Parthian Coins in the Egypt Centre

This week’s blog entry is a guest post by Dr. Stephen Harrison, a Greek historian with a particular interest in kingship, empire, and identity.

What is on a fifty pence coin? I posed that question to my class of second and third year undergraduates last week as part of a session on numismatics—the study of coinage (fig. 1). Aside from the obvious answer—the Queen—the response was somewhat muted. Eventually, somebody suggested (rightly) that the goddess Britannia might appear on the reverse of the coin, but another student pointed out that this design was replaced in 2008 with a part of the shield of the Royal Arms. Which part? Nobody knew. And what of the rest of the coin? Do you know what it says on the coin? Possibly not, but the inscription on a coin (known as the ‘legend’) contains lots of important information about the authority who has produced it. On a fifty pence piece, the legend reads: ELIZABETH II D.G.REG.F.D. The abbreviations here stand for the Latin phrases DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSATRIX, so the full inscription means ‘Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith’. This final title was originally awarded to Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X, revoked when Henry broke with the Catholic Church, and rewarded by Parliament, but now, the ‘faith’ referred to by the title was the Anglican. Did you know any of that? More importantly, do you care? And this opens up an important question: how closely do we look at the objects we use in everyday life and what do they mean for us?

Fig. 1: Closely examining Parthian coins

This is a crucial issue for historians seeking to explore the ancient world because we have to work out how much significance we should attribute to the material that survives. What do the images on coins from the ancient world tell us about the society that produced the coins? That was this week’s theme in Beyond Mainland Greece, a module that introduces students to the Achaemenid and Seleucid Empires and gives them the chance to engage with evidence from across Asia; for students who usually engage with the ancient world through the lens of Greece and Rome, this offers a valuable opportunity to broaden their horizons.

Fig. 2: Cuneiform inscription of Nebuchadrezzar II, c. 570 BC 

This week we were fortunate enough to be able to hold a bonus handling session with Ken Griffin from the Egypt Centre. The Egypt Centre might be primarily a museum of Egyptian objects, but it contains material from across the ancient world and we were able to get our hands on objects from Babylonia and Parthia! I won’t say too much about the nature of a handling session since Christian Knoblauch’s blog from last week covers this topic excellently, but instead want to give you an insight into how the objects we looked at helped students develop their understanding of the course content. Students were able to handle three inscriptions from Mesopotamia written in the cuneiform script, which was used to write several ancient languages, including Akkadian and Old Persian. Cuneiform literally means ‘wedge-shaped’ and the script takes its name from the shape of the signs that made up the script. Students saw three different cuneiform inscriptions and were able to compare different ways in which the script might be written—they were also able to see that some texts are much easier to read than others (compare W952 with W956, figs. 2–3)

Fig. 3: Cuneiform inscription of Shalmaneser I, c. 1250 BC

Perhaps most important, however, were three coins—one from the Seleucid Empire and two from the Parthian Empire. The Seleucid coin (GR83) depicts the god Apollo sitting on the omphalos—a symbol of his oracle at Delphi—and holding a bow; the legend declares that it was produced on the authority of a King Antiochus (fig. 4). We had actually discussed the symbolism of this very design in class the previous day, so students were able to relate what they had learned in class to this object. In particular, they were able to think about the materiality of the coin—several commented that the coin was bigger and heavier than they had expected, while others noted that parts of the design had worn away over time and that the legend, in particular, was difficult to read.

Fig. 4: Coin of Antiochus I, c. 270 BC

All of the students were able to identify the Seleucid coin but the two Parthian coins (LHC2 & LHC10) proved trickier propositions (figs. 5–6). The Parthians emerged from within the Seleucid Empire in the middle of the third century BC, so, while we’ve mentioned them during our course, we haven’t looked at them in any detail—so it was interesting to see how the students responded to this new evidence. They were quick to point out a number of similarities between the Parthian coins and their Seleucid counterpart—for example, the reverse type shows a figure holding a bow while seated on an object. This suggests that the coins were somehow connected, but the portraits on the obverse of the coins are very different—in particular, students contrasted the beard of the figure on LHC2 with the beardlessness of the king on GR83. This, the students argued, suggested that the figure depicted was not Greek.

Fig. 5: Silver drachm of Mithridates IV, c. AD 140

But they also spotted that the legend on the two Parthian coins was written in Greek—if this coin was not produced by a Greek dynasty, they wondered, why would they write in Greek? And this brings us back full circle to the question I posed earlier about what is written on a fifty pence coin. On one of the coins (LHC2) the Greek inscription is actually nonsensical—the letters are Greek, but they don’t spell out anything meaningful. Why? Well one answer might be that these coins were being used by people who could not read Greek. The Parthians took over much of the Seleucid territory in Asia so they ruled people who were not Greek, but who had been ruled for decades by Greek kings. They were used to seeing Greek on coinage but they didn’t necessarily know what it meant—so, by the time the Parthians came to power, the people they ruled over expected to see Greek writing on coinage. Consequently, even though the letters don’t actually form words, the very fact that they were Greek letters were important in ensuring that the coins were accepted by the people who would use them, both as legal tender and as representations of royalty. So it is crucial that we as historians look closely at the minute details of ancient objects in order to understand as much as we can about ancient societies, but it is worth bearing in mind that we might actually be looking at things more closely than the people who used these objects ever did themselves!

Fig. 6: Silver drachm of Mithridates II, c. 100 BC

Akhenaten in Swansea?

This week’s post is a guest blog by Dr. Christian Knoblauch, Lecturer in Ancient Egyptian Material Culture at Swansea University.

