Servants of the Gods

The blog post for this week has been written by Iris C. Meijer. Iris lives in Luxor, Egypt, and has a deep passion for all things ancient Egyptian. She is currently owned by seventeen rescued cats and dogs and spends her extra time trying to raise awareness for animal welfare.

When we visit Egypt and walk through the vast pylons, columned courtyards and rooms of the temples there, the silent witnesses towering over us conjure up a world of mystic stillness and belief. Empty, they speak of a time when humanity worshiped on a broad canvas, leaving us monuments of such awe-inspiring dimensions that we forget that they were not always so quiet. We wander between the columns and enigmatic writings and depictions and forget to ask: what was it really like back then?

One thing we must immediately think of when we contemplate such questions is the people. There must have been people doing things in these major structures! And indeed, there were, and more than a few of them. Priests and priestesses, servants, caretakers. High clergy, low clergy, and auxiliaries (fig. 1). An equally enormous workforce was needed to keep the gigantic cosmic machinery that these temples were ticking over.

Fig. Priests at Karnak carrying offerings

You see, other than in most current religions, where temple, church, and mosque are gathering places for people to congregate and celebrate their faith together, the temples of ancient Egypt had no such purpose. The temples of ancient Egypt were, quite literally, the houses of the gods, their homes. The essence of the gods dwelled in the temples, and it was that presence that the priesthood and every other person allowed to set foot inside the hallowed walls were meant to serve. Nowadays, we translate their title as priest or prophet, but the real, simple translation of their name ḥm nṯr was “servant of the god” (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Priest of the Temple of Ramesses II at Abydos

So we have a giant, vast mansion (or a smaller one) meant to be the dwelling place of a god or a group of gods, staffed with servants whose job description was to see to the divinity’s every need. A bit like Downton Abbey but then the one being served was a divinity in statue form. And seeing to their every need included waking them up in the morning, helping them wash, dress, put on makeup, jewellery and ointments, and so on—in a ritual that had thirty-six specific, core steps with their own “spells” or recitations for each step, with a possible twelve more depending on which temple. It included making sure they were fed with the essence of the best beef, fowl, bread, beer, fruits, and other good things the world had to offer. It included organising trips out into the world, grand processions for great feasts where the whole populace would come out to celebrate alongside the route (fig. 3). And it meant doing everything else that was needed to keep the temple, the worship, and keeping the essence of the god on earth and satisfied, going, with all that entailed. These servants of the god and their subordinates were in charge of all that, but those, somewhat more esoteric things were not even the only things that went on in the temples. There was also simpler, more practical work to do.

Fig. 3: Priests transporting the barque of Amun

In the middle of each temple precinct, there is a temple, made of stone. Big or small, the central building, the focus, the dwelling place of the god was always made of enduring stone after a certain time period. But there were usually also grounds and auxiliary buildings around it, and these were often made of mud brick, a much cheaper, but also more perishable material. So many activities took place there: school teaching the offspring of the priests, baking of bread, slaughter of offerings, making of offering bouquets of flowers, making of art and jewellery and much more—everything practical that needed to be done to produce the end result of keeping the god happy and in place (fig. 4). The day-to-day management of the assets of the god took place there—including scribal activity, accounting, overseeing the treasury, keeping track of taxes. There was a continuous buzz of activity. For instance, it is estimated that in the New Kingdom, the most important deity of the time, Amun of Karnak, owned around 1/3 of the whole country in estates that went to feed the huge, ever-hungry machinery of Karnak Temple, and that over 80,000 people worked for the temple and estates of Amun during the reign of Ramesses III! So we are not talking just sleepy village chapels and priests, we are also talking about giant, busy concerns who would at times rival the pharaoh in worldly power.

Fig. 4: Food for the gods in the Tempe of Ramesses II at Abydos

 

So much went on in the temple and its environs, it’s hard to encompass in one’s mind. All the above, and medical work, astronomy to know when the festivals should take place, architecture, and planning for the next embellishment of the mansion of the god, dealing with petitioners and the occasional oracle, the list goes on. And for all these, priests were needed. Many titles and specific functions have come down to us from those seemingly silent columns and walls, as well as papyri. And we still do not know everything, as the evidence is fragmentary and still being decoded.

We do know that the priesthood had levels and ranks, and that this was very important. There were the servants of the gods, who internally also had levels or classes, the wꜥb or pure ones who seem to have been lower in rank, specialised priests such as stolists (dressers), lectors (readers), mortuary priests, horologues (hour-keepers), astronomers, and auxiliary personnel who may or may not have also been seen as priests (fig. 5). Then there were other priests of very specific titles where it is also mentioned what rank they had. There were the ‘pure ones of Sekhmet’ and the ‘scorpion charmers’ for instance, in whose job descriptions it is specifically mentioned that they had the same rank as the high priest, or the ‘first servant of the god’.

