The Funerary Figures of the Ancient Egyptians

The blog post for this week is written by Vanessa Foott. Vanessa’s lifelong passion is ancient Egypt and for the last five years she has been studying Egyptology at the University of Manchester. She is very excited to be starting their Masters Degree in Egyptology in October so she is practically a professional student! Vanessa has filled her time since retiring from her main career by travelling all over the country attending and also giving talks on Egyptology, representing the Egypt Exploration Society as one of their Local Ambassadors, and writing articles for Nile Magazine. Lockdown has put an end to all the travelling, which is a shame since she was due to be in Egypt at present doing voluntary fieldwork. Luckily, there are a wealth of excellent lectures being held online and she is able to write about one of them today!

I am writing this week’s blog about the second part of Ken’s course The Funerary Culture of the Ancient Egyptians, the topic being ‘Funerary Figures’. I hope I can do this justice after last week’s very eloquent contribution by the Reverend Jim Collins, who was able to offer an insight from a ‘professional’ point of view!

We started with an interesting, and some might say, uncomfortable, look at the possibility of a very short-lived trend of human sacrifice during the First Dynasty, a subject also touched on in last Monday’s episode of Egypt’s Unexplained Files on the History Channel. The evidence for this comes from the tomb of Hor-Aha at Abydos (fig. 1) whose burial was accompanied by a number of subsidiary burials of men who apparently died at the same time and were buried with their own grave goods (Morris 2007). The whole area was roofed as one and covered in a sand mound. The Egyptians quickly realised that bumping off servants, although great for the deceased king, was probably not such a good idea for those left behind and something different had to be planned to provide for the afterlife.

Fig. 1: Plan of burial complex of Hor-Aha, courtesy of https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ museums-static/digitalegypt/abydos/abydostombhoraha.html

During the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties, we begin to see stone servant figures being included in the tombs of the elite. These are usually made of limestone, which can be painted and represent single figures either grinding grain or brewing beer, less common are ones baking or doing butchery. Occasional ones are shown stone working or producing pottery. By far, the largest corpus are those relating to food production, which leads to the conclusion that these were being produced to aid the deceased in having sustenance for the afterlife. Figure 2 is an example of a butcher found in the tomb of Ny-kau-Inpu at Giza thought to date from the Fifth Dynasty. The statue is in its original state with the exception of the knife, which has been restored. This figure shows a high standard of craftsmanship as the gap between the legs and the arms has been made, something that is hard to do when working in stone when one slip of the chisel could ruin the whole piece.

Fig. 2: OIM 10626, courtesy of The Oriental Institute of Chicago

The stone figures were gradually replaced by wooden ones, which were easier to manufacture. Not only were servant figures included in the tomb, but also wooden statues of the tomb owner, which could be used to house the kꜣ (an aspect of the soul), should anything happen to the body. W688 is one such and is shown in fig. 3. Luckily, Ken and Sam Powell have located the missing leg and base and the item has been sent to Cardiff University Conservation Department for restoration. The Egypt Centre actually has over 100 elements from wooden servant figures, including the figures, numerous arms, legs, bases and oars, which are in the process of being painstakingly matched up.

Fig. 3: Wooden figure of a tomb owner (W688)

Moving into the First Intermediate Period, dozens of these figures could be found in a single burial and groups of figures began to be included. The quality of the workmanship varies greatly from really exquisite figures such as W434 (fig. 4) to more basic examples like W436 (fig. 5) as the masses began to believe that an afterlife was available not only to the king and the elite. Although the most popular figure groups related to food production, many burials included models of boats, which through magic would enable the deceased to travel in the afterlife. These may enable the deceased to undertake a pilgrimage to Abydos, the cult centre of Osiris, and may also be connected with the journey of Ra across the sky in his two boats—one for the night and one for the day—in which he would be accompanied by the deceased.

Fig. 4: Finely carved tomb figure (W434)

Fig. 5: Crudely carved tomb figure (W436)

Some of the Middle Kingdom tomb models are very elaborate indeed. Perhaps the best known are those from the tomb of Meketre discovered by Herbert Winlock at Thebes in 1920. Although the tomb had been robbed, these models survived as they had been placed in a separate room that the robbers had missed. The models were split between the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo where they can be seen. Figure 6 is the model granary, but others can be seen by visiting https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/545281. I really would urge you to take the time to have a look, the workmanship and detail is outstanding and would have enabled Meketre to enjoy all the comforts of his earthly life in the next, even including his garden.

