A Bronze Statuette of Thutmose III
Author(s): Marsha Hill and Deborah Schorsch
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Metropolitan Museum Journal, Vol. 32 (1997), pp. 5-18
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1512987 .
Accessed: 31/01/2013 13:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The University of Chicago Press and The Metropolitan Museum of Art are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Metropolitan Museum Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A
MARSHA
of
Statuette
Bronze
Thutmose
II
HILL
Associate Curator,Department of Egyptian Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
With a technical overview by
DEBORAH
SCHORSCH
Associate Conservator,Sherman Fairchild Centerfor ObjectsConservation,
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
HE EGYPTIAN ART DEPARTMENT
of the
Metropolitan Museum has recently acquired a
small, beautifully poised bronze statuette of a
It
king. is stylisticallydatable to mid-Dynasty 18 and has
on its belt traces of one of the names-Menkheperraof Thutmose III, one of the greatest of Egypt's kings,
renowned for his territorial and intellectual reach
(Figure 1).1 The statuette, the earliest known New
Kingdom example of an important series of royal
bronze statuettes in kneeling position, would have
been used in a grouping with the image of a deity, possibly on a divine bark (a boat-shaped shrine carried by
priests when the god made excursions outside the
temple). The figure stands at the emergence of two
important trends in Egyptian art and culture: the
development of a clear bronze statuary tradition and
an emphasis on the processional and public aspects of
Egyptian religion.
DESCRIPTION
AND STYLISTIC
INDICATIONS
The statuette is a solid cast "black bronze"-that is, a
bronze intentionally darkened to heighten the luster
of precious-metal details. In this case, the left eye
socket, the cosmetic lines extending from both sockets, the right eyebrow, and the nipples retain the original gold lining or inlay. The gold in the right eye
socket is a modern addition. Missing inlays in the
brows and eyes might also have included stone, gold,
and silver; and the uraeus might well have been
gilded. The silvery-graysheen to the statuette's dark
color is associated with certain archaeological environments.2
The kneeling king rests his weight on his knees and
toes. The left arm is missing, while the right arm is
? The Metropolitan Museum of Art 1997
METROPOLITANMUSEUMJOURNAL32
held forward from the elbow. The cupped hand holds
the small round nw pot associated with offerings of
milk or wine. The mechanical joining of the arm to
the dowel extending from the body has loosened, and
the arm now swings downward and rests on his lap.
When the edges of the arm and shoulder join are
aligned, it can be seen that originally this arm was held
up and forward, so that the pot was extended in front
of the king's chest. For display purposes, a small insert
has been placed in the dowel hole to hold the arm in
approximately its proper position (Figure 2). The left
arm would have held the same position.3
The figure wears the royal khatheaddress (a smooth
kerchief whose ends were drawn together and hung
down behind the neck) and shendytkilt (a finely pleated
garment with a long front panel). Around his hips is a
belt, somewhat wider in back than in front, with a pattern of horizontal zigzags. A rectangle at the front of
the belt just below the navel contains traces of three
hieroglyphic signs. Previously, these signs had been
considered unresolved and the statuette assigned to
the Third Intermediate Period (ca. 1070-712 B.C.)
because the quality and the black-bronze alloy were
still thought unusual before that era. Alternatively,
the signs had been interpreted as mn-hprw-r, the
prenomen of Thutmose IV (r. ca. 1401-1391 B.C.),
whose kneeling bronze statuette in the British
Museum was then the earliest known New Kingdom
instance of the genre. But examination of the evidence with a binocular microscope reveals the follow? . These
ing signs: X8
hieroglyphs form the name
mn-hpr-r',though the signs are written in an unexpected order. The inscription will be discussed further
below. Stylistic analysis indicates the figure should be
identified as Thutmose III (ca. 1479-1425 B.C.),
whose prenomen is mn-hpr-,r and precludes attribution to the Third Intermediate Period or in particular
to the Theban High Priest of the same name in that
era.
Elegance and grace, alwaysinherent in the Egyptian
The notes for this article begin on page 13.
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5
,
A1
-.
.
t
'
*
...
. !^
. ' 1 ;_.?^ 3
".k
F
?;
f
-
I" ?E
-:"
:t
;
a
f
4E
1
Figure i. Statuette of Thutmose III. Bronze, H. 13.6 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Edith Perry Chapman Fund
and Malcolm Hewitt Wiener Foundation Inc. Gift, 1995, 1995.21
6
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I[
It.'
: .
- -. .- .
~.:-.
-. ,
--...-?
....
.
.,
.....
-~
_
.- .....
.-.;.....
-
....
. . . ..... -
fCYb~~~:~~-~:
?sUk
Figure 2. Proper right side of statuette in Figure 1
Figure 3. Back of statuette in Figure 1
kneeling pose, are fully expressed in this small bronze.
The king has an athletic torso, as is generally favored
by the kings of mid-Dynasty 18 (Figures 1, 2). The
shoulders are emphasized and the limbs elongated to
a greater degree than usual in stone statuary,following
a tendency of bronze statuary to an attenuation of
forms and to an emphasis on contours.4 The chest
shows defined clavicles, low and broadly spaced nipples, and a hint of bipartition; it passes smoothly into
the abdomen with its round navel in a faint teardropshaped depression above the tapering belt. These
features are in notable contrast to most Third
Intermediate Period statuary, which is distinguished
by the segmentation of the torso into upper chest,
rounded and independent belly with a simple round
navel depression, and lower torso.5 The hips of the
Museum's statuette are broad and, from the back,
long and well shaped (Figure 3). A particularly good
parallel for all these features is offered by the headless
statuette of Thutmose III from the Luxor cachette,
since that statuette originally wore an upright crown
and thus the modeling of shoulders and chest is not
obscured by lappets.6
The king's khat headdress swells in broad heavy
curves where it is supported on either side on his
shoulders (Figure 4). In Eighteenth-Dynasty statuary
the khat enjoyed great popularity with Hatshepsut
(ca. 1473-1458 B.C.); it was less favored by her coruler and successor Thutmose III and his son Amenhotep II, and its popularity reached a low point in the
reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III, before a
Figure . Detail -of s
ete in Fige
Figure 4. Detail of statuette in Figure 1
7
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
:1
... ,-
D
Figure 5. Khat headdress on head of an over-lifesize sandstone
sphinx of Hatshepsut excavated at Deir el Bahri. Cairo,
Egyptian Museum,JE 56263 (photo: Egyptian Expedition)
resurgence in the Amarna Period.7 Though two previously known sculptural representations of Thutmose
III in the khat are each in its way problematic, the
headdress worn by our king is nearest, in shape and in
the proportion between the wings of the headdress
and the face, to the somewhat variable but alwaysvoluminous and heavy examples of the headdress worn by
Hatshepsut (Figure 5).8 The one assured instance of
Amenhotep II wearing the khat shows a headdress
resembling that of the bronze statuette, though
already slightly narrower and smaller in proportion to
the face.9 A shawabti (funerary statuette) from the
reign of Thutmose IV shows the narrower side flaps
now accentuated by the heightened dome of the headdress.10By the time of the late Eighteenth Dynasty, the
side flaps no longer rest their weight on the shoulders
and sometimes fall in a long semi-elliptical shape; the
headdress in the later New Kingdom and Third
Intermediate Period follows this pattern (Figure 6) .n
From the lower edge of the frontlet springs the
Figure 6. Statuette of Osorkon I, Dynasty 22 (ca. 924-889
Bronze, H. 14 cm. The Brooklyn Museum of Art, 57.92
(photo: courtesy of The Brooklyn Museum of Art)
8
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
B.C.)
uraeus, a position that is most typical in mid-Dynasty
18, though slightly higher positions are occasionally
found. During the Third Intermediate Period, by contrast, uraei appear above the upper edge of a frontlet
that can be rather wide (Figure 6).12The cobra's head
and hood are badly abraded. Its body is disposed in
two asymmetric curves and then runs directly over the
top of the king's head to the rear.
