From Harrogate to Swansea: A Wooden Funerary Figure from the Harrogate Collection

The blog post for this week has been written by Egypt Centre volunteer and University of Birmingham student, Sam Powell, whose visit to Harrogate Museum in July 2022 led to the loan of the collection to the Egypt Centre.

For this week’s blog post, given the exciting recent news about the Harrogate loan to the Egypt Centre, I’d like to give you an overview of the wooden funerary figure I was visiting, which sparked the beginning of the discussions to bring the Harrogate material to Swansea for study. As part of my ongoing PhD research, which attempts to catalogue all known ancient Egyptian wooden funerary figures in UK institutions, I was fortunate to visit the Mercer Art Gallery and Pump room in July 2022 to examine HARGM7673 (fig.1), acquired by Benjamin William John Kent and bequeathed to the museum in 1969. Whilst there, I chatted with the staff about future research on their ancient Egyptian collection and recommended the Egypt Centre as the ideal place for this collection to get the attention it deserves!

Fig. 1: Wooden funerary model

 

Wooden tomb models are found in elite burials from the end of the Old Kingdom (2350 BCE) to the late Middle Kingdom (1802 BCE). These models include scenes of food production in various guises, offering bearers, model boats, and manufacture amongst other themes. The most famous examples being the extensive collection of models found in the tomb of Meketre (TT280, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna). Meketre served as the chancellor and high steward during the reigns of Montuhotep II, Montuhotep III, and possibly also Amememhat (c. 2060–1962 BCE) and was buried with a set of twenty-four exquisite tomb models. These models are interpreted as a means of magically providing ‘sustenance’ for the deceased. My research focuses on the human figures originating from these models (which I refer to as wooden funerary figures). The aim is to use the stylistic traits of examples from a known provenance to identify the likely origins of the vast number of unprovenanced figures, which are more often than not isolated from their original models.

HARGM7673, as with many of the figures I have studied, is very unassuming at first glance; a nude female figure, with the left arm and lower portion of the left leg now lost. The arms are carved separately and attached to the torso with small dowels, whilst the legs would have been pegged into a base. Her skin is painted pale yellow, she wears a black tripartite wig, and she has large triangular eyes outlined in kohl and emphasized with a cosmetic line to the outer corner. The eyebrows are painted black and the mouth is indicated with a slit. The breasts and hips are defined, and the nipples, navel, and pubic region are highlighted with black paint (fig. 2). The staining, particularly to the reverse around the waist, suggests that the figure may have once worn a skirt of linen.

 

Fig. 2: Examining the funerary figure

Looking at the wear to the left side of the body, it is likely this arm was raised upwards, and the dowel holes in the top of the head are indicative of something attached to the head of the figure, likely a basket. Given these stylistic traits, the figure is very likely an offering bearer. Offering bearers are figures that can appear on individual bases, or in procession. They are typically female, although male examples do exist. They are usually carrying food and drink to magically provide sustenance for the deceased in the afterlife. Female figures such as this often carry a basket upon their heads, supported by the left arm, and sometimes hold a fowl in the right hand (this is not the case for this figure).

Turning to the origins of the figure, the skin tone, large eyes, and proportions are very similar to examples coming from the site of Beni Hasan from around the Twelfth Dynasty when production of these figures reached its zenith. I was fortunate to be allowed to visit the stores of the Harrogate collection and found a box with the old display base that belongs to the offering bearer, which states that she did indeed come from Beni Hasan, dates to the Twelfth Dynasty, and most interestingly, was part of the Kennard collection (fig. 3) before being acquired by Kent.

Fig 3: Old display bases can often reveal tantalising clues

 

Henry Martyn Kennard (1833–1911) owned a vast collection of ancient Egyptian antiquities, which were sold at auction between the 16^th and 19^th July 1912 by Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge. There are sixteen lots relating to wooden figures and tomb models within the sale, some of which can be omitted as they have already been allocated to other figures. The most likely match to the Harrogate offering bearer is lot 503, given the description and size provided are an exact match (the catalogue states the smaller of the two figures within the lot as 7 inches, which perfectly matches my measurement of 178mm (fig. 4)!