Fig. 6. Model granary MMA 20.3.11, courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

The next part of the lecture focused on shabtis, ushabtis, and shawabtis. This was particularly eye-opening to me as I was familiar with the different terms, but like, I suspect, many of my fellow students, did not realise that the terms were not quite so interchangeable and meant, if albeit slightly, different things. They were first introduced around 2100 BCE in the First Intermediate Period and continued to be popular until the end of Pharaonic Egypt, only ceasing to be used in Roman times (Janes 2002; Schneider 1977; Stewart 1995). Shabti is used to name those from the late Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom. Shawabti is also from the New Kingdom but more specifically occasionally in the Seventeenth Dynasty and in particular the Nineteenth Dynasty at Deir el-Medina (fig. 7). Ushabti refers to those from the Twenty-first Dynasty to the end of Ptolemaic times. The etymologies for the words are an interesting subject in themselves. šbty or šwbty are used for all three. The word for food or meals is šꜣbw, to command or appoint is šꜣ, and wšb to answer, so it is not hard to find a connection. Another alternative is šwꜣb, meaning Persea tree, but as no figures have been found made from this wood it is harder to see this link (Taylor 2001, 115–117).

They could represent both the tomb owner, acting, as we have already seen with the wooden figures, as a reserve home for the kꜣ, and servants. They were not meant to be true likenesses of the tomb owner but represented him in an idealised divine form and, as such, these figures were sometimes placed into miniature coffins. They started as figures made from wax or mud, which were probably wrapped in linen to make them sacred. Production declined at the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty but was revived at Thebes towards the end of the Seventeenth when we start to see the stick-like wooden shabtis known as ‘peg shabtis’ (fig. 7).

Fig. 7: Seventeenth Dynasty double shabtis of Tetyankh and Tetiky, Musee de Louvre E32373. Photo courtesy of Musee de Louvre

The so called ‘Shabti Spell’ (Coffin Text 472; Book of the Dead 6) was often carved on the front of the figures: “O, this/these ushabti(s), if one counts, if one reckons the Osiris (Title and Name) to do all the works which are to be done in the God’s land-Now indeed obstacles are implanted therewith-as a man of his duties, ‘here I am,’ you shall say when you are counted off at any time to serve there, to cultivate the fields, to irrigate the riparian lands, to transport by boat the sand of the east to the west and vice-versa; ‘here I am,’ you shall say.” (Faulkner 1985). I would really like a nice shabti figure that I could call on to do the gardening or the housework! Apparently so did Walt Disney as this was his inspiration for the Sorcerer’s Apprentice featured as part of the 1940 film Fantasia (Ogden 2004, 115).

Ahmose II is the first Pharaoh attested to have his own shabti, and from the reign of Amenhotep II onwards the numbers in each tomb began to increase. The material used also became more varied with faience, pottery, and wood all being known. From the mid Eighteenth Dynasty, closed hands are routinely portrayed and the number of tools being carried increases to include, hoes, picks, and seed baskets. Use of a mould enabled them to be quick and cheaply produced, but they did vary in quality from the excellent ones found with Tutankhamun (fig. 8) to really awful ones barely recognisable.

Fig. 8: One of the shabtis found in the tomb of Tutankhamun recently exhibited at The Saatchi Gallery London.
Photo by the author.

As the New Kingdom progressed, they became more depersonalised and viewed increasingly as slaves (Poole 1998). Royal shabtis of the Twentieth Dynasty were often poor and this may be a reflection of the troubled economic times that affected the whole of the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. The numbers increased and a full compliment would now be 365 workers, one for each day, together with an overseer for each 10, and sometimes a further 12, one for each month of the year. The quality continues to decline through the Third Intermediate Period. Figure 9 is a mummiform shabti of the Divine Adoratrice Qedmerut (W1315), dating to the Twenty-second Dynasty, which is made of blue faience with painted black hieroglyphs (Griffin 2017).

Fig. 9: Shabti of Qedmerut (W1315)

Our journey through the evolution of the shabti continued through the small crude examples of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty to the return to using stone in the late Twenty-fifth/early Twenty-sixth Dynasty. In the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, they began to have a back pillar and a base enabling them to stand. The form from the reign of Psamtek I through to the end of the Ptolemaic period remained fairly static. They were mostly made of moulded faience with inscriptions added whilst the material was still soft prior to firing. The colour was predominately green and they retained the back pillar and pedestal (fig. 10).

Fig. 10: Shabti of the general Ankhwahibresaneith ((W1312)

This comes to the end of our rapid gallop through funerary figurines. Next week the topic will be mummification and coffins. I am thoroughly looking forward to our continued exploration of The Funerary Culture of the Ancient Egyptians!

Bibliography:

Arnold, Dorothea ed. (1999) Egyptian art in the age of the pyramids. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Faulkner, Raymond O. and Carol Andrews (1985) The ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. London: Guild Publishing.

Griffin, Kenneth (2017) ‘The Ushabtis of the Divine Adoratrice Qedmerut’. In De la mère du roi à l’épouse du dieu. Première synthèse des résultats de la fouille du temple de Touy et de la tombe de Karomama – Von der Königsmutter zur Gottesgemahlin. Erste Synthese der Ausgrabungsergebnisse des Tempels von Tuja und des Grabes von Karomama, ed. B. Lurson. Connaissance de l’Egypte Ancienne 18. Brussels: Safran. 145–155.

Janes, Glenn (2002) Shabtis: a private view: ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes in European private collections. Paris: Cybele.

Morris, Ellen F. (2007) ‘Sacrifice for the state: First Dynasty royal funerals and the rites at Macramallah’s rectangle’. In Performing death: social analyses of funerary traditions in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, ed. Nicola Laneri. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 15–37.

Ogden, Daniel (2004) ‘The Apprentice’s Sorcerer: Pancrates and his powers in context (Lucian, “Philopseudes” 33–36’. Acta Classica 47: 101–126.

Poole, Federico (1998) ‘Slave or double?: a reconsideration of the conception of the shabti in the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate period’. In Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, ed. C. J. Eyre. Leuven: Peeters. 893–901.

Schneider, Hans D. (1977) Shabtis: an introduction to the history of ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes, with a catalogue of the collection of shabtis in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. 3 vols. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden.

Stewart, Harry M. (1995) Egyptian shabtis. Shire Egyptology 23. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications.

Taylor, John H. (2001) Death and the afterlife in ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.

Tooley, Angela M. J. (1995) Egyptian models and scenes. Shire Egyptology 22. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications.

From One Priest to Another: Funerary Artefacts from the Egypt Centre and Beyond

Last week I started my five-week short course on the funerary artefacts of the ancient Egyptians. For the next five weeks, the blog posts will be written by some of the students of this course, who will present the weekly theme from their own perspective. The entry for this week is written by the Reverend Jim Collins, a retired Anglican priest from Ottawa, Canada. Jim is very grateful for all he has been learning from the Egypt Centre and the Egypt Exploration Society lectures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“People are dying to meet us!” So quipped the funeral home director to my pastoral care placement supervisor when I was a theological student attending my first ever funeral in preparation for the priesthood almost forty years ago. I was shocked that he and my boss began cracking jokes. The whole atmosphere had changed as soon as the door was closed to the funeral home director’s car. From giving pastoral care to the bereaved family, we were starting on our way to the cemetery with the casket and funeral procession behind us. Perhaps my boss and the undertaker sensed my own nervousness about being in such unfamiliar territory or they were making light for themselves in an effort to relieve the stress of their own jobs. Yet this experience began more than thirty years of my work as a priest helping people deal with grief and the passage of their loved ones.

Dr. Ken Griffin’s course, Funerary Artefacts of Ancient Egypt, is giving me an excellent opportunity during these Covid-19 times to become more hands on with a very different perspective on the afterlife, and grief, an evidence-based approach to ancient Egyptian funerary beliefs and practices.

Ken describes how during the dynastic Period the Egyptian belief in the afterlife developed. He said that each major new concept, for the most part, was first acquired by the king but as time went on these concepts became available to all. He stated that the idea developed that everybody could be reborn as Osiris—stating that this is related to a controversial idea in Egyptology known as the ‘democratisation of the afterlife’ (Hays 2011; Smith 2009). Could it be that different Egyptians had different perspectives on such matters during different time periods? Certainly as a priest, I find myself imagining that Egyptian priests involved in performing the various rituals over the centuries and millennia would have had different ideas. It is also likely that many of them became deeply attached to the beliefs and liturgies in which they played a role. To me it seems quite likely that many of the funerary artefacts were a celebration of such beliefs and attachments.

In my theological studies, we learned about Anton Baumstark’s Laws of Liturgy, which dealt with both adherence to ancient tradition as well as liturgical innovation.[1] In Christianity, there are many different approaches to death and the afterlife and for me it is interesting to see how some of these phenomena might have played out in ancient Egypt as well. According to Coptic tradition, the Holy Family travelled as far south as Asyut and it does not seem hard to me to imagine that doctrines in Jesus’ teaching, as recorded in the New Testament, may have been influenced by what he and his family were exposed to when he was young. For example, the idea of being born again and even the idea of baptism at the age of thirty might have had a connection to Heb-sed practices in places like Bubastis, especially if Jesus’ family was there for the thirtieth anniversary of Augustus’ conquest, which may have been challenging for Egyptian traditions to address since he had a more distant relationship than the Ptolemies had had.