The king's face is broad at the cheeks andjaw, giving
it a square or round appearance, not dissimilar to that
of its nearest contemporary in bronze, the British
Museum's statuette of Thutmose IV,whosejaw, however,
is narrower (Figure 7). The earlobes are not pierced
for earrings; such piercings are not found in royal statuary until the time of Akhenaten.'3 The eye sockets are
quite level, although the effect of the gold lining in
the absence of the eye inlays is to diminish their size.
The brows follow a high arc from inner to outer edge
of the eye, as is well attested for the period of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.14By contrast, the brows
of the British Museum bronze assume a straight line
near the nose and curve only past the center of the eye
as they move toward the outer edge of the face. In
royal representations the flatter brow appears in the
reign of Thutmose III, becomes very frequent with
Amenhotep II,15and is the only type seen in the rather
sparse representations of Thutmose IV-with the wellknown exception of Cairo Egyptian MuseumJE 43611,
which displays the slanted eye and off-center arched
brow foreshadowing that of Amenhotep III.16
The Metropolitan Museum's statuette is worn across
the nose and mouth, but, while the original profile of
the nose is not discernible, the contours of the mouth
remain apparent. The visible features indicate wellbalanced upper and lower lips rather than the slightly
prominent upper lip known for Thutmose IV and visible
in the British Museum bronze of that king (Figure 7).17
Interestingly, the throat swells ever so slightly in the
area of the Adam's apple (Figure 8), a feature occasionally found but especially strongly marked in the
famous striding statue of Thutmose III wearing the
Upper Egyptian crown.'8
Figure 7. Statuette of Thutmose IV,Dynasty18 (ca. 14011391 B.C.) Bronze, H. 17 cm. The British Museum, no.
64564 (photo: courtesyof the Trusteesof the British
Museum)
INSCRIPTION
The signs inscribed in the belt rectangle were not
enclosed in a cartouche and are only faintly preserved.19Difficulties in resolving traces of the inscription, compounded with what turns out to be an
atypical order of signs, had previously caused the signs
to be conjecturally read as mn-hprwwrC.
Once the piece
Figure 8. Detail of head of statuette in Figure i, proper left
profile
9
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Figure ga. Photo of sign traces in the rectangle at the front of
the belt of Figure 1 (photo: Bill Barrette)
V
i
has not been studied for bronzes in general, but could
depend on a variety of factors, including the stage at
which the inscription was done: whether in the wax
model, on the final casting, or even after the arms
were attached to the body, thus making the area
difficult to reach.
is in itself
The use of the variant writing mn-rC-hpr
interesting. The writing of Thutmose III's throne
name with the re-sign in the upper center is found
occasionally on scarabs, and a group of these are datable to the Eighteenth Dynasty.22In the case of the statuette, however, the placement of the disk in the center
might well be an example of honorific transposition
to place the god's name in the center, reflecting
the kneeling king's position directly opposite the god
Amun-Ra.23
BRONZE ROYAL STATUARY
Figure gb. Scan of Figure ga with hieroglyphic traces drawn
over. Prepared byJames Allen and BarryGirsh
arrived at the Museum, however, careful study of the
inscription with a binocular microscope indicated it
should be reconstructed as reading from right to left
mn-r'-hpr,a variant of mn-hpr-r',the throne name of
Thutmose III.20
Figure ga shows a photograph of the rectangle at
the front of the belt. Figure gb shows the same photograph with the traces of signs connected to show the
complete signs. The mn is quite clear, as is the roundness of the central sign, which therefore appears most
like the re-diskand not the hpr-beetle, and at the left
the symmetrical disposition of four to six strokes about
a space resolves into the hpr-beetle.
The overall layout of the inscription seems poor: the
mn sign, at least, is below the center line of the inscription, though the r' sign is reasonably placed, and the
hpr sign could be completed and extended farther
upward; but the whole inscription is shifted to the
right, leaving the left fifth of the rectangle apparently
empty. It has been noted that inscriptions on bronze
statuettes are frequently not well executed.21 This fact
A number of recent review articles and studies have
variously approached the problem of establishing a
continuous history of copper-alloyand bronze statuary.24
The Museum's statuette is an object of very high
quality, datable early in the New Kingdom, when the
paucity of known bronze statuettes25has made it particularly difficult to explain the transition from the
regular, if poorly studied, occurrence of copper-alloy
statuary in the Middle Kingdom26 to the wellestablished bronze statuary tradition of the Third
Intermediate Period and later. Placed in sequence
with other known or recently firmly dated royal New
Kingdom examples,27 the Museum's statuette can
eventually help to identify other more or less contemporaneous bronzes. Moreover, because of its type and
clear position early in the New Kingdom, it helps to
bracket rather closely the period when important
royal and temple roles for bronze statuaryemerge-the
late Middle Kingdom/early New Kingdom-and will
aid us in refining our understanding of this
development.
Kneeling figures belong to one of the few clearly
interactive types found in Egyptian statuary.The royal
kneeling pose expresses the respectful yet dignified
role of the king, himself a god, in ensuring the continual worship of the gods. By its nature such statuary
implies the presence of ajuxtaposed god-whether or
not the god is actually shown-and belongs quintessentially to temple contexts.
Kneeling royal offering statuary is an established
though relatively rare type, beginning with Dynasty 4.
Its real popularity, however, seems to begin with
10
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
........
1
-:.?r;
~
~i;.
,
$
**.***-
~~ ~~'.~
,.*
* ,-
.r
~~-~
......~Figure~~~~~~
,...
.....~
:,.
?
4:
'~'-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i
,,
.~:
. %y,.~.
,
: ..
*aLir
"^^ s^
- * :-.*-i i-~T**
***r
.i -d
*^; " in
. -*li
^n
M
i i mriilt^^
r ' i -, - '*ri~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iI;I
r -**-^
. . : *-* *' ... **- ^? ^ii~- .;..... .:";-:......;~.
-'..
.",'-,. '".''"
: c~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~.
- ,: : ~ .~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~~ ~:.;-'
-':..ri:?,
~
~,
^--'?:.<..,~
, , -
~
.
'~,,.,
.- ,
. : -.
