NOTE TO USERS Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Page(s) were scanned as received 460 This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMIEverlasting Servants of the Gods : Bronze Priests of Ancient Egypt from the Middle Kingdom to the Graxco-Roman Period by Barbara Mendoza B.A. high hons. (University of California, Santa Barbara) 1986 MLSS. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1988 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1997 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Near Eastern Studies inthe GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY (Committee in charge: Professor Carol A. Redmount, Chair Professor Cathleen A. Keller Professor Andrew F. Stewart Spring 2006UM Number: 3228424 Copyright 2006 by Mendoza, Barbara All rights reserved INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality ilustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscrist and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized ‘copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion UMI UMI Microform 3228424 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346Everlasting Servants of the Gods : Bronze Priests of Ancient Egypt from the Middle Kingdom to the Graeco-Roman Period Copyright 2006 by Barbara MendozaAbstract Everlasting Servants of the Gods : Bronze Priests of Ancient Egypt from the Middle Kingdom to the Graeco-Roman Period by Barbara Mendoza Doctor of Philosophy in Near Eastern Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Carol A, Redmount, Chair ‘The bronze statuary of certain non-royal personages is investigated —- more specifically, the ancient Egyptian priest. Recent studies of ancient Egyptian bronze sculpture have focussed on royal bronzes (Hill 2004) and bronzes of deities (Gasser 2001); bronze statuary of the private individual, however, has never been thoroughly investigated. In my investigation I found that the ‘priestly’ figure comprised the majority of the non- royal corpus (90%). Approximately 350 individual statues, statuettes and figurines housed in museums in North and South Americ Europe, Russia, Turkey, Israel and Egypt form the basis for this study. These figures were manufactured over a wide date range, from the possible predecessors of the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2000 BCE) to the Graeco-Roman Period (ca. 300 BCE to 360 CE) of ancient Egypt. This study takes a multifaceted approach and is dependent on the available epigraphical, archaeological/contextual, and art historical evidence. The inscribed, dated and provenanced bronze figures that I investigated establish a chronological framework with which to examine the temporal aspect of the unprovenanced bronzes of the corpus. The size of the sculpture, style, technique, method of manufacture, frequency of production, and details of individual pieces are all features that I investigate for each object. In addition, I utilize several types of secondary sources to assist with dating the unprovenanced figures, i.e., two- and three-dimensional sources from the Egyptian artistic record.This dissertation consists of nine chapters: Introduction, Methodology, the temporal chapters (Pre-New Kingdom, New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, ‘Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, Late Period, Graeco-Roman Periods), and the Conclusions. Appendices include: a catalogue with brief listings of the 350 pieces investigated and analyzed, a general chronology, a provenance index, translations and analysis of inscriptions and a glossary. The final synthesis is an historical and stylistic typology of the priestly figure based on archaeological contest, inscriptions, and stylistic analysis. This investigation contributes a broader understanding of the social, religious, artistic, and historical context of non-royal Egyptian bronze statuary.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS «. LST OF PLATES .. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. Introduction . 1.1 Classification of Priests . 1.2 Classification of Priest and Priestly Bronze Figures 1.3 Function and Use of Priest and Priestly Bronze Figures 1.4 Previous Research on Ancient Egyptian Bronze Statua 8 8 8 a Methodology § 2.1 Introduction, . 29 § 2.2 Methodology of the Study § 23 The Factors for Dating § 2.3.1 The Ancient Egyptian Copper and Bronze-Working Industries § 2.3.1.1 Mining and Foundries 16 § 2.3.1.2 Composition and Types of Alloys 18 § 2.3.13 Metal-Working Methods and Techniques 21 § 2.3.1.4 Embellishing Techniques .. 28 § 2.3.1.5 Tang Production . 31 § 2.3.2 Significant Cupreous Finds in Chronological Sequence 35 § 2.3.2.1 The Predynastic Period .. 35 § 2.3.2.2 The Old Kingdom 37 § 2.3.2.3 The First Intermediate Period .. 38 § 2.3.2.4 The Middle Kingdom ........ 39 § 2.3.2.5 The Twenty-Fifth Dynasty 42 23.2.5.1 Dynasty 25 through 26 -- Outside of Egyp 44 § 2.3.2.6 The Late Period through Early Ptolemaic Period 47 § 2.3.2.7 The Ptolemaic Period os) § 2.3.2.8 The Roman Period .. § 2.3.3 Physical Features Analysis 55 § 2.3.3.1 Face and Head Shape ... 55 § 2. Coiffures and Wigs 6L § 23.3.3 Body Type .. § 23.3.4 Costume or Dress §2. 4 Inscriptions Analysis .. 3.4.1 Gender. 23. §23.4.2 Era or Time Period .. 23.4.3 Location of Inscriptions § 2.3.4.4 Deities Named 2.3.4.5 Types of Inscriptions 23.46 Titles ....IL. V. Vi. vu. VIIL-The Greek and Roman Periods .... Private Cupreous Statuary from the Earliest Times through the Middle Kingdom 97 1 The Old Kingdom §3 98, §3.2 The First Intermediate Period/Early Middle Kingdom- §3. §3 9 100 103 107 109 112 14 3 The Middle Kingdom--Dynasty 12 ...... § 3.3.1 Three Possible Priestly Figures from he Late Middle Kingdom--Dynasty 13 §3.5 Discussion ....... Chart 1: Private Cupreous Statues — Old to Middle Kingdoms Chart 2: Temporal Development of the Cupreous Egyptian Male Figure . The New Kingdom .. 