In his first course lecture, Ken talked about Osiris as the main god of the dead and the importance of the Osiris myth around death, mummification, and the resurrection of Osiris. He said that Egyptians wanted to be associated with the resurrection of Osiris and that there was a common phrase of “the Osiris of N”. While this was clearly associated with the pharaoh in the times of the Pyramid Texts (Old Kingdom), perhaps like Jesus as king in Christian theology, all Christians are invited to become a part of His kingship and resurrection. As with Christianity, to become an Osiris many tests had to be passed. For Osiris, all the parts of the individual had to be reunited with one another. Perhaps this might even have developed into the Pauline doctrine of the Body of Christ, although for Christianity there may well have also been an association with the estranged body of the first chapter of Isaiah which could not be healed with wine or anointing—being healed instead by association and incorporation into the Body of Christ.

Fig. 1: Weighing of the heart scene on the coffin of Iwesemhesetmut (W1982)

Dr. Griffin used a scene from the Twenty-first Dynasty coffin of a musician from Thebes, Iwesemhesetmut (W1982 from Exeter Royal Albert Museum) and a section of papyrus (W867) from the Book of the Dead to illustrate the Egyptian concept of the Judgement of the Dead (fig. 1). As Ken explained, that having declared his innocence of 42 sins, the deceased had their heart weighed against the feather of truth. If righteous, they were declared mꜣꜥ-ḫrw (true of voice). If they led a wicked life, Ammut devoured their heart and denied them access to the afterlife. This concept of divine judgement exists in Judaeo-Christian tradition as well.

Ken spoke of how the Egypt Centre collection displays are divided between the House of Life and the House of Death but that, in fact, almost all the artefacts are taken from funerary contexts. As a priest working in ministry, we were told that we were seen by society as mainly being there for the ‘hatch, match, and dispatch’ milestones of life. To focus only on the buried artefacts is obviously to miss out of many aspects of daily life that are very important to human existence. However, people still want to place things that were important in the lives of those they loved to be with them in death so perhaps we can bridge into that reality as having been true also for the ancient Egyptians.

Fig. 2: Coffin of Herishefhotep I (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tomb_of_Herishefhotep#/
media/File:%C3%84gyptisches_Museum_Leipzig_Herischefhotep_01.jpg)

For me, the concept of Egyptian priests embracing their own participation in the celebration of Egyptian beliefs in resurrection from the dead, whether being strictly pharaonic or more universal, may also be illustrated by the offerings as depicted on the Ninth to Tenth Dynasty(?) inner coffin of the priest Herishefhotep I. This coffin has interested me for some time now. It was found undisturbed behind a wall at Abusir and was published by Heinrich Schäfer in 1908. It is now in the George Steindorff Egypt Museum at Leipzig University (Schäfer 1908, 42–81, 143–145). The illustrations on this coffin seem to celebrate many areas of priestly life, which largely revolved around preparing and presenting many offerings of various kinds.

Fig. 3: Stela of Pasherienimhotep (W1041)

Having worked as a priest doing many funerals and preaching about the afterlife for decades, I have been finding it interesting to make comparisons. The imagery on the inner coffin of Herishefhotep I seems to demonstrate a lot of the aspects of what would have been important in his ministry as a priest as well as of the theology that would have been central to his faith. A particular highlight for me from Dr. Griffin’s lecture was the second century BCE stela of the priest Pasherienimhotep (fig. 3) from Edfu for which Ken provided the following translation:

An offering which the king gives to Horus of Edfu, the Great God, Lord of the Sky, Dappled of Plumage, who appears from the horizon, Horakhty, Foremost of the Great Place, Osiris, Foremost of the West, Lord of Ta-wer, Lord of Djedet, the Great God, Horus (who) disperses the slaughter of the Two Lands, Osiris, the Great God in Edfu, the Great Pillar in Edfu, Isis the Great, the Mistress in Edfu, the widow who dwells within Ta-wer. Hathor, Mistress of the West, Mistress of the Two Truths in the Hall of Maat. Anubis, he who is in the wrappings, Lord of the Sacred Land, Anubis, Foremost of the Divine Booth, (in order that) they may give a voice offering of bread, beer, cattle, fowl, incense upon the fire, everything good, pure, and sweet from which a god lives, a good burial in the [western cemetery], his heirs enduring upon his seat, for the ka of the Servant of Horus, the sḥtp-ḥm.f-priest, Fighting Arm, Lord of Triumph, Servant of the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt, Elder of the Portal of Horus of Edfu, Lord of the Sky, one who makes offerings to the gods of Edfu, Scribe of the Troops, Second Scribe of the Temple, God’s Servant of Harpakhered, God’s Servant of Amun of the Storehouse, Overseer of the Wab-priests of Sekhmet, Overseer of Magicians of Serqet, Chief Lector Priest, Scribe of the Divine Book,???, Overseer of the Priests of Horus of Edfu, the Great God, Lord of the Sky, Pasherienimhotep, the justified before Osiris, son of the Third Priest of Horus of Edfu, Harsiese, the justified, made by the Mistress of the House, she who is upon her throne, the Female Musician, Tantise, the justified. Be firm, be firm, endure, endure, (may you) not perish for eternity.

