Identifying Coffin Fragments from the Collection of a Banjo-Playing Barmaid

Several weeks ago, I wrote about identifying a limestone stela in the Egypt Centre as belonging to an official called Dedusobek. This identity was made possible thanks to the unpublished manuscripts cataloguing Sir Henry Wellcome’s Egyptian and Sudanese material between 1907 and 1914. The manuscripts were mainly compiled by William St Chad Boscawen (1854–1913) between 1907–1912 (Horry 2015). Since getting access to these manuscripts, which are housed at the Petrie Museum, in October this year, I have been able to identify many objects in the Egypt Centre collection. The manuscripts often include additional details otherwise unknown, such as previous owners, auction details, and related objects. This weekend, while working through the transcription of volume three, I spotted two entries for objects I’d been hoping to find information on for several years. Both pieces are wooden panels, which likely belong to the same object (W1042 & W1042a).

Fig. 1: W1042

W1042 (fig. 1) is a wooden panel depicting the god Osiris seated on a throne, with a cobra (Wadjet) wearing the Red Crown twisting around a papyrus and lotus plant shown behind. W1042a (fig. 2) is a larger wooden panel consisting of two registers. On the top, the deceased (or priest?) is depicted at either end with his hands raised in adoration before a winged scarab with two cobras (Wadjet and Nekhbet) emerging from it. A large solar disk was once present at the head of the scarab, but this is now missing and is only identifiable from the circular paint mark. Below this register is a scene depicting Isis (right) adoring Osiris, and Nephthys (left) adoring Re(?). At the top of the panel is a horizontal inscription, while the sides depict a frieze of rosettes between rectangular decoration. The colour scheme and decoration of both pieces is identical, which suggests that they belong to the same object. Additionally, both pieces have large numbers (6 & 7) written in square brackets in black ink. These were likely a numbering system used by an early collector, which is identical to two other objects in the Egypt Centre collection. But whose collection do they originate from? The answer to this had eluded me until this past weekend!

Fig. 2: W1042a

Both objects have their Wellcome registration numbers (R6909 & R6865) written on them, which is usually the key to identifying their origins. However, the records list these objects as simply being recorded in the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum (HMM) in November 1927. It seems that it was at this time that the objects on display in the museum were retrospectively registered. Thus, all that could be determined was that the object was deposited in the museum sometime between 1913 (when it was first opened to the public) and 1927. Given that the formal registration of Wellcome’s objects only started in 1913, it was likely that they were purchased at some point before this date.

When going through the unpublished manuscript on Saturday, I came across the following two entries (fig. 3):

Fig. 3: Boscawen manuscript page 
(Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology)

65: “Wooden panel cut out of a large coffin coloured red. Painting represents Osiris seated on his throne holding whip & Ankh. Behind him a large Uraeus serpent issuing from a Lotus plant. The throne of Osiris rests on a bed of water plants.”

66: “Large panel cut out of a coffin in two tiers. Upper tier representation of winged solar disk (disk missing) with two Uraei as supporters to the disk. In middle of the wings the Solar Kheper beetle. Two priests on either side adore the disk. Second Tier, Ra & Horus seated on their thrones being advised by Isis & Nephthys. Line of hieroglyphs on top giving the titles of Horus, Isis, Osiris Seb, & Khnum.”

 

In addition to the descriptions of the pieces, the manuscript states that these objects originate from the Meux collection, which was sold in 1911. While the lot number was not recorded by Boscawen in his manuscript, it was easy to identify it as lot 1504, which is described as follows (fig. 4):

Fig. 4: Auction catalgoue entry

“Inner wooden coffin of a lady who probably lived towards the end of the period of the XXVI dynasty, about B.C. 500. Cover of a coffin of a lady who probably lived during the Ptolemaic period, about B.C. 200. Painted end of a wooden coffin wherein are depicted the deceased adoring a winged disk, and the goddesses Isis and Nephthys. Panel from the same coffin, whereon is painted Osiris. Wooden face from the inner coffin of a man, about the period of the XXVIth dynasty, about B.C. 550; the face is painted red and the eyebrows blue. Wooden face from the inner coffin of a lady who flourished about B.C. 300.  Unpainted wooden face from the coffin of a man who flourished about B.C. 300. Fragment of wood from the coffin of Sheps-ta-Mat.”

