MKS 11 – Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep and International Relations at the Turn of the Middle Bronze Age (1600–1500 BCE), London 2022

The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep and International Relations at the Turn of the Middle Bronze Age (1600–1500 BCE) Gianluca Miniaci, Peter Lacovara (eds) Middle Kingdom Studies 11 printed with financial support by The Ancient Egyptian Heritage and Archaeology Fund This title is published by Golden House Publications Copyright © by the authors if not otherwise stated cover image © photograph courtesy of Kenneth Garrett; cover designed by Gianluca Miniaci All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without prior written permission from Golden House Publications. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1906137724 ISSN 25150944 Printed in the United Kingdom By CPI Group (UK) Ltd. Croydon CR0 4YY London 2022 Middle Kingdom Studies Series Editor-in-Chief Gianluca Miniaci Advisory Board Dorothea Arnold, Bettina Bader, Marilina Betrò, Marleen De Meyer, Juan Carlos Moreno García, Alexander Ilin-Tomich, Patricia Rigault, Stephen Quirke, Gloria Rosati, Andréas Stauder, Danijela Stefanović, Pascal Vernus, Cornelius von Pilgrim, Josef Wegner, Paul Whelan Ai miei genitori Mariantonietta e Lucio, perchè senza di loro mi sentirei perso in questo mondo un po’ troppo complicato To Wolfram for our close friendship and for his inexhaustible energy and ideas which have transformed the field of Egyptology v Table of Contents List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................ix Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................xi Maps.................................................................................................................................................................xiii Selected Bibliography of the Ahhotep Treasure........................................................................................xv Chronological Matters Kevin M. Cahail The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: A Summary of Old Theories and New Discoveries..............................................................................................................................................3 Anna-Latifa Mourad Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area...................................................................................19 The History of the Discovery and Display of Ahhotep’s Treasure with a Section on the Journal d’Entrée Gianluca Miniaci The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence.................................................................................27 Gianluca Miniaci The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)..............................................................................................................................71 Gianluca Miniaci Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage............................................85 Marilina Betrò A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501).................109 Yasmin El Shazly The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure.......................................................................................121 The Identity of Ahhotep Marilina Betrò The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources................................................................................131 Peter Lacovara The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context..........................................................................153 Object Studies: Selected Equipment from Ahhotep’s Treasure Ellen Morris Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context............165 Miriam Colella Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads and the Inclusion of Gaming Pieces in the Funerary Costumes of Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty.......................................................................187 Peter Lacovara The Flies of Ahhotep............................................................................................................................199 The closest Archaeological Parallel: The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’.........................................................................................................205 vii International Relations at the Turn of the Middle Bronze Age (1600–1500 BC) Sara E. Cole The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty (c. 1650-1550 BC) and Beyond.......237 Sarah C. Murray Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation............................................................................................................261 Beth Ann Judas The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep..............................271 Shelley Wachsmann Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models.............................................................................................................279 Colour Plates Colour Plates....................................................................................................................................................295 . viii List of Abbreviations Ä&L AA AAA AAAL ÄAT ABSA ACE ADAIK Aegaeum ÄF AJA AJSL ArchEph ASAE ASR BABesch BAEDE BASOR BCH BE BICS BIE BIF BIFAO BiOr BM EA BMMA BMSAES BMTRB BnF BSA BSA BSAE BSF CAENL British School of Archaeology in Egypt Beiträge zur Sudanforschung Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant CAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal CCdE Les Cahiers Caribéens d’Égyptologie CCE Cahier de la céramique égyptienne CChEM Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean CdE Chronique d’Égypte; Bulletin périodique de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, Bruxelles CG Catalogue général (des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire) CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East CHE Cahiers d’Histoire égyptienne ClevStHistArt Cleveland Studies in the History of Art CNIANES Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Publications CRAIBL Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres DAE Département des Antiquités égyptien- nes, Musée du Louvre, Paris DB Museum database (either online or written register) DE Discussions in Egyptology DGÖAW Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaftem EA Egyptian Archaeology EES Egypt Exploration Society, Excavation Memoirs ENiM Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne EPHE École Pratique des Hautes Études EPHE Golénischeff École Pratique des Hautes Études, Centre Wladimir Golénischeff, Fonds Lacau, ERA Egyptian Research Account ErghÖJh Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien EVO Egitto e Vicino Oriente, Università di Pisa FIFAO Fouilles de l’Institute français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO) du Caire. GEM Grand Egyptian Museum GM Göttinger Miszellen HAS Harvard African Studies IB Inventaire de Boulaq IEJ Israel Exploration Journal Ägypten und Levante/ Egypt and the Levant Archäologischer Anzeiger Athens Annals of Archaeology Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Ägypten und Altes Testament Annual of the British School at Athens Studies Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Ägyptologische Reihe. Aegaeum. Annales d’archéologie égéenne de l’Université de Liège Ägyptologische Forschungen American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (Chicago) [after 1941: JNES] Archaiologikē Ephēmeris Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (SAE) Annuaire, École Pratique des Hautes Études: Ve section - sciences religieuses Bulletin Antieke Beschaving Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bibliothèque Égyptologique Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London Bulletin de l’Institute d’Égypt Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO) Bibliotheca Orientalis (Leiden) British Museum, Egyptian antiquities Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan British Museum Technical Research Bulletin Bibliothèque nationale de France Studies British School at Athens Studies The Annual of the British School at Athens ix IJNA International journal of nautical archaeology J. Raman Spectrosc Journal of Raman Spectros- copy JAA Journal of Anthropological Archaeology JACF Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum JAEI Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt JAS Journal of Archaeological Science JCH Journal of Cultural Heritage JE Journal d’entrée (Cairo Museum) JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JEgH Journal of Egyptian History JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch- egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux JGS Journal of Glass Studies JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JÖAI Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien JRGZM Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz JSSEA Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities (SSEA) JRGZM Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz LÄ W. Helck, E. Otto, W. Westendorf, Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols., Wiesbaden 1975LdR Le livre des rois d’Egypte MÄS Münchner Ägyptologische Studien MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo MK Middle Kingdom MKS Middle Kingdom Studies MMA Metropolitan Museum of Art MoDIA Monographs of the Danish Institutes at Athens NEA Near Eastern Archaeology OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta PAe Probleme der Ägyptologie PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde Philippika Philippikka: Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen PIOL PM PPS PSBA PZ  RANT RAr RdE RevL RGA RT Serapis S&N SAA SAGA SAK SAOC SDAIK SIE SIMA SIP SJE SMEA SR StaReSO TC TR TTS Urk. UZK WdO ZÄS x Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Leuven B. Porter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings’, 7 vols, 1927-1951 Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Prähistorische Zeitschrift Res Antiquae Revue archéologique Revue d’Égyptologie Revue du Louvre: la revue des musées de France Revue générale de l’architecture et des travaux publics Recueil de traveaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes Serapis Sudan & Nubia Studies in African Archaeology Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Studies in Egyptology Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Second Intermediate Period The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia Publications Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici Special Register (Cairo Museum) Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques Turin Canon Papyrus Temporary Registrer (Cairo Museum) Theban Tombs Series (London) Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums‘, 8 vols. ed. K.Sethe, H.W. Helck, H. Schäfer, H. Grapow, O.Firchow, 1903-1957 Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Die Welt des Orient:Wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Kunde des Morgenlandes Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Introduction The burial of Queen Ahhotep represents one of the most significant finds in Near Eastern Archaeology. A gilded coffin and a trove of magnificent jewels and objects belonging to a queen named Ahhotep was discovered at Dra Abu el-Naga, in Western Thebes by Auguste Mariette in 1859 along with a sumptuous group of jewels and elaborately decorated ceremonial objects. Many of the objects associated with the burial bore the names of Kings Ahmose and Kamose of the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of the New Kingdom and reflected the influence of the Aegean and of Nubia. The treasure caused a sensation when it was exhibited in Paris in 1867 at the International Exhibition and helped Mariette to convince the government of Egypt that a national museum should be built. Despite its importance, the treasure has never been fully published and much new research on the various aspects of the find have not been collected into a combined study until now. This volume, following a conference on the subject at the annual meeting of the American Society of Overseas Research (ASOR) in Denver on November 17, 2018, has assembled scholars from the world over and details the circumstances of the treasure’s discovery, its history of display and publication, both the technical and artistic aspects of the individual elements of the material, a review of the history and burial practices of the period and how Ahhotep and the treasure fits into them. The book opens with a review of the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and in the Levant. The first session contains an accurate transcription of the pages of the Journal d’Entré in order to provide for the first time the full content of the queen’s burial assemblage. The second section focuses on the intricate and often obscure history of the discovery of the treasure and its display in the Egyptian museums. This session gathers unpublished information from the archives, including the first list of the content of the treasure drafted on February 25th 1859 before the objects ended up in the hands of Mariette. The third session shed light on the identity of the queen found among the hills of Dra Abu el-Naga and her historical position. In the fourth session there are studies related to some particular objects of the treasure (weapons, lion pawns, and fly pendants) and on how they reflect the burial customs and material culture of the period. The fifth session presents for the first time a detailed publication of the closest comparable context to the burial of the Queen Ahhotep: a royal burial of the Second Intermediate Period found by Petrie in the Theban necropolis (the so-called “Qurna Queen”) and now in the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. The sixth and last session is featured by the analysis of the Aegean influence on the elements of the treasure and the Eastern Mediterranean relations (between Egypt, Levant and the Aegean) relations at the turn of the Middle Bronze Age (1600–1500 BC). As appendices there are also maps, chronological tables, lists of the treasure and selected images. Currently the treasure of Ahhotep is off display in the Egyptian Museum Cairo as the galleries are being renovated. A project for restudying and redisplaying the whole Ahhotep group was started in 2020 at the University of Pisa, entitled “Queen Ahhotep Treasure and its Context: The long Road to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, c. 1550 BC-1863 AD”. However, the ultimate disposition of the treasure at the time of this writing is unclear. The editors are grateful to Dr. Sabah Abdel-Razek, director of the Cairo Museum, Abeer Abdel-Aziz. curator in charge of Ahhotep section, Marwa Abdel Razek, director of the Registration, Collections Management, and Documentation Department for access to Ahhotep material and archive. The volume contains part of the results of the following projects: PROCESS – Pharaonic Rescission: Objects as Crucibles of ancient Egyptian Societies (MIUR – PRIN 2017) and Structures in time. Resilience, acceleration, and change perception (in the Euro-Mediterranean area) inside the framework “Accelerations and Resilience: Expansion and Growth in the Early States and Empires of the Ancient World” (Excellence Department Project for the Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, Università di Pisa). We would like to thank Stephen Quirke and Alexander Ilin-Tomich for their useful comments on the volume. We wish to thank Erika Sbarra and Wolfram Grajetzki for her assistance in copy-editing the final version of the volume. Somewhere between Egypt and Pisa, 9th February 2022 Peter Lacovara, Gianluca Miniaci xi Maps Maps of Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean (including the Levant, Greece and Sanorini) © drawn by Wolfram Grajetzki xiii xiv Map of the necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) © drawn by Gianluca Miniaci Selected Bibliography of the Ahhotep Treasure by Peter Lacovara Aldred, C., Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewellery of the Dynastic Period (London: Thames & Hudson, 1971), 9, 19, 114, 159, 198-202, 205, figs. 49-58. Amar, C.B., “The Dagger of Pharaoh Kamose, the Oldest Glory of the Royal Library of Belgium”, Monte Artium 5 (2012.), 45-67. Andrews, C., Ancient Egyptian Jewelry (New York: Harry Abrams, 1990), 14, 99, 102, 121, 131, 151 153, 158, 178, 181, 183-4. Aruz, J., K. Benzel, J.M. Evans, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 118-22. von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Aufang des neuen Reichs (Berlin: Duncker, 1900).   Bongioanni, A., M. Croce (eds), The Illustrated Guide to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2001), 338, 362-8, 472-3. Daressy, G., Cercueils des Cachettes Royales (Cairo: Institut Franc;ais d’Archeologie Orientale 8, 1909). Eaton-Krauss, M., “The Coffins of Queen Ahhotep, Consort of Seqenen-Re and Mother of Ahmose”, CdE 65 (1990), 195-205. Eaton-Krauss, M., “Encore: the coffins of Ahhotep, wife of Seqeni-en-Re Tao and mother of Ahmose”, in A.I. Blöbaum, J. Kahl, S.D. Schweitzer (eds), ÄSchlaunstrasse 2/Rosenstrasse 9 oblatum (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 75-90. Grajetzki, W., Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom: The Archaeology of Female Burials, (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Museum Press, 2014). 71, 166, 171. Hawass, Z., Hidden Treasures of Ancient Egypt (Washington, D.C.: National Gepgraphic, 2004), 32-3. Hornung, E., B. Bryan, The Quest for Immortality: Trasures of Ancient Egypt (Munich: Prestel, 2002), 106-9. Miniaci, G., “The archaeological exploration of Dra Abu el-Naga”, in M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco, G. Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons at Dra Abu el-Naga: The Tomb of Huy (TT 14): Preliminary Results (Pisa: Progetti 3, 2009), 36-56. Müller, H., E. Thiem, The Royal Gold of Ancient Egypt (London: L.B. Tauris, 1999), 128-41. Reeves, N., Ancient Egypt: The Great Discoveries (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000), 50-2. Saleh, M., H. Sourouzian, The Official Catalog: The Egyptian Museum Cairo (Mainz: Philip Von Zabern, 1987), nos 120, 121, 122,-5. Seipel, W., Gold der Pharaonen (Milan: Skira, 2001), 71-2. Sterlin, H., The Gold of the Pharaohs (Paris: Pierre Terrail, 1997), 73,108-15, 118-21. Terrace, E., H. Fischer, Treasures of Egyptian Art from the Cairo Museum (London: Thames & Hudson, 1970), 93-6. Vernier, E., Catalogue General des Antiquities Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire. Bijoux et Orfevreries. Vol. I: Nos. 52001–52151 (Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1907), 32-43, pls IX-XI. Vernier, E., Catalogue General des Antiquities Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire. Bijoux et Orfevreries. vol. II: Nos. 52152– 53855 (Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925). 202-23, pls XXXIX-XLVI, LILIII. Vilímková, M., Egyptian Jewellry (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1969), pls 22-30. Wilkinson, A., Ancient Egyptian Jewellery (London: Methuen & Co., 1971), 7, 87, 93, 95, 100-3, 122, 134-5, pls 23a, 25-6, 32, 49a. Ziegler, C., Queens of Ancient Egypt: From Hetepheres to Cleopatra (Paris: Somogy Art Publishers, 2008), 201, 50, 143, 163-5, 167, 169-70, 190-4, 231, 344, 354, 357, 384. xv Chronological Matters Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 3-17 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: A Summary of Old Theories and New Discoveries Kevin M. Cahail Abstract The Second Intermediate Period is traditionally defined as the era between about the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty to the Expulsion of the Hyksos and ascendancy of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Of all the phases of ancient Egyptian history, its internal chronology has been the most difficult to recover, and there are countless different theories and schema. Ambiguous, damaged or incomplete data represent the major hurdles scholars have attempted to overcome. The following paper presents one possible understanding of much of the information in the form of a summary of the current state of the field. The paper also attempts to incorporate the recently identified tomb of Seneb-Kay and other kings at Abydos who, as part of the Abydos Dynasty, add a new dimension to our understanding of the political history and chronology of the Second Intermediate Period. The internal chronology of the Second Intermediate Period (SIP) – defined as the period from about the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty to the Expulsion of the Hyksos and the ascendancy of the Eighteenth Dynasty – has traditionally relied heavily on the authority of the Turin Canon of Kings (TC), conjoined with Manetho’s chronology as epitomized and quoted in the various ancient sources.1 Modern scholars have been faced with the task of squaring these ancient texts with the slow addition of various archaeological and artifactual sources discovered over the last century. These attempts have led to different interpretations which, in some cases, diverge quite drastically from one another, but which are all based upon the same basic set of evidence. Consequently, assembling a simple summary of the internal chronology of the SIP is fraught with difficulty. The ground-breaking studies of Winlock,2 Stock,3 von For a useful history of research, see Bennett, Ä&L 16. Winlcok, JEA 10. 3 Stock, Studien zur Geschichte. 1 2 Beckerath4 and Franke5 represent the first forays into a modern understanding of both the external temporal horizons of the period, but also its internal chronology. Building on these works, Ryholt’s monumental 1997 book appeared, and while some of his conclusions were accepted whole cloth, others were questioned, fueling the discussion of this difficult era.6 Against this backdrop, ongoing excavations at the Hyksos capital of Avaris/Tell el-Dab‘a have demonstrated persistent problems with corelating the archaeology and Carbon-14 analyses with the historical reconstructions.7 Recent finds Beckerath, Untersuchungen. Franke, Orientalia 57. 6 Ryholt, Political Situation. For a useful summary of the field as of 2006, see Schneider, in Hornung, Krauss, Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 168-96; Ilin-Tomich, ZÄS 142, 120-53; Ilin-Tomich, in Grajetzki, Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. 7 Ben-Tor et al., BASOR 315, 43-54; and Bietak, in Kamrin, Barta, Ikram, Lehner, Megahed (eds), Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass, vol. I, 235-45. 4 5 von Kevin M. Cahail 4 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period at Edfu and Abydos have also had profound effects on our understanding of the period as a whole. The tombs of a series of kings discovered at Abydos, one of whom was named Woseribre Seneb-Kay, validates Franke and Ryholt’s creation of an Abydos Dynasty contemporary with the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty. At Edfu, seal impressions of the Thirteenth Dynasty King Sobekhotep IV have been found in closed contexts alongside sealings of the Hyksos King Khyan. These discoveries contradict the Hyksos Low Chronology proposed and argued for by Bietak and others, however they seem to confirm recent C-14 data and corroborate a High Chronology date for the beginning of the Hyksos Period. These discussions include such world-changing events as the eruption of Thera, whose effects were felt all around the Mediterranean world, but whose exact date is still debated.8 One of the fundamental questions affecting all discussions of the period is when did the SIP begin, and exactly how long did it last? Scholars have attempted to approach this problem from a variety of angles, two of which are particularly useful. The first is the archaeological evidence at Tell el-Dab‘a. Bietak identified two terminus points in the site’s stratigraphy which roughly delimited the SIP. The earlier terminus is a stela of Senwosret III found at Ezbet Rushdi in Stratum K, while the late terminus is the probable abandonment of Avaris at the end of stratum D/2, assumed to coincide with the reign of Nebpehtyre Ahmose. This abandonment is also linked ideologically with destruction layers in the southern Levant, alongside the assumption that this destruction was wrought by the Egyptian army at the hands of Nebpehtyre Ahmose and his successors in the early Eighteenth Dynasty. However, recent C-14 analysis has called this Low Chronology model into question, requiring a new model to explain the data. The other attempt to create early and late terminus points for the SIP was undertaken by Chris Bennett. Through a short series of articles, Bennett demonstrated that correspondences between the governors of Elkab and the royal house, coupled with the genealogy of those governors, define an external time-limit on the SIP.9 Bennett calculated that there were 8 generations from Year 1 of the Thirteenth Dynasty King Merhetepre Ini to the death of Renni during the reign of Amenhotep I in the Eighteenth Dynasty, and more specifically that there were 6 generations from Year 1 of Sewadjenre Nebiriau I of the Sixteenth Dynasty to the same point during the reign of Amenhotep I.10 Using the figure of 25 years per gener- ation, this yields a time span of about 150 years.11 Subtracting the reigns of Amenhotep I and Nebpehtyre Ahmose from this number yields about 105 years between Year 1 of Nebiriau I in the Sixteenth Dynasty, and Year 1 of Nebpehtyre Ahmose in the Seventeenth Dynasty.12 Possessing the corpus of work accomplished through the scholarly efforts of the last century, the field finds itself at a crossroads of sorts, calling for a reanalysis of much of what has already been done in an attempt to incorporate and align newly uncovered evidence with the overall understanding of the period. In the following pages, we will attempt to highlight one possible understanding of the internal chronology of the SIP, with references to the key secondary literature wherever possible. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties In his study, Ryholt attempted to argue that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties represented a continuous group of kings ruling from the Delta region. Though most of these kings are known from royal name scarabs, it was generally accepted that the kings of both the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth dynasties were of Canaanite origin.13 The TC allows for 51 or 52 royal names during the Fourteenth Dynasty, while Manetho quotes 76 kings centered at the city of Xois in the Delta.14 The monumental record can only corroborate 4 of the badly damaged names in the TC, meaning that a complete internal chronology of the individual kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty is perhaps unattainable at the present. Whatever scholarly agreement exists about the Fourteenth Dynasty ends when the discussion turns to the date of its foundation. Citing the confused nature of the period, von Beckerath believed the Fourteenth Dynasty to have been an ephemeral group of Delta kings ruling contemporary with the late Thirteenth Dynasty.15 Ryholt proposed, based upon royal name scarabs and his understanding of their archaeological contexts that the Fourteenth Dynasty was contemporary with the late Twelfth Dynasty.16 This idea was strongly refuted by Ben-Tor et al. Bennett, Ä&L 16, 240, does mention the imprecise nature of the 25-year figure, lamenting the lack of studies on generation length during dynastic Egypt. 12 Bennett, Ä&L 16, 240 assumes that Renni’s death took place at the end of Amenhotep I’s reign, and therefore subtracts his entire 21-year reign from the total. 13 Ryholt, Political Situation, 99-102. This view was confirmed by Ben-Tor et al., BASOR 315, 51 and 65, but was then refuted for the Fourteenth Dynasty in Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 2. Allen now prefers to see the Fourteenth Dynasty as a “Delta dynasty rather than an Asiatic one”. 14 Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 3. 15 von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 81-6 and 221-3. 16 Ryholt, Political Situation, 104. 11 Höflmayer, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 143-71; and Höflmayer, JAEI 21, 20-30. 9 Bennett, JARCE 39, 123-55; Bennett, Ä&L 16, 231-43. 10 Bennett, Ä&L 16, 240. 8 5 Kevin M. Cahail in 1999,17 and again by James Allen in 2010.18 Reexamination of the correspondences between royal name seals and pottery typologies at Uronarti by Susan Allen pushed the founding of the Fourteenth Dynasty back into the later part of the Thirteenth Dynasty as von Beckerath had suggested.19 Assuming that the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty began around the time that the Thirteenth Dynasty finally ended, this would seem to reinforce the hypothesis that the rapid decline in power held by the Thirteenth Dynasty kings resulted in the creation of at least two new lines of rulers: one in the Delta and the other centered at Thebes, with the possibility of a third at Abydos/ Thinis.20 The Delta line would then have consisted of the Fourteenth Dynasty, which probably contained Canaanite kings, giving way to the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty. Unfortunately, since the TC does not preserve a full list of these kings, and there is disagreement among scholars regarding the usefulness of stylistic studies on royal name seals and whether or not these names should all be added to the master king list, the internal chronology of the Fourteenth Dynasty is currently unrecoverable. The same cannot be said of the Fifteenth Dynasty. The TC clearly calls the six kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty “Hyksos,” which is corroborated by Manetho’s report of “6 foreign kings of Phoenicia”.21 The individual royal names are not preserved except for the last king whose name is usually rendered as Khamudi. Using the versions of Manetho and the TC, Schneider reconstructed the names of the 6 kings as: Shara-Dagan; Bin-Anu; (Apaq-)Hayran = Khyan; Yinassi-Ad; Sikru-Haddu; Apapi = Apophis; and Halmu’di = Khamudi.22 Unfortunately, the various sources for Manetho record different du- rations for this period. Josephus quoted an unlikely 511 years for the rule of the Hyksos, though as Waddell pointed out, this number may have been intended to include “the whole period of their rule in Palestine and Syria”.23 Syncellus gave two different numbers, 284 years for the 6 kings as quoted by Africanus,24 and 250 years quoted by Eusebius.25 The situation is then further confused when Syncellus called the Seventeenth Dynasty “Shepherd Kings” who ruled for 151 years apud Africanus, and 103 years in both version of Eusebius.26 Finally, the Scholia to Plato states that Manetho’s Seventeenth Dynasty was “Shepherd Kings,” four in number, who ruled for 103 years.27 Disregarding Josephus’s 511 years as being much too high, we are left with a range between 103 and 284 years. Interestingly, the TC preserves a partial summation line following the six kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty. The year total is damaged and has been reconstructed variously, with the options ranging from 100 years at the lowest,28 to 108 years,29 140 years,30 and even 160-189 years (plus a damaged portion giving the months and days) at the longest.31 The problem currently facing the field in terms of how the Fifteenth Dynasty fits into the overall SIP internal chronology is the possible temporal overlap of Khyan with the Thirteenth Dynasty King Sobekhotep IV, revealed by sealing deposits at Edfu.32 Prior to this discovery, the beginning of the Fifteenth Dynasty was thought to land roughly at the same time as the beginning of the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty, as calculated by the fact that Nebpehtyre Ahmose’s reign overlaps with the late reign of Apophis and that of his successor Waddell, Manetho, 86-7, note 1. Waddell, Manetho, 91. 25 Waddell, Manetho, 93. The Armenian version of Eusebius also quotes 250 years for the Fifteenth Dynasty. 26 Waddell, Manetho, 95-7. 27 Waddell, Manetho, 99. 28 Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 9. 29 Ryholt, Political Situation, 118-9 which follows Gardiner’s original reading; and Ryholt, Ä&L 14, 142. 30 Attributed to a presentation given by Ryholt, see Bennett, Ä&L 16, 232. 31 Schneider, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 282-3. 32 Moeller, Marouard, Ayers, Ä&L 21, 87-121; and Moeller, Marouard, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 173-97. See also the comments on the chronological position of Khyan as evinced at Tell el-Dab‘a in Forstner-Müller, Reali, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 113-18. They also mention (p. 104) the existence of a “pseudo-king’s name scarab bearing the name of Sobekhotep” at Tell el-Dab‘a, similar in style to seals of Khyan, but it is not certain that this Sobekhotep is royal, and whether or not the name can be reasonably linked to Sobekhotep IV. 23 24 Ben-Tor et al., BASOR 315. Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 2 sees the Fourteenth Dynasty as a continuation of the Thirteenth in the TC and attempts to discredit Ryholt’s assertion that the kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty were all of Canaanite descent. It would seem that he prefers to see the Fourteenth Dynasty as representing a continuation of the Thirteenth in which Egyptian kings slowly gave way to those of Canaanite ancestry. 19 S. Allen, in Ben-Tor et al., BASOR 315, 55-8. See also BenTor, in Marée (ed.),The Second Intermediate Period, 94-5. 20 See for instance Quirke, in Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, 126, and Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 4. 21 From Syncellus, according to Africanus. See Waddell, Manetho, 90-91; and Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 3. For a brief overview of the various SIP chronologies attributed to Manetho, see Bennett, Ä&L 16, 232. 22 Schneider, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 278-9. Schneider sees no reason to add in the names of kings known only from scarabs, since the TC and Manetho broadly agree on 6 kings for the period, whose identities are mostly all known from contemporary monuments. 17 18 6 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period Khamudi, and the entire Hyksos period was either 100 or 108 years long. However, this timeline no longer works if we accept that the sealing deposit at Edfu, which appears to be in a primary context, represents the actual contemporaneity of these two kings. Based upon his two datum points, Bietak sees evidence for a Low Chronology in the stratigraphy at Tell el-Dab‘a.33 However, this creates a 100-to-120-year discrepancy when compared to the High Chronology corroborated with Bayesian C-14 analysis.34 In other words, Bietak’s Low dates do not allow Khyan and Sobekhotep IV to have been contemporaries, while the C-14 High dates do. The two options available are to disregard the C-14 dates, or to reassess the validity of the datum points identified in the stratigraphy at Tell el-Dab‘a. Felix Höflmayer took the latter approach, arguing that both of Bietak’s datum strata were unreliable, concluding that the High (C-14) dates were probably correct.35 D. Ben-Tor responded, arguing that glyptic and ceramic evidence confirmed the Low Chronology, and that Höflmayer’s chosen C-14 dates were taken from samples whose contexts were not secure.36 More recently, Bietak pointed out that C-14 dates from settlement sites are not always reliable due to later intrusive digging into lower strata, while also highlighting new C-14 calibrations which place the eruption of Thera in about 1560-1540 BC, corroborating his historical dating.37 Putting aside the ongoing argument over the C-14 dates for the moment, the existence of Khyan and Sobekhotep IV seals in primary archaeological contexts cannot be explained away easily by later intrusive digging into earlier strata. Consequently, it seems increasingly likely that the beginning of the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty must now be placed contemporary with the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty.38 Yet, even if one were to follow Höflmayer’s C-14 analysis, the overall length of the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty, previously read by Gardiner and Ryholt as 108 years, does not seem to allow the contemporaneity of Khyan and Sobekhotep IV on the one hand, and Nebpehtyre Ahmose and Apophis on the other. Thomas Schneider has discussed a solution to this problem, using his belief in the validity of Manetho’s Fifteenth Dynasty of six kings with long reigns as a starting point. On the face of it, Manetho’s long timespan for the Fifteenth Dynasty is at odds with the TC. However, Kim Ryholt gave a presentation in 2005 (the results of which remain unpublished), in which he discussed the summation line of the Fifteenth Dynasty preserved in the TC. As a result of a close examination of the preserved signs, compared against the handwriting of the entire papyrus, Ryholt has revised his reading away from 108 years, and now “considers it as inevitable to assume that in all likelihood, the notation is to be understood as ‘140’, after which 0-9 units may once have been added but are now lost”.39 Schneider took this idea further, and employing the same logic that Ryholt had used theorized that the TC summation date could feasibility have been 160 (+0-9 years) or 180 (+0-9 years).40 Squaring these numbers with Bennett’s understanding of the Elkab genealogy “translates into generation lengths of between 14.375 and 19.75 years for a total of 160-169 years, and between 18.875 and 22.25 years for a total of 180-189 years”.41 This final generation length is remarkably close to the 25-year window which Bennett used in his study. Schneider’s hypothesis for a longer Fifteenth Dynasty allows an acceptably close contemporaneity between Sobekhotep IV and Khyan, while at the same time extending the entire dynasty’s history long enough that Nebpehtyre Ahmose is still contemporary with the end of Apophis’s reign (see chronological table). Accepting an early date for the beginning of the Fifteenth Dynasty will have an impact on our understanding of the position held by the Fourteenth Dynasty. The notion that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties were sequential with no overlap is probably incorrect, unless we accept that either: 1) the Fourteenth Dynasty represents an extremely short period of time despite the many potential kings attested in the TC and glyptic evidence; or 2) we accept Ryholt’s controversial theory that the Fourteenth Dynasty was already established during the late Twelfth Dynasty. As mentioned above, Susan Allen has argued convincingly against an early origin for the For the debate of the High and Low Bronze Age chronologies, see Aström, High, Middle or Low?. These various chronologies are based upon astronomical observations recorded in ancient texts (e.g. the Venus Tablets), such that the spread of time between the Mesopotamian Ultra-High and Ultra-Low chronologies is 226 years. 34 Höflmayer, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 153. The application of Bayesian statistics allows the C-14 date ranges to be calibrated for external information such as the order of archaeological strata. 35 Höflmayer, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 158-60. 36 Ben-Tor, BASOR 379, 43-54. 37 Bietak, in Kamrin, Barta, Ikram, Lehner, Megahed, Guardian of Ancient Egypt, 235-45. 38 Based upon Ryholt dating scheme, the reign of Sobekhotep IV represents the midpoint of the Thirteenth Dynasty (c. 18031649 BC). See Ryholt, Political Situation, 197, Table 36. 33 Schneider, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 282. 40 Schneider, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 283. 41 Schneider, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 283. 39 7 Kevin M. Cahail Fourteenth Dynasty using ceramic evidence from Uronarti.42 This leaves the possibility that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties overlapped somewhat. The existence of Fourteenth Dynasty royal monuments in the Northeastern Delta,43 such as the architectural fragments of Nehesy (TC 9.01) at Tell el-Dab‘a,44 stelae at Tell Heboua,45 and probably also the palace structure at Tell el-Dab‘a, show that kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty were in power at these sites before the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty.46 Yet, the extensive number of probable Fourteenth Dynasty kings argues for an extended period of time for the dynasty, seemingly necessitating the overlap between the two dynasties. What we are left with is the probability that the Fourteenth Dynasty had its origins during the early decades of the Thirteenth Dynasty, growing in influence and control over sites like Tell Heboua and Tell el-Dab‘a.47 The Fourteenth Dynasty’s preeminence was short lived, and in about the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty, the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty succeeded in taking power at Tell el-Dab‘a. Ephemeral kings traditionally placed in the Fourteenth Dynasty who are only attested on scarabs may represent local kinglets ruling over single cities or small territories of the Delta, as opposed to being sequential rulers of a single unified dynasty. Such an understanding may explain why some of the royal names attributed to the Fourteenth Dynasty appear Egyptian or Nubian, while others are Canaanite.48 On the other hand, the compiler of the TC appears to have viewed the Fourteenth Dynasty as a smooth continuation of the Thirteenth Dynasty, since the Thirteenth Dynasty list lacks a summa- tion line.49 If the list of Fourteenth Dynasty kings was later interpreted as being a single dynasty, it is perhaps logical for later historians to understand these kings as the counterfoil to the Hyksos in the eastern Delta. The dynastic break between the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Dynasties may then represent the loss of territory around Itj-tawy to the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty, and the ideological movement of the remaining royal power left over from the defunct Thirteenth Dynasty up to the northern and western Delta.50 However, this may be nothing more than a later misinterpretation of the evidence. The numerous kings of the Fourteenth Dynasty all had very insignificant reigns, either as a direct result of the fact that the kings were not united into a single dynasty, or perhaps as a result of plague and famine in the area.51 In either case, the destabilization of the Delta under Fourteenth Dynasty kings allowed the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty to expand rapidly, incorporating the entirety of Lower Egypt and a portion of the middle of the country into their dominion at the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The Theban Sixteenth Dynasty Attempts to define a “Sixteenth Dynasty” have evolved over the last century. One issue has been the fact that the sources of the Manethonian tradition are at odds with one another. Africanus apud Syncellus calls the Sixteenth Dynasty “Shepherd Kings”, in other words Hyksos in origin, but the high number of kings and the long duration of the dynasty adds to the conclusion that he was in error.52 Eusebius apud Syncellus on the other hand records that the Sixteenth Dynasty was Theban, with fewer kings ruling for a shorter time period.53 Originally, Winlock proposed a definition of the Sixteenth Dynasty as a series of Theban kings which was distinct from the line of kings he placed in the Seventeenth Dynas- Ben-Tor et al., BASOR 315, 55-8. Ryholt, Political Situation, 103. 44 Ryholt, Political Situation, 377. 45 Ryholt, Political Situation, 377; el-Maksoud, Valbelle, RdE 56, 4-5, 8-9 and pl. 5. 46 Ryholt, Political Situation, 104, sees the palace at area F of Tell el-Dab‘a in local stratum d/1 as the possible residence of the Fourteenth Dynasty. The local stratum equates to the general stratigraphy of G/4. As Höflmayer, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 147 points out, Khyan and Sobekhotep IV are probably contemporary with strata E/1 or D/3 with seals in D/2. This means the palace is as early as or earlier than the beginning of the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty, and therefore could have been the seat of the Fourteenth Dynasty. For the stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab‘a, see Kutschera et al., Radiocarbon 54. 47 Ben-Tor et al., BASOR 315, 57, where Susan Allen states that the royal name seals coming from administrative documents “could therefore be earlier than the last cycle of administration of the fort”. Consequently, it may be possible to argue for pushing the Fourteenth Dynasty seals toward an earlier portion of the Thirteenth Dynasty. 48 Ryholt, Political Situation, 99-102. 42 43 For this idea, see Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 4-5. See also Siesse, GM 246, 83 and Siesse, XIIIe Dynastie, 38 ff especially for comments regarding the position of Merdjefare in the Thirteenth rather than Fourteenth Dynasty. 50 This is not to say that the actual royal house moved, but the rise of kings in the Delta belonging to the Fourteenth Dynasty may have been interpreted by later chroniclers as the continuation of native Egyptian rule, ideologically rather than physically or genetically linked with the rulers of the Thirteenth Dynasty at Itj-tawy. 51 Bietak, Avaris, 35. 52 Waddell, Manetho, 92-3. Africanus’ also indicates that the dynasty contained 32 kings, ruling for 518 years. 53 Waddell, Manetho, 92-3. Eusebius indicates that the dynasty contained 5 kings, ruling for 190 years. 49 8 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period ty (namely Tao I, Tao II, Kamose and Ahmose).54 This distinction was dropped for a time in favor of a single Theban Seventeenth Dynasty,55 though this led to major problems attempting to square the TC with the other known evidence. In 1997, Ryholt resurrected Winlock’s idea, and following Eusebius’ version of Manetho argued for a Theban Sixteenth Dynasty.56 While a minority of scholars continued to dispute its existence,57 this new dynastic organization has been generally accepted because of its ability to explain the discrepancies between the archaeology and the TC.58 Unfortunately, there is virtually no genealogical information regarding the interrelations among the kings of the Sixteenth Dynasty.59 Despite this shortcoming, the order of the kings is generally agreed upon, following the TC (see chronological table).60 Chronologically speaking, the wife of the first king of the Sixteenth Dynasty, Djehuty, was a descendant of two late Thirteenth Dynasty viziers – her father Senebhenaf and her grandfather Ibiau whose tenure coincided with Pharaoh Merneferre Ay.61 While this places the beginning of the Sixteenth Dynasty around the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty, even this genealogical connection is contested by scholars.62 As Ilin-Tomich summarized, there were two theories regarding the circumstances which led to the creation of the Sixteenth Dynasty at Thebes: 1) it represented the remnants of the Thirteenth Dynasty which moved south away from the encroachment of the Hyksos; and 2) it was a locally emergent dynasty created in a power vacuum after the fall of the Thirteenth Dynasty.63 A third option became the most favorable in the years following the publication of Ryholt’s book, namely the idea that there was an overlap between the late Thirteenth Dynasty and the early Sixteenth Dynasty.64 The biography of Horemkhauef (MMA 35.7.55) may even directly reference this time period when it mentions bringing the divine images of Horus of Nekhen from Itj-tawy south to Upper Egypt.65 Interestingly, Horemkhauef was a contemporary of Sobeknakht of Elkab,66 whose tomb decoration has very close artistic parallels to that of King Woseribre Seneb-Kay at South Abydos discussed below. From these correspondences it would appear as though the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty split off from the authority of the Thirteenth Dynasty at Itj-tawy in the closing years of that dynasty. At about the same time, another local Dynasty sprang up at Abydos in between Thebes and the Hyksos in the north. The Abydos Dynasty One interpretation of the internal chronology of the SIP describes a scenario of territorial fragmentation leading to the formation of two overlapping lines of kings in Upper Egypt: the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty created from a portion of the lands administered as the “Headof-the-South”;67 and the Abydos Dynasty centered at Thinis. Based upon evidence showing a targeted political vendetta against the Thirteenth Dynasty at Abydos, one possibility is that Abydos/Thinis was actually the first to break away from the control of the Thirteenth Dynasty.68 The creation of such a kingdom at Abydos/ Thinis would have had an insulating effect on Thebes by separating it from Itj-tawy, allowing the administrators Winlcok, Middle Kingdom in Thebes, 104 ff, and 149. Stock, Studien zur Geschichte, 68-70; von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 137-8, and von Beckerath, Chronologie, 136-7, and 189, who prefers to see the Sixteenth Dynasty as a group of Hyksos vassal kings in Middle and Upper Egypt; and finally, Bennett, Ä&L 16. 56 Ryholt, Political Situation, 151 ff. 57 See particularly Bennett, Ä&L 16, 233-5. 58 For instance, Dodson, Hilton, Royal Families, 116-17; Ilin-Tomich, JEgH 7, 143-93; and Polz, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan, 217. 59 For a brief discussion, see Dodson, Hilton, Royal Families, 116-18. 60 Ryholt, Political Situation, 158; Ilin-Tomich, JEgH 7, 1834; and Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 9-10, even though he notes the ambiguity in the TC entries 11.01 and 11.02 which could refer to the first two kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty, the following entries do not fit the other Seventeenth Dynasty kings. 61 Ryholt, Political Situation, 259-60. See also Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 30 and 135. 62 Grajetzki, Coffin of Zemathor, 47 notes that the theory put forth by Habachi that the “Overseer of Fields”, Senebhenaef and the “Vizier” by the same name are the same man is not secure, but possible. See also Franke, Personendaten, doss. 661. 54 55 Ilin-Tomich, JEgH 7, 144. Spalinger, JNES 60, 296-300; Polz, Seiler, Pyramidenanlage, 46-7; and Bennett, JARCE 39. 65 Ilin-Tomich, JEgH 7, 147-8; Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 367. 66 Davies, in Davies (ed.), Colour and Painting, 121, who confirms that the “two tombs are more or less exactly contemporary”. 67 It should be noted here that, contra Ilin-Tomich, JEgH 7, 158-61, we do not believe that the entire territory of the “Headof-the-South” administered by the Theban bureaucracy separated from the Thirteenth Dynasty intact. Thinis and an area around that city broke away from both the Thirteenth Dynasty, as well as the territory administered under the “Head-ofthe-South”. 68 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 367. Targeted damnatio memroiae were carried out on Thirteenth Dynasty non-royal tomb chapels at Abydos, and a similar whole-cloth despoiling of the Thirteenth Dynasty royal tombs S-9 and S-10 at South Abydos bolster this conclusion. 63 64 9 Kevin M. Cahail of the former “Head-of-the-South” to assert themselves as pharaohs of what we term the Sixteenth Dynasty. At the same time the minor Delta rulers of the Fourteenth Dynasty, whose power expanded slightly with the final dissolution of the Thirteenth Dynasty, were eventually subsumed into the expanding Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty. Ryholt, following Franke, proposed the existence of the group of independent kings at Abydos/Thinis.69 This was based upon the existence of three stelae from Abydos mentioning kings whose position was not corroborated by the TC, whose names were Wepwawetemsaf, Paentjeny and Senaaib. The names of two of these kings – Wepwawetemsaf and Paentjeny – show clear familial connections with Abydos, in particular Paentjeny which means “The man of Thinis”. To date, none of these three kings are attested on any monument at Thebes. In addition to these three stelae, the highly fragmentary text of the TC may actually preserve the list of Abydos Dynasty kings. The partial names of at least 16 kings in Column XI of the TC do not correspond to the members of any known dynasty. Before the discovery of the tomb of King Woseribre Seneb-Kay within a SIP royal necropolis at South Abydos, the meaning of this highly fragmentary Column XI of the TC was debated.70 Looking in detail at the section in question, lines 11.01 to 11.14 contain the fragmentary names of the kings belonging to the Sixteenth Dynasty, introduced by a heading in Column X, line 10.30. Line 11.15 contains a summation, listing [1]5 kings belonging to the Sixteenth Dynasty, whose names are now confidently reconstructed (see Chronological Table). The TC text then resumes on line 11.16 with the recording of a king “Woser-[…]-Re, [he made in kingship [x] years]”. As Allen wrote, “the phrase ‘he made in kingship [x] years’ marks both the first king of a dynasty and the first king in a column of the papyrus’s Vorlage”.71 He then continues to write that, since the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty (line 8.27) lacks a summation line, and the beginning of the Fourteenth Dynasty lacks a heading, that the compiler of the TC viewed the Fourteenth Dynasty as a continuation of the Thirteenth Dynasty. Since the Sixteenth Dynasty group does in fact have a summation Franke, Orientalia 57, 259; Ryholt, Political Situation, 163-6. 70 Both Stock, Studien zur Geschichte, 79-80 and von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 195, attempted to place all the Theban kings of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasty into this column before the summation line in 11.15, however they do not all fit. 71 Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 2, with reference to Ryholt, Political Situation, 29-30. Allen likens the situation to the TC list for Dynasties 2-5, which also lack summation lines. 69 10 (line 11.15), it would appear as though the compiler of the TC did see the list of kings which follow it as being distinct from the Sixteenth Dynasty, therefore, representing a new dynasty. Since all the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty kings known from monuments fit neatly into the broken section of the TC between lines 11.10 and 11.14 before the summation line, coupled with the fact that the only attestation of a throne name following the pattern Woser-[…]-Re of TC 11.16 and 11.17 comes from the tomb of Woseribre Seneb-Kay at Abydos, it seems fairly certain that the compiler of the TC believed the group of kings buried at Abydos which included Seneb-Kay to have been a distinct dynasty.72 The number of kings belonging to the Abydos Dynasty is not certain. Following an 8-line break in the TC, lines 11.26 to 11.31 contain the damaged names of at least three additional kings. Enough of these names remain to compare them with known Seventeenth Dynasty kings, but since none of them match we must conclude that the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty do not appear on the preserved portion the TC.73 There is no summation line preserved in this section, but line 11.27 does include the phrase “he made in kingship x years”, which Allen states represented the beginning of a column in the TC Vorlage. This means that it is possible that these three kings also belong to the Abydos Dynasty, and that the summation line for the group existed on the now lost Column XII, possibly following additional kings. Using only the TC, it would appear possible that the Abydos Dynasty consisted of about 16 kings, which is strikingly close to the 15 kings belonging to the roughly contemporary Sixteenth Dynasty. Archaeological investigation at South Abydos has uncovered a group of eight similar royal tombs, one of which belonged to Woseribre Seneb-Kay.74 Additionally, a group of three tomb shafts were uncovered in the space between two of these larger structures.75 Because of their depth and the friable nature of the desert subAnother possible attestation of a throne name following the pattern Woser-[…]-re appears on the Karnak tablet of kings, which records a king named Woserenre. This name was proposed to be a mistake for Sewoserenre by von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 186. Both Bebiankh and the Hyksos King Khyan are attested with the throne name Sewoserenre, and since the other kings listed adjacent to Woserenre are Theban, many scholars seem to agree that the King Bebiankh was meant here. However, if the throne name Woserenre is not a mistake, it is possible that this king represents a member of the Abydos Dynasty, whose throne name follows the Woser[…]re pattern attested in the TC and the tomb of Woseribre Seneb-Kay at South Abydos. 73 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 341. 74 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 240-308. 75 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 304-7. 72 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period known reign length were to have ruled for a significantly longer time than the maximum one and a half years (as seems likely), then the average for the rest of the kings would decrease sharply. Discarding the notion of brief-ruling elected kings, three feasible possibilities present themselves to explain how all these kings could have ruled within the time constraints of the SIP as defined by Bennett. One is to discount the longer reigns of Nebiriau I and Bebiankh quoted in the TC, but doing so would only increase the average reign lengths of these 25 kings to 3 years each. The second option is to disregard the genealogical timeframe provided by the governors of Elkab entirely. Proceeding down this path would force us to push the beginning of the Theban hegemony further back into the Thirteenth Dynasty, to a time before the reign of Merneferre Ay. Such a situation also seems highly unlikely, if not impossible, since the wife of the first king of the Sixteenth Dynasty was the grandaughter of the vizier during Ay’s reign. The final possibility is that there were at least two different regional dynasties ruling synchronically in Upper Egypt, and that the kings enumerated in Column X and XI of the TC ruled in concurrent dynasties as opposed to sequentially in the same dynasty. The fact that the TC itself includes a summation line at the end of the Sixteenth Dynasty, coupled with the existence of a royal cemetery at South Abydos containing the tomb of a king whose throne name matches those appearing in the TC, argue strongly in favor of this option. Ryholt theorized that the Abydos Dynasty only existed for about 20 years, based on his conclusion that the Fifteenth Dynasty arose at the same time as the Sixteenth Dynasty, and that it attacked Thebes 20 years after the beginning of the Sixteenth Dynasty.82 As discussed above, this reconstruction of events no longer works, given the archaeological correspondences between Sobekhotep IV and Khyan, as well as the new reading of the length of the Hyksos Period in the TC. Together, these sources show that the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty was much longer than the combined Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties. Furthermore, assuming that the last six entries in Column XI of the TC represent kings of the Abydos Dynasty, their reigns alone add up to 16 years. Adding in the reigns of at least 11 more kings, with the possibility of additional Abydos Dynasty kings in the now lost Column XII, forces the conclusion that the Abydos Dynasty must have endured for longer than 20 years. Indeed, given the number of kings listed in the TC, combined with their extensive necropolis at South surface matrix into which they were cut, they could not be fully excavated. Since their architecture is different from the other tombs, they may represent satellite burials associated with one of the royal tombs, but they may also have belonged to Abydos Dynasty rulers. As a result, funerary architecture at South Abydos accounts for the burials of between eight and eleven kings. Additionally, the location of Seneb-Kay’s tomb directly in front of one of the Thirteenth Dynasty tombs at South Abydos may indicate that further SIP royal tombs were originally located within these earlier enclosures. The complete destruction of the superstructures of these Thirteenth Dynasty tombs, which probably belonged to the Kings Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I,76 would have wiped away any trace of these tombs. Adding Woseribre Seneb-Kay and the other kings listed in Column XI of the TC – at the very least 7 of whom also had tombs at South Abydos – to the number of Theban kings ruling during the 105-year window proposed by Bennett makes the period uncomfortably tight.77 Subtracting the known regnal dates of Theban kings from this time span yields 39 years which must then accommodate the reigns of all the kings whose dates are not known. This list includes all the kings buried at Abydos and mentioned in the TC, as well as at least five kings at the end of the Sixteenth Dynasty after Nebiriau I – a total of potentially 25 kings.78 Compressing all these kings into a single Theban dynasty would require that each king ruled for a maximum of one and a half years. Unless we believe Meyer and Morenz’s notion that the kings of this period were elected for short reigns,79 such a brief average tenure for all of these 25 kings is highly unlikely.80 This is especially true since the Sixteenth Dynasty contains the long reigns of Nebiriau I and Bebiankh, whom the TC ascribes reign lengths of 26 and 12 years respectively.81 If even one of these kings of unWegner, Cahail, JARCE 51, 123-64. Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 356-7. 78 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 356-7. 79 The idea that the Theban “kings” of this period were elected to the throne for a period of a year or two before relinquishing power to the next ruler was originated by Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, vol. I, § 309 ff. More recently Morenz, JEgH 3, looked at the language of certain Sixteenth Dynasty stelae to the same end. Since the notion of elected kings goes completely against known royal mythology, and the long reigns of Nebiriau I and Bebiankh argue against regular elections, it seems a much less likely than the idea of overlapping dynasties centered at multiple locations. 80 Particularly because the last five kings in the TC (11.27 to 11.31) are attested with reign lengths between 2 and 4 years each, totaling about 16 years. 81 Allen, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 9-10. As mentioned above, these longer reigns argue against 76 77 a system of royal election since such a system would presumably yield a regular series of short reign lengths as opposed to a seemingly random sequence of long and short reigns. 82 Ryholt, Political Situation, 202-3. 11 Kevin M. Cahail Abydos, it is reasonable to conclude that the Abydos Dynasty existed for at least 50 years, and possibly somewhat longer. In all likelihood, the Abydos Dynasty was roughly coeval with Theban Sixteenth Dynasty, lasting for between 50-70 years.83 While the throne name Woseribre may indicate that Seneb-Kay’s reign occurred at the beginning of the Abydos Dynasty as presented in the TC, a number of archaeological and artistic features of Seneb-Kay’s burial assemblage help to place him chronologically closer to the end of the Dynasty. Most importantly, the artistic style of the wall paintings in his tomb are closely parallel to the decoration in the tombs of Sobeknakht II at Elkab and Horemkhauef at Hierakonpolis.84 Bennett’s genealogical chronology places these tombs concretely within the Sixteenth Dynasty, between the reigns of Nebiriau I and Semenre, thus placing Seneb-Kay as a contemporary of the kings of the mid to late Sixteenth Dynasty. Another correspondence is worth noting here. Tomb D78 at North Abydos contained a stela datable stylistically to the Sixteenth Dynasty, which was dedicated to a high-ranking solder with the title of “Commander of the Crew of the Ruler”, Sobekhotep and his wife, the “Lady of the House”, Neferuptah.85 In the same tomb as the stela, excavators found an apotropaic wand which was inscribed with the cartouche of a king reading “Seb-Kay”, and which is almost certainly to be identified as belonging to Seneb-Kay. Since wands of this type were used in birth magic, and often included in the tombs of either the child or the mother, it is a distinct possibility that Sobekhotep and his wife Neferuptah were the non-royal parents of Seneb-Kay.86 As a military King Seneb-Kay met a violent death on the battlefield, being finally dispatched with an axe-blow to the front of his skull. One possibility is that he died fighting the Hyksos in the north, but perhaps a more likely explanation is that he died fighting the expanding Theban kingdom to the south, since the axe wound in his skull more closely matches the style of axe used in Upper Egypt (exemplified by the Seventeenth Dynasty Ahhotep axe), than those used by the Hyksos.87 Since the skulls of the other kings discovered at South Abydos lacked evidence for such mortal wounds, one possibility is that Seneb-Kay was one of the final rulers of the Abydos Dynasty, after whose reign the Thinite territory was incorporated into the Theban Kingdom. A further possibility is that after Seneb-Kay died fighting the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty, the line of Abydene kings persisted for a time after his death. Stylistic features of the stelae belonging to Paentjeny, Wepwawetemsaf and Rathotep argue for a close chronological timeframe at the very least, and perhaps even demonstrate that they came from the same workshop.88 Though their birth names link them concretely with Abydos/Thinis, the throne names adopted by Paentjeny (Sekhemre-Khutawy) and Wepwawetemsaf (Sekhemre-Neferkhau) both include the Sekhemre element common to the kings of the Sixteenth and early Seventeenth Dynasty, but lacking in attested Abydos Dynasty kings.89 If the birth names of these two kings truthfully reflect a close familial connection to the Abydos/Thinis area, then it is equally possible to see them as descending from one or multiple royal families of the Abydos Dynasty who, through either diplomacy or open warfare, eventually stepped into the role of king over a united Theban-Thinite kingdom, and thereby ushered in the Theban Seventeenth Dynasty (see chronological table, where Paentjeny is placed as the final king of the Sixteenth Dynasty, but he may equally belong at the end of the Abydos Dynasty).90 The transition between the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Theban Dynasties would then have little to do with a possible invasion of Thebes by the Hyksos leading to a brief hiatus, for which the evidence is tenuous.91 Marée, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 265. The name of the other king which Ryholt included in the Abydos Dynasty (Sewadjtawy Menkhaure Senaaib) does not follow the Theban throne name pattern, contra Siesse’s (GM 246, 88) assumption that the “Sekhemre” element was “missing or implied”. It is also not stylistically connected with either the stela of Wepwawetemsaf or that of Paentjeny. Given this, along with its mention of the local Abydene cult of Minhornakht, it is highly likely that Senaaib was a member of the Abydos Dynasty, see Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 353-4. 90 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 371-2. As the traditional seat of power in Upper Egypt, these Abydene kings could easily have chosen to move their royal house to Thebes. Such a move may explain why there is a break between the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties, since if both of them had been Theban, they may just as easily have appeared in the TC as a single dynasty. 91 Essentially the invasion of Thebes by the Hyksos relies on a single object, an offering stand Berlin 22487, for which see Krauss, Orientalia 62, 17-29. While it is still possible that the Hyksos did sack Thebes, it does not mean that the local dynasty collapsed, followed by a hiatus before the beginning 88 89 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 356-7. Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 343-6. 85 The wooden sarcophagus usurped by this Sobekhotep from the Royal Ornament Nefretnetresi was found in the same area, demonstrating that this assemblage belonged to an actual tomb as opposed to a memorial chapel. 86 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 346-50. While this fact also must remain somewhat speculative, it may reinforce the notion that Seneb-Kay came from a military family, and that they originated locally at Abydos/Thinis, and chose to be buried at North Abydos, but that the Abydos Dynasty kings did not all descend from a single family. 87 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 127 and 361. 83 84 12 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period Rather, the end of the Sixteenth Dynasty would represent the incorporation of the Abydos Dynasty’s territory into the growing Theban kingdom, possibly under a royal family of Thinite origin. In either case (Thinite or Theban), this transition between the Sixteenth and Seventeenth dynasties is ideologically identical to the transition of the Seventeenth Dynasty to the Eighteenth during the reign of Nebpehtyre Ahmose (II), produced by the Expulsion of the Hyksos and the incorporation of their territory into the Theban kingdom. In other words, the beginnings of both the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties mark the incorporation of new territory into the domain of the previous royal line. Beginning with the first of these groups, the stylistic study done by Marée has confirmed that Wahkhau Rahotep was probably the first king of the Seventeenth Dynasty, and that his successor was almost certainly Wepwawetemsaf, whom Ryholt had previously placed in the Abydos Dynasty.96 Marée also placed Sekhemre-Wadjkhau Sobekemsaf in this line of kings, since his monuments follow the same style, though there is no evidence that he was genetically related to his predecessors. Pantjeny, whose stela is of similar style, led Marée to place him in between Wepwawetemsaf and Sobekemsaf Wadjkhau. However, Wegner and Cahail presented another possibility mentioned above, namely that this king belongs either at the very end of the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty, or at the end of the Abydos Dynasty, placing him as a close temporal successor to Woseribre Seneb-Kay.97 While on the one hand, Paentjeny’s throne name Sekhemre-Khutawy fits into the naming conventions of the Theban Kings of the late Sixteenth and early Seventeenth Dynasty, his birth name meaning “The Man of Thinis” on the other hand argues for a familial connection with Thinis/Abydos. As discussed above, either he was a king of the Abydos Dynasty who adopted a throne name modeled on those of the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty, or he was a Theban king who wished to portray hegemony over Thinis/Abydos through the adoption of a new birth name following the unification of Thebes and Thinis. The possibility certainly also exists that he was an Abydos Dynasty king who succeeded in uniting Thinis and Thebes, bringing about the Seventeenth Dynasty which was ruled over by his two successors and possible genetic descendants Rahotep and Wepwawetemsaf. Regarding the positions of the two kings named Sobekemsaf (identified as (W) Wadjkhau and (S) Shedtawy), Ryholt and Polz present two different scenarios based upon the same evidence. Ryholt believed that the two Sobekemsaf kings could not have ruled sequentially. Genealogical evidence shows that two of the Intef kings (designated (W) for Wepmaat and (N) for Nubkhperre) were full brothers, while the third (designated (H) for Heruhermaat) was their brother-in-law, and that Intef (W) and Intef (N) were the sons of a king named Sobekemsaf.98 However, statue BM EA 13329 names a “King’s Son” Intefmose, who was praised by a king named Sobekemsaf without throne name. Ryholt’s as- The Theban Seventeenth Dynasty As discussed above, the Turin Canon was cut off either near the end of, or directly after the Abydos Dynasty, and the names of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty are not preserved. Consequently, one of the most important sources for reconstructing the order of the kings of the Theban Seventeenth Dynasty has been the Abbott Papyrus, dating to the reign of Ramesses IX.92 This papyrus is a so-called fair copy of a series of notes compiled during inspections of the royal tombs at Dra Abu el-Naga. Winlock attempted to use the order of the tombs in the document to reconstruct the chronological order of the kings.93 Later, scholars criticized the validity of this idea, and attempted to reanalyze the evidence without recourse to pAbbott. In the broadest possible strokes, the Seventeenth Dynasty consists of three main groups of kings: 1) the Rahotep and Wepwawetemsaf group;94 2) the Sobekemsaf/ Intef family; and 3) the Ahmosid family group which may have originated at Dendera, and consisted of kings Senakhtenre Ahmose (I), Seqenenre Tao, Wadjkheperre Kamose and Nebpehtyre Ahmose (II).95 Of these three groups, the order of the Ahmosid kings has enjoyed the most scholarly agreement. of the Seventeenth Dynasty, for which see Schneider, in Hornung, Krauss, Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 183; and Polz, Der Beginn, 8-11. 92 Purchased from Dr. Abbott in 1857 by the British Museum (BM EA 10221). See Kitchen, RI VI, 468, and Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. IV, § 510 ff for a discussion and translation. For the correlation of the papyrus with the archaeology of the area, see Winlcok, JEA 10, 217-77. 93 Winlock, JEA 10, 272. 94 This group of kings may have belonged to the same family, which probably also included Paentjeny ruling at the end of the Sixteenth Theban dynasty or the end of the Abydos Dynasty. 95 For the theory that this family originated at Dendera, see Helck, SAK 13, 125-33; and also Schneider, in Hornung, Krauss, Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 190. Marée, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 256 and Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 350-2. 97 Wegner, Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb, 352-3. 98 Ryholt, Political Situation, 169 and 267-8. Ryholt also makes the assertion that Intef (H) was a coregent of Intef (N) who predeceased him, and therefore would not have counted his own regnal years. 96 13 Kevin M. Cahail sumption was that the Intef portion of the basiliophoric name must refer to one or another of the Intef kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty, and therefore the King Sobekemsaf named on the statue must have ruled after the Intef kings.99 In attempting to refute this assumption, Polz highlighted the fact that kings of the Eleventh Dynasty also held the name Intef, therefore the name Intefmose would have little to do with the chronology of the two Sobekemsaf kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty.100 In effect, Polz resurrected Winlock’s assertion that the two Sobekemsaf kings were father and son,101 and that the inscription on a statue of Sobekemsaf (W) which demonstrates that his son was also named Sobekemsaf may actually be evidence for King Sobekemsaf (S) before he ascended to the throne.102 Though the evidence is less than conclusive, we have adopted Polz’s reconstruction here, placing Sobekemsaf (W) as the father and predecessor of Sobekemsaf (S). This situation would seem to require that Intef (W) and Intef (N) were sons of Sobekemsaf (S).103 After the death of Intef (N), the royal house appears to have shifted to a new family, perhaps evinced by the final abandonment of the Sekhemre element of the throne name. This terminal group of kings represents the direct ancestors of Pharaoh Nebpehtyre Ahmose (II). While this fact is well established, scholastic understanding of the individual kings’ identities has evolved over the past century, since early reliance on the text of pAbbott led to confusion and consternation. In that document, there are seemingly references to two tombs belonging to Seqenenre Tao, one of whom was evidently called “the elder”.104 This led Winlock to propose the existence of two kings named Tao, arguing that the Turin Canon contained an error, and that the two kings ought to be read Senakhtenre Tao (I) and Seqenenre Tao (II). This solution appeared to solve the issue regarding the identity of the king whose throne name was Senakhtenre, but whose nomen was unknown at the time. Vandersleyen returned to the argument in 1983 and posited that the duplicate attestation of Tao with the epithet “the great” in pAbbott was either an outright error, or the name and title represented a dittography of the Aa-sign. In either case, he argued, the text of the papyrus did not contain any valid evidence that Senakhtenre’s nomen was Tao.105 Possibilities for the error included the fact that the actual papyrus was a final copy made from field notes, or the notion that the second tomb listed under the name Tao actually belonged to a different king whose name was not visible at the time of the visit. While Bennett and Dodson/Hilton attempted to return to Winlock’s identification of the two Taosid kings as Senakhtenre and Seqenenre, ultimate clarification arrived with the publication by Biston-Moulin in 2012 of a fragmentary door frame bearing the titulary of the Horus Merymaat, King of Upper and Lower Egypt Senakhtenre, Son of Re Ahmose.106 This object gives definitive proof that Senakhtenre’s nomen was Ahmose, not Tao as theorized by Winlock based upon pAbbott. This discovery also means that the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Nebpehtyre Ahmose, is now properly the second Ahmose king.107 Additionally, as Biston-Moulin points out, all attestations of the royal nomen Ahmose from the SIP which are not accompanied by a throne name may, in fact, belong to either Senakhtenre Ahmose (I) or Nebpehtyre Ahmose (II) – a chronological question which must wait for further study of the topic.108 From Nebpehtyre Ahmose (II)’s stela dedicated to his grandmother Tetisherit, it has been generally accepted that Senakhtenre Ahmose (I) was married to Tetisherit, the daughter of Tjenna and Nofru. They had two sons who ruled in succession with one another: Seqenenre Tao and Wadjkheperre Kamose.109 During his tenure as King, Seqenenre Tao took his sister Queen Ahhotep I as his wife and fathered a son who would eventually become Nebpehtyre Ahmose (II), whom we now know was Vandersleyen, GM 63, 67-70. Biston-Moulin, ENiM 5, 61-71. 107 This may potentially lead to confusion, since the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty King Amasis is often referred to as Ahmose II in print. The two SIP Ahmose kings are presented here with their throne names, and the Roman numerals (I) and (II) in parenthesis for clarity. 108 Biston-Moulin, ENiM 5, 66. As he points out, the name Ahmose belonging to Senakhtenre makes use of the moon hieroglyph with upward facing horns and a disc in the middle. Nebpehtyre Ahmose has been assumed to have had both that version as well as the version employing the downward facing moon without disc, for which see von Beckerath, Handbuch, 83 and 224. 109 For a brief summary of the main genealogical schema for the relationship between Kamose and Ahmose II, see Bennett, GM 145, 42-4. 105 106 Ryholt, Political Situation, 170. Polz, Der Beginn, 49. 101 Winlcok, JEA 10, 272. 102 Ryholt, Political Situation, 170; Polz, Der Beginn, 50. Polz’s argument also nullifies Ryholt’s assertion that Sobekemsaf (S) must have ruled first. He argued that since Sobekemsaf (W)’s son is named as Sobekemsaf not Intef, the first Sobekemsaf had to be Sobekemsaf (S). If we accept Polz’s assertion, then the order of the Sobekemsaf kings must be reversed with Sobekemsaf (W) ruling first, followed by Sobekemsaf (S). For kings Sobekemafs see also Miniaci et al., BMTRB 7. 103 Ryholt, Political Situation, 169 and 267-9 identified Intef (H), the brother-in-law of Intef (N), as the grandson of an unnamed king, which in this layout may be Sobekemsaf (W). 104 Winlcok, JEA 10, 243. 99 100 14 The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period cated at South Abydos. Clear evidence exists at Abydos for a targeted destruction of Thirteenth Dynasty monuments which may indicate that Abydos was the first to throw off the yoke of Thirteenth Dynasty hegemony in the closing years of that dynasty. The bureaucracy of the old “Head-of-the-South” centered at Thebes quickly followed suit, beginning the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty which controlled the territory of Upper Egypt not claimed by Thinis. Given that these disparate kingdoms existed for multiple generations in relative peace argues against the widely held notion that the SIP was a time of continual struggle and warfare. Stemming from the propaganda of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasty texts, alongside the violence visible on the bodies of Seneb-Kay and Seqenenre Tao, this theory assumes that the driving goal of each of these individual kingdoms was the complete destruction of the others, and the uniting of Egypt. Consequently, the notion that Theban royal names occurring north of Abydos and along the Red Sea coast must nullify the validity of the Abydos Dynasty as a political entity rests squarely on the assumption that these two kingdoms were not allied in any way. Indeed, the kingdoms of Abydos and Thebes were isolated, bordered on the north by the Hyksos and on the south by Kerma. In such a situation, it is more likely that the Theban and Abydene kings maintained a delicate truce or status-quo with one another for much of the SIP, only coming into open warfare toward the end of the period. Being landlocked, these two kingdoms were forced to maintain trade agreements both with each other as well as with the Hyksos in the north to secure the goods they needed. Inevitably, this competition for resources led to war, yet the end of the Sixteenth Dynasty does not represent the dying out of either the local Theban kingdom, or that of Thinis. Rather, it marks the beginning of a unified Theban/Thinite kingdom which, with its newly found increased power, would eventually rival the Hyksos kingdom in the north. After the incorporation of Abydos into its territory, the Theban Seventeenth Dynasty went through a period of stability which inevitably led on the one hand to the desire for increased land, wealth and access to the trade-routes controlled by the Hyksos in the north, and on the other hand to an increased state of safety from the allied Hyksos and Nubian kingdoms. Hence the SIP ended with the increased bellicosity of the Ahmosid kings. Early expeditions north under Seqenenre Tao ended in disaster, but ultimately the death of the king fortified the resolve of the Theban kingdom to overcome their northern neighbors. Consequently, under Kamose and Ahmose (II), the reunification of Egypt under one pharaoh was once again achieved, ushering in the Eighteenth Dynasty. named after his grandfather. However, the untimely death of Ahmose (II)’s father Seqenenre Tao on the battlefield against the Hyksos caused a break in the royal succession from father to son. Perhaps in order to maintain stability in politically uncertain times, Seqenenre Tao’s brother Kamose took the throne instead of his young nephew Ahmose (II). Based upon rock inscriptions at Arminna and Toshka, it is probable that Kamose had two sons whose names were Djehuty and Teti.110 Since both Kamose and Ahmose (II) appear in these rock inscriptions with the epithet dj anx, Ryholt proposed that they were coregents beginning in Kamose’s Year 3.111 Kamose’s sons Djehuty and Teti do not appear in the record again, which appears to indicate that Kamose stepped in as king, acting as a regent for his young nephew Ahmose (II) after the death of Seqenenre Tao, and that Kamose’s sons never had a claim to the throne. Beginning in his Year 3, Kamose began campaigning both in Nubia and in the north against the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty. After gaining Hyksos territory in the Cynopolite Nome, Kamose died, and the kingship passed to the junior coregent Ahmose (II). Ten years of war against the Hyksos finally concluded with their expulsion from Egypt. Thus around 1550 BC, Ahmose (II) succeeded in reuniting Egypt under one king, beginning the Eighteenth Dynasty and setting the stage for his son Amenhotep I’s successful 21-year reign. Both the Egyptians themselves, as well as later historians saw the Ahmosid family of the Seventeenth Dynasty as the progenitors of the New Kingdom, with monuments set up to their worship in the early years of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Conclusion This summary presents one possible understanding of the internal chronology of the SIP. It is a scenario in which Egypt fractured politically in the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty in a spectacular fashion. A line of kings continued to rule from Itj-tawy as the late Thirteenth Dynasty. The Delta region fractured into two possibly overlapping kingdoms, the Fourteenth Dynasty possibly located in the western and central Delta, and the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty in the eastern Delta. The Thirteenth Dynasty continued to hold power over Upper Egypt almost until its final demise, at which point two smaller local dynasties cropped up. The first was the Abydos Dynasty, centered at Thinis with its royal necropolis loFor the Toshka inscription see Weigall, Report, 127, plate 65 (4). For the Armina inscription see Simpson, Heka-Nefer, 34, 46, fig. 27 and pl. 17b. 111 Ryholt, Political Situation, 273-4. Kamose was the senior king. 110 15 Kevin M. Cahail Though the details of the internal chronology of the SIP are still far from perfect, and scholarly debate still rages on, it is useful to take a step back and realize that the field is so much further along now that it was only a few generations ago. It is our sincere hope that the debate will continue, and with the inclusion of new archaeological finds and textual interpretations we can get closer to a model upon which the majority of the field can agree. The articles in this volume represent one of the next steps in the process of understanding the SIP more fully. Bibliography Allen, J., “The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin KingList”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 1-10. Aström, P., High, Middle or Low?, Parts 1-3 (Gothenburg, 1987). von Beckerath, J., Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten (Glückstadt, 1964). von Beckerath, J., Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten (Mainz, 1997). Ben-Tor, D., “Sequence and Chronology of Second Intermediate Period Royal-Name Scarabs”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 94-5. Ben-Tor, D., “Evidence for Middle Bronze Age Chronology and Synchronisms in the Levant: A Response to Höflmayer et al. 2016”, BASOR 379 (2018), 43-54. Ben-Tor, D., S. Allen, J. Allen, “Seals and Kings”, BASOR 315 (1999), 47-74. Bennett, C., “King Senakhtenre”, GM 145 (1995), 37-44. Bennett, C., “A Genealogical Chronology of the Seventeenth Dynasty”, JARCE 39 (2002), 123-55. Bennett, C., “Genealogy and the Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period”, Ä&L 16 (2006), 231-43. Bietak, M,. “Why Radiocarbon Dates from Egyptian Funerary Contexts are Approximately Accurate, while those from Stratified Settlements are Precisely Wrong”, in J. Kamrin, M. Barta, S. Ikram, M. Lehner, M. Megahed (eds), Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass, vol. I (Prague, 2020), 235-45. Bietak, M., Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a (London, 1996). Biston-Moulin, S., “Le Roi Sénakht-en-Rê Ahmès de la XVIIe dynastie”, ENiM 5 (2015), 61-71. Breasted, J.H., Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. IV (Chicago, 1927). Davies, W.V., “The dynastic tomb at Hierakonpolis: the lower group and the artist Sedjemnetjeru”, in W.V. Davies (ed.), Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt (London, 2001), 113-25. Dodson, A., D. Hilton, The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2004). Forstner-Müller, I., C. Reali, “King Khyan and Avaris. Some Consideration Considering Khyan Seal Impressions from Area R/III at Tell el-Dab‘a”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early 16 Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (Vienna, 2018), 91-123. Franke, D., Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (20.-16. Jarhundert v. Chr.) (Wiesbaden, 1984). Franke, D., “Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches Teil II: Die sogenannte “Zweite Zwischenzeit” Altägyptens”, Orientalia 57 (1988), 245-74. Grajetzki, W., Die Höchsten Beamten der Ägyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches (Berlin, 2000). Grajetzki, W., The coffin of Zemathor and other rectangular coffins of the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (London, 2010). Helck, W., “Der Aufstand des Tetian”, SAK 13 (1986), 125-33. Höflmayer, F., “An Early Date for Khyan and Its Implications for Eastern Mediterranean Chronologies”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (Vienna, 2018), 143-71. Höflmayer, F., “The Expulsion of the Hyksos and the End of the Middle Bronze Age: A Reassessment in Light of Recent Chronological Research”, JAEI 21 (2019), 20-30. Ilin-Tomich, A., “The Theban Kingdom of Dynasty 16: Its Rise, Administration and Politics”, JEgH 7 (2014), 143-93. Ilin-Tomich, A., “Theban Administration in the Late Middle Kingdom”, ZÄS 142 (2015), 120-53. Ilin-Tomich, A., “Second Intermediate Period”, in W. Grajetzki, W. Wendrich (eds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, (2016) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/72q561r2, <accessed on 13.01.2022>. Kitchen, K., Ramesside Inscriptions, vol. VI (Oxford, 1983). Krauss, R., “Zur Problematik der Nubienpolitik Kamoses”, Orientalia 62 (1993), 17-29. Kutschera, W., M. Bietak, E. M. Wild, “The Chronology of Tell el-Daba: A Crucial Meeting Point of C14 dating, Archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd Millennium BC”, Radiocarbon 54/3-4 (2012), 407-22. el-Maksoud, M., D. Valbelle, “Tell Héboua-Tjarou. L’Apport de l’Épigraphie”, RdE 56 (2005), 1-44. Marée, M., “A sculpture workshop at Abydos from the late Sixteenth or early Seventeenth Dynasty”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 241-81. Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums, vol. I (Stuttgart, 1926). Miniaci, G., S. La Niece, M.F. Guerra, M. Hacke, “Analytical Study of the First Royal Egyptian Heart-Scarab, Attributed to a Seventeenth Dynasty King, Sobekemsaf”, BMTRB 7 (2013), 53-60. Moeller, N., G. Marouard, “The Context of the Khyan Sealings from Tell Edfu and Further Implications for the Second Intermediate Period”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (Vienna, 2018), 173-97. Moeller, N., G. Marouard, N. Ayers, “Discussion of Late Middle Kingdom and Early Second Intermediate Period History and Chronology in relation to the Khayan Sealings from Tell Edfu”, Ä&L 21 (2011), 87-121. Morenz, L., “Soldatenkönige, Königsakklamation und eine neue Göttin: zum Beginn des zweiten thebanischen Kleinstaates im 17. Jh. v. Chr.”, JEgH 3 (2010), 293-320. Polz, D., Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (Berlin, 2007). Polz, D., “The Territorial Claim and the Political Role of the The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period Siesse, J., La XIIIe Dynastie: Historie de la fin du moyen empire egyptien (Paris, 2019). Simpson, W.K., Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna (New Haven, Philadelphia, 1963). Spalinger, A., “Review of The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550B.C. by K. S. B. Ryholt”, JNES 60 (2001), 296-300. Stock, H., Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie der 13. bis 17. Dynastie Ägyptens (Glückstadt, 1942). Vandersleyen, C., “Un seul roi Taa sous la 17e dynastie”, GM 63 (1983), 67-70. Waddell, W., Manetho (Cambridge, 1980). Wegner, J., K. Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb and the Necropolis of a Lost Dynasty at Abydos, (Philadelphia, 2021). Wegner, J., K. Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?”, JARCE 51 (2015), 123-64. Weigall, A., A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia (Oxford, 1907). Winlock, H.E., “The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Winlock, H.E., The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes (New York, 1947). Theban State at the End of the Second Intermediate Period”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (Vienna, 2018), 217-33. Polz, D., A. Seiler, Die Pyramidenanlage des Königs NubCheper-Re Intef (Mainz am Rhein, 2003). Quirke, S., “Royal Power in the 13th Dynasty”, in S. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies (1991), 123-39. Ryholt, K., The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 B.C. (Copenhagen, 1997). Ryholt, K., “The Turin King-List”, Ä&L 14 (2004), 135-55. Schneider, T., “The Relative Chronology of the Middle Kingdom and the Hyksos Period (Dyns. 12-17)”, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton (eds), Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden, 2006), 168-96. Schneider, T., “Khyan’s Place in History: A New Look at the Chronographic Tradition”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (Vienna, 2018), 277-85. Siesse, J., “Throne Name Patterns as a Clue for the Internal Chronlogy of the 13th to 17th Dynasties (Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period)”, GM 246 (2015), 75-97. 17 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 19-23 Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area Anna-Latifa Mourad Understanding chronological correlations across the Eastern Mediterranean is essential for any attempt to explore long-distance connectivity and macroscale phenomena. However, this endeavour has been replete with debate and disagreement, particularly for the period spanning the first half of the Second Millennium BC. The contentions have been spurred by a paucity of archaeological and historical material especially from elusive periods, insufficient or incomplete excavations or publications thereof, unbalanced explorations of some regions or material types in comparison with others, as well as continually evolving scientific methods and refinements to dating techniques. Further complications arise when local and regional developments are considered, as some areas experienced cultural transitions at a different rate than others, the transformations still being revised and newly assessed in view of current theoretical understandings on cultural change. Despite these issues, significant advancements have been made in discerning general synchronisations of historical or cultural periods between Western Asia, the Aegean, Anatolia, and Egypt. Thus far, the archaeolog- Anna-Latifa Mourad ical-historical record has allowed for the broad and fairly secure relative correlation of the Levantine Middle Bronze Age with the Cretan Proto- to Neo-Palatial Periods, the Mesopotamian Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian Periods, and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. In turn, the Late Bronze Age would generally and approximately correlate with the Cretan Neo- to Post-Palatial Periods, the Hittite Middle to New Kingdoms, the Middle Babylonian, Kassite, Mitannian and Middle Assyrian Periods, as well as the Egyptian New Kingdom. Further refinements to these correlations have contributed to variant chronologies, identified as the low (short), middle, and high absolute chronologies. The following table depends on the low chronology for Egypt and Western Asia, as supported by the extensively studied correlations between such sites as Tell el-Dab‘a (Egypt), Ashkelon (Southern Levant), and Sidon College Site (Northern Levant), among others.1 For more on these correlations, readers can refer to the publications of the Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC (SCIEM) project and other recent studies, particularly those examining the archaeological and historical material.2 In accordance with this chronology, the Modified Traditional Chronology is presented for developments on Crete,3 together with a modified low or short chronology for Anatolia and Mesopotamia.4 The Middle Chronology for the latter, however, is otherwise typically used.5 While the radiocarbon dating of organic material from some sites have been employed to support a high chronology,6 its dates and methodologies have been questioned.7 Indeed, at the time of writing, many results remain to be updated in view of the latest curve for calibrating 14C radiocarbon dates, the IntCal20.8 This signals that, as the scientific method continues to be enhanced, it should not be used solely as the determining factor for ascertaining chronological synchronisations, but alongside the archaeological and historical data. A further point to bear in mind when approaching correlations is the continually developing scholarly understandings of micro- to macro-chronological developments. The typical division of defined cultural areas into units with terminology presented in the table follows Philips (Aegyptiaca, fig. 1), but this is not unanimously utilised, especially for classifications following the Neo-Palatial Period. For more on the terminologies and chronologies, see Warren, Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology; Rehak, Younger, AJA 102/1, 92-100; Manning, in Cline (ed.), Bronze Age Aegean; Hallager, in Cline (ed.), Bronze Age Aegean. 4 See Gasche et al., Dating the Fall of Babylon; Gasche et al., Akkadica 108, 1-4; Mebert, Die Venustafel; Pruzsinszky, Mesopotamian Chronology; Warburton, Akkadica 132, 1-22; A. Ben-Tor, Ä&L 14, 45-67. 5 See, for instance, Barjamovic, Hertel, Larsen, Ups and Downs at Kanesh; Manning, Barjamovic, Lorentzen, JAEI 13, 70-81; Veenhof, Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms. See also the papers in Hunger, Pruzsinszky (eds), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. 6 Bonani et al., Radiocarbon 43/3, 1297-320; Höflmayer, in Mynářová, Onderkaand, Pavúk (eds), Crossroads, vol. II, 265-95; Höflmayer, JAEI 13, 20-33; Höflmayer, Cohen, JAEI 13, 1-6; Höflmayer et al., BASOR 375, 53-76; Manning, Absolute Chronology; Manning, Test of Time; Manning et al., Antiquity 88, 1164-79; Manning et al., Radiocarbon 52/4, 1571-97. For others that follow a middle to high chronology, see, for instance, Dever, BASOR 288, 1-25. For those that follow a high chronology, see also Gerstenblith, Levant at the Beginning of the MBA; Mazar, IEJ 18, 65-97. 7 D. Ben-Tor, BASOR 379, 43-54; Bietak, in Shortland, Bronk Ramsey (eds), Radiocarbon, 76-109; Bietak, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2016.04.06; Bietak, in Kamrin et al., Guardian of Ancient Egypt, vol. I, 235-45; Bietak, Bibliotheca Orientalis 78; Hagens, Ä&L 24, 171-88; Pearson et al., Science Advances 4/8; Pearson et al., PNAS 117/5, 841015. For more on the debate between high, middle, and low chronologies, see Åström (ed.), High, Middle or Low?; Bietak, in Bietak, Synchronisation of Civilisations, vol. II, 23-34. 8 Reimer et al., Radiocarbon 62/4, 725-57; Pearson et al., Radiocarbon 62/4, 939-52; Plicht et al., Radiocarbon 62/4, 1095117. For examples of recalibrated results, see Martin et al., BASOR 384, 234; Manning et al., Science Reports 10, 13785. The terminology presented in the table for the Levant follows the traditional tripartite division of the Middle Bronze Age; for the Northern Levant, the periods are instead commonly identified as MBI (MBIIA) and MBII (MBIIB-C). 2 See the articles in Bietak, BASOR 281, 471-85; Bietak, Synchronisation of Civilisations, vols I-II; Bietak, Czerny, Synchronisation of Civilisations, vol. III. See also Aston, A Corpus of the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery; Aston, Bietak, The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware; Bagh, Levantine Painted Ware; D. BenTor, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 27-42; Bietak, BASOR 281, 27-72; Bietak et al., Ä&L 18, 49-60; Czerny, in Bietak (ed.), MBA in the Levant, 133-42; Czerny, Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk; Kutschera et al., Radiocarbon 54, 40722; Marcus, in Shortland, Bronk Ramsey (eds), Radiocarbon, 192-208; Mlinar, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 10739; Czerny, Eine Plansiedlung; Kopetzky, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Bronze Age in the Lebanon; Kopetzky, Eine Plansiedlung; Stager, Voss, Eretz-Israel 30, 119*-26*; Stager, Voss, in Stager, Schnloen, Voss (eds), Ashkelon, vol. VI, 103-13. The low chronology is also followed by, for instance, Albright, BASOR 176, 38-46; Weinstein, Levant 23, 105-15; Weinstein, BASOR 288, 27-46; Weinstein, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 84-90. For the Egyptian chronology, see Hornung, Krauss, Warburton, Ancient Egyptian Chronology; Shortland, Bronk Ramsey (eds), Radiocarbon. 3 For an overview, see Hankey, Warren, BICS 21, 142-52; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung; Philips, Aegyptiaca. The 1 20 Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area clearly differentiated spatial and temporal borders usually does not take into account local and regional variations, especially across transitional phases.9 To show this, recent illustrations of chronological and/or stratigraphic developments have opted for different means to display variability, such as dotted or diagonal lines between units. This table also does not present solid lines to discern between periods, but rather grey transitions, some diagonal, at approximated shifts in an attempt to show that changes from one phase to another on a regional or supra-regional scale rarely occur at the same rate or the same exact moment in time, or at least a clearly distinguishable one in the evidence. In view of these briefly discussed points, the chronology herein should be considered as a guide. It will surely be enhanced by continued interdisciplinary explorations into multiscalar spatial and temporal developments and correlations across the Eastern Mediterranean, the outcomes of which can only benefit our research into the fascinating ways that communities connected in the Second Millennium BC. and Synchronisms in the Levant: A Response to Höflmayer et al. 2016”, BASOR 379 (2017), 43-54. Bietak, M., “Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt”, AJA 88/4 (1984), 471-85. Bietak, M., “The Middle Bronze Age of the Levant – A New Approach to Relative and Absolute Chronology”, in P. Åström (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg, 20-22 August 1987, vol. III (Gothenburg, 1989), 78-120. Bietak, M., “Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age”, BASOR 281 (1991), 27-72. Bietak, M., The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Vol. I: Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss Haindorf, 15th – 17th of November 1996, and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th – 12th of May (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 19, CChEM 1, 2001). Bietak, M. (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Vol. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29, CChEM 4, 2003). Bietak, M., “Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Consequences in High Aegean Chronology”, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Vol. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29, CChEM 4, 2003), 23-34. Bietak, M., “Antagonisms in Historical and Radiocarbon Chronology”, in A. Shortland, C. Bronk Ramsey (eds), Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2013), 76-109. Bietak, M., “Review of Sturt Manning, A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited: The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid-Second Millennium BC”, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2016.04.06 (2016), online resource at http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/ 2016/2016-04-06.html, <accessed 09.05.2021>. Bietak, M., “Why Radiocarbon Dates from Egyptian Funerary Contexts are Approximately Accurate while those from Stratified Settlements are Precisely Wrong”, in J. Kamrin, M. Bárta, S. Ikram, M. Lehnerand, M. Megahed (eds), Guardian of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass, vol. I (Prague, 2020), 235-45. Bietak, M., “The End of High Chronology in the Aegean and the Levant? Recent Discussions about the Chronology of the Middle and the Late Bronze Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean: Part II”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 78 (2021), 20-56. Bietak, M., E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Vol. III: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2 Euro Bibliography Albright, W.F., “The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos and the Chronology of Middle Bronze”, BASOR 176 (1964), 38-46. Aston, D.A., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XII: A Corpus of the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery. Part I: Introduction and Pottery of the Late Middle Kingdom; Part II: Pottery of the Hyksos Period and Conclusions (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 28, UZK 23, 2004). Aston, D.A., M. Bietak, Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. VIII: The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 66, UZK 12, 2012). Åström, P. (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg, 20-22 August 1987, vol. III (Gothenburg, 1989). Bagh, T., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XXIII: Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 71, UZK 37, 2013). Barjamovic, G., T. Hertel, M.T. Larsen, Ups and Downs at Kanesh-Observations on Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period (Leiden, 2012). Ben-Tor, A., “Hazor and Chronology”, Ä&L 14 (2004), 45-67. Ben-Tor, D., “Second Intermediate Period Scarabs from Egypt and Palestine: Historical and Chronological Implications”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th – 13th January 2002 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 35, CChEM 8, 2004), 27-42. Ben-Tor, D., “Evidence for Middle Bronze Age Chronology For more on the impact of the culture-historical approach on chronological charts, see Feinman, Neitzel, JAA 60. 9 nd 21 Anna-Latifa Mourad Conference Vienna, 28 of May – 1 of June 2003 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37, CChEM 9, 2007). Bietak, M., K. Kopetzky, L. Stager, R. Voss, “Synchronisation of Stratigraphies: Ashkelon and Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 18 (2008), 49-60. Bonani, G., H. Haas, Z. Hawass, M. Lehner, S. Nakhla, J. Nolan, R. Wenke, W. Wilfli, “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt”, Radiocarbon 43/3 (2001), 1297-320. Czerny, E., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. IX: Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 16, UZK 15, 1999). Czerny, E., “Egyptian Pottery from Tell el-Dab‘a as a Context for Early MBIIA Painted Ware”, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant – Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24 – 26 of January 2001 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 26, CChEM 3, 2002), 133-42. Czerny, E., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XXII: “Der Mund der beiden Wege” – Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, vols I-II (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 77, UZK 38, 2015). Dever, W.G., “The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E.: A Review of Current Issues”, BASOR 288 (1992), 1-25. Feinman, G.M., J.E. Neitzel, “Excising Culture History from Contemporary Archaeology”, JAA 60 (2020), online resource at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101230, <accessed 09.05.2021>. Gasche, H., J. Armstrong, S. Cole, V. Gurzadyan, “Correction to Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second Millennium Chronology”, Akkadica 108 (1998), 1-4. Gasche, H., J. Armstrong, S. Cole, V. Gurzadyan, Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (Chicago: Mesopotamian History and Environmental Studies 2, Memoirs 4, 1998). Gerstenblith, P., The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Winona Lake: American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 5, 1983). Hagens, G., “Radiocarbon Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and the Tell el-Dab‘a Debate: A Regional Hypothesis”, Ä&L 24 (2014), 171-88. Hallager, E., “Crete”, in E.H. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford, 2010), 149-59. Hankey, V., P.M. Warren, “The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age”, BICS 21 (1974), 142-52. Höflmayer, F., Die Synchronisierung der minoischen Alt- und Neupalastzeit mit der ägyptischen Chronologie (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 73, CChEM 32, 2010). Höflmayer, F., “Carbone-14 comparé: Middle Bronze Age I (IIA) Chronology, Tell el-Dab‘a and Radiocarbon Data”, in J. Mynářová, P. Onderkaand, P. Pavúk (eds), There and Back Again – The Crossroads. Vol. II: Proceedings of an th th International Congress Held in Prague, September 15-18, 2014 (Prague, 2015), 265-95. Höflmayer, F., “A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant”, JAEI 13 (2017), 20-33. Höflmayer, F., S. Cohen, “Chronological Conundrums: Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant”, JAEI 13 (2017), 1-6. Höflmayer, F., J. Kamlah, H. Sader, M. Dee, W. Kutschera, E.M. Wild, S. Riehl, “New Evidence for Middle Bronze Age Chronology and Synchronisms in the Levant: Radiocarbon Dates from Tell el-Burak, Tell el-Dab‘a, and Tel Ifshar Compared”, BASOR 375 (2016), 53-76. Hornung, E., R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton, Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Leiden, Boston, 2006). Hunger, H., R. Pruzsinszky (eds), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited. Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000, Vienna 8th – 9th November 2002 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 32, CChEM 6, 2004). Kopetzky, K., “The MBIIB-Corpus of the Hyksos Period at Tell el-Dab‘a”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 50, CChEM 17, 2008), 195-241. Kopetzky, K., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XX: Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der 2. Zwischenzeit aus Tell el-Dab‘a (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 62, UZK 32, 2010). Kutschera, W., M. Bietak, E.M. Wild, C. Bronk Ramsey, M. Dee, R. Golser, K. Kopetzky, P. Stadler, P. Steier, U. Thanheiser, E. Weninger, “The Chronology of Tell elDab‘a: A Crucial Meeting Point of 14C Dating, Archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd Millennium BC”, Radiocarbon 54 (2012), 407-22. Manning, S.W., The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age (Sheffield, 1995). Manning, S.W., “Chronology and Terminology”, in E.H. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford, 2010), 11-28. Manning, S.W., A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid-Second Millennium BC, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Philadelphia, 2014). Manning, S.W., G. Barjamovic, B. Lorentzen, “The Course of 14C dating does not run Smooth: Tree-Rings, Radiocarbon, and Potential Impacts of a Calibration Curve Wiggle on Dating Mesopotamian Chronology”, JAEI 13 (2017), 70-81. Manning, S.W., F. Höflmayer, N. Moeller, M.W. Dee, “Dating the Thera (Santorini) Eruption: Archaeological and Scientific Evidence supporting a High Chronology”, Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-79. Manning, S.W., B. Kromer, C. Bronk Ramsey, C.I. Pearson, S. Talamo, N. Trano, J.D. Watkins, “14C Record and Wiggle-Match Placement for the Anatolian (Gordion Area) Ju- st th 22 Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area niper Tree-Ring Chronology ~1729 to 751 CAL BC, and Typical Aegean/Anatolian (Growing Season Related) Regional 14C Offset Assessment”, Radiocarbon 52/4 (2010), 1571-97. Manning, S.W., L. Wacker, U. Büntgen, C. Bronk Ramsey, M.W. Dee, B. Kromer, B. Lorentzen, W. Tegel, “Radiocarbon Offsets and Old World Chronology as Relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera (Santorini)”, Scientific Reports 10 (2020), 13785, online resource at https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-020-69287-2, <accessed 09.05.2021>. Marcus, E.S., “Correlating and Combining Egyptian Historical and Southern Levantine Radiocarbon Chronologies at Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Israel”, in A. Shortland, C. Bronk Ramsey (eds), Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2013), 182-208. Martin, M.A.S., I. Finkelstein, E. Piasetzky, “Radiocarbon-Dating the Late Bronze Age: Cultural and Historical Considerations on Megiddo and Beyond”, BASOR 384 (2020), 211-40. Mazar, B., “The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine”, IEJ 18 (1968), 65-97. Mebert, J., Die Venustafel des Ammi-Saduqa und ihre Bedeutung für die astronomische Datierung der altbabylonischen Zeit (Vienna: Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 31, 2010). Mlinar, C., “The Scarab Workshops of Tell el-Dab‘a”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th – 13th of January 2002 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 35, CChEM 8, 2004), 107-39. Pearson, C.L., P.W. Brewer, D. Brown, T.J. Heaton, G.W.I. Hodgins, T. Jull, T. Lange, M.W. Salzer, “Annual Radiocarbon Record Indicates 16th Century BC Date for the Thera Eruption”, Science Advances 4/8 (2018), online resource at https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8241, <accessed 09.05.2021>. Pearson, C.L., M.W. Salzer, L. Wacker, P.W. Brewer, A. Sookdeo, P. Kuniholm, “Securing Timelines in the Ancient Mediterranean using Multiproxy Annual Tree-Ring Data”, PNAS 117/5 (2020), 8410-15. Pearson, C.L., L. Wacker, A. Bayliss, D. Brown, M. Salzer, P. Brewer, S. Bollhalder, G. Boswijk, G. Hodgins, “Annual Variation in Atmospheric 14C between 1700 BC and 1480 BC”, Radiocarbon 62/4 (2020), 939-52. Phillips, J., Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review, vols I-II (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 49, CChEM 18, 2008). Plicht, J. van der, C. Bronk Romsey, T.J. Heaton, E.M. Scott, S. Talamo, “Recent Developments in Calibration for Archaeological and Environmental Samples”, Radiocarbon 62/4 (2020), 1095-117. Pruzsinszky, R., Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium BC. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues (Vienna, 2009). Rehak, P., J.G. Younger, “Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete”, AJA 102/1 (1998), 91-173. Reimer, P.J., W.E.N. Austin, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, P.G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, M. Butzin, H. Cheng, R.L. Edwards, M. Friedrich et al., “The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 Cal kBP)”, Radiocarbon 62/4 (2020), 725-57. Shortland, A., C. Bronk Ramsey (eds), Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2013). Stager, L.E., R.J. Voss, “Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon”, Eretz-Israel 30 (2011), 119*-26*. Stager, L.E., R.J. Voss, “Stratigraphic Synchronisms between Ashkelon and Tell el-Dab‘a”, in L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen, R.J. Voss (eds), Ashkelon. Vol. VI: The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope and Later Fortifications (Pennsylvania, 2018), 103-13. Veenhof, K.R., The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications (Ankara, 2003). Warburton, D.A. (ed.), Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 initiated by Jan Heinemeier and Walter L. Friedrich (Santa Barbara: Monograph of the Danish Institute at Athens 10, 2009). Warburton, D.A., “The Fall of Babylon in 1499: Another Update”, Akkadica 132 (2011), 1-22. Warren, P.M., V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol, 1989). Weinstein, J., “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment”, BASOR 241 (1981), 1-28. Weinstein, J., “Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition in Palestine”, Levant 23 (1991), 105-15. Weinstein, J., “The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Second Millennium B.C.E.”, BASOR 288 (1992), 27-46. Weinstein, J., “Reflections on the Chronology of Tell elDab‘a”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant (London, 1995), 84-90. 23 The History of the Discovery and Display of Ahhotep’s Treasure with a Section on the Journal d’Entrée Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 27-70 The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence Gianluca Miniaci Abstract In 1859 some Egyptian workmen digging in the northern sector of the Theban necropolis on behalf of Auguste Mariette brought to light the coffin of a queen called Ahhotep (Second Intermediate Period), which contained rare and unparalleled items, forming the largest “treasure” of the goldsmith’s art then known from Egypt. The discovery of the burial equipment quickly received international attention, triggering the need for more definite and appropriate contours of its story. Nonetheless, the accounts produced have wrongly been interpreted as archaeological reports, generating an inaccurate understanding of the events and assumptions handed down in the Western Egyptological tradition. The article aims at deconstructing and then reconstructing the history of this discovery through archival research, in order to: a) retrace the most important events in the timeline; b) determine the roles played by the people involved; c) provide the approximate spatial coordinates for location of the burial; d) shed light on the type of burial in which the coffin was found; e) determine the total number and type of recorded objects; f) analyse the consistency of the assemblage. The final objective is to define more realistic contours for the discovery, moving away from the narrative which Egyptological tradition contributed to build. Introduction During October 1857, the French scholar Auguste Mariette1 was sent to Egypt for an archaeological mission of eight months. The aim of this campaign was to collect Egyptian antiquities in order to prepare for the cultural journey of Prince Napoleon to Egypt. Works were set up throughout Egypt, from Alexandria into Aswan, especially concentrating in the Memphite necropolis, at Abydos, Thebes and Elephantine.2 On June 1st 1858, Mariette was appointed at the head (as mamour) of a new institution for the conservation and excavation of Egyptian antiquities called Maslahat al-Athar (Antiquities Service) by the Viceroy Saïd Pasha3 (see Table 2). On the west bank of Thebes, Mariette set up his excavations in different spots in the hills of Dra Abu el-Naga.4 In 1859, Egyptian workmen digging in the northern sector of Dra Abu el-Naga, most probably on behalf of Mariette, brought to light the burial of a queen named Ahhotep,5 which contained the largest “treasure” of the goldsmith’s art ever found in Egypt until then. The discovery had an international resonance at that time, due to the exceptional number of precious, luxury items as well as rare and unparalleled types. The burial assemblage of Ahhotep is still considered one of the most important discoveries in Egyptian archaeology.6 Premise The only publication of the funerary assemblage of Ahhotep was produced by Friedrich von Bissing in 1900. This publication aimed to be preliminary in view of a Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 41-3. 5 For the identity of Queen Ahhotep, see Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 6 Cf. Reeves, Ancient Egypt, 50-1; Orsenigo, in Piacentini (ed.), Egypt and the pharaohs. 4 Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 355-7; see also David, Mariette Pacha. 2 Desti, Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant, 20. 3 See de Rougé, CRAIBL 2, 115-21. 1 Gianluca Miniaci more complete one, to be part of the Catalogue Général of Cairo, which never appeared.7 No further attempts have been produced to re-assess the whole group, but objects have been randomly individually selected for study. A project for restudying the whole Ahhotep group was undertaken in 2020 by Gianluca Miniaci “Queen Ahhotep Treasure and its Context: The long Road to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, c. 1550 BC-1863 AD”. The archive documents which contain some relevant information about the Ahhotep discovery belong to the Fonds Maspero in the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris: the letter of Maunier (Q.1), the two lists of February 25th 1859 (Q.7),8 and some other administrative documents which could be related to the event (Q.9, Q.14). These documents originally belonged to Mariette and entered in possession of Maspero only at his death.9 Other useful information are preserved in a notebook of Dèveria in the Louvre Museum (see Q. 11, Q. 17 and Appendix A at the end of the article) and in the Fonds Lacau of the Centre Wladimir Golénischeff at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris (Q.4-6). The Journal d’Entrée numbering system has been adopted here for referring to the objects associated with the Ahhotep assemblage because it is the only system that uniformly records all the objects found in association with the queen’s burial.10 rather than being investigated as a group.11 Their coexistence in a single context raised questions about whether the group was assembled in modern times, mixed lavish finds from other burials of the area, and/or really belonged to the queen. Remarkably, the burial equipment consisted almost exclusively of precious objects, made of the highest value metals and semi-precious stones of the time, i.e. gold, silver, electrum, turquoise, lapis-lazuli, carnelian, and feldspar. Even more surprisingly, all these objects were found – according to the accounts of the time – packed inside the coffin, used as a sort of all-inclusive storage space or “treasure trove”. Finally, none of the objects are inscribed for the queen herself and those bearing inscriptions only refer to the Kings Kamose and Ahmose (in at least seven cases, there is evidence that this is Ahmose Nebpehtyre).12 To further cloud things, the body inside the coffin – if it was ever present – was destroyed soon after its discovery in the search for precious objects. Therefore, the “identity” of the person contained inside the coffin has been lost forever and the assumption that those objects belonged to Queen Ahhotep is mainly grounded in the fact they were found inside a coffin inscribed with her name. Therefore, the discovery of Ahhotep’s assemblage and its archaeological context are still shrouded in mystery and inconsistency. Such a level of ambiguity has raised among scholars questions of what the diggers actually found in Dra Abu el-Naga in the mid-nineteenth century: the expected royal original funerary structure of the queen (unseen, since not reported in the accounts), a simpler burial (shaft tomb without a burial chamber/ surface burial), or a cache; an intact or a secondary deposition (disturbed or rehashed burial); a standard funerary assemblage or an ancient/modern assemblage of disparate items. The aim of this paper is to reassess the question, providing all the available pieces of information currently known, noting down the secure and indisputable evidence, highlighting the inconsistencies, and questioning the unsecure elements, which generated assumptions then fostered and handed down in Egyptological literature. The unsolved Questions The accounts about the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin too often have wrongly been interpreted as archaeological reports, although the person/s who discovered the coffin is/are still unknown. Egyptological literature attributes to Auguste Mariette the credit of the find, although he was miles away from Luxor at that moment; even his Egyptian foremen were not exclusively working only on his behalf at Thebes. The exact location of the queen’s burial and the type of structure in which it was found were forgotten since its discovery, and they are now lost. The objects associated with the queen have predominantly been considered in terms of their aesthetic value See below § The Timeline of the Discovery and successive related Events, 1900, p. 34-5. See also von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund. 8 Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 9 See below § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Gaston Maspero, p. 41-2. 10 For cross-references to CG, TR, SR, other inventory numbers or lost locations, see Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, Tables 2-3. 7 The only full publication of the group – which appeared 40 years after the discovery – is credited to von Bissing, who was not even born at the time of the discovery (Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 60-1), von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund. Von Bissing visited Egypt for the first time in 1897, Abou-Ghazi, ASAE 67, 29. 12 See below § The Burial Assemblage, Absence of the queen’s name on the objects, p. 62-3. See also discussions in Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume; and Biston-Moulin, ENiM 5, 66. See also below Table 4. 11 28 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Written Reports produced in Conjunction with the Discovery il paraît en l’absence du reys Aouad, s’est permis d’ouvrir une boîte de momie, qui était dans votre magasin à Gourneh et d’en démailloter le cadavre [not referring to Ahhotep]. Aouad est arrivé à la fin de l’opération ; de là, grande discussion. Hier quand vos reys eurent trouvé la belle boîte ils m’en ont prévenu immédiatement, mon intervention vous l’a conservée intacte. Par précaution je l’ai fait transporter dans votre magasin de Karnac, après y avoir apposé à la cire d’Espagne le grand cachet V.G.M. Cette opération a fait faire la grimace à plus d’un qui aurait bien voulu voir ce qu’il y avait dans le Sendouk bita’ el-Sultana […]. Nous comptons que vous allez nous revenir dans une quinzaine au plus tard ; nous sommes depuis votre départ dans une solitude thébaine […]. V. G. Maunier” – Maunier17 Before tackling any of these questions, all the available accounts of Ahhotep’s discovery must be carefully considered, since none of them can be taken as reliable archaeological reports. The discovery of the coffin attributed to Auguste Mariette first-hand must be reconsidered since he was directing things from Cairo and was moving up and down the Nile in his steamboat, the Samanoud.13 A letter from Victor Maunier (Q.1) and other later accounts (cf. Q.10, Q.12-13) clearly document that Mariette was in Cairo at the moment of the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin, which was actually a matter in the hands of Egyptian workmen and foremen. However, so far no sketch or written notes from any of them is preserved or known today. Many of them may have been illiterate, but also Arabic archival documentation has only rarely been considered by Egyptologists.14 The only known written documentation close to the time of the discovery is provided by oral accounts noted down (and filtered?) by European Egyptologists and explorers circulating in Luxor or revolving around the figure of Mariette. The most detailed information – and apparently the closest in time – about the unearthing of the coffin is to be found in a letter written by Maunier15 to Mariette, supposedly drafted the day after the discovery (“hier”). Unfortunately, the letter does not bear any date, probably once placed in the worn upper part of the sheet. The letter, published by Maspero, is now in the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in the Fonds Maspero together with other documents of Mariette’s excavations at Dra Abu el-Naga16 from 1858-63 (Fig. 1a-b). In his letter, Maunier notified Mariette about the fact that the coffin of the queen had been discovered at Dra Abu el-Naga and it was left untouched. To this letter, Maunier added a very faithful hand-copy of the hieroglyphic inscription visible on the coffin18 (see Fig. 1b). The central part of the letter is not connected with Ahhotep but it rather focuses on an event which frequently happened at that time: a local official of the governor of Qena province, Bedawy Effendi,19 visited Mariette’s storerooms in Qurna and opened some sealed coffins, ravaging the mummies.20 Unfortunately, Maunier did not add any information about the people involved with and the place of the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin, nor did he add any type of data on the structure in which it was found. The relationship with Mariette’s excavations is rather clouded; the discovery is not attributed to a specific rais (the very active rais Sheikh Awad is mentioned in connection with another event) but vaguely to some ruasa21 who are tied to Mariette.22 The ruasa were not necessarily expected to constantly be on the excavation spot, so it is possible that none of them were present at the moment of discovery. Also, the presence of Mariette’s workmen could be questioned, since in that time at Thebes, temporary – and partially independent – diggers were circulating and they were selling their discovered antiquities to the various Q.1 – “Mon cher Monsieur Mariette, J’ai le plaisir de vous donner avis que vos reys de Gourneh ont trouvé à Dra-Abou-Naggi [read Dra Abu el-Naga], une magnifique boîte de momie, et une caisse renfermant quatre vases en albâtre, variés de formes, sans couvercles ni inscriptions, trouvés à côté de la boîte de la momie. La boîte de la momie a le couvercle entièrement doré, une inscription longitudinale, que j’ai copiée ci-derrière ; les yeux sont en émail enchâssés dans un cercle en or ; sur la tête est un serpent Uréus en relief, malheureusement la tête du serpent manque, elle devait être en or à juger à la richesse de la boîte. Quelques petits conflits ont eu lieu ces jours-passés entre vos reys de Gourneh et Bédaoui-Efendi. Ce dernier, BIF Ms 4030, f. 393. Reposted also in Maspero, RT 12, 214. The emphasis is mine. 18 See also Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume, fig. 1. 19 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Bedawy Effendi, p. 38. 20 Cf. below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Fadil Pasha, p. 36-8-3. 21 The term ruasa is here preferred to raises, as the plural of rais. 22 See also below § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Egyptian workmen and foremen. 17 Thompson, Wonderful Things, vol. I, 230. Cf. discussions in Quirke, Hidden hands, 33, 36, 306-7. 15 See below § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Victor Maunier, p. 36. 16 See above, p. 28, n. 8, and below, p. 41. 13 14 29 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 1a-b – Letter written by Victor Maunier to Auguste Mariette about the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin – supposedly – in February 1859. 1a) First page of the letter (undated/date lost); Fonds Maspero, Ms 4030, f. 393 1b) Fac-simile of the inscription on the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep; handwriting of Maunier; Fonds Maspero, Ms 4030, f. 394 © courtesy of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France ruasa of Thebes (cf. Q.34). In addition, Maunier, acting also as antiquities dealer in Luxor, placed over the coffin his own sealing, probably with a view to a possible profit. The general impression from this account is that the Ahhotep discovery was “claimed” from multiple sources: private diggers (Q.34; see also Q.12), some of the ruasa of Mariette, Maunier, and the governor of Qena. Only four official reports were produced around the time of the discovery (see Table 1, uppermost row): R.4) a more extensive report, with coloured plates of most of the objects, produced by Ernest Desjardins for the Revue générale de l’architecture et des travaux publics of 1860; this report aimed to be only a temporary description of Mariette’s results in Dra Abu el-Naga but it actually remained the only comprehensive account of the time.26 The main person responsible for passing on the account of the discovery of the coffin is Ernest Desjardins,27 who drew up the preliminary information about the excavations of Mariette for his work in Egypt 1850-54 and 1858-60. Desjardins, with the help of Mariette’s notes, reconstructed a version of the discovery of the coffin (R.4). However, the account is per se already tendentious, almost turning that event into a novel: Mariette is described by Desjardins as a nineteenth century “hero”, carrying out excavations in first person (while he was in reality somewhere in Cairo) and encountering the body of the dead queen (while there is no report about the body R.1) a report signed on behalf of Mariette and presented at the Séance du 5 juin 1859 and published in the Bulletin de l’Institut Egyptien, in which there are no details about the discovery;23 R.2) another short report signed on behalf of Mariette presented at the Séance du 26 août 1859 and published in Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres of 1862;24 R.3) a letter of March 14th 1860 addressed by Mariette to the Vicomte de Rougé published in the Revue archéologique of the same year;25 ly typed, “Bédréchyn, le 14 mars 1850 [sic]”. See also Q.28. 26 Desjardins, RGA 18, 98-112. See Q.2, Q.18-19, Q.27, Q.37. 27 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Ernest Desjardins, p. 39. Mariette, BIE 1, 32-6. 24 Mariette, CRAIBL 3, 161-3. 25 Mariette, RAr 2, 29; the date of the letter should be wrong23 30 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) This story has been passed down in the Egyptological tradition and since then almost mechanically repeated. of the Catalogue Général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. The letter of Maunier to Mariette (Q.1) – which is the closest written testimony of the discovery – is unfortunately left undated or the date is lost, given the bad state of preservation of the document (see Fig. 1). 24th January 1859 = A letter written in Luxor by Mariette to his rais Awad and dated January 24th 1859 indicates that until then no significant discovery had been made in Qurna area. Q. 3 – “The circumstances of their discovery are as follows: ‒ In 1859, M. Mariette had remarked, at the entrance of the valley of the Biban-el-Melook, or Valley of the Tombs of the Kings, in the Gournah quarter of Thebes, a strip of earth, formed of fragments of stone and broken pottery, revealing the situation of an ancient sepulchre. On the 5th February, 1859, a magnificent gilded wooden coffin was found there in a pit of between 15 and 18 feet deep” – Birch29 Q.4 – “A Aouad, réïs des travaux de Gournah. Demain vous prendrez 75 hommes avec vous et vous les mettrez à Gournah pour chercher des boîtes de momies de l’espèce de ceux que vous nommez richi. Vous enverrez Aly avec les 25 autres hommes à Deir-el-Bahari et vous lui direz de nettoyer la complètement la chambre que j’ai fait ensabler. Dans quelques jours je désire enlever des pierres de cette chambre. Louqsor, 24 Janvier 18589” – Mariette34 inside the coffin); the assemblage had been reduced to a treasure, focussing only on the gold and silver items. Q.2 – “M. Mariette trouva le corps de la reine AahHotep littéralement couvert et enveloppé d’objets d’or et d’argent” – Desjardins28 The Timeline of the Discovery and successive Other documents of Mariette dated to January 24th 1859 related Events (see Tables 1-2) reveal his clear disappointment at the lack of any notable discoveries. November 1858 = At the beginning of November 1858, Mariette’s excavations started in the area of Qurna,30 as explicitly mentioned in a number of letters written by the French scholar in which he reminded the governor of Qena that his ruasa of Qurna (especially rais Awad) should have been paid for the work done (“Les travaux de S. A. ont commencé depuis deux mois et 24 jours [letter dated to January 24th 1859], et par conséquent on devra, de 84 jours aux réïs [damage]”).31 January 1859 = The Inventaire de Boulaq,32 recorded by Mariette himself33 for the entries of Ahhotep, reported the month of January 1859 as the date of discovery (“Gournah / Drah abou’l Neggah / Janv. 1859”), which is repeated in the Journal d’Entrée and in the various entries Q.5 – “Jusqu’à présent on vous doit 84 jours. Mais comme, en mon absence,vous n’avez pas trouvé beaucoup de choses, je vous retranche 24 jours de paie” – Mariette35 Q.6 – “Mais comme, en mon absence, vous avez été négligent et que vous n’avez rien trouvé, je vous retranche en punition 24 jours de paie” – Mariette36 Therefore, presumably the treasure of Queen Ahhotep was not found before January 24th. In addition, these documents substantiate that Mariette was in Luxor at least till January 24th: the discovery of the treasure must have occurred at a later date. 5th February 1859 = The accounts of Mariette and Desjardins (see above, R.2, R.4) provide a more precise date for the discovery of the coffin, which is stated to have occurred precisely on February 5th 1859 (Q.27), later followed also by Birch (Q.3), Maspero (Q.29),37 and Winlock (Q. 30). This date conflicts with the month Desjardins, RGA 18, 99. Birch, Facsimiles, 1. 30 The toponym “Gurnah”/“Gournah”/“Qurneh”/“Qurna”, was used by explorers and archaeologists of the nineteenth century to indicate either the west bank of Luxor or, more specifically, the northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga, Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci, Seven Seasons, 15. In Q.4 there is a clear indication that at least by January 24th 1859 the excavations should have moved to an area of Dra Abu el-Naga in search for Second Intermediate Period burials. 31 Letter of Mariette to the governor of Qena, Luxor 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 43. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 32 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, p. 85. 33 The handwriting for the entries of Ahhotep belongs to Mariette; information by Elisabeth David. 28 29 Letter of Mariette to Awad, Luxor 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 44. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 35 Letter of Mariette to Awad, Luxor 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 46. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 36 Letter of Mariette to his ruasa, Luxor 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 47. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 37 Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii. 34 31 Gianluca Miniaci Table 1 – Chronological table for the year 1859, highlighting the main events in relation to the Ahhotep discovery and the publication of its “notice”; graphic by Gianluca Miniaci Q.7 – “Copie d’une liste adressée par le Moudir de Kineh à la Maïeh Sanieh en date du 23 Ragab 1275 N 16 [25th February 1859] contenant les antiquités trouvées à Gurné” – anonymous (French version) “Copy of a list in which there is description of ancient objects found in the tomb of el-Qurna, in the directorate of Qena, returned to Ma’iyyeh, on the date of the 23rd of Ragab, year 1275 (Hijry) [25th February 1859], 16” – anonymous (Arabic version)42 recorded in the IB/JE (January) and with a letter written by Mariette in Luxor on February 14th (see below). 14th February 1859 = In the archives of the Centre Wladimir Golénischeff at the EPHE is a letter written by Mariette to the governor of Qena while being in Luxor [sic] dated to February 14th.38 The date and place of the letter should be reliable enough, since on February 21st Mariette was in Asyut (probably sailing back to Cairo).39 There is no mention in the letter of the discovery of the queen’s coffin. Therefore, there are only two possible options: either Mariette had not been informed about the discovery of the queen’s coffin (although the news should have had a certain resonance in Luxor) or this must have happened after Mariette’s departure from Luxor, sometime after February 14th. 25th February 1859 = Two copies of the coffin’s contents, drawn up in Arabic and in French, contain the first known inventory list of the objects associated with Queen Ahhotep.40 The two lists are both dated to February 25th 1859 (23 Ragab 1275 of the Hijri calendar)41 and were found among the papers in possession of Mariette, later passed to Maspero. Both lists seem to have been drafted from another original document which was composed on February 25th and certainly before the objects from the Ahhotep burial had been shipped by the governor of Qena to Cairo. The February 25th date might also correspond with the date of the official opening of the coffin,43 since the majority of testimonies suggest that the coffin was only opened at a later date by the governor of Qena (cf. Q.10, Q.12-13; contra see Q.34). However, between its discovery (presumably February 5th) and February 25th, at the latest, the coffin was opened (see Table 1). The manner in which these two documents came into the possession of Mariette is unknown; one could have been copied in Upper Egypt and accompanied the boat during the transport of boxes containing the “treasure” (cf. Q.14), while the other could have been copied in Cairo and officially passed onto Mariette by the central Letter of Mariette to the governor of Qena, Luxor 14th February 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 48. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 39 Letter of Mariette to the nazir of Girga, Asyut 21st February 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 49. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 40 Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’”, in this volume. 41 For the correspondence with the Gregorian calendar, see https://calendarhijri.com/en. 38 BIF Ms. 4052, f. 240-241. The emphasis is mine. See also Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 43 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Fadil Pasha, p. 36-8. 42 32 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Table 2 – Chronological table for the time span 1850-1900, highlighting the main events in relation to the Ahhotep assemblage and Mariette excavations at Dra Abu el-Naga North; graphic by Gianluca Miniaci administration or by his employees. They seem to correspond to the same documents mentioned by Théodule Devéria44 in his account about the recovery of the treasure by Mariette on the boat: March 22nd, after one day boat journey, Mariette came into possession of the Ahhotep treasure.47 Devéria, who was accompanying Mariette on the boat in that journey, provided a brief and vivid account about the event.48 From this account, the “treasure” of Ahhotep seems to have been inaccessible to Mariette for inspection, most probably still locked inside some packing cases or resealed inside the coffin itself. It is very likely that the funerary assemblage had been unpacked by Mariette only after after the arrival at Bulaq, where Devéria took some photos of the coffin and its content.49 According to Maspero, once back in Cairo, the objects had been offered by Mariette to Saïd Pasha, who took for himself only a necklace and the scarab, which would have eventually returned into the group not too long after.50 1st April 1859 = Among the papers of Mariette preserved in the BIF in Paris, there is a copy (both in French and Arabic) of a receipt-letter dated to April 1st 1859 (27 Shaban 1275 of the Hijri calendar)51 sent by the Maïeh in Cairo to the governor of Qena. The letter attests the re- Q.8 – “M. Mariette en reçut l’inventaire d’un de ses employés arabes. Le gouverneur en avait de son côté expédié la liste au vice-roi, en le prévenant de l’envoi direct de ces objets à la Cour khédiviale […]. Les deux listes comparées étaient assez bien d’accord, mais elles nous parurent singulièrement exagérées, quant au nombre des choses décrites et quant à leur poids d’or. Munis d’un ordre ministériel, conférant le droit d’arrêter tous les bateaux chargés de curiosités et de les transborder sur notre vapeur” – Devéria45 22nd March 1859 = After its opening, the coffin together with its funerary equipment was shipped from Upper Egypt to Cairo by the governor of Qena. On 21st March Mariette, impatient and afraid about the destiny of the queen’s equipment once it would have arrived in the docks of Cairo, decided not to wait and intercept the boat transporting the treasure downstream along the Nile under the surveillance of Bedawy Effendi46 (Q.9). On Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, ciii; see also David, Mariette Pacha, 114. 48 The content of the account is reported in Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii-ciii; translated into English by Winlock, JEA 10, 252-3. 49 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Théodule Devéria, p. 38-9. 50 Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, civ; David, Mariette Pacha, 115. 51 For the correspondence with the Gregorian calendar, see https://calendarhijri.com/en. 47 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Théodule Devéria, p. 38-9. 45 Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii. The emphasis is mine. 46 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Bedawy Effendi, p. 38. 44 33 Gianluca Miniaci ceipt of the “antiquities in gold” sent to Cairo and their transmission to Mariette for custody: Given the close date and the specific mention of objects in gold, this letter seems to refer to Ahhotep’s treasure and was presumably sent in response to the communication of the governor of Qena who informed the Khedival court that he had shipped the coffin and its precious assemblage to Cairo. In this case the antiquities were accompanied on the boat by Bedawy Effendi, a person not particularly dear to Mariette (cf. Q.14). August 1859-1862 = Most of the objects from the assemblage were brought to Paris for an exhibition in August 1859 at the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres and in the autumn of the same year were cleaned and restored in France. Not all the objects were brought to Paris, since at least the coffin remained in Cairo. Afterwards, Mariette had them exhibited in Boulogne-sur-Mer.53 There is no information – easy to be retrieved – about the destiny of the objects after 1859, but in 1862 they were displayed in London at the International Exhibition.54 16th October 1863 = On October 16th 1863, Mariette inaugurated the first national museum to open to the public in Egypt, the Bulaq Museum:55 it housed the assemblage of the Queen Ahhotep which represented one of the main attractions for the museum.56 In this year, at the latest, the whole burial assemblage received a number in the Inventaire de Bulaq, later repeated in the Journal d’Entrée of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.57 April-November 1867 = The objects from Ahhotep’s coffin were brought to France in order to be part of the Exposition Universelle which took place in Paris in 1867, from April to November.58 The exhibition was a great success, and the “treasure” played an essential role for the impact of Egyptian archaeology among the international community. During this time, the whole assemblage ran the risk of being torn apart, since the Empress Eugénie strongly expressed her desire to possess some of Ahhotep’s jewellery.59 However, all the pieces safely returned to Egypt thanks to the opposition of Mariette.60 October 1878 = In the month of October 1878, the Bulaq Museum and the house of Mariette suffered from a violent flooding. This event had little impact on the objects of Ahhotep, but it damaged the written documentation produced by Mariette. Indeed, in a letter of von Bisisng to Maspero, an “inventaire de Mariette” concerning the assemblage of Queen Ahhotep is mentioned in order to facilitate the reconstruction of the wesekh collar.61 This document seems to prove that the documentation produced by or in the hands of Mariette in relation to the assemblage of Ahhotep was larger than that preserved today. 1881 = On January 18th 1881, Mariette died and was succeeded by Gaston Maspero in the direction of the museum and antiquities service (Maslahat al-Athar). Mariette’s books, papers, notes, and manuscripts were bought by the French government in 1882 on the advice of Maspero and brought to Paris for the archives of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.62 At present, no relevant documents concerning Ahhotep’s group are known in Mariette’s archives in the BnF, but there is a group of documents preserved in the archives of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris.63 1900 = In 1900, Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing published Ahhotep’s objects, which aimed to be a full publication of the group, providing descriptions for most of the objects, photographs (a few) and drawings (mainly) (see also Pls III-VI).64 Nonetheless, he did not provide the Journal d’Entrée inventory numbers for them, but he instead followed the arrangement of elements in his BIF Ms. 4052, f. 242 (Arabic version f. 243). Podvin, Auguste Mariette, 118, 121. 54 Birch, Facsimiles. 55 The museum of Bulaq constituted the nucleus of the collection of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and it was formed by those objects collected during Mariette’s previous excavations. See Abou-Ghazi, ASAE 67, 15; Lebée, Le musée d’antiquités, 137-43; Piacentini, in Piacentini (ed.), Egypt and the pharaohs, 5-45; Piacentini, Rondot, in Eldamaty, Trad (eds), Egyptian Museum Collections, 949-56; Piacentini, in Raffaele, Nuzzolo, Incordino (eds), Recent discoveries, 221-36. 56 See also el-Shazly, “The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure”, in this volume. 57 See below, § The Burial Assemblage, Total number of recorded objects, p. 57. Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 35-49. Abou-Ghazi, ASAE 67, 19-20. 60 David, Mariette Pacha, 181-2; Thompson, Wonderful Things, vol. I, 235. 61 BIF Ms. 4005, f. 473 is dated to the “17 février 1907”, and is, therefore, later than von Bissing’s publication in 1900, which was intended not to be the ultimate report. 62 David, Gaston Maspero, 81. 63 See above, § Introduction, Premises, p. 27-8. See also below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Gaston Maspero, p. 41. Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 64 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund. Q.9 – “Copie de la traduction d’une lettre adressée par la Maïeh au Moudir de Kéneh en date 27 Shaban 1275 N 15 [1st April 1859]. La Maïeh accuse réception de votre lettre et en réponse, Elle vous averti que les antiquités en or adressées à la Maïeh sous la surveillance de Bedaoui effendi ont été remises entre les mains de M. Mariette” – Maïeh in Cairo52 52 53 58 59 34 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) letters as “réïs des traveaux de Gourneh”; see Q.4), although there were at least two other ruasa who could have partnered him. A document of Mariette addressed to the governor of Qena explicitly states that the ruasa Sheik Awad and Aly (Rabbah Ali?) had been appointed to supervise excavations in Qurna (“j’ai eu l’honneur de vous remettre relativement aux réïs des travaux d’antiquités, je vous prie d’inscrire comme réïs : [...] Pour Gournah, les nommés Aouad et Aly”).73 In another document of January 24th 1859, Mariette mentions a certain Moustapha-agha, “cawass des traveaux de Gournah”.74 A note of Vassalli in his Album di disegni (f. 111v) mentions some other ruasa who were probably supervising excavations on Mariette’s behalf at Thebes a few years later (1863): “Reis Rabbah Ali. Gournah / Ali Kalifeh Gournah. El Baharat / Ali Mohamed Gournah / Demmeraui – Luxor / Cavass Hussein ay. (?)”.75 However, no other indications are provided and they could have been assigned to different areas of Thebes (cf. for instance, Mohammed Damaraoui was assigned to Karnak in 1859).76 The exact number of workmen employed by Mariette at Dra Abu el-Naga should be 75, known from a letter of Mariette to the rais Awad (Q.4).77 Since in nineteenth century Egypt a workforce of twenty to thirty-five workers was usually supervised by a single rais,78 the presence of more than one rais for Mariette’s larger number of workers is not inconceivable at Dra Abu el-Naga at that time. Carter gave a different account of the discovery, unrelated to Mariette and instead connected to the private (illicit?) “enterprise” of a man called Ahmed Saïd elHagg79 (Q.34; cf. Q.12). However, also in this case there are no direct sources. own plate section.65 The absence of consistent inventory numbering creates some difficulties in providing a solid reference system for the entire group. Von Bissing had planned a special issue for the Catalogue Général series specifically devoted to the assemblage of the queen with dedicated new inventory numbers,66 but this project never saw light. In addition, von Bissing decided that the objects coming from Kamose’s coffin (the mirror,67 the bracelet,68 and the dagger69 – in addition to a scarab and a few amulets which unfortunately were lost) should have belonged to Queen Ahhotep too, so he mingled all the objects together, creating a layer of misinterpretation, occasionally still repeated in Egyptological literature nowadays.70 People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission Egyptian workmen and foremen = Apparently, the Egyptian workmen and foremen were the only direct witnesses to the discovery. Among those “invisible” people, there were probably the ruasa71 on the “payroll” of Mariette at Thebes (cf. Q.1). However, no direct information from any of them is currently known, although a certain amount of written documentation on the excavations would have been produced. For instance, from a letter of Mariette it is known that he expected some of the Egyptian people supervising the excavations on his behalf to produce written reports concerning the state of the works and discoveries, as well as indicating which antiquities were being shipped to the governorate storerooms.72 At Dra Abu el-Naga, rais Sheik Awad was the man responsible for reporting to Mariette (referred to in his Letter of Mariette to the governor of Qena, 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 43. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 74 Letter of Mariette to Moustapha-aga, Luxor 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 45. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 75 See Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 88. 76 Letter of Mariette to the ruasa, Luxor 24th January 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 47. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 77 The same number is also reported in David, Mariette Pacha, 112. 78 See Vyse, Operations; cf. Mariette, CRAIBL 3, 161, “une vingtaine d’hommes suffirent pour mettre au jour des cercueils de la XIe dynastie [read Seventeenth Dynasty]” (also followed by Winlock, JEA 10, 252). 79 See Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. See also below § The presumed Architectural Structure, Placed in a hole dug out inside a mud-brick structure, p. 50-1. Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, Table 5. 66 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 67 Louvre E 3458; Desti, Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant, 221. 68 Louvre E 7168; Desti, Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant, 220. 69 Bruxelles, Royal Library of Belgium, Coin Cabinet; Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5, 45-67. 70 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 24; cf. Bovot, in Hein (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde, 263, nr. 364 and fig. 71 Doyon, in Carruthers (ed.), Histories of Egyptology, 145, 147. 72 See for instance the letter of Mariette addressed to the nazir des traveaux d’antiquités of Girga: “Vous m’addresserez des rapports sur le résultats des traveaux en mettant votre lettre à la poste à mon adresse au Caire [...]. A ce rapport vous aurez toujours soin de joindre un état des antiquités que vous aurez expédiées à Girgeh”, Asyut 21st February 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 49. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 73 65 35 Gianluca Miniaci Unfortunately, Egyptological history has largely omitted Egyptian written sources (archives of the khedival court and local governors), which creates a big gap in our historical and archaeological reconstruction. Engagement between Egyptian Egyptologists and Egyptian historians of nineteenth century AD Egypt would be necessary to explore this area more effectively and possibly fill the gap. Victor Maunier = Victor Gustave Maunier,80 a French antiquities dealer in Luxor often wrongly mistaken for a consular agent in the same nineteenth century sources, was among the first Europeans to be informed about the discovery of the treasure (together with Gabet),81 and he produced the first written record about it (Q.1). He was particularly enthusiastic about the find, noticing that the coffin was gilded and of magnificent manufacture, and that it bore an inscription of certain interest (given the presence of the cartouche; see Fig. 1b):82 probably his enthusiasm, his own sealing affixed over the coffin, and his immediate letter to Mariette could be seen as attempts to obtain some “profit” from this discovery.83 From Maunier’s description, the coffin seems to have still been closed at that time (or it was carefully reclosed by the workmen who had discovered it). Charles Gabet = Charles Edmond Gabet84 was appointed as inspector of the Theban district under Mariette’s supervision on June 25th 1859,85 although he was already in Luxor at the time of Ahhotep’s discovery. He also became assistant curator in the Bulaq Museum at the time of its opening. Although he is likely to have played an important role in the timeline of Ahhotep’s discovery and public display, there is no information from his side. From later accounts (Q.13), Gabet, together with Maunier, was the first European to be informed about the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin.86 Joseph Bonnefoy = In 1858, Mariette entrusted to his assistant Marius François Joseph Bonnefoy87 the di- rection of excavations in Qurna. However, by the end of November he was sent by Mariette to Lower Egypt (“je vous invite à prendre soin des travaux qui se font ou vont se faire dans la Basse-Egypte, à partir de Béni-Souef”).88 He was called back to Luxor by Mariette only in March 185989 where he died (16th August 1859)90 not long after the discovery of the queen’s assemblage. Therefore, he is scarcely mentioned in connection with this event, although he played an important role in Theban excavations. Fadil Pasha = Fadil Pasha, the governor of Qena province, was connected with the coffin of Ahhotep and its assemblage to a very profound degree after it had been found and brought to the storerooms of Karnak. He played the “role of the villain” since he seems to have acted in an illegitimate way, confiscating the coffin, opening it, ravaging the mummy, and shipping it to Cairo against Mariette’s will. However, the events of Ahhotep’s coffin in connection with the governor of Qena have been narrated exclusively from a European perspective. To what extent the accounts of Devéria (Q.10-11) are based on trustworhy eyewitnesses or Mariette himself is unknown. However, his version is the one faithfully reproduced by Maspero two decades later in 1883 (Q.12), and – with slight embellishments – in 1902 (Q.13). Q.10 – “M. Maunier prévenu de cette découverte, envoya à Mariette une copie de l’inscription, assez lisible pour que j’aie pu reconnaître qu’il s’agissait de la momie d’une reine nommée Aah-Hotep. Mariette écrivit alors de l’envoyer tout de suite à Boulaq par un vapeur spécial ; malheureusement, avant réception de cette lettre, le gouverneur de la province avait fait ouvrir le cercueil, par curiosité ou par zèle malentendu, on ne sait trop […]. On avait jeté, comme de coutume, la toile et les ossements, pour ne conserver que les objets ensevelis avec la momie” – Devéria91 Q.11 – “Le gouverneur de la province la [Ahhotep’s coffin] fit apporter chez lui et eut l’audace de l’ouvrir lui-même, en dépit des protestations du surveillant des travaux. [unreadable] cachet d’un européen (Français) qui réside à Luqsor. Les bandelettes furent déchirées et enlevées dans le harem de ce pacha, le corps brisé puis jeté dehors ; on ne conserva que les objets précieux Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 363; Weens, in Cooke (ed.), Journeys erased by time, 101-13. 81 See below, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Charles Gabet, p. 36. 82 See also Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume, fig. 1. 83 Maunier was involved in the trade of antiquities, “Such objects of curiosity, works of art, domestic utensils, etc I find in these excavations, I send immediately to Cairo, where the Pasha is forming a museum”, in Weens, in Cooke (ed.), Journeys erased by time, 104. 84 Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 203. 85 Information from BIF Ms. 4052, f. 226. 86 See Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 87 Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 67. Bonnefoy entered in service on 1st June 1858 and was dismissed from his duties 10th March 1859, see BIF Ms. 4052, f. 226. 80 Letter of Mariette to Bonnefoy, Bulaq 20th November 1858, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 37. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 89 Letter of Mariette toErfan Bey (?), 10th March 1859, EPHE Golénischeff, Ms. boîte 44, pièce 44. Transcription courtesy of Thomas Lebée. 90 Information from BIF Ms. 4052, f. 226. 91 Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii. The emphasis is mine. 88 36 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) claim of Mariette that the coffin was discovered by his workmen could have been more disputed than the Egyptological tradition shows: the legal and financial regulations of archaeological finds at that time did not have yet clear borders, and situations were evaluated on a caseby-case basis. For instance, in April 1859, the rais Muhammad Husein, working on behalf of Lord Dufferin at Deir el-Bahri, had troubles with some of Mariette’s men and Fadil Pasha had to intervene and stop the excavations of both missions, awaiting a clarifying firman from Saïd Pasha.96 Indeed, not by chance, in the following decades, the government authorities underwent a redefinition of the legal rights of intervention, in order to solve more and more frequent disputes raised over the ownership of antiquities.97 If it really took place, the presumed destruction of the mummy attributed to the governor and portrayed as an inappropriate act would have been in line with the customs of the time of unwrapping mummies and searching for objects amongst the bandages.98 The mummy of Kamose, discovered a few months before by Mariette’s workmen, underwent a similar fate (and according to Desjardins, it was Mariette himself who had “ravaged” the mummy searching for antiquities: “M. Mariette, après avoir levé les dernières bandelettes, fouilla dans le corps de ce rois [Kamose] enseveli depuis de quatre mille ans, et il en retira un scarabée, des amulettes et deux petits lions d’or couchés”).99 Also the action of sending the coffin with its contents to Qena and then to Cairo was in line with the normal procedure of the time. Indeed, a decree of 1835 had placed on local governors the legal obligation for bringing antiquities to the Antikhana,100 and the governor of Qena acted accordingly, shipping all the objects to Cairo instead of waiting for the boat sent by Mariette to gather Ahhotep’s antiquities (Q.10). Indeed, only later Mariette obtained, directly from the viceroy, a special ministerial order for stopping the boat and confiscating the coffin.101 qui y étaient enfermés, encore en fit-on sans doute disparaitre quelques uns et ce n’est qu’à grand peine que Mr Mariette parvient à rentrer en possession du plus des pièces principales pour les placer dans la collection du vice-roi” – Devéria92 Q.12 – “La momie de la reine Ahhotpou fut découverte par les fouilleurs arabes, en 1860, et confisquée par le moudir de Qénéh, qui la fit ouvrir et s’empara de ce qu’elle contenait. Le bruit de la trouvaille s’étant répandu, M. Mariette mit la main sur le cercueil et sur les bijoux qui sont exposés dans la vitrine H, mais pas assez à temps pour empêcher que beaucoup d’objets précieux eussent été volés” – Maspero (version 1883)93 Q.13 – “Le bruit de la trouvaille s’étant répandu promptement, le moudir de Kéneh saisit le cercueil et prévint le vice-roi Saîd Pacha. Mariette, averti à son tour par M. Gabet, Inspecteur des fouilles, et par M. Maunier, agent consulaire de France à Louxor, fit expédier aussitôt l’ordre de conserver le cercueil tel qu’il était, mais l’ordre ne fut pas exécuté : la momie fut déshabillée dans le harem du moudir et une partie des objets qu’elle portait disparut dans l’opération. Mariette eut grande peine à obtenir la restitution des autres, et avant qu’ils lui fussent remis, plusieurs d’entre eux furent retenus par le prince” – Maspero (version 1902)94 Nonetheless these accounts mainly mirror European scholars’ point of view and show a touch of “orientalism”, building up a tradition which took hold in Egyptological literature: the coffin was supposedly opened by the governor in his harem (probably to be intended as a sector of the private apartments of the “Mudirieh” of the governor); the mummy was ravaged in search for precious objects; much of the original burial equipment was stolen. No primary written records about the event, including Arabic/Turkish sources such as the governmental archives, have been used for its reconstruction, and the only records provided show a tendentious reinterpretation. Actually, the facts would have been more nuanced than those handed down in the Egyptological tradition. A part of the wages of the workforce devoted to the archaeological tasks on the west bank of Thebes was in the charge of the governor of Qena.95 Therefore, the of sections”, an elaboration of al-mashayikh sheykhs of a village, as documented in a register of 1613-15. These are heads of the (mainly) agricultural workforce which needed to pay the levy, see Michel, L’Égypte des villages, 290-1. The terms “corvée” used in some instance by Mariette in relation of his excavation workforce (cf. David, Mariette Pacha, 109; Lebée, CAHIERS 5, 59) may mirror a system in use from the central administration applied also for the organisation of the “archaeological” work of Mariette. 96 The episode is quoted in Edwards, JEA 51, 17. 97 Cf. Hunter, Egypt under the Khedives. The redefinition of authority in Egypt in the nineteenth century AD is investigated by Fahmy, In Quest of Justice. 98 Cf. Riggs, Unwrapping Ancient Egypt, 56-8. 99 Desjardins, RGA 18, 53. 100 David, Mariette Pacha, 115-6; Khater, Le Régime juridique, 37-71. 101 Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii-ciii. Cahier de notes Devéria, 1858-59, Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités égyptiennes. The emphasis is mine. See also Appendix A at the end of the article. 93 Maspero, Guide Musée de Boulaq [1883], 77. The emphasis is mine. 94 Maspero, Guide Musée du Caire [1902], 413-14. The emphasis is mine. 95 The word for rais/ruasa can come from ruus al-hisas, “heads 92 37 Gianluca Miniaci B. Another more formal document mentions some antiquities shipped by Fadil Pasha to Cairo and later ending up in the hands of Mariette, together with the list of the objects produced in connection with the dispatch. Furthermore, the presence of the two lists drafted on 25th February may indicate the opposite of a thoughtless action, and the governor of Qena could have been instead following a legal and formal procedure for the opening of the coffin: listing all the contents from the coffin in front of a sort of official “notary”.102 Three documents (A.-C., respectively Q.14-16) show the procedure in action at Thebes at that time: the antiquities found on behalf of Mariette were assigned to Fadil Pasha, who shipped them to a recipient in Cairo (Maïeh), accompanied by a list of contents drafted by or on behalf of Fadil Pasha, and later both objects and lists were redirected to Mariette. In other cases, Mariette visited the storerooms of the “Mudirieh”at Qena and selected the objects that were destined for Cairo or his storerooms in Luxor. A. The first document is a letter, left undated and written by Mariette: it mentions some objects coming from his own excavations at Qurna shipped to Cairo (?) (and from Cairo to him?) by Fadil Pasha together with a list of content personally drafted by the governor himself.103 Q. 15 – “Copie d’une liste envoyée à la Maïeh par le Moudir de Kineh en date de 12 Chawal 1274 [25th May 1858] contenant les antiquités trouvées à Gourneh”.105 C. A page of Montaut’s diary records a visit paid by Mariette to the governor of Qena in October 1858 in order to see the antiquities deposited in the “Mudirieh”. Q. 16 – “[Mariette] choisit quelques objets et donne l’ordre qu’on les porte à son bateau à vapeur. Les autres devront venir à Thebes dans un magasin général qu’il y fera préparer” – Montaut106 Bedawy Effendi = Bedawy Effendi was a local official, probably based in Luxor, working under the direction of the governor of Qena. Unfortunately, there is no complete information in the Egyptological sources about this person, although his relations with Mariette would not have been very friendly, as documented in one of the letters of Mariette, who complains about the behavior of Bedawy Effendi, not following his instructions (Q.14). The expressed request of sending Bedawy Effendi to Abydos in Q.14 may be a direct effect of the Ahhotep episode, although the letter was left undated. Effendi seems to have been on the boat sent to Cairo accompanying the treasure (Q.9). Théodule Devéria = Théodule Charles Devéria,107 who often accompanied Mariette as copyist and photographer, arrived in Cairo at the end of December 1858,108 and was with Mariette when he received the news about Ahhotep’s discovery. He was also with Mariette on the boat when the assemblage was retrieved by the French scholar (Q.8). In this case, he produced a vivid (and embroidered?) account of the event (“M. Mariette propose à l’un de le jeter à l’eau, à un autre de lui brûler la cervelle, à un troisième de l’envoyer aux galères, et à un quatrième de le faire pendre”).109 Devéria is also responsible for a kind of preliminary list of the contents of the treasure written in one of Q.14 – “Erfan-bey Excellence, En réponse à la lettre de Votre Excellence de …. j’ai l’honneur de vous informer que j’ai reçu la caisse envoyée par Fadil Pacha et contenant des antiquités trouvées par moi à Gournah. La liste de ces antiquités est conforme à la liste ci-jointe dressée par Fadil-Pacha lui-même. Quant à Bedaoui-effendi, j’ai de grands sujets de plainte contre lui et depuis long-temps. Il a brisé des monuments de ses mains et à Gournah, il a battu fait battre des réïs pour les forcer à me désobéir, et lui-même il a fait tout le contraire des instructions que je lui avais laissées, étant cependant un serviteur mis par Votre Excellence à ma disposition. Je ne demande cependant pas sa destitution, quoique je l’eusse obtenue facilement de Son Altesse quand j’ai eu l’honneur de la voir. Mais je demande qu’il soit envoyé, conformément à vos premiers ordres, à Harabat-el-Madfounet [Abydos], en l’informant qu’il doit m’obéir en tout ce que je lui commanderai pour le bien du service dont je suis chargé. Quelques mots sévères adressés par Votre Excellence à cet employé le forceront à comprendre ses devoirs un peu mieux qu’il ne l’a fait jusqu’à présent” – Mariette104 See Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’”, in this volume. 103 The fact that this letter was found in the same folder containing the letter of Maunier, the mention of Bedawy Effendi and the detonative hostility shown by Mariette towards him might suggest a connection with the Ahhotep story (i.e. could this letter have been written soon after the confiscation of Ahhotep assemblage by Mariette?). 104 BIF Ms. 4030, f. 392. The emphasis is mine. The transcription is given by Elisabeth David. 102 BIF Ms. 4025, f. 235. Journal de Montaut, f. 35v, October 1858; Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités égyptiennes. Transcription courtesy of Elisabeth David. 107 Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 153; Maspero, in Devéria, Mémoires et fragments; Le Guern, L’Antiquité à la BnF. 108 David, Mariette Pacha, 110. 109 Reported in Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii ff; translated in Winlock, JEA 10, 252-3. 105 106 38 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) his diaries – still unpublished – kept in the Musée du Louvre, unfortunately without any date. In addition, he took the first (?) photographs of the coffin and part of its burial equipment111 (see Figs 2-3, 17, 21-22, Pls I-II). Devéria’s negatives and photos are now in the archives of the Musée d’Orsay, gathered from the archives of the Louvre (DAE) in the years 1980-90.112 On the back of most of these photos is indicated the date “1859”, a sign that the pictures were taken in the same year as the discovery, probably soon after Mariette had retrieved the coffin and its funerary equipment. Indeed, the background of some of these photos may provide further information about the place where they were taken. In the photo PHO 1986 131 221 (see Fig. 2) are present some vertical bars, while in the photo PHO 1986 131 220 in the upper right corner is visible a thick rope rolled up around a kind of thick metal cleat (see Fig. 3). These elements are those of the storerooms of Bulaq (just behind Mariette’s house), as visible in another photo of Devéria himself, provided with an explicative label: “Magasins de remorquage à Boulaq” (PHO 1986 131 185; see Fig. 4). Therefore, most probably the photographs of Devéria were taken right at the arrival of the objects in the storerooms of Mariette at Bulaq in March 1859. Ernest Desjardins = Antoine Émile Ernest Desjardins113 was a close friend and admirer of Mariette,114 and officially in charge of reading his excavation accounts in front of the members of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in Paris when Mariette was away. He was the first scholar to produce a more detailed account about the discovery and content of the assemblage in 1860, although this aimed only to be preliminary (see above R.4). From November 1862 to January 1863, Desjardins visited Upper Egypt, accompanied by Mariette, and had the chance to meet also Vassalli and Gabet, who were excavating at Thebes on behalf of Mariette.115 Q.17 – “Voici maintenant la liste des principaux objets trouvés dans la momie : (voir p. 63 l’extrait de la lettre de Mr Maunier) (vases, chevet, coffre, étui à collyre) 1o Une hache d’arme en or incrustée de pierres dures et portant la légende complète du roi Aahmès ; 2o plusieurs haches de bronze sans légendes apparentes ; 3o un poignard sans gaine dont le manche est en or massif et la lame en bronze ; sans ornements ni légendes ; 4o un poignard muni d’une gaine d’or et dont le manche de bois sculpté est orné de quatre têtes humaines, recouvert de lames d’or et incrusté de pierres dures, sans légende apparente ; 5o trois ou quatre petits poignards plus ou moins ornés ; 6o un flagellum ou éventail de bois recouvert de lames d’or et pourtant sur chaque face les cartouches prénom du roi Kamès ; 7o plusieurs chaînes d’or de différentes formes ; et [unreadable] la plus grande, longue de près de deux mètres et fort pesante porte sur les fermoirs les deux cartouches du roi Aah-mès ; un scarabée d’or incrusté de lapis lazuli et admirablement travaillé, y est suspendu. 8o plusieurs bracelets et anneaux de jambes en or et de différentes formes mais sans légendes, 9o trois bracelets composés de grains de pierres dures et d’or en passés dans des fils du même métal en forme de mosaïque, avec les noms d’Aahmès sur les fermoirs ; 10o un bracelet d’or avec personnages ciselés et incrustations de lapis lazuli ; on y lit les cartouches d’Aahmès. 11o un bracelet d’or incrusté de pierres dures ayant la forme d’un épervier les ailes éployées 12o un autre bracelet d’or incrusté de pierres dures et formé d’une grosse torsade qui supporte le cartouche d’Aah-mès entre deux sphinx ; la partie inférieure de ce joyau est munie d’un appendice toujours incrusté de pierres dures et destiné à l’empêcher de tourner sur le bras. 13o Un pectoral d’or découpé à jour et incrusté de pierres dures taillées en très léger relief et représentant le roi Aahmès entre deux divinités, avec accessoires et légendes hiéroglyphiques, cette dernière pièce est certainement le plus beau de tous les bijoux antiques connus jusqu’à ce jour; 14o un miroir métallique avec un manche de bois orné d’or. 15o un petit modèle de barque avec ses rameurs, 16o un autre modèle de barque en or avec ses rameurs en argent et les chefs de l’équipage également en or ; celui-ci porte le nom de Kamès ; 17o un modèle de char à quatre roues en bronze et bois pour supporter l’une de deux barques ; 18o diverses parties de colliers et autres objets” – Devéria110 Cahier de notes Devéria, 1858-59, Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités égyptiennes. See also Appendix A 110 39 and Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’”, in this volume. 111 Musée d’Orsay, photos inv. nos: PHO 1986 144 93/MS 163 89 and PHO 1986 131 220 (coffin lying horizontally, with the four calcite jars, wooden box, kohl jar and headrest); PHO 1986 144 104/MS 164 4, PHO 1986 144 94/MS 163 90 and PHO 1986 131 221 (standing coffin with the four calcite jars, wooden box, kohl jar and headrest); PHO 1986 144 95/MS 163 91, PHO 1986 144 96/MS 163 92 and PHO 1986 131 219 (detail of the coffin, profile); PHO 1986 144 97/MS 163 93 and PHO 1986 131 216 (foot end of the coffin). See also comments in Le Guern, L’Antiquité à la BnF. 112 Information kindly provided by Elisabeth David; see also Staring, JEA 102, 146. 113 Maître de conférences at the École Normale Supérieure in 1874; afterwards professor at the Collège de France. Responsible for the course of Géographie at the École Normale in 1861: de Franqueville, Le Premier Siècle, vol. I, no. 827. 114 David, Mariette Pacha, 74. 115 David, Mariette Pacha, 148. Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 2 – Photo of the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep in standing position with a few objects of its assemblage, photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 131 221 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt 40 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Fig. 3 – Coffin of the Queen Ahhotep laying on its base; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 131 220 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt Fig. 4 – Storerooms of Mariette at Bulaq; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 131 185 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt There are other persons, who were not directly involved with the 1859 events, but who played an important role in the transmission of the “account of the discovery” because they were closely connected to Mariette: Vassalli, Brugsch, and Maspero. Luigi Vassalli = In 1859, Mariette decided to engage Luigi Vassalli116 to supervise some of his archaeological activities, but in that year he was primarily in the necropolis of Giza. Shortly after he returned from Italy, where he had joined Garibaldi in 1860, Vassalli was under Mariette service again from the 29th October 1861,117 and he was sent to Thebes only in December 1862 in order to continue excavation in the same area of Dra Abu el-Naga where the coffin of Ahhotep had been discovered before.118 Inevitably, the news about Ahhotep’s discovery reached Vassalli’s ears either via Mariette or any of the workmen/foremen working under his supervision. Heinrich Brugsch = Although behind the scenes, also Heinrich Ferdinand Karl Brugsch119 would have played an important role, since he was a close friend of Mariette. Information reached Brugsch via Mariette rather quickly, as for instance the first account about the discovery of Kamose’s coffin is contained in a letter sent by Brugsch to von Humboldt on the 31st of December 1857 “In Theben ist ein Sarkophag aus den Zeiten der 12ten Dynastie [sic; read instead Seventeenth Dynasty] (älter als 2000 Jahre vor unserer Ära) aus der Erde gezogen, welcher außer der In Staub zerfallenen Mumie, einen Dolch mit goldenem Griff, zwei Löwen in Gold und einen noch unbekannten Königsnamen enthält”.120 He also helped Mariette in drafting the first register of the Museum of Bulaq. Nonetheless, at the moment, there is no information about the Ahhotep discovery from his side. Gaston Maspero = Gaston Camille Charles Maspero121 met Mariette only in 1867, therefore a few years after the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin, and when he was at a young age (twenty-one); nonetheless on February 8th 1881, he succeeded Mariette as director of the Museum of Bulaq and head of the Antiquities Service, taking charge of his legacy too, being executor of Mariette’s will. In the archives of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris, there is a thin folder titled “Fouilles de Gournah”,122 introduced by a paper explaining the reason why this group of papers was in the hands of Maspero: “Fouilles de Gournah de Mariette. Mariette est mort le 18 janvier 1881. Gaston Maspero a été prié par les enfants Mariette de regarder les papiers laissés par lui / l’annotation à publier en grande partie […]”.123 Unfortunately, these are only a few scattered papers, from different times, but several of these refer to the excava- Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 552-4. See also Tiradritti, in Marée (ed.), Second Intermediate Period, 329-42. See also La Guardia, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 11-44. 117 Information from BIF Ms. 4052, f. 226. 118 See below, § The presumed Location of the Burial, Khawi el-Alamat, near TT 155, p. 45-7. 119 Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 84-5. 120 Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5, 48. Dawson, Uphill, Bierbrier, Who Was Who, 359-61; David, Gaston Maspero. 122 BIF Ms. 4062, ff. 148-165. 123 BIF Ms. 4062, f. 148. The inventory lists of February 25th are in another folder, see Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 116 121 41 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 5 – Plan of the necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga © drawing by Gianluca Miniaci tions at Dra Abu el-Naga.124 In 1883, he published his first edition of the guide to the Bulaq Museum, after the six editions issued by Mariette from 1864 till his death. In his edition, he detailed the information already provided by Mariette in his various editions, adding new details, whose source is often unknown.125 mose.126 In addition, just over one year later, on January/ February 1859 he would have discovered the burial of Queen Ahhotep. It is worth emphasizing that Mariette in 1853 had purchased for the Louvre two other royal coffins of the Seventeenth Dynasty, previously part of the collection of Triantaphillos,127 coming from Dra Abu el-Naga North as well128 (see Table 2). Probably the connections between the discovery of the two royal coffins by Triantaphillos, the purchase of them by Mariette and the area selected in Dra Abu el-Naga were deeper than the sources seem to suggest. Dra Abu el-Naga North = In spite of the lack of precise information, the area where the coffin of Ahhotep had been found can be approximately located within the northernmost part of Dra Abu el-Naga North (see Figs 5-6; see also Q.4).129 The presumed Location of the Burial Since his arrival at Thebes, Mariette decided to devote one part of his research to the northern section of Dra Abu el-Naga. The selection of the area could be due to the incredible intuition of the French Egyptologist, but probably it was also the result of his personal acquaintances and the accumulated knowledge and experience from the local workmen. Excavations of Mariette were significantly rapid in Dra Abu el-Naga: in December 1857, Mariette had already discovered the coffin of Ka- Egyptian Museum, Cairo TR 14.12.27.12, Daressy, ASAE 9, 61-3, pl. 9; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 226-7 (rT03C). 127 Dewachter, RdE 36, 43-66; Dewachter, in Leclant (ed.), Entre Égypte et Grèce, 119-29. 128 Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 37. 129 Other short accounts on Mariette excavations at Dra Abu el-Naga can be found in Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 41-3. 126 BIF Ms. 4062, f. 150 reproduces the box coffin belonging to Sobeknakht, coming from the same tomb of Hornakht found by Vassalli in Dra Abu el-Naga in 1863, cf. Ms. Vassalli AV f. 110v in the Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano – Fondo Luigi Vassalli, Album H 2 and Miniaci, Quirke, EVO 31, fig. 2. For a rishi coffin of a private individual named Ahmose, see BIF Ms. 4062, f. 153, and see below. 125 Abou-Ghazi, ASAE 67, 22. 124 42 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Fig. 6 – Dra Abu el-Naga north. View from the east. On the right the narrow rocky slope called Bab abu Negga. Between the two hills the mouth of the wadi Khawi el-Alamat. Photo by Gianluca Miniaci in the plain and onto the hill of Dra Abu el-Naga North next to the entrance of the Valley of the Kings (Q.19). From this area come the coffin of the King Kamose and other burials of the same period. The royal coffin of Kamose was discovered in December 1857 by the workmen excavating on behalf of Mariette at Dra Abu el-Naga North (see Q.20-21). On 9th November 1858, Mariette recorded a rishi coffin bearing the name of the “Man/Official (?) of the City” (s n niwt or sHAwt wr n niwt) Ahmose, not known from other sources. A drawing of this coffin is preserved in the folder of Qurna excavations among a few scattered papers of Mariette taken into the possession of Maspero in 1881133 (see Fig. 7). Unfortunately the provenance of the coffin is not precisely indicated beyond a generic “Gournah”,134 but the style and type of the coffin can be compared with that one of Kamose and other coffins later found by Vassalli in the northernmost part of Dra Abu el-Naga.135 In addition, a photo of Devéria taken in the storeroom area of Bulaq shows another rishi coffin bearing the handwritten notes “Qournah” in the front and “1859” on the verso136 (see Fig. 8). The rishi style of the coffins is very diagnostic of the Second Intermediate Period–early Eighteenth Dynasty.137 Therefore the exploration of a Second Intermediate Period cemetery along the hills of Dra Abu el-Naga Q.18 – “L’endroit où M. Mariette fit faire la fouille avait fourni déjà des cercueils de rois de la XIe dynastie [read Seventeenth Dynasty], dont les souverains ne possédaient, selon toute apparence, que la Thébaïde” – Desjardins130 Q.19 – “Malgré les nombreux explorateurs qui avaient précédé M. Mariette dans la partie de Gournah qui porte le nom de Drah-Aboul-Neggah, il remarqua, presque à l’entrée de la longue vallée qui mène à Biban-el-Moluk, une bande de terrain dont le sol, formé d’éclats de pierres et de poteries brisées, trahissait un de ces lieux de sépulture antique qui semblaient à l’éminent archéologue avoir été affectés aux rois de la XI dynastie. Ce terrain n’avait jamais été fouillé. […]” – Desjardins131 Mariette concentrated his work mainly in Dra Abu el-Naga North, probably excluding the hills of Dra Abu el-Naga South. He certainly explored the main hill in Dra Abu el-Naga North, where he (re)-discovered the tomb of Nubkheperre Intef.132 As stated by Desjardins, he worked also Desjardins, RGA 18, 53. The emphasis is mine. Desjardins, RGA 18, 99. The emphasis is mine. 132 Mariette, Monuments divers, pl. 50 (copy of the inscription of one of the obelisks of Nubkheperre Intef). Actually, in his notes, Mariette records “celles des rois Ra-noub-Kheper-Entef et Sevek-em-Saf”, Mariette, RAr 2, 28. Puzzlingly, Mariette does not give sufficient evidence for the tomb of Sobekemsaf. As suggested by Weill, probably when Mariette discovered Intef Nubkheperre’s tomb, he recalled the story that a golden scarab inscribed with the name of a King Sobekemsaf was associated through an account of Athanasi with the discovery of the King Intef coffin in 1827. In his notes, Mariette would have associated by mistake the name of Sobekemsaf with that of Nubkheperre, see Weill, La fin du Moyen Empire, 363. However, there could be some faint evidence that Mariette actually discovered a tomb of a king 130 131 called Sobekemsaf, see Miniaci, EVO 29, 75-87. See discussions in Polz, Der Beginn, 123-30. 133 BIF Ms. 4062, f. 153. See above, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Gaston Maspero, p. 41. 134 The “Gournah” reference poses some problems as it can be interepreted both as the excavation provenance but also as the storeroom for Mariette’s excavations on the west bank of Thebes (cf. Q.1). 135 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 56-63. See below, § The presumed Location of the Burial, Khawi el-Alamat, near TT 155 , p. 45-7. 136 Musée d’Orsay, PHO 1986 131 261. 137 Cf. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins. 43 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 7 – Drawing of a rishi coffin bearing the name of the “Overseer of the City” Ahmose – Fonds Maspero Ms 4062, f. 153 © courtesy of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France 44 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Fig. 8 – Rishi coffin in the storeroom area of Bulaq; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 131 261 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt Khawi el-Alamat, near TT 155 = The general information about Dra Abu el-Naga North can be further narrowed down, thanks to the information provided by Vassalli and Carter (also re-posted by Winlock), who could have been somehow aware of its original location. on behalf of Mariette seems to have been uninterrupted from 1857 to 1859. Certainly, the excavation activity of Mariette in that area for a prolonged time (1857-59) would have also attracted “side”-excavations and illicit digs in the area. Close to Kamose = Other accounts provide the information – and they are all consistent in this – that the find-spots of Ahhotep’s and Kamose’s coffin were close each other. Q.22 – “Je ne veux pas commencer la nouvelle année sans vous écrire deux mots […]. J’ai abandonné le projet d’aller dans la vallée de l’ouest, où j’ai vu la presque impossibilité de ne rien trouver, tandis que les fouilles de Drah abou Neggah me promettent mieux ; j’ai mis moitié des hommes dans l’emplacement que nous avons visité ensemble et le reste sur la lisière de la montagne de la reine Ahhotep et sur les environs du sarcophage de S.A. le prince Napoléon [read Kamose]” – Vassalli140 Q.20 – “M. Mariette a trouvé, en 1859, au même endroit [the find-spot Kamose’s coffin], un autre cercueil [Ahhotep’s] semblable à celui-là” – Desjardins138 Q.21 – “Le tombe di Gurnah sono scavate parte nella collina e parte nella pianura. Alcune delle ultime hanno il pozzo verticale che conduce alla camera sepolcrale, ma la maggior parte ne sono prive. Fu in una di queste che il signor Mariette anni sono scoprì un sarcofago inviolato [Kamose] […]. È pure all’incirca in questo posto un po’ verso l’alto della collina che fu scoperto dal signor Mariette il magnifico sarcofago dorato della regina Ahhotep” – Vassalli139 Q.23 – “Non molto distante [the find-spot of Ahhotep’s coffin] e precisamente ai piedi della collina io ritrovai pure un bel sarcofago, che conteneva la mummia di un principe per nome Tuau [coffin inscribed for Hornakht; thorw-stick bearing the name of the king’s son Tjuiu]” – Vassalli141 BnF Ms. 20179, f. 278. Letter of Vassalli to Mariette, Gurnah 1st January 1863. The emphasis is mine. 141 Vassalli, I monumenti istorici egizi, 131. The emphasis is mine. The reference is to the tomb of Hornakht in which the throw-stick of prince Tuau (read Tjuiu) was found. 140 138 139 Desjardins, RGA 18, 53. The emphasis is mine. Vassalli, I monumenti istorici egizi, 128. The emphasis is mine. 45 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 9 – Vassalli’s drawing of some scenes from the tomb of the “great royal herald” Intef (TT 155); see the annotation “Tomba vicina al N. 104 D. A. Negga Reis Rabba” in the upper right-hand corner; Album di disegni Vassalli, Ms. AV, f. 112v © courtesy of the Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano – Fondo Luigi Vassalli, Album H 2 Fig. 10 – Dra Abu el-Naga North, area around TT 155 © photo by Gianluca Miniaci 46 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) recorded in Vassalli’s Album di disegni.148 Therefore, given the coincidence of the date of discovery and overlap of the types of the burial equipment, it is possible to suppose that in the season December 1862-January 1863, Vassalli had found a cluster of tombs all belonging to the same period (Second Intermediate Period), one next to another. The tomb of Hornakht should have been included in this cluster, not too distant from the tomb no. 104, and – in consequence – in the neighbourhood of the tomb of the “Great Royal Herald” Intef 149 (TT 155; see Fig. 10). As stated by Vassalli, the tomb of Hornakht was not so distant from the find spot of Ahhotep (just the latter should have been located more up to the hill; cf. Q.23): in consequence, Ahhotep’s burial should have also been in the proximity of TT 155 (see Fig. 5). The hypothesis pieced together from Vassalli’s scattered notes seems to be confirmed by a piece of later information handed down by Carter,150 that the queen’s burial was found in close proximity to TT 155.151 The same information is reported in a footnote also by Winlock who heard this from Carter himself. According to Vassalli the burial of Queen Ahhotep was not too distant from the tomb of Hornakht (Q.23), although unfortunately there is no information about the exact position of the last. Nonetheless, some hypotheses can be advanced, since during Vassalli’s work at Dra Abu el-Naga in 1862-63, he set up his work in the area where the coffins of Kamose and Ahhotep had been found a few years before and here discovered some burials of the same time span (Q.22). In his Album di disegni, Vassalli had noted in a drawing of some scenes from the tomb of the “Great Royal Herald” Intef (TT 155) the following text (see Fig. 9): Q.24 – “Tomba vicina al N. 104 D. A. Negga Reis Rabba / i coni degli Entef furono trovati vicini – 16 Gennaio 1863” – Vassalli142 Therefore, Vassalli’s tomb 104 was located near TT 155. The position of Vassalli’s tomb 104 is nowadays lost but TT 155 is well known, located in the northernmost part of Dra Abu el-Naga North, at the mouth of the wadi called Khawi el-Alamat143 (see Fig. 10; cf. Fig. 6). Vassalli was working in tomb 104 on 23rd December 1862,144 and in the same time, on 21st December 1862, Vassalli had discovered also the burial of the “Royal Acquaintance” Hornakht (Q.23),145 misinterpreted as “un principe per nome Tuau” since it was equipped with the throw-stick inscribed for the “King’s Son”146 Tjuiu, bearing the cartouche of King Seqenenre Tao (see Fig. 11).147 The tomb is unfortunately not numbered (the only coffin received number 67), however, in the same days, other tombs belonging to the Second Intermediate Period–early Eighteenth Dynasty and featuring rishi coffins were numbered from the “100” system and were Q.25 – “[the tomb was] at the extreme northern boundary of the hill-slope [of Dra Abu el-Naga], deep below a tomb (of a certain Antef, the ‘Great Herald of the King’, dating from the reign of Tuthmosis III) where there are some hidden brick vaults […]” – Carter152 Q.26 – “Carter has heard a tradition in Kurnah that the site [the find-spot of Ahhotep’s coffin] was near Tomb 155” – Winlock153 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 58-63; Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 55. 149 See also Polz, Der Beginn, 171. 150 See Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. See also below, § The presumed Architectural Structure, Placed in a hole dug out inside a mud-brick structure, p. 50-1. 151 The mention of the brick vault structures in the notes of Carter led Eaton-Krauss to believe that the find spot of Ahhotep could have been more shifted towards the plain, where Polz has cleared a number of free-standing chapels in the plain, Eaton-Krauss, in Blöbaum, Kahl, Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster, 82. However, this observation would go against the information provided by Vassalli, that the coffin of Hornakht had been found at the foot of the hill. 152 Lilyquist, Egyptian Stone Vessels, 55 reporting a note of Carter preserved in the MMA. The emphasis is mine. See Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 153 Winlock, JEA 10, 252, n. 2. The emphasis is mine. 148 In Vassalli AV f. 112 v. The emphasis is mine. Read in Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 89. See also Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 43, fig. 20. 143 Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 15-16, fig. 3. 144 Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 70. 145 Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 69. 146 On this title, see Schmitz, Untersuchungen zum Titel s3njswt. On the possibility he was not belonging to the royal sphere, see Miniaci, in Pernigotti, Zecchi (eds), IV Colloquio di Egittologia, 99-131. 147 In Vassalli AV f. 36r. See also Mariette, Monuments divers, 16, pl. 51. The reading Seqenenre Tao has been questioned by Parlebas who argues for Seqenenre Djehutj-aa, see Parlebas, GM 15, 39-43. 142 47 Gianluca Miniaci 48 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Fig. 11 (left and right) – Drawing of the coffin of Hornakht and part of its burial equipment, including the throw-stick inscribed with the cartouche of King Seqenenre Tao; Album di disegni Vassalli, Ms. AV, f. 36r-v © courtesy of the Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano – Fondo Luigi Vassalli, Album H 2 49 Gianluca Miniaci The presumed Architectural Structure In a shallow hole below the surface = On the other hand, Mariette himself produced another version of the same discovery in 1872, in which the coffin was found in a shallow hole in the ground, just below the surface. One of the main questions concerns the type of structure in which the coffin of Ahhotep had been found. The structure is undefined and variously reported in the different accounts of the time, often in conflict with each other. At the bottom of a deep pit without any chamber = Desjardins is the main person responsible for handing down the most reproduced version. From his report, the coffin seems to have been found at the bottom of a pit, deep five or six metres; since no chamber is mentioned, supposedly the coffin was found at the bottom of the pit. Q.31 – “Contre toutes les habitudes, Aah-hotep avait été ensevelie, non dans un souterrain précédé d’une chambre mortuaire, mais en pleine terre et à un mètre à peine du sol” – Mariette158 A few numbers of other publications tended to follow this version produced by Mariette: Q.27 – “On retira, le 5 février 1859, d’une fosse de cinq à six mètres, un magnifique cercueil doré [Ahhotep], dans l’intérieur duquel étaient enfermés tous les objets d’or dont il s’agit, à côté d’une momie humaine” – Desjardins154 Q.32 – “Chose singulière et inexplicable, ce cercueil fut trouvé dans une masse de matériaux au milieu desquels il semblait avoir été déposé” – Matthey159 Q.33 – “Ce cercueil fut découvert en 1860 [sic], par des fouilleurs indigènes, couché à même dans le sable à Drah abou’l Neggah” – Maspero160 The same reconstruction is offered by Mariette himself, who specified that the coffin was simply placed at the bottom of the pit; Mariette’s report added another piece of information, that there was no visible structure above the pit: Although this version evidently conflicts with the earlier version, the words used by Desjardins, “fosse” (Q.27), and Mariette, “trou” (Q.28), in both cases underline a sort of unstructured deposit in the open ground rather than the more usual rock-cut structures frequently attested at Thebes. However, the version of a shallow hole appeared only in 1872 and it may have been influenced by the tradition handed down about Kamose’s coffin discovery (Q.36-38), which was stated to be placed in a hole just below the surface. Placed in a hole dug out inside a mud-brick structure = At the beginning of the twentieth century, Howard Carter gathered another version of the discovery from Ahmed Saïd el-Hagg,161 an Egyptian peasant and occasional digger of antiquities, who claimed to have discovered the coffin himself inside a mud-brick structure: Q.28 – “Les tombes de la quatrième sorte sont les plus simples : dans le sol pierreux de la plaine, on faisait un trou de quelques mètres de profondeur ; on descendait le cercueil dans ce trou, qui était ensuite rebouché, et tout était dit […] celle [the tomb] d’un roi Ahmès [read Kamose] qui n’est ni l’Amosis de Manéthon, ni l’Ahmès sipear du papyrus, ainsi que celle de la reine Aah-Hotep, toutes deux arrangées selon la quatrième système, c’està-dire que les momies royales enfermées dans leur cercueil avaient été confiées à la terre sans aucun signe extérieur qui en révélât la présence” – Mariette155 Correspondent versions to those of Mariette and Desjardins were handed down by other scholars: Q.34 – “[…] deep below a tomb (of a certain Antef, Q.29 – “Or, le 5 février, les ouvriers, qui remuaient en corvée les sables de Drah abou’l-Neggah, recueillirent au milieu des décombres, dans un trou profond de quatre ou cinq mètres” – Maspero156 the ‘Great Herald of the King’, dating from the reign of Tuthmosis III) where there are some hidden brick vaults, he [Ahmed Saïd el-Hagg] found hidden in one of the vaults a massive wooden coffin containing a mummy, four alabaster canopic jars, a bundle of gold and silver ornaments hurriedly placed beside the mummy in the coffin. The coffin he said was placed in a hole at Q.30 – “On February 5, 1859, at a depth of some five or six metres in the surface-rubbish and sand, this gang found the coffin containing the mummy and jewelry of Ahhotep” – Winlock157 Mariette, Album du Musée de Boulaq, pl. 29 with text. The emphasis is mine. 159 Matthey, Explorations modernes, 162. The emphasis is mine. 160 Maspero, Guide Musée du Caire [1902], 413. The emphasis is mine. 161 See Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 158 Desjardins, RGA 18, 99. The emphasis is mine. Mariette, RAr 2, 28. The emphasis is mine. 156 Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii. The emphasis is mine. 157 Winlock, JEA 10, 252. The emphasis is mine. 154 155 50 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Other non-normative contemporary burials A “non-normative” status seems to emerge from the different accounts over the type of burial granted to Ahhotep. This status is unexpectedly shared with other royal or wealthy burials of the Second Intermediate Period: namely, the coffin of Kamose and an anonymous burial labelled in Egyptological literature as the “Qurna Queen”, now in National Museums Scotland in Edinburgh.167 the side of the vault that seemed to have been gouged out expressly for it, and it was roughly covered up with bricks as if to hide it” – Carter162 The tradition of a brick structure has been handed down in Egyptological literature, increasing the dissemination of different versions: Q.35 – “The burial of the queen [Ahhotep] was found in a brick-lined vaulted chamber” – Grajetzki163 Q.36 – Kamose: “Le sarcophage [Kamose’s] découvert par M. Mariette était confondu dans une masse de matériaux avec lesquels il semblait qu’il eût été posé pêle-mêle, au lieu d’être déposé dans un caveau comme à l’ordinaire; il était couché sur le côté droit, et néanmoins ce cercueil n’avait pas été violé” – Mariette168 This version introduced a brick vaulted structure completely absent from other accounts. Mariette and Desjardins totally disavowed the presence of any brick structure, as Mariette explicitly remarked the absence of any external sign for a structure (“sans aucun signe extérieur qui en révélât la présence”, Q.28). However, neither Mariette nor Desjardins were present at the time of the discovery.164 The account provided by Ahmed Saïd (Q.34) is reliable in certain details: the location is explicitly indicated close to TT 155 as supported by the documentation independently drawn from Vassalli’s notes.165 Even the mention of a mudbrick structure (in ruin?) seems to provide a more archaeologically adherent explanation for the mass of material mentioned in earlier versions (cf. Q.29-30, Q.32). The account handed down by Carter is not accurate in other respects: all the sources are consistent in mentioning that the jars had been found outside the coffin (cf. Q.1; see also p. 61) and not inside the coffin as indicated by Ahmed Saïd. However, given the elapsed timeframe from the actual moment of the discovery, the memory of Ahmed Saïd could have been mistaken, mingling his own account and experience with the details known from the news.166 Alternatively, the account reported by Carter could have been totally invented by Ahmed Saïd building on local accounts and rumours circulating in the village of Qurna. Q.37 – Kamose: “Le sarcophage [Kamose] découvert par M. Mariette fut trouvé dans une masse de matériaux, au milieu desquels il semblait avoir été déposé. Il n’aurait donc pas été renfermé, comme à l’ordinaire, dans un caveau. Le cercueil était couché sur le côté droit, et cependant il n’avait pas été violé […]” – Desjardins169 Q.38 – Kamose: “[Kamose’s coffin discovered at] deux pieds sous terre sans caveau ou autre construction” – Prisse d’Avennes170 Q.39 – Qurna burial now in Edinburgh: “In the ground below this were several natural boulders lying close together. When our men came to clear amongst these they found that they covered a burial, which was placed in an open shallow trench in the rock […]. Though this burial was only in the open ground yet it is very complete in personal objects. Probably it is the richest and most detailed undisturbed burial that has been completely recorded and published” – Petrie171 Lilyquist, Egyptian Stone Vessels, 55 reporting a note of Carter preserved in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The emphasis is mine. See especially Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 163 Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures, 166. 164 Winlock remarked that Mariette missed the pyramid features above the tomb of Nubkheperre, Winlock, JEA 10, 226. However, one wonders how much Mariette was interested in an empty and very decayed brick structure in his synthetic reports, see archaeological report in Polz, Seiler, Die Pyramidenanlage. 165 See above, § The presumed Location of the Burial, Khawi el-Alamat, near TT 155, p. 45-7. See also discussions in Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 166 Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 162 167 Since the label “Qurna Queen” contains an assumption (there are no explicit indications that this burial belongs to the royal circle apart from the remarkable quantity of precious objects), here it is adopted a more neutral label “Qurna burial”. For the archaeological context, see Petrie, Qurneh, 6-10, pls 22-9; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 65-6. All the funerary equipment of this burial was transferred by Petrie to a single destination, Edinburgh, in order not to split its archaeological unity; see Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 168 Mariette, CRAIBL 2, 120. The emphasis is mine. 169 Desjardins, RGA 18, 53. The emphasis is mine. 170 Desti, Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant, 219 verbatim quoting a note taken by Prisse (without any reference). The emphasis is mine. 171 Petrie, Qurneh, 6, 10. The emphasis is mine. 51 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 12a-b – Photos of the so-called “Qurna Queen” burial as found by Petrie in the northernmost part of the Theban necropolis; a. (upper): PMAN2851; b. (lower left) PMAN2852; © courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London Fig. 13 – (lower right) Plan of the so-called “Qurna Queen” burial, from Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 22 52 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) were not found in tombs, but simply buried in the rubbish”,174 without quoting any reference for such information. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the two Kings Intef (Wepmaat and Heruhirmaat) were found in a ditch; rather, according to an annotated sketch of their find-spot provided by Wilkinson, they seem to have been found buried in a rock cut tomb with a shaft and a room (?) opening at the bottom. In addition, in the accompanying written notes, Wilkinson mentioned a brick pit (?) and a cloth over the coffins, which allows one to imagine a primary burial rather than a reburial or a cache (see Fig. 14). Neither of the two burials had been found in a proper structure, rather they were buried just below the surface. While for Kamose there is only another set of oral accounts provided by Mariette and others, who were absent from the find-spot at the moment of the discovery, for the Qurna burial there is photographic documentation of the actual moment of discovery and a plan of the finds as it was discovered (see Figs 12-13). Flinders Petrie in the season 1908-09 in the northernmost part of the Theban necropolis172 discovered an undisturbed rishi coffin buried – together with a rectangular box containing the body of an infant – in an open shallow trench, below the ground, covered up by several boulders (see Fig. 12a-b). The coffin, partially gilded and equipped with a rich set of jewellery and precious items, is believed to have belonged to a member of the royal family or uppermost classes of the Second Intermediate Period. Q.40 – “A pit of brick to depth of 4 men both mummies [Intef’s coffins] covered with cloth & dirty thrown over them” – Wilkinson175 Fig. 14 – Wilkinson’s sketch showing the burial deposition of the Kings Wepmaat Intef and Sekhemre Heruhirmaat Intef coffins; Ms. Wilkinson dep. e. 67, p. 79 [former Wilkinson MSS XII, 79] © courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford Other, more modest burials of the Second Intermediate Period–early Eighteenth Dynasty show a similar non-normative attitude in their deposition: the coffin of Harmose and another anonymous individual were interred in surface burials (coffins F and D), found under some tumuli of limestone chips and blocks below the courtayard of the tomb of Senenmut (TT 71) at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna176 (see Figs 15-16). The analogies, chronological, spatial, and “depositional” of the two burials with that one of Ahhotep are particularly striking. From these analogies, one is inclined to pay more attention to the 1872 version of Mariette (Q.31), in which Ahhotep is stated to have been found in a shallow hole dug into the ground. The account reported by Carter could also be reconsidered in this light (Q.34). In addition to the Ahhotep, Kamose and Qurna burials, two other coffins of the same dynasty, Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef and Sekhemre Heruhirmaat Intef, were also reportedly discovered in an unusual context.173 Herbert Winlock, in his article about the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty, noted that “Mariette and Brugsch both seem to have known that the Louvre Intef coffins Winlock, JEA 10, 236-7, fn. 5. Cf. Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, 51, “hidden under heaps of loose stones and sand” in relation to King Intef Nubkheperre. 175 Bodleian Library Oxford, Ms. Wilkinson, dep. e. 67, p. 79. See also Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 37 and Polz, Der Beginn, 31, Abb. 8. 176 Harmose “was given burial at the bottom of the pile of limestone chip which was gradually filling up the gully [of Senenmut’s courtyard]”, see Lansing, Hayes, BMMA 32, 6-8, figs 11, 13. To be noted that “a household box near the foot of Har-mose’s coffin had been converted, by setting boards crosswise, into a Canopic chest”, recalling a closer parallel 174 Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, Miniaci, Seven Seasons, 45-7. Louvre E 3019 and E 3020; see Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 268-71 (rT01P-rT02P). 172 173 53 Gianluca Miniaci In sum, the question of the (re-)/burial of Ahhotep and other sovereigns of the Seventeenth Dynasty is certainly still an open question. Several scholars have envisaged in the hasty and non-normative characters of these burials an intention to cache or rebury these coffins and some of their funerary equipment,177 in analogy to a well-known practice of ancient and modern Egypt.178 However, if at first sight the accounts provided for the burials of Ahhotep and Kamose point directly to “caches/reburials”, this is less evident for the Qurna burial, which rather points to a primary deposition with a complete group of funerary equipment. The presence of several items of furniture, pottery vessels, food offerings, net bags and a wooden stick for vessel transport,179 seem to suggest a primary surface burial left untouched since its original deposition. This encourages to advance a working, very speculative hypothesis: a need for extreme secrecy and/or hasty burial could have led most members of the royal family of the Seventeenth Dynasty–early Eighteenth Dynasty to select unusual, hidden burial spots, conceived of as primary burials, purposely distant, without a conventional architectural structure and separated from their cult places. Unpredictably, surface burials could actually be more hid- Fig. 15 – Map of the area in front of the tomb of Senenmut, from Lansing , Hayes, BMMA 32, fig. 8 den than other rock-cut tombs, since a cut in the rock and any architecture already reveals where to search to ancient as well as modern robbers. The practice of hiding a burial/coffin could be envisaged as being at the origin of the separation of the tomb from the cult funerary structure for the kings at the dawn of the New Kingdom.180 It cannot be just chance that most of the coffins of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty and their funerary equipment were preserved intact till the nineteenth century.181 with the wooden box found next to the coffin of Ahhotep, cf. Lansing, Hayes, BMMA 32, 8. For further comments, see Galán, JEA 103, 182, esp. n. 28. 177 See for instance, Winlock, JEA 10, 274; Thomas, Royal Necropoleis, 39-40; Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 205; Jansen-Winkeln, ZÄS 122, 62-78; Taylor, in Wilkinson, Weeks (eds), The Oxford Handbook, 362. A few scholars believed that these coffins had been reburied in a modern reburial, see for instance, Polz, Der Beginn, 169-72, esp. 170. 178 Cf. Graefe, in Coulon (ed.), La Cachette de Karnak, 71-86. 179 See § The Burial Assemblage, Burial equipment type, p. 63-5. 180 Ullmann, in Wilkinson, Weeks (eds), The Oxford Handbook, 417-8. 181 Some pharaohs and members of the royal family of the Sev- Fig. 16 – Photo of the burial of Harmose as found during excavation in the courtyard of Senenmut, from Lansing, Hayes, BMMA 32, fig. 11 enteenth Dynasty are still “missing from the list” (i.e. King Senakhtenre Ahmose, Queen Nubkhaes, etc.), and they could remain buried hidden in secrecy under the ground of Dra Abu el-Naga. 54 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) The Burial Assemblage tiones difficiliores,185 the only time when the coffin could have been closed with all the valuable objects inside is in the pharaonic period, when the sensorial links between the objects and their social significance were active.186 The date of sealing may coincide either with: 1) the primary (and original) deposition of the individual buried inside the coffin (therefore defining it as a purely intact context – but potentially conflicting with the unconventional architectural features);187 or 2) a secondary deposition, following one or more moments of movement and opening, which could give rise to several conjectures (including the option that the person buried inside the coffin was not the queen herself).188 Unfortunately, nothing was recorded in the account about the fastening and closing system (ropes, tenons, etc) of the coffin (see Fig. 17). In addition, today only the lid is preserved and on display in Cairo Museum, while the lower case is unavailable for inspection.189 Opened after 1859 = The second-hand account provided by Carter about the discovery of Ahhotep (Q.34) suggests that a first opening of the coffin could have happened on the spot. Faithful or not, the objects officially recorded as coming from the coffin of Ahhotep190 may not correspond to the content of the assemblage as originally deposited in the ground, since the opening of the coffin happened without any scientific control. Maspero, more than once, repeated that the treasure was only partial, and that several objects may have been lost at the time of the opening191 (Q.12-13). However, certainly by February 25th the coffin had been opened, since its contents was reported in an official list drafted on behalf of The coffin is repeatedly stated to have been found “intact”, following a recurrent myth in the histories of archaeology: the magical awakening of a forgotten past by the archaeologist, as did the prince with the “sleeping beauty” in fairy tales.182 The word “intact” has created some imprecisions and misconstructions, since it indicates several possible conditions that may lead to further assumptions. In the case of Ahhotep, “intact” should be intended to mean that the coffin was found “closed”, i.e. not opened or visibly violated at the time of its discovery in the nineteenth century, if the accounts are to be believed. This does not mean that the coffin had been not opened, altered, or tampered in the time before its modern discovery. Therefore, it is useful to distinguish the condition of being “closed” before and “opened” after 1859. Closed before 1859 = According to the collected accounts, the coffin was reportedly found closed (Q.1). Most probably, the coffin was not actually opened at the time of the discovery, since the presence of precious objects was not mentioned in Maunier’s letter to Mariette and he explicitly stated that the coffin had been kept closed, shipped to the storerooms in Karnak, and properly sealed with his own sealing “V.G.M.” (contra see Q.34). The absence of the uraeus from the head of the coffin, already noted in the first account of the discovery produced by Maunier (Q.1), may be interpreted as signs that the only stealable part – due to time availability and conditions – was actually stolen (this could be modern, at the time of the discovery, but also ancient, at the time of the primary or secondary depositions). However, it is worth remembering that the coffin was discovered in total absence of scientific control; therefore, although the possibility that it was found closed and kept as such till it arrived at the storerooms in Karnak may be reliable, this should not be considered incontrovertible evidence.183 If the find status (“closed”) of the coffin is to be believed, the archaeological evidence implies that the last action to be performed on the coffin was closing it with all that was inside. Therefore, the main concern is to understand when the last closing took place. Given the type of objects, it is difficult to imagine that such an action could have been performed by any individuals after the beginning of the nineteenth century AD, when Egyptian antiquities had already become “valuable” items to be sold on market. Probably also in the previous centuries, or millennia, few people would have left unplundered such wealthy contents.184 Unless one assumes a number of lec- early Eighteenth Dynasty prince called Amenemhat, reburied in a late Ramesside coffin in the ground beneath a large rock high in the cliffs of the Theban massif, not far from the Royal Cache (DB 320), deprived of any burial equipment, cf. Lansing, BMMA 15, 8-10, figs 4-6. 185 See some hypotheses in Winlock, JEA 10, 254. 186 Miniaci, CAJ 29/2, 287-307. 187 See above, § The presumed Architectural Structure, Other non-normative contemporary burials, p. 51-4. 188 The reason for reopening could probably exclude the intent of ancient robbery, unless it was interrupted, since – at least on a theoretical level – the primary logic of plundering is not to leave precious objects behind. Nonetheless, any reasons behind possible re-openings and re-closings are only assumptions and hypotheses at the present state of current knowledge; therefore, they will not be explored further here. 189 For the lid see Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 225, rT02C. For the lower case, see comments in Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 190 See below, § The Burial Assemblage, Objects found inside/outside the coffin , p. 60-1. 191 Maspero, Guide Musée de Boulaq [1883], 77; followed by von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 24; Petrie, History, vol. II, 13. Cf. Sommer, in Link, Schimmelpfennig (eds), Taphonomie, 15-34. Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 24. 184 See Roth, in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of Praise, 369. See also comments in Galán, JEA 103, 182-3 quoting an 182 183 55 Gianluca Miniaci Total number of recorded objects = The Journal d’Entrée is the most reliable source for the reconstruction of the burial assemblage of the queen.195 The first volume of the Journal d’Entrée was drafted in 1881, hence more than twenty years after Ahhotep’s discovery,196 by a museum assistant, Ernest Cousin. Nonetheless, it was meant to be a faithful copy of the Inventaire of Boulaq, drawn up in the first years of the 1860s by Mariette himself, Vassalli and Heinrich Brugsch.197 The front page of the Inventaire de Bulaq claims that the finds were entered in the inventory book in the order that they were found (“au fur et à mesure de leur découverte”);198 therefore its contents can be treated as a sort of abridged “archaeological diary” for the time.199 Presumably, the entries for Ahhotep in the Inventaire were compiled closer to their find-date, and in any case not beyond 1863. The handwriting for Ahhotep’s entries in the IB is that of Mariette.200 The Journal d’Entrée reports 70 items forming the total of Ahhotep’s assemblage (including the coffin), although at the beginning of the Ahhotep list, the IB/JE counts a total of 68 objects.201 The same number (70) is provided also by the two lists drafted on the 25th of February, although using a different ratio for counting the objects.202 Although Mariette and Maspero repeatedly lamented that the assemblage suffered from illicit subtraction or robbery of objects (Q.11-13), Winlock noticed that in the accounts provided at the time of the discovery, including Dévéria’s account, there was no “suggestion that any of the jewellery was lost, or that any of it was introduced from other sources”.203 Fig. 17 – Coffin of the Queen Ahhotep in profile; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 144 95/MS 163 91 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt the governor of Qena.192 The intention of the governor of Qena may not have been to gain personal profit from this discovery, but to follow the law and possibly obtain the favor of the Khedive in Cairo. However, the list produced on February 25th shows that formal and legal procedures were carried out in respect to the coffin assemblage. Moreover, the surprising correspondence between the objects listed in Upper Egypt and those later inventoried by Mariette in the Inventaire de Boulaq193 represents good grounds to believe that the preserved assemblage corresponds with what was actually inside the coffin at the time of discovery.194 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 196 Dewachter, BIFAO 85, 110. 197 About the relation between Heinrich Brugsch, Vassalli, Mariette and Ahhotep, see above § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, p. 41. 198 Dewachter BIFAO 85, pl. 20. Were the entries recorded in a sort of chronological order according to their discovery? 199 Dewachter BIFAO 85, 110. The Inventaire de Boulaq is nowadays preserved in the Cabinet des manuscrits of the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (BnF 20181-20183), made of four registers of 1340 pages. 200 Information kindly provided by Elisabeth David. 201 See Table 3. Mariette in his first report mentioned only about forty objects “au nombre d’une quarantaine”, Mariette, BIE 1, 32. See also Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume § Comment to the JE entries, Table 2. 202 See Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 203 Winlock, JEA 10, 253. 195 See Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 193 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 194 Winlock, JEA 10, 254. See now Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume, to be noticed some minor discrepancies among the first inventory lists and the objects recorded in the IB/JE. 192 56 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) The types of objects = [see Figs 18-20; Pls III-XX; see also Table 3] Beside the coffin (JE 4663), the assemblage as it is known from the preserved written records was formed by a mirror (JE 4664), four daggers (JE 4665-68: JE 4666 shows an unusual human heads shaped handle; for JE 4667 only the blade was preserved), two boat miniatures (JE 4681 in gold and JE 4682 in silver, which could have been positioned over a wagon with four wheels, JE 4669), a plaquette (JE 4670), a short wooden stick (JE 4671), a fan stick whose feathers or any other organic material were missing (JE 4672), six axes (JE 4673-78: for JE 4677-78 only the blades were preserved), two armlets (JE 4679 showing a vulture and JE 4680 bearing a three-dimensional cartouche inscribed with the name Ahmose), a pectoral (JE 4683), four bracelets bearing the name and prenomen of King Ahmose (JE 468487), several necklaces, including some fragmented pieces (JE 4688-95: JE 4694 presents three miniaturised and stylised golden flies; JE 4695 is holding a scarab), a bracelet in thick gold (JE 4696), sixteen different types of bracelets (JE 4697-4712), two lion head gaming pieces (JE 4713-14), nine miniature axes (JE 4715-23), one ring (JE 4724), a large wesekh collar (JE 4725; hypothetically reconstructed) and several elements, pendants, and beads listed under it, an antimony kohl jar (JE 4726), four toilet jars (JE 4727-30), a wooden box (JE 4731), and a wooden headrest (JE 4732). Table 3 – List of all the objects recorded in the JE for the burial equipment of Ahhotep 57 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 18 – Part of the burial assemblage from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep, from Mariette, Album, 137, pl. 31 © courtesy of the Musée du Louvre. Note: not all the objects in the photo belong to the burial assemblage of Ahhotep; those unrelated (when clearly identified) have been crossed with a white stroke 58 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Fig. 19 – Part of the burial assemblage from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep, from Mariette, Album, 133, pl. 30 © courtesy of the Musée du Louvre. Note: not all the objects in the photo belong to the burial assemblage of Ahhotep; those unrelated (when clearly identified) have been crossed with a white stroke Fig. 20 – Part of the burial assemblage from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep, from Mariette, Album, 129, pl. 29 © courtesy of the Musée du Louvre. Note: not all the objects in the photo belong to the burial assemblage of Ahhotep; those unrelated (when clearly identified) have been crossed with a white stroke 59 Gianluca Miniaci Objects found inside/outside the coffin = In the Journal d’Entrée there is a number of dissonant pieces of information. In a note appended to the end of the group list, the items numbered from JE 4663 [sic]204 to JE 4725 are supposed to have been found inside the coffin, seemingly excluding the remaining seven: an antimony kohl jar (JE 4726), four calcite jars (JE 4727-30), a wooden box (JE 4731), and headrest (JE 4732). The note appended in the JE is directly copied from the Inventaire de Boulaq. A part of this information agrees with the first account (Q.1) which states that calcite jars were found in a box outside the coffin. The JE comment is followed by a short note “+ no. 4726 à 4732” (not present in the Inventaire de Boulaq), implying that also these objects should have been found inside the coffin. Given that the handwriting is different to Cousin’s, it must be supposed that this was a later addition. Another comment, made in pencil, and in English, noted down some uncertainties about the last addition, adding two question marks and the indication that at least the wooden box should not have been found inside the coffin. None of the objects presumably found inside the coffin was present in those photos, although the composition would have been more effective with the coffin next to some of the precious and eye-catching items. Instead, some of the artefacts found inside the coffin were separately photographed by Devéria (see Fig. 22), very probably in the same moment and with the same background settings.206 Hence, the compositions of the coffin and other external elements in the photos of Devéria could represent a sort of aide-mémoire, almost as if intended to reproduce an “archaeological context”, indicating the spatial separation of elements according to their place of discovery (those found outside the coffin separated from those contained inside it). It must be born in mind that the photos of Devéria were most probably taken as soon as the assemblage arrived in Bulaq.207 Q.41 – JE 4727-4730 “Tous les objets catalogués du no. 4663 au no. 4725 ont été trouvé dans le cercueil de la reine Aah hotep” “+ no. 4726 à 4732 [different handwriting]” “?? Surely JE 4731 was not in coffin” [pencil annotation; different handwriting] – Journal d’Entrée205 On this premise, it is to be noted that the coffin of the queen was photographed by Devéria in front of the Bulaq magazines with exactly those items reported in the Inventaire de Boulaq to have been found outside the coffin (the headrest, kohl jar, calcite jars and wooden box; see Fig. 21; see also Figs 2-3, and Pls I-II). Devéria also kept separated these items in his own object list (Q.17). Fig. 22 – Photo of Ahhotep’s assemblage by Devéria in 1859, “Momie de la reine Aahhotep. Bijoux de Kemès” in the Bibliothèque nationale de France © Source gallica.bnf.fr / BnF To further complicate things, in the individual descriptions of the objects in the IB/JE, the wooden headrest was instead explicitly stated to have been found inside the coffin, as more expected.208 Q.42 – JE 4732 “Chevet trouvé dans le cercueil de la reine Aah hotep” – Journal d’Entrée From the two lists dated to February 25th, the headrest and the antimony kohl jar were listed among all the other objects associated with Ahhotep, presumably indicating Fig. 21 – The objects shown next to the coffin in Devéria’s 1859 photos; cuts from PHO 1986 144 94/MS 163 90 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt Pectoral (PHO 1986 144 128, MS 164 8); bracelets and pectoral (PHO 1986 144 127, MS 164 7 and PHO 1986 144 126, MS 164 6); boat and fan (PHO 1986 144 98, MS 163 94). 207 See above, § People involved with the Discovery and its Transmission, Théodule Devéria, p. 38-9. 208 See below n. 206. 206 JE 4663 is the coffin itself, probably to be intended 4664. See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 204 205 60 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) that they were found inside the coffin. Archaeological evidence of the Second Intermediate Period suggests that these two items were usually included inside the coffin.209 In opposition, the wooden box and the four calcite jars were excluded from those two lists. The IB/JE descriptions for the calcite jars and wooden box are more ambiguous since they are stated to have been found “together” (“avec”) with the mummy of Ahhotep – though not necessarily to be understood as inside the coffin.210 down the account of the discovery was present at the moment of the opening of the coffin. In addition, Mariette himself gave some contradictory and vague information in his publications. Q.44 – “Les morts sont plutôt entourés de linges en forme de linceuls que serrés dans des bandelettes; entre ces linges sont placés des objets de toute sorte en rapport avec les usages de la vie privée; d’autres objets de même nature adhérents à la peau, ou bien encore déposés dans les vides du cercueil” – Mariette216 Q.43 – JE 4731 “Boite à dos bombé qui contenait les quatres vases precedents [JE 4727-30] trouvé avec la momie de la reine Aah hotep” – Journal d’Entrée211 Q.45 – “Deux barques d’or et d’argent, des haches de bronze, de bracelets gros de jambes ont été trouvés à côté d’elle [mummy], sur le bois du cercueil. Entre les linges mal noués étaient déposés, comme au hasard, des poignards, une hache d’or, une chaîne garnie de trois mouches d’or, un pectoral. Enfin le cadavre luimême était revêtu d’une autre chaîne d’or ornée d’un scarabée, de bracelets, d’un diadème, etc.” – Mariette217 A pencil note in the JE, written in English, remarks that the wooden box (JE 4731) was certainly not included inside coffin212 (Q.41). Von Bissing is responsible for handing down the information that the calcite jars were found directly inside the coffin of the queen (“Bei der Mumie wurden vier Alabastergefässe gefunden […]. Sie […] sollen nach dem Journal d’entrée 4727-30 in dem Sarg der Aahhotep gefunden sein”),213 but there is no evidence for such a statement in the JE unless some personal notes (currently unknown) were in the hands of von Bissing.214 However, the first account (Q.1) explicitly noted that the jars and the wooden box were found outside the coffin (contra see Q.34). Also, the box and the jars were not included in the two lists of objects drafted on February 25th 1859, which, being closest to the discovery, might represent the documentation of the actual moment of the opening of the coffin.215 In conclusion, there is a good evidence to believe that all the objects attributed to Ahhotep in the JE, apart from the wooden box and the four calcite jars, were actually stored inside the coffin. The position of the objects in the coffin = The information provided about the position of the objects inside the coffin is very approximate and may not be unconditionally reliable, since none of the people who handed Q.46 – “Des bijoux destinés à la momie royale, les uns étaient déposés au fond du cercueil, les autres adhéraient extérieurement aux bandelettes, les autres enfin couvraient directement le cadavre” – Mariette218 According to the information provided by Mariette, the objects seemed to be placed inside the coffin in three main locations: a. directly over the mummified body, under the linen wrappings. This group should have included the golden necklace with scarab (JE 4695), some bracelets (JE 4684-87), and probably the armlet with vulture (JE 4679) (cf. Q.45); b. entangled within the linen bundles, possibly indicating that they were either poked in the external surfaces of the bandages or wrapped in a linen bundle (as suggested in Q.34).219 This group seems to be more definite, as it should have included – according to Mariette – some of the daggers, the axe with the golden handle (JE 4673), the chain with flies (JE 4694), and the pectoral (JE 4683) (cf. Q.45); c. loosely placed inside the coffin, since – according to one account of Mariette – they were found at the back/bottom of the coffin: the two boat models (JE 4681-82), some of the metal axes (JE 4674, 4676-78?) and larger bracelets (JE 4697-4700?) (cf. Q.45). See below § The Burial Assemblage, The position of the objects in the coffin, p. 61-2, esp. n. 222. 210 The four calcite jars have been preserved in association with the coffin, and they are currently on display in the Egyptian Museum in the same showcase. 211 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 212 See comments in Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 213 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 23. 214 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 24; von Bissing, Steingefässe, 18478-80. 215 See above, § The Timeline of the Discovery and successive related Events, 25th February 1859, p. 32-3. 209 Mariette, Notice [1864], 219. The emphasis is mine. Mariette, Notice [1864], 219-20. The emphasis is mine. 218 Mariette, Album, text of pl. 29. The emphasis is mine. 219 See Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 216 217 61 Gianluca Miniaci The sources for such information are unknown, whether Mariette had been directly informed by the people who were present during the opening of the coffin or if he drew some evidence from the condition of the artefacts themselves (pieces of bandages or resinous matter from embalming still attached to them), or if he figured out a plausible and reliable reconstruction to be presented to the public. Unfortunately, after the restoration of the objects which occurred in the autumn of 1859,220 there is little hope of finding traces of any organic material or bandages still adhering to the surface of the objects. A number of the object types were indeed made to be placed either on the body or among the bandages: collars, amulets, bracelets, necklaces, armlets, chains, plaquettes, pectorals, pendants or small amulets/miniatures (such as the two lion’s heads221 and the nine reduced-scale axes). In other burials of the period, mirrors, headrests and (single) kohl jars222 are usually found inside the coffin, as it may have been for Ahhotep. The objects adhering to the body and wrapped within the mummy – if the account can be considered reliable – allow little room for differences of opinions: they would have been placed during the mummification process and belonged to the buried person. Other objects find a natural position inside the coffin, such as staves, axes and daggers, which were commonly placed inside coffins for the burials of the time.223 The position of a few object types inside the coffin is more difficult to explain: the two boat models and the fan. Nonetheless, models have occasionally also been placed inside coffins during the late Middle Kingdom,224 and the position of the fan can be paralleled with two fans found in the burial of Tutankhamun (although of a different date), placed in the space between the third and fourth shrine and on the southern side of the innermost shrine, therefore almost inside the coffin.225 Other burials of the time show all the objects of their funerary equipment stored inside the coffin (see for instance Hornakht).226 However, if any of the objects were deposited inside the coffin or gathered in a separate bundle, as stated by Mariette, they could have been added to, tampered with, or reshuffled at any moment. Absence of the queen’s name on the objects = None of the inscribed objects deposited inside the coffin bore the name Ahhotep (apart from the coffin itself; see Table 4). All the inscribed objects bear the names of the Kings Kamose and Ahmose Nebpehtyre.227 Some issues should be noted: the mention of the surname Wadjkeperre on JE 4676 is given by von Bissing in his 1900 publication, while in the JE it is specifically stated that there were no inscriptions on the bronze axe (“pas de legends”). The armlet JE 4680 bears only the name Ahmose but, due to the presence of another king called Ahmose (Senakhtenre)228 and the lack of the prenomen on the object, its attribution to Ahmose Nebpehtyre could be questioned.229 Bracelets JE 4686 and JE 4687 were intended as a pair, one bearing the king’s name, Ahmose, and another the King’s prenomen, Nebpehtyre. The absence of the queen’s name raised a number of doubts about whether the burial assemblage could have been untouched since its primary deposition and about its authenticity as a group. Based on this evidence, some scholars supposed that the Egyptian diggers who discovered the coffin had encountered – or artificially “composed” – a burial assemblage made up of precious objects from other burials of the period.230 See above, § The Timeline of the Discovery and successive related Events, August 1859-62, p. 34. 221 See Colella, “Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads and the Inclusion of Gaming Pieces in the Funerary Costumes of Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty”, in this volume. 222 See for instance, the tomb of Vassalli no. 100, “sotto la testa [of a woman] un vasetto d’alabastro per il kohl”, in Album di Disegni Vassalli, f. 44r, Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 71. See also Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume, p. 209. 223 Smith, MDAIK 48, 205-6, 209. For similar types of objects found inside coffins in Second Intermediate Period burials at Asasif, see Lilyquist et. al., Excavations at Thebes, kohl jars: cat. nos 70, 139, 164, 173, 195, 218, 324, 425, 617, 696, 700, 702, 729, 753, 771, 800 (?), 824, 835, 842, 850, 874, 879, 885, 941, 951, 1070, 1071, 1098, 1330, 1338, 1433, 1474, 1475, 1484, 1491, 1492, 1541, 1560; mirrors: cat. nos 69, 642, 764, 802, 841, 886, 1337, 1526, 1534 (?); headrests: cat. nos 249, 339, 727, 736; staves: cat. nos 323, 327, 383; axes: cat. nos 728, 804 (?), 836. 224 Miniaci, Miniatures Forms. Cf. Reeves, The Complete Tutankhamun, 179 (all the other fans were placed in a wooden box and in the Annexe). 226 Vassalli, I monumenti istorici, 131. See also Album di Disegni Vassalli, f. 36r, Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 69-70. 227 See Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume for remarks about the paleography of the name Ahmose. The evidence leads to the assumption that the king named only Ahmose is Ahmose Nebpehtyre (the two bracelets could have been pair; see von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 8). See also Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 228 Cf. Cahail, “The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: A Summary of Old Theories and New Discoveries”, in this volume. 229 See Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 230 Winlock, JEA 10, 254. Especially, Daressy believed that the workmen found the coffins of Ahhotep and Kamose together and placed a part of the items of Kamose inside the 220 225 62 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Object Type JE inv. no. Inscribed Objects Coffin JE 4663 Ahhotep Axe in silver JE 4675 Kamose Wadjkheperre Axe (only blade) JE 4677 Kamose Wadjkheperre Boat miniature in gold JE 4681 Kamose Wadjkheperre Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) JE 4676 Kamose Wadjkheperre (?) Fan JE 4672 Wadjkheperre Armlet with Ahmose cartouche JE 4680 Ahmose Dagger with human heads shaped grip JE 4666 Ahmose Nebpehtyre Axe with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4673 Ahmose Nebpehtyre Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4683 Ahmose Nebpehtyre Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4684 Ahmose Nebpehtyre Necklace with scarab JE 4695 Ahmose Nebpehtyre Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen (•) JE 4685 Nebpehtyre Bracelet with Ahmose name (•) JE 4686 Ahmose Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen JE 4687 Nebpehtyre objects found inside the coffins.235 For instance, inside the rishi coffin inscribed for the “Lady of the House” Reri, a bronze razor naming the “Estate Overseer” (?) Sobeknakht was found;236 if the coffin had been anonymous, the name of the razor could have been leading to a worng assumption, that the burial belonged to Sobeknakht. In this light, also the nineteenth century story – barely believed by Egyptologists – that the mummy of King Nubkheperre Intef was found with a heart scarab inscribed for King Sobekemsaf237 can be reconsidered (“the scarabaeus, which was purchased by the British Museum, from Mr. Salt’s collection, was placed on the breast [of the mummy of Nubkheperre Intef], without having, as is usual, any ornament attached to it”).238 The discrepancy between the coffin owner (when attested) and the wide array of names inscribed on the objects stored inside the coffins of Second Intermediate Period burials could then raise the question of what these objects could represent: misappropriation (reuse from other burials), heirlooms, donations or gifts received for their key role, the continuous reuse of objects. The heirloom/gift practice is to be found with more evidence in the following period (early New Kingdom).239 Burial equipment type = This paragraph does not aim to discuss each type of item but solely to assess its consistency as group. The objects found inside the coffin show material, manufacture and chronological consistency, spanning a broad dating from the late Seventeenth to early Eighteenth Dynasties, although most of them remain rare and unparalleled. Further studies can help in narrowing down a more precise date, targeting different chronological moments inside the assemblage itself, and investigating the place(s) and techniques of manufacture. The calcite cosmetic jars, larger than usual, were originally interpreted as part of a canopic set, since they seem to contain some materials from the embalming process, associated by Mariette with animal remains. Table 4 – List of the inscribed objects from the Queen Ahhotep assemblage The absence of any object bearing the name of Ahhotep, although surprising, is not to be completely unexpected. Also, the few objects found inside the coffin of Kamose did not bear his name, and the golden bracelet bore a cartouche with the name of King Ahmose Nebpehtyre.231 Not by chance, this burial had been for a long time believed to belong to King Ahmose, until Daressy provided the hieroglyphic inscription on the foot end of the coffin in 1907, naming King Kamose.232 Although from a different social level but almost contemporary with Ahhotep and found not so far from her findspot (Q.23), none of the objects found inside the undisturbed (?) coffin of the “Royal Acquaintance” Hornakht,233 bore his name apart from his coffin. The objects were inscribed for the “King’s Son” Tjuiu, “Mayor” Minemhat, “Mayor of Hierakonpolis” Sobeknakht, and an official named Idi.234 Also from the intact tombs of the Second Intermediate Period found at the Asasif by Carter and Carnarvon there is a lack correspondence between the names of the owners of the coffins and the names inscribed on the Q.47 – “Quatre vases sans couvercles trouvés dans le même coffre que la momie de la reine Ahhotpou. Ils contenaient des matières animales embaumées, et faisaient office de canopes. Pas d’inscription” – Maspero240 This has generated the false belief that the Ahhotep assemblage also included canopic equipment.241 The wood- coffin of Ahhotep, see Daressy, ASAE 9, 63. The fact that the satisfaction of the prince Napoleon during his visit to Egypt would have determined Mariette’s presence in Egypt and his possibility to continue carrying out excavations has not to be underestimated as “playing factor” in “creating” an extraordinary event, the discovery of a treasure, see David, Mariette Pacha, 102; Podvin, Auguste Mariette, 102-9. 231 Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5, 48, see also n. 12. 232 Daressy, ASAE 9, 61-3. 233 See above, p. 47, n. 145, Fig. 11. 234 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 58. See Lilyquist et. al., Excavations at Thebes. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 93-4. The rishi coffin is rT04NY. 237 Miniaci, EVO 29. 238 See d’Athanasi, A Brief Account, 237-8. 239 Cf. Russo, Kha (TT 8); Reeves, The Complete Tutankhamun, 168-9 (roughly thirty objects inscribed with the names of other persons). 240 Maspero, Guide Musée du Caire [1902], 183-4. 241 Petrie, A history, vol. II, 12. 235 236 63 Gianluca Miniaci Material Gold Quantity 49 Silver 12 Copper alloy 11 Semi-precious stones Wood 9 Calcite 5 10 JE inv. no. JE 4663; JE 4664; JE 4665; JE 4666; JE 4667; JE 4668; JE 4671; JE 4672; JE 4676; JE 4679; JE 4680; JE 4681; JE 4683; JE 4684; JE 4685; JE 4686; JE 4687; JE 4688; JE 4689; JE 4690; JE 4691; JE 4692; JE 4693; JE 4694; JE 4695; JE 4696; JE 4697; JE 4698; JE 4699; JE 4700; JE 4701; JE 4702; JE 4703; JE 4704; JE 4705; JE 4706; JE 4707; JE 4708; JE 4709; JE 4710; JE 4711; JE 4712; JE 4713; JE 4714; JE 4715; JE 4716; JE 4717; JE 4724; JE 4725 (1–20) JE 4668; JE 4670; JE 4675; JE 4681; JE 4682; JE 4718; JE 4719; JE 4720; JE 4721; JE 4722; JE 4723; JE 4725 (1–20) JE 4665; JE 4666; JE 4667; JE 4668; JE 4669; JE 4674; JE 4675; JE 4676; JE 4677; JE 4678; JE 4724 JE 4673; JE 4679; JE 4680; JE 4683; JE 4684; JE 4685; JE 4686; JE 4687; JE 4725 (1–20) JE 4663; JE 4664; JE 4666; JE 4669; JE 4671; JE 4672; JE 4673; JE 4674; JE 4676; JE 4731; JE 4732 JE 4726; JE 4727; JE 4728; JE 4729; JE 4730 Table 5 – List of the main materials (as reported in the JE) employed for the Ahhotep’s equipment objects en box, whose location is currently lost although registered in the Journal d’Entrée of Cairo Museum, is shown in the photos of Devéria (see Figs 2, 21; Pl. I): its narrow and vaulted shape with a knob on one short side indicates that it represented a toilet box rather than a canopic chest.242 Also the shape of the jars classifies them as a toilet set rather than a canopic one (although they may have been readapted to serve for embalming rites). Von Bissing first realised that the jars did not represent canopic equipment,243 but were ointment jars of larger dimensions. The shape of the jars is not consistent with similar objects manufactured in the Second Intermediate Period, but they find closer parallels with Old Kingdom ones (although their reuse in the Second Intermediate Period is attested in a number of occasions).244 In the absence of archaeological reports, the connection of the wooden box and the jars with the whole assemblage of Ahhotep can be reasonably questioned. The most remarkable evidence from the assemblage is an almost total absence of artefacts in more ordinary materials, such as pottery, faience, resin, basketry, linen, papyrus, other organic material (e.g. food offerings), plain wood (without the addition of gold elements), and ordinary stone types. The wooden box and the four calcite jars shall be considered separately,245 since they were apparently found outside the coffin and, at the moment, there is no cogent evidence that connects them to the Ahhotep coffin if not the fact that they were stated to be found in proximity to each other.246 Only two objects (one stone toilet jar, JE 4726 and a wooden headrest, JE 4732)247 fall within the “more ordinary materials” that are traditionally part of burial equipment.248 The rest of the queen’s assemblage seems to be at first sight a selection of purely valuable and precious items rather than the complete or expected burial equipment of the time (see Table 5). The predominance of precious metals and semi-precious stones could be explained for most of the objects by the fact that they would have adorned the body of the mummy. However, among other richly equipped and intact burials of adjacent times, none exhibits such a mass of material all sealed inside a coffin, apart from Tutankhamun who belongs to a different era and expresses another material culture phase.249 jects found inside/outside the coffin, p. 60-1. 246 The wooden box could be also interpreted as part of another burial equipment, i.e. a previous funerary equipment disturbed by the intrusion of queen’s coffin or part of the equipment of the people who were (re)burying the coffin of Ahhotep, or a later intrusion inside the funerary space of the queen. See also comments above, § The Burial Assemblage, Objects found inside/outside the coffin, p. 60-1. 247 For the calcite jars and the wooden box (JE 4726-4731), they were found outside the coffin; their connection with the burial of Ahhotep can be disputed; see below § The Burial Assemblage, Objects found inside/outside the coffin, p. 60-1. 248 Cf. to be noted the pottery, faience, basketry, organic, and wooden objects in the burial equipment Tutankhamun, in Reeves, The Complete Tutankhamun, 127-207. 249 The body and wrappings of Tutankhamun were mainly featured by gold and other metal objects and adornments, nonetheless resin, faience, papyrus, and linen materials were A very close parallel although unprovenanced is an ivory inlaid wooden toilet box, inv. no. A635008 of the Science Museum, London, https://wellcomecollection.org/works/fs5yvxcm, <accessed 26.04.2021> (dated in the online archive to the Late Period; however, the dotted circle decoration on the ivory inlays is attested since the late Middle Kingdom). 243 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 23. 244 Aston, Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels, 80, fig. 90. For the reuse of Predynastic and Early Dynastic stone vessels in the Middle Bronze Age, see Lilyquist et al., Excavations at Thebes, Essay 20: Vessels and Containers. 245 See also discussion above, § The Burial Assemblage, Ob242 64 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Luxury Materials 2 gold necklaces (A+sA); 4 gold ear-rings (A+sA); 4 gold bracelets (A); 1 electrum girdle (A); 1 electrum button (A); 1 copper alloy knife Distinctive Materials 1 gilded sycamore-fig and tamarisk anthropoid coffin (A); 3 ivory bracelets (sA); 1 acacia, ebony, and ivory headrest (A); 1 horn and ivory container (horn-shaped); 1 blue anhydrite bowl; 1 obsidian kohl jar (A); 2 cedar wood stools; 6 pottery beakers (imported from Nubia); 1 thread of fine linen; 14 linen wrappings; Linen nettings More Ordinary Materials 1 sycamore-fig and cedar rectangular coffin (sA); 1 faience girdle (sA); 2 faience anklets (sA); 1 faience fly-whisk (A); 2 faience bead bags (A); 1 glazed steatite scarab (A); 1 wood stool (unidentified wood type); 1 wood box; 1 sandstone sharpener; 2 flint flakes; 2 calcite toilet jars (A); 1 wood stick for vessel transport; 16 pottery flasks/jars; 4 pottery bowls; c. 6 breads; 1 palm leaf basket; 1 grass fibre basket (A); Fruit Table 6 – List of the objects in the Qurna burial divided according to more luxury and more ordinary materials (including both those elements associated with the adult [A] buried inside the rishi coffin and with the infant [sA] buried in the rectangular box, and those in common), drawn from Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume The coffin of the Qurna burial discovered by Petrie at Thebes, which would have been almost contemporary with Ahhotep and still belonging to a high social status (due to the type and manufacture of the gold jewellery),250 contained beside the objects made in the most precious materials, a number of more ordinary objects251 (see Table 6). Also the mummy of King Kamose, very probably almost contemporary with Ahhotep, was not so richly equipped, unless one can suppose that most of his objects had been plundered in ancient time or at the moment of the opening.252 In conclusion, the composition of the elements within the coffin is not unexpected or unreasonable for the time and, given the royal nature of the burial, an exceptional selection of objects is possible (especially since there are no precise parallels or references which may reinforce or negate their presence in the coffin as part of the burial equipment). The remarkable and stunning aspects of the assemblage remain in the quantity of goldsmith’s artworks, rare or unparalleled, and especially in the outnumbered quantity of elements, cf. four daggers, six axes,253 twenty-one bracelets. In this respect it is worth noting, without questioning the authenticity of the group, that Maunier, the person directly connected with the discovery,254 was a skilled goldsmith,255 and he often created unique and beautiful pieces of jewellery, so much so that Mariette requested some of his works to be included in the Exposition Universelle of 1878 in Paris.256 Conclusion: Any possible Reconstruction for Ahhotep’s Find Context? As stated at the beginning, the intention of this article was not to provide an interpretation of the numerous, often contrasting accounts and notes concerning the discovery of Ahhotep but to define their contours, what could be considered appropriate, acceptable and what should be carefully evaluated, or even rejected. To sum up by paragraph: § The Timeline of the Discovery: the moment of discovery is relatively certain, in early 1859, January or February (5th February has been put forward as “the date”); § People involved: it had happened in the absence of Mariette and any other European supervision; § The presumed Location: the exact find-spot of the coffin is lost but it could be located along the northernmost part of the hills of Dra Abu el-Naga, most certainly in the wadi called Khawi el-Alamat and not too distant from the tomb TT 155, the location of which is nowadays well known; § The presumed Architectural Structure: the present too, although in minor quantity, see Reeves, The Complete Tutankhamun, 112-13. Cf. Kha and Merit, Ferraris, La tomba di Kha e Merit, 40-53. 250 Troalen, Tate, Guerra, JAS 50, 219-26. 251 Petrie, Qurneh, 9-10; see Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 252 Cf. discussions of von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 24-5 (he attributed some unprovenanced objects to the burial of Ahhotep, but the same can be ascribed rather to Kamose’s coffin); however, see comments in Winlock, JEA 10, 254. 253 Morris, “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. 254 To be borne in mind that the coffin bore his own sealing, when brought in Karnak. 255 Pascal, La Cange, 283. 256 Weens, in Cooke (ed.), Journeys erased by time, 106. 65 Gianluca Miniaci Acknowledgements type of burial encountered by the Egyptian workmen and foremen poses more difficulties. Ahhotep’s coffin seems to have been found in the proximity of a densely populated and partially undisturbed Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty cemetery. This location also included the burial of another royal person from the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty, King Kamose.257 The position of the burial place is also in line with the customary funerary practices of the time: the royal burials were surrounded by contemporary burials of courtesans and officials.258 Nonetheless, most of the accounts were in complete accordance in indicating that the coffin had not been buried in a standard structure, which is explicitly stated as “lacking”, whereas it was expected. The inconsistent information about the presence or absence of a shaft (which is not irrelevant) must be combined with the more remarkable information about the absence of any superstructure or funerary chamber. All of the accounts suggest the idea of either a hasty or a non-normative character for her burial, something partially contrasting with the apparently intact character of the coffin and its position in a cemetery of the Second Intermediate Period. Therefore, the find-spot of 1859 as the primary deposition place can be extensively debated and with good reason; § The Burial Assemblage: the exceedingly preponderant presence of objects made of luxury materials, the absence of pottery and food offerings, and the mode of storage of the objects (all packed inside the coffin) conflict with the hypothesis of a context being left untouched since its primary deposition. In conclusion, the original archaeological context in which the coffin was found has been lost in time and in memory. The primary witnesses of the discovery remain faceless and silent. The records of the discovery are entrusted to oral accounts handed down (faithfully?) in writing only by secondary witnesses and from them to the Egyptological literature. What remains to us are a number of confusing and extremely synthetic reports of Mariette and some of his collaborators or colleagues based on their own (re)interpretations of oral accounts from several people involved to different degrees with the discovery and movement of Ahhotep’s assemblage. The risk is that of any chain of oral communication: when passing information from one person to another, each one adds, removes or modifies something, and in the end the final output is completely different from the starting one. Through the passage of time, the discovery of the burial of Ahhotep and its treasure has become legend too, and modern literature cannot always see clearly the borders between the tale and reality. I would like to warmly thank Marilina Betrò for our endless and passionate talks about nineteenth century AD Egypt. Her passion for the enigmatic figure of Ahhotep has been the motivation for writing this article and triggering – at the beginning of my academic path – my enthusiasm for ancient Egypt. I am grateful also for her invaluable observations to this paper and her inspiring suggestions, which have radically transformed the present work. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Stephen Quirke for his valuable comments and for organizing a series of online and in presence seminars on the subject (with the collaboration of the Musée du Louvre in Paris); the title is driven by some of his considerations. I would like to thank Peter Lacovara who was the real engine for the “rediscovery” of Ahhotep, after I had abandoned the subject with the publication of my rishi coffin book. I also wish to warmly thank Patricia Rigault, Elisabeth David and all the staff of the Louvre museum because the appassionate search for Mariette, his papers, and the nineteenth century people revolving around the Ahhotep’s treasure has been generated during our pleasant and stimulating conversations: the Louvre has been a real laboratory of ideas. All the information from the documents of Mariette in the EPHE are courtesy of Thomas Lebée who kindly provided his research notes to me. The article benefits from the comments of Elisabeth David, Patricia Rigault, Christophe Barbotin, and Wolfram Grajetzki. I am grateful to Stephen Quirke, Nicolas Le Guern, Hélène Guichard, Patricia Rigault, Anne-Catherine Biedermann, Isabelle Artaud for the help in locating and accessing archival material of Théodule Devéria in the Musée d’Orsay; to Nicolas Grimal, Francoise Berard, Cecile Bouet, and Agnès Rico for Mariette’s manuscripts in the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France. I am indebted to Margaret Maitland, Paul Whelan, and Peter Lacovara for checking my English (any mistakes remain mine) and Simon Thuault for checking my French transcription in the Appendix A. A large part of this article is based on research carried out in the archives of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris in November 2019 and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in December 2020 under the project PRIN 2017, PROCESS – Pharaonic Rescission: Objects as Crucibles of ancient Egyptian Societies. Part of the project is founded by the Excellence Department Project “Structures in time. Resilience, acceleration, and change perception (in the Euro-Mediterranean area)” inside the framework “Accelerations and Resilience: Expansion and Growth in the Early States and Empires of the Ancient World” for the Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, Università di Pisa. Bibliography Abou-Ghazi, D., “Personalities that developed the Egyptian Museum”, ASAE 67 (1988), 19-58. Aston, B.G., Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. Materials and Forms (Heidelberg: SAGA 5, 1994). d’Athanasi, G., A Brief Account of the Researches and Dis- Between Ahhotep and Kamose there should be a certain connection, given by the presence of king’s name on some of the objects found inside the coffin of Ahhotep. 258 Polz, Der Beginn, 231-45. 257 66 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) coveries in Upper Egypt made under the Direction of H. Salt (London, 1836). Ben Amar, C., “The Dagger of Pharaoh Kamose, the oldest glory of the Royale Library of Belgium”, In Monte Artium 5 (2012), 45-67. Birch, S., Facsimiles of the Egyptian Relics, discovered at Thebes, in the Tomb of Queen Aah-Hotep: (circa B.C. 1800), exhibited in the International Exhibition of 1862 (London, 1863). Betrò, M., “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. Betrò, M., “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). von Bissing, F.W., Steingefässe. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos 18065-18793 (Vienna, 1904-07). Biston-Moulin, S., “Le roi Sénakht-en-Rê Ahmès de la XVIIe dynastie”, ENiM 5, 61-71. Bovot, J.-L., “Armreifen mit dem Namen des Ahmose”, in I. Hein (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde: Dynastien im Dunkel; 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptologischen Institut der Universität Wien und dem Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, 8. Sept. - 23. Okt. 1994 (Vienna, 1994), 263, cat. no. 364. Brugsch, H.K., Egypt under the Pharaohs. A history derived entirely from the monuments (London, 1891). Cahail, K., “The Internal Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: A Summary of Old Theories and New Discoveries”, in this volume. Colella, M., “Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads and the Inclusion of Gaming Pieces in the Funerary Costumes of Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty”, in this volume. Daressy, M.G., “Le cercueil du roi Kamès”, ASAE 9 (1908), 61-3. David, E., Mariette Pacha: 1821-1881 (Paris, 1994). David, E., Gaston Maspero: 1846 - 1916. Le gentleman égyptologue (Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Egypte ancienne, 1999). Dawson, W.R., E.P. Uphill, M.L. Bierbrier, Who Was Who in Egyptology, 4th rev. ed. (London, 2012). Desjardins, E., “Découverts de M. Mariette en Egypte”, RGA 18 (1860), 97-124. Desti, M., Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant: en Égypte, sur les pas de Mariette Pacha (Paris, 2004). Dewachter, M., “Nouvelles informations relatives à l’exploitation de la nécropole royale de Drah Aboul Neggah”, RdE 36 (1985), 43-66. Dewachter, M., “L’original de l’inventaire de Boulaq”, BIFAO 85 (1985), 105-31. Dewachter, M., “Un Grec de Louqsor collaborateur de Champollion et Lepsius: Ouardi-Triantaphyllos”, in J. Leclant (ed.), Entre Égypte et Grèce: actes du Colloque du 6-9 octobre 1994 (Paris, 1995), 119-29. Doyon, W., “On archaeological labor in modern Egypt”, in W. Carruther (ed.), Histories of Egyptology: Interdisciplinary Measures (New York, London, 2015), 141-56. Eaton-Krauss, M., “The coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and mother of Ahmose”, CdE 65 (1990), 195-205. Eaton-Krauss, M., “Encore: the coffins of Ahhotep, wife of Seqeni-en-Re Tao and mother of Ahmose”, in A.I. Blöbaum, J. Kahl, S.D. Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster: kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zu Ägypten, dem Vorderen Orient und verwandten Gebieten. Donum natalicium viro doctissimo Erharto Graefe sexagenario ab amicis collegis discipulis ex aedibus Schlaunstrasse 2/Rosenstrasse 9 oblatum (Wiesbaden, 2003), 75-90. Edwards, I.E.S., “Lord Dufferin’s Excavations at Deir El-Baḥri and the Clandeboye Collection”, JEA 51 (1965), 16-28. Fahmy, K., In Quest of Justice: Islamic Law and Forensic Medicine in Modern Egypt (Oakland, 2018). Ferraris, E., La tomba di Kha e Merit (Torino, 2018). de Franqueville, C., Le Premier Siècle de l’Institut de France, vol. I (Paris, 1895). Galán, J.M., “Ahmose(-Sapair) in Dra Abu el-Naga north”, JEA 103 (2017), 179-201. Graefe, E., “Les deux cachettes de Deir el-Bahri (1881, 1891) et autres cachettes funéraires”, in L. Coulon (ed.), La Cachette de Karnak: nouvelles perspectives sur les découvertes de Georges Legrain (Cairo, 2016), 71-86. Grajetzki, W., Tomb Treasures of the late Middle Kingdom: The Archaeology of female Burials (Philadelphia, 2014). Hunter, R., Egypt under the Khedives: 1805-1879: From Household Government to Modern Bureaucracy, 2nd ed. (Cairo, 1999). Jansen-Winkeln, K., “Die Plünderung der Königsgräber des Neuen Reiches”, ZÄS 122 (1995), 62-78. Khater, A., Le Régime juridique des fouilles et des antiquités en Egypte (Cairo, 1960). La Guardia, R., “Luigi Vassalli e il suo archivio privato nelle Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche di Milano”, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812-1887): Disegni e documenti nei Civici Istituti Culturali Milanesi (Milano, 1994), 11-44. Le Guern, N., “Théodule Devéria: un photographe-égyptologue très discret”, L’Antiquité à la BnF, 15.10.2018, https:// antiquitebnf.hypotheses.org/4611, <accessed 24.04.202>. Lansing, A., “The Egyptian Expedition 1916-1919: I. Excavations on the Pyramid of Sesostris I at Lisht. Seasons of 1916-17 and 1917-18”, BMMA 15 (1920), 1-11. Lansing, A., W.C. Hayes, “The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes”, BMMA 32 (1937), 4-39. Lebée, T., Le musée d’antiquités égyptiennes de Būlāq (18581889). Faire connaître et aimer l’Égypte ancienne au XIXe siècle (Paris: Unpublished dissertation, Ecole du Louvre, 2013), <accessed online on 15.10.2021, at https://hef.hypotheses.org>). 67 Gianluca Miniaci Lebée, T., “Émile Guimet et la morsure du canard égyptien. Un curieux au musée de Boulaq”, CAHIERS 5 (2014), 58-66. Lilyquist, C., Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV (New York, 1995). Lilyquist, C., N. Ayers, M. Marée, D. Ben-Tor, D. Schorsch, F. Hagen, R. Sparks, M. Römer, S. Ikram, Excavation at Thebes: The Earl of Carnarvon and The Metropolitan Museum of Art at Carnarvon 62 and Surrounds, <accessed on 15.10.2021, digital publication (2020), at https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/individual-scholarship/individual-scholarship-christine-lilyquist>. Maitland, M., D.M. Potter, L. Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. Mariette, A., “Nouvelles découvertes en Égypte”, CRAIBL 2 (1859), 115-22. Mariette, A., “Séance du 5 juin 1859”, BIE 1 (1859), 29-36. Mariette, A., “Lettre de M. Aug. Mariette à M. le vicomte de Rougé sur les résultats des fouilles entreprises par ordre du Vice-roi d’Égypte”, RAr 2 (1860), 17-35. Mariette, A., “Notice sur l’état actuel et les résultats, jusqu’à ce jour, des travaux entrepris pour la conservation des antiquités égyptiennes en Égypte”, CRAIBL 3 (1862), 153-67. Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galeries provisoires du Musée d’Antiquités Égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-roi à Boulaq (Cairo, 1864). Mariette, A., Album du Musée de Boulaq photographié par M.M. Delié et Béchard avec un texte explicative (Cairo, 1872). Mariette, A., Monuments divers recueillis en Égypte et en Nubie par August Mariette-Bey. Ouvrage publié sous les auspices de S.A. Ismail Pacha Khédive d’Égypte/Texte par G. Maspero (Paris, 1872-92). Marshal, A., Auguste Mariette (Paris, 2010). Maspero, G., Guide du visiteur au Musée de Boulaq (Cairo, 1883). Maspero, G., “Documents relatifs aux fouilles de Mariette”, RT 12 (1892), 214-18. Maspero, G., “Notice additionnelle”, in T. Devéria, Mémoires et fragments, BE 4-5 (Paris, 1896-97). Maspero, G., Guide du visiteur au Musée du Caire (Cairo, 1902). Maspero, G., “Mariette (1821-1881): notice biographique”, in A. Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, i-ccxxiv (Paris, 1904). Matthey, M.A., Explorations modernes en Égypte: huit séances données à Genève et à Lausanne (Lausanne, Paris, 1869). Michel, N., L’Égypte des villages autour du seizième siècle, Coll. Turcica 23 (Leuven, 2018). Miniaci, G., “Un Sobekemsaf da Dra Abu el-Naga”, EVO 29 (2006), 75-87. Miniaci, G., “The archaeological exploration of Dra Abu el-Naga”, in M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco, G. Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons at Dra Abu El-Naga: The tomb of Huy (TT 14). Preliminary results (Pisa: Progetti – Documenti per l’archeologia egiziana 3, 2009), 36-56. Miniaci, G. “The necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga”, in M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco, G. Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons at Dra Abu El-Naga: The tomb of Huy (TT 14). Preliminary results, (Pisa: Progetti – Documenti per l’archeologia egiziana 3, 2009), 14-33. Miniaci, G., “Il potere nella 17a dinastia: il titolo “figlio del re” e il ripensamento delle strutture amministrative nel Secondo Periodo Intermedio”, in S. Pernigotti, M. Zecchi (eds), IV Colloquio di Egittologia ed Antichità Copte “Il tempio e il suo personale nell’Egitto antico” ‒ Bologna, 24-25 settembre 2008 (Imola, 2010), 99-131. Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Miniaci, G., “Multiple Burials in Ancient Societies: Theory and Methods from Egyptian Archaeology”, CAJ 29/2 (2019), 287-307. Miniaci, G., Miniature Forms as Transformative Thresholds: Faience Figurines in Middle Bronze Age Egypt (1800 BC1650 BC) (Leuven, London, Paris: BMPES 7, 2022). Miniaci, G., “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., S. Quirke, “Mariette at Dra Abu el-Naga and the tomb of Neferhotep: a mid-13th Dynasty rishi coffin (?)”, EVO 31 (2008), 5-25. Morris, E., “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. Nour, A., “Egyptian-French Cultural Encounters at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1867”, MDCCC 1800 6 (2017), 35-49. Orsenigo, C., “Turning points in Egyptian archaeology 18501950”, in P. Piacentini (ed.), Egypt and the Pharaohs. From Conservation to Enjoyment. Pharaonic Egypt in the Archives and Libraries of the Università degli Studi di Milano (Milano, 2010), 115-72. Parlebas, J.,“Sur l’origine de la valeur tA de et le group tA dans les noms de personnes”, GM 15 (1975), 39-43. Pascal, L., La Cange: voyage en Égypte (Paris, 1861). Peet, T.E., The great tomb-robberies of the twentieth Egyptian dynasty: Being a critical study, with translations and commentaries, of the papyri in which these are recorded, vols I-II (Oxford, 1930). Petrie, W.M.F., A history of Egypt. Vol. II: During the XVIIth and XVIIIth dynasties (London, 1896). Petrie, W.M.F., Qurneh (London: BSAE 16, 1909). Piacentini, P., “Archaeology and archives: The Egyptian Museum in Egypt at the end of the Nineteenth century”, in F. Raffaele, M. Nuzzolo, I. Incordino (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology: Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, June 18th20th 2008 (Wiesbaden, 2010), 221-36. 68 The discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) Piacentini, P., “The Preservation of Antiquities. Creation of Museums in Egypt during the Nineteenth century”, in P. Piacentini (ed.), Egypt and the Pharaohs. From Conservation to Enjoyment. Pharaonic Egypt in the Archives and Libraries of the Università degli Studi di Milano (Milan, 2011), 5-45. Piacentini, P., V. Rondot, “1881, musée de Boulaq, mort de Mariette”, in M. Eldamaty, M. Trad (eds), Egyptian Museum Collections around the Word II (Cairo, 2002), 949-56. Podvin, J.-L., Auguste Mariette (1821-1881): Des berges de la Liane aux rives du Nil (Paris, 2020). Polz, D., Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (Berlin, New York: SDAIK 31, 2007). Polz, D., A. Seiler, Die Pyramidenanlage des Königs NubCheper-Re Intef in Dra‘ Abu el-Naga: ein Vorbericht (Mainz: SDAIK 24, 2003). Quirke, S., Hidden hands: Egyptian workforces in Petrie excavation archives 1880-1924 (London, 2010). Reeves, N., The Complete Tutankhamun. The King – The Tomb – The Royal Treasure (London, 1990). Reeves, N., Ancient Egypt: The Great Discoveries (London, 2000). Riggs, C., Unwrapping Ancient Egypt (London, New York, 2014). Roth, A.M., “The Ahhotep Coffins: The Archaeology of an Egyptological Reconstruction”, in E. Teeter, J.A. Larson (eds), Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (Chicago: SAOC 58, 1999), 361-77. de Rougé, E., “Une lettre écrite d’Égypte par M. Mariette”, CRAIBL 2 (1958), 115-21. Russo, B., Kha (TT 8) and his colleagues: The gifts in his funerary equipment and related artefacts from Western Thebes (London, 2012). Schmitz, B., Untersuchungen zum Titel s3-njswt “Königssohn” (Bonn, 1976). el-Shazly, Y., “The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure”, in this volume. Smith, S.T., “Intact tombs of the 17th and 18th dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom burial system”, MDAIK 48 (1992), 193-231. Sommer, U., “Wer hat Dornröschen aufgeweckt? Taphonomie und Mainstream-Archäologie”, in T. Link, D. Schimmelpfennig (eds), Taphonomie (nicht nur) im Neolithikum. Fokus Jungsteinzeit (Kerpen-Loogh: Berichte der AG Neolithikum 3, 2012), 15-34. Staring, N., “The tomb of Ptahemwia, ‘great overseer of cattle’ and ‘overseer of the treasury of the Ramesseum’, at Saqqara”, JEA 102 (2016), 145-70. Taylor, J.H., “Intrusive burials and caches”, in R.H. Wilkinson, K.R. Weeks (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Valley of the Kings (Oxford, 2016), 360-72. Thomas, E., The royal necropoleis of Thebes (Princeton, 1966). Thompson, J., Wonderful Things: A history of Egyptology. Vol. I: From Antiquity to 1881 (Cairo, New York, 2015). Tiradritti, F., “L’album di disegni di Luigi Vassalli presso la Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano”, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812-1887): Disegni e documenti nei Civici Istituti Culturali Milanesi (Milano, 1994), 45-128. Tiradritti, F., “Luigi Vassalli and the archaeological season at Western Thebes (1862-3)”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current research, future prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 329-42. Troalen, L.G., J. Tate, M.F. Guerra, “Goldwork in Ancient Egypt: workshop practices at Qurneh in the 2nd Intermediate Period”, JAS 50, 219-26. Ullmann, M., “The Temples of Millions of Years at Western Thebes”, in R.H. Wilkinson, K.R. Weeks (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Valley of the Kings (Oxford, 2016), 417-32. Vassalli, L., I Monumenti istorici egizi. Il Museo e gli scavi d’antichità eseguiti per ordine di S.A. il Vicerè Ismail Pascia, notizia sommaria di Luigi Vassalli (Milano, 1867). Vyse, H., Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh in 1837: with an account of a voyage into Upper Egypt (London, 1840-42). Weens, S., “From rags to riches: the adventures of Victor Gustave Maunier in Egypt 1848-1868”, in N. Cooke (ed.), Journeys erased by time: The rediscovered footprints of travellers in Egypt and the Near East (Oxford, 2019), 101-13. Weill, R., La fin du Moyen Empire égyptien. Étude sur les monuments et l’histoire de la période comprise entre la XIIe et la XVIIIe dynastie (Paris, 1918). Winlock, H.E., “The tombs of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. 69 Gianluca Miniaci Appendix A – Transcription of the pages from Devéria’s diary “Sur l’autre rive du Nil, près du village moderne de Qournah, de nouveaux tombeaux sont souvent mis à découvert par les travailleurs, et à quelque distance dans de cet emplacement et de celui où a été trouvé autrefois la momie le cercueil du roi Antef de la XIe dynastie, conservé au Musée britannique, où ont été trouvés depuis par Mr Mariette les deux cercueils royaux de la même dynastie ainsi que ceux qui enrichissent la collection du Louvre, et où a été également découvert par Mr Mariette la momie du roi Ahmès qui régna vers le même temps et dont S.A.S. le prince Napoléon possède le poignard ainsi que les principaux ornements, à Dra-abou-Nagga cet habile explorateur sur ce lieu même Mr Mariette qu’on a pu conserver vient de découvrir encore une momie royale ; de cette époque antérieure à Abraham ; c’est celle d’une reine appelée Aah-hotep. Par malheur, Mr Mariette et moi nous avions quitté Thèbes depuis quelque temps lorsque les ouvriers la trouvèrent ; le gouverneur de la province la fit apporter chez lui et eut l’audace de l’ouvrir lui-même, en dépit des protestations du surveillant des travaux. [word unreadable] cachet d’un européen (Français) qui réside à Luqsor. Les bandelettes furent déchirées et enlevées dans le harem de ce pacha, le corps brisé puis jeté dehors ; on ne conserva que les objets précieux qui y étaient enfermés, encore en fit-on sans doute disparaitre quelques uns et ce n’est qu’à grand peine que Mr Mariette parvient à rentrer en possession du plus des pièces principales pour les placer dans la collection du vice-roi. Le cercueil de cette momie, heureusement bien conservé présente une analogie frappante remarquable avec ceux des rois déjà connus des rois Antef de la XIe dynastie des rois de la XIe dynastie dont nous venons de parler ; la partie supérieure ou le couvercle est comme dans ces derniers entièrement dorés mais la masque est plus finement sculpté que sur ces dernières : il représente les traits d’une femme et l’ensemble du visage n’est pas dépourvu de grace ; les yeux sont incrustés en pierres dures et les paupières sont en or massif. La coiffure est formée deux grosses tresses qui tombent et s’enroulent sur la poitrine ; les mains ne sont pas apparentes. Au dessous de la gorge sont figurés un aspic ou Uraeus et un vautour. Tout le corps est entouré de deux grandes ailes. Sous les pieds, Isis et Nephthys sont figurées dans des formes masculines. L’inscription hiéroglyphique qui se lit par devant est assez négligemment tracée ; elle nous apprend comme je l’ai dit que cette momie était celle de la reine Aah-hotep. Mais, chose étrange, aucun des objets remis à Mr Mariette comme en provenant ne porte le nom de cette reine ; presque tous portent celui du roi Amosis que Champollion a assimilé à l’Amosis des listes de Manéthon et deux d’entre eux, les cartouches d’un roi inconnu jusqu’ici, appelé Kámès. Quoi qu’il en soit de ce dernier pharaon, si la Si cette momie, malgré son style archaïque, n’est pas antérieure à la XVIIIe dynastie, c’est-à-dire au 16e siècle avant notre ère, il faut y reconnaitre celle de la femme ou, suivant Mr Mariette, peut-être de la mère d’Amenophis I, 2e roi de cette dynastie et probablement peut-être fille d’Amosis ou plus probablement, d’après l’opinion de Mr Mariette, la momie de la mère de ce dernier roi. Kamès serait alors un du roi de la 17e dynastie qui est encore presque entièrement inconnue ; si au contraire elle date de la 11e dynastie ainsi que sa décoration et son style archaïque sembleraient le faire supposer il y aurait une problème historique très grande difficulté historique ; il faudrait faire remonter à cette époque le pharaon dans les cartouches duquel Champollion on a cru reconnaître jusqu’ici les noms de l’Amosis des listes de Manéthon du premier roi de la 18e dynastie. Cette La question demande à être examinée sérieusement, mais cette dernière supposition me parait peu probable. Voici maintenant la liste des principaux objets trouvés dans la momie : (voir p. 63 l’extrait de la lettre de Mr Maunier) (vases, chevet, coffre, étui à collyre) 1o Une hache d’arme en or incrustée de pierres dures et portant la légende complète du roi Aahmès ; 2o plusieurs haches de bronze sans légendes apparentes ; 3o un poignard sans gaine dont le manche est en or massif et la lame en bronze ; sans ornements ni légendes ; 4o un poignard muni d’une gaine d’or et dont le manche de bois sculpté est orné de quatre têtes humaines, recouvert de lames d’or et incrusté de pierres dures, sans légende apparente ; 5o trois ou quatre petits poignards plus ou moins ornés ; 6o un flagellum ou éventail de bois recouvert de lames d’or et pourtant sur chaque face les cartouches prénom du roi Kamès ; 7o plusieurs chaînes d’or de différentes formes ; et [word unreadable] la plus grande, longue de près de deux mètres et fort pesante porte sur les fermoirs les deux cartouches du roi Aah-mès ; un scarabée d’or incrusté de lapis lazuli et admirablement travaillé, y est suspendu. 8o plusieurs bracelets et anneaux de jambes en or et de différentes formes mais sans légendes, 9o trois bracelets composés de grains de pierres dures et d’or en passés dans des fils du même métal en forme de mosaïque, avec les noms d’Aahmès sur les fermoirs ; 10o un bracelet d’or avec personnages ciselés et incrustations de lapis lazuli ; on y lit les cartouches d’Aahmès. 11o un bracelet d’or incrusté de pierres dures ayant la forme d’un épervier les ailes éployées 12o un autre bracelet d’or incrusté de pierres dures et formé d’une grosse torsade qui supporte le cartouche d’Aah-mès entre deux sphinx ; la partie inférieure de ce joyau est munie d’un appendice toujours incrusté de pierres dures et destiné à l’empêcher de tourner sur le bras. 13o Un pectoral d’or découpé à jour et incrusté de pierres dures taillées en très léger relief et représentant le roi Aahmès entre deux divinités, avec accessoires et légendes hiéroglyphiques, cette dernière pièce est certainement le plus beau de tous les bijoux antiques connus jusqu’à ce jour; 14o un miroir métallique avec un manche de bois orné d’or. 15o un petit modèle de barque avec ses rameurs, 16o un autre modèle de barque en or avec ses rameurs en argent et les chefs de l’équipage également en or ; celui-ci porte le nom de Kamès ; 17o un modèle de char à quatre roues en bronze et bois pour supporter l’une de deux barques ; 18o diverses parties de colliers et autres objets” Description of the discovery of the Queen Ahhotep’s coffin and list of the main objects preserved in the funerary equipment (Diary of Théodule Devéria, DAE, Musée du Louvre, courtesy of Elisabeth David) 70 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 71-84 The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052) Gianluca Miniaci Abstract The article aims to present two lists (one in French and another in Arabic) containing the first inventory of the Queen Ahhotep assemblage. The lists are dated to February 25th 1859 and were presumably drafted at the time of the first opening of the coffin after its discovery (in any case before Mariette came into possession of the treasure). Believed to be lost, these two documents are preserved in the archives of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris in the Fonds Maspero. The content of these lists matches closely with the inventory of the queen’s assemblage drafted in the Inventaire de Boulaq/Journal d’Entrée registers in Cairo Museum, with only minor discrepancies. The existence of these two inventory lists constitutes an essential piece of evidence to confirm that the assemblage of Queen Ahhotep as preserved today in the Cairo Museum may faithfully reproduce the original contents of Ahhotep’s coffin. The first detailed list of the objects found inside the coffin of Queen Ahhotep1 at Dra Abu el-Naga was produced by Ernest Desjardins in 1860.2 Nonetheless, his account was only partial, as it was intended to be a preliminary report in view of a more detailed publication on behalf of Auguste Mariette, which never took place. Several other scattered notes and information were published in the following years, especially in connection with the opening of Bulaq Museum,3 but none produced a comprehensive list of those objects. Mariette, who was indirectly credited with the discovery of the Ahhotep assemblage, did not produce his own account and no complete list of the burial assemblage comes from his papers, although a letter of von Bissing to Maspeto might indicate that Mariette had accurately For the identity of the queen, see Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 2 Desjardins, RGA 18, 98-112. 3 Cf. Mariette, Notice [1864] and other following editions; see also Maspero, Guide Musée de Boulaq [1883] and other following editions. 1 recorded such a find.4 The Egyptological literature often refers to a flooding of 1878 affecting Cairo and the house of Mariette at Bulaq, thus being responsible for the loss of a part of Mariette’s papers. All the personal written information concerning Ahhotep’s group taken by Mariette could have been lost during such a flood.5 Among the Devéria’s manuscripts, there are two pages reporting a more detailed summary of the content of the coffin.6 Only in 1900, Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing offered a full publication of the group of objects of Queen Ahhotep, Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 34. 5 However, some papers about the excavations of Mariette at Dra Abu el-Naga have been preserved till today, see BIF Ms. 4030, f. 392 and following; cf. Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD”, in this volume, p. 28. 6 See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD”, in this volume, Appendix A, p. 70. 4 Gianluca Miniaci providing description, photographs and drawings for most of the objects.7 However, this work was produced more than forty years after the discovery of the burial. Von Bissing did not provide any inventory numbers for the listed objects, nor referred to the Journal d’Entrée numbers, making difficult to connect all the pieces. In addition, in this publication not all the pieces were illustrated or listed, and some of them were just quoted en passant in the text, without providing proper identifications. For instance, in the von Bissing volume are missing a plaquette (JE 4670), the blade of one axe (JE 4678), all the necklace chains (from JE 4688 to JE 4693; some of the pendants may have been regrouped in pl. VIIIa, used for the elements of the large wesekh collar), the box with beads (no. 20 of JE 4725), the kohl jar (JE 4726), the wooden box for the four calcite jars (JE 4731) and the wooden headrest (JE 4732).8 To further complicate matters, von Bissing decided that the objects from Kamose’s coffin and some other unprovenanced objects9 – bearing the cartouches of Kamose and Ahmose – should have been included in that publication, as they could have originally belonged to the burial of Ahhotep.10 The most complete inventory list for the funerary assemblage of Ahhotep is indeed offered by the entries of the Inventaire de Boulaq/Journal d’Entrée drafted by Mariette himself between 1859 and 1863, unfortunately not reported in any publication.11 some documents were in the hands of Maspero: “Fouilles de Gournah de Mariette. Mariette est mort le 18 janvier 1881. Gaston Maspero a été prié par les enfants Mariette de regarder les papiers laissés par lui / l’annotation à publier en grande partie […]”.13 As stated in that paper, these documents originally belonged to Mariette, and entered into the possession of Maspero only at his death. The two lists report the full contents of the Ahhotep treasure, providing an exceptional amount of information, especially considering the purely administrative purpose for which they had been produced. Nonetheless, contemporarily they raise several questions, especially about their origin, what they represent, and how Mariette came into possession of them. The document BIF Ms. 4052, f. 240r is written in French (see Fig. 1), while the document BIF Ms. 4052, f. 241r is in Arabic (see Fig. 2); they both occupy a single page each. The two lists are very similar, but they are not simply translations of one another; they seem to have been independently copied/registered in two different languages (Arabic and French) from a common “source” and produced in approximately the same moment (see comments below). They are both dated to the 23 Rajab 1275 of the Hijri calendar,14 corresponding to February 25th 1859. Their level of accuracy and correspondence with the inventory provided by the Journal d’Entrée, especially in terms of the count of the number and types of objects, is so high that they can be considered the first complete, official written record of the contents of the Ahhotep assemblage. The Inventory Lists of 25th February 1859 in the Fonds Maspero Two lists inventorying the contents of Ahhotep’s coffin are preserved in the archives Maspero kept at the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris, inside a thin folder Ms. 4052, which grouped a handful documents mainly relating to the excavations of Mariette at western Thebes, and especially in Dra Abu el-Naga. The folder can be connected with another one titled “Fouilles de Gournah” (Ms 4062),12 introduced by a paper explaining the reason why Transcription of the inventory lists Key for special symbols adopted in the transcription: word = deleted word/s in the original document ### = deleted word/s in the original document and overwritten by something else difficult to read ^word^ = word/s added in the original document just above another word or group of words "word" = repeated word/s from one line to another abbreviated with ditto marks, using ' or " symbols, in the original document. In the transcription, for sake of clarity, the abbreviated words have been retyped, avoiding using the abbreviation symbols but enclosing them among two "-signs <word> = integration of word/s not present in the original document (?) = word hard to read or decipher because of poor handwriting, faded print; doubts in the translation/transcription Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund. See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, Table 5 and p. 104. 9 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, pls VIII, XII. 10 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 24; cf. Bovot, in Hein (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde, 263, cat. no. 364. 11 The Journal d’Entrée numbering system has been adopted here for referring to the objects associated with the Ahhotep coffin, because it is the only system that uniformly includes all the objects found in association with the queen’s burial (for cross-references to CG, TR, SR, other inventory numbers or lost locations, see Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, Tables 2-4). 12 BIF Ms. 4062, ff. 148-165. 7 8 BIF Ms. 4062, f. 148. The inventory lists of February 25th are in another folder, see Ms. 4052. 14 For date correspondence, see https://calendarhijri.com/en. 13 72 The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ Transcription of the list written in French (BIF Ms. 4052, f. 240r) (see Fig. 1) Transcription of the list written in Arabic (BIF Ms. 4052, f. 241r) (see Fig. 2)16 Copie d’une liste adressée par le Moudir de Kineh à la Maïeh Sanieh en date du 23 Ragab 1275 N 16 contenant les antiquités trouvées à Gurné. ‫فشك ةروص‬، ‫ةريفحب تدجو يتلا ةميدقلا راثالا نايب‬ (‫ انق ةيريدمب ةنرقلا )؟ةربقمب‬، ‫خيراتب )؟( )؟( ىلا دراو‬ 23 ‫ ةنس بجر‬1275 ، 16 (‫)؟‬ ‫ )ء(امسأ‬ ‫ددع‬ ‫ بهذ ديب رفح ريغ نم رجنخ‬ 1 ‫ بهذ رفحب رجنخ‬ 1 ‫ بهذ ةريغص هبرح‬ 2 ‫ بشخ ديب بهذ ةطلب‬ 2 ‫ بهذ هيارم‬ 1 ‫ بهذ لجع عبرأب هبرع‬ 1 ‫ بهذ نيتروصب رواسأ‬ 1 ‫ رخا سنج – بهذ رواسأ‬ 1 ‫ رخا سنج – بهذ رواسا‬ 1 ‫ رخا سنج بهذ رواسأ‬ 3 ‫ بهذ ةريبك رواسا‬ 4 ‫ بهذ ةريغص رواسأ‬ 4 ‫ ريغص بهذ رخا سنج رواسأ‬ 2 ‫ ريبك بهذ رخا سنج رواسأ‬ 4 ‫ بهذ رخا سنج ةطلب‬ 2 ‫ بهذلاب ةحفصم بشخ ةحورم‬ 1 ‫ بهذ )كبشمب( ردصلا يف بهذ تاقيلعت‬ 3 ‫ رواسألا هبشت بهذ عطق‬ 3 ‫ ةطلبلا ةروص ىلع‬ 2 ‫بهذ لئامح‬1 ‫ ريبك‬، 2 (‫ رخا )عون‬، 2 ‫ رخا عون‬ 5 ‫ ددع قئاوطب لماك بكرم‬12 ‫ بهذ‬ 1 ‫ ددع قئاوطب بهذ رخا بكرم‬10 ، (‫ )؟بارج‬ 1 ‫ ةريغص هريوصت‬ 3 ‫ بهذ ةروص سأر‬ 2 ‫ بهذ )ء(اسفنخ ةروص يف )؟عاص( كبشم‬ 1 ‫ ددع بهذ كبشم ةعطق‬12 ‫ نزولا اهنع و‬136 ‫مهرد‬ 12 ‫ نزولا اهنع بهذ هزرخ‬112 ‫ مهرد‬ 1 ‫ ددع ساطرق نازيم ريغ نم بهذب طوطخم زرخ‬2 2 ‫ بشخ هدخم‬ 1 ‫بشخ هلحكم‬، ‫ رمرم‬، (‫ )؟‬ 1 ‫عم هنزو راص و بهذ اهيلع فوفلم ناك روسكم بشخ )ء(اطغ‬ ‫( مورخلا‬1 ‫ )ك‬ 1 ‫ددعلاب نوعبس هردق و طقف‬ ‫متخب موتخم فشكلا‬ ‫ نيرخا و ريدملا‬ 70 1 Poignard sans gaine, poignée en or. 1 "Poignard" en or avec sa gaine. 2 Pointes de piques en or. 2 Haches en or, manche en bois 1 Miroir en or. 1 Charriot en or à 4 roues. 1 Une paire de bracelets en or avec une paire de figurines 1 "Une paire de bracelets en or" d’une autre qualité 1 "Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" 3 "Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" 4 "Une paire de bracelets en or" grandes 4 "Une paire de bracelets en or" petites 2 "Une paire de bracelets en or" d’une autre qualité 4 "Une paire de bracelets en or" grandes 2 Haches en or d’une autre qualité 1 Un éventail en bois plaqué d’or 3 Pectoraux en or avec une chaine en or 3 Pièces ayant la forme de brasselet [sic] 2 A la Pièces ayant la forme d’une hache 5 Cordons en or 1 Une barque en or avec 12 matelots en or (équipage complète) 1 "Une barque en or avec" 10 "matelots en or" 3 Figurines 2 Têtes en or (petites) 1 Chaîne en or en bon état 12 Morceaux d’une chaîne en or 136 drahmes 1 Grain d’or 116 drahmes 2 "Grain" de pierre raillée ^rayée^ en or 1 Chevet en bois 1 Tube ###15 de cohol en marbre 1 Couvercle ^en bois^ cassé revêtu de plaques d’or –––––– 70 Transcription, translation and reading notes by Mona Akmal M. Ahmed Nasr, PhD student at the University of Pisa. I would like to thank prof. Daniele Mascitelli, University of Pisa, for providing some additional comments to the transcription and translation. 16 Possible reading of the deleted word in the background, “Tuyeau d’Al…” (?). 15 73 Gianluca Miniaci Fig. 1 – Inventory list of Ahhotep’s burial equipment written in French; Fonds Maspero, Ms 4052, f. 240r © courtesy of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France 74 The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ Fig. 2 – Inventory list of Ahhotep’s burial equipment written in Arabic; Fonds Maspero, Ms 4052, f. 241r © courtesy of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France 75 Gianluca Miniaci English translation of the list written in Arabic (BIF Ms. 4052, f. 241r) (see Fig. 2) 1 3 2 1 12 1 2 1 1 1 70 The language is a mixture of Egyptian Arabic dialect and formal Arabic. A literal translation is provided in order to adhere more closely to the original text. When the meaning of a word was not fully understandable, a question mark between round brackets has been placed after the suggested translation “(?)”. “Copy of a list in which there is description of ancient objects found in the tomb of el-Qurna, in the directorate of Qena, returned to Ma‘iyyeh, on the date of the 23rd of Ragab, year 1275 (Hijry), 16 Numbers 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 4 2 1 3 3 2 5 1 Name (s) Dagger without a sheath, with a golden handle Dagger with a golden sheath Small bayonet, gold Golden axe with wooden handle Golden mirror Cart with four small wheels, gold Bracelets with two figures, gold Golden bracelets, other type "Golden bracelets, other type" "Golden bracelets, other type" Large bracelets, gold Small "bracelets", gold "Bracelets", other type, gold, small "Bracelets, other type, gold", large Axe, other type, gold Wooden fan,17 whose foil is in gold Pendants,18 of gold in the chest with golden cords (?)19 Golden pieces that imitate bracelets <Objects> with the same shape of the axe20 Golden cords (?),21 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another A complete boat, with crew (?)22 that counts 12, gold Another boat, gold, with the crew (?) that counts 10, jarāb (?)23 Small figures Head of a small figure, gold Cords (?) in the form of a scarab, gold Cords, gold, that counts 12 and they weight 136 dirham Golden bead, weight 112 dirham Beads striped in gold, without weighting, counts 2 Wooden pillow Wooden kohl tube, marble (?) A broken wooden lid, wrapped with gold, and its weight with the scrap becomes (?) beads (?)24 Its count is seventy in numbers The discovery is sealed with the seal of the director and others” Comments on the two Lists The remarks at the opening of both preserved documents, “copy of a list”, indicate the fact that these two lists were copied from an original list. The original source from which these two lists were drawn is unknown but it was probably drafted on February 25th 1859 (23rd of Ragab 1725), assuming that the two copies were intended to be a sort of “carbon copy”, and therefore they reported the same date on the original document. There is little doubt that both documents were copied from the same source, since they report the same date, header, and protocol number (no. 16). Also, the objects are described The word used is jarāb, which is obscure in this context but it might indicate a different type/quality of the second boat. 24 This sentence is difficult to read. The last word seems to have been deleted (?); it could read as “beads”, probably referring to some beads that could have been originally contained in a rotten (?) wooden box found inside the coffin (cf. JE 4725.20: “Une boite contenant un très grand nombre de petits et grosses perles d’or et de pierres dures”). However, in this case the whole sentence has been left suspended or unfinished. On the other side, one should expect a measure unit at the end of the sentence, indicating the total weight of the lid with its remains, as announced in the previous wording. Following a suggestion provided by Mona Nasr, the last word could be mistakenly duplicate the previous one (“ ”); then it could have been roughly corrected (and not deleted) with the Arabic letter “‫”ك‬, used as an abbreviation of the word “ ”, kilo or kilogram (already in use in the nineteenth century Egypt?); the aleph could have been left uncorrected and used to indicate the number “1”, reading “A broken wooden lid, wrapped with gold, and its weight with the scrap becomes 1 kg”. 23 The word is mirwaha. The word used is t‘alīqāt, used of any type of object that can be worn as suspensions. 19 This word, also repeated below can be derived from the root KSNDH, KŠNDH, or KSTDH, probably indicating a chain or a cord. 20 Probably this sentence should be integrated at its beginning with the word “objects”, which is omitted in the text. 21 See above, n. 18. 22 The meaning word tāqim is unclear, it could be used to indicate the crew. 17 18 76 The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ in the same manner (often extremely synthetic), same order, and same quantity. At first sight, the two lists may appear as one being the translation of the other. Nonetheless, there are some minor divergences that do not simply fit with an inattentive or hasty copy (see Table 1): the Arabic list indicates the size (“small”) of one pair of bracelets (Seq. 13), which is missing in the French description; the Arabic list specifies the type of chains in the Seq. 20 (“1 large, 2 of one type and 2 of another one”), missing in the French list; only in the Arabic list the second miniature boat has been qualified (“jarāb?”) (Seq. 22); the Arabic list notes down that one of the chains was provided with a scarab, a detail not included in the French document (Seq. 25); the two lists present a divergence in the weight measurement of the golden grain (Seq. 27 – 116 dirham in the French and 112 in the Arabic); the toilet jar is indicated in both lists as a kohl tube (Seq. 30), but made of marble according to the French list and wood according to the Arabic document (which nonetheless, also indicates also the word marble soon afterwards); the Arabic list includes some additional remarks about the weight (?) and condition (“scrap”) of a wooden lid missing in the French list (Seq. 31); the final comment appended to the Arabic list (“The discovery is sealed with the seal of the director and others”) is not reported in the French one. In conclusion, the two lists seem to have been written down from the same source (most probably written, given the accurate overlap in many respects, although an oral source, i.e. someone reading or dictating, cannot be completely excluded), but by two different persons who were independently adding or altering the original source. As indicated by the date of the 25th February 1859, the list of objects was drafted before Mariette came into possession of the group of objects (which happened on the 22nd of March of the same year).25 Therefore, these lists could have been copied either right at the time of the opening of the coffin or – at the latest – just before the packing and shipping of the boxes containing Ahhotep’s objects to Cairo. Théodule Devéria, who was with Mariette at the time of the requisition of the queen’s burial assemblage, reported that Mariette had entered into the possession of two inventory lists: one drafted by one of his Egyptian employees [sic] and another addressed by the governor of Qena to the viceroy Saïd Pasha, in order to notify him of the contents of the shipped boxes, following the customs of that time. The two lists found in the archives of the BIF can be very plausibly considered those mentioned by Devéria in his account – believed to be lost – , given a number of coincidental elements: “M. Mariette en reçut l’inventaire d’un de ses employés arabes. Le gouverneur en avait de son côté expédié la liste au vice-roi, en le prévenant de l’envoi direct de ces objets à la Cour khédiviale […]. Les deux listes comparées étaient assez bien d’accord, mais elles nous parurent singulièrement exagérées, quant au nombre des choses décrites et quant à leur poids d’or” – Devéria26 According to Devéria the two lists seem to have been independently drafted: one directly from the governor of Qena, Fadil Pasha, who used to draft lists of the contents of the boxes he was shipping to Cairo (in Arabic?);27 the other list could have been independently drafted by one of Mariette’s men (in French?). From the account of Devéria, only on the boat would Mariette have come into possession of another list to compare to the other one (already?) in his possession.28 Probably since then, the two lists remained among Mariette’s documents and have been preserved until today in the archive Maspero of the BIF. However, the two lists mentioned by Devéria might not be the only copies of the original Ahhotep’s assemblage list circulating at this time. As already noted down by Devéria in his account on the boat of the 22nd March, the content of the two lists was sufficiently in concordance although he doubted about the actual quantity of the objects listed and the weight of gold (“they seemed to us remarkably exaggerated both in number of things described and in their weights of gold”):29 supposedly the boxes containing the Ahhotep treasure were not opened on the boat. The emphasis is mine. The first part of the account reads: “Mariette écrivit alors de l’envoyer tout de suite à Boulaq par un vapeur special [the sealed coffin of Ahhotep, as informed by Maunier]; malheureusement, avant réception de cette lettre, le gouverneur de la province avait fait ouvrir le cercueil, par curiosité ou par zèle malentendu, on ne sait trop. Quoi qu’il en soit, je ne voudrais pas me trouver à la place de ce fonctionnaire la première fois que Mariette le rencontrera […]”, Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii-ciii. 27 See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume (Q.10-11). 28 The number of combination of possibilities about the mode in which these two lists ended up in the hands of Mariette are countless: for instance, one of the lists could have been accompanying the assemblage during the boat transport to Cairo (if not both); Mariette could have taken a copy of the list directly from the Maieh in Cairo, copying from the original letter sent by Fadil Pasha to the viceroy; Mariette’s “Arabic employee” could have copied the list from the local administrative sources in Upper Egypt and sent to Mariette in Cairo or given to the custody of the men on the boat, etc. 29 Translated by Winlock, JEA 10, 253. From Maspero, in Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses, cii ff. David, Mariette Pacha, 114. 26 See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 28. 25 77 Gianluca Miniaci Table 1 – List of correspondence between the two lists of February 25th and the JE numbers Sequence Order in Feb 25 Lists Quantity (French List) Object Description (French List) Quantity (Arabic List) Object Description (Arabic List) Seq. 1 1 Poignard sans gaine, poignée en or 1 JE 4665 Dagger without a sheath, with a golden handle Dagger with straight grip Seq. 2 1 "Poignard" en or avec sa gaine 1 Dagger with a golden sheath JE 4666 Dagger with human heads shaped grip Seq. 3 2 Pointes de piques en or 2 Small bayonet, gold JE 4667 JE 4668 Dagger (only blade) – Dagger with discoid butt Seq. 4 2 Haches en or, manche en bois 2 Golden axe with wooden handle JE 4673 JE 4674 Axe with Ahmose name/prenomen – Axe in bronze Seq. 5 1 Miroir en or 1 Golden mirror JE 4664 Mirror Seq. 6 1 Charriot en or à 4 roues 1 Cart with four small wheels, gold JE 4669 Waggon miniature Seq. 7 1 Une paire de bracelets en or avec une paire de figurines 1 Bracelets with two figures, gold JE 4680 Armlet with Ahmose cartouche Seq. 8 1 "Une paire de bracelets en or" d’une autre qualité 1 Golden bracelets, other type JE 4679 (?) Armlet with vulture (?) Seq. 9 1 "Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" 1 "Golden bracelets, other type" 4684 (?) Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen (?) Seq. 10 3 "Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" 3 "Golden bracelets, other type" JE 4685 JE 4686 JE 4687 (?) Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen (•) – Bracelet with Ahmose name (•) – Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen (?) Seq. 11 4 "Une paire de bracelets en or" grandes 4 Large bracelets, gold JE 4697-4700 (?) Bracelet (*) x 4 (?) Seq. 12 4 "Une paire de bracelets en or" petites 4 Small "bracelets", gold JE 4701-4704 (?) Bracelet (#) x 4 (?) Seq. 13 2 "Une paire de bracelets en or" d’une autre qualité 2 "Bracelets", other type, gold, small JE 4711-4712 (?) Bracelet (^) x 2 (?) Seq. 14 4 "Une paire de bracelets en or" grandes 4 "Bracelets, other type, gold", large JE 4707-4710 (?) Bracelet (°) x 4 (?) Seq. 15 2 Haches en or d’une autre qualité 2 Axe, other type, gold JE 4675 JE 4676 Axe in silver – Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) Seq. 16 1 Un éventail en bois plaqué d’or 1 Wooden fan, whose foil is in gold JE 4672 Fan Seq. 17 3 Pectoraux en or avec une chaine en or 3 Pendants, of gold in the chest with golden cords (?) JE 4670 (?) JE 4683 JE 4694 (?) Plaquette (?) – Necklace ending with flies (?) – Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen Seq. 18 3 Pièces ayant la forme de brasselet [sic] 3 Golden pieces that imitate bracelets JE 4705 JE 4706 JE 4724 (?) Bracelet – Bracelet – Ring (?) Seq. 19 2 A la Pièces ayant la forme d’une hache 2 <Objects> with the same shape of the axe JE 4677 JE 4678 Axe (only blade) – Axe (only blade) 78 Correpondance with JE inv. no. Object Type The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ Sequence Order in Feb 25 Lists Quantity (French List) Object Description (French List) Quantity (Arabic List) Object Description (Arabic List) Correpondance with JE inv. no. Object Type Seq. 20 5 Cordons en or 5 Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another JE 4688-4689- Necklace ending with hemispherical 4690-4691beads – Necklace ending with hemi4692-4693 (?) spherical beads – Necklace – Necklace – Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces – Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces (?) Seq. 21 1 Une barque en or avec 12 matelots en or (équipage complète) 1 A complete boat, with crew (?) that counts 12, gold JE 4681 Seq. 22 1 "Une barque en or 1 avec" 10 "matelots en or" JE 4682 Another boat, gold, with the crew (?) that counts 10, jarāb (?) Boat miniature in silver Seq. 23 3 Figurines 3 Small figures JE 4681 (?), part of Part of boat miniature in gold (?) Seq. 24 2 Têtes en or (petites) 2 Head of a small figure, gold JE 4713 JE 4714 Lion head pawn in gold – Lion head pawn in copper Seq. 25 1 Chaîne en or en bon état 1 Cords (?) in the form of a scarab, gold JE 4695 Necklace with scarab Seq. 26 12 Morceaux d’une chaîne en or – 136 drahmes 12 Cords, gold, that counts 12 and they weight – 136 dirham JE 4725 Wesekh collar Seq. 27 1 Grain d’or – 116 drahmes 1 Golden bead, weight – 112 dirham JE 4696 (?) Bracelet in solid gold (?) Seq. 28 2 "Grain" de pierre raillée ^rayée^ en or 2 Beads striped in gold, without weighing, counts 2 JE 4725 (?) Wesekh collar (?) Seq. 29 1 Chevet en bois 1 Wooden pillow JE 4732 Headrest Seq. 30 1 Tube ### de cohol en marbre 1 Wooden kohl tube, marble (?) JE 4726 Kohl jar Seq. 31 1 Couvercle ^en bois^ cassé revêtu de plaques d’or 1 A broken wooden lid, JE 4725.20 (?) Wooden box (?) wrapped with gold, and its weight with the scrap becomes (?) beads (?) Boat miniature in gold JE 4663 Coffin JE 4671 Stick JE 4715-4717 Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4718-4723 Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4724 Ring JE 4727-4730 Toilet jar JE 4731 Wooden box Table 1 – List of correspondence between the objects in the two lists of February 25th and those recorded in the JE. In the first column a numerical sequence ( e.g. “Seq. x”) has been assigned to the entries in the two lists in order to facilitate the reference in the text. At the end of the table all those objects present in the JE but absent from or not identified in the two lists are given 79 Gianluca Miniaci Although it is not always easy to find out the concordance between some of the objects these two lists, summarily described (especially bracelets, chains, and necklaces), and those recorded in the Journal d’Entrée, for most of the objects there is a surprising correspondence30 (see Table 1). The two lists both agree in listing 70 objects which is – purely by chance – exactly the same number of objects recorded in the Journal d’Entrée (wrongly noted at the beginning of the list as being 68).31 In the following, the most complicated identifications are discussed, while the others are simply listed in the Table 1. In the Seq. 8-14, the bracelets have been not described to a fuller extent, rather occasionally described as small (Seq. 12-13) or large (Seq. 11, 14). Nonetheless, the number of the bracelets corresponds to the total number of bracelets registered in the JE (20 = JE 4679-80, 4684-87, 4697-4704, 4707-10, 4711-12).32 In addition, the grouping of different type of bracelets in the two lists corresponds to the different shapes/types of the objects listed in the JE (1+1+1+2+3+4+4+4). Therefore, the bracelets from the JE have been tentatively associated with the entries of the two lists according to their grouping by type and the occasional mention of size (large/small) or the presence of figures. Among the three pectorals mentioned in the two lists (Seq. 17), together with a golden chain, only JE 4683 can be truly identified since it is a pectoral, while two other elements can be more doubtfully considered to be intended as pectorals by the nineteenth century writers (JE 4670 and JE 4694). The artefact JE 4670 is a plaquette showing four figures. The item JE 4694 corresponds to the necklace with flies, which could be more possibly considered to be listed among the pectorals, especially because in the two BIF lists the pectorals are said to be provided with a chain, like for JE 4694. The three pieces described as having the shape of bracelets (Seq. 18) can be assigned to JE 4705-06 in all probability; the third element can be identified as JE 4696, which has the same description of JE 4705 as the only other circular element. However, some doubts remain about this association, given the lack of further descriptions. The chains/necklaces mentioned in the two BIF lists (Seq. 20) are five versus six listed in the JE (JE 4688-93). Nonetheless, the ratio for separation of the chains/necklaces also in JE is not clear, and JE 4691 mentions three fragments with the endings lost and JE 4690 mentions only two endings: therefore, JE 4690 and JE 4691 could have counted in BIF lists as a single chain. However, also in this case, with a minor adjustment, the correspondence seems to be enough in agreement. The chain in gold (Seq. 25), which is vaguely described in the French list, can be identified with certainty with JE 4695, a necklace with a scarab pendant, because the Arabic list provides the information that a scarab was attached to it. The wesekh collar JE 4725, together with all the mass of golden pendants and beads grouped under its inventory number,33 can be identified with the 12 pieces of a golden necklace (Seq. 26). The extraordinary number of items of JE 4725 points to the need of specifying the weights in the two lists (the weight provided in the two lists is 116 dirham (= 3.48 kg) which could vaguely find a correspondence with the 2 kg indicated in Cairo Museum DB for the entry CG 52672, which corresponds to only some of the elements for JE 4725.34 Nonetheless, there is also the possibility, as indicated in the letter of Devéria, that the lists overestimated some weights. The identification of the kohl jar (Seq. 30) with JE 4726 is rather secure, although its original material – probably in calcite (= Egyptian alabaster) – is probably wrongly interpreted as marble in the two lists due to a lack of knowledge of the materials. The presence of wood indicated in the Arabic list could have referred to a stick made of wood or a wooden lid (?), although there are no traces of any of these elements in the JE. Among the objects which can be doubtfully interpreted to be in BIF lists are 3 small figurines (Seq. 23), which are not present in the JE but correspond to the three golden figures in the boat (which stand out from the rest of the rowers), since they have also been mentioned in the JE with particular regard and specifically numbered from 1 to 3 (JE 4681).35 The two incrust- Some identifications are rather doubtful, marked in the “correspondence with JE inv. no.” field with a question mark “(?)”. 31 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. See also Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, Table 3. 32 The French wording is inaccurate, since bracelets have been always quoted as being “a pair”, while this would have doubled the total number. The Arabic transcription seems to be more accurate, since it does not mention any “pair” but simply numbers. See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 34 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, Table 2, for the correspondence of JE 4725 and other CG numbers. 35 It is worth mentioning that in the collection of the Louvre there are two small figurines made of gold representing Seth (inv. nos E 7659 and E 7715) and one of them (E 7715) is inscribed with the name Ahhotep. They entered the collection from private sellers respectively in 1883 from Allemant and in 1884 from Pennelli. See Guerra, Pagès-Camagna, JCH 36, 144-7, 149; Desti, Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant, 227, fig. 227, 112a. 33 30 80 The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ ed beads with gold (Seq. 28) can actually be identified with the hawk terminal(s?) for the wesekh collar, listed as part of JE 4725 (see under JE 4725.1). A broken wooden lid covered by golden foil is mentioned in both lists (Seq. 31); furthermore the Arabic list indicates that together with the lid there were also some scraps, probably as parts of the lower part of a wooden container. The object mentioned in Seq. 31 could actually correspond to JE 4725.20, which reports a small box (no indication of material) containing a large number of beads, probably part of the large wesekh collar (JE 4725): “Une boite contenant un très grand nombre de petits et grosses perles d’or et de pierres dures”. Only one object mentioned in the two lists is really missing from the final inventory that arrived in Cairo: a golden bead (Seq. 27) whose weight has been reported in the two lists (112 dirham = 2.8 kg). Nonetheless, this massive golden bead is oddly mentioned in the report of Desjardins in 1860 (“M. Mariette a trouvé aussi le disque figuré, par un petit ballon d’or”) in order to sustain the idea that the two lion pawns were intended as a three-dimensional rendering of the praenomen of Ahmose, Neb-pehty-re, with the golden ball-bead acting for the sign “ra”.36 In reverse, among the objects which entered Cairo as part of the Ahhotep burial equipment as documented by the Journal d’Entrée, four categories were unexpectedly not recorded in these two lists: the coffin (JE 4663), the staff (JE 4671), the ring (JE 4724) and the nine axe miniatures (JE 4715-23). The absence of the coffin is almost expected since the lists aimed at inventorying its contents and they were not intended to be an “archaeological report” of the find. The absence of the axe miniatures and ring does not raise particular concerns since, given their size, they could have gone easily unseen, probably included in some of the pendants of the golden wesekh collar (JE 4725). Only the stick, which measures 48 cm in height, is inexplicably missing from the very accurate BIF lists. Missing from the two inventory lists are also the wooden box (JE 4731) and the four calcite jars (JE 47274730), although they have been associated with Ahhotep burial assemblage since the beginning and recorded in the IB/JE.37 One of the possible reasons for their absence from the BIF lists is given by the fact that these lists were recording only the objects contained inside the coffin. This would reinforce the idea that the original source for these two inventory lists had been produced at the moment of the opening of the coffin, making it into a very formal and official procedure. In conclusion, the content of these two lists overlaps extremely well with the inventory of the queen’s assemblage drafted in the Inventaire de Boulaq/Journal d’Entrée registers, with only minor discrepancies. Therefore, these two documents seem to faithfully reproduce what was originally found in the Ahhotep coffin, being the closest record to its official opening and packaging of the objects for shipment to Cairo.38 Acknowledgments I wish to thank Elisabeth David for all the help she provided in assembling this article, sending me on the trail of the two lists; I am grateful to all her suggestions and for sharing the information in her possession. I am deeply grateful to Patricia Rigault for her constant help with the collection of the Musée du Louvre and her suggestions about some object correspondance. I am also grateful to Nicolas Grimal for facilitating my access to the library of the Institut de France. I am indebted to the director of the library, Françoise Bérard, directrice de la Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France, and Cécile Bouet for the permission to study and reproduce the two lists here. I am grateful to Daniele Mascitelli and Mona Akmal M. Ahmed Nasr for the Arabic transcript and translation of the list. I am indebted to Margaret Maitland and Peter Lacovara for checking my English (any mistakes remain mine). The present work is based on research carried out in the archives of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France in Paris in December 2019 under the project PRIN 2017, PROCESS – Pharaonic Rescission: Objects as Crucibles of ancient Egyptian Societies. Part of the project is founded by the Excellence Department Project “Structures in time. Resilience, acceleration, and change perception (in the Euro-Mediterranean area)” for the Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, Università di Pisa. Bibliography Betrò, M., “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Bovot, J.-L., “Armreifen mit dem Namen des Ahmose”, in I. Hein (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde: Dynastien im Dunkel; 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptologischen Institut der Universität Wien und dem Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, 8. Sept. - 23. Okt. 1994 (Vienna, 1994), 263, cat. no. 364. Desjardins, RGA 18, 110. Cf. Colella, “Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads and the Inclusion of Gaming Pieces in the Funerary Costumes of Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty”, in this volume. 37 See comments in Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 61. 36 Already Winlock noticed that “there is no suggestion that any of the jewellery was lost, or that any of it was introduced from other sources”, Winlock, JEA 10, 254. 38 81 Gianluca Miniaci Table 2 – List of correspondence between the JE and the two lists of February 25th JE inv. no. Object Type JE 4663 Coffin JE 4664 Mirror Seq. 5 Golden mirror/Miroir en or JE 4665 Dagger with straight grip Seq. 1 Dagger without a sheath, with a golden handle/Poignard sans gaine, poignée en or JE 4666 Dagger with human heads shaped grip Seq. 2 Dagger with a golden sheath/"Poignard" en or avec sa gaine JE 4667 Dagger (only blade) Seq. 3 Small bayonet, gold/Pointes de piques en or JE 4668 Dagger with discoid butt Seq. 3 Small bayonet, gold/Pointes de piques en or JE 4669 Waggon miniature Seq. 6 Cart with four small wheels, gold/Charriot en or à 4 roues JE 4670 Plaquette Seq. 17 (?) Pendants, of gold in the chest with golden cords (?)/Pectoraux en or avec une chaine en or JE 4671 Stick JE 4672 Fan Seq. 16 Wooden fan, whose foil is in gold/Un éventail en bois plaqué d’or JE 4673 Axe with Ahmose name/prenomen Seq. 4 Golden axe with wooden handle/Haches en or, manche en bois JE 4674 Axe in bronze Seq. 4 Golden axe with wooden handle/Haches en or, manche en bois JE 4675 Axe in silver Seq. 15 Axe, other type, gold/Haches en or d’une autre qualité JE 4676 Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) Seq. 15 Axe, other type, gold/Haches en or d’une autre qualité JE 4677 Axe (only blade) Seq. 19 <Objects> with the same shape of the axe/A la Pièces ayant la forme d’une hache JE 4678 Axe (only blade) Seq. 19 <Objects> with the same shape of the axe/A la Pièces ayant la forme d’une hache JE 4679 Armlet with vulture Seq. 8 (?) Golden bracelets, other type/"Une paire de bracelets en or" d’une autre qualité JE 4680 Armlet with Ahmose cartouche Seq. 7 Bracelets with two figures, gold/Une paire de bracelets en or avec une paire de figurines JE 4681 Boat miniature in gold Seq. 21 A complete boat, with crew (?) that counts 12, gold/Une barque en or avec 12 matelots en or (équipage complète) Seq. 23 (?) Small figures/Figurines Sequence Order Feb 25 Inventory Lists Object Description (Arabic/French Lists) MISSING MISSING JE 4682 Boat miniature in silver Seq. 22 Another boat, gold, with the crew (?) that counts 10, jarāb (?)/"Une barque en or avec" 10 "matelots en or" JE 4683 Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen Seq. 17 Pendants, of gold in the chest with golden cords (?)/Pectoraux en or avec une chaine en or JE 4684 Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen Seq. 9 (?) "Golden bracelets, other type"/"Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" JE 4685 Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen (•) Seq. 10 "Golden bracelets, other type"/"Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" JE 4686 Bracelet with Ahmose name (•) Seq. 10 "Golden bracelets, other type"/"Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" JE 4687 Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen Seq. 10 (?) "Golden bracelets, other type"/"Une paire de bracelets en or d’une autre qualité" JE 4688 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads Seq. 20 Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another/Cordons en or JE 4689 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads Seq. 20 Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another/Cordons en or 82 The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ JE inv. no. Object Type Sequence Order Feb 25 Inventory Lists Object Description (Arabic/French Lists) JE 4690 Necklace Seq. 20 Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another/Cordons en or JE 4691 Necklace Seq. 20 Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another/Cordons en or JE 4692 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces Seq. 20 Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another/Cordons en or JE 4693 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces Seq. 20 (?) Golden cords (?), 1 large, 2 of one type, 2 of another/Cordons en or JE 4694 Necklace ending with flies Seq. 17 (?) Pendants, of gold in the chest with golden cords (?)/Pectoraux en or avec une chaine en or JE 4695 Necklace with scarab Seq. 25 Cords (?) in the form of a scarab, gold/Chaîne en or en bon état JE 4696 Bracelet in solid gold Seq. 27 (?) Golden bead, weight – 112 dirham/Grain d’or – 116 drahmes JE 4697-4700 Bracelet (*) Seq. 11 (?) Large bracelets, gold/"Une paire de bracelets en or" grandes JE 4701-4704 Bracelet (#) Seq. 12 (?) Small "bracelets", gold/"Une paire de bracelets en or" petites JE 4705 Bracelet Seq. 18 Golden pieces that imitate bracelets/Pièces ayant la forme de brasselet [sic] JE 4706 Bracelet Seq. 18 Golden pieces that imitate bracelets/Pièces ayant la forme de brasselet [sic] JE 4707-4710 Bracelet (°) Seq. 14 (?) "Bracelets, other type, gold", large/"Une paire de bracelets en or" grandes JE 4711-4712 Bracelet (^) Seq. 13 (?) "Bracelets", other type, gold, small/"Une paire de bracelets en or" d’une autre qualité JE 4713 Lion head pawn in gold Seq. 24 Head of a small figure, gold/Têtes en or (petites) JE 4714 Lion head pawn in copper Seq. 24 Head of a small figure, gold/Têtes en or (petites) JE 4715-4717 Axe miniature in gold (§) MISSING JE 4718-4723 Axe miniature in silver (¶) MISSING JE 4724 Ring Seq. 18 (?) Golden pieces that imitate bracelets/Pièces ayant la forme de brasselet [sic] JE 4725 Wesekh collar Seq. 26 Cords, gold, that counts 12 and they weight – 136 dirham/ Morceaux d’une chaîne en or – 136 drahmes Seq. 28 (?) Beads striped in gold, without weighing, counts 2/"Grain" de pierre raillée ^rayée^ en or JE 4725.20 Wesekh collar –Box containing beads Seq. 31 (?) A broken wooden lid, wrapped with gold, and its weight with the scrap becomes (?) beads (?)/Couvercle ^en bois^ cassé revêtu de plaques d’or JE 4726 Kohl jar Seq. 30 Wooden kohl tube, marble (?)/Tube ### de cohol en marbre JE 4727 Toilet jar MISSING JE 4728 Toilet jar MISSING JE 4729 Toilet jar MISSING JE 4730 Toilet jar MISSING JE 4731 Wooden box MISSING JE 4732 Headrest Wooden pillow/Chevet en bois Seq. 29 Table 2 = List of correspondence between the objects recorded in the JE and those listed in the two manuscripts of February 25th (Arabic and French lists) 83 Gianluca Miniaci les galeries provisoires du Musée d’Antiquités Égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-roi à Boulaq (Cairo, 1864). Maspero, G., “Mariette (1821-1881): notice biographique”, in A. Mariette (ed.), Oeuvres diverses (Paris, 1904), i-ccxxiv. Maspero, G., Guide du visiteur au Musée de Boulaq (Cairo, 1883). Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. Winlock, H.E., “The tombs of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Colella, M., “Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads and the Inclusion of Gaming Pieces in the Funerary Costumes of Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty”, in this volume. David, E., Mariette Pacha: 1821-1881 (Paris, 1994). Desjardins, E., “Découverts de M. Mariette en Egypte”, RGA 18 (1860), 97-124. Desti, M., Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant: en Égypte, sur les pas de Mariette Pacha (Paris, 2004). Guerra, M.F., S. Pagès-Camagna, “On the way to the New Kingdom. Analytical study of Queen Ahhotep’s gold jewellery (17th Dynasty of Egypt)”, JCH 36 (2019), 143-52. Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans 84 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 85-107 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Gianluca Miniaci Abstract The present article aims to publish and comment on the information concerning the assemblage of Queen Ahhotep reported in the Journal d’Entrée of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. This register copies from the Inventaire de Boulaq, which was compiled closer to the find-date of Ahhotep’s funerary equipment. The information contained in this unpublished document is of extreme importance in the reconstruction of the composition of Ahhotep’s funerary equipment. In addition, the Journal d’Entrée provides the only unambiguous numbering system for the assemblage of the queen, because it is the only system that uniformly includes all the objects found in association with the queen’s burial and assigns them inventory numbers. The last section of the article provides a correlation of the museum numbers (CG, TR, SR, other inventory numbers) and lost locations. The Journal d’Entrée offers the most complete inventory of the objects associated with the coffin of Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga. The objects of the queen have been accurately registered with each assigned unique identifier given by the progressive register numbers, going from 4663 to 4732 (see Table 1). The first volumes of the Journal d’Entrée were compiled between 1881 and 1886 by Ernest Cousin, as reported by a note of Gaston Maspero: “Ce registre a été écrit par M. Cousin qui de 1881 à 1886 fut attaché provisoirement au Musée par le Ministère des Travaux Publics pour recopier les vieux registres et tenir les nouveaux”.1 However, although drafted more than twenty years after the discovery of Ahhotep, the first volumes of the Journal d’Entrée are meant to be a direct and faithful copy of the Inventaire de Boulaq, nowadays preserved in the Cabinet des manuscrits of the Bibliothèque national in Paris (BnF 20181-20183).2 The Inventaire de Boulaq was a register created in view of the opening of the Museum of Bulaq, inaugurated in October 1863.3 It was drawn up in the first years of the 1860s by Mariette himself, jointly with Vassalli and Brugsch.4 The front page of the Inventaire de Bulaq Dewachter, BIFAO 85, 110. Dewachter, BIFAO 85, 110. 3 Podvin, Auguste Mariette, 137-43. 4 About the relation between Brugsch, Vassalli and Mariette, see Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 1 2 claims that the finds entered the inventory book in order as they were found (“au fur et à mesure de leur découverte”);5 therefore its content can be treated as a sort of abridged “archaeological diary” for the time.6 Presumably, the entries for Ahhotep were compiled closer to their find-date and their handwriting is that of Mariette.7 A note appended to the inventory number JE 21770 of the Journal d’Entrée states that the Inventaire de Boulaq was interrupted from 1863 to 1872.8 Therefore, the entries for Ahhotep would have been compiled any time between their discovery (in 1859) and 1863, and in any case not later than 1863. As such, the list produced in the Inventaire de Boulaq and faithfully repeated in the Journal d’Entrée is the closest in chronological terms and the most reliable document for the composition of queen’s assemblage.9 Dewachter BIFAO 85, pl. 20. Dewachter BIFAO 85, 110. The Inventaire de Boulaq is nowadays preserved in the Cabinet des manuscrits of the Bibliothèque national in Paris (BnF 20181-20183), made of four registers of 1340 pages. 7 Information kindly provided by Elisabeth David. 8 Dewachter BIFAO 85, 108, no. 7: “Les objets entrés au Musée de Boulaq n’ont pas été enregistrés depuis ce moment [1863] jusqu’au mois d’Avril 1872”. 9 See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 5 6 Gianluca Miniaci Table 1 – List of Ahhotep’s entries as reported in the JE register JE inv. no. JE 4663 JE 4664 JE 4665 JE 4666 JE 4667 JE 4668 JE 4669 Description in the JE Additional Notes: Value assigned by Mariette (V); Measurements (Meas; in metres); Material (Mat); Other JE Notes (N) Cercueil de momie. Le dessus est entièrement recou- V: 1 vert d’un stuc blanc, qui a été doré. La cuve est peinte Meas: haut. 2,12; long. 0,66 en brun. La momie porte sur le front l’uraeus, dont la Mat: Bois tête manque. Les yeux sont bordés d’or massif. Sur la poitrine on voit l’uraeus et le vouture à ailes. Le corps est recouvert de longes plumes symétriquement dispo- N: “La momie de la reine Aahsées. Aux pieds Isis et Nephthys sont représentées par hetep a fourni: deux femmes agenouillées portant la main aux fronts. No. 1 d’importance : 15 objets Du milieu de la poitrine jusqu’aux pieds s’étend une No. 2 –––––––– : 14 objets légende en une seule ligne verticale qui nous apprend No. 3 –––––––– : 26 objets que la momie enfermée dans le cercueil était celle No. 4 –––––––– : 12 objets d’une royale épouse principale qui s’appelait . No. 5 –––––––– : 1 objet ––––– La reine a les titres de 68” V: 1 Meas: haut 0,33 Mat: Bois et or V: 1 Meas: 0,32 Mat: Or et bronze Poignard à lame de bronze. Le fourreau est en or, et la V: 1 poignée en bois, imitant une colonnette à incrustations, Meas: 0,31 surmonté de quatre tête<s> de femme Mat: Or, bronze et bois Miroir en bronze, recouvert d’un vernis d’or. Le manche est de cèdre rehaussé d’ornements en or repoussé Poignard à lame de bronze et à manche d’or massif N: “Les numéros: de 19501 à 19549 à l’encre rouge ont été donnés par M. de Bissing qui avait commencé le catalogue des bijoux de la trouvaille Aah hotep. La série définitive du catalogue des bijoux commence par no. 52001. Les numéros donnés par M. de Bissing devraient donc être annulés” Lame de poignard. La garde était d’or et la poignée qui V: 2 a disparu devait être formée d’un disque plat. Comme Meas: 0,19 le poignard du roi Aahmes Mat: Bronze et or N: “Both the catalogue numbers refer to the same dagger. The other is missing neither agrees with the description in the J.d.E.” Poignard à lame de bronze et à manche d’or massif V: 3 Lame de poignard. La garde était d’argent, et préparée, Meas: 0,14 comme la précédente, pour recevoir un disque plat en Mat: Or, Arg. et bronze bois, recouvert d’une feuille d’or Chariot à fond plat, qui parait avoir été destiné à porter V: 2 la barque no 4682. Il a 4 roues Meas: long. 0,15 (l. des roues 0,10) Mat: Bronze et bois Object Type Coffin Mirror Dagger with straight grip Dagger with human heads shaped grip Dagger (only blade) Dagger with discoid butt Waggon miniature Table 1 86 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage JE 4670 JE 4671 JE 4672 JE 4673 V: 3 Meas: haut. 0,14; long. 0,06 Mat: Argent oxidé V: 3 Meas: 0,48 Mat: Bois et or Éventail. Les plumes ont disparu. Le manche est V: 1 recouvert d’une feuille d’or. La partie circulaire au Meas: 0,42 dessus du manche est également recouverte d’une Mat: Bois et or mince plaque d’or, avec ornements repoussées. On y voit un rois inconnu debout devant Khons. Le roi s’appelait . Son nom de bannière était Plaque rectangulaire ornée de quatre figures de boucles de ceintures découpées à jour. Peut-être cet ornement a-t-il appartenu au no précédent ? Bâton en cette forme recouvert d’une lame d’or tournée en spirale Hachette. Le manche est recouvert de feuilles d’or, et V: 1 à la partie postérieure signe de haut en bas la légende Meas: 0,51 d’Amosis, dont le nom d’enseigne était: . Après Mat: Bois, or et pierres incrustèes ce nome et avant les cartouches on lit: Plaquette Stick Fan Axe with Ahmose name/prenomen Le fer est orné sur chaque face de représentations en or avec incrustations. D’un côté se voient le vautour et JE 4674 JE 4675 JE 4676 , l’uraeus en présence, au dessus des caractères en bas est une sphinx devant un vase. De l’autre côté sont les deux cartouches du roi Amosis. Au dessous le roi tient une barbare par la chevelure. Au bas est une représentation d’un animal fantastique Autre hachette. Le manche est en bois, l’arme est en V: 2 bronze et les ligatures en cuir. Pas de légendes Meas: 0,55 Mat: Bois et cuivre Hachette. Le manche est en corne rougeâtre transparente. L’arme est en argent, les ligatures ont disparu. Pas de légendes Hachette. Le manche est en bois, rehaussé d’une feuille d’or. L’arme est de bronze. Les ligatures ont disparu. Pas de légendes JE 4677 Deux hachettes, dont les manches sont perdus JE 4678 [Described in the entry above] JE 4679 N: “Peut être 23.1.23.7” V: 3 Meas: 0,42 Mat: Cuivre et argent V: 3 Meas: 0,43 Mat: Bois, cuivre et or V: 4 Meas: 0,13 Mat: Bronze V: 4 Meas: 0,11 Mat: Bronze N: “4678 = peut être 31.12.23.1” Bracelet très riche. La partie antérieur est formée d’un V: 1 épervier qui étend les ailes et qui tient dans ses palles Meas: diamètre 0,07 les sceaux de l’éternité. A l’extrémité des ailes se sou- Mat: Or et pierres dent deux épais anneaux bandés d’or séparés par un disque terminé lui même par deux petites fleurs bleues. La tête et une palle de l’épervier manquent. Le monument est tout entier couvert de pierres dures enfermés dans des cloisons d’or. Pas de légendes Axe in bronze Axe in silver Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) Axe (only blade) Axe (only blade) Armlet with vulture Table 1 87 Gianluca Miniaci JE 4680 JE 4681 JE 4682 JE 4683 JE 4684 JE 4685 JE 4686 JE 4687 JE 4688 JE 4689 Bracelet du plus grand style. Le bracelet lui même est formé de deux torsades d’or que réunit une plaque d’or recouverte d’ornements variés. Au centre de la torsade est une boite en forme de cartouche avec le nom du roi Amosis, et de chaque côté de celle boite sont deux petits sphinx d’or de 0,04 de longueur. La boite et les sphinx sont aussi couverts d’incrustations Barque à douze rameurs. Les rameurs sont en argent, et la barque est en or. A celle barque appartiennent 1. Un personnage debout, en or, tenant le gouvernail d’une main. 2. Un autre personnage debout, en or, et pourtant la main droite à la bouche, il est nu; 3. un personnage assis, en or, tenant de la main gauche la hachette, et de la main droite le bâton recourbé. A l’arrière de la barque est une sorte de cabine, dont les parois sont ornés de lions debout, accompagné d’une côté d’un cartouche e de l’autre du cartouche V: 1 Meas: diamètre 0,08 Mat: Or et pierres V: 1 Meas: long. 0,45 Mat: Or et argent Boat miniature in gold Barque à dis rameurs. Le pilote, tenant le gouvernail est resté debout à la poupe de la barque. Pas de légendes. Le monument parait d’avoir été destiné à être placé sur le chariot 4669 Naos. Au centre le roi Amosis est debout dans une barque. De chaque côté Ammon et Phré versent sur la tête du rois l’eau qui coule de deux vase alongés. Les deux divinités sont accompagnées de deux grands éperviers qui étendent leurs ailer. Le monument est du travail le plus fin Bracelet. L’intérieur est en or massif. L’extérieur montre des représentations en or sur fond de lapis lazuli. Le roi Amosis est à genoux, accompagné de Set et de diverses divinités Bracelet, formé de perles enfilées et disposées en treillage carré, de dix-huit bandes, alternativement d’or, de cornaline, de racine d’émeraude et de lapis laz. La fermeture montre le nom d’Amosis, une pièce d’or y a été ajoutée pour augmenter le diamètre du bracelet Deux bracelets de même modèle, de perles d’or, de lapis, de cornaline et d’émeraude, enfilées sur des files d’or et disposées en dessins longitudinaux. Les bracelets sont ornés intérieurement de plaques d’or, qui assurent la solidité. L’une porte le nome, l’autre le prénom du roi Amosis [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: 0,39 Mat: Argent Boat miniature in silver Armlet with Ahmose cartouche N: “c’est un diadem” V: 1 Meas: haut. 0,07; long. 0,09 Mat: Or et pierres dures Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen V: 1 Meas: diam. du bracelet étendu 0,10; diam. du bracelet fermé 0,05 Mat: Or et pierres dures V: 2 Meas: diam. 0,06 Mat: Or et pierres dures Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen Bracelet (•) with Ahmose prenomen V: 1 Meas: diam. 0,06 Mat: Or et pierres dures Bracelet (•) with Ahmose name V: 1 Meas: diam. 0,06 Mat: Or et pierres dures Deux chaines formées de petits cerneaux d’or, plats, V: 2 enfilés les uns à la suite des autres. Les deux chaines Meas: longueur de chacune 0,31; sont terminées à chaque extrémité par deux perles hé- diam. de chaque anneau 0,03 misphériques Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 2 Meas: longueur de chacune 0,31; diam. de chaque anneau 0,03 Mat: Or Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen Necklace ending with hemispherical beads Necklace ending with hemispherical beads Table 1 88 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage JE 4690 JE 4691 JE 4692 JE 4693 JE 4694 JE 4695 JE 4696 JE 4697 JE 4698 JE 4699 JE 4700 JE 4701 JE 4702 JE 4703 JE 4704 JE 4705 Deux bouts d’une même chaine du même modèle que V: 2 la précédente. Les extrémités sont perdues Meas: long. tot. 0,52; diam. de chaque anneau 0,04 Mat: Or Trois fragments d’une même chaine du même modèle V: 3 que la précédente. Les extrémités sont perdues Meas: long. tot. 0,33; diam. de chaque anneau 0,05 Mat: Or Une chaine à deux rangs, du modèle des précédents. V: 2 L’une des extrémités a disparu. A l’autre extrémité sont Meas: long. tot. 0,37; diam. de encore fixées deux chainettes tressées et terminées par chaque anneau 0,06 des boutons de papyrus en lapis. Le monument est en Mat: Or cinq morceaux Une chaîne formée d’anneaux enfilés du modèle des pré- V: 2 cédents. L’une des extrémités a disparu. À l’autre extré- Meas: long. tot. 0,62; diam. de mité est fixée une chainette tressée, terminée par un bou- chaque anneau 0,08 ton de papyrus en or. Le monument est en trois morceaux Mat: Or Chaine tressée avec sa fermeture antique à laquelle V: 1 sont suspendues trois mouches en or massif Meas: long. 0,60; haut. d’un mouche 0,095; diam de la chaine 0,03 Mat: Or Chaine tressée. La fermeture est formée de deux têtes V: 1 d’oie. Au centre pend un scarabée d’or, les palles re- Meas: long. tot. 0,90; diam. 0,07; pliées, et le dos orné d’incrustations en lapis-laz. haut. de scarabée 0,03 Mat: Or Anneau massif à ventre renflé sans ornements V: 2 Meas: diam. 0,08 Mat: Or Quatre anneaux épais et creux, ornés de filigrane. Ils V: 2 sont du même modèle Meas: diam. 0,11 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 2 Meas: diam. 0,11 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 2 Meas: diam. 0,11 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 2 Meas: diam. 0,11 Mat: Or Quatre anneaux plats et creux du même modèle que les V: 3 précédents, mais sans filigrane Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or Anneau massif à ventre renflé, sans ornements V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,06 Mat: Or Necklace Necklace Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces Necklace ending with flies Necklace with scarab Bracelet in solid gold Bracelet (*) Bracelet (*) Bracelet (*) Bracelet (*) Bracelet (#) Bracelet (#) Bracelet (#) Bracelet (#) Bracelet Table 1 89 Gianluca Miniaci JE 4706 JE 4707 JE 4708 JE 4709 JE 4710 JE 4711 JE 4712 JE 4713 JE 4714 JE 4715 JE 4716 JE 4717 JE 4718 JE 4719 JE 4720 JE 4721 JE 4722 JE 4723 V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,05 Mat: Or Quatre anneaux minces et massifs, du même modèle V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,07 Mat: Or Deux anneaux plats et creux, du même modèle V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,06 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: diam. 0,06 Mat: Or Tête de lion V: 2 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Or Tête de lion du même modèle que la précédente mais V: 4 beaucoup moins fine Meas: 0,04 Mat: Or [sic] Trois hachettes, du même modèle V: 3 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Or [Described in the entry above] V: 3 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Or Six hachettes, comme les précédents, du même modèle V: 4 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Argent [Described in the entry above] V: 4 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Argent [Described in the entry above] V: 4 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Argent [Described in the entry above] V: 4 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Argent [Described in the entry above] V: 4 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Argent [Described in the entry above] V: 4 Meas: 0,04 Mat: Argent Disque creux et déformé, sans ornements Bracelet Bracelet (°) Bracelet (°) Bracelet (°) Bracelet (°) Bracelet (^) Bracelet (^) Lion head pawn in gold Lion head pawn in copper Axe miniature in gold (§) Axe miniature in gold (§) Axe miniature in gold (§) Axe miniature in silver (¶) Axe miniature in silver (¶) Axe miniature in silver (¶) Axe miniature in silver (¶) Axe miniature in silver (¶) Axe miniature in silver (¶) Table 1 90 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage JE 4724 JE 4725 JE 4725.1 JE 4725.2 JE 4725.3 JE 4725.4 JE 4725.5 JE 4725.6 JE 4725.7 Anneau épais de cuivre (?) recouvert d’une feuille d’or V: 4 Meas: diam. 0,02 Mat: Or Collier ousekh. Il est formé d’un grand nombre de V: 2 pièces enfilées sur des fils aujourd’hui détruits. Ces N: “JE 4725 CG 52672” pièces sont : 1.o Deux têtes d’épervier, regardant en sens inverti. V: 2 Elles sont en or et en lapis. Huit trous percés à la partie Meas: haut. 0,05; long. 0,06 inferieure pour attacher les fils montrent que le collier N: “2” était à huit étages 2.o Or deux faces de lion, percés à la mâchoire supé- V: 2 rieure de 4 trous pour laisser passer des pendeloques Meas: haut. 0,025; long. 0,02 3.o Argent. Deux sortes d’attaches en forme d’ailes de V: 2 mouches, destinées probablement à soutenir le collier Meas: haut. 0,04 quand il était placé sur la momie N: “2” V: 2 4.o Or. 51 pendeloques en cette forme Meas: haut. 0,01 N: “44 44” V: 2 Meas: long. 0,012 N: “56 56” o 6. Or. 27 disques ornés de rosaces, formées de pierres V: 2 dures Meas: diam. 0,09 N: “25 25” 7.o Or. 51 pendeloques en forme d’étoile à 4 branches V: 2 – long. 0,01 N: “42 43” 5.o Or. 56 enroulements en cette forme V: 2 Meas: haut. 0,02 N: “10 10” JE 4725.8 8.o Or. 13 pendeloques en forme de JE 4725.9 9.o Or. 26 pendeloques en forme d’amandes, entourés V: 2 de filigrane et ornés d’incrustations en pierres dures Meas: haut. 0,02 N: “23 23” JE 4725.10 10.o Or. 26 plaques d’or en forme rectangulaire percées pour recevoir des files d’or sur lesquelles sont enfilées des perles 11.o Or. 128 boutons JE 4725.11 JE 4725.12 12.o Or. 24 oiseaux, les ailes carrément étendus, découpés dans une feuille d’or JE 4725.13 13.o Or. 45 aigles debout, découpés dans une feuille d’or JE 4725.14 14.o Or. 34 vautours debout, découpés dans une feuille d’or JE 4725.15 15.o Or. 22 serpents dressés sur leur queue et munis de grandes ailes. Tous ces animaux regardent vers la droite V: 2 Meas: diam. 0,03 N: “24 24” V: 2 Meas: long. 0,09 N: “108 107” V: 2 Meas: long. 0,013 N: “23 24” V: 2 Meas: long. 0,012 N: “37 37” V: 2 Meas: 0,01 N: “24 23” V: 2 Meas: 0,015 N: “20 20” Ring Wesekh collar + other beads/ pendants Wesekh collar – Falcon head pendants Wesekh collar – Lion head pendants Wesekh collar – Fly pendants Wesekh collar – Bell pendants Wesekh collar – Spiral-shaped pendants Wesekh collar – Rosette pendants Wesekh collar – Four-pointed star pendants Wesekh collar – Drop-shaped pendants Wesekh collar – Almond shaped pendants Wesekh collar – Rectangular plaquettes Wesekh collar – Buttons Wesekh collar – Bird pendants Wesekh collar – Hawk pendants Wesekh collar – Vulture pendants Wesekh collar – Winged cobra pendants Table 1 91 Gianluca Miniaci JE 4725.16 JE 4725.17 JE 4725.18 JE 4725.19 JE 4725.20 JE 4726 16.o Or. 26 antilopes courants, découpés dans une V: 2 feuille d’or Meas: long. 0,015 N: “19 19” o 17. Or. 17 lions courants, découpés dans une feuille V: 2 d’or Meas: long. 0,015 N: “15 15” o 18. Or. 15 loups courants et regardant en arrière, dé- V: 2 coupés dans une feuille d’or Meas: long. 0,012 N: “16 16” o 19. Or. 20 loups assis, découpés dans une feuille d’or V: 2 Meas: haut. 0,012 N: “18 18” 20.o Or. Une boite contenant un très grand nombre de V: 2 petits et grosses perles d’or et de pierres dures destinées à être passées dans des fils pour se constituer ce N: “Tous les objets catalogués du no. 4663 au no. 4725 ont été troucollier vé dans le cercueil de la reine Aah hotep.” “+ no. 4726 à 4732” “?? Surely JE 4731 was not in coffin” Vase à poudre d’antimoine, orné de son couvercle. Il a V: 4 la forme : Meas: 0,055 Wesekh collar – Antilope pendants Wesekh collar – Lion pendants Wesekh collar –Running dog pendants Wesekh collar – Seated dog pendants Wesekh collar – Box with beads Kohl jar N: “Vitrines et armoires couvercle” JE 4727 Vase V: 3 Meas: 0,33 Toilet jar JE 4728 Vase V: 3 Meas: 0,26 Toilet jar JE 4729 Vase V: 3 Meas: 0,23 Toilet jar JE 4730 Vase V: 3 Meas: 0,15 Toilet jar JE 4731 Boite à dos bombé qui contenait les quatre vases pré- V: 5 cédents trouvé avec la momie de Aah hotep Meas: haut.? JE 4732 Chevet trouvé dans le cercueil de la reine Aah hotep V: 4 Meas: haut. 0,14; long. 0,33 Wooden box Headrest Table 1 – List of entries for the funerary assemblage of the Queen Ahhotep as reported in the JE register, including the inventory number, original description, and the most relevant notes [importance value attributed by Mariette to the object (V), measurements (Meas; in metres), material (Mat), and JE notes (N)] and correspondence to the object type as identified in the present study. Drawing by Gianluca Miniaci; hieroglyphic transcription by Elena Tiribilli Table 1 92 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage in the object type list with special symbols between round brackets in order to indicate their grouping system operated by the redactor of the IB/JE (•), (°), (*), (#), (^), (§), (¶). The entry JE 4676 indicates that the axe does not bear any inscription, but von Bissing stated, without showing any drawing or picture, that the lower surface of the blade was inscribed with the name and prenomen of Kamose (like it was the blade JE 4677; a memory mistake?). At the moment such information cannot be verified because the current location of the artefact is unknown15 (see Table 4). The entries from JE 4696 to JE 4712 show several narrow circular golden elements, which have been variously indicated either as bracelets, armlets, or anklets in the JE and various publications, given their diameter spanning from 6 to 11 cm, but they could also be ornamental elements (part of necklaces? amulets to be held?). The only circular element which can be considered a ring is JE 4724 with a diameter of 2 cm. The large number of various pendants and beads received a single IB/JE number (4725), originally interpreted as a wesekh collar. The entry JE 4725 is divided according to its elements, organised by type of representation or shape; each type has been labelled with numbers from 1 to 20 under the entry JE 4725. The individual elements within each group have been counted and noted down at the time when the first inventory was drafted. A pencil annotation in the JE register reports a sort of later recount(s) of the actual number of the individual elements for each group, noting down also the number of missing elements from the first count. Also von Bissing recounted the individual elements by type.16 The elements from JE 4725 were later assigned by different scholars to different types of collars, necklaces and adornments and provided with different inventory numbers. For instance, von Bissing separated the two flies pendants (JE 4725.3), while Vernier created six different entries in the Catalogue Général, often separating similar types of beads and pendants (CG 52672-52673 + 52688 + 52692-52693 + 52733). A note appended to IB 4725 (recorded also in the JE) explicitly indicates that all the objects from IB/JE 4663 [sic, probably to be intended 4664] to IB/JE 4725 were found inside the coffin, while the following ones – by counter-deduction – were found outside the coffin: “Tous les objets catalogués du no. 4663 au no. 4725 ont été trouvé dans le cercueil de la reine Aah hotep”. In the JE to this sentence has been added a comment “+ no. 4726 à 4732”; given the different handwriting from the one Comments to the JE Entries In the Inventaire de Boulaq/Journal d’Entrée a numerical summary list of the Ahhotep assemblage composition is appended to the IB/JE 4663; in this list, the objects were gathered and ordered according to their estimated historical importance – and probably also “commercial value” – for a total of 68 objects, although the actual count of the inventory number recorded in both lists is 70.10 “La momie de la reine Aahhetep a fourni: : 15 objets [sic] No. 1 d’importance : 14 objets [sic] No. 2 –––––––– : 26 objets No. 3 –––––––– No. 4 –––––––– : 12 objets o N . 5 –––––––– : 1 objet ––––– 68” In the Journal d’Entrée there are some numbers marked in red ink spanning from 19500 to 19563, with some gaps (missing numbers: 19501; 19515; 19518-25; 19527; see Table 2). As explained in a note appended to JE 4666, these numbers are those planned by von Bissing for the jewellery of Queen Ahhotep for a special volume of the Catalogue Général: “Les numéros: de 19501 à 19549 [sic] à l’encre rouge ont été donnés par M. de Bissing qui avait commencé le catalogue des bijoux de la trouvaille Aah hotep. La série définitive du catalogue des bijoux commence par no. 52001. Les numéros donnés par M. de Bissing devraient donc être annulés”. Bernard Bothmer listed the complete number sequence taken by von Bissing for the entries of treasure of Queen Ahhotep for the forthcoming (but never published) special volume of the Catalogue Général (19500-19566).11 Abou-Ghazi noted that the CG 19500-19566 concerning the jewellery of Ahhotep were “still manuscript” by von Bissing.12 Since the volume was never completed by von Bissing, the series of numbers has been de facto never used and annulled. The jewellery of Queen Ahhotep entered the Catalogue Général volume for jewels and gold smithery edited by Émile Vernier in 1927,13 occupying some lots of the numbers between CG 25004 and CG 5264714 (see Table 3). Due to the fact that some objects were paired or belonged to the same/identical type, they have been marked There are two mistakes in the count of the objects in this summary list: under value no. 1, the JE actually records 15 objects and not 14, and under value no. 2, the JE records 14 and not 17 artefacts. 11 Bothmer, in Sauneron (ed.), Textes et langages, 120. 12 Abou-Ghazi, ASAE 67, 30. 13 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries. 14 Trad, ASAE 70, 354, no. 2. 10 For this reason, the mention of Kamose Wadjkheperre on JE 4677 is marked with a question mark “(?)” in the Table 3 of Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 16 Von Bisisng, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 13. 15 93 Gianluca Miniaci copying from the IB, it must be supposed that this was a later addition. Another comment, made in pencil and in English, noted some incertitude about the last addition, adding two question marks and the indication that at least the wooden box could not have been found inside the coffin: “?? Surely JE 4731 was not in coffin”.17 Grand Egyptian Museum numbers JE 4707-10 (bracelet, thin) – GEM 4581 Unknown current location The location of the following objects is unknown at the moment, since the SR number is missing (see Tables 2-3); most of them did not receive any von Bissing or CG numbers, probably a sign that already at the beginning of twentieth century, their location was lost. Location of the Objects Mariette was able to avoid the dispersion of the queen’s objects among various European collections and kept them all in Egypt, in order to be part of the first public museum opening in Egypt in 1863: the museum of Bulaq.18 From the museum of Bulaq the objects were moved to the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities (also known as Egyptian Museum or Cairo Museum) in 1902, first to Giza and then to Tahrir square. However, not all the objects are currently present in the Egyptian Museum, some went on loan to the Egyptian Museum in Luxor or were transferred to the Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM); some others currently unlocated. Beside the JE numbers, some objects received other inventory numbers: they received a CG number when catalogued in the volumes of the Catalogue Général,19 a TR number when lost and temporarily re-inventoried, an SR number when on display in the museum, and other inventory numbers when moved to other collections (see Tables 2-3). JE 4667 (dagger – only blade) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4670 (plaquette) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4678 (axe without handle) – no other inventory numbers; in the JE a possible correspondence with the axe TR 31.12.23.1 has been proposed; JE 4688 (necklace ending with hemispherical beads) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4689 (necklace ending with hemispherical beads) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4690 (necklace) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4691 (necklace) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4692 (necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4693 (necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4705 (bracelet) – no other inventory numbers; assigned von Bissing inv. no. 19535, but then deleted; JE 4706 (bracelet) – no other inventory numbers; assigned von Bissing inv. no. 19522, but then deleted; JE 4726 (kohl jar) – assigned to CG 18311; in a note appended to the JE is mentioned “Vitrines et armoires couvercle”; however, in the same showcase where the coffin lid is displayed only the four calcite stone jars are exhibited; JE 4725.20 (box containing beads) – no other inventory numbers; probably already mentioned as broken off during the first record of the objects in February 25, 1859;22 JE 4731 (wooden box) – no other inventory numbers; JE 4732 (headrest) – no other inventory numbers Luxor Museum numbers JE 4667 (dagger, only blade) – Luxor J.853.2; assigned von Bissing inv. no. 19501, but then deleted;20 JE 4673 (axe with Ahmose’s name) – Luxor J.856; JE 4674 (axe in bronze) – Luxor J.889; assigned von Bissing inv. no. 19503, but then deleted;21 in the JE a possible correspondence with the axe TR 23.1.23.7 has been proposed; JE 4694 (necklace with flies) – Luxor J.854 See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, § The burial assemblage, Objects found inside/outside the coffin, p. 60-1. 18 Lebée, Le musée d’antiquités égyptiennes. 19 Some objects were assigned two different CG numbers from the series 19500-19566, although the sequence included between 19500 and 19566 has been annulled; see comments above. 20 In the JE, a note is written in reference to the CG number that “Both the catalogue numbers refer to the same dagger. The other is missing neither agrees with the description in the J.d.E.”. 21 Von Bissing inv. no. 19503 was already assigned to another axe in bronze, JE 4676. 17 To the above list should also be added the lower case of the coffin (JE 4663), whose current location is unknown. Von Bissing reported the information that it was decayed (“Er […] ist später (laut Museumsinventar) zerfallen”), drawing this information from museum archives (?).23 Certainly he was not able to find it since the measurements reported in his publication of the group did not Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 23 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 22. 22 94 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Acknowledgments include the lower case, while the measurements provided in the JE also include the height of the lower case. The lower case certainly reached Cairo, since it was photographed by Devéria and mentioned in the Inventaire de Boulaq (information faithfully reproduced in the Journal d’Entrée). It was separated from the lid at the time of its first display, since its long sides were undecorated:24 Mariette described the lower case as painted in a deep blue-green colour on the outside, plastered in white in its interior, and made of a single tree trunk, in the style of other rishi coffins.25 The decision to display only the lid was dictated by the fact that there was no decoration on the lower case.26 Nonetheless, the bottom of the foot was gilded and decorated with a double smA-tAwy motif (see photo of Devéria in the Musée d’Orsay, PHO 1986 144 97, MS 163 93; see Fig 1); hence the reason for not displaying it together with the lid was mainly due to the fact that coffin was supposed to be displayed vertically, as it is nowadays. I would like to thank Dr. Sabah Abdel-Razek, director of the Cairo Museum, Abeer Abdel-Aziz. curator in charge of Ahhotep section, Marwa Abdel Razek, director of the Registration, Collections Management, and Documentation Department. I am grateful also to Elena Tiribilli, Mattia Mancini, Camilla Saler for their help in Cairo Museum archives. The present work is based on research carried out in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in December 2020 under the project PRIN 2017, PROCESS – Pharaonic Rescission: Objects as Crucibles of ancient Egyptian Societies. Part of the project is founded by the Excellence Department Project “Structures in time. Resilience, acceleration, and change perception (in the Euro-Mediterranean area)” inside the framework “Accelerations and Resilience: Expansion and Growth in the Early States and Empires of the Ancient World” for the Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, Università di Pisa. Bibliography Abou-Ghazi, D., “Personalities that developed the Egyptian Museum”, ASAE 67 (1988), 19-58. von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Bothmer, B.V., “Numbering systems of the Cairo Museum”, in S. Sauneron (ed.), Textes et langages de l’Égypte pharaonique : cent cinquante années de recherches 1822 – 1972. Hommage à Jean-François Champollion, vol. III (Cairo, 1974), 111-22. Desjardins, E., “Découverts de M. Mariette en Egypte”, RGA 18 (1860), 97-124. Dewachter, M., “L’original de l’ʻinventaire de Boulaqʼ”, BIFAO 85 (1985), 105-31. Lebée, T., Le musée d’antiquités égyptiennes de Būlāq (18581889). Faire connaître et aimer l’Égypte ancienne au XIXe siècle (Paris: Unpublished dissertation, Ecole du Louvre, 2013), <accessed online on 15.10.2021, at https://hef.hypotheses.org>). Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galeries provisoires du Musée d’Antiquités Égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-roi à Boulaq (Cairo, 1864, 1872, 1876). Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Miniaci, G., “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep “Treasure” from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. de Morgan, J. Notice des principaux monuments exposés aux Musée de Gizeh (Cairo, 1892). Podvin, J.-L., Auguste Mariette (1821-1881): des berges de la Liane aux rives du Nil (Paris, 2020). Trad, M., “Varia Musée du Caire. 1: Journal d’Entrée et Catalogue Général”, ASAE 70 (1984-85), 352-7. Vernier, É., Bijoux et orfèvreries. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire – Nos. 5200153855, vols I-II (Cairo, 1927). Fig. 1 – Foot end of the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 144 97 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt Desjardins, RGA 18, 99. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 25-6. 26 Mariette, Notice [1864], 218: “La cuve peinte en gros bleu sans aucune décoration n’ayant pas d’intérêt et prenant, d’ailleurs, une place considérable, nous n’avons exposé que le couvercle”. 24 25 95 Gianluca Miniaci Table 2 – Correlation of all museum inventory numbers, arranged by JE Object Type JE inv. no. CG inv. no. TR inv. no. SR inv. no. Coffin JE 4663 CG 28501 SR 7/19408; SR 1/10339 Mirror JE 4664 *CG 19508 CG 52664 SR 1/6588 Dagger with straight grip JE 4665 *CG 19505 CG 52661 SR 1/6586 Dagger with human heads shaped grip JE 4666 *CG 19502 CG 52658+ CG 52659 SR 1/6589 Dagger (only blade) JE 4667 *CG 19501 Dagger with discoid butt JE 4668 *CG 19506 CG 52660 SR 1/6587 Waggon miniature JE 4669 *CG 19548 CG 52668 SR 1/6596 Plaquette JE 4670 Stick JE 4671 *CG 19509 CG 52662 SR 1/6597 Fan JE 4672 *CG 19510a-c CG 52705 SR 1/6579 Axe with Ahmose name/ prenomen JE 4673 *CG 19500 CG 52645 SR 1/6603 J.856 Axe in bronze JE 4674 *CG 19503 SR 3/3941 J.889 Axe in silver JE 4675 *CG 19504 CG 52647 SR 1/6607 Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) JE 4676 *CG 19503 CG 52646 SR 1/6602 Axe (only blade) JE 4677 *CG 19507 CG 52648 SR 1/6608 Axe (only blade) JE 4678 Armlet with vulture JE 4679 *CG 19545 CG 52068 SR 1/6567 Armlet with Ahmose cartouche JE 4680 *CG 19540 CG 52642 SR 1/6570 Boat miniature in gold JE 4681 *CG 19549 CG 52666 SR 1/6596 Boat miniature in silver JE 4682 *CG 19547 CG 52667 SR 1/6574 Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4683 *CG 19536 CG 52004 SR 1/6571 Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4684 *CG 19544 CG 52069 SR 1/6566 Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen (•) JE 4685 *CG 19546 CG 52070 SR 1/6568 Bracelet with Ahmose name (•) JE 4686 *CG 19541 CG 52071 SR 1/6569 (a) Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen JE 4687 *CG 19542 CG 52072 SR 1/6569 (b) Necklace ending with hemispherical beads JE 4688 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads JE 4689 Necklace JE 4690 Necklace JE 4691 Von Bissing’s inv. no. TR 23.1.23.7 (?) Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. J.853.2 TR 31.12.23.1 (?) Table 2 96 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Object Type JE inv. no. Von Bissing’s inv. no. CG inv. no. TR inv. no. SR inv. no. Luxor inv. no. Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces JE 4692 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces JE 4693 Necklace ending with flies GEM inv. no. JE 4694 *CG 19543 CG 52671 SR 1/6584 J.854 Necklace with scarab JE 4695 *CG 19537 CG 52670 SR 1/6601 Bracelet in solid gold JE 4696 *CG 19513 CG 52073 SR 1/6565 Bracelet (*) JE 4697 *CG 19529 CG 52074 SR 1/6580 Bracelet (*) JE 4698 *CG 19530 CG 52075 SR 1/6581 Bracelet (*) JE 4699 *CG 19531 CG 52076 SR 1/6582 Bracelet (*) JE 4700 *CG 19532 CG 52077 SR 1/6583 Bracelet (#) JE 4701 *CG 19525 CG 52080 SR 1/6592 Bracelet (#) JE 4702 *CG 19526 CG 52081 SR 1/6595 Bracelet (#) JE 4703 *CG 19527 CG 52078 SR 1/6594 Bracelet (#) JE 4704 *CG 19528 CG 52079 SR 1/6593 Bracelet JE 4705 *CG 19535 Bracelet JE 4706 *CG 19522 Bracelet (°) JE 4707 *CG 19514 CG 52083 SR 1/6575 GEM 4581 Bracelet (°) JE 4708 *CG 19515 CG 52084 SR 1/6576 GEM 4581 Bracelet (°) JE 4709 *CG 19516 CG 52085 SR 1/6577 GEM 4581 Bracelet (°) JE 4710 *CG 19517 CG 52086 SR 1/6578 GEM 4581 Bracelet (^) JE 4711 *CG 19533 CG 52087 SR 1/6599 Bracelet (^) JE 4712 *CG 19534 CG 52088 SR 1/6600 Lion head pawn in gold JE 4713 *CG 19538 CG 52703 SR 1/6564 Lion head pawn in copper JE 4714 *CG 19539 CG 52704 SR 1/6564 Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4715 CG 52649 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4716 CG 52650 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4717 CG 52651 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4718 CG 52652 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4719 CG 52653 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4720 CG 52654 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4721 CG 52655 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4722 CG 52656 SR 1/6604-06 Table 2 97 Gianluca Miniaci Object Type JE inv. no. Von Bissing’s inv. no. Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4723 CG inv. no. TR inv. no. SR inv. no. CG 52657 SR 1/6604-06 Ring JE 4724 *CG 19535 CG 52082 SR 1/6598 Wesekh collar JE 4725 (1-20) *CG 19550-63 CG 5267252673 + CG 52688 SR 1/6572 Wesekh collar – Falcon head pendants JE 4725.1 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Lion head pendants JE 4725.2 CG 52693 Wesekh collar – Fly pendants JE 4725.3 Wesekh collar – Bell pendants JE 4725.4 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Spiral-shaped pendants JE 4725.5 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Rosette disks JE 4725.6 CG 52673 Wesekh collar – Four pointed star pendants JE 4725.7 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Drop shaped pendants JE 4725.8 CG 52673 Wesekh collar – Almond shaped pendant JE 4725.9 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Rectangular plaquettes JE 4725.10 CG 52688 Wesekh collar – Buttons JE 4725.11 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Bird pendants JE 4725.12 CG 52733 Wesekh collar – Hawk pendants JE 4725.13 CG 52733 Wesekh collar – Vulture pendants JE 4725.14 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Winged cobra pendants JE 4725.15 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Antilope pendants JE 4725.16 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Lion pendants JE 4725.17 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Running dog pendants JE 4725.18 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Seated dog pendants JE 4725.19 CG 52672 Wesekh collar – Box with beads JE 4725.20 Kohl jar JE 4726 CG 18311 Toilet jar JE 4727 CG 18478 SR 1/10335; SR 7/19404 Toilet jar JE 4728 CG 18479 SR 1/10336; SR 7/19405 Toilet jar JE 4729 CG 18482 SR 1/10338; SR 7/19407 *CG 19511-12 Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. CG 52692 Table 2 98 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Object Type JE inv. no. Toilet jar JE 4730 Wooden box JE 4731 Headrest JE 4732 Von Bissing’s inv. no. CG inv. no. TR inv. no. SR inv. no. CG 18480 SR 1/10337; SR 7/19406 Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. Table 2 – List of correspondence between all the museum inventory numbers assigned to the objects of the queen’s assemblage, arranged by JE numbers. Marked with * all the CG numbers annulled (von Bissing’s numbers). The numbers marked with a slash (0000) are those deleted in the JE register Table 2 99 Gianluca Miniaci Table 3 – Correlation of all museum inventory numbers, arranged by CG Object Type CG inv. no. JE inv. no. Kohl jar CG 18311 JE 4726 Toilet jar CG 18478 JE 4727 SR 1/10335; SR 7/19404 Toilet jar CG 18479 JE 4728 SR 1/10336; SR 7/19405 Toilet jar CG 18480 JE 4730 SR 1/10337; SR 7/19406 Toilet jar CG 18482 JE 4729 SR 1/10338; SR 7/19407 Coffin CG 28501 JE 4663 SR 7/19408; SR 1/10339 Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen CG 52004 JE 4683 *CG 19536 SR 1/6571 Armlet with vulture CG 52068 JE 4679 *CG 19545 SR 1/6567 Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen CG 52069 JE 4684 *CG 19544 SR 1/6566 Bracelet with Ahmose CG 52070 prenomen (•) JE 4685 *CG 19546 SR 1/6568 Bracelet with Ahmose CG 52071 name (•) JE 4686 *CG 19541 SR 1/6569 (a) Bracelet with Ahmose CG 52072 prenomen JE 4687 *CG 19542 SR 1/6569 (b) Bracelet in solid gold CG 52073 JE 4696 *CG 19513 SR 1/6565 Bracelet (*) CG 52074 JE 4697 *CG 19529 SR 1/6580 Bracelet (*) CG 52075 JE 4698 *CG 19530 SR 1/6581 Bracelet (*) CG 52076 JE 4699 *CG 19531 SR 1/6582 Bracelet (*) CG 52077 JE 4700 *CG 19532 SR 1/6583 Bracelet (#) CG 52078 JE 4703 *CG 19527 SR 1/6594 Bracelet (#) CG 52079 JE 4704 *CG 19528 SR 1/6593 Bracelet (#) CG 52080 JE 4701 *CG 19525 SR 1/6592 Bracelet (#) CG 52081 JE 4702 *CG 19526 SR 1/6595 Ring CG 52082 JE 4724 *CG 19535 SR 1/6598 Bracelet (°) CG 52083 JE 4707 *CG 19514 SR 1/6575 GEM 4581 Bracelet (°) CG 52084 JE 4708 *CG 19515 SR 1/6576 GEM 4581 Bracelet (°) CG 52085 JE 4709 *CG 19516 SR 1/6577 GEM 4581 Bracelet (°) CG 52086 JE 4710 *CG 19517 SR 1/6578 GEM 4581 Bracelet (^) CG 52087 JE 4711 *CG 19533 SR 1/6599 Von Bissing’s inv. no. TR inv. no. SR inv. no. Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. Table 3 100 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Object Type CG inv. no. JE inv. no. Von Bissing’s inv. no. TR inv. no. SR inv. no. Bracelet (^) CG 52088 JE 4712 *CG 19534 SR 1/6600 Armlet with Ahmose cartouche CG 52642 JE 4680 *CG 19540 SR 1/6570 Axe with Ahmose name/prenomen CG 52645 JE 4673 *CG 19500 SR 1/6603 Axe in silver CG 52647 JE 4675 *CG 19504 SR 1/6607 Axe (only blade) CG 52648 JE 4677 *CG 19507 SR 1/6608 Axe miniature in gold (§) CG 52649 JE 4715 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in gold (§) CG 52650 JE 4716 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in gold (§) CG 52651 JE 4717 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) CG 52652 JE 4718 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) CG 52653 JE 4719 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) CG 52654 JE 4720 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) CG 52655 JE 4721 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) CG 52656 JE 4722 SR 1/6604-06 Axe miniature in silver (¶) CG 52657 JE 4723 SR 1/6604-06 Dagger with human heads shaped grip CG 52658+ CG 52659 JE 4666 *CG 19502 SR 1/6589 Dagger with discoid butt CG 52660 JE 4668 *CG 19506 SR 1/6587 Dagger with straight grip CG 52661 JE 4665 *CG 19505 SR 1/6586 Stick CG 52662 JE 4671 *CG 19509 SR 1/6597 Mirror CG 52664 JE 4664 *CG 19508 SR 1/6588 Boat miniature in gold CG 52666 JE 4681 *CG 19549 SR 1/6596 Boat miniature in silver CG 52667 JE 4682 *CG 19547 SR 1/6574 Waggon miniature CG 52668 JE 4669 *CG 19548 SR 1/6596 Necklace with scarab CG 52670 JE 4695 *CG 19537 SR 1/6601 Necklace ending with flies CG 52671 JE 4694 *CG 19543 SR 1/6584 Wesekh collar – Falcon head pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.1 Wesekh collar – Buttons CG 52672 JE 4725.11 Wesekh collar – Vulture pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.14 Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. J.856 J.853.2 J.854 Table 3 101 Gianluca Miniaci Object Type CG inv. no. JE inv. no. Wesekh collar – Winged cobra pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.15 Wesekh collar – Antilope pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.16 Wesekh collar – Lion pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.17 Wesekh collar – Run- CG 52672 ning dog pendants JE 4725.18 Wesekh collar – Seated dog pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.19 Wesekh collar – Bell pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.4 Wesekh collar – Spiral-shaped pendants CG 52672 JE 4725.5 Wesekh collar – Four CG 52672 pointed star pendants JE 4725.7 Wesekh collar – Almond shaped pendant CG 52672 JE 4725.9 Wesekh collar CG 5267252673 + 52688 JE 4725 (1-20) Wesekh collar – Rosette disks CG 52673 JE 4725.6 Wesekh collar – Drop CG 52673 shaped pendants JE 4725.8 Wesekh collar –Rectangular plaquettes CG 52688 JE 4725.10 Wesekh collar – Fly pendants CG 52692 JE 4725.3 Wesekh collar – Lion head pendants CG 52693 JE 4725.2 Lion head pawn in gold CG 52703 JE 4713 *CG 19538 SR 1/6564 Lion head pawn in copper CG 52704 JE 4714 *CG 19539 SR 1/6564 Fan CG 52705 JE 4672 *CG 19510a-c SR 1/6579 Wesekh collar – Bird pendants CG 52733 JE 4725.12 Wesekh collar – Hawk pendants CG 52733 JE 4725.13 Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) CG 52646 JE 4676 *CG 19503 SR 1/6602 Dagger (only blade) – JE 4667 *CG 19501 Plaquette – JE 4670 Axe in bronze – JE 4674 Axe (only blade) – JE 4678 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads – JE 4688 Von Bissing’s inv. no. TR inv. no. *CG 19550-63 SR inv. no. Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. SR 1/6572 *CG 19511-12 *CG 19503 TR 23.1.23.7 (?) SR 3/3941 J.889 TR 31.12.23.1 (?) Table 3 102 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Object Type CG inv. no. JE inv. no. Von Bissing’s inv. no. Necklace ending with hemispherical beads – JE 4689 Necklace – JE 4690 Necklace – JE 4691 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces – JE 4692 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces – JE 4693 Bracelet – JE 4705 *CG 19535 Bracelet – JE 4706 *CG 19522 Wesekh collar – Box with beads – JE 4725.20 Wooden box – JE 4731 Headrest – JE 4732 TR inv. no. SR inv. no. Luxor inv. no. GEM inv. no. Table 3 – List of correspondence between all the museum inventory numbers assigned to the objects of the queen’s assemblage, arranged by CG numbers. Marked with * all the CG numbers annulled (von Bissing’s numbers). The numbers marked with a slash (0000) are those deleted in the JE register Table 3 103 Gianluca Miniaci Table 4 – List of objects whose current location is unknown Object Type JE inv. no. Dagger (only blade) JE 4667 Plaquette JE 4670 Axe (only blade) JE 4678 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads JE 4688 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads JE 4689 Necklace JE 4690 Necklace JE 4691 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces JE 4692 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces JE 4693 Bracelet JE 4705 Bracelet JE 4706 Wesekh collar–Box with beads JE 4725.20 Wooden box JE 4731 Headrest JE 4732 Table 4 – Objects whose current location is unknown Table 5 – List of main bibliographic references to Ahhotep’s assemblage Object Type JE inv. no. Bibliography (Main Reference) Coffin JE 4663 von Mirror JE 4664 von Dagger with straight grip JE 4665 von Dagger with human heads shaped grip JE 4666 von Dagger (only blade) JE 4667 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Dagger with discoid butt JE 4668 von Waggon miniature JE 4669 von Plaquette JE 4670 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Stick JE 4671 von Fan JE 4672 von Axe with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4673 von Axe in bronze JE 4674 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Bissing 1900, 21-2, pls XI-XII.1-7; PM I2, 2, 600-2; Miniaci 2011, 225, rT02C Bissing 1900, 4, pl. III.6; Mariette 1864, 226, no. 27; Vernier 1927, 214-15, pl. XLVIII Bissing 1900, 3, pl. III.3; Mariette 1864, 225, no. 23; Vernier 1927, 212-13, pl. XLVI Bissing 1900, 1-4, pl. II; Mariette 1864, 222, no. 6; Vernier 1927, 209-11, pl. XLV (CG 52658 is for the dagger and CG 52659 for the sheath) Bissing 1900, 3, pl. III.5; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 9; Vernier 1927, 211-12, pl. XLV Bissing 1900, 20-2, pl. X.3; Mariette 1864, 226, no. 29; Vernier 1927, 218-19, pl. XLIX Bissing 1900, 6, pl. IV.7; Mariette 1864, 225, no. 22; Vernier 1927, 213, no. pl. Bissing 1900, 6, pl. IV.8, 8a-b; Mariette 1864, 225, no. 25; Vernier 1927, 236-7, pl. XLVI Bissing 1900, 1-2, pl. I; Mariette 1864, 221, no. 5; Vernier 1927, 205-7, pls XLII-XLIII Tables 4/5 104 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Object Type JE inv. no. Bibliography (Main Reference) Axe in silver JE 4675 von Bissing 1900, 3, pl. III.4; Mariette 1864, 168, no. 402; Vernier 1927, 208, pl. XLIV Axe in bronze (golden foil handle) JE 4676 von Axe (only blade) JE 4677 von Axe (only blade) JE 4678 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Armlet with vulture JE 4679 von Armlet with Ahmose cartouche JE 4680 von Boat miniature in gold JE 4681 von Boat miniature in silver JE 4682 von Pectoral with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4683 von Bracelet with Ahmose name/prenomen JE 4684 von Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen (•) JE 4685 von Bracelet with Ahmose name (•) JE 4686 von Bracelet with Ahmose prenomen JE 4687 von Necklace ending with hemispherical beads JE 4688 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Necklace ending with hemispherical beads JE 4689 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Necklace JE 4690 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Necklace JE 4691 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 5 pieces JE 4692 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Necklace ending with papyrus buttons, in 3 pieces JE 4693 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Necklace ending with flies JE 4694 von Necklace with scarab JE 4695 von Bracelet in solid gold JE 4696 von Bracelet (*) JE 4697 von Bracelet (*) JE 4698 von Bracelet (*) JE 4699 von Bracelet (*) JE 4700 von Bracelet (#) JE 4701 von Bracelet (#) JE 4702 von Bracelet (#) JE 4703 von Bracelet (#) JE 4704 von Bissing 1900, 3, pl. III.1; Mariette 1864, 221, no. 5; Vernier 1927, 207, pl. XLIV Bissing 1900, 3, pl. III.2; Vernier 1927, 208-9, no pl. Bissing 1900, 11, pl. VII.1a-c; Mariette 1864, 222, no. 7; Vernier 1927, 32-33, pl. IX Bissing 1900, 7-8, pl. V.1a-b; Mariette 1864, 224, no. 18; Vernier 1927, 202-3, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 19-20, pl. X.2a-b; Mariette 1864, 226, no. 29; Vernier 1927, 216-17, pl. XLIX Bissing 1900, 19, pl. X.1a-b; de Morgan 1892, 214, no. 956; Vernier 1927, 217-18, no pl. Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls V.3, VI.1; Mariette 1864, 224, no. 14; Vernier 1927, 6, pl. III Bissing 1900, 11, pl. VII.3a-b; Mariette 1864, 221, no. 1; Vernier 1927, 34-5, pl. IX Bissing 1900, 8-9, pl. V.4, 4b; Mariette 1864, 224, no. 15; Vernier 1927, 35-6, pl. IX Bissing 1900, 8, no pl.; Mariette 1864, 221, nos 2-3; Vernier 1927, 38, no pl. Bissing 1900, 8, pl. V.2; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 11; Vernier 1927, 38, pl. X Bissing 1900, 9-10, pl. VI.2; Mariette 1864, 225, no. 19; Vernier 1927, 220-21, pl. LI Bissing 1900, 10-12, pls VI.4, VII.2a-b; Mariette 1864, 221, no. 4; Vernier 1927, 219-20, pl. L Bissing 1900, 5, pl. IV.6; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 11; Vernier 1927, 38, pl. X Bissing 1900, 5, pl. IV.4; Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 38-9, pl. X Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.4); Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 39, pl. X Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.4); Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 39, pl. X Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.4); Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 39, pl. X Bissing 1900, 5, pl. IV.5; Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 40, no pl. Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.5); Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 40, no pl. Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.5); Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 39-40, no pl. Bissing 1900, no pl. (under pl. IV.5); Mariette 1864, 226, no. 28; Vernier 1927, 40, no pl. Table 5 105 Gianluca Miniaci Object Type JE inv. no. Bibliography (Main Reference) Bracelet JE 4705 von Bissing 1900, 5, pl. IV.1 Bracelet JE 4706 von Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. Bracelet (°) JE 4707 von Bracelet (°) JE 4708 von Bracelet (°) JE 4709 von Bracelet (°) JE 4710 von Bracelet (^) JE 4711 von Bracelet (^) JE 4712 von Lion head pawn in gold JE 4713 von Lion head pawn in copper JE 4714 von Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4715 von Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4716 von Axe miniature in gold (§) JE 4717 von Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4718 von Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4719 von Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4720 von Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4721 von Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4722 von Axe miniature in silver (¶) JE 4723 von Ring JE 4724 von Wesekh collar JE 4725 (1–20) von Wesekh collar – Falcon head pendants JE 4725.1 von Wesekh collar – Lion head pendants JE 4725.2 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 (?); Vernier 1927, 231, pl. LII Wesekh collar – Fly pendants JE 4725.3 von Wesekh collar – Bell pendants JE 4725.4 von Wesekh collar – Spiral-shaped pendants JE 4725.5 von Wesekh collar – Rosette disks JE 4725.6 von Wesekh collar – Four pointed star pendants JE 4725.7 von Bissing 1900, 5, pl. IV.3; Mariette 1876, 252, no. 838; Vernier 1927, 41, pl. XI Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.3); Mariette 1876, 252, no. 838; Vernier 1927, 42, pl. XI Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.3); Mariette 1876, 252, no. 838; Vernier 1927, 42, pl. XI Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.3); Mariette 1876, 252, no. 838; Vernier 1927, 42, pl. XI Bissing 1900, 5, pl. IV.2; Mariette 1864, 223, 228, 827-8; Vernier 1927, 42-3, pl. XI Bissing 1900, 5, no pl. (under pl. IV.2); Mariette 1864, 223, 228, 827-8; Vernier 1927, 42-3, pl. XI Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1864, 225, no. 20; Vernier 1927, 235-6, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1864, 225, no. 20; Vernier 1927, 236, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; Mariette 1872, 270, no. 837; Vernier 1927, 209, pl. XXXIX Bissing 1900, 5, no pl.; Vernier 1927, 40-1, no pl. Bissing 1900, 6, 9-10, pls VI.3a-b, VIII.1-14, VIIIa, IX; Mariette 1864, 223-4, nos 10, 13, 16; Vernier 1927, 221-3, 230-1, 247-8, pls LI-LIII, LXV Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.1, IX.1f-g; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 10, pl. VI.3a-b; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 10; Vernier 1927, 230-1, pl. LI Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.9, VIIIa. 12; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.2, VIIIa.14, IX.1e, 1h; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIIIa.2, IX.1c-d; Mariette 1864, 224, no. 16; Vernier 1927, 222-3, pl. LIII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.4, VIIIa.4; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Table 5 106 Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage Object Type JE inv. no. Bibliography (Main Reference) Wesekh collar – Drop shaped pendants JE 4725.8 von Wesekh collar – Almond shaped pendant JE 4725.9 von Wesekh collar – Rectangular plaquettes JE 4725.10 von Wesekh collar – Buttons JE 4725.11 von Wesekh collar – Bird pendants JE 4725.12 von Wesekh collar – Hawk pendants JE 4725.13 von Wesekh collar – Vulture pendants JE 4725.14 von Wesekh collar – Winged cobra pendants JE 4725.15 von Wesekh collar – Antilope pendants JE 4725.16 von Wesekh collar – Lion pendants JE 4725.17 von Wesekh collar – Running dog pendants JE 4725.18 von Wesekh collar – Seated dog pendants JE 4725.19 von Wesekh collar – Box with beads JE 4725.20 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900, probably pl. VIII.1314 (?) Kohl jar JE 4726 von Bissing 1904, 53, no. pl. I Toilet jar JE 4727 von Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; von Bissing 1904, 93, pl. I Toilet jar JE 4728 von Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; von Bissing 1904, 93, pl. I Toilet jar JE 4729 von Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; von Bissing 1904, 94, pl. I Toilet jar JE 4730 von Bissing 1900, 23, pl. XI; von Bissing 1904, 94, pl. I Wooden box JE 4731 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Headrest JE 4732 Not mentioned in von Bissing 1900 Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIIIa.2, IX.1d; Mariette 1864, 224, no. 16; Vernier 1927, 222-3, pl. LIII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.6, VIIIa.3; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII LIII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pl. IX.1a-b; Vernier 1927, 229, pl. Bissing 1900, 9-10, pl VIII.11; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.2, VIIIa.7; Vernier 1927, 247-8, pl. LXV Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.1, VIIIa.13; Vernier 1927, 247-8, pl. LXV Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.8, VIIIa.14; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.15, VIIIa. 5; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.3, VIIIa.10; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.3, VIIIa.6; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.7, VIIIa.8; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Bissing 1900, 9-10, pls VIII.7, VIIIa.13; Mariette 1864, 223, no. 13; Vernier 1927, 221-2, pl. LII Table 5 – List of three main bibliographic references to Ahhotep’s assemblage: Mariette 1864, 1872, 1876 = Mariette, Notice (the closest in time to the time of the discovery); de Morgan 1892 = de Morgan, Notice; von Bissing 1900 = von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund; Vernier 1927 = Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries; Miniaci 2011 = Miniaci, Rishi Coffins; of the Bulaq Museum, and CG volumes Table 5 107 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 109-120 A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501) Marilina Betrò Abstract Among Howard Carter’s “autobiographical sketches” in the Griffith Institute and the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York, an interesting digression narrates “the first modern discovery connected with the royal mummies”, that of the coffin of Queen Ahhotep at Dra Abu el-Naga (Cairo CG 28501). While the discovery is traditionally credited to Auguste Mariette, according to his own descriptions and those of his friends and collaborators, here Carter gave a radically different account of the find, attributing it to an Egyptian fellâh acting alone, the father of his servant Abd el-Arl. The presence of some quite precise details, absent in the much vaguer ‒ and sometimes contradictory ‒ versions of Mariette and his collaborators, makes it remarkable and seriously raises the question of the reliability of Mariette’s accounts of the discovery. The paper provides a transcription from Carter’s manuscripts and comments on the most significant points. The Griffith Institute Archive at Oxford houses in its rich collection of manuscripts the so-called “Autobiographical Sketches” of Howard Carter, drafts of what was probably intended as a book.1 They are unpublished, with the exception of passages quoted in later publications by other scholars.2 In a charming and engaging style, Carter evokes moments of his life, from the early years to those in Egypt, interspersed with archaeological and historical information. A number of versions of the planned autobiography are in the Griffith Institute, both handwritten and typewritten, at least one further version is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York, and others probably elsewhere.3 Carter MSS vi.2.1-14; http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/4cartervi+vii.pdf. On Carter MSS see also Bosch-Puche, Flemming, Warsi, Salmas, in Connor, Laboury (eds), Toutankhamon, 62-7. 2 See Reeves, Taylor, Howard Carter, passim. 3 James, Howard Carter, 2 no. 3. A recent project of digitization of the correspondence to and from Carter (1874-1939) is currently in progress at the Metropolitan Museum: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/libraries-and-research-centers/watson-digitalcollections/manuscript-collections/howard-carter-papers, <ac1 Among the “autobiographical sketches” in the Griffith Institute, a chapter entitled “A History of the Theban Royal Mummies Decadence and Destiny I-IX” (Carter MSS VI.2.4) deals with the story of ancient grave-robbing in the thirteenth century BC, the subsequent transfer of royal mummies from place to place and their final destination in two caches, until they were re-discovered nearly twenty-nine centuries later. With a few slight variants the story is also included in Carter MSS VI.2.11 (formerly Carter notebook 17), “Sketch IX”, again devoted to “Tomb-Robberies and the Fate of the Royal Mummies”, and in a further draft in the Department of Egyptian Art in the Metropolitan Museum. This latter is presently outside the Department to be digitized and cessed on 5 February 2021>. The original papers partly transcribed here are among them and will be soon available online (personal communication by Diana Craig Patch). An autograph draft of an autobiography by Howard Carter has been sold by Bonhams, in a lot including the remaining papers of Carter owned by his family, during the auction on June 12, 2012 in London, Knightsbrisge. Marilina Betrò I could not see it, but I had its transcription, made by Marsha Hill in 1985, thanks to the kindness of Diana Craig Patch.4 In the context of this story, Howard Carter introduced an interesting digression to narrate “the first modern discovery connected with the royal mummies”, that of the coffin of Queen Ahhotep at Dra Abu el-Naga (Cairo CG 28501).5 Here Carter gave a radically different account of the find, attributing it to an Egyptian fellâh acting alone, the father of his servant Abd el-Arl. His testimony is therefore of great interest, not only to clarify important data about the find and its context6 but also to shed new light on the construction of an archaeological narrative, which seems to have begun after the mid-nineteenth century, centred around the figure of the European Archaeological Hero. While Carter MSS VI.2.4 is a typewritten version, with pencil notes and corrections by hand of Carter, Carter MSS VI.2.11 is a final draft, copied in a notebook, from previous rough drafts on paper sheets, handwritten in ink, with pencil corrections and additions by Carter (see Fig. 1a-b). As for the version in the Metropolitan Museum, according to the description Diana Craig Patch wrote to me, it is entirely handwritten by pencil. I will call them here respectively GI MSS VI.2.11, GI MSS VI.2.4 and MMA MS. (Table 1). Precise dates of their drafting by Carter are missing, although T.G.H. James believed that they probably were composed during his late years.7 A useful clue in this respect is given in MMA MS: Carter says here that his servant Abd el-Arl, son of the true protagonist of the story, was at his service since forty years. In the letter of condolence written by Abd el-Arl himself on Carter’s death in 1939, he states that he had served him for 42 years.8 This suggests that the British Egyptologist was writing his autobiography around 1937. Based on data internal to the text, such as Carter’s annotations and corrections, it is possible to suggest that the pencil version of MMA MS is the eldest of the three drafts. GI MSS VI.2.4 represents an intermediate step, being 4 A passage from this manuscript was transcribed by Edward Castle in Lilyquist, Egyptian Stone Vessels, 55 and no. 177, for the purpose of contextualizing the alabaster jars found with the coffin. 5 Carter gives here the erroneous date of 1860. On the history of the find and the identity of the queen, see Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 6 Ibidem. See also Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 7 James, Howard Carter, 2. 8 James, Howard Carter, 469; Reeves, Taylor, Howard Carter, 181. clearly based on the draft now in the MMA MS, with few modifications, while GI MSS VI.2.11 is the latest. It is worth noting to this purpose that, both in MMA MS and in GI MSS VI.2.4, Carter referred to Ahmose as Ahhotep’s husband and Kamose as her son: these wrong genealogical ties are absent in GI MSS VI.2.11, where Ahmose is called her son-in-law and Kamose is more vaguely qualified as a king, without any statement of family relationships. James, commenting Carter’s inaccuracy with respect to the dates of his own life, remarked that Carter’s autobiographical sketches are “unfortunately so full of errors and inconsistencies ‒ where precision can be secured from more reliable sources ‒ that they can be taken only as rough guides to his careers”.9 However, this does not seem to be the case for Carter’s account of the find: we have no other sources to be sure of its reliability but the three texts are entirely consistent in content and differences between them are not significant, mostly concerning stylistic features. The whole story, bitterly told to Carter by his servant’s father, could certainly only have been a harmless boast of the old peasant, with no factual basis, dictated by the desire to show off. But the presence of some quite precise details, absent in the much vaguer ‒ and sometimes contradictory ‒ accounts of Mariette and his collaborators, makes it remarkable. These details, clearly stated in all three versions, concern: • the author of the find Ahmed Saïd “el-Hagg” is referred to as the sole author of the discovery. According to Carter’s words, when he met him, he was an old man. Abd el-Arl’s statement at Carter’s death in 1939, quoted above,10 says that he had served him for 42 years. This places his employment by the archaeologist at around 1897. Behind the expression “old” different assessments of the age of the man may lie, none of which, however, rules out the possibility that Ahmed Saïd might actually have found the queen’s coffin around the time when its discovery is generally dated.11 James, Howard Carter, 2. See n. 8. 11 If Ahmed Saïd’s story is trustworthy, probably the effective date of the find must be placed earlier than the 5th of February 1859 assigned to it by the accounts of Mariette and Desjardins: a certain amount of time must be left between the discovery of Ahmed Saïd, the spreading of the news by his workers and the confiscation by the governor. About the contradictory information concerning the date see Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 31-2. 9 10 110 A Note to Carter Manuscripts • its location • The two earlier versions specify the approximate position of the find by using as landmark TT 155, located almost at the end of the wadi Khawi el-Alamat, in the northernmost part of Dra Abu el-Naga: MMA MS: “deep below a tomb (of a certain Antef, the ‘Great Herald of the King’, dating from the reign of Tuthmosis III) where there are some hidden brick vaults, (…) hidden in one of the vaults. The coffin (…) was placed in a hole at the side of the vault that seemed to have been gouged out expressly for it, and it was roughly covered up with bricks as if to hide it” GI MSS VI 2.4: “The vault was situated deep below a tomb-chapel of a certain Antef, ‘The Great Herald of Tuthmosis III’; the coffin he said was tucked away in a hole that had been roughly hollowed out of the side of the vault, and then it had been carefully covered up with mud bricks as if to hide it” The final draft (GI MSS VI 2.11) omits this detail, only retaining that it was found “hidden in a brick vault”. No other report of the finding by Mariette and his collaborators mentions those brick structures. On the contrary, they vary between locating the find in a shaft 5-6 meters deep or in a shallow hole under the surface.12 Winlock reported in a note that Carter had “heard a tradition in Kurnah that the site was near Tomb 155”.13 The expression “deep below” in Carter’s account must be understood in the sense of “much further downhill”, i.e., in the plain. In fact, the possibility that it refers to an underground depth can be ruled out: the subsequent description of the hole covered with bricks piled up in bulk (“roughly”) suggests that the hiding place was just below the surface of the ground. The position in the plain joined to the reference to the brick vaults might point out to the brick chapels associated to the burials of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasty found by the German Archaeological Institute, as Marianne Eaton-Krauss has already remarked.14 One of those ruined brick chapels would have been used as a cache for hiding the coffin stolen from its royal tomb on the ridge of Dra Abu el-Naga, according to Carter’s notebook.15 See Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume, n. 94, and Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD”, in this volume. 13 Winlock, JEA 10, 252, n. 2. 14 Eaton-Krauss, in Blöbaum, Kahl, Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster, 82; Polz, Der Beginn, 239-245. Another mud-brick offering chapel has been recently excavated at Dra Abu el-Naga by the Spanish Mission: Galán, JEA 103/2, 187 ff. 15 Eaton-Krauss, in Blöbaum, Kahl, Schweitzer (eds), 12 contents and description of the coffin16 It is consistently described as a massive wooden coffin which contained a mummy, four alabaster vases and a bundle of gold and silver objects: MMA MS: “a massive wooden coffin containing a mummy, four alabaster canopic jars, a bundle of jewellery and gold and silver ornaments hurriedly placed beside the mummy in the coffin” GI MSS VI 2.4: “a massive wooden coffin containing a mummy, four alabaster canopic vases, and a bundle of gold and silver ornaments” GI MSS VI 2.11: “an immense wooden coffin containing a mummy, four alabaster (calcite) canopic jars, and a bundle of gold and silver ornaments” The earliest manuscript adds to the description a remark about the haste with which the objects were apparently placed in the coffin, but it is impossible to say whether this detail, later removed, was due to a greater fidelity to Ahmed Saïd’s account or to Carter’s later reworking of the man’s words, as I am inclined to believe. While the massive wooden coffin and the alabaster vases are details already present in the first descriptions, more interesting is the constant presence of the “linen bundle”. The official accounts of the time mostly give the list of the jewels and precious objects found with the queen, without any information concerning their position within the coffin. Although it is clear from Maunier’s letter and later from Devéria that Mariette was not present at the discovery and was, indeed, in Cairo, the official reports of the time casually omit the detail or even depict him present and in the act of examining the mummy and the contents of the coffin: “Après avoir enlevé les bandelettes, M. Mariette trouva le corps de la reine Aah-Hotep littéralement couvert et enveloppé d’objets d’or et d’argent du plus grand intérêt”.17 In his catalogue of the Museum at Bulaq, Mariette says that the objects had been found partly near the mummy, on the wooden bottom of the case, partly arranged as if at random between the poorly knotted linens. Finally, some jewels were on the body of the queen: Ägypten-Münster, 81, no. 36. Eaton-Krauss remarks that Reeves, Great discoveries, 50 was the first to quote Carter’s sources, believing however that this was the original site of the queen’s burial. The exact reference to Carter’s Notebook 17 was however provided by Aidan Dodson, Canopic Equipment, 43, no. 33, who interpreted it as a cache. 16 See Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. 17 Desjardins, RGA 18, 99-100. 111 Marilina Betrò Acknowledgements “Sous la XIme dynastie [read: XVIIme], l’emmaillotage proprement dit est rare; les morts sont plutôt entourés de linges en forme de linceuls que serrés dans des bandelettes; entre ces linges sont placés des objets de toute sorte en rapport avec les usages de la vie privée; d’autres objets de même nature adhérents à la peau, ou bien encore déposés dans les vides du cercueil. Or l’embaumement de la reine Aah-hotep s’est fait exactement dans ces conditions. Deux barques d’or et d’argent, des haches de bronze, de gros bracelets de jambes ont été trouvés à côté d’elle, sur le bois du cercueil. Entre les linges mal noués etaient déposés, comme au hasard, des poignards, une hache d’or, une chaîne garnie de trois mouches d’or, un pectoral. Enfin le cadavre lui-même était revêtu d’une autre chaîne d’or ornée d’un scarabée, de bracelets, d’un diadème, etc”.18 My warmest thanks go to Diana Craig Patch, who looked up Howard Carter’s version in the Metropolitan Museum of Art for me, notwithstanding the difficult times, and provided me with the transcript made in 1985 by Marsha Hill. I am also indebted for many useful indications concerning Carter MSS versions in the Griffith Institute Archive at Oxford with Francisco Bosch-Puche, who kindly sent me the scans and the permission to reproduce them. I am most grateful to Peter Lacovara for revising my English. Bibliography The detail concerning “les linges mal noués” recalls the “linen bundle” of Ahmed Saïd: apparently, Mariette’s description is fairly precise, nonetheless it is known that it could not derive from a first-hand autoptic view. Might Mariette have relied here on the accounts of people in Qurna? Ahmed Saïd “el-Hagg” declared to Carter that he discovered the coffin, after many days searching for “antiquas” in the northern part of Dra Abu el-Naga. He seems to have been helped by some men, defined as “his fellow workers” in MMA MS and GI MSS VI 2.4, “his fellow illicit diggers” in GI MSS VI 2.11. It is clear however that they were not co-authors of the find or “partners”, who would have shared with him the profits of the fabulous discovery: if they had been, they would certainly not have divulged the news, thus leading in practice to the loss of any possible profits and the confiscation of the coffin. According to Carter’s account, these men, moved by envy, spread the news to the four winds. The next part of the text is no longer concerned with Ahmed Saïd’s words. Carter narrates the events followed to the confiscation of the coffin with its treasure by the governor and the strenuous and eventually successful attempts by Mariette to recover them (completely or partly, as Carter rather believed). Finally, he exposes his interpretation of the facts which brought to hide the coffin and leaving it neglected for centuries: as Petrie, he remarks that ordinary thieves would not have taken the trouble to carry the heavy coffin with its untouched mummy inside, but, while Petrie thought of “pious hands” trying to protect the coffin and its contents, Carter rather suspected that corrupted officials, at the time of recovering the royal mummies in the caches, hid the treasure with an eye to their future benefit.19 Betrò, M., “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. Bosch-Puche, F., E. Flemming, C. Warsi, A.-C. Salmas, “Les archives Carter et le «dossier Toutankhamon» au Griffith Institute, University of Oxford”, in S. Connor, D. Laboury (eds), Toutankhamon: à la découverte du pharaon oublié. Exposition organisée à l’espace Europa expo à la gare TGV des Guillemins, Liège, 14 décembre 2019 - 31 mai 2020 (Liège, 2019), 62-7. Desjardins, E., “Découverts de M. Mariette en Egypte”, RGA 18 (1860), 97-124. Dodson, A., The canopic equipment of the kings of Egypt (London, New York, 1994). Eaton-Krauss, M., “Encore: the coffins of Ahhotep, wife of Seqeni-en-Re Tao and mother of Ahmose”, in A.I. Blöbaum, J. Kahl, S.D. Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster: kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zu Ägypten, dem Vorderen Orient und verwandten Gebieten. Donum natalicium viro doctissimo Erharto Graefe sexagenario ab amicis collegis discipulis ex aedibus Schlaunstrasse 2/Rosenstrasse 9 oblatum (Wiesbaden, 2003), 75-90. Galán, J.M., “Ahmose(-Sapair) in Dra Abu el-Naga North”, JEA 103/2 (2017), 179-201.   James, T.G.H., Howard Carter: The path to Tutankhamun (Cairo, 2001). Lilyquist, C., Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV (New York, 1995). Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galeries provisoires du Musée d’Antiquités Égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-roi à Boulaq (Alexandrie, 1864). Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. Polz, D., Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (Berlin, New York: SDAIK 31, 2007). Reeves, N., Ancient Egypt ‒ The great discoveries: A year-byyear chronicle (London, 2000). Reeves, N., J.H. Taylor, Howard Carter before Tutankhamun (London, 1992). Winlock, H.E., “The tombs of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Mariette, Notice 1864, 219-20; Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources” in this volume, p. 144 and n. 91. 19 Ibidem. 18 112 A Note to Carter Manuscripts Fig. 1a – Page 168 from Carter MSS VI.2.11 © Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford 113 Marilina Betrò Fig. 1b – Page 169 from Carter MSS VI.2.11 © Griffith Institute Archive, Oxford 114 Table 1 – Synoptic view of the three manuscripts A Note to Carter Manuscripts 115 Marilina Betrò 116 A Note to Carter Manuscripts 117 Marilina Betrò 118 A Note to Carter Manuscripts 119 Marilina Betrò 120 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 121-127 The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure Yasmin El Shazly Abstract The exquisite treasures of Ahhotep were discovered by Auguste Mariette in the Northern sector of Dra Abu el-Naga in Western Thebes in 1859. It was the beauty of this discovery that triggered the decision to establish a museum in Bulaq in which such finds would be displayed. This chapter traces the history of the display of this unique collection in Bulaq, its travel to Paris in 1867 to be displayed at the Paris Exposition Universelle, its various displays at the Egyptian Museum in Tahrir and the participation of some of its pieces in travelling exhibitions. The exquisite treasures of Ahhotep were discovered by Auguste Mariette in the Northern sector of Dra Abu el-Naga in Western Thebes in 1859.1 It was the beauty of this discovery that triggered the decision to establish a museum in Bulaq in which such finds would be displayed.2 On 18th October 1863 Auguste Mariette, who was appointed in 1858 as director of antiquities by Egypt’s Viceroy Saïd Pasha, opened the Bulaq Museum to house Egyptian antiquities. The museum was located in the former riverside quarter of the overland transit company, near the current radio and television building. It was remodeled and transformed into one of the first buildings in neopharaonic style.3 Its location by the See Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume; Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 2 Maspero, Guide, XV. 3 Reid, Whose Pharaohs?, 104-5; Maspero, Mariette, cxxxvii. On the Bulaq Museum in general, see Mariette, Notice; 1 Nile was convenient, for it allowed for the transport of antiquities to and from the museum via the river.4 Mariette said of it: “You would no longer recognize our old court at Boulak. At the center now is a vast monument, in ancient Egyptian style, consisting of a dozen rooms built to my plans. This is our provisional museum. I don’t say we will be lodged there like kings, but at least we will have an ensemble of galleries while we await the definitive museum. On the interior as on the exterior, all is decorated à l’égyptienne, and the monuments will soon begin to take their places…The inauguration of these new constructions will take place Oct. 1”5 The complex consisted of a court for the museum and one for Mariette’s residence, in addition to a garden. Two Maspero, Guide, VII-XX; Drioton, CHE 3, 1-12; Mariette, Album. 4 Reid, Whose Pharaohs?, 104. 5 Reid, Whose Pharaohs?, 104; Maspero, Mariette, cxxxvii. Yasmin El Shazly additional display galleries were created for the celebrations of the inauguration of the Suez Canal. According to Mariette, the viceroy wanted a museum that would appeal to the local population, rather than to European travelers, and that would educate them about their own history. The organization of the museum galleries was modelled after Emmanuel de Rougé’s display of Egyptian materials in the Musée du Louvre’s top level, divided into four main themes: religious, funerary, civil and historical monuments. A fifth section for Graeco-Roman and Christian objects was added later.6 Mariette was eager to make his displays aesthetically appealing, often at the expense of chronological, contextual and thematic considerations, explaining this as an attempt to appeal to local visitors.7 Ahhotep’s treasures were put on display in the Bulaq Museum in the Salle des bijoux (jewelry room), under the “historical monuments” section8 (see Fig. 1), along with the lid of the queen’s coffin, which could be seen by the visitors on the right as they entered the gallery.9 The coffin trough, which other than having been painted blue was undecorated, was kept in storage.10 At its discovery in 1859 the coffin had contained the mummy of the queen, which was very unfortunately destroyed shortly afterwards.11 The jewelry was displayed in a showcase at the center of the gallery.12 Among the pieces mounted on a board on one side of the showcase (Planche 29)13 was a gold necklace with a scarab pendant (JE 4695, see Pl. VIII).14 On its right was a gilded silver and bronze dagger (JE 4668),15 flanked by two gold and silver flies (CG 52692, JE 4725.3; see Pl. VI)16 and other pieces made of precious metals on either side. Below them was a gold pectoral with the image of Ahmose in a boat being purified by the gods (JE 4683, see Pl. V),17 flanked by two gold pendants and two beaded cuff bracelets with the cartouche of Ahmose (JE 4685 and JE 4686).18 A gold, Reid, Whose Pharaohs?, 106. Reid, Whose Pharaohs?, 106; Mariette, Notice, 10-11. 8 I would like to thank Patrizia Piacentini for providing me with this plan. 9 Mariette, Notice, 255. 10 Mariette, Notice, 255. 11 Maspero, Guide, XV; Reeves, The Great Discoveries, 50-1. 12 Mariette, Notice, 258. 13 Mariette, Album, 129, pl. 29. 14 The object is also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19537, CG 52670 and SR 1/6601; Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. L. 15 This piece is also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19506, CG 52660 and SR 1/6587. 16 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. LI. 17 See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. III. This piece is also registered under the number CG 52004 and SR 1/6571. 18 See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. IX. JE 4685 is also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 52070, 6 7 bronze and cedar wood mirror of Ahhotep (JE 4664; see Pl. III)19 was mounted on another board (Planche 30),20 along with 12 plain gold and electrum bracelets, from the collection of bracelets numbered JE 4696JE 4712 and JE 4724 (see Pl. VIII). Below them, on a stand, was a gold model boat (JE 4681; see Pl. XIII)21 on a four-wheeled carriage.22 Flanking the boat and mounted on the board were two gold earrings that do not belong to Ahhotep’s collection, but were found on the mummy of an unknown official in Abydos and are inscribed with the cartouche of Ramesses XI23 (CG 52323-24).24 The disintegrated mummy was found in a large wooden coffin, within an intact limestone sarcophagus, discovered by Mariette in 1859 – the year of the discovery of the Ahhotep collection.25 This explains why it was displayed with the queen’s treasures. On another board (Planche 31)26 was mounted Ahhotep’s gold chain with her famous gold military flies of valour (JE 4694; see Pl. VII),27 along with the gold bracelets remaining from the group numbered JE 4696-JE 4712 and JE 4724, as well as a number of earrings (see Pl. VIII). Above them were mounted two ceremonial battle axes (JE 467328 and CG 19546 and SR 1/6568 while JE 4686 is also registered under CG 19541, CG 52071 and SR 1/6569 (a). 19 The object is also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19508, CG 52664 and SR 1/6588; Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. XLVIII. 20 Mariette, Album, 133, pl. 30 (CG 19549 and CG 52666). 21 The object is also registered under CG 52666. 22 According to the Egyptian Museum database, the gold model boat is supposed to go together with carriage JE 4669 = CG 52668. It was, however, put together at the current Egyptian Museum in Cairo, with JE 4681. Whether this was also the case at Bulaq is unclear. See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. XLIX. The second (silver not gold) model boat (JE 4682 = CG 52667) is mentioned by Mariette, but seems to have not been displayed, see Mariette, Album, text of pl. 30. The boat is currently on display in Gallery P4 at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, along with most of the Ahhotep collection. I am grateful to the General Director of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Ms. Sabah Abdel Razek, and Head Registrar, Ms. Marwa Abdel Razek, for their assistance and for giving me access to the Egyptian Museum database. 23 Ramesses VIII according to Mariette, Album, pl. 30; Ramesses XIII, according to the Journal d’Entrée; Ramesses XII, according to the Catalogue général, and Ramesses XI according to the Museum’s Special Register. 24 See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. XXVII. 25 Reeves, The Great Discoveries, 52. 26 Mariette, Album, 137, pl. 31. 27 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. LI. Also registered at the Egyptian Museum under the numbers CG 19543, CG 52671 and SR 1/6584; registered in Luxor Museum since 2003 under J. 854. 28 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. XLII. Also registered at the Egyptian Museum under CG 19500, CG 52645; registered 122 The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure JE 4676;29 see Pl. VII), flanked by two daggers (JE 466530 and JE 4666;31 see Pl. VII). On a base were displayed a bracelet with the cartouche of Ahmose, flanked by two sphinxes (JE 4680),32 with a gold vulture armlet inlaid with semi-precious stones (JE 4679; see Pl. VII)33 on its left and another armlet (JE 4684) on its right.34 One must remember that this was long before the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922, and the treasures of Tanis in 1940, so one can imagine the impact the splendid collection of Ahhotep, with its large, gilded coffin lid, would have had on the visitor. In 1867 the collection travelled to Paris to be displayed at the Paris Exposition Universelle, in which Egypt was given a 6000 square meter exhibition space. That space “equaled that of England and surpassed that of America and Russia”.35 Mariette was in charge of the archaeological section. He prepared the displays and by 1866 he went to Paris to supervise the work in situ.36 The Egyptian section consisted of four architectural elements: a temple, a selemlik (men’s reception pavilion), a caravansaray, and stables, which together recounted the different periods of Egypt’s history.37 There was also an Isthmus of Suez pavilion, which promoted the mega Suez Canal project under construction and highlighted Egypt as a modern nation with close ties to France.38 The exhibition opened on 1st April 1867. Ancient Egyptian antiquities were shown inside a temple modeled after Emperor Trajan’s kiosk at Philae.39 Some of the highlights of the Bulaq collection were put on display within the temple interior, including the diorite statue of Khafre, the wooden statue of Kaaper (also known as “Sheikh el-Balad”) and the collection of Ahhotep. The jewelry of Ahhotep was displayed in a in Luxor Museum since 2003 under J. 856. 29 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. XLIII. Also registered at the Egyptian Museum under CG 19503, CG 52646 and SR 1/6602. 30 Also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19505, CG 52661 and SR 1/6586. 31 Also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19502, CG 52658+CG 52659, and SR 1/6589; currently registered at Luxor Museum under J. 853.2. See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. XLVI. 32 Also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19540, CG 52642 and SR 1/6570. 33 See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. IX. Also registered under Egyptian Museum numbers CG 19545, CG 52068 and SR 1/6567. 34 See Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. IX. Also registered under CG 19544, CG 52069, and SR 1/6566. 35 Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 41. 36 Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 39. 37 Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 35; Edmond, L’Égypte, 9. 38 Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 35. 39 Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 43; Ducuing, in Ducuing (ed.), L’Exposition Universelle, 424. rectangular vitrine and the exhibition was described by Ducuing in his publication, with the broad collar of the queen (currently CG 52672; see Pl. VIII) receiving the lion’s share.40 When Empress Eugénie visited the exhibition she was so impressed by the queen’s jewelry pieces that she asked if she could have them. Fortunately, this request was vehemently refused by Mariette.41 The exhibition ended on 3rd November 1867 and the objects were all returned to their home in the Bulaq Museum. In 1878 the building of the museum in Bulaq was damaged due to flooding and the collections were moved in 1891 to an annex of the palace of Ismail Pasha in Giza. By 1893 it became apparent that a new museum was urgently needed, due to the lack of storage facilities and the unsuitable display conditions, and a new purpose-built museum – the first in the region – was planned, in Tahrir Square, to house the collection. The museum was finally completed in 1902, and the collection was moved to its new home, in which the Ahhotep treasure – with the exception of a few objects that were recently moved to the Luxor Museum – remains today.42 The museum in Tahrir consists of two display floors: the ground floor, which is organized chronologically, and the first floor, organized thematically, or according to archaeological context. The queen’s treasure was put on display in the first floor. Initially, Ahhotep’s coffin lid was displayed in Gallery K, Armouire T,43 while her jewelry was displayed in a showcase (Armouire IV) in the Jewelry Gallery (Gallery L).44 In 1996 Dr. Mohamed Saleh, who was the General Director of the Egyptian Museum at the time, held discussions with the management of the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) about collaborating in the development of a new exhibition strategy for the royal jewelry from Tanis and other selected sites. It was agreed that the two rooms flanking the Tutankhamun gold and jewelry gallery would be renovated as part of a project, managed by ARCE, aiming to provide an improved visitor experience. William Ward, an exhibition specialist from the United States, came to Egypt under a United States Information Agency grant to design the galleries and the showcases. In order to reduce cost and build capacity, the showcases were designed to be constructed under the supervision of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, in the museum workshops, using local material Ducuing, in Ducuing (ed.), L’Exposition Universelle, 426. Nour, MDCCC 1800 6, 45; Wallon, CRAIBL 27, 143; David, Mariette Pacha, 181-2. 42 See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 43 Maspero, Guide, 413. 44 Maspero, Guide, 416. For a plan of the gallery see Maspero, Guide, 472. 40 41 123 Yasmin El Shazly such as wood, glass, and fabric, purchased from funding from the Local Cultural Fund of the Royal Netherlands Embassy. Much of the project was funded through a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to ARCE, with the Friends of the Fullbright Commission providing assistance in the administration of the project. Museum curators played a vital role in the project, and those who attended the program in museum management organized by ARCE in the United States45 got the chance to implement what they learned.46 The renovation work consisted of the emptying of the two rooms (P2 and P4) (see Fig. 2) and the sealing and blocking of the windows, in order to prevent dust and sunlight from entering and minimize noise and air pollution. The rooms were painted a dark blue color, providing a backdrop that contrasted well with the mostly gold objects that were to be displayed inside. The newly built showcases were lined with dark blue cloth and placed against the walls, with lighting being installed from above to spotlight the objects.47 Ahhotep’s treasures were displayed in gallery P4, along with objects from different periods between the Early Dynastic and the Greco-Roman era. The artifacts were arranged chronologically and included four bracelets from the tomb of the First Dynasty King, Djer, and other items from his tomb in Abydos; the Third Dynasty King Sekhemkhet’s shell-shaped container; the Fourth Dynasty Queen Hetepheres’ gold vessels, and the Sixth Dynasty Prince Ptahshepses’ belt. The displays also included items of the Middle Kingdom, such as Princess Khnumit’s jewelry, Princess Sathathor’s belt and fastener, Princess Neferuptah’s necklace, Queen Weret’s ornaments and Princess Ita’s dagger. From the New Kingdom there were Queen Ahhotep’s treasures, items from KV 55, and an earring from the Saqqara tomb of Horemheb. Items dating to the reign of Ramesses II included golden vases and two duck-shaped bracelets from Tell Basta, and pieces from the reign of Sety II and Queen Tausret included two silver bracelets. The Graeco-Roman period was mainly represented by the Dush treasure, the most iconic piece being a gold diadem with an image of Serapis.48 Room P2 consisted mainly of the Tanis treasures, dating to the Twenty-first Dynasty.49 It is worth noting 45 Vincent, in Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage, 283-6. 46 Easton, Vincent, in Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage, 250. 47 Easton, Vincent, in Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage, 250. 48 Easton, Vincent, in Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage, 250. 49 Easton, Vincent, in Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage, 250. that a few important pieces from Ahhotep’s treasure were moved to Luxor Museum on 16th November 2003, these are: the famous gold chain with three military flies of valour, which were originally registered in the Egyptian Museum under the number JE 4694, now registered in Luxor Museum under number J. 854 (see Pl. VII); the ceremonial axe JE 4673, now registered in Luxor Museum under the number J. 856 and the dagger JE 4666, now registered in Luxor Museum under the number J. 853 (see Pl. VII). These particular objects were selected as part of the Glory of Thebes section.50 At the beginning of the royal jewelry rooms project in 1996, Ahhotep’s gold broad collar, with hawk end-pieces (JE 4725)51 was moved to the conservation lab where the late Egyptian Museum conservator, Samir Abaza, rearranged its pieces to what it is today (see Pl. VIII). The collar had been put together in a different order at least twice previously, the last time rendering it unwearable, for the neck of the wearer would need to be unrealistically thin for it to fit52 (see Pl. VI). When this collar was discovered in 1859 the threads connecting the beads had disintegrated, and the beads were found scattered, which is almost always the case with such jewelry. It is, therefore, impossible to find out what this collar originally looked like.53 According to the Egyptian Museum database, the collar was the piece from the Ahhotep collection to travel on exhibition the most, at least since 2004. It travelled to Bahrain, France, Austria, Spain and China to participate in two different travelling exhibitions. In October 2004 the collar was sent to France as one of 120 objects from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, to be displayed at the Institut du Monde Arabe as part of the The Pharaohs touring exhibition. The exhibition, organized by Archinos Architecture, was designed “to evoke the natural and cultural environment in which the Ancient Egyptian art evolved, while at the same time allowing full, unperturbed and contemplative appreciation of the exhibited masterpieces”.54 The next stop in the tour was Madrid, where the collar was displayed from December 2005 to May 2006. In April 2007 it travelled to Manama, to See Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 51 The hawk end pieces were given the CG numbers 52861 and 52862 (see Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. LXVIII). The entire collar is also registered under the numbers CG 52672-73 + CG 52688 and SR 1/6572. 52 See image of CG 52672 in Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. LII. This information comes from the Egyptian Museum database. 53 See CG 52733, 52861-62, Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, pl. LXVIII. 54 https://www.archinos.com/the-pharaohs-exhibition-manaama-bahrai, <accessed on 12.01.2022>. 50 124 The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure be exhibited at the National Museum of Bahrain.55 The collar then returned to France to be displayed at the Museum of Fine Arts of Velenciennes, as part of the same exhibition. It was then returned to Cairo in February 2008, where it stayed for a few days, before it travelled to Vienna, to be displayed at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, as part of the Tutankhamun and the World of the Pharaohs exhibition, which ran from 9th March 2008 to 28th September 2008. The exhibition which featured over 140 pieces, some from the tomb of Tutankhamun, was organized by National Geographic, Arts and Exhibitions International and AEG Exhibitions, in cooperation with the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities and the Kunsthistorisches Museum.56 Although not part of the Tutankhamun collection, the exquisite gold collar was chosen to illustrate the beauty and high craftsmanship of jewelry found in royal burials. According to the Kunsthistorisches Museum website “the exhibition focuses on the splendor of the Egyptian pharaohs, their function in the earthly and divine worlds, and what kingship meant to the Egyptian people. More than 70 treasures from King Tutankhamun´s tomb and more than 70 objects representing other pharaohs and notables are presented along with the latest scientific research about King Tutankhamun”.57 The collar was then sent to Madrid, before it was returned to Cairo in June 2009. In May 2010 it travelled for the last time (according to the Egyptian Museum database), to Shanghai Museum, as part of the same Tutankhamun exhibition, returning to Egypt in November 2010, where it continues to be on display in gallery P4. Some pieces from Ahhotep’s collection have become text-book examples of works of art reflecting the cosmopolitan nature of Egypt at the dawn of the New Kingdom.58 These objects are decorated with foreign motifs, brought to Egypt through contact with foreign cultures. Examples of such pieces are battle axe JE 4673 (now Luxor J. 856; see Pl. VII), the blade of which is decorated with an Aegean-style griffin, and dagger JE 4666 (now Luxor J. 853; see Pl. VII), decorated with a black strip running down both sides of the blade, inlaid with gold wire figures and hieroglyphic text, and believed to be of foreign workmanship due to its similarity to the decoration of daggers from Shaft graves at Mycenae.59 https://www.archinos.com/the-pharaohs-exhibition-manaama-bahrai, <accessed on 12.01.2022>. 56 https://www.khm.at/en/visit/exhibitions/2008/tutankhamunand-the-world-of-the-pharaohs/, <accessed on 12.01.2022>. 57 https://www.khm.at/en/visit/exhibitions/2008/tutankhamunand-the-world-of-the-pharaohs/, <accessed on 12.01.2022>. 58 Murray, “Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation”, in this volume. 59 Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 119-21. 55 This is why these particular objects were selected to take part in an exhibition entitled Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. The exhibition focused “on the extraordinary art created as a result of a sophisticated network of interaction that developed among kings, diplomats, merchants, and others in the Near East during the second millennium B.C. Approximately 350 objects of the highest artistry from royal palaces, temples, and tombs – as well as from a unique shipwreck – provide the visitor with an overview of artistic exchange and international connections throughout the period”.60 The exhibition was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and ran from 18th November 2008 to 15th March 2009.61 The treasures of Ahhotep are still on display at the Egyptian Museum in gallery P4,62 but they will soon be moved to P2, where the impressive collection from the royal tombs in Tanis is currently housed. When Tutankhamun’s gold mask and other selected pieces from his treasures displayed in P3 are all moved to the Grand Egyptian Museum, they will be replaced by the Tanis collection, that is being groomed to take the place of Tutankhamun’s treasures as the crown jewel of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, finally being granted the attention it deserves, never having received the media coverage worthy of an intact complex of royal tombs.63 The coffin of Ahhotep is also expected to remain in the Tahrir Museum.64 The lid is currently on display in P47. Bibliography Aruz, J., K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2009). Bongioanni, A., M.S. Croce, L. Accomazzo (eds), The Illustrated Guide to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Cairo, 2001). David, E., Mariette Pacha, 1821-1881 (Paris, 1994). Drioton, É., “Le Musée de Boulac”, CHE 3 (1950), 1-12. Ducuing, F., “Les visites souveraines: Ismail-Pacha”, in F. Ducuing (ed.), L’Exposition Universelle de 1867 illustrée, vol. I (Paris, 1867). Easton, M., R.K. Vincent Jr., “Renovating Exhibition Rooms in the Egyptian Museum: Royal Gold and Silver”, in R. Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage (Cairo, 2010), 249-50. https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2008/beyond-babylon, <accessed on 12.01.2022>. 61 Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon. 62 With the exception of the objects that have been moved to the Luxor Museum. 63 Reeves, The Great Discoveries, 189-93. 64 Personal communication with Sabah Abdelrazek, General Director of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. 60 125 Yasmin El Shazly Edmond, C., L’Égypte à l’exposition universelle de 1867 par M. Charles Edmond, Commissaire Générale De L’Exposition Vice Royale D’Égypte (Paris, 1867). Lebée, T., Le musée d’antiquités égyptiennes de Būlāq (18581889). Faire connaître et aimer l’Égypte ancienne au XIXe siècle (Paris: Unpublished dissertation, Ecole du Louvre, 2013), <accessed online on 15.10.2021, at https://hef.hypotheses.org>. Mariette, A., Album de musée de Boulaq (Cairo, 1871). Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galleries provisoires du Musée d’antiquités égyptiennes de S.A. le Vice-Roi à Boulaq, 1st-5th eds (Alexandria, Cairo, 1864-1974). Maspero, G., Notice biographique sur Auguste Mariette (1821-1881) (Paris, 1904). Maspero, G., Guide du visiteur au musée du Caire, 4th ed., (Cairo, 1915). Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. Murray, S.C., “Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation”, in this volume. Nour, A., “Egyptian-French Cultural Encounters at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1867”, MDCCC 1800 6 (2017), 35-49. Reeves, N., Ancient Egypt: The Great Discoveries (London, 2000). Reid, D.M., Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I (Cairo, 2002). Saleh, M., H. Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum Cairo: Official Catalogue (Mainz, 1987). Vernier, É., Bijoux et orfèvreries. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire – Nos. 5200153855, vols I-II (Cairo, 1927). Vincent Jr., R.K., “Museum Management Program: Training in the United States”, in R. Danforth (ed.), Preserving Egypt’s Cultural Heritage (Cairo, 2010), 283-6. Wallon, M.H., “Notice sur la vie et les travaux de François-Auguste-Ferdinand Mariette-Pacha, membre ordinaire”, CRAIBL 27 (1883), 481-584. 126 The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure Fig. 1 – Floor plan of the Bulaq Museum Fig. 2 – Floor plan of the first floor of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo 127 The Identity of Ahhotep Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 131-152 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources Marilina Betrò* Abstract Many obscure points still remain about the identity of the Queen Ahhotep whose mummy was discovered at Dra Abu el-Naga in 1859, in a gilded coffin (Cairo CG 28501) along with many jewels and precious objects. The simplest scenario, that she was the mother of King Ahmose, founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, collides with many contradictory elements. The article traces the history of the discovery and reviews the theories advanced over time, analyzing the available data and textual sources. It concludes that at least two Queens Ahhotep existed at the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty: the owner of CG 28501, a “Great Royal Wife” who had no sons who became kings, and the mother of the latter king, buried in coffin CG 61006, from the cache of Deir el-Bahri. The paper also discusses the site where the coffin CG 28501 was found and the pertinence of the treasure found within it with the queen. An eyewitness account of the discovery, reported by the archaeologist Howard Carter in some of his unpublished manuscripts, seriously raises the question of the reliability of Mariette’s accounts of the find and provides interesting details. A reassessment of the available information leads to the conclusion that the site where the coffin was found was a cache, where it was hidden to protect it from the violations of the royal burials in the late Twentieth and early Twenty-first dynasties. Whether or not the treasure inside the coffin CG 28501 belonged to Ahhotep is a discriminating factor in defining her position in the dynasty and the identity of her royal spouse. The possibility that the people who hid the coffin had gathered in its case the grave goods from other royal burials must be taken into account. If the treasure was part of her original equipment, the most likely hypothesis is that she was Kamose’s wife. If not, other alternatives are possible and discussed in the paper. I – The Discovery of the Coffin of a Queen Ahhotep at Dra Abu el-Naga and the First Studies On July 4, 1858 the French Egyptologist Auguste Mariette was appointed ma’mur of antiquities by the Khedive Saïd Pasha. He immediately began an extensive program of excavations all over Egypt, and, in December 1858, after raising a corvée of 102 men, he ordered to start works in the Theban necropolis. A team of about 20 workers was set at the foot of Dra Abu el-Naga hills, almost at the mouth of the wadi leading to the Valley of the Kings, not far from the place where the coffin of Kamose had been found at the end of 1857.1 As usual It is more usual a dedication from a younger scholar to an older one, but this time I cannot help but dedicate this work to Gianluca Miniaci, who has offered me so many touching words over the years. On a subliminal level, he set in motion this research many years ago, when he returned me a pen-drive I had lent him, formatted and with a new name: “Ahhotep”… Now the circle closes. 1 Winlock, JEA 10, 252; Mariette, CRAIBL 3, 161; Vassalli, Monumenti istorici, 128-31; see also Miniaci, “The Discovery * in the first half of the 19th century, Mariette did not supervise personally his digs, leaving them in the care of trusted local men (reis). For this reason, we have no report on the discovery of the coffin of Queen Ahhotep (JE 4663; see Pls I, II, IX, X), which of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Apparently, Mariette supervised the finding of Kamose’s coffin, as his description of the mummy with its ornaments suggests in a letter quoted by de Rougé, CRAIBL 2, 120. Heinrich Brugsch, who was in Egypt with Auguste Mariette at the time of its discovery, writing to Alexander von Humboldt about it, on December 31, 1857, said: “In Theben ist ein Sarkophag aus den Zeiten der 12ten Dynastie (älter als 2000 Jahre vor unserer Ära) aus der Erde gezogen”, going on by describing the mummy crumbled into dust and its precious finds. It must be said, however, that both the narrative and the tone are rather impersonal and do not enable one to say that Brugsch (or Mariette) were present. As for de Rougé’s account, it will be seen that, as concerns Ahhotep’s finding, Mariette’s presence is asserted in other accounts, although it is now clear that this was not the case. Marilina Betrò Fig. 1 – Ahhotep’s coffin inscription copied by Maunier in his letter to Mariette about the discovery of Ahhotep’s coffin, Fonds Maspero Ms 4030, f. 394r © courtesy of the Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France 132 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources took place shortly afterwards, on February 5, 1859, nor first-hand precise indications of the place of its finding, its context and the objects found with it.2 The oldest description, almost contemporary to the event, is in a letter sent to Mariette by the French V.G. Maunier. The letter was among the few papers of Mariette relating to the dig that were not lost during the flood of 1878.3 Maunier, a calotype photographer, who had arrived in Egypt around 1849, was soon requested by Abbas Pacha to take photographs of the Egyptian antiquities that were discovered in those years and so he became soon acquainted with Mariette.4 Maspero did not transcribe the date of this letter, which is actually missing,5 but it is stated in the text that it was written the day after the discovery of the coffin. After describing the “magnificent mummy box” found by Mariette’s workers at Dra Abu el-Naga, with its “lid entirely gilded”, and a case containing four alabaster vases “found next to the mummy box”, Maunier reported that, “on the previous day”, he had been informed immediately of the discovery by Mariette’s “reys”: only his intervention had kept it intact. As a precaution he had indeed the coffin transported to Mariette’s storeroom at Karnak, after having sealed it with his stamp. Maunier added on the third page of his letter a copy of the longitudinal inscription on the lid, which is so far the oldest copy of the text, and a drawing of the hieroglyphic names of Isis and Nephthys, accompanied by his annotation: “au pied de la boîte”6 (see Figs 1, 5). The copy of Maunier allowed the identification of the mummy buried in the coffin as a queen Ahhotep, who bore the titles of Hm.t nswt wr.t Xnm.t nfr HD.t, “Great Royal Wife, She who is joined to the White Crown”:7 The first mention of the queen’s name is in a private letter sent by the French Egyptologist and photographer Théodule Devéria on March 22, 1859.8 He had been apOn another different account of the discovery, see below and Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 3 Maspero, RT 12, 214-15. 4 Weens, in Cooke (ed.), Journeys erased by time, 101-13; Tréhin, Maunier, 667. 5 Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 29-30. 6 It must be remarked that the printed transcription of the hieroglyphic text in the article by Maspero has the name Ahhotep transcribed with the moon crescent downwards. Maunier’s original document (see Fig. 1) makes however clear that his copy of the inscription was faithful to the original and showed the sign correctly. The error is in Maspero’s article. 7 Callender, SAK 22, 43-6; Sabbahy, SAK 23, 349-52. 8 Maspero, in Mariette, Oeuvres diverses, cii ff.; Winlock, 2 pointed in 1855 in the Louvre’s Department of Egyptian Antiquities for cataloguing the objects that Auguste Mariette had sent to France, but, at the time of the discovery, he was in Cairo, called by Mariette himself to collaborate with him. As he said in that letter, the copy of the inscription sent by Maunier was sufficiently legible for him to realize that this was the mummy of a queen Ahhotep. At that time, a queen with this name was known from some Theban tombs, mostly from the Ramesside scenes representing the royal ancestors of the reigning family: the queen was often depicted near Amenhotep I and his mother Ahmose-Nefertary. This had already suggested to early Egyptologists possible a link of the queen with the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the Ahmoside family. The finding of the coffin with its treasure seemed to prove the supposed connection of Ahhotep with that family: many objects and jewels found within the coffin bore the cartouches of Kamose and Ahmose,9 thus making clear that a relationship existed between those kings and the queen. The news of the discovery spread immediately, causing the confiscation by the governor of Qena of the coffin with its contents, and the subsequent reaction of Mariette, with the recovery, partial or total, of the queen’s assemblage. Devéria, who accompanied Mariette in his journey to confiscate the treasure, was able to photograph the queen’s coffin, closed and complete with lid and case. I am indebted to Gianluca Miniaci for pointing out the photos and negatives, six in all, kept at the Musée d’Orsay.10 This photographic documentation provides unique evidence of the coffin as it was not long after its discovery, valuable, as it will be seen below, from many points of view.11 Devéria’s letter I quoted above narrates how the coffin was opened by the governor of the province, and the bandages and the bones of the mummy probably thrown JEA 10, 252, note 4. 9 See below, 2.2. See also Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, Table 3. 10 PHO 1986 144 93; PHO 1986 144 94; PHO 1986 144 95; PHO 1986 144 96; PHO 1986 144 97; PHO 1986 144 104 and the photo negatives PHO 1986 131 216; PHO 1986 131 219; PHO 1986 131 220; PHO 1986 131 221. In two of these photographs (PHO 1986 144 94 and 104) the four alabaster vases found with the coffin, and a headrest are shown next to the coffin; in PHO 1986 144 93 also a small box, which is probably the one that contained the vases, is shown. 11 See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 38-41, and Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 133 Marilina Betrò away,12 saving only the objects. This deprives us of any information and description concerning the body, even about its gender and age. In announcing the important discovery at the meeting held in Cairo on June 3, 1859 in the Institut d’Égypte, Mariette tackled the problem of the queen’s identity, recognizing on the one hand the stylistic link of her coffin with those of the Kings Intef found at Dra Abu el-Naga (whom he still considered to be of the Eleventh Dynasty) and, on the other hand, the kinship with the Kings Kamose and Ahmose, that the presence of the objects inscribed in their name in her coffin presupposed. Although he wondered about the difficult questions that such data posed, he concluded that Ahhotep was the wife of Kamose and mother of Ahmose.13 The treasure was exhibited in the Museum at Bulaq,14 and Mariette described it in his guide to the antiquities in 1864.15 In the so-called Salle des Bijoux, the gilded lid of the coffin (Cairo CG 28501) was displayed at the right of the entrance, while the jewels and precious objects it contained were in a display case in the middle of the room. As indicated by Mariette, the case of the coffin, being cumbersome, simply painted blue and without decoration,16 was not on display. He also noticed, interestingly, how strange, if his assumption on the identity of the queen was right, was the choice of quoting on the coffin the title of “Great Royal Wife” rather than “Royal Mother”, but he commented that this was certainly not the most striking anomaly in that burial.17 nswt sn.t nswt Hm.t (nswt) wr.t Xnm.t nfr HD.t mw.t nswt, “King’s Daughter, King’s Sister, Great (Royal) Wife, She who is joined to the White Crown, King’s Mother”. I.1 – A second coffin for a queen Ahhotep in the cache of Deir el-Bahri In 1881, the discovery of the cache at Deir el-Bahri revealed a second coffin inscribed for a queen Ahhotep awarded with a very similar but richer set of titles: sA.t A slightly different version is given by Stasser, RANT 15, 137, who says that “La momie fut malheureusement ouverte sans précaution et tomba en poussière peu après la découverte” (“Unfortunately, the mummy was opened carelessly and fell to dust shortly after the discovery”). We have no descriptions of the opening of the coffin in Qena, however, and even Dévéria’s remarks report only his own conjecture. Stasser quotes “Winlock 1924: 353”, a page not existing in Winlock’s paper, probably to be amended to “253”: here, however, the American scholar simply said, translating the passage by Devéria, “As usual they threw away the bandages and the bones, saving only the objects buried with the mummy”. I was not able to find in Winlock’a article Stasser’s statement. 13 Mariette, BIE 1, 36. 14 See el-Shazly, “The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure”, in this volume. 15 Mariette, Notice, 218-27. 16 “Sans aucune décoration”. However, Mariette’s statement was not accurate: the case was in fact decorated on the footboard, as will be discussed below. 17 Mariette, Notice, 220. 12 134 Fig. 2 – Coffin of the Queen Ahhotep from the cache TT 320 at Deir el-Bahri, CG 61006, from Daressy, Cercueils, pl. 9 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources This was a huge wood and cartonnage coffin (CG 61006), which contained no more the original mummy but had been reused to host the body of Pinudjem I (see Fig. 2). The name and the very similar titles at first made scholars think that a single Queen Ahhotep existed, to whom both coffins belonged. Gaston Maspero proposed a very ingenuous reconstruction: the coffin found at Deir el-Bahri would have been the external one, left in the queen’s original tomb by robbers, who had taken the internal coffin with its mummy. The latter had to be recognized in that of Dra Abu el-Naga, hidden by the thieves waiting for the partage to be made at a better time. That division – he continued – however never took place, the thieves being caught, and their secret lost with them until Mariette’s men discovered it.18 But Maspero himself, few lines below, admitted that such a “conjectural scaffolding” could not stand the evidence: “Le cercueil de 1859 est trop haut et trop large pour entrer dans celui de 1881: ils ont donc appartenu à deux reines différentes”.19 At first, he followed Mariette’s opinion that the queen found at Dra Abu el-Naga was the wife of Kamose and probably mother of Ahmose and Ahmose-Nefertari,20 while the second Ahhotep was the wife of Amenhotep I. The idea was shared by Wiedemann in 1884,21 but few years later Maspero gave a different reconstruction, interpreting the elder Ahhotep – the queen found at Dra Abu el-Naga – as the wife of Seqenenre.22 This reconstruction was destined to remain the dominant one between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the Twentieth.23 It was accepted by Gauthier, who reported it in 1912 in his Livre des Rois, attributing the different monuments and objects on the basis of their assignment to “Aahhotep I”, considered to be the mother of Ahmose, or to the homonymous presumed wife of Amenhotep I (“Aahhotep II”).24 Among the monuments attributed by Gauthier to the queen from Dra Abu el-Naga, a stela found in 1901 by Maspero, Momies royales, 545. Cf. also Maspero, Guide, 77-8, where he referred to the Twentieth Dynasty robberies. 19 “The 1859 coffin is too high and too wide to fit in the 1881 coffin, so they belonged to two different queens”, Maspero, Momies royales, 545. 20 Maspero, Guide, 77-8. 21 Wiedemann, Ägyptische Geschichte, 302, 316-17; Maspero, CRAIBL 30, 585; Maspero, Histoire, vol. II, 104. 22 Maspero, Momies royales, 628. 23 See also Petrie, History, vol. II, 1. 24 Gauthier, LdR II, 163-4; 183; 207-9. Gauthier’s attribution was not completely rigorous, e.g. he cited the coffin found in the Deir el-Bahri cache, CG 61006, both under the monuments inscribed in name of Ahmose’s mother (p. 182) and those of Ahhotep II, whom he considered to be the wife of Amenhotep I (p. 208). I will use no more in this article the label “I” or “II” for distinguishing the two Queens Ahhotep, since this numeric reference has been used in different ways by other later scholars. 18 George Legrain against the southern face of the Eighth pylon in Karnak25 seemed to provide a perfect example of how often in Egyptology texts and archaeological documents may mirror each other: the monumental stela (Cairo CG 34001), erected by Ahmose and mainly dedicated to his eulogy, included an invitation to raise praises to a queen Ahhotep, whose epithets were an array of heroic qualities better suited to a political or military leader than to a queen. She was there celebrated as “Mistress of the Land, sovereign of the shores of the Hau-nebu, one whose reputation is high in all foreign countries, who makes plans for the multitude (…), who cares for Egypt” and the text went on saying: “She has gathered troops, she has protected her [i.e. Egypt]; she has brought back her fugitives, and held those who wanted to defect”. These unusual epithets apparently found an extraordinary match in the three golden flies – well known as an emblem of military value26 and the weapons27 which had been placed in the coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga with the mummy, thus giving life to the image of the “Warrior Queen”. In that stela Ahhotep bore the titles of “Royal Wife, King’s Sister, King’s Daughter, august King’s Mother”,28 a sequence which made clear, although not explicitly said, that she could be no other than Ahmose’s mother. Text and archaeological data seemed to intertwine admirably and returned the image of a time of furious wars in which a young queen, prematurely widowed and with an heir to the throne still a child, had to assume the role of regent and exercise effective power. I.2 – The title “King’s Mother” and the following reassessment The apparent solidity of this picture was soon to reveal some crevices. The title of “King’s Mother”, mw.t nswt, present on the Deir el-Bahri coffin but not on that from Dra Abu el-Naga, represented a double idiosyncrasy: on the one hand, given its importance, it was difficult to explain its absence on the coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga, which was believed to belong to the mother of Ahmose; on the other hand, it was well known that Thutmose I – the successor of Amenhotep I – was not son of that king, thus making impossible that the alleged wife Ahhotep could bear the title.29 The first to draw conclusions from this was to my knowledge Jean Yoyotte, who in 1964 observed how Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga was probably different Biston-Moulin, http://sith.huma-num.fr/karnak/575#inscription, <accessed on 6.7.2020>, for an updated new edition, with photographs, hieroglyphic text and transliteration. 26 See Lacovara, “The Flies of Ahhotep”, in this volume. 27 See Morris, “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. 28 Hm.t nswt sn.t ity a.w.s. sA.t nswt mw.t nswt Sps. 29 Vandersleyen, SAK 8, 237-41. 25 135 Marilina Betrò from Ahhotep mother of Ahmose: the coffin from the cache at Deir el-Bahri had to be attributed to the latter.30 In the following years more and more scholars accepted Yoyotte’s idea.31 I.2.1 – One Ahhotep Nevertheless, some scholars have believed over the years, and still in very recent times, that there were not two queens but only one.32 In 1978 Bettina Schmitz33 argued against two Ahhoteps, seeing the two coffins as both belonging to a single queen. In her opinion the two coffins nested, being respectively the inner coffin (Dra Abu el-Naga) and the outer one (Deir el-Bahri). Apparently, she neglected Maspero’s opinion: actually, she used a wrong set of measurements, smaller than the original dimensions. An approximate calculation of the original Dra Abu el-Naga coffin’s depth of about 60 cm was proposed by Marianne Eaton-Krauss in 1990, based on the analogy with the very similar coffin of King Seqenenre, which is complete, and the almost identical dimensions of the two lids.34 As she stated, these reconstructed measurements make impossible that this coffin could fit inside the Deir el-Bahri coffin and confirmed Maspero’s remark: the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin was deeper than the Deir elBahri one (60 cm the former, 48 cm the latter) and, even imagining that only the lid had been nested into the outer coffin, only a small part of it could still fit inside the Deir el-Bahri coffin because of the different shapes.35 However, Eaton-Krauss believed likely that “both coffins were in fact created for the same woman, but at different moments in her lifetime”.36 In her reconstruction, the coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga, very similar to that of Seqenenre in style and manufacture, had been commissioned by the king in pair with his own. The title mw.t nswt had not been inscribed with the other titles, since the queen had not yet been awarded it at the time the coffin was made. As for the larger coffin, she supposed that Amenhotep I, Yoyotte, ASR 73, 82. Leclant, LÄ II, 794, 807, n. 25; Vandersleyen, LÄ III, 306-8; CdE 52, 237; Gitton, Ahmes Néfertary, 35, no. 58; Roth, Serapis 4, 31-40; Robins, GM 30, 71-5; Troy, GM 35, 81-91; Gitton, Divines épouses, 9-12. 32 See Lacovara, “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume. 33 Schmitz, CdE 53, 207-21. 34 Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 197-200. 35 Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 200. The argument had been pointed out also by Troy, GM 50, 92, no. 36 and Blankenberg-van Delden, GM 54, 39, no. 1. In 2003, however, Eaton-Krauss in Blöbaum, Kahl, Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster, 84, rectified her statement, admitting that the actual measurements were not such as to make it completely impossible to fit the lid or trough of CG 28501 in CG 61006. 36 Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 200. 30 31 to honour his grand-mother at her death, ordered a new coffin made in the same style as his wife’s. In her opinion the two coffins were both buried at Dra Abu el-Naga in the tomb of the queen, after a failed attempt to put the smaller and older inside the new one. In the late Twentieth Dynasty the older coffin was re-buried and the empty larger coffin was finally re-used for Pinudjem I. Alternatively, the older coffin was reassigned to another woman of the royal family, but Eaton-Krauss herself commented that this hypothesis was unsatisfactory, since it did not explain why it had not been re-inscribed for the new occupant, unless to suppose that she bore the same name Ahhotep. Eaton-Krauss thus supported the idea that the Ahhotep buried in the coffin found by Mariette’s workers was the wife of King Seqenenre and that only one Queen Ahhotep existed. Despite many convincing remarks, her brilliant reconstruction does not answer to some fundamental questions: why do the titles of “King’s Daughter” and “King’s Sister” not appear in the inscriptions of CG 28501?37 And why, as Ann Macy Roth remarked,38 was the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin not re-inscribed in order to add the title mw.t nswt once her son Ahmose became king? Moreover, the manufacture of the coffin very similar to Seqenenere’s does not mean they were married, and other kind of family relationship could be supposed.39 Finally, why, if the two coffins were left next to each other in the same tomb, were they then separated? And why did only one of them, that one without the mummy of the only alleged Ahhotep, end its wanderings in the cache of Deir el-Bahri? Coming back to the problem in 2003,40 Eaton-Krauss tried to answer to this issue through a rather complicated hypothesis: she assumed that thieves who entered the tomb at the end of the New Kingdom, before priests recovered the royal mummies in the cache, left behind the too cumbersome CG 61006. They would have taken instead CG 28501, filling it with the precious gold and silver jewels and grave goods, and then they would have concealed it in a ruined mud-brick chapel on the plain below the tomb. But why would they go to the trouble of dragging the heavy coffin ‒ mummy included! ‒ and not just take jewels and other precious grave goods?41 A new study by Taneash Sidpura has re-proposed in 2016 the theory of a single Ahhotep, sharing many of the points highlighted by Marianne Eaton-Krauss, but looking at the issue from a different perspective: the 37 See also Troy, GM 50, 87 and Ryholt, Second Intermediate Period, 276. 38 Macy Roth, in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of praise, 363-9. 39 Macy Roth, in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of praise, 363-5. 40 Eaton-Krauss, in Blöbaum, Kahl, Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster, 87. 41 See below the discussion concerning the archaeological context. 136 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources reconstruction of the Ahmoside family tree through the main historical sources, in order “to judge where Ahhotep of the Naga coffin best fits” into the family.42 His analysis starts with the title “Great Royal Wife” present on both coffins, in order to identify the royal husband. A focal point of Sidpura’s reconstruction are the objects inscribed with the cartouches of Kamose and Ahmose found in the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin, which provide a chronological clue. On the ground of this approximate dating and by knowing that Egyptian kings could only have one “Great Royal Wife” at one time, Sidpura examines the more relevant sources and draws the family tree, starting with Senakhtenre as its founder. The reconstructed kinship ties, joined to an estimate of the age at death of the royal wives, allow him to conclude that “there is no space in the genealogy for a second Ahhotep”.43 It is not actually possible ‒ he states ‒ that she was queen consort of Senakhtenre, nor of Seqenenre or Ahmose, and the only possibility left open, namely that she was the “Great Royal Wife” of Kamose, is in turn eliminated by Sidpura. He argues in fact that Kamose married Ahmose-Nefertari, who would have become Ahmose’s wife only later.44 He concludes therefore that “it can only be reasoned that Ahhotep of the Naga coffin was the same as Ahhotep of the Bahari coffin and the title of Great Royal Wife in both cases referred to king Seqenenra-Tao”.45 Although his reconstruction of the family tree is widely shared in some fundamental lines, there are many questionable points of his theory. A large part of it is conjectural and, in particular, there is no evidence of a marriage between Kamose and Ahmose-Nefertari, crucial to his theory. Secondly, Sidpura assigns only one queen consort (“Great Royal Wife”) to each king: Tetisheri to Senakhtenre, Ahhotep mother of Ahmose to Seqenenre, Ahmose-Nefertari to Ahmose. But, as already remarked by Gay Robins, besides having several wives (Hm.t nswt) who could bear him children, “a king might have more than one Hmt nsw wrt in a lifetime: it must be admitted indeed the possibility that a Hmt nsw wrt might die soon after gaining the title” and a new one take her place.46 Moreover, contemporary documents refer to Tetisheri only as King’s Mother and she receives the title of “Great King’s Wife” only on posthumous documents.47 The possibility that Senakhtenre had a (first) queen consort, who later died, and that Tetisheri took her place or was only a “Royal Wife” (Hm.t nswt) beside the first one should be taken into account. Sidpura, in Gregory (ed.), Proceedings Birmingham, 21-46. Sidpura, in Gregory (ed.), Proceedings Birmingham, 41. 44 The idea had been suggested in 1897 by Maspero, Histoire, vol. II, 78. 45 Sidpura, in Gregory (ed.), Proceedings Birmingham. 46 Robins, GM 56, 73. 47 Gitton, Divines Épouses, 13. 42 43 One further problem with his reconstruction is that he confines it within the time range from Senakhtenre to Ahmose. Sidpura excludes the period immediately before Senakhtenre and does not discuss the relationship between this latter and the kings who preceded him, on the basis of the objects inscribed with the cartouches of Kamose and Ahmose. In doing so, however, he does not take into account the possibility that the objects were not part of the original burial and might have been added later48 or that they might express Ahmose’s homage to a venerable ancestor. Ultimately, since we no longer possess the mummy of that Ahhotep, we have no data on her age at death. Finally, although the coffin CG 28501 resembles very much Seqenenre’s49 (see Fig. 3), it also has a great similarity with those of Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef (Louvre E. 3019; Pl. XXIII)50 and Nubkheperre Intef (BM EA 6652).51 Herbert Winlock52, and later C. Blankenberg-van Delden53 and Claude Vandersleyen,54 already noticed the many common features: the inside painted with bitumen, the gilding applied only to the lids while the bodies were painted a greenish-blue,55 the eyes (when still in place) of hard stone framed in metal, gold in the case of Ahhotep (see Pl. X). By applying the same stylistic criterium used for supporting a marriage relationship between Ahhotep and Seqenenere, it would theoretically be possible to state the existence of a marital bond between the queen and one of these kings. Based solely on a genealogical perspective, Sidpura does not discuss the problem of the separation of the two coffins, which remains one of the strongest objections to Eaton-Krauss’ hypothesis, which he accepted. Interpretations in favour of just one Ahhotep therefore seem to present more problems than they solve. He considers this possibility elsewhere in his paper (p. 41), as answer to Ryholt’s objection to the theory of one Ahhotep “that not a single object naming Seqenenre had been found in the burial” at Dra Abu el-Naga (Ryholt, Second Intremediate Period, 276; see also Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, 86-7, Table 4). However, Sidpura does not bring this hypothesis to logical consequences and does not apply it to all aspects of the issue. 49 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 224 cat. rT01C. 50 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 269 cat. rT01P. 51 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 212-13 cat. rT01BM. 52 Winlock, JEA 10, 274-5. 53 Blankenberg-van Delden, GM 54, 35. 54 Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. II, 198. 55 The coffin of Seqenenre was not coated with this paint, possibly because unfinished, as Winlock supposed: Winlock, JEA 10, 275, n. 1. 48 137 Marilina Betrò Fig. 3 – Coffin of the King Seqenenre from the cache TT 320 at Deir el-Bahri, CG 61001, from Daressy, Cercueils, pl. 1 138 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources I.2.2 – Three Ahhoteps At the opposite end, Gay Robins proposed in 1982 to distinguish three Queens Ahhotep. She agreed that the gilded coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga belonged to an early Ahhotep (she called I) and that the coffin from Deir elBahri had to be assigned to Ahhotep mother of Ahmose (II), but she believed that the Queen Ahhotep mentioned on the statue of a prince Ahmose (Louvre E 15682), probably her son, could not be assimilated to either of the two previous queens and therefore a third Ahhotep had to be assumed.56 The core of Robins’ arguments was the difference among the titles of the queen on the Louvre statue and those attributed to Ahhotep by her son Ahmose on the stela Cairo CG 34001: the queen on the statue was sA.t nswt wr.t Xnm.t nfr HD.t, while this title was lacking in the extended titulature attributed to Ahhotep on the stela, neither it was replaced there by Hm.t nswt wr.t. Her remarks were partly accepted by Ann Macy Roth, who used them to support a different thesis: she equated the third Ahhotep of the statue in the Louvre with the homonymous queen of the coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga, Robins’ Ahhotep I, thus coming back to two Ahhoteps.57 She argued that the “simplest interpretation” was to see “Ahhotep I” as the wife of Seqenenre Tao, while the spouse of “Ahhotep II” and father of King Ahmose was rather Kamose, as Robins had also suggested. However, it is rather difficult to admit that the Ahhotep of the Louvre statue was the queen buried at Dra Abu el-Naga: surely the latter, who bore the title of “Great Royal Wife” on her coffin, would not have failed to display it also on her son’s statue during her lifetime. Moreover, nowhere on the coffin did she claim to be a “King’s Daughter”. Macy Roth, aware of this flaw of her theory, was obliged, to make it work, to assume an error on the part of the scribe, who would have written sA.t-nswt wr.t, eldest daughter of the king, instead of Hm.t-nswt wr.t, “Great Royal Wife”. This emendation makes her hypothesis weak. I.3 – The sign iaH A third element, crucial to the question of the number of Ahhotep Queens and the identity of the queen from Dra Abu el-Naga, emerged with the study by Claude Vandersleyen in 1971 on the use of the hieroglyphic sign of the lunar crescent.58 As he pointed out, in that period the paleography of the sign iaH, when used as ideogram, shows a significant inversion, being written with upwards horns . This feature disappeared towards the Robins, GM 56, 71-7. On the statue Louvre cf. Barbotin, RevL 55/4, 19-28; Vandersleyen, Iahmès Sapaïr, and the recent contribution by Galán, JEA 103/2, 179-201. 57 Macy Roth, in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of praise, 371-2. 58 Vandersleyen, Les guerres, 205-28. 56 end of the reign of Ahmose, between his 18th and 22nd year, thus providing an important chronological indicator.59 An inscribed block from Karnak, recently published, makes probable that the transition took place in the year 22 and that a period of coexistence between the two writings in the last part of Ahmose’s reign must be taken into account.60 In the case of the coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga and its contents, the inscription on the lid as well as the short texts on some of the objects found inside it, are constantly written using the crescent with upwards horns. The inscription on the Deir el-Bahri coffin shows instead the sign as usual again after the reign of Ahmose, i.e. with the horns pointing downwards. This means that the inscriptions on the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin and on the jewels and objects it contained were made before the end of Ahmose’s reign, while the coffin from the cache was inscribed after Ahmose’s reign. II – Direct Sources relating to the Queen II.1 – Textual direct sources The first evaluation of the sources was made by Lana Troy in 1979.61 She divided the available documents into those contemporary with the queen, dealing with her as a member of the royal family, and those which look at her as a cult figure. A third group was devoted to documents whose attribution and dating is uncertain. Her study made it clear that the memory of a queen Ahhotep, transmitted by many Ramesside documents, referred only to Ahhotep mother of Ahmose. The queen of Dra Abu el-Naga does not seem to have been object of cult or special veneration. Such a conclusion allows to limit this study to the only sources which were contemporary to the two queens. These sources can be further restricted to those where the title mw.t nswt is absent in the sequence of the queen’s titulary and the writing of the iaH sign shows the lunar crescent pointing upwards (see Table 2). To my knowledge, the list of the sources meeting the above criteria – rather meagre – is as follows: a. lid of the coffin of a queen Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga, Cairo CG 2850162 Only the lid is today in the Egyptian museum in Cairo: von Bissing referred that the case, brought in the museum with the jewels recovered by Mariette but not exVandersleyen, CdE 52, 223-44; Iahmès Sapaïr, 29-30. See also Polz, Der Beginn, 14-20. 60 Biston-Moulin, KARNAK 15, 46. 61 Troy, GM 35, 81-91. 62 PM I2, II, 600; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 225, cat. no. rT02C. 59 139 Marilina Betrò hibited at the time, later decayed, according to the museum inventory: “Er war bei der Auffindung vorhanden, schwarz angestrichen und ist später (laut Museums-Inventar) zerfallen”.63 The lid (212 x 66 x 30 cm) is in cedar wood, with gold leaf on gesso. A vertical column in the middle of the lid is inscribed with the offering formula to PtahSokar-Osiris and Hathor in favour of the ka of the Hm.t nswt wr.t Xnm.t nfr HD.(t) iaH-Htp anx.ti D.t, “Great Royal Wife, She who joins the white crown, Ahhotep, who may live forever” (see Fig. 4). The lid foot end was described by von Bissing as roughly carved with the two kneeling figures of Isis and Nephthys, facing each other in the gesture of lamentation.64 One of the photographs taken by Devéria of the complete, closed, coffin reproduces the base in its entirety and shows that the two mourners were resting on two neb-signs which in turn were supported by the two sema-tawy symbols65 (see Fig. 5). The same drawing is reproduced on the base of Seqenenre’s coffin.66 b. statue of Prince Ahmose Louvre E 1568267 As argued above,68 the identity of the Ahhotep mentioned on the statue is only marginally relevant to this article, since she must be identified with Ahhotep mother of King Ahmose (or a third Ahhotep)69. The absence of the Von Bissing, Grabfund, 21: “It was present when found, painted black, and later (according to the museum inventory) fell apart”. See Mariette, Notice 1864, 218: “Le cercueil de momie qu’on aperçoit à droite en entrant dans a Salle des Bijoux est celui, qui contenait les deux tiers des objets précieux conservés sous la cage vitrée placée au centre de la salle. La cuve peinte en gros bleu sans aucune décoration n’ayant pas d’intérêt et prenant, d’ailleurs, une place considérable, nous n’avons exposé que le couvercle”. 64 Von Bissing, Grabfund, 21 and pl. XII 1 and 2. The two goddesses actually present a rather androgynous appearance and even the gesture is not the usual one of the mourners. Their identity is however made certain by the inscriptions copied by Maunier in the above-mentioned letter (see p. 133, n. 3 and 6, and Fig. 1). 65 Musée d’Orsay, PHO 1986 144 97, MS 163 93. Maunier’s copy of the inscription added the names of the two mourning goddesses on the foot end (“au pied de la boite boîte”); see Fig. 1. 66 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, fig. 36. 67 PM I2, II, 604; Vandersleyen, Iahmès Sapaïr; Barbotin, RevL 55/4, 19-28; Assche, JSSEA 37, 113-21; Galán, JEA 103/2, 179-201. 68 See p. 139. 69 Robins’ thesis, GM 56, 71-7, cannot be ruled out: the statue attributes Ahhotep the title “Eldest King’s Daughter” and Xnm.t nfr HD.t. She may have been the eldest daughter of Seqenenre and had a prominent place next to her father at a time when he was perhaps a widower. Her title Xnm.t nfr HD.t 63 Fig. 4 – Hieroglyphic inscription on the lid of the Queen Ahhotep coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga © fac-simile by Gianluca Miniaci may have been a consequence of this particular situation or indicate that she was the betrothed of her father’s successor. A “King’s Daughter” Ahhotep is known from a statuette in the Louvre, N 446, and scarabs and similar items, inscribed for a Hm.t nswt Ahhotep, are listed by Troy, GM 35, 88. 140 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources Fig. 5 – Foot end of the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep photographed by Devéria; photo PHO 1986 144 97 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt title mw.t nswt can be explained by supposing that the future King Ahmose was not yet born (he is also absent in the texts carved on the statue) or was not yet on the throne. Two alternative explanations are thus possible: Seqenenre could have been living, when he dedicated the statue to his prematurely dead eldest son, as a sort of three-dimensional “letter to the dead”, according to the theory by Chirstophe Barbotin;70 Seqenenre was already dead.71 This second interpretation would also provide a dating to the statue under the short reign of Kamose. Concluding, on the ground of the available data, the statue of Prince Ahmose must be excluded from the sources concerning Queen Ahhotep owner of the coffin CG 28501. The attribution of this glassy scarab in the British Museum (0.90 x 2.40 x 1.70 cm) to Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga is uncertain. The drawings published by Newberry and then Hall show a rough carving73 and, while the reading Hm.(t) nswt IaH-Htp is clear, the adjective wr, usually retained from Hall’s translation, is not sure: the bird, if it is the swallow wr, is in an incorrect position, under the sign Htp instead after Hm.t nswt, nor is it possible to discern any trace of the r. The reading of Newberry, who interpreted the two signs under the offering table as the p and w of Htpw seems more plausible. In Barbotin, RevL 55/4, 19-28. Galán, JEA 103/2, 198: “The fact that Queen Ahhotep is not mentioned as beneficiary of his intervention in the necropolis seems to imply that she was then still alive (unlike the king) and probably the one responsible for the dedication and setting up of the statue”. Hall, Catalogue of the Egyptian Scarabs, vol. I, 46 (432); Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XXVI, 4; Troy, GM 35, 88. 73 Hall’s facsimile reversed the direction of the inscription with a rather imprecise result, as the photograph in the same catalogue and the drawing in Newberry, Scarabs, pl. XXVI, 4 show. 70 71 c. 72 141 scarab BM EA 2698172 Marilina Betrò Fig. 6 – Scarab BM EA 26981 © The Trustees of the British Museum; photo by Marie Vandenbeusch; drawing by Wolfram Grajetzki this case, the Ahhotep of the scarab would be a queen (Hm.t nswt) but not a “Great Royal Wife”. It could have been manufactured in the early years of Ahhotep mother of Ahmose, omitting the title mw.t nswt because of the small surface available (or before the king’s birth), or even belong to another Ahhotep (see Fig. 6). Although not meeting with the paleographic criterium of the upwards crescent, another document must be included in the sources concerning the queen. This is the coffin of Ahmose-Henutempet.74 d. Coffin or part of the coffin of Ahmose-Henutempet (present location unknown) Thierry Stasser has recently remarked that this document should be included in the dossier of the first Ahhotep.75 Its location is now lost. The inscription on the coffin (or a part of it) was copied in the nineteenth century by Anthony C. Harris (Mss Alex. XI, 22), who said that it came from the “outer case of a female mummy belonging 74 75 PM I2, II, 604; Stasser, RANT 15, 137-47. Stasser, RANT 15, 143. to Mr. Castellari”, an antiquity dealer based in Luxor.76 The text refers to a sA.t nswt IaH-ms ¡nwt-m-p.t mAa.t xrw ms n Hm.t nswt wr.t IaH-htp mAa.t xrw, “King’s Daughter Ahmose Henutempet, justified, born to the Great Royal Wife Ahhotep, justified” (see Fig. 7). The lunar crescent is there written with the downwards crescent, proving that the princess died after the end of the reign of Ahmose, but Stasser’s arguments in identifying the owner of the coffin as a daughter of the Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga are quite reliable. Princess Ahmose Henutempet was one of the mummies recovered in DB 320, the royal mummies cache at Deir e-Bahri. In that occasion, her body had been re-buried in another coffin and the name of the former owner replaced. The inscribed fragment whose text Harris copied probably belonged to the original coffin, maybe made in pieces and abandoned by the robbers after plundering her burial. In his paper, Stasser compares Henutempet’s inscription with two other documents mentioning princesses of the Ahmoside family whose mother was a queen Ahhotep. All the three texts show the sign iaH written with the moon crescent downwards, a feature which allows to date them after Ahmose’s reign. The first document is the lower part of a statuette belonged to Ahmes-Nebta (Louvre N 496), “Royal Sister” and daughter of the Queen and “Royal Mother” Ahhotep. The second occurrence is on the lid of a small coffin in the Hermitage Museum at Saint-Petersburg, whose owner was a lady called Anaat or Anta. The inscription mentions the Princess Ahmes-Tumerisi, who also bore the title of “Royal Sister” and was daughter of a Queen and “Royal Mother” Ahhotep. Unlike the two preFig. 7 – Inscripvious princesses, Henutempet’s tion on the coffin of inscription describes her only Ahmose-Henutempet, as daughter of a “Great Royal from Harris Mss, from 76 142 Hamernik, JEA 96, 240, and fig. 3. Hamernik, JEA 96, 236-42 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources Wife” Ahhotep: she had no brothers as king and her mother had no sons ascended to the throne.77 Stasser concludes that while Ahmes Nebta and Ahmes Tumerisi were certainly daughters of the Ahhotep mother of King Ahmose and sisters of the king, Henutempet could only be daughter of the Ahhotep owner of the coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga. As he points out, if she had been Ahmose’s sister, she would not have failed to remember her close kinship to the king on her coffin. II.2 – Objects found with the queen not inscribed in her name To the above-mentioned items, must be added the inscribed jewels, weapons and other precious artifacts said to be inside the coffin with the mummy.78 They deserve a separate mention: none of them actually bears the name Ahhotep. Their link with the queen is given by their very position and the fact that some of them bear inscriptions with the names of Kings Kamose and Ahmose, who have been linked to the queen. In this second case, the argument risks being a circular reasoning. In all these items the sign iaH, when it occurs, is inscribed according to the graphic variant prior to the end of the reign of Ahmose, i.e. with the lunar crescent with points upwards, a writing which perfectly matches that of the name Ahhotep on the coffin. This paleographic feature gives sure evidence of their manufacture before the end of Ahmose’s reign but does not imply that coffin and objects within it were designed as a single, consistent ensemble: – A first factor of doubt is the absence of items bearing the name of the queen: the singularity of a very rich funerary equipment, in which not even a jewStasser, RANT 15, 143-4. A box with four alabaster “canopic” vases was also found with the coffin, but its precise location at the time of the retrieval is not clear. According to the letter of Maunier to Mariette, the box was found near the coffin: “une caisse renfermant quatre vases en albâtre, variés de formes, sans couvercles ni inscriptions, trouvés à côté de la boîte de momie” (Maspero, RT 12, 214). Another source describes the box as placed inside the coffin: see below, p. 144 and n. 93. The description in the Journal d’Entrée 4727-30 agrees with their being inside the coffin. These jars were not mentioned in Mariette’s and Vassalli’s accounts. They were not inscribed, without lid and of different shapes and measures: CG 18478, 18479, 18480, 18482. Von Bissing, Grabfund, 23, pl. 11; Lilyquist, Egyptian Stone Vessels, 23, cat. 7. Von Bissing believed that they were reused and compared their shape and manufacture to the Old Kingdom oil containers. On the equipment see Miniaci, “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume; Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 77 78 el or amulet bears the name of the queen for whom, apparently, it was intended is striking.79 – A further element of uncertainty could be the high number of objects placed within the coffin. However, although such a use is rather rare in the history of ancient Egyptian funerary customs, it is not isolated in the Seventeenth Dynasty. Even not taking into account Kamose’s burial, which certainly was a re-burial,80 at least two similar cases can be mentioned for this period: the burial of the so-called “Qurna Queen”81 and that of the official Hornakht discovered by Luigi Vassalli at Dra Abu el-Naga in 1862.82 The sketch made by Vassalli and his description show how there were in the coffin some grave goods (a wooden headrest, a game-board inlaid with ivory, alabaster pots, stone scarabs). Moreover, a set of objects inscribed with names of other persons lay at his side. This assemblage can be considered as heirlooms or gifts, but it is also consistent with a diffuse recycling and circulation of earlier funerary material during the Second Intermediate Period.83 II.2.1 – Did the treasure belong to Ahhotep? Doubts concerning the relation of the coffin of Ahhotep CG 28501 to all the objects found within it had already been expressed by William Flinders Petrie in 189684 and later by George Daressy in 1908.85 Daressy, who was the first to identify Kamose’s coffin, previously neglected in Devéria remarked on the fact in his letter on March 22, 1859: Maspero, in Mariette, Oeuvres diverses, cii. Both Devéria and Maspero were persuaded that Mariette had not been able to recover all the jewels and something went lost after the passage in the harem: Devéria, Mémoires et fragments 2, 321, note 1; Maspero, Guide, 416. Cf. Winlock, JEA 10, 254. 80 His tomb, described as a pyramid, was visited by the commission appointed in the 16th year of reign of Ramesses IX and found intact: p. Abbott Pl. II, 12 (Peet, The great tomb-robberies, 38). The coffin was later moved from its tomb, in an undefined moment, and concealed in a hole among debris in the plain at Dra Abu el-Naga north: Miniaci, Rishi, 54. On its discovery and equipment see Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5. 81 Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 82 Vassalli, Monumenti istorici, 131; Tiradritti, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 343-54; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 59. On Vassalli’s papers and drawings in Milan cf. Lise, Rassegna di studi e di notizie 13, 359-414; Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’Egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812-1887), 45-128, and esp. f. 36r, fig. 14 at p. 116. See also Winlock, JEA 10, 257-8. See also Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 47-9, fig. 11. 83 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 58-9. 84 Petrie, History of Egypt, vol. II, 13. 85 Daressy, ASAE 9, 63. 79 143 Marilina Betrò the Cairo Museum, supposed that Kamose’s and Ahhotep’s coffins had been found together in 18579 or 1860 and that the jewels and other objects bearing Kamose’s name in the queen’s coffin were not found originally with her, but with Kamose himself.86 Apparently, he ignored de Rougé’s account of the discovery of the coffin in 1858 or, rather, he did not connect the description of the coffin of a “King Intef” called “Ahmès”, given in the letter quoted by de Rougé in the words by Mariette himself, with that of Kamose.87 The place where the king’s burial had been found was clearly a cache: the report on the inspection made under Ramesses IX, preserved in the papyrus Abbott, describes the monumental king’s tomb among those on the ridge of the hill, while the coffin was found in the plain, hidden under rubbish and debris, in a shallow hole, not far from the ground surface.88 The theory proposed by Petrie in 1896 is more likely instead: the original site of Ahhotep’s burial would have not been located where it had been found at Dra Abu el-Naga, but it had been transported and hidden there by pious hands from a royal tomb in ancient times, when “the disorganization of government could no longer protect the tombs from thieves or foes”. According to his hypothesis, “the valuables in the burial of Kames which were outside of his mummy had been hurriedly heaped together into the coffin of Aah-hotep’s own burial”.89 Petrie remarked that no object bearing the name of Kamose was found within the bandages of the queen, but “only loose in the open coffin”.90 He probably referred there to the description given by Mariette in the Catalogue of the Bulaq Museum.91 Winlock, who discussed “Un doute peut s’élever dans l’esprit : n’aurait-il pas été mis au jour en même temps que le cercueil de la reine Aahbotep, et les Arabes n’auraient-ils pas mis dans la cuve de cette dernière les objets trouvés avec la momie de Kamès: l’éventail, la barque en or, etc.? On sait, en effet, que les circonstances de la découverte d’Aahhotep sont assez mystérieuses et que cette trouvaille a failli être perdue pour la science” (“A doubt may arise in the mind: would it not have been uncovered at the same time as the coffin of Queen Aahbotep, and would the Arabs not have put in her case the objects found with the mummy of Kames: the fan, the golden boat, etc.? We know, in fact, that the circumstances of Aahhotep’s discovery are quite mysterious and that this find was almost lost to science”). 87 See de Rougé, CRAIBL 2, 120 and above n. 1. Mariette’s description of the finds inside the coffin, echoed by H. Brugsch’s letter to von Humboldt, neatly separates the two findings of King Kamose and Queen Ahhotep. See also Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial”, in this volume, 65, 75-7. 88 Winlock, JEA 10, 260. 89 Petrie, History of Egypt, vol. II, 13. 90 Ibidem. 91 Mariette, Notice, 5th ed., 256, item 810: “Deux barques d’or et d’argent, des haches de bronze, de gros bracelets de jambe ont été trouvés à côté d’elle, sur le bois du cercueil. Entre 86 the issue in 1924, was convinced of the reliability of Mariette’s, Devéria’s, Desjardins’ and Vassalli’s views and objected to Petrie’s remarks that the position among the wrappings or outside them could simply be due to the different size of the objects.92 Since the pertinence of the queen’s coffin with a part of its outfit is crucial to the problem of her identity, it is worth reviewing the information we have on the find itself. II.2.2 – The find As told at the beginning, Mariette was not present at the discovery of the coffin. The first direct document we have concerning the retrieval is the letter that Maunier sent him. Surprisingly, Maunier said nothing there about the treasure: maybe, worried about keeping the find safe, he ordered Mariette’s team to immediately seal the case to protect it from the greed of malicious, thus having not even the time and opportunity to see the treasure. However, this singular omission feeds the doubts expressed by myself and other scholars about the true circumstances of the discovery. Although many elements are still obscure, the testimony of a Qurna fellâh reported by Howard Carter seriously raises the question of the reliability of Mariette’s accounts of the find. Unfortunately, we possess his story only indirectly. It is recorded by Carter in some unpublished notes belonging to his autobiographical sketches.93 Carter reported an account from Ahmed Saïd el-Hagg, father of his servant Abd el-Arl: the man, an old peasant when Carter met him in the first years of his staying at Thebes, provided him with an accurate description of the find-spot of the queen’s coffin. The man, “a devout, straight-forward fellâh, who apparently only forsook his crops to dig for ‘Antiquas’ when he was out-of-work during the season of inundation”, had found the coffin, as he said, after many weeks of toil at the extreme northern boundary of the hill-slope of Dra Abu el-Naga, near some hidden brick vaults. Carter’s notes for his unpublished autobiography give some slightly different versions of the story. According to the most complete, Ahmed Saïd had found a massive wooden coffin containing a mummy, four alabaster canopic jars and a bundle of gold and silver ornaments, tucked away in a hole hollowed out of les linges mal noués etaient déposés, comme au hasard, des poignards, une hache d’or, une chaîne garnie de trois mouches d’or, un pectoral. Enfin le cadavre lui-même était revêtu d’une autre chaîne d’or ornée d’un scarabée, de bracelets, d’un diadème, etc.”. 92 Winlock, JEA 10, 254. 93 On this account and its versions in the Griffith Institute Archive at Oxford and in the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York, see in detail Betrò, “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. 144 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources the side of one of those vaults, and then carefully covered up with mud bricks as if to hide it. Carter located the brick vaults “deep below” TT 155.94 In Ahmed Saïd’s words, he himself had found the coffin. If we believe his account as reported by Carter, it casts a completely different light on the story: the coffin had not been discovered by Mariette’s team but by a fellâh acting alone, an independent illicit digger, with a few men in his employ. The news, that his workers spread out of envy, had reached the inspector Gabet and Maunier ‒ and through them Mariette ‒ as well as the Governor of the Province, who quickly seized everything and gave notice of the discovery to the Khedive, Saïd Pasha. This could explain the many uncertain and sometimes contradictory details in Mariette’s reports and also the strange fact that Maunier in his letter to Mariette said nothing about the silver and gold objects in the coffin. That a striking assemblage of gold and silver objects had been found in the queen’s coffin at its opening is attested by Carter’s account. Even if the story of the discovery might just have been a boast of the man, many interesting details make it credible that he had seen with his own eyes the “bundle of gold and silver ornaments” placed beside the mummy in the coffin. This implies that: 1) The precious objects were inside the coffin at the time of his discovery 2) They had been put there in a bundle This last detail suggests that possibly the people who hid the coffin had gathered scattered parts of one or more royal equipment, and had put them into some linen, by making a bundle and placing it into Ahhotep’s coffin in order to transport everything more easily. The description of the place where the coffin was found seems to point out to a cache: although the brick vaults could also refer to an unrecognized mudbrick superstructure over or near the original burial place of the queen,95 the hole expressly hollowed out of a side of the Ibidem. Winlock, JEA 10, 252, n. 2 mentioned that Carter had heard a tradition in Qurna that the site was near TT 155, but he was not aware of the exact source of Carter. It is not clear whether Carter’s expression “deep below” should be understood as an indication of the underground depth: both Mariette, BIE 1, 161 and Desjardins, RGA 18, 98-9, report that the coffin was placed in a hole about 5-6 metres deep: see Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial”, in this volume, p. 50-1, for the opposite descriptions shaft/shallow hole. It seems preferable here that Carter intended to indicate the position further down the valley than Theban Tomb 155 (see below). 95 On mudbrick ceremonial structures in the Seventeenth Dynasty cf. Galán, JEA 103/2, 183 and 188 and Polz, Der Beginn, 239-45. Eaton-Krauss, in Blöbaum, Kahl, Schweitzer 94 vault and the bricks to hide it seem to be eloquent markers. The coffin probably was at a low depth under the rubble: this recalls the re-burial of Kamose. If credit is to be given to this account, it seems to support the hypothesis put forward by Petrie. As Petrie remarked, those who buried the coffin with the treasure were not “any regular tomb thieves, such as plundered the tombs in the Ramesside age. Neither of such parties would encumber themselves with moving a great coffin and a mummy, when all the valuables might be gathered up in a few minutes and put into a bag”.96 Petrie’s idea that the place where Ahhotep had been found was a cache was echoed and accepted by Winlock, who agreed with him.97 Winlock assumed that, for reasons of territorial competence, “the guardians of the Valley of the Kings were moving the royal mummies under their care to the tombs of Seti I and Amenophis II, and thence to those of Inhapi and Amenophis I, the guardians of the Dira’ Abu’l-Naga were removing their charges, one by one, to holes in the plain in their own district”. Modern research has highlighted the involvement of the Theban High Priests of Amun in what was a massive and systematic State operation, with multiple caches and transitions from one to the other.98 Many of the tombs of this period at Dra Abu el-Naga, targeted by thieves during the reign of Ramesses IX, were emptied from the Twenty-first Dynasty onwards and their royal occupants transferred in collective secret sepulchers (caches). For unknown reasons few mummies were reburied at Dra Abu el-Naga, such as those of Kamose and Ahhotep.99 Daniel Polz has proposed that these were (eds), Ägypten-Münster, 81 remarks that Kim Ryholt and Ann Macy Roth presumed that the coffin CG 28501 and its contents represented Ahhotep’s original, undisturbed interment, and that Nicholas Reeves also referred to the find as “an important and clearly intact burial”. Aidan Dodson interpreted instead Carter’s information in a radically divergent way, as a cache, and Eaton-Krauss agrees with him: on the ground of Daniel Polz’ s excavation at Dra Abu el-Naga (Polz, in Guksch, Polz (eds), 25-42), she states that it is now known that “Seventeenth Dynasty royalty were interred in tombs on the ridge at Dra Abu el-Naga, not buried in the plain” (p. 82). She believes more likely that the “brick-lined vault” was a ruined chapel like Daniel Polz has cleared in the area rather than her original burial chamber. 96 Petrie, History of Egypt, vol. II, 10. 97 Winlock, JEA 10, 274 and note 1: “Petrie, History, ii, 10, states this to have been the case with Ahhotep and infers that it was probably done with other royalties. He discards the frequently stated idea that thieves carried off her coffin intact, and the heretofore unnoticed fact that at least three other similar cases existed, demonstrates that his explanation must be right”. 98 Reeves, Valley of the Kings; Jansen-Winkeln, ZÄS 122, 62-78. 99 Taylor, in Wilkinson, Reeves (eds), The Oxford Hand- 145 Marilina Betrò “modern” reburials, made during the first part of the nineteenth century by grave robbers, who for some reason never recovered their booty.100 However, the transport and concealing of the coffins of Ahhotep and Kamose, with their mummies and equipment inside, was not a one-man affair. It seems unlikely that no member of the gang, no relatives or friends were able to retrieve the hidden treasures in the many years elapsed between the robbery and their late discovery by Mariette’s team. II.2.3 – Intact coffin or secondary treasure To whom the jewels and other precious objects found in Ahhotep’s coffin belonged is still an open question. As already remarked above, not a single piece among them was inscribed in name of the queen,101 making it difficult to believe that they were gifts from family members to her. If this is the case, the conclusion that they had been placed within the coffin at a later time is compelling. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances of the find, no archaeological report, able to detect the traces of a possible previous opening of the coffin, is available. All that we have are the rather imprecise and indirect accounts of Mariette and his collaborators, and the second-hand description of Carter. Thus, it is impossible to say whether it was found intact in its original coffin or, as Petrie supposed, it was a secondary treasure, i.e. in ancient times somebody had gathered inside the case the grave goods from other royal burials. Such an assumption would leave open many possible alternatives, which will be examined below. If the hypothesis of an intact coffin with its original equipment is instead accepted, the royal names on the objects would suggest, as the most logical scenario, that the queen had been the wife of Kamose, from whom she received the fan and the model of the silver boat, while his husband’s successor, Ahmose, had in turn presented her with the jewelry and other objects (see Pls IV-V, VII, XII-XIII, XV, XVII-XIX). Less probable, but not entirely to be ruled out, is that the sphinx bracelet found in her treasure (CG 52642) was given to her by Senakhtenre: the jewel is in fact inscribed with only the name Ahmose in the cartouche, and it is now known that this was Senakhtenre’s son-of-Re name (nomen) and that he was the first king to bear it102 (see Pls IV, VII, XII; JE 4680). Thus it could refer to him and not to the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty. She might have been his first “Great Royal Wife”. book, 362. 100 Polz, Der Beginn, 169-72, esp. 170. 101 See above, p. 133. 102 Biston-Moulin, ENiM 5, 66. III. Some (provisional) Conclusions on the Queen Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga The existence of (at least) two Queens Ahhotep and the identification of the queen once buried in CG 61006 as the mother of King Ahmose are the cornerstones for securing the identity of the queen buried in CG 28501. The Ahhotep coffin found in the cache at Deir el-Bahri constitutes, together with the coffins of Ahmose-Nefertari and Merytamon, a well individualized set with distinct and unique features, better suitable slightly later, in a more advanced phase of the Ahmoside period.103 The diagnostic presence of the hieroglyph iaH with upwards horns, together with the stylistic features of the coffin CG 28501, frame a chronological time span which fits well the last part of the Seventeenth Dynasty–early Eighteenth Dynasty. Considering all the data collected so far, a number of fixed points emerge: a) Ahhotep, owner of CG 28501, was neither the mother nor the daughter of a king, nor did she have any brothers who ascended the throne.104 She certainly was “Great Royal Wife” and Xnm.t nfr HD.t. b) The resemblance of Ahhotep’s coffin to that of Seqenenre, widely emphasised by Winlock,105 is a strong argument in favour of their simultaneous manufacture, taken up by various later studies.106 Ahhotep also shares with the latter the type of wood (cedar), a valuable material and therefore a significant element, and the length, 212 cm, which is greater than that of the others. The presence of the sema-tawy motif on the base of both coffins, as attested by the above-mentioned photograph of Théodule Devéria107 (see Figs 3, 5), is further evidence of their being manufactured in the same workshop and time. However, as pointed out, many are the similarities also with the coffins of Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef and Nubkheperre Intef. Furthermore, an objective and complete evaluation would need a comparison with Senakhtenre’s coffin, which is missing, never found. This group of coffins certainly represents a closed set, which reflects the style of an era and a milieu, that of the royalty and the highest level of society at the time,108 Roth in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of praise, 366-8. This excludes the hypothesis that she was daughter of Nubkheperre Intef, as Blankenberg-van Delden proposed, while his assumption that she married Senakhtenre is still valid: GM 47, 15-9; GM 49, 17-18; GM 54, 35-8. 105 Winlock, JEA 10, 251, no. 5. 106 Cf. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 123-4. 107 See p. 140, and n. 65. 108 Kamose’s coffin (as well as that of Sekhemre Heruhermaat Intef: see below) is an exception: it was probably hastily pro103 104 146 The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources over a period of time that was probably no longer than thirty years or so. A greater similarity of Ahhotep’s coffin to that of Seqenenre, as highlighted by Winlock,109 might suggest that they had been both commissioned together, possibly by Seqenenre himself during his lifetime. This however does not necessarily imply a marriage between the two but only that the queen probably died during his reign. bracelets. This assemblage, parallel to that found in the coffin of the queen, seems to convey a symbolic meaning, commemorating the victory over the Hyksos. The models were found “at the western edge of the casemate core of the palace, placed on the desert surface”. As Lacovara remarks, they were probably put there after the palace was abandoned, during the reign of Ahmose.113 They give a fascinating insight onto the imagery of the period which saw the wars with the Hyksos and the Egyptian final victory, mirrored as well in the precious pieces of the so called Ahhotep treasure. However, this does not provide a more precise date, nor does it shed any light on the original owners of the assemblage: the symbolic value of these objects and their grouping may have been asserted under any of the kings who led the wars against the Hyksos, and the various objects found in Ahhotep’s coffin may have been part of one or more equipments, either of those kings or of Ahhotep herself. c) Whether or not the treasure inside the coffin CG 28501 belonged to Ahhotep is a discriminating factor in defining her position in the dynasty and the identity of her royal spouse: if the treasure was part of her original equipment, the most likely hypothesis is that she was Kamose’s wife. If not, other possible alternatives must be taken into account. Evidence described so far seems to suggest that the treasure did not belong to her but was a secondary assemblage: it is indeed inconceivable that not even a jewel or other object was inscribed in her name in her own burial equipment. In this respect, it is useful to compare the opposite case of Queen Sobekemsaf, “Great Royal Wife” of King Nubkheperre Intef: a pair of gold spacer bars from a bracelet, probably coming from her tomb, were inscribed both with the names of the queen and her husband.110 The same can be said for a now lost gold pendant, probably from the same tomb, which also bore the names ant titles of the queen with Nubkheperre.111 The presence of objects inscribed in the name of Ahmose and Kamose is therefore no longer decisive in indicating their family relationship with the queen, except in the broader context of the dynastic line. An important new element regarding the assortment of objects in the treasure has been brought by Peter Lacovara in this same volume:112 a set of unbaked marlclay models was found by the expedition of George Reisner at Deir el-Ballas, in the North Palace founded by Seqenenre, including boats, flies, swords, daggers and d) In the circumscribed time span at the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty, Ahhotep might have been the “Great Royal Wife” of any of the kings who reigned in that period: Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef, Nubkheperre Intef, Sekhemre Heruhermaat Intef, Senakhtenre Ahmose, Seqenenre Tao and Kamose.114 Studies so far have always taken into account that only one “Great Royal Wife” could exist at a time, thus leaving as the only “available” candidates Sekhemre Wepmaat115 and Kamose:116 Nubkheperre had indeed Sobekemsaf as his “Great Royal Wife”,117 Sekhemre Heruhermaat probably died almost immediately after ascending the throne,118 Senakhtenre is usually assigned Queen Tetishery, and Seqenenre Queen Ahhotep, mother of Ahmose and owner of the coffin CG 61006 from Deir el-Bahri cache. It must be admitted however that a king may have had more than one “Great Royal Wife” in his lifetime, if, for instance, the first “Great Wife” died prematurely, cured for the king’s burial from an undertaker’s stock, due to the extraordinary conditions of the war and the unexpected sudden death of the king. The paleography of the inscription, with its mutilated hieroglyphs (Polz, Der Beginn, 25; Miniaci, RdE 61, 113-34, esp. p. 130), seems to prove however that it was the original coffin. 109 Winlock was certainly able to carry out a thorough examination of the two coffins, both in the Cairo Museum, but one wonders whether he was able to examine and compare as closely the others, one in London, the other in Paris. 110 Andrews, Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, 65b; Russmann, Eternal Egypt, 84; Miniaci et. al., BMTRB 7, 53-60; Polz, Der Beginn, 38-42, 342-3, cat. 46a-b. 111 Polz, Der Beginn, Kat. 47. 112 Lacovara, “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume. Lacovara, “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume, p.158. 114 I follow here the chronological sequence of their reigns outlined by Polz, see Polz, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 343-53 and Polz, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos, 218. 115 Vandersleyen, L’Égypte, vol. II, 198-9; Leblanc, Reines du Nil, 30. 116 Vandersleyen, CdE 52, 243; Roth, Serapis 4, 35; Troy, GM 35, 85. 117 Grajetzki, Ancient Egyptian Queens, 44. 118 No documents of Sekhemre Heruhermaat are known, except for his coffin: this lack of monuments, together with the crudity of the coffin, presumably procured from an undertaker’s stock, suggests a very short reign, and rules him out of the potential royal spouses of Ahhotep: Winlock, JEA 10, 267. 113 147 Marilina Betrò not a rare event, especially because of the high rate of childbirth mortality or, as suggested by Robins, during an epidemic.119 Moreover, Tetisheri received the title of “Great King’s Wife” only on posthumous documents, thus Senakhtenre may have had a “Great Royal Wife” earlier.120 Seqenenre had certainly one “Royal Wife”, Satdjehuty,121 daughter of Tetisheri, and one “Great Royal Wife”, Ahhotep, owner of CG 61006 and mother of Ahmose. He might have had another earlier “Great Royal Wife” in Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga, but there is an argument arguing against this possibility: Princess Henutempet, daughter of Ahhotep, on her coffin bore the title of “King’s Daughter” but not that of “King’s Sister”. As pointed out above, if she were sister of King Ahmose she would have claimed it on her coffin,122 as, for instance, Princess Ahmose, daughter of Seqenenre and Satdjehuty, made on her funerary shroud in Turin123 (see Table 1). Sekhemre Wepmaat Intef, Senakhtenre Ahmose and Kamose are probably the best candidates. By trying to infer from the above data and outline a plausible hypothesis – which nevertheless remains a hypothesis – Senakhtenre is in my opinion the most likely:124 the resemblance of Ahhotep’s and Seqenenre’s coffins would be easily explained if Seqenenre had taken care of his father’s coffin (which we do not possess, but we can imagine to be very similar) and that of his first “Great Royal Wife”. And the sphinx bracelet with only the name Ahmose would be an intriguing element to support this hypothesis. Ahmose-Meryetamun is still, in my opinion, an excellent candidate as “Great Royal Wife” of Kamose.125 Robins, GM 56, 73. Cf. above, p. 137. Cf. p. 137. 121 On some inscribed fragments of her funerary shroud in Turin (Museo Egizio, Suppl. 5051), the Princess Ahmose refers directly to her father as Seqenenre and her mother as Satdjehuti (Ronsecco, Due Libri dei Morti, 30). The princess bears the titles of “Royal Daughter, Royal Sister”, which implies that one of her brothers, son of Seqenenre, is king, while Satdjehuty bears those of “Royal Daughter, Royal Sister, Royal Wife” (Grimm, Schoske, Im Zeichen des Mondes, 21-2, Abb. 20). This series of titles makes probable, but not certain, that Senakhtenre was the father of both Seqenenre and Satdjehuty: Winlock, JEA 10, 246; Von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 1923; Vandersleyen, LÄ V, col. 847-8, s.v. Senachtenre. Cf. for this issue, the recent discussion of Biston-Moulin, ENiM 5, 66. 122 Stasser, RANT 15, 143-4. 123 See above n. 121. 124 See also Blankenberg-van Delden, GM 47, 15-19; GM 49, 17-18; GM 54, 35-8. 125 Betrò, EVO 30, 55-68, especially p. 67; Betrò, in Ivanov, Tolmacheva (eds), Studies in Honour of Galina A. Belova, 73-84, esp. p. 81-2. 119 120 Too many data are however missing to propose a well-founded hypothesis: we do not know the length of the reigns of those kings and their sequence itself is still debated. The absence of Ahhotep’s mummy does not allow us to understand whether she died old and occupied her role for many years or, vice versa, whether her death was premature. In Ann Macy Roth’s discussion on the Ahhotep coffins, one of the most significant results of her research is having demonstrated the many conceivable alternative relationships and “the great variety of possibilities allowed by the evidence”. She chose “the simplest reconstruction” but she herself commented that “history, like life, does not always happen in the most straightforward way”.126 Acknowledgements My sincere thanks go to Marie Vandenbeusch and Wolfram Grajetzki for the pictures and drawing of the scarab BM EA26981. Bibliography Andrews, C., Ancient Egyptian Jewellery (London, 1990). van Assche, B., “Ahmose Sapair: discussing the identity of a deified prince”, JSSEA 37 (2010), 113-21. Barbotin, C., “Un intercesseur dynastique à l’aube du Nouvel Empire: la statue du prince Iâhmès”, RevL 55/4 (2005), 19-28. Barbotin, C., Âhmosis et le début de la XVIIIe dynastie (Paris, 2008). von Beckerath, J., Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten (Glückstadt: ÄF 23, 1965). Ben Amar, C., “The dagger of Kamose, the oldest glory of the Royal Library of Belgium”, In Monte Artium 5 (2012), 45-67. Betrò, M., “Una nota manoscritta inedita di Ippolito Rosellini e la regina ahmoside Ahmes-Meritamon”, EVO 30 (2010), 55-68. Betrò, M., “The Neglected Queen: Meryetamun of the Royal Cache”, in S. Ivanov, H. Tolmacheva (eds), And the Earth is Joyous, Studies in Honour of Galina A. Belova (Moscow, 2015), 73-84. Betrò, M., “A Note to Carter Manuscripts and the Discovery of Ahhotep’s Coffin (Cairo CG 28501)”, in this volume. von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des Neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Biston-Moulin, S., “Le roi Sénakht-en-Rê Ahmes de la XVIIe dynastie”, ENiM 5 (2012), 61-71. Biston-Moulin, S., http://sith.huma-num.fr/karnak/575#inscription, <accessed July 6, 2020>. Blankenberg-van Delden, C., “Additional remarks on Queen Ahhotep, consort of Senakhtenre Tao I?”, GM 49 (1981), 17-18. 126 148 Macy Roth, in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of praise, 374. The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources Blankenberg-van Delden, C., “Ahmes Merytamon and Ahhotep I, consort of Senakhtenre Tao I?”, GM 47 (1981), 15-19. Blankenberg-van Delden, C., “A genealogical reconstruction of the kings and queens of the late 17th and early 18th dynasties”, GM 54 (1982), 31-45. Callender, V.G., “A note on the title Xnmt nfr HDt”, SAK 22 (1995), 43-6. Castle, E.W., “Appendix 1. Notes and bibliography for royal tombs with vessels in the Catalogue”, in C. Lilyquist (ed.), Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV (New York, 1995), 55. Daressy, G., “Le cercueil du roi Kamès”. ASAE 9 (1908), 61-3. Daressy, G., Cercueils des cachettes royales. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire nos 61001-61044 (Cairo, 1909). Desjardins, E., “Découverts de M. Mariette en Egypte”, RGA 18 (1860), 97-124. Devéria, T., “Une stèle égyptienne du temps de l’expulsion des rois pasteurs”, in T. Devéria, Mémoires et fragments 2 (Paris, 1897), 315-23. Eaton-Krauss, M., “The coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and mother of Ahmose”, CdE 65 (1990), 195-205. Eaton-Krauss, M., “Encore: the coffins of Ahhotep, wife of Seqeni-en-Re Tao and mother of Ahmose”, in A.I. Blöbaum, J. Kahl, S.D. Schweitzer (eds), Ägypten-Münster: kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zu Ägypten, dem Vorderen Orient und verwandten Gebieten. Donum natalicium viro doctissimo Erharto Graefe sexagenario ab amicis collegis discipulis ex aedibus Schlaunstrasse 2 (Wiesbaden, 2003), 75-90. Galán, J.M., “Ahmose(-Sapair) in Dra Abu el-Naga north”, JEA 103/2 (2017), 179-201. Gauthier, H., Le Livre des Rois d’Égypte. Vol. II: De la XIIIe à la fin de la XVIIIe dynastie (Cairo, 1912). Gitton, M., L’épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary : documents sur sa vie et son culte posthume (Paris, 1975). Gitton, M., Les divines épouses de la 18e dynastie (Paris, 1984). Grajetzki, W., Ancient Egyptian Queens: A Hieroglyphic Dictionary (London, 2005). Grimm A., S. Schoske, Im Zeichen des Mondes. Ägypten zu Beginn des Neuen Reiches (Munich, 1999). Hall, H.R., Catalogue of the Egyptian Scarabs, vol. I (London, 1913). Hamernik, G., “On the rediscovery of Anthony C. Harris’s books and manuscripts at Alexandria”, JEA 96 (2010), 236-42. Jansen-Winkeln, K., “Die Plünderung der Königsgräber des Neuen Reiches”, ZÄS 122 (1995), 62-78. Lacovara, P., “The Flies of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Lacovara, P., “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume. Leblanc, C., Reines du Nil au Nouvel Empire (Paris, 2009). Leclant, J., “Gottesgemählin”, LÄ II (1977), 792-812. Lilyquist, C., Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV (New York, 1995). Lise, G., “Per Luigi Vassalli Bey (1812-1887): Egittologo Milanese”, Rassegna di studi e di notizie 13 (1986), 359-414. Maitland, M., D.M. Potter, L. Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. Mariette, A., “Notice sur l’état actuel et les résultats, jusqu’à ce jour, des travaux entrepris pour la conservation des antiquités égyptiennes en Égypte”, CRAIBL 3 (1859), 153-67. Mariette, A., “Séance du 3 Juin 1859”, BIE 1 (1859), 29-36. Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galeries provisoires du Musée d’Antiquités Égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-roi à Boulaq, 1st ed. (Alexandrie, 1864). Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galeries provisoires du Musée d’Antiquités Égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-roi à Boulaq, 5th ed. (Cairo, 1874). Maspero, G., Guide du visiteur au Musée de Boulaq (Cairo, 1883). Maspero, G., “Les momies royales d’Égypte récemment mises aux jour”, CRAIBL 30 (1886), 581-94. Maspero, G., Les momies royales de Déir el-Baharî (Cairo: Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire,1889). Maspero, G., “Documents relatifs aux fouilles de Mariette”, RT 12 (1892), 214-8. Maspero, G., Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient classique. Vol. II: Les premières mêlées : des peuples (Paris, 1897). Maspero, G., “Mariette (1821-1881): notice biographique”, in A. Mariette, Oeuvres diverses (Paris, 1904), i-ccxxiv. Miniaci, G., “The incomplete hieroglyphs system at the end of the Middle Kingdom”, RdE 61 (2010), 113-34. Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume. Miniaci “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., S. La Niece, M.F. Guerra, M. Hacke, “Analytical study of the first royal Egyptian heart-scarab, attributed to a Seventeenth Dynasty king, Sobekemsaf”, BMTRB 7 (2013), 53-60. Morris, E., “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. Newberry, P.E., Egyptian Antiquities: Scarabs; An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian Seals and Signet Rings (London, 1906). Peet, T.E., The Great Tomb-robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty: Being a critical Study, with Translations and Commentaries, of the Papyri in which these are recorded, vols I-II (Oxford, 1930). Petrie, W.F.M., A History of Egypt. Vol. II: The XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties (Cambridge, 1896). Polz, D., Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: zur Vorgeschichte 149 Marilina Betrò einer Zeitenwende (Berlin, New York: SDAIK 31, 2007). Polz, D., “New archaeological data from Dra’ Abu el-Naga and their historical implications”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future prospects (Leuven, Paris, Walpole: OLA 192, 2010), 343-54. Polz, D., “The territorial claim and the political role of the Theban state at the end of the Second Intermediate Period: a case study”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4 – 5, 2014 (Vienna, 2018), 217-33. Reeves, C.N., Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal Necropolis (London: SIE, 1990). Robins, G., “Ahhotpe I, II and III”, GM 56 (1982), 71-7. Roehrig, C.H., “The burial of a royal woman and child of the late Seventeenth Dynasty”, in C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (New York, 2005), 15-16. Ronsecco, P., Due Libri dei Morti del principio del Nuovo Regno. Il lenzuolo funerario della principessa Ahmosi e le tele del Sa-Nesu Ahmosi, Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino. Serie Prima – Monumenti e Testi 7 (Torino, 1996). Roth, A.M., “Ahhotep I and Ahhotep II”, Serapis 4 (19771978), 31-40. Roth, A.M., “The Ahhotep coffins: the archaeology of an Egyptological reconstruction”, in E. Teeter, J.A. Larson (eds), Gold of Praise: Studies on ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (Chicago, 1999), 361-77. de Rougé, E., “Une lettre écrite d’Égypte par M. Mariette”, CRAIBL 2 (1858), 115-21. Russmann, E., Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum (London, 2001). Ryholt, K., The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (Copenhagen: CNIANES, 1997). Sabbahy, L.K., “Comments on the title Xnmt-nfr-HDt”, SAK 23 (1996), 349-52. Schmitz, B., “Untersuchungen zu zwei Königinnen der frühen 18. Dynastie, Ahhotep und Ahmose”, CdE 53 (1978), 207-21. el-Shazly, Y., “The Display History of the Ahhotep Treasure”, in this volume. Sidpura, T., “Where is my mummy…Who is my mummy? A re-evaluation of the Dra Abu-el Naga coffin of queen Ahhotep (CG 28501) with queen Satkamose”, in S.R.W. Gregory (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Birmingham Egyptology Symposium, University of Birmingham, 20th February 2015 (Birmingham, 2016), 21-46. Stasser, T., “A propos d’un cercueil disparu. Une descendance de la reine Iahhetep I”, RANT 15 (2018), 137-47. Taylor, J.H., “Intrusive burials and caches”, in R.H. Wilkin- K.R. Weeks (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Valley of the Kings (Oxford, 2016), 360-72. Tiradritti, F., “L’album di disegni di Luigi Vassalli presso la Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano”, in Anonymous (ed.) L’Egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812-1887). Disegni e documenti nei Civici Istituti Culturali Milanesi (Milano, 1994), 45-128. Tiradritti, F., “Luigi Vassalli and the archaeological season at Western Thebes (1862-3)”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 329-42. Tréhin, J.-Y, “Maunier, Victor Gustave”, in F. Pouillon (ed.), Dictionnaire des orientalists en langue française (Paris, 2012), 709. Troy, L., “Ahhotep - a source evaluation”, GM 35 (1979), 81-91. Troy, L., “One Merytamun too many: an exercise in critical method”, GM 50 (1981), 81-96. Vandersleyen, C., Les guerres d’Amosis fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie (Bruxelles, 1971). Vandersleyen, C., “Une stèle de l’an 18 d’Amosis à Hanovre”, CdE 52 (1977), 223-44. Vandersleyen, C., “Kamose”, LÄ III (1980), 306-8. Vandersleyen, C., “Les deux Ahhotep”, SAK 8 (1980), 237-41. Vandersleyen, C., “Un seul roi Taa sous la 17e dynastie”, GM 63 (1983), 67-9. Vandersleyen, C., L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil. Vol II: De la fin de l’Ancien Empire à la fin du Nouvel Empire (Paris, 1995). Vandersleyen, C., “Les trois Antef de la 17e dynastie”, DE 59 (2004), 67-73. Vandersleyen, C., Iahmès Sapaïr : fils de Séqénenré Djéhouty-Aa (17e dynastie et la statue du Musée du Louvre E 15682) (Bruxelles, 2005). Vassalli, L., I monumenti istorici egizi: il museo e gli scavi d’antichità eseguiti per ordine di S. A. il viceré Ismail Pascia, notizia sommaria (Milano, 1867). Weens, S., “From rags to riches: the adventures of Victor Gustave Maunier in Egypt 1848-1868”, in N. Cooke (ed.), Journeys erased by time: The rediscovered footprints of travellers in Egypt and the Near East (Oxford, 2019), 101-13. Wiedemann, A., Ägyptische Geschichte. Vol. I: Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Tode Tutmes’ III (Perthes: Handbücher der alten Geschichte, 1884). Winlock, H.E., “The tombs of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Winlock H.E., The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun at Thebes (New York, 1932). Yoyotte J., “XI. Religions de l’Égypte ancienne”, École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire 1965-1966 no. 73 (1964), 76-85. 150 son, The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources Table 1 – Possible royal couples from Kings Selhemre Wepmaat Intef to Wadjkheperre Kamose 151 Marilina Betrò Table 2 – Sources mentioning a queen Ahhotep contemporary to her time (updated from Troy, GM 35, 1979) 152 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 153-161 The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context Peter Lacovara Abstract The burial of Queen Ahhotep represents one of the most significant finds in Near Eastern Archaeology. Unfortunately, the circumstances of its discovery at Dra Abu el-Naga has left many questions open. Some have postulated that the treasure did not represent a grave group but a disparate collection of material or a robber’s cache. A review of the archaeology of the period shows that the treasure was not only in keeping with tradition but reflected Ahhotep’s role in the Hyksos expulsion. The burial of Ahhotep discovered in Western Thebes in 1859 was one of the most important discoveries in the history of Egyptology.1 Unfortunately, the gilded coffin (JE 28501) and a trove of magnificent jewels and objects belonging to a queen named Ahhotep (see Pls I-II, IX-X) bearing the titles Hm.t nswt wr.t Xnm.t nfr HD.t, “Great Royal Wife, She who is joined to the White Crown”,2 was not properly supervised with the result that some of the treasure was scattered and the bandages and remains of the mummy lost.3 The uncertainties this engendered has occasioned much speculation. Some scholars have even suggested that the find was actually an amalgam of disparate objects from a number of burials artificially grouped together.4 Reeves, Great Discoveries, 50-2. Cf. Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 3   Cf. Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 4   Harvey, The Cults of King Ahmose, 54; Dorothea Arnold, 1   2   Since the profusion of objects found in the coffin has prompted some to question the veracity of the attribution of the treasure it is worth looking at contemporary burials to provide an answer. While this might seem unusual in the history of ancient Egyptian funerary customs, it is not an isolated instance in the Seventeenth Dynasty. Besides the objects reported to have been found in Kamose’s coffin, which included a dagger, a mirror, a scarab, amulets, and elements from a gold archer’s brace similar to the one from Ahhotep’s tomb group;5 there is also the burial of the high official Hornakht discovered by Luigi Vassalli at Dra Abu el-Naga in 1862.6 Within personal communication; Petrie, History of Egypt, vol. II, 13; Daressy, ASAE 9, 63. 5 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 54-7. 6 Vassalli, Monument Hiistorici, 131; Tiradritti, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 343-54; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 59. On Vassalli’s papers and drawings in Milan cf. Lise, Rassegna di studi e di notizie 13, 359-414; Tiradritti, in Anonymous (ed.), L’Egittologo Luigi Vassalli, 45-128; see also Winlock, JEA 10, 257-8. Peter Lacovara the coffin was a wealth of objects including sandals, a wooden headrest, a game-board, three kohl pots, a set of razors and tweezers, and a comb placed in a basket.7 An intact burial of a presumably royal woman of the late Seventeenth Dynasty was discovered in this general area by Petrie and is now housed in the National Museums of Scotland.8 The woman had been buried in an elaborate, gilded, rishi-style coffin along with a wealth of jewelry. including a gold shebyu collar, gold earrings and bracelets and girdle; in the coffin itself was also placed a wooden head rest, a kohl pot of obsidian and a basket containing another kohl pot of ‘Egyptian alabaster’ and kohl stick.9 Beside the coffin were placed furniture and ceramic vessels, and offerings of grapes, dates, assorted loaves and cakes and at the foot of her coffin was a rectangular box containing the body of a young child. The recent discovery of a Third Intermediate Period reburial of the coffin of Neb in Dra Abu el-Naga is another example of reinternment of these burials at the close of the New Kingdom.10 The well-preserved rishi-coffin appears to have been removed from its original tomb and re-buried inside the funerary shaft UE 1007, 110 m southwest from the base of the pyramid of King Nubkheperre Intef,11 probably close to its original burial ground. Associated with the burial were a wooden funerary figurine and a small un-inscribed clay shabti, both datable to the Third Intermediate Period.12 This last and latest discovery adds weight to the suggestion that the aforementioned burials including that of Ahhotep were re-burials interred at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period.13 The Qurna burial in Edinburgh may also fit into this pattern. Two small, clay shabtis of Third Intermediate Period date accessioned with it14 have been suggested to have been confused Another reburial of a coffin of this period containing a group of objects was that of Ti-Abu Lady of Elephantine found in the recent excavations of the University of Strasbourg in the Asasif. Objects placed in the coffin included a headrest, a mirror, a wood box with razors, a basket, an “Egyptian alabaster” kohl pot, wood cosmetic spoons, and a faience vessel, and other objects, cf. Colin, BSFE 201, 121-47. Similar assortments of objects placed in coffins of the Seventeenth Dynasty and early Eighteenth Dynasty were discovered in earlier work in the Asasif, Carnarvon, Carter, Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes, 74, 80-2, 84-6. 8   Cf. Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 9 Petrie, Qurna, 6-10, pls XXII-XXIX. 10   Galán, Jiménez-Higueras, in Miniaci, Grajetzki (eds), World of Middle Kingdom Egypt, vol I, 101-19. 11   Polz, Seiler, Die Pyramidenanlage; Polz, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 343-53. 12   Ibidem, 105-6. 13   Winlock, JEA 10, 274 and n. 1. 14   1909.527.37 examined by the author. 7   with others from the excavations;15 however it is notable that the shabtis associated with the Qurna burial are not exactly similar to the ones they have been suggested to have been confused with16 and they show a considerable amount of wear as opposed to the others recovered from a different context. Likewise, the suggestion that these burials were associated with pyramids which have been removed,17 seems unlikely given that they would be gone entirely without a trace. That these shallow graves in the earth would have been beneath them would not fit the pattern of earlier royal pyramid burials in Dra Abu el-Naga which possessed distinct burial chambers.18 Certainly the place where the coffin of Kamose had been found,19 does not comport with the description of his burial in a pyramid, mr, as noted in the Abbot Papyrus.20 That Kamose’s reburial preserved his grave goods intact within the coffin then lends credence to the idea that Ahhotep’s treasure was also a reburial. These more reverent re-interments may have dated to the beginning of a long process of exhumations that ended with the royal caches of D. B. 320 and the others in the Valley of the Kings21 where the process became to be seen as much of an income generator as a safeguard for the royal mummies.22 Another coffin inscribed for Ahhotep (CG 61006) in the DB 320 cache has also been the center of conjecture. The 1881, the discovery of the cache at Deir el-Bahri revealed a monumental coffin inscribed for a queen named Ahhotep with the titles: sA.t nswt sn.t nswt Hm.t (nswt) wr.t Xnm.t nfr HD.t mw.t nswt, “King’s Daughter, King’s Sister, Great (Royal) Wife, She who is joined to the White Crown, King’s Mother”. The coffin did not contain the mummy of Ahhotep, but rather the body of Pinudjem I.23 Since the additional title mw.t nswt “King’s Mother” does not appear on the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin, it would not be the first time that dissimilar inscriptions were found on inner and outer coffins of the same inMaitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 16   Compare Manchester Museum 5053.g. I am grateful to Margaret Serpico for tracking down these items. 17   Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 18 Polz, Der Beginn, 139-44. 19 Winlock, JEA 10, 252; Mariette, CRAIBL 3, 161; Vassalli, Monumenti istorici, 128-31. 20   His tomb was visited by the commission appointed in the 16th year of reign of Ramesses IX, Peet, Tomb-Robberies, 38; Winlock, Rise and Fall, 106-8. 21   Reeves, Valley of the Kings, 181-244. 22   Aldred, in Ruffle, Gaballa, Kitchen (eds), Glimpses of Ancient Egypt, 96-8. 23   Cf. Daressy, Cercueils, 8-9. See fig. 2 in Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 15   154 The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context dividual. The presence of additional titles on this coffin has caused many scholars to hypothesize that there was more than one Ahhotep,24 but no other historical conformation exists for any additional queens with the same name. Likewise the variant orthography of the sign jaH, written with an inverted crescent on the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin in contrast to the later form of the sign on Deir el Bahri coffin, also cannot be considered firm evidence for a second Ahhotep, as variant orthography is also something not unusual on different items of funerary furniture in a single burial and paleographic changes, as in other aspects of material culture, do not occur at precise intervals. Indeed, two rings of Ahhotep in the Louvre exhibit both variants of the jaH, sign and most likely come from either the Kamose or Ahhotep burials.25 It also is possible that the outer coffin could have been made for Ahhotep at a slightly later date and to reflect her more exalted status.26 As has already been noted by Bettina Schmitz,27 the style of this pair of coffins is remarkably similar to that of the nested coffins of Merytamun discovered by Winlock at Deir el-Bahri.28 While it does appear that the dimensions of the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin would not fit within the Deir el-Bahri coffin,29 it is however the case in ancient Egypt that inner and outer coffins do not always match.30 Indeed, the odd opening at the back may have been intended to allow the insertion of the Dra Abu el-Naga coffin into the upper part of the Deir el-Bahri one where it is deepest and the copper bands securing it would have allowed a loose fit, had it been possible. It could also be that if made later,31 as has been suggested by Marianne Eaton-Krauss, the outer coffin could have had an internal space that was discovered to be too small to be used and so was kept until pressed into service for the burial of Pinudjem I.32 Cf. Yoyotte, ASR 73, 82; Leclant, LÄ II, col. 794, 807, no. 25; Vandersleyen, LÄ III, 306-8 and Vandersleyen, CdE 52, 237; Gitton, Ahmes Néfertary, 35, no. 58; Roth, Serapis 4, 31-40; Robins, GM 30, 71-5; Troy, GM 35, 81-91; Gitton, Divines épouses, 9-12. See also discussions in Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 25   Guerra, Pagès-Camagna, JCH 36, 144. 26   Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 204. I am also grateful to Marianne Eaton-Kraus for her suggestions. In addition, Stephen P. Harvey (personal communication) has suggested that the coffins of Ahmose (CG 61002) and that of Siamun (CG 61059) originally were a nested pair made for Ahmose and so it may be that the concept of an inner and outer coffin was introduced in his reign and the Ahhotep outer coffin commissioned then. 27   Schmitz, CdE 53, 207-21. 28   Winlock, Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun. 29   Roth in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of praise, 366-8. 30   Cf. The set of coffins of the Charioteer Iotefamun, MMA 26.3.2 a-b. 31   Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 200. 32   As for example with the anthropoid sarcophagi prepared for 24   Whether made contemporaneously or one after the other, the inner and outer coffins of Ahhotep seem to have set a pattern not only for Meryetamun, but others as well. Potentially fitting into this pattern could be the outer coffin of Ahmose Nofretari (CG 61003) that possibly could also have had coffin intended to be an inner one that may not have precisely fit.33 The author has recently suggested that an inner coffin of the same style as the Dra Abu el-Naga Ahhotep coffin and Merytamun inner coffin was the coffin from the Deir el Bahri Cache that contained the mummy of Seti I.34 The coffin was made of cedar and is 2.15 meters long by 0.73 meters wide and 68 centimeters deep. Like many of the coffins from the cache it had been stripped of its gilding and decoration.35 It had been coated with a whitewash and inscribed dockets written on the body of the lid identify the owner.36 Daressy had already noted that the coffin was datable to the early Eighteenth Dynasty,37 and indeed, a close examination of it reveals that it was, in fact, originally a queen’s coffin, not unlike that of Ahhotep from Dra Abu el-Naga.38 The coffins are remarkably similar in size and shape; and one can see the alterations necessary to repurpose the coffin for the burial of Seti (see Fig. 1): the curls of the Hathorian wig had been roughly carved into hands and the rest of the wig transformed into a simulation of the lappets of a nemes. The lower part of the sides of the coffin below the hands was remodeled to suggest arms as in coffins contemporaneous with the period of reinternment,39 while the top of the wig was cut down to reduce it to the more usual proportions. The rough chisel marks of these alterations are clearly visible under the layer of whitewash. The inlaid eyes, which had been removed and possibly damaged during the stripping of the original coffin or more likely taken as they had gold rims as in Ahhotep’s Dra Abu el Naga coffin, were replaced with eyes made for a coffin of the general Paramessu before he became Ramesses I (JE 72203 and JE 44863), and later adapted for prince Ramesses, the son of Ramesses II; Polz, MDAIK 42, 145-66; Bryson, Egyptian Royal Portrait, 65. 33   Cf. Partridge, Faces of Pharaohs, 57. 34   Lacovara, Fss Bell, (CG 61019); Daressy, Cercueils, 30-1. 35   Patridge, Faces of Pharaohs, 26-7. 36   Three separate hieratic inscriptions on the coffin lid record the identity of the owner. These inscriptions report that before the move to DB320, it had also been kept in the tomb of Princess Inhapi and the tomb of Amenhotep I, Reeves, Valley of the Kings, 234. 37 Daressy, Cercueils, 30. 38 JE 28501; cf. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 225. 39   Such re-working of earlier private coffins to conform to contemporary styles in funerary art has been detailed in Cooney, JARCE 47, 3-44. 155 Peter Lacovara late Eighteenth Dynasty.40 The brows had been rendered in paint, as they were on the Ahhotep coffin. Around the framing of the face can be seen traces of a rectangular border like the one painted in black around the face on the Ahhotep coffin. The ears on the Ahhotep coffin are separately made and attached, and would probably have been the same on the original incarnation of the Seti coffin. While the measurements of this coffin suggest it could not have easily fit inside that of Ahmose Nofetari, as with the Ahhotep coffins, perhaps it could have been intended to fit with the back flap of the coffin loosely tied. The broken foot on the Seti coffin may be testament to the difficulty of fitting it in the outer coffin. Alternatively, the Seti coffin could have come from a set made for another royal woman. The coffins of Merytamun nest quite tightly,41 and therefore the Dra Abu el-Naga Ahhotep coffin could have been intended to fit very snugly inside the Deir el-Bahri outer one, but was mistakenly made too large. Indeed, the odd method of introduction of the inner coffin through the back as seen on the Deir el-Bahri Ahhotep coffin and that of Ahmose Nofretari, was abandoned in the later design of the Meryetamun42 coffins where a more traditional, and more practical, bivalve construction was used to more easily accommodate the introduction of an inner coffin.43 One might then reconstruct the Dra Abu el-Naga discovery of Ahhotep not as the original burial, or a thieves’ cache as has been suggested, but as an official reinternment done at the same time as the reburial of Kamose.44 Since Papyrus Abbot records the inspection of the tomb of Kamose and the neighboring tombs of his family45 in the necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga, just at the time when the first consolidation of the royal mummies was about to take place,46 one could see this as the first step in relocating the royal mummies. Given the later veneration shown to Ahhotep, one might see why her coffin and treasures were inviolate when they would have been removed from her original tomb. These reburials would have taken place early, perhaps at the time of the writing of the Abbott papyrus in the reign of Ramesses IX.47 The reinOn the shape of the replacement eyes, cf. Kozloff, BryBerman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, 301-12. Undoubtedly the original eyes were removed for their solid gold rims as in the Ahhotep coffin, see Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 201. 41   Winlock, BMMA 24, 3-34; Winlock, The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun, 16-21. 42   Logan, Williams, Serapis 4, 23-9. 43   Winlock, The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun, 19-20. 44   Eaton-Krauss, CdE 65, 205. 45   Peet, Tomb-Robberies, 38. For a suggestion as to the possible original location of the tomb of Kamose see: Polz, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 343-53. 46   Reeves, Valley of the Kings, 277. 47   Peden, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions, 241-3. 40   an, Fig. 1 – The re-working of the Coffin of Seti I, from Daressy, Cercueils, pl. 16 156 The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context Fig. 2 – The North Palace at Deir el-Ballas © drawing by Lisa Heidorn ternments of Ahhotep and Kamose may have been then forgotten or overlooked in the later consolidations of the royal mummies, which was then motivated by economic rather than security needs.48 The outer coffin of Ahhotep, however would have been left behind to later be collected and be stripped and reused for the burial of Pinedjem in the Royal Cache.49 What then of the odd assortment of objects that accompanied Ahhotep to her burial in Dra Abu el-Naga? Confirmation that this was a deliberate and symbolic grouping of material comes from an unexpected source. Located on the west bank of the Nile approximately 30 kilometers to the north of Luxor is the site of Deir el-Ballas. It was first excavated by the Hearst Expedition of the University of California under the direction of George A. Reisner in the year 1900-0150 and subsequently by the author from 1980 to 198651 and currently from 2017 forward.52 The ancient settlement at Deir el-Ballas centered on a large royal palace situated in the middle of a wide bay The earliest of these not beginning until the reign of Smendes: Aston, in Sousa, Amenta, Cooney (eds), Bab El-Gasus, 31-68. 49   Partridge, Faces of Pharaohs, 35. 50   Lacovara, in Simpson, Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, 120-4. 51   Lacovara, in Bietak, Prell (eds), Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Palaces. 52   Lacovara, in Bietak, Prell (eds), Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Palaces, 282-9. 48   opening up in the limestone cliffs along the west bank of the Nile. Inscribed architectural elements indicate that it was founded by Seqenenre Tao,53 undoubtedly as a campaign palace for the war against the Hyksos. As in the other royal cities,54 the central focus of the settlement at Deir el-Ballas was the royal palace. The North Palace and its enclosures cover an area of 45,000+ square meters, the eastern end of the main enclosure never having been traced (see Fig. 2). The plan of the building included a series of columned courts and a long entrance corridor grouped around an elevated central platform. This platform was constructed on casemate foundations: long mud brick chambers filled with rubble and capped by a brick pavement which must have supported the elevated private apartments of the palace, which are now not preserved. In the abandonment debris of the palace, Reisner found sealings of Ahmose, suggesting the relatively short life of the structure, which was no longer needed once the expulsion of the Hyksos was accomplished. At the western edge of the casemate core of the palace, placed on the desert surface, the original expedition made a remarkable discovery (see Fig. 3), a series of painted, unbaked, marl-clay votive models (see Fig. 4). These models were finely crafted and the pigments used on them included costly orpiment. What is particularly striking is the range of objects represented which include model boats as well as flies, bangle and beaded bracelets, Daressy, RT 16, 44; Petrie, Naqada and Ballas, 8, pl. 43. Lacovara, New Kingdom Royal City. 53   54   157 Peter Lacovara strings of beads, swords, daggers and axes (see Fig. 5a-b). They appear to have been placed at the North Palace after it had been abandoned as a commemoration. Certainly, these delicate models would not have survived in the area if it had been occupied and trafficked. The forms of many of these votives are paralleled by objects found with the Ahhotep coffin from Dra Abu el-Naga and not the range of subjects found as votive gifts normally.55 This would indicate, as has long been suggested, a significance in commemorating the victory over the Hyksos.56 Clearly then, the Ahhotep treasure was not some meaningless hoard assembled by modern looters, but a deliberate selection of artifacts intended to convey Ahhotep’s role in the liberation of Egypt. Fig. 3 – Plan of the North Palace showing the position of the mud votives © drawing by Andrew Boyce Cf. Pinch, Votive Offiering to Hathor. Cf. Hawass, Silent Images, 121. 55   56   Fig. 4 – Hearst Expedition photograph of the mud votives © courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 158 The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context Fig. 5a – Drawings of the mud votives that a parallel the Ahhotep treasure from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Inv. No. 6725 = Model mud beaded bracelets; Inv. Nos 6728-29 = Model mud bangle bracelets; Inv. No. 6777 = Model mud battle axe; Inv. Nos 6773, 6776, 6779 =Model mud daggers; Inv. No. 6741 = Model mud flies © drawing by Andrew Boyce 159 Peter Lacovara Fig. 5b – Drawings of the mud votives that parallel the Ahhotep treasure © drawing by Andrew Boyce Model mud ships Phoebe A. Hearst Museum 6-9694.36a and d Bibliography Aldred, C., “More Light on the Ramesside Tomb Robberies”, in J. Ruflle, G.A. Gaballa, K.A. Kitchen (eds), Glimpses of Ancient Egypt: studies in Honour of H.W. Fairman (Warminster, 1979), 96-8. Aston, D., “The Royal Cache: The history of TT 320”, in R. Sousa, A. Amenta, K.M. Cooney (eds), Bab El-Gasus in Context: Rediscovering The Tomb of The Priests of Amun (Rome, 2020), 31-68. Betrò, M., “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. Bryson, K.M., An Egyptian Royal Portrait Head in the Collection of the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University (Atlanta: MA Thesis, Georgia State University, 2008). Carnarvon, Fifth Earl of, H. Carter, Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes: A Record of Work Done 1907-1911 (London, 1912). Colin, F., “Archéologie urbain ed ansune nécropole monumentale: Assassif 2017-2018 (IFAO/Université de Strasbourg)”, BSFE 201 (2019), 121-47. Cooney, K.M., “Changing Burial Practices at the End of the New Kingdom: Defensive Adaptations in Tomb Commissions, Coffin Commissions, Coffin Decoration, and Mummification”, JARCE 47 (2011), 3-44. Daressy, M.G., “Notes et remarques”, RT 16 (1894), 42-60. Daressy, M.G., “Le cercueil du roi Kamès”, ASAE 9 (1908), 61-3. Daressy, M.G., Cercueils des cachettes royales. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire nos 61001-61044 (Cairo, 1909). Eaton-Krauss, M., “The Coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and the Mother of Ahmose”, CdE 65 (1990), 195-205. Galán, J.M., Á. Jiménez-Higueras, “Three Burials of the Seventeenth Dynasty in Dra Abu El-Naga”, in G., Miniaci, W. Grajetzki (eds), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (20001550 BC): Contributions on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and Written Sources, vol. I (London: MKS 1, 2015) 101-19. Gitton, M., L’epouse Du Dieu Ahmes Nefertary. Documente sur sa vie et son culte posthume (Besançon: Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne volume 15, 1981). Gitton, M., Les divines épouses de la 18e dynastie (Paris, 1985). Guerra, M.F., S. Pagès-Camagna, “On the way to the New Kingdom. Analytical study of Queen Ahhotep’s gold jewellery (17th Dynasty of Egypt)”, JCH 36 (2019), 143-52. Harvey, S.P., The cults of King Ahmose at Abydos: A dissertation in Asian and middle Eastern Studies (Ann-Arbor: PhD dissertation, Michigan, 1998). Hawass, Z., Silent Images: Women in Pharaonic Egypt (Cairo, 2009). Kozloff, A.P., M.B. Bryan, L.M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and his World (Cleveland, 1992). 160 The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context Lacovara, P., “The Hearst Excavations at Deir el-Ballas: The Eighteenth Dynasty Town”, in W.K. Simpson, W.M. Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Sudan: Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham (Boston, 1981), 120-4. Lacovara, P., Deir el-Ballas: Preliminary Report on the Deir el-Ballas Expedition 1980-1986 (Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990). Lacovara, P., The New Kingdom Royal City (London, 1997). Lacovara, P., “Deir el-Ballas”, in M. Bietak, S. Prell (eds), Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Palaces. Vol. I: Proceedings of the Conference on Palaces in Ancient Egypt held in London 12th-14th June 2013 (Vienna, , 2018), 282-9. Leclant, J., “Gottesgemahlin”, LÄ II (1977), 792-812. Lise G., “Per Luigi Vassalli Bey (1812-1887) egittologo milanese”, Rassegna di Studi e Notizie del Comune di Milano 13 (1986), 359-414. Logan, T.J., B. Williams, “The Identity of the Meritamun found by Winlock at Deir el Bahri”, Serapis 4 (1977-78), 23-9. Maitland, M., D.M. Potter, L. Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. Mariette, A., “Nouvelles découvertes en Égypte”, CRAIBL 2 (1859), 115-22. Mariette, A., “Notice sur l’état actuel et les résultats, jusqu’à ce jour, des travaux entrepris pour la conservation des antiquités égyptiennes en Égypte”, CRAIBL 3 (1862), 153-67. Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Partridge, R., Faces of Pharaohs: Royal Mummies and Coffins from Ancient Thebes (London, 1994). Peden, A.J., Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth Dynasty (Jonsered, 2004). Peet, T.E., The Great Tomb-robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty: Being a Critical Study with Translations and Commentaries, of the Papyri in which these are recorded, vols I-II (Oxford, 1930). Petrie, W.M.F., A history of Egypt. Vol. II: During the XVIIth and XVIIIth dynasties (London, 1896). Petrie, W.M.F., Naqada and Ballas (London, 1896). Petrie, W.M.F., Qurneh (London: BSAE 16, 1909). Pinch, G., Votive Offiering to Hathor (Oxford, 1994). Polz, D., “Die Särge des (Pa)-Ramessu”, MDAIK 42 (1986), 145-66. Polz, D., “New Archaeological Data from Dra Abu El-Naga and Their Historical Implications”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dy- nasties): Current Research, Future Projects (Leuven, Paris, Walpole: OLA 192, 2010), 343-53. Polz, D., Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (Berlin, New York: SDAIK 31, 2017). Polz, D., Seiler, A., Die Pyramidenanlage des Königs NubCheper- Re Intef (Mainz: SDAIK 24, 2003). Reeves, N., Ancient Egypt: The Great Discoveries (London, 2000). Reeves, N., R.H. Wilkinson, The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaohs (London, 2008). Robins, G., “Amenhotpe I and the child Amenemhat”, GM 30 (1978), 71-5. Roth, A.M., “Ahhotep I and Ahhotep II”, Serapis 4 (197778), 31-40. Roth, A.M., “The Ahhotep Coffins: The Archaeology of an Egyptological Reconstruction”, in E. Teeter, J.A. Larson (eds), Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (Chicago: SAOC 58, 1999), 361-77. Schmitz, B., “Untersuchungen zu zwei Königinnen der frühen 18. Dynastie, Ahhotep und Ahmose”, CdE 53 (1978), 207-21. Tiradritti, F., “L’album di disegni di Luigi Vassalli presso la Civica Biblioteca d’Arte di Milano”, in Anonymous (ed.), L’egittologo Luigi Vassalli (1812-1887): disegni e documenti nei Civici Istituti Culturali Milanesi (Milano, 1994), 45-128. Tiradritti, F., “Luigi Vassalli and the archaeological season at Western Thebes (1862-3)”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Projects (Leuven, Paris, Walpole: OLA 192, 2010), 329-42. Troy, L., “Ahhotep - A source evaluation”, GM 35 (1979), 81-91. Vandersleyen, C., “Une stèle de l’an 18 d’Amosis à Hanovre”, CdE 52 (1977), 223-44. Vandersleyen, C., “Kamose“, LÄ III (1980), 306-8. Vassalli, L., I Monumenti istorici egizi. Il Museo e gli scavi d’antichità eseguiti per ordine di S.A. il Vicerè Ismail Pascia, notizia sommaria di Luigi Vassalli (Milano, 1867). Winlock, H.E., “The tombs of the kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Winlock, H.E., “The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Egyptian Expedition 1928-1929”, BMMA 24 (1929), 3-34. Winlock, H.E., The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun at Thebes (New York: PMMA 6, 1932). Winlock, H.E., The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom of Thebes (New York, 1947). Yoyotte, J., “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne”, ASR 73 (196566), 76-85. 161 Object Studies: Selected Equipment from Ahhotep’s Treasure Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 165-186 Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context Ellen Morris Abstract Queen Ahhotep took three daggers, four axes, and nine miniature axes with her to the grave. Two of the weapons in this otherworldly arsenal – an axe and a dagger – were stunning and bear testament to a robust artistic interconnection that linked the early Eighteenth Dynasty court to the high culture of the Minoan and Mycenaean world. Because of their beauty, these objects are often written about in isolation. This chapter places these two ceremonial weapons in dialogue with the entire assemblage of the queen’s weapons, with other elements of her grave goods, with gender politics, and with the mortuary culture of Egypt and Nubia in the Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth Dynasty. When taken together, the weapons provide strong evidence that the queen had been married to Kamose, that her court was well acquainted with Pan-Grave military culture, and that in ancient Egypt (as in so many other contexts) times of war offered women unprecedented opportunities to exercise typically masculine authority as they kept the home fires burning. The weapons attributed to the “King’s Wife” (Hmt-nsw) Ahhotep, who was buried at Dra Abu el-Naga and ruled in the fractious years of the late Seventeenth Dynasty, are as difficult to interpret as they are intriguing. Due to the fact that this queen’s sarcophagus was discovered and opened while the director of excavations, Auguste Mariette, was elsewhere, scholars disagree as to exactly which of the objects enumerated among her grave goods in Friedrich von Bissing’s Ein thebanischer Grabfunde aus dem Anfang des neuen Reichs and in Bertha Porter and Rosalind Moss’s topographical bibliography of the Theban necropolis1 had been recovered from her burial. Indeed, there is even uncertainty as to whether her coffin had been excavated in its original tomb or whether it had been discovered in a secondary context. King Kamose’s unplundered sarcophagus, reportedly recovered a short distance from Queen Ahhotep’s own, had certainly been exhumed from his tomb and subsequently “hidden, in a mass of rubbish into which it had been dumped, careless- ly, upon its right side”.2 The peculiarities of these discoveries are summarized by Herbert Winlock in his article “The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes” and discussed elsewhere in this volume.3 For present purposes, only those weapons that were entered into the Journal d’Entrée of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo together with the rest of Queen Ahhotep’s grave goods are considered. Other candidates for inclusion, however, are mentioned in passing. Even those weapons attributed to the queen with confidence, however, inadvertently cause their own confusions, especially with respect to the knotty problem of whether the Ahhotep buried at Dra Abu el-Naga should be equated with the Ahhotep whose coffin was discovered in secondary use in a cache at Deir el-Bahri – a question considered in far more depth by Marilina Winlock, JEA 10, 260. See Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. 2 3 1 Porter, Moss, Topographical, 600-2. Ellen Morris Betrò elsewhere in this volume.4 For instance, the similarity of one of Ahhotep’s daggers to a dagger found strapped to the upper arm of King Kamose’s corpse, the presence of axes that bore this king’s name among her grave goods, as well as other similarities in the two assemblages, strongly suggest that Ahhotep and Kamose had ruled together at the end of the Second Intermediate Period. That said, the character of the ceremonial weapons – a dagger and an axe – that King Ahmose gifted to Queen Ahhotep complicate such an easy equation. On a stele erected at Karnak, Ahmose commanded: “Give praise to the lady of the land, the mistress of the shores of Hau-nebut, whose reputation is high over every foreign land, who governs the masses, the king’s wife, the sister of the sovereign (life, prosperity, and health!), the king’s daughter, the noble king’s mother, the wise one, who takes care of Egypt. She has gathered together its officials and guarded them; she has rounded up its fugitives and gathered up its deserters; she has pacified Upper Egypt and subdued its rebels: the king’s wife, Ahhotep, may she live!”5 This Ahhotep’s titles, which identify her as the daughter, sister, wife, and mother of kings, match the titles of the Ahhotep whose coffin was discovered reused in Deir elBahri. On the other hand, as many have noted, the character of the weapons and of other items bestowed upon the Ahhotep buried at Dra Abu el-Naga appear to be the material equivalents of the rewards for military valor that early Eighteenth Dynasty nobles boasted of receiving from their sovereign. So too, the Aegean-inspired design elements on the queen’s most elaborate ceremonial weapons are reminiscent of the title borne by Ahmose’s mother: “Mistress of the Shores of Everything-around-the-islands”. In the first millennium BC, the toponym HAw-nbwt designated territories in the Greek world. While its definition in the early Eighteenth Dynasty is much debated, the Minoan and Mycenaean artistic influence observable on Ahhotep’s weapons,6 the Egyptian influence on some Aegean artifacts,7 and the Minoan Kamares fineware discovered in Middle Kingdom contexts8 suggest that direct or indirect contact between the courts quite likely occurred. See Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 5 Urk. IV, 21:3-17, trans. Wilkinson, Rise, 194-5; See also Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 6 See below and Judas, “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep”, in this volume. 7 See below and Murray, “Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation”, in this volume. 8 Barrett, JMA 22/2, 213-14. 4 In considering whether Ahmose publicly acknowledged only one Ahhotep for her wartime service, it is important to recognize that the Dra Abu el-Naga Ahhotep was not the first woman, nor even the first royal woman, to be interred with weapons. Thus, other explanations for their presence in her coffin are plausible. The Dra Abu el-Naga Ahhotep’s weapons were bestowed upon her at a turning point in Egyptian history. At this time late Middle Kingdom traditions, which saw royal women interred with daggers in order to associate them in death with the god Osiris, gave way to new burial customs. In the late Second Intermediate Period, the Nile Valley was politically divided. Ahhotep’s Theban kingdom lay between the Hyksos kingdom in the north and the Kerman kingdom, which had assumed control of Lower Nubia. Although these two rivals of the polity forged by the Seventeenth Dynasty kings differed in almost every respect, their mortuary remains indicate that each fostered a particularly pronounced warrior culture. As a result of living betwixt these often-hostile neighbors, Egyptians and the Pan-Grave Nubian military auxiliaries who lived beside them began to include weapons among their grave goods in numbers not attested since the First Intermediate Period, a troubled time during which Egypt had also been rent asunder by civil war.9 In the Kerman kingdom, due to increased militarism, even women and children occasionally journeyed to the afterlife armed. Thus, when the religious traditions of the Egyptian court and the political climate in which Ahhotep lived are taken into account, further questions are raised regarding the use, symbolism, and proper interpretation of Ahhotep’s weapons. For all these reasons, it is fitting to consider the queen’s weapons individually and, also, as a complete assemblage. To this end, the functional and design elements of each weapon are first considered along with the significance of provenienced parallels. In light of space considerations, readers in search of thick descriptions of these weapons and technical treatments are referred to the excellent catalogue of daggers compiled by Susanne Petschel (Den Dolch betreffend. Typologie der Stichwaffen in Ägypten von der prädynastischen Zeit bis zur 3. Zwischenzeit) and the catalogues of axes produced by Eva Kühnert-Eggebrecht (Die Axt als Waffe und Werkzeug im alten Ägypten) and W.V. Davies (Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum VII; Tools and Weapons I. Axes). Following a consideration of each of Ahhotep’s weapons, the assemblage as a whole is assessed in terms of its social, political, historical, and religious context. See Morris, JEgH 13, 129-39, for a social history of Egyptian daggers and axes from prehistory through the New Kingdom. 9 166 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Fig. 1 – Ahhotep’s ceremonial dagger (after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. II; illustration after Morenz, ZÄS 126, 133, fig. 1) 167 Ellen Morris 1. Ceremonial Dagger bearing Ahmose’s Car- cenae (see Figs 2a-d).14 Like Ahhotep’s dagger, a strip of touches (see Fig. 1) niello-style metal15 that ran down the center of the blades Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52658; JE 4666 Materials: gold, silver, electrum, carnelian, lapis lazuli, bronze, wood, and patinated bronze) Length: 28.5 cm In Suzanne Petschel’s catalogue of daggers, the ceremonial dagger bearing Ahmose’s cartouche is quite literally without parallel; her Type IX (“Dolch mit menschenkopfförmigem Knauf”) consists solely of this weapon, illustrated together with its accompanying gold-sheathed leather scabbard (CG 52659).10 Ahmose’s most important regnal names are inlaid in gold on the recto and verso: “The good god, lord of the Two Lands: Nebpehtyre, given life eternally like Re” [recto: nfr nTr nb tA.wj (Nb-pHtj-Ra)| Dj anx mj Ra Dt] and “Son of Re of his body: Ahmose, given life eternally like Re” [verso: sA Ra n Xt.f (JaH-msj(w))| Dj anx mj Ra Dt]. While the content of the inscription suggests that the blade could well have been produced in one of Ahmose’s temple or palace workshops, slight anomalies in the orthography, the nature of the darkly hued copper alloy that serves as the background for the inscription, and the otherwise unparalleled D-shape holes at the base of the blade have led some scholars to suggest that the dagger was either manufactured abroad or by a foreign artisan.11 The technique of inlaying gold into a dark metalic substance (either a patinated bronze or niello)12 in order to provide extra adornment to a ceremonial weapon is attested already in the early eighteenth century BC on an artistically hybrid scimitar interred with its owner in Tomb II of the royal necropolis at Byblos.13 Although the scimitar was based on a Mesopotamian prototype, its decoration betrays a strong Egyptian influence. The artisan, for example, had modeled in dark metal and gold wire a uraeus-snake that slithered the length of the blade and bore the owner’s name in hieroglyphs. Byblos was at that time Egypt’s most valued trading partner, and thus Egyptian material is common in the royal necropolis. Here too, however, the weapon’s form and anomalies in the inscription it bore suggest it should be seen as Egyptianizing rather than Egyptian. Far closer in date and form to Ahhotep’s dagger, then, are four artistically striking daggers discovered in the shaft tombs of the sixteenth century royal necropolis at MyPetschel, Dolch, 231-5, 486-7, cat. 222. Janosi, JACF 5, 104; Thomas, in Vianello (ed.), Exotica, 158-9; Aruz, Lacovara, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 121-2; Petschel, Dolch, 234. 12 Thomas, in Vianello (ed.), Exotica, 148-50. 13 Hakimian, Lapérouse, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 58. 10 11 had been ornamented with figural designs, this time fashioned of cut inlay rather than sculpted gold wire. The inlays of one dagger depict images of a cat hunting birds in a marsh (see Fig. 2d) that are strongly reminiscent of fishing and fowling scenes in Egyptian tombs.16 The other three niello-style daggers, however, bear an even closer thematic relationship to Ahhotep’s dagger. The queen’s weapon is decorated differently on each of its two sides. Following Ahmose’s royal name, the recto is ornamented with a scene depicting a bull and a lion, both in flying gallop, proceeding toward a line of four outsized locusts. Each locust is depicted adjacent to a stalk that was destined, no doubt, to be devoured. Meanwhile, on the verso, the area below Ahmose’s name was taken up by fifteen highly stylized lotuses and, at the tip of the blade, a jackal’s head.17 It is thus remarkable that the subject matter of the remaining three niello-style daggers from Mycenae included lotuses and lions. On both sides of a dagger from Grave Circle A, Shaft Grave IV (see Fig. 2c), for instance, three lions are depicted in flying gallop, racing towards the tip of the dagger.18 Another blade (see Fig. 2b) bears a lion hunt on one side, in which four men attack a fierce lion that had just mauled one of their companions, while two other lions flee toward the safety of the dagger’s point. On the reverse of this dagger, a lion takes the role of apex predator, mauling one deer, while four flee toward the tip.19 Finally, embedded into the dark metal that ran down the middle of both sides of the broken third dagger (see Fig. 2a) were lotuses.20 While these lotuses are stylized somewhat differently than those that decorated Ahhotep’s dagger, the lotuses, leaping lions, and highly unusual niello-style decoration offer clear points of comparison and strongly suggest either direct dialogue between the courts at Egypt and Mycenae or else a shared trading partner, such as Byblos. Given that Aegean design elements in Ahhotep’s burial goods are dealt with at greater length elsewhere in this volume, observations here are confined to a few salient Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, 53, pl. IV.34; pl. V.36, 37; pl. VII.45. 15 See Thomas, in Vianello (ed.), Exotica, 148. The term niello-style here and elsewhere indicates that tests have not yet determined how the dark metal had been manufactured. 16 Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, pl. V.36. 17 Perhaps significantly, the jackal’s head at the tip of Ahhotep’s dagger is reminiscent in style and placement to the jackal’s heads that commonly ornamented the narrow tips of birth tusks into the Thirteenth Dynasty. 18 Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, pl. IV.34. 19 Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, pl. V.37. 20 Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, pl. VII.45. 14 168 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Fig. 2 – Daggers from the shaft tombs at Mycenae (not to scale). a., e. Grave Circle A: Shaft Grave V (after Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, 53, pl. VII.45-6); b.-d. Grave Circle A: Shaft Grave IV (after Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, 53, pl. V.37, IV.34, V.36) points. First, Kamose’s dramatic narration of his arrival with his army at the commercial harbor of the Hyksos capital at Tell el-Dab‘a strongly implies that the king was somewhat overawed at the sheer number of merchant ships that had assembled there. As he reported in the aftermath of his purported plunder: “I have not spared a plank of the three hundred ships of new cedar filled with gold, lapis lazuli, silver, turquoise, and copper axes without number, aside from moringa oil, incense, unguents, honey, willow, sesnedjem-wood, sepny-wood, and all precious woods, and all fine products of Retenu. I took them away entirely”21 Archaeological investigation at Tell el-Dab‘a and in polities with which it maintained relations point towards a highly developed trade network that fluctuated in time and nature but seems to have been particularly intense in the early Eighteenth Dynasty.22 The merchants based at Tell el-Dab‘a maintained close contacts with Byblos, as did their Mycenaean and Minoan counterparts. Yet the frequent arrival of Aegean diplomats at Egypt’s court during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty – when the practice of decorating Theban tombs first provides a window into such court ceremonies – suggests the contact may also have been direct. Aegean envoys depicted in Theban tombs, after all, often bore daggers among their gifts.23 If daggers and diplomacy went hand in hand, it is likely that, as Marian Feldman suggests, the blades exchanged at this time helped forge the “international koiné” style of artistic motif prevalent throughout the ancient Near East c. 1400-1200 BC. This intentionally hybrid artistic style, after all, frequently featured animal attacks and floral designs, such as are amply attested on Ahhotep’s dagger and those found in the shaft tombs of Mycenae.24 Indeed, it is worth noting that the tradition of one ruler sending an elaborate dagger as a gift to another is attested also in an inventory of goods sent from the Mitanni King Tushratta to Amenhotep III (EA 22). In and among the numerous precious gifts that almost certainly comprised an installment of his daughter’s dowry was a dagVercoutter, Égypte, 359-60, pl. LXII.462-7; See Petschel, Dolch, 217-18, fig. 45. 24 Feldman, Diplomacy, 142. 23 Simpson (ed.), Literature, 349. 22 Forstner-Müller, Kopetzky, BAAL Hors-Série 6, 154. 21 169 Ellen Morris ger, “the blade of which is of i[r]on; its guard, of gold, with designs; its haft of ebony with calf figurines; overlaid with gold; its [pomm]el is of …-stone; its […]…, overlaid with gold, with designs. 6 shekels of go[ld] have been used on it”.25 Two other iron-bladed daggers – ornamented with gold, inlays of precious stones, and bearing unspecified design elements – also appear on the list.26 As has often been noted, the descriptions of these weapons are reminiscent of the two daggers discovered among Tutankhamun’s grave goods. The iron blade of one (see Fig. 4c) and the motifs featuring lions, bulls, and stylized lotuses on the sheath of the other (see Fig. 4b) led Feldman to deem them quintessential exemplars of the mature international style.27 The Amarna letters provide evidence that kings on occasion commissioned specific types of artistically elaborated gifts from one another.28 It is thus conceivable that foreign artisans copied Ahmose’s royal names from a prototype and filled his request for a golden dagger adorned with lions and bulls but surmounted with the visage of a queen. Such a scenario could account for why the lion – its mouth wide open – appears to be in pursuit of the bull. Such an arrangement is virtually unknown in Egyptian art, where both the lion and the bull often serve as avatars for the living king. It was, however, a relatively common motif in Aegean art. One might note, for example, the openwork gold design element that depicted three lions attacking a bull, found along with the niello-style daggers in Mycenae, Grave Circle A, Shaft Grave IV.29 Christine Desroches-Noblecourt and Ludwig Morenz, each of whom viewed the blade as the product of an Egyptian workshop, have suggested two quite different interpretations, each founded on the premise that the blade would have referenced Ahmose’s expulsion of the Hyksos. Desroches-Noblecourt argued that the bull being chased by the lion should be viewed as Sethian in nature. The god Seth, after all, in his form of Ba‘al, was the favored god of the Hyksos. The bull would thus be trapped between the lion-king and the four locusts – each of whom symbolized one of the four divisions of the army amassed by the king in order to devastate the territory of his rivals.30 Given Desroches-Noblecourt’s interpretation of the Egyptian army as locusts, it is nota- ble that among the surviving relief fragments from Ahmose’s pyramid temple at Abydos is a scene that seems to depict an Egyptian soldier harvesting the crops surrounding the Hyksos capital at Tell el-Dab‘a – a tactic employed by Egyptians during siege warfare to economically devastate their opponents.31 The juxtaposition of locusts on seals with a lion and also with a royal winged griffin (see Fig. 7a) suggest that the insects could indeed symbolize the Egyptian army, whose might supplemented the king’s own.32 For his part, Ludwig Morenz suggested that the bull did not serve as prey to the lion but rather acted in partnership with it. Both animals, he noted, seemed to issue forth from the royal name and, by extension, the royal grip. Thus, the lion and the bull served as incarnations of the king that together faced the great multitude of his rapacious but cowardly enemies, symbolized by the locusts. Further, he argues that an Egyptian artist would have been well aware of a visual pun and potential folk etymology that connected znHm (locust) with zA-nHm (Söhne des Raubens), a designation appropriate to an enemy blamed for plundering many of Egypt’s monuments.33 It was not uncommon in Nineteenth Dynasty royal inscriptions – and, indeed, in the Near East generally – to compare enemy armies to locusts, and Jaromir Malek even suggests that the dehumanizing equation may have played out in visual culture as well. By depicting prisoners of war prone with their elbows tied in an upraised position, Malek argues that Egyptian artists intentionally invoked the powerful back legs of the locust. Malek’s interpretation differed from Morenz’s, however, in that he viewed the aggressive lion as symbolizing Ahmose’s domination over the forces of nature (encapsulated in the bull) as well as over the multitudes of Egypt’s enemies.34 The figural scene depicted on the blade of Ahhotep’s dagger was perhaps intentionally polyvalent, conveying the notion of violence on many different levels. It is frustrating, then, that the proper interpretation of the design elements on the dagger’s hilt is equally ambiguous. At the base of the handle the head of a cow or bull is modeled in gold leaf, such that its horns encircled Ahmose’s name in a manner that all interpreters have discussed as both intentional and protective. With enigmatic cir- Moran, Amarna Letters, 51. 26 Moran, Amarna Letters, 53-4. 27 Feldman, Diplomacy, 16, 31. 28 See the elaborate instructions given by the king of Babylon to Akhenaten in EA 10 (Moran, Amarna Letters, 19). 29 Konstandinidi-Sivridi, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 276-7, cat. 172. 30 Desroches Noblecourt, in Junge (ed.), Studien zu Sprache, 884, 890-1. 31 25 Harvey, Cults of King Ahmose, 339-41, 535, fig. 82; Hasel, Domination, 75-84. 32 Morenz, ZÄS 126, 136, figs 3 and 4. 33 Morenz, ZÄS 126, 134-5, 138-9. Desroches Noblecourt in Junge (ed.), Studien zu Sprache, 891, on the other hand, connects the word for locust with snHm, meaning “to stop”, or “to prevent”. 34 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 211, fig. 2. 170 Daggers and Axes for the Queen cular markings or adornments depicted as protuberances along its brow and between its inlaid eyes, the bovid entity looks as if it should be recognizable but is not. While its unique markings might possibly identify it as the Apis bull, it is more often equated with Montu.35 In addition to Montu’s wellknown epithets “lord of Thebes”36 and “strong-armed bull”37, the god is mentioned by name on Ahhotep’s gold-plaited battle axe, the other ceremonial showpiece weapon discovered in the queen’s sarcophagus (see Fig. 6). As will be Fig. 3 – a. Ahhotep’s archer’s bracer (CG 52642; after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. discussed below, the design situ- V.1a) and b. matching bracelet (CG 52070; after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. V.2); ated at the base of one of the axe’s c. drawing of Kamose’s armlet (Louvre E 7168 redrawn from a photograph, https:// cutting edges showcases an Aege- egyptophile.blogspot.com/2019/05/au-louvre-des-elements-dun-bracelet-du.html, <accessed May 5, 2020>) an-style griffin that is labeled “beloved of Montu” (mry Mntw). As inlays on the pommel consisted of electrum triangles a Theban deity strongly associated with war, Montu would certainly have been a fitting sharing squares with triangles fashioned of carnelian or protector of the king. Falcon-headed in some depictions lapis lazuli. This distinctive design, seemingly purely and bull-headed in others, it is not improbable that the ornamental in nature, may have possessed an intimate link to the queen, given that it appears also on her ceregod assumed both forms on Ahhotep’s weapons. The other main candidate for the protective bovid is monial archer’s bracer (see Fig. 3a) and on a pair of her the heavenly cow – the goddess who had watched over beaded bracelets (see Fig. 3b).41 Thus, the queen, when the king in one guise or another since the reign of Narm- wearing the bracelets, archer’s bracer, and dagger would er.38 While the unfamiliar markings remain an issue, an have been perfectly accessorized! If nothing else, the identification with the goddess Hathor is rendered attrac- fact that all three items bore similar design elements in tive given the fact that the dagger had been interred with addition to Ahmose’s cartouche suggests that this daga queen and that its pommel consisted of a representation ger may, after all, have been fashioned in Egypt. Such a of four female faces. Scholars have frequently identi- point of origin, however, would not preclude its having fied the pommel as Hathor Quadrifons – despite the fact been created in partial imitation of an Aegean greeting that the faces do not bear a resemblance to the famous gift, by an Aegean or Byblite artist sent to the king by Hathor-mask and nor do they sport her signature hair- special request, or in a deliberately “international” style. style.39 On the other hand, if the dagger’s pommel and hilt were framed by depictions of the goddess Hathor, 2. Dagger with a Golden Handle (see Fig. 4a) the weapon could be interpreted cosmologically. In that Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52661; JE 4665 case, the king’s cartouches would link a heavenly hilt to Materials: gold and non-ferrous metal a terrestrial blade.40 Length: 31 cm If Ahmose had commissioned the dagger in Ahhotep’s honor, the other obvious referent for the face would be the queen herself. If so, the lack of a uraeus might not Although Ahhotep’s dagger with the plain golden hanbe an issue, since the queen was not currently ruling. dle is beautiful, it has received far less attention than Certainly, it is notable that the split-square triangular its more elaborate counterpart. Consequently, it has not Desroches Noblecourt, in Junge (ed.), Studien zu Sprache, 886. 36 See the Story of Sinuhe, Simpson, Literature, 62, 64. 37 See the Stele of Piye, Simpson, Literature, 384. 38 Morenz, ZÄS 126, 134. 39 Petschel, Dolch, 231. 40 Morenz, ZÄS 126, 139. 35 Bissing, Grabfund, pl. V.1a, 2. For the armlet assemblage, see Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. See also Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. 41 171 Ellen Morris and the international style of both might suggest that they had been manufactured elsewhere. On the other hand, the falcon motif on the pommel of Tutankhamun’s gold-bladed dagger (see Fig. 4b) and the king’s name on its pommel and sheath perhaps point towards an origin in an Egyptian workshop.43 The general scarcity of preserved hilts on Aegean and Levantine daggers make ascertaining parallels difficult. An examination of the major catalogues from both regions yields only one somewhat convincing parallel. The dagger in question came from a Late Bronze IIA tomb – thus roughly contemporary with Tutankhamun – at the site of Gedor in the Judean Hills and was classed as Egyptian in style.44 3. Ahhotep’s small Ceremonial Dagger (see Fig. 5b) Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52660; JE 4667-8 Fig. 4 – a. Ahhotep’s dagger with a golden handle (after von Bissing, Grab- Materials: Gold, silver, wood, bronze funde, pl. III.3); b. Tutankhamun’s golden-bladed dagger and sheath (redrawn Length: 22 cm from a photograph in Petschel, Dolch, 483, cat. 218); c. Tutankhamun’s iron-bladed dagger and sheath (redrawn from a photograph in Petschel, Ahhotep’s third dagger appears to have Dolch, 483, cat. 219) been intensively examined, and little has been written about it save for its entry in Petschel’s catalogue. There it occupies its own subcategory of the heterogeneous type VII, namely type VII-4.c.c (“Dolch mit metallenem Stangengriff”). Even Petschel, however, was unable to ascertain certain basic facts about the dagger, such as whether the handle would have been hollow or solid cast, whether it was constituted of solid gold or was only gold plated, and whether the blade and handle would have been cast as one or only joined subsequently.42 So too, the metal of the dagger blade remains unknown, though it is presumed to be bronze. Save for a banded wavelike decoration at the very top of the blade and a raised rib that ran down its center, it is unadorned. Despite this, of the three daggers included in Ahhotep’s tomb, it had the lone distinction of being both attractive and practical. Interestingly, the only provenienced daggers of roughly similar date that exhibit the relatively flat pommel and the rod grip are Tutankhamun’s daggers, discussed above. Here again, of course, there is a problem of origin in that the iron blade of one of these weapons (see Fig. 4c) 42 Petschel, Dolch, 208-9, 478-9, cat. 214. been the “hers” dagger in a matched set (see Figs 5a-b). Kamose, Ahmose’s predecessor, who was either Ahhotep’s husband or her oldest son, went to the grave with its counterpart strapped to his upper arm. Kamose’s tomb had been inspected and declared inviolate in the reign of Ramesses IX. Yet when Auguste Mariette and Heinrich Brugsch recovered this king’s mummy, it had been disinterred from both its tomb and its original coffin and stashed in rubble either by robbers or, ostensibly for its own protection, by high priests of Amun in the Twenty-First Dynasty. If the latter, the ruse worked, for the goods that had been placed in the substitute sarcophagus stayed safe, including the dagger.45 Petschel, Dolch, 212-14, 482-3, cat. 218-19; Aruz, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans, Beyond Babylon, 392. 44 Shalev, Swords, 69, pl. XXIII.190. Papadopoulos, Late Bronze, yielded no parallels. 45 Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5, 61. A similar dagger, now unfortunately lost, was discovered tied to the upper arm of a man named Hornakht Hornakht, who evidently served Seqenenre Tao I or II (Winlock, JEA 10, 257-8). Considering evidence that King Seneb-kay of Abydos, their near contemporary, seems to have ridden horses since his youth and to have been attacked 43 172 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Kamose’s dagger (see Fig. 5a) was 31.9 cm long and was classified by Petschel as type III-5.c.a (“Dolche mit Griffen mit kleinen Gruben oder Durchbrüchen und langen Hefthörnern”).46 Its pommel had been fashioned of wood, sheathed in gold, and secured in its silver handle with jutting silver prongs and golden pins. Somewhat unusually, its gilded bronze blade widened towards its midpoint before tapering once again. Deemed fit for a king in the mid second millennium BC, this visually stunning dagger was destined, once again, to be bestowed upon royalty. Shortly after its discovery in the nineteenth century, Egypt’s governor sent it as a gift to Prince Napoléon of France.47 Kamose’s dagger appeared a singular treasure until the discovery – quite nearby and only two years later – of its slightly miniaturized counterpart in Ahhotep’s coffin. At only 22 cm long, Ahhotep’s dagger was shorter than Kamose’s, but it too featured a gilded bronze blade and facsimiles of miniature golden nail heads. Moreover, the decorative scheme of the two daggers was complimentary. While Kamose’s pommel was sheathed in gold and held in place by silver tines, the artisans had reversed the distribution of the precious metals in Ahhotep’s dagger. Clearly crafted in tandem, the two Fig. 5 – a. Kamose’s golden-pommelled dagger (redrawn from a photo in ornate weapons would have impressed Petschel, Dolch, 411, cat. 88); b. Ahhotep’s silver-pommelled dagger (after onlookers. Neither, however, was sturdy von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. III.5); c. ivory-pommelled dagger discovered enough to have been utilized in battle.48 at in the North Palace at Deir el Ballas (redrawn from a photo in Petschel, Interestingly, the daggers that beDolch, 413, cat. 91) longed to Kamose and Ahhotep were not the only items of their mortuary assemblages that bore strong stylistic similarities. Each between two crouching protective or heraldic entities. monarch had gone to the grave with a distinctive gold- Although the body of Kamose’s armlet did not survive, en-hued mirror that possessed nearly identical meas- the golden lions that had once flanked its cartouche did urements to that of the other49 as well as with an armlet (see Fig. 3c). Ahhotep’s armlet, briefly described above, that bore Ahmose’s cartouche in a raised boxy projection on the other hand, survived intact and had been fashioned in imitation of an archer’s bracer (see Fig. 3a). Its cartouche box was more elaborate than Kamose’s in while riding in the battle that ended his life, it is interesting that it bore the split triangular decoration characteristic that equestrian warriors of the Sahel wore their daggers in a of some of Ahhotep’s other grave goods, including her similar manner (see LaGamma, Sahel, cat. 6, 32, 80, 101, 130, golden dagger. In this respect it is notable that the gold 135; Wegner, Cahail, Seneb-kay, 124-35). wire lettering, inlaid into a dark material in this cartou46 Petschel, Dolch, 132, 410-11, cat. 88. 47 Petschel, Dolch, 410-11, cat. 88; Ben Amar, In Monte Ar- che, presented a similar niello-style effect to the king’s cartouches on the queen’s golden dagger. Ahhotep’s armtium 5 (2012), 50, 61-3. 48 Winlock, JEA 10, 261; Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5 , 64-6. let also differed from Kamose’s in that it included the 49 Winlock, JEA 10, 262; Ben Amar, In Monte Artium 5, 61, 63. 173 Ellen Morris addition of the epithet “living endlessly and eternally like Re” (anx Dt nHH) to Ahmose’s Son of Re name and featured sphinxes wearing nemes-crowns flanking the royal cartouche, rather than lions.50 The orthography of Ahmose’s name on these grave goods indicated that both burials had occurred prior to that king’s 22nd year.51 While this is not surprising with respect to Kamose, it is important for the controversy as to whether Ahhotep could possibly be considered Ahmose’s mother. The Ahhotep who bore the title “King’s Mother”, after all, is attested on monuments dating to the reign of Thutmose I.52 Thus, while it is possible that her grave goods could have been prepared already in the reign of her husband and within the first two decades of her son’s rule, her later attestations on royal and private monuments render it perhaps unlikely that no subsequent gifts would have been bestowed upon her. While Kamose’s dagger undoubtedly constituted the closest parallel to Ahhotep’s, the findspots of the six other provenienced examples of its subtype are extremely interesting. One was discovered in the burial chamber of the pyramid of Senwoseret III together with a heterogeneous assortment of other goods. Opinions differ, however, as to whether the dagger had originally belonged to the deceased king’s grave goods or whether, instead, it had been discarded by thieves who had penetrated the tomb in the Second Intermediate Period. While the latter possibility fits with the theory, held by the pyramid’s current excavators at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that Senwoseret III had never been buried in his pyramid at Dahshur, the pottery vessels discovered in the tomb alongside the dagger might possibly point to a thorough plundering.53 Certainly it is notable that Petschel, well aware of the debate, is comfortable assigning the slightly anomalous and admittedly plain dagger to Senwoseret III.54 Indeed, the fact that this subtype was encountered in the royal burials of Kamose and Ahhotep, as well as in the North Palace at Deir el-Ballas55 – perhaps lends weight to the idea that it might once have belonged to a king. Fittingly, the Deir el-Ballas dagger (see Fig. 5c) provides an even closer parallel to Ahhotep’s weapon. Deir el-Ballas had been established in the late Seventeenth Dynasty as a mustering point for the Theban army. ThereWinlock, JEA 10, 261-2, pl. XVII. Davies, JEA 60, 117. 52 For summaries of the controversy, see Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume as well as Roth, in Teeter, Larson (eds), Gold of Praise, 361-76. 53 Morgan, Fouilles, 97; Petschel, Dolch, 406-7, no. 82. 54 Petschel, Dolch, 135-6, 406-7, cat. 82. 55 Berkeley, Hearst Museum 6-17311; Petschel, Dolch, 412-13, cat. 91. 50 51 fore, both Kamose and Ahhotep would, no doubt, have spent a great deal of time in its North Palace! Indeed, the dagger’s proportions (23.2 cm) and style suggest that it might even have been worn by the queen (or certainly a queen) in life. Perhaps not coincidentally, the only other Egyptian location at which this subtype of dagger has been discovered in situ is Abydos – the most important city situated within the Theban kingdom’s oft-contested northern border zone.56 Given the plentiful quantity of Pan-Grave pottery discovered at Deir el-Ballas, as well as the presence of some Nubian names attested on administrative ostraca at the site,57 it is perhaps not surprising that the last three daggers classed in the same subgroup as those of Ahhotep and Kamose, came from Lower Nubian contexts. The community that utilized the C-Group cemetery 65 at the site of Debeira-East, where one of these daggers had been found in a secondary context,58 had perhaps allied themselves with the Egyptians following Kamose’s conquest of Buhen. Certainly, the leaders of this polity were on the vanguard of adopting a predominantly Egyptian material culture in the early New Kingdom.59 The early Eighteenth Dynasty daggers found in chambered graves in both Aniba (Cemetery S, tomb 53) and Semna (cemetery S, tomb 552), on the other hand, may have been occupied by Egyptians, Egypto-Nubians, or Egyptianized Nubians – although it is at present impossible to determine whether such individuals would have been long-term residents or new settlers. Both tombs included mostly Egyptian-style goods in their assemblage. Interestingly, among the jewelry fashioned out of precious metals and semiprecious stones in the Semna tomb, excavators discovered three faience flies.60 With three bodies interred in this particular grave, there is no guarantee that the owner of the dagger also owned the flies, but the co-occurrence of daggers and fly-amulets in grave goods of the late Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth Dynasty is unlikely to be coincidental. Queen Ahhotep, of course, had been interred with large golden fly amulets strung on a necklace (CG 52671) and three Kerman-style smaller electrum flies as well (CG 52692), as is discussed by Peter Lacovara elsewhere in Philadelphia, UM E 9258; Petschel, Dolch, 408-9, cat. 83. See also Garstang, Arábah 11-12, pls XIV, XVI. For the importance of Abydos at this time, see Ryholt, Political Situation, 171. Two unprovenienced daggers – MMA 11.150.16 and BM EA 66061 – were said to have come from Thebes. 57 Lacovara, New Kingdom, 15 and Lacovara, personal communication. 58 Uppsala, The Victoria Museum 65/0:7; Petschel, Dolch, 408-9, cat. 84; Säve-Söderbergh, Kush 10, 89, pl. XXI.b. 59 Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom, 205-6. 60 Dunham, Janssen, Second Cataract, 91-4. 56 174 Daggers and Axes for the Queen this volume.61 Although the practice of awarding daggers and flies to worthy warriors would appear from texts to have occurred in a homogenously Egyptian context, all other known instances in which daggers and flies were discovered in the same burial assemblage came from Lower Nubia (Buhen Tomb J33)62 or Kerma (Tumulus K X, 1061, body E and K IV B, 401, body A, in which two gold-headed electrum fly-amulets accompanied a dagger with gold rivets).63 Significantly, this distribution conforms to a pattern: by and large, the more martial aspects of Queen Ahhotep’s burial assemblage find their closest parallels in the practices of those of Nubian heritage. until the reign of Hatshepsut.64 This new type of axe constituted an abrupt departure from the curved axe-blades that bore apertures for lashing, which were characteristic of both earlier Egyptian weapons and the Levantine “duckbill” axes. They also differed from the socketed axes favored by the inhabitants of Tell el-Dab‘a.65 Unlike either of these styles of weapons, the base of a G-VII blade was lugged such that it could be inserted into a wooden haft and lashed in place with strips of leather (see Fig. 8c).66 Such strips were expertly imitated in gold on Ahhotep’s ceremonial axe. Practical versions of this type of weapon, as will be discussed below, bear a strong association with the distinctive mortuary assemblages typical of the Pan-Grave peoples, some of 4. Ahhotep’s Ceremonial Axe (see Fig. 6) whom the Egyptians appear to have utilized as military auxiliaries in the Seventeenth Dynasty.67 Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52645; JE 4673, on disAlthough weapons manufacturers for the Theban play in the Luxor Museum army had likely developed the splayed blade in order Materials: Cedar wood, gold, electrum, copper alloy, to penetrate a new type of body armor, its form would lapis lazuli, carnelian, and turquoise also have been conducive to severing heads. It is thus Height: 47.5 cm.; Blade length: 13.5 cm relevant that the cutting edge of one side of the axe bore the otherwise unattested image of a bearded sphinx, wearing a royal crown, proffering a human head toward the embodied, fleshand-blood individual who would have wielded the axe! The sphinx occupied the bottom of three registers. Just above it, the protective goddesses of Upper and Lower Egypt (Nekhbet and Wadjet) each wear a geographically appropriate crown and perch upon the heraldic plant of their region. Taken together their presence referenced the king’s Two Ladies name and made it clear that the god Heh (embodying the concept of “millions” and gracing the axe’s top register) offered the year signs he held in his hands to a king. Just Fig. 6 – Ceremonial axe (after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. I) which king was rendered unambiguous by the inlay of Ahmose’s praenomen and nomen on the top register of the reverse Ahhotep’s ceremonial axe is the companion showpiece to side of the blade and by the emblazoning of his complete her elaborately decorated golden dagger. Expertly fash- titulary along the axe’s gold-plated cedarwood haft.68 The lower two registers of the reverse side of the axe ioned, the two weapons bore Ahmose’s cartouches, elaborate niello-style decoration, and design elements that were fashioned utilizing the niello-style of decoration are paralleled in Aegean art. This axe – like the others 64 discovered in Ahhotep’s tomb and discussed below – is 65 Kühnert-Eggebrecht, Axt, 38-9. representative of a new style of battle axe that is notable 66 Philip, Metalwork and Metalworking, 32-41. Davies, Catalogue, 23-4. for its incurved waist and splayed blade. Dubbed type 67 For examples of this type of axe that still preserve leathG-VII by Eva Kühnert-Eggebrecht, the type is first at- er lashing, see Mostagedda 3135, which bore the cartouche tested in the Second Intermediate Period and lasted only of the Second Intermediate Period King Nebmaatre (BrunLacovara, “The Flies of Ahhotep”, in this volume. 62 Randall-McIver, Woolley, Buhen, 135-6, 174-5. 63 Reisner, Kerma, vols I-III, 349, 196. 61 Mostagedda, pl. LXXIV.9; Davies, Catalogue, 43, pl. XVIII.102). Likewise, Balabish Tomb B 226 (Wainwright, Balabish, 12, pl. VI.1). 68 Bissing, Grabfund, 2, pl. I. ton, 175 Ellen Morris seen in Ahhotep’s ceremonial dagger. In the middle register, the king appears in his war crown and royal kilt in the act of grasping an enemy by the hair and, it seems, simultaneously stabbing him with a dagger. Interestingly, the ethnicity and social status of the king’s victim is left ambiguous. Certainly, the figure’s short hair and clean-shaven face argue against the common suggestion that he should be interpreted as a Hyksos warrior.69 His appearance would better suit either an Egyptian fighting on behalf of the Hyksos or a Nubian. The Aegean-style winged griffin, which appears below the king and his enemy at the cutting edge of the axe blade, is undoubtedly the iconographic feature that has elicited the most commentary.70 Inlaid into the niello-style dark metal, the griffin appears under the epithet: “beloved of Montu” (mry MnT). Thus, as with Ahhotep’s ceremonial dagger, Egyptian craftsmen were evidently experimenting with designs and techniques imported from the Aegean world, unless, of course, one or both of the weapons were themselves Aegean imports, as is occasionally suggested.71 The invocation of Montu makes sense in that the god was both a patron deity of Thebes and closely associated with combat. In the well-known tale of the adventures of Sinuhe, for example, the narrator recalls his victory over a Syro-Palestinian rival, stating, “I felled him with his (own) axe. I yelled my war cry over his back. Every Asiatic yelped. I gave praise to Montu, while his adherents mourned for him”.72 The interpretive question remains, however, as to whether the griffin represented the king and/or the owner of the axe (who Montu loved), a mythical familiar (who Montu loved), or Montu (who loved the king and/or the owner of the axe). On temple walls Montu almost invariably took the form of a falcon-headed entity, which might suggest that the griffin would constitute a fitting avatar or daemonic companion.73 On the other hand, a bladed weapon bearing Kamose’s cartouche, once thought to have belonged to Ahhotep’s burial assemblage, seems to depict the king in the form of a falcon-headed sphinx mauling a shorthaired, clean-shaven victim, not unlike the victim depicted on Ahhotep’s axe (see Fig. 7b).74 The positioning of the griffin’s wings, its characteristic spiral markings, and the five feathers that stood upright upon its head clearly marked it as foreign to the Cf. Singer, CCE 12, 77, n. 11. See Judas, “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Tomb of Ahhotep”, in this volume. 71 Morgan, Miniature, 187, n. 112; Cline, ABSA 93, 213. 72 Simpson (ed.), Literature, 60. 73 For the equation of griffins with phraohs, see Morgan, Ä&L 20, 304; Janosi, JACF 5, 103, 105, n. 28; Morgan, Miniature, 53. 74 See Bissing, Grabfund, pl. XII.10; Winlock, JEA 10, 263; Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 218, fig. 7. 69 Fig. 7 – Royal griffins: a. winged griffin and locust on a scarab found at Megiddo (after Keimer, ASAE 32, 143, fig. 53); b. griffin on Kamose’s bladed weapon, Ashmolean 1927.4622, after Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 218, fig. 7) Egyptian tradition – being instead a product of the Aegean imaginary. Similar griffins had adorned carved seals and other minor arts since the Middle Minoan II period (c. 1800-1700 BC). By the fifteenth century BC, however, the mythical beasts had entered the international style and been co-opted by elites who utilized them for heraldic and protective purposes on prestige goods and in palaces, such as those at Knossos, Pylos, and, perhaps, Tell el-Dab‘a.75 For present purposes, however, it is most significant that Aegean-style griffins adorned a variety of artifacts discovered in the shaft tombs at Mycenae, including a dagger (see Fig. 2e).76 Moreover, in the later levels of the cult center associated with the shaft tombs, griffins appear in close connection with both women and weapons. In one wall-painting, for instance, a griffin is held by a woman wearing a Mycenaean boar’s tooth helmet (see Pl. XLIa), while in another painting a probable griffin leaps in front of a female figure who is holding sheaves of grain. On the platform directly adjacent to this scene, two female figures face one another with an oversized sword between them. Taking these associations into account, it seems clear that at Mycenae, at least, the griffin served as the emblem of a female warrior goddess.77 70 Morgan, Ä&L 20, 304, 307. Aruz, Lacovara, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans, Beyond Babylon, 120; Morgan, Miniature, 51-2. 77 As Lyvia Morgan remarks, the association of women and the accoutrements of war, although attested elsewhere in the Aegean, is nowhere more prevalent than in the sacred center at Myceane. Morgan, BSAS 13, 168, 170-1. 75 76 176 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Although these images postdate the shaft tombs, religious beliefs prevalent already during the mid-seventeenth century BC likely also equated griffins with goddesses. Certainly, in the wall painting at the Xesté 3 house-shrine in Akrotiri (see Pl. XLIb), the griffin appears seated at the side of a larger than life-size female, typically interpreted as a deity. Both griffin and goddess, interestingly, face a vervet monkey, native to Nubia, which could only have arrived (and, indeed, have been painted in “Egyptian” blue) via trade with Egypt.78 Ahmose likely was well aware of the close connection between griffins, women, and weapons in Aegean art when he bestowed the ceremonial axe upon Ahhotep or interred it in her grave. The Ahhotep who gave birth to him, after all, bore the title “Mistress of the Shores of the HAw-nbw” – a geographically vague toponym, strongly associated with Greece in later inscriptions.79 Thus, even if the two Queen Ahhoteps were not one and the same but only intimately acquainted with one another, cultural literacy at court would likely have ensured that the griffin on the axe bore a strong association with female power. butt end of the haft, on the other hand, had been attached far more securely – by eighteen golden nails!80 6. Axe bearing Kamose’s Cartouches with undecorated Handle (see Fig. 8b) Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52647; JE 4675 Materials: bronze and horn Height: 40 cm; Blade length: 12 cm This axe and the one just discussed are nearly identical in terms of the length of the blade and of the weapon as a whole. There were, however, important differences. The handle, for instance, had been fashioned of horn rather than gold, and there were signs of burning in the area at which the blade would have been inserted. Although the blade was neither silver-plated nor as slender at its waist as the blade just discussed, it was not without pretentions of its own. Pewter, for instance, had been added to the bronze, which lent the blade an apVernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, vol. I, 207. Bissing, Grabfund, 5, pl. III.1. 80 5. Axe embellished with Silver with a Handle ornamented with Gold (see Fig. 8a) Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52646; JE 4676 Materials: gold, silver, copper and cedarwood Height: 41 cm; Blade length: 11.7 cm This ornamental axe – like the second of Ahhotep’s daggers discussed above – has been overshadowed by its far fancier counterpart and is thus little discussed. Despite this, the weapon is impressive. Its blade is a highly stylized version of Kühnert-Eggebrecht’s type G-VII, with a relatively narrow waist that would have rendered it more stylish than effectual. The same impression is gained from its material and ornament. For example, artisans fashioned the blade out of copper, rather than casting it in bronze and overlaid it with a thin silver plate. Likewise, even if the material of the blade is discounted, it was attached to its handle by no other means than a nail and a wire. The gold-plated cap that ornamented the 78 79 Preziosi, Hitchcock, Aegean Art, 128. See Janosi, JACF 5, 100, 105, n.5. Fig. 8 – Ahhotep’s axes: a. Axe embellished with silver with a handle ornamented with gold (after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. III.1); b. axe bearing Kamose’s cartouches on the blade with a handle fashioned of horn (after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. III.4); c. axe blade bearing Kamose’s cartouche (after von Bissing, Grabfunde, pl. III.2) 177 Ellen Morris pearance not unlike silver. Moreover, the blade had been inscribed on one side with the nomen and praenomen of King Kamose: “The good god, Wadj-kheper-re, Son of Re Kamose, given life eternally” (nTr nfr, wadj-xpr ra sA ra KA-ms di anx nTr Dt).81 7. Bronze Axe Blade with Kamose’s Cartouches (see Fig. 8c) Egyptian Museum Cairo CG 52648; JE 4677 Materials: bronze Blade length: 12 cm Ahhotep’s final axe, included among the grave goods in her coffin without a handle, seems to have been nearly identical in dimensions and inscription to the axeblade just described. The only differences lay in the arrangement of the last three signs of Kamose’s Son of Re name and in the presence of a finely engraved line that edged the perimeter of the blade on both sides.82 The fact that the blade had not been embedded in a handle, however, is illuminating in that the lugs that would have allowed the blade to be securely attached to the handle are fully visible. It is also of interest in that it shares a strong formal similarity with other axes, one bearing Kamose’s name (British Museum EA 36772) and another Ahmose’s (Ashmolean Museum 1927.4623). Although some scholars believed that these axes once belonged to Ahhotep’s funerary equipment and thus should be considered “strays”, it is more likely that they stemmed from burials of her close contemporaries.83 The Theban kings almost certainly issued such axes from their armories. At the campaign city of Deir el-Ballas, archaeologists recovered unadorned G-VII-style axe blades from multiple sites, including a grave (Cemetery 1-200, tomb 290) and also the North Palace. Moreover, painted fragments of plaster from the processional entranceway to that palace included a pair of G-VII-style axes and the head of man, perhaps a soldier or member of the palace guard (see Fig. 9b).84 Axe blades bearing royal cartouches may well have been distributed by the king as military rewards (a possibility discussed below) or as badges of authority. Certainly, it is notable that in Ahhotep’s golden boat model the figure seated prominently in the middle of the boat bore an axe in his left hand.85 Individual soldiers, mindful of status or decorum, elected to be depicted in a similar manner. In grave 3252 Vernier, CG I: 208; Bissing, Grabfund, 5, pl. III.4. Vernier, CG I: 208; Bissing, Grabfund, 5, pl. III.2. 83 Davies, JEA 60, 114-15, 117-18. 84 Smith, Art, 160, fig. 278. 85 Bissing, Grabfund, pl. IX.2c-d. 81 82 at Mostagedda, for instance, the deceased had been buried together with a Pan-Grave-style decorated ox-skull that bore a representation of a man named Qeskanet, who most likely had served as a soldier in the Theban army. Qeskanet is shown equipped for battle, grasping an axe in his left hand and a long, curved club or throwstick in his right (see Fig. 9a).86 The decision to include the axe among Qeskanet’s identifying markers suggests that he himself viewed the weapon as integral to his identity. Prior to Ahmose’s victory over the Hyksos, Mostagedda served as the Theban kingdom’s northernmost garrison town. As such, the site’s unusual preponderance of burials belonging to soldiers of the Pan-Grave culture and their families is perhaps not surprising. Such garrison-settlements of foreign settler-soldiers would have served as a first line of defense against an incoming invasion. Indeed, it is remarkable that the closest practical parallels to Ahhotep’s axe are found in Egypt with only two exceptions87 in association with Pan-Grave burials – namely, at the sites of Mostagedda (3121, 3123, 3128, 3132, 3135, 3138, 3161, 3170, 10118), Balabish (tombs B 201, B 226, and B 30), Hu (Q 30, YS 164, 165, 174, 179, 224, 237, 351, 412, 505), Qau (5462, 7163, 7494, and 7498), and Rifeh. Guy Brunton suggested that this type of lugged axe blade was so frequently found in graves of those of Nubian heritage because Nubians played an important role in the Egyptian military.88 This suggestion is bolstered both by Kamose’s reference to surging north with his Medjay-warriors, as well as by the Nubian names found on ostraca at Deir el-Ballas.89 Because parallels for the axes were discovered in C-Group as well as Kerman contexts, however, Kühnert-Eggebrecht posited that it was Nubian warriors that had developed this style of axe and that – like foreign auxiliaries in other ancient contexts – the Pan-Grave warriors would thus have been Brunton, Mostagedda, 120-1, pl. LXXVI.65. A seemingly similar implement is depicted in the hands of the axe-holding figure on Ahhotep’s golden boat, as well as an aggressor in the First Intermediate tomb of Iti-ibi at Asyut (Bestock, Violence, 233, fig. 8.5). 87 The two exceptions are Deir el-Ballas (discussed above) and Kahun. At Kahun Petrie excavated three analogous axes in household caches, where they were found together with tools (Petrie, Kahun, 26, pl. XVII.6, 9; Petrie, lllahun, 12, pl. VII.19. See Davies, Catalogue, 48). The dual utility of axes as weapons and tools obviously renders contextual analysis crucial. 88 Brunton, Mostagedda, 128. 89 Lacovara, New Kingdom, 15; Simpson, Literature, 346. Liszka, JAEI 7.2 is, of course, correct that not all Medjay belonged to the Pan-Grave culture. A preponderance of evidence, however, suggests that Pan-Grave individuals would have been easily encompassed in the broad category of Medjay. 86 178 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Fig. 9 – Type G axes in Second Intermediate Period contexts: a. the Pan-Grave soldier Qeskanet (after Brunton, Mostagedda, 120-1, pl. LXXVI.65, drawn by Severin Fowles); b. Painted plaster fragments from the North Palace at Deir el-Ballas (after Smith, Art, 160, fig. 278); c. Bak, a soldier in Kamose’s army from Louvre stele E 6141 (after Petschel, Dolch, 189, fig. 39) buried together with the weapons with which they had been accustomed to fight.90 The parallels between Ahhotep’s type III daggers and type G axe-blades and their more utilitarian counterparts interred in the graves of individuals of Nubian heritage during the Second Intermediate Period are addressed below in the final discussion. The latter provide two important points of comparison with Ahhotep’s assemblage. Both types of weapons on occasion bore royal cartouches. Moreover, both were occasionally taken to the grave by women. Final Discussion While each of Ahhotep’s weapons merits careful consideration, it is important to return to the question of how they should be viewed as an assemblage, especially considering the queen’s sex, rank, and the tumultuous period in which she ruled. This final discussion, then, focusses on three main questions. Should Ahhotep’s weapons be considered in the same light as those that belonged to royal women of the Thirteenth Dynasty? Did Ahhotep receive weapons in part because women as well as men occasionally bore arms in times of war? And, lastly, did these weapons serve as rewards for Ahhotep’s extraordinary service to her nation? Did Ahhotep’s weapons connect her to royal women of a bygone era? Ahhotep was not the first royal woman to go to her grave armed. A handful of preserved burials suggest that royal and high-status women of the Thirteenth Dynasty on 90 Kühnert-Eggebrecht, Axt, 34-5. occasion included functional daggers among their grave goods. The rationale for being buried with daggers in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties, for both men and women, seems to have been to enhance their identification in death with the god Osiris. In the Pyramid Texts (Spells 742-756) and in the “hour vigil” the deceased was envisioned as Osiris, reborn through ritual and then presented with the various forms of royal insignia and equipment with which he or she had been entombed. These included staves, a mace, a flail, items of royal dress, a swallow amulet, and a dagger. Such items are depicted on the sides of wooden coffins and included in the court-type burials that came into vogue in the Late Middle Kingdom.91 As if to stress that the dagger would only become effective in the realm of the afterlife, when it would be transformed along with its owner, however, virtually all of the daggers included in the burials of men were wooden. Private ownership of functional daggers may well have been frowned upon. Susanne Petschel’s catalogue, which aims to be a comprehensive collection of all known pharaonic daggers, includes as its first entry a silver dagger with an ivory hilt excavated from a grave in El Amrah that dates from the late Nagada II period. At that time Egypt was not yet unified, and the period saw armed conflict between rival polities. Hilts of two similar daggers were recovered from contemporary graves at Abydos’s prestigious Cemetery U. From the time that the Upper Egyptian state formed, however, until the advent – nearly a millennium later – of the wooden daggers of very similar form in the Middle Kingdom, Petschel’s Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures, 150-2; see also Miniaci, Quirke, BIFAO 109, 357-61. 91 179 Ellen Morris catalogue lists not a single dagger!92 Even if the daggers excavated by Guy Brunton at Gurob (grave 395) and at Qau (graves 301, 308, 974, 2041, 4975) and others from Kom el-Hisn should be assigned to the First Intermediate Period,93 their inclusion would only seem to prove the rule, namely that private ownership of weapons during times when the state was stable appears to have been discouraged or perhaps even outlawed. Judging from pictorial evidence, daggers were indeed utilized; yet invariably they were depicted on the persons of pharaohs, soldiers, or else foreigners – who were, one assumes, destined to be divested of them.94 The small wooden models of daggers, which were included in elite Middle Kingdom burials at Meir, Bersheh, Harageh, Lisht, Saqqara, and Thebes95 were blunted weapons that imitated the burial equipment of kings but could never have been wielded in any aggressive act. Perhaps because royal and elite women were viewed as less threatening, however, they seem to have been granted an exception. Princess Ita, buried at Dahshur in the Thirteenth Dynasty, for example, was interred together with a stunning dagger fashioned of bronze with a hilt that incorporated lapis lazuli, gold, carnelian, and perhaps silver and amazonite as well.96 So, too, Senebtisi of Lisht, whose relatively unplundered grave is perhaps the most quintessential example of a court-style burial, took a bronze dagger, the handle and sheath of which had been covered in gold leaf, to the grave.97 Interestingly, while this noblewoman does not appear to have married a king, she may well have been the grandmother of three!98 Finally, Princess Nubhotepti-the-Child also carried a functional dagger to the afterlife, in contrast to her father, the ephemeral King Hor, who, strangely, had himself been equipped with only a small model dagger made of wood.99 It is fascinating that, although we know more about the burial goods of royal females of the Twelfth Dynasty than we do about most of their earlier or later contemporaries, there is no hint that these royal women had Petschel, Dolch, 264-5, 350-3. Brunton, Engelbach, Gurob, 1927, pl. VII.15; Brunton, Qau and Badari, vol. I, 38, 41, 59, pl. XXXVIII.1-5. For Kom el-Hisn, see Davies, Catalogue, 37, nos 4, 20. 94 See Morris, JEgH 13, 129-39; Petschel, Dolch, 67-85, 100-2, 105, 164-5. 95 Model daggers without exact provenience have also been recorded from Naga ed-Deir and Kahun. Petschel, Dolch, cat. 8- 9, 11-12, 14-16, 119-22, 125-7, 231-3. 96 Petschel, Dolch, 358-9, cat. 13, 97 Mace, Winlock, Senebtisi, 105, pl. XXXII.C; Petschel, Dolch, 492-3, cat. 234. 98 Petschel, Dolch, 492-3, cat. 234; Ryholt, Political Situation, 83-4. 99 Petschel, Dolch, 492-3, cat. 232; 500-1, cat. 246. 92 93 been provisioned with daggers – real or model. Judging from their burial goods, in fact, their role in the afterlife seems to have been less to become an Osiris than it was to serve as an embodiment of Hathor and dance for the enjoyment and revivification of their father or husband in his incarnation of Re.100 It would seem, then, that women’s roles shifted in the course of the Thirteenth Dynasty to allow them greater agency – perhaps in life as well as death. High status and royal women of the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties occupied opposite ends of the long Second Intermediate Period (c. 1759-1539 BC). Thus, in both courts, native Egyptian rulers shared power with people of mixed Egyptian and Levantine culture in the Eastern Delta. And war – or at least the threat of war – would have been ever present. Moreover, in the Thirteenth Dynasty, a time when a wide variety of unrelated kings cycled in and out of office, it may have been that women often bore more royal blood than their husbands and thus became especially important transmitters of legitimacy. So, too, in both dynasties, royal women likely took on a larger role in leadership, acting as regents while kings were off on campaign or else too young to wield effective political power. It is not a stretch to imagine, then, that the very real daggers found with their corpses had served as visual tokens of their authority in life as well as death. Although court-style burials did not persist past the Second Intermediate Period, elements of this tradition can still be identified in the grave goods of Tutankhamun and Sheshonq II, as well as in the Osirian depictions of Merneptah and Sheshonq III.101 Thus, it is possible that Ahhotep went to the grave with daggers and axes (similarly shown together on the coffin friezes of the Middle Kingdom) in an attempt to enable her to arise from the dead as Osiris, much as her female counterparts had been interred with daggers a century before – in similarly unsettled times during which they wielded unusual political authority. The lack of other standard accoutrements of the Osirian assemblage among Ahhotep’s grave goods, however, argues against the primacy of this interpretation.102 Morris, JARCE 47, 74, 93. Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures, 151-2, 158. 102 Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures, 166. For the shift away from the northern tradition centered on Osirification in Thebes during the Second Intermediate Period, see Miniaci, in Taylor, Vandenbeusch (eds), Craft Productions and Functionality, 247, 268. 100 101 180 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Was Ahhotep buried with weapons because in the Second Intermediate Period a greater segment of society – including women – bore arms than had been the case in the Middle Kingdom? Studies of long-term trends in ancient Egyptian mortuary assemblages demonstrate that people buried under the rule of a stable state seem to have expected to rest in peace. Over the millennium and a half that separated the first unification of the state from its reunification under Ahmose, the percentage of individuals who went to the grave armed not just with daggers but so too with weapons of other varieties and also with model weapons – akin to the three miniature gold axes and six miniature silver axes (CG 52649-57) included in Ahhotep’s coffin103 – soars as the power of the central state plummets.104 While weapons are fairly common in First Intermediate Period graves, their prevalence is radically curtailed in the early Twelfth Dynasty. This is despite the fact that the Story of Sinuhe tells us that during his unexpected sojourn in Canaan, the expatriate courtier utilized daggers and axes for self-defense and in combat.105 So, too, paintings of the reunification of Egypt from roughly the same period at Beni Hasan depict soldiers who carried daggers and axes into battle106 (see Fig. 10, inset). A depiction of a soldier named Bak, on a stele that dates to the reign of Kamose (see Fig. 9c) suggests that this military kit remained stable well into Ahhotep’s lifetime.107 If the government issued axes and daggers to its soldiers in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, their pervasive absence from graves and domestic contexts suggests that recipients returned these weapons to arsenals upon reentering civilian life. In the New Kingdom, certainly, both textual and pictorial evidence indicate that this was standard practice.108 Aggressive primal urges, like electrical currents, need to be channeled safely if a state is to endure. Thus, once firmly Fig. 10 – Middle Kingdom dagger and axe burials from grave 78 at established, authoritarian regimes typically at- Kom el-Hisn (after Hamada, Farid, ASAE 48, pl, VII) and grave N Bissing, Grabfund, 23, pl. XI. Brunton, Mostagedda, 109; Kühnert-Eggebrecht , Axt, 97-111; P etschel , Dolch, 264-6; Grajetzki, Burial Customs, 37, 61; see Miniaci, in Taylor, Vandenbeusch (eds), Craft Productions and Functionality, 263; Morris, JEgH 13. 105 Simpson, Literature, 59-60. 106 Newberry, Beni Hasan I, pl. XVI. 107 Louvre E 6141, see Petschel, Dolch, 189, fig. 39. 108 Focke, in O’Brien, Boatright (eds), Warfare and Society, 14-15. 103 104 487 at Aniba (after Steindorff, Aniba I, 157, pl. 70.1, 70.5). Drawing of soldiers bearing daggers and axes from the tomb of Amenemhat at Beni Hasan (after Newberry, Beni Hasan, pl. XVI) 181 Ellen Morris tempt to regulate male aggression, arming young men – possessed of high levels of testosterone and relatively low levels of impulse control – and sending them outward to expend their energies on conquest. Internally, however, it was in the state’s interest to promote the type of values espoused in Egyptian wisdom literature, namely, restraint, humility, and deference. In times of shrunken states and civil war, however, the same unruly energies normally pushed to the edges of empire become critical to a state’s survival. Male violence, then, is not only deregulated; it is valorized, and the masculine ideal swings back from courtier to warrior.109 As discussed above with respect to axes, some weapons were undoubtedly taken to the grave as identity markers. For example, at Kom el-Hisn (Graves 41110 and 78111) and Aniba (N 487112), the axes and daggers buried with individuals appear so similar to those depicted in the battle scenes at Beni Hasan that it is likely they belonged to garrison soldiers, who had died where they had been stationed (see Fig. 10). By contrast, the virtually ubiquitous presence of weapons (and especially daggers) in male burials at Kerma and Tell el-Dab‘a during the long Second Intermediate Period, speaks to a societal-wide consensus that arms made the man. Not coincidentally, these two polities were both actively involved in projects to challenge the sovereignty of Thirteenth and later Seventeenth Dynasty rulers. The Upper Egyptian polity presided over by Thebes in Ahhotep’s day was markedly less militarized than its northern and southern rivals. While many more men included weapons among their grave goods than had been the case in the Middle Kingdom, the practice was in no way normative. As noted above, outside the military staging post of Deir el-Ballas, the closest parallels for Ahhotep’s axes come from Pan-Grave contexts. It is perhaps little surprise, then, that archaeologically attested pairings of Petschel’s type III daggers with Kühnert-Eggebrecht’s type G axes are attested solely from a Pan-Grave cemetery (YS in Hu, graves Y165 and Y237).113 With reference to Ahhotep’s own assemblage, it is particularly notable Elias, Civilizing Process, 41-2, 64-70, 193-4, 392-8; Morris, JEgH 13. 110 Hamada, Farid, ASAE 46, 202-3, pl. LVI. Although they do not elaborate, the authors state that battle-axes and knives were common in male burials, and Davies, Catalogue, 37, n. 20 has identified five additional dagger and axe pairs at the site. Hamada, Farid, ASAE 46, 198. Petschel, Dolch, 5389, cat. 322. 111 Hamada, Farid, ASAE 48, 304, pl. VII; Petschel, Dolch, 522-3, cat. 290. 112 Steindorff, Aniba I, 157, pl. 70.1; Petschel, Dolch, 426427, cat. 110. 113 Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 52, pls XXVII, XXXII.15, 18 -17, 22; Petschel, Dolch, 362-3, cat. 17; 514-15, cat. 272. 109 that the only women who were interred with either an axe or a dagger – other than the royal women and court ladies discussed in the preceding section – were themselves Pan-Grave (Mostagedda 3128 and 3156114; Qau 5462115). Whether the women bore the weapons for reasons of self-defense (useful in life and so presumably also in death) is unclear. In Nubian cultures it may have been more common for women to participate in armed conflict. Certainly, it is notable that in addition to the hundreds of daggers that were discovered together with male bodies in the tumuli at Kerma, at least six had been recovered from female bodies.116 Keeping the significance of Ahhotep’s weapons in mind, it is also worth noting that the Pan-Grave woman buried together with an axe in Mostagedda 3128 was at once both older and wealthy. Thus, one might plausibly conclude that among the Pan-Grave the wisdom and prowess of women (and/or the sacrifices they made in sending husbands and sons to war) might have been singled out for special praise. If so, Ahmose may perhaps have been influenced by the practices of his Nubian auxiliaries when he interred Ahhotep with weapons that apparently acknowledged the contribution she had made to the defense of her country. Were Ahhotep’s weapons, as commonly assumed, military rewards? The first recorded instance of an Egyptian monarch bestowing a weapon upon an individual as a reward for feats of valor is recorded on a stele that a general named Khuusobek erected at Abydos. After a successful battle in the hills of Canaan, the general claimed that Senwoseret III “gave to me a staff of electrum; I was (also) given a bow, together with a dagger worked in electrum together with his (other?) weapons”.117 In order to motivate their supporters and troops, late Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth Dynasty kings continued the practice of acknowledging meritorious military accomplishments by presenting worthies at ceremonial events with weapons – especially axes and daggers – as well as golden flies and other adornments.118 Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet, for instance, claimed to have received from Amenhotep I the following items fashioned of gold: a dagger, an armlet, two bracelets, two necklaces, and a fan. Thutmose I Brunton, Mostagedda, 116, 118, 127, pl. 70-1. Brunton, Qau and Badari, vol. III, pl. VI. In the First Intermediate Period at Qau (grave 301), it appears that a dagger and an axe had been buried with a woman named Hesu (Brunton, Qau and Badari, vol. I, 38, pl. 38). 116 Judd, Irish, Antiquity 83, 719; Hafsaas-Tsakos, Antiquity, 87-8. 117 Focke, in O’Brien, Boatright (eds), Warfare and Society, 12. 118 Singer, CCE 12, 83-4; Focke, in O’Brien, Boatright (eds), Warfare and Society, 11-15. 114 115 182 Daggers and Axes for the Queen subsequently awarded the same man two golden axes, six flies, two bracelets, four necklaces, one armlet, and three lions; while Thutmose II gifted him a silver axe, three bracelets, six necklaces, and three armlets.119 All of these rewards – even a gold lion (CG 52703) – find parallels among Ahhotep’s grave goods. Taking these similarities into account, it is little surprise, then, that ever since the queen’s sarcophagus was opened, her ceremonial weapons, golden fly necklace (CG 52671), and smaller electrum flies (CG 52692) have been frequently interpreted as the material accompaniment to the fulsome words of praise with which Ahmose honored his mother for ably managing military affairs while she ruled as his regent. Interestingly, while textual evidence might lead one to expect that such rewards were reserved for Egyptian soldiers, weapons embellished with gold, silver, and/or royal cartouches are far more frequently found in the graves of auxiliary soldiers of foreign origin. While Claudia Näser has cautioned against the notion that metal axes and daggers should be referred to as “typical” Pan-Grave mortuary equipment and as indicators for mercenary activity,120 such weapons – and certainly their embellished counterparts – have been excavated far more often in Pan-Grave, Egyptianized Pan-Grave, and riparian Nubian graves than in those belonging to individuals who appear to have been ethnically Egyptian. Excavated parallels to Ahhotep’s weapons (i.e., Petschel’s Type III and VII daggers and Kühnert-Eggebrecht’s Type G axe blades) that may plausibly be construed as military rewards have been discovered in the following excavated contexts: LOWER EGYPT Saqqara, burial in the mortuary chapel of the Sixth Dynasty Queen Apuit (Dynasty 15) Dagger (Cairo CG 52768; JE 32735); Petschel Cat. 183, Type VII121 The electrum handle of this dagger was ornamented with the cartouche of the Hyksos King Apepi (nTr nfr nb tA.wj (Nb-xpS-Ra)| SA Ra (Jpp)| Dj anx) on one side and an inscription naming Nehmen, “Follower of his Lord” (Sms.w n nb=f), on the other. The owner of the tomb, however, bore the Semitic name Abd. He had also been interred together with a throw stick. Focke, in O’Brien, Boatright (eds), Warfare and Society, 12. 120 Näser, in Barnard, Duistermaat (eds), History of the Peoples, 87. 121 Petschel, Dolch, 460-1. 119 UPPER EGYPT Hu, Cemetery YS, grave 237 (Dynasty 16-17, Pan-Grave culture) Dagger (Cairo, JE 83702); Petschel Cat. 17, Type III + Axe (Oxford Ashmolean E 1778)122 The dagger had a crescent handle of ivory and nail holes covered with silver rosettes. It bore the cartouche of Nebiriau (nfr nTr (SwAD.n-Ra)|d(j) anx). Mostagedda, P 3227 (Dy. 16-17, Pan-Grave culture) Dagger; Petschel Cat. 66, Type III123 Gold-headed nails and silver washers were found, probably from the handle of a dagger. Mostagedda, P 3229 (late Second Intermediate Period, Pan-Grave culture) Dagger: Petschel Cat. 58, Type III124 This dagger had silver rivets. Mostagedda, P 3130 (late Second Intermediate Period, Pan-Grave culture) Gold-headed nails were recovered from a dagger handle (presumably Type III) in this completely plundered tomb.125 Mostagedda P 3135 (late Second Intermediate Period, Pan-Grave culture) This well-preserved axe, still hafted and bound with thongs to its handle, bore the cartouche of “the good god, Nebmaatre, given life” (nTr nfr (Nb-maAt-Ra)| d(j) anx). Its owner had also been equipped with a leather archer’s bracer decorated with a figure of the god Bes and a lotus.126 Other individuals buried with an axe and bracer include Ahhotep herself as well as the Pan-Grave burials in Balabish graves B201 and B226.127 Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 52, pl. XXXII.17, 22; Petschel, Dolch, 362-3, cat. 17. 123 Petschel, Dolch, 394-5; Brunton, Mostagedda, 116, 128. 124 Petschel, Dolch, 390-1; Brunton, Mostagedda, 119, 128, pl. LXXIV.6. 125 Brunton, Mostagedda, 128, pl. LV.41. 126 Brunton, Mostagedda, 117, 131, pl. 74, 9; Davies, Catalogue, 43, pl. XVIII.102. 127 Wainwright, Balabish, 10, 12, 30, pls III.2, VI.1. 122 183 Ellen Morris NUBIA Aniba, Cemetery N, Grave 546 (Dynasty 12-13, C-group tumulus) This dagger was fashioned with gold nails and a silver cuff; Petschel Cat. 116, Type III.128 Debeira East, Cemetery 65, grave 80 (late Second Intermediate Period, Pan-Grave culture) This dagger had gilded rivets (Victoria Museum, Uppsala, SJE 65/80B:6); Petschel Cat. 26, Type III129 Weapons that would be considered alongside those listed above – had they been documented in their original findspots – include a dagger with silver studs that Petrie discovered in a Pan-Grave cemetery at Rifeh,130 a dagger bearing King Bebiankh’s cartouche from Nagada,131 a dagger purchased at Abydos, whose pommel was surmounted with Ahmose’s cartouche,132 and a dagger engraved with the cartouche of Apepi.133 The axes that bore the cartouches of Kamose and Ahmose (Ash. Mus. 1927.4623 and EA 36772), originally thought to have come from Ahhotep’s tomb, have been mentioned above, but note should also be taken of unprovenienced axes that bore cartouches of the Thirteenth Dynasty Kings Djedankhre and Sekhemreswadjtawy. The latter, interestingly, bore a fragment of an inscription reading, “Given [as a favor from the king to…]”.134 So, what was Ahhotep doing with weapons that in the Second Intermediate Period would have borne a strong association with elite Egyptians and auxiliary soldiers of Nubian heritage? Despite the well-known ostracon recovered from the tomb of Ramesses VI that showcases a New Kingdom queen engaged in shooting arrows from her chariot at an adversary (CG 25125), Ahhotep likely never participated in battle. Times of war, during which men temporarily vacate civilian positions of power, however, typically open up unusual opportunities for women. Ahmose’s mother, of course, is famous for having maintained her son’s right to rule when he was far too young to grasp the reins of power. While Petschel, Dolch, 430-1. Petschel, Dolch, 368-9; Säve-Söderbergh, Middle Nubian, 128, 176, 179. 130 Petrie, Gizeh, 14, pl. XII. 131 Petschel, Dolch, 362-3, cat. 18, Type III. British Museum EA 66062. 132 Petschel, Dolch, 478-9, cat. 215, Type VII. 133 Petschel, Dolch, 462-3, cat. 186; Type VII. Daggers that postdate, or might postdate, Ahhotep’s reign are not excluded from consideration. 134 Davies, Catalogue, 43, 48-9, pls XVIII.101, XXX1.101; 54, pls XXX.170, XXXI.170, pl. 30. 128 129 she may have been identical with the Dra Abu el-Naga Ahhotep, who took her weapons to the grave, the similarity of the latter’s mortuary assemblage to King Kamose’s, the comparatively abbreviated composition of her titles, and the exclusive use of the early form of Ahmose’s name suggest it is more likely that the Ahhotep with which we are concerned was her predecessor in power – the widow of King Kamose. If so, it is probable that she administered the country from Deir el Ballas and Thebes while her husband travelled with his armies to Tell el-Dab‘a and Nubia. During this period, she and her court would have become well acquainted with the culture of the Pan-Grave-Nubians that made up such a sizable component of her army. After Kamose’s death, being as yet childless, she may have continued to safeguard the throne, this time for the child borne to her identically named and much longerlived family member (for Ahhotep, like Ahmose, may have been a dynastic name that bore repeating among late Seventeenth Dynasty royalty). The complexities of how exactly this Ahhotep would have been related to Ahmose and his mother are beyond the scope of this volume. Yet, the ceremonial weapons Ahmose bestowed upon her suggest that the king honored her as a freedom fighter much as he would later honor his mother. Bibliography Aruz, J., “The Art of Exchange”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 387-94. Aruz, J., P. Lacovara, “67. Axe 68. Dagger”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 119-22. Barrett, C.E., “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt”, JMA 22/2 (2009), 211-34. Ben Amar, C., “The Dagger of Pharaoh Kamose, The Oldest Glory of the Royal Library of Belgium”, In Monte Artium 5 (2012), 45-67. Bestock, L., Violence and Power in Ancient Egypt: Image and Ideology Before the New Kingdom (London: Routledge Studies in Egyptology, 2017). Betrò, M., “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des Neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Brunton, G., Qau and Badari, vol. I (London, 1927). Brunton, G., Qau and Badari, vol. III (London, 1930). Brunton, G., Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture (London, 1937). Brunton, G., R. Engelbach, Gurob (London, 1927). Cline, E.H., “Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el- 184 Daggers and Axes for the Queen Dab‘a and the Aegean World: A Guide for the Perplexed”, ABSA 93 (1998), 199-219. Davies, W.V., “An Inscribed Axe Belonging to the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford”, JEA 60 (1974), 114-8. Davies, W.V., Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum VII: Tools and Weapons I. Axes (London, 1987). Desroches Noblecourt, C., “Le ‘Bestiare’ symbolique du libérateur Ahmosis”, in F. Junge (ed.), Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens. Zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westerndorf, vol. II (Göttingen, 1984), 883-94. Dunham, D., J. Janssen, Second Cataract Forts. Vol. I: Semna Kumma (Boston, 1960). Elias, N., The Civilizing Process. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, E. Jephcott (trans.), rev. ed. (Oxford, 2000). Feldman, M.H., Diplomacy by Design. Luxury Arts and an “International Style” in the Ancient Near East, 1400-1200 BC (Chicago, 2006). Focke, S., “‘His Majesty Saw My Valour’: Weapons as Rewards for Feats on the Battlefield”, in S. O’Brien, D. Boatright (eds), Warfare and Society in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Papers Arising from a Colloquium Held at the University of Liverpool, 13th June 2008 (Oxford: BAR International Series 2583, 2013), 5-18. Forstner-Müller, I., K. Kopetzky, “Egypt and Lebanon: New Evidence for Cultural Exchanges in the First Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.”, BAAL Hors-Série 6 (2009), 143-57. Garstang, J., El Arábah (London, 1901). Grajetzki, W., Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor (London, 2003). Grajetzki, W., Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom. The Archaeology of Female Burials (Philadelphia, 2014). Hafsaas-Tsakos, H., “Edges of Bronze and Expressions of Masculinity: The Emergence of a Warrior Class at Kerma in Sudan”, Antiquity 87 (2013), 79-91. Hakimian, S., J.F. de Lapérouse, “Sickle Sword”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 58. Hamada, A., S. Farid, “Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Season 1945”, ASAE 46 (1947), 195-205. Hamada, A., S. Farid, “Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Third Season 1946”, ASAE 48 (1949), 299-308. Harvey, S.P., The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos (Philadelphia: PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1998). Hasel, M.G., Domination and Resistance. Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, ca. 1300-1185 B.C. (Leiden: PAe 11, 1998). Janosi, P., “The Queens Ahhotep I & II and Egypt’s Foreign Relations”, JACF 5 (1992), 99-105. Judas, A.B., “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Judd, M., J. Irish, “Dying to Serve: The Mass Burials at Kerma”, Antiquity 83 (2009), 709-22. Keimer, L., “Pendeloques en forme d’insectes faisant partie de colliers égyptiens”, ASAE 32 (1932), 129-50. Konstandinidi-Sivridi, E., “Openwork Relief with Lions Attacking Bull”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 276-7. Kühnert-Eggebrecht, E., Die Axt als Waffe und Werkzeug im alten Ägypten (Berlin: MÄS 15, 1969). Lacovara, P., The New Kingdom Royal City (New York, 2009). Lacovara, P., “The Flies of Ahhotep”, in this volume. LaGamma, A., Sahel: Art and Empires on the Shores of the Sahara (New York, 2020). Liszka, K., “Are the Bearers of the Pan-Grave Archaeological Culture Identical to the Medjay People in the Egyptian Textual Record?”, JAEI 7.2 (2015), 42-60. Mace, A.C., H.E. Winlock, The Tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht (New York, 1916). Malek, J., “The Locusts on the Daggers of Ahmose”, in E. Goring, N. Reeves, J. Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers: Egyptian Studies in Memory of Cyril Aldred (London, 1997), 207-19. Miniaci, G., “Burial equipment of rishi coffins and the osmosis of the ‘rebirth machine’ at the end of the Middle Kingdom” in J.H. Taylor, M. Vandenbeusch (eds), Ancient Egyptian Coffins. Craft Traditions and Functionality (Leuven: BMPES 4, 2018), 247-73. Miniaci. G., “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., S. Quirke, “Reconceiving the Tomb in the Late Middle Kingdom he Burial of the Accountant of the Main Enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu el-Naga”, BIFAO 109, 339-76. Moran, W.L., (ed. and transl.), The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, 1992). Morenz, L.D., “Das Lese-Bild von Königskartusche, Löwe und Stier versus vier Heuschrecken – Königspropaganda und Selbstindoktrinierung der ägyptischen Elite”, ZÄS 126 (1999), 132-41. de Morgan, J., Fouilles à Dahchour en 1894-1895 (Vienna, 1903). Morgan, L., The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera. A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge, 1988). Morgan, L., “The Cult Centre at Mycenae and the Duality of Life and Death”, BSA Studies 13 (2005), 159-71. Morgan, L., “An Aegean Griffin in Egypt: The Hunt Frieze at Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 20 (2010), 303-23. Morris, E., “Paddle Dolls and Performance”, JARCE 47 (2011), 71-103. Morris, E., “Machiavellian Masculinities: Historicizing and Contextualizing the ‘Civilizing Process’ in Ancient Egypt,” JEgH 13 (2020), 127-68. 185 Ellen Morris Murray, S.C., “Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation”, in this volume. Näser, C., “Nomads at the Nile: Towards an Archaeology of Interaction”, in H. Barnard, K. Duistermaat (eds), The History of the Peoples of the Eastern Desert (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 73, 2012), 81-92. Newberry, P.E., Beni Hasan, vol. I (London, 1893). Papadopoulos, T.J., The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean. Vol. I: The Greek Mainlan (Stuttgart: PBF VI, 11, 1998). Petrie, W.M.F. Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara (London, 1890). Petrie, W.M.F., Illahun, Kahun and Gurob (London, 1891) Petrie, W.M.F., Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu 1898-9 (London, 1901). Petrie, W.M.F., Gizeh and Rifeh (London, 1907). Petschel, S., Den Dolch betreffend. Typologie der Stichwaffen in Ägypten von der prädynastischen Zeit bis zur 3. Zwischenzeit (Wiesbaden, 2011). Philip, G., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XV: Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Vienna, 2006). Porter, B., R.L.B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. I: The Theban Necropolis. Part 2. Royal Tombs and Smaller Cemeteries, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1964). Preziosi, D., L.A. Hitchcock, Aegean Art and Architecture (New York: Oxford History of Art, 1999). Randall-MacIver, D., C.L. Woolley, Buhen (Philadelphia: Eckley B. Coxe Junior Expedition to Nubia VII, 1911). Rehak, P., “New Observations on the Mycenaean ‘Warrior Goddess’”, AA 4 (1984), 535-45. Reisner, G.A., Excavations at Kerma, vols I-III (Cambridge, MA: HAS V, 1923). Roth, A.M., “The Ahhotep Coffins: The Archaeology of an Egyptological Reconstruction”, in E. Teeter, J. Larson (eds), Gold of Praise: Studies in Honor of E.F. Wente (Chicago: SAOC 58, 1999), 361-77. Ryholt, K.S.B., The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 B.C. (Copenhagen: CNIANES 20, 1997). Säve-Söderbergh, T., “Preliminary Report of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition, Archaeological Survey Between Faras and Gemai, January-March 1961”, Kush 10 (1962), 76-105. Säve-Söderbergh, T., Middle Nubian Sites (Uppsala: SJE 4:1, 1989). Säve-Söderbergh, T., L. Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Finds and the Sites (Uppsala: SJE 5:2, 1991). Shalev, S., Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan (Stuttgart: PBF IV, 13, 2004). Simpson, W.K.S. (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, 3rd ed. (New Haven, 2003). Singer, G.N.G., “Queen Ahhotep and the ‘Golden Fly’”, CCE 12 (2009), 75-88. Smith, W.S., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, 3rd ed. (New Haven, 1998). Steindorff, G., Aniba, vol. I (Glückstadt, 1935). Thomas, N.R., “Recognizing Niello: Three Aegean Daggers”, in A. Vianello (ed.), Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean (Oxford, 2011), 146-61. Vercoutter, J., L’Égypte et le Monde Égéen préhellénique (Cairo, 1956). Vernier, É., Bijoux et orfèvreries. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire – Nos. 5200153855, vols I-II (Cairo, 1927). Wainwright, G.A., Balabish (London: EES 37, 1920). Wegner, J., K. Cahail, King Seneb-Kay’s Tomb and the Necropolis of a Lost Dynasty at Abydos (Philadelphia, 2021). Wilkinson, T., The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt (New York, 2010). Winlock, H.E., “The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. 186 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 187-197 Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads and the Inclusion of Gaming Pieces in the Funerary Costumes of Second Intermediate Period-early Eighteenth Dynasty Miriam Colella Abstract The purpose of this paper is to clarify the function of a gold and a bronze lion head in Queen Ahhotep’s burial assemblage. The hypothesis that these artifacts are gaming pieces, as expressed by von Bissing at the beginning of the twentieh century, can be corroborated by comparison with other similar gaming pieces. However, this type of artefact started to appear as part of the burial equipment mainly in the New Kingdom. Nonetheless, the inclusion of gaming materials in the burial equipment at Thebes can be dated already in the Second Intermediate Period. In this phase, a series of changes in Egyptian funerary customs may indicate that the perception of the death underwent some deep changes. The presence of the two lion heads – interpreted as gaming pieces – in Queen Ahhotep’s equipment, could be an indication that the journey to the afterlife is transforming into a transition from one world to another, where the deceased’s soul can dwell for eternity. The two Lion Heads from Queen Ahhotep’s Burial Equipment For a long time, the two lion heads of Queen Ahhotep’s burial equipment were associated in various catalogues of the Cairo Museum edited by Mariette and Maspero with the hieroglyphic sign “peḥ”. Therefore, they were connected to the figure of the King Ahmose, since the hieroglyph in shape of lion’s head appears in his praenomen, “Ra-neb-peḥty”.1 This erroneous inter“La tête du lion est l’hiéroglyphe du mot peh, qui signifie vaillance (…) qu’ils font partiedu cartouche- prénom d’Amosis (Ra-neb-pehti)”, see Mariette, Notice (1864), 223; Mariette, Notice (1868), 264-5; Mariette, Notice (1869), 2634; Mariette, Notice (1872), 268-9; Mariette, Notice (1874), 262; Mariette, Notice (1876), 262; Notice (1892), 216; Notice (1895), 224; Maspero, Guide (1902), 425, Maspero, Guide (1903), 517, Maspero, Guide (1906), 383; Maspero, Guide (1915), 432. “La tête du lion à la valeur poh, peh, et signifie la vaillance. Elle entre comme élément syllabique dans le prénom Nibpehtiri d’Ahmose I°”, see Maspero, Guide (1883), 79. 1 pretation might be due to a previous description by Desjardins, who wrote in the Revue générale de l’architecture in 1860, that in the treasure of the queen there were a gold ball, a basket, and the two lion heads used for a “three-dimensional” reconstruction of Ahmose’s praenomen: “(…) un hiéroglyphe solide: c’est le troisième signe du cartouche-prénom d’Ahmès, composé du disque, de la corbeille et de la tête de lion. M. Mariette a trouvé aussi le disque figuré, par un petit ballon d’or; quant à la corbeille, qui était probablement en étoffe tressée, elle a disparu”.2 However, there is no trace of the basket and golden disk, although in theory they could be among the few lost objects.3 Given the absence of supporting elements Desjardins, RGA 18, 110. For a list of the objects associated with the burial of Ahhotep see Miniaci “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052)”, in this volume, Table 2; Miniaci, “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume, JE 4725.20. 2 3 Miriam Colella for the insertion of chains or rings, the two lion heads can hardly be interpreted as jewels or amulets.4 From the clearest available photographs, it seems that he first specimen of Queen Ahhotep’s lion head, preserved in the Cairo Museum,5 is made from a gold band modeled on a wood or clay stand and then worked with a chisel for the details. The feline has wide eyes, the mouth is closed, the mane around the snout consists of thin engraved lines, while some holes fill the space between the nose and the jaws, finally the lower portion of the object is closed by a second metal plate6 (see Fig. 1.a1). The second specimen, of bronze, less detailed than the first and so at the Cairo Museum7 (see Fig. 1.a2), was probably produced from a mold.8 Regarding the material of the two heads there are inconsistencies between the publications and the various catalogues of the Museum. In catalogues from 1864 to 1915 it is written that both specimens are in bronze, but one of them has a gold coating: “L’une est en bronze, l’autre en bronze revêtu d’or”;9 the catalogue of 1883 identified one of the heads just as gold: “(…) un exemplaire en or sur la momie de la reine Ahhotpou”.10 The same information is present in the catalogue of the Cairo Museum of 1927, where in reference to the lion head CG 52703, it is specified to be in gold only: “Une tête du lion en or, exécutée en rétreinte à l’aide d’une plaque d’or martelée et ciselée (…)”. The lion head CG 52704 is reported to be in bronze: “Une tête de lion en bronze fondu”.11 Also, in the publication of von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, it is Moreover, it is possible to exclude the hypothesis that the two lion heads are jewels thanks to note of Maspero in the Guide of 1883, indicating another lion’s head (cat. no. 2965) as a red jasper gaming piece, then compared with Ahhotep’s specimens, see Maspero, Guide (1883), 123. The only notice about the gaming piece cited by Maspero is given by Lilyquist who notes a lion-headed gaming piece in the Cairo Museum with inventory number TR 26.7.14.52, see Roehrig, in Roehrig (eds), Hatshepsut, 188, n. 2. 5 CG 52703 (JE 4713), see Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, 235. 6 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 23, pl. 11; see also Pls V, VIII, XVI. 7 Cat. no. 52704 (JE 4714) in the Cairo Museum, see Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, 236. 8 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, 235. The author does not exclude the possibility that the first object may have been the mold for the second head given the slightly larger size of the latter. 9 Mariette, Notice (1864), 223; Mariette, Notice (1868), 264; Mariette, Notice (1869), 263; Mariette, Notice (1872), 268; Mariette, Notice (1874), 262; Mariette, Notice (1876), 262; Notice (1892), 216; Notice (1895), 224, Maspero, Guide (1902), 425, Maspero, Guide (1903), 517, Maspero, Guide (1906), 383; Maspero, Guide (1915), 432. 10 Maspero, Guide (1883), 79. 11 Vernier, Bijoux et orfèvreries, 235-6. 4 indicated that there are a gold lion head and another in bronze: “Der eine der Spielsteine ist aus dünnem Goldblech über einem Holz-oder Thonkern getrieben. (…). Der andere, stark an der Oberfläche zerfressene Stein ist aus massiver Bronze wohl gegossen”.12 Comparisons with similar Gaming Pieces In this latest document von Bissing raised, for the first time, the possibility that the two lion heads were gaming pieces. In support of this statement, some relevant parallels of other gaming pieces in form of feline head can be offered here: the leopard’s head13 preserved in the Metropolitan Museum of New York; a similar piece at the Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig of Basel; a few artefacts14 from the British Museum of London; and, finally, a piece in the Cleveland Museum of Art of Cleveland.15 The lion head MMA 26.7.1452,16 of unknown orig17 in, is made in red jasper with chiseled details and two cartouches: one, containing the praenomen of Hatshepsut, “Maat-ka-Ra”, at the top of the head and the other, behind the neck, with the title “Hatshepsut which is Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 23; see also Pls V, VIII, XVI. 13 In the description provided in the MMA’s online catalogue the feline was recognized as a leopard. However, it is more appropriate to interpret it as a lion as suggested by E. Towry-White, see Towry-White, PSBA 24, 261, pl. I, 10. In fact, the thick mane, the rounded ears and the amygdaloid shape of the eyes are typical elements that mark the image of the lion in the Egyptian art, see Osborn, Osbornovà, The Mammals, 113-19. 14 Originally the wooden examples were twenty, see Falkener, Games, 28-31. 15 A further parallel is preserved at the Petrie Museum (UC 8731): it is in white faience (originally blue) roughly worked in shape of a lion’s head, under the base there are eight incised radii and a projection at the front, see Petrie, Objects, 54, pl. LXVIII, 167. This specimen, like the gaming piece of the Cleveland Museum, might have been transformed into an amulet due to the presence of a perforation through the head. 16 MMA 26.7.1452, see Hayes, Sceptre, vol. II, 105; Roehrig, in Roehrig (eds), Hatshepsut, 188. 17 In the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s online catalogue, the gaming piece is described as a purchase by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1926 from Lord Carnarvon. Probably he obtained the piece in 1911 from Sotheby’s auction when the collection property of the late F. G. Hilton-Price was sold in July 1911, see Burra, Catalogue, 1911. The MMA object entry seems to indicate the presence of this (?) object in the 1897 catalogue of the Hilton Price collection, in which case it would have been outside Egypt at least a dozen years before the start of the Carnarvon excavations (see Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 84 ff.). 12 188 Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads Fig. 1 – a1. Gaming piece in the shape of a lion’s head (gold) in the assemblage of Queen Ahhotep, CG 52703 (JE 4713) in the Cairo Museum (H. 3.2 cm, W. max. 2,7 cm, 42 gr.); a2. Gaming piece in the shape of a lion’s head (bronze) in the assemblage of Queen Ahhotep, CG 52704 (JE 4714) in the Cairo Museum (H. 3.2 cm, W. max. 2,7 cm, 105 gr.); b. Gaming piece in the shape of a feline’s head (red jasper), MMA 26.7.1452. in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (H. 3.2 cm, W. max. 3.5 cm); c. Gaming piece in shape of feline’s head (red jasper) in the Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig in Basel (H. 3.3 cm., W. max 3 cm); d1. Gaming pieces in the shape of a lion’s head (wood), BM EA 21582 in the British Museum of London (H. 2.9 cm, W. max 2.7 cm); d2. Gaming piece in shape of lion’s head (ivory), BM EA 21580 in the British Museum of London (H. 3.1 cm, W. max. 2.80 cm, 28 gr.); e. Amulet in shape of lion’s head (amethyst and gold), cat. no. 1987.1. in the Cleveland Museum of Art (H. 3.5 cm, W. max. 2.9 cm) © drawing by Miriam Colella 189 Miriam Colella joined to Amon”18 (see Fig. 1.b). From the presence of these cartouches this gaming piece could be dated to the reign of Hatshepsut (1479-1458 BC). The artifact of Basel,19 interpreted as a cheetah for the thin mane, lacrimal marks below the eyes and elongated eyebrows20 (see Fig. 1.c), is attributed to the reign of Hatshepsut:21 as the Metropolitan Museum of Art specimen, this gaming piece is in red jasper, it shows two chiseled cartouches with the praenomen of Hatshepsut and the provenance is unknown.22 The British Museum owns an ivory example of lion headed playing piece23 (see Fig. 1.d2), and further eighteen wooden specimens of similar shape24 (see Fig. 1.d1), donated by a British cotton magnate Jesse Haworth in 1887.25 It is possible that they were part of an original set of twenty-six gaming pieces26 found in Thebes in the area of the royal tombs.27 The gaming pieces, charRoehrig, in Roehrig (eds), Hatshepsut, 188. No. 39 in Wiese, Winterhalter, Ägyptische Kunst, 36; no. 53 in Wiese, Antikenmuseum Basel, 91. 20 Osborn, Osbornovà, The Mammals, 121-3. 21 The second cartouche also contains the inscription “that lives forever” referring always to Queen Hatshepsut, see Wiese, Antikenmuseum Basel, 91. 22 Wiese, Winterhalter, Ägyptische Kunst, 36. 23 BM EA 21580, see Falkener, Games, 31. This artefact, together with other items (BM EA 21582-83, EA 21589, EA 21592), was exhibited during an exposition entitled “Art du jeu, jeu dans l’art: De Babylone à l’Occident medieval” (28 novembre 2012-04 mars 2013) at Musée de Cluny, although indicated as belonging to Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Egyptiennes, see Bardiès-Fronty, Dunn-Vaturi, Art du jeu, 32, cat. no. 15. 24 BM EA 21581-99 (2.7-3.5 cm, W. 2.4-3.4 cm, 10-8 gr.), see Falkener, Games, 28-9, 31; Budge, The Mummy, 475. Only for BM EA 21582-83, EA 21589, EA 21592 see also Musée d’archéologie mèditerranéenne, Jouer dans l’antiquité, 198. 25 Jesse Haworth bought these objects through Greville Chester, an Oxford alumnus and ordained clergyman, and then he donated them to the British Museum. Two additional wooden pieces, coming from the Hilton Price collection, should be in the British Museum too, see Hilton-Price, Catalogue, 354, nos 2958-59. 26 Edwards, RT 10, 129; see BM EA 21580-99 lion heads = twenty; BM EA 21600-605 = six assorted other shapes. As documented from a letter 55 of G. Maspero to A. Edwards, dated 17 June 1887, Paris, at that time the British Museum acquired some gaming pieces in ivory and wood considered “genuine”; Maspero, therefore, warned Edwards to be careful since some lion heads, sold the year before, had been considered false. He, in fact, bought two specimens to place them in his own collection of forged antiquities, see Warren, JEA 33, 83. 27 Chester was informed by the Luxor vendor that a group of objects, comprising a throne, a draughtboard, many draughtmen (two reel-shaped piece, one astragal, and two upright 18 19 acterized by wide eyes, a closed mouth, a carved mane and moustache details,28 were associated with a gaming board unfortunately found in a bad state of conservation. Finally, the latest example of comparison is an unusual pendant in the Cleveland Museum of Art,29 composed by a gold base in form of eight baboons, and an amethyst lion’s head hooked with a gold sheet to the inferior part (see Fig. 1.e). The lion head, with chiseled details, is undoubtedly a playing piece, dating to the New Kingdom and recycled into an elaborate jewel during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.30 Gaming Materials from Theban Tombs of the Second Intermediate Period-early New Kingdom Further parallels for the scope of the two lion heads of Ahhotep can be drawn from the burial equipment of the Theban tombs dated to the Second Intermediate Period-early New Kingdom, approximately contemporary with Queen Ahhotep’s burial. For example, the burial of Hornakht, situated in the north area of the cemetery of Dra Abu el-Naga, was equipped with an ebony and ivory game-box and seven gaming pieces made in different materials.31 A gaming box, twelve ivory playing pieces, six with a conic pointed head and six spool shaped, as well as six ivory casting sticks and a pair of knucklebones were found in the Room E of the Pit 3 (one of the burials found inside it belonged to the general Nakht).32 Along draughtmen), and a piece of a wooden cartouche, were all found hidden away in one of the side chambers of the tomb of Ramses IX; unfortunately it is impossible to corroborate this information, see further Petrie, A History, 92-4. 28 Towry-White, PSBA 24, 261, pl. II, 16. 29 Cat. no. 1987.1. in the Cleveland Museum of Art, see Turner, BCM 75, cat. no. 6; Berman, Bohač, Catalogue, 444; Lacovara, Markowitz, D’Auria, Nubian, 148-9, figs 125a-b. 30 Most likely the gaming piece had been adapted in the Napatan period to serve as a pendant amulet; this procedure was common in antiquity as a means of recycling precious stones, see Markowitz, Lacovara, ClevStHistArt 1, 7. Hybrid products are a significant result of a process of “entanglement” between elements of different cultures, see Miniaci, EVO 42, 26. 31 Cat. no. 68005 (JE 21493) in the Cairo Museum, see Vassalli, Monumenti, 131; Mariette, Maspero, Monuments, 16-17, pl. 51 j.1-3; Maspero, Guide (1883), 114-5 no. 3182; Maspero, Guide (1915), 532 no. 5388; Porter, Moss, Topographical, vol. I.2, 605; Tiradritti, L’Egittologo, 17; Tiradritti, Luigi Vassalli, 337-8. 32 MMA 16.10.475, see Lythgoe, Lansing, de Garis Davies, BMMA 12, 24-6; Hayes, The Scepter, vol. II, 25-6, fig. 10; Smith, MDAIK 48, 204; Dreyfus, in Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut, 255-6, fig. 82, no. 189. Another three knucklebones were, perhaps, associated with Nakht’s game, see Hayes, The Scep- 190 Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads the causeway to the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III, in the tomb 279, belonging to the scribe Neferkhewet and his family (Asasif),33 three game-boxes,34 together with ten blue faience draughtsmen, five conical with a rounded top and five in the shape of a reel,35 were found. All the above examples are composed by a “double board-game”: a) the upper face is composed of twelve squares arranged on five rows of four ivory plates each and a strip of further eight squares that starts from the middle row, destined for the game called in antiquity tjau (“robbers?”);36 the lower face is composed by thirty rectangles on three rows of ten,37 destinated for a companion game called senet or “the game of thirty squares”.38 ter, vol. II, 66. Pit 3 belonged to the saff-tomb complex called C62 at Asasif. In the tomb 43, from the same complex, there was a blue faience gaming piece in a small box, see https:// oi.uchicago.edu/research/individual-scholarship/individualscholarship-christine-lilyquist, <accessed 20.06.2020>. 33 In addition to the specimens from the tombs of Nakht and Neferkhewet, a gaming-box from Asasif belonging to the Seventeenth Dynasty is mentioned in two catalogues of the Cairo Museum, but no information is provided about its exact point of discovery, see Maspero, Guide (1883), 299-300, no. 4673; Maspero, Guide (1915), 531, no. 5380. 34 One of these, belonging to Rannofer, bride of Neferkhewet, is preserved in the Cairo Museum cat. no. JE 65372, see Porter, Moss, Topographical, vol. I.2, 621. No dice or knucklebones were placed directly with this set, but it is possible that a set of six wooden rods, found in Neferkhewet’s basket, were to be used in conjunction with the game, see Hayes, BMMA 30, 33-4, fig.18. The other two game-boxes belonging to Ruyu and Amenemhat, respectively the daughter and the son of Neferkhewet, instead, had been completely destroyed by damp rot and termites, see Hayes, The Scepter, vol. II, 199. 35 Cat. nos 35.3.11-20, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, see Hayes, The Scepter, vol. II, 199. These gaming-pieces were associated with the two games of Ruyu and Amenemhat, see Hayes, BMMA 30, 34 and note 32. 36 The first example of this game, also known as “twenty squares-game”, was found in a funerary context, the Royal Cemetery of Ur, in southern Mesopotamia, and dates to mid-third millennium BC, see de Voogt, Dunn-Vaturi, Eerkens, JAS 40, 1718. It was introduced and diffused in Egypt from Asia between the Seventeenth and Twentieth Dynasty (c. 1650-1070 BC),. 37 In the Hornakht example the second game-board is composed of thirty-six rectangles arranged in three rows of twelve, see Mariette, Maspero, Monuments, 17, pl. 51 j.2. 38 The name “senet” derives from the ancient Egyptian “sn.t”, that means “passage”; it refers to the characteristic movement of the draughtsmen, which were able to move across the boxes of the board, see Piccione, Archaeology 33, no. 4, 55-8; Crist, Dunn-Vaturi, de Voogt, Ancient, 41. The symbolism of the decoration39 that characterizes the two games belonging to Hornakht and Nakht40 is connected with the funerary sphere. The former shows, along one side of the board, a recumbent sphinx in the left panel and, in the central one, an ibex (or goat) grazing on a plant of lotus (see Fig. 2);41 the latter displays, instead, an hunting scene with two ibexes/goats, two hounds and a lion chiselled on two ivory rectangles (see Fig. 3). Other examples of game-boxes dated to Eighteenth Dynasty do not have any decoration: Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung of Berlin, cat. no. ÄM 10756, see Pieper, Das Brettspiel, 4, fig. 5a-b; Stuyvesant Institute, cat. no. 573, see Abbott, Cat. Egyptian Antiquities, 41, no. 573; Pauthier, d’Avesnes, RAr 2, no. 2, 740-1; d’Avesnes, Monuments, 9, pl. XLIX 4. Some examples may bear inscriptions: Cairo Museum, CG. 68002, with a wish of happiness and pleasure for Ibay, see Mariette, Maspero, Monuments, 17, pl. 52 [a]; Maspero, Guide (1883), 115, no. 3183; Maspero, Guide (1915), 531, no. 5381; PM. I2, 614; for the text, see de Rougé, Inscriptions, pl. 55 [middle lower]; JE 33822 with an inscription referred to Maiherpri, see Daressy, Fouilles, 31, no. 24069; Reeves, Wilkinson, The Complete Valley, 179-81; JE 62058-61, with inscriptions referred to Tutankhamun and only one painted with a floral decoration, see Carter, Mace, The Tomb, vol. III, 130-3, pl. 42, 1-3; Louvre Museum E 913 and E 2710 inscribed with the names of owners, see Vandier, Guide, 63 and Boreux, Catalogue-Guide, 585; for the text of the latter see Pierret, Recueil, 81-2 [top]. MMA 01.4.1a and 12.182.72a-b with a funerary offering text, see Randall-MacIver, Mace, Griffith, El Amrah,72, 77, 91, 97, pls 49, 51; Hayes, The Scepter, vol. II, 198, 200, fig. 114; Turin Museum S 8451/1 inscribed with funerary formulas, see Ferraris, La tomba di Kha, 141-4; Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden AH 34a displaying a hieroglyphic dedication to Amon, see Crist, JEA 105/1, 111; for the text see Leemans, Description raisonné, 109, no. 273.) 40 The only surviving example of game-box from the Neferkhewet family burial has an ornamentation pertaining exclusively to the game, see Needler, JEA 39, 72-3, fig. 2, no. 5; Hayes, BMMA 30, 33 and n. 48 for the items ÄM 10756 (Ägyptisches Museum); E 913 and E 2710 (Louvre Museum); MMA 01.4.1a and 12.182.72a-b (Metropolitan Museum), JE 62058 (Cairo Museum). Three other examples with visible decoration are preserved in the Fitzwilliam Museum (unpublished); in the British Museum, BM EA 21576, see Needler, JEA 39, 72, 74, nos 13-4 (this is part of the same Jesse Haworth gift of items acquired with the ivory lion head and multiple wood lion heads discussed above); in the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum RC 126, see Crist, JEA 105/1, 107-13. 41 Originally, on the right side of the lotus, a second ibex/goat was present, as well as a second recumbent sphinx in the third ivory panel, see Mariette, Maspero, Monuments, pl. 51 j.3; Tiradritti, L’Egittologo, 17. 39 191 Miriam Colella Fig. 2 – Game-box in the Hornakht’s tomb in Dra Abu el-Naga, CG 68005 (JE 21493) (H. 5 cm, L. 27.5 W. 8.5 cm) © drawing by Miriam Colella Fig. 3 – Game-board from the Asasif necropolis, Pit 3, Room E (burial of Nakht), MMA 16.10.475a (H. 5 cm; L. 25 cm; W. 6.7 cm) © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Every subject, indeed, encapsulates a funerary meaning: the sphinx assumes an apotropaic value,42 the ibex is a symbol of renewal43 and fertility44 when it is associated with the image of the lotus/palmette or the treelife,45 finally, the lion is a metaphor of the victory over the enemy, i.e., death, especially if it inserted in a hunting-scene between wild animals.46 Aruz, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond, 136. The symbolic significance is, maybe, connected to the ability of the animal to survive in inhospitable habitat, such as the desert, or, perhaps, with the regeneration of the animal’s horns, which, in appearance, resembles the hieroglyph sign for “year”, see Dreyfus, in Roehrig (eds), Hatshepsut, 244-5. 44 Ibidem, 248; Arnold, BMMA 54, 4, 13. 45 The conventionalised lotus group with the four sepals and inner petals, developed into a sort of “tree pattern”, and the lower two sepals with a pendant showing a triply branching line like a small lotus flower appears before the Eighteenth Dynasty, but it is particularly diffused during the New Kingdom, see Petrie, Egyptian decorative, 74, fig. 147. 46 The symbology of the lion attacking prey was in use through42 43 This theme seems particularly recurrent in Egypt on funerary items during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties: a) a dagger’s handle embellished with the image of a lion chasing a horned animal47 from the burial of Nehemen, dated to Second Intermediate Period; b) a dog collar, from the KV 36 of Maiherpri in the Valley of the Kings, dated to the reign of Thutmosis IV, showing a savage hunting-scene with lions and leopards attacking gazelles and ibexes (see Fig. 4.a1-2);48 c) a gold sheath, found in the tomb of King Tutankhaout the Eastern Mediterranean for over a period of thousand years and more. The similarity in the style and composition shows that a visual koiné was operative, and that there was a vocabulary of images and symbols common between royal kingdoms around the Eastern Mediterranean, see Morgan, Ä&L 14, 294; Marinatos, Ä&L 20, 350. 47 CG 52768 (JE 32735), see O’Connor in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond, 116-17. 48 CG 24075 (JE 33777), see Daressy, Fouilles, 33-4, no. 24075, pl. 11; Maspero, Guide (1915), 395, no. 3809. 192 Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads mun (KV 62), chiselled with an animal-combat scene;49 and, d) Queen Ahhotep’s dagger blade decorated with a flying-gallop lion in the act of running after a bull (see Fig. 4.b)50 following a minoan style.51 Games in Textual and Iconographic Sources Although the exact rules of both types of game are still unknown, a reconstruction of their general principles has been possible thanks to occasional references in Egyptian texts and scenes, as well as archeological evidences. It seems that these games were for two players, who had a set of five gaming pieces each,52 and of four rods or two knucklebones to use as dice to determinate the position of the gaming pieces on the board.53 A religious significance, linked to senet, is elucidated in the opening formula of the title of Chapter 17 in the Book of the Dead, where it is specified that one of the purposes of the game is to enable the spirit-ba of the player to move freely between the lands of the living and the dead.54 In addition, vignettes illustrating the principal themes of some sections of Chapter 17 begin to appear during the New Kingdom. The deceased is represented seated under a pavilion, before a game board, and playing the senet, as it shown in the opening scene of Nakht’s papyrus, dated to the late Eighteenth Dynasty55 (see Fig. 5). This vignette intends to mark the beginning of the deceased’s journey through the Netherworld, which is revealed in the subsequent scenes and in the text of ChapJE 61584, see Carter, Mace, The Tomb, vol. II, 132-3, 269, pl. 87 A. 50 CG 52658 (JE 4666), see von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 3, pl. 2; Morris, “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. 51 Aruz, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond, 391; Judas, “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Similar animals are presented in the pendants forming a recomposed wesekh collar (JE 4725), CG 52672, CG 52733 (JE 4725), see von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 13-18, pls 8-9; see also Pls VI, VIII. 52 During the Old and the Middle Kingdoms each set consisted, instead, of seven pieces, see Piccione, The Egyptian, 54. 53 Allen in Hornung, Bryan (eds), The quest, 156, no.70. 54 “Formulae for elevation and transfiguration/ for going out and descending in the god’s land/ being transfigured in the beautiful west, for going out by day/ taking any form he desires to take/ playing the board-game senet, sitting in the pavilion/ going out as a living ba-soul, by/ the writer Nebseny, revered/ after he moors/ This is effective for the one who does it on earth”. Version in the Papyrus of Nebseny, copyist in the Ptah temple at Memphis, late Eighteenth Dynasty, about 1375 BC, BM EA 9900, see Quirke, Going out, 55. 55 BM EA 10471, 2, see Tarasenko, in Tarasenko (ed.), Pre-Islamic, 243-4. 49 ter 17, step by step. The game, probably metaphorically to be conducted between the person and their destiny, is to be considered the first stage of the funerary ritual, since, on the basis of the result, positive or negative of the match, the eternal conditions of happiness or forgetfulness for the soul could be established.56 The introductory formula of Chapter 17 is also displayed on some wall paintings in the Theban tombs of the Nineteenth Dynasty,57 associated with a representation of the burial’s owners in the act of playing in front of a game-board, but without a visible opponent in front of them. The players are occassionally followed by the image of the soul-ba, ready to take flight to the Netherworld.58 The first example of this funerary motif is dated to the reign of Thutmosis III, documented in TT 82 in the necropolis of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (Amenemhat, “Scribe, Counter of the Grain of Amon, Steward of the Vizier of Thutmosis III”), where the deceased challenges another man in a game of senet.59 Conclusion The presence of gaming-boxes, -boards and -pieces in burials of the Second Intermediate Period-early EightD’Auria, Lacovara, Roehrig, Mummies & Magic, 142. In the necropolis of Deir el-Medina: TT 1 of Sennedjem, “Servant in the Place of Truth”; TT 6 of Neferhotep and the son Nebnefer, “Foremen in the Place of Truth”; TT 359 of Inherkha. They all show a representation of the burial’s owner and his wife playing the senet and the introductory formula of Chapter 17 of the Book of the Death, see PM I2, I, 3 (5), 15 (10), 422 (6-7). In Deir el-Medina: TT 10 of Penbuy and Kasa, “Servants in the Place of Truth”, TT 265 of Amenemopet, and in the TT 219 Nebenmet, “Sevant in the Place of Truth on the west of Thebes”, there is a representation of the couple, sitting under a pavilion in the act of moving a gaming piece on the gameboard. In the necropolis of Khokha the same image is present in TT 178 of Neferrenpet, called Kenro, “Scribe of the Treasury in the Estate of Amon-Ra” and in TT 296 of Nefersekher, “Scribe of the Divine Offerings of all the Gods, Officer of the Treasury in the Southern City”; and, finally, in the necropolis of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna in TT 263 of Piay, “Scribe of the Granary in the Temple of Amon, Scribe of Accounts in the Ramesseum”, and in TT 30 of Khensmesi, “Scribe of the Treasury of the Estate of Amon”, see PM I2, I, 21 (5), 346 (4), 321 (8), 284 (2), 378 (2), 345 (3), 47 (5). 58 In the necropolis of Deir el Medina the image of ba is in TT 265, TT 219 and TT 359, see PM I2, I, 346 (4), 321 (8), 422 (6-7). 59 De Garis Davies, Gardiner, The tomb of Amenemhet (No. 82), 69-73; PM I2, I, 165 (14-15). A scene with two opponentes is proposed also in TT 158 of Tjanefer, “Third Prophet of Amon”, in the necropolis of Dra Abu el Naga, dated to the reign of Ramses III, see PM I2, I, 269 (3). 56 57 193 Miriam Colella Fig. 4. – a1-2: Detail of the hunting-scene with lions and leopards attacking gazelles and ibexes on a dog collar in the KV36 of Maiherpri in the Valley of the Kings, cat. no. CG 52768 (JE 32735) in the Cairo Museum (H. 6 cm, D. max. 14,5 cm, D. min. 10,5 cm); b: Flying-gallop lion in the act of chasing a bull on Queen Ahhotep’s dagger blade, cat. no. 52658 (JE 4666) in the Cairo Museum (L. 28.5 cm, W. 3.4 cm). Not scale. © drawing by Miriam Colella eenth Dynasty could be read as a transposition of the “formulas” written in the introductory part of Chapter 17 in the Book of the Dead, reproduced on tangible objects,60 that is gaming materials. Their presence – both as complete set and parts of it – in the funerary equipment as well as on the scenes of the tomb walls, can be interpreted as a new (?) medium to reach the netherworld, following the rules given in the funerary text: the gaming-board as metaphor of the physical bridge from the living to the dead. The perception of gaming materials in the burial contexts is different to their early meaning connected to a “recreative use” of the games.61 Indeed in some burials of the Old Kingdom62 games were present in the offering lists as symbol of the social status of the deceased,63 and game competitions were represented on wall paintings as recreational activity during the funeral celebrations dedicated to the goddess Hathor together with sporting events and music contests.64 Only with the Middle Kingdom did the motif of gaming start to imply a different nuance for the value of games in the funerary sphere: Coffin Text Spell 405 rePiccione, The Egyptian, 58. For instance, the representations in the tombs of Hesy-Re at Saqqara (Third Dynasty), Rahotep at Medum (Fourth Dynasty), Kheni and Kahep at el-Hawawish (Sixth Dynasty), see Wood, ARCE 15, pl. 2b; Piccione, The Historical, 39-43. 63 Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures, 159. 64 Some examples are the representations in the tombs of Nikauhor and Neferiretenef both at Saqqara (Fifth Dynasty), see Crist, Dunn-Vaturi, de Voogt, Ancient, 44-49. 61 62 At Thebes, the use to deposited “stick shabtis” in cult areas of some tombs of Second Intermediate Period would have coated a similar function, specified in Coffin Text 472: they would have reproduced the destiny of owner/deceased and the presence of formulas on some exemplars could have indicated the acting of these texts during the funerary rituals, see Miniaci, JEA 100, 262-3. 60 194 Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads Fig. 5 – Nakht sitting in a booth and playing the senet-game, BM EA 10471, 2 in the British Museum © drawing by Miriam Colella lates to a gaming ritual for the deceased playing with a living on the Earth.65 In this text, in particular the senet game, begins to be associated with the deceased’s ability to travel between the physical and spiritual worlds as an invisible spirit, the “ba”; this notion, as above-mentioned, is at the base of the introductory formula of the Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead. The presence of the two gaming pieces in shape of lion’s head in Ahhotep’s mortuary equipment, therefore, could be explained as a tool for the passage in the afterlife. It possible, moreover, to suppose that one piece was intended for the queen and the other for an otherworldly entity: Ahhotep was playing, and winning, the last match with her own eternal destiny. Bibliography Abbott, H., Catalogue of a Collection of Egyptian Antiquities: The Property of Henry Abbott, M.D., Now Exhibiting at the Stuyvesant Institute (New York, 1858). Allen, J., “Senet game”, in E. Hornung, B.M. Bryan (eds), The Quest for Immortality: Treasurers of Ancient Egypt (Copenhagen, 2002), 156. Arnold, D., “An Egyptian Bestiary”, BMMA 52 (1995), 3-64. Aruz, J., “The Art of exchange”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond the Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 387-405. “Let him sing, let him dance, and let him receive ornaments. Let him play senet with those who are on earth. It is his voice which is heard, [although] he is not seen. Let him go to his house, that he might visit his children forever and even”, see Piccione, The Historical, 84. 65 Aruz, J., “Ritual and royal imagery”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond the Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 136-54. d’Avennes, P., Monuments égyptiens (Paris, 1847). Bardiès-Fronty, I., A.E. Dunn-Vaturi, Art du jeu, jeu dans l’art. De Babylone à l’Occident medieval (Paris, 2012). Berman, L.M., K.J. Bohač, Catalogue of Egyptian Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art (Cleveland, 1999). von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des Neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Boureux, C., Guide-catalogue sommaire du Musée du Louvre (Paris, 1932). Budge, E., The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology (Cambridge, 2010). Burra, J.S., Catalogue of the valuable library of early printed books with woodcuts and splendid illuminated & other manuscripts of the late J.S. Burra, Esq. of Bockhanger, Ashford, Kent (New York, 1911). Carter, H., A.C. Mace, The Tomb of Tutankhamen, Discovered by the Late Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter, vol. II (London,Toronto, Melbourne, Sydney, 1927). Carter, H., A.C. Mace, The Tomb of Tutankhamen, Discovered by the Late Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter, vol. III (London, Toronto, Melbourne, Sydney, 1933). Crist, W.A., “Passing from the Middle to the New Kingdom: A Senet Board in the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum”, JEA 105/1 (2019), 107-13. Crist, W.A., A.E. Dunn-Vaturi, A. de Voogt, Ancient Egyptians at Play: Board Games Across Borders (London, New York, 2016). D’Auria, S., P. Lacovara, C.H. Roehrig, Mummies & Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt (Boston, 1988). Daressy, G., Fouilles de la Vallée des Rois (1898-1899). Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire N° 24001-24990 (Cairo, 1902). Davies N., de Garis, A.H. Gardiner, The tomb of Amenemhet (No. 82) (London, 1915). Desjardins, E., “Découvertes de M. Mariette en Ègypte”, RGA 18 (1860), 97-124. Dreyfus, R., “Furniture and carpentry”, in C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut from the Queen to Pharaoh (New York, 2006), 254-60. Edwards, A.B., “The Provincial and Private Collections of Egyptian Antiquities in Great Britain”, RT 10 (1888), 121-33. Falkener, E., Games ancient and oriental and how to play them (London, 1892). Ferraris, E., La tomba di Kha e Merit (Modena, 2018). Grajetzki, W., Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom. The Archaeology of Female Burials (Philadelphia, 2014). Hayes, W.C., “The Tomb of Neferkhewet and his family”, BMMA 30 (1935), 17-36. Hayes, W.C., Sceptre of Egypt. Vol. II: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Muse- 195 Miriam Colella um of Art: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom 16751080 B.C. (Cambridge, 1959). Hilton-Price, F.G., Catalogue of the important and extensive collection of Egyptian antiquities, the property of the late F.G. Hilton-Price (London, 1911). Judas, A.B., “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Lacovara, P., Y. Markowitz, S. D’Auria, Nubian Gold: Ancient Jewellery from Sudan and Egypt (Cairo, New York, 2019). Leemans, C., Description raisonnée des monumens égyptiens du Musée d’Antiquités des Pays-Bas à Leide (Leiden, 1840). Lilyquist, C., N. Ayers, M. Marée, D. Ben-Tor, D. Schorsch, F. Hagen, r. Sparks, M. Römer, S. Ikram, Excavation at Thebes: The Earl of Carnarvon and The Metropolitan Museum of Art at Carnarvon 62 and Surrounds (2020), online resource at oi.uchicago.edu/research/individual-scholarship/individualscholarship-christine-lilyquist. Lythgoe, A., M.A. Lansing, N. de Garis Davies, “The Egyptian Expedition 1915-16”, BMMA 12 (1917), 1-31. Mariette, A., Notice des principaux monuments exposés dans les galeries provisoires du Musée d’antiquités égyptiennes de S. A. le Vice-Roi à Boulaq (Alexandria, 1864, 1868, 1869, 1872, 1874, 1876). Mariette, A., G. Maspero, Monuments divers recueillis en Egypte et en Nubie (Paris, 1872). Marinatos, N., “Lions from Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 20 (2010), 325-55. Markowitz, Y., P. Lacovara, “An Amethyst Gaming Piece Transformed”, ClevStHistArt 1 (1996), 6-11. Maspero, G., Guide du visiteur au musée du Boulaq (Cairo, 1883). Maspero, Notice Des Principaux Monuments Exposés Au Musée de Gizeh (Cairo, 1892, 1895). Maspero, Guide du visiteur au musée du Caire (Cairo, 1902, 1903, 1906, 1915). Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Miniaci, G., “The case of the Third Intermediate Period ‘Shabti-maker (?) of Amun Domain’ Diamun/Padiamun and the change in conception of shabti statuettes”, JEA 100 (2014), 245-73. Miniaci, G., “The material entanglement in the ‘Egyptian Cemetery’ in Kerma (Sudan, 1750-1500 BC): appropriation, in corporation, tinkering, and hybridisation”, EVO 42 (2019), 13-32. Miniaci, G., “The original Inventory List of the Queen Ahhotep ‘Treasure’ from Mariette’s Papers (BIF Paris, Fonds Maspero, Ms. 4052), in this volume. Miniaci, G., “Notes on the Journal d’Entrée Entries for Queen Ahhotep’s Assemblage”, in this volume. Morgan, L., “Feline hunters in Tell e-Dab‘a paintings: iconography and dating”, Ä&L 14 (2004), 285-98. Morris, E., “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. Musée d’archéologie méditerranéenne, Jouer dans l’antiquité: Centre de la Vieille Charité, 22 novembre 1991-16 février 1992 (Paris, 1992). Needler, W., “A Thirty-Square Draught-Board in the Royal Ontario Museum”, JEA 39 (1953), 60-75. O’Connor, D., “Egypt, Levant, and the Aegean from the Hyksos period to the rise of the New Kingdom”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond the Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), 108-18. Osborn, H., J. Osbornovà, The Mammals of ancient Egypt (Liverpool, 1998). Pauthier, G., P. d’Avesnes, “Collections d’Antiquités Égyptiennes au Kaire”, RAr 2/2 (1846), 729-52. Petrie, W.M.F., Egyptian decorative art (London, 1920). Petrie, W.M.F.,, A History of Egypt (London, 1924). Petrie, W.M.F.,, Objects of Daily Use (London, 1927). Pieper, M., Das Brettspiel der alten Ägypter und seine Bedeutung für den ägyptischen Totenkult (Berlin, 1909). Pierret, P., Recueil d’inscriptions inédites du Musée égyptien du Louvre, deuxième partie avec tables et glossaires, (Paris, 1878). Piccione, P.A., “In Search of the Meaning of Senet”, Archaeology 33/4 (1980), 55-8. Piccione, P.A., The Hystorical Development of the Game of Senet and Its Significance for Egyptian Religion (Chicago, 1990). Piccione, P.A., “The Egyptian Game of Senet and the Migration of the Soul”, in I.L. Finkel (ed.), Ancient Board Games in Perspective: Papers from the 1990 British Museum Colloquium, with Additional Contributions (London, 2007), 54-63. Quirke, S., Going Out in Daylight: Prt M Hrw-the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead: Translations, Sources, Meanings (London, 2013). Randall-MacIver, D., A.C. Mace, F.L. Griffith, El Amrah and Abydos, 1899-1901 (London, 1902). Reeves, N., R.H. Wilkinson, The Complete Valley of the Kings, Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaohs (London, 1996). Roehrig, C.H., “The two tombs of Hatshepsut”, in C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut from the Queen to Pharaoh (New York, 2006), 184-9. de Rougé, E., Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques copiées en Égypte pendant la mission scientifique de M. le Vicomte Emmanuel de Rougé, vol. I (Paris, 1877). Smith, S.T., “Intact Tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom Burial System”, MDAIK 48 (1992), 193-231. Tarasenko, M., “The Illustrations of the Book of the Dead Chapter 17 during the 18th Dynasty”, in M. Tarasenko (ed.), Pre-Islamic Near East: History, Religion, Culture (Kiev, 2014), 241-56. Tiradritti, F., L’Egittologo Luigi Vassalli-Bey (1812-1887). Guida Alla Mostra (Milano,1994). 196 Queen Ahhotep’s Lion Heads Tiradritti, F., “Luigi Vassalli and the archaeological season at western Thebes (1862-1863)”, in M. Maree (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven, Paris, Walpole: OLA 192, 2010), 329-42. Towry-White, E., “Types of Ancient Egyptian DraughtsMen”, PSBA 24 (1902), 261-4. Turner, E.H., “The Year in Review for 1987”, BCM 75 (1988), 30-71. Vandier, J., Les antiquités égyptiennes au Musée du Louvre. Guide sommaire (Paris, 1948). Vassalli, L., I monumenti istorici Egizi: il museo e gli scavi d’antichità eseguiti per ordine di S.A. il vicerè Ismail Pascia (Milano, 1867). Vernier, É., Bijoux et orfèvreries. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire – Nos. 5200153855, vols I-II (Cairo, 1927). de Voogt A., A.E. Dunn-Vaturi, J.W. Eerkens, “Cultural transmission in the ancient Near East: twenty squares and fifty-eight holes”, JAS 40 (2013), 1715-30. Warren, R.D., “Letters from Maspero to Amelia Edwards”, JEA 33 (1947), 66-89. Wiese, A., Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig: Ägyptische Abteilung (Darmstadt, 2001). Wiese, A., S. Winterhalter, Ägyptische Kunst im Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig: Neue Leihgaben, Schenkungen und Erwerbungen (Basel, 1998). Wood, W., “A Reconstruction of the Reliefs of Hesy-re”, JARCE 15 (1978), 9-24. 197 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 199-202 The Flies of Ahhotep Peter Lacovara Abstract Perhaps the most remarkable item in the Ahhotep treasure is a necklace composed of three large gold flies strung on a heavy gold chain. Their design and symbolism have caused much comment over the years. They can be related to a pair of much smaller gold and silver flies also from the treasure and paralleled exactly by examples found in the Nubian kingdom of Kerma. The large flies as well can be compared to similar examples from Kerma. The oft debated use of flies as a military decoration is strengthened by their use in Nubian culture and that association with Thebes in the Second Intermediate Period and Ahhotep, in particular. Such symbolism need not be seen as conflicting with earlier and later meanings ascribed to flies used in jewelry and amulets. Among the most familiar and impressive pieces of jewelry from the Ahhotep treasure is a necklace composed of three large gold flies strung on a heavy gold chain (see Pls V, VII: JE 4694),1 but perhaps even more telling are a pair of much smaller gold and silver flies also found in the treasure.2 The gold chain of the necklace itself is of loop in loop construction, 59 cm long and closed with a hook and eye fastener.3 The flies themselves are made of flat base plate cut from sheet gold to which is soldered a three dimensional triangular body that had been hammered into shape in a mold.4 Into the raised body of the fly, longitudinal cuts were made in ajouré technique.5 This may have been so that, as Cyril Aldred artfully describes, “As the wearer moves the flash of light JE 4694. Saleh, Sourouzian, The Egyptian Museum, no. 120 (JE 4694). 2   JE 4725.3. Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 10, pl. VI 3a-3b. 3   Aldred, Jewels, 201, n. 53. 4   Aldred, Jewels, 201, n. 53. 5   Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, 98. 1   over this lattice of metal gives something of the iridescence of the natural insect”.6 The flies are each 9 cm. long with bulging eyes and having a ring soldered on between them in order to string them on the chain, the whole ornament weighing a total of 249 grams. The bold, “Brâncușiesque” style of the flies has attracted much attention over the years even from the likes of Gamal Abdel Nasser and Nikita Khrushchev.7 This is in particular due to their assumed role as military decorations awarded to the queen for her efforts in the expulsion of the Hyksos.8 That these flies were associated with military action had support from the biography of the soldier Ah-mose-pen-Nekheb, who fought under the early rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty and boasted that he got six flies from Thutmose I, and from the tomb of Amenemheb Mehu who lists flies among the awards given him.9 Aldred, Jewels, 201, n. 53. Bishop, in Volait, Perrin (eds), Dialogues artistiques avec les passés de l’Égypte. 8   Singer, CCdE 12. 9   Binder, The Gold of Honour, 32-3. 6   7   Peter Lacovara Fig. 1 – Details of fly necklaces from the tombs of Suemnut (TT 92) and Djedi (TT 200) © drawing by Andrew Boyce after Binder, The Gold of Honour, fig. 4.14 Recently, Taneash Sidpura has disputed the traditional interpretation of Ahhotep’s flies as an award of valor.10 He suggested that gold flies can be seen as tokens of the favor of the pharaoh along with other items of gold awarded by the king.11 He notes that many of these items including flies are also found in the burials of women and children. who would be unlikely to have medals for valor in battle. In addition, he observed that fly amulets and ornaments of a variety of materials appear as early as the Predynastic period and run throughout Egyptian history as has been detailed by Carol Andrews. She notes that the creature can be seen to have a number of aspects that would inspire apotropaic functions for such charms, including fecundity, resurrection,12 or merely to avoid their annoying presence.13 In the Near East they were seen as vectors of disease, but also as agents of warfare.14 There are a few images of Egyptian men wearing flies (see Fig. 1), Suemnut, “Cup Berarer to the King” under Amenhotep II (TT 92) and Djedi (TT 200)”Governor of the Deserts to the West of Thebes, Head of the Troops of Pharaoh” under Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, as well as a statue of an unknown man from Edfu.15 In contrast to Egyptians, there are numerous images of Nubians wearing flies, both as visitors to the Egyptian court or as captives (see Fig. 2). In addition, there are a number of large flies that have been found with the burials of males of the Kerma culture, both at Ker- Patterson, “Flies”. Sidpura, “Golden Flies”. 12   Andrews, in Davies, (ed.), Studies in Egyptian antiquities, 81; Schulz, in Flossmann-Schütze et. al. (eds), Kleine Götter. 13   Andrews, Amulets, 62-3. 14   Neufeled, Orientalia 49/1. 15   Binder, The Gold of Honour, 49-50. 10   11   ma itself16 and at Buhen17 (Pl. XXII). In addition to sizeable, abstracted images flies that were crafted in ivory and gold, these graves also often contained weapons.18 Suggesting that in Nubia, at least, they did indeed function as some sort of military insignia. One particular fly from Kerma made of sheet copper represents the closest parallel to the Ahhotep flies we have. It is from K 309, a plundered subsidiary burial in K III, the last of the great tumuli in the cemetery.19 It was found in the floor debris of the chamber, the body of the tomb owner on the bed had been disarticulated and strewn throughout the grave which contained, among other things, three daggers. The fly, now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, was associated with beads of blue glazed quartz and may have been strung with them. It is made of sheet bronze with a narrow cut running about ¾ of the way to the top and 15 cm long by 9.7 cm wide with a tang at the top folded over to form a suspension loop (see Fig. 4).20 The very abstracted form follows the outline of the Ahhotep flies and one might imagine there could have been similar ones in gold that did not survive the extensive plundering that took place at Kerma after the Egyptian conquest. Certainly the existence of a smaller pair of fly amulets in silver and gold 21 (see Fig. 3) Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 131-2. Woolley, Maciver, Buhen, 51. Now in the University of Pennsylvania Museum E 10347A & B. 18   Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 131-2. 19   Reisner, Kerma, vols I-III, 135-50. On the redating of the monument, see Lacovara, BzS 2. 20   MFA 20.1806. I am very grateful to Lawrence Berman, Norma Jean Calderwood Senior Curator of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art at Museum of Fine Arts, Boston for kindly providing this information. 21   JE 4725.3. Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 10, pl. VI, 3a-b. 16   17   200 The Flies of Ahhotep Bibliography Fig. 2 – Nubian bound prisoner wearing a fly pendant from Temple of Amenhotep III at Soleb © photograph by Peter Lacovara from the Ahhotep treasure with exact parallels to ones from Kerma (Pl. XXII)22 confirm a direct association with the Nubian Kingdom. While it has been argued that the flies of Ahhotep did not necessarily commemorate her role in the wars against the Hyksos, the association of similar flies with Nubian warriors and some Egyptian military officials as well as the model flies in the votive deposit at Deir el-Ballas23 all suggest that such a meaning could have been adopted from the Nubians by the ruling elite of the early New Kingdom. In all probability the smaller, later fly jewelry elements could have had other meanings even in royal contexts.24 The ancient Egyptians were well-used to investing things with multiple layers of meaning and flies could have also had such multifaceted symbolism. Andrews, C., Amulets of ancient Egypt (Austin, 1994). Andrews, C., “The boar, the ram-headed crocodile and the lunar fly”, in W.V. Davies (ed.), Studies in Egyptian antiquities: A tribute to T. G. H. James (London, 1999), 79-81. Bishop, E., “Golden Flies: Egypt’s Pharaonic Past in Multiple Mirrors”, in M. Volait, E. Perrin (eds), Dialogues artistiques avec les passés de l’Égypte : une perspective transnationale et transmédiale [online] (Paris: Publications de l’Institut national d’histoire de l’art, InVisu (CNRS-INHA), 2017), http://books.openedition.org/inha/7198, <accessed on 4.12.2021>. Binder, S., The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt (Oxford: Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies 8, 2008). von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Lacovara, P., “The Internal Chronology of Kerma” BzS 2 (1987), 51-74. Lilyquist. C., The Tomb of Three Foreign Wives of Tuthmosis III (New Haven, 2003). Neufeld, E., “Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East (Ex. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12; Isa. 7:18-20)”, Orientalia 49/1 (1980), 30-57. Patterson, M., “Flies, Lions and Oyster Shells: Military Awards or Tea for Two”, Taneash Sidpura (EEG Meeting Talk), https://writeups.talesfromthetwolands.org/2018/08/12/flieslions-and-oyster-shells-military-awards-or-tea-for-two-taneash-sidpura-eeg-meeting-talk, <accessed on 4.12.2021>. Reisner, G.A., Excavations at Kerma, vols I-III (Cambridge, MA: HAS 5, 1923). Reisner, G.A., Excavations at Kerma, vols IV-V (Cambridge, MA: HAS 6, 1923). Schulz, R., “Die Fliege: Gedanken zu einem mehrdeutigen Bildikon im alten Ägypten”, in M. Flossmann-Schütze et. al. (eds), Kleine Götter - große Götter: Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag (Vaterstetten, 2013), 427-48. Sidpura, T., Golden Flies. Part 1: Introduction and Archaeological Evidence. Part 2: Iconographic Evidence and Textual Evidence (The University of Manchester, Yellow Symposium), https://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/egyptology/study/ free-courses/yellow-symposium/, <accessed on 4.12.2021>. Singer, G. “Ahhotep I and the ‘Golden Fly’”, CCdE 12 (2009), 75-88. Woolley, C., D. Randall-Maciver, The Eckley B. Coxe Junior Expedition to Nubia. Vol. VIII: Buhen (plates) (Philadelphia, 1911). Reisner, Kerma, vols I-III, 149, pl. 44, no. 18. See Lacovara, “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume. 24   Lilyquist, The tomb of the Three Wives, 299. 22 23   201 Peter Lacovara Fig. 3 – Small gold and silver flies from Kerma © drawing by Andrew Boyce after Reisner, Excavations at Kerma, vols IV-V, 149, pl. 44, no. 18 Fig. 4 – Large Bronze fly from Kerma Tomb K 309 (MFA 20.1806) © drawing by Andrew Boyce 202 The closest Archaeological Parallel: The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 205-233 The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Abstract This is the first comprehensive reassessment of an important intact Seventeenth Dynasty Theban burial group excavated by Flinders Petrie in 1908. The burial of a woman and child included a gilded rishi coffin, gold jewellery, imported Kerma beakers, rare examples of well-preserved net bags, furniture, and other items. Accounts of the burial’s excavation and display history at National Museums Scotland are provided, while previous studies are summarized alongside new research. Scientific analyses have included radiocarbon dating, Raman spectroscopy of pigments, wood analysis, FTIR analysis of residues, chemical analyses of embalming agents, skeletal analysis, strontium isotope analysis, as well as analyses of the gold jewellery using optical microscopy, X-radiography, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence, and ion beam analysis. The assemblage offers insights into the Second Intermediate Period, evidencing Theban access to skilled craftspeople, resources, and trade connections, as well as reuse and recycling. Past interpretations of the burial are reassessed, in particular attempts to define the woman’s ethnic identity. The presence of Kerman pottery has been used to identify the woman as Nubian, revealing a reluctance to consider the desirability of Nubian material in Egypt. Other items may indicate a more complex entanglement of Kerman-Egyptian culture. As objects from the Ahhotep burial also exhibit Kerman influence, re-examination of these objects may suggest greater shared cultural heritage across the Nile Valley. Introduction During 1908 excavations in the Theban hills surrounding the road to the Valley of the Kings, W. M. Flinders Petrie and the Egyptian excavation team working with him discovered the intact burial group of a woman and child, likely of royal status, and probably dating to the Seventeenth Dynasty.1 The burial included a gilded rishi coffin, an array of gold jewellery, imported Kerma beakers, rare examples of well-preserved net bags, furniture, and various other items. The importance of the burial group of the “Qurna Queen”, as she subsequently became known, was not lost on Petrie, who wrote that it was “the richest and most detailed undisturbed burial PM II/2, 606; Petrie, Qurneh, 6-10, pls 22-9. National Museums Scotland publications include Royal Scottish Museum, Guide (1913); Royal Scottish Museum, Guide (1920), 7, 23, pl. 3; Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 21-7; Sheridan, Heaven and Hell, 56, 60, 62; Souden, Mazda, Holden (eds), Scotland, 204-5. Further publications are referenced throughout this paper. 1 that has been completely recorded and published”.2 He recognised that the burial’s significance lay in its nature as an intact assemblage, as “there was no very valuable article in it, but the whole was an unusual and valuable group”.3 The rishi coffin and gold jewellery of the “Qurna Queen” naturally draw comparisons with those of her near contemporary Queen Ahhotep I. Since its discovery over a hundred years ago, the burial group has been studied by various scholars and specialists who have each brought their own expertise and perspectives to interpreting the burial equipment and what these objects tell us about the “Qurna Queen” and the world in which she lived. Despite the damage to the woman’s name and titles on the coffin, scholarly consensus is that she was likely a member of the Theban royal family. The burial has featured in numerous discussions as key evidence for understanding the Second Petrie, Qurneh, 10. Letter from Petrie to an unnamed correspondent 18/01/1909 now at UCL, quoted by Manley, in Exell (ed.), African Context, 93. 2 3 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Intermediate Period and its transition to the Eighteenth Dynasty. It offers a wealth of information about Theban royal family’s relationship with their neighbours, especially Kerma, in terms of trade, access to resources, and cultural influences, as well as developments in material culture and funerary practices.4 The discovery of another possible royal dynasty and political centre based at Abydos has further demonstrated the level of division within Egypt at the time.5 “Taken as a whole, this exceptional group of objects belies the conventional wisdom about Thebes in the Second Intermediate Period”, demonstrating that Thebes was not so completely isolated or at conflict with its neighbours, nor was it cut off from the resources and skills needed to make or acquire luxury goods.6 The diverse array of objects found in the secure context of the burial have also provided useful criteria for dating and interpreting comparable objects. The woman’s ethnic identity has been a particular focus of discussion, centred around whether she was Egyptian or Nubian in origin. For example, Ryholt describes the presence of Kerma ware in the burial as “a tantalizing testimony to the relations with Nubia”, possibly evidence of a diplomatic marriage, a suggestion followed by others.7 This paper considers past interpretations, new evidence, and suggests shifting focus away from rigid ethnic identifications. Alongside new and previously unpublished research, this paper provides an overview of the work that has been conducted since the burial’s excavation and offers the first synthesis of these studies. The Excavation of the Burial Petrie in “Qurna” Flinders Petrie arrived in Egypt at the end of November 1908 to begin excavations on the west bank of Luxor in an area he called “Qurneh” (hereafter “Qurna”), after the nearby village surrounding the Mortuary Temple of King Seti I.8 The work in “Qurna” was carried E.g. Ryholt, Political Situation, 180-1; Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 132; Bourriau, in Shaw (ed.), Oxford History, 192-3, 209-10; Smith, MDAIK 48, 231, fig. 9 and passim 193-223. 5 Wegner, NEA 78/2; Wegner, Cahail, JARCE 51. 6 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 16. 7 Ryholt, Political Situation, 180-1; e.g. Lacovara, Markowitz, Nubian Gold, 95. 8 Sometimes rendered as Gurneh, Gurnah, Gournah, Kurrnah, Kurneh, Kurna and other variations. Mariette also used this broad designation for finds made in Dra Abu el-Naga, see: Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume; this area to the north of the road to the Valley of the Kings is now known as el-Khor, see: Miniaci, in Betrò, Del Vesco, 4 out between 9 December 1908 and 8 February 1909, when the Egyptian excavators were then sent to work in the Memphite region.9 Petrie’s season began poorly; they found little to begin with and Petrie injured his leg, confining him to his bed over Christmas. The excavation team worked their way along the road which leads to the Valley of the Kings; the area remains largely unexcavated today. Petrie did not attempt a full clearance of the area, but rather focused on some of the smaller valleys in the hope that remote tombs might be uncovered. On 30 December 1908, Petrie’s pocket diary records that he was “clearing (an) untouched XVII burial in valley”.10 On the north side of the valley where the wadi “breaks out of the hills”,11 they removed several large boulders from under a rocky projection, revealing the undisturbed burial in a shallow trench. It was cleared in “around five hours” (see Fig. 1), then select objects were photographed the next day. The precise location of the burial is not known, as it was only identified as site “B” in Petrie’s expansive but vague topographic map.12 The layout of the burial The rishi coffin (A.1909.527.1 + A) was oriented with the head to the west, and a child’s box coffin (A.1909.527.10 + A) was placed on top of the lower part of it, in the same orientation (see Fig. 2). This arrangement undoubtedly caused the abrasion and loss of the central inscription on the rishi coffin. Along the north side of the coffin was a wooden carrying pole with ceramic vessels suspended from it by means of net bags, including six Kerma beakers.13 The other vessels were made of Nile clay in the form of either squat pots with white or red slip, or redslipped jars with ovoid bodies and conical necks, some Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons, 45-6. 9 Petrie, Qurneh, 1. 10 Petrie’s Pocket Diary 1908-1909, 118, in the archives of the Petrie Museum. 11 Winlock, JEA 10, 218. 12 Petrie, Qurneh, 6, pl. 4, site “B” sits just above the 0 of the scales. cf. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, Table 07. 13 The pole is A.1909.527.21 and the vessels in order from east to west (coffin foot to head): A.1909.527.41; A.1909.527.41 C; A.1909.527.41 A; A.1909.527.41 B; A.1909.527.8; A.1909.527.8 A (all six Kerma beakers listed as Petrie no. 24); A.1909.527.21 A (Petrie no. 23); A.1909.527.21 G (Petrie no. 22); A.1909.527.21 B or C (Petrie no. 20); A.1909.527.21 J (Petrie no. 19?); A.1909.527.21 D (Petrie no. 18?); A.1909.527.21 B or C (Petrie no. 16); A.1909.527.21 K (Petrie no. 15?); A.1909.527.21 E + F (Petrie no. 14); A.1909.527.21 I (Petrie no. 12?); A.1909.527.21 H (Petrie no. 11). Some uncertainty remains around the squat pot identifications, especially since some of the drawings are not precisely to scale. This list does not include other vessels that were found underneath/around the carrying pole. 206 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Fig. 1 – Photograph of the burial of the “Qurna Queen” in situ, from Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 23 of which were burnished. Along the length of the pole, starting from the foot of the coffin, were three net bags, each holding two stacked Kerma beakers, followed by two jars in net bags, then a gap reflecting the shoulders of the carrier, followed by two squat pots and two jars, all in net bags. Four squat pots in net bags were gathered near the end of the carrying pole, the last of which appears to have fallen off the end of the pole. A red ceramic bowl and a small rough dish/bowl were also recorded underneath.14 From the haphazard disposition of the vessels, which overlay other objects and part of the coffin, it is evident they were placed in the burial last. The net bags were of great interest to Petrie, who implied in his report that the careful cleaning and conservation of these was the reason that the clearance of the burial took longer than usual. Despite this, Petrie’s account contains several errors and omissions. For example, vessel no. 16 is not shown in his plan; it is also possible that vessels no. 16 and 20 were confused, as the photograph labelled no. 20 shows it with linen wrapped around the mouth, while the drawings of the vessels show no. 16 with a linen-wrapped mouth, not no. 20.15 One of the jars was not illustrated or located on the plan at all (possibly A.1909.527.39). Vessel no. 23 was the only one illustrated with its net bag, while the others were not illustrated in the report. Red bowl, A.1909.527.24, Petrie no. 17; rough dish/bowl, A.1909.527.42 A, Petrie no. 13. 15 A.1909.527.21 C is definitely the same vessel in the photograph on plate 27 labelled no. 20, A.1909.527.21 B is likely no. 16, but there may have been confusion between the two: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22, 27. 14 Another group of ceramics was placed on the opposite side of the burial, under the rock overhang. This small group consisted of a jar and two squat pots which were covered with linen and tied together.16 The largest vessel in the burial was a globular marl jar covered in white slip, which was placed near the right shoulder of the coffin.17 An additional tall jar was placed at the foot of the small coffin, with a “drab pot under it”. This “drab pot” is not illustrated or mentioned in Petrie’s account, but is recorded in his notebook and may be identified as a small bowl.18 Underneath the carrying pole was a bovine-legged stool (A.1909.527.22) with a remarkably well-preserved strung seat and its legs broken off so that it could fit between the body of the coffin and the wall of the trench. Between the seat of this stool and the coffin was a blackrimmed carinated bowl on its side containing food offerings of bread, doum palm fruit, dates, grapes, and possibly peaches.19 Two smaller stool frames were placed at the foot of the coffin.20 The larger of these two was twisted, possibly so as to fit into the burial. Beside these was a wooden box placed upside-down in the burial, resting on 16 A.1909.527.28, Petrie no. 4 and A.1909.527.38 + A, Petrie no. 5. 17 A.1909.527.40, Petrie no. 3: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22, 23. 18 Tall jar, A.1909.527.39 A, Petrie no. 26; bowl described as “drab pot”, A.1909.527.42. 19 Bowl, A.1909.527.23, Petrie no. 21; bread, A.1909.527.26, A.1909.527.26 A, A.1909.527.26 B, A.1909.527.26 C; doum palm fruit A.1909.527.27, A.1909.527.27 A, A.1909.527.27 B, A.1909.527.27 C; other assorted fruit, A.1909.527.25 20 A.1909.527.29 + A. 207 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Fig. 2 – Plan of the burial group after Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 22 showing National Museums Scotland accession numbers. Those in italics are probable identifications. Daniel M Potter © National Museums Scotland 208 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Fig. 3 – Photograph of the open coffin of the “Qurna Queen”, from Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 23 its sliding lid.21 To the west of the box was a large basket of coiled palm leaf. The basket had been squashed into the burial with its lid on upside-down. Inside this basket were a copper alloy cutting tool, a ball of thread, two flints, a triangular whetstone, an anhydrite bowl, and a bovine horn container.22 Several objects were placed within the rishi coffin itself (see Fig. 3). Above the head of the woman was a headrest inlaid with ebony and ivory and a calcite cosmetic jar.23 Beneath the head were two faience bead bags, one with a tassel and one without, as well as a faience bead fly whisk.24 Petrie also records the presence of a seventh Kerma beaker, found “beneath the neck”, although only six Kerma beakers were sent to Edinburgh. 25 Alongside the right shoulder was a second, smaller basket of coiled grass decoratively woven with diagonal black stripes, its conical lid tied on, inside of which was a calcite kohl pot with a wooden applicator stuck 21 A.1909.527.30 + A: Petrie, Qurneh, 7, pl. 22; Gale et al., in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 366, fig.15.45. 22 Petrie, Qurneh, 7, pls 22, 26. Basket, A.1909.52.31 + A; knife, A.1909.527.34; ball of thread, A.1909.527.36; flints, A.1909.527.37 B; A.1909.527.37 C; whetstone, A.1909.527.35; bowl, A.1909.527.33; oil horn, A.1909.527.32. 23 Headrest, A.1909.527.3; calcite jar, A.1909.527.2 + A, Petrie no. 1: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22-3, 25. 24 Faience bags, A.1909.527.4; A.1909.527.4 A; faience fly whisk, A.1909.527.9. Another beaded fly whisk excavated at Deir el-Bahri is very different in style, taking the form of strings of alternating blue and black conical beads: Naville, Hall, XIth Dynasty Temple, vol. III, 25, pl. 25.1. 25 Petrie, Qurneh, 8. through the knot of the linen seal. Finally, by the feet, was a small obsidian kohl pot with linen still attached round its neck.26 Following the clearance of the burial equipment, Petrie turned his attention to the remains of the adult and child (see Fig. 3). He conducted both unwrappings assisted by members of his excavation team, who measured and recorded the fifteen pieces of linen used for the adult and two pieces for the child.27 A bag of bran was found within the two outer shrouds covering the adult, while the body itself was described by Petrie as “swathed round spirally with nine turns of cloth from end to end” and covered with loose blue beads.28 Both were wearing sets of jewellery, the adult’s in gold and electrum, the child’s in gold, faience, and ivory (discussed below). The mummification process had been unsuccessful, and the remains were skeletal. Petrie examined and described these, determining that the adult was a woman “in the prime of life” and the child was not a new-born. Small basket, A.1909.527.5 + A: Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 26; calcite pot, A.1909.527.6 + A, Petrie no. 2: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22, 27.1; obsidian pot, A.1909.527.7 + A, Petrie no. 25: Petrie, Qurneh, 8, pl. 25. 27 A.1909.527.14 + A-N: Petrie, Qurneh, 8-9. In addition to these fifteen pieces, some of the material used to pack the abdomen of the woman also survives (A.1909.527.14 O). The child’s wrappings are A.1909.527.44 + A. 28 Petrie, Qurneh, 7-8. A package of brown powder (A.1909.527.14 Q) may be identifiable as this bran, though it may just be debris from within the coffin. 26 209 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Petrie described the burial as “only in the open ground”.29 However, it is possible that it was originally protected by a superstructure that had been lost. Historic accounts from the 1800s describe the presence of small, steep pyramids and chapels, many in increasingly ruined condition. Several small brick pyramids had even been actively destroyed in 1822-3.30 There were numerous other burials in nearby Dra Abu el-Naga contemporary with that of the “Qurna Queen” which were described as “hidden under loose heaps of stones and sand”31 or “simply buried in the rubbish”.32 This non-normative style, in which individuals were placed in shallow trenches without recognisable superstructures, can also be seen in the burials of Kamose and possibly Ahhotep.33 Kamose’s non-normative burial—a shallow trench in rubble—appears to be the result of a re-burial,34 as the inspections recorded in P. Abbott (P. BM EA 10221) of the royal “pyramid-tombs” (mr) conducted in year 16 of Ramesses IX state that Kamose’s tomb was intact upon inspection.35 The destruction of Kamose’s pyramid-tomb and/or his re-burial must have occurred after this date. During the same inspections, it was noted that the pyramid of King Wahankh Intef had been destroyed,36 so this may also have been the fate of a possible Qurna burial superstructure. Whether the burial as found was the original or a re-burial is somewhat uncertain as Petrie provided no plan of the Qurna burial in relation the valley floor or rock face, and made no mention of building materials such as mudbrick, nor is there any visible in his photographs of the burial, which he described as being in “open ground”.37 While a re-burial, similar to that of Kamose or possibly Ahhotep,38 would Petrie, Qurneh, 10. Passalacqua, Catalogue raisonné, 191. 31 Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, 51. 32 Winlock, JEA 10, 237. 33 The circumstances of Ahhotep’s burial were not recorded during excavation and became subject to second-hand stories or changeable narratives on Mariette’s part. For discussion on Ahhotep’s burial and its possible structures, see: Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume, p. 50-1. 34 Winlock, JEA 10, 259, 262. Winlock suggests a reburial due to his own experience of excavating an uninscribed mudbrick pyramid chapel, and Howard Carter’s find of Carnarvon Tablet I (Cairo JE 41790) in Dra Abu el-Naga. See Carnarvon, Carter, Five Years’ Exploration; Gardiner, JEA 3, 95-110. 35 Peet, Great Tomb Robberies, vol. I, 38 and vol. II, pl. 2. 36 Peet, Great Tomb Robberies, vol. I, 38 and vol. II, pl. 1. The verb used is dr meaning remove, evict, or destroy; see Wb 5, 474.13. 37 Petrie, Qurneh, 10. 38 Cf. Miniaci, “The Discovery of Queen Ahhotep’s Burial at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) in the Nineteenth Century AD: 29 30 account for some of the slightly haphazard deposition features of the Qurna burial, the contents of the Qurna burial are dissimilar to those of Kamose and Ahhotep, in particular the large quantity of ceramics, foodstuffs, and furniture. It could be the presence of these objects which meant that Petrie did not describe the Qurna burial as a re-burial, an interpretation he had put forward when discussing the burials of Kamose and Ahhotep in 1896.39 In light of the recent rediscovery of the pyramid complex of Nubkheperre Intef (K01.8) by the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, and when compared with other contemporaneous burials in the area, it is not impossible that the burial of the “Qurna Queen” may have originally included a superstructure of some variety, likely made of mudbrick, however, the proximity of the burial to the rock face makes this seem less likely. A re-location of the find-spot of the Qurna burial would help clarify these issues. The Acquisition and Display of the Burial Group In 1906, the Royal Scottish Museum announced that it would pursue “an entirely new departure in the development of the collections in the Royal Scottish Museum”, as the institution began to take a more active role in its support of the Egypt Exploration Fund.40 The Museum sent one of its assistant curators, Edwin “Ted” Ward, to join Petrie’s excavations in the winter seasons of 1906-7 and 1907-8.41 This created a relationship with Petrie that may have been influential when the Qurna burial group came to be offered to UK museums in summer 1909. Following the completion of the 1908-9 excavation season, Gaston Maspero, Director General of the Egyptian Antiquities Service, attended the division of finds in person, dictating that if the objects were to leave Egypt, they could only do so as a complete group that would remain together.42 Petrie initially offered the burial group to the South Kensington Museum (V&A) in recognition of the London subscribers to the British School of Archaeology in Egypt,43 “on condition that it was exhibited together in one case”. A member of the South KensingBetween Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Petrie’s detailed description of the opening the Qurna coffin discounts the possibility of a modern gathering of objects as implied by Carter’s account of the Ahhotep discovery, cf. Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 39 Petrie, History of Egypt, vol. II, 10-13, Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 40 “The Royal Scottish Museum: Interesting Additions to the Egyptian Collection”, The Scotsman, 9 October 1906, 3. 41 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 32-4. 42 Drower, Flinders Petrie, 311. 43 Petrie, Seventy Years, 228. 210 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ ton staff who visited that year’s excavation exhibition at University College London judged the “series of antiquities” as unsuitable for South Kensington, its interest being “primarily historical and Egyptological” and suggested the British Museum instead.44 However, the British Museum also declined, as they still preferred to display objects typologically, which would have required breaking up the group. So, Petrie turned to the Royal Scottish Museum as a potential home. The Museum applied for a grant of £100 to support the acquisition and in July, one of their employees, David J. Vallance, visited the exhibition45 and is probably the “museum man” whose amazement Petrie describes, not having realised that the group was “such a fine thing”.46 By early August an agreement had been struck and Petrie wrote to the director, James J. Dobbie, expressing his pleasure that the Museum “pledged to keep the whole tomb group together” as per his wishes. He further noted that the group “must go where there are night watchmen, as the gold is worth £30 intrinsically”.47 On 17 September 1909, the group was registered in Edinburgh.48 There are several inconsistencies between Petrie’s recording of the burial and what was sent to the Royal Scottish Museum. A small electrum button found within the woman’s linen wrappings was measured and photographed by Petrie, but despite being given an accession number (A.1909.527.20), the button has never had a location record since the Museum’s collection database was established.49 Petrie also described a “thin red and black pottery pan lying on its side” within the rishi coffin, beneath the woman’s neck, and his plate reference shows several Kerma beakers.50 From Petrie’s account, there ought to be seven Kerma beakers, including the six from the carrying nets, however, only six are extant. Letters from Cecil Smith to Flinders Petrie, 4 and 9 August 1909, V&A Archives, copies held in UCL Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology; V&A Museum, Minute Paper AM 3656/09 dated 28/07/1909; see discussion in Stevenson, Scattered Finds, 45-6. The exhibition of material from Memphis and Qurna was held 5-31 July 1909, see British School of Archaeology in Egypt, Catalogue, 1909. 45 Royal Scottish Museum Minute Book records that Vallance applied for leave to visit London from “July 6th to 9th or 13th, to meet Prof. Garstang and see about Egyptn. Sculptures, Prof. Petrie’s exhibn [sic], and Egypt Exploration Fund”, approved on 30 June 1909. 46 Petrie, Seventy Years, 228-9. 47 National Museums Scotland, World Cultures Archives, Letter from W.M. Flinders Petrie to James J. Dobbie, dated 05/08/1909. 48 Royal Scottish Museum, Register of Specimens 11 (190313), 81. 49 Petrie, Qurneh, 9, pl. 29. 50 Petrie, Qurneh, 8, pl. 28. 44 Either Petrie was mistaken about the number, or one was not sent to Edinburgh. The bread in National Museums Scotland does not entirely correlate with the loaves in Petrie’s photograph, which includes two small balls of bread not identified in the Museum’s collections.51 They might not have been sent or may not have survived. Further confusion may have arisen over time because accession numbers were assigned to groups of objects by type rather than individually. Two small unfired mud moulded shabtis (A.1909.527.37+A) were included by error with the objects Petrie sent to Edinburgh, as they are not attested in any part of his report and would surely have merited mention. Their style does not accord with the dating of the burial group. It is probable that they originate from a Twenty-Fifth Dynasty burial excavated during the same season, which included two shabti boxes containing a total of 403 figures in “rough brown pottery”.52 Following its acquisition, the group was put on display in the Royal Scottish Museum in a single case, arranged as close “as possible in the relative positions in which they were discovered”.53 In 1972, under the direction of Cyril Aldred, a new ancient Egyptian gallery displayed the objects separately as elements of typological displays of coffins, furniture, jewellery, etc as exemplars of “ancient Egyptian” culture. At the turn of the millennium, the redevelopment of the National Museum of Scotland’s galleries necessitated a re-location of Aldred’s displays which afforded the opportunity to re-assemble the burial group in a display that aimed to follow the layout in which the objects had been found. The base of the display case was lined with sand as a practical solution to hide the acrylic stands used to support the round based-vessels.54 The Ancient Egypt Rediscovered gallery, which opened in early 2019, displays the majority of objects from the burial in a single case, accompanied by digital interpretation, including archival photographs and plans. New storage was devised with conservators to allow the skeletal remains of the woman and child to be safely restored to their coffins. Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 25. Petrie, Qurneh, 15. A visual match can be made with Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 53. Cf. Manchester Museum 5053.g which is a group record for around 360 shabtis; some are glazed faience, while others appear to be unfired mud. These seem to match A.1909.527.37 + A visually and are roughly the same size (Manchester: 69 mm L; A.1909.527.37: 60 mm L; A.1909.527.37 A: 71 mm L). Lacovara, “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume. 53 Royal Scottish Museum, Guide (1920), 7, 23, pl. 3. 54 Pers. comm. Lesley-Ann Liddiard. 51 52 211 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen The Coffins The rishi coffin The gilded rishi coffin (A.1909.527.1 + A)55 excavated in the Qurna burial measures 2.09 m in length, which Manley notes compares favourably with kings’ coffins of this period, around half a metre longer than necessary for a woman of her height (Plate XXIV).56 It is fashioned from two tree trunks, tamarisk for the lid and sycamore fig for the trough.57 The construction of coffins from sycamore logs is attested in other Seventeenth Dynasty burials at Dra Abu el-Naga, but generally each coffin is crafted from a single trunk.58 Thus the conspicuous use of resources may reflect the status of the “Qurna Queen”. The use of locally available timber has been cited to suggest that imported timber was not available at this time,59 however, it more likely shows a specific lack of imported cedar of Lebanon, which is used sparingly in the Qurna burial equipment and contemporaneous burials. The largest study of rishi coffins by Miniaci places the coffin of the “Qurna Queen” in Type C, with up to seven other coffins dating to the late Seventeenth Dynasty.60 He classifies this group as “Prototypical Coffins”, an evolutionary phase before the standardisation of features in his Type D “Classic Coffins”.61 The pre-standard phase is typified by a standard shape with decoration that is mostly standardised but shows some anomalies. The most notable example of Miniaci’s Type C is the coffin of King Nubkheperre Intef.62 The exterior of the Qurna trough is painted uniformly in a blue that has darkened to a blue/black. The lip of the trough is painted red, serving as a protective seal for the coffin.63 The interior is undecorated, as is common for rishi coffins. The lid was painted and gilded on top of a thin layer of plaster. These layers can be seen delaminating in Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 23-6; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 65-6, 141, 249 as rT01ED. 56 Manley, in Exell (ed.), African Context, 93. 57 Wood analysis provided by Caroline Cartwright, British Museum: Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 37, 40. The lid and trough are held together by five unevenly spaced biscuit joints, which no longer survive, shown in Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 23. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 26 notes that the most common means of coffin-lid attachment is “6 tenons fitted into sockets”. 58 Galán, Jimenez-Hiqueras, in Miniaci, Grajetzki (eds), Middle Kingdom Egypt, 108-9, 113, 115. 59 Davies, in Davies, Schofield (eds) Aegean and the Levant, 148-9. 60 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 148, table 08. 61 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 140-1. Type D coffins account for 38% of the rishi coffins in his study. 62 BM EA 6652: Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, rT01BM. 63 For other examples of red-painted coffin joins, some with apotropaic inscriptions dating to the Middle Kingdom, see Jiménez et al., BAEDE 26, 72-4. 55 photographs published by Petrie, who confirmed this in a letter, stating “the coffin wants treating with paraffin in benzole [sic], and the gold leaf smoothing out”.64 Later conservation treatment in the mid-twentieth century restored large areas of loss, painting in details and re-gilding extensively. Despite the coffin being highly restored, analysis was carried out by Raman spectroscopy to identify original pigments used in the decoration: Egyptian blue, carbon black, red haematite, orpiment (a more expensive yellow pigment than the typical yellow ochre), and calcite white.65 Lazurite was also observed, but it seems unlikely to be original, as it is not reported as a pigment used in ancient Egypt.66 Some of the earlier restoration was reversed in 2018 following examination and imaging under UV-induced luminescence (UVL), infrared reflectance (IRR), and infrared false colour (IRFC).67 The face of the coffin is framed by a nemes-headdress in blocks of blue outlined in black with no internal detail.68 The central area of the headdress is gilded, with a scalelike pattern imitating small, dense feathers in moulded plaster, extending from the forehead but not covering the whole of the head. The arrangement of the nemes shows none of the Hathoric qualities common to late Seventeenth Dynasty Type D/E coffins.69 The only painted facial features are very simple: the eyebrows in blue with a black outline and the eyes, which are white outlined in black, with a black pupil/iris, but no red sclera. A wesekh-collar curves underneath the lappets of the nemes and is depicted as three solid bands of blue outlined in black with two falcon-terminals depicted in blue, black, white, and red.70 A gilded vulture pectoral overlaps part of the second and third bands of the wesekh-collar, its body and wings modelled in plaster.71 Four registers of blue feathers on a yellow background cover the body of the coffin, with their outlines, detail, and tips in black.72 The usual first register of tighter feathers is omitted, and this space is instead taken by a block of gilding, a feature common Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 23; National Museums Scotland, World Cultures Archives: Letter from W.M. Flinders Petrie to James J. Dobbie, dated 05/08/1909. 65 Edwards, Villar, Eremin, J. Raman Spectrosc 35/8-9, 7923; Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 37. 66 Lee, Quirke, in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 111. 67 Stable et al. 2021; see also https://blog.nms.ac.uk/2018/ 12/30/coffin-of-the-qurna-queen/, <accessed on 12.01.2022>. 68 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 27. 69 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 141. 70 One terminal is largely restored. 71 Pectorals on rishi coffins normally include both a vulture and a cobra, but Miniaci notes 28 other examples which do not conform to the standard: Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 32, n. 211. 72 These registers represent the second and third feather layers discussed by Miniaci, JARCE 46, 49-61, fig. 2. 64 212 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ to Type C coffins.73 The front of the foot end is comparable to other coffins: a simple block of red outlined in yellow.74 The base of the foot bears a scene of two kneeling female figures likely representing Isis and Nephthys (Pl. XXV). The scene is not accompanied by any inscription or labels. Much of the lower part does not survive and it is not clear if the goddesses were originally depicted kneeling upon neb signs, as in other examples.75 Both figures are outlined simply in black and are sparsely detailed, shown wearing blue necklaces and white sheath-dresses. This scene is paralleled on numerous other rishi coffins, though the “Qurna Queen” coffin differs in the pose of the two figures. They face each other with arms raised in the air in a gesture similar to the hieroglyphs GSL A28 “man with both arms raised” or C11 “god with arms supporting the sky”; other coffins show the goddesses holding a shen-ring or adopting poses correlating to GSL A3 “man sitting on heel” or A4 “man with arms raised”.76 A central column extends from the vulture pectoral to the end of the third register of feathers, containing a low relief hieroglyphic inscription in modelled, gilded plaster (Pl. XXVI). The inscription consists of the beginning of the offering formula, but the section which ought to contain the owner’s name and titles is irreparably damaged. Approximately a third of the column’s full height is lost due to the abrasion from the burial debris and child’s coffin.77 This length of space for titles is considerable and what remains is tantalising; a single sign from this area has been interpreted by Manley and Dodson as nfr or Xnm. Both readings would allow for Xnmt nfr HDt, “United with the White Crown”, a title used for royal women of the Middle to early New Kingdoms, most notably in the context of this volume, in the inscription on the coffin of Ahhotep (JE 4663).78 Unfortunately the area was covered over by restoration work in the mid-twentieth century; in 2004, it was examined using a digiscope and 3D imaging techniques, but no further traces were found. The preserved text reads as follows: Htp-di-nsw Asir nb Ddw (di=f) prt-xrw t Hnqt Apd(w) kA(w) n kA n [… Xnm/nfr?…] An offering which the King gives to Osiris, Lord of Djedu (so that he may give) a voice-offering of bread, beer, fowl and ox for the ka of […Xnm/nfr?…] Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 142. Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 38. 75 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 38, n. 250. 76 Cf. Pl. III, JE 4663. 77 The column measures 108.5 cm long and the text is lost from the 72 cm mark. 78 Grajetzki, Queens, 104 renders this title as the “Associate of the White Crown Bearer”; Betrò, “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. 73 74 The identity of the “Qurna Queen” The absence of a preserved name has led to speculation over the identity of the “Qurna Queen”. It is possible that no other trace of her survives, but from a survey of known queens of the Seventeenth Dynasty and their burials, Manley has suggested that Haankhes79 or Nubemhat80 are the most likely candidates. He has also put forward the secondary suggestions of an unnamed wife of either Rahotep or Sehotepkare Intef.81 Haankhes and Nubemhat are connected through their children, the “King’s Son” Ameni and the “King’s Daughter” Sobekemhab, who according to a stela from Dendera, were married.82 Miniaci’s dating of the rishi coffin83 accords with these individuals, making them feasible candidates for the identity of the “Qurna Queen”. Sobekemsaf, the wife of Nubkheperre Intef, may also be put forward as a possibility. Sobekemsaf was discounted by Manley due to claims that she was buried in Edfu based on two stelae from the site.84 The first of these was recorded by Englebach after it was uncovered during unregulated digging.85 The surviving section of the stela shows “his daughter, the Royal Wife (hmtnswt) Sobekemsaf”, alongside two of her siblings who are labelled “his daughter, iryt-pat, Neferen” and “his son [?]” indicating that the stela must was commemorating their father. The second stela, which was discovered during sebakh digging,86 dates to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Thutmose I).87 Sobekemsaf is shown seated alongside the mother of King Ahmose I, Queen Ahhotep I, labelled as “the Royal Wife (hmt-nswt), King’s Sister (snt-nswt) Sobekemsaf”.88 In the inscription, the A royal woman with unknown husband, known to be mother of the “King’s Son”, Grajetzki, Queens, 44; Ryholt, Political Situation, 272. 80 Wife of Sekhemre Wadjkhau Sobekemsaf I, Grajetzki, Queens, 43 or Sobekemsaf II by the chronology of Ryholt, Political Situation, 171. 81 Attributed to the Thirteenth Dynasty by Ryholt, Political Situation, 342 as Intef V. Though the late Thirteenth and early Seventeenth Dynasties overlap significantly, Ryholt’s discussions and rishi dating criteria put forward by Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 148 means that Sehotepkare Intef can be discounted as the husband of the “Qurna Queen”. 82 Ryholt, Political Situation, 272. Stela UC14326 purchased at Koptos by Petrie; another section of this stela is now Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, I.1.b.32 (4156). 83 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 140-2. 84 Winlock, JEA 10, 233; Grajetzki, Egyptian Queens, 44; Newberry, PSBA 24, 286 and elsewhere. 85 Cairo TR 16.2.22.23, Englebach, ASAE 22, 113-14. 86 Bouriant, RT 9, 92-3. 87 CG 34009, Lacau, Stèles du Nouvel Empire, 16-17, pl. 6, Urk IV, 29-31. 88 For the potential relationship between these queens, Ryholt, Political Situation, 269. 79 213 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen dedicator of the stela, a priest called Iuf, states “I reunited this tomb of the King’s Daughter Sobekemsaf when I had found that it was on the road to ruin”. This phrase has been used to assert that Queen Sobekemsaf was buried in Edfu. Polz has suggested that these stelae indicate “that there must have existed burial (or burials) of the royal family in the cemetery of Edfu during the reign of Nub-Kheper-Ra”.89 Though the phrase pn isy in the inscription of second stela implicates a deictic confirmation that the tomb restored by Iuf was in Edfu, it is not certain that the tomb belonged to Queen Sobekemsaf. Ryholt has noted that the titulary of the Edfu Sobekemsaf used in reference to the tomb only describes her as a “King’s Daughter”.90 It seems probable that Iuf, as the restorer of such a tomb would include the most important title possible, implying that the tomb may have belonged to another royal woman of that name. Materially, the coffin of the “Qurna Queen” belongs to the same Miniaci group as the coffin of Nubkheperre Intef, and his burial also included Kerman ceramics, comparable to the Qurna burial equipment.91 Furthermore, if the coffin’s central inscription reads Xnmt nfr HDt, “United with the White Crown”, Queen Sobekemsaf is recorded with this title on two gold bracelet spacers.92 Thus it seems remiss to discount Sobekemsaf as a potential identity for the “Qurna Queen”, alongside Haankhes or Nubemhat. Although no proposal for her identity has thus far has proved conclusive, the individuals discussed above are contemporaneous, with Ryholt’s chronology placing them all within a maximum period of thirty years.93 The child’s coffin The child’s coffin (A.1909.527.10 + A) is rectangular with two battens on either end of the lid, imitating the Polz, in Forstner-Müller, Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khayan, 229. 90 Ryholt, Political Situation, 268-9, particularly 269 n. 974. 91 Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 148, Table 08; Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, 84-5. 92 Pair of bracelet spacers BM EA 57699, BM EA 57700, Miniaci et al., BMTRB 7, 55. Grajetzki, Egyptian Queens, 44 states directly that they came from a tomb in Edfu, though this is unconfirmed. This provenance may arise from Newberry, PSBA 24, 285 where Newberry states that he was shown a gold pendant with a near identical inscription to BM EA 57699 and BM EA 57700 by a dealer in Edfu, and later by the Luxor-based dealer and German consular agent Mohareb Todros (c.1847-1937). However, it is important to note that Newberry’s description makes no mention of the cat decoration, suggesting that he may have seen a different object. 93 Ryholt, Political Situation, 410. 89 shape of a shrine (see Fig. 4).94 The exterior is painted with a thin layer of white gypsum plaster. The interior is undecorated. There is no indication of any inscription or decoration. Unlike the rishi coffin, it is made with planks of wood, mainly sycamore fig and cedar of Lebanon, joined using varied techniques. Analysis indicates that tamarisk, sycamore fig, East African ebony and cedar of Lebanon were used for the dowels and battens.95 The construction of the coffin is varied; one side and one end of the trough are made of full height single planks, the other long side is made of three pieces of wood, cut flush and joined using dowel or biscuit joints, and the other end is made of two irregular planks joined together. The base and lid are composed of joined irregular planks. The short ends of the coffin are joined to the long sides using box joints,96 which vary in style; one end using 2/1 (pin/tail) and the other 3/2 (pin/tail) joints. Two battens attached at each end across the width of the base function as feet. Manley and Dodson suggest the use of imported and valuable timbers indicates recycling.97 It seems feasible that the use of dowels and planks in imported wood added value to an otherwise plain coffin. Manley and Dodson compare the inclusion of this rectangular coffin in a rishi coffin burial to burials highlighted by Miniaci and Quirke, though it should be noted that those did not include any children.98 The human remains When Petrie unwrapped the remains of the woman (A.1909.527.1 B), he found her limbs and fingers were wrapped individually, with padding around her limbs and within her abdomen (A.1909.527.14 + A-O). Her arms had been placed by her sides with her hands resting upon her thighs. The system of wrapping then alternated between folded-up cloths and diagonal swathings. Petrie suggested a reconstructed order of the wrapping, commenting that it was not “neat”, nor did it utilise any stitching.99 The mummification procedure had not been successful as the remains of the “Qurna Queen” were skeletal with very little tissue preservation. The remains of the child (A.1909.527.10 B) were wrapped in “about a dozen turns of cloth” (A.1909.527.44 + A) and the limbs had also been wrapped separately, though Petrie did not note the use of any padding.100 Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 26-7. Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 37; Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 27. 96 Identified as box joints rather than dovetail, due to the lack of tapering of the tails, Gale et al., in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 363; Killen, Egyptian Woodworking, 15. 97 Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 27. 98 Manley, Dodson, ibid., 27; Miniaci, Quirke, EVO 31, 18-22. 99 Petrie, Qurneh, 8-9. 100 Petrie, Qurneh, 10. 94 95 214 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Fig. 4 – The child’s rectangular coffin (A.1909.527.10 + A). L: 970 mm, W: 360 mm, H: 373 mm © National Museums Scotland Petrie described the skeletal remains of the “Qurna Queen” as being “in excellent condition, that of a woman in the prime of her life”.101 He recorded twenty-two measurements of her skeletal remains, fifteen of which concerned the cranium and mandible, clearly reflecting his interest in race “science”. References to this passage by Manley claim that Petrie viewed the “Qurna Queen” as Nubian or “not typically Egyptian”, however, Petrie did not make any direct remarks about the woman’s ethnicity.102 Petrie’s conclusions about her cranial appearance are framed in reference to the average woman of the Eleventh Dynasty, stating that she possessed “a high type of face”, excepting her teeth which he saw as being projected. Petrie did not publish any measurements of the child’s remains. The skeletal remains were studied by various scientific and medical experts as part of the National Museums Scotland Mummy Project (1996-2012).103 There is no evidence of cause of death for either individual. Examination of the woman’s bones suggested that she was left-handed and was not involved in heavy physical labour. There are no signs of degeneration, damage, or deformation in any of her bones, except the left ulna, which shows some new bone formation. This usually indicates previous inflammation, caused by an abscess or ulcer, and must have occurred a few months before death. For both individuals, the nasal bones are intact with some brain material remaining in the skulls. Analysis of the materials used in the mummification process Established by Elizabeth Goring and Jim Tate of National Museums Scotland as a collaborative initiative with Andrew Wright, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Ian Macleod, Edinburgh Dental Hospital, and led by Katherine Eremin, former scientist at NMS. Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 35-7. 103 Petrie, Qurneh, 10. 102 Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 23; Manley, in Exell (ed.), African Context, 93; Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 37; Manley et al., Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine 25/4, 156. 101 215 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen indicates the composition was mainly plant oils or animal fats, along with a small amount of coniferous resin and possibly balsamic resin (1% for the adult, 17% for the child, within a similar range to other remains from the Middle and New Kingdoms analysed in the study).104 The skeletal material was examined in 1997 by Humphrey and Molleson (Natural History Museum) and in 2002 by Zakrzewski (University of Southampton). Both studies suggested that child’s age was 2-3 years at death based on dental development and that the woman was aged 18-25 years, probably towards the younger age.105 Both identified traces of cribra orbitalia in the child, suggesting possible mild anemia. In assessing population affinity, the adult woman was determined to have the greatest affinity with the Twenty-Sixth to Thirtieth Dynasty groups from Giza.106 She was described as having a complex mosaic of morphological traits but was deemed to “not fall into the typical Nubian pattern”. Her stature is estimated to have been approximately 156 cm tall, within the typical range of Egyptian female statures, and most like those of the Middle Kingdom. Her teeth show very little dental wear but do have some caries. Two faience beads were found lodged in her teeth along with others found in the coffin, which suggests that she had a beaded item placed over her.107 Attempts to scientifically confirm the relationship between the adult woman and the child were inconclusive.108 However, their shared grave suggests that they were considered kin, regardless of biological considerations. Scientific examination was unable to determine the child’s sex, but the presence of earrings and a girdle indicates that the child was considered female. As part of the NMS Mummy Project, facial reconstructions were made for the woman and child by facial anthropologist Wilkinson based on casts of the skulls.109 In addition to these, three drawings based on the woman’s reconstruction were produced by a graphic artist. These drawings differ only in skin colour, showing a woman with reddish-brown “Egyptian” skin colour, black “Nubian” skin colour, and white/pale (supposedly “yellow”) skin colour associated with “Libya and Chemical analysis conducted using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and thermal desorption (TD)- or pyrolysis (Py)-GC-MS: Buckley, Evershed, Nature 413, 837. 105 Based on factors such as limited dental wear, ectocranial suture closure (open), fusion of iliac crest (partially fused on L side), pubic symphysis morphology (rippled). 106 Zakrzewski, “Report on the Qurneh Mummy Skeletal Material”; Berry, Berry, Ucko, Man 2/4. 107 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 35. 108 Humphrey, Molleson, “Qurneh Mummies Report”, e.g. skull suture pattern comparison. 109 Manley et al., Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine 25/4. 104 the Near East”; the inclusion of the latter is inexplicable given the lack of evidence for any connection to Libya or western Asia. This problematic choice echoes the frequent use of light skin colour on ancient Egyptian facial reconstructions rooted in historic racism and the appropriation of ancient Egypt by Europeans and Americans.110 Strontium isotope analysis of an adult tooth was carried out by Evans (Natural Environment Research Council) and was found to fall within the range of limestone composition in the Luxor area. The results indicate that the individual cannot be excluded from originating in the Luxor area at the time of formation of the tooth, but since limestones are relatively homogeneous with respect to strontium isotope composition, it is also possible that she originated somewhere else along the Nile with a similar limestone composition.111 As such, the results are not diagnostic. The results of carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analyses of the adult woman’s skeleton (δ13C = -18.4, δ15N = 13.6) compared with published data suggests that she consumed a mixed diet, including the consumption of some C4 plants common to a Nubian diet (e.g. sorghum, millet), along with the C3 plants dominant in the Egyptian diet (e.g. wheat, barley).112 This may indicate that she was raised in Nubia and then moved to Egypt, but it may also suggest a possible Kerman influence on the diet and lifestyle of the Egyptian elite. The Jewellery Petrie described the jewellery from the “Qurna Queen” burial as “the largest group of goldwork that had left Egypt” (Pl. XXVII).113 The adult wore a gold necklace, two penannular gold earrings, four gold bangles, an electrum girdle, an electrum button, and a glazed steatite scarab. The child wore a gold/electrum necklace, two gold earrings, three ivory bangles, a faience bead girdle, and faience bead anklets. The jewellery was subjected to some early analysis as part of a National Museums Scotland research project on the burial led by Eremin, followed by in-depth investigation undertaken by Troalen, Guerra and Tate as part of the project “Analytical study of Bronze Age Egyptian gold jewellery (PICS 5995 CNRS)”.114 Several techniques were used to understand the composition of the objects and the Riggs, Unwrapping, 210-22, 224. Jane Evans pers. comm. 112 Shortland, Eremin, Goring, “The Qurna Burial (including isotopic results)”; Manley, in Exell (ed.), African Context, 93. 113 Petrie, Seventy Years, 212. Also see discussion of the jewellery in Aldred, Jewels, 197-8, pl. 48, see also 18, 70, 142, 157. 114 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3; Tate et al., ArcheoSciences 33; Troalen et al., ArcheoSciences 33; Troalen, Tate, Guerra, JAS 50; Troalen, Tate, Guerra, in Guerra et al. (eds), Ancient Egyptian Gold. 110 111 216 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ techniques used in their fabrication, including optical microscopy, X-radiography, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray fluorescence, and ion beam analysis (particle-induced x-ray emission analysis and particle-induced gamma-ray emission analysis). The results of these analyses have informed our understanding of the production and use of the jewellery and form the bulk of the discussion below. All of the jewellery was made with sheets or strips of gold, which were then hammered, embossed, stamped-died or rolled, and sometimes chased. Joins were made almost exclusively using hard soldering with the addition of copper in order to lower the melting point. Analysis revealed the coexistence of varying levels of wear, as well as the use of different alloys. All the objects presented platinum group elements (PGE) inclusions, which suggests that the gold was sourced from alluvial deposits. The inclusions were found to be variable in composition, but all based on rutheniridosmine alloys, which is typical of Egyptian gold jewellery.115 The adult’s necklace (A.1909.527.19) is formed of 1699 individual gold ring-beads strung in four strands and secured with a clasp ingeniously designed to blend in completely with the ring-beads. It is made of a high-purity gold alloy containing, on average, 86 wt% Au, 12 wt% Ag and 2 wt% Cu. The necklace has been compared to later examples of shebiu, the so-called “gold of honour”, collars that were given to officials as a prestigious reward from the king. However, the Qurna necklace differs in style on several points, such as bead shape and fastening, and arguably cannot be identified as such. Other similar style ring-bead chokers have been found in burials ranging from the Eleventh to Eighteenth Dynasties.116 Each ring-bead is made of “D”-shaped segment wire formed into a circle with the ends hard soldered together in a practically invisible join of remarkable skill; analysis demonstrated that this was done using a gold-silver-copper alloy close to the composition of the rings but containing significant levels of copper (8 wt%) to lower its melting point.117 The ring-beads are extremely uniform with polished outer surfaces and rougher inner surfaces. The two sides of the clasp used to secure the necklace each consist of four tubes of eight rings soldered together; each side has four cups to hold the knotted ends of the strings and four wire loops, which interweave when juxtaposed, and are secured with a locking pin.118 The four gold bangles (A.1909.527.16 + A-C) were worn two on each arm, just below the elbow. They are very similar in composition to the necklace, but with almost no copper. Each is made from a D-section bar bent into a ring and soldered. The adult necklace and earrings must have been almost entirely new or very little used when they went into the burial, while the bangles show wear marks indicating they were probably worn in life. The adult’s gold earrings (A.1909.527.18 + A) are a relatively early example of penannular earrings, which only became common during the New Kingdom, introduced most probably from Nubia, or else perhaps western Asia.119 They consist of four penannular hoops soldered together; the joins are thick but perfectly controlled, with only minor compositional differences with a slight increase of copper. The earrings are made of a high-purity gold alloy with a composition of 95.4 wt% Au, 4.3 wt% Ag and 0.3 wt% Cu. Such composition is unusual for Egyptian jewellery, but it is unlikely that this high purity gold was obtained through refining, as there is no evidence for the use of the cementation method being practised in the Mediterranean before the 1st millennium BC.120 The use of a high-purity gold from alluvial deposits was confirmed for these items through the presence of PGE inclusions. The electrum girdle (A.1909.527.17) was found worn around the waist, but outside the innermost cloth of the woman’s wrappings. It consists of 26 semi-circular socalled “wallet-beads” spaced by two threads of 6 barrel-beads. They are probably the earliest surviving examples of wallet beads; on its own, the girdle would probably be dated to mid-Eighteenth Dynasty.121 The burial of Queen Ahhotep I included seventeen gold wallet beads, and they are also found in the burial of the three foreign wives of Thutmose III.122 Petrie claimed that the Qurna girdle was copied from “a Nubian type made of seeds and leather”, but offered no further evidence to support this.123 In ancient Egypt, girdles were worn exclusively by women, and as such, were likely associated with sexuality and fertility. Depictions of girdles on young women suggest that they may have been worn at the start of puberty, potentially to signal a woman’s attainment of fertility and serve as protection of this. Many Middle Kingdom girdles feature cowrie shells or beads in the form of cowrie shells, which have been understood Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, 137-8; Lacovara, Markowitz, Nubian Gold, 67-8; Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 201; Philip, Metalwork and Metalworking, 164. 120 Ogden, in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 163; Ramage, Craddock, King Croesus’s Gold. 121 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 16, compare no. 119. 122 Lilyquist, Foreign Wives, 174-5, cat. nos 135-6, fig. 167. 123 Petrie, Man 9, 129. 119 Harris, Cabri, Canadian Mineralogist 29; Ogden, JEA 62; Meeks, Tite, JAS 7. 116 Binder, The Gold of Honour, 38-9, fig. 4.4; Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 19. 117 Tate et al., ArcheoSciences 33; Troalen et al., ArcheoSciences 33; Troalen, Tate, Guerra, JAS 50. 118 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 19-20. 115 217 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen as fertility amulets due to their suggestive shape. Wallet beads have been interpreted as a direct development from cowrie-shaped beads. Perhaps the shift might relate to the lack of access to the Red Sea, the source of the shells, during the Second Intermediate Period. Although girdles have been found in relation to a range of socio-economic backgrounds, they are rarely depicted in the iconography of high-status women; nevertheless, the use-wear on the Qurna girdle clearly demonstrates that it was worn in life rather than being made for burial. This includes deformation of the edges of the beads and the holes, as well as barrel-beads trapped within the wallet-beads. It has been argued that the girdle was likely an heirloom due to the extensive use-wear,124 although it seems likely that girdles would exhibit higher levels of wear in general, being subject to a greater level of stress and abrasion from movement of the hips. However, the theory is also supported by Petrie’s observation that a section of the girdle had been gathered by a tie of thread to shorten it to fit the body, suggesting that it could have been modified for a new owner.125 The high level of abrasion on girdles may have influenced the choice of electrum as more hard-wearing rather than the higher purity gold used for the other items, though it is also possible that a whiter coloured alloy was desired. Many Middle Kingdom girdles are made of silver rich electrum (e.g. BM EA 3077; MMA 13.180.11). The Qurna girdle has a silver content of 52 wt% or greater and a gold content inferior to 45 wt%. The wallet-beads are very homogenous and analysis suggests a single batch alloy, while the small barrel-beads exhibit similar silver content, but over a much broader range of composition, probably derived from different batches. Stereomicroscopic observation of the wallet-beads from the girdle showed that their decoration exhibits at least two different types of chisel-marks, which might be related to the work of two different goldsmiths.126 The alloys employed in the production of the Queen Ahhotep I and King Ahmose I jewellery, now in the Louvre, are comparable to the Qurna jewellery in that both groups include a range of alloys in a spectrum of colours, both yellow gold-rich alloys and whitish electrum, some in new condition and others exhibiting intense use-wear, the latter generally being in electrum.127 Electrum is typically observed in Middle Kingdom jewellery128 and its presence in these late Seventeen and earTroalen, Tate, Guerra, JAS 50, 220, 225. Petrie, Qurneh, 9. 126 Troalen, Tate, Guerra, JAS 50, 226. 127 Guerra, Pagès-Camagna, JCH 36, 146. 128 Gale, Stos-Gale, JEA 67; Troalen et al., Historical Me124 125 ly Eighteenth Dynasty groups suggests some continuity with earlier practices, preferences, mineralogical sources, and/or recycling. There are very few items of gold/ electrum jewellery attributed to the Second Intermediate Period; analysis of these have observed compositions typical for naturally occurring, unrefined alluvial gold (around 17 wt% silver),129 but the presence of high-purity gold observed in the Qurna burial and for some items associated with Queen Ahhotep I suggests access to specific high-quality gold sources, despite this period being associated with reduced availability of luxury resources. The woman also wore a scarab of green-glazed steatite incised on the base with a nefer-hieroglyph within a scroll-pattern border (A.1909.527.15). Similar scroll-pattern scarabs have been found in Theban tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties, almost always found fastened with string to the third finger of the left hand, as was the case with the scarab worn by the “Qurna Queen”.130 While both older and newer items of jewellery were deposited together in the woman’s burial, the child’s jewellery set was made specifically for the burial from reused and recycled elements. All of the child’s items show significant marks of wear. The necklace (A.1909.527.11) consists of 215 small gold and electrum ring-beads with open joins, which are very heterogeneous and were clearly reused from various sources with different levels of use-wear. The silver content of the ring-beads varies between 16.6 wt% and 32.1 wt%, while their copper content varies between 0.6 and 2.6 wt%. The earrings found on the child (A.1909.527.43 + A) are asymmetrically composed of three-and-a-half stacked gold rings with the half-ring bent outwards (Pl. XXVIII). They were considered to likely be re-purposed necklace clasps, serving as stand-ins for earrings for the burial.131 They are rather heterogeneous with silver content varying from 13.5 wt% to 15.3 wt% and copper content from 1.7 wt% to 3.8 wt%, probably partly due to their low-quality soldering, rendering the analysis of the base alloy difficult. Similar to the adult’s, the child’s earrings have been soldered, however in this case the joins indicate a lack of precise temperature control giving rise to relatively large, melted regions. For the other items of jewellery, various materials were used as alternatives for precious metals; the child had three ivory bangles (A.1909.527.12 + A-B), two on the left humerus and one on the right, a faience bead girdle (A.1909.527.13), and two faience bead anklets (A.1909.527.13 A-B). tallurgy, 49/2. Miniaci et al., BMTRB 7; Guerra, Pagès-Camagna, JCH 36. 130 Lythgoe, Lansing, De Garis Davies, BMMA 12/5, 20; Smith, MDAIK 48, 204. 131 Troalen, Tate, Guerra, JAS 50, 220. 129 218 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Fig. 5 – Detail of the ivory disk used as to plug the bovine horn container, decorated with a rosette design (A.1909.527.32) © National Museums Scotland Despite the variation in term of goldsmithing techniques, the similarity between the choice of items in the two sets of jewellery, including a girdle that would typically have been worn when older, as well as the presence of recycled material, suggests that the child’s set was intentionally assembled for the joint burial and was intended to link the identities and status of the woman and child. A Basket and its Contents One of the baskets contained a horn container, a copper alloy cutting tool, a triangular whetstone, two flints, a ball of thread, and an anhydrite bowl decorated with baboons. The knife was interpreted by Petrie as a linen cutting tool, leading to the group being interpreted as a linen working kit.132 The knife resembles New Kingdom examples of cutting-out knives, though with a less pronounced notch before the blade.133 The triangular whetstone has logically been associated with the cutting tool. The flints appear not to have been used or retouched, though they have not been studied in detail. The presence of the ball of thread prompted the interpretation of this group as a sewing kit, though there is a distinct lack of needles. It is difficult to view the contents of the basket as a coherent group, as this interpretation does not account for the horn container or anhydrite bowl. The horn container The Qurna horn container is made from a hollowed-out bovine horn with elaborate fittings of hippopotamus ivo132 133 Petrie, Qurneh, 7. Petrie, Tools and Weapons, pls 62-3. ry (A.1909.527.32: see Fig. 5; Pl. XXIX). The majority of horn containers have been found in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasty tombs, but a few examples date to the Predynastic, Fifth Dynasty, Middle Kingdom, and possibly Roman period, suggesting this object type had a long history (Table 1). Most are quite simple; typically, the tip was carved into a spout or fitted with a wooden spoon and the large opening was sealed with a wooden plug. The tip of the Qurna horn is fitted with an ivory carving of a bird’s head topped with a spoon and a small hole to allow the contents to flow into the spoon. Several deep scratches around this hole suggest it had been plugged. The bird’s head is set into a deeply carved socket and its beak appears to be made of a small piece of horn. The bird’s neck had cracked in ancient times and had been bound with a strip of red leather (no longer surviving),134 suggesting that the object was heavily used in life. A circular ivory disk mounted on a block of wood was used to plug the large opening at the base of the horn. It is decorated with an incised and inlaid rosette pattern; the inlays are wood, possibly ebony (three of the eight inlays were restored since its entry into the Museum). Impressions of textile are visible on the sides of the plug and resinous material was detected on the edge. Two small pegs on the plug fit into holes at the end of the horn, sealing the vessel. There are traces of coloured oil or wax residues within the horn, but these have not yet been identified; samples from around the rosette inlays were identified as a wax source, but these likely relate to the decoration/restoration of the object rather than its contents.135 The rosette decoration is particularly elaborate; rather than simple petals, the pattern is composed of eight thicker inlays of alternating forms—four petals and four shapes reminiscent of papyrus columns, interspersed with thin incised lines that fork into two inward-facing curls (see Fig. 5). These curls may be suggestive of the curved horns of the goddesses Hathor or Bat, as papyrus was connected with these goddesses through their association with marshes and fertility. There are at least nineteen surviving examples of horn containers and carved spoons from such horns dating to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasties, mostly from excavated contexts at Thebes, with a few from Saqqara and Abydos (Table 1). At least six of the horns still have traces of their contents, all apparently some form of oil. The hole and spoon would have made Petrie, Qurneh, 7, pl. 25. Analysis by Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy; additional analysis of the contents by a technique such as gas-chromatography-mass spectrometry is required. See the technical study of the horn in Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 18. 134 135 219 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen for easy and controlled pouring. The horn found in Deir el-Medina Tomb 1382 has a small metal ring attached to the internal curve of the horn, used to attach a strip of cloth that was also tied around the tip. This must have been used for suspension and/or pouring since the cloth is too short to hang around a neck or shoulder.136 The cords found tied around other horns likely served a similar function; this may also be the reason for the strip of leather originally tied around the tip of the Qurna horn. A horn container, found in a basket of carpenter’s tools according to Gardner Wilkinson, has led Killen to suggest that it held oil for lubricating a whetstone.137 Since the Qurna horn container was found with a knife and whetstone, it is conceivable that it could have had the same function; however, the elaborate decoration in ebony and ivory, and that of other examples, seems to suggest a greater significance and symbolism. Water is the most common lubricant for sharpening stones, so it seems less likely that such decorative vessels were made purely to hold lubricating oil. As the oily substance in one of the Deir el-Medina horns appeared to be green in colour, Bénédite and Bruyère proposed that the substance was used as eye makeup, but other evidence does not seem to support this theory.138 Because of the variety of circumstances in which the horns have been found, Roehrig suggests they “were used for a variety of purposes, depending on the whim or profession of the owner”,139 but this seems unlikely for such a distinctive form of vessel. At most, they may have held a form of oil that had multiple uses. There are very few representations of horn containers that can inform our understanding of their function. Egyptian horn containers have been identified with vessels from western Asia depicted in mid-Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tombs, however, these vessels are made of ivory tusk rather horn and date roughly a century later, so they seem unconnected.140 Several ceramic figure vases represent horn containers held by kneeling women, several of which are also shown carrying a child, similar to others in the form of nursing women.141 These depictions suggest an association of the horn and its oil Bruyère, Deir el-Medinéh, vol. II, 85. BM EA 6037: Killen, Furniture, vol. I, 17. 138 Bénédite, Revue d’ethnographie et des traditions populaires 1; Bruyère, Deir el-Medinéh, vol. II, 85. 139 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 18. 140 Depictions in Theban Tombs 42, 84, 86, 90 and 100. Amiran, JNES 21; Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 18 and n. 13-15. 141 E.g. BM EA 54694, excavated in Abydos Tomb 949: Garstang, AAA 2, 129, pl. 16; Robins, Reflections of Women, 76, no. 40; Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 164; Brooklyn 49.53, unprovenanced: Capel, Markoe, Mistress of the House, 61-2, 194, no. 10a; see also Capel, Markoe, Mistress of the House, 61-2, 194, no. 10b; Budin, Woman and Child, 142-6. 136 137 contents with the care of pregnant women, mothers, and children. The use of cow horns for the vessels might also relate to the fertility goddess Hathor. The discovery of horn containers in the burials of men and children does not preclude their association with fertility as other similarly associated items, such as ivory wands or paddle dolls, have been found buried with both sexes, possibly to evoke rebirth.142 The anhydrite bowl decorated with baboons The anhydrite bowl decorated with four figures of baboons has been the subject of much scholarly discussion (A.1909.527.33; Pl. XXX).143 It is a convex to straight-sided bowl, relatively low and shallow, with an incurved rounded rim. The four baboons are shown facing right and squatting with their arms raised, clinging to the sides and underside of the bowl, where their intertwined tails form the supporting ring-base. Anhydrite is anhydrous calcium sulphate, CaSO4, a mineral with similar composition to gypsum alabaster. It is usually white in colour but is also found in grey or blue.144 Petrie refers to this stone as “blue marble”; it was only later correctly identified through analysis.145 Egyptians exploited a distinctive blue anhydrite during the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period for small cosmetic vessels, including finely modelled zoomorphic forms, several categories of which were produced almost exclusively in anhydrite. The ancient source of this blue anhydrite has not yet been discovered, but it may have been local and worked until the source was exhausted. At least 34 examples of zoomorphic or animal-decorated blue anhydrite vessels have been published, but few from archaeological contexts; flasks in the form of plucked ducks are the most common zoomorphic type.146 Late Old Kingdom calcite vessels in the form of female monkeys holding their babies, inscribed for King Pepi I and two of his sons/successors, may be possible precursors to the later anhydrite vessels featuring baboons.147 Although these animals have been generally referred to as monkeys, Roehrig points out that their long snouts are more suggestive of baboons. This is supported by the overall facial shape on the more highly modelled examples,148 E.g. Capel, Markoe, Mistress of the House, 64-6. Esp. Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 20-1, no. 4; Fay, MMJ 33, 31-3, fig. 25; Terrace, JARCE 5, 59, pl. 18, figs 11-12. 144 Aston, Harrell, Shaw, in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 23-4. 145 Lucas, Materials and Industries, 365. 146 Terrace, JARCE 5; Fay, MMJ 33, in particular see cat. nos 1-15, figs 8, 31-45 for plucked duck flasks. 147 Fay, MMJ 33, 23, fig. 5, n. 3. 148 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 21, n. 9; compare the facial differences between Pepi I monkey vessel and baboon vessels in 142 143 220 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ and in particular the mane or tufts of fur on either side of the face depicted on MMA 1910.10.176.54 and on the Qurna bowl. Depictions where the facial tufts are less pronounced may represent female baboons who lack a mane. The most precise dating evidence for these vessels is a vase inscribed for Sobekhotep IV excavated at Dendera that is stylistically similar to the plucked duck vases (Cairo JE 39567).149 Only one of the duck flasks comes from an archaeological context, from a disturbed tomb at Abydos containing pottery consistent with the Seventeenth Dynasty.150 There are three other examples of anhydrite bowls with baboons carved in relief,151 but only one of them comes from an archaeological context, excavated by Garstang at Abydos.152 He dated the burial to the Twelfth or Thirteenth Dynasty from the calcite vessels and a serpentine palette, as well as its location in the primarily Middle Kingdom eastern cemetery. Terrace notes that the relief on the Abydos vessel and the Qurna bowl are so alike “that the two might be from the same workshop, if not the same hand”; the MMA 30.8.139 bowl is also remarkably similar. Fay argues for a Seventeenth Dynasty date for zoomorphic anhydrite vessels and Roehrig for a Thirteenth Dynasty date, but neither argument is conclusive.153 Roehrig bases her argument on the Sobekhotep IV vessel and the preponderance of anhydrite vessels dated to the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties. However, contrary to this, Aston notes that anhydrite kohl pots also date to the Second Intermediate Period.154 Fay suggests that the argument for the Thirteenth Dynasty stems from assumptions about a decline in craft production during the Second Intermediate Period, while other evidence suggests that there were still high-quality, sophisticatFay, MMJ 33, figs 5, 12-13. On baboon symbolism, see e.g. Kessler, in Redford (ed.), Encyclopedia, vol. II. 149 Fay, MMJ 33, 27, fig. 17a. 150 From Abydos tomb X 52 (previously Chicago Art Institute, location now unknown): Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals, 141; Peet, Abydos, vol. II, 61, pl. 13.14; Terrace, JARCE 5, 61. 151 MMA 30.8.139: Fay, MMJ 33, fig. 11; Terrace, JARCE 5, pl. 16, fig. 7; MMA 10.130.1269: Terrace, JARCE 5, pl. 16, fig. 8. There is also a jar with a fully-sculpted baboon on the side, said to be from Lisht, but with no firm provenance: MMA 91.71.241: Fay, MMJ 33, fig. 12; Terrace, JARCE 5, pl. 14, figs 1-2; and a jar with modelled baboon and ducks, reportedly from Thebes: Cairo CG 18506: von Bissing, Steingefässe, 102, pl. 8; Fay, MMJ 33, 31, fig. 24. 152 JE 46403 from Abydos burial E237: Garstang, El Arábah, 7-8, pl. 9 (see 2 for discussion of cemetery and pl. 2 for plan); Terrace, JARCE 5, pl. 16, figs 8-9; no. 149, 143, fig. 15; Aston, Stone Vessels, no. 149, 143, fig. 15. 153 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 21; Fay, MMJ 33, 29, 33. 154 Aston, Stone Vessels, 52. ed crafts being produced. It is entirely possible that the Qurna baboon bowl might be an heirloom as Roehrig suggests, but ultimately the dating evidence is limited. The Stone Cosmetic Vessels Of the three cosmetic jars found in the burial, one is a round-bottomed globular lidded-jar of calcite, a form dated by Aston to the Middle Kingdom (A.1909.527.2 + A; Pl. XXXI).155 The contents appear to be a yellowish-brown waxy, oily, or fatty substance, which was identified by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) microscopic analysis as a lipid. The closest spectral match was stearic acid, which is found in various animal and plant fats.156 The two kohl pots have feet and wide, thin rims, in a form dated by Aston to the early Eighteenth Dynasty.157 Analysis identified the contents of the calcite kohl pot, which still has linen attached to the neck and lid (A.1909.527.6 + A), as galena.158 The obsidian kohl pot (A.1909.527.7 + A) appears to be unused, as analysis could not identify any trace compounds, only fine sand; perhaps this indicates that it was considered too precious to use, or that it was made for the burial, although this does not explain the traces of linen seal that remain around the neck.159 The vessel itself deserves future analysis to identify the source of the obsidian, which is possible to provenance by its chemical composition. Only a small number of obsidian cosmetic vessels survive from the Middle Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period, and New Kingdom.160 So far, analyses of ancient Egyptian obsidian objects have primarily focused on Predynastic and Early Dynastic objects, identifying the probable source as Ethiopia, while three New Kingdom objects were found to match the composition of a sample from Eritrea.161 Sources in the Mediterranean and Near East are known but have not yet been linked to ancient Egypt. The Pottery and Net Bags The pottery belongs to well-known types made and distributed in Upper and Middle Egypt during the Second Aston, Stone Vessels, 141, no. 142. Some fine linen remains attached to the neck and the lid. 156 Quye, NMS Analytical Report 02/26. It was determined not to be a carbohydrate (e.g. gum), resin, or protein. 157 Aston, Stone Vessels, 148, no. 164. 158 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 40. 159 Shortland, Eremin, Goring, “The Qurna Burial (including isotopic results)”. 160 Aston, Stone Vessels, 25, 140. 161 Aston, Harrell, Shaw, in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 46-7; Bavay et al., MDAIK 56; Giménez, Sánchez, Solano, JEA 101, 349-59; Tykot, RdE 47. 155 221 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Intermediate Period to early Eighteenth Dynasty, as well as a group of finely made Kerma beakers, which would have been imported from the Kingdom of Kerma in Sudan. According to Bourriau, most of the Egyptian vessels are made of a medium-textured Nile alluvium (Nile B2 in the Vienna System). They were wheel-made, but some of the bases show tool marks from the removal of the excess clay, indicating that they were not returned to the wheel for finishing, a process that became more common from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards.162 Tall jars such as A.1909.527.21 K were typically used to carry water, while squat pots such as A.1909.527.21 B-C probably held scented oil or fat.163 Bourriau initially dated the ceramics to the late Seventeenth Dynasty, in particular two of the squat pots, which she identifies as fitting her figure 4 group 2 (i.e. the middle of her chronological progression from the Second Intermediate Period to the reigns of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III).164 Bourriau later argued that since the pottery does not exactly match the assemblage from the Seventeenth Dynasty cemetery at Dra Abu el-Naga, it may date to the reign of Ahmose I, although this seems less likely alongside other evidence presented here.165 The black-rimmed carinated bowl (A.1909.527.23; Pl. XXXII)166 is particularly distinctive and significant for dating, however, there has been some disagreement about the dating of black-rimmed Egyptian pottery. Aston dates the earliest examples to Amenhotep I and carinated bowls of the type found at Qurna specifically to late Thutmose III-Amenhotep II/Thutmose IV.167 However, the examples Aston discusses are all from Lower Egyptian sites and it seems likely that the style developed in Upper Egypt in the late Seventeenth Dynasty and reached Lower Egypt slightly later.168 end of the carrying pole (Pl. XXXIII).169 Beakers are typically stacked in Kerman funerary culture.170 The beakers belong to the “Classic” Kerma phase and may have been used as drinking vessels. They are so finely made and highly burnished that they must have been made in Kerma itself and imported. Nubian pottery is found in both burial and settlement contexts throughout Egypt from the Second Intermediate Period.171 Kerma beakers are well represented in burials, often as the sole examples of Nubian ceramics alongside Egyptian pottery. It is very difficult to determine whether such tomb-owners were Egyptian or Nubian. Some burials at Hierakonpolis and Abydos,172 are more distinctly recognisable as Nubian, while cooking pots and other vessels in settlement contexts at Avaris/ Tell el-Dab‘a, Ballas, and Edfu173 indicate the presence of Nubians living in Egypt. Unlike Pan Grave Nubian cemeteries in Egypt, instances of graves containing Kerma ware occur singly or in groups of two or three; Bourriau lists fifteen such grave groups.174 According to Reisner’s chronological arrangement of Kerma beakers, the Qurna burial should be the earliest Egyptian burial group containing Kerma ware. However, Bourriau and Lacovara have proposed that Reisner’s sequence be reversed, a possibility considered by Reisner himself, which would make the Qurna burial the latest instance of Kerma ware.175 Of the grave groups containing Kerma ware, a few are Nubian in style with the burial in a semi-contracted position, but the Egyptian-style burials are assumed to be Egyptianised Nubians. There is no clear evidence as to why these burials should be definitively identified as Nubian, when the material culture is otherwise entirely The Kerma beakers Three sets of tulip-shaped Kerma beakers were found stacked in twos in three net bags slung from the eastern Petrie, Qurneh, 6, pls 22-4, 28; Gratien, Les cultures Kerma, 117, fig. 33; Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 21-2. Beakers A.1909.527.41 B-C still have remains of netting adhering to their outer surfaces. A.1909.527.8 has traces of linen around the mouth, possibly to seal the vessel. 170 Ryholt, Political Situation, 180. 171 For lists of Nubian pottery found in the Nile Valley dating to the Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom, see Bourriau, in Arnold (ed.), Studien, 27-34; Gratien, in Kroeper, Chlodnicki, Kobusiewicz (eds), Northeastern Africa, 125-7. 172 Friedman, S&N 5; Gratien, in Kroeper, Chlodnicki, Kobusiewicz (eds), Northeastern Africa, 126. 173 Fuscaldo, Ä&L 12; Fuscaldo, Ä&L 14; Gratien, in Kroeper, Chlodnicki, Kobusiewicz (eds), Northeastern Africa, 124-5. 174 For a list of Kerma ware grave groups, see Bourriau, in Arnold (ed.), Studien, 31. 175 For Reisner’s Beaker sequence, see Type Bkt. I-13, 14 found in K333, 306, 331, 337, 343: Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 332-4, fig. 226, 2.3. For proposals to reverse the sequence, see Bourriau, in Arnold (ed.), Studien, 34-6; Lacovara, BSF 2, 56-7. Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 210-11. Bourriau, in Arnold (ed.), Studien, 30; Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 212. 164 Bourriau, in Arnold (ed.), Studien, 35, fig. 1.1-2. 165 Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 212; Seiler, Tradition & Wandel. 166 Petrie no. 21: Petrie, Qurneh, 7, pls 22, 27. 167 A bowl from Ezbet Helmi, stratum c (8909k): Aston, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Synchronisation, fig. 12c, dating of Egyptian black-rimmed pottery discussed 218-20. Compare also a footed, carinated bowl with a black rim from Qantir, published as early Eighteenth Dynasty in Aston, GM 113, 25, fig. 2.2; and as Second Intermediate Period type 37 in Wodzinska, Manual of Egyptian Pottery, vol. III, 41. 168 De Souza, in David (ed.), Céramiques, 79; Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, 145, fig. 63.6, pl. 8.7. 162 163 169 222 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Egyptian. Other examples of non-Egyptian ceramics such as Cypriot, Tell el-Yahudiya, Levantine, and Kamares wares have generally been interpreted as luxury imports, rather than being construed as the burials of foreigners integrated into Egyptian culture.176 This refusal to consider this possibility has effectively defined Nubian objects as ethnic markers and reveals a reluctance to recognize the desirability of Nubian material culture that is likely rooted in historic colonial attitudes.177 As Bourriau notes, the Egyptian objects present in Nubia, as well as the Nubian material culture in Egypt, attest to considerable Nile traffic during the Second Intermediate Period. As such, Roehrig argues that it is possible that the woman in the Qurna burial was from an Upper Egyptian family with “a taste for Nubian crafts”.178 It seems just as likely graves bearing Nubian objects might represent not Egyptianised Nubians as previously assumed, but rather Nubianised Egyptians. This possibility is discussed by de Souza in relation to Egyptian vessels with black-painted rims evoking Nubian pottery. Such vessels are not found in Nubian burials, so it seems more likely that they were made by/for Egyptians in imitation of desirable Nubian pottery.179 Considering the undeniable aesthetic appeal and quality of Kerma beakers, it seems entirely likely that they fostered desirability amongst Egyptian audiences as luxury imports. As Roehrig states, “the form, delicacy, and surface treatment of Classic Kerma beakers place them among the finest ceramic art forms ever created”.180 Walsh notes that the Egyptian use of Nubian vessels is specific to certain forms related to food and drink. He argues for an Egyptian interest in Kerman commensality practices, noting the haptic appeal of beakers and their possible use for ritual drinking.181 Smith has similarly noted that the use of Nubian pottery in the Egyptian fortress and settlement at Askut differed according to social status, with drinking forms being found in elite contexts and cooking forms in non-elite contexts.182 Although the ethnicity of the “Qurna Queen” cannot be established with certainty, it seems evident that imported Kerma ware was valued by royalty. Another possible royal tomb associated with the pyramid of Nubkheperre Intef at Dra Abu el-Naga (K01.8) also conE.g. Oppenheim et al., Egypt Transformed, 178-9. E.g. Minor, in Honegger (ed.), Nubian Archaeology. 178 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 21-2. 179 De Souza, in David (ed.), Céramiques, esp. 79-80, 84; a possible exception is an Egyptian bowl painted black and red probably in imitation of black-topped red polished vessels excavated in the Nubian cemetery at Hierakonpolis: Friedman, S&N 5, 31, pl. 2; Giuliani, S&N 5, 44. 180 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 22. 181 Walsh, JAEI 20. 182 Smith, Wretched Kush, 117; Walsh, JAEI 20, 41. 176 177 tained two Nubian vessels183 and they are found in palatial contexts at Avaris/Tell el-Dab‘a.184 That six beakers were present in the Qurna burial, a significant quantity compared to other documented examples, further suggests that they were valued as a status symbol. The Carrier Net Bags A total of fifteen vessels were held in ten net bags suspended from a wooden carrying pole placed in the burial. The survival of this cordage to such a high level of preservation is remarkable and rare. Petrie’s drawing and photographs are significant for understanding the original arrangement of the pots in their carrier nets, as well as the netting itself, as their condition has deteriorated over time and several no longer survive or have only traces remaining. Petrie noted their fragility at the time of excavation, writing “all of the nettings were in a very tender state, and only the string bag would bear handling”.185 Their already fragile nature was no doubt exacerbated by Petrie’s attempt to stabilize them by applying collodion (a solution of dinitrocellulose in alcohol and ether), which degraded over time. Some of the netting was mounted as samples in “8 glass shades” and transported to Edinburgh personally by Petrie.186 Some of these possibly appear in a photograph of the Qurna display in the Museum from 1920.187 Some were subsequently stored with or reattached to vessels, but others are currently unlocated. As the fibres deteriorated, some questionable choices were made in an attempt to maintain the appearance of the vessels in their netting. For example, jar A.1909.527.21 E had netting from jar A.1909.527.21 C applied to it; this has now been removed and stored separately as A.1909.527.21 L. The tamarisk branch that served as the carrying pole (A.1909.527.21) had a metal rod inserted through its centre to stabilize it, but this may have further contributed to its fragile state. The netting was studied by Veldmeijer and Bourriau.188 They tentatively identified the string as flax (linen) and noted that the netting is made with considerable skill exclusively with half knots, the easiest technique for making decorative patterns. They propose that essentially five styles of netting are represented in the Qurna burial; for ease of reference, we have suggested names for these. Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, 84-5. Walsh, JAEI 20, 34-5. 185 Petrie, Qurneh, 6. 186 National Museums Scotland, World Cultures Archives: Letter from W.M. Flinders Petrie to James J. Dobbie, dated 05/08/1909. 187 Royal Scottish Museum, Guide (1920), pl. 3. 188 Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 209-22; see also Petrie, Man 9, 129, pls I-J; Veldmeijer, in Wendrich (ed.), Encyclopedia, 5, fig. 7. 183 184 223 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Diamond-pattern netting The jar A.1909.527.21 D has remains of netting around its base made of one z-spun string (not plied), which is knotted in a diamond pattern by means of half knots (Pl. XXXIV). There are traces of linen around the mouth where it was originally sealed.189 Close-knotted diamond-pattern netting Uniquely, the netting on jar A.1909.527.21 K is made of sS4 string with a relatively large diameter tied in half knots at regular intervals; the mesh has an average side length of 6.3 mm (Pl. XXXIV). The bottom tassels are composed of seven threads, around which an eighth thread was wound, probably in a similar way to A.1909.527.39, although in this case two of the tassels were knotted with a reef knot.190 This style of netting may imitate faience beadwork, similar to the two bead net bags found in the burial (A.1909.527.4 + A; Pl. XXXVI). Diamond-pattern netting in groups of four Veldmeijer and Bourriau studied a fragment of detached netting stored inside red-burnished jar A.1909.527.39, however it may not have been originally associated with this vessel, as it most closely resembles the netting photographed by Petrie with one of the Kerma beakers.191 The netting is made with very fine sZ2 string with some areas made with sZ3 string knotted in a diamond pattern by means of half knots arranged in groups of four. The netting is almost entirely closed at the bottom and has some remains of tassels, probably originally four. Two loops probably served as handles. Diamond-pattern netting in groups of twenty-five The netting of fine z-spun string on A.1909.527.21 G (Pl. XXXIV) is comparable to the diamond-pattern in groups of four discussed above, but it is more complex with a greater number of knots. It has groups of half knots at regular intervals resulting in periodic diamond-shaped meshes, with a side length of 43 mm in the first row and 34 mm in subsequent rows. Two sets of five strings each cross to form these diamond-meshes. Two simple braids at the top serve as handles, made with three strands, each consisting of twenty strings, in an “over one, under one” pattern. The cordage is now glued to the vessel to secure it.192 Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 213, fig. 4a-b, pl. 4; not identified in Petrie’s plates, possibly Petrie no. 18. 190 Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 215-17, figs 7a-b, 8, pl. 5; not identified in Petrie’s plates, possibly Petrie no. 15, although there is also an additional jar not included in Petrie’s diagram. 191 Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 213-14, fig. 5a-b, pl. 4 (see also fig. 3); Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 28.24. 192 Petrie no. 22: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22, 23, 27; Veldmeijer, 189 The netting around squat pot A.1909.527.21 B is made with half knots arranged decoratively in diamond-shaped groups of 25 knots (Pl. XXXV), comparable to A.1909.527.21 G.193 Several other squat pots from the burial with comparable netting are not discussed by Veldmeijer and Bourriau. A.1909.527.21 H (Petrie no. 11) and A.1909.527.21 I (possibly Petrie no. 12) appear to have traces of the same style netting remaining, as does A.1909.527. 21 C, which originally ended in a tassel at the bottom. Additionally, the mouth of the vessel has the remains of a piece of linen secured by several strings tied around the neck in a knot.194 The longer-necked squat pot A.1909.527.21 E also has similar netting that appears to have ended in a tassel, as well as a ceramic lid with remains of a linen seal.195 Herringbone-pattern netting The most complete netting remains intact around jar A.1909.527.21 A (Pl. XXXIV).196 Evidence of wear on the surface of the netting suggests that it was used frequently in antiquity. The string is z-spun of a relatively large diameter. The knots are most likely to be half knots, executed in alternating diagonal rows to create a herringbone pattern ending in squares at the base and long tassels.197 The handles are plaited or braided. Comparative examples of net carriers Few examples of net bags survive from ancient Egypt (most netting in museum collections is fishing nets). Net slings for much larger pots have been found in Egyptian tombs, such as an amphora sling from Amarna,198 several large jars in simple rope carrying-nets from a Twelfth Dynasty tomb at Beni Hassan,199 and an estimated 1.5 m long sling net from the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb of Hatnefer, mother of Senenmut.200 Despite being much larger than the Qurna examples, the Hatnefer netting is knotted in half knots arranged in a diamond-pattern, the same style as that of a number of vessels from the burial, of which A.1909.527.21 G is the best-preserved example; it also has similar plaited handles. In contrast, it has a large bottom ring on which Bourriau, JEA 95, 214, figs 1-2, 6a-b, pl. 4. 193 Petrie no. 16/20: Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 217, fig. 9, pl. 5; Petrie, Qurneh, pl. 27. 194 Petrie no. 16/20: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22, 27. 195 Petrie no. 14: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22, 27. 196 Petrie no. 23: Petrie, Qurneh, pls 22-4, 28; Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 217-18, figs 2, 10, pl. 5. 197 Cf. Reisner’s Type VI: Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 302-3. 198 Wendrich, World According to Basketry, 204-5. 199 Garstang, Burial Customs, 107, figs 97, 228 (Beni Hassan tomb 67). 200 JE 66242: Lansing, Hayes, BMMA 32/1, 28, 33, fig. 39; Roehrig, BMMA 60/1, 37, fig. 49. 224 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ to rest a large heavy amphora, of which three were found containing oil in the tomb of Hatnefer. There are a number of Middle Kingdom tomb representations of pots being carried in net bags slung from poles at Thebes and Beni Hassan.201 These depictions show two vessels being carried at a time, one at each end of the pole. They occur mostly in scenes of offering bearers, while TT 60 of Senet shows them being carried by attendants of a hunting party, possibly holding refreshments. Few associated captions survive, and none indicate the contents of the vessels. These painted representations are not particularly detailed, but they show the netting strung in a diamond-pattern. The largest number of surviving net bags come from Kerma, including examples similar to those from the “Qurna Queen” burial, especially the inclusion of tassels. Reisner published numerous examples, some still in situ around vessels, identifying seven types of netting, including a beaded net.202 Unfortunately, the types of knots are not identified, and no measurements are given. The Kerma netting is even more elaborate than the Qurna material, and only two of the Qurna styles are identifiable amongst Reisner’s types: type I “simple lozenge-mesh” is similar to the diamond-pattern found on A.1909.527.21 D, although Reisner describes Nubian examples as typically dyed red, and type VI “zigzag pattern mesh” is the same as the herringbone-pattern found on A.1909.527.21 A. There is also a similarity between some of the Qurna and Kerma netting in terms of how the size of the mesh reduces as the netting tapers towards the handles and tassels.203 Since the Kerma netting provides the closest parallels for the Qurna nets, Veldmeijer and Bourriau have suggested that they might have been imported from Kerma; the similarity between certain types does support the possibility of imports or stylistic influence. However, this ignores the fact that netting with grouped half knots, like A.1909.527.21 G, is not attested from Kerma, but is known from the tomb of Hatnefer. Furthermore, iconographic evidence suggests that net bags were more common in ancient Egypt than their survival in the archaeological record would indicate. Ultimately, the very limited survival of netting makes the origin of the Qurna net bags difficult to determine with any certainty as this practice is evidenced across the Nile Valley. Davies, Antefoker, pls 6-7; Newberry, Beni Hasan, vol. I, pls 12, 13, 17, 19; Newberry, Beni Hasan, vol. II, pls 14, 17. Carrying poles were also used to transport baskets, bundles of fish or waterfowl, and live animal cages. 202 Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 301-3, pls 64-5, 67; Veldmeijer, Bourriau, JEA 95, 219-22. 203 Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 302, pls 64.1, 65.1 (no. 5), 67.1 (no. 2). 201 The Food The burial included several small loaves of bread (A.1909.527.26 + A-E), one of which may have been cut with a knife in antiquity. Examination of the bread during the NMS Mummy Project indicated that it was made with emmer wheat, although some barley was noted in one loaf. Leavened bread and probably also unleavened bread are represented, and some have the bran present, while in others it had been removed.204 A fragment of one of the loaves was provided for study to Frank Filce Leek,205 and microradiographs indicated the presence of a significant amount of inorganic particles, presumably from the grinding of the flour.206 Of the four doum palm fruits (A.1909.527.27 + A-C) found in the burial, one has teeth marks, probably from mice (A.1909.527.27 A). Analysis of the other fruit (A.1909.527.25; Pl. XXXII), conducted by Edgar Evans of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, identified not only dates and grapes, but also possibly peach stones.207 The Furniture The stools The burial contained several pieces of wooden furniture: a headrest, a bovine-legged stool with a remarkably well-preserved woven seat, and two small low stoolframes. The largest stool has elegantly carved bovine legs, which were originally broken off for placement in the burial and since restored (A.1909.527.22; Pl. XXXVIII).208 The use of bovine furniture legs began in the Early Dynastic Period209 and continued through the Old Kingdom. These early examples are all low in height, especially compared to the Qurna stool. The gradual introduction of leonine legs began in the Third and Fourth Dynasties; Fischer suggests that animal-legged furniture may initially have been a royal privilege because of royal symbolism associated with lions and bulls.210 During the Middle Kingdom, leonine forms overtook bovine legs and virtually replaced them by the New Kingdom. Thus, the Qurna stool may hark back to an older design, or indicate further influence from Kerma, where bovine furniture legs continued to be used extensively through the Middle Kingdom on funerary beds.211 Another rare Analysis provided by Delwyn Samuel, UCL: Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 40. 205 Dixon, JEA 72, 175-78. 206 Leek, JEA 58, 129-30. 207 Petrie, Qurneh, 7, pl. 25; NMS World Cultures archives, Letter from Edgar Evans to Cyril Aldred. 208 Petrie, Qurneh, 7, pl. 26. 209 E.g. Fischer, Varia, 145; Killen, Furniture, vol. I, 5-6. 210 Fischer, Varia, 146. 211 Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, pl. 51.1-2. 204 225 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen later example of bovine furniture legs occurs on a wooden bedframe embellished with gold and silver, probably from the tomb of Ramesses IX (BM EA 21574); the possibility that it might be an import or copy of Kerma beds has been considered.212 Almost all examples of bovine furniture legs, from the earliest Egyptian examples to those excavated at Kerma, depict the hooves resting on a ribbed pedestal, but the Qurna stool legs do not have this feature and are more naturalistic in appearance. Compared to other examples in which the sinews and tendons are heavily emphasized, the legs are more subtly carved. All four legs on the Qurna stool evoke the foreleg of a bull or cow, unlike many other examples, especially on beds, where the front legs are represented as straight forelegs and the rear legs as hind legs with the knee joint indicated.213 The frame of the seat is made from four pieces of wood held together and attached to the legs by L-brackets with dowels, probably reinforced by mortise and tenon joints, although these are not visible.214 The frame was then bound together by woven linen string. Each side has eighteen holes and eighteen threads go through each hole, with “three bands of three threads each running off to the two diagonals. Each band of three threads passes under three other bands, and then over three, to form the pattern”.215 The two smaller, lower stool frames (A.1909.527.29 + A) are a new form that emerged during the Middle Kingdom. Their simple design and construction proved popular and influenced later Eighteenth Dynasty designs.216 The stools are composed of fours rails that form the seat, which are joined to the four legs with dowels, which are visible. The legs taper in the middle to a square-sectioned waist, where they are decorated with several incised bands, and then flare again sharply at the foot. The top of each leg is rounded; on the larger stool (A.1909.527.29 A; Pl. XXXVIX), there is also a dip in the middle. Below this is a square mortise cut through the leg, through which the tenon that serves to attach each rail is visible. This design means that two of the rails sit on a higher plane than the other two rails; it was only later, during the New Kingdom, that barefaced tenons were introduced, making it possible for rails to sit on the same plane.217 Both of these designs are also attested at the site of Kerma.218 The side rails are rectangular in section, but slightly rounded to prevent wear on the rushes that would have been wrapped around the side rails and then woven to form the seat. On the larger stool, numerous grooves on the rails indicate where the rush would have previously been wrapped, indicating that it was extensively used in life before being placed in the burial. At the time of excavation, there were still two turns of rush twist webbing on one of the rails, which have not survived. The smaller stool still had small scraps of linen stuck to one side, which may indicate that the seat was made of linen.219 Both stool frames are made of expensive cedar-wood imported from Lebanon. The headrest The headrest is a particularly elegant example made of local acacia wood with delicate inlaid decoration in ebony and ivory (A.1909.527.3; Pl. XXXVII).220 The pillar is octagonally-faceted and is slim compared to other examples. The style may have been relatively new and fashionable at the time; some examples of headrests with octagonal pillars may date to the Middle Kingdom, but the type only became common during the New Kingdom, including several found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.221 The new style may have taken inspiration from architectural developments. In the Old Kingdom, a fluted design was typical, comparable to the ribbed and fluted columns found at the Djoser Step Pyramid complex, while octagonal columns were first introduced during the Middle Kingdom.222 The Qurna headrest is made of three parts fastened together with rectangular tenons, the topmost of which is visible in the centre of the curved head support. Similar examples are typically made in three parts, although there are some made in two.223 The base is oblong in shape with rounded ends. The upper half of the pillar is decorated with a geometric pattern of alternating inlaid triangles of ebony and ivory, designed so that each triangular inlay forms one half of a square. There are three rows of these squares, above which is a thin band Gale et al., in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 361-2. 218 Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 227-8, fig. 218. 219 Petrie, Qurneh, 7. 220 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 39; Roehrig, Hatshepsut, 22. 221 E.g. Brooklyn 14.650 (https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/ opencollection/objects/3116, <accessed on 12.01.2022>); the Tutankhamun octagonal headrests are Cairo JE 62020, 62022, 62025: Broschat, Rehren, JGS, 59. 222 Lehner, Complete Pyramids, 84-5; Oppenheim et al., Ancient Egypt Transformed, 12-13. 223 Killen, Furniture, vol. III, 32, pl. 1. 217 212 Roehrig, Hatshepsut, no. 191, 257-58; Killen, Furniture, vol. I, 8, pl. 1. 213 E.g Quibell, Tomb of Hesy, pl. 20; Steindorff, Grab des Ti, pl. 133; Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 215, fig. 191. 214 Compare discussion of bovine-legged bed construction in Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 208-23. 215 Petrie, Qurneh, 7; a somewhat similar pattern of linen webbing is discussed for an early Eighteenth Dynasty chair (MMA 68.58) in Fischer, Varia, 141-2, fig. 3. 216 Killen, Furniture, vol. I, 18-19, compare no. 6, pls 51-3. 226 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ of ebony. The ivory is either local hippopotamus tusk or elephant ivory imported from further south, like the East African ebony. Triangular ivory inlays occur in Egypt at least as early as the Early Dynastic Period,224 but do not seem to have been particularly common afterwards. There is one Eighteenth Dynasty Theban example, a fragmentary chair made of a dark red wood, excavated just below the tomb of Senenmut, in which the L-braces supporting the back are inlaid with squares of ebony flanked by ivory triangles.225 At Kerma, triangular inlays seem to have been a relatively common form of decoration. During excavations there, triangular inlays of ivory, bone, and shell were found as decoration on several bed footboards, a box, and several horn-protectors, all made of wood.226 As such, these examples might potentially indicate an older shared tradition of triangular motifs and inlays in the Nile Valley, but also suggests possible contemporary Kerman influence. Furthermore, similarities may be drawn with the decoration on the pommel of one of the ceremonial daggers from the burial of Queen Ahhotep, which also exhibits Aegean influence, and features a motif of alternating black and gold triangles nearly identical to the Qurna headrest (JE 4666).227 The dagger is still considered to be of Egyptian manufacture, so Nubian influences may have been incorporated along with the Aegean. This same repeating triangular motif arranged in light-dark splitsquare pattern also appears on Ahhotep’s ceremonial archer’s bracer (JE 4680) and her pair of beaded bracelets (JE 4686-7), while other items in the burial exhibit additional forms of Kerman influence, such as the gold flies and weapons.228 As such, these objects further indicate that Kerma exerted aesthetic influence on Egyptian high elite culture. The base of the Qurna headrest is particularly long when compared to other Egyptian examples,229 perhaps to provide stability to this headrest’s otherwise relatively slight form and narrow footprint. Notably, however, E.g. Petrie, Royal Tombs, vol. II, pls 37-8, 40-3 (e.g. BM EA 32661; Liverpool 24.9.00.58B). 225 MMA 36.3.236 a-g: Hayes, Scepter, 202. 226 Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 253-4, 265, 269, 271, pl. 55.2 (e.g. MFA Boston 13.5702; 20.1541). 227 Aruz et al., Beyond Babylon, 119-22, no. 68. 228 Pl. V; Morris, “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume, figs 3a, 3b; Lacovara, “The Flies of Ahhotep”, in this volume. 229 A very similar headrest with a long base and octagonally-faceted column is Cairo Museum no. 13201, from Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, possibly dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty; Reisner assigns these both to his Type II-4: Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 232, fig. 221, nos 19-20. Kerma headrests are distinguished from similar Egyptian versions by their extraordinarily long bases, which average about 35 cm compared to the Egyptian average of 25 cm, according to Reisner.230 He argues that the difference in length might stem from Kerma examples being used on beds (or funerary beds), while Egyptian ones made for burials were intended for coffins, although this argument is not entirely convincing since there are examples of Egyptian headrests buried outside coffins and used during life. The Qurna headrest base is 30.5 cm long, so longer than the Egyptian average, but not as long as most Kerma examples. Taken together with the inlay-decoration, this suggests Kerman influence, but not necessarily Kerman manufacture. The wooden box The wooden box with a sliding lid is simple in design and lacks decoration; it is joined with mitre and half dovetail joints (A.1909.527.30 + A; Pl. XL). The box contained a lump of fatty substance wrapped in a significant quantity of linen, which had partially soaked into the cloth and congealed towards the base, with the linen showing signs of insect pest activity (A.1909.527.30 B). Petrie described the linen wrapping as “some clothing pressed in over it”.231 The fat might be an unguent or ointment, but an edible fat also remains a possibility until residue analysis can be conducted. The front end of the lid has a strip of wood attached on top and a knob, with an additional knob at the front of the box, around which string could be wound to secure the lid.232 A number of dowels secure the sides along the base, as well as the back of the box on all four sides. There are dovetail grooves along the tops of the side panels and the back panel is lower in height to allow for movement of the lid. In the bottom corner of the lid, there is a hole from a natural knot in the wood, which may have been plastered over originally. The base of the box sits on two battens at either end serving as feet. Conclusion 224 Since the discovery of the burial of the “Qurna Queen”, further study of the assemblage in relation to other finds has deepened our understanding of the complex cultural context in which they existed, the processes by which they were made and used, and their dating. Some of these Reisner, Kerma, vols IV-V, 236-7, see also 232-3, pl. 221.19 for the Qurna headrest. 231 Petrie, Qurneh, 7. NB the contents of this box are incorrectly identified in Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 66 as linen from the unwrapping of the woman’s remains. 232 Gale et al., in Nicholson, Shaw (eds), Materials and Technology, 366, fig. 15.45. 230 227 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen items are extremely rare, such as the net bags, and provide insights into areas of material culture that seldom survive. Although much has been learned, there is still scope for further analysis, such as study of the linen and baskets, further residue, wood, and ivory analysis, radiography/scanning of the wooden furniture’s construction, and provenancing of the obsidian. Although the burial’s dating has been debated based on various typological comparisons of the objects within it, including several arguments for the early Eighteenth Dynasty, most consensus has fallen around the Seventeenth Dynasty. This has been further reinforced by radiocarbon dating conducted by the Oxford Radiocarbon Unit, which dated a grape from the burial to 1880-1600 BC and a rib from the woman to 1750-1520 BC to give a combined date of 1750-1600 BC at 95.4% probability, consistent with a late Thirteenth-early Seventeenth Dynasty date rather than an early Eighteenth Dynasty date.233 At a time of political division and apparent economic weakness, the Qurna burial demonstrates wealth, sophistication, and ingenuity; the reuse of materials suggests an attempt to economise, while there is also evidence of skilled craft production and trade. For example, although there was a lack of access to large-scale cedar-wood planks for coffins, the burial still included cedar-wood stools and coniferous resins imported from Lebanon.234 Analysis of the jewellery sets show that the Theban royal family had access to sources of extremely high-purity gold and skilled jewellers, while also employing methods of reuse and recycling. The repeated attempts to define the ethnic identity of the “Qurna Queen” as either Egyptian or Nubian arguably say more about scholarly preconceptions and preoccupations than they do about the woman herself and the cultural milieu which she inhabited. It is striking that the idea of a possible diplomatic marriage has been largely accepted, positioning Kerma in a subservient role to Egypt, over the consideration of possible Kerman cultural influence and Egyptian desire for Kerman products. The Kerma beakers are obvious indicators of a Nubian cultural connection, but they were found in an otherwise largely Egyptian-style burial. The headrest’s octagonal pillar design is common in Egypt, but its elongated form and triangular inlays are suggestive of Kerman influence, while the net bags, bovine-legged chair, and small stools have parallels in both Egypt and Kerma, serving as further evidence of the material entanglement of the two regions. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analyses indicate that the “Qurna Queen” ate a mixed Shortland, Eremin, Goring, “The Qurna Burial (including isotopic results)”. 234 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 40. 233 Nubian-Egyptian diet, which may indicate that her early life was based in Nubia, or potentially suggest Kerman influence on the diet and lifestyle of the elite in Egypt. This is not to say that we are arguing that the “Qurna Queen” was Egyptian rather than Nubian, especially as rigid ethnic identifications are probably not necessary or useful; instead, we are advocating for the consideration of cultural entanglement in our understanding of the burial group.235 During the Second Intermediate Period, the Kingdom of Kerma was at the height of its powers, so its influence in Egypt would be entirely understandable. Past interpretations of the Qurna burial may instead have been shaped by assumptions about the primacy of Egyptian culture and Egyptological bias against the positioning of Kerma as a cultural leader during this period. Regardless of where the “Qurna Queen” was born, her burial demonstrates the desirability of Nubian cultural material and the extent of interconnections between Egypt and Kerma. Acknowledgements We thank all of the contributors to the National Museums Scotland research project on the Qurna burial and the NMS Mummy Project who conducted elements of this research, especially Katherine Eremin, Jim Tate, Elizabeth Goring, Bill Manley, and Lesley-Ann Liddiard, as well as Maria Filomena Guerra, Andrew J. Shortland, Caroline Cartwright, Louise Humphrey, Theya Molleson, Sonia Zakrzewski, Jane Evans, Anita Quye, Andrew Wright, Ian Macleod, the Oxford Radiocarbon Unit, Martin Connell, Malcolm Merrick, Eva-Maria Geigl, and Aidan Dodson. Special thanks to Jim Tate for reading and commenting on a draft of this article. Thanks to National Museums Scotland colleagues, especially photographers Neil McLean, Amy Fokinther, and Mary Freeman, artefact conservators Charles Stable, Diana de Bellaigue, Lydia Messerschmidt, Bethan Bryan, Margot Murray, Stefka Bargazova, and Brian Melville, Keeper John Giblin, and assistant curators Victoria Adams and Ross Irving. Thanks to Alice Stevenson and Anna Garnett of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL for sharing archival images and documents with the authors. Bibliography Aldred, C., Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewellery of the Dynastic Period (London, 1971). Amiran, R., “The “Arm-Shaped’ Vessel and Its Family”, JNES 21 (1962), 161-74. Aruz, J., K. Benzel, J.M. Evans, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008). 235 228 E.g. van Pelt, CAJ 23/3. The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Aston, B.G., Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms (Heidelberg, 1994). Aston, B.G., J. Harrell, I. Shaw, “Stone”, in P. T. Nicholson, I. Shaw (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000), 5-77. Aston, D.A., “Qantir/Piramesse Nord Pottery Report 1988”, GM 113 (1989), 7-32. Aston, D.A., “Kom Rabica, Ezbet Helmi, and Saqqara NK 3507: A Study in Cross-Dating”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-2nd EuroConference Vienna, 28th of May-1st of June 2003 (Vienna, 2007), 207-48. Bavay, L., T. De Putter, B. Adams, J. Navez, L. André, “The Origin of Obsidian in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Upper Egypt”, MDAIK 56 (2000), 5-20. Bénédite, G., “La corne-recipient dans l’ancienne Égypte”, Revue d’ethnographie et des traditions populaires 1 (1920), 81-6. Berry, A.C., R.J. Berry, P.J. Ucko, “Genetical Change in Ancient Egypt”, Man 2/4 (1967), 551-68. Betrò, M., “The Identity of Ahhotep and the Textual Sources”, in this volume. Binder, S., The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt (Oxford: ACE Studies 8, 2008). von Bissing, F.W., Steingefässe. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire Nos 18065-18793 (Vienna, 1904-07). Bouriant, U., “Petits monuments et petit textes recueillis en Égypte”, RT 9 (1887), 81-100. Bourriau, J., “Nubians in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period: An Interpretation Based on the Egyptian Ceramic Evidence”, in D. Arnold (ed.), Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik (Mainz, 1981), 25-42. Bourriau, J. Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom (Cambridge, 1988). Bourriau, J., “Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms”, in V. Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam (London, 1991), 129-44. Bourriau, J., “The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650-1550 BC)”, in I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000), 184-217. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities: Found by Prof. Flinders Petrie and Students at Memphis (Palace of Apries) and Thebes (Qurneh), 1909; Exhibited at University College, Gower St., London, July 5th to 31st (London, 1909). Broschat, K., T. Rehren, “The Glass Headrests of Tutankhamen”, JGS 59 (2017), 377-80. Brugsch, H.K., A History of Egypt under the Pharaohs (London, 1879). Brunner-Traut, E., “Das Muttermilchkrüglein: Ammen mit Stillumhang und Mondamulett”, WdO 6 (1970), 4-6. Bruyère, B., Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1934-1935), vol. II (Cairo: FIFAO 15, 1937). Buckley, S.A., R.P. Evershed, “Organic Chemistry of Embalming Agents in Pharaonic and Graeco-Roman Mummies”, Nature 413 (2001), 837-841. Budin, S.L., Images of Woman and Child from the Bronze Age: Reconsidering Fertility, Maternity, and Gender in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 2011). Capel, A.K., G. Markoe (eds), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt (New York, 1996). Carnarvon, Fifth Earl of., H. Carter, Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes: A Record of Work Done 1907-1911 (Oxford, 1912). Davies, N. de G., A.H. Gardiner, Davies, N. de G., The Tomb of Antefoker, Vizier of Sésostris I and of his Wife Senet (London: TTS 2, 1920). Davies, W.V., “Ancient Egyptian Timber Imports: An Analysis of Wooden Coffins in the British Museum”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 146-56. Dixon, D.M., “Frank Filce Leek”, JEA 72 (1986), 175-8. Drower, M.S., Flinders Petrie: A Life in Archaeology (London, 1985). Edwards, H.G.M., S.E.J. Villar, K.A. Eremin, “Raman Spectroscopic Analysis of Pigments from Dynastic Egyptian Funerary Artefacts”, J. Raman Spectrosc 35/8-9 (2004), 786-95. Eremin, K.A., E. Goring, W.P. Manley, C. Cartwright, “A 17th Dynasty Egyptian Queen in Edinburgh?”, KMT 11/3 (2000), 32-40. Eremin, K.A., W.P. Manley, A. Shortland, C. Wilkinson, “The Facial Reconstruction of an Ancient Egyptian Queen”, Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine 25/4 (2002), 155-9. Fay, B., “Egyptian Duck Flasks of Blue Anhydrite”, MMJ 33 (1998), 23-48. Firth, C.M., B.G. Gunn, Excavations at Saqqara: Teti Pyramid Cemeteries (Cairo, 1926). Fischer, H.G., “A Chair of the Early New Kingdom”, Egyptian Studies III: Varia Nova (New York, 1996), 141-76. Freed, R., Egypt’s Golden Age, the Art of Living in the New Kingdom, 1558-1085 B.C. (Boston, 1981). Friedman, R., “Nubians at Hierakonpolis: Excavations in the Nubian Cemeteries”, S&N 5 (2001), 28-37. Fuscaldo, P., “The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at E ̔ zbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI. Part I: The “Classic’ Kerma Pottery from the 18th Dynasty”, Ä&L 12 (2004), 167-86. Fuscaldo, P., “The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at ʻEzbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI. Part II: The “Classic’ Kerma Pottery from the Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty”, Ä&L 14 (2004), 111-19. Galán, J., A. Jimenez-Higueras, “Three Burials of the Seventeenth Dynasty in Dra Abu el-Naga”, in G. Miniaci, 229 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen W. Grajetzki, (eds), The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1550 BC) (London: MKS 1, 2015), 101-20. Gale, R., P. Gasson, N. Hepper, G. Killen, “Wood”, in P.T. Nicholson, I. Shaw (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, (Cambridge, 2000), 334-72. Gale, N.H., Z.A. Stos-Gale, “Ancient Egyptian Silver”, JEA 67, 103-15. Gardiner, A.H., “The Defeat of the Hyksos by Kamōse: The Carnarvon Tablet, No. I”, JEA 3 (1916), 95-110. Garstang, J., El Arábah: A Cemetery of the Middle Kingdom; Survey of the Old Kingdom Temenos; Graffiti from the Temple of Sety (London, 1901). Garstang, J., The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt (London, 1907). Garstang, J., “Excavations at Abydos, 1909: Preliminary Description of the Principal Finds”, AAAL 2 (1909), 125-9. Giménez, J., J.A. Sánchez, L. Solano, “Identifying the Ethiopian Origin of the Obsidian Found in Upper Egypt (Naqada Period) and the Most Likely Exchange Routes”, JEA 101 (2015), 349-59. Giuliani, S., “Pottery from the Nubian Cemeteries”, S&N 5 (2001), 40-5. Gratien, B., “Kerma People in Egypt (Middle and Classic Kerma)”, in K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki, M. Kobusiewicz (eds), Archaeology of Northeastern Africa: In Memory of Lech Krzyżaniak (Posnan: SAA 9, 2006), 119-34. Gratien, B., Les cultures Kerma: Essai de classification (Lille, 1978). Grajetzki, W., Ancient Egyptian Queens: A Hieroglyphic Dictionary (London, 2005). Guerra, M.F., S. Pagès-Camagna, “On the Way to the New Kingdom. Analytical study of Queen Ahhotep’s Gold Jewellery (17th Dynasty of Egypt)”, JCH 36 (2019), 143-52. Harris, D.C., L.J. Cabri, “Nomenclature of Platinum Group Element Alloys: Review and Revision”, Canadian Mineralogist 29 (1991), 231-7. Hassanein, O., N. Iskander, “Shedding Light on the Functions of Some Unknown Objects in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo”, in Z. Hawass, L. Pinch Brock (eds), Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000, vol. III (Cairo, 2003), 222-6. Hayes, W.C., “The Tomb of Nefer-khēwet and His Family”, BMMA 30/11 (1935), 17-36. Hayes, W.C., Scepter of Egypt. Vol. II: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (16751080 B.C.) (New York, 1959). Humphrey, L., T. Molleson, Qurneh Mummies Report (Unpublished Report for National Museums Scotland, 1997). Jiménez, A., et al., “QH32, QH33, QH34aa, QH34bb, QH122, QH35p y QH36. Proyecto Qubbet el-Hawa: Trabajos arqueológicos de las tumbas Novena campaña (2017)”, BAEDE 26 (2017), 13-110. Kessler, D., “Monkeys and Baboons”, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. II (Oxford, 2001), 428-32. Killen, G., Egyptian Woodworking and Furniture, (Princes Risborough, 1994). Killen, G., Ancient Egyptian Furniture, vols I-III (Oxford, 2017). Lacau, P., Stèles du Nouvel Empire, vol. I (Cairo, 1909). Lacovara, P., “The Internal Chronology of Kerma”, BSF 2 (1987), 51-74. Lacovara, P., “The Flies of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Lacovara, P., “The Treasure of Ahhotep in Archaeological Context”, in this volume. Lacovara, P., Y.J. Markowitz, Nubian Gold: Ancient Jewelry from Sudan and Egypt (Cairo, 2019). Lansing, A., W.C. Hayes, “The Egyptian Expedition 19351936: The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes”, BMMA 32/1 (1937), 4-39. Lee, L., S. Quirke, “Painting Materials”, in P.T. Nicholson, I. Shaw (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000), 104-20. Leek, F.F., “Teeth and Bread in Ancient Egypt”, JEA 58 (1972), 126-32. Lehner, M., The Complete Pyramids (London, 1997). Lilyquist, C., The Tomb of Three Foreign Wives of Thutmosis III (New York, 2003). Lucas, A., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 2nd ed. (London, 1934). Lythgoe, A.M., A. Lansing, No. de G. Davies, “The Egyptian Expedition 1915-16: Excavations in the Assasîf at Thebes”, BMMA 12/5 (1917), 7-26. Manley, B., “Petrie’s Revolutions: The Case of the Qurneh Queen”, in K. Exell (ed.), Egypt in its African Context: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, 2-4 October 2009 (Oxford: BAR International Series 2204, 2011), 92-7. Manley, B., A.M. Dodson, Life Everlasting: National Museums Scotland Collection of Ancient Egyptian Coffins (Edinburgh, 2010). Meeks, N.D., M.S. Tite, “The Analysis of Platinum-Group Element Inclusions in Gold Antiquities”, JAS 7 (1980), 267-75. Miniaci, G., “L’origine sociale dei sarcofagi rishi: un’analisi archeologica”, Aegyptus 87 (2007), 105-25. Miniaci, G., “Some Remarks on the Development of Rishi Coffins”, in S. Grallert, W. Grajetzki (eds), Life and Afterlife in the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (London, 2007), 94-9. Miniaci, G., “The Archaeological Exploration of Dra Abu el-Naga”, in M. Betrò, P. Del Vesco, G. Miniaci (eds), Seven Seasons at Dra Abu El-Naga: The tomb of Huy (TT 14). Preliminary results (Pisa: Progetti – Documenti per l’archeologia egiziana 3, 2009), 14-35. Miniaci, G., “The Iconography of the Rishi Coffins and the Legacy of the Late Middle Kingdom”, JARCE 46 (2010), 49-61. 230 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Miniaci, G., “The Incomplete Hieroglyphs System at the End of the Middle Kingdom”, RdE 61 (2010), 113-34. Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Miniaci, G., “The Discovery of the Burial of Queen Ahhotep at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes): Between Tale and Archaeological Evidence”, in this volume. Miniaci, G., S. Quirke, “Mariette at Dra Abu el-Naga and the Tomb of Neferhotep: A Mid 13th Dynasty Rishi Coffin”, EVO 31, (2008), 5-25. Miniaci, G., S. La Niece, M. F. Guerra, M. Hacke, “Analytical Study of the First Royal Egyptian Heart-Scarab, Attributed to a Seventeenth Dynasty King, Sobekemsaf”, BMTRB 7 (2013), 53-60. Minor, E., “Decolonizing Reisner: A Case Study of a Classic Kerma Female Burial for Reinterpreting Early Nubian Archaeological Collections through Digital Archival Resources”, in M. Honegger (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for Nubian Studies, Neuchâtel, 1st-6th September 2014 (Leuven, 2018), 251-62. Morris, E., “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. Naville, E., H.R. Hall, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari, vol. III (London, 1913). Newberry, P.E., Beni Hasan, vol. I (London, 1893). Newberry, P.E., “The Parentage of Queen Aah-Hetep”, PSBA 24, (1902), 285-9. Ogden, J., “The So-called “Platinum” Inclusions in Egyptian Goldwork”, JEA 62 (1976), 138-44. Ogden, J., “Metals”, in P.T. Nicholson, I. Shaw (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000), 148-76. Oppenheim, A., Do. Arnold, Di. Arnold, K.Yamamoto (eds), Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom (New York, 2015). Passalacqua, G., Catalogue raisonné et historique des antiquitiés découvertes en Egypte (Paris, 1826). Peet, T.E., The Cemeteries of Abydos. Part II: 1911-1912 (London, 1914). Peet, T.E., The Great Tomb Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, vols I-II (Oxford, 1930). van Pelt, W., “Revising Egypto-Nubian Relations in New Kingdom Lower Nubia: From Egyptianization to Cultural Entanglement”, CAJ 23/3 (2013), 523-50. Petrie, W.M.F., A History of Egypt. Vol. II: The XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties (Cambridge, 1896). Petrie, W.M.F., Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties, vol. II (London, 1901). Petrie, W.M.F., Qurneh (London: BSAE 16, 1909). Petrie, W.M.F., “String Nets of the XVII Dynasty”, Man 9 (1909), 129. Petrie, W.M.F., Tools and Weapons (London, 1917). Petrie, W.M.F., Objects of Daily Use (London, 1927). Petrie, W.M.F., Seventy Years in Archaeology (London, 1931). Petrie, W.M.F., G. Wainwright, E. Mackay, The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh (London, 1912). Philip, G. Tell El-Dabʻa. Vol. XV: Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Vienna, 2006). Polz, D., “The Pyramid Complex of Nubkheperre Antef”, EA 22 (2003), 12-15. Polz, D., “The Territorial Claim and the Political Role of the Theban State at the End of the Second Intermediate Period: A Case Study”, in I. Forstner-Müller, N. Moeller (eds), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4 – 5, 2014 (Vienna, 2018), 217-33. Quibell, J.E., Excavations at Saqqara (1911-12). Tomb of Hesy (Cairo, 1913). Quirke, S., J. Spencer, British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt (London, 1992). Quye, A., “FTIR Analysis of Residue inside a Pot from the Qurneh Burial Collection (C&AR 10846)” (Unpublished NMS Analytical Research Section Report no. 02/26, 2003). Ramage, A., P. Craddock, King Croesus’s Gold. Excavations at Sardis and the History of Gold Refining (London, Cambridge MA: Archaeological Exploration of Sardis Monograph 11, 2000). Rand, H., “Figure-Vases in Ancient Egypt and Hebrew Midwives”, IEJ 20 3/4 (1970), 209-12. Reisner, G.A., Excavations at Kerma, vols IV-V (Cambridge, MA: HAS 6, 1923). Riggs, C., Unwrapping Ancient Egypt (London, 2014). Robins, G., Reflections of Women in the New Kingdom: Ancient Egyptian Art from the British Museum (San Antonio, TX, 1995). Roehrig, C.H., “Life Along the Nile: Three Egyptians of Ancient Thebes”, BMMA 60/1 (2002). Roehrig, C.H., with R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh (New York, 2005). Royal Scottish Museum, Guide to the Collection of Egyptian Antiquities (Edinburgh, 1913). Royal Scottish Museum, Guide to the Collection of Egyptian Antiquities (Edinburgh, 1920). Ryholt, K.S.B., The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 B.C. (Copenhagen, 1997). Säve-Söderbergh, T., L. Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Finds and the Sites (Stockholm, 1991). Seiler, A., Tradition & Wandel: Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kultruentwicklung Thebens in der Zwischenzeit (Mainz am Rhein: SDAIK 32, 2005). Sethe, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, vol. I (Leipzig, 1927). Shortland, A.J., K. Eremin, E. Goring, “The Qurna Burial (including isotopic results)”, Unpublished Report for National Museums Scotland (Edinburgh, 2002). 231 Margaret Maitland, Daniel M. Potter, Lore Troalen Smith, S.T., “Intact Tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom Burial System”, MDAIK 48 (1992), 193-231. Smith, S.T., Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire (London, 2003). Souden, D., X. Mazda, C. Holden (eds), Scotland to the World: Treasures from the National Museum of Scotland (Edinburgh, 2016). de Souza, A., “Paint It Black: Pan-Grave Black-Topped and Egyptian Black‑Rimmed Pottery of the Late Second Intermediate Period and Early New Kingdom”, in R. David (ed.), Céramiques égyptiennes au Soudan ancient: Importations, imitations et influences (Paris: CCE 11, 2018), 75-90. Stable, C., M. Maitland, D. De Bellaigue, D.M. Potter, B. Bryan, M. Murray, “Rediscovering Ancient Egypt: Consideration of the Legacy, Ethics, and Aesthetics of Previously Restored Egyptian Artefacts”, Journal of the Institute of Conservation 44/2 (2021), 134-54. Steindorff, G., Grabfunde des Mittleren Reichs in den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, vol. II (Berlin, 1901). Steindorff, G., Das Grab des Ti (Leipzig, 1913). Stevenson, A., Scattered Finds: Archaeology, Egyptology and Museums (London, 2019). Tate, J., K. Eremin, L. Troalen, M.F. Guerra, E. Goring, B. Manley, “The 17th Dynasty Gold Necklace from Qurneh, Egypt”, ArcheoSciences 33 (2009), 121-8. Terrace, E.L.B., “‘Blue Marble’ Plastic Vessels and Other Figures”, JARCE 5 (1966), 57-62. Troalen, L., M. F. Guerra, J. Tate, B. Manley, “Technological Study of Gold Jewellery Pieces Dating from the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom in Egypt”, ArcheoSciences 33 (2009), 111-19. Troalen, L., I. Tissot, M. Maitland, M.F. Guerra, “Jewellery of a Young Egyptian Girl: Middle Kingdom Goldwork from Haraga Tomb 72”, Historical Metallurgy 49 (2016), 75-86. Troalen, L., J. Tate, M.F. Guerra, “Goldwork in Ancient Egypt: Workshop Practices at Qurneh in the 2nd Intermediate Period”, JAS 50 (2014), 219-26. Troalen, L., J. Tate, M.F. Guerra, “The Qurna Burial”, in M.F. Guerra, M. Martinón-Torres, S. Quirke (eds), Ancient Egyptian Gold: Archaeology and Science (forthcoming). Tykot, R.H., “Appendix: The Geological Source of an Obsidian Ear (04.1941) from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston”, RdE 47 (1996), 177-9. Veldmeijer, A.J., “Cordage Production”, in W. Wendrich, (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (Los Angeles, 2009). Veldmeijer, A.J., J.D. Bourriau, “The Carrier Nets from a Burial at Qurna”, JEA 95 (2009), 209-22. Walsh, C., “Kerma Ceramics, Commensality Practices, and Sensory Experiences in Egypt during the Late Middle Bronze Age”, JAEI 20 (2018), 31-51. Wegner, J., “A Royal Necropolis at South Abydos: New Light on Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period”, NEA 78/2 (2015), 68-78. Wegner, J., K. Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?”, JARCE 51 (2017), 123-64. Wendrich, W., The World According to Basketry (Los Angeles, 1999). Wilkinson, J.G., Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, including Their Private Life, Government, Laws, Arts, Manufactures, Religion, Agriculture, and Early History, vol. I, rev. ed. (London, 1878). Winlock, H.E., “Excavations at Thebes 1912-13, by the Museum’s Egyptian Expedition”, BMMA 9 (1914), 10-23. Winlock, H.E., “The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Wodzinska, A., A Manual of Egyptian Pottery. Vol III: Second Intermediate - Late Period (Boston: AERA Field Manual Series 1, 2010). Zakrzewski, S., “Report on the Qurneh Mummy Skeletal Material” (Unpublished Report for National Museums Scotland, 2005). 232 The burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’ Table 1 – A list of horn and horn-shaped containers from Egypt known to the authors 233 International Relations at the Turn of the Middle Bronze Age (1600–1500 BC) Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 237-259 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty (c. 1650-1550 BC) and Beyond Sara E. Cole Abstract During Egypt’s Fifteenth (or Hyksos) Dynasty (c. 1650-1550 BC), a series of rulers of Levantine origin controlled the eastern Nile Delta. Toward the end of this period, beginning around 1580 BC, a rival Egyptian dynasty – the Seventeenth Dynasty – ruled from Thebes. During this Second Intermediate Period, when Egypt was no longer unified and experienced fragmented rule, the nature of Egyptian relations with the Aegean was altered, and potentially interrupted. Whereas the Middle Kingdom had seen the importation of Minoan pottery and other goods, and the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs would later intensify contacts with Crete and Mycenae, the Hyksos period has yielded very little material to substantiate a Hyksos interest in Aegean imports, which may in turn reflect a disruption in Egypto-Aegean relations at that time. During the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty and the early Eighteenth Dynasty Aegean objects and images begin appearing again in Egypt. The Aegean motifs present on objects from the burial of Queen Ahhotep of Seventeenth Dynasty Thebes display a renewed interest in the Aegean upon Egyptian reunification. Introduction This essay summarizes the current state of our knowledge of the relationship between Egypt and the Aegean in the Second Intermediate Period under the Fifteenth Dynasty Hyksos rulers (c. 1650-1550 BC),1 and specifically the importation of Aegean goods and practices into Egypt at this time.2 Examining broader patterns of This essay follows the Egyptian chronology established in Shaw (ed.), Oxford History, 480-1, who identifies the Thirteenth Dynasty as the final dynasty of the Middle Kingdom; the Fourteenth Dynasty as a series of rulers probably contemporary with the Thirteenth or Fifteenth Dynasty in the north; and the Sixteenth Dynasty as Theban rulers contemporary with the Fifteenth Dynasty. It should be noted that others (e.g. Ryholt, The Political Situation) treat the Thirteenth Dynasty as part of the Second Intermediate Period; this problem is amplified by the fact that this dynasty appears to end at different times in different regions. 2 On the presence and significance of Egyptian imports in Aegean contexts, see Murray, “Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC”, in this volume. 1 Egyptian exchange with the Aegean provides a framework for understanding the presence and significance of Aegean motifs in Queen Ahhotep’s burial assemblage at Thebes during the critical historical moment at the end of this period, as Egypt transitioned from fragmented rule – the Fifteenth Dynasty Hyksos ruling in the Delta, and the Seventeenth Dynasty Egyptians ruling in Thebes – to the unified New Kingdom under the Eighteenth Dynasty.3 Numerous questions and unresolved points of scholarly disagreement remain for Egypto-Aegean relations under the Hyksos, largely due to uncertain or On the Aegeanizing elements in Ahhotep’s funerary assemblage, see Judas, “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Due to this essay’s focus on Aegean imports leading up to the time of Ahhotep, I largely place my focus on the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties and their respective capitals at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris and Thebes. A full analysis of the chronology and regionalization in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period is beyond the scope of the present discussion, but this topic has been explored elsewhere; see e.g. the essays in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period. 3 Sara E. Cole debated chronological contexts for significant finds. Indeed, many of the artifacts discussed below – not only from Egypt but also from the Aegean and the Levant – come from archaeological contexts that present chronological challenges; attempting to synch finds from these different regions is enormously complex.4 The purpose of this survey therefore is not to posit firm answers but rather to overview the extant archaeological evidence, clarify outstanding questions, and suggest possible interpretations. This essay focuses primarily on the question of Aegean-made imports in Egypt during Hyksos rule, and whether the Hyksos sought out and valued such objects in the same ways that their Middle Kingdom predecessors and New Kingdom successors did. Attempting to detect the presence of actual Aegean people in Egypt, on the other hand, is a methodologically challenging pursuit. Aegean objects or practices do not necessarily signal the presence of Aegean persons, and even direct representations of Aegeans in Egyptian art (as seen, for instance, in Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tombs) have been interpreted in varied ways. The question of whether and when Aegean court artists may have visited Egypt hinges on one’s dating of the “Minoan” wall paintings from Tell el-Dab‘a, a hotly debated issue that has major implications for possible Hyksos-Aegean royal exchange. For these reasons, I focus here more directly on Hyksos trade relations and the networks in which they were engaged, specifically their apparent disinterest in Aegean imports in favor of the Levant, Nubia, and Cyprus. The evident lack of value the Hyksos rulers placed on Aegean objects, and by extension the lack of ideological value placed on the idea of the Aegean, can be contrasted with the trends that emerge in the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Though an argument ex silencio runs the risk of being disproven by future discoveries, based on the available evidence it does appear as though there was an interruption in the importation of Aegean-made goods to Egypt during the Hyksos dynasty, as the Hyksos narrowed their northern focus on the Levant (and, to a limited extent, Cyprus) and acquired Levantine-made, sometimes Aegean-influenced material instead. Not only in the Hyksos capital at Tell el-Dab‘a but also throughout Egypt communities had access to Levantine, Nubian, and Cypriot objects in addition to the material that was being locally produced on a regional level, but the archaeological record shows a drop-off in Aegean imports. Given the political situation in Egypt at the end of the Second Intermediate Period, Ahhotep’s funerary goods demonstrate not only that she and her family were cosmopoliSee Mourad, “Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area”, in this volume; this favors a low chronology, with which I am generally inclined to agree. 4 tan consumers of international influences, but also that they strategically used Aegean iconography to emphasize their expanded engagement with the eastern Mediterranean – foreshadowing Eighteenth Dynasty trends – and their intention of quashing Levantine power. Egypt and the Aegean in the Middle and New Kingdoms Trade links between Egypt and Minoan Crete can be traced back to the beginning of the second millennium BC, when Egyptian stone vessels appear on Crete.5 By around 1450 BC the Mycenaeans had taken over Crete and Egypt’s trade relations expanded to include the palatial centers on the Greek mainland, alongside continuing exchange with Crete, all of which finally came to an end with the Late Bronze Age collapse of c. 1200 BC.6 In the Middle Kingdom, Egyptians imported Minoan pottery, primarily the fine, wheel-made variety known as Kamares ware, and crafted their own local imitations.7 Some of these vessels were valued by their Egyptian owners as status symbols and they were deposited in tombs. For example, a Twelfth Dynasty shaft tomb at Abydos contained an assemblage of Egyptian objects with one standout: a Kamares ware bridge-spouted jar.8 Egyptian goods, including stone vessels, statuettes, seals, and scarabs also made their way to Crete in the Middle Kingdom.9 It is unclear whether Minoan imports were sent to Egypt directly during this time, or whether they traveled via Near Eastern traders in Syria and Cyprus,10 but in either case there was clearly a market in Egypt for Minoan-made goods. The presence of a Middle Bronze international style for certain luxury wares, combining Egyptian, Aegean, and Near Eastern traditions, is evident in gold and silver jewelry and vessels found throughSee, e.g., Watrous, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 19-28. Predynastic and Old Kingdom stone vessels and their imitations have been found on Crete: Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 71-6, 105-12. 6 For overviews of Egypt’s relationship with the Aegean in the Bronze Age, see Warren, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, 1-18; Warren, in Karetsou (ed.), Kriti-Aigyptos, vol. I, 248; Kelder, Cole, Cline, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 9-17. 7 On Kamares Ware, see Walberg, Kamares. On imitation Kamares Ware in Egypt see Walberg, in Christiansen, Melander (eds), Proceedings, 643-9. 8 Kemp, Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, 105-75, esp. 118-9 (416.A.07.4), pl. 13, fig. 38; D. Panagiotopoulos, in Beck, Bol, Bückling (eds), Ägypten, Griechenland, Rom, 453, cat. no. 4; S.E. Cole, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 50-2, cat. nos 24-37. 9 For Egyptian finds on Crete, see Bevan, Stone Vessels; Colburn, AJA 112, 203-24; Phillips, Aegyptiaca. 10 Barrett, JMA 22/2, 220 (with further references). 5 238 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty out the Mediterranean, including two pendants with confronted animals from Egypt (one of which was found in a Thirteenth Dynasty context at Tell el-Dab‘a),11 the silver vessels and jewelry that were found along with an array of other luxury objects in a foundation deposit at the temple of Tod,12 and a gold treasure hoard said to have been found on the Greek island of Aegina.13 The apex of Egypto-Aegean relations would be reached later in the Eighteenth Dynasty, exemplified by the Minoan-style frescoes found at a Thutmosid palace at Tell el-Dab‘a (if it is indeed Thutmosid and not Hyksos, on which see below), which are believed possibly to have been created by Aegean artists in Egypt. Other inscriptional and pictorial evidence attests to the strong diplomatic connections between the Egyptian court and Aegean palatial centers. An alabaster amphora inscribed with the cartouche of Thutmose III was deposited in a burial at Katsambas, Crete.14 A papyrus from the reign of Thutmose III records the arrival of “Keftiu ships” at a royal dockyard,15 and other Eighteenth Dynasty inscriptions refer to people from “Keftiu”. Keftiu is generally believed to be the island of Crete, though other identifications have been proposed. Many scholars employ the term Keftiu to refer not only to a physical location, but also to the Minoans as a people or culture, though this is not how Keftiu is used in the Egyptian language, where the word appears with the foreign land determinative and therefore describes a geographical location.16 Depictions of Aegeans from the islands in the wAD wr (“Great Green”, probably the Mediterranean or Aegean Sea) and the inhabitants of Keftiu bringing luxury goods as gifts (labeled in the inscriptions as inw, or “official gifts”) appear among international embassies of tribute bearers in the tombs of high officials at Thebes during the reigns of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep II.17 It is hard to say to what extent these scenes reflect a historical reality of specific events that involved visits to Egypt, the specific appearance of the visitors, and the specific items they brought with them, or whether they are “types” representing the various peoples over whom the Egyptians imagined themselves exercising dominion (and these two interpretations need not be mutually exclusive).18 The Amarna Letters from the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten document that such gift-giving visits did occur and were carried out by representatives of the courts of Egypt and the Near East (though Crete and Mycenae do not appear in the letters); it is possible that similar events took place in the earlier Eighteenth Dynasty. In either case, these depictions of Aegeans and their tribute show that Aegean objects were part of the international system of luxury exchange at that time, and they also demonstrate an Egyptian familiarity with the clothing and hairstyles of Aegean people, even if they sometimes become conflated with Levantine groups in the same scenes.19 A wall painting fragment from Tell el-Dab‘a depicts a conical rhyton with handle, like those carried by gift-bearers in the Theban tombs.20 And workshops at Tell el-Dab‘a incorporated imports into their wares, producing arrows with Aegean arrow tips.21 New Kingdom Egyptians certainly had an interest in Minoan goods, as we find imported Minoan pottery in Eighteenth Dynasty contexts. Presumably, prestige objects in metal, like the ones shown among the inw, were Walberg, Ä&L 2; Bietak, Avaris, 29, pl. 1b; J. Aruz, K. Benzel, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 113-14, cat. no. 62; L. Fitton, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 114-15, cat. no. 63; S.E. Cole, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 50, cat. no. 23. 12 G. Pierrat-Bonnefois, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 65-7, cat. no. 35, a, b; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 81-9, figs 23-7; Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 114-15; G. Pierrat-Bonnefois, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 45-7, cat. nos 12-8 (with further references). The dating of the Tod deposit is not certain, and some have argued for a New Kingdom date; see e.g. Maran, PZ 62, 221-7; Laffineur, Aegaeum 2, 17-29. Most scholars continue to date the treasure to the Middle Kingdom and some have disputed Maran’s and Laffineur’s conclusions; see e.g. Matthäus, BICS 40, 185 n. 42. 13 L. Fitton, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 104-7, cat. nos 58-61; J.M. Kelder, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 48-9, cat. nos 19-22 (with further references). 14 E.A. Tziraki, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 42, cat. no. 9. 15 Glanville, ZÄS 66, 105-21; Trismegistos no. 381224. 16 The present author is guilty of this as well; see S.E. Cole, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 54-5, cat. nos 423. For more on this term, see the references below in note 19. Vercoutter, L’Égypte, 185-95; Schachermeyr, JÖAI 45, 4468; Wachsmann, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs; Matthäus, BICS 40, 177-94; Rehak, AJA 100, 35-51; Rehak, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 39-51; Panagiotopoulos, OJA 20, 263-83; Panagiotopoulos, in Cline, O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III, 370-412; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 136-43. Duhoux, in Faried Adrom, Schlüter (eds), 19-34; and Des Minoens, has argued that wAD wr (“Great Green”) refers to the Nile Delta and Red Sea and that Minoans were living there; this hypothesis is not generally accepted. 18 On the symbolic meaning of the scenes, and the significance they had for the individual tomb owners, see Anthony, Foreigners in Ancient Egypt. 19 On the meaning of the term Keftiu, its relationship with Syria in the Egyptian “cultural topography”, and how we can understand references to “Keftiu and the islands in the middle of wAD-wr” in the Theban tomb paintings, see Matić, in Danielsson, Fahlander, Sjöstrand (eds), Encountering Imagery, 235-53; Matić, Ä&L 24, 277-94. 20 Warren, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 4. 21 Bietak, in Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, 117; Bietak, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 112; Bietak, von Rüden, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 21. 11 17 239 Sara E. Cole brought to Egypt as well but do not survive. Also in the New Kingdom, Egypt’s foreign network expanded to include the palatial centers of Mycenaean Greece. A colossal statue base of Amenhotep III found at Kom el-Hetan bears a list of foreign toponyms from the Near East, Mesopotamia, and the Aegean. Among the place names included are locations like Knossos and Mycenae, where royal objects inscribed for Amenhotep III, his wife Queen Tiye, and his father Amenhotep II have been found,22 leading to the suggestion that this list is an itinerary for an international diplomatic voyage.23 The London Medical Papyrus, a New Kingdom (probably Eighteenth Dynasty) text, includes spells in the “the Keftiu language”, showing that Egyptians had some knowledge of Minoan language and medico-magical beliefs.24 Aegean fashions in the wall painting of royal residences continue to be detectable in the palace of Amenhotep III at Malkata,25 where the side panel of a bench was decorated with an image of a calf leaping in a flying gallop pose through a papyrus marsh,26 and a ceiling was covered in a running spiral, rosette, and bucrania design.27 Decorative motifs that bear similarities to Minoan depictions of textiles were used on the painted ceilings of Egyptian tombs.28 A couple of examples of such Aegean-influenced motifs on tomb ceilings survive from the Twelfth Dynasty, with a resurgence in the practice in the New Kingdom (there are no examples from the Second Intermediate Period). It is certainly possible that a textile trade existed between Egypt and Crete that does not survive in the archaeological record; textiles and other perishable items could have accompanied traded pottery and metal vessels. In the later Eighteenth Dynasty, Mycenaean soldiers wearing boars’ tusk helmets fighting alongside Egyptians appear in a pictorial papyrus from Amarna, raising the possibility that Mycenaean mercenaries served in the pharSee e.g. Phillips, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Synchronisation, 479-93; E. Konstantinidi-Syvridi, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 63-4, cat. no. 49; E.H. Cline, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 64, cat. no. 50; E. Tourna, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 64-5, cat. no. 51. Cf. Lilyquist, JAOS 199/2, 303-8, who suggests that a series of faience plaques inscribed for Amenhotep III, found at Mycenae, may not be of Egyptian manufacture. 23 See most recently Cline, Stannish, JAEI 3/2, 6-16. 24 S.E. Cole, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 58-9, cat. no. 45 (with further references). 25 For an overview of Aegean influences in the Malkata palace paintings, see Vivas Sainz, Anales de Historia del Arte 23, 125-38. 26 Kemp, in Karetsou (ed.), Kriti-Aigyptos, 45-6. 27 Kelder, Cole, Cline in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 14, fig. 4. 28 Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient, 58-9; Shaw, AJA 74/1, 25-30; Barber, Prehistoric Textiles, 311-57; Barber, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 13-19. 22 aoh’s army.29 A large quantity of Mycenaean pottery was also found at Amarna. The last indication of Bronze Age Aegean objects in Egypt comes from the tomb of Rameses III (d. 1153 BC) in the Valley of the Kings, where Mycenaean stirrup jars appear in a wall painting.30 Egypt therefore had access to Minoan wares (whether through direct or indirect trade) in the Middle Kingdom, and strengthened direct relations with the Minoans, and later the Mycenaeans, in the New Kingdom. These interactions began with the physical exchange of goods but over time they expanded to also include the movement of people and the ideas, beliefs, and practices these individuals carried with them. But what was the state of Egypt’s relationship with the Aegean between the Middle Kingdom and the Eighteenth Dynasty? Did the Hyksos engage either directly or indirectly with Minoan Crete or the Cyclades? And what of the Theban rulers in the south? How did ceremonial weapons with Aegean motifs come to be incorporated into Ahhotep’s burial assemblage in Thebes and what significance did they carry? The Hyksos Dynasty and International Relations Ahhotep lived during a period of warfare and transition. After the Egyptian Middle Kingdom came to an end with the close of the Thirteenth Dynasty around 1650 BC,31 a group of Levantine rulers who used the title Hyksos (HqA xAs.wt, “Ruler of Foreign Lands”32) took over the Egyptian Delta. There has been debate about whether the Hyksos kings were seventeenth century BC invaders or whether, as seems more likely, they arose from the Levantine populations already present in the Delta since the Middle Kingdom, as well as from where precisely in the Levant they originated.33 Anna-Latifa Mourad supports Parkinson, Schofield, BSA 89, 157-70; Parkinson, Schofield, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 125-6. Two figures depicted on a talatat block from Amarna were identified by Haider (Ä&L 6, 146) as Aegeans (followed by Kelder, JEOL 42, 128), but this identification seems highly unlikely, as recently discussed by Matić, JAEI 21, 1-10. 30 Vercoutter, L’Égypte, 309-10, 354, pl. 36, nos 239-40, pl. 59, nos 438-41. 31 One of the many questions surrounding the Second Intermediate Period is whether it begins before or after the Thirteenth Dynasty. See, e.g. von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 223; Ryholt, The Political Situation, 186. As noted above in note 1, I follow the chronology established in Shaw (ed.), Oxford History, 480-1, and consider the Thirteenth Dynasty to be the final dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. 32 On the title, see Candelora, JARCE 53, 203-21. 33 Some scholars believe that trade routes indicate a southern Canaanite place of origin for the Hyksos; see e.g., Weinstein, BASOR 241, 10; McGovern, Foreign Relations; Ben-Tor, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 29; Ben-Tor, Scarabs, 189-92; Ben-Tor, Pharaoh in Canaan, 46-7. But see Bietak, in Marée 29 240 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty what she calls a “gradual infiltration and peaceful takeover” model, enabled by the Middle Kingdom’s close relations with the Northern Levant coupled with the opportunity created by the Egyptian loss of control over the Delta in the Thirteenth Dynasty.34 Within the Delta, the Hyksos had their capital at Tell el-Dab‘a (ancient Avaris), where there is evidence for Levantine immigration from the Twelfth Dynasty onwards.35 They developed this settlement into a major city and trade port, which was made possible by its conveniently located harbor on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. The Hyksos maintained control of the Eastern Delta – and possibly, for a time around 1600 BC, the Nile Valley, though this is not certain36 – for about a century. Meanwhile, from about 1580-1550 BC, the rival Egyptian Seventeenth Dynasty ruled from Thebes. Ahhotep, probably the wife of King Seqenenre Tao, lived in the Theban milieu of the late Seventeenth Dynasty, which ended with her sons Kamose (the last king of the Seventeenth Dynasty) and Ahmose (the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty) defeating the Hyksos and reunifying Egypt. During this Second Intermediate Period, Egypt was thus politically fractured and centralized rule was interrupted, which inevitably impacted international trade relations. As the Hyksos were of Levantine origin, it comes as no surprise that their strongest ties were with that region.37 The Egyptians had traded with the Levant, and with Byblos in particular,38 since the Old Kingdom, and there is ample evidence for both Levantine people and Levantine(-influenced) goods – particularly from the (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 139-81, who believes the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period populations at Tell el-Dab‘a came largely from the region of Byblos. See Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 9-11, 215-17 for a summary of the scholarship and evidence; the author argues that a Southern Levantine origin for the Hyksos is not supported by the evidence, but that the Fifteenth Dynasty’s close connections to the Northern Levant do not necessarily confirm a Northern Levantine origin either. 34 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 215-17. 35 For overviews of Tell el-Dab‘a, see Bietak, in Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, 87-139; Bietak, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 110-12; Bietak, von Rüden, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 18-23. On the Levantine presence at Tell el-Dab‘a in the Middle Kingdom and early Fifteenth Dynasty, see Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 22-48. On the Egyptian population in Hyksos-period Avaris/Tell el-Dab‘a, see Bietak, Ä&L 26, 263-74. 36 The evidence for this is summarized in Richards, The Anra Scarab, 25-6. 37 For overviews, see O’Connor, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 108-10; Bietak, BiOr 75, 227-47. 38 Bietak, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 142; Schneider, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 61-2. Northern Levant – in Egypt in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties.39 Under the Hyksos, Northern Levantine connections continued and Southern Levantine contacts developed.40 In addition to Hyksos-period imports, Middle Kingdom objects have been found in the Levant.41 Because the chronology of the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, much like that of the Bronze Age Aegean, is subject to ongoing discussion and revision, it is often difficult to say whether objects were found in contexts contemporary with the period of their manufacture or whether they may have been looted and sent to the Levant in later periods. For instance, a group of Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian imports were found in tombs at Byblos, including ones inscribed for Amenemhat III and IV. These objects could have been looted from Egyptian burial contexts and sent to Byblos shortly after the end of the Middle Kingdom, meaning that the tombs are not necessarily contemporary with the Twelfth Dynasty and could reflect later trade.42 The tombs also include Egyptian-influenced objects made locally. The production of Egyptian-influenced goods, including scarabs, stone and faience vessels, and pottery increased in the Levant from the late Middle Kingdom to the early Fifteenth Dynasty. In addition to the Levant, the Hyksos appear to have been in communication with southern Mesopotamia – a fragment of an Old Babylonian letter was discovered in a fill that had been cut into a building associated with a Hyksos palace at Tell el-Dab‘a.43 At the same time, imports of Aegean products into Egypt in general appear to have ceased. It seems that during the Fifteenth Dynasty, any Aegean influence arrived largely through the intermediary of the Levant rather than through a direct or indirect trade relationship. This dynamic can be seen in the Aegean-influenced aspects of material culture found in Egypt during this period, while there is no indication of the presence of Aegean people or of objects that are undoubtedly of Aegean manufacture. The Aegean absence can be contrasted with the evidence for Levantine people at On the evidence for Levantine people and Levantine(-influenced) objects in Egypt and the Eastern Desert from the Middle Kingdom to the early Second Intermediate Period, see Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 19-146; on Tell el-Dab‘a in particular, p. 22-48. 40 McGovern, Foreign Relations; Ben-Tor, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 92; Ben-Tor, Pharaoh in Canaan, 41. 41 See Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 147-85. 42 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 167-9; Kopetzky, Ä&L 28, 309-58. 43 Bietak, Forstner-Müller, Ä&L 19, 108, figs 21-2; Bietak et al. (eds), Ä&L 22-23, 24-6, fig. 7; Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 38, fig. 4.12. 39 241 Sara E. Cole Tell el-Dab‘a and Levantine trade with the city,44 expressed in their distinctive material culture (including weaponry, pottery, scarabs, cylinder seals, and seal impressions), temple forms, and burial practices,45 as well as in textual references to foreigners and the use of non-Egyptian names.46 Local workshops also produced Levantine-influenced objects, including scarabs and pottery, under the Hyksos.47 Material found in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period sometimes reflects Aegean influences or is Aegean in style, but was probably made in the Levant, where local artists used their familiarity with Aegean imports to fashion imitations or incorporate Aegean stylistic elements into their own wares, which ranged from pottery to weapons to luxury goods. For example, a bronze dagger inscribed with the name of the Hyksos King Apophis, included in a burial assemblage at Saqqara, is a type that appears in Egypt, the Aegean, and the Levant. The handle and blade were cast as a single piece, with the hilt covered in sheet gold, and the design on the handle includes a lion hunt scene. It is unclear where this style of dagger originated and, though it has been suggested that this is a copy of an Aegean weapon, more recently scholars have argued that it was made in the Levant or in the Delta in imitation of a Levantine type.48 One archaeologically ubiquitous body of material through which we can attempt to trace trade is pottery. Unlike objects from the Egyptian royal court found at Aegean sites, or the Minoan luxury vessels depicted in Eighteenth Dynasty tombs, pottery was used by a much wider swath of the population, beyond the restricted elite sphere of diplomatic gift exchange. Pottery may have often accompanied more high-status goods as a secondary material. Its presence or absence can speak to the access that members of Egyptian communities had to imported See, for example, the essays in Bietak, Prell (eds), The Enigma of the Hyksos, vol. I. On the acculturation of Levantine people living at Tell el-Dab‘a, see Bumann, The Hyksos Enigma, vol. II. 45 Van den Brink, Tombs; Bietak, Ein Friedhofsbezirk; Philip, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 6683; Bietak, Avaris; Bietak, Ä&L 13, 13-20; Forstner-Müller, Ä&L 11, 197-222; Forstner-Müller, in Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age, 163-84; Forstner-Müller, AF 30, 140-70; Bietak, in Gitin, Wright, Dessel (eds), Confronting the Past, 285-93; Forstner-Müller, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 127-38. 46 Schneider, Ausländer. 47 On Fifteenth Dynasty scarab production, see, e.g., Mlinar, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 107-40; Ben-Tor, Scarabs. On pottery, see, e.g., Kopetzky, Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik ; Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 22-43 (with further references). 48 D. Arnold, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 116-17, cat. no. 65 (with further references). 44 goods, which, by extension, potentially indicates the volume of trade in other, now lost materials as well. Caitlín E. Barrett compiled all known, published examples of Minoan and “Minoanizing” pottery found in Egypt in order to examine broader trends in its importation, use, and local imitation.49 A few significant patterns emerge from this study. Middle Minoan wares – especially Kamares ware – were imported during the Middle Kingdom,50 while Late Minoan wares were imported primarily in the early Eighteenth Dynasty. The general pattern throughout Egypt is that Middle Minoan pottery was imported in the Middle Kingdom and appears in contexts up to the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period, but then its presence ceases. It is challenging to securely place any Aegean vessels in a Hyksos-period context. A significant number of Middle Minoan pots (including Kamares ware), as well as local imitations, were deposited in burials at the sites of el-Lisht, el-Harageh, and el-Lahun/Kahun, probably dating from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties.51 At Tell el-Dab‘a, Middle Minoan pottery is attested during the Middle Kingdom, including fragments belonging to one or more oval mouth amphora(e) in a Twelfth Dynasty settlement context beneath the remains of a temple,52 and painted Kamares ware sherds found in “palace” gardens dating to the Thirteenth Dynasty.53 Interestingly, the Minoan pottery found in the area of Ezbet Rushdi, about one kilometer north of Tell el-Dab‘a, was not of the fine Kamares ware type, but were transport vessels for liquid contents, perhaps olive oil.54 This is followed by a notable gap, not only at these sites but throughout Egypt, during the Second Intermediate Period, and the interruption of Minoan pottery imports suggests a shift in the relationship between Egypt and Crete. Minoan-influenced pottery, on the other hand, does sometimes appear in Second Intermediate Period contexts. There is at least one example of a locally made, Minoan-influenced vessel found in what may be a HykBarrett, JMA 22/2, 211-34. See especially the two charts summarizing pottery finds: Table 2 on p. 214 and Table 3 on p. 217. 50 Kamares ware was also being imported in the Levant, particularly Byblos, at this time: see e.g. Koehl, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 59; L. Badre in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 60, cat. no. 32. 51 Kemp, Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, 1-102; Fitton, Hughes, Quirke, in Quirke (ed.), Lahun Studies, 112-40. 52 Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 60-3, fig. 11. 53 Walberg, Ä&L 3, 157-9; MacGillivray, Ä&L 5, 81-4; Bietak, Avaris, 29, pl. 1a; Walberg, Ä&L 8, 107-8; Barrett, JMA 22/2, 214, Table 2 row 9 (with further references), 215, fig. 2-3; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 62-3, fig. 12. 54 The Middle Minoan pottery finds from Ezbet Rushdi are discussed in Czerny, Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk, vol. I: 360-6, Table 86, and vol. II: 129-31, figs T122-T124. See Aston, in Jiménes-Serrano, von Pilgrim (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract, 7-8 for a summary and further references. 49 242 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty sos-period context at Tell el-Dab‘a, but it is likely a couple of generations removed from the original form it copies. The vessel is represented by a rim fragment that was found in a pit complex associated with a palace of Hyksos date;55 it should be noted, however, that the complex (L81) “is not a closed, good context, but the pits are cut from layers lost to agricultural activity that made the pits difficult to identify”,56 so the precise dating is open for debate and could be later than the Fifteenth Dynasty.57 The wavy shape of the rim is similar to two vessels found in a Twelfth Dynasty tomb at el-Harageh that were identified as imitations derived from original Minoan forms.58 David A. Aston argues that the Tell el-Dab‘a vessel is an imitation of an imitation of a Minoan pot, and it is possible “that it was originally made in the Lahun-Harageh region, where it had developed out of the earlier first and second generation copies”, but could also have been made in Tell el-Dab‘a.59 During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties, Tell el-Dab‘a would have been an important trade port for the capital at Itjtawy, and Minoan pottery likely passed through and was distributed to other areas, like the Lahun-Harageh region. Some examples remained in Tell el-Dab‘a and could continue to be copied by subsequent generations.60 What this means is that the presence of a Minoan-influenced vessel in a (possibly) Hyksos context at Tell elDab‘a is far from a confirmation of Hyksos trade with the Aegean. Rather, local artists were replicating vessel forms that began as copies of imports in the Middle Kingdom and had undergone local adaptations. Another Minoan-influenced vessel is a unique jug found in a tomb at el-Lisht in Egypt, dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty or Second Intermediate Period, which is decorated with a pattern of Minoan-style leaping dolphins. The vessel form, however, is Syro-Palestinian, the clay came from southern Canaan, and the birds that also decorate the vase are a type that appear on Tell el-Yahudiya ware. This jug is a Levantine object that incorporates a Minoan motif, made for export to Egypt.61 Like Aston, in Jiménes-Serrano, von Pilgrim (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract, 1-11. 56 Forstner-Müller, Rose, in Forstner-Müller, Rose (eds), Nubian Pottery, 183. 57 See Kopetzky, Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik, 125, n. 742. 58 Kemp, Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, 38, fig. 17; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 76-7, fig. 20. See also Aston, in Jiménes-Serrano, von Pilgrim (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract, 6, fig. 1.2. 59 Aston, in Jiménes-Serrano, von Pilgrim (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract, 7. 60 Aston, in Jiménes-Serrano, von Pilgrim (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract, 8. 61 Kemp, Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, 220-5 and pls 29-30; War55 the dagger of Apophis, it represents a mixed international style with no single cultural identification. A similar vessel with the same Syro-Palestinian shape, but made of alabaster, was found in a tomb at Knossos.62 Other parallels come from Megiddo and Jericho,63 and a later Middle Bronze Age vase with a painted frieze of leaping dolphins above a Minoan-style wave pattern was included in a burial at Sidon.64 These vessels were likely made in the Levant where, during Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period, Levantine workshops were producing material with Aegean- and Egyptian-influenced elements that could be used locally or exported to various markets. Actual Minoan pottery notably is absent from the Hyksos-period finds at Tell el-Dab‘a. In a 1996 publication of the site, Manfred Bietak mentions that in the excavation of the early Eighteenth Dynasty areas H/II and H/III his team uncovered “the first finds of imported pottery of MMIII and LMIA date within the citadel, unfortunately from secondary contexts so far”.65 This is the extent of the information provided and so it is quite difficult to draw any conclusions,66 though if the pottery truly is Middle Minoan III it could potentially have entered the city during Hyksos rule. The only detail Bietak includes is a brief description of a fragmentary amphoriskos painted with a leopard in flying gallop chasing an ungulate, similar to motifs found on Cycladic pottery.67 Sturt Manning suggests that, despite bearing a Cycladic image, “the vessel itself looks Levantine-Egyptian”,68 so we may have here another example of an Aegean motif incorporated into a Levantine-made vessel. It is possible that other fragments from this group were initially misidentified as Minoan. Further information on this group of finds will be significant in determining possible Hyksos-Aegean contact. A small number of imitation Late Minoan IA/IB conical rhyta found in Egypt could belong to the late Second Intermediate Period but are just as likely to date to the Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, 135-6, pl. 13; McGovern et al., BASOR 296, 31-43; Laffineur, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 56; S.A. Allen, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 62-3, cat. no. 33; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 157-9, fig. 64. 62 Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 113. 63 Kantor, in Ehrich (ed.), Relative Chronologies, fig. 4. 64 S.A. Allen, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 63, cat. no. 33, fig. 22. 65 Bietak, Avaris, 70. 66 If any subsequent, more detailed analysis of this “Aegean” pottery has been published, I am unaware of it. 67 Bietak, Avaris, 70-2. Illustrated in Hein (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde, 261, no. 358. Bietak suggests the motif is best paralleled by Middle Cycladic wares, but Manning (A Test of Time, 114-5) suggests a Late Cycladic I connection. 68 Manning, A Test of Time, 114. ren, 243 Sara E. Cole early Eighteenth Dynasty.69 It has been suggested that a faience imitation rhyton from a burial at Saqqara belonged to a Nubian in Ahmose’s army.70 The same burial included a Cypriot Base Ring I Ware jug, a vessel type that does not appear in Egypt before the early Eighteenth Dynasty, further indicating that this burial took place after Hyksos rule had ended.71 Two other imitation conical rhyta, one from a tomb at Kuban,72 and one from a tomb at Sedment,73 are also from this transitional period. In the Eighteenth Dynasty, local imitations of Late Minoan IA rhyta were thrown away in a Thutmosid waste deposit at Tell el-Dab‘a.74 If the identification of these contexts are correct, this would argue in favor of a correlation between Late Minoan IA and the early Eighteenth Dynasty, thus supporting a low Aegean Bronze Age chronology (the chronology is a complex matter, on which see more below).75 The discovery of strainers alongside imitation Minoan rhyta at Tell el-Dab‘a may mean that the population was using the vessels in ritual banqueting in the same way that they functioned in the Aegean, to strain mixed beverages.76 It was not just the vessel forms, then, but also their ritual use that was being adopted in New Kingdom Egypt. By contrast with the lack of Aegean pottery and objects, Fifteenth Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a has yielded quantities of imported Levantine goods and locally-made Levantine-influenced objects, attesting to the active communication between the Levant and the eastern Delta.77 Cypriot pottery was also imported into Tell el-Dab‘a during the Fifteenth Dynasty, in small quantities, and some was traded all the way to Nubia, likely via the Hyksos.78 Trade patterns within Egypt were altered during this period as well. The circulation of pottery withSee Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 147-9, fig. 59. Bourriau, in Arnold (ed.), Studien, 25-48; Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 139, no. 11 (who suggests that the vessel was made in Kerma); Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, 238, cat. no. E1, 343. The full tomb group is published by Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 136-40. 71 Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 139, no. 10; Bietak, Avaris, 70; Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, 343. 72 Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, 238, cat. no. E2. 73 Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, 238, cat. no. E3. 74 I. Hein, in Hein (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde, 245, cat. no. 314; Bietak, in Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, 117; Barrett, JMA 22/2, 217, Table 3 row 8 (with further references). 75 Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, 343. 76 Koehl, Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta, 238, cat. no. E6, 343. 77 Bietak, Avaris, 55-63; McGovern, Foreign Relations; Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 22-43. 78 Karageorghis, Ä&L 5, 73-4; Bietak, Avaris, 63; Maguire, The Cypriot Pottery. See also Maguire, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 54-65, on the role of Tell el-Dab‘a in a network of pottery exchange among Egypt, the Levant, and Cyprus. 69 70 in Egypt during the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period shows wares moving between the Delta and Middle Egypt, but the ceramic assemblages of the Delta and Upper Egypt show minimal exchange between these two regions.79 Upper Egyptian pottery that was present in the Delta in the Thirteenth Dynasty (though in limited quantity) disappears under the Hyksos and does not reappear again until the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.80 Objects from the north did make their way to the Red Sea coast in the Fifteenth Dynasty, where fragments of Tell el-Yahudiya ware and a Levantine-influenced scarab have been found at Gebel el-Zeit.81 Despite the minimal contact between the Hyksos and Upper Egypt or the region of Thebes, there is evidence of Hyksos (and perhaps Levantine) contact with Nubian cultures. Levantine(-influenced) objects have been found in early Second Intermediate Period contexts in Upper Egypt and Nubia, including scarabs at Elephantine, and scarabs and pottery at Mirgissa, Semna, and several sites south of the First Cataract all the way down to Kerma.82 Mourad detects a possible increase and shift in the nature of relations between Nubia and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period, noting for Mirgissa in particular that the small quantities of Levantine(-influenced) pottery and scarabs found at the site may have been obtained through indirect rather than direct trade, and that they must have had a certain level of attributed value to be included in burial contexts: “Hence, it is possible to ascertain a minor development in the nature of contact with northerners, from the ritualistic topos representation of Levantine entities in the execration texts [of the Middle Kingdom Egyptians at the site] to their mimetic attestations in sealings and the import of products and, perhaps, people of Levantine origin into Mirgissa”.83 It is certainly possible that this indirect trade took place through Hyksos intermediaries, with whom the Nubians could now engage in the absence of Egyptian control, and it appears to have gone in both directions. Furthermore, the second Karnak stela of Kamose records an incident in which Kamose’s men intercepted a letter being sent by the Hyksos King Apo-phis to the ruler of Kerma, in which Apophis encouraged the Nubians to join him in opposition to Kamose’s army.84 The relationship between McGovern, Foreign Relations, 78-9. On the regional variations in Egyptian pottery during the Second Intermediate Period, see Bourriau, in Marée (ed.), Second Intermediate Period, 11-37. 80 Bietak, Forstner-Müller, Mlinar, in Fischer (ed.), Contributions, 175-6. 81 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 142. 82 Mourad, Ä&L 27, 381-402. 83 Mourad, Ä&L 27, 389. 84 Habachi, The Second Stela of Kamose. 79 244 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty the Hyksos and Kerma thus extended beyond trade and included some form of diplomatic alliance. Nubian pottery of indeterminate cultural origin (not clearly Kerma, Pan-Grave, or C-Group) was found in a Hyksos administrative district and in the remains of a Hyksos palace at Tell el-Dab‘a.85 The pottery forms were open and suitable for food preparation, dining, and drinking, but there were no closed forms that could have been used to transport contents; it has thus been suggested that Nubians served in the Hyksos army and were present at the site.86 Domestic Kerma pottery also appears at Tell el-Dab‘a in the early Eighteenth Dynasty; Bietak posits that the pottery may have belonged to Nubians serving in Ahmose’s army.87 Nubian tableware and cooking pottery comes from other sites in Egypt in the early Eighteenth Dynasty as well, namely Edfu, Ballas, Gurob, Memphis, and Saqqara.88 We must be cautious about equating pots with people, but the presence of pottery that was functional rather than of a type used to transport valued contents presents the possibility that Nubian groups were active in Egypt, perhaps fighting on both sides of the Theban-Hyksos conflict, and brought objects with them that were meant for daily use rather than commerce. A Nubian presence is also shown by burials like the above-mentioned grave at Saqqara, which is believed to belong to a Nubian and contained Nubian pottery, an imitation Minoan rhyton, and a fragment of a Cypriot vessel. The period of Hyksos rule in the Delta overall saw limited commercial ties between north and south within Egypt but the south still managed to access objects from the north. Noteworthy northern finds in Upper Egypt include Tell el-Yahudiya vessels in Second Intermediate Period tombs at Abydos, including in a Seventeenth Dynasty tomb;89 Fourteenth Dynasty scarabs in the necropolis at Abydos;90 royal-name seal impressions for the Hyksos King Khyan from the administrative complex at Edfu and a probably Fifteen Dynasty Tell el-Yahudiya vessel at Edfu;91 and finds of Levantine(-influenced) objects in Pan-Grave tombs at Mostagedda that are likely contemporary with the Fifteenth Dynasty.92 On the Nubian pottery found at Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom Tell el-Dab‘a, see Forstner-Müller, Rose, in Forstner-Müller, Rose (eds), Nubian Pottery, 181-212. 86 Bietak, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 110; Bietak et al. (eds), Ä&L 22-23, 24; Aston, Bietak, in Spencer, Stevens, Binder (eds), Nubia in the New Kingdom, 497-501. 87 Bietak, in Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, 115-6. 88 Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 131, 135-40. See also Aston, Bietak, in Spencer, Stevens, Binder (eds), Nubia in the New Kingdom, 506. 89 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 101. 90 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 101-2. 91 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 107. 92 Mourad, Rise of the Hyksos, 111-12. 85 While the Hyksos were ruling from Tell el-Dab‘a and managing trade networks with the Levant, Cyprus, and Nubia, the Seventeenth Dynasty in Thebes was by no means isolated or impoverished. They turned to the south to intensify their relationship with Nubia, recognizing Nubians as potential allies but also as a political threat.93 A royal Theban burial of a Seventeenth Dynasty woman (the so-called “Qurna Queen”) and child included a rishi-style coffin for the woman and a rich assemblage of luxury wares, jewelry, and Kerma pottery.94 A group of late Seventeenth Dynasty Theban tombs included material of Levantine and Cypriot type, and some of the earlier tombs contained objects related to the Kerma culture.95 Material was making its way south from Thebes as well (maybe the result of Nubian incursions rather than trade): an inscribed Seventeenth Dynasty alabastron was found near the Royal Tomb at Kerma.96 Regional pottery styles developed in the Theban area during the Second Intermediate Period that evolved into the pottery forms used throughout Egypt in the New Kingdom; Thebes was in many ways a thriving region with a great deal of social cohesion.97 It was toward the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty that contacts with the north beyond Egypt reemerged in Thebes. A Theban court tomb complex – in use from the late Eleventh to Thirteenth Dynasties, then later reused before being buried for the construction of Hatshepsut’s valley temple – contained burials of the rishi type dating to the Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasties.98 The complex provides a window into the increasing contact with the north and access to luxury goods in Thebes in the transition to the New Kingdom. Luxury goods only begin appearing in the burials in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, including ivories, a Cypriot Base Ring I ware juglet, weapons, musical instruments, and vessels.99 Also of note is a plaster wall painting fragment from a tomb chapel in the complex that shows an For an overview of pottery trade between Upper Egypt and Nubia during the Second Intermediate Period, see Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 130-40. 94 Bourriau, in Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 132; Roehrig, in Roehrig et al. (eds), Hatshepsut, 15-22, cat. nos 2-6; Bourriau, in Marée, The Second Intermediate Period, 32-5, fig. 16; Manley, Dodson, Life Everlasting, 23-7, nos 3-4; Maitland, Potter, Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. 95 Lilyquist, in Roehrig et al. (eds), Hatshepsut, 63. 96 Hintze, Hintze, Civilisations, 11, fig. 44; Warren, in Czerny et al. (eds), Timelines, 308. 97 Seiler, Tradition und Wandel; Seiler, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 39-53. 98 Lilyquist, in Bietak, Prell (eds), The Enigma of the Hyksos, 199-207; Miniaci, Rishi Coffins, 84-9. 99 Lilyquist, in Bietak, Prell (eds), The Enigma of the Hyksos, 202-3. 93 245 Sara E. Cole arm carrying a handled vessel decorated with an Aegean-style running spiral motif in a horizontal band.100 This early Eighteenth Dynasty representation of a possible Aegean vessel signals the growing interest in re-engaging with the north beyond the Levant, an interest that is also visible in Ahhotep’s burial assemblage. The early New Kingdom was a time of increasing contact with Cyprus and the Aegean to the north, the reconquest of Kerma to the south, and invasions of the Levant to the northeast. Minoan pottery began reappearing in Egypt, and local imitations became more frequent. From the reign of Thutmose II onward, a change occurred and Aegean pottery imports became primarily Helladic wares, as the centers of power in the Aegean shifted to mainland Greece after the Mycenaean takeover of Crete.101 It is of course plausible that Minoan pottery was imported to Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, continued to be used for some time thereafter, and was deposited in later contexts in the early New Kingdom, but considering the daily use of such material and its friability one would expect at least some of these vessels to have been discarded in Second Intermediate Period contexts if they were in use at that time. Robert Merrillees has noted that most of the Aegean pottery found abroad appears to have been discarded within a short time of its manufacture.102 The pattern of pottery deposition therefore follows historical and political developments throughout the Mediterranean, and the absence of Minoan pottery at Second Intermediate Period sites in Egypt is significant. The importation of Cypriot pottery also increased in the transition from the Second Intermediate Period to the New Kingdom. Cyprus began sending not only manufactured wares, but also raw materials like timber, copper, and lead to Egypt, according to Eighteenth Dynasty inscriptions and the Amarna Letters. In return, Egyptian kings sent prestige items inscribed with their names. A fragmentary vase found on Cyprus bears cartouches that may belong to Ahmose.103 But like a vessel lid inscribed for Khyan from Knossos (see below), we cannot know whether the vessel was sent to Cyprus during the reign of the king for whom it was inscribed, or whether it arrived later. The surge in trade with Cyprus parallels the increased interactions with Crete and mainland Greece in the Eighteenth Dynasty, all of which “may strengthen the hypothesis that after the expulsion of the Hyksos from Lilyquist, in Bietak, Prell (eds), The Enigma of the Hyksos, 203, 207, fig. 12. 101 For a summary of Mycenean pottery and its imitations in Egypt, see B.A. Judas, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 65-7, cat. nos 52-6. 102 Merrillees, Ä&L 13, 138-9. 103 Clerc, in Karageorghis (ed.), Tombs at Palaepaphos, 95-103; Karageorghis, Ä&L 5, 75. 100 Avaris a new era started of liberal policies and connections with the outside world”.104 The early kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty were taking advantage of the trade routes that had been previously monopolized (the Levant and Cyprus), or limited (the Aegean), by the Hyksos and quickly began building strong international relations. While pottery and smaller finds speak to the volume of trade and the availability of foreign goods to those outside of the elite classes, a body of material that has been employed to hypothesize about the movement of court artists throughout the Bronze Age Mediterranean is palatial wall paintings. This brings us to the “Minoan” wall paintings and stucco reliefs discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a in excavations of the early 1990s under the direction of Manfred Bietak. These paintings have prompted an incredible volume of scholarly discourse and dispute and much ink has been spilled trying to determine when and by whom the frescoes were made. No other single discovery has had such dramatic implications for our understanding of Egypt’s relationship with the Aegean in the Bronze Age. I will present a brief summary rather than repeat details that have been widely published elsewhere. The paintings and reliefs, which were created on lime plaster using a combination of true fresco and al secco techniques, were discovered in thousands of fragments, having been thrown in waste deposits in excavation areas H/I, H/II, H/III, and H/IV near the monumental structures they once decorated, Palaces F and G, in a western part of Tell el-Dab‘a today known as Ezbet Helmi.105 The fragments represent scenes that included landscapes, hunts (including human hunters and dogs, feline predators, and prey), griffins, male and female figures, bull-leaping, half-rosette motifs, ivy patterns, and painted imitations of ashlar masonry.106 Though the fragments show stylistic similarities with the wall paintings found at Akrotiri on Thera (e.g. the griffins), they also share close affinities with wall paintings from Knossos. In particular, the presence Karageorghis, Ä&L 5, 75. For a plan of the site, see Bietak, von Rüden, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 21, fig. 9. 106 On the frescoes and the motifs depicted, see Bietak, Ä&L 4, 44-58; Bietak, Marinatos, Ä&L 5, 49-62; Morgan, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 2953; Marinatos, Ä&L 8, 83-99; Aslanidou, Ä&L 12, 13-27; Morgan, Ä&L 14, 285-98; Aslanidou, in Laffineur, Greco (eds), Emporia, 463-72; Marinatos, Morgan, in Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting, 119-22; Morgan, in Czerny et al. (eds), Timelines, 249-58; Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes; Marinatos, Ä&L 20, 325-55; Morgan, Ä&L 20, 263-301; Morgan, Ä&L 20, 303-23; Bietak et al. (eds), Ä&L 22-23, 131-47; Becker, in Stucky, Kaelin, Mathys (eds), Proceedings, 23-35; Jungfleisch, in Stucky, Kaelin, Mathys (eds), Proceedings, 37-50. 104 105 246 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty of a bull-leaping scene draws a direct tie to the palace at Knossos,107 as does the presence of painted stucco relief at both sites.108 It remains an outstanding question whether these frescoes were executed by Minoan artists brought to the Egyptian court, by Egyptians trained in Aegean fresco technique, or by a mixture of local and visiting artists.109 In any case, the artists certainly had knowledge of the standard techniques and materials used by Aegean painters,110 in addition to a familiarity with Aegean iconography and style, though these paintings are not direct copies of those found in the Aegean. That a series of Aegean-influenced frescoes was desired by the Egyptian court presents intriguing possibilities. Bietak has put forward the idea that the frescoes were made by Minoan artists to celebrate a diplomatic marriage between a Minoan princess and the Egyptian king,111 but this cannot be substantiated without further evidence. It seems equally possible that the rulers of Egypt wanted to demonstrate themselves as belonging to an international network of high-level exchange, having the ability to commission court artists from abroad. In his first announcement of the discovery, Bietak identified the context in which the fragments were found as dating to the Hyksos dynasty.112 Bietak’s announcement gave a concrete endorsement of the idea of a direct Hyksos-Aegean connection, which up until then had only been flimsily supported by physical evidence,113 and caused quite a stir as a result.114 But the excitement was premature, as a chain of revisions has cast the notion of Minoans at the Hyksos court back into doubt. Subsequent excavation seasons led Bietak to identify two different layers containing frescoes, one of the late Hyksos period, and one of the early Eighteenth Dynasty.115 Shortly thereafter, he began dating all of the fragments to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, no longer interpreting any of the material as Hyksos.116 He later narrowed the dating further to the reigns of Hatshepsut, Shaw, Ä&L 5, 91-120; Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes. Von Rüden, in Cappel, Günkel-Maschek, Panagiotopoulos (eds), Minoan Archaeology, 361; von Rüden, Skowronek, in Becker, Jungfleisch, von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes, 213-32. 109 For a summary, see Shaw, AJA 113/3, 473-4. See also Shaw, Ä&L 5, 94. 110 Brysbaert, Ä&L 12, 95-107; Brysbaert, in Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes, 151-62. 111 E.g. Bietak, EA 2, 28; Bietak, Marinatos, Ä&L 5, 61; Bietak, Avaris, 80; Bietak, BSA 95, 203-5; Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes, 86. 112 Bietak, EA 2, 26-8; Shaw, Ä&L 5, 91-120. 113 E.g. Betancourt, in Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, 429-32. 114 Summarized in Cline, BSA 93, 199-219. 115 Bietak, Ä&L 4, 44-52; Bietak, Marinatos, Ä&L 5, 49-62. 116 Bietak, BSFE 135, 5-29; Bietak, in Oren (ed.), The Hyksos, 117-24; Bietak, BSA 95, 185-205. 107 108 Thutmose III, and Amenhotep II, placing the frescoes firmly in the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty.117 It is worth noting that the only fresco found still in situ belonged to an Eighteenth Dynasty context (area H/III). Some scholars continued to argue, however, for a late Hyksos date for at least some of the paintings after Bietak’s revisions.118 And recent radiocarbon dating of the archaeological levels at Tell el-Dab‘a indicates that “On average, radiocarbon dates are about 120 years older than absolute dates proposed by the excavator”,119 and calls into question the archaeological grounds for the dating of the site.120 Needless to say, the frequent revisions (and related publications) by the excavators, as well as discrepancies between archaeological and radiocarbon dates, have caused a great deal of disagreement. On balance, it seems as though the announcement of Minoan frescoes at a Hyksos palace was premature and made before the site had been thoroughly excavated and the finds fully analyzed. Most scholars have now accepted a Thutmosid date for the Tell el-Dab‘a frescoes, which is consistent with the evidence outlined above for strong diplomatic connections between the Egyptian court and Aegean palatial centers in the Eighteenth Dynasty, and the depictions of actual Aegean visitors in the Theban tombs.121 It was also during the Thutmosid period that the Mycenaeans took over Crete – there may be a connection between the change of guard at the palace at Knossos and See, e.g., Bietak, in Roehrig et al. (eds), Hatshepsut, 75-81; Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes; Bietak et al. (eds), Ä&L 2223, 131-47; J. Becker, J. Junglfeisch, C. von Rüden, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 56-8, cat. no. 44; Bietak, von Rüden, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), 18-23. 118 E.g. Niemeier, Niemeier, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 85-8. 119 Höflmayer et al., BASOR 375, 66. 120 Manning et al., Antiquity 88, 1164-79; Höflmayer, in Mynárová, Onderka, Pavúk (eds), There and Back Again, 265-95; Höflmayer et al., BASOR 375, 64-74. The dating of the archaeological levels at Tell el-Dab‘a has also had a significant impact on the dating of Middle and Late Bronze Age Levantine sites; see, for instance, the summary in Höflmayer, JAEI 21, 20-30, in which the author argues that we should not assume that the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age is synchronous with the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of the New Kingdom, nor should we assume that the widespread destruction seen in the Levant during the Middle Bronze/Late Bronze transition was caused by early Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian invasions. Based on the available radiocarbon data from several sites, he places the end of the Middle Bronze Age around or before 1600 BC, meaning that it would have occurred during the Hyksos dynasty. 121 E.g. Shaw, AJA 113/3, 474-6; von Rüden, in Cappel, Günkel, Panagiotopoulos (eds), Minoan Archaeology, 355-66. 117 247 Sara E. Cole the appearance of people from Keftiu in Theban tomb paintings. In one of the tombs, that of Rekhmire (reign of Thutmose III/Amenhotep II), the men who were originally portrayed wearing codpieces with backflaps, worn by the Minoans, later had their garments painted over with kilts, which could have been worn by either Minoans or Mycenaeans, perhaps reflecting the political reality that it was now a mix of Minoans and Mycenaeans with whom the Egyptians were communicating on Crete.122 The chronological interpretation of the Tell el-Dab‘a frescoes is also affected by whether one favors a high or low chronology for the comparanda from the Cycladic island of Thera, which is dependent upon how one dates the eruption of the Theran volcano,123 and how one dates the Knossian comparanda, which depends upon the dating of the contexts in which frescoes were discovered.124 A detailed discussion of the relative chronology of the Bronze Age Aegean is beyond the scope of this essay, but a few key points are outlined here.125 The Theran frescoes that appear to have served as at least partial inspiration for the Tell el-Dab‘a paintings date to Late Minoan IA,126 and the volcanic eruption occurred near the end of this period. The frescoes from Knossos that bear the closest similarities date to Late Minoan IA and Late Minoan IB (Neopalatial), but the Knossian material is much more challenging to place securely within the relative chronology than the preserved frescoes of Thera. Some scholars argue that the date for the Theran eruption is as high as 1650 BC or another date in that Schachermeyr, JÖAI 45, 44-68; Rehak, AJA 100, 35-51; Rehak, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 39-51; Panagiotopoulos, in Cline, O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III, 393-4. 123 On the date of the Theran eruption, see for example Manning, A Test of Time; and the essays in Warburton (ed.), Time’s Up!. 124 For an overview of Aegean Bronze Age painting, see Chapin, in Pollitt (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting, 1-65. On the challenges of dating the fresco fragments found at the palace of Knossos, see Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 84-5; Hood, in Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting, 45-81. On the high versus low chronologies established for the Bronze Age Aegean, see, e.g., Chapin, in Pollitt (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting, 5, fig. 1.3. 125 See Mourad, “Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area”, in this volume, which favor a low chronology. The relationship between Egyptian and Minoan chronology of the Neopalatial period, including both the archaeological and radiocarbon evidence, is discussed in Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung. For a summary of the implications of the Tell el-Dab‘a frescoes on Aegean relative chronology, see Cline, BSA 93, 199-219. 126 In addition to parallels from Akrotiri, there are similarities between friezes from Kea on Ayia Irini and Tell el-Dab‘a; see Morgan, in Becker, Jungfleisch, von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes, 235-51. 122 vicinity.127 Peter Warren, on the other hand, has identified an Egyptian alabaster amphoriskos from Akrotiri as Eighteenth Dynasty, and suggests that Late Minoan IA ended around 1520/1510 BC and that the volcano erupted around 1530 BC.128 C. 1650 BC and c. 1500 BC are approximately the highest and lowest possible eruption dates, which provides quite a range during which significant changes were taking place in Egypt. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological analysis tend to favor a higher chronology, but material found in archaeological contexts often suggests a lower chronology; the two spheres of evidence do not always align, and this problem extends to Tell el-Dab‘a as well. A higher Bronze Age chronology places the Theran eruption, and thus the Aegean fresco comparanda, contemporary with the Hyksos, while a lower chronology creates contemporaneity with the early Eighteenth Dynasty. The Theran eruption destroyed Akrotiri and no later phases of wall painting come from the site, while the palace at Knossos underwent later rebuilding and renovation. The palace at Knossos met its end with the destruction at the close of the Final Palatial Period in Late Minoan IIIA, perhaps around 1350 BC. Many fresco fragments were found in the Final Palatial destruction layers, meaning that they may be as late as the fourteenth century BC.129 The fresoces that were still intact on the wall at the time of final destruction could have been over 100 years old.130 Bull leaper imagery appears over a long period of time at Knossos, and the famous Taureador fresco panels, found in fragments in the Court of the Stone Spout,131 to which Bietak has compared the bull leaper fresco from Tell el-Dab‘a,132 may date as late as Late Minoan IIIA (the dates proposed range from Late Minoan IA to Late Minoan IIIA),133 which would make them later than any of the suggested dates for the Tell el-Dab‘a paintings. Maria Shaw wonders if the Tell el-Dab‘a paintings could have been prompted E.g. Manning, A Test of Time; Manning, Sewell, Herscher, BSA 97, 154-9. 128 Warren, in Czerny et al. (eds), Timelines, 310, no. 3, 317-19. 129 For a reassessment of find contexts based on Arthur Evans’ excavation records, see Haysom, in Becker, Jungfleisch, von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes, 253-78. 130 On the renovations, see Haysom, in Becker, Jungfleisch, von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes, 268 and n. 74. In order for the paintings to be Neopalatial, one would have to believe that they stood on the walls for 200-300 years and were undisturbed by the renovations: Haysom, in Becker, Jungfleisch, von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes, 255. 131 Immerwahr, Aegean Painting, 90-2. For a reconstruction, see Shaw, Ä&L 5, 94, pl. 3. 132 Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes. 133 Shaw, Ä&L 5, 103; Hood, in Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting, 79-80, no. 33; Aruz, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 132, fig. 42. 127 248 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty by the shift to Mycenaean dominance on Crete,134 which would conveniently line up with the repainting of the clothing worn by the men from Keftiu in the tomb of Rekhmire and with the appearance of bull leaping as a wall painting theme at Mycenae.135 Furthermore, John Younger has pointed out that the particular technique of bull leaping depicted at Tell el-Dab‘a corresponds to later Aegean examples.136 The chronological debate is far from settled, and neither the volcanic eruption on Thera, nor the painted stucco and frescoes from Knossos can offer unambiguous chronological markers with which to align the wall paintings at Tell el-Dab‘a, which themselves were found in fragments in secondary contexts of disputed date. It is also the case that once a particular motif or style has entered an iconographic repertoire and begun to circulate, it can continue to be repeated in different iterations, even after it has gone out of use in the place of its origin. The appearance of griffins at Tell el-Dab‘a with close affinities to the Late Minoan IA griffins at Akrotiri need not lead to the immediate conclusion that they must be contemporary, and the Knossos Taureador frescoes show that images of bull leaping were still being created on Crete after the Tell el-Dab‘a frescoes were made. As Eric Cline has cautioned, “It is probably futile, and possibly even dangerous, to depend too firmly upon, build too loftily atop, or delve too deeply into, any hypotheses regarding contacts between either the Hyksos and the Minoans or the early 18th Dynasty Egyptians and the Minoans which are constructed solely or primarily upon the basis of these wall paintings”.137 Additionally, according to the excavators, the “Minoan” frescoes only represent about ten percent of the overall wall decoration in this palatial complex at Tell el-Dab‘a, the other ninety percent being lost.138 It is difficult – maybe impossible – to ascertain their significance without an understanding of the broader program to which they belonged. The same caution should be extended to several sites in the Levant that have yielded wall painting fragments showing Aegean influences. During the seventeenth to fifteenth centuries BC, frescoes were created for palaces at Syro-Levantine sites, including Alalakh and Qatna in Syria and Tel Kabri in Israel, that display motifs with parallels in the frescoes of Akrotiri on Thera and Shaw, AJA 113/3, 474-5. For the bull leaping fresco from the Ramp House deposit on the citadel at Mycenae, dating to Late Helladic IIIA, see Chapin, in Pollitt (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting, 42-3, fig. 1.25. 136 Younger, AJA 113/3, 479-80. 137 Cline, BSA 93, 199-219. 138 Bietak, in Roehrig et al. (eds), Hatshepsut, 77. 134 135 Minoan paintings from Crete.139 Scholars have used the presence of Aegean techniques and motifs, which are in most cases very fragmentarily preserved, to argue that artists from the Aegean may have been sent to work at palaces in the Levant as part of a system of exchange.140 If this were true, the painters at Tell elDab‘a may have belonged to this same network of traveling court artists creating Aegean frescoes throughout the Near East (interestingly, the use of stucco relief is unique to Tell el-Dab‘a and provides a clear parallel with Knossos). In recent years, however, this hypothesis has been questioned, as scholars are noting that at least in some cases the Aegean element in the Levantine frescoes may have been exaggerated as a result of having been studied through an Aegeo-centric lens that wished to see unidirectional cultural transmission from West to East.141 Several Levantine frescoes also show Egyptian motifs, and rather than being the work of Aegean artists it is possible that they represent a Middle Bronze international style, similar to the above-mentioned silver and gold objects found at Tod and Aegina.142 Local artists could have acquired knowledge of Aegean fresco techniques and stylistic schemes and incorporated them into their own work.143 Another hypothesis, combining the idea of traveling artists and local craftsmen, suggests that teams of workmen that included an Aegean artist (or artists) sent from abroad and members of local workshops may have decorated these palaces together.144 There need not be a one-size-fits-all explanation and there might have been a variety of ways in which Aegean traditions were transmitted to these varied locations at different times. Seeking a single solution runs the risk of oversimplifying complex processes of cultural exchange For overviews see Niemeier, Niemeier, in Cline, HarrisCline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 70-98; Niemeier, Niemeier, in Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera, 763-803; Aruz, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 123; Feldman, in Biggs, Myers, Roth (eds), Proceedings, 281-6; Cline, Yasur-Landau, Goshen, AJA 115, 245-61. 140 E.g. Niemeier, in Laffineur, Basch (eds), Thalassa, 198-9; Niemeier, Niemeier, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 95-6; Niemeier, Niemeier, in Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera, 763-803; Niemeier, Niemeier, in Kempinski (ed.), Tel Kabri, 254-98. 141 Von Rüden, in Brown, Fedlman (eds), Critical Approaches, 56-78; von Rüden, in Cappel, Günkel-Maschek, Panagiotopoulos (eds), Minoan Archaeology, 355-8. 142 Sherratt, JMA 7.2, 237-40. 143 Von Rüden, Die Wandmalereien von Qatna; Pfälzner, von Rüden, in Bonatz, Czichon, Kreppner (eds), Fundstellen, 106. 144 P. Plfälzner, C. von Rüden, in Aruz, Benzel, Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon, 126-7, cat. no. 69a, b; Pfälzner, in Bonatz, Czichon, Kreppner (eds), Fundstellen, 95-118. 139 249 Sara E. Cole and transmission of technical knowledge.145 And, like Tell el-Dab‘a, some of these Near Eastern palaces present chronological difficulties; the paintings from Qatna, for example, may be as late as the fourteenth century BC, which would place them significantly later than the Aegean paintings with which they are most similar even by the standards of the low chronology. The Tell el-Dab‘a frescoes and the artists responsible for them are therefore not necessarily immediately related to those found in the Levant beyond their common interest in utilizing similar techniques and motifs that appear to have been widely known of and valued among royal courts throughout the eastern Mediterranean for a long period of time. The Hyksos in the Aegean? Whether concrete evidence exists for the direct movement of Hyksos material to the Aegean – particularly in the form of high-status gifts or courtly exchange, which we might expect to see if, for instance, the paintings at Tell el-Dab‘a belonged to a Hyksos palace – during the Fifteenth Dynasty is questionable. A few possible Hyksos objects have been found in the Aegean, but in general they come from contexts that post-date the Hyksos period and reflect the continued circulation of these objects over time. In the New Kingdom, portable Hyksos items may have lost any specific reference to that dynasty for Aegean consumers who instead valued them as Egyptian antiques, and New Kingdom Egyptians may have readily sent such items abroad. A travertine lid bearing the name of the Hyksos King Khyan was found at the palace at Knossos, but the precise dating of the layer in which it was discovered is uncertain.146 It came from a burn layer (interpreted by Arthur Evans as such because of the heavy presence of charcoal) in an area whose associated finds ranged from the Neolithic to Late Minoan.147 Mycenean walls were built over this stratum. Evans dated the layer to Middle Minoan IIIA, but the possible Late Minoan IIIA dating of some of this material suggests that the object could have made its way to Crete long after Khyan’s reign in c. 1600 BC, perhaps as a prestige antique.148 A similar pattern is seen with other Egyptian imports, including a small stone statuette Von Rüden, Die Wandmalereien von Qatna; von Rüden, in Cappel, Günkel-Maschek, Panagiotopoulos (eds), Minoan Archaeology, 355-66; Becker, Jungfleisch, von Rüden, Tracing Technoscapes. 146 Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 210, cat. no. 680; Phillips, Aegyptiaca, vol. 2, 98, cat. no. 163; D. Sfakianakis, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 41-2, cat. no. 8. 147 On the context, see Phillips, Aegyptiaca, vol. 2, 97-8. 148 Cf. Mellink, Ä&L 5, 85-9, who argues that the vessel was sent directly by Khyan to the ruler of Knossos as part of a strategy of building international relations with powerful centers. 145 of a man named User, which was probably made for his burial or as a temple dedication in Memphis sometime in the Middle Kingdom, but must have been taken at a later date and sent to Crete, where it was discovered at the palace at Knossos in a chronologically unclear context.149 Felix Hölfmeyer has argued that there is no reason to doubt Evan’s dating of the Khyan lid context to Middle Minoan III, which would mean that the object made its way to Crete during or in close proximity to Khyan’s reign,150 but Jacke Phillips has stated that the lid “almost certainly must have been imported onto Crete long after Khyan’s reign, and probably not before the New Kingdom”.151 Phillips also notes that the material of the lid, travertine, would have been affected by fire yet the object showed no signs of such damage, which may call into question the description of its find context.152 The incomplete publication of all associated finds and the challenge of interpreting the excavation records preclude any firm conclusions being drawn from this object. Also found at Knossos is a steatite scarab of a type known as the anra scarabs,153 named for the sound their inscriptions produce. Scarabs bearing the anra formula are part of a corpus traditionally called “Hyksos scarabs”,154 a broad term that encompasses scarabs made in both Egypt and the Levant combining Egyptian and Levantine iconography.155 The great majority of anra scarabs are found in Palestine. These scarabs continued to be circulated into the Eighteenth Dynasty and there is archaeological evidence at Tell el-Dab‘a for Second Intermediate Period scarabs being used for sealings into the reign of Thutmose III.156 The anra scarab from Knossos Phillips, Aegyptiaca, vol. 2, 92-4, cat. no. 158; Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 122-3, fig. 46; K. Athanasaki, in Spier, Potts, Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile, 43-4, cat. no. 10. 150 Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 172-5, fig. 73. 151 Phillips, Aegyptiaca, 98. 152 Phillips, Aegyptiaca, 98 n. 542. 153 Warren, AR 27, 89 and fig. 47; Cline, Sailing the WineDark Sea, 147, cat. no. 126; Phillips, Aegyptiaca, vol. 2, 120-1, no. 215. On the anra scarabs, see also Richards, The Anra Scarab; Ben-Tor, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 31-2, 35, and 37 fig. 9. 154 But see Richards, The Anra Scarab, 163, who argues that these should be called instead “SIP” scarabs. 155 The anra scarab type originated in Canaan according to Ben-Tor, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 31. During the Fifteenth Dynasty, scarabs displaying a combination of Egypt and Canaanite iconography were produced in southern Canaan and many were imported into Egypt; see, e.g., Ben-Tor, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 91-108; BenTor et al., Pharaoh in Canaan, 41-9, cat. nos 13-5. Syro-Palestinian cylinder seals also incorporated Egyptian iconography: Teissier, Egyptian Iconography. 156 Bietak, in Bietak, Czerny (eds), Scarabs, 43-55; Ben-Tor, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 95. 149 250 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty was found on the preserved top of a wall in a Late Minoan room, meaning that, like the Khyan lid, it may have been sent to Crete as an heirloom a long time after it was made. As Kim Ryholt notes regarding Second Intermediate Period scarabs found in Egypt, “Royal name seals are often found in contexts of much later date than the individuals they name, and it is therefore dangerous to assume a priori that scarabs are necessarily contemporary with the contexts in which they are found”.157 The same is likely true for scarabs and seals found outside of Egypt. Possible Hyksos scarabs, which could also have been made in the Levant or copied in Egypt in the New Kingdom, were among the cargo of the Ulu Burun shipwreck from the fourteenth century BC.158 The twelfth-century BC Cape Gelidonya shipwreck included a frit plaque of ambiguous origin with a meaningless hieroglyphic inscription that may be from Egypt or Syro-Palestine and could have been made in either the Hyksos-era or in the New Kingdom in imitation of Hyksos designs.159 The site of Malia on Crete yielded a small Egyptian sphinx figurine, which was originally identified as an ivory dating to the Second Intermediate Period or Eighteenth Dynasty,160 but is in fact made of stone with a yellow coating, and recent scholarship argues for a Late Minoan IB date, probably making it contemporary with the Eighteenth Dynasty.161 Similarly, a lapis lazuli scarab bearing an image of Hathor from Grave Circle B at Mycenae was earlier argued to be of Hyksos manufacture,162 but it has no clear parallels and it also been put forward that it might be a local imitation rather than an import.163 Geoffrey Martin has argued that the scarab is an Egyptian object but pre-dates the Hyksos period and was kept as an heirloom before being deposited in the burial.164 The scarab itself is now unfortunately lost, though an impression was made, and the dating of its findspot is problematic.165 It was discovered in association with Grave Rho, to which it presumably originally belonged, but the context was disturbed.166 A possible Hyksos scarab (but one that could conceivably be Levantine or New Kingdom) Ryholt, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 124. Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 144, cat. no. 105, 148, cat. nos 135 and 140, 149, cat. no. 148. 159 Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 143, cat. no. 99 (with further references). 160 Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 133, cat. no. 8. 161 Michaelidis, PZ 70, 90-5; Poursat, in Krzyskowska (ed.), Cretan Offerings, 265. 162 Boufides, AAA 3, 273-4. See also Lambrou-Phillipson, Hellenorientalia, 342-3, cat. no. 436, pl. 53. 163 Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 150, cat. no. 152; Cline, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 99, no. 19. 164 Martin, in Czerny et al. (eds), Timelines, 191-6. 165 Höflmayer, Die Synchronisierung, 186-7, fig. 80. 166 Martin, in Czerny et al. (eds), Timelines, 191-2. 157 158 was found in Tholos Tomb I at Pylos,167 and the recently discovered Tholos Tomb IV included a gold pendant inscribed with the head of Hathor. The tholoi probably date to about 1500 BC. None of these individual finds provides an undeniably Hyksos-era object in a contemporary Aegean context. We should consider the possibility that the Hyksos sent items to the Levant (or, in the case of the scarabs, the objects might have been made in the Levant) and from there they arrived at Aegean locations, sometimes at much later dates, or that Hyksos objects were sent to the Aegean during the New Kingdom. Hyksos royal-name scarabs made in Egypt reached southern Canaan during the Hyksos period (whereas the scarabs we find in the Aegean are in later contexts and none bear the names of Hyksos rulers),168 and an obsidian vessel inscribed with Khyan’s name was found at the Hittite capital of Boğazköy-Hattusha.169 Royally inscribed Hyksos objects were clearly being sent east, perhaps as diplomatic gifts. Through Levantine trade centers, similar objects could have entered wider networks of circulation, eventually reaching places like Knossos, Mycenae, and Pylos. The single item found in the Aegean inscribed with a royal Hyksos name, the lid of Khyan, could have traveled this path. Conclusion The Hyksos were part of a larger eastern Mediterranean network sharing an elite cultural koiné that included Levantine, Cypriot, and Aegean elements, but currently there is inadequate evidence to state with any certainty that the Hyksos themselves were in direct contact with the Aegean or chose to import Aegean goods. The Levant had long-established trade relationships with the Aegean and through those connections Aegean-influenced objects made their way into Egypt under the Hyksos, but Aegean-made material evidently did not, in contrast with the preceding Middle Kingdom. Aegean-made objects appear up until the Thirteenth Dynasty, and reappear in the Eighteenth Dynasty, but no examples survive from secure Fifteenth Dynasty (Hyksos) contexts. Similarly, there is little reason to think that the Seventeenth Dynasty ruling in Thebes enjoyed a connection to the Aegean at this time, though they did appear to have access to objects from the Levant, Cyprus, and Nubia. Lambrou-Phillipson, Hellenorientalia, 366, cat. no. 512, pl. 54; Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 146, cat. no. 122. 168 Ben-Tor, in Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period, 91-108; Ben-Tor et al., Pharaoh in Canaan, 42-3, and 48, cat. no. 12. 169 Mellink, Ä&L 5, 85-9. 167 251 Sara E. Cole The treasure from the burial of Ahhotep can be seen within the context of this eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age system with its Aegean aspects and can be considered part of a larger corpus of metalwork (including weapons) that appears in Egypt during the Hyksos period and early Eighteenth Dynasty and that includes types known from the Aegean world that are manufactured locally or in the Levant, such as the dagger of Apophis. The same might also be said of a silver ship model found in the queen’s burial that may represent a Minoan ship type.170 But the treasure also has significance beyond simply showing elite status and foreign relations – the imagery on the weapons in Ahhotep’s burial carries a political message as well. Take for example the ceremonial axe of King Ahmose: the axe head bears Ahmose’s name and shows the king smiting an enemy, quite likely a Hyksos ruler. Beneath this composition is an Aegean-style griffin – representing the king – of a type that appears in the early Late Bronze Age. What does the juxtaposition of these two elements mean? Given the historical context, placing an Aegean griffin directly adjacent to an image of Ahmose smiting his Hyksos enemy sends a powerful message about Egyptian domination of the eastern Mediterranean, a domination that was being re-claimed from the Hyksos, even if it was largely ideological rather than literal. A similar theme is implied in another weapon of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, which probably belonged to an elite burial in Thebes. A bronze dagger inscribed for Kamose bears the king’s cartouche on a black bronze ring at the base of the handle.171 The cartouche is framed by a band of fleur-de-lis and zigzags that recall Minoan motifs, using Minoan-influenced decoration to center the king’s name. An inscription runs down the center of the blade, before which appears an image of the king as a griffin, wearing the Atef crown and raising one paw to quash an enemy. This griffin appears very similar to depictions of the Twelfth Dynasty King Senwosret III as a griffin vanquishing his enemies on a pectoral,172 but the image on the blade of Kamose could bear multivalent meaning and simultaneously reference appearances of the griffin in Egyptian and Aegean art, especially when considered See Wachsmann, JAEI 2:3, 31-41; Wachsmann, “Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models”, in this volume. I do not find the conclusion that the model was looted in an attack on Avaris to be a convincing one. There is not adequate evidence for the presence of Minoans, Minoan ships, and/or Minoan-inspired objects at Tell el-Dab‘a in the Fifteenth Dynasty, nor anything that concretely links the ship model (or the gold model of an Egyptian ship type that was found with it) to that location. 171 Whitehouse, Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 71-2, cat. no. 37. 172 Morgan, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera, 53 and no. 109, pl. 62. 170 alongside the use of Minoan motifs on the handle.173 The use of Aegean elements in Ahhotep’s burial symbolized her family’s destruction of Hyksos power and proclaimed Theban supremacy throughout not only Egypt but also the eastern Mediterranean more broadly. At Karnak, Ahmose set up a stela in which Ahhotep is praised for her role in reuniting Egypt and is called “Mistress of the Shores of the HAw-nbwt (i.e. the Aegean islands)”, a title expressing Egypt’s desire to expand its influence into the Aegean at the start of the New Kingdom. From the late sixteenth century BC onward, Egypt’s relationship with Minoan Crete only grew stronger until the island came under the domain of the Mycenaeans, with whom the Egyptians continued to be in contact both on Crete and the Greek mainland. Trade with Cyprus also increased. Meanwhile, the Levant was targeted for invasion by Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs and incorporated into the Egyptian empire and the Nubian Kerma kingdom was brought under Egyptian control as well. Threats to the northeast and south were quashed, and advantage was taken of the opportunity to re-engage with the Aegean littoral. This approach to foreign relations from the time of Ahmose onward is foreshadowed by the ceremonial axe-head. The use of this iconography was not purely to show cosmopolitanism or wealth, but also to proclaim Egyptian political and military might and international supremacy following reunification. Bibliography Anthony, F.B., Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: Theban Tomb Paintings from the Early Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1372 BC) (London, New York, 2017). Aruz, J., “Bull Leaping”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, New Haven, 2008), 132. Aruz, J., “Painted Palaces”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, New Haven, 2008), 123. Aruz, J., K. Benzel, J.M Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, New Haven, 2008). Aslanidou, K., “Der minoische Spiralfries aus dem Grabungsareal H/IV in Tell el-Dab‘a. Malvorgang und Rekonstruktion”, Ä&L 12 (2002), 13-27. Aslanidou, K., “The Minoan Wall Paintings from Tell elDab‘a/’Ezmet Helmi: The Life-Size Male Figures”, in R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, vol. II (Liège, Austin, TX: Aegaeum 25, 2005), 463-72. As Morgan, Ä&L 20, 304, notes, “The 18th dynasty history of the griffin is interwoven with that of the Aegean”. 173 252 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty Aston, D.A., “A Copy of a Copy of a Copy, or an Imitation Kamares-Ware Vessel from Tell el-Dab‘a”, in A. Jiménes-Serrano, C. von Pilgrim (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract: Studies Dedicated to Mohamed el-Bialy (Leiden, Boston: CHANE 76, 2015), 1-11. Aston, D., M. Bietak, “Nubians in the Nile Delta: à propos Avaris and Peru-Nefer”, in N. Spencer, A. Stevens, M. Binder (eds), Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous traditions (Leuven, Paris, and Bristol, CT: BMSAES 3), 491-524. Barber, E.J.W., Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton, 1991). Barber, E.J.W., “Aegean Ornaments and Designs in Egypt”, in E.H. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (Liège, Austin, TX: Aegaeum 18, 1998), 13-19. Barrett, C.E., “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt”, JMA 22/2 (2009), 211-34. Beck, H., P.C. Bol, M. Bücling (eds), Ägypten, Griechenland, Rom: Abwehr und Berührung. Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie, 26. November 2005-26. Februar 2006 (Frankfurt, Tübingen, 2005). Becker, J., “The Large-Scale Landscape Paintings of Tell elDab‘a/Egypt”, in R.A. Stucky, O. Kaelin, H.-P. Mathys (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East II, Basel 9-13 June 2014 (Wiesbaden, 2016), 23-35. Becker, J., J. Jungfleisch, C. von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes: The Production of Bronze Age Wall Paintings in the Eastern Mediterranean (Leiden, 2018). von Beckerath, J., Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten (Glückstadt, 1964). Ben-Tor, D., “Second Intermediate Period Scarabs from Egypt and Palestine: Historical and Chronological Implications”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete, and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th – 13th January 2002 (Vienna: DGÖAW, CChEM 8, 2004), 27-42. Ben-Tor, D., Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period (Fribourg, Göttingen, 2007). Ben-Tor, D., “Sequence and Chronology of Second Intermediate Period Royal-Name Scarabs, Based on Excavated Series from Egypt and the Levant”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 91-108. Ben-Tor, D. (ed.), Pharaoh in Canaan: The Untold Story (Jerusalem, 2016). Betancourt, P., “Relations between the Aegean and the Hyksos at the End of the Middle Bronze Age”, in E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University Museum Monograph 96, University Museum Symposium Series 8, 1997), 429-32. Bevan, A., Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean (Cambridge, 2007). Bietak, M., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. V: Ein Friedhofsbezirk mit Totentempel der Mittleren Bronzezeit im östlichen Nildelta (Vienna: Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 8, 1991). Bietak, M., “Minoan Wall-Paintings Unearthed at Ancient Avaris”, EA 2 (1992), 26-8. Bietak, M., “Die Wandmalereien aus Tell el-Dab‘a/’Ezbet Helmi: Erste Eindrücke”, Ä&L 4 (1994), 44-58. Bietak, M., Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a (London: The First Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology, 1996). Bietak, M., “Le début de la XVIIIe Dynastie et les Minoens à Avaris”, BSFE 135 (1996), 5-29. Bietak, M., “The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell elDab‘a)”, in E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University Museum Monograph 96, University Museum Symposium Series 8, 1997), 87-139. Bietak, M., “Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell elDab‘a and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed: A Response to Eric Cline (BSA 93, 199-219)”, BSA 95 (2000), 185-205. Bietak, M., “Two Near Eastern Temples with Bent Axis in the Eastern Nile Delta”, Ä&L 13 (2003), 13-38. Bietak, M., “Seal Impressions from the Middle till the New Kingdom – A Problem for Chronological Research”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete, and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th – 13th January 2002 (Vienna: DGÖAW 35, CChEM 8, 2004), 43-55. Bietak, M., “Egypt and the Aegean: Cultural Convergence in a Thutmoside Palace at Avaris”, in C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (New York, New Haven, London, 2005), 75-81. Bietak, M., “The Predecessors of the Hyksos”, in S. Gitin, J.E. Wright, J.P. Dessel (eds), Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (Winona Lake, Indiana, 2006), 285-93. Bietak, M., “Tell el-Dab‘a in the Nile Delta”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, New Haven, 2008), 110-12. Bietak, M., “From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They Go?”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 139-81. 253 Sara E. Cole Bietak, M., “The Egyptian Community in Avaris During the Hyksos Period”, Ä&L 26 (2016), 263-74. Bietak, M., “The Enigma of the Hyksos”, BiOr 75 (2018), 227-47. Bietak, M., J. Dorner, I. Hein, P. Jánosi, “Neue Grabungsergebnisse aus Tell el-Dab‘a und Ezbet Helmi im östlichen Nildelta (1989-1991)”, Ä&L 4 (1994), 9-80. Bietak, M., I. Forstner-Müller, “Der Hyksos-Palast bei Tell el-Dab‘a. Zweite und Dritte Grabungskampagne (Frühling 2008 und Frühling 2009)”, Ä&L 19 (2009), 91-119. Bietak, M., I. Forstner-Müller, C. Mlinar, “The Beginning of the Hyksos Period at Tell el-Dab‘a: A Subtle Change in Material Culture”, in P.M. Fischer (ed.), Contributions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honor of Paul Åström (Vienna, 2001), 171-81. Bietak, M., N. Marinatos, “The Minoan Wall Paintings from Avaris”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 49-62. Bietak, M., N. Marinatos, C. Palyvous, A. Brysbaert, Taureador Scenes in Tell El-Dab‘a (Avaris) and Knossos (Vienna, 2007). Bietak, M., N. Math, V. Müller, C. Jurman, “Report on the Excavations of a Hyksos Palace at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris: (23rd August-15th November 2011)”, Ä&L 22-23 (2012/2013), 17-53. Bietak, M., S. Prell (eds), The Enigma of the Hyksos, vol. I (Vienna: CAENL 9, 2019). Bietak, M., C. von Rüden, “Contact Points: Avaris and Pi-Ramesse”, in J. Spier, T. Potts, S.E. Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World (Los Angeles, 2018), 18-23. Bietak, M., C. von Rüden, J. Becker, J. Jungfleisch, L. Morgan, E. Peinter, “Preliminary Report of the Tell el-Dab‘a Wall Painting Project – Season 2011/2012”, Ä&L 22-23 (2012-2013), 131-47. van den Brink, E., Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell elDab‘a and Their Cultural Relationship to Syria-Palestine during the Second Intermediate Period (Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 23, Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 4, 1982). Boufides, N., “A Scarab from Grave Circle B of Mycenae”, AAA 3 (1970), 273-4. Bourriau, J., “Nubians in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period: An Interpretation Based on the Ceramic Evidence”, in D. Arnold (ed.), Studien zur altägyptische Keramik (Mainz, 1981), 25-48. Bourriau, J., “Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms”, in W.V. Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam (London, 1991), 129-44. Bourriau, J., “The Relative Chronology of the Second Intermediate Period: Problems in Linking Regional Archaeological Sequences”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 11-37. Brysbaert, A., “Common Craftsmanship in the Aegean and East Mediterranean Bronze Age. Preliminary Technological Evidence with Emphasis on the Painted Plaster from Tell el-Dab‘a, Egypt”, Ä&L 12 (2002), 95-107. Brysbaert, A., “A Technological Approach to the Painted Plaster of Tell el-Dab‘a, Egypt. Microscopy and Scientific Analysis”, in M. Bietak, N. Marinatos, C. Palyvous, A. Brysbaert, Taureador Scenes in Tell El-Dab‘a (Avaris) and Knossos (Vienna, 2007), 151-62. Bumann, E., The Hyksos Enigma. Vol. II: The Hyksos and Egypt: Acculturation Studies. Processes of Acculturation of the Asiatic Population at Tell El-Dab‘a (Avaris) During the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Vienna: CAENL10, 2021). Candelora, D., “Defining the Hyksos: A Reevaluation of the Title HkA HAswt and its Implications for Hyksos Identity”, JARCE 53 (2017), 203-21. Chapin, A.P., “Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age”, in J.J. Pollitt (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting in the Classical World (Cambridge, 2014), 1-65. Clerc, G., “Un fragment de vase au nom d’Ahmosis (?) à Palaepaphos-Teratsoudhia”, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Tombs at Palaepaphos 1. Teratsoudhia, 2. Eliomylia (Nicosia, 1990), 95-103. Cline, E.H., Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford: BAR International Series 591, 1994). Cline, E.H., “Egyptian and Near Eastern Imports at Late Bronze Age Mycenae”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 91-115. Cline, E.H., “Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell elDab‘a and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed”, BSA 93 (1998), 199-219. Cline, E.H., S.M. Stannish, “Sailing the Great Green Sea? Amenhotep III’s “Aegean List” from Kom el-Hetan, Once More”, JAEI 3/2 (2011), 6-16. Cline, E.H., A. Yasur-Landau, N. Goshen, “Field Report: New Fragments of Aegean-Style Painted Plaster from Tel Kabri, Israel”, AJA 115 (2011), 245-61. Colburn, C.S., “Exotica and the Early Minoan Elite: Eastern Imports in Prepalatial Crete”, AJA 112 (2008), 203-24. Czerny, E., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XXII: “Der Mund der beiden Wege”: Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi. Teil I: Text. Teil 2: Abbildungen-Tafeln-Pläne-Profile -Schnite (Vienna, UZK 38, 2015). Duhoux, Y., Des minoens en Egypte?: «Keftiou» et «les îles au milieu du Grand vert» (Louvain-la-neuve: PIOL 52, 2003). Duhoux, Y., “Les relations égypto-égéennes au Nouvel Empire: que nous apprend la toponymie?”, in K. Faried Adrom, A. Schlüter (eds), Altägyptische Weltsichten: Akten des Symposiums zur historischen Topographie und Toponymie Altägyptens vom 12. – 14. Mai 2006 in München (Wiesbaden: ÄAT 68, 2008), 19-34. 254 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty Feldman, M.H., “Knowing the Foreign: Power, Exotica, and Frescoes in the Middle Bronze Age Levant”, in R.D. Biggs, J. Myers, M.T. Roth (eds), Proceedings of the 51st Recontre Assyriologique Internationale. Held at The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago, July 18-22, 2005 (Chicago: SAOC 62, 2008), 281-6. Fitton, L., M. Hughes, S. Quirke, “Northerners at Lahun: Neutron Activation Analysis of Minoan and Related Pottery in the British Museum”, in S. Quirke (ed.), Lahun Studies (Reigate, Surrey, 1998), 112-40. Forstner-Müller, I., “Vorbericht der Grabung im Areal A/II von Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 11 (2001), 197-222. Forstner-Müller, I., “Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell elDab‘a in Area A/II at the End of the MBIIA Period (Stratum F)”, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Middle Bronze Age Conference on MBIIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, January, 2001 (Vienna: CChEM 3, 2002), 163-84. Forstner-Müller, I., “Überlegungen zu Gräbern und Grabbräuchen des Späten Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Tell el-Dab‘a”, AF 30 (2003), 140-70. Forstner-Müller, I., “Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell elDab‘a during the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 127-38. Forstner-Müller, I., P. Rose, “Nubian Pottery at Avaris in the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom: Some Remarks”, in I. Forstner-Müller., P. Rose (eds), Nubian Pottery from Egyptian Cultural Contexts of the Middle and Early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1-12 December 2010 (Vienna: ErghÖJh 13, 2012), 181-212. Glanville, S.R.K., “Records of a Royal Dockyard of the time of Thutmose III: Papyrus British Museum 10056”, ZÄS 66 (1931), 105-21. Habachi, L., The Second Stela of Kamose and His Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and His Capital (Glückstadt, 1972). Haider, P.W. “Menschenhandel zwischen dem ägyptischen Hof und der minoisch-mykenischen Welt?”, Ä&L 6 (1996), 137-56. Haysom, M., “The Find Contexts of Knossian Relief Wall Painting: Some Ramifications”, in J. Becker, J. Jungfleisch, C. von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes: The Production of Bronze Age Wall Paintings in the Eastern Mediterranean (Leiden, 2018), 253-78. Hein, I. (ed.), Pharaonen und Fremde, Dynastien im Dunkel (Vienna: Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien 194, 1994). Hintze, F., U. Hintze, Civilizations of the Old Sudan (Amsterdam, 1968). Höflmayer, F., Die Synchronisierung der minoischen Altund Neupalastzeit mit der ägyptischen Chronologie (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 73; CChEM 32, 2012). Höflmayer, F., “Carbone-14 comparé: Middle Bronze Age I (IIA) Chronology, Tell el-Dab‘a and Radiocarbon Data”, in J. MynÁrovÁ, P. Onderka, P. Pavúk (eds), There and Back Again: The Crossroads II; Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague, September 15-18, 2014 (Prague, 2015), 265-95. Höflmayer, F., J. Kamlah, H. Sader, M.W. Dee, W. Kutschera, E.M. Wild, S. Riehl, “New Evidence for Middle Bronze Age Chronology and Synchronisms in the Levant: Radiocarbon Dates from Tell el-Burak, Tell el-Dab‘a, and Tel Ifshar Compared”, BASOR 375 (2016), 53-76. Höflmayer, F., “The Expulsion of the Hyksos and the End of the Middle Bronze Age: A Reassessment in Light of Recent Chronological Research”, JAEI 21 (2019), 20-30. Hood, S., “Dating the Knossos Frescoes”, in L. Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Mark Cameron (London: BSA Studies 13, 2005), 45-81. Immerwahr, S.A., Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (University Park, 1990). Judas, B.A., “The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep”, in this volume. Jungfleisch, J., “When Aegean Wall Paintings Meet Egyptian Architecture. Simulations of Architecture from ‘Palace G’ at Tell el-Dab‘a/Egypt”, in R.A. Stucky, O. Kaelin, H.-P. Mathys (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East II, Basel 9-13 June 2014 (Wiesbaden, 2016), 37-50. Kantor, H.J., The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium BC (Bloomington, 1947). Kantor, H.J., “The Chronology of Egypt and its Correlation with that of other Parts of the Near East in the Periods before the Late Bronze Age”, in R.W. Ehrich (ed.), Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (Chicago, London, 1954), 1-27. Karageorghis, V., “Relations between Cyprus and Egypt, Second Intermediate Period and XVIIIth Dynasty”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 73-9. Kelder, J.M., “The Egyptian Interest in Mycenaean Greece”, JEOL 42 (2010), 125-40. Kelder, J.M., S.E. Cole, E.H. Cline, “Memphis, Minos, and Mycenae: Bronze Age Contact between Egypt and the Aegean”, in J. Spier, T. Potts, S.E. Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World (Los Angeles, 2018), 9-17. Kemp. B.J., “The Discovery of the Painted Plaster Fragments at Malkata”, in A. Karetsou (ed.), Kriti-Aigyptos, vol. I (Athens, 2000), 45-6. Kemp, B.J., R.S. Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (Mainz am Rhein, 1980). Koehl, R.B., Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Philadelphia: Prehistory Monographs 19, 2006). Koehl, R.B., “Minoan Kamares Ware in the Levant”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, New Haven, 2008), 59. 255 Sara E. Cole Kopetzky, K., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XX: Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit aus Tell elDab‘a. Teil I: Text. Teil II: Abbilldungen und Tabellen (Vienna, DGÖAW 62, 2010). Kopetzky, K., “Tell el-Dab‘a and Byblos: New Chronological Evidence”, Ä&L 28 (2018), 309-58. Laffineur, R., “From West and East: The Aegean and Egypt in the early Late Bronze Age”, in E.H. Cline, D. HarrisCline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (Liège, Austin, TX: Aegaeum 18, 1998), 53-67. Laffineur, R., “Réflexions sur le trésor de Tod” (Liège: Aegaeum 2, 1988), 17-29. Lambrou-Phillipson, C., Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, ca. 3000-1100 B.C. (Göteborg: SIMA, Pocket-book 95, 1990). Lilyquist, C., “On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae”, JAOS 199/2 (1999), 303-8. Lilyquist, C., “Egypt and the Near East: Evidence of Contact in the Material Record”, in C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (New York, New Haven, London, 2005), 60-7. Lilyquist, C. “The Impact of the Hyksos as Seen at Thebes”, in M. Bietak, S. Prell (eds), The Enigma of the Hyksos, vol. I (Wiesbaden: CAENL 9, 2019), 199-207. Macgillivray, J.A., “A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 81-4. Maguire, L.C., “Tell el-Dab‘a: The Cypriot Connection”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 54-65. Maguire, L.C., Tell el-Dab‘a. Vol. XXI: The Cypriot Pottery and its Circulation in the Levant (Vienna: UZK 33, 2009). Maitland, M., D.M. Potter, L. Troalen, “The Burial of the ‘Qurna Queen’”, in this volume. Manley, B., A. Dodson, Life Everlasting: National Museums Scotland Collection of Ancient Egyptian Coffins (Edinburgh, 2010). Manning, S.W., A Test of Time. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the mid Second Millennium BC (Oxford, Oakville, 1999). Manning, S.W., D.A. Sewell, E. Herscher, “Late Cypriot I A Maritime Trade in Action: Underwater Survey at Maroni Tsaroukkas and the Contemporary East Mediterranean Trading System”, BSA 97 (2002), 97-162. Manning, S.W., F. Höflmayer, N. Moeller, M.W. Dee, C.B. Ramsey, D. Fleitmann, T. Higham, W. Kutschera, E.M. Wild, “Dating the Thera (Santorini) Eruption: Archaeological and Scientific Evidence Supporting a High Chronology”, Antiquity 88 (2014), 1164-79. Maran, J., “Die Silbergefässe von et-Tôd und die Schachtgräberzeit auf dem griechischen Festland”, PZ 62 (1987) 221-7. Marée, M. (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thir- teenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010). Marinatos, N., “The Tell el-Dab‘a Paintings: A Study in Pictorial Tradition”, Ä&L 8 (1998), 83-99. Marinatos, N., “Lions from Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 20 (2010), 325-55. Marinatos, N., L. Morgan, “The Dog Pursuit Scenes from Tell el-Dab‘a and Kea”, in L. Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting: A Tribute to Marc Cameron (London: BSA Studies 13, 2005), 119-22. Martin, G.T., “The Lapis Lazuli Scarab from Grave Circle B at Mycenae”, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. II (Leuven: OLA 149, 2006), 191-6. Matić, U., “Out of the Word and Out of the Picture? Keftiu and Materializations of ‘Minoans’”, in I.M.B. Danielsson, F. Fahlander, Y. Sjöstrand (eds), Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations (Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 57, 2012), 235-53. Matić, U., “‘Minoans,’ kftjw and the “Islands in the Middle of wAD wr” Beyond Ethnicity”, Ä&L 24 (2014), 277-94. Matić, U., “Are Aegeans Depicted on Relief Block 1985. 328.13 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York?”, JAEI 21 (2019), 1-10. Matthäus, H., “Representations of Keftiu in Egyptian Tombs and the Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age”, BICS 40 (1995), 177-94. Mcgovern, P.E., T. Bagh, The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”. A Neutron Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean (Oxford: BAR International Series 888, 2000). Mcgovern, P.E., J. Bourriau, G. Harbottle, S.J. Allen, “The Archaeological Origin and Significance of the Dolphin Vase as Determined by Neutron Activation Analysis”, BASOR 296 (1994), 31-43. Mellink, M.J., “New Perspectives and Initiatives in the Hyksos Period”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 85-9. Merrilless, R.S., “The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant”, Ä&L 13 (2003), 127-42. Michaelidis, P., “Ägyptische Sphinx aus Malia”, PZ 70 (1995), 90-5. Miniaci, G., Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt (London: GHPE 17, 2011). Mlinar, C., “The Scarab Workshops of Tell el-Dab‘a”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete, and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th – 13th January 2002 (Vienna: DGÖAW 35, CChEM 8, 2004), 107-40. Morgan, L., “Minoan Painting and Egypt: The Case of Tell el-Dab‘a”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 29-53. Morgan, L. The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera: A Study 256 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge: Cambridge Classical Studies, 1988). Morgan, L., “Feline Hunters in the Tell el-Dab‘a Paintings. Iconography and Dating”, Ä&L 14 (2004), 285-98. Morgan, L., “Art and International Relations: The Hunt Frieze at Tell el-Dab‘a”, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. II (Leuven: OLA 149, 2006), 249-58. Morgan, L., “An Aegean Griffin in Egypt. The Hunt Frieze at Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 20 (2010), 303-23. Morgan, L., “A Pride of Leopards. A Unique Aspect of the Hunt Frieze from Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 20 (2010), 263-301. Morgan, L., “Forming the Image: Approaches to Painting at Ayia Irini, Kea and Tell el-Dab‘a”, in J. Becker, J. Jungfleisch, C. von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes: The Production of Bronze Age Wall Paintings in the Eastern Mediterranean (Leiden, 2018), 235-51. Mourad, A.-L., Rise of the Hyksos: Egypt and the Levant from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period (Oxford: Archaeopress Egyptology 11, 2015). Mourad, A.-L., “Asiatics and Levantine(-Influenced) Products in Nubia: Evidence from the Middle Kingdom to the Early Second Intermediate Period”, Ä&L 27 (2017): 318-402. Mourad, A.-L.,“Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Area”, in this volume. Murray, S.C., “Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation”, in this volume. Niemeier, W.-D. “Minoan Artisans Travelling Overseas. The Alalakh Frescoes and the Painted Plaster Floor at Tel Kabri (Western Galilee)”, in R. Laffineur, L. Basch (eds), THALASSA. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième Recontre égéenne international de l’Université de Liège (Liège: Aegaeum 7, 1991), 189-201. Niemeier, W.-D., B. Niemeier, “Minoan Frescoes in the Eastern Mediterranean”, in E.H. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (Liège, Austin, TX: Aegaeum 18, 1998), 70-98. Niemeier, W.-D., B. Niemeier, “Aegean Frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh und Tel Kabri”, in. S. Sherratt (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997, vol. 2 (Athens, 2000), 763-803. Niemeier, W-D., B. Niemeier, “The Frescoes in the Middle Bronze Age Palace”, in A. Kempinski (ed.), Tel Kabri. The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20, 2002), 254-98. O’Connor, D., “Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean from the Hyksos Period to the Rise of the New Kingdom”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium BC (New York, New Haven, 2008), 108-10. Panagiotopoulos, D., “Keftiu in Context: Theban Tomb-Paintings as a Historical Source”, OJA 20 (2001), 263-83. Panagiotopoulos, D., “Foreigners in Egypt in the Time of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III”, in E.H. Cline, D.B. O’Connor (eds), Thutmose III: A New Biography (Ann Arbor, 2006), 370-412. Parkinson, R.B., L. Schofield, “Of Helmets and Heretics: A Possible Egyptian Representation of Mycenaean Warriors on a Papyrus from el-Amarna”, BSA 89 (1994), 157-70. Parkinson, R., L. Schofield, “Images of Mycenaeans: A Recently Acquired Painted Papyrus from El-Amarna”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 125-6. Pfälzner, P., C. von Rüden, “Between the Aegean and Syria: The Wall Paintings from the Royal Palace of Qatna”, in D. Bonatz, R.M. Czichon, F.J. Kreppner (eds), Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne (Wiesbaden, 2008), 95-118. Philip, G., “Tell el-Dab‘a Metalwork: Patterns and Purpose”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 66-83. Phillips, J.S., “The Amenhotep III ‘Plaques’ from Mycenae: Comparison, Contrast, and a Question of Chronology”, in M. Bietak, E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-2nd EuroConference; Vienna, 28th of May-1st of June 2003 (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamktakademie 19, CChEM, 2007), 479-93. Phillips, J.S., Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review, vols I-II (Vienna: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 49, CChEM 18, 2008). Poursat, J.-C., “Malia: palace, state, city”, in O. Krzyskowska (ed.), Cretan Offerings: Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (London: BSA Studies 18, 2010), 259-67. Rehak, P., “Aegean Breechcloths, Kilts, and the Keftiu Paintings”, AJA 100 (1996), 35-51. Rehak, P., “Aegean Natives in the Theban Tomb Paintings: The Keftiu Revisited”, in E.H. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (Liège, Austin, TX: Aegaeum 18, 1998), 39-51. Richards, F., The Anra Scarab: An Archaeological and Historical Approach (Oxford, BAR International Series 919, 2001). Roehrig, C.H., R. Dreyfus, C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (New York, New Haven, London, 2005). Roehrig, C.H., “The Burial of a Royal Woman and Child of the Late Seventeenth Dynasty”, in C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus, 257 Sara E. Cole C.A. Keller (eds), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (New York, New Haven, London, 2005), 15-22. von Rüden, C., Die Wandmalereien von Qatna im Kontext einer überregionalen Kommunikation (Wiesbaden: Qaṭna Studien 2, 2011). von Rüden, C., “Beyond the East-West Dichotomy in Syrian and Levantine Wall Paintings”, in B.A. Brown, M.H. Feldman (eds), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art (Boston, Berlin, 2014), 56-78. von Rüden, C., “Transmediterranean Knowledge and Minoan Style Reliefs in Tell el-Dab‘a: An Attempt at Paradigm Shift”, in S. Cappel, U. Günkel-Masched, D. Panagiotopoulos (eds), Minoan Archaeology: Perspectives for the 21st Century (Leuven: Aegis 8, 2015), 355-66. von Rüden, C., T. Skowronek, “Between Common Craft Tradition and Deviation: The Making of Stucco Reliefs in the Eastern Mediterranean”, in J. Becker, J. Jungfleisch, C. von Rüden (eds), Tracing Technoscapes: The Production of Bronze Age Wall Paintings in the Eastern Mediterranean (Leiden, 2018), 213-32. Ryholt, K.S.B., The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-1550 BC (Copenhagen: CNIANES 20, 1997). Ryholt, K., “The Date of Kings Sheshi and Yaqubhar and the Rise of the Fourteenth Dynasty”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven, Paris, Walpole: OLA 192, 2010), 109-26. Schachermeyr, F., “Das Keftiu Problem und die Frage des ersten Auftretens einer griechischen Herrenschicht im minoischen Kreta”, JÖAI 45 (1960), 44-68. Schneider, T., Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches und der Hyksoszeit. Vol. II: Die ausländische Bevölkerung (Wiesbaden: ÄAT 42, 2003). Schneider, T. “Egypt and the Levant”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.M. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium BC (New York, New Haven, 2008), 61-2. Seiler, A., Tradition und Wandel: Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit (Mainz, 2005). Seiler, A., “The Second Intermediate Period in Thebes: Regionalism in Pottery Development and its Cultural Implications”, in M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven: OLA 192, 2010), 39-53. Shaw, I. (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000). Shaw, M.C., “Ceiling Patterns from the Tomb of Hepzefa”, AJA 74/1 (1970), 25-30. Shaw, M.C., “Bull Leaping Frescoes at Knossos and their Influence on the Tell el-Dab‘a Murals”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 91-120. Shaw, M., “A Bull-Leaping Fresco from the Nile Delta and a Search for Patrons and Artists. Reviewed Work(s): Tau- reador Scenes in Tell El-Dab‘a (Avaris) and Knossos by Manfred Bietak, Nanno Marinatos, Clairy Palivou and Ann Brysbaert”, AJA 113/3 (2009), 471-7. Sherratt, S., “Comment on Ora Negbi, The ‘Libyan Landscape’ from Thera: A Review of Aegean Enterprises Overseas in the Late Minoan IA Period”, JMA 7.2 (1994), 237-40. Spier, J., T. Potts, S.E. Cole (eds), Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World (Los Angeles, 2018). Tiessier, B., Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (Fribourg, Göttingen: OBOSA 11, 1996). Vercoutter, J., L’Égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique (Cairo, 1956). Vivas Sainz, I., “Las pinturas egipcias de Malkata: ¿arte egipcio con sabor minoico? Una nueva perspectiva sobre las pinturas del palacio de Amenofis III y las influencias del Egeo”, Anales de Historia del Arte 23 (2013), 125-38. Wachsmann, S., Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Leuven: OLA 20, 1987). Wachsmann, S. “Ahhotep’s Silver Ship Model: The Minoan Context”, JAEI 2:3 (2010), 31-42. Wachsmann, “Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models”, in this volume. Walberg, G., Kamares: Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery. 2nd rev. ed. (Göteborg, 1987). Walberg, G., “Kamares Imitations in Egypt and Their Social and Economic Implications”, in J. Christiansen, T. Melander (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Copenhagen, August 31-September 4, 1987 (Copenhagen, 1988), 634-9. Walberg, G., “A Gold Pendant from Tell el-Dab‘a (Frontispiz)”, Ä&L 2 (1991), 111-14. Walberg, G., “The Finds at Tell el-Dab‘a and Middle Minoan Chronology”, Ä&L 3 (1992), 157-9. Walberg, G., “The Date and Origin of the Kamares Cup from Tell el-Dab‘a”, Ä&L 8 (1998), 107-8. Warburton, D.A. (ed.), Time’s Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini: Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007, Initiated by Jan Heinemeier & Walter L. Friedrich (Athens: Aarhus MoDIA 10, 2009). Warren, P.M., Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge, 1969). Warren, P.M., “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations, 1978-1980. Part I”, AR 27 (1980-81), 73-92. Warren, P.M. “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant (London, 1995), 1-18. Warren, P.M., “Crete and Egypt: The Transmission of Relationships”, in A. Karetsou (ed.), Kriti-Aigyptos, vol. I (Athens, 2000), 24-8. Warren, P.M., “The Date of the Thera Eruption in Relation to Aegean-Egyptian Interconnections and Egyptian Historical Chronology”, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman, A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. II (Leuven: OLA 149, 2006), 305-21. 258 The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty Warren, P.M., V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bedminster, Bristol, 1989). Watrous, L.V., “Egypt and Crete in the Early Middle Bronze Age: A Case of Trade and Cultural Diffusion”, in E.H. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (Liège, Austin, TX: Aegaeum 18, 1998), 19-28. Weinstein, J.M., “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment”, BASOR 241 (1981), 1-28. Whitehouse, H., Ancient Egypt and Nubia in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 2009). Younger, J.G., “The Bull-Leaping Scenes from Tell el-Dab‘a. Reviewed Work(s): Taureador Scenes in Tell El-Dab‘a (Avaris) and Knossos by Manfred Bietak, Nanno Marinatos, Clairy Palivou and Ann Brysbaert”, AJA 113/3 (2009), 479-80. 259 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 261-270 Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture in the Sixteenth Century BC: Objects, Iconography, and Interpretation Sarah C. Murray Abstract The purpose of this paper is to review the nature of exchange and contact between Egypt and the Aegean in the Sixteenth century BC from an Aegean perspective. It presents an analysis of the deposition of Egyptian artifacts in Aegean contexts and the influence of Egyptian style on art produced in the Aegean. It then considers the likely mechanisms underpinning the interaction of objects and ideas evident in the material culture. Taking the evidence altogether makes it seem most plausible that the use of Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects in the Aegean was related to relatively circumscribed engagement with elite tastes and movements of people, rather than the result of thoroughgoing cultural, economic or commercial transactions. Introduction Much of this volume concerns the local context for the mortuary consumption of objects in the tomb of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, dated to approximately 15501525 BC, including the likely local value and meaning of the Aegeanizing elements of the Ahhotep burial treasure. The purpose of this chapter is to contextualize the consumption from the opposite point of view, summarizing evidence for the likely nature of Aegean-Egyptian relations in the sixteenth century BC based on evidence from the Aegean. I begin by briefly summarizing the state of knowledge on Egyptian objects and motifs in the Aegean. Evidence for interaction between Egypt and the Aegean during this period can be divided into two categories. On the one hand are imported objects themselves, and on the other are motifs and decorative styles. I review both categories in turn. I then consider some general interpretative issues that attend assessing the nature of intercultural interactions based on material evidence. Bearing these complications in mind, I pres- ent some tentative conclusions that may be drawn from this evidence and that might be brought to bear on our understanding of Queen Ahhotep’s burial. Egyptian Objects in the Sixteenth Century Aegean What does the material in the Aegean seem to suggest about the nature of Egyptian-Aegean relationships in Ahhotep’s era? In this section, I briefly consider Egyptian imports in the Aegean from the period roughly coinciding with Ahhotep’s tomb. Many of these imported objects are difficult to date precisely due to a variety of factors surrounding the excavation of their depositional contexts, but here I focus on Egyptian imports in the Aegean that seem quite likely to date roughly to the Late Helladic (LH)/Late Minoan (LM) I-II periods, which correspond to the late seventeenth and sixteenth centuries BC.1 For discussion of the relevant chronology see Manning et al., Science 28, 565-9. 1 Sarah C. Murray The number of imported Egyptian objects in the Aegean is relatively modest for these periods, about 80 objects from a period lasting over a century. To put this quantity in context, it is useful to compare it to known imports in the Aegean from the latter half of the Late Bronze Age. The most intensive contacts between the two regions are evident during the reigns of Thutmose III, Amenhotep III, and Ramses II in the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries BC. During the LH/LM III period, for example, over 150 Egyptian imports are known in the Aegean, while Aegean pottery in Egypt simultaneously suggests a relatively robust exchange of objects going back and forth between the two regions.2 At the same time, during the LM I/II period, apparently Egyptian imports are much more common in the Aegean than imports from other regions, which means that any contacts the Aegean had with the wider Eastern Mediterranean at the time may have been focused on Egypt in particular. The prominence of Egyptian imports in the import corpus of the sixteenth century Aegean has suggested to some that direct, commercial trade between the two regions began roughly simultaneous with the emergence of Neopalatial institutions on Crete around this time.3 In any case, it is clear that this period marked a watershed moment in the history of Aegypto-Cretan relations in some sense, but the nature of those connections remains murky because the evidence is not an optimal proxy through which to understand cultural relationships.4 Imported Egyptian material in the Aegean from this period is concentrated on the island of Crete, and especially at the site of Knossos. Out of all the LM I Egyptian imports on Crete, 74% come from excavations at Knossos. Such finds were uncovered from a relatively wide range of locations within the site of Knossos. A group of twelve imported stone vessels was found together in the excavations underneath the current stratigraphic museum,5 and another cache of faience vessels came from a house to the north of the royal road.6 Egyptian objects were also found in scattered domestic and ritual contexts within the settlement and the palace.7 A group of sixteen See review of evidence in Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. 3 Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, 32. See below, for discussion of the many reasons to be skeptical of placing the onset of explicitly commercial relationships at this early date. 4 On prepalatial contacts between Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean see Colburn, AJA 112/2. 5 Warren, Deltion 33; Warren, Ariadne 5, 3-5. 6 Cadogan, Temple University Aegean Symposium 1, 18; cf. Phillips, The Impact and Implication, 558. 7 House of children’s bones: Warren Minoan Stone Vases, 89, fig. 47; Pillar crypt: Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 111, no. G1, P601. Artifacts in houses around the royal road, Cadogan, Temple University Aegean Symposium 1, 18; Warren, Ariadne 2 Egyptian imports was found in a single tomb at Isopata, a burial ground associated with Knossos (see Fig. 1).8 Other sites on Crete have not produced substantial corpora of imported objects. The only sites beyond Knossos with more than a single Egyptian import are Kato Zakro in far eastern Crete, the nearby palace of Palaikastro, the coastal Mesara site of Kommos, and the site of Pyrgos on the southeastern coast. Five stone vessels were found in the palace at Kato Zakro, the majority (three) from a single deposit in the so-called treasury of the shrine.9 At Palaikastro two stone vessels come from the settlement, one from Block O and another from a hoard in Block X.10 Two ceramic sherds of Egyptian types have been identified among imports at the settlement and harbor of Kommos.11 Excavations at the settlement of Pyrgos uncovered an aniconic porphyry amulet and a porphyry bowl fragment.12 Singleton imports come from six other sites, three of which are quite close to Knossos. A diorite bowl was deposited among other artifacts inside of a rectangular children’s tomb at Archanes, a site just to the north of Knossos. An Egyptian white marble bowl was excavated in a votive context at Knossos’ port of Poros Katsambas.13 Finally, a tomb at Mavro Spilio contained one faience lotus-bowl.14 Elsewhere, one stone vase, a flat-bottomed alabastron, comes from the palatial settlement at Agia Triada, and nearby Phaistos also produced a porphyry bowl, although its original context is not known.15 A baggy alabastron from Egypt that had been modified to resemble a ewer was excavated in House Za at Mallia.16 In general, it is fair to say that the corpus of imports on Crete during this period is dominated by stone vessels and is concentrated in the north central part of the island. Egyptian imports on the mainland are fewer in number and distinct in having been recovered exclusively from mortuary contexts. However, they resemble the corpus of imports on Crete in that they are concentrated at a few palatial sites. Four stone and faience vessels were found in tombs at Mycenae, two in shaft graves of Mycenaean Grave Circle A and two in chamber tombs 5, 1-3; Phillips, Impact and Implications, 558. 8 Evans, The Prehistoric Tombs, 141-9; Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca, 23-5, Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 112, P609-P612. 9 Platon, Praktika 1963/118, 181, pl. 150b, 1964, 352, fig. 9; Phillips Impact and Implications, 465-8. 10 Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 75, 110; Phillips Impact and Implications, 703. 11 Watrous, Kommos III, 162-3. 12 Cadogan, in Hägg, Marinatos (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults, 169-70. 13 Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 75, 110. 14 Forsdyke, BSA 28, 257-8. 15 Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 111-12. 16 Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 43, 103. 262 Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture around the citadel.17 At the nearby site of the later Argive Heraion, a royal tholos tomb probably to be associated with the palace of Mycenae produced fragments of one faience and one stone Egyptian vessel.18 An additional three stone vessels along with an imported silver spoon come from a tholos tomb at Vapheio in Lakonia.19 Finally, Two Egyptian imports – a faience scarab and a fragment of a faience pyxis – were excavated in a tholos tomb at Pylos.20 Region Sites Objects Contexts Crete 9 71 (Knossos, dominant, 74% of material) (51 stone/ faience vessels, others amulets, beads, etc.) Settlement and Mortuary (a single Isopata tomb dominates the mortuary category) 5 12 (Heraion, Kalauria, Mycenae, Pylos, Vapheio) (10 stone/ faience vessels, scarab, spoon) Mainland Mortuary Egyptian Stone Vessels in Sixteenth Century Crete Table 1 – Basic figures and distribution of LM/LH I Egyptian imports in the Aegean Regionally, then, it’s clear that Cretan contexts have produced the large majority of known imported Egyptian objects that have turned up in the Aegean from the period of interest here. Only a handful of Egyptian imports are known from the mainland. The difference in the quantity of imports between the two regions is so dramatic that most scholars have assumed that Egyptian objects from mainland tombs reached the mainland through Cretan intermediaries. This scenario seems highly likely, given the related and generally accepted hypothesis that Cretan artists were responsible for creating most of the technically excellent prestige artifacts found in Mycenaean sites during this period, many of which are not clearly differentiated from Egyptian imports in terms of their consumption at mainland sites.21 Thus, it seems quite likely to reconstruct a scenario in which there was essentially no direct contact between the Greek mainland Bosanquet, JHS 24, 325-6; Karo, Die Schachtgräber, 71; Warren, PPS 33, 39-41, 44; Sakellarakis, SMEA 17, 177. 18 Wace et al. (eds), BSA 25, 336. 19 Tsountas, ArchEph 1889, 146, 153; Warren, Minoan Stone Vases, 114; Kilian-Dirlmeier, JRGZM 34/1, 198. 20 Brown, Provisional Catalogue, 70. 21 E.g. Betts, in Betancourt (ed.), Temple; Velsink, BABesch 78. 17 and Egypt during the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries BC. It is germane, then, to focus on the likely nature of cultural and material cultural connections between LM I/II Crete and Egypt in particular. In this vein, it is interesting to observe that imported Egyptian objects on Crete are quite limited in terms of their type. The majority are stone vessels of some sort, especially baggy alabastra (see Fig. 1), although a few faience vessels are also known. Thus, while the majority of all imports in the Aegean from this period come from Egypt, it is not clear from the import record that connections between Egypt and Crete were very intense. Rather, looking at the imported objects in isolation, it appears that the role of Egyptian culture in Cretan material culture is a tightly circumscribed one, limited to the consumption of a particular material object – the stone vessel – which has most often been recovered from ritual contexts at elite sites. What should we make of the prominence of stone vessels in the corpus of Egyptian imports on Crete? This question can only be answered in light of some further contextual information about Egyptian stone vessels, and the apparent meaning and contextual use of stone vessels on the island of Crete. Stone vessels were characteristic of material cultural assemblages (see Fig. 2) from both Crete and Egypt starting in the Early Bronze Age. In Egypt, such vessels had been manufactured since the Predynastic period. They were used in a variety of contexts: everyday, ritual, and mortuary, and were usually associated with elites. The Egyptian desert contains a wide variety of types of stone suitable for vessel manufacture, and many evidently were exploited in this way, although imported stones were increasingly used over time as trade and exchange networks expanded.22 The most popular material used to make Egyptian stone vessels in Egypt was calcite, a common carbonite mineral that is an appealing white color in appearance and relatively easy to work. Stone vessels likewise had a long history of use in the Aegean, first appearing – especially in mortuary contexts – during the Early Bronze Age. Thus, the imported Egyptian stone vessels that began to arrive in the Aegean around the turn of the sixteenth century were not a novelty in the Aegean from the point of view of the basic typological category. Nonetheless, the appearance of stone vessels imported from Egypt is a new feature of archaeological deposits datable to the MM III-LM I transition. Such vessels are especially concentrated in the LM I period, although it is not entirely clear that these objects 22 263 Sparks, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 39. Sarah C. Murray were actually created during this time. Many vessels appear to have been manufactured considerably earlier, during the Old Kingdom.23 How did these older vessels end up in LM I deposits? One hypothesis is that such objects might have been looted from Old Kingdom tombs in Egypt and then traded abroad.24 This is an intriguing suggestion that should have implications for our interpretation of both the supply of and demand for these objects. Presumably, people in Egypt would not begin a practice of looting Old Kingdom tombs in order to acquire stone vessels if there were not a sense that the demand for such objects abroad was considerable. It is compelling to consider the possibility that local developments on Crete, for example, the increasing social utility of leveraging exotic material culture or dear accoutrements for elite self-aggrandizement as Neopalatial institutions developed, compelled new looting activity in Egypt. The presence of a Cretan taste or demand for stone vessels of Egyptian type in the sixteenth century is supported by the existence of locally manufactured imitations.25 The most common shape in the Cretan assemblage of imported Egyptian stone vessels is the baggy alabastron, which accounts for over forty percent of the imported vessels on Crete overall.26 As Bevan has noted, this shape is certainly popular in other regions, but its prominence in the Cretan assemblage is nonetheless exceptional in its Mediterranean context.27 It is likely, then, that “Cretan elites were arguably being selective of those elements of Egyptian culture that they considered relevant to their own purposes”.28 But a convincing explanation of the Cretan predilection for alabastra has never been convincingly offered. Warren, Ariadne 5. See, e.g., Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 62: “Significant debate has occurred over the degree to which these vessels represent recent arrivals to Crete in the later Bronze Age or had been locally curated, principally at Knossos, since an original exchange in later Prepalatial times. In favor of these being later arrivals, we can trace the appearance of PD-OK antiques at a large number of MB-LB Aegean, Egyptian, Levantine, and Nubian sites, suggesting a phenomenon of eastern Mediterranean-wide proportions”. 24 Pomerance, Chronache di Archeologia 12; Pomerance, in Aström, Palmer, Pomerance (eds), Studies in Aegean Chronology; Phillips in Orel (ed.), Death and Taxes, 175-6; Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 68-9. 25 Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 62. 26 The imported alabastra are from Agia Triada (1), Knossos palatial settlement (13), Knossos-Isopata (5), Kato Zakro (3), Mallia (1), and Palaiokastro (1) on Crete, and at the Argive Heraion (1) and Vapheio (2) on the mainland. 27 Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 66. 28 Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 62. 23 It is important to consider not only the formal characteristics of the vessels, but their likely function as containers. The main function of the alabastron in Egypt was as a container for oil or other unguents.29 In general, most Egyptian stone vessels were intended to serve as storage for ointments, as is known from inscriptions, preserved contents, and/or representations in figural art.30 The proliferation of alabastra therefore might indicate a Cretan preference for a specific type of oil that was associated with this shape in particular rather than for the shape of the vessel itself. In considering this possibility, it is also revealing to consider the material of the vessels. Most imported Aegean vessels were made of a type of calcite which does not occur on Crete, but which was also used for the local manufacture of Cretan vessels.31 Moreover, Egyptian imported vases were often modified or repurposed in order to create shapes that fit more typologically into a Cretan paradigm, especially around the palace of Knossos.32 This modification process consisted of taking Egyptian shapes like alabastra and cutting, perforating, or appending objects to them in order to generate shapes that looked Cretan, like rhyta or bridge-spouted jars33 (see Fig. 3). The existence of such locally manufactured and modified vessels suggests that the raw material of the vessels might have been both imported and valued as much as or more than the shape of the finished vessels. It is therefore possible to relatively confidently dismiss the notion that the Cretan appetite for stone vessels reflects a desire for a particular kind of bulk commodity transported in travertine alabastra, and to reconstruct a complex set of Aegean desires related to material and appearance. The consumption of Egyptian stone vessels was an elite phenomenon. Their find contexts are nearly exclusively limited to areas around the Cretan palaces and other palatial-affiliated settlements.34 This is consistent with the contemporary trend around the Mediterranean. Stone vessels throughout the Mediterranean during this period seem to be consistently associated with high status – even unworked stones used to make such vessels feature in offering scenes and tribute lists, as do vessels empty of any contents.35 Certainly, the elite contexts and the occasional ritual associations of the vessels in the Aegean suggest that the vessels had a particular set of Lilyquist, Egyptian Stone Vessels, 2. Lilyquist, Egyptian Stone Vessels, 2. 31 Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 67-8. On the source of the calcite material see Aston et al., in Nicholson, Shaw, Ancient Egyptian Materials. 32 Warren, in Laffineur, Betancourt (eds), Techne, 209-23. 33 Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 125. 34 See discussion of find contexts above. 35 Sparks, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 44. 29 30 264 Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture meanings within elite Cretan culture. These meanings probably related to explicitly and exclusively elite rituals and perhaps included ideas about the allure of an exotic, notionally Egyptian mystique. However, complicating a straightforward understanding of the implications of these vessels for any direct engagement between Crete and Egypt is Lilyquist’s suggestion that many of the so-called Egyptian vessels from Crete were actually made in the Levant.36 Bouillon has added to the chorus of voices suggesting that stone vases usually identified as Egyptian have a complex and hybrid origin story that cannot be disentangled from cosmopolitan developments in material culture occurring at the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Ages in the Mediterranean.37 In general, it seems that Cretan communities in the sixteenth century connected the imported stone vases with association of something elite and culturally distinctive with a perhaps vague and inaccurate conception of an exotic place, whether or not that exotic notion had much to do with an accurate conception of Egypt in and of itself. Based on these imports, then it is not possible to reconstruct much of a robust set of direct links between Egypt and Crete during the sixteenth century. It seems plausible to suggest that the consumption of these vessels and/or their contents had something to do with local value attached to a notional sense of exoticness, rather than a rigorous understanding of the Egyptian origin of the vessels or material. Perhaps it was the case that the imported alabastra represented a simple stereotype of what an Egyptian fancy unguent container was supposed to look like to a Cretan audience. It is often the case that contact among cultures manifests in curious ways that do not reflect clear understandings or thorough connections between different parties, and the sparse, limited nature of the Egyptian import corpus on Crete may suggest that this was also true of the two regions in the sixteenth century. Egyptian and Cretan Art at the Transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Age Aegean material culture of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages contains a range of imitative styles reliant on inspiration from Egyptian material culture, and Aegean imagery of this period is far more closely related to Egyptian than to the visual style of other eastern Mediterranean cultural units in, e.g., Mesopotamia or the Levant.38 Nilotic motifs, which usually involve animal hunts in exotic landscapes populated with plants native to Egypt are present in some Aegean art of this period. Well-known examples include the cat or leopard hunt on a dagger from the Mycenaean shaft graves, the monkey fresco in the House of the Frescoes at Knossos, and the riverine landscape frieze in the West House at Akrotiri.39 The appearance of the goddess Thoeris in the guise of the Minoan genie, blue monkeys, and a whole retinue of additional fantastic beasts like griffins and sphinxes emergent in Cretan art of the second palatial period indicate a relatively open armed embrace of Egyptian imagery in the Aegean alongside these straightforwardly Nilotic images.40 Egyptian influence is also evident in ivory work of the period. Following a general lack of ivory in the material record of the preceding eras, ivory becomes increasingly abundant in the MM III-LM I periods. Ivory workshops were almost certainly situated within and probably overseen by palatial institutions, as suggested by the presence of a stored cache of elephant tusks at the palace of Kato Zakro, the apparent ivory workshops along the royal road at Knossos, and the concentration of finished ivory objects at sites like Mallia and Palaikastro.41 Ivories generally feature Egyptianizing motifs, for example the sphinx motif on a furniture ornament from house Zb at Mallia.42 Ivory cosmetic containers and other objects related to cosmetics, like combs and mirror handles, are prominent in the ivory assemblages of LM I Crete, and this could be related back to the association of imported stone vessels with functions associated with modification or enhancement of a person’s sensorial presentation to the world-scents provided by unguents or perfumed oils in the case of the stone vessels and visual modification through the application of makeup or combing of hair in the case of the ivories.43 Warren, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean, and the Levant; cf. discussion in Markovitz, Lacovara, in Lesley Fitton (ed.), The Aigina Treasure. 39 Laffineur, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 64. 40 Sherratt, JMA 7/2, 238. On Thoeris, see Weingarten, Transformation of Egyptian Tawaret. On blue monkeys see Pareja et al. (eds), Primates 61, 159-68. 41 Younger, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 235-6. 42 Younger, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 236. 43 Younger, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 237. 38 In reconstructing the role of Egyptian culture on Crete in broader perspective, it is important to consider the apparent stylistic influence of Egypt on Cretan art, which is far more thoroughgoing than a straightforward reading of the import record, in this case primarily consisting of a relatively small number of imported stone vessels, might suggest. Lilyquist, in Hachmann (ed.), Kamid el-Loz 16; Lilyquist, in Laffineur, Betancourt (eds), Techne; see also Bevan, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 193-7. 37 Bouillon, JAEI 21, 5. 36 265 Sarah C. Murray The influence of Egyptian art on Aegean material culture is echoed in Egypt by the presence of significant Aegeanizing motifs in a number of Egyptian contexts. This evidence is treated in another contribution to the current volume.44 In this context, it is sufficient to reiterate that Minoan iconography like bull jumping frescoes, animals in flying gallops, and certain aniconic decorative motifs at a number of sites in Egypt that probably date approximately to the MMIII-LM IA period should attest to the fact that iconographical interaction between the two regions was significant in the sixteenth century.45 Indeed, prominent among this evidence is the material at the center of this volume – the finds in the royal tomb of Queen Ahhotep.46 Exchange and Cultural Interaction in Late Bronze Age Greece: Disciplinary Paradigms What, then are we to make of the Aegean evidence for cultural interaction with Egypt? On the one hand, there is little in the way of compelling evidence for a robust importation of Egyptian goods into the Aegean. On the other hand, Egyptian artistic motifs seem to be traveling relatively liberally among the cultures of the Aegean at this time. In interpreting this evidence, one thing that is quite clear is that we must keep this conversation distinct from the typical paradigms within which exchange and trade have been studied in the Late Bronze Age overall. The study of economic and cultural exchange in the Bronze Age Aegean often focuses on what would usually be categorized as economic exchange or trade among major states. Much of this interpretation draws from the relatively ample evidence for intercultural exchanges between Aegeans and peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean from the end of the Late Bronze Age. Such evidence includes the Amarna letters and documents from Ugarit demonstrating a robust international economy incorporating both independent merchants and political institutions, massive quantities of Mycenaean pottery in the Levant, and a few high-profile and spectacular shipwrecks dated to the fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC.47 However, there is much less evidence for the nature of intercultural exchange between the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean states such as Egypt from earlier Cole, “The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty (c. 1650-1550 BC) and Beyond”, in this volume. 45 See lengthy discussion of this material in Cline, BSA 93. 46 Laffineur, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 61; Cline, BSA 93, 213. 47 See review of scholarship in Murray, Collapse of the Mycenaean, 9-16. 44 phases of the Bronze Age, including the era of interest to this volume, the sixteenth century BC. Aegean pottery found in Egypt dated to this period constitutes a very different body of evidence than later Mycenaean assemblages in the region. For the most part, Aegean ceramics in sixteenth century Egypt represent a scattered assemblage of idiosyncratic examples rather than homogenous and typologically limited masses of evidence, as we have for the later centuries of the Late Bronze Age.48 Moreover, there is little evidence from the Greek mainland, the Cyclades, or Crete that developed economies capable of generating exports of raw materials or finished goods at scale for market exchange existed at this time. No shipwrecks dating to this period have been discovered in the Mediterranean to date. In the age of Horden and Purcell, we have become accustomed to thinking of the Mediterranean sea as a great binding force that encouraged connectivity between the many shores of the great inner sea throughout its human past.49 But it is important to remember that travel at a distance in the Bronze Age would have been immensely challenging, dangerous, and time-consuming. Textual sources from the ancient Near East suggest that visitors to royal courts could often be detained or delayed for many years when sent on official business, and storms likely made sure that occasional dispatches simply never reached their destinations.50 Thus, there is no compelling need to assume that thoroughgoing connections like those perhaps present in the fourteenth century BC were the norm rather than the exception, and little reason to believe that any kind of intensive commercial connections existed between Crete and Egypt in the sixteenth century. Interpreting Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Culture during the Sixteenth Century It is therefore sensible to set aside the notion that economic exchange provides the best institutional lens through which to makes sense of the story of Egypto-Aegean interaction in the sixteenth century. What kind of exchange, then, should we envision for this period? On Aegean pottery in Egypt see Hankey, Leonard, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient; Cline, BSA 93, 213; Laffineur, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 55; Barrett, JMA 22/2, 211-34. 49 Horden, Purcell, The Corrupting Sea. On connectivity in the eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age see, e.g., papers in Niesiołowski-Spanò, Wȩcowski (eds), Change, Continuity, and Connectivity. 50 Knapp, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 193. 48 266 Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture Despite the relatively sparse nature of the evidence, a number of elaborate theories have been put forward to explain the apparent influences and imports that seem to have flowed between Egyptian and Aegean peoples. Marinatos suggested that there may have been a military impetus, with Minoan ships ferrying Mycenaean forces to Egypt in order to fight for Thebes against the Hyksos.51 According to this scenario, the Hyksos refugees then went to the Aegean, thus explaining the presence of Egyptian objects there. This reconstruction seems a bit far-fetched, although it is always difficult to identify objects in the archaeological record that would have circulated as booty or possessions of martial forces.52 Far more likely seems to be the frequently stated theory that Minoan and Egyptian artists may have traveled between the two regions, or that there were generally mobile artists in the Mediterranean during this period, resulting in the development of a relatively homogenous, if regionally tailored, international style that grew from interaction and cultural exchange among artists in particular rather than between societies overall.53 If we seek to explain Egyptianizing elements in Aegean art as the result of a cosmopolitan, mobile artisanal class, we should then accept the possibility that direct relationships between the two cultures were likely quite diffuse, with artists simply generating a relatively generic elite, international style regardless of the particular tastes or demands of the individual cultural context. Thus, we may wish to reconstruct a situation in which Egyptian iconographic elements and objects were entangled in ideologies rather than economies, with politico-economic elites pursuing a shared taste for the generically exotic, rather than an Aegean predilection for the specifically Egyptian.54 However, it is possible that artists were not the only individuals to regularly permeate cultural boundaries. Another type of cultural exchange that has been reconstructed for this period is dynastic intermarriage among Cretans and Egyptians.55 If such marriages were taking Marinatos, Crete and Mycenae, 81-2; cf. Bernal, Black Athena, 398. On the notion of a Minoan thalassocracy and its relation to Egypt see Sakellarakis, Sakellarakis, in Hägg, Marinatos (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy, 1984. 52 Sparks, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 41. Occasionally inscriptions provide strong evidence for this kind of exchange, however (Potts, Oriens Antiquus 25; Potts, Iraq 51). 53 Laffineur, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 67; Sherratt, JMA 7/2, 238; Shaw, Mellink, Ä&L 5; Cline, BSA 93, 209. 54 Knapp, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient, 203. 55 On exchange of wives as a mechanism in the LBA generally see Zaccagnini, JNES 42/4; Moorey, in Shortland (ed.), The Social Context. 51 place, they might have served as the mechanism for the transfer of artists, as groups of attached specialists may have accompanied the nuptial party from one palace to another. This possibility might provide an attractive lens through which to view some Egyptian and Egyptianizing objects in Crete, such as the stone unguent vessels and ivory cosmetic containers. If, as Bietak has suggested, a Minoan princess (or prince) in Avaris wished to be surrounded by Aegean-style wall paintings, perhaps an Egyptian prince or princess in the Aegean would have brought along tools and materials for beautification and personal enhancement that he or she was accustomed to utilizing in the natal household.56 The objects are small and personal, and one could imagine them being exactly the sort of intimate, comforting personal possession that could be easily brought along on a long sea journey. Alternatively, the vessels might have been considered an appropriate greeting or wedding gift to be presented to the royal court prior to or during the marriage proceedings.57 In general, the suggestion that inter-dynastic marriage was responsible for generating some of the apparent material relationships between sixteenth century Cretans and Egyptians has been accepted by many scholars, although in an absolute sense it is perhaps as difficult to substantiate convincingly as Marinatos’ militaristic reconstruction. Conclusions Overall it may not be unreasonable to suggest that much of the interaction between Crete and the Egyptians in the early Late Bronze Age revolved around the movement of goods and objects with direct relation to a rather restricted group of elite individuals. It is interesting to reflect on this fact in light of an oft-stated opinion about Queen Ahhotep – that she may have been a Minoan princess sent across the sea to marry an Egyptian prince. On the other hand, since it seems clear that stone vessels of the sort that we find in the Aegean from the sixteenth century were also made at Byblos and imitated on Crete, it may be more likely that these vessels were part of international elite consumption strategies in general rather than related to specific Egypto-Aegean relationships. To summarize, given the particularities of the extant Egyptian style objects from LM I/II Crete, it seems plausible to reconstruct either a scenario in which an important component of Egypto-Aegean E.g., Bietak, EA 2, 28; Bietak, Avaris, 26. Alternatively, the stone vessels might have been transferred in a form of elite diplomacy, as suggested by Sparks, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 41, although this explanation does not have much power for clarifying why exactly a certain form or type of stone vessel was so popular in Crete in particular. 57 Sparks, in Matthews, Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives, 39. 56 267 Sarah C. Murray relations involved the movement of elite individuals, perhaps through intermarriage between Aegean and Egyptian families, or one in which Egypto-Aegean relations were largely absent, except through the persona of the mobile artisan who traveled freely among Mediterranean cultures creating hybrid works of art for elites. In either case, one can confidently state that a general material evocation of the Egyptian probably offered a powerful ideological tool for the performance of elite status in Bronze Age Crete. Bibliography Aston, B., J. Harrel, I. Shaw, “Stone,” in P. Nicholson, I. Shaw (eds), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 5-77. Barrett, C., “The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt”, JMA 22/2 (2009), 211-34. Bietak, M., “Minoan Wall-Paintings Unearthed at Ancient Avaris”, EA 2 (1992), 26-8. Bietak, M., Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos (London, 1995). Bernal, M., Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Vol. II: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (New Brunswick, 1991). Betts, J.H., “The seal from Shaft Grave Gamma – A ‘Mycenaean’ Chieftain,” in P. Betancourt (ed.), Temple University Aegean Symposium 6 (Philadelphia, 1981), 289-95. Bevan, A., Value Regimes in the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age: A Study through Stone Vessels (London: PhD Dissertation, University of London, 2001). Bevan, A., “Reconstructing the Role of Egyptian Culture in the Value Regimes of the Bronze Age Aegean: Stone Vessels and their Social Contexts”, in R. Matthews, C. Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (London, 2003), 57-75. Bevan, A., Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean (Cambridge, 2007). Bosanquet, R., “Some ‘Late Minoan’ Vases Found in Greece”, JHS 24 (1904), 317-29. Bouillon, H., “Late Bronze Age Production, Use, and Exchange of Luxury Vases: A New Approach”, JAEI 21 (2019), 5-19. Burnett-Brown, R., A Provisional Catalogue of and Commentary on Egyptian and Egyptianizing Artifacts Found on Greek Sites (Michigan: PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974). Cadogan, G., “Some Faience, Blue Frit, and Glass from Fifteenth Century Knossos”, Temple University Aegean Symposium 1 (1976), 18-19. Cadogan, G., “A Probable Shrine in the Country House at Pyrgos”, in R. HÄgg, N. Marinatos (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm, 1981), 169-172. Cline, E., Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford, 1994). Cline, E., “Egyptian and Near Eastern Imports at Late Bronze Age Mycenae”, in W. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean, and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 91-115. Cline, E., “Rich beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dab‘a and the Aegean World: A Guide for the Perplexed”, BSA 93 (1998), 199-219. Colburn, C., “Exotica and the Early Minoan Elite: Eastern Imports in Prepalatial Crete”, AJA 112/2 (2008), 203-24. Evans, A., The Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos (London, 1906). Forsdyke, E., “The Mavro Spelio Cemetery at Knossos”, BSA 28 (1926-27), 243-96. Hankey, M., A. Leonard, “Aegean LB I-II Pottery in the East: Who is the Potter, Pray, and Who the Pot?”, in E. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Liège, 1998), 29-37. Horden, P., N. Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford, 2000). Karo, G., Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (Munich, 1930). Killian-Dirlmeier, I., “Das Kuppelgrab von Vapheio: Die Beigabenausstattung in der Steinkiste untersuchungen zur sozialstruktur in Späthelladischer Zeit”, JRGZM 34/1 (1987), 197-212. Knapp, A.B., “Mediterranean Bronze Age Trade: Distance, Power, and Place”, in E. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Liège,1998), 193-207. Laffineur, R., “From West to East: the Aegean and Egypt in the Early Late Bronze Age”, in E. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Liège, 1998), 53-67. Lilyquist, C., Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV (New York, 1995). Lilyquist, C., “Stone Vessels at Kamid el-Loz, Lebanon: Egyptian, Egyptianizing, or Non-Egyptian? A Question at Sites from the Sudan to Iraq to the Greek Mainland”, in R. Hachmann (ed.), Kamid el-Loz 16: ‘Schatzhaus’ – Studien (Bonn, 1996), 133-73. Lilyquist C., “Egyptian Stone Vases: Comments on Peter Warren’s Paper”, in R. Laffineur, P. Betancourt (eds), Techne: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Liège, 1997), 225-8. Manning, S., C. Ramsey, W. Kutschera, T. Higham, B. Kromer, P. Steier, E. Wild, “Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700-1400 BC”, Science 28 (2006), 565-9. Marinatos, S., Crete and Mycenae (London, 1960). Markowitz, Y.J., P. Lacovara, “Egypt and the Aigina Treasure”, in J. Lesley Fitton (ed.), The Aigina Treasure: Aegean Bronze Age jewellery and a mystery revisited (London, 2009), 59-60. Moorey, P., “The Mobility of Artisans and Opportunities for Technological Transfer Between Western Asia and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age”, in A. Shortland (ed.), The Social Context of Technological Change. Egypt and the Near East 1650-1550 BC (Oxford, 2001), 1-14. 268 Aegean Consumption of Egyptian Material Culture Murray, S., Collapse of the Mycenaean Economy: Trade, Imports, and Institutions, 1300-700 BC (Cambridge, 2017). Niesiołowski-Spanò, Ł., M. Wȩcowski (eds), Change, Continuity, and Connectivity: North-Eastern Mediterranean at the Turn of the Bronze Age in the Early Iron Age (Wiesbaden, 2018). Pareja, M., T. McKinney, J. Mayhew, J. Setchell, S. Nash, R. Heaton, “A New Identification of the monkeys depicted in a Bronze Age wall painting from Akrotiri, Thera”, Primates 61 (2020), 159-68. Pendlebury, J.D.S., Aegyptiaca: A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the Aegean Area (Cambridge, 1930). Phillips, J., The Impact and Implications of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing Objects found in Bronze Age Crete ca. 3000ca.1100 BC (Toronto: PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 1991). Phillips, J., “Tomb-robbers and their Booty in Ancient Egypt”, in S. Orel (ed.), Death and Taxes in the Ancient Near East (Lewiston, 1992), 157-92. Phillips, J., Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical View, vols I-II (Vienna: CChEM 18, 2008). Platon, N., “Ἀνασκάφαι Ζάκρο”, Praktika 1963/118 (1963), 160-88. Pomerance, L., “The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology”, Chronache di Archeologia 12. Special issue: Antichità Cretesi: Studi in onore di Doro Levi (1976), 21-30. Pomerance, L., “A Note on the Stone Ewers from the Khian Lid Deposit”, in P. Aström, L. Palmer, L. Pomerance (eds), Studies in Aegean Chronology (Stockholm, 1984), 15-25. Potts, D.T., “The Booty of Magan”, Oriens Antiquus 25 (1986), 271-85. Potts, D.T., “Foreign Stone Vessels of the Late Third Millennium BC from Southern Mesopotamia: Their Origins and Mechanisms of Exchange”, Iraq 51 (1989), 123-64. Sakellarakis, E., J.A. Sakellerakis, “The Keftiu and the Minoan Thalassocracy”, in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality (Stockholm, 1984), 197-202. Sakellarakis, J., “Mycenaean Stone Vases”, SMEA 17 (1976), 173-87. Shaw, M., M. Mellink, “Bull Leaping Frescoes at Knossos and their Influence on the Tell el-Dabʿa Murals”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 91-120. Sherratt, S., “Comments on Ora Negbi, the ‘Libyan Landscape’ from Thera: A Review of Aegean Enterprises overseas in the Late Minoan IA period”, JMA 7/2 (1994), 237-40. Sparks, R., “Egyptian Stone Vessels and the Politics of Exchange (2617-1070 BC)”, in R. Matthews, C. Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives on Egypt (London, 2003), 39-56. Tsountas, C., “῎Ερευναι ἐν τῆ Λακωνική καὶ ὁ Τάφος τού Βαφειοῦ”, ArchEph 1889, 129-72. Velsink, J., “The Ivories from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae”, BABesch 78 (2003), 1-33. Wace, A.J.B., W.A. Heurtley, W. Lamb, L.B. Holland, C.A. Boethius (eds), “The Report of the School Excavations at Mycenae, 1921-1923”, BSA 25 (1921-23), 1-434. Warren, P., “Minoan Stone Vases as Evidence for Minoan Foreign Connexions in the Aegean Late Bronze Age”, PPS 33 (1967), 37-56. Warren, P., Minoan Stone Vases (Cambridge, 1969). Warren, P., “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations”, Deltion 33 B2 (1981), 359-61. Warren, P., “Egyptian Stone Vessels from the City of Knossos: Contributions Towards Minoan Economic and Social Structure”, Ariadne 5 (1989), 1-9. Warren, P., “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt,” in W. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean, and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 1-18. Warren, P., “The Lapidary Art: Minoan Adaptations of Egyptian Stone Vessels”, in R. Laffineur, P. Betancourt (eds), Techne: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age (Liège, 1996), 209-23. Watrous, L.V., Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age Pottery (Princeton, 1992). Weingarten, J., The Transformation of Egyptian Tawaret into the Minoan Genius: A Study in Cultural Transmission in the Middle Bronze Age (Partille: Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 88, 1991). Zaccagnini, C., “Patterns of Mobility among Ancient Near Eastern Craftsmen”, JNES 42/4 (1983), 245-64. Younger, J., “International Styles in Ivory Carving in the Bronze Age”, in E. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Liège, 1998), 229-56. 269 Sarah C. Murray Fig. 1 – A group of imported Egyptian stone vessels excavated from the ‘royal tomb’ of Isopata near Knossos by Arthur Evans in 1904 (Evans, Prehistoric, pl. XCIX, fig.125) Fig. 3 – Drawing of a modified Egyptian stone vase from the site of Kato Zakro in eastern Crete (Phillips, Aegyptiaca, vol. 2, 312, no. 104) Fig. 2 – An example of a calcite vase from New Kingdom Egypt BM EA 4555 © courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum 270 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 271-278 The Aegeanizing Elements Depicted on the Objects from the Burial of Ahhotep Beth Ann Judas Abstract This paper will explore the Bronze Age Aegean artistic influences on the golden bead broad collar and two weapons provided as grave goods for the burial of Queen Ahhotep. The most famous pieces that demonstrate Aegean artistic influence are the axe of Ahmose and the inlaid dagger of Ahmose, which date from the very end of the Seventeenth Dynasty and the very early Eighteenth Dynasty. These items seem to bridge the dates of the Bronze Age Aegean goods that have been excavated at Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom Egyptian sites and are key examples for the study of interconnections between Egypt and her Aegean neighbors. Introduction Mariette’s excavation of the Dra Abu el Naga tomb of Queen Ahhotep yielded important finds related to the study of the late Second Intermediate Period and to late Seventeenth-early Eighteenth Dynasty interconnections between Egypt and the Bronze Age Aegean.1 Ahhotep’s son, Ahmose, gave her objects, which have his names and titulary on them, either to furnish her tomb or during her life; both actions indicate the high esteem and honor in which he held his mother. Out of the several small objects buried with the queen, there are three items in her tomb with recognizable Aegean-style iconography incorporated into their decoration: a gold beaded broad collar (and associated loose beads) in the Cairo Museum, a dagger in the Luxor Museum, and an axe, also in the Cairo Museum.2 These obGoedicke, Studies; van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, 340-7. The metal ships, which were included in Ahhotep’s grave goods, will be discussed separately by Dr. Wachsmann, and as such, they are not included in this discussion. 1 2 jects have some of the earliest indications of a shared hybridity of iconography between Egypt and the Bronze Age Aegean. The different artistic styles and vocabularies of the Egyptian and Aegean iconographic elements are deliberately used together to reinforce the idea of rulership, authority, and power. These objects are also some of the earliest pharaonic/royal examples in Egypt of combining two sets of different cultural iconography to create “bilingual” cultural iconographical motifs that could speak to a diverse court audience, both Egyptian and foreign, when worn during courtly functions. The Beaded Broad Collar Ahhotep’s broad collar (or usekh/weskh) (CG 52672), at first glance, appears very traditional. Two inlaid falcon headed terminals, facing outwards, cap each end, and the gold beads initially appear as easily recognizable, common Egyptian motifs. A new reconstruction, currently on display in the Cairo Museum, allows the falcon heads to fully function as fasteners of the strands of beads, and Beth Ann Judas permits the strands to lie more smoothly. There is also a set of beads that have not been incorporated into the final collar reconstruction. However, an older reconstruction had rows of gold beads (CG 52733) ending beyond the terminals,3 suggesting that there was an attempt to deal with the extra beads by having the long strands. The collar is not the typical heavy faience, metal, and stone bead collar, instead it is entirely made of gold beads, and there is no color in the collar, except for the falcon heads, which have green and blue inlays. It is very reminiscent to an earlier collar belonging to Pharaoh Seqenenre (Seventeenth Dynasty), which has four rows of gold beads of lotus-seed vessels and closed lotus buds, one row of designs with inlaid semi-precious stones, and end pieces comprised of inlaid open lotus blossoms.4 The beads on Ahhotep’s collar are a mix of very traditional Egyptian motifs: papyrus flowers, winged uraei, cats (presumably Bastet or another feline deity), protective birds with their wings outstretched, and long leafshaped pendants. There are fillers in the shapes of Xs and solid circles, which may represent stylized rosettes. Not all of the beads are static motifs, there is a strand of possible antelopes (or an ungulate of some sort) running in a flying gallop, and a strand of lions chasing more antelopes – both sets of animals are also posed in a flying gallop. Finally, there is a set of single spirals, which when placed next to each other, suggest a continuous band of running spirals. The set of extra beads repeat the above motifs, but they also include those with slightly different designs: a falcon, presumably representing Horus, a vulture, presumably Mut, a tear-drop shape, a shell shape, and a crescent moon shape. There are not enough to create a separate full broad collar. It is unclear if the sets of extra beads were originally incorporated into the full broad collar, or if and how they were used in a separate piece of jewelry. The spirals were reconstructed here as a series of connected spirals in Ahhotep’s collar. This particular style is not seen in Middle Kingdom Egypt, yet it is a common motif within the Late Bronze Age international koiné iconographic motifs and is regularly found in the Bronze Age Aegean from the Middle Bronze Age and onward. As it became more popular in Egypt during the New Kingdom, the inclusion of the running spiral motif is expanded beyond small objects to items such as tomb ceiling paintings, motifs on the Keftiu kilts, and finally later pieces that are influenced by a Late Bronze Vilimková, Darbois, Abdul-Rahman, Egyptian Jewellery, pl. 24; Aldred, Jewels of the Pharaohs, pl. 46. 4 Seqenenre broad collar is found in the Egyptian Museum, upper floor, room 4 (El-Shahawy, Atiya, The Egyptian Museum, 463-5). 3 Age international koiné, such as a chair belonging to Tutankhamun, or a chariot of Yuya and Tuya. The schematic motif of the repeated lion hunt is one that is also seen on the dagger of Ahmose (see below). Evans originally suggested an Aegean origin of the lion chasing a bull in a flying gallop, which is an iconic Aegean theme.5 Kantor supported his argument, and she suggested that the dagger of Ahmose is one of the earliest introductions of such a scene and pose into Egyptian artistic cannon.6 The combination of the use of the spirals and the running gallop creates an international dynamic to the collar, perhaps signifying both wealth and a global sophistication to any courtly viewer who would see the queen wearing it. Ahhotep’s broad collar should also be considered an early occurrence of such an image. These objects may mark the birth of what Marian Feldman calls the “international artistic koiné”7 in southern Egypt. Dagger Ahmose also honored his mother with a ceremonial dagger (JE 4666/CG 52658), which was inscribed with his names and titles. The gold blade of the dagger has a rounded tip, and the hilt is inlaid with a pattern of gold, carnelian, and lapis lazuli triangles. It is a ceremonial dagger, rather than a practical weapon, due to its gold blade and rounded tip. The pommel is composed of four human faces, which are unidentified. Jaromir Malek states that they are “four axially facing female heads”,8 and in a footnote, suggests that the heads represent Hathor and are linked to the bovine heads on the cross-guard (see below), which would then represent Hathor in her divine cow form.9 He also goes one step farther, and equates the four faces with the representations of Hathor in architectural elements in the manner of Derchain’s Hathor Quadrifons10 and her associated architectural representations, such as those at Hatshepsut’s Deir el Bahri temple. However, when one looks closely at the heads, they do not look female. Given that the faces are miniature, one would expect to see easily identifiable attributes that would suggest a female divinity, such as the long tripartite wig that one would expect for women and with representations Evans, Palace of Minos, vol. I, 715; Edgerton, JAOS 56, 188; Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient, 63-4; Warren, in Davies, Schofield (eds) Egypt, the Aegean, and the Levant, 5. 6 Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient, 63-5. 7 Feldman, Diplomacy by Design, 10. 8 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 208. 9 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seer, 213, n. 16. 10 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 213, fn 16; Derchain, Hathor Quadrifrons. 5 272 The Aegeanizing Elements of Hathor, or even the cow ears that are often included with representations of Hathor. Instead, these individuals have short-bobbed hair, which resembles those of soldiers, such as those represented in the tomb model found in the Middle Kingdom tomb of Mesehti in Assiut (JE 309886/CG 258) that dates to Eleventh Dynasty. There is also a possibility that the heads could represent defeated enemies, which would also be in keeping with the motifs found on the blade of the dagger (see below). Whether viewed as defeated enemies or soldiers, the intent of the heads on the pommel would be to strike fear in individuals’ hearts and to reinforce the idea that Ahmose was the rightful ruler of a united Egypt through the militaristic might and repulsion of the Hyksos, as well as through his lineage. Representations of warrior or enemy heads, rather than female heads, are more in keeping with the militaristic decorative theme of the blade. The cross-guard has a head of a bull on either side of the blade;11 the horns of the animal frame the blade. It has been suggested that that it is not a bull, but a cow, perhaps representing Hathor,12 which would be a suitable attribution, if the dagger was specifically commissioned by or for Queen Ahhotep and was attempting to link her with Hathor. However, given the fact that three “golden flies of valor” were buried with Ahhotep, and combined with the mention of her role in the fight against the Hyksos on the Karnak Stela,13 is more likely that the representation is of a bull, which is associated with the power of pharaoh and the Egyptian throne. In addition, as noted above, the heads on the pommel are more likely to be male, and, combined with the bull at the crossguard, thematically tie into the scenes inlaid in the blade in a way that perhaps Hathor imagery would not. On both sides of the dagger, the center of the blade has a niello inlay. This black sulphide, which is worked when warm and malleable, is assumed to be the basis for an inlay decoration, in this case gold wire, to be set into while it was warm. The obverse of the blade Inset into the rib of the dagger are the name and titles of Ahmose: sA Ra n ht.f (IaH ms(w)) di(w) anx mi Ra Dt Son of Re of his body, Ahmose, given life like Re eternally The decoration is an abbreviated hunting scene, as well as four locusts (or perhaps grasshoppers), each separated by a single plant. Finally, there is a small floral motif at the base. Malek suggests that it represents the Apis bull or Montu, Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 213, n. 16. 12 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 213. 13 Urk. IV.21, 10-16. 11 The hunting scene is comprised of a large, maned predator cat (presumably a male lion) chasing a calf. The hunting cat has little spots on its coat and small dash marks indicate the mane on his neck and the fur on its belly. The calf has splotches on its hide to identify it as some sort of cattle. The hunting scene in Egypt is not unusual and is generally interpreted to not only represent an actual hunt but also the dominion of ma‘at over isfet, or the pharaoh dominating/subduing his enemies. However, the iconography of this hunting scene is different from the standard Egyptian representations of animals. Two animals are caught in a snap-shot at a single moment of time. Their feet are off the ground, and they are depicted in a flying gallop. The ground-line is dictated by the base of the band, and above them are rocky outcrops hanging down into the frame. The use of the hanging rocky outcrops is a common landscape image used in Aegean art especially in hunt scenes.14 It is used in Bronze Age wall painting scenes, portable objects, pottery, seal rings and also on daggers. In Aegean paintings, the rocky outcrops are often multi-colored, which is interpreted as being representative of the colorful banded rocky outcrops that are found on Thera and elsewhere in the Aegean Islands.15 These striations are seen in the miniature frescos from Thera from the West House, especially on the South Wall of Room 5. The use of the outcrop motif creates a sense that the action is set in a moment of actual time and place. The hunt is outdoors in the “real” world and it is immediately before the lion will pounce. The prey still has the possibilities of escape because the outcome is not yet set in stone. There are several examples of contemporaneous inlaid daggers from the Aegean. The Lion Hunt dagger from Shaft Grave IV in Grave Circle A at Mycenae16 has the depiction of a male lion hunting fleeing antelopes on a rocky, uneven groundline. There are additional Late Bronze Age Aegean daggers with hunting scenes and floral motifs, such as the lion dagger from Shaft Grave IV in Grave Circle A at Mycenae and those from Routsi in Messenia.17 While the inlaid designs use metal cut Morgan, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera, 32-4. Morgan, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera, 32; Doumas, The Wall-Paintings of Thera. See Miniature Fresco, West House, Room 5, South Wall, flotilla, pl. 53, Building Delta complex, Lily fresco (Late Cycladic I), pls 66-8. 16 Athens, National Archaeological Museum 394 (Late Helladic I, c. 1600-1500 BC). The reverse side of this dagger has a scene of male hunters, armed with spears and shields, hunting male lions. 17 Bronze dagger with inlaid gold and silver nautiluses (Late Helladic IIA, c. 1500 BC, from a tholos tomb in Routsi, Messenia 8339); bronze dagger with inlaid gold male lions in a flying gallop with rocky outcrops with the same repeated on the obverse (Late Helladic I, Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A 14 15 273 Beth Ann Judas outs set into the niello, rather than golden wire outlines, the concept is the same. In Ahhotep’s grave goods we are seeing this motif at one of its earliest realizations in Egyptian art in both the dagger and the pendants of the golden broad collar. The lion hunt scene is often associated with royalty or rulers across the Mediterranean. The lion is a figure of strength and power. In Egypt, pharaoh can be associated with the lion. The representation of a hunt with the lion as victor or pharaoh hunting wild animals has a dual purpose. Not only does it represent an activity that could happen in real life, but symbolically, pharaoh, or in this case pharaoh as a lion, represents ma‘at defeating, or containing, isfet. Christian Desroches Noblecourt suggested that the lion hunt motif on the dagger is a symbolic representation of the defeat and expulsion of the Hyksos.18 The bull calf symbolizes the Hyksos (as the bull is a symbol of the god Seth), and the lion represents Pharaoh. If the bull calf is meant to be understood as the Hyksos, then why was the scene commissioned in the Aegeanizing style, which echoes the Bronze Age Aegean daggers’ artistic style, rather than using the traditional Egyptian style? The inclusion of the formal representation of locusts/ grasshoppers suggests that the craftsman creating the decorative motifs understood and could wield an accomplished hand in creating scenes in the traditional Egyptian manner. As the Hyksos rulers were part of Egyptian culture and leadership, one would expect Ahmose to use traditional Egyptian iconography to represent the defeat of the northern Egyptian rulers, as they themselves use, unless he deliberately chose to use non-Egyptian iconography to suggest that the Hyksos were illegitimate foreign rulers, or to couch the defeat of the Hyksos in visual terms that non-Egyptian viewers could understand. The scene does not have to be one or the other. The use of the motif could visually demonstrate both the idea of the conquered foreign rulers, as well as the sovereignty of ma‘at over isfet - a type of visual iconographic multi-tasking. This combination of different artistic traditions would suggest a more cosmopolitan worldview. As this was a ceremonial dagger made of gold with a rounded point, it would make sense that it would be worn during courtly activities, perhaps even with foreign diplomats in attendance. After all, the Egyptians have a long history of creating ceremonial items for deliberate display in order to communicate specific ideas. If we have one of the earliest uses of a combination of cultural motifs, a in Mycenae 395); bronze dagger with inlaid gold leopards in a landscape ((Late Helladic IIA, from a tholos tomb in Routsi, Messenia 8340) (all in Athens, National Archaeological Museum). 18 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 208. pre-international koiné perhaps, then Ahmose was deftly using a combination of visual language to demonstrate his role as pharaoh and defender of ma‘at, as well as Egypt’s place in the larger Mediterranean world. The style of the hunt is drastically different from the locusts; the hunter and prey are full of movement and life, while the locusts are static. The locusts fit perfectly into this band due to their narrow, horizontal body shape. They are an insect that arrives in seemingly endless droves, and have the potential for overwhelming destruction of crops and vegetation,19 which is why they are also used to denote a destructive force, such as an enemy army. Malek takes the identification of locust one step further.20 He equates them with the traditional representations of prone and bound prisoners, with their arms tied behind their backs. On the dagger, there is no image of Pharaoh, either figurative or symbolic, accompanying the locusts, so perhaps the demonstration of his power over destructive forces as well as the suggestion that pharaoh’s armies are able to overcome enemies’ armies with a similar type of destructive devastation as locusts is represented by pharaoh wearing and carrying the dagger. The idea of bound prisoners, most especially those who are lying on their stomachs, mimic the poses of the locusts on the dagger, which would again reinforce the idea of pharaoh as protector of Egypt. Thus, the locusts in combination with the lion hunt provides two different ways of signaling the might of pharaoh, the ability to subdue multitudes of enemies, and the role of pharaoh in the control of chaos. With this ceremonial dagger, the message as a rightful protector of Egypt is reinforced. The combination of the hunt scene, the locusts, and the male heads on the pommel create a visual statement of Ahmose’s role as pharaoh, victorious commander of an army, and a new political player in the Eastern Mediterranean. The reverse of the blade The decoration on the reverse side of the dagger is much simpler but no less elegant. Again we have the name and title of pharaoh. nTr nfr nb tAwy (Nb-pHty Ra) di(w) anx Ra Dt The good/perfect god, lord of the two lands, Nebpehtyre, given life forever like Re eternally Below the text is a series of fifteen triple-leaved palmettes, which is a repeating floral design similar to the one that appears on the dagger sheath of Tutankhamun. At the base, there is a small animal face, perhaps a fox or maybe a jackal. 19 20 274 Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 210. Malek, in Goring, Reeves, Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers, 210. The Aegeanizing Elements While the locusts are an unusual decorative motif, the hunting scene catches the eye. There is a juxtaposition between the highly stylized and formal representations of the palmettes, the locusts, and the more organic and energetic representation of the hunting scene. The schematic and more formal representations of the locusts and their accompanying plants may be more typical of what the one might expect when viewing an Egyptian object, and more expected by a viewer who is more familiar with traditional Egyptian iconography than the more organic and less formal representation of the hunting scene. 3. The bottom register has a couchant sphinx wearing a possible nemes headdress and beard. He holds a head of an enemy in one of his paws. All of these together signify that Ahmose is the legitimate ruler of a unified Egypt and that his claim is approved by the gods. If this axe was created prior to his defeat of the Hyksos, then Ahmose is communicating his claim to the throne of both Upper and Lower Egypt, and his intention of taking it by all means necessary, as well as his interpretation that the gods are supportive of his claim to the throne of unified Egypt. Axe of Ahmose Side 2: The second side continues the theme of royal authority in its three registers. 1. The top register has the nomen, praenomen, and titles of Ahmose: “Son of Re, Ahmose, favorite (?) of the god, Nebpehtyre”. 2. In the second register, Ahmose wears a blue battle helmet crown with a uraeus and is in a typical striding and smiting pose while holding an enemy of Egypt by the hair. The generic looking enemy wears a kilt and has short hair. It is difficult to tell if the individual’s hair is straight or curly. 3. The lower register has a couchant griffin. The glyphs next to the beast state “beloved of Montu”. It is very obviously different from an Egyptian style griffin, as it is represented in a manner much closer to the way the Aegeans depict their griffins with the vulture beak rather than the falcon beak, a crest of feathers attached to the head of the griffin, and hanging spirals. All of these features identify the Aegean-ness of the griffin. The ceremonial axe of Ahmose (JE 4673), which was also found in the tomb of his mother, Queen Ahhotep, is made of copper, gold, electrum, and wood.21 Because the axe was found with Ahhotep’s grave goods, it is not known exactly when Ahmose commissioned the ceremonial weapon. Betsy Bryan has suggested that the paleography of Ahmose’s name changed at the time of the reunification in his reign, around his regnal year 17 or 18.22 The family of Ahmose seems to have had a particular relationship with the god of the moon, IaH (Iah), whose name is written with the sign of a crescent moon with the ends pointed upwards. Bryan suggested that, “perhaps, at the very time that he effected the unification, Ahmose began to have his name written with the lunar crescent of Iah pointing its ends downwards”.23 The representation of Ahmose’s name on the obverse side of the axe has the lunar crescent pointed upwards. If Bryan’s assumption is correct, this orientation suggests that Ahmose commissioned or received the axe prior to the reunification of Egypt – provided, of course, that the craftsman correctly rendered Ahmose’s name on the axe. The axe is comprised of inlaid gold designs. Both sides of the weapon are decorated with iconography that represents, once again, the strength and protection of pharaoh. Each side of the axe is split into three registers, but only one side contains the inscription with Ahmose’s name. Side 1: 1. The top register contains Heh, the god of eternity/ infinite time, and he holds a palm branch in either hand. 2. The middle register has the two ladies of Egypt, Wadjet (cobra goddess of Lower Egypt) and Nekhbet (vulture goddess of Upper Egypt) as well as the plants (sedge and lotus) of Upper and Lower Egypt. Bongioanni, Croce, The Illustrated Guide, 369. Bryan, in Shaw (ed.), Oxford History, 220. 23 Bryan, in Shaw (ed.), Oxford History, 220; Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary, 11; Urk. IV, 813: 5, 13, 16, 583: 15. 21 22 For comparison, consider the pectoral of Senwosert III from the tomb of Mereret of the Twelfth Dynasty at Dahshur (Cairo Museum JE 30875 (CG 52002)) that depicts two Egyptian griffins, each trampling Egyptian captives. In this case, the Egyptian griffins (falcon-headed, lion-bodied, winged creatures wearing atef crowns) represent pharaoh defeating the enemies of Egypt. The Aegean griffin should be understood as associated with Ahmose just as the Egyptian griffin is associated with pharaoh. However, on Ahmose’s axe the Aegean griffin seems to represent only the strength of the pharaoh, and not also the defeat of his enemies, although that may be implied by the representation of the griffin itself. Pharaoh will always defeat the enemies of Egypt. The griffin on Ahmose’s axe also represents the support of the divine, thus legitimizing his claim to the unified throne of Egypt. The Aegean-style griffin on the axe is much less stylized than the Egyptian-style griffin on the pendent. Its wings are outstretched, and its feathers are delineated more realistically than the Senwosret III griffins’ 275 Beth Ann Judas wings. The little spirals on the neck and edging along the wings echo the Minoan version of the beast.24 All of these attributes are more reminiscent of the Aegean griffin rather than the Egyptian version. And the Aegean-style griffin is also portrayed in a less formal manner than the Senwosret III griffins, which, although striding forward towards the center of the pendant, have a static quality in the pose. The axe’s Aegean-style griffin has inspired much discussion, especially by Vronwy Hankey, who believed it signaled the defeat of the Keftiu by the hands of Ahmose.25 The Aegean griffin on the blade combined with the epithet “beloved of Montu” suggested to Hankey that “in this context the victor ʻBeloved of Montuʼ, the god of war, parades the symbol of the conquered, as in a Roman triumph”.26 This is a puzzling leap, especially as Ahmose had his hands full with the Hyksos, and a potential naval battle in the Aegean might have been somewhat ambitious at that moment in time, nor is there any textual evidence supporting Hankey’s suggestion. In addition, one cannot help but think that Ahmose, son of Ebana, would have been sure to mention a naval battle with the Aegean if it had happened. There is absolutely no evidence to support Hankey’s hypothesis. The epithet, “beloved of Montu”, placed next to the griffin, not only indicates Ahmose’s desire to associate himself with Montu, an Upper Egyptian god, with a cult linked to Thebes, and a deity associated with war in the Middle Kingdom, in order to be successful in battle. The reference may also link Ahmose with historically important Upper Egyptian pharaohs, such as Montuhotep Nebhepetre II, who also re-united a split Egypt and whose name incorporates that of the god. Additionally, griffins in Egypt had a solar association and were predators who were linked to royal iconography to reflect the strength and power of the king. And there is also the possibility that the griffin symbolizes Montu-Horus, a syncretized version of Montu and Horus. This connection brings together the role of kingship, the individual pharaoh, Ahmose, and the strength and predatory nature of the griffin together to demonstrate the power of the kingship, and the ability to conquer, protect, and rule. The reverse side indicates that his rule will be forever, while the obverse, with the griffin demonstrates that For some examples of Aegean griffins, please see: Griffin standing behind the “Mistress of Animals”, Fresco, Xeste 3, Room 3A, North Wall, in Doumas, The Wall-Paintings of Thera, 130-1, pl. 128; Gold biconvex seal with a representation of a seated griffin 1400-1300 BC (Athens, National Archaeological Museum) pl. 74 J in Sakellarakis, Doumas et al., Greek Art. 25 Hankey, Minerva 4/3. 26 Hankey, Minerva 4/3, 14. 24 not only is he the rightful king, but that his reign is also blessed by Montu (“beloved of Montu”).27 In Egypt, the distinctive Aegean-style griffin is only seen in three settings: the Ahmose axe, the early Eighteenth Dynasty frescoes from Tell el-Dab‘a, and with the Keftiu represented in the wall-paintings in the early Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tombs. The wall-paintings in the tombs of the nobles, which depict the Keftiu and their goods, have representations of an Aegean rhyta, including a griffin-headed example. This suggests the Aegean griffin was recognized by the Egyptians as specifically “Aegean”, and there was no need to replace it or incorporate it into their repertoire. Thus, its inclusion on the axe was deliberate, and purposeful; if the craftsmen had made a mistake then Ahmose would have rejected the commission. The Aegean-style griffin maybe have been used to as a way to express an Egyptian concept to an audience who were not Egyptian, but would more readily recognize the non-Egyptian style griffin, whose royal and sacred associations were broader than the Egyptian versions. It is also possible that the Aegean-style griffin potentially communicated the Egyptian entry into the wider Mediterranean political scene by the Ahmoside dynasty. Finally, the Aegean-style griffin, which is associated with both male and female divine and rulership activities, could be a nod to the fact that Ahhotep herself was an important person in the diplomatic world and in the governance of Egypt. The Aegeanizing elements on the grave goods, at this point in the early Late Bronze Age, are distinct and separate motifs, and easily identified. The Aegeanizing griffin on the axe is immediately recognizable as not Egyptian, and, aside from the name of Montu, is isolated from the surrounding Egyptian iconography by its placement within its own zone. Its foreignness is obvious. In contrast, the beaded necklace, perhaps due to its design with its use of separate strings of beads, easily integrated the geometric, floral, and animal shaped beads. The collar, as opposed to the axe, was a better vehicle to combine Egyptian and Aegeanizing elements. The placement of the Egyptian and Aegeanizing motifs on the dagger are carefully set next to one another, which serves to highlight the differences between the rather formal, static representations of the insects, and the more organic/informal movement filled representations of the lion hunt are enough to indicate distinct styles. The use of two very different sets of natural images demonstrates the experimentation of combining iconographies of two separate cultures. If we take the griffin as a solar animal with connections to divinity, royalty, solar aspects, and liminality, then perhaps we could identify it as Montu-Horus, as Montu had some solar affinities. 27 276 The Aegeanizing Elements All three of these objects and their iconography demonstrate: 1. Egyptian craftsmen were being exposed to new ideas, new designs, new motifs, which decorated imported goods (ceramics, fabrics, other small objects) from the Late Middle Bronze Age through the Early Late Bronze Age, and possibly influenced by foreign craftsmen, and they are experimenting. 2. There was a conscious decision to merge two separate, and, at this time disparate, iconographic systems and motifs through experimentation. 3. The two disparate systems are deliberately used together to create a new set of royal iconography that can “speak” to both Egyptians and non-Egyptians. 4. The new iconography is now associated with the royal family (Ahmose and Ahhotep), and more importantly with the office of pharaoh. The royals understood the broad reach of portable, high value decorated objects that circulated through out the Mediterranean basis and motifs and iconography that decorated those goods. They took advantage of those objects and used them to communicate their own political desires or needs and created something to allow them to cement their political positions- combined with the willingness of the craftsmen to experiment: a new visual language. Conclusion Scholars currently agree that the weapons and the collar were created in Egypt. There is some question as to whether the ceremonial objects with Ahmose’s names and titles were used by him in courtly functions and then placed into Ahhotep’s tomb, or were, instead, commissioned by Ahmose specifically for his mother’s use during her life and then placed into her tomb for continuing use in the afterlife. The combination of Egyptian and Aegean iconography on both the dagger and axe suggests that the craftsmen were stretching their own boundaries by combining traditional Egyptian motifs with foreign ones, and, while we will never know, it would not be surprising if this was at the insistence of Ahmose. The use of Egyptian and Aegean motifs for the beads of the collar were also deliberate choices. This proactive combination of different cultural motifs provides us some insight on his mindset while he was involved in the reunification of Egypt. He and his family are no mere provincial Theban upstarts. Although his family’s power base was in southern Egypt, he clearly had an expansive view of his world, and knew the realities of Eastern Mediterranean politics and diplomacy. These motifs (the griffins, the spirals, the use of the running gallop) will all become part of the larger international artistic koiné during the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. And the fact that these are ceremonial objects also suggests that they would have been potentially displayed or worn during courtly functions where visiting foreign dignitaries were present. Thus, the use of two different types of iconography may have been an attempt to convey the same information to a wide array of individuals — almost a bilingual depiction as it were — a non-verbal statement of Ahmose’s and Ahhotep’s positions in the soon-to-be new world order in the Eastern Mediterranean with Egypt’s reunification and involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean power struggles. Bibliography Aldred, C., Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewelry of the Dynastic Period (New York,1978). Aruz, J., “Imagery and Interconnections”, Ä&L 5 (1995), 36-40. Aruz, J., Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange Between the Aegean and the Orient (ca. 2600-1360 BC) (Mainz am Rhein, 2008), 140-1. Aston, D., “Dagger”, in J. Aruz, K. Benzel, J.E. Evans (eds), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. (New York, 2008), cat. no. 65, pls 116-17. Bongioanni, A., M. Croce, The Illustrated Guide to the Egyptian Museum Cairo (Cairo, 2001). van den Boorn, G.P.F., Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom (London, 1988). Bryan, B., “The Eighteenth Dynasty Before the Amarna Period (c. 1550-1352 BC),” in I. Shaw (ed.), Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000), 218-71. Derchain, P., Hathor Quadrifrons (Istanbul, 1972). Desroches Noblecourt, C., “Le ‘bestiaire’ symbolique du libérateur Ahmosis”, Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens. Zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westendorf, vol. III (Göttingen, 1984), 883-94. Doumas, C., The Wall-painting of Thera, trad. A. Doumas (Athens, 1999). Doumas, C., J. Sakellarakis, E.S. Sakellarakis, S. IakŌvidĒs, Greek Art: the Dawn of Greek Art (Athens, 1994). Edgerton, W. F., “Two Notes on the Flying Gallop,” JAOS 56 (1936), 182-8. Evans, A.J., Palace of Minos I (London, 1921). Faulkner, R., A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford, 1996). Feldman, M., Diplomacy by Design (Chicago, 2006). Goedicke, H., Studies About Kamose and Ahmose (Baltimore, 1995). Hankey, V., “A Theban ‘Battle Axe’”, Minerva 4/3 (1993), 13-4. Helck, W., Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bin ins 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Darmstadt: Enträge der Forschung 120, 1979), 58-9. Kantor, H., The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C., 50th anniversary reprint (Boston, 1997). 277 Beth Ann Judas Malek, J., “The Locusts on the Daggers of Ahmose,” in E. Goring, N. Reeves, J. Ruffle (eds), Chief of Seers: Egyptian Studies in Memory of Cyril Aldred, reprint (London, 2014), 207-19. Morgan, L., The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera: A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (Cambridge, 1988). Sethe, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, vol. IV (Leipzig, 1906). el-Shahawy, A., F. Atiya, The Egyptian Museum in Cairo: An Illustrated Guide (Cairo, 2010). Vilimková, M., D. Darbois, M.H. Abdul-Rahman, Egyptian Jewellery (London, 1969). Warren, P., “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean, and the Levant (London, 1995), 1-18. Zifler, I., At That Time the Canaanites were in the Land (Tel Aviv, 1990), 72-3. 278 Miniaci, Lacovara (eds), The Treasure of the Egyptian Queen Ahhotep, MKS 11, London 2022, 279-293 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models Shelley Wachsmann Abstract Two metal ship models, one made of gold and the other of silver were found in the tomb of Ahhotep (I) together with a compatible four-wheel conveyance. The models remain unusual chronologically as well as in terms of their materials. The gold model represents a typical wood-planked Nilotic watercraft. The silver model appears to replicate a ten-oared Minoan/Cycladic vessel, best compared to the rowed ship in the ship-procession scene portrayed on the Miniature Frieze from the West House in Akrotiri on Thera. Additional support for this hypothesis comes from evidence for a long tradition of metal ship models in the Aegean. The silver model may be a copy of an actual ship or of a model of that type of watercraft. The models, as well as the accompanying carriage, are best explained in the context of Ahhotep’s tomb as booty captured during the attacks and conquest of Avaris (Tell el Dab‘a) by her sons, Kamose and Ahmose. If correct, this interpretation indicates a Minoan presence at Tell el Dab‘a during Hyksos rule. The silver crew that row the gold model, but which are not original to it, presume a third, now lost, larger silver ship model. Introduction The tomb of Ahhotep (I) revealed two unusual metal ship models, one made of gold (JE 4681), the other of silver (JE 4682) (see Figs 1-2; Pls IV: JE 4681,V: JE 4682, XIII).1 The tomb also contained a companion wood-and-bronze model carriage (JE 4669) with pairs of metal staples on either side for securing a ship model to it (see Fig. 3; Pls III: JE 4669, XIII): both ship models also have compatible metal loops specifically for this purpose. It is not clear if the carriage was meant to serve both of the models or whether the carriage of one of the models went missing prior to internment or after the discovery of the tomb. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding the 1859 discovery of Ahhotep’s tomb, which occurred while Mariette was absent from the site prevent resolving the particular details of these artifacts’ status in situ.2 Friedrich Wilhelm von Bissing published the boat models and the wagon separately.3 In the accompanying text he discusses which of the two models had been intended for display with the wagon. According to him, Mariette had linked the silver model to the wagon. Von Bissing himself thought that the wagon fit the gold model better. Maspero and Vernier note that the silver model had been first combined with the wagon, but due to its poor preservation, it had been replaced by the gold model4 (see Fig. 4). Ahhotep’s ship models are remarkable for three reasons. First, ancient Egypt did not have a tradition of metal ship models. Indeed, in this Ahhotep’s models are unique in the Egyptian pharaonic record. The only other Egyptian representations of ships made of metal – which do not even qualify as models – are neckpieces from the reign of a Necho (Twenty-Sixth Dynasty) in the form of Wachsmann, JAIE 2; Wachsmann, Gurob, 86-97. On Ahhotep, see Vandersleyen, Les guerres, 129-30, 175-96; Roth, Serapis 4. 2 Winlock JEA 10, 252-3. Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 19-21. Maspero, Egyptian Archaeology, 321, fig. 297; Vernier, Bijoux, vol. I, 219 (no. 52668); Vernier, Bijoux, vol. II, pl. XLIX. 1 3 4 Shelley Wachsmann Fig. 1a-b – Ahhotep’s gold ship model (NTS), a.-b. from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, Taf. X Fig. 2a-b – Ahhotep’s silver ship model (NTS); a.-b. from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, Taf. XC © courtesy of Egypt Memory 280 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models Fig. 2c – Ahhotep’s silver ship model (NTS); from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfunde, Taf. X. C © courtesy of Egypt Memory Fig. 3 – The wagon from Ahhotep’s tomb, from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, Taf. X Fig. 4 – Vernier’s reconstruction of Ahhotep’s gold ship mounted on the carriage, from Vernier, Bijoux, vol. II, pl. XLIX 281 Shelley Wachsmann Fig. 5 – Decoration in the shape of a galley, now in the Louvre, reportedly dated to a Necho (Twenty-Sixth Dynasty), after Landström, Ships,141, fig. 411 © drawing: M. Hagseth Egyptianizing Phoenician galleys5 (see Fig. 5). Second, Ahhotep’s ship models are the only ones known from the entire Second Intermediate Period.6 Third, both of Ahhotep’s models were designed for display with a wheeled carriage. The clearly foreign-inspired Gurob ship-cart model is the only other Bronze Age Egyptian parallel for a ship model on wheels.7 There is ample evidence for the overland transport of ships on wheeled carriages, starting in the Seventeenth Dynasty, but this manner of conveyance was rarely represented in Egyptian models of watercraft.8 Landström, Ships, 141, fig. 411; Basch, Le musée, 335, figs 719-20; Spathari, Sailing, 26, 27, fig. 18. 6 Reisner, Models, IV; Landström, Ships, 98, figs 311-2; Jones, Egyptian Bookshelf, 30. Ship models were often interred in tombs with the deceased. In Models of Ships and Boats (1913), G. A. Reisner defined the various type of watercraft depicted by these models. The earliest ones, mainly consisting of terracottas, date to the Predynastic period. Wooden ship models become common in the Sixth Dynasty and continue to appear till the Twelfth Dynasty, when they appear most extensively. Perhaps the best-known collection of ship models found in a nonroyal tomb is the little flotilla from the Twelfth-Dynasty tomb of Meket-Re (Winlock, Models). Another Twelfth-Dynasty tomb, that of Djehutynakht at Deir el-Bersha, contained 58 wooden boat models (Freed, Berman, Doxey, Secrets, 16677). During the New Kingdom, ship models fell out of style, with the notable exception of some royal tombs and two nonroyal ship models. On Egyptian ship models, see Reisner, Models; Landström, Ships; Vinson, Egyptian Boats; Jones, Model Boats; Jones, Egyptian Bookshelf, 26-33; Tooley, Egyptian Models, 51-6; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft; Wachsmann, Gurob; Stephens, Categorisation. 7 Wachsmann, Gurob. 8 Wachsmann, Gurob, 85-120; van Walsem Coffin, 226-31; Creasman, Doyle, JAEI 2. 5 The Gold Model The gold model depicts a wooden-planked Egyptian papyriform ship with recurving stem and stern ending in papyrus umbrel finials.9 Merriman notes that this is the earliest example of this form of curving papyrus umbels on a model.10 The hull, made of beaten gold, weighs 375 gm, and is 43.3 cm long, with a maximum breadth of 6.5 cm. The model has two 5-mm diameter gold loops, on either side of the hull for attachment of the model to the carriage. Castles nestle in the bow and stern. Isis knots decorate the forecastle panels, with a gold bar connecting the two sides. Cartouches of Kamose and striding lions adorn the aftercastle. This model has a single quarter rudder of a type common on royal Eighteenth Dynasty ship models, positioned on the port side, resting on a throughbeam.11 Landström notes that the model may originally have carried two quar- Landström, Ships, 98, fig. 311, 110, figs 340-1, 118, figs 363-4. I base the following descriptions of the gold and silver models and the wagon primarily on the commentaries by von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 19; Vernier, Bijoux, vol. I, 216-18 (nos 52666-67); Landström, Ships, 98, figs 31112; Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft,Ships, 225, nos 219-20. 10 Merriman, Egyptian Watercraft, 225, no. 220. 11 For Middle Kingdom-New Kingdom quarter and axial rudder arrangements, see Landström, Ships, 78, figs 234, 236, 79, fig. 238, 82-3, fig. 246, 82, fig. 249, 83, figs 250-2, 86, fig. 260, 89, fig. 271, 90, fig. 275, 92, figs 283, 287-8, 93, fig. 293, 99, figs 313, 316, 101, figs 319, 321, 102, figs 322, 324, 106, figs 327-30, 107, figs 331-4, 114, fig. 352, 115, figs 354, 356, 116, figs 357-8, 117, figs 361-2, 118, figs 364-5, 119, figs 368-9, 121, fig. 371, 122-3, fig. 372, 125, fig. 375, 128, figs 381-2, 130, fig. 383, 134, figs 389-91, 393, 135, figs 394, 396, 136, fig. 399, 138, figs 404-5; Jones, Model Boats, pls V, XVI-XXIII, XXV, XXVIII-XXXV. 9 282 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models ter rudders.12 The rudder consists of a stock in the form of a tube 11.8 cm long, which flattens towards the bottom where the blade widens to a width to 1.5 cm at its foot. The model has two 0.02 cm holes drilled into the bottom of the hull, presumably for the purpose of attaching it to the carriage. Twelve additional piercings are found at the rower stations just below the gunwale. These are clearly meant for attaching the oars in some manner, but they lack their attachments. There are piercings in the sides of the hulls at the positions of the oarsmen. The model now bears 15 figures – only three of them of gold – constructed of pieces welded together and completed by chiseling: • A gold figure of a youth – either sucking on his thumb or pointing at his mouth with his right hand – stands facing aft inside the forecastle. He presumably represents the child Horus. • A seated loose figure faces the stern amidships just aft of the fourth rowers thwart. He holds a baton in his right hand and an axe in his left hand and sits on a gold tube welded to the hull, which in turn is supported by a 1.2 cm-long cylinder of silver. • The helmsman faces forward standing inside the hull. Curiously, the gold model’s 12 rowers, depicted in midstroke, as well as their oars, are made of silver13 (see Fig. 6). They share six thwarts, two oarsman to a thwart. A seventh thwart, immediately in front of the helmsman goes unmanned. The figures are cast, as are their oars, which are inserted through holes in the oarsmens’ hands. The oarsmen sit on small silver “pillows”, apparently intended to raise them so that their oars clear the gunwales. The pillows, together with the anomalous silver from which they are constructed, indicate that these rowers are not original to the gold model. They presumably derive from a, now lost, second silver ship model. The first port-side rower and fifth starboard-side rower have lost their oars. Each of the oarsmen is attached to his thwart by means of tenons, which penetrate the thwart. These are soldered together, but a few of the figures are now loose. The Silver Model Scholars have identified the silver model also as of papyriform in shape.14 Maspero suggests that it represents Fig. 6 – Detail of a silver rower from Ahhotep’s gold ship model, from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfunde, Taf. IX: 2A a type of vessel used by the deceased to voyage to Abydos.15 Hammered sheets of silver form a hull that is 38.5 cm long with a maximum breadth of 6.7 cm, narrowing at its extremities to 1.5 cm. The model weighs 372 gm.16 One of the model’s extremities ends in an elegant rising arc that recurves, with the rounded shape of the hull continuing up the high post. The opposing extremity ends horizontally with a forked crutch attached to it. The vessel has 11 crew members: a standing figure reconstructed as a helmsman and ten figures who share five narrow rectangular thwarts while facing the low end of the vessel. The thwarts are made of beaten silver, attached with silver wires that transfix the hull but lie flush against its outer sides. The rings for attachment to the wagon consist of twisted wires that penetrate the hull and are folded against its interior face. The rings are 8 mm in diameter but are irregular. Three pairs of holes at the high end, and two at the horizontal extremity, pierce the hull indicating the placement of now-missing parts of the model (see Fig. 2b-c). These holes might have served to attach additional rowers’ thwarts, but the irregular spacing of the three pairs of piercings at the model’s high extremity argues that this cannot be the case. One possibility is that the holes served to attach now-missing fore and aft decks to the model. Vernier notes a rod crossing the hull between the standing figure and the nearest two oarsmen. Maspero, Guide, 428, no. 4030. Due to local unavailability, silver was a particularly valuable metal in ancient Egypt. While at Ugarit the exchange rate of silver to gold varied around 3-4:1, in Egypt it varied between 5:3 (fifteenth-century BC) to 2:1 (twelfth-century BC) (Heltzer, Iraq 39, 206). 15 Landström, Ships, 98. 13 Previously I erroneously attributed this figure to the silver ship model (Wachsmann, Gurob, 91, 92, fig. 3.6; Wachsmann, JAIE 2, 34, fig. 6). 14 Compare Landström, Ships, 98; Jones, Egyptian Bookshelf, 32. 12 16 283 Shelley Wachsmann This rod appears on a recent photograph of the model but is missing on von Bissing’s top view of the model (compare, Fig. 2b-c). Presumably this was a loose piece found with the model. The silver model has another curious detail: its helmsman holds a steering oar rather than the tiller of a quarter, or axial, rudder.17 One is immediately struck by the inadequacy of the steering oar: it seems frail and disproportionately small for the craft it supposedly controls. Von Bissing notes that the helmsman’s steering oar has received modern attention, its two surviving parts have been fused together by a Cairo goldsmith and the museum gave it a sulfur-induced patination.18 Predynastic and Old Kingdom vessels employ steering oars, which by definition lack tillers, but these devices cease on representations of Egyptian vessels towards the end of the Fifth Dynasty, when tillers make their appearance and stanchions are portrayed supporting the looms of quarter rudders.19 Following this, steering oars appear only occasionally on cultic vessels and reed rafts.20 The positioning of the helmsman’s arms is atypical when compared with the various manners in which helmsmen hold steering oars or quarter rudders in Egyptian iconography.21 These considerations suggest that the figure now reconstructed as a helmsman originally may have served a different role. The “steering oar” may be a co-opted cosmetic spatula added to the silver model after the tomb’s discovery.22 Which extremity of the silver model represents the bow and which the stern? Von Bissing placed the “helmsman” at the horizontal end. If this is correct, then the vessel is represented as being rowed and the high end represents the bow. Alternately, Landström omits this figure in his line drawing of the model and considers the horizontal extremity to be the bow:23 in doing so, he assumes that the crew are paddling rather than rowing. So, is the crew of the silver ship model rowing or paddling? The manner in which the figures are seated is one way to determine the model’s directionality. Rowers normally face the stern while paddlers face the bow.24 G.A. Reisner notes that during the Middle Kingdom boat models portray rowers seated and paddlers kneeling.25 Following this rule, the seated crew of the model is rowing, as in the case of the gold model, thus defining the model’s high end as the bow. Early Egyptologists, however, had the unfortunate habit of arbitrarily reorganizing ancient ship model parts, rearranging crews, gear and rigging, as for example what W.M.F. Petrie did with the Gurob ship-cart model.26 Ahhotep’s silver model may have suffered a similar fate. Von Bissing notes that the crew appears to have been remounted in modern times, so the actual direction in which the rowers originally faced may be forever lost.27 The forked device attached to the silver model’s horizontal extremity shares similarities with the deep stern groove used to seat axial rudders on some New Kingdom Nilotic craft.28 A less-likely identity is that the device represents a “bowstick” or a “bowsprit” that appears at the bows of Middle Kingdom ship models.29 The function of these items remains unclear. One possibility is that they served as a fairlead for bower-anchor hawsers.30 These devices have a relatively small groove, however, unlike the pronounced fork on the silver model. All considered the simplest (Occam’s Razor), and thus the preferred, explanation is that the silver model is propelled by rowers and that the high end represents the vessel’s bow.31 Even though Ahhotep’s silver model appears to be the creation of Egyptian artisan(s), no known Egyptian ship could have served as its source. Thus, we must inquire concerning the type of foreign ship that served as a source for this model. Two concerns must be considered. First, we must compare the silver model to contemporaneous watercraft within the international cultural milieu of the Egyptians, and second, ask which of these cultures has a demonstratable tradition of metal ship models. See above, n. 11. 18 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 19. 19 Edgerton, AJSL 43, 257, 258, figs 2-3. 20 Landström, Ships, 95, fig. 297, 119, fig. 368. 21 Doyle, Iconography, 90, fig. 6-12, 97, fig. 6-19, 105, fig. 6-31, 108, fig. 6-37, 112, fig. 6-43. 22 Compare Biers, Terry (eds), Testament of Time, 51, no. 28. Note, however, a bronze kohl stick from Assasif, which is contemporary in date to Ahhotep but is dissimilar to the item held by the standing figure in the silver model. The item was deaccessed from the Metropolitan Museum (MMA 16.10.447) and is now in the Museum of Natural History. The kohl stick is 9.7 cm long and has “a small round ‘applicator’ rather than the elongated oval ‘paddle’” (Christine Lilyquist, pers. comm.). 23 Landström, Ships, 98, fig. 312. Wachsmann, in Gardiner, Morrison (eds), The Age, 10. Reisner, Models, XVI. 26 Reisner, Models, XVI, 6 n. 4; Doyle, Iconography, 137-9; Wachsmann, Gurob, 4, fig. 1.4, 5, figs 1.5-6; Wachsmann, Arts 8, 23. 27 Von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund, 19. 28 Landström, Ships, 99, figs 313, 316, 101, fig. 321, 115, figs 354, 356; Jones, Model Boats, pls XXX-XXXI; Doyle, Iconography, 128-132. 29 Reisner, Models, (no. 4798) 3, fig. 14 and pl. I, (no. 4835) 27 and pl. 30; Landström, Ships, 76, 77, fig. 226, 82, figs 247-8, 83, fig. 251. 30 Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 257-8, 259, fig. 12.5. 31 On the importance of strictly adhering to the concept of Occam’s Razor when reaching conclusions regarding watercraft depicted in ancient art, see Wachsmann, Arts 8, 11-12, 57. 24 17 25 284 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models Fig. 7 – Syro-Canaanite ships in the tomb of Kenamun (TT 162; Amenhotpe III), from Daressy, RAr 27, pl. XIV Syro-Canaanite ships – The most detailed representations of Syro-Canaanite merchant ships appear in a wall painting from the tomb of Kenamun (TT 162, Amenhotep III)32 (see Fig. 7). The scene depicts a flotilla of seagoing merchantmen with identical vertical stems and Daressy, RAr 27, pls XIV-XV; Säve-Söderbergh, Navy, 56, fig. 10, 57, fig. 11; Davies, Faulkner, JEA 33, pl. VIII; Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 35-6, fig. 57; Basch, Le musée, 63, figs 110-12, 64, figs 113-4; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 42, fig. 3.2, 43, figs 3.3-4, 44, figs 3.5-6, 45. Here I use the term “Syro-Canaanite” to denote the cultural entities that inhabited the shores of the eastern Mediterranean, from the Bay of Iskenderun in the north to the shores of Sinai in the south during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (c. 2000-1200 BC). Syro-Canaanite remains preferable to the term “Canaanite” as at Ugarit, located in modern-day northern Syria, Canaanites were regarded as foreigners and to “Phoenician”, for although this culture descended from the Canaanites, it evolved its own material culture, which differed from its Bronze Age antecedents (Rainey, IEJ 13; Rainey, BASOR 304; Mazar, Archaeology, 355-7; Mazar, in Ben-Tor (ed.), Archaeology of Ancient Israel, 296-7). On the borders of Canaan proper, see Rainey, BASOR 304; Rainey, Notley, Sacred Bridge, 34-6. 32 sterns arriving at an Egyptian port. Other portrayals of Syro-Canaanite vessels, albeit less detailed, display the same high stem of the Kenamun ships, but have rounded sterns rising at various angles.33 Are the extremities of Kenamun’s vessels represented in profile, as are the ships’ hulls, or in frontal view, as are the masts and sails?34 The concavity at the external edge of the stems suggests that they may be represented in frontal view. If correct, then the stems of Kenamun’s ships bear comparison to the silver model’s vertical, recurving post. Despite the apparent detail of the Kenamun wall painting, its creators did not understand the ships’ rigging, suggesting that they may have been working from pattern books and were at least once removed from the images of the Syro-Canaanite ships in the tableau.35 Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 42, fig. 3.1, 46, figs 3.7-8, 47, figs 3.9-10, 50, fig. 3.14. 34 Strictly speaking, the rigging is depicted in a full-rear view as the lifts, which would have been on the aft side of the sail, are visible. 35 Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 42, 44-5; Wachsmann, Arts 33 285 Shelley Wachsmann Fig. 8 – Bronze ship model. Byblos. Date: Egyptian Middle Kingdom, from Dunand, Fouilles (Atlas), pl. LXIX, no. 10089 Bronze models from the Champ des offrandes at Byblos indicate that the Syro-Canaanite coast had a tradition of metal ship models.36 Curiously, the best preserved of these Byblian bronze ship models represents an Egyptian Middle Kingdom Nilotic vessel or, more likely, it copies a wooden model of such a ship37 (see Fig. 8). Cypriot Ships – Three terracotta models from Kazaphani Ayios Andrionikos and Maroni Zarukas represent deephulled cargo ships38 (see Fig. 9a). Despite this, they bear several elements of interest in regard to Ahhotep’s silver model. The surviving stems on two of the models bear similarities to the high end of Ahhotep’s silver model in that they have somewhat similar flattened profiles. This shape may be due to their terracotta material. Additionally, the ship models’ sterns culminate in vertical bifurcations. This is best seen on the surviving stern of the model from Maroni Zarukas, Site A, Tomb 7 which, vertical orientation aside, resembles the silver model’s forked crutch (see Fig. 9b). I am unaware of any metal ship models from Cyprus within the period of concern.39 8, 4, 5, fig. 4, 6, fig. 5, 21-2. 36 Dunand, Fouilles (Text), 337-8, nos 10089-92. 37 Dunand, Fouilles (Atlas), pl. LXIX, no. 10089. On questioning the original source of watercraft representations, see Reich, Liber Annus 41; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 52-4; Wachsmann, Arts 8, 13-23. 38 Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 63-4, 65, figs 4.5-6, 66, figs 4.7-9, and there additional bibliography. 39 On ship models from Cyprus, see Westerberg, Cypriote Ships; Monloup, Salamin, 145-60; Basch, Le musée, 70-4, 148-51, 249-62; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 61-7. Of later date, Paleopaphos and Salamis on Cyprus have revealed Geometric-period firedogs in the form of contemporaneous galleys (Karageorghis, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 87, 277, figs 17-18, 278, fig. 19, 292-4; Karageorghis, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 91: 343, fig. 148, 344; Minoan/Cycladic ships – Ahhotep’s silver model closely resembles the rowed ship that accompanies the flotilla in the Miniature Frieze from the West House at Akrotiri on Thera40 (see Fig. 10). Both vessels have five rows of seated rowers and a helmsman working a steering oar rather than a quarter rudder. The same ship type, distinguished by its form and the five files of oarsmen, appears on a gold ring from Crete (see Fig. 11).41 A triangular device located at the latter ship’s bow probably represents a splashguard that can be seen more clearly on more detailed representations of Minoan/Cycladic ships42 (see Fig. 12a). On the whole, the ships depicted in the Miniature Frieze carry what appear to be steering oars that are insufficient to control them.43 These steering oars, however, are almost an exact copy of the silver ship model’s steering oar. Metal ship models existed in the Aegean. The earliest evidence for this long tradition may be found in the three lead models of Early Cycladic longships, now in the Ashmolean Museum, from the Cycladic island of Naxos.44 Closer in time to Ahhotep’s silver ship model, Basch, Le musée, 188, 189, figs 396-7, 258, 260, fig. 562). Similar firedogs have been found at Argos (Courbin, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 81, 369, fig. 54, 370, 371, figs 55-7, 372-3, 374, figs 58-62, 375, 376, figs 63-5, 377-85; Göttlicher, Materialien, 64, Taf. 25 [nos 338-339]; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 186, 188, fig. 8.50: A) and in Karageorghis’ view, the firedogs found in Cyprus came from Greece (Karageorghis, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 87, 292). 40 Doumas, Wall-Paintings, 71-2, fig. 36; Spathari, Sailing, 44, fig. 44. 41 Evans, Palace, vol. IV: II II, 953, fig. 923; Alexiou, Minoan Civilization, 114, fig. 56. 42 Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 93, fig. 6.17, 94. 43 Casson, IJNA 4, 7; Doumas, Wall-Paintings, 63, fig. 29 (partial), 71-4, fig. 36, 75-7, fig. 37, 80, fig. 39, 81, fig. 40; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 93, fig. 6.14, 94, fig. 6.19, 99, fig. 6.27. 44 Renfrew, AJA 71, 5, 18, pls 1: 12, 3: 12-4; Basch, Le musée, 286 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models Fig. 9a-b – a. Terra-cotta ship model from Tomb 2B at Kazaphani Ayios Andronikos. Plain White Handmade Ware: Late Cypriot I-II; b. Terra-cotta ship model A-50 from Site A, Tomb 7 at Maroni Zarukas. Late Cypriot I-II (NTS); a) from Westerberg, Cypriote Ships, fig. 5; b) from Merrillees, The Cypriote Bronze Age pottery, pl. 37:2 a fragment of a Late Minoan IB/Late Helladic II bronze ship model from Keos bears a bow strikingly similar to that of the silver model45 (see Fig. 13). From an Aegean standpoint, the bifurcation at the low end of the silver model compares well to the curving forked stern on c. 1700 BC the Kolona ships from Aegina46 (see Fig. 14). Ships depicted on tiny Minoan seals often appear to have stern bifurcations47 (see Fig. 12b): these probably depict the sternpost and the horizontal projection that appears most clearly on the ships taking part in the procession on the Miniature Frieze48 (see Fig. 12a). Thus, Ahhotep’s silver model appears to copy a relatively small and narrow ten-oared Minoan prototype vessel or, alternately, a model of such a vessel. Although the Minoans that appear in the tombs of Eighteenth Dynas78, 79, figs 153-6; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 69, 70, fig. 5.1. 45 Caskey, Hesperia 33, 327, pl. 56: C; Long, Sarcophagus, 48, pl. 24, fig. 69; Göttlicher, Materialien, (no. 335) 64, Taf. 25; Johnston, Models, 26-7 (BA17); Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 102, figs 6.34-5, 104. 46 Basch, Mariner’s Mirror, 72, Basch, Le musée, 421, fig. 5, 422, fig. 7; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 77, 80, 82, fig. 5.24: A. 47 Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 41-2, 445-6; Basch, Le musée, 98, figs B1-2, 99, figs B3-4, 6-7, 102, figs D1-2, 4, 6, 103, figs D7-9, 106, fig. G3; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 100, fig. 6.29: A-C, G-K. 48 Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 92, fig. 6.13, 93, fig. 6.14, 106, and there additional bibliography. ty nobles at Thebes bear no ship models, such high-status items clearly existed as demonstrated by the bronze ship-model fragment from Keos, discussed above, and another model carried by a mourner on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus (see Fig. 15). Theoretically, Minoans could have brought similar metal models to Egypt or such models could have been constructed by Egyptian artisans for Minoans visiting, or residing in, Egypt. Another type of model, in the shape of a bull, is brought by two other mourners on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus. Similar model bulls are brought by Minoans in the Theban tombs of Useramun (TT 131) and Menhepperesonb (TT 86), both tombs dating to the reign of Thutmose III.49 A ship model copying a Minoan watercraft would hardly be out of place in an assemblage like that found in Ahhotep’s tomb. The queen’s dagger, as well as Ahmose’s axe, have clear Minoan influences. Warren discusses these artistic relationships.50 Although technically of New Kingdom date, two further pieces must be mentioned here because of their close Hyksos connection. These are the axe of Ahmose, conqueror of Avaris and the Hyksos, and the dagger of his mother Ahhotep, both found in her tomb. The griffin on the axe blade has wings decorated with the “notched plume” motif. The Minoan origin of this proposed by Evans and with details noted by Morgan is now well confirmed by the notched plumed wings of the almost contemporary griffin guarding the seated goddess who presides over the crocus gatherers in the painting in Ashlar Building 3 at Akrotiri, Thera. The Aegean origin of a lion chasing a bull in a flying gallop position in a rocky setting on Ahhotep’s dagger remains clear, again as proposed by Evans. The axe shows a powerful symbol of Minoan religion adopted and adapted as a symbol of political power in Egypt (even though the griffin as such was earlier established in Syria and Egypt). The lion motif of the dagger, locally engraved, expresses the Aegean mode of symbolizing power and speed. Processes of iconographical transfer of ideology expressed in symbols are continuing between the two areas. Assuming for the moment that the silver model does represent a Minoan watercraft, how might it have found its way into the tomb of a Seventeenth Dynasty royal consort? The simplest solution is that the ship models and wagon represent loot from the attack on, and conquest of, Avaris by Ahhotep’ sons. AhhoWachsmann, Aegeans, 60-1, pls XXVII: B, XXIX: 3, XXXVI: A: 5, LV: 6, LVI: 5. On the objects brought by Minoans as depicted in the Theban tombs, see Vercoutter, Essai, 121-7, 134-5, 153-6; Vercoutter, L’Égypt, 305-66, pls XXV-LXVII; Wachsmann, Aegeans, LIV-LVIII; Laboury, Aegaeum 6. 50 Warren, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, 5. See also Morris, “Daggers and Axes for the Queen”, in this volume. 49 287 Shelley Wachsmann Fig. 10 – The rowed ship in the Miniature Frieze, West House, Akrotiri, Thera, from Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 93, fig. 6.16 Fig. 11 – Cretan gold ring depicting a ship similar to the rowed vessel in the Miniature Frieze in the West House, after Evans, Palace, vol. IV: II, 953, fig. 923 Fig. 12a – The best preserved ship in the Miniature Frieze in the West House, Akrotiri,Thera (NTS), after Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 92, fig. 6.13 Fig. 12b – (Ships on Minoan seals with bifurcations at their lower extremities (sterns) (NTS), after Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 100, fig. 6.29 288 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models Fig. 13 – Fragmentary bronze Minoan ship model from Keos. Late Minoan IB/Late Helladic II, from Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 102, fig. 6.33 Fig. 14 – Reconstruction of crescentic ship on a pithos from Kolona, Aegina, c. 1700 BC. Note the bifurcated stern at right (NTS), after Basch, Le musée: 427, fig. 10 tep, after all, was the mother of both Kamose and Ahmose, the founders of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Kamose attacked Avaris (Tell el-Dab‘a) and although ultimately unsuccessful at conquering the Hyksos capital, he succeeded in taking the adjacent harbor and claims to have captured an abundance of booty there, while Ahmose conquered Avaris and chased the Hyksos out of Egypt and into Canaan.51 Kamose’s Second Stele supplies a dramatic description of the sumptuous spoils that he captured from the harbor of Avaris:52 “I have cut down your trees, I have forced your women into ships’ holds, I have seized [your (?)¬, horses; I haven’t left a plank to the hundreds of ships of fresh cedar which were filled with gold, lapis, silver, turquoise, bronze axes without number, over and above the moringa oil, incense, fat, honey, willow, boxwood, sticks and all their fine woods – all the fine products of Retenu – I have confiscated all of it!” The appearance of Kamose’s cartouches on the aftercastle of Ahhotep’s gold ship model suggests that both Breasted, Ancient Records, vol. II, § 1-12; Vandersleyen, Les guerres, 30-40; Redford, Egypt, 115, 120-2, 125-9; Redford, in Oren (ed.), Hyksos, 13-6, docs. 68-70; Rainey, Notley, Sacred Bridge, 63-4. 52 Habachi, Stela, 36-7 ll. 12-5. Translation from Redford, in Oren (ed.), Hyksos, 14, no. 69 ll. 12-5. 51 models came specifically from his taking of plunder from the harbor of Avaris. Indeed, these models may be exemplars of the gold and silver booty described by Kamose in his Second Stele. The hypothesis that Ahhotep’s ship models are plunder from Avaris assumes a Minoan presence there during Hyksos rule. Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a revealed fragments of Minoan frescoes, including bull jumpers, indicating a Minoan presence there.53 The site’s excavator, Bietak, first dated these fresco fragments to the Hykos period, but since then has revised his chronology and now dates the frescoes to the early Eighteenth Dynasty.54 Some scholars have disputed Bietak’s revised dating and he has responded forcefully.55 Unfortunately, the present discussion does not contribute to that debate: Bietak’s dating of the Minoan fresco materials to the Eighteenth Dynasty does not preclude an as yet undiscovered earlier Minoan presence at Tell el-Dab‘a. Certainly, it would not be surprising to find Minoans in Bietak, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt; Bietak, Avaris, 73-81, pls III-VIII, pl. 33; Bietak, Marinatos, Palyvou, in Sherratt (ed.), Proceedings; Bietak et al., Taureador Scenes; Morgan, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt. 54 Bietak, EA, 26-8; Bietak, Avaris, 68; Cole, “The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty (c. 16501550 BC) and Beyond”, in this volume. 55 Cline, ABSA 93; Niemeier, Niemeier, in Sherratt (ed.), Proceedings, 764-5; Bietak, ABSA 95. 53 289 Shelley Wachsmann Fig. 15 – A mourner carries a votive ship model on the Hagia Triada Sarcophagus. Crete, c. 1400 BC, from Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships: 102 figure 6.32 after Evans, Palace, vol. I, 439, fig. 316 Egypt under Hyksos rule. The Minoans make appearances in other eastern Mediterranean countries at this time or earlier, depending on which chronology one follows:56 certainly, the alabaster jar lid with the name of the Fifteenth-Dynasty Khyan found at Knossos in a Middle Minoan IIIA level suggests a royal connection between Hyksos Egypt and Minoan Crete.57 Conclusions The gold model dates to the reign of Kamose, based on the appearance of his cartouches on the aftercastle. If the hypothesis that both of the ship models and the carriage represent booty taken from Avaris is correct, then the simplest explanation is that these items were taken by Kamose when he captured the harbor of Avaris as described in his Second Stele. The prototype vessel of Ahhotep’s silver model would have been a relatively small craft, which would be better suited to coastal waters than to crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Its size, as well as that of the rowed ship in Niemeier, in Laffineur, Basch (eds), Thalassa; Niemeier, Niemeier in Sherratt (ed.), Proceedings, 765-7. 57 Evans, Palace, vol. I: 18, 26, 297, 319, 380, 418, 419, fig. 304: b, 420-2, 553; vol. II: I: 220, 303, 357 n. 1, 360; vol. III: 9; vol. IV: I: 130; Redford, Egypt, 120, n. 120; Warren, in Davies, Schofield (eds), Egypt, 3. 56 the Miniature Frieze at Thera can be estimated based on the distance of about 1 meter required between each two rowers (the interescalmium) to allow them to work their oars. Assuming a relatively realistic scale of the crews to their boats, these vessels probably would have been in the range of 12-14 meters long.58 The twin considerations that the rowers of Ahhotep’s gold ship model are made of silver, and that their height had to be raised by the addition of “pillows” to allow their oars to rise to gunwale level indicate that these figures cannot be original to the gold model. They must have come from another, now missing, silver model, one that was larger than Ahhotep’s existent silver model, given that it has only ten oarsmen to the gold model’s 12 rowers. The phenomenon of missing parts displayed by these ship models further supports the hypothesis that they were taken as booty and not purpose-built for burial with Ahhotep. If Ahhotep’s silver model copies a Minoan ship rather than a model of a Minoan ship, then Minoans may have been constructing their own vessels in Egypt. Egyptian texts mention Keftiu ships in Syro-Canaanite ports and as well as being built and/or repaired at the royal shipyard of Prw-nfr, apparently located adjacent to Tell elDab‘a: thus, one may be tempted to identify any Minoan ships constructed in Egypt as the Keftiu ships referred to in these texts.59 The contexts of these references to Keftiu ships demonstrate, however, that the term probably refers to a type of Syro-Canaanite ship intended for the long-distance trade with the Aegean.60 The carriage found with Ahhotep’s models remains puzzling. There is no other context in which we find Minoan ships appearing on wheeled carts. Ahhotep’s wagon may represents a Hyksos influence, as its four-spoked wheels are like those of contemporaneous chariots, which were introduced to Egypt by the Hyksos.61 Following The interscalmium in the classical world was the distance measured between tholepins, believed to be about 1 m (Vitr. De arch 1.2.4; Morrison, Coates, Rankov, Athenian Trireme, 133, 245-6). 59 Glanville, ZÄS 68, 22, no. 56; Bietak, EA 26, 17. Bietak identifies Prw-nfr with the harbor of Avaris/Tell el-Dab‘a (Bietak, EA 26). 60 Concerning Keftiu ships, see Säve-Söderbergh, Navy, 43-50; Vercoutter, Essai, 165-6; Vercoutter, L’Égypt, 53-5; Heltzer, Minos 23; Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships, 51-2. E.J.W. Barber offers a unique interpretation of Keftiu ships in which she identifies them as vessels “that use colorful fabrics on a frame cabin to shield passengers from the elements during the voyage”, thus connecting the name to the Aegean patterned cloth covering used on some Nile ships (Barber, in Cline, Harris-Cline (eds), Aegean, 15). 61 Yadin, Art of Warfare, 186-9, 191-4, 200, 202. On the introduction by the Hyksos of the horse and chariot to Egypt, together with the composite bow, see Winlock, Rise, 153-7, 58 290 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models the fifteenth-century BC, both Egyptian and Canaanite chariots became more massive and then, after a short experiment with eight-spoked wheels under Thutmose IV, chariots used six-spoked wheels.62 Acknowledgements I thank the editors of this volume, Drs. Peter Lacovara and Gianluca Miniaci for the kindness in inviting me to present at their session on Ahhotep at the 2018 American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting and to submit this contribution. I am grateful to my Research Assistant, Ms. Megan Hagseth for her assistance with the preparation of this manuscript. Bibliography Alexiou, S., Minoan Civilization, C. Ridley (trans.) (Heracklion, 1969). Barber, E.J.W., “Aegean Ornaments and Designs in Egypt”, in E.H. Cline, D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997 (Liège: Aegaeum 18, 1998), 13-17. Basch, L., “The Aegina Pirate Ships of c. B.C. 1700”, Mariner’s Mirror 72 (1986), 415-38. Basch, L., Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique (Athens, 1987). Biers, J.C., J. Terry (eds), Testament of Time: Selected Objects from the Collection of Palestinian Antiquities in the Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri – Columbia (Madison, 2004). Bietak, M., “Minoan Wall-Paintings Unearthed at Ancient Avaris”, EA 2 (1992), 26-38. Bietak, M., “Connections Between Egypt and the Minoan World: New Results from Tell el-Dabʻa/Avaris”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 19-28. Bietak, M., Avaris the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el- Dabʻa (London, 1996). Bietak, M., “‘Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris; Tell elDabʻa and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed’: A Response to Eric H. Cline”, ABSA 95 (2000), 185-205. Bietak, M., “The Thutmoside Stronghold of Perunefer”, EA 26 (2005), 13-7. Bietak, M., N. Marinatos, C. Palyvou, “The Maze Tableau from Tell el Dabʻa”, in S. Sherratt (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium, The Wall Paintings of Thera. 170; McLeod, AJA 62, 397, n. 5 (and additional bibliography there); Yadin, Art of Warfare, 86; Littauer, Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles, 56, 76; Hayes, Scepter, 193. 62 Yadin, Art of Warfare, 86-90, 190, 192-3, 200, 206, 210, 211-17, 220-1. Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997, vol. I (Athens, 2000), 77-90. Bietak, M., N. Marinatos, C. Palivou, Taureador Scenes in Tell El-Dabʻa (Avaris) and Knossos (Vienna, 2007). von Bissing, F.W., Ein thebanischer Grabfund, aus dem Anfang des neuen Reichs (Berlin, 1900). Breasted, H. (ed.), Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, vols I-V, reprint (London, 1988). Caskey, J.L., “Investigations in Keos”, Hesperia 33 (1964), 314-35. Casson, L., “Bronze Age Ships. The Evidence of the Thera Wall Paintings”, IJNA 4 (1975), 3-10. Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, reprint with addenda and corrigenda (Baltimore, London, 1995). Cline, E.H., “Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell elDabʻa and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed”, ABSA 93 (1998), 199-219. Cole, S., “The Aegean and Egypt during the Fifteenth (Hyksos) Dynasty (c. 1650-1550 BC) and Beyond”, in this volume. Courbin, P., “Une tombe géometrique d’Argos”, BCH 81 (1957), 322-86. Creasman, P.P., N. Doyle, “Overland Boat Transportation During the Pharaonic Period: Archaeology and Iconography”, JAEI 2 (2010), 14-30. Daressy, G., “Une flottille phénicienne d’apres une peinture récente”, RAr 27 (1895), 286-92. Davies, No. de G., R.O. Faulkner, “A Syrian Trading Venture in Egypt”, JEA 33 (1947), 40-6. Doumas, C., The Wall-Paintings of Thera, A. Doumas (trans.) (Athens, 1992). Doyle, N., Iconography and the Interpretation of Ancient Egyptian Watercraft (MA thesis: Texas A&M University, College Station, 1998). Dunand, M., Fouilles de Byblos. Vol. I: 1933-1938 (Atlas) (Paris, 1950). Dunand, M., Fouilles de Byblos. Vol. II: 1933-1938 (Text) (Paris, 1954). Edgerton, W.F., “Ancient Egyptian Steering Gear”, AJSL 43 (1927), 255-65. Evans, A. The Palace of Minos, vols I-IV (London, 1964). Freed, R.A., L.M. Berman, D.M. Doxey, The Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC (Boston, 2009). Glanville, S.R.K., “Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Thutmose III: Papyrus Museum 10056: Part II. Commentary”, ZÄS 68 (1932), 7-41. Göttlicher, A., Materialien für ein Corpus der Schiffsmodelle im Altertum (Mainz am Rhein, 1978). Habachi, L., The Second Stela of Kamose and His Struggle against the Hyksos Ruler and His Capital (Glückstadt: ADAIK 8, 1972). Hayes, W.C., The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Muse- 291 Shelley Wachsmann um of Art. Vol. I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle Kingdom (New York, 1990). Heltzer, M., “The Metal Trade of Ugarit and the Problem of Transportation of Commercial Goods”, Iraq 39 (1977), 203-11. Heltzer, M., “Sinaranu, Son of Siginu, and the Trade Relations Between Ugarit and Crete”, Minos 23 (1988), 7-13. Johnston, P.F., Ship and Boat Models in Ancient Greece (Annapolis, 1985). Jones, D., Model Boats from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamūn (Oxford: Tut’ankhamūn’s Tomb Series 9, 1990). Jones, D., Egyptian Bookshelf: Boats (Austin, 1995). Karageorghis, V., “Une tomb de guerrier à Palaepaphos”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 87 (1963), 265-300. Karageorghis, V., “Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1966”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 91 (1967), 275-370. Laboury, D., “Réflexions sur les vases métalliques des tributaires Keftiou”, Aegaeum 6 (1990), 93-115. Landström, B., Ships of the Pharaohs (Garden City, 1970). Littauer, M.A., J.H. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 1979). Long, C.R., The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus: A Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Reliefs (Göteborg: SMA 41, 1974). Maspero, G., Egyptian Archaeology, A.A. Edwards (trans.), 2nd ed. (New York, London, 1892). Maspero, G., Guide du Visiteur au Musée du Caire (Cairo, 1915). Mazar, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. (New York, 1990). Mazar, A., “The Iron Age I”, in A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (West Hanover, 1992), 258-301. McLeod, W.E., “An Unpublished Egyptian Composite Bow in the Brooklyn Museum”, AJA 62 (1958), 397-401. Merrillees, R.S., The Cypriote Bronze Age pottery found in Egypt (Lund: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology; Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 18, 1968). Merriman, A., Egyptian Watercraft Models from the Predynastic to Third Intermediate Periods (Oxford, 2011). Monloup, T., Salamine de Chypre XII: Les figurines de terre cuite de tradition archaïque (Paris, 1984). Morgan, L., “Minoan Painting and Egypt: The Case of Tell el Dabʻa”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 29-53. Morris, E., “Daggers and Axes for the Queen: Considering Ahhotep’s Weapons in their Cultural Context”, in this volume. Morrison, J.S., J.F. Coates, N.B. Rankov, The Athenian Trireme: The History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2000). Niemeier, W.-D., “Minoan Artisans Traveling Overseas: The Alalakh Frescoes and the Painted Plaster Floor at Tel Kabri (Western Galilee)”, in R. Laffineur, L. Basch (eds), Thalassa: L’Égée préhistorique et la mer, Actes de la troisième Re- contre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, StaReSO, Clavi, Corse (23-25 avril 1990) (Liege, 1991), 189-201. Niemeier, B., W.-D. Niemeier, “Aegean Frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh and Tel Kabri”, in S. Sherratt (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium, The Wall Paintings of Thera, Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August - 4 September 1997, vol. II (Athens, 2000), 763-802. Rainey, A.F., “A Canaanite at Ugarit”, IEJ 13 (1963), 43-5. Rainey, A.F., “Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence”, BASOR 304 (1996), 1-15. Rainey, A.F., R.S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem, 2006). Redford, D.B., Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1992). Redford, D.B., “Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period”, in E. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: University Museum Monograph 96, University Museum Symposium Series 8, 1997), 1-44. Reich, R., “A Note on the Roman Mosaic at Magdala on the Sea of Galilee”, Liber Annuus 41 (1991), 455-8. Reisner, G.A., Models of Ships and Boats (Cairo, 1913). Renfrew, C., Cycladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age, AJA 71 (1967), 1-20. Roth, A.M., “Ahhotep I and Ahhotep II”, Serapis 4 (19771978), 31-40. Säve-Söderbergh, T., The Navy of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Uppsala, 1946). Spathari, E., Sailing Through Time: The Ship in Greek Art, D. Hardy (trans.) (Athens, 1995). Stephens, M.A., A Categorisation and Examination of Egyptian Ships and Boats from the Rise of the Old to the End of the Middle Kingdoms (Oxford: BAR International Series 2358, 2012). Tooley, A.M.J., Egyptian Models and Scenes (Buckinghamshire, 1995). Vandersleyen, C., Les guerres d’Amosis fondatuer de la XVIIIe dynastie (Brussels, 1971). Vercoutter, J., Essai sur les relations entre Égyptiens et Préhellène (Paris: L’Orient illustré 6, 1954). Vercoutter, J., L’Égypt et le monde égéen préhellénique (Cairo: Biblioteque d’étude 22, 1956). Vernier, É., Bijoux et orfèvreries. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire – Nos. 5200153855, vols I-II (Cairo, 1927). Vinson, S., Egyptian Boats and Ships (Buckinghamshire: Shire Egyptology Series 20, 1994). Wachsmann, S., Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Leuven: OLA 20, 1987). Wachsmann, S., “Paddled and Oared Ships Before the Iron Age”, in R. Gardiner, J. Morrison (eds), The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times (London, 1995), 10-35. 292 Ahhotep’s Metal Ship Models Wachsmann, S., Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant (College Station, London, 1998). Wachsmann, S., “Ahhotep’s Silver Ship Model: The Minoan Context,” JAIE 2 (2010), 31-41. Wachsmann, S., The Gurob Ship-Cart Model and Its Mediterranean Context (College Station, 2013). Wachsmann, S., “On the Interpretation of Watercraft in Ancient Art”, Arts 8/165 (2019), 1-67 (doi:10.3390/ arts8040165; https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/4/165). van Walsem, R., The Coffin of Djedmonthuiufankh in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden (Leiden, 1997). Warren, P., “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt”, in W.V. Davies, L. Schofield (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 1-18. Westerberg, K., Cypriote Ships from the Bronze Age to c. 500 B.C. (Gothenberg, 1983). Winlock, H.E., “The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes”, JEA 10 (1924), 217-77. Winlock, H.E., The Rise and the Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes (New York, 1947). Winlock, H.E., Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt, from the Tomb of Meket-Rēʻ at Thebes (Cambridge, 1955). Yadin, Y., The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, in the Light of Archaeological Study, M. Pearlman (trans.) (London, 1963). 293 Colour Plates Colour Plates Pl. I – Coffin of the Queen Ahhotep in standing position with a few objects of its assemblage; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 144 94/MS 163 90 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt Pl. II – Coffin of the Queen Ahhotep laying on its base; photo by Devéria; PHO 1986 144 93/ MS 163 89 © Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Alexis Brandt Colour Plates Pl. III – Equipment from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep, from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund (drawings by Howard Carter) © assembled by Gianluca Miniaci Colour Plates Pl. IV – Equipment from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep, from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund (drawings by Howard Carter) © assembled by Gianluca Miniaci Colour Plates Pl. V – Equipment from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep, from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund (drawings by Howard Carter) © assembled by Gianluca Miniaci Colour Plates Pl. VI – Equipment from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep,from von Bissing, Ein thebanischer Grabfund (drawings by Howard Carter) © assembled by Gianluca Miniaci Colour Plates Pl. VII – Overall view of the equipment from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep © courtesy of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo Colour Plates Pl. VIII – Equipment from the coffin of the Queen Ahhotep © courtesy of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo Colour Plates Pl. X – Detail of the lid of the Queen Ahhotep coffin © photo courtesy of Kenneth Garrett Pl. IX – Lid of Queen Ahhotep coffin © photo by Gianluca Miniaci Pl. XI – Sword JE 4666 © courtesy of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo Colour Plates Pl. XII – Bracelet JE 4680 © photo courtesy of Alamy Pl. XIII – Boat miniature JE 4681 + Waggon JE 4669 © photo by Jürgen Liepe Colour Plates Pl. XIV – Fly pendants JE 4725.3 © photo courtesy of Alamy Pl. XV – Bracelet JE 4684 © courtesy of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo Pl. XVI – Lion's heads JE 4713-14 © photo courtesy of Alamy Pl. XVII – Detail of axe JE 4673 © photo by Jürgen Liepe Pl. XVIII – Axe JE 4673 © photo by Jürgen Liepe Colour Plates Pl. XIX – Fan JE 4672 © photo courtesy of Alamy Pl. XX – Scarab JE 4695 © photo courtesy of Alamy Pl. XXI – Nubians bringing tribute from the tomb of Sobekhotep in the British Museum (EA 922). The central figure wears a fly pendant. Photo by Wolfram Grajetzki © The Trustees of the British Museum Pl. XXII – Gold and ivory fly from Buhen (UPM E10347A) © photo courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Colour Plates Plate XXIII – The gilded rishi coffin of Wepmaat Intef (Louvre E 3019) © 2011 Musée du Louvre / Georges Poncet Plate XXIV – The painted and gilded rishi coffin of the “Qurna Queen” (A.1909.527.1 + A). L: 2060 mm, W: 500 mm, D: 535 mm © National Museums Scotland Colour Plates Plate XXV – Base of the foot of the “Qurna Queen” rishi coffin featuring depictions of two women with raised arms, probably the goddesses Isis and Nephthys (A.1909.527.1 + A) © National Museums Scotland Plate XXVI – Detail of the coffin lid of the “Qurna Queen”, showing the vulture pectoral and the beginning of the central inscription column with moulded hieroglyphic offering formula (A.1909.527.1 A) © National Museums Scotland Plate XXVII – The jewellery of the “Qurna Queen”. Bracelets A.1909.527.16, D: 57 mm max, A.1909.527.16 A, B, C, each D: 59 mm max. Necklace A.1909.527.19, L: 138 mm. Earrings A.1909.527.18 + A, each D: 23.5 mm. Girdle A.1909.527.17, L: 369 mm, circumference 780 mm © National Museums Scotland Colour Plates Plate XXVIII – The “earrings” from the child’s burial, possibly made from recycled gold necklace clasps (A.1909.527.43 + A). Diameter: 7 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XXIX – Bovine horn container with bird-headed spoon and rosette stopper in ivory and ebony (A.1909.527.32). L: 245 mm, H: 74 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XXX – The base of the anhydrite bowl decorated with four figures of baboons (A.1909.527.33). H: 41 mm, Diameter: 130 mm max © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXI (above) – Calcite round-bottomed globular cosmetic jar, with remnants of the textile lid and fatty contents (A.1909.527.2 + A). H: 109 mm incl. lid, Diam: 109 mm max © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXII (left) – Black-rimmed carinated bowl (A.1909.527.23) with dried grapes, dates, and possibly peaches (A.1909.527.25). H: 64 mm, Diameter: 118 mm © National Museums Scotland Colour Plates Plate XXXIII – Kerma-ware beakers. Back L to R: A.1909.527.41 A, H: 100 mm, Diameter: 122 mm; A.1909.527.41 C, H: 100 mm, Diameter: 125 mm; A.1909.527.41, H: 100 mm, Diameter: 124 mm; Middle L to R: A.1909.527.41 B, H: 102 mm, Diameter: 120 mm; A.1909.527.8; H: 104 mm, Diameter: 122 mm; Front: A.1909.527.8 A, H: 95 mm, Diameter: 123 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXIV – Jars in net bags of various styles. L to R: A.1909.527.21 K, H: 185 mm, Diameter: 90 mm max; A.1909.527.21 A, H: 93 mm, Diameter: 113 mm max; A.1909.527.21 G, H: 116 mm, H including bag: 202 mm, Diameter: 116 mm max; A.1909.527.21 D, H: 152 mm, Diameter: 87 mm max © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXV – Squat pots with remains of net bags. L to R, top row: A.1909.527.21 B, H: 95 mm, Diameter: 92 mm max; A.1909.527.21 J, H: 83 mm, Diameter: 100 mm max; A.1909.527.21 H, H: 93 mm, Diameter: 113 mm max; Middle row: A.1909.527.21 C, H: 89 mm, Diameter: 90 mm max; A.1909.527.38 A, H: 104 mm, Diameter: 94 mm max; A.1909.527.38, H: 88 mm, Diameter: 86 mm max; Bottom row: A.1909.527.21 I, H: 81 mm, Diameter: 93 mm max; A.1909.527.21 E + F, H: 92 mm, Diameter: 92 mm max, Lid diameter: 48 mm © National Museums Scotland Colour Plates Plate XXXVI – (left) Faience bead net bag with handles and tassel (A.1909.527.4 A). L: 222 mm, W: 42 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXVII – (right) Acacia headrest with octagonal pillar inlaid with ebony and ivory (A.1909.527.3). H: 144 mm, L: 310 mm, W: 66 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXVIII – Bovine-legged stool with woven seat (A.1909.527.22). L: 444 mm, W: 444 mm, H: 264 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XXXIX– Low cedar-wood stool frame (A.1909.527.29 A). L: 326 mm, W: 304 mm, H: 147 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XL – Wooden box with sliding lid (A.1909.572.30 + A). L: 410 mm, W: 191 mm, D: 189 mm © National Museums Scotland Plate XLI – Aegean goddesses and griffins: a. Fresco fragments from Mycenae (after Rehak, AA 4, 540, fig. 4); b. Reconstruction of Xesté 3 fresco, Akrotiri, after Olga Anastasiadou, c. 1625