Ancient Egyptian Coffins: Craft Traditions and Functionality 9789042934658, 9042934654

Citation preview

BRITISH MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS ON EGYPT AND SUDAN 4

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COFFINS Craft traditions and functionality

edited by

John H. TAYLOR and Marie VANDENBEUSCH

PEETERS

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COFFINS

BRITISH

MUSEUM

PUBLICATIONS

ON

EGYPT

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COFFINS

Craft traditions and functionality

edited by

John H. TAYLOR and Marie VANDENBEUSCH

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2018

AND

SUDAN

4

Cover illustration: Detail of the coffin of Denytenamun. British Museum EA 6660. Photograph: Joanna Fernandes.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-3465-8 eISBN 978-90-429-3704-8 D/2018/0602/78 © 2018, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval divices or systems, without the prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Contributors ...........................................................................................................................................

VII

2014 Colloquium Programme ...........................................................................................................................

IX

John H. TAYLOR and Marie VANDENBEUSCH Preface................................................................................................................................................................

XI

I. CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS:

RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY AND TEXTS

Harco WILLEMS The coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef: a Middle Kingdom Book of the Dead? ...................................

3

Rogério SOUSA The genealogy of images: innovation and complexity in coffin decoration during Dynasty 21 ....................

17

Andrzej NIWIŃSKI The decoration of the coffin as a theological expression of the idea of the Universe ....................................

33

René VAN WALSEM Some gleanings from ‘stola’ coffins and related material of Dynasty 21–22 ................................................

47

Hisham EL-LEITHY Iconography and function of stelae and coffins in Dynasties 25–26 ...............................................................

61

Andrea KUCHAREK Mourning and lamentation on coffins ...............................................................................................................

77

II. RESULTS OF RECENT FIELDWORK AND ARCHIVAL

RESEARCH

Marilina BETRÒ The black-varnished coffin of Qenamon and Ippolito Rosellini’s excavations in the Theban necropolis......

119

Anna STEVENS Beyond iconography: The Amarna coffins in social context ...........................................................................

139

Marilina BETRÒ and Gianluca MINIACI Used, reused, plundered and forgotten: A rare group of early Ramesside coffins from tomb MIDAN.05 in the Theban necropolis ...................................................................................................................................

161

Gábor SCHREIBER Mummy-boards from a Theban group burial dating to Dynasty 20 ................................................................

185

Fruzsina BARTOS An example of a rare Dynasty 22 cartonnage type from the excavation of TT 65 and its surroundings .......

201

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VI

III. COFFINS IN

CONTEXT: BURIAL ASSEMBLAGES AND SACRED SPACE

Marleen DE MEYER Reading a burial chamber: Anatomy of a First Intermediate Period coffin in context ...................................

217

Wolfram GRAJETZKI The burial of the ‘king’s daughter’ Nubhetepti-khered ....................................................................................

231

Gianluca MINIACI Burial equipment of rishi coffins and the osmosis of the ‘rebirth machine’ at the end of the Middle Kingdom ............................................................................................................................................................

247

Anders BETTUM Nesting (part two): Merging of layers in New Kingdom coffin decoration ....................................................

275

IV. COFFINS IN CONTEXT: SOCIETY AND CRAFT ENVIRONMENT Kathlyn M. COONEY Coffin reuse in Dynasty 21: A case study of the coffins in the British Museum ..........................................

295

Alessia AMENTA New results from the CT scanning of a coffin .................................................................................................

323

Edoardo GUZZON Examining the coffins from the collective tomb found by Ernesto Schiaparelli in the Valley of the Queens: An essay on epigraphic and stylistic ‘clustered features’ as evidence for workshops ....................................

337

John H. TAYLOR Evidence for social patterning in Theban coffins of Dynasty 25 .....................................................................

349

V. COFFINS IN CONTEXT: REGIONAL VARIATIONS Katharina STÖVESAND Regional variability in Late Period Egypt: Coffin traditions in Middle Egypt ...............................................

389

Éva LIPTAY Burial equipment from Akhmim in ancient and modern contexts ...................................................................

403

Alexandra KÜFFER Tracing the history of a coffin and its mummy. The burial equipment from Gamhud at the Museum of Ethnology in Burgdorf (Switzerland) ...........................................................................................................

415

Béatrice HUBER with a contribution from Claudia NAUERTH Coptic coffins from Qarara. The Pfauensarg (peacock coffin) in context ......................................................

435

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Alessia Amenta Curator Egyptian Department Vatican Museums [email protected] Marilina Betrò Università di Pisa Egittologia – Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere [email protected] Anders Bettum Oslo Museum [email protected] Fruzsina Bartos Department of Egyptology Faculty of Humanities Eötvös Loránd University [email protected] Kathlyn M. Cooney Associate Professor of Ancient Egyptian Art & Architecture Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures University of California Los Angeles [email protected] Marleen De Meyer KU Leuven, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology [email protected] Hisham El-Leithy Center of Documentation of Egyptian Antiquities (CDEA) & Scientific Publication Department Ministry of Antiquities Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt [email protected] Wolfram Grajetzki University College London [email protected]

Edoardo Guzzon Independent Researcher [email protected] Béatrice Huber University of Tübingen, Germany [email protected] Andrea Kucharek University of Heidelberg Ägyptologisches Institut [email protected] Alexandra Küffer Ancient Egypt, History and Ethnography Museum St. Gallen, Switzerland [email protected] Éva Liptay Museum of Fine Arts Budapest Department of Egyptian Antiquities [email protected] Gianluca Miniaci Università di Pisa Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere [email protected] Claudia Nauerth University of Heidelberg, Germany Andrzej Niwiński Warsaw University Institute of Archaeology [email protected] Gábor Schreiber Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest [email protected] Rogério Sousa Centre of Humanistic and Classical Studies (University of Coimbra) Centre of History (University of Lisbon) [email protected]

VIII

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Anna Stevens Amarna Project McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge [email protected] Katharina Stövesand German Archaeological Institute Cairo Institute of African Studies and Egyptology University of Cologne [email protected] John H. Taylor Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan British Museum [email protected]

René van Walsem, Leiden University, Department of Classical and Ancient Cultures, Egyptology Leiden Institute of Area Studies (LIAS) [email protected]; [email protected] Harco Willems KU Leuven, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology [email protected]

2014 COLLOQUIUM PROGRAMME Monday 28 July Session:Middle Kingdom A fresh look at some Theban coffins from the late Middle Kingdom  MarcelMarée The coffin and tomb of the King’s Daughter Nubhetepti-khered  WolframGrajetzki Entering a new world: rishi coffins and the osmosis of the rebirth machine at the end of the late Middle Kingdom  GianlucaMiniaci Session: New Kingdom Coffins from the Kings’ Valley  SusanneBickel Beyond iconography: the Amarna coffins as archaeological, social and cult artifacts  AnnaStevens Observations on the mummy boards found in two Ramesside group burials in Theban Tomb -400 GáborSchreiber The principle of nesting in elite burials and religious art  AndersBettum Session:21st Dynasty The coffin decoration as theological expression of the idea of the universe  AndrzejNiwiński Style and composition: a genealogical perspective on coffin decoration (21st Dynasty)  RogérioSousa Session:The 2014 Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology The coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef: a Middle Kingdom Book of the Dead?  HarcoWillems

Tuesday 29 July Session:Reuse of 21st Dynasty coffins Coffin recycling: funerary culture in a time of economic crisis  KaraCooney New results from CT-scanning of a coffin  AlessiaAmenta An example of a rare 22nd Dynasty cartonnage type and some reused 21st Dynasty yellow coffin fragments from TT 65  FruzsinaBartos

X

2014 COLLOQUIUM PROGRAMME

Session:Late Period 25th–26th Dynasty coffins: a symbiotic relationship between iconography and structure  AllisonWilliams Two family tomb groups of the 25th Dynasty from Deir el Bahari  CynthiaSheikholeslami Iconography and function of stelae and coffins of the 25th–26th Dynasties  Hishamel-Leithy Regional variations in the decorative programmes on coffins of the Late and Ptolemaic periods  KatharinaStövesand Burial equipment from Akhmim in ancient and modern contexts ÉvaLiptay

PREFACE John H. TAYLOR and Marie VANDENBEUSCH

In the past thirty years there has been a steady upsurge of interest in the study of ancient Egyptian coffins, a development which has been manifested most recently in specialist themed exhibitions, in descriptive and discursive publications, and particularly in conferences. In July 2014 the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum organised an international colloquium entitled ‘Ancient Egyptian Coffins: craft traditions and functionality’, the 23rd in the Museum’s series of annual Egyptological colloquia. The two-day gathering was intended not just as a review of current work, but as a forum for the discussion of particular issues. The speakers were invited to focus on the practical and conceptual circumstances in which coffins were made, with consideration of workshop practices and regional variability, as well as analyses of coffin iconography and inscriptions as clues to their functional roles as ‘structured compositions’. Contributors were also encouraged to consider coffins in context, both individually and as components of larger conceptual entities, in which the mummy, the burial chamber and the tomb itself all had specific meanings. The roles played by coffins in the pre-burial rituals and in post-burial reuse were also to be considered. The chronological approach, favoured at the colloquium and deemed to encourage discussions between speakers, seemed too linear. In this volume, we therefore decided to present the papers thematically allowing more versatile and comparative dialogues. The majority of the papers that were presented at the conference are included in this volume. To these have been appended other contributions, which reflect the themes mentioned above, adding to questions, themes or periods not examined at the conference. As always the colloquium coincided with a keynote paper, the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology. This presentation by Harco Willems on the coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef is also included in the present volume. Since the 1980s the study of Egyptian coffins has passed through several phases, reflecting a process of orientation and definition in the direction of research. A first stage concentrated on the documentation and

classification of the coffins of major chronological periods, represented notably by the publications of Harco Willems, Günther Lapp, Andrzej Niwiński, René van Walsem and others. This work inevitably overlapped with ground-breaking interpretational studies, which are inseparable from attempts to assign dates, provenance and classification to the source material. More intensive documentation has followed: notably the collection of data on the scattered contents of the great ‘priests of Amun’ tomb of Bab el Gasus and on the rich but sadly dispersed post-New Kingdom material from Akhmim, from northern Upper Egypt and the Fayum, etc. Simultaneously there has been a move to harness new techniques (such as CT scanning) for scrutinising and recording coffins, attempts to establish a consistent terminology for types and components of coffin ensembles and a drive to recover missing details of provenance and context through archival research. Researchers also examine function and materiality, palaeographical evidence for craftsmen and production scenarios, and socio-economic aspects. All of these themes have been highlighted in the two Vatican conferences (2013 and 2017) and those in Porto, Lisbon and Cambridge. The subtitle of the present volume emphasises ‘functionality’, a term which is used here, not in relation to computer science, but in its more ‘traditional’ sense of an object’s capacity to serve a purpose. Many of the papers here address this fundamental issue: what were Egyptian coffins designed to do? What clues can we read in their shape, material, iconography, inscriptions, their role in rituals, the manner of their use and deposition? In some degree, all of the following contributions throw light on these questions, though the emphasis of each is slightly different. Establishing the chronological evolution of coffins and understanding their ritual/religious functions is an interlinked process. Five studies in this volume focus on the religious texts and iconography of coffins. Harco Willems considers an unusual set of Middle Kingdom coffins which bear spells which foreshadow the Book of the Dead and provide a coherent model for the experience of the deceased in the hereafter. Andrzej Niwiński draws on the rich repertoire of images which

XII

PREFACE

cover the Theban coffins of Dynasty 21, focusing on scenes which magically promoted the notion of the coffin as a representation of the universe. Rogério Sousa investigates the evolution of the design structure of coffin lids of the same period to understand the interaction between continuity and variation in the iconographic layout of their surfaces. In order to correctly understand the principles which governed the work of painters, it is necessary to shift freely from macroscopic to microscopic focus, and it is sometimes the small idiosyncratic details within a familiar scene, or the composition of frames, borderlines and floral collars which can prove to be revealing, as René van Walsem demonstrates by a close scrutiny of the ‘stola’ coffins of late Dynasty 21 – early Dynasty 22. In contrast, Andrea Kucharek takes one major theme, that of mourning and lamentation and reviews its occurrence on coffins throughout the entire pharaonic period; this study shows how attention to detail can uncover unexpected allusions to lamentation, as for example in the depiction of bird deities with open beaks. The paper by Hisham el-Leithy considers how important designs could be transferred and adapted between contemporaneous coffins and stelae. New fieldwork is revealing evidence that deepens knowledge and clarifies understanding of topics hitherto poorly documented. Anna Stevens reports on the Dynasty 18 coffins excavated in the non-elite South Tombs Cemetery at Amarna. The distribution of graves and wooden coffins at the site provides data for an assessment of the socio-economic situation of a localised population within a narrow time-frame, and the juxtaposition of coffins which depict pre-Amarna deities alongside ‘godless’ examples reflecting the new religion emphasises the tension between tradition and innovation in coffin design in the shadow of the most radical cultural upheaval in pharaonic history. Gábor Schreiber considers recently excavated Theban mummy-boards of Dynasty 20, a phase in which study has so far been hampered by a serious shortage of material, while Marilina Betrò and Gianluca Miniaci examine fragments of coffins from the early Ramesside period, helping to offset the dearth of coffin evidence which is for the scholar such a frustrating aspect of this otherwise well-documented period. The fragments in question, recently excavated in a Dynasty 18 tomb at Dra Abu el-Naga, also present evidence for the process of reuse, not only of tombs but also of coffins, which is coming to be seen as a more constant feature of ancient Egyptian mortuary practice than was

previously realised. These last two studies highlight the importance of paying close attention to small fragments and poorly-preserved specimens, which for much of the history of excavation in Egypt have been neglected or dismissed as of little value. Likewise, Fruszina Bartos’ focus on the fragments of an unusual type of cartonnage case, with images modelled in raised relief on the plastered surface, adds a new dimension to understanding of this distinctive type of body-case of Dynasty 22. Recent years have also witnessed efforts to recover provenance and contextual information on objects which were brought from Egypt long ago. Research among Egyptological archives is a key method, an example of which is given by Marilina Betrò in her study of the Dynasty 18 coffin of Qenamon which can now be brought more firmly into the working corpus through the clarification of details of its discovery. Context is of paramount importance in any attempt to understand the roles played by coffins in the wider realm of Egyptian mortuary practices. The coffin within its physical setting in the tomb naturally throws light on the conceptual landscape in which the dead were believed to exist, as well as on the nature, powers and needs of the dead. Four papers approach the subject from this angle. Marleen de Meyer focuses on an undisturbed burial of the First Intermediate Period to interpret the coffin in the context of the other burial goods in the tomb and from this to extract clues to the nature of the funerary rituals. Wolfram Grajetzki examines the burial of the King’s Daughter Nubheteptikhered from the late Middle Kingdom, again investigating the coffin’s relationship with the accompanying goods, which, he argues, constituted a three-dimensional rendering of the rites of mummification and burial for the deceased, identified as Osiris. Gianluca Miniaci focuses on the period of the emergence of the rishi coffin, taking account of the different motivations which may have driven change at this time (practical and socio-economic as well as ritual/symbolic), and draws attention to the tendency – marked at this time – for elements of the symbolic rebirth process to migrate between the coffin and other objects in the tomb, a kind of ‘osmosis’ which can be detected in funerary furnishings at other periods as well. This transmission or movement of symbolic features from surface to surface is also seen in the concentric layering of sacred spaces around the mummy, a phenomenon which becomes particularly prominent in high status burials from the New Kingdom onwards. Anders Bettum develops his

XIII

PREFACE

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

Giza Memphis Saqqara Dahshur FAYUM Lisht Meidum Abusir el-Meleq Sinai

Qarara EASTERN DESERT

el-Bersha el-Amarna

RED SEA

Asyut

R. N

ILE

VALLEY OF THE KINGS

Deir el-Bahri Dra Abu el-Naga

Abydos

Akhmim Dendera

VALLEY OF THE QUEENS

Thebes

Ramesseum Deir el- Medina

Medinet Habu

Karnak R. N I L E

Thebes 0

2 mls

1st cataract

3 kms

0

0

200 mls

LOWER 0

300 kms

NUBIA 2nd cataract

Map of Egypt showing locations of key sites discussed in papers (Claire Thorne).

previous work on the practice of ‘nesting’ coffins by demonstrating that elements or signifiers of different symbolic layers could be merged in the decoration of a single coffin in order either to economise on space and materials or perhaps for ritual purposes which remain to be fully understood. Coffins have long been viewed, quite justifiably, as crucial sources of religious texts and iconography, or of prosopographical data, but a productive trend in coffin studies today examines them as functional objects whose creation resonated with numerous aspects of ancient Egyptian society and culture. The fourth section of this volume examines the coffin as a manifestation of a person’s place in society – a marker of status, a commodity whose character was determined partly

by the cost of its manufacture. Several scholars are exploring what this materiality can reveal about the skills and practices of the craftsmen who responded to the requirements of their clients, and the influence of social status and community economics on the acquisition, commissioning, materials, design and adornment of coffins. Kathlyn Cooney, following her thesis on the economic significance of Ramesside coffins, has moved into the area of reuse. Her intensive scrutiny of the ‘yellow coffins’ of Dynasty 19-22 in many museums worldwide has revealed a surprisingly high level of reuse: currently at least 50% of coffins of this period are thought to have been adapted or repurposed and the coffins in the British Museum, the subject of her present paper, are no exception. This research has prompted

XIV

PREFACE

the observation that the coffins had become ‘transformative devices, rather than (...) long-term objects to be owned in perpetuity.’ Alessia Amenta explains how new techniques for studying coffins, such as CT scanning, are augmenting the data for these investigations by capturing clearer images of the internal structure of coffins and revealing evidence for the reuse of component parts. This is a rapidly evolving area of research, and the next steps in this type of non-invasive study will address documentation of the stratigraphy of decorative layers, and perhaps even the identification of pigments by measuring their density. Edoardo Guzzon looks at the graphic ‘fingerprints’ of craftsmen, as revealed in a large deposit of coffins from a communal burial of Dynasty 25, as a means of reuniting significant groups of coffins, and considering how the craftsmen were organised. The Theban coffins of this same period are considered by John Taylor as evidence for social patterning, with the clustering of particular constellations of features as indicators of points on a spectrum of variability which might be related to the status and/or economic capability of the owners. These studies also touch on the question of the personal influence which craftsmen could bring to the designs of the coffins they made, contributing something to the vexed question of who determined the ultimate appearance of an individual coffin. The final group of papers concentrates on coffins from different geographical areas of Egypt. While the significance of the regions for coffin development in the Middle Kingdom has long been recognised, for the post-New Kingdom Thebes has traditionally enjoyed the limelight in such studies. In view of the wealth of material from the site it is inevitable that the intensive study of Theban coffins will continue. By comparison, the many coffins from other parts of Egypt have been neglected, but a number of scholars are now redressing the balance, casting the spotlight on other sites. Katharina Stövesand discusses the Late Period coffins from northern and middle Egypt, comparing and contrasting

examples of the ‘northern’ tradition with those from the more southerly centres of Thebes and Akhmim, and arguing for the recognition of specific decoration patterns as hallmarks of particular regions. In Éva Liptay’s discussion of some coffins from Akhmim dating to the first millennium BC the issue of reuse is again in the foreground, with the question of whether some evidence for its occurrence may denote ancient reuse rather than the familiar antiquities dealers’ practice of combining pieces of different dates. Two further papers describe coffins dating to later periods from other sites in the northern region of the Nile valley. Alexandra Küffer considers a coffin in a Swiss museum which can be attributed to the Ptolemaic cemetery of Gamhud in northern Middle Egypt. Her research led her to the excavation of the base of the coffin, hence discovering the skeletal remains of the deceased as well as cartonnage trappings. Finally, Béatrice Huber and Claudia Nauerth provide a full treatment of one of the most interesting coffins of the Coptic period, the 7th-8th century ‘peacock coffin’ from Qarara, here discussed in unprecedented depth and with illuminating references to comparanda. Acknowledgements We wish here to record our thanks to all those who participated in the colloquium and to the contributors of the additional papers, as well as to the scholars to acted as chairs for the discussion sessions and the many other colleagues and volunteers who contributed their help and advice to make the colloquium such a rewarding and enjoyable occasion. The production of this volume could not have been achieved without the work of a dedicated team. Special thanks are owed to Carolyn Jones for copy-editing the papers, to Claire Thorne for the general map, to the Publication Support Fund of the British Museum, and to the staff of Peeters, Leuven – especially Bert Verrept – for their professionalism and attention to detail.

I CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS: RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY AND TEXTS

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF: A MIDDLE KINGDOM BOOK OF THE DEAD? Harco WILLEMS

Abstract This article offers a study of the decoration pattern of the late Middle Kingdom coffins of the lector priest Sesenebenef from al-Lisht (L1Li-L2Li). Based on the method of ‘sequencing’, the author analyses the internal chronology of the Coffin Texts spells on these sources. Whereas coffins from the earlier Middle Kingdom usually focus on the journey of the deceased through the nightly netherworld towards the eastern horizon, Sesenebenef’s coffins reveal a different temporal framework, which covers the entire solar cycle through both its diurnal and nocturnal phases. Moreover, the deceased in the eastern horizon is frequently seen to look back to events during the preceding night hours, or to look ahead to the events during the day to come. The text also refers to previous and subsequent cycles. The focus on rising from the eastern horizon (appearing into daylight, prỉ.tmhrw) and the fact that many spells are early forms of the Book of the Dead, or at least lack parallels in the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts, suggests that Sesenebenef’s texts follow the conceptual frame of the Book of the Dead. * * * Between 1894 and 1896, Joseph Gautier and Gustave Jéquier conducted excavations at the site of Lisht (Gautier and Jéquier 1902). Most importantly, their work revealed numerous aspects of the layout and infrastructure of the pyramid complexes of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I. However, a less well-known burial emerged north-east of the pyramid temple of the latter king, near the mastaba of Imhotep. Beside this tomb, the shaft of a man called Sesenebenef was brought to light (Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 74–5, pls 16–26).

1

Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 77: ‘Les textes du sarcophage de Sesenb-nef, étant très développés et à peu près complets, pourront servir de base à la reconstitution du formulaire funéraire au Moyen Empire. Une analyse complète serait déplacée ici, et

The same area was investigated in 1986 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, but this team did not re-excavate the shaft of Sesenebenef (Arnold 2008, 33). The find documentation is therefore unfortunately restricted to the information provided in 1902 by Gautier and Jéquier. Their description shows that the tomb of Sesenebenef must have been fairly rich. Apart from his two coffins, it contained a canopic box, four canopic containers in the form of a naos topped by wooden heads of unspecified shape (unfortunately not illustrated: Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 74–5, fig. 94; Lüscher 1990, 28–9), and a collection of sticks and staves (Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 77–9, fig. 97). These latter all find parallels in the ritual of the offering of royal paraphernalia that was rendered on the walls of some Old Kingdom pyramids (Jéquier 1933, pl. 12), and that also features prominently in Middle Kingdom object friezes on the insides of coffins (Willems 1988, 204–6). These sticks and staves are now in Cairo, but the other objects were so badly preserved that they could not be taken out of the burial chamber, and that is probably where they remain today. The coffins (Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 16–26) are undoubtedly the most important element of this tomb, and Jéquier copied their decoration in its entirety. He writes: The texts of the coffin of Sesenb-nef, being highly developed and almost complete, can serve as a basis to reconstruct the funerary text programme of the Middle Kingdom. A complete analysis would be out of place here, and we have taken care to complement our brief description by a reproduction of the sides of the coffin which attempts to be as exact as possible, leaving it to others to present a more thorough study.1

nous nous bornons à joindre à cette courte description la reproduction aussi exacte que possible des parois du cercueil, laissant à d’autres le soin d’en faire une étude plus approfondie.’

4

H. WILLEMS

Fig. 1: Front exterior of coffin L1Li (after Gautier and Jéquier 1902, pl. 17).

Such an analysis still has not appeared, 116 years later, and this is what the present author is currently trying to achieve. This paper has the aim of offering an account of some of the results of this work. It should, however, be remarked that Jéquier obviously had to leave the coffins in the burial chamber, with the implication that he must also have made his copies there. The fact that he had to work in uncomfortable conditions, and probably without adequate lighting, probably explains numerous errors in the text copies. The decoration of the coffins partly reflects the tradition developed in mid-Dynasty 12. At this time, it was customary to have on the outside a horizontal band of ornamental hieroglyphs at the top, and below this, four text columns on the long sides (enclosing three rectangular panels), while on the front side there was an eye panel near the head end. On the short ends there were two columns enclosing a single panel. Often, these panels were left empty; increasingly, however, this space was filled with a palace façade ornamentation.2 This scheme clearly underlies the layout of the exterior

2

These are the decoration patterns of standard class coffin types IV and VI, see Willems 1988, 136–64.

of Sesenebenef’s outer coffin (L1Li), but here the panels were neither left empty nor filled with the serekh ornament; columns of Coffin Texts were inscribed instead (Fig. 1, showing the layout of FR). This layout is highly exceptional, although Wolfram Grajetzki has shown that it occurs in three other examples, all of which are unfortunately very damaged (Grajetzki 2010, 26, fig. 21, 27–8, fig. 23, 40–1, fig. 37). On the inside, Sesenebenef’s coffins are more original. An aspect found in no other assemblage is that the inner coffin L2Li fits so snugly inside the outer coffin L1Li that no empty space remains between the two. The outer coffin was decorated only at the top of the walls, and included just an object frieze, whereas the inner coffin carried only Coffin Texts. The traditional layout, having the object frieze over the Coffin Texts, was retained, but distributed over two different coffins (Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 75–6). The object frieze is much less varied than one is accustomed to see in earlier coffins. Normally, a wide variety of containers, tools, weapons, textiles, jewellery, cosmetic implements, ritual items, and so on are

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF

5

Fig. 2: The inside of FR of L1Li and L2Li (after Gautier and Jéquier 1902, pl. 23).

found. In the Lisht coffins, however, the items are entirely restricted to textile symbols and unguent vessels (Fig. 2, displaying FR interior), and usually these two kinds of items appear in pairs. Visually, this makes Sesenebenef’s coffins much less attractive than other Middle Kingdom coffins. The coffins’ date is not entirely clear. In the literature, their find spot near the pyramid of Senwosret I has led to their occasionally being dated to the early Middle Kingdom. However, even a cursory glance at the texts reveals that they are inscribed with mutilated hieroglyphs. According to a recent study by Gianluca Miniaci, such hieroglyphs only appeared towards the end of the reign of Amenemhat III. In the literature, they are for this reason generally dated to the very end of Dynasty 12 or the beginning of Dynasty 13 (Miniaci 2010, 113–34). Why study two poorly documented and currently inaccessible coffins, when so many others await investigation? The reasons for this have to do with the state of research on Middle Kingdom coffins. Integral studies of individual coffins are still rare. In 1996 the present author published an in-depth analysis of the coffin of Heqata (Willems 1996). The intention was to show

3

Dahms 2013. Two further studies of individual coffins exist, but I hesitate to mention them here, since the author does not present an analysis of these sources proper, but interprets only their

that a systemic analysis of an entire coffin (i.e. an investigation of the decoration programme of an entire coffin as a coherent composition) can tell us much more than study of individual texts and elements of the decoration ever could. As a matter of fact, Heqata’s coffin turned out to be cleverly composed, the principles underlying the three-dimensional programme revealing themselves to be no less subtle and complex than the decoration of Ptolemaic temples and their ‘grammaire du temple’. For some time this idea was not followed up, but in recent years Bernard Arquier has written a PhD in Montpellier about the coffins of Mesehti from Asyut (Arquier 2013), while Jan Dahms recently graduated in Heidelberg with another concerning two coffins from Saqqara.3 However, all coffins studied thus far date to relatively early in the Middle Kingdom. Our understanding might be greatly increased if the temporal frame were to be widened to include late Middle Kingdom coffins. Because the coffins of Sesenebenef present the largest collection of texts from this period, they are suitable for a case study. Their date is of more than trivial interest, because the Coffin Text tradition ended somewhere in the reign of Senwosret III or perhaps early in the reign of

texts, and does so not in a deductive way, but by applying a theoretical model to these sources (Meyer-Dietrich 2001 and Meyer-Dietrich 2006).

6

H. WILLEMS

Amenemhat III (see now Willems 2014, 222). This does not mean that no later examples exist of coffins inscribed with religious texts. Grajetzki has published a book and numerous articles in which late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period coffins are studied (for example Grajetzki 2005, 55–65; 2006, 205–16; 2010). However, these coffins usually contain a very small and repetitive text programme. Comparing them to earlier Middle Kingdom material, one has the impression that the Egyptian population was losing interest in these texts. Together with a few other examples, the coffins of Sesenebenef are by far the most elaborately inscribed and decorated specimens of the late Middle Kingdom. This may in part be due to the fact that their owner bore the title of ‘chief lector priest’ (ẖr.y-ḥb ḥr.y-tp). With this background, it must have been his job to recite religious texts in cult. The elaborate decoration of his coffins may reflect his greater-than-average interest in religious writings. Apart from the date of these coffins, another aspect explains the present writer’s interest in them. Adriaan de Buck included their texts in his seven-volume edition of the Coffin Texts, and for this reason they have always been regarded as belonging to that group of texts. However, de Buck himself, Lapp, and Grajetzki have repeatedly pointed out that many of the texts on the sides of these coffins are almost identical to texts later transmitted in Book of the Dead papyri.4 The suggestion in the title of this paper to the effect that the coffins of Sesenebenef can be seen as early Books of the Dead is accordingly not new. However, the intention of the present study differs from the aims of those scholars. They rightly pointed out that many texts on the Lisht coffins are early versions of Book of the Dead chapters, but they did not consider the implications of this observation. Identifying texts as precursors of Book of the Dead spells is one thing; it is another (and perhaps more interesting) matter to define what the textual programme means and how it differs from that on earlier Middle Kingdom coffins. I hope to show that these texts, as well as others on Sesenebenef’s coffins that did not survive into the Book of the Dead, form a cleverly designed composition, which, in atmosphere, has numerous elements in common with

4

De Buck did so in the concordances of CT and BD spells at the beginning of the CT volumes. See also Lapp 1986, 135–47; Grajetzki 2010, 30.

the main tenets of New Kingdom Book of the Dead religion. When I began my study of the coffins of Sesenebenef, many of the topics were immediately familiar to me from early Middle Kingdom sources. Yet these late Middle Kingdom texts somehow did not seem to meet my expectations. This I noticed because I have made it a habit not only to translate and comment upon funerary texts, but also to pay detailed attention to their internal chronology. This approach, which I call ‘sequencing’, has as its result a tabulation clarifying the chronological development of the episodes alluded to in a text (Willems 2017). I had made such tabulations for many early Middle Kingdom texts, and, no matter how different the texts themselves looked on the surface, the tabulations often turned out to fit into a common sequential pattern. What confused me at first in the coffins of Sesenebenef was the unexpected discovery that they failed to fit into the sequences to which I had grown accustomed. To clarify what makes his coffins so unusual, I cannot avoid entering into the action patterns I encountered in the early Middle Kingdom material. In the coffin of Heqata, a remarkable discovery was that the semantics of many of its sides is conceptually linked to their orientation (Willems 1996, 364–5 and passim). The back panel, which faced west, has to do with topics concerning the west, sunset, and entering the underworld. It is true that some passages on this coffin wall do allude to sunrise in the east, but these passages always use future-orientated grammatical forms. The bottom is linked to the night and events in the underworld. The same is true on the front side, orientated east, but here the most dominant themes are the offering ritual and sunrise. The offering theme can be explained because this side was theoretically directed to the offering place of the tomb, and traditionally the offering ritual therefore plays an important role on this side. Thus, the eastern coffin panel often includes a false door and an offering table, as well as an offering list. The frequent occurrence of Coffin Texts concerning offerings follows naturally from this. The theme of sunrise is also natural on this side, since this coffin panel faces the eastern horizon. Since sunrise (conceived as the rebirth of the sun god) was one of the

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF

7

models on which the post-mortem destiny of the deceased was patterned, it is natural that texts related to sunrise dominate the picture on the front side of the coffin. The back or western side accordingly has to do with the early part of the nightly sojourn in the netherworld, the bottom texts with the nightly netherworld, and the eastern side with the end of the night and sunrise. What would be more natural than to assume that the decoration of the lid would concern the journey through the day-sky? However, this is not the case. On the coffin of Heqata and many others, the lid does concern the sky, but, being decorated with a diagonal star clock and texts about Nut, its theme is the night-sky. In general, this coffin overwhelmingly focuses on the post-mortem destiny of the deceased during the night, and in no way concerns what happened after solar rebirth in the morning. The coffins and Coffin Texts that I have studied since all fit into the same model,5 and similar conclusions have been drawn by Arquier (2013) and Dahms (2013) regarding the coffins from Asyut and Saqqara studied by them. Although we are still far removed from a detailed understanding of the Coffin Texts, I would contend that most Middle Kingdom coffins primarily concern events during the night. The topics raised usually have to do with mummification in the place of embalming and the journey of different heavenly bodies (the sun, the moon, the stars) to celestial rebirth. In most texts, the ritual element (mummification and mortuary rituals performed at the tomb) is integrated with cosmological and mythological issues. Moreover, all this material seems to focus overwhelmingly on what happens in the latter half of the night. The general scheme of these nocturnal events comprises four phases (Fig. 3):6 1. The first part of the journey through the night; 2. The passage of a liminal zone; 3. Arrival in an area close to the eastern horizon, sheltering the body of a dead father god (usually Osiris); 4. Departing from the dead father god and experiencing solar rebirth.

These themes imply the relevance of the deceased experiencing a cyclic existence in the netherworld corresponding, for instance, to that of the sun. However, the focus is on the end of the night and the moment of sunrise, the rest hardly receiving attention in the Coffin Texts. The journey through the diurnal sky is not addressed at all, and the first part of the journey, from the western horizon into the netherworld, does not receive much attention. It merely seems to serve as the necessary preliminary for the crucial passage of a liminal zone by the deceased. This second phase constitutes a test, which the texts discuss in various forms. For instance, the deceased is awaited by gatekeepers, who give him a difficult time convincing them to let him pass. In other texts of the examination genre, the deceased wants to cross a waterway (the name of which is usually translated into English as the ‘Winding Waterway’). Here, the celestial ferrymen are reluctant to let him continue his journey, or demons threaten to catch him in their nets. In other cases, demons want to convince him that he should eat excrement and drink urine. In all these cases, dialogues between the deceased and the demons ensue, in which the deceased demonstrates his profound knowledge of things divine, and

5

6

Thus on a large group of coffins of mid-Dynasty 12 (Willems 1997, 343–72).

Fig. 3: Schematic overview of the major themes in the earlier Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts.

In the figures, the solar circuit is indicated by a yellow line passing through the diurnal (light blue) and nocturnal (black) skies. The blue arrow indicates the direction of the circuit.

8

H. WILLEMS

this finally gives him the right to continue his journey. In the third part, the deceased meets the dead father god (generally Osiris). Usually, he here assumes the role of a divine son (usually Horus), and it is his intention in this capacity to approach the dead father to perform resuscitating rituals, which are clearly patterned on embalming rites such as were performed on Earth for the deceased. But in the dialectics of these texts, the ritual act is performed by one god for another, and the final outcome of these mysterious acts is a transfer of life both to the dead father god and to the deified deceased. This leads to the final part. Having been recharged with life, the god in the filial role leaves his dead father again, and proceeds to sunrise. This part is usually described in wish-clauses, and not related as events actually taking place. However, the intention is clear: just like the sun in the morning, the revivified deceased comes to life again at sunrise. However, what happens after this moment is hardly ever made explicit in the Coffin Texts.7 Finally, there is usually a strong ritual element in the earlier Coffin Texts. Here, CT 30–78 are vital, not only because they describe the events so clearly, but also because this group occurs on the coffins of Sesenebenef as well. Therefore, as a last preliminary, these texts will be discussed briefly. The underlying action pattern in these texts is the same as that discussed above, but the texts are provided with explanatory notes, indicating that they should be recited by the son during mortuary rituals, which he performs at his father’s tomb (see for a schematic rendering: Fig. 4). Clearly, he is imagined to be standing in the tomb chapel, where he presents offerings to his dead father. In this ritual he resuscitates his dead father, but the liturgy also makes clear that the ritual acts effectively ‘launch’ the father on his journey through the netherworld. The son recites texts in which he talks to his father, but also to divinities dwelling in the netherworld, including Isis and Osiris. This ritual transforms the dead father into a Horus who approaches Osiris in the Field of Reeds, with the intention of

7

This brief overview offers a summary of a large amount of Coffin Text spells. For an easily accessible, but more detailed, overview, with reference to earlier literature, see Willems 2014, 182–201.

Fig. 4: Schematic rendering of the discourse in CT spells 30–7 in Middle Kingdom coffins from Dayr al-Barshā (after Willems 2001, 253–372). The liturgy of the son situates the dead father before the point where he passes a liminal area in the netherworld on his way to his dead father and to sunrise.

bringing this god back to life. The action pattern of these texts must be kept in mind for what follows. The son reciting the spells stands in the tomb chapel, which is referred to by the mythological term of the ‘Island of Fire’. The texts make clear that, by consuming the offerings, the deceased swallows magic. He travels from the Island of Fire (e.g. CTI, 117b [33]) to the eastern horizon, and most parts of his journey that are addressed conform to episodes 2 (the passage of a liminal area) and 3 (entering into the abode of Osiris). All these episodes are located in a region near the eastern horizon. Therefore, some of the gods whom the deceased has to pass in episode 3 are referred to as ‘the great ones who are in the Horizon’ (CTI, 88/89a [30]). In view of the logic of the text, this can only be the eastern horizon. The son in the tomb chapel also asks Osiris to let his father proceed. Let us now turn to the coffins of Sesenebenef. As noted before, several Egyptologists have already noticed that these coffins include many texts also known from the Book of the Dead. For instance, CT

8

What follows summarises the argument developed in Willems 2001, 253–372; a shorter version of this has been published in Willems 2014, 187–90.

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF

9

Fig. 5: B of coffin L1Li. The texts in dark red are ‘Coffin Text’ spells that survived into the Book of the Dead; those in light red are not attested in the Book of the Dead, but belong to the ‘Gestermann group’. Only spells 687 and 793 do not occur after the Middle Kingdom. Both spells appear only in L1Li.

218 corresponds closely to BD 53. Book of the Dead spells are exceedingly common on the outside. On most sides, this can be said of nearly every text. However, on the back side only a part corresponds to Book of the Dead chapters. Here, however, something else should be remarked. Recent investigations by Louise Gestermann have shown that Coffin Text spells were not only transmitted through the Book of the Dead. In a number of Saite Period tombs, there are texts that were not included in the Book of the Dead, but nevertheless survived into this late period (Gestermann 2005). Now almost all spells on the outside that were not transmitted into the Book of the Dead belong to this ‘Gestermann group’ (rendered in light red in Fig. 5). It thus seems likely that the texts on the outside all derive from archives where texts were kept that would survive

9

Only three text columns on this side did not survive after the Middle Kingdom (indicated in blue in Fig. 5). De Buck published these columns as CT VII, 3 [793]. His publication obscures the fact that these columns do not present a continuous text. Moreover, in content, all these lines are merely offering formulae, a text genre that de Buck did not generally include in the Coffin Texts. The horizontal line of ornamental hieroglyphs at the top of the wall (de Buck’s CT spell 687) is a real spell. It did not survive into the BD or into the ‘Gestermann group’, but neither are there earlier precursors.

after the Middle Kingdom. To put it another way, the outside of coffin L1Li was apparently reserved for ‘modern texts’.9 The inside, however, was inscribed with texts that did not survive in later eras, and that must thus stem from ancient sources. When I read the first texts inscribed on L1Li, I had great difficulty in understanding them, because they did not fit the sequence that I had deduced from the earlier coffins I had studied. As we have seen before, only the nightly part of the journey through the netherworld is normally represented, and the texts usually concentrate on the latter part of that journey (see Figs 3 and 4). Moreover, the different episodes of the journey are usually formulated in different time registers. Thus, the passage of the liminal phase 2 usually takes the form

Within the framework of this article we will only discuss the example of this particular wall; a more encompassing treatment will follow in the monograph I am preparing about the coffins of Sesenebenef. Generally it can be noted that texts on the outside are either early versions of BD chapters, CT spells of the Gestermann group, or unique spells (i.e. spells that, while not surviving in the later funerary corpus, did not have earlier precursors either).

10

H. WILLEMS

of dramatic texts. The deceased is talking to gatekeepers and other guards in the netherworld, attempting to convince them to let him pass. These texts almost always deploy the present tense. In the discourse of the texts, the deceased and the gods are accordingly present in one locality and the discussion has a sense of actuality. By contrast, the visit to the dead father god (phase 3) and the rise from the eastern horizon are only referred to in wish-clauses. This means that, at the moment the spell is supposed to be uttered, this moment still lies ahead. The first texts I read of L1Li are those on the footend: CT 283 and 296, which survived later as BD 86: ‘the spell for assuming the shape of a swallow’.10 The text refers to many themes that were already common early in the Middle Kingdom. In those earlier texts, there is repeated mention of the deceased visiting the corpse of Osiris, and of his journey to it, but the earlier texts presuppose that the deceased is still on his way there. By contrast, BD 86 on Sesenebenef’s coffin not only mentions these events, but consistently describes them as having occurred in the past. The deceased is speaking after he has treated the corpse of Osiris.11 Moreover, he expresses the wish not only to go out into the day, but also to enter the netherworld again and to visit the Field of Reeds. Since, in the Coffin Texts, the Field of Reeds is the region where the tomb of Osiris is located, the speaking situation differs entirely from the one to which I was accustomed. The deceased has left the abode of Osiris; he intends to go out into the day at sunrise, and looks forward to returning to where Osiris is during the next night. Accordingly, the discourse of this text does not stop at sunrise, but continues with the journey through the day-sky, and already looks ahead to the next journey through the netherworld. This spell has as its theme the entire solar cycle of one day, including both its diurnal and nocturnal phases.12 And, in fact, this is also what is said in the title to BD 86: ‘Whoever knows this spell, he will enter again after going out into the day in every form in which he likes to appear from the Field of Reeds’ (Lüscher 2006, 394–6). This title indicates that the purpose of the text is to go out into the day and to enter

again (in the netherworld). Significantly, the title states that the departure is from the Field of Reeds, whereas the main text expresses the hope to go there again. The cyclical nature of the text could not be expressed more clearly. The same issue is at stake in CT 340 = BD 13/132, which occurs on the back side and the lid. According to a title not transmitted in L1Li, ‘A man utters this spell that he may enter after having departed from the west. As regards someone who does not know this spell as someone who knows how to go out into the day, he will not enter after […]’ (CT IV, 342d–f [340]/B10C, BH4C). In this spell, the deceased wants to leave the netherworld as a phoenix, and to enter it again as a falcon; and by ‘entering’, he means entering the underworld in order to see Osiris. This text, like many others, expresses the importance of gaining freedom of movement, a capability that is linked to assuming the form of a falcon and a phoenix. This recalls the spell already discussed in which the deceased acquires free movement as a swallow, and others, like CT 307 on the front of L1Li, where he wants to become a guinea-fowl.13 It is remarkable how many texts stress the importance of moving in and out of certain regions, and this topic is not only expressed by referring to going out into the day (in the eastern

10

12

11

No spell title is yet given in the Coffin Texts For the text as given in the Book of the Dead, see Lüscher 2006, 368–96. A detailed account of this text appears in Willems 2017. In Fig. 6 this is visualised by the deceased ( ) looking to the left, in the direction of these past events.

Fig. 6: Schematic rendering of the content of CT spells 283 + 296 (= BD 86) on coffin L1Li.

13

The same phenomenon occurs exceptionally in earlier CT spells; see Willems 1996, 163–4. CTIV, 62a–64e [307]; for a recent commentary, also addressing the solar aspect of this text, see Beaux 2004, 21–38.

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF

horizon) and entering again into the west; but also numerous other themes are evoked, such as emerging from certain waters and descending again into others.14 Of course this is not the place to go deeply into all the variations in which these themes are evoked. It is, however, clear that, differing from what we are accustomed to from earlier coffins, the issue is not to reach sunrise, but to perform the entire diurnal and nocturnal cycles. In Sesenebenef’s coffins, these topics recur over and over again in the texts that survived into the Book of the Dead, but what about the other passages, which are only known as Coffin Texts? None of the horizontal, long texts lining the top of the coffin survived into the Book of the Dead. On the short ends, these texts are devoted to the theme of mummification, which traditionally dominates these sides. On the long sides, the solar cycle is again the issue. Thus, the text on the front side, CT 791, reads as follows: An offering which the king gives, an offering which Osiris gives, an offering which Ra-Harakhty gives: may he cause that the chief lector priest Sesenebenef be among the noblemen that lived in the past, that he may see Ra daily, and that he may ferry across to the Field of Reeds … (CTVII, 3a–f [791])

Here, benefits are bestowed upon the deceased by Osiris, the dead god residing in the underworld, and Ra-Horakhty, the rising sun, and among other things they ensure that Sesenebenef may sail to the Field of Reeds, something that other spells, already cited, present as a journey that includes both the diurnal and the nocturnal passage of the deceased. Let us now move to the decoration of the inside. Here, the first part to be discussed is the object frieze (see Fig. 2). All items represented in the frieze consist of textile or unguents, and a preliminary analysis suggests that the association is entirely with mummification, although sometimes the arrangement also suggests a connection with the treatment of the cult statue in the daily temple ritual, or the treatment of the Osirian relics at places in the Delta. As previously remarked, there is a difference between the texts on the outside (all of which were ‘modern’ texts that would remain in circulation after the Middle Kingdom), and those on the inside, of which hardly any survived after the Middle Kingdom. The

14

This happens in CT 151, for which see Willems 2012, 1097–1107.

11

difference is so marked that it is likely that the person who composed the decoration of the Lisht coffins was well aware that he was choosing texts of a different kind for the inside. Perhaps, the texts on the inside were known to have more ancient roots than those on the outside. Yet, on reading the inside texts, it soon becomes apparent that this earlier text material was cleverly adapted to fit the semantics of the outside of Sesenebenef’s coffin. For reasons of space, only one group of texts will be dealt with here: spells CT 30–7. In the coffins of Sesenebenef, these occupy almost the entire back side (i.e. western side), but also the foot-end and part of the front. We have discussed these texts in some detail before on the basis of variants of earlier date, and here we noticed two points (see Fig. 4). The first was that CT 30–7 contain clear indications that they were recited in accompaniment to an offering ritual carried out in the tomb chapel by the son of the deceased. The second was that, conceptually, these texts envisage a sequence where the deceased receives offerings at his tomb (= the western horizon), enabling him to travel through the netherworld until he reaches an area near the eastern horizon, where he hopes to resuscitate his father Osiris. When the deceased has arrived at this point, his son addresses the ‘great ones who are in the horizon’ (p. 8). In the logic of these texts, this must refer to the eastern horizon, and the journey the deceased is making is that from the western to the eastern horizon. This conforms to the impression that earlier Coffin Texts mostly envisage the nocturnal journey through the netherworld. Although the same texts are transmitted on coffin L2Li, the difference could not be greater. First, large parts of the earlier versions of CT 30–7 have been left out. As a result, all references to a ritual performed in the tomb have been dropped, and the text deals exclusively with the deceased’s journey through the netherworld. Secondly, some subtle changes were applied to the texts as transmitted earlier. I will here look at only one passage: the first line of spell 30. In L2Li, this begins with the words ‘To say words by the great ones and those who are prominent in the western horizon’ (CTI, 89a [30]). In earlier versions of this text, there is no mention of a ‘western’ horizon, and the logic of the situation requires that the gods speak at the moment the

12

H. WILLEMS

deceased has arrived at a place close to the eastern horizon. In L2Li, the moment of speaking has moved from the end of the night to its beginning. The gods receive the deceased at the western horizon, and their speech makes clear that, prior to this point in time, he has made a journey from the Land of Life. Chronologically, this can only mean that Sesenebenef is received by the gods of the western horizon after having traversed the day-sky (Fig. 7). In the rest of the text group, we see him travelling though the underworld to Osiris, although his diurnal journey is referred to repeatedly. Through a small adaptation of the texts, their entire chronological framework has changed from a nocturnal journey through the netherworld to an account of a trajectory leading the deceased through day and night. It is impossible here to discuss all the texts on the coffins of Sesenebenef, but a final passage must be cited. The most innovative part of these coffins is the attention paid to what happens during the day. It is probably no coincidence that the clearest account of what happens then is given in CT 697, which is written on the outside of the lid, the side arguably corresponding to the day-sky. Most texts on the coffin address this journey in mythological terms. The deceased swallows magic, and boards the day barque where he is seated on the throne of Ra. But the realm reached after rising up from the eastern horizon into daylight also brings the deceased into the realm of the living. This is what CT 697 is about. It states: ‘Osiris commands that the chief lector priest Sesenebenef shall enter into his house, inspect his chickens [i.e. his children], have sexual enjoyment, and receive pleasure together with his earthly surviving relatives for ever and ever’ (CT VI, 331k–n [697]). The latter sentence in particular is crystal clear: the Egyptian term tp.y.w-tꜢ certainly refers, not to dead people, but to the relatives of a deceased individual surviving on Earth, and this implies that the whole passage can only be interpreted as the deceased returning to his former household, where he will take part in domestic life again. Thus, having emerged from the world of death at sunrise, the deceased not only experiences a new life as a transformed, divine being; he also merges anew into the world of the living, which he had left behind. 15

Assmann 2001, 302–7. Although Assmann does not explicitly refer to the BD passages here, they fit the context he discusses admirably. The translated passage is in Budge 1910, 170.

Fig. 7: Schematic rendering of CT spells 30–7 according to the inner coffin of Sesenebenef (L2Li).

In his book on Tod und Jenseits im alten Ägypten, Jan Assmann offers a thoughtful account of the meaning of ‘Going Forth by Day’. In his ninth chapter, he speaks of a ‘Reversed Polarity’ of funerary religion in the New Kingdom. Before, funerary religion focused on rituals and the hereafter, but in the New Kingdom, emphasis was placed on the freedom of movement of the deceased, which enabled him to travel from the netherworld into this world, and back again into the netherworld. This change also involved the possibility of the deceased again joining his family on Earth (Assmann 2001, 285–318). According to Assmann, this explains the festivities in New Kingdom tomb gardens. During the Valley Festival, families went to the tombs on the Theban west bank to celebrate there, as is often shown in the well-known banquet scenes in the Tombs of the Nobles. He believes that mortuary ritual in this context led to a merger between the Field of Reeds and the tomb garden, where his relatives were celebrating — and the deceased with them (Assmann 2001, 291 and passim). This could also be the background of the famous Book of the Dead chapters 58 and 59, of which the vignettes show the deceased in a garden, drinking cool water and sitting in the shade of trees. The titles of these texts read: ‘As regards whoever knows this spell, he goes in after coming out in the cemetery of the beautiful West.’15 These themes sound familiar after our discussion of the coffins of Sesenebenef.

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF

13

I think Assmann is right in linking such material to family meetings such as were held in tomb gardens. However, I doubt very much whether the tomb garden is the only relevant context. A Book of the Dead vignette on papyrus British Museum EA 10471/21 shows the deceased praying to Osiris in the garden, not of his tomb, but of his house.16 This imagery fits archaeological evidence showing that the houses of the well-to-do were surrounded by gardens with ponds and planted with trees, in which chapels were also located. There is no archaeological evidence for such house gardens from Thebes, but the villas of the well-to-do in Amarna very frequently had elaborate gardens, of which the entrance gate had the form of a temple pylon, and which contained both a pond and a chapel.17 Although in these cases the religious background of the chapels must have been framed within the specific context of Amarna religion, this does not necessarily imply that the layout of the gardens with cult places was as such an innovation of the Amarna Period. An ancient Egyptian scene in the tomb of Sennefer shows such a house garden, with two garden chapels.18 The presence of chapels in gardens suggests that religious festivities were often celebrated there. I wonder if this is the context evoked in Sesenebenef’s last-cited text, where he says that he will visit his house and celebrate among his surviving relatives. It would certainly be an exaggeration to say that these ideas were invented by the decorator of Sesenebenef’s coffins. Already in the Pyramid Texts passages can be found that refer to life in the netherworld as a cycle. Thus, PT 625 (of which a transformed version also appears on Sesenebenef’s coffins) speaks of the deceased emerging from waters associated with the temple of Osiris in Busiris, and his going down again into other waters, suggesting a cyclic mode of existence. Also, a recent find by Vassil Dobrev in Saqqara deserves to be mentioned here. It is an early Dynasty 6 mastaba scene in which the deceased features as saying: ‘I know how to go out into the day’ (ỉw=ỉrḫ.kw prỉ.t m hrw) (Midant-Reynes and Denoix 2010, 343).

‘Going out into the day’ is also frequently mentioned in the Coffin Texts, although in many of these cases, it does not yet seem to designate the full solar cycle, but simply emergence from the eastern horizon. The idea of a daily cycle of resurrection underlies the religion of the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts as much as it does Book of the Dead religion. However, whereas the earlier texts place emphasis on the crucial phase of sunrise and what immediately precedes it, Assmann has shown that the Book of the Dead rather emphasises the importance of the entire cycle. Several Middle Kingdom coffins dating to later Dynasty 12, such as M1C and M1NY, already include a number of elements that fit this pattern, and thus they offer clear testimony for a change in mood. However, the coffins of Sesenebenef are different from these earlier sources in that their entire decoration is dedicated to the cyclic conception of Going Forth by Day, which also characterises New Kingdom religion, and includes the concept of an afterlife in the world of the living. It is probably no coincidence that the owner of this coffin was a chief lector priest. As such, he must have been keenly aware of the latest developments in religious thought, and he must have been able to read and understand the religious writings he found in temple archives. Although we do not know whether he personally composed the text programme of his coffins, this certainly cannot be ruled out. Many of the texts selected must have been highly modern: many Book of the Dead spells are in fact attested for the first time on Sesenebenef’s coffins. Others were not so new, but they were cleverly adapted to a view of the afterlife that was to become the hallmark of the New Kingdom. Although not all of Sesenebenef’s texts are actually attested in Book of the Dead papyri, the religious ideas they express are certainly entirely compatible with the tenets of the Book of the Dead.

16

17

A good reproduction of the scene can be found in Taylor 2010, 250–1 (no. 128). A notable feature not remarked upon before is that the left side of the vignette shows an unusual variant of the Theban Western mountain, from above which two hands of a goddess are stretched out receiving the solar god. This is a common rendering of sunset. In the present case, however, the Theban mountain seems to be depicted, not as a hill, but as consisting of plants.

18

For house gardens in Amarna, see e.g. Kemp 2012, 232–6. For the shrines in the house gardens, see Ikram 1989, 89–101. Porter and Moss 1964, 198 (4); for a good rendering in colour, see the watercolour reproduced by Strauss-Seeber 1997, 386, fig. 96. Cf. also the material compiled by Gessler-Löhr 1991, 162–83.

H. WILLEMS

14 Abbreviations B10C BH4C L1Li L2Li M1C M1NY

Cairo CG 28092 Cairo JdE 37565 Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 77, fig. 95–6 Gautier and Jéquier 1902, 76, pl. XVI–XXV Cairo JdE 42949 New York MMA 12.182.132A–B

Bibliography Arnold, D. 2008. Middle Kingdom tomb architecture at Lisht.PMMA Egyptian Expedition XXVIII. New York; New Haven; London. Arquier, B. 2013. Le double sarcophage de Mésehti S1C (CG 28118) ̶ S2C (CG 28119). Recherches sur l’organisation du décor iconographique et textuel. PhD dissertation, Montpellier. Assmann, J. 2001. TodundJenseitsimaltenÄgypten.Munich. Beaux, N. 2004. La pintade, le soleil et l’éternité: À propos du signe (G 21), Bulletindel’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale104, 21–38. Budge, E. A. W. 1910. The chapters of Coming Forth by DayortheThebanRecensionoftheBookoftheDead. 2nd ed. London. CT: de Buck, A. 1935–61. TheEgyptianCoffinTexts. Chicago. Dahms, J. 2013. Die Särge des Karenen. Untersuchungen zu Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten. PhD dissertation, Heidelberg. Gautier, J.-E. and G. Jéquier. 1902. Mémoiresurlesfouilles deLicht. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 6. Cairo. Gessler-Löhr, B. 1991. Die Totenfeier im Garten. In J. Assmann, DasGrabdesAmenemope.Theben 3. Mainz, 162– 83. Gestermann, L. 2005. DieÜberlieferungausgewählterTexte altägyptischer Totenliteratur (‘Sargtexte’) in spätzeitlichenGrabanlagen.Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 68. Wiesbaden. Grajetzki, W. 2005. The coffin of the ‘King’s Daughter’ Neferuptah and the sarcophagus of the ‘Great King’s Wife’ Hatshepsut. GöttingerMiszellen205, 55–65. Grajetzki, W. 2006. Another early source for the Book of the Dead: The Second Intermediate Period burial D25 at Abydos. StudienzurAltägyptischenKultur34, 205–16. Grajetzki, W. 2010. The coffin of Zemathor and other rectangular coffins of the Late Middle Kingdom and SecondIntermediatePeriod. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 15. London.

Ikram, S. 1989. Domestic shrines and the cult of the royal family at el-ʽAmarna. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 75, 89–101. Jéquier, G. 1933. Les pyramides des reines Neit et Apouit. Cairo. Kemp, B. J. 2012. ThecityofAkhenatenandNefertiti.Amarna anditspeople. London. Lapp, G. 1986. Der Sarg des Jmnj mit einem Spruchgut am Übergang von Sargtexten zum Totenbuch. Studien zur AltägyptischenKultur13, 135–47. Lüscher, B. 1990. UntersuchungenzuägyptischenKanopenkästen. Vom Alten Reich bis zum Ende der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 31. Hildesheim. Lüscher, B. 2006. Die Verwandlungssprüche (Tb 76–88). Totenbuchtexte 2. Basel. Meyer-Dietrich, E. 2001. Nechet und Nil. Ein ägyptischer Frauensarg des Mittleren Reiches aus religionsökologischerSicht. Uppsala. Meyer-Dietrich, E. 2006. SenebiundSelbst.PersonenkonstituentenzurrituellenWiedergeburtineinemFrauensarg desMittlerenReiches. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 216. Fribourg; Göttingen. Midant-Reynes, B. and S. Denoix. 2010. Travaux de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 2009–2010. Bulletinde l’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale110, 303–477. Miniaci, R. 2010. The incomplete hieroglyphs system at the end of the Middle Kingdom. Revued’égyptologie61, 113–34. Porter, B. and R. L. B. Moss. 1964. Topographicalbibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, andpaintings,I:TheThebannecropolis,Part2.Royal tombs and smaller cemeteries. Second edition revised and augmented. Oxford. Strauss-Seeber, C. 1997. In R. Schulz and M. Seidel (eds), Ägypten.DieWeltderPharaonen.Cologne. Taylor, J. H. (ed.) 2010. Journeythroughtheafterlife.Ancient EgyptianBookoftheDead.London. Willems, H. 1988. Chestsoflife.Astudyofthetypologyand conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard classcoffins. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 25. Leiden. Willems, H. 1996. ThecoffinofHeqata(CairoJdE36418). A case study of Egyptian funerary culture of the early Middle Kingdom. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 70. Leuven. Willems, H. 1997. The embalmer embalmed. Remarks on the meaning of the decoration of some Middle Kingdom coffins. In J. van Dijk (ed.), EssaysonAncientEgyptin honourofHermanteVelde. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen, 343–72. Willems, H. 2001. The social and ritual context of a mortuary liturgy of the Middle Kingdom (CT spells 30–41). In

THE COFFINS OF THE LECTOR PRIEST SESENEBENEF

H. Willems (ed.), Social aspects of funerary culture in theEgyptianOldandMiddleKingdoms.Proceedingsof the international symposium held at Leiden University 6–7 June, 1996. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 103. Leuven, 253–372. Willems, H. 2012. The physical and cultic landscape of the northern Nile Delta according to Pyramid Texts Utterance 625. In C. Zivie-Coche and I. Guermeur (eds), ‘Parcourir l’éternité’. Hommages à Jean Yoyotte II. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences religieuses 156. Turnhout, 1097–1107.

15

Willems, H. 2014. Historical and archaeological aspects of Egyptian funerary culture. Religious ideas and ritualpracticeinMiddleKingdomelitecemeteries. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 73. Leiden; Boston. Willems, H. 2017. The method of ‘sequencing’ in analyzing Egyptian funerary texts. The example of Coffin Texts spells 283 and 296. In S. Bickel and L. Díaz-Iglesias (eds), Studies in ancient Egyptian funerary literature. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 257. Leuven, 599–619.

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES: INNOVATION AND COMPLEXITY IN COFFIN DECORATION DURING DYNASTY 21 Rogério SOUSA

Abstract This paper focuses on the defining aspects of the ‘yellow’ anthropoid coffins produced at Thebes, in an attempt to detect the processes that were used by coffin decorators to enhance iconographic variability and complexity. The analysis concentrates on the central panel and examines the variations introduced in the normative scheme of this composition from the Ramesside Period to the beginning of Dynasty 22. This ‘genealogical’ method reveals that a consistent normative set of rules governed the iconographic repertoire, which could be used in each section of the coffin and simultaneously provided an efficient way to introduce variations to enhance the uniqueness of each object. These processes are crucial to an understanding of the involvement of the priesthood of Amun-Ra in the supervision and management of Theban workshops during Dynasty 21. Introduction

depict the human body in the round, being provided with a flat floor-board. Coinciding with these changes, distinct pictorial zones were established, each having an unprecedented degree of iconographic autonomy. This scheme of decoration, which can be interpreted as ‘topographic’, reflects the process of architectonisation2 that transformed coffins into complex and multidimensional objects. In previous works (Sousa 2014, 91; 2017) the formal components of the ‘yellow’ coffins have been identified as follows: • Head-board: corresponding to the rendering of the head and wig. • Upper section: delimited by the contour of the forearms, elbows or floral collar. It includes the depiction of the hands of the deceased on the lid. • Central panel: large iconographic tableau comprising a large winged deity inserted between the upper and lower sections of the lid. • Lower section: the length of this section may be slightly different on the lid and on the case. On the lid it is shortened because of the larger size of the foot-board, while on the case it extends along the full length of the wall. • Foot-board: on the lid it is sculpted in the round in order to suggest the shape of the feet, while on the case it consists of a single flat surface.

The ‘yellow’ coffins produced from the Ramesside Period to early Dynasty 22 are defining objects in the funerary material culture of the Theban necropolis. While their roots are traceable to the gilded type produced during Dynasty 18,1 Ramesside ‘yellow’ coffins introduced a new scheme of decoration, whose most distinctive feature was the autonomy of the decoration of the lid and the case (Taylor 1989, 39): the lid remained fully anthropomorphic while the case did not

It can be argued that this scheme defines the ‘yellow’ type of coffin more distinctly than other isolated features, such as the use of varnish or the colour of the

1

2

The coffin of Teti (New York, Brooklyn Museum 37.14Ea-b), the earliest coffin with a yellow-painted background, provides evidence of this phenomenon, since it constitutes an imitation of the gilded coffins produced during Dynasty 18. See Bleiberg 2008, fig. 34, 114.

This trend would find its ultimate development in the stolacorpus. See van Walsem 1997a, 359.

18

R. SOUSA

background.3 Each of these sections was provided with its own repertoire of symbols deriving from the traditional scheme used on the gilded and black coffins of Dynasty 18.4 In the ‘yellow’ type the use of these motifs became codified and associated with particular areas, transforming the coffin itself into a topographic object, divided into different zones. However, this circumstance alone does not fully explain the unprecedented complexity of development that took place in the decoration of ‘yellow’ coffins during Dynasty 21. This growth of iconographic variability and complexity required the control of disorder, a goal which could not be achieved in a random manner (van Walsem 2014; see also van Walsem 1997b), but rather by the conscious and methodical exploration of the possibilities offered by the formal structure of the pictorial scheme. In this process, each innovation is built upon previous achievements, creating a ‘genealogical’ line of images of increasing complexity. This genealogical approach is in many ways similar to the evolutionary framework used in natural sciences to describe the diversity of life. According to the theory of evolution, ‘all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form’ (Darwin 1859, 484). As in the evolution of the species, diversity in coffin decoration can be described with genealogical sequences adopting a branching pattern of evolution. From this view results the idea that the iconographic diversity detected in the later stages of coffin development evolved from a common model. Innovations played a crucial role in this process. Some of the innovative solutions became permanent features of the design, and remained in use during the subsequent process of evolution, while others seem to have been more ephemeral. The detection of genealogical progression in the development of the pictorial features of each section is thus a crucial means of understanding their

3

These criteria are listed in Niwiński 1988, 7. The best illustration of this statement is the coffin of Teti (New York, Brooklyn Museum 37.14Ea-b), which is an imitation of the gilded type produced during Dynasty 18. It cannot thus be considered a true ‘yellow’ coffin in the sense that it lacks the decorative scheme associated with this type. On the other hand, coffins decorated with a pure white background but observing the scheme described are included in the ‘yellow’ type. An example is the

symbolism and purpose within the decorative programme of the coffin as a whole. This approach involves the seriation of compositions according to recurring key features of the iconography that seem to play an important role in the development of each section. Within the pictorial scheme described above, each section was governed according to its own internal principles of composition, which triggered an unprecedented growth in complexity. This study will examine this process, focusing on the evolution of the central panel, which seems to have played a crucial role in the decorative programme of the ‘yellow’ coffins. The development of the central panel from the Ramesside Period to the end of Dynasty 21 has been discussed elsewhere (Sousa 2014). This diachronic perspective will now be completed with a more detailed investigation of the processes used in the Theban workshops to increase variability and to create ephemeral or ‘disruptive’ compositions in this section of the coffin. Defining elements of the central panel (basic scheme) Unlike the other sections, which were present in previous models of anthropoid coffins, the central panel was an innovation, created in the specific context of the ‘yellow’ coffins. The earliest examples show the winged goddess alone, but the image of a pectoral was soon added, creating the basic scheme of the central panel, which comprised two main registers (Fig. 1). The first register consists of a symmetrical composition centred on a nuclear ‘block’, usually depicting a pectoral or a solar motif, such as the sun disc, solar boat or scarab. The normative structure of the register includes centrifugal (usually the enthroned Osiris) and/ or centripetal blocks (usually winged deities) flanking the nuclear block.

4

case of the outer coffin of Padiamun (Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29666) in Niwiński 1988, pl. XI. Compare also the outer coffin of Henut-taui (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 25.3.182–184). Taylor 1989, 35. Early coffins of the ‘yellow’ type, such as the outer and inner coffins of Henutmehit (London, British Museum EA 48001) still display gilded decoration. See Taylor 2010, 98.

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

19

Fig. 1: Lid of the outer coffin of Henut-taui – central panel. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 25.3.182–184 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

In the second register, the winged goddess is depicted squatting, facing left with her U-shaped wings fully outstretched to both sides. The area above her arms usually contains a short inscription referring to the goddess or a frieze of funerary symbols including long coiled cobras, the avian manifestation of Ptah-Sokar (a falcon and a cobra), vultures or scarabs.

5

6

See coffin of Nedjemet (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 61024) in Daressy 1909, pls XXVI–XXVII; coffin set of Maatkara (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 61028) in Daressy 1909, pls XXXIX–XLI; outer coffin of Butehamun (Turin, Egyptian Museum 10101a) in Niwiński 2004, pl. 1; outer coffin of Pasebakhaienipet (New York, Brooklyn Museum 08.480.1a–b) in Bleiberg 2008, 94; coffin of Nesiamun (Leeds City Museum D. 426-426a.1960) in Cooney 2007, fig. 187; inner coffin of Ankhefenmut (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 6267a) in Egner and Haslauer 1994, pls 9–10. Exceptions to this rule are seldom found. See, for example, the decoration of the mummy-cover of Amenhotep (Leiden,

This scheme was in use from the end of the Ramesside Period until the middle of Dynasty 21 and derives from compositions with large figures, often in the naturalistic style typical of Ramesside tomb decoration.5 The basic scheme is consistently associated with coffins which display the forearms of the deceased over a floral collar.6

National Museum of Antiquities AMM 16) in Boeser 1917, pl. I. Objects such as this had been crafted during a transitional period. However, it is interesting to note that this scheme was used on coffins dating to the second half of the dynasty, seemingly to convey an archaic layout. In those objects the forearms are usually hidden behind the floral collar. From Bab el-Gasus, see outer and inner coffins of Tjanefer (A.151; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29636), inner coffin of Ankhsenmut (A.38; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29655) and outer coffin of Nesipenhertahat (A.28; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29643). See also outer coffin of Userhat (A.105; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29661) in Niwiński 1988, pl. XI.

R. SOUSA

20 The creation of the third register (classical scheme)

From the middle of Dynasty 21 onwards an exponential growth in complexity took place. One of the first methods used to achieve this in the central panel was the introduction of a third register, creating the ‘classical’ scheme of this panel. This change was not an isolated occurrence and coincided with a more global redefinition of the decorative scheme of the ‘yellow’ type of coffin: in the upper section the forearms disappeared behind an increasingly large depiction of the floral collar, while the lower section was significantly shortened or even excluded.7 The magnitude of this change in the overall arrangement of coffin topography reflects the significance of the adoption of the classical scheme in the composition of the central panel. This change in the layout of the central panel was not the result of a sudden innovation. On a number of coffins — most of them crafted according to the scheme in use in the first half of Dynasty 21 — experimental designs that seem to challenge the limits of the basic scheme can be observed. These are located in the composition of the areas below the wings of the main deity, usually decorated with cobras, falcons, jackals or other deities. These motifs increase in size, suggesting an intention to create an autonomous register below the winged goddess.8 The central panel of the coffin of Tauseretempernesu from Bab el-Gasus (A.2; Brussels, Royal Museums of Art and History E. 5884) is one of the most interesting compositions of this kind.9 The first register displays the usual nuclear block (scarab and solar disc), a fairly conventional centrifugal block (enthroned Osiris protected by a winged goddess) and an interesting centripetal block depicting an adoration scene performed by a standing goddess (Fig. 2). The second register depicts the winged goddess in a rather conventional manner, displaying her titles along her

7

8

In fact, in the most elaborate coffins, the central panel may cover the entire surface of the lid below the upper section, depending on the number of registers involved. See outer coffin of Asetemkhebit (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 61031) in Daressy 1909, pl. L. See, for example, the archaising outer coffin of Padiamun (Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29666) in Niwiński 1988, pl. XI. See also the coffin of Panebmontu (Paris, Louvre Museum E 13029) in Seipel 1989, 472 and the mummy-cover of Tentamon

upper arms. It is, therefore, surprising to find a third register in this relatively conventional pictorial setting. The nuclear block is composed of a falcon flanked by a centripetal block featuring two squatting mummiform gods (perhaps the Sons of Horus?). Curiously enough, additional blocks have been introduced to each register. In the first register an additional centripetal block depicts the ba-bird of the deceased, while in the third register the deceased (clad in a white linen dress) is depicted before squatting gods. This example clearly demonstrates the role of these semi-autonomous blocks in the increased complexity of the composition as a whole: they began to be used both to extend the first register and to fill in the third register. It is noteworthy that the third register introduces a visible vertical asymmetry: its composition is not standardised, creating a strong contrast with the other registers. It is interesting to note that, as soon as the creation of the third register had been established, active and constant experimentation took place to accommodate it into the previous pictorial scheme. An example of such an attempt can be seen on the mummy-cover of an anonymous man from Bab el-Gasus (A.29; London, British Museum EA 24790; Fig. 3). The first register is designed according to a very traditional scheme: the nuclear block consists of a pectoral displaying a solar disc emerging from a lotus flower. Inside the solar disc, the sun god is depicted as a child together with an iaret-cobra. This central motif is flanked by centripetal blocks composed of a wedjat eye and a winged cobra goddess. This is all consistent with the typical attributes of the earliest versions of the central panel. The innovative element consists of the inclusion of the third register. Unlike on the coffin A.2 (see Fig. 2), a relationship of vertical symmetry with the first register was attempted: each centripetal block depicts the same motif, with the addition of an adoring baboon and the presence of an interesting variation of the solar disc,

9

(Marseille, Musée d’archéologie Méditerranéenne M. 253/1) in Nelson 1978, 80–1. A similar situation is detected on the mummy-cover of Nesipanebu (Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities AH 1), where the third register displays a strongly contrasting composition: see Boeser 1917, pl. XI. See also the coffin of Khonsuhotep (Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities AMM 26) in Boeser 1916, pls VIII–X.

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

21

Fig. 2: Lid of the coffin of Tauseretempernesu from Bab el-Gasus (A.2) – central panel. Brussels, Royal Museums of Art and History E.5884 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

now depicting the sun god as a ram (his nightly manifestation) together with an iaret-cobra. Therefore, the third register acts as a mirror of the first one, a principle that would persist in most of the coffins dating to the second half of Dynasty 21. During the transformation process, the normative structure used in the composition of the first register was applied to the third one. However, such symmetry was systematically disturbed through the addition of subtle variations, especially during the first stages of this process. Some of the methods used to develop the decorative imagery are listed below:

10

11

12

Coffin of Nesipanebimakh from Bab el-Gasus (A.12; Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet N. 3909). Mummy-cover of Nesikhonsu (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 61030) in Daressy 1909, pl. XLIX. Mummy-cover of Nesipernub (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 6268) in Egner and Haslauer 2009, pl. 8. See also

•

•

•

•

13

Asymmetry by iconographic variations. The symmetry is disturbed by introducing variations in a single iconographic block.10 Asymmetry by sequential change. The symmetry is disturbed because the blocks are presented in reverse direction or in a different order.11 Asymmetry by omission. Here the symmetry is disturbed only by the omission of some of its components or blocks.12 Asymmetry by symbolic parallels. The symmetry is disturbed by using different symbols with equivalent meaning.13

mummy-cover of Nesipautitaui from Bab el-Gasus (A.26; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 6261) in Egner and Haslauer 1994, pl. 9. See coffin of an anonymous woman from Bab el-Gasus (A.4; Geographic Society of Lisbon) in Sousa 2010, 192.

22

R. SOUSA

Fig. 3: Mummy-cover of an anonymous man from Bab el-Gasus (A.29) – central panel. London, British Museum EA 24790 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

The mummy-cover of Shedsutauepet from Bab elGasus (A.110; Geographic Society of Lisbon) provides a very interesting example of symbolic symmetry (Fig. 4). Here the nuclear block and the centripetal blocks of the symmetrical register are replicated almost exactly. The vertical asymmetry was introduced into the centrifugal block: the enthroned god of the first

register was replaced in the third register by a Ta-wer totem which is standing on a throne, exactly like the Osirian god in the first register. This contrasting motif required a great deal of space and this probably explains the unusual length of the third register. Additional blocks (ritual vases) and liminal elements (cobras) complete the decoration.

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

23

Fig. 4: Mummy-cover of Shedsutauepet from Bab el-Gasus (A.110) – central panel. Geographic Society of Lisbon SGL – AC-518 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

It is interesting to note that the asymmetrical arrangement of the first and third registers eventually became obsolete as standardisation increased and only minor 14

The composition of the mummy-cover of Taahuti from Bab elGasus (A.32; London, British Museum EA 24795) illustrates this process. It is designed in a very rough and crude style typical of a later period. At first sight the composition of the third register seems almost identical to that of the first register. However, important changes were introduced in the third register: in the centrifugal block the escorting goddess and the crown of the enthroned god were omitted; the centripetal block is entirely

changes were retained, normally the omission of one particular iconographic block or the introduction of a different motif in a particular block.14 missing and an offering table was depicted instead. The composition on the coffin of Tjenetehenef from Bab el-Gasus (A.44; London, British Museum EA 24796) presents another interesting combination: the only difference between the first and the third registers is the omission of the centrifugal block and its replacement by the nuclear block, which is replicated, thereby creating a very irregular motif in a highly standardised composition.

R. SOUSA

24 Liminal compositions and interstitial areas

The adoption of the ‘classical’ scheme triggered a new innovative impetus, this time focused on the motifs decorating the interstitial areas of the tableau. The source of this trend is again first detected in the compositions near the winged goddess, whose image was not significantly affected by the several trends that changed the layout of the central panel. With a few exceptions, the goddess is always depicted squatting, with her wings outstretched over both sides of the panel. The evolution from the basic to the classical scheme affected only the shape of her wings. Instead of the U-shaped wings depicted on coffins with the basic scheme,15 compositions arranged according to the classical scheme depict the wings of the goddess fully stretched in horizontal array (Fig. 5, see also Fig. 4).16 This change in the layout of the wings probably resulted from the creation of the third register, which required a more economical use of the space. However, the horizontal display of the wings triggered consequences of its own. In the basic scheme, the area between the wings was decorated with a frieze of funerary symbols including coiled cobras, the avian manifestation of Ptah-Sokar, vultures or scarabs. However, when the wings of the goddess became fully outstretched these motifs were no longer contained within this enclosed area, but were increasingly depicted in the ‘interstitial’ spaces between the registers. Such motifs, usually called ‘space-fillers’,17 played a very important role in coffin decoration, especially during the second half of Dynasty 21. The ‘genealogical’ analysis of these motifs suggests that these symbols first occurred in the interior decoration of the case, on the floor-board, where they appear around the depiction of the goddess, as symbols of the protective role of the duat. The symbolic association

15

16

17

Outer coffin of Masaharta (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 61027) in Daressy 1909, pl. XXXVI; outer coffin of Pasebakhaienipet (New York, Brooklyn Museum 08.480.1a-b) in Bleiberg 2008, 94; coffin of Nesiamun (Leeds City Museum D. 426-426a.1960) in Cooney 2007, fig. 187. Outer coffin from Bab el-Gasus (A.139; Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities F.93/10.1a) in Boeser 1916, pl. V; outer coffin of Ikhy (Vatican Museums 25035.3.1) in Gasse 1996, pl. XIII. These elements would express the phenomenon of horrorvacui described by Niwiński 1988, 66. In our view, this expression is

between the central panel (regarded as the depiction of the sky) and the decoration of the floor-board (depicting the duat as the heavenly sky) allowed an iconographic flux from the interior of the case to the lid, probably aiming at magical purposes, such as extending the protection provided by the goddess of the duat towards the exterior areas of the coffin. Since these symbols are visibly not used just to fill in the empty space, and their purpose is to convey magical power to the transitional areas of the coffin, they are here called ‘liminal elements’. These protective elements blur the frontiers between the interior and the exterior of the coffin. The use of liminal elements combined with the increasing use of additional blocks in the coffin iconography raised variability to astonishing levels. Even a perfectly typical composition, such as the central panel of the coffin of Shedsutauepet from Bab el-Gasus (A.110; Geographic Society of Lisbon; see Fig. 5), could be turned into a unique tableau by simply adding iconographic blocks in strategic areas. The upper edges of the central panel are conspicuously decorated with additional blocks depicting a cult scene: Nephthys adores an enthroned god within a shrine. These edges had become available for decoration because the forearms of the deceased were now hidden behind the floral collar.18 Interestingly enough these areas were not just ‘filled in’ using liminal elements but were decorated with small, autonomous, iconographic units — the additional blocks — forming independent scenes. This panel also showcases the typical use of the additional blocks displayed around the main registers, forming a framework of iconography. A similar situation can also be seen on the outer coffin of Bakenmut from Bab el-Gasus (A.40; London, British Museum EA 24792; Fig. 6). Here the size of the additional blocks and liminal elements almost

18

misleading since the purpose of the liminal elements is to provide magical power linking the interior of the coffin to its exterior walls. As mentioned above, the adoption of the classical scheme of the central panel was related to other consistent changes in coffin decoration, such as the progressive omission of the depiction of the forearms, which became hidden behind the floral collar. This change had implications for the design of the central panel: when the depiction of the forearms became obsolete, the areas above the first register became larger.

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

25

Fig. 5: Lid of the coffin of Shedsutauepet from Bab el-Gasus (A.110) – central panel. Geographic Society of Lisbon SGL – AC-517 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

equals that of the three main registers. Additional blocks were included at the edges of the tableau, forming four registers of autonomous pictorial arrangements. Liminal elements (shetjit-shrines, scarabs, vultures and short hieroglyphic inscriptions suggesting allusions to the titles of Osiris, to the duat or to the ‘mystery’ sesheta) carry important weight in the global economy of the design. On the other hand, the composition of the three main registers is rather conservative, observing a strict vertical symmetry between the first and third registers.

It is clear that the same composition can reveal a strict observance of the traditional conventions and, at the same time, a deliberate search for the uniqueness of the object. In this case, the composition reflects the conventions of the classical scheme but focuses the innovative input on the secondary registers. These compositions became so important that the size of the main registers had to be reduced to increase the area devoted to the liminal compositions and to the additional blocks. To expand the size and complexity of the additional blocks, the main registers had to be

R. SOUSA

26

Fig. 6: Lid of the outer coffin of Bakenmut from Bab el-Gasus (A.40) – central panel. London, British Museum EA 24792 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

shortened, which led to the miniaturisation of the composition as a whole. Miniaturist panels The increasing importance of the additional blocks in the general layout of the central panel led to the

19

See mummy-cover of an anonymous man (Paris, Louvre Museum E 3859) in Seipel 1989, 468; mummy-cover of Nesipernub (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 6268) in Egner and

progressive miniaturisation of the figures and to a profound change in the style of depiction, which became increasingly schematic. This facilitated the depiction of a larger number of small motifs.19 ‘Miniaturist’ panels evolved in order to display an increasing number of registers. Usually this process involved the simple juxtaposition of registers using the

Haslauer 2009, pl. 8; inner coffin of Nesipernub (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 6269) in Egner and Haslauer 2009, pl. 30; coffin (Turin, Egyptian Museum CGT 10106.a).

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

two main types (winged deity or symmetrical registers). Additionally, another large winged deity was included in the composition, usually a sun disc, at the head of the central panel.20 Miniaturist panels are champions of irregular compositions, providing coffins with a strong element of individuality. Although the classical scheme is observed, the alternating types of winged deities and symmetrical registers provided endless potential for variability. Furthermore, the introduction of unusual iconographic features in unexpected settings or the intentional and conspicuous departure from the most basic conventions emphasised uniqueness. This is exactly the situation which can be observed on the lid of an anonymous inner coffin from Bab elGasus, whose eight registers form a very unconventional and exceptional composition (A.40; London, British Museum EA 24798; Fig. 7). On account of the number of registers involved, the central panel was expanded downwards and replaced the lower section of the lid. Another abnormal element is the position of the winged deity, which is not depicted in the second register but in the first. Moreover, it is entirely in animal form: a serpent-headed vulture with its wings fully outstretched towards both sides of the composition. Oddly enough, the figure of the vulture is shown from above. This type of depiction, which seems to have been introduced in late Dynasty 21, is rare.21 Most of the remaining registers display symmetrical compositions, with the exception of the fourth and sixth registers, which consist of friezes combining djed and tit signs. The third, fifth and eighth registers follow the general conventions of the symmetrical designs, displaying the expected sequence of centripetal (adoring goddess) and/or centrifugal blocks (enthroned or squatting Osiris). However, the seventh register presents an unusual variation, with the centripetal and centrifugal blocks displayed in reverse order. Another interesting feature of this tableau is the composition of the nuclear blocks. In the second, third and fifth registers, the nuclear block is composed of a solar scarab flanked by cobras,

20

Mummy-cover of an anonymous woman (Turin, Egyptian Museum CGT 10118) in Niwiński 2004, pl. XXXIII.1; outer coffin of Pinedjem from Bab el-Gasus (A.55; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29637) in Niwiński 1995, pl. X; coffin of Amenemopet (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 17.2.7.B1-2) in Hayes 1959, fig. 267; coffin of an anonymous woman (London, British Museum EA 24907) in Russmann, Strudwick and James 2006, 127. A vulture or a falcon can also figure in this position.

27

Fig. 7: Lid of the inner coffin of an anonymous man from Bab el-Gasus (A.40) – central panel. London, British Museum EA 24798 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

but the number of these cobras as well as their attributes can vary. Moreover, the nuclear blocks of the seventh and eighth registers are radically different from the usual convention: a frog on a nub basket with a sun disc on its head (seventh register) and a bee (eighth register).

21

See outer coffin of an anonymous woman from Bab el-Gasus (A.54; Neuchâtel, Musée d’Ethnographie Eg. 184) in Küffer and Siegmann 2007, figs 7–16. See also outer and inner coffins of an anonymous woman from Bab el-Gasus (A.74; Bern, Historisches Museum AE10) in Küffer and Siegmann 2007, figs 22–3. See inner coffin of Heretenureb from Bab el-Gasus (A.133; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29738).

28

R. SOUSA

In spite of the vividly irregular features of this tableau, it is clear that it was designed with the conventions of the classical scheme in mind. It is noteworthy that the first three registers are separated from the others by a block frieze, suggesting a formal acknowledgement of the classical scheme (with only a slightly altered order of the registers).22 In a way, the composition explores the possibilities of producing innovative arrangements by challenging the structure of the classical scheme. Thus, variations are introduced not only by changing the expected order of presentation of the registers, but also by including rather unexpected features such as the serpent-headed vulture deity, seen from above — a subtle and exceptional attribute that would certainly catch the eye of an ancient craftsman familiar with coffin decoration. The use of motifs such as the frog or the bee (instead of the scarab) as nuclear blocks probably had the same purpose. These procedures thus reveal a deliberate quest for diversity. The significance of this composition, however, went beyond the simple juxtaposition of abnormal features. In fact, such an arrangement might have been created as an attempt to design a new layout for the central panel. Other parallels to this composition are known and a similar depiction of the vulture deity seen from above also occurs on the lid of the outer coffin of Hory from Bab el-Gasus (A.143; Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 29619). Curiously enough, the parallels between the two objects include other features.23 The second register, for instance, displays exactly the same composition24 and it also makes use of large pt signs decorated with stars. The similarity between these objects shows that both could have been produced with a particular prototype or model in mind. The miniaturist panels evolved to attain outstanding levels of complexity. An example is the superb composition depicted on the outer coffin of Taahuti from Bab el-Gasus (A.32; London, British Museum

EA 24793; Fig. 8), which consists of a panel of six registers. The elements of the vertical axis are considerably larger than those displayed on the horizontal axis, and even the style of depiction is different for each element. The motifs of the vertical axis (nuclear blocks and winged deities) are depicted with great care: the detailed depiction of the individual fingers of the winged goddesses recalls the naturalistic style of Ramesside tomb decoration. On the other hand, centrifugal blocks on the horizontal axis display miniature compositions painted in schematic style. They consist of the typical representation of the enthroned Osirian god escorted by a standing goddess. Instead of the usual blocks displaying centripetally oriented winged goddesses, additional blocks of unusual nature were added, showing groups composed of two or three deities. Osirian gods are used as additional blocks decorating the edges of the composition and the interstitial areas. The nuclear blocks of the symmetrical registers are also rather unusual. They make use of a double depiction of a solar-headed heart standing on nub and heb signs, alluding to the solar rebirth of the deceased and to her justification.25 The layout of this panel as a whole is visibly similar to the wall of a temple. The depiction of deities, involved in tender embraces and welcoming encounters, is typically found in the cultic areas of the Theban temples. The resemblance is highlighted even more by the use of the horizontal division between the registers and the orderly integration of the additional blocks into the symmetrical registers. This composition thus reflects superbly the process of architectonisation of the anthropomorphic coffins (van Walsem 1997a, 358– 61), by converting the central panel into a pictorial unit fully planned according to the layout of an architectonic element, such as the rear wall of a sanctuary. Other examples of this trend are found in exceptionally long compositions (with sometimes ten or more

22

24

23

The remaining five registers of the central panel are thus depicted in the area where the lower section should be located, but the introduction of the dividing block frieze suggests the observance of the traditional pictorial scheme. The difference between these two compositions is that the lid of A.143 is slightly more conservative: the lower registers replicate the structure of the second register with minor changes, while in the lid of A.40 each register introduces new arrangements.

25

Centripetal winged deities face centrifugal enthroned gods flanking a nuclear block composed of a solar scarab and centrifugal cobras crowned with the pa-sekhemty. See Sousa 2008; 2011, 8–9, 47–8. It is noteworthy that the depiction of the heart in the context of the central panel is consistently associated with highly exceptional compositions: see Sousa 2014, 98-104. This process is perfectly visible in the central panel of the outer coffin of A.32 (London, British Museum EA 24793).

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

Fig. 8: Lid of the outer coffin of Taahuti from Bab el-Gasus (A.32) – central panel. London, British Museum EA 24793 (Drawing: R. Sousa).

29

R. SOUSA

30

registers).26 As René van Walsem points out, ‘the series of central attention markers, placed one above the other … closely resembles temple ceilings’ (van Walsem 1997a, 358). In fact, these compositions have an overwhelming number of winged deities, which gives to the central panel a layout similar to the decoration of the ceilings of temple passages, usually depicting winged sun discs or vultures (van Walsem 1997a, 358).

The symbolism and the compositional principles of the scenes depicted in the central panel have been dealt with elsewhere (Sousa 2014). The aim of the present paper was to detect the methods used by coffin decorators to enhance variability and complexity. Formally speaking, the central panel not only provides an excellent field to observe the principles governing the decoration of ‘yellow’ coffins, but also sheds light on the processes which enabled coffin decorators to conform to tradition while at the same time adding innovative arrangements. As we have seen, the changes in the layout of the central panel are consistent with global rearrangements in the decoration of the lids and mummy-covers. The criteria provided by this analysis will be used to establish a formal typology of the ‘yellow’ coffins. The analysis of these compositions has revealed that although a normative scheme provided each block with a specific repertoire of symbols, this did not restrict variability. Each area could be dealt with separately, following different conventions, resulting in an endless variability. However, innovative and exceptional features seem to have been generated systematically using a variety of processes that challenged the rules of the normative scheme, pushing it to its limits. In this process it is very interesting to note the impact of disruptive innovations in the normative scheme. Some of these innovations — such as the creation of a third register or the increasing use of liminal elements — had a strong impact on the subsequent genealogical sequence, changes being assimilated and integrated into the normative scheme of the panel.

However, it was not uncommon for innovations to produce solutions that seem to lead to an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The introduction of a new register in the upper part of the central panel was tried experimentally, but these attempts consisted of reproducing the nuclear block of the first register — usually the (winged) scarab27 — in the area above. This process seems to have been followed by the dissociation of the nuclear block of the first register from the adjacent symmetrical compositions. As a result — while keeping its central position — the nuclear block (winged scarab) was transferred to the area above the first register. This operation broke the solar–Osirian unity of the first register but produced two registers, each one with solar or Osirian significance.28 These interesting experiments did not permanently affect the subsequent genealogical line, and innovative arrangements were instead focused on the third register. One of the most interesting aspects of the development of the central panel is the thorough and constant search for complexity, which was achieved by the successive addition of innovative features to the normative scheme of the composition and which can be objectively measured by the number of key features integrated into that scheme. Paradoxically, the goal of rendering each coffin unique was attained through the increasing standardisation of the decoration, relying on systematic procedures rather than on a carefully designed scheme conceived specifically for a particular coffin (see a social typology of coffins in Cooney 2014). Given the prevalent role played by complexity and innovation in coffin decoration, one should question the role they played in the context of Theban funerary pragmatics of Dynasty 21. During the first half of the dynasty, the decoration of each coffin was apparently planned as a whole. The most exquisite coffins of the period display a high degree of individualisation, perhaps resulting from the direct involvement of scholars whose decisions contributed to the esoteric symbolism of the coffin. Ordinary coffins were crafted following the basic conventions provided by the normative scheme. During the second half of the dynasty, it is

26

27

Conclusion

See outer coffin of Maatkare (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 61028) in Daressy 1909, pl. XXXIX; mummy-cover of an anonymous woman from Bab el-Gasus (A.41; Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet N. 3911).

28

Coffin (Munich ÄS 67-b/c). Coffin of Tanatnekhtahat (Atlanta, Michael Carlos Museum 1999.I.17) in Lacovara and Trope 2001, 49.

THE GENEALOGY OF IMAGES

clear that coffin production increased in quantity and with it standardisation became the rule. However, even ordinary and highly standardised coffins — most of them anonymous — present unique features (Sousa 2010), which reflect the importance attached to the individuality of the coffin even at this level. Through this normalisation and codification of the decorative scheme a well-defined canon of iconographic resources was involved. This helped to regularise production in the Theban workshops, and enabled them to produce objects that could be seen as ‘one of a kind’. Certainly, parallel to this serial production, exceptional objects were crafted with innovative and sometimes ‘disruptive’ iconographic elements. The growth of complexity in coffin decoration is detected both in coffins of fine craftsmanship and in more ordinary specimens, but highly innovative arrangements are consistently associated with fine objects. Coffin decoration thus fulfilled an important role in displaying social status and in reaffirming social identity in the priestly hierarchy of Amun-Ra. In any case, the growth of complexity in coffin decoration resulted from the direct involvement of the priesthood of Amun in the supervision of the Theban workshops. It is clear that a vast array of funerary symbols — and thus esoteric knowledge — is condensed in the compositions of the central panel. In some cases the involvement of scholars was fundamental and the high degree of complexity and innovation attained by these objects must have been based on their erudition. However, the priests of Amun extended this process on a larger scale, producing a normative set of rules that could easily be followed in the Theban workshops, even with minimal supervision. Such compositions are the best expression of an artistic trend that transformed coffin decoration into a cutting-edge industry that was only paralleled by tomb decoration during Dynasties 18 and 19. As has long been pointed out, the rise of ‘yellow’ coffins is coeval with the decline in tomb production (Niwiński 1988, 15; Taylor 1989, 42; van Walsem 1997a, 361; Cooney 2011). The subsequent process of architectonisation which has been observed on the ‘yellow’ coffins resulted

29

These innovations are first detected through the use of the traditional motifs in new or unexpected settings, which soon involved the decoration of the funerary chamber itself. This process gave rise to an extraordinary development of new decorative schemes, which — beginning with the decoration of the

31

directly from the integration of pictorial subjects used in tomb decoration (van Walsem 1997a, 358–9). In terms of funerary pragmatics, the transfer of pictorial schemes from tomb decoration to coffin decoration had important consequences for the latter since it also involved a transfer of skills from the construction site to the workshops. To our understanding, the prevalent role that innovation played in coffin decoration during Dynasty 21 reflects the influence of the tradition of the Ramesside tomb builders, an input that became increasingly important with the growing inability of the Theban elite to commission the construction of new tombs. At this point, it is important to bring to our discussion the role that innovation played in the tradition of Theban tomb decoration during the New Kingdom. The evolution of the decorative programmes of these monuments (Assmann 2001, 292–305) reveals that innovative arrangements were favoured as a way to highlight the status of the tomb-owner. It is possible that by excelling others in the search for new decorative schemes — which in itself required knowledge of the funerary tradition — the tomb-owner added status to his tomb as his own memorial.29 The new decorative schemes introduced during the late Ramesside Period transformed the coffin into a sacred place, rather than just an object with a strictly funerary purpose. Like the tomb, the ‘yellow’ coffin was seen as a place providing privileged contact with the duat, as well as a setting for the performance of rituals, a memorial to maintain the social status of the deceased and, of course, a body container. Coffin decoration thus served a significantly wider range of purposes than ever before and absorbed the cultural and social dynamics that had once pushed Theban tomb decoration to its limits. Complexity and innovation in coffin decoration thus reflects a wider cultural and economic process that took shape when the collective ideology of the Theban priesthood of Amun absorbed the distinctive ethics that shaped the funerary material culture of the royal bureaucracy of the New Kingdom. The extraordinary iconographic development that took place in the decoration of coffins during Dynasty 21 is thus the continuing result of this process.

funerary chamber — began to use the vignettes of the Book of the Dead in the decoration of the tombs, including the cultic areas of the superstructure. This was the scheme in use during Dynasty 19.

32

R. SOUSA

Bibliography Assmann, J. 2001. Mortetau-delàdansl’Égypteancienne. Monaco. Bleiberg, E. 2008. Toliveforever:Egyptiantreasuresfrom theBrooklynMuseum. Brooklyn; London. Boeser, P. A. A. 1916. Mumiensärge des Neuen Reiches. Beschreibung der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden 8. Leiden. Boeser, P. A. A. 1917. Mumiensärge des Neuen Reiches: ZweiteSerie. Beschreibung der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden 9. Leiden. Cooney, K. 2007. The cost of death: The social and economic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. 2011. Changing burial practices at the end of the New Kingdom: Defensive adaptations in tomb commissions, coffin commissions, coffin decoration and mummification. JournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt47, 3–44. Cooney, K. 2014. Ancient Egyptian funerary art as social documents: Social place, reuse, and working towards a new typology of 21st Dynasty coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity:Newresearchtrendsinthe symbolism of coffins in ancient Egypt. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 45–66. Daressy, G. 1909. Cercueilsdescachettesroyales. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos. 61001–61044. Cairo. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of naturalselection:Orthepreservationoffavouredraces inthestruggleforlife. London. Egner, R. and E. Haslauer. 1994.SärgederDrittenZwischenzeit, I. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Mainz am Rhein. Egner, R. and E. Haslauer. 2009.SärgederDrittenZwischenzeit, II. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Mainz am Rhein. Gasse, A. 1996. Les sarcophages de la Troisième Période IntermédiaireduMuseoGregorianoEgizio. Vatican. Hayes, W. C. 1959. ThescepterofEgypt:Abackgroundfor thestudyoftheEgyptianantiquitiesintheMetropolitan Museum of Art. Part II: The Hyksos Period and the NewKingdom(1675–1080B.C.). New York. Küffer, A. and R. Siegmann. 2007. Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin:ÄgyptischeSärge,MumienundMasken inderSchweiz. Zürich. Lacovara, P. and B. Trope.2001. TherealmofOsiris:Mummies,coffinsandancientEgyptianfuneraryartsinthe MichaelC.CarlosMuseum.Atlanta. Nelson, M. 1978. Catalogue des antiquités égyptiennes du Muséed’archéologiedeMarseille. Marseille.

Niwiński, A. 1988. 21st Dynasty coffins from Thebes: Chronologicalandtypologicalstudies. Theben 5. Mainz am Rhein. Niwiński, A. 1995. LasecondetrouvailledeDeirel-Bahari (sarcophages). Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos. 6029–6068. Cairo. Niwiński, A. 2004. Sarcofagi della XXI dinastia (CGT 10101–10122). Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino, serie seconda – collezioni 9. Turin. Russmann, E., N. Strudwick and T. G. H. James. 2006. Temples and tombs: Treasures of Egyptian art from the BritishMuseum. Seattle; London. Seipel, W. 1989. Ägypten: Götter, Gräber, und die Kunst (4000JahreJenseitsglaube). Linz. Sousa, R. 2008. The Papyrus of Nesipautitaui (SR 1025): An iconographical reading. Aegyptus 88, 257–72. Sousa, R. 2010. The coffin of an anonymous woman from Bab el-Gasus (A.4) in Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt46, 185–200. Sousa, R. 2011. Theheartofwisdom:Studiesontheheart amuletinancientEgypt. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2211. Oxford. Sousa, R. 2014. ‘Spread your wings over me’: Iconography, symbolism and meaning of the central panel on yellow coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmos and eternity: New research trends in the symbolism of coffins in ancient Egypt. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 91–109. Sousa, R. 2017. Burial assemblages from Bab el-Gasus in theGeographicalSocietyofLisbon. Turnhout. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. (ed.). 2010. Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead:Journeythroughtheafterlife. London. van Walsem, R. 1997a. ThecoffinofDjedmonthuiufankhin theNationalMuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden I. Technical and Iconographic/Iconological Aspects. Egyptologische Uitgaven 10. Leiden. van Walsem, R. 1997b. The struggle against chaos as a ‘strange attractor’ in ancient Egyptian culture: A descriptive model for the ‘chaotic’ development of cultural systems. In J. van Dijk (ed.), EssaysonancientEgyptin honourofHermanteVelde. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen, 317–42. van Walsem, R. 2014. From skin wrappings to architecture: The evolution of prehistoric, anthropoid wrappings to historic architectonic coffins/sarcophagi; separate contrasts optimally fused in single Theban ‘stola’ coffins (± 975–920 BC). In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmos and eternity. New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 1–27.

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE Andrzej NIWIŃSKI

Abstract The idea that the coffin played the role of the universe for the deceased was probably present in ancient Egypt from the very beginning of the production of coffins, as the decoration of early sarcophagi seems to hint. It is very distinctly expressed in the texts and figures carved on the royal sarcophagi of the New Kingdom, with the predominant role of the concept of Nut symbolised by the lid and sometimes by the whole mummy-container. This concept was not abandoned, however, in Dynasty 21 and in the Third Intermediate Period the idea of an equation between the coffin and the universe was much developed, as may be seen in various iconographic motifs and scenes painted both on the interior and exterior of the coffin. The most significant of these images in this respect were pairs of complementary scenes, painted on the lid and on the bottom of the coffin case, as well as on the walls above and below the recumbent mummy inside the case, and the cosmological compositions on the left and right side of the mummy, on the exterior of the coffin case. This paper focuses on these iconographic features, based mainly on source material from Dynasty 21. * * * From the very beginning of ancient Egyptian civilisation, death was imagined as a passage between two phases of earthly existence, and during the first 2,000 years the deceased was equipped with various objects of everyday life, which it was presumed would also be useful in the hereafter. The coffin was invented in order to make this second phase of life more comfortable. It replaced the sleeping room, or – in a broader sense – the house or palace actually used or keenly desired by a human in the first phase of his or her life. It should be remembered here that only a tiny percentage of Egyptian society could be buried in tombs, mummified and equipped for the afterlife (Niwiński 2014), and this privileged group certainly followed the royal funerary patterns, as far as was possible within the given cultural frames specified for each historical period.

Thus, the oldest wooden coffins or stone sarcophagi had their archetypal patterns in the form of royal architecture. Some rather obviously reproduce the form of the royal palace (e.g. Ikram and Dodson 1998, 195, 247–8; Saleh and Sourouzian 1986, no. 34; Seipel 1989, 56; Schulz and Seidel 1997, 82; Porta 1989, pls 48–50), as did the royal tombs and those of dignitaries in the Archaic Period and the Old Kingdom (e.g. Ikram and Dodson 1998, 23; Porta 1989, pl. 41; Ziegler 1993, 30–1). The most popular shape for the Old Kingdom sarcophagi, eternalised in the hieroglyphic determinatives of the words ḳrswanddrwt,represented an aspective composition, combining the frontal and side views of the actual objects (WB V, 65, 601), and has been identified as a reproduction of the pr-nw sanctuary (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 244–9). Here may be recalled the old discussion on the origin of this pr-nwbuilding form, supposed to derive from the royal palace, or from the early state sanctuary (of Wadjyt?) in Lower Egypt (e.g. Sethe 1930, 130; Junker 1940, 17; Ricke 1944; Gardiner 1944, 27–8). In any case, the early tombs and sarcophagi had an ideological connection with the architecture of the sacred buildings, since the palace of the king as Horus also played the role of a temple. Moreover, the temple was to some extent regarded as a miniature version of the world, with its roof associated with the sky. It is, therefore, most feasible to presume that even in the Archaic Period and the early Old Kingdom the coffin or sarcophagus represented, in fact, a substitute for the world space for eternal life, localised between the sky and the Earth. The Pyramid Texts evoke this idea very clearly. PT 1–5 carved on the sarcophagus of Teti state that the dead king is the bodily son of the sky, Nut, and of the Earth, Geb. The netherworld is mentioned, too, as a place where the dead king reigns as Horus of Dat (Sethe 1908, 1; Faulkner 1969, 1–2). Although all the elements of the universe are named, the theological idea identifying the sarcophagus with the cosmos is not yet present. The sarcophagus is (in PT 616) only identified with Nut, who as mother of the dead king protects him from all things evil (Faulkner 1969, 119; Schott 1965, 81); the sarcophagus becomes at the same time

34

A. NIWIŃSKI

Fig. 1: A scene from one of the Books of the Underworld carved on the sarcophagus of Ramesses III. Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. D.1 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

the womb of Nut, who ensured celestial rebirth for her child, just as she gave new birth to the sun every day (Willems 1988, 134). A number of utterances in the Pyramid Texts (PT 580, 638, 777, 825, 1607) draw a clear parallel between the lid of the sarcophagus and the sky, in a text now known as the Nut formula: ‘Your mother Nut has spread herself over you’ (Faulkner 1969, 114, 121, 141, 148, 241). This is later repeated not only on the coffins of the Middle Kingdom (Willems 1988, 134; Barguet 1971, 20), but also on numerous coffins and sarcophagi of the Late Period, where it usually accompanies the figure of Nut carved or painted on the lid, outside as well as inside (Sethe 1892, 95; Gauthier 1913, 34–5, 116; Moret 1913, 39; SanderHansen 1937, 70, 118). It seems that this understanding of the lid of the sarcophagus or coffin as a symbolic substitute for the sky continued without a break to the end of pharaonic culture. All the royal sarcophagi of Dynasty 18 have numerous texts evoking Nut, which

are carved on the lids, sometimes both outside and inside (Hayes 1935). The only innovation at this time was the introduction of the representation of Nut standing or kneeling, with her hands, and sometimes wings as well, outstretched, which illustrates the formulae: ‘Recitation by Nut: I have stretched myself over my son’, and ‘Recitation of the deceased: O my mother Nut, stretch yourself over me that you may place me among the Imperishable Stars’. The same images and texts appear on the coffin lids of dignitaries of this period as well (Hayes 1959, 71–2; Ikram and Dodson 1998, 258). The decoration of the coffin cases, both royal and private, provided more or less clear allusions to the ceremonies performed after death – mummification and burial (Niwiński 1983, 435; Ziegler 1990, 53; Ikram and Dodson 1998, 209). However, the theological considerations concerning the structure of the world, and particularly of the underworld, appear then exclusively on the walls of the royal tombs in the form of the

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE

Litany of Ra and the Amduat. The burial equipment of Dynasty 18 still alludes to the belief that the hereafter is a repetition of earthly life (Schiaparelli 1927). The post-Amarna ‘Renaissance Era’ brought a fundamental change in this respect: in the Ramesside Period, objects of everyday life disappeared from the tombs, and the Books of the Underworld were carved on the royal sarcophagi (Fig. 1) to accompany the traditional image of the divine female personification (Nut or Neith) on the lids (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 261–4; Assmann 1972). Another ‘Renaissance Era’, on the eve of Dynasty 21, and the rise of the theocratic state of Amun, created favourable conditions for a development of theological concepts. It seems that it was precisely at that moment that the idea of the equation between the coffin and the universe found its full expression (Niwiński 2011). As decorated tombs ceased to be made, only the coffins and two funerary papyri offered surfaces on which all the necessary symbols could be painted. In Dynasty 21 the iconographic mode of expressing theological ideas prevailed over the use of text for this purpose, and pictorial means were used also to reveal the sacred cosmology of the coffin. This cosmology reflected the basic concept of the duality of everything. The main religious idea was the double nature of the god, traversing as the sun the upper visible hemisphere of Ra during the day, and the lower

35

Fig. 2: Solar and Osirian motifs on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29668 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 3: Mummy in a coffin. Besançon, Museum of Art and Archaeology, inv. A. 778 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

36

A. NIWIŃSKI

Fig. 4: Image of Nut on the lid of a coffin of Dynasty 21. Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. E. 13029 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

invisible one – the kingdom of Osiris – during the night; most of the scenes painted on the coffins of this period possess solar and Osirian elements combined (Fig. 2). The universe consisted of these two united divine parts, as the space filled with the emanations of the Creator. The dead person, having successfully passed the judgement, was becoming another such emanation; he or she played the role of Atum, filling the universe with his divine being, and at the same time played the roles of Ra and of Osiris, from the viewpoint of the cosmological division of the universe. All this was rendered figuratively by the mummy lying in the coffin, and surrounded by numerous pictorial symbols (Fig. 3; Niwiński 1988, 15; 1989a;1989b;1989c, 231–6; 2000, 31–7). The coffin was deposited in a horizontal position in the tomb. Consequently, the upper – solar – part of the universe was symbolised by iconographic motifs

painted above the mummy on the coffin lid. Here we find the traditional figure of the sky personified by Nut, kneeling with her arms and wings outstretched in a gesture of protection. Usually the figure is accompanied by the double text of a prayer: ‘O my mother Nut, come down, spread out your wings over me and stretch your arms over me!’(Figs 4 and 5; Niwiński 1989b, 53–4). Under the mummy, on the interior of the base of the inner and outer coffins, are painted the symbols of the Osirian part of the universe – respectively, the female personification of the necropolis or West (in the inner coffin) and the djed pillar (in the outer coffin). In early and middle Dynasty 21 these symbols were usually represented with arms and wings, and the ends of these were painted on the sidewalls of the case, a device which conveyed a figurative meaning: the mummy was ‘embraced’ by these symbols (Fig. 6).

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE

Fig. 5: Prayer to Nut on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. E. 13029 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

Coffins produced in the best workshops in early and mid-Dynasty 21, when the original patterns created under theological control were still in use, display a meaningful pair of cosmological compositions painted on the exterior surfaces of the walls of the case, usually close to the position of the heart of the mummy lying inside; in symbolic terms these were the most important places on the surfaces of the coffin. On one side of the coffin appears the scene showing Geb and Nut (Figs 7 and 8). This composition represents the upper hemisphere of the world – the space between the surface of the Earth (symbolised by Geb) and the Nut-sky, filled with light and air (symbolised by Shu). At the same height, but on the other side of the coffin case, we find a symbolic representation of the kingdom of Osiris, or the lower hemisphere, in most instances in the form of the cosmological composition which features the Great Serpent (Fig. 9); sometimes a single or

37

Fig. 6: The image of Osiris ‘embracing’ the mummy inside a coffin case of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29668 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

double scene with the enthroned Osiris, albeit without the serpent, may appear instead (Fig. 10). The mummy is therefore placed between these two compositions, filling the space between them. One should stress that besides the cosmological aspect of the structure of the universe, both scenes (with Geb and Nut and with the Great Serpent) possess cosmogonic value as well. During the final burial ceremony of the Opening of the Mouth the coffin was placed in the vertical position, so the mummy inside was then ‘standing’. Again, directly above the head of the mummy various solar motifs appear symbolising the course of the sun through the sky of the upper hemisphere (Fig. 11), or the figure of the solar soul of the deceased, the ba, descending from the sky (Fig. 12) in order to join with the ka reposing in the mummy – a union which symbolised resurrection. At the same time, under the feet of the mummy, i.e. on the foot-board of the coffin case, are

38

A. NIWIŃSKI

Fig. 7: The cosmological scene illustrating the upper hemisphere of the universe on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, inv. J. 29668 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

depicted the symbols of the underworld and necropolis: the djed pillar between two signs of the West (Fig. 13) as the place of the sunset – the entry into the lower hemisphere, in which the rebirth of the God is repeated every night (Niwiński 1989b, 55–7). Another motif that sometimes appears in this spot should also be understood in a cosmogonic context. This is a figure encircled by the Uroboros, which symbolised endless time and the border between the ordered world ruled by the sun and the exterior space of chaos. The area enclosed by the Uroboros corresponds, therefore, to the primeval mound, on which the Creator appeared, and the figure depicted inside the Uroboros can represent one of the multiple forms of the Creator

which existed in the universe (Figs 14 and 15). The mummy in the coffin was then a three-dimensional symbol of the god: Atum emerging from the chaotic primeval ocean, and Ra-Osiris travelling eternally upon the sky around the upper and lower hemisphere of the universe. During the journey the god undergoes unnumbered transformations. These forms of Ra and of Osiris – called ‘of many faces’ (ꜥšꜢ ḥrw), ‘of many beings’ (ꜥšꜢḫprw) and ‘of many names’ (ꜥšꜢrnw) – accompany the mummy, being painted on the inside, or in some instances the outside, of the coffin. These figures have sometimes been interpreted as images from the Litany of Ra, and have also been incorrectly described as ‘demons’. It should be stressed here that even the most

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE

Fig. 8: Upper hemisphere of the universe on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Besançon, Museum of Art and Archaeology, inv. A. 778 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 9: The cosmological scene illustrating the lower hemisphere of the universe on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Besançon, Museum of Art and Archaeology, inv. A. 778 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

39

A. NIWIŃSKI

40

Fig. 10: The cosmological scene illustrating the lower hemisphere of the universe, on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29668 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 11: A solar motif above the head of the mummy on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29668 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 12: Baof the deceased coming from the sky to join its ka.Scene inside a coffin case of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29692 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE

41

Fig. 13: Motif painted on the foot-board inside a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29668 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 14: Motif painted on the foot-board inside a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29628 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 15: Motif painted on the foot-board inside a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29738 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

strange-looking of these creatures represent only the divine transformations of Ra and Osiris, with whom the deceased is symbolically identified (Fig. 16; Niwiński 1989a, 103–4; 1989b, 62–3). The whole complex of iconographic motifs which surrounded the mummy as it ‘stood’ in the coffin during the funerary rituals (including the mummy itself as the central element of the three-dimensional scene) can sometimes be found painted in the coffins. Here it takes the form of a two-dimensional cosmological composition showing the mummiform god with a solar symbol on his head, standing upon a large circle, with two small discs joined by several dotted lines and with small figures of the king holding a hoe (Fig. 17). It is apparent that the great circle signifies the surface of the Earth, the two small discs the points of the sunrise and sunset, and the figures with the hoes, which are repeated twelve times in the most detailed examples, denote the hours of the activity of the god (represented here by the pharaoh). This activity, as expressed in the ‘Teachings of Amenemope’ can be constructive or destructive. Finally, this universe is surrounded by the waters of the

42

A. NIWIŃSKI

Fig. 16: Forms of Ra/Osiris accompanying the mummy inside a coffin case of Dynasty 21. Besançon, Museum of Art and Archaeology, inv. A. 778 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

primeval ocean symbolised by two female personifications pouring water from two sides on the great circle. Thanks to one variant on the funerary papyrus of a priest called Khonsumes, now in Vienna, we know that these female figures represent the south and the north (Fig. 18), and so the scene, together with the localisation of the sunrise and the sunset in the east and the west, offers a ‘map of the world’, or rather its upper hemisphere, filled with the god Ra-Osiris, and thus with the mummy of the deceased (Niwiński 2011, 109–10). There can be no doubt that the coffins of early Dynasty 21 offer the best examples of the carefully thought-out complex of iconographic motifs which convey the idea of the universe created by the coffin for the deceased. A further development of this idea can be exemplified by the figure of the Uroboros painted around the coffin in the later phase of the Third

Intermediate Period (Fig. 19), which came to be replaced by two serpents on some Late Period coffins (Fig. 20). Thus, the theological idea equating the coffin with the universe was active during the whole history of ancient Egypt, having the peak of its development in the 11th century BC.

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE

Fig. 17: Cosmological scene on a coffin of Dynasty 21. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, Inv. J. 29668 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 18: Cosmological scene on a funerary papyrus of Dynasty 21. Vienna, Museum of Art and History, Inv. 3859 (Drawing: A. Niwiński).

43

A. NIWIŃSKI

44

Fig. 19: The motif of the Uroboros on a coffin of Dynasty 25/26. Florence, Archaeological Museum, Inv. 2162 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

Fig. 20: The transformed motif of the Uroboroson a Late Period coffin. Stockholm, Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities, Inv. MME 1980:2 (Photograph: A. Niwiński).

Bibliography Assmann, J. 1972. Die Inschrift auf dem äußeren Sarkophagdeckel des Merenptah. Neith spricht als Mutter und Sarg. Interpretation der Sargdeckelinschrift des Merenptah. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, AbteilungKairo28, 47–73, 115–39. Barguet, P. 1971. Les textes spécifiques des différents panneaux des sarcophages du Moyen Empire. Revue d’Égyptologie23, 15–22. Faulkner, R. O. 1969. TheAncientEgyptianPyramidTexts. Oxford. Gardiner, A. H. 1944. Horus the Behdetite. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology30, 23–60. Gauthier, H. 1913. Cercueils anthropoïdes des prêtres de Montou. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire nos 41042–41072.Cairo. Hayes, W. C. 1935. RoyalsarcophagioftheXVIIIDynasty. Princeton. Hayes, W. C. 1959. ThescepterofEgypt.II.New York. Ikram, S. and A. Dodson. 1998. The mummy in Ancient Egypt.Equippingthedeadforeternity.London.

Junker, H. 1940. Der Tanz der Mww und das butische Begräbnis im Alten Reich. MitteilungendesDeutschen ArchäologischenInstituts,AbteilungKairo9, 1–39. Moret, A. 1913. Sarcophages de l’époque bubastite à l’époquesaïte. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire nos 41001–41041.Cairo. Niwiński, A. 1983. Sarg vom Anfang des Neuen Reiches bis zur gr.-röm. Zeit. LexikonderÄgyptologie 5, 434–68. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21stDynastycoffinsfromThebes.Chronologicalandtypologicalstudies.Theben V.Mainz. Niwiński, A. 1989a. The Solar-Osirian unity as principle of the theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty. JaarberichtvanhetVooraziatisch-EgyptischGezelschapExOrienteLux30 (1987–8), 89–106. Niwiński, A. 1989b. Mummy in the coffin as the central element of iconographic reflection of the theology of the 21st Dynasty in Thebes. GöttingerMiszellen 109, 53–66. Niwiński, A. 1989c. StudiesontheillustratedThebanfunerary papyri of the 11th and 10th centuries B.C. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 86. Fribourg.

THE DECORATION OF THE COFFIN AS A THEOLOGICAL EXPRESSION OF THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSE

Niwiński, A. 2000. Iconography of the 21st dynasty: Its main features, levels of attestation, the media and their diffusion. In C. Uehlinger (ed.), Images as media. SourcesfortheculturalhistoryoftheNearEastandthe Eastern Mediterranean (1st millennium BCE). Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175.Fribourg. Niwiński, A. 2011. The coffin as the universe: Cosmological scenes on the Twenty-first Dynasty coffins. In J. PopielskaGrzybowska and J. Iwaszczuk (eds), Studies on religion:Seekingoriginsandmanifestationsofreligion.Acta Archaeologica Pultuskiensia III, 107–110, pls 23–54. Pultusk. Niwiński, A. 2014. Did the pat-people and the rekhyt-people have different burial ceremonies? In M. Jucha, J. Dębowska-Ludwin and P. Kołodziejczyk (eds), Aegyptusestimagocaeli.StudiespresentedtoKrzysztof M. Ciałowicz on his 60th birthday. Cracow, 147– 254. Porta, G. 1989. L’architetturaegiziadelleoriginiinlegnoe materialileggeri.Milan. Ricke, H. 1944. BemerkungenzurägyptischenBaukunstdes AltenReichs.I.Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde 4. Zurich. Saleh, M. and H. Sourouzian. 1986. OffiziellerKatalog.Die HauptwerkeimÄgyptischenMuseumKairo.Mainz.

45

Sander-Hansen, C. E. 1937. Die religiösen Texte auf dem SargderAnchnesneferibre.Copenhagen. Schiaparelli, E. 1927. Latombaintattadell’architetto‘Cha’ nellanecropolidiTebe.Turin. Schott, S. 1965. Nut spricht als Mutter und Sarg. Revue d’Égyptologie17, 81–7. Schulz, R. and M. Seidel (eds). 1997. Ägypten.DieWeltder Pharaonen.Cologne. Seipel, W. 1989. Ägypten. Götter, Gräber und die Kunst. 4000JahreJenseitsglaube.I. Linz. Sethe, K. 1892. Das Alter des Londoner Sargdeckels des Königs Mencheres. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache undAltertumskunde 30, 94–8. Sethe, K. 1908. DiealtägyptischenPyramidentexte.I.Leipzig. Sethe, K. 1930. Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 18. Leipzig. WB. 1931. WörterbuchderAegyptischenSprache. Leipzig. Willems, H. 1988. Chestsoflife.Astudyofthetypologyand conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard classcoffins.Leiden. Ziegler, C. 1990. Le Louvre. Les antiquités égyptiennes. Paris. Ziegler, C. 1993. Le mastaba d’Akhethetep. Une chapelle funérairedel’AncienEmpire.Paris.

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22 René

VAN

Abstract Visits to museums with important collections of Dynasty 21 to early Dynasty 22 coffins originating from Thebes, and related to the author’s PhD research, confronted the author with a wide range of often very interesting and even unique peculiarities on these coffins. These features could not be taken into consideration within the framework of the current research, and therefore a few are presented and discussed here for the first time in the studies of coffins of this era. They concern: 1. a detail in the manner of drawing the vertical end and middle wrappings of mats on a number of coffins; 2. the presence of snakes depending from the body and legs of Hathor cows, emerging from the Theban Western mountain; 3. the ‘chain motif’ on coffins. These motifs may be used as a means to link separate coffins together, revealing the diagnostic features of a single workshop or painter.

WALSEM

these as a demonstration of the unexpected richness of these artefacts, the ensuing problems and the questions they may pose. The few examples considered here are less than the tip of an enormously complex iconographic and textual ‘iceberg’. A peculiar way of drawing the vertical end and middle wrappings of mats1

During visits to a considerable number of leading museum collections which house Dynasty 21 to early Dynasty 22 coffins, in order to collect comparative material for my dissertation on the coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden (van Walsem 1997), I was able to make many interesting observations on a wide range of details which could not be included in my PhD research. In the present paper I would like to draw attention to some of

Usually the mat motif separating the large vignettes on the interior walls and floor-boards of the boxes shows a number of vertical white wrappings drawn in the middle and at the ends between the mat’s two straight horizontal top and bottom lines: as, for example, on the floor-board of coffin Lo 5,2 above the last vignette (Figs 1 and 2). However, on the following ten coffins a different method of representation is found on the inner walls and floor-boards: Cl 1 (Figs 3 and 4), Cr 1, Dr 1, Lo 2, Lo 4, Ne 1, NY 1 B, Pa 1, Tr 1 and Vi 1. In these instances the wrappings show a convex outline resulting in an undulating top and bottom profile of the middle and end wrappings, suggesting that one is looking at a row of vertically placed rings. An excellent example is found on the left side inner wall of Cl 1 (see Figs 3 and 4; cf. also Berman 1999, 314–24, especially figs on pp. 320–3). The rarity of the motif3 suggests that it represents a rather idiosyncratic trait of an individual artist or workshop and facilitates examination of the relevant coffins for comparison on other points as well. I will refer to this again below.

1

2

* * *

Although I have treated the subject briefly already in my book review of Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010 in van Walsem 2013, 154–8, esp. 156–7, I think it is useful to elaborate on the subject and provide illustrations to make this iconographic motif more easily accessible.

3

The sigla refer to the list of stola coffins in van Walsem 1997, 377–85. A concordance table can be found at the end of this article (Table 2). It occurs on ten out of seventy-eight known boxes, but not all of these boxes were fully available to the author to make it possible to ascertain this detail. So the real number is probably higher; but it is impossible to estimate how much higher.

48

R. VAN WALSEM

Its rareness also raises the question whether it is an entirely original detail ‘invented’ by an individual painter and thus found only on these few coffins, or whether it is known from another period and/or context. The answer is positive for the last part of the question. The motif is also found in the Theban tomb of Anherkhau (TT 359), first published by Bernard Bruyère in 1933 and re-published by Nadine Cherpion and Jean-Pierre Corteggiani in 2010. Bruyère’s publication includes a number of plates illustrating the regular drawing method of this detail (Bruyère 1933, pls 8 [= Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, pl. 33], 10 [= Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, pls 45, 57, 62, 66], 11 [= Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, pls 46, 48, 50–1]); all are in the first room. The usual manner of depiction occurs in the second room only once (Bruyère 1933, pl. 19 top, right [= Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, pls 76, 85]). However, the ‘ringed’ or ‘undulating’ contour is found twice in the second room (Bruyère 1933, pls 15 middle, left [= Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, pls 113, 122]; Figs 5 and 6, and 20 middle, centre [= Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, pls 73, 77, 80–1, 94]; Figs 7 and 8).4

Fig. 1: Floor-board of Lo 5 showing mat (Photograph: R. van Walsem, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum).

4

Note that the mats in Anherkhau’s tomb paintings have no central wrapping.

Fig. 2: Lo 5, detail of mat (Photograph: R. van Walsem, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum).

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22

Fig. 3: Left inner side wall of Cl 1 showing mat (Courtesy Cleveland Museum of Art).

A survey of all published Theban tombs failed to produce a single example of this unusual iconography, apart from those in Anherkhau’s tomb. This poses a question. The uniqueness of the latter’s case and the motif’s rareness among the coffin material might suggest a contemporaneity of coffins and tomb. Anherkhau’s tomb is well dated in the reign of

49

Ramesses IV [± 1150 BC] (Cherpion and Corteggiani 2010, 4–5). However, the stola coffins are dated between ± 975 and 920 BC, i.e. ± 950 BC (van Walsem 1997, 357–8), 200 years after the date of the tomb. How are we to explain this, or solve the riddle? One possibility would be to re-date all stola coffins to Dynasty 20. However, apart from the fact that there is unanimity about the date among the experts, such redating would create several problems if it were accepted. Without entering into details, the strongest argument against locating these coffins in mid- to late Dynasty 20 is the fact that the general and logical formal evolution of coffin iconography and text volume distribution, which proceeds from simple (on the early Ramesside Period coffins) to most complex (on the stola coffins), as demonstrated, for example, in the layout of lids (Niwiński 1988, 68–9; van Walsem 1997, pls 31–55), outer and inner side walls (van Walsem 1997, pls 57–96) and floor-boards of boxes (van Walsem 1997, pls 97–107), would be interrupted. The straight progression from simple (Dynasty 19–early Dynasty 20), to medium complex (middle Dynasty 20–middle Dynasty 21), to most complex (end of Dynasty 21–early Dynasty

Fig. 4: Left inner side wall of Cl 1, detail of mat (Courtesy Cleveland Museum of Art).

50

R. VAN WALSEM

Fig. 5: Tomb of Anherkhau (TT 359) showing mat (© Institut français d’archéologie orientale, J. Fr. Gout).

22), would change into one going in a single step from simple (Dynasty 19–early Dynasty 20) to most complex (middle Dynasty 20–early Dynasty 21), and then back

to medium complex (end of Dynasty 21–early Dynasty 22). This is not logical (for other arguments, see van Walsem 1997, 144–5 and 162–4). Apart from the political reason(s) given for the sudden reduction in complexity of coffin layout and iconography immediately following the stola coffins (van Walsem 1997, 361–2), the latter’s apex of intricacy could only be followed by a more simple one, because the limits of the horror vacui had been reached: full is full. If the stola coffins switch places with coffins of middle Dynasty 20 to middle Dynasty 21, where the limits of horror vacui had not yet been reached, the logical step in the formal evolution to a simpler layout would have been less dramatic than it actually was. Therefore, it is best to leave the order as it is and to take the generally accepted date of the stola coffins as correct. Thus the only logical possibility is to assume that the tomb of Anherkhau was accessible to the artist of the stola coffins on which this peculiarity occurs. Apparently he was struck by its unusual iconography and copied it in a number of vignettes. The accessibility of Anherkhau’s tomb must be dated to late Dynasty 21 at least, but of course may have been considerably earlier. The character of this accessibility is impossible to ascertain: it may have been due to a late Dynasty 21 incidental (?) burial (possibly of a relative of the original owner’s family); or perhaps the tomb was open from the point at which there was no longer any surviving member of the family to take care of it. Only new data may solve this question.

Fig. 6: Tomb of Anherkhau (TT 359), detail of mat (© Institut français d’archéologie orientale, J. Fr. Gout).

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22

Fig. 7: Tomb of Anherkhau (TT 359), showing mat (© Institut français d’archéologie orientale, J. Fr. Gout).

Snakes and Hathor cows emerging from the Theban Western mountain On seven coffins: Cl 1 (twice Figs 9 and 10)5, Lo 1 (Fig. 11), Mu 1, Pa 1, Pr 1, To 1 and Tü 1, the exterior box walls have as the vignette at the foot-end the highly

51

popular scene — found in tombs, on papyri and on coffins — of the Hathor cow emerging from the Theban Western mountain. It is clearly connected with BD 186, originating in Dynasty 19 (Quirke 2013, 483–5; Taylor 2010, 252–3). Stephen Quirke notes that Irmtraut Munro knows only eight Ramesside and five Third Intermediate Period papyri with this image (Quirke 2013, 483). It is much more frequent on Third Intermediate Period coffins from Thebes.6 However, a new and highly peculiar attribute of this scene is the motif of snakes curling around the cow’s legs and sometimes hanging on both sides of her back.7 A precursor of the physical contact between the snakes and the cow’s body may be found in the vignette on a pre-stola coffin in Asti — the deep floral wreath which is omnipresent on stola coffins is there, but the stola itself is still absent — where a red snake in a double S-curve, with green dots dispersed over its body, fills the space below the cow’s belly and between its legs (Leospo 1986, 22–3, col. pl.). Undoubtedly, as noticed by Enrichetta Leospo, it represents a protective snake (Leospo 1986, 21). On the basis of this principle it is logical that the painter should have added several smaller snakes to the cow’s body. Not a single other example beyond the few listed above is known to me. A closer comparison of these cases leads to some interesting observations. One might think that the presence of this extremely rare motif alone is enough evidence to identify the same (i.e. a single) artist. However, this is doubtful. Collating the two vignettes of Cl 1 reveals some very marked differences. On the left

Fig. 8: Tomb of Anherkhau (TT 359), detail of mat (© Institut français d’archéologie orientale, J. Fr. Gout).

5

6

Cf. Berman 1999, 318, top left; 319, bottom right; Berman’s note 19, referring to van Walsem 1988 [= unpublished PhD version], 93 is wrong; I have not been able to correct it. Daressy 1909, pls 46, left; 48, left (Cairo, CG 61030); 51, middle (Cairo, CG 61031); 56, middle (Cairo, CG 61032); 58, right; 59, right (Cairo, CG 61034 = Ca 1). One finds the motif

7

eight times on four coffins, since it is regularly depicted on both inner and outer coffins. In view of the hundreds of stola and non-stola coffins from Thebes it is quite obvious that the total number of examples of this vignette on coffins far outnumbers those on the papyri and in tombs. They are absent on Lo 1, Pr 1, To 1 and Tü 1.

52

R. VAN WALSEM

Fig. 9: Hathor cow on the left wall of Cl 1 (Courtesy Cleveland Museum of Art).

Fig. 10: Hathor cow on the right wall of Cl 1 (Courtesy Cleveland Museum of Art).

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22

53

wall the cow is provided with six snakes: four around its legs, one across its back and one around its neck. The other cow shows only three: one around its left front leg, one around its right hind leg and one across its back. The latter do not show the dispersed dots over their bodies as the left wall’s snakes do.8 Also, the density of the distribution of the spots on the cow’s bodies differs markedly: on the left wall they are larger in relation to the overall size of the cow’s body, so they are fewer in number than on the right side. There also, they do not cover the face of the cow, in contrast to the left wall; a blank face is further known from Mu 1, To 1 and Tü 1. The cow’s horns on the left wall are coloured, whereas on the right side they are blank. The cow’s plume on the left side is left blank, while on the other side it is painted in a manner that suggests its feathery substance. The cow’s back-cloth on the left wall shows a dotted pattern, similar to that in the top segment of the wings of the serpent hovering over its rear hind part. On the right side the dots are smaller and more densely packed, with the addition of cross-hatching, which is also found in the upper segments of the wings of the snake. The tip of this segment ends in a small rectangle consisting of a pattern of four vertical thicker lines with three horizontal thinner ones crossing, while on the left side only three thicker vertical/ oblique lines are present. There also the cavetto cornice of the tomb’s façade is blank, but on the right side it is

filled in. Finally, the undulating motif of the necropolis desert on the left wall shows a pattern of two thick lines with a very thin one in between, flanked by thicker dots above and tiny ones below. On the right side, however, there is a single top row of dots between two thick lines on top of the remaining undulating rows, consisting of a double row of dots between two thick lines flanking a central thinner line, as on the other side, but this line is slightly thicker and also the difference between the darker and brighter dots is much less marked. All this suggests that coffin Cl 1 was decorated by two different artists, each painting one side but sharing a common iconographic context — perhaps originating from a single ‘workshop’? In short, the occurrence of the motif is not by itself enough to identify a single artist. This is easily demonstrated by looking at coffins Lo 1 (see Fig. 11) and Pr 1 (Verner 1982, 1/276). Each shows a different pattern of spots on the cow’s body; the detailing of the back-cloth is different; and the snakes around the legs of Lo 1 have erect heads (also found on Pa 1), while on Pr 1 they more resemble a kind of ribbon slung around the legs — which is actually also the case with Cl 1. This seems to suggest a kind of ‘degeneration’ ending at To 1, where this feature is reduced to a short thin curved stroke of the brush and would be impossible to interpret without the other material discussed here. On Tü 1 it really seems to have been transformed into the shape of a piece of cloth around the legs, with nothing suggesting a snake origin. Finally, Lo 1 shows the unique detail of a uraeus on the cow’s horn. It will probably be worthwhile to keep looking for parallel data concerning this peculiar motif. Was it a real iconographic innovation by the artists of the stola corpus, or does its origin lie somewhere else? For the time being the motif of cows plus snakes seems to be limited to these coffins and their time frame. However, snakes around the legs or at the feet of striding sphinxes representing the god Tutu are found in the Graeco-Roman Period.9 In between, any further evidence is still lacking. An integral analysis of these iconographic varieties of BD 186 falls outside the framework of this contribution, but certainly deserves an in-depth study taking all sources (i.e., tombs, papyri and coffins) into consideration. It will certainly result in a substantial publication,

8

9

Fig. 11: Hathor cow on the left exterior wall of Lo 1 (Photograph: R. van Walsem, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum).

The dots are also found on coffins Pa 1 and Pr 1.

Kaper 2003, 256, 312, 329, 338, 348 (ref. Dr R. J. Demarée).

R. VAN WALSEM

54

because, beside the stylistic points mentioned here, all attributes have to be studied and inventoried: the tomb, the desert, all various persons involved from coffin owner to deities, snakes, ba-birds (flying freely or drinking from the cow’s udder), utensils such as offering stands and tables, vases, chalices, various plants, sun and stars, and texts (either as real texts or using hieroglyphs as space fillers). Such an approach is the only way to come to a full interpretation of all available layers of information encapsulated in this highly interesting iconographic constellation.10 The ‘chain’ motif on (non-)stola coffins11 Among the comparative material for the analysis of Djedmonthuiufankh’s coffin in Leiden, a small number of lids and an even smaller number of boxes show a decorative detail that is regularly called the ‘chain’ motif. It was cursorily treated in van Walsem 1997 (123–4, listing only thirteen examples). The complete list consists of the following stola coffins: Be 1–2, Ca 1 A and C12, Fl 1, Ha 1, He 1, Hei 1 [= X 8 present location unknown], Lei 2, Lei 3, Lo 1, Lo 4, Lo 5 (Figs 12 and 13), Ne 1 (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 78–84), NY 1 A, NY 1 B, SG 1 (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 93–7), Tok 1, Tü 1, Va 2, Va 3 and Vi 2; in total twenty-two occurrences on eighteen single coffins and on three coffin sets (Be 1–2, Ca 1 A and C, NY 1). Apart from the placement of the motif as an extensive, structuring decorative element on the level of the primary layout,13 varying in respect of the set components — lid or box — and orientation — vertical, horizontal or concavely bending — it also occurs as a limited finishing or border motif on the level of the secondary layout, i.e. as an attribute of a vignette. Ca 1 shows it on the outer lid, vertically framing the text columns on the legs from the knees to the toes (Daressy 1909, pl. 58). On NY 1 B, the motif frames the two vignettes on the crown of the head of the exterior box wall from top to bottom.14

Be1-2, Fl 1, Ha 1, He 1, Hei 1, Lei 2–3, Lo 1, Lo 4–5, Ne 1, SG 1, Tok 1, Tü 1, Va 2 and 3, in total seventeen examples, show it bending in a downward curve and crossing the full widthof the lid, just above the frieze of large papyrus flowers, terminating the extremely wide and complex floral wreath so typical of the stola material (see Figs 12 and 13; see van Walsem 1997, 115–6, 122–3). The plank lid Ca 1 C, however, shows it between the ends of the wig tresses, directly above the crossing of the stola and the hands (Daressy 1909, pl. 60). NY 1 A shows the motif horizontally on the exterior wall of the box over its full length as top framing line of the bottom line of text, while NY 1 B shows it on its left exterior wall as base frame of the uraeus frieze and as base line of the vignettes. On the right wall it also

10

13

11

12

A modest example concerning this image is Liptay 2003. See van Walsem Forthcoming. In this article, where I elaborate the fact that the so-called ‘chain motif’ represents the pattern of the tail of a leopard/panther or a cheetah, only an incomplete list is given of all coffins bearing this decorative detail. The list in van Walsem 1997, 123, n. 251 is also incomplete. Hereafter, A indicates the outer coffin and lid, B the inner coffin and lid and C the plank lid. For the term ‘plank lid’ instead of ‘mummy cover’ etc., see van Walsem 1997, 9, n. 23.

Fig. 12: ‘Chain’ motif on the lid of Lo 5 (Photograph: R. van Walsem, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum).

14

15

For the terminology of ‘primary’ versus ‘secondary’ layout, see van Walsem 1997, 81 and index p. 443, under ‘layout’. Van Walsem 1997, pl. 113, fig. 204. The picture simultaneously shows the horizontally applied motif on the right and left exterior walls, cf. below n. 15. It is, actually, separated by a thin band from the hieroglyphs, while the top line is immediately above the signs. Therefore, one may theoretically consider the lower line also as the top line of the block frieze immediately below. I prefer, however, to consider both lines as the frame of the text line.

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22

55

Fig. 13: ‘Chain’ motif on the lid of Lo 5, detail (Photograph: R. van Walsem, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum).

figures as base line for the uraei, but further as top and bottom framing line15 of the top line of text, as base line of the vignettes and, again, as lower framing line of the bottom line of text. This reveals that the walls were asymmetrically laid out. Whether this was done on purpose or betrays a mistake is impossible to ascertain, although the latter seems the most plausible explanation. However, two different hands cannot be ruled out; see above for the two hands of Cl 1 in respect of the snake motif. Only a minute comparison of the two walls, which falls outside the framework of the present study, might decide this. Only Vi 2 shows the motif as the upper and lower hem of the dress of the huge figure of an unidentified goddess on the floor-board (Satzinger 1994, 49, fig. 32). The earliest example of an identical use is a Middle Kingdom servant statue (van Walsem Forthcoming, n. 26). It is obvious that the horizontal and vertical uses of the motif each represent a very small minority, each one only known by two examples, while the horizontally bending variant is attested eighteen times. Both orientations occur, as far as is known, only once on the lid of a non-stola (i.e. pre-stola) coffin Cairo, CG 6083, vertically framing the single columns of text on the legs from the abdomen to the toes and horizontally bordering the lines of texts above the side vignettes on the legs from the abdomen to the toes.16 A vertical framing of the central text column from the central

attention marker17 down to the feet is so far known only on the non-stola, i.e. (immediately, on stylistic grounds) post-stola plank lid Cor 3. As demonstrated in van Walsem (Forthcoming), we are dealing here with an architectural motif, of which the earliest examples date back to the Nagada III period and which has been found, for example, at Minshat Abu Omar (van Walsem Forthcoming, n. 35). All early examples are vertical, decorating the niched exteriors of the mud-brick tomb superstructures of Dynasties 1–3 and continuing to be used as such in various other contexts until the end of Dynasty 18, when it occurs for the first time horizontally in the tomb of Nakhtmin (TT 291; van Walsem Forthcoming, nn. 18–21). There it is found three times horizontally and parallel, with a frieze of lotuses depending from the middle ‘chain’ (Fig. 14; van Walsem Forthcoming, n. 21 with pl. 3). This horizontally architectonic use in tombs explains its appearance on the exterior of the boxes of NY 1 A–B, as previously described. This use, combined with the papyrus/lotus flower motif as the lowest, i.e. outer, string of the wreath on coffin lids, concentrically bending along with the other floral string motifs of the collar, reveals that, in fact, this string intrinsically represents a horizontal orientation as well. To summarise: the vertical use of the motif is primary, while the horizontal and bending variants are

16

17

Niwiński 1995, 115 (described as ‘…rassemblant une chaînette…’), pl. 20,3.