2. 11S $4.1 Dating Considerations .. $42 The New Kingdom Corpus and Types - §4.3 Discussion . Summary Chart of Priestly Bronze Statues ~ 11s ~ LS 126 132 New Kingdom The Third Intermediate Period § 5.1 Dating Considerations ... 133 § 5.2 The Third Intermediate Period Corpus and Types 134 § 5.3 Discussion 149 Summary Chart of Priestly Bronze 156 . 133 The Twenty-Fifth Dynasty .. . 157 § 6.1 Dating Considerations ..... § 6.2 The Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Corp § 6.3 Discussion .. Summary Chart of Priestly Bronze Statues -- Twenty-Fifth Dynasty 158 . 158 169 174 The Late Period ... § 7.1 Dating Considerations § 7.2 The Late Period Corpus and Types § 7.2.1 Part I: Dynasty 26 (664 - 526 BC) .. § 7.2.2 Part Il: Dynasty 27 through 31 (525 - 332 BC) .. Summary Chart of Priestly Bronze Statues: Parts I and II - Dynasties 26-31... §7.2.3 Part Ill: Dynasty 26 through the Ptolemaic Period (664 - ca. 30 BC) 198 §7.3 Discussion 233 241 §8.1 Dating Considerations fe § 8.2 The Greek Period Corpus and Types ....... § 8.3 The Roman Period Corpus and Types ~...- § 8.4 Discussion ........ eee Summary Chart of Priestly Bronze Statues ii sesseees 241 seve 242, ssssssssssssees 251 ceosteesetsesneessees 256 Greek and Roman Periods ....... 264IX. Summary and Concluding Remarks ssvsscsssserssstisesstietitistsei, 266 §9.1 Part: Summary Discussion of the Temporal Development of Priestly Bronze Stavlary cvcsrsesssesssrtessessseeises fers 266 § 9.1.1 Composition and Method of Production. $9.12 Preservation and Surface Treatment. §9.13 Style and Iconographic Features: Face, Hai 266 270 272 ; Costume § oid Inscriptions «........ oe 276 § 9.1.5 Types of Priestly Bronze Figures .. ~ 280 § 9.1.6 Size and Use - 286 § 92 Part Il: The Meaning and Role of Priestly Bronze Statuary 287 § 9.2.1 The Royal Connection «.evnenersesr 287 § 9.2.2. Mass Production and the Democratization of Religion . 288 §.9.2.3 Individual Identity and Anonymity §9.3 Further Study Summary Chart for Bronze Group Scenes ... BIBLIOGRAPHY .. Appendices ‘A. Catalogues of Priestly Bronzes ... 1. Catalogue I - Priestly Bronzes by Museum Location (specifically dated) .... 325 2. Catalogue Il - Priestly Bronzes by Museum Location (generally dated) 3. Catalogue Ill - Art Market Unprovenanced Priestly Bronzes Listed in Porter and Moss, Vol. VIII and Other Sources . B. General Chronology Provenance Index D. Physical Features 1. Face and Head Shap 2. Coiffures and Wigs 3. Body Type 4. Costume or Dress . E. The Inscriptions ......... F. Terminology ...s+--ses.+ PLATES .. itiACKNOWLEDGMENTS This investigation has its roots as a presentation prepared for a graduate seminar in Late Period Art that had the privilege of taking in the Spring of 1998. Dr. Edna Russmann, visiting Professor in Egyptian art at the University of California, Berkeley, had learned of my interest in ancient Egyptian bronze statuary during the course of the term and suggested that | investigate two ancient Egyptian priest figures that were ‘manufactured in bronze and found in ancient Greek contexts. I enjoyed this topic so much that I knew that these objects would be the starting point for my dissertation on Egyptian bronze sculpture. Much appreciation also goes to Professor Cathleen A. Keller for helping me to expand this topic, as I was not aware that additional examples existed in museums worldwide. The following individuals generously provided information, photographs and individual access to the priestly bronze figures in the present study during my field research in Western Asia, Europe and North America from 2002-03: Selahattin Erdemgil (the Ephesus Museum, Selguk, Turkey), Fritz Krizi (Austrian Archaeological Institute, Selcuk, Turkey), Maria Viglaki (Samos Museum, Samos, Greece), HJ. Kienast (DAL-Athens), Eleni Tourna (National Archaeological Museum, Athens), Stefano de Caro (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples), Maria Cristina Guidotti (Museo Archaeologico, Florence), Daniella Picchi (Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna), Neal Spencer, John ‘Taylor and Jeffrey Spencer (British Museum, London), Stephen Quirke (the Petrie Museum of Egyptology, London), Helen Whitehouse (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford), Claire Freeman (Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford), Julie Dawson and Sally Ann Ashton (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge), Elisabeth Delange (The Louvre, Paris), Mathilde Avisseau-Broustet (Bibliotéque Nationale de France, Paris), Noél Maheo (Musée de Picardie, Amiens), Giséle Piérini (Musée d’ Archeologie Mediterranéenne, Marseille), Claire Derriks (Musée Royal et Domaine de Mariemont, Morlenwelz, Belgium), Dirk Huyge (Musées Royaux d’Art et d'Histoire, Brussels), Jan Lampo (Museum Vleehuis, Antwerp), Mogens Jorgensen (Ny Carlsburg Glyptotek, Copenhagen), Maarten J. Raven (Rijkmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, The Netherlands), Bettina Schmitz (Roemer- ivPelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim), Rosemarie Drenkhahn (Kestner-Museum, Hannover), Dietrich Wildung and Olivia Zor (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin), Alfred Grimm (Staatliche Sammlung Agyptischer Kunst, Munich), Ulrike Kécke (Museum Folkwang, Essen), Martin Falck (Gustav-Liibeke Museum, Hamm), P.C. Bol (Liebieghaus, Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt), Erika Feucht (Ruprecht-Karls-Universitit Agyptologische Sammlung, Heidelberg), Peter Gercke (Staatliche Museen, Kassel), Helmut Satzinger (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), Christoph Uehli ger (University of Fribourg, Department of Biblical Studies, Fribourg, Switzerland), Roberta Shaw (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto), Marsha Hill and Susan Allen (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), (Art