shape very regular. 2. The Dating of the Statue

The execution of the figure is unusually fine given the statue’s small size; nevertheless, there are some irregularities, such as the beard, which is not placed in the center under the chin, but shifted slightly to left, or the incised line at the lower corner of the extension of the right eye,

The figure of Khaemwaset is one of several smallsized statues, which became popular during the reign of Amenhotep III, and were placed in the temples.5 This statue was originally placed in the temple of Amun, most probably in Karnak, because of the emblematic inscription on the right upper arm, which mentions a h. w.t "Imn, a temple of Amun.6 The other inscriptions report that Khaemwaset was chief of the works in the temple of Amun and fan bearer of the troop “The recruits are perfect”. Because there are no other records of the individual depicted here, the dating is based on typological and stylistical elements. The advanced type of the block statue with small seat and back pillar, as well as a wellmodeled body (which clearly shows the structures of arms and legs, and well-defined upper and lower borders of the garment) became popular in the middle of the 18th Dynasty,7 and the tripartite wig with uncovered earlobes, wavy upper and curled lower parts, during the same time. Most decisive for the exact dating are the facial features of the small monument, which follow the royal example, and are very well defined for Amenhotep III. Although the ideal portrait of this king has several variations, the common criteria are a broad face, slightly slanting, almondshaped eyes,8 highly curved eyebrows, a short nose with small nostrils, and a mouth with full and well-accentuated lips.9 The only difference in the face of Khaemwaset is his more prominent nose. The marked anklebones and the articulation of the muscles in the calves of the statue of Khaemwaset are also taken from the royal examples.10

4 For this formula, cf. the inscription of a statue of Hapuseneb in Bologna, Urk. 4, 481. 5 Cf. Betsy M. Bryan, “Small-Scale Royal Representations,” in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World, by Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan with Lawrence M. Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), 193–214. 6 There are many other temples of Amun, but the very short emblematic form of the inscription makes it likely that the temple of Amun is mentioned, and not one of the many other temples of Amun, which would have an additional determinative.

Schulz, Entwicklung und Bedeutung, 686–688. Cf. Bernard V. Bothmer, “Eyes and Iconography in the Splendid Century: King Amenhotep III and His Aftermath,” in The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, ed. Lawrence Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1990), 84–92. 9 Christine Strauß-Seeber, “Kriterien zur Erkennung der königlichen Rundplastik Amenophis’ III,” in The Art of Amenhotep III: Art Historical Analysis, 9–15. 10 E.g., the quarzite statue of Amenhotep III from Luxor; see Mohammed El-Saghir, Das Statuenversteck im Luxortempel (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 21–27.

The style of the statue is characterized by the modeled body forms, and the long and well-defined earlobes, fingers, anklebones and toes. The shape of the face is round and broad, most of the forehead covered by the wig. The slanting eyes are very large and almond shaped; they have distinctive upper rims with deeply incised borders and short pointed extensions, as well as lower rims with deep, clearly cut edges. The distinctive eyebrows are highly curved, and with the highest point above the outer third of the eyes. The nose has a long slim back and small but broad nostrils, the mouth full lips and a slightly curved slit with raised corners. The cheeks are round and not prominent, the distance between the eyes and the eyebrows large, and between the nose and mouth short. The wavy structure of the wig is intentionally slightly irregular, unlike the evenly spaced lines that define the beard. The proportions of the body are very well balanced. The inscription is regularly written, and the layout evenly spaced; the script signs have slim and well-balanced proportions. The paleography is typical for the 18th Dynasty.

7 8

the block statue of khaemwaset 3. Function and Context The small size11 of the statue of Khaemwaset and its function as a temple statue, which is clearly defined by the inscription, raise the question of how it would have been displayed in the temple. 1. The intended placement of the statue in a temple of Amun is unquestionable by the inscription of a Hw.t "Imn on the right up. per arm. The active participation of the statue in the offering ritual is clearly expressed in the inscription on the front of Khaemwaset’s garment. 2. That the statues of the kings and the high officials were situated in prominent places in the temples is well known from excavated examples, but we know nearly nothing about the placement of the many smaller statues of the lesser officials. 3. The large size of the statues of the high officials makes it likely that they were placed, with or without bases, directly on the floor of the temple. A similar practice for the very small statues of the multitude of lesser officials is not plausible, because of their large number, which would have filled the entire temple floors very soon. 4. Moreover, due again to their number and size, the statues’ integration into temple rituals would not have been possible in a respectful and appropriate way. 5. Consequently, there must have been a kind of external offering platform (see fig. 3) of variable size for several such figures. An appropriate height would have been necessary to make the participation in the temple rituals possible, and an additional offering plate on or in front of the platform would have served the needs of the owners of all the statues on the platform.

11 The statue is small, but not to such an extent that it might have served an amuletic function, e.g., Madeleine Page-Gasser and André B. Wiese, Ägypten: Augenblicke der Ewigkeit (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), no. 121.

219

6. Although such platforms have not thus far been documented by excavations, or, if found, have not been recognized as such by their excavators, it is most likely that they existed, and that they were constructed of unfired bricks. Such small constructions disappeared soon after falling into disuse, and the few remains were likely covered by, or mixed in with, the debris of the centuries. 7. These very simple constructions could have been used in each appropriate place, within or outside a temple, in the temple area, or at the ceremonial paths from one sacred place to the other. Large temple areas such as Karnak would have had enough space around the temples for a multitude of platforms. 8. Individuals, families, or a high official acting on behalf of his subordinate could easily have afforded such donations, if the permission was granted, without disturbing the layout of the main statues in the temple and the necessary rituals. 9. An indirect argument for such platforms is the disproportionately high bases of many of the very small statues, which demonstrate that they were inserted into another construction.12 In the case of the statue of Khaemwaset, it is most likely that it was placed on such an offering construction. Moreover, it is possible that for Khaemwaset, who was a member of the building authorities, as eminent a figure as Amenhotep, son of Hapu, had granted the permission and perhaps also made the donation. This small monument is the only documented example of this official, who wanted to participate in the daily rituals in the presence of the god, and secure divine support in this world and the afterlife.

12 E.g., Wilfried Seipel, Ägypten: Götter, Gräber und die Kunst: 4000 Jahre Jenseitsglaube (Linz: OÖ Landesmuseum Linz, 1989), 288–289, nos. 462–463.

220

regine schulz

Fig. 1a–d. Statue of Khaemwaset, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, acc.no. 22.68.

the block statue of khaemwaset

Fig. 2a–c. Statue of Khaemwaset, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, acc.no. 22.68.

221

222

regine schulz

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of a statue platform (1) with offering plate (3) and the statue of Khaemwaset (2).

A SEATED STATUE OF SEKHMET AND TWO RELATED SCULPTURES IN THE COLLECTION OF THE SAN ANTONIO MUSEUM OF ART

Gerry D. Scott, III American Research Center in Egypt

In considering a topic to present in honor of my dear friend and colleague, Richard A. Fazzini, it seemed only natural to turn to a subject that reflects his long-standing interest in, and association with, the temple complex of the ancient Egyptian goddess Mut at Karnak. And, surely, there is little else that is quite so evocative of that place than the hard-stone sculptures of the lion-headed goddess Sekhmet, so many of which once graced its architectural setting. Indeed, the distinguished chairman of the Brooklyn Museum’s Department of Egyptian, Classical, and Ancient Near Eastern Art has himself published several such sculptures.1 It is my hope, then, that the presentation of a Sekhmet statue that recently entered the permanent collection of the San Antonio Museum of Art, together with two related works in that museum’s permanent collection, will be an appropriate compliment to a scholar who has devoted so much of himself to excavating, documenting, studying, and preserving the Temple of Mut at Karnak. The typical, and well-known, image of the goddess Sekhmet is a composite one that shows the body of a woman surmounted with the head of a lioness. This visual image is, of course, quite appropriate for a divinity that was believed to embody the potentially devastating power of the blazing sun, with which she could destroy the enemies of both the sun god and the king, his child and representative on earth. In addition, Sekhmet was linked to disease and pestilence, ap-

parently not only in the sense of causation, but also of cure.2 The goddess’s name reinforces her image, as well as her nature, since the meaning is essentially that of “the powerful one.” Traditionally the wife of Ptah, the creator god of ancient Memphis, Sekhmet became closely associated with the goddess Mut, consort of the god Amun, whose major cult center was at Karnak. This may have been a reflection of the traditional parallelism of Lower and Upper Egypt, the creator god Ptah and his consort Sekhmet being paramount at the Lower Egyptian cult center of ancient Memphis, the creator god Amun and his consort Mut being paramount at the Upper Egyptian cult center of ancient Thebes, and the two divine couples being naturally linked in ancient Egyptian mythic/cultic/representational thought. During the 18th Dynasty, King Amenhotep III commissioned a seemingly extraordinary number of works, including hundreds of life-size, hardstone statues of the goddess Sekhmet.3 These appear to have been mainly intended for his mortuary temple on the West Bank at Thebes, a site now marked by the so-called Colossi of Memnon, where statues of the goddess continue to be discovered by the site’s present excavator, Dr. Hourig Sourouzian.4 Both seated and standing images of Sekhmet were created, and at some later point, perhaps beginning during the reign of Ramesses II, many were transferred across the river to the East Bank and the complex of the

1 See, for example, Richard A. Fazzini, Images for Eternity: Egyptian Art from Berkeley and Brooklyn (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1975), 76, 136, no. 56; and Fazzini in Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, ed. Anne K. Capel and Glenn Markoe (New York: Hudson Hills Press in association with Cincinnati Art Museum), 134–136, 207– 208, no. 65. 2 For a summation, see Fazzini in Capel and Markoe, Mistress of the House, 134–135, 208, notes 8–9.

3 For the sculpture of Amenhotep III, see Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan with Lawrence M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992). 4 A recent Sekhmet sculpture discovered by Dr. Sourouzian is illustrated in an article by Zahi Hawass, “A Lost Tomb,” Horus, The Inflight Magazine of Egypt Air, vol. 24, issue 2 (March/April, 2006), 20.

224

gerry d. scott, iii

temple precinct dedicated to the goddess Mut at Karnak.5 The New Kingdom granodiorite seated Sekhmet sculpture in San Antonio (figs. 1–2)6 entered the museum’s permanent collection in 2004 as part of a bequest from the prominent local philanthropist and art collector, Gilbert M. Denman, Jr.7 The surface of the statue is worn and pitted overall from weathering, but despite this, many details are still visible. A deep depression, or slot, is cut into the top of the skull (fig. 3) and suggests that the sculpture was once crowned with a headdress, perhaps of another material, which is now lacking. Most probably, such an attached headdress would consist of a sun disk and uraeus serpent, as is found in many of the complete examples.8 The striations of the lappet wig display careful carving, as does the leonine ruff and whiskers, the latter carved with regularity. The eyes and muzzle are clearly visible, but are more worn than the wig and ruff. Although a decorative band appears as a part of the bodice of the goddess’s garment just below the breasts, it is no longer possible to determine if there were once rosettes over the nipples, as are often present in these sculptures. Both forearms show considerable wear, especially the right. The left hand grasps the remains of an ankh, which rests on the goddess’s left knee. Her close-fitting sheath dress descends to a point just above her ankles, and she wears anklets that appear just below the hem of the garment and consist of vertical bars contained within horizontal bands at top and bottom, all carved in relief. Her feet and toes, like her hands, are worn. She sits upon a throne, from which the back pillar rises to just above her head. The back pillar is uninscribed. Each side of the front of the throne, however, bears a single vertical column of hieroglyphic text. That on the goddess’s proper right side reads right to left; that on the goddess’s proper left side reads left to right. The statue base is quite substantial and tall.

The inscription on the proper right, front surface of the throne flanks the goddess’s right leg, and is carved in a single, vertical column of hieroglyphs (Inscription A, figs. 4 and 6). It reads: ntr nfr nb t Awy Nb-m A #t-r# mrı" Shmt nbt #Agt dı" #nh dt, ¯ ¯ “The good god, the lord of ˘ the thrones of˘ the or, Two Lands, Neb-maat-re, beloved of Sekhmet, lady of Aaget, given life forever.” The inscription on the proper left, front surface of the throne flanks the goddess’s left leg, and is also carved in a single, vertical column of hieroglyphs (Inscription B, figs. 5 and 7). It reads: s A R# mrı".f "Imn-h. tp h. k. A w Ast mrı" Shmt nbt #Agt dı" #nh dt, or, “The son of Re, ¯ ˘ Amenhotep,˘ruler his beloved, of Thebes, beloved of Sekhmet, lady of Aaget, given life forever.” As Fazzini has noted, “The inscriptions on the completed Sekhmet statues from Amenhotep III’s reign make statements about Sekhmet’s nature and relate her to other deities and to various geographical locales. Each also indicates that Amenhotep III is beloved by the manifestations of Sekhmet named.”9 The San Antonio Sekhmet, then, reflects the latter case, and links the statue and the goddess to a geographical locale. A note regarding these texts, made by an anonymous scholar, but passed on to the San Antonio Museum of Art by the Metropolitan Museum of Art states:

5 The point is also discussed by Fazzini in Capel and Markoe, Mistress of the House, 135, and by Kozloff in Kozloff and Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 225. 6 It bears the museum accession number 2005.1.28, and measures a total preserved height of 180.5 cm (71”). The width at the top of the throne is 53.5 cm, and the depth of the base at the goddess’s feet is 100 cm. The length of the break at the crown of the head measures 20.3 cm, and the width of each text column is 5.5 cm. 7 In addition to his bequest, Mr. Denman made many gifts of antiquities and other works of art to the San Anto-

nio Museum of Art during his lifetime, including two major donations, a large collection of Classical art in 1986 and a somewhat smaller collection of Egyptian art in 1991. 8 A complete example is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession number 15.8.2. Like the San Antonio sculpture, it was once in the collection of Lord Amherst. The Metropolitan’s statue was recently discussed by Arielle Kozloff in Kozloff and Bryan, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 225–226, no. 34. 9 Capel and Markoe, Mistress of the House, 134.