.
.A,,
i
.-
.
.,?.,?
,
.,P
.
.
.
.
te
.
.',?,
...~,;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.
.:~r,
..~
.
.
......~ Kank(ht:~.
.
..~te
.... a'... '~.-'~
el .. , R uefHasep,
Di.~.~
-".'~......
Figure lo. The Amun bark as depicted on a block of the Chapelle Rouge of Hatshepsut, Karnak (photo: Dieter Arnold)
Hatshepsut and continues with fluctuations thereafter.28Large examples held either nw pots or a variety
of other offerings for a god. They may have lined
courts and processional ways, as they seem to have
done at Deir el Bahri, or might even have been fixed
in modular groupings with the statue of a god, such as
the Eighteenth-Dynasty examples discovered in the
Luxor cachette.29Also in the reigns of Hatshepsut and
Thutmose III, royal kneeling statuettes, a type which
seems to be first depicted in an isolated instance during the late Middle Kingdom on what may be a divine
bark,30are shown as integral new elements of the bark
processions of the god Amun, which are given a great
new emphasis by these pharaohs (Figure io).31 The
statuettes, presumably of metal or gilded wood,32hold
nw pots toward the enshrined, shrouded image of the
god; others, with outstretched hands, support the poles
of the baldachin that shelters him. Thereafter, representations of such small statuettes are found regularly
on the Theban barks; at Seti I's temple at Abydos they
are also shown on the Osiris barks; and in the same
period they occur with other kinds of apparently
portable cult emblems.33 Our evidence about other
New Kingdom portable barks and their appearance is
limited, but they may well have incorporated similar
groupings.34
Given the new interest in the type, the historically
specific elaboration of bark representations that establish an entirely apt ritual context for this piece, and
the apparent novelty and rarity of the small bronze
specimens, it is appealing to think that the Museum's
statuette might actually have belonged to a great
divine bark.35Only more evidence and a better understanding of the evolution of practices and of their association with certain statuary types and materials can
eventually further clarify the role of the bronze king.
Leaving aside these speculations, it remains highly
interesting that the Museum's beautiful and rare statuette was made at a time of new emphasis on the
king's role as intermediary and a new level of interest
in the theatrics of religion. With its rich play of gold
against black depths, this small bronze would have
11
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
been a strong visual presence in a cult composition
rich in lustrous metallic and mineral hues.
A TECHNICAL
OVERVIEW
The body of this figure is solid cast, as is the one surviving arm. There are three royal statuettes of comparable size and pose known from the New Kingdom:
Thutmose IV in the British Museum (see Figure 7),
the figure believed to be Tutankhamen in the University
of Pennsylvania Museum, and one of Ramesses II in a
private collection.36Each of these three figures is a hollow cast, but in the case of the Thutmose IV, the casting cavity is very small and does not conform to the
contours of the sculpture.37The arms of the Metropolitan
Museum's figure were attached to the body with
square-section tenons extending from the shoulders
(Figures 1-3); the ends of the tangs and the edges of
the arms and shoulders were smeared by hammering
in order to interlock the components. This mechanical joining method is frequently observed on Egyptian
figural bronzes. The statuette originally was set into a
base using the four tangs extending from the knees
and feet (Figure 1i). These tangs were bent in ancient
times. In "mass-produced"bronzes of the Late Period,
nearly all tangs used for this purpose are rectangular
and of similar proportions; the very long, roundish
tangs on the figure of Thutmose III reflect the less
routine production of bronzes in the New Kingdom
and Third Intermediate Period.
The eyes (and the nipples) of the figure have been
highlighted with gold (Figure 4). The proper left eye
socket is lined with gold sheet but only the outlines of
the eyes would have appeared golden when the sockets were inlaid with stone or another material. Gold
inlay survives in the proper right eyebrow, in the cosmetic lines where they extend from the eyes, and in
both nipples. The gold in the proper right eye is a
modem addition. No traces of inlay or of a bedding
material survive in the eye sockets.
The body of the figure was analyzed using energydispersive X-rayspectroscopy (EDS) and found to be a
low-tin bronze with a substantial amount of gold and
small amounts of silver and arsenic.38A small amount
of arsenic is often detected in New Kingdom bronzes,
although by this time copper-arsenic alloys were seldom produced intentionally. Few securely dated
figural New Kingdom bronzes are known, and most
have not been analyzed; the available evidence suggests that the absence of lead may be typical of those
datable to the New Kingdom. Overall, the alloy is sim-
Figure 11. Detail of statuette in Figure 1. Total extended
length of front tangs ca. 3 cm, rear tangs ca. 4.5 cm
ilar to alloys of Eighteenth Dynasty and later New
Kingdom "black bronzes," such as the Tutankhamen
in the University Museum,39and a shallow dish with
inlaid Nilotic motifs in the Metropolitan Museum.40
Typically the alloy was used to create bronzes whose
matte black surfaces would contrast with the colors
and sheen of inlays of other metals: gold, silver, electrum, copper, and inpatinated bronze. This was first
recognized by John Cooney, who identified hmty-km,
known from hieroglyphic texts of the early New
Kingdom, as the Egyptian term for inlaid blackpatinated bronzes.41
Black bronzes contain a small but essential amount
of gold, and often silver, which allows the metal to
develop a black cuprite layer when it is chemically
treated.4 Cuprite is a copper oxide [Cu 0] familiar to
many as the red corrosion product almost invariably
present on archaeological copper-alloy artifacts. It has
been proposed that the alteration of the color from
red to black is caused by gold particles in the cuprite
layer.43Gold does not occur naturally in copper or tin
ores, and its presence in copper alloys represents an
intentional addition. In nontechnical literature surfaces
of black bronzes have long been mistakenly described
as "nielloed." Niello is a black, artificially produced
sulfide used to inlay metal surfaces. Its earliest uncontested occurrence is known from the Roman period.44
12
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
It is possible that the technique of alloying copper
with gold to produce black bronzes came into use in
Egypt and other regions of the Mediterranean as early
as the first half of the second millennium B.C.45
Two of
the copper-alloy figures from a group said to be from
the Faiyum may be the earliest examples of Egyptian
black bronzes. The first is a late Middle Kingdom
kneeling royal figure in the Ortiz collection, often
identified as Amenemhat III.46The figure, which has a
black surface that was partlyoverlaid with gold and silver
sheet, was recently analyzed and its black color established as intentional and due to the presence of gold
in the alloy.47The alloy of the second piece, an inlaid
black-bronze crocodile in the Staatliche Agyptische
Sammlung in Munich,48was analyzed byJosef Riederer
some years ago, but gold was not among the elements
routinely quantified in his studies;49it was recently
reanalyzed and found to contain gold.50
There are scattered examples of possible black
bronzes dated to the earlier New Kingdom. From the
burial of Ahhotep, of the beginning of the Eighteenth
Dynasty, there are several inlaid cupreous objects with
dark surface patinations that could well have been
artificially produced through the chemical treatment
of an alloy containing a small amount of gold, but in
these cases neither the surfaces nor the alloys have
been investigated. The Metropolitan Museum's figure
of Thutmose III represents the earliest securely dated
New Kingdom occurrence of this process confirmed
by scientific study.51
Overall the figure of Thutmose III is in good condition. It has suffered abrasion to the face and the
uraeus (Figure 4), and the linear details on the belt
rectangle and the belt itself are poorly preserved
(Figure ga). In moder times a blunt instrument penetrated the figure's back in several places (Figure 3).