For this term, see van Walsem 1997, 65 ff.

56

R. VAN WALSEM

Fig. 14: Triple ‘chain’ motif in the tomb of Nakhtmin, TT 291 (after Bruyère and Kuentz 1926, pl. 4).

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22

secondary, and both were derived from local private tombs18 at Thebes. The relatively high concentration of the motif on the stola material is a further confirmation of the ‘architectonisation’ of these particular coffins (van Walsem 1997, esp. 262–3, 358, 361, 372).

57

Table 1: interconnectedness of the motifs I Mat motif

II Snake motif

III ‘Chain’ motif Be 1 (set with Be 2) Be 2 (set with Be 1) Ca 1 A (set with Ca 1 C) Ca 1 C (set with Ca 1 A)

Interconnectedness The rather limited occurrence of the motifs described above raises the question whether they reveal a single hand or ‘workshop’. Table 1 enables us to establish the frequency of the interconnectedness of the motifs: I + II (Cl 1, Pa 1), I + III (Lo 4, Ne 1, NY 1 B) and II + III (Lo 1, Tü 1). It is striking that not a single coffin combines all three of them. The three motifs occur together once, but only on the level of a set of coffins on Pa 1 B (motifs I + II) and Lo 4 A (motifs I + III). The sets Be 1 + 2 and Ca 1 show only III, while the set NY 1 A + B reproduces motifs I and III. Five (in grey in the table) out of the ten coffins showing motif I are horizontally connected to another motif in the table; four (in green) out of the eight occurrences of motif II; and, again, (only) five out of the total of twenty-two showing motif III (in blue). This horizontal connection certainly suggests individual hands, or at least a single workshop. However, the vertical connection between various coffins sharing the same motif does not necessarily imply that they represent a single hand or workshop. Although Cl 1 and Lo 1 both show the snake motif (see Figs 9–11), this does not mean that they were decorated by the same painter. For instance, the snake on the cow’s back on Cl 1 is absent on Lo 1, while the upright snakes around the legs of Lo 1 are more or less horizontal loops or ribbons on Cl 1; the sun-discs above the uraei frieze on the box’s exterior wall top are open circles on Cl 1, while on Lo 1 they are filled in with a central disc as well; also the contour of the heads of the uraei differs: on Cl 1 the heads show a part of the neck that emerges from the rear of the hood, while on Lo 1 the heads emerge without necks from the middle of the hood; the spots on the body of the Hathor cow on Lo 1 roughly resemble stars in shape, while Cl 1 shows more circular ‘blobs’, and the cow has a blank face in contrast to Lo 1; finally, the folded pieces of cloth on the

18

I do not know of any royal tomb in which this motif was used as an architectonic attribute.

Cl 1

Cl 1 (2x)

Cr 1 Dr 1 Fl 1 Ha 1 He 1 Hei 1 Lei 2 Lei 3 Lo 1

Lo 1

Lo 2 Lo 4 (set with Pa 1)

Lo 4 (set with Pa 1) Lo 5 Mu 1

Ne 1

Ne 1 NY 1 A (set with NY 1 B)

NY 1 B (set with NY 1 A) Pa 1 (set with Lo 4)

NY 1 B (set with NY 1 A) Pa 1 SG 1 Pr 1 To 1 Tok 1

Tr 1 Tü 1

Tü 1 Va 2 Va 3

Vi 1 Vi 2 Total 10

Total 8

Total 22

head of the large standing mummiform figures of the four Sons of Horus on the interior walls of Lo 1 are totally absent in the same configuration on Cl 1, as are the collars, while the very long girdle sashes of Cl 1 are represented by a much shorter variant on Lo 1. Although many more attributes on these two coffins need to be considered in order to establish an exact picture of their

58

R. VAN WALSEM

Fig. 15: Amduat scene on exterior wall of Lei 2 (After Boeser 1920, pl. 6).

Fig. 16: Amduat scene on exterior wall of Va 2 (Photograph: R. van Walsem, Copyright Vatican Museums).

SOME GLEANINGS FROM ‘STOLA’ COFFINS AND RELATED MATERIAL OF DYNASTY 21–22

similarities and differences, which goes far beyond the limits of the present paper, those already mentioned are enough to conclude that the coffins were not decorated by a single individual hand. But, of course, a single workshop could employ two or more artists who could be inspired by a single iconographic repertoire of funerary texts, which could be (re)combined for any new coffin with almost endless variety. It is obvious that meticulous comparisons of this kind can reveal all sorts of unexpected information, such as the interconnectedness of coffins Lei 2 and Va 2, which only have the ‘chain’ motif in common. This is not only the most frequent of the three motifs, but thereby also the most flexible and ambiguous, and so would seem the least diagnostic for interrelating individual coffins. Yet these two coffins were decorated by the same artist, which is demonstrated by the fact that, on the exterior walls decorated with Amduat scenes, an extremely small sun god is depicted in an unusually small barque (Figs 15 and 16), which to the author’s present knowledge is unique and could not be a mere coincidence. Apart from this very specific feature the coffins have many more attributes in common that irrefutably demonstrate that they were designed and painted by a single artist. The preceding cases convincingly show, in the author’s opinion, that an immense amount of very detailed comparative work has yet to be done before Egyptology has a full grasp of this particular corpus of coffins. This research shows that these coffins were decorated with the most complex schemes ever devised, combining iconography and all kinds of textual sources, which so far have been barely mapped out. It is to be hoped that international conferences of the kind of which these acts are the tangible result will manage to keep and foster Egyptological interest not only in these artefacts as such but also in their makers and users, whose worldview and mentality in relation to life and death are reflected here in a dazzling way.

Bibliography Berman, L. M. 1999. TheClevelandMuseumofArt.CatalogueofEgyptianart. New York. Boeser, P. A. A. 1920. MummienkistenvanhetNieuweRijk. VierdeSerie. Beschrijving van de Egyptische verzameling in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 11. The Hague.

59

Table 2: Concordance (van Walsem 1997, 377–85) Be 1–2

Berlin (former East), 58 + 1075

Ca 1

Cairo, CG 61034

Cl 1

Cleveland, CMA 14561

Cor 3

Cortona, Museo dell’Academia 361

Cr 1

Cracow, UJ 10628

Dr 1

Driebergen

Fl 1

Florence, Museo Archeologico 2154

Ha 1

Harrogate, Royal Pump Room Museum no number

He 1

Helsinki, Finnish Nat. Museum VK 660

Hei 1

= X 8 present location unknown

Lei 2

Leiden, National Mus. of Antiquities M10

Lei 3

Leiden, National Mus. of Antiquities M2

Lo 1

London, British Museum EA 35287

Lo 2

London, British Museum EA 48972

Lo 4

London, British Museum EA 22941

Lo 5

London, British Museum EA 22942

Mu 1

Munich, ÄS 63

Ne 1

Neuchâtel, Musée d’Ethnographie EG 185

NY 1 A

New York, MMA 17.2.7A 1–2

NY 1 B

New York, MMA 17.2.7B 2

Pa 1

Paris, Louvre E 3864

Pr 1

Prague, Náprstkovo Muzeum P 621

SG 1

St Gallen, Historisches Museum C 3530

To 1

Toronto, ROM 910.5

Tok 1

Tokyo, Idemitsu Museum 8428

Tr 1

Troyes, Musée de la ville, no number

Tü 1

Tübingen, Sammlung der Universität 454

Va 2

Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Egizio 220+220A

Va 3

Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Egizio 205A-B

Vi 1

Vienna, MÄS 5156

Vi 2

Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 232

Was 1

Wassenaar = Driebergen

X8

Location unknown

Bruyère, B. 1933. RapportsurlesfouillesdeDeirelMédineh (1930). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 8. Cairo. Bruyère, B. and C. Kuentz. 1926. LatombedeNakht-minet latombed’Arinefer. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 54. Cairo. Cherpion, N. and J.-P. Corteggiani. 2010. La tombe d’Inherkhâouy (TT 359) à Deir el-Medina, Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 128. Cairo. Daressy, G. 1909. Cercueilsdescachettesroyales. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Nos 61001–61044. Cairo.

60

R. VAN WALSEM

Kaper, O. E. 2003. The Egyptian god Tutu. A study of the sphinx-god and master of demons with a corpus of his monuments. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 119. Leuven. Küffer, A. and R. Siegmann. 2007. Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin.ÄgyptischeSärge,MumienundMasken inderSchweiz. Zürich. Leospo, E. 1986. MuseoarcheologicodiAsti.Lacollezione Egizia. Turin. Liptay, E. 2003. Between heaven and earth. The motif of the cow coming out of the mountain. Bulletin du Musée HongroisdesBeaux-Arts 99, 11–30. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21st Dynasty coffins from Thebes. Chronologicalandtypologicalstudies. Theben 5. Mainz am Rhein. Niwiński, A. 1995. LasecondetrouvailledeDeirel-Bahari (sarcophages). Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Nos 6029–6068. Cairo. Quirke, S. 2013. Goingoutindaylight:prt m hrwtheancient EgyptianBookoftheDead;translation,sources,meanings. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 20. London.

Satzinger, H. 1994. DasKunsthistorischeMuseuminWien. Die ägyptische-orientalische Sammlung. Mainz am Rhein. Taylor, J. H. (ed.) 2010. Journey through the afterlife. AncientEgyptianBookoftheDead.London. Verner, M. 1982. Altägyptische Särge in den Museen und SammlungenderTschechoslowakei.Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Prague. van Walsem, R. 1997. The coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in theNationalMuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden.Technical andiconographic/iconologicalaspects. Egyptologische Uitgaven 10. Leiden. van Walsem, R. 2013. Review: Cherpion, N. and J.-P. Corteggiani. 2010. La tombe d’Inherkhâouy (TT 359) à Deir El-Medina, I: Texte, Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 128. Cairo. OrientalistischeLiteraturzeitung 108 (3), 154–8. van Walsem, R. Forthcoming. The ‘chain’ motif. A decorative architectonic element with prehistoric roots on the lid of some ‘stola’ coffins.

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26 Hisham EL-LEITHY

Abstract

Introduction

In the Third Intermediate and Late Periods wooden stelae were usually placed in the burial chamber with the coffin and the mummy. With the beginning of Dynasty 22, wooden stelae became an essential element of funerary furniture in the tombs of the elite. They were often the only funerary furniture accompanying the deceased in the tomb, as exemplified by an intact burial found in 2012 in the Valley of the Kings (KV 64). This paper will highlight and connect the scenes on the Theban wooden stelae with those on coffins. The religious iconography of the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period wooden funerary stelae symbolised a microcosm of the universe and integrated the heavenly sphere with the earthly realm. The central scene, in which either solar or Osirian concepts dominate, illustrates a transitional stage in which the mortal encounters the divine and the deceased is shown making an offering before a deity. This central scene may depict the successful conclusion of the judgement scene, based on BD 125, or it may be related to the solar aspect of the afterlife. After this, the deified deceased was identified with the creator god or the Great God, who embodied both solar and Osirian aspects. In Dynasties 25–26 the lid of the outermost coffin often displays a standard sequence showing the weighing of the deceased’s heart (on the viewer’s right). This all-important moment of judgement was supposed to determine whether or not the individual was worthy to enter the afterlife. As usual, a successful outcome is shown, and the ‘justified deceased’ is introduced to a number of deities. In contrast, on the wooden stelae, this judgement scene shows only the introduction of the deceased to either three gods or to a long series of deities, including the Sons of Horus. Among these deities a snake, standing upright (sometimes with human legs and arms) is frequently represented; a study of different examples of this figure leads to the conclusion that the snake is a representation of the god Atum.

Following the end of the New Kingdom, the rich tradition of private tomb decoration was replaced by painted coffins, wooden stelae and funerary papyri. In fact, these artefacts represent the best surviving categories of Theban art during the Third Intermediate and Late Periods (Swart 2004, 41; Munro 1973, 5; Aston 2009, 349–55). With the beginning of Dynasty 22, wooden stelae became an essential element of funerary furniture in the tombs of the elite. The use of a light material, such as wood, was perhaps preferred so that the stelae could easily be placed with the deceased, either near the coffin inside the burial chamber or elsewhere in the tomb (Fig. 1; Hassanein 1982, 42, n.2; Hassanein et al. 1986, 7–26; Leblanc and Nelson 1997, 82; Nelson 2003, 90; Aston 1987, 578, A. 110, no. 20; Saleh 2007, 41; Winlock 1942, 53). Such stelae could be the only funerary furniture accompanying the deceased in the tomb, as illustrated by an assemblage which was found in the Valley of the Kings: Susanne Bickel discovered an intact tomb (KV 64) containing a coffin accompanied only by a wooden stela and dated to Dynasty 22 (Fig. 2; Adrom et al. 2011, 2, figs 1–2). Transfering the stela from the chapel to the burial chamber also changed its function. The target audience shifted from the general public, on whom the deceased relied to recite the offering formulae, to the gods themselves. The stela became more of a ‘memorandum for the gods’ and less for humans (Swart 2004, 41; Munro 1973, 5). The types of wooden stelae Three major types of funerary stelae were in use during the period from Dynasty 21 to the end of Dynasty 26. The first type has only a scene showing the deceased adoring the seated god, with a label containing the names of the figures or a short offering formula above their heads (Bierbrier 1987, 10, pls 4–5 [British Museum EA 37899]; Aston 2009, 349–50 [I–III];

62

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 1: Stelae thrown out at the entrance of tomb 801 south of Deir el-Bahri (M3C 154. Courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).

Fig. 2: The wooden stela facing the coffin in KV 64 (courtesy of University of Basel Kings’ Valley Project).

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

63

Saleh 2007, 162; el-Leithy 2012, cats 10–12): examples include the stelae British Museum EA 37899 and Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden AH 28 (Fig. 3; Saleh 2007, 223; Leemans 1840, 301, W 2; van Wijngaarden 1932, 12–13, pl. IV.16; Schneider 1987, cat. no. 18; Raven 1992, 56–8 [21]). The second type of stela, dating from Dynasty 25, has a scene with a short text of one to three lines on the lower part: examples include the stelae Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9449 (Fig. 4; Munro 1973, 187; el-Leithy 2007, 591–2; 2012, cats 326–8) and Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 72.4280 (Munro 1973, 187, 189–90, pl. 2; Leprohon 1991, 36–8). The third type of stela is divided into three sections: the upper part (the lunette); the middle part (the main scene); and the lower part (the text). Examples of this type include the stelae Paris, Musée du Louvre N 3387 (Munro 1973, 193) and Chicago, Oriental Institute Museum OIM 12220 (Fig. 5; Allen 1974, 12–14; Munro 1973, 177; el-Leithy 2012, cat. 401).

the selection of texts on the funerary stelae were subject to change, but one integral element, unaltered since the earliest times, was the presence of the name, and, almost always, a representative portrait of the deceased (Munro 1973, 6; Swart 2004, 42). During the Third Intermediate Period, all wooden funerary stelae have the same scenes and the same combination of graphic elements and symbols. The ancient Egyptians also copied funerary scenes from the Book of the Dead onto the wooden stelae, because they used them to provide the deceased with a small number of spells and vignettes from this important corpus of funerary texts.

The function of the stelae

Iconographyofthemainscene(middleregister)

The multiple purposes of the stelae mirror several of the functions of the funerary papyri, in spite of the change in funerary focus and materials, and the impoverishment of iconography from Dynasty 21 to Dynasty 22. However, unlike the papyri, the stelae do not provide the deceased with knowledge of navigational aids, or spells to enable them to deal with various situations in the afterworld. The stelae are more concerned with the practical aspects of passing through death, such as supplying the deceased, providing protection and existing in the presence of the gods. The offering table painted on the stelae was used as an invitation for the god to be responsible for the prosperity of the deceased in the afterlife. Here, the deceased exchanged the role of a passive recipient for that of an active donor. The stelae performed an additional function, that of safeguarding the name of the deceased, and of placing them directly under the protection of the gods (Schulz and Seidel 1998, 486–7; Swart 2004, 41). This ideal state was desired by everyone for their ka, and the stelae, therefore, helped to preserve it eternally (Swart 2004, 42). Finally, the stelae together with all their constituent elements, such as the gods (Ra and Atum), the pt-sign and the winged sun disc at the top, represented the universe, as will be explained below. Throughout the history of ancient Egypt, the form, function and arrangement of the figures depicted and

It is noticeable that the iconography of the wooden funerary stelae during Dynasties 25 and 26 resembles that found on the coffins, which was itself adapted from the funerary papyri. This paper considers some similarities between the wooden funerary stelae and the contemporary wooden coffins, such as the depiction of the judgement scene from BD 125 (Seeber 1976). The wooden stelae do not represent the full scene of BD 125 as it is shown in the vignettes of Book of the Dead papyri. Instead, they show some specific elements which refer to the vignettes, or which were used by the artist to visually ensure the rebirth of the deceased. The deceased appears in front of deities such as Ra-Horakhty and Osiris, protected by Isis and Nephthys, and the four Sons of Horus emerging from the lotus flower (as on stela British Museum EA 8476: Bierbrier 1987, 24–5, pls 40–1 [2]; Munro 1973, 218; Fig. 6). Nefertum may also be depicted; the deceased is sometimes led by the god Thoth to a group headed by a rearing serpent and followed by Ra-Horakhty, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys and the four Sons of Horus (as on stela Copenhagen, National Museum AAd 4: Schmidt 1879, 20, pl. XIV [1]; Mogensen 1918, 40–1, pl. XXII [37]; Munro 1973, 220; Fig. 7). This scene can also appear in very abbreviated versions, showing, for example, the deceased before Ra-Horakhty and the rearing serpent followed by Osiris (as on stela British Museum EA 8452: Bierbrier 1987,

Iconography of the stelae Specific areas of the stelae were reserved for particular elements of iconography, which were typically adapted to their shape.

64

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 3: Stela British Museum EA 37899 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

Fig. 4: Stela Egyptian Museum SR 9449 (Photograph: Ahmed Amin, © Egyptian Museum Cairo).

65

17, pls 22–3; Munro 1973, 189; Fig. 8) or with the serpent in front of Ra-Horakhty and Osiris (as on stela British Museum EA 8453: Bierbrier 1987, 17, pls 22–3; Munro 1973, 189; el-Leithy 2012, 220–2; Fig. 9). The son of Horus, Imsety, may accompany them. Sometimes the serpent is wearing the atef crown (see Fig. 9, right), but it may also wear an unguent cone (as on the stelae Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9447 [Munro 1973, 189; el-Leithy 2012, 220–2; Fig. 10] and Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1895.153 [Vittmann 1978, 55; Munro 1973, 189–90; el-Leithy 2012, 217– 19], and on an example included in a Christie’s auction [el-Leithy 2012, cats 226–8]; Fig. 11). The snake may also have a divine beard and two legs, as on stela Turin Museum C. 1596 (el-Leithy 2012, cats 235–7; Fig. 12). The stela in Copenhagen, National Museum, mentioned above (AAd4: Schmidt 1879, 20, pl. XIV [1]; Mogensen 1918, 40–1, pl. XXII [37]; Munro 1973, 220; el-Leithy 2012, cats 681–3), shows the deceased led by Thoth towards a group of deities headed by a rearing serpent with the atef crown, two arms and two legs, and followed by Ra-Horakhty, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys and the four Sons of Horus (see Fig. 7).

Fig. 5: left: Stela Chicago, OIM 12220 (Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago); right: Stela Louvre Museum N 3387 (© Musée du Louvre, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Georges Poncet).

H. EL-LEITHY

66

Fig. 7: Stela Copenhagen, National Museum AAd 4 (published in Schmidt 1879, 20 pl. XIV [I]). Fig. 6: Stela British Museum EA 8476 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

The same scene is found on the lids of the outer coffins in the same period. The coffin of Peti-Imen-menu in Hamm Museum 5500 (von Falck and Fluck 2004, 70–5; Fig. 13) shows the god Thoth leading the deceased to the group of deities headed by the snake and followed by Ra-Horakhty, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Neith and the four Sons of Horus (Heerma van Voss 1980, 52–3), who are identified only by their iconography. But on the coffins of Padiese, Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden AMM 19 (M. 24), Paenpy, Leicester 303.1882 (Fig. 14) and Taditjaina, Tübingen 150a, all the deities except the serpent are identified by their names. Thesnakedeityonwoodenstelaeandcoffins The snake is depicted in several variant forms on stelae and coffins of Dynasties 25 and 26. Three different forms of the snake appear on the stelae (Fig. 15):

• •

Rearing snake with beard (1–3) Rearing snake with beard and unguent cone, and sometimes legs (4–8) • Rearing snake with beard and atef crown (9–10) Four different forms of the snake appear on the coffins (Fig. 16): • Rearing snake (1–2) • Rearing snake with beard (3–5) • Rearing snake with beard and unguent cone (6) • Rearing snake with hands and legs, and solar disc on head (7) In spite of the minor variations in the iconography of the snake, all its forms are actually quite similar and it is evident that it represents one particular deity in the context of BD 125. As far as the writer is aware, there is no study which discusses this body of evidence, with the exception of a brief reference by Christine Seeber (Seeber 1976,

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

131–2). This article aims to consider different representations of this snake in the vignette of BD 125 on the coffins and stelae in an attempt to clarify what it represents in the judgement scene. A simple comparison between the arrangement of scenes of groups of gods on two stelae (Bologna KS 1951 and Leiden AH 25: van Wijngaarden 1932, 6, pl. II, 7) and on the coffin of Taditjaina, Tübingen 150a-b (Brunner-Traut and Brunner 1981, II. pl. 115) indicates that in the lowermost scene the snake represents the god Atum, who appears in human form in the upper two scenes where the snake is absent (Fig. 17). The arrangement of the scene on both stelae and coffins is very similar, the minor variations reflecting the differences in the available space which the artist had at his disposal. It is probably for this reason that some gods are omitted on the stelae, but the basic concept and the main gods who are depicted remain the same: Ra-Horakhty, Atum, sometimes Osiris, and the four Sons of Horus.

Fig. 8: Stela British Museum EA 8452 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

67

ThecoffinBerlin17490(Dynasty22) In all the depictions of the snake on both stelae and coffins considered above, the figure is neither named nor referred to in the text. To the author’s knowledge, only the coffin Berlin 17940 names the snake as Atum in association with Osiris or Ra-Horakhty (Fig. 18). In the judgement scene on this coffin, the snake with the double crown represents the god Osiris-Atum in the vignette of BD 125, where he appears beside the balance (Seeber 1976, 131, fig. 576 and 134, fig. 586). The creator god Atum appears in the judgement as a member of the Ennead and was related to RaHorakhty-Atum. The text in front of him on the Berlin coffin reads: ḏdmdwỉnwsỉrtmnbtꜢwy ‘Words spoken by Osiris-Atum, Lord of the two lands’. Behind him sits Ra-Horakhty-Atum, with the inscription: ḏdmdwỉnRꜥḥrꜢḫtytmnbtꜢwyἸwnw ‘Words spoken by Ra-Horakhty-Atum, Lord of the two lands and of Heliopolis’, as also found on the lids of inner coffins and a stela of Dynasties 25–26 (coffins British Museum EA 22814, EA 25256, EA 15654; cf. also British Museum EA 24906, late Dynasty 22 or beginning of Dynasty 25). In Dynasty 26, the main scene of the stela was centrally divided into left and right parts, with another scene above and a text taken from BD 15 (Fig. 19). The deceased is always represented standing in adoration before the god Atum, who is depicted in his usual form as a man wearing the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt.1 The remainder of the text is a short hymn to Atum ‘who sets in life and is received into the underworld’, referring to this deity as the eldest of the three phases of the sun. According to Egyptian belief, when the sun was born (rose) it was Khepri or Ra-Horakhty, in its maturity (midday) it was Ra, and it was Atum when it died (set) in the evening (Strudwick and Taylor 2005, 150). All these elements demonstrate that the stelae show a representation of the universe or the solar cycle: the winged sun disc at the top represents the sky; the god Ra-Horakhty on the right refers to the east and life; the god Atum on the left refers to sunset and death, and the base of the stela refers to the ground.

1

See stelae Chicago OIM 12220 (above, p. 65) and Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9905.

68

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 9: left: Stela British Museum EA 8453 (© Trustees of the British Museum); right: Stela Ashmolean Museum 1895.153.

Fig. 10: Stela Egyptian Museum SR 9447 (Photograph: Ahmed Amin, © Egyptian Museum Cairo).

Fig. 11: Stela of Neskhonsu (Auction, Christie’s London, 8 December 1993, lot 189. © 1993 Christie’s Images Limited).

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

69

remaining god will be Atum in his first image as a snake.3 It should be noted that in the night journey of the sun god, as related in the Amduat, Ra enters the netherworld as Atum and, after overcoming many obstacles, is born from the snake body into life. Atum was described as the great god who moves upon Nun. The position of Atum on wooden stelae and coffins of Dynasties 25 and 26

Fig. 12: Stela Turin Museum C. 1596 (© Museo Egizio, Turin).

ThesnakeintheBookoftheDeadand theShipwreckedSailor In the story of the Shipwrecked Sailor (Lichtheim 1973, 211–15), the snake which the narrator meets is described as having the divine beard, an attribute of many gods such as Ptah, Osiris and Amun. In this story, the snake is interpreted as Atum, the god of the sunset and also the creator god in the cosmology of Heliopolis, in which he appeared on the primeval hill. The snake, encountered on an island, tells the shipwrecked sailor at the end of the text that he will not see this island again because it will be transformed into water.2 This interpretation refers to the end of the universe, when everything will be terminated except the creator god, who is in the shape of a snake (Atum), and his daughter the goddess Maat. This interpretation corresponds to a passage in BD 175: here it is stated that after the destruction of the universe the only

2

3

‘Moreover, when you have left this place, you will not see this island again; it will have become water’ (Lichtheim 1973, 214). ‘I will destroy all that I have made. This land shall return into the Deep, into the flood, as it was aforetime. (Only) I shall

During the second half of Dynasty 25, Atum appears only rarely in human form on stelae (Leiden AH 25 [Boeser 1907, 97 (7); van Wijngaarden 1932, 6, pl. II, 7; Munro 1973, 224; el-Leithy 2012, cat. 628], and Bologna KS 1951 [Bresciani 1985, 94–5 (36), pl. 50; Munro 1973, 223; el-Leithy 2012, cat. 632]), where he stands among a group of gods including Ra-Horakhty and the four Sons of Horus. In contrast, Atum more frequently appears on the wooden stelae and coffins in the form of a snake among a group of gods as part of the judgement scene illustrating BD 125. The main scene of the wooden stelae of Dynasty 25 represents the deceased standing before a group of deities, consisting chiefly of three gods in addition to one of the four Sons of Horus, and sometimes Isis, Nephthys or Maat (stela Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9447). The three main gods in this scene are Osiris, Ra-Horakhty and Atum in the form of a snake. Atum appears on the wooden stelae in Dynasty 26 in human form wearing a short tunic and a short kilt with a bull’s tail, together with a sun disc encircled by a uraeus upon his head, and bearing all the divine symbols (Bierbrier 1987, 21–2, pl. 35; Munro 1973, 200, 205, 217; elLeithy 2012, cat. 404; Zayed 1968, 164–5, pl. 14b; Wegner 2010, 177; Allen 1974, 12–14). In this period, the stelae retained their standard components, and the division into three registers (Chicago OIM 12220: elLeithy 2012, cat. 385; Munro 1973, 200; Zayed 1968, 164–5, pl. 14b; Wegner 2010, 177). However, the middle register — which contains the main scene — is divided into two parts, right and left, each having a depiction of the deceased standing before an altar and

survive together with Osiris, after I assumed my forms of other (snakes) which men know not and gods see not’ (Allen 1974, 184 [b]); see also Bonnet 1952, 72.

70

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 13: Coffin of Peti-Imen-menu, Hamm Museum 5500 (published in von Falck and Fluck 2004, 70–1).

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

Fig. 14: top: Coffin of Padiese, Leiden AMM 19/M.24 (Pleyte 1896, M. 24–7); bottom: Coffin Leicester 303.1882 (© Leicester Arts & Museums Service).

adoring a god, either Atum or Ra-Horakhty. In these examples, the name of the god is mentioned in the label above the deceased, in front of the god. On some of the earlier stelae from the second half of Dynasty 25, the names of the gods are inscribed above all the figures except the snake, which is anonymous (Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9447), and in some examples there are no names at all (el-Leithy 2012, cat. 228). On the coffins, there is no major change in the position of Atum, who appears in the form of a snake among a group of gods: Osiris, Ra-Horakhty, Isis, Nephthys and the four Sons of Horus. The snake usually stands at the head of the line of gods, although in some examples it occupies the second or third place. On none of the coffins known to the author is the name of the snake mentioned in the labels above the gods, with the single exception of the coffin in Berlin, referred to above, which names Atum together with RaHorakhty and Osiris. Conclusion The ancient Egyptians used many different materials and surfaces to register their wishes and to ensure their resurrection or rebirth, including the walls of the tomb chapels or the burial chambers, papyri, coffins, shabti boxes and funerary stelae made from both stone and

71

wood. This paper has attempted to connect the scenes on the Theban wooden stelae with those on coffins. Wooden funerary stelae, like coffins, were ritual and religious objects encoded with visual imagery that allowed the deceased to negotiate his/her identity, while at the same time signalling the religious attitudes of the ancient society (Saleh 2007, 13). The religious iconography of the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period is particularly apparent on wooden funerary stelae, which were considered as a microcosm of the universe and integrated the heavenly sphere with the earthly realm (Saleh 2007, 13; Zayed 1968, 150). The sky is represented in the lunette of the funerary stelae and the earth is depicted in the lower register (Aston 2009, 349 [A]; Saleh 2007, 13). The central scene, in which either solar or Osirian concepts dominate, illustrates a transitional stage in which the mortal encounters the divine and the deceased is shown making an offering before a deity. This main scene may depict the successful conclusion of the judgement, based on BD 125, and it may be related to the solar aspect of the afterlife (Taylor 2003, 105; Saleh 2007, 13). Perhaps the scenes on the stelae and coffins combine two important stages in the passage to rebirth: 1) the judgement and reception of the deceased by the gods; and 2) the deceased’s entering into the solar cycle (represented by Ra-Horakhty and Atum). Although the main image on the wooden stelae was adapted from the judgement scene, it was shortened. There are various possible reasons, such as the small size of the stelae and the artist’s wish to highlight only the main purpose of this scene, or to emphasise the notion that the deceased was justified and had passed the divine tribunal. In contrast, the artist used all the spaces on the coffins and filled them with scenes and texts. For example, the depiction of the judgement is abbreviated on the wooden stelae, since the artist depicted only the scene after the weighing of the heart without representing the scales. However, on the coffins, he depicted the whole scene of the judgement, including the weighing of the heart, and after that the deceased conducted by Thoth to a group of gods (Atum in the form of a snake, Osiris, Ra or Ra-Horakhty, and Isis, Nephthys and the four Sons of Horus). Although the snake is rarely named in these scenes, the frequency of its appearance is an indication of the important role played by Atum in this context.

72

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 15: Stelae: 1. London, British Museum EA 8453 (© Trustees of the British Museum); 2. Boston 72.4281 (Photograph © 2018 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston); 3. London, British Museum EA 69521 (© Trustees of the British Museum); 4. Stela (Auction, Christie’s London, 8 December 1993, lot 189. © 1993 Christie’s Images Limited); 5. Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9447 (Photograph: Ahmed Amin, © Egyptian Museum Cairo); 6. London, British Museum EA 8452 (© Trustees of the British Museum); 7. Berlin Inv. 784 (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung); 8. Turin Museum C. 1596 (© Museo Egizio, Turin); 9. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1895.153 (© Ashmolean Museum); 10. Malta Stela (Courtesy National Museum of Archaeology, Heritage Malta. Published in Janssen and Hall 1984, 20).

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

73

Fig. 16: Coffins; 1. Turin C. 2213 (© Museo Egizio); 2. Tübingen 150a-b (© Ägyptische Sammlung der Universität Tübingen, Museum Schloss Hohentübingen); 3. Zagreb, Archaeological Museum 667; 4. Leicester 303.1882 (© Leicester Arts & Museums Service); 5. Leiden M24 of Padiese (Pleyte 1896, M. 24–7); 6. Turin C. 2220 (© Museo Egizio); 7. London, British Museum EA 22814 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

74

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 17: top: Stela Leiden AH 25 (National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden); middle: Stela Bologna EG 1951 (© Courtesy of the Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna); bottom: Coffin Tübingen 150a-b (© Ägyptische Sammlung der Universität Tübingen, Museum Schloss Hohentübingen).

ICONOGRAPHY AND FUNCTION OF STELAE AND COFFINS IN DYNASTIES 25–26

75

Fig. 18: Detail of the coffin Berlin 17940 showing the snake and its name (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung).

Bibliography Adrom, F., S. Bickel, H.-H. Münch and E. Peintner. 2011. Die Holzstele der Nehemesbastet aus KV 64. MitteilungendesDeutschenArchäologischenInstituts,Abteilung Kairo67, 1–3. Allen, T. G. 1974. TheBookoftheDeadorGoingForthby Day: Ideas of the ancient Egyptians concerning the hereafter as expressed in their own terms. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 37. Chicago. Aston, D. A. 1987. Tomb groups from the end of the New Kingdom to the beginning of the Saite period. PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham. Aston, D. A. 2009. Burial assemblages of Dynasty 21–25: Chronology–typology–developments. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 54. Vienna. Bierbrier, M. L. 1987. Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae,&c.,intheBritishMuseum.Part11. London. Boeser, P. A. A. 1907. CatalogusvanhetRijksmuseumvan OudhedenteLeiden. Leiden. Bonnet, H. 1952. Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin. Bresciani, E. 1985. LesteleegizianedelMuseocivicoarcheologicodiBologna. Bologna.

Brunner-Traut, E. and H. Brunner. 1981. Die ägyptische SammlungderUniversitätTübingen. Mainz am Rhein. von Falck, M. and C. Fluck. 2004. DieÄgyptischeSammlung desGustav-Lübcke-MuseumsHamm. Bönen. Hassanein, F. 1982. Les dispositions du Ramesseum en bordure des annexes nord, ouest et sud. IV: La stèle de Paf-tchao-(em)-a(ouy)-Bastet, prophète de Montou. AnnalesduServicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte 68, 40–4. Hassanein, F., G. Lecuyot, A.-M. Loyrette and M. Nelson. 1986. Les récentes découvertes au Ramesseum. Bulletin delaSociétéfrançaised’égyptologie 106, 7–30. Heerma van Voss, M. 1980. Horuskinder. In W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), LexikonderÄgyptologie III. Wiesbaden, 52–3. Janssen, J. J. and R. M. Hall. 1984. Six inscribed objects in the National Museum of Archaeology, Malta. Chroniqued’Égypte 59, 14–26. Leblanc, C. and M. Nelson. 1997. Répertoire onomastique des propriétaires des tombes de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire du Ramesseum. Memnonia 8, 61–91. Leemans, C. 1840. Description raisonnée des monuments égyptiensduMuséed’antiquitésdesPays-Bas,àLeide. Leiden.

76

H. EL-LEITHY

Fig. 19: Stela Cairo, Egyptian Museum SR 9418 (Photograph: Ahmed Amin, © Egyptian Museum Cairo).

el-Leithy, H. 2007. Painted wooden stelae from Thebes from the 21st to the 26th Dynasties. In J.-C. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds), ProceedingsoftheninthInternationalCongress ofEgyptologists,Grenoble6–12September2004. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150. Leuven, 585–96. el-Leithy, H. 2012. Funerary wooden stelae from 21st dynasty to the end of 26th dynasty from Thebes. PhD dissertation, Cairo University. Leprohon, R. J. 1991. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Fasc. 3: Stelae II. The New Kingdom to the Coptic Period. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum.Mainz am Rhein. Lichtheim, M. 1973. Ancient Egyptian literature. A book of readings I:TheOldandMiddleKingdoms. Los Angeles. Mogensen, M. 1918. InscriptionshiéroglyphiquesduMusée nationaldeCopenhague. Copenhagen. Munro, P. 1973. DiespätägyptischenTotenstelen. Ägyptologische Forschungen25. Glückstadt. Nelson, M. 2003. The Ramesseum necropolis. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis: Past,presentandfuture. London, 88–94, pls 43–4. Pleyte, W. 1896. MonumentségyptiensduMuséed’antiquités àLeide,III.Monumentsfunéraires:Momieetcercueils dePetisis. Leiden.

Raven, M. J. 1992. De dodencultus van het Oude Egypte. Leiden. Saleh, H. 2007. Investigatingethnicandgenderidentitiesas expressed on wooden funerary stelae from the Libyan Period (c. 1069–715 B.C.E.) in Egypt. BAR International Series 1734. Oxford. Schmidt, V. 1879. Texteshiéroglyphiquesinscritssurpierre tirésduMuséedeCopenhagen. Copenhagen. Schneider, H. D. 1987. ArtfromancientEgyptchosenfrom thecollectionsoftheNationalMuseumofAntiquitiesat Leiden,theNetherlands. [n.p.]. Schulz, R. and M. Seidel. 1998. Egypt: The world of the pharaohs. Cologne. Seeber, C. 1976. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Totengerichts im alten Ägypten. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 35. Berlin. Strudwick, N. and J. H. Taylor. 2005. Mummies:Deathand theafterlifeinancientEgypt.TreasuresfromtheBritish Museum. Santa Ana. Swart, L. 2004. A stylistic comparison of selected visual representations on Egyptian funerary papyri of the 21st Dynasty and wooden funerary stelae of the 22nd Dynasty (c. 1069–715 B.C.E.). PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. Taylor, J. H. 1984. A priestly family of the 25th Dynasty. Chroniqued’Égypte 59, 27–57. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-Second to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), TheThebannecropolis:Past,presentandfuture. London, 95–121, pls 45–75. Vittmann, G. 1978. Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit:GenealogischeundprosopographischeUntersuchungenzumthebanischenPriester-undBeamtentum der25.und26.Dynastie. Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 3; Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1. Vienna. Wegner, J. H. 2010. A Late Period wooden stela of Nehemsumut in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. In Z. A. Hawass, P. Der Manuelian and R. B. Hussein (eds), Perspectiveson ancient Egypt. Studies in honor of Edward Brovarski. Supplément aux Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 40. Cairo, 437–58. van Wijngaarden, W. D. 1932. BeschreibungderAegyptischen Sammlung des Niederländischen Reichsmuseums der AltertümerinLeiden.Bd. XIV.DieDenkmälerdesNeuen ReichesundderSaïtischenZeit.GrabtafelnundOsirisfiguren. The Hague. Winlock, H. E. 1942. Excavations at Deir el Bahri, 1911– 1931. New York. Zayed, A. H. 1968. Painted wooden stelae in the Cairo Museum. Revued’égyptologie 20, 149–70, pls 7–16.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS Andrea KUCHAREK

Abstract Images and texts related to mourning on coffins are attested, with varying frequency, throughout Egyptian history. In this diachronic survey the main distinction is between divine mourning, as a rule performed by Isis and Nephthys, and human mourning. While the former finds expression in a wide array of scenes, the latter is mostly incorporated into depictions of the funerary procession and tomb rites. In both categories laments are rare. The majority of the evidence concerns the divine sisters Isis and Nephthys. The protection and revivification they convey to Osiris in the mythical precedent is likewise imparted to the deceased in his coffin. Scenes expressing this particular agency of Isis and Nephthys focus on the bier and on Osirian symbols such as the Abydos fetish and djed pillar. The gestures of the goddesses may express either mourning or protection and adoration, highlighting the ultimate equivalence of both approaches. Human mourning lacks this protective aspect; as represented on coffins its focus is on the emotional bond between the bereaved and the deceased.1 * * * The principles of Egyptian coffin decoration have varied widely over the course of several millennia, as

1

This paper is partly based on an extensive study of mourning customs in ancient Egypt, an undertaking generously supported from 2009 to 2011 by a Gerda Henkel Foundation grant. I am much indebted to Beatrix Gessler-Löhr (Heidelberg), Renate Haupt (Bournemouth), Andrei Nikolaev (St Petersburg), Maarten Raven and Lara Weiss (Leiden), John H. Taylor (London) and John Wyatt (Oxford) for their valuable contributions, and to John H. Taylor and Marie Vandenbeusch for straightening my English. A note on terminology: I employ ‘mourning’ in a predominantly visual sense – grief as expressed in gesture and posture – while ‘lament/lamentation’ applies to its verbal expression only. ‘Coffin’ refers to a mummy receptacle in general, thus comprising sarcophagi and cartonnages as well. Mummy covers are also included in this study, as their design is closely related to that of coffins. Mummy masks, trappings

have those of, for instance, tomb decoration. The present paper is devoted to the recurring motif of mourning and lamentation as expressed on coffins. While such scenes and texts may not be the first that come to mind, they are, if not exactly common, certainly not rare,2 and they undoubtedly merit closer study. Acts of mourning and lamentation are performed by deities, predominantly Isis and Nephthys, as well as by humans. While both types occur on non-royal coffins, royal coffins and sarcophagi are devoid of human mourning.3 Divine mourning and lamentation Osiris constituted the role model of every deceased person, and therefore it is hardly surprising to find, among a large variety of scenes involving deities on coffins, some that represent divine grief over his death. Being mourned by his sisters Isis and Nephthys was not only a major aspect of the myth of Osiris but also provided an immediate link to the human condition in relation to death. Divine mourning is largely, but not exclusively, the province of Isis and Nephthys. The central icon is that of the two goddesses positioned at the head and foot ends of the bier.4 The iconography of this virtually canonical image may derive from the conventions of two-dimensional representation and a penchant for

2

3

4

and shrouds, on the other hand, will only be referred to when of particular interest. Pace e.g. Leitz 2011, 61: ‘… habe ich den Eindruck, daß die Trauer auf Särgen ohnehin keine so große Rolle spielt (anders als etwa in Gräbern) – vielleicht, weil das dem Verstorbenen selbst nicht allzu angenehm war’. Human mourning in a royal context is uniquely attested in the royal tomb at Amarna where it is, in fact, a major feature of the wall reliefs (Martin 1989, 23–5, 37–48, pls 25–8, 31–2, 58, 59, 63, 68, 72). This is also the central image of the BD 151 vignette, situated, however, in the tomb chamber (see Lüscher 1998, 23, 31–3). Both the vignette and text of this spell are devoid of mourning or lamentation (ibid., 154–68, 251–7, 304–14).

A. KUCHAREK

78

symmetrical composition. The earliest attestations, three-dimensional models of funerary boats,5 date only from the Middle Kingdom. Ultimately, the depiction of the goddesses at opposite ends of the bier may have been derived from the fact, recounted already in the Pyramid Texts, that Isis and Nephthys approached Osiris from opposite directions when they discovered his corpse at the shore of Nedit (Kucharek 2008). This specific composition was first implemented on coffins with the actual mummy of the deceased in the place of Osiris on the bier. Therefore, Isis and Nephthys were associated with the head and foot ends of the coffin, a concept attested as early as the Old Kingdom in Pyramid Text spells linked to royal sarcophagi. Even though they would not always keep this position, there would always be a preference for depicting the goddesses at the coffin ends. As a separate entity, the bier scene appears in the late Ramesside Period, first on the side panels of the coffin, then moving to the front in Dynasty 22, where it remains until the Roman Period, when the tendency is to depict it again on the coffin sides.

Considering the large amount of pictorial and textual evidence, to state that mourning and lamentation are not the primary function of the goddesses may appear contradictory. However, while an element of lament is detectable already in the Pyramid Texts, it is secondary, or rather auxiliary, to protection and vivification. Not until the Middle Kingdom are Isis and Nephthys said to mourn and weep for the deceased, and the

earliest depictions of them as mourners date to early Dynasty 18. On Middle Kingdom coffins they are often represented with raised arms; this does not signify mourning but protection by embrace (Kucharek 2010, 117–18 §2; Münster 1968, 26–7). This is clarified by several instances where the arms are not raised but spread downwards,6 a gesture related to that performed by the winged goddesses on Ramesside7 and, quite frequently, Late Period coffins.8 The same array of gestures occurs with the countless figures of Nut or the goddess of the West depicted in coffin interiors, embracing and protecting the deceased. While with raised arms Nut, rather than embracing the deceased, arguably often represents the sky arching above him, in other instances her posture is quite unambiguous.9 A lateral perspective, provided in the final vignette of Papyrus Rhind I (Möller 1913, pl. XI; Assmann and Kucharek 2008, pl. 34), suggests an affinity to the welcoming njnj-gesture performed for the deceased by the Western goddess or Nut (cf. Dominicus 1994, 38–58). On the foot end of the granite coffin of queen Tausret, reused by prince Amunherkhepeshef, the Western goddess and her Eastern counterpart actually perform njnj for the deceased, flanked by the kneeling Isis and Nephthys (Altenmüller 1994, 5, fig. 2). An unusual Late Period coffin features the upright mummy tended by Anubis and flanked by goddesses performing the njnj-gesture.10 Three-dimensional representations of Isis embracing Osiris with her winged arms convey an impression of the actual gesture of protection.11 Textual evidence for the protective embrace by Isis and Nephthys is attested from the Middle Kingdom onwards (Münster 1968, 52–3).

5

9

Mourningandprotection

6

7 8

These are not actually representations of Isis and Nephthys at the bier of Osiris but of two women representing Isis and Nephthys at the bier of the deceased: e.g. New York MMA 12.183.3, probably from Meir (Fischer 1976, 43, pl. XIII fig. 6; Breasted 1948, 69); Berlin 14, from Thebes (Steindorff 1896, 37–9, pl. I). Cairo JE 37566 (B5C), associated with PT 664A (Willems 1988, 164 fig. 14; Lapp 1993, 86 fig. 98). Vatican XIII.2 (Cooney 2007, fig. 196). Edinburgh A.1910.97 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 96); London, British Museum EA 22940 (Taylor 2010, 74 no. 29), EA 6672 (www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_ object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=4377200 1&objectId=128798&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Milan E.0.9.40153 (Tiradritti 1999, 120–1 no. 24).

10 11

Stockholm NME 949 (Dodson 2015, 11); Copenhagen AEIN 299 (Jørgensen 2001, 83); Toledo 1906.4 (Peck and Knudsen 2011, 73); Exeter 11/1897.3 (Dodson 2011a, 10); London, British Museum EA 24906 (Taylor 2003, pl. 58); Toledo 1906.1 (Peck and Knudsen 2011, 83); London, British Museum EA 6668 (Taylor 2003, pl. 70); Turin S. 5226 (Greco 2015, 176 fig. 217). Truro 1837.23.2 (Dodson 2011b, 12). London, British Museum EA 1162 (Strudwick 2006, 270–1; Graefe 1981, 219–21, pl. 8*, 16–17) with a pertinent inscription (Jansen-Winkeln 1998, 7–8). For a ‘realistic‘ two-dimensional representation see Epigraphic Survey 1963, pl. 480).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Beginning with the earliest attestations of divine mourning and lament, an important element in the assessment of these scenes is the fact that virtually any motif featuring Isis and Nephthys as mourners is also attested without any indication of mourning. While the composition as such is identical, the goddesses perform gestures of protection or adoration, not of mourning.12 Both aspects may be combined in one and the same figure.13 Within the present scope, only two gestures are unambiguous. There is the ‘default’ gesture of mourning — one or both hands raised, palm turned towards the goddess’s face. The other distinct gesture signifies protective embrace — one hand raised, the other one lowered, identical to the gesture performed by winged goddesses. Several other gestures are more difficult to read or are intrinsically ambiguous. For instance, very often goddesses are depicted standing behind their divine husband, raising one hand with the palm turned outwards while in the other hand they simply hold an ankh. Here, protection as well as adoration are implied, as indicated by two very similar early Ptolemaic stelae from Thebes. The goddesses behind Osiris on one stela (London, British Museum EA 8462) say: ῾wj=j ḥꜢ=k jwmsꜢ=kr῾nb, ‘My arms are around you, I am your protection daily’, and ῾wj=jḥꜢ=kmdwꜢtḏt, ‘My arms are around you in the duat forever’. On the other stela (London, British Museum EA 8468), their

12

13

14

15

16

On gestures see Brunner-Traut 1977, 573–85. No satisfactory study on divine gestures appears to exist. London, British Museum EA 15659, Isis and Nephthys performing a gesture of mourning and holding protective shen rings (www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_ object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid =410006001&objectid=117234 [last accessed 23 August 2017]). Bierbrier 1987, 36–8, 40–1, pls 70–3, 82–3; Budka 2008, 76 fig. 13; Taylor 2001a, 163 fig. 118. E.g. Copenhagen AEIN 62 (Jørgensen 2001, 85); Appenzell (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 63 fig. 17); Atlanta 1999.1.17 (Lacovara and Trope 2001, 49, 50 no. 38); London, British Museum EA 6682 (Taylor and Strudwick 2005, 58); Hildesheim 1953 (back, unpubl., see www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/ record.aspx?id=10918 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Vatican XIII.2 (Gasse 1996, pl. XXXV/1–2, XXXVI/1, XXXVII/2; Cooney 2007, 472–5, fig. 196). Wings: e.g. London, British Museum EA 29577 (Eladany 2011, 244 fig. 5.89), EA 6672 (Li 2010, 1037); Atlanta 1999.1.13 (Lacovara and Trope 2001, 48 no. 37). Textual evidence: Cauville 1997, 36.15-37.1; Chassinat 1966/8, 587–8; Leitz 2011, 330–1. Arms: e.g. Cairo CG 6233 (Hornung and Bryan 2002, 160 no. 73); Minneapolis Institute of Arts 16.417 (unpubl.);

79

captions read: dwꜢsn=sWsjr, ‘who praises her brother Osiris’, and dwꜢsn=snṯr῾Ꜣ, ‘who praises her brother, the great god’.14 Obviously the gesture encompasses both meanings, as protection is conveyed to a revered deity or object. As noted above, a number of emblematic motifs (or ‘icons’) involving Isis and Nephthys may depict them either mourning or protecting Osiris. For instance, flanking the Abydos fetish they are just as likely to perform an obvious gesture of mourning (Fig. 1) as to convey salutation and adoration with both hands raised and palms turned outwards,15 or they may spread their wings or arms in protection (Fig. 2).16 While performing a protective gesture towards the Abydos fetish, Isis and Nephthys may be accompanied by epithets indicating their grief: both are said to be ‘weeping over her father’ (ḥrrmtn/ḫrjt=s).17 In the bier scene, the goddesses are often omitted.18 If present, their gestures are occasionally protective instead of mourning.19 This applies already to the earliest depictions. Some Middle Kingdom model funerary boats include figures of women impersonating Isis and Nephthys at the bier of the deceased, laying both hands on the mummy.20 Funerary scenes on the walls of some Middle and early New Kingdom tombs depict ḏrtwomen, impersonations of the mourning and protective aspect of Isis and Nephthys, standing at the coffin ends. They perform the same protective gesture, suggestive

17 18

19

20

Vienna 4, with captions stating the protection accorded to the fetish (Leitz 2011, 329–32); Louvre E. 5534 (Ziegler 1990, 73); St. Louis 109.989 (unpubl.). A variation of this scene with protective shen rings is on Louvre AF 1666/E.13030 (Étienne 2006, 50 no. 55.b). Cairo CG 6233 (Hornung and Bryan 2002, 160 no. 73). Particularly in Dynasties 25–26, e.g. London, British Museum EA 6672 (Li 2010, 1037); EA 20745 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetI d=338001001&objectId=124377&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]), EA 22814 (Taylor 2001b, colour pl. 54/3), EA 22940 (Taylor 2010, 74–5 no. 29), EA 29781 (Li 2010, 1065); Edinburgh A.1911.399.2 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 88–9); Berlin 8237 (Taylor 2003, fig. 63); Turin 2215 (Greco 2015, 188 fig. 239), Turin 2218 (Greco 2015, 188 fig. 240), Turin 2231 (Greco 2015, 188 fig. 238), but also in other periods, e.g. the Roman mummy case London, British Museum EA 29584 from Akhmim (Smith 1997, pl. 7/2). London, British Museum EA 29591 (Dynasty 21; Taylor 2010, 84 fig. 26); Copenhagen AEIN 1522 (Dynasty 25–26; Jørgensen 2001, 210–11). New York, MMA 12.183.3 (Fischer 1976, 43, pl. XIII fig. 6); MMA 32.1.124 (Forman and Quirke 1996, 76–7).

80

A. KUCHAREK

Fig. 1: Isis and Nephthys mourning the Abydos fetish, London, British Museum EA 6693 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

of an embrace and being the equivalent of the raised arms of the goddesses on contemporary coffins.21 The inseparable functions of mourning and protection are further exemplified by the substitution for the mourning goddesses at the bottom of a vertical row of protective deities on some Ptolemaic coffins by Isis and Nephthys kneeling with shen rings in a gesture of protection ( ).22 Comparably, the goddess Snt wrt-fꜢw, ‘Sister-great-of-renown’, an incarnation of Isis mourning her brother,23 is part of a group of protective deities equipped with long knives on a Ptolemaic coffin.24

21

22 23 24 25

Cf. Kucharek 2010, 573–4; Settgast 1960, pl. 2. In the earlier half of Dynasty 18 the gesture, now often an evident embrace, is instead performed by men (Settgast 1960, pl. 3). Edinburgh A.1908.288 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 106). As Ꜣstwrt-fꜢw, see LGG II, 487; Assmann 2008, 465 ll. 61–2. Brussels E. 7042 (De Caluwé 1990, 249 text 102). Protection: Brussels E. 7042 (Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 145 fig. 5; De Caluwé 1990, 116; De Wit 1956, 24 fig. 4); Copenhagen AEIN 1522 (Jørgensen 2001, 232–5). Mourning: Edinburgh A.1910.97 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 97 no. 31). Combination of protective symbols and mourning gesture: Vienna 226 (Anon.

Fig. 2: Isis and Nephthys protecting the Abydos fetish, Cairo CG 6233 (Hornung and Bryan 2002, 160 [detail]. © covered by Fair Use).

As with the goddesses flanking the Abydos fetish mentioned above, other Osirian symbols may be featured likewise: the djed pillar,25 the sekhem sceptre,26 or the Nefertem symbol.27 On Ramesside coffins the image of a goddess at the coffin end may even be replaced by a symbolic image with raised human arms,

26

27

2007, 46–7 no. 39). Goddesses represented by their names only: London, British Museum EA 29579 (Cooney 2007, fig. 173). Protection: London, British Museum EA 24794 (Taylor 2001b, colour pl. 51/4); Bordeaux Mesuret-8590 (Dautant, Boraud and Lalanne 2011, 258 fig. 5); adoration: Cleveland 1914.714 (Berman 1999, 332). London, British Museum EA 24798 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectI d=117261&partId=1&searchText=24798&page=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

81

Fig. 3: Funerary procession, London, British Museum EA 36211 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

framed by short speeches of Isis and Nephthys.28 The depiction of the goddesses equipped with and surrounded by protective symbols — ankh signs, djed pillars and tit symbols — further emphasises their primarily protective function.29 According to the Pyramid Texts the chief function of the goddesses is to find, protect and revivify the murdered Osiris.30 As his sisters and widows,31 they mourn and lament him. Protection, aiming at revivification, and mourning are two options in reacting to the death of a closely related person. The former is feasible only in the divine sphere, while the latter is the common human reaction adopted by the gods as the human fate of mortality befalls one of their own. As the protection of the divine corpse is so closely

intertwined with the grief over death, both attitudes are interchangeable on an iconographic level. Thus, mourning on a divine level always implies protection and revivification.32

28

30

29

tit symbol: Brooklyn 08.480.1 (https://www.brooklynmuseum. org/opencollection/objects/3230 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Cairo JE 26220/CG 61011 (Cooney 2007, fig. 179). Berlin 10832 (Cooney 2007, figs 57, 58; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 178 figs 282, 284).

Human mourning and lamentation While with divine mourning scenes there is a certain diachronic continuity and a consistency in their position, set against a wide variety of motifs, the manifestations of human mourning on coffins are much less varied. Only two major motifs occur: the funerary procession, which frequently includes mourners (Fig. 3), and persons whose expression of grief is directed at the deceased. In the latter case the mummy

31

32

Kucharek 2008. Some texts accord the status of widow not only to Isis, but also to Nephthys, see Kucharek 2010, 662. On the relationship of protection and lament see Kucharek 2010, 523–4, 571, 587–91.

82

A. KUCHAREK

Fig. 4: Mourning the mummy, Cleveland 1914.714 (© The Cleveland Museum of Art).

Fig. 5: Mourning the deceased encased within the coffin, New York, MMA 14.10.2 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of the Earl of Carnarvon, 1914, http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/543865).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

83

is either depicted along with the mourners (Fig. 4), or their object is the actual mummy concealed in the coffin (Fig. 5), thus rendering the scene devoid of an apparent iconographical context. The funerary procession constitutes the earliest attestation of mourning on coffins, emerging in Dynasty 11/early Dynasty 12 in the context of the funerary ritual. Renderings of a funerary procession more closely modelled on contemporary reality first occur on Theban rishi and white coffins of early Dynasty 18. This tradition is shortlived, however, as the scene soon becomes part of the tomb decoration. Only when decorated tomb chapels fall into disuse, at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, does it reappear in a truncated form, developing into a full rendering of the procession including the tomb rites in the short period of the transition from Dynasty 21 to Dynasty 22. A few isolated instances from Dynasty 25, again from Thebes, mark the end of the depiction of the funerary procession on coffins. Mourning the mummy is frequently depicted as a scene that originated as the final stage of the funerary procession, where the mummy is placed upright at the tomb entrance while the Opening of the Mouth ritual is performed on it. Persons mourning the actual mummy, while encompassing a relatively short time-span, appear earlier. They are first attested on some early Dynasty 18 white coffins from Thebes; they then disappear along with the funerary processions, only to resurface in Ramesside Deir el-Medina. The earliest scene with the deceased represented as well dates to the Amarna Period, closely followed by a child coffin from Deir el-Medina, depicting the mummies of daughter and mother being mourned by the bereaved family. These are isolated examples, however; in Dynasty 21 this becomes a frequent motif, only to vanish entirely

thereafter. In fact, after the Third Intermediate Period the depiction of private mourning is almost completely absent from coffins. Representations of funerary processions re-emerge for a while during the Late Period on tomb walls in a reprisal of New Kingdom scenes33 and, rarely, in the Graeco-Roman Period.34 The following section comprises a detailed diachronic survey of divine and human mourning on coffins, sarcophagi and comparable objects on which the above observations are based. Subdivisions are handled flexibly according to relevant categories.

33

36

34

35

TT 34 (Müller 1975); TT 36 (Kuhlmann and Schenkel 1983, 177–90, 193–9, pls 62, 63, 65, 123–8); TT 312 (Pischikova 1998); TT 389 (Assmann 1973, 113–21, Taf. XXIX). This exclusively Theban evidence can be augmented by a relief fragment which may originate in the Delta (Boston MFA 1976.140; on supposed provenance see Leahy 1988, 782). In the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel (Lefebvre 1923–4, I, 128–36; II, 60–4; III, pls XXIX–XXXIV); an unpublished relief fragment in Brooklyn of unknown provenance is directly comparable to the Petosiris scene (Brooklyn 1998.98); tomb of Petubastis in Dakhla Oasis (Osing et al. 1982, 75, pls 21–4). See the synopsis in Allen 2013; a small fragment of this sequence is also preserved on a corresponding wall in the burial chamber of Pepy I.

Divine mourning OldKingdom Old Kingdom coffins and sarcophagi are decorated either sparsely or not at all. The sole instance of lamentation is not even placed on the sarcophagus itself. A sequence of very short Pyramid Text spells comprising a speech by Nephthys, PT 628–33, is inscribed on the wall facing one of the narrow sides of the sarcophagus of Pepy II.35 PT 664A on the opposite wall is a corresponding, much shorter, spell by Isis. Almost identical but, in the case of Nephthys, shorter versions of these spells (PT 4 and 5) in the earlier pyramid of Teti are inscribed on the narrow sides of the sarcophagus,36 leaving no doubt as to the point of reference of the spells in the Pepy pyramid.37 While the spells themselves contain no element of grief — their explicit topic is protection and revivification — the phrase numbered PT 633 adds exactly this element. It consists of a concise direction to Nephthys ‘You are the one who wails over him’ (ṯmtḥꜢtḥr=f).38 This addition clarifies that, while mourning does not feature in the spell as a text, its performative frame was informed by it.39

37

38

39

Maspero 1884, 3–4. The sarcophagus of Pepy II is uninscribed apart from the king’s name, see Lehner 1997, 162; see also the remarks on Middle Kingdom coffins below. ḥꜢj, while clearly a form of mourning, is almost exclusively attested in divine contexts and evidently has a more specific connotation than just ‘wail’. Cf., for the time being, Kucharek 2010, 577 n. 64. PT 628–33 had been subsumed by Hays into a group of ‘Isis and Nephthys laments’ (Hays 2008–9, 58–9, 83 [Group F]) but subsequently removed to a group ‘Ascent to the Sky’ (Hays 2012, 109–10, 687 [Group M]).

A. KUCHAREK

84 MiddleKingdom

Coffin ends: The function of Isis and Nephthys as protectresses, first encountered in relation to the head and foot ends of Old Kingdom royal sarcophagi, is directly continued on Middle Kingdom private coffins.40 From Dynasty 11 onward, short phrases concerning Isis and Nephthys sometimes explicitly refer to their grief (Kucharek 2010, 573; Münster 1968, 50). Such texts occur on coffins from Asyut, the phrase used being ‘she weeps for you, she mourns you’ (rm=s ṯw jꜢkb=s ṯw),41 and el-Bersha, where it reads ‘she weeps for you, she glorifies you’ (rm=sṯwsꜢḫ=sṯw).42 On these coffins the goddesses are never depicted. The direct descent from the royal antecedents of the Old Kingdom is attested by the Isis spell PT 664A on the end panels of several coffins from el-Bersha (Lapp 1993, 85–6 §197; Falck 2001, 245–6). The phrase jj.n=jnḏr=jjm=k, ‘I have come that I may take hold of you’, excerpted from PT 664A, recurs as an Isis spell on the royal sarcophagi of early Dynasty 18 up to Thutmose III (Hayes 1935a, 74, 190 [23]).

may, however, be human ḏrt-women. The woman next to the bier touches it in a protective gesture familiar from contemporary tomb decoration and model funerary boats. Immediately behind the women an ox is slaughtered, placing the bier scene in the context of provisioning (see Kucharek 2010, 592–8). Coffin Texts: Apart from the coffin end phrases the mourning goddesses occur in several Coffin Text spells as part of more extensive liturgies.44 NewKingdom:Dynasty18 The position of the two goddesses at the coffin ends is continued. With the general introduction of decorated anthropoid coffins the depiction of the goddess at the rounded head end becomes much less common, although there are exceptions, mainly on later Dynasty 18 coffins.45

Bier scene: While no mourning is discernible, the two women standing hand in hand at the foot end of the bier of the deceased, depicted on the left side of a wooden coffin,43 should be mentioned as early predecessors of Isis and Nephthys attending to the bier on coffins, first attested in the late Ramesside Period; they

Rishiand white coffins: Often both Isis and Nephthys are depicted or invoked on the foot-boards of early Dynasty 18 rishi and white coffins (in general: Miniaci 2011; Barwik 1999, esp. 14–15), with a clear precursor in the Dynasty 13 rectangular coffin of queen Mentuhotep from Thebes (Geisen 2004, pls 1, 2). White coffins are the earliest examples featuring unambiguously mourning goddesses,46 while on rishi coffins texts and images generally refer instead to the

40

45

41

42

43

44

For Isis and Nephthys as ‘manifestations’ of these ends see Willems 1996, 55; 1988, 134–5; Münster 1968, 24–53. E.g. London, British Museum EA 46631 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 40, fig. 25). For further instances from Asyut, see Kucharek 2010, 573 n. 37; Münster 1968, 50 n. 638; Lapp 1993, 129 §290, 131 §292, 218–19 §512. London, British Museum EA 55315 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objec tId=117220&partId=1&searchText=55315&page=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); on EA 35285 (www.britishmuseum. org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=18651001&objec tid=117221 [last accessed 23 August 2017]; cf. Taylor and Strudwick 2005, 45) the phrase is split between the two end panels. For further instances from el-Bersha, see Münster 1968, 50 n. 639; Lapp 1993, 79 §189, 80 fig. 82. Cairo CG 28116 from Moalla (Lacau 1904, pl. VI; 1906, II, 95–6). Assmann 2002, 266–76 (CT 49–50), 289–309 (CT 51–9), 405–42 (CT 73–4).

46

London, British Museum EA 1001 (Edwards 1939, 15–21, pls XVI, XVIII; Taylor 2010, 106 fig. 36), EA 1642 (Edwards 1939, 43–7, pl. XXXVIII); Paris, Louvre D 2 (Schneider et al. 1993, 112 fig. IV.5, 115 fig. IV.6); Cairo CG 51003 (Quibell 1908, 7), Cairo CG 51006 (Quibell 1908, 22), Cairo CG 51007 (Quibell 1908, 24), Cairo JE 31378 (Daressy 1901, 5); St. Louis 2292 (Kozloff and Bryan 1992, 313, 317); Uppsala VM 151 (Reeves 2013, 12 fig. 8); Moscow IIa.5249 (Lapis 1956, fig. 4, 5; totenbuch.awk.nrw.de/objekt/tm135550 [last accessed 23 August 2017]). Rectangular: el-Birabi 37/7 (Miniaci 2011, 86 fig. 80; Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 70–1); New York, MMA 12.181.302, (Hayes 1953, 32). Anthropoid: New York, MMA 14.10.2 (Lüscher 1998, pl. 18; kneeling on neb baskets, therefore probably goddesses). Also a unique yellow-painted anthropoid clay coffin from Tell el-Yahudieh (Brussels E. 4348, Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 55–7; Cotelle-Michel 2004, 72–3, 232–33; Petrie 1906, 16–17, pls XIV, XIVA, XV).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

protection and adoration accorded to the deceased by the goddesses.47 Gianluca Miniaci states that ‘in most of the [rishi] coffins [the foot end] is reserved for the representation of … Isis and Nephthys shown raising their hands in a gesture of lamentation’ (Miniaci 2011, 38), misinterpreting the protective gesture. The posture of the figures as well as the frequent presence of a shen ring are reminiscent of the BD 151 vignette (which they predate, cf. Munro 1987, 126–8; Miniaci 2011, 129; also Quirke 2013, xi). Frequently, besides laying their hands on a shen ring ( ), they kneel on neb baskets. Black coffins: To the author’s knowledge, these never feature mourning but always protective goddesses,48 as does the earliest yellow coffin, still dating supporting the to Dynasty 18.49 The gold sign goddesses first occurs regularly in a private context in the time of Amenhotep III.50 These attestations are, however, markedly pre-dated by the sarcophagus of Senenmut, whose shape and decoration reflect the contemporary royal model (Dorman 1991, 70–2, pl. 31; Hayes 1950). Royal coffins: At the head and foot end of Dynasty 18 royal sarcophagi and coffins (with the exception of the Amarna Period, excluding Tutankhamun)51 Isis and

47

48

49

50

London, British Museum EA 6652 (Miniaci 2011, 212), EA 52951 (ibid., 215), EA 6653 (ibid., 219); Cairo RT 14/12/27/12 (ibid., 227, pl. 1c, 8a[c]); Cairo CG 61004 (ibid., 229); Cairo RT 5/12/25/2 (ibid., 233); Cairo without number (ibid., 245: ref. no. rX01C); New York, MMA 12.181.299 (ibid., 257); MMA 12.181.301 (ibid., 258; Lüscher 1998, pl. 12); MMA 12.181.300 (Miniaci 2011, 260; Lüscher 1998, pl. 11); MMA 14.10.1 (Lüscher 1998, pl. 13); coffin from tomb C 37 in el-Birabi (Miniaci 2011, 275); coffin from tomb C 62 in el-Birabi (Miniaci 2011, 304); coffin ‘no. 67’ from Dra Abu el-Naga north (Miniaci 2011, 313). E.g. Florence 6526 (Guidotti 2001, 28); London, British Museum EA 54521 (www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/ collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=117253&partId=1&sear chText=54521&page=1 [last accessed 20 December 2017]; see Taylor 2001b, colour pl. 50/2). The same applies to rectangular black coffins, e.g. Brooklyn 37.15E (Dodson 2000, pl. XVIII). Brooklyn 37.14E from Deir el-Medina (Dodson 2000, pl. XVI/A). London, British Museum EA 1001; Brooklyn 37.14E; London, British Museum EA 1642; Moscow IIa.5249; Cairo CG 51003; Cairo CG 51006; Cairo CG 51007 (for bibliography see above, n. 45; see also Lüscher 1998, 106 n. 76).

85

Nephthys kneel on a gold sign, often holding a shen ring, and without any mourning component (Hayes 1935a, 74–5, 89–91, pls XXII, XXIV). The representations on the exterior are replicated in the interior (Manuelian and Loeben 1993, 139 fig. 11, pl. XII/1.2). William C. Hayes mistook the kneeling posture of the goddesses as one of mourning (Hayes 1935a, 74) but interpreted their attributes (the gold and shen signs) correctly as protective (ibid., 90–1). NewKingdom:Dynasties19–20 Coffin ends: In the Ramesside Period, the two goddesses continue to be depicted on the foot-board and sometimes also on the head end of anthropoid coffins, often with raised arms and still exempt from any indication of grief.52 On the contrary, the captions as well as the ankh signs, djed pillars and tit amulets with which they are now often associated, as well as the gold signs already in use in Dynasty 18, all emphasise their protective function, in some cases even substituting a tit symbol for the image of the goddess.53 In royal sarcophagi the foot end of the case still often features the kneeling Isis on a gold sign, again in a purely protective manner.54 However, some of these sarcophagi now depict both Isis and Nephthys unambiguously mourning at the foot end of the lid.55

51 52

53

54

55

See Ikram and Dodson 1998, 260 fig. 366A–D. Berlin 10832 (Cooney 2007, figs 57, 58; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 178 figs 282, 284); Cairo JE 26223/CG 61022 (Cooney 2007, figs 82, 83); Cairo JE 27308 (ibid., figs. 99, 100); Cairo JE 27309 (ibid., 112); Kingston Lacy (Assmann 1991, 267–73, pl. LXXXIII); Edinburgh A. 1887.597 (Anon. 2007, 108; Manley and Dodson 2010, 31; Anon. 2012, 18); Frankfurt Liebieghaus IN 1651a,b (Beck 1993, 306 fig. 70.4, 70.5); Frankfurt Liebieghaus IN 1651c,d (Beck 1993, 314 fig. 70.11); London, British Museum EA 48001 (Taylor 2010, 117 no. 46). E.g. Brooklyn 08.480.1 (www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/3230 [last accessed 23 August 2017]) ; Cairo JE 26220/CG 61011 (Cooney 2007, fig. 179). E.g. the sarcophagi of Ramesses I in KV 16 (Piankoff 1957, pl. II), of Merenptah in KV 8 (unpubl.), and of Ramesses III (Louvre D 1, Dodson 1986, pl. XX/1.2). E.g. the virtually identical sarcophagi of Siptah in KV 47 (unpubl., see www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_ tombimages_861_20.html [last accessed 23 August 2017]) and of Setnakht in KV 14 (unpubl., see www.thebanmappingproject. com/sites/browse_tombimages_828_40.html [last accessed 23 August 2017]).

86

A. KUCHAREK

Fig. 6: Isis and Nephthys mourning on top of coffin foot, London, British Museum EA 29579 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

Top of foot: The mourning Isis and Nephthys are now frequently depicted on the top of the foot (Fig. 6),56 some kneeling on nbw signs, as on the coffin ends, since the later part of Dynasty 18. To the author’s knowledge, the captions never allude to mourning. Bier scene: The late Ramesside Period saw the ascent of a densely decorated coffin type which would

develop into the well-known style of Dynasty 21 with its wealth of scenes, vignettes and short texts. While the majority of these scenes show the deceased adoring deities, there are a number of purely divine, often Osirian scenes, depicted on the exterior of the case, among them Osiris on his bier mourned by Isis and Nephthys (Fig. 7).57 Captions do not refer to mourning but to offerings, two closely interrelated concepts (Kucharek

56

57

E.g. Berlin 8505 (Cooney 2007, fig. 168; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 115 fig. 161); London, British Museum EA 29579 (Cooney 2007, fig. 172); Vatican XIII.2 (ibid., 195, 197).

Copenhagen AEIN 62 (Jørgensen 2001, 76–7); Berlin 8505 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 15 fig. 4, 117 fig. 163; Cooney 2007, fig. 169), both dated to mid- to late Dynasty 20. See Cooney 2007, 462; van Walsem 2000, 347; contra Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 116.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

87

Fig. 7: Isis and Nephthys mourning at the bier of Osiris, Berlin 8505 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 15 fig. 4. © SMPK Ägyptisches Museum, Sandra Steiß).

2010, 592–8). Another late Ramesside bier scene, with Isis and Nephthys adoring, features Horus conveying life and power to the prone Osiris and is a precursor of the revivification bier scenes of Dynasty 21.58

Dynasty 20 to Dynasty 21 (Niwiński 2009, 21–47, pls I–VII; Verhoeven 2012, 182–7).

The yellow coffins covered with numerous small scenes and vignettes continue and further develop a pattern already in place in the late Ramesside Period. Divine grief finds expression in a greater variety of forms. An early exponent of this trend is the coffin set of the Deir el-Medina scribe Butehamun (Turin 2236, 2237) whose career spanned the transition from

Coffin ends: The foot-board is now often left undecorated. Exceptions include the protecting goddesses Khefthernebes,59 Neith60 and Nephthys, surrounded by the four Sons of Horus.61 Mourning is now almost non-existent in this position, a notable exception being the inner coffin of Butehamun with a mourning Nephthys at the head end and an elaborate design at the foot end involving Isis and Nephthys flanking a falcon crowned with the atef and perched upon a standard in an Osirian variation of the divine standard hieroglyph.62

58

61

ThirdIntermediatePeriod:Dynasty21

59 60

Vatican XIII.2 (Gasse 1996, pl. XXXVII/1). Cairo CG 61031, inner coffin (Daressy 1909, 155). Toronto 910.5.3 (unpubl.).

62

Brooklyn 08.480.1 (www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/ objects/3230 [last accessed 23 August 2017]). Turin 2237/2 (Niwiński 2009, pl. V.4, VI.2).

88

A. KUCHAREK

Top of foot: The mourning Isis and Nephthys first encountered in the Ramesside Period are now a common feature.63 For the first time a short lament may accompany the iconography of mourning.64 Interior: Leiden AMM 2 (M 5) is remarkable for three pairs of the figures of the mourning Isis and Nephthys in the interior of the case. Two are located at the head and in the bottom register, mourning the actual mummy (Boeser 1917, pl. X; Leemans 1867, pls IX– XI); the latter pair is accompanied by short laments (Fig. 8). The third pair is depicted on the base, mourning a sekhem sceptre (Boeser 1917, pl. IX). Bier scene: The scene of mourning at the bier of Osiris on an outer side panel of the coffin case is continued,65 but is now attested in the interior for the first time.66 The case, later on the default location of the bier scene, is attested for the first time in this respect; in these early instances it is specifically the revivified Osiris, lying in a prone position but with his head raised.67 The motif as such is also attested several times in the so-called Mythological Papyri of Dynasty 21, always featuring Isis and Nephthys either mourning or protecting the awakening Osiris.68 Abydos fetish: In keeping with the general proliferation of small-scale decorative elements, new types of ‘mourning vignettes’ are introduced, among them the Abydos fetish being mourned by the goddesses.69

63

64 65

66 67

Vatican 25016 (Gasse 1996, pl. XXIV/2); Turin 2236/1 (Niwiński 2009, pl. I.1; Greco 2015, 181 fig. 225); Turin 2237/1 (Niwiński 2009, pl. IV.1; Greco 2015, pl. 173 fig. 210); Turin 2237/3 (Niwiński 2009, pl. VII.1; Greco 2015, 181 fig. 226); Leiden AMM 2-b/M 5 (Leemans 1867, pl. III; Giovetti and Picchi 2016, 448); Munich ÄS 12 (in bottom register; Schoske 1995, 22 fig. 18). Brooklyn 08.480.1 (Bleiberg 2008, 96 fig. 94). Both Vatican 25021 (Gasse 1996, pl. XXVIII/1) and Besançon A. 776 (Legros and Payraudeau 2011, 18) combine gestures and attributes of mourning and protection, in the latter accompanied by short laments. Cairo Ch./N. 6053 (CG 6070) (Niwiński 1995, 91). Cairo CG 6003 (Chassinat 1909, 8 fig. 11), Ch./N. 6031 (CG 6043) (Niwiński 1995, 6, pl. II.1) and unidentified coffin in Cairo (Piankoff and Rambova 1957, 58 fig. 43). On this specific type of scene, usually with Horus conveying life and breath to Osiris, see Piankoff and Rambova 1957, 56–9; Assmann 1977, 90–3, pl. 41; Waitkus 1987; Willems 1997, 358–60; von Lieven

Fig. 8: Isis mourning and lamenting, Leiden AMM 2 (Published in Boeser 1917, pl. X).

Djedpillar: The djed pillar is mourned by Isis and Nephthys in a composition equivalent to the Abydos fetish vignette.70

68

69

70

2007, 181–4; Liptay 2014, 75–6. It is first attested in the Osireion in Abydos. The variant without Horus appears to be largely restricted to Dynasty 21, but is attested, including the mourning goddesses, on the foot end of the rectangular coffin CG 41001bis (Dynasty 26). As incorporated into a larger composition, ‘The Awakening of Osiris and the Transit of the Solar Barques’, the scene has been studied by Roberson 2013. Papyrus Cairo Khonsu-renep (Piankoff and Rambova 1957, pl. 11); Papyrus Cairo CG 40016 (ibid. pl. 18); Papyrus Cairo CG 40017 (ibid., pl. 8). Cairo CG 61030 (Daressy 1909, pl. XLV); Louvre N 2610 (Andreu, Rutschowskaya and Ziegler 1997, 167 fig. 80); London, British Museum EA 15656 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_ image_gallery.aspx?assetId=337865001&objectId=129448&pa rtId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Pittsburgh 22266-3 may date as early as late Dynasty 20 (Patch 1990, 69 no. 55). Turin 2236/2 (Niwiński 2009, pl. III.1); fragment Amsterdam inv. 8103 (van Haarlem 1997, 21–4).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Other scenes: Further, less frequently attested new emblems include the goddesses mourning a sekhem sceptre, mostly a symbol of Anubis71 but also of Osiris;72 the ‘Nefertem’ lotus;73 the enthroned Osiris74 or enthroned Ptah-Sokar.75 Unique scenes include a mourning Isis in a line of guardian demons and divine symbols;76 Nephthys mourning a falcon-headed upright mummy labelled Horus-son-of-Osiris;77 Isis and Nephthys, in two complementary vignettes, mourning a mummy labelled WsjrnbnḥḥḪntj-jmntjw;78 Isis and Nephthys in separate vignettes mourning in front of Imsety and Qebehsenuef;79 two vignettes of Nephthys mourning Sokar and an unnamed snake-headed deity;80 a kneeling Neith holding a sekhem sceptre while mourning a personification of the duat;81 a twofold mourning Serqet accompanying a scene of ‘real-world’ mourning.82 Of particular note is a scene on the floorboard of a coffin once in Jersey (Pettigrew 1838, pl. XIX) but no longer in existence. In front of a large figure of the deified Amenhotep I, the goddess Nut kneels in mourning. While the composition as such is not unique, the mourners otherwise seem to be human women (see below, ThirdIntermediatePeriod:Mourninginfrontofthemummy). Laments: The rare existence of short laments on coffins of this period has already been mentioned. The most extensive by far are inscribed on one inner coffin.83 On the foot of the cover Isis and Nephthys kneel by Osiris:

71

72

73 74

75 76

77

78

Berlin 28, captioned Jnpwnbqrrt (Anon. 1924, 443[d]); Leiden AMM 2-a/M 5 (Boeser 1917, pl. IX). Leiden F 93/10.2 captioned Wsjrnbnḥḥḫntj (sic) (Greco et al. 2013, 36). Berlin 28 (Anon. 1924, 442[d]). Cairo CG 61030 (Daressy 1909, 110, 112); Kynžvart 1086 (Verner 1982, 92). Turin 2236/2 (Niwiński 2009, pl. II.2). Turin 2237/2 (Niwiński 2009, pl. V.2); in front of the goddess is a weeping eye hieroglyph above a shen ring. Cairo Ch./N. 6053b (ex CG 6070) (Niwiński 1995, 91 [‘PtahSokar-Osiris’], pl. XVIII/1). Leiden F 93/10.2 (www.rmo.nl/collectie/zoeken?object= F+93%2f10.2a [last accessed 23 August 2017]).

89

Isis: Your two great sisters weep for you, may you be full of joy! The children of your house weep for you, and the youth of your city Thebes! My arms make nini to your beautiful face, and the love for you is pleasant in my body, revered one as sovereign of joy, beloved, lord, master of Egypt! Your renown is in all lands as sovereign of the Two Lands, and I am behind you as your effective sister. Nephthys: I weep for you, lord, my heart is sick! I am your beloved daughter, I circle your house, my hands [on my head like] I (once) did for Wennefer. I say to you what is in my heart: […] heaven on its supports weeps for you, the stars in it mourn you in eternity!

Exactly the same laments as on the cover are ascribed to the mourning Isis and Nephthys at the bottom of the side panels of the coffin case; only their relative attribution has been transposed. Royal coffins: Isis and Nephthys mourning a sekhem sceptre identified as Jnpw ḫntj sḥ-nṯr are depicted on the interior of the lid of the coffin of Psusennes I, as well as the kneeling goddesses on top of the foot, an arrangement equivalent to that on private coffins.84 At both ends of this king’s granite sarcophagus (usurped from Merenptah) there is a depiction of a black kite, labelled Ꜣstḏrt and Nbt-ḥwtḏrt respectively.85

79 80

81 82 83

84 85

Madrid 18255 (unpubl.). London, British Museum EA 24794 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?object Id=117264&partId=1&searchText=24794&page=1 [last accessed 20 December 2017]). Appenzell (Hornung 1984, 36). Appenzell (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 65 fig. 20). Cambridge E.1.1822 (Budge 1893, 25–7, 35–6, 38–9; a glimpse of one scene in Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 183). Cairo JE 85912 (Montet 1951, 131, pls CI, CIII). Cairo JE 87297 (Montet 1951, 113, pls LXXVIII); what appears, in Pierre Montet’s drawing, to be another black kite on top of the serekh is in fact a falcon. The decoration is apparently entirely Ramesside.

A. KUCHAREK

90 LateDynasty21–earlyDynasty22

The specific coffin type of this period — the socalled ‘stola coffin’ — is remarkable for the dominance of Nephthys over Isis on the one hand and the close association of Nephthys and Anubis on the other. Repeatedly, Nephthys occupies the position or role of the wife of the deceased (Kucharek 2010, 668–71); in one instance she is positioned opposite to the deceased, her garments resembling those of a human mourner.86 The stola-type coffins are also noteworthy for their extensive private funerary scenes (see below).

Dynasty22 While Dynasty 21 coffin types continued into early Dynasty 22, a conspicuous new type is represented by cartonnage cases remarkable for the predominance of wings in their decoration. These wings are either attached to the arms of goddesses or belong to ornithomorphic deities. Both kinds of winged deities are arranged symmetrically on either side of the front, with a central image or symbol between them or with their wings overlapping in the centre.87 The goddesses are most often Isis and Nephthys, performing a wellknown gesture of protection. The avian deities are mostly falcons, which, if identified at all, are either Behdety, i.e. Horus, or Isis and Nephthys. The latter are in some cases identified as ḏrtwrt and ḏrtnḏst, the Great Kite and the Small Kite (Fig. 9).88 ḏrt, which is more precisely the black kite, designates Isis and Nephthys as protective mourners of Osiris (Kucharek 2008; Arpagaus 2013; for the black kite in Egyptian

86 87

88

89

90

Vatican 25012 (Gasse 1996, pls VII/1, LXII/3). On the complex designs of Dynasty 22 coffins see Taylor 2003, 103–13. Athens 3424 (Tzachou-Alexandri 1995, 168); Boston MFA 72.4835a (www.mfa.org/collections/object/mummy-andmummy-case-of-tasenetnethor-137165 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Cambridge E.64.1896 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 61 fig. 39, 199 no. 32; Quibell 1898, pl. XVI); Berlin 20135 (Anon. 1924, 559); Cairo RT 21/11/16/5 (Dodson 2009, 52 fig. 2); Leiden AMM 17e/M 18 (Leemans 1867, pl. VI). In the latter, ḏrt nḏst is preceded by ḥwt nṯr=s, ‘house of her god’, evidently an explanatory epithet of Nbt-ḥwt. Berlin 48 (Schott photos XIV, 151 b and XIV, 151c; cf. Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 81). London, British Museum EA 6666 (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 234 fig. 307); EA 22939 (www.britishmuseum.org/research/ collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_

art see Houlihan 1988, 36–8). The two ḏrt, while not depicted, are mentioned in a coffin inscription (jmꜢḫjj ḫrḏrtwrtḏrtnḏst), also dating to Dynasty 22.89 Now and then, regardless of an identifying caption, the iconography of the birds in question indicates that kites, and not falcons, are indeed depicted. Their distinctive features include a beak markedly longer and straighter than a falcon’s, as well as an indented or slightly forked tail; often features of both species are combined (Fig. 10).90 The facial markings of these birds do not correspond to those of a genuine black kite but are those of a (Horus) falcon minus the two characteristic lines adjoining the eye. On a few coffins a further iconographical element is added: the ḏrt-birds’ beak is opened, sometimes exposing the tongue.91 Of the seven attestations known to me, only one is accompanied by a caption (Fig. 11). This caption, ḏrt nḏst, identifies the bird in question, a falcon by its head markings, as a personification of Nephthys.92 The beak, wide open and with the tongue protruding, is quite obviously not that of a falcon or even a bird of prey in general. Instead it closely resembles the beak of a waterfowl, such as a goose or duck.93 This is all the more striking as Isis or Nephthys are associated with neither species — the avian species in whose guise they may appear are the black kite, the kestrel, the tern and the swallow. That the beak on the fragment in question is indeed that of a goose or duck is confirmed by a further specimen in the British Museum (Fig. 12).94 Here, again, the head markings are those of a falcon (the tail being that of a kite), while the beak is thin, long and straight. The tongue rests upon the lower mandible. Along the edge of the upper mandible there

91

92

93

94

gallery.aspx?assetId=1473786001&objectId=117332&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Louvre N 2621 (Étienne 2009, 146–7 no. 113); Lisbon E 135 (Araújo Duarte 1993, 306 no. 217); Hamburg C 3834 (Altenmüller 2000, 63–4 pls 8, 9); private collection England (cartonnage of Iuput [B], Dodson 2009, 52 fig. 1 top, pl. I). I am indebted to Beatrix Gessler-Löhr for alerting me to this feature, and for showing me photographs of the Bournemouth cartonnage taken by John Wyatt. Bournemouth 305. My thanks go to the Bournemouth Natural Science Society for permission to publish the cartonnage and to Renate Haupt of the Society for providing the images. For the eminently visible tongue in a hissing goose, see BailleulLeSuer 2012, 97 fig. 10.11. EA 6685. I am grateful to John H. Taylor for bringing this unpublished cartonnage to my notice.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Fig. 9: Isis and Nephthys as ḏrt-birds, Cambridge E.64.1896 (Published in Quibell 1898, pl. XVI).

91

92

A. KUCHAREK

Fig. 10: Isis as a kite, London, British Museum EA 22939 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

is a row of black dots, representative of the serrations typical in many waterfowl and depicted in Egyptian art of various periods: the ‘Meidum geese’ of Dynasty 4,95 a Dynasty 12 relief from Lisht,96 or the famous fishing and fowling scene from the Dynasty 18 Theban tomb of Nebamun.97 Two further cartonnages display interesting variations: in the first (Fig. 13),98 the head and body are those of a falcon while the tail shows the indentation typical of a black kite, as in the preceding example. The beak is neither a goose’s nor a falcon’s. Almost clumsily thick and strong, its general shape, with its hooked tip and distinct projection about halfway along each mandible, is that of a bird of prey. In all probability it is meant to represent a black kite’s beak.99 It is mixed up, however, with that of a waterfowl with its distinct serrations along both mandibles. The birds on the second cartonnage100 are unique in that not only the beak but the whole head is that of a goose (Fig. 14).

The rest of the body is again that of a bird of prey, clearly indicated by the talons and particularly by the plumage around the legs, unique to birds of prey; this is invariably depicted in Egyptian representations (cf. Houlihan 1988, 36–49).

95

99

96 97 98

Cairo CG 1742 (Lange and Hirmer 1983, pl. III; PM IV, 93–4). Brooklyn 52.130.2 (Karig and Zauzich 1976, no. 20). London, British Museum EA 37977 (Parkinson 2008, 127 fig. 134). Fragment offered for sale at Bonham’s, London, on 20 October 2005 (I am indebted to John H. Taylor for bringing the object to my attention). It was subsequently auctioned on 30 June 2013 on ebay (www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ancient-Egyptian-Late-PeriodCartonnage-Sarcophagus-800-BC-/390614095897).

Fig. 11: ḏrtnḏstwith waterfowl beak, Bournemouth 305 (© Bournemouth Natural Science Society).

100

Cf. the rather naturalistic ḏrt kites in the late Ramesside papyrus British Museum EA 10470 (Faulkner 1985, 46). St Petersburg 19565a (to be published by A. Nikolaev and R. Meffre). I am very much indebted to A. Nikolaev of the State Hermitage for permission to discuss and illustrate this cartonnage here.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

93

Fig. 12: Isis or Nephthys as a falcon-kite with open waterfowl beak, London, British Museum EA 6685 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 13: Isis or Nephthys as a falcon-kite with open hybrid beak (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ancient-Egyptian-LatePeriod-Cartonnage-Sarcophagus-800-BC-/390614095897).

Finally, on three further cartonnage cases (Fig. 15),101 the birds depicted are falcons in all but the indented tails; their slightly open beaks are definitely those of falcons. This detail in the otherwise similar cartonnages suggests that they were made in the same (Theban) workshop. There is also a particularly intriguing cartonnage fragment from the Ramesseum102 with a depiction of

Isis as a falcon (apart from the indented tail). The beak is closed. There is a caption Ꜣstḏrtwrt, ‘Isis the great kite’ in front of her; above her part of a horizontal inscription is preserved: […] wrtjr=s ḥrnbt-prꜢst-ḫbtmꜢ῾t-ḫrw […], ‘[…] the great […], may she for Asetemkheb, justified’. The beak of the make bird sign that denotes the action is clearly open; […] wrt is no doubt to be restored to [ḏrt] wrt.103 The

101

102

London, British Museum EA 30720 (Taylor 2004, 43); Berkeley, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum 6-19929 (ibid., 15; Capel and Markoe 1996, 167 no. 90, cartonnage of wife of the owner of British Museum EA 30720); Exeter 11/1897.3 (Dodson 2011a, 14).

103

Quibell 1898, pl. XXIV/2, present whereabouts unknown. Cf. Cambridge E.64.1896 from the same site (Quibell 1898, pl. XVI; Vassilika 1995, 92–3 no. 42), inscribed jmꜢḫḫrꜢstḏrt wrtmꜢ῾t-ḫrw (sic).

94

A. KUCHAREK

this is all the more surprising since it was precisely the cries of these birds which were once believed to have caused the identification of the ḏrt with those particular species.104 This assumption has since been shown to be improbable, as the ḏrt originally were primarily concerned with protection, while the mourning aspects were secondary, reflecting the default role of women in a funerary setting (Kucharek 2008). As neither Isis nor Nephthys have any known connection to waterfowl, and waterfowl do not have any known connection to mourning, the tertiumcomparationis has to be sought elsewhere. As the object in question is a beak and the hybrid depiction occurs only in cases when the beak is opened, in other words, uttering sounds, it must be these sounds or noises that caused the creators of these images to choose the waterfowl beak. The cry or cackle (ngg) uttered by geese — especially the Egyptian goose (smn) — is well attested in Egyptian funerary texts, particularly in the Book of the Dead. Remarkably, it frequently occurs in couplets the other half of which refers to a falcon (bjk): I fly as a falcon, I cackle (ngg) as a smn-goose.105 I have cackled (ngg) as a smn-goose, I fly as a falcon.106 I have flown as a falcon, I cackle (ngg) as a smn-goose.107

Fig. 14: Isis or Nephthys as a goose with open beak, St. Petersburg, Hermitage 19565a (© The State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg/ Andrei Nikolaev).

The falcon rejoices (hꜢ) for you, the smn-goose cackles (ngg)for you.108

phonetic value attached to is unknown but the ideogram clearly refers to the sound of grief uttered by the ḏrtwrt. It appears to the present author that in choosing to depict screaming or crying birds, their creators were uncomfortable with those cries being uttered by a bird of prey, while utilising two bird species closely connected with the mourning Isis and Nephthys, the falcon and the black kite. From an Egyptological perspective,

The final couplet is particularly interesting. Firstly, the falcon here does not fly but rejoices, probably including an element of vocalisation. Secondly, comparing this passage to its Middle Kingdom predecessor, CT 24,109 the verb in question turns out to have origi, once each and nally been ḥꜢj (mostly ), modified to ḥ῾j ( ) only in the New Kingdom. ḥꜢj is a complex term, its phonology pointing to a non-verbal utterance and its principal determinative to an expression of intense emotion (see Kucharek 2010, 545, 577).110 On several Middle Kingdom coffins

104

109

105 106 107 108

Reiterated in e.g. Bailleul-LeSuer 2012, 134. BD 17 (Naville 1886, XXV l. 74). BD 98 (Lepsius 1842, XXXV). BD 149, 11th mound (Lepsius 1842, LXXII). BD 169 (Naville 1886, CXC l. 14; Assmann 2002, 141–4).

110

= I.73c – 74a (ed. de Buck 1935, 73–4). The study of the term by Reed 2007 (= Diamond 2010), is useful for its wealth of material but does not distinguish between the several distinct meanings of ḥꜢj.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Fig. 15: Isis or Nephthys as a falcon-kite with open beak, London, British Museum EA 30720 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

95

96

A. KUCHAREK

(= Osiris) is caused to ascend. He (= Horus) sits on the border? of the horizon. Oh, oh, this is not a smn-goose, this is Horus the Elder’ (Pries 2011, I, 366–7, 369–70; II, 96–7). According to Pries, the ngg-cry of the ḏrt-woman alerts Osiris; however, lest he expect a ‘useless’ (Pries) smn-goose to arrive she tells him that it is in fact his son. The passage in question, preserved in only one copy of abominable quality (see Junker 1910, 31), is, however, open to alternative interpretation. The present author’s translation differs in several respects: ‘Osiris Khontamenti, may you cackle (ngg) as a smn-goose who enters the netherworld, seated in a palanquin? (?). Oh, oh, this is not a smn-goose, this is Horus the Elder’ (Kucharek 2010, 446, 486). Both translations have their weak and strong points, but as it would far exceed the scope of this paper to discuss them, this particular issue must remain unresolved at present.

from el-Bersha the couplet in question is followed by a passage that includes the phrase jw ḥꜢ n=k ḏrtj, ‘the two ḏrt-women perform ḥꜢ for you’ (I.74e), the and , determinatives here varying between , indicating an element of movement and physical action. The context therefore suggests that ḥꜢj is used here in the sense of ‘mourning’.111 This Middle Kingdom instance of a mourning falcon seems to have been forgotten by Dynasty 22, however. Further, there is the phrase sbḥ=kmjngg, ‘may you scream like a ngg-bird’ as part of a ceiling inscription in several Ramesside Theban tombs (Assmann 2005, 592).112 ngg was thus evidently perceived as a very loud noise. It is made abundantly clear by the texts that ngg denoted a loud cackle most often connected with the smn-goose — most probably on account of the pronounced aggressive character and notorious bad temper of the species (Houlihan 1988, 62–4). In our present context it may also be relevant that the females are more vocal and louder than the males (Kear 2005, 402). It may be suggested, therefore, that it was the voice of the Egyptian goose, perceived as its defining trait, that was responsible for equipping the ḏrt-birds on some Dynasty 22 coffins with waterfowl beaks. The caveat must be added, however, that no text exists that unambiguously links the ḏrt (or Isis, Nephthys or any other mourning person) with the noise ngg. There are two possible cases, both post-dating the Third Intermediate Period. On a Ptolemaic coffin from Behbeit el-Hagar, the name of the mourning goddess Ngjt is spelled with a rather vague bird determinative (Caluwe 1990, 215, text 71), ostensibly establishing an association with ngg, ‘cackle’. However, the name of the same goddess is also attested with a cow determinative, connecting it to ngꜢw, a cattle breed (Cauville 1997, 213.9; see. LGG IV, 365; Wb II, 349.1–5). The second case is a passage in the Ptolemaic Stundenwachen for Osiris, recited by a ḏrt-woman, that runs, as suggested by Andreas Pries: ‘Osiris Khontamenti, cry (ngg) you when the one who enters the netherworld

Abydos fetish: On a white cartonnage, Neith and Serqet mourn the Abydos fetish while Isis and Nephthys extend their hands towards it in a gesture of adoration.115 These four goddesses are complemented, at the perimeter of the scene, by two anonymous

111

114

112

113

ḥꜢj in this sense is almost exclusively used in a divine context but hardly ever in a private one, indicating that more than simple lamentation or mourning is meant. See Papyrus British Museum EA 10008 for an image of a cackling nggwr (Taylor 2010, 222 no. 106). Leiden AMM 3-b/M 41 (www.rmo.nl/collectie/zoeken?object= AMM+3-b [last accessed 20 December 2017]).

Coffin ends: The head and foot ends of all Dynasty 22 coffins are devoid of any representation, pictorial or textual, of Isis and Nephthys; instead, the foot-board for the first time features a representation of the Apis bull, and the top of the head is often decorated with a scarab beetle (Taylor 2003, 107). Bier scene: Preceded by a specific type of bier scene, depicting Osiris with raised head, in Dynasty 21, the earliest instance of Isis and Nephthys mourning at the bier of Osiris on the coffin front and in its prevailing version dates to Dynasty 22.113 On one cartonnage of the dark blue type, instead of Isis and Nephthys, their close associates Neith and Serqet mourn at the bier.114

115

London, British Museum EA 29577 (Eladany 2011, 244 fig. 5.90; Andrews 1984, 47 fig. 53). On this type of cartonnage see Taylor 2003, 105 n. 100; 2001b, 172–3; 2009, 385–6, 393, 412 pl. XI/1; D’Auria et al. 1988, 170–1; Raven et al. 1998. Lisbon E 135 (Araújo Duarte 1993, 306 no. 217).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

goddesses with vulture headdresses holding shen rings. This trinity of adoration, mourning and protection encompasses the main functions of Isis and Nephthys towards Osiris. LatePeriod:Dynasties25–26 Coffin ends: The period preceding Dynasty 25 sees the advent of the outer rectangular coffin, the so-called qrsw coffin (Taylor 2003, 111–12). The coffin ends often depict Isis and Nephthys in a variety of scenes. In some instances they are placed beside a Sokar shrine, appearing under the names Shentayt and Merkhetes (Cauville 1981), designating Isis and Nephthys as protectors and mourners for Osiris, similar to the ḏrt.116 More often the mourning Isis and Nephthys appear separately at the coffin ends, surrounded by inscriptions.117 They may also, resuming a motif first encountered in Dynasty 18, kneel upon a gold sign, holding a shen ring, emphasising their protective function.118 They are also attested kneeling with outstretched winged arms, in a manner first encountered in the Ramesside Period.119 In anthropoid coffins, Isis and Nephthys return to both head and foot ends after the hiatus in Dynasty 22, in a layout similar to their appearance on the qrsw coffins: mourning;120 with outstretched wings;121 or kneeling with a shen ring.122

116

117

118 119 120

121

122

123

E.g. London, British Museum EA 15655 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 64 fig. 41; Strudwick 2006, 259; Sheikholeslami 2003, pl. 91); Louvre E 3913 (unpubl.). Leiden RO III (Raven 1981, pl. 6A); Oxford 1895.153 (Raven 1981, pl. 7B; Taylor 1989, 54 fig. 42); Cairo CG 41006 (Moret 1913, 93, 94, pl. XIII); Cairo CG 41014 (Moret 1913, 161, 162, pl. XVIII); Bologna EG 1957 (Giovetti and Picchi 2016, 468). E.g. Cairo 41002 (Moret 1913, pls VII, VIII). E.g. Cairo 41031 (Moret 1913, pl. XXXV). E.g. Frankfurt Liebieghaus IN 1653a,b with speeches derived from BD 151 (Beck 1993, 339 figs 73,6, 73,7; 344–5, 356–7). E.g. Cairo 41065 (Gauthier 1913, 431, 442); London, British Museum EA 20745 from Akhmim (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?asset Id=338001001&objectId=124377&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); combined with the running Apis bull on New York, MMA 28.3.54 (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/547759 [last accessed 23 August 2017]). Berlin 43, combined with the running Apis bull (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 86 fig. 121). Copenhagen AEIN 1522 (Jørgensen 2001, 216–17); London, British Museum EA 6676 (www.britishmuseum.org/research/ collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=95711 6001&objectId=124304&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]), EA 22812 (http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/

97

Top of foot: Due to the introduction of the Apis bull motif, invariably occupying the foot-board, the goddesses were removed from their traditional location to the adjacent areas on top of the foot123 or, exceptionally, on the front panel of the pedestal,124 thereby remaining generally in their conventional position. The foot area also remains the predominant place of Isis, kneeling with wings protectively spread. She is less often depicted as mourning.125 A unique design unites Isis and Nephthys kneeling on gold signs and holding shen rings.126 The kneeling Shentayt and Merkhetes, without performing a gesture as they are clad in a wrapping completely concealing their arms and hands, now also appear at the foot end, though not on top of it, but sideways.127 Interior: The mourning goddesses may also be depicted in the coffin interior, at the bottom of each half,128 and on the lower part of the back of the exterior.129 Bier scene: The bier scene on the breast of anthropoid coffins becomes quite common now. While the central image, the mummy on the bier, hardly varies, Isis and Nephthys are a regular but not invariable element of the scene, and mourning, although it may be present, is quite rare.130 At the bier, Shentayt and Merkhetes may substitute for Isis and Nephthys.131

124 125

126

127

128

129

130

131

collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=18617 001&objectId=129219&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Boston MFA 94.321 (D’Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig 1988, 171 no. 123); St. Gallen Stiftsbibliothek (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 111); Vevey MHV 4231 (ibid., 133). E.g. London, British Museum EA 22940 (Taylor 2010, 74 no. 29). Copenhagen Nationalmuseet AAa 1 (Schmidt 1919, 183 fig. 1015); Hildesheim 1953 (Germer 1997, 19) and Vienna 7497 (Anon. 2007, 64), both from el-Hiba. Leiden AMM 5 (Taylor 1989, 60 fig. 49; Giovetti and Picchi 2016, 470). Leiden AMM 19a/M 24 (Leemans 1867, pl. II); London, British Museum EA 27735 (Raven 1981, pl. 3). E.g. London, British Museum EA 22812 (Taylor and Strudwick 2005, 60–1). E.g. Hildesheim 1956 from el-Hiba (Bianchi 1998, 267 no. 214); the divine mourners remain anonymous as there is neither caption nor identifying headdress. Leiden AMM 19a/M 24 (Leemans 1867, pl. II; Giovetti and Picchi 2016, 460, 461); Berlin 12/66 from Akhmim (Anon. 1983/6, 135; Anon. 1967, 84–5 no. 868); ex-Swiss private collection (Siegmann 2012, 9); Stockholm NME 816 (Dodson 2015, 34); Würzburg A 1316 (Stadler 2005, 81 no. 18). E.g. London, British Museum EA 27735 (Raven 1981, pl. 3), located on top of the foot.

A. KUCHAREK

98

An outer coffin probably from Thebes featuring several unusual traits uniquely replaces the bier scene with a vignette depicting Anubis kneeling before the standing mummy of the deceased, his hands touching it in a supportive gesture. Behind him Nephthys stands mourning.132 Abydos fetish: Isis and Nephthys mourning the Abydos fetish occur on the shoulders of one Dynasty 26 coffin from Saqqara,133 while two unidentified goddesses mourn it on the front of a coffin from el-Hiba, preceded by Isis and Nephthys flanking the fetish with their protective wings.134 el-Hiba: A group of very similar coffins from el-Hiba are distinguished by the elaborate funerary scenes on their fronts. They are traditionally dated to the Ptolemaic Period but this is far from certain. Beatrix Gessler-Löhr, who is currently studying this group, favours a Saito-Persian date.135 These coffins are unique in displaying scenes of embalming but also of Osirian rites, some of them including mourning women who in all probability are ḏrt-women, human representatives of the mourning Isis and Nephthys.136 Dynasties27–29 Sides of foot: A coffin from Akhmim dated to this period shows the mourning Isis and Nephthys kneeling on gold signs.137

PtolemaicPeriod Like the Late Period, the Ptolemaic Period offers a wide array of scenes or contexts of divine grief. These are particularly common on coffins from Akhmim. Coffin ends: At Akhmim the mourning goddesses still appear on the foot panel of coffins.139 Also at Akhmim, the rising sun in the shape of a solar scarab being mourned by the goddesses140 appears to be a new motif that recurs on one of the Soter family coffins in the Roman Period (see below). Obviously, mourning the rising sun makes little sense and must be a mistake for the adoration and protection otherwise ubiquitously accorded to the solar scarab by the goddesses. The scene is a telling illustration of the widely practised interchangeability of mourning and protection, in that here it produces an absurd result. Sides of foot: Two black Akhmim coffins depict the mourning Isis and Nephthys in this location, comparable to the slightly earlier Edinburgh A.107.692 (see note 137) and also from Akhmim.141 Interior: The mourning Isis and Nephthys may still be depicted in the bottom half of the coffin interior.142

Djed pillar: On a coffin probably from Meir, Isis and Nephthys mourn on each side of a djed pillar.138

Bier scene: The central scene of the bier of Osiris on the coffin lid is now more often associated with Isis and Nephthys mourning,143 particularly at Akhmim.144 In several of the latter examples the scene is accompanied by excerpts from an Osiris liturgy, the Lamentationsof

132

140

133

134 135

136

137 138 139

Truro 1837.23.3 (Dodson 2011b, 6, 11). London, British Museum EA 6693 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_ image_gallery.aspx?assetId=782455001&objectId=124454&pa rtId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]; cf. Taylor 2001a, 240 fig. 177; 2010, 178–9 no. 86). Hildesheim 1956 (Bianchi 1998, 267 no. 214). I am grateful to Beatrix Gessler-Löhr for discussing her findings with me. See her forthcoming contribution in the proceedings of the 31st CIPEG meeting in Copenhagen 2015 ‘Archaeological Sources and Resources in the Context of Museums’ and GesslerLöhr 2017. Hildesheim 1954 (Eggebrecht 1990, 29; Charron 2002, 97); Vienna 7497 (Anon. 2007, 64). Edinburgh A.107.692 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 101). Edinburgh A.1910.97 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 97 no. 31). Basel K-4443 (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 149); Olomouc 6182 A (Verner 1982, 113).

141

142 143

144

Cairo RT 6/9/16/1 from Akhmim (Mekis, Sayed and Abdalla 2011, 95, pl. 8a). Schloss Eggenberg 23927 (Haslauer 2012, 199 figs 11, 12; Isis replaced by uraeus with Isis headdress); London, British Museum EA 29582 (see Brech 2008, 260; I am grateful to John H. Taylor for providing access to this coffin). Basel K-4443 from Akhmim (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 151). London, British Museum EA 52949 from Kharga (Andrews 1984, 51 fig. 64); Vienna 6688 from Gamhud (Haslauer 2013, 136 fig. 4); Leiden AdS 1 (unpubl.); Leiden AMM 24 (unpubl.). Leiden AdS 2 (Giovetti and Picchi 2016, 472); London, British Museum EA 29777 (www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.asp x?assetId=411985001&objectId=128815&partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Antikenmuseum Basel K-4443 (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 148); Yverdon MY/3775-2 (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 162); Olomouc 6184 (Verner 1982, 164–71); Hanover LMH 7849 (Brech 2008, fig. 8); Wellington GH003200 + Belgrade University without number (Brech 2008, 139, fig. 6); Cairo RT 6/9/16/1 (Mekis, Sayed and Abdalla 2011, 91, pl. 7a,b).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Isis and Nephthys.145 The bier scene with mourning goddesses is also a frequent element of cartonnage mummy trappings, the innermost layer of the mummy cases.146 Abydos fetish: On a unique coffin from Akhmim, Weret-hekau (Isis) mourns an Abydos fetish captioned Ḫntj-jmntjnbsḫnnb=s.147 Two further instances occur on foot panels from Akhmim (see below). On a sarcophagus of unknown provenance Neith and Serqet mourn the fetish.148 Djed pillar: The foot panels of sarcophagi and rectangular coffins are now frequently occupied by a central djed pillar flanked by Isis and Nephthys as well as additional deities, often female. As in earlier instances, gestures vary, and gestures of protection may be complemented by captions evoking lament, or vice versa. On a rectangular coffin from Behbeit el-Hagar, the protective gestures of Isis and Nephthys are accompanied by speeches taken from the Opening of the Mouth Ritual but later incorporated into the Stundenwachen, evoking protection laments by Isis and Nephthys.149 On a sarcophagus of unknown provenance Isis and Nephthys appear in their avian form as the ḏrt wrt and ḏrt nḏst, protecting the djed pillar with their wings.150 A sarcophagus from Saqqara features no less than eight goddesses mourning the djed pillar, all of them wellknown protectresses of Osiris: the ḏrtwrt and the ḏrt nḏst, Neith and Serqet, Nut and Tait, Negit and Ibat.151

145

146 147

148

149

150

151 152

London, British Museum EA 29776 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 229 no. 47; Brech 2008, fig. 11); Munich 1624 (unpubl.); Providence RISD 38.206.2 (Budge 1896, frontispiece; Banks 1939, 33; Anon. 2008, 32); cf. Brech 2008, 233–40. For a selection from Akhmim, see Schweitzer 1998. New York, MMA 86.1.52 from Akhmim (Brech 2008, 297, fig. 13). sḫnnb=s is probably the name of the local necropolis. Leiden L.XI.16 (L 3) (Boeser 1915, 6–7, pl. XII; Leemans 1867, pt. V, pl. IIIb). Brussels E. 7042 (De Caluwé 1990, 116, 121–5; Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 145 fig. 5). Leiden L.XI.16/L 3 (Boeser 1915, 6–7, pl. XII; Leemans 1867, pt. V, pl. IIIb). Cairo CG 29303 (Maspero 1914, 96, pl. IX/2). Vienna 4 (Leitz 2011, 106–12, 171–8); Cairo CG 29303 (Maspero 1914, 103, 110–11, pls XII, XIII); CG 29304 (Maspero 1914, 149, 154–55); Brussels E. 7042 (De Caluwé 1990, 212–17).

99

Group of protective deities: Several coffins and sarcophagi from Saqqara, as well as one from Behbeit elHagar, feature groups of mourning goddesses. These groups, consisting of either eight152 or twelve153 goddesses, are always incorporated into larger assemblages of protective deities. Their short utterances mostly accord with their mourning aspect, but on one coffin they conform with those of the other deities: ‘I am/perform the protection of the Osiris of NN’.154 In smaller groups only Isis and Nephthys are included; this occurs on a number of coffins from Thebes,155 Akhmim,156 and Gamhud,157 and on some examples of unknown provenance.158 Here, they are always positioned in the bottom row, close to the foot in their traditional place. RomanPeriod Rectangular coffins: This specifically Roman type of coffin consists of a high, vaulted lid with corner posts, incorporating the ‘sides’ of the coffin as well, fixed on a flat base-board. In outward appearance they resemble the Late Period qrsw coffins. A considerable number of the known coffins belong to members of the Theban Soter family (Kákosy 1995; van Landuyt 1995; Riggs 2005, 182–205). They feature several areas with scenes of divine grief: •

153

154 155 156

157

158 159

At the top end of the base-board, the mourning Isis and Nephthys flank the head of a full-length Nut figure.159

Cairo JE 8390 (Leitz 2011, 406–7, 413–14); JE 49531 (Daressy 1917, 17–18). Cairo JE 8390 (Leitz 2011, 406–7, 413–14). Warsaw 17330 (Marciniak 1964, 91–2, pl. XIVA). London, British Museum EA 29776 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 229 no. 47; Brech 2008, fig. 11); Berlin 8501 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 136 fig. 200). Cairo, Serial No. 275 (Schreiber 2012, pl. 54/1); Vienna 6688 (Haslauer 2013, 136 fig. 4). Prague P 622a (Verner 1982, 282, 285, 286). London, British Museum EA 6705 (Herbin 2002, 12 fig. 10), EA 6706 (ibid., 13 fig. 12), EA 6708 (ibid., 16 fig. 15), EA 6950 (ibid., 16 fig. 17); Louvre E 13016 (ibid., 5 fig. 2, 37 fig. 32); Turin 2230 (ibid., 19 fig. 22); Berlin 504 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 62 fig. 71), Berlin 505 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 63 fig. 75); Louvre N 2576 (Aubert et al. 2008, 75, 76); Florence 2165 (Guidotti 2001, 52).

100

A. KUCHAREK

Anthropoid coffins: Comparable with the design of rectangular coffins, mourning goddesses flank the head of the deceased on the lids of Theban anthropoid coffins.168 The bier scene, accompanied by mourning, appears, as previously, on the breast,169 but also on the

side panels, again as on the rectangular coffins.170 A remarkable variant shows the deceased standing in her living aspect, bewailed by Isis and Nephthys.171 Bier scenes are now associated with the judgement of the dead (Amsterdam 7069; Minia Museum; Sydney R344) or the presence of Osiris (Berlin 505), probably alluding to the equivalence of embalming and justification (Assmann 2001, 103; Smith 2009, 6). As on both the Amsterdam and Minia coffins the deceased does not figure in the judgement scene; the bier scene may even function as a substitute for the introduction vignette which, in late judgement scenes, depicts the deceased being conducted by one or two goddesses. The unique sarcophagus of the God’s Wife Ankhnesneferibre is almost exclusively covered with inscriptions, apart from large figures of the deceased, of Nut and of the Western goddess that dominate the outer and inner surfaces of the lid and the floor of the case (Wagner 2016, 5). Dating to Dynasty 26, the sarcophagus was reused in the early Roman Period (Spiegelberg 1904; Riggs 2005, 180–1). The new owner added a line of text that runs along the upper rim of the sarcophagus base. At the centre of the head end there is a tiny bier scene, depicting Isis and Nephthys kneeling at each end of the bier while performing a typical gesture of mourning (Budge 1885, xvii; Wagner 2016, 7, pl. 6). It is entirely in line with the hieroglyphic inscription but is not part of it, separating two spells.172 Its seemingly hieroglyphic character is the result of the usurpation of an already fully inscribed sarcophagus — there was simply no space available for a larger vignette. The position of the bier scene at the head end is known from another coffin dating to the same period.173

160

167

•

•

•

•

161 162

163 164 165

166

On the lids of two very similar coffins from Kharga, the head of the full-length figure of the female deceased is flanked by the mourning Isis and Nephthys.160 On the lid of a coffin dating to the early 2nd century AD Isis and Nephthys mourn at the bier of the deceased.161 The sides of a child’s coffin are decorated with two women mourning at the bier of the deceased.162 As the setting is divine, the mourners are probably Isis and Nephthys in their capacity as ḏrt-women. The same depiction appears on a second coffin.163 The panel at the head end may show Isis and Nephthys mourning at the bier of the deceased,164 a motif continued from Ptolemaic anthropoid coffins. Once they are attested mourning a scarab enclosed in a sun-disc,165 an inappropriate application of the interchangeability of mourning and protection. Other Soter family coffins comprise comparable scenes lacking the mourning element.166 On a solitary end board two women mourn at the bier of the deceased.167 Each figure’s appearance is that of a human wailing woman, so there is some room for doubt about their identification, but the presence of Anubis and the unambiguous designation of the mourners as Isis and Nephthys in other instances indicate that, here too, the goddesses are meant.

Amsterdam 7070 (van Haarlem 1997, 95–8); Ayn el-Labakha 3446 (Dunand, Tallet and Letellier-Willemin 2005, 95 fig. 1). Leiden AMM 8 (unpubl., see Raven 1992, 80–2 no. 33). Berlin 505 (Herbin 2002, 17 fig. 18; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 63 fig. 74). Sydney R344 (Beinlich-Seeber 2006, pl. 7a/b). London, British Museum EA 6705 (Riggs 2005, 188, fig. 89). London, British Museum EA 6708 (www.britishmuseum.org/ research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_ image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=337764001&objectid= 124291 [last accessed 23 August 2017]). E.g. London, British Museum EA 6706 (www.britishmuseum. org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=36121001&objectId=124343 &partId=1 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Louvre E 13016 + E 13048 (Herbin 2002, 30 fig. 28).

168

169

170 171 172

173

Boston 1979.37 (D’Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig 1988, 209 no. 158). Double-coffin Edinburgh A 1956.357 (Manley and Dodson 2010, 142); Florence 2168 (Guidotti 2001, 49). Louvre E 12056 from Tuna el-Gebel (Anon. 1998, 33 no. 1); Berlin 13463 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 166 fig. 260; Germer 1997, 74 no. 78; Priese 1991, no. 131). Amsterdam 7069 (Kurth 1990, 7, pl. A, 1a). Minia Museum (Kurth 1990, pl. 5). Wagner 2016, 8 with n. 31, reads the vignette as sntjmktnmjt, ‘(mögen) die beiden Schwestern die Bahre schützen’, noting that the exact reading is uncertain. London, British Museum EA 6705 (Riggs 2005, 188 fig. 89); perhaps also the isolated board Boston 1979.37 (D’Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig 1988, 209 no. 158).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

101

Finally, the mourning goddesses are still present on the latest attested coffin with ‘pharaonic’ decoration,174 dated to the 4th century AD (Dunand and Lichtenberg 1998, 106). While the figures are not unambiguously divine, they lament a clearly Osirian figure. Several other scenes of lamentation on the coffin may depict human wailing women rather than goddesses (ibid.). Human (‘private’) mourning As detailed above, the divine mourners Isis and Nephthys are documented almost continuously from Dynasty 6 onward into Late Roman times. But grief, whether conveyed in words or in images, is only one of several manifestations of their actual function, the protection of the deceased. Scenes of ‘private’ mourning are much less ambiguous. OldKingdom Highly expressive depictions of mourning by the deceased’s family are attested in the wall decoration of several tombs of the period (Kucharek 2010, 22). Mourning or lamentation does not feature on coffins or sarcophagi, which are hardly ever decorated beyond certain symbolical elements. MiddleKingdom

Fig. 16: qrstdeterminative, Boston MFA 03.1631 (Redrawn from Brovarski 1998, 39 fig. 2).

Dynasty 11 coffin from Gebelein.176 In a vignette set between the eye panel and an offering list, two women at the bier ends extend their arms over the deceased, not quite touching him. A third woman appears to be suspended horizontally above the mummy. This has led to diverse interpretations, explaining the third woman, for instance, as a fully human ba-bird, a sexual partner or an act of resurrection comparable to that effected by Isis on Osiris (Lapp 1993, 187). There has also been a proposal ‘to explain the three women as Isis, Nephthys and Nut’ (Willems 1996, 292). In comparison with the Farshût coffin hieroglyph, the equivalence of the woman standing in the background with the ‘suspended’ woman seems fairly obvious. As a result, the interpretation as a mourning scene is the most plausible alternative, with the depiction of the third woman resulting from the artist’s preference for non-overlapping figures (see also Lapp 1993, 187–8).

Bier scene: A singular scene on a Dynasty 11 coffin from Moalla (Cairo CG 28116) may depict divine or human attendants, see discussion above (Divine Mourning/Middle Kingdom). The earliest unambiguous instance of human mourning on a coffin is the elaborate determinative of qrst, ‘funeral’, on a coffin said to be from Farshût and probably also dating to Dynasty 11 (Fig. 16).175 At each end of the bier a man stands, reaching out to touch the head and feet of the deceased, while a woman standing behind the bier extends her arms sideways so as to touch the head and feet as well. Her mouth appears to be opened in a cry or scream. This elaborate hieroglyph is immediately comparable to a scene on the outside of another

The ‘Heqata group’: The earliest funerary scenes on coffins occur on three examples dating to Dynasty 11 and early Dynasty 12 (Willems 1996, 233–9).177 These scenes contain elements of the funerary ritual best known from Theban tombs of early to middle Dynasty 18 (Settgast 1960; Theis 2011). There is no overt mourning or lamentation, but pairs (or double pairs) of ḏrt-women, the human women personifying Isis and Nephthys in real-life funerary scenes, are present in several scenes on the coffin interior, all of which can

174

176

175

Cairo JE 56229 from Bagawat, Kharga Oasis (Hauser 1932, 46 fig. 14). Boston 03.1631 (Brovarski 1998, 39 fig. 2, 53 fig. 10, 64 fig. 12a).

177

Berlin 13772 (Steindorff 1896, pl. III; Brovarski 1998, 64 fig. 12b). Cairo JE 36418 (A1C) from Aswan; Turin 15774 (G1T) from Gebelein; Cairo JE 47355 (T3C) from Thebes.

102

A. KUCHAREK

be defined as processions: one probably related to the Opening of the Mouth Ritual (Willems 1996, 205–6, item FR.2.13), a ‘rite at the river bank’ (ibid., 217–18, item FR.3.1), and the funerary procession (ibid., 236–7, item FR.3.15). While a detailed discussion of the scenes would lead too far and has moreover been admirably done by Harco Willems, a few observations on the ḏrtwomen seem appropriate. First of all, their gestures again are hardly indicative of mourning but of protection. Their pose, kneeling with their hands stretched towards their knees, is strongly reminiscent of Isis and Nephthys kneeling with their hands touching a shen ring ( , see above, Divine Mourning/Dynasty 18). Here, however, if there is an object at all beneath their hands, it is a small bowl, resembling the ointment vessel but more likely a somewhat elongated depic(Willems 1996, 218 fig. 56), tion of the small pot very much reminiscent of some later representations of the mourning goddesses associated with offerings.178 A text on the foot ends of both A1C and G1T (ibid., 103, 105 fig. 28, pl. 17) determines the names of Isis and Nephthys by two kneeling females virtually identical to these ḏrt-women. The pots suggest an association with offerings, a context well established for Isis and Nephthys (Kucharek 2010, 592–8) as well as human mourners (Kucharek in preparation). The destination of the funerary procession on these coffins, a shrine where the upright mummy is presented with incense, is the earliest attestation of a scene which still appears as part of the funerary ritual in several early Dynasty 18 tombs, where it is often clearly recognisable as an Opening of the Mouth scene. In most of these later attestations mourning women are present (Kucharek in preparation). The kneeling ḏrt-women are twice accompanied by a pair of other women standing or kneeling with both arms raised, their headdress identical to that of the ḏrt-women (Willems 1996, 205, fig. 46; 218, fig. 56). On one coffin they are identified as ḏrtj by a caption. A further caption is ḥkn jrt-Ḥr, ‘praising the Eye of Horus’ (ibid., 217–18). This indicates that the raised arms, also known as a mourning gesture, here denote praise (ibid. 217–18).

178

E.g. New York, MMA 25.3.182 (Winlock 1924, 25 fig. 25; 1942, pl. 82; O’Neill 1987, 75 fig. 51).

NewKingdom The rise of the New Kingdom sees a variety of mourning scenes on coffins, some of which may even date to the late Second Intermediate Period. In contrast to the highly mythologised funerary ritual depicted on Middle Kingdom coffins, the early New Kingdom coffins introduce a representation of the funerary procession and tomb rites that conveys a notion of the actual proceedings. Remarkably, the ‘realistic’ procession featured on these coffins predates its counterpart on tomb walls by more than a century, the earliest attestation dating to the early reign of Amenhotep II.179 As a vignette to BD 1 it appears somewhat earlier; its initial attestations are, however, restricted to the transport of the mummy as its core element, to be extended to the full array of elements only later in the dynasty (Munro 1987, 16–20; Tawfik 2008, 4, 231–2). While rishi coffins appear slightly before the white coffins (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 207–10; Taylor 2001a, 223–6), both groups overlap to a considerable extent and are, therefore, treated in one section. SecondIntermediatePeriod–Dynasty18 Rishi and white coffins: Only one single rishi coffin featuring a funeral scene is known. A tableau of singular sobriety and detail adorns each long side of the base of this specimen from the Asasif (Fig. 17).180 The funeral procession accompanied by numerous mourning women (and men) on one side is complemented on the other by the offering rites for the mummy in front of the tomb. No touch of visible grief is detectable in the latter. In contrast to the rishi coffin evidence, a considerable number of the mostly Theban white-painted coffins, rectangular as well as anthropoid, feature realisticstyle funerary processions. While these early scenes in their overall design are quite individual, they are united by a predilection for including several women clasping their hands beneath their breasts, a mourning gesture that subsequently survives as the signature pose of a

179 180

TT 85 (PM I/1, 174 [22], 175 [29], to be published by H. Heye). New York, MMA 14.10.1 (Lüscher 1998, 116–17, pls 14, 15; Miniaci 2011, 262; Kucharek 2012, 249 fig. 4).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

103

Fig. 17: Funerary procession and rites at the tomb, New York, MMA 14.10.1 (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of the Earl of Carnarvon, 1914, http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544783).

particular type of female funerary ritualist (Kucharek in preparation). As a default gesture of mourning it is soon superseded by the more expressive raising of both arms, which, denoting embracing and protection, we have already encountered as a divine gesture. As a human mourning gesture the stylised iconography hints at an actual slapping of the face or head, as borne out by later depictions and texts.181 Apart from women performing these default gestures the scenes hardly ever include more individually executed images of mourning. A rectangular coffin from el-Arabah (Abydos) depicts a weeping woman, doubled up in grief, her long hair falling forwards — but for all that still exhibiting the same gesture as the rest of the mourners.182 On a well-preserved side panel of excellent quality auctioned in 2003, four mourning women follow the coffin sledge drawn by two cows.183 The four half-naked women with raised arms on a rectangular coffin184 are not part of a procession but are placed in a context whose elements — a number of vessels, an altar for burning offerings — indicate that their gesture is one of mourning.

The alteration in terms of gesture is not the only one. White, mainly anthropoid coffins feature scenes separated into vignettes by vertical bands of short inscriptions. The mourning women (hardly ever men) now almost invariably come in pairs, squatting on the ground with one or both hands on their knee or with one hand raised to their heads. They are much less associated now with the funerary procession than with the rites in front of the tomb, in keeping with their stationary posture.185 There is some evidence, nevertheless, that mourners also squatted along the path of the cortège; while this is not evident from the abbreviated scene on a coffin from Deir el-Medina,186 a contemporary depiction in a Deir el-Medina tomb chapel is unambiguous.187 In the same period a new composition emerges at Deir el-Medina that interrelates the painted, virtual mourners on the coffin surface with the actual deceased encased within. The mummy is no longer represented being drawn on a sledge or standing upright in front of the tomb. Mourning female and male family members of the deceased are now depicted turned towards the

181

185

182

183 184

E.g. TT 181 (Davies 1925, pl. XIX); for textual evidence see Kucharek 2010, 601. Cambridge E.283a.1900 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 47, 168–9; Vassilika 1995, 38–9 no. 15). Anon. 2003, 126–7 lot 504. New York, MMA 12.181.302 (www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/552356 [last accessed 23 August 2017]; see Hayes 1953, 32).

186

187

37/74 from Asasif tomb C 37 (PM I/2, 616; Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 85 pl. LXIII; Lüscher 1998, 118); Cairo JE 63642 (Bruyère 1937, 38 fig. 18). Louvre E 14543 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 172 no. 22; Andreu 2002, 299 no. 247). TT 340 (Cherpion 1999, 23, pls 14, 15, 17B).

104

A. KUCHAREK

head of the coffin.188 The mourning women depicted on both sides of a contemporary mummy-mask reflect the same notion.189 By removing the intermediary depiction of the deceased the focus is directed to the deceased as a physical presence. This way of linking image and body re-emerges in Ramesside Deir el-Medina (see below).190 Late Dynasty 17–early Dynasty 18 is clearly a period of experimentation and one in which the representation of the funeral and the grief associated with it is the foremost feature of coffin decoration. Black coffins: With the advent of the black-type coffins, funeral and mourning vanish from coffins, a phenomenon probably associated with the funerary procession now becoming a regular feature of tomb decoration. Amarna/Post-Amarna: A mourning woman features on a coffin from Amarna (obj. 38819: Kemp 2008, 37–41, figs 11, 12; 2015, 30, 31); the figure, reconstructed as standing, might as well have been kneeling or squatting. On a second coffin the remains of a standing female figure suggest mourning (obj. 13281: Kemp 2010, 20 fig. 8; 2012, 260, fig. 7.33; 2015, 30, 31). A miniature coffin from Amarna preserves two scenes of women mourning an upright mummy.191 Some fragments of a high-quality stone coffin of unknown provenance, dating to the Amarna Period or immediately afterwards, depict a widow mourning and lamenting her husband’s corpse on a bier, and a statue of the deceased mourned by two women.192 On a child’s coffin from Deir el-Medina, dating to the post-Amarna Period, a father and his two children weep before the upright mummy of the child on one side of the rectangular coffin, and before the mummy of the child’s mother on the other.193

188

189

190

191

New York, MMA 14.10.2 (Hayes 1953, 69 fig. 37, 70; Lüscher 1998, pls 16–17); Warsaw National Museum 138979 = Bruyère no. 1371 (Barwik 1999, 24–5 fig. 2; 1989–90; Andreu 2002, 67 fig. 32; Bruyère 1937, 26 fig. 10); Bruyère no. 1388 (Bruyère 1937, 33). Cairo JE 45629 (Miniaci 2011, 99 fig. 98; Lansing 1917, 23 figs 28, 24). Cf. Nyord 2014 who discusses, restricted to Middle Kingdom coffins, ‘the most important ways in which the decoration of the coffin is dependent on the body lying within’ (ibid., 29). London, British Museum EA 63635 (Pendlebury 1951, 90, 92, pl. CIV; Taylor 2001a, 226 fig. 166; Kemp 2012, 254 fig. 7.25).

The substitution of mummy or coffin by corpse and statue on the stone coffin fragments is remarkable, particularly so as it is paralleled by the various scenes of mourning the corpse and statue of deceased princesses in the royal tomb at Amarna (Martin 1989, pls 25–6, 58, 63, 68). Representation of the coffin was evidently not proscribed as perhaps being too reminiscent of Osirian concepts of the afterlife; this is indicated by the mourning scenes on the miniature coffin described above. Mourning at the coffin occurs, moreover, in Amarna tomb decoration194 and on a wooden box that belonged to Ay when still only god’s father. His widow, Tey, is twice depicted embracing his mummy.195 The resurgence of mourning on coffins in the Amarna Period was due at least in part to the necessity to replace pre-Amarna decoration, dominated by divinities, by unobjectionable subjects. Therefore, deities were replaced by humans, e.g. officiants offering, censing etc., as well as by mourning persons (Kemp 2012, 254 fig. 7.25, 260–1). Dynasties19–20 Deir el-Medina: Coffins dating to the Ramesside Period are practically devoid of scenes of human mourning, since, as in Dynasty 18, the funerary procession became a prominent subject of tomb decoration and ceased to be so frequently depicted on coffins. The few, mostly fragmentary specimens known to the present author are all from Deir el-Medina and date to the earlier part of Dynasty 19. They take up decorative patterns of early Dynasty 18. Thus, two coffin fragments show mourning women and men whose expression of grief is directed at the actual mummy and not at a depiction of the deceased.196 The third object is the mummy-board of Ii-neferti, the wife of Sennedjem,

192

193 194 195

196

Kemp 2015, 32 refers to a further coffin, excavated by Ludwig Borchardt in 1912, whose decoration included mourning women. Strasbourg, Musée de l’Université 15 (Gallo 1993, 16 fig. 1a, c; Gabolde 1998, 108–9, pl. VII). The fragments were probably stolen (as opposed to destroyed) in the course of World War II, as Laetitia Martzolff kindly informed me. Munich ÄS 23 (Grimm 2009, 178 figs 12, 13). Tomb of Huya (Davies 1905, pl. XXII). Berlin 17555 (PM IV, 175; Schaden 1966, 38–41; Anon. 1924, 267–8; Anon. 1967, 56, fig. 583). TT 290 (Bruyère and Kuentz 1926, 103–4 with fig. 7; Bruyère 1924, 35–6 with fig. 8), tomb 1180 (Bruyère 1929, 99 fig. 57/4, 132).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

105

Fig. 18: The daughters of the deceased mourning and lamenting her on the foot panel, New York, MMA 86.1.5c (http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/561774).

owner of TT 1, whose frontal surface shows her as a living person.197 Beneath the feet, on the narrow bottom panel, two of her daughters kneel, facing each other (Fig. 18). They perform a typical gesture of mourning and between them a short line runs: ḏd=sm jr ḫꜢ῾=j, ‘She says: “Don’t leave me!”’, a lament uttered by close relatives.198 Both the placement and posture of Ii-neferti’s daughters are highly reminiscent of the foot-boards of many anthropoid coffins of the earlier part of Dynasty 18 depicting Isis and Nephthys protecting the deceased (see above).

ThirdIntermediatePeriod

197

199

198

New York, MMA 86.1.5c (www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/561774 [last accessed 23 August 2017]; cf. Hayes 1953, 416). TT 218 (Bruyère 1928, 67 fig. 47, 68; Kitchen 1980, 709.15); TT 219 (Bruyère 1928, 77 fig. 52, 58; Maystre 1936, 11, pl. II; Kitchen 1980, 759.3); TT 255 (Baud and Drioton 1928, 12 fig. 7, 30 no. 7).

Human mourning re-emerges as a subject of coffin decoration in this period. It is largely restricted to two types of scene: a mourning woman cowering in front of the upright mummy, and a more or less extensive funerary procession. Mourning in front of the mummy: This scene is invariably located on the coffin interior, either on the floor-board199 or in the side panel registers.200 In some

200

Cleveland 1914.714 (Berman 1999, 61 colour pl. 27, 331–3); Vatican 25008 (Gasse 1996, pl. II/2, LXI/2); Cairo RT 23/11/16/12 (Saleh and Sourouzian 1986, no. 238). Cairo JE 29669/CG 6084 (Niwiński 1995, pl. XXI/1); Toronto ROM 983X2.1 (Gibson and Trumpour 2006, 104 pl. 17–17, 105 pl. 17–18).

106

A. KUCHAREK

Fig. 19: Funerary procession, Berlin 20132 (© SMPK Ägyptisches Museum).

specific cases, on the floor-board a mourning woman appears in a place where otherwise a non-mourning Nephthys might be depicted (see Kucharek 2010, 669 n. 32).201 The depiction of a human woman may be related to the fact that in these coffins the deified Amenhotep I and Ahmose Nefertari take the place of Osiris. A woman mourning a male mummy is not inevitably a widow. She may be his daughter202 or simply an anonymous woman, as evidenced by a scene involving the mummies of a couple.203 Funerary procession: The second type of mourning context occupies one of the exterior side panels. In its full form, it occurs exclusively on coffins of the socalled ‘stola type’ dating to the transition from Dynasty 21 to Dynasty 22.204 It is preceded by shorter scenes on a few coffins dating to Dynasty 21.205 A unique extensive scene featuring numerous mourning women is also

201

202 203 204

New York, MMA 11.154.8a (www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/552634 [last accessed 23 August 2017]); Berlin 1075 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 76 fig. 101). Cleveland 1921.1029 (Berman 1999, 61 colour pl. 28, 339 no. 253). Vatican 25008 (Gasse 1996, pl. II/2, LXI/2). Leiden AMM 18/M 3 (van Walsem 1997, I 225–39, II. pls 10, 11; Araújo Duarte 2014, 83 fig. 2; Boeser 1916, pls VI–VII); London, British Museum EA 22941 (Taylor 2001a, 188 fig. 131, 189 fig. 132; Araújo Duarte 2014, 84 fig. 3), EA 36211 (van

dated to this period.206 There may be a reciprocal influence between these funeral scenes and scenes from the Amduat depicted on the other side panel of some of these coffins (Araújo Duarte 2014). LatePeriod To the author’s knowledge, there are very few isolated instances of private mourning on coffins dating to Dynasty 25. On both side panels of a rectangular coffin from Thebes a unique funerary procession unfolds (Fig. 19).207 On one side the funerary barque is received by a group of wailing women on the western bank of the Nile; on the other the wheeled carriage carrying the mummy arrives at the necropolis. Both panels teem with original detail. On a second coffin, again a rectangular one from Thebes but of completely different design, a funerary procession

205

206

207

Walsem 1997, II 145 figs 365, 367, 368, 146 fig. 371); Vatican 25008 (Gasse 1996, pl. II/1); Helsinki National Museum KM/ Vk/14560:660 (Grothe-Paulin 1988, 66). Neuchâtel, Musée d’Ethnographie 184 (detail in Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 76 fig. 30); see Appenzell (ibid., 65 fig. 20). Brussels E. 5881 (Vanlathem 1983, 14, 17; Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 109 figs 24, 25, 198–9). Berlin 20132 (Anthes 1943, 37–8, pl. 12; Lüddeckens 1943, 161–6 Nr. 82–4, pl. 20).

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

107

Fig. 20: Bier scene with lament, Leiden AMT 3 (Boeser 1915, pl. IX d).

occupies one half of the lid, balanced on the other half by a procession of the Sokar barque.208 On both coffins, the bark helmsmen perform a mourning gesture; on the second coffin, the helmsman is actually the only person to do so, mirrored in the pendant Sokar procession scene. Both coffins omit the previously ‘default’ scene of the rites performed in front of the tomb. On the foot-board of an unpublished anthropoid coffin in the Elephantine Museum, presumably dating to Dynasty 25/26,209 three women, one of them holding a small girl by the hand, perform identical gestures of mourning. This random example indicates that provincial types may always hold surprises.

This period would be virtually devoid of attestations of private mourning, were it not for one rectangular sarcophagus from the Memphite necropolis, dating to the latter half of the 3rd century BC (Fig. 20).210 This is not only the final testimonial of human mourning, but also a unique one, deserving closer attention. On each long side a number of deities venerate the

mummy of the deceased on a bier; above the bier, the great and the small ḏrt hover as falcons. In view of the choice of deities this is most likely to be a depiction of the hour vigils, performed in the night preceding the funeral.211 Below this scene there is an inscription, both copies of which are virtually identical. The unnamed speaker(s), quite certainly the deities represented above, address the deceased, evoking the grief that women and children, as well as friends and neighbours, suffer for him. The deceased is then called upon to return to his former home, protecting and guiding his children as he used to do while alive. The inscription ends with an invocation to the deceased to be recited by the bereaved ‘while mourning you daily’. In complete contrast to the preceding passage, the sole purpose of this concluding section is to commend his tomb to the deceased. This inscription is not itself a lament but a descriptive and, in its final passage, prescriptive utterance, focusing on the grief of the deceased’s relations, friends and neighbours. This last witness of human mourning on a coffin is, therefore, a remarkable hybrid, being uttered by gods but concerned with the human grief surrounding the man for whose mummy they are keeping vigil.

208

211

Graeco-RomanPeriod

209

210

Cairo CG 41038 (Moret 1913, 314, pl. XXXVIII). I am grateful to John H. Taylor for this estimate of the date, made on the basis of a few unsatisfactory images from the internet. Leiden AMT 3 (Boeser 1915, 6, pls IX, X; Borghouts 1998; Assmann and Kucharek 2008, 583, 867).