… 109 different inscriptions were known to Yoyotte, most of them from the temple of Mut. The estimated total of statues is about 600— many uninscribed. Yoyotte and Germond considered these inscriptions to be versions in stone of the litany of Sakhmet as a goddess recorded midway between the Old Kingdom roots of such and the written litanies of the late temples. The district or city named on this Sakhmet— Aagat—is otherwise unattested, though Gauthier connects it with the Old Kingdom estate designation Iagat, which, however, seems—

a seated statue of sekhmet and two related sculptures to look at Jacquet-Gordon Les Noms des Domaines—more like a designation for a type of estate than a place.10 Although this statue is new to the San Antonio Museum of Art, it is, in fact, a well-known sculpture, having been previously in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and in the collection of Lord Amherst at Didlington Hall, Norfolk. It probably also once belonged to the important early nineteenth-century collector and British consul-general in Egypt, Henry Salt. That the San Antonio Museum of Art has had the good fortune to now hold such a complete and impressive statue of the goddess Sekhmet in its permanent collection is mainly thanks to two people, the generous and visionary donor, Gilbert M. Denman, Jr., who recognized the value of such an acquisition for the San Antonio collection, and to the equally gifted and visionary curator-in-charge of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Department of Egyptian Art, Dr. Dorothea Arnold, who recognized that the condition of the sculpture, while it was still at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, caused it to show poorly with the sculpture’s several New York sisters. Realizing that the statue’s powerful carving and overall significance would be enhanced by its being shown on its own, Dr. Arnold worked with Mr. Denman and the staff of the San Antonio Museum of Art to secure the sculpture’s transfer from the permanent collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art ultimately to the permanent collection of the San Antonio Museum of Art. This introduces the statue’s modern history, which, in addition to what can be suggested of its ancient history, is worth noting. The sculpture, while in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, was published by William C. Hayes, in the second volume of his historical guide to the Metropolitan’s collection of ancient Egyptian art, The Scepter of Egypt. He makes passing refer-

10 A copy of the anonymous note quoted here was kindly sent to me by Catherine Roehrig of the Egyptian Department of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the records of the San Antonio Museum of Art. 11 William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, Part 2 (Cambridge, MA: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1959), 238. 12 Ibid., 238–239. 13 Henri Gauthier, “Les statues Thebaines de la déesse Sakhmet,” ASAE 19 (1920): 189. 14 Albert Lythgoe, “Statues of the Goddess Sakhmet,” BMMA 14 (1919): 3–23.

225

ence to the statue as having been one of seven to have entered the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection from that of Lord Amherst of Hackney through the generosity of Henry Walters, who, at the time of the acquisition, held the title of second vice-president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He also records that these sculptures had previously been in the collection of Dr. John Lee at Hartwell House, Aylesbury, and that they “are believed to have been among those found by Giovanni Belzoni in 1817 in the western corridor of the Mut temple enclosure.”11 Hayes also mentions the statue as being one of the two inscribed examples then in the Metropolitan Museum’s collection.12 Henri Gauthier, as mentioned by the anonymous scholar quoted above, had also previously published the statue in his important article in the 1920 volume of ASAE, where it appears as his example number 38.13 The sculpture’s major publication, however, was its original one by Albert M. Lythgoe, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s first curator of Egyptian art, in the October, 1919, issue of BMMA.14 In his article, Lythgoe makes reference to the statue, its acquisition, and its provenance. According to a letter in the Metropolitan Museum’s files,15 Lythgoe first saw the San Antonio Sekhmet statue with her six sisters on a visit to the late Lord Amherst’s country house of Didlington Hall, Norfolk, with Howard Carter, who had begun his career as an Egyptologist through the assistance of Lord Amherst.16 According to Lythgoe’s BMMA article, the negotiations for the purchase of the Sekhmet statues by the Metropolitan Museum had been finished during the summer of 1914, just before the outbreak of World War I. Because of the war, and probably through fear that the statues might go to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean should they have the misfortune to be shipped from England to the United States on a vessel that fell prey to German submarines, the statues did not reach New York

15 Albert Lythgoe to Lady William Cecil, March 13, 1919, the copy kindly provided to San Antonio by Catherine Roehrig. 16 For a biographical sketch of Lord Amherst, see his entry in Warren R. Dawson, Eric P. Uphill, and M.L. Bierbrier, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 3rd rev. ed. (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1995), 14. For Lord Amherst’s influence on Howard Carter, see also T.G.H. James, Howard Carter, The Path to Tutankhamun (London: Kegan Paul International, 1992), esp. 9–10 and 30 ff.

226

gerry d. scott, iii

until 1919. They were promptly placed on exhibition, and displayed in a manner to suggest the appearance of those statues remaining in place at the Mut Temple at the time of Mariette’s excavations.17 Lythgoe’s article was based upon his own research and on information provided by Lady William Cecil (Mary Rothes Margaret Cecil),18 who had succeeded her father as Baroness Amherst, and by Arthur C. Mace, who conducted additional research on the objects in London.19 In his article, Lythgoe reconstructs the statues’ provenance, beginning with their presence in the Amherst Collection and working backwards. In brief, Lord Amherst acquired the statues in 1865 from the collection of Dr. John Lee (1783– 1866), an ecclesiastical lawyer and antiquarian, who had them at his country estate of Hartwell House near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire.20 Dr. Lee, in turn, seems to have acquired six of the seven Metropolitan statues, including the San Antonio Museum of Art Sekhmet, by private purchase after they had been “bought in” at a large sale of Egyptian antiquities conducted by Sotheby’s in 1833. The seventh statue, still, of course, in the Metropolitan, had been successfully purchased at the 1833 sale by one Sir T. Phillipps, from whom—A.C. Mace surmised— Lee had purchased it, “later to complete the set.”21 Mace had acquired this information through his research in London, where he came upon a reference to the 1833 Sotheby’s sale in the March 1833 issue of the Gentleman’s Magazine. The article in this notable publication also contained the fascinating information that the seven Sekhmet statues had been exhibited for a period before the sale on London’s Waterloo Bridge. To quote, partially, from the account as given in both Lythgoe’s article and Mace’s letter to him:

Among the singular circumstances… will be noted the appearance of the idols of Egypt shorn of all their honours and titulary information, for several days on Waterloo Bridge! Seven massive statues in grey and black granite, varying in height from seven to five feet, being of too ponderous a character for the floors of the auction room, were with prudent caution, exposed to view in the recesses of the bridge above mentioned. They are representations of the goddess Isis, distinguished by a lion’s head and the mystical key of the waters of the Nile, or perhaps of the portals of hell, as she was the Proserpine of the Egyptians…22 While in the collection of Dr. Lee at Hartwell House, the Sekhmet statues were catalogued, along with the rest of Dr. Lee’s Egyptian antiquities, by Joseph Bonomi. A printed edition of the Hartwell House collection catalogue appeared in 1858, and this publication includes the seven Sekhmet statues. A note, apparently on the back of Mace’s letter to Lythgoe, and made by Lythgoe himself, records the fact that the Hartwell House catalogue also makes reference to the statues being displayed on Waterloo Bridge: The fact that these statues had been placed upon Waterloo Bridge is referred to in the Hartwell House catalogue (p. 84) where the statue No. 579 of that catalogue is described as follows: “Highly finished statue of the same divinity, broken across the waist, having been wantonly thrown down on Waterloo Bridge, where these statues were deposited for some time before they came into the possession of Dr. Lee.”23

An outstanding collection of Egyptian papyri, statues, mummies…etc. was brought to sale by Sotheby’s on the 15th and 16th of March.

To return to Lythgoe’s BMMA article, and to the ultimate provenance of the seven Sekhmet statues, Lythgoe notes that the owner of the Egyptian collection sold by Sotheby’s on March 15th and 16th, 1833, is nowhere noted. He compares this

Lythgoe, “Statues of the Goddess Sakhmet,” 23. For a biographical sketch of Baroness Amherst, Lady William Cecil, see her entry in Dawson, Uphill, and Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 14. She is also discussed in James, Howard Carter. 19 The results of their research are contained in two letters preserved in the files of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, copies of which were kindly provided to the San Antonio Museum of Art by Catherine Roehrig. They are M(ary), L(ady) Cecil and Amherst of Hackney to Albert

Lythgoe of April 22, 1919 and A.C. Mace to Lythgoe of August 4, 1919. 20 For Lee, see Dawson, Uphill, and Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 241–242. Interestingly, Hartwell House, unlike Didlington Hall, still stands. It is currently a country house hotel and spa. 21 Mace to Lythgoe, August 4, 1919. 22 Lythgoe, “Statues of the Goddess Sakhmet,” 6. 23 Signed note by A(lbert) M. L(ythgoe) on the back of A. Mace to A. Lythgoe of August 4, 1919.

17 18

a seated statue of sekhmet and two related sculptures

227

anonymity with the similar anonymity of ownership surrounding the sale of Henry Salt’s second Egyptian collection to the king of France. By also noting the presence of the signature of Salt’s agent, Giovanni d’Athanasi, on Sotheby’s copy of its sale catalogue, Lythgoe, quite correctly in the opinion of the present writer, concluded that the 1833 Sotheby’s sale also represented a collection formed by Henry Salt, which was sold anonymously for the benefit of his heirs through the agency of d’Athanasi.24 The full significance of Lythgoe’s discovery, however, has long gone unrecognized. It means, in fact, that there were four collections formed by Henry Salt during his days as British consulgeneral in Egypt, rather than the three usually attributed to his collecting efforts. The first went to the British Museum, except for the sarcophagus of Sety I, which was purchased separately by Sir John Soane and now resides in his house museum in London. The second was purchased by the king of France, and now resides in the Louvre. The third recognized collection was “sold at Sotheby’s in a seven-days’ sale in 1835; … many of the objects were bought by the British Museum….”25 Thanks to the research of Lythgoe and Mace, it would appear that there was also a fourth Salt collection that was sold at the March 15–16, 1833, Sotheby’s sale, some of the objects passing on to Lord Amherst’s Collection, and then on to the Metropolitan Museum in New York, with one object now residing in San Antonio, Texas. In conclusion, then, the San Antonio Museum of Art’s Sekhmet statue is a well-traveled goddess indeed. She probably began her career at the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III on the West Bank of Luxor, and was later transferred to the East Bank, where she remained at the temple complex of the goddess Mut at Karnak until she was excavated by Belzoni and d’Athanasi on Henry Salt’s behalf in 1817.26 She then was transferred down the Nile to Salt’s consulate in Alexandria, eventually taking ship to England, where she sat on Waterloo Bridge watching the Thames, before enjoying the English countryside,

first at Hartwell House in Buckinghamshire, then at Didlington Hall in Norfolk. Her next journey was across the Atlantic to the Metropolitan Museum in New York City, where she spent many years being enjoyed by several generations of visitors, until she traveled once again, this time to San Antonio, Texas. There, she briefly gazed out over Mr. Denman’s San Antonio estate, before coming to rest in the Egyptian galleries of the San Antonio Museum of Art. In addition to the major statue of Sekhmet in the collection of the San Antonio Museum of Art, there are two additional, related objects that are worth bringing to the attention of the scholarly community. The first is a granodiorite fragmentary face of Sekhmet (fig. 8), once from a statue that was a sister to the example just discussed. Also life-size, on a human scale, the sculpture obviously derives from a once-complete work, but it is not possible to say whether the original composition showed the goddess seated upon a throne or standing. It is also assumed to date to the reign of Amenhotep III, and probably to have come originally from that monarch’s mortuary temple at ancient Thebes. Although only a fragment, the surface of the face of this Sekhmet is considerably better preserved, with a notable pinkish vein running through the left eye, and down through the muzzle (fig. 9).27 The sculpture fragment’s surviving proper left eye is clearly marked with a rim and tear duct, and the nose is well carved. A series of regularly carved whiskers appears to either side, and the division of the mouth is indicated. This sculpture fragment also entered the San Antonio Museum of Art through the generous bequest of the late Gilbert M. Denman, Jr. The fragment was purchased by Mr. Denman from the London firm, Charles Ede, Ltd. The final object to be presented here is a large bronze statue of a seated lion goddess (fig. 10),28 possibly to be identified with Sekhmet, but such statues, when inscribed, can also be identified with other goddesses, such as Wadjet. The sculpture dates, conventionally, to the Late Period or Ptolemaic Period, 664–30 BCE.

24 See Lythgoe, “Statues of the Goddess Sakhmet,” 7– 20, esp. 7, 18, 20. For d’Athanasi, see Dawson, Uphill, and Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 21. 25 Ibid., entry for Henry Salt, 371. Also, Deborah Manley and Peta Ree, Henry Salt: Artist, Traveller, Diplomat, Egyptologist, (London: Libri, 2001). 26 See n. 23, above. 27 The fragment’s accession number is 2005.1.24, and

its maximum preserved height is 18 cm (7 1/4”). It has a preserved depth of 15.5 cm, and a maximum width at the break of 18.5 cm. 28 The statue’s accession number is 86.138.223, and it measures 63.7 cm (25 1/2”) in height. The width, measured at the goddess’s shoulders, is 12.5 cm, and the total combined depth at the base is 25.5 cm.

228

gerry d. scott, iii

The San Antonio Museum of Art’s bronze seated lion goddess is a fine example of the larger-scale works of this type. Her crown consists of a central uraeus serpent rising from a modius that includes a ring of smaller serpents, and is surmounted by double plumes, cow’s horns, and a solar disk. The face is sculpted with considerable character, with details of the eyes, nose, and mouth clearly defined. Both the ruff and the ears show incised detail, and the strands of hair on the tripartite lappet wig are also incised. A broad collar, consisting of three bands from which hang pendent elements, is visible between the lappet braids of the wig. The nipples are clearly visible, and are raised from the surface, while the navel is recessed. A long, close-fitting sheath dress that reaches to the ankles completes the goddess’s attire. Her feet rest upon a separate plinth that is attached by a spur to the throne on which the goddess sits. The goddess’s left hand is fisted and pierced to hold a separate object, probably a staff or scepter. Her right hand is held flat, palm down, with the thumb resting along the right thigh. The sides of the throne display carefully incised decoration, but the statue is uninscribed. This work came to San Antonio in an interesting manner as part of the museum’s StarkWillson Collection. The collection, which numbers in excess of 800 objects, was formed in the 1920’s by the Stark family of Orange, Texas. The objects, comprising mainly Egyptian antiquities and ancient glass, but also including a representative collection of ancient Near Eastern and Classical material, were collected during a “grand

tour” trip of Europe and the Near East, and through New York auction houses and dealers. Despite the initial enthusiasm of the Stark family for antiquities, as years passed, the focus of their collecting shifted to American art of the Southwest, and the collection was packed away to languish for several decades. Following the opening of the San Antonio Museum of Art in 1981 and the formation of its Department of Ancient Art in 1986, the Stark family decided to turn the collection over to the fledgling museum. Unfortunately, however, because of the terms of the late Mr. Stark’s will, which formed the Stark Museum in Orange, Texas, the objects could not be just turned over to the San Antonio Museum of Art, but had to be sold. In a remarkable act of generosity, however, the trustees of the Stark Museum decided to sell their antiquities collection to the San Antonio Museum of Art for the original 1920’s purchase price! Rising to the occasion, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Willson, San Antonio art collectors and patrons of the San Antonio Museum of Art, agreed to donate the funds to purchase the collection. In recognition of these two generous gifts, the trustees of the San Antonio Museum of Art determined that the collection would be known from henceforth as the Stark-Willson Collection. These three donations to the San Antonio collection have resulted in giving visitors to the museum an interesting introduction to Sekhmet, the powerful and intriguing ancient Egyptian goddess, a deity that has been a focus of Richard Fazzini’s scholarly research.29

29 Several people lent their kind assistance with various aspects of this project, and I offer my thanks to Rachel

Mauldin, Roy Gary, Karen Baker, Peggy Tenison, Kathleen Scott, and Charles Van Siclen.

a seated statue of sekhmet and two related sculptures

Fig. 1. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, San Antonio Museum of Art 2005.1.28.

Fig. 2. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, side view.

229

230

gerry d. scott, iii

Fig. 3. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, detail of head.

a seated statue of sekhmet and two related sculptures

Fig. 4. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, detail, Inscription A.

Fig. 5. New Kingdom statue of Sekhmet, detail, Inscription B.