The existing arm is loose on its tenon, and a wedge has
been added to hold it in its original position.
The figure has been cleaned but still retains a fair
amount of its archaeological corrosion. Burial accretions can be observed on the underside between the
legs. The corrosion crust is heterogeneous, containing
typical archaeological copper corrosion products such
as malachite [Cu2(CO3)2], atacamite [Cu2(OH)3Cl]and
cuprite, as well as less common compounds such as
chalcocite [CuS] and tenorite [CuO].52The corrosion
products observed on the surface include those associated with both anaerobic and aerobic conditions and
with saline and nonsaline conditions. It is the presence
of chalcocite that lends the figure its distinctive silvery
surface. When the surface cleaned of its massive corrosion is viewed under magnification, one observes casting dendrites delineated in black and silver.
As a rule, archaeological sulfide corrosion products
are not common on cupreous artifacts. In cases where
copper sulfides such as chalcocite have been
identified, the artifacts had been recovered from wet
anaerobic environments.53Generally the chalcocite is
observed directly on the surface of the metal, and carbonates, oxides, and chlorides are not present.
Tenorite, which usually results from the oxidation of
copper at elevated temperatures, has not frequently
been reported as a massive corrosion product on
archaeological copper alloys, but it has been detected
on artificially patinated black bronzes on several occasions.54It is not clear if the formation of this complex
assortment of corrosion products relates to the presence of the artificially induced black corrosion film on
the surface of the bronze before it entered its burial
environment or if it is the result of changing conditions in the environment or environments in which
the figure was preserved during the more than three
thousand years that have passed since the time of its
manufacture.
NOTES
1. MMA,acc. no. 1995.21; Purchase, Edith Perry Chapman Fund
and Malcolm Hewitt Wiener Foundation Inc. Gift, 1995; H. 13.6 cm,
excluding deformed tangs, which add ca. 3.5 cm maximum; published in MMAB 53/2 (Fall 1995) p. 6. I would like to thank
Dorothea Arnold and James Allen of the Department of Egyptian
Art and Deborah Schorsch of the Sherman Fairchild Center for
Objects Conservation for very helpful discussions regarding this
object and this article. For Thutmose III, see Donald B. Redford,
"Thutmose III,"in Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto, eds., Lexikon
der Agyptologie (hereafter LA) 6, cols. 539-548 (Wiesbaden,
1972-86).
2. See the technical appendix by Deborah Schorsch regarding
black bronzes generally and the silvery patina of this statuette in
particular.
3. Stone statues rest the offering pots on their knees. The raised
position with level forearms is also seen in the Thutmose IV bronze
illustratedhere (Figure 7). Kushite bronze kings seem to hold the pots
even higher, at breast height (Paris, Louvre, E25276; Copenhagen,
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 605; Sotheby's, NewYork, sale Dec. 9, 1991,
lot i16), and offering bronzes with the names of Necho II (Boston,
Museum of Fine Arts, 1970.637) and Amasis (NewYork, MMA, acc.
no. 35.9.3) hold the forearms parallel to though not touching the
thighs, and therefore the pots are quite low, similar to those seen in
stone statuary.
4. With respect to the width of the upper arms, the shoulder dowels required to affix the separately cast arms may be a factor. The
attenuation is similar to that of wood statuary.
13
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5. Cyril Aldred, "The Carnarvon Statue of Amun," Journal of
EgyptianArchaeology
42 (1956) p. 7.
6. Mohammed el-Saghir, Das Statuenversteckim Luxortempel
(Mainz, 1992) pp. 69-70.
7. Marianne Eaton-Krauss,"The KhatHeaddress to the End of the
Amarna Period," Studienzur altgyptischenKultur5 (1977) pp. 21-39.
8. In fact, by far the largest number of examples listed by EatonKrauss, "The Khat,"before the Amara Period show Hatshepsut.
She lists (p. 36) one example inscribed for Thutmose III (Warsaw,
141267), a sphinx with the heavy, wide headdress thrown back over
its shoulders. Another example, assigned simply to a Thutmoside
pharaoh (Naples 1072), wears a long, apparently heavy, but unfortunately damaged khat,the statue probably represents Thutmose III
to judge from the roundness of the face and the working of the
throat area and Adam's apple (H. W. Mfller photos in the Egyptian
Department archives).
9. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 42077: The resulting higher center of gravityis particularly clear in Edward B. Terrace and Henry G.
Fischer, Treasures
fromtheCairoMuseum(London, 1970) colorpl. v. A
partial head (Edinburgh, Royal Scottish Museum 1951.346; well
illustrated in Cyril Aldred, "The Statue Head of a Tuthmoside
Pharaoh," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology39 [1963] pp. 48-49),
which may well be Amenhotep II, is damaged in the area of the
headdress, although it seems to have been rather full but again with
a higher center of gravity.
10. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 03.1 00; illustrated in Arne
Weltmacht
(Mainz, 1987) p. 360.
Eggebrecht, ed., AgyptensAufstiegzur
1i. In late Dynasty 18 the khatnarrows and rises, echoing the oval
contours of the face (numerous examples are cited by Eaton-Krauss,
"The Khat";Geoffrey Martin, TheRoyal Tombat el-'Amama[London,
1974] P- 39, presents a large group of Akhenaten's shawabtiswearing the khat). This shape continues in Dynasty 19 (see, for example,
Tom Phillips, ed., Africa: The Art of a Continent[New York, 1996]
p. 88, no. 1.50, the guardian figure of Ramesses I). The narrow
shape is retained through the Third Intermediate Period (Osorkon
I, The Brooklyn Museum, 57.92; see Figure 6 here), with occasional
shorter versions (Osorkon II, Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 42197;
well illustrated in Edna R. Russmann, EgyptianSculpture:Cairoand
Luxor [Austin, 1989] p. 156) or somewhat more weighted versions
(the bronze statuette of Ramesses II referred to in note 27 below).
A stone statuette attributed to Psamtik II in a New York private collection wears a khatof narrow, long conformation.
12. For a good range of examples from mid-Dynasty 18, see the
articles cited in notes 14-16 regarding individual kings. For uraei in
the Third Intermediate Period, see Figure 6 here or Philadelphia,
University Museum, E 16199, in Bernard V. Bothmer, "Membradispersa III: The Philadelphia-Cairo Statue of Osorkon II,"Journal of
46 (1960) pl. 3.
EgyptianArchaeology
13. See, however, the bronze head possibly representing
Amenhotep III referred to in note 27 below. Earring holes are very
often shown on statuary through the Third Intermediate Period,
and then not thereafter; there are, however, representations of
Kushite kings wearing ear ornaments (Edna R. Russmann, The
Representationof the King in the Egyptian XXVthDynasty [Brooklyn,
19741 pp- 25-26).