Lady Valerie Susan Meux (1852–1910) was a socialite of the Victorian era. She was the wife of Sir Henry Bruce Meux, 3rd Baronet (1856–1900), who came from one of Britain’s richest brewing dynasties, Meux’s Brewery, founded in 1764, which was a major brewer of porter ale in London in the nineteenth century. Before her marriage, Lady Meux claimed to have been an actress, but was apparently on the stage for only a single season. She is believed to have met Sir Henry Meux at the Casino de Venise in Holborn, where she worked as a banjo-playing barmaid (fig. 5) and had a stage name Val Langdon. Lady Meux was a flamboyant and controversial figure, given to driving herself around London in a high phaeton, drawn by a pair of zebras. Their house at Theobald’s Park in Hertfordshire was lavishly improved and enlarged; additions included a swimming pool and an indoor roller-skating rink. It was at Theobald’s Park where Lady Meux amassed a collection of some 1800 Egyptian artefacts, which were first published by Sir E. A. T. Wallis Budge (1857–1934) in 1893 with a second edition in 1896.

Fig. 5: Lady Meux and her banjo

As mentioned previously, two other objects in the Egypt Centre collection bear the same numbering as found on the fragments discussed here. W352 is a wooden face from a coffin, which is painted red with blue eyebrows. It carries the number 8 in square brackets just below the chin. W1022 is an unpainted (except for the eyes) black wooden coffin face, which has the number 10 written on the forehead. These coffin fragments are described in the aforementioned lot, thus meaning that four of the eight pieces sold together are now housed in the Egypt Centre collection. Looking through Budge’s catalogue, I was delighted to find that the numbers correlated to his cataloguing (fig. 6). Thus, the mystery of the numbering and the identity of the former owner had finally been solved!

Fig. 6: Budge's catalogue entry

As for the two large wooden coffin panels, these have long been displayed in the Egypt Centre galleries. I remember being brought to the Egypt Centre back in 2004 as part of an MA module on museum collecting to be told (by a non-Egyptologist teaching the session) that W1042a was a forgery because the inscription above didn’t make sense. In reality, while the hieroglyphs do look unconventional, the inscription is perfectly readable (fig. 7):

Fig. 7: Inscription of W1042a

ꜥnḫ nṯr nfr ḥr ꜣst wsi͗r ḫnty-i͗mntt nṯr ꜥꜣ nb ꜣbḏw sꜣ n wr tp n gb

“Life to the Good God. Horus, Isis, and Osiris, Foremost of the West, the Great God, Lord of Abydos, the eldest son, the first born of Geb.”

 

This style of coffin is well-known as dating to the Roman Period (second century AD) and coming specifically from the necropolis of Tuna el-Gebel. The coffin of Teuris in the Allard Pierson Museum of Antiquities (APM 7069) being the most notable example (Kurth 1990). Unfortunately, with the Swansea fragments, the identity of the coffin owner remains a mystery that is unlikely to be solved any time soon!

 

Bibliography:

Budge, E. A. Wallis 1896. Some account of the collection of Egyptian antiquities in the possession of Lady Meux, of Theobald’s Park, Waltham Cross, 2nd ed. London: Harrison & Sons.

Haarlem, Willem M. van 2010. De sarkofaag van Teuris. APm: Allard Pierson Mededelingen 101–102, 8–11.

Haarlem, Willem M. van 1998. Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, fascicle 4: sarcophagi and related objects. Corpus antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum: Lose-Blatt-Katalog ägyptischer Altertümer. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.

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

Kurth, Dieter 1990. Der Sarg der Teüris: eine Studie zum Totenglauben im römerzeitlichen Ägypten. Aegyptiaca Treverensia: Trierer Studien zum Griechisch-Römischen Ägypten 6. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Reuniting the Statue of Djedhor the Saviour

Back in September 2021 at our conference to mark fifty years since part of the Wellcome collection arrived to Swansea, it was announced by Anna Garnett of the Petrie Museum that the plaster cast of the statue of Djedhor the Saviour would be gifted to the Egypt Centre so that it could be reunited with its base (W302). In the intervening fourteen months, preparations for this transfer have been taking place. The base was sent to Cardiff for conservation, as previously discussed in a blog post by Krystina Parker, before returning to us in September. With the base back in Swansea, it was now time to arrange for the statue to be reunited with it. Anna and I had the chance to discuss this when I visited the Petrie Museum in October. This past Tuesday (29 November) was quite an exciting day at the Egypt Centre as the statue of Djedhor finally arrived to the Egypt Centre (fig. 1). It was appropriate that the statue arrived on Giving Tuesday, a global initiative that encourages people and organizations to donate their time and money to charitable causes.