231

232

gerry d. scott, iii

Fig. 6. Line drawing of Inscription A.

Fig. 7. Line drawing of Inscription B.

a seated statue of sekhmet and two related sculptures

Fig. 8. New Kingdom sculpture fragment of Sekhmet, San Antonio Museum of Art 2005.1.24.

Fig. 9. New Kingdom sculpture fragment of Sekhmet, left 3/4 view.

233

234

gerry d. scott, iii

Fig. 10. Late Period-Ptolemaic Period bronze lion-headed goddess, San Antonio Museum of Art 86.138.223.

A FAMILY OF PRIESTS OF THE DEIFIED AMENHOTEP I (CHICAGO OIM 11107)

Emily Teeter Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

I have very fond memories of spending an afternoon with Richard Fazzini in the storage areas of the Oriental Institute Museum. That sort of exploration, in the company of the consummate authority on Third Intermediate Period sculpture and relief (among other things and periods), taught me more than any academic course. According to the museum records, the small stela presented here had not been exhibited for decades prior to 1990, when it was added to the new installation. Its humble appearance made me initially doubt its authenticity, but I soon determined that it had not gone unnoted by the scholarly community. It is hoped that the fuller discussion of this stela, which indeed tells an interesting story about life millennia ago, will be accepted as a gesture of respect for my colleague and dear friend Richard, and that it might serve as a small tribute to his distinguished body of scholarship. In 1920, James Henry Breasted purchased a small round-topped stela (fig. 1) from André Bircher in Cairo. It is 15.2 centimeters high, 13.2 wide and 2.9 thick. The stela was pictured in a summary article in 1929,1 it was cited ˇ in Cern y’s ´ Community of Workmen,2 and by Bierbrier and Davies,3 and the text was included in Kitchen’s Ramesside Inscriptions.4 However, the

unusual iconographic features and the information that the text gives about the cult and priests of the deified Amenhotep I at Deir el-Medina warrant its fuller publication. The decoration of the stela is divided into two sections. A recumbent sphinx fills the upper register. In the lower, a man kneels, facing left toward six vertical columns of hieroglyphs. The sphinx in the upper register is identified by the hieroglyphic caption as Mrt-sgr h. nwt ı"mntt, “Meretseger, mistress of the West.” A winged serpent with sun disk, its wings protectively outspread, floats above the sphinx.5 The winged serpent may serve as a determinative for the name of the goddess who is so closely associated with snakes.6 Meretseger, whose name translates as “she who loves silence,” was a deity especially revered by the inhabitants of Deir el-Medina.7 The goddess appeared in a variety of forms, such as a serpent, a serpent with a woman’s face, a lion, a lion with a serpent’s head, a cow, a woman, or a woman with a serpent’s head.8 The Oriental Institute stela is, to my knowledge, unique in representing the goddess as an androsphinx.9 On the stela, the goddess wears a flat-topped crown topped with lyre horns and disk, rather than the more common simple lyre horns with disk, or two

1 H.W. Cartwright, “The Iconography of Certain Egyptian Divinities as Illustrated by the Collections of the Haskell Oriental Museum,” AJSL 45 (1929): 188–189, fig. 15. 2 Incorrectly cited as “1107” in Jaroslav Cern ˇ y, ´ A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period, BdÉ 50 (Cairo: IFAO, 1973), 141, note 2. 3 Morris Bierbrier, “Notes de prosopographie thébain. Troisième série: 14. The Family of Sennedjem,” CdÉ 59 (1984): 210; Benedict G. Davies, Who’s Who at Deir elMedina: A Prosopographic study of the royal workmen’s community, Egyptologiche Uitgaven 13 (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999), 153, no. 60. 4 Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions 5 (London: Blackwell, 1983), 667.12–15 (hereafter KRI 5). 5 For another, similar, composition of sphinx (with serpent’s head) with a winged serpent above its back, see Bernard Bruyère, Mert Seger à Deir el Médineh, MIFAO 58

(Cairo: IFAO, 1929–1930), figs. 55, 56. 6 Cartwright, “Iconography,” 188, suggested that the winged serpent, a common form of Meretseger, was added to somehow compensate for the unusual depiction of the goddess as a sphinx. 7 See Dominique Valbelle, Les ouvriers de la tombe: Deir elMédineh a l’époque ramesside, BdÉ 96 (Cairo: IFAO, 1985), 315, for Meretseger being “la protectrice de Deir el-Médineh.” 8 See Bruyère, Mert Seger, 105–122; Dominique Valbelle, “Meretseger,” in LÄ 4, 79–80, and Valbelle, Ouvriers, 315 for the forms of Meretseger. See also representations of the goddess in Guillemette Andreu, Les artistes de Pharaon: Deir elMédineh et la Vallée des Rois (Paris: Éditions de la réunion des musées nationaux, 2002), 276–281. 9 As noted by Cartwright, “Iconography,” 188: “An unusual if not unique representation…”

236

emily teeter

tall feathers and sun disk.10 The deity’s wig lappets fall to the middle of her chest and to the small of her back. The shoulder of the sphinx is covered with what is probably supposed to be a broad collar. A band of fabric(?), perhaps representing a corselet, covers her back.11 The lower field of the stela is incised with a text and an image of a man facing left, his arms upheld in an attitude of adoration, echoing the act of “giving [praise]” referred to in the inscription. He wears a kilt that billows around his legs. A broad band of fabric crosses his chest from the right shoulder to his left hip. He is bald and clean shaven. This is the same garb and grooming affected by priests who carry the divine image in processions.12 This arrangement of the deity in the upper register, facing right, and the devotee in the lower register, facing left, represents a stylistic development from earlier New Kingdom stelae that show the king and the deity in the same register, facing each other. This style normally excludes the individual who commissioned the stela. In most cases, the deity is to the left, facing right—the most prestigious position,13 and the king faces the god, in secondary place, to the right. When a devotee is shown, he or she is in the lower, separate, register.14 This separation of the upper and lower register reflects the formal separation of the joint realm of the divine and royal from that of the common man. In the post-Amarna 18th Dynasty, and increasingly in the Ramesside Period with the rise of personal piety, the composition of stelae changes.15 At that time, it is increasingly common for the figure of the king to be

omitted, allowing the individual to appear with the god without the intermediary figure of the king, but as on the Chicago stela, the devotee is usually relegated to the lower register.16 This sort of composition reflects Ramesside religious texts in which the individual directly addresses the god as his or her his personal savior, calling upon the deity, rather than the king, for his salvation.17 The inscription on the stela is arranged in six vertical columns:

10 For other examples of the lyre horns and disk with a modius, see Bruyère, Mert Seger, figs. 45, 63 (?). See also Bruyère’s comments, 109–110, about variations in the appearance of the goddess. 11 Compare to a representation of Meretseger in a Theban graffito; Bruyère, Mert Seger, fig. 120. 12 See, among the many examples, the scenes in the ˇ tomb of Khakhenbet (TT 2) in Jaroslav Cern y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis 1er chez les ouvriers de la nécropole thébaine,” BIFAO 27 (1927): 189, fig. 14; TT 277 (Ameneminet) in Jeanne Vandier d’Abbadie, Deux Tombes Ramessides à Gornet-Mourraï, MIFAO 87 (Paris: IFAO, 1954), pl. 7.2; festival processions at Medinet Habu in Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, vol. 4, Festival Scenes of Ramses III, OIP 51 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), pls. 201, 203, 213, 223– 224, 226; and a figured ostracon in Berlin (no. 3308) in Werner Kaiser, Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin (Berlin: Staatliche Museen, 1967), no. 725. 13 Gay Robins, “Some Principles of Compositional Dominance and Gender Hierarchy in Egyptian Art,” JARCE 31 (1994): 33. 14 For example, Bankes stelae nos. 9, 11 in Jaroslav Cerˇ

ny, ´ Egyptian Stelae in the Bankes Collection (Oxford: University Press, 1958). Notable exceptions to these generalized remarks are the Amarna-era funerary stelae that show the deceased adoring Osiris. See examples in Alfred Grimm and Hermann Schlögl, Da thebanische Grab Nr. 136 und der Beginn der Amarnazeit (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), pls. 16, 18– 20, 24–28, 30–36. 15 For the corresponding change in tomb decoration attributed to personal piety, see Jan Assmann, “Vergeltung und Erinnerung,” in Studien zu Sprache und Religions Ägyptens 2, ed. Friedrich Junge (Göttingen: Hubert & Co., 1984), 699. 16 See the many examples in Andreu, Les artistes, nos. 188, 189, 192, 219, 251, 253. 17 Jan Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom (London: Kegan Paul International, 1995), 209–210. In the Third Intermediate and Late Periods, further development can be seen in the very common composition that shows the deity and the individual in the same register. For many examples, see Peter Munro, Die spatägyptischen Totenstelen, ÄF 25 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1973). For earlier examples, see Andreu, Les artistes, nos. 227, 230.

1. rdı"t [ı" Aw] n k Aa n t A ı"rt R# n 2. snw.s t A h. nwt t Awy n k A n w#b 3. n nb t Awy Nfr-h. r m A # hrw ı"t.f ı"dnw [n] t A ˘ 4. ı"st Kd. hwt.f m A # hrw sn.f h. m-ntr tpy n ¯ ˘ 5. nb t Awy˘ 6. "Ipwy m A # hrw ˘ 1. Giving [praise]b to the spirit of the Eye of Rec 2. who has no equal, the mistress of the Two Lands,d for the ka of the wab priest 3. of the lord of the Two Lands (ie: the deified Amenhotep I), Neferhor, justified, [and] his father, the deputy of the 4. gang, Kedakhtef, justified, [by]e his brother the first priest of the 5. lord of the Two Lands 6. Ipuy, justified. a. Here, k A is written with flat line and three strokes. Kitchen took the flat sign as the flat bread-loaf sign (Gardiner X4); however, it could also be a book roll (see Wb. 5, 86.12).

a family of priests of the deified amenhotep i b. For another example of rdı"t n k A with the omission of ı" Aw, “praise” on a stela of Meretseger, see British Museum, EA 374, in Stephen Quirke, Ancient Egyptian Religion (London: British Museum Press, 1992), 16. c. For ı"rt R# “eye of Re” as an epithet of Meretseger, see Bruyère, Mert Seger, 136–137, no. 7. d. For h. nwt t Awy as an epithet of the goddess, see Bruyère, Mert Seger, 134, no. 2. e. One would have expected to have ı"n/n “by” before the name of the dedicator, but the genealogy and the placement of the name “Ipuy” so near the devotee leaves no doubt that both the figure and the dedicator are Ipuy. See Andreu, Les artistes, nos. 189, 227, for the same omission. Three men are mentioned on the stela: Neferhor, a priest of the lord of the Two Lands (i.e., the deified Amenhotep I); his father, Kedakhtef, who was deputy of the gang (of the left); and Ipuy, a first priest of the lord of the Two Lands (Amenhotep I), who is the son of Kedakhtef and brother of Neferhor. Davies and Bierbrier have reconstructed the genealogy of this part of the extensive family of Sennedjem, the well-known owner of Theban tomb 2.18 The numbers used here to differentiate the oft-repeated personal names are those of Davies, i.e., Kedakhtef ii, Neferhor ii, and Ipuy iv.19 These three men are known from other texts. Kedakhtef (ii) appears again with the titles w#b n nb t Awy m st M A #t, “priest of the lord of the Two Lands in the Place of Truth” and ı"dnw, “deputy,” on Louvre stela 33820 (fig. 2) in the company of the “chief of the gang” Inherkau, who is the owner of well-known Theban tomb 359. Kedakhtef (ii) is most probably to be equated with the same-named priest in Theban graffito 609, dated to year 28 of Ramesses III,21 who is said to be the son of a w#b n nb t Awy Ipuy. In the graffito, Kedakhtef also bears the title w#b n nb t Awy. 18 Davies, Who’s Who, chart 7 (lower inset); Bierbrier, “Notes,” 210–213, and chart on 207. 19 Davies, Who’s Who, chart 7 (lower inset). Bierbrier, “Notes,” 207, numbers them as Kedakhtef [Keduakhtef] (i), Ipuy (iii), and Neferher (iii). 20 Kenneth Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions 6 (London: ˇ Blackwell, 1983), 196.9–12 (hereafter KRI 6); Cern y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 190, fig. 15. 21 KRI 5, 528.8, Davies, Who’s Who, 55. 22 Kenneth Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions 7 (London: ˇ Blackwell, 1989), 347.5–8. (hereafter KRI 7); Cern y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 193.

237

It is very likely that Kedakhtef (ii) is also to be equated with the w#b Kedakhtef who appears in O. Cairo 25364, a list of seven priests who served ˇ in divine processions, according to Cern y, ´ probably of the deified Amenhotep I.22 This identification is supported by the appearance on the ostracon of the other two names on the Chicago stela—Ipuy and Neferhor. Certainly the personal names at Deir el-Medina are very repetitious,23 and their appearance on both the Cairo ostracon and the Chicago stela may be a coincidence, but it is tempting to conclude that both documents that refer to, in one case, the staff of the cult of Amenhotep I, the other to priests who serve the divine procession, refer to the same individuals. Bierbrier has suggested that Kedakhtef (ii) appears in O. Turin 57026, an extensive list of workmen dated to years 23–24 of Ramesses III,24 because the name Neferhor also appears in the same list. This association seems doubtful. Theban graffito 609 of year 28 of Ramesses III, only a few years later, refers to Kedakhtef (ii) and his father Ipuy (iii), who both bear titles associated with the deified Amenhotep I, indicating that father and son were working together. It is very unlikely that the Neferhor in O. Turin 57026 is the son of Kedakhtef because he was probably still an infant, and so, as on the Theban graffito, at that time, only two generations, rather than three, of the same family were serving as priests in the reign of Ramesses III. As noted, Neferhor (ii), who appears on the Chicago stela as the son of Kedakhtef (ii) and brother of Ipuy (iv), is also known from the list of priests on O. Cairo 25364,25 where he bears the title h. m-ntr…nty r-gs h. m.f “priest…who is at the ¯ majesty,” i.e., he walks alongside the side of his statues.26 Ipuy (iv) of the Chicago stela likewise appears in the lists of priests on O. Cairo 25364,27 where he bears the title w #b…nty f Ayw wnw hry p A ntr ¯ ¯ “priest…who carries the god.” 23 For the repetition of personal names, see Pascal Vernus, “Namengebung,” in LÄ 4, 329–330. 24 Bierbrier, “Notes,” 210, n. 2. For the text, see KRI 5, 487.11–488.8. 25 KRI 7, 347.7. 26 Although Davies (Who’s Who, 52) suggests “it is possible” that Neferhor (ii) was referred to in Theban graffito no. 2777 (KRI 6, 675.3), there Neferhor holds entirely different titles than on the Chicago stela or O. Cairo 25364, making it a tenuous identification. 27 KRI 7, 347.5–6.