14. For example, the MMA's statues of Hatshepsut, some of
which are illustrated in W. C. Hayes, TheScepterof EgyptII (2nd ed.,
New York, 1990) figs. 49-55; for Thutmose III, Cairo, Egyptian
Museum, CG 42053, well visible in Biri Faye, "Tuthmoside Studies,"
MitteilungendesDeutschenArchiologischenInstituts,Kairo51 (1995) pl.
5c, and many other examples.
15. A brow of this type may be seen in the white limestone face of
Thutmose III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 90237; well illustrated
in Faye, "Tuthmoside Studies," pl. 9c and discussed p. 19) and,
alongside slightly curved versions, appears regularly with
Amenhotep II (see Hourig Sourouzian, "ABust of Amenhotep II at
the Kimbell Art Museum," Journal of the AmericanResearchCenterin
Egypt28 [1991] p. 65 and passim).
16. Betsy M. Bryan, "PortraitSculpture of Thutmose IV,"Journal
of theAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt24 (1987) pp. 3-20. It may be
that the brows of Louvre E 13889 curve downward ever so slightly
near the bridge of the nose.
17. Ibid., p. 20.
18. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 42053; the feature is visible in
Russmann, EgyptianSculpture,p. 90.
19. The British Museum bronze of Thutmose IV (see Figure 7
here) likewise shows name signs enclosed only by the rectangle, with
no encircling cartouche. Bertrand Jaeger has shown that even in
mid-Dynasty 18 scarabs are quite frequently inscribed with unenclosed royal names (Essai de classificationet datation des scarabees
Menkheperre
[G6ttingen, 1982] p. 40).
20. This reading was established byJames Allen.
21. E.g., Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 1977.16; see Edna R.
Russmann, "An Egyptian Royal Statuette of the Eighth Century
B.C.,"in W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis, eds., Studiesin AncientEgypt,
the Aegean, and the Sudan (Boston, 1981) p. 151, fig. 5, and n. 11.
Still, the inscription on that statue is centered and the spacing
appropriate.
22. See Jaeger, Essai, chart of writing variants, p. 29, nos. 9, lo,
and 13, for variants with the disk centrally located; especially those
in group lo are datable to the 18th Dynasty and his no. 864a (see ill.
480 on p. 166), for example, is even more closely datable as ajoint
issue of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.
23. Henry G. Fischer, "Hieroglyphen," in LA 3, cols. 1190-1191,
discusses honorific transposition; he has not noted a case such as
this, but its occurrence does not at all surprise him (personal communication). The transposition seen here fits the tendency of this
time to a special emphasis on the god Amun, manifested, for example, in cryptographic elaborations (seeJaeger, Essai, p. 94).
24. Copper alloy is the proper term for the group of cupreous
alloy statuary as a whole or for statues whose exact alloy is unknown.
Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, is used conventionally for the
New Kingdom and later periods when that alloy predominates.
Historical reviews are given by Christiane Ziegler, "Les arts du metal
a la Troisieme Periode Intermediaire," pp. 85-101, in Tanis:L'ordes
pharaons,exh. cat., Grand Palais (Paris, 1987); idem, "Jalonspour
une histoire de l'art egyptien: La statuaire de metal au Musee du
Louvre," Revue du Louvre 1996-1, pp. 29-38; Robert S. Bianchi,
"Egyptian Metal Statuary of the Third Intermediate Period (Circa
B.C.), from Its Egyptian Antecedents to Its Samian
107-656
Examples," pp. 61-84, in SmallBronzeSculpturefrom theAncientWorld
(Malibu, 1990); Eleni Vassilika, "EgyptianBronze Sculpture Before
the Late Period," in Chiefof Seers:EgyptianStudiesin Memoryof Cyril
Aldred (London, forthcoming). An important listing of Middle
Kingdom copper-alloy statuettes is given by James Romano, "A
Statuette of a Royal Mother and Child in the Brooklyn Museum,"
14
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mitteilungendes DeutschenArchaologischenInstituts, Kairo 48 (1992)
pp. 131-143. Composition studies, of course, also help to give information about the dating of metal statuary,but the matter is complicated. Vassilika's article, kindly provided in typescript, does a very
good job of representing the technological complexities.
25. Only a very few examples of private or divine statuary have
been identified from the Second Intermediate Period or early New
Kingdom (see Ziegler, "Jalons,"pp. 29-31, for discussion; also MMA,
acc. no. 26.7.1413, published in Hayes, TheScepterII, fig. 30, is actually bronze [1991 analysis]). Small royal statuettes forming part of
cult equipment, some of which (a censer, for example) may be of
bronze, are represented in reliefs of Thutmose III (B. Porter and R.
Moss, Topographical
Bibliographyof AncientEgyptianHieroglyphicTexts,
Reliefs, and Paintings, II, 2nd ed. [Oxford, 1972], 123 [426] and
[432]), but the statuettes shown in the private tombs of mid-Dynasty
18 are not, it seems, bronze (tomb 73, Amenhotep[?], temp.
Hatshepsut, idem, I, 2nd ed. [1960], part 1, p. 143 [3]; tomb 1oo,
Rekhmire, temp. TIII/AII, idem, I, p. 209 [7]; tomb 93, Kenamun,
temp. Amenhotep II, idem, I, p. 191). Wolfgang Helck, Materialzur
desNeuenReiches,part 6 (Mainz, 1969) pp. 33, 40,
Wirtschaftsgeschichte
does list bronze statue(tte)s, one denoted as royal, of the period of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. That examples were melted down,
and that many-kings and deities especially-remain unrecognized
seems likely. We tend to infer from varied collateral evidence (the
gathering momentum at the end of the Middle Kingdom, the frequently cited evidence of bronze-working skill, and the growing presence of sometimes elaborate bronze implements and utensils in the
New Kingdom, or, again, the numbers of statuettes known starting
with the Third Intermediate Period) that numerous statuettes ought
to have been made; religious, social, economic, or other factors that
might affect this scenario need to be considered.
26. The history of copper-alloy statuary begins with the large
hammered copper statues from Hierakonpolis of Pepi I of Dynasty
6 and a smaller accompanying figure. Small cast copper-alloy statuary of male and female private persons appears from perhaps the
First Intermediate Period and surely the Middle Kingdom; very few
pieces are excavated, but stylisticallythey seem to span this interval.
(Romano, "A Statuette," provides a very good list in his n. 1o. I can
add a few pieces and remarks:Athens 3365 is published in TheWorld
of Egyptin theNational ArchaeologicalMuseum [Athens, 1995] p. 11 1,
as also in Friedrich W. von Bissing, "Agyptische Bronze- und
Kupferfiguren des Mittleren Reichs," Kaiserl. Dt. Arch. Inst.,
AthenischeAbt.Mitteilungen38 [1913] figs. 1, 2, pl. x; four additional
First Intermediate Period or Middle Kingdom small figurines in
Berlin are inv. nos. 14054, 15080, 17958, 23703, AgptischesMuseum
Berlin [1967] cat. nos. 317, 319-321; Berlin 2/77 is now illustrated
in AgptischesMuseumBerlin[ 1981] p. 98; and for Ashmolean, E 2208,
seeJohn Garstang, El Arabah[ 19 1] p. 7, pl. Ix; in the Fitzwilliam is
a man, E. 4.1926; a copper figure in a private collection on loan to
the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, was called to my attention by Peter
Lacovara, see Christie's London, Dec. 9, 1992, lot 146.) Clearly datable to the later Middle Kingdom are small examples of royal statuary. An incense burner with a prostrate figure of a king Senwosret
on the lid is in Cairo: Egyptian Museum, JE 35687. According to
Henry G. Fischer ("Prostrate Figures of Egyptian Kings," University
Museum Bulletin [March 1956] pp. 26-42, fig. 16) the king most
resembles Senwosret III, or could possibly be a Dynasty 13 king of
the same name. The piece was found in a redeposited location at
Deir el-Ballas (Peter Lacovara, "The Hearst Excavations at Deir elBallas: The Eighteenth Dynasty Town," p. 120 n. 1, in Studies in
Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan). A Brooklyn statuette is
attributable to a princess Sobekhotep of Dynasty 13 (BMA 43.137;
Romano, "A Statuette"). A nursing woman and child (Berlin,
14078) may belong to the same period and may actually be an early
bronze of a deity (see Romano, "A Statuette," pp. 138-142). The
startling group of large copper alloy/bronze statues of important
courtiers and royalty, including the first kneeling copper-alloy (in
fact, black bronze; see the discussion in the technical overview here)
statuette of a king, considerably larger than the statuette of
Thutmose III, are, of course, the major examples. The largest part
of the group is illustrated as nos. 33-37 in George Ortiz, In Pursuit
of theAbsolute:Art of theAncient World.The GeorgeOrtizCollection,rev.
ed. (London, 1996). The other associated bronze/copper-alloy statues are a striding king, an official, and a crocodile in the Staatliche
Sammlung Agyptischer Kunst Mfinchen, an official in the Musee du
Louvre, and a queen's wig in a private collection in Geneva; see
Ortiz, In Pursuit, n. 6 on unnumbered page preceding no. 33 for
references.
27. Besides this piece: a sphinx of Menkheperra in the Louvre
(E 10897) may belong to this king (Ziegler, "Jalons,"pp. 31-32 and
n. 28, refers to the stylistic ambiguity of this piece and announces
technical studies that may help to clarify its position); kneeling
Thutmose IV (Figure 7), British Museum 64564 (see Bryan,
"Portrait Sculpture," p. 20, for references); head possibly of
Amenhotep III, Fitzwilliam E.G.A. 4504.1943 (Eleni Vassilika,
EgyptianArt [Cambridge, 1995] p. 54); kneeling "Tutankhamun,"
The University Museum, Philadelphia, E14295 (Bernard Fishman
and Stewart J. Fleming, "A Bronze Figure of Tutankhamun:
Technical Studies," Archaeometry
22/1 [1980] pp. 81-86; for a brief
updated consideration of this piece, see Marsha Hill, catalogue
and Artifactsfrom
entry in SearchingforAncientEgypt:Art, Architecture,
the University of Pennsylvania Museum, forthcoming); kneeling
Ramesses II in a private collection in New York (not the same as the
piece on the art market referred to by Ziegler, "Jalons,"p. 29); torso
of Ramesses V, Fitzwilliam 213.1954 (Vassilika, "Egyptian Bronze
Sculpture," p. 6). The upper part of a sometimes cited Ramesses IV
(as in H. Garland and C. O. Bannister, AncientEgyptianMetallurgy
[London, 1927] figs. 2, 16; also the same piece labeled as Ramesses
VI was noted by Nicholas Reeves in New York, Parke-Bernet, April
15, 1942, lot 251) is actually Osorkon II (Jean Yoyotte, Kemi 21
[1971] pp. 47-48). A variously cited Ramesses IX/X/XI from the
Michailidis Collection may not be correct (see Ziegler, "Jalons,"
comments on p. 29 and n. 16). I am not including bronze shawabtis,
which seem to me to form a separate category.
28. While not completely exhaustive or up-to-date, Hartwig
Altenmiller, "K6nigsplastik,"LA 3, cols. 568-580, provides a useful
overview. After very rare examples in the Old Kingdom and First
Intermediate Period, kneeling statues holding nw pots are known
for most of the Dynasty 12 kings, for instance. But Hatshepsut probably had at least eight colossal examples at Deir el Bahri, which
could have stood in the peristyle court outside the sanctuary.
Moreoever, she begins the proliferation of types of offerings by creating at least twelve smaller examples holding a single round libation vessel with a djedsymbol (Department of Egyptian Art archives:
Herbert E. Winlock, Egyptian Expedition Theban Excavation
Notebook 8: Temple Sculpture, pp. 160, 205). Interestingly, kneeling private statuary proffering emblems or other items has its origins also in the early 18th Dynasty, as pointed out by Edna R.
Russmann, "The Statue of Amenemope-em-hat," MMJ 8 (1973)
p. 38 andn. 16.
15
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
29. See the example
Statuenversteck,
pp. 35-40.
of Horemhab,
M. el-Saghir, Das
30. The king wears the khatand seems to support a baldachin(?)
pole on a curved deck (W. M. F. Petrie et al., The Labyrinth,Gerzeh
and Mazguneh[London, 1912] p. 32 and pl. 29 upper right), noted
in Marianne Eaton-Krauss, "Statuendarstellung," LA 5, col. 1263
andn. 19).
31. Egyptian gods had traveled on important journeys by river
bark since very early, and portable barks for land travel were a
metaphorical extension from rather early on (see Kenneth Kitchen,
"Barke,"LA 1, cols. 619-625). The portable bark and therefore processional aspects of the Amun cult at Karnak seem to be attested
from the time of Senwosret I by the existence of a bark station of
that king bearing perhaps a ruined representation of the bark it
sheltered (Claude Traunecker, "Rapport preliminaire sur la
chapelle de Sesostris Ier decouverte dans le IXe pylone," in Karnak
VII [Paris, 1982] pp. 121-126). However, a survey of the development of the Amun bark in representations (pp. 77-85 and plates of
Claude Traunecker et al., La Chapelled'Achris a Karnak II [Paris,
1981]; now supplemented by a detailed study by Christina
Karlhausen, "L'Evolution de la barque processionelle d'Amon a la
18e Dynastie," Revue d'Egyptologie46 [1995] pp. 129-137, which
contains important insights) shows that at the beginning of the New
Kingdom in the bark station of Amenhotep I, the Amun bark is
depicted as extremely simple and without the complement of royal
figurines except for the striding sphinx standard, but with
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III a change occurs. These pharaohs,
who built temples and refurbished cults throughout the country,
began a new era of Theban cult elaboration. They emphasized the
processional route from Karnak to Deir el Bahri with bark stations
between and bark shrines within the temples (excavations of the
Thutmose III temple site have yielded many fragments of relief
depicting barks, see HubertJ. G6rski, "La Barque d'Amon dans la
decoration du temple de Thoutmosis III a Deir el-Bahari,"
Instituts, Kairo 46 [1990]
Mitteilungendes DeutschenArchdologischen
the
Polish
and
Mission, reported in EgyptianArchaeology
pp. 99-112;
has
determined
that the temple incorporated a bark
p.