Fig. 5: Specialist priests (W867)

Try to picture this next time you visit an ancient Egyptian temple—you can try and look through the veil of time, from the majestic silent sentinels that remain, to the vibrant hub of activity it must have been in its heyday.

An Introduction to the Priests and Priestesses of Ancient Egypt

The blog post for this week is written by Yvonne Buskens-Frenken, from the Netherlands. She is a member of the Dutch Egyptology society Mehen and a former student of Egyptology at Manchester University (Certificate 2015 and Diploma 2017). While Yvonne has never been to the Egypt Centre before, she hopes to visit in the near future, perhaps with other Mehen members.

Introduction

Last week a new online course was launched by the Egypt Centre called In the Service of the Gods: Priests and Priestesses in Ancient Egypt, again brilliantly hosted by Dr Ken Griffin. Over the course of five weeks, the roles of priests, the priesthood of Amun, the God’s Wife of Amun, and that of Priestesses will be discussed. When starting a new course, I always ask myself what do I know about the topic and, for that matter, what I don’t. What new things will there be to learn this week? Already in this first week, I was pleasantly surprised with a newly published article that was brought to our attention; an article I will expand upon further below in this blog post. But first some sources on ancient Egyptian priests.

Sources
First of all, we do have Egyptian texts in the form of temple inscriptions, statue inscriptions, and papyri, such as the Abusir Papyri (fig. 1). The Abusir Papyri are a series of Fifth Dynasty administrative documents that give us detailed information on topics like the duty rosters for priests and how a royal mortuary temple should be run (Posener-Kriéger & de Cenival 1968). It further provides an overview about inventories of temple equipment and a list of daily offerings. They also concerned the two solar temples at Abu Gurab. Additionally, we have texts from classical authors like Herodotus, Diodorus, and Strabo. Herodotus (II, 36) describes, for example, the daily lives of priests, their cleansing rituals, religious duties, and eating habits (rules). But the majority of the textual evidence derives from the Graeco-Roman Period.

Fig. 1: Abusir Papyri. BM EA EA10735,10 (© The British Museum)

Article: Was the King of Egypt the Sole Qualified Priest of the Gods?
Dr Griffin introduced a recently published article, written by John Baines asking the question of whether the king was the sole qualified priest of the gods (Baines 2021). The contents of the article are certainly food for thought: are we perhaps mislead by images of kings in temple rituals, by texts from (classic) authors and the available objects about the topic? In his article, the author comes to the conclusion that the notion of the pharaoh being its sole fully legitimate priest is actually a modern one. The king rarely has priestly titles when carrying out rituals before the gods in temples and these activities do not signify that the king is a priest at all. In a scene depicted in the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (fig. 2), you see the barque of Amun carried by numerous semi-divine figures (called the Souls of Nekhen and Pe). In the middle is a figure of the king (originally Seti I, but later usurped by Ramesses II) dressed as a priest. In this case, the king is actually identified as the High Priest, but this is a rarity according to Baines. Sometimes the king and priests are shown in the same scenes, but here the king is, as Baines states, rather playing the role of a priest in a liminal or divine world than acting as a priest.

Fig. 2: Ramesses II at the High Priest of Amun (after Baines 2021, fig. 6)

There are, of course, some well-known examples showing a king being depicted as a priest; the best-known examples are the ones from Ay in the tomb of Tutankhamun and of Herihor in the temple of Khonsu at Karnak. The one depicting Ay is actually unique and has its focus probably more on another aspect; the legitimisation of Ay as the successor of Tutankhamun rather than his role as an actual priest (fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Ay performing the Opening of the Mouth ceremony of Tutankhamun

 

Daily Temple Rituals
The Daily Temple Ritual consists of thirty-six core rituals, which are occasionally supplemented by additional acts. These cultic rituals were performed for the statue of the god by temple priests each day. They were mostly performed in the early morning and the High Priest was responsible for undertaking these rituals. The Daily Temple Rituals are attested in the temple of Seti I in Abydos, Medinet Habu, and the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. They are also described in Papyrus Cairo CGC 58030 + Turin CGT 54041, and Papyrus Chester Beatty IX (Tacke 2013). John Baines refers to these rituals in his article, focussing specifically on the Abydos reliefs. According to him, the ritual spells explicitly concern priestly performances, which are adapted from models designed for priests (fig. 4). The king performing these rituals, for example, is not depicted as a priest and is also not captioned as one. Details of the design and captioning in these compositions are non-standard and cannot be taken as normal presentations of the king.

Fig. 4L Seti I burning incense before Osiris and Wepwawet

 

How to become a priest and priests appointed by the king
In ancient Egypt you could become a priest by:
• Hereditary right (from father to son);
• Ballot (a popular way);
• You could also buy your way in though purchasing the office (mainly during the Greek Period);
• Royal appointment, like Khaemwaset, son of Ramesses II.
Baines notes that in the running formula at Abydos, the text reads: “It is the king who has commanded to me to see the god” (n nswt wḏ n.i͗ mꜣꜣ nṯr). This is remarkably similar to the papyrus version (Papyrus Berlin 3055, iv, 2–3), which reads: “Now I am a priest; it is the king who has despatched me to see the god” (i͗w ḥm i͗nk ḥm-nṯr i͗n nswt wḏ wi͗ r mꜣꜣ nṯr). However, such texts are extremely rare in temple inscriptions.

Pasherienimhotep
Every week during the course, items from the Egypt Centre collection related to priests and priestesses will be highlighted. This week it is the beautiful stela of Pasherienimhotep (W1041) who was a priest of Edfu (fig. 5). In the text we find a comprehensive selection of priestly titles like 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, and Overseer of the Priests of Horus of Edfu.

Fig. 5: Front face of the stela of Pasherienimhotep (W1041)

Although Pasherienimhotep is not known from other sources, we do know from this stela that his father was the Third Priest of Horus of Edfu, called Harsiese. Interesting fact is that an owner of a stela now in the Cairo Museum (CGC 22049) bears the same name and priestly title as the father of Pasherienimhotep. The Harsiese of the Cairo stela mentions his parents. If this Harsiese is Pasherienimhotep’s father, a possible family tree can be proposed for Pasherienimhotep (fig. 6)!

Fig. 6: Proposed family tree of Pasherienimhotep

Week 2 of the course will be focused more on the role of priests.

Bibliography:

Baines, John 2021. Was the king of Egypt the sole qualified priest of the gods? In Collombert, Philippe, Laurent Coulon, Ivan Guermeur, and Christophe Thiers (eds), Questionner le sphinx: mélanges offerts à Christiane Zivie-Coche 1, 73–97. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Escolano-Poveda, Marina 2020. The Egyptian priests of the Graeco-Roman period: an analysis on the basis of the Egyptian and Graeco-Roman literary and paraliterary sources. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 29. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Posener-Kriéger, Paule and Jean Louis de Cenival 1968. The Abu Sir papyri. Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum 5. London: The Trustees of the British Museum.

Sauneron, Serge 2000. The priests of ancient Egypt, New ed. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.

Tacke, Nikolaus 2013. Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches, 2 vols. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 222. Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA: Peeters.

The Egypt Exploration Society Congress VI: Call for Papers

2022 will see many events and exhibitions to commemorate two important Egyptological anniversaries. The first is the bicentenary of the announcement by Jean-François Champollion that he had cracked the code of Egyptian hieroglyphs with the partial decipherment of the Rosetta Stone. To mark this event, the British Museum will be hosting a conference and exhibition entitled Unlocking Ancient Egypt. The second is the centenary of the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun in the Valley of the Kings, which was led by Howard Carter. This is arguably the greatest archaeological discovery ever made, with all of the treasures from the tomb to be displayed in the new Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) scheduled to open later this year.

 

Fig. 1: View of Singleton Campus, Swansea University

Another event taking place this year is the Egypt Exploration Society Congress (formerly the British Egyptology Congress, BEC). This will be the sixth congress, with the previous one being hosted via Zoom by colleagues from Durham University. This year, the Congress will be organised by colleagues and students from the Egypt Centre, the Department of History, Heritage, and Classics, and the Object and Landscape Centred Approaches to the Past (OLCAP) research group, in collaboration with the EES. Because of the on-going COVID-19 situation, the majority of the event will take place virtually, spread out throughout the month of September. However, we are hoping that it will be possible to have one or two in-person days (to be streamed online also) in Swansea during the weekend of the 01–02 October. The call for papers is now open, with details in the paragraphs below.

 

EESCon provides a platform for researchers to present their ongoing projects and discoveries to a broad audience of peers and the interested public through presentations or posters.

