A Mystery Script on an Object from Armant

Last year, while looking through the objects in one of the Egypt Centre stores, I came across a wooden object with strange writing (EC3452). It was several months later that I was finally able to look at this object in detail, including obtaining clearer photos. Upon closer inspection, it turned out that the script was not written directly on the wood, but on papyrus affixed to the wood. In total, there are twenty-six lines, which are surrounded by a reddish-brown border (fig. 1). Unfortunately, sections of the papyrus have been lost in places, particularly towards the bottom.

Fig. 1: Front of EC3452

So what is the script written on EC3452 (fig. 2)? Identifying it has proved quite a challenge! Several scripts were rejected early on, including demotic, hieratic, Arabic, Hebrew, and Greek. With no obvious answer, I sent photos of the object to several linguists who proposed cursive Armenian, Avestan, and Sogdian. Yet perhaps the best suggestion so far is Estrangelo, the oldest and classical form of Syriac script.

Fig. 2: Close-up of the script

Little is known about EC3452, although several clues are written on the reverse (fig. 3). Firstly, the rectangular serrated label in the lower left corner indicates that it comes from the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell (1876–1843), specifically his 1906 sale. Yet this sticker does not relate to the lot number, but to an exhibition held in London prior to the sale. The rectangular label with dark blue border, which can be partially seen beneath, usually contains numbers written in pencil, although what these relate to is currently unknown. Secondly, in the top right corner “Armant” is written (very faint and difficult to see) with a red crayon. This would suggest that the object originated from Armant, which is located just south of Luxor. Numerous objects in the Egypt Centre collection have place names written in either blue or red crayon, most (if not all) originating from the de Rustafjaell collection. Perhaps these were written by de Rustafjaell himself during his travels to Egypt in the 1890s.

Fig. 3: Back of EC3452

The aim of this blog post is to seek help with the identification and reading of the script on EC3452. Is it really Estrangelo or something else? What does it say and when does it date to? If you know anyone who can read Estrangelo, please pass this post on to them. Or, if you have another suggestion as to the script, please get in touch with me!

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

The Mystery of the Marble Head

The blog post for this week is an entry by Jack Brooker, an Egypt Centre volunteer and MA student of Public History and Heritage at Swansea University.

From February to June this year, I was enrolled in the Egypt Centre’s module Reaching the Public: Museums and Object Handling as part of my MA in Public History and Heritage at Swansea University. One assessment required me to undertake research on four objects from the Egypt Centre’s collection and present them in a public handling session. The objects ranged from a large wooden stela from Edfu Temple to a small (but beautiful!) silver coin of Ptolemy I. Perhaps the most interesting object I researched was a bearded marble head (figs. 1, 4–5). W914 is approximately ¾ life-size and is made from what appears to be Parian marble, a high-quality white marble, quarried on the Aegean island of Paros. The object is likely the head of a now lost statue (although it may also have been constructed as a stand-alone bust) and may have been displayed as a votive or religious object in a temple, or as art in a private residence.

Fig. 1: Our mysterious marble head (W914)

The head, and especially the woolly beard, is similar in style to the works of Lysippos of Sikyon. The famed sculptor lived in the transition between the Classical and Hellenistic periods and is the creator of the original bronze statue from which the Farnese Herakles was copied (fig. 2). The Egypt Centre’s artefact may well be another Roman copy of one of Lyssipos’ works. However, the most important question concerns who the object depicts. Initially, the answer seemed simple: prior research on the object suggested that it was a bust of the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis. Serapis (sometimes spelt Sarapis) was a god created by Ptolemy I, who combined the Egyptian gods Osiris and Apis with a number of classical Greek deities, including Zeus, Pluto and Dionysos, in order to act as a royal patron (Dowling, 2012; Smith, 1991: 65).

Fig. 2: Roman marble copy of Lysippos’ Herakles (MMA 27.122.18)

But as my research progressed it became apparent that the object did not have any of the major iconographical features generally associated with Serapis. Firstly, the hair and beard of our artefact were not as long as is typically depicted on statues of Serapis, who tends to adopt Zeus’ expansive mane (Smith, 1991: 64–66). More significantly, the bust has neither the kalathos (corn-basket) nor bull’s horns, both of which are important features of most depictions of Serapis (fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Basanite bust of Zeus-Serapis with modius/kalathos (BM 1805,0703.52)

Having (more or less) ruled out the possibility that W914 was a depiction of Serapis, I began to look for the object’s real identity. The lack of information on the object’s provenance was a major hinderance. We do not know if it came from Egypt, or elsewhere in the Roman world. We also cannot say what kind of site it was found on. If it was found in a temple, for example, that could indicate that the head depicted a god. Unfortunately, I was forced to attempt an identification based solely on the head’s appearance.

Fig. 4: W914

After some brief research into whether the object depicted a philosopher, I noticed it had a passing resemblance to a statue of Asklepios, which I had seen in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples. Asklepios was the Graeco-Roman god of medicine and healing and was popular throughout the Roman world (Mylonopoulos, 2012). As in the case of Serapis, the standard depiction of Asklepios in Hellenistic statuary is based on that of Zeus, though Asklepios often has slightly shorter hair. The style of diadem on W914 is also a common feature on statues of Asklepios (fig. 5). Furthermore, depictions of Asklepios show a high amount of pathos, a facial expression designed to indicate concern for someone’s wellbeing (Smith, 1991: 64).

Fig. 5: W914 with a view of the diadem

Towards the end of my research, Dr. Ken Griffin was able to match the head to its proper object file (it had previously been mislabelled as GR. See Gill & Gee 1996, nr. 1). There was little information in the file, but there was a Wellcome flimsy slip (125162) with the name ‘Aesculapius’ (the Latin rendering of Asklepios) scrawled in black pen, probably by the Egypt Centre’s first honorary curator Kate Bosse-Griffiths (1910–1998). Clearly my theory wasn’t as original as I had believed! The slip also provided the auction details (lot 76, which was sold by Sotheby’s on the 12 December 1932 for £10), which describe it as “a bearded head, about 12 in. high, in marble, Roman 1st century AD”. Further writing on the slip (again by Kate Bosse-Griffiths), show that the head was also identified as that of Homer, but the features are not consistent with typical depictions of the great poet (fig. 6). However, the slip does prove that the head is part of the Wellcome Collection. 

Fig. 6: Marble bust of Homer (BM 1805,0703.85)

Sir Henry Wellcome collected antiquities from all corners of the ancient world, not just Egypt. There are a number of objects from the Greek mainland in the Egypt Centre’s Wellcome Collection, including a fine pottery figure of a woman from Boeotia (GR8). Wellcome also acquired another marble head of Asklepios from the shrine on Melos, now in the British Museum (fig. 7). W914 does not quite fit the Melian style, but it does share similarities with another marble head of Asklepios from Kos, also in the British Museum (fig. 8).

Fig. 7: Head of Asklepios of Melos (1867,0508.115)

Fig. 8: Marble head of Asklepios from Kos (BM 1868,0620.3)

So, is the mystery solved? Unfortunately, without more evidence we cannot say for certain. However, the weight of the evidence does seem to suggest that the Egypt Centre’s mysterious marble head is a depiction of Asklepios, and not Serapis.

Bibliography:

Dowling, M. B. (2012) ‘Serapis’. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, ed. R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. B. Champion, A. Erskine and S. R. Huebner. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 6039–6041.

Gill, D. W. J. and R. Gee (1996) ‘Museum Supplement: Classical Antiquities in Swansea’. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 116: 157–161.

Mylonopoulos, I. (2012) ‘Asklepios’. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, ed. R. S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C. B. Champion, A. Erskine and S. R. Huebner. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 832–834.

Smith, R. R. R. (1991) Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson.

Sotheby, W. H. (1932) Catalogue of Prehistoric Implements, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Luristan and Indian Antiquities, etc., also Collections of Native Art, Including the Property of T.H. Powell ... Monsieur Noé de Padilla ... Admiral Sir Frederick Bedford ... and other Properties, which will be Sold by Auction by Messrs. Sotheby & Co. ... at their Large Galleries ... on Monday, the 12th of December, 1932. London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge.

Figuring Out a Backstory of a Figure from a Funerary Model

The blog for this week is a guest post by Sam Powell, MA student of Egyptology and Egypt Centre volunteer.

In the House of Death, the offerings case contains several wooden figures (fig. 1). A predecessor of the better-known shabti, these figures are from funerary models that were included in burials from the First Intermediate Period until the reign of Senwosret III in the Middle Kingdom. These models are believed to have been a substitute for food provisions, as they would continue to magically prepare bread, beer, and meat in the afterlife. I have been intrigued by these figures since seeing the beautiful models in the Cairo Museum belonging to Meketre. This year, I attended Ken Griffin’s object handling classes, which included some of these figures, and subsequently chose to use several for an assignment for the Women and Gender in Ancient Egypt module of the MA in Egyptian Material Culture. Having enjoyed this research so much, I have decided to use this set of objects as the basis of my MA thesis.

Fig. 1: Display of funerary models in the House of Death

The Egypt Centre is home to sixty-seven objects identified as figures from funerary models, as well as over fifty detached limbs, and various tomb model ‘furniture’, such as oars, masts, jars, and boxes, none of which have any known provenance. One ‘complete’ model is that of a boat (W361), which will be the subject of a curator’s talk by Carolyn Graves-Brown as to its authenticity later in the year (fig. 2). Many were acquired from the Wellcome collection and have acquisition slips and auction details, which may help in tracing provenance.

Fig. 2: Model funerary boat (W361)

For my MA thesis, I intend to build on the work of Gersande Eschenbrenner-Diemer (2017), who has created four phases of chronology from examples with known provenance, which I will use to determine probable origins for the Egypt Centre examples. Additionally, it may be possible to identify the types of model that the figures originated from (fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Examining one of the servant figures

The starting point for my research is to complete condition checks on all the figures and examine them in closer detail. Ken Griffin is kindly photographing each of the objects from several angles with a macro lens so that I can create a comprehensive catalogue for easy comparison, for which I am very grateful (fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Photographing W361

Although in the early stages of my research, one figure can already be given a probable provenance. W687 is a figure with typical features for models originating from Beni Hasan. He has reddish skin, a flat-based, cheek-length wig, high waisted ‘trousers’ (likely covered with linen to represent a kilt), and dowel legs that would slot into the base (fig. 5). On closer examination of the figure, ‘380’ is written on the reverse in pencil. From the Wellcome flimsy slip (65926), we know this figure was purchased by Henry Wellcome from the collection of the Charles James Tabor (1849–1928) in 1928. The catalogue entry (lot 219) indicates that Tabor acquired it via the collection of the Reverend William MacGregor (1848–1937) in 1922 (lot 618). MacGregor acquired many objects from John Garstang (1876–1956), who excavated at Beni Hasan between 1902 and 1904 (Garstang, 1907).

Fig. 5: W687

On checking the report for Garstang’s excavation, an “inventory of objects found within the tombs” is given in the appendix. This states that there was a tomb 380, which did include funerary models, the current location of which are unknown (Garstang 1907: 224).

The entry lists:
Objects:
i.                 Figures and oars from boat.
ii.               Figures from brewing group.
iii.             Model of bull lying down being fed(?) by girl.
iv.              Figure of embalmed body from boat (as in Fig.92)
v.                Blue ball beads
vi.              Piece of ivory.
vii.            Pottery figure, seated (no head).

Therefore, it seems certain that W687 originates from this tomb. Whether he was part of the boat or brewing group is unclear, but a contemporary brewing and butchery scene from tomb 723 of Sobek-hetepa at Beni Hasan, now in the British Museum (BM EA 41576), shows a figure in a similar stance (fig. 6).

Fig. 6: BM EA 41756

Although there is a lot more work to be done on these figures over the next year, I am really enjoying piecing together the available clues about this interesting set of objects (fig. 7). As a Swansea University student, having access to the objects I want to study is invaluable. I would not have been able to spot the pencil note on the reverse of W687 from a photograph, and spotting trends in materials and styles is so much easier and accurate when handling with the physical objects.

Fig. 7: Matching figures to Wellcome flimsy slips

I hope to provide a future blog post to update with my progress. With any luck, I will be able to reunite W867 with some of his original companions!

Bibliography:

Eschenbrenner-Diemer, G. (2017) ‘From the Workshop to the Grave: The Case of Wooden Funerary Models’. In Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th–20th September 2014 at UCL, London, ed. G. Miniaci, M. Betrò and S. Quirke. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 162. Leuven: Peeters. 133–191.

———. (2018) ‘The Petrie Museum’s Collection of Funerary Wooden Models: Investigating Chronology and Provenances’. Archaeology International 21: 101–108.

Garstang, J. (1907) The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt as Illustrated by Tombs of the Middle Kingdom: Being a Report of Excavations Made in the Necropolis of Beni Hassan during 1902–3–4. London: Constable.

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

———.(1928) Catalogue of Antiquities, etc., Comprising the Collection of Prehistoric Implements, the Property of Miss Carey, Egyptian, Greek and Roman Antiquities, etc., Comprising the Collection of the Late C.J. Tabor, the Property of Princess Ghika, the Property of Mrs O. Gregory, the Property of Mrs A. Belcher, the Property of Mrs de Burley Wood, the Property of W. Kennett, and other Properties, including Indian and South American Objects; which will be Sold by Auction by Sotheby and Co. ... on Monday, the 12th of November, 1928, and Following Day. London: Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge.

Winlock, H. E. (1955) Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-Re’ at Thebes. Publications of The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 18. Published for the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

An Ancient Egyptian “Saint” in Swansea: Fragments of the Sarcophagus of Amenhotep Son of Hapu

Last Tuesday I went with some of the South Asasif Conservation Project team members to Mohamed Abdulla’s restaurant for some lunch. This was also an opportunity to say goodbye to Marion Brew, our main archaeologist at the site. Aside from the excellent food, the restaurant is located opposite the scant remains of the memorial temple (fig. 1) of Amenhotep son of Hapu (Robichon & Varille 1936). Amenhotep was the most famous official of the pharaoh Amenhotep III, who reigned c. 1386-1349 BC. He was an architect, priest, scribe, and public official who is known from his many statues (Galán 2003). After his death, his reputation grew and he was respected for his teachings and as a philosopher. He was also revered as a healer and eventually worshipped as a god of healing. Some Egyptologists refer to him as an ancient Egyptian “saint” (Wildung 1977; Murnane 1991).

Fig. 1: Examining the remains of the temple (photo by Sharon Davidson)

So what does Amenhotep son of Hapu have to do with Swansea? Well, one of the prized possessions of the Egypt Centre, and the one that most Egyptologists often get excited about, are two fragments of the sarcophagus of Amenhotep son of Hapu (W1367a & W1367b). These fragments (figs. 2–3), which are carved out of granodiorite, originally formed part of the inner sarcophagus of this official. They were acquired by “Llewellyn”, an agent of Sir Henry Wellcome, in 1906 as part of the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell (lot 99) for the sum of £2/10. This lot is described as a “head of a king in sandstone (modern colouring); and eight varied fragments, etc., some of Roman date”. The catalogue also notes that the lot consisted of nine objects. Small round stickers containing the lot details are attached to both objects. In fact, it seems that there were at least three fragments of the sarcophagus sold as part of this lot. W1967a actually consists of two fragments glued together at an unknown date, both of which contain auction labels.

Fig. 2: W1367a

Amenhotep is known to have had two sarcophagi, both in granodiorite (Varille 1968, 113–120). While the outer sarcophagus was carved in sunk relief, the inner one contained raised relief. As a result, the fragments in the Egypt Centre can be attributed to the inner sarcophagus. Both sarcophagi were reconstructed on paper by Alexandre Varille (1909–1951), although he was unaware of those in Swansea. Fragments are known in the Cairo Museum, British Museum, Petrie Museum, the Louvre, the Musée de Grenoble, the Musée du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles, and Stockholm (private collection).

Fig. 3: W1367b

W1367a (fig. 2) contains the legs of a deity, with two columns of hieroglyphs in front and a thicker column of hieroglyphs behind. The latter has the hetep element of the owner’s name, which is followed by a seated determinative and the epithet mꜣꜥ-ḫrw, “true of voice”. The two lines in front would have listed some of the many titles of Amenhotep, although only that of i͗ry-pꜥt (“member of the elite”) can be firmly read. Most interesting is that W1367a clearly joins directly with the fragment housed in the Musée du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles (E.03059), as can be seen in figure 4. This join provides the full height of the sarcophagus base and the thick column of hieroglyphs behind the deity: ṯꜣy-ḫw ḥr wnmy n nswt i͗ry-pꜥt I͗mn-ḥtp mꜣꜥ-ḫrw (fan-bearer on the right side of the king, member of the elite, Amenhotep, true of voice).

Fig. 4: W1367a (bottom) virtually joined with Brussels E.03059 (top)

W1367b (fig. 3) contains the upper half of a jackal divinity (either Anubis or Duamutef) who is surrounded by columns of hieroglyphs. Once again, they contain the titles of Amenhotep: i͗ry-pꜥt ḥꜣty-ꜥ (member of the elite, mayor); i͗my-r mšꜥ n nb tꜣwy (overseer of the army of the lord of the Two Lands); and ṯꜣy-ḫw ḥr wnmy n nswt (fan-bearer on the right side of the king). The remaining title behind the deity can be reconstructed as i͗my-r šnwty n(t) [I͗mn] (overseer of the double granaries of Amun, one that does not seem to have been otherwise attested for Amenhotep. A reconstruction of the sarcophagus incorporating of the Swansea fragments was made some years ago by the late Anthony Donohue (fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Reconstruction of the interior sarcophagus with Egypt Centre fragment in grey

Over lunch (fig. 6) we discussed the life and career of Amenhotep, contemplating where he may have been buried and whether his tomb remains to be (re-)discovered. The most likely location seems to be the slopes of Qurnet Murai, where a number of his funerary cones were unearthed (Bidoli 1970). This hillside also contains the tomb of Merymose (TT 383), the viceroy of Kush during the reign of Amenhotep III, whose inner sarcophagus of granodiorite (BM EA 1001) displays many parallels with that of Amenhotep son of Hapu.

Fig. 6: Drinks at Mohamed Abdulla’s

Bibliography:

Bidoli, D. (1970) ‘Zur Lage des Grabes des Amenophis, Sohn des Hapu’. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 26: 11–14.

Galán, J. M. (2003) ‘Amenhotep Son of Hapu as Intermediary Between the People and God’. In Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000 2, ed. Z. A. Hawass and L. P. Brock. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. 221–229.

Murnane, W. J. (1991) ‘Servant, Seer, Saint, Son of Hapu, Amenhotep, called Huy’. KMT 2, 2: 8–13, 56–59.

Peterson, B. (1978) ‘A Sarcophagus Puzzle’. Chronique d’Égypte 53, 106: 222–225.

Robichon, C. and A. Varille (1936) Le temple du scribe royal Amenhotep, fils de Hapou, I. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 11. Cairo: l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

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

Taylor, J. A. (2001) An Index of Male Non-Royal Egyptian Titles, Epithets and Phrases of the 18th Dynasty. London: Museum Bookshop Publications.

Varille, A. (1968) Inscriptions concernant l’architecte Amenhotep fils de Hapou. Bibliothèque d’étude 44. Cairo: Institut français d’Archéologie orientale.

Wildung, D. (1977) Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt. New York, NY: New York University Press.

The Ushabtis of the Divine Adoratrice Qedmerut

In 2016 I was invited to Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) to participate in a conference relating to the excavations of the tomb of Karomama within the Ramesseum complex. Since the Ramesseum lies just across the road from the South Asasif necropolis, we are fortunate enough to see the temple of Ramesses II every day (fig. 1). As an undergraduate student at Swansea University, I undertook a life-cycle project on a rather special ushabti in the Egypt Centre collection (W1315), which had been misidentified several times over the years. Based on the rather scant traces of her name on the front, along with the iconography of the figures, it was possible to identify her as the Divine Adoratrice Qedmerut.

Fig. 1: Sunrise at the Ramesseum

Of all the women to have held the prominent title of Divine Adoratrice (dwꜣt nṯr), Qedmerut is perhaps the most obscure. Though her exact chronological position is uncertain, the typology of her ushabti figures makes her likely the direct successor of Karomama G Merytmut in the mid Twenty-second Dynasty (late ninth–early eighth century BC). Qedmerut is known exclusively from her ushabti figures, which were discovered by the Egyptian Research Account (ERA) within the Ramesseum in the late 1890s (Quibell 1898). These figures were subsequently dispersed to the various institutions and benefactors who subscribed to the ERA, especially within the United Kingdom. W1315 (fig. 2) arrived in Swansea from the British Museum in 1980.

Fig. 2: Front of W1315

The ushabtis of Qedmerut are moulded in faience and are noteworthy for their rather coarse and pitted surfaces. Aston (2009, 241 & 357) identifies them as his “Type F”, which he describes as having crossed bands holding two opposed hoes, a solid unpainted wig bound by a headband, and the face modelled in a more “naturalistic” manner. A uraeus, a feature commonly found on the ushabtis of the Divine Adoratrice, is modelled on the forehead. All the details have been painted in black ink over the bluish-green glaze: a seshed-headband, large eyes, thick brows, small hoes, and a rectangular seed-bag at the rear suspended from long cords (fig. 3). Additionally, a single column of hieroglyphs, identifying the owner, is located on the front. The figures measure approximately 10 cm in height, 3 cm in width, and 2.5 cm in depth.

Fig. 3: Back of W1315

Due to the poor quality of many of the ushabtis, the inscriptions have often faded or are only partially visible as a result of the surface flaking. Yet, even without the inscription present, a number of key identifiers can be noted, besides the poor quality faience used in the production. The first is the uraeus, which is only found on royal ushabtis, including those of the Divine Adoratrice. However, amongst the Divine Adoratrices of the Third Intermediate Period, only those of Qedmerut and Karomama G appear to wear one. The main difference between the figures of these two women is the size (Moje 2017). At a maximum of 10 cm in height, Qedmerut’s ushabtis are significantly smaller than those of Karomama G, which have a minimum height of 13–14 cm (fig. 4). Thus, combining these elements can often lead to the identification of Qedmerut’s ushabtis that have either a missing or partially damaged inscription.

Fig. 4: Ushabti comparison of the Divine Adoratrices Maatkare, Henuttawy, Mekhetemweskhet, Karomama, Qedmerut

The ushabtis of Qedmerut all contain a single column of text identifying the owner. Two main variants are attested, which I have designated as Type A and B (fig. 5). In both cases, the title of dwꜣt nṯr is enclosed within the cartouche, an arrangement that only occurs for the ushabtis of Henettawy D and Qedmerut. ln many cases the inscription has faded, although it is still possible from surviving traces to determine the type for almost all figures: Type A occurs fifteen times, Type B is found on twenty-five figures, while for eight of them it is impossible to determine. 

Fig. 5: Type of inscriptions on the ushabtis of Qedmerut

In the 2017 proceedings of the conference, I published a catalogue of the forty ushabtis of Qedmerut known to me. Since then, a further eight have come to light, some of which were kindly brought to my attention by Glenn Janes, thus bringing their number to forty-eight. These new examples are: one in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge (2006.152), at least six in the Pennsylvania University Museum (E1898, E14598, E14599, E14600, E14670, E14672), one sold by the Helios Gallery in 2017, and another to be sold by Bonhams auction house on Wednesday 3 July 2019. With the recent rediscovery of Karomama’s tomb within the Ramesseum complex (fig. 6), it is hoped that the burial place of Qedmerut will follow suit, perhaps shedding additional light on the identity of this mysterious woman.

Fig. 6: Shaft tomb of Karomama

Bibliography:

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

Ayad, M. F. (2009) God’s Wife, God’s Servant: The God’s Wife of Amun (ca.740–525 BC). London: Routledge.

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

Lurson, B. and F. Mourot (2018) ‘From the Foundations to the Excavation: A Stratigraphy-based History of the Temple of Tuya’. In Thebes in the First Millennium BC: Art and Archaeology of the Kushite Period and Beyond, ed. E. Pischikova, J. Budka and K. Griffin. GHP Egyptology 27. London: Golden House Publications. 193–213.

Moje, J. (2017) ‘Die Uschebtis von Karomama Meritmut G – ein Überblick’. In De la mère du roi à l’épouse du dieu. Première synthèse des résultats de la fouille du temple de Touy et de la tombe de Karomama – Von der Königsmutter zur Gottesgemahlin. Erste Synthese der Ausgrabungsergebnisse des Tempels von Tuja und des Grabes von Karomama, ed. B. Lurson. Connaissance de l’Egypte Ancienne 18. Brussels: Safran. 103–112.

Nelson, M. (2003) ‘The Ramesseum Necropolis’. In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, ed. N. C. Strudwick and J. H. Taylor. London: British Museum Press. 88–94.

Quibell, J. E. (1898) The Ramesseum. Egyptian Research Account 2. London: Bernard Quaritch.