12,
7 [1995]
shrine). And in depictions from the time of Hatshepsut the bridge
of the bark begins to be peopled, with kneeling kings holding nw
pots and sphinxes with libation vessels in the first grouping introduced (Traunecker, La Chapelle,p. 77, has misunderstood as standing the royal figurine whose lower part is blocked by a sphinx; its
proportions make this impossible; see Karlhausen, ibid., p. 121, for
a possible earlier example). It is quite difficult to judge from published photos, and the degree of correlation between actuality and
representation is problematic in any case, but it seems that, while
usually the nemesis shown, in at least two instances these earliest
small kneeling offering kings may have worn the khatheaddress: see
Gorski, "La Barque," fig. 1, where the king's headdress was apparently understood by restorers as monochrome like the khat and
painted yellow, unless paint is simply missing as in fig. 2, and in the
same article the Clandeboye Hall block, pl. 29d (photo actually
switched with 29c), where the tail of the headdress is the tail of the
khatand not the nemes.Pictorial evidence regarding the barks of the
Abydene gods is available from the time of Seti I, but, so far, not
before (Amice M. Calverley and Myrtle Broome, The Templeof King
SethosI at Abydos[London/Chicago, 1933-58]).
32. Stone and faience, the former heavy and both brittle, seem
dubious candidates. Wood would be suitable, was probably used,
and has not survived. There is a tradition of rich metallic and col-
oristic decoration on barks; see, for example, the description of the
Osiris bark in the Ikhernofret stela (Berlin, Agyptisches Museum,
1204). Because bronze royal figurines could be associated with what
is thought to have been the remains of a ritual bark of Amun from
Dynasty 25 at Kawa (F. Laming Macadam, The Templesof Kawa II
[London, 1955] pp. 243-244), and because bronze striding sphinxes on standards-a type rather specifically associated with barksare dated to Dynasty 19 (Brooklyn Museum of Art, 61.20; Richard
Fazzini, ImagesforEternity[Brooklyn, 1975] p. 92) and known from
Dynasty 25 (e.g., Louvre E 3916 of Taharqa), it is reasonable to
assume that some of the bark statuary of Dynasty 18 might be of
bronze. There is no representation of the bark with color before the
time of Haremhab's refurbishment of Thutmose III's Deir el Bahri
temple (see G6rski, "LaBarque," figs. 1, 2), and in those of Seti I at
Abydos yellow and white are the colors of the statuary (Calverley
and Broome, The Temple;in fact, both groupings on the bark [e.g., I,
pl. 7] and about the Osiris emblem [I, pl. 11] are shown); gold and
silver, and possibly bronze, but not black bronze, seem to be
implied.
from the Templeof RamesesI at Abydos
33. H. E. Winlock, Bas-Reliefs
(New York, 1921) pls. ii, in; Calverley and Broome, The TempleI,
pl. 11, for example.
34. See note 30 and general references in note 31; also see
Christina Karlshausen, "Une Barque d'Ahmes-Nefertari a Louxor?"
Studienzur altigyptischenKultur23 (1996) pp. 217-225 and n. 3.
35. The suggestivity of these coincidental factors is enhanced by
the fact that ideas of fairly specific, if perhaps rather labored, translation between relief, statuaryand actual ritual seem to be abroad in
the 18th and early i9th Dynasties, even if their degree is difficult to
gauge. The phenomenon could, of course, go back further and we
simply have no evidence; it could also be related to the building of
large stone temples and general elaboration of state cults in the New
Kingdom. Hourig Sourouzian, writing chiefly in regard to large
stone or wood cult statuary during this period, has carefully laid out
the question of correlations between actual statuary and relief
depictions of rituals, enumerating all the factors that bring the suspicion of correlations to mind and, likewise, those that make it so
difficult to feel one's way toward any satisfying answer ("Statues et
representations de statues royales sous Sethi I," Mitteilungen des
DeutschenArchdologischenInstituts, Kairo 49 [1993] pp. 239-257).
The same question can be posed for bronze royal statuary,in particular with regard to the kneeling type.
36. For museological and bibliographic references for these
figures, see note 25. My thanks go to James H. Frantz, Richard E.
Stone, Dorothea Arnold, Marsha Hill, Lawrence Becker, and
Mark T. Wypyskifor their generous contributions to this study.
37. I am grateful to Michael Cowell of the Department of
Scientific Research, The British Museum, for showing me the radiographs of Thutmose IV. High-quality, large, hollow-cast bronzes,
such as those in the famed group said to be from the Faiyum, were
already produced in Egypt in the late 12th Dynasty.
38. Elemental analysiswas carried out on a sample removed from
one of the tangs using a Kevex Delta IV energy-dispersive X-rayspectrometer coupled to a modified Amray 11oo scanning electron
microscope. The data were quantified using MAGIC IV ZAF
corrections.
wt % Cu
88.5
Sn
As
Au
Ag
Fe
4.3
0.5
6.1
0.4
0.2
16
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
39. Kneeling figure of Tutankhamen (U.M. E 14295)
wt%
Cu
Sn
As
Au
Ag
Fe
4.6
1.o0
88.7
4.7
0.75
1.57
The figure was analyzed using proton-activated X-ray fluorescence (PIXE). Trace amounts of lead, antimony, zinc, and mercury
were also detected (Fishman and Fleming, "A Bronze Figure of
Tutankhamen," p. 82). At the time of that publication the relationship between the gold content of a copper alloy and its artificial
black patination had not yet been recognized.
40. Shallow dish with Nilotic motifs (MMA,acc. no. 1989.281.99)
Sn
As
Au
Fe
wt% Cu
Ag
86.1
o.8
0.3
4.1
6.9
0.9
Unpublished EDS analysis of a polished section carried out in the
Sherman Fairchild Center for Objects Conservation in 1992. The
dish was formerly in the Norbert Schimmel collection and is illustrated in Jirgen Settgast, Von Trojabis Amara (Mainz, 1978) cat.
no. 249.
41. John D. Cooney, "On the Meaning of o i ," Zeitschriftiir
Agyptische
Spracheund Altertumskunde
93 (1966) pp. 43-48.
42. Our understanding of ancient black bronzes is based in part
on technical studies of copper alloys, such as shakudo, that have
been used in Japan for at least 600 years to create artificially patinated metal works of art. Shakudo typically contains 1-5 percent
gold and small amounts of silver. According to Gowland, a 19thcentury observer, the black color develops when the metal is boiled
in a solution of blue vitriol (copper sulfate) and verdigris (copper
acetate). Prior to this treatment the objects are immersed in a boiling lye solution, polished with charcoal, and rinsed in a saline
plum-vinegar bath; cited in Michael R. Notis, "The Japanese Alloy
Shakudo:Its History and its Patination," in TheBeginning of the Useof
Metals and Alloys, Robert Maddin, ed. (Cambridge, 1988) pp.