 

Presentations can focus on a wide range of topics including but not limited to:

• Archaeology and current fieldwork
• Language and texts
• Art and craft
• Trade and communication
• Conservation
• Medicine
• Reception
• The history of Egyptology and collecting
• Museum or archive studies
• Religion
• Material culture
• Heritage engagement and management
• Environmental studies
• Domestic archaeology
• Object-based learning
• Best practice in Egyptological teaching

Papers can cover any period of Egyptian history as well as the impact of Egyptian heritage on the modern world and can be given by anyone involved in current research. Time will be available for presenting the posters online.

Abstracts for a 20-minute presentation should be submitted by 17:00 on 25th February 2022 to congress@ees.ac.uk. They should not exceed 150 words. Presentations should be given in English and presenters should expect questions following their paper. Poster presenters must follow the template provided (A1, landscape). They will be made available on the Congress website as a downloadable pdf alongside the abstract. Abstracts not exceeding 150 words are to be submitted to congress@ees.ac.uk by 17:00 on 25th February 2022.

 

Abstracts will be considered by a panel made up of representatives from the organising institutions and confirmation will be mailed by 29th April 2022. Conference registration will open on 6th May 2022. Please indicate on your submission whether you prefer to present in-person or online.

 

We look forward to receiving your submissions for the Congress!

More Than Just a Load of Old Stones?

Robert de Rustafjaell (1859–1943) was one of the most interesting and enigmatic collectors of the early twentieth century. His collections were dispersed in five sales: Sotheby’s, 19–21 Dec 1906 (550 lots), 9–10 Dec 1907 (245 lots), 20–24 Jan 1913 (1051 lots), Paris 29 May 1914, and New York 29 Nov–1 Dec 1915 (745 lots). The first sale produced £1,843, the second £308-12, the third £2,748, and the fifth $12,760. A posthumous sale took place in New York 13–14 Dec 1949. According to Hagen and Ryholt (2014, 160, 162, 259), Rustafjaell would issue press releases about important discoveries, all of which were related to objects in his own collection, which had, rather conveniently, just appeared at auction. The ultimate aim was to drive up the price by creating a bidding war! Objects from these sales have since ended up in the British Museum, British Library, Berlin Museum, the Louvre, and many other museums. During the first two sales in 1906 and 1907, Sir Henry Wellcome bought extensively, with at least 500 objects from these sales now in the Egypt Centre collection. Perhaps the most unusual of all these objects are eleven stones, which will be the focus of this blog (fig. 1). But what are they, and are they more than just a load of old stones?

Fig. 1: EC1432g

EC1432a–k are eleven fairly large and irregularly shaped stones, all of which have a hollow. Some bear their lot stickers of 204/6 or 206/7, indicating that they were purchased by Wellcome during the 1907 Rustafjaell sale. The auction catalogue describes both as “a similar lot”. However, they are preceded by the following text: “WATER RECEPTACLES IN LIMESTONE AND FLINT, used in the fabrication of Flint Implements in the palaeolithic period. [Plate II]. A description of these very interesting vessels and an account of their discovery on the plateau of the Desert, W. of Thebes, has recently been published by Mr. Rt. De Rustafjaell, “Palaeolithic Vessels of Egypt: The earliest handiwork of Man” (Macmillan & Co.). The evidence of the use of such vessels in the manufacture of flint instruments is shown by the wall painting (of a very much later period) discovered at Beni Hassan. The receptacles seem to have been selected from stones having a natural hollow on one surface: they were then roughly fashioned into shape and the hollow artificially enlarged. Unfortunately most of the distinct evidence of this artificial enlargement has disappeared, partly by the accidental abrasion arising from long-continued use, and mostly by the weathering to which the objects have been subjected since the very remote period of their production.” (fig. 2)

Fig. 2: Plate II of the 1907 catalogue showing two "vessels" on the top row and two on the bottom

As noted in the description, these “vessels” were published by Rustafjaell shortly before the auction took place. Rustafjaell describes exploring the Western Desert in the Theban region during the first half of 1907. The largest of the “vessels” were found near the area of el-Mallah, halfway between Luxor and Nagada on the West Bank of the Nile (Rustafjaell 1907, fig. 1). He notes that “this site was undoubtedly then a ‘factory’ of limestone water vessels, and the halting pace in the valley below, where we took shelter, probably served as the distributing centre for this kind of ware (fig. 3). It is probable that these vessels were hewn out with Palaeolithic flint implements, and indeed two axeheads were found near the cluster” (Rustafjaell 1907, 18). Additionally, “the cavities thus produced by natural means would hold water readily, and it was no doubt the sight of these natural vessels that first prompted the palaeolithic man to an artificial adaption with the same purpose in view” (de Rustafjaell 1907, 14).