Institute of Chicago), Emily Teeter and Ray Tindel (Oriental Institute of Chicago), Rita Freed and Lawrence Berman (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), Laura Latman (Bowdoin College Museum of Art, Maine), Liz Flood (Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore). Other individuals kindly assisted me, although I was unable to visit their institutions during the course of my research. They include: Rosalie David and Christina Riggs (Manchester Museum, Manchester), Andrey O. Bolshakov (Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg), Dafa Ben-Tor and Osnat Misch-Brandl (Israel Museum, Jerusalem), Mamdouh Eldamaty (Egyptian Museum, Cairo), Maria Rosa Figueiredo (Calouste Gulbenkian Museum), Robert Cohon (Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, MO), Rachel Rosenzweig (Cleveland Museum of Art), and Edna Russmann (Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn). I would also like to extend my gratitude to my dissertation committee, Professors Carol A. Redmount (Chair), Cathleen A. Keller, and Andrew F. Stewart. Each and every one of you provided invaluable comments, which helped me greatly in shaping this study Specific individuals also assisted me greatly over the course of executing this investigation, Dr. Kevin Kaiser, Karin Kroenke, Laurent Dissard and his parents, Georges and Marie France Dissard, Chris Kost man, and Dr. Christina Riggs all helped with planning my five research trips for fieldwork. Special thanks go to Chris Kostman, the only person I know who would travel half-way around the world with me, and my daughter, Mandalyn K. Mendoza, who tirelessly assisted on these trips by taking copious vnotes, carrying photographic equipment, and providing comic relief on those long train rides. In addition, Jean Li, Karin Kroenke and Professor Cathleen Keller all made valuable suggestions and corrections for the Inscriptions appendix and appreciation to Joan Knudsen for allowing me to practice with the Tebtunis bronzes This section would not be complete without acknowledging and expressing gratitude for the support and encouragement of my friends and colleagues -- especially Karin Kroenke, Shang-Ying Shih, Dr. Deanna Kiser-Go, Cindy Ausec, Melinda Géndara, Margaret Guerrero, Linda Doty, Chris Kostman, Javier Alvarez-Mon, Laurent Dissard, John Bondon, and Professor Carol Red mount, who all have gone beyond the call of duty and to whom I am extremely grateful. I would also like at this time to acknowledge the professors who have inspired me during the course of my education: Diane Handloser (Art History, Santa Barbara City College), Dr. Mario Del Chiaro (Art History, University of California, Santa Barbara), Dr. William H. Fisher (Library S nce, University of California, Los Angele: now SISU), and Drs, John Hayes (Near Eastern Studies), Anthony Bulloch (Classics) and Chris Hallett (Art History), all at the University of California, Berkeley, who each have believed in me and encouraged me to reach for the stars. Last, but by no means least, I am extremely grateful to my family: my parents, Gilbert and the late Jenny Pedroza, my paternal grandmother, the late Aurora Ruiz, my sister and her family, Jenny and Jesse Simentales, and Lina, Jesse, Jr., Sarah and Danny, and my beautiful and gracious daughter, Mandy, whom I have loved since before she was born, Your love, encouragement and support have kept me going and this dissertation. could not have been accomplished without you.LIST OF PLATES Pl. 1: British Museum, EA 63398 (photo by author) Pl. 2: British Museum, EA 50732 (photo by author) Pl. : Munich AS 1591 (photo by author) Pl. 4: Athens, NAM 3365 (photo by author) PI. 5: Albright-Knox 73:50.13 (Nash 1979: 71, lower pl.) PI.6: Berlin, AMP 20613 (photo by author) PI.7: Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 30204 (Borchardt 1925: part 2, 39, nr. 433) PI. 8: Louvre E 27153 (photo by author) PI.9: Berlin, AMP 14034 (photo by author) PI. 10: Berlin, AMP 17958 (photo by author) Pl. 11: Intef, Berlin AMP 23703 (photo by author) Pl. 12: Cat. nr. 13, Louvre E 3188 (photo by author) Pl. 13: Djedese, Cat. nr. 14, ROM 948.34.45 (photo by author) Pl. 14: Cat. nr. 7, British Museum, EA 49732 (photo by author) PI. 15: Cat. nr. 11, New York, MMA 51.173 (photo by author) PI. 16: Cat. nr. 2, Baltimore, WAG 54.2104 (photo by author) PI. 17: Cat. nr. 3, Cleveland CMA 1980.2 (courtesy of the Museum) PI. 18: Cat. nr. 5, British Museum, EA 2283 (photo by author) PI. 19: Cat, nr. 1, Antwerp, Museum Vleeshuis 79.1.44 (photo by author) PI. 20: Cat. nr. 8, British Museum, EA 59395 (photo by author) PI. 21: Cat. nr. 12, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1988.1 (photo by author) PI. 22: Cat. nr. 10, New York, MMA 47.105.3 (photo by author) Pl. 23: Cat. nr. 6, British Museum, EA 36070 (photo by author) Pl. 24: Cat. nr. 4, Hannover 1935.200.558 (photo by author) viiPl. Pl, Pl. Pl. Pl Pl Pl, Pl, Pl. PL Pl. Pl. Pl PI, Pl. PI, PL Pl. Pl Pl PI, 25: 26: 20: 28: 29: 30: 31: 32: 33: 34: 35: 36: 37: 38: 39: 4: 42: 43: 45: 47: 48: 49: Cat. nr. 9, New York, MMA 26.7.1418 (photo by author) Nes(ba)nebdjedt, Cat. nr. 22, Morlanwelz, Mariemont B. 242 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 25, Louvre E 25432 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 19, Fitzwilliam E.216,1954 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 24, Louvre E 10749 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 21, British Museum, EA 59388 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 23, Louvre E 2457 (photo by author) Wennefer, Cat. nr. 18, Fitzwilliam E.11.1937 (photo by author) Pafty, Cat. nr. 17, Boston MFA 83.346 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 15, Antwerp, Museum Veeshuis 79.1.45.1/5 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 26, Hermitage, Inv. no. 755 (courtesy of the Museum) Khonsumeh, Cat. nr. 16, Berlin AMP 23732 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 20, British Museum, EA 22784 (photo by author) Pashasu, Louvre E7693 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 30, New York, MMA 04.2.422 (photo by author) Cat. nr, 28, Florence 8175 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 29, London, UCL 8248 (photo by author) Cat. nr, 32, Louvre E 4694 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 27, Antwerp, Museum Vieeshuis 79.1.45 2/5 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 33, Louvre E 7692 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 34, Samos B 1312 (photo by Chris Kostman) Cat. nr. 31, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1932.829 (photo by author) Psamtik, Cat. nr. 48, Munich, AS 6039 (photo by author) Harbes, Cat. nr. 37, Brooklyn Museum of Art 37.360E (Russman 1969-70: figs. 9-12) Cat. nr. 36, Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico, KS 1851 (courtesy of the Museum) viiPL PI Pl. Pl. PL Pl. Pl, Pl. Pl, PL PL Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. PI, Pl. Pl, PL Sl: 52: 53: 54: 55: 56: 3ST: 58: 59: 61 62: 63: 65: 67: gS 70: Th 72: 73: Haremhab, Cat. nt. 35, Athens, NAM 1179 (photo by author) Cat, nr. $4, Samos B 2611 (photo by Chris Kostman) Khonsuirdas, Cat. nr. 43, British Museum, EA 14466 (photo by author) Padiamun, Cat. nr. 53, Louvre E 10586 (courtesy of the Museum) Ayhat, Cat. nr, 55, Ephesus Museum 1965 (photo by Chris Kostman) Cat. nr. 49, New York, MMA 26.7.1415 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 39, Cairo, The Egyptian Museum CG 39249 (Daressy 1906: 312-13, pl. lix) Cat. nr. 40, Cairo, The Egyptian Museum CG 39379 (Daressy 1906: 346-47, pl re) Cat. nr. 38, Cairo, The Egyptian Museum CG 38913 (Daressy 1906: 228, pl. xlvi) Cat. nr. 52, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1888.170 (photo by author) Cat, nr. 51, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1888.169 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 41, British Museum, EA 2281 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 42, British Museum, EA 2290 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 44, British Museum, EA 65624 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 50, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 188.168 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 45, British Museum, EA 67162 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 47, London, UCL $6043C (photo by author) Cat. nr. 46, London, UCL $6042 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 179, British Museum, EA 59393 (photo by author) Cat. nr, 161, Leiden, RvO F.1934/11.76 (photo by author) Cat. nr, 123, Chicago, OIM 17565 (photo by author) Cat. nr, 237, Louvre E 4690 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 232, Louvre E 3794 (photo by author) Cat. nr. 153, Kansas City, MO, NAMA, Inv. no. 48-26 (courtesy of the Museum)Pl Pl, Pl. Pl. Pl Pl. Pl. Pl. Pi. Pl. Pl PI, Pl, Pl. Pl. PI. Pl. Pl Pl, Pl, PI, PL Pl. PI. 4: 15: |. 76: 1 78: 79: 80: 81: 82: 83: 84: 85: 86: 87: 88: 89) ol: 92: 93: 95: 96: 98: 99: Cat, Cat. Cat, Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat, Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat, Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat. Cat, Cat, nr, 143, Hannover 2531 (photo by author) nr. 146, Hannover 1935.200.730 (photo by author) nr, 228, Paris, BNF 588 (photo by author) nr. 254, Louvre, E 27107 (photo by author) nt, 274, Hermitage 751 (courtesy of the Museum) nr, 234, Louvre E 3845 (photo by author) nr. 204, Marseille 828 (courtesy of the Museum) nr. 191, London, UCL 8243 (photo by author) nr, 154, Leiden, RvO AB. 34 (photo by author) nr. 181, British Museum, EA 59452 (photo by author) nr. 88, Baltimore, WAG 54.2095 (photo by author) nr. 118, Fitzwilliam, EGA 50.1949 (photo by author) nr, 136, Florence 5693 (photo by author) nr, 171, British Museum, EA 17055 (photo by author) nr. 210, Munich AS 4837 (courtesy of the Museum) nr, 135, Essen KPL 18 (photo by author) nr, 144, Hannover 1935.200.557 (photo by author) nr, 256, Louvre N 1592 (photo by author) nr. 89, Baltimore, WAG 54.2098 (photo by author) nr, 76, Antwerp 79.1.45 5/5 (photo by author) nr. 186, British Museum, EA 65640 (photo by author) nr, 196, London, UCL 8250 (photo by author) nr, 145, Hannover 1935.200.728 (photo by author) nr. 99, Bologna, KS 1855 (courtesy of the Museum) nr, 240, Louvre E 4695 (photo by author) nr. 162, Leiden, RvO F.1951/10.3 (photo by author)Pl. PI. Pl, PI, PL Pi. Pl. Pl. Pl, Pl, PI, Pl. Pl. Pl, 100: 101: 102: 103 104: 108: 106: 107: 108: 109: 110: Cat. Cat. Cat, Cat Cat. Cat Cat, Cat. Cat. Cat, Cat. 2 Cat. : Cat Cat. Cat. : Cat. Cat. : Cat. Cat. Cat. nr, 74, Antwerp 79.1.45 3/5 (photo by author) nr, 276, Hermitage 754 (courtesy of the Museum) nr. 170, British Museum, EA 2286 (photo by author) nr, 127, Copenhagen, .1.N. 603 (photo by author) nr. 208, Munich AS 168 (courtesy of the Museum) nr, 264, Louvre s.n, (photo by author) nr, 192, London, UCL 8244 (photo by author) nr, 287, Vienna 4278 (photo by author) nr, 252, Louvre E 22167 (photo by author) nr, 183, British Museum, EA 64560 (photo by author) nr. 193, London, UCL 8245 (photo by author) nr, 239, Louvre E 4692 (photo by author) nr. 178, British Museum, EA 59392 (photo by author) nr, 246, Louvre E 10785(b) (photo by author) nr, 243, Louvre E 5968 (courtesy of the Museum) : Cat. nr, 233, Louvre E 3799 (photo by author) nt, 180, British Museum, EA 59394 (photo by author) nr, 261, Louvre N 5048 (photo by author) nr, 242, Louvre E $949 (photo by author) nr. 245, Louvre E 10785(a) (photo by author) nr, 257, Louvre N 4387(?) (photo by author) Cat, nr. 205, Marseille 829 (courtesy of the Museum) : Cat Cat. : Cat, nr. 113, Brussels E. 6800 (photo by author) : Cat. nr. 280, Hermitage 5551 (courtesy