This semester our Egyptian Art and Architecture class (CLE220) has been lucky enough to have had a series of hands-on sessions with objects from the Egypt Centre, facilitated by the Collections Access Manager Ken Griffin. In these sessions, students are confronted with objects they have never seen before and about which no information is provided. In small groups, they try and find out as much about the piece as possible based purely on team-work, their own observations, and background knowledge acquired prior to the handling session via a preparatory reading and lecture. In follow-up seminar-style sessions, we usually summarise our observations as a class and try and identify the key features, date, and purpose of the piece. Occasionally, we will use these sessions to develop research and art-historical skills by conducting further research in groups on different aspects of a single artefact.

This last week we had a real treat. As part of our session on painted decoration, we looked at a puzzling fragment of plaster with polychrome decoration (W802) from the EES excavations at Amarna (fig. 1). The students were not told how to orient the piece or what it depicted, rather they had to work this out for themselves. This proved a real challenge at first, although some of the groups positively identified the brown-red shape as a forearm and elbow, leading to the conclusion that the polychrome shape must be part of a piece of clothing worn on the torso or waist.

Fig. 1: W802.

In the follow-up seminar, we broke up into three groups: one group looked at the find context, another at the design of the painted clothing, and a third group at the reconstruction of the scene element to which the fragment belonged. As the “context” group found out in the follow-up seminar, this was one of a number of fragments found in the debris of the gateway of the North Riverside Palace (Pendlebury, 1931), a huge residence linked to the main city by a processional road and that probably served as the main residence for the Amarna royal family (Kemp, 2013). The excavator, John Pendlebury (1904–1941), thought the decorated plaster was part of a decorated private room above the gateway, but it may have been part of the gateway. Other plaster fragments from the same context have cartouches of the royal family, offerings, and parts of chariots. Importantly, the context group also located a watercolour of the Swansea piece at the time of excavation showing details that are no longer visible (fig. 2).

Fig 2: http://www.amarnaproject.com/images/amarna_the_place/north_city/15.jpg

The group focussing on the reconstruction of the scene had a very difficult job. They agreed that the elbow might indeed belong to a person holding the reins of a chariot, as originally reconstructed by Ralph Lavers (fig. 3), drawing on scenes from the Private tombs at Amarna. But they also thought it could just as easily be a person in a different pose, for example, a seated figure or a standing figure making an offering. Critically, they noted that Fran Weatherhead (2007) had previously observed that Laver’s reconstruction incorporated fragments reproduced at different scales!

Fig 3: http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/amarna_the_place/north_city/7.shtml

But who is represented on the fragment? The work of the “clothing group” here provided some clues by looking in detail at the design of the polychrome pattern. The latter consists of a row of blue diamonds, either side of which there are seven zig-zag lines of red, light blue, and dark blue on a yellow-beige background. The upper and lower edge of the belt is framed by a band of chevrons drawing on the same palette. As one of our students Cameron Nairn discovered, the pattern of diamonds and zigzags is very similar to the design of a belt from a granodiorite statue in the British Museum (EA 5) depicting Akhenaten’s father, Amenhotep III (fig. 4), whereby that belt lacks the chevron-border of the Egypt Centre fragment. In fact, the Egyptologist Betsy Bryan (2007, 175) has argued that this belt design was the most common belt type on the royal statuary of Amenhotep III.

Fig. 4: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=111353&partId=1&searchText=amenhotep++statue&page=1

Subsequent research showed that the belt with lozenges and zig-zag lines was much older than Amenhotep III, and it can be traced backwards through history, from the early New Kingdom (ie. Cairo JE 39260, http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/cachette/?ident=JE%2039260#galerie, Thutmose III), to the reign of Sneferu (Fourth Dynasty), if not earlier. As discussed by Nakano (2000), it was an iconographic element used solely for the depiction of Egyptian kings. While the precise symbolism of the pattern is unknown, it clearly alludes to the concept of kingship and helps identify the figure on the Egypt Centre fragment as a king, and not someone else. Who this pharaoh is can be guessed by the evidence for cartouches bearing royal names from the same context—it's possibly Akhenaten himself! That being said, the depiction of the king in this costume is rare at Amarna where the king was usually shown wearing a characteristic pleated, white kilt, that dipped sharply at the front to accommodate Akhenaten´s protruding belly (fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Colossal statue of Akhenaten.

One of the great challenges of working with Egyptian art is trying to imagine a three-dimensional artefact based on its two-dimensional depiction (Siffert). For example, what materials would the original have been made from? How do the smooth flowing brush strokes of the painting correspond to the texture of the original? Here the “Belt Group” had another break through. They came across an extremely rare piece of royal costume housed in the Liverpool World Museum (M11156) known as the Ramesses Girdle (fig. 6). The piece is a magnificent 5.2m long sash of woven linen with an intricate pattern of ankh signs and zig-zag lines in red and blue on a yellow-beige background that bears the name of Ramesses III. Although the piece was probably worn differently to the belt on the Swansea fragment, the palette of colours, the zig-zag lines and borders, and the yellow-beige background of the textile all reminded us strongly of the belt and helped us to imagine at least one way the polychrome painted plaster surface could be interpreted.

Fig. 6: http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/wml/collections/antiquities/ancient-egypt/item-299418.aspx

In the next weeks, we will be looking at more objects—stone palettes and decorated pottery—before turning to the architectural context of art. We will be finishing off the semester with talks and question sessions with people who have made careers in “Egyptian Art”. Chicago House staff artist, Krisztián Vértes (Chicago House, Luxor), will be talking about Digital Epigraphy, the conservator Suzanne Davis (University of Michigan), will present about “preserving Egyptian art”, and the architect Abigail Stoner (Berlin), will discuss recording Egyptian architecture.