Fig. 3: De Rustafjaell 1909, Plate XII

Are these objects really early receptacles for liquids and the inspiration for later stone vessels, as proposed by Rustafjaell? Well, not quite. These objects are nothing more than natural stones (fig. 4)! But did Rustafjaell really think that they were ancient “vessels” or was this a ruse to making some money out of nothing? Lots 202–208 are all described as similar objects, which amounted to forty-eight items. If Rustafjaell really was trying to cash in on his “discovery”, he would no doubt have been disappointed as these five lots for very little money. Wellcome, possibly disappointed with the purchases his agents made during the 1907 sale—aside from the lots described above, a high percentage of those purchased were fakes—bought very few lots during the 1913 sale.

Fig. 4: The Illustrated London New article announcing the discovery

Perhaps quite appropriately, Rustafjaell (1907, 22) finishes his booklet with the following words: “Time alone can turn conjecture into certainty and future generations may have exact knowledge where we can only form theories”.

Bibliography:

De Rustafjaell, Robert 1907. Palaeolithic vessels of Egypt: or the earliest handiwork of man. London: Macmillan.

———. 1909. The light of Egypt: from recently discovered predynastic and early Christian records. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner.

———. 1914. The stone age in Egypt; a record of recently discovered implements and products of handicraft of the archaic Nilotic races inhabiting the Thebaid. New York: W. E. Rudge.

Hagen, Fredrik and Kim Ryholt 2016. The antiquities trade in Egypt 1880–1930: the H.O. Lange papers. Scientia Danica. Series H, Humanistica, 4 8. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.

Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge 1906. Catalogue of the collection of Egyptian antiquities, formed in Egypt by R. De Rustafjaell, which will be sold by auction by Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge...19th December, 1906 and two following days... London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge.

———. 1907. Catalogue of a collection of antiquities from Egypt, ... being the second portion of the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell, esq. F.R.G.S, which will be sold by auction, ... on Monday, the 9th of December, 1907, and the following day. London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge.

———. 1913. Catalogue of the remaining part of the valuable collection of Egyptian antiquities formed by Robert de Rustafjaell, Esq. London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge.

A Review of 2021 at the Egypt Centre

As with 2020, this past year has been one with many challenges due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Throughout this time, staff at the Egypt Centre have been working extra hard with our public engagement, both in person and online. In doing so, we have been able to make 2021 a success on many fronts. This blog post will present a brief review of some of the yearly highlights.

Perhaps the most important development of 2021 was the reopening of the museum to visitors after sixteen months of closure due to the Pandemic. This was a moment staff and volunteers had been waiting for what seemed like an eternity. Preparation for the reopening started in July to make the museum “COVID safe”. This was followed by four weeks of workshops for small groups of children in order to trial the new regulations. The museum finally opened the public and for schools in early October, albeit with reduced numbers and opening times. School groups now regularly visit the museum three times a week, while students also have the opportunity to work directly with the collection in-person once again (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Object-focused learning retuns to the Egypt Centre

2021 was a special year for the Egypt Centre as we celebrated fifty years since a large portion of the Wellcome collection arrived in Swansea, a collection that forms the core of the museum. To mark this occasion, we hosted a successful three-day conference. This event brought together curators and researchers from across the UK who work directly with Wellcome’s Egyptian collection. One of the highlights of the event was the announcement that the UCL Culture Heritage and Museums committee had agreed to transfer the plaster cast of the statue of Djedhor the Saviour to Swansea to be reunited with the base (fig. 2). The transfer of the statue is expected to take place in the summer of 2022. We are grateful to the committee, and especially to Anna Garnett, for making this happen.

Fig. 2: Plaster cast of the Djedhor the Saviour statue on display in the old Wellcome Museum

Coinciding with the anniversary conference was the launch of the new Egypt and its Neighbours display. Thanks to funding from the Institute of Classical Studies, Ersin Hussein and I selected objects from Greece, Rome, Cyprus, the Near East, and Nubia, many of which had never been displayed before (fig. 3). The case has been well received by visitors, with the cast of a statue of Lamassu—a celestial being from ancient Mesopotamian religion bearing a human head, bull’s body, sometimes with the horns and the ears of a bull, and wings—a particular favourite with school children. With the museum being closed for the first half of 2021, this also provided the opportunity to refurbish some of the other cases. For example, the Amarna objects were moved to a larger case, which allowed for more objects to be displayed.