For the divine personnel of the vigil see a passage on the sarcophagus of the god’s wife Ankhnesneferibre, enumerating all the deities present on the Leiden sarcophagus with the exception of Hathor, mistress of the West, and adding several more protective goddesses (Sander-Hansen 1937, 66–8, ll. 161–5; Wagner 2016, 169–74). For comparable scenes see Cauville 1997, 420, pl. 253; Bénédite 1893, 119, pl. XXXV.

108

A. KUCHAREK

Conclusion In his publication of the very last item in the above survey — the unique inscription on a Memphite sarcophagus in the Leiden Museum — Joris F. Borghouts noted that ‘it is remarkable to find a text like this … on a sarcophagus at all’ (Borghouts 1998, 31), referring also to funerary laments in general. Concerning divine mourning, ample evidence for its function as found on coffins has been presented and discussed above. Its purpose to protect and revivify Osiris is also abundantly attested in other media and has long been recognised (e.g. Bleeker 1958; Münster 1968). Why scenes of human mourning should have been included in coffin decoration is less evident. It has been observed above that the depiction of the funerary procession and tomb rites was absent on coffins in periods when decorated tomb chapels became the norm. As has been noted, ‘the coffin … acted as a tomb in miniature’ (Taylor 2001a, 216) and, in a hierarchy of subjects deemed essential enough to be allotted some of the limited space on a coffin, the funerary scenes did not enjoy the highest priority. Arguably, the utilisation of this space would have been reserved for the most crucial and significant mortuary aspects for the deceased entity encased within them as in a tight-fitting shell or armour. Interestingly, even though the surface available for decoration was often multiplied by the utilisation of inner and outer coffins, mummy covers etc., this did not automatically result in an expansion in the thematic array of scenes. In coffin sets of the Third Intermediate Period, layers of icons which varied only slightly may have aimed at heightened effectiveness, while at other times there would be a discernable shift of emphasis within a thematic framework (Taylor 2001a, 216–17). Willems has argued that the various metaphorical terms applied to Egyptian coffins — such as house, palace, ship, divine mother, egg and funerary chapel — were ‘symptoms of one religious phenomenon’, concluding ‘that the decoration as a whole served to regenerate the reality of the funerary ritual’; therefore, ‘the coffin could be called a “ritual machine”’ (Willems 1988, 238–9). Tracing the development of Middle Kingdom coffins, he noted that by the time of Senwosret I ‘the ornamentation of the coffin as a whole can now be “read” as an account of the ceremonies on the day of burial as they are described in, e.g., the king’s letter to Sinuhe’ (ibid., 240). Mark Smith, taking up Willems’ notion of the coffin as a ritual machine perpetuating and constantly reactivating the rituals

depicted and inscribed on it, states that ‘the mummification of the deceased [is] a cyclical, eternal process, rather than a single event’ (Smith 2009, 39). Taking this into account, the presence on coffins of the funerary scenes, including mourners, is unsurprising as the rites embedded in the funeral are in a way the concluding extension of those performed during mummification, so often invoked by the bier scene. One might argue that human mourning and lamentation were merely incidental to these scenes, lacking any intrinsic value to the deceased. The transcending power of the manifestations of mourning and lamentation is borne out by a number of texts, however, testifying specifically that the sound of wailing summoned the deceased, dwelling in the underworld, to return to his tomb in order to partake of his offerings, and that indeed mourning and weeping as such sated him (see Kucharek 2010, 622–7; 2016, 78). The depiction of uncontextualised mourners on some Deir el-Medina coffins (see above) may have been prompted by the same notion but in the absence of any attributes it may simply have served to perpetuate the emotional tie between the bereaved and the deceased. In view of the major significance of remembrance and family ties in the Egyptian funerary religion, this aspect of mourning and lamentation must not be disregarded. Indeed, without the fundamental experience of loss at the death of a loved one and the resulting, manifold endeavours to maintain the bond across the abyss between this and the next world, Egyptian funerary religion would have possessed a decidedly different character.

Bibliography Allen, J. P. 2013. AnewconcordanceofthePyramidTexts V. Providence. Altenmüller, H. 1994. Dritter Vorbericht über die Arbeiten des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Hamburg am Grab des Bay (KV 13) im Tal der Könige von Theben. StudienzurAltägyptischenKultur21, 1–18. Altenmüller, H. 2000. Die Mumienhülle des Chonsu-maacheru. In W. Köpke and B. Schmelz (eds), Alt-Ägypten. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde in Hamburg, Neue Folge30. Bonn, 21–72. Andreu, G. (ed.) 2002. Les artistes de Pharaon. Deir elMédinehetlaValléedesRois. Paris; Turnhout. Andreu, G., M.-H. Rutschowskaya, and C. Ziegler. 1997. L’ÉgypteancienneauLouvre. Paris.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Andrews, C. 1984. Egyptianmummies. London. Anon. 1924. Aegyptische Inschriften aus den Staatlichen MuseenzuBerlinII. Leipzig. Anon. 1967. Ägyptisches Museum Berlin. Östlicher StülerbauamSchlossCharlottenburg. Berlin. Anon. 1983/6. ÄgyptischesMuseumBerlin. Mainz. Anon. 1998. Portraitsdel’Égypteromaine.Paris,muséedu Louvre,5octobre1998–4janvier1999. Paris. Anon. 2003. Archéologie:PIASAParis,DrouotMontaigne. Mercredi1eretjeudi2Octobre2003. Paris. Anon. 2007. Ägyptische Mumien. Unsterblichkeit im Land derPharaonen. Stuttgart; Mainz. Anon. 2008. Selected works. Museum of Art, Rhode Island SchoolofDesign. Providence. Anon. 2012. Fascinatingmummies.Highlightsoftheexhibition. Edinburgh. Anthes, R. 1943. Die deutschen Grabungen auf der Westseite von Theben in den Jahren 1911 und 1913. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo12, 1–68, Taf. 1–18. de Araújo Duarte, C. 1993. AntiguidadesegípciasI.Museu nacionaldearqueologia. Lisbon. de Araújo Duarte, C. 2014. Crossing the landscapes of eternity: Parallels between Amduat and funeral procession scenes on the 21st dynasty coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity.Newresearchtrendsinthe iconographyandsymbolismofancientEgyptiancoffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 81–90. Arpagaus, D. 2013. Die Schwarzmilane von Auaris. GöttingerMiszellen 238, 7–18. Assmann, J. 1973. GrabungimAsasif1963–1970,BandII: DasGrabdesBasa(Nr.389)inderthebanischenNekropole. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 6. Mainz. Assmann, J. 1977. GrabungimAsasif1963–1970,BandVI: Das Grab der Mutirdis. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 13. Mainz. Assmann, J. 1991. DasGrabdesAmenemope.TT41. Theben III. Mainz. Assmann, J. 2001. Tod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten. Munich. Assmann, J. 2002. Altägyptische Totenliturgien I. TotenliturgienindenSargtextendesMittlerenReiches. Supplemente zu den Schriften der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 14. Heidelberg. Assmann, J. 2005. Altägyptische Totenliturgien II. TotenliturgienundTotensprücheinGrabinschriftendesNeuen Reiches. Supplemente zu den Schriften der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 17. Heidelberg. Assmann, J. 2008. Altägyptische Totenliturgien III. Osirisliturgien in Papyri der Spätzeit. Supplemente zu den Schriften der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 20. Heidelberg.

109

Assmann, J. and A. Kucharek 2008. Ägyptische Religion. Totenliteratur. Frankfurt. Aubert, M.-F., R. Cortopassi, G. Nachtergael, V. Asensi Amorós, P. Détienne, S. Pagès-Camagna and A.-S. Le Hô. 2008. Portraitsfunérairesdel’ÉgypteromaineII. Cartonnages,linceulsetbois. Paris. Bailleul-LeSuer, R. (ed.) 2012. Between heaven and earth. BirdsinancientEgypt. Chicago. Banks, M. A. 1939. The coffin of Nes-Min. Bulletinofthe MuseumofArt,RhodeIslandSchoolofDesign XXVII/1, July, 31–5. Barwik, M. 1989–90. Sarkofagi antropoidalne z Deir el-Medina w zbiorach Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie. Rocznik muzeumnarodowegowWarszawie 33–4, 31–4. Barwik, M. 1999. Typology and dating of the ‘white’-type anthropoid coffins of the early XVIIIth Dynasty. Études etTravaux 18, 7–33. Baud, M. and E. Drioton. 1928. Le tombeau de Roy. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 57/1. Cairo. Beck, H. (ed.) 1993. Liebieghaus – Museum Alter Plastik. Ägyptische Bildwerke III: Skulptur, Malerei, Papyri undSärge. Melsungen. Beinlich-Seeber, C. 2006. Painted judgement scene on wood, R344. In K. N. Sowada and B. G. Ockinga (eds), Egyptian art in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Sydney, 27–43, pls 5–7, 57. Bénédite, G. 1893. Descriptionethistoiredel’îledePhilae. Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique française au Caire XIII. Paris. Berman, L. M. 1999. TheClevelandMuseumofArt.CatalogueofEgyptianart. Cleveland. Bianchi, R. S. 1998. Egiptomilenario.Vidacotidianaenla épocadelosfaraones. Barcelona. Bierbrier, M. L. 1987. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelaeetc.intheBritishMuseum,Part11. London. Bleeker, C. J. 1958. Isis and Nephthys as wailing women. Numen V, 1–17. Bleiberg, E. 2008. Toliveforever.Egyptiantreasuresfrom theBrooklynMuseum. Brooklyn; London. Boeser, P. A. A. 1915. BeschrijvingvandeEgyptischeverzamelinginhetRijksmuseumvanOudhedenteLeiden VII: De monumenten van den saïtischen, griekschromeinschen,enkoptischentijd. Den Haag. Boeser, P. A. A. 1916. BeschrijvingvandeEgyptischeverzameling in het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden IX: Mummiekisten van het Nieuwe Rijk, 1. serie. Den Haag. Boeser, P. A. A. 1917. Beschrijving van de Egyptische verzamelinginhetRijksmuseumvanOudhedenteLeidenIX: MummiekistenvanhetNieuweRijk,2.serie. Den Haag. Borghouts, J. F. 1998. A funerary address to the high-priest Harmakhis. In L. H. Lesko (ed.), AncientEgyptianand MediterraneanStudies. Providence, RI, 19–35.

110

A. KUCHAREK

Breasted, Jr., J. H. 1948. Egyptianservantstatues. Bollingen Series 13. Washington. Brech, R. 2008. Spätägyptische Särge aus Achmim. Eine typologische und chronologische Studie. Aegyptiaca Hamburgiensa 3. Gladbeck. Brovarski, E. 1998. A coffin from Farshût in the Museum of the Fine Arts, Boston. In L. H. Lesko (ed.), AncientEgyptianandMediterraneanStudies. Providence, RI, 37–69. Brunner-Traut, E. 1977. Gesten. In W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), Lexikon der Ägyptologie II. Wiesbaden, 573–85. Bruyère, B. 1924. RapportsurlesfouillesdeDeirelMédineh (1922/23). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire I. Cairo. Bruyère, B. 1928. RapportsurlesfouillesdeDeirelMédineh (1927). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire V. Cairo. Bruyère, B. 1929. RapportsurlesfouillesdeDeirelMédineh (1928). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire VI. Cairo. Bruyère, B. 1937. RapportsurlesfouillesdeDeirelMédineh (1934/1935). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire XV. Cairo. Bruyère, B. and Ch. Kuentz 1926. Tombes thébaines: La nécropoledeDeirel-Médineh.T.I,fasc.1.Latombede Nakht-Min et la tombe d’Ari-Nefer. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 54. Cairo. de Buck, A. 1935. The Egyptian Coffin Texts I. Oriental Institute Publications 34. Chicago. Budge, E. A. W. 1885. The sarcophagus of Queen Ānchnesrāneferȧb. London. Budge, E. A. W. 1893. AcatalogueoftheEgyptiancollectionintheFitzwilliamMuseumCambridge. Cambridge. Budge, E. A. W. 1896. Some account on the collection of Egyptian antiquities in the possession of Lady Meux. London. Budka, J. 2008. Neues zu den Nutzungsphasen des Monumentalgrabes von Anch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris (TT 414). ÄgyptenundLevante 18, 61–85. De Caluwé, A. 1990. De houten sarcofaag E. 7042 van de Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis te Brussel. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Gent. Capel, A. K. and G. E. Markoe (eds) 1996. Mistressofthe house, mistress of heaven. Women in ancient Egypt. New York. Carnarvon, Earl of, and H. Carter. 1912. Fiveyears’explorationatThebes.Arecordofworkdone1907–1911. London. Cauville, S. 1981. Chentayt et Merkhetes, des avatars d’Isis et Nephthys. Bulletindel’Institutfrançaisd’archéologie orientale 81, 21–40. Cauville, S. 1997. LetempledeDendara.Leschapellesosiriennes. Dendara X. Cairo.

Charron, A. (ed.) 2002. Lamortn’estpasunefin.Pratiques funérairesenÉgypted’AlexandreàCléopâtre. Arles. Chassinat, É. 1909. Cataloguegénéraldesantiquitéségyptiennes du Musée du Caire. La seconde trouvaille de Deirel-Bahari(Sarcophages).CG6001–6029. Cairo. Chassinat, É. 1966/8. Lemystèred’OsirisaumoisdeKhoiak. Cairo. Cherpion, N. 1999. DeuxtombesdelaXVIIIedynastieàDeir el-Medina. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 114. Cairo. Cooney, K. 2007. The cost of death. The social and economic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cotelle-Michel, L. 2004. Les sarcophages en terre cuite en Égypte et en Nubie de l’époque prédynastique à l’époqueromaine. Dijon. Daressy, G. 1901. Rapport sur la trouvaille de . Annalesduservicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte2, 1–13. Daressy, G. 1909. Cataloguegénéraldesantiquitéségyptiennes duMuséeduCaire.Cercueilsdescachettesroyales.CG 61001–61044. Cairo. Daressy, G. 1917. Fragments de deux cercueils de Saqqarah. Annalesduservicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte 17, 1–20. D’Auria, S., P. Lacovara and C. H. Roehrig. 1988. Mummies andmagic.ThefuneraryartsofancientEgypt. Boston. Dautant, A., T. Boraud and B. Lalanne. 2011. Le cercueil d’Iténéferamon au Musée d’Aquitaine. ÉgypteNilotique etMéditerranéenne4, 233–72. Davies, N. de G. 1905. The rock-tombs of el-Amarna III. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 15. London. Davies, N. de G. 1925. ThetomboftwosculptorsatThebes. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition IV. New York. Dawson, J. and H. Strudwick (eds) 2016. DeathontheNile. UncoveringtheafterlifeofancientEgypt. Cambridge. Delvaux, L. and I. Therasse (eds) 2015. Sarcophages.Sous lesétoilesdeNout. Brussels. Diamond, K.-A. 2010. Transporting the deceased to eternity:TheancientEgyptianterm ḥꜢj. BAR International Series 2179. Oxford. Diamond Reed, K.-A. 2007. Ancient Egyptian funerary ritual: The term ḥꜢj. PhD thesis, Providence Brown University. Dodson, A. 1986. Was the sarcophagus of Ramesses III begun for Sethos II? JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 72, 196–8. Dodson, A. 2000. The late Eighteenth Dynasty necropolis at Deir el-Medina and the earliest ‘yellow’ coffin of the New Kingdom. In R. Demarée and A. Egberts (eds), Deirel-MedinainthethirdmilleniumAD.Atributeto Jac.J.Janssen. Leiden, 89–100. Dodson, A. 2009. The prophet of Amun Iuput and his distinguished ancestors. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 95, 51–66.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Dodson, A. 2011a. CatalogueofEgyptiancoffinsinprovincial collections of the United Kingdom, I: The south west (Exeter draft chapter). Dodson, A. 2011b. CatalogueofEgyptiancoffinsinprovincialcollectionsoftheUnitedKingdom,I:Thesouthwest (Truro draft chapter). http://www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/ research/dodson/ecpuk_files/truro (last accessed: 14 February 2018). Dodson, A. 2015. AncientEgyptiancoffins:TheMedelhavsmuseet collection. Stockholm. http://www.varldskulturmuseerna.se/Documents/Medelhavet/Ancient%20Egyptianù20Coffins_low.pdf (last accessed 14 February 2018). Dominicus, B. 1994. GestenundGebärdeninDarstellungen desAltenundMittlerenReiches. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 10. Heidelberg. Dorman, P. F. 1991. ThetombsofSenenmut.ThearchitectureanddecorationofTombs71and353. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Expedition 24. New York. Dunand, F. and R. Lichtenberg. 1998. Lesmomiesetlamort enÉgypte. Paris. Dunand, F., G. Tallet and F. Letellier-Willemin. 2005. Un linceul peint de la nécropole d’El-Deir, Oasis de Kharga. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 105, 89–101. Edwards, I. E. S. 1939. The British Museum. Hieroglyphic textsfromEgyptianstelaeetc.VIII. London. Eggebrecht, A. 1990. Suche nach Unsterblichkeit. Totenkult undJenseitsglaubeimAltenÄgypten. Hildesheim; Mainz. Eladany, A. H. 2011. A study of a selected group of Third Intermediate Period mummies in the British Museum. PhD thesis, University of Manchester. Epigraphic Survey, The. 1963. MedinetHabuVI.Thetemple proper,Part2.TheRechapel,theroyalmortuarycomplex, and adjacent rooms with miscellaneous material fromthepylons,theforecourts,andthefirsthypostyle hall. Oriental Institute Publications 84. Chicago. Étienne, M. 2006. Journeytotheafterlife.EgyptianantiquitiesfromtheLouvre. Sydney. Étienne, M. (ed.) 2009. Lesportesduciel.Visionsdumonde dansl’Égypteancienne. Paris. von Falck, M. 2001. Textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Götterreden und verwandten Texten auf ägyptischen Särgen und Sarkophagen von der 3. Zwischenzeit bis zur Ptolemäerzeit II. PhD thesis, Westfälischen WilhelmsUniversität zu Münster. Faulkner, R. O. 1985. The ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. London. Fischer, H. G. 1976. Representations of ḏryt-mourners in the Old Kingdom. In H. G. Fischer, Varia. Egyptian Studies I. New York, 39–50. Forman, W. and S. Quirke 1996. Die Macht der Hieroglyphen.DasLebennachdemTodimAltenÄgypten. Stuttgart.

111

Gabolde, M. 1998. D’AkhenatonàToutânkhamon. Collection de l’Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité Université Lumière-Lyon 2, Vol. 3. Lyon. Gallo, P. 1993. Pisa, Strasburgo e un sarcofago post-amarniano. EgittoeVicinoOriente 16, 15–17. Gasse, A. 1996. Les sarcophages de la troisième période intermédiaireduMuseoGregorianoEgizio. Vatican. Gauthier, H. 1913. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennesduMuséeduCaire.Cercueilsanthropoïdesdes prêtresdeMontou.CG41042–41072. Cairo. Geisen, C. 2004. Die Totentexte des verschollenen Sarges der Königin Mentuhotep aus der 13. Dynastie. Ein Textzeuge aus der Übergangszeit von den Sargtexten zum Totenbuch. Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 8. Wiesbaden. Germer, R. 1997. DasGeheimnisderMumien.EwigesLeben amNil. Munich. Germer, R., H. Kischkewitz and M. Lüning. 2009. Berliner Mumiengeschichten.Ergebnisseeinesmultidisziplinären Forschungsprojektes. Regensburg. Gessler-Löhr, B. 2017. Eine Gruppe spätzeitlicher Mumiensärge aus el-Hibeh. In K. A. Kóthay (ed.), Burial and MortuaryPracticesinLatePeriodandGraeco-Roman Egypt. Budapest, 195–240. Gibson, G. and M. Trumpour 2006. Tracing the provenance of ROM 983X2.1, The coffin of Nesmut. Journalofthe SocietyfortheStudyofEgyptianAntiquities 33, 85–108. Giovetti, P. and D. Picchi (eds) 2016. Egitto. Splendore millenario.LacollezionediLeidenaBologna. Milan. Graefe, E. 1981. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltung und Geschichte der Institution der Gottesgemahlin des AmunvomBeginndesNeuenReichesbiszurSpätzeit. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 37. Wiesbaden. Greco, C. (ed.) 2015. Museoegizio. Turin. Greco, C., L. Mann, E. Geldhof and T. van der Zon. 2013. De reis van de kisten. Mummiekisten van de Amonpriesters. Leiden. Grimm, A. 2009. Tod im Kindbett. Recherchen zu einem funerärem Ensemble aus Deir el-Medineh im Staatlichen Museum Ägyptischer Kunst München. In D. Kessler, R. Schulz, M. Ullmann, A. Verbovsek, and S. J. Wimmer (eds), Texte – Theben – Tonfragmente. FestschriftfürGünterBurkard. Wiesbaden, 162–79. Grothe-Paulin, E. 1988. Der ägyptische Sarg in Helsinki. StudiaOrientalia 64, 7–75. Guidotti, M. C. (ed.) 2001. LemummiedelMuseoEgiziodi Firenze. Florence. Haslauer, G. 2012. Aegyptiaca im Archäologiemuseum Schloss Eggenberg, Teil 1. SchildvonSteier25, 194–223. Haslauer, G. 2013. Teilkartonage an Mumien aus Gamhud in der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums, Wien. In J. Budka, R. Gundacker, and G. Pieke (eds), Florilegium Aegyptiacum – eine wissenschaftliche Blütenlese von Schülern und Freunden

112

A. KUCHAREK

fürHelmutSatzingerzum75.Geburtstagam21.Jänner 2013. Göttingen, 125–44. Hauser, W. 1932. The Egyptian expedition 1930–1931. The Christian necropolis in Khargeh Oasis. Bulletin of the MetropolitanMuseumofArt27, 38–50. Hayes, W. C. 1935a. RoyalsarcophagioftheXVIIIDynasty. Princeton. Hayes, W. C. 1950. The sarcophagus of Sennemut. Journal ofEgyptianArchaeology36, 19–23, pls IV–VIII. Hayes, W. C. 1953. ThescepterofEgyptII. New York. Hays, H. 2008–9. Old Kingdom sacerdotal texts. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex OrienteLux’41, 47–94. Hays, H. 2012. TheorganizationofthePyramidTexts. Probleme der Ägyptologie 31. Leiden; Boston. Herbin, F.-R. 2002. Padiimenipet fils de Sôter. Histoire d’unefamilledansl’Égypteromaine. Collection ‘Solo’ 20. Paris. Hornung, E. 1984. Der ägyptische Sarg im Heimatmuseum Appenzell. InnerrhoderGeschichtsfreund 28, 31–9. Hornung, E. and B. M. Bryan (eds) 2002. The quest for immortality.TreasuresofancientEgypt. Munich. Houlihan, P. F. 1988. ThebirdsofancientEgypt. Cairo. Ikram, S. and A. Dodson 1998. ThemummyinancientEgypt. Equippingthedeadforeternity. London. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1998. Beiträge zu den Privatinschriften der Spätzeit. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 125, 1–13. Jørgensen, M. 2001. Egypt III. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. Junker, H. 1910. DieStundenwachenindenOsirismysterien nach den Inschriften von Dendera, Edfu und Philae. Denkschrift der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 54. Vienna. Kákosy, L. 1995. The Soter tomb in Thebes. In S. P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden, 61–7. Karig, J. S. and K.-Th. Zauzich (eds) 1976. ÄgyptischeKunst ausdemBrooklynMuseum. Berlin. Kear, J. (ed.) 2005. Ducks,geeseandswans. Oxford. Kemp, B. 2008. Tell el-Amarna, 2007–8.JournalofEgyptianArchaeology94, 1–67. Kemp, B. 2010. Tell el-Amarna, 2010.JournalofEgyptian Archaeology96, 1–29. Kemp, B. 2012. CityofAkhenatenandNefertiti.Amarnaand itspeople. London. Kemp, B. 2015. Tell el-Amarna, 2014–15.JournalofEgyptianArchaeology101, 1–35. Kitchen, K. A. 1980. Ramessideinscriptions,historicaland biographicalIII. Oxford. Kozloff, A. P. and B. M. Bryan. 1992. Egypt’sdazzlingsun. AmenhotepIIIandhisworld. Cleveland.

Kucharek, A. 2008. Isis und Nephthys als ḏrt-Vögel. GöttingerMiszellen218, 57–61. Kucharek, A. 2010. DieKlageliedervonIsisundNephthys inTextenderGriechisch-RömischenZeit. Supplemente zu den Schriften der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 22. Heidelberg. Kucharek, A. 2012. ‘Asiatics will not lay you to rest’. Egyptian funerary ritual and the question of mutual influence. In P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, and A. Wissing (eds), (Re-)constructingfuneraryritualsintheancient NearEast.ProceedingsoftheFirstInternationalSymposiumoftheTübingenPost-GraduateSchool‘Symbols oftheDead’inMay2009. Wiesbaden, 245–60. Kucharek, A. 2016. Mourning and lament in ancient Egypt. In C. Felli (ed.), Howtocopewithdeath:Mourningand funerarypracticesintheancientNearEast.Proceedings oftheInternationalWorkshop–Florence,5–6December2013. Pisa, 67–82. Kucharek, A. in preparation. TrauersittenimAltenÄgypten. Küffer, A. and R. Siegmann 2007. Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin.ÄgyptischeSärge,MumienundMasken inderSchweiz. Zurich. Kuhlmann, K. and W. Schenkel. 1983. Das Grab des Ibi. ThebenNr.36.BandI.Beschreibungderunterirdischen Kult-undBestattungsanlage. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 15. Mainz. Kurth, D. 1990. Der Sarg der Teüris. Eine Studie zum Totenglauben im römerzeitlichen Ägypten. Aegyptiaca Treverensia 6. Mainz. Lacau, P. 1904/1906. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennesduMuséeduCaire.Sarcophagesantérieurs auNouvelEmpireI–II.CG28001–28086. Cairo. Lacovara, P. and B. T. Trope 2001. The realm of Osiris. Mummies,coffins,andancientEgyptianfuneraryartin theMichaelC.CarlosMuseum. Atlanta. Lange, K. and M. Hirmer. 1983. Ägypten.ArchitekturPlastik MalereiindreiJahrtausenden. Munich. Lansing, A. 1917. The Egyptian expedition 1915–16. Excavations in the Assasîf at Thebes. BulletinoftheMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York 12/5 (supplement), 7–26. Lapis, I. A. 1956. Саркофаг Маху, земледельца дома Амона (из собрания Музея изобразительных искусств им. А. С. Пушкина) (Sarcophagus of Mahu, farmworker of the temple of Amun [in the collection of the Pushkin Museum]). Вестник Древней Истории (Vestnikdrevnejistorii) 58, 157–60. Lapp, G. 1993. TypologiederSärgeundSargkammernvon der 6. bis 13. Dynastie. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 7. Heidelberg. Leahy, L. M. 1988. Private tomb reliefs of the Late Period from Lower Egypt. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Leemans, C. 1867. Monumens égyptiens du Musée d’antiquitésdesPays-BasàLeideIII.Monumensfunéraires. Leiden. Lefebvre, G. 1923–4. LetombeaudePetosirisI–III. Cairo. Legros, A. and F. Payraudeau (eds) 2011. Secretsdemomies. Paris. Lehner, M. 1997. Thecompletepyramids. London. Leitz, C. 2011. DerSargdesPanehemisisinWien. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 3. Wiesbaden. Lepsius, K. R. 1842. DasTodtenbuchderÄgypternachdem hieroglyphischenPapyrusinTurin. Berlin. LGG = Leitz, C. 2002–3. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen I–VIII. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 110–16, 129. Leuven. Li, J. 2010. Elite Theban women of the eighth–sixth centuries BCE in Egypt: Identity, status and mortuary practice. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley. von Lieven, A. 2007. Bemerkungen zum Dekorationsprogramm des Osireion in Abydos. In B. Haring and A. Klug (eds), 6.ÄgyptologischeTempeltagung.FunktionundGebrauchaltägyptischerTempelräume. Wiesbaden, 167–86. Liptay, E. 2014. Representations of passage in ancient Egyptian iconography. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosand eternity. New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 67–79. Lüddeckens, E. 1943. Untersuchungen über religiösen Gehalt, Sprache und Form der ägyptischen Totenklagen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, AbteilungKairo11, 1–188, Taf. 1–22. Lüscher, B. 1998. Untersuchungen zu Totenbuch Spruch 151. Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 2. Wiesbaden. Manley, B. and A. Dodson. 2010. Lifeeverlasting.National MuseumsScotlandcollectionofancientEgyptiancoffins. Edinburgh. Der Manuelian, P. and C. Loeben 1993. New light on the recarved sarcophagus of Hatshepsut and Thutmose I in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. JournalofEgyptian Archaeology 79, 121–55, pls VI–XIV. Marciniak, M. 1964. Cercueil anthropoïde de Horus-Thot au Musée national de Varsovie. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 62, 87–101, pls XII– XIX. Martin, G. T. 1989. Theroyaltombatel-Amarna.Therock tombsofel-Amarna VII. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 39. London. Maspero, G. 1884. La pyramide du roi Teti. Recueil de travauxrelatifsàlaphilologieetàl’archéologieégyptiennesetassyriennes5, 1–59. Maspero, G. 1914. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennesduMuséeduCaire.Sarcophagesdesépoques persaneetptolémaïque.CG29301–29306. Cairo.

113

Maystre, C. 1936. TombesdeDeirel-Médineh.Latombede Nebenmât(No.219). Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 71. Cairo. Mekis, T., T. Sayed, and Kh. Abdalla. 2011. The ensemble of Djed-Hor (coffin, cartonnage and hypocephalus) in the Egyptian Museum of Cairo. Revued’égyptologie62, 89–103, pl. XX. Miniaci, G. 2011. Rishi coffins and the funerary culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt. Golden House Publications Egyptology 17. London. Möller, G. 1913. DiebeidenTotenpapyrusRhinddesMuseums zuEdinburg. Leipzig. Montet, P. 1951. LanécropoleroyaledeTanisII.LesconstructionsetletombeaudePsousennèsàTanis. Paris. Moret, A. 1913. Cataloguegénéraldesantiquitéségyptiennes duMuséeduCaire.Sarcophagesdel’époquebubastide àl’époquesaïte.CG41001–41041. Cairo. Müller, H. W. 1975. Der ‘Stadtfürst von Theben’ Monthemhet. MünchnerJahrbuchderBildendenKunst26, 7–36. Munro, I. 1987. Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der18.Dynastie.KriterienihrerDatierung. Studies in Egyptology. London. Münster, M. 1968.UntersuchungenzurGöttinIsisvomAlten Reich bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 11. Berlin. Naville, E. 1886. DasaegyptischeTodtenbuchderXVIII.bis XX.Dynastie.ErsterBand:TextundVignetten. Berlin. Niwiński, A. 1995. Cataloguegénéraldesantiquitéségyptiennes du Musée du Caire. La seconde trouvaille de Deirel-Bahari(Sarcophages).CG6029–6068. Cairo. Niwiński, A. 2009. SarcofagidellaXXIdinastia(CGT10101– 10122).CatalogodelMuseoEgiziodiTorino. Turin. Nyord, R. 2014. Permeable containers: Body and cosmos in Middle Kingdom coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmosandeternity.Newresearchtrendsintheiconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 29–44. O’Neill, J. P. 1987. TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt.Egypt andtheancientNearEast. New York. Osing, J. et al. 1982. DenkmälerderOaseDachla.Ausdem NachlaßvonAhmedFakhry. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 28. Mainz. Parkinson, R. 2008. The painted tomb chapel of Nebamun. Masterpieces of ancient Egyptian art in the British Museum. London. Patch, D. C. 1990. Reflectionsofgreatness.AncientEgyptat theCarnegieMuseumofNaturalHistory. Pittsburgh. Peck, W. H. and S. E. Knudsen. 2011. EgyptinToledo.The ancient Egyptian collection at the Toledo Museum of Art. Toledo. Pendlebury, J. D. S. 1951. The city of Akhenaten. Part III. Thecentral cityandtheofficialquarters.Theexcavations at Tell el-Amarna during the season 1926–1927

114

A. KUCHAREK

and 1931–1936. Excavation Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society 44. London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite cities. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 12. London. Pettigrew, T. J. 1838. Account of the Examination of the Mummy of Pet-maut-ioh-mes, brought from Egypt by the late John Gosset, Esq. and deposited in the Museum in the Island of Jersey. Archaeologia 27, 262–273. Piankoff, A. 1957. La tombe de Ramsès Ier. Bulletin de l’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale56, 189–200, pls I–IX. Piankoff, A. and N. Rambova. 1957. Mythological papyri. Bollingen Series 40/3. New York. Pischikova, E. 1998. Reliefs from the tomb of the vizier Nespakashuty: Reconstruction, iconography, and style. MetropolitanMuseumJournal,NewYork33, 57–101. Porter, B and R. Moss 1934. TopographicalBibliographyof AncientEgyptianHieroglyphicTexts,Reliefs,andPaintingsIV. LowerandMiddleEgypt. Oxford. Porter, B. and R. Moss 1970, 1994. TopographicalBibliographyofAncientEgyptianHieroglyphicTexts,Reliefs, andPaintingsI2. TheThebanNecropolis. Part 1: Private Tombs. Oxford. Pries, A. 2011. Die Stundenwachen im Osiriskult. Eine Studie zur Tradition und späten Rezeption von Ritualen imAltenÄgypten. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 2. Wiesbaden. Priese, K. H. (ed.) 1991. ÄgyptischesMuseum.StaatlicheMuseen zuBerlin.StiftungPreussischerKulturbesitz. Mainz. Quibell, J. E. 1898. TheRamesseum. London. Quibell, J. E. 1908. Cataloguegénéraldesantiquitéségyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu. CG51001–51191. Cairo. Quirke, S. 2013. Going out in daylight – prt m hrw. The ancientEgyptianBookoftheDead.Translation,sources, meanings. Golden House Publications Egyptology 20. London. Raven, M. 1981. On some coffins of the Besenmut family. OudheidkundigeMededelingenuithetRijksmuseumvan OudhedenteLeiden 62, 7–21. Raven, M. 1992. De dodencultus van het Oude Egypte. Amsterdam. Raven, M., D. A. Aston, J. H. Taylor, E. Strouhal, G. Bonani and W. Woelfli. 1998. The date of the secondary burials in the tomb of Iurudef at Saqqara. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 78, 7–30. Reeves, N. 2013. Amenhotep, overseer of builders of Amun: An Eighteenth-Dynasty burial reassembled. MetropolitanMuseumJournal,NewYork48, 7–36. Riggs, C. 2005. The beautiful burial in Roman Egypt. Art, identity,andfuneraryreligion. Oxford. Roberson, J. A. 2013. The awakening of Osiris and the transitofthesolarbarques. Royalapotheosisinamost

conciseBookoftheUnderworldandSky. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 262. Fribourg; Göttingen. Saleh, M. and H. Sourouzian. 1986. Die Hauptwerke im ÄgyptischenMuseumKairo.OffiziellerKatalog. Mainz. Sander-Hansen, C. E. 1937. Die religiösen Texte auf dem SargderAnchnesneferibre. Copenhagen. Schaden, O. 1966. The God’s Father Ay. PhD thesis. University of Chicago. Schmidt, V. 1919. Sarkofager,mumiekister,ogmumiehylstre idetgamleÆegypten.TypologiskAtlas. Copenhagen. Schneider, H. D., G. T. Martin, J. van Dijk, B. G. Aston, R. Perizonius and E. Strouhal. 1993. The tomb of Iniuia: Preliminary report on the Saqqara excavations, 1993. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology79, 1–9, pls I–III. Schoske, S. (ed.) 1995. Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer KunstMünchen. Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie 31. Mainz. Schreiber, G. 2012. The burial ensemble of Tasenet from Gamhud and the Ptolemaic coffin style in northern Middle Egypt. In K. A. Kóthay (ed.), Art and society. AncientandmoderncontextsofEgyptianart.ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceheldattheMuseum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May 2010. Budapest, 257–63. Schweitzer, A. 1998. L’évolution stylistique et iconographique des parures de cartonnage d’Akhmîm du début de l’époque ptolémaïque à l’époque romaine. Bulletin de l’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale98, 325–52. Settgast, J. 1960. UntersuchungenzualtägyptischenBestattungsdarstellungen. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 3. Glückstadt. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2003. The burials of priests of Montu at Deir el-Bahari in the Theban necropolis. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis. Past,presentandfuture. London, 131–7, pls 91–2. Siegmann, R. 2012. DasSargensembledesUdja-sema-taui aus Abusir el-Meleq (26. Dyn.). Swiss Coffin Project. http://www.e-coffins.ch/index.php/saerge/51-privatsammlungen/saerge/329-udja-sema-taui. Smith, M. 1997. Dating anthropoid mummy cases from Akhmim: The evidence of the demotic inscriptions. In M. L. Bierbrier (ed.), Portraitsandmasks.BurialcustomsinRomanEgypt. London, 66–71. Smith, M. 2009. Traversing eternity. Texts for the afterlife fromPtolemaicandRomanEgypt. Oxford. Spiegelberg, W. 1904. Der Usurpator des Sarges der Königin Anch-nes-nefer-eb-Re. Recueildetravauxrelatifsàla philologieetàl’archéologieégyptiennesetassyriennes 26, 50–2. Stadler, M. A. 2005. Wege ins Jenseits. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Totenreligion im Martin von Wagner Museum derUniversitätWürzburg. Nachrichten aus dem Martin von Wagner Museum der Universität Würzburg. Reihe A, Antikensammlung 6. Würzburg.

MOURNING AND LAMENTATION ON COFFINS

Steindorff, G. 1896. Grabfunde des Mittleren Reichs in den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin I. Das Grab des Mentuhotep. Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen VIII. Berlin. Strudwick, N. 2006. The British Museum. Masterpieces of ancientEgypt. London. Tawfik, T. 2008. Die Vignette zu Totenbuch-Kapitel 1 und vergleichbare Darstellungen in Gräbern. PhD thesis, Universität Bonn. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor , J. H. 2001a. DeathandtheafterlifeinancientEgypt. London. Taylor, J. H. 2001b. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour and painting in ancient Egypt. London, 164–81, col. pls 50–6. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-Second to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis. Past, present and future. London, 95–121, pls 45–75. Taylor, J. H. 2004. Mummy:Theinsidestory. London. Taylor, J. H. 2009. Coffins as evidence for a ‘north-south divide’ in the 22nd–25th Dynasties. In G. P. F. Broekman, R. J. Demarée, and O. E. Kaper (eds), TheLibyanperiod inEgypt. Egyptologische Uitgaven 23. Leuven, 375–415. Taylor, J. H. (ed.) 2010. Journey through the afterlife. AncientEgyptianBookoftheDead. London. Taylor, J. H. and N. Strudwick. 2005. Mummies.Deathand theafterlifeinancientEgypt.TreasuresfromtheBritish Museum. Santa Ana. Theis, Ch. 2011. Deine Seele zum Himmel, dein Leichnam zur Erde. Zur idealtypischen Rekonstruktion eines altägyptischen Bestattungsrituals. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Beihefte 12. Hamburg. Tiradritti, F. (ed.) 1999. Sesh.Lingueescritturenell’antico Egitto,ineditidalMuseoArcheologicodiMilano. Milan. Tzachou-Alexandri, O. (ed.) 1995. TheworldofEgyptinthe NationalArchaeologicalMuseum. Athens. van Haarlem, W. M. 1997. AllardPiersonMuseumAmsterdam,Fasc.IV.Sarcophagiandrelatedobjects. Corpus antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Mainz. van Landuyt, K. 1995. The Soter family. Genealogy and onomastics. In S. P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-gated Thebes.ActsofacolloquiumonThebesandtheTheban area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden, 69–82.

115

van Walsem, R. 1997. The coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. Egyptologische Uitgaven 10. Leiden. van Walsem, R. 2000. Deir el-Medina as the place of origin of the coffin of Anet in the Vatican (Inv.: XIII.2.1, XIII.2.2). In R. Demarée and A. Egberts (eds), Deir el-MedinainthethirdmillenniumAD.AtributetoJac. J. Janssen. Egyptologische Uitgaven 14. Leiden, 337–49. Vanlathem, M.-P. 1983. Cercueils et momies de l’Égypte ancienne. Brussels. Vassilika, E. 1995. Egyptianart. Cambridge. Verhoeven, U. 2012. Butehamun. Ein Nekropolenschreiber am Ende des Neuen Reiches. In S. Heimann (ed.), Ägyptens Schätze entdecken. Meisterwerke aus dem ÄgyptischenMuseumTurin. Munich. Verner, M. 1982. Tschechoslowakei,Fasc.I:Altägyptische Särge in den Museen und Sammlungen der Tschechoslowakei. Corpus antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Prague. Wagner, M. 2016. DerSarkophagderGottesgemahlinAnchnesneferibre. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 16. Wiesbaden. Waitkus, W. 1987. Zur Deutung einiger apotropäischer Götter in den Gräbern im Tal der Königinnen und im Grabe Ramses’ III. GöttingerMiszellen99, 51–82. Wb: Erman, A. and H. Grapow. 1926–1963. Wörterbuchder ägyptischenSprache, 7 vol. Leipzig, Berlin. Willems, H. 1988. Chestsoflife.Astudyofthetypologyand conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard classcoffins. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 25. Leiden. Willems, H. 1996. ThecoffinofHeqata(CairoJdE36418). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 70. Leuven. Willems, H. 1997. The embalmer embalmed. Remarks on the meaning of the decoration of some Middle Kingdom coffins. In J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on ancient Egypt inhonourofHermanteVelde.Groningen, 343–72. Winlock, H. E. 1924. The Egyptian expedition 1923–1924. The Museum’s excavations at Thebes. Bulletin of the MetropolitanMuseumofArt,NewYork19, 5–33. Winlock, H. E. 1942. Excavations at Deir el Bahri 1911– 1931. New York. De Wit, C. 1956. Quelques objets intéressants de la collection égyptienne des musées. BulletindesmuséesRoyaux d’artetd’histoire28, 21–30. Ziegler, C. 1990. Le Louvre. Les antiquités égyptiennes. Paris.

II RESULTS OF RECENT FIELDWORK AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

THE BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS Marilina BETRÒ

Abstract

The discovery in recent years of the original letters written by Ippolito Rosellini to the Grand Duke of Tuscany Leopold II, in the National Archives in Prague, led to the finding of the lost lists of the antiquities which the Italian Egyptologist brought from Egypt to his sovereign, after the Franco–Tuscan Expedition in 1828–9 (Betrò 2013a). These lists give a complete description of the objects and monuments collected in Egypt by Rosellini, now in the Egyptian Museum in Florence. They are classified by category and material, and, moreover, a distinction is made between those bought during the Expedition’s travels and those acquired by excavation. One of

the first results obtained through the study of these documents was the assessment of the exact number and identification of the wooden coffins containing mummies that Rosellini chose to send to Italy among the many brought to light during the excavations of the Expedition at Thebes (Betrò 2013a, figs 4–5; 2014): eleven sets, in his judgement the most interesting specimens, each one intact and containing the body of its owner (Fig. 1).1 A comparison of this list with the items which Michele Arcangelo Migliarini, curator in Florence in those same years, described in his Breve notizia (Migliarini 1831), revealed, however, that some coffins and mummies arrived in Florence in a deteriorated condition, perhaps as a result of problems that occurred after their packing, possibly during their transportation by sea:2 among the manuscripts in the Biblioteca Universitaria in Pisa an unpublished note by Rosellini (Ms BUP 948.7, 3r) refers to the amount determined by the competent court in Livorno, after the arrival of the antiquities, for ‘thedamagesufferedbytheship’ during the trip (Fig. 2). No further information is available on this accident, which could have also damaged some of the antiquities in the hold (Betrò 2013b, 16–17). The damaged items might have included a blackvarnished coffin with yellow decoration, whose case was in 2013 in the storeroom of the Egyptian Museum in Florence (inv. no. 9477) and is now in the Collezioni Egittologiche of the University of Pisa. Only its case is preserved today (Figs 3 and 4), but Rosellini described it in the list of the finds from the excavations at Thebes and Abydos as ‘1 Mummia in cassa tinta di nero e geroglificitracciatidigiallo.Ilcorpointattonellesue fascie’,3 i.e. an intact black-varnished coffin with a

1

3

A black-varnished coffin brought by Ippolito Rosellini to Florence (Museo Egizio, inv. no. 9477), found during the excavations made in the Theban necropolis by the Franco–Tuscan Expedition, bears the name of a God’s Father Qenamon. The presence of the title ỉt-nṯr, not followed by any divine name, in association with the name Qenamon, and the dating of the Florence coffin to Dynasty 18 suggest a possible connection with the owner of TT 93, Qenamon, Chief Steward of Perunefer and foster-brother of Amenhotep II (Betrò 2013a). This paper gives a detailed description of the case and its texts, and examines the proposed attribution in the light of Rosellini’s notes, the intact tombs found by the Expedition in the Theban necropolis and the available data on Qenamon, his tomb and his known objects.

* * *

2

The famous burial ensemble of Tjesraperet, nurse of Taharqa’s daughter, was not listed in these first eleven entries, but it is mentioned further on, among the coffins: her mummy, being in poor condition, had been left in Egypt. Rosellini’s letters to the Grand Duke, to the Minister Neri Corsini and to his wife Zenobia recall the ‘long and stormy’ trip, which lasted forty-two days.

RAT (Rodinný archiv toskánských Habsburků) L. II, 41r. The excavations at Abydos were carried out through trustworthy intermediaries: neither Champollion nor Rosellini visited the site. All the coffins and mummies in the list of finds come from Thebes.

120

M. BETRÒ

Fig. 1: First page of the list of finds in Prague, RAT, L. II, f41r (© Rodinný archiv toskánských Habsburků).

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

Fig. 2 : Ms BUP 948.7, 3r (© Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo – Biblioteca Universitaria di Pisa).

121

Fig. 4: Left side of the coffin. Florence, Museo Egizio inv. no. 9477 (© Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana).

Fig. 3: Right side of the coffin. Florence, Museo Egizio inv. no. 9477 (© Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana).

122 M. BETRÒ

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

complete mummy still wrapped in its bandages. Neither the coffin nor the mummy were mentioned in the small guide to the exhibition he organised at the beginning of 1830 (Rosellini 1830) or in Migliarini’s catalogues (Migliarini 1831; 1856). They have never been referred to since Rosellini’s description in the Prague lists. It seems reasonable to argue that damage occurring during the voyage seriously weakened both the coffin and its contents. The mummy never reached Florence: it might be identified with a skeletonised body, once mummified (Mallegni 2014), which was stored in the Museum of Natural History of the University of Pisa and is now in the Collezioni Egittologiche together with the coffin. On its cranium is written in ink ‘Scheletrodiunadellemummieportate d’Egitto dal Prof. Rosellini’4 (Betrò 2014, 9) (Fig. 5). Of the eleven mummies listed in the Prague papers, seven are preserved in the museum, while two which had deteriorated were disposed of between 1831 and 1856 (Del Francia 2001, 7; Betrò 2013a, 53). Two others are missing both from the Florence collection and from its catalogues: the mummy in the black-varnished coffin which is the subject of this paper; and the mummy belonging to a woman called Tentamonnesuttaui (lid: Florence inv. no. 2176: Betrò 2013a, 52–3; 2015). Since the skeleton in the Museum of Natural History is male, it cannot be the lost mummy of Tentamonnesuttaui but could be associated with the black-varnished coffin, inscribed for a man. The coffin case alone has been preserved, although in poor condition. Its condition might have been already precarious at its arrival, since it was judged unsuitable for display and was housed in the storeroom. After the transfer of the Egyptian collection to the new building in 1855, its original number was lost and it was not until the inventory made by Giuseppe Botti after the Second World War that the piece received a new identification (no. 9477: Del Francia 2005, 133–4; Pesi 2008, 44–5). The case has been kindly entrusted by the Tuscan Superintendence to the Collezioni Egittologiche of the University of Pisa (Fig. 6). In a recent article, I suggested that this coffin could have belonged to Qenamon, the owner of TT 93 and foster-brother of

4

‘Skeleton of one of the mummies brought from Egypt by Prof. Rosellini’. A few remains of soft tissues in its joints confirm that the body had been embalmed. At some time in the 19th century

123

Fig. 5: Cranium with inscription referring to Rosellini’s mummies (Photograph: M. Betrò).

Amenhotep II, on the grounds of the name and title of its owner and its stylistic dating to Dynasty 18 (Betrò 2013b). The aim of this paper is to give a complete description of the coffin, its decoration and texts, as well as to discuss some remaining issues. The wooden anthropoid case (186cm long, 49cm wide, 33cm high) belongs to the so-called ‘black’ type of coffins (Niwiński 1984, 437–8; Taylor 1989, 30–4 and 165; Polz 1991; Dodson 1998a; Ikram and Dodson 1998, 210–3; Taylor 2001a, 225–7; 2001b, 166, 168–9; Sartini 2015). The absence of the lid deprives us of a meaningful source of information: as is well known, most of the craftsman’s efforts were concentrated on the decoration of the lid, which was most closely associated with the individual’s identity and status.

(the date cannot be determined), the decayed mummy was the object of an anatomical preparation: see Mallegni 2014.

124

M. BETRÒ

Fig. 6: The coffin in its present display in Pisa (© Collezioni Egittologiche Università di Pisa).

The case5 was entirely painted black, using a thick and viscous resinous substance,6 while the texts and decoration were traced in pale yellow. No traces of gilding are discernible. In some parts of the text, where the yellow paint has flaked off, the underlying black surface reveals a more lustrous and dark appearance, with edges slightly raised in relief (Fig. 7).7 This probably suggests that the black compound was melted before being applied, and that the contour lines of the

5

Before its recent consolidation, the integrity of the case was seriously compromised by the absence of a large part of the base: the soft condition of the wood in the surviving areas is clearly due to a process of decay. Attempts to stop this process after it entered the museum in Florence had led to the removal of portions of wood. This is especially clear on the left side of the coffin, where a saw had evidently been used to cut regularly shaped gaps, an extreme and drastic remedy applied to a

hieroglyphic signs were drawn by a thin sharpened tool when the heated resinous substance was still malleable. Once it hardened, yellow paint was applied, and possibly coated with an additional layer of transparent resin: over the centuries, the black surface exposed to the air assumed a more opaque aspect, while that covered by yellow paint preserved its darker lustrous black. The internal walls of the coffin are also coated with a thicker and compact layer of the same black material,

6

7

situation judged irrecoverable. Other lacunae can be found in the area of the head and foot (Venturini 2014, 26). No chemical analysis of the coating has yet been made. On black and yellow varnishes: Serpico and White 2001. In most cases, this is observable on the name of Qenamon, but the occurrence of flaking on a few other signs suggests that there was no deliberate attempt to erase the name.

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

Fig. 7: Detail of the text on the coffin showing the name of Qenamon with yellow paint flaking off (Photograph: M. Betrò).

applied by long horizontal brush strokes. The floor presents no painting, coating or decoration. A very interesting feature is a slight but regular hollow in the floor, at the height of the head, probably made to accommodate a funerary mask.8 The decoration and texts are arranged in rectangular compartments, framed by yellow lines. Each contains a divine standing figure, accompanied by one or two columns of hieroglyphic text. At the four ‘corners’ of the case, four ibis-headed figures of Thoth9 face each other. They are holding a pole bearing the sign of the sky, as in the usual vignette of BD 161, the ‘Formula for breaking an opening in the sky’. The aim of the spell was to provide breath to the deceased through the four winds of the sky and thus to allow him to live like

8

I could find no description of such a feature in the existing publications on black coffins. On funerary masks: Taylor 1996; Dodson 1998b.

125

Ra, instead of dying throttled like the turtle. The figures define the four cardinal points, with their winds, and delimit the three-dimensional cosmic space which the coffin was believed to occupy. On each long side, between the two Thoth figures, two Sons of Horus — human-headed Imseti and hawkheaded Duamutef on the right side, Hapy (head lost) and jackal-headed Qebehsenuef on the left — flank Anubis. Although apparently unorthodox, the iconography of Duamutef and Qebehsenuef is quite common in this period, the canonical representation with jackal head becoming usual only from the Late Period (Munro 1974; Pumpenmeier 1998, 12–13). The falcon-headed Duamutef on one of the shrines of Tutankhamun is an especially eloquent piece of evidence for the fluid iconography of the Sons of Horus in Dynasty 18 (Piankoff 1962, 62–3, fig. 23). Such inversions are still attested in the Third Intermediate Period (Taylor 2001a, 66). While Thoth is dressed in a short pleated kilt and a diagonal striped band across his naked chest, the other deities wear a short yellow tunic with double straps. All the figures have long tripartite wigs, collars and armlets. Inscribed bands, which began on the now-lost lid, interrupt the spatial arrangement on each side with one column, slightly larger than the others and with bigger hieroglyphs, bearing the name and title of the deceased. This interlinking scheme recalls the linen binding tapes which secured the mummy wrappings. No decoration is visible on the foot. Right side (beginning at the head)10 (Fig. 8) A. Thoth, with two columns in front of him, facing right: 1. ḏd-mdwỉnḎḥwtyꜥnḫRꜥmwta štwwḏꜢ 2. ntymḏbꜢ.tn[Ws]ỉrỉt-nṯrḲny-ỉmnb 1. Words spoken by Thoth: ‘Ra lives, the turtle dies. Flourishes 2. the one who is in the chest.’ for the Osiris Father of the God Qenamon.b

9 10

Only three of them are preserved. I warmly thank Paolo Marini, PhD student in Egyptology at Pisa, who made the drawings of the coffin for me.

Fig. 9: Left side of the coffin (Drawing: P. Marini).

Fig. 8: Right side of the coffin (Drawing: P. Marini).

126 M. BETRÒ

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

127

a

The determinative — a flattened circle — is probably a variant of the gland, attested for mwt: WB. II, 165. b The name is clearly visible over the black coating, despite being completely deprived of yellow paint. The arm with stick determinative is here omitted.

Here and all over the case, the name is written without honorific transposition in the form with the stative suffix –y of the 3ae-inf. verb ḳnỉ. In the few examples in TT 93 where the name is not erased, as well as on the other known monuments and shabtis belonging to the tomb-owner, it is usually written with honorific transposition. However, the form found on the coffin also occurs on the 267 funerary cones found by Sir Robert Mond in the forecourt of TT 93 (Davies and Macadam 1957, no. 187) and on a cone from the same tomb, found in the excavations of the nearby TT 29 (Tefnin 2008, 368). The oscillation between the two variants is also attested for the seal-bearer Qenamon: on his coffin the name presents honorific transposition, while it is absent on the headrest which belonged to him (Verner 1974). Transverse line 1:

C. Two columns of text, facing left, preceding the figure of Anubis facing left, and reporting his speech: 1. ḏd-mdwỉn[Ἰ]npwỉmy-wtỉj-n-(ỉ)wn 2. msꜢ.w-kỉnkḥrsꜢ-kmr-kWsỉr 1. Words spoken by [A]nubis: ‘I have come (in order) to be 2. your protection. I am Horus, your son that you love, O Osiris!’ Transverse line 3: [

Ws]ỉr [ỉt-nṯrḲny-Ἰmn]a

[

Os]iris [Father of the God Qenamon] a

a Title and first part of the name are here almost completely deprived of yellow paint.

D. Two columns of text, facing left, preceding the figure of Duamutef facing left, and reporting his speech:

1. [ỉmꜢḫ]yḫrMstjWs[ỉr]Ḳny-Ἰmna 1. The one whom Imseti [takes care of], the Os[iris] Qenamona a

The name is still visible under the black coating, although almost completely deprived of yellow paint.

B. Two columns of text, facing left, preceding the figure of Imseti, facing left, and reporting his speech: 1. ḏd-mdwỉnM[st]jỉj-n-(ỉ)wnnmsꜢ.w-k 2. swrd[pr-]kmnsp-snmjwḏ[nRꜥ?] 1. Words spoken by Imseti: ‘I have come (in order) to be your protection, 2. (in order) to make your [house] enduring, stable, stable, as decreed [by Ra?]’ Transverse line 2: Wsỉrỉt-nṯrḲny-aἸmn Osiris Father of the God Qenamona a

Title and first part of the name are here completely deprived of yellow paint.

1. ḏd-mdwỉn[dwꜢ]-mw.t-fỉj-n-(ỉ)wn 2. msꜢ.w-k[Ws]ỉrỉt-nṯrḲny-[Ἰmn] 1. Words spoken by Duamutef: ‘I have come (in order) to be 2. your protection, O [Os]iris Father of the God Qen[amon]’ Transverse line 4: […] Ws[ỉr] [ỉt-nṯr]Ḳn[y]-[Ἰmn] [… ] Os[iris] [Father of the God] Qen[amon] E. One column of text, almost completely destroyed, preceding the figure of Thoth, facing left, and reporting his speech, probably: 1. ḏd-mdwỉn[Ḏḥwty …a] 1. Words spoken by [Thoth …a] a The two signs visible over the fracture and the gap in the wood could be part of the verb mwt, to die (t + determinative), which would confirm the presence of a very short version of the ‘turtle spell’ here.

128

M. BETRÒ

Left side (beginning at the head) (Fig. 9) A. Thoth, with two columns in front of him, facing left: 1. ḏd-mdwỉnḎḥwtyꜥnḫRꜥ [m]wta štwnbb(-k)b 2. nnbbỉwf-kWsỉrỉt-nṯrḲny-ỉmn 1. Words spoken by Thoth: ‘Ra lives, the turtle diesa. (You?) are not throttledb 2. because your flesh will not be throttled, O Osiris Father of the God Qenamon.’

1. Words spoken by Anubis who presides over the divine pavilion: ‘I have [come] 2. (in order) to be your protection, O Osiris Qen[amon]’

Transverse line 3: Wsỉrỉt-nṯrḲny-[Ἰmn] Osiris Father of the God Qen[amon]

a

For the determinative see Right side, Text A, note a. The text preserves a variant, unique to my knowledge, of the better-known version of BD 161, bbmbbỉwfḲbḥ-snw-f. A pronoun –k after the first bb must be supplied. b

Transverse line 1: [ỉmꜢḫw]ḫrḤpyWsỉr[Ḳ]ny-Ἰ[mn] The one whom Hapy takes care of, the Osiris [Q]ena[mon]

D. Qebehsenuef, with two columns in front of him, facing right: 1. ḏd-mdwỉnḲbḥ-snw-[ f ][…] 2. msꜢ.w-[kWs]ỉr[Ḳ]ny[-Ἰmn] 1. Words spoken by Qebehsenuef […] 2. as your protection, O Osiris [Q]en[amon]

Transverse line 4: B. The two columns of text in front of the figure of Hapy are largely lost, together with the deity’s head and the part of the side wall which was cut away. Text and figure face right: 1. [ḏd-mdwỉnḤpy…] 2. […sḳ-n-(ỉ)?n]-kḥꜥ.w-k 1. [Words spoken by Hapy… ] 2. […I have collected?] for you your limbs Transverse line 2: Wsỉrỉt-nṯrḲny-Ἰ[mn] Osiris Father of the God Qena[mon]

C. Anubis, with two columns in front of him, facing right: 1. ḏd-mdwỉnἸnpwḫntysḥnṯr [ỉj]-n(-ỉ) 2. wnnmsꜢ.w-kWsỉrḲny-[Ἰmn]

[Wsỉr]ỉt-nṯrḲny-Ἰmn [Osiris] Father of the God Qenamon

E. The end of the case wall is missing. Thoth was probably represented there with one (?) column of text in front of him. Only a few signs remain.

The recurrence of the title ỉt-nṯr followed by no divine name, as well as its association with the name Ḳny-Ἰmn, immediately attracted my attention. Lavinia Pesi, who first studied the coffin, and Pier Roberto Del Francia, shortly afterwards, translated ỉt-nṯr as ‘padre divino’, interpreting it as the common priestly title (Pesi 2008; Del Francia 2005, 134). In Dynasty 18, however, the expression refers to two types of title: a priestly one, which associates ỉt-nṯr with the name of a god (Kees 1961), and a court title, where ỉt-nṯr is used alone (Gardiner 1947, 51*; Brunner 1961; Roehrig 1990, 351–6). The latter is a high-ranking title, stressing a special and intimate relationship with the reigning king and highlighting the authority enjoyed by its

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

holder. Among the few people who received the title were not only members of the royal family or tutors of the crown prince (as argued in the earliest studies), but also trusted officials of the king who were appointed as his advisers (Bryan 1991, 55, 259), or ‘virtual fathers’. Catharine Roehrig has specifically mentioned the case of Qenamon, the powerful Chief Steward of Perunefer under Amenhotep II, son of the king’s nurse, who bore this title as well as many others (Davies 1930; Wild 1957; Dewachter 1980; Pumpenmeier 1998, 81–5), and ‘who was certainly not the tutor of his foster-brother’ but ‘could none-the-less have been an “advisor” of the king’ (Roehrig 1990, 356). So far, no other Qenamon claiming to be a ‘God’s Father’ is known in Dynasty 18 and this led me to consider the possibility that the coffin and mummy brought to Italy by Rosellini had belonged to him. The stylistic features of the case are consistent with this hypothesis, although this kind of coffin was in use for about a century and a half: an iconographical analysis of the black coffins so far known was carried out by Lisa Sartini in her MA dissertation submitted at the University of Pisa in October 2014 (Sartini 2015). This has demonstrated that most iconographical attributes which are significant for a more refined dating of black coffins are concentrated on the lid, here unfortunately absent. The texts and figures on the cases, although variable, do not seem to reveal trends which can be related to chronological evolution. As is well known, no objects from Qenamon’s burial equipment were found during the investigations led by Sir Robert Mond and, later, by Norman De Garis Davies in his tomb at Sheikh Abd-el-Gurna (TT 93). Mond explored the tomb between 10 January and the middle of February 1903 and published a very concise report (Mond 1904): he summarily described two different funerary sectors, an ‘unused mummy-pit of the Eighteenth Dynasty’ in the courtyard, and a sloping passage with stairways, galleries and burial chambers (‘a deep and very large mummy pit with many ramifications’), access to which began inside the tomb (Fig. 10). Mond stated that the latter, having been accessible for a long time, was found completely

11

In 1829 Giuseppe Angelelli, one of the painters of the Tuscan Expedition, wrote to the Count Antonio Ramirez da Montalvo from Thebes, that, while they were in Nubia, their excavations yielded ‘circa quarantadue mummie assai belle, una tomba intatta, (…), un carro antico e diverse statuette di bronzo’

129

plundered. Davies, who continued the work in the tomb after Mond, provided a more detailed description of the sloping passage but he, in turn, devoted only a few words to the Dynasty 18 shaft in the courtyard, only adding that it had been dug into the rock bench in front of the unfinished northern portico, and describing it as ‘shallow’, which might explain Mond’s adjective ‘unused’ (Davies 1930, 2). None of the finds either in the sloping passage or in the other rooms of the tomb could be attributed to Qenamon. With the exception of the largely destroyed wall decoration, the only evidence for the original owner of TT 93 was found in the courtyard: 267 funerary cones inscribed for a Ḳn-Ἰmnmr-prnPrw-nfrmr-ỉḥ.wnἸmn (Davies 1930, 39). Moreover, there is no proof that any of the many beautiful shabtis bearing his name, preserved in collections all over the world, were found in TT 93, as was often supposed in older works. Most of them come in fact from the extra-sepulchral votive deposits of Qenamon found at Abydos and Zawiyet Abu Mesallam (Pumpenmeier 1998) and the provenance of the others has never been verified. Finally, no known coffin can so far be assigned to him: the only former candidate, a black-varnished and gilded coffin in the State Castle of Kynžvart in Western Bohemia, coming from the Metternich collection and inscribed for a seal-bearer Qenamon, must be attributed to another homonymous official, as Miroslav Verner correctly supposed (Verner 1974), a suggestion later confirmed by the discovery of the tomb of the seal-bearer (Saleh 1983). The possibility that Rosellini found Qenamon’s coffin during his excavations in the Theban necropolis must be taken into account. The location of the discovery requires some discussion. The criteria which influenced Rosellini in the selection of the finds he brought to the Grand Duke were based on at least one of the following factors: 1. novelty (in comparison with other pieces already present in Florence); 2. the creation of series; 3. provenance from an undisturbed and known context. In fact, the Expedition found many coffins with mummies during the excavations11 and, at first glance, the explanation of the choice of this specific coffin among many others is not

(‘about forty-two very beautiful mummies, an intact tomb (…) and many bronze statuettes’: Saltini 1866, 28). The French painter Nestor l’Hôte, in turn, says in a letter to his parents on 18 March 1829: ‘Les fouilles avaient produit une grande quantité d’objets trouvés dans les tombeaux, et plusdequarantemomies

130

M. BETRÒ

Fig. 10: Plan of TT 93, with the forecourt in the upper right corner (after Davies 1930, pl. I).

obvious. In the short description given in the Prague list Rosellini explicitly stressed that the intact coffin enclosed an untouched mummy. This, however, did not apply to this specimen alone, but was a feature of other coffins in the list. There is nothing particularly exceptional in the piece, which was not remarkable for its lavish decoration nor for its artistic finesse. The entry immediately preceding this one in the Prague list — Ipuy’s coffin (Figs 11 and 12) — not only exemplifies the same type of black coffin, but also

has a gilded face, a mummy board and well-preserved garlands (Betrò 2013a, 53–5). Clearly, neither novelty nor the creation of a series dictated Rosellini’s choice. Only the third criterion — provenance from an undisturbed and known context — can apply to Qenamon’s coffin. Four intact — or almost intact12 — burials had been found by the Expedition in Gurna and opened in front of Rosellini and Champollion: the first one had been located during their absence in December 1828, left



12

avec leur caisses.’ (‘Excavations had produced many objects found in tombs, and more than forty mummies with their coffins’: Harlé and Lefebvre 1993, 256). Rosellini, in his letter to the Grand Duke on 30 May 1829, tells his sovereign that in the period between mid-March and the end of May they had found ‘circa altreventimummie, ma la maggior parte communi, e che non valgono il trasporto’ (‘about twenty more mummies, but most of them common and not worth the cost of transport’) [author’s italics].

Rosellini describes two tombs, among the others found, as ‘intattissime’ (Rosellini 1834, 99): the one opened on 15 March 1829, and the tomb of the nurse of Taharqa’s daughter (see below). In both — he says — the brick wall closing the chamber had been found intact, as he himself had been able to testify, being the first to enter there. He defines here a correct methodological distinction, from an archaeological point of view, between these two and the other tombs, whose burial equipment and conditions appeared untouched and as such he labelled ‘intatte’, but whose integrity he could not judge with the same absolute certainty.

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

Fig. 11: Lid of the coffin of Ipuy. Florence, Museo Egizio inv. no. 2175 A (© Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana).

131

Fig. 12: Mummy board of the coffin of Ipuy. Florence, Museo Egizio inv. no. 2175 B (© Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana).

132

M. BETRÒ

sealed as it had been found, with its original intact brick wall, guarded until their arrival on 13 March 1829, and opened on that occasion. It contained the coffins and burial equipment of the lady Tamutneferet and the Stable Master Ipuy and can be dated between the end of Dynasty 18 and the beginning of Dynasty 19 (Betrò 2013a, 53–5; Betrò forthcoming). A second one, whose location had been discovered by local people, was bought still sealed by the Expedition in the same period of March 1829 (Gabrieli 1925, 161–2). It was considered by Rosellini as being ‘intattissima’ and the grave goods from it, some of which can be identified in the Egyptian Museum in Florence, can be dated to Dynasty 25 (Betrò forthcoming). Two other tombs were excavated later, that of the nurse of Taharqa’s daughter, opened on 20 May 1829 (Del Francia 1994; Guidotti 2009), and another one between 15 March and the end of May, which contained the beautiful wooden coffin of the musician of Amun Tentamonnesuttaui, dated to Dynasty 22 (Betrò 2013a, 52–3; 2015). On the basis of the documents so far known, the appearance of these tombs at the time of discovery, as well as the description of their finds, indicates that Qenamon’s coffin could not have been found in any of them. A fifth tomb, probably untouched, had been excavated by their workers while Rosellini and Champollion were in Nubia, but despite the orders they had given, it was not set aside until their return: the workers had opened it and the two scholars could only examine the results of this discovery, mixed with many other finds, when they came back to Luxor. In this fifth tomb the workers found the wonderful chariot that Rosellini brought to Florence, as he states in his Monumenti(Rosellini 1836, 263–4): Allorquando io aveva, dopo un primo soggiorno in Tebe, oltrepassato insieme co’ miei compagni i confini dell’Egitto e mi era inoltrato a visitare la Nubia, molti Arabi aveva lasciati sotto la vigilanza di un servo a fare scavi nella necropoli tebana. Almioritornotrovaitragli

13

14

Translation of the passage highlighted in italics: ‘When I came back [sc. from Nubia] I found among the other objects brought to light in these investigations a chariot in many parts, which they [i.e. his workers] reported to me to have taken out of one of those tombs, which elsewhere I called third class, whose access is through a shaft and whose chambers are not decorated.’ This is not surprising: in the Prague lists, as well as in the catalogue of the 1830 exhibition, Rosellini only rarely mentions the context of objects found together in one and the same burial, even when described or displayed in different sections. Moreover,

altrioggettiricavatidaquestericerche,uncarroinmolti pezzi, che riferironmi aver tratto fuori da una di quelle tombe, che altrove chiamai di terza classe, alle quali si scendeperunpozzo,echenonhannocamereadornedi figure.13

Rosellini never listed this tomb among the ones he considered intact, because of a methodological technicality: it had been opened in their absence and he had not been able to see it with his own eyes. Nonetheless, the finding of a disassembled chariot (‘in molti pezzi’) almost entirely preserved points to an intact tomb (Del Francia 2005, 127). This chariot is now in Florence (inv. no. 2678, Fig. 13). Its technical features allow it to be dated to the end of the 15th century BC at the latest (Littauer and Crouwel 1985, 105–8; Del Francia 2002a; 2002b; Crouwel 2013), providing a chronological reference for the tomb itself (unless to consider the chariot an heirloom). Rosellini stated that a bow which he also brought to Florence (inv. no. 2679, Fig. 14) had been found with the chariot (Rosellini 1830, 26–7; Guidotti 2014). A possible connection between Qenamon’s coffin and this tomb must remain for the time being no more than a conjecture: nowhere does Rosellini explicitly link this coffin to the chariot or to the place where the wheeled vehicle had been found.14 Although such a relationship is highly speculative, many hints support it: no other intact tombs, beside the five mentioned here, were found during the excavations ordered by the Expedition; the production date of such coffins is consistent with that of the chariot; chariots were not at all common grave goods in private burials (Herslund 2013, 125–6; Smith 1992). This last point is perhaps the most important: the owner of TT 93 had, among his many titles, that of Stable Master (ḥrỉ-ỉḥw: Gnirs 1996, 19 ff.; Pumpenmeier 1998, 83),15 particularly appropriate to an official owning chariots and horses; moreover an inscription in his tomb states that a chariot was given to him as a reward by the king: wry.trdỉ(.t)-nḥm-fm

15

the long excursus devoted to the chariot in Rosellini (1836, 263– 70) did not focus on the context of the find but on warriors and weapons. Del Francia, who erroneously connected the case published here with Ipuy’s coffin lids, suggested that the chariot came from the tomb of this man who was also a Stable Master (Del Francia 2005). The description of the intact tomb by Nestor l’Hôte, who was the first person to enter it, excludes this assumption, however (Harlé and Lefebvre 1993, 257).

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

133

Fig. 13: The chariot brought from Egypt by Rosellini. Florence, Museo Egizio inv. no. 2678 (© Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana).

ḥs.wt (Davies 1930, 47; Helck 1956, 1399.19; Betrò 2014, 21). The text accompanies a damaged scene showing a mourning Nephthys who follows a bier, offerings and what Davies interpreted as funeral furniture.16 A chariot such as the one now in Florence could therefore be expected among Qenamon’s burial goods. The fact that Rosellini was unaware of the precise place where the chariot and the coffin had been found helps in clarifying some obscure issues. TT 93 would be the logical place to discover the intact coffin of the owner, but it is unlikely that Rosellini and Champollion had passed over in silence the exploration of such a

tomb and its successful results, unlesstheywereunawareoftheirworkers’activities. If Piccinini, who had been charged by Rosellini with the supervision of their excavations during their trip to Nubia, was truthful in describing the provenance of the chariot from an undecorated burial chamber at the bottom of a shaft,17 this could point to the shaft Mond found in the courtyard of TT 93. Rosellini grouped under the label ‘thirdclass tombs’ (‘tombe di terza classe’) all the burial chambers accessible through a shaft, without being able to distinguish, at the time, between true shaft graves without any connected superstructure and shafts dug in

16

17

Unfortunately, he gave only a description, and no drawing of the poorly preserved fragments of the scene is available.

See suprathe quoted passage.

134

M. BETRÒ

the forecourt of a funerary complex, as they appear commonly in Dynasty 18. However, although the shaft in the courtyard of TT 93 probably belonged to the original plan of the tomb (Kampp 1996, 353–4), Mond stated that it was unused and Davies’ use of the adjective ‘shallow’ supports Mond’s statement. It is therefore somewhat implausible that the coffin was found in that shaft. Of course, one must take into account that Piccinini might have jealously kept secret the location of his find spots, giving Rosellini a vague and not necessarily accurate description. He might equally well have found Qenamun’s burial equipment in one of the chambers in the imposing subterranean network of TT 93, although this supposition is in my opinion less convincing: at the beginning of the 19th century the ruined tomb of Qenamon was well known and too much frequented by travellers and scholars (Porter and Moss 1960, 190–4; Davies 1930, 8) to imagine that any work of clearance inside could have remained unnoticed.18 Aside from any conjecture, we are confronted with the problematic absence in museums of any other inscribed objects from the funerary equipment of Qenamon. Some scholars have proposed that his true burial was not in TT 93 and remains unidentified. This theory is based on the following evidence: Davies suggested that the tomb was located in the Memphite area on the basis of the shabtis found at Zawiyet Abu Mesallam (Davies 1930, 9), but his supposition is no longer tenable in the light of current knowledge of Qenamon’s extra-sepulchral deposits. Nicholas Reeves lists Qenamon among the potential private owners of a tomb in the Valley of the Kings, an honour accorded to the viziers of Amenhotep II, Sennefer and Amenemopet, as well as to other close associates of the royal family during Dynasty 18 (Reeves 1990, 272). He bases his theory on two fragments of cloth, one of which bears

18

Fig. 14: The bow found with the chariot. Florence, Museo Egizio inv. no. 2679 (© Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali – Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana).

The funerary sector of the tomb had very probably been despoiled a long time before this: Rosellini himself was persuaded that the most notable and richest tombs, those he described as the first and second class, ‘visible from afar on the mountain and very attractive to thieves because of their magnificence’, had already been plundered a long time ago (Rosellini 1834, 98). Mond also states that the ‘mummy pit’ in TT 93 had been accessible for a long time (Mond 1904, 98). Moreover, the many skeletons Mond found in the hall, ‘near to one of which were beads of twenty-second or twenty-third Dynasty date’ clearly attest the re-use of the tomb in later periods. This is confirmed by Friederike Kampp’s notes about the probable enlargements and modifications detectable in the plan of the sloping passage, and in the upper level itself (Kampp 1996, 352–6).

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

Qenamon’s name and the titles of Standard Bearer and Overseer of the Recruits of Amun, which had been found by Georges Daressy in the Valley of the Kings (CG 24989 and 24987: Daressy 1902, 302–3 and pl. LVII). Although his hypothesis is plausible and attractive, two fragments of a single cloth discovered in debris are not sufficiently conclusive to prove that he was buried in the royal necropolis. As Roehrig observed, ‘the linen strip may well be a stray piece that found its way into the Valley of the Kings during Dynasty 21 when the priests were attempting to secure numerous plundered burials in the Theban area in general’ (Roehrig 1990, 135). In addition to the possibility of a second still unidentified tomb, another suggestion must be considered: Qenamon’s coffin could have been placed in a tomb belonging to other members of his family. Such a circumstance, not unusual in Dynasty 18 (Dorman 2003), could have been dictated by his fall into disgrace, witnessed by the radical damnatiomemoriae performed on his figures and name inside TT 93: secular and Atenist evidence of destruction can be seen in his tomb (Der Manuelian 1987, 160). In his dissertation on the influence of military power on the Egyptian state in Dynasty 18, Wolfgang Helck tried to identify the reasons for the fall of Qenamon, suggesting that the friction between Amenhotep II and his Chief Steward was the result of the steady accumulation of power in the latter’s hands (Helck 1939, 53). He later modified his view, supposing that his still unexplained downfall had taken place when Amenhotep’s successor, Thutmose IV, inherited the throne (Helck 1994, 44). Certainly, there is no evidence of Qenamon’s or his sons’ activity under Thutmose IV or Amenhotep III. Furthermore, the anthropological analysis of the skeletonised mummy brought from Egypt by Rosellini could support Helck’s first theory: the skeleton belonged to a male adult not older than thirty-five years (Mallegni 2014), a fact which would locate his death within Amenhotep II’s reign (Betrò 2014, 20–1). It is not certain that Qenamon actually had the grandiose funeral depicted on the walls of his tomb: his son or other relatives might have prepared a much less pretentious burial, which might explain the relatively poor quality of his coffin. It seems, however, very appropriate for a man who described himself as one who went with his king on the same horse span (ḥr ḥtr wꜥ) and received from him chariots worked in gold and lapislazuli together with many horses (Pumpenmeier 1998, 16–18) to bring a chariot with him into the afterlife.

135

Bibliography Betrò, M. 2013a. The Lorena Archive in Prague and the collection from the Tuscan Expedition to Egypt in the Florence Museum. In M. Betrò and G. Miniaci (eds), Talking along the Nile: Ippolito Rosellini, travellers andscholarsofthe19thcenturyinEgypt.Proceedings oftheInternationalConferenceheldontheoccasionof thepresentationofprogettoRosellini.Pisa,June14–16, 2012, Pisa, 43–58, pls III–IV. Betrò, M. 2013b. Firenze inv. nr. 9477: the coffin of Qenamon (TT 93)? Egitto e Vicino Oriente 36, 15–20 and pl. 3. Betrò, M. 2014. Kenamun: L’undicesima mummia. In M. Betrò (ed.), Kenamun l’undicesima mummia. Pisa, 8–21. Betrò, M. 2015. Il sarcofago e il cartonnage di Tentamonnesuttaui, Firenze n. inv. 2176 e 2173. EgittoeVicino Oriente38, 113-24. Betrò, M., forthcoming. Lost and (sometimes) found: Contexts and objects from the Franco–Tuscan excavations at Thebes West (1828–1829). The case of Tamutneferet. In Actes du colloque L’objet égyptien. Source de la recherche, 17–19June2015. Paris. Brunner, H. 1961. Der ‘Gottesvater’ als Erzieher des Kronprinzen. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde86, 90–100. Bryan, B. 1991. ThereignofThutmoseIV. Baltimore; London. Crouwel, J. 2013. Studying the six chariots from the tomb of Tutankhamun: An update. In A. J. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram (eds), Chasingchariots:Proceedingsofthe First International Chariot Conference (Cairo 2012). Leiden, 73–93. Daressy, G. 1902. FouillesdelaValléedesRois(1898–1899): Nos 24001–24990. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. Davies, N. de G. 1930. ThetombofḲen-AmūnatThebes. New York. Davies, N. de G. and M. F. L. Macadam. 1957. Acorpusof inscribedEgyptianfunerarycones. Oxford. Del Francia, P. R. 1994. Le trousseau de la tombe de Tchesrêperet: État de la question. In M. Dewachter and A. Fouchard (eds), L’égyptologie et les Champollion: Recueild’étudespubliéparMichelDewachteretAlain Fouchardàl’occasionduColloqueinternationalcélébrantlebicentenairedelanaissancedeJean-François Champollion‘Del’ÉgyptedesPharaonsàcellede1990, HommagedeGrenobleauxfrèresChampollion’(Université Pierre Mendès-France, Grenoble 2, 29 novembre– 1erdécembre1990). Grenoble, 215–22. Del Francia, P. R. 2001. Le mummie del Museo Egizio di Firenze e i loro contenitori lignei. In M. C. Guidotti (ed.), LemummiedelMuseoEgiziodiFirenze. Florence, 6–9.

136

M. BETRÒ

Del Francia, P. R. 2002a. Il carro di Firenze. In M. C. Guidotti (ed.), IlcarroelearmidelMuseoEgiziodiFirenze. Florence, 16–37. Del Francia, P. R. 2002b. Carro. In M. C. Guidotti and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), La battaglia di Qadesh: RamesseIIcontrogliIttitiperlaconquistadellaSiria. Livorno, 54–5. Del Francia P. R. 2005. Note a margine del carro egizio di Firenze. In F. Pecchioli Daddi and M. C. Guidotti (eds), Narrareglieventi.AttidelConvegnodegliegittologie degli orientalisti italiani in margine alla mostra ‘La battagliadiQadesh’. Rome, 127–42. Der Manuelian, P. 1987. StudiesinthereignofAmenophis II. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 26. Hildesheim. Dewachter, M. 1980. Un nouveau ‘fils royal’ de la XVIIIe dynastie: Qenamon. Revued’égyptologie 32, 69–73. Dodson, A. 1998a. On the burial of Maihirpri and certain coffins of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In C. J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists,Cambridge,3–9September1995. Leuven, 331–8. Dodson, A. 1998b. A funerary mask in Durham and mummy adornment in the late Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth Dynasty. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 84, 93–9. Dorman, P. F. 2003. Family burial and commemoration in the Theban necropolis. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), TheThebannecropolis:Past,presentandfuture. London, 30–41, pls 5–6. Gabrieli, G. 1925. IppolitoRosellinieilsuogiornaledella Spedizione Letteraria Toscana in Egitto negli anni 1828–1829. Rome (repr. Pisa 1994). Gardiner, A. H. 1947. AncientEgyptianonomastica, Vol. I. Oxford. Gnirs, A. M. 1996. Militär und Gesellschaft: ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 17. Heidelberg. Guidotti, M. C. 2009. Il corredo funerario di Tjes-ra-peret, nutrice della figlia di Taharqo. In M. C. Guidotti and F. Tiradritti (eds), Rinascimento faraonico: La XXV dinastia nel Museo Egizio di Firenze. Guide alle raccolte egizie d’Italia 2. Montepulciano. Guidotti, M. C. 2014. Arco. In M. Betrò (ed.), Kenamun l’undicesimamummia. Pisa, 31. Harlé, D. and J. Lefebvre. 1993. SurleNilavecChampollion: Lettres, journaux et dessins inédits de Nestor L’Hôte. PremiervoyageenÉgypte–1828–1830. Orléans. Helck, W. 1939. DerEinflussderMilitärführerinder18.ägyptischenDynastie. Leipzig. Helck, W. 1956. Urkundender18.Dynastie.Heft18bearbeitet von Wolfgang Helck. Biographische Inschriften von Zeitgenossen Thutmosis’ III. und Amenophis’ II. Berlin.

Helck, W. 1994. Die Männer hinter dem König und die Königswahl. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 121, 36–51. Herslund, O. 2013. Chariots in the daily life of New Kingdom Egypt: A survey of production, distribution and use in texts. In A. J. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram (eds), Chasing chariots:ProceedingsoftheFirstInternationalChariot Conference(Cairo2012). Leiden, 123–9. Ikram, S. and A. Dodson. 1998. The mummy in ancient Egypt:Equippingthedeadforeternity. London. Kampp, F. 1996. Die thebanische Nekropole: zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der 18. bis zur 20. Dynastie. Theben 13. Mainz. Kees, H. 1961. ‘Gottesväter’ als Priesterklasse. Zeitschrift fürÄgyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde86, 115–25. Littauer, M. A. and J. H. Crouwel. 1985. Chariots and related equipment from the tomb of Tut’ankhamun. Oxford. Mallegni, F. 2014. I resti scheletrici del corpo di Kenamun. In M. Betrò (ed.), Kenamunl’undicesimamummia. Pisa, 24–5. Migliarini, A. M. [1831]. Catalogo e breve notizia degli oggettidiantichitàEgizianeriportatidallaSpedizione letterariaToscanainEgittoeinNubia,eseguitanegli anni 1828 e 1829. E collocati provvisoriamente nell’Accademia delle Arti e Mestieri, in S. Caterina [manuscript]. Migliarini, A. M. [1856]. CatalogodeimonumentiEgiziani [manuscript]. Mond, R. 1904. Report on work done in the Gebel eshSheikh Abd-el-Kurneh at Thebes, January to March 1903. Annalesduservicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte 5, 97–104. Munro, P. 1974. Bemerkungen zum Gestaltwandel und zum Ursprung der Horus-Kinder. In Anonymous (ed.), Festschrift zum 150jährigen Bestehen des Berliner ÄgyptischenMuseums. Berlin, 195–204. Niwiński, A. 1984. Sarg-, NR-SpZt. LexikonderÄgyptologie V. Wiesbaden, 434–67. Pesi, L. 2008. Sarcofagi antropoidi a vernice nera del Museo Egizio di Firenze. In Anonymous (ed.), Egittologia e giovani studiosi: Atti del 2° convegno in onore di EvaristoBreccia,‘CiviltàEgizianaeGiovaniStudiosi’, Offagna, Biblioteca Comunale, 12 dicembre 2003. Offagna, 41–60. Piankoff, A. 1962. The shrines of Tut-Ankh-Amon. Edited by Nina Rambova. New York. Polz, D. 1991. Die Särge aus Schacht II der Grab-Anlage. In J. Assmann (ed.), DasGrabdesAmenemope(TT41). Theben 3. Mainz, 244–67. Porter, B. and R. L. B. Moss. 1960. TopographicalBibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. I, The Theban Necropolis. 1, Private Tombs. Second edition. Oxford.

BLACK-VARNISHED COFFIN OF QENAMON AND IPPOLITO ROSELLINI’S EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS

Pumpenmeier, F. 1998. Eine Gunstgabe von Seiten des Königs:einextrasepulkralesSchabtidepotQen-Amuns in Abydos. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 19. Heidelberg. Reeves, C. N. 1990. Valley of the Kings: The decline of a royalnecropolis. Studies in Egyptology. London. Roehrig, C. 1990. TheEighteenthDynastytitlesroyalnurse (mnꜥtnswt),royaltutor(mnꜥnswt),andfosterbrother/ sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sn/snt mnꜥ n nb tꜢwy). Ann Arbor. Rosellini, I. 1830. Oggetti di antichità egiziane riportati dalla Spedizione Letteraria Toscana in Egitto e in Nubiaedespostialpubbliconell’AccademiadelleArti eMestieriinS.Caterina. Florence. Rosellini, I. 1834. I Monumenti dell’ Egitto e della Nubia. ParteSeconda.MonumentiCivili, I. Pisa. Rosellini, I. 1836. IMonumentidell’EgittoedellaNubia. ParteSeconda.MonumentiCivili, III. Pisa. Saleh, M. 1983. The tomb of the royal scribe Qen-Amun at Khokha (Theban Necropolis No. 412). Annales du servicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte69, 15–28. Saltini, G. E. 1866. Giuseppe Angelelli pittore toscano. Florence. Sartini, L. 2015. The black coffins with yellow decoration: a typological and chronological study. Egitto e Vicino Oriente38, 49–66. Serpico, M. and R. White. 2001. The use and identification of varnish on New Kingdom funerary equipment. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour and painting in ancient Egypt. London, 33–42.

137

Smith, S. T. 1992. Intact tombs of the 17th and 18th dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom burial system. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, AbteilungKairo48, 193–231. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 1996. An Egyptian mummy-mask in the British Museum: A new date and identification of the owner. Apollo 144 (413), 33–8. Taylor, J. H. 2001a. DeathandtheafterlifeinancientEgypt. London. Taylor, J. H. 2001b. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour andpaintinginancientEgypt. London, 164–81. Tefnin, R. 2008. Report on the eighth season of excavation and conservation in the Theban tombs of Amenemope TT 29 and Sennefer TT 96A in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (January 2–February 19, 2006). Annalesduservicedes antiquitésdel’Égypte82, 343–73. Venturini, G. 2014. Relazione sullo stato di conservazione e sul restauro del sarcofago di Kenamun (Museo Egizio di Firenze Inv. n. 9477). In M. Betrò (ed.), Kenamun: L’undicesimamummia. Pisa, 26–8. Verner, M. 1974. The seal-bearer Qenamūn. Zeitschrift für ÄgyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde100, 130–6. Wild, H. 1957. Contributions à l’iconographie et à la titulature de Qen-amon. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologieorientale56, 203–37.

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT Anna STEVENS

Abstract This paper provides an overview of twenty decorated wooden coffins excavated from the South Tombs Cemetery at Amarna from 2005 to 2013. It considers how the coffins fit temporally and socially within the cemetery, and the social dynamics through which they came to be used as burial containers for a small portion of the Amarna population. It suggests that some of the coffins might have been used by family members of the officials who owned the South Tombs, but argues against straightforward associations between coffin use and socio-economic strata.

Introduction From 2005 to 2013, the Amarna Project undertook fieldwork at the South Tombs Cemetery, the largest of the burial grounds of ancient Akhetaten (Fig. 1). Over the course of the excavations some 378 graves were recorded and a minimum number of 432 individuals recovered. Twenty of the burials showed evidence of having contained painted wooden coffins.1 Almost all had been subject to heavy looting in antiquity and in many cases all that survived were small pieces of wood and painted plaster. In eight cases, however, more substantial portions of the coffins survived to be excavated, conserved and studied. As the only decorated coffins preserved from Amarna, these objects offer an unprecedented opportunity to explore religious beliefs concerning death and the afterlife during the Amarna Period.2 A study of

1

2

With post-excavation analysis continuing, this figure is somewhat preliminary, but unlikely to change very much. The coffins from the South Tombs Cemetery are probably not, however, the first Amarna Period coffins that the site has yielded. The Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, while clearing the sand and rubble from the courtyard of house P47.6 in the Main City in 1912, uncovered a coffin sitting adjacent to the boundary wall of the courtyard (Borchardt and Ricke 1980, 106, plan 29). The coffin is only mentioned briefly in the excavation report,

their iconography is ongoing, undertaken in conjunction with a broader project to conserve and investigate the technology of the coffins.3 The South Tombs Cemetery, as a single-phase, well-excavated and broadly sampled burial ground, also brings the opportunity to explore and contextualise burial materials in ways that are not possible at many Egyptian cemeteries, especially those excavated before the advent of ‘new archaeology’ and the careful excavation, sampling and study of mortuary assemblages and human remains. With this in mind, the focus of this paper is the archaeological and social context of the coffins; the paper asks how the coffins fit into both the burial landscape of the South Tombs Cemetery and, more broadly, the social environment of ancient Akhetaten. It is also a response to calls for greater consideration of non-elite burial practice in ancient Egypt (Baines and Lacovara 2002, 12–14; Richards 2005, 49–54; Cooney 2007, 275–9). The South Tombs Cemetery The South Tombs Cemetery occupies a long wadi in the cliffs adjacent to the South Tombs, which represent the elite component of the cemetery. The wadi is about 400m long, and seems to have been almost completely filled with graves, implying that several thousand people were buried here. The approach to fieldwork was to open three main excavation windows (Figs 2 and 3), termed the Upper Site, Lower Site and Wadi Mouth Site, with smaller exposures at the Middle and Wadi End Sites and some

3

where it is dated to the later New Kingdom, but information in diary entries and archive photos (VII.6.13.065–6) suggests an Amarna Period date is possible (Bettum 2015, 32; a fuller discussion of the coffin is pending). This work is being undertaken by Anders Bettum (Oslo Museum) and a team of conservators and materials scientists headed by Julie Dawson (Fitzwilliam Museum) and Lucy Skinner. For preliminary reports, see Dawson and Skinner (2013; 2014), Skinner (2015) and Bettum (2015).

140

A. STEVENS

Fig. 1: Map of Amarna by Barry Kemp, based partly on survey data from Helen Fenwick.

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

Fig. 2: Plan of the South Tombs Cemetery showing the areas excavated between 2006 and 2013 by Barry Kemp and Anna Stevens, based partly on survey data from Helen Fenwick.

141

142

A. STEVENS

Fig. 3: A view across the excavations at the Upper Site in 2008 (Photograph: G. Owen).

investigation of isolated squares on the edges of the cemetery.4 As the fieldwork progressed, it became clear that the burials had been affected not only by looting, but by one or more flash floods that formed or enlarged a channel down the axis of the wadi, and washed away looted materials from the burials. Despite these events, much evidence remained from which to reconstruct a picture of burial practice. Careful excavation has provided some understanding of what is likely to be missing from robbed and flood-damaged graves – at least in general terms, if not on a burial-by-burial basis. The social patterning that underlies the organisation of the graves is difficult to reconstruct, but when the

interments are plotted according to age and sex, they reveal a mixed distribution, with the burials of adults, children and infants, and males and females, intermingled. Presumably these are, at least in part, family groups. While most graves contained only a single individual, there were examples of multiple burials, in which the deceased persons seem to have been interred at the same time, although it is never possible to be certain of this. Overall, a sense of simplicity and uniformity prevails across the graves; some of this is a side effect of looting, but certainly not all. In terms of superstructure, most burials were probably marked with a rough stone

4



A summary of the work up to 2012 is provided by Kemp et al. (2013). Preliminary excavation reports appear in the Journalof

EgyptianArchaeology from 2005 to 2013, and the final excavation monograph is in preparation.

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

143

Fig. 4: a (left) A roughly carved stela with a triangular motif (obj. 39425). b (right) A well-preserved stela showing a seated man and woman receiving offerings (obj. 39938).

cairn, a small number of which survived the looting. Sometimes a stela seems to have been placed at the graveside, usually made of limestone and with a distinctive pointed shape, finishing at the top in a single, double or triple triangle (Fig. 4). The decoration rarely survives, but traces of carving on some suggest that the main scene was an image of the deceased sitting in front of a table of offerings. This scene is usually placed within a recess, giving the impression of a stela

set within a frame. Two small limestone pyramidia were also recovered from the site, one measuring 44cm in height and the other, not quite intact, surviving to 36cm. The latter has a small round-topped niche on one face that presumably was once carved or painted with an image of the deceased (Kemp 2010, 16–17, fig. 6; Kemp et al. 2013, 69, fig. 4). A preliminary interpretation of these stelae and pyramidia is that they combine a model of a rock-cut tomb (the pointed element) with

144

A. STEVENS

Fig. 5: A mud-brick burial chamber encountered at the Upper Site during 2006.

a memorial representation of the deceased (on a stela), the pointed iconography presumably implying a solar association. None of the stelae were found insitu, although one example – unique in being round-topped and made of a granular off-white plaster – was found with pieces of impressed mortar that suggest it was attached to a stone grave cairn (obj. 39448; Stevens and Shepperson 2009, 19–20, fig. 9). One of the pyramidia has a shallow rectangular recess in its base and might thus have been raised up on a foundation, while small fragments of mud brick, found very occasionally in disturbed grave fills and bulk sand deposits, are possibly the remains of small mud-brick superstructures. One of the excavated graves had a mud-brick burial chamber and it seems a good candidate for a superstructure of some kind (Fig. 5). If so, nothing survived the looting and weathering in situ, although fragments of a window grille found in a disturbed grave nearby perhaps originated from such a structure. Undoubtedly,

though, simple constructions such as low stone cairns were the norm. As regards the artefact record, potsherds were by far the most common item recovered during the excavation (Rose 2007; 2008; 2014; Rose and Gasperini 2015), potentially originating both from offerings left graveside and within the burial pit itself. The disturbance of the site largely removed sherds from their original context, although there were examples of vessels found in situ within graves, a few containing food offerings (Clapham 2007; 2015). There were also examples of jars with probable ‘killing holes’. Otherwise, grave goods were fairly rare, but did include items of personal adornment or significance such as cosmetic implements, and amuletic or ritual objects, such as scarabs, used presumably to aid the transition to the afterlife and ensure well-being thereafter. The deceased individuals were usually wrapped first in textile and then placed in a burial container, of which five different kinds were encountered. By far the most

Fig. 6: Distribution map of wooden coffins at the Wadi Mouth Site.

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

145

146

A. STEVENS

Fig. 7: Coffin 8 (obj. 40106) after conservation treatment (Photograph: N. Peters).

common was a mat that had been wrapped around the body and bound with rope. It was made usually of palm mid-rib (gereed) or tamarisk sticks, or less often of palm-leaf, halfa-grass, reed or sedge (Paqua 2015; Clapham 2015). There is evidence for the use of pottery coffins, although only as a few fragments found during surface survey (Rose 2005, 24), and a single example of a mud coffin, for an infant (Ind. 301; Stevens, Shepperson and King Wetzel 2013, 6–8, fig. 4). Forty wooden coffins were also encountered. Twenty take the form of simple undecorated boxes, which in all cases were far too degraded to be lifted and studied further. But around twenty graves showed evidence of having contained painted wooden coffins. All but one of these graves had been robbed, often reducing the coffins to small fragments of wood and plaster. Substantial portions of eight examples were however preserved. Most of the coffins were coloured black, the paint often apparent even when only small fragments survived; and while the coffins were often too damaged to determine their shape, at least eight were anthropoid. The decoration on most of the eight betterpreserved examples falls into two broad groups: those that continue the pre-Amarna tradition, utilising BD 151 and assimilating the deceased with Osiris, and those in which these elements are replaced by figures of humans undertaking ritual activity. It is not yet clear how much interplay might exist between the two decorative schemes (Bettum 2015). There is one exception: a rectangular coffin for an infant with yellow and black bands (Coffin 8 below).

5

The numbering of the eight better-preserved coffins follows that of Bettum (2015); all have in addition object and/or excavation numbers. The determination of the age and sex of the individuals

A brief description of the decorated coffins and their archaeological context follows.5 It should be noted that during the earlier fieldwork seasons the coffins were photographed extensively in situ and lifted out of the ground without treatment. From 2011, a new approach to excavating the coffins was instigated, with the use of cyclododecane (CDD), a wax that is applied in liquid form to the surface of an object and forms a rigid shell that helps the object to be lifted. The CDD is later allowed to sublime into the air in a controlled environment. This allowed an improved recovery rate, but the need for rapid application of the CDD limited the time available to photograph and study the coffin walls as they were exposed, the controlled sublimation of the CDD being an ongoing process. There is, therefore, only a partial record at present of most of the coffins excavated post-2011, while the study of the very fragmentary examples also largely awaits completion.

The decorated coffins TheWadiMouthSite Three decorated coffins were found at the Wadi Mouth Site (Fig. 6). One of these, in square AM111, survived only as fragments of wood and painted plaster. To judge from the scale of the grave, the coffin was adult-sized, but no human remains survived, nor were there any objects, other than a few potsherds, in the grave fill.

interred in the coffins is the work of the bioarchaeological team headed by Jerry Rose (University of Arkansas) and Gretchen Dabbs (Southern Illinois University).

Fig. 8: Distribution map of wooden (and mud) coffins at the Lower Site.

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

147

148

A. STEVENS

The other two coffins, both excavated in 2012, were better preserved. One was a full-size anthropoid coffin, Coffin 7 (obj. 40105). The wood was badly rotted and somewhat crushed and the decorated plaster layer was in particularly bad condition. It was covered in CDD to enable lifting, but from what was visible during excavation it seems to be of the traditional type. The name Tiy can possibly be read (Bettum 2015). Inside the coffin there remained the lower body of a female aged between 40 and 45 years (Ind. 300).

The second, Coffin 8, was a small rectangular coffin decorated with yellow text bands with black frame lines, the bands and image panels left blank (obj. 40106; Stevens, Shepperson and King Wetzel 2013, 4; Bettum 2015; Fig. 7). The coffin was consolidated in the ground and lifted intact, before undergoing conservation treatment (Peters 2015). The skeleton was not removed, but seems to be that of a child aged around 3 or 4 years (Ind. 332).

Fig. 9: Preliminary reconstruction of Coffin 3 (unit 13281) based on field photographs (Drawing: B. Kemp).

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

TheLowerSite Excavations at the Lower Site revealed the remains of eleven decorated coffins (Fig. 8). Most survived only as small fragments of wood and painted plaster, although four were more substantially preserved. Of the former, the majority were so badly robbed-out that

149

no skeletal elements remained, with two exceptions: a grave with coffin fragments in square V104 contained skeletal elements from an adult male aged 35–50 years (Ind. 117), while the skeleton of a man aged 35–45 years (Ind. 71) was found adjacent to, and may have originated from, an unoccupied grave with coffin fragments in U102.

Fig. 10: Preliminary reconstruction of Coffin 4 (unit 13262) based on field photographs (Drawing: B. Kemp).

150

A. STEVENS

Fig. 11: An offering bearer and text columns on the side of Coffin 4 (unit 13262), photographed during excavation.

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 seasons produced betterpreserved coffins. In 2010, work in square Y105 yielded, within the space of a single week, two fullsized coffins that remained largely intact apart from their lids, which had been smashed through by robbers in order to remove the contents. Unfortunately, the initial impression of good preservation was misleading; the wood survived largely as a grainy powder held together by the layers of paint and gypsum plaster on its surfaces. The coffins were lifted out of the ground in fragments after a photographic record was made, from which reconstruction drawings have been produced (Kemp 2010, 18–21, figs 7–8). Both coffins are of the ‘new type’ with human offering bearers and columns of text on their walls. Coffin 3 (unit 13281; Fig. 9) has four male offering figures separated by columns of hieroglyphs, with a fifth female figure at the shoulder. The name bands alternate the personal names Hesy(t)en-Ra and Hesy(t)en-Aten. Coffin 4 (unit 13262; Figs 10 and 11) was slightly larger, at 2m long, and shows on each wall four men carrying offerings or standing before a table of offerings, each figure separated by columns of largely unintelligible hieroglyphs. A larger table of offerings is

placed at the shoulder. In neither case were any skeletal remains or burial goods preserved within the grave. The 2011 coffin, Coffin 5 (unit 13438), was situated in square AA105 and was again almost intact apart from the lid (Stevens 2012a, 4–5, fig. 4). While one of the coffin panels is still covered in CDD, on the other traces of four standing figures can be discerned. The decoration is very poorly preserved, and requires closer study, but one of the figures is clearly jackal-headed (Fig. 12). The coffin was densely filled with jumbled bone representing the remains of four individuals. The most complete, and most likely to have been the original occupant, was a female aged 15–18 years (Ind. 199A). Bones from a foetus (Ind. 199D) suggest she may have been pregnant at the time of death. There were no remaining grave goods. A further coffin with what seems to be traditional imagery, Coffin 6 (obj. 40107), was found in 2012 in square AL105. It had been smashed into pieces by robbers, but some of the wood was in good condition, retaining a black-painted ground with cream-coloured decoration, a jackal-headed figure again visible (Bettum 2015). The grave contained skeletal elements from a child aged 8–12 years (Ind. 315).

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

151

TheMiddleSite No decorated coffins were found at the Middle Site, where only a small area was excavated, although two plain wooden coffins were present; Fig. 13 shows their locations.

TheUpperSite

Fig. 12: A jackal-headed figure on the side of Coffin 5 (unit 13438), after conservation treatment (Photograph: L. Skinner).

Remains of five probable decorated coffins were found at the Upper Site (Fig. 14). The disturbed fill of the mud-brick tomb chamber in square G51, excavated in 2006, contained fragments of plastered and painted coffin wood, and also loose pieces of gold leaf. The same fill contained about half of the skeleton of a probable male aged 20–35 years (Ind. 21). A grave pit crossing squares I52 and J52 also contained small fragments of painted plaster that are perhaps from a coffin once interred here. A small portion of a juvenile skeleton, aged around 6.5 years (Ind. 62) was found within the grave, but was possibly intrusive. Another entirely robbed-out grave crossing squares H51 and I51 also contained painted plaster fragments, some perhaps from a coffin lid; in this case, no skeletal remains survived. In the latter two examples, both excavated in 2007, only small amounts of painted plaster were found, but the very regular shape of the grave pit and the heavy disturbance are noteworthy – both are typical of graves with painted coffins. The 2007 excavations yielded a third example, Coffin 1, in square H52 (objs 37841–52, 37854, 37987; Kemp 2007, 21–2, fig. 8). The grave had been heavily looted and the coffin survived mostly as fragments of

Fig. 13: Distribution map of wooden coffins at the Middle Site.

Fig. 14: Distribution map of wooden coffins at the Upper Site.

152 A. STEVENS

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

153

TheWadiEndSite The 2012 excavations at the Wadi End Site produced small fragments of plaster and wood from a decorated coffin, the same grave containing parts of an adult skeleton (Ind. 292), of indeterminate age and sex (Fig. 16).

Who was buried at the South Tombs Cemetery?

Fig. 15: The mask from Coffin 2 (obj. 38819) after conservation treatment.

plaster and degraded wood. Recognisable amongst the former are facial elements including two modelled ears, painted red, and it is likely that many of the fragments are from the coffin lid. It remains to be ascertained whether parts of the coffin case were also present, or whether the lid might have been thrown in from elsewhere. Human remains belonging to a female aged 30–39 years (Ind. 29) were found in association with the fragments, but nothing remained of any grave goods. In 2008, a further decorated coffin, Coffin 2, appeared in square I51 (obj. 38819; Kemp 2008, 35–41, fig. 10; Fig. 15). Small parts of the coffin case survived, but the most notable element was the face from the lid. The coffin is for a female, named in inscriptions as Maya. Its decoration is of the ‘new type’, showing ritual scenes (Bettum 2015). Disarticulated bone was again found, being that of a female aged 40–49 years (Ind. 69A). An intact bowl containing botanical remains was found insitu on the grave floor at the head end of the coffin.

The South Tombs Cemetery is not the only non-elite cemetery for Akhetaten, and it is not entirely straightforward to ascertain who was buried here. There were at least three burial grounds located at the North Tombs, and each of the workers’ villages, the Workmen’s Village and Stone Village, had its own small cemetery (see Fig. 1). It has been proposed – on the basis of levels of degenerative joint disease, trauma and musculo-skeletal stress at the South Tombs Cemetery – that many of the people buried here had undertaken hard labour that might have included quarry work (Kemp et al. 2013, 71–4). The intention was not to imply, however, that these people necessarily belonged to a separate workers’ community as such. The most straightforward explanation of the fact that there are two main cemetery groups at Amarna, one at the north and one at the south, is that this reflects the division of the residential suburbs of the city into two zones, the North Suburb and North City to the north of the Central City, and the Main City to its south (see Fig. 1). Undoubtedly, some caution needs to be exercised here. The high priest Panehesy, who evidently lived in the Main City (Griffith 1924, 302, pl. XXXIII), also having a formal residence beside the Great Aten Temple (Pendlebury 1951, 26–7, fig. 6, pls XI, XXX.1, XXXI), was not buried at the South Tombs, but was the owner of North Tomb 6. Below his tomb, there is a small cemetery of pit graves, not yet excavated, but with Amarna Period pottery on its surface, which was perhaps used by Panehesy’s dependents, people who might have lived in small houses adjacent to his Main City estate. Furthermore, recent excavations at the largest of the northern cemeteries, located in a wadi between North Tombs 2 and 3, suggest this burial ground might have been for a labour force, whose place of residence is not yet clear (Stevens et al. 2015; 2017; Stevens and Dabbs forthcoming). A strict correlation between the north and south residential zones and cemeteries cannot be maintained, but we can probably assume nonetheless that a large number of the people buried at the South Tombs Cemetery were from the Main City.

154

A. STEVENS

Fig. 16: Distribution map of wooden coffins at the Wadi End Site.

The Main City, to judge from the excavation and study of its houses (Tietze 1985; Crocker 1985; Shaw 2004, 16–18), was home to a population that varied considerably in socio-economic status and occupation. The study of the human remains from the South Tombs Cemetery in turn reveals individuals who died at various ages, from infants to older adults, while morphological analysis of cranio-facial features shows high levels of diversity, suggesting a population that originated from across Egypt and – at an indeterminate level of generational remove – beyond its borders (Gretchen Dabbs, pers. comm.). So at the South Tombs Cemetery (including the rock-cut tombs) we probably have a mixed and broadly representative sample of the Amarna population other than,

6

These figures are obtained by dividing the number of coffins by the number of graves. They may be refined slightly as postexcavation analysis continues.

obviously, the royal family, and perhaps also very poor or outcast members of society who may not have attained a proper burial. It offers a fruitful basis from which to pursue social analysis (see also Stevens 2017). Coffin use at Amarna Evidence from the South Tombs Cemetery indicates that wooden coffins were either rarely sought after or – more likely – rarely attainable at Amarna. They represent only around 10% of the burial containers excavated at the South Tombs Cemetery, and decorated examples around just 5%.6 This is an important dataset that confirms that coffins were rare commodities in

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

New Kingdom Egypt, assuming they were no more or less attainable at Amarna than at contemporaneous sites.7 The wooden coffins are not confined to any one part of the South Tombs Cemetery but spread across it, with a concentration of both decorated and plain examples across the south-western excavation squares of the Lower Site and probably the southern squares of the Upper Site, although here their identification is based on more fragmentary evidence (see Figs 8 and 14). Graves with coffins fit smoothly into their setting, mostly conforming to the same orientation as surrounding burials, and surely belonging to the same general process of infilling that populated the cemetery as a whole. It is difficult to know how exactly this progressed, although it was presumably a fairly organic process, to judge from the mixed nature of the interments and the lack of a gridded or similarly structured layout to the graves. Local topography may have been one of the influences on how graves were oriented. Those on flat ground often follow the line of the wadi itself – the dominant directional prompt in the landscape – but those on the sloping sides of the wadi tend to run across the gradient, often with the head of the deceased on the higher ground, mimicking perhaps the way a person would lie on uneven land. It seems likely that the colonisation of the ground was driven especially by family-level agency; it was potentially rife with social tension, including that connected to securing family plots. If there were mechanisms in place to regulate the use of space, they can only be guessed at. It is tempting to see the cemetery beginning at the mouth of the wadi and the graves spreading down its length over time, although there is little scope to test this idea. If it is correct, however, the fragmentary coffin at the Wadi End Site (see Fig. 16) would lie exactly at the far limit of the burial ground and may thus have been interred close in time to the abandonment of Amarna, providing one temporal marker – unfortunately, almost entirely destroyed. It may be noteworthy, too, that the two coffins that have so far been identified with images of traditional divinities (Coffins 5 and 6) occur at the Lower Site (see Fig. 8), reasonably close to the beginning of the wadi, although with so

7

The situation is even more extreme at the cemetery between North Tombs 2 and 3, where no evidence of wooden coffins at

155

many coffins surviving only as small fragments, we cannot be sure that similarly decorated examples were not once located further down the wadi. More significant, perhaps, is the close proximity of one of the ‘jackal coffins’ (Coffin 5) at the Lower Site to those of examples with ‘godless’ decoration, suggesting that these were potentially interred not far apart in time, and perhaps even used by people who were in some way associates. Despite the robbery of the site, there is still information to be gleaned on the identity of those interred in the coffins through a combination of skeletal analysis, the inscriptions on the coffins, or simply the size of the grave in which coffin fragments were found. This is presented in Table 1, where a couple of patterns are clear: namely, the association of decorated coffins with adults, both female and male (although age is often deduced solely on the basis of grave size); and the large number of infants buried in plain wooden coffins. In the latter we might see a heightened desire to protect the young and vulnerable, if not through ritually charged iconography, then at least through a more substantial container than a burial mat. It is not clear, due to poor preservation, whether all of these infant coffins were purpose-made or might have been reused boxes. Coffin 8, the partially decorated child coffin at the Wadi Mouth Site (see Figs 6 and 7), offers an interesting case, the child being too big for the coffin and a hole having been cut through the foot-board to accommodate the feet. It presumably represents the expedient procurement of a burial container, perhaps from a coffin-maker’s non-commissioned stock. No attempt was made to finish the decoration of the coffin, or even it seems to inscribe a name; its incomplete decoration may have had little ritual value. One of the underlying research questions for the cemetery is whether it can contribute to our understanding of the socio-economic make-up of the Amarna population, as a complement to previous work on the topic based on house sizes and fittings (Tietze 1985; 2010, 98–117; Crocker 1985; Kemp 1989, 298, 300). The cemetery data is not immediately promising because of the effects of robbery, but also because of the sense of uniformity across the graves. The site

all was encountered amongst the eighty-five graves excavated in 2015 (Stevens et al. 2015).

A. STEVENS

156

Table 1: Breakdown of coffin ownership according to age and sex. Note that one of the undecorated coffins seems to have contained two infants (Inds 140 and 165). Young Late child adult (7–14.9) female (15–24.9)

Young adult (indet. sex) (15–24.9)

Adult female (25–50+)

Adult male (25–50+)

Probable adult (on the basis of grave size)

Infant (0–2.9)

Decorated wooden coffin

0

1?

1

1

–

–

2 + 2?

2 + 1?

10

Undecorated wooden coffin

12

–

3

–

–

2

2

1

1

Coffin type

does, nonetheless, reinforce the idea that there was a large divide between the upper elite and the rest of the population, given that it contains only a small number of rock-cut tombs and a much larger number of simple pit graves. Across the latter, there is little further sign of socio-economic difference, and it has been suggested that diversity for the non-elite may not have been strongly expressed in mortuary data (Kemp et al. 2013, 74–5). The main exceptions, of course, are the wooden coffins, which must be viewable, to some extent, as ‘status markers’ (Cooney 2007). The Roman Period Tale of Setne (II) (Papyrus British Museum EA 10822 verso; Lichtheim 1980, 139), with a Ramesside prince as its hero, illustrates this nicely, in contrasting the funerals of a rich and poor man. The relevant passage is incomplete, but the meaning is clear: Setne heard the sound of wailing ---. He looked [down from the window] of his house [and saw the coffin of a rich man] being carried out to the cemetery with [very loud] wailing ---, and great were the honors ---. [In another moment] as he was looking down, he saw [the body of a poor man being carried out of Memphis] wrapped (only) in a mat --- without anyone walking [behind him].

Situating the Amarna coffins in their socio-economic context, however, is not straightforward. It seems forced to separate out those individuals buried in different coffin types as coming from distinct social strata, and while house-size data provide a lynchpin of sorts, a more nuanced approach needs at least to be pursued: what did coffin ownership mean in terms of how these people were perceived within the community, and was

8

Young adult male (15–24.9)

Early child (3–6.9)

The identification of wood and pigment types is the work of Rainer Gerisch (Free University, Berlin) and Corina Rogge (Houston Museum of Art) respectively.

this perception necessarily uniform across the life– death–afterlife transition? The Setne text is a reminder of the central role of the funeral in marking this transition, and of the socially charged occasion this constituted. Status, closeness to court culture and religious affiliation – of the deceased and/or those who took on responsibility for the funeral – would have been amongst the aspects on display. The ritual power that decorated coffins embodied, relative to simple matting coffins, must have imbued the decorated forms automatically with value – and public responses to the parading of ‘traditional’ or ‘new’ coffin types are fascinating to consider in this respect. The quality of workmanship and materials must likewise have been open to some degree of scrutiny. In these respects, the Amarna coffins appear to be broadly comparable to non-elite coffins from other New Kingdom sites (Bettum 2015). Local woods are predominant, especially sycamore fig, and a typical New Kingdom palette of pigments is attested: red and yellow ochre, carbon black, Egyptian blue, calcite (white) and orpiment.8 Flakes of gold leaf found loose near coffin fragments in the mud-brick chamber at the Upper Site (see Fig. 5) could suggest the use of more precious decorative elements in at least this one case. Based on the artistic style and legibility of the text, the preliminary study of Coffins 3 and 4 from the Lower Site suggested that they were the products of ‘village’ craftsmen, who worked to a standard coffin template but were not trained as artists (Kemp 2010, 21). Greater artistic skill might be seen, perhaps, in the execution of the jackal figure on Coffin 5 (see Fig. 12) and the carving of the mask of Coffin 2 (see Fig. 15; Bettum 2015).

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

In any case, there is perhaps enough variation in the quality of decoration to suggest that this was executed in somewhat varied environments, although repositioning the coffins into their manufacturing contexts is not an easy task. We are looking for industries that are particularly ephemeral in the archaeological record – woodworking and painting – and beyond identifying suitable tools or pigments, we are unlikely to get far in finding direct evidence of spaces in which coffins were made at Amarna. It seems worth noting, nonetheless, that one concentration of artistic skill occurred at the Workmen’s Village, most evident in the vibrant paintings that decorated the chapels adjacent to the walled settlement (Weatherhead and Kemp 2007). Might it be that, like their Ramesside counterparts at Deir elMedina (Cooney 2007), the artisans of the Amarna Workmen’s Village were sometimes engaged to take on private commissions of coffins? There is no record of decorated coffins being found amongst the graves of the workmen themselves, which might have provided support for this idea, but very few graves have been cleared here (Peet and Woolley 1923, 94; Stevens 2012b, 442; Stevens and Rose forthcoming).9 Once interred at the South Tombs Cemetery, the coffins were rendered invisible, and any role as visual status markers was nullified. There are hints, however, that a sense of otherness was maintained at some of these burials through the use of superstructures somewhat more elaborate than average. The mud-brick chamber at the Upper Site – with its possible gold-leaf coffin – is the most likely example (see Fig. 5). Might we imagine a small pyramid and attached offering place, the latter in the grave-free area of ground to the north-east of the chamber (see Fig. 14)? In this one burial it is almost possible to see signs of the adjacent graves lining up orthogonally around it as though it was a monument, or represented a person, of some presence – although because it lies on the edge of an excavation area, the full picture of its setting is lacking. At the Lower Site, loose fragments of mud brick found along the junction of squares U102 and U103

9

One grave did contain a plain wooden coffin at least. It occurred as part of a tomb assemblage that included a wooden object identified as a chair leg, a set of eight vessels, some apparently containing food offerings, and a hieratic ostracon. This would be considered a rich assemblage if found at the South Tombs

157

perhaps originated from a mud-brick superstructure at one or both of the graves with decorated coffins here. It might be no coincidence, too, that the Lower Site, with the largest number of wooden coffins proportionate to graves excavated, also has the most stelae (eight of fifteen definite examples), and one of the two small pyramidia. Although all were from disturbed contexts, three of the stelae were excavated near graves containing decorated coffins. The stelae from the cemetery are of very variable quality. The simplest is little more than a roughly smoothed piece of limestone with a triangular design that is now weathered, but seems never to have been carefully incised (obj. 39425 from the Lower Site; see Fig. 4a). But even such simple monuments may have stood out at the site, assuming their rarity is not a result of post-depositional processes. The best-preserved of the stelae is a remarkable example in which a seated man and woman are shown in an intimate style reminiscent of imagery of the king and queen (obj. 39938 from the Lower Site; Kemp 2010, 16–17; see Fig. 4b), and it is difficult not to suppose that status – real or sought after – was inherent in the mimicking of court style. But to what extent were statements of ‘otherness’ as inscribed in the burial landscape, or conveyed through the parading of a decorated coffin during a funeral, reflections of position during life? Emotions connected with bereavement may have prompted family members to acquire items beyond their normal means, while for some individuals attaining a coffin may have been a product of personal investment over the course of a lifetime – a pinnacle of achievement. Some people buried in coffins might indeed have had elevated status, but in a restricted social context – as the head of a household for example – rather than in a broader community setting. Individuals buried in coffins may have attained in life such benefits as a larger or better fittedout house, but need not always have done so. It is worth asking whether some of the patterning seen at the South Tombs Cemetery could reflect such mechanisms of attaining coffins: the association of decorated

Cemetery, the ‘chair leg’ unparalleled here. Burial architecture at the Workmen’s Village, and to some extent the Stone Village, is also more elaborate, both sites lying on a plateau of desert marl and soft rock that allowed the cutting of shaft-and-chamber tombs (Stevens 2012b, 442).

158

A. STEVENS

coffins especially with adults, for example, and the fact that decorated coffins do not always occur in clusters, but sometimes in isolation from other examples (see Figs 6, 8, 14 and 16; allowance needs to be made for areas of unexcavated ground). When groupings of coffins do occur, such as at the Lower Site and probably the Upper Site, it raises the question whether family circumstances were enough to sustain the repeated investment in decorated coffins, and whether these were groups of people who were perceived as different in life. One important question is where the families of officials who owned rock-cut tombs were buried. Very few of the twenty-seven numbered South Tombs show evidence of burial shafts, either inside or in the cliffs adjacent, to suggest they were used to accommodate interments (Davies 1906, 9, 21, 25; 1908, 8, 12),10 yet these families must have suffered deaths during the occupation of Akhetaten. Some may have been buried in family tombs beyond Amarna, but the possibility exists that some of the individuals interred in coffins at the South Tombs Cemetery are also from these households. Conclusions Amarna provides a rare opportunity to situate cemeteries and burial assemblages within their broader urban context, while the cemeteries of Amarna in turn provide the chance to approach this extensively studied settlement not from the perspective of houses and households, but that of individual lives. In a burial landscape characterised by uniformity and the widespread use of burial mats to wrap the deceased, the decorated wooden coffins stand out. Their widespread distribution across the cemetery suggests that graves here were not strongly segregated according to socioeconomic status, although clusters of somewhat betteroff burials, perhaps grouped according to kinship ties, can also be found. The reasonably close proximity of

10

Large quantities of pottery and burial materials, including interments wrapped in matting and in coffins, were removed from the South Tombs in the late 19th century, but not published (Davies 1906, 10–11; 1908, 13–14, n. 5). These are assumed to have been secondary, and indeed the pottery at least dates to Dynasties 25 and 30 (French 1986). The possibility that New Kingdom burial materials were amongst these, however, cannot be entirely ruled out. Amongst items found by Flinders Petrie at

one coffin with traditional imagery (Coffin 5) to others in the new ‘godless’ style (Coffins 3 and 4) at the Lower Site might suggest that both decorative types were in circulation close in time, and perhaps used by people who were associated. The general lack of evidence for subsidiary burials at the rock-cut South Tombs raises the possibility that some of the burials containing decorated coffins within the wadi itself are those of family members of the owners of these tombs. At the same time, consideration of the social dynamics of coffin ownership cautions against assumptions that there were always straightforward associations between coffin use and social-economic status. Acknowledgements The Amarna cemetery excavations are made possible through the support of the Ministry of Antiquities, with special thanks owing to the staff of the Minia and Mallawi offices. The conservation and study of the coffins has been generously funded by USAID, via the American Research Center in Egypt’s Antiquities Endowment Fund, the Thriplow Trust, the Aurelius Trust, the Egypt Exploration Society and private donors through the Amarna Trust. The support of the Fitzwilliam Museum is also acknowledged. For access to archive records and photographs of the coffin excavated in the Main City, I wish to thank the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. The excavation and study of the Amarna cemeteries is very much a team effort, made possible by a dedicated group of excavators, bioarchaeologists, conservators and other specialists. Lucy Skinner and Julie Dawson need to be singled out for thanks for their dedication to the long-term coffin conservation project that unexpectedly developed from the excavations, while Megan Paqua’s help in organising and analysing the cemetery data during a study season in 2014 was invaluable in the preparation of this paper.

the South Tombs is a group of wooden funerary models (Petrie Museum UC 1982–2001, 24313–15; Petrie 1937, 12–13), some probably later than the New Kingdom, but including pieces of model boats that find general parallel within New Kingdom settlement and funerary contexts, although not exclusively (Stevens 2006, 115–16). There is also a number of shabtis thought to be from Amarna that potentially come from the elite tombs (Martin 1986).

BEYOND ICONOGRAPHY: THE AMARNA COFFINS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

I also wish to thank Roland Enmarch, who kindly pointed me in the direction of the Setne text, and Anders Bettum, Gretchen Dabbs and Lucy Skinner for their feedback on a draft of this paper.

Bibliography Baines, J. and P. Lacovara. 2002. Burial and the dead in ancient Egyptian society: Respect, formalism, neglect. JournalofSocialArchaeology 2, 5–36. Bettum, A. 2015. The Amarna Coffins Project: Coffins from the South Tombs Cemetery. Decorative schemes. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014–15. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 101, 29–32. Borchardt, L. and H. Ricke. 1980. DieWohnhäuserinTell el-Amarna. Berlin. Clapham, A. 2007. Plant remains. In B. Kemp, Tell elAmarna, 2006–7. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 93, 62–3. Clapham, A. 2015. Archaeobotany of the South Tombs Cemetery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014–15. Journalof EgyptianArchaeology 101, 33–4. Cooney, K. 2007. The cost of death: The social and economic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the Ramesside Period. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Crocker, P. T. 1985. Status symbols in the architecture of El-’Amarna. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 71, 52–65. Davies, N. de G. 1906. TherocktombsofelAmarna.Part IV – ThetombsofPenthu,Mahu,andothers. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 16. London. Davies, N. de G. 1908. TherocktombsofelAmarna.Part V – Smallertombsandboundarystelae. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 17. London. Dawson, J. and L. Skinner. 2013. Conservation of the wooden coffins (2012 and 2013). In B. Kemp, Tell elAmarna, 2012–13. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 99, 14–16. Dawson, J. and L. Skinner. 2014. Conservation of wooden coffins and three hairstyles from the South Tombs Cemetery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014. Journal of EgyptianArchaeology 100, 21–2. French, P. 1986. Late Dynastic pottery from the vicinity of the South Tombs. In B. J. Kemp (ed.), AmarnaReports VI. London, 147–88. Griffith, F. L. 1924. Excavations at el-‘Amarnah, 1923–24. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 10, 299–305. Kemp, B. J. 1989. AncientEgypt:Anatomyofacivilization. First edition. London. Kemp, B. 2007. Tell el-Amarna, 2006–7. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 93, 1–63

159

Kemp, B. 2008. Tell el-Amarna, 2007–8. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 94, 1–67. Kemp, B. 2010. South Tombs Cemetery Appendix: Artefacts. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2010. Journal of EgyptianArchaeology 96, 16–21. Kemp, B., A. Stevens, G. R. Dabbs, M. Zabecki and J. C. Rose. 2013. Life, death and beyond in Akhenaten’s Egypt: Excavating the South Tombs Cemetery at Amarna. Antiquity 87 (335), 64–78. Lichtheim, M. 1980. Ancient Egyptian literature. Volume III: TheLatePeriod. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London. Martin, G. 1986. Shabtis of private persons in the Amarna Period. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,AbteilungKairo 42, 109–29. Paqua, M. 2015. Caring for the dead at the South Tombs Cemetery: A study of burial matting. Horizon: The AmarnaProjectandAmarnaTrustNewsletter 16, 7. Peet, T. E. and C. L. Woolley. 1923. ThecityofAkhenaten, I: Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at el-’Amarna. London. Pendlebury, J. D. S. 1951. The city of Akhenaten, III: The CentralCityandtheofficialquarters. EES Excavation Memoir 44. London. Peters, N. 2015. The on-site analytical study, photographic documentation, and conservation treatment of an Egyptian New Kingdom child coffin. Unpublished project report submitted to the Art Conservation Department, Buffalo State College. Petrie, W. M. F. 1937. ThefuneralfurnitureofEgypt. London. Richards, J. E. 2005. Society and death in ancient Egypt: Mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. Rose, P. 2005. Preliminary report on the pottery from the South Tombs bone survey, 2005. In B. Kemp, Tell elAmarna, 2005. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 91, 23–4. Rose, P. 2007. Eighteenth Dynasty pottery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2006–7. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 93, 61–2. Rose, P. 2008. Pottery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2007–8. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 94, 58–9. Rose, P. 2014. Pottery study. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 100, 23–5. Rose, P. and V. Gasperini. 2015. Pottery from the South Tombs Cemetery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014– 15. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 101, 32–3. Shaw, I. 2004. Identity and occupation: How did individuals define themselves and their work in the Egyptian New Kingdom? In J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds), Invention and innovation: The social context of technological change2.Egypt,theAegeanandtheNearEast,1650– 1150BC. Oxford, 12–24. Skinner, L. 2015. The Amarna Coffins Project: Coffins from the South Tombs Cemetery. Conservation and materials

160

A. STEVENS

analysis. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014–15. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 101, 27–9. Stevens, A. 2006. PrivatereligionatAmarna:Thematerial evidence. BAR International Series 1587. Oxford. Stevens, A. 2012a. South Tombs Cemetery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2011–12. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 98, 1–7. Stevens, A. 2012b. Akhenaten’sworkers. TheAmarnaStone VillageSurvey,2005–2009.Volume1:Theexcavations andarchitecture.EES Excavation Memoir 100. London. Stevens, A. 2017. Death and the City: The cemeteries of Amarna in their urban context. Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal[doi: 10.1017/S0959774317000592]. Stevens A. and G. R. Dabbs. Forthcoming. The North Tombs Cemetery excavations and skeletal analysis. Journalof EgyptianArchaeology. Stevens, A., G. R. Dabbs, M. Shepperson and M. King Wetzel. 2015. North Tombs Cemetery: 2015 excavation season. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2014–15. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 101, 19–24.

Stevens, A. and P. Rose. Forthcoming. Death and burial at the Amarna Workmen’s Village: A community cemetery in context. In A. Warfe, J. Gill, C. Hamilton, A. Pettman and D. Stewart (eds), StudiesonAncientEgyptin HonourofColinA.Hope. Leuven. Stevens, A. and M. Shepperson. 2009. South Tombs Cemetery. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna 2008–9. Journal of EgyptianArchaeology 96, 11–27. Stevens, A., M. Shepperson and M. King Wetzel. 2013. The South Tombs Cemetery excavations, 2012 and 2013 seasons. In B. Kemp, Tell el-Amarna, 2012–13. Journal ofEgyptianArchaeology 99, 2–16. Tietze, C. 1985. Amarna. Analyse der Wohnhäuser und soziale Struktur der Stadtbewohner. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische SpracheundAltertumskunde 112, 48–84. Tietze, C. 2010. Amarna: Lebensräume – Lebensbilder – Weltbilder. Weimar. Weatherhead, F. and B. Kemp. 2007. The Main Chapel at theAmarnaWorkmen’sVillageanditswallpaintings. EES Excavation Memoir 85. London.

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN: A RARE GROUP OF EARLY RAMESSIDE COFFINS FROM TOMB MIDAN.05 IN THE THEBAN NECROPOLIS Marilina BETRÒ and Gianluca MINIACI1

Abstract This paper aims at presenting the most significant coffin fragments found in one of the shafts (P3) of Dynasty 18 tomb MIDAN.05 at Dra Abu el-Naga in the Theban Necropolis. The large amount of coffin and wooden pieces (mainly coming from the room M, cut on the eastern side of P3) includes masks, foot-ends and foot-boards, feet, hands, parts of wigs and collars, and various other small elements. These fragments fall within the framework of the yellow-type coffin, well attested in the Ramesside period. Notwithstanding their backgrounds painted in yellow (from a vivid warmer colour to a lighter cream nuance), their sober decoration organised in compartments between text-bands and the foot-ends with sculpted feet provide a solid base for a more precise dating, being characteristic of a rarely attested transitional period between late Dynasty 18 and the beginning of Dynasty 19. Moreover, an archaeological context completely undisturbed in modern times for room M shows how these early Ramesside coffins had originally occupied an earlier burial space (early-mid Dynasty 18), probably reusing also earlier coffins (with carved inscriptions) and later they were in turn re-used, plundered, and discarded in a corner of the room. The last action of segregation aimed at creating a new burial space, housing some other burials (wrapped in reed-mats), which were installed at the bottom of the shafts, partially obstructing the entrance to room M. * * *

1

We are deeply indebted to John Taylor and Marie Vandenbeusch for having accepted this manuscript and having patiently waited for its completion, and to Anders Bettum and Kara Cooney for making their works available to us. We are grateful to all the team members, who made this study possible: Claudio Benedetti, Anna Consonni, Anna Giulia De Marco, Paolo Marini, Emanuele Taccola and Elena Tiribilli. Finally, we are indebted to Paul Whelan for improving the English of this paper.

MIDAN.05 is the acronym assigned by the Italian Archaeological Mission of the University of Pisa to a previously unknown rock-cut tomb lying on the lower slopes of Dra Abu el-Naga main hill (western Thebes), discovered in 2004 (Betrò, Del Vesco and Miniaci 2009, 64). In the large courtyard opening in front of MIDAN.05, four other smaller rock-cut tombs were carved in its side walls, including the Ramesside Theban Tomb 14, belonging to Huy, a priest attached to the cult of Amenhotep I (Betrò 2008; 2009). In 2011, a shaft (P3) with three funerary rooms was discovered in the south-western corner of the courtyard (Betrò, Miniaci and Del Vesco 2012, 49; Figs 1–3).2 As suggested by the more frequent distribution of shafts in the Theban necropolis for the time span between Hatshepsut/Thutmose III and Amenhotep III (see Kampp 1996, 83, table 58), its position may be related to that of MIDAN.05. Although partially plundered by robbers, the shaft — and its funerary rooms — contained a considerable amount of coffin fragments (mainly wood with painted plaster). The vast majority of these fragments belong to a rather narrow chronological sequence in the early Ramesside Period, for which there is not a particular abundance of preserved coffins (Taylor 2001, 170). The archaeological context ThedatingofMIDAN.05 The original phase of use of MIDAN.05 is datable to the very beginning of the New Kingdom, probably

2

Begun in 2011, the clearance of shaft P3 was actually completed in 2014. Here, only the coffin material is presented, while the complete archaeological report is forthcoming. The dating of pottery discussed in the following notes is based on the preliminary data provided by Anna Consonni. A short archaeological report can be found in Betrò and Miniaci 2016, 29–33.

162

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 1: Plan of MIDAN.05 complex (Drawing: P. Del Vesco and E. Taccola).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

Fig. 2: Plan and section of the shaft P3 and its rooms K, L, M (Drawing: E. Taccola and G. Miniaci).

163

Fig. 3: Plan of room M (Drawing: E. Taccola and G. Miniaci).

164 M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

around the time of Thutmose I or slightly earlier. Its first use can be dated by the discovery of hundreds of fragments belonging to one — or maybe two — rishi coffins, found in the lowest deposit layers of one of the inner funerary chambers (room j of shaft f; see Betrò and Miniaci 2011; Miniaci 2011, 75–6, cat. rT01Pi). Moreover, MIDAN.05’s plan is T-shaped but with an unusual single window to the left of the main door,3 apparently a feature of an archaic phase of development (Betrò 2016) of the T-shaped tombs standardised during the time of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III (Dziobek 1987; Kampp 1996, 110–6; Polz 2007, 245–302). The fragmentary polychrome painted decoration found still insitu does not bear the name or the titles of the tomb owner, and the decoration programme can be assigned to the time span between Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III only on stylistic grounds (Betrò, Miniaci and Del Vesco 2012, 41–4; Simini 2012; Marini 2014). Finds datable to Dynasty 18 and the Ramesside Period, although scattered throughout the tomb, were never found in context, owing to the reshuffling over time of the material lying in the tomb itself or because they came from the surrounding area. Such a movement of material was caused by both ancient and modern plundering as well as ancient flash floods (Del Vesco 2009). Over the course of time, several other architectural changes modified the original plan of the structure and the tomb was used, reused and occupied by multiple burials into the Graeco-Roman Period. Once the tomb was abandoned, after the Roman Period, the whole area was buried under 5m of debris, gradually transported here and deposited by a number of different flooding events. Eventually, during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, plunderers excavated their own way through this deposit, adding anthropic disturbance to that of natural events.

165

The mouth of the shaft measures 2.10 × 1.56m and is cut directly into the limestone bedrock of MIDAN.05’s

courtyard. The upper part of its eastern wall is partly broken, corresponding, indeed, to an area that was reworked and reused at a later phase to accommodate a Ramesside stela or niche (?) inside the small courtyard of TT 14 (Betrò, Miniaci and Del Vesco 2012, 48). The shaft is 6.33m deep, and on the eastern and western sectors of its longitudinal walls there are climbing holes, grooved at regular intervals one above the other; only at 3.20m from the shaft entrance (exactly at the floor level of room K, see below) are the climbing holes replaced by a shallow recess which extends around the four walls of the shaft. At the bottom of the shaft, two chambers open on the western and eastern sides, respectively labelled rooms L and M. Another chamber, labelled room K, opens half-way along the shaft (at 2.20m from its mouth) on its western side, just above room L. Although this type of chamber (located half-way along the shaft) is usually considered a later addition, nonetheless some architectural features suggest that room K was built before the shaft was completed: first,the misaligned axis between the bottom and the mouth of the shaft, turning exactly at the floor level of room K; second, the shallow recess in the shaft walls, cut at the floor level of room K, and clearly used by workers to deepen the shaft after the interruption caused by building room K. The shaft was found completely filled: the upper layers were composed of loose sand with limestone chips and debris. The objects found in the upper part of the shaft are clearly the result of human action (i.e. the plundering or dumping of unwanted debris). Potsherds found in this section belong to different periods, mainly the New Kingdom, Late Period and Coptic Period. Although no clear evidence has been found of modern disturbance (as found in other sectors of MIDAN.05),4 the general impression is that the shaft (excluding room M) has been entered also in modern times. At 5.73m from the shaft mouth, three reed-mats (MAT.1-3), tied together with ropes and strings, wrapping the bodies of three mummified individuals (Fig. 4),5 were installed inside the shaft, over a layer of

3

4

ShaftP3(seeFigs2and3)

The same feature appears also in two nearby tombs (T1 and T2) discovered in 2010 on the northern side of the forecourt of MIDAN.05.

5

Fragments of newspapers, cigarettes, matches, or broken Turkish pipes (see Bavay 2010). The burials have been left untouched, awaiting further anthropological studies which will be carried out in future seasons.

166

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 4: Three reed-mats within the shaft at the time of discovery; note the closure of the entrance to room M with a row of bricks loosely placed over a heap of debris, in the upper part of photo (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

sand and limestone chips, leaning towards room M.6 The only partial burial equipment recorded on the ground just below the burials, which had probably fallen there after the deposition, included small coloured

6

At Thebes, reed burials were found by Carter and Carnarvon in the debris of Site 14, together with material from different periods, but apparently they do not record any objects from periods later than Dynasty 22 (Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 49–50, pl. 42.3). Mummies wrapped in mats are frequently found in excavations; nonetheless their dating is problematic since there are rarely any grave goods associated with such

faience beads (blue, green, white, yellow, red and black) and cowrie shells (see ‘perles annulaires – type A’, in Minault-Gout and Thill 2012, 306, 316, and pls 124–5). Just below the reed-mat burials, thick ropes and a group of thicker and longer palm sticks were found. They seem to be connected with the burials above and probably represent the remains of some sort of ‘palm-stick litter’ used to transport the three burials and lower them down into the shaft. The position of these burials at this particular depth above the bottom of the shaft, and lying over a previously formed deposit, had the result of partially obstructing the entrance of room M so that convenient access to it would have been impossible without removing or destroying them (see Fig. 4). Therefore, the presence of the intact reed-mat burials represents the terminus ante quem for the material in room M (and for any action of disturbance that occurred within it, see below). At the bottom of the shaft, below the layer of the three mat burials, another deposit of a different type was identified. It consisted of a group of heavily fragmentary and much-decayed objects, which included a large wooden plank, probably belonging to a coffin (side or bottom, S.1), a wooden mallet (broken into two parts), a Ramesside blue faience scaraboid representing Thoth as a squatting baboon (cf.Hornung and Staehelin 1976, n. 429; Keel 1995, §146), remains of a wooden funerary bed or litter, and fragments of a funerary cone.7 A preliminary assessment of the pottery seems to point to a late Dynasty 18–Ramesside Period dating of this deposit, with parallels extending to the reign of Ramesses II (see below, Thephasesofplundering). In shaft P3 and in all its funerary rooms (K, L, M), no evidence of flash-flood deposit layers was identified, in contrast to all the other areas in MIDAN.05. Thick flash-flood layers were recorded in all the sectors of the courtyard, flowing inside the nearby tombs T1 and T2 and in the area enclosing shaft P3 (tomb E, TT 14, see Betrò, Miniaci and Del Vesco 2012, 48–50).

7

burials. Their date range varies from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period (De Meyer 2008, 225 with bibliography. Cf. Janot 1997, 166–8, figs 3–8). The funerary cone is inscribed for the scribe Maaty and his wife Huy (Davies and Macadam 1957, 503). Many examples of his cones were found during the excavation of the north-eastern side of the courtyard.

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

167

The absence of any trace of mud deposits inside the filling of shaft P3 and its rooms leads to the conclusion that when flash floods occurred in MIDAN.05’s courtyard, shaft P3 was completely ‘sealed’ by filling material, which prevented any water ingress. In the following four lists (vertical section of the shaft; room K; room L; room M) only the most significant pieces of wood are recorded. Several hundreds of small, very fragmentary, and undecorated pieces of wood and sticks have been discovered in the whole of structure P3. The section of the coffin to which the fragment belongs (case/lid) is given in round brackets; in square brackets are the original inventory number and the level of the archaeological deposit (liv.). WpP = wood with painted plaster; b/g = background. For the sake of convenience the term ‘foot-end’ indicates here the whole board closing the anthropoid coffin at the height of the feet (including both pieces joining the case and the lid); the term ‘foot-board’ indicates only the bottom of the foot-end, the part of the coffin which would have been in contact with the ground when the coffin was standing.

S.3 = WpP, curved –18 × 7 × 4cm– [3926; liv. 911] S.4 = several frags clay with plaster, polychrome decoration [3913; liv. 911] S.5 = (lid) WpP, light yellow b/g, red and black decoration –45 × 6.5 × 3.5cm– [3905; liv. 911] S.6 = (lid) WpP, clenched fist, red paint –20 × 9cm– [3897/3; liv. 911] S.7 = (lid) WpP, wooden section between the feet, yellow b/g, traces of hieroglyphs in blue paint –20 × 10.5 × 5.5cm– [3897/2; liv. 911] S.8 = (lid) WpP, right foot with only four toes remaining –20 × 7.5cm– [3897/1; liv. 911] S.9 = WpP, six frags, light yellow b/g –max. 7.7 × max. 10.5cm– [3894; liv. 911]. Cf. L.3, L.8 S.10 = (lid) WpP, several frags, hand with three fingers remaining, red paint –16.5cm–; a long piece, light yellow b/g –32cm– [3924; 909] S.11 = several different types of frags, polychrome decoration [3913 bis; liv. 909] S.12 = WpP, blue and red paint –28 × 12 × 3cm– [3846; liv. 901] S.13 = WpP, rishi decoration –2 × 4 × 1cm– [3847; liv. 900]

Fragments of wooden pieces/parts of coffins from the vertical section of the shaft

MAT.1 = reed-mat on the northern side of the shaft; liv. 914 MAT.2 = reed-mat in the central part of the shaft; liv. 914 MAT.3 = reed-mat on the southern side of the shaft; liv. 914

S.1 = undecorated wood –109 × 23cm– [4076; liv. 931] S.2 = (lid) WpP, foot-end, foot-board with djed-pillar with red and black framing lines –14 × 23.5 × 4.5cm– [3946; liv. 920] (Fig. 5). PROBABLY JOINS WITH: M.60

Fig. 5: Foot-board with djed-pillar, S.2 (Shaft). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

168

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 6: Foot-board with imntt-standard between two kneeling women, K.8 (room K) Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

RoomK Room K (max. 2.78 × 2m; h. 0.90m) is located half-way along shaft P3, at 2.20m from the mouth of the shaft. Its contents were heavily looted and the whole chamber was filled with loose material. Nevertheless, even after preliminary analysis, it is clear that the material recorded in this room largely differs from the mixed rubble found in the shaft: it consists of a larger and more consistent concentration of potsherds dating to the New Kingdom (seeAston 1998, 182–3, fig. 521), which, notwithstanding the presence of Late Period fragments, might be diagnostic. Moreover, also found in the room were a number (five large fragments, K.2, K.4-8, see Fig. 6) of pieces of coffin (almost absent in the shaft units above the height of room K, see S.12–13), which are comparable in decoration and style to the coffin pieces found in the lower chambers.

Fragments of wooden pieces/coffins from room K K.1 = several frags of wood, some with painted plaster [3867; liv. 904] K.2 = undecorated wood –19 × 7 × 3cm– [3866; liv. 904] K.3 = several frags. WpP, yellow b/g, polychrome decoration, varnished [3865; liv. 904] K.4 = (lid) hand, yellow b/g –11 × 5cm– [3857; liv. 904] K.5 = WpP, yellow b/g –24.5 ×10 × 2.7cm– [3856; liv. 904] K.6 = (lid) WpP, right hand, yellow b/g with blue fingerrings painted, varnished? –19 × 8cm– [3855a; liv. 904] K.7 = several frags. WpP [3855; liv. 904] K.8 = (lid) foot-end, feet in relief, foot-board with imnttstandard in blue, red, and black paint between two kneeling women, yellow b/g, varnished? –30 × 24cm– [3849; liv. 904] (see Fig. 6).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

RoomL Room L (max. 5.10 × 2.38m; h. 1.30m) opens on the west side of shaft P3. The chamber was heavily looted and only at its western end were fragments of human remains (skulls and bones) found, broken and scattered among limestone chips, stones and boulders. A large number of broken reeds, ropes and textiles was recorded in this room (remains of other reed-mat burials?). At a lower level, probably contemporary with one of the uses of this room, two uninscribed wooden (painted plaster decayed/removed?) shabtis were found. Fragments of wooden pieces/coffins from room L L.1 = WpP, curved –32 × 5.5 × 4cm– [4073; liv. 953] L.2 = (lid) WpP, left clenched fist, traces of red lines between fingers –8 × 12cm– [4062; liv. 953]. JOINS WITH: L.12. L.3 = WpP, light yellow b/g, red and black lines –9 × 6cm– [4058; liv. 953]. Cf. M.34, S.9 L.4 = WpP, part of a wig? (unfinished?) light yellow b/g, white paint, red and black lines –12 × 6 × 1.3cm– [4057; liv. 953] L.5 = four small frags, WpP [4070; liv. 952] L.6 = clay and plaster with bandages, part of the wig, red, blue, and black decoration –3 × 8cm– [4049; liv. 952] L.7 = (lid) frag. of obsidian, part of inlaid left eyebrow? [4087; liv. 951] L.8 = two frags of WpP, light yellow b/g, with red and black decoration –12 × 3.7cm; 14 × 4cm– [4035; liv. 951]. Cf. L.3, S.9 L.9 = several frags, WpP, light yellow b/g [4046; liv. 950] L.10 = (lid) WpP, foot-end –7.5 × 29 × 5.5cm– [4045; liv. 950] L.11 = (lid) WpP, part of the wig –22 × 10 × max. 2cm– [4094; liv. 925] L.12 = (lid) WpP, right fist, thumb missing, traces of red lines between fingers –10.4 × 7.3 × 3.5cm– [4024; liv. 925]. JOINS WITH: L.2.

169

of rubble, chips and sand lay against a semicircle of boulders, limestone/sandstone stones and chippings, intentionally lined up in the middle of the chamber (at c. 2m from its entrance). A row of fragmentary mud bricks was placed at the upper extremity of the entrance, above the heap of loose material, in order to roughly close the passage to room M. However, the bricks, loosely lying over the filling deposit, were positioned there only after the entrance of room M was filled with the mass of loose material, and this had been done with the clear intention of symbolically obstructing the passage, rather than to block access (see Fig. 4). The loose material deposited in room M covered also the easternmost part of one reed-mat burial (MAT.2), partly lying in the doorway of the room. At the deep end of room M (eastern side), a heap of material had been amassed (Fig. 7), including a large amount of coffin and other wooden pieces (including three masks: M.31, M.40, M.53, see Figs 8, 9 and 10; eleven foot-ends/-boards: M.2 [+M.30], M.4, M.18, M.41, M.43, M.49, M.51, M.55, M.58, M.59 [+M.5], M.60, see Figs 11–18; feet, hands, parts of wigs and collars, and various other elements), many bones, human and animal, fragments of reeds, bandages and, unexpectedly, only a few fragments of pottery. The objects were heaped up without any apparent logic against the north-eastern corner of the room. The closure of room M with the rubble blocking took place when the material within was already in a ruinous state and had been piled in the corner, since the semicircle of blocking stones was superimposed over several coffin fragments, which belong to the same type and join with other pieces in the heap (M.2 and M.8 with M.30; M.5 with M.59). In the lowest layer of room M, preserved only in the sector near the entrance, the scant remains were found of what could have been one of the first phases of disturbance in the room (see below): a wooden shabti, a carnelian hair-ring, and a faience scarab (see below, Thephasesofplundering).

RoomM Fragments of wooden pieces/coffins in room M

Room M (max. 4.60 × 2.73m; h. 1.35m) opens on the east side of shaft P3. The entrance of the chamber was completely filled by a heap of loose sand with limestone chips and debris, containing different types of materials: bones, cloth, wooden remains, including several fragments of reeds, pottery sherds, plaster and a fragmentary blue faience shabti, belonging to Schneider’s type VIIIA2 (Schneider 1977, I, 220). The heap

M.1 = painted wood –8 × 4.3 × 0.5cm– [4068; liv. 929] M.2 = (lid) WpP, foot-end, yellow b/g, with black hieroglyphs (Nut spell), foot-board with Isis with raised arms, red, black and blue paint, left foot in relief, red painted –11.3 × 29 × 3cm– [4032; liv. 928] (see Fig. 11). JOINS WITH: M.8 and M.30 M.3 = (lid) WpP, open right hand with a few traces of paint –8 × 21cm– [4031; liv. 928]

170

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

M.4 = (case) WpP, foot-board, yellow b/g, djed-pillar in black and red with two ankh-signs and two tit-knots (?) at the sides –21 × 22 × 3cm– [4030; 928] M.5 = (lid) WpP, right foot, red paint, varnished? –12.5 × 6.5cm– [4044/86; liv. 927] (see Fig. 12, showingjoin withM.59). JOINS WITH: M.59 M.6 = WpP, several frags. Frag. with light yellow b/g – 26 × 4cm–. Frag. with white paint –42 × 9cm– [4040; 927] M.7 = (lid) painted clay and plaster, several frags, part of the breast, varnished [4037; liv. 927] M.8 = (lid) part of the left foot of M.2, red paint [4043/7; liv. 927]. JOINS WITH: M.2 and M.30 M.9 = WpP, yellow b/g, red and black framing lines decoration –8 × 7cm– [4043/6; liv. 927] M.10 = (case?) wood with white plaster –37 × 15cm– [4043/5; liv. 927] M.11 = (case) part of striated wig (black and yellow stripes), yellow b/g –2.6 × 6.5 × 2.5cm– [4043/4; liv. 927] M.12 = (lid) two semi-circular pieces joining, throat (?) red, yellow, green/blue paint, varnished? –23 × 8.5 × 7.1cm– [4043/3; liv. 927] M.13 = WpP, white b/g, a few traces of yellow and black paint –18 × 12 × 3cm– [4043/2; liv. 927]

M.14 = (lid) WpP, part of an arm with remains of the hand, white b/g, ‘Daily Life Dress’ style –17 × 4.5cm– [4043/1; liv. 927] M.15 = (case) WpP, curved right wall with part of the striated wig (black and yellow) and side texts with vignette, light yellow b/g, black hieroglyphs in columns (BD 161 and BD 151): l. ḏdỉmꜢḫw […], recumbent Anubis; 2. […] ꜥnḫrꜥ […]; 3. […]wḏꜢntjm […]; –9 × 58 × 3cm– [3981; liv. 924] (Fig. 19) M.16 = (lid) WpP, right foot, red paint –20 × max. 7.5 × max. 4cm– [3988/293; liv. 923]. PAIRS WITH: M.29 M.17 = (case) WpP, curved, black paint –32 × 30cm– [4006/289; liv. 923] M.18 = (case) WpP, foot-board, yellow b/g, djed-pillar in red –25 × 29cm– [3987/287+300; liv. 923] (see Fig. 13) M.19 = (lid) WpP, left edge, yellow b/g with black hieroglyphs. Lateral longitudinal text-band: […]mꜢꜥ-ḫrwms.wt Ἰs.mw.t[…]. Transverse text-bands: 1. : […-]fmry[…]. 2. […]ḏḥwty. REUSE: plaster over an older coffin with a curved hieroglyphic inscription: ḥtp nṯr.w nb.w dỉ-s ꜥḥꜥ […]ḥr[…] –7 × 55 × 3cm– [3986/281; liv. 923] (Fig. 20) M.20 = undecorated wood [4051/278; liv. 923] M.21 = undecorated wood –7 × 3.7 × 0.4cm– [4065/276; liv. 923]

Fig. 7: Eastern side of room M at the time of discovery, with the pile of coffin fragments and wooden pieces (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

M.22 = stucco, mud and cloth, curved, painted in yellow with black band –14 × 14.5cm– [4072/270; liv. 923] M.23 = (lid) WpP, semi-circular piece, black paint, red band, five holes –8 × 21 × 3cm– [4071/267; 923]. JOINS WITH: M.40 M.24 = clay and plaster, curved, white paint –11 × 14.3 × 7cm– [4061/261; liv. 923] M.25 = (lid) WpP, wig right lappet, black paint with yellow decoration – 41.2 × 11cm– [4060/252; liv. 923]. JOINS WITH: M.33 and M.53 M.26 = WpP, yellow paint –48 × 26 × 2cm– [4028/246; liv. 923] M.27 = WpP, one side is curved –93 × 16cm– [4050/243; liv. 923] M.28 = WpP, light yellow b/g –18 × 27cm– [4008/234; liv. 923] M.29 = (lid) WpP, left foot in relief, red paint –3 × 8 × 20cm– [4017/213; liv. 923]. PAIRS WITH: M.16 M.30 = (lid) WpP, right foot in relief, red paint –4 × 7 × 21cm– [4016/206+244; liv. 923]. JOINS WITH: M.2 M.31 = (lid) clay over wood with traces of bandage/cloth, mask, traces of paint. REUSE: clay applied over an older wooden mask? –21.5 × 16.5cm– [3985/205; liv. 923] (see Fig. 8) M.32 = undecorated wood –91.5 × 18.5cm– [4052/203; 923] M.33 = (lid) WpP, wig, black paint –38 × 9.75 × 3cm– [4018/188: liv. 923]. JOINS WITH: M.25 and M.53 M.34 = WpP, black paint –62cm– [4053/181; liv. 923] M.35 = (case) WpP, curved, yellow b/g –16 × 25 × 2.5cm– [4014/180; liv. 923] M.36 = WpP, white + yellow b/g, with hieroglyphs in black – 6 × 15cm– [4003/177; liv. 923]. See M.19, M.48 M.37 = (lid) WpP, curved, black paint –7 × 26.5 × 5cm– [4019/176; liv. 923] M.38 = WpP, curved, yellow paint –23 × 5cm– [4092; liv. 923] M.39 = wood with five holes –16.5 × 25.5cm– [4029; liv. 923] M.40 = (lid) WpP, mask, red paint, with lotus flower, painted in red and blue. Below the chin a hole [3948 a-b/225; liv. 921] (see Fig. 9). JOINS WITH: M.23 M.41 = (lid) plaster over wood, foot-end, curved, white paint. REUSE: plaster over an older wooden piece? Unfinished? –26 × 23cm– [4021/194, 94; liv. 921–923] (see Fig. 14) M.42 = wood, clay, yellow paint –15.5 × 8cm– [4039/164; liv. 921] M.43 = (lid) WpP, foot-end with drawn feet, yellow b/g, red paint and black contours, red framing lines, between the feet red hieroglyphs in column: – Wsỉr tꜢ-wr.t-m-ḥb mꜢꜥ-ḫrw –20 × max. 27cm– [3954 a-b/155; liv. 921] (see Fig. 15)

171

M.44 = (case) WpP, striated wig, curved, yellow b/g –25.7 × 23cm– [3982/150; liv. 921] M.45 = (case) WpP, wall behind the head, curved; yellow b/g with black and yellow stripes –21 × 27cm– [3950/148a; liv. 921] M.46 = (case) WpP, wall behind the head, curved –28 × 34cm– [3949/135; liv. 921] M.47 = (lid) WpP, left side of the wig with lappet, black paint with red ribbon and a small round earring (?) [3983/120; liv. 921] M.48 = (lid) WpP, lower right edge, yellow b/g with black hieroglyphs. Transverse text-bands: 1. […-f]mr[y]; 2. [ḏ] ḥwtynb[…]. Lateral longitudinal text-band: […]wḥrms Ἰs.t[…]. REUSE: the plaster is applied on an older coffin with traces of carved hieroglyphic inscriptions –7 × 56 × 3cm– [3951/119; liv. 921] (Fig. 21) M.49 = (case) WpP, foot-board –27 × 27.5cm– [3953/113; liv. 921] M.50 = WpP, yellow b/g –41 × 5.5cm– [4042/102; liv. 921] M.51 = (case) WpP, foot-board, yellow b/g with red and black framing lines decoration and djed-pillar in red –22 × 27.7cm– [3952/101+123; liv. 921] (see Fig. 16) M.52 = (lid) WpP, right clenched fist with raised thumb –7.5 × 13.5cm– [4041/95; liv. 921] M.53 = (lid) WpP, mask, red paint, lotus flower on the forehead –25 × 16 × 6cm– [3984/87; liv. 921] (see Fig. 10). JOINS WITH: M.25 and M.33 M.54 = (lid) WpP, collar decoration, yellow b/g, with blue, green, red line decoration – 48 × 19 × 2.7cm– [4023/85; liv. 921] M.55 = (case) WpP, foot-board, yellow b/g –14 × 26.5 × 2.7cm– [4013/53; liv. 921] M.56 = WpP, yellow paint –10 × 4 × 2.6cm– [4059/30; liv. 921] M.57 = (case) WpP, foot-board? yellow b/g –13.5 × 20.5 × 3.5cm– [4012/23; liv. 921] M.58 = (case) WpP, foot-board, light yellow b/g, tit-knot –11.5 × max. 23 × 3cm– [3955/21; liv. 921] (see Fig. 17) M.59 = (lid) WpP, foot-end + left foot in relief, yellow b/g, varnished –9 × 19 × 13.5cm– [4010; liv. 921] (see Fig. 12). RIGHT FOOT: M.5 M.60 = (lid) WpP, reworked foot-end, yellow b/g, footboard with djed-pillar in red and black. REUSE: traces of white plaster over the decorated surface (djed-pillar); –13.5 × 23 × max 6.5cm– [4004; liv. 917] (see Fig. 18). PROBABLY JOINS WITH: S.2 M.61 = WpP, light yellow b/g, black lines, blue paint –22 × 4.4 × 1cm– [4002; liv. 917] M.62 = (lid) WpP, left foot, a few traces of red paint –17 × 9 × 4cm– [4000; liv. 917] M.63 = (lid) WpP, semi-circular piece, yellow and red paint –6.7 × 28 × 4– [4020; liv. 921]

172

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 8: Mask, M.31 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 9: Mask, M.40 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

173

Fig. 10: Mask, M.53 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 11: Foot-end with raised feet, black hieroglyphic inscription on the front and Isis with raised arms on the back, M.2 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

174

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 12: Foot-end with feet in relief, M59+M.5 (room M) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 13: Foot-board with djed-pillar, M.18 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

Fig. 14: Foot-end, M.41 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 15: Foot-end with drawn feet, M.43 (room M) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

175

176

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 16: Foot-board with djed-pillar, M.51 (room M). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 17: Foot-board with tit-knot, M.58 (room M) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 18: Reworked foot-board with djed-pillar, M.60 (room M; probably joins with S.2). Front and back (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

Coffin fragments from P3 Most of the coffin fragments found in P3 and its three chambers fall within the framework of the yellow-type coffin, well attested in the Ramesside Period: their backgrounds are painted in yellow (varying from a vivid warmer colour to a lighter cream shade), and their decoration is organised in compartments between text-bands; foot-ends often show sculpted (and in one case only painted, M.43, see Fig. 15) feet. The burials in the three chambers of the shaft were all subjected to plundering (see below, The phases of plundering): only ancient looters operated in room M, while ancient and modern robbers entered rooms L and K. This resulted in an unequal number of significant coffin pieces in the three rooms (K=8 fragments; L=12 fragments; M=63 fragments). Nonetheless, all of them show a close similarity in type, style and decoration. We cannot exclude the possibility that already in ancient times a distribution of fragments occurred between the three rooms, and that a number of fragments found in M might have come from K and L. The first Ramesside occupants of the shaft in part reused earlier coffins and later their funerary equipment was in turn reused, robbed and removed (see below, Thephasesofuse). For this reason many of the largest pieces and long planks were missing. Nevertheless, the relatively scant quantity of well-preserved inscribed and decorated fragments provides a solid base for a secure dating: the quite sober features are characteristic of the transitional period between late Dynasty 18 and the beginning of Dynasty 19. No fragments with the rich and relatively ‘crowded’ iconographic repertoire already typical of the second half of Dynasty 19 (Taylor 2001, 169–70, pl. 51) were found in the chambers of the shaft. The yellow-type coffin was well

8

9

Blue is evident on some pieces and was possibly the original colour of lines which now appear black. The dating of this ensemble has been much discussed: while Andrzej Niwiński (1988, 12, n. 35) places it in the reign of Horemheb or Ramesses I, Anders Bettum (2013, 120) does not exclude an earlier dating on the grounds of its lifelike features, such as the realistic wig type, found on post-Amarna Period Memphite coffins. He mentions an even earlier pre-Amarna dating proposed by Nicholas Reeves (2013) for this kind of wig on a mask in New York. Bettum also considers the rendering of the four Sons of Horus with uniformly human heads — an element that would disappear in Dynasty 19 — as a dating-criterion for

177

attested during Dynasty 19, although it possibly originated in the second half of Dynasty 18 (Grajetzki 1996; Dodson 1998, 338; 2000). Some details and comparanda of coffin fragments from the rooms of shaft P3 suggest that they belong to an early developmental phase of this type, possibly between the end of Dynasty 18 and the early part of Dynasty 19. Frames A quite characteristic black (or blue),8 white and red frame for the text-bands recurs on some inscribed pieces (M.48, M.15, M.19 [see respectively Figs 21, 19 and 20], M.36). This is a rare feature on Ramesside coffins, which finds a parallel on the oldest examples of the yellow type: it is attested on Katebet’s coffin in the British Museum (EA 6665, see Cooney 2007, 406–7, figs 23–4), possibly datable to the end of Dynasty 18,9 and on that of Teti (Brooklyn 37.14E), so far the oldest yellow-type coffins known (James 1974, 101–4, pls 57–8; Bleiberg 2008, 34–5, 114–5; Dodson 2000; Bettum 2013, 119). On Katebet’s coffin, large red bands flanked by red and white stripes frame the panels on the walls, while a red and a larger inscribed band runs along the middle of the lid with thinner black and white stripes at the sides of the central text column. Teti has a quite similar framing of texts and vignettes, although a slightly different colour scheme: here the bands are white, framed by black stripes and with a red one in the middle. A third yellow-type coffin with this feature is noted by Anders Bettum (2013, 119): P630a in the Náprstkovo Museum, Prague (Verner 1982, 358–64). On fragment M.15 (see Fig. 19), thinner red lines, flanking a larger black line, frame text columns and vignettes, displaying a more conventional scheme present also on Tamutneferet’s inner and outer coffin lids

the coffin of Katebet. He refers here to Niwiński (1984, 438), who considers the depiction of the four Sons of Horus with animal heads as customary from the post-Amarna Period onwards. Evidence for zoomorphic heads is, however, already attested before (see for instance the black outer coffin of Maihirpri [Cairo, CG 24001] and the coffins of Yuia [Cairo, CG 51001– 51002]), and, conversely, human heads are still depicted in the post-Amarna period and even later: cf. Qent (Florence 6526), Sennefer (Paris, Louvre E 14026), Nefertiti (Warsaw 138982 MNW), all three datable to Tutankhamun, or Nebtawi (Florence 6525, early Dynasty 19) and Nekhunefer (Polz in Assmann 1991, Ramesses II).

178

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 19: Curved right wall with part of the striated wig and lateral texts with vignette, M.15 (room M) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

Fig. 20: Left edge of lid with lateral longitudinal inscriptions. The drawing shows evidence for the reuse of the piece, M.19 (room M) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa; drawing: P. Marini).

Fig. 21: Lower right edge of lid with hieroglyphic inscription, M.48 (room M) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

(Paris, Louvre N 2571 and N 2631), which have thin black and red lines framing text columns. M.15 and other fragments from the shaft and its chambers (S.9, S.2, M.60, L.8, L.3) also show another decorative model in black and red, where black or red lines frame a vertical stripe of black strokes on a yellow background and are flanked by red, black or blue lines. Coffinswith‘DailyLifeDress’andhybridversions The presence of sculpted feet among the finds from P3 and its chambers is clear evidence of ‘Daily Life Dress’ iconography (Niwiński 1988, type Ia-b), a trend which probably started in the north around the Amarna period (Bettum 2013, 120) and is attested on mummycovers from the end of Dynasty 18 onwards, as well as on some inner coffins dating from the same period to the reign of Ramesses II (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 215–6, 225). A hybrid form, combining the sahiconography with some details of daily life dress — such as wigs and feet — is first attested with Katebet. It also appears on the inner coffin of Khonsu (New York, MMA 86.1.2), although in a less evident way: here the owner is represented in the orthodox sah form, but with a duplex wig and short beard, and with chest muscles clearly defined (Bettum 2013, 129). Another example, again datable to Dynasty 19, is that of Takayt (Frankfurt, Liebieghaus Skulptur Sammlung 1651 c–d), with naked feet in relief on the foot-piece of the inner coffin (Polz 1993, 302–23). Bettum dates this coffin slightly later than the previous ones, to the second half of Dynasty 19 (Bettum 2013, 221, 272–80 with further bibliography). Among MIDAN.05 finds from shaft P3 and chambers K, L and M, fragments attributable to mummycovers are absent: both feet in relief (S.8, K.8 [see Fig. 6], M.2+M.8+M30, M.16+M.29, M.5+M.59 [see Fig. 12], S.2+M.60 [see Figs 5 and 18], M.62) or painted (M.43 [see Fig. 15]), and pieces which point to representations of the dead wearing a white pleated garment (M.14 and maybe M.24) come from coffins in wood and/or clay, and not from thin wooden mummycovers. Because of the rarity of this iconographical type, the preserved parts of at least eleven coffins from

10

Wooden coffins with daily life dress: Iset (TT1, Cairo JE 27309); Tairsekheru (Edinburgh, Royal Museum of Scotland 1887.597); Henutwat (Paris, Louvre E 18848). Hybrid sah-

179

shaft P3 and its chambers provide very useful comparative evidence for the few examples known so far.10 The woman Taweretemheb, whose name is preserved in red paint at the end of the central longitudinal text-band of her lid, on foot-end M.43 (see below, Theoccupantsoftheshaft), had a coffin with a vivid chromatic scheme in yellow and red, repeated on a wooden shabti bearing her name (Type VB4, Schneider 1977, I, 185, Dynasty 19–20) also found in room M. While in the case of Katebet the decision to paint the feet instead of carving them was probably due to the reuse of a male coffin (Taylor 2010, 118, cat. no. 47), it is not possible to say whether the same explanation can be proposed for Taweretemheb. The presence, among the other finds from the room, of at least two inscribed fragments with the same bright red and yellow colouring and the characteristic black, white and red frame (M.48, M.15 [see respectively Figs 21 and 19]), which were reused from an older wooden coffin, could support the hypothesis, but nothing allows us to link these reused pieces with her name. It is worth noting that Taweretemheb (M.43) is barefoot, while Katebet wears sandals. In general, the craftsmanship of Katebet’s foot-end is of a higher quality and refinement than the MIDAN.05 piece. Nevertheless, MIDAN.05 coffin fragments have aspects comparable with early Ramesside or even older coffins. Most of the foot-ends discovered inside the rooms of shaft P3 consist of a rectangular wooden base painted yellow, with rounded anterior corners, onto which sculpted feet in red, sometimes with nails highlighted in white, were glued and secured with wooden pegs. Between the feet is a raised wooden section, shaped to follow their profile, bearing the end of the text inscribed in the central longitudinal band on the lid. The footboards of these pieces are decorated with different themes: Isis with raised hands, drawn in red and black (M.2 [see Fig. 11], very similar — again — to that of Katebet’s foot-board); and a djed-pillar in red and black with side motifs (S.2 [see Fig. 5]), unusual as the main decoration on lid foot-boards and more common on cases, though a comparison can be found in a very large single djed-pillar covering both lid and case foot-boards of the coffin of the child Henutwat (Paris,

daily-life coffins: Katebet (London, British Museum EA 6665); Takayt (Frankfurt, Liebieghaus Skulptur Sammlung 1651 c–d); Mutemmenu (London, British Museum EA 6703).

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

180

Fig. 22: One of the lowest layers at the entrance to room (M), showing traces of the first actions of looting. Note the shabti shown in Fig. 24 (Photograph: Gianluca Miniaci).

Louvre E 18848: Cooney 2007, fig. 128). A polychrome scheme, different from the red–black so far described, is on K.8 (see Fig. 6): it presents the imnttstandard in blue, red, and black paint, flanked by two kneeling mourning women in blue dresses, on a yellow background. The fragment is varnished (see Serpico and White 2001, 34–5), unlike the others so far examined. The subject finds a parallel on the footboard of Iy-Neferty’s mummy-cover (New York, MMA 86.1.5c).

Preliminary conclusions Thephasesofuse Evidence for the first phase of use of the shaft comes from the significant quantity of fragments of yellowtype coffins datable to the early Ramesside Period (end of Dynasty 18–beginning of Dynasty 19). From the preserved pieces it is possible to argue that at least eleven coffins belonging to this period had been placed

there: three complete foot-ends equipped with feet (both in relief [M.5+M.59; M.2+M.30, see respectively Figs 12 and 11] and drawn [M.43, see Fig. 15]), six fragmentary foot-boards which do not join each other (M.4, M.18 [see Fig. 13], M.49, M.51 [see Fig. 16], M.55, M.58 [see Fig. 17]), a single plain footend (M.41 [see Fig. 14]), and a pair of feet in relief (M.16+M.29), which does not belong to any of the foot-boards recovered. Another foot-end, probably re-employed in a subsequent phase (S.2+M.60 [see respectively Figs 5 and 18]), and an unpaired left foot (M.62), both from room M, suggest that the population of coffins in the structure was originally larger. Another complete foot-end (K.8) from room K and an unpaired right foot (S.8) from the shaft must be taken into account, although their archaeological context is much disturbed. Some of the yellow-type coffin fragments show signs of reuse from earlier coffins, possibly dating to the beginning of the New Kingdom. The painted plaster of the Ramesside Period was applied over coffin

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

181

Already in ancient times, the early Ramesside burials in the shaft suffered from one or more acts of plundering, which deprived mummies of their valuable funerary equipment and personal ornaments. A few scattered amulets and one carnelian hair-ring have been found in the lowest layer (preserved only in the shaft and at the entrance of room M, Fig. 22). The type of coffin fragments preserved, mainly small (short pieces, foot-ends/-boards, masks) and curved (parts of the wig), and the almost complete absence of long planks (floor-boards, side walls, planks of the lid) suggest that the action of plundering was ‘selective’, and focused on the procurement of large pieces of wood suitable for reuse (see Cooney 2011, 31–6; 2014). Coffins comprising large and long pieces of wood were dismantled in the tomb and the pieces brought outside to be reassembled or reused for new wooden equipment/furniture, while short pieces and fragments were left in the tomb. One of these long planks was left behind by looters at the bottom of the shaft (S.1). The unbalanced ratio between feet and hands (7:3 feet/hands in room M) reinforces the above idea, showing that hands were still attached when the lid planks were removed. Moreover, the state of preservation of the coffin fragments left in the tomb, disassembled but not forcibly broken, without traces of fire or violent destruction, points to the removal of coffin planks having been deliberately planned and carefully executed. The pillaging of the burial equipment and dismantling of the coffins could have been contemporaneous events or might have occurred at two different times.

found in this deposit, in contrast to the situation at the entrance of the room, where the original looting layer was still preserved (see Fig. 22). This can be explained as the result of a successive phase of activity after the plundering(s). Two contemporaneous events must have occurred: first, the grave goods left behind from the previous looting(s) were removed; and second, all the coffin fragments were intentionally heaped in the corner. This seems to imply an action of ‘clearance’ aimed at isolating all the remaining fragments of coffins, bones, and all the other debris in order to create a new burial space. Accordingly, placed in the middle of room M between its end wall and entrance and lying directly over the original layer of looting was a semicircle of stones, seemingly intended to isolate the heap of broken coffins (see Figs 2 and 3). The partial clearance of room M was, therefore, possibly a functional act to create a new burial space in order to house the reed-mat burials (MAT.1–3, see Fig. 4) found in the shaft. This explains why, among the stones of the semicircle, a fine limestone fragment of a female statue (Fig. 23) was found re-employed as part of the retaining system for the heap of rubble, while a fragment detached from its wig was found within the layer covering the three reed-mat burials: this suggests a close association between the deposit in room M and the installation of the reed-mat burials inside the shaft. Before this ‘clearance’ another phase of use could have occurred in the shaft, since at least one piece shows an unusual transformation: the foot-end M.60 (see Fig. 18) has been cut in an unusual way, hatching the wood and cropping the original decoration; moreover a stripe of white plaster was partially applied on the upper part of the piece, over the original early Ramesside decoration. Strangely enough, this transformation affected only this piece and not the joining foot-end, which ended up in the shaft (S.2), where it has been found. Also the foot-end M.41 (see Fig. 14) was moulded only with plain white plaster and with no trace of the yellow background or coloured decoration.

Thephaseofreuse

Thephaseofconcealment

Most of the coffin pieces, together with bones, reeds, sticks and stones, were found amassed in the northeastern corner of room M (see Fig. 7). Neither pottery (with the exclusion of a very limited number of fragments), shabtis, nor any other types of burial equipment which would be expected in the Ramesside period were

Beyond the intention of isolating the discarded wooden coffin fragments, the semicircle also served to retain an accumulation of debris deposited at the entrance of room M with the intention of obstructing access. The symbolic obstruction of the entrance to room M, completed by the installation of a loose line

types with a carved decoration, which included hieroglyphic texts (M.19, M.48 [see respectively Figs 20 and 21]). Other evidence of reuse is detectable in the foot-end M.41 and in the mask M.31 (see Fig. 8), where plaster/clay seems to be moulded over a preexisting wooden element. Thephasesofplundering

182

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Fig. 24: Painted wooden shabti belonging to the woman Taweretemheb, found in room M (beneath the lowest layers at the entrance to the room) (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa). Fig. 23: Fragment of a fine limestone female statue found re-employed as part of the retaining system for the heap of rubble and stones in room M (© Italian Archaeological Mission at Dra Abu el-Naga – University of Pisa).

of mud bricks over the heap of debris on the top of room M’s entrance (see above, RoomM), occurred at the time of the installation of the reed-mat burials in the shaft. It effectively sealed the contents of this room, which was not entered by modern robbers, unlike rooms L and K. Theoccupantsoftheshaft Unfortunately, the names of the persons who were buried in the shaft chambers remain unknown and at

present it is impossible to make any secure identification. The identity of only one of the occupants emerges from the fragments: the woman Taweretemheb (Ranke 1935, I, 355, 14), whose name is painted on the foot-end of a coffin lid (M.43 [see Fig. 15]) and on a painted wooden shabti (inv. no. 4054, Fig. 24), here accompanied by her title of ‘Musician of Amun’, šmꜥ.t n Ἰmn. The two objects do not come from the same deposit: the foot-end was found in the heap of material amassed at the bottom of the chamber, while the shabti was lying under the lowest layers near the room entrance, where evidence of one of the first phases of looting was still preserved. The above-illustrated dynamics of the plundering and reuse phases attested in room M make it highly likely that the two objects belonged to one of the deceased persons actually buried in the shaft.

USED, REUSED, PLUNDERED AND FORGOTTEN

Bibliography Assmann, J. 1991. DasGrabdesAmenemopeTT41. Theben 3. Mainz. Aston, D. A. 1998. Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q I. Teil 1: Corpus of fabrics, wares and shapes. Die Grabungen des Pelizaeus-Museums Hildesheim in Qantir - Pi-Ramesse; 1. Forschungen in der RamsesStadt. Mainz. Bavay, L. 2010. Fumer comme un Turc. Les pipes ottomanes provenant de la TT 29 à Cheikh Abd el-Gourna. In E. Warmenbol and V. Angenot (eds), Thèbes aux 101 portes: mélanges à la mémoire de Roland Tefnin. Monumenta Aegyptiaca 12. Turnhout, 25–46. Betrò, M. 2008. Il culto di Amenofi I a Dra Abu el-Naga: considerazioni preliminari. In S. Pernigotti and M. Zecchi (eds), Sacerdozioesocietàcivilenell’Egittoantico:atti del terzo Colloquio, Bologna – 30/31 maggio 2007. Imola, 85–104. Betrò, M. 2009. TT 14 and its owner Huy. In M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco and G. Miniaci (eds). Seven seasons at DraAbuel-Naga:ThetombofHuy(TT14):Preliminary results. Progetti 3. Pisa, 82–135. Betrò, M. 2016. Tombs in transition: MIDAN.05 and windows in the early Eighteenth Dynasty. In G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), TheworldofMiddleKingdom Egypt(2000–1550BC).Contributionsonarchaeology, art,religionandwrittentexts, Vol. II. Middle Kingdom Studies 2. London, 1–11. Betrò, M., P. Del Vesco and G. Miniaci. 2009. Sevenseasons at Dra Abu el-Naga: The tomb of Huy (TT 14): Preliminaryresults. Progetti 3. Pisa. Betrò, M. and G. Miniaci. 2011. The fragments of rishi coffins from the tomb MIDAN.05 at Dra Abu el-Naga. EgittoeVicinoOriente 32, 9–20, pls 1–3. Betrò, M. and G. Miniaci. 2016. The early Ramesside occupants of tomb MIDAN.05. Egyptian Archaeology 49, 29–33. Betrò, M., G. Miniaci and P. Del Vesco. 2012. La Missione Archeologica dell’Università di Pisa a Dra Abu el-Naga (M.I.D.A.N.) – Campagne VIII–XI (2008–2011). Egitto eVicinoOriente 35, 21–51. Bettum, A., 2013. Faces within faces: The symbolic function of nested yellow coffins in ancient Egypt. PhD dissertation, Oslo. Bleiberg, E., 2008. Toliveforever:Egyptiantreasuresfrom theBrooklynMuseum. Brooklyn. Carnarvon, Fifth Earl of, and H. Carter, 1912. Five years’ explorations at Thebes: A record of work done 1907– 1911. London. Cooney, K. M. 2007. Thecostofdeath:Thesocialandeconomic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden.

183

Cooney, K. M. 2011. Changing burial practices at the end of the New Kingdom: defensive adaptations in tomb commissions, coffin commissions, coffin decoration, and mummification. JournaloftheAmericanResearch CenterinEgypt47, 3–44. Cooney, K. M. 2014. Private sector tomb robbery and funerary arts reuse according to West Theban documentation. In J. Toivari-Viitala, T. Vartiainen and S. Uvanto (eds), Deirel-MedinaStudies:Helsinki,June24–26,2009: Proceedings. The Finnish Egyptological Society Occasional Papers 2. Vantaa, 16–28. Davies, N. de G. and M. F. L. Macadam. 1957. Acorpusof inscribedEgyptianfunerarycones. Oxford. Del Vesco, P. 2009. Archaeological context: Formation processes. In M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco and G. Miniaci (eds), Seven seasons at Dra Abu el-Naga: The tomb of Huy (TT14):Preliminaryresults. Progetti 3. Pisa, 138–49. De Meyer, M. 2008. Old Kingdom rock tombs at Dayr alBarsha: Archaeological and textual evidence of their use and reuse in Zones 4 and 7. PhD dissertation, Leuven. Dodson, A. 1998. On the burial of Maihirpri and certain coffins of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In C. J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists,Cambridge,3–9September1995. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. Leuven, 331–8. Dodson, A. 2000. The late Eighteenth Dynasty necropolis at Deir el-Medina and the earliest ‘yellow’ coffin of the New Kingdom. In R. J. Demarée and A. Egberts (eds), Deir el-Medina in the third millennium AD: A tribute toJac.J.Janssen. Egyptologische Uitgaven 14. Leiden, 89–100. Dziobek, E. 1987. The architectural development of Theban tombs in the early Eighteenth Dynasty. In J. Assmann, V. Davies and G. Burkard (eds), Problemsandpriorities inEgyptianarchaeology. London; New York, 69–79. Grajetzki, W. 1996. Ein Sargtyp des Neuen Reiches und sein möglicher Ursprung in der Amarnazeit. Göttinger Miszellen 150, 65–70. Hornung, E. and E. Staehelin (eds). 1976. Skarabäen und andereSiegelamuletteausBaslerSammlungen. Mainz. Ikram, S. and A. Dodson. 1998. The mummy in ancient Egypt:Equippingthedeadforeternity. London. James, T. G. H. 1974. Corpusofhieroglyphicinscriptionsin TheBrooklynMuseum,I:fromDynastyItotheendof DynastyXVIII. Brooklyn. Janot, F. 1997. Inhumations dans les ruines au complexe funéraire du roi Pépi Ier. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologieorientale97, 165–80. Kampp, F. 1996. Die thebanische Nekropole: zum Wandel desGrabgedankensvonder18.biszur20.Dynastie. Theben 13. Mainz. Keel, O. 1995. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel:VondenAnfängenbiszurPerserzeit.

184

M. BETRÒ AND G. MINIACI

Einleitung. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 10. Freiburg. Marini, P. 2014. Una scena di metallurgia e oreficeria dalla tomba M.I.D.A.N.05 a Dra Abu el-Naga. EgittoeVicino Oriente37, 89–101. Minault-Gout, A. and F. Thill. 2012. SaïII:Lecimetièredes tombeshypogéesduNouvelEmpire,SAC5. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 69. Cairo. Miniaci, G. 2011. Rishi coffins and the funerary culture of SecondIntermediatePeriodEgypt. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 17. London. Niwiński, A. 1984. Sarg NR-SpZt. In W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds), LexikonderÄgyptologie.Vol. V. Wiesbaden, 434–68. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21stdynastycoffinsfromThebes:Chronologicalandtypologicalstudies. Theben 5. Mainz. Polz, D. 1993. Särge und Kanopen. In H. Beck (ed.), Skulptur, Malerei,PapyriundSärge. Frankfurt am Main, 302–402. Polz, D. 2007. Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: zur VorgeschichteeinerZeitenwende. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo 31. Berlin; New York. Ranke, H. 1935. DieägyptischePersonnennamenI, Glückstadt.

Reeves, N. 2013. Amenhotep, overseer of builders of Amun: An eighteenth-dynasty burial reassembled. Metropolitan MuseumJournal48, 7–36. Schneider, H. D. 1977. Shabtis: An introduction to the history of ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes with a catalogue of the collection of shabtis in the National MuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden. Leiden. Serpico, M. and R. White. 2001. The use and identification of varnish on New Kingdom funerary equipment. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour and painting in ancient Egypt. London, 33–42. Simini, V. 2012. The musical scene in the tomb M.I.D.A.N.05 at Dra Abu el-Naga. EgittoeVicinoOriente 35, 53–62. Taylor, J. H. 2001. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour andpaintinginancientEgypt. London, 164–81. Taylor, J. H. (ed.). 2010. Journey through the afterlife: AncientEgyptianBookoftheDead. London. Verner, M. 1982. Tschechoslowakei,Lieferung1:Altägyptische Särge in den Museen und Sammlungen der Tschechoslowakei. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum: Lose-Blatt-Katalog Ägyptischer Altertümer. Mainz.

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20 Gábor SCHREIBER

Abstract This paper discusses a group of late Ramesside mummy-boards coming from an intrusive group burial in Theban Tomb -400-. This period witnessed substantial changes in burial customs but, ironically, little is known of how these changes affected the contemporary burial assemblages, including the coffin ensembles, the majority of which seem to have been systematically recycled and repainted for new owners during Dynasty 21. At present no more than seven complete coffins can be ascribed to Dynasty 20 on stylistic grounds (Cooney 2011, 24–8). While these coffins offer valuable evidence concerning the course of stylistic developments, they tell us little about the coffin ensemble as a whole, given that only one out of the seven constitutes a coffin set comprising inner coffin and mummy-board. In the late Ramesside group burial from TT -400- the coffins are lost but the mummyboards are relatively well preserved. These finds not only illustrate that coffin assemblages including an elaborately decorated mummy-board continued to be made amidst the social unrest and economic crisis which characterised these decades, but also allow us a glimpse into the iconographic and stylistic novelties that occurred in Theban coffin art during the reigns of the last Ramesside kings. Introduction One of the recurrent elements of burial equipment of the Ramesside Period, still poorly understood in terms of composition and typo-chronology, was the so-called mummy-board, a full-length cover, made of cartonnage or wood, placed over the front of the mummy. The forerunners of mummy-boards may be recognised in composite mummy masks extending over the shoulders and the upper half of the chest, and it is probably more than accidental that the earliest mummy-board known so far, that of Tjuyu, belonged to a member of the elite close to the royal sphere (Taylor 1999, 65). Despite this early attestation of the genre, datable to the reign of Amenhotep III, it was not until early Dynasty 19 that

the mummy-board found its way into non-royal burial equipment and came into widespread use in the necropoleis of Thebes and Saqqara. The early Ramesside mummy-boards may be split into two groups, based on the criterion of whether the face mask is articulated separately or joined to the board to form a single cover (Taylor 1989, 35–9). The iconography of the two types is also distinctive and follows a standardised model, in that while the one-part boards portray the deceased as a living person dressed in a white festal costume, the two-part boards usually employ figured decoration, with a winged Nut on the chest, followed below by a vertically rendered Nut formula and figured compartments at the sides. Although there was an attempt to individualise each specimen by means of the choice of technique, colouring and arrangement of the decoration, the general iconographic schemes seem to have been rigorously maintained. Owing to the high degree of standardisation, the Ramesside mummy-boards are notoriously difficult to date precisely unless their archaeological context, if any, provides external dating evidence. The evidence for context available from Thebes and Saqqara (see Taylor 1999, 65) and, to a lesser extent, the prosopographical and genealogical data pertaining to the owners of mummy-boards in museum collections (e.g. Polz 1993, 321–2; Taylor 1999, 66–8), suggest that the figured boards, usually made in openwork, and those showing the deceased as a living person were used concurrently during the reign of Ramesses II, with a numerical predominance for figured boards. The first real vogue for this element of the coffin assemblage is thus no doubt datable to this reign. Unfortunately, however, our understanding of the late Ramesside coffin assemblage is much less satisfactory (Niwiński 1988, 13–15; Taylor 1999, 66; for a detailed discussion, see now Cooney 2011, 20–36), and this statement holds particularly true for mummy-boards, the development of which between the reigns of Ramesses II and Ramesses XI still needs to be established. This paper analyses a group of mummy-boards that – being of late Ramesside date – is believed to help fill, at least partly, the gap in our records. The

186

G. SCHREIBER

mummy-boards under discussion have been excavated in TT -400-, a Ramesside mortuary monument constructed for one Khamin and situated in the first necropolis street of the el-Khokha hillock. Khamin’s tomb fits into a network of large temple tombs of Dynasty 19, owned by such high officials as Djehutymes, Chief Steward, Overseer of the arable fields and granaries of Amun and Governor of Esna (TT 32), Nebsumenu, Chief Steward (TT 183), and Nefermenu, Mayor of Thebes (TT 184). Khamin held less elevated positions, yet his titles, such as Scribe of the Treasury and the Divine Offerings in the domain of Amun and Prophet of Maat, clearly demonstrate that he was an important official in local institutions that managed the economy of the estate of Amun and, at the same time, also had a priestly post in the temple of Maat, located in the northern part of Karnak. The original burial equipment dating to Dynasty 19 has suffered destruction in all the said tombs; the case of TT -400-, however, is unique within this group, in that it can be shown to have accommodated two intrusive group burials of the Ramesside Period, deposited in two distinct burial apartments of the tomb. Based on the titles preserved on the objects, it can be stated with confidence that both burial chambers housed the interments of individuals (with their spouses and offspring) who officiated in the same institutions as the owner of the tomb, i.e. the Treasury and the Maat temple. What particularly concerns us here is the second, late Ramesside, group burial, but because of the obvious connections existing between the two contexts, a short overview will be given of the Dynasty 19 burials found in TT -400-. The first Ramesside group burial in TT -400The earlier Ramesside group burial of TT -400- was discovered in Structure 6, a burial complex of Dynasty 18 comprising an antechamber and a burial chamber accessible through a shaft, and belonging to one of the as-yet-unexcavated rock-cut tombs in the second necropolis street of el-Khokha. Later, in Dynasty 19, this burial apartment, originally constructed for one Paser, was connected with the sloping passage of TT -400- and usurped for the interments of Khamin and his wife Raia. At this time the antechamber (Structure 6/A) was enlarged along its western side-wall in order to allow space for the cutting of two rectangular floor niches for the new proprietor and his wife, whose burial equipment was so thoroughly destroyed that no

objects inscribed with their names have been recovered. Excavations in this chamber made it absolutely clear, however, that Structure 6/A was turned into a place for group burials shortly after the deposition of the original interments. Judging by the number of mummy-boards discovered here, it may be inferred that at least eight persons were interred in this complex during Dynasty 19. All eight boards, preserved in a highly fragmentary state, represent the two-part type in which the actual board, laid over the abdomen and the legs, is decorated with figured compartments made in openwork. The best craftsmanship is exhibited by a cartonnage board that is gilded on the exterior, a feature which is suggestive of a relatively high social status for its owner (cf. Taylor 1999, 68). Out of the seven remaining boards, two cartonnage and three wooden exemplars are varnished and display decoration in polychrome; one wooden board is distinguished by matt polychrome painting and yet another is differentiated by the complete absence of painted decoration. Thus, whereas the boards are far from being uniform in terms of their technique and finish, the fact that all eight represent the figured openwork style speaks strongly in favour of a dating to Dynasty 19. The real vogue for this type of boards was clearly during the reign of Ramesses II, but openwork boards have also been reported from Theban contexts of late Dynasty 19 and early Dynasty 20 (Bruyère 1926, 173, 176–7; Schreiber 2015, no. 1.4.39). A glimpse, however cursory, into the social standing of those interred in this early Ramesside group burial is permitted by a few objects other than mummyboards, inscribed for men. One of these is a shabti box decorated for a certain Khaemwaset (ḫꜥ-m-WꜢst), who bears the rather puzzling title ꜥꜢnpr in the single surviving inscription on the box. On one of the long sides Khaemwaset is shown seated alone in front of an offering table, being purified by a figure, probably his son, now lost, on the right. As shown by David Aston, this iconographic scheme occurs on only a few boxes of his Type III, belonging to a transitional period tentatively dated to the second half of the reign of Ramesses II (Aston 1994, 24). Khaemwaset’s shabti box is also atypical in that it was a shrine-shaped container with sloping, rather than vaulted, lids, and in that its painted decoration was set against a pinkish background imitating a natural wooden surface. The latter feature is again rare, being introduced late in the reign of Ramesses II and probably continuing until the end of Dynasty 19 (Aston 1994, 38).

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

Another Ramesside occupant of Structure 6/A was one Paenrenut (PꜢ-n-Rnwt), probably an abbreviation of Paenrenenutet, whose name is preserved on five complete and a number of fragmentary pottery shabtis as well as on one of the transverse lids of his shabti box. Although Paenrenut’s identity is somewhat uncertain owing to the lack of a title in the shabti inscriptions, it is worth noting that a man with the same name holding the title Guardian of the Temple of Millions of Years (sꜢwty n ḥwt nt ḥḥw rnpwt) (of Merenptah) is known to have lived in later Dynasty 19 (KRIIV, 137). Another like-named man was the owner of a shabti box now in Berlin that is dated by style to Dynasty 20 (Aston 1994, 26). Finally, a third male attested in this group burial by name is one Suty, a Priest of Maat (wꜥb nMꜢꜥt). The two vaulted transverse lids of a shabti box on which Suty’s name is preserved are not conclusive as to dating, but the title is telling in that Suty, as an ordinary priest, must have performed a service in the same temple of the goddess Maat in northern Karnak where the tomb owner, Khamin, occupied the post of prophet. Taken together, the evidence available from Structure 6/A is suggestive of a dating to the reign of Ramesses II, with a possible and likely extension into late Dynasty 19. Of those buried here, at least one individual, Suty, can be shown to have officiated in the same institution in which Khamin worked.

nage. Lower body field is coloured plain white, with a vertically rendered Nut formula with blue and red signs on yellow background. Text field varnished (Fig. 1).

Mummy-boards from the second Ramesside group burial in TT -400The second, late Ramesside, group burial was found in a secondary shaft tomb, termed Structure 5, which has its entrance in the axial hall of TT -400-. This shaft has two side chambers, one opening on an upper storey to the north (Chamber 1) and one opening at the slanting bottom of the shaft, 4.85m in depth, to the south (Chamber 2). The upper burial chamber is a later addition which, based on the material retrieved therefrom, was constructed in the late Third Intermediate Period. The Ramesside group burial was discovered in the lower chamber, which, judging by its dimensions, was intentionally designed to accommodate multiple burials. The chamber is large enough to house well over ten burials, which must have been deposited here in several layers, one above the other. The mummy-boards uncovered in this chamber are as follows: 1. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.001. Lower part of the mummyboard of Henuttawy (Ḥnwt-tꜢwy), Songstress of Amonrasonther (šmꜥytnJmn-Rꜥnswnṯrw). Carton-

187

Fig. 1: Mummy-board of Henuttawy, No. 1 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

G. SCHREIBER

188

Fig. 2a: Mummy-board of Khamaat, No. 3 (Drawing: N. Seres).

Fig. 2b: Mummy-board of Khamaat, No. 3 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

2. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.002. Fragment of the mummyboard of Mutemmenu (Mwt-m-mnw), Songstress of Amun (šmꜥytnJmn). Cartonnage. Lower body field is coloured white, with a vertically rendered text in the centre with blue signs on yellow background. Text field varnished. 3. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.003. Lower part of the mummyboard of Khamaat (Ḫꜥ-MꜢꜥt), Mistress of the house (nbtpr) and Songstress of Amun, Mut and Khonsu

(šmꜥytnJmnMwtḪnsw). Cartonnage. Lower body field, bisected by a vertically rendered Nut formula, is decorated with figured compartments in three registers, painted in polychrome and varnished. The material of this cartonnage board is coarse sackcloth applied in several layers (Fig. 2a–b). 4. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.004. Mummy-board of Shedwyduat (Šd-wj-dwꜢt), Mistress of the house (nbtpr) and Songstress of Amun (šmꜥytnJmn). Cartonnage.

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

Fig. 3a: Mummy-board of Shedwyduat, No. 4 (Drawing: N. Seres).

Fig. 3b: Mummy-board of Shedwyduat, No. 4 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

189

190

G. SCHREIBER

Fig. 4: Fragment of the mummy-board of Reru, No. 5 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

Decoration consists of a pectoral and a winged Nut on the chest, painted in polychrome over matt yellow background. Lower body field, bisected by a vertically rendered Nut formula with blue signs on yellow background, is coloured white, with two lappets of a large red stola hanging down from the chest (Fig. 3a–b). 5. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.005. Fragment of the mummyboard of Reru (Rrw), Chief Workman in the domain of Amun (ḥry sḏm-[ꜥš] n pr Jmn). Cartonnage. Decoration consists of a winged Nut on the chest, painted in polychrome over matt white background. Lower body field originally decorated with figured compartments. Text fields feature blue, red and black hieroglyphs on matt yellow background (Fig. 4). 6. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.006. Lower part of the mummyboard of Pa-[…]-shepes-[…] (PꜢ-[…]-šps-[…],

Fig. 5: Mummy-board of Pa-[…]-shepes-[…], No. 6 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

Scribe of the Treasury [in the domain] of Amun (sš pr-ḥḏ n [pr] Jmn). Cartonnage. Lower body field, bisected by a vertically rendered Nut formula, features plain white compartments framed by red bands (Fig. 5). 7. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.007. Lower part of the mummyboard of Panakht-[…] (PꜢ-nḫt-[…]), Chief Workman in the domain of Amun (ḥry sḏm-ꜥš n pr

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

Fig. 6: Mummy-board of Panakht-[…], No. 7 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

Fig. 7: Mummy-board of Panakht-[…], No. 10 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

191

192

G. SCHREIBER

Jmn). Cartonnage. Decoration consists of a winged Nut on the chest. Lower body field, bisected by a vertically rendered Nut formula, features figured compartments in four registers. Scenes painted in polychrome over matt white background, text fields coloured yellow (Fig. 6). 8. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.013. Fragment of a mummyboard. Cartonnage. Lower body field is coloured white, with a vertically rendered Nut formula with blue and red signs on yellow background. Text field varnished. 9. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.014. Fragment of a mummyboard. Cartonnage. Lower body field is coloured white, with a vertically rendered Nut formula with blue and red signs on yellow background. Text field varnished. 10. Inv. No. 2014.Ca.015. Fragments of the mummyboard of Panakht-[…] (PꜢ-nḫt-[…]). Cartonnage. Lower body field is coloured white, with a vertically rendered Nut formula with blue and red signs on yellow background. Text field varnished. As is illustrated by the extant component of his title, pr Jmn, the owner of this mummy-board, not identical with that of No. 7, was affiliated to the domain of Amun (Fig. 7). A closer examination of the above boards offers a basis for outlining some technical and stylistic traits typical of this group. In terms of manufacturing technology, the most striking characteristics are that all the boards were made of cartonnage, rather than of wood, and that none of them made use of the openwork technique. Considering that making an openwork board required more effort and skill from the artist, and that wood was an expensive material that only a few could afford, purchasing an ordinary cartonnage board might have meant significant savings to the customer. That cost was an important factor for those who commissioned these boards and that availability of high-quality materials might have been restricted (Cooney 2011, 32) is suggested by No. 3, which was made of coarse sackcloth applied in multiple layers, and also by No. 7, otherwise bearing a lavish figured decoration, which was made of recycled pieces of textile, quite evidently taken from an older mummy-board. The choice of the technique, however, does not necessarily have a purely economic aspect, given that no wooden mummy-board employing the openwork technique has been reported that could postdate early Dynasty 20. The latest such specimen known to the author comes from the burial equipment of the chief physician Amenhotep, owner of

TT -61-, which is datable to the reign of Ramesses III (Schreiber 2015, nos 1.4.39). As far as the morphology of the boards is concerned, the extant fragments are not always conclusive as to whether they formed part of a one- or a two-part mummy-board. What seems safe to assume is that the two figured boards made for males (Nos 5 and 7) represent the two-part type. One large fragment probably belonging to No. 7 graphically illustrates that these boards had an extended mask with a depiction of the arms crossed on the chest, a winged scarab and a pectoral, all painted in polychrome over a yellow background (Fig. 8). This is, however, not necessarily the case with all the boards from this context, since at least two examples firmly dated to the later part of Dynasty 20 (Schreiber 2006; Niwiński 1988, 14–15) are known, in which the mask and the board are joined to form a single cover. In No. 4, the pectoral, otherwise the lowermost pictorial element of the aforementioned extended masks, is at any rate seen directly above the figure of Nut, who is always shown surmounting the Nut formula on the lower parts of the boards. It remains unknown how far this applies to all the white-painted boards of this group, but No. 4 is more than likely to have been a one-part mummy-board. Irrespective of type, the sculpted arms crossed over the chest and furnished with hand appliqués made of wood appeared on all examples. Judging by the loose wooden fragments belonging to these boards, the hands of men were shown with clenched fists and those of women with open palms. The hand position, the omission of the feet and the overall mummiform appearance leave little doubt about the fact that the boards were intended to depict the transfigured dead assimilated to Osiris. The coloration of the boards is also instructive in that the typical Ramesside colour scheme, characterised by decoration in polychrome set against an overall yellow background, appears on only one example (No. 3). In all other cases, the main background colour is white, and yellow is restricted to the zone of the collar and the Nut formula running from the chest to the foot. The visual effect of juxtaposing white and yellow backgrounds is further emphasised by varnishing, which is frequently but not always found on the surfaces coloured yellow but never on those coloured white. A mandatory pictorial element on all the boards is the figure of Nut, shown kneeling and with outstretched wings, over the chest. The lower parts of the boards are bisected by a vertically rendered text field with an abbreviated version of the Nut formula. In one instance

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

193

Fig. 8: Upper part of a mummy-board, probably that of Panakht-[…], No. 7 (Photograph: L. Mátyus).

(No. 10), the formula ends with the wish of the deceased to see the light in all places (ḥḏḏwmbwnb). Based on the presence or absence of figured decoration on the lower parts, the boards may be split into two broad groups. The figure style seen in Nos 3, 5 and 7 owes much to early Ramesside models, and features scenes such as the depiction of the deceased shown in the gesture of adoration, either alone (No. 3) or in front of gods (Nos 5, 7), the Sons of Horus (Nos 3, 7), and Isis and Nephthys (No. 7). The antithetically rendered images of Thoth, taken from the illustration of Book of the Dead chapter 161 and reproduced on a number of

Ramesside coffins and sarcophagi, also figure on No. 7. The overall iconography of these specimens is very traditional in that they evoke the decoration of coffins and testify to the continuing use of early Ramesside prototypes. A parallel, contemporary with these specimens, and in terms of the colouring and the arrangement of decoration almost identical to No. 7, is provided by a mummy-board from TT -61- (Schreiber 2015, no. 1.4.41). No. 6, a board made for a Treasury-scribe, is stylistically best understood as a transitional piece. In this board the compartments in the figured style are clearly

194

G. SCHREIBER

aligned by vertical and lateral red bands; however, these bands, normally employed as text fields, are left blank, whereas the compartments are painted plain white. This iconography retains only the core elements of the traditional coffin decoration, i.e. the vertical and lateral bands of the bandaging, which were to express the transfigured, Osirian, state of the dead. The real stylistic novelty within this group is represented by the boards that are painted plain white on their lower parts. No drapery of the white pleated festal dress or the feet of the living person is shown here. What one encounters is only the plain white mummiform cloth of the deceased who had achieved vindication over death in the hereafter, the garment of the mꜢꜥ-ḫrw, and, as shown by No. 4, occasionally a red stola hanging down in two lappets from the chest, another sign of deification. The omission of all elements that would remind one of the figured style strongly suggests that the main goal here was to depict the deceased not as one whose merits in life made him or her eligible for an otherworldly existence, or the deceased in a liminal state of transformation, awaiting a new life, but as one who had already gained an apotheosis and had become assimilated to Osiris. This simple and straightforward iconography finds parallels in two mummy-boards, that of Nesamun in Leeds (Niwiński 1988, 14–15) and that of Tashedamun from TT -61- (Schreiber 2006). The famous coffin assemblage of Nesamun, dating to the reign of Ramesses XI, represents a stylistic transition, with an exterior coffin design heralding the style of Dynasty 21. The one-part mummy-board enclosed in this coffin has much in common with the examples from TT -400- in that the zone of the chest is elaborately decorated; its lower part, with the exception of a text field running from the chest to the foot, is painted uniform black, but this colouring was applied in the 19th century over an original white ground (Cooney 2007, 470, n. 46). In the mummy-board of Tashedamun one recognises a comparable iconography. This cartonnage board, dated to the second half of Dynasty 20, differs from that of Nesamun only in that its lower part is decorated with an overall bead-net pattern, a design well-known from a sizable group of mummy-boards of Dynasty 21 (Niwiński 1988, 82). Taken together, the extant specimens of this style strongly suggest that one of the novelties of late Ramesside coffin production was the appearance of one-part mummy-boards that are characterised by the combination of elaborate decoration on the shoulder and chest areas and the depiction of the dress of the transfigured dead on the lower part.

The context and date of the mummy-boards As is typical of the Theban necropolis in general and the tombs on el-Khokha in particular, the burials in Structure 5 were heavily looted in ancient and modern times. The extent of destruction and pillaging is well illustrated by the fact that all the mummy boards were torn to pieces, with a large number of fragments – and probably complete examples too – being missing. Finds other than mummy-boards and pottery proved in fact to be sporadic, and if one also adds that no shabtis unequivocally belonging to the owners of mummy-boards have been retrieved, the limitations of any attempt to reconstruct the full array of object groups once represented in the burial equipment become apparent. In the case of the coffins once deposited here, and of which only rather insignificant fragments survive, it may be supposed that they were taken away to be recycled during the economically recessive period after the New Kingdom (cf. Niwiński 1988, 13; Cooney 2011, 31–6). In other cases, a pillaging occurring in the 19th century can be proven. Looting, ancient and modern, cannot, however, be the ultimate explanation of the absence of all missing object types otherwise naturally expected in such a context. That other factors were also at work is suggested by the associated pottery finds. Since ceramic vessels were never considered sufficiently valuable or physically appealing to trigger the imagination of a looter, pottery, though often broken and scattered, had usually been left behind. As such, pottery is considered not only an indicator of chronology but also a reliable marker of the volume of the burial(s). The case of TT -400- is very instructive in that while a large assemblage of Dynasty 20 ceramic vessels, almost exclusively ‘beer jars’, has been found deposited in front of the Dynasty 19 funerary stela of the tomb in the forecourt, very few contemporary vessels were provided for the burials themselves. What may be deduced from this distribution is that pottery was used first and foremost at the rituals and that few, if any, vessels were provided as containers of provisions for the dead within the burial assemblage. This scenario, quite unfamiliar in early Ramesside burials, reminds one more of the situation which is encountered during the early Third Intermediate Period, when the objects provided for a burial, including pottery vessels, significantly decreased in number. As far as the chronology of our group burial is concerned, the style-critical assessment of the mummyboards, as we have seen, suggests a dating to Dynasty

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

195

Fig. 9: Amphorae of Dynasty 20 from TT -400(Drawing: B. Tihanyi).

20. Confirmation of this date is also provided by a small collection of late Ramesside pottery discovered in association with these burials (Fig. 9), which includes two ordinary Marl D amphorae of Aston’s Type B3 (Aston 2004, 193, fig. 8) and a third, much rarer amphora, made out of Marl A4 fabric and exhibiting a lavish decoration painted in the so-called ‘Blackhatched style’ (Aston 1992). Another, independent,

way of assigning a date to this group burial is possible through the objects belonging with one Amenmes, Chief Guardian of the Treasury in the domain of Amun (ḥry sꜢwty pr-ḥḏ n pr Jmn). The excavation in Chamber 2 of Structure 5 has yielded seventeen complete funerary figurines from Amenmes’ shabti gang as well as three fragmentary shabti jars inscribed for the same individual (Fig. 10). To this list may be added three

G. SCHREIBER

196

Fig. 10: Shabti jar of Amenmes (Drawing: B. Tihanyi).

other shabtis excavated in Structure 6 and the sloping passage of TT -400- and a number of fragments from yet further funerary figurines found scattered in the lower rooms of the tomb. Although no mummy-board inscribed for Amenmes has been discovered, the fact that the findspot of by far the largest portion of his objects was the second Ramesside group burial speaks seriously for this chamber having been Amenmes’ final resting place. The figurines may be split into three groups. In the commonest type (Fig. 11a) the figurine is depicted mummiform, dressed in a plain white cloth

with the lappets of a red stola hanging down from the chest at the sides. This iconography is the same that has been encountered in the case of the white-painted mummy-boards, especially that of Shedwyduat. In a second workman type (Fig. 11b), represented by two examples only, the white-painted body is decorated with lateral red bands, clearly in imitation of bandaging, while a third type (Fig. 11c), represented by four examples, portrays the overseer wearing a long kilt with blue stola and depicted, quite unusually, with crossed hands. The overall articulation of the figurines, their number, the appearance of the overseer type within the set, and especially the presence of the seshed headband, an iconographic element only sporadically attested before Dynasty 21 (Aubert and Aubert 1974, 143; Janes 2011, 3), suggest a dating to Dynasty 20, and preferably to the second half of that period. Remarkably, other examples of the same shabti gang have entered art collections in European museums. Single examples representing the ordinary workman type are kept in Amsterdam (van Haarlem 1990, 39–40), Berlin (Roeder 1924, 512), Brussels (de Meulenaere and Limme 1981, 85–7), Cracow (Schlögl 1999, 7–10; 2000, 54–5), Moscow (Hodjash 2002, 111) and Norwich (signalled by Janes 2011, 3), and two examples of the same type have been reported from the Warrington Museum (Janes 2011, 1–3). Four further examples were offered for sale on the art market, of which one shabti represents the overseer type (Charles Ede Ltd. 1995, no. 53). Taken together, we have evidence for at least thirty-two complete funerary figurines, to which may also be added the incomplete examples discovered in TT -400-. This figure, together with the appearance of the overseer type within the gang, strongly suggests that Amenmes’ shabti set might have been close to what was regarded as an ideal set comprising 401 figurines – one workman for each day of the year and one overseer for each gang of ten. The title featured in the shabti inscriptions leaves no doubt that Amenmes held an important post in the same institution, the Treasury, in which the owner of TT -400- officiated as a scribe. A man with the same name and title is known to have been the owner of a block statue in Karnak (de Meulenaere and de Strooper 1998, 244–51). The statue inscriptions also record other titles which he held, including God’s Father and Prophet of Amun of the domain of Ptah(jt-[nṯr]ḥm-nṯr n Jmn pr Ptḥ), Scribe of the Personnel (sš mrt), and Commandant of the domain of Amun (ḥꜢwtynprJmn). The mention of Amenmes’ affiliation to the domain of

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

197

Fig. 11a–c (left to right): Main types of funerary figurines represented in Amenmes’ shabti gang (Drawing: E. Tóth).

198

G. SCHREIBER

Ptah is particularly interesting since it confirms that his official duties linked him to institutions in the northern part of Karnak, the domain of Ptah and its vicinity. The inscriptions also mention Amenmes’ father Tjanuni (ṮꜢw-n-Ꜣny), and his sister Hatmeretmut (ḤꜢt-mrt-Mwt) – two individuals unattested in the archaeological material from TT -400-. Another source which may refer to our Amenmes is an administrative document dating to Year 6 of Ramesses VI (KRI VI, 338–9). In this text Amenmes is described as a Guardian of the Treasury, who acts in fulfilling a command of Ramsesnakht. Finally, yet another mention of one Amenmes, Chief Guardian of the Treasury, appears in P. British Museum EA 10068, an investigation file concerning the Theban tomb robberies (Peet 1930, 90, pl. XI, 22–3; KRIVI, 503). In this document, dating to Year 17 of Ramesses IX, Amenmes is listed among the citizens of the Town, i.e. Thebes, from whom gold and silver stolen from the royal tombs had been recovered. It is difficult to tell whether or not these documents refer to one and the same Amenmes, the owner of the aforementioned shabti gang, who must have been buried in TT -400-. The name Amenmes was, to be sure, exceedingly popular and frequent throughout the Ramesside Period and the possibility cannot be excluded that more than one man with the same name had tenure roughly at the same time in the Treasury. On the other hand, a factor which speaks seriously in favour of accepting the above sources as references to our Amenmes is his main title, recorded in all documents, which denotes a relatively elevated, non-priestly post. While it is beyond doubt that a number of guardians served at the same time in the Treasury, it is highly unlikely that among their leaders there were two men with the same name who had been promoted to the same post within a fairly short period of time. Thus, it seems quite plausible that the date of P. British Museum EA 10068, Year 17 of Ramesses IX, can be accepted as a terminuspostquem for the burial of Amenmes, and this also provides a chronological anchor, relatively precise, for the group burial in question. The other individuals attested by name in this group interment are as yet lesser known. One of them, a certain Pa-[…]-shepes-[…], was a Treasury-scribe, meaning that he too officiated in the same institution as Khamin and Amenmes. A man with the same title, named Pamedushepesnakht, is referenced in the accounts of gold and galena expeditions, dated to Years 1 and 2 of Ramesses VII (Koenig 1979, 196, 217; KRI VII,

365). Yet however tempting this identification appears, owing to the fragmentary preservation of the name on No. 6, it cannot be verified. Two other men from the same group, the owners of Nos 5 and 7, are simply called Chief Workman in the domain of Amun, without any further specification of the institution they were affiliated to. As such, their relation to the aforementioned individuals with a career in the Treasury cannot be outlined, yet it is beyond doubt that workmen (sḏm-ꜥš) and chief workmen or gang leaders (ḥrysḏm-ꜥš) also worked in the Treasury (Helck 1958, 190). The titles of the women, such as Songstress of Amun, of Amonrasonther or of Amun, Mut and Khonsu, are not conclusive as to dating, given that these titles seem honorific in character (Naguib 1990, 19, 236). Certain name forms may have chronological implications, however. One such is the component ‘Pa-nakht’, which appears in two names from TT -400- and was arguably a component frequently appearing in male names during the late Ramesside Period (e.g. KRIVII, 420). Summarising the above points, the style-critical analysis of the mummy-boards speaks in favour of a dating to Dynasty 20, preferably its second half. Such a chronology is also in keeping with the style and date of the associated pottery finds and is further corroborated by the presence in the same group burial of the equipment of Amenmes, who is likely to have died about the end of the reign of Ramesses IX or during that of one of his immediate successors. Since it is quite realistic to suggest that the well over ten interments found in Chamber 2 of Structure 5 were buried over a long period of approximately thirty to fifty years, the group burial is datable to the second half of Dynasty 20. Conclusion The two group burials deposited in Structures 5 and 6/A of Theban Tomb -400- present a chance to study the process of tomb reuse during the Ramesside Period in some detail. Since the extant shabti and coffin inscriptions, rather typically for the period, give no filiations, the possible family ties that might have existed between those buried here remain as yet unknown. It is, on the other hand, certainly more than coincidence that the titles preserved in those inscriptions invariably refer to two institutions in the northern part of Karnak: the Treasury and the Maat temple, where the owner of TT -400-, Khamin, held the posts of a scribe and a

MUMMY-BOARDS FROM A THEBAN GROUP BURIAL DATING TO DYNASTY 20

prophet. Apart from the fact that the Ramesside occupants of TT -400- came apparently from the same socio-economic cluster of Theban society, the two group burials have little in common in terms of the composition and style of the burial equipment. The early Ramesside burials were deposited in the burial chamber of Khamin (Structure 6/A), itself a usurped architectural space originally constructed in Dynasty 18. These burials, datable to the second half of Ramesses II’s reign with a possible extension into the second half of Dynasty 19, are distinguished by coffin ensembles in which openwork mummy-boards were employed. For the second group burial an intrusive shaft tomb with a square aperture opening in the axial hall of TT -400- was cut. Judging by the size of the late Ramesside burial chamber, this funerary apartment was intentionally designed to accommodate multiple burials. The best-preserved element of the equipment within this group has once again been the mummyboards, which, when compared to early Ramesside examples, testify to a notable shift in style and iconography. As is illustrated by this set of ten mummyboards, the construction of elaborate openwork coverings had been abandoned by this time, and cartonnage, rather than more expensive wood, was solely used as a raw material. An overall varnish is found only on one specimen, painted in the old, early Ramesside style. In all other instances the use of translucent varnish, responsible for the shiny yellow visual effect of the early Ramesside boards (Taylor 2001, 172), is restricted to the decoration on the chest and the Nut formula, while the background colour of all other pictorial surfaces is matt white. The survival of the early Ramesside figured style into the reigns of the last Ramessides is proved by two mummy-boards from this group, both representing the two-part type and exhibiting a painted decoration whose style is deeply rooted in older traditions. It is unclear how long these figured boards continued but in the group burial of TT -400- they are outnumbered by a new type characterised by a different iconography. In these boards the face mask and the actual board seem to have been joined to form a single cover, with figured decoration, often varnished, being confined to the zone of the chest. The lower body field in these specimens is painted plain white and occasionally decorated with a stola hanging down from the chest. The overall mummiform appearance, as well as the omission of the feet typical of earlier mummyboards showing the deceased as a living person, suggest that these boards were meant to depict the

199

transfigured sꜥḥ. Such an interpretation is reinforced by the fact that in another variant of the type the white mummy-cloth is replaced by the reticulate-patterned dress of Osiris, a design also occurring on a sizable group of mummy-boards in Dynasty 21.

Bibliography Aston, D. A. 1992. Two decorative styles of the Twentieth Dynasty. Cahiersdelacéramiqueégyptienne3, 71–80. Aston, D. A. 1994. The shabti box: A typological study. OudheidkundigeMededelingenuithetRijksmuseumvan OudhedenteLeiden74, 21–54. Aston, D. A. 2004. Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt. ÄgyptenundLevante14, 175–213. Aubert, J.-F. and L. Aubert. 1974. Statuettes égyptiennes. Chaouabtis,ouchebtis. Paris. Bruyère, B. 1926. RapportsurlesfouillesdeDeirelMédineh (1924–1925). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire III.3. Cairo. Charles Ede Ltd. 1995. SmallsculpturefromAncientEgypt. London. Cooney, K. M. 2007. Thecostofdeath.Thesocialandeconomic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. M. 2011. Changing burial practices at the end of the New Kingdom: Defensive adaptations in tomb commissions, coffin commissions, coffin decoration, and mummification. JournaloftheAmericanResearch CenterinEgypt47, 3–44. van Haarlem, W. 1990. CorpusAntiquitatumAegyptiacarum. AllardPiersonMuseumAmsterdamII/1. Amsterdam. Helck, W. 1958. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Probleme der Ägyptologie 3. Leiden; Cologne. Hodjash, S. 2002. The way to immortality. Monuments of ancientEgyptianartfromthecollectionofthePushkin StateMuseumofFineArt.Catalogueoftheexhibition. Moscow2002. Moscow. Janes, G. 2011. Theshabticollections2. WarringtonMuseum &ArtGallery. Cheshire. Koenig, Y. 1979. Livraisons d’or et de galène au trésor du temple d’Amon sous la XXe dynastie. In Hommagesà la mémoire de Serge Sauneron 1927–1976 I. Égypte pharaonique. Cairo, 185–220. KRI: Kitchen, K. A. 1968–90. Ramessideinscriptions:Historicalandbiographical. 8 vols. Oxford. de Meulenaere, H. and L. Limme. 1981. Ouchebti de Jmn-ms (E.8419). In K. Martin (ed.), CorpusAntiquitatumAegyptiacarum. Geschichte, Ziele, Richtlinien und Arbeitsbeispiele für das Erfassen ägyptischer Altertümer in

200

G. SCHREIBER

Form eines Lose-Blatt-Kataloges. Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beitrage 12. Hildesheim, 85–7. de Meulenaere, H. and I. de Strooper. 1998. Notes de prosopographie thébaine. Cinquième série. Chroniqued’Égypte 73, 244–51. Naguib, S.-A. 1990. Leclergéfeminind’Amonthébainàla 21ͤdynastie. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 38. Leuven. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21stDynastycoffinsfromThebes. Theben 5. Mainz. Peet, T. E. 1930. Thegreattomb-robberiesoftheTwentieth EgyptianDynasty. Oxford. Polz, D. 1993. Sargensemble der Takait. In H. Beck (ed.), Liebieghaus–MuseumAlterPlastik.FrankfurtamMain. WissenschaftlicheKataloge.ÄgyptischeBildwerkeIII. Skulptur,Malerei,PapyriundSärge. Melsungen, 302–23. Roeder, G. 1924. ÄgyptischeInschriftenausdenStaatlichen MuseenzuBerlinII. Leipzig. Schlögl, H. A. 1999. Die Totenstatuette des Amunmes im Czartoryski Museum Krakau. Studiesinancientartand civilization9, 7–10.

Schlögl, H. A. 2000. Corpus des ägyptischen Totenfiguren deröffentlichenSammlungenKrakaus. Cracow. Schreiber, G. 2006. The mummy-board of Tashedamun from TT -61-. ActaAntiquaAcademiaeScientiarumHungaricae 46, 185–96. Schreiber, G. 2015. TheTombofAmenhotep,ChiefPhysician inthedomainofAmun. ThebanTomb-61-. Archaeology and architecture. Studia Aegyptiaca Series Maior IV. Budapest. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptiancoffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 1999. The burial assemblage of Henutmehyt. Inventory, date and provenance. In W. V. Davis (ed.), StudiesinEgyptianantiquities.AtributetoT.G.H.James. London, 59–72. Taylor, J. H. 2001. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colourand paintinginancientEgypt. London, 164–81.

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65 AND ITS SURROUNDINGS Fruzsina BARTOS

Abstract The analysis of the coffin and cartonnage finds excavated from TT 65, located on the north-east hillside of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, and from the nearby area, verifies that the tomb, originally made during Dynasty 18, was reused successively throughout the Third Intermediate Period. The main focus of this paper is the fragments of an unusual type of cartonnage dated to Dynasty 22. Besides the usual delicate painted decoration, plastic modelling was also used to emphasise the main motifs. Although this decorative feature gives special interest to the cartonnage, it presents certain difficulties in documentation. A large part of the surface of the fragments was covered with a hard white material, the distribution of which suggests that it was applied when the cartonnage case was still intact. Comparison of the fragments with two other examples of this type of cartonnage suggests that they were probably made by the same workshop. * * * TT 65, situated on the eastern hillside of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, was originally constructed for a man called Nebamun, during the reign of Hatshepsut. Then a certain Imiseba occupied the tomb in Dynasty 20 during the reign of Ramesses IX.1 However, neither of them finished the construction of the tomb. During the Third Intermediate Period and the Late Period, shafts were cut in the transverse hall to receive secondary burials. The tomb itself and the surrounding area were excavated by Percy E. Newberry up to 1903 (Carter 1903, 49), after which Sir Robert Mond took the concession (Collins 1976, 18). Since then, there has been no extensive archaeological work and no complete burial

1

For further information about the tomb itself, see Bács 1998; 2001; 2002; 2011.

assemblages have been found in the area. The documentation of Newberry’s excavation has not been published and part of it has been lost; unfortunately the documentation of Mond’s excavation is also incomplete (Collins 1976; Mond 1904; 1905). TT 65 was used as a storage magazine for Newberry’s finds during the excavations of Mond and thereafter (Weigall 1908, 129). Moreover, there is no information about who cleared TT 66, the neighbouring tomb to the south of TT 65. In consequence, the finds from the spoil heap in front of TT 66, the main area of the excavation on the hillside beside TT 65, have no context. We can obtain information about the burials that took place on this site only from their interrelatedness. In the most recent seasons, the excavation of the spoil heap on the hillside in front of TT 66 has produced some fragments of an interesting and rare type of cartonnage. The pattern of dispersal of the fragments within the excavation units shows that they are concentrated in a small area. They are distributed vertically in a sequence of units on the hillside, in the court of TT 66 and in the debris in front of the façade of a newly discovered tomb, called Saff 1, which is below TT 66. Their distribution on the hillside proves only that the fragments were thrown out towards, or with, the debris at least from the level of TT 66 or higher. As the clearing of this area has not yet been finished, it is expected that more fragments of this type of cartonnage will be found, which it is hoped may match those already discovered. The special interest of these cartonnage fragments derives from the manner of their decoration. A plastically modelled surface has been enhanced by a painted design on the front of the cartonnage, while the back and the head have only the usual painted decoration. The blank spaces between the motifs on the frontal part are sunk approximately 1–2mm into the white plaster

F. BARTOS

202

Fig. 1: Moulded decoration in the white plaster coating.

Fig. 2: End of the offering formula on the foot part with the name of […]-pꜢ-ẖrd. Fig. 3: Cartonnage of Nakhtefmut, Inv. No. E.64.1896 (© Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge).

coating, in which the designs are also moulded (Fig. 1). The hieroglyphic signs of the offering formula that once ran vertically down the middle of the lower half of the cartonnage are also sunk into the surface (Fig. 2). After this plastically modelled layer was formed, the whole surface of the cartonnage was covered with polychrome painted decoration. The entire frontal

surface might have been varnished, judging by the remains of resin which can be seen on the painted layer, on the moulded decoration and on the sunken background. However, no traces of varnish can be observed on the fragments belonging to the back and

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65

the foot, except for the text column intersecting the decoration in the latter area. This design of the cartonnage, with its raised relief and sunken elements, recalls the openwork cartonnage mummy-boards of the Ramesside Period on which the background between the figures was cut away (Taylor 1989, 35–8).2 At present, only five examples of cartonnage cases on which painted and modelled decoration is combined are known to this author. The first is the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut, a priest of Amun, now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (E.64.1896). It dates from the reign of Osorkon I and was found in the Ramesseum cemetery by James E. Quibell (Quibell 1898, 10; Vassilika 1995, 42) (Fig. 3). The second cartonnage belongs to Tjentdinebu, a sistrum player of Amun-Ra, now in the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin (1881.2228) (Fig. 4). Its provenance is not recorded but it is believed to be from Thebes. The third example is the cartonnage of Padimut, a wꜥb-priest and metal engraver of Amun-Ra, preserved in the Harvard Semitic Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1901.9.1) (Fig. 5). Dating from the reign of Sheshonq I, it was found at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna by Theodore Davis and P. E. Newberry. The fourth cartonnage belonged to Panehsy, Prophet of Amun, now in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden (AMM 17-e) (Fig. 6). It is assumed to be from Thebes, and was originally in the collection of Giovanni d’Anastasi before it was purchased by the museum. The fifth is the cartonnage of Ankh-Hor, a God’s Father of Amun and a wꜥb-priest with free entry into Karnak, in the Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery, Norwich (1928.146) (Dawson 1929, 189–90, pl. XXXVII) (Fig. 7). Its provenance is not recorded but it is also believed to be from Thebes.3 It may be worth mentioning that all five owners were servants of Amun or Amun-Ra, and this might imply an existing connection between these modelled cartonnages, but since there is no firm evidence to sustain this statement, it remains only a hypothesis. Besides, some fragments of the same type of cartonnage were discovered by the Hungarian excavation, led by Gábor Schreiber, in TT -400- at el-Khokha (Fig. 8), and another small fragment is kept in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (E.GA.2891.1943).

2

3

For example, the mummy-board of Henutmehyt, London, British Museum EA 48001. I wish to thank Dr John H. Taylor for the information about the history and provenance of the cartonnage of Ankh-Hor.

Fig. 4: Cartonnage of Tjentdinebu, Inv. No. 1881.2228 (© National Museum of Ireland, Dublin).

203

204

F. BARTOS

Fig. 5: Cartonnage of Padimut, Inv. No. 1901.9.1 (© Harvard Semitic Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts).

Fig. 6: Cartonnage of Panehsy, Inv. No. AMM 17-e (© Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden).

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65

205

Fig. 8: Cartonnage fragment from TT -400(Courtesy of the Hungarian Archaeological Mission, South Khokha Project. Photograph: L. Mátyus).

Most of the pieces discovered near TT 66 were almost entirely covered with a white, very solid gypsum-like material, which was firmly attached to the surface of the cartonnage. The pattern of its distribution indicates that its presence was accidental rather than intentional and that it probably covered the cartonnage case while it was still intact. Cleaning the individual pieces was a very difficult and not completely successful task (Fig. 9). Especially in the case of the smaller fragments, it was largely impossible to remove the white material from the surface without destroying the decoration. Consequently, we cannot even speculate upon the decoration of these fragments and their original position in the cartonnage case (Fig. 10). The ‘two-falcons’ motif, very popular in Dynasty 22, can be identified on the fragments but comparison with the five other cartonnage cases, mentioned above, shows that this pattern was not strictly followed on all examples. For instance, Padimut’s cartonnage shows a completely different, although quite remarkable and impressive, design.4 Although the decoration of the cartonnage of Panehsy belongs to the ‘two-falcons’ type, the details reveal many differences. Iconographically, it represents an earlier stage than our fragments or the other cartonnages.

Fig. 7: Cartonnage of Ankh-Hor, Inv. No. 1928.146 (© Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery. Photograph: M. Shepherd).

4

For further information on the decoration of Padimut’s cartonnage, see Hollis 1987.

206

F. BARTOS

Fig. 9: Cartonnage fragment before and after the removal of the white gypsum-like material.

Fig. 10: White gypsum-like material, impossible to remove, covering the painted decoration of the cartonnage.

The cartonnage was presumably smashed into small pieces by robbers. This would explain the very fragmentary state of the object and the fact that the fragments originally belonged to different parts of the cartonnage. The head is preserved, but the face is missing (Fig. 11). The top of the head and the left side of the wig are still in quite good condition. The poor state of the right side and the back, as well as the heavily torn linen at the edges, may also be the result of the activity of the looters. Nevertheless, one may observe the string, which was used to close the back of the cartonnage case, still in the holes, and the many layers of linen, of which at least seventeen can be counted (Fig. 12).

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65

207

Fig. 11: The head of the cartonnage, with missing face.

Although there is no modelled decoration on the head and no direct connection between the head and the other fragments, they probably belong to the same cartonnage case. This is supported by the fact that the layer of white material mentioned above was found only on fragments of this modelled type but not on any other fragments, not even on those which were found in the same excavation unit. Furthermore, the coloration and the painting seem to be identical on the head and on the other pieces. A comparison with the cartonnages of Nakhtefmut and Tjentdinebu may support this conclusion. On each of these cases, the headband consists of two rows of petals framing a checked pattern which forms the middle band. They show the same

proportions and the same coloration. Even the scarabs on the top of the head look the same as the scarab on the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut, with their yellow line and dotted decoration (Fig. 13). It must be noted, however, that the scarab on Nakhtefmut’s cartonnage is also plastically modelled. The faces of the cartonnages of Nakhtefmut and Tjentdinebu are gilded, and it can be assumed that the example considered here once had a similar appearance. A gilded face would have attracted looters in search of valuable amulets inside the wrappings, and some tiny gilded fragments were found in the same excavation units. Unfortunately, they were too small to enable their original location to be identified.

F. BARTOS

208

Fig. 12: Back of the head, showing the string which was used to close the cartonnage.

Fig. 13: The scarab on the top of the head.

Most of the fragments recovered belong to the front surface of the cartonnage. The decoration of Nakhtefmut’s cartonnage provides a suitable guide to illustrate the original location of the fragments, and the drawing published by Quibell gives an idea of the design of the whole case (Fig. 14; Quibell 1898, pl. 16). On a fragment originally located on the chest between the two birds it is possible to see feathers of the ram-headed bird, its left leg holding the šn-ring, the stola, one of the Sons of Horus Qebehsenuef, and parts of an jmjwtfetish (Fig. 15). The close similarity between this part of the decoration and that of the cartonnage of Tjentdinebu allows us to identify the upper part of the jmjwtfetish, where the animal skin is bound to the pole. Although minor variations can be observed between the two pieces (such as the ointment jar, the direction of the jmjwt-fetish, the colours of the ribbons behind

5

See for example the cartonnage cases of Peftjawemauikhonsu (London, British Museum EA 6681), and Meresamun (Chicago, Oriental Institute E10797), although this latter example does not

the šn-ring, or the identity of the Horus son), the main characteristics of the design are identifiable. The decoration of this area on Nakhtefmut’s cartonnage is slightly different. Next to the Sons of Horus, two scenes show Horus making a libation before Osiris on the right side, and Thoth standing before an Abydos-fetish on the left side. The position of the Sons of Horus is a point of interest, because on the cartonnages of both Nakhtefmut and Tjentdinebu, Qebehsenuef and Imsety are on the left side and Hapi and Duamutef are on the right side, which are their usual places. However, Qebehsenuef and Hapi can sometimes appear on the opposite side of the cartonnage,5 as seems to be the case in the example under discussion.

belong to the two-falcons design, as it has only one falcon below the collar.

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65

Fig. 14: Original location of the fragments on the front of the cartonnage, based on the drawing of the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut (after Quibell 1898, pl. 16).

209

210

F. BARTOS

Fig. 15: Fragment of the area between the two falcons, including figure of Qebehsenuef.

Observing the heads of the falcon-headed birds, the most obvious difference is the colour of the sun-disc. The disc is red in the present case (Fig. 16), whereas the falcons on the two other cartonnage cases have gilded discs. On the fragments from the left side and the area above the pelvis are preserved the wing of the falconheaded bird, its leg with a šn-ring, an arm with a Maat feather and the wings of Isis, interwoven with the wings of Nephthys, who is standing on the opposite side, as well as parts of an Abydos-fetish (see Fig. 16). Our fragments show a combination of the elements found on the cartonnages of Nakhtefmut and Tjentdinebu, although there are closer similarities with the latter. For example, the Maat feather in the fist of Isis appears on the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut, but here the goddess does not have a sun-disc on her head, as can be seen on the cartonnage of Tjentdinebu. In the area between the two falcons, the bottom of the shrine of Nekhen and the bandaged foot of a Son of Horus (Fig. 17) are also recognisable just above the decorative band. Confusingly, the two Sons of Horus on the same side seem to have been coloured differently. On the right side of the cartonnage, the inner Son of Horus, Qebehsenuef, is yellow, whereas the foot of the outer Son of Horus on the left side has a bandage-like red and green checked pattern. The two Sons of Horus on the cartonnage of Tjentdinebu are coloured differently as well: the inner ones have a darker upper body and lighter legs, and the outer ones have a reverse colourscheme with a lighter upper body and darker legs. In

Fig. 16: Fragments of the left side and abdomen.

Fig. 17: Fragment of the left side.

our case, the inner Sons of Horus seem to have a striped upper body and yellow legs, while the outer ones have a bandaged body. On the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut,

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65

211

Fig. 18: Fragments of the pedestal-like foot.

the four figures have a bandage-like red and green checked pattern.6 Parts of an Abydos-fetish can be recognised on three fragments: at the right edge of one that is decorated with the wings of the goddesses; on another piece that joins with this; and on a third fragment that does not join with the others. This motif cannot be found on either of the other examples. The two-feathered crown, the sun-disc and the dome can be discerned on the larger fragment, and further parts of the dome and the beginning of the central column of the offering formula are visible on the two smaller fragments (see Fig. 14). The ḥtp-dj-nsw.t formula naming Ra-Horakhty is similar to the formulae on the other two cartonnages. The signs are carved into the plaster and are painted in dark blue in all three cases. Suggestions can be made concerning the date of our fragments based on the development of the cartonnage decoration. At a certain point in Dynasty 22, an Abydos-fetish appears in the middle of the cartonnage, with a central text column integrated into the pole of the fetish. This change in the iconography took place approximately in the late 9th century BC (Taylor 2003,

106). This serves as a terminuspostquem for the date of our cartonnage. Since this element is present only on our fragments and not on the other two cartonnages, the other two may be a little earlier in date. It is known that the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut dates from the reign of Osorkon I, i.e. the late 10th–early 9th century BC. The date of the cartonnage of Tjentdinebu is not known, but since the iconography is closer to that of our cartonnage, it should be placed somewhere between the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut and our fragments, so perhaps in the mid-9th century BC. Only the beginning and the end of the offering text is preserved and unfortunately the fragments do not reveal much information about the identity of the owner. The text column runs to the very bottom of the pedestal-like foot part, intersecting the decorative band, composed of ꜥnḫ-nb-wꜢs signs (Fig. 18). The text is as follows: […]-pꜢ-ẖrdmꜢꜥ-ḫrwsꜢꜥnḫ.f-n-[mw.tmꜢꜥ-ḫrw] – ‘[…]-pakhered, justified, son of Ankhefen[mut, justified]’. These two names are quite common for the period.7 As far as can be observed, the intersection of the text column is a characteristic feature of this type of cartonnage, and other examples with a decoration

6

7

There are no Sons of Horus on the cartonnage of Padimut, but they can be found on that of Panehsy. Their coloration is similar to our Sons of Horus: the legs of the inner ones are yellow, while the legs of the outer ones have a bandage-like pattern.

Some small fired Nile silt ushabtis have also been found in the same units. They were painted in yellow and decorated with black line inscriptions, providing the name of Ankhefmut. There is no proof that the owner of the cartonnage is the son of the same Ankhefmut who owned the ushabtis, but it is a possibility.

212

F. BARTOS

which is only painted have a full band of ꜥnḫ-nb-wꜢs signs on the foot part and the text column ends at its upper border. Remarkably, the text column ends above the foot part on the other two examples of this type of cartonnage, which belonged to Padimut and Panehsy. Above the ꜥnḫ-nb-wꜢs signs, on the ankle area, a jackal of Wepwawet was originally depicted standing on a standard. Now only the pole of the standard and fragments of its horizontal elements with red dots on a white background can be recognised. The same motif can clearly be observed on the two other cartonnages as well, although the pole of the standard is not depicted on the cartonnage of Nakhtefmut. The largest fragment comes from the back and the left front side of our cartonnage (Fig. 19). The decoration on the front shows the sun-disc on the head of Isis, the end of the falcon-headed bird, the bottom of the shrine of Nekhen and the foot of a Son of Horus. The back is decorated with a large djed pillar with an atef crown on its top, which is a common decoration pattern in this location (Taylor 2003, 107). Clear differences between the front and the back are visible both in the quality of workmanship and in the mode of decoration. As already mentioned, the rear part was only painted and not modelled. Nor was it varnished, although the main difference lies in the obviously rougher or hastier workmanship of its painted motifs. One may wonder how the beautifully composed decoration of the frontal body-field could be associated with painting of such inferior quality on the back. The collaboration of two – or more – painters who worked on the cartonnage is obviously one possible explanation. It might be supposed that the front might represent the work of a master while the back could have been painted by an apprentice. However, there is another explanation, possibly even more convincing, based on the fabrication method of the cartonnage case (Taylor 1988, 166–7). As the study of the cartonnage case of Padimut has revealed (Farrell, Snow and Vinogradskaya 2006), there were two main phases in the method of manufacture. First, during the preparatory phase, the shape of the cartonnage itself was formed from several layers of linen soaked in gum. Then the plastering and the decoration of the front part was

prepared. All of these steps were taken before the mummy was placed inside the cartonnage, perhaps even before the intended occupant had died. The second phase began with the insertion of the wrapped mummy into the case. The case was then closed at the back with a string, and an outermost linen and plaster layer was applied to the rear join, which was finally painted.8 For obvious reasons, there was limited time available for this final process, as the mummy was waiting to be buried, and this could partly explain the differences in quality between the decoration on the front and back parts of the case.9 Looking at a Dynasty 22 cartonnage with its very detailed, delicately accomplished painted decoration, it is reasonable to presume that the mummified body was not within the case

8

9

The uppermost linen scraps, which were extended around the sides of Padimut’s cartonnage and partly covered the carved and already varnished decoration on the front, support this notion; see Farrell, Snow and Vinogradskaya 2006, 7.

Fig. 19: Fragment of the back and the left side of the front.

This difference between the front and the back can clearly be seen on the cartonnage of Panehsy (RMO AMM 17-e), especially on the head, where the final painting phase can be observed very clearly.

AN EXAMPLE OF A RARE DYNASTY 22 CARTONNAGE TYPE FROM THE EXCAVATION OF TT 65

during the whole process of decoration, but was put inside only during the last phase of preparation. This could also explain the discrepancies in the modelled decoration, which are only present on the front of the case, and which would have required more time to prepare than the painted surface of the commoner examples. None the less, the possibility that more than one painter worked together on the cartonnage is not incompatible with this theory. We can conclude that TT 65 and its vicinity were used for secondary burials by persons who were privileged enough to have cartonnage with plastic modelling. The term ‘privileged’ is used here deliberately for the owners of these exceptional cartonnages, as only a few examples of this type are known: namely the five complete cartonnages of Padimut, Nakhtefmut, Tjentdinebu, Panehsy and Ankh-Hor, the fragments from our excavation and those from TT -400- and in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Their rarity, considering the workmanship and the time of its manufacture, may be the result of their higher price. It also seems possible that this type of cartonnage was created by a particular workshop. The specific similarities of their designs and workmanship seem to support this view. The question arises, however, as to whether there is any connection between this cartonnage type and the servants of Amun and Amun-Ra, since Padimut, Nakhtefmut, Tjentdinebu, Panehsy and Ankh-Hor were attached to the cult of these gods. Unfortunately, without further information, this possibility remains only speculation. Acknowledgements The photographs and drawings were made by the author except where noted otherwise. For permission to publish the images of cartonnages used for comparison, I am much obliged to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the National Museum of Ireland, Dublin; the Harvard Semitic Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts; the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden; the Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery, Norwich; and Dr Gábor Schreiber, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.

213

Bibliography Bács, T. 1998. First preliminary report on the work of the Hungarian Mission in Thebes in Theban Tomb No. 65 (Nebamun/Imiseba). Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts,AbteilungKairo 54, 49–64. Bács, T. 2001. Art as material for later art: The case of Theban Tomb 65. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour and paintinginancientEgypt. London, 94–100. Bács, T. 2002. Theban Tomb 65: The Twentieth Dynasty decoration. EgyptianArchaeology 21, 21–4. Bács, T. 2011. The last New Kingdom tomb at Thebes: The end of a great tradition? British Museum Studies in AncientEgyptandSudan 16, 1–46. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_16/ bacs.aspx (last accessed 23 March 2017). Carter, H. 1903. Report on general work done in the Southern Inspectorate. Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte4, 43–50. Collins, L. 1976. The private tombs of Thebes: Excavations by Sir Robert Mond 1905 and 1906. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology62, 18–40. Dawson, W. R. 1929. A note on the Egyptian mummies in the Castle Museum, Norwich. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 15, 186–90. Farrell, E. F., C. Snow and N. Vinogradskaya. 2006. The study and treatment of Pa-di-mut’s cartonnage mummy case. JournaloftheAmericanInstituteofConservation 45, 1–15. Hollis, S. T. 1987. The cartonnage case of Pa-di-mut Harvard Semitic Museum 2230. In D. M. Golomb (ed.), ‘Working withnodata’:SemiticandEgyptianstudiespresentedto ThomasO.Lambdin. Winona Lake, IN, 165–79. Mond, R. 1904. Report of work done in the gebel esh-Sheikh Abd-el-Kurneh at Thebes January to March 1903. Annalesduservicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte5, 97–104. Mond, R. 1905. Report of work in the necropolis of Thebes during the winter of 1903–1904. Annalesduservicedes antiquitésdel’Égypte6, 65–96. Quibell, J. E. 1898. TheRamesseum. London. Taylor, J. H. 1988. The development of cartonnage cases. In S. D’Auria, P. Lacovara and C. H. Roehrig (eds), Mummies and magic: The funerary arts of ancient Egypt. Boston, 166–7. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), TheThebannecropolis.Past,presentandfuture. London, 95–119. Vassilika, E. 1995. Egyptianart. Cambridge. Weigall, A. E. P. 1908. A report on the tombs of Shêkh Abd’ el Gûrneh and el Assasîf. Annalesduservicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte 9, 118–36.

III COFFINS IN CONTEXT: BURIAL ASSEMBLAGES AND SACRED SPACE

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER: ANATOMY OF A FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD COFFIN IN CONTEXT1 Marleen DE MEYER

Abstract The coffin of Henu from Dayr al-Barsha is a rare example of a First Intermediate Period coffin that was found in its original intact context. Considering this coffin as a material object, and as part of a purposely conceived set of burial equipment, permits the reconstruction of certain aspects of the course of the funeral. The choice of offering formulae inscribed on the coffin, moreover seems to complement the selection of tomb models in the chamber, showing that one can only ‘read’ such a burial by considering all elements together, and not by looking at the objects individually. * * * Historically coffins have mainly attracted the attention of Egyptologists because of the decoration that they may carry. Undecorated coffins are hardly ever discussed in the literature, and the materiality and constructional techniques of ancient Egyptian coffins play a secondary role at best in their study. This tide has been turning to some extent in recent years, with new techniques being used to investigate the material aspects of coffins. An exemplary project in this regard is the Vatican Coffin Project, an international collaboration focusing on the coffins of the Bab el-Gasus cachette (see Amenta, this volume). Additionally, since most coffins have come down to us without a recorded archaeological context, their exact provenance as well as the setting in which they were originally placed are often unknown. This leads to coffins often being studied as individual objects, leaving out of consideration the broader set of funerary equipment of which they form an integral part. The intact burial chamber of Henu (Fig. 1), which was excavated at Dayr al-Barsha in 2007 and which dates to the First Intermediate

1

This research was undertaken within the framework of the Dayr al-Barsha Project of the KU Leuven, which is generously financed

Period, makes it possible to bypass both of these issues. In this article, the coffin is considered both as a material object, with close observation of its constructional techniques, and also within the broader context in which this container functioned. The combination of these approaches permits deductions to be made concerning certain elements of the funeral and the theological ideas behind it. The site of Dayr al-Barsha functioned as the most important necropolis for nearby al-Ashmunayn, the capital of the 15th Upper Egyptian nome, during the Middle Kingdom, when the local governors were buried in rock-cut tombs high on the north hill of the site (Willems 2014, 59–123). However, already during the Old Kingdom a substantial necropolis developed here, although the status of the tomb-owners was much lower than those at nearby al-Shaykh Said, where the Old Kingdom governors of the Hare Nome were buried (Davies 1901; De Meyer 2011a; 2011b). During the First Intermediate Period, the elite cemetery of the Hare Nome seems to have been located at Dayr alBarsha (Willems 2014, 73–6), while at the same time a programme of restoration of Old Kingdom tombs was undertaken by the provincial governors Iha and Djehutinakht, son of Teti (De Meyer 2005). One of the Dynasty 6 tombs that Djehutinakht, son of Teti, restored, was the tomb of Uky, located high up on the south hill of Dayr al-Barsha. His restoration text is placed on the northern jamb of the entrance door to the tomb (De Meyer 2005, 129–30; updated drawing in Willems, Delvaux and De Meyer 2015, 211, fig. 133). Uky’s tomb originally consisted of one rockcut chapel with two shafts inside, intended for the burial of Uky and most likely his wife. At a later date, a second room was added, in which the undisturbed burial of Henu was found. Since the doorway to this second chamber partially cuts through a rock-cut statue

by the Special Research Fund (BOF) of KU Leuven and by the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO).

218

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 1: The intact burial chamber of Henu at Dayr al-Barsha (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

of the wife of Uky, it is unlikely that this addition was made during the Old Kingdom, but rather it should relate to the placement of the restoration inscription on the entrance door by Djehutinakht. Context The rock-cut burial chamber of Henu (16H50/1C) is located at the bottom of a 4m-deep square shaft (Figs 1 and 2). The blocking of the chamber, which consisted of loosely piled rough limestone blocks, was intact, with some of the blocks resting on the coffin lid. The contents of the burial chamber consisted of a wooden box coffin together with a number of wooden tomb models (for colour photos of these models, see De Meyer 2007; Willems, Delvaux and De Meyer 2015, 199–212, figs 124–8). To the east of the coffin, wedged in the narrow space between the wall of the

burial chamber and the east panel of the coffin, a large ka-statue of the deceased was standing facing south. In front of this statue, two tomb models of naked women involved in the process of making beer were located. Behind the ka-statue, in the northeastern corner of the burial chamber, stood a large model rowing boat. On top of the coffin, a model showing three women grinding grain and another showing four men making mud bricks were located. It may not be a coincidence that both models seem to be oriented towards the ka-statue of the deceased that was placed to the east of the coffin. Besides these two objects, a pair of white imitation sandals was placed near the foot end of the coffin. While these sandals are life-size, they have wooden soles and could not, therefore, have served a practical purpose. As with the other objects in the tomb, their presence rather ensures a magical provision for the afterlife to the deceased. The selection of tomb

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER

Fig. 2: Section drawing of the shaft of Henu showing the coffin and tomb models in situ in the burial chamber (Drawing: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

219

220

M. DE MEYER

models points to provisions in three essential domains: food (production of bread and beer), shelter (production of mud bricks), and transportation (boat). Inside the coffin, a wooden headrest was the only object present with the well-preserved mummy of Henu, which was found in the classical position of the time: on the left side, head to the north, facing east (Fig. 3). The mummy underwent a CT scan in 2013, the results of which are under study and will be published shortly. It can already be stated that there was no removal of the internal organs, nor of the brain, which is to be expected at such an early time in Egyptian history.2 Preservation of the body merely consisted of desiccation with natron and wrapping in linen. The coffin itself forms an integral part of the complete set of funerary equipment that was purposely conceived and designed for Henu’s burial, and this is the element on which the rest of this article focuses. Construction With dimensions of 204cm long, 57cm wide and 53cm high, the box coffin is the correct size to hold an individual buried in the extended position. The height of 53cm is that of the box itself, without the addition of the crossbars below the coffin, which have a height of 2.5–2.8cm. This measurement (the box height) is remarkably close to the traditional value of the cubit (52.5cm) and it seems likely that a height of one cubit was intended for the coffin. A similar observation has been made in the case of the coffin of Heqata (Willems 1996, 30–1). The coffin is made of irregularly shaped wooden planks of Ficus sycomorus (identification by E. Marinova), a native tree in Egypt that was widely used for coffin construction (Fig. 4). The planks have a thickness of 4–5cm and are held together by flat loose tenons, which are made from a different kind of wood, most likely Balanitesaegyptiaca(see below; a positive identification was not possible in this case since all the tenons are inside the coffin boards). The position of these tenons can be observed in the cracks between the coffin boards (see Fig. 4). These cracks were caulked

2

I warmly thank Andrew Wade, Lana Williams, and Tosha Dupras for the interpretation of the CT scan.

Fig. 3: The mummy of Henu as it was found inside the coffin, lying on its left side, head to the north, facing east, leaning against the western side of the coffin. Underneath the head was a wooden headrest (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

with white lime plaster, which has to a large extent fallen out due to wood movement over time. On the exterior this plaster is very fine and only covers dowel holes, narrow cracks in the wood, and an occasional irregularity in a wooden board. For the rest, the exterior of the coffin was not covered with plaster, but painted brown with fairly rough brush strokes. The hieroglyphs were mostly painted on the bare wood. On the inside

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER

Fig. 4: Drawing of the exterior of the four sides and the lid of Henu’s coffin (Drawing: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

221

222

M. DE MEYER

almost the entire wooden surface was caulked with a thick layer of white lime plaster that is considerably coarser than that of the exterior, concealing large irregularities in the wood. No interior decoration was ever applied (see Fig. 3). The corners of the coffin are joined by mitre joints, each of which is strengthened by four sets of two wooden dowels (Fig. 5).3 The dowels are long and round in profile, and are made from a harder type of wood than Ficussycomorus, namely Balanitesaegyptiaca (identification by E. Marinova).4 Before these dowels were inserted, tendons were tied through the holes. The choice of tendons for such a purpose was a good one, since they are easy to tie when they are moist, and they tighten up when they dry out, thus pulling the boards of the coffin together.5 Parts of dry tendons that had fallen out of their plug holes were found underneath the coffin. The method of using tendons to pull coffin boards together was also observed in fragmentary coffin boards from tomb 16H40/2, which is located only a few metres to the south of the tomb of Uky, and it thus seems to have been a fairly common technique at the site. The planks of which the coffin is built are irregular in shape and required some creative constructing to turn them into rectangular boards (see Fig. 4). The head board is built up of five planks that are each connected to one another with three flat rectangular dowels. The foot board is constructed similarly, but on the bottom some smaller pieces of wood were necessary to complete this side. The east side of the coffin is built up of four large boards that span the entire length of the coffin, with four triangular pieces of wood to fill in the gaps at the extremities. The west side of the coffin is built up more irregularly, with only one long plank that spans the entire length of the coffin. All the other pieces of wood are shorter. It thus seems that the best pieces of wood were reserved for the head and front

panels of the coffin, and that the foot and back panels were constructed with smaller leftover pieces of planks. The base board has a thickness of 3cm and was made to fit the internal dimensions of the coffin

3

5

4

For a constructional drawing of such a joint, see Donadoni Roveri 1969, fig. 9d. The observation that dowels and tenons are made from a harder type of wood than the coffin boards has also been made by other authors, such as for instance for the coffin of Imeni from Dra’ Abu el-Naga (Neef and Podsiadlowski 2007, 108–9). In the latter case the dowels and tenons are made from Tamarixsp. and in one case also from Acaciaalbida, both of which are harder than Ficussycomorus.

Fig. 5: Mitre joint between F and FR, showing the sets of dowels strengthening the joint (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

Other materials that were used to tie coffin boards together were rope and flat copper ties. The latter were mainly used for high-status burials, such as for coffins of provincial governors, often in cedar wood. At Dayr al-Barsha this has, for instance, been observed for the coffins of the governors Ahanakht I (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology E 16218A–P), Djehutinakht IV or V (Boston MFA 20.1822–7), and Amenemhat (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 28091–2).

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER

223

Fig. 6: Base board of the coffin of Henu (Drawing: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

(Fig. 6). It was attached only to the long sides by means of five dowel joints on each side. Remarkably, the bottom was not attached to the short sides of the coffin in any way. Underneath the coffin three wooden crossbars were attached to the baseboard and the long sides of the coffin by means of wooden dowels. On the bottom of each of these crossbars two grooves measuring 1cm wide were cut into the wood (Figs 7 and 8). These grooves are cut at both extremities of the bars and run perpendicular to the grain of the wood. The grooves of all three crossbars align with one another, which suggests that they served to guide ropes. Since the shaft leading to Henu’s burial chamber is square, the coffin would have needed to be lowered vertically into the shaft, and it seems plausible that ropes tied around the coffin would have helped with that. The lid is likewise reinforced with three wooden crossbars that fit the interior of the coffin (Fig. 9). The middle crossbar has a convex profile, while the crossbars at the extremities have one straight edge and one rounded one, making the lid fit tightly on the coffin (see Fig. 4). On these crossbars a few carpenter’s marks could be observed, although it is not clear exactly what they mean. The best-preserved one was found on the

6

A cross was also used as a carpenter’s mark in the coffin of Meryt from Thebes (Curto and Mancini 1968, 78).

front of the bar near the headboard and has the shape of a cross.6 Similar crosses were found on the second and third bars. They are, however, not as clearly visible since they are partly covered by plaster. On the foot end of the lid are visible traces of a protruding square wooden tenon that was sawn off (Fig. 10; and see Fig. 4). Similar traces are not found on the head end of the lid. Such a protruding tenon was useful for lifting the lid of the coffin, but after the funeral it no longer served any purpose. That they were sometimes sawn off in the burial chamber itself is demonstrated by the tomb of Wah at Thebes, where a sawn-off tenon was found next to the coffin on the floor of the burial chamber (Roehrig 2002, 15–6, 22, fig. 27). No such tenon was found in Henu’s burial chamber, but it seems likely that it was also sawn off during the funeral. The thin plaster layer covering the plank runs up to the edges of the position from which the tenon would have protruded, but does not continue over the location where the tenon was sawn off. This suggests that the tenon was still present for a period of time after the decoration of the coffin was complete, and was only removed later, most probably during the funeral.

224

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 7: Grooves on the edges of the crossbar below the F panel (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

Fig. 8: Indication of the location of the three consecutive grooves on the crossbars (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER

225

Fig. 9: Lid of the coffin of Henu, showing the three crossbars and the location of carpenter’s marks (Drawing: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

Fig. 10: Traces remaining where the tenon was sawn off on the F end of the lid (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

7

There is evidence that mummies and objects were sometimes only placed inside the coffin in the burial chamber during the funeral, for instance since objects inside the coffin would all

The lid of the coffin lay loose on the box and was not firmly attached, which raises an interesting question regarding the course of the actual burial. Since the coffin needed to be lowered into the shaft in a vertical position, it seems impossible that this could have been accomplished with a loose lid on and a mummy inside, without resulting in the catastrophic event of the mummy tumbling out of its coffin halfway through the process. Rather, the fact that the lid of the coffin was not secured to the box seems to indicate that it was brought down separately. This would also mean that the mummy was placed separately into the coffin during the funeral.7 This method not only has the advantage of reducing the weight of the coffin, but also allows the position and the orientation of the mummy

have shifted to one side if the coffin was lowered vertically with all its contents (Podvin 2000, 283).

M. DE MEYER

226

Fig. 11: The east side of the coffin of Henu (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

on its left side facing east to be ascertained. Such an orientation could easily have been compromised if the mummy had been placed inside the box coffin before being lowered into the shaft. Moreover, this would prevent the awkward situation of the mummy resting with its full weight on its head while going down into the shaft head-first. Podvin has argued that, to avoid this, burial chambers were predominantly located to the south of shafts during the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom (Podvin 2000, 281). This way the mummy went down feet first, and the head of the deceased was located at the north, near the entrance of the chamber. However, in the case of Henu the burial chamber is located to the north of the shaft, meaning that if his head were to be placed in the prescribed northern direction, he would have to go down head first. Decoration The coffin of Henu is decorated with a single line of ornamental hieroglyphs that runs horizontally along the

top of the coffin panels on all four sides (Fig. 11; and see Fig. 4). Another line of text was painted on the lid of the coffin. On the east side a pair of wedjat-eyes forms the only other decorative element. Such a Type 1 coffin (Willems 1988, 122–7) was already in use at the end of the Old Kingdom, then flourished during the First Intermediate Period, and still occurred frequently in the early Middle Kingdom. The outlines of the hieroglyphs were painted with black ink, as were the stance lines demarcating the text. The hieroglyphs were then filled in with Egyptian blue (copper calcium silicate) paint, a colour scheme that is typical for box coffins dating to the late First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom (Willems 1988, 119). The blue paint was applied rather sloppily with a fairly large brush, often resulting in colouring outside the lines and the obliteration of interior details in the signs that were present in the black outline. On the long sides of the coffin the texts run from north to south, while on the foot and head end the texts run from east to west, the standard orientations of texts on such coffins (Willems 1988, 119, n. 11).

227

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER

beautiful roads on which the revered ones tread,13 may he give his arm to the great god,14 the lord of heaven, Henu.

East side (FR)

Head end (H)

ḥtpdỉnsw.tỉnpwỉm.ywtḫnt.ysḥ-nṯrtp.yḏw=f 8nbtꜢ ḏsrqrsnfrmỉs=fnfrnẖr.t-nṯrmsmy.tỉmnt.t ỉmꜢḫ.wḫrnṯr῾Ꜣnbp.tḥnw An offering which the king gives, and Anubis,9 who is in wt, foremost of the god’s booth, who is on his mountain, lord of the holy land: that he may be buried well in his beautiful tomb in the necropolis in the western desert,10 the revered one with the great god, the lord of heaven, Henu.

ḥtpdỉnsw.tỉnpwỉm.yw.tnbtꜢḏsrỉmꜢḫ.wḥnw An offering which the king gives, and Anubis, who is in wt, lord of the holy land, (to) the revered one, Henu. Foot end (F)

ḥḳꜢḥw.tsmrw῾.ty15ỉmꜢḫ.wḫrỉm.yḫmnwḥnw Ruler of the estate, sole companion, the revered one with he who is in Khemenu, Henu.

West side (B)

Lid (L)

ḥtpdỉnsw.tỉnpwnbspꜢms.wt=fnbḫpỉ=fnfr ḥrwꜢ.wtnfrtḫpp.tỉmꜢḫw.wḥr=s11dỉ=f῾=f nnṯr῾Ꜣnbp.tḥnw An offering which the king gives, and Anubis, Lord of Sepa12 in all his places: may he walk well on the

ḥtpdỉnsw.tỉnpwwsỉrnbḏdwḫnt.yỉmn.tyw16nbꜢbḏw17 qrsnfrmỉs[p]n18nfrnẖr.t-nṯrmỉmꜢḫ.wḥnw

8

The correct order of the signs would have been

13

9

The traditional FR text invokes Osiris and not Anubis, and the text which is here placed on FR normally occurs on B (Willems 1988, 124). This traditional wording has not been adapted for a necropolis on the eastern side of the Nile, where Dayr al-Barsha is located. The suffix pronoun should in fact have been the plural =sn since it refers back to wꜢ.wt (see Lapp 1986, 51–2). This formula usually occurs on coffin lids, and most often on those originating from the north of Egypt (Saqqara: Teti pyramid cemetery, and Abusir; Willems 1988, 173, n. 183–4; Lapp 1993, 217; Willems 1996, 47). Coffins from Dayr al-Barsha generally use the verb sḏꜢ instead of ḫpỉ: sḏꜢ=fnfrḥrwꜢ.wtnfr.wtn.tẖr.t-nṯr ‘may he proceed well on the good roads of the necropolis’ (Willems 1988, 173, n. 182). For this offering formula in general, see Lapp 1986, 51–8. The invocation of ‘Anubis, Lord of Sepa’ generally occurs on coffin lids (Willems 1988, 172).

10

11

12

.

14

15

As has been noted by Willems 1988, 173–4, this refers not only to the funeral procession towards the tomb, but also to the journey through the netherworld. For the interpretation of this passage, see also Lapp 1986, 56–8. This is not a standard expression and it seems to allude to CT Spell 399A, which occurs on the coffin of Heqata from Aswan (A1C) and on two coffins from Gebelein (G1T and G2T) (see CT V, 166c). This text reads ‘may arms be stretched out to him in the neshmet-bark among the venerated ones’ and follows immediately after ‘may he walk well on the beautiful roads on which the revered ones tread’ (CT V, 166b). On this passage, see Lapp 1986, 73–4 (die Bittenfolge 8); Willems 1996, 140, 198–9. The group is reversed.

16

The nb-sign

17

Thetpy-sign

is used instead of the Ꜣb-sign .

18

The writing

is erroneous for

is wrongly placed before the tyw-bird .

.

228

M. DE MEYER

An offering which the king gives, and Anubis and Osiris, lord of Djedu, foremost of the Westerners, lord of Abydos: that he may be buried well in this beautiful tomb in the necropolis, as a revered one, Henu.19 By the Middle Kingdom, the distribution of offering formulae on the east and west sides of coffins is fixed, with very few exceptions. The standard pattern then consists of the request for an invocation offering (prỉ.tḫrw) for the deceased on the east (FR), and the wish for ‘a good burial in his tomb in the necropolis in the western desert’ on the west (B) (Willems 1988, 124; Lapp 1993, 195). The coffin of Henu does not follow this pattern. In fact, no invocation offering at all is mentioned on his coffin, not even on the short H and F sides, although it frequently occurs there (Willems 1988, 124–5). However, the absence of a request for invocation offerings is common during the First Intermediate Period (Spanel 1985, 246 and n. 43). Instead the B text was moved to FR, and on B a second plea to Anubis was entered wishing the deceased a good journey on the roads of the underworld. This text, which invokes Anubis, Lord of Sepa, is normally found on the lids of coffins (Willems 1988, 172). Why its position was switched with that on L — a text wishing for a good burial invoking both Anubis and Osiris — is not clear. A few palaeographic elements support a date in the First Intermediate Period. The horned viper is consistently depicted with a severed head on Henu’s coffin (Fig. 12). This deliberate mutilation of harmful animals in the hieroglyphic script is especially found in inscriptions that are near to the body, such as those on coffins (Fischer 1956, 102, n. 15; Brovarski 1985, 57–8). The mutilation of the poisonous horned viper (Cerastes cerastes) already occurs during Dynasty 6,20 but is especially popular during the First Intermediate Period.21 At Gebelein and Thebes this feature falls into

19 20

21

This text is normally located on B (Willems 1988, 124). See for instance the tomb of Weni the Elder at Abydos (Richards 2004, 98) or the tombs from the Pepi II cemetery at Saqqara (Jéquier 1929, 36–7 and pl. 16). For a survey of the occurrence of this feature during the First Intermediate Period, see Brovarski 1985, 58. Several of the Asyut coffins display decapitated vipers (Hannig 2006, 157 [coffin of ḥnw, S2Br], 160 [S1Bre], 164 [coffin of msḥty, S1C], 178 [coffin of ḫwỉ, S4C], 181 [coffin ofṯꜢwꜢw, S5C], 186 [coffin of

Fig. 12: Decapitated horned viper (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

disuse after the unification of Egypt during the reign of Mentuhotep II. The tꜢ-sign is written with two pellets below the land sign, to which they are connected by vertical lines (Fig. 13). The occurrence of two pellets instead of three is common during the First Intermediate Period, although examples from the Old Kingdom are known as well (Fischer 1996, 26). While Dayr al-Barsha is one of the richest sites where Middle Kingdom coffins are concerned (Willems 1988, 68–81), the evidence for the earlier periods is scarce. In fact, no intact Old Kingdom coffins have survived from the site,22 and apart from Henu’s coffin there is only one other First Intermediate Period coffin known from Dayr al-Barsha, that of Shemsi (Kamal 1901, 33; Lacau 1906, 73–4 [CG 28098]; Willems 1988, 35 [B8]; Lapp 1993, 71 [B20]; Willems 2014 [B26C]). The coffin of Shemsi was found in shaft C of the tomb of Middle Kingdom governor Nehri I, on top of the Middle Kingdom burial of a woman named Sathedjhetep and clearly in a secondary position. It carries horizontal bands of hieroglyphs on all four sides,

22

ḫwỉ.n-Nmty/ẖty, S6C], 190 [coffin of dꜢg, S7C], 194 [coffin of msḥty, S8C], 264 [coffin of ḥnnw, S5L], 267 [coffin of ḥny, S6L], a.o). Daressy 1900, 23 does mention that he found Old Kingdom coffins during his excavations on the north hill of Dayr alBarsha in 1897, but none of these entered the collection of the Egyptian Museum, which was at that time located in Giza (Anonymous 1898). Therefore the whereabouts of these coffins are presently unknown.

READING A BURIAL CHAMBER

229

Conclusion

Fig. 13: tꜢ-sign with two pellets connected to the land sign (Photograph: M. De Meyer. © Dayr al-Barsha Project, KU Leuven).

but none on the lid (Lacau 1906, 73–4).23 The offering formulae on the coffin of Shemsi closely resemble those on a group of early First Intermediate Period coffins from Asyut (Willems 2014, 78, n. 62; Long, De Meyer and Willems 2015, 232, 234, 236), and the mutilated viper hieroglyph occurs on his coffin as well (Lacau 1906, 73–4; however, Kamal 1901, 33 does not indicate that the heads of the vipers are missing or mutilated, but the inaccuracy of his copy in general has already been demonstrated in n. 23). Since almost all coffins that are known from Dayr al-Barsha originate from the nomarchal tombs on the north hill (Lapp 1993, 93), the coffin of Henu constitutes a good example of the type of coffin that was available for lower-ranking officials at the site. The inscriptions on the coffin of Henu form the only source of information regarding his social status. His titles are ḥḳꜢḥw.t ‘ruler of the estate’ and smrwꜥ.ty ‘sole companion’. This makes Henu an official in the provincial administration, most likely serving under Djehutinakht, son of Teti, whose restoration inscription is found in the same tomb. The restoration of which Djehutinakht speaks is not an architectural restoration, but rather a reinstatement of the funerary cult in this older tomb by allowing one of his subordinates to create his own tomb in it (De Meyer 2007).

23

Note that Kamal 1901, 33 mentions that only three sides carry a horizontal band of hieroglyphs, which is undoubtedly a mistake on his part.

Considering the coffin of Henu as a material object within its original context has led to several observations regarding the course of the funeral and the functionality of the objects that were chosen to accompany Henu to the afterlife. Lowering a box coffin into a vertical shaft must certainly have been one of the more awkward moments during a funeral, but the grooves that line up on all three crossbars underneath the coffin suggest that ropes were wrapped around it to aid in this manoeuvre. The mummy and the lid must subsequently have entered separately into the shaft, making it possible to ensure the correct position of the mummy within its coffin. The tenon at the rear of the coffin lid was most likely sawn off after the mummy and lid were in place, as a final act when there was no further need to manipulate the lid. Afterwards, the tomb models would have been placed on top of and next to the coffin. A relationship seems to exist between the decoration of the coffin and the choice of tomb models. The offering formulae that were selected for this coffin all focus on the burial and the afterlife. The absence of a prỉ.tḫrw formula, and in fact of any request for offerings at all, may perhaps be explained by the fact that the offerings were being provided by the group of tomb models clustered on top of and to the east of the coffin. The east side is traditionally the place where the prỉ.t-ḫrw formula would occur on the coffin, and where the deceased would be able to access the offerings through the wedjat-eyes or false door. It is thus certainly no coincidence that the tomb models are placed next to the coffin on the east, and that those that did not fit in this narrow space (the brick makers and the three women grinding grain), were placed on the coffin lid’s eastern side, turned towards the ka-statue. One can therefore only ‘read’ this burial by considering all elements together, and not by looking at each object individually. Henu’s burial chamber, small as it may have been, contained all the necessary ingredients to guarantee a successful afterlife.

230

M. DE MEYER

Bibliography Anonymous. 1898. Extrait de l’inventaire du Musée de Ghizeh comprenant les objets entrés dans les collections du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1898 (JE nr. 32001–33286). Bulletindel’Institutd’Égypte sér. 3 no. 9, 317–414. Brovarski, E. 1985. Akhmim in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. In P. Posener-Kriéger (ed.), MélangesGamalEddinMokhtar, Vol. 1. Bibliothèque d’Étude 97. Cairo, 117–53. Curto, S. and M. Mancini. 1968. News of Kha’ and Meryt. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 54, 77–81. Daressy, G. 1900. Fouilles de Deir el Bircheh (novembre– décembre 1897). Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte1, 17–43. Davies, N. de Garis. 1901. The rock tombs of Sheikh Saïd. Archaeological Survey of Egypt 10. London. De Meyer, M. 2005. Restoring the tombs of his ancestors? Djehutinakht, son of Teti, at Deir al-Barsha and Sheikh Said. In M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Genealogie.Realitätund FiktionvonIdentität. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 5, London, 125–35. De Meyer, M. 2007. The tomb of Henu at Deir el-Barsha. EgyptianArchaeology 31, 20–4. De Meyer, M. 2009. Leben im Miniaturformat. AntikeWelt 4, 37–41. De Meyer, M. 2011a. The fifth dynasty royal decree of Ia-Ib at Dayr al-Barshā. Revued’égyptologie62, 57–71. De Meyer, M. 2011b. Two cemeteries for one provincial capital? Deir el-Bersha and el-Sheikh Said in the fifteenth upper Egyptian nome during the Old Kingdom. In N. Strudwick and H. Strudwick (eds), OldKingdom: Newperspectives.Egyptianartandarchaeology2750– 2150 BC. Proceedings of a conference at the FitzwilliamMuseumCambridge,May2009. Oxford, 42–9. Donadoni Roveri, A. M. 1969. Isarcofagiegizidalleorigini allafinedell’anticoregno. Università di Roma. Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente. Serie archeologica 16. Rome. Fischer, H. G. 1956. A daughter of the overlords of Upper Egypt in the First Intermediate Period. Journal of the AmericanOrientalSociety 76 (2), 99–110. Fischer, H. G. 1996. VariaNova. New York. Hannig, R. 2006. Zur Paläographie der Särge aus Assiut. Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beitrage 47. Hildesheim. Jéquier, G. 1929. Tombeaux de particuliers contemporains dePepiII. Fouilles à Saqqarah. Cairo. Kamal, A. 1901. Fouilles à Deïr-el-Barsheh (mars–avril 1900). Annalesduservicedesantiquitésdel’Égypte2, 14–43. Lacau, P. 1906. Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire II. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire 16: nos. 28087–28126. Cairo.

Lapp, G. 1986. Die Opferformel des Alten Reiches unter Berücksichtigung einiger späterer Formen. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo 21. Mainz am Rhein. Lapp, G. 1993. TypologiederSärgeundSargkammernvon der 6. bis 13. Dynastie. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 7. Heidelberg. Long, G., M. De Meyer and H. Willems. 2015. The use-life of the Middle Kingdom tomb of Governor Nehri I at Dayr al-Barsha: Reconstructing find contexts based on the distribution of coffin fragments. StudienzurAltägyptischenKultur44, 215–36. Neef, R. and V. Podsiadlowski. 2007. Baumaterial für das Jenseits: Holzanatomische Untersuchungen. In D. Polz (ed.), FürdieEwigkeitGeschaffen.DieSärgedesImeni undderGeheset. Mainz am Rhein, 107–11. Podvin, J.-L. 2000. Position du mobilier funéraire dans les tombes égyptiennes privées du Moyen Empire. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, AbteilungKairo56, 277–334. Richards, J. E. 2004. Text and context in late Old Kingdom Egypt. The archaeology and historiography of Weni the Elder. JournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt39, 75–102. Roehrig, C. H. 2002. Life along the Nile: Three Egyptians of ancient Thebes. BulletinoftheMetropolitanMuseum ofArt 60/1, 5–65. Spanel, D. B. 1985. Ancient Egyptian boat models of the Herakleopolitan Period and Eleventh Dynasty. Studien zurAltägyptischenKultur12, 243–53. Willems, H. 1988. Chestsoflife:Astudyofthetypologyand conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard classcoffins. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 25. Leiden. Willems, H. 1996. ThecoffinofHeqata(CairoJdE36418). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 70. Leuven. Willems, H. 2010. Report of the mission of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven to Dayr al-Barshā 4 March– 26 April 2007. Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte84, 429–65. Willems, H. 2014. Historicalandarchaeologicalaspectsof Egyptian funerary culture: Religious ideas and ritual practice in Middle Kingdom elite cemeteries. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 73. Leiden. Willems, H., L. Delvaux and M. De Meyer. 2015. La chambre funéraire d’Abou à al-Chaykh Ibada. In M. De Meyer and K. Cortebeeck (eds), Djehoutihotep. 100 ans de fouillesenÉgypte. Leuven, 173–212.

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED Wolfram GRAJETZKI

Abstract The intact tomb of the ‘king’s daughter’ Nubheteptikhered at Dahshur, found by Jacques de Morgan in 1894, serves as an example of a late Middle Kingdom burial belonging to a member of the royal court. In this paper, all objects placed in her tomb will be presented, and their individual meanings within the context of the burial discussed. Meat offerings secured the eternal food supply for the princess. Royal insignia found in a special box are most likely the actual items used, and sometimes broken, in the rituals performed at the mummification. The short inscriptions on the coffin relate to the same rituals, and add the specific motif of the placement of the princess among the stars of the night sky. Most of the items near, beside or on the embalmed body of the princess identify her as the god Osiris, king of the underworld. It will be argued that the essentials of her burial equipment are already attested in Dynasty 6 royal inscriptions, and that they are still part of royal burials in the Third Intermediate Period. The burial equipment of the king’s daughter would therefore preserve for us in three-dimensional form the basic elements of royal mummification and burial rites. The ritual items were deposited in the burial for eternity only in the late Middle Kingdom for a select group of people at the royal court.

of objects on early Middle Kingdom coffins: ‘we are visiting the backstage storeroom of a theatre, where we may perceive the attributes used by the players without, however, knowing for which play or plays they are intended’ (Willems 1997, 343). Luckily, we have at least parts of the ‘plays’ in the form of the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts and other religious literature. However, these texts do not provide the whole ‘drama’ and it remains hard to connect certain objects with the written sources. The intact tomb of Nubhetepti-khered was discovered in 1894 by Jacques de Morgan, at Dahshur, and published in 1895 (de Morgan 1895, 107–15). De Morgan only directed two seasons at Dahshur but was extremely successful, finding several intact burials of Middle Kingdom princesses, including their jewellery boxes. In the 1894 season de Morgan was working in several locations across the site. One of these was the pyramid of king Amenemhat III (Fig. 1).

* * * The burial of the king’s daughter Nubhetepti-khered was found undisturbed and it provides a perfect opportunity to look at a whole tomb group of early Dynasty 13, around 1750 BC. Relatively few studies have considered a complete burial assemblage in order to understand the function of the objects placed in the tomb, whereas the function of single inscribed items, such as coffins, shabtis or Book of the Dead papyri, has often been well researched. For uninscribed objects, the situation is often more complicated. The purpose of many items placed in a burial can often only be guessed, when there is no inscription or text on the object. Harco Willems describes a comparable situation for the friezes

Fig. 1: Plan of the pyramid of Amenemhat III at Dahshur (Drawing: W. Grajetzki).

232

W. GRAJETZKI

North of the pyramid, de Morgan and his team discovered a row of ten shaft tombs. Eight of them were found empty and it is not even certain whether most of them ever contained burials. However, in two shafts, burials were found, one belonging to king Awibra Hor, the other to the ‘king’s daughter’ Nubhetepti-khered. King Awibra Hor was a ruler of early Dynasty 13. His burial has many points in common with that of Nubhetepti-khered, so there is little doubt that she also belongs to Dynasty 13. She might have been a daughter of that king (Ryholt 1997, 217). The recording of finds by de Morgan was by modern standards superficial. The inscriptions of the coffins are shown in the excavation report, but further fragments found by de Morgan, which do not appear in his publication, were published in the Catalogue Général of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The beads are particularly problematic: de Morgan found many, but hardly mentioned them in the excavation report. Some of these beads are now reconstructed in the Egyptian Museum as an apron. The tomb and its contents The tomb was found on 19 April 1894. It was entered by a shaft, at the bottom of which a vaulted corridor opened to the south side, 14.6m long. The corridor led into an antechamber, which was found empty. South of this antechamber, there was another room containing a range of burial goods placed directly on the floor (Fig. 2). At the north side of the chamber, there were eight vessels, perhaps of a type of red polished pottery now called ‘queen’s ware’, typical for royal burials of the late Middle Kingdom (Allen 2012, 192, 194). Next to these vessels there were three large pottery dishes. Two were filled with smaller pottery bowls and the third with a grey powder. Next to them, near the east wall of the chamber, were found embalmed cattle meat and bones. Also at the east wall was found a long, undecorated wooden box, containing an array of staves and weapons: four plain staves, all broken, two mekes staves, one heqa sceptre and two was sceptres, one of them broken. There were a mace, six arrows, one wooden mirror and one bat/bauobject. Next to this long wooden box was placed a second box, which was found sealed. It contained eight stone vessels, seven of which bore a short label written on the lid and identifying them as the seven sacred oils, well known from tomb inscriptions from as early as the Old Kingdom (Koura 1999).

Below this second chamber there was a smaller space containing the coffin and canopic box of the princess. The canopic box was found in a small niche next to the coffin. It was made of wood with the inscriptions in gold foil. Inside were found the four inscribed canopic jars, made of alabaster, each with a human-headed lid. Nubhetepti-khered’s coffin was a rectangular box (Cairo, CG 28104; D2C; Grajetzki 2010, 26). The lid was vaulted and had on the top one line of text incised in gold foil. The outer walls were also decorated with texts. There were horizontal texts all around the top and four columns on the long and two columns on the short ends. On the left side there were also two wedjat eyes. The coffin of the princess was found heavily decayed, since the preservation of organic remains was not very good at Dahshur. De Morgan copied some of the inscriptions and was able to save part of the gold foil. At least some foil fragments were brought to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Within this outer rectangular coffin, there was originally an inner anthropoid one (Fig. 3). This coffin was found heavily decayed, but a careful reading of the excavation report leaves little doubt of its existence (Mace and Winlock 1916, 48). De Morgan states that the body of the princess was covered with a fine gold foil, evidently once attached to the thin wood of an anthropoid coffin. At the head of the anthropoid coffin were found a uraeus and a vulture head. A vulture head is also known from a late Middle Kingdom private burial at Thebes (Rummel 2007, 81, fig. 114). It is not clear where this vulture was once attached, but it might have been placed at the forehead on the face of the coffin. The body of the king’s daughter was equipped with several precious objects. On her head was a silver diadem, perhaps once attached to the uraeus mentioned above. A uraeus is sporadically attested for late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period mummy masks too. One example is the mummy mask of Khnumhotep found at Meir (Hayes 1953, 310, fig. 201). Around the neck was placed a broad collar. On the arms and legs were armlets and anklets. Near the pelvis was the golden blade of a dagger. On the mummy was found a carnelian swallow with a sun disc on the back. There was also the apron made of beads, not mentioned in the publication but now on display in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Further objects within the rectangular coffin were two cylindrical alabaster vessels at the head of the princess and an array of royal insignia on her left side. On the drawing published by de Morgan

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

Fig. 2: The tomb of Nubhetepti-khered. Top: plan; middle left: second chamber with finds; middle right: eight vessels, example of bowl, long wooden box with royal insignia; far right: bat/bau object; bottom left: box containing vessels for sacred oils; bottom middle: the wooden coffin (de Morgan 1895, 107–9, figs 249–53, 257–9).