of the Museum) nr, 62, Israel Museum 1934-31 (courtesy of the Museum) . nr. 64, British Museum, EA 49243 (photo by author)Pl. 126: Cat. nr. 65, British Museum, EA 59391 (photo by author) PI. 127: Cat. nr. 56, Berlin, AMP 9258 (Kischkewitz 1991: 232, nr. 140) Pl. 128: Cat. nr. 58, Bologna, KS 1858 (courtesy of the Museum) Pl, 129: Cat. nr. 67, Louvre E 11414 (photo by author) PI. 130: Cat. nr. 63, Israel Museum 1934-45 (courtesy of the Museum) Pl. 131: Cat. nr. 60, Florence 1782 (photo by author) Pl. 132: Cat. nr, 66, New York, MMA 89.2.518 (photo by author) PI, 133: Cat. nr. $7, Beverly Hills, CA, Art Market, 1989, Royal-Athena Galleries (Eisenberg 1992: 70, cat. nr. 356) Pl, 134: Cat. nr, 59, Copenhagen £.1.N. 602 (photo by author) PI, 135: Cat, nr. 61, Hannover 1935.200.729 (photo by author) Pl. 136: Cat. nr. 71, British Museum, EA 71458 (photo by author) : Cat. nr. 70, Copenhagen .1.N. 292 (photo by author) PI. 138: Cat. nr, 68, Baltimore, WAG 54.709 (photo by author) Cat, nr. 72, Louvre BR 4165 (photo by author) PI. 140: Cat. nr. 73, Louvre BR 4394 (photo by author) PI. 141; Cat, nr, 69, BCMA 1923.049 (courtesy of the Museum) : British Museum, EA 64027 (photo by author) Pi, 143: British Museum, EA 2749 (photo by author) xiiThis dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Gilbert and Jenny Maya Pedroza, and my paternal grandmother, Aurora Ruiz (Gamboa) Pedr Mendoza, from whom I learned my purpose. To my past and future. 2a), all of whom raised me, and my daughter, Mandalyn Kimberly ~Barbara (Pedroza) Mendoza xiiiChapter I Introduction Ancient Egyptian bronze sculpture appears in many major European and North American museum collections, but its inadequate study makes the sculpture very difficult to analyze. In her recent work, Royal Bronze Statuary from Ancient Egypt with Special Attention to the Kneeling Pose (2004), Marsha Hill has made great strides in our thorough understanding of the royal image in bronze. The aim of the present study is to analyze and organize the corpus of priestly bronze statuary, a rather large subgroup of non- royal ancient Egyptian bronze statuary. To this end, | utilize several factors intrinsic to each three-dimensional figure: epigraphical, stylistical, contextual, and technical, to show the temporal development of the ancient Egyptian priest and priestly figure in bronze.' ‘With this study I provide a foundation for further study in the area of non-royal bronze statuary in general and a clearer view of the artistic contribution of priestly bronze statuary in particular, as well as a better understanding of the role and development of priestly bronze statuary. ‘The most common format in which ancient Egyptian bronze sculpture was utilized was the bronze votive offering, typically comprised of a hollow, rectangular base, a deity or group of deities on one end of the base, and a small human figure on the other end. Geographically, bronze votive offerings were popular and widely distributed and deposited within temple precinets during the Late and Ptolemaic Periods of ancient Egypt.’ Egyptian ‘The term "priestly figure” Ts used throughout tis study to include both images of priests and images of male figures performing cultic or ritual service. Their identification as an ancient Egyptian priest or a presi figure is considered when discussing the objec. All references to “Cat rs.” inthe text refer tothe catalogue entries in Appendix A. Each catalogue entry i ited by an individual number, and arranged alphabetically by museum location within its chronological time period, ie., New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, Late Period and Greco-Roman Period, or General time perio. Each listing includes the type of priestly figure, date, museum and inventory number, provenance, dimensions, inscription (if any), description and bibliography. Appendix C isa provenance index and Appendix D is the data analysis for the physical features, both for the pieces in Appendix A: Catalogue L For ease of inscriptional analysis forthe pieces in Appendix A: Catalogue T, Appendix D isa listing, in data sheet form, ofthe object, bibliography, transliteration, translation, Hieroglyphic text, and highlights the location ofthe inscription, name(s), god{s) names, and geographic location(s) mentioned » Other uses are discussed; see Ch. 1.3. °The general chronology used inthis work, Appendix B, is adapted irom Zeigler, Ch., Les Trésors de Tanis : Capitale oubliée pharaons de Uan mille (2001), 28 most of the kings named in inscriptions derive from the Third Intermediate Perio. 1bronzes were popular temple votive offerings in the Near East and the Graeco-Roman world, as well.’ Thus, a number of intact votive group scenes have been located and made their way into museum collections around the world; most of the time, however, museum, collections are full of separately cast pieces that were once part of group scenes and their original context is now lost, These circumstances make the study of these figures (both human and deity) very difficult. Ancient Egyptian priest and priestly figures in bronze were not just manufactured as elements in votive offerings (group scenes) during the Late and Ptolemaic Periods. The present study reveals a number of bronze priest and priestly figures that were produced in antiquity that reflect the art and style* of most of the major time periods of ancient Egypt: the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, Twenty-fifth Dynasty, Late Period, and the Greco-Roman Periods, thus, bronze statue production is a long-standing tradition spanning a time period of over 1500 years. A few examples of bronze male figures produced during the Middle Kingdom may, in fact, be antecedents for the Pharaonic priestly figure in bronze. 1.1 Classification of Priests The priests of ancient Egypt have been a topic of much discussion over the last half century. This popular topic has been successfully treated by Sauneron (1957; 1988) and Blackman (1998), who have offered a clear description of priests and the priesthood in Pharaonic Egypt, thus, only a glimpse of the classification of ancient Egyptian priests will be presented here to further define the difference between the terms used in the present study, “priest” and “priestly” figure. In ancient Egyptian society, the king was the intermediary between gods and hhumans, and as such he was the highest priest who, theoretically, appointed all other priests to assist him. In fact, the ancient Egyptian word for priest is hm-nar, or servant of the god (Blackman 1998: 127); thus, theoretically, the king would be a hm-ntr tpy, or high priest. Hm-ntr is a title that was used as early as the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom. To be briefly discussed, Ch. 23.2. “The term “style” is used here inthe sense of “a visual language with a vocabulary of forms or motifs and a syntax governing their relationship.” See: Honour & Fleming 1982: 12. 2Their basic duty was to bring forward offerings to a deity and assist with processions and ceremonies. These individuals had access to the cult statue in the sanctuary and maintained access to the temple. Larger cult centers would have a hierarchy of priests who were assigned specific duties. One specific type of priest branched off as early as the Second Dynasty, the hry-hb or lector priest (ibid.: 138). Originally, the lector priest was a member of the royal family but in later times he could be someone appointed by the king. The /ry-hb recited, chanted or sang rites from sacred scrolls at processions and ceremonies. In addition, they recited prayers and formulas to appease the gods. Lector priests are easily identifiable by the broad white band they wear diagonally across their chests. As time went on, compound titles were possible, such as hry-hb hry-tp (chief lector priest) and they could hold additional priestly titles simultaneously. Another title, it-nir or father of the god, is one on which at least one of the bronze figures in this corpus is inscribed (Cat, nr. 239), According to Blackman (199% 24), it ‘was a common title in the New Kingdom and fell between the hm-ntrw and the webw, or web-priests (discussed below). The it-ntr walked in front of the cult statue in processions and purified the path by sprinkling water. The webw or pure ones (ibid.: 127) are priests that assisted the hm-ntr with performing lesser tasks in the temples and cult rituals. The w¢b-priest maintained the purity of the ceremonial area, cultic implements and the persons involved in the ceremony. They were not allowed to enter the sanctuary, unlike the him-ntr, and were allowed only inside the temple enclosure wall but not the temple itself. A priest would begin his training at this level, and work his way up the priestly classification system. While the types of ancient Egyptian priests listed above are servants of the gods for cult temples,’ one mortuary priest relevant to the present work is the sm-priest (ibid.: 141). Upon his death, the king was transformed into a divine being at his mortuary temple and priests were necessary here to maintain the mortuary cult. There are other types of ‘mortuary priests, but the sm-priest was responsible for implementing the Opening of the Tin fact the cut temple was the place ofthe worship forthe principle deity and for the cult of the living king, which could cause confusion 3Mouth ceremony to re-animate the mummy or k3 statue of the deceased. He was distinguished by the leopard skin cloak he wore during the ceremony, denoting his high status. His cloak is often decorated with stars rather than leopard spots, and may symbolize the night sky. Traditionally, he was the son of the deceased king who would rule in succession; later, the sm-priest could be any first son in non-royal families 1.2 Classification of Priest and Priestly Bronze Figures Several standard types of ancient Egyptian priest and priestly figures in bronze came to light in my research and are further explicated within their temporal chapters. ‘These figures were manufactured in ancient Egypt from as early as the New Kingdom and conntinued to be produced through the Greco-Roman Period without pattem of frequency of types. The main types are: the priest, the supplicant, the adorant, the donor, the performer of cultic ritual, and the k3 priest or offering bearer. Each have their individual function and purpose, which is briefly discussed below. A priest (PI. 52) is a male figure who is authorized to perform specific rituals for either a deity or a deceased person. In the bronze corpus of the present study, the priest is usually cast as a standard striding male figure, not performing any particular act, and there is usually an inscription on the body listing his priestly title. Generally, the priest is depicted bald or with close-cropped hair and wears the fashion of the time. Often he is adorned with jewelry and embellished with inlay. Priest figures are usually large-scale. T have categorized the small-scale “priestly” figures into five general types, as patterns became apparent: 1) The supplicant (PI. 68) is a kneeling male figure with the knees and toes on the ground line and the buttocks resting on the heels, The palms are facing down on the lap or to the sides of the lap and the figure looks forward. 2) The adorant (Pl. 72) is a striding or kneeling male figure with both of its arms bent at the elbows and hands raised with palms facing forward. The adorant appears to be worshipping a deity in front of him, 3) The donor (PI. 82) may be kneeling, striding or standing while presenting or holding a deity in front of his body. Sometimes the deity is situated within a small naos 4(naophorus) and sometimes he is holding the deity in his hands (theophorus). 4) Performers of cultic ritual (PI. 101) are either kneeling, striding, standing or dancing, and are cast in specific cultic acts, such as presenting one or two jars or pout libation, This type has the most sub-types. 5) The 43 priest (Pl. 112) is typically represented balancing a large offering tray with cakes on his head, or carrying one or two jars on his shoulders, while kneeling or striding. The figure’s primary attribute is its upward arm formation into a k3 sign. | refer to these figure types as “priestly” figures because their precise identification as ancient Egyptian priests cannot be determined by inscriptions or any means other than their physical appearance, which usually follows the conventions of the w¢b-priest 1.3 Function and Use of Priest and Priestly Bronze Figures There are two main functions of ancient Egyptian priest and priestly figures in bronze; undoubtedly, there are more.’ The main function of the large-scale priest statues (over 15.1 cm. tall) is for erection in a temple niche as a dedication to a god or goddess. ‘These large figures are usually rendered in the artistic conventions of the court; thus, itis possible to identify and compare stylistic parallels with royal figures in order to date the contemporary priest figures. In addition, sometimes priest figures are inscribed with a king's titulary, which aids in dating the piece. The main function of the small-scale priestly figurines and statuettes (up to 15 cm. tall) is that they are separately cast elements that are part of a composite group scene, often taking the form of a bronze votive offering. The votive is used similarly to the larger bronzes, as a dedication to a deity. The priestly figure, however, has a different identity. It is an anonymous priestly figure who stands in proxy for the dedicant; at the same time, the priestly figure adds a human element to the divine group scene or votive offering. Before proceeding with the methodology of the present study and the overall temporal development of the ancient Egyptian priestly bronze figure where the stylistic, epigraphic, contextual and technical analyses are considered, it is beneficial to review the Other uses are proffered when discussing the individual pieces of the present study, where appropriate 5previous state of research concerning non-royal bronze statuary, 14 Previous Research on Ancient Egyptian Bronze Statuary Ancient Egyptian bronze statuary of non-royal personages is seldom illustrated or included in surveys about ancient Egyptian sculpture (Michalowski 1978; James & Davies 1983; Russmann 1989) and rarely include images of priestly bronze figures. It is usually small-scale" and difficult to date, and it deviates from the artistic conventions of well- known large-scale stone statuary.’ Statues de divinités by G. Daressy (1906) is the first ‘major publication of ancient Egyptian sculpture to include a significant number of ancient Egyptian bronzes, although stone statuary is its main focus. It comprises an iconographic typology of ancient Egyptian gods and goddesses in both stone and bronze located in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, The work is largely out-of-date and is limited to one collection, but it provided a model for later studies. ‘The first in-depth study solely devoted to ancient Egyptian bronzes of gods, kings and private people is G. Roeder’s work: Agyptische Bronzewerke (1937). This monograph comprises a stylistic analysis of bronze statues and statuettes from the Hildesheim Museum in Germany and includes a few examples discussed in the present study. In addition, it contains one of the first scholarly syntheses on the ancient Egyptian bronze-working technique. Most scholars or curators of ancient Egyptian art are more familiar with Roeder’s second work, Agyptische Bronzefiguren (1956). It provides a descriptive and stylistic analysis of ancient Egyptian bronzes in a systema format. Although he draws his corpus solely from the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, he discusses numerous parallels from museums worldwide. This work is a comprehensive stylistic typology and provides a technological synthesis of the bronze- working process. It does not give the bronzes a much-needed historical or temporal framework, however, as it is a catalogue organized by style. Over the past two decades scholars have made advances concerning the technical work put forth by Roeder’s scholarship. Craddock, Riederer, and Schorsch have conducted numerous technological studies and compositional analyses (Craddock 1985; Riederer 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1988; Schorsch 1988a; Schorsch 1988b; Schorsch 1997/98) that aid in determining *” Although several large-scale bronze statues exist; see examples in Chapter 5-6, ° Most past and current scholarship conceming ancient Egyptian sculpture centers on stone sculpture.forgeries but have limited dating use for my goal of producing a chronological typology. The most recent historical and iconographic study of royal Egyptian bronzes is the dissertation written by M. Hill (2000; 2004). She studied bronze representations of the Egyptian king from all periods, particularly kings in the kneeling position, thus producing the first large organized corpus of royal bronze statuary. Three recent articles have attempted to give specific Egyptian bronzes an historical or art historical context (Ziegler 1987; Bianchi 1990; Vassilika 1997); all concer bronzes that date to the Third Intermediate Period, in general. C. Ziegler gives a detailed survey of Egyptian bronzes from this epoch, illustrating the period’s unique and innovative contributions to bronze manufacturing techniques. At this period, bronze statues and statuettes are larger than in previous periods, gilded with gold and silver, and inlaid with semiprecious stones. Third Intermediate Period examples constitute the high point of, Egyptian bronze sculpture overall. The God’s Wife of Amun (a type of priestess) is highlighted. R. Bianchi provides evidence that the ancient Greeks most likely turned to Egyptian metalworking techniques to develop their own bronze-working industry. He discusses the finds from the Greek island of Samos, where several relevant ancient Egyptian bronzes had been excavated up to 1972, to illustrate the possible Egyptian influence on the manufacture of certain ancient Greek bronze statuettes. E. Vassilika discusses the technical composition of three bronzes from the Fitzwilliam Museum, comparing their alloys with examples of cupreous statues in other museums that date between the Old Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period. It is an integral source for the understanding of bronze composition throughout the Pharaonic period as it attempts to take a chronological approach. Some studies concerning Third Intermediate Period and Late Period bronzes are limited to articles concerning specific or particular bronzes, rather than addressing an entire period. In 1956, C. Aldred conducted an analysis of the Carnarvon Statuette of Amun (Aldred 1956) and, in 1981, E, Russmann discussed a royal statuette dating to the eighth century BC (Russmann 1981); however, more relevant to this study are two articles written by H.R. Hall in 1930 (Hall 1930: 1-2) and E. Winter in 1971 (Winter 1971: 146-55). In ‘The Bronze Statuette of Khonserdaisu in the British Museum,” Hall discusses an aextremely well-preserved example of an unprovenanced Saite Period Egyptian bronze priest (Cat. nr. 43), the first bronze Egyptian priest figure to be studied and published at length." He analyses the inscriptions, iconographic elements, and quality of the statue, and firmly identifies it as a priest, possibly from a royal workshop. This statuette provides a seminal fixed point for the chronological typology of the present study. In his 1971 article “Eine ‘igyptische Bronze aus Ephesos,” Winter discusses the archaeological context of a bronze Egyptian priest found at Ephesus in Turkey in 1968, now housed in the Ephesus Museum in Selguk (Cat. nr. 55), The statue was found completely intact and dates to the Late Period. This bronze statuett also important for the present study as it provides a datable reference point within the chronological framework. To my knowledge, only one article has been written concerning ancient Egyptian bronze donors or adorants (Miller 1989: 5- 33). In his article, Miiller attempted to date, stylistically and technically, a work that he referred to as an ‘unusual’ figure of an Egyptian priest that he considered to be “blind.”"' The article does not address Egyptian priestly bronze figures as a whole, however. The priestess figure in bronze" has been addressed in the literature to a limited extent, with most attention given to the large-scale" hollow-cast priestess figures of the Third Intermediate Period (Delange, Di Mantova & Meyohas 1995: 137-45; Taylor, Craddock & Shearman 1998: 9-14; Delange, Di Mantova & Taylor 1998: 67-75). The majority of these figures are striding, with both arms raised as if to hold musical instruments such as sistra, They usually wear short curled wigs and cap-sleeved gowns with pointed tips. The studies, however, focus on the conservation of these works, as many are in poor condition and are flaking. To date, no studies have addressed the various figure-types of the ancient Egyptian bronze priestess as a whole. ‘Russmann (2001: 239, cat, no. 130) also discusses this bronze at length "This piece is unprovenanced and I have been unable to find its present location. "= Though excluded from the present study, the scholarly literature conceming the ancient Egyptian priestess figure is significant inthe survey of previous research on bronze statuary "small-scale bronze statuettes of priestesses exist but have not been addressed in the literature, for example: Priestesses of Amun, Priestesses of Bastet, and female adorants 8Chapter II Methodology 21 Introduction The ancient Egyptian priestly figure in bronze comprises approximately 90% of the ‘non-royal corpus of ancient Egyptian bronze statuary representing males, which makes the ancient Egyptian bronze priestly figure an ideal subject in which to investigate the parameters of non-royal bronze statuary. I traced approximately 290 examples of priestly bronze figures that are currently housed in forty-two museums in North America, Europe, Russia, Turkey, Israel and Egypt (see Appendix A: Catalogue of Priestly Bronzes). Another 50 or so examples are listed in art auction catalogues (See Appendix A, Catalogue IID). These figurines, statuettes and statues were manufactured’ from the New Kingdom (ca. 1539-1075 B.C.) to the end of the Graeco-Roman Period (332 B.C.-642 A.D.), thus providing a large corpus over a lengthy time span, 2.2 Methodology of the Study The aim of the present study of ancient Egyptian priestly bronze statuary is threefold: first, to provide the foundation for further study of a particular type of non-royal figure, the priestly figure; second, to arrive at a clear understanding of the role and development of priestly bronze statuary; and third, to produce a work that may be used in tandem with the study by Dr. Marsha Hill concerning royal bronze statuary from ancient Egypt. The end result of this dissertation is a temporal and stylistic analysis of the ancient Egyptian priestly figure in bronze. Phase 1 In the first phase of research I identified and organized the corpus and data. First, Tocated as many examples as I could of non-royal bronzes in such resources as art exhibition catalogs, museum catalogs and web sites, Porter and Moss’ The Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Statues, Reliefs and Paintings Located in Egypt and abroad.