Fig. 3: The new Egypt and its Neighbours case

From February 2021, the Egypt Centre collaborated with the newly formed Interdisciplinary Egyptology (IntEg) group to host twelve discussion panels via Zoom. One of the aims of the group is to present cutting-edge interdisciplinary discussions in the field of Egyptology. Over six weeks in February and March 2021, twelve discussion panels took place. Topics included archaeology, Egyptology in the digital age, ethics, and Egyptology’s post-colonial future (fig. 4). While these events were not organised by the Egypt Centre, they helped to increase the international awareness of the museum.

Fig. 4: Stats from the IntEg panel discussions

In November, Egypt Centre volunteer and former Swansea University student, Sam Powell, was awarded the prestigious Welsh Regional Marsh Award for Museum Learning in a ceremony held at the British Museum (fig. 5). During the Pandemic, Sam moderated online Egyptology courses, fundraising events and conferences, created and hosted online quizzes, as well as writing blogposts. Her creation of the Egypt Centre’s online catalogue (Abaset) has helped to make the collection much more accessible to researchers and the public. In addition, Sam’s research on Egypt Centre objects, specifically wooden ancient Egyptian figures, has broadened the knowledge of these items. This was a thoroughly deserved award and we are very grateful for all the work that Sam has done for the Egypt Centre.

Fig. 5: Sam receiving her volunteer of the year award

While the above highlights are just a few of the many successes of 2021, we look forward to more in 2022. In a few weeks, I’ll be starting my latest Egypt Centre course, which examines priests and priestesses in ancient Egypt. We plan to continue refurbishing the galleries, including installing a new Writing and Maths case in the House of Life. And don’t forget that in September the Egypt Centre is teaming up with the Egypt Exploration Society to host the EES Congress. All in all, plenty to look forward to in 2022. Happy New Year from all of us at the Egypt Centre!

Reuniting a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Figure with its Headdress

In last week’s blog post, I presented the back panel of a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure (W2052). This is one of twenty-nine objects in the Egypt Centre collection, which have been categorised as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures: twenty figures and nine headdresses. While photographing some of these items last month, I was particularly intrigued by one of the headdresses (W2062). The object is a typical example of the Ptolemaic Period and may not seem to be overly exciting. It is made of wood, which is covered in a layer of painted gesso. Measuring 202mm in height, 169mm wide, and 22mm thick, the headdress was clearly part of a large Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure (fig. 1). The ram’s horns are painted black, while the double features have blue, red, and green decoration on a cream background. A yellow sun disc is painted on the front.

Fig. 1: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris headdress (W2062)

So what makes this headdress so interesting? Well, when checking the data on the Egypt Centre’s catalogue, I noticed that it had an unidentified number 118 associated with it. As the catalogue had no further details about this number, I checked the object file to see if there was anything additional, or even if the label with this number still existed. Fortunately, it did, with the style indicating to me that it was a lot number (fig. 2). This is not surprising since much of the Egypt Centre collection originated from that of Sir Henry Wellcome, who purchased innumerable Egyptian objects at auction for over three decades until his death in 1936.

Fig. 2: Archives from the object file, including lot label

With no further details on the label, surely it would prove difficult to identify the specific auction? While the label may seem somewhat generic, I knew it was a type commonly found on objects from the 1907 collection of Robert de Rustafjaell, which was auctioned by Sotheby’s. Therefore, I checked lot 118 in the auction catalogue to see if the description matched. Bingo! My hunch proved accurate, with the catalogue describing the lot as “Another of similar size, the base shorter [Plate VIII]”. The preceding lot was a complete Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, which also happens to be in the Egypt Centre collection (W2001C). Most exciting is that a photo of W2062 is shown in the plates, but as a complete Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure rather than just the crown of a figure (fig. 3)!

Fig. 3: Plate VIII showing lots 117 (W2001) and 118

I checked the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures in the Egypt Centre collection to see if any matched the plate, without success. Knowing that the Egyptian material in the Wellcome collection was dispersed to several UK institutions, I messaged Dr Ashley Cooke, the lead curator of antiquities in the World Museum Liverpool, to ask if the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure was in Liverpool. I received a reply within an hour, with Ashley suggesting that it could be acquisition number -. This object is a tall and slender Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure on a base, which, stylistically, comes from Akhmim (fig. 4). A comparison between the photos provided by Ashley and the plate confirm a perfect match. Readers to this blog are probably wondering about the Sokar-hawk, which is shown on top of the base on the Liverpool object but not in the auction catalogue. It turns out that this Sokar-hawk is a recent addition, which carries a different acquisition number.

Fig. 4: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure in Liverpool (1973.1.686)

So how and when did the crown become separated from the figure and base? While it is not possible to say with any precision, it can be determined that this happened sometime between 1907 and 1927. The Wellcome number associated with the figure in Liverpool is A61348 (fig. 5), which describes it as a “STATUETTE. Wood, carved, 20" high 4½" wide on base 12¾ " x 4 Painted with heiroglyphics and inscription. Egyptian.” This roughly matches the measurements of the Liverpool figure, indicating that the headdress in Swansea was no longer associated with it when the object was catalogued at the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum in 1927.

Fig. 5: Wellcome slip

This blog post highlights the importance of collaboration between museums with Wellcome material, which can often lead to understanding our collections better and even virtually reuniting objects. I am most grateful to Ashley for providing information and photos of the figure in Liverpool.

 

Bibliography:

Bosse-Griffiths, Kate 2001. Problems with Ptaḥ-Sokar-Osiris figures: presented to the 4th International Congress of Egyptology, Munich, 1985. In Bosse-Griffiths, Kate, Amarna studies and other selected papers, 181–188. Freiburg (Schweiz); Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Raven, Maarten J. 1978–1979. Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues. Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 59–60, 251–296.

Raven, Maarten J. 1984. Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues [+ corrigenda]. In Symbols of resurrection: three studies in ancient Egyptian iconography / Symbolen van opstanding: drie studies op het gebied van Oud-Egyptische iconografie, 251–296, xi. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.

Rindi Nuzzolo, Carlo 2014. Two Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim in the Egyptian collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 119, 13–41.

Rindi Nuzzolo, Carlo 2017. Tradition and transformation: retracing Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim in museums and private collections. In Gillen, Todd (ed.), (Re)productive traditions in ancient Egypt: proceedings of the conference held at the University of Liège, 6th–8th February 2013, 445–474. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège.

Sotheby, Wilkinson, & Hodge. (1907) Catalogue of a collection of antiquities from Egypt, ... being the second portion of the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell, esq. F.R.G.S, which will be sold by auction, ... on Monday, the 9th of December, 1907, and the following day. London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge.

The Curious Case of a Ptah-Sokar Osiris Figure and a Goddess

 At the Fourth International Congress of Egyptology, which was held in Munich in 1985, Kate Bosse-Griffiths presented a paper on the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures in the Swansea Wellcome Collection (now the Egypt Centre). This paper was published posthumously in a volume edited by her husband Gwyn Griffiths in 2001. In this paper, Kate highlighted the back panel of a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure (W2051), which was apparently found with an extraordinary figure of a goddess made entirely of linen (W2051a). She noted that both were broken in the same place, just below the knee area. But do these objects really belong together? 

W2051 is a thin fragment of wood, which measures 409mm in its height, 134mm wide, and 25mm thick. The back is plastered and painted with a black background and a dark blue wig. Directly below the wig is an inscription consisting of two columns of black painted hieroglyphs, which are added on a cream background. The inside has been hollowed out to produce a cavity in the trunk, which follows the mummiform-shaped contour of the figure. Four rectangular and one circular mortices have been manufactured along the border of the panel, which would have been joined with tenons on the missing front side (fig. 1). As noted previously, the lowest portion of the panel is now missing. The object can be classified as Type IVF, defined by Raven in his study on Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures (1979, 268).

Fig. 1: Ptah-Sokar-Osiris case (W2051)

The inscription on the back of W2051 is a particular type of text known as the Atum hymn (fig. 2). First published by Budge (1925, 53), the hymn was analysed by Raven (1979, 54) and more recently Rindi Nuzzolo (2017, 461–462). The text, which is to be read from right to left, reads as follows:

(1) ḏd mdw i͗n wsi͗r ḫnty-i͗mntt nṯr ꜥꜣ nb ꜣbḏw skr-wsi͗r ḥry-i͗b i͗pw ꜣst wrt [...]

(1) Words spoken by Osiris, Foremost of the West, the Great God, Lord of Abydos, Sokar-Osiris, who resides in Akhmim, Isis the Great [...].

(2) i͗nḏ ḥr.k i͗wꜥw pr m nṯr pn nḫḫ pr m tm ḏt nṯr i͗i͗ [...]

(2) Greetings to you, heir who originated from this god, spittle that originated from Atum, divine body that returns [...].