Ken discussed the Osirian imagery of the stela, providing a good overview of the back of the stela also, which is not usually seen when displayed in the museum case. Ken explained that the priest’s name Pasherienimhotep means literally “The child of the god Imhotep”. For me, it is interesting to compare this stela to the Djoser statue base (fig. 4) that includes the name of Imhotep (Cairo JE 49889, which was discovered at Saqqara in January 1926.

Fig. 4: Djoser statue base with the name of Imhotep

There is a similar prominence of Djed-columns and Tyet-signs between these two artefacts. Additionally, although the priestly titles are not exactly the same for Imhotep and Pasherienimhotep, it is interesting to see significant points of continuity over some two millennia between the Old Kingdom and the Ptolemaic periods (Romer 2007, 244–245).[2]

For a long time, I have been interested in the accounts in Josephus and the Talmud of the Judean high priest Onias’ construction of a Jewish Temple in Egypt. According to the first century Judean historian Flavius Josephus as well as Rabbinic sources, the Judean high priest Onias, founded a Zadokite temple in the Nile Delta in the second century BCE. His temple, known as Beth (H)onias or the Temple of Onias in Rabbinic sources, is skeptically described as a fulfilment of Isaiah 19:18–19. The Old Kingdom figure of Imhotep, the famed architect of Djoser, may have provided a possible Egyptian inspiration, if not role model, for Onias. The Oniad temple building can also be compared to other Egyptian Temple reconstructions on many sites throughout Ptolemaic Egypt. For example, the great temple of Horus at Edfu, begun in 237 BCE, was still under construction at the time of Onias since the Edfu temple was only dedicated by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II in 142 BCE, with additions there continuing until 71 BCE (Arnold 2003, 78). It is thus interesting to compare the only surviving inscription from the time of Imhotep with the second century stela of the priest Pasherienimhotep from Edfu. The Old Kingdom statue base containing Imhotep`s inscription has been translated by Nigel C. Strudwick (2005, 129) as follows:

The twin (?) of the king of Lower Egypt.

The seal-bearer of the king of Lower Egypt, first under the king, administrator of the great estate/mansion, iry-pat, great seer, Imhotep, controller of sculptors, maker of stone vessels (?).

The title mꜣꜣ wr, “Great Seer”, was a priest at Heliopolis (Wilson 1997).[3] This title could thus have had a particular importance for Onias. The second century Ptolemaic Edfu Stela of Pasherienimhotep might be seen as a much later Upper Egypt parallel.

Dr. Griffin also points out that the Egyptians appear to have been as reluctant to use the word ‘death’ as we are, preferring a variety of euphemisms (fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Words refering to death in ancient Egypt

As an undergraduate before I was ordained, I took an Ancient Near East course for which I wrote a paper on Maat in the Story of Sinuhe. Over the years, I have read books and articles and attended lectures on ancient Egypt, but since I retired from active ministry I have become quite passionate about Egyptology. I think it is helping me to understand all my years of helping people from fresh perspectives as well as giving me fresh insights into the earliest origins of Christianity.

My first contact with Dr. Griffin was his great lecture on The Life Cycle of an Object - The Lintel of the Overseer of Craftsmen, Tjenti as part of the current ongoing and excellent Egypt Centre online lecture series. Ken also discussed this artefact as part of his course lecture but he presented so many more artifacts from the Egypt Centre about which he also spoke so knowledgeably that I could not help but be drawn further and further into deeper levels of understanding of the funerary beliefs of ancient Egypt. Ken’s love for Egyptology and for the objects in the Egypt Centre collection really shines through, and his careful scholarly enthusiasm is infectious. I am finding Dr. Griffin’s course very stimulating and it is helping me to better understand this important area of cultural history.