Bibliography:
Bryan, B. M. (2007) ‘A ‘New’ Statue of Amenhotep III and the Meaning of the Khepresh Crown’. In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor 1, ed. Z. A. Hawass and J. E. Richards. Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Egypte. 151–167.
Kemp, B. J. (2013) The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Amarna and Its People. London: Thames & Hudson.
Kozloff, A. P., B. M. Bryan, and L. M. Berman eds. (1992) Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press. Bloomington.
Nakano, T. (2000) ‘An Undiscovered Representation of Egyptian Kingship? The Diamond Motif on the Kings’ Belts’. Orient 35: 23–34.
Pendlebury, J. D. S. (1931) ‘Preliminary Report of Excavations at Tell el-‘Amarnah 1930–1’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 17: 233–244.

———. (1951) The City of Akhenaten. Part III: The Central City and the Official Quarters. The Excavations at Tell el-Amarna during the Season 1926–1927 and 1931–1936. 2 vols. Egypt Exploration Society, Excavation Memoir 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. 

Siffert, U. (n.d.) From Object to Icon: Visual Reflections on and the Designations of Material Culture in the Reliefs and Paintings of Middle Kingdom Tombs (poster presentation).

Weatherhead, F. (2007) Amarna Palace Paintings. Egypt Exploration Society, Excavation Memoir 78. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Celebrating Twenty Years of the Egypt Centre!

In September 2018, the Egypt Centre museum of Egyptian antiquities, situated on Singleton campus of Swansea University, celebrated its twentieth anniversary. Twenty years previously, on the 28th September, the Museum was opened to the public. With over 5,000 objects, the Egypt Centre contains the largest collection of Egyptian antiquities in Wales. Most of these objects are currently understudied and unpublished. Therefore, as part of our anniversary celebrations, I am pleased to announce that we will be hosting a two-day conference focusing on the objects in the collection. Wonderful Things: The Material Culture of the Egypt Centre, will take place on the weekend of 25-26th May 2019. This event brings together sixteen scholars from Wales to present on both Egyptian and non-Egyptian material. What's more, some of the objects presented will also be available for object handling! The timetable of events (subject to change) is as follows:

Saturday 25 May
09:45–10:00 Welcome address TBA
10:00–10:30 Wendy Goodridge (The Egypt Centre) – The Egypt Centre: Past, Present, and Future
10:30–11:00 Kenneth Griffin (The Egypt Centre) – The Life Cycle of an Object: The Lintel of the Overseer of Craftsmen, Tjenti
11:00–11:30 Coffee & Handling session 1
11:30–12:00 Kasia Szpakowska (Swansea University) – Daemons in My Bedroom
12:00–12:30 Phil Parkes (Cardiff University) – The Long History of Coffin AB118: From Ankh-pa-khered to Cardiff University
12:30–13:30 Lunch
13:30–14:00 Troy Sagrillo (Swansea University) – Djehuty-em-hat, King of Ashmunayn and the Chronology of Late Libyan Egypt
14:00–14:30 Carolyn Graves-Brown (The Egypt Centre) – Funny Looking Gods on a Third Intermediate Period Coffin
14:30–15:00 Coffee & Handling 2
15:00–15:30 Amr Gaber (Swansea University) – A Stela of the Mother of the Buchis Bull
15:30–16:00 Paul Nicholson (Cardiff University) – Bronze Clamps and Bull Mummies from the Bucheum and Beyond 

Fig. 2: AB118 (@CUConservation, Cardiff University)

Sunday 26 May
10:00–10:30 Dulcie Engel (The Egypt Centre) – Objects from a Victorian Gentleman’s Cabinet of Curiosities: The John Foulkes Jones Collection at the Egypt Centre
10:30–11:00 John Rogers (Swansea University) – All the Words Unspoken: A Faience Flute and the Materiality of Music
11:00–11:30 Coffee & Handling 3
11:30–12:00 Christian Knoblauch (Swansea University) – Abydos in Swansea
12:00–12:30 Katharina Zinn (University of Wales Trinity Saint David) – So Much Choice for a Good Sleep: Headrests and the Egypt Centre
12:30–13:30 Lunch
13:30–14:00 Nigel Pollard (Swansea University) – Central Power and Local Tradition in the Roman Empire: Roman Coins from the Egypt Centre
14:00–14:30 Ersin Hussein (Swansea University) – Show Us Your Metal! Investigating the Materiality of Artefacts Held in the Egypt Centre
14:30–15:00 Coffee & Handling 4
15:00–15:30 Richard Johnston (Swansea University) – Visualising the Votive: Revealing Mummified Animals using X-rays
15:30–16:00 Syd Howells (The Egypt Centre) – Dr. William Price and the Welsh Pharaohs (EC1149 & EC1943)
16:00–16:30 Summing up

Fig. 2: Silver drachm of Trajan (EC1494)

Talks will take place in the Mall Room of the Taliesin Create (Singleton Campus, Swansea University), with the handling sessions in the adjacent Studio. Due to the size of the venue, the event will be limited to sixty people. The cost for the event (both days) is £30, which includes lunch and coffee breaks. Booking for this event is essential. If you would like to attend, please download the booking form and return it ASAP along with your payment to ensure attendance. For any questions, please email me at k.griffin@swansea.ac.uk. We look forward to sharing our research with you!