238

emily teeter

Looking at the accumulated prosopographic information may provide a date for the Chicago stela, or at least its sequence in the monuments of the family of Kedakhtef (ii). The stela clearly postdates Theban graffito 609, dated to year 28 of Ramesses III, which records that Ipuy (iii) and his son Kedakhtef (ii) were both priests in the cult of Amenhotep I. In the graffito, both men held the title w#b n nb t Awy. As indicated by their shared titles, Kedakhtef (ii) was mature enough to serve alongside his father. Although it is not known at what age a man could serve as a wab, a guess is that Kedakhtef (ii) would have been in his late adolescence, or early manhood, with no children as yet, or perhaps only infants. The Chicago stela must be contemporary with Louvre stela 338 (fig. 2) because on both, Kedakhtef (ii) bears the title “deputy.” The Louvre stela can be roughly dated on the basis of Inkerkau’s title “chief of the gang” which, according to Davies, he held from year 22 of Ramesses III “until year 4 of Ramesses VI or Ramesses VII.”28 However, since it is known that one Hay (vii) was deputy (of the left) until year 2 of Ramesses V,29 Kedakhtef did not assume the position until after that time, limiting the dating of both stelae to the period of year 2 of Ramesses V to year 4 of Ramesses VI or Ramesses VII. O. Cairo 25364 helps provide more chronological framework for the career of Kedakhtef and the dating of the Chicago stela. That document has been given various dates. Kitchen assigned it to the reign of Ramesses IV.30 However, since the time period in which Louvre stela 338 was carved includes that reign, if it dated to that era, Kedakhtef (ii) should hold the title deputy, rather than w#b f Ayw wn hry p A ntr.f ¯ that is given on the ostracon. Davies¯ has suggested a later date for O. Cairo 25364: after year 8 of Ramesses VII.31 This is based upon its association with O. Gardiner 23. In both documents, the priests Neferhor and Neferrenpet appear as w#b f Ayw wn hry p A ntr, suggesting that ¯ ¯

the two documents are roughly contemporary. O. Gardiner can be dated on the basis of the reference to the foreman of the left, Harmose (ii), who served in that capacity from year 8 of Ramesses VII through year 17 of Ramesses IX.32 Linking the two ostraca then indicates the latest period in which Kedakhtef could have served as deputy, for he no longer held that post after year 8 of Ramesses VII, when the Cairo ostraˇ con was written. Cern y´ notes that in contrast to the position of “chief of the gang” that was ordinarily passed from father to son, the position of “deputy” was more ephemeral, for apparently deputies could be retained or dismissed by chiefs. ˇ Cern y´ cites the career of Khaembekhnet (i) who was deputy early in the reign of Ramesses X, but then appears as a simple workman in year 8 of Ramesses XI.33 In a similar fashion, it appears that Kedakhtef (ii) served as deputy from after year 2 of Ramesses V, until some time before year 8 of Ramesses VII, thereafter losing the post. The duration of his service as deputy must have been considerably shorter than that interval, for there are two additional men, Kenna (i) and Amennakht (xii), who are known to have served as deputies (of unknown duration) after Kedakhtef (ii) until year 11 of Ramesses IX, when Pawonesh “the Wolf ” (also called Amennakht [xii]) is attested.34 Hence the Chicago stela must date from the reigns of Ramesses V to VII. The stela gives some additional information about the life and career of Ipuy (iv). It records that he attained the rank h. m-ntr tpy n nb t Awy, “first ¯ priest of the lord of the Two Lands,” while his brother Neferhor (ii) was a more humble w#b n nb t Awy. Ipuy’s more prestigious rank may indicate that he was the older of the two siblings.35 Like his father, Ipuy (iv) may not have experienced a consistently upward career path. As suggested here, the Chicago stela predates O. Cairo 25364. On the stela, he bears the prestigious title h. m-ntr ¯ tpy n nb t Awy, while on the later ostracon, he is

28 Davies, Who’s Who, 279; Morris Bierbrier, “The Tomb of Inherkau,” in Valley of the Kings, ed. Kent Weeks (Vercelli: White Star, 2001), 352. 29 Davies, Who’s Who, 281. This chronology is contra Bierbrier’s suggestion (“Notes,” 210), that Kedakhtef “would have served briefly as deputy under Ramesses III and then reverted to the status of ordinary workman.” 30 KRI 7, 346. 31 Davies, Who’s Who, 58, no. 749. 32 Ibid., 279. For the text, see KRI 6, 663.1–15. 33 Cern ˇ y, ´ Community, 143; Davies, Who’s Who, 54.

Davies, Who’s Who, 58, no. 749, 281. See Davies, Who’s Who, 56, and chart 7 for the Kedakhetef (Qedakhtef) being “probably” the father of three other sons, Amenhotep (v), Diamenkhopshef (i), and Setem (i), on the basis of two undated graffiti in western Thebes (nos. 1202 and 1213, KRI 5, 670.9–10). There are four distinct Kedakhetefs listed in Davies. The sons of Kedakhetef (ii) always bear titles such as w #b. None of the men in the Theban graffiti cited by Davies bear any titles at all, making it, in my opinion, questionable to connect them with Kedakhetef (ii), rather than another of the Kedakhetefs. 34 35

a family of priests of the deified amenhotep i

239

simply w#b f Ayw hr p A ntr, which would seem to be ¯ ¯ a demotion. The Chicago stela also provides more information about the organization of the priests of the deified Amenhotep I at Deir el-Medina. All three men on the Chicago stela, as well as the father of Kedakhtef (ii), Ipuy (iii), served as priests of the lord of the Two Lands. The priesthood of the cult of the deified Amenhotep is attested from the reign of Thutmose III, the earliest record being a stela of an Amenemhab in a private collection in Brussels.36 The organization of the priesthood has been described as being somewhat ad hoc. Valbelle has commented that nothing is known about how the priests of the god were selected.37 Sadek suggested that “the different categories of priests of Amenophis I were simply chosen among the serˇ y´ commented vants in the Place of Truth.”38 Cern that the title of w#b of the deified Amenhotep I was borne by “membres des certaines familles,”39 a situation that is clearly seen in the text of the Chicago stela. As with so many other priesthoods

and professions, there was a hereditary passage of duties related to the office, for it was held by at least four members of three generations of the family of Ipuy the elder. Indeed, the priesthood of the god appears to be no less bureaucratic than priests of the cults of other gods in Thebes. As with other deities, a variety of ranks of priests are associated with Amenhotep I. The god was served by w#b; h. mntr;40 hry-h. bt, “lector”;41 ı"t ntr, “god’s father”;42 and ¯ ¯ ¯ h. bs bwt, “fan bearer.”43 The existence of multiple examples of h. m-ntr tpy,44 “chief priest,” is a further ¯ indication of a bureaucratic administration that is attested in other priesthoods. Chicago 11107, which dates to the reigns of Ramesses V–VII, documents a family of priests of the deified Amenhotep I at Deir el-Medina, and shows how several generations of the same family could accrue influential posts. At the time the stela was carved, Kedakhtef was deputy of the gang, one of his sons held the title “first priest” of Amenhotep I, and his other son served as a lower-level priest in the same cult.

36 Jean-Marie Kruchten, “Une Stèle Signée dédiée à Amenophis 1er et Ahmès Néfertari divinisés,” in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, ed. Sarah IsraelitGroll (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), 652; Michel Gitton, “Ahmose Nofretere,” in LÄ 1, 104. 37 Valbelle, Ouvriers, 328. 38 Ashraf I. Sadek, Popular Religion in Egypt During the New Kingdom, HÄB 27 (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1987), 134. 39 Cern ˇ y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 193. 40 Name ending in -rf: Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1931–1932), FIFAO 10 (Cairo: IFAO, 1934), 10, fig. 5= ostracon 1245; Ipuy, PM 1/2, 722. 41 Nebre, in Bernard Bruyère, Rapport sur les fouilles de

Deir el Médineh (1935–1940), Fascicule 2, Trouvailles d’objects, ˇ FIFAO 20 (Cairo: IFAO, 1952), 163, no. 66; Cern y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 194 = Cairo CG 51512 (column base). 42 Pentawert: KRI 6, 379.10. 43 Ahaphety: Cern ˇ y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 194 = Cairo CG 51512; Piay(?) in Bruyère, Rapport 1935–1940, fasc. 2, 161, n. 51. 44 Iirniwtef from Louvre shabti 2684, Bruyère, Mert Seger, 75, no. 1; Neferhor from O. Cairo 25032= KRI 6, 183.1, and Ipuy (iv) from OIM 11107. Note that there were also h. m-ntr ¯ tpy who served the cult of the deified Ahmose Nofertari: Huy in PM 2/1, 711 and Bruyère, Rapport 1935–1940, fasc. 2, 167, no. 87.

240

emily teeter

Fig. 1. Oriental Institute Museum 11107. Limestone. Dynasty 20, reigns of Ramesses V–VII. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

a family of priests of the deified amenhotep i

Fig. 2. Divine procession of the deified Amenhotep I naming the “priest of the lord of the Two Lands in the Place of Truth, the deputy, Kedakhtef ” and the “chief of the ˇ gang, Inherkau.” Dynasty 20. Louvre 338, after Cern y, ´ “Le culte d’Amenophis,” 190, fig. 15.

241

THE GODDESS MUT AND THE VULTURE Herman te Velde University of Groningen

Years ago, Richard Fazzini and I both rejected the old view that the goddess Mut was simply a vulture goddess.1 There is no evidence that Mut was originally depicted as a vulture, unlike the archetypal vulture goddess Nekhbet, “she of Elkab (Nekheb).” Until the end of the New Kingdom, Mut was always represented anthropomorphically or as a woman with a lion’s head. She usually wears the so-called vulture headdress, but many goddesses and queens wear this. Although the vulture headdress attribute is significant, it does not characterize Mut as a vulture goddess. Only after the New Kingdom was Mut sometimes depicted as a vulture.2 This does not prove that Mut was originally a vulture goddess, or that she was originally depicted as a vulture, only that the depiction of Mut as a vulture was a later and secondary development caused by the way the name of the goddess was written. Originally, and up to the end of the New Kingdom, Mut was only depicted as a woman or as a lioness, or as a woman with the head of a lioness. Even the vignette from BD 164, showing Mut as an ithyphallic goddess with a human head, a lion’s head, a vulture’s head, and the

double crown, is of late date. With a very few exceptions, the name Mut in hieroglyphs is always written with the vulture sign (G15, gyps fulvus).3 However, the name Mut does not mean vulture, as Bonnet suggested.4 The ordinary Egyptian word for the Griffon Vulture is not mwt, but nrt (Copt. noure), from the time of the Pyramid Texts down into the Coptic Period. Only the feminine form of this word is known. Just like many names of animals and birds known from ancient Egyptian, it appears to be a nickname that can be translated. Nrt can be translated as “the terrifying one” but also as “the protecting one.” In the eyes of the Egyptians, a vulture seems to have been an ambivalent symbol. It is interesting to note that the Egyptian verb nrı" has a dual, opposing meaning. It would not seem to be necessary to differentiate two different words, however, as the Berlin Dictionary does.5 In ancient Egyptian art, the vulture is depicted both as a carrion eater on the battlefield and as a protective being hovering above the pharaoh.6 This dual, ambivalent aspect of the vulture, which can be both protective and terrifying, is comparable to the destructive and protective aspect of the uraeus snake on

1 Richard A. Fazzini, “Statuette of the Goddess Mut,” in Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, ed. Anne K. Capell and Glenn E. Markoe (New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996), no. 61; Herman te Velde, “Towards a Minimal Definition of the Goddess Mut,” JEOL 26 (1979–1980): 3–9. 2 Christian Leitz, ed., Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 251. 3 Ludwig Keimer, “A Note on the Hieroglyphs G1 and G15,” AJSL 43 (1926–1927): 226–231; Patrick F. Houlihan, The Birds of Ancient Egypt (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986), 41: “The common hieroglyphic sign G15, which appears at an early date, has generally been taken to represent the Griffon Vulture. This vulture sign is always rendered in a highly conventionalized manner and a good deal of variation appears in its markings, making identification of it impossible to determine accurately. In some cases the plumage pattern and other features of the bird are suggestive of a large thick-billed vulture other than the Griffon Vulture … Hence it is best not to try to label firmly

from what species of vulture the sign is derived as it was probably not influenced by any one bird, but by several species of large vulture.” 4 Hans Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1952), 491; cf. Adolf Erman, Die Religion der Ägypter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1934), 443 n. 2: “Auch das Wort Mut, die Mutter, schreibt man mit einem Geier und ebenso den Namen der Göttin; es wäre wohl möglich das diese Schreibungen von dem Geierbilde der Göttin ihren Ausgang genommen hätten.” However, no images of Mut as a vulture have so far been found that predate the end of the New Kingdom. 5 Wb. 2, 277–278. 6 Gerhard Rühlmann, “Der Geier auf dem Schlachtfeld,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 14 (1965): 455–463; Silvia Schroer, “Die Göttin und der Geier,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 111 (1995): 60–80; Geert Jan van Gelder, “Bird of Battle: Old English and Arabic,” File—A Literary Journal 6 (1993): 9–16; Wolfgang Speyer, “Geier,” in Reallexikon für Antike und Chris-

the goddess mut and the vulture

243

the forehead of figures in authority, such as royal gods and humans. The Two Ladies (nbty), vulture and snake, Nekhbet and Wadjet, together also form another contradictory duality. This positive and negative evaluation of the vulture can be found as early as the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt, and be traced down to modern times. Investigators should also not forget that nowadays we are far less fond of vultures than the ancient Egyptians. The English word “vulture” and the French word “vautour” are reminiscent of a giant hovering-spiraling bird that can barely be distinguished from the admirable eagle. The German and Dutch words “Geier” and “gier,” on the other hand, evoke an image of a greedy carrioneater.7 Yoyotte wrote: “Le mot vautour évoque la hideur, la pourriture, la puanteur, la mort dans toute son horreur et, de tous les oiseaux prédateurs les vautours son censément les plus sordides rapaces. Un vautour est un personnage cruel dans son avidité, un créancier sans merci.”8 It is striking, however, that the Egyptian word for death (mwt), as far as I have been able to check, is never written with the “vulture” hieroglyph, which we read as mwt, even if we can agree with Yoyotte that the vulture represents “la mort dans toute son horreur.” A strong suspicion arises that this cannot be coincidence, but the use and avoidance of certain hieroglyphs in the script is as yet a relatively untouched field of research. It is almost impossible to imagine that the Egyptians were not aware of the ambivalence of the vulture symbol. In the Egyptian world of the mind, the vulture usually has a positive meaning. This was taken so far that the vulture as a carrion-eater on the battlefield vanished from the language and the visual arts, whereas the word for mother (mwt) continued to be written with the vulture and the protective wings of the vulture are often found in the art. Any frightening aspect of a so-called “bad

mother” remained concealed under the motherly protective aspects of the vulture. In a similar way as with the vulture, that lugubrious scavenger and carrion-eater, the jackal, was given an extremely positive and protective role in Egyptian funerary religion as the god Anubis, the embalmer who lovingly attends the body.9 In the ancient Near East, and in the Egyptian world in particular, the vulture was respected as a disposer of refuse. In the Greek world, on the other hand, disgust for the vulture as a carrion-eater gained the upper hand. The admirable, kingly and protective role of the vulture was taken over by the eagle. This had far-reaching consequences: in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, the Hebrew word neˇser, which means “vulture,” was translated by “eagle” (ετς).10 In Egypt, however, the greatest care was taken not to link the vulture (mwt) with death, or allocate to her a role as consumer of the dead ( #m mtw). You have to look hard before you find the vulture in a less favorable role, for example as a hostile messenger of the underworld who needs to be chased away: “You two vultures who are on the booth of the Potter. I have come to you that I may break your waterpots and smash your ink wells, for a path is prepared for me to the place where the great god is.”11 As early as in the Pyramid Texts, the vulture hieroglyph (G15) was used to write the Egyptian word for mother, mwt. Thus the vulture hieroglyph not only had the value nrt but also the value mwt, and the name of the goddess Mut could if necessary be written with the vulture. Undoubtedly, Egyptians heard the word for “mother” in the name of the goddess, and it is tempting to assume that the name of the goddess actually meant “mother.” The word for mother is maau in Coptic, with the Upper Egyptian (Sahidic) dialect variants mw and mou. The t at the end of feminine words became obsolete quite early on

tentum 9 (1976): 430–468; Erich and Ute Winter, “The Vulture in Ancient Egypt: Classical tradition and modern behaviourist research,” Bearded Vulture Annual Report 1995, Foundation for the Conservation of the Bearded Vulture (Fuchsenbigl, Austria), 61–67. Theodor Hopfner, Der Tierkult der alten Ägypter (Vienna: A. Hölder, 1913). 104–107. 7 For the etymology of the words “vulture” / “vautour,” see Jean-Marie Lamblard, Le vautour: Mythes et réalités (Paris: Imago, 2001), passim, and Klaas J. Eigenhuis, Verklarend etymologisch Woordenboek van de Nederlandse Vogelnamen (Amsterdam: Dutch Birding Association, 2004), 175. 8 Jean Yoyotte, in his preface to Lamblard, Le vautour, 7. 9 Alfred Hermann, “Zergliedern und Zusammenfügen: Religionsgeschichtliches zur Mumifizierung,” Numen 3

(1956): 81–96. 10 Deut. 32:11 (RV: “As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, / That fluttereth over her young, / He spread abroad his wings, he took them, / He bare them on his pinions”). Cf. Othmar Keel and Thomas Staubli, eds., Im Schatten deiner Flügel (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2001); Schroer, “Die Göttin und der Geier,” 60–80. 11 CT VI 295–296; cf. Robert K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1993), 149. Elsewhere (CT VI 313a–e) this vulture pair, as mothers of the sun and the deceased who has to be reborn, are called upon in a more friendly and less threatening way to receive the deceased in the night and to give birth to him in the morning as Re.

244

herman te velde

in the Egyptian language. As is well known from Greek texts, the t was kept in the pronunciation of the name of the goddess Μουτ or Μου. Thus far, no satisfactory explanation for the retention of the t has been given.12 The suspicion is that the t was deliberately preserved in the pronunciation, whereas when it was used to indicate a human mother the t was dropped. It was of course essential to preserve a precise and old-fashioned pronunciation of the name of the goddess in the cult. Gods and demons listen to those who know their names.13 Sporadically, and then mainly and deliberately in the Amarna Period, the word for mother could be written with the m and the t, i.e. not with the vulture. This was a way to avoid evoking the symbol of femininity and motherhood in the script. As we know, Akhenaten caused the hieroglyphs that wrote the names of Amun and Mut to be erased. At places where “his mother Mut” (mwt.f Mwt) was written, the vulture was not only erased in the name of Mut, but also in the word for “mother.”14 In short, the vulture hieroglyph in the script seldom means something terrifying or, as noted above, death, but consistently femininity and motherhood. The belief that the vulture represented femininity and motherhood, and the related ideas that there were only female vultures and that they were virgin born, without a male begetter, thus appears to come from Egypt. In an Egyptian Demotic papyrus from the second century CE, we can read the following words of the goddess Mut: “I am the noble vulture (nryt) of the male brother, the lord of Thebes, i.e. the noble vulture of which no male exists.”15 This Egyptian statement that there were only female vultures is confirmed by various Graeco-Roman writers. Thus Horapollo, in his Hieroglyphica (fourth century CE), writes as follows:

12 Wolfgang Brunsch, “Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Wiedergaben ägyptischer Personennamen,” Enchoria 8 (1978): 123–128. 13 Hendrik Willem Obbink, De magische beteekenis van de naam, inzonderheid in het oude Egypte, diss. Groningen (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1925), 26. 14 Gerardus van der Leeuw, “Eenige opmerkingen betreffende den huidigen stand van onze kennis en ons inzicht aangaande Achnaton,” JEOL 5 (1937–1938): 301–304; cf. Heinrich Schäfer, Amarna in Religion und Kunst (Berlin: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, 1931), 22. 15 Pap. Leiden I 384 ro IX, 7–8. Cf. Erich and Ute Winter, “Von der Ununterscheidbarkeit der Geschlechter:

When they want to write ‘mother’, or ‘sight’, or ‘boundary’, or ‘foreknowledge,’ or ‘year’, or ‘heavens’, or ‘compassionate’, or ‘Athena’ or ‘Hera’ (= Mut), or ‘two drachmas’, they draw a vulture. (It means) ‘mother’ because there is no male in this species of animal. And they are born in this way: when the vulture hungers for conception, she opens her sexual organ to the north wind and is covered by it for five days. During this period she takes neither food nor drink, yearning for child-bearing. There are also other species of birds which conceive by the wind, the eggs of which serve only for food and are not fit for hatching. But when the vultures are impregnated by the wind, their eggs are fertile … And the race of vultures, as we said above, is female only. Because of this the Egyptians place the vulture as a crown on all female figures, consequently the Egyptians use this sign for all goddesses.16 It is possible that this passage from Horappollo refers back to Chaeremon (first century CE). Plutarch (46–120 CE) also records this belief: “But if, as the Egyptians fable, the whole species [of vultures] is female, and they conceive by receiving the breath of the East Wind even as the trees do by receiving the West Wind…”.17 Aelianus (170–240 CE) describes the conception in even more detail: It is said that no male vulture is ever born: all vultures are female. And the birds knowing this and fearing to be left childless, take measures to produce them as follows. They fly against the south wind. If however the wind is not from the south, they open their beaks to the east wind and the inrush of air impregnates them and their period of gestation lasts for three years.18

Der Geier im Flug durch die Jahrtausende,” in Viribus Unitis: Festschrift Bernhard Stillfried, ed. Ilona Slawinski and Joseph P. Stelka (Bern: Peter Lang, 1996), 523–537, esp. p. 528 with reference to Mark J. Smith, BiOr 49 (1992), 9. 16 Hieroglyphica 1.11; text and translation in Pieter W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 38–42. 17 Plutarch’s Moralia 4, trans. Frank C. Babbitt, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), 139–141 = Quaestiones Romanae. 18 De Natura Animalium 2.46; trans. A.F. Scholfield, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958, 2nd ed., 1971), 145.

the goddess mut and the vulture

245

According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the Egyptians “by a vulture … represent the word for the female sexual organ, because natural history records that no males can be found among these birds.”19 The Egyptians indeed do use the vulture hieroglyph in the script to write the word for “womb” (mwt-rmt).20 Thus there is a tradition to be found in Graeco-Roman writers that there were only female vultures and no male ones that perhaps goes back to Egypt via Chaeremon. What is interesting is Horapollo’s statement that “the Egyptians place the vulture as a crown on all female figures.” This vulture headdress is a closefitting cap formed from the body of a vulture with the two protective wings of the bird spread against the sides of the wearer’s head, while the head of the vulture juts forward from the wearer’s forehead. This vulture headdress21 is known from the Old Kingdom on. It was worn by many goddesses, not only by Nekhbet or Mut. From the 5th Dynasty on, it was also depicted as one of the

insignia of a queen. Goddesses and queens are exemplary and ideal women. Deceased women were in the course of time represented as wearing this divine and royal headdress. The vulture headdress was absent in the Amarna Period, comparable with the absence of the vulture hieroglyph in the same time, but from Ramesside through Graeco-Roman times was one of the most distinguished insignia worn by Egyptian women. A silver vulture headdress of a Nubian woman was found in the tomb of Hapidjefa of the First Intermediate Period. The vulture headdress represented not divinity or royalty as such, but the highest royal, and later nonroyal, motherhood and femininity. Mut was linked with the vulture because the vulture was the symbol of motherhood and femininity. Just as the Horus-falcon hieroglyph could represent every male god, eventually the vulture hieroglyph came to mean not only mother or mwt but also goddess or ntrt.22 ¯

Res Gestae 17. 4, 11; Van der Horst, Chaeremon, 44–45. Wb. 2, 54. 21 Gay Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1993), 23.

22 François Daumas et al., Valeurs phonétiques des signes hiéroglyphiques d’époque gréco-romaine 2 (Montpellier: Université de Montpellier, 1988), 293.

19 20

A COLOSSAL STATUE BASE OF NEFERTITI AND OTHER EARLY ATENIST MONUMENTS FROM THE PRECINCT OF THE GODDESS MUT IN KARNAK Jacobus van Dijk University of Groningen

Akhenaten and his family are perhaps not among Richard’s best friends from ancient Egypt; in fact, with his inimitable turn of phrase, he likes to refer to them as “the Freak, the Freakess, and the Freakettes.” But when they make a surprise appearance at his favourite site, they cannot simply be ignored, and since he actually wrote an introduction to the art of the Amarna Period, albeit a long time ago,1 it does not seem wholly inappropriate to publish these finds here as a tribute to a great scholar, intrepid excavator, remarkable survivor, and treasured friend. With the removal to the Karnak Open Air Museum of the two massive alabaster stelae2 set up by Ramesses II in front of what was once the First Pylon of Temple A, in the northeast corner of the Mut Precinct, it became possible for the Brooklyn Museum Expedition to resume the excavations in this part of the site, which had been begun in the late 1970s.3 At that time, it had already been established that the towers of the pylon, very little of which remains, were constructed of mud brick faced, at least on their interior (east) side, with reused limestone blocks, and that its threshold consisted of a very large reused slab of pink granite. In the early days of February 2005, excavations in the pylon entrance revealed

The base (Excav. No. 19ME.1) is a fairly tall, rectangular block of granite 77.5 cm wide and 95 cm deep.4 The height of the base without the remains of the statues is c. 42 cm; the latter are

1 Richard A. Fazzini, Art from the Age of Akhenaten (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1973). 2 The one on the north is the famous Hittite Marriage Stela found in 1924–1925 by Maurice Pillet, while its southern counterpart was discovered by the Mut Expedition in 1979; see the account in Richard Fazzini et al., The Brooklyn Museum—American Research Center in Egypt Expedition to the Precinct of the Goddess Mut at Southern Karnak. Preliminary Report (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1979), 30– 35 and figs. 44–47. The text published there, although it bears a preliminary character, is a remarkable achievement, since it was recorded bit by bit by tunneling under the 44-ton stela, which had fallen face down. Both stelae were carved from what was originally the side walls of a shrine of Amenhotep II from the Amun Precinct, which has recently been reconstructed at the entrance to the Open Air Mu-

seum by the Centre franco-égyptien d’étude des Temples de Karnak. 3 Fazzini et al., Preliminary Report, 27–28 with Map 3; cf. also Fazzini and William H. Peck, Introduction to Claude Traunecker, “Une chapelle de magie guérisseuse sur le parvis du temple de Mout à Karnak,” JARCE 20 (1983): 65– 67 and the plans published there on p. 62, and in Fazzini and Peck, “The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and Early Dynasty XXVI: A Growing Picture,” JSSEA 11 (1981): 117, fig. 1, where the First Pylon is marked with the number 15. For the 2005 season, see the preliminary report forthcoming in ASAE 79. 4 Detailed measurements of the base and the head have kindly been provided by Mrs. Elsie Holmes Peck. In the description which follows, “left” and “right” refer to the figures’ proper left and right.

some further blocks of pink granite immediately adjacent to the north side of the large slab and forming the north end of the threshold. One of these turned out to be the base of a statue, reused upside down to provide a flat surface. When it was turned over, three pairs of feet became visible, one large and two small. The extraordinary shape of the large feet in particular made it immediately obvious that we were dealing with a work of the Amarna Period, and shortly afterwards this was confirmed by a study of what remains of the inscription on the back pillar. A further granite block proved to be the very badly decayed remains of the head of a royal statue of the same period, and both pieces can probably be linked to a fragment found in the same general area in 1978 which bears an inscription mentioning the Gem-pa-Aten, the sed-festival temple built by Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten at East Karnak. A. The Statue Base (Figs. 1–5)

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

247

preserved to a maximum height of 15.5 cm, resulting in a total preserved height of 57.5 cm. The base originally supported three figures, a large one roughly in the middle, flanked by two much smaller ones. The large figure is broken off just above the ankles, although the feet themselves, shown parallel to each other, are also damaged. These feet are exceptionally long and narrow: they measure 47 cm from the most advanced (second) toe to the heel and their greatest width is 15 cm. The toes, too, are very long.5 Most striking, however, is the fact that the five metatarsal bones and the joints connecting them to the phalanges (toe bones) have been sharply defined on the top surface of the feet. Elongated feet are de rigueur in Amarna art, and in New Kingdom sculpture articulated metatarsals can occasionally be found in works from the end of the 18th Dynasty,6 but the exaggerated form shown here and the rendering of the joints are, to the best of my knowledge, unparalleled. They are matched, however, by similarly over-emphasized collar bones and neck muscles in some other early statues of Akhenaten, most famously perhaps in the magnificent alabaster torso in the Brooklyn Museum.7 These extraordinary feet may be seen as additional evidence for the theory, persuasively advocated by Alwyn Burridge, that Akhenaten suffered from Marfan’s Syndrome, one of the symptoms of which is arachnodactyly (elongated extremities with slender, spidery fingers and toes).8 Skeptics have argued that the deformities shown in Akhenaten’s physical portrayal (and by extension that of his wife and children) are not to be read literally, and that “their common denominator is a symbolic gathering of all attributes of the creator god into the physical body of the king himself.”9 However, although more general aspects like the combination of male and female characteristics might be interpreted along those lines, it is hard to see how spidery feet could be a symbolic rendering of an aspect of the creator god. To the left of the main figure are the feet of a much smaller figure, which are also shown paral-

lel to each other, but although the proportions are more or less the same,10 there is no sign of the exaggerated articulation of the bone structure seen in the main figure. This small figure stands close to the left-hand edge of the statue base and quite far away (57 cm) from the front. On the other side of the main figure is an even smaller pair of feet.11 This figure, broken off halfway down the shins, is shown standing with its left foot advanced and is considerably further forward (at a distance of 31.2 and 32.8 cm, resp., from the front of the base) than its companion on the left. In good light, traces of vertical lines representing the pleating of a linen dress can be observed on the left leg. This figure does not stand close to the right-hand edge of the base, but some 13 cm away from it. This creates the impression that the whole group is off centre, although the feet of the main figure are in fact positioned in the middle of the base. This impression is strengthened by the fact that the back support that joins the three figures, at least at this low level, does not continue beyond the small figure on the right to encompass the full width of the statue base.12 The back support originally appears to have been inscribed with a single column of text in incised hieroglyphs running down the centre behind the main figure. Unfortunately, only the lowermost parts of the very last signs survive (fig. 5), but these nevertheless provide an additional clue for dating the statue: the word in question is nh. h. , written with a deeply cut sun-disk sign with uraeus and, indicated in shallow sunk relief, the ankh sign hanging from it, a sure indication that we are dealing with a monument from the reign of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten.

5 Large toe: 10.0 cm; second toe: 10.2 cm; third: 9.7 cm; fourth: 8.2 cm; fifth: 5.0 cm. 6 See, for example, the statue on a sledge of Amenhotep III from the Luxor Temple cachette, Mohammed ElSaghir, Das Statuenversteck im Luxortempel (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1992), 23, fig. 49, and 26, fig. 54. 7 John D. Cooney, Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American Collections (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1965), 102–106. 8 Alwyn L. Burridge, “Akhenaten: A New Perspective. Evidence of a Genetic Disorder in the Royal Family of 18th

Dynasty Egypt,” JSSEA 23 (1993 [1996]): 63–74 (see esp. pl. 11, lower); Burridge, “Did Akhenaten Suffer from Marfan’s Syndrome?”, Biblical Archaeologist 59 (1996): 127–128. 9 Dominic Montserrat, Akhenaten: History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt (London: Routledge 2000), 48. 10 Length of left foot: 9.7 cm, greatest width: 3.2 cm. 11 Length of left foot: 9.0 cm, greatest width: 3.1 cm. 12 It is 65 cm wide, leaving an “open” space of 12.5 cm to the right of the right-hand small figure. 13 Measurements: h. 60 cm, w. 35 cm, d. 29 cm.

B. The Head (Fig. 6) The head (Excav. No. 19ME.1a) found next to the statue base is in a very sad state; it has in fact been almost entirely reduced to an amorphous lump of crumbling pink granite.13 Only the left

248

jacobus van dijk

side of the head with a relatively well-preserved ear and part of a nemes headcloth can still be discerned. Both the face and the nemes, particularly when viewed from the side, have the elongated form associated with the art of Akhenaten. The height of the ear is 17 cm and its greatest width 7.5 cm, which agrees more or less exactly with the measurements of the ears of the famous series of sandstone colossi of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten found in 1925 at East Karnak by Henri Chevrier. If the proportions of our statue are similar to those of the latter, as seems very likely, then this granite colossus, too, may have stood to an estimated height of some 4.5 m. The nemes headcloth displays the usual horizontal stripes with a vertical line indicating the interior side of the lappets; the horizontal lines are narrower on the lappets than on the main part of the headcloth. Behind the head is part of a bridge connecting the statue to the back pillar.14

a finished surface as well. The inscription is almost certainly one of an identical pair oriented towards a depiction of the Aten’s disk in the centre, i.e., to the right of the surviving inscription. Unfortunately, not enough of the fragment remains to enable us to determine from what kind of monument it derives. It cannot belong to the statue base described above, however, since this is complete on all four sides.18

Interpretation

As long ago as 1978, the Mut Expedition found a roughly square block of pink granite “in the debris covering … the entrance to the temple forecourt,”15 i.e., the gateway of the First Pylon of Temple A. Because of its location, material, and date, it may well be associated with the two fragments just described. The piece, which measures 38.0 × 34.5 × 45.0 cm, is evidently a corner fragment of a much larger block. The front of the block and the adjacent right-hand side have a smooth worked surface. The former is inscribed in sunk relief with the remains of two columns of text (fig. 8)16 giving the name formula of the Aten in connection with one of the early Aten temples at East Karnak: (1) “The great living [Aten] who is in the sed festival, lord of hea[ven and earth], (2) [residing] in Gem-pa-Aten in the domain of Aten.”17 The inscription is thus virtually complete and the top of the fragment, although now weatherworn and damaged, may once have had

The main problem posed by the statue base is to establish the identity of the three persons represented. That they are members of the royal family of Amenhotep IV seems certain, but which ones? One possibility is that the main figure is the king himself, the small figure on his left could then be Nefertiti, and the even smaller figure on his right their firstborn daughter Merytaten; or, alternatively, the two small figures could be Merytaten on the left and her younger sister Meketaten on the right. In favour of such an interpretation would be the head found next to the base, which is almost certainly Amenhotep IV because of the nemes headcloth; unlike the khat or afnet headdress, which can be worn by both Amenhotep IV and Nefertiti,19 no examples can be cited for Nefertiti wearing the nemes. On the other hand, as the presence of the Gem-pa-Aten block in the pylon entrance demonstrates, the head and the base do not necessarily have to stem from one and the same statue. It is far more likely that two conveniently sized pieces were selected more or less at random from the mass of smashed-up statuary from the Karnak Aten temples that was available for reuse in various building projects of the post-Amarna pharaohs. Two arguments militate against the interpretation of the large figure as Amenhotep IVAkhenaten. It is true that, if the larger of the two small figures is Nefertiti, her size in relation to the king would be comparable to that of

14 Two large joining fragments of pink granite that may or may not be part of a back pillar were found with the statue base and the head; they are uninscribed. 15 From field notes compiled by Lisa Kuchman Sabbahy (1978). The piece does not appear to have been given an Excav. No. 16 The column width is just over 4 cm. 17 See on this formula, very frequent on the Karnak talatat, Sayed Tawfik, in Ray Winfield Smith and Donald

B. Redford, The Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. 1, Initial Discoveries (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1976), 59–61. 18 Could it perhaps be part of a gateway? Cf. the “large block of Assuan granite” found by Donald Redford at a very deep level on the west side of the Gem-pa-Aten, see his “Interim Report on the Excavations at East Karnak (1979 and 1980 Seasons),” JSSEA 11 (1981): 258. 19 Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “The khat Headdress to the End of the Amarna Period,” SAK 5 (1977): 21–39.

C. Inscribed Granite Block (Figs. 7–8)

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

249

queens on colossal statues in the traditional style both before and after the Amarna Period. Unlike these queens, however, Nefertiti is never shown at such a diminutive scale when she is in the company of her husband, nor is it very likely that she would be, in view of the unusually important cultic role she plays in Akhenaten’s temples. In the Karnak talatat reliefs, she is usually depicted at between three-quarters and two-thirds of the size of her husband. In later Amarna art, she is shown both in reliefs and in sculpture in the round as only slightly smaller than him, possibly reflecting the actual difference in height between them. If the smaller figures on the statue base are the couple’s two oldest daughters, it is even more unlikely that the main figure could be the king, for as Redford has shown, on the Karnak talatat (and at Amarna) the daughters are never shown in the company of their father alone, but always with their mother, reflecting “the spirit of the family hierarchy …, that is, the queen under the king’s authority, and the children under the queen’s.”20 This leaves us with only one option, that the statue base once contained images of Nefertiti flanked by Merytaten and Meketaten. The inscription on the back pillar, meagre as the traces may be, supports the identification of the main figure as Nefertiti, for it is her name and titles, not Akhenaten’s, that are almost invariably followed by the phrase #nh.tı" dt nh. h. . On the Karnak ¯ talatat, scenes showing˘ Nefertiti with both Merytaten and Meketaten are far less numerous than those with Merytaten alone, probably because most of the decoration of the new temples had been finished by the time Meketaten was born

(or old enough to be shown participating in the cult).21 The statue therefore probably also dates from that time, i.e., not long before the move to Amarna. Colossal statues of both Amenhotep IVAkhenaten and Nefertiti once adorned the Aten temples and palaces at Karnak and Amarna.22 The best known are the thirty or so sandstone colossi found by Chevrier in 1925 on the south side of the Gem-pa-Aten colonnade.23 None of them has its feet or base preserved, probably because the statues were brought down by smashing the spindly lower legs, and the flat bases were subsequently reused elsewhere, like the example found by the Mut expedition. Chevrier’s excavations appear to have yielded only the front half with toes of one base, now in the basement of the Cairo Museum.24 The measurements of this base may provide an additional argument for assigning the Mut Precinct statue base to Nefertiti: despite the fact that three figures were depicted on it, the width is only 77.5 cm as opposed to the 91 cm of the sandstone base in Cairo, which only supported a single statue. As the granite head of Amenhotep IV found by the Mut Expedition is roughly the same size as the heads of the sandstone colossi, our statue base is perhaps more likely to have supported the slightly smaller figure of Nefertiti. In the absence of good parallels and with nothing more than the feet to go by, however, it is very difficult to estimate the original height of this statue. Chevrier’s sandstone colossi all represent Amenhotep IV,25 although it has been suggested—wrongly, I believe—that an apparently “sexless” statue is actually Nefertiti.26 Redford’s

20 Smith and Redford, The Akhenaten Temple Project 1, 83. As Redford notes, the few exceptions to this rule occur only towards the end of Akhenaten’s reign, on Amarna blocks from Hermopolis. These late instances are probably the result of an original figure of Kiya having been erased and replaced by either Merytaten or Ankhesenpaaten. 21 Ibid., 84–85. 22 For Amarna see J.D.S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten part 3, The Central City and Official Quarters, vol. 1 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1951), 9–13; 76 (“It [i.e. the Broad Hall of the Great Palace] was completely surrounded by colossal statues, those of the King in granite and sandstone, those of the Queen in sandstone only”); on p. 52 Pendlebury mentions “thousands of fragments of granite colossi found in this area” (i.e., the Broad Hall). 23 Henri Chevrier, “Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak. Monument d’Akhnaton,” ASAE 26 (1926): 121–127; 27 (1927): 143–147; 29 (1929): 14–15; Rita E. Freed, “Observations on Some Amenhotep IV Colossi from Karnak,” Memnonia 10 (1999): 195–200. Cf. also Dennis Forbes, “The Akhen-

aten Colossi of Karnak: Their Discovery and Description,” Amarna Letters 3 (1994): 46–55. 24 Freed, “Observations,” 198 and 200, n. 32, where the following measurements are given: w. 91 cm, preserved d. 37 cm; h. without the toes: 47 cm. 25 The cartouches on the belt still call the king Amenhotep, not Akhenaten. 26 J.R. Harris, “Akhenaten or Nefertiti?”, Acta Orientalia 38 (1977): 5–10. This interpretation appears to have been widely accepted, but, as Harris notes himself, the crook and flail, the royal beard, and the (reconstructed) double crown are difficult to reconcile with it. Nowhere in the thousands of representations of Nefertiti in Karnak and Amarna is she shown with any of these regalia, and at Karnak she is never shown on the same scale as the king. Harris refers to images of Hatshepsut, but although there can be no doubt that Nefertiti shows a remarkable degree of independence in ritual scenes at Karnak, she is not a king, like Hatshepsut, at least not at this early stage of her husband’s reign. It seems far more likely to me that the allegedly “sexless”

250

jacobus van dijk about the early building history of the First Pylon of Temple A, other than that it probably replaced an earlier mud-brick wall or pylon almost certainly constructed during the 18th Dynasty.32 Obviously, the presence of the Akhenaten pieces demonstrates that the new pylon was built after the Amarna Period. That Ramesses II was responsible for its construction is suggested by the two large alabaster stelae and the pair of granite colossi that he erected in front of its façade, but, as Fazzini and Peck have rightly pointed out, this only proves that this pylon was built no later than the reign of Ramesses II. On the other hand, if the granite base of the southern colossus and the granite threshold of the pylon are part of the same block that was split in half, as Fazzini has suggested,33 the chances of Ramesses II being the builder of Temple A’s First Pylon are considerably increased.34

excavations brought to light further fragments of colossi in the North Colonnade of the Gempa-Aten, both of red quartzite and, apparently on a smaller scale, of black and red granite,27 and the block with the Gem-pa-Aten inscription found in close proximity to the base and head in the Mut Precinct suggests that these pieces may have come from this area. Several of the fragments found by Redford come from statues representing Nefertiti, although they “ranged from just under life-size to one and one-half times lifesize” and thus must have been smaller than the statue that once stood on the base from the Mut Precinct. One fragment (of a back pillar?) illustrated by Redford gives the cartouche with the short form of Nefertiti’s name, without the additional Neferneferuaten.28 The presence of back pillars on these statues suggests that they originally stood between the piers of the colonnade rather than against them, as was the case with the sandstone colossi from the North Colonnade.29 Two objects inscribed for Horemheb, including “a small piece of stone appliqué, possibly from a wand of authority,”30 recovered by Redford from the destruction level in the Gem-paAten South Colonnade, strongly suggest that it was Horemheb who was responsible for its demolition.31 The question therefore arises whether that king was also responsible for the construction of the First Pylon of Temple A in the Mut Precinct. This is certainly not impossible, for although there is no standing architecture within the precinct that can be attributed to Horemheb, at least two large architectural fragments of quartzite inscribed with his Horus name, and possibly belonging to a gateway, have been found on the site. Very little is known so far

Finally, by way of an appendix, I would like to briefly discuss an irregularly shaped sandstone block (Excav. No. 5MWB.16) not related to the granite pieces treated above, but probably also deriving from a structure built by the Heretic King. The Mut Expedition uncovered it in March 1980 in the northwest part of the precinct, roughly halfway between Chapel D and the northwest tip of the Sacred Lake, in the fill in front of the south end of a wall running northsouth, where it is still positioned today.35 The block is decorated on two adjacent sides in sunk relief. The front36 displays part of a large horizontal band of text (fig. 10) that does not run

statue was once dressed in a kilt of a different material (sheet gold?), like the equally “sexless” alabaster statue of Sety I from the Karnak Cachette (CG 42139). Cf. also Redford, Akhenaten, The Heretic King (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 104. 27 Redford, “Interim Report on the Excavations at East Karnak (1981–1982 Seasons: Stratigraphy and Architecture,” JSSEA 13 (1983), 222; Redford, “East Karnak and the Sed-festival of Akhenaten,” in Hommages à Jean Leclant 1, ed. Catherine Berger, Gisèle Clerc and Nicolas Grimal (Cairo: IFAO, 1994), 487, with fig. 2. 28 For the occurrence of both forms in the Karnak talatat, see Redford in The Akhenaten Temple Project 1, 80. 29 Hommages Leclant 1, 487. 30 Redford, ROM Archaeological Newsletter No. 195 (August, 1981). 31 Hommages Leclant 1, 485, n. 6. 32 Fazzini and Peck, “Une chapelle de magie guérisseuse,” 66.

33 Fazzini et al., The Brooklyn Museum—American Research Center in Egypt Expedition, 28. The present writer, who partially re-excavated the large granite slab reused in the threshold during the 2006 season, considers it likely that it too derives from the Gem-pa-Aten, although it contains no inscriptions or decoration to prove it. 34 Unless the southern colossus itself was usurped from Horemheb, for which there is no evidence (the cartouche of Ramesses II on the belt shows no signs of having been recarved). The northern colossus, the head of which is in the British Museum (EA 15), was usurped from Amenhotep III. 35 From field notes compiled by Elsie Peck. The coordinates on the CFEK grid are 2770–2780/770–80. I am very grateful to Mary McKercher for sending me these details. 36 The measurements of this side are as follows: width, measured along the bottom, 76 cm; height (left) 31.5 cm, (right) 48 cm. The back of the block is damaged, but the original depth was 55 cm. The height of the band of text is 50 cm.

D. A Sandstone Block (Figs. 9–12)

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments parallel to the top and bottom edges of the block but at an angle of about 13° to it. It was thus probably part of a balustrade leading up to a shrine or an altar, or even to a roof. Below the text are traces of two signs or objects, the first perhaps the top of a shrine (or possibly of a djed pillar), the other with a round top. These traces are parallel to the bottom edge. On the adjacent left-hand side of the block and at right angles to the front are the remains of a throne and the lower leg, ankle, and heel of a seated deity (fig. 11).37 Clearly this is the side that was visible after the block had been reused. The inscription on the long side of the block is almost certainly part of the epithet #A m #h. #w=f which normally follows the cartouche of Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten (fig. 12), and the name of Re-Horakhty that follows it may be part of the didactic name of the Aten in its early form, not yet written in a pair of cartouches. Presumably the text called the king “[beloved of] Re-Horakhty

37 The width of this scene was originally 51 cm, but most of the leg of the deity has now disappeared and the present width is 40 cm; the height is 44 cm.

251

[who rejoices in the horizon in his name of ‘Light which is in the Sundisk’].” The block thus derives from the first temple constructed at Karnak by Amenhotep IV at the very beginning of his reign, which was dedicated to what is in fact an early form of the Aten, then still depicted in the traditional form of the falcon-headed Re-Horakhty, and which was largely constructed not of talatat but of the traditional large sandstone blocks.38 Many such blocks have been found within the Tenth Pylon at Karnak, but the present block has clearly been reused in a wall somewhere in the Mut Precinct. No other blocks belonging to this Re-Horakhty temple have so far been found in the existing walls in the Mut Precinct, but it is hoped, at least by the present writer, that more will one day turn up either in the Brooklyn Museum excavations or in the work being carried out by the Johns Hopkins University expedition directed by Betsy Bryan in the centre of the Mut Temple.

38

Smith, in The Akhenaten Temple Project 1, 45–46.

252

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 1a. Statue base 19ME.1: just after its discovery.

Fig. 1b. Statue base 19ME.1: front.

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

Fig. 2a. Statue base 19ME.1: back (photo: Mary McKercher).

Fig. 2b. Statue base 19ME.1: inscription on the back pillar (photo: Mary McKercher).

253

254

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 3a. Statue base 19ME.1: left side.

Fig. 3b. Statue base 19ME.1: right side.

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

Fig. 4a. Statue base 19ME.1: detail of the feet.

Fig. 4b. Statue base 19ME.1: detail of the feet.

255

256

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 5. Remains of the inscription on the back of the statue.

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

Fig. 6a. Head of a colossal statue 19ME.1a: front.

Fig. 6b. Head of a colossal statue 19ME.1a: left side.

257

258

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 7a. Inscribed architectural fragment: front.

Fig. 7b. Inscription on architectural fragment.

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

Fig. 8. Inscription on a pink granite block from the Mut Precinct.

259

260

jacobus van dijk

Fig. 9a. Sandstone block 5MWB.16: three-quarter view showing reused side.

Fig. 9b. Sandstone block 5MWB.16: front.

a colossal statue base of nefertiti and other early atenist monuments

Fig. 10. Early Atenist inscription on a sandstone block from the Mut Precinct.

Fig. 11. Relief on the reused side of the same block.

Fig. 12. Suggested restoration of the inscription on the sandstone block.

261

INDEX Illustrations are in italics Aaget, 224 Abadiyeh, 185–187 Abbott, Henry, 19, 113 Abu Gurob, 46 Abu Simbel, 121 Abusir, 155, 3n15, 11–12, 45n22, 46, 49n61, 58n55, 90n8 Abydos, 24n12, 38, 90n12, 98, 145, 158n22, 185, 200n22 Achoris, 77 Ahmose-Nefertari, 36n33, 149, 152–154 akh, 39, 182 Akhtihotep, 4, 11 alabaster, 19, 191, 246–247, 250 Amada, 122–123 Amarna Period, 21, 159n40, 172–173, 244–246, 248n19, 249– 250 royal family, 159, 247n8, 248 Amasis, 190, 194 Amenemhat I, 5, 12, 90n8 Amenemhat III, 13, 23–24, 26, 27, 28–31, 144n28, 145 Amenemhat V, 24, 27 Amenemope, 154, 210n21 Amenhotep (deity), 132 Amenhotep (son of Hapu), 132, 219 Amenhotep (vizier), 99 Amenhotep I, 33, 150, 152–154, 235–239, 241, 250n34 Amenhotep II, 121, 135,191,205, 246n2 Amenhotep III, 32–38, 41, 43, 89–91, 95, 99, 121–122, 124, 134–135, 136n10, 142n7, 173n24, 211n23, 216, 218, 223– 224, 227, 247n6 Amenhotep IV, 91n16, 135, 246–249, 251 Amenhotep-Huy, 91 Amennakht, 238 Amenirdis I, 126–128, 129 Amherst, Lord, 224n8, 225–226 amulets, 57, 63n5, 65, 67–68, 72 Amun, 39,65, 67–68, 76, 91, 121n8, 122, 126, 129, 139n35, 143–144, 150–154, 190n9, 192–193, 194n48, 205, 207, 208, 209n12, 213n33, 213n37, 216–218, 223, 244, 246n2 god’s wife of, 38–39, 126–128, 153 of Opet, 153 Amun-Re, 37–38, 64–65, 76, 122–123, 126–128, 153–154, 208–209, 214, 216–217 chantress of, 166 god’s father of, 180–181 androsphinx, 235 ankh, 20, 131–132, 136, 156, 158, 224, 247 Ankhefenmut, 180–182, 184 Ankhhor, 167 Ankhtaui, 26 Anubis, 131, 154, 192n36, 212n33, 243 Anukis, 122 Aper-el, 91 arbor scene, 157–158, 163 archaism, 5, 144n28 artists, 1–2, 4–5, 7–9, 144, 191, 209–210, 212 Asasif, 167, 190, 192, 194 Assyrians, 84 Aten, 122, 173, 246, 248–251 Atfih (Aphroditopolis), 5–6

Atum, 66–68, 122, 138, 154, 180n11, 181 back pillar, 32, 38, 41, 83, 89n1, 91, 94, 166, 169, 216, 218, 224, 246, 248–250, 253 Baketre i and ii, 152 Banebdjed, ram god, 198, 200, 202 banquet, 6, 213n33 barque, 123, 150, 152, 181–182, 205 day-, 182 Basa, 190, 193–194 Bastet, 26, 67 beard, 36, 89, 127, 143, 166, 212, 216–217, 249n26 beef, 19 Beni Hasan, 1n6, 2n9, 3n13, 4, 11–13 Bes, 64–65 “Big Man” society, 199 birds, 2, 4, 6–7, 20, 65, 67, 70–71, 127, 198, 242–245 bird catching, 6 block statue, 216, 218 bone, 143, 171, 247 beads, 57, 122, 137, 159, 171 Book of the Dead, 39n54, 65n20, 102n2, 103, 181–183, 193– 194, 199n13, 212n33, 242 bread, 19, 55n20, 56n35, 179, 200, 236 bronze, 63–69, 160n47, 228, 234 figurines, 63–64, 66–69, 70–72, 166 gilded, 191 statue, 227 Brugsch, Emile, 111–113, 116 Bubastis, 91 burial chamber, 54–55, 56n35, 57, 170, 174n31 burials, 54–55, 57, 200, 213 Buto, 55n23, 192 cats, 4n14, 67, 154 cattle, 2, 4–5, 11–12, 16–17 ceramic, 54n7, 170n8, 174, 186 Chaeremon, 244–245 Chemmis, 192, 194 children, 35n28, 137, 154, 159, 213–215, 238, 247, 249 cloth, 180, 211–212, 214–215 votive, 191 cobras, 32n2, 34, 36–38, 64, 83, 137, 156, 158, 159 Coffin Texts, 25, 26n38 coffins, 57,192 collars, 32–33, 120, 122–124, 126–127, 136–137, 157, 166, 191, 228, 236, 247 broad, 33, 126–127, 157, 179, 228, 236 shebyu, 33, 122–123 colossi of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, 248–250 of Memnon, 35n28, 223 of Ramesses II, 250 combs, 213 conflagration, 200–201 convolvulus, 159 copper, 54–55, 170 Coptic, 63n3, 104, 107, 115, 242–243 Coptos, 26–27, 131

264

index

Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture, 141 cows, 2–4, 153, 190–195, 235 horns, 2, 34n18, 35, 37–38, 137–138, 166, 191, 193–194, 228 statues, 190–195, 196–197 creator god, 65, 67, 208–209, 223, 247 crocodiles, 3nn12–13, 4, 66, 83, 84 crowns, 32n2, 33–35, 36, 38, 66–67, 76, 127, 137, 143, 156, 166, 228, 235, 244–245 atef, 194 cap, 156 double, 36, 38, 41, 136–137, 143, 242, 249n26 floral, 156, 159 hemhem, 166 khepresh, 120 red, 36, 137, 140 vulture, 120, 136–137. See also vulture headdress white, 36–37, 43, 67n34, 166, 199–200 Dagi (vizier), 11, 89, 90n7, 96–97 Darius I, 77 Debehen, chapel of, 44 Deir el-Bahri, 5n20, 112, 132, 143–144, 148, 149, 150nn13–14, 160, 185, 190–193, 196 Deir el-Medina, 102, 103n7, 104n12, 105n13, 105nn17–18, 139n35, 149–154, 159n39, 160n45, 192, 194, 235, 237, 239 Delta, Nile, 2, 4, 53, 57, 121n13, 160, 185, 190, 192, 198n2, 199, 200n23 Demotic, 63n3, 65, 130, 132, 205n11, 244 London and Leiden Magical Text, 132 Myth of the Sun’s Eye, 132 stela, 130, 132, 133 Dendera, 5, 63n5, 84n15, 132, 138n22, 185 Denman, Gilbert M., Jr., 224–225, 227 deputy of the gang, 236–239 draftsmen, 151–154 Drexel, Col. Anthony, 111, 114 Drexel Institute, 111, 114 Dynasty 3, 3n13, 55 Dynasty 5, 4, 10–12, 44–46, 54–55, 173, 245 Dynasty 6, 1, 4, 10–13, 55, 170, 173–174, 200, 247 Dynasty 11, 5, 11, 89, 191, 208 Dynasty 12, 2, 5–8, 90, 141, 144n23 Dynasty 18, 19, 21, 33, 92, 93, 121, 158, 160, 191, 210, 211n23, 213n37, 216–218, 223, 236, 247, 250 royal tombs, 150 Dynasty 19, 32, 150, 192, 213 Dynasty 20, 108, 150, 155, 192, 240–241 Dynasty 21, 32–33, 38, 192, 204 Dynasty 22, 180n23, 181n26, 205 Dynasty 23, 84 Dynasty 25, 83–84, 126, 128, 192–193 Dynasty 26, 76, 83–84, 187n14, 190–191, 193–194 Dynasty 30, 167, 205 Early Dynastic Period, 55n20, 198–199, 208, 214, 243 earrings, 159, 214 el-Hiba, 204–206, 207 elite, 7, 44n3, 58, 209, 211–215 Elkab, 26–27, 242 Esna, 65–67, 69 faience, 69, 160, 192n31 bead, 171 multicolored, 155 plate, 171 vessels, 155, 158 falcons, 37, 122, 166, 179–180, 245, 251

false door, 47, 48n51, 49, 54, 57, 91, 99, 170, 174n25, 194 Faras, 160 Fayum region, 185 fetish, 180 fillet, 34–35, 37, 159, 179 First Intermediate Period, 3–4, 7, 26n41, 198, 200, 245 first priest of the lord of the two lands, 236–237 fish, 2, 67 Abdw, 181–182 ¯ 181–182 bulti, fishing, 6, 47 flail, 157 and crook, 166, 180, 249n26 floral bouquets, 155, 157 food, 47, 55, 56n35, 90, 153–154, 182, 200–201, 211n26, 244 fowl, 2, 6–7, 19, 179 garments, 2, 7, 90–91, 126, 156, 157n17, 159, 179–180, 186, 210, 216, 218, 224 Gayer-Anderson, R.G., 126, 128 Geb, 122n17, 154 Gebel Zeit, 160 gilding, 130n3 god’s father (of Amun-Re), 166, 180–181, 239 god’s wife (of Amun), 38, 39, 126–128, 153 Graeco-Roman Period, 130n3, 131–132 edifices, 143n13 writers, 244–245 graffiti, 132, 151n29, 238n35 granite, 23n1, 34–36, 90nn9–10, 143–144, 226, 246–250, 259 hair, 2, 171–172, 212–214, 228 Hammamat, 25 Hansen, Donald P., 53n1, 53n4, 54, 198n3 Hapidjefa, 245 Hapy, 67, 69n46, 122n17 harem, 39, 112 Harmose, 238 Haroëris, 152–153 Hathor, 4–6, 37–39, 63, 122n17, 131–132, 137–138, 139n35, 140, 149–151, 154–156, 158n21, 159–160, 170, 186, 190– 194, 214n40 Hatshepsut, 21, 34n15, 145n31, 191, 193, 249n26 headdress, 32, 34–38, 127, 137, 158, 191, 194, 224, 245 afnet, 248 double-plumed, 64 khat, 83, 248 nemes, 248 rosette, 158 vulture, 126, 137n17, 186, 242, 245 Hent-aa (wife of Hormose), 33, 46 Henutimentet, 149–150 Henuttaneb, Princess, 32, 36 Henuttawy, Queen, 32, 38, 39n52 Heqaib, sanctuary of, 24 Hesi, 3n13, 10, 46n22, 46n26, 48 hetep-d"ı-nesu formula, 19, 217 Hibis, temple of, 73–77, 78–82, 84, 88, 137n15 Hierakonpolis, 26, 33, 43, 138, 199n12 hieratic, 63n3, 102–109, 199n13 hieroglyphs, 2, 8, 45, 131, 186, 208, 211, 212n29, 215, 243– 245 cursive, 166, 179 hippopotamus, 67, 83–84 Hor-aha, 198 Horapollo, 244 Horbeit, 190 Horemakhet, 122

index Horemheb, 131n23, 135, 150–151, 250 Hormose, tomb of, 33, 43 Horus, 5n20, 19, 26–27, 37, 39, 65–66, 71, 84, 122, 131n6, 131n8, 138, 152, 154, 182, 192, 194, 199n12, 209, 212n33, 245, 250 Horus-Behdety, 122 h. s jars, 180 hunting, 6 Hymns, 25, 67, 109, 182, 200n25 solar, 152n31, 181–182, 212n33 to Amun-Re, 153 to Aten, 173 to Diadems, 25, 39n57 to Khnum, 65 to Mut, 136–137, 139 to Neith, 66–67 to Osiris, 166, 182 Ihet, 191 Imhotep, 131n11, 132 incense, 19, 49, 179 Inene, 104 Inherkau, 237, 238n28, 241 insignia, 37n42, 89–90, 159, 166, 171, 245 Ipu, 151–152, 154 Ipuy, 236–239 Isetemkheb,166 Isis goddess, 37–38, 39n56, 131, 137–138, 140, 154, 186, 191, 192, 194, 209, 226 queen, 33, 37, 158 Isis-Hathor, 192 Itjtawy, 5 Iyadjru, 19–20 Izezi, King, 10–13, 47 jackal, 243 jewelry, 2, 33, 111, 131, 159, 212, 214 ka, 19, 49n56, 84, 127, 130n1, 127n4, 151–152, 174, 208n6, 217, 236–237 chapel, 151 effigies, 174 Kahai, tomb of, 4 Kamal, Ahmed, 122n23, 131n8, 204–205 Karnak, 23, 25n27, 26–27, 32, 33n9, 76, 90n10, 123, 126– 128, 134–136, 139, 143–144, 147, 153, 185, 192n31, 205nn11–12, 208n2, 216, 218–219, 223, 246, 248–251 cachette, 34n16, 144 East, 246, 248 Temple of Mut, 24, 32, 149, 223–224, 227 talatat, 248n17, 249, 250n28 Kedakhetef, 236–239 Kenna, 238 Khaembekhnet, 238 Khaemwaset, 216–219, 220–222 Khay (son of Nebre), 154 Khekeret, 170 Khenty-imentiu, 181 Khenu, mastaba of, 47, 48n47, 48n51, 51 Khepri, 122 Kheruef, tomb of, 35, 36n33, 37 Khnum, 65, 67, 122, 217n2 Khnum-Re, 67 Khonsu, 136, 138, 152, 154, 159n35, 214 kilt, 83–84, 90, 120, 126, 136, 159, 209–210, 212, 214, 215– 216, 236, 250n26 Koffler collection, 142

265

Kom Abu-Yasin, 190 Kom el-Heitan, 35, 37 Kushite Period, 76n24, 83, 127–128 lapis lazuli, 89, 191 Late Egyptian, 67, 102–109, 181n29 Late Period, 63–67, 83–84, 90n11, 130n1, 132, 142n8, 143n13, 190n2, 191, 193–195, 227, 234 lily, 137, 180n9, 190n9 linen, 19, 160, 210, 247 lioness, 223, 242 goddess, 25n27, 39n54, 66, 70–71 Lisht, 1–2, 4–9, 14, 89n7, 90nn8–9 lizards, 67, 72 loincloth, 212–213 lotus, 34–35, 65, 120, 131n13, 156, 158–159 leaves, 157 petals, 157, 179 Lower Egypt, 37, 39, 67, 84, 138, 157–158, 186 Luxor Temple, 130–132, 133, 134–136, 139, 140, 208n6, 247n6 Lythgoe, Albert M., 114, 225–227 Maat, 37, 90n11, 91n22, 122, 192n36 feather, 36 Mace, Arthur C., 1n2, 185–186, 226–227 Malkata, 36 massacre, 200 Medamud, 128, 143–145 Medinet Habu, 126, 128, 139n35, 155, 158–160, 214n47, 236n12 Megeb, 26 Mehet-weret, 191 Mehu, 2n11, 3nn12–13, 4–5, 6n24, 10, 12 Meidum, 44n8, 55 Meketaten, 248–249 Memphis, 150n13, 192, 214n50, 223 menat, 39, 191, 120 Mendes, 53–58, 59–62, 185, 187n14, 198, 200, 202–203 Mentuemhat, 131n13, 166–167, 193 Mentuhotep II, 5, 89, 144, 150n13, 191. See also Nebhepetre Mentuhotep Merenptah, 35, 104n11 Meresankh, 44 Meret (serpent goddess), 153 Meretseger, 149–150, 152, 154, 159, 235–237 Meretseger-Renutet, 153–154 Merytaten, 248–249 Middle Egyptian, 102, 106–107 Middle Kingdom, 1–3, 5–7, 23, 25–26, 89–90, 102n2, 104n11, 105n15, 107, 141–145, 159n35, 214n48 literature, 109 personal names, 25 private head, 141 reliefs, 1, 6 sculpture, 144 stela, 25 tombs, 6–7 Min, 131, 151, 206, 208–209 Mirgissa, 160 models, 5, 6n25, 104, 108, 171 modius, 32, 34–38, 41, 127, 137, 156–157, 159, 228, 236n10 Montu, 122n17, 128, 143, 159 motherhood, 4, 244–245 mud brick, 45, 75–76, 170, 187, 198, 200, 204, 246, 250 mummies, 111, 116, 185, 226 Mut, 23–27, 36, 38, 39, 76, 134, 136–139, 140, 179, 223–224, 227, 242–245, 248–250

266 precinct of, 23, 102, 185, 246, 249–251, 259, 261 temple of, 24, 32–39, 40, 112, 136, 149, 223–226, 251 Mutemwiya, 33n11, 35–36 Mutnodjmet (queen’s mother), 38 Nakhtamun, 153–154 naos, 192, 198 Nebhepetre Mentuhotep, 191. See also Mentuhotep II Nebre (son of Pay), 152–154, 239n41 Nefer, tomb of, 4, 12, 17 Neferhor, 236–239 Neferhotep, 152, 154, 214n41 Neith, 66–67 Nekhbet, 25n23, 26–27, 43, 137n17, 242–243, 245 Nephthys, 186 Nespakashuty, 190, 193–194, 196–197 nest, 156–157, 162, 243n10 Netjerikhet, 170 New Kingdom, 1n1, 7, 33, 47n43, 65n20, 68, 89–90, 102, 123, 180, 191–193, 199, 209, 214–216, 217n2, 224, 229– 233, 242 art, 208 necropolis, 192 private tombs, 192 sculpture, 247 stela, 130, 236 “New Race,” 185 non-elite, 209, 212–213, 215 Nubia, 121–123 nudity, 157, 159, 171–172, 174, 213–215 Nun, 66, 154 Nut, 154, 191–192 Ny-Pepy, 170, 174, 175–178 Nyuserre, Sun Temple of O. Cairo 25364, 237–238 O. Gardiner 23, 237–238 O. Turin 57026, 237 offering table, 19, 47, 122n23, 131n21, 152–154, 179–180, 217 Old Kingdom, 1, 5–9, 44–45, 53–56, 90, 144, 170, 172–173, 191, 208, 211, 224, 245 art, 173 burials, 57 cemeteries, 53, 58 false doors, 45 iconography, 6 mastabas, 44, 58 pottery vessels, 54 sealings, 198–201, 202–203 opening of the mouth ceremony, 102n2, 171 orthography, 103n4, 104, 106–108 Osiris, 19, 37–38, 68, 84, 121–123, 128, 131–132, 153–154, 158, 166–167, 168, 180–182, 193–194, 208–209, 212n33, 214, 217n2, 236n14 Osorkon I, 245 Padisematawy, 190–191, 194 palm, 130–132 Panetjer, 19–21, 22 papyrus, 25, 65, 84, 103n8, 104–105, 108n28, 109n38, 110, 131n13, 137, 156–158, 167, 179–183, 184, 244 funerary, 179–183, 184 Harris, 156, 160 Leiden, 68 magical, 64–65 thicket, 4, 17 umbels, 157 Pashermont, 130, 132

index patrons, 5, 8, 153–154, 209, 228 Pawonesh, 238 Pay (XIX), son of Ipu, 151–154 penis, 171, 208–215. See also phallus Pentawere, 104 Pepy I, 10, 12 Pepy II, 10–13, 172, 174, 200–201 Peraemheb, 152 Perahotep, 152–154 perfume cone, 179 Persian Period, 73 personal piety, 69, 132, 236 Petamenophis, 192n36, 193 Petosiris, 130, 132 Petrie, W.M.F., 112, 114, 155, 185, 186–187 phallus, 67–68, 151, 208–209, 212–215. See also penis Pinch, Geraldine, 64–65, 155–156, 159–160 Pinudjem I, 38 pleating, 83–84, 157, 179, 210, 247 Predynastic Period, 111, 186, 198n4 pottery, 185 private sculpture—see sculpture private tombs, 45–46, 49, 83, 190, 192–195 Psamtik (non-royal), 190, 193–194 Psamtik I, 76, 83–84, 85–86, 190, 193 Psamtik II, 76, 190, 194 Psusennes I, 38 Ptah, 66–67, 122, 128, 139n35, 149–150, 214, 223 Ptah-Sokar, 150, 154, 158 Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, 166, 180n11, 181 Ptahmose (vizier), 91 Ptahshepses, 11–12, 46 Ptolemaic Period, 53, 63–64, 66–67, 73, 130, 136, 149, 166– 167, 185–187, 188, 227, 234 Ptolemy VII, 187 Ptolemy XII, 134, 136–137, 139, 140 Pyramid Texts, 173, 242–243 Qadesh (deity), 151 Qadesh (site), 135 Qantir, 155 queens, 32–39, 40–44, 120, 141, 147, 153, 155, 157n17, 158– 159, 186, 245, 249 raised relief, 19, 34, 44–50, 83, 89, 135, 155–157, 186 Ramesses I, 151 Ramesses II, 32n2, 38n50, 106, 121, 123–124, 135, 151, 154– 155, 192, 223, 246, 250 Ramesses III, 135, 155–160, 161 Ramesses IV, 156, 238 Ramesses V, 238–239, 240 Ramesses VI, 238 Ramesses VII, 238, 240 Ramesses IX, 238 Ramesses X Ramesses XI Ramesside Period, 64, 102–109, 151n26, 155–160, 192, 194, 205, 235–236, 245 Ramose scribe, 150–153 vizier, 91, 100–101 Raweben, 152 Re, 24–25, 36–38, 66, 68, 122–123, 131, 137–138, 152, 154, 181, 186, 192, 208, 224, 237, 243n11 Re-Horakhty, 122, 135, 152, 154, 180, 251 -Atum, 180n11, 181 Re-Osiris, 38 Reshef, 151

index rock crystal, 191 Roman Period, 77, 111, 130–132, 187, 211 Russmann, E.R., 170 Sahure, pyramid complex of, 46, 49n61 Saite Period, 73, 76n24, 77, 83, 193–194 salamander, 67 Salt, Henry, 113, 225, 227 sandstone, 75, 127–128, 129, 130, 135–136, 185–186, 248–251, 260–261 colossi, 248–250 relief, 126, 128, 185 talatat, 135 Saqqara, 8, 11–12, 16–17, 19, 22, 44–48, 51–52, 56n35, 91, 131n23, 170–172, 175, 190, 192–194 Sawiet el Meitin, 4, 11 scarabs, 111, 115 scepter, 127, 171–172, 211–212, 214–215, 228 scribes, 7, 20, 105, 107–110, 150–151, 153, 182 sculpture, 23–24, 33, 83, 89–91, 111, 135, 141–142, 144–145, 166, 174, 185, 190, 193–194, 224–225, 227, 233, 235, 247, 249 sealings, 199–200 Second Intermediate Period, 25 sed festival, 35–37, 122–124, 143, 246, 248 Sekhmet, 26, 32, 36, 38, 67, 155, 223–228, 229–233 Senedjemib Inti, 10, 12, 46–47 Senedjemib Mehi, 47 senet, 159 Sennedjem, 237 Senusret I, 2, 5, 26, 90n7 Senusret II, 144 Senusret III, 142–145, 147–148 Serabit el-Khadem, 155, 158–160 serdabs, 44 serekhs, 5n20, 198–200 Seth, 83–84, 209 Sety I, 38, 135, 151, 158n21, 227, 250n26 Sety II, 104n11 sexual organ, 68, 171, 244–245 potency, 160 shawl, 32, 156–157, 210 sheath dress, 210, 224, 228 shebyu collar, 33, 122–123 Shepenwepet II, 126–128 Sheshonq I, 192n31, 205 Shu, 67, 152 side lock, 66, 213–214 Sinai, 36–37, 155–160 sistrum, 19, 37, 39, 120, 158n27, 160, 192, skin color, 142, 211–212, 214–215 Snefru, “Statue Temple” of, 49 Sokar-Osiris, 37, 84, 166 solar disk, 64, 152, 180–182, 228. See also sun disk sun disk, 34n18, 36, 38, 64, 66, 122, 137, 191, 194, 224, 235– 236, 247. See also solar disk Soleb, 35, 37, 121 spear, 4, 83–84 sphinx, 23, 77, 83, 114, 120, 123, 134, 141, 147, 235–236 Great, 122 staff, 120, 132, 135–137, 156, 171–172, 182, 211–212, 214–215, 228 statuettes, 120, 166 wooden, 171–174 stelae, 19–21, 22, 25–26, 35, 37, 54, 99, 104, 111, 116, 118–119, 130, 132, 152–154, 160, 235–239, 246, 250

267

Demotic, 130, 132, 133 Dream, 122–123 Graeco-Roman, 131 New Kingdom, 130, 236 private, 121–122 Second Intermediate Period, 25 votive, 151n26, 191 sunk relief, 19, 44–48, 126, 128, 135, 247–248, 250 Takereret, 167 talatat, 135, 248n17, 249–251 Tashat, 116 Taweret, 67, 131, 154 Tefnut, 67 Tell el-Rub’a, 53 Tell el-Yahudiyeh, 155 Tell Timai, 53 Tentamun, queen, 38 Teti, 10–12 cemetery of, 48 textiles, 116, 192 Theban triad, 153–154 Thebes, 5, 11, 13, 24, 65, 84, 89, 91, 103, 126, 130, 132, 139, 143, 149–150, 152–154, 193, 208, 223–224, 227, 239, 244 Theti, 158 Third Intermediate Period, 32, 53, 65n20, 102, 179–180, 192, 204–205, 235 Thoth, 131, 150, 154 Thutmose (vizier), 91, 99 Thutmose III, 37, 90, 123, 191, 239 Thutmose IV, 120–124, 125, 216 Ti, 4, 6n28, 10–12, 16, 44, 48–49, 52 tomb of, 4, 6n28, 16, 44, 48–49 Timna, 160 Tiaa, Queen, 120–121, 125 Tiye, Queen, 33–39, 43 Tjenuna, tomb of, 120–121, 123–124, 125 Tjeteti, tomb of, 172 tomb chapels, 121, 123, 213 Tutankhamun, 84, 111–112, 134–135, 155, 159 Tuya, Queen, 32, 42 Twins, 131–132 Unas, 10–12, 47, 51, 194 Upper Egypt, 5, 39, 126, 145, 193, 223, 243 Uraei, 34–39, 64, 67, 83, 120, 127, 138, 156, 180, 194, 224, 228, 242, 247 Userhat, 20, 36–37 Userpehtynesu, 19–20, 22 vignettes, 49, 52, 120–124, 125, 179–180, 193–194, 242 vizier, 89–91, 92–95, 98–100, 145, 190 vulture, 23–26, 31, 34, 36, 42, 43, 120, 136–137, 242–225 goddess, 25–26, 242 headdress, 34–38, 126, 137, 186, 242, 245 Wadi es-Sebua, 121 Wadjet, 137n17, 227, 243 Wadjytrenpet, 152 Wennefer, 128, 180 wigs, 34–35, 67, 89, 127, 142, 157, 166, 179, 186, 212 bag, 142 echeloned, 36 lappet, 224, 228, 236 tripartite, 34–37, 66, 136–137, 157, 166, 216–218 Winlock, Herbert E., 74, 76–77, 78, 115, 117, 193