Bibliography:

Arnold, Dieter 2003. The encyclopaedia of ancient Egyptian architecture. Translated by Sabine H. Gardiner and Helen Strudwick. London: I. B. Tauris.

Hays, Harold M. 2011. The death of the democratisation of the afterlife. In Strudwick, Nigel and Helen Strudwick (eds), Old Kingdom, new perspectives: Egyptian art and archaeology 2750–2150 BC, 115–130. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Schäfer, Heinrich 1908. Priestergräber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zur griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-user-rê. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 1902–1908 2; Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 8. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Smith, Mark 2009. Democratization of the afterlife. Edited by Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/70g428wj.

Strudwick, Nigel C. 2005. Texts from the pyramid age. Edited by Ronald J. Leprohon. Writings from the Ancient World 16. Atlanta; Leiden; Boston: Society of Biblical Literature; Brill.

Wilson, Penelope 1997. A Ptolemaic lexikon: a lexicographical study of the texts in the temple of Edfu. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 78. Leuven: Peeters.

---

[1] See, for example, the helpful summary: http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2009/07/baumstarks-laws-of-liturgy.html. [2] Romer describes the discovery of this statue base in 1926 at the south east corner of Djoser’s Pyramid by Jean-Philippe Lauer. He further states that “there is something rather different about this man Imhotep. Whatever tasks he may or may not have undertaken in his lifetime, he certainly enjoyed a long-lived fame. A thousand years after he had died, he was still considered to have been a founder patron of the scribes and a ‘Son of Ptah’, the fair-faced god of craftsmen and of manufactory. Later too in Greco-Roman times, his continuing celebrity earned him an apotheosis so that he became a little god of wisdom, a doctor and a scribe so popular that today most museums of Egyptian art have small bronze figures of Imhotep in this later manifestation. as a slight young man with a tight-fitting cap sitting on a plain Egyptian throne with a papyrus scroll upon his lap.” I am grateful to Campbell Price for alerting me to this artefact and reference.

[3] Personal communication with Penelope Wilson (May 19, 2020). Her Ptolemaic Lexicon has been a source of immense inspiration and powerful insights with references to offerings occurring more than twice per each of its more than 1300 pages based on the inscriptions at the Horus Temple at Edfu!

“Wonderful Things Conference 2020” – the conference that never was… or was it?

The post for this week is written by Sam Powell, a regular contributor to this blog.

At the time of writing, we have reached the halfway point in the series of lectures replacing the Wonderful Things 2020 conference. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing lockdown, the Egypt Centre were unable to host their second annual conference in Swansea, which was scheduled to take place this past weekend, 23–24 May (fig. 1). Ever resilient, the Egypt Centre, amongst other resources (see Ken’s previous blog post), have utilised the Zoom platform to host a series of bi-weekly lectures in lieu of the conference. The decision was made to make the Wonderful Things conference lectures free of charge, which has been an amazing opportunity to share the collection on a global scale. To date, 1,084 people have attended these lectures, and 1,470 have viewed the lectures afterwards on the Egypt Centre’s YouTube channel.

Fig. 1: Wonderful Things conference poster

Many of the talks so far have related to objects discussed in past blog posts; Ken Griffin discussed the history of the Egypt Centre in his first talk, and then for his second he presented the object life cycle of the Tjenti lintel, which seems to have passed through a wide range of collections and been examined by a range of famous faces. John Rogers and Katherine List gave an update on the conservation work on the faience whistle, as well as a run through of many of the musical objects within the collection. Megan Clark provided an overview of paddle dolls (fig. 2), including our example with its unique motif of a frog, showing examples from a range of collections. A walk-through of the Egyptian objects in Swansea Museum and their relevance to the local community was presented by Carolyn Graves-Brown, during which many Swansea locals shared their memories of some of the objects. Aidan Dodson’s talk shared some fascinating new developments regarding the stone coffin fragments belonging to Amenhotep son of Hapu, which he and Ken have been virtually reconstructing along with fragments held in other institutions. In addition to these talks, I was also allowed to give an overview of the funerary figures I have been working on.

Fig. 2: Egypt Centre paddle doll (W769)

The talks have led to a real sense of community with a global audience with a varying range of previous knowledge of the collection. Delegates have been very encouraging of the presenters, and plenty of questions posed by the audience. It’s been impossible to choose a favourite lecture from the conference as all the topics have been so different covering different aspects of researching objects ranging from material analysis of the faience whistle during its conservation, the relevance of the Swansea Museum collection to the local area, and the more recent life cycle of the Tjenti lintel. This range of approaches to the objects has really demonstrated the scope of the material held by the Egypt Centre. There are still ten lectures to follow on a variety of objects, the details of which can be found on the booking page here. The Zoom platform is very easy to use, so if you haven’t booked already for the remaining lectures, please do join us!