From Hatshepsut to Neferure: W1376

This time last year, I had the chance to examine a limestone fragment (W1376) that had been kept in the Egypt Centre store (fig. 1). Based on an old black and white photograph and the description of the object in the Egypt Centre catalogue, I requested the relief for a handling session on the art of the Middle Kingdom. W1376 had been labelled as a Middle Kingdom relief, perhaps based on the suggestion of Bernard Bothmer (1912–1993), a noted authority on ancient Egyptian art, who visited the Wellcome Museum (the precursor to the Egypt Centre) in the late 1980s. Bothmer had proposed a Twelfth Dynasty date in a letter written to Kate Bosse-Griffiths (1910–1998) in 1992. Upon seeing the relief, my immediate view was that it originated from the Eighteenth Dynasty memorial temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari.

Fig. 1: W1376

W1376 is an irregularly shaped limestone fragment measuring 49 cm in height and 37 cm in width. The front (fig. 2) of the fragment contains the head of a figure whose face is now missing, with the carving of the eye displaying a long cosmetic line and low brow. The figure wears an ibs-wig with echeloned curls that completely cover the ears. The head is adorned with a sšd-diadem, knotted at the back in the shape of two lotus flowers with double ribbons. An uraeus entwines the diadem on the forehead. Behind the head are the remains of a fan possibly held by a personified-ʿnḫ. Additionally, the tips of three feathers are preserved in the top left, belonging to the wing of a vulture that would have hovered above. This iconography clearly indicates that the head belongs to a royal person!

Fig. 2: Front of W1376

One of the keys to identifying the figure lies with the hieroglyphs above the head. While the inscription is only partially preserved, its formulaic nature means it can be tentatively reconstructed on the basis of numerous parallels (fig. 3). [dı͗ ʿnḫ ḏd wȝs nb] ȝw<t>-ı͗b.s [mi Rʿ] ḏt, “[Given all life, stability, and dominion], her heart being rejoiced [like Re] forever”. The vital sign here is the use of the feminine pronoun (), which immediately suggested to me that the head belonged to none other than Hatshepsut, the great female ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The press release issued by the Egypt Centre stating such was picked up by many major news outlets including the BBC. Yet by the time this press release was issued, I had already determined that the head actually depicted someone far more elusive.

Fig. 3: Proposed reconstruction of the hieroglyphs

What I had initially missed were the traces of an erased modius, which is still present upon the head of the figure (fig. 4). The modius, which confirmed that the figure was female, is most commonly associated with the God’s Wife of Amun. Yet while Hatshepsut held the title of God’s Wife of Amun, she had already relinquished this office in favour of her daughter, Neferure, by the time the work on her memorial temple at Deir el-Bahari had commenced. Neferure is commonly shown wearing the ibs-wig with sšd-diadem and a modius in the exact same manner as on the Swansea fragment. In fact, six of the eight scenes of Neferure at Deir el-Bahari were carefully modified to instead represent Hatshepsut’s parents Iahmes or Thutmose I. In particular, the modius was erased and the ibs-wig modified into a vulture cap when representing Iahmes. It is the erasure of the modius on W1376 that indicates to me that the relief instead depicts Neferure!

Fig. 4: Drawing of W1376 by Felicitas Weber

The reverse of the upper part of W1376 depicts the face of a nobleman with a short beard carved in raised relief. While the lower fragment is 4.5 cm deep, the upper fragment is only 3 cm, confirming that the face was only carved after W1376 had been cut from the wall. This suggests that W1376 had been specifically cut into two pieces so that the reverse of the upper fragment could be used to carve a new face for the original figure (fig. 5), an action that also explains the unusually rounded shape of the upper fragment. When this adjustment took place and who was responsible is unknown, but it was likely done by a dealer, auctioneer, or previous owner in order to increase both the monetary and aesthetic value of the object. Intriguingly, the Egypt Centre possesses a plaster cast of the carving on the reverse (EC1288).

Fig. 5: Photoshopped image of W1376 with reworked head

While the exact placement of the relief within the temple at Deir el-Bahari is currently unknown, it seems likely that it came from the Upper Courtyard. Since the identification of this relief, it has been put on display in the House of Life at the Egypt Centre. This past week it was used again for a handling session on ancient Egyptian art and architecture. A full study on W1376 has been submitted for publication and is currently under review.

Bibliography:
Bierbrier, M. L. (2012) Who Was Who in Egyptology. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. 4th edition.
Kitchen, K. A. (1963) ‘A Long-lost Portrait of Princess Neferurē’ from Deir El-Baḥri’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 49: 38–40.
Laboury, D. (2014) ‘How and Why did Hatshepsut Invent the Image of Her Royal Power?’. In Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut: Papers from the Theban Workshop 2010, ed. J. M. Galán, B. M. Bryan and P. F. Dorman. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 69. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 49–91.
Myśliwiec, K. (1976) Le portrait royal dans le bas-relief du Nouvel Empire. Travaux du Centre d’Archéologie méditerranéenne de l’Académie polonaise des Sciences sous la direction de Kazimierz Michałowski 18. Varsovie: PWN - Éditions Scientifiques de Pologne.

Pawlicki, F. (2007) ‘Princess Neferure in the Temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari: Failed Heiress to the Pharaoh’s Throne?’. Études et travaux: Travaux du Centre d’archéologie méditerranéene de l’Académie polonaise des sciences 21: 109–127.

Szafrański, Z. E. (2007). ‘King (?) Neferure, Daughter of Kings Tuthmosis II and Hatshepsut’. Études et travaux: Travaux du Centre d’archéologie méditerranéene de l’Académie polonaise des sciences 21: 139–150.

A Canopic Jar Stopper or a Head from a Statue?

Last Thursday, as part of my Egypt Centre course on the Funerary Culture of Ancient Egypt, we examined a number of objects relating to the theme of mummification. While preparing the objects earlier that morning, I made a last minute decision to change a canopic jar stopper of Qebehsenuef (EC388) to one identified as Imsety (W1024). Canopic jars were used for housing the internal organs of the deceased and were named after the four sons of the god Horus. Imsety, who takes the form of a man, looks after the intestines. While the Egypt Centre has a number of head stoppers, we do not have a complete set of jars (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Canopic jars of Pakherenkhonsu. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (28.3.56a, b)

The head is carved out of limestone and has been very finely polished, measuring 10cm in height. It has large, well-modelled ears that seem to hold back the bulging curvature of the wig. The mouth, which is not quite straight, has a slight smile. The eyes slant down towards the nose, while no eyebrows were ever carved. Additionally, the figure has a short beard on the end of his chin (figs 2–3).

Fig. 2: Front view of W1024

Fig. 3: Side view of W1024

While these features are commonly found on canopic jars, particularly those dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty, there are a number of issues that suggested to me that it was something else. Firstly, the base is lacking the plug element that would have inserted into the jar to prevent that lid from falling off. Instead, the entire base is covered in chisel marks (fig. 4). Given that the base and plug would have only had a depth of several centimetres, it seems strange that this would have been purposely removed. Additionally, around the edges of the base, there is a slight outwards curvature or lip in a few places, thus indicating that the head was originally attached to something. This curvature would not fit with canopic jars, which suggests that W1024 is instead the head of a statue!

Fig. 4: Base of W1024

If W1024 is the head of a limestone statue then it seems likely that it was part of a block statue. Block statues were one of the most common types of private sculpture from the Middle Kingdom through the Ptolemaic Period. More than 350 of these statues were discovered in the Karnak Cachette, which was excavated during the early twentieth century. These statues are characterised by the squatting posture of the owner, who is shown with the knees drawn up in front of the chest and the arms crossed above them. They served to represent non-royal persons in a general context of solar beliefs. The Egypt Centre is fortunate to have a complete limestone block statue (W921) in the collection, which belonged to a priest from Saft el-Henna named Aba, son of Ramose. This statue, which was published by Tony Leahy, can be dated to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Based on the proportions of W1024, the complete block statue would have measured approximately 50cm in height.

Fig. 5: Block statue of Aba (W921)

W1024 originates from the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell (1859–1943), which was sold by Sotheby's between 19–21 December 1906. While the head is illustrated on plate 6 of the catalogue (fig. 6), the exact lot number is not so clear. One possibility is that it was lot 223, which was purchased by Harry Stow for the sum of £4/4. The catalogue entry describes the lot as an "upper part of a basalt figure of a man holding two long vases (Plate VI, 26); eleven heads from small statuettes, in varied material; a fragmentary head of Osiris from a large figure, finely worked in a close-grained marble: and three other pieces." Stow was a well-known and frequent buyer for Henry Wellcome, with at least three of the objects from this lot housed in the Egypt Centre.

Fig. 6: Plate VI of the 1906 de Rustafjaell catalogue with the head as number 27.

Further research is needed on this head in order to determine the exact dating. As always, we welcome further discussion and comments on this piece!

Bibliography:
Bierbrier, M. L. (2012) Who Was Who in Egyptology. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. 4th edition.
Bothmer, B. (1994) ‘Block statues of Dynasty XXV’. In Hommages à Jean Leclant 2: Nubie, Soudan, Ethiopie, ed. C. Berger, G. Clerc and N. Grimal. Bibliothèque d’étude 106. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. 61–68.
Dodson, A. (1994) The Canopic Equipment of Kings of Egypt. London: Kegan Paul International.

Leahy, A. (1990) ‘A Late Period Block Statuette from Saft el-Henna’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 76: 194–196.

Schulz, R. (1992) Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus: Eine Untersuchung zu den sogenannten “Würfelhockern”. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 33–34. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. 

Schulz, R. (2011) ‘Block Statue’. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Version 1, September 2011. 1–10. Available from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3f23c0q9.

Sotheby, W. H. (1906) Catalogue of the Collection of Egyptian Antiquities Formed in Egypt, by R. de Rustafjaell, Esq. Queen’s Gate, S. W. London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge. 

A Reserve Head at the Egypt Centre

Last week was another busy one at the Egypt Centre with several object handling sessions booked in. One particular session dealt with sculpture, as part of an Art and Architecture module led by Dr. Christian Knoblauch. Four objects were selected for the session by Christian and I, with the objects ranging from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period. As always, the students thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to handle real Egyptian objects (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Students examining some Egypt Centre sculpture

The oldest of the four objects selected was a "reserve head" (W164), which is carved from badly abraded limestone. Despite being life-size (23 cm), it was clearly not part of a larger statue as it is carefully smoothed off on the base. The head has close-cropped hair, eyebrows that are sculpted in raised low relief, and no ears present. Additionally, a "cranial groove" is present, a careful and deliberate cut that typically starts from the top of the cranium and extends to the back of the neck, is present. Traces of green pigment is present on the right side of the object, although this is perhaps copper residue from objects stored with it—as is the case with other objects in the collection—rather than an indication that it was originally painted (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Reserve head (W164)

Reserve heads are one of the most distinctive types of objects dating to the Old Kingdom, specifically to the Fourth Dynasty and the reigns of Khufu and Khafre (2551–2496 BC). They are attested mainly from the site of Giza, although others are noted from Abusir, Saqqara, and Dahshur. Only around thirty-seven are known, most of which are made of limestone. Their function is not so clear, with Ludwig Borchardt (1863–1938) first suggesting that they served as an alternative home for the spirit (ka) of the deceased owner if anything were to happen to their body. It has also been noted that the heads have a certain amount of individualisation mixed with idealisation. Most of the heads show some form of damage or mutilation, which has been the subject of much debate. This includes the ears being broken off or chiselled away, while others display the cranial groove (fig. 3). Roland Tefnin (1945–2006) suggested that the heads were ritually mutilated to prevent them from harming the living. Alternatively, Peter Lacovara believes that the "mutilations" were guidelines used by the sculptor in the creation of the reserve head.

Fig. 3: Rear of the head with cranial groove present (W164)

W164 was purchased by a Mr. Williams on behalf of Sir. Henry Wellcome for £1/5 shillings on the 13 November 1928. The Sotheby's auction catalogue (lot 378) describes it as "a life size head of a man, in stone with traces of original coloration. Ancient Egyptian." Unfortunately, the object is listed under the section of "other properties" rather than specifically listing the previous owner. Given the rarity of reserve heads, some Egyptologists who have visited the Egypt Centre collection have dismissed it as a fake. Yet the size, material, and form of W164 match well with those excavated at Giza and elsewhere. I hope that this post will generate some discussion on the authenticity of W164 (fig. 4).

Fig. 4: W164

Bibliography:
Lacovara, P. (1997) ‘The Riddle of the Reserve Heads’. KMT 8, 4: 28–36.
Mendoza, B. (2017) ‘Reserve Head’. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Version 1, February 2017. 1–14. Available from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9g46r4fv.
Millet, N. B. (1981) ‘The Reserve Heads of The Old Kingdom’. In Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980, ed. W. K. Simpson and W. M. Davis. Boston, MA: Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts. 122–131.
Nuzzolo, M. (2011) ‘The ‘Reserve Heads’: Some Remarks on Their Function and Meaning’. In Old Kingdom, New Perspectives: Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750–2150 BC, ed. N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 200–216.
Picardo, N. S. (2007) ‘‘Semantic Homicide’ and the So-called Reserve Heads: The Theme of Decapitation in Egyptian Funerary Religion and Some Implications for the Old Kingdom’. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 43: 221–252.
Roehrig, C. H. (1999) ‘Reserve Heads: An Enigma of Old Kingdom Sculpture’. In Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids, ed. Anonymous. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art. 72–81.
Tefnin, R. (1991) Art et magie au temps des pyramides: L’enigme des têtes dites ‘de replacement’. Monumenta Aegyptiaca 5. Brussels: Fondation egyptologique reine Elisabeth.
Vandersleyen, C. L. (1977) ‘Ersatzkopf’. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie 2, ed. H. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 11–14.

Object-Based Learning at the Egypt Centre

This past week has been quite a busy one at the Egypt Centre with several modules at Swansea University utilising the collection. On Monday, Dr. Ersin Hussein, an ancient historian with interests in local identity formation in the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean, had a handling session at the Egypt Centre as part of her module Set in Stone? Inscribing and Writing in Antiquity. This module provides an overview of a history of inscribing objects in antiquity with a focus on the use of epigraphic evidence for the study of ancient history. For this session, a total of six objects were chosen for the students, some of which had never been used as teaching aids before (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Handling session in progress (photo by Ersin Hussein)

While the name of the Egypt Centre implies that we only have Egyptian objects in the collection, this session was a great opportunity to showcase some non-Egyptian material. One of the most interesting pieces is W953, a fragment of an Old South Arabian funerary stela (fig. 2). This is one of three Old South Arabian objects in the collection, which were all published by Prof. Ken Kitchen in 1997. The fragment, which is made of pink alabaster, contains the head of the owner with a partial horizontal text above. The text identifies the owner as "Sharah, son of (the clan) […]" (Šrḥ / bn / […]). Although the provenance of the fragment is unknown, it likely comes from the cemetery at Qataban (modern Yemen). The closest parallel is YM 69, housed in the National Museum of Yemen, Sana'a, which dates to the first century BC. YM 69 depicts the owner with his right arm upraised (an act of prayer or greeting) while holding a sword in his left (fig. 3). 

Fig. 2: W953

Fig. 3: YM 69 (https://www.akg-images.de/archive/-2UMDHUTKDGMW.html)

Another object used during this handling session was W950, a Sumerian fired brick with a stamp written in cuneiform (fig. 4). The text, written from left to right in four horizontal lines, reads as “Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, who built the temple of Nanna” (ur – {d}nammu lugal urí{ki}-ma lú é {d}nanna in-dù-a). Ur-Nammu (𒌨𒀭𒇉) was the founder of the Sumerian Third Dynasty of Ur, in southern Mesopotamia, who ruled around 2047–2030 BC. His death on the battle-field against the Gutians after a rule of eighteen years was commemorated in a long Sumerian poetic composition. The Code of Ur-Nammu is one of the oldest known law codes surviving today. Nanna (𒀭𒋀𒆠) was the god of the moon whose main temple was at Ur. Parallels to this stamp are well-known, such as British Museum 90801.

Fig. 4: W950

Recent studies have shown that Object-Based Learning has many benefits, including the long-term retention of ideas. Handling sessions offer a tactile experience for students, challenging them to interrogate the object and conceptualise their thinking. Object-Based Learning has been practised at the Egypt Centre for many years now, enhancing the degree schemes at Swansea University (fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Examining a mummy label (W549)

Bibliography:
Chatterjee, H. and L. Hannan. eds. (2017) Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Hamblin, W. J. (2006) Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. London: Routledge.

Kitchen, K. A. (1997) ‘Three Old-South-Arabian Fragments in the Wellcome Collection, University of Wales, Swansea’. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 8: 241–244.

Paris, S. G. ed. (2002) Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums. London: Routledge.

Walker, C. B. F. (1981) Cuneiform brick inscriptions in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, the City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. London: British Museum Press. 

Work in the Valley of the Kings

On Saturday I spent my last day working in the Valley of the Kings before returning home to Swansea. As mentioned in my previous post, I am part of the Pacific Lutheran University Valley of the Kings Project (PLUVK) directed by Dr. Donald ("Don") Ryan. The project has been working in the Valley since 1989, specifically on undecorated tombs. In total, Don is responsible for re-excavating 11 of the 64 tombs in the Valley. This season, work focused on KV 49, which was discovered in January 1906 by Edward R. Ayrton (1882–1914) working for Theodore M. Davis (1837–1915). We commenced work on the 2nd February, with a team consisting of Don (Project Director), Denis Whitfill (Assistant Field Director), Dr. David Aston (Ceramicist), myself, and 8 Egyptian workmen (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Team photo (Photo: Denis Whitfill/PLUVK)

KV 49 is a small undecorated tomb, which can be dated by its architecture to the Eighteenth Dynasty. The tomb appears to have been reused at the turn of the Twentieth and Twenty-first dynasties, as is evident from two hieratic graffiti written above the entrance. Both texts mention a number of officials, including the well-known royal scribe Butehamun. The texts describe the bringing of large quantities of linin over a period of several months. This led Egyptologist Nicholas Reeves to propose that the tomb had been employed as a storeroom for linens used in the restoration of the royal mummies (fig. 2)

Fig. 2: Outside KV 49 (Photo: Denis Whitfill/PLUVK)

The tomb's entrance had remained open for over 100 years and its interior encumbered with all manner of natural and human debris. Most of this debris had been removed during the 2018 campaign. As a result, it only took us a little over a week to finish up the clearing and cleaning. During the brushing of the floor on my final day, several nice seal impressions were recovered by the sifters. (fig. 3). Since some are only the size of a fingernail, they would probably have been overlooked if it wasn't for all the debris from the tomb being carefully screened by the keen-eyed workmen.

Fig. 3: Registering the seal impressions (Photo: PLUVK)

My time with the project was split between working in the Valley and with the objects housed in the magazine, located a short distance from the house of Howard Carter. Denis and I focused on photographing and studying coffin fragments from KV 45 and fragments of painted plaster on linen originating from KV 60. KV 45, the tomb of an official of the Eighteenth Dynasty named Userhat, was discovered by Howard Carter in 1902. Carter noted two mummies of the Twenty-second Dynasty, which were contained within double coffins. However, due to the tomb being badly decayed by water, he was unable to remove the coffins at the time. It wasn't until the PLUVK project re-excavated the tomb in between 1991 that the fragments of these coffins could be recovered. KV 60, which also dates to the Eighteenth Dynasty, was discovered by Howard Carter in 1903. The tomb contained two bodies of females, including Sitre, the wet nurse of the female pharaoh Hatshepsut. The identity of the second mummy has been the subject of much discussion, with some scholars believing that it's none other than that of Hatshepsut herself! During the re-excavation of the tomb by the project in 1989, many fragments of painted plaster on linen, which were originally attached to wooden coffins, were identified. These fragments originally belonged to a coffin of the temple signer Ty, a large fragment of which was recovered from the tomb (fig. 4). For more on this enigmatic and controversial tomb, please read the following blog post: http://pluvk.blogspot.com/2016/02/kv-60-enigmatic-and-controversial-tomb.html

Fig. 4: Coffin fragment of the temple singer Ty (Photo: Denis Whitfill/PLUVK)

Aside from the work, it was great to meet so many colleagues and friends. This incudes one of the Egypt Centre volunteers, Dulcie Engel, who was travelling with her husband (Gabby) to Egypt for the first time. On Thursday evening we had an excellent meal in Pub 2000. (fig. 5), where we also discussed the various sites they had visited!

Fig. 5: A relaxing evening at Pub 2000

Bibliography:
Carter, H. (1903) ‘Report of Work Done in Upper Egypt (1902–1903)’. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 4: 171–180.
Reeves, C. N. (1990) Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal Necropolis. Studies in Egyptology. London: Kegan Paul International.

Reeves, C. N. and R. H. Wilkinson (1996) The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson.

Ryan, D. P. (1990) ‘Field Report: Who is Buried in KV60?’. KMT 1, 1: 34–39, 58–59, 64.
Ryan, D. P. (1992) ‘Some Observations Concerning Uninscribed Tombs in the Valley of the Kings’. In After Tut’ankhamūn: Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes, ed. C. N. Reeves. Studies in Egyptology. London: Kegan Paul International. 21–27.
Ryan, D. P. (2010) ‘Pacific Lutheran University Valley of the Kings Project: Work Conducted during the 2007 Field Season’. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 84: 383–388.

Gold from the Valley of the Kings

On Wednesday 30th January I flew to Luxor to spend the next 12 days as part of the Pacific Lutheran University Valley of the Kings Project directed by Don Ryan. The work this season will focus on the clearance of KV 49, which was discovered in January 1906 by Edward R. Ayrton (1882–1914) working for Theodore M. Davis (1837–1915).

Working in the Valley provides a good opportunity to highlight some objects in the Egypt Centre collection that originate from here. These objects are currently on loan from the Swansea Museum, having been donated by Miss Annie Sprake Jones of Bryn Myrddin, Abergwili (Carmarthenshire) in the late 1950s. The objects had been left to Miss Jones by her brother, Ernest Harold Jones (1877–1911), after his death (fig. 1). Harold Jones, as he was more commonly known as, was first employed by John Garstang (1876–1956) as an illustrator for the 1903–1904 season at Beni Hasan. After this, he took on responsibilities directing excavations at Beni Hasan, Hierakonpolis, Esna, Hissaya, Abydos, and various sites in Nubia. In 1907 he parted company with Garstang and joined the expedition of Theodore M. Davis (1837–1915) in the Valley of the Kings.

Fig. 1: Portrait of Harold Jones

First to be discussed is a small box containing gold leaf fragments (SM.1950.3.9), believed to have come from the gold shrine discovered within KV 55 (fig. 2). This tomb, which was found in 1907 by Edward Ayrton working for Theodore Davis, is perhaps the most controversial burial place in the Valley of the Kings. KV 55 had been looted in ancient times, but it had also suffered from flooding and moisture. This caused the large decorated wooden panels, which were gilded with a thin layer of gold leaf, to disintegrate soon after their discovery. Visitors to the tomb at the time noted that there was gold dust everywhere. Miss Jones reported that during a visit to the tomb her brother asked Theodore Davis if he could take a handful of 'souvenirs'. Davis' response was "Certainly, take two"!

Fig 2: Fragments of gold leaf from KV 55

The second object to be presented is a fragment of glass (SM.1959.3.2) bearing the cartouches of the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh Amenhotep II (fig. 3). According to Miss Jones, this fragment also originated from KV 55. Yet SM.1959.3.2 joins with a white amphora vessel (Cairo CG 24804) excavated by Victor Loret (1859–1946) within the burial chamber of Amenhotep II (KV 35) in 1898. The debate surrounding the provenance of this fragment has been discussed by Bosse-Griffiths (originally in 1961, reprinted in 2001) and Aldred (1962). More recently, the article by Nicholson and Jackson (2013) nicely sums up the various possibilities. In particular: (1) that the vessel was originally deposited in KV 55 before being moved to KV 35 along with the mummy of Queen Tiye (the "Elder Lady"), with the fragment collected by Jones overlooked by the ancient Egyptians since the vessel had been broken by looters. (2) The vessel originated from KV 35 with the Swansea fragment having been recovered by Jones during his clearance of Davis' spoil heap.

Fig. 3: Glass fragment with the cartouches of Amenhotep II (SM.1959.3.2) 

Harold Jones is well known for the beautiful watercolours he produced for a number of tombs in the Valley of the Kings, particularly those used in the publication of the tomb of Siptah (KV 47). Some of these watercolours and objects originating from excavations in which Harold Jones participated are currently housed in the Carmarthenshire County Museum. At an unknown date Kate Bosse-Griffiths (1910–1998), the first Honorary Curator of the Egypt Centre collection (formerly known as the Wellcome Collection) acquired two lesser-known watercolours produced by Jones. One of them depicts the modern cultivation with a mountain range in the background, perhaps the Theban hillside where he spent his formative years (fig. 4). The story of Harold Jones was rather brief as he succumbed to Tuberculosis in 1911 at the age of 34. The bilingual inscription on his Luxor gravestone reads:

GWYN EU BYD Y RHAI PUR O GALON

BLESSED ARE THE PURE IN HEART

Fig. 4: Watercolour perhaps depicting the Theban hillside.

Bibliography
Aldred, C. (1962) ‘The Harold Jones Collection’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48: 160–162.
Bierbrier, M. L. (2012) Who Was Who in Egyptology. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. 4th edition.
Bosse-Griffiths, K. (2001) ‘Finds from “the Tomb of Queen Tiye” in the Swansea Museum’. In Amarna Studies and other Selected Papers, ed. J. G. Griffiths. Freiburg (Schweiz); Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 97–107.

Bosse-Griffiths, K. (2001) ‘Gold-leaf from the Shrine of Queen Tiye’. In Amarna Studies and other Selected Papers, ed. J. G. Griffiths. Freiburg (Schweiz); Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 108–110.

Davis, T. M. ed. (1910) The Tomb of Queen Tîyi. Theodore M. Davis’ excavations: Bibân el Molûk. London: Constable.
Delaney, C. (1986) “A Son to Luxor’s Sand”: A Commemorative Exhibition of Egyptian Art from the Collections of the British Museum and Carmarthen Museum. Dyfed: Dyfed County Council. 

Evans, N. (2014) ‘A Welshman in Egypt: Harold Jones: Tombs, Treasures, Artist Extraordinary’. Ancient Egypt: The History, People and Culture of the Nile Valley 84: 26–33.

Nicholson, P. T. and C. Jackson (2013) ‘Glass of Amenhotep II from Tomb KV55 in the Valley of the Kings’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 99: 85–99.

Pinch-Brock, L. (2007) ‘The Short, Happy Life of Harold Jones, Artist and Archaeologist’. In Who Travels Sees More: Artists, Architects and Archaeologists Discover Egypt and the Near East, ed. D. Fortenberry. Oxford: ASTENE; Oxbow. 31–39.

Reeves, C. N. and R. H. Wilkinson (1996) The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson.
Schlick-Nolte, B., R. Werthmann, and C. E. Loeben (2011) ‘An Outstanding Glass Statuette Owned by Pharaoh Amenhotep II and Other Early Egyptian Glass Inscribed with Royal Names’. Journal of Glass Studies 53: 11–44.