233

234

W. GRAJETZKI

Fig. 3: The interior of Nubhetepti-khered’s coffin with a selection of the finds. From top to bottom: diadem, uraeus, vulture head, broad collar with counterpoise, blade of dagger, swallow, armlets (de Morgan 1895, 111, fig. 264, 113, fig. 267, pl. 38, A, B, F, G; photos of vulture, broad collar and swallow: W. Grajetzki).

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

are visible one was sceptre, one heqa sceptre and a flail. The flail is reproduced in a drawing on a colour plate (de Morgan 1895, pl. 39), albeit wrongly reconstructed. The top of the flail is provided with a falcon head, which could actually be the head of the counterpoise of the broad collar (Mace and Winlock 1916, 102). Function of individual objects Altogether, the burial of Nubhetepti-khered gives an impression of simplicity but not poverty. The number of objects placed into this tomb was small, but many of them had been made especially for the burial. The broad collar, the silver diadem, the coffin and the canopic jars are certainly products of a royal workshop and are of high quality. Special attention may be drawn to the royal insignia and weapons found next to the body of the princess but also placed in the wooden box in the second chamber. At first glance, they seem unusual for the burial of a king’s daughter, especially the arrows and the mace. These are weapons, objects we might normally expect in the burial of a man, but not in that of a woman. They do not confirm our expectations for gender-related objects. Therefore, Ali Hassan (1976, 118–22) argued that they were for the journey of the deceased into the underworld and for fighting against evil demons on the way. Andrea Gnirs proposed a change in gender roles at the end of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period that led to the placing of weapons into women’s burials (Gnirs 2009, 103–6). However, long before this, Alan Gardiner (1917) had labelled almost identical insignia in the tomb of Senebtisi as ‘Osirian’. Indeed, these exact insignia and weapons are known from the final scene of the ‘hour vigil’, attested in several royal tombs of the Ramesside and Third Intermediate Periods, but also known from the Late Period tomb of Mutirdis (Roberson 2013). Jan Assmann demonstrated that this scene belongs to the depiction of the most crucial moment in the hour vigil. It shows Osiris lying on an embalming bed, under which are depicted exactly the same royal insignia and weapons. At the end of the last phase of mummification, during the twelve hours of the day and the twelve hours of the night, different deities came to the embalming tent to secure the revival of Osiris. They equipped him with royal insignia to make him the king of the underworld. The rituals around the hour vigil were the most important point of the mummification, culminating in the

235

arrival of Horus, who brought his father finally back to life (Assmann 1977, 102). Some of the insignia in the box outside the coffin were found broken. One explanation for this damaged condition is simply that they had already broken in use, long before the burial. It might be supposed that they were placed in the tomb because they were no longer useful in rituals, but were regarded as appropriate for a burial, where a broken object stands parsprototo for the complete one. However, another option is that they are the actual items used in the rituals for the princess. According to this view, after the final hour vigil was performed at the end of the mummification of the princess, at least some of the items left over from the ritual were placed in a plain box to be put into the tomb. A third option is that they were intentionally damaged (Hassan 1976, 122–7), but the reason for that would remain unclear, as only some were found broken. Further royal insignia were found in the coffin, on the left side of Nubhetepti-khered’s body. On the body were also found the blade of a dagger (Petschel 2011, 500), a flail and a carnelian swallow with a sun disc, as well as a broad collar, armlets and anklets. Here it might be useful to look at another depiction for comparison. In Tanis was found in the tomb of king Psusennes I a sarcophagus which had originally been made for king Merenptah (Fig. 4). On the lid of the sarcophagus, Merenptah is shown as Osiris equipped in the same manner as Nubhetepti-khered (Montet 1951, pl. 76). Both Nubhetepti-khered and Merenptah are wearing a broad collar and armlets. There is a flail in one of Merenptah’s hands and a heqa sceptre in the other. A flail and a heqa sceptre were found next to the body of the princess. At his waist, Merenptah wears a dagger; Nubhetepti-khered was also wearing a dagger. On the mummy of Nubhetepti-khered was found a swallow with a sun disc, and on the sarcophagus of Merenptah is depicted a sun disc, albeit without a swallow. A dagger was often worn by the king (Petschel 2011, 70–5) and belonged to his attire. Its specific religious function is unclear to this author. The swallow with sun disc is known from several depictions of kings. In these, the king always wears a dagger, and a girdle with an apron, and to the apron is attached a swallow with a sun disc. So far the earliest comparable depiction is that of king Narmer on his famous palette found at Hierakonpolis, where he is depicted wearing a falcon with a sun disc, albeit without a dagger (Grimm 1990, 34). From the Old Kingdom onwards, the bird with the

W. GRAJETZKI

236

Fig. 4: King Merenptah as Osiris on his sarcophagus found at Tanis (Drawing: C. Thorne after Montet 1951, pl. 76).

sun disc is always a swallow. No apron was recorded by de Morgan for the burial of the princess, but one is on display in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. In the nearby tomb of king Awibra Hor another apron was found, which is not mentioned in the publication but is

on display in the Egyptian Museum (Wilkinson 1971, 79). The swallow also appears in the ‘friezes of objects’ on Middle Kingdom coffins and is called there sỉꜢt or sꜢt (Jéquier 1921, 91–3). Moreover, a swallow is mentioned several times in the Pyramid Texts (Allen 2005, 161). In the tomb of the New Kingdom vizier Rekhmira a row of men are shown carrying boxes with grave goods. These include the apron with the swallow and sun disc. On another box a dagger is shown (Davies 1943, pls 89, 90). The swallow with the sun disc evidently had a strong solar aspect. Even in the Late Period the swallow was sometimes depicted in front of the solar boat of Ra, guiding the sun god (Niwiński 1999, 11, fig. 18; 25, fig. 33; 61, fig. 87). Taking all the evidence together, it seems clear that Nubheteptikhered was equipped like the underworld god Osiris with strong solar aspects (see more importantly Patch 1995 and 2002). She was adorned with exactly the insignia of this god, who was also the ruler of the underworld and therefore equipped like a king. Therefore, we find many royal insignia, including even weapons, in her burial. Unsurprisingly she is also called ‘Osiris’ in the inscriptions on her coffin. In the first chamber were also found embalmed cattle bones. Cattle bones in burial chambers are already known from the Old Kingdom (see the list in Ikram 1995, 283–96). Cattle slaughtering scenes are well known from the Old Kingdom and are also well attested in Dynasty 13 (see for example Bolshakov and Quirke 1999, pl. 22). Evidently, the slaughtering of cattle was an important part of the rituals connected with the burial. On an economic level, beef is the most expensive meat and therefore the most prestigious one. The slaughtering of a bull is part of the funerary rituals (Theis 2011, 92, 149–50), and on another level is also seen as the defeat of Seth by Horus (Willems 1996, 97). The meat in the burial was found embalmed. The custom of embalming meat is well attested in the New Kingdom but not before. The bones in the burial of Nubhetepti-khered are the earliest example of the practice (Ikram 1995, 285). Next to the cattle bones were found two large dishes with many smaller bowls, perhaps the eternal food supply for Nubhetepti-khered. From the engraving published by de Morgan the type of vessel is only vaguely recognisable and it remains uncertain how accurate the drawings are. Nevertheless, small dishes are common in late Middle Kingdom burials and have often been found in great numbers (Schiestl and Seiler 2012, 846– 915). Forty-one were placed in the burial of the ‘king’s

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

daughter’ Neferuptah (Farag and Iskander 1971, 11). More than 130 were found in the burial of Senebtisi (Mace and Winlock 1916, 111, ‘type 2–4’). Small dishes of this shape are well known as determinatives in Old Kingdom offering lists already in Dynasty 2 (Köhler and Jones 2009, 114, 179). In Dynasty 4 they are attested as containers for fruits and vegetables in offering lists (der Manuelian 2003, 183, 214–21). They also appear as determinatives in offering lists of the Middle Kingdom. The hieroglyphic sign which takes this shape has the meaning ‘cup’ with the sound value ꜥ (Gardiner 1950, 529, W10). These vessels also appear on the two offering tables of Neferuptah (Farag and Iskander 1971, pls 7–8). They were clearly vessels for food offerings to the deceased. Evidently, they have a long history as vessels for the presentation of all types of food and were seen as the prototype for any kind of food offering. Eight tall vessels were found in the burial, basically of two types. There are four carinated vessels and four collared ones with a high shoulder. The vessels have parallels in the tomb of Senebtisi, where eight vessels of each of these types were found (Mace and Winlock 1916, 110–12). Susan Allen (2012, 192, 194) wonders whether the vessels in the burial of Nubhetepti-khered were ‘queen’s ware’. Especially for the carinated vessels, parallels were also found in other tombs at Dahshur (Allen 2012, 188, fig. 3) and Hawara (el-Senoussi 2012, 200, fig. 6). The number four recalls the four nemset and four aabet vessels mentioned several times in the Pyramid Texts (Willems 1996, 175): ‘Receive your four nemset and your four aabet vessels and clean yourself in the jackal lake and wash yourself in the Duat lake.’ (PT 512) ‘I am the one cleaned with the four nemset vessels, taken out of the canal of the god in Netjeru, under the breath of Isis.’(PT 510). ‘Get up, Pepi, and receive for you your four nemset vessels, filled for you in the canal of the god.’(PT 665A) ‘Sit down on your metal throne, cleaned with your four nemset vessels and your four aabet vessels.’(PT 536) ‘You should clean yourself with the four nemset and the four aabet vessels, coming forth for you from the tent of the god, so that you become divine.’(PT 553)

1

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.183.22, unpublished, but picture available on the Museum online database.

237

The nemset vessel is also known from New Kingdom tomb decoration, where it is used for the purification of the mummy (Tawfik 1979). In the tomb chapel of Amenhotepsasi, the tomb owner is shown holding two maces, surrounded by four ‘priests’ who pour water over him (Davies 1923, pl. 15). A similar scene is found in the tomb of Kenamun (Davies and Gardiner 1930, pl. lxviii). The form of the vessels varied greatly (Jéquier 1921, 311). With all reservation, it is proposed to identify the eight vessels as the four nemset and four aabet vessels known from the Pyramid Texts, but also from later writings. They were evidently important in purification rituals. However, this is only a guess, and the exact correspondence of numbers might be an accident, since it is not found in other burials. Although eight examples of each vessel type were found in the tomb of Senebtisi (Mace and Winlock 1916, 110–12), the proposed interpretation should be treated with some caution. Two other objects placed in the burial chamber were found in the box with the royal insignia. The first one is a wooden model of a mirror. Mirrors are common burial goods in tombs of women, but also in those of men. Often, these objects had already been used in daily life. Models of mirrors are less common but appear too. Mirrors are depicted often in the object friezes of Middle Kingdom coffins. Their religious significance is not entirely clear. Mirrors in female burials were objects supporting the gender identity of women. They were found in many burials of modest wealth. In burials of men they confirm the high social status of a person, as they appear only in wealthier burials (see Lilyquist 1979, 97). In the friezes of coffins, the mirror often appears near the head end. Christine Lilyquist (1979a, 99), referring to Vsevolod Vladimirovitch Pavlov (Pavlov and Khodzhas 1959, 109), wonders whether the mirror was used as an aid for receiving back the sight. Next to the mirror was placed an enigmatic item known from friezes of objects as bat/bau (Jéquier 1921, 329–30). A similar object is also known from the burial of Hapy Ankhtyfy at Meir.1 The meaning of the object is unclear. The last object in the upper burial chamber is the box containing the seven sacred oils. These oils are

238

W. GRAJETZKI

already an important part of burials in the Old Kingdom (Koura 1999). They appear in the offering list and on the friezes of objects on early Middle Kingdom coffins (Willems 1988, 211; 1996, 58–63) and are still important in the late Middle Kingdom. They figure on stelae of the period and on the only coffin of Dynasty 13 with a frieze of objects. Evidently, the oils were important for rituals connected with embalming and the purification of the body of the deceased and in the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ ritual (Willems 1988, 200–9). Anointing of the dead body was a central element of the rituals around mummification (Theis 2011, 59–65). The coffin The wooden coffin was found decayed and only the gold foil decoration could be saved. The inscriptions on the coffin were only partly recorded by de Morgan, with further fragments later published by Pierre Lacau in the CatalogueGénéral of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (CG 28104; Lacau 1903, 81–2). Several parts of the inscriptions are missing. Nevertheless, the text programme on the coffin is similar to that of many other coffins of the period, making it possible to reconstruct the missing parts to a certain degree. The general decoration of the coffin follows patterns already developed at the beginning of Dynasty 12 and still attested up to the end of the Second Intermediate Period. Harco Willems (1988, 22) classified it as type IVa (four columns on the long sides, two on the short sides; wedjat eyes on the front, without false door). However, there are some problems with the texts, raising doubts about their reconstruction. As has been mentioned, most of the inscriptions on this coffin are also attested on other coffins of Dynasty 13. Two other examples found by de Morgan at Dahshur provide close parallels. These are the coffins of king Awibra Hor and those of the ‘lady of the house’ Satsobek (Cairo, CG 28105; Da3C). Arthur C. Mace and Herbert E. Winlock compared the coffin to that of Senebtisi, and to the coffins of four women buried next to the pyramid of Amenemhat II at Dahshur. They called this the ‘court type’ coffin (Mace and Winlock 1916, 51–2), a classification followed by others (Lapp 1993, 251). Typical for ‘court type’ coffins is a decoration of gold foil on an otherwise plain wooden surface, with few or even no inscriptions on the outside. However, there are major differences of detail between these coffins, especially in the text

programme. The term ‘court type’ coffin is therefore not a very useful designation. On the lid of the coffin appears PT spell 588 (Fig. 5). In this, the sky goddess Nut provides protection for Nubhetepti-khered. A coffin was always also a miniature representation of the world and, therefore, the lid was equated with the sky. Nut was also the mother of Osiris. The deceased therefore received protection from her own mother. The coffin was also regarded as the body of Nut and by placing the deceased into the coffin she was reunited with her mother (Assmann 2005, 170). The horizontal lines on the long sides of the coffin are decorated with texts which are also known from the royal pyramidia of king Amenemhat III at Dahshur and of Khendjer, and are therefore often labelled ‘pyramidion spells’. However, these spells also appear at about the same time on coffins and on mastabas (Lapp 1993, 226–8; Willems 1988, 168–9). Therefore they were probably not copied from the royal pyramidia, but are texts which appeared at the end of Dynasty 12 in the repertoire of shorter religious spells and were placed on different types of objects to express essential wishes for the afterlife. Probably on the front side of Nubhetepti-khered’s coffin appeared a longer spell with a clear solar aspect (CT 788; Lohwasser 1991, 26–7). This spell opens with the words: ‘May the sight of the king’s daughter Nubhetepti-khered be open’. The spell secured unrestricted sight of the sun for the dead person. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms the dead person was always placed on the left side with the head to the north. The body was placed in this position in the coffin, evidently so that on awakening the deceased would be able to look towards the rising sun. The west side of the coffin is dedicated to the underworld. In the long spell on this side appears the underworld god Anubis (CT temp 189). He takes care of the king’s daughter’s body throughout the process of mummification. However, the text as provided by Pierre Lacau in the Catalogue Général is somewhat problematic. The text starts with ḏdmdwꜥwyἸnpwtpy ḏw.fḥꜢWsỉr NN: ‘Words spoken: the arms of Anubis, who is on his mountain, are around the Osiris NN’. However, Lacau adds after Osiris nṯr ꜥꜢ nb… ‘the great god, lord of …’, while the fragment published by de Morgan just provides ‘Osiris’. Lacau’s reconstruction does not make much sense in the context of a text addressing the coffin owner. After ‘Osiris’ the name of the coffin owner is to be expected, rather than an epithet of Osiris. Another complicated

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

239

Fig. 5: The coffin inscriptions (rearranged by the author, according to de Morgan 1895, 111, fig. 263; Lacau 1903, 81–2).

point is the duplication of this Anubis spell (CT temp 189) in Lacau’s presentation of the fragments. According to Lacau the same spell was also placed on the front (east) side of the coffin, and this was accepted by Leonard H. Lesko (1979, 54). Lacau placed CT 788 at the foot end. All firmly attested parallels for the latter spell on the external decoration of a coffin are to be found on the front long side. The placement of the second Anubis spell (CT temp 189) remains problematic and can only be resolved through collation of the original fragments in Cairo. On the coffin of king Awibra Hor, CT 788 was most likely placed on the front side, as can be seen on the reconstruction drawing of the coffin (de Morgan 1895, pl. 36). Furthermore, the foot end of the coffin is probably too short to accommodate the spell. Lacau gives the height of the gold foil as 7.5cm. According to this, the two

published fragments of CT 788 are together about 90cm long (de Morgan 1895, 110, fig. 262). The text on these two published fragments is not even half of the usual CT 788 spell, making it likely that the whole text was once more than 2m long. A most important spell was placed on the front side at the head end in a column. ‘Words spoken by Ra: I have given a beautiful horizon to Nubhetepti-khered’. The spell was very common on coffins of the period and always placed in this position. Here, the sun god provides the deceased with a good place in the afterlife. The main subject of the other columns around the coffin is bodily integrity, perhaps again with specific reference to the hour vigil. The four children of Horus take care of Nubhetepti-khered’s limbs: Amset and Hapi for the arms, Duamutef and Qebehsenuef for the

240

W. GRAJETZKI

legs. These spells are all composed on the same model: ‘Words spoken by Amset: I have come to fix your left arm’. A final spell appears on all four sides of the coffin and is introduced on each side by a different god: ‘Words spoken by the horizon: May you be content with it. I have chosen NN’. The spell was evidently regarded as very important, but so far the translation remains uncertain. The spell is still attested in the Late Period on coffins (Kischkewitz 1974, 153). It is also a ‘pyramidion spell’ and was placed on all four sides of the known pyramidia. Altogether, it seems that several aspects are covered by the texts on the coffin. There are gods helping the king’s daughter in the hour vigil. Nut provides protection. The opening of the sight secures the important solar aspect. The canopic box and the canopic jars The inscriptions of only three sides of the canopic box are published. In its design it is similar to the coffin with, on each side, a horizontal line of text at the top and two vertical columns of text. The box is inscribed with texts (Lüscher 1990, 27, 69–70) in the horizontal lines: ‘Words spoken: children, go to your father, the (Osiris) king’s daughter Nubhetepti-khered, I am Horus. Oh, my children! Hapy, Duamutef, Qebehsenuef, you (the king’s children) might carry him (Osiris), I did not go away from them’ (Fig. 6). The children of Horus come to carry Osiris, perhaps also as part of the hour vigil. The columns on two sides bear a short text: GODDESS ‘Your arms embracing you on what is in you’. The goddesses mentioned are Neith, Isis, Nephthys and Selket. On the third side appear imakhu-kher formulae with the names of the children of Horus. In the box were found the four canopic jars (Reisner and Abd-ul-Rahman 1967, 4–19, pl. 1), made of alabaster with lids in the shape of human heads. All four vessels bear a short inscription also known from three other late Middle Kingdom canopic jars, one of them belonging to Hemenhotep, who is also known from a coffin found at Thebes. The others belong to a certain Autet and to a person whose name is lost (Lüscher 1990, 142). Summary Evidently, the main function of many of the objects placed close to the body of the princess was to help her

become Osiris or to be identified as Osiris. Indeed, within her coffin, Nubhetepti-khered was visibly and materially equipped as Osiris, king of the underworld. She was provided with royal insignia and even weapons granting her a new identity of power in the afterlife. As we have seen, the royal insignia and weapons found next to her body and in the long box are also related to the hour vigil, the ritual in which the dead person received help from other gods in order to become alive in the next world. The hour vigil was most likely part of the burial rituals of the princess, and the insignia were objects which had been used in these rituals and were afterwards placed in the burial chamber. However, it seems strange that the princess had two sets of royal insignia: one set placed next to her body and one set in a special box. One possible explanation is that these sets had two different functions. The royal insignia on the body of the princess were made for the tomb, to be placed directly next to the dead. They confirmed her status as a godlike being. In contrast, the insignia in the box might be those used at the embalming when the hour vigil was performed. These are relics of rituals, ensuring the eternal repetition of the vigil to protect her. The pottery bowls in the burial chamber provided the eternal food supply, perhaps in the form of rituals here not expressed in words but by placing vessels into the burial. Several pottery vessels were important in embalming rituals and for purification. In the same context should be seen the sacred oils. Assmann described the world of coffin inscriptions and Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom as those of the embalming rituals and embalming tent (Assmann 2002, 16–17). Looking at the components of the burial of Nubhetepti-khered, this seems to be the case even for the objects placed around the coffin. Altogether, most of the objects in the burial are closely related to rituals in the place of embalming. The whole burial chamber was equipped like an embalming tent, and indeed, several spells on the coffin also relate to the embalming tent, where the hour vigil took place. Therefore, the coffin and the burial goods formed a kind of unity. Only the eternal food supply provided a further dimension. One important element of funerary equipment known from other burials is missing. Jewellery boxes were very often found in the tombs of Middle Kingdom royal women (Mace and Winlock 1916, 58). These boxes contained personal adornments which had been

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

241

Fig. 6: The inscriptions of the canopic box, as published by de Morgan (1895, 115, fig. 268).

worn in daily life. These personal adornments most likely confirmed the high social status of these women (Grajetzki 2014, 152–3). No jewellery box was found in the tomb of Nubhetepti-khered. The confirmation of the social identity of Nubhetepti-khered was evidently not a major concern of her burial equipment. Her social status is only confirmed by the placing of her title ‘king’s daughter’ on several objects within the tomb. One even wonders whether the custom of placing jewellery boxes in burials of high-status women disappeared at the end of Dynasty 12.

Finally, it might be worthwhile to consider tombs from other periods to compare them with the burial of Nubhetepti-khered. From this it becomes clear that many of the items discovered in the burial of Nubhetepti-khered are well known from royal burials across all periods of Egyptian history. A good example is the burial of king Tutankhamun. His body was completely covered with jewellery, royal insignia and amulets. Among these items there are a flail and a heqa sceptre. The king was also wearing a broad collar and armlets (Hellinckx 1997). More directly, he wore a dagger at

242

W. GRAJETZKI

his waist as well as an apron and a swallow with a sun disc in carnelian. Since very few royal burials are preserved it is difficult to make comparisons with those of later centuries. Nevertheless, one further striking example is the burial of king Sheshonq II at Tanis. The king was equipped with an apron, a swallow with a sun disc and a model dagger (Montet 1951, 41–2, 50, pls 31–2). Evidently these objects were still seen as essential in the Third Intermediate Period for the burial of a king. Going back in time, they are already mentioned in the Pyramid Texts. The spells recently categorised as ‘Regalia Offering Direction’ include many of the staves and weapons just discussed (Hays 2012, 608–9). The objects are always named after a short spell. There is also the swallow with the sun disc, the apron, the tail of the apron and the dagger (PT 57A to 71I). These spells are well preserved in the pyramid of queen Neit (Jéquier 1933, pl. 12; translation Allen 2005, 318), wife of Pepy II. They also appear in the Pyramid Texts of Pepy II, albeit not so well preserved (Jéquier 1936, 18, pl. 4; Allen 2005, 258). Evidently these objects were seen as essential for a royal burial in the late Old Kingdom (Altenmüller 1972, 108–10). The lists in the pyramids of queen Neit and Pepy II clearly show that these objects were already an important part of royal burials in Dynasty 6. Therefore it seems that the objects placed on the mummy of the king’s daughter Nubhetepti-khered were essential for the burial of a king, from at least the late Old Kingdom to the Third Intermediate Period. Only in the late Middle Kingdom were these objects also placed in burials of people of the highest social status, a custom that had disappeared already at the end of Dynasty 13. In Egyptological literature the burial of Nubheteptikhered is designated a ‘court type burial’, a term which was introduced in the publication of the tomb of Senebtisi discovered at Lisht. Mace and Winlock (1916, 114–16) believed that these burials were typical for the royal cemeteries in Dynasty 12. Indeed, similar deposits have been found at most Middle Kingdom royal cemeteries. However, they date to the later part of the period and are not known from the early part of Dynasty 12 (Williams 1976; Lilyquist 1979b). Gianluca Miniaci

and Stephen Quirke (2009, 358) proposed the expression ‘Osirification’, focusing on the function of the objects found rather than on the social context. Typical for these burials are the royal insignia and a sparsely decorated set of coffins. In contrast to the ‘court type burials’, tombs in the early Middle Kingdom were filled with wooden models representing estates and with decorated coffins (still best illustrated in Garstang 1907). Tombs of the late Middle Kingdom were often equipped with objects of daily life, sometimes relating to rebirth (Miniaci and Quirke 2009). The exact meaning and interpretation of the objects in all of these tombs is still debatable. Perhaps the wooden models were important for providing the deceased with commodities for eternity. The daily life objects in the late Middle Kingdom perhaps confirmed the deceased’s social and gender identity (Grajetzki 2014, 156–61) or were the equipment for the journey into the underworld (Miniaci and Quirke 2009, 369). Whatever was their function, these burial furnishings (apart from the coffins) are in a certain way linked to the world of the living. In contrast, in the burial of Nubhetepti-khered most items are related to the rituals connected with mummification and therefore served for the transformation of the deceased from a human being into a godlike being in the other world (Taylor 2001, 31–2). Here, in a royal context, can be seen the beginnings of a development that reached its peak in the Ramesside, Third Intermediate and Late Periods, when almost all objects placed in the grave were especially made for the burial and when daily life objects seem to disappear. The transformation into a godlike being is the main focus of the burial equipment. Appendix: Published objects from the tomb in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo A list of objects from the tomb of Nubhetepti-khered, with the Journal d’Entrée numbers, was published in the Bulletindel’Institutégyptien in 1895 (Anonymous 1895, 455–6). Objects from the tomb are also published in several volumes of the Catalogue Général, often without identifying this tomb as the provenance. The following list offers a summary of these references.

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

Object silver diadem

De Morgan 112, no. 1, pl. 38G

JE 30937

53111

CG reference Vernier 1927, 364–5

head of vulture

112, no. 3, fig. 265

30938

53073

Vernier 1927, 351

two golden falcon ends of broad collar

112–13, fig. 266

30939

53153–53154, 53073

Vernier 1927, 351

falcon head

pl. 39

30940

53152

Vernier 1927, 379

blade of dagger

113, fig. 267

30940

53151

Vernier 1927, 378, pl. LXXVII

53133

Vernier 1927, 372

uraeus, gold

112, no. 2, pl. 38G

30941

bracelets

113–14, no. 7, pl. 38A, B

30942

beads of flail

114, no. 8, pl. 39

30943

carnelian swallow

113, no. 6

30944

beads in different forms

30945

The apron of the princess is on display in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. The strings of beads have the number SR 1501-03 (some other strings have numbers between SR 1470 and 1503); it is at the moment unclear whether these beads are identical to those with the number JE 30945.2

sole of sandals

not mentioned

30946

two alabaster vessels

114, no. 9

30947

canopic box

115, fig. 268, pl. 36 (middle, left)

51268

canopic jars

115, fig. 269

4007–4010

Reisner and Abd-ul-Rahman 1967, 4–19, pl. 1

wooden box for sacred oils

109, fig. 258

18721

von Bissing 1907, 153–4

vessels for sacred oils

109–10, fig. 258, 260–2

18722–18729

von Bissing 1907, 154–5

fragments of coffin

111, fig. 263, pl. 36 (top)

28104

Lacau 1903, 81–2

mirror

109, fig. 256

44010

Bénédite 1907, 4, pl. II, cf. Lilyquist 1979a, 33

Bibliography Allen, J. P. 2005. TheAncientEgyptianPyramidTexts. Atlanta. Allen, S. J. 2012. Pyramid ware. In R. Schiestl and A. Seiler, HandbookofthepotteryoftheEgyptianMiddleKingdom.Vol.II,Theregionalvolume. Vienna, 185–95. Altenmüller, H. 1972. DieTextezumBegräbnisritualinden PyramidendesaltenReiches. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 24. Wiesbaden. Anonymous. 1895. Extrait de l’inventaire des objets ou monuments entrés dans des collections du musée de Guizeh pendant l’année 1894. Bulletin de l’Institut égyptien 3/5, 439–69. Assmann, J. 1977. DasGrabderMutirdis. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 13. Mainz am Rhein. Assmann, J. 2002. Altägyptische Totenliturgien, Vol. 1. Heidelberg.

2

CG no.

243

Information kindly provided by Gianluca Miniaci.

Porter and Moss 1981, 889

Assmann, J. 2005. Death and salvation in Ancient Egypt (translation by D. Lorton). Ithaca; London. Bénédite, G. 1907. Miroirs[Nos44001–44102]. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. von Bissing, W. 1907. Steingefässe. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Vienna. Bolshakov, A. O. and S. G. Quirke. 1999. The Middle KingdomstelaeintheHermitage. Utrecht; Paris. Davies, N. de Garis. 1923. The tombs of two officials of ThutmosistheFourth(nos75and90). London. Davies, N. de Garis. 1943. The tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York. Davies, N. de Garis and A. Gardiner. 1930. The tomb of Kenamun. New York. Farag, N. and Z. Iskander. 1971. ThediscoveryofNeferwptah. Cairo.

244

W. GRAJETZKI

Gardiner, A. H. 1917. Review of Mace, Winlock 1916. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 4, 203–6. Gardiner, A. H. 1950. Egyptian grammar. Second edition, Oxford. Garstang, J. 1907. The burial customs of Ancient Egypt as illustrated by the tombs of the Middle Kingdom. London. Gnirs, A. 2009. Ägyptische Militärgeschichte als Kultur- und Sozialgeschichte. In R. Gundlach and C. Vogel (eds), Militärgeschichte des pharaonischen Ägypten. Paderborn; Munich; Vienna; Zürich, 67–141. Grajetzki, W. 2010. The coffin of Zemathor and other rectangularcoffinsofthelateMiddleKingdomandSecond IntermediatePeriod. London. Grajetzki, W. 2014. TombtreasuresofthelateMiddleKingdom:Thearchaeologyoffemale burials. Philadelphia. Grimm, A. 1990. Das Königsornat mit dem Sonnenvogel, zu sἰꜢt und dbꜢ als Bezeichnung königlicher Trachtelements. GöttingerMiszellen 115, 33–44. Hassan, A. 1976. Stöcke und Stäbe im pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 33. Berlin. Hayes, W. C. 1953. TheScepterofEgypt I. New York. Hays, H. M. 2012. TheOrganizationofthePyramidTexts: typologyanddisposition. Probleme der Ägyptologie 31. Leiden; Boston. Hellinckx, B. R. 1997. Tutankhamun’s carnelian swallow with sun disc: Part of a garment?, JournalofEgyptian Archaeology 83, 109–25. Ikram, S. 1995, Choice cuts: Meat production in Ancient Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 69. Leuven. Jéquier, G. 1921. Les frises d’objets des sarcophages du Moyen-Empire.Mémoires publiés par l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 47. Cairo. Jéquier, G. 1933. Fouilles à Saqqarah  : les pyramides des reinesNeitetApouit. Cairo. Jéquier, G. 1936. LemonumentfunérairedePépiII. Letombeauroyal I. Cairo. Kischkewitz, H. 1974. Fragmente eines Sarges der Spätzeit in Berlin und Paris. In Festschrift zum 150jährigen BestehendesBerlinerÄgyptischenMuseums. Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 7. Berlin, 151–7. Köhler, E. C. and J. Jones. 2009. Helwan II, The Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom funerary relief slabs. Rahden. Koura, B. 1999. Die ‘7-Heiligen Öle’ und andere Öl- und Fettnamen:EinelexikographischeUntersuchungzuden Bezeichnungen von Ölen, Fetten und Salben bei den Alten Ägyptern von der Frühzeit bis zum Anfang der Ptolemäerzeit (von 3000 v. Chr.–ca. 305 v. Chr.). Aegyptiaca Monasteriensia 2. Aachen. Lacau, P. 1903. SarcophagesantérieursauNouvelEmpire. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo.

Lapp, G. 1993. TypologiederSärgeundSargkammernvon der 6. bis 13. Dynastie. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 7. Heidelberg. Lesko, L. H. 1979. IndexofthespellsonEgyptianMiddle Kingdomcoffinsandrelateddocuments. Berkeley. Lilyquist, C. 1979a. AncientEgyptianmirrorsfromtheearliesttimesthroughtheMiddleKingdom. Munich. Lilyquist, C. 1979b. A note on the date of Senebtisi and other Middle Kingdom groups. Serapis 5, 27–8. Lohwasser, A. 1991. Die Formel ‘Öffnen des Gesichts’. Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 58 = Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 11. Vienna. Lüscher, B. 1990. UntersuchungenzuägyptischenKanopenkästen; vom Alten Reich bis zum Ende der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 31. Hildesheim. Mace, A. C. and H. E. Winlock. 1916. ThetombofSenebtisi atLisht. New York. Der Manuelian, P. 2003. SlabstelaeoftheGizaNecropolis. New Haven; Philadelphia. Miniaci, G. and S. Quirke. 2009. Reconceiving the tomb in the late Middle Kingdom. The burial of the accountant of the main enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu al-Naga. Bulletin del’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale 109, 339–83. Montet, P. 1951. LesconstructionsetletombeaudePsousennèsàTanis.La nécropole royale de Tanis 2. Paris. de Morgan, J. 1895. FouillesàDahchour,Mars–Juin1894. Vienne. Niwiński, A. 1999. CatalogueGeneralofEgyptianAntiquities of the Cairo Museum, Numbers 6069–6082, The SecondFindofDeirel-Bahari(coffins), Vol. 2, Fasc. 1. Cairo. Patch, D. C. 1995. A ‘Lower Egyptian’ Costume: Its Origin, Development, and Meaning. JournaloftheAmerican ResearchCenterinEgypt 32, 93–116. Patch, D. C. 2002. The Beaded Garment of Sit-werut. In M. Eldamaty and M. Trad (eds), Egyptian Museum CollectionsAroundtheWorld 2. Cairo, 905–16. Pavlov, V. V. and S. I. Khodzhas. 1959. Художественное ремесло древнего Египта. Moscow. Petschel, S. 2011. Den Dolch betreffend: Typologie der Stichwaffen in Ägypten von der prädynastischen Zeit, biszur3.Zwischenzeit. Wiesbaden. Porter, B. and R. L. B. Moss. 1981. Topographical bibliography of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, andpaintings,III:Memphis,Part2.SaqqaratoDahshur. Second edition revised and augmented by J. Malek. Oxford. Reisner, G. and M. H. Abd-ul-Rahman. 1967. Canopics. Cairo. Roberson, J. A. 2013. TheawakeningofOsirisandthetransit of the solar barques. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 262. Fribourg; Göttingen.

THE BURIAL OF THE ‘KING’S DAUGHTER’ NUBHETEPTI-KHERED

Rummel, U. 2007. Auferstehung und Versorgung im Jenseits: Die bildlichen Darstellungen im Sarg des Imeni. In D. Polz (ed.), Für die Ewigkeit geschaffen, Die Särge desImeniundderGeheset. Mainz am Rhein, 81–90. Ryholt, K. 1997. ThepoliticalsituationinEgyptduringthe SecondIntermediatePeriodc.1800–1550B.C. Copenhagen. Schiestl, R. and A. Seiler. 2012. Handbookofthepotteryof the Egyptian Middle Kingdom I. The corpus volume. Vienna. el-Senoussi, A. 2012. Middle Kingdom pottery from Hawara. In R. Schiestl and A. Seiler, Handbookofthepotteryof theEgyptianMiddleKingdomII.Theregionalvolume. Vienna, 197–207. Tawfik, S. 1979. Aton studies 5: ‘Cult objects on blocks from the Aton Temple(s) at Thebes’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 35, 335–44. Taylor, J. H. 2001. DeathandtheafterlifeinancientEgypt. London. Theis, C. 2011. DeineSeelezumHimmel,deinLeichnamzur Erde.ZuridealtypischenRekonstruktioneinesaltägyp-

245

tischen Bestattungsrituals. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Beiheft 12. Hamburg. Vernier, E. 1927. Bijoux et orfèvreries. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. Wilkinson, A. 1971. Ancient Egyptian jewellery. London; Beccles; Colchester. Willems, H. 1988. Chestsoflife.Astudyofthetypologyand conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard classcoffins. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 25. Leiden. Willems, H. 1996. ThecoffinofHeqata(CairoJdE36418). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 70. Leuven. Willems, H. 1997. The embalmer embalmed. Remarks on the meaning of the decoration of some Middle Kingdom coffins. In J. van Djik (ed.), EssaysonancientEgyptin honourofHermanteVelde. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen, 343–72. Williams, B. 1976. The date of Senebtisi at Lisht and the chronology of major groups and deposits of the Middle Kingdom. Serapis 3, 41–55.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’ AT THE END OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM Gianluca MINIACI1

Abstract This paper aims to cast light on the transitional phase between the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (1800-1550 BC), when the first anthropoid coffins were introduced in Egypt. Although originally conceived as the innermost element of a set of box-shaped coffins, the anthropoid coffin independently evolved into a new type decorated with stylised feathers, now known as rishi (‘feathered’). The passage from rectangular to anthropoid coffins was far from being a linear process. Following an approach used by Ernesto De Martino in anthropology, the topic has been addressed from a more pragmatic angle, isolating ritual and religious aspects in favour of socio-economic and political perspectives. The introduction of a new model for coffins has been considered in the context of questions of the social identity of coffin producers, craftsmanship, types of material employed, and political events. Together with the appearance of the rishi coffin type during the Second Intermediate Period, the composition of burial equipment and the structure of the tomb underwent a profound transformation. In the majority of the preserved burials of the Late Middle Kingdom, funerary equipment had focussed on rebirth themes, stressing an equation between the destiny of the deceased and either the fate of Osiris/king (Osirification regalia) or the condition of the newborn child (faience figurines, ivory tusks). During the Second Intermediate Period — and closely associated with the appearance of rishi coffins — other ranges of objects began to be placed in the burial, including containers,

1

This article takes inspiration from three main sources: a coffin study day I organised in collaboration with the EES in London in October 2012; continuous discussions with John H. Taylor and Marilina Betrò; and the debate following my talk at the British Museum colloquium. My sincere thanks go to John H. Taylor

furniture, game/leisure objects, garments and weapons, while objects focussed on rebirth seem to have completely disappeared. Nevertheless, the theme of rebirth did not suddenly vanish: rather, the iconography of rishi coffins shows how it had simply moved from objects to the coffin itself, a pattern of osmosis between different media. From rectangular to anthropoid: challenging an evolutionary perception of coffin architecture Changes in human culture are frequently explained within an evolutionary framework (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981), which inevitably leads to the perception of ancient history as a progressive evolution from remote and undeveloped beginnings towards the modern era. A recent revitalisation of evolutionary theories in archaeology (Henrich 2001; 2004; Shennan 2002) was very careful to dissociate itself from ‘teleological accounts of “progress” leading to the present’, with the specific purpose instead of producing a ‘characterization of long-term patterning in past societies’ (Shennan 2008, 3–4; see also Sherratt 1995). The human need to identify blocks of fixed correspondences between chronological segments and artefact categories is mirrored in studies of material culture by the creation of a linear, ascending succession of types, which follow one another (critique in Quirke 2013; Miniaci 2014c). In Egyptology, this tendency is strengthened by the abundance of preserved material (organic and inorganic), which easily allows seriation of objects even within a short period of time (O’Connor 1974; Kemp 1975). The influence of the ‘Sequence Dating system’ developed

and Marie Vandenbeusch for inviting me and for arranging such a stimulating event. I am grateful to Wolfram Grajetzki for comments on this article and to Paul Whelan for revising my English. The list of rishi coffins used in the article is taken from Miniaci 2011a, see below n. 22.

248

G. MINIACI

Fig. 1: The transformation of coffin architecture, according to an evolutionary perception.

by Petrie (Hendrickx 2011, 15–16; Spencer 2011, 17–24) in demonstrating the great potential for relating object types in time, still affects modern perception: hence a very accurate observation of the degree of change in object shape and design (types) might be read as a linear chronological register (Marée 2010b, 261–77; Miniaci 2011a, 139–48; Rigault-Déon 2013). Scholars, viewing from such a perspective, have been tempted to describe the transformation of Egyptian coffins as following a chronological path of logical enhancement (Fig. 1), from an elementary protection of the deceased (covering the body or part of it with an isolating medium such as animal skin, matting or cloth),2 to more efficient, though basic, containers (rectangular box: Donadoni Roveri 1969), which show elementary architectonic designs (enclosure motif: pr-wr and pr-nw shrine-shaped lids and niched sides:

2

See Taylor, Antoine and Vandenbeusch 2014, 38, figs 23–4; Taylor 2001a, 47–8, fig. 19.

house motif: Ikram and Dodson 1998, 195–202). This evolution is paralleled by a perceived trajectory from elementary and relatively complex iconographic ritual significance (eye panel + false door motif; frieze of objects: Willems 1996) to fully inscribed and richly decorated anthropoid coffins, which present more and more sophisticated theoretical conceptions (van Walsem 2014; Bettum 2011 and contribution in this volume; in general see Sousa 2014a). The moment when anthropoid/mummiform coffins were introduced in burial practices is usually placed by scholars in mid Dynasty 12, when the first anthropomorphic body containers were used (Taylor 1989, 23–4; Ikram and Dodson 1998, 202; Grajetzki 2003, 50–1; van Walsem 2014, 15–17). The archaeological evidence shows that the first anthropoid coffins (in wood — and probably in cartonnage — see the archaeological report

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

249

a) Khuyankh from Abusir (Bareš 1991). b) In from Saqqara (Malek and Magee 1984–5, 176–80). c) Ita, Itaweret, Khnumet, Zathathormeryt, Zatsobek (Grajetzki 2010a; 2014b, 17–93), and Sobekhat (Baba and Yazawa 2015, 6–9, pl. 13) from Dahshur. d) Senebtisi (Mace and Winlock 1916) and anonymous burial from tomb 453 (Bourriau 1991, 17; Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 167) from Lisht. e) Neferuptah from Hawara (Farag and Iskander 1971). f) Hapy-ankhtifi (Hayes 1953, 312, fig. 203), Nebhut (Hayes 1953, 315–6), and Khakheperreseneb/Iy (Rigault 2015) from Meir. g) Userhet from Beni Hasan (Bourriau 1988, 91–2 [72], pl. III.3). h) Two anonymous burials (Lacau 1906, 64 [CG 28093], 142 [CG 28124]), and Sepi from Deir el-Bersha (Lacau 1904, Vol. I, 199–200, pl. 20, Fig. 2). i) Khnumnakht and Nakhtankh (Murray 1910, pl. I.1 and I.2), and two Khnumhoteps from Rifeh (Grajetzki 2014a). j) Djefaihapy (Zitman 2010, Vol. I, 345) from Assiut; Wepay, possibly from Assiut (Gubel and Kruchten 1991). k) The vizier Amenemhat3 from Thebes (Bruyère 1930, 100–6, figs 46–9). Fig. 2: Upper part of the anthropoid coffin of Sepi, Cairo Museum CG 28084 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

on the burial of queen Ashayet in Winlock 1921, 50) were conceived as the innermost part of a set of boxshaped coffins (since they have always been found inside rectangular coffins). The vast majority of the surviving examples point to mid/late Dynasty 12:

The dating of most of these anthropoid coffins floats between mid- (Amenemhat II) and late (Senwosret III– Amenemhat III) Dynasty 12 (Zitman 2010, 347, n. 2534), i.e. 1900–1800 BC.4 Owing to the perishable material of which the anthropoid coffins were made (wood — often thin wood), it is difficult to assess consistently how representative they were (as has been done for rectangular coffins by Willems 2014, 140–65) and to estimate their impact on the funerary customs of Dynasty 12. In a few cases the survival of inorganic parts (such as metal and gilded eyes: Graefe 2003,

3

4

The funerary equipment of the vizier Amenemhat is discussed in Miniaci 2011a, 10–11; Grajetzki 2010b, 308.

Some of the coffins might be dated to a later phase in Dynasty 13, see Malek and Magee 1984–5. For the position of vizier Amenemhat, see n. 3.

250

G. MINIACI

Vol. I, 30, 61–3, list of objects at p. 64) alone demonstrates that such coffins had been present (painting as an economic alternative would have left no trace), but in many others their remains could have completely disappeared. Notwithstanding, a coherent sequence can be drawn. As recently noted by René van Walsem (2014, 13), the process of conceptualisation of the anthropoid type was already under way in the First Intermediate Period, when the mummy started to be ‘packaged’ — covered with wrappings (linen and cartonnage) — and several anatomical details applied in paint (examples include the mummy wrapping of Wah from Thebes [Roehrig 2003] and Gemniemhat from Teti’s pyramid cemetery at Saqqara [Jørgensen 2002, 72–3, 94–5]). On a pragmatic level, the appearance of the anthropoid coffin can be directly linked to a practice that had already been in vogue for a long time: the use of mummy masks.5 Placed over the head of the deceased, these could have undergone a natural extension and become an anthropoid envelope, thereby protecting not only the face of the deceased but the whole body (Taylor 1994; 2001a, 222–3). The positions in which the first anthropoid coffins have been found show that they were placed on their side within larger rectangular coffins (Bareš 1991, fig. 2), oriented with their face towards the wedjat eyes painted on the eastern side of the coffin. Therefore, the first mummiform containers aimed to represent the ideal image of the transfigured deceased, with the body enveloped in a shroud and wearing a broad collar for protection and the khat or nemes headdress.6 The latter aspect might be interpreted as adding a ritual element to the introduction of anthropoid coffins (Willems 1996, 315ff), revealing that they were not simply acting as a physical replica/outer shell for the body. Their attributes of protection (collar and headdress) point towards more sophisticated theological implications, such as an identification with Osiris (Grajetzki 2014b, 148–52; this volume). However, the essential point is that throughout the whole of the Middle Kingdom anthropoid coffins did not represent a substitute for the

rectangular coffins, but, paraphrasing van Walsem, they were part of a single assemblage, a perfect harmony of two independent units (INNER: personal, intimate part; OUTER: visible, architectonic part), unified and inextricably bound up with each other (van Walsem 2014, 16). The next step in the evolutionary sequence of anthropoid coffin architecture is generally identified with the rishi coffin (van Walsem 2014, 16; Taylor 1989, 27–8). This transition is placed approximately in the Second Intermediate Period, roughly 1650–1550 BC (the end of the Second Intermediate Period does not coincide with the end of Dynasty 17, since the diagnostic features of its material culture lasted at least into the first reigns of Dynasty 18; probably only with Hatshepsut was there a distinct break with the previous period, see Galán, Bryan and Dorman 2015).7 The two main features of this kind of coffin are:

5

7

6

A recent summary of mummy masks can be found in Basin Rizzo 2014. For a detailed description see Rigault-Déon 2013, 31–45.

a) Anthropoid shape (definitive canonisation and standardisation of this feature); b) Feather-pattern design, consisting of a huge pair of wings, which cover the lid from the shoulders to the feet.8 The transformation from anthropoid to rishi type is easy to achieve; just adding a decorative pattern to an anthropoid coffin produces the guaranteed result of a rishi coffin succeeding the ‘archetype’ of the simple anthropoid coffin. However, in contrast to the commoner transmission mechanisms of biological evolution, which show a more linear path (genes pass from parents to children, i.e. in a vertical movement), the transmission of cultural and material knowledge may occur in a more unilinear fashion, through accidental mistakes, experimentations and unforeseen variations in raw materials. In this way it is subject to unplanned changes and affected by arbitrary social factors. The ‘history’ of humankind proceeds randomly and is a patchwork of steps, gaps, regressions, failures, experimentation and stagnation, without necessarily following

8

Hence the designation ‘Second Intermediate Period’ used throughout this article extends to include the first decades of Dynasty 18. On rishi coffins see Miniaci 2011a.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

a coherent evolutionary line (Eerkens and Lipo 2005; Mesoudi, Whiten and Laland 2004). In the material world of coffins, specifically during the transitional phase between the late Middle Kingdom and the beginning of the New Kingdom (1800–1550 BC), the archaeological evidence seems to testify against a linear evolution.

rectangular one belongs to a man called Nakht, without any title recorded (Fig. 3): it was discovered by the Metropolitan Museum Expedition inside a pit-tomb (P3, chamber D) at el-Birabi (Thebes), in the funerary complex C62.9 This single interment consisted of a set of two coffins: the outer one was an undecorated rectangular coffin, with a slightly arched lid; the inner was

Featuring rishi coffins across transitional dimensions Between the anthropoid coffins of the Middle Kingdom and the appearance of the rishi coffins there is a significant gap (beyond the obvious chronological one, i.e. a break of about 150–200 years; see Fig. 1) in evolution, as indicated by three main archaeological factors: A. Separation. Rishi coffins no longer form an ensemble with rectangular ones, but are now completely separated from them. B. Multiplication and contemporaneity. The rishi coffin is not the only anthropoid type in use in the Second Intermediate Period; there are also other contemporary styles of anthropoid coffins. In addition, rectangular coffins are not replaced by rishi coffins, as one might expect in an evolutionary sequence (from the New Kingdom onwards a change in coloration — from white to black to yellow backgrounds — seems to point to a chronological development [Taylor 2001b, 165ff]; see Fig. 1), but they continue to be in use contemporaneously. C. Discontinuity. Rishi coffins reflect a sharp shift in burial equipment, with a distinct break with the previous culture. Thedistancebetweenrectangularandrishicoffins A. Separation: The emergence of the rishi type marked a clear separation between the anthropoid and rectangular coffins, because rishi coffins were not produced in order to be inserted inside a rectangular coffin. The only rishi coffin, so far known, found inside a

9

See Miniaci 2011a, 99, 145–7, 308, Cat. rT19MMA. PM I2, 2, 617; MMA photos 5A, 394–7. Lythgoe, Lansing and de Garis Davies 1917, 22.

251

Fig. 3: a. Rishicoffin of Nakht (Cat. rT19MMA); b. Detail of the central inscription on the breast of the coffin (Drawings: P. Whelan).

252

G. MINIACI

Fig. 4: Dug-out coffin (no. 37.58) (after Carnarvon and Carter 1912, pl. LXI.2).

an anthropoid rishi coffin, finely and unusually decorated. Its decorative pattern, with feathered design crossed by transverse bands, places this coffin rather outside the proper rishi type and in a transitional phase10 from feathered to white anthropoid coffins (Miniaci 2011a, 144). No other rishi coffins, even those dating to around the time of the initial appearance of the rishi model, have been found inside rectangular ones. Only Luigi Vassalli, excavating at Thebes on behalf of Auguste Mariette in the 1860s (Miniaci and Quirke 2008; Miniaci 2009b, 41–3; Tiradritti 2010, 331), made some confusing references to rectangular and rishi coffins. In the area of Dra Abu el-Naga north, he discovered a multiple burial, labelled by him as ‘T 104’ or ‘N 104 of Rais Rabba’, containing, amongst other items, two late Middle Kingdom rectangular coffins, one belonging to the ‘grain-measurer’11 Sehetepibre and the other bearing an inscription ending ‘Mishup’ (perhaps part of a formula with the words ỉm, š, wp?). Vassalli appended two brief notes about these coffins, ‘scheletro inviluppato in lenzuolo/ panieri e piccoli vasi per il Khol/ colla cassa Rishi’12 and ‘N. 22 du catalogueMaseh11.din./DrahAbouNegahavecsar

RichyN.104/avecbaton’,13 which give the impression that a rishi coffin was found inside each of the two coffins. However, considering the fact that in his excavations at Dra Abu el-Naga Vassalli rather often, as the Journal d’Entrée records, found multiple burials containing both rishi and rectangular coffins (Miniaci 2011a, 59–60), it is highly probable that he misinterpreted/confused his list of objects as found or that he interpreted a much decayed rishi mask as a rishi coffin (Baba and Yazawa 2015; Rigault-Déon 2013; cf. the broad and decayed rishi mask in the burial M.X TC at Mirgissa [Gratien 2014, fig. 7 at p. 160]).

10

12

11

See also the painted scene from the tomb of Tetiky: Miniaci 2011a, 125,279, Cat. rT08CarCa. For this title see Ward 1982, 129, no. 1099, reading the title ḥsbw; note that Fischer (1985) reads the title ḫꜢw.

Changingperspectives:coffinproductionasa pragmaticsocialphenomenon B. Multiplication and contemporaneity: Rishi coffins are not the only anthropoid type characteristic of the Second Intermediate Period. According to the available archaeological documentation, several other types of anthropoid-shaped coffins appear to have been in use during this epoch. We can see a clear sign of this ‘multiplication’ in one closed archaeological context

13

AV f. 5r and f. 6r (Sehetepibre’s coffin), see Tiradritti 1994, 63, 103–4, figs 1–2. AV f. 7r and f. 8r (rectangular coffin with the inscription ending ‘Mishup’), Tiradritti 1994, 63, 105, fig. 3.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

253

Fig. 5: Plain anthropoid coffin from Carnarvon and Carter excavations at el-Birabi, Cairo Museum TR 9/12/32/3 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

excavated by Howard Carter and the Earl of Carnarvon at el-Birabi (Miniaci 2009a, 19). In tomb complex C37 (Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 64–88; Miniaci 2011a, 84–91, see below for a summary), they recorded at least five different anthropoid coffin types in use: a. dug-out, b. plain anthropoid, c. semi-decorated anthropoid, beside the d. rishi and e. white examples (the following enumeration of coffins is drawn from the list provided in Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 70–88). a) Four dug-out coffins, described by Carnarvon and Carter (1912, 68, cf. pl. LXI, 58) as ‘exceedingly rough, and cut out of tree trunks’, with no human traits at all, but actually having the appearance of a ‘canoe’, ‘dugout’, a human shapeless envelope (Fig. 4): nos 31, 40, 41, 84; b) Four plain anthropoid coffins: a slightly more elaborate container, dug out of the trunk of a tree, roughly outlined in the shape of a human body and with facial traits (Figs 5 and 6): nos 5, 29, 38, 47; c) Seven rishi coffins (see description below and Fig. 7): nos 2, 10, 11, 12, 60, 66, 70; d) Two semi-decorated anthropoid coffins, described by Carter as being ‘of very coarse workmanship, in design resembling those of the New Kingdom [i.e. white type], but in the face they have a likeness to the Rîshi type’ (Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 68; Fig. 8): nos 6, 68;

Fig. 6: Detail of a plain anthropoid coffin from Carnarvon and Carter excavations at el-Birabi, Cairo Museum TR 9/12/32/2 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

254

G. MINIACI

e) Five white anthropoid coffins (Barwik 1989–90 and 1999): nos 18, 23, 24, 73, 74. In addition to the above, the tomb complex contained forty-two rectangular coffins (decorated/undecorated): nos 7, 8, 15, 21, 22, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83.

Table 1: Distribution of anthropoid-shaped coffins inside burial complex C37 at el-Birabi.

The dating of tomb complex C37 proved difficult, since Carter noted evidence of at least two phases of use (Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 64–5). On the basis of a recent reassessment, the first use of the tomb seems more likely to date to the early/mid-Middle Kingdom than to the late Middle Kingdom (Rosati with an addendum by Miniaci 2015), which is a pattern not infrequently found at Thebes,14 where the early/mid-Middle Kingdom structures were reused in the Second Intermediate Period after a phase of disuse. Nonetheless, most of the (intact) material recorded by Carter and Carnarvon in C37 is chronologically homogeneous and dates between the late (?) Second Intermediate Period

14

Tomb A17, in the area of the ‘Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II’ in Western Thebes, shows a pattern of use/disuse/ reuse between the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period; see discussion in Consonni 2015. Saff tomb C62/62 (see Miniaci 2011a, 92) shows a similar archaeological/architectonic

Fig. 7: Rishicoffin of the ‘Accountant of the Treasurer’ Amenhotep from Carnarvon and Carter excavations at el-Birabi (tomb C62/47.37), Cairo Museum TR 5/12/25/2 (Cat. rT06C) (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

situation to C37. It belonged to a certain official or noble called Antef whose original burial was completely ransacked, but the limestone sarcophagus still lay on the floor of the funerary chamber, with its limestone lining and fragments of an inner rectangular wooden coffin inscribed with yellow bands of hieroglyphs.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

255

The range of human needs can be divided into an infinite number of multiple levels, given the complexity of social potentialities, but historical synthesis needs to reduce this infinite multiplicity into abstract, countable levels. Listed below are some essential groups (following ideas developed in Quigley 1961, 54–6): Level1 political/military; Level2 economic/material/sustenance; Level3 social/cultural; Level4 religious/theological/intellectual.

Fig. 8: Semi-decorated anthropoid coffin (no. 6) from Carnarvon and Carter excavations at el-Birabi (tomb C37) Cairo Museum JE 43637; SS 397 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

and the beginning of Dynasty 18.15 The evidence from tomb C37 draws attention to the fact that the rishi coffin model belonged in a confusing milieu of other types of anthropoid coffins (see Galán and Jiménez-Higueras 2015, 113–6), in approximately contemporary use (other examples come from the funerary complex C62, see Miniaci 2011a, 92–101), before the definitive shift to the white anthropoid type.

15

For the following notes see Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 64–6, 79–81, and Miniaci 2011a, 101–2, 134.

The creation and ideation of a new type of coffin can usually be classified under Level 4: where the iconography, type and design easily — and actually in most cases — mirror changes in religious, theological and intellectual conceptions (Niwiński 1988; 2000). Burial practices are indeed firmly entangled with rituality. However, in 2006 the conference ‘The Cognitive Life of Things’ (Cambridge) attempted to show how the human mind is strictly embedded in real-world activities and how the relationship between the world (objects) and the person is mutually entangled (Malafouris and Renfrew 2010). Raw materials and surrounding environments affect people more than is often considered (Boivin 2000). This cognitive approach tends to move the focus of human existence studies from a conceptual and ritual perspective to a material and physical one, where the tendency is for archaeological artefacts to be regarded as the creators of ‘meaning’, rather than simply as a passive medium through which people transmit messages. In debates on evolution, the change of cultural traits is mainly discussed through the way in which they are transmitted from one generation to another. Although the main focus is on ‘transmission’, at least two other components are necessary, as already suggested by the father of evolutionism, Charles Darwin (1859): the ‘generation of variation’ and the ‘differential success between variants’ (Lewontin 1974). Variation is influenced by the ‘raw material upon which selection operates to cause changes in the frequency of cultural traits through time. Though transmission can operate in the absence of variation, evolution (i.e. change) cannot take place’ (Eerkens and Lipo 2005, 317). Therefore, a certain margin of interference, innovation and

256

G. MINIACI

transformation in the transmission is always entrusted to the material production and consumption process: actual degrees of innovation/variation might come from the material producers and end users (Moreno García 2014a; 2014b). The reason(s) behind the multiplication of types of anthropoid coffin during the Second Intermediate Period might be more convincingly explained if we switch our approach from a more ‘reassuring’ (Boast 2011) point of view (Level 4, religious/theological/ intellectual) to a more concrete, though as yet unexplored one (Level 2, economic/material/sustenance). In his book, Sud e Magia, based on a case study of Lucania (a poor rural region in southern Italy) in the 1950s, Ernesto De Martino attempts to show how a ‘crisis of presence’ (absence of central/strong control) of the hegemonic culture created an alteration in the cultural transmission within the middle level of society. For De Martino, magic and ritual are not seen as manifestations without strong temporal associations but as historical products: they can often appear as timeless categories, but they go beyond the metahistorical position, as they are products of political events (De Martino 1959). Therefore, the political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period must have affected not only large areas of material production but also ritual conception, including coffins. Although the conventional designation ‘intermediate’ might intrinsically contain a negative overtone, it must be admitted nevertheless that the political situation of the Second Intermediate Period was far from being stable: the progressive weakening of Dynasty 13, the rise of non-Egyptian/Hyksos power in the north and eastern Delta, the abandonment/disappearance (discussion in Marée 2010a, xi) of the Egyptian royal court from its capital, Itjtawy (Lorand 2013), and the rise of independent/semi-independent political units in the south of the country (Abydos,16 Thebes)17 must have affected not only the focus of society, resulting in a loss of direction, but also the economy, shifting access to resources and altering material production as a result. De Martino’s ‘crisis of presence’ must have occurred at some point in the Second Intermediate

Period in several regions of Egypt, and left a social vacuum (absence of control/direction = existential crisis), which triggered a mechanism for ‘local’ selfdefence, reinventing/remodelling old conceptual categories in order to counteract feelings of depersonalisation and alienation (abandonment). In a period such as the Second Intermediate Period, the following main factors might have affected the choices behind the production of the various anthropoid coffins:

16

17

See the entire volume of Expedition.TheMagazineoftheUniversityofPennsylvaniaMuseumofArchaeologyandAnthropology 56/1, 2014.

a) Loss of centralised control. b) Loosening of theological impulses and established religious tradition (Willems 2014, 223–5). c) Decrease in availability of imported resources and raw materials. These factors would have led to the following consequences, respectively: a) Craftsmen had limited access to training and comparanda pieces, as noted in other periods by Kara Cooney (2015, 278). b) Craftsmen were free to experiment with unusual and innovative designs, and to formulate new solutions without the pressure of traditional control (‘crisis of presence’). c) The availability of raw material/economic/human resources inevitably affected the type of production (‘cognitive approach’: Sillar and Tite 2000). In describing coffin production during the Second Intermediate Period, we often consider ‘people who are inside the coffin’, but rarely do we take into consideration the craftsmen who were behind (i.e. produced) the object, usually considered as interchangeable pieces of a ‘chaîneopératoire’, who simply delivered supply to demand (Vidale 1998). What we often forget is that coffins served a specific, pragmatic purpose: to contain the body of the deceased in order to preserve its fragility from destruction over time and from ground/sand, animals, accident and misfortune. In addition to the already deeply rooted rectangular coffin type (influence from the previous cultural phase),

See a summary in Miniaci 2011b.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

Second Intermediate Period craftsmen created new models, exploring the new practical and economic possibilities offered by the emerging Middle Kingdom anthropoid coffins (as still evident in some of the rishi coffins,18 see also below): human-shaped coffins had the advantage of being made from a single tree trunk, hollowed inside (for ‘dug-out’ and plain anthropoid coffins, see Figs 5 and 6); the semi-arched architecture of an anthropoid coffin added strength to the poor quality of the wood that was used (sycomore: Miniaci 2011a, 24–5; Fig. 9); with components requiring little or no assembly (Willems 1996, 27–42, pls VI–IX), the manufacturing process was accelerated (Fig. 10); having only a limited area for decorative programmes sped up the craft process and allowed easy reuse19 (Fig. 11). Although the anthropoid model was already present in the Middle Kingdom, its ‘re-inception’ in the Second Intermediate Period, after a considerable gap, had a different starting point: Middle Kingdom anthropoid coffins were the result of ongoing ritual practices, while the development of Second Intermediate Period anthropoid coffins seems to be due mainly to pragmatic reasons. In conclusion, the degree of differentiation between types in different periods of history must also be intimately bound up with the question of the identity of the producers, as a sociological group or groups, and also considerations of the availability and varieties of raw materials, the ecological environment, the mode of production and the social/political situation. Burialequipmentofrishicoffins:samplingfora macroscopicanalysis

Fig. 9: Detail of the upper part of the rishicoffin (Miniaci 2011a, Cat. rT04BM), London, British Museum EA 6653 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

chronological watershed but a deeper cultural change, a shift of an epoch. There are many different methods for classifying burial equipment (Smith 1992), using various criteria and variable numbers of examples to include or exclude, ranging from a purely descriptive approach to a socioeconomic one. However, the objective here is to understand under macroscopic focus the distinction between the first anthropoid and the later rishi coffins. For this reason, I have adopted the following methodology:

C. Discontinuity: The gap in the evolutionary line between the first anthropoid coffins, in the Middle Kingdom, and the appearance of rishi coffins in the Second Intermediate Period is also mirrored in the material culture associated with each respective type of container. Such a break seems to underline not only a

18

19

Petrie 1909, 7: ‘The coffin (Pl. XXIII) is cut out of a single block of wood, and the lid is likewise a single block’. The torso of the coffin is divided into two parts by a vertical band, usually inscribed with painted hieroglyphs giving the ḥtp dỉnswt formula dedicated to Osiris or the syncretistic deity PtahSokar-Osiris, followed by the prỉ.t-ḫrw invocation. The last part of the hieroglyphic inscription provides the titles and name of the deceased, if indeed they are present at all, since on numerous examples it was left blank or filled with the hieroglyphic group ‘mn’, meaning ‘so and so’. In other cases the space intended for

257

– selection of ‘virtually’20 closed contexts/exclusion of disturbed contexts; – identification of single objects in each burial/coffin (first level of abstraction: removal of details — decorative pattern, inscriptions, manufacture);

20

the inscription was left completely empty, perhaps to be filled in at a later date: Galán and Jiménez-Higueras 2015. Often the upper and lower parts of anthropoid coffins were tied together with a rope, see Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 62. I employ here the term ‘virtually’, because Second Intermediate Period closed contexts or groups with perfectly preserved equipment are rather rare, hence the need to extend the notion of closed groups to those for which we have no explicit evidence of disturbance, yet which have very poor or limited archaeological records (see ‘MarietteandVassalliexcavations’, below).

258

G. MINIACI

Fig. 10: Detail of the upper part of the rishi coffin Cat. rX01C, Cairo Museum SS 256 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

Fig. 11: Detail of the lower part of the rishi coffin Cat. rX01BO, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 1987.490a, b (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

– assemblage of countable categories (second level of abstraction: social/chronological homogenisation). Although the adoption of closed contexts or groups (and exclusion of disturbed ones) for the case study offers the maximum potential for exploring the pattern of assemblages, it must be borne in mind that a closed group does not represent an ideal moment where history is frozen, enabling archaeologists to retrieve a pristine past ‘as it truly was’ (see ‘Pompeii Premise’, Sommer 2012, 20–2). Even closed contexts reveal only a partial and fractured history, altered over time: through deposition (multiple/repeated depositions: Grajetzki 2007 — inclusion of heirlooms, etc.); during discovery (method of excavation, accuracy of field documentation and publication, the selection process of artefact types to be recorded); and after discovery (restoration, conservation, display). This results in omission and destruction, notably of liquid and organic materials (Hurcombe 2014). Therefore, the closed groups must be perceived as a variable corpus of ‘randomsampling’ in archaeological methodologies. The groups of objects selected below can be indexed into countable categories (in order to decipher the material diversity, and hence to understand the material changes from one epoch to another). These are the prominent categories from an ‘outsider’ perspective (Harris 2001): Body adornment (bA); Container (C); Food (F); Furniture (Fr); Game/leisure (G/L); Garment (Gr); Personal items (P); Scarabs and small amulets (Sc); Toilet/ Body care objects (T); Weapons (W) (Fig. 12).21

259

his drawing album, ‘Album di Disegni’ in the Civica Biblioteca d’Arte in Milan and in the register of the Journal d’Entrée in Cairo. The only published context is represented by the burial of Hornakht (see Miniaci 2011a, 58–9). The objects found in these burials include: rT01VA22 = one vase of the Old Kingdom (?), three alabaster vases, cartouche-shaped box (C); wooden headrest (Fr); senet gaming board (G/L); a pair of sandals (Gr); seven scarabs (Sc); cosmetic spoon, razor, a pair of tweezers (T); throw-stick (W). rT03VA = harp (G/L). rT04va = two bronze dishes for a balance, two weights (P); three faience egg-shaped amulets (Sc); two alabaster vases (T); blade of an axe (W). rT05va = scarab (Sc); small toilet vase (T). rT06va = three scarabs (Sc). rT07va = four small coils, silver ring, gold ring, faience and silver hair-ring, gold earring, silver collar (bA); papyrus basket, small alabaster vase (C); pair of leather sandals (Gr); three double-cartouche-shaped amulets, seven faience scarabs framed in silver/gold, faience scarab, faience amulet, serpentine scarab (Sc). rT08va = basket (C); alabaster vase, bronze mirror (T). rT09va = small basket (C); alabaster vase (T). rT10va = small alabaster vase (C); gaming-rod (?) (G/L?); bronze dagger (W). rT11va = egg-shaped amulet (Sc). rT12va = egg-shaped amulet (Sc). Petrie excavations

Mariette and Vassalli excavations Between December 1862 and January 1863, Luigi Vassalli worked on behalf of Auguste Mariette in the northern part of the Theban necropolis (Miniaci 2009b, 42). In this area Vassalli discovered several burials belonging to the Second Intermediate Period. Unfortunately, they were not recorded in an excavation diary, but details of some of them are scattered in

Between December 1908 and February 1909 Petrie turned his attention to a sector of the Theban Necropolis, so far unknown at that time, north of the entrance to the wadi Biban el-Muluk, where he found an intact burial of unexpected richness, belonging to the Second Intermediate Period (Petrie 1909, 6–10, pls 4, 22–9; Miniaci 2011a, 65–6; recent discussion in Troalen, Tate and Guerra 2014).

21

22

I have excluded from this list the objects specifically made for the burial of the deceased, such as coffins and canopic boxes/ jars, see Smith 1992, 197–9. ‘Containers’ includes not only baskets and boxes, but also pottery or stone vessels — in fact, any type of container.

All the burial equipment of the closed groups listed below is described in detail in Miniaci 2011a. The numbering of coffins follows the sigla adopted in Miniaci 2011a, 198–201.

G. MINIACI

260

Table 2: Categories of Second Intermediate Period burial equipment associated with rishicoffins. Abbreviations: Body adornment (bA); Container (C); Food (F); Furniture (Fr); Game/leisure (G/L); Garment (Gr); Personal items (P); Protection for Rebirth (PR); Scarabs and small amulets (Sc); Toilet/Body care objects (T); Weapons (W). bA rT01VA

C

F

✓

Fr

G/L

Gr

✓

✓

✓

rT03VA

P

✓

rT05va rT06va

W

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

rT08va

✓

rT09va

✓

rT10va

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

rT11va

✓

rT12va rT01ED

T

✓

✓

rT04va

rT07va

Sc

✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

rT02CarCa rT03CarCa

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

rT11carca

✓

rT12carca

✓

rT13carca

✓

rT20carca ✓

rT23carca

✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓

rT25carca

✓

✓

rT27carca

✓

rT04NY

✓

rT05NY

✓

✓

✓

rT06NY

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

rT04MMA

✓

rT16MMA

✓

rT19MMA rT20MMA

✓

✓

rT22carca rT24carca

✓

✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

rT01ED = two plain gold bangles; girdle with electrum beads; two gold ear/hair-rings; collar of small gold rings; electrum button (bA); stick with nets holding ten pots, wooden box, basket, marble bowl with monkeys, two small pottery vases, small polished red pottery vase, alabaster jar, two bead net-work pouches, small basket, black pottery pan (C); bread, grapes, dates, dom-palm nuts (F); chair, two stools, wooden headrest (Fr); linen clothing (Gr); two flint flakes, a ball of thread, long blue bead whisk (P); green scarab (Sc); horn, two kohl pots (obsidian and alabaster), kohl stick, bronze cutter, sharpening stone (T).

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Carter/Carnarvon and Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York excavations In 1910–11 Carter and Carnarvon turned their attention to the area called el-Birabi. The spot investigated was labelled ‘Site 14’ (PM I2, 2, 615–17; Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 38, 51). Here Carter and Carnarvon discovered numerous pit-tombs, numbered from 24 to 39, and an unusually large saff tomb, whose long central corridor was given the number 37, containing a considerable number of Second Intermediate Period burials. Today the entire complex with all its different

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

Fig. 12: Selection of objects found within rishi coffin burials, highlighting the categories set out in Table 2.

261

262

G. MINIACI

features is commonly known as C37. In the following seasons of 1911–12 and 1913–14, Carter and Carnarvon explored another similar structure, further north-west, called C62. Excavations were carried out only in the northern and western parts of the complex, leaving the southern side unexplored. This part was subsequently cleared in 1915–16 by the Metropolitan Museum Egyptian Expedition under the direction of Ambrose Lansing (Lythgoe, Lansing and de Garis Davies 1917; Miniaci 2011a, 84–102). rT02CarCa = wooden baton with leather cap and copper nail, wooden walking stick with copper ferrule (P); blue paste scarab (Sc). rT03CarCa = wooden headrest (Fr); bronze mirror, wig of plaited hair (T). rT11carca = scribal palette, two writing tablets (P). rT12carca = throw-stick (W). rT13carca = black pottery vase (C); steatite scarab, cylinder (Sc); alabaster kohl pot, cedar-wood comb, toilet box (T). rT20carca = walking stick (broken into three pieces) (P). rT22carca = grey pottery saucer, some pottery vases (C); blue glazed steatite hedgehog seal (Sc); alabaster vase with ivory lid, alabaster kohl pot (T). rT23carca = wood sceptre with a bronze binding (P). rT24carca = steatite cowroid bead (bA); wooden comb, ivory hair pin (T). rT25carca = chair (Fr); two scarabs (Sc); walking stick (P); aragonite pot (T). rT27carca = limestone statuette of a woman (P). rT04NY = some pieces of quartzite (P); two scarabs (Sc); bronze razor, alabaster kohl pot (T). rT05NY = small round basket (C); dom-palm nuts (F); two pairs of clappers (G/L); two scarabs (Sc); alabaster kohl pot (T). rT06NY = faience scarab (Sc). rT04MMA = harp (G/L); horn with the end shaped as a spoon (T); two throw-sticks (W). rT16MMA = wooden headrest (Fr); green jasper heart scarab (Sc); some toilet articles, knife (T); axe (W).

23

24

The list given above might be incomplete, since the report provided by Hayes (1935) was preliminary and not detailed. For this list I have selected only those tombs of cemetery A where more than one category of object was present. The

rT19MMA = bronze vessel, pitcher; porphyry bowl (C); metal hinge (P); green stone scarab (Sc); kohl vase, bronze mirror, two netting needles (T); bronze dagger, five bronze arrow points; two axe heads (W). In 1935–36 the Egyptian Expedition investigated the processional way leading to the temple of Thutmose III at Deir el-Bahri (Lansing 1935). At its eastern end William C. Hayes discovered a partly intact tomb, no. 279, sealed by the avenue of Thutmose III and preserved by the mortuary temple of Ramesses IV built upon it. The tomb belonged to the ‘Keeper of documents in the house of the Great Wife Hatshepsut’ Neferkhewet, and his relatives. It consists of a rectangular shaft sunk in the low-lying rock with two opposite side chambers at its bottom, the western one made up of two roughly shaped rooms. The structure was the result of successive rather than simultaneous burials, and its design passed through several different stages (Hayes 1935, 17). Of the occupants, only Rennofer was equipped with a coffin of the rishi type, decorated with inscribed horizontal bands and having an unusual blue ground colour, while Neferkhewet was provided with a white anthropoid coffin (Hayes 1935; Miniaci 2011a, 103–5). rT20MMA = gold finger ring; jewel box (bA); basket, twelve jars, two faience marsh bowls (C); stool (Fr); inlaid gaming box (G/L); seven faience scarabs, faience cowroid (Sc); bronze mirror, wooden comb, carved wooden hairpins; bronze razor, bronze knife, travertine kohl pot (T).23 Comparing epochs (Middle Kingdom–Second Intermediate Period): the missing category A similar list of countable categories can be drawn from the late Middle Kingdom cemetery A at Harageh (Engelbach 1923, 2, pls 2–3), as summarised from the list produced in Miniaci 2014c, 50–9, for a close comparison.24

cemetery is considered to have been partly ‘anciently robbed’, according to the report of Engelbach.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

263

Table 3: Categories of Late Middle Kingdom burial equipment from Cemetery A at Harageh. The numbers correspond to the tomb numbers in Engelbach (1923). bA

C

Tomb numbers 3, 16, 17, 23, 30, 35, 38, 40, Harageh 49, 56, 58, 59, 64, 66, 69, 70, 72, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 96, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 116, 117, 120, 124, 128, 131, 132, 133, 135, 138, 139, 142, 143, 154, 159, 162, 171, 211

F

3, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19, 23, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 43, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 124, 128, 131, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 159, 161, 162, 171, 211

Fr

G/L

Gr

56 37, 47, 55

Comparing the above lists from these two different periods, what is striking is the absence of objects which can be classified under the categories of garments, food and weapons. While for the first two cases, poor preservation of organic remains might have affected the archaeological record, the absence of weapons is

P

Sc

T

7, 19, 30, 33, 35, 36, 41, 43, 58, 64, 80, 82, 92, 93, 105, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 124, 133, 135, 140, 141, 161, 162, 171

37, 40, 47, 72, 91, 96, 107, 112, 116, 124, 154

48, 72, 90, 91, 92, 93, 112, 124, 139, 141

W -

PR 7, 48, 55, 56, 72 (?), 73, 112, 117 (?), 133 (?)

diagnostic, as is the remarkably reduced (only one item) presence of furniture (see Miniaci and Quirke 2009, and Smith 1992 for early Dynasty 18). In contrast, in the late Middle Kingdom there is a category of objects that is completely missing in the Second Intermediate Period: objects focusing on the rebirth of the deceased.

Table 4: Comparative table showing the categories of burial equipment of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. bA

C

MK

✓

✓

SIP

✓

✓

F

Fr

G/L

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Gr

P

Sc

T

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

W

PR ✓

✓

A category of Protection for Rebirth (PR) in cemetery A at Harageh is represented by (Fig. 13):

f) glazed human figures from tomb 112 (Engelbach 1923, pl. XIV.1; see Miniaci forthcoming).

a) blue paste hippopotamus from tomb 7 (Engelbach 1923, pl. XIV.12); b) limestone hippopotamus from tomb 48 (Engelbach 1923, pl. LVIII); c) faience dwarf figurine (Engelbach 1923, 34, pl. XIV.9); d) glazed dog figurine (Engelbach 1923, pl. XIV.8) and hippopotamus from tomb 56; e) small glazed statuette from tomb 73 (Engelbach 1923, pl. XIV.11);

In the same category might be listed also the gold fish from tomb 72 and the wooden shabtis from tombs 117 and 133. Even though the state of organic material preservation is very poor in this late Middle Kingdom cemetery, evidence for the presence of anthropoid coffins comes from: aa) two cartonnage/limestone eyes from tomb 35; bb) eyes from a cartonnage [sic; perhaps a rotted wooden coffin] from tomb 70;

264

G. MINIACI

Fig. 13: Objects from Cemetery A at Harageh (Photographs: G. Miniaci and Engelbach 1923, pl. XIV).

Fig. 14: Set of Osirification regalia from the tomb of Nubheteptikhered (after De Morgan 1895, fig. 253).

i) a selection of ritual objects, such as sceptres, staves, maces, daggers, bows, arrows and flails (Fig. 14), all of which belong to the sets of royal insignia for the ritual identification of the deceased as Osiris, king of the dead, as depicted in later sources evoking the HourVigil26(Grajetzki 2014b, 150–4; 2007); ii) carved hippopotamus tusks (Fig. 15), faience figurines (Fig. 16), and special rods decorated

cc) one limestone eye from a cartonnage [sic; rotted wooden coffin?] from tomb 112 (Engelbach 1923, pl. XIV.1). The range of items belonging to burial equipment of the Middle Kingdom often included a selection of objects that, to a certain extent, points to or introduces the idea of an active ‘protection’ (sꜢ/sꜢw) during the rebirth of the deceased:25

25

For a social identity approach, see Grajetzki 2014b, 148–79; Miniaci 2014b, 127–30.

26

See Willems 1997,365–7.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

265

Miniaci and Quirke 2009, 358; Wegner 2009, 447–8; Miniaci 2014b).

Fig. 15: Ivory tusk, London, Petrie Museum UC16382 (Photograph: G. Miniaci).

These two diagnostic categories of objects (i and ii) from the Second Intermediate Period seem to reinforce the idea that the gestation of Second Intermediate Period anthropoid — and rishi — coffins can be placed outside the previous (centralised?) ritual perspective. However, within the rishi coffin burial equipment, the category of rebirth object does not entirely disappear, and a few sporadic instances can be recorded. The unpublished batch of manuscripts (Mss.i.J.300.1–4) of Carter at the Griffith Institute records his excavations on the hill of el-Mandara in the Theban necropolis (Dra Abu el-Naga south) during the season 1913–14.27 In this area, Carter discovered a series of rock-cut tombs and pits, which he numbered from 69 to 78 (see Porter and Moss 1964, 611 with some imprecision; Miniaci 2011a, 79). Most of the burials date from the late Middle Kingdom to early Dynasty 18. Amongst them, no. 74 consisted of a pittomb cut into the rock and two burial chambers at its bottom. In the eastern chamber, Carter discovered two rishi coffins (Miniaci 2011a, cat. rT28carca and cat. rT29carca). Mss.i.J.300.1 - Mandara 74 Cut in bed rock. Pit tomb, of axis 50 degree W of N, having two sepulchral chambers below. XVIIth dynasty. Both the pit and the two chambers were filled with rubbish through heartened [sic] by water of early historical rains, this has drained into it and cause the more perishable contents and that became so decayed that they were badly recognizable [sic]. East chamber, contains two burials of rishi-type of the period of Aahmes I & Amhetep I [sic]. These burials, of a soldier and his wife, were lying side by side, with their heads towards the west. Mummy of the wife […] Mss.i.J.300.2 74.15 lions head, of blue paste, near feet [Figs 17-18].

Fig. 16: Faience figurine, Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden A 1212 (© Courtesy of Maarten Raven).

with forces of protection, whose principal role seems to have been to serve as protection, probably in rituals connected with childbirth, providing defence against the inherent dangers associated with it by assimilating the destiny of the deceased into that of the newly born infant, who required the same protection and shared a common pattern of eternal (re)birth and defence against destructive forces (Bourriau 1991, 14;

Within a consistent burial assemblage of the late Second Intermediate Period–early Dynasty 18, Carter

27

The toponym el-Mandara actually occurs twice in this locality (Miniaci 2009a, 19, fig. 19), once in the northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga south and again in the southernmost part of Dra Abu el-Naga. From the notes of Alan Gardiner, it is clear that Carter investigated the northernmost area (Gardiner 1916).

266

G. MINIACI

Fig. 17: Upper part of the faience figurine representing a crouching lion, from Carter’s excavations at el-Birabi, tomb 24 (© Griffith Institute, University of Oxford, Carter Mss. i.J.234, detail).

Fig. 18: Two faience figurines of crouching lions: (above) London, British Museum EA 61463 (unprovenanced); (below) London, Petrie Museum UC 16679 (from Lahun) (Photographs: G. Miniaci).

recorded the remains of an object rarely attested with the rishi coffin: a blue faience figurine of a couchant lion28 carefully deposited near the feet of the deceased,

28

See also Petrie 1890, pl. VIII.1 (University College London 16879, from Lahun); London, British Museum EA 61463 (unprovenanced).

and inexplicably found broken. The few extant excavation records reporting the place of discovery for Middle Kingdom faience figurines provide close archaeological parallels for their position inside burials. In tomb 477 at Matmar, Brunton recorded a ‘male extended on left side; only the lower part of the legs was in position. Broken femur tibia. The blue faience couchant hippopotamus was over the feet’ (Brunton 1948, 54, pl. XLIII.17). Similarly, Mariette noted in reference to his archaeological excavations: ‘A Drah-abou’l-neggah nous avons eu deux fois occasion de constater que les figures qui représentent l’hippopotame debout ou couché sont placées dans l’intérieur du cercueil et sous les pieds du défunt’ (Mariette 1872, 6). Although Carter did not supply any information about the state of the pit-tomb (intact/partially disturbed/disturbed/reused/ prolonged use), the exact record of the faience lion inside the coffin (a rishi specimen) and, more specifically, on the feet of the deceased suggests that it was actually part of the original equipment of the rishi burial and did not belong to other/previous burials. There is at least one other attestation of a faience figurine included within a rishi coffin burial: the tomb of the ‘Accountant of the Main Enclosure’, Neferhotep, found by Mariette at Dra Abu el-Naga (Miniaci and Quirke 2009), contained three objects which belong to the ‘Protection for Rebirth’ category, (i) and (ii) above: a faience hippopotamus (see Miniaci and Quirke 2009, 370; also Paris, Louvre E7790: Delange and Nisole 2003; Guichard 2014, 77, cat. 50), an ivory tusk, and a wooden mace from the Osirification regalia(see Miniaci and Quirke 2009, 350–1; Fig. 19). Moreover, some protective rebirth icons, as attested on ivory tusks and faience figurines in the late Middle Kingdom, seem to have migrated to the headrest of Neferhotep, since it is one of the earliest examples decorated with the lionheaded (= Aha/Bes) and hippopotamus-lion (= Ipy/ Taweret) figures (Quirke 2015a, 188–90; 2016, 327– 43, 357–63). In the same way, within rishi coffin rT07va, the pair of leather sandals which formed part of its burial equipment, unusually for the period, was decorated: ‘Une paire de pantoufles la semelle en cuir repoussé on y voit représenté animal fantastique avec des ailes quatre pattes et une tête de serpent’ (Journal d’Entrée, cited in Miniaci 2011a, 61). Thus the sandals bore the representation of an apotropaic figure, i.e. an animal with wings, four legs and a snake-shaped head. Again one of the typical motifs of rebirth protection in the late Middle Kingdom seems to have migrated on to different material objects.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

Fig. 19: Objects from the tomb of the ‘Accountant of the Main Enclosure’ Neferhotep (faience figurine of a hippopotamus; wooden mace from the Osirification regaliaset; detail of the decorative programme of the wooden headrest) from Miniaci and Quirke 2009 (Photographs: G. Miniaci; drawings: P. Whelan).

A type which transcends pragmatics: rishi coffins and the osmosis between different media Although the diffusion of anthropoid coffin types during the Second Intermediate Period could have been the result of practical considerations, the emergence and final adoption of the rishi model nonetheless seems to involve again a ‘ritual vision’ (Miniaci 2010; Willems 2014, 219–25). As suggested by Erika MeyerDietrich (2006), the Middle Kingdom coffin decorative (and textual) programme may have served as more than a primarily communicative device, due to its invisibility (to external and, for obvious reasons, internal beneficiaries). It was also a way of rendering permanent

267

the effects of the funerary ritual; in the same way, the decoration applied to the rishi coffin must have had a precise symbolic intent. Although the workmanship of rishi coffins is generally mediocre, and most examples are crudely shaped and poorly detailed, an increase of complexity in their architectonic structure can be noted, with the use of joined planks of wood and the abandonment of a semi-arched structure in favour of a more rectangular shape (Fig. 20). Also the decorative programme expanded: the upper part of the coffin is modelled in the shape of a headdress, styled like the nemes headcloth worn by kings (but shared by both private and royal individuals). Commonly represented on the chest, and partly hidden by the lappets of the headcloth, is a broad wsḫ collar embellished with drop-shaped beads along its lower edge and a pair of hawk’s-head shoulder pieces (often decorated with a vulture painted with outstretched wings and beside it a cobra, standing with its hood expanded and its tail curling around it). The body of the coffin is commonly decorated with feathers arranged in different and separate layers. This is its main feature, and the logical arrangement of the feathers in layers mirrors the disposition of feathers as found in ancient Egyptian figurative art in representations of birds with outstretched wings: the first layer corresponds to the body of the bird, where generally short feathers, resembling drops or circles, are located; the second layer is the tail, which shows narrower and longer feathers with rounded tips running down just below the body; the third layer represents the longer, pointed feathers of the outstretched wing. The most remarkable features are their symmetrical layout and the fact that they do not overlap each other (Miniaci 2010). Several different hypotheses have been advanced to explain the purpose of the decorative pattern (representing the winged protection of Isis and Nephthys; the ba of the deceased; the ba of Osiris and Ra; the coronation robe; for a summary and bibliographic reference see Miniaci 2010), but none are conclusive and probably we will never know the ultimate reason. What is convincing is that the feather decoration makes anthropoid coffins of the Second Intermediate Period ‘permeable’ again by virtue of their decoration. The term ‘permeable’ is used by Nyord (2014), who demonstrated that the absence of decoration might stress an impenetrability and opaqueness of the container (isolation of the body, as in the plain Second Intermediate Period anthropoid coffins), while the addition of depicted elements seems to re-connect coffins to a ritual communicative system (Nyord 2014, 38, 42). The normative code established

268

G. MINIACI

Fig. 20: Details of rishi coffin assembly technique (Photographs: G. Miniaci).

inside rishi coffin production (Sousa 2014b, 106–7) was systematically repeated with great similarity in different social spheres and from north to south (although Thebes can be considered the main production area). The appearance of feather decoration on coffins is a diagnostic motif, ‘a key’, and this is what makes rishi coffins ‘permeable’ to us: during the transition between the late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, rebirth ideology and icons started to migrate on to different surfaces and media, transforming themselves, their original shape and their significance (Wengrow 2014; Quirke 2016, 434–576). In the New Kingdom, many figures from the imagery found on hippopotamus tusks migrated, appearing on cosmetic vases, headrests, bed legs, and other objects (for the contemporary, late Middle Kingdom migration of these motifs on to scarabs and cups, see Keel, Keel-Leu and Schroer 1991, 282–6; Allen 2005, 30–1); faience figurines fluctuated between different mediums (mud, stone, terracotta: Stevens 2006). The osmosis between different media is not infrequent also in other periods of ancient Egyptian history, such as in the Third Intermediate Period when the conceptual architecture of the ‘tomb’ migrated onto the decoration (and burial equipment) of the coffin (Taylor 2010, 233–6; Sheikholeslami 2014; Miniaci 2014a) or the ideology of the coffin transferred to the architecture of the burial chamber

(Greco 2014). Similarly, the process of migration of rebirth motifs visible during the Second Intermediate Period could have affected the impenetrable and opaque anthropoid coffins. The anthropoid coffins, devoid of decoration or bearing only essential decoration with limited ritual meaning, were the ideal tabula rasa for receiving and accommodating migrating rebirth motifs, reinvented in the new feathered pattern. Referring to late Middle Kingdom birth-related protective objects, Stephen Quirke suggested that ‘in the ancient Egyptian record, in its different variants, the imagery of fertility and birth protection recurs intermittently throughout the record of votive offerings and burial equipment, including burials of men and women and children and adults’ (Quirke 2015a, 188), suggesting that the Middle Kingdom has produced a particular concentration of that type of object, as though expressing an unusual anxiety. It is tempting to consider that material culture reflecting this anxiety did not disappear and reappear like an intermittent element throughout this period, but was simply moved and transformed, always keeping its focus on (re-)birth protection, but changing shape, concept and substance: from the rows of anthropomorphic, theriomorphic, hybrid apotropaic images (in figurines and ivory tusks) to the feathers on a coffin — a perennial protection for the rebirth of the deceased, in a coherent process of osmosis.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

Bibliography Allen, J. P. 2005. TheartofmedicineinancientEgypt. New York; New Haven; London. Baba, M. and K. Yazawa. 2015. Burial assemblages of the late Middle Kingdom, shaft-tombs in Dahshur North. In G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), The world of MiddleKingdomEgypt(2000–1550BC).Contributions on archaeology, art, religion, and written sources, Vol. I. Middle Kingdom Studies 1. London, 1–24. Bareš, L. 1991. The necropolis at Abusir-South Field in the Middle Kingdom. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache undAltertumskunde118, 89–96. Barwik, M. 1989–90. Sarkofagi antropoidalne z Deir elMedina w zbiorach Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie. RocznikMuzeumNarodowegowWarszawie, 33–44. Barwik, M. 1999. Typology and dating of the ‘white’-type anthropoid coffins of the early XVIIIth Dynasty. Études etTravaux18, 8–33. Basin Rizzo, L. 2014. Le masque funéraire égyptien. Évolution et symbolique. In L. Deguara, J.-P. Sénac and F. Servajean (eds), ActesduColloqueÉgypteancienne: Ritesfunéraires.SociétéArchéologiquedeMontpellier: MuséeLanguedocien,Montpellier,14novembre2014. Montpellier, 33–42. Bettum, A. 2011. Faces within faces: The symbolic function of nested yellow coffins in ancient Egypt. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo, Norway. Boast, R. 2011. Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. MuseumAnthropology34, 56–70. Boivin, N. 2000. Life rhythms and floor sequences: Excavating time in rural Rajasthan and Neolithic Catalhoyuk. WorldArchaeology 31/3, 367–88. Bourriau, J. 1988. Pharaohs and mortals: Egyptian art in the Middle Kingdom. Exhibition organised by the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 19 April to 26 June, Liverpool18Julyto4September1988. Cambridge. Bourriau, J. 1991. Patterns of change in burial customs during the Middle Kingdom. In S. Quirke (ed.), Middle KingdomStudies. New Malden, 3–20. Brunton, G. 1948. Matmar. British Museum Expedition to MiddleEgypt1929–1931. London. Bruyère, B. 1930. Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir elMédineh (1929). Vol. II. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 7. Cairo. Carnarvon, Fifth Earl of and H. Carter. 1912. Five years’ explorations at Thebes: A record of work done 1907– 1911. London. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and M. W. Feldman. 1981. Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton. Consonni, A. 2015. Precious finds from an early Middle Kingdom tomb in Thebes: Reconstructing connections between the dead and their goods. In G. Miniaci and

269

W. Grajetzki (eds), TheworldofMiddleKingdomEgypt (2000–1550 BC). Contributions on archaeology, art, religion,andwrittensources, Vol. II. Middle Kingdom Studies 3. London, 13–26. Cooney, K. M. 2015. Coffins, cartonnage, and sarcophagi. In Hartwig, M. K. (ed.), AcompaniontoancientEgyptianart. Chichester, 269–92. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of naturalselection,orthepreservationoffavouredraces inthestruggleforlife. London. Delange, E. and S. Nisole. 2003. Lisibilité d’une restauration à propos des hippopotames bleus. In Visibilité de la restauration, lisibilité de l’œuvre: 5e Colloque international sur la conservation restauration des biens culturels, Paris 13, 14 et 15 juin 2002, organisé par l’Association des restaurateurs d’art et d’archéologie deformationuniversitaire. Paris, 143–50. Donadoni Roveri, A. M. 1969. Isarcofagiegizidalleorigini allafinedell’AnticoRegno. Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente. Serie Archeologica 16. Rome. Eerkens, J. W. and C. P. Lipo. 2005. Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in material culture and the archaeological record. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology24/4, 316–34. Engelbach, R. 1923. Harageh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 28. London. Farag, N. and Z. Iskander. 1971. The discovery of Neferwptah. Cairo. Fischer, H. G. 1985. EgyptiantitlesoftheMiddleKingdom. AsupplementtoW.Ward’sindex. New York. Galán, J. M., B. M. Bryan and P. F. Dorman (eds). 2015. Creativity and innovation in the reign of Hatshepsut. Occasional Proceedings of the Theban Workshop. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 69. Chicago. Galán, J. M. and A. Jiménez-Higueras. 2015. Three burials of the Seventeenth Dynasty in Dra Abu El-Naga. In G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), TheworldofMiddle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC). Contributions on archaeology,art,religion,andwrittensources, Vol. I. Middle Kingdom Studies 1. London, 101–19. Gardiner, A. H. 1916. A stele of the early Eighteenth Dynasty from Thebes. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology 3, 256. Graefe, E. 2003.DasGrabdesPadihorresnet,Obervermögensverwalter der Gottesgemahlin des Amun (ThebanishesGrabNr.196). Monumenta Aegyptica 9. Vols I–II. Brussels. Grajetzki, W. 2003. BurialcustomsinancientEgypt:Lifein deathforrichandpoor.Oxford. Grajetzki, W. 2007. Multiple burials in ancient Egypt to the end of the Middle Kingdom. In S. Grallert and W. Grajetzki (eds), Life and afterlife in ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 7. London, 16–34.

270

G. MINIACI

Grajetzki, W. 2010a. The coffin of Zemathor and other rectangular coffins of the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 15. London. Grajetzki, W. 2010b. Notes on administration in the Second Intermediate Period. In M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current research, future prospects. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192. Leuven, 305–12. Grajetzki, W. 2014a. The tomb of Khnumhotep at Rifeh. In A. M. Dodson, J. J. Johnston and W. Monkhouse (eds), Agoodscribeandanexceedinglywiseman:Studiesin honour of W. J. Tait. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 21, 99–111. Grajetzki, W., 2014b. TombtreasuresofthelateMiddleKingdom:Thearchaeologyoffemaleburials.Philadelphia. Gratien, B. 2014. Les fouilles du site de Mirgissa/Iqen. In Fl. Morfoisse and G. Andreu-Lanoë (eds), SésostrisIII: Pharaondelégende. Lille, 156–60. Greco, C. 2014. The forgotten tomb of Ramose (TT 132). In E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), Thebesin thefirstmillenniumBC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 173–99. Gubel, E. and J.-M. Kruchten. 1991. Sarcophage d’Oupaï. In Anonymous (ed.). Van Nijl tot Schelde/Du Nil à l’Escaut:BankBrusselLambert,Brussel,5april–9juni 1991. Wommelgem, 4–21. Guichard, H. 2014.Desanimauxetdespharaons:Lerègne animaldansl’égypteancienne. Paris. Harris, M. 2001. Cultural materialism. The struggle for a science of culture. Walnut Creek; Lanham; London; New York (revised edition). Hayes, W. C. 1935. The tomb of Nefer-Khewet and his family. BulletinoftheMetropolitanMuseumofArt 30:11, 17–36. Hayes, W. C. 1953. ThescepterofEgypt:Abackgroundfor thestudyoftheEgyptianantiquitiesintheMetropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. I: From the earliest times to the endoftheMiddleKingdom. New York. Hendrickx, S. 2011. Sequence dating and Predynastic chronology. In E. Teeter (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33. Chicago, 15–16. Henrich, J. 2001. Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations: Adoption dynamics indicate that biased cultural transmission is the predominate force in behavioral change and much of sociocultural evolution. AmericanAnthropologist103, 992–1013. Henrich, J. 2004. Demography and cultural evolution: Why adaptive cultural processes produced maladaptive losses in Tasmania. AmericanAntiquity69, 197–214. Hurcombe, L. M. 2014. Perishable material culture in prehistory:Investigatingthemissingmajority. London. Ikram, S. and A. M. Dodson. 1998. Themummyinancient Egypt:Equippingthedeadforeternity. London.

Jørgensen, M. 2002. Gravskatte fra det gamle Aegypten/ Tomb treasures from ancient Egypt. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. Keel, O., H. Keel-Leu and S. Schroer. 1991. Studienzuden Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel. II. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 88. Freiburg; Göttingen. Kemp, B. J. 1975. Dating pharaonic cemeteries. Part I: Nonmechanical approaches to seriation. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 31, 259–91. Kemp, B. J. and R. S. Merrillees. 1980. Minoan pottery in secondmillenniumEgypt. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo 7. Mainz am Rhein. Lacau, P. 1904. SarcophagesantérieursauNouvelEmpire. Vol. I: Nos28001–28078.Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. Lacau, P. 1906. SarcophagesantérieursauNouvelEmpire. Vol. II: Nos28087–28126. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo. Lansing, A. 1935. The Egyptian expedition 1934–1935. The Museum’s excavations at Thebes. Bulletin of the MetropolitanMuseumofArt 30:11, 1–16. Lewontin, R. C. 1974. The genetic basis of evolutionary change. New York. Lorand, D. 2013. À la recherche de Itj-Taouy/el-Licht: à propos des descriptions et cartes du site au XIXe siècle. In M. Betrò and G. Miniaci (eds), Talkingalongthe Nile: Ippolito Rosellini, travellers and scholars of the 19thcenturyinEgypt.Proceedingsoftheinternational conference held on the occasion of the presentation of progetto Rosellini. Pisa, June 14–16, 2012. Pisa, 137–50. Lythgoe, A. M., A. Lansing, and N. de Garis Davies. 1917. The Egyptian Expedition 1915–16. Bulletin of the MetropolitanMuseumofArt 12/5, 1, 3-31. Mace, A. C. and H. E. Winlock. 1916.ThetombofSenebtisi at Lisht. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 1. New York. Malafouris, L. and C. Renfrew (eds). 2010. Thecognitivelife of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge. Malek, J. and D. N. E. Magee. 1984–5. A group of coffins found at northern Saqqara. Bulletin de la Société d’ÉgyptologiedeGenève 9–10, 165–89. Marée, M. (ed.). 2010a. The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current research, futureprospects. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192. Leuven. Marée, M. 2010b. A sculpture workshop at Abydos from the late Sixteenth or early Seventeenth Dynasty. In M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current research, futureprospects. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192. Leuven, 241–81.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

Mariette, A. 1872. Les papyrus égyptiens du Musée de Boulaq. Vol. I: Papyrus N° 1–9; Vol. II: Papyrus N°10–20. Cairo. De Martino, E. 1959. SudeMagia. Milan. Mesoudi, A., A. Whiten and K. N. Laland. 2004. Perspective: Is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the perspective of TheOriginsofSpecies. Evolution 58, 1–11. Meyer-Dietrich, E. 2006. Senebi und Selbst: PersonenkonstituentenzurrituellenWiedergebutineinemFrauensargdesMittlerenReiches. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 216. Freiburg; Göttingen. Miniaci, G. 2009a. The necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga. In M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco and G. Miniaci (eds), Seven seasonsatDraAbuel-Naga.ThetombofHuy(TT14): Preliminaryresults. Progetti 3. Pisa, 14–33. Miniaci, G. 2009b. The archaeological exploration of Dra Abu el-Naga. In M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco and G. Miniaci (eds), SevenseasonsatDraAbuel-Naga.Thetombof Huy (TT 14): preliminary results. Progetti 3. Pisa, 36–57. Miniaci, G. 2010. The iconography of the rishi coffins and the legacy of the late Middle Kingdom. Journalofthe AmericanResearchCenterinEgypt46, 49–61. Miniaci, G. 2011a. Rishi coffins and the funerary culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt. Golden House Publications in Egyptology 17. London. Miniaci, G. 2011b. Through change and tradition: The rise of Thebes during the Second Intermediate Period. In P. Buzi, D. Picchi and M. Zecchi (eds), Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti. British Archaeological Reports International series 2264. Oxford, 235–49. Miniaci, G. 2014a. The case of the Third Intermediate Period ‘shabti-maker of the Amun domain’ Padiamun and the change in conception of shabti statuettes. Journal of EgyptianArchaeology100, 245–74. Miniaci, G. 2014b. The collapse of faience figurine production in the late Middle Bronze Age: Reading the history of ancient Egypt between Postmodernism and Grand Narratives. JournalofEgyptianHistory 7, 109–42. Miniaci, G. 2014c. Collecting groups: The archaeological context of the late Middle Kingdom cemetery at Harageh. In S. Quirke, P. Piacentini and C. Orsenigo (eds), Forming material Egypt. Egyptian and Egyptological Documents, Archives, Libraries 4. Milan, 115– 34. Miniaci, G. Forthcoming. An unusual group of late Middle Kingdom figurines from the tomb 112 of Harageh. Miniaci, G. and S. Quirke. 2008. Mariette at Dra Abu elNaga and the tomb of Neferhotep: A mid-13th Dynasty rishi coffin (?). EgittoeVicinoOriente31, 5–25. Miniaci, G. and S. Quirke. 2009. Reconceiving the tomb in the late Middle Kingdom: The burial of the Accountant

271

of the Main Enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu al-Naga. Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 109, 339–83. Moreno García, J. C. 2014a. Penser l’économie pharaonique. Annales:Histoire,SciencesSociales69, 7–38. Moreno García, J. C. 2014b. Recent developments in the social and economic history of ancient Egypt. Journal ofAncientNearEasternHistory 1/2, 231–62. De Morgan, J. 1895. FouillesàDahchour,mars–juin1894. Vienne. Murray, M. A. 1910. Thetomboftwobrothers. Manchester. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21st Dynasty coffins from Thebes: Chronologicalandtypologicalstudies. Theben 5. Mainz am Rhein. Niwiński, A. 2000. Iconography of the 21th Dynasty: Its main features. In C. Uehlinger (ed.), Imagesasmedia: sourcesfortheculturalhistoryoftheNearEastandthe EasternMediterranean:1stmillenniumBCE. Fribourg; Göttingen, 21–43. Nyord, R. 2014. Permeable containers: Body and cosmos in Middle Kingdom coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmos and eternity: New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Oxford, 29–44. O’Connor, D. 1974. Political systems and archaeological data in Egypt 2600–1780 B.C. WorldArchaeology6:1, 15–38. Petrie, W. M. F. 1890. Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. London. Petrie, W. M. F. 1909. Qurneh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 16. London. Porter, B. and R. L. B. Moss. 1964. Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, andpaintings,I:TheThebannecropolis,Part2.Royal tombs and smaller cemeteries. Second edition revised and augmented. Oxford. Quigley, C. 1961. The evolution of civilizations: An introductiontohistoricalanalysis. New York. Quirke, S. 2013. Collecting types: Rosellini, Petrie, Montelius. The before and the after. In M. Betrò and G. Miniaci (eds), Talking along the Nile: Ippolito Rosellini,travellersandscholarsofthe19thcenturyin Egypt.Proceedingsoftheinternationalconferenceheld ontheoccasionofthepresentationofprogettoRosellini. Pisa,June14–16,2012. Pisa, 197–210. Quirke, S. 2015a. Exploring religion in ancient Egypt. Chichester. Quirke, S. 2016. Birthtusks:thearmouryofhealthincontext – Egypt 1800 BC. Including publication of Petrie MuseumexamplesphotographedbyGianlucaMiniaci, and drawn from the photographs by Andrew Boyce. Middle Kingdom Studies 3. London. Rigault, P. 2015. The canopic chest of Khakheperreseneb/Iy – Louvre E 17108. In G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki

272

G. MINIACI

(eds), TheworldofMiddleKingdomEgypt(2000–1550 BC). Contributions on archaeology, art, religion, and written sources, Vol. I. Middle Kingdom Studies 1. London, 325–31. Rigault-Déon, P. 2013. Masques de momies du Moyen Empireégyptien:LesdécouvertesdeMirgissa. Paris. Roehrig, C. H. 2003. The Middle Kingdom tomb of Wah at Thebes. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis: Past, present and future. London, 11–13. Rosati, G., with an addendum by G. Miniaci. 2015. ‘Writingboard stelae’ with Sokar-formula: Preliminary account. In G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds), The world of MiddleKingdomEgypt(2000–1550BC).Contributions onarchaeology,art,religion,andwrittensources, Vol. II. Middle Kingdom Studies 2. London, 209–35. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2014. Resurrection in a box: The 25th Dynasty burial ensemble of Padiamunet. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity:Newresearchtrends intheiconographyandsymbolismofancientEgyptian coffins. Oxford, 111–24. Shennan, S. J. 2002. Genes, memes and human history. London. Shennan, S. J. 2008. Analytical archaeology. In J. Bintliff (ed.), Acompaniontoarchaeology. Oxford, 1–20. Sherratt, A. 1995. Reviving the grand narrative: Archaeology and long-term change. JournalofEuropeanArchaeology 3, 1–32. Sillar, B. and M. S. Tite. 2000, The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry42/1, 2–20. Smith, S. T. 1992. Intact tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom burial system. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts,AbteilungKairo 48, 193–231. Sommer, U. 2012. Wer hat Dornröschen aufweckt? Taphonomie und Mainstream-Archäologie. In S. Link (ed.), Taphonomie(nichtnur)imNeolithikum. Kerpen-Loogh, 15–34. Sousa, R. (ed.). 2014a. Body, cosmos and eternity: New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancientEgyptiancoffins. Oxford. Sousa, R. 2014b. ‘Spread your wings over me’: Iconography, symbolism and meaning of the central panel on yellow coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmos and eternity: New research trends in the iconography and symbolismofancientEgyptiancoffins. Oxford, 91–109. Spencer, P. 2011. Petrie and the discovery of earliest Egypt. In E. Teeter (ed.), Beforethepyramids:Theoriginsof Egyptiancivilization. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33. Chicago, 17–24. Stevens, A. 2006. PrivatereligionatAmarna:Thematerial evidence. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1587. Oxford.

Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 1994. Masks in ancient Egypt: The image of divinity. In J. Mack (ed.), Masks.Theartofexpression. London, 168–89. Taylor, J. H. 2001a. DeathandtheafterlifeinancientEgypt. London. Taylor, J. H. 2001b. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour andpaintinginancientEgypt. London, 164–81. Taylor, J. H. 2010. Changes in the afterlife. In W. Wendrich (ed.), Egyptianarchaeology. Chichester, 220–40. Taylor, J. H., D. Antoine and M. Vandenbeusch. 2014. Ancient lives, new discoveries: Eight mummies, eight stories. London. Tiradritti, F. 1994. L’album di disegni di Luigi Vassalli presso la Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano. In L’egittologoLuigiVassalli(1812–1887).Disegniedocumenti neiCiviciIstitutiCulturaliMilanesi. Milan, 45–128. Tiradritti, F. 2010. Luigi Vassalli and the archaeological season at western Thebes (1862–3). In M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current research, future prospects. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192. Leuven, 329–42. Troalen, L. G., J. Tate, and M. F. Guerra. 2014. Goldwork in ancient Egypt: Workshop practices at Qurneh in the 2nd Intermediate Period. JournalofArchaeological Science50, 219–26. van Walsem, R. 2014. From skin wrappings to architecture: The evolution of prehistoric, anthropoid wrappings to historic architectonic coffins/sarcophagi; separate contrasts optimally fused in single Theban ‘stola’ coffins (± 975–920 BC). In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmos and eternity: New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 1–27. Vidale, M. 1998. Operational sequences beyond linearity. In S. Milliken and M. Vidale (eds), Craft specialization:Operationalsequencesandbeyond. Oxford, 179– 84. Ward, A. W. 1982. Index of Egyptian administrative and religioustitlesoftheMiddleKingdom. Beirut. Wegner, J. 2009. A decorated birth-brick from South Abydos: New evidence on childbirth and birth magic in the Middle Kingdom. In D. P. Silverman, W. K. Simpson and J. Wegner (eds), Archaismandinnovation:Studies in the culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt. New Haven, CT; Philadelphia, PA, 447–96. Wengrow, D. 2014. The origins of monsters – image and cognition in the first age of mechanical reproduction. TheRostovtzeffLectures. Princeton; Oxford. Willems, H. 1996. ThecoffinofHeqata(CairoJdE36418): A case study of Egyptian funerary culture of the early

BURIAL EQUIPMENT OF RISHI COFFINS AND THE OSMOSIS OF THE ‘REBIRTH MACHINE’

Middle Kingdom. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 70. Leuven. Willems, H. 1997. The embalmer embalmed: Remarks on the meaning of the decoration of some Middle Kingdom coffins. In J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen, 343–72. Willems, H. 2014. Historical and archaeological aspects of Egyptian funerary culture: Religious ideas and ritual

273

practiceinMiddleKingdomelitecemeteries. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 73. Leiden; Boston. Winlock, H. E. 1921. The Egyptian Expedition 1920–1921: III. Excavations at Thebes. BulletinoftheMetropolitan MuseumofArt16/11, 29–53. Zitman, M. 2010. ThenecropolisofAssiut:Acasestudyof localEgyptianfuneraryculturefromtheOldKingdom totheendoftheMiddleKingdom. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 180. Leuven.

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION1 Anders BETTUM

Abstract This is the second paper based on the author’s PhD dissertation ‘Faces within faces – The symbolic function of nested yellow coffins in Ancient Egypt’, which was defended at the University of Oslo in 2013. The first paper (Bettum 2017) outlined the significance of nesting and wrapping in general, and suggested an interpretation of Dynasty 19 private coffin ensembles. The present paper goes more deeply into the implications of the ‘nesting principle’ for New Kingdom coffin decoration. It will be demonstrated how nesting, in time, became so essential to coffin decoration that multiple layers were incorporated into the standardised composition of single coffins. By Dynasty 19, a flexible system had developed that allowed the full effect of a complete three- or four-piece ensemble to be expressed in a single coffin. The identification of this mechanism, which is here called the ‘merging of layers’, has proved to be an effective tool for the interpretation of complex decorative schemes. First, the main currents of symbolism found in coffins and sarcophagi are reviewed, with demonstrations of how the repetition of layers into a nest adds to this symbolism. There follow some examples of how the ‘nesting principle’ in turn affected the development of the decorative schemes of individual coffins, and how several components of the nest tended to be merged in the decoration, particularly of inner coffins. Two main currents in coffin symbolism Few artefacts take on the wealth of symbolic functions that we can observe for ancient Egyptian coffins (for an overview, see Willems 1988, 238–44; Taylor 2001, 214–17). As Edward Brovarski (1984, 471) has pointed out, however, the many symbolic functions

1

The study would not have been possible without the kind and professional assistance of the staff at the British Museum, the Louvre, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn

tend to cluster around two principal themes, which are called here the ‘manifestation function’ and the ‘container function’. Themanifestation function The majority of coffins that have been discovered in Egypt are in the shape of a human being (‘anthropoid’), which represents the deceased. For most of Egyptian history, such coffins showed the deceased as a thoroughly wrapped mummy wearing a (striped) headcloth, but with the exposed face and sometimes hands of a living person. This figure, which by the New Kingdom had become closely associated with the god Osiris (and many other gods), was a very popular icon in Egyptian religion. The Egyptian name for it was sꜥḥ (for a discussion of this concept, see Schneider 1977, I, 65–8). In this paper, it is simply called ‘mummiform’. Not all anthropoid coffins were mummiform. In the Second Intermediate Period, the predominant coffin type represented the deceased as a human-faced bird (Sourouzian 1984, 268–9; Dodson 1998a; Miniaci 2011, 42–3), and some coffins from late Dynasty 18 and Dynasty 19 show the deceased wearing the dress of the living rather than mummy-wrappings, probably representing the deceased in his or her resurrected akhstate. Despite the variation in which aspect of the deceased is being depicted, it is safe to say that all types represent a manifestation of the deceased, an allusion that was emphasised by the use of vivid colours. The use of white, yellow, green, blue and red, often contrasted with pitch black, illustrates the intervention of the sun in the netherworld and the resurrection of the dead (for a discussion of polychromy as an expression of solar creation, see Goebs 2011, 79). Funerary texts tell us how the Egyptians believed that the sun god, when entering the netherworld, would free the dead

Museum of Art. Thanks also to Luigi Prada and François Tonic for allowing me to use their photographs.

276

A. BETTUM

from the confinement of their wrappings and coffins and thereby cause their coming into being or manifestation (Piankoff and Rambova 1954, 189–90, pls 51–2; Zandee 1960, 78–81; Englund 1978, 118, 192–3; Hornung 1983; Billing 2002, 127). The decorative schemes of private anthropoid coffins in the second half of the New Kingdom placed the deceased right at this moment of resurrection (Bettum 2017). The anthropoid coffin appeared in the Middle Kingdom. Until then, the manifestation function had been maintained by the mummy itself, particularly the outermost layer of the wrappings, which, since the Old Kingdom, had been beautified and emphasised in a number of ways (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 155–6). The origin of the anthropoid coffin tells us that it is closely associated with the mummy within. In fact, the Egyptian word for mummy-wrappings and anthropoid coffins was the same (wt), indicating that at one level the anthropoid coffin was regarded simply as a continuation of the layering found in the wrappings of the mummy. Thecontainerfunction On the other hand, the coffin or sarcophagus is also a ‘container’ of the deified being within, defining the space in which the deceased dwells and transforms. In this, it resembles the tomb more than it resembles the mummy. By ‘container’ is here meant any kind of space expressed in the coffin decoration, in which the deceased is the central actor. This includes an understanding of the coffin as a true ‘micro cosmos’, regarding for instance the lid as the sky and the case as the Earth or the netherworld. But there are also compositions that more specifically define mythological or ritual spaces, such as a temple or shrine, the womb of the sky goddess Nut, the embalming tent, or various locations in the netherworld. A single coffin may depict many different spaces at the same time, corresponding perhaps to various stages of the funerary ritual. The container function of the coffin was often expressed by architectural elements in the decoration (van Walsem 2014), or by texts and images invoking certain constellations of deities involved at specific stages of the transformation process (Bettum 2017). The container (or space) function is expressed most clearly and purely in rectangular coffins or sarcophagi. One example of this is the Dynasty 19 sarcophagus of Pashed from TT 3 (Zivie 1979), recorded in 1834 by Robert Hay (Fig. 1). The exterior of the case was

dominated by the judgement scene and the negative confession from BD 125, in a manner not dissimilar from their appearance in funerary papyri (Figs 2 and 3). It is interesting to note how the context alters the meaning of these compositions. When applied to the sarcophagus of Pashed, BD 125 takes on meaning that is lost in the papyrus version of the spell. The architectural elements of the sarcophagus, such as the rectangular shape, cavetto cornice, etc., merge with architectural elements depicted in the papyri to illustrate the judgement hall (door leaves, frieze, etc.). The sarcophagus becomes the judgement hall. Note also how the decoration of the sarcophagus seems to be a natural continuation of the decoration of the sarcophagus chamber. This is very typical for the period, and illustrates the conceptual similarity between the sarcophagus and the tomb. The deceased would have been present in two capacities: first as the actual mummy within the sarcophagus, and secondly as a blessed and victorious spirit in the dress of the living, which is how he appears in the vignette of the spell. The choice of decoration stresses the transformation of the deceased from one state to the other, and ensures a successful outcome of the trial. What is common for the various spaces expressed in the coffin decoration is that they create a safe and pure environment that would ease the afterlife transformations of the deceased. The plural ‘transformations’ is used here, since – contrary to the situation in most Western religions of today – the transition from life to death was not regarded as one single event, but one that would repeat itself every night for eternity, following the daily rhythm of the sun. When the sun god entered the netherworld at night, the dead would come to life, and enjoy a moment of bliss among gods and ancestors before falling back to the inertia of their coffins at the departure of the life-giving solar rays (Lesko 1971; Demarée 1983, 224). It was essential to capture the transformation process in the coffin decoration, where it could continue to be effective for eternity, after the funerary ritual had been carried out and the ancestor cult had died out. To quote Harco Willems (1988, 239), coffins were ‘ritual machines’, which would continue to serve the deceased for eternity. The dichotomy between the ‘container function’ and the ‘manifestation function’ was clear-cut in the Middle Kingdom, when they were expressed by two very different-looking types of body containers: the rectangular ‘chest’, representing a suitable mytho-ritual

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

277

Fig. 1: The sarcophagus of Pashed from TT 3 was integrated into the decoration of the burial chamber. The central field of the sarcophagus, left blank in this drawing but rendered in detail in separate drawings, contained the negative confession from BD 125. Line drawing by Robert Hay (© The British Library Board. Add MS 29843, 92).

space, and the anthropoid coffin, representing its divine inhabitant. As we shall see, however, things became more complicated, as anthropoid coffins soon started to take on multiple layers of symbolism. It will be argued, however, that the distinctions between the two main functions remained clear-cut in the minds of the Egyptians.

2

For the latest defence and refinement of the traditional definition, see van Walsem 2014, 6, n. 26. According to René van Walsem, the crucial factor is whether the body container is made

‘Coffin’and‘sarcophagus’:alternativedefinitions In most standard works on coffins, ‘sarcophagi’ are defined as body containers made of stone, whereas ‘coffins’ are made of wood (i.e. Lapp and Niwiński 2001, 279).2 When working on coffin symbolism, particularly in the New Kingdom and Dynasty 21, the

of ‘soft’ (wood and basketry) or ‘hard’ (stone, metal, or pottery) materials. Cartonnage is not counted among the soft coffinmaterials, but singled out as a third category.

278

A. BETTUM

Fig. 2: The negative confession from the Book of the Dead of Ani, spell 125. London, British Museum, EA 10470, 31–32 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 3: The negative confession from the Book of the Dead of Nu, spell 125. London, British Museum, EA 10477, 23 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

present author finds these definitions of little value. As discussed above, the primary symbolic function of an Egyptian body container is given by its basic shape (anthropoid or rectangular), not the material from which it is made (although this may also have been important, perhaps more in certain periods than in others). Therefore it has been found necessary to adopt an alternative working definition for the terms ‘coffin’ and ‘sarcophagus’. Following Louis Zonhoven (1979, 92) and Stuart Tyson Smith (1992, 214), who were also working on New Kingdom material, basic shapes will be used as the only criterion to judge whether a body container should be called a coffin or a sarcophagus. In the following, rectangular body containers, essentially functioning as spaces of transformation, will be called ‘sarcophagi’. Anthropoid body containers, primarily serving as manifestations of the deceased, will be termed ‘coffins’. Nesting: multiplying the layers Turning from the symbolism of individual coffins, this section focuses on coffin nests. What happens when these sophisticated ‘ritual machines’ are stacked inside one another in sets of three or four? First, the practice of nesting follows the two main functions of Egyptian body containers described above: the manifestation function and the container function. Apart from this principal dichotomy, it is important to acknowledge the importance of repetition. The present study began by searching for differences in symbolic

Fig. 4: In two-dimensional art, nested coffins, including the mummy, were rendered at the same scale, as a series of mummiform figures in line, one after the other (Drawing: A. Bothner-By).

279

meaning from one component to the next in the nest, in the hope that somehow they would talk to one another, and reveal a great narrative that no one had heard before. This approach has its limitations. Nesting is largely about repetition, and an interpretation of nesting requires a discussion about the significance of repetition in Egyptian funerary art. As we have seen, anthropoid coffins are primarily manifestations of the deified deceased. Two-dimensional representations of such nests tell us that the Egyptians regarded anthropoid coffin nests as a series of such manifestations, lined up one after the other at the same scale (Fig. 4). The mummy itself, with the mask and other ornaments, is just another member of this series (Fig. 5). Most of the royal and high-elite nests of anthropoid coffins from the mid-New Kingdom onwards contain three or four manifestation layers, including the masks and trappings placed directly on the mummy. The number seems in part to depend on the gender of the deceased. We have three female high-elite coffin nests preserved from Dynasty 19, dated by John H. Taylor to

Fig 5: Two-dimensional representations of nested anthropoid coffins show the mummy, inner and outer coffins at the same scale, erect and in line, one after the other. Detail from the tomb of Userhat, TT 51 (Tempera painting by N. de Garis Davies, MMA 15.5.17b, Rogers Fund 1915. Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

280

A. BETTUM

the reign of Ramesses II (Taylor 1999).3 All of them have three manifestation layers, comprising a two-part mummy-cover, an inner coffin and an outer coffin. No male high-elite nests have survived from Dynasty 19, but Maiherpri, Yuya and Tutankhamun of Dynasty 18 all had four manifestation layers.4 This may have been the case in male high-elite burials from Dynasty 19 as well. The numbers are not coincidental. The number three represents plurality or (cyclic) infinity in Egyptian symbolism (Schäfer, Brunner-Traut and Baines 2002, 184, n. 147; Wilkinson 1994, 133), whereas the number four is associated with spatial totality and the cyclic transformation of the sun god (Assmann 1995, 27, 39). This is reason enough to regard the nests of anthropoid coffins not only as a series of manifestations of the deified deceased, but as a very long, perhaps even infinite, series of such manifestations (Fig. 6). Such long ‘queues’ of mummiform deities are an iconographic element that we see everywhere in funerary art, and which have a variety of connotations. We have seen it in the example of BD 125, where the fortytwo judges line up in this manner (see Figs 2 and 3). Similar queues, of both standing and squatting mummies, are common in coffin decoration from Dynasty 20 and onwards (Fig. 7).5 The most relevant parallel here is perhaps a genre of religious compositions known as litanies, in which gods such as Ra or Osiris were worshipped in lists containing ‘all his names’, accompanied by pictorial representations of ‘all his forms’.6 The most famous example is the Litany of Ra, originally a royal funerary composition of Dynasty 18 that invokes seventy-five forms of the sun god (Hornung 1999, 136–47). In addition to emphasising the transcendence and potency of the god in question, these compositions clearly express the capacity of transformation.

Regarded as a kind of litany, the nest of anthropoid coffins not only strengthened the association between the deceased and Osiris/Ra, but also ensured that the deceased would continue to be ‘reborn’ or ‘become manifest’ in the netherworld for eternity. It is interesting to note that, on the one hand, litanies were used as decoration on the individual parts of the ensemble. On the other hand, one can regard the entire coffin nest as a kind of litany of the deceased. This gives an interesting part-to-whole connection, which is very typical for the religious art of this period. Among others, Andrzej Niwiński (1989a, 19–21, 44, 121) has commented on this pars pro toto tendency in the iconography of the period, most notably on coffins and funerary papyri of Dynasty 21. If the anthropoid coffins represent an infinite series of manifestations of the deceased, then the container function of the coffin would also need to be repeated,

3

5

4

These are the ensembles of Henutmehyt in London (British Museum EA 48001), Tamutnofret in Paris (Louvre N 2631, 2531, 2623 and 2620) and Takayt in Frankfurt (Liebieghaus 1651 a–f). Taylor published the ensemble of Henutmehyt in the cited article. For the ensemble of Takayt, see Polz 1993, 302–23. In addition, both Maiherpri and Yuya had a wooden sarcophagus (as did Yuya’s wife). Tutankhamun had multiple sarcophagi, one in stone and four in gilded wood (‘shrines’). It is not certain whether queens also could have multiple sarcophagi.

Fig. 6: The three or four manifestation layers found in Dynasty 18 and 19 coffin nests probably represent an infinite series of manifestations (Drawing: A. Bothner-By).

6

To the author’s knowledge, the earliest example of this is from the early Dynasty 19 sarcophagus of Sennedjem (Cairo, JE 27301), where a series of squatting mummiform deities, this time the wardens of the netherworld gates, features on the lid. For a discussion of the theological implications of this, and further examples of its use in Dynasty 21 coffin decoration, see the work of Andrzej Niwiński, for instance 1989b, 62–3.

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

281

Fig. 7: One common decorative scheme on Theban coffins from Dynasty 20 displays a series of mummiform deities on the case walls, facing the head end of the coffin. From the outer coffin of Iotefamun, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 26.3.1 (© The Metropolitan Museum of Art).

since each manifestation of the deceased seems to have required a ‘space of transformation’. In royal ensembles, this was done by multiplying the number of sarcophagi enclosing the deceased, such as in the case of the ‘shrines’ of Tutankhamun, or the series of stone sarcophagi that were employed by some of the Ramesside kings. One could perhaps include nests of Middle Kingdom sarcophagi in this discussion as well. In these nests, it is the notion of space that is repeated. If we explore this notion a little further, as we did with the image of the mummy above, we find again parallels in the religious art. It is interesting to note that, in contrast to the nested anthropoid coffins, the rectangular ones are actually rendered as concentric structures in twodimensional representations, such as the nested sarcophagi or shrines of Ramesses IV in the Turin plan (Fig. 8). We could also imagine a string of chambers, in much the same kind of relationship as the queue of deities represented by the nest of anthropoid coffins. In the display of the shrines of Tutankhamun in the Cairo Museum, the nest has been opened up in this way, by

placing the shrines in a row one after another. With the largest one in front and the smaller ones following behind, the curators have been able to demonstrate a similarity between Tutankhamun’s nest and the New Kingdom temple plan. No similar representation of nested sarcophagi exists in the ancient Egyptian sources, but if we turn to the temples, we see that the opposite actually holds true: there are numerous examples of temples depicted in a compacted form in two-dimensional art (Fig. 9). The Late Period naos-stelae actually sum up the entire temple complex by nesting the temple portals into one concentric structure. Finally, the imaginary geography/architecture of the netherworld could be depicted as a series of chambers or halls, separated by portals. Again, there are examples of how this geography could be rendered as a concentric structure. One example is the false door in the temple of Osiris Heqa-Djet in Karnak (Fig. 10), dating to Dynasty 25 (Schwarz 2010). This false door shows seven portals nested inside one another, much as in the example of the naos-stelae considered above. In one

282

A. BETTUM

Fig. 9: ‘Naos-stela’ with nested portals: a compacted rendering of Thoth in his temple. San Jose, Rosicrucian Museum, RC1727 (Photograph: L. Prada).

Fig. 8: The nested sarcophagi (or ‘shrines’) of Ramesses IV, as sketched in the Turin plan. Turin, The Egyptian Museum, cat. 1885 RCGE 17469 (Drawing: A. Bettum).

Middle Kingdom composition (CT 458-460), the netherworld geography is described as a series of concentric or spiralling roads of fire, running through the coils of the giant serpent Mehen. If the deceased could penetrate to the centre of the structure, resurrection would be achieved (Piccione 1990; Bettum 2017). In other words, there seems to be a close connection between nested sarcophagi, the New Kingdom temple plan, and the netherworld geography (or architecture). All of these are important arenas for transformation and manifestation. Merging of layers 1: the mummiform image rendered as if inside the secondary decoration In the New Kingdom, nested sarcophagi do not occur except in royal burials. In private burials, the

repetition of the container function was achieved in a less extravagant, but perhaps one could say more elegant, manner. The anthropoid coffins of the New Kingdom not only covered the manifestation function of coffins, they also covered the container function. Taylor (1989, 32) has demonstrated how New Kingdom coffins took over much of the decoration that previously had been reserved for rectangular coffins or sarcophagi. In this author’s opinion, this development can be traced back to the rishi coffins of the Second Intermediate Period, where we sometimes find architectural elements in the decoration (van Walsem 2014, 16), as well as other kinds of decoration alluding to ritual and mythological space (Miniaci 2011, 39–40; Bettum 2017). At the same time, the sarcophagus becomes superfluous in private burials, which indicates that the rishi coffin had assimilated both the manifestation function of the anthropoid coffin and the container function of the sarcophagus. Building on Taylor’s observation, the present author would go further and say that not only did the decoration from the sarcophagi transfer to the coffins, but the two actually merged into one body container, which maintained both functions.

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

283

wrapping and unwrapping in ancient Egypt, Christina Riggs (2014, 140–51) suggests that inscriptions on statues might sometimes have functioned as separate layers of body wrappings. As a substitute sarcophagus, the secondary decoration of New Kingdom anthropoid coffins likewise represents a layer that must be regarded as external to the coffins on which it occurs. Now we see how the repetition of the container function could be achieved so smoothly in private burials. Each anthropoid coffin in the nest contained an image of the deceased and a built-in space of transformation. There was obviously a strong dependency between the two main functions, which translated to later nests: repetition of the manifestation function required repetition of the container function, and vice versa. Merging of layers 2: the lid rendered as if inside the case

In the New Kingdom anthropoid coffins, the container function was expressed in a composition of texts and images surrounding the coffin on all sides, but still remaining clearly distinguishable from the decorative elements belonging to the image of the deceased. This decorative scheme, which is a three-dimensional version of BD 151, became standardised early in Dynasty 18.7 Again, we see how the decorative elements transform the coffin into a ritual space that encapsulates the mummiform image of the deceased just as the sarcophagus did in the royal burials. In her recent book on

Aidan Dodson (1998b, 334, n. 18) has pointed out that the innermost coffins in high-elite ensembles of Dynasty 18 tend to stand out from the outer (mainly black) ones by being completely gilded, and suggests that this may have held symbolic meaning. This may be a first step towards a differentiation in the manifestation layers, which is expressed more clearly in the later sources. In Dynasty 19, the innermost manifestation layer stands out more clearly by depicting the deceased in a daily life costume, rather than in mummywrappings (Fig. 11). In both cases, we are dealing with an idea of the blessed spirit trapped under the mummywrappings, waiting for Ra to set it free. This is also alluded to in the standardised texts on the coffins themselves, such as in the recitation by Anubis Khentysehnetjer on the left side of the coffin cases in Dynasty 19: ‘O my mother Isis, may you come and remove the bandages upon me from he who has done it against me, eternally’.8 At the time when resurrection should take place, the wrappings were obviously regarded as ‘a means of restraint in the hands of the enemy’ (Billing 2002, 127). For both these types, ensembles with a gilded innermost layer and ensembles with a lifelike innermost

7

8

Fig. 10: In the temple of Osiris Heqa-Djet in Karnak, the region of Osiris in the netherworld was rendered as seven portals nested inside one another (© François Tonic, Pharaon Magazine).

Images and textual references to Thoth also occur, and BD 161 was added to the official decorative programme in the reign of Amenhotep III (Bettum 2017).

These formulaic texts are often highly abbreviated. This relatively complete example is taken from the outer coffin of Khonsu from TT 1, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA 86.1.1.A).

284

A. BETTUM

Fig. 11: The coffin nest of Iy-Neferty, including a mummy-cover featuring the deceased in ‘daily life’ dress. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 86.1.5a-c (Photograph: A. Bettum).

Fig. 12: The mummy of Katebet wearing the long-type mask showing the deceased in ‘daily life’ dress. London, British Museum, EA 6665 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 13: The coffin of Weretwahset has a lid showing the deceased in daily life dress, whereas the case shows the traditional mummiform image. Most conspicuous is the wig that continues on the case as a striped Osirian headcloth. New York, Brooklyn Museum of Art, 37.47ab (Courtesy Brooklyn Museum).

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

layer, there are examples of merging. The coffin of Meryt from TT 8, now in Turin, breaks the pattern of entirely gilded inner coffins by having an entirely gilded lid, and a predominantly black coffin case (Schiaparelli 1927, fig. 28). This mismatch has led some scholars to suggest that the two parts of the coffin were made separately, perhaps for two different individuals (Forbes 1998, 205). However, one might wonder if the mismatch may not have been intentional and another example of ‘merging of layers’.9 By merging the inner and outer coffin into one in this manner, the artisan was able to achieve the same effect in Meryt’s single coffin as in the more complex ensemble of her husband Kha. If this interpretation is correct, the lid would represent a separate, innermost layer, and the case an outer layer. In Dynasty 19, we are witnessing the same phenomenon. At first, mummiform and daily life-type layers were expressed in separate components of the nest. The first coffins depicting the deceased in daily life dress have been found in northern cemeteries, and were made of stone. The trend probably goes back to the Amarna Period (Grajetzki 1996). In Thebes, the tradition may have started with (female) masks, perhaps even before the Amarna Period (Reeves 2013, 28). A good postAmarna example is the ensemble of Katebet in the British Museum (Fig. 12). The mummy has a long-type mask and shows the deceased with a realistic wig10 and a white tunic. Sennedjem and his wife Iy-Neferty from TT 1 had mummy-covers in the daily life dress. In most cases, however, lifelike elements are found in combination with mummiform elements. In some cases, such as in the ensemble of Iset from TT 1 (Cooney 2007, cat. C12, figs 108–18) or that of Weretwahset now in Brooklyn (Cooney 2008, 134–8), the two aspects of the deceased were combined by reserving the lifelike elements for the lid, and the mummiform elements for the case (Fig. 13). This is the exact same way of rendering the inner and outer layers as in the example of Meryt above, with the lid representing the inner layer, and the case representing the outer.

9

The present author has not had the opportunity to examine the coffin of Meryt in person, but from the picture published by Schiaparelli, the lid and case seem to fit perfectly. Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy Bryan (1992, 306) also seem to regard the mismatch in coloration as intentional. The coffin of Mahu in the Pushkin Museum, St. Petersburg (IIa 5249) may offer a parallel.

285

Merging of layers 3: the upper part of the lid rendered as if inside the lower part of the lid Another way of combining the daily life and mummiform elements in the decoration was to divide the lid or mummy-cover in two, and let the upper part represent the deceased in daily life costume, while the coffin case and the lower part of the lid represented the deceased as a mummy. The two-part mummy-cover that was introduced in high-elite burials during the reign of Ramesses II illustrates this point well (Fig. 14). The lower parts of these mummy-covers repeat much of the decoration from the traditional mummiform coffins. This includes the transverse and longitudinal bands inscribed with formulae invoking the four Sons of Horus and Anubis in his capacity as Imiwt and Khentysehnetjer, while Isis and sometimes Nephthys feature at the foot end. The resulting panels in between the bands have been filled with images similar to the ones on contemporary coffins, and a winged figure of Nut sometimes crowns the composition. Perhaps as a means to create an even stronger association with the wrappings of the mummy, the lower part was executed in openwork technique. The result was a transparency that would allow the outer shroud of the mummy to function as background for the decoration on the mummy-cover, thereby blurring the distinction between the two. The upper parts of these covers were long masks or busts that included the collar and arms crossed on the chest. On the masks, however, the deceased was depicted not as a mummy, but as a living person wearing daily life dress, including a realistic black wig, and with the pleated sleeves of a tunic protruding from underneath the collar above the elbows.11 The two-part mummy-covers make it possible to establish the order of the layers involved. The most telling example is the cover belonging to Tamutnofret in the Louvre, which closely resembles that of Henutmehyt seen in Fig. 14. Tamutnofret’s mask is 68cm long, whereas the lower part, including the protruding

10

11

Marilina Betrò (2013, 20) has noted that the lid of this coffin is (partially) gilded, whereas the case is all black. As opposed to the striped Osirian head-cloth used for mummiform images. The collar itself is a decorative element that occurs on both mummiform and daily life images of the deceased.

A. BETTUM

286

Fig. 14: Two-part mummy-cover of Henutmehyt. The lower part depicts mummy-wrappings, whereas the mask shows the deceased in ‘daily life’ dress. London, British Museum, EA 48001 (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

head of the goddess Nut on top, is 111cm long. Put together, the mummy-cover would be 179cm long, whereas the interior length of Tamutnofret’s inner coffin is just 173cm. The conclusion must be that the two pieces originally overlapped. Considering the decoration of the lower piece, with the separate head of the goddess Nut standing up at the top, there can be little doubt as to which piece was placed on top of the other. The lower piece representing the wrapping, crowned with the head of Nut, must have been placed over the collar of the mask. This also corresponds nicely with earlier ensembles where masks only were used, such as that of Katebet mentioned earlier (see Fig. 12). There are remains of linen glued to the elbow of her mask, indicating that it originally was (partly) covered by the mummy-wrappings, and archival photographs show that a band of linen originally passed across the mask below the face. The mask would have appeared to be emerging from the textiles, an image we know well from earlier periods. The conclusion must be that the lower part of these mummy-covers, representing the mummy wrapping, was regarded as an upper layer. The bust part, depicting the trapped akh spirit, represented a lower, partly unwrapped, layer. This, it will be argued, transferred to coffin decoration. In late Dynasty 18 and Dynasty 19, most inner coffins show both manifestation layers merged. The black, realistic wig and a red skin tone for the face and hands became standard for both men and women. In addition, we sometimes find the pleated tunic by the elbows, naked feet, sculpted breasts or other indications of a living being protruding from the wrappings. The mummiform elements included the outer straps of the mummy that at this time continued from the lid to the case. The layering is made explicit by the fact that even if the wigs on the lids were now of the realistic type, the cases continued to show the striped headcloth of the mummiform image. Over time, however, these elements become fewer and more stylised, and hence less recognisable. One such element is the realistic wig type, which was reserved for inner coffins and mummycovers in male ensembles. In female ensembles, realistic wig-types were also used on the outer coffins, presumably for reasons of gender identification (Cooney 2010). The monochrome black wigs of Dynasty 20 and early Dynasty 21 may have been a stylised version of the realistic wig of the living used in Dynasty 19. The pleated sleeves of a tunic at the upper arms of the lifelike image of the deceased underwent a similar

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

287

Fig. 15: The development of the tunic sleeves on coffins from Dynasty 19 to Dynasty 21. Left to right: a) Dynasty 19: Mummy-cover of Henutmehyt, London, British Museum EA 48001 (Photograph: A. Bettum). b) Dynasty 20: Outer coffin of Iotefamun, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 26.3.1 (© The Metropolitan Museum of Art). c) Early Dynasty 21: Outer coffin of Tanethereret, Paris, Musée du Louvre, E. 13027 (Photograph: A. Bettum). d) Mid-Dynasty 21: Outer coffin of Menkheperra, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 25.3.7 (Photograph: A. Bettum).

development (Fig. 15). Already in Dynasty 19, the sculpted pleats, seen for instance on the mummy-cover of Henutmehyt, could be replaced by a triangle of painted red stripes. When the stripes occur on Dynasty 20 coffins, they are still relatively prominent and recognisable. They can also be found on coffins from Dynasty 21, but are much less prominent and often cluttered by other motifs. At this point, the red stripes are hardly recognisable as tunic sleeves any longer. However, the understanding of the coffin as a layered entity lived on in new forms. The reticulate pattern on a red background introduced on mummy-covers in Dynasty 20 (Schreiber 2006) obviously represents a new ‘layer’. On some coffins of Dynasty 21, a plumage pattern replaces the remains of the pleated tunic above the elbows on coffin lids. Since the rishi coffin went out of fashion in private burials in the early New Kingdom, this pattern had been a royal prerogative.

12

The interior of the coffins could be counted as a fourth layer, enclosing the other three. For discussion, see Bettum 2017.

Dynasty 19 inner coffins as triple-layered entities Since the design derived from BD 151 and BD 161 continued from Dynasty 18 into Dynasty 19, we can actually identify three layers at work in the decoration of inner coffins of Dynasty 19: 1. The outermost layer is, as we have seen, the secondary decoration: the painted texts and images functioning as a substitute sarcophagus and defining the coffin as a space of transformation and manifestation. 2. The mummiform image of the deceased was perceived as if enclosed within this space. 3. ‘Wrapped’ inside the mummiform image, we find the trapped akh spirit, rendered as a living person in daily life dress.12 This model helps to explain some previously illunderstood features of coffin decoration in late Dynasty

288

A. BETTUM

18 and Dynasty 19, such as the realistic wigs, red faces, striped continuation of the wigs, etc. explained above. Another decorative element that has puzzled scholars are the wedjat eyes often found on New Kingdom anthropoid coffin cases, and in Dynasty 19, sometimes also on the lids below the collar. This element was probably introduced as early as Dynasty 6 (van Walsem 2014, 13), and soon became a standard element of sarcophagus decoration. Understood as part of layer 1 (above), it is no surprise that this element was continued on the New Kingdom anthropoid coffins, even if the deceased was now ‘quite able to “see” through the face of the lid’ (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 209, fig. 267). As part of the painted ‘substitute sarcophagus’, the eyes could continue to function in the same way that they had always done. The system seems to have survived at least into Dynasty 21. It is important to note that the elements of the various layers were not mixed randomly, but remained in fixed positions, indicating that they were used consciously. After Dynasty 19, the innermost, lifelike elements were restricted to the upper part of the coffin lid. The intermediary, mummiform image of the deceased was expressed in the lower part of the lid and on the case walls. The outermost layer defining the space of transformation ‘floats’ on top of the mummiform image. During the course of Dynasty 20, however, the elements of the mummiform image disappear from the case walls, which thereafter were used almost exclusively to define space(s) of transformation.

took over a coffin project initiated for her husband. The same may have been the case for the coffin of Katebet. We also see high-quality inner coffins combined with last-minute adoptions of other components (outer coffin or mummy-cover). This is particularly well documented in Dynasty 21, as exemplified by the ensemble of Khonsumes now divided between Stockholm and Uppsala (Bettum 2014, 180–3). Another example is the ensemble of Nesiamun owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but partly on loan elsewhere.13 The ensemble is better known by the name that is recorded on the older and obviously reused outer coffin: Iotefamun (see Fig. 7; see also Winlock 1921, 34–6). The ensemble of Katebet also exemplifies this, but here the high-quality, custom-made element was not a coffin, but a mask (see Fig. 12). In terms of symbolism, it is obvious that layering was one of the key attributes of the mummiform image, a being subjected to ritual wrapping and the significance that this act entailed in the minds of the Egyptians (Bettum 2017). The act of unwrapping this image, on the other hand, was not meant to take place in the physical world of the living, but was reserved for the gods in the mythological realm of the netherworld. Whereas these ideas seem to have been relatively stable over the centuries, there is great variation in how and to what extent the layering was rendered in coffin decoration, as well as in the iconography of the blessed spirit trapped inside the wrappings.

Why should layers be merged?

Postscript: a review of René van Walsem’s 2014 article

In the case of Meryt, it has been suggested that the merging of layers could have been a way of condensing the nest to match the lower economic capacity of members of the sub-elite. In the extravagantly gilded ensembles of Henutmehyt and Tamutnofret, however, this was certainly not the case. There may have been both practical and symbolic reasons for merging the layers. Much like tombs, coffin nests may have been built in stages: the inner coffin first, then other elements. As with tombs, we find coffin projects that were abandoned in favour of better ones, suggesting an unexpected rise in status or wealth of the owner. The coffin of Meryt may be an example of this, since she

Since the present author’s paper was delivered at the British Museum colloquium in summer 2014, van Walsem has published an article (2014) that relates closely to the topic of the present paper. I have referred to the paper several times in the foregoing, but without discussing its central issues, which deserve special attention. The article builds on an important observation made in van Walsem’s important study of the stola coffins of late Dynasty 21 and early Dynasty 22. During this work, he recorded a great deal of architectural detail in the coffin decoration, not only relating to the many motifs depicting shrines of various kinds, but also architectural elements that defined the otherwise

13

The mummy-cover and inner coffin are in the Virginia Museum of Art in Richmond.

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

anthropoid coffin as a building (van Walsem 1997, 358–61). In his recent article, van Walsem elaborates on this, and demonstrates how coffin decoration related to domestic, temple and tomb architecture from the earliest times. Although van Walsem’s book (1997) has been of inspiration to my own work, our studies are largely independent of one another, and it is therefore interesting to note that we have reached so many similar conclusions. Most important is the recognition of the ‘strong connection between architecture and the human body’ that we find in this material (van Walsem 2014, 23), and the understanding that ‘… this antagonism and the ways to deal with it was one of the main driving forces behind the evolution of the various shape and decoration typologies that are reflected in more than three millennia of coffin/sarcophagus production in ancient Egypt’ (van Walsem 2014, 6). Van Walsem’s reinterpretation of the so-called palace-façade (or serekh) design (2014, 8–10) is refreshing. His suggestion that this design does not represent the royal palace at all, but rather the enclosure wall of cities, temples, funerary complexes etc., is convincing. Since this design usually occurs in combination with other, more specific elements of architecture, such as a lid in the shape of a temple roof, van Walsem has actually identified an early example of what I would call ‘merging of layers’. On sarcophagi with such decorative elements, the multiple layers of nested architecture have been translated into one compacted structure (for a related discussion of ‘nesting’ in the Old Kingdom royal funerary complex, see Roth 1998). Apart from differences in analytical tools, such as terminology and categorisation, which is unavoidable in independent studies,14 there is one central idea in van Walsem’s article that differs from my own analysis. In addition to the process of architectonisation in the development of anthropoid coffins, van Walsem also points to the occurrence of anthropoid elements in the decoration of architectonic (= rectangular) coffins and sarcophagi, particularly eyes and eye-panels. This observation gives rise to what he presents as a symmetrical model, where anthropoid coffins are gradually

14

Perhaps most importantly, my category ‘container function’ is wider than van Walsem’s ‘architectonisation’, and includes what he calls the ‘liturgification’ and ‘cosmofication’ aspects of coffin decoration (2014, 13). In terms of the symbolic function of the coffin decoration (which is my concern), I find it difficult to distinguish strictly between these aspects. The temple is also a

289

turned into architecture, and architectonic coffins or sarcophagi likewise turned into persons. If I understand him correctly, van Walsem explains this as a need to soften the obvious contrast between the two (2014, 12). My study of multi-layered coffin decoration offers a somewhat different explanation to this balancing of anthropoid and architectonic elements. First, there is little symmetry between the two phenomena. While the evidence for ‘architectonisation’ of anthropoid coffins is overwhelmingly rich and diverse, the evidence for the opposite is quite limited. Secondly, I miss a discussion of the agency implied by the anthropomorphic elements found on architectonic coffins. Does the notion of anthropoisation imply that the coffin was understood as an agent in its own right, and that the eyes were provided so that the coffin could see for itself? There is one famous example from the Ramesside Period where a coffin seems to be addressed as a being in its own right (Frandsen 1992). For the most part, however, the evidence seems to indicate that the coffin channelled the agency of some other being, particularly the goddess Nut, or perhaps more importantly, the deceased him- or herself, in association with gods such as Osiris, Horus or Ra. The eye-panels on Middle Kingdom rectangular coffins are often found in combination with a false door, and seem to represent the agency of the deceased within the coffin (Willems 1988, 120). In that case, the eyes could be regarded as symbols in a semiotic sense, quite literally functioning as a window signifying the ability of the deceased to see (and hence act) beyond the walls of the coffin. Another example of ‘anthropoisation’ of coffins offered by van Walsem are the Osirian effigies sculpted in the round on top of some Ramesside royal sarcophagi (2014, 17). My explanation of this phenomenon would be that the repetition of the container function also required a repetition of the manifestation function. The introduction of multiple sarcophagi (or shrines, such as in the tomb of Tutankhamun) entailed a distance between the outer sarcophagi and the mummy within. As has been argued above, this connection could not be broken. To compensate for the growing distance between anthropoid and architectonic elements, an additional

(micro-)cosmos, and certainly the quintessential arena of ritual activity and liturgy. To give one example, it is impossible to say whether a winged figure of the goddess Nut on a coffin lid represents the sky or a temple ceiling. In either case, she is there to define the space beneath her as pure and suitable for ritual transformation.

290

A. BETTUM

image of the king was introduced in the void between the outer sarcophagi (note that there is no effigy on the outermost sarcophagus of Merenptah). Rather than softening the contrast between the anthropoid and the architectonic, the effigies were there to uphold and reinforce it. The great project of the Egyptian coffin-makers was, in my mind, not to diminish the dichotomy between body and space, but to reinvent it in ever new and meaningful ways. The merging of layers, discussed in this paper, reflects some of this creativity.

Bibliography Assmann, J. 1995. EgyptiansolarreligionintheNewKingdom. Re, Amun and the crisis of polytheism. London; New York. Betrò, M. 2013. Firenze inv. nr. 9477: the coffin of Qenamon (TT 93)? EgittoeVicinoOriente36, 15–20, 98, pl. 13. Bettum, A. 2014. Lot 14 from Bab el-Gasus (Sweden and Norway): The modern history of the collection and a reconstruction of the ensembles. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity.Newresearchtrendsinthe iconographyandsymbolismofancientEgyptiancoffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 167–86. Bettum, A. 2017. Nesting: The development and significance of the yellow-type coffin ensemble. In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), ProceedingsFirstVaticanCoffinConference. Vatican, 71–82. Billing, N. 2002. Nut – the goddess of life in text and iconography. Uppsala. Brovarski, E. 1984. Sarkophag. In W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), LexikonderÄgyptologie 5. Wiesbaden, 471–85. Cooney, K. M. 2007. Thecostofdeath.Thesocialandeconomic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. M. 2008. How much did a coffin cost? The social and economic aspects of funerary arts in Ancient Egypt. In E. Bleiberg (ed.), Toliveforever.Egyptiantreasures fromtheBrooklynMuseum. New York, 110–45. Cooney, K. M. 2010. Gender transformation in death: a case study of coffins from Ramesside Period Egypt. Near EasternArchaeology73 (4), 224–37. Demarée, R. J. 1983. The Ꜣḫ ỉḳr n Rꜥ-stelae. On ancestor worship in Ancient Egypt. Egyptologische Uitgaven 3. Leiden. Dodson, A. 1998a. A funerary mask in Durham and mummy adornment in the late Second Intermediate Period and

early Eighteenth Dynasty. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology84, 93–9, pls 14–15. Dodson, A. 1998b. On the burial of Maihirpri and certain coffins of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In C. J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists.Cambridge,3–9September1995. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. Leuven, 331–8. Englund, G. 1978. Akh:Unenotionreligieusedansl’Égypte pharaonique. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Boreas 11. Uppsala. Forbes, D. C. 1998. Tombs.Treasures.Mummies.Sevengreat discoveriesofEgyptianarchaeology. Sebastopol, CA. Frandsen, P. J. 1992. The letter to Ikhtay’s coffin: O. Louvre inv. no. 698. In R. J. Demarée and A. Egberts (eds), Village voices. Proceedings of the symposium ‘Texts fromDeirel-Medinaandtheirinterpretation’,Leiden, May31–June1,1991. Leiden, 31–49. Goebs, K. 2011. King as god and god as king. Colour, light, and transformation in Egyptian ritual. In R. Gundlach and K. Spence (eds), Palaceandtemplearchitecture– decoration–ritual:Cambridge,July,16th–17th,2007. Wiesbaden, 57–101. Grajetzki, W. 1996. Ein Sargtyp des Neuen Reiches und sein möglicher Ursprung in der Amarnazeit. Göttinger Miszellen150, 65–70. Hornung, E. 1983. Vom Sinn der Mumifizierung. DieWelt desOrients14, 167–75. Hornung, E. 1999. TheAncientEgyptianbooksoftheafterlife (translation by D. Lorton). Ithaca; London. Ikram, S. and A. Dodson. 1998. The mummy in ancient Egypt:Equippingthedeadforeternity. London. Kozloff, A. P. and B. M. Bryan (eds). 1992. Egypt’sdazzling sun:AmenhotepIIIandhisworld. Cleveland, OH. Lapp, G. and A. Niwiński. 2001. Coffins, sarcophagi, and cartonnages. In D. B. Redford (ed.), TheOxfordencyclopediaofAncientEgypt 1. Oxford, 279–87. Lesko, L. H. 1971. The Field of Ḥetep in Egyptian Coffin Texts. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt9, 89–101. Miniaci, G. 2011. Rishi coffins and the funerary culture of SecondIntermediatePeriodEgypt. London. Niwiński, A. 1989a. StudiesontheillustratedThebanfunerarypapyriofthe11thand10thcenturiesB.C. Göttingen. Niwiński, A. 1989b. Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen religiösen Ikonographie der 21. Dynastie (3): Mummy in the coffin as the central element of iconographic reflection of theology of the 21st Dynasty in Thebes. GöttingerMiszellen109, 53–66. Piankoff, A. and N. Rambova. 1954. Egyptian religious texts and representations prepared under the supervision of AlexandrePiankoff1:ThetombofRamsesVI. New York. Piccione, P. A. 1990. Mehen, mysteries and resurrection from the coiled serpent. Journal of the American ResearchCenterinEgypt27, 43–52.

NESTING (PART TWO): MERGING OF LAYERS IN NEW KINGDOM COFFIN DECORATION

Polz, D. 1993. Särge und Kanopen. In H. Beck (ed.), Skulptur, Malerei, Papyri und Särge. Frankfurt am Main, 302–402. Reeves, C. N. 2013. Amenhotep, overseer of builders of Amun. An Eighteenth-Dynasty burial reassembled and interpreted. MetropolitanMuseumJournal48, 7–36. Riggs, C. 2014. UnwrappingancientEgypt. London. Roth, A. M. 1998. Buried pyramids and layered thoughts: The organisation of multiple approaches in Egyptian religion. In C. J. Eyre (ed.), ProceedingsoftheSeventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge, 3–9 September 1995. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. Leuven, 991–1003. Schäfer, H., E. Brunner-Traut and J. Baines. 2002. Principles ofEgyptianart. Oxford. Schiaparelli, E. 1927. Latombaintattadell’architettoCha. Turin. Schneider, H. D. 1977. Shabtis.Anintroductiontothehistory of Ancient Egyptian funerary statuettes with a catalogue of the collection of shabtis in the National MuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden. Leiden. Schreiber, G. 2006. The mummy-board of Tashedamun from TT -61-. ActaAntiqua46 (1/2 March), 185–95. Schwarz, F. 2010. Les 7 portes d’Osiris et la chapelle d’Osiris Heqa-Djet. Pharaon – Le magazine d’Égypte éternelle1 (1), 22–5. Smith, S. T. 1992. Intact tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom burial system. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 48, 193– 231. Sourouzian, H. 1984. Rischi-Sarg. In W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), LexikonderÄgyptologie5. Wiesbaden, 267–9. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 1999. The burial assemblage of Henutmehyt: Inventory, date and provenance. In W. V. Davies (ed.),

291

StudiesinEgyptianantiquities.AtributetoT. G. H.James. London, 59–72. Taylor, J. H. 2001. DeathandtheafterlifeinancientEgypt. London. van Walsem, R. 1997. The coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. Egyptologische Uitgaven 10. Leiden. van Walsem, R. 2014. From skin wrappings to architecture: The evolution of prehistoric, anthropoid wrappings to historic architectonic coffins/sarcophagi; separate contrasts optimally fused in single Theban ‘stola’ coffins (+/-975–920 BC). In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosand eternity. New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 1–27. Wilkinson, R. H. 1994. SymbolandmagicinancientEgyptianart. London. Willems, H. 1988. Chestsoflife.Astudyofthetypologyand conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard classcoffins. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 25. Leiden. Willems, H. 1997. The embalmer embalmed. Remarks on the meaning of the decoration of some Middle Kingdom coffins. In J. van Djik (ed.), EssaysonancientEgyptin honourofHermanteVelde. Groningen, 343–72. Winlock, H. E. 1921. The Egyptian Expedition 1920–1921: III. Excavations at Thebes. The Metropolitan Museum ofArtBulletin16 (11), 29–53. Zandee, J. 1960. Death as an enemy, according to ancient Egyptianconceptions. Leiden. Zivie, A.-P. 1979. La tombe de Pached à Deir el-Médineh [No3]. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 94.Cairo. Zonhoven, L. M. J. 1979. The inspection of a tomb at Deir El-Medina (O. Wien Aeg. 1). Journal of Egyptian Archaeology65, 89–98.

IV COFFINS IN CONTEXT: SOCIETY AND CRAFT ENVIRONMENT

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21: A CASE STUDY OF THE COFFINS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM Kathlyn M. COONEY

Abstract This article presents detailed evidence for the reuse of coffins as revealed by examples from the British Museum dating to Dynasties 20 and 21. The economic and social collapse which affected the entire Mediterranean region at this time had a serious effect on Egypt, disrupting centralized government, agriculture, economic systems and commercial networks, while mass migrations brought large numbers of Libyans and Sea Peoples into the kingdom. Despite the disorders and economic constraints of this time of hardship, prosperous ancient Egyptians were reluctant to relinquish the materialist productions which they had formerly relied upon to encapsulate their funerary beliefs in the Osirian and solar transformation of the dead. The elites of Thebes continued their materialist attitudes to funerary practices, but shortages of resources, particularly of wood, resulted in some adaptations — of which the most conspicuous was the large-scale reuse of coffins. Introduction In this article, I will lay out detailed evidence for coffin reuse as seen in examples from the British Museum dating to Dynasties 20 and 21, when the whole of the Mediterranean region went through a massive economic and social collapse, seeing the fall of the Mycenaean, Hittite, Ugaritic, and other civilizations. This regional event brought with it disruptions in Egypt’s centralized government, economic systems, agriculture, trade networks, and the influx of Sea Peoples and Libyans in mass migrations. Government systems in the north of Egypt failed, while in Thebes

1

Cooney 2007. This research focused mainly on Theban coffins, and I am currently filling out this discussion of Dynasty 19 and 20 coffins with additional northern coffins. See Cooney Forthcoming, which contains the most updated and complete

people moved on without a king, relying only on a decentralized High Priesthood of Amun to maintain order. For millennia, wealthy ancient Egyptians had relied on materialist productions to encapsulate their funerary beliefs in Osirian and solar transformation of the dead, and even in this brutal time of scarcity and collapse, they were loath to abandon such physicality. Theban elites continued their materialist understanding of funerary practices, but scarcity of wood, in particular, demanded some adaptations, resulting in large-scale reuse of coffins. When I first started my dissertation in 1999, I set out to find all examples of Ramesside coffins in museums in Europe, North America, and Egypt. There were only about 80 examples, including small fragments,1 and this, despite the fact that the first part of the Ramesside Period was characterized by prosperity, including empire building, the astounding building programme of Ramses II, the apex of the Deir el Medina craft production in the Valley of the Kings, and intensive funerary commissions by elites in Western Thebes. Despite the evidence for significant elite funerary production from the reigns of Ramses I to Ramses III, very few coffins can be attributed to Dynasty 19 and even fewer to Dynasty 20. Where have all the Ramesside coffins gone? It was Andrzej Niwiński who first suggested that many such coffins were actually reused in the ensuing Dynasty 21 (Niwiński 1988, 57) when social and governmental systems decentralized and when evidence for economic scarcity is everywhere in the written and archaeological record, but there was no systematic study of the issue.

catalogue of all Ramesside coffins known to me, and Cooney 2017, which is a discussion of Ramesside coffins belonging to Memphite elites.

296

K. M. COONEY

I remember seeing my first example of coffin reuse when I was undertaking dissertation research in the British Museum. When the museum assistants brought out the coffin lid of Muthotep (EA 29579), dated to Dynasty 20,2 there were clearly remnants of Dynasty 19 decoration underneath the top layer of painted and varnished plaster. I remember John H. Taylor saying that someone should work on such things, and I stored the idea away. Muthotep’s coffin represents something of a watershed moment for ancient Thebes because it is the earliest example of New Kingdom coffin reuse I have found thus far. If we date the surface decoration of Muthotep’s coffin lid to mid Dynasty 20, it would suggest that scarcity did not set in until around the reign of Ramses III. The coffin of Nakht in the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto suggests that Dynasty 20 reuse may have started as early as Setnakht, the first king of Dynasty 20.3 Before that point, enough wood and decorative materials were available for elites to commission coffins anew; after this time, however, the evidence for reuse increases enormously. Before I had investigated the coffin of Muthotep, my assumption was that most Egyptian coffins were commissioned for one owner, never to be used again, and that wealth for coffin materials and wood for production were easily available to the many elites in ancient Egypt. Muthotep’s coffin lid introduced the notion of scarcity within elite Ramesside society, and it initiated my research into funerary adaptations in post-Bronze Age society. Interestingly, Muthotep’s coffin lid demonstrates a lack of skill in reuse at the very beginning of its practice; artisans either did not know yet how to cover their tracks when they were updating older coffins for new use, or they did not think that anyone would know how to look for reuse. For this reason, Muthotep’s inner coffin was (and still is) the most easily identified and provable case of coffin reuse I have ever seen. When they updated the coffin for Muthotep, the craftsmen

2 3

4

For this coffin see Cooney 2007, 464–6. For this coffin and a discussion of other Dynasty 20 coffins in the light of reuse, see Cooney 2011. Only one coffin of Dynasty 19 has evidence of reuse, and it is inconclusive: the coffin of Katebet in the British Museum (EA 6665) was originally made for a man, but the wig was modified to show a woman. Katebet’s mummy board was

made no attempt to remove the old Dynasty 19 decorative layer, but instead simply added a new layer of plaster and paint directly on top of the varnished surface. Of course, the new plaster did not adhere well to the smooth varnished surface, and much of it has since fallen away, revealing the old layer beneath. Reuse, it seems, demanded new techniques of Egyptian funerary craftsmen, techniques that those engaged in reuse would hone over the next generations until they learned how to effectively hide the older coffin underneath. Thus, identifying reuse on later coffins of Dynasty 21 can be very difficult. Unless one is specifically looking for it, it can hide in plain sight, partly because we consider coffin reuse aberrant and do not expect to see it, but also because the Egyptians became very skilled at creating new coffins out of old. Mine is the first study to systematically identify evidence of coffin reuse in any time period in ancient Egypt. Because we are moving from a phase of prosperity to one of scarcity, it demands a diachronic view, as well as a large dataset. I set out to examine as many coffins of Dynasties 19, 20, 21 and early Dynasty 22 as possible, looking under breaks in the plaster for older decoration, examining the spots where personal names were written for evidence of reinscription, carefully checking for out-of-fashion Dynasty 19 wooden modeled feet or forearms underneath the current plaster surface. Thus far, I have not found any Dynasty 19 coffins that were made from reused Dynasty 18 or earlier Dynasty 19 coffins,4 but the evidence shifts in mid Dynasty 20 examples in favor of a 60% reuse rate (Table 1). In other words, at least 60% of the Dynasty 20, 21 and early Dynasty 22 coffins show evidence that they were reused for another deceased individual. If I could scan underneath the plaster and easily see older plaster layers (all but impossible with current X-ray technology), I suspect that the evidence of reuse would be much higher than 50%.

originally made for a woman, and there is no evidence of previous decoration on the coffin that was overpainted, so it is not clear if the male-to-female wig change was a mistake in production, or actual reuse. The rest of the coffins of Dynasty 19 show no evidence that they were reused at all, despite systematic examination of most of them for it.

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

My analysis is art historical in its foundation: careful in-person examination with a variety of light sources, usually a basic white light, but sometimes benefiting from infrared photography (for the area where the personal name is inscribed in particular), UV light (for examination of varnished surfaces) and digital microscopy (which can show multiple layers of painted decoration if there is a break in the surface decoration). I have also performed Carbon-14 dating on a few coffins in the dataset, one example being a stola coffin in a private collection, now on display in the Houston Museum of Natural Science, indicating that part of the coffin wood is Dynasty 19 in date, much older than the early Dynasty 22 date of its decoration according to the accepted stylistic typologies.5 My analysis of this Houston coffin revealed no visible evidence of reuse, but the older wood provided a circumstantial marker in favor of this practice. Another coffin in Turin (Inv. No. 2221), also tested with Carbon-14 dating, reveals that the wood was many hundreds of years older than the late Dynasty 21 style, too great a difference to be explained away by ancient oversized trees.6 Both the Houston and Turin coffins were made of native Egyptian woods, probably acacia and sycomore fig, respectively, and were perhaps made of timber cut from much smaller trees than a centuries-old cedar from the Lebanon. In other words, I suspect that if Carbon-14 could be applied to the entire dataset, then the rate of funerary reuse from mid-Dynasty 20 to early Dynasty 22 would again be much higher than 50%. Even though he was the first to suggest that most Ramesside coffins were reused in the ensuing dynasties, Niwiński rarely saw reuse clearly in the coffin record. Ironically, instead of identifying the reuse visible on a given coffin, Niwiński often concluded that

5

Some of the wood used for the coffin lid (4 samples) is significantly younger than 950 BC, dating to early Dynasty 22, on point with the stola coffin decoration and indicating that Egypt was finally seeing new wood cultivation after the years of scarcity during Dynasty 21. The coffin case, however, shows dates that are about 300 years older than those of the lid (from two different samples). Either the coffin case was made of wood from the centre (i.e. the oldest part) of a very large tree that was felled more than 300 years earlier, or it is recycled wood. The latter explanation is the likeliest, given that this wood was

297

what he was seeing represented archaism instead and that the Egyptians were referring back to earlier fashions. Perhaps it was because I wrote my first book on Dynasty 19 and 20 coffins, that I am often able to see older decoration styles and modeling, even in fragmentary form, as just that — evidence of older Ramesside coffins with Dynasty 21 decoration. For example, if a Dynasty 21 coffin has a sculptured wig that was out of fashion by that point in time and more in line with a Dynasty 19 type coffin, then I am more liable to conclude that this coffin was reused and that the craftsmen retained the wig when they updated the coffin. Many coffins indicate that craftsmen updated funerary pieces in a piecemeal fashion, retaining some elements and re-working others — keeping an older style wig, for example, covering it over with blue paint only, but updating the collar and lower body. Or, in other cases, I have been able to identify forearms and elbows as older Dynasty 19 coffin modeling covered over with later Dynasty 21 design. Other coffins showed signs of having been changed from female type (with earrings, flat hands, and breasts) to masculine type (with a striped headdress, fisted hands, and a beard). The more I looked for it in the dataset, the more visible the reuse became, and, by the same token, the more I realized that our current Dynasty 21 coffin typology7 was needlessly complicated, precisely because of reuse — because craftsmen often took shortcuts, keeping older elements and only updating what was really necessary. Thus, a given coffin might have a Dynasty 19 wig style but a mid Dynasty 21 collar and pectoral, or Dynasty 19 modeled feet and Dynasty 20 yellow background decoration. The practice of coffin reuse results in a mélange of styles, making typological seriation a complicated endeavor.

6

7

native. Thanks to John Southon of University of California at Irvine who conducted the carbon dating. For this Houston coffin, previously in Cleveland, see Maclean 1901 and Cooney 1969. The calibrated Carbon-14 dates come in at 1687–1611 BC for a sample from the lid’s left side and 1917–1865 BC for a sample from the case’s right side. Thanks to John Southon of University of California at Irvine who conducted the carbon dating. This typology is based on Niwiński 1988. For more discussion of Dynasty 21 coffin typologies, see van Walsem 1993; Cooney 2014.

K. M. COONEY

298

Table 1: Coffin reuse on all examples analyzed up to 2016, by country – 275 coffins total. Rate of reuse for Dynasty 20–22 coffins analyzed thus far Museum/Institution Berlin, Germany, Ägyptisches Museum Bodrhyddan, UK Bristol, UK, City Museum and Art Gallery Brussels, Belgium, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire Cairo, Egypt, Egyptian Museum Copenhagen, Denmark, Copenhagen Nationalmuseet Copenhagen, Denmark, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Cortona, Italy, Museo dell’Accademia Edinburgh, UK, National Museums of Scotland Exeter, UK, Royal Albert Memorial Museum Florence, Italy, Museo Archeologico Houston, TX, USA, Houston Museum of Natural Science Leeds, UK, City Museum Leiden, Netherlands, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden Liverpool, UK, World Museum, National Museums Liverpool London, UK, British Museum London, UK, Petrie Museum Manchester, UK, Manchester Museum New York, NY, USA, Metropolitan Museum of Art Paris, France, Musée du Louvre Perth, Scotland, UK, Perth Museum and Art Gallery Stockholm, Sweden, Stockholm Medelhavsmuseet Swansea, UK, The Wellcome Museum Turin, Italy, Museo Egizio Vatican City State, Museo Gregoriano Egizio Vienna, Austria, Kunsthistorisches Museum Warrington, UK, Warrington Museum & Art Gallery Totals Totals for reuse with high confidence

Methodology In Table 1, I have graded my own confidence in the evidence for coffin reuse from 0 to 3, 0 being the number assigned to coffins with no evidence of reuse, 1 the number assigned when only circumstantial evidence can be found, 2 the assigned number when there is stronger evidence, and 3 when there is obvious proof of reuse on a given coffin. I have also included a 0.5 when there is a bare suspicion of reuse, but the

8

Thus far, I have examined and documented coffins in Nationalmuseet in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Museum in Copenhagen, Medelhavsmuseet in Stockholm in 2010, Museo Egizio in Turin, Museo Archeologico in Florence, Museo dell’Accademia in Cortona, Gregorian Egyptian Museum in the Vatican in 2011 and 2015, Musée du Louvre in Paris, Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden in 2012, British Museum in London, Petrie Museum in London, Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, Ägyptisches Museum in Berlin in 2013, National Museums Scotland in

Coffins

0

1

2

3

TBD

Reuse %

15 2 4 12 31 11 1 2 5 1 17 1 2 14 4 33 1 1 26 31 2 4 1 20 17 15 2

8

3

1

1

1 3 3

1 3 1

3 2 2 6 25 2 1

46,67% 100% 50,0% 66,66% 100% 54,54% 100,0% TBD 60,0% 0% 76,46% 0% 0% 57,14% 100% 54,54% 100% 100% 68,2% 68,24% 100% 50,0% 100% 65,0% 41,17% 93,34% 100%

275

2 3 5

1

2 2 1 4 1 2 5

1

2

2

1

10

1

4 1 6 1

1

15

3 3 11

8 10

1 2 7

12 6 2 1

4

4 1

5 5 7 2

1 1

22 22

105 105

12

1 6 9 1

1 1 4 1 7

83

54

1

8

1

65,82% 46,18%

evidence is not strong enough for even a score of 1. The last column on the right of the table summarizes the percentage of coffins in the dataset that are perceived as ‘reused’ after investigation, also separated into a ‘high confidence’ category. The number on the bottom right shows that approximately 66% of the coffins examined thus far show reuse, a much higher proportion than I envisioned when I set out to find the lost Ramesside coffins seven years ago.8

Edinburgh, Leeds City Museum, Manchester Museum, Liverpool World Museum, Warrington Museum, Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, Royal Albert Memorial Museum Exeter, Swansea University Museum of Egyptian Antiquities, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brussels, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 2014. I also examined Dynasty 21 coffins from the Royal Cache in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo in 2016. I would like to thank the UCLA Academic Senate, the Cotsen Institute, the Ahmanson Foundation, and the American Research Center in Egypt for support of this work.

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

In June 2014, I examined all coffins from mid Dynasty 20 to early Dynasty 22 currently in the British Museum, London, in order to elucidate different methods of reuse. I excluded most fragments, preferring to look at complete pieces. The results from the British Museum actually showed very few markers of coffin reuse. Only seventeen out of 33 coffins in London showed evidence of reuse, and of those, only six of them showed strong evidence (see Table 2). In all, about 50% of the available coffins in the British Museum showed reuse, which is lower than the overall rate of 66%. Two factors may account for the low rate. First, any museum has to cater to display over research. Many of the objects under investigation in London are in vitrines and cannot be moved and thus cannot be properly investigated from all angles or from close proximity, hampering my analysis and ability to see all parts of a given coffin. Even in storage, many of the British Museum coffins cannot be moved or opened, because of their poor state of preservation. Second, many of the coffins have conservation materials in the cracks where I might see older modeling or decoration. I suspect that digital microscope investigation in combination with Carbon-14 dating would improve reuse results at the British Museum, and I hope to return to carry out further study on the coffins.

Table 2: About 50% of the available coffins in the British Museum showed reuse.

299

Identifying coffin reuse is a challenging business, based on finding pigments under plaster layers and paint under varnish layers, or by observing inconsistency between a coffin’s poor quality decoration and the fine quality wood from which it was built. This article will, I hope, elucidate what evidence for reuse can look like, from the most obvious examples to the most circumstantial, giving other researchers a chance to correct and supplement my work. Despite my subjective eye, it is my hope that this research will provide a better idea of how the Egyptians covered their tracks when they were reusing a coffin and what they felt was absolutely necessary to change when using the coffin again for a new occupant. The data will be analyzed according to set. If a coffin and mummy board were found together, they are analyzed here together as a set, with the knowledge that some coffins may have been put together by dealers, rather than by the ancient funerary specialists. Coffin Data from the British Museum EA 6663 – Anonymous Inner Coffin – Reuse Score 1 (Figs 1 and 2: Niwiński 1988, 150; Edwards 1938, 40) The exterior of the case is quite rough and bumpy, as though it was roughly chiseled of its older decoration for new decoration. The interior of the coffin case, by contrast, is smooth and evenly finished as though it was left intact when/if the coffin exterior was updated. The wood used to build this coffin is native and of poor quality small pieces, relying on many dowels to piece the fragments together. The carpentry of this piece is of good quality, even if the wood is not, suggesting the use of a Dynasty 19 coffin originally. The piecemeal construction from many small fragments and the lower wood quality is in keeping with the vast majority of surviving Ramesside coffins.9 As was also typical of Dynasty 19, the carpenter did not rely on much plaster to hold the piece together. The excess plaster on the coffin arms, by contrast, is suggestive of reuse, because plaster was a common way to cover over the older style of modeled forearms and elbows.

9

For similar coffins, see Coffin Group C in Cooney 2007.

300

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 1: Inner coffin lid, London, British Museum EA 6663 (Photograph: N. Crawford).

Fig. 2: Inner coffin case, London, British Museum EA 6663 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

EA 6664 – Anonymous Inner Coffin Case – Reuse Score1 (Fig. 3: Niwiński 1988, 150) This inner coffin case is currently in two pieces. It is anonymous, and the wood was identified by the museum as sycomore fig. Evidence of chiseling in the case interior at the shoulders suggests that another piece — probably a mummy board — was forced inside it and that the two coffin pieces were not made as a set in the same workshop, but acquired opportunistically through reuse. Even though the mummy board is not extant, the evidence indicates that the coffin case and mummy board in this set were not made to fit one another, a common phenomenon attested especially in the early days of coffin reuse, as seen in the coffin set of Sutymes in the Louvre or the coffin set of Butehamun in Turin.10 There is no other evidence of reuse on this coffin — no previous decoration, no previous name and reinscription of another name, and no previous modeling of the wood. Thus, the evidence of reuse is quite circumstantial, and without any other evidence, the reuse score can only be a ‘1’. EA 15656 – Mummy Board of Mwt-n-ipt – Reuse Score1 (Figs 4–6: Niwiński 1988, 151) The mummy board is made of wood, but so much linen and plaster were used that it is practically cartonnage. The linen and plaster were used not to build up raised relief detail, but to create the structure of the piece. There is a massive reliance on plaster overall. The blue paint of the wig is clearly applied over the varnish of the face plate, suggesting that the wig was updated after the face was varnished, a circumstantial sign of reuse. In Ramesside and most Dynasty 21 coffins, the varnish was applied after the paint. Early Dynasty 21 coffins, however, often show that blue was painted after the varnish to provide a thick, matte finish. The underside of the mummy board has a red and yellow line drawing of Osiris and text, suggestive of an earlier Dynasty 21 type. I was not able to examine this decoration. The overall shape of the mummy board in section has a pronounced curve and is high in the belly, not

10

For more on these Dynasty 20 or early Dynasty 21 coffins, see Cooney 2011. Also see Cooney Forthcoming, which contains the most updated and complete catalogue of all Ramesside coffins known to me.

Fig. 3: Inner coffin case, London, British Museum EA 6664 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

301

302

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 4: Detail, mummy board of Mwt-n-ipt, London, British Museum EA 15656 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

Fig. 5: Blue paint of the wig was updated after the face was varnished, a circumstantial sign of reuse, London, British Museum EA 15656 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

Fig. 6: Linen and plaster were used to create the structure of this piece, London, British Museum EA 15656 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto)

303

K. M. COONEY

304

Fig. 7: Mummy board of Ta-meniut, London, British Museum EA 15659 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto)

Fig. 8: Rear of the mummy board of Ta-meniut, London, British Museum EA 15659 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

typical of Dynasty 21, but more in line with a mummy board like that of Nysuamen in Leeds (Blayds 1828; Osburn 1828; Wassell 2008). The wig shows relief carving, also suggestive of a Ramesside period style. There are also traces of varnish underneath the paint of the headdress, suggesting that the headdress was updated. EA15659–MummyBoardofTa-meniut–ReuseScore3 (Figs 7–9: Niwiński 1988, 151; Edwards 1938, 42) This mummy board was famously restored back to the coffin set of Ta-meniut in Dynasty 21, an act documented by a hieroglyphic inscription on the underside. Purchased from Hay in 1868, the British Museum has only the mummy board and no other pieces of the coffin set. The area around the name shows a clear reinscription indicating reuse. The face also shows extensive damage, perhaps done at the same time the piece was modified for another user.

305

EA22942–OuterCoffinofIah-mes–ReuseScore1 (Figs 10–12: Niwiński 1988, 152; Edwards 1938, 40) There are no traces of older decoration underneath this stola coffin that I could discern, but there are cuts and modifications at both sides of the head and shoulder to fit an inner coffin that was too large for the outer. Thus, this coffin set seems to have been opportunistically acquired, using pieces from different sets which were forced to fit together. Such mistakes could indeed have happened in the workshop, but I have yet to encounter a Dynasty 19 coffin which was forced to fit other pieces in the set. This kind of modification is more in keeping with the coffin ensembles of Butehamun in Turin (Schiaparelli 1881–1882, 14–16; Niwiński 1988, 172–3) or Sutymes in the Louvre (Vandier 1973, 102, 11; Niwiński 1988, 166), both of which show evidence that the pieces were not built as a set, but brought together from other sources and only decorated later as a set when they were reused.

Fig. 9: Detail, mummy board of Ta-meniut, London, British Museum EA 15659. The area around the name shows clear reinscription indicating reuse (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

306

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 10: Outer stola coffin of Iah-mes, London, British Museum EA 22942. There are cuts and modifications to both sides of the head and shoulders to fit an inner coffin that was too large for this outer coffin (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

Fig. 11: The name of the deceased is only in blue, rather than the polychrome used for the other hieroglyphic inscriptions, a possible indicator of reuse, London, British Museum EA 22942 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

307

Fig. 12: The hands are sunk into a very thick layer of mud plaster, possibly covering up older modeling of wood, raising the suspicion of reuse, London, British Museum EA 22942 (Photograph: N. Crawford).

The name of the deceased is preserved twice on the inside and twice on the exterior case sides. In all cases, the name is only in blue, rather than the polychrome used for the other hieroglyphic inscriptions. In one case on the exterior case side, it is clear that the name was applied over the varnish, a possible indicator of reuse. There are no traces of an older name. The lid’s rightside edge has no inscribed name, only a blank, suggesting that this coffin was decorated without an owner clearly in mind or that it was adapted with the intent of reusing multiple times — assuming that the name was added last, and not all spaces were filled. The name of Iahmes is nowhere to be seen on the coffin lid, but it was probably originally inscribed on the feet, which are now lost. The hands are sunk into a very thick layer of mud plaster, and it is possible that this is covering up older modeling of the wood, although there is no way to corroborate this possibility. As it is, this amount of plaster definitely raises the suspicion of reuse.

EA 24789 Anonymous Inner Coffin + EA 24790 Mummy Board – Reuse Score 1 (Fig. 13: Niwiński 1988, 152; Edwards 1938, 43) This set comprises an inner coffin and a mummy board. Evidence for reuse is not strong. However, on the inner coffin, there is the telltale blank space for a name that was never filled in. This blank was varnished with no name ever having been inscribed therein. The accompanying mummy board has no name whatsoever. Thus, although there is no obvious evidence of reuse on this coffin set, might the blank for the name represent use as a kind of ‘parish coffin’ set, in which the pieces were rented or used for the short term and the name only inscribed in ink over the varnish, to be quickly wiped away later with a damp cloth? In keeping with this hypothesis, it is interesting to note that the inner coffin shows use and wear patterns where such an object might have been handled the most — under the lid and at the bottom of the coffin case where human hands would have lifted the coffin with the

308

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 13: Anonymous inner coffin, London, British Museum EA 24789 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

mummy inside. The coffin was obviously used for burial, because there are remnants of mummy bandages adhering to the interior of the case. Furthermore, the style of the iconography and colour scheme on the mummy board do not match those of the coffin. However, the wigs and headbands do match, suggesting that these pieces were not made together in one craft installation as a coffin set, but separately and later updated to have matching decoration to serve the deceased (assuming that they were buried together as a set). Blanks where the personal name should be are a common feature of coffins from the Bab el Gasus cache (for example, see Florence 8542: Niwiński 1988, 139).

11

I am thankful to Rob Demarée for this information. Personal communication 2012.

EA 24793–24795 – Coffin Set of Chantress of Amun Ta-ahuty – Reuse Score 1 (Figs 14 and 15: Edwards 1938, 40–1; Niwiński 1988, 153) This coffin set comes from the Bab el Gasus cache. Only the outer coffin preserves the name of the deceased. The case sides of the outer coffin have a very different decoration style to that of the inner coffin and mummy board, as though they were created at different times and opportunistically pieced together in an instance of reuse. The outer coffin is also unfinished, and it is clear that red paint lines were laid down first, and then the different colours of paint, including blue, green and white, probably in that order. Most of this outer coffin’s surface is unvarnished. One small spot on the top of the head may suggest blue colour underneath the current headdress plaster. However, because I examined the standing outer coffin in the museum vitrine with the aid of a ladder, I am not sure of this evidence. The mummy board (EA 24795) matches the inner coffin in terms of decoration and colour scheme, but it bears no name and there is no trace of any decorative reuse on the board surface. In three places on the underside, however, there are faint and small traces of a dark substance that might be a black pitch resin. These constitute only very circumstantial markers of a reused Dynasty 19 mummy board, because, at that time, coffin and board undersides were coated with thick black pitch (Cooney 2007, 218–21). The inner coffin (EA 24794) also has no personal name of the owner inscribed on its surface, but tellingly there is a hieratic name label on the bottom of both the case and lid, which does not match that on the outer coffin. If these pieces were used as a set for the lady Ta-ahuty, then perhaps the inner coffin had been previously used for another woman named Mwt-gnsw. The label was translated by Robert Demarée as Wsỉr ... n ỉmnMwt-gnswsꜢtỉḫt on the lid and as WsỉrMwt-gnsw sꜢt ỉḫt on the case.11 Because the hieratic name was found on the inner coffin, which bears no other personal name on its decorated surface, this is not necessarily proof of reuse. If the entire set belongs together, however, then the hieratic label is a definite sign of coffin reuse, because the hieratic names do not match the hieroglyphic names on the outer coffin.

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

Fig. 14: Inner coffin of Ta-ahuty, London, British Museum EA 24794 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

309

310

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 15: The hieratic names on the bottom of the lid and case of this inner coffin do not match the name on the outer coffin of this set, indicating the possibility of reuse, London, British Museum EA 24794 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Assuming that the inner and outer coffin were found as a set, it is interesting that the outer coffin was never finished, while the inner coffin and mummy board, which match each other in decoration, were finished and bear a different name. The inner coffin case interior was chiseled down, cutting through the decoration layer, ostensibly to fit the mummy board and mummy, again suggesting that the separate coffin pieces were acquired opportunistically, rather than crafted to fit one another as a set. The inner coffin shows no evidence of decorative reuse, but the heavy modern restoration on the inner coffin lid makes it impossible to see into any of the cracks, which might reveal evidence of older decoration.

EA 24796 – Inner Coffin Lid of Tnt-Hn.f (?) – Reuse Score 3 (Figs 16–18: Niwiński 1988, 152; Edwards 1938, 41) This inner coffin lid shows a name inscribed over the varnish in blue ink, and there are illegible traces of an older name underneath the varnish. Niwiński notes in his catalogue that the piece had a previous owner. Not only was the name changed, but other art historical evidence suggests that it was changed from a male coffin to a female one. A great deal of thick mud plaster was added to the head, wig, neck, and lappets, covering the older masculine layer. In fact, the female lappets seem to have been built up entirely from mud plaster. The tops of the shoulders show breaks where about 5 cm of mud plaster has been added to the collar area. The area under the chin suggests that there was a beard hole, which was covered over when it was converted into a woman’s coffin. The face also has a beard strap still visible. It seems that the varnish was roughly removed, so that the beard strap could be quickly (and inexpertly) eliminated and revarnished for the woman. I have found that varnish was one of the chief tools of the reuser to hide any modifications, because it blended the old decorative surface with the new. The earrings seem to have been added with a circle of plaster to the surface of the wig. Thick plaster was also applied over the varnished faceplate on the coffin’s left side, probably applied when the craftsmen were building up the wig lappets and earrings around the face for the gender conversion to a female coffin. The hands were clearly changed because they pass over the stola strap rather than under it. The bottom of the coffin lid includes a scene of a man worshipping Osiris, indicating that the previous decoration on this coffin belonged to a man. For whatever reason, the reusers did not update these decorative features. Gender modifications like this were expensive and time-consuming; why would a family take on this expense and trouble if they could just go to the market and buy a stolen (or sold) coffin of the correct gender? I would argue that most reuse happened legally, in the context of the family. Gender modifications are so common in the Dynasty 21 coffins dataset that I suspect families were often forced to modify their only coffin sets depending on the gender of the most recently deceased family member. Additionally, spots of green paint are visible in two places under the current plaster layer, suggesting an additional reuse, perhaps even before the gender modification.

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

Fig. 16: Inner coffin lid of Tnt-Hn.f(?), London, British Museum EA 24796. A great deal of thick mud plaster was added to this coffin, covering the older masculine layer. Here the beard strap is still visible and earrings added with a circle of plaster to the surface of the wig (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

Fig. 17: Detail, London, British Museum EA 24796 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

311

312

K. M. COONEY

EA24907–AnonymousInnerCoffin–ReuseScore1 (Fig. 21: Niwiński 1988, 153; Edwards 1938, 42) The lid and case of the coffin show nothing suspicious, except that the wood is of very fine grain, using large-sized pieces, while the coffin decoration is quite poor. Such high quality materials do not coincide with poor craftsmanship in the Ramesside period (Cooney 2007, 235–48), suggesting that the wood of this coffin may have been reused or stolen, or both. I suspect that if Carbon-14 dating of the wood were performed, its date would prove to be earlier than Dynasty 21. Otherwise, there is no evidence of reuse anywhere else on this coffin. This coffin is an important example of possible reuse that needs further scientific examination to corroborate.

Fig. 18: Detail, London, British Museum EA 24796 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

EA24798–AnonymousInnerCoffin–ReuseScore1 (Figs 19 and 20: Niwiński 1988, 152–3; Edwards 1938, 41) This anonymous inner coffin shows only the barest circumstantial markers of reuse. A yellow conservation material added at some point after the coffin entered the museum fills in every crack and join where plaster had fallen away, making it very difficult to see any traces of old wood modeling or decoration. This coffin has no name inscribed on it at all, but there is also no blank on the surface where a name should be. Cuts in the wood at the foot end of the coffin case indicate that the coffin may have been built out of reused pieces. In addition, the top of the head shows a thick layer of plaster to make the head fuller and broader as was fashionable in late Dynasty 21 when this coffin was ostensibly updated; this is in keeping with reusing an older piece, as in Vienna ÄS 6269 (Egner and Haslauer 1994). Nonetheless, the evidence for reuse is not strong.

12

For a similar piece, see the coffin of Iset in the Cairo Museum (JE 27309a): Cooney 2007, 435–7.

EA24908–AnonymousMummyBoard–ReuseScore2 (Fig. 22: Niwiński 1988, 153; Edwards 1938, 42) This mummy board’s text has a blank where the illegible personal name was added in red. Without more careful examination, I cannot tell if the red was inscribed over or under the varnish, but it seems to be under the varnish layer. This is probably evidence of reuse, suggesting that an older name was scrubbed away for the inscription of another name, then varnished over again after the name was added in a different colour from the rest of the inscription. The rough surface of the wood is also indicative of decorative updating. In addition, the mummy board’s decoration does not match the decorative style of the coffin, so if they were a set, they were probably made in different workshops and at different times, and later brought together opportunistically, perhaps in a reuse action. EA 29579 – Inner Coffin Lid of Muthotep – Reuse Score 3 (Figs 23–25: Niwiński 1988, 153; Cooney 2007, 464–6) The reuse of this inner coffin lid is clearly visible; it was once a Dynasty 19 piece, probably a woman’s coffin lid, showing the deceased as an akh, in a white pleated garment with modeled bare feet.12 The case of the coffin is missing, but the current lid decoration shows that it was reused for a woman in mid to late Dynasty 20 or early Dynasty 21. The older decoration is visible all along the edges; because the new decoration

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

Fig. 19: Anonymous inner coffin, London, British Museum EA 24798. Museum fills are visible in every crack and join where plaster had fallen away (Photograph: N. Crawford).

313

314

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 20: The top of the head shows a thick layer of plaster to make the head fuller and broader as was fashionable in late Dynasty 21 when this coffin was updated, in keeping with reusing an older piece (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

was simply added to the varnish, much of it has flaked away. The underside of the lid shows a layer of black paint, probably not black pitch, but this treatment of the lid underside is a known feature of Dynasty 19. The bottom of the feet of the coffin lid shows a painted djed pillar and invocations to Nephthys, typical of Ramesside pieces. An even older Dynasty 19 decorative layer is visible under this current layer. The two decorative layers on the bottom of the feet clarify that this is a very early instance of reuse, dating from a time when it was still fashionable to plaster and paint this part of the coffin. In other words, the reusers in Dynasty 20 or 21 updated the decoration on the bottom of the feet when they updated the lid. Given that the modeled feet of Dynasty 19 were retained in the new decoration, we can suppose that the reusers chiseled down and updated the arm modeling of the upper body to be more in keeping with current style. The typical Dynasty 19 coffin of a woman as an akh has one arm crossing the chest and holding a flower of some kind, while the other arm was extended to lie flat on the thigh. Presumably, the arms were modified in the reuse to be crossed in the Osirian fashion. The

Fig. 21: Anonymous inner coffin case, London, British Museum EA 24907. The poor quality of coffin decoration does not coincide with the high quality wood used to make this piece, suggesting that the wood of this coffin may have been reused or stolen (Photograph: N. Crawford).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

Fig. 22: Anonymous mummy board, London, British Museum EA 24908. This mummy board’s text has a blank where the illegible personal name was added in red, probably evidence of reuse (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

315

316

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 23: Inner coffin lid of Muthotep, London, British Museum EA 29579. The older decoration is visible along all the edges where the new decoration has flaked away (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

Fig. 24: Detail showing the older decoration visible where the new decoration has flaked away, London, British Museum EA 29579 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

317

Fig. 25: The modeled bare feet of this coffin are an indicator that this was once a Dynasty 19 piece, London, British Museum EA 29579 (Photograph: R. Hiramoto).

modeling of the body, typically showing female curves, may also have been removed through chiseling, although there is no evidence of this. This coffin indicates that reusers could choose which wooden features to update. In this case, they kept the modeled feet while, ostensibly, updating the arms and hands. EA 35288 – Inner Coffin of Ankhefenmut – Reuse Score3 (Figs 26–28: Niwiński 1988, 154) This coffin could not be moved from the storage shelf or opened, for conservation reasons, and thus my analysis is incomplete. I was only able to consult photographs of the mummy board. The size and shape of this coffin suggest a reused Dynasty 19 piece. This coffin has modeled arms and elbows, in keeping with a Ramesside or early Dynasty

13

For example see the outer coffin of Khonsu in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (Cooney 2007, 445–7).

21 example. The size of the piece is confusing: if it is an inner coffin, then the outer coffin must have been quite large, more in keeping with coffins of Dynasty 19 than Dynasty 21, such as the Dynasty 19 set of Henutmehyt in the British Museum (Taylor 1999). However, there is no decoration on the bottom of the feet, as would be expected on most Dynasty 19 coffins. If this coffin was reused, then the craftsmen chiseled the old painted plaster away completely. Indeed, there are chisel gouges on the bottom of the feet of the case and lid, perhaps indicative of this action. The coffin body has a bulbous upper belly, with a deep depression running between the legs, both features in line with an earlier Dynasty 19 style.13 The coffin could not be opened, but if the edges between case and lid are ledged and not smooth, then this is a good indication that this

318

K. M. COONEY

Fig. 26: Inner coffin of Ankhefenmut, London, British Museum EA 35288. The size and shape of this coffin suggest a reused Dynasty 19 piece (Photograph: N. Crawford).

Fig. 27: The deep groove between the feet is indicative of a Dynasty 19 coffin, London, British Museum EA 35288 (Photograph: N. Crawford).

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

319

Dynasty 19 coffin (well-made Dynasty 19 coffins often have this groove, unlike Dynasty 21 coffins). Inside this inner coffin is the mummy board of a man with a chequerboard pattern on the wig, a style that is more associated with female coffins than male. The mummy board is much later in style than the coffin, suggesting that they were opportunistically put together as a set. The key piece of evidence suggesting reuse on this coffin is that the hands show holes at the top while the holes at the bottom have been plastered and varnished over. Coffins of Dynasty 19 usually have hands holding implements.14 Since the bottoms of the hands have been plastered over, we have a key sign of reuse of a Dynasty 19 coffin in Dynasty 21. Conclusion

Fig. 28: This mummy board accompanying the inner coffin is of a much later style, suggesting that they were opportunistically put together as a set, London, British Museum EA 35288B (© Trustees of the British Museum).

piece is a reused Dynasty 19 coffin. Unfortunately, I could not examine the edges. The decoration on this coffin was applied to white plaster on bare wood, with no visible evidence of older decoration underneath anywhere. The coffin has a deep groove between the feet, as would be expected on a

14

For example, see the coffin of Sennedjem in the Cairo Museum (Cooney 2007, 430–2; Bruyère 1959).

My research into the so-called ‘yellow coffins’ from Dynasty 19, 20, 21 and early Dynasty 22 now in the British Museum is incomplete and demands more research. Most of my findings about reuse are highly inconclusive and circumstantial. They need to be further investigated with UV light, infrared photography, and digital microscope imagery. Many of the yellow coffins in question are currently in vitrines, making close and detailed examination very difficult, if not impossible. Now that the initial photographic documentation and art historical examination is complete, I hope to return to London at a later date to complete this analysis. Having said that, the evidence of reuse in Dynasty 21 coffin data sets at the British Museum is still strong. If we bring the issue of this reuse into the larger context of the Bronze Age collapse, these coffins can be understood as remnants of social display and elite power and thus can help us to study a tumultuous period of time. These coffins provide one small picture of a larger whole, evidence of changing patronage systems. The ancestors, it seems, were no longer protected with longterm ownership of their funerary goods. For elite Egyptians who believed they needed materiality to transform the dead and who needed to make a display of their place in society, the only moral solution was to reuse the coffins of their ancestors for the recently dead. When pressed with scarcity, the Egyptians decided, en

320

K. M. COONEY

masse, as a culture, certainly according to reuse percentages of over 50% for the coffins examined thus far from Dynasties 20 and 21, to use funerary objects in the short term as transformative devices, rather than as long-term objects to be owned in perpetuity by one man or woman. Long-term funerary ownership was expensive, both in materials and in labour for security. When old social systems broke down, the Egyptian moral system of funerary production changed with it.

Bibliography Blayds, J. 1828. AnaccountofanEgyptianmummy. Leeds. Bruyère, B. 1959. La tombe no. I de Sennedjem à Deir el Médineh. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 88–9. Cairo. Cooney, J. D. 1969. Cleveland’s first Egyptian mummy. The HistoricalSocietyNews 23, no. 7. Cooney, K. M. 2007. The cost of death: the social and economic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the Ramesside Period. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. M. 2011. Changing burial practices at the end of the Ramesside Period – Evidence of tomb commissions, coffin commissions, coffin decoration, mummification and the Amen priesthood. Journal of the American ResearchCenterinEgypt 47, 3–44. Cooney, K. M. 2014. Ancient Egyptian funerary arts as social documents: Social place, reuse, and working towards a new typology of 21st Dynasty coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body, cosmos, and eternity: New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 45–66. Cooney, K. M. 2017. Ramesside body containers of wood and cartonnage from Memphite necropolises. In V. Vershoor, A. J. Stuart and C. Demarée (eds),

ImagingandimaginingtheMemphiteNecropolis.Liber amicorumRenévanWalsem. Egyptologische Uitgaven 30. Leiden, 279–98. Cooney, K. M. Forthcoming. The end of New Kingdom Egypt: How ancient Egyptian funerary materials can help us understand society in crisis. In U. Rummel and S. Kubisch (eds),TheRamessidePeriodinEgypt: Studies into cultural and historical processes of the 19th and 20th Dynasties. Proceedings of the international symposium held at Heidelberg, 5th to 7th June, 2015. Sonderschrift des Deutschen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Wiesbaden. Edwards, I. E. S. 1938. A Handbook to the Egyptian mummiesandcoffinsexhibitedintheBritishMuseum. London. Egner, R. and E. Haslauer. 1994. SärgederDrittenZwischenzeit. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien 10. Mainz am Rhein. Maclean, J. P. 1901. The archaeological collection of the WesternReserveHistoricalSociety. Cleveland. Niwiński, A. 1988. Twenty-first Dynasty coffins from Thebes:Chronologicalandtypologicalstudies. Theben 5. Mainz am Rhein. Osburn, W. 1828. An account of an Egyptian Mummy, presented to the Museum of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society by the late John Blayds. With an appendix containing the chemical and anatomical detailsoftheexaminationofthebody. Leeds. Schiaparelli, E. 1881–2. Il libro dei funerali degli antichi Egiziani. Rome. Taylor, J. H. 1999. The burial assemblage of Henutmehyt: Inventory, date and provenance. In W. V. Davies (ed.), StudiesinEgyptianantiquities:AtributetoT.G.H.James. British Museum Occasional Paper 123. London, 59-72, pls. IX–XIV. Vandier, J. 1973. MuséeduLouvre.Ledépartmentdesantiquitéségyptiennes.Guidesommaire. Paris. van Walsem, R. 1993. The study of 21st Dynasty coffins from Thebes. BibliothecaOrientalis50, 9–92. Wassell, B. 2008. The coffin of Nesyamun: the ‘Leeds Mummy’. Leeds.

321

COFFIN REUSE IN DYNASTY 21

Appendix: 20th-22nd Dynasty Coffin Reuse – British Museum Type(s) of Reuse

British Museum EA 6663

Inner coffin

Case

mid/late Dynasty 21

acquired from the collection of the Earl of Belmore in 1843

Anonymous woman

1

markers of Ramesside

British Museum EA 6664

Inner coffin

Case

Dynasty 21

unknown

Anonymous

1

extensive chiseling to fit mummy board

British Museum EA 6700

Inner stola coffin

Case

late Dynasty 21/ early Dynasty 22

acquired from Belzoni

Anonymous

0

British Museum EA 15656

Mummy board

mid Dynasty 21

purchased from R. Hay in 1868

Mwt-n-ipt

Chantress of Amun

1

markers of Ramesside

British Museum EA 15659

Mummy board

early Dynasty 21 (?)

purchased from R. Hay in 1868

Tameniut

Chantress of Amun

3

name reuse

British Museum EA 22542

Mummy board

late Dynasty 21

presented by A.F. Wheeler in 1889

Anonymous woman

0

British Museum EA 22900

Outer stola coffin

early Dynasty 22

purchased by Budge in 1891

Djedhoriuefankh

0

British Museum EA 22941

Outer stola coffin

early Dynasty 22

from the Sabatier collection, purchased in 1890

Amenemipet

0

British Museum EA 22942

Outer stola coffin

early Dynasty 22

from the Sabatier collection, purchased in 1891

Iahmes

1

decorative, blank space for name

British Museum EA 24789

Inner coffin

mid/late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Anonymous

0

blank space for name

British Museum EA 24790

Mummy board

mid/late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Anonymous

0

British Museum EA 24791

Outer coffin

late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Tjenet-khenet

Chantress of Amun

3

British Museum EA 24792

Outer coffin

late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Bakenmut

God’s Father

0

British Museum EA 24793

Outer coffin

Case + Lid

mid/late 21st Dynasty; mummy-linen of the H.P. Pinudjem II

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Ta-Ahuty

Chantress of Amun

1

decorative

British Museum EA 24794

Inner coffin

Case + Lid

mid/late Dynasty 21; from the tomb Bab mummy-linen of the el-Gusus, found in Deir H.P. Pinudjem II el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Ta-Ahuty

Chantress of Amun

3

decorative, name reuse

British Museum EA 24795

Mummy board

mid/late Dynasty 21; from the tomb Bab mummy-linen of the el-Gusus, found in Deir H.P. Pinudjem II el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Ta-Ahuty

Chantress of Amun

1

markers of Ramesside

Case + Lid

Provenance

Reuse Score

Coffin Type Coffin Part

Case

Dating

Name(s) of Deceased

Accession No.

Title

name reuse

K. M. COONEY

322 Accession No.

Coffin Type Coffin Part

British Museum EA 24796

Inner coffin

British Museum EA 24797

Mummy board

British Museum EA 24798

Lid

Dating

Provenance

Name(s) of Deceased

Title

Type(s) of Reuse

3

multiple, decorative, name reuse, gender modification

late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Tnt-Hn.f (?)

late Dynasty 20 or early Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Ankhefenmut

0

Inner coffin

late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Anonymous

1

British Museum EA 24799

Mummy board

late Dynasty 21

from the tomb Bab el-Gusus, found in Deir el-Bahari in 1891; presented by the Egyptian Government in 1893

Bakenmut

British Museum EA 24907

Inner coffin

mid/late Dynasty 21

purchased from R.J. Moss & Co. in 1893 in Alexandria

Anonymous woman (blank space for the name)

1

British Museum EA 24908

Mummy board

mid/late Dynasty 21

purchased from R.J. Moss & Co. in 1893 in Alexandria

Anonymous woman (blank space for the name)

2

name reuse, decorative

British Museum EA 29579

Inner coffin

Lid

Dynasty 20

purchased from R. Moss in Muthotep 1898

3

decorative

British Museum Inner coffin EA 29591 (prev. 6664+6664a)

Case

mid/late Dynasty 21

purchased from Robert Hay Inpehefnakht in 1868

early Dynasty 22

the lid was purchased from Nyswmut R. Moss in 1901, the case from Kyticas, a dealer in Cairo, in 1902

God’s Father

Chantress of Amun

0

Outer coffin

British Museum EA 35288

Inner coffin

Dynasty 21

purchased from R. Moss & Ankhefenmut Co in 1901

3

British Museum EA 35288 B

Mummy board

Dynasty 21

purchased from R. Moss & Ankhefenmut Co in 1901

0

British Museum EA 47609

Unknown

from Assiut, excavated by D. G. Hogarth in 1906–7

0

British Museum EA 47610

Unknown

from Assiut, excavated by D. G. Hogarth in 1906–7

0

late Dynasty 21

from the collection of the Anonymous Count de Pourtalès; pre- man sented by Lady William Cecil, Baroness Amherst of Hackney, in 1909

1

Inner stola coffin

decorative

0

British Museum EA 35287 (36211 case)

British Museum EA 48972

Case + Lid

Chantress of Amun

Reuse Score

Chantress of Amun

0

multiple, decorative, markers of Ramesside

decorative, gender modification

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN Alessia AMENTA

Abstract This paper presents the recent results of 3D and Volume Rendering Technique (VRT) Computed Tomography (CT) scanning of a mummy-board from the Third Intermediate Period in the Vatican collection (inv. MV25022), carried out using Siemens Definition Dual Energy apparatus (Fig. 1). This was the first experiment within the Vatican Coffin Project (VCP) attempting the simultaneous study of constructional and painting techniques used on a decorated wooden artefact. These analyses have resulted in a complete interpretation of the techniques used for constructing and assembling the mummy-board, and have revealed a number of interesting aspects. In the light of these results it has become clear that CT scanning can serve as a fundamental tool for the study of the constructional techniques of coffins, for an understanding of the economic reuse of wood within a carpenter’s workshop in ancient Egypt, for insights into the recycling of wooden artefacts, and for future research on the painting techniques of coffins. * * * The CT scanning results presented in this paper form part of the Vatican Coffin Project (VCP), a study initiated in 2008 by the Egyptian Department of the Vatican Museums, in collaboration with the Diagnostic Laboratory for Conservation and Restoration of the Vatican Museums, to study polychrome coffins of the Third Intermediate Period.1

1

At present the following institutions are participating in the Project: the National Museum of Antiquities of Leiden, the Musée du Louvre, the Museo Egizio in Turin, the Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France – C2RMF in Paris, the Department of Bio-imaging and Radiological Research of the University of Messina, together with the restorer Giovanna Prestipino, the xylologist Victoria Asensi Amorós, Sveva Longo (Science and Technology for Conservation of Cultural Heritage), and also Kathlyn M. Cooney (UCLA) for the study of the reuse of coffins of Dynasty 21.

Fig. 1: The mummy-board MV25022 (© Vatican Museums).

324

A. AMENTA

As the writer was able to present in more detail at the ‘First Vatican Coffin Conference’, the VCP has as its first goal the study of the construction and painting techniques of coffins of this period, and, as its second, the identification of any ‘atelier’.2 The protocol of analyses of this project has been carried out by the Diagnostic Laboratory of the Vatican Museums. The colloquium at the British Museum on ‘Ancient Egyptian Coffins’ was the occasion for the presentation of this innovative use of a Computed Tomography Scanner as part of the VCP, with the aim of understanding the scanner’s potentialities for the study of the constructional techniques of a coffin.3 An additional research question was whether these analyses could also help in the recognition of instances of the reuse of coffins.4 All of the coffins in the Vatican collection have already been examined using X-ray radiography in the Diagnostic Laboratory of the Vatican Museums, with the aim of studying their constructional techniques. Although traditional radiography provides information about conditions beneath the visible surface of each object and offers much useful information on its construction, it lacks the detail and ease of interpretation which CT scanning can provide. Thanks to the collaboration of the Department of Bio-Imaging and Radiological Research of the University of Messina, the anonymous Vatican mummy-board inv. MV25022 (Gasse 1996, 135–7, No. 17), dating to mid-Dynasty 21, was analysed using a Siemens DualSource DECT Scanner5 (Fig. 2). This particular specimen presented a series of critical issues: neither the

2 3

4

5

Amenta and Guichard 2017. See also Amenta 2014. The constructional technique is one of the most interesting aspects of the study of coffins, since it offers numerous possibilities for further research. See Prestipino 2017. On this subject the bibliography refers almost exclusively to the work of Kathlyn M. Cooney, who first suspected and later confirmed the phenomenon of the reuse of coffins, and investigated more deeply into various aspects of the subject, from both the socio-economic and the ethical-religious points of view. See Cooney 2007; 2011; 2013; 2017. See also Cooney in this volume. Dual-source DECT scanner: Somatom Definition Dual Source, Siemens AG, Healthcare Sector, Forchheim, Germany. For Dual Energy scans, the following parameters were used: detector collimation, 14 × 1.2mm; tube A voltage, 140kVp; tube A quality reference, 120mAs; tube B voltage, 80kVp; tube B quality reference, 510mAs; pitch factor, 0.55. For all scans, the gantry rotation speed was 0.5 second. We preferred to use a collimation of 1.2mm in Dual Energy mode to reduce noise.

Fig. 2: The mummy-board MV25022 under investigation (© Vatican Museums).

construction nor the painting had been well executed by the ancient craftsmen, as major restorations carried out in earlier periods revealed. This mummy-board entered the museum in 1894 as part of Lot 176 from the Bab el-Gasus cache, which was donated by the Egyptian government to Pope Leo XIII. The following year the painter and restorer Enrico Pennelli was paid £250 by the Director of the Vatican Museums for the restoration of all the coffins in Lot 17. Pennelli stated that the mummy-board MV25022 had

6

From the Dual Energy dataset, contiguous CT images were obtained with low- and high-kilovoltage and with a combination of image data averaging 30% from the low-kilovoltage tube B and 70% from the high-kilovoltage tube A (M0.3). These blended weighted-average images have image quality theoretically comparable to that of a standard 120-kVp acquisition with the advantage of the detection of differences in material composition. Furthermore the image set was evaluated by using a dedicated Dual Energy convolution kernel (D30f) and a hard convolution kernel (B60f). Concerning the Computed Tomography reconstruction parameters all images were stored in a secondary workstation and elaborated with a reconstruction software (Syngo MMWP version 2008C, Siemens Healthcare, with Syngo Dual Energy) provided by Siemens AG, Healthcare Sector, Forchheim, Germany. The image datasets stored on the secondary workstation were reconstructed using the following parameters: slice thickness of 1.5mm; recon increment: 1mm. Niwiński 1988, 26.

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN

arrived with its planks cracked in various places and that, therefore, he had had to shape a wooden support to consolidate the piece (Fig. 3). The mummy-board was first examined by X-ray radiography in 2008 in the Vatican Museums Diagnostic Laboratory. At first glance the images showed clearly that it had been made from many pieces of wood of various shapes and sizes. The X-ray images also showed many lacunae in the wooden elements, as well as spaces in the wooden structure which had been filled with a great quantity of plaster by the carpenter. This has rendered the whole structure weak and easily susceptible to damage. A comparison of the X-ray images with ultraviolet (UV) images proved very interesting and made it possible to verify that the restorations by Pennelli were made principally in the areas where the quantity of plaster was excessive. Plaster, in fact, does not possess the same mechanical tension as wood, and these areas therefore required intervention (Figs 4 and 5). A large amount of plaster was also used to shape and smooth the curved surface of the head. It had not been modelled in wood in detail, but simply roughed out, as

325

the lack of accuracy in the construction suggests. The CT scan image clearly confirms the use of this large quantity of plaster to shape the back of the head (Figs 6 and 7). A comparison of the X-ray image of this head with those of the heads of other coffins from the Vatican collection clearly shows the hasty and careless nature of the construction of this mummy-board. The faces of the other coffins appear generally to have been made from one large piece of wood which was then carved into shape; there is much less plaster, and where this has been used it serves solely to help to create a curved surface and to conceal the joints between the different wooden components. The first CT scan images to be worked on immediately revealed the presence of numerous regular circular holes along the whole length of the mummy-board (Fig. 8). It was clear that these holes had not been used in the construction of the mummy-board, and this confirms the hypothesis that the object had been made from second-hand wood. These planks might have been reused from another coffin, in view of their length and the fact that the holes correspond to the standard dimensions of coffin dowels.

Fig. 3: The wooden panel shaped by the restorer Enrico Pennelli to consolidate the mummy-board (© Vatican Museums).

326

A. AMENTA

Fig. 4: Comparison of X-ray and UV images confirming the presence of cracks associated with the extensive use of plaster (© Vatican Museums).

Fig. 5: CT scan image confirming the presence of cracks (© Vatican Museums).

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN

327

Fig. 6: A large quantity of plaster, which was used to shape and smooth the curve of the head (© Vatican Museums).

Fig. 7: CT scan image revealing the large quantity of plaster used to shape the back of the head (© Vatican Museums).

The left side panel of the mummy-board is also much deteriorated, fissured and cracked, showing that recycled wood had again been used. These parts, therefore, had a very low mechanical strength. The right side panel has also cracked because of its poor quality (Fig. 9). It was also particularly interesting to notice that some planks had already been attacked by woodworm at the time of the making of the mummy-board. This is suggested by numerous marks of rounded shape

7

Two large central planks, which are split laterally in the centre; five small lateral planks (originally six: one is missing); one element of square shape for the foot end; two additional pieces

and others of greater length, resembling tunnels and containing an X-ray-opaque material, features which have been interpreted as evidence of damage by woodboring insects. This supports the notion that the object was made of reused wood (Figs 10 and 11). Successive CT scan images were worked on, thanks to the valuable collaboration of Sveva Longo, who employed filters normally used in medical tomography. Filters were selected which provided clear images of those parts of the human anatomy that have similar densities to elements of the mummy-board. A cardiovascular filter allowed us to clearly differentiate white areas, which highlight the original plaster, from red areas, which correspond to the wood. These images were later compared with the corresponding UV images, and intervention and restoration, which show up very well in dark blue in the UV image, were necessary in exactly those areas in which great quantities of plaster had been used to fill splits in the planks and to smooth spaces in the wood. The mummy-board is split along the fissures shown in blue in the UV image (Fig. 12). Next, the red area, corresponding to the wood, was highlighted and the white area (the plaster) was virtually eliminated. By doing this it was possible to count a total of thirteen pieces of wood which had been used in the construction of the mummy-board.7 This provided

for the hands (which have been carved separately and dowelled into the two main planks); two more for the wig, and one additional piece for the face.

328

A. AMENTA

Fig. 8: Regular circular holes clearly visible, marked in red (© Vatican Museums).

Fig. 9: Deterioration and cracking revealed in the left and right side panels of the mummy-board (© Vatican Museums).

Fig. 10: The rounded holes of wood-boring insects clearly visible, marked in red (© Vatican Museums).

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN

329

an additional confirmation that its construction had not been very carefully executed and had been done using salvaged pieces of wood, suggesting a very rigorous economy within the workshop (Fig. 13).

Thanks to the CT scanning it has also been possible to identify pieces of wood which contain knots. Finding knots is very important because generally such pieces were regarded as waste. Knots affect the technical properties of the wood. They cause cracking and warping and make the working and cleaving of timber difficult. Knots are defects which weaken timber and lower its value for structural purposes, where strength is an important consideration. Their presence in the mummy-board is further evidence of a very rushed and careless constructional process. Further confirmation of negligence in execution is the fact that the heartwood of the four initial planks appears not to have been oriented in the same way (Fig. 14). Successive CT scan images were studied, employing a second filter, normally used for examining the pulmonary system. This was chosen because wood is a highly porous material and full of air, like the lungs in a human body. This filter enabled a precise mapping of the location, in three-dimensional space, of the numerous original dowels. They are highlighted in light blue, clearly showing their depth and angle of insertion (Fig. 15).8 By examining their orientation in three-dimensional images, it is possible to gain an approximate idea of their length. This provides information on constructional technology and also offers guidance as to possible weak points in the structure of the mummy-board. Some dowels turned out to have been inserted obliquely in order to give greater stability, as for example between the two main planks. The use of a pulmonary filter to study the CT scans has opened a quite unexpected new frontier of research, since it has also revealed the different densities of the various types of wood used in the construction of the mummy-board. Wood density in trees is of major interest, because it determines the wood’s quality, which is correlated with its mechanical and physical properties (e.g. strength and possible shrinkage). The findings from these images were then combined with the micrographic analyses which had already been made on ten microsamples of wood taken by Victoria Asensi Amorós in 2009.9 She identified Faidherbia albida for the main planks and Ficussycomorus for the

8

9

Fig. 11: Damage interpreted as tunnels made by wood-boring insects, marked in yellow (© Vatican Museums).

The planks of the mummy-board have been joined together with twenty-six dowels inserted horizontally; the hands and the parts which make up the head were added afterwards and fixed, always with dowels, to the two main central planks; the face in particular is attached by three dowels to the planks.

She has studied a total of 154 microsamples from most of the Vatican coffins, using classic microtome, in combination with digital analysis of optical micrographs obtained from stained thin sections. She is proceeding year by year to sample wood from all the coffins in the Vatican collection. See Asensi Amorós 2017.

330

A. AMENTA

Fig. 12: CT scan using cardiovascular filter (centre) and comparison with UV image. The original plaster (in white) and wood (in red) are clearly visible (© Vatican Museums).

face; unfortunately, she was not able to take samples from the hands or the dowels, nor from the wig.10 The CT images, however, show clearly that the wood of the face, the left side of the wig, the left hand, the bottom lateral plank, and the foot end have a different density to that of the long planks and the right part of the wig, while the density of the dowels (which appear as a light colour) is different again (see Fig. 15).

10

Identification of the wood species used in the construction of a coffin that is composed of numerous different elements remains an unresolved problem, since it is never possible to sample every area, as there are not always enough damaged areas from which good samples can be taken. Thus, for example, very few samples have been taken from the faces of the coffins, since the decoration here is very often intact; but it is known from

Therefore, two different species of wood were used for the two sides of the wig: the density of the right side appears different from that of the face but shows a similar density to that of the planks; the left side looks porous and lacks growth rings (Fig. 16). At present it is not possible to add anything further, but it is interesting to observe that the object has been constructed using different types of wood. We are

statistics that the face was sometimes made using a different wood from that of the larger planks. The same applies to the hands and the wig. This first led us to the hypothesis that we are dealing with pieces of waste wood which were reused in the workshop. Furthermore, in many cases we found dowels of different types of wood in the same coffin: this seems to offer further confirmation of the economy of the workshop.

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN

331

Fig. 13: Constructional diagram of the mummy-board (© Vatican Museums).

Fig. 14: The heartwood of the four original planks, oriented in different ways (© Vatican Museums).

Fig. 15: The pulmonary filter, facilitating the mapping of the original dowels (in light blue). The image also shows the different densities of the wood (© Vatican Museums).

332

A. AMENTA

Fig. 16: The different species of wood used for the two sides of the wig, the face, the main plank and the modern restoration (© Vatican Museums).

certain, for example, that the wood of the tenons and the dowels was different from that of the main planks, since they had to be very resistant and hard, and yet elastic. One of the most important steps still to be taken, therefore, is to draw up a table recording standard densities for the different species of wood used in the making of coffins of the Third Intermediate Period. Tomographic imaging of wood makes it possible to gather precise information about density, size, location and distribution of defects, as well as the local moisture content. The results obtained also raise the question of how to accurately calibrate a CT scanner used in the determination of wood density. At present all scanners are readily calibrated in terms of linear attenuation coefficients for uniform specimens. However, wood is not a uniform material, and

great care must be taken so as not to translate calibration results into ‘uniform’ density data. With the collaboration of the Diagnostic Laboratory of the Vatican Museums and the Department of Bio-Imaging and Radiological Research of the University of Messina, the VCP intends to create this standard table. Thanks to the CT scanning it has finally been possible to see the back of the mummy-board, which was covered by a wooden panel applied during the restoration made by Pennelli in 1895 and which has therefore not been visible for over 100 years. This panel was virtually eliminated, making it possible to view the object from this ‘new’ perspective. It confirms the large number of pieces of wood used in the construction (Fig. 17). In conclusion, the CT scanning shows that this Vatican mummy-board (inv. MV25022) is an object which certainly did not come from a particularly refined

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN

Fig. 17: The 19th-century strengthening panel virtually eliminated to reveal the back of the mummy-board (© Vatican Museums).

workshop or, alternatively, that it was perhaps made for someone who had limited resources. Pieces of wood from old coffins were used in its construction, often full of woodworm holes, and sometimes already split and deformed, yet great technical skill must have been required to assemble a mummy-board from such defective components: this is not a case of ‘reuse’ sensu stricto. However, although high-quality decoration might have hidden poor construction, the painting technique here is also very careless, despite the use of high-quality pigments, such as orpiment and ochre for the yellow background and huntite for the white areas. The face is crudely carved and was painted in a hurry, so that the image of the deceased has an expressionless gaze; neither the earrings nor the ears are in relief. The breasts are not present and the mummy-board does not present any decorative features moulded in relief, elements which were often applied to enrich the surface and to

333

create tricks of light. Furthermore, the preparatory design, clearly visible in the infrared images, betrays a hurried execution by an uncertain hand: the vertical lines are not entirely straight, and the hieroglyphs and figures have been drawn at speed, both during the preparatory design and in the final painting. In June 2011 the mummy-board was studied by Kathlyn M. Cooney, who identified two aspects which suggest that it is an example of ‘reuse’: the decoration of the wig very clearly overlaps the decoration of the floral collar (Fig. 18), and the earrings are painted over an earlier layer of decoration (Figs 19 and 20). The condition of the wig led Cooney to suspect that the mummy-board of a man had been reused for a woman. The analyses – X-ray images, CT scan images and the stratigraphy of a microsample taken from the left earring – confirmed, however, that the mummy-board was originally made for a woman, and subsequently reused for another female. On the basis of the decoration Cooney has dated the mummy-board to mid-Dynasty 21 and categorises it as belonging to a ‘lower elite’ group (Cooney 2014, 48). This first experimentation with CT scanning concluded with a study of the painting technique. The objective, which so far has been an unobtainable ideal, is now primarily the identification of pigments by means of their densities, and secondly the reading of the pictorial stratigraphy of a coffin. The restorer Giovanna Prestipino continues to work on a series of test-pieces on wood, following the procedure used to study the painting technique of the coffins, and employing the same materials. The wood which she has used is Acacia, on which two ground

Fig. 18: The decoration of the wig clearly overlapping the decoration of the floral collar (Photograph: N. Crawford, © Vatican Museums).

334

A. AMENTA

Fig. 19: Earring, which appears to have been painted over an earlier layer of decoration (Photograph: N. Crawford, © Vatican Museums).

Fig. 20: Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) image of the left earring (© Vatican Museums).

layers – such as are usually found on the coffins from the Bab el-Gasus – were applied, with a yellowochre pigment over them. The first specimens have been subjected to CT scanning in order to identify the density of the pigment. This is the first step towards the creation of reference standards based on the densities of the different layers of painting and pigments (Fig. 21). The main obstacle to success is the thickness of the ‘slice’ obtained from CT scanning, which is 1.5mm, while the depth of the different layers of pictorial decoration is much smaller. In the first phase a comparison with the results of stratigraphic analyses under a microscope for the study of minerals and under Scanning Electron Microscopy/ Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) is fundamentally important. The opportunities which CT scanning offers for non-destructive analysis of threedimensional archaeological objects have inspired the team to become participants in a much wider project which is intended to be submitted to the European Commission for funding under ‘Horizon 2020’. In conclusion, we can without doubt recognise that CT scanning presents a new frontier as yet unexplored, continually offering new food for thought from many points of view. The study of the constructional techniques of coffins, an understanding of the economic

Fig. 21: Pigment tests being subjected to CT scanning (© Vatican Museums).

NEW RESULTS FROM THE CT SCANNING OF A COFFIN

factors which influenced the reuse of wood within a carpenter’s workshop in ancient Egypt, the reuse of wooden artefacts, and even the analysis of coffin painting techniques are subjects which it is hoped can be explored in the not-too-distant future.

Bibliography Amenta, A. 2014. The Vatican Coffin Project. In E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), Thebesinthefirst millenniumBC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 483–99. Amenta, A. and H. Guichard (eds). 2017. Proceedingsofthe FirstVaticancoffinconference. Vatican. Asensi Amorós, V. 2017. The wood of the Third Intermediate Period coffins: The evidence of analysis for the VaticanCoffinProject. In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), Proceedings of the First Vatican Coffin Conference. Vatican, 45–50. Cooney, K. M. 2007. Thecostofdeath:Thesocialandeconomic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. M. 2011. Changing burial practices at the end of the New Kingdom: Defensive adaptations in tomb commissions, coffin commissions, coffin decoration, and

335

mummification. JournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt 47, 3–44. Cooney, K. M. 2013. Coffin reuse in the 21st dynasty: How & why did the Egyptians reuse the body containers of their ancestors? BulletinoftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt 203, 48–51. Cooney, K. M. 2014. Ancient Egyptian funerary arts as social documents: Social place, reuse, and working towards a new typology of 21st Dynasty coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity.Newresearch trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 45–66. Cooney, K. M. 2017. Coffin reuse: Ritual materialism in the context of scarcity. In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), Proceedings of the First Vatican Coffin Conference. Vatican, 101–112. Gasse, A. 1996. Les sarcophages de la Troisième Période IntermédiaireduMuseoGregorianoEgizio. Aegyptiaca Gregoriana III. Vatican. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21st Dynasty Coffins from Thebes. Chronological and typological studies. Theben V. Mainz am Rhein. Prestipino, G. 2017. The Vatican Coffin Project: Observations on the construction techniques of Third Intermediate Period coffins from the Musei Vaticani. In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), ProceedingsoftheFirstVatican CoffinConference. Vatican, 379–406.

EXAMINING THE COFFINS FROM THE COLLECTIVE TOMB FOUND BY ERNESTO SCHIAPARELLI IN THE VALLEY OF THE QUEENS: AN ESSAY ON EPIGRAPHIC AND STYLISTIC ‘CLUSTERED FEATURES’ AS EVIDENCE FOR WORKSHOPS Edoardo GUZZON

Abstract This paper investigates a corpus of coffins dating from the late Third Intermediate Period to the beginning of the Late Period, based on stylistic and epigraphic features. The coffins are now housed in the Museo Egizio, Turin. By means of an accurate comparison of the decorative elements and hieroglyphic signs found on the coffins, it becomes possible to identify workshops or even artists/craftsmen. Teams of workers — or an ancient Egyptian version of an ‘atelier’ — prepared these elaborate ensembles for customers. And since the evidence derives from a closed (elite) group of customers, a diachronic assessment makes it possible to reveal the stylistic changes and evolution of their coffins in relation to the activity of the ‘ateliers’. These workshops are not archaeologically documented in the present state of research, and must be regarded as a hypothetical notion, and yet a very useful one, which provides a new point of view in the grouping of coffins and a more sophisticated way of studying them.1 Introduction: the discovery of the coffins In 1903 Ernesto Schiaparelli, then Director of the Turin Egyptian Museum, discovered a collective tomb in the Valley of the Queens which contained coffins, fragments of coffins, and other elements of funerary

1

I wish to thank John H. Taylor for inviting me to contribute to this volume and for giving me the opportunity of publishing the result of my studies and of handing them on to the scholarly community. The paper presented here contains the results of a study supplementary to the complete publication of the collection in the Museo Egizio, Turin. For images of some of the

ensembles belonging to about fifty people who had been buried there. The collective tomb dated to the latter part of the Third Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Late Period (Dynasties 25–26), reusing two tombs (QV 43 and 44) initially constructed in the Valley for two sons of Ramesses III. This had the potential to be a groundbreaking discovery for the study of the development of ancient Egyptian coffins, because no comparable group of specimens from that period had been discovered before. Unfortunately, the publication that followed some twenty years later was limited to a very short and inadequate chapter (little more than twenty pages, illustrated with small and unhelpful photographs) in a large volume presenting the results almost of Schiaparelli’s entire career (Schiaparelli 1923, 183–206). For more than a hundred years afterwards, this extremely important corpus was relegated to a storage magazine belonging to the Turin Museum, where it awaited a second discovery. In the meantime, no significant publications dealing with this material have appeared, apart from catalogues of recent exhibitions, illustrated with beautiful photographs but providing only limited documentation (D’Amicone and Fontanella 2007; D’Amicone 2009; 2011). Even though Schiaparelli had already started to unravel the tangle of coffins and other remains he found in the Valley of the Queens, he left many lacunae in the documentation. It would be useless and

complete coffins, see the catalogues of temporary exhibitions (D’Amicone and Fontanella 2007; D’Amicone 2009; 2011). All the photographs of coffin details and genealogies published here are from the author’s personal archive.

338

E. GUZZON

time-consuming to list them all here, but some of these gaps in the record continue to pose problems today. For example, the archaeologist did not explain why he considered that the coffins belonged to a single burial place, although they had been found in two separate tombs; nor did he record which coffin came from which tomb. Moreover, it seems quite incredible that he did not produce a complete list of all the pieces in the corpus, and omitted some of them from his publication. Unfortunately, Schiaparelli’s errors and misreadings of inscriptions were not only numerous, but have long been considered as the ‘official version’, since his book has been almost the only source of information available for more than a century. These issues have created serious obstacles which have required much work to overcome. The collection remains today one of the most significant of its kind and deserves the attention of scholars for the following reasons. The most important feature of the corpus is its unity: this group of coffins belonged almost entirely to members of two bloodlines. Schiaparelli himself had noticed the genealogical links in reading the inscriptions, allowing him to reconstruct two large family trees and several smaller ones (the latter consisting only of parents with a son or a daughter). This implies, in certain cases, an indisputable chronological proximity between some of the deceased individuals. A group of people with related occupations, buried in the same place, in the same period, provided with coffins of comparable artistic and economic value suggesting a similar social level and inscribed with analogous (sometimes identical) texts necessarily constitutes a very interesting basis for the investigation of funerary and religious habits (particularly the production of coffins). It is very probable that this small group of the elite, settled in (western) Thebes during the 8th/7th centuries BC, employed the same artists for their eternal abodes. The production of these polychrome, richly decorated and inscribed ensembles would have represented a substantial amount of work and profit for the craftsmen and would, therefore, have necessitated the establishment of workshops where teams of artists, artisans and painters were accustomed to work together. Since the occupants of the collective tomb were active for at least a century and a half in the service of the temple of Amun, the productions of these workshops (which may also have been attached to that temple) will have reflected the successive changes in

decoration and artistic development that can be observed on the coffins. Since most Egyptian coffins were the products of a highly sophisticated manufacturing process and were made by craftsmen serving a (presumably) rich ‘middle class’ (comprising religious officials, judging by their titles), one might easily imagine that those workshops were comparable to modern fashion ‘ateliers’. Although the personnel of the ‘ateliers’ would have changed over time, there were probably periods when the same artists worked together. The continuity of the work must have determined a certain consistency of style when coffins were produced in the same ‘atelier’. One may, therefore, expect to find some common elements of design, indicating that some coffins were crafted by the same hands. It appears all the more likely that members of the same family would commission the same ‘atelier’ to produce coffins for their recently deceased relatives. On the other hand, coffins produced in the same ‘atelier’ are not necessarily identical or very similar in appearance; in fact no two of them were exactly alike in their iconography, in the structure of their decoration or in their texts. However, resemblances can be observed in the smaller details, as will be explained below, with the result that some coffins can be attributed to the same ‘atelier’ even when no obvious iconographic link can be observed. The coffin owners and changes in the style of coffins Differences in ‘designs’ and typologies of decoration on coffins of the Third Intermediate and Late Periods have helped Egyptologists to date the coffins or, at least, to build a model of stylistic development which might ultimately lead to a chronological path for the relative dating of the coffins. Nevertheless, the great variety in the decoration of coffins remains truly dazzling. John H. Taylor (Taylor 2003) made fundamental progress in the study of coffins in considering religious scenes, disposition of images and details and shapes of hieroglyphs, and establishing a stylistic classification. This work was founded chiefly on the basis of coffins which are isolated and/or scattered in museums around the world. In contrast, by examining coffins from the same provenance that share many common features, the scholar can be more certain about the consistency of many details. Besides, the chronological outline

COFFINS FROM THE COLLECTIVE TOMB FOUND BY ERNESTO SCHIAPARELLI IN THE VALLEY OF THE QUEENS

offered by the family tree of the owners can help to chart the sequential appearance and disappearance of specific details and features. For the ancient Egyptians variety in itself possessed a value, since even among closely connected coffins such as those discovered by Schiaparelli, no two specimens are identical. However, a closer scrutiny of the coffins and ensembles can sometimes reveal the links between them. The aim of the present paper is not to identify new dating criteria for coffins, but to focus on details and peculiarities of decoration, through which coffins might be gathered into groups sharing similar attributes (often of minor significance in themselves) within a wellestablished and uniform corpus. These considerations might eventually become useful for chronological purposes, but at this preliminary stage their possible significance can only be tentative. In order to test the feasibility of this theoretical link between burials and workshops, it is necessary to search for clues by examining the corpus. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that the distinction of different ‘ateliers’ could also help to solve other lesser problems. One can posit the existence of a chronological sequence of ‘ateliers’, running parallel to the generational succession of one or more groups of individuals who, from time to time, made requests for the work of these craftsmen. In the following sections I will try to analyse some possible characteristic styles, which appear to be recurrent in the corpus. There might, of course, have been other ‘ateliers’ besides those mentioned here, and hence the observations made below may be subject to change, but the reader must keep in mind that these groupings are hypothetical and that they represent an initial step in establishing distinctions among the coffins, based on ‘minor’ variations in stylistic features. ‘Atelier’ no. 1 The first half of the corpus comprises the coffins of one main family (FamilyA), as well as others belonging to unrelated individuals (Group 1) which date to about the same period as the coffins of the members of Family A. At least three different lid designs are attested, and some distinctive decorative motifs occur on other elements of the ensemble, such as the figure of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris on the interior of the cases. It is possible that different coffin designs were produced in the same ‘atelier’ and by the same artists.

339

Traces of the work of individual artists reveal a common origin for two coffins. The Turin corpus offers a rare opportunity to make use of this circumstance, since there is an absolute certainty that the items belonged to members of the same group of people and date from the same period of time. In this case, it is possible that variations resulted from a change of artists or by spontaneous innovation due to evolving fashions, changes of religious customs or attempts to imitate monuments made for persons of higher status. The reconstruction of Family A’s lineage has not changed significantly since Schiaparelli’s original study (Fig. 1). It consists of five generations, represented by fourteen people, of whom at least eight left evidence in the collective tomb. Of the eight coffins that Schiaparelli found, three were given to the Cairo Museum (and then dispersed worldwide) and the rest to Turin. In the corpus, another seven coffins belong to the related Group 1, which has very similar features to those of Family A. The most common ‘design’ found on the lids consists of horizontal registers containing religious scenes, which alternate with one or several columns of text, besides other minor decorative schemes. A very popular element was the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure painted on the floor of the coffin case. While the Family A coffins can be chronologically arranged on a genealogical basis, the specimens of Group 1 can be dated only roughly by comparing them with the others. From the point of view of the ‘atelier’, the first part of Family A seems to be distinct from the later generations. As can be seen in the scheme (see Fig. 1), the earliest attested member of Family A is a woman called Tadiaset-taheqet, daughter of a couple, of which only the mother’s name is known. The decorative style of her coffin (Turin S. 5244: D’Amicone 2009, 107) has led scholars to assign it to an earlier phase IIIA, while the coffins which form the rest of the corpus are attributed to the later phase IIIB (Aston 2009, 256–61). In the next two generations, there are coffins of Iuefdi and Nesimendjem A (Turin S. 5253, S. 5227), two sons of Tadiaset-taheqet, and a grandson, the child of one of her sons. The coffins of this first group share many common epigraphic, stylistic and iconographic characteristics. The same craftsmen probably worked on them, despite the fact that the earliest specimen has a lid design which is completely different from the rest.

340

E. GUZZON

Fig. 1: Genealogy of Family A.

In addition to the members of this family, the coffins which are genealogically isolated show features which make it possible to attribute them to the ‘atelier’ no. 1; in two instances we do not even know the names of both of the coffin-owner’s parents, but it is almost certain that they were customers of the same workshop: Nakhtkhonsuru (Turin S. 5249) and Bes (Turin S. 5252 and S. 5232).

The most recognisable and typical diagnostic features of the coffins of Family A and Group 1 are the following: • The hieroglyphic signs are painted in a ‘calligraphic’ manner; they were traced in a thick but swift silhouette and then coloured in with blue pigment (Fig. 2). On the outer walls of the lower parts of the cases, the large and elegant signs create

COFFINS FROM THE COLLECTIVE TOMB FOUND BY ERNESTO SCHIAPARELLI IN THE VALLEY OF THE QUEENS

•

•

•

decorative friezes. The hieroglyphs are beautiful and simple and their distinctive shapes recur on the coffins of this group. Fig. 2 shows peculiar forms of the throne-hieroglyph (st) and the water-sign (n) at the beginning of the ḏdmdwỉn formula in the inscriptions on three coffins of this group. Some of the texts on the coffins, even when very short, include the same specific quotation: thus the lids of Iuefdi (Turin S. 5253: Schiaparelli 1923, 186, fig. 141) and Bes (Turin S. 5252) each have a small portion of the first chapter of the Book of the Dead, with an epithet written in a peculiar way (kꜢỉmnt ‘Bull of the West’, Fig. 3). The decoration includes patterns that are very common in other coffins of the same period. These include gold-coloured backgrounds, broad yellow horizontal bands bordered by thin red and black ones, and vertical lines of red, white and blue stripes resembling ribbons. The same motifs are also present in coffins made by the later ‘atelier’ no. 2, but in an altered and distorted form. Some decorative motifs appear for the first time only on

1

341

2

Fig. 3: Beginning of the ḏdmdwỉn formula on the coffins of: 1. Iuefdi (Turin S. 5253); and 2. Bes (Turin S. 5252). Note the shape of the st sign, the kꜢỉmntt hieroglyphs and the position of the signs forming the name ‘Osiris’.

1

2

3

Fig. 4: Examples of very similar patterns for the wesekh-collar on different coffins.

•

• •

3

2

later coffins: no bands of small polychrome squares, or small cylindrical ‘belts’ are attested in the work of the first ‘atelier’. The patterns used on the wig cover and wesekhcollar are always the same (Fig. 4), including leaves and flowers, as well as white triangles with dots (with varying degrees of detail). On the lid, the horizon-Ꜣḫt is always painted on the top of the head. Other well-attested dating criteria support the contemporaneity of the coffins.2

1

Fig. 2: The beginning of the ḏdmdwỉn formula with the hieroglyphs for st and for n (1. coffin of Iuefdi, Turin S. 5253; 2. coffin of Tadiaset-taheqet, Turin S. 5244) and the typical form of the st sign with the seat pointing upward (3. coffin of Nesimendjem A, Turin S. 5227).

2

Leahy noted and catalogued the different ways of spelling the name of Osiris (Leahy 1979) and Taylor has emphasised the importance of a peculiar shape of the wick-ḥ (Taylor 2006): both of these details provide clues to the date of the coffins.

E. GUZZON

342

1

2

3

Fig. 5: Comparison of the scene of the ‘weighing of the heart’ on the coffins of: 1. Tadiaset-taheqet (Turin S. 5244); 2. Iuefdi (Turin S. 5253); 3. Nesimendjem A (Turin S. 5227).

This selection of characteristic features that appear in the first group seems sufficient to show a clear distinction between the coffins associated with the first and second parts of Family A. Finally, a comparison of details in recurring iconographic elements (such as the image of Thoth guiding the deceased away from the balance) supports the proposed link between these coffins (Fig. 5).

1 2 Fig. 6: Hieroglyphs on the coffin of Harwa B (Turin S. 5229): 1. on the lid; 2. on the external wall of the lower part of the case.

‘Atelier’ no. 2 The second group is unfortunately represented by only two complete coffins from Family A: the case of Harwa B (Turin S. 5229: D’Amicone 2009, 100) and the coffin of Hor A (now housed in the Cork University Museum, Ireland). Three other coffins, unrelated to Family A, can also be associated with this group: the coffins of Padimenipet A (Turin S. 5240), and Nesimenipet (Turin S. 5234: D’Amicone 2009, 133) and the lower part of the coffin of Hor C (Turin P. 3801: D’Amicone 2009, 132). Stylistic traits and details clearly show that these coffins were decorated by a totally different workshop to that which produced the coffins considered above: • Hieroglyphs, on both the inside and outside of the coffins, are small and traced in a very cursive manner. The texts on the coffin of Harwa B contain many errors and misunderstandings (Fig. 6). • On the exterior walls of the case, friezes of calligraphic signs are absent, their place being taken by narrow columns or rows (depending on the orientation of the texts) of hastily written texts with uneven lines drawn in freehand running above and below the inscription.

•

•

•

• •

The texts include no quotations from specific spells, consisting instead of repetitive sequences of ḥtpdỉ nsw or ḏdmdwỉn formulae, with errors and omissions. The decoration abounds in patterns and linear decorative motifs, but they are often poorly formed, small or very small in scale. Chains of small coloured squares are used to separate and define different areas in the organisation of decoration on the lid. The scenes depicted on the top of the coffin head differ from those on the coffins of ‘atelier’ no. 1. Human figures in the scenes are generally smaller and less carefully drawn, but retain the same proportions as those on the earlier coffins.

COFFINS FROM THE COLLECTIVE TOMB FOUND BY ERNESTO SCHIAPARELLI IN THE VALLEY OF THE QUEENS

•

Inside the case the image of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris becomes very common (although this tripartite funerary deity is also depicted on the interior of the coffin of Bes, one of the specimens attributed to ‘atelier’ no. 1).

It is difficult to precisely assess the features of the coffin of Hor A, brother of Harwa B, which is now in Cork, Ireland, and that of Mes, in Denver, which probably belonged to the same group. On the evidence of photographs, these lids were decorated with registers filled alternately with columns of text and religious scenes. Hieroglyphic signs were simple and swiftly executed; sometimes they possess ‘calligraphic’ qualities, but they are never drawn as silhouettes as in the products of ‘atelier’ no. 1. On the coffins attributed to ‘atelier’ no. 2, the signs are traced with single, short and rapid strokes of a brush and the decorative elements are framed by small coloured squares (instead of polychrome bands) with text inscribed in the central band. The patterns which decorate the collars were formed with lines and dots instead of the leaves and flowers typical of ‘atelier’ no. 1. Although comparison of these coffins is challenging, it is possible to notice that, even where the type of decoration, the ‘designs’ and the iconographic material remain the same, the style has completely changed. This might suggest that workshops perpetuated longestablished decorative patterns although the individual artists changed.

Fig. 7: Details of the lids of the coffins of (left) Tjesmutper (Turin S. 5241) and (right) Sekheperenimen (Turin S. 5246).

343

Lastly, comparison between the two ‘ateliers’ produces the impression that the economic and artistic value of the artefacts clearly declined during the transitional phase. ‘Atelier’ no. 3 The identification of this ‘atelier’ is still open to question, as it consists of only two coffins, those of Sekheperenimen (Turin S. 5224 and S. 5246: D’Amicone 2011, 187) and Tjesmutper (Turin S. 5241: D’Amicone 2011, 183) (Figs 7 and 8). While they may not appear very similar in terms of style and the technique of the painter, these coffins share the following iconographic features: • Both have an early version of the ‘central-tab design’, in which the ‘cordon’ of protective gods around the central inscription is arranged in the same orientation as the rest of the decoration. • Both have a ‘weighing of the heart’ scene, which increases in height towards the right. • Both have a very small scene representing the mummy on the bier, and images of the eye of Horus in the lowest compartments above the foot (Fig. 9). • The colouring of the lids is distinguished by a contrast between light and dark red. • They have the figure of a scarab on the top of the head, and columns of text at the sides of the winged goddess on the chest.

Fig. 8: Composite image of the faces of the two lids, Turin S. 5241 (left) and S. 5246 (right).

344

E. GUZZON

Unfortunately, the face of Sekheperenimen’s coffin is extensively damaged, but the rest of the structure is perfectly preserved. Sekheperenimen’s ensemble found in the collective tomb also included a larger lid with a simple ‘singlecolumn’ design and a case with the figure of PtahSokar-Osiris painted inside. The common features listed above which emphasise the connection between the coffins are principally iconographic in nature, while the hallmarks of the ‘atelier’ are less prominent. In this case it is the structure of the decoration that can confirm the links between the coffins. Sekheperenimen’s coffin is certainly earlier and could be placed in the gap between the two families, contradicting the connection of Tjesmutper with Family B, as suggested by Schiaparelli who placed her in the second generation of that family. Family B’s structure is less clear than that of Family A. It is composed of five people, apparently all living at the same epoch. They might all have been siblings (as Schiaparelli suggested) or were more probably the sons and daughter of (at least) two couples. The composition of this family is not discussed in detail here because these coffins could not be clearly attributed to a particular ‘atelier’, although Group 2, which is probably contemporary with and/or later than Family B, offers some examples.

1

2

Fig. 9: Comparison of the ‘mummy on the bier’ scene on the coffins of: 1. Tjesmutper (Turin S. 5241); 2. Sekheperenimen (Turin S. 5246).

1

2

Fig. 10: Comparison of the hieroglyphic scripts on the coffins of: 1. Irtherru (Turin S. 5238); 2. Nesimendjem C (Turin S. 5250).

‘Atelier’ no. 4 Group 2 comprises a large number of mostly isolated lids and cases that cannot be placed with certainty in chronological order. However, most of them can be assigned to a later date than the coffins of Family B, on the basis of iconographic criteria: for example, they all have the ‘late’ version of the ‘central-tab’ lid design and on some of them the head of the goddess Nut is positioned below the lower border of the wesekh-collar on the breast. Group 2 includes the most carefully crafted, and hence perhaps the most expensive, cases in the corpus, differing completely in style from the rest. This very large group deserves a more detailed study than is possible here, but two pairs of cases show striking similarity.

1

2

Fig. 11: Comparison of the patterns of the wesekh-collars on the coffins Turin S. 5238 (left) and S. 5250 (right).

COFFINS FROM THE COLLECTIVE TOMB FOUND BY ERNESTO SCHIAPARELLI IN THE VALLEY OF THE QUEENS

The first pair, Turin S. 5238 and S. 5250, belonged to an Irtherru (D’Amicone 2009, 136) and to Nesimendjem C (D’Amicone 2009, 137). It is very clear that, in these two lids, some of the decorative motifs are identical. These include: • The form of the hieroglyphic script (Fig. 10). • The patterns of wig covers and wesekh-collars (Fig. 11). • The manner of carving the false beards in wood. • The details of the religious scenes, such as the ‘weighing of the heart’ and the ‘mummy on the bier’ (Figs 12 and 13). More than ever in this case, it appears evident that both coffins were produced by the same workshop, although the two lids differ in one very important detail: the twisting body of a protecting snake, which surrounds one of them. This decorative feature might have led to the coffins being assigned to different periods if they had been found separately. In fact the presence/absence of elements of such importance are the main landmarks to be emphasised when analysing an isolated coffin. The second pair consists of two women’s coffins, Turin S. 5242 and S. 5239, belonging respectively to Mutenmehyt (D’Amicone 2011, 188) and Asetemhat (D’Amicone 2009, 60–1). In this case too, even though less evident than above, some similarity can be observed:

Fig. 12: Comparison of the ‘mummy on the bier’ scene on the coffins: 1. Turin S. 5238; 2. S. 5250.

• • • • • •

345

The iconography of the large goddess Nut (with the ‘bag-wig’) on the ‘chest’ (Fig. 14). The iconography of the ‘mummy on the bier’ scene (Fig. 15). The style of the ‘weighing of the heart’ scene (Fig. 16). The style, disposition and calligraphy of the hieroglyphs. The framing devices, formed from small multicoloured squares. The rich palette used for the scenes and decorative elements.

Conclusion The groups presented here probably do not represent all the ‘ateliers’ which produced this corpus, since this paper only describes an experimental attempt to demonstrate the potential that Schiaparelli’s collection can offer for further studies. These traces left by the ancient artists who worked on the coffins cannot be considered as important as the iconographic criteria identified by scholars such as John H. Taylor (Taylor 2003) and Andrzej Niwiński (Niwiński 1984), who established general principles of classification and dating. The corpus is simultaneously a self-contained group, while having clear links to other coffins of Dynasties 25 and 26. It enables research to focus deeply on the analysis of the iconographical links, even though the results can obviously not be easily exported to other contexts. It is to be hoped that these observations, when juxtaposed with a statistical examination of all other recurrent features in the coffins, may increase the number of diagnostic criteria and complete

Fig. 13: Comparison of the ‘weighing of the heart’ scene on the coffins of Nesimendjem C (Turin S. 5250: above) and Irtherru (Turin S. 5238: below).

346

E. GUZZON

Fig. 14: Comparison of the figure of Nut on the breast of the coffins of Mutenmehyt (Turin S. 5242: above) and Asetemhat (Turin S. 5239: below).

Fig. 15: Comparison of the ‘mummy on the bier’ scene on the coffins of Mutenmehyt (Turin S. 5242: left) and Asetemhat (Turin S. 5239: right).

Fig. 16: Comparison of the ‘weighing of the heart’ scene on the coffins of Mutenmehyt (Turin S. 5242: above) and Asetemhat (Turin S. 5239: below).

COFFINS FROM THE COLLECTIVE TOMB FOUND BY ERNESTO SCHIAPARELLI IN THE VALLEY OF THE QUEENS

our knowledge of the decorative elements. Finally, this investigation contributes towards clarifying the content of Schiaparelli’s group, shedding a little light on it and at the same time providing a somewhat less abstract model for the assessment of the coffins.

Bibliography Aston, D. A. 2009. Burial assemblages of Dynasty 21–25. Chronology–typology–developments. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 54. Vienna. D’Amicone, E. and E. Fontanella. 2007. Nefer – La donna nell’AnticoEgitto. Milan. D’Amicone, E. (ed.) 2009. Sarcófagos del Antiguo Egipto. Jardineros de Amón en el Valle de las Reinas. Barcelona.

347

D’Amicone, E. 2011. ModaybellezaenelantiguoEgipto. Barcelona. Leahy, A. 1979. The name of Osiris written . Studienzur AltägyptischenKultur 7, 141–53. Niwiński, A. 1984. SargNR-SpZt. LexikonderÄgyptologie V, 434–68. Schiaparelli, E. 1923. Relazione sui lavori della missione archeologica italiana in Egitto (Anni 1903–1920). I: Esplorazionedella‘ValledelleRegine’nellanecropoli diTebe. Turin. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), TheThebannecropolis:past,presentandfuture. London, 95–121, pls 45–75. Taylor, J. H. 2006. The sign (Gardiner V28) as a dating criterion for the funerary texts of the Third Intermediate Period. In B. Backes, I. Munro and S. Stöhr (eds), Totenbuch-Forschungen:GesammelteBeiträgedes2. Internationalen Totenbuch-Symposiums. Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 11. Wiesbaden, 357–65.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25 John H. TAYLOR

Abstract As coffins can be assigned to particular periods and regions with increasing confidence, it becomes easier to examine not only diachronic changes, but also contemporaneous variation and to search for meaningful patterns therein. A person’s social status was strongly reflected in their funerary provision, and in the Third Intermediate Period, when private tombs were rarely conspicuous or original works, the main funerary indicators of status were the coffins. This paper examines the decorative programmes of two contemporaneous types of Theban coffin assemblage, which can be associated with particular groups in the social hierarchy of Dynasty 25. These ‘higher’ and ‘lower elite’ types can be identified as key points within a broader spectrum of coffin production, and it can be proposed that adaptations of these two models reflect the differing social rank and/or purchasing power of their owners. The pattern of occurrence of the distinctive palaeographical and graphical ‘fingerprints’ of particular craftsmen suggests that the coffin assemblages were not always produced in distinct, self-contained ‘workshops’, but rather by a wider pool of painters and scribes who adapted their work to the requirements of the purchaser. The paper also poses questions about the conceptual model of the rebirth process as reflected in the coffins of persons of differing status, and the degree of freedom which the craftsmen may have enjoyed in manipulating the magical texts and images in their repertoire.

Introduction It is a widely accepted view that at all periods synchronic variations in ancient Egyptian mortuary provision — the location and size of tombs and the character of their contents — reflected the social status of the deceased (Wilkinson 2001, 301; Cooney 2007a, 273– 5; 2007b, 4). Although recent research increasingly highlights the complexities and ambiguities which underlie such a statement (Stevenson 2009, 181–2), it remains in a general sense valid. Throughout the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms the tomb was the most

conspicuous signifier of rank, although coffins and other funerary objects also fulfilled that function. In the Third Intermediate Period the significance of the tomb changed: many burials, even those of persons of high status, reused older sepulchres, and such original tombs as were made were architecturally modest and usually had little or no decoration (for example, that of the God’s Wife of Amun Karomama: Mourot 2017, 68–71, pls II–III, 13–16). As has been often observed, at this time the coffin assumed much of the traditional symbolic role of the tomb in providing a secure and eternal environment for the cyclical rebirth of the deceased, as well as projecting the primary manifestation of its owner’s status during the rituals on the day of burial. A coffin — even a plain and simple one — was an expensive commodity, and possession of ‘decorated’ coffins was the prerogative of those members of Egyptian society who are now generally designated the ‘elite’. This is not the place to discuss the definition of that term as used by Egyptologists (on which a consensus is unlikely to be reached: Grajetzki 2010, 181; Smith 2017, 551). ‘Elite’ is used here simply to designate those who possessed sufficient surplus ‘capital’ (Richards 2005, 16; Li 2017, 149, 152–4, 165) to enable them to afford a coffin or coffins. As Baines notes (2013, 6, 8), most of such funerary material reflects self-sustaining elite preoccupations, and thus the members of the elite are distinguished by a particular type of burial arrangement, reflecting generally similar beliefs and aspirations (Cooney 2007b, 6). Nonetheless, at any given period, sub-distinctions within the corpus can be recognised, pointing to the existence of a more nuanced relationship between the form and decoration of coffins and the social status of their owners. The nature of this patterning is considered below, with reference to the Theban necropolis in Dynasty 25. Establishing a social typology for Theban coffins of Dynasty 25 Kathlyn Cooney has offered a brief and subjective classification of the Dynasty 21 coffin corpus into ‘highest’, ‘high’, ‘mid’ and ‘low’ elite and has proposed

350

J. H. TAYLOR

a consistent link between the owner’s social status and the material richness of his/her burial outfit, as manifested chiefly in the number of coffins per person, the materials used, and the proportion of ‘orthodox’ specialised content in the iconography (Cooney 2014, 48). As it stands, this is a simple economic equation, but a cultural dimension is added by the suggestion that only the ‘higher’ elite could afford the services of those craftsmen who possessed (or had access to) sophisticated religious knowledge, as manifested in the occurrence of specific extracts from the Book of the Dead or the Books of the Netherworld on their coffins, which were presented in both orthodox and innovative ways. Cooney adds that ‘Mid level coffins show a more standard and banal selection of scenes and iconography from the Book of the Dead’, while ‘lower elite coffins ... betray more innovative and unorthodox styles of scenes and iconography, who [sic] do not always pull from the traditional and accepted Book of the Dead scenes, sometimes betraying naive, “folkart” types not seen on higher elite examples’ (Cooney 2014, 64). The researcher is therefore directed to examine not only the material quality of the coffins but also their iconographic and inscriptional content as clues to the owner’s status, and, although not considered by Cooney, it is self-evident that the associated burial goods, however limited in number, also contribute to the picture. Theban coffins of the late 8th to mid-7th century BC also lend themselves well to this approach. The period (Dynasty 25 and early Dynasty 26) was characterised by a new range of norms in elite burial practice, marked most distinctively by the use of assemblages with rectangular (qrsw) outer coffins and anthropoid inner coffins of the ‘bivalve’ type (for the term: Raven 2009, 465). The considerable variation which these coffins show yields evidence for social patterning. The social status of the deceased appears to provide a very strong motivation for variation in burial arrangements, while other potential factors appear far less influential. There is, for example, little reason to

suppose that either the gender or ethnicity of the owners were reflected in the composition of their burial assemblages at this period in any significant way. The coffins of males and females are usually distinguishable only by the rendering of the face and headdress (Taylor 2017) and through the differing depiction of the deceased in scenes of judgement and adoration. Whereas in some periods a woman’s burial outfit was often materially less rich than that of her husband (e.g. fewer and smaller coffins, Cooney 2007b, 253–4), there is little evidence for this in Dynasty 25. Moreover, the ‘foreign’ ethnicity of an owner is usually detectable on the coffins only through non-Egyptian names (often in unconventional spellings) or occasionally in minor graphic features such as depictions of Kushite women with dark skin and close-cropped curly hair and a Nubian-style costume (Vittmann 2007; Budka 2010a, 117, 347; 2010b, 503, 505, 509–10), but even then only in small-scale scenes, not on the coffin mask.1 Libyan ethnicity or cultural affinity is not evoked at all in coffin iconography. Atypical objects placed in the grave or tomb may sometimes point to foreign origin, but the coffins themselves are scarcely distinguishable from those of Egyptians (Budka 2010b, 510, 514), and seem in fact to symbolically confirm the deceased as a member of Egyptian society. In the Theban coffins of this period, diachronic change reflecting evolution in fashions can be recognised, but considerable synchronic variation is also apparent in the number of coffins per person (one, two or three), in their form (rectangular qrsw, sub-anthropoid or anthropoid)2 and in the specificity of iconographic and inscriptional content (images and texts selected from important sources, and often located on the surface according to an apparent ‘programme’, versus common generic texts and images in repetitive arrangements). The connections between this synchronic variation and the status of the owners have been noted before (Raven 2009, 481; Sheikholeslami 2014b, 455), and it appears likely that a deeper study of this relationship can contribute to a social typology.

1

2

Iru, buried in ‘Grab VII’ in the Asasif, has been identified as a Kushite on the grounds of his name and the anatomical features of his skeleton. Exceptionally, it has been suggested that a dark skin-colour was used not only for his image in the judgement scene, but also on the face mask of his inner coffin, to allude to his ethnicity: Budka 2010a, 129; 2010b, 507.

The term ‘sub-anthropoid’ is used here to denote coffins on which the front and sides are modelled in imitation of the shrouded mummy, whereas the back is completely flat and undecorated, so as to lie in a recumbent position. Such coffins are to be distinguished from the fully anthropoid ‘bivalve’ type, depicting the mummified deceased standing on a plinth and supported at the back by a dorsal pillar (Taylor 2003, 107, 112–17).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

On the basis of recurrent clusters of features (‘attribute states’) a more and a less elaborate type of burial assemblage can be distinguished among the Theban material. These categories, here termed the ‘higher elite’ and ‘lower elite’ types, are based purely on observation of Dynasties 25–26 material, and do not necessarily correlate with elements of Cooney’s classification, mentioned above. It is not proposed that these groupings reflect an actual historical division of ancient Egyptian society into classes; rather they are ‘sociological profiles’, intended to serve simply as an artificial framework for the study of groups of coffins which share similar attributes (Lemos 2017, 124–5). The classification may, however, reveal patterns in the way religious texts and images were used in the burial outfits of persons of different ranks. Although these higher and lower ‘types’ are artificial constructs, there are enough surviving examples of each to indicate that they represented relatively welldefined models of burial assemblages. This probably reflects the influence of the craftsmen over the purchasers, and calls to mind Herodotus’ account of the different types of ‘mummies’ which embalmers showed to prospective customers, graded according to price (de Sélincourt 1972, 160; Lloyd 1976, 356). Just as mummification techniques were subject to variation and adaptation, the higher and lower elite burial assemblages just mentioned were by no means the only options available in the period in question. They are points on a spectrum which also included augmented and reduced versions of these two models. The character of these adaptations was doubtless determined by a range of factors including wealth, religious attitudes and the repertoires and technical abilities of craftsmen, as well as time constraints affecting the completion of work. Even a preliminary study of the Theban burial assemblages reveals numerous incremental differences between these two relatively fixed points. Hence without a more intensive study it would be premature to create a ‘middle elite’ group, at the risk of oversimplifying a complex subject and inhibiting freedom of

3

In some of the earliest examples of this model, the innermost covering of the body is a cartonnage case or a hybrid bivalve coffin made of cartonnage instead of wood. Examples include the burials of Tabaktenashket (Tamyt) and Ankhpakhered, from Ramesseum tombs 1911.28–9 (Aston 2009, 250) and the ensembles of Ankhefenkhons (i) and his sons Nesamun (ii) and Besenmut (ii) from Deir el-Bahri, Cairo CG 41001, 41042–3; 41002,

351

interpretation by forcing examples into loosely defined categories. ‘Higher elite’ burials These assemblages typically consisted of three wooden coffins, each different in form and decoration (Figs 1–4). The outermost coffin was of rectangular shape, mounted on a flat base, with a post at each corner and a vaulted lid or top — a type now commonly known in Egyptological parlance as the qrsw. Painted wooden images of falcons were often placed on the four corner posts and a jackal and falcon on the central band of the lid (Greco 2010, 31; Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 468; Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 214–15). The middle or intermediary coffin was of sub-anthropoid form (above, p. 350, n. 2), while the innermost coffin was of fully anthropoid, ‘bivalve’ shape, depicting the mummified deceased with a plinth beneath the feet and supported by a dorsal pillar, like a statue.3 The qrsw outer coffin is a cosmogram, the universe ‘in a box’ (Taylor 2003, 112; Greco 2009, 26; 2010, 45). Its vaulted top is symbolically equated with the sky, and its case with the earthly and netherworld realms; its shape moreover echoes that of a shrine, or — more specifically — the tomb of Osiris (Greco 2009, 21, 24–5; 2010). The deceased in his/her fully mummiform inner coffin was identified with Osiris in the embalming hall, surrounded by divine protectors during the night vigil (Stundenwachen) which preceded the day of burial and awaiting resurrection. These coffin assemblages are elaborate symbolic constructs. Their function was to create multiple cosmoi, arranged in layers representing distinct yet interconnected sacred spaces, and all having the deceased as their focal point. The different forms of the coffins were deliberately chosen to reflect their symbolic roles, and texts were used extensively, particularly on the inner coffin, where inscriptions were written sometimes in very small script and on the internal as well as the external surfaces. The mummy was thus encased in

41044–5; 41007, 41047 (Moret 1913, 1–22, 38–61, 99–101, pls I–II, VII–IX; Gauthier 1913, 1–83, 111–38, pls I–VII, IX–X). Titenese, wife of the vizier Nesmin B, had a unique (?) assemblage, comprising a qrsw outer coffin, two intermediary sub-anthropoid coffins of wood, and an innermost case of cartonnage (Aston 2009, 204–5).

352

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 1: Higher elite assemblage, outer qrsw coffin of Nesamun (ii), Cairo CG 41002 (after Moret 1913, pl. IX).

Fig. 2: Higher elite assemblage, intermediary coffin of Nesamun (ii), Cairo CG 41045 (after Gauthier 1913, pl. VI).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Fig. 3: Higher elite assemblage, inner coffin of Nesamun (ii), Cairo CG 41044 (after Gauthier 1913, pl. IV).

353

354

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 4: Higher elite assemblage of Djedthutiufankh, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1895.153,155–6 (© The Ashmolean Museum).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

magical writings, recalling somewhat the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts or the New Kingdom practice of inscribing a shroud or unrolling a Book of the Dead papyrus over the body. It is probably no coincidence that this development of the elite burial assemblage reached its full realisation in Dynasty 25 and coincided with a major revival of older funerary literature and the reorganisation of the Book of the Dead. The higher elite coffins have rich selections of funerary texts, not only from the repertoire of Book of the Dead spells but also from the Pyramid Texts (the coffin ensemble of Nesamun [ii] of the Besenmut family is a good example: Moret 1913, 38–61, pls VII–IX; Gauthier 1913, 31–83, pls IV–VII: see Figs 1–3). There is also evidence that the spatial arrangement of these texts followed a careful plan, with spells which related to (for example) the head or the feet inscribed on the appropriate parts of the coffin (Taylor 2010, 75). One ‘programme’ in particular played a prominent role in the design of these coffins. As Cynthia Sheikholeslami (2010a, 380; 2014a, 114–22) has pointed out, the form and iconography of these coffin assemblages share many elements with the composition now known as the Awakening of Osiris and the Transit of the Solar Barques. In this highly condensed ‘Book of the Netherworld’, Horus awakens Osiris to new life in his shrine-tomb, enabling him to travel in the evening and morning barques of the sun god and thereby to experience endless repetition of the life-cycle (Roberson 2013). This composition, which reflects the concept of ‘solar-Osirian unity’ so prevalent in mortuary practices in the first millennium BC, is first presented in visual form as a large tableau in the Osireion of Sety I at Abydos and also appears in Dynasty 20 in the tombs of Ramesses VI and IX. In Dynasty 22 it is depicted on a wall of the tomb of Sheshonq III at Tanis (NRT V), and pictorial allusions to it show that it was already an influential iconographic source in the design of nonroyal coffins at Thebes in the same period.4 The

4

The figure of the awakening Osiris appears on some Dynasty 22 coffins (such as London, British Museum EA 6659: Taylor 2003, pl. 53), while others have images of the royal attributes (crowns, kilt, sceptres, bows and arrows etc.) which lie beneath Osiris’ bed; these items are depicted in subordinate locations, sometimes inside the wooden coffin (Boston MFA 72.4838b–c, unpublished) or on the back or under the feet of the cartonnage case (Leiden L.XII.3/M.36: Taylor 2003, pl. 51; Toronto 910.10: Wilson and Baum 1978, 11), reinforcing the conceptual equivalence between two-dimensional scene and three-dimensional projection. Members of the company of protector deities

355

Awakening and Transit gained renewed prominence in Dynasties 25–26, appearing in Theban tombs 33, 132 and 410 (Greco 2014, 194) and in those of Qalhata and Tanutamani at el-Kurru (Sheikholeslami 2010a, 380; 2014a, 114).The tomb, as the place of cyclical regeneration par excellence, would have been the primary location for such iconography, but since decorated tombs were still rare at Thebes at this period, elements of the coffin assemblage assumed that role. The shape of the qrsw coffin, with its corner posts surmounted by falcons, replicates that of the shrine in which Osiris is awakened (Greco 2009, 21; Roberson 2013, pls 1–5), and the deities represented on the sides of the coffin, usually in pr-nw shrines, are members of a company which surrounds Osiris with protection in this sacred setting (Eigner 2017, 78–85). The lid or top of the coffin carries references to the sky and the solar cycle. The earlier type of lid design on qrsw coffins has a pair of falcons painted at each end, who are named as they ‘who are over the corner[s]’ (i.e. of the sky) (Fig. 5); these, no doubt, are two-dimensional equivalents of the wooden falcon figures mentioned above. The spaces between them contain a variety of predominantly cosmological or celestial scenes which often include the separation of Geb and Nut and the deceased piloting the sun god’s barque (Taylor 2003, 117, pl. 73). The later lid design shows the morning and evening barques of the sun god, towed by a company of deities (see Fig. 4), and the celestial allusions are continued on the interior of several of the lids, with a full-length figure of Nut and the goddesses of the hours (Greco 2009, 22–4; 2010, 33–41; Sheikholeslami 2010a; 2014a, 117). The mummies in these assemblages were usually equipped only with a bead net, and not with a mask or any depictions of the hands or other trappings of divinity, and hence the inner coffin served effectively as the physical manifestation of the transfigured deceased.5 It represented him/her as Osiris in the embalming hall, attended by Isis and Nephthys (commonly depicted at

5

who watch over the regenerating Osiris are depicted on other coffins of this period, such as London, British Museum EA 6666 and EA 30721. This role of the inner coffin was probably ‘inherited’ from the cartonnage cases which were the immediate precursors of the bivalve coffins; it has been observed that some early bivalve coffins were covered with a layer of textile and plaster which effectively concealed the join between lid and case, giving an appearance closely resembling that of a one-piece cartonnage case: Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 216.

356

J. H. TAYLOR

the foot and head, respectively), and flanked by two forms of Anubis, the Sons of Horus and other protector divinities, whose figures and speeches occupy the two sides of the body on the lid of the coffin, below a winged figure of Nut on the breast (see Fig. 3). Within this protected environment the deceased was purged of corruption and refashioned into a perfect divine image (sꜥḥ) on the leonine embalming bed. The mummy, lying on this bier, is regularly depicted in the centre of the coffin lid, often uniting with the ba or bathed in the life-restoring rays of the sun (the vignettes of BD 89 and BD 154, respectively) (Taylor 2003, 114, pls 63–4). But the coffin simultaneously represented the deceased standing resurrected, with a plinth or pedestal beneath his feet and a pillar supporting his back, exactly as in three-dimensional figures of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris (Rindi Nuzzolo 2017; see also below), and thus in the context of the burial assemblage the inner coffin takes the place of Osiris in the two-dimensional scene of awakening, where he is shown in the process of transformation from death to renewed life. The inner coffin in the higher elite assemblages is almost always decorated internally, frequently with lengthy texts (mainly from the Book of the Dead) and also with images such as pairs of goddesses which again denote complementary elements of the cosmos. The sub-anthropoid ‘middle’ coffin has a distinctive, rather austere decorative scheme in which the natural surface of the wood is predominant, with colour used only for the head, the collar, the inscriptions and the images (see Fig. 2). In some assemblages, the decorative content is simple, consisting of little more than an axial inscription on the lid, a horizontal text around the case and a divine figure on the floor. This figure usually represents the Goddess of the West and perhaps associates the intermediary coffin with the protective environment of the tomb, or the necropolis more generally. In a few instances, however, the intermediary coffin draws on older iconographic traditions such as the New Kingdom custom of deploying figures from BD 151 and 161, which reference the burial chamber

6

7

Examples: Cairo CG 41045, 41059, 41066: Gauthier 1913, pls VI–VII, XXIV–XXV, XXXVII. Another intermediary coffin of Dynasty 25 has extracts from BD 42 on the lid (Taylor 2006, 287, n. 51). The weighing of the heart and the declaration of innocence are located on the lids of the intermediary anthropoid coffins of Padiamun, Liverpool, World Museum 1953.72 (Miatello 2016), and Shebenwen, New York, MMA 31.3.102 (unpublished), both

around the mummy.6 Other spells from the Book of the Dead refer to the preservation and reanimation of the corpse (Sheikholeslami 2014a, 120–1). But in the most elaborate examples of the higher elite assemblage the middle coffin has text and imagery which emphasise vindication through the judgement. The weighing of the heart and the declaration of innocence from BD 125 are painted at first on the lid and later around the exterior of the case (Fig. 6) (for the latter, Sheikholeslami 2014a, 119–21).7 In these instances the coffin effectively represents the hall of judgement. Although not depicted in the traditional tableau of the Awakening and Transit, vindication was actually an important stage in Osiris’ passage from the tomb to the sky, and it features prominently in the earlier mortuary liturgies which underlie this model of the resurrection process (Assmann 2005, 281–92). Thus the three layered components of the higher elite burial assemblage manifest a coherently interlinked series of situations through which the deceased wished to progress: mummification and reanimation in the embalming hall; protection in the tomb or vindication in the hall of judgement; and ascent from the tomb to the heavens, where he would participate in the solar cycle by travelling in the day and night barques of Ra. Many of these higher elite assemblages belonged to the ‘priests of Montu’, a loose term embracing members of several prominent families who served the cult of that deity in Dynasties 25–26. Most were interred in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri, where shafts and chambers were cut into the floors of the upper and middle terraces, close to the Hathor and Anubis chapels and other shrines (Sheikholeslami 2003). Burial here, in one of the most venerated sacred localities of Thebes, would surely have been a mark of privilege. The shrines at least must have been accessible at this time and may have served as the stage for funerary ritual activity, and it is possible that their decoration influenced that of the coffin assemblages here discussed (Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381–3). The actual burial places, however, comprised only shafts and chambers without architectural

of which were placed inside outer coffins of qrsw type. Both burials can be assigned to the period of overlap between Dynasties 22, 23 and 25. Other examples of coffins having these extracts from BD 125 on the lid date to the same period. The outer coffins are usually lost, but in one instance where this is preserved it is of sub-anthropoid shape: Hildesheim 1902a, from Akhmim (Germer et al. 1997, 69, fig. 70).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

357

Fig. 5: Higher elite assemblage, outer qrsw coffin of Hor showing earlier lid design, London, British Museum EA 15655 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 6: Images of the weighing of the heart and the forty-two assessors on the intermediary coffin of Dimutshepenankh, Cairo CG 41060 (after Gauthier 1913, pl. XXVIII).

358

J. H. TAYLOR

features or decoration of any kind, and higher elite assemblages that have been found elsewhere in the Theban necropolis were located in tombs of comparable simplicity (Budka 2010a, 111–22, 342). Hence the coffin assemblages themselves would have supplied the forms, images and texts necessary to effect the resurrection of their occupants. The qrsw coffin thus played a symbolic role analogous to that of a vaulted burial chamber, and indeed as decorated tombs for high-status persons became more frequent in Thebes at this period they sometimes received decoration similar to that of the coffins; an example is the tomb of Ramose at Asasif (TT 132), dated to the reign of Taharqa, in which the vaulted chamber reproduced the same decoration as is found on qrsw coffins of the period (Greco 2014, 193–7; Sheikholeslami 2014a, 112). The higher elite coffin assemblage therefore fulfilled the same magical role as the architecture and decoration of a tomb; through its form, iconography and inscriptions it provided all that was needed for the perpetual regeneration of its occupant.8 These burial assemblages usually included a range of additional items which supported and augmented the magical processes which the coffins activated. Canopic jars and chests (though not present in all burials of this type) contributed to the physical integrity of the deceased, whose corruptible mortal body had undergone the required transformation into an eternal sꜥḥ. A statue of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris also promoted the resurrection of the deceased by means of a close association with the syncretistic deity, particularly through the regenerative power of the primeval waters (Raven 1978/9, 276–81, 288–9; Rindi Nuzzolo 2017, 464–5). The wooden stela alluded to vindication and solar regeneration. The shabtis, deposited in two boxes, ensured that the deceased was free from want and from enforced labour. The deceased might also have protection, empowerment and sacred knowledge through the agencies of amulets placed on the mummy and through a Book of the Dead papyrus roll — although in Dynasty 25 the latter were only beginning to re-enter the repertoire of funerary equipment after a period of disuse. The owners of these assemblages were for the most part persons whose high status is clearly apparent

8

The iconographic/symbolic connections between qrsw coffins and tomb architecture are noted in Russmann 1995, though Eigner (2017, 78–85) modifies her interpretation: the first court

through their titles and their family connections. Among them were Nesptah A and Istemkheb L, the father and mother of Montemhat, the governor of Thebes under Taharqa and Psamtek I and one of the most influential officials in Egypt. Other members of Montemhat’s extensive family who had such coffin assemblages held senior administrative titles such as vizier and rwḏ ꜥꜢ ḫsf n nỉwt (effectively governor of Thebes: Payraudeau 2003; 2014, I, 223–30). Further burials of this type belonged to members of other leading families at Thebes, such as those of Besenmut, Hor ‘A’, Padiamunnebnesttawy and the vizier Pamiu — their status being demonstrated by their numerous senior titles, recorded not only on their burial equipment but also on temple statues and administrative papyri. Most had marital links with other leading families such as that of Montemhat, and even with the (admittedly waning) royal line of Takelot III and Rudamun. These families maintained their dominant position from the late 8th into the second half of the 7th century BC. Burial assemblages of the higher elite type are attested for members of five consecutive generations in the Besenmut family, four in the family of Hor ‘A’ and three in the family of Montemhat — all extending over the period from about 700 to 600 BC, but after the latter date this style of burial is poorly documented at Thebes. This may have been the result of a stylistic change, a decline in the prosperity of Theban families, or a combination of these factors. Although this ‘higher elite’ style of burial seems to have been a characteristic of persons of senior rank, there are nevertheless a few examples of such assemblages which belonged to individuals without manifestly important titles. Thus Pestjenfy, owner of the exceptionally fine three-coffin set Berlin 50–52, was a God’s Father of Amun, wꜥb-priest and Craftsman of the Amun domain, titles also held by his father and grandfather. Personal influence over the artisan community could explain Pestjenfy’s acquisition of an imposing coffin ensemble (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 40), but since his great grandfather was a priest of Montu (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 50), family connections may also have been a determining factor.

of TT 34 and the court of TT 223, rather than being ‘imitations’ of qrsw coffins, instead draw on a source common both to tombs and to coffins.

359

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Table 1. Selected list of ‘higher elite’ coffin assemblages, arranged in approximately chronological order by generation. Abbreviations: GFA = ‘God’s Father of Amun’ (ỉt-nṯrἸmn);LH = ‘Lady of the House’ (nbtpr); N = ‘Noblewoman’ (špsyt); PA = ‘Prophet of Amun’ (ḥm-nṯrἸmn); PM = ‘Prophet of Montu’ (ḥm-nṯrMnṯw[nbWꜢst]); ST = ‘Stolist [in] Thebes’ (smꜢWꜢst). For the family relationships of the owners, see Vittmann 1978. Owner

Titles [Selected]

Coffins

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Bibliography [Selected]

Ankhefenkhons (i)

PM

Outer: Cairo CG 41001 [case], 41004 [lid]; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41043; Inner: Cairo CG 41042; Smaller qrsw coffin: Cairo CG 41001 bis

Stela: Cairo T. 25/12/24/11 (A.9422)

Aston 2009, 208 (TG 859); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 415–16, no. 143.

Neskhons (i), wife of Ankhefenkhons (i)

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41025; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo T.28/9/16/7

Stela: Cairo T.28/12/24/15 (A.9449)

Aston 2009, 206 (TG 851); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 417, no. 144.

Tashepenkhons, wife of Nespasefy (ii)

LH N, ỉḥytnἸmn-Rꜥ

Outer: Paris, Louvre E.3913; Intermediary: Avignon 23509; Inner: Cairo?

BD Papyrus: Moscow, Pushkin Mus. I, 1b, 121

Aston 2009, 210 (TG 870); Munro and Taylor 2009; Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 436, no. 163.

Nesmutaatneru

LH N

Outer, intermediary and inner: Boston MFA 95.1407b-d

Mummy, with bead net; 2 shabti boxes: Boston MFA 95.1407a, 95.1408-9

Aston 2009, 213–14 (TG 875); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 442, no. 173.

Hor

PM

Outer: London, Brit. Mus. EA 15655; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: London, Brit. Mus. EA 27735

2 shabti boxes: London, Brit. Mus. EA 8525, Aberdeen 299; canopic jars: Madox MSS; Clère MSS, 04.01 (ANT-57-5)

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 445–6, no. 178; 525, no. 317.

Pamiu, son of vizier Pakharu

PA

Outer: Cairo CG 41036; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Paris, Louvre E.3863 [lid]

Aston 2009, 207 (TG 855); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 359, no. 21.

Nesptah A

PM, ḥꜢty-ꜥỉry-pꜥtrwḏꜥꜢ ḫsfnnỉwt

Outer, intermediary and inner LOST

Vassalli MSS (Tiradritti 1994, 65–9, 109–12); Aston 2009, 204 (TG 840); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 448–9, no. 185.

Istemkheb L, wife of Nesptah A

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41033; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41072; Inner: LOST

Vassalli MSS (Tiradritti 1994, 65–9, 115); Aston 2009, 204 (TG 841); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 449–50, no. 186.

Titenese, wife of vizier Nesmin B

LH

Outer: Cairo CG 41020; 2 intermediaries & cartonnage: Cairo

Stela Cairo T.28/1/25/6

Aston 2009, 204–5 (TG 844); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 450–1, no. 190.

Padiamenet

PM

Outer: Cairo, Nat. Mus. of Egyptian Civilization; Intermediary: Luxor J.845; Inner: Cairo, Nat. Mus. of Egyptian Civilization (ex Luxor J.346)

Mummy, with bead net; canopic chest and jars: Luxor J.75; shabti boxes and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, location?

Aston 2009, 216 (TG 887); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 360, no. 22; Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381–5; 2014a.

Heresenes

LH N

Outer, intermediary and inner: location?

Mummy, with bead net; shabti boxes, location?

Aston 2009, 216 (TG 888); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 493–4, no. 258; Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381–5.

J. H. TAYLOR

360 Owner

Titles [Selected]

Coffins

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Bibliography [Selected]

Nesamun (ii)

PM

Outer: Cairo CG 41002; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41045; Inner: Cairo CG 41044, foot-board T.25/12/24/13

Stela: Cairo T. 27/1/25/12 Aston 2009, 208 (TG (A.9900) 860); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 425–8, no. 152.

Neskhons (ii), wife of Nesamun (ii)

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41003, fragments Olmütz 6222A–6223A; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo T.28/9/16/14

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/18 (A.9916); shabti box London, Brit. Mus. EA 46714

Naneferheres, wife of Nesamun (ii)

LH

Outer: Cairo CG 41012; Intermediary LOST (?); Inner: Cairo T. 21/11/16/10

Stela: Cairo T. 27/1/25/17 Aston 2009, 208–9 (TG (A.9930) 861); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 429–30, no. 154.

Besenmut (ii)

PM

Outer: Cairo CG 41007; Intermediary LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41047, foot-board T.25/12/24/10

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/15 (A.9919); canopic chest and three canopic jars: Cairo CG 4734, 4654-5 and Figeac E.174; shabti box (this man?): Athens Ξ70

Chrysikopoulos 2005, 7–9, 13; Aston 2009, 209 (TG 863); JansenWinkeln 2009, 419–21, no. 148.

Tabetjet (ii), probably wife of Besenmut (ii)

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41009; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41059; Inner: Cairo CG 41058

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/11 (A.9915)

Aston 2009, 204 (TG 843); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 422–3, no. 149.

Djedthutiuefankh

PM

Outer, intermediary and Mummy, with bead net, inner: Oxford Ashmolean stela, 2 shabti boxes: 1895.153,155-6 Oxford Ashmolean 1895.153-4

Aston 2009, 213 (TG 874); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 442–3, no. 174.

Tabaktenkhons

LH N

Outer, intermediary and inner: New York MMA 96.4.1-3

Mummy with bead net; stela: New York MMA 96.4.4; 2 shabti boxes

Aston 2009, 214 (TG 876); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 441–2, no. 172.

Ta-aat (i)

LH N

Inner (fragment): Liverpool M.13992

Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure, ex-Sabatier Coll.

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 444–5, no. 176.

Gautseshen (iii)

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41018; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41063; Inner: Copenhagen Ny Carlsberg Glypt. AE IN 1522

Stela: Seattle 32.1 = 48.223

Aston 2009, 207 (TG 857); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 505–6, no. 281.

Irthorru (i)

PM, GFA

Outer: Cairo CG 41016; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner (of this man?): fragment Olmütz 6224 A

Shabti box (this man?): Athens Ξ68

Chrysikopoulos 2005, 11–12, 15; Aston 2009, 211 (TG 873); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 436–8, no. 164.

Besenmut (iii)

PM, ST

Outer: Cairo CG 41024, Liverpool M.11029; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: London, Brit. Mus. EA 22940

Aston 2009, 210 (TG 871); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 438–9, no. 165.

Wennefer/Iryiry (ii)

GFA

Outer: Cairo CG 41006; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41046

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 431–2, no. 158.

Khamhor B, son of vizier PM Nesmin B

Outer: Cairo CG 41021; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo (ex Boulaq 728)

Shabti box: Cairo T.18/11/24/49

Aston 2009, 209 (TG 862); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 428–9, no. 153.

Aston 2009, 205 (TG 847); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 487–8, no. 247.

361

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Owner

Titles [Selected]

Coffins

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Bibliography [Selected]

Amenirdis, d. of vizier Nesmin B

ḥsẖnwnἸmn

Outer: Cairo CG 41023 Others: Cairo

Shabti boxes: Cairo Ex. 9101, 9103; canopic chest: LOST

Aston 2009, 205 (TG 848); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 488, no. 248.

Nesamenope, s. of vizier Nesmin B

PM, ST

Outer: Cairo CG 41022; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41067; Inner: LOST

Shabti boxes Cairo T.18/11/24/48, T.4/12/24/9

Aston 2009, 205 (TG 849); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 486–7, no. 246.

Nespekashuty

PM

Outer: location? Intermediary: Luxor J.347; Inner: location?

Mummy, with bead net; Aston 2009, 216 (TG shabti boxes: Luxor Mus. 889); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 361, no. 24; Sheikholeslami 2010a, 381–7.

Tjesreperet

LH, Nurse of the daughter of Taharqa

Outer: Florence 2161; Intermediary: Florence 2160, 2382–2384 (fragments); Inner: Florence 2159

Stela: Paris, Louvre N.3936; canopic chest and jars, 2 shabti boxes containing shabtis, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure: Paris, Louvre N.3940 (other objects in tomb perhaps belonged to the husband of T)

Ir [var. Iriu]

wꜥbnἸmn

Outer and intermediary: LOST; Inner: Zagreb 782

Pestjenfy

GFA, ḥmwprἸmn

Outer: Berlin 50; Intermediary: Berlin 51; Inner: Berlin 52

Mummy, with bead net and amulets: Berlin 53; canopic chest: Berlin 54

Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, frontispiece, 40–50.

Kheriru

LH

Outer: Cairo JE 94509; Intermediary and inner: Cairo JE 94510

Remains of bead net: Vienna KHM A.1995; two shabti boxes containing shabtis: Cairo JE 94512, Vienna KHM 1994; Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure: Cairo JE 94511

Aston 2009, 163 (TG 668); Budka 2010a, 117–19,123–6, 130–4, 263–4, 273–5, 291–4, 365, 592, 594, 598–609, 618–20, Taf. 15, 19–20, 44, 60a.

Wesy

wršꜥw[?]pr-ꜥꜢ

Outer, intermediary and inner: Bologna KS 1957, 1962, 1964

Mummy?

Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 468–9, 566–7 (VII.48).

Ankhefenkhonsu (ii)

ST

Outer: Cairo CG 41004, 41001 [lid]; Intermediary: Cairo CG 41049; Inner: Cairo CG 41048

Padiamun (ii)

PM

Outer: Cairo CG 41008; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41057

Stela: Cairo T.27/1/25/13 Gauthier 1913, 297–323, (A.9917); shabti box (this pls XXI–XXII; man?): Athens Ξ65 Chrysikopoulos 2005, 9–11, 14.

Harsiese R

PM

Outer: Cairo CG 41013; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41051

Gauthier 1913, 193–216, pls XIII–XIV.

Hor (xvi)

PM

Outer: Cairo CG 41017; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41062

Gauthier 1913, 381–404, pls XXX–XXXI.

Nakhtbasteru

LH N

Outer: Cairo CG 41005; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: Cairo CG 41050

Babat (ii), d. of Besenmut LH N (ii) and Tabetjet (ii)

Outer and inner: St. Petersburg, Hermitage Inv. 777a, b; Intermediary: LOST (?)

Del Francia 1994; Aston 2009, 232–3 (TG 924); Guidotti and Greco, in Guidotti and Tiradritti 2009, 14–30, 51–4; Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 207, no. 148; Greco 2010. Sharpe and Bonomi 1858; Uranic 2007, 97, 100 (cat. 118).

Gauthier 1913, 138–69, pl. XI.

Stela: Cairo T. 27/1/25/14 Aston 2009, 207–8 (TG (A.9905) 858); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 362–3, no. 26.

J. H. TAYLOR

362 Owner

Titles [Selected]

Ta-aat (ii)

LH N

Outer: Elverum, Glomdalsmuseet, no number [lid]; Intermediary: LOST (?); Inner: San José, Rosicrucian Mus. RC 2071

Ankh-Hor

PM

Outer, intermediary and inner: Leiden RO III/M.20-22

‘Lower elite’ burials These assemblages have no rectangular (qrsw) coffin. Instead, an innermost anthropoid coffin of the bivalve type was enclosed within one or two coffins of the sub-anthropoid form. The outer and inner coffins are always highly decorated, while the intermediary coffin, like many of those in higher elite assemblages, is sparingly adorned, with brief inscriptions on the lid and case and the Goddess of the West on the floor, all painted against a ground of natural wood. In many burials, this intermediary coffin is simply omitted, with no observable influence on the decoration of the outer and inner coffins. Thus it is evidently the outer and inner components that bear the weight of magical potency in these assemblages, suggesting that the twocoffin set represented the essential model, to which an intermediary coffin could be added as something of an ‘optional’ feature (Figs 7–11).9 The symbolic meaning of these assemblages is manifested predominantly through image. Texts generally play a subordinate role, being fewer in number than on the higher elite coffins, while their content is mainly banal and repetitive, consisting predominantly of ḥtpdỉ nsw and ḏdmdwỉn formulae. Passages from the Book of the Dead are occasionally included, but these are usually drawn from a small repertoire of the more familiar spells: thus BD 30B and 56 are inscribed on the lid of the outer coffin of Padiese, with BD 56 repeated, together with BD 59, on the back of his inner coffin (Leiden AMM 19/ M.24 and M.26 respectively). Many of the coffins of this type have an address to Osiris, Bull of the West, which was perhaps intended

9

Mummies and Associated Burial Items

Coffins

An apparently unique variant is the assemblage of Shepenwen, Zagreb 667, a set which comprised complete outer and inner

Bibliography [Selected] Pierce 1981, 27–37; Naguib 1989, 355–9.

Mummy, with bead net and amulets: Leiden RO III/M.23

Raven and Taconis 2005, 141–5 (cat. 16).

as a brief allusion to the opening of BD 1, but the rest of the spell is omitted (Monnet Saleh 1970, 176–7, 179). On coffins where Book of the Dead spells are included they are frequently incomplete and/or corruptly written. The inner coffins have the same shape as those of the higher elite assemblages — the fully three-dimensional mummiform image with integral plinth and dorsal pillar — but they differ significantly in decoration. One of the typical designs of the lower elite lids is derived from the ‘two falcons’ pattern which had been used extensively for cartonnage cases in Dynasty 22 (Taylor 2003; 2006): two solar falcons (the uppermost having a ram’s head) embrace the torso, with figured scenes in the spaces between their wings, and beneath them is a central Abydos fetish flanked by figures of gods and goddesses. Some of the Dynasty 25 inner coffins took over this design from the cartonnages with little change, except the introduction of a more rigid division between the upper and lower zones (Taylor 2003, 114, pl. 61: Design 1: Fig. 12). Others have variations on the same design, such as the replacement of the second falcon by one or more horizontal registers (Boston MFA 95.1407b; Leiden AMM 19/M.26; Zagreb 667: respectively Taylor 1988, 174; Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 465; Uranic 2007, 93). However, the most typical arrangement of the lid on the lower elite inner coffins replaces the two falcons with a winged figure of Nut located above 2–4 registers, the lower section containing the central Abydos fetish and paired scenes as before (Taylor 2003, 115, pl. 65: Design 4: Fig. 13). The horizontal registers on the upper body usually feature the judgement, the mummy on a bier

coffins plus an intermediary lid which rested on a rebate inside the outer coffin: Monnet Saleh 1970, 177–8; Uranic 2007, 91.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Fig. 7: Lower elite assemblage, lid of the outer coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A.1869.33A (© National Museums Scotland).

363

Fig. 8: Lower elite assemblage, interior of the outer coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A.1869.33 (© National Museums Scotland).

364

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 9: Lower elite assemblage, exterior of the outer coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A.1869.33 and 33A (© National Museums Scotland).

and the solar barque (reflecting key stages in resurrection), and often Sokar as a wrapped or shrouded falcon.10 On the back of the inner coffin there is usually a large djed pillar, often wearing the atef crown (see Fig. 12).11 Quite frequently, human arms emerge from the top of the pillar, raised up to support the solar disc and often with a wedjat eye in the intervening space (see Fig. 11) — indicating that the painter had in mind as model a version of the BD 16 sunrise vignette, as attested on the papyrus of Ani (London, British Museum EA 10470/2), the Greenfield Papyrus (London, British Museum EA 10554/2) and on a few coffins of Dynasty 25.12 On the backs of the lower elite inner coffins the pillar is sometimes flanked by inscriptions but more frequently by a standardised sequence of paired images arranged from the shoulders to the feet:

the hieroglyphs for tpy ḏw.f, ‘He who is upon his mountain’, a common epithet of Anubis; a crowned and bearded serpent adorned with ostrich feathers (Atum?), often with the epithet nb dwꜢt; the emblem of Nefertem; and a standing serpent (Fig. 14, and see Fig. 12).13 The interior of the inner coffin is sometimes inscribed with texts accompanied by small images, but the most common decoration features a large figure of Nut (full face or profile) in the lid and a djed pillar in the case. Frequently, however, the interior is simply painted a uniform white. These inner coffins make reference to the solarOsirian relationship, but in a more concise manner than the coffins of the higher elite assemblages. The embalming and protection of the corpse are represented by the mummy-on-bier vignette; the vindication by the images of judgement and presentation to Ra and/or

10

12

11

It is tempting to envisage an evolutionary process in which the traditional ‘two falcons’ design was first transferred from onepiece cartonnage cases to bivalve inner coffins, after which the lower falcon was replaced by registers, and finally the figure of Nut was substituted for the ram-headed upper falcon, but the process of change was not necessarily a linear progression. Some of the different versions of the design may have been made at around the same time: Melbourne X79620 (Hope 1988, 60–1) and Leiden AMM 19/M.26 (Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 465) appear to show the hand of the same painter (in the ram-headed falcon on the breast), yet on each coffin the arrangement of the other elements in the lid decoration is considerably different. The anthropomorphic djed pillar, with human arms holding sceptres, and sometimes with a human head, although frequent on stola coffins and others in Dynasty 22, seems to be rarely depicted on examples of Dynasties 25 and 26.

13

It occurs, for example, on the interior of Grenoble 1995 (Taylor 2006, pl. 53b) and on the exterior of Vatican 38073.2.2 (Gasse 1996, 208). A version of this design was revived on the backs of some Theban inner coffins in mid-Dynasty 26: Gauthier 1913, pl. XXXV; Graefe 1990, Taf. 22c. The precise meaning of this sequence of images is uncertain, and there are numerous variations of it. On some coffins, tpy ḏw.f appears on the shoulders and Nefertem emblems on the legs, with different intervening images: London, British Museum EA 6676, Boston MFA 95.1407b, Leiden AMM 19/M.26. The Nefertem emblem appears in the same position, but with different images above, on Belfast, Ulster Museum 1911.501. tpyḏw.fappears alone, with short bands of text below, on Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek AE IN 1522 (Jørgensen 2001, 222, 224) and Trier G II C 536 (Minas-Nerpel and Sigmund 2003, 9, 24).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Fig. 10: Lower elite assemblage, lid of the inner coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A.1869.33C (© National Museums Scotland).

365

Fig. 11: Lower elite assemblage, back of the inner coffin of Amenhotepiyin, Edinburgh A.1869.33B (© National Museums Scotland).

366

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 12: Lower elite assemblage, inner coffin of Takhebkhenem showing adaptation of ‘two falcons’ design, London, British Museum EA 6691 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Fig. 13: Lower elite assemblage, lid of the inner coffin of Amenfaiher showing ‘classic’ lid design of Dynasty 25, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1886.6548 (© The Ashmolean Museum).

367

Fig. 14: Lower elite assemblage, back of the inner coffin of Panesittawy showing ‘classic’ design of Dynasty 25, Leicester Museum and Art Gallery 50.1928 (© Leicester Arts & Museums Service).

368

J. H. TAYLOR

Osiris on the breast (sometimes only the deceased before Osiris and/or Ra is depicted, without the weighing scene); the ascent to the celestial regions may be alluded to by an image of the solar barque. The Nut figures on the lid and djed pillars on the base (both exterior and interior) signify the cosmos in which resurrection was to occur.14 The scene of the Awakening and Transit is not specifically referenced. Instead there is stronger emphasis on the daily cycle — the ascent from netherworld to sky as manifested in the juxtaposing of solar falcon or Nut above the Abydos fetish on the lid, and the depiction of the sun raised above the djed pillar on the back. The base of the foot and the top of the head often pair the Apis bull, carrying the mummy to the tomb, with the horizon (akhet) sign or scarab beetle, another encapsulation of the cycle of death and rebirth, orientated between notional east and west cardinal points (Liptay 2012, 175). The outer coffin, like the inner, has brilliant polychrome decoration. The lid design consists of a series of horizontal bands in which a winged solar disc and figured scenes are contrasted with panels filled with vertical columns of text — generally repetitions of banal offering formulae.15 The design repeats some of the elements of the inner coffin lids, notably the judgement and vindication, and the mummy lying on a bier. On the outer lids, however, there is no axial division featuring the Abydos fetish or djedpillar; these motifs, so common on the inner coffins, are in fact conspicuously absent from the outer coffins. Also missing is Nut: she is replaced on the breast by a winged solar disc, named as ‘the Behdetite’ (a motif which also appears above the Awakening and Transit tableau: Roberson 2013, 13), and she does not appear on the interior. A horizon sign is painted at the head-end of the lid, and is balanced most often by a Sokar falcon

on the inclined surface of the foot. These may be intentionally complementary images, contrasting the horizon with the shetyt, the earthly place of resurrection, as the corresponding images on the inner coffins contrast the horizon with the tomb, to which Apis carries the mummy. The exterior walls of the outer coffin are often decorated with a single line of inscription (ḏdmdwỉn or ḥtp dỉ nsw) which incorporates the identification of the deceased, but on some examples a row of guardian genii are painted, conveying the notion of the protection of a sacred space within (as on Stockholm NME 004: Dodson 2015, 32). The character of this sacred environment is more explicitly revealed by the decoration of the interior. This focuses on the falcon-headed mummiform figure of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, surrounded by a serpent (for the type: Sheikholeslami 2014b). On a few early examples, the god is flanked by texts, but later by Isis and Nephthys, painted on the internal walls.16 He frequently stands on a support containing the hieroglyphs for ḫnt[y] ḥwt nbw, ‘the Foremost of the House of Gold’ (Sheikholeslami 2014b, 456–7, figs 23–1) (Fig. 15). This falcon-headed figure is already attested on the interior of some coffins of the later Third Intermediate Period (Paris, Louvre E.10374 and Leiden AMM 20/M.53), where he is named as Ptah-Sokar. On most of the Dynasty 25–26 examples the inscriptions identify him as Sokar, Sokar-Osiris, Osiris-Sokar or Ptah-Sokar-Osiris.17 Sokar, indeed (either named as such or as one of the composite forms just referred to), is notably prominent on the lower elite assemblages. Besides the large image in the outer coffin cases, he is frequently represented as a shenbetfalcon mummy on the lid of the inner coffin and on the foot of the outer coffin (Budka 2010a, 287). Moreover, the djed pillar on the rear of the lower

14

16

15

The differing iconography of the Nut figures may reflect particular shades of meaning: the Nut of the exterior has a strongly protective function, emphasised by her outspread wings (recalling the ‘Nut formula’ derived ultimately from the Pyramid Texts, ‘Spread your wings over me ...’). The interior figure usually lacks wings and probably had a more nurturing role, especially apparent in the often full-breasted frontal images. The djed pillar on the interior of the case is sometimes almost identical with that on the exterior, and perhaps their meaning was closely similar. Graphic repetition is a regular feature of the lower elite assemblages. A less common lid design features a central line of inscription flanked by symmetrical compartments containing images of deities. An example is the outer coffin of Iru, from Asasif ‘Grab VII’ (Budka 2010a, Taf. 18a, 60b).

17

In a rare variant, the Goddess of the West replaces the falconheaded deity: Copenhagen, National Museum AAa 1 (Schmidt 1919, 183, fig. 1014). Sometimes the falcon-figure is accompanied by additional scenes, such as a tree goddess: Tübingen 150a (Brunner-Traut and Brunner 1981, Taf. 115–7). On a few Dynasty 25 coffins the deity is differently named: as Ra-Horakhty on London, British Museum EA 47975 (Taylor 1989, 57, fig. 44); as Duamutef on the outer coffin of Padiherishef, Springfield Art Museum (Haynes and Wilson 1984, 15), and as Qebehsenuef on Zagreb 668 (Uranic 2007, 96). Since all of these deities were depicted elsewhere with the head of a falcon it is probable that this feature of the figure was influential in the identification, though whether as an intentional variation or as a result of misunderstanding by the painter is unclear.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

369

elite inner coffins may also reference Sokar. Adorned with the šwty-crown (twin feathers, solar disc and ram’s horns), the pillar is particularly associated with the deity in his composite nature as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris (Raven 1978–9, 284), while the Nefertem emblems that flank the pillar in nearly every example were intimately linked with the festival processions of Sokar (Gaballa and Kitchen 1969, 56–7, 59–60).18 The funerary role of Sokar grew to prominence during the New Kingdom and was also important in the Third Intermediate Period — particularly in Dynasties 22 and 23, when the deity is depicted frequently on coffins and cartonnage cases both as a falcon and in the form of his distinctive barque, the henu. At the same time Sokar’s barque also appears on temple statuary of private individuals and in the chapel of Osiris Heqadjet at Karnak (van Walsem 1997, 306–7; Graindorge 2001, 306). Thus his prominence in Dynasty 25 simply continues an ongoing trend. He is referenced many times in the inscriptions on the lower elite coffins, usually in association with the shetyt (i.e. either as nbšṯyt or ḥry-ỉbšṯyt: for example Minas-Nerpel and Sigmund 2003, 18, Abb. 17). The name shetyt (GraindorgeHéreil 1994, I, 36–8) denoted both the cabin of the henu barque and the subterranean cavern or shrine in which resurrection took place; in the Amduat, it is the place in the netherworld where the sun undergoes its crucial regeneration during the fourth and fifth hours of the night. Since the lower elite coffin assemblages make an emphatic connection between the deceased and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris in the shetyt, it may be that the outer coffin was regarded as a three-dimensional representation of the god’s cavern-shrine, simultaneously equated with the burial chamber of the tomb, for which the phrase ḥwt nbw, already referred to above, was a circumlocution. This prominence of Sokar marks a contrast with the higher elite coffins, on which he is much less frequently named or depicted. Of the twenty-one heavily inscribed inner coffins of the ‘priests of Montu’ published by Gauthier (1913), the inscriptions of nine are entirely

18

Fig. 15: Lower elite assemblage, interior of the outer coffin of Takhebkhenem: Osiris-Sokar, lord of the shetyt, standing on ḫntḥwtnbw, London, British Museum EA 6690 (© Trustees of the British Museum). The emblem is carried in the procession and is depicted in association with the henu barque, for example, on the Dynasty 22 coffins and cartonnages London, British Museum EA 6659, Manchester 5053, Trieste Pasenenhor and Vienna ÄS 225. It also appears with the shrouded Sokar falcon on Dynasty 22 cartonnages, such as Leningrad 8723, Brighton AF 155 and London, British Museum EA 7007.

J. H. TAYLOR

370

Table 2. Selected list of ‘lower elite’ coffin assemblages, comprising complete sets of two or three coffins and excluding isolated ‘outer-’ and ‘inner-’ type coffins where the original composition of the assemblage is unknown. Abbreviations: LH = ‘Lady of the house’ (nbtpr); N = ‘Noble woman’ (špsyt). Owner

Titles & Family

Mummies and Burial Goods Outer: Leiden Inv. AMM Mummy: Leiden AMM 19/M.24; 10/M.27 Intermediary: Leiden AMM 19/M.25; Inner: Leiden AMM 19/M.26

Bibliography [Selected] Raven and Taconis 2005, 116–19 (cat. 9); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 536–7, no. 342; Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 460–6, 565–6 (VII.43–46).

Coffins

Padiese

kꜢwtypr-ỉmn; s. of Pakharenkhonsu

Inamunnayefnebu

Chief barber of pr-ỉmn

Outer: Leiden AMM 1/M.28; Intermediary: Leiden AMM1/M.29; Inner: Leiden AMM1/M.30

Mummy, with bead net: Leiden AMM 1/M.31

Raven and Taconis 2005, 138–40 (cat. 15); Raven 2009, 471–5, 488–9.

Takhebkhenem (Takhenemet)

LH; d. of ỉry-ꜥꜢnpr-ỉmn Padikhonsu

Outer: London, Brit. Mus. EA 6690 Intermediary: EA 6690A Inner: EA 6691

Mummy: London, Brit. Mus. EA 6692

Taylor 2003, pl. 61.

Nestawedjat

LH N; d. of Djedmutiuefankh

Outer: London, Brit. Mus. EA 22813 Intermediary: EA 22813 Inner: EA 22812

Mummy: London, Brit. Mus. EA 22812

Antoine, Vandenbeusch and Taylor 2016, 46–53.

Usermose

ἰry-ꜥꜢnpr-rꜥ; s. of [mỉ nn] Padiamun

Outer: Liège 628 (E. 83A); Intermediary: Brussels MRAH E.5889a; Inner: Brussels MRAH E.5889b

Padiamun

ἰry-ꜥꜢpr-ỉmn; s. of ỉry-ꜥꜢ pr-ỉmn Penhay

Outer, intermediary and Mummy: Liverpool inner: Liverpool M.14003 M.14003

Asetirdis

LH

Outer, intermediary and inner: Stockholm NME 002–004

Dodson 2015, 28–33.

Nesamunendjeme (i)

ꜥḥwtysšnynpr-ỉmn

Outer: Turin S.5227

Leospo 1989, 68 (12); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 557, no. 397.

Harwa (ii)

ꜥḥwtysšny(?)pr-ỉmn

Outer (?): Turin S.5229

D’Amicone 2009, 71 (figs 47–48), 81 (fig. 55), 99–101; Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 558, no. 397.

Mentuirdis

ꜥḥwtysšny(?)pr-ỉmn

Outer: Turin S.5221; Intermediary: Turin S.5220; Inner: Turin S.5219

D’Amicone 2009, 53–6 (figs 30–3), 81 (fig. 54), 114–19.

Nakhtkhonsuru

nbẖrt-nṯr(?)pr-ỉmn

Outer (?): Turin S.5249A–B

D’Amicone 2009, 68–9 (figs 43–4), 130–1.

Padiamenope

Chief of the granary (?) of Khonsu; son of chief of the granary (?) of Khonsu Pakharkhonsu

Outer: Turin 2235 Intermediary: Turin 2234; Inner: Turin 2233

Leospo 1989, 62–6 (11).

Shepenwen

LH; d. of Paeniuy and Inamunnayesnebu

Zagreb 667

Monnet Saleh 1970, 174–9 (cat. 897); Uranic 2007, 91–4 (cat. 115); Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 551, no. 384.

Inamunnayesnebu

LH; d. of ỉry-ꜥꜢpr-ỉmn Pakharkhonsu

Toulouse, Mus. Georges Labit 49.287.1–2

Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 124–9.

Mummy: Toulouse, Mus. Dautant and Aufrère Georges Labit 49.287.1–2 2011.

371

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Owner

Titles & Family

Coffins

Mummies and Burial Goods

Bibliography [Selected]

Kareset

LH; d. of Padiptah (no title)

Outer and inner: Zagreb 668

Hor

wꜥb-priest of Amun and craftsman of pr-ỉmn [n.b. Raven and Taconis 2005, 120, interpret the latter title as ‘butler’ (wbꜢ), not ‘craftsman’ (ḥmt)]

Outer and inner: Leiden AMM 3/ M.40–41

Mummy, with bead net: Leiden AMM 3/M.42

Taylor 2003, pl. 74; Raven and Taconis 2005, 120–3 (cat. 10).

Asettayefnakht

wꜥb-priest of Amun; craftsman of pr-ỉmn.

Outer and inner: Truro, Royal Cornwall Mus. 1837.23.2–3

Mummy: Truro, Royal Cornwall Mus. 1837.23.1

Dodson 2011.

Takhennu

?

Outer and inner: Copenhagen, National Mus. AAa1

Schmidt 1919, 183, figs 1013–15.

Amenhotepiyin

[no title]; s. of Amenkha

Outer and inner: Edinburgh A.1869.33.A–C

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 556 (394); Manley and Dodson 2010, 82–7.

Pakepu

Water pourer on the west of Thebes; s. of Amenhotep

Outer and inner: Cambridge E.2.1869

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 556 (394); Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 216–21 (no. 43).

Irtyru

LH

Outer and inner: Oxford, Mummy: Oxford, Pitt Pitt Rivers Mus. 1887.1.481 Rivers Mus. 1887.1.481

Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 556 (394).

Padiherishef

nbẖrt-nṯr(?)

Outer and inner: Springfield Art Museum & Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital

Haynes and Wilson 1984.

Namenekhmut (?)

ḥsẖnwnỉmn

Outer and inner: Turin 2223–4

Hetepamun

Taditjaina

Iru

Monnet Saleh 1970, 180–1 (cat. 898); Uranic 2007, 94–6 (cat. 116).

Mummy: Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital

Outer and inner: Vienna Kunsthistorisches Mus. 220, 219 LH, N; d. of wꜥbỉmnHor Outer and inner: Tübingen 150a–b Outer: location?; Inner: Vienna KHM A.1999

without references to Sokar, Ptah-Sokar, Ptah-SokarOsiris or Sokar-Osiris (Cairo CG 41042, 41044, 41048, 41053, 41055, 41056, 41058, 41068, 41070), while six have only a single mention of the deity (Cairo CG 41046, 41047, 41051, 41052, 41057, 41064: Gauthier 1913, 94, 136, 211, 218, 311, 426 — and only two of these mention the shetyt: Gauthier 1913, 136, 211). Whereas the higher elite coffin assemblage draws heavily on the Awakening and Transit and emphasises the sequential process — from death to new life via embalming, vindication and entry into the solar journey

Mummy: Tübingen 150c. Brunner-Traut and Brunner 1981, 228–33, Taf. 114–17. Bead net from mummy: Vienna KHM A.3551

Aston 2009, 163 (TG 669); Budka 2010a, 118–23, 124–6, 128–30, 132–4, 257, 285–8, 364–5, 592–3, 610–13, Taf. 18, 60b–c.

— the lower elite model differs. The ultimate goal of the deceased is the same, and the three key principles just mentioned are still referenced, but here the shetyt of Sokar seems to take the place of the Osiris-tomb as the focal environment in which regeneration occurs, while the solar cycle is alluded to less by the day and night barques than by the sunrise iconography ultimately derived from the BD 16 vignette. The pictorial (like the textual) repertoire is more limited and is characterised by the repetition of a few magically charged images.

372

J. H. TAYLOR

Burial assemblages of the lower elite type have been found in several localities in the Theban necropolis, notably in QV 43 and 44, a pair of Dynasty 20 princes’ tombs which were reused as communal burial places for persons related by family and occupation (JansenWinkeln 2009, 557–8; D’Amicone 2009; Sheikholeslami 2014b, 454, 469–73; Guzzon 2017). A second group comprised a number of coffins which were presented to the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) during his tour of Egypt in 1869 (Birch 1874; JansenWinkeln 2009, 555–6; Sheikholeslami 2014b, 454, 465–9). Although these were allegedly found in one tomb, there is some doubt about the integrity of the group. Nonetheless, several of the individuals were members of one family, suggesting, for them at least, a common burial context, and probably one similar to that of QV 43–44. There is no evidence for architectural features or contemporaneous tomb decoration in proximity to any of the lower elite coffins which might have provided part of the magical ‘stage setting’ for the rebirth process. Where details of the mummification procedure performed on the body can be ascertained, this turns out to have been of a simple type (excerebration was omitted, the abdominal and thoracic cavities were simply filled with mud, sand and linen, and no amulets were placed beneath the wrappings: Raven 2009, 472; the mummy of Iru from Asasif ‘Grab VII’ was also poorly mummified: Budka 2010a, 121). Moreover, these burials rarely included other grave goods which might fulfil supplementary magical functions, such as canopic containers or shabtis (Sheikholeslami 2014b, 456), although occasionally a stela was provided. The strong emphasis on Ptah-Sokar-Osiris in the lower elite coffin decoration may help to explain why these burials also lack the wooden statues of the composite deity, which were a regular accoutrement of the higher elite type. Perhaps the coffin iconography provided an alternative means of obtaining this powerful divine association.19 So in most cases the coffin assemblage carries the full burden of responsibility for the resurrection of the deceased. As with the higher elite ensembles it is ‘resurrection in a box’, but a box

19

Note also that a bead-net pattern on a red ground (a characteristic feature of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues) is painted on the upper

of different design and conveying different nuances of meaning. Most of the coffins of the lower elite group belonged to persons whose titles reflect a subordinate status in Theban society — temple doorkeepers, barbers, craftsmen, butchers, ỉt-nṯr priests, cultivators of the lotus (Sheikholeslami 2014b, 474: there designated as ‘nonelite’), and men with the title kꜢwty/gwṯ, conventionally rendered ‘porter’ or ‘carrier’ (see below, p. 382). Others were minor necropolis officials. Pakepu, owner of the two-coffin set Cambridge E.2.1869 (Dawson and Strudwick 2016, 216–21), was a ‘water pourer on the west of Thebes’ (i.e. a ‘choachyte’), one of the men responsible for the burial places in the necropolis and for making offerings to the dead. Two other owners of lower elite coffins, Padiherishef and Nakhtkhonsuru, also bore titles which seem to indicate duties in the necropolis, although the actual roles they played are unclear (Haynes and Wilson 1984; D’Amicone 2009, 131). None of these persons can be linked with the leading families who had coffins of the higher elite type. Genealogical data is notably sparser on the lower elite coffins (perhaps a further indication that the owners could not boast distinguished ancestry), but family links between some of the coffin owners can be demonstrated or at least postulated, and the genealogical data also points to intermarriage among persons of the same rank. Thus Takhebkhenem, owner of the threecoffin set London, British Museum EA 6690–91, was the daughter of a doorkeeper of the pr Ἰmn named Padikhonsu, who had married the daughter of a man named Hor who held the same title. Namenekhamun, a chief butcher of the prἸmn, whose inner coffin is in Venice, belonged to the fourth generation in the male line to hold this title and was descended from other chief butchers on his mother’s side of the family (Raven 2009, 470). Some of the lower elite coffin owners have no recorded titles (Sheikholeslami 2014b, 474), a circumstance which has been interpreted as a possible indication of foreign origin (Vittmann 2007, 147–8).

body of some coffins of this period, and particularly those of the lower elite type.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

A spectrum of coffin types at Thebes in Dynasty 25 The evidence presented above suggests that at Thebes in Dynasty 25 a generally consistent relationship existed between the status of the deceased person and the iconographic and textual programmes of the burial goods with which they were provided. The coffin assemblages of the higher elite type belonged predominantly to persons whose titles reflect senior positions in the administrative and religious hierarchies — vizier, mayor, governor, ḥm-nṯr priest — while many were also members of a network of interrelated families or clans which controlled some of the most influential offices. It is a reasonable assumption that through either or both of these circumstances they had access to high levels of materials and craft skills. In contrast, the owners of the lower elite coffins can be assigned to more subordinate positions in these hierarchies; their official titles (where recorded) relate to ‘service roles’ in the temples, rather than to the — presumably more prestigious — sacerdotal functions, and they seem to belong to family networks which were not directly connected with those of the higher elite. Of course not all coffin assemblages of this period at Thebes can be assigned to one of these two groups. Variability in Egyptian burial goods is present at all levels and in all eras, but it seems that the two categories discussed in this paper represented relatively distinct models of burial provision, with which large numbers of people were provided. Many other Theban coffin assemblages are clearly variants of these models, and hence the higher and lower elite groups may be regarded as two key points on a spectrum. Most of the assemblages which differ from them nonetheless show affinities with one or the other (or both) and they can be tentatively located elsewhere on the same spectrum, above, below or between the higher and lower elite. A few examples are discussed below. Further research may help to determine the motivations which directed the purchaser’s choice of a particular adaptation of the higher or lower elite model. In her study of Ramesside coffins and their prices, Cooney has shown that individuals selected the characteristics of their funerary equipment on the basis of several factors, and that, particularly where resources were more limited, the chosen priorities could differ. Thus (somewhat surprisingly) high-quality materials were sometimes juxtaposed with poor draughtsmanship, and vice versa (Cooney 2007b, 7). In the period here under discussion there is no evidence for the cost of the various components of burial

373

assemblages, but the Dynasty 25 corpus manifests a similar diversity to the New Kingdom material: contrary to expectations, burial outfits consisting of fewer components (or even of only one coffin) can be associated with relatively high-quality painting or inscriptions, while in contrast, a triple coffin assemblage with an outer qrsw case could have inferior decoration (see below, p. 374–5). The categorisation used in the following paragraphs is intentionally loose and fluid, since we do not yet understand the social implications of a coffin-owner’s choice of (for example) high-quality painting in preference to a larger number of coffins. For earlier periods, such as the Middle and New Kingdoms, the availability of complementary categories of evidence (economic texts, settlement remains, cemetery archaeology, as well as a wider range of burial equipment) has enabled scholars to estimate the status of some coffin owners, postulating the existence of a ‘middle class’ or other social groupings below the elite (Richards 2005; Grajetzki 2010). But for Dynasty 25 the evidence is much less varied, being for the most part restricted to the burial assemblages themselves. Hence to propose a ‘socioeconomic population model’ based on coffin typology would be premature, and is not attempted here (Cooney 2007b, 6–7). Above the ‘higher elite’ The assemblages here designated ‘higher elite’ do not represent the most elaborate burial arrangements of all at Thebes in Dynasties 25 and 26. These, it can be postulated, were provided for persons who occupied the most senior positions in the administrative and religious hierarchies. At the pinnacle of Theban society were the God’s Wives of Amun. Their burial arrangements are not entirely clear; funerary chapels for Shepenwepet I, Amenirdis I, Shepenwepet II and Nitocris were constructed at Medinet Habu, and the subterranean crypts of some of these monuments may have received burials, yet the only sarcophagi of God’s Wives so far known, those of Nitocris and Ankhnesneferibre, were discovered in tombs close to the Hathor temple at Deir el-Medina. Although Ankhnesneferibre’s sarcophagus had been usurped, recent research favours the view that these tombs, probably intentionally located in a spatial relationship with the Hathor temple and orientated towards the Amun complex at Karnak, were the original resting places of these God’s Wives (Koch 2012, 31, 54; Wagner 2016,

374

J. H. TAYLOR

11–14; Koch 2017, 243–4). Ankhnesneferibre’s sarcophagus is densely covered with texts and images which, though disposed in a unique arrangement, nonetheless express the traditional themes of embalming, regeneration, vindication and participation in the solar cycle (Wagner 2016, 484). Both sarcophagi must have contained anthropoid coffins but no traces of them have survived (unless the inner coffin of Ankhnesneferibre is to be recognised as one found reused [?] in 2014 in the tomb of Karabasken [Pischikova et al. 2017, 41–5]). Next to the God’s Wives themselves the most important officials were their Chief Stewards, the mayors and governors such as Montemhat, and the uniquely significant but still enigmatic Lector Priest Padiamenope, owner of TT 33. These individuals were buried in huge monumental ‘palace tombs’ in the Asasif, but it is unfortunate that heavy plundering has left little surviving of their original burial equipment (Budka 2010b, 510), depriving us of the chance to observe the relationship between the coffins and the surrounding environment of the tombs. However, in some of these tombs there are architectural elements which replicate the symbolic role of the higher elite qrsw coffins. Edna Russmann argued that the first court of Montemhat’s tomb (TT 34), with its shrines for protective deities and pairs of bound papyrus stalks in relief, imitated the form and iconography of a qrsw coffin (Russmann 1995, 122–5); Dieter Eigner has emphasised (2017) the close association between the guardian deities in pr-nw shrines who line the sides of many qrsw coffins and the shrines in the courtyards of tombs such as that of Karakhamun (TT 223). The central ‘massif’ within the tomb of Padiamenope (TT 33) probably also represents a sarcophagus. Not surprisingly, both the tomb architecture and the qrsw coffin represented the burial place of Osiris. But if the upper architectural spaces in the Asasif tombs fulfilled the same function as the higher elite outer coffins, we know less about how the mummies of the occupants were encased. Some at least seem to have been laid in stone versions of the intermediary and inner coffins of the higher elite assemblage; both the granite coffin of Pabasa from TT 279 (Glasgow, Kelvingrove Museum 1922.86: Buhl 1959, 34–6) and the diorite example of Nesptah, son of Montemhat (Awadalla and el-Sawy 1990) imitate the wooden intermediary type (compare Cairo CG 41045, which is also almost identical to that of Nesptah in its dimensions: Gauthier 1913, 74–83, pls VI–VII), while the basalt mummiform sarcophagus of the Chief Steward Ibi (Turin C.2202: Buhl

1959, 122–4; Ferraris and Greco 2015, 192–3) closely resembles an inner wooden coffin of the bivalve type, with the addition of hands and sceptres. The Asasif tombs manifest essentially the same religious concepts as the higher elite coffin assemblages, but these concepts are realised partly through the medium of architectural space and partly through the substitution of stone for wood in some of the coffins. The elements of the religious symbolism are less tightly organised in the tombs, whose many chambers offered space for a more extensive use of mortuary texts and imagery than could be accommodated on a coffin assemblage. Between the ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ elite As Cooney has been at pains to demonstrate, the purchasers of burial assemblages — particularly those with more limited resources — faced a complex series of choices in order to obtain an acceptable balance between materials, quality of craftsmanship and efficacious magical content (Cooney 2007b, 256–8). Hence it comes as no surprise to find that in Dynasty 25 there were numerous adaptations of the two chief models described above, by which specific elements of the magical ‘armoury’ were included or excluded, probably as a reflection of the availability of resources to the purchaser. Some examples of the higher elite burial, while retaining the full complement of outer qrsw, subanthropoid intermediary and bivalve inner coffins, yet have simplified iconographic and/or inscriptional content. An example is that of Nesmutaatneru, a member of the Hor ‘A’ family, whose qrsw has plain unpainted surfaces, with inscriptions only on the posts and frame. Her intermediary coffin, though finely crafted, lacks the images and texts relating to the judgement, and the inner coffin has a lid design more typical of the lower elite type (Taylor 1988). This lady, whose burial was discovered undisturbed, had no stela, canopic chest or Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statue, although she was provided with two small boxes of crudely modelled shabtis. Her son Djedthutiuefankh, who was buried with her, also had a three-part coffin set with a qrsw but with only repetitive standard texts (see Fig. 4). Djedthutiuefankh possessed shabtis and a stela, but no Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure and no canopic chest; CT scans of his mummy show packages within the wrappings, which probably contain his viscera — perhaps another expedient to reduce cost. Moreover, the inner coffin has no internal decoration and the inscriptions on the exterior were

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

somewhat carelessly arranged, the painter awkwardly reducing the scale of the signs at the bottom of columns, where he had allowed himself insufficient space. Although these persons were members of a collateral branch of the powerful Besenmut family, the resources they were able to spend on their burials may have been smaller than those of their relatives. Like that of Nesmutaatneru, one or two other higher elite assemblages include an inner coffin with a lid design more typical of the lower elite model, such as that of Gautseshen (iii) (Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek AE IN 1522: Jørgensen 2001, 204–41); this coffin, however, is notable for having a gilded face and a larger amount of inscriptional content than is usual for lower elite specimens. If it is correct to suppose that an outer coffin of qrsw form was perceived as a desirable mark of high status (Raven 2009, 467–8), another adaptation which would undoubtedly have saved expense was to reduce the assemblage to only two components, a qrsw outer coffin and a bivalve inner coffin. Burial outfits of this type were provided for the sisters Tapeny and Renpetnefert, daughters of the God’s father and Chief Craftsman of Amun Ankh-khonsu (Ferraris and Greco 2015, 188–9, figs 238–41). The qrsw coffins of these women are consequently smaller in size than those of other higher elite burials and also differ from them in structure, having a division running through the middle of the ‘case’.20 In this way the most essential visual elements of the Awakening and Transit model were retained, while the omission of the intermediary coffin suggests that its symbolic value could be considered inferior to that of the outer and inner coffins — a notion perhaps reflected in the often sparse decoration of its surfaces.21 Although the father Ankh-khonsu held only a minor

20

21

Another qrsw coffin constructed in this way is Cairo CG 41014, to which belongs the inner coffin CG 41053 (Moret 1913, 158– 65, pl. XVIII; Gauthier 1913, 220–40, pls XV–XVI). It is unclear whether this assemblage consisted of these two coffins alone, or whether there was originally an intermediary coffin, now lost. The rather small qrsw coffins of Irbastwedjanefu (Paris, Louvre E.3872) and Meresamenet (Cairo CG 41035: Moret 1913, 290–8, pl. XXXVI) might also have contained only one anthropoid coffin, which would be remarkable since both ladies were descendants of the Dynasty 23 royal family. Possibly another example of a ‘two-coffin’ qrsw assemblage is represented by the inner coffin of the lady Payestjauemawyanu

375

priestly office, his role as Chief Craftsman might have been influential in his obtaining these pseudo-higher elite burial outfits for his daughters (a privilege perhaps also enjoyed by the craftsman Pestjenfy, p. 358, above). A two-coffin set of a different type is Berlin 3-4 (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 50–5). Here the outer coffin is sub-anthropoid and the inner bivalve, a pairing of forms which typifies the lower elite burial. The decoration, however, is more characteristic of the higher elite, particularly the designs of the inner coffin (lid: Taylor 2003, 114–15, pl. 63, Design 3). Most unusually, the same lid design is also applied to the outer coffin, and the exterior of its base has a highly unusual arrangement of horizontal lines of text. This unique assemblage was found in the same tomb as the triple coffin set Berlin 50–52, a rare instance of a ‘classic’ higher elite assemblage which belonged to a person of non-sacerdotal status, the craftsman Pestjenfy. Other amalgamations of elements of the higher and lower elite assemblages are attested. There are at least two instances in which an outer coffin of qrsw type was combined with an intermediary coffin decorated internally with the mummiform falcon-headed image, which is usually identified as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris. One of these assemblages was made for Nesamenope, a relative of Montemhat (Cairo CG 41022, 41067: Moret 1913, 219–26; Gauthier 1913, 465–9, pl. XXXVIII), while the other belonged to the wꜥb-priest of Amun Ir (Sharpe and Bonomi 1858). The falcon-headed figure on Ir’s coffin is named as Duamutef, perhaps another instance of the intentional or accidental variation which has been mentioned above (n. 17).22 Among the ‘lotus cultivators’ who were buried in QV43-44, only one individual, Hor, son of Khamontu, had a qrsw outer coffin. It has been associated with a

22

in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, and one end of her qrsw-type outer coffin, Vienna ÄS 3930: Minas-Nerpel and Sigmund 2003, 16–30. The dimensions of the Vienna fragment indicate that the outer coffin was much smaller than most of the qrsw coffins of higher elite burials and hence may not have contained an intermediary coffin. Another example of an ‘intermediary’ anthropoid coffin with a figure of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris on the floor is that of Irthorru, Asti 94B (Leospo 1986, 28–9, 34–5, 38–9). The other components of the assemblage are lost.

376

J. H. TAYLOR

sub-anthropoid case which appears in all respects to conform to the lower elite outer coffin model: text band between coloured borders on exterior, rosette motif on the thickness, falcon-headed mummiform figure on the floor (Leospo 1989, 70–3; D’Amicone 2009, 94 [3.1]). The dimensions of the two coffins permit the smaller to be placed inside the larger, but this would be the only attested instance of the combining of these two distinct types of outer coffin in a single assemblage. Although the sub-anthropoid case is inscribed for a man named Hor, he has no title or filiation and there must be some doubt as to whether he is the same person as Hor, son of Khamontu. It was noticed above that two common variants of the lower elite model were available — with or without an intermediary coffin. The three-coffin version must undoubtedly have cost more, and it is observable that the inner coffin in these sets sometimes has text passages and even vignettes from the Book of the Dead (as on the inner coffin of Nestawedjat, London, British Museum EA 22812: Antoine, Vandenbeusch and Taylor 2016, 46–53), also probably indications of greater expenditure. Even a two-coffin set could be ‘enriched’ in this way. The two anthropoid coffins of Asettayefnakht (Truro, Royal Cornwall Museum 1837.23.2– 3) exemplify this. They include more specific iconographic and/or inscriptional content, such as longer passages from Book of the Dead texts and vignettes (Dodson 2011, 4–17). In another variant, a standard bivalve inner coffin was encased in a single outer coffin, sub-anthropoid in form but decorated as an intermediary coffin, with a single line of inscription on the lid and another around the case. Several similar pairs of coffins are among museum collections, but most lack a secure archaeological context, so it remains uncertain whether the assemblage is complete or whether a third (outer) coffin was originally present.23

23

24

An example is the coffin assemblage of the lady Kek, daughter of the Chief Butcher of the Domain of Amun Namenekhamun, Leiden AMM 4/M.64-65 (Raven 2009, 465–8, 486–7, photos 2–8). Although the inner coffin is extensively covered with inscriptions on the inside of the lid and both surfaces of the case, their content is banal, with the exception of a corrupt version of BD 54 (Raven 2009, 467). A cartonnage case (London, British Museum EA 75194) that is associated with Nesmut’s coffin can be assigned to an earlier

Below the ‘lower elite’ Towards the bottom end of the spectrum a variety of options seems to have been available, probably to enable the purchaser to economise when resources were even more restricted. One solution was to have only a single coffin. Although such simple burials have occasionally been found in controlled excavations, it is impossible to determine how common they were: many individuals are today attested by only one coffin, but information about the circumstances of discovery is often missing, and so one cannot discount the possibility that additional coffins — now lost or simply unrecognised in museums or private collections — might originally have been provided. However, several of the individuals buried in QV43– 44 and those of the ‘Prince of Wales’ group are represented by one coffin only and there is reason to think that some of these were true ‘single-coffin’ burials. The coffin of Bakrenes from the latter group (London, British Museum EA 15654) has the form, images and texts appropriate to an outer coffin of the lower elite type, but it is smaller in size and contained a mummy in a close-fitting internal matrix which could not have accommodated an inner coffin (Figs 16–18). The coffin of Nesmut, from the same group (London, British Museum EA 75193), has a related design and a similar restricted interior space, contoured to the form of the body.24 A single anthropoid coffin of the ‘intermediary’ type was used as the receptacle for a mummy excavated in 1991 near to the causeway of Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahri; the mummy, only 92.5cm long, was evidently that of a child (Nasr 1992, 142, pls XXVIIA–B, XXVIIIB). Further proof that adults were buried in single coffins of both these types comes from ‘Tomb 5’, discovered by Carter and Carnarvon at Deir el-Bahri in 1909– 10 (Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 23–6, pls XIII–XVII;

date on stylistic grounds, and was evidently intrusive. Close parallels to British Museum EA 75193 include Turin S. 5244 from the QV43–44 burials and Toronto 910.11, without provenance, but it cannot be proved that these burials consisted of a single coffin. Other persons from the Prince of Wales group who are known from only one coffin include Panesittawy (Leicester 50.1928) and Namenekhamun (Birmingham 23’66) but these are ‘inner’ coffins, typologically, and it remains possible that associated outer coffins were once present but have been lost.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Aston 2009, 217–18; Jansen-Winkeln 2009, 550–1, nos 378–9, 383). The main chamber of this small courtyard tomb contained two groups of burials: five adults and a child in simple uninscribed coffins of Dynasty 22 type had been crowded into the rear of the tomb, apparently to make room for the later interment of two individuals whose inscribed coffins (numbered ‘1B’ and ‘2B’) lay side by side in a ‘slight excavation’. These two were covered with ‘a pink shawl and chain garlands of leaves’, perhaps suggesting that they had been interred at the same time. A third burial in two inscribed coffins (‘1A’) was enclosed within a small sealed chamber on the east side of the courtyard. The inscriptions on the coffins 1A, 1B and 2B showed that they belonged to a husband, his wife and their son, and on palaeographical and stylistic evidence they can be assigned to Dynasty 25 (the name of Osiris is written with the pennant determinative, Gardiner sign R.8, on all three). None of these individuals had official titles and besides their coffins the only burial goods were floral garlands, a ‘bouquet of cornflowers’ and (on the mummy of the woman) a fillet of leaves and wax figures of the benu and the four Sons of Horus. The coffins show considerable variety, even within this closelylinked nuclear family. The husband, Padikhonsu, had just one anthropoid coffin, having the shape and simple decoration of the ‘intermediary’ type (Cairo JE 43635; unpublished). His wife Irtyru also had only one coffin, of sub-anthropoid shape, but this was richer, decorated externally as outer coffins of the lower elite type, and internally with the full-face Nut figure that had been used in intermediary coffins in Dynasty 22 and by Dynasty 25 was usual on the interior of the lid of inner coffins in assemblages. This coffin was therefore (like London, British Museum EA 15654 and EA 75193) a hybrid, uniting in a single container iconographic elements taken from different components of the larger ensembles. The son Padiamun had an outer coffin of ‘intermediary’ type and within it a smaller coffin, made of thin wood and of unusual appearance (possibly indicating that it was a specimen dating to an earlier period which had been reused). The coffins described in the previous paragraphs exemplify several different adaptations of ideal models, in which elements were selected from larger assemblages and combined in innovative ways. Nonetheless, the individual elements are familiar from the richer assemblages, indicating that poorer customers subscribed to the same beliefs and ritual formalities as their more affluent contemporaries.

Fig. 16: Lid of single coffin of Bakrenes, London, British Museum EA 15654 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

377

378

J. H. TAYLOR

Fig. 17: Exterior of case of single coffin of Bakrenes, London, British Museum EA 15654 (© Trustees of the British Museum).

What is striking is that in burials where only a single anthropoid coffin was provided, it is usually of the ‘sub-anthropoid’ shape characteristic of an outer or intermediary coffin, and with decoration also usual for those types. Single-coffin burials in ‘inner’ coffins with dorsal pillar and pedestal are not only rare but the few attested examples have atypical decoration. The coffin of an untitled man named Harwa, found in Metropolitan Museum of Art excavations at the temple of Hatshepsut, Deir el-Bahri (Winlock 1924, 30, 32, fig. 37), combined the pedestal and proportions of an inner case with decoration appropriate to an intermediary coffin, having a single line of inscription on the lid (Fig. 19).25 It is worth noting here that a fully decorated pedestaltype ‘inner’ coffin was sometimes used to contain refuse from the embalming of high-ranking persons such as Ibi, the Chief Steward of the God’s Wife (Graefe 1990, 39, n. 71), although it was more customary to use a plain or simply decorated coffin for this purpose (Dabrowska-Smektala 1968).26 One can only speculate on the possible reasons for the apparent rarity of conventional burials in fully decorated bivalve ‘inner’ coffins alone: was the cost of the sculpted form and the densely concentrated decoration prohibitive, or

25

26

What appears to be another instance of a burial in a single bivalve coffin with pedestal is published in Nasr 1992, 142, pl. XXVIIIA. This coffin was uninscribed and apparently undecorated. Another pedestal-type coffin, found under debris near TT 408, was decorated with a Nut-figure and a single line of inscription

was there some ideological barrier to employing such a coffin for the mummy without an enclosing layer? The very lowest end of the spectrum is difficult to identify, because of the difficulty of dating burials in undecorated coffins or those without coffins. An idea of the type of coffins that might have been produced for poorer customers may perhaps be gained from some of the examples which were used to contain leftover embalming materials, as already alluded to. A few of these coffins were found at Deir el-Bahri and are associated with the burials of members of the Besenmut family of the middle of Dynasty 26 (Dabrowska-Smektala 1968). They are roughly constructed and painted white, with only rudimentary decoration and inscriptions. However, crude though these coffins are, they formed part of the burial arrangements of persons of high status — some of whom are attested by fully decorated functional coffins and even funerary papyri — and their inscriptions (which, though brief, are competently executed) might still have been written by highly trained craftsmen. Coffins with pseudo-hieroglyphic inscriptions, which are commonly found at other sites, are rare at Thebes in this period (one example: Budka 2010a, 290–1, Taf. 45a–c), perhaps reflecting the

on the lid which identified its owner as a Prophet of Montu Djedasetiuefankh: Abdul-Qader Muhammed 1966, 183, pls CVCVI. Although it was reported to contain a linen-wrapped ‘mummy’, one cannot exclude the possibility that this latter might have contained embalming leftovers rather than a corpse.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

379

Fig. 18: Single coffin of Bakrenes, London, British Museum EA 15654, with mummy (from Birch 1874, pl. facing p. 209).

Fig. 19: Single coffin and mummy of Harwa, Cairo Museum (MMA photograph M5C 138. Image: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).

greater availability of skilled craftsmen there. It is possible that there were also ‘craft installations free from institutional control’, producing work of low quality for poorer customers, as suggested by Cooney (2007b, 169), but if so it is difficult to identify such products at Thebes.

painters and scribes who were following ‘patterns’ (albeit patterns which were susceptible to variation). In general, the higher and lower elite burial sets are also distinguishable by different standards of workmanship. Higher elite assemblages show clear signs of greater care in the laying out of the decorated surfaces, with texts and images positioned with regularity and symmetry, and closer attention to detail, with careful delineation of images and hieroglyphic signs, and paint meticulously applied within outlines. The lower elite assemblages are often characterised by less careful workmanship: freehand painting, and positioning of graphic elements ‘by eye’ rather than by preliminary drawing; poor formation of images and of signs; clumsy contractions of texts and reduction in the scale

Identifying craftsmen and ‘workshops’ The consistently similar constellations of diagnostic features of the higher and lower elite assemblages point to the existence of established models or routines for their production. We may suppose that they were made through the collaboration of carpenters, plasterers,

380

J. H. TAYLOR

of hieroglyphs at the end of columns as a result of inefficient space-planning. The general impression is one of rapid work and less rigorous supervision over the quality of the output. Closer observation reveals a further level of patterning, in that on different coffins within each group certain graphic and palaeographic idiosyncrasies of the artists recur (Sheikholeslami 2010b). Though this aspect of research is still at an early stage, these recurring features may be considered the hallmarks (or ‘fingerprints’) of particular painters. Thus, the recurrent clustering of certain hieroglyphic signs drawn in a distinctive manner serves to identify the work of a particular craftsman on objects from the burial assemblages of two members of the Besenmut family, one of the Hor ‘A’ family and two of the Montemhat family (compare the signs Gardiner A.40, D.54, G.17, I.10, N.35, Q.1 and Y.5 on coffins Cairo CG 41020, 41021 and 41042, Paris, Louvre E.3913, London, British Museum EA 15655 and EA 27735 and on shabti boxes London, British Museum EA 8525 and Aberdeen, Marischal Museum 299). As these examples demonstrate, for the higher elite burials, the same scribe or painter could work not only on coffins but on smaller items of the burial assemblage such as shabti boxes. In the same way, particular craftsmen can be recognised working on different coffins of the lower elite type. Among many instances that could be cited, one may note the inner coffins of Djedmontuiuefankh, Padiherishef, Namenekhamun and Hererem (respectively London, British Museum EA 25256; Boston, Massachusetts General Hospital; Birmingham 23’66 and Leiden AMM 21/M.43: respectively, Taylor 2003, figs 65–6, 68; Haynes and Wilson 1984, 11–15; Davies 1985, 101; unpublished). In addition to general similarities of design layouts, these coffins also share specific peculiarities in graphic technique and the forms of certain hieroglyphic signs. Consistency of decoration in coffins of this type belonging to consecutive generations of a particular family has likewise been observed, and consistency is also apparent in the similar mummification treatments which were applied to the bodies (Raven 2009, 479). Although from the New Kingdom, written sources such as the Deir el-Medina archive throw light on the practices of painters and other craftsmen who made funerary equipment (Cooney 2007b), for the Third Intermediate Period this kind of evidence is unavailable and we are almost totally dependent on the visual inspection of the objects themselves for an

understanding of the processes of their production. Nonetheless, the New Kingdom evidence provides a plausible model. Cooney’s study has demonstrated that the skilled craftsmen who were employed to construct the New Kingdom royal tombs supplemented their ‘official’ state income by producing coffins and other objects for the private sector, and that such activity was not only done openly but that it could have accounted for the production of a large number of coffins (Cooney offers a conservative estimate of 80–120 coffins per year: 2007b, 129). The Deir el-Medina evidence reflects the work of only one community on the Theban west bank, and it is highly likely that the same pattern of activity was more widespread. Studies of Theban tomb painting in the New Kingdom have suggested that painters could have been drawn from various sources, and that different styles might reflect the work of craftsmen who were employed respectively in ‘temple’ and ‘palace’ workshops (Hartwig 2004, 30–5) and who might have been ‘lent’ to, or hired by, officials to paint their tombs (Sainz 2017, 111). If such long-term work establishments also existed in Dynasty 25 it is entirely conceivable that the craftsmen might have accepted private commissions to produce burial equipment. Cooney’s model is of an ‘“informal workshop” network’, with carpenters, painters and others responding to commissions on an adhoc basis, each contributing his specialist skills to produce coffins, and each working sequentially, rather than together in a single centralised location (Cooney 2007b, 128, 133, 146–9). That being so, it may be that there were no permanent workshops or ‘ateliers’ dedicated exclusively to the production of burial equipment, but perhaps instead more loosely organised groups of craftsmen, trained in the ‘state’ sector, who came together on a shortterm basis to produce funerary assemblages. Several aspects of the Dynasty 25 Theban material favour this pattern. There is little or no evidence for ‘serial’ or ‘speculative’ production — no coffins or other objects which were obviously made in advance with blank spaces for names to be added (Cooney 2007b, 172–3). It is striking that even on the lower elite coffins the names and titles of the owners appear to have been incorporated ‘seamlessly’ into the inscriptions, with no evidence for a ‘last-minute’ addition of the name in a different hand. Moreover, the limitless variation in small details speaks against the mechanical duplication of the production-line, the painters following a pattern but not with slavish repetition. Another factor against advance production is that owners’ titles are

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

never altered or upgraded to reflect promotion, as might be expected if coffins were produced during their occupants’ lifetimes or long before their deaths (Sheikholeslami 2014a, 112; 2014b, 454–5). It is also notable that, on the evidence of their palaeographical ‘fingerprints’, alluded to above, individual craftsmen did not always restrict their services solely to higher or lower elite customers, but painted and inscribed objects that were destined for persons who occupied widely differing places on the spectrum. Thus Leiden AMM 19/M.24, the outermost of a three-coffin set of lower elite type, made for a temple official of junior rank, was undoubtedly inscribed by the same hand that wrote the texts on the higher elite qrsw coffins London, British Museum EA 15655 and Cairo CG 41020 and 41021, and the inner coffins of the priests of Montu Ankhefenkhonsu (i) and Hor, Cairo CG 41042 and London, British Museum EA 27735, respectively (compare Giovetti and Picchi 2015, 460–3 with Moret 1913, pls XX–XXIV, Gauthier 1913, pls I–II and Taylor 2001, 239, fig. 176). A shabti box in Cleveland (a type of object mainly associated with higher elite burials) also has palaeographical affinities with the coffins of this priest of Montu, Hor (Berman 1999, 448– 9), but more surprisingly the same hand is seen in the short inscribed panels on the coffin of Nesmut (London, British Museum EA 75193), one of the group of lower elite specimens which were presented to the Prince of Wales in 1869. Moreover, the single coffin of Irtyru from Carter and Carnarvon’s Tomb 5 shows signs of a craftsman whose work is also attested on the multi-coffin sets of Padiese (Leiden AMM 19/M.24–26) and Nehemsumontu — the latter made for a man who held a responsible temple-post and whose coffins had gilded faces (Perdu 2004; Taylor 2006, pls 52–3). On the evidence of his title and his burial assemblage it appears that Nehemsumontu, or his family, had more disposable capital than Irtyru. Her coffin perfectly exemplifies the kind of ‘technical and aesthetic choices’ which confronted a person whose wealth was limited and who was therefore compelled to ‘emphasize some aspects over others’ (Cooney 2007b, 181): if less was spent on materials and carpentry, more could perhaps be put towards having the services of one of the more skilled craftsmen to paint the decoration. Certain distinctive markers distinguish another craftsman who apparently worked for both higher and lower elite. His manner of writing interalia the signs Gardiner E.34, G.14 and W.18 and of composing

381

certain repeated groups, for example the phrase ḥry-ỉb šṯyt, appears on lower elite coffins such as Zagreb 667 and Copenhagen, National Museum AAa 1, and is also seen on the inner coffin of Djedthutiuefankh in Oxford, mentioned above as an example of a higher elite burial which nevertheless shows signs of economic constraint. These examples also betray this painter’s repeated failure to plan his work carefully, which led him to cram signs together at the lower ends of columns where he had not left enough space. The same painters and scribes therefore seem to be attested across most of the ‘visible spectrum’ of Theban coffin production. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we might suppose that the Dynasty 25 coffins were made by craftsmen working in an environment that was organised on a flexible basis, similar to that attested in the New Kingdom, and fashioning products destined for customers of different ranks in accordance with pre-agreed prices. The evident versatility of the craftsmen raises the question of what part they played in determining the symbolic programme which would be manifested in a particular coffin assemblage. It has been suggested that the scribes and painters who produced the very varied Dynasty 21 funerary papyri were permitted to innovate in creating the texts and images (Lucarelli 2006, 3, 6; but see also Niwiński 2009, 223); the coffins of Dynasty 25, however, show a closer observance of prescribed models, with variation restricted to a smaller compass. The main choice seems to have been between assemblages which expressed a carefully articulated path to eternity through coffins having particular physical forms and specific texts and images, supplemented with other burial goods and, on the other hand, ensembles comprising coffins alone, whose decoration reflected the key stages in rebirth through a more simplified series of images, enhanced by repetition and giving special emphasis to PtahSokar-Osiris.

Coffins as evidence for social mobility? The rise and fall of individuals and families within the social hierarchy is difficult to trace and even harder to explain satisfactorily, but such mobility may be looked for particularly at periods of social and political change such as Dynasty 25, when opportunities for advancement can be expected to have arisen (Richards 2005, 15). Above, an apparent distinction has been observed between holders of sacerdotal office and

382

J. H. TAYLOR

those who fulfilled more mundane functions such as temple doorkeepers, butchers and barbers — a distinction seemingly reflected in their burial assemblages. It has also been noted that there are apparent exceptions, such as that of a craftsman who was provided with a rich coffin assemblage of the higher elite type. Several persons who held the title kꜢwtyorgwṯ — a somewhat enigmatic office, conjectured to have similar responsibilities to those of ỉry-ꜥꜢ, ‘doorkeeper’ (Sheikholeslami 2014b, 458, n. 29) — are known from lower elite coffins of this period. Whatever its precise meaning, the title seems to express fairly menial responsibilities. Since no coffins or other funerary objects are attested for persons with this title in earlier periods, does this indicate a rise in the relative status, and purchasing power, of the kꜢwty/gwṯ in Dynasty 25, or did the particular individuals who owned those coffins have access to independent resources, outside the remuneration for their official work? Some of them were related to each other, a point which raises the question of how far family-held wealth (based on shared profits from land, for example) might have been used to maintain a specific level of funerary provision for its members.

Conclusion: social patterning and approaches to resurrection The evidence considered above indicates that, while adaptations of burial-models were widespread, ‘poorer’ burials were not simply cheap imitations of a single elite model. Rather, there were at least two models, each of which served as the basis of adaptations. It is assumed that each burial assemblage, whether elaborate or comparatively simple, represented a complete ‘mechanism’ which would function magically to convey eternal life to its occupant. In the Ramesside Period, although there was variation in the number of components of the burial assemblage and in the materials and craft skills used in their production, the underlying magical ‘model’ was essentially the same for richer and poorer clients. In Dynasty 21, some social differentiation on this basis begins to be noticeable, as noted by Cooney (2014, 48). By Dynasty 25 the distinction is more strongly marked in the higher and lower elite models, not only in number of components and in their form but also in the religious conceptions which they embodied: emphasis could be placed on different choices and arrangements of images to effect rebirth.

The Awakening of Osiris and Transit of the Solar Barques is a model which was mainly associated with the higher elite. The creation of a burial assemblage which was closely based on this source clearly demanded a high proportion of costly materials, constructional and graphic skills and access to highly specific religious iconography and texts. The occurrence of the same composition in two Kushite royal tombs of the period and in several high-status Theban tombs is a further indication that this was a prerogative of senior rank. The cost of the work alone might have placed it beyond the reach of the lower elite, irrespective of whether or not ‘decorum’ imposed social restrictions on access to this burial model. The lower elite burial reflects a different emphasis. The Awakening and Transit is not directly referenced, and in the absence of the qrsw coffin the cosmogramconcept is less obvious. Yet here, too, the outer coffin appears to embody the sacred environment in which the deceased was to be resurrected. Celestial allusions occur on the lid (winged solar disc on breast, horizon sign at head), while the case reflects an earthly/netherworld theme, though here prominence is given to Sokar and his shetyt shrine rather than to the Osiris-tomb/ embalming hall. The inner coffin represents the resurrected deceased, and here the embalming hall is referenced in the mummy-vignette, but the iconography focuses less on the Stundenwachen, and more on the solar cycle and on Sokar, who is represented by his image on the front and is also alluded to in the decoration on the back. In these ensembles, repetition of a few popular motifs seems to take the place of the iconographic and textual complexity which characterises the higher elite burials. If the images and inscriptions on the coffins reflect in any way the liturgical texts and ritual acts which were recited and performed at the funeral then it is conceivable that persons buried in higher and lower elite styles were also distinguished in the cult activities that were performed on their behalf. This raises the further question of the possible significance of the specific burial environment in which the coffins were placed. Did interment in or near the Hatshepsut temple offer a different path to eternity as contrasted with, say, burial in the Valley of the Queens or other parts of the Theban necropolis which were more remote from a functioning cult place? Sheikholeslami has drawn attention to the find spots of coffin assemblages of the lower elite type, with the implication that they occur only in a few places in the necropolis. Although this view may be

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

modified, it at least suggests continuity of treatment between manufacture of burial goods, interment and perhaps long-term maintenance of family/group burial places — in which latter roles the choachytes would have been influential. Further investigations on the distribution of coffin assemblages in the different areas of the necropolis might throw additional light on this issue.

Bibliography Abdul-Qader Muhammed, M. 1966. Two Theban tombs. Kyky and Bak-en-Amun. Annales du service des antiquitésdel’Égypte 59, 157–84, pls I–CVII. D’Amicone, E. (ed.). 2009. Sarcófagos del antiguo Egipto. Jardineros de Amón en el Valle de las Reinas. Barcelona. Antoine, D., M. Vandenbeusch and J. H. Taylor. 2016. Egyptianmummies.Exploringancientlives. Sydney. Assmann, J. 2005. Death and salvation in ancient Egypt. Translated by D. Lorton. Ithaca. Aston, D. A. 2009. Burial assemblages of Dynasty 21–25. Chronology – Typology – Developments. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 54. Vienna. Awadalla, A. and A. el-Sawy. 1990. Un sarcophage de Nsi-Ptah dans la tombe de Montouemhat. Bulletin de l’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale 90, 29–39. Baines, J. 2013. High culture and experience in ancient Egypt. Sheffield; Bristol, CT. Berman, L. M. 1999. TheClevelandMuseumofArt.CatalogueofEgyptianart. New York. Birch, S. 1874. Account of coffins and mummies discovered in Egypt on the occasion of the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, in 1868–9. TransactionsoftheRoyal SocietyofLiterature, 2nd series, 10, 185–213. Brunner-Traut, E. and H. Brunner. 1981. Die Ägyptische SammlungderUniversitätTübingen. Mainz am Rhein. Budka, J. 2010a. BestattungsbrauchtumundFriedhofsstruktur im Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Ergebnisse der österreichischen AusgrabungenindenJahren1969–1977. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 34. Vienna. Budka, J. 2010b. Kushite tomb groups in Late Period Thebes. In W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar (eds), Betweenthecataracts:Proceedingsofthe11thConferenceforNubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–2 September 2006. Parttwo:Sessionpapers2. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, Supplement Series 2/2/2. Warsaw, 503–18.

383

Buhl, M.-L. 1959. ThelateEgyptiananthropoidstonesarcophagi. Copenhagen. Carnarvon, Earl of and H. Carter. 1912. Fiveyears’explorations at Thebes. A record of work done 1907–1911. London; New York; Toronto; Melbourne. Chrysikopoulos, V. 2005. Trois coffrets à oushebtis de la cachette des prêtres de Montou à Deir el-Bahari: Basaenmout, Padiamon et Irethorrou au Musée National d’Athènes. Kyphi 4, 5–15. Cooney, K. M. 2007a. The functional materialism of death in ancient Egypt: A case study of funerary materials from the Ramesside Period. In M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Das Heilige und die Ware. Zum Spannungsfeld von Religion und Ökonomie. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 7. London, 273–99. Cooney, K. M. 2007b. The cost of death. The social and economicvalueofancientEgyptianfuneraryartinthe Ramessideperiod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Cooney, K. M. 2014. Ancient Egyptian funerary arts as social documents: Social place, reuse, and working towards a new typology of 21st Dynasty coffins. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity.Newresearch trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 45–66. Dabrowska-Smektala, E. 1968. Coffins found in the area of the temple of Tuthmosis III at Deir el-Bahari. Bulletinde l’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale 66, 171–81. Dautant, A. and S. Aufrère. 2011. Sur les traces du cercueil et de la momie d’Inimennaÿsnebout, Musée GeorgesLabit, Toulouse. ÉgypteAfrique&Orient 62, 17–30. Davies, S. 1985. By the gains of industry. Birmingham MuseumsandArtGallery1885–1985. Birmingham. Dawson, J. and H. Strudwick (eds). 2016. DeathontheNile. UncoveringtheafterlifeofancientEgypt. Cambridge. Delvaux, L. and I. Therasse. 2015. Sarcophages: sous les étoilesdeNout. Bruxelles. Dodson, A. 2011. CatalogueofEgyptiancoffinsinprovincial collections of the United Kingdom, I: The South West. www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/research/dodson/ecpuk_ files/truro (last accessed 9 January 2018). Dodson, A. 2015. AncientEgyptiancoffins:TheMedelhavsmuseetcollection. www.varldskulturmuseerna.se/Documents/Medelhavet/Ancient%20Egyptian%20Coffins_ low.pdf (last accessed 5 January 2018). Donadoni Roveri, A. M. (ed.). 1989. Dal museo al museo. PassatoefuturodelMuseoEgiziodiTorino. Turin. Eigner, D. 2017. Remarks on the architecture of the Lichthof in TT 223, Karakhamun. In E. Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif necropolis. New discoveries and research2012–14. Cairo; New York, 73–88. Ferraris, E. and C. Greco. 2015. LaGalleriadeisarcofagi: dimoreperl’eternità,inMuseoEgizio. Modena, 164– 93.

384

J. H. TAYLOR

Del Francia, R. 1994. Le trousseau de la tombe de Tchesrêperet. État de la question. In M. Dewachter and A. Fouchard (eds), L’égyptologie et les Champollion. Grenoble, 215–22. Gaballa, G. A. and K. A. Kitchen. 1969. The festival of Sokar. Orientalia38, 1–76, Tab. I–II. Gasse, A. 1996. Les sarcophages de la Troisième Période IntermédiaireduMuseoGregorianoEgizio. Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie. Museo Gregoriano Egizio. Aegyptiaca Gregoriana III. Vatican. Gauthier, H. 1913. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennesduMuséeduCaire.Nos41042–41072.Cercueils anthropoidesdesprêtresdeMontou. Cairo. Germer, R., H. Altenmüller, K. H. Höhne, H. Kischkewitz and J. Klocke. 1997. Mummies. Life after death in ancientEgypt.Munich; New York. Germer, R., H. Kischkewitz, and M. Lüning. 2009. Berliner Mumiengeschichten.Ergebnisseeinesmultidisziplinären Forschungsprojektes. Regensburg. Giovetti, P. and D. Picchi (eds). 2015. Egitto.Splendoremillenario. La collezione di Leiden a Bologna. Rome; Bologna; Milan. Graefe, E. 1990. DasGrabdesIbi,Obervermögenverwalters der Gottesgemahlin des Amun (Thebanisches Grab Nr.36).BeschreibungundRekonstruktionsversuchedes Oberbaus.FundeausdemOberbau. Brussels. Graindorge, C. 2001. Sokar. In D. B. Redford (ed.), The OxfordencyclopediaofancientEgypt, 3. Oxford, 305–7. Graindorge-Héreil, C. 1994. LedieuSokaràThèbesauNouvel Empire. 2 vols. Göttinger Orientforschungen 4/28. Wiesbaden. Grajetzki, W. 2010. Class and society. Position and possessions. In W. Wendrich (ed.), Egyptian archaeology. Chichester, 180–99. Greco, C. 2009. Il sarcofago esterno di Tjes-ra-peret, dimora per l’eternita. In M. C. Guidotti and F. Tiradritti (eds), Guidealleraccolteegizied’Italia2.RinascimentoFaraonico la XXV dinastia nel Museo Egizio di Firenze. Montepulciano, 21–6. Greco, C. 2010. Il sarcofago esterno di Tjesraperet, nutrice della figlia del faraone Taharqa. Analisi iconografica preliminare. EgittoeVicinoOriente 33, 31–45. Greco, C. 2014. The forgotten tomb of Ramose (TT 132). In E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), Thebesin thefirstmillenniumBC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 173–99. Guidotti, M. C. 2009. Il corredo funerario di Tjes-ra-peret, nutrice della figlia di Taharqo; Nota sul materiale del corredo di Tjes-ra-peret conservato nel Museo del Louvre. In M. C. Guidotti and F. Tiradritti (eds), Guidealle raccolte Egizie d’Italia 2. Rinascimento Faraonico la XXV dinastia nel Museo Egizio di Firenze. Montepulciano, 14–20, 27–30, and 51–4 (catalogue entries). Guidotti, M. C. and F. Tiradritti (eds). 2009. Guide alle raccolte Egizie d’Italia 2. Rinascimento Faraonico

laXXVdinastianelMuseoEgiziodiFirenze. Montepulciano. Guzzon, E. 2017. The wooden coffins of the late Third Intermediate Period and Late Period found by Schiaparelli in the Valley of the Queens (QV43 and QV44). In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), ProceedingsFirstVaticanCoffin Conference19–22June2013. Vatican, I, 191–7. Hartwig, M. K. 2004. Tombpaintingandidentityinancient Thebes, 1419–1372 BCE. Monumenta Aegyptiaca X, Série IMAGO no. 2. Turnhout. Haynes, J. and J. J. Wilson. 1984. Padihershef,theEgyptian mummy.December2,1984toJanuary20,1985.George WalterVincentSmithArtMuseum. Springfield, MA. Hope, C. A. 1988. Goldofthepharaohs. Sydney. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 2009. Inschriften der Spätzeit, III. Die 25Dynastie. Wiesbaden. Jørgensen, M. 2001. Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Catalogue Egypt III. Coffins, mummy adornments and mummies from the Third Intermediate, Late, Ptolemaic and the Romanperiods(1080BC–AD400). Copenhagen. Koch, C. 2012. ‘DiedenAmunmitihrerStimmezufriedenstellen’. Gottesgemahlinnen und Musikerinnen im thebanischenAmunstaatvonder22.biszur26.Dynastie. Studien zu den Ritualszenen altägyptischer Tempel 27. Dettelbach. Koch, C. 2017. The sarcophagus of Nitocris (Inv. Cairo TN 6/2/21/1): further considerations about the God’s Wives’ burial places. In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), Proceedings First Vatican Coffin Conference 19–22June2013. Vatican, I, 231–48. Lemos, R. 2017. Material culture and social interactions in New Kingdom non-elite cemeteries. In J.-M. Chyla, J. Debowska-Ludwin, K. Rosinska-Balik and C. Walsh (eds), Current research in Egyptology 2016. ProceedingsoftheSeventeenthAnnualSymposium,Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 4–7 May 2016. Oxford; Philadelphia, 121–35. Leospo, E. 1986. MuseoArcheologicodiAsti.Lacollezione Egizia. Regione Piemonte. Leospo, E. 1989. ‘Sarcofagi di Padiamenemope’, ‘Coperchio del sarcofago di Nesamondjaemaniut’, ‘Sarcofagi di Hor’. In A. M. Donadoni Roveri (ed.), Dal museo al museo. Passato e futuro del Museo Egizio di Torino. Turin, 62–6, 68, 70–3. Li, J. 2017. Women,genderandidentityinThirdIntermediatePeriodEgypt.TheThebancasestudy. London; New York. Liptay, E. 2012. ‘The bull coming out of the mountain’. The changing context and connotations of an iconographic motif. In K. A. Kóthay (ed.), Art and society. Ancient andmoderncontextsofEgyptianart.Proceedingsofthe International Conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May 2010. Budapest, 169–84, pls 38–40.

EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL PATTERNING IN THEBAN COFFINS OF DYNASTY 25

Lloyd, A. B. 1976. Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1–98. Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 43. Leiden. Lucarelli, R. 2006. The Book of the Dead of Gatseshen. AncientEgyptianfuneraryreligioninthe10thcentury BC. Egyptologische Uitgaven 21. Leiden. Manley, B. and A. M. Dodson. 2010. Life everlasting: NationalMuseumsScotlandcollectionofancientEgyptiancoffins. Edinburgh. Miatello, L. 2016. Texts and iconography of Padiamun’s coffin in the Liverpool Museum. BirminghamEgyptology Journal 4, 10–61. Minas-Nerpel, M. and G. Sigmund. 2003. EineÄgypterinin Trier. Die ägyptische Mumie und der Sarg im RheinischenLandesmuseumTrier. Trier. Monnet Saleh, J. 1970. LesantiquitéségyptiennesdeZagreb. Catalogue raisonné des antiquités égyptiennes conservéesauMuséeArchéologiquedeZagrebenYougoslavie. Paris, la Haye. Moret, A. 1913. Cataloguegénéraldesantiquitéségyptiennes duMuséeduCaire.Nos41001–41041.Sarcophagesde l’ÉpoqueBubastiteàl’ÉpoqueSaite. Cairo. Mourot, F. 2017. Enjeux de la fouille stratigraphique pour l’étude des tombes à puits de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire. In B. Lurson (ed.), De la mère du roi à l’épouse du dieu. Première synthèse des résultats des fouillesdutempledeTouyetdelatombedeKaromama. Actes du Colloque International ‘De la mère du roi à l’épouse du dieu’, Université catholique de Louvain, 14Mai 2016. Connaissance de l’Égypte Ancienne 18. Safran, 67–80. Munro, I. and J. H. Taylor. 2009. Der Totenbuch-Papyrus der Ta-schep-en-Chonsu aus der späten 25. Dynastie (pMoskauPuschkin-MuseumI,1b,121). Handschriften des Altägyptischen Totenbuches 10. Wiesbaden. Naguib, S.-A. 1989. Petits monuments à inscriptions hiéroglyphiques en Norvège. In StudiainHonoremL.Fóti. StudiaAegyptiaca 12, 319–75. Nasr, M. 1992. New discoveries at Thebes-West. Memnonia 3, 141–3, pls XXVII–XXIX. Niwiński, A. 2009. Review of Lucarelli, R. The Book of the Dead of Gatseshen. BibliothecaOrientalis 66, 222–5. Payraudeau, F. 2003. La désignation du Gouverneur de Thèbes aux Époques Libyenne et Éthiopienne. Revue d’Égyptologie 54, 131–53. Payraudeau, F. 2014. Administration, société et pouvoir à ThèbessouslaXXIIedynastiebubastite. 2 vols. Bibliothèque d’étude 160. Cairo. Perdu, O. 2004. Cercueil momiforme de Néhemsimontou. In M. Desti (ed.), Desdieux,destombeaux,unsavant.En ÉgyptesurlespasdeMariettepacha. Paris, 208–9. Pierce, R. H. 1981. An ancient Egyptian sarcophagus lid in Glomdalsmuseet. In Nyttomgammalt.Glomdalsmuseet Arbok1981. Elverum, 27–37.

385

Pischikova, E., F. Yaseen Abd el Karim, R. Ahmed Ali and E. el Din Kamal el Noby. 2017. Tombs of Karakhamun and Karabasken, 2012–14: fieldwork. In E. Pischikova (ed.), TombsoftheSouthAsasifnecropolis.Newdiscoveriesandresearch2012–14. Cairo; New York, 25–49. Raven, M. J. 1978–9. Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris statues. OudheidkundigeMededelingenuithetRijksmuseumvanOudhedenteLeiden 59/60, 251–96, pls 39–41. Raven, M. J. 2009. A Theban quartet: Mummies and coffins of personnel of the temple of Amun. In D. Magee, J. Bourriau and S. Quirke (eds), SittingbesideLepsius. StudiesinhonourofJaromirMalekattheGriffithInstitute. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 185. Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA, 463–90. Raven, M. J. and W. K. Taconis. 2005. Egyptianmummies. Radiological atlas of the collections in the National MuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden. Turnhout. Richards, J. 2005. SocietyanddeathinancientEgypt.MortuarylandscapesoftheMiddleKingdom. Cambridge. Rindi Nuzzolo, C. 2017. Tradition and transformation. Retracing Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures from Akhmim in museums and private collections. In T. Gillen (ed.), (Re)- productivetraditionsinancientEgypt.Proceedingsofthe conferenceheldattheUniversityofLiège,6th–8thFebruary2013. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 10. Liège, 445–74. Roberson, J. A. 2013. The Awakening of Osiris and the Transit of the Solar Barques. Royal apotheosis in a mostconciseBookoftheUnderworldandSky. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 262. Fribourg; Göttingen. Russmann, E. R. 1995. The motif of bound papyrus plants and the decorative program in Mentuemhat’s first court (Further remarks on the decoration of the tomb of Mentuemhat I). JournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt 32, 117–26. Sainz, I. V. 2017. Egyptian artists in the New Kingdom: Travelling artists and travelling ideas? In J.-M. Chyla, J. Debowska-Ludwin, K. Rosinska-Balik and C. Walsh (eds), Current research in Egyptology 2016. ProceedingsoftheSeventeenthAnnualSymposium,Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 4–7 May 2016. Oxford; Philadelphia, 107–20. Schmidt, V. 1919. Sarkofager,Mumiekister,ogMumiehylstre idetGamleAegypten.TypologiskAtlas. Copenhagen. de Sélincourt, A. 1972. Herodotus. The Histories. Harmondsworth. Sharpe, S. and J. Bonomi 1858. The triple mummy case of Aroeri-Ao,anEgyptianpriest,inDr.Lee’sMuseumat HartwellHouse,Buckinghamshire. London. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2003. The burials of priests of Montu at Deir el-Bahari in the Theban necropolis. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis. Past,presentandfuture. London, 131–7, pls 91–2. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2010a. The night and day hours in Twenty-fifth Dynasty sarcophagi from Thebes. In L. Bareš,

386

J. H. TAYLOR

F. Coppens and K. Smoláriková (eds), Egyptintransition. Social and religious development of Egypt in the firstmillenniumBCE.ProceedingsofanInternational ConferencePrague,September1–4,2009.Prague, 376– 95. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2010b. Palaeographic notes from Twenty-fifth Dynasty Thebes. In Z. Hawass, P. Der Manuelian and R. B. Hussein (eds), Perspectives on ancient Egypt. Studies in honor of Edward Brovarski. Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Cahier 40. Cairo, 405–21. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2014a. Resurrection in a box: The 25th Dynasty burial ensemble of Padiamunet. In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosandeternity.Newresearch trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptiancoffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 111–24. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2014b. Sokar-Osiris and the goddesses: Some Twenty-fifth–Twenty-sixth Dynasty coffins from Thebes. In E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), Thebes in the first millennium BC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 453–82. Smith, M. 2017. FollowingOsiris.PerspectivesontheOsirianafterlifefromfourmillennia. Oxford. Stevenson, A. 2009. Social relationships in Predynastic burials. JournalofEgyptianArchaeology95, 175–92. Taylor, J. H. 1988. Tomb group of Nes-mut-aat-neru. In S. d’Auria, P. Lacovara and C. H. Roehrig, Mummies andmagic.ThefuneraryartsofancientEgypt. Boston, 173–5 (no. 125). Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptiancoffins. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 2001. DeathandtheafterlifeinancientEgypt. London. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis. Past, present and future. London, 95–121, figs 45–75. Taylor, J. H. 2006. The coffin of Padiashaikhet. In K. N. Sowada and B. G. Ockinga (eds), Egyptianartin the Nicholson Museum, Sydney. Sydney, 263–91, pls 46–54, 63–4. Taylor, J. H. (ed.). 2010. Journey through the afterlife. AncientEgyptianBookoftheDead. London. Taylor, J. H. 2017. The vulture headdress and other indications of gender on women’s coffins in the 1st millennium BC.

In A. Amenta and H. Guichard (eds), ProceedingsFirst Vatican Coffin Conference 19–22 June 2013. Vatican, II, 541–50. Tiradritti, F. 1994. L’Album di disegni di Luigi Vassalli presso la Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano. In L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812–1887). Disegni e documenti nei civicaistituticulturaliMilanesi. Milan, 45–128. Uranic, I. 2007. AegyptiacaZagrabiensia.Egyptiancollection of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographiae IV. Zagreb. Vittmann, G. 1978. Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit.GenealogischeundprosopographischeUntersuchungenzumthebanischenPriester-undBeamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1. Vienna. Vittmann, G. 2007. A question of names, titles, and iconography. Kushites in priestly, administrative and other positions from Dynasties 25 to 26. DerAntikeSudan 18, 139–61. van Walsem, R. 1997. The coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in theNationalMuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden,I.Technical and iconographic/iconological aspects. Egyptologische Uitgaven 10. Leiden. Wagner, M. 2016. DerSarkophagderGottesgemahlinAnchnesneferibre. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 16. Wiesbaden. Wilkinson, T. H. 2001. Social stratification. In D. B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, 3. Oxford, 301–5. Wilson, S. and C. Baum. 1978. A real case history. The coffin of Djed-Ma’at-es-ankh. Rotunda 11 (3), 9–13. Winlock, H. E. 1924. The Museum’s excavations at Thebes. BulletinoftheMetropolitanMuseumofArt,NewYork, Pt. II, 5–33.

Manuscript sources Clère MSS. Papers of Jacques Jean Clère (1906–89): the Griffith Institute, Oxford. Madox MSS. Papers of John Madox (1768–1837): private collection.

V COFFINS IN CONTEXT: REGIONAL VARIATIONS

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT1 Katharina STÖVESAND

Abstract In studies of ancient Egyptian coffins, specimens of the Late Period produced in Northern and Middle Egypt have long been neglected. The majority of these coffins lack proper documentation and are distributed among a plethora of collections and museums, thus making it difficult to compile a comprehensive corpus and to analyse them. Two main regions can be distinguished for the production of the Late Period ‘northern’ coffins: the Memphite necropoleis and the cemeteries in the Nile valley close to the Fayum. Single examples showing distinctive local styles have also been found at other locations in Middle Egypt. This paper will focus on the coffins of the area of the Nile valley close to the Fayum; coffins from particular cemeteries will be examined and compared not only with examples found in other necropoleis of the region, but also with Theban and Akhmimic coffins, representatives of a ‘southern’ tradition of production, as well as with Memphite coffins of the same period. The paper aims not only to identify these artefacts as local products on the grounds of their shape, iconography, layout and colour scheme, but also to combine these analyses with the perspective of regional variability and to investigate the possibility that decoration patterns can be linked to specific areas of Egypt at a certain time. Finally, the implications of a detectable regional variability in coffin production will be discussed briefly. Instead of pattern-books, a more flexible model

1

This paper is the summary of a chapter of the author’s PhD thesis ‘Der Sarg als kommunikatives Medium für religiöse Bildstrategien. Untersuchungen zu den unter- und mittelägyptischen Särgen der Spätzeit’, undertaken at the University of Cologne, Germany. Special thanks are due to Dr John H. Taylor,

of the distribution of funerary imagery is suggested, focusing mainly on local workshops and their artists’ collective innovations or adherence to local traditions. Regional coffin studies – possibilities and difficulties Currentstateofresearch Until recently, larger coffin studies have mostly focused on a specific group of coffins from a particular location within a certain period (e.g. Brech 2008; Elias 2012; Taylor 2003), considering primarily the coffins’ development and typology. However, a topographical study — examining coffins from a broader region or even from the whole of Egypt — may provide us with a completely new set of questions and possible answers. The focus of this paper is, therefore, the study of the coffins deriving from the Nile valley region close to the Fayum (Fig. 1). There are a few exceptional studies focusing on the regionalism of coffins. Jonathan Elias has elaborated on the regional aspects of the iconography and especially the texts of a coffin from Qubbet el-Hawa in Michigan, USA, which — although in parts similar to Theban coffins — seems to have been manufactured locally (Elias 1996, 110, 120–2). The groundbreaking study of John H. Taylor on Dynasty 22–25 coffins from northern Upper Egypt and single Lower Egyptian find spots (Taylor 2009) is the basis of all further research on this topic. Comparing the Upper and Lower

for countless discussions on the difficult matter of Late Period ‘northern’ coffins and for generously helping me with coffin material, and to Prof. Dr Françoise Labrique. I thank them both for their support and encouraging supervision of my PhD thesis.

390

K. STÖVESAND

Fig. 1: Map of the Fayum (Drawing by D. Arnold. Published in Arnold 1977, 89–90).

Egyptian coffin production, he suggested that there is indeed a ‘north–south divide’ in the funerary material culture, roughly parallel to the political divide but more dependent on a bipartition in population patterns and cultural differences in the Delta and northern Nile valley as opposed to Thebes (Taylor 2009, 375). In contrast to the generally better-researched coffins from Thebes and Akhmim, coffins of the Late Period from necropoleis in Lower and Middle Egypt have not yet been the subject of an extensive study. The reasons for this unbalanced state of research are manifold. The lack of adequate documentation thus far has made this group of coffins difficult to assess: they often derive from incompletely documented early excavations or

illicit digs (see below). Further, they were distributed to collections and museums worldwide, often without preserving the integrity of coffin ensembles or keeping together objects from the same archaeological context. Even the information on a coffin’s provenance may be lost before it enters a museum. Due to the appearance of the coffins, which are often perceived as plain, many public collections neither publish them in their catalogues nor exhibit them, especially if more elaborate Theban coffins are available in the same collection. The coffins in private collections are often unpublished, with the exception of entries in auction catalogues describing coffins which were sold in the antiquities trade.

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT

The vast majority of studies of post-New Kingdom coffins, therefore, focus on the material from Thebes and Akhmim. Theban coffins are generally better preserved and published, a circumstance which has led ultimately to a slight over-representation of Theban coffins in the reconstruction of Egyptian funerary culture, particularly in the second half of the first millennium BC. On account of the more abundant data available for the coffins from the Theban cemeteries, coffin typology and chronology are closely linked to and based on these specimens (e.g. Taylor 2003, 95). When studying ‘northern coffins’, these models of typology and chronology may be challenged and it remains to be established to what extent they can be applied to coffins of non-Theban origin. It has been assumed that general trends of coffin style development in the Late Period, such as changes in their shape, can be observed in the whole of Egypt (see below; Taylor 1989, 54–6; Niwiński 1984, 455–6). However, there is much uncertainty as to how rapidly these changes spread and where they originated. Thus, the application of such models must be done with care, in the current absence of a reliable corpus of ‘northern’ material, against which the Theban chronologies can be tested. Studies presented in recent years at several conferences on coffins have shown that more and more scholars and conservators are focusing attention on the postNew Kingdom coffins from Middle Egypt, for instance those from Gamhud (e.g. Kóthay 2012; Schreiber 2012) and el-Hibeh or Abusir el-Meleq (e.g. Siegmann 2012).2 Indeed, these recent works have played an important role in enabling a broader study of the Lower and Middle Egyptian coffins. Terminology When studying these sets of coffins, terminological and conceptual problems arise. The term ‘coffin’ is used here to describe containers of wood or in general ‘soft non-pliable material’ (van Walsem 2014, 1) as opposed to ‘sarcophagi’, defined as stone containers (for a discussion of this general problem of terminology, see van Walsem 2014, 6, n. 26; Brech 2008, 19, n. 47). If a deceased person is equipped with more than

2

This was most apparent at the conference ‘Ancient Egyptian Coffins. Past – Present – Future’ in Cambridge in April 2016.

391

one coffin, this is generally denoted a ‘coffin ensemble’. In the following, the term ‘northern coffins’ is used to describe specimens from Lower and Middle Egypt. It follows Taylor’s study on the Third Intermediate Period coffins from northern Upper Egypt (Taylor 2009, 379). It may at first seem geographically contradictory to include coffins from Middle Egypt — e.g. from the region close to the Fayum — in the category of ‘northern coffins’. However, the term is used in this study as a working concept to distinguish two groups of coffins — i.e. the northern (Memphite, Middle Egyptian) coffins versus the southern (Theban/Akhmimic) coffins. Furthermore, there is evidence that the ancient Egyptians themselves regarded certain Middle Egyptian find spots as belonging to Lower Egypt. An inscription on an offering table from Abusir el-Meleq3 includes the term Ꜣbḏw mḥ.tỉ ‘northern/ Lower Egyptian Abydos’ (= Abusir el-Meleq), clearly defining the Middle Egyptian town (and its necropolis) as a parallel to the southern Abydos (Sethe 1907, 28–9, who argues for the translation ‘das unterägyptische Abydos’). This suggests that the geographical ‘border’ between Lower and Upper Egypt may have been seen as somewhat flexible or relative in religious or funerary material, clearly placing more emphasis on the dichotomy of Lower versus Upper Egypt than on rigid geographical definitions. The distribution of styles and motifs in material culture does not always follow strict borders or administrative districts either. Taylor has proposed that the geographical span of the identified ‘northern style’ in the Third Intermediate Period extended from the Memphite necropolis to Speos Artemidos, stating that ‘One would not, of course, expect a rigid geographical boundary to exist between variant manifestations of a fundamentally homogeneous material culture …’ (Taylor 2009, 398). Dating Dating ‘northern’ or Middle Egyptian coffins is particularly difficult as there are scarcely any examples which can be cross-referenced with the name of a

3

Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung inv. no. 17038 (Sethe 1907, 29).

392

K. STÖVESAND

historical figure to establish an independent dating. Thus, current dating relies very much on stylistic and iconographic grounds, in contrast to the securely dated Theban coffins. To establish firm dating criteria for ‘northern’ coffins, much more material which is securely datable by inscription or context would be needed and one can only hope that — with the increasing number of publications — coffins providing a starting-point for such a study will emerge. However, through the grouping of material in a regional perspective, clues linking coffins to production circles or even to particular workshops might be identified, increasing the likelihood of defining contemporaneous production for some coffins. This may be a first step towards a possible framework for a dating scheme for ‘northern’ coffins. Archaeologicalcontextandpreservation A problem that arises with the study of these coffins is their frequent lack of archaeological context. In fact, the majority of coffins from Northern and Middle Egypt come from early excavations, when adequate archaeological documentation was scarce. For example, the aim of the excavators at Abusir el-Meleq in 1903–5 was to assemble literary papyri from the Graeco-Roman Period for the Berlin Museum (Rubensohn and Knatz 1904, 1). Otto Rubensohn and his colleagues were not particularly keen on gathering detailed documentation, especially when objects did not contain papyri, and this perhaps explains their curt descriptions of the coffins they found. This was not unusual in the context of the archaeological standards at that time. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt had similar objectives when excavating at el-Hibeh (Grenfell and Hunt 1902, 3). At Sedment, Flinders Petrie did not record any Late Period burials, although there must have been such discoveries, as is evident from Édouard Naville’s publication (Fig. 2) and from Henning Franzmeier’s recent research (Franzmeier 2014, 152, n. 7). The coffins were then dispersed to collections worldwide. Documentation of the distribution mechanisms is equally rare and it is a very arduous task to trace back the manifold paths by which the objects came to specific museums or collections. Furthermore, mistakes commonly happened during the distribution, for example the confusion of similarly named find spots such as Abusir and Abusir el-Meleq (Primavesi 1996, 177, n. 28–9). Additionally, museums accommodate huge

Fig. 2: Coffins from the excavations at Sedment, present location unknown (Published in Naville 1894, pl. XIA).

numbers of coffins with no records of provenance, the information having been lost during the distribution process or while the coffins passed through the antiquities market. The latter is an important factor for coffins from Middle Egypt. Many artefacts from either legal private collections or — sadly — illegal excavations and lootings have appeared on the art market, without record of provenance or archaeological context. Abusir el-Meleq suffered, for example, from severe lootings in the 1970s and many of the coffins (and other finds), after being cut into transportable pieces, were sold to private collectors (Vittmann 1981, 81). Lootings have occurred again in post-2011 Egypt, resulting not only in a flood of coffins (or pieces of them) on to the market, but also in severe disturbances at the ancient site. This is also the case for the necropolis of el-Hibeh (Redmount 2014).

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT

This lack of archaeological context entails other difficulties when trying to understand the role of the coffin within the tomb and the burial assemblage and in establishing a dating for the coffins (see Dating). It has often been claimed that there is not enough surviving material from outside Thebes to produce a thorough analysis of coffins in the periods following the New Kingdom (Niwiński 1984, 454–5; Taylor 2001, 164). The main problem, however, is not a lack of material but simply a lack of compilation of material, as recent research on the Late Period coffins has demonstrated. Nevertheless, the variability in the preservation of coffins also plays a central role when considering different regions of coffin production. While moist soil conditions can be found in the region close to the Fayum, there is also a high degree of salinity that can easily damage wooden artefacts. Furthermore, the cemeteries of the Delta have been particularly affected by damp soils, to the extent that very few coffins are preserved from this vast area. This is very unfortunate, since the major political centres were located there in the Late Period (Taylor 2009, 397). Thus, the (non-)survival of material plays a central role in the evaluation of the coffins from Middle Egypt. The author’s collection of material4 includes coffins with certain provenance (i.e. with archaeological records in the form of excavation reports, museum records, etc.) as well as coffins whose provenance can be deduced with probability, for example through the identification of specifically local priestly titles or the reconstruction of the object’s biography. However, a complete catalogue of coffins from the northern region cannot be accomplished at this stage; indeed such a catalogue is not even possible for a single site, and therefore the corpus presented here is inevitably biased and problematic.

4

To build the corpus of material, museum catalogues and online databases, excavation reports and archival resources (such as the archive of the Topographical Bibliography of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford and the Egypt Exploration Society Lucy Gura Archive) have been consulted. Auction catalogues have also provided a large amount of material. Several unpublished coffins have been found in the storerooms and public displays of museums in Germany, England, Scotland, France,

393

Finally, the overall geographic evaluation of the surviving material is important. In fact, all of the find spots known to have produced Late Period funerary material so far are located in the Nile valley, close to or at the mouth of the Fayum (e.g. Kafr Ammar, Lahun, Abusir el-Meleq). There may be several reasons for the lack of finds in the Fayum oasis itself. Firstly, the region’s Late Period history has yet to be thoroughly researched. The Middle Kingdom and the Graeco-Roman Period occupation of the Fayum have been studied in greater depth since they have yielded more abundant material. Future excavations may shed more light on the occupation of the Fayum in the Late Period. Plundering or reuse of ancient material may have also played a central role in its survival (Davoli 2012, 155–6). The potential disruption of usage of the Fayum in the Late Period is another possibility. The inhabitable area of the Fayum itself seems to have been rather small in the Middle Kingdom, with an increase only in the Ptolemaic Period by means of a dramatic shrinking of the lake levels and the building of a dam to control the influx of water from the Bahr Yussuf branch. Since the Fayum is a depression with a sloping landscape, but no exit for the water — much of the area was below sea level in pre-Ptolemaic times — it was probably extensively covered by lakes and swamps (Römer 2017).

Coffins from the Nile valley close to the Fayum Geographicaldistribution5 In contrast to the Fayum itself, the region of the Nile valley in the latitude of the oasis has yielded a large quantity of Late Period funerary material. The important city of Heracleopolis Magna seems to have been a thriving centre in the Third Intermediate Period and

5

Belgium, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Egypt and the USA. A database has been created to manage the numerous coffins and facilitate the research. Only the most important find spots are listed here, while single finds in smaller localities are not presented. Coffins from Middle Egypt further south of el-Hibeh are not included as they represent a different coffin decoration tradition from that described here.

394

K. STÖVESAND

the Late Period, and was thus highly influential throughout the whole region (Mokhtar 1983, 125–36; Meffre 2015, 382). Coffins from this region come from different necropoleis, mainly Kafr Ammar, Meidum, Abusir el-Meleq, Lahun and Sedment. The majority of material comes from Abusir el-Meleq — whose importance can most probably be explained by its functioning in the Late Period as a burial place for the inhabitants of Heracleopolis Magna, including many members of the priesthood of Herishef (Siegmann 2012, 1–2). Rubensohn excavated there in 1902 (survey) and in 1903–5 on behalf of the ‘Preußische Papyrusunternehmen’ and the Berlin Museum, unearthing numerous burials from the Pharaonic Period to the Byzantine era. Georg Möller pursued the work in 1905–6 on behalf of the ‘Deutsche Orientgesellschaft’ — focusing on the Predynastic Period — followed by Friedrich Zucker, Rubensohn’s successor, in 1908 and 1910. Since then, no official excavations have taken place in Abusir el-Meleq. Although the majority of the finds was distributed among German collections at that time, with the bulk of material being sent to Berlin6 (Stövesand 2012, 19), a vast number of coffins also entered private collections. Through the sale of these collections, coffins from Abusir el-Meleq can be found in many countries, particularly in American collections. Far less material is known to come from Kafr Ammar. Petrie excavated this site in 1911–12 and in 1912–13 on behalf of the British School of Archaeology (Petrie and Mackay 1915, 1; Bard 1999, 467). He named the find spot of the ‘later remains’ Kafr Ammar (Petrie and Mackay 1915, 1) to distinguish it from the Predynastic necropolis of Tarkhan at the same site. The few attributable finds seem to have been widely distributed throughout Europe, including coffins now in Germany, Belgium, England and Scotland. Meidum is a rather difficult case to assess since there are no existing publications of the later burials, and there is only scattered evidence of Third Intermediate Period and Late Period funerary material

(Taylor 2009, 381–2). Three coffins supposedly from Meidum appeared on the art market in 1962 (Eisenberg 1962, lots 30–2), one of which is now in an American private collection.7 Lahun lies at the mouth of the Fayum, where a dam is thought to have controlled the water flow of the Bahr Yussuf into the Fayum from the Middle Kingdom or later times (Römer 2016). It was again Petrie who excavated the burials of later periods in 1889–90 (he identified them as ‘XXIInd–XXIVth dynasties’ [Petrie, Brunton and Murray 1923, 36], but it is clear that his discoveries also included coffins of a later date). They were located in the ‘Dyke Ridge Cemetery’ to the south of the pyramid of Senwosret II. As elsewhere, Petrie provided only limited information and documentation on these burials, confining his publication mainly to copies of the inscriptions (cf. Taylor 2009, 382, n. 45). Most of the finds seem to have been sent to the United Kingdom, following Petrie’s assembly of material. It seems that most of the coffins are either of Third Intermediate Period or Ptolemaic date, with only a few dating to the beginning of the Late Period. Sedment’s Late Period burials were not documented by Petrie at all (see above; Franzmeier 2014, 152, n. 7). He undertook excavation at the site in 1920–1. Naville had already worked there in 1891 and discovered a few Late Period coffins (see Fig. 2). The exact present location of these coffins is unclear, but some of them were apparently reburied on site (Taylor 2009, 383, n. 53: the coffins in Naville 1894, pl. XIB–C were reburied). El-Hibeh is located a great deal further south in the Nile valley, in comparison to the other necropoleis considered here. However, the Third Intermediate and Late Period coffins found in this cemetery show important similarities with the group of coffins discussed above. The site was explored by Italian scholars in 1934–5 and the majority of the coffins found went to the Museo Egizio in Florence (Botti 1958; Taylor 2009, 384). Late Period coffins from el-Hibeh comprise a large group and Botti’s very useful publication made a vast

6

7

The Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin inaugurated an important project in 2012 for the analysis and future publication of objects from Abusir el-Meleq (http://www.aegyptisches-museum-berlin-verein.de/f05.php).

Eisenberg 1962, lot 30. I thank Aidan Dodson for this information. Another coffin, said to have been found near Meidum, appeared in a Sotheby’s sale in 2008 (Sotheby’s New York, 10 December 2008, lot 10), originally from a German private collector, acquired in Cairo in 1965–6.

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT

395

Fig. 3: Coffins and burial goods of a girl called TꜢḏꜢ.t. Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Sammelaufnahme 34 (inv. no. ÄM 16997–8 amongst others) from Abusir el-Meleq (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Ägyptologisches Museum und Papyrussammlung. Published in Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 181, Abb. 288. Photograph: J. Liepe).

number of them available. Sadly, the situation at elHibeh in recent years is comparable to that at Abusir el-Meleq in that massive lootings have taken place in the necropolis, resulting in a great number of illegally excavated coffins appearing on the art market. Commonregionalfeatures Wealthy individuals buried at these sites were usually equipped with two coffins: an inner anthropoid and an outer coffin, usually of ḳrsw shape (Fig. 3). Alternatively, the outer coffin could have the form of a divine shrine with a slightly sloping, flat lid (Siegmann 2012 for an example from Abusir el-Meleq). Neither of these types of outer coffin seem to have been equipped with a floor plank (Taylor 1989, 56). Unfortunately, there is no certainty as to how many of the coffins known today originally belonged to ensembles, since these were often separated after excavations. However, anthropoid inner coffins are much

more common than the ḳrsw coffins, suggesting that the ensembles comprising two coffins were a feature of elite burials. Ḳrsw coffins from the Middle Egyptian region usually have depictions of various gods in shrines (see Fig. 3) or the Sons of Horus, Anubis and Thoth as a revival of the decoration of New Kingdom coffins (Taylor 1989, 54) on their long sides. Other archaisms are the depiction of a pair of wdꜢt-eyes or a false door, a reference to the iconography of Middle Kingdom rectangular coffins. Their decoration resembles the iconographic repertoire of contemporary Theban coffins (Taylor 1989, 54; 2003, 117, pl. 73), but with a less ‘crowded’ spatial distribution of their motifs and a much simpler style. In comparison, Memphite as well as Theban burials could include a set of up to three coffins. At Giza, three ensembles were found, which comprise an outer coffin of ḳrsw type, a rectangular middle coffin and an anthropoid inner coffin (Petrie 1907, pls XXXI, XXXIA–B). Theban ensembles also include ḳrsw coffins as outer

396

K. STÖVESAND

containers and anthropoid inner coffins, but the intermediary coffin is usually anthropoid (Taylor 2003, 116). The shape of the coffins in general seems to follow a universal trend throughout the whole of Egypt and therefore is not region-specific (Taylor 1989, 56). The ḳrsw coffin type and the inner bivalve coffin with pedestal seem to have been introduced in all regions at approximately the same time, in the late 8th century BC (Taylor 2009, 399). Yet, the decoration patterns can be very different according to the place of production. The regional grouping of inner coffins can be done by distinguishing different colour schemes, meaning the dominating background colour of the coffin (on the symbolism, see Taylor 2001). A group of plain white coffins, presumably appearing around Dynasty 25, is well attested at many find spots in the Nile valley close to the Fayum (see Figs 2–4). The white ‘simplicity’ of the coffin’s shroud is contrasted with a usually elaborate, multi-coloured collar, a uniform blue or striped wig and a green — or alternatively pink/red — face (Fig. 4). These inner coffins have a pedestal and are well sculpted in that they show the body contours (e.g. the knees and ankles). Some of them even imitate pleated drapery in relief (Taylor 1989, 56). Mostly, a very short inscription is written on three or four sides of the pedestal, usually including the name of the deceased and the beginning of a ḥtp-dỉ-nsw-formula (see Fig. 4). Alternatively, a single column of inscription may be found in a central position on the lid below the collar (see Fig. 2). The symbolism behind this colour scheme clearly refers to the concept of the transformed body of the deceased, the sꜥḥ (Taylor 2001, 164–5). Also apparent is the archaism of these coffins, since they are at times extremely similar to the first anthropoid coffins, introduced in the Middle Kingdom (Ikram and Dodson 1998, 238; Taylor 2001, 175). This specific type of decoration is widely evidenced at Abusir el-Meleq, Lahun, Kafr Ammar, Meidum and el-Hibeh. It is only very rarely found on southern or Memphite coffins (e.g. Petrie 1907, pl. XXXIB, from Giza).

8

It is presently unclear whether this is a chronologically later type or a contemporary variant. A coffin with a polychrome decoration on a white background seemingly precedes the

A variation of this type seems to be a coffin with a white background and polychrome figured decoration, usually divided by a central column of inscription.8 The figured decoration is much simpler than in contemporaneous Theban coffins and often consists of the depiction of the Sons of Horus or other funerary imagery, either ‘floating’ at each side of the inscription or only delimited by small frame lines (Taylor 2009, 399; Eisenberg 1962, lot 32 from Meidum for example). In this regard, the coffins’ layout differs significantly from that of Theban coffins, which usually present decoration in neat registers and compartments (Taylor 2003, 113–15). In addition to the white coffins, there seems to have been a group of black coffins, although they are rarer and not as homogeneous in design as the former (Taylor 2001, 175, n. 81). The coffin of Iahtesnakht (Fig. 5), probably from the Heracleopolitan area (possibly Abusir el-Meleq), shows a complex yellow decoration on a black background, while other examples are more polychrome (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 173–5). Iahtesnakht’s coffin is an example of the more elaborate and detailed decoration probably developed during Dynasty 26 (Figs 6 and 7). It frequently includes a much greater proportion of text on the coffin’s surfaces and features the goddess Nut on the breast as well as a small vignette below, usually that of BD 89 (see Fig. 5). Theban coffins are similar in this general development, i.e. the increase in texts, the reappearance of Nut on the breast and the popularity of the Book of the Dead spells (Taylor 2003, 114–15, design 3–4). Coffins with a black background are attested in the necropoleis of Abusir el-Meleq and el-Hibeh (Botti 1958, 93–4, tav. XXVII.1), but not at Thebes (Taylor 2001, 175). Other colour patterns are possible, if not abundant, for instance: a blue-blackish background (e.g. Montserrat 620.203, two coffins from Abusir el-Meleq; Theban coffins: Taylor 2001, 175); a green background (e.g. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum AN 1909.963); or a reddish background (e.g. San José RC 1778). El-Hibeh coffins frequently seem to display a beige-orange background (see Fig. 6), also attested for Theban coffins (Taylor 2001, 174; e.g. London, British Museum EA 6672).

simple white coffins in having a long red band at the back of the case, reminiscent of the decoration of cartonnages of the Libyan period (Stövesand 2012, 117–31).

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT

Fig. 4: Coffin of Ḥr-sꜢ-Ꜣs.t. Rostock, Heinrich Schliemann-Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, University Rostock, inv. no. 148.I.2, from Abusir el-Meleq (© Heinrich Schliemann-Institut für Altertumswissenschaften. Photograph: E. Altrichter).

397

Fig. 5: Coffin of Iꜥḥ-tꜢy.s-nḫt. Private collection Belgium J. J. Rothier, without inv. no., possibly from the Heracleopolitan area (Published in Gubel 1991, 199. Photograph © Paul Stuyven).

398

K. STÖVESAND

Fig. 6: Coffin ofḪnś.w-t(Ꜣ).f-nḫt. Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. no. E. 586, from el-Hibeh (© KMKG-MRAH. Published in Delvaux and Therasse 2015, 135, fig. 9).

Fig. 7: Coffin of Tỉ-ỉi.s. Basel, Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig, inv. no. LgAe SKKG 01, possibly from Abusir el-Meleq (© Stiftung für Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte, Winterthur. Published in Wiese 2001, 175).

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT

399

Details of the mummiform shape of anthropoid coffins may also be an important factor in order to determine regional differences. Elements such as the design of the wig or the details of the wsḫcollar prove to be very significant for the detection of regional variations. For instance, coffins from the Nile valley region close to the Fayum often show a unique and elaborate type of wig decoration. A stylised winged headdress (mostly featuring a scarab or a stylised vulture or falcon) is very common (Eisenberg 1962, lot 30). The wig’s lappets are often adorned with ‘fringes’ (see Fig. 2, coffin on the left, and Fig. 7), a regional feature already identified by Taylor.9 A frequent and characteristic motif is the depiction of a recumbent jackal on top of a central inscription (see Fig. 2). This motif — as well as the above-mentioned winged headdress — is already present during the Third Intermediate Period and is one of the most distinctive ‘northern style’ features. Apparently, it was still in favour in the Late Period (Taylor 2009, 389). Such iconographic features, which are specific for the region, are contrasted with omnipresent images, such as the depiction of the goddess Nut on the breast of coffins in the Late Period (see Figs 5–7). This motif can also be found on Theban and Akhmimic coffins at that time. However, even here, significant variations in depiction can be recognised, such as the differences in the clothing or gesture of the goddess, or whether she is seated on a nbw sign (see Fig. 7) or standing. In certain instances, the depiction of details is so strikingly similar that one could hypothesise that a common workshop or even the same artisan was responsible for the production of two coffins (e.g. Fig. 7, compared with the astonishingly similar coffin offered at Ancient Resource auctions in 2015).10 Iconographic differences can also be found in the details of the vignettes of the Book of the Dead, which is a frequent textual and pictorial resource for coffin decoration of the Late Period in the north as well as in the south of Egypt. Like Theban or Memphite artisans, coffin producers from Middle Egypt frequently chose BD 42 and 125 (see

Fig. 6) or 89 (see Figs 5 and 7) for the central decoration panel (see the Memphite coffins in the British Museum: Stövesand 2015, 38). However, this only shows how popular these spells were at the time, and does not prove that coffins were produced according to pattern-books (Taylor 2003, 114). Another possible differentiation can be made when considering the placement of decoration on the different parts of the coffin and — not obvious at first — the areas which are not decorated. As Taylor has pointed out, the painted decoration is often limited to the outer surfaces on coffins of the ‘northern’ or Middle Egypt region (Taylor 2009, 399), while Theban coffins frequently use the inner surfaces for further decoration with texts and images (Taylor 2003, 116). Additionally, the motif of a goddess (e.g. of the west) on the rear of the case seems to be significant (Fig. 8), as it appears to be a diagnostic feature of coffins from Northern and Middle Egypt. A large number of coffins from the Nile valley close to the Fayum share this iconographic tradition with Memphite specimens (for instance London, British Museum EA 6695: see Stövesand 2015, 38). In contrast, Theban coffins usually depict a large djed pillar or columns of inscriptions on the back of the case (Taylor 2003, 115). The list of criteria for a possible regional differentiation of coffins could easily be extended.11 However, the points mentioned above should suffice to show that regional variability can be detected for the Late Period.

9

10

Lecture at the workshop ‘Abusir el-Meleq in der Spätzeit und griechisch-römischen Zeit. Stand der Forschungen und Aufgaben’ at the University of Cologne, 8–9 April 2011: ‘Late Period coffins from the region of Abusir el-Meleq. First steps towards a typological study’.

Regional variability – implications and the question of workshops To sum up, when compared with coffin production in the Memphite or Theban/Akhmimic necropoleis, Middle Egypt seems to have its own tradition of workmanship. Coffins from the different necropoleis seem to be part of a common tradition in the area; thus one cannot single out one cemetery, but should rather focus attention on the coffins of the entire region in order to identify developmental steps. This hints at a very close

11

http://www.ancientresource.com/lots/egyptian/sarcophagus/ sarcophagus-2010a.html (last accessed: 1 July 2016). The analysis of the regional aspects of the coffins’ texts and also the different methods of construction promise to yield valuable results, but this lies beyond the scope of this article.

400

K. STÖVESAND

Fig. 8: Back of the case of the coffin of WḏꜢ-smꜢ-tꜢ.wỉ. Private collection, from Abusir el-Meleq (© Esther Günther, Swiss Coffin Project. Published in Siegmann 2012, 1, Abb. 1).

cooperation between the coffin producers of the different necropoleis or even production in a single workshop. For the Late Period (as well as for the Third Intermediate Period: Taylor 2009), one can distinguish several different coffin types and decoration patterns with specific motifs, some of which are unique for this area. This suggests an innovative regional craftsmanship. Some iconographic features are found throughout Egypt and represent a common repertoire, while other

motifs provide links to other northern coffin production centres. This possible interconnectivity between workshops within Lower and Middle Egypt may support the argument for a continued ‘northern style’, a shared tradition with the Memphite coffins. It seems that the ‘north–south divide’ is still visible in the material culture of the Late Period. This is somewhat striking, since the greater political and (it may be supposed) cultural unity which characterises this period seems to predict a different result (Taylor 2009, 399). Furthermore, preliminary findings seem to suggest even more regional variability than the binary construct of a northern and southern coffin production implies. How far this may have been due to the importance of the area close to the Fayum in the Late Period must at present remain undecided. Unfortunately, the question of what Late Period artistic workshops looked like still remains difficult, if not impossible, to answer. There is no clear evidence so far of how the coffins were produced and ultimately how ancient Egyptian men and women fashioned their own or their relatives’ burial, including a coffin. A central question is whether coffins were created on the basis of pattern-books or whether they were individually commissioned goods. The assumption that pattern-books or models might have been used has recently been investigated in the study of the Akhmimic coffins (Brech 2008, 314–15). In her analysis, Ruth Brech identified four different, supposedly contemporaneous, pattern-books for a specific decoration pattern of Ptolemaic Period coffins from Akhmim. Comparing Akhmimic coffins with Theban coffins, she concluded that there were scarcely any local peculiarities, an observation that raises the question whether the coffins were decorated according to models which were distributed throughout the whole country (Brech 2008, 314). While there is a general consistency and persistence of coffin shapes, general iconographic layout and decorative features (e.g. the goddess Nut on the breast of anthropoid coffins, see above), there are also significant differences in the coffins’ decoration when looking at a larger corpus of coffins from different regions of production. The existence of pattern-books cannot be ruled out completely at this stage, but it may be more fruitful to ask a different set of questions, avoiding the idea of ‘Ur’-versions, like the concept of the ‘Urtext’ (Parkinson 2009, 244–5), since this notion carries the danger of imposing a rather ‘monolithic’ view of the (material)

REGIONAL VARIABILITY IN LATE PERIOD EGYPT: COFFIN TRADITIONS IN MIDDLE EGYPT

culture of ancient Egypt. This paper suggests that there are indeed more regional variations than would be accounted for by the hypothesis of a leading production centre (Thebes?) and some sort of affiliated or dependent co-workshops. Therefore, the possibility of artistic freedom and a functional visual memory on the part of the Egyptian craftsmen is a more likely scenario. Furthermore, the approach of highlighting their regional features may provide criteria for the identification of coffins of unknown provenance. This factor is important given the problematic situation of lootings in several of the necropoleis in Middle Egypt. A very large number of coffins has appeared on the antiquities market in the past forty years. If only a small number could be assigned to the group of coffins from the Nile valley close to the Fayum or even to a specific necropolis, this would be a significant contribution to knowledge: hence the need to study these artefacts is more urgent than ever before. Finally, the study of the Late Period coffins from Middle Egypt may not only provide a much more balanced view of the decoration patterns prevalent in different regions at the time and give important insights into the practice of the coffin producers, but it may also enable the recovery of provenance for coffins which are currently without an archaeological context.

Bibliography Arnold, D. 1977. Fajjum. In W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), LexikonderÄgyptologie II. Wiesbaden, 89–90. Bard, K. A. 1999. Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancientEgypt. London. Botti, G. 1958. LecassedimummieeisarcofagidaelHibeh nelMuseoEgiziodiFirenze. Florence. Brech, R. 2008. Spätägyptische Särge aus Achmim. Eine typologische und chronologische Studie. Aegyptiaca Hamburgensia 3. Gladbeck. Davoli, P. 2012. The archaeology of the Fayum. In C. Riggs (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford, 152–70. Delvaux, L. and I. Therasse. 2015. Sarcophages: Sous les étoilesdeNout. Brussels. Eisenberg, J. 1962. Royal-Athena Galleries: A catalog of EgyptianandotherNearEasternantiquities. New York. Elias, J. 1996. Regional indicia on a Saite coffin from Qubbet El-Hawa. Journal of the American Research CenterinEgypt33, 105–22.

401

Elias, J. 2012. ExaminationofthreeEgyptiancoffinsinthe BuffaloMuseumofScience. Akhmim Mummy Studies Consortium Research Paper 96, 1. Carlisle. Franzmeier, H. 2014. News from Parahotep: the small finds from his tomb at Sedment rediscovered. Journal of EgyptianArchaeology100, 151–79. Germer, R., H. Kischkewitz and M. Lüning (eds). 2009. Berliner Mumiengeschichten. Ergebnisse eines multidisziplinärenForschungsprojektes. Berlin. Grenfell, B. P. and A. S. Hunt. 1902. Excavations in the Fayûm and at El Hîbeh. In F. L. Griffith (ed.), Egypt Exploration Fund Archaeological Report 1901–1902. London, 2–5. Gubel, E. (ed.). 1991. VanNijltotSchelde. Brussels. Ikram, S. and A. Dodson. 1998. The mummy in ancient Egypt:Equippingthedeadforeternity. London. Kóthay, K. A. 2012. The Gamhud artisans. In K. A. Kóthay (ed.), Artandsociety:Ancientandmoderncontextsof Egyptian art. Proceedings of the international conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13– 15May2010. Budapest, 235–56, pls 49–52. Küffer, A. and R. Siegmann. 2007. Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin.ÄgyptischeSärge,MumienundMasken inderSchweiz. Zürich. Meffre, R. 2015. D’Héracleopolis à Hermopolis. La Moyenne Égypte durant la Troisième Période Intermédiaire(XXIe–XXIVedynasties). Paris. Mokhtar, M. G. D. 1983. Ihnâsyael-Medina(Herakleopolis Magna): Its importance and its role in pharaonic history. Bibliothèque d’étude 40. Cairo. Naville, É. 1894. AhnaselMedineh(HeracleopolisMagna). Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 11. London. Niwiński, A. 1984. Sarg NR-SpZt. In W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds), LexikonderÄgyptologie V. Wiesbaden, 434–68. Parkinson, R. B. 2009. Reading ancient Egyptian poetry. Amongotherhistories. Chichester. Petrie, W. M. F. 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 13. London. Petrie, W. M. F., G. Brunton and M. A. Murray. 1923. Lahun II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 33. London. Petrie, W. M. F. and E. Mackay. 1915. Heliopolis, Kafr AmmarandShurafa. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 24. London. Primavesi, O. 1996. Zur Geschichte des Deutschen Papyruskartells. ZeitschriftfürPapyrologieundEpigraphik 114, 173–87. Redmount, C. 2014. El-Hibeh: A plundered site. Egyptian Archaeology 45, 13–17. Römer, C. 2017. The Nile in the Fayum: Strategies of dominating and using the water resources of the river in the oasis in the Middle Kingdom and the Graeco-Roman Period. In H. Willems and J.-M. Dahms (eds), TheNile: NaturalandculturallandscapeinEgypt. Mainz, 171–91.

402

K. STÖVESAND

Rubensohn, O. and F. Knatz. 1904. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen bei Abusir el Mäläq im Jahre 1903. Zeitschrift fürÄgyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde 41, 1–21. Schreiber, G. 2012. The burial ensemble of Tasenet from Gamhud and the Ptolemaic coffin style in northern Middle Egypt. In K. A. Kóthay (ed.), Artandsociety: AncientandmoderncontextsofEgyptianart.ProceedingsoftheinternationalconferenceheldattheMuseum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15 May 2010. Budapest, 257–63, pls 53–6. Sethe, K. 1907. Die Namen von Ober- und Unterägypten und die Bezeichnungen für Nord und Süd. Zeitschrift für ÄgyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde 44, 1–29. Siegmann, R. 2012. DasSargensembledesUdja-sema-taui aus Abusir el-Meleq (26. Dyn.). http://www.e-coffins. ch/images/stories/PDF/Sarg%20aus%20Abusir%20 el%20Meleq%20Artikel.pdf (last accessed: February 2017) Stövesand, K. 2012. Anthropomorpher Sarg aus Abusir elMeleq. Kataloge der Archäologischen Sammlung und des Münzkabinetts der Universität Rostock 3. Rostock. Stövesand, K. 2015. Regional variability in coffin production: Two northern coffins at the British Museum. The BritishMuseumNewsletterEgyptandSudan 2, 38. Taylor, J. H. 1989. Egyptian coffins. Shire Egyptology 11. Princes Risborough. Taylor, J. H. 2001. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth

Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour and painting in ancient Egypt. London, 164–81, col. pls 50–6. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: Dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), The Theban necropolis: Past, present and future. London, 95–121, pls 45–75. Taylor, J. H. 2009. Coffins as evidence for a ‘north–south divide’ in the 22nd–25th dynasties. In G. P. F. Broekman, R. J. Demarée and O. E. Kaper (eds), TheLibyan Period in Egypt: Historical and cultural studies into the 21st–24th dynasties. Proceedings of a conference atLeidenUniversity,25–27October2007. Egyptologische Uitgaven 23. Leuven, 375–415. van Walsem, R. 2014. From skin wrappings to architecture. The evolution of prehistoric, anthropoid wrappings to historic architectonic coffins/sarcophagi; separate contrasts optimally fused in single Theban ‘stola’ coffins (± 975–920 BC). In R. Sousa (ed.), Body,cosmosand eternity: New research trends in the iconography and symbolism of ancient Egyptian coffins. Archaeopress Egyptology 3. Oxford, 1–27. Vittmann, G. 1981. Zu den Raubgrabungen in Abusir el-Meleq. GöttingerMiszellen 42, 81–8. Wiese, A. 2001. AntikenmuseumBaselundSammlungLudwig. DieägyptischeAbteilung. Mainz am Rhein.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM AKHMIM IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CONTEXTS Éva LIPTAY

Abstract Among the coffins which can be linked with the mummies currently under examination as part of a mummy research project in Budapest, three pieces from various periods of the 1st millennium BC definitely originate from the necropolis of Akhmim/Panopolis, the capital and important cultural centre of the 9th nome of Upper Egypt. In one case both the coffin and the mummified body associated with it proved to belong to the original (primary) burial equipment. In the other two cases, however, the mummies were placed in the coffins later, either as secondary burials during antiquity or in modern times. Although reuse of earlier burial equipment was customary in ancient Egypt, in this case it cannot be taken for granted that the reburial took place during antiquity. It is equally possible that the coffins and the mummies were matched in modern times by an art dealer who hoped to sell a complete funerary ensemble more easily than an empty coffin. It is a well-known fact that this was a common practice among dealers and collectors around the end of the 19th century, and especially so in the case of coffins and mummies from Akhmim.

consequence of which was that by the last decade of the 19th century the cemetery had acquired the appearance of a veritable battlefield. According to eyewitnesses, parts of mummified bodies were strewn about everywhere and the ground was covered with holes dug

* * * According to a well-known story, in the early 1880s Gaston Maspero, director of the Antiquities Service in Cairo, learned that various pieces of burial equipment had come into the possession of local people in the areas of Sohag and Akhmim; these finds implied the existence of a rich necropolis somewhere in the vicinity. In 1884, therefore, he carried out a hasty archaeological survey of the site during which he opened twenty tombs and found no fewer than 800 mummies in two weeks (Kuhlmann 1983, 54; Depauw 2002, 71; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 113–16). After this survey he conducted almost completely undocumented archaeological fieldwork in a rather unprofessional manner at the site until 1888. This exploration was accompanied and followed by the rampant looting of the site by both locals and foreign visitors, the

Fig. 1: The coffin of Hortesnakht (© Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts).

404

É. LIPTAY

by the looters (Kuhlmann 1983, 51; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 114). All three pairs of coffins and mummies, to be discussed in the following pages, were purchased around that time, usually through intermediaries, from antiquities dealers either in Egypt or Europe. Each of the three coffins undoubtedly originates from Akhmim, and only one question remains to be answered: when were the mummies buried or placed inside them? The coffin and mummy of Hortesnakht The first mummy to be discussed is covered with cartonnage trappings (Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 51.2080) and accompanied by a painted wooden anthropoid coffin with a gilded face (Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 51.2097.1-2; Fig. 1). The mummy had been kept and displayed separately for a long time, so that when it was first examined, uncertainty existed as to whether it was the body that was originally enclosed in the coffin; i.e. were the mummy and the coffin parts of the same burial assemblage in antiquity? Among the first results of the current mummy research project was the discovery of iconographic as well as scientific evidence of their common origin. Thecoffin The previous owner of the coffin was Stephan Delhaes, the son of a wealthy Dutch wholesaler who first settled in Pest with his family in the mid-19th century, but later moved with them to Vienna. After graduating from the Academy of Art, Delhaes worked as restorer for the Liechtenstein Gallery and rented his studio from the Duke of Liechtenstein in Vienna. This studio housed Delhaes’ rich collection of artefacts. The coffin may have been purchased in the second half of the 1890s. In his last will and testament, made in 1893, he bequeathed his collection to Hungarian museums. The coffin was kept in the Ethnographic Department of the Hungarian National Museum after his death in 1901, and was finally transferred to the Museum of Fine Arts in 1934. According to the inscription, the owner’s name was Hortesnakht, a female name attested only in Akhmim during the Ptolemaic Period (e.g. Munro 1973, 369;

1

University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, inv. no. L-55-15-C (loaned by the Philadelphia

Varga 1993, 192 and n. 29; Haslauer 2012, 210–11). Based on its typological features and iconographical layout, the coffin must originate from Akhmim and belongs to Group Ec in Brech’s recently developed system (Brech 2008, 224–8), while showing some common characteristics with the subtypes Eb and Ed as well. Although it presents the traditional (but very colourful and variegated) layout of contemporaneous Panopolitan coffins, its iconography nevertheless shows some peculiarities which may provide clues to a more precise dating within the period. In the following, three of them will be highlighted. On both sides of the coffin box can be seen a cobrashaped protective goddess, one wearing the Lower Egyptian and the other the Upper Egyptian crown, twisted around a papyrus stalk (as a heraldic plant) or a column (Fig. 2; see also Brech 2008, Ed3, Ed2, Eb1, Ec2). The motif is well-known from earlier representations (e.g. Nelson 1981, pl. 41 and 213; Niwiński 1995, fig. 40) as well as from more contemporaneous temple reliefs (e.g. Rosenow 2008, fig. 10 and 13), often applied as a frame for entrances or scenes, and also used on a Graeco-Roman funerary stela as a framing motif for the representation of a sanctuary (Jørgensen 2009, no. 105). Quite obviously, on coffins the motif also serves as symbolic magical protection, framing and protecting the aperture between the lid and the case (see Taylor 2001, 176). The same motif also refers to the symbolic function of the coffin lid as a sanctuary entrance (see Liptay 2011a, 99–101). However, as Wendy Cheshire (1982) pointed out, the motif seems to have been extremely popular in the course of the 3rd century BC, when it also occurred in the form of a sceptre in the hands of the deified figures of queens on Ptolemaic coins (e.g. gold octodrachmas) during the reigns of Ptolemy II Philadelphus to Ptolemy IV Philopator. It is tempting to assume that the popularity of the motif during the 3rd century may have had an impact on the contemporaneous coffin iconography in Akhmim. The royal headdress (with the sun disc and a uraeus snake) worn by the sky goddess Nut is a special, and – to the present author’s knowledge – almost unprecedented phenomenon which requires more in-depth iconographical studies. Only one additional example of a similar headdress of Nut1 is known to the present

Museum of Art): personal communication with Jonathan Elias and Tamás Mekis.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM AKHMIM IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CONTEXTS

405

Fig. 3: The Apis motif on the foot-board of the coffin of Hortesnakht (© Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts).

Fig. 2: The cobra motif on the side of the coffin of Hortesnakht (© Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts).

writer, on a coffin which can be dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC based on the iconography of the winged sun disc over the mummy lying on the bier (Elias 2008, 9 and n. 14). Another special iconographical feature can be found on the foot-board: the scene of the Apis bull carrying the mummy on its back while advancing through a papyrus thicket (Fig. 3; Kóthay and Liptay 2013, no. 68; Liptay 2012, 176 and pl. 40.3; Haslauer 2012, 209). The scene is a reinterpretation of the standard motif of foot-boards of anthropoid coffins from Dynasty 22 to 26 at Thebes (most recently Liptay 2012, 176). There are some additional occurrences of the motif on contemporaneous Panopolitan coffin foot-boards (e.g. Brech 2008, D5, Eb 1 [marshland thicket without bull], Ec1, Ec2, Ec8, Ed5), demonstrating how popular it was in the local tradition of Ptolemaic coffin iconography. It can most frequently be attested on the examples of type Ec, but coffins of types Ed and D also present

some versions of the motif. The closest parallel to the Budapest scene can be found on the same coffin which provides the single parallel for the unusual headdress of Nut mentioned above (see Cockburn et al. 1975, photo on the cover). Thecartonnagemummy-trappings The wrapped mummy is covered with a three-piece set of painted and partly gilded cartonnage trappings – a typical exemplar of those used in Panopolitan burials during the Ptolemaic Period. Moreover, some iconographical features make it probable that this cartonnage set can be dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC (Elias 2008, 11). The layout of the design itself as well as some individual iconographical motifs of the cartonnage set and the coffin are similar, and in some cases even identical. Moreover, the unique iconography of the goddess Nut with outstretched wings on the coffin, especially her facial features and the above-mentioned special headdress she wears, are basically identical with those depicted on the cartonnage trappings (Fig. 4). The occurrence of these motifs together undoubtedly indicates that both the coffin and the cartonnage set were manufactured/decorated by the same group of artists,

406

É. LIPTAY

Fig. 4: The goddess Nut on the cartonnage of Hortesnakht (© Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts).

or even by the same hand. These stylistic and iconographical analogies and congruencies of rare motifs provided the first hard evidence for the common origin of the coffin and the mummy. Themummy The mummy is wrapped in linen bandages, the surface of which have been soaked in a dark resinous substance. The arms are crossed on the chest: the left hand is clenched, while the right hand is open. Elias pointed out that this positioning of the arms and fingers is extremely common in Ptolemaic Panopolitan burials (Elias and Lupton 2005, 36). The CT analysis revealed that four visceral packages were placed in the cavity. According to the anthropological analysis, Hortesnakht died at the age of around eighteen to twenty years. The final evidence that the mummy was originally buried in the associated coffin was provided by the chemical analysis of the samples taken from the solid, black resinous substance found on the inner part of the lid (where the head of the mummy came into contact with the coffin wall) and on the bandaged head itself. The results of the Fourier Transform Infrared

Spectroscopy carried out in 2011 revealed that both samples consist of the same substance (Petrik 2011, 60–1). To summarise: based on the common stylistic and iconographical features of the coffin and the cartonnage trappings covering the mummy bandages, together with the results of chemical analyses, it has been demonstrated that both the mummy and the coffin belonged to the original burial, presumably dated to the second half of the 3rd century BC. Akhmim, 1896: the coffin and mummy formerly at Szombathely Akhmim,1896 Twenty years ago, Mark Smith reconstructed the likely circumstances surrounding the acquisition of Egyptian artefacts by E. A. Wallis Budge for the collection of the British Museum during 1895 and 1896 (Smith 1994). Among these pieces were several coffins of a distinctive type that definitely came from Akhmim (Riggs 2005, 62), more precisely from a new and exciting archaeological site (‘a newly opened tomb’ according to

BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM AKHMIM IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CONTEXTS

Budge) within the necropolis, with – quoting Budge – ‘mummies and coffins and funerary equipment of a whole family of 10 or 12 persons’ (Smith 1994, 295). The upper portion of a similar mummy case, a painted and partly gilded coffin lid (Fig. 5), together with a mummy, was received in Szombathely (in western Hungary) in the same year (1896) from ‘Thebes of Egypt’, at least according to a contemporaneous article in a local newspaper announcing the important acquisition (Liptay 2011c, 55). The set was transferred from Szombathely to the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest in 1951. Since on the basis of its type the coffin’s provenance must be Akhmim, the expression ‘Thebes of Egypt’ used in the newspaper perhaps refers to the place where the transaction/purchase took place or indicates a broader area within Upper Egypt. The initiator of the acquisition was Adolf Kunc (1841–1905), Premonstratensian teacher and school director, as well as a Member of Parliament between 1884 and 1887. In 1893 Kunc had a new secondary school and friary built in Szombathely. Three years later he equipped it with the newly arrived Egyptian mummy together with the coffin lid. He was assisted in the transaction by Gusztáv Ruprich (1855–1912), a doctor at Sankt Radegund bei Graz spa in Austria. Another figure, well-known to Egyptology, the German consul in Cairo, Dr Carl-August Reinhardt (1856– 1903), played a prominent role as a mediator in the acquisition of the coffin and the mummy. According to the archives, Reinhardt responded to a request from Hungary on 20 January 1896, offering to purchase two mummies, a cheaper one and a more expensive exemplar. One year later, in 1897, Reinhardt purchased cartonnage coffins for the Egyptian collection in Berlin (Smith 1994, 296–8; Riggs 2005, 67–9; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 165–8) which belonged to the very same type as the pieces bought by Budge for the British Museum as well as those offered by Reinhardt to the Hungarian collectors in the previous year (1896). All of them appear to have originated from the same newly discovered tomb-complex in Akhmim. ThecoffinlidformerlyatSzombathely The coffin lid in the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts (inv. no. 51.638) is made of a mud-straw mixture with added plaster. In its type and iconography, which differs in many ways from the traditional mummiform coffins of earlier times, it represents a new style among coffins from Akhmim (Smith 2002, 236; Riggs

407

Fig. 5: The coffin lid formerly at Szombathely (© Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts).

2005, 61–94, 259–67). According to Christina Riggs, these coffins were manufactured within a limited time span by a group of artisans who worked together in Panopolis (Riggs 2005, 67). Some examples of this type of coffin bear demotic inscriptions. Based on this epigraphic evidence Smith established that this group dated from the mid-1st century BC to the early 1st century AD (Smith 1997). As Riggs pointed out, the style

É. LIPTAY

408

Fig. 6: The mummy formerly at Szombathely (© Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts).

of the garment could reflect contemporaneous everyday dress (Riggs 2005, 83–93). Consequently, it can be considered as an archaising iconographical pattern, which had a long tradition in Egyptian funerary iconography, representing the deceased as a living person. The transfigured state of the deceased, on the other hand, is indicated by his gilded face and the fillet of rosettes. His liminal state is referred to by the gilded row of uraei on the brow – i.e. a typical decorative pattern of real and symbolic sanctuary entrances (Riggs 2005, 85) – and the row of apotropaic funerary gods along the sides. The latter pattern was adopted from earlier (Ptolemaic) Panopolitan coffins (see above). ThemummyformerlyatSzombathely The arms and legs, fingers and toes of the mummy (Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no. 51.637; Fig. 6) are separately wrapped in linen. Anthropological and radiological examinations carried out in 2011 revealed that the body is that of a man who died between the ages of thirty-five and forty. The four cylindrical visceral packages can be seen inside the body cavity (Petrik 2011, 20–1 and 72–3). According to calibrated radiocarbon results from bone and textile samples taken from

the mummy in 2011, the date of death/mummification occurred between 320 and 200 BC.2 It was initially thought that the mummy might belong to a special group of specimens with separated limbs (e.g. Raven and Taconis 2005, 191–203; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 90, Abb. 131 and 167, Abb. 262), since its distinctive technique of wrapping seems to demonstrate affinities with them. However, Renate Germer has drawn our attention to the possibility that the Szombathely mummy had been deprived of its outer bandages, and that what we see now is only the inner wrapping of the body, a state of affairs which has also been observed in the case of a mummy in Munich after its unwrapping (inv. no. ÄS 73b; Ziegelmeyer 1985; see also Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 119). This accords with the fact that in the Ptolemaic Period the limbs were separately wrapped, prior to the envelopment of the body in a bundle (Elias and Lupton 2005, 36). On the other hand, it is worthy of note that in his letter Reinhardt wrote

2

A radiocarbon dating analysis was carried out on the mummy by Dr Eva Maria Wild (VERA-Laboratorium Institut für Isotopenforschung und Kernphysik, Vienna) in May 2011 (Petrik 2011, 72–3).

BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM AKHMIM IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CONTEXTS

409

The last coffin to be discussed (Fig. 7) belongs to a special group of coffins that originates from Akhmim and can be dated to the end of the Ramesside Period/ early Dynasty 21 (László 1987; Varga 1987; Liptay 2011b).4 According to the inscriptions, the original or primary owner of the coffin was a man named Hor,

wꜥb-priest of Isis and Harsiesis, son of another wꜥbpriest of Isis, Paifiri. The circumstances of the acquisition of this heterogeneous set are well-documented (László 1987). It was purchased in 1884 by Károly Markstein, a wholesaler of Hungarian origin residing in Cairo, who donated it to the scientific collection of his former secondary school in Pápa, in northwestern Hungary. The accompanying certificate was completed by Emil Brugsch, younger brother of the Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch (for his role in the exploitation of Akhmim, see Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 116). It proves that the coffin was found during the archaeological survey at Akhmim carried out at that time by Gaston Maspero. The body now lying in the coffin is that of a man who died in middle age (between thirty-five and fortyfive).5 His body is partly covered by small, painted and partly gilded cartonnage mummy-trappings (Fig. 8). This type was used in burials at Akhmim around the beginning and in the first half of the Ptolemaic era (Schweitzer 1998, 327–30; 2007, 54–8; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 135). The gilded funerary mask with a beard is rare, but attested among Late Period and Ptolemaic cartonnage sets from Akhmim (see e.g. Albersmeier 2007, 68–9 [Akhmim?]; Taylor and Strudwick 2005, 64–5; Brech 2008, Ps4; Taylor 2010, 98–9, fig. 77; see also Varga 1987, 40). However, the position of the arms of the mummy (right arm extended along the side, open right hand resting on the pubic region; left arm crossed over the chest, with clenched hand) is unusual for Ptolemaic Period burials at Akhmim (Elias and Lupton 2005, 36). All these seem to suggest that both the mummy and the cartonnage set may be somewhat earlier than the Ptolemaic era. It should not be taken for granted, on the other hand, that the cartonnage mummy-trappings or the mask originally belonged to the mummy. This means, consequently, that there are at least two or perhaps three archaeological horizons within the ensemble. Edith Varga, who first published the ensemble in 1987, drew attention to two close parallels to the coffin’s iconography: a specimen preserved in Berlin and

3

5

about an intact and unopened (‘intakt und unausgewickelt’) mummy. In addition, according to the archival documents, only the face of the mummy was unwrapped after its arrival in Hungary. Consequently, the outer bandages may have been removed from the body by the art dealer before its purchase in Egypt. Moreover, the wrapping technique of the mummy formerly at Szombathely invites comparison with one purchased by Reinhardt in 1897 for the Egyptian collection in Berlin (Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 167, Abb. 262). According to Reinhardt, the Berlin mummy (which contains a female body) belonged to one of the two above-mentioned Akhmim coffins, but on the basis of the measurements of the female coffin (lost during the Second World War) this one can be excluded. Similarly, according to the archival correspondence, Reinhardt offered the Szombathely coffin, together with the mummy, as parts of the same burial equipment.3 This statement, however, can also be questioned for several reasons. The main argument against it is that the radiocarbon dating puts the mummy between 320 and 200 BC, i.e. about 200 years earlier than the coffin. Additionally, the arm position of the mummy also suggests a Ptolemaic date. Summing up the above, the possibility cannot be excluded that the mummy, which can be dated to a somewhat earlier period than the coffin, also originates from Akhmim. It can therefore be said with a degree of certainty that the mummy and the coffin come from separate burials and that they may have been put together by art dealers between 1895 and 1896. Akhmim, 1884: the mummy and coffin in the Calvinistic Collections, Pápa

4

‘Die männliche Mumie besitzt [,] d. h. zu ihr gehört u. ist in dem Preise inbegriffen [,] noch eine große, schön bemalte Cartonnage, in Gestalt eines Sarges [,] mit dem vergoldeten PortraitKopf des Verstorbenen versehen.’ (Letter from Reinhardt). Inv. no. A.1. I would like to express my gratitude to László Köntös, director of the Calvinistic Collections of Pápa for his permission to study and publish the coffin.

I would like to express my gratitude to Erzsébet Fóthi, anthropologist (Hungarian Natural History Museum, Department of Anthropology) for providing me with unpublished data about the mummy.

410

É. LIPTAY

Fig. 8: The mummy-trappings covering the mummy at Pápa (© Calvinistic Collections, Pápa).

Fig. 7: The coffin in the Calvinistic Collections, Pápa (© Calvinistic Collections, Pápa).

another in Copenhagen. She also observed the similarities in the circumstances of their acquisition: all three objects were donated by collectors to different museums in the same year, 1884 (Varga 1987, 28–32). The coffin and the mummy in the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin (inv. no. 8505: Niwiński 1988, 109 [no. 29]; Cooney 2007, 248–50, 462–4; Brech 2008, 27–9; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 116–19) originate from Akhmim and, like the coffin in Pápa, were purchased in 1884 through the abovementioned Emil Brugsch. The provenance of the coffin in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (inv. no. ÆIN 62: Jørgensen 2001, 56–91 (1); Cooney 2007, 468–9), however, is not documented. Nevertheless, it was

purchased by the founder of the collection, Carl Jacobsen, in 1884, the same year that the other two, currently in Pápa and Berlin, were acquired. The piece kept in Copenhagen clearly demonstrates that the usurpation of any exemplar of this coffin group could have happened during antiquity. According to the inscriptions, the original owner of this coffin was Sesekh-nofru, an ỉt-nṯr-priest of Isis (Gauthier 1931, 109–11). However, it must have been usurped by a new owner, a wꜥb-priest, named Pa-aa-en-kah (PꜢ-ꜥꜢ-n-kꜢḥ) son of Hormes, who erased almost every trace of Sesekh-nofru’s name from the inscriptions and replaced them with his own (Jørgensen 2001, 56; Cooney 2007, 468–9). Consequently, the mummy cannot be identified as that of the original owner Sesekh-nofru. It could be Pa-aa-en-kah, if the mummified body now lying in the coffin was not that of a woman, i.e. an unknown third person who – at least according to the radiocarbon dating – died during the Third Intermediate Period, around 800 BC. The same date seems to be confirmed by the

BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM AKHMIM IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CONTEXTS

411

oversized interior decoration of the lower part, which has close parallels in Theban coffin iconography from the end of Dynasty 22 (Taylor 2003, 110; Sheikholeslami 2014; see also Elias 2013, 34–7). The motif of the hawk-headed funerary god is a characteristic feature of the bottom of the outer coffins of the period (Sheikholeslami 2014). Consequently, if a board of a larger outer coffin was reused as a part of the usurped inner coffin, it would explain the presence of the oversized figure of the god. This all seems to suggest that not only was the name replaced by the second owner or usurper of the coffin, but the inner decoration might also have been partly repainted or modified in the same period. The style of the cartonnage plaques covering the Copenhagen mummy poses another question, as they must have been manufactured during the Ptolemaic Period. On the basis of their style, the two fragments may originally have belonged to the same, presumably Theban, cartonnage set.6 Consequently, a reburial might have taken place during the 8th century BC, but this second burial seems to have been supplemented later with Theban Ptolemaic cartonnage plaques. Mogens Jørgensen, who most recently published the coffin and the mummy, proposed that an art dealer in 1884 may have ‘switched mummies and coffins from several different excavations’ (Jørgensen 2001, 348–51 [no. 41]). There is an additional interesting example of a secondary burial in a Third Intermediate Period coffin which is worth mentioning in this context. A Libyan Period wooden coffin in the Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe contains a mummy with a cartonnage mask and mummy-trappings that can all be unambiguously dated to the Ptolemaic Period (Albersmeier 2007, 64–9). Both the coffin and the mummy are supposed to originate from Thebes. However, on the apron of the cartonnage set the offering formula (Albersmeier 2007, 66)7 is typical of Akhmim (Derchain-Urtel 1989, 103–11). As for the provenance of the coffin, it is an example of

a type which is also attested in Akhmim during the Third Intermediate Period (Liptay 1993; Brech 2008, S4; Germer, Kischkewitz and Lüning 2009, 131–2, Abb. 197). Of course, it cannot be excluded that the cartonnage adornments originally did not belong to the mummy. Consequently, as with the mummy-trappings in Pápa and Copenhagen, elements of two or three different sets of burial equipment were put together as though they were parts of the same assemblage. This newly created ‘virtual’ burial equipment was donated by Alexander Kaiser to the Rosgartenmuseum in Konstanz at the beginning of the 20th century (Albersmeier 2007, 64). Therefore we can conclude that (1) at least the cartonnage set (but perhaps the coffin as well) originated from Akhmim, and that (2), again, the pieces of the ‘burial equipment’ may have been put together by an art dealer around the end of the 19th century. In addition, it is worth mentioning the cartonnage case in Municipio von Brissago purchased in 1887 and probably originating from Akhmim (Küffer and Siegmann 2007, 169–72). Its strange iconography demonstrates on the lower part the typical features of a Third Intermediate Period piece, while the upper part presents a characteristically Ptolemaic design. This latter example also suggests that Third Intermediate Period coffins could have been restored and repainted during the Ptolemaic Period.8 To sum up the above, in 1884, shortly after the discovery and hasty survey of the site of Akhmim (Kuhlmann 1983, 50–86; László 1987, 4–6; Riggs 2005, 62), a group of early Third Intermediate Period coffins with mummies arrived in Europe, supposedly from the same cemetery area of the archaeological site. The coffins were sometimes reused at later periods. In the case of the coffin and mummy in Pápa, in Hungary, a secondary burial during antiquity is not impossible, but cannot be proved. On the other hand, the coffin from the same group, now in Copenhagen, seems to have been reused during the second half of the Third Intermediate Period,

6

8

7

I am indebted to Katalin Kóthay and Tamás Mekis for their help in identifying the type of the cartonnage fragments. For in situ Theban parallels, see Mekis 2010, 29 and n. 79. Additional parallels in situ and in museum collections: e.g. Guidotti and Leospo 1994, H9; Schreiber 2006, 238 and n. 53; Kóthay 2010, 26 and n. 9. The translation of the text on the cartonnage was confused by mistake with the translation of the coffin inscription, cf. the translation on p. 67!

See also the Dynasty 18 coffin (inv. no 13940) in the Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm, partly remodelled and externally repainted during the Ptolemaic Period, referred to by Aidan Dodson in his paper presented at the Budapest conference ‘Burial Practices and Mortuary Beliefs in Late Period and GraecoRoman Egypt’ in July 2014.

412

É. LIPTAY

confirming that this was an ongoing practice in Akhmim during the Third Intermediate Period or later. The exploration of the circumstances of these acquisitions has highlighted the importance of the study of the modern history of these archaeological find groups (as a newly defined, additional archaeological horizon), since – according to the data – a significant rearrangement of the Akhmim finds must have been carried out on the art market in the 1880s and 1890s. In the course of this activity, coffins and mummies from various periods were mixed up, losing their original burial contexts, and creating new and fictive groups: in other words a kind of modern reuse of burial equipment took place.

Bibliography Albersmeier, S. 2007. Ägyptische Kunst. Bestandskatalog Badisches Landesmuseums Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe; Munich. Brech, R. 2008. SpätägyptischeSärgeausAchmim. Aegyptiaca Hamburgiensia 3. Gladbeck. Cheshire, W. 1982. Zur Deutung eines Szepters der Arsinoe II. Philadelphos. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 48, 105–11. Cockburn, A., R. A. Barraco, T. A. Reyman and W. H. Peck. 1975. Autopsy of an Egyptian mummy. Science 28 March 1975, 1155–60. Cooney, K. M. 2007. Thecostofdeath. Thesocialandeconomic value of Ancient Egyptian funerary art in the RamessidePeriod. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden. Depauw, M. 2002. The late funerary material from Akhmim. In A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs and J. van der Vliet (eds), Perspectives on Panopolis. An Egyptian town from AlexandertheGreattotheArabconquest.Actsfroman InternationalSymposiumheldinLeidenon16,17and 18December1998. Leiden; Boston; Cologne, 71–81. Derchain-Urtel, M.-T. 1989. PriesterimTempel.DieRezeption derTheologiederTempelvonEdfuundDenderainder PrivatdokumentenausptolemaischerZeit. Wiesbaden. Elias, J. P. 2008. Shep-en-min: Report of findings from the CT scan of Vassar College CC79.001 with comparative discussion of the mummy of his father Pahat (Berkshire Museum 1903.7.44). AkhmimMummyStudiesConsortium-15 Study 1, 1–47. Elias, J. P. 2013. GeneralanalysisofthemummyofPadihershef at Massachusetts General Hospital. Akhmim Mummy Studies Consortium Research, LLC, Carlisle, PA, 16 August 2013, 1–41. Elias, J. P. and C. Lupton. 2005. The role of Computed Axial Tomography in the study of the mummies of Akhmim,

Egypt. In E. R. Massa (ed.),ProceedingsVWorldCongressonMummyStudies. Turin,Italy,2nd–5thSeptember2004. JournalofBiologicalResearch 80, N.1, 34–8. Gauthier, H. 1931. LepersonneldudieuMin. Cairo. Germer, R., H. Kischkewitz and M. Lüning (eds). 2009. Berliner Mumiengeschichten. Ergebnisse eines multidisziplinärenForschungsprojektes. Berlin; Regensburg. Guidotti, M. C. and E. Leospo. 1994. La collezione egizia delCivicoMuseoArcheologicodiComo. Como. Haslauer, E. 2012. Aegyptiaca im Archäologiemuseum Schloss Eggenberg, Teil I. ForschungenzurgeschichtlichenLandeskundederSteiermark 58, 194–223. Jørgensen, M. 2001. Catalogue Egypt III. Coffins, mummy adornmentsandmummiesfromtheThirdIntermediate, Late, Ptolemaic and the Roman Periods 1080 BC–AD 400. Copenhagen. Jørgensen, M. 2009. Catalogue Egypt IV. Late Egyptian sculpture1080BC–AD400. Copenhagen. Kóthay, K. A. 2010. Searching for the mummy-trappings of the Gamhud coffins. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 112–13, 25–49. Kóthay, K. A. and É. Liptay (eds). 2013. Egyptianartefacts oftheMuseumofFineArts,Budapest. Budapest. Küffer, A. and R. Siegmann. 2007. Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin. Zürich. Kuhlmann, K. P. 1983. Materialen zur Archäologie und GeschichtedesRaumesvonAchmim. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 11. Mainz am Rhein. László, P. 1987. Le cercueil d’un prêtre d’Isis dans une collection d’antiquités en Hongrie. I. Historique du monument. BulletinduMuséeHongroisdesBeaux-Arts68–9, 3–6. Liptay, É. 1993. The cartonnage of Js.t-m-Ꜣḫbj.t in the Czartoryski Museum, Cracow. Studies in Ancient Art andCivilization 6, 7–26. Liptay, É. 2011a. Theban miscellanies. In Z. Hawass, T. A. Bács and G. Schreiber (eds), Proceedings of the Colloquium on Theban Archaeology at the Supreme CouncilofAntiquities.November5,2009. Cairo, 95–104. Liptay, É. 2011b. A local pattern of the Twenty–Twentyfirst-dynasty Theban coffin type from Akhmim. Bulletin duMuséeHongroisdesBeaux-Arts114–15, 8–21. Liptay, É. 2011c. A ‘szombathelyi múmia’ – új vizsgálati eredmények. VasiHonismeretiésHelytörténetiKözlemények no. 2, 52–8. Liptay, É. 2012. Bull coming out of the mountain. Changing context and connotations of an iconographical motif. In K. A. Kóthay (ed.), Art and society. Ancient and modern contexts of Egyptian art. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 13–15May, 2010. Budapest, 169–77. Mekis, T. 2010. Two hypokephali and some other Ptolemaic finds from Theban Tomb (Kampp) -43-. Journalofthe SocietyfortheStudyofEgyptianAntiquities37, 9–37.

BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM AKHMIM IN ANCIENT AND MODERN CONTEXTS

Munro, P. 1973. DiespätägyptischeTotenstelen. Ägyptologische Forschungen 25. Glückstadt. Nelson, H. H. 1981. The Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. Vol.1,Part1.Thewallreliefs. Oriental Institute Publications 106. Chicago. Niwiński, A. 1988. 21stDynastycoffinsfromThebes.Chronological and typological studies. Theben 5. Mainz am Rhein. Niwiński, A. 1995. LasecondetrouvailledeDeirel-Bahari (Sarcophages). Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire nos 6029–6068. Cairo. Petrik, M. (ed.). 2011. Múmiáktestközelben. Budapest. Raven, M. J. and W. K. Taconis. 2005. Egyptianmummies. Radiological atlas of the collections in the National MuseumofAntiquitiesatLeiden. Turnhout. Riggs, C. 2005. The beautiful burial in Roman Egypt. Art, identity,andfuneraryreligion. Oxford. Rosenow, D. 2008. The naos of ‘Bastet, Lady of the shrine’ from Bubastis. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 94, 247–66. Schreiber, G. 2006. Ptolemaic cartonnages from Thebes. In H. Győry (ed.), Aegyptus and Pannonia III. Acta Symposiianno2004. Budapest, 227–46. Schweitzer, A. 1998. L’évolution stylistique et iconographique des parures de cartonnage d’Akhmîm du début de l’époque ptolémaïque à l’époque romaine. Bulletin de l’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale 98, 325–52. Schweitzer, A. 2007. EntreÉgypteetAlsace:Lacollection égyptienne du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Colmar etlacollectionégyptiennedelaSociétéindustriellede Mulhouse. Colmar. Sheikholeslami, C. M. 2014. Sokar-Osiris and the goddesses: Some Twenty-fifth–Twenty-sixth Dynasty coffins from Thebes. In E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin (eds), ThebesinthefirstmillenniumBC. Newcastle upon Tyne, 453–82. Smith, M. 1994. Budge at Akhmim, January 1896. In C. Eyre, A. Leahy and L. M. Leahy (eds), Theunbroken

413

reed: Studies in the culture and heritage of Ancient EgyptinhonourofA.F.Shore. London, 292–303. Smith, M. 1997. Dating anthropoid mummy cases from Akhmim: The evidence of the Demotic inscriptions. In M. L. Bierbrier (ed.), Portraits and masks. London, 66–71. Smith, M. 2002. Aspects of the preservation and transmission of indigenous religious traditions in Akhmim and its environs during the Graeco-Roman Period. In A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs and J. van der Vliet (eds), PerspectivesonPanopolis.AnEgyptiantownfromAlexandertheGreattotheArabConquest.ActsfromanInternationalSymposiumheldinLeidenon16,17and18of December1998. Leiden; Boston; Cologne, 233–47. Taylor, J. H. 2001. Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: An overview. In W. V. Davies (ed.), Colour andpaintinginAncientEgypt. London, 164–81. Taylor, J. H. 2003. Theban coffins from the Twenty-second to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: dating and synthesis of development. In N. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor (eds), TheThebannecropolis:Past,presentandfuture. London, 95–121. Taylor, J. H. 2010. Egyptianmummies. London. Taylor, J. H. and N. C. Strudwick. 2005. Mummies. Death and the afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Treasures from the BritishMuseum. The Bowers Museum of Cultural Art, Santa Ana. Varga, E. 1987. Le cercueil d’un prêtre d’Isis dans une collection d’antiquités en Hongrie. II. Le cercueil de Hori et les restes d’une inhumation postérieure y découverts. BulletinduMuséeHongroisdesBeaux-Arts68–9, 7–40. Varga, E. 1993. Recherche généalogique. In L. Limme and J. Strybol (eds),AegyptusMuseisrediviva.Miscellanea in honorem Hermanni De Meulenaere. Brussels, 185– 96. Ziegelmeyer, G. 1985. MünchnerMumien. Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung 2. Munich.

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY. THE BURIAL EQUIPMENT FROM GAMHUD AT THE MUSEUM OF ETHNOLOGY IN BURGDORF (SWITZERLAND) Alexandra KÜFFER

Abstract The Museum of Ethnology in Burgdorf (Switzerland) owns a large wooden coffin — still containing its mummy — which was purchased at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1926. The first scientific research undertaken in 1998–2000 focused primarily on the coffin, its provenance and acquisition. The contents of the coffin were examined in 2013–14 to obtain a more detailed picture of the burial equipment and the deceased person. The following contribution provides a first comprehensive overview of this investigation and summarises the main results. According to the inventory book of the Burgdorf museum, the coffin originally came from Upper Egypt and belonged to a male high official of Dynasty 26. But a detailed study of its iconography and comparison with similar specimens strongly suggest that the original find spot must have been the Ptolemaic necropolis of Gamhud in northern Middle Egypt, which was excavated by Tadeusz Smolenski and Ahmed Bey Kamal in 1907. Severely looted, the contents of the coffin were in a very deteriorated state. However, by emptying it layer by layer, the mummy mask and several pieces of the set of cartonnage trappings were recovered. Furthermore, most of the skeletal parts were still inside the coffin and could be reassembled. The examination of the human remains indicates that the owner was a female more than forty years old at the time of her death. * * *

1

2

On the Egyptian collection in Burgdorf: Kordt 1940, 103–5; Küffer 2009; 2012. For a summary of the Swiss Coffin Project: Küffer 2011; www.e-coffins.ch

The Museum of Ethnology in Burgdorf, Switzerland, owns a small but fine Egyptian collection that was put together between 1922 and 1936 by the first curator Arnold Kordt (1880–1939).1 The most prominent item is a large wooden coffin — still enclosing its mummy — that was purchased at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1926 (inv. no. 7634; Fig. 1). Although it aroused considerable attention among visitors, the coffin went unnoticed by scholars for many years. The first scientific research focusing primarily on the coffin, its provenance and acquisition was undertaken in 1998–2000 and the coffin was later included in the Swiss Coffin Project.2 In 2013–14, a long-awaited detailed study of the coffin’s contents could finally be undertaken, resulting in some unexpected discoveries. The following contribution provides a first comprehensive overview of the investigations that have been carried out on the coffin and its mummy and summarises the main results. The acquisition history is presented and the provenance of the burial equipment discussed, with an outline of its decoration, inscriptions and iconographic features. Special emphasis is also placed on the latest research focusing on the contents of the coffin, especially the human remains and the mummy coverings. From Cairo to the ‘gateway to the Emmental’ The investigations on the coffin and mummy began with a request from the Burgdorf Museum of Ethnology for study of the Egyptian collection, especially in regard to the acquisition histories and provenance of the objects.3 According to the original handwritten inventory book of the museum, the coffin (with its

3

The team studying the coffin and its mummy in 1998–2000 consisted of: the author, scientific associate at the Burgdorf Museum of Ethnology; Frank J. Rühli and Thomas Böni, heads of the Swiss Mummy Project, and Claudia Geissmann, conservator at the Hochschule für Gestaltung und Kunst Basel.

416

A. KÜFFER

Fig. 1: The ‘belly’ coffin at the Burgdorf Museum of Ethnology after its conservation in 1999 (© pmimage.ch).

mummy) was bought at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, in 1926. Several documents in the Burgdorf archives mention its acquisition. In early 1926, the curator of the museum Arnold Kordt contacted a certain Max Jäger in Cairo and asked him to purchase an Egyptian coffin with a mummy and to send it to Switzerland. A few months later, Jäger wrote back that he had been able to buy the requested artefact for £114 at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and that the coffin with its mummy had left Alexandria on the ship Sphinx, bound for Marseilles, on 3 August 1926.5 Jäger also mentioned that the transportation costs from Egypt to France were twice the amount he had paid for the coffin itself. He added that even for that considerable sum the French haulage contractor A. Liggerie & Cie. had had

difficulties finding a crew willing to take a mummy on board its vessel.6 From Marseilles, the coffin was sent by train via Geneva to its final destination, Burgdorf, a small town close to the Swiss capital Berne, which is also called ‘the gateway to the Emmental’. Upon its arrival in Burgdorf, the coffin was opened, but to Kordt’s disappointment the mummy inside was too badly preserved to be displayed. Shortly thereafter, the coffin was exhibited (with its lid closed) together with the second Egyptian coffin in the Burgdorf collection.7 Both pieces soon ranked among the most popular exhibits in the Museum of Ethnology. Until 1998, the coffin bought in Cairo was described to visitors as coming from Upper Egypt and belonging to a male high official of Dynasty 26, according to the short entry

4

7

5

6

This corresponded to approximately 280 Swiss francs in 1926. Letter dated 7 August 1926, in the archives of the Museum of Ethnology in Burgdorf. The total costs for the purchase of the coffin, the export taxes and the transportation from Cairo to Alexandria and by ship to Marseilles amounted to £23.

The second coffin was found at Akhmim in 1895 and was bought by Kordt from the collector Arthur Speyer in Berlin in 1923. It contains the mummy of an anonymous six- to sevenyear-old child.

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

in the inventory book which was based on the information given by the Cairo Museum.8 However, detailed study of the coffin and comparison with similar specimens soon led to the conclusion that its original find spot must have been the Ptolemaic necropolis of Gamhud in northern Middle Egypt (Küffer 2000; 2007). The little-known necropolis of Gamhud The necropolis of Gamhud is located about 150km south of Cairo on the edge of the Libyan desert, opposite the site of el-Hiba. Gamhud was unknown to archaeologists until 1907 when local people discovered tombs there and started to rob them. With the authorisation of Gaston Maspero, the director of the Egyptian Antiquities Service, the Austro-Hungarian expedition that had been digging at nearby Sharuna started excavating in Gamhud at the beginning of March 1907. Within three weeks, the expedition, funded by Hungarian entrepreneur Philip Back and led by Polish Egyptologist Tadeusz Smolenski, discovered forty-seven coffins. Owing to his deteriorating health, Smolenski was forced to give up his work at Gamhud and Ahmed Bey Kamal, the first Egyptian scholar of Egyptology, took over, finding another twenty-three coffins in just one week.9 Kamal (1908, 8–10) published a report on the Gamhud excavation with a short description of the necropolis: the burial ground, which according to him had already been looted in antiquity, was located on a small earth mound forming a crescent of 480m by 120m. The coffins were discovered in tomb shafts at both ends of the necropolis. In the middle part of the cemetery were poorer burials containing mummified bodies buried in the sand as well as pieces of cartonnage. In his report, Kamal describes twenty-one coffins that he found and three coffins discovered by Smolenski (Kamal 1908, 12–26). Although his comments

8

9

10

The entry reads: ‘Altägyptische Mumie aus Oberägypten eines hohen Beamten, mit Holzsarkophag (bemalt). Zeit: ca. 600 v.Chr. Ankauf: Ägyptisches Museum in Kairo, 1926’. The finds also included seventy wooden coffin faces, twenty cartonnage masks, eleven small naos-shaped boxes, four wooden statuettes of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris and several smaller objects. On the Gamhud excavations, see Kamal 1908; Szymanska 2001; Györy 2007. Kamal dated the Gamhud necropolis to the Ptolemaic Period. A more precise chronology has yet to be worked out in detail: Kothay 2012, 250, n. 1; Schreiber 2012, 257–8.

417

are very brief and mention only the representations on the lids, they show that the decoration largely follows a standardised pattern characteristic of the Ptolemaic Period.10 The material discovered in the necropolis of Gamhud was taken to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The finds made by Kamal remained there, while those of Smolenski were divided between the Cairo Museum and Philip Back, who had financed the excavation. Back donated the objects which he received to three museums in Budapest, Vienna and Cracow, cities that belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire (Kamal 1908, 25–6; Szymanska 2001, 29–30; Györy 2007, 908; Kothay 2012, 235–6). Today twenty-five complete coffins from Gamhud are preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts Budapest (Györy 1998; 2004; 2007; Kothay 2010; 2012), five are in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna11 and four in the Archaeological Museum in Cracow (Babraj and Szymanska 1997; 2000, 104–13; Szymanska and Babraj 2001). These coffins have recently been studied by eastern European scholars and their publications have proved extremely helpful in assigning the Burgdorf coffin to the necropolis of Gamhud.12 In the following, a description of the Burgdorf item is given, with special consideration of the stylistic characteristics found on Gamhud coffins. Standard scenes complemented with local motifs The Burgdorf coffin belongs to the category of ‘belly’ or ‘swollen’ coffins, which form one of two main coffin types attested for Gamhud.13 It displays an anthropoid shape with an ‘oversized’ middle part, a pedestal and a slightly protruding dorsal pillar. The coffin is made of sycomore wood. It was carved out of a single tree trunk and cut into two pieces to form

11

12

13

The Vienna coffins are unpublished. For the mummy trappings, see Haslauer 2013. The detailed publication of the coffin and mummy of Aset-irikhet-es (Szymanska and Babraj 2001) and the article on the coffin and mummy trappings of Tasenet (Schreiber 2012) serve as the main bases for comparison in the present contribution. The other coffin type is the ‘rhomboid’ or angular type (Niwiński 1984, 455–9).

418

A. KÜFFER

Fig. 2: The lid of the Burgdorf coffin with its oversized middle part (© pmimage.ch).

the lid and case. These were then hollowed out to accommodate the mummy. To achieve the ideal coffin shape and to smooth out irregularities, several separate pieces of wood were added to the sides, the pedestal and the back. Sycomore wood from the native fig tree (Ficussycomorus) was widely used by the ancient Egyptians in coffin production, especially when large planks were

needed (Cartwright 2016, 78–9). Sycomore fig is a medium-quality wood that can be prone to insect infestation, but it was popular because it is light in weight and easy to carve, and certainly represented a good choice when manufacturing voluminous coffins such as those found at Gamhud. Measuring 210cm in length and 70cm at the widest point, the Burgdorf specimen is of massive construction, to which the thickness of lid and case (varying between 14–24cm) also contributes. It was this impressive appearance that provided the first hint that the coffin might have come from the necropolis of Gamhud. The coffin is decorated only on the exterior, as is common for Gamhud pieces (Fig. 2). The surfaces are covered with a gesso coating and painted with polychrome colours on a pinkish background. The head is surrounded by a voluminous tripartite blue wig, framed by a thin red border. The face and ears are gilded. Special attention was given to the wideopen eyes as well as to the mouth and nostrils, both painted in dark red. Below the flesh-coloured throat, there is a neckband running between the lower ends of the wig lappets and merging into a broad collar which covers the chest and ends in falcons’ heads, each wearing a pale yellow sun disc. The collar consists of fifteen semi-circular rows, displaying four alternating patterns that seem to be characteristic of Gamhud coffins (Fig. 3): a wedge-shaped lotus pattern; a square pattern with small squares containing either two white dots on a red background or a horizontal white line on a blue background; a vertical zigzag pattern; and a pattern consisting of white and yellow discs on a black or red painted stripe (Györy 2004, 9–18). The collar ends with a row of dropshaped motifs. The occurrence of these four specific patterns on the collar — especially the disc and zigzag patterns, which ‘seem to be almost compulsory for the Gamhud coffins’ (Györy 2004, 11) — was another clue pointing towards Gamhud as the original find spot of the Burgdorf coffin. Below the collar is a depiction of the kneeling goddess Nut. The sky goddess extending her winged arms over the coffin lid in a gesture of protection is a prominent figure on coffins from the New Kingdom to the Ptolemaic Period. Unfortunately, the scene is heavily damaged and only two of the original four short lines of text above the wings are still visible, displaying the epithets ‘the great one, the god’s mother’ as well as the deceased’s wish that the goddess may grant a beautiful burial.

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

Fig. 3: Detail of the collar on the lid featuring patterns typical of the necropolis of Gamhud (© pmimage.ch).

Fig. 4: The main scene on the coffin lid, showing the mummy lying on a bier (© pmimage.ch).

419

420

A. KÜFFER

The following scene is set within a rectangle framed by a decorative band consisting of squares coloured blue and red, besides others with black and white stripes. It is painted on a white background and shows the mummy on a lion-headed bed with the four canopic jars underneath (Fig. 4). The artist placed a special emphasis on the lion’s head, legs and paws, which are carefully drawn to emphasise the strength and power of the large feline protecting the mummy. The scene is derived from the vignette of chapter 151 of the Book of the Dead. Analogous illustrations on Gamhud coffins sometimes show a slightly more elaborate version with Anubis standing beside the mummy and the two weeping goddesses Isis and Nephthys at either end of the bed.14 Below the embalming scene, three columns of inscription run vertically to the upper part of the pedestal.15 The two outer columns mention the four Sons of Horus introduced by the formula ‘Words spoken by’, while the middle one renders the offering formula followed by the name and epithets of Osiris and the wish for an offering consisting of bread and beer. It seems that the hieroglyphs were written quite carelessly and were given less attention than the figural scenes. In a recent study on Gamhud coffins, several distinct drawing and inscriptional styles have been defined, allowing the identification of the ‘hands’ of specific artists.16 The inscriptions on the Burgdorf coffin can thus be attributed to the same hand as those of two coffins in Budapest whose origin from Gamhud is undisputed. This observation provides yet more evidence that the Burgdorf coffin indeed originates from Gamhud. Between the lines of inscription, two decorative bands contain a pattern that seems to have been very popular at Gamhud and features on many coffins. It consists of red discs with white edges painted on black stripes and is a variation of the disc pattern seen on the collars. On other Gamhud coffins, the main

inscription on the lid is framed by the figures of the Sons of Horus and the sides are occupied by symmetrically placed panels depicting several deities.17 Both are omitted on this coffin, the decoration of which seems to have been reduced to the most essential themes and motifs placed in the centre of the lid.

14

18

15

16 17

As seen, for instance, on the coffin lid of Tasenet (Schreiber 2012, pl. 53, 1 and 3). The hieroglyphs are all facing to the right (from the spectator’s perspective). Budapest coffins 51.1990 and 51.1994 (Kothay 2012, 244). As seen, for instance, on the coffin lid of Tasenet (Schreiber 2012, pl. 54, 1).

The female owner mentioned on the coffin pedestal? Painted on a white background, the image on the front part of the pedestal, like the embalming scene, has been given special emphasis (Fig. 5). On the pedestal, the figures represent two Anubis-jackals lying on shrines facing each other and surrounded by a decorative band. Each wears a collar around its neck and supports a flail on its back. Both animals are pictured in an elegant and highly alert posture. A short line of inscription runs between them, starting with the formula ‘Words spoken by Osiris’ which is followed by two signs: the first one representing (possibly) the emblem of the goddess Neith18 and the second one the walking legs19 standing for the verb ‘to come’. Both signs combined can be translated as ‘(The goddess) Neith has come’ and could — tentatively — be interpreted as the name of the deceased. The determinative and the term ‘justified’ usually following the name of a dead person are omitted here. This peculiarity, as well as the use of the ‘Words spoken by Osiris’-formula before the deceased’s name, also occurs in the writing of personal names on other Gamhud coffins.20 Generally speaking, personal names on Gamhud coffins pose problems of interpretation. They are rarely included and, where they are present, many of them are damaged or even illegible (Kamal 1908, 13; Kothay 2010, 27). Even when intact, they are often not easy to identify since orthographic variants can appear on the same coffin.21 The name of the deceased person is usually placed above the wings of the goddess Nut, above the

19 20

21

Two bows tied in a package: R 24 in the sign-list of Alan Gardiner. D 54 in Gardiner’s sign-list. As can be seen, for instance, on the coffins of Aset-iri-khet-es (Niwiński 2001, 34–6) and Tasenet (Schreiber 2012, 258). As seen, for instance, on the coffin lid of Aset-iri-khet-es (Niwiński 2001, 34) and that of Tasenet (Schreiber 2012, 258).

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

421

Fig. 5: Front part of the pedestal with short inscription mentioning the presumed name of the deceased (© pmimage.ch).

mummy on the lion-headed bier, or is included in the longer vertical inscription. The location of the name on the front part of the pedestal (which is left undecorated on many coffins) seems rather unusual. As to Neith, the goddess appears in personal names from the Early Dynastic period onwards and was especially popular during Dynasty 26 when Sais, the cult centre of Neith, became the capital of Egypt.22 A slightly different version of ‘Neith has come’ is attested as a female personal name in the Late Period.23 Unfortunately, however, it is not attested on any Gamhud pieces so far.24 Nevertheless, the mention of Neith in a personal name on material from Gamhud could be related to the

importance of the goddess in the nearby Fayum, where she was venerated as a creator deity and mother of the crocodile-god Sobek. Neith also plays a prominent role in the Book of the Fayum, which was composed in Ptolemaic times and contains a section entirely dedicated to a place called ‘Acacia of Neith’ (Beinlich 2014, 70–1). Under the Ptolemaic rulers this fertile depression was a flourishing agricultural centre with a multi-ethnic population (Monson 2014). It can be assumed that arts and crafts as well as ideas and religious perceptions from the Fayum also had an influence on neighbouring regions such as Gamhud (Monson 2014).

22

24

23

For the use of Neith in personal names in the Late Period, see Ranke 1935, I, 181–2. Ranke 1935, I, 181 (25), where the name is written with the verb jj instead of jwj, both with the meaning ‘to come’.

I would like to thank Katalin Kothay, Museum of Fine Arts Budapest, for this information.

422

A. KÜFFER

Isis/Hathor in a dress decorated in the local Gamhud style Like the lid, the Burgdorf coffin case is decorated only on the exterior. The sides are painted in the same pinkish hue used on the lid, whereas the dorsal pillar displays two figural scenes on a white background. The main scene carries a representation of a standing goddess on a standard wearing a long tight dress without shoulder straps that exposes her breast (Fig. 6), which the painter has emphasised in a distinctive manner, also attested on the coffin of Aset-iri-khet-es (Szymanska and Babraj 2001, photos 1 and 7). The goddess is adorned with a necklace and a bracelet as well as a headband. Her figure is carefully outlined in black with special attention given to the face, fingers and toes. Her hands and arms are painted in red as if she was wearing a pair of gloves reaching above the elbows and seemingly attached to her dress. The dress itself features a horizontal zigzag pattern, a variation of the vertical zigzag pattern seen on the collar. This is yet another favourite design used widely by the local artisans of Gamhud.25 There is no inscription accompanying the goddess but her headdress identifies her as Isis/Hathor, the mother goddess in her funerary aspect protecting the deceased and ensuring his or her wellbeing in the netherworld. The scene above the goddess is applied on the rear part of the wig and shows the sun god depicted as a falcon floating in the air and spreading his wings around the mummy’s head. As the guarantor of eternal life and symbol of endless rebirth, the sun god stands for the rising sun emerging from the realm of the underworld, represented by the goddess Isis/Hathor below.26 Summarising the above, it can be said that the distinctive shape of the Burgdorf coffin, the figural scenes and inscriptions, as well as its iconography and decorative motifs (such as the disc and zigzag patterns) Fig. 6: The exterior of the coffin case, showing the goddess Isis/Hathor and the sun god above (© pmimage.ch).

25

26

According to Kothay (2012, 236), this pattern is not attested outside Gamhud. However, it seems to occur on material from Abusir el-Meleq, though less often; see Györy 2004, 17. The reading of the short inscription next to the falcon’s head is uncertain, possibly: ‘… Osiris, may he give clothing (?)’

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

strongly suggest that it can be assigned to the Ptolemaic necropolis of Gamhud, which was excavated by Smolenski and Kamal in 1907. The burial equipment might have belonged to a female person.

423

During the first inspection of the Burgdorf coffin shortly after its arrival in Switzerland, the lid was removed to determine the condition of the mummy. It was then decided that the mummy could not be exhibited due to its poor state of preservation (Kordt 1940, 103–4). Apparently, the mummy was not inspected more closely at that time, but the reopening of the coffin in 1998 confirmed Kordt’s observations. The burial had been severely looted, probably already in antiquity. Beneath an upper layer of bandages could be seen a mixture of scattered bones, pieces of linen and fragments of the mummy coverings. The head of the deceased person was lying separated from the body at the upper end of the coffin case. The only larger fragment of the mummy trappings still in place was the foot cover, decorated with a depiction of the deceased’s bare feet. The contents of the Burgdorf coffin had a very similar appearance to that of one of the Budapest coffins, as seen on pictures taken during the removal of their contents in 1936–7, showing that many of the artefacts from Gamhud had been plundered and that most of the mummies were in a sorry state.27 In view of the poor condition of the mummy, it was decided that at the first stage of investigation only the mummy’s head would be removed for X-ray examination, as well as two samples of wood and bandages to be used for radiocarbon dating. The contents of the coffin were otherwise left untouched. The conventional X-rays of the head yielded some preliminary insights about the deceased person and the mummification, which can be summarised as follows. There is damage to the nasal area due to the extraction of the brain during mummification. Resinous substances are visible inside the skull. There are no signs of pathological changes or injuries on the skull. An anthropological examination at that time suggested

that the remains were those of a female individual who was between twenty-five and forty years old at the time of her death (Rühli 2000; Böni and Rühli 2007), but see below. The radiocarbon dating of the wood and linen samples provided the following results:28 the calibrated age of the wood from the coffin is 345 BC – AD 4 (97.1% probability), which roughly corresponds to the dating of the coffin to the Ptolemaic Period based on its style and iconography. The piece of linen which was taken from the top layer of bandages dates to 671–628 BC (30.4 % probability) or 565–395 BC (67.4% probability), indicating that the bandages used for mummification are older than the wood used for the coffin. This could mean that either the body was wrapped in older linen or that the mummy and its bandages do not belong together with the coffin. In 1998, the board of the Museum of Ethnology Burgdorf also decided to apply for funds to improve the appearance of the coffin. Since its arrival in Switzerland, the coffin had always been exhibited without a display-case and its outer appearance had suffered not only from deposits of dust and dirt but also from visitors touching its surface and even leaving pencil marks on it. The coffin underwent much-needed conservation (funded by a grant from the Swiss Lottery Fund), focusing essentially on cleaning the surface and stabilising the colours (Geissmann 2000). During the conservation work, it became apparent that some earlier restoration had been carried out, in which the outer sides of the lid and case had been rather crudely overpainted in pink and black (at the upper end) and a brownish clay-paste had been generously applied to fill the many cracks in the wood. This intervention took place in 1927,29 probably at the same time that the coffin was opened to examine the mummy. In the course of the 1998–2000 conservation, the colours used on the coffin were analysed and identified as copper-based minerals for the blue and green colours and iron oxide minerals for the red and yellow colours. For the black colour carbon-based soot was used. The pinkish background hue was made by mixing red iron oxide with a clay mineral, possibly kaolin.30

27

29

Further results of the first investigation

28

I would like to thank Katalin Kothay for providing the photographs. The radiocarbon dating was performed by Georges Bonani at the ETH Zürich Institute for Particle Physics.

30

The date is indicated by a piece of a local Swiss newspaper found in one of the cracks. Geissmann 2000, 119. For the conservation of the Gamhud coffin of Aset-iri-khet-es, see Paciorek 2001.

424

A. KÜFFER

The initial investigation of the coffin undertaken in 1998–2000 led to some interesting results, especially concerning the information on the coffin’s provenance provided by the Cairo Museum at the sale in 1926, which turned out to be inaccurate: the coffin does not come from Upper Egypt and nor did it belong to a male high official of Dynasty 26. Instead, the piece can be assigned to the Ptolemaic necropolis of Gamhud, a dating which is supported by the results of the radiocarbon testing of the coffin wood. Furthermore, the presumed name of the deceased person on the coffin pedestal, as well as the examination of the mummy’s skull, indicate that the owner was a female. One might speculate on whether the information given by the Cairo Museum might have served to make the item more attractive for sale. While this preliminary investigation established an important part of the biography of the coffin with regard to provenance and acquisition, many questions remained unanswered, especially concerning the true identity of the deceased person and the exact contents of the coffin. It was agreed that further research should be carried out, focusing on the human remains and the mummy trappings. Excavations in a coffin In 2013, the investigation of the Burgdorf coffin was resumed. By then, the artefact had travelled to the St Gallen History and Ethnology Museum on a longterm loan and was waiting to be installed in the museum’s newly refurbished ethnographic gallery. This proved to be the perfect opportunity to examine its contents in detail (Fig. 7). The aim was to recover as many data as possible that would help to complete the results of the first study, and it was hoped that a more detailed picture of the deceased person and her burial equipment would be obtained. The first issue was to determine whether beneath the topmost layers of bandages some parts of the body were still sufficiently intact to be removed for CT scanning. By slightly lifting the upper wrappings, it became immediately clear that the material underneath was in a very deteriorated state, consisting of a loose mixture of torn bandages, pieces of resinous substance, mud, wood particles and fragments of mummy trappings as well as human bones and bone fragments. In view of this, it was decided to empty the coffin layer by layer,

Fig. 7: Interior of the coffin, showing the looted burial (© pmimage.ch).

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

425

examining the finds in situ by visual investigation.31 Only the skull underwent CT scanning. The space that was emptied inside the coffin measures 1.74cm in length, 23–45cm in width and 10–12cm in depth. The process took two and a half days and every step was documented photographically. In the following paragraphs, the most important finds and observations are briefly described. As a first step, the wrappings lying on top were removed. They consisted of three to four layers of thickly woven strips of linen. The broader bandages (11–15cm wide) were arranged vertically, with the narrow ones (4–5cm) crossing them horizontally. These bandages showed only slight traces of resinous substance and must have belonged to the outermost wrappings enveloping the mummy.32 All of them had been torn apart, most likely by tomb robbers in antiquity. The longest piece of linen found measured 91cm. The outermost wrappings appeared almost to have been placed there on purpose to hide the looted burial underneath (perhaps when the coffin was prepared for sale at the Cairo Museum?), an impression which is reinforced by the fact that they were not connected to any bandages below. In the second stage of the investigation, the foot cover lying at the bottom end of the coffin was removed (Fig. 8). It is the only element of the multi-piece cartonnage set that was still in its original place and remained partly intact. The cover consists of four layers of thickly woven linen which was plastered and painted.33 The upper left corner was found still attached to the wrapping below. The top of the foot covering features carefully painted bare feet with delicate toes on a yellow background. The two feet are divided by three stripes decorated with the disc pattern. The bottom of the foot cover once featured sandal soles with a chequered pattern but these are almost totally lost today.34 The layer beneath the outermost bandages and the foot cover consisted mainly of hard ‘chunks’ of resinous material, some mixed with linen bandages (Fig. 9).

The largest were found in the chest area. Between these solid pieces, there were linen patches consisting of very fine, almost totally disintegrated fabric. Obviously, large quantities of resin had been poured into the thoracic and abdominal cavities which were also filled

31

32

The team in 2013–14 consisted of Sandra Lösch, head of the Department of Physical Anthropology at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Berne; the author, curator for Ancient Egypt at the History and Ethnology Museum of St. Gallen; Maja Schwarzenbach and Peter Ekel, pmimage Photography; as well as Sabina Carraro and Michael Peterer, conservators at the History and Ethnology Museum of St. Gallen.

Fig. 8: The foot covering after its removal from the coffin (© pmimage.ch).

33

34

For the wrappings of the mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es from Gamhud, see Tempczyk 2001. The foot cover of the Burgdorf coffin was part of the cartonnage set and is therefore not a linen shroud as was proposed by Kothay 2012, 254, n. 89. The foot cover closely resembles that of Tasenet (Schreiber 2012, pl. 56, 1 and 3).

426

A. KÜFFER

Fig. 9: Pieces of resinous material in the chest area of the coffin, viewed from the head end (© pmimage.ch).

Fig. 10: Mixture of debris occupying the interior of the coffin, viewed from the head end (© pmimage.ch).

up with resin-soaked linen. Abundant use of resin, a widely attested feature of Egyptian mummification serving to enhance preservation, can also be observed on other Gamhud mummies.35 Once the hard resinous pieces had been removed, a mixture 5–8cm in depth, consisting mainly of mud, bones, small resin-soaked linen pieces and numerous fragments of cartonnage, remained on the floor of the coffin (Fig. 10). Luckily, two unexpected and welcome finds were soon made. An elongated bundle of linen, squeezed tightly into the left side36 of the coffin at

shoulder height, turned out to be the mummy mask (Fig. 11a–b). It had been hastily pushed aside by the ancient tomb robbers in search of more valuable items. The mask has a gilded face surrounded by a blue wig; eyes, mouth and nostrils are painted. It is very similar to the face on the coffin lid. Unfortunately, its condition is very poor and fragile. The colours and the gilding are brittle, falling off at the slightest movement. The second find was a large cartonnage fragment, discovered almost at the bottom of the coffin floor, representing a collar joined to an openwork figure of the sky

35

36

For instance on the mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es (Tempczyk 2001, 53–4).

From the spectator’s perspective.

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

Fig. 11a: The bundle of linen found squeezed into the coffin shoulder (© pmimage.ch).

Fig. 11b: The bundle unfolded, revealed as a mummy mask (© pmimage.ch).

427

428

A. KÜFFER

Fig. 12a: The largest piece of cartonnage, found inside the coffin, with the painted surface facing down, viewed from the head end (© pmimage.ch).

goddess (Fig. 12a–b). It was surrounded by numerous tiny pieces of cartonnage which could be reattached, almost like a puzzle, allowing the collar and winged goddess to be at least partly reassembled (Fig. 12c). Like the foot cover, the collar and the goddess are carefully painted, with yellow, red and light blue being the predominant colours.37 Traces of gilding are visible on the falcon’s head, on the collar and on the goddess’s face. Whereas the collar on the coffin lid features mostly geometrical patterns, the cartonnage element is decorated entirely with floral motifs: the papyrus pattern with a papyrus flower and a bud alternating; the rosette pattern with a rosette made up of eight petals joined to a central disc; and the wedge-shaped lotus pattern (which also appears on the lid). Like the geometrical patterns on the coffin collar, these floral motifs also frequently occur on other material from Gamhud (Györy 2004, 13–5). In the leg area of the coffin case, a fragment of an apron painted in blue and framed by

a red band was also found. Unfortunately though, no inscriptions were found either on the mummy trappings or on the wrappings which could have confirmed the presumed name of the deceased person. In addition to the items mentioned above, the coffin also contained numerous fragments of grass culms and leaves. Since these show no traces of resin they were probably not placed between the bandages deliberately, but entered the coffin during the plundering.38 Once the entire contents of the coffin had been removed, deposits of resinous material could be seen on the coffin floor (Fig. 13). They were especially thick where the head and the shoulders of the mummy had once lain. Interestingly, at least ten beetles (and possibly more larvae) were found adhering to the resin.39 This implies that the insects became trapped in the liquid resin before it solidified, which must have been during or immediately after the resin was applied to the mummy, or when the mummy was placed inside the coffin.

37

38

For the cartonnage set of Aset-iri-khet-es, see AleksiejewWantuch 2001; Trabska and Trybalska 2001.

39

Plant remains were also found in the coffin of Aset-iri-khet-es, see Litynska-Zajac 2001. The exact insect species has not yet been identified.

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

429

Insect remains are often found in mummies, suggesting that in the hot climate of Egypt the dead bodies were attacked quickly by (carnivorous) beetles if the mummification was not performed in due time.40 The presence of insects inside the coffin suggests that either the mummy’s head or the coffin wood was infested and that this might have been a reason for the extensive use of resin. The reassembled skeleton of the female coffin owner Considering the poor state of preservation of the body, it was not expected that much information about the deceased person would be recovered. It came as a surprise, therefore, that most of the skeletal parts were still inside the coffin and could be reassembled almost entirely (Fig. 14).41 All the body parts found belonged to one individual. The pelvic bones confirm that the deceased was female. The deterioration of the spine

Fig. 12b: The cartonnage fragment after its removal from the coffin, comprising a collar joined to a figure of the kneeling goddess Nut (© pmimage.ch).

40

41

Taylor 1995, 78–9, 95–6. Insects were also found on the mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es, see Gerisch 2001. Bone samples were taken for a radiocarbon dating, but the collagen was too deteriorated to obtain useful results.

Fig. 12c: The same fragment augmented with other pieces found inside the coffin (© pmimage.ch).

A. KÜFFER

430

Fig. 13: The empty coffin, showing the deposits of resinous material on the floor (© pmimage.ch).

Fig. 14: The bones, forming the almost complete skeleton of a female individual (© pmimage.ch).

and of some arm and leg joints points to a woman older than forty at the time of her death.42 Based on the length of the femur, the overall height of the deceased person can be estimated at about 158–160cm. Even the position of the arms could be re-established: they were

crossed on the front of the upper body.43 It is also worth mentioning that the upper and lower jaws as well as a gilded fingertip were found.44 The CT scanning and the morpho-anthropological examination of the skull performed in 2013 essentially

42

43

Thus differing from the first examination which suggested an age of 25–40. The arms of the mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es were positioned along the body with the palms placed on the pubic area (Tempczyk 2001, 54). As far as the author is aware, these two

44

mummies are the only ones from Gamhud whose arm position is known so far. Gilded fingertips are also attested on a Gamhud mummy now in Vienna (Haslauer 2013, 125) and on the mummy of Aset-irikhet-es (Tempczyk 2001, 54, 57, photo. 1).

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

431

mummy mask, as well as the gilded fingertip, indicate that the burial equipment belonged to a lady of relatively high status at Gamhud. In his report on the Gamhud excavations in 1907, Kamal includes some very brief general comments on the mummy trappings inside the coffins, suggesting that they were opened but not examined in depth (Kamal 1908, 26–7). With regard to the Burgdorf item, it can be assumed that it was (re)opened before the sale in 1926, especially if the customer who purchased it was also interested in the mummy. Although the upper bandages might have been rearranged to make the interior look more attractive, the finds made during the clearance of the coffin indicate that its contents were otherwise left untouched.

confirmed the preliminary observations made in 1998 (obtained by conventional X-ray) and allowed some more precise statements:45 the head was shaved and covered with several layers of textile remnants soaked in a resinous substance. Because of these sticky fabric remains, the determination of age and sex was relatively difficult. Nevertheless, the delicate temporal bone, the steep forehead and the superciliary arch suggest that the individual is female and the skull sutures indicate that the woman died probably between the ages of forty and fifty. The CT scan revealed resinous substances (‘Mumienspiegel’) and brain remnants inside the skull (Lösch et al. 2013, 16–17). The results of the investigation of the coffin’s contents can be summarised as follows. The mummy in the Burgdorf coffin had been covered with a carefully decorated cartonnage set which was damaged during the plundering of the burial in antiquity. The mummy mask, the collar joined to an openwork figure of the winged goddess, the fragment of an apron and the foot cover were at least partly recovered. Their decoration closely resembles that of the set of Tasenet (Schreiber 2012, 260, pl. 56, 1 and 3). No inscribed material was found inside the coffin, so that the suggested name of the deceased person ‘Neith has come’ cannot be confirmed with certainty. Two types of wrappings could be distinguished. The bandages lying on top were densely woven and had barely any traces of resin. They were well preserved, though all had been torn apart. The bandages beneath consisted of finer fabric, were all resin-coated and in a much deteriorated state. Considering that the top bandages were not connected to the ones below and consisted of older linen (according to the radiocarbon dating), they might not have belonged to the original burial. It is also possible that they once formed part of the outermost wrappings enveloping the mummy and that older linen was used for the bandaging. Since the original burial was severely looted, no statements can be made concerning the wrapping techniques and the mummification procedure. Evidently, a large amount of resin was used, especially in the chest area. The impressive coffin, the carefully drawn figures and motifs on the coffin as well as on the cartonnage set, the gilding applied to the faces on the coffin lid and

As mentioned above, the material discovered in the necropolis of Gamhud was divided after its arrival in Cairo. Whereas the finds made by Kamal remained at the Egyptian Museum, those of Smolenski were split between the Cairo Museum and the museums of Budapest, Vienna and Cracow. In the following years, several other coffins from Gamhud also made their way to foreign museums: today three coffins are housed in the Naprstek Museum in Prague (Verner 1982, 281–99; Onderka 2010); one is in the National History Museum of Transylvania in Cluj-Napoca, Romania (Boros 2000–1); one is in the Franz Binder Museum of Universal Ethnography in Sibiu, Romania; and another in the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History in New Haven,46 as well as the coffin discussed here belonging to the Burgdorf Museum of Ethnology in Switzerland. At least two further coffins located in the Forum der Völker in Werl, Germany, and in the Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam supposedly come from Gamhud, but their origin is still debated.47 Thus the number of Gamhud coffins in foreign museums today amounts to approximately forty-three specimens; the rest, comprising about twenty-seven coffins, are supposed to have remained in Cairo, but at present only six coffins originating from Gamhud have

45

46

The examinations were carried out by Christian Jackowski, Department of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, as well as Sandra Lösch and Domenic Rüttimann, Department of Physical Anthropology, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Berne.

Locating and identifying ‘lost’ Gamhud coffins

47

Unpublished. Mentioned in Kothay 2012, 236. Kothay 2012, 236. Several fragments of coffins as well as mummy trappings were identified by Kothay as originating from Gamhud, see Kothay 2012, 236.

432

A. KÜFFER

been identified in the Egyptian Museum there (Györy 2007, 915–7; Kothay 2012, 235, n. 15). Even if the Burgdorf coffin is the only one so far whose sale at the Cairo Museum is documented, it can be assumed that others shared the same fate and were eventually sold, with the same inaccurate information about their original find spot as accompanied the Burgdorf coffin. The whereabouts of these coffins are difficult to trace, especially if — like the Burgdorf item — they belonged to the coffins found by Smolenski, which were not described by Kamal in his report48 and whose entry into the Cairo Museum was obviously not recorded (Györy 2007, 916). Identifying and locating the ‘missing’ coffins from Gamhud is a highly desirable task. Due to increased irrigation and the rising groundwater level, the necropolis itself is lost to further research. It is, therefore, only by studying and investigating the coffin ensembles from Gamhud that a wider knowledge and understanding of the burial customs of this — still little-known — northern Middle Egyptian community can be obtained.

Bibliography Aleksiejew-Wantuch, B. 2001. Conservation of a cartonnage piece of the mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy: Results of interdisciplinary examination of the Egyptian mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es from the Archaeological Museum in Cracow. Cracow, 189–99. Babraj, K. and H. Szymanska. 1997. Eine Mumie unter dem Mikroskop. AntikeWelt 28/5, 369–74. Babraj, K. and H. Szymanska. 2000. The gods of ancient Egypt. Cracow. Beinlich, H. 2014. Das Buch vom Fayum. In H. Beinlich, R. Schulz and A. Wieczorek (eds), DieEntstehungder Welt–SchöpfungsmythenausdemaltenÄgyptennach demBuchvomFayum. Dettelbach, 27–77. Böni, T. and F. Rühli. 2007. Mumifizierungsbedingte Schädeldefekte. In A. Küffer and R. Siegmann, Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin – Ägyptische Särge, MumienundMaskeninderSchweiz. Zürich, 183. Boros, D. 2000–1. Technical data concerning the mummy and its accessories in the collections of the National

48

Kamal briefly describes twenty-one of the twenty-three coffins he found (omitting two due to their poor condition), but mentions only three discovered by Smolenski: Kamal 1908, 13–25.

History Museum of Transylvania in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). ActaMuseiNapocensis37–38, 373–5. Cartwright C. R. 2016. Wood in ancient Egypt: Choosing wood for coffins. In H. Strudwick and J. Dawson (eds), DeathontheNile:Uncoveringtheafterlifeofancient Egypt. Cambridge, 78–9. Geissmann, C. 2000. Herstellung, Konservierung und Restaurierung des altägyptischen Mumiensarges. BurgdorferJahrbuch2000, 119–22. Gerisch, B. 2001. Archäoentomologische Untersuchungen an Mumien, Grabbeigaben und Gräbern des Alten Ägypten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mumie Aset-irikhet-es. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy: ResultsofinterdisciplinaryexaminationoftheEgyptian mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es from the Archaeological MuseuminCracow. Cracow, 131–66. Györy, H. 1998. Antiquities from Gamhud. KMT:AModern JournalofAncientEgypt9/1, 27–30. Györy, H. 2004. On the collars of the Gamhud coffins. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 101, 7–30. Györy, H. 2007. The story of the Gamhud excavations. In J.-C. Goyon and Ch. Cardin (eds), Proceedings of the NinthInternationalCongressofEgyptologists. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150. Leuven, I, 907–17. Haslauer, E. 2013. Teilkartonagen an Mumien aus Gamhud in der Ägyptischen Sammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums, Wien. In J. Budka, R. Gundacker and G. Pieke, FlorilegiumAegyptiacum–EinewissenschaftlicheBlütenlesevonSchülernundFreundenfürHelmut Satzinger zum 75. Geburtstag am 21. Jänner 2013. Göttinger Miszellen Beiheft 14. Göttingen, 125–44. Kamal, A. 1908. Fouilles à Gamhoud. Annales du service desantiquitésdel’Égypte9, 8–30. Kordt, A. 1940. Die Sammlung für Völkerkunde in Burgdorf. BurgdorferJahrbuch1940, 100–9. Kothay, K. A. 2010. Searching for the mummy-trappings of the Gamhud coffins. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois desBeaux-Arts112–113, 25–49. Kothay, K. A. 2012. The Gamhud artisans. In K. A. Kothay (ed.), Artandsociety:Ancientandmoderncontextsof Egyptianart. Budapest, 235–56. Küffer, A. 2000. Das Sarg- und Mumienprojekt – Untersuchungen zum Hauptobjekt der ägyptischen Sammlung. BurgdorferJahrbuch2000, 109–15. Küffer, A. 2007. Aus dem Museumsshop von Kairo. In A. Küffer and R. Siegmann, Unter dem Schutz der Himmelsgöttin–ÄgyptischeSärge,MumienundMasken inderSchweiz. Zürich, 176–82.

TRACING THE HISTORY OF A COFFIN AND ITS MUMMY

Küffer, A. 2009. Vom Nil- ins Emmental. In M. Pretto, A. Küffer and C. Rütsche, Mumien–ÄgyptischeGrabschätzeausSchweizerSammlungen. Zürich, 3–6. Küffer, A. 2011. The Swiss Coffin Project: Rediscovering forgotten treasures in Swiss museums. KMT–AModernJournalofAncientEgypt22/3, 18–34. Küffer, A. 2012. Klein, aber fein – Die altägyptische Sammlung des Museums für Völkerkunde Burgdorf. Internet publication: www.e-coffins.ch Litynska-Zajac, M. 2001. Macroscopic plant remains from the sarcophagus. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy:Resultsofinterdisciplinaryexaminationofthe EgyptianmummyofAset-iri-khet-esfromtheArchaeologicalMuseuminCracow. Cracow, 127–30. Lösch, S., D. Rüttimann, C. Jackowski and A. Küffer. 2013. Investigations on an Egyptian coffin and mummified head from Burgdorf Museum, Switzerland: A case of a historical puzzle. Bulletin der Schweizerischen GesellschaftfürAnthropologie19/1, 15–21. Monson, A. 2014. Griechen in Ägypten: Das Fayum unter ptolemäischer und römischer Herrschaft. In H. Beinlich, R. Schulz and A. Wieczorek (eds), DieEntstehungder Welt–SchöpfungsmythenausdemAltenÄgyptennach demBuchvomFayum. Dettelbach, 89–104. Niwiński, A. 1984. Sarg NR-SpZt. LexikonderÄgyptologie V. Wiesbaden, 455–9. Niwiński, A. 2001. Coffin, cartonnage and mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es in the light of Egyptological research. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy:Results ofinterdisciplinaryexaminationoftheEgyptianmummy ofAset-iri-khet-esfromtheArchaeologicalMuseumin Cracow. Cracow, 33–52. Onderka, P. 2010. Three coffins with mummies from the Graeco-Roman cemetery at Gamhud in the collections of the Naprstek Museum: Preliminary report. Annalsof theNaprstekMuseum31, 75–88. Paciorek, M. 2001. Conservation of a wooden painted coffin from Ancient Egypt in the collection of the

433

Archaeological Museum in Cracow. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy: Results of interdisciplinary examination of the Egyptian mummy of Aset-irikhet-es from the Archaeological Museum in Cracow. Cracow, 167–88. Ranke, H. 1935. DieägyptischenPersonennamenI. Glückstadt. Rühli, F. 2000. Erste Ergebnisse der naturwissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen an der altägyptischen Mumie. BurgdorferJahrbuch2000, 116–8. Schreiber, G. 2012. The burial ensemble of Tasenet from Gamhud and the Ptolemaic coffin style in northern Middle Egypt. In K. A. Kothay (ed.), Artandsociety: AncientandmoderncontextsofEgyptianart. Budapest, 257–63. Szymanska, H. 2001. Tadeusz Smolenski. Excavations at el-Gamhud. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy:Resultsofinterdisciplinaryexaminationofthe EgyptianmummyofAset-iri-khet-esfromtheArchaeologicalMuseuminCracow. Cracow, 25–31. Szymanska, H. and K. Babraj (eds). 2001. Mummy:Results ofinterdisciplinaryexaminationoftheEgyptianmummy ofAset-iri-khet-esfromtheArchaeologicalMuseumin Cracow. Cracow. Taylor, J. H. 1995. Unwrappingamummy. London. Tempczyk, K. 2001. The mummy’s wrappings. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy – Results of interdisciplinary examination of the Egyptian mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es from the Archaeological Museum in Cracow. Cracow, 53–62. Trabska, J. and B. Trybalska. 2001. Aset-iri-khet-es’ mummy mask. In K. Babraj and H. Szymanska (eds), Mummy: ResultsofinterdisciplinaryexaminationoftheEgyptian mummy of Aset-iri-khet-es from the Archaeological MuseuminCracow. Cracow, 201–23. Verner, M. 1982. Altägyptische Särge in den Museen und Sammlungen der Tschechoslowakei. Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum. Prague.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA. THEPFAUENSARG (PEACOCK COFFIN) IN CONTEXT Béatrice HUBER with a contribution from Claudia NAUERTH

Abstract

Qarara is situated in Middle Egypt approximately 200km to the south of Cairo on the eastern Nile bank. The modern-day village lies at the foot of the Gebel Qarara and is wedged between the mountain and the river.1 The area to the south of the settlement is used as a Muslim cemetery. Further south lies the modern Coptic cemetery with ruined funerary monuments that date to the end of the 19th century. The cemeteries and the village were constructed above the ancient settlement and cemetery; therefore the entire area was designated a protected site several years ago and can no longer be built on. As the size of the Muslim cemetery has more than doubled over the last century, it now extends to the east into the spurs and valleys of the mountain. The traces of the ancient cemetery cover an area of the desert plain that measures roughly 450m north to south and 350m west to east. Originally these traces extended further to the north, i.e. beyond the present-day northern boundary of the Muslim cemetery (as is attested by the graves discovered in this area during excavation

campaigns in 1913 and 1997: Fig. 1) and further west at least to the current boundary of the flood plain, so that the ancient site occupied a total area of approximately 800 × 450m. After Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt had been particularly successful in their search for papyri at the nearby sites of el-Hiba and Oxyrhynchus, they then tried their luck in 1903 at Qarara. During their search, they unearthed several Coptic burials over the course of only one day. According to the excavators, their spoils were not particularly bountiful: the excavated graves did not contain a single papyrus but instead a large number of burial goods, which are only mentioned briefly (Grenfell and Hunt, 1903, 3–4). Ten years later, in 1913 and 1914, two excavation campaigns were carried out at the site. These campaigns were undertaken by a team from Heidelberg and Freiburg and are known as the Badische Grabungen. Once again, the aim of the expedition was the search for papyri but also for mummy-portraits. In 1913, the site was initially surveyed over a course of six days under the direction of Hermann Ranke; in 1914, a longer excavation campaign of four weeks followed this survey under the direction of Hans Abel. Despite lengthy excavations, the finds made were disappointing: not a single mummy-portrait and only a few papyri came to light. During the course of these excavations, however, at least 750 Coptic burials were unearthed, many of which still had their original burial equipment, and a large number of objects were collected. Due to the then-normal practice of dividing finds, part of the material, e.g. burial equipment and wrapped corpses, was sent to Germany to become part of the collections of the Egyptological Institute of Heidelberg University and the Museum of Ethnology in Freiburg.2

1

2

The so-called peacock coffin is one of the most spectacular discoveries in the Coptic cemetery at Qarara. It is famous for its elaborate form and painted decoration, on which basis it can be dated to the 7th– 8th century AD. Other identical coffins, although not painted, have been found in this cemetery, which is particularly characterised by large coffins, often made of reused boards, in which two individuals were buried.

Introduction: Qarara, the place of discovery and the history of research

This was not always the case, as the Nile ran further west of its present course in earlier times.

The material has been assembled and published in Nauerth 1996. Some of the material in Freiburg appeared in Kosack 1974.

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

436

Fig. 1: The Qarara cemetery with find spots of the coffins: peacock coffin; ● coffins wrapped in cloth; ▲ coffins with a gable roof and cloth wrapping; coffins with a gable roof; hatched area: 2009 excavation (© google earth).

A concise account of the results of both excavation campaigns can be found in a monograph published in 1926 (Ranke 1926). The archaeological structures and finds were only dealt with summarily; the connections between the graves and the finds, as well as the stratigraphical–chronological relationship, were not adequately documented. Therefore, the majority of contextual

3

Longer excerpts in Nauerth 1996, 190–7.

information is now lost and can no longer be reconstructed. Besides this monograph, additional documents exist including an excavation journal (Tagebuch) that provides more extensive information and sheds light on individual archaeological contexts,3 as well as an unpublished finds list (Fundjournal) that was not consistently used for recordings at the time, and finally

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

several photographs of the excavation and the material found there. During the excavations of 1913–14, mainly Coptic burials were found. With the exception of only a few burials, they had all been plundered. In the majority of cases these burials consisted of a single grave dug into the desert plain. On the other hand, however, there are also examples of multiple burials in rock-cut chambers hewn into the spurs of the gebel. In addition to the Coptic burials, several earlier graves were excavated. Two shaft tombs that date to the Late or Ptolemaic Period with one and two chambers respectively are described in more detail in the excavation journal (Nauerth 1996, 197). They contained several mummiform wooden coffins; several mummies were covered with a bead net and one was covered with a cartonnage. The burial equipment consisted of shabtis as well as wooden figures of falcons, Anubis and Ptah-SokarOsiris. Two brick chambers with barrel vaults, several larger pits with multiple burials and individual burials in clay coffins date to the Roman Period. Wooden funerary beds, shabtis and Horus and Anubis amulets also belong to these burials. Some of these tombs were used secondarily by the Copts. The archaeological site of Qarara does not consist solely of cemeteries but also encompasses a settlement. Traces of architectural structures are particularly visible in the north-west corner of the site: the remains of walls and pottery sherds are strewn around the surface and create dark reddish-brown spots4 that stand out against the light ground of the surrounding cemetery. The ruins were noticed at an early stage by Ranke. He conducted several test excavations and, owing to their location in the middle of the cemetery, suggested that the walls were the remains of a monastery. This functional designation was generally accepted and can often be found in the relevant literature; however, it could not be verified by recent excavations (see below). The site did not receive any further attention until the end of the last century. During the course of

4

5

For this reason, the site is known as ‘el-Kom el-Ahmar’ (the red mound). Two blocks found in the rubble of the temple bear, in one instance, a cartouche with a name that was used by several rulers of Dynasties 20 to 23 (Gomaà and Farid 1995, 63–74) and in the other, the upper part of a cartouche with the beginning of the

437

building work in the central square of the village, the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities carried out several test excavations in 1981/1983 and 1996–7, and discovered parts of an undecorated temple structure that was probably built between the Third Intermediate and the Ptolemaic Periods,5 an animal cemetery with dog, bird and cow burials, and finally Coptic and Roman burials. The latter include two chambers made of mud bricks with barrel vaults that contained a mask made of plaster.6 As a result, Qarara was in roughly the same state as Ranke had found the site when archaeological investigations were resumed in the spring of 2008 by the Egyptological Institute of Tübingen University.7 Investigations were undertaken under the auspices of a project that has been carried out for many years with the aim of documenting the continuity of settlement between el-Kom el-Ahmar/Sharuna and Qarara/Qasr el-Banat in terms of their history, economy and topography.8 The ancient cemetery presents the same picture today as it did one hundred years ago. The entire terrain is a cratered landscape strewn with burial remains: each crater corresponds to a pit made by grave robbers. Ranke laments the state of the cemetery on the very first day of his excavation: ‘Der Friedhof überrascht […] durch die vollständige Durchwühlung. […] In (den Gruben) liegen die Skelette, Schädel etc verstreut, ringsherum auseinander gerissene Leinenfetzen, Mattenstücke, Palmrippen- es ist ein hässliches Bild der Zerstörung’ (Journal, 16 March 1913, §03). This was, of course, the work of treasure hunters, who have always been active here, more so today than ever before, in their search for papyri, jewellery and decorated textiles. The illicitly dug pits have destroyed the archaeological layers to a depth of 3m and are filled with shredded textiles and corpses that have been ripped apart. Despite the poor state of preservation, the graves and burial equipment from Qarara provide extremely important evidence for the study of early Christian burial practices between the 4th–5th and the 8th–9th centuries when the site was finally abandoned.

6

7 8

name of one of the Ptolemaic rulers (Gomaà, Müller-Wollermann and Schenkel 1991, 180). Unpublished. Information from reports provided by the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities. Research history and initial results in Huber 2008. Most recently in Huber 2012, with references to older literature.

438

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

AufderBrustlageinkurzesmitFransenverziertesTuch. FüßeundKopfwarenjeineinbesonderesTuchgewickelt, dieganzeLeichemitPalmbaststrickenverschnürt(Taf.1,4). KeinSchmuck–nurumdenHalslagendieResteeines Kranzes.

The Pfauensarg – the peacock coffin Discoveryandlocationofthecoffin The excavation campaign undertaken in 1913 lasted for a period of only six days and was therefore declared a Versuchsgrabung, i.e. a test excavation. Work was carried out, on one hand, in areas that now lie beneath the northern section of the modern Muslim cemetery, and, on the other, on the south-western spur of the gebel in an area measuring 50 × 50m, the so-called Stelle IX (Area IX) that is located at the south-east corner of the cemetery. This site is the location of numerous rock-cut chambers with entrance corridors that were first created during the Late/Ptolemaic Period and then re-used by later generations. During the Coptic Period, flat graves were dug into the terraces that run between two rows of rock-cut tombs. Here, a coffin was uncovered9 amongst the robbed graves lying near to a double grave that contained two simply wrapped corpses buried without a coffin. The head end of the coffin and the heads of the deceased individuals all lay to the west. No further coffins were found at this location. A sketch of the find spot was made in the excavation journal and it is therefore possible to localise the place of discovery with a high degree of precision (Figs 1 and 210). Descriptionofthecoffinanditscontents Ranke At the time of its discovery, the coffin was described by Ranke as follows:11 […] Sarg, der mit einer Matte bedeckt in seiner einfachen flachen Grube stand (Taf. 1, 1), war ganz und gar in ein starkes mit eingewebten bläulichen Streifen verziertes Leinentuch eingewickelt und mit roten und schwarzen Stricken sorgfältig verschnürt (Taf. 1, 2). NachBeseitigungdiesesTucheszeigtesich[…],dassder ebenfalls noch einmal verschnürte Sarg mit bunten, gut erhaltenenMalereienüberundüberbedecktwar(Taf.1, 3).[…]ImSarglagnurdieganzzerfallene(männliche) Leiche,dieineinleinenesÄrmelgewandgekleidet,dessenVerzierungsstreifenfastganzverblichenwaren[…].

9

10

Area IX, Grave 2. The site corresponds to quadrant M8 on Plan 1 in the final publication (1926). Journal: Nauerth 1996, 191. I would like to thank E. Fuchs for permission to publish the original sketch.

Comments on the find When the coffin was discovered and opened, four photographs were taken that were reproduced in the final publication. The photograph of the excavated burial pit shows that the coffin was covered with two mats, one over the lid and one over the raised section at the head end (Fig. 3). The mats are not preserved. Examples that have been found thus far in the cemetery are all made of palm bast (warp) and halfah grass (weft). The ‘red and black cords’, which held the cloth firmly in place around the coffin, are thin woven red and brown ribbons that were generally used for the outer wrapping of the deceased and can be found throughout the cemetery. The red ribbons are made from linen fibres that were dyed with ochre or madder; the brown to dark brown ribbons (which have become almost black over time) are made from unbleached linen fibres (Huber 2007; 2013b; 2016). Around the raised head section of the lid, the ribbons are tied to form a coffer pattern and are arranged transversely across the rest of the coffin with intricate knotting on the upper side of the lid. The photograph taken by Ranke, however, shows that the arrangement of ribbons at the head end of the coffin also included white-brown (in the upper layer) and white ribbons in addition to the red and brown ones (Fig. 4). The design and colours of the ribbons are, therefore, comparable to a coffin that is kept in the storerooms at Ashmunein (see below, ParallelsatQarara). The way in which the cloth was wrapped around the coffin cannot be discerned from the original photographs. On the evidence of Fig. 6, the coffin was apparently only wrapped in a single sheet of large dimensions; the sheet was folded back on one side and sewn together with the opposite edge (the long line on Fig. 4 could correspond to such a seam). Linen material with

11

Ranke 1926, 3–4, pl. 1, 1–5; notes in the journal: Nauerth 1996, 132.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

439

Fig. 2: Find spot of the peacock coffin (red) and neighbouring coffins (grey) in the sketch from Ranke’s excavation journal of 1913, § 29 (Ägyptologisches Institut, University of Heidelberg).

blue stripes has been found on many occasions; they are usually larger pieces of material that can be regarded as household textiles. At the rear point of the lid’s raised section, a c. 10cm-long reed projects through the wrappings (see Fig. 4). The outer wrapping forms a small knot at this point (similar to the Ashmunein coffin, see below). Photographs from the 1913–14 campaigns show that a piece of palm leaf rib could protrude by the wrapped bodies from the construction of the roof-like structure over the head, and that objects were hung on these palm ribs (see Ranke 1926, pl. 10,1;3). In the present case, the reed was not found to be supporting any object and nothing similar was found in the burial pit.

12

Huber 2013a. Several fragments (without contextual data) are stored in the Heidelberg collection: see Ranke 1926, 4.

The cords that bind the coffin were double-twisted in S-direction and were probably made of palm fibres; they were wrapped around the longer part of the lid once or twice a total of seven times, and three times at three intervals around the head end of the coffin (Fig. 5). The corpse was simply tied up with cords from palm fibres (Fig. 6). The garland around the neck of the deceased was probably made of woven palm leaves, as shown by several recently found examples.12 The criteria used to determine the sex of the deceased as male are not known. No anthropological investigations were conducted during the excavations. Occasionally the sex of the deceased was determined on the basis of the burial equipment.

440

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 4: Peacock coffin wrapped in cloth (after Ranke 1926, pl. 1,2. Ägyptologisches Institut, University of Heidelberg).

Fig. 3: Peacock coffin insitu (after Ranke 1926, pl. 1,1. Ägyptologisches Institut, University of Heidelberg).

The material surrounding the coffin, along with the ribbons and cords, and the corpse itself and its wrappings and clothing, were not kept. The only evidence of the latter that is still preserved is a tiny fragment of cloth with plain weave that was still attached to the coffin’s base. In the course of the customary division of finds, the coffin was assigned to the German archaeologists and transported to Heidelberg.13 It is the most famous find that was made during the Qarara excavation campaigns and is known worldwide. As a result, the coffin has often been pictured, commented upon and exhibited. In the spring of 2015, the chance arose to photograph and to document the coffin anew. The results are presented below.

13

The coffin is currently exhibited in the collection of the Egyptological Institute at Heidelberg University (inv. no. 500).

Fig. 5: Peacock coffin with cords (after Ranke 1926, pl. 1,3. Ägyptologisches Institut, University of Heidelberg).

Fig. 6: Peacock coffin after opening (after Ranke 1926, pl. 1,4. Ägyptologisches Institut, University of Heidelberg).

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

441

Fig. 7: Peacock coffin in 1913 (Photograph H. Ranke. Ägyptologisches Institut, University of Heidelberg).

Iconographyanddating(ClaudiaNauerth) The Heidelberg peacock coffin consists of two parts, a low elongated box and a convex lid with the particularly unusual feature of a roof-like extension at the head end (Fig. 7). The box was made by joining two long wooden boards to two short ones; the base is not visible (see below, Construction). The lid consists of five longitudinal boards. The length of the two lowermost boards corresponds to the length of the box, whereas the three central boards end at the roof part owing to the design of the lid. The raised section of the coffin lid has two almost square side panels that form a gable roof with two triangular front and rear sides. Both the box and the lid taper towards the foot end of the coffin. The entire surface of the coffin is painted, including the exterior foot end where traces of paint can still be recognised. Shades of colour on the sides of the box reveal that the floral design ran more or less consistently around the coffin’s base. The decoration covers the lid and the gable roof and runs over the joints of the boards, a feature that is particularly noticeable with regard to the medallions painted on the lid (Figs 8 and 12). For information on the painting, see the

restoration report by Juliane Lange below. When reading the description of the current state of preservation, it is interesting to compare it with the original photographs from 1913 (Fig. 9). The elements of the decoration can be categorised as follows: 1. the floral design on the exterior sides of the box; 2. the eight medallions on the lid; 3. the semi-circular foot end of the lid with three flowers; 4. the Latin cross between acanthus leaves on the front side of the roof; 5. the peacocks in medallions on the side panels of the roof; 6. entwined band and vines on the rear side of the roof; 7. various patterns filling the spaces between the main elements. As mentioned above, the painted decoration covers the entire box, lid and roof; damaged or faded areas can be reconstructed with certainty. The flat box is coated with a yellowish-white base colour that forms the background for a green, relatively evenly curved vine that branches out at the rolled up tips and ends

442

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 8: Peacock coffin, general view.

either in small round patches of red colour (flower buds) and/or elongated leaves (Figs 10 and 21). Occasionally short offshoots with a red flower bud have been painted in the interspaces. The curves of the vine follow the pattern of acanthus but are painted in closer proximity on the longitudinal than on the transverse sides, thereby creating a lively optical rhythm. The floral design obviously depicts a garland of roses and not a grapevine, which even in an extremely simplified form can still be recognised by its leaves and the more or less triangular shape of the grapes. There are, however, parallels for floral designs with trailing roses in the sepulchral sphere.14

The tradition of decorating coffin boxes with vines is very old, particularly in association with the Soter group. They mainly consist of grapevines, the fruits of which are easily recognisable, as is the case on, for example, the coffin base of Chelidona in the Louvre15 or the side of a coffin box in Amsterdam.16 The grapevine motif can also be found on the longitudinal sides of one of the two wooden biers that come from the necropolis of Dush,17 which is therefore chronologically closer to the peacock coffin. The coffin bases of the Soter group are decorated with a vine motif that does not represent a grapevine, as seen on the coffin of Petamenophis in Turin,18 which presumably depicts

14

16

15

Bawit, Room 1, above the niche: Maspero 1943, pls 5–7; even vines with pomegranates are attested: Bawit, Chapel 19, west wall: Clédat 1904, pl. 79. N 2576, date: end 2nd/beginning 3rd century: Aubert et al. 2008, no. 1, 74–7.

17

18

Allard Pierson Museum, APM 7069, cf. 7070: Lunsingh Scheurleer 1992, 184f, fig. 156. T 6, inv. no. 312: Dunand et al. 1992, pl. 60, fig. 1: ‘Lit funéraire, bois stuqué et peint’. Museo Egizio, cat. 2230: Grimm 1974, pl. 139,3.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

443

Fig. 9: Peacock coffin, side views.

rose branches, and on the coffin of Soter in London.19 Rose branches are evidently attested as a floral motif in Kellia,20 where even crosses are decorated with roses. Dorothee Renner-Volbach first emphasised the significance of roses on the basis of several examples of the motif on textiles. They constitute a topos for

happiness and immortality and correspond to the principle of the tree of life.21 The flower is not indigenous to Egypt but was entwined in bouquets, garlands and also wreaths from the Hellenistic Period onwards.22 The decoration of the lid is more diverse: the front side of the foot end is semi-circular in shape and shows

19

21

20

British Museum, EA 6705: Grimm 1974, pl. 138,3. Room 12–13, arch: Ballet, Bosson and Rassart-Debergh 2003, décor 78b, 477, fig. 59; a cross with roses, ibid. photo 53 (= Kellia, Room 2, south wall, door opposite Room 8).

22

Renner-Volbach 2001, 85. Renner-Volbach 2001, 86; cf. now also Heilmeyer 2015, 244f.

444

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 10: Peacock coffin, box, left side with garlands.

Fig. 11: Peacock coffin, foot end.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

445

three light-coloured medallions on a brown-red background — the central medallion is larger — that frame an eight-leafed flower (Fig. 11). A rough circle of small white dots surrounds these medallions. The flowers consist of alternate red- and blue-edged leaves with a central axis in the same colour. A search for corresponding flowers in the natural world, which could have served as a model for this form, is futile.23 Therefore, it makes more sense to presume that the motif is a simplified or stylised flower, as is attested in several cases.24 Similar forms are known from earlier periods, for example in the paintings of Kom-el-Shugafa in Alexandria.25 The spaces between the three medallions are filled with smaller light-coloured discs with black edges and a black centre. The arrangement of the eight medallions on the lid is not exactly symmetrical, as they are slightly offset (see Figs 8 and 12). Their size ranges between 29cm and 34cm in diameter and gradually decreases towards the foot end. This observation presumably reflects the method of the painter, who started at the head end and gradually ran out of space at the foot end. In addition, the decoration of the left side26 of the lid was carried out with more care.27 The central board of the lid (Fig. 13) displays three rhomboid interspaces with a red-brown background, in which a yellow-green leaf composition formed by eight components has been painted in a diamond shape. Light-coloured dropletshaped ornaments fill the spaces between the medallions on the sides of the lid (Fig. 14; see also Figs 3 and 9). The medallions are arranged in two rows of four. On the left-hand side, two different patterns alternate. The first and third medallions have a blue background and contain a symmetrical vine composition consisting of four heart-shaped or candelabra-like forms (see Fig. 14). The second and fourth medallions have a light yellow background and display green tufts between floral motifs, probably stylised lotuses (Fig. 15).28

On the right side of the coffin lid, the first and third medallions have the same design as those on the left side, i.e. vines on a blue background; the second and fourth medallions are, however, decorated differently. The second (Fig. 16) contains a red-brown vine composition that is similar to the decoration on the rear side of the gable roof and the background of the peacock images. In the fourth medallion located at the foot end (Fig. 17), the remains of a rose bush can be discerned. On the whole, the medallions with the light-coloured backgrounds, particularly those on the right-hand side, are in a poorer state of preservation and are therefore seldom found reproduced in relevant publications. All eight medallions are framed by red-brown lines and a row of tongues with a dark core (see below). The vines, which at first sight seem to be particularly delicate, have their closest parallels on Coptic textiles. However, when comparing this motif it quickly becomes clear that the floral design on the coffin is in fact less wiry and the vines are actually sturdier and thicker; by contrast, the vines depicted on either side of the cross on the front side of the gable roof as well as those on the rear side appear to be more linear. The style of the vines in the medallions on the lid is especially comparable with the following textile patterns: an ensemble composed of cuff borders, tabula and clavi from a tunic in Cairo;29 a tabula in Zurich;30 a collar with medallions in Riggisberg;31 a medallion in Berlin;32 and another example in Lyons.33 Also the fragment of a tunic with a medallion in Berlin34 and a fragment in Antwerp35 are stylistically comparable to the vine forms on the peacock coffin. All of these objects date no earlier than the 6th century AD and are mostly assigned to the 7th and 8th centuries. The peacock coffin has mainly attracted attention owing to the design and decoration of the head end. The front part of the gable roof in the form of a pointed triangle features a Latin cross on a red-brown background

23

28

24

25 26

27

At best the bunch-flowered narcissus: Wiese et al. 2014, 29. E.g. in Abu Makar in the representation of Abrahamʼs victim: Zibawi 2004, no. 195f; or in Kellia: Kasser 1984, fig. 18; Bawit, Room 40, north wall: Maspero 1943, pls 48–50; Bawit, Chapel 18, west wall: Clédat 1904, pl. 103; Bawit, Chapel 26, east apse: Clédat 1904, pl. 90; Bawit, Chapel 7, south wall: Clédat 1904, pl. 25. Grimm 1974, pl. 128,1. In the following, the coffin will be described from the viewpoint of the foot end. Observation made by Robert Ajtai.

29

30 31 32 33 34 35

Cf. the stylised lotuses in the sanctuary of Abu Girgeh, Alexandria: Zibawi 2004, fig. 72f. Coptic Museum 11130, 11133, 11135: Nauerth Forthcoming, no. 265. Peter 1976, no. 50. Schrenk 2004, no. 67 = Stauffer 1991, no. 54. Wulff and Volbach 1926, 80, pl. 84, 6696. Bourgon-Amir 1993, pl. 290. 11431: Fluck, Linscheid and Merz 2000, no. 10. Katoen Natie: Cortopassi and Verhecken-Lammens 2007, 148, fig. 14.

446

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 12: Peacock coffin, lid.

Fig. 13: Peacock coffin, detail of lid.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

Fig. 14: Peacock coffin, box, medallion, left side.

Fig. 15: Peacock coffin, foot end, medallion, left side.

447

448

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 16: Peacock coffin, medallion, right side.

Fig. 17: Peacock coffin, foot end, medallion, right side.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

and placed between acanthus leaves and branches (Fig. 18). The arms and body of the cross are decorated with a light-coloured wave pattern and the ends of the arms are connected to the top of the cross via a lightcoloured line with hanging objects, presumably bells. The centre of the cross is emphasised by a gem. The adornment of the cross with ornaments — as is indicated by the wavy lines — and pendant objects, as well as its position between leaves, identify the cross as the tree of life, a statement and indeed a message that elegantly expresses the triumphal character of the Christian hope of resurrection: life and not death is decisive. The representation of an adorned cross in the midst of flourishing leaves is not only an appropriate theme for the decoration of a coffin but also constitutes a particularly popular composition. This composition is attested on various painted objects and gravestones, where the same combination can be found mainly in the tympanum. In light of the sheer mass of parallels, it is sufficient here to refer to the examples of gravestones assembled in the ‘old’ corpus by Crum,36 and to the rooms in Bawit,37 Kellia38 and Saqqara39 for painted examples. The only element of the decoration left to discuss is the peacocks that give the coffin its name (Fig. 19). Painted on the sides of the gable roof, they flank the adorned cross or rather are turned towards it. The light blue birds with a crest on their heads stand on a yellow background and are endowed with magnificent dark brown tails on which the small eyespots are visible in a row on three lines. A delicate brown vine or, perhaps

36

37

38

Crum 1902 (1975), the funerary stelae with the following numbers: 8410, 8414, 8417, 8422, 8421, 8420, 8419, 8425, 8433, 8431, 8440, 8443, 8439, 8447, 8445, 8444, 8454, 8452, 8450, 8453, 8451, 8449, 8455, 8482, 8483, 8521, 8556, 8554, 8587, 8588, 8612, 8710; cf. Kellia: crosses with pendant objects and vines (ensemble 4/5): Rassart-Debergh 1981, 242, fig. 15; the foot of a cross with vine, ibid. 243, fig. 16. Parallels for peacocks flanking the cross of the tree of life in the paintings at Bawit: Chapel I, south wall: Clédat 1904, pl. X = Horak 1998, fig. 7; the partially preserved cross also exhibits the ‘wavy lines’ on the arms; Bawit: Chapel XIX, west wall: Clédat 1904, pl. LXXIX = Horak 1998, fig. 3; Bawit: Chapel XXVII, north wall: Clédat 1904, pl. 93: this cross has the form of the ankh sign. Parallels to the cross of the tree of life between peacocks in the paintings of Kellia, Qouçoir er-Roubaiyat 195 (second half of the 7th century): Rooms 12–15: Ballet, Bosson and RassartDebergh 2003, photo 14, decor 115; photo 13, decor 22c; Room 15, east wall, north side: Ballet, Bosson and Rassart-Debergh 2003, photo 35, decor 40; Room 5, east wall: Ballet, Bosson

449

better, a ribbon flutters behind the slender neck, and a black vine is depicted beneath the bird’s legs. The bird holds a long bead necklace in its beak, and the necklace shows more detail on the left- than on the right-hand side.40 The framing medallion displays the same border with a tongue pattern as the medallions on the coffin’s lid. This decor and also comparable variations can often be observed on the internal surfaces of angels’ wings, for example in Deir al-Choada (Esna) or in manuscripts.41 The corners of the roof’s side panels are characterised by symmetrically arranged acanthus leaves on a brown-red background, similar to the examples between the medallions on the lid (Fig. 20). If the front side of the gable roof and the side panels with the peacocks are considered as a whole, they constitute a meaningful composition that is known from many funerary stelae.42 The peacocks carry a necklace in order to decorate the cross, which is already perceived as a sign of victory and as the tree of life, with additional ornaments. On the stelae, the peacocks are often depicted with branches in their beaks, thereby enhancing the aspect of the cross as a sign of life.43 The arrangement of the composition on the stelae is transferred to the three sides of the peacock coffin, i.e. folded out. When the other elements of the decor are taken into account, they fit in seamlessly with the overall concept: in the sepulchral sphere, rose vines and lotuses also refer to the afterlife. The decorative elements of the coffin have no nonEgyptian parallels and all, even the ornamental design, already belong to the ‘Coptic canon’. Furthermore,

39

40

41 42 43

and Rassart-Debergh 2003, photo 7, decor 12b; cf. Zibawi 2004, fig. 107 = Horak 1998, fig. 6. Cf. also the crosses with leafed branches and pendant objects in Saqqara, Room 1888: Rassart-Debergh 1981a, 108, fig. 52: ‘… une croix dont les bras sont faits de torsade … Du pied de la croix partent deux arbustes recourbés qui s’inclinent vers l’intersection des bras de la croix: deux guirlandes ornées de clochettes unissent le sommet de la croix aux extrémités des branches latérales; un motif flammé s’arrondit au-dessus de ces dernières. On lit encore clairement à gauche de la croix XC, on restituera à droite IC’; cf. in Saqqara also Room 773 (67, fig. 28b), the west and south walls of Room 709 (57, fig. 22). Observation made by Robert Ajtai. The identification of this object as a garland as suggested by Ulrike Horak (1998, 115) can be ruled out. Leroy 1975, pls. 36, 38. Cf. in footnote 36 the examples published by Crum 1902 (1975). Louvre E 26910: Bosson and Aufrère 1999, no. 66; Krakau: Szymańska 2000, no. 132; D’Auria, Lacovara and Roehrig 1988, no. 168.

450

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 18: Peacock coffin, raised head section, front side.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

Fig. 19: Peacock coffin, raised head section, detail of right side.

Fig. 20: Peacock coffin, raised head section, detail of left side.

451

452

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

they do not indicate an early date, as the closest parallels in sculpture, painting and textiles date to the 7th–8th centuries AD. However, a small detail originates from a non-Egyptian context, namely the bands that flutter behind the peacock’s neck. This detail can be traced back to representations of birds from the Sasanian–Syrian region. On the basis of a cloth in Darmstadt, the textile expert Dorothee RennerVolbach44 has compiled the most important parallels and suggested a chronological assignment to the 7th–8th centuries AD. Thus, all decorative elements of the coffin point to this time period. The rear side of the extended roof section is characterised by a framed circle, which adjoins three smaller and similarly framed circles, one in each corner of the triangular coffin wall, thereby creating an entwined band (Fig. 21). The central circle has a yellow background and is decorated with a brown-red vine composition with a stylised tip. In the smaller circles, lightcoloured discs have been painted on a brown-red background and are surrounded by a circle of dots; a variation of this simple pattern also fills the interspaces. It is difficult to judge whether this ornament has any specific significance. The floral composition possibly corresponds to the numerous medallions on textiles, although those consist of four circles grouped around a central circle. In this case, the triangular surface of the coffin would have necessitated an adaptation of this pattern. A symbolic representation of the Trinity can be dismissed, as no such form of representation is known from the Late Antique period.

with glue or plant gum in varying degrees. Areas of red and blue are bound the most strongly, whereas white and yellow have the weakest binding. The paint is generally badly damaged, is extremely powdery and falls off in granules. The paint is best preserved on all four sides of the raised head section, on the board of the box at the head end and at the semicircular foot end of the lid. By contrast, the paint on the lid and the box has been abraded to a major extent and in parts only the outlines are still visible. In general, the areas with strongly bound pigments are much better preserved than the areas with more weakly bound pigments. The layers that coat the coffin have suffered the greatest amount of damage along the joints, which are almost all open along their entire length. The base coat consisting of plant fibres is loose on certain parts of the coffin and does not adhere particularly well to the wood. There are individual ruptures of the paint layer all the way down to the base coat. In general, the damage is characterised by an overall loss of paint due to desiccation of the binding agent that has caused poorly bound pigments to fall off and the colours to fade. The deterioration of the paintwork cannot be explained by a change in the volume of the wood as a result of climatic fluctuations, as no blistering can be observed. During conservation of the paintwork, the loose undercoat and paint layers along the broken edges were partially consolidated (Klucel in a solution with 5% ethanol) and the powdery areas were entirely consolidated (Klucel in a solution with 2% ethanol).

The paint layers: excerpt from the restoration report, 1 April 2000 (Juliane Lange, Karlsruhe):

Construction

Irregularities in the wood and joints were evened out using a binder made of finely chopped plant fibres and glue (Fig. 22). An extremely thin, stone-grey undercoat, presumably a chalk or plaster slurry bound with glue, was then applied to the surface. This undercoat constituted the base for the final paint layer. The colour palette ranges from brick-red through light blue and green to white and a kind of lead tin yellow. The paint consists of pigments that are bound

44

Renner 1985, no. 31; also cuffs in Hamburg: Germer and Körbelin 2012, no. 136.

State of preservation The coffin is completely preserved. However, at the time of its discovery, Ranke noted in the excavation journal that the coffin was: ‘[…] in leidlicher Erhaltung der Farben. […] Das Holz ist ziemlich morsch unddieBrettermehrfachzerbrochen[…].’45 As soon as the coffin was unwrapped, certain sections came apart and even broke off. An elongated triangular piece of wood became detached from the fourth board of the

45

Journal: Nauerth 2003, 227.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

Fig. 21: Peacock coffin, raised head section, rear side.

453

454

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 22: Peacock coffin, raised head section, detail of left side.

lid at the foot end; the board was stabilised with an iron nail that is still preserved today (see Fig. 15).46 In the upper left corner of Fig. 6, the right-hand side of the head end of the lid is shown after it had been removed: the boards are cracked, the joints gape and a piece of the lowermost plank has broken off. A section of the uppermost board is missing (this cannot be seen on the photo). Therefore, to stabilise the coffin for its transportation to Germany, measures had to be undertaken which can still be reconstructed today. Loose planks were re-nailed using small iron nails with round flat heads, and protruding splinters of wood were glued back into place. Between 1963 and 2000,47 the coffin was displayed in several exhibitions. On the occasion of an exhibition in 1984 in Stuttgart, a board made of plywood was fitted to the base in order to stabilise the box. The board was screwed on to three thick transverse braces that were placed inside the box. For an exhibition in Paris

in 2000, restoration measures were carried out to consolidate the paintwork (see the restoration report above). The wood and the paint of the coffin are still fragile and extremely brittle so that the coffin is no longer transportable and will not be loaned in future. During re-documentation in the spring of 2015, the lid of the coffin could not be removed due to its overall fragile condition. Nonetheless, the construction of the coffin’s interior could be ascertained by viewing this area of the object through the gaps between the planks.48

46

48

47

This is evident when comparing the photographs that were taken of the coffin’s state immediately after the discovery (see Fig. 5) and once it had been fully unwrapped (see Fig. 7). Volbach and Wessel 1963, no. 152; L’artcopteenÉgypte,2000, no. 100.

Construction The coffin has a trapezoidal form and consists of a low rectangular box and a high vaulted lid that has been extended at the head end to form a gabled roof. The height and width of both the box and the lid become narrower towards the foot end. The difference

Despite in-depth research, it was not possible to find any records with information on the restoration measures that were carried out in 1984. The coffin was opened probably in this year for the first time since its discovery and has not been opened since then.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

455

in height amounts to c. 3cm and the difference in width is c. 20cm. The sides of the box consist of a single board and the base is formed by three long boards of varying width. The longitudinal boards have been attached to the sides of the boards that form the base, and the head and foot boards have been fixed onto the base boards (see Figs 11 and 21). The photographs taken in 1913 show that five transverse pieces of wood were attached at regular intervals to the underside of the base. As the base of the coffin is in a particularly poor state of preservation and the middle board in the area of the head end had broken off, the transverse braces in this section had to be replaced when the coffin was packed for its journey to Germany. Because of the plywood board that was fixed to the base at a later stage, these braces are no longer visible — the example under the head end is, however, pictured in the 1963 Essen catalogue. The boards of the box are thicker than those of the lid. They are all made of cedar.49 The lid consists of five boards that are arranged in a semi-circle (see Fig. 8). The central section, which is formed by three boards, is extended in the last third of the lid to form a gable roof over the head. Three semicircular pieces of wood that correspond to the shape of the foot end were attached to the inner surface of the lid and provide the construction with the necessary stability. They have been attached at intervals of 36cm, 77cm and 126cm from the foot end; the triangular piece of wood that constitutes the front part of the gabled roof sits directly on top of the last supporting crosspiece (Fig. 23). They are affixed to the lowest board of the lid with wooden pegs. The double-sided dowel holes beneath the gable roof are still visible (Fig. 24 [in red]); the other dowels are covered by the layer of paint (Fig. 25). The gable roof over the head consists of two square surfaces that were formed by adjoining horizontal boards: five on the right-hand side and four on the left. The boards are not exactly rectangular and vary in width. Both surfaces frame a triangular panel. The rear panel is composed of four vertical, parallel boards whereas the front panel consists of two slanting boards that are affixed to a central triangular piece of smaller

size. All four sides of the extended head section of the lid were strengthened using narrow slats on the inner surface. On the triangular sides, the slats are laid horizontally, whereas the slats on the side panels are fixed diagonally. The slats on the rear and front walls are attached 58cm and 19cm respectively from the roof’s apex. The slats are all affixed with two wooden dowels that are visible on the coffin’s exterior. The diagonal slats are attached to the middle of the side panels. In each case, a dowel hole is only visible at the upper end (see Fig. 24). The box and the lid are joined together using wooden dowels, with the exception of the foot end of the lid, which is nailed together with forged iron nails (see Figs 24 and 25). These nails have a square cross-section and a round and more or less conical head (see Fig. 17). Some of the nails are broken owing to a high degree of corrosion, or have been ripped out. Three vertical wooden dowels, which project from the foot and the head end board (particularly clear in Fig. 21), together with two and three horizontal dowels respectively in the longitudinal sides, attach the box of the coffin firmly to the base. The boards of the base, the lid and the extended head section are joined together by dowels (example in Fig. 16). The lid is fixed to the box by wooden dowels and can be closed additionally with four iron hooks that have been placed in the centre of each side (see Fig. 11). The hook on the right-hand side wall was already broken at the time of discovery (only the eye is still in place) so that Ranke only mentions three.50 The dowels are very thick and in places have forced the wood open and fallen out (as in Figs 11 and 16). The coffin also exhibits small nails that were used to consolidate the object in 1913 and were inserted next to the dowels and original nails of the box and lid, with the exception of the extended head section (example on Fig. 24). The coffin is not symmetrical and does not lie flat. The axis of the triangular head section is slightly offset to the right. The boards vary in width and therefore the side panels are not equal in size. During construction, the second and third board of the lid from the right split and had to be secured with the help of horizontal wooden dowels and fixed to the foot-board with an

49

50

This identification was given in the catalogue of the Stuttgart exhibition (Brunner-Traut 1984, 181–3) and was then recently confirmed by wood specialist A. Trautwein (pers. comm.).

Journal: Nauerth 2003, 227.

456

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 23: Peacock coffin, inner construction of the lid.

additional nail (see Figs 15 and 17). The boards of the lid and box have several dowel holes that have no apparent function (this is particularly the case with the right-hand board of the box, see Fig. 25) so recycled wood was used for certain parts. Several constructional details show that wood was used sparingly: the boards of wood that form the base were not squared off along the upper edges thereby creating a triangular gap when the boards were placed next to one another. The gap that appears on the front side of the foot end wall was closed simply by cutting the shorter board of the coffin box to the necessary shape (see Fig. 11). If the boards

51

According to A. Trautwein (pers. comm.), this method is still used today.

had been cut along the edges, this would have meant losing a certain amount of material over the entire length of the boards. By contrast, the loss of material in the case of the shorter board is limited. The same method can be observed on the two right-hand boards that constitute the rear triangle of the extended head section: a piece was cut out of the longer board, possibly due to a knot or a flaw in the wood, and then plugged by a protrusion in the shorter adjacent board (see Fig. 21). In this way, less wood was used, and longer boards, which were scarcer and therefore more valuable, could be used economically.51

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

Fig. 24: Peacock coffin, gable roof with inner slats (grey) and nailing (○ dowel, ● nail, ● double-sided dowel hole).

457

458

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 25: Peacock coffin, dowel-holes and nailing on the right and left sides (○ dowel, ● nail).

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

459

In his journal, Ranke mentions six further coffins with triangular gable roofs over the head end: all were fastened with cords, one was wrapped in cloth and none of them was painted. There is no additional, more precise information on these coffins. A photograph was taken of a badly damaged coffin without wrapping, but owing to the poor quality of the image, it is difficult to distinguish the individual components (Fig. 26, top). All of these coffins were found in

rock-cut chambers with multiple burials and were intended for adults (see Fig. 1).52 In preparation for the construction of a mosque on Qarara’s central square, the Supreme Council of Antiquities carried out excavations at the site in 1997. On the southern edge of the square, on the boundary of the modern Muslim cemetery, several Coptic graves were found as well as an intact wooden coffin that was wrapped in cloth and had a triangular saddleback roof over the head. The coffin lay at a distance of approximately 40m to the west of the rock-cut chambers where Ranke had found similar coffins (see Fig. 1). The concise excavation report does not provide any further details on this find.53 On the basis of the photographs that were taken during excavation, the coffin had been placed in a simple pit and was probably covered with the customary mat. Both the coffin and its cloth wrappings are fully intact and in a good state of preservation. The construction, measurements and furnishings are strikingly similar to the peacock coffin, but it bears no traces of paint. The coffin could not be opened or X-rayed.54 The coffin is wrapped in two linen cloths of varying sizes that were sewn together and tied up with red, white, brown, and white-brown ribbons. Only the white-brown ribbons are carefully woven; all of the others consist of bunches of long, partially twisted warp threads. The red, white, brown and white-brown ribbons have been tied around the sides and rear of the triangular head section to form a coffer pattern and intersect at the front. The brown bunches of thread form the lower layer of the pattern and the white-brown ribbons form the upper layer. Alternate white and red thread bundles are tied around the elongated lid part without any particular arrangement. Cords made of palm fibres were tied around the coffin before it was covered with the cloth. The lid is composed of three boards that take the form of a gable roof over the last third at the head end. However, the roof is lower than its counterpart on the peacock coffin. Fig. 27 shows a comparison of the construction of the two coffins. The coffin in Fig. 26 appears to correspond to the type that has just been described; the construction and the measurements seem to be consistent.

52

54

Measurements Note: as the boards differ in width and depth, measurements can vary by between 1 and 3cm. Total length

191cm

Total width at the head end

60cm

Total width at the foot end

39cm

Total height at the head end

80cm

Total height at the foot end

31cm

Measurements of the box: Overall dimensions

191 × 39–60 × 12.5–14cm

Height of the foot-board

9.5cm

Height of the head board

12cm

Thickness of the boards

2.5cm

Measurements of the lid: Height of the arch at the foot end 17.5cm Boards (from right to left looking 191 towards the head end): 129 127 126 191 Thickness of the boards

× × × × ×

11–17cm 10–12.5cm 14.5–18.5cm 10–14cm 11–13cm

1.5–2cm

Measurements of the head section: Total length

60cm

Total height

54cm

Height of the rear triangle

66cm

Height of the front triangle

47cm

ParallelsatQarara

53

Journal: Nauerth 1996, 193: Grave H46.6 (four coffins, with cords); Grave H48.1 (two coffins, one wrapped in cloth). The coffin is now kept in the storerooms of the Egyptian Council of Antiquities in Ashmunein.

Description and illustration in Huber 2013b.

460

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

The only coffins with roof-like structures attested so far originate from the area between Qarara and Saqqara. The region of Sharuna and Qarara belongs to a frontier zone that has always been characterised by both southern and northern influences.58 The coffins that can be classified to the ‘peacock coffin’ type seem to be limited to the northern part of Middle Egypt and belong to a northern sphere of influence that encompasses the area between the Fayum and Saqqara even though certain regional differences are in evidence (see below). Significanceandfunction

Fig. 26: Coffin (top) with a gable roof (photograph taken in 1914) and coffin (bottom) with a gable-roof-like lid (detail after Ranke 1926, pl. 11,1).

The majority of deceased individuals from Qarara were not buried in a coffin but were laid in a simple pit wrapped in a shroud and covered with a mat. On the evidence of numerous examples discovered during past and recent excavations, this was the most common form of burial in Egypt throughout the whole of Late

ParallelsinEgypt Coffins with raised triangular sections at the head end are rare in Egypt and not one of the known examples is painted. Outside Qarara, similar examples have been found in Qasr el-Banat, located 2km north of Qarara,55 in Tebtunis and in Saqqara in the monastery of Apa Jeremias. In Tebtunis, many children and adults were buried in such coffins.56 In these cases, however, the raised head sections are more modest than the gable roof in Qarara; they are low and were constructed using only two short boards. They only rise above the centremost of the three boards that form the lid and are equivalent to only a third of the coffin’s width and a quarter of the length. The graves at Tebtunis date to the 8th and 9th centuries. A young child lay in the coffin at Saqqara; this coffin therefore probably corresponds to the type attested in Tebtunis.57

55

56 57

58

A coffin in a grave lined with brick walls. Ranke conducted a survey here in 1913 (Ranke 1926, 2). Journal: Nauerth 1996, 191–2. Gallazzi and Hadji-Minaglou 2012, 389–406. Quibell 1912, 34 (no. 1952.70). A ‘small wooden coffin’ for a ‘young child’ is described. This is particularly noticeable in the case of certain forms of pharaonic and Late Roman–Byzantine pottery.

Fig. 27: A comparison of the peacock coffin (1) and the coffin found in 1997 (2).

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

461

Antiquity: the corpse was not mummified, was either naked or clothed with a tunic and was wrapped in several lengths of linen cloth that covered the body from head to foot and were then bound with cords. The uppermost sheet was firmly tied up with narrow, colourfully woven ribbons in a diamond-shaped pattern. The head was treated in a special way and surmounted by a voluminous, roof-like construction. This structure was made of palm leaf ribs and was padded with palm bast and torn textile fragments. The coloured ribbons were tied around the uppermost linen cloth to form an intricate coffer design.59 Children were only occasionally dealt with in the same way. As a rule, the wrappings are more modest in such cases. The elaborately wrapped section around the head corresponds to the pointed, roof-like extension over the head end of the coffins. Thus, it was clearly of vital importance to protect the head of the deceased against all potential damage and threats, thereby emphasising the significance of the head as the most important part of the body.60 The triangular gable roofs are the continuation of the ancient Egyptian tradition of the mummy masks that covered not only the face of the deceased but also the whole head.61 From the very outset, Egyptian religious texts emphasise the concept that only an intact and unimpaired body, i.e. the torso complete with head, is able to exist in the afterlife. This concept is retained for an extremely long period of time, despite the fact that the integrity of the body no longer plays a part in resurrection according to Christian belief. In the case of the corpse in the peacock coffin, no additional measures were undertaken to protect the head of the deceased. The cloth was simply bound together with cords without attempting to create a pattern with coloured ribbons. As the coffin constituted the outer shell of the deceased and thereby fulfilled the protective function, no further protective measures were necessary inside the coffin.

The decoration of the coffin represents a long tradition and conforms to the timeless need to accentuate the social status of the deceased in life. The coffin from Qarara was very probably commissioned by the deceased during his/her lifetime: the decoration was necessary to memorialise his/her social and religious affiliation. The decoration of the coffin is of high quality and was carried out by a very experienced artist; this, together with the fact that the motifs strongly relate to Christian belief, suggests that the person who commissioned the work (whether a man or a woman) might have been a high religious dignitary.62 The elaborate and striking decoration of the coffin was undoubtedly meant to be seen before it was covered by the outer shroud. Consequently, the decoration was only visible at the time when the body of the deceased lay in state: was the deceased then placed in the coffin — open or closed — or next to it? For the transportation to the place of burial, the coffin box and lid had to be firmly tied together; the tightly fitted lengths of cloth and the binding cords provided the coffin with additional support and stability. The weight of the coffin is unevenly distributed due to the design of the head end, which could have caused the coffin to topple during transportation. As a rule, the coffins found in the cemetery at Tebtunis were wrapped in lengths of white cloth and tied up with simple cords in a diamond-shaped pattern before being covered with a mat. The same type of wrapping can be found 300 years later in the cemetery of Naqlun, which dates to the 12th and 13th centuries.63 The simple, flat or gable-roof-shaped coffin lids do not seem to have been nailed to the box, so that the cloth wrapping and binding cords were the only means to fasten them together. The arrangement of the cords around the coffins with gable-roof-like lids was exactly the same as on the peacock coffin.

59

61

60

Huber 2007. Christian textual sources are compiled in: ReallexikonfürAntike und Christentum, ‘Kopf’, col. 525–6. The protective character of a structure over the head is particularly evident in the case of certain graves in the cemetery around the basilica at Kom elAhmar/Sharuna: stones, bricks and also pottery sherds surround the deceased’s skull. The structure in Huber 2013b, fig. 15 is the exact counterpart of the wrapped and padded head sections and the peaked gable roofs of the coffins.

62

63

Assmann uses the term ‘helmet mask’ (Assmann 2001, 149). Ranke suggests that the owner of the coffin could have been the superior of a monastery, assuming that the settlement ruins of Qarara can be identified as those of a monastery (Ranke 1926, 4); this assumption has not yet been confirmed. Godlewski 2002; Zych 2005.

462

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Although it is often said that wood is a rare and expensive material in Egypt, wooden coffins are attested more often in Qarara than might be assumed. Despite the fact that only a few intact coffins have been found in situ, large amounts of loose wooden planks that originate from coffins are strewn over the surface of the site and are found within the archaeological layers. A photograph taken in 1914 shows a considerable pile of wooden boards of varying sizes at the foot of the hill containing the rock-cut tombs, indicating that far more coffins were originally buried here than the number that was found. Many were in pieces or fell apart during excavation and were therefore not always mentioned in the relevant reports. In addition to the examples with triangular head sections, Ranke only mentions one further, half-broken coffin that was found in one of the rock chambers, which was located next to the chamber that contained the four coffins with gable roofs.64 By contrast, only a few coffins were documented in the southern part of the cemetery. Ranke only records three pieces for a total of 424 excavated burials;65 two of these were wrapped in linen, one without a lid66 and another with a gable-roof-like lid. The latter coffin was photographed in situ: the coffin had been forced open with the cloth thrown to both sides and the binding cords strewn on the ground. Underneath the outer shroud, the coffin was bound a second time with cords (see Fig. 26, bottom).67 A third coffin is marked on the plan of the cemetery without any additional information.68 During the course of recent excavations, only one example was found in this area.69 The number of coffins originally buried in this area was certainly limited, as no loose wooden boards were found out of context. On the contrary, in the northern part of the cemetery on the southern edge of the Muslim cemetery, twenty coffins were discovered insitu in the eighty-three burials that were

excavated during the 2009 campaign (see Fig. 1). More coffins were originally buried in this area, as approximately eighty boards were documented strewn over the site.70 The coffins that were discovered during recent excavations were all plundered and broken apart and therefore only preserved in a fragmentary state. Furthermore, several coffins could not be recovered in their entirety owing to the circumstances of the excavation. Nevertheless, the coffins that have been found thus far in the cemetery at Qarara can be classified as follows: Type 1: Rectangular cross-section. One board per side. Flat lid. Better quality of workmanship and material. Four examples. One is trapezoidal. Two are without a lid; theoretically they could also be classed as Type 2. Type 2: Pentagonal cross-section. One board per side. Gable-roof-shaped lid. One example (see Fig. 26, bottom). Type 3: Rectangular cross-section. Two boards per side and for the base. Flat lid made using two boards. One example. Type 4: Rectangular cross-section. Two boards per side. Flat lid made using several boards. Transverse braces on the longitudinal sides and lid. Transverse pieces of wood form the base. Poorer quality of workmanship and material. Re-used wood (Figs 28 and 29). Five examples. In the case of two examples, the base could not be excavated. Type 5: ‘Peacock coffin’: Hexagonal or octagonal cross-section with raised triangular section at the head end of the lid. Eight examples, one of them painted (see Fig. 27). All the coffins were intended for adults. They are trapezoidal and, on average, have the following dimensions: total length 180–90cm; height of the box 31cm; width at the head end 54cm; width at the foot end 36cm. They are joined together with iron nails and wooden dowels; the majority of the boards are made of re-used wood. The type of wood could not be

64

70

Coffins at Qarara Typology,distributionanddating

65 66 67 68 69

Grave H46.6 (see footnote 52). Quadrants G-H 17, G-J-H-L 18, G-H 19 in Ranke 1926, plans 2–4. Grave G17.5 (Nauerth 1996, 193). Ranke 1926, plan 3, quadrant H18.126; detail of pl. 11,1. Ranke 1926, plan 2, quadrant G18.1. The coffin could only be partially excavated. It had been plundered and burnt, and the lid was missing. The coffin contained only few remaining bones of the original corpse.

It was common practice to place a board underneath the deceased and to integrate this board into the wrappings. Both adults and children were placed on such boards and then wrapped up with them in a shroud before burial. In contrast to the boards of the coffins, however, these are made of palm wood, a particularly cheap material.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

463

established but palm wood is never used. With the exception of Types 2 and 5, the longitudinal sides are joined to the inner surface of the head and foot end board. The Type 4 coffins are unique and no parallels are known for this type so far. They consist of roughly carpentered boxes made using two boards for each side and a minimum of three boards for the lid. These are joined together with dowels and connected by transverse braces. Several individual transverse pieces of wood, onto which the longitudinal sides have been attached, constitute the base as a kind of ladder. This construction can be illustrated on the basis of two examples regardless of the fact that they are double coffins. One coffin was made for two men that died at the ages of about thirty-five and fifty years: the corpses were placed on top of one another and were buried at the same time. The coffin was opened at a later stage but the corpses were still intact (see Fig. 28). However, the boards of the lid and sides of the coffin were ripped out. The four sides of the coffin box each consist of three planks, whereas the base was made using four individual transverse pieces of wood placed at irregular Fig. 28: Coffin insitu (Photograph: R. Rechmann).

Fig. 29: Construction of the coffin in Fig. 28.

464

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

intervals that lay directly on the cemetery ground. Three planks of the flat lid are still preserved, two of which are broken in half, and the fourth is missing. The planks of the longitudinal sides and lid are joined together at the ends with a transverse brace. The second transverse brace of the lid is missing. The coffin is trapezoidal.71 The height and width of the box taper towards the foot end: the difference in height is 13cm and the difference in width 16cm. Owing to this design, the upper board of the southern longitudinal wall has been smoothed at a sloped angle and a fourth plank, also smoothed at a slant, has been added to the lower part of the northern wall (see Fig. 29). The boards of the box have been nailed together with iron nails and the same technique has been used to attach the longitudinal sides to the transverse boards that form the base. The longitudinal planks have been joined together with dowels that are 16cm from the ends. The transverse braces of the side walls are nailed to the upper- and lowermost planks and sometimes also to the central plank from the inner side of the coffin using iron nails. The boards that constitute the lid are joined together using dowels. The transverse brace on the lid has been secured from the inside of the coffin with iron nails and wooden dowels. The majority of the planks are re-used, as traces of previous use are clearly visible: there are numerous holes from nails or dowels that no longer have any specific function. The boards of the lid and one board of the northern longitudinal side originally belonged to a single wooden panel measuring 160 × 85cm, which is painted with black geometric parallel lines (Fig. 30). These seem to be guidelines for the attachment of vertical as well as cross-shaped (no longer preserved) struts. In fact these lines correspond to three transverse braces that are partially preserved on the rear side of the boards; one of these supports is still preserved on the lid and a piece of one is visible on the lowermost board of the north side wall; the others are only attested by traces of corresponding notches. They were originally secured with dowels (strengthened by iron nails when used for a second time). The original use of the wooden panel remains unclear.

The second example is a large rectangular box measuring 220 × 75 × 80cm, which is more similar to a burial chamber. This coffin contained two individuals laid next to one another, an approximately twenty-yearold man and an approximately fifty-year-old woman, who were buried at the same time. This coffin was also opened but the corpses were partially intact.72 The planks from the upper part of the head end as well as the north side wall were torn off and removed. The two upper boards of the southern longitudinal side are broken in half. The foot wall consists of five crooked boards of varying widths whereas one of the longitudinal sides has four similar boards. The base consists of three individual transverse pieces of wood placed at irregular intervals. The planks of the longitudinal sides are nailed together with three transverse braces. The grave was sealed with a flat lid that was still in situ but had collapsed into the construction’s interior. It constitutes a 115 × 80cm rectangle and consists of five boards that are nailed to two transverse pieces of wood. This lid only covered half of the box construction, indicating that two such lids originally sealed the grave. They were covered with mats and the remains of one lid are still preserved (Fig. 31). The majority of the boards were re-used; for example, the uppermost plank of the longitudinal side consists of three different pieces of wood. It appears that only iron nails were used. The box was constructed directly at the site of the burial and can therefore be rightly called a ‘burial chamber’. It fills the entire space of the pit dug into the bedrock to such an extent that the braces of the longitudinal sides had to be nailed from the inside. The same is true for the double coffin described above, demonstrating that the wrapped corpses were placed into the coffin directly at the cemetery. This coffin type, however, is attested more frequently in the northern section of the cemetery where five examples were found insitu; a number of parts of additional examples were found scattered amongst the cemetery layers. This type is primarily built with reused wood of poor quality. The boards are irregular in thickness and width. The transverse supports are made

71

72

Dimensions: length 180cm; width of the head end 58cm; width of the foot end 42cm; height of the head end 55cm; height of the foot end 42cm; length of the lid 160cm; thickness of the boards of the lid 4.5cm.

Two pairs of sandals had been placed underneath the feet of the man, a larger and a smaller pair that belonged to the deceased during his lifetime: cf. Huber 2011.

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

465

Fig. 30: Reconstruction of the re-used boards of the coffin in Figs 28 and 29.

from branches or scrap wood. Owing to the design of the base, wood and long planks in particular could be used sparingly. This coffin type was not noted by Ranke. The construction of the sides and lid of this coffin type is the same as that of many of the coffins from the cemetery at Naqlun, which dates to the 12th– 13th centuries. Types 1 to 4 are attested simultaneously in all layers. The burial chamber with the Type 4 coffin is dated to

73

Ranke 1926, 14. The coin is a follis with a diameter of 3.5cm, but is now lost.

the 4th–5th centuries on the basis of the archaeological material. On the basis of the peacock coffin’s decoration, Type 5 belongs to the later phase of the cemetery’s use in the 6th to 7th centuries. One deceased female individual in the rock-cut grave, which contained two coffins of this type, wore a pierced coin with the image of Anastasius I (AD 491–518) as an amulet. This date can be considered as a terminuspost quem for the occupation of the grave.73

466

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

Fig. 31: Coffin chamber insitu before excavation.

CoffinsinEgypt All excavation reports unanimously declare that the dead were rarely buried in a coffin during the Late Antique period. Owing to the fact that the majority of wooden coffins are poorly preserved, their unimposing remains are rarely mentioned and hardly ever kept. In larger cemeteries, only isolated cases are in evidence.

For example, only five coffins were found in situ in Antinoopolis, together with several loose fragments, by Albert Gayet at the beginning of the 20th century.74 In 1902, Gayet wrote the following about the grave of Colluthus and his wife, Tisoia, who were both buried in coffins: ‘[…]c’estlaseulesépultureainsiétablie quej’airencontrée,pourenvirondixmilleautres.’75 In 2007, the body of a woman was uncovered in a simple

74

75

In the graves of the ‘prophetess’, Thaias, the ‘chevalier byzantine’ and of Colluthus and his wife, Tisoia. Only a few — if any at all — partially re-used boards of the coffins are still preserved (Calament 2005, 365, 387, 389, 429).

Gayet 1902, 33. 10,000 is the number of graves that were uncovered during a single excavation campaign!

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

trapezoidal coffin without a lid; a stone slab with the name of the deceased had been placed on top.76 Tebtunis constitutes an exceptional case: a high number of coffins are attested in the Fayum cemetery. Of the 830 graves excavated so far, 35% belong to children and infants, and 7% to adults. The remaining graves were for the burial of newborns. Several children and the majority of the adults were buried in coffins of varying forms. In contrast to Qarara, children were buried in similar coffins to those of adults. Thecoffin–aprivilege According to the current state of research, it is difficult to gain an overall view of the organisation and chronology of the Coptic cemetery in Qarara. Undisturbed archaeological structures are rare as the archaeological layers have been destroyed by centuries of permanent settlement and illicit digging at the site. However, it is possible to observe that the various types of burial and the burial equipment are not distributed evenly throughout the cemetery and that they are limited to certain sections. This spatial distribution can be interpreted chronologically or sociologically. Both aspects can be considered, and both are just as difficult to assess. In certain instances it could be established that grave types are congruous to the treatment of the deceased, thereby indicating that certain areas of the cemetery may have been reserved for the members of the same family unit.77 The spatial distribution of the funerary equipment points to a division of the cemetery into two areas. The flat graves in the plain are equipped with only a few grave goods. They most probably belonged to a population of lower economic status. By contrast, the individuals in the rockcut chambers with multiple burials were buried with all the signs of their wealth and higher social rank. The majority of the preserved, and often very rich, material originates from these burial places, which were intended for privileged families. The dead were provided with a wide range of grave goods, such as jewellery and specific objects of everyday use. All of the

76

77

The grave of ‘Tgol’. The coffin measures 213 × 20–38cm. The placement of a newborn child at the feet of the deceased explains the unusual length of the coffin (Minutoli 2008). It should also be noted that the textiles that were used in the graves are not distributed evenly throughout the cemetery. Certain types of textiles as well as patterns and clothing are limited to very specific sectors.

467

coffins with a raised triangular head section were found in this context,78 with the exception of the peacock coffin and the example that came to light in 1997. However, the peacock coffin that was found amongst the rock-cut tombs belongs to this group. The elaborate paintwork of the coffin indicates an expensive burial, which only a member of the higher ranks of society could have afforded (see above). Accordingly, coffins are also specific to the status and class of an individual and reflect both a social and an economic aspect. The same observations have been made in Antinoopolis: the coffins found thus far had mainly been placed in vaulted brick tombs that were reserved for members of the elite. The remains of the coffins that are still preserved are decorated in relief. The coffin of the gold smelter Colluthus, who was undoubtedly an important person, had a gable-roof-shaped lid and was elaborately decorated with moulding and bone (?) inlays.79 Acknowledgements We would like to thank Catherine H. Jones for the translation of the text from German to English. Special thanks are owed to Robert Ajtai, Institute for Egyptology, University of Heidelberg for the new photographic images of the coffin. A fair copy of the section ‘Iconography and dating’ was provided by Roxolana Bahjanyj, and the final drawings were produced by Hans-Joachim Frey.

Bibliography Assmann, J. 2001. Tod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten. Munich. Aubert, M.-Fr., R. Cortopassi, G. Nachtergael et al. 2008. Portraitsfunérairesdel’Égypteromaine.Cartonnages, linceulsetboisII. Paris. Ballet, P., N. Bosson and M. Rassart-Debergh. 2003. Kellia, l’ermitage copte QR 195: céramique, inscriptions,

78

79

In the rock-cut tomb H48.1, which contained two Type 5 coffins, at least 21 corpses were found. Among them was a woman buried with the most elaborate jewellery that has ever been found in the cemetery (see footnotes 52 and 73). Only one fragment of the coffin’s width survives: Gayet 1902, pl. VI. The grave dates to the second half of the 5th century.

468

B. HUBER AND C. NAUERTH

décors. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 49 (Kellia II). Cairo. Bosson, N. and S. H. Aufrère. 1999. Égyptes… L’Égyptien etleCopte.Cataloguedel’expositionLattes. Lattes. Bourgon-Amir, Y. 1993. Les tapisseries coptes du Musée Historiquedestissus,Lyon. Montpellier. Brunner-Traut, E., H. Brunner and J. Zick-Nissen. 1984. Osiris,Kreuz und Halbmond:diedreiReligionenÄgyptens. Mainz am Rhein. Calament, F. 2005. La révélation d’Antinoé par Albert Gayet: histoire, archéologie, muséographie. Bibliothèque d’études coptes 18. Cairo. Clédat, J. 1904. Le monastère et la nécropole de Baouit. Memoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 12. Cairo. Cortopassi, R. and C. Verhecken-Lammens. 2007. Tunics with loops: 14C, spinning, weaving, dyes and iconography. In A. De Moor, C. Fluck and S. Martinssen-von Falck (eds), Methodsofdatingancienttextilesofthe1st milleniumADfromEgyptandneighbouringcountries. Tielt, 139–49. Crum, W. E. 1902. Coptic Monuments. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Nos 8001–8741. Cairo. D’Auria, S., P. Lacovara and C. H. Roehrig. 1988. Mummies andmagic:ThefuneraryartsofancientEgypt. Boston. Dunand, F., J. L. Heim, N. Henein and R. Lichtenberg. 1992. DouchI. Lanécropole. Documents de fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 26. Cairo. Fluck, C., P. Linscheid and S. Merz. 2000. Textilien aus Ägypten.StaatlicheMuseenausBerlin. Wiesbaden. Gallazzi, C. and G. Hadji-Minaglou. 2012. Sépultures de nouveau-nés et d’enfants dans une nécropole de la fin du VIIIe et du IXe s. apr. J.-C. à Umm-el-Breigât, Tebtynis. In M.-D. Nenna (ed.), L’enfantetlamortdansl’Antiquité II.Études Alexandrines 26. Alexandria, 389–406. Gayet, A. 1902. L’explorationdesnécropolesgréco-byzantines d’Antinoë et les sarcophages pharaoniques de la villeantique.Paris. Germer, R. and G. Körbelin. 2012. KleiderausdemWüstensand.DiekoptischenTextiliendesMuseumsfürKunst undGewerbeHamburg. Bremen. Godlewski, W. 2002. Naqlun excavations. PolishArchaeology intheMediterranean 14, 163–71. Gomaà, F., R. Müller-Wollermann and W. Schenkel. 1991. Mittelägypten zwischen Samalut und dem Gabal Abu Sir.BeiträgezurhistorischenTopographiederpharaonischenZeit. Wiesbaden. Gomaà, F. and S. Farid. 1995. Bericht über die im Jahr 1983 durchgeführte Ausgrabung in Qarara. Göttinger Miszellen 144, 63–74. Grenfell, B. P. and A. S. Hunt. 1903. Excavations at Hîbeh, Cynopolis and Oxyrhynchus. Egypt Exploration Fund ArchaeologicalReport1902-1903, 1–9.

Grimm, G. 1974. DierömischenMumienmaskenausÄgypten. Wiesbaden. Heilmeyer, M. 2015. Blütenkränze für das Jenseits. In C. Fluck, G. Helmecke and E. R. O’Connell (eds), with the assistance of E. Ehler, Ein Gott. Abrahams Erben am Nil. Juden, Christen und Muslime in Ägypten von derAntikebiszumMittelalter. Berlin. Horak, U. 1998. Die Bilderwelt der Mönche. Biblos, BeiträgezuBuch,BibliothekundSchrift47, 1, 11–24. Huber, B. 2007. The textiles of an early Christian burial from al-Kom al-Ahmar/Šaruna (Middle Egypt). In A. De Moor, C. Flück and S. Martinssen-von Falck (eds), Methodsofdatingancienttextilesofthe1stmillennium ADfromEgyptandneighbouringcountries. Tielt, 36–66. Huber, B. 2008. Mittelägypten in spätrömisch-byzantinischer Zeit: Neue Forschung in Qarara. BulletindelaSociété d’archéologiecopte47, 54–71. Huber, B. 2011. Étude de deux paires de sandales provenant des fouilles récentes de Qarara. In A. De Moor and C. Flück (eds), Dressaccessoriesofthe1stmillennium ADfromEgypt. Tielt, 154–61. Huber, B. 2012. Von Türmen und Einsiedeleien im Raum Sharuna. BulletindelaSociétéd’archéologiecopte51, 69–99. Huber, B. 2013a. Eine Tunika fürs Jenseits. In A. De Moor, C. Flück and P. Linscheid (eds), Drawing the threads together–Textilesandfootwearofthe1stmillennium ADfromEgypt. Tielt, 12–21. Huber, B. 2013b. Ein koptischer Sarg – Zwischen Tradition und Innovation. Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte52, 77–98. Huber, B. Forthcoming. Qarara. Hundert Jahre danach, Honorary Volume for László Török. Kaplan, I. 1999. Grabmalerei und Grabreliefs der Römerzeit. Wechselwirkungen zwischen der ägyptischen und griechisch-alexandrinischenKunst. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 16. Vienna. Kasser, R. (ed.). 1984. Kellia.LesitemonastiquedeKellia. Recherchesdesannées1981–1983. Louvain. Kosack, W. 1974. AlltagimaltenÄgypten.AusderÄgyptensammlungdesMuseums. Freiburg. L’art copte en Égypte. 2000 ans de christianisme. 2000. Paris. Leroy, J. 1975.Lespeinturesdescouventsdudésertd’Esna. LapeinturemuralechezlescoptesI. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 94. Cairo. Lunsingh Scheurleer, R. A. 1992. Egypte.Geschenkvande Nijl. Amsterdam. Maspero, J. 1943. Fouilles exécutées à Baouît. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 59, 2. Cairo. Minutoli, D. 2008. Antinoe, necropoli nord 2007: la tomba di Tgol. Prime Informazioni. In G. Bastianini and

COPTIC COFFINS FROM QARARA

R. Pintaudi (eds), Antinoupolis I: Scavi e materiali. Florence, 61–73. Nauerth, C. 1996. Karara und El-Hibe. Die spätantiken (‘koptischen’) Funde aus den badischen Grabungen 1913–14.Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 15. Heidelberg. Nauerth, C. 2003. Pfauensarg und Mumienhülle – Bestattungsformen im spätantiken Ägypten. In H. Guksch, E. Hofmann and M. Bommas (eds), GrabundTotenkult imAltenÄgypten. Munich, 226–39. Nauerth, C. Forthcoming. Die koptischen Stoffe im KoptischenMuseum. Cairo. Peter, I. 1976. TextilienausÄgypten. Zürich. Quibell, J. E. 1912. ExcavationsatSaqqara(1908–9,1909– 10).TheMonasteryofApaJeremias. Cairo. Ranke, H. 1926. Koptische Friedhöfe bei Karara und der Amontempel Scheschonks I bei El-Hibe. Berlin; Leipzig. Rassart-Debergh, M. 1981a. Décoration picturale de Saqqara. Essai de reconstitution. Miscellanea Coptica. Rome, 9–124. Rassart-Debergh, M. 1981b. La peinture copte avant le XIIe siècle. Une approche. MiscellaneaCoptica. Rome, 221–84. Rassart-Debergh, M. 1989. Les peintures. In Y. Mottier and N. Bosson (eds), LesKellia.ErmitagescoptesenBasseEgypte. Musée d’Art et d’Histoire. Genève 12 octobre 1989–7janvier1990. Geneva, 57–77.

469

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. 2006. Vol. 21, Stuttgart. Renner, D. 1985. DiespätantikenundkoptischenTextilienim HessischenLandesmuseuminDarmstadt. Wiesbaden. Renner-Volbach, D. 2001. Glückbringende Rosen. In U. Horak (ed.), Realia Coptica. Als Festgabe zum 60. Geb.vonH.Harrauer. Vienna, 81–9. Schrenk, S. 2004. TextiliendesMittelmeerraumesausspätantikerbisfrühislamischerZeit.DieTextilsammlungder Abegg-StiftungBand4. Riggisberg. Stauffer, A. 1991. Spätantike und koptische Wirkereien. Untersuchungen zur ikonographischen Tradition in spätantikenundfrühmittelalterlichenTextilwerkstätten. Riggisberg. Szymańska, H. (ed.). 2000. The gods of ancient Egypt. Kraków. Volbach, W. F. and K. Wessel. 1963. KoptischeKunst.ChristentumamNil. Essen. Wiese, A. and C. Jacquat, with the assistance of J. Müller. 2014. Blumenreich. Wiedergeburt in Pharaonengräbern. Basel. Wulff, O. and W. F. Volbach. 1926. Spätantikeundkoptische Stoffe aus ägyptischen Grabfunden in den Staatlichen Museen. Berlin. Zibawi, M. 2004. KoptischeKunst.DaschristlicheÄgypten vonderSpätantikebiszurGegenwart. Regensburg. Zych, I. 2005. Wooden coffins from cemetery A in Naqlun. PolishArchaeologyintheMediterranean 16, 211–21.