Fig. 3: Sam preparing to start her talk

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with my previous posts on my ongoing research into the funerary figures (fig. 4). I have been helping with the series of lectures by co-hosting with Ken to moderate the sessions and helping with any technical difficulties. Therefore, I felt I had gotten the hang of using the virtual lecture room, but it was very different when presenting my own research—especially with the added pressure of realising two of the leading experts on your subject are “in the room”! It was such a useful experience to share my research with a much wider audience than I ever have before, and I’ve received some really lovely messages of support and encouragement from all over the world.

Fig. 4: The Egypt Centre’s collection of wooden funerary figures

I am so grateful to the Egypt Centre for encouraging students such as myself not only to research the collection, but also to present our findings to a wider audience. The Wonderful Things conference may not have been exactly as the Egypt Centre had in mind when planning started all those months ago, but it has actually allowed the museum and its objects to reach a much broader audience, many of whom had never heard of the Egypt Centre before but are now planning a visit as soon as it reopens. The staff at the Egypt Centre have truly risen to the challenge of keeping those of us with an interest in Egyptology occupied over these very strange few weeks, and although we can’t, for now, access these objects in person, this is the next best thing. The Egypt Centre is proving to be one of the leading providers of online material, with an online course starting this week on funerary artefacts using Egypt Centre objects, a weekly series of “Bitesize” videos giving short introductions to different objects in the collection, use of the AURA app to allow you to listen to audio clips about each object, and the Come and Create (video below) events becoming online tutorials.

I’m really proud of the Egypt Centre for leading the way in these unusual times and really rising to the challenge of ensuring access to the collection continues in whatever guise it can. Well done to everyone involved!

Local Things for Local People?

The blog post for this week is written by Dr Carolyn Graves-Brown, the Curator at the Egypt Centre, a position she has held since 1997. She has been curator of two other museums (Neath Museum and Littlehampton Museum), assistant curator at one, and volunteer at another. She is a member of the Museums Association, Conseil international des musées (ICOM), and the Lithics Study Society.

Until 1997, I worked in local authority run museums, which laid great emphasis on the local. This is something I then thought, and still believe, is very important. Local museums can play a real role in enhancing civic pride and all the benefits that brings. However, where does that leave collections like the Egypt Centre? On Friday, I gave a talk on how the study of a small Welsh collection of Egyptological items at Swansea Museum threw a light on the local (fig. 1). This was achieved through exploring object biographies concentrating on how the objects came to Swansea and the characters involved in their collection and display. Such a study is more difficult, though not impossible, where the objects only have a short local history such as with the Egypt Centre, whose collection only came to Swansea in 1971.

Fig. 1: Facade of Swansea Museum

But, I wonder, ethically are museums too concerned with the local? Museum strategies have a tendency to stress the local in their aims and objectives, no wonder as their governing bodies are local and no-one wants to bite the hand that feeds them. National bodies also tend to stress their individuality and they give grants. So, we need to show what we are doing for Wales to receive money from the Welsh government. The same is true of the Egypt Centre, as you can see in our Forward Plan. Of course, additionally, many museums were set up with a local purpose, to enhance civic pride.

Fig. 2: Mummy of Hor in Swansea Museum

However, should museums be more outward looking? I have often wondered this. Cynically, one might say, it is trying to find a clear purpose for the Egypt Centre, that declaring a museum’s role as international makes life easier. Yet surely we should all embrace the international? Museums could play a greater part in improving international co-operation, and not simply those with ‘exotic’ collections. Sharing museological best practise, as for example is done by ICOM, is one way of looking outward. Museum twinning may also play a part. Finally, a great many long-established museums do have exotic collections and many of course do make much of them rather than hiding them away.

Fig. 3: Glass fragment from the Valley of the Kings collected by Welsh Egyptologist Ernest Harold Jones

I’m not arguing for either local or national, just wondering if a little more emphasis should be placed on the international? Thoughts please!

Short Course on the Funerary Artefacts of the Ancient Egyptians

It is now over seven weeks since the Covid-19 lockdown was implemented in the UK, with many other countries facing similar lockdowns. During this time, the Egyptological community has excelled in being proactive with their dissemination of research and keeping people busy and sane through a variety of online lectures and conferences. The American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) virtual Annual Meeting, which was held over two weekends in April, exceeded 1,900 registrants from across the globe. The Egypt Exploration Society (EES) have been having regular lectures and excellent monthly quizzes, which regularly reach capacity. Societies such as the Friends of the Petrie Museum and the Thames Valley Ancient Egypt Society (TVAES) are also offering a programme of Zoom lectures for their members. Since our annual conference planned for May had to be cancelled, it was decided to offer some of the talks for free via Zoom. Three of the seventeen talks have taken place so far, drawing in a combined audience of over 500 people. Additionally, with the permission of the speakers, talks will be added to our YouTube channel and will be available to those who may have missed them.

Fig. 1: Stela of Pasherienimhotep (W1041)

With the growing demand for Egyptological lectures and courses to help keep people occupied, I have recently decided to run a short 5-week course on the funerary artefacts of the ancient Egyptians. Unlike similar titled courses, this one will focus on the Egypt Centre collection, a museum containing almost 6,000 antiquities. Participants will be introduced to the material culture of the dead, as well as the ancient Egyptian view of death and the afterlife. The course will examine the tomb and its contents, such as funerary figures, stelae, ritual and magical objects, and coffins. This is a unique opportunity for participants to study artefacts from the Egypt Centre—including many that are currently housed in storage—delivered by the Collections Access Manager of the Museum.

Fig. 2: Handling a Ptolemaic mask

In an ideal world, this this course would take place at the Egypt Centre and would include the opportunity for participants to handle some of the objects under discussion. As this is not possible, sessions will be held remotely via the Zoom platform. In order to be as accessible as possible, this course will be run twice (numbers permitting):

• Sunday evenings 6–8pm (UK time)
• Wednesday mornings 10–12am (UK time)

Additionally, one of the sessions will be recorded and made available for a limited time to registered participants.

Course Outline:

Week 1 (Sunday 24 May or Wednesday 27 May): Provisions for the dead

In week 1, we will examine the ancient Egyptian’s belief in the afterlife, including their hope for resurrection. The Egyptians equipped their tombs for eternity with a variety of objects in order to aid transition. At the same time, the Egyptians believed that they needed to receive continuous nourishment in order to survive in the world of the dead. Objects discussed this week include tomb reliefs, funerary stelae, offering trays, and soul houses.

Fig. 3: Offering tray (W80)

Week 2 (Sunday 31 May or Wednesday 03 June): Funerary figures

Funerary figures are some of the most common objects from ancient Egypt, ranging from stone figures of the Old Kingdom, wooden models of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom, and shabtis from the Middle Kingdom onwards. In week 2, we will briefly examine the function of these figures and their development over time. We will draw on a collection of over 400 of these figures in the Egypt Centre collection.

Fig. 4: Wooden funerary figure (W434)

Week 3 (Sunday 07 June or Wednesday 10 June): Coffins and mummification

The Egyptians believed that their body needed to survive in order for them to continue to exist beyond death. In order to preserve the body, the Egyptians used mummification techniques, which included removing the internal organs and the brain. In this week, we will trace the development of mummification and the use of canopic jars. We will also examine the use and development of Egyptian coffins, including their decoration.

Fig. 5: Canopic jar of Psamtek (W498)

Week 4 (Sunday 14 June or Wednesday 17 June): Magic and ritual

The day of the burial was a highly ritualised event, which included the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. The afterlife presented many challenges and dangers for the deceased who were commonly equipped with magical objects for protection. Chief amongst them were amulets, which commonly adorned the bodies. In week 4, we will examine the use and function of these amulets, as well as other ritual objects.

Fig. 6: Uraeus amulet (AB6)

Week 5 (Sunday 21 June or Wednesday 24 June): Treasures for the dead

Since the Egyptians believed that the afterlife was in many ways a continuation of their life on earth, they were often buried with more personal and functional objects. Items of furniture, jewellery, clothing, games, and toiletries were particularly common. Some of these items will be discussed in the final week of this course.

Fig. 7: Bracelet from the body of a female buried at Qau (W793)

Cost: £40

• Payment can be made via our crowdfunding page: https://wave.swansea.ac.uk/p/egyptcentre/
• In addition to making the payment, please email Ken at k.griffin@swansea.ac.uk who will reply within 24 hours confirming your place on the course. Please note your preference for the Sunday or Wednesday sessions (although there is flexibility from week to week if necessary). Make sure to check your spam/junk folder
• Note that as this is a payment for a service, you should NOT tick the gift-aid box
• For alternative methods of payment, please email Ken at k.griffin@swansea.ac.uk

Full instructions on how to join each of the sessions will be issued to all participants in the days leading up to the first class. If you have any questions, please contact Ken at k.griffin@swansea.ac.uk