Fig. 4: Lot 503 of the 1912 sale of the Kennard collection

  

The lot describes an additional larger figure, which I have not yet identified. It is unclear whether Kent bought this figure from the 1912 sale directly, or if the figure passed through another collector prior to being purchased by Kent (although fig. 5 showing the listing in the Kent catalogue (fig. 5) seems to suggest it was purchased from the Kennard auction in 1912. It is also unclear what happened to the larger figure, which does not appear in the Kent catalogue—I’m still hopeful as I enter the analytical phase of my research that the other figure may emerge from my catalogue!

Fig. 5: Entry for the figure from Kent's catalogue

 

Those of you who have read blog posts I have previously written about the Egypt Centre figures may remember that sometimes, particularly with figures from Beni Hasan, a tomb number is painted on the back of the figure (as seen on W687). Unfortunately, this is not the case for the Harrogate figure. There are several figures within the grave register included in Garstang’s ‘Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt’, which details his excavations between 1902 and 1904, which could with more research prove to be a match.

Fig. 6: Click on the link for a 3D model of the figure (https://skfb.ly/oFvNy)

In summary, I feel there’s enough evidence to be confident in identifying HARGM7673 as an offering bearer, in addition to describing her as from Beni Hasan, particularly the stylistic traits, which are backed up by the listings in both the Kennard auction and Kent catalogue. Hopefully, as my research continues, further clues may come to light to tell us more about this gorgeous figure—I can’t wait to see her on display in the Egypt Centre!

The Harrogate collection has only been in Swansea for a few short weeks, but already the amount of research taking place with the collection is truly astounding and will all be accessible later this year in the new online catalogue created by Abaset Collections.

Egypt's First Rulers

The blog post for this week is written by Jeanne Whitehurst, who has completed her Certificate of Egyptology from the University of Manchester. She moved to Egypt over twelve years ago, just before the revolution. Initially, she lived in Luxor, overlooking Karnak Temple, but now she lives in Aswan overlooking the First Cataract. She was extremely fortunate to have worked with Ted Brock on the sarcophagus of Merenptah (KV 8) as a volunteer.

 

According to the ancient Egyptian tradition written by Manetho, Herodotus, and the ancient Egyptian king lists, the first Dynasty started with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt during the reign of King Menes. This is despite the fact that contemporary archaeological records do not mention him. It is now thought that it was a gradual process of unification with progressive rulers gaining more land to the north and south of the three main centres of Thinis (Abydos), Nekhen (Hierakonpolis, near to Edfu), and Naqada.

Firstly, who was Manetho, the man who gave us the tables of the thirty dynasties that is still used as the basic framework of ancient Egyptian history? He was a priest and a historian who used native sources as the basis for his book (fig. 1). Unfortunately, we do not have the original and instead have to rely on copies of later writers such as Julius Africanus and Eusebius Pamphilus, which contain discrepancies with the names etc. due to being copies.

Fig. 1: Abydos king list

The First Dynasty kings were buried at Umm el Qa’ab at Abydos (80 miles North of Luxor). This had been the burial site of rulers since the Predynastic era (fig. 2). The site was thought to be entrance to the afterlife. The name means “mother of pots” in Arabic since thousands of pots have been discovered there as offerings to the god Osiris, whose major cult centre is there. Additionally, as the first kings were buried there, it was assumed that this was the site of Osiris’s tomb.

Fig. 2: Umm el Qa’ab

One of the earliest kings was Iry-Hor, whose existence was debated until recently when many pot fragments were found bearing his name at his burial at Abydos (fig. 3). Additionally, and more surprisingly, his name has been found in Northern Egypt at Zawiyat el-Aryan (near Giza) and Wadi Ameyra in the Sinai. Does this mean he was the first king to rule a united Egypt? As there is no firm evidence, we cannot be certain, but it is a possibility.

Fig. 3: Pottery from the reign of Iry-Hor (Petrie Museum UC16089)

King Ka, or Sekhen, meaning to embrace (we are unsure of the meaning as hieroglyphs are in their infancy during this time) was the earliest known king with a serekh, denoting a ruler. A serekh is a replica of a palace façade with the kings name inside and Horus on the top. It was inscribed on a number of artifacts found at sites besides Abydos. Adaima in Upper Egypt and in the north Helwan, Tarkhan, Wadi Tumilat, and even Tel Lod in the Southern Levant. The number of artifacts bearing his name outside of Abydos is much greater than his predecessors, which could be another sign of conquering larger portions of land by Thinite kings.

Narmer is usually considered to be the first king of the First Dynasty who unified Egypt. His name has been found throughout Egypt and in Syria Palestine, indicating trade between Egypt and parts of the ancient Near East. A king named Scorpion, whose name is recorded on a ceremonial macehead (fig. 4) found at Hierakonpolis is sometimes interpreted as a predecessor to Narmer or a rival king, although there may be two kings called Scorpion.

 

Fig. 4: The Scorpion Macehead

The first kings and queens of Egypt in order of succession were Narmer, Aha, Djer, Djet, Queen Merneith (possibly acted as co-regent with her son, Den), Den, Anedjib, Semerkhet, and Qa’a. They would have ruled over a territory spanning a similar area to Egypt today with formal borders at Aswan in the south, the Mediterranean Sea in the north, and across to the modern-day Gaza Strip in the east. There are eight kings identified on the Palermo stone, eight on the Abydos kings list engraved during the reign of Seti I (1290–1279 BCE), but only three on the Saqqara canon.

Aha is sometimes called Hor-Aha (fighting hawk) and was known by Manetho as Athothis. The Apis Bull ceremony is mentioned in his reign. Djer, “the rescuer”, is the first to be given the nesu bity name meaning King of Upper and Lower Egypt, this name being Iti. He had a short reign of 5 to 10 years.

Djet, often called serpent or uadji, was known as Uenephes by Manetho. In the king lists he is referred to as Ita. His tomb at Abydos, designated “Tomb Z”, had the famous Louvre stela at its entrance (fig. 5). A rock inscription south of Edfu possibly shows his Horus name wearing the Double Crown, which would be the first depiction of this combined crown. He was possibly married to Merneith as there is evidence from Den’s tomb where she is attributed to be the king’s mother. Following the death of Djet, Merneith appears to have been a co-regent to her son, with her name being found on a funerary stela at Abydos, just like the kings.

Fig. 5: The stela of Djet

Den (Usaphais of Manetho) was given the nesu bity name of Semti, which is the first time it was ever used. He was certainly one of the most important kings of the Early Dynastic Period. He reigned for approximately 45 years, coming to the throne as a young child. His tomb (Tomb T) introduces a staircase and a large amount of granite from Aswan, which was innovative in tomb building at this time (fig. 6).

Fig. 6: The tomb of Den

Anedjib (Miebis of Manetho) was given the nesu bity name Merpibia. He celebrated his Sed-festival, but perhaps the most interesting thing from his reign is a large mastaba at Saqqara, which contains a mound with a burial chamber. This has often been suggested as the forerunner to the Step Pyramid of the Third Dynasty.

Semerkhet (Sempses of Manetho) was also buried at Abydos. Because his tomb shows evidence of burning, early Egyptologists thought he may have been an illegitimate king, but there is no evidence for this. Several jar labels found in the tomb mention trade with Libya during this time.  

While the relationship with his predecessors or successors is unknown, Horus Qa’a, the last king of the First Dynasty, had his tomb built next to Semerkhet’s and Den’s, which could be an indication that he was closely related to both kings. His tomb (Tomb Q) has an elaborate staircase, which allowed for his superstructure to be built before he died (fig. 7). A bowl fragment found at Saqqara (15 miles South of modern-day Cairo) mentions the first Sed-festival of Qa’a, which usually takes place after a 30-year reign. A large number of mastabas at Saqqara date to his reign, which suggests he ruled for some time. Seal impressions and other sources name him at Saqqara, Abusir, and Abydos, while a rock inscription found at el-Kab could point to a mining expedition in the Eastern desert. An ivory rod and vessels of Syrian-Palestinian origin were found at Saqqara, which suggests trade with this region. A carving on a gaming rod shows the king victorious over an Asiatic person, which could refer to a military campaign or it may be symbolic! With Qa’a, the gruesome practice of retainer sacrifice ends and the Second Dynasty pharaohs would mainly be buried in Saqqara instead of Umm el-Qa’ab.

Fig. 7: The tomb of Qa'a

The First Dynasty kings seem to have been the front-runners in many of the religious and regnal customs that would last for many millennia. The introduction of the serekh, the nesu bity title, the running of the Apis Bull, and the Double Crown of Upper and Lower Egypt.

 

Bibliography:

Dodson, Aidan 2021. The first pharaohs: their lives and afterlives. Cairo; New York: American University in Cairo Press.

Predynastic Egypt

The blog post for this week is written by Yvonne Buskens-Frenken, from the Netherlands. She is a member of the Dutch Egyptology society Mehen and a former student of Egyptology at Manchester University (Certificate 2015 and Diploma 2017). She has visited Egypt many times (but not enough) and hopes to visit the Egypt Centre in the near future.

Introduction
Last week, a new online course was launched by the Egypt Centre called The First Pharaohs: Early Dynastic Egypt, which is hosted by Dr. Ken Griffin. In the following five weeks, the First Dynasty, the Second Dynasty, the origins of Egyptian religion, in addition to art, architecture, and early technologies will be discussed. But the course obviously started with the topic “Egypt before the pharaohs”, the same title as my favourite book of mine from 1980 written by Michal A. Hoffman, which I can recommend outdated perhaps at some points but which book isn’t within Egyptology as discoveries are still being made today and theories are revised and updated?

Egypt’s prehistory
I said “obviously” in the introduction of this blog post because if you want to understand the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt (and beyond) you need to have some knowledge of Egypt’s prehistory: some elements of pharaonic civilisation actually derive from the rather distant prehistoric past. However, the disciplines of Egyptology and Prehistory are in fact completely different with quite distinct primary sources and approaches when it comes to subject and terminology. The prehistory of Egypt starts with the Palaeolithic Period (about 700,000–7,000 BC) and to master that, you need to know a bit about geology, ecology, and climatology. You also need to study of stone tools and geological strata, which is not everyone’s cup of tea. Additionally, this was actually in the beginning of the field Egyptology a real struggle: there was little interest in prehistory (and vice versa in Egyptology within the Prehistory department) as the Palaeolithic and the Predynastic cultures share very few similarities and there are disparate and minimal sources available, which is the opposite for Pharaonic material. Furthermore, the vague dating of the available material is also problematic. However, the dating of objects is an important key in all this and in that context, I would like to discuss here just one sort of dating, namely “seriation”, and I would like to illustrate it with artefacts now held in the Egypt Centre (fig. ***).

 

Fig. 1: The Predynastic case

The Predynastic Period and Seriation
In Egyptian prehistory the Predynastic Period, first termed by Jacques de Morgan in 1896, is from about 5,500–3,200 BC. Basically, it is the time when farming was introduced in ancient Egypt until the time of the unification of Egypt. From this period, Badarian, Amratian, Gerzean, and Naqada cultures are known. Phases of cultural development at Naqada, an Upper Egyptian site, is contemporary with those known in el-Amra (hence Amratian) and el-Gerza (hence Gerzean) It is for this reason that the Predynastic Period has been subdivided into the following:

Predynastic	5,500–3,200 BC	(all dates are approximate)
Early Predynastic	5,500–3,800	Fayum A, Merimda, Badarian
	3,800–3,500	Amratian (Naqada IA–IB)
Middle Predynastic	3,550–3,400	Early Gerzean (Naqada IC–IIA–B)
Late Predynastic	3,400–3,300	Middle Gerzean (Naqada IIC)
	3,300–3,200	Late Gerzean (Naqada IID1–IId2)

From three types of dating used today, known as relative, absolute, and radiometric dating, seriation belongs to the first category. For a quick understanding of all sorts of dating methods, please follow this link https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/archaeology/dating.html
Relative dating leads to the relative chronological position of objects, events, and longer periods. It is not always a very accurate method but for the Predynastic and Protodynastic material it is an important tool as lots of material from that period is pottery, which make perfect objects for relative dating. However, while seriation is a method to place pottery into a chronology, a sequence, it does not tell you how old they exactly are or how much time there is between the different types of pots. It doesn’t measure time.

William Flinders Petrie developed a relative chronology system for the 900 Predynastic graves he investigated in Hiw (also known as Hu or Roman Diospolis Parva) and Abadiya (Petrie 1901). Each grave was a separate unit and physically unrelated to the others; it lacked stratification, which made dating difficult. Petrie discovered that one kind of pottery vessel type was present in several graves, the so-called wavy handle pot, but this pot could vary in form (fig. 2). Some were rounded with proper handles, and some were cylindrical with rudimentary handles. Some had forms in between.

Fig. 2: Petrie's Naqada Seriation

Petrie dived the series he found in 50 groups (fig. 3), numbering them from 30–80.  

Fig. 3: Petrie's pottery series

They are dived into three different groups: Naqada I (SD 30–38), Naqada II (SD 39–60), and Naqada III (SD 61–80). The SD numbers can vary a bit depending on which publication you read, more about this later below. Petrie, clever as he was, left the numbers 0–30 open for possible future finds, which would predate his earliest finds.

The cylindrical types were found in the First Dynasty tombs. Under the assumption that in an undisturbed grave all material is contemporaneous, other grave goods could be relatively dated. Wavy-handled pottery was never found in graves holding Amratian vessels (so-called white cross-line vessels). This led to the assumption that Amratian pottery (Naqada I material) was earlier than wavy-handled ones. So what does Naqada I, II, and III pottery looks like? Here are some fine examples from the Egypt Centre.

Naqada I pottery
In fig. 4 you see a black-topped redware pottery vessel from the Egypt Centre (EC276). It is from Petrie’s excavation in Naqada. Black-topped redware is a fine red pottery with blackened rim. How such vessels were decorated has been much debated. This vessel can be given a sequence day between 34–46. 

Fig. 4: Black-topped redware vessel (EC276)

Naqada II pottery
Pottery from this period is probably the most famous of all decorated pottery (D-Ware). Who cannot fall in love with these sometimes very small pots with their geometrical patterns, depictions of boats, humans, animals, and particularly ostriches and gazelles. Here is W5308, a wonderful small specimen (fig. 5). It is about 10cm in height, made of Marl clay, and has a small flat base, rolled rim, two pierced lug handles, and painted decoration (D-Ware). According to the auction catalogue, it was found opposite Gebelein. 

Fig. 5: D-ware vessel (W5308)

Another Naqada II pottery vessel is W1045 (fig. 6). It is small-shouldered ovoid jar with a flat base, recurved rim, and two wavy handles (wavy-handled ware). It is made of red Marl fabric with many small limestone inclusions. The vessel was excavated from grave 42 within the Fort at Hierakonpolis in 1905 by John Garstang. This is one of the earlier types of Petrie’s wavy-handled sequence, dating to the Naqada II Period, which derived from Palestinian imports. It is sorted in Petrie’s sequence (SD 62–72) and belongs to one of the true wavy-handled jars, before they transmuted into cylindrical jars.

Fig. 6: Wavy-handled jar (W1045)

Naqada III pottery
Speaking of cylindrical jars, AB107 (fig. 7) is an example of the last in the line of wavy handled jars from the sequence by Petrie. It is a medium cylindrical Marl clay jar with a flat base, rolled rim, and string-line decoration just below the rim.

Fig. 7: Cylindrical jar (AB107)

As noted above, seriation is not an accurate method and Petrie’s sequence dating had some flaws. W. Kaiser and S. Hendrickx updated his work. Kaiser came up with another subdivision about 60 years after the work of Petrie, a fine tuning as it was based on excavations at Armant by Mond and Myers in the 1930s. This led to the following (see chart below)

 

Naqada I	SD 30–38
Naqada II a and b	SD 38/40–45
Naqada II c and d	SD 40/45–63
Naqada III	SD 63–80

In 1989, Hendrickx’s thesis allowed Kaiser’s system to apply to all of the Naqada culture sites in Egypt, resulting in slight modifications (transitional subphases between Naqada I and II).

Bibliography:

Adams, Barbara 1988. Predynastic Egypt. Shire Egyptology 7. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications.

Hoffman, Michael A. 1991. Egypt before the pharaohs: the prehistoric foundations of Egyptian civilization, revised ed. Austin, Tex.: Univ. of Texas Press.

Midant-Reynes, Béatrix 2000. The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs. Translated by Ian Shaw. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders 1901. Diospolis Parva: the cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu 1898–99. With chapters by A. C. Mace. Egypt Exploration Fund, Special Extra Publication 20. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.