Fig. 1: The reunited Djedhor the Saviour cast

As many readers will know, Djedhor was a Priest and “Guardian of the Gates of the Temple of Athribis” (located in the tenth Lower Egyptian nome). The original statue, which is on display in the Tahrir Museum in Cairo (JE 46341), is one of several known for Djedhor. A statue base is in the Oriental Institute, Chicago (OIM E10589), and a headless torso of a standing, naophorous statue is in Cairo (4/6/19/1). In all probably, the latter two statues were part of the same monument. According to Sherman (1981), JE 46341 was likely produced after the other statue. This is because JE 46341 is the only one of the two in which Djedhor has the “good name” of pꜣ-šd, “the Saviour”, which must have been given to him later in his life. The words of Djedhor on the Cairo statue indicate that he was alive at the time of its creation: “It is I who caused this saviour-statue to appear, along with the saviour-statue which is in the necropolis”. This inscription highlights how the statue was used for healing. The entire statue of Djedhor is covered with magical texts that protect, or heal, against snakes, scorpions, and other malicious creatures. These texts were published by Jelínková-Reymond (1956) and Sherman (1981), with an English translation available here. Users would pour water over the statue of Djedhor, which would absorb the magical healing powers of the hieroglyphs. This water would then collect in the depression located on the base directly in front of the statue, which could then be drunk or applied to a wound. From the inscriptions, we know that Djedhor lived during the reign of Philip Arrhidaeus (c. 323–317 BC).

Fig. 2: Cast of Djedhor on display in the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum

The cast of the Djedhor statue and base was produced in 1933 by the Cairo Museum at the request of Sir Henry Wellcome. Wellcome was particularly interested in objects associated with medicine, healing, and magic, so the object was of great importance to him. Upon arrival in London, it was given the Wellcome acquisition number A129212, with the later registration number R77/1935. The cast was soon displayed in the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum until it was transferred to University College London (UCL) in 1964 (fig. 2). It was here that that statue was separated from its base, with the former going to the Petrie Museum and the latter to Swansea in 1971. Discussions between the Petrie Museum and the Egypt Centre over reuniting the statue with the base first occurred around twenty years ago, but it was only in the last few years that these discussions allowed the reunification to occur. As far as I’m aware, this is the first time objects from the Wellcome collection have been reunited after their separation. Additionally, it is possibly the only cast of the Cairo statue known (I’d be interested to know if any readers are aware of others).

Fig. 3: Newly photographed Djedhor statue

Since the statue (now numbered W302a) arrived in Swansea several days ago, it has been photographed (fig. 3), 3D scanned (fig. 4), and been the guest of honour at the Egypt Centre’s Christmas party on Friday (fig. 5). Future plans include putting it on display and using it for our object-based learning at the museum. We are also planning a study day on Djedhor to take place in 2023, so stay posted for further details about this!

Fig. 4: 3D model of the combined Djedhor statue (https://skfb.ly/oAUI6)

We are grateful to all involved in making this reunification happen, particularly our colleagues at UCL Culture. This transfer could not have taken place without the support of Anna Garnett, the Curator of the Petrie Museum, for being so willing to make this happen!

Fig. 5: Wendy Goodridge next to Djedhor at the Egypt Centre Christmas party

Bibliography:

Jelínkova-Reymond, E. 1956. Les inscriptions de la statue guérisseuse de Djed-ḥer-le-Sauveur. Bibliothèque d’étude 23. Le Caire: Institut français d’Archéologie orientale. 

Rowland, Joanne, Salima Ikram, G. J. Tassie, and Lisa Yeomans 2013. The sacred falcon necropolis of Djedhor(?) at Quesna: recent investigations from 2006–2012. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 99, 53–84.

Sherman, Elizabeth J. 1981. Djedḥor the Saviour statue base OI 10589. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 67, 82–102.

Identifying a Lost Stela of Dedusobek

Back in June 2019, I posted a blog about the reconstruction of a Middle Kingdom stela in the Egypt Centre collection. At the time, EC1848 consisted of around forty fragments, the largest of which I’d been able to group together to reveal some names and titles. Since then, the stela fragments were sent to Cardiff Conservation Department where it was treated and joined, as best as possible, by Seren Kitchener. Seren was able to make considerable improvements to my reconstruction (fig. 1). This helped to determine that the upper inscription contained at least four lines of hieroglyphs. Below this is a pictorial scene depicting a seated figure on the left before a large table of offerings in the centre. This is followed in the third register by the partial remains of at least two people. The named individuals on the stela include Bebi, who seemed to be the mother of the deceased (upper inscription), and two sons named Sahathor (lower right) and Khuniwtef (lower left). A further fragment, not joined, contained the partial name of a daughter, which likely read as Sathathor. 

Fig. 1: EC1848 after conservation

Just a few weeks after the stela returned to the Egypt Centre (September 2022), I was in London to examine the unpublished Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities (six volumes) of objects in the Wellcome collection, which had been compiled by William St Chad Boscawen (1854–1913) between 1907–1912 (Horry 2015). I’d been very excited to finally see these since Anna Garnett, the Curator at the Petrie Museum, rediscovered them in August 2021. The manuscripts did not disappoint as they included descriptions, often with drawings, of approximately 4,000 objects, many of which are now in the Egypt Centre. This included objects purchased by Wellcome at auction from the collections of Robert de Rustafjaell (1906 & 1907), Hilton Price (1911), Martin Kennard (1911), Lady Meux (1911), and other miscellaneous sales. The manuscripts also included lists of objects purchased by Wellcome in Cairo (1911) and Luxor (1912). Finally, five collections of antiquities from Garstang’s excavations at Meroe (1909–1914), which were presented to Wellcome annually, were catalogued (fig. 2). Since Boscawen died in 1913, the latter additions were recorded in a different hand by an unidentified person.

Fig. 2: Sample page from Boscawen manuscript vol. V
(Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology)

So what have these manuscripts got to do with EC1848? Well, while transcribing volume 2, which contained objects purchased from the 1907 Rustafjaell sale, I noticed that entry number 1360 mentioned a “Mistress of the House, Bebi”. While Bebi is a very common name, with 297 entries on the Persons and Names of the Middle Kingdom (PNM) database, I decided to compare the four-page entry with EC1848. To my great surprise, the upper inscription matched, as did the description of the stela layout and the names of the children. The main difference is that the stela, when recorded by Boscawen in 1907–8, was complete rather than fragmentary. Thanks to Boscawen’s transcription, I was able to identify to owner of the stela as the “Chief of Tens of Upper Egypt, Dedusobek” (Quirke 2004, 87). Additionally, I was even able to place a further three fragments (fig. 3)! Unfortunately, unlike many of the other descriptions in the manuscripts, the measurements aren’t recorded. Given the importance of Boscawen’s entry for this stela, I present the description in full:

Fig. 3: EC1848 with additional fragments photoshopped in

“Large lime stone stela - rude drawing but carved as is also the inscription (fig. 4). It is divided into four tiers. In the upper are two [drawing] utchat eye. The two eyes of Horus and between them the sign [drawing] ‘eternity’ (sen). In the second is the inscription. In the third, the deceased [drawing] Sebek tattu is represented seated at a table altar. On which are spread palm leaves & a very large goose or duck. Beside it are loaves of bread and a beer jar. Before him is his daughter who holds a lotus flower in her hand. Her name is [drawing] his daughter Hathor Sat deceased. The wifes name does not appear.”

Fig. 4: Page from Boscawen manuscript vol. II
(Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology)

“The names of members of the family are preserved in the lower tier (fig. 5). We have here two sons and a daughter:

A. [drawing] Of which only a tentative translation can be given ‘his eldest son’.

B. Kneeling youth before whom is the inscription [drawing] ‘Her son Hathor-Sa’ deceased.

C. Seated female with lotus above whom is the inscription [drawing] She lady of the house. Deceased.”

“The work is good and of the period between the XIIth + XVIII dynasties.”

Fig. 5: Page from Boscawen manuscript vol. II
(Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology)

“Inscription [drawing].” (fig. 6)

Fig. 6: Page from Boscawen manuscript vol. II
(Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology)

“Translation (fig. 7).

1) Give a royal offering in Tattu to Osiris dwelling in Tattu. 2) Funeral offerings of bread, beer, oxen, fowl, linen, wax and all good and pure things 3) May he give the sweet (wind) breath of life, glory in heaven, power on earth, triumph in the Underworld 4) to the Ka of Sebek-tattu born of Hat-Heru-ma-Kha ... deceased & born of the Lady of the house Beba deceased.”

Fig. 7: Page from Boscawen manuscript vol. II
(Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology)

While there are a few errors with Boscawen’s reading of the text, some of which are purely down to the accepted readings of personal names a century ago, the transcription does show that he was quite competent in reading ancient Egyptian. One important correction is that the name of Dedusobek’s father should be read as the “Governor, Horemkhawef” instead of “Hat-Heru-ma-Kha …”, a name which is attested on several monuments according to the PNM database.

With the names of Dedusobek’s parents and children known, is it possible to identify him on other monuments? While further research is still needed, it is possible that he is the same Dedusobek as recorded on a stela from Edfu (current location unknown), which was published by Alliot (1935, p. 30, pl. XVI.3). On this stela, the owner is identified as the “Chief of Tens of Upper Egypt, Dedusobek”, as found on the stela in Swansea. He is described “made by (i͗r-n) Bebi”. While the filiation i͗r-n is most commonly used in identifying the father, the writing of “the justified” in the feminine form (mꜣꜥt-ḫrw rather than mꜣꜥ-ḫrw) would imply Bebi is actually his mother (fig. 8). The problem occurs with the other names mentioned on the stela from Edfu, which do not match those on the stela in Swansea (there is a Satsobek, but she is listed as a “Mistress of the House” and not as “his daughter”).

Fig. 8: Transcription of the Edfu stela (Alliot 1935, 30)

It is unknown when the stela of Dedusobek was broken, but since around 50% of it is now missing, it is likely to have been before the Wellcome collection arrived in Swansea in 1971. Perhaps the remaining fragments went to one of the other museums that received Wellcome material and await identification. Further research is needed, with a full publication of the stela being prepared. This blog post highlights the importance of archival work in museums, with much potential from the Boscawen manuscripts for our understanding of Wellcome’s early Egyptian material!

Bibliography:

Alliot, Maurice 1935. Rapport sur les fouilles de Tell Edfou (1933). Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 10 (2). Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

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

Quirke, Stephen 2004. Titles and bureaux of Egypt, 1850–1700 BC. Egyptology (Golden House) 1. London: Golden House.

3D Scanning of Objects

This past week has been quite an exciting and fun time at the Egypt Centre. On Monday, I joined the museum’s new Collections Access Manager, Meg Gundlach, and colleagues from the Richard Burton Archives at Swansea University in receiving training on using two newly purchased Artec 3D scanners. The training was delivered by Alex Chung, of Central Scanning Ltd. 3D Scanning is a fast and efficient process used to collect 3D point cloud data, for the creation of 3-dimensional models. These are particularly useful as they allow researchers to interact with the Egypt Centre collection in ways that is not always possible through 2D imagery. Additionally, with the creation of 3D models, it is possible to print replicas of our objects, something we plan to experiment with in the coming weeks.

Fig. 1: Alex Chung scanning the Djedhor the Saviour statue base

During the training, Alex introduced us first to the Artec Eva scanner, which is designed for larger objects. This structured-light 3D scanner is the ideal choice for making quick, textured, and accurate 3D models of larger-sized objects such as a coffin. It scans quickly, capturing precise measurements in high resolution. We decided to scan the plaster cast of the statue base of Djedhor the Saviour (W302), which had recently returned to the Egypt Centre following conservation work at Cardiff Conservation Department (fig. 1). While the exterior surface was generally straightforward to capture, the interior was quite challenging. This is because the cast is built around a wooden structure, which contains some hard-to-reach areas (fig. 2). However, with a little persistence, it should be possible to capture the entire surface. We then moved on to the Artec Spider scanner, which is perfect for capturing small objects.

Fig. 2: Scanning the underside of the Djedhor statue base.

There were several things I was very surprised about. Firstly, both hand-held scanners are extremely light, weighing less than 1kg each. Secondly, just how quickly it takes to scan an object (depending on size, of course). Thirdly, the software package, Artec Studio 17 Professional, is very easy to use. For smaller objects, it only took us on average of 30 minutes to scan, process, and upload the model to Sketchfab—processing times will, of course, differ for each person depending on the processing capabilities of their computers.

Meg scanning the amulet of Sopdu-Hor

 

Between Tuesday and Friday, we scanned eleven objects. While still experimenting and getting used to the scanner and software, we are really happy with the models so far. Some of them were relatively straightforward, such as the wooden ba-bird (W429), a wooden funerary figure (W453), and a Cypriot horse (W229a), while others were a little more complicated (fig 3). For example, PM18 is a very small amulet of a deity, who can be identified as Sopdu-hor thanks to the inscription on the back pillar. Measuring only 61mm in height, the scanner often had problems tracking the amulet on the turntable. Additionally, the inscription isn’t as clear on the models as I would like. However, the main purpose of the scanners is not necessarily to produce high-resolution textured images, but to make highly accurate models. The accompanying software actually allows users to incorporate photogrammetry into the models, which will produce high-resolution textured models. While we have yet to experiment with this, it is something that we will be doing over the coming weeks and months.

Fig. 3: Sketchfab image of the ba-bird

Five objects we did prioritise scanning this week are those that are currently being used by students in their Egyptian Archaeology module. Over five handling sessions at the Egypt Centre, the students in this module get to handle their objects, researching their life history. These objects are all pottery, including a black-topped redware jar (EC89), a tall cylindrical jar (AB91), and a small vessel closed by textile (W1287). This latter object appears to be a rattle, as the students quickly determined (fig. 4). The rattle was very easy to scan as it had a closed mouth. With the other four pots, scanning the interiors was difficult. In particular, with EC329 it was impossible to completely capture because of the closed form of the vessel. We also experimented with scanning a blue-painted pottery sherd (EC1369) from Amarna, which was excavated by the Egypt Exploration Society during the 1920s. This is one of many fragments from Amarna, which will be the focus of an undergraduate dissertation by Katie Morton. All of our 3D objects are now available on the Egypt Centre's Sketchfab page, where more will be added in due course. 

Fig. 4: Christian Knoblauch discussing the rattle with students

There is still a lot more to learn until we have mastered the various techniques and features. For example, one we were briefly shown at the end of the training was creating inverted object moulds, which can then be 3D printed. This will be particularly useful for school/workshop activities using casts of the Egypt Centre’s objects.

We are grateful to Alex for leading us through the training and for answering the many questions that we had. Thanks also to our colleagues in Archives and Academic Services for arranging the purchase of these scanners, which will really increase public and student engagement of the Egypt Centre collection!

Conservation of Djedhor’s Statue Base

This blog post has been written by Krystina Parker, a second-year MSc student in conservation practice at Cardiff University.

 

Conserving the base

During the summer of 2022, a team of seven Cardiff University MSc Students (including myself) had the privilege to finish working on the plaster cast of Djedhor statue base (W302), which had been previously worked on by the second-year BSc students during their 2021–2022 academic year. Micah Ellis wrote a blog post for the Egypt Centre detailing the work that their year had been doing on the object (fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Conservation team with the Djedhor statue base

Our team took up the mantle of completing the work on the object so that it could be returned home to the Egypt Centre and reunited with its statue, which is housed at the Petrie Museum in London. This will be the first time the statue has been reunited since the Wellcome Collection was dispersed in 1971. The object was first cast in 1933 from the original, which is housed in the Cairo Museum. This 89-year-old replica has transitioned from a replica for display to an antique in and of itself. When our team took over the work, there was little conservation left to be done to get the object ready for display. The previous students worked hard with the cleaning or the plaster and the fills, while our team filled some small holes with a plaster of Paris mix and finished the object off with the some inpainting. For this blog post, I will discuss the inpainting work that was done by our team and the importance of the conservation of plaster replicas.

After considering the best paints to use, we decided to go with gouache paints. These worked really well as not only could we layer this paint to get the right opacity, but we could also leave the colours mixed overnight and rehydrate them for future use. A previous group had attempted inpainting on one corner of the object which, unfortunately, had the wrong pigments and was too dark (figs 2–3).

Fig. 2: Back of the statue base before treatment

Fig. 3: Side of the statue base before treatment

While the base may seem black, it is actually far more polychrome than one may guess. We used tiles to combine paints; shades that include black, white, green, red, and yellow ocher to make the correct shades. Different areas required different variations in shades. In order to make sure the colours would not look too different on the object, we tested them on plaster of Paris squares. Once we got the colours to the correct shades we applied them to the base; each zone took a varying amount of time to mix, which meant that colours were applied at different times. In figure 4 you can see an example of the tiles that were used and the plaster of Paris squares (fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Front of the statue base before treatment

As a team, it took us a few hours to mix and fill the small areas that required paint. With the work done we were able to cover the base with a dustsheet and get it ready to be shipped back to the Egypt Centre for display (figs 5–9).

Fig. 5: Back of the statue after treatment

Fig. 6: Working of the treatment

Fig. 7: Side of the statue base after treatment

Fig. 8: Back of the statue base after treatment

Fig. 9: Side of the statue after treatment

Importance of conserving the base

The base is important for two reasons. Firstly, it will be reunited with its statue giving the public in Swansea a look at a famous statue, which they may otherwise not get the opportunity to see. Secondly, these statues represent an era that opened the art history of the world to various locations without removing the originals from their home countries. Plaster replicas allowed museums, world fairs, and collectors to access and display life-size exact copies of famous pieces. Replicas also allowed cultures to maintain and display their heritage artefacts without the fear of misrepresentation, something that has been a problem that museum specialists have been tackling for the last decade or so consulting with people of the cultures they are representing.

Having the statue at Swansea will allow the students and the public to come and view the object. This allows students who may not have the ability to travel to Egypt to view, study, and work with the statue. Furthermore, the benefit that comes with the statue being a plaster cast replica is that people are able to physically interact with the object without damaging the surface too much. (Though I would still recommend the use of gloves provided by the museum to reduce skin oils damaging the paints).

As a previous volunteer of the Egypt Centre, I know that Ken and the team will make great use of the statue base and its statue when they are reunited, to educate people on Djedhor and the amazing life that he lived!

 

Further reading:

Marie, M. (2020) ‘What you might not know about Djedhor’s black basalt statue in Egyptian Museum in Tahrir’, Retrieved October 18, 2022, from EgyptToday website: https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/89133/What-you-might-not-know-about-Djedhor%E2%80%99s-black-basalt-statue

Nichols, M. (2006) ‘Plaster cast sculpture: a history of touch’, Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 21(2), 114–130.

Reynolds-Kaye, J. (2022) ‘Museum replicas; recovering the work of making plaster casts of preColumbian art’. In The Oxford Handbook of Museum Archaeology. Oxford University Press.

Sherman, E. J. (1981) ‘Djedhor the Saviour Statue Base oi 10589’, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 67(1), 82–102.

Simon, J. (2011). Plaster figure makers: a short history - National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved from www.npg.org.uk website: https://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/plaster-figure-makers-history

Conservation of Objects

Since 1978, the Egypt Centre (formerly the Swansea Wellcome Collection) has been working closely with the Conservation Department at Cardiff University. Over the course of forty-four years, more than 250 objects have received treatment, with many now on display in the museum. As part of the arrangement between Swansea and Cardiff, objects are sent to the latter so that they can be examined and treated by students pursuing their degrees in conservation studies. This hands-on conservation programme is dedicated to teaching the next generation of conservators through problem-based learning on real heritage objects. Students are taught and supervised by international experts in conservation, who keep in regular contact with the Egypt Centre curatorial staff throughout the whole process. Several weeks ago, a batch of objects were returned to the Egypt Centre following treatment of Cardiff, with this blog post highlighting just a few of them. 

One of the most popular objects in the Egypt Centre for both volunteers and the public is W867, a fragment of papyrus containing chapters of the Book of the Dead (fig. 1). The object was purchased at Sotheby’s auction house in 1932 (lot 79), with the catalogue describing it as “a Papyrus Fragment, 22 in. by 10 in., in cursive hieroglyphs, containing the greater part of Chapter XV of the Book of the Dead, with vignettes of the funeral service, tomb sacrifice, etc., neatly executed in outline, framed in passe partout.” The catalogue also notes that it came from the “collection of a gentleman” and that it was part of “a collection formed about 1830 by the grandfather of the present owner”.

Fig. 1: Papyrus of Ankh-Hapi (W867) after conservation

At an unknown date—but probably after it arrived in Swansea in 1971—the papyrus was removed from its frame, Sellotape was used to hold the sections of papyrus together, and the object was inserted between two pieces of plexiglass. The Sellotape, which had turned yellow over the years, was becoming problematic and so the decision was made to send it to Cardiff for treatment. The object was worked on by Ellie Evans, Kate Dieringer, and Angela Leersnyder, who painstakingly removed the Sellotape using an infrared heat tool to release the adhesive, and a spatula and tweezers to detach each piece. Loose fragments of papyrus were then re-adhered back together using 12g Japanese tissue paper and 1.5% methyl cellulose in water w/v. Additional repairs to the areas of missing papyrus were undertaken with tinted Japanese tissue paper. Finally, the papyrus was inserted into the plexiglass case, which was sealed with Filmoplast for display and to ensure protection. The papyrus is now back on display in the House of Death gallery at the Egypt Centre, much to the delight of Egypt Centre staff and volunteers (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: The papyrus on display

The Egypt Centre received several large Coptic stelae as part of the Wellcome distribution in 1971. Most of these can be traced back to the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell, which was sold in 1907. EC521 is one of these stelae, which had been broken into five pieces at an unknown date (fig 3). The stela was restored by Emma Thomas, who firstly removed traces of a previous adhesive and dirt accretions. Because of the weight and size of the stela, holes were drilled into the larger fragments for the insertion of a carbon fibre dowel to hold them together. All the fragments were then reattached with Paraloid B-72 40% before the gaps were infilled. It’s really great to have this beautiful stela restored (fig. 4)!

Fig. 3: W521 before conservation

Fig. 4: EC521 after conservation

Also from the collection of Robert de Rustafjaell—this time from his 1906 sale—is a group of inscribed mummy bandages. These had all been stitched onto boards prior to the sale, which was causing damage to the bandages (fig. 5). Fifteen fragments were sent to Cardiff where they were analysed and treated by Kate Dieringer and Alice Law. Following analysis using a microscope and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), the textiles were removed from the boards. Next, humidification of the fibres was necessary in order to remove the creases. Finally, the textiles were adhered and reinforced with Lascaux 498 HV/303 HV on Japanese tissue paper. This has greatly improved the appearance of the textiles, including revealing sections of the text not previously visible (fig. 6). If any readers of this blog are able to read hieratic and would like to help in identifying the texts, please get in touch!

Fig. 5: EC178 before conservation

Fig. 6: EC178 after conservation

The final object to be featured in this blog is W562, which was purchased by Sir Henry Wellcome while in Cairo in July 1911. In the list of objects purchased at this time, which was compiled by William St Chad Boscawen, W562 is described as a “Prehistoric black bone or ivory knife engraved with hunting scene. Man spearing crocodiles & driving birds. Hippopotamus represented as Thoeris in Greek. Very fine & valuable object. 13" long.” Since the object was broken into several fragments, it was decided to send it to Cardiff for analysis and restoration (fig. 7).

Fig. 7: W562 before conservation

The analysis undertaken by Therese Corton determined that the object was bone rather than ivory, possibly a cattle radius-ulna bone, which was burnt in the region of 285–330°C. Firstly, the previous adhesive (animal glue) was removed with warm deionised water and a scalpel. Dirt was removed with industrial methylated spirits (IMS) (95% ethanol, 5% methanol) and deionised water via cotton swabs. The edges and cracks were consolidated with 5% Paraloid B-72 in 75:25 acetone: IMS. The fragments were then re-adhered with 15% Paraloid B-72 in acetone, tinted with dry pigment (dry umber). Finally, the surface cracks were filled and smoothed with Polyfilla (Acrylic VeoVa-PVAC copolymer with internal plasticiser and additives), which were painted with acrylic paint to match the material of the object (fig. 8). W562 is now back on display in the Fakes, Forgeries, and Replicas case in the House of Life gallery at the Egypt Centre.

Fig. 8: W562 after conservation

We are grateful to all the students who have worked on the objects from the Egypt Centre collection. This work could not be possible without the cooperation between the museum and Cardiff University, particularly with Phil Parkes who has supervised all the work featured in this post. Further conservation work will be featured in subsequent blog posts!