Fig. 2: Hieroglyphs on W2051

A recent article by Rindi Nuzzolo (2014) published two Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim, which represent very close parallels to W2051. The first is also a back panel of a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure now housed in the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts (inv. no. 51.244), while the second is in the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne (inv. no. D96/1982). The latter object, which belonged to a man called Hor, is particularly significant as it is complete. The front of the figure is completely gilded in thin gold leaf, with the exception of the wig and horns. It is likely that W2051 also had a front panel that was gilded just like that in Melbourne, and it is even possible that they were produced in the same workshop at Akhmim (fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Comparison between the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure in Melbourne (left & centre) and the Egypt Centre (right). Rindi Nuzzolo 2014, fig. 16.

W2051a is a figure of a woman standing 315mm high, 82mm wide, and 57mm in its depth. It appears to be made entirely of linen, which is covered in a thick layer of painted gesso. The arms are pendant by her side and there is a hole in the top of the head for the attachment of a headdress. Her skin is painted yellow, the hair a dark blue to resemble lapis lazuli, and she wears a long green dress (fig. 4). There can be little doubt that she represents a goddess, perhaps Isis or Nephthys. Bosse-Griffiths called the figure “remarkable”, a view that has been expressed by other scholars who have visited the Egypt Centre over the years.

Fig. 4: Figure of a goddess (W2051a)

The mummiform-shaped cavity of W2051 indicates that the object originally held a figure. This was common of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures, which often contained a concealed cavity such as a corn mummy. But did W2051a really belong with W2051 as was proposed by Kate Bosse-Griffiths? Before discussing this, it is important to review her comments on this. Bosse-Griffiths wrote that “fitting neatly the cavity is not a mummy, but the fully clad figure of a woman” (2021, 184). She also described it as “a female figure lying in a coffin like Snow-White”, proposing that it was a representation of the goddess Nut (2021, 185). The fact that both objects were broken roughly in the same place seemed to throw weight behind the proposal that they belonged together. However, a closer examination of both objects reveals that the goddess does not fit neatly into the cavity as had previously been suggested. Instead, the figure slightly covers the border of the back panel, thus making it clear that it would have been impossible for such a large figure to be concealed within.

Documentation associated with the two objects further confirms that W2051 and W2051a were not originally connected. Before conservation at Cardiff University in 1989, W2051 had a circular serrated label with the number 1091 written on it. This label type appears to be a numbering system used by the Assyriologist William St. Chad Boscawen (1855–1913) to catalogue objects purchased by Sir Henry Wellcome in 1907 from the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell. The unpublished catalogues of Boscawen’s inventory of Egyptian items purchased/received by Wellcome between 1906–1912 have recently been rediscovered in archives of the Petrie Museum. Because of COVID-19 restrictions, it has not been possible to consult these, but eventually it should be possible to ascertain the lot number from the sale. W2051a, on the other hand, was purchased by Wellcome in 1931 from Foster’s dealer and auctioneers. Lot 175, which is described as “an Ancient Egyptian stuffed doll, another, in clay, and a pair of ancient sandals, in painted wood” was purchased for £2/10s. Thus, both objects entered the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum twenty-four years apart before eventually arriving to Swansea in 1971. It is possible that in the intervening years the objects were grouped together in one box, which led Kate Bosse-Griffiths to mistakenly believe that they belonged together!

Bibliography:

Bosse-Griffiths, Kate 2001. Problems with Ptaḥ-Sokar-Osiris figures: presented to the 4th International Congress of Egyptology, Munich, 1985. In Bosse-Griffiths, Kate, Amarna studies and other selected papers, 181–188. Freiburg (Schweiz); Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Budge, E. A. Wallis 1925. The mummy: a handbook of Egyptian funerary archaeology, 2nd, revised and greatly enlarged ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Horry, Ruth 2015. Assyriology at the margins, the case of William St. Chad Boscawen (1855–1913). Iraq 77/1, 107–128.

Raven, Maarten J. 1978–1979. Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues. Oudheidkundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 59–60, 251–296.

Raven, Maarten J. 1984. Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues [+ corrigenda]. In Symbols of resurrection: three studies in ancient Egyptian iconography / Symbolen van opstanding: drie studies op het gebied van Oud-Egyptische iconografie, 251–296, xi. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.

Rindi Nuzzolo, Carlo 2014. Two Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim in the Egyptian collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 119, 13–41.

Rindi Nuzzolo, Carlo 2017. Tradition and transformation: retracing Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim in museums and private collections. In Gillen, Todd (ed.), (Re)productive traditions in ancient Egypt: proceedings of the conference held at the University of Liège, 6th–8th February 2013, 445–474. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège.