Selecting the Highlights of the Egypt Centre. Please Vote!

Last month we decided that the Egypt Centre would create a small booklet containing fifteen highlights from the House of Death and fifteen from the House of Life. After some discussion of what should be included, we thought that we should let our award-winning volunteers decide. However, we also decided that it would be beneficial to open voting to the public, particularly as the museum is keen on widening participation. With the photography of the objects completed, the voting is now open and will remain so throughout the month of May. The announcement of the objects selected will be made during Volunteers’ Week, which takes place in the first week of June. To take part in the vote, please click on the following link and select up to fifteen objects per gallery. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/23FZCDG

Objects from the House of Death (fig. 1) are:

Number	EC number	Title
1	W1982	Coffin of the Chantress of Amun, Iwesemhesetmut
2	W867	Book of Dead papyrus of Ankh-hapi
3	W1013	Cartonnage coffin with foetus
4	W164	Reserve head
5	W379	Overseer shabti of Ptahhotep
6	AB110	Cippus
7	W549	Greek mummy label
8	W1283	Bes pot
9	W529	Cat mummy mask
10	W85	Standing Osiris statue
11	W1374	Statue of Isis suckling Horus
12	PM18	Sopdu-Hor amulet
13	W927	Khabekhenet wall relief
14	W56	Stela of Isis-Thermouthis and Serapis-Agathadaimon
15	W233	Heart scarab of Padiamun
16	W429	Ba-bird
17	W1024	Limestone head of private statue
18	W918	Gilded cartonnage mask
19	W648	Third Intermediate Period coffin fragment
20	W1041	Edfu stela of Pasherienimhotep
21	W481	Pottery offering tray
22	W194	Head of Ptolemaic queen
23	W1377	Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tomb painting
24	W496	Glazed Sekhmet statue
25	W535	Bird coffin with mummy
26	W1367a & b	Sarcophagus fragments of Amenhotep son of Hapu

Fig. 1: Montage of objects in the House of Death

Objects from the House of Life (fig. 2) consist of:

Number	EC number	Title
27	W581	Middle Kingdom battle axe
28	W277	Carnelian anklet with snake heads
29	W1376	Temple relief of Neferure
30	EC1307	Marble votive footprint
31	W921	Statue of Aba
32	W957	Paneb’s offering stand
33	W946 bis	Commodus stela
34	W836	Granite head of a goddess
35	W9	Amarna collar with Beset
36	AR50-2883	Flint hand axe
37	AR50-3540	Miniature Quran
38	W5303	Black-topped redware pot
39	W491	Tjenti’s lintel
40	W802	Amarna plaster with elbow of Akhenaten
41	W500	Faience wall tiles
42	EC1473	Metal plaque of Constantine and Helena
43	W2045	Stone offering table
44	W1150	Lute player ring bezel
45	W793	Amethyst scarab bracelet
46	W769	Paddle doll
47	W1371	Temple relief of Thutmose III
48	EC5001	Feldspar bead
49	W5308	D-Ware pot
50	WK44	Bes bell
51	W967	Book of Esther
52	W952	Cuneiform brick of Nebuchadnezzar II

Fig. 2: Montage of objects in the House of Life

Regular readers of this blog will recognise some of the objects available for selection. From the House of Dead are the reserve head (W164) and the limestone head from a private statue (W1024), while in the House of Life the temple relief depicting Neferure (W1376), a plaster fragment from Amarna with the elbow of Akhenaten (W802), a paddle doll (W769), and a D-Ware vessel (W5308) all featured in recent weeks. Given the number of objects available to select from, it is not really possible to highlight them all here. So, please vote and share the link with your family and friends in order to give us as much input as possible. The objects are all on display within the Egypt Centre, so why not pop in and have a look. Feel free to also tell us your favourite object, and why, in the comment section of the blog!

The Tattooed Lady of the Egypt Centre

Last Thursday, as part of the final class on the funerary culture of the ancient Egyptians, we examined a “paddle doll”. Paddle dolls are a particular type of figurine named because they are made from a flat, shaped piece of wood, which usually have long strings of mud or faience beads attached at one end to imitate hair. In the past, they have been interpreted variously as concubines for the dead, as children’s toys, or as figurines embodying the concept of fertility and rebirth. Most recently, Ellen Morris (2011; 2017) has argued that they were representations of specific living women, who can be identified as the khener-dancers of Hathor. This is based on their tattoos, which resemble those found on women buried in and around the precinct of the mortuary temple of Montuhotep II at Deir el-Bahari. The majority of paddle dolls excavated can be dated to the Eleventh and Twelfth dynasties.

Fig. 1: W769

W769 is a flat, paddle shaped, wooden figure that is, unfortunately, missing its head. The shape of these figures has been compared to the counterpoise of an ancient Egyptian menat collar, which is closely associated with the goddess Hathor (Oppemheim et al. 2015, 106–7). The figure measures 205mm in height, 54mm in width, and 4.7mm in its depth. Both sides of the figure are decorated with black markings, which represent tattoos. It is currently on display in the body adornment case in the House of Life. W769 was purchased as part of lot 407 by Sir Henry Wellcome on the 1 July 1919. The flimsy slip (52536) in the archives of the Wellcome Institute describes it as a “Doll. Wood, head missing, crudely made, with traces of decoration. 8 inches x 2 inches” (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Flimsy slip in the Wellcome archives.

The decorative marks on the front of the figure are much more prevalent than those on the back (fig. 3). Starting from the top, a broad collar has been included. Below this, the breasts have been highlighted through the use of six dots forming circles. Two rows of diagonal dashes on the chest represent the top of a garment, which continues (despite being difficult to see) to the waist. Here, a thick band of diagonal dashes represents the belt of the dress. The most prominent feature is the dotted pubic triangle below, which is the one constant in the iconic repertoire of paddle dolls (Morris 2011, 86).

Fig. 3: Front side of W769

Despite the rear of the paddle doll containing less decoration, what is present is most interesting (fig. 4). The upper half consists of a series of dots, which perhaps represent that straps of the dress. A belt has also been included at waist level. Directly above this a drawing of a frog (fig. 5), which clearly represents a figural tattoo! Frogs were associated with fertility and the goddess Heket. Although figural tattoos are known from other examples of paddle dolls, particularly in the form of birds (Morris 2011, 82), I am unaware of any other frogs. As highlighted by Morris (2011), the decoration of the paddle dolls, including the figural tattoos, can be found on the bodies of some women buried at Deir el-Bahari.

Reverse side of W769

While identifying tattoos on Egyptian mummies is nothing new (Keimer 1948; Poon & Quickenden 2006), research on the topic has increased considerably in the last few years. Perhaps most well-known is the identification of a torso at Deir el-Medina of a female mummy that was heavily tattooed along the arms, shoulders, neck, and back (Austin & Gobeil 2016). Additionally, the oldest known examples of figural tattoos, which were found on two Predynastic mummies, have been identified (Friedman et al. 2018). Interestingly, the tattoos mirror motifs found in Predynastic art, in a similar way to the marks on the paddle dolls resembling the tattoos on the mummies of some Middle Kingdom women!

Fig. 5: Frog tattoo on the reverse of W769

Bibliography:
Austin, A. and C. Gobeil (2016) ‘Embodying the Divine: A Tattooed Female Mummy from Deir el-Medina’. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 116: 23–46.

Díaz Hernández, R. A. (2017) ‘“Paddle Dolls” – Ritual Figurines of Fertility’. In Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–15000 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th–20th September 2014 at UCL, London, ed. G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven: Peeters. 125–132.

Friedman, R., D. Antoine, S. Talamo, P. J. Reimer, J. H. Taylor, B. Wills, and M. Mannino (2018) ‘Natural Mummies from PredynasticEgypt Reveal the World’s Earliest Figural Tattoos’. Journal of Archaeological Science 92: 116–125.

Keimer, L. (1948) Remarques sur le tatouage dans l’Égypteancienne. Mémoire de l’Institut d’Égypte 53. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Morris, E. F. (2011) ‘Paddle Dolls and Performance’. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 47: 71–103.

Morris, E. F. (2017) ‘Middle Kingdom Clappers, Dancers, Birth Magic, and the Reinvention of Ritual’. In Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–15000 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th–20th September 2014 at UCL, London, ed. G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 262. Leuven: Peeters. 285–335.

Oppenheim, A., D. Arnold, D. Arnold, and K. Yamamoto eds. (2015) Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Poon, K. W. C. and T. I. Quickenden (2006) ‘A Review of Tattooing in Ancient Egypt’. The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 17: 123–136.

Reuniting a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Figure?

This past Thursday, as part of an Egypt Centre evening course on the funerary culture of the ancient Egyptians, we examined a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure (W475b) from the collection (fig. 1). The Egypt Centre has seventeen Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures in the collection, in addition to other elements originating from these figures. Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures emerge as a key item of burial equipment during the Nineteenth Dynasty, although they are more common from the Third Intermediate Period through the Graeco-Roman Period. The figures are identified as Osiris in the earlier examples before later representing the composite deity Ptah-Sokar-Osiris. Osiris was the god of the dead and the king of the Netherworld. Ptah was one of the main creator gods of the Egyptian pantheon while Sokar was also associated with the Netherworld. The syncretism of these deities, who are usually shown mummiform, has a deep connection with the deceased and were designed to grant them resurrection.

Fig. 1: Front view of W475b

W395b is a polychrome Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure measuring 36cm in its height (fig. 2). It can be identified as a “Type III” figure following the classification of Maarten Raven (1978–1979). This consists of a mummiform figure wearing a šwty-crown (only the stump remaining on W475b) and without arms or hands. The tripartite wig is blue while the face is green with details in black and white (eyes). The figure has a red headband, which is tied at the rear. There is a simple concentric collar around the shoulders, interrupted by the three lappets of the wig; the collar has concentric stripes (green, blue, and red on a yellow background). The body of the figure is red and is provided with a blue and yellow reticulated pattern imitating a bead net. W475b has a back pillar that forms a continuation of the wig lappet on the shoulders. Between the base and figure is a plinth, which is decorated with a green, yellow, and red rectangle on all four sides. Single vertical columns of hieroglyphs are located on the front and rear of the figure.

Fig. 2: W475b

But what of the base that the figure originally sat inside? Searching through the Egypt Centre catalogue reveals that there is only one base in the collection, W475 (fig. 3). This rectangular base, which contains a continuous inscription on the front, left, and right sides, has two cavities on the top; the one at the rear for the stump of the figure and the one at the front usually reserved for papyrus or a small mummiform figure. To my amazement, when I examined the interior of the front cavity I was able to spot small flakes of inscribed papyrus that were stuck to the bottom! W475 had been previously associated with another Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, W452, as can be seen in a photo published by Gwyn Griffiths (1996, fig. 5). Yet this association must be rejected for a number of reasons, including the fact that they have two different lot numbers; W465 bears the sticker identifying it as lot 250 whereas W452 is lot 258. No auction details are known for W475b, which allows for the possibility that it originally belonged with the base. In fact, the figure fits perfectly into the cavity of the base, the only one of our Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures to do so. Additionally, the lot label on the top of the base is at an angle that matches perfectly with the outline of the figure. Case solved? Well, not quite!

Fig. 3: W475

The object file for W475 contains a flimsy slip (fig. 4), which accompanied the object when it was were transferred from the Wellcome Institute to Swansea in 1971. These slips are catalogue records of the material purchased by Henry Wellcome, which were compiled by the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum (WHMM) in the first half of the twentieth century. The flimsy for W475, which was given the inventory number 10680, is quite revealing. It describes the object as an “ancient Egyptian carved figure of Saket Ptah”, which was purchased as part of lot 250 from Stevens’ auction house on the 27 September 1908 (if any readers have a copy of this catalogue, I’d be most grateful!). Most importantly, the object is described as 21 inches high by 8 inches wide. Here is where the problem lies. W475 and W75b together only measure 16½ inches in height! Although this would seem to suggest that the two objects do not belong together, we must consider that the figure may have had its crown still present during the cataloguing by the WHMM. However, while the Egypt Centre has nine crowns belonging to Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures in its collection, none of them seem to fit with W475b.

Fig. 4: Flimsy slip for W475

So who does the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure belong to? The inscription on the front of the figure (fig. 5) identifies the owner as a “Mistress of the House” (nbt-pr), the most common title held by women in ancient Egypt. Unfortunately, only the first part of her name is preserved with the ending missing. If any readers have suggestions as to the reconstruction of the name, we would love to hear them! Aside from the owner, her parents are also named; Horbes is her father while Ptahirdis is the name of her mother. Both names are attested during the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth dynasties, when this figure can be dated to. The inscription on the rear of the figure and the one on the base are largely identical and contain an offering formula (ḥtp di nsw) to Re-Horakhty.

Fig. 5: Transcription of the hieroglyphs on the front of W475b

W475b had been on display in the House of Death for the last twenty years while the base had remained in storage. Although it is inconclusive as to whether they belong together, it was decided to put the base on display with the figure (fig. 6).

Fig. 6: W475 & W475b “reunited”?

Bibliography:

Aston, D. (2003) ‘Theban West Bank from the Twenty-fifth Dynasty to the Ptolemaic Period’. In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, ed. N. C. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor. London: British Museum Press. 138–166.

Aston, D. A. (2009) Burial Assemblages of Dynasty 21–25: Chronology - Typology - Developments. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 21; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 54. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 

Bosse-Griffiths, K. (2001) ‘Problems with Ptaḥ-Sokar-Osiris Figures: Presented to the 4th International Congress of Egyptology, Munich, 1985’. In AmarnaStudies and Other Selected Papers, ed. J. G. Griffiths. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 182. Freiburg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 181–188.

Griffiths, J. G. (1996) Triads and Trinity. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 

Raven, M. J. (1978–1979) ‘Papyrus-sheaths andPtah-Sokar-Osiris Statues’. Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 59–60: 251–296.

Rindi, C. (2014) ‘Some Remarks on the Positioning of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Figures in Third Intermediate and Late Period Burials’. In Cult and Belief in Ancient Egypt: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for Young Egyptologists, 25–27 September 2012, Sofia, ed. T. Lekov and E. Buzov. Sofia: East West. 30–36.

Rindi Nuzzolo, C. (2013) ‘An Unusual Group of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Figures: Some Reflections on Typology and Provenance’. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 49: 193–204.

Rindi Nuzzolo, C. (2017) ‘Tradition andTransformation: Retracing Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Figures from Akhmim in Museums andPrivate Collections’. In (Re)productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Liège, 6th–8th February 2013, ed. T. J. Gillen. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 10. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège. 445–474.

Tracking the History of a Decorated (D-Ware) Vessel

Last week’s handling session for the Egyptian Art and Architecture module focused on decorated pottery. One of the vessels chosen was W5308 (figs. 1–4), which is one of the most favourite artefacts amongst staff and volunteers at the Egypt Centre. This pot is part of a group called ‘D-ware’ or ‘Decorated Ware’, a classification of Predynastic pottery originating from Flinders Petrie’s seriation of Predynastic material from Diospolis Parva. The primary characteristics of D-ware pottery is that it was made from Marl clay and decorated with a red ochre. The decoration usually consists of scenes depicting the natural landscape of the Nile Valley, in addition to humans and animals. Numerous examples also show geometric patterns. Pottery vessels such as these date between the Naqada IIA and Naqada IIIB periods (3600–3100 BC) and are found mostly in sites located in Upper Egypt (Cox 2015). This corpus was recently published by Gwenola Graff (2009), with W5308 being given the catalogue number 410.

Fig. 1: W5308

W5308 is a small (10.7cm in height) decorated ovoid marl pottery jar with flat base, ledge rim, and two cylindrical pierced handles on the shoulder (fig. 2). At an unknown date, the vessel had been broken before being reconstructed with glue. The exterior is decorated in dark red paint with representations of two oared boats, one on each side. Each boat contains two central cabins to which a standard has been attached, each bearing a different emblem: a Z-motif or zigzag; five triangular hills or mounds. A study by Aksamit (2006, 559) has shown that these two standards are the most common on D-ware pottery. One of the boats has a large frond hanging from the left prow that arches over the vessel and terminates in an irregular shape above the cabins. The other has a fan-shaped bush motif projecting from the rear cabin. A similar fan-shaped bush is also shown under the boats. Additionally, S-motifs are painted below and between the boats. Four wavy lines encircle the top of the rim, with a further five covering each handle.

Fig. 2: Decorated faces of W5308

So what is the history of W5308? Well, from a number (3367) written on the pot we can trace it back to the collection of the Reverend William MacGregor (1848–1937), who owned one of the finest private collections of Egyptian antiquities ever assembled. The vessel is first mentioned by Percy Newberry (1869–1949) in a 1913 article discussing cult signs on decorated pottery. MacGregor’s collection of objects was sold over the course of nine days by Sotheby’s auction house between the 26 June–6 July 1922. W5308 was one of two pots making up lot 1757, with the catalogue describing it as follows: “Two others [vessels], with ovoid bodies, flat lips and tubular handles, 5½ in. and 4½ in. high, the taller of the two with a two-cabined boat on each side, and ostriches, sails, etc., below, the smaller with two-cabined boats on each side; found opposite Gebelein, both of the Archaic Period.” Since there are no ostriches on the Swansea vessel, W5308 clearly relates to the smaller pot. This was easily confirmed by checking the measurements. Moreover, a photograph of W5308 is represented in plate 53 of the catalogue (fig. 3)! Lot 1757 was purchased by John Sunley Comins, who was employed at Sir. Henry Wellcome’s Historical Medical Museum from 1921 onwards, for the sum of £10/10.

Fig. 3: W5308 as shown on plate LIII of the MacGregor catalogue

Eagled-eyed readers have probably noticed that the vessel depicted in the MacGregor catalogue was complete in 1922. This is confirmed by the flimsy slip kept in the Wellcome archives (13434), which doesn’t mention the vessel as being broken or repaired. No record of when the pot was broken and subsequently restored is recorded in the Egypt Centre archives. However, a photograph showing the pot on display in the 1970s clearly shows that it had been restored by then (fig. 4). This perhaps suggests that the vessel had been broken prior to it arriving in Swansea in 1971, although it is also possible that the damage occurred during the transit of the objects. Whatever the case, the restoration of the pot was not particularly well done, with lots of excess glue present on the surface. The photo shows a young Prof. Alan Lloyd standing in front of the Predynastic case in the old Wellcome Museum at Swansea University. W5308 continues to be the centrepiece of the Predynastic case in the Egypt Centre, although no longer suspended in mid-air like in the archival photo. Perhaps it’s time to give this beautiful vessel a new lease of life by sending it off for new conservation work!

Fig. 4: Prof. Alan Lloyd in front of the old Predynastic case. 

Bibliography:
Aksamit, J. (1998a) ‘Egyptian Predynastic D-ware: Archaeological Evidence and Social Context’. In XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences - Forlì - Italia - 8/14 September 1996. Proceedings 6: Workshops, ed. C. Giunchi. Forlì: A.B.A.C.O. Ed. 561–565.

———. (1998b) ‘The D-ware from Abusir el-Meleq’. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995, ed. C. J. Eyre. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. Leuven: Peeters. 31–38.

———. (2006) ‘A New List of Vases with Cult-signs’. In Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa: In Memory of Lech Krzyżaniak, ed. K. Kroeper, M. Chłodnicki and M. Kobusiewicz. Studies in African Archaeology 9. Poznan: Archaeological Museum. 557–592.

Cox, J. (2015) ‘From Nubia to the Levant: The Distribution of Predynastic Egyptian Decorated Ware in Space and Time’. In Ancient Cultures at Monash University: Proceedings of a Conference Held Between 18–20 October 2013 on Approaches to Studying the Ancient Past, ed. J. Cox, C. R. Hamilton, K. R. L. McLardy, A. J. Pettman and D. Stewart. BAR International Series 2764. Oxford: Archaeopress. 71–77.

Graff, G. (2009) Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I - Nagada II: nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. Egyptian Prehistory Monographs 6. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 

Hardwick, T. (2011) ‘Five Months before Tut: Purchasers and Prices at the MacGregor Sale, 1922’. Journal of the History of Collections 23, 1: 1–14.

———. (2012) ‘The Obsidian King’s Origins: Further Light on Purchasers and Prices at the MacGregor Sale, 1922’. Discussions in Egyptology 65: 7–52.

Newberry, P. E. (1913) ‘List of Vases with Cult-signs’. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 5: 137–142.

Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge. (1922) Catalogue of the MacGregor Collection of Egyptian Antiquities. London: Davy. 

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.