316-327.
43. Ryu Murakami, S. Niyama, and M. Kitada, "Characterization
of the Black Surface Layer on a Copper Alloy Coloured by
Traditional Japanese Surface Treatment," in The Conservationof Far
EasternArt, John S. Mills, Perry Smith, and Kazuo Yamasaki, eds.
(London, 1988) pp. 133-136. Notis, "TheJapanese Alloy Shakudo."
44. Susan La Niece, "Niello: An Historical and Technical Survey,"
TheAntiquariesJournal63 (1983) pp. 280-297, esp. 280.
45. There are several inlaid copper-alloy objects with black surfaces from royal tomb 2 in Byblos that also have not received scientific examination. Pierre Montet, Byblos et LEgypte: quatre
campagnesdefouilles i Gebeil,1921, 1922, I923, 1924, 2 vols. (Paris,
1928-29) I, pp. 172, 174-177, 18o, II, pls. 98-1oo, 102. Tomb 2
contained a chest with the name of Amenemhat IV as well as a stone
jar inscribed with a name used by seven different kings of the 12th
and 13th Dynasties. The dating of the tomb remains a source of dispute; Christine Lilyquist, "Granulation and Glass: Chronological
and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500-1400 B.C.E,
BASOR290-291 (1993) pp. 29-94, esp. 41-44.
46. See note 24 above.
47. Alessandra Giumlia-Mair,"DasKrokodil und Amenemhat III.
aus el-Faiyum,"AntikeWelt27 (1996) pp. 313-321, esp. 315; the tin
content, erroneously printed as 9.00 percent, is actually 3.00 percent. My thanks to Alessandra Giumlia-Mairfor sharing her results
before the publication of her article.
48. Dietrich
Wildung,
"Berichte der Staatlichen
Kunst-
sammlungen, Neuerwerbung, Staatliche Sammlung Agyptischer
Kunst," MunchnerJahrbuchder bildendenKunst, 3rd ser., 30 (1979)
pp. 199-206, esp. 202-204.
49. See, e.g., Josef Riederer, "Die naturwissenschaftliche
Untersuchung der Bronzen der Staatlichen Sammlung Agyptischer
Kunst in Mfinchen," Berliner Beitrige zur Archdometrie7 (1982):
5-34, p. 11. The crocodile has been referred to by Wildung,
"Neuerwerbung," as "Bleibronze," which, following Riederer's terminology, is an alloy containing more than 20 percent lead. In fact,
the unpublished analysis indicates that the figure contains a modest
amount of tin (3.08 percent), a significant amount of arsenic (1.59
percent), and only traces of lead (0.29 percent) and silver (0.22 percent). My thanks to Josef Riederer of the Rathgen-Forschungslabor
in Berlin for sharing this information.
50. Giumlia-Mair,"Das Krokodil." The Middle Kingdom attribution of this crocodile has been questioned on both stylistic and
technical grounds. See Hans W. Muller, "Eine ungew6hnliche
Metallfigur eines blinden agyptischen Priesters,"BayerischeAkademie
der Wissenschaften,Philosophisch-Historische
Klasse Sitzungsberichte5
(1989): 5-33, pp. 27-31. One of Mfiller's "technical" arguments is
based on misinformation, that is, that "niello," by which he means
black bronze, was first produced in Egypt only in the ninth to eighth
centuries B.C.The earlier, inaccurate, published designation of the
crocodile as a leaded-copper alloy would also have strongly suggested a later date, while the correct data are not inconsistent with
an attribution to the Middle Kingdom.
51. Mycenaean bronze daggers with inlays and overlays of precious metal that are dated as roughly contemporaneous with the
beginning of the New Kingdom have also long been described as
"nielloed," but a recent scientific investigation of one such dagger
indicates that it was made from an artificially patinated copper alloy
containing a small amount of gold; E. Photos, R. E. Jones, and Th.
Papadopoulos, "The Black Inlay Decoration on a Mycenaean
Bronze Dagger,"Archaeometry
36 (1994) pp. 267-275. Many authors
have addressed the issue of black bronzes originating from cultural
contexts all over the world. A synthesis of the international literature appears in Alessandra R. Giumlia-Mair and Paul T. Craddock,
"Corinthium aes Das-Das schwarze Gold der Alchimisten," Antike
Welt24, Sondernummer (1993) pp. 2-62.
52. X-ray diffraction examination was carried out in situ using a
Phillips 1710 open architecture unit and using conventional DebyeSherrer cameras on corrosion samples removed from the surface of
the figure. My thanks to Paul Craddock and Susan La Niece of the
Department of Scientific Research, The British Museum, for sharing the results of their examination of the statuette and it corrosion.
The results of their examination appear in Paul T. Craddock and
Susan La Niece, "The Black Bronzes of Egypt," in International
on AncientEgyptianMining and Metallurgyand Conservation
Conference
of MetallicArtifacts(forthcoming).
53. See Steven J. Duncan and Helen Ganiaris, "Some Sulphide
Corrosion Products on Copper Alloys and Lead Alloys from London
Waterfront Sites," in RecentAdvancesin the Conservationand Analysis
of Artifacts,James Black, ed. (London, 1987) pp. 109-118; W.
Andrew Oddy and Nigel D. Meeks, "Unusual Phenomena in the
Corrosion of Ancient Bronzes," in Scienceand Technology
in theService
of Conservation,Norman S. Bromelle and Garry Thomson, eds.
(London, 1982) pp. 119-124. Sulfide corrosion, identified as covellite, in the form of small black spots, has been identified as a postretrieval phenomenon occurring on objects of varied provenance
17
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
preserved in sulfur-containing environments; Nils Heljm-Hansen,
"Cleaning and Stabilization of Sulphide-Corroded Bronzes," Studies
in Conservation29 (1984) pp. 17-20.
54. Tenorite has been found in the patinas of three other New
Kingdom "black bronze" objects examined in The Metropolitan
Museum of Art: an unpublished New Kingdom figure of a dog
(MMA, acc. no. 47.58.1), a shallow bowl with Nilotic inlays (MMA,
acc. no. 1989.281.99) mentioned earlier, and a second inlaid bowl
(MMA, acc. no. 1989.281.100), also formerly in the Norbert
Schimmel collection; the latter bowl is illustrated in Settgast, Von
TrojabisAmarna,cat. no. 250. Massive tenorite has been detected on
the surface of an ancient Egyptian bronze cat head believed to have
been reheated in modern times; Deborah Schorsch, "Technical
Examinations of Ancient Egyptian Theriomorphic Hollow Cast
Bronzes-Some Case Studies," in Conservationof Ancient Egyptian
Materials, Sarah C. Watkins and Carol E. Brown, eds. (London,
1988) pp. 41-50, esp. 49.
18
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:50:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions