Archaeopress Egyptology 30

ENVIRONMENT AND RELIGION IN ANCIENT

AND COPTIC EGYPT: SENSING THE COSMOS
THROUGH THE EYES OF THE DIVINE

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST EGYPTOLOGICAL CONFERENCE OF THE

HELLENIC INSTITUTE OF EGYPTOLOGY, CO–ORGANIZED WITH THE
WRITING & SCRIPTS CENTRE OF THE BIBLIOTHECA ALEXANDRINA
AND THE INSTITUTE OF COPTIC STUDIES (UNIVERSITY OF ALEXAN-
DRIA), AT THE PEOPLE’S UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS, UNDER THE HIGH
AUSPICES OF HIS EMINENCE MGR DAMIANOS, ARCHBISHOP OF SINAI
ATHENS: WEDNESDAY 1ST, THURSDAY 2ND & FRIDAY 3RD FEBRUARY 2017

Edited by

Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU

ARCHAEOPRESS EGYPTOLOGY 30
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd
Summertown Pavilion
18-24 Middle Way
Summertown
Oxford OX2 7LG

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-639-4
ISBN 978-1-78969-640-0 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress, the Hellenic Institute of Egyptology, the Editors and the Individual Authors 2020

FRONT COVER: Synthesis based on a garden’s depiction from a NK tomb (TT 96, after ROSELLINI 1834:
Pl. LXIX), and detail from a MK FR˥QMET 15.2.2A࡞BEHORQJLQJWR.KQ‫ړ‬P²1DNKWRSHQDFFHVVLPDJH
and courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art), elaborated by the Hellenic Institute of Egyptology.
BACK COVER: Detail from the astronomical ceiling of the Hypostyle Hall of the Temple of Hathor at
'HQGDUDK6ԧWKLV6DK&DQRSXV FSKRWRE\WKH3ULQFLSDO(GLWRU'U'U$OLFLD0ARAVELIA, January
2020). © Hellenic Institute of Egyptology 2020

$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG1RSDUWRIWKLVERRNPD\EHUHSURGXFHGRUWUDQVPLWWHGLQDQ\IRUPRUE\DQ\PHDQVHOHFWURQLF
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

7KLVERRNLVDYDLODEOHGLUHFWIURP$UFKDHRSUHVVRUIURPRXUZHEVLWHZZZDUFKDHRSUHVVFRP
 Alicia MARAVELIA: General Information, Programme of the Conference, Contents, Authors & Participants

ENVIRONMENT & RELIGION IN ANCIENT & COPTIC EGYPT:

SENSING THE COSMOS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE DIVINE

PROF. DR MOSALAM SHALTOUT (1946-2015)

In Memoriam

8
HONORARY ORGANIZING COMMITTEE [HOC]
His Eminence MGR DAMIANOS: Archbishop of Sinai, Faran & Raïthç, Abbot of S Catherine Monastery T

His Grace MGR PAULOS: Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Egyptians of Hellas
\
His Excellency MR FarÎd MONHB: Ambassador of Egypt in Hellas, Egyptian Embassy, EG
His Excellency MR Andreas ZAÏMIS: Former Minister of Hellas, Association BIBALEX FRIENDS, GR

LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE [LOC]

Dr Dr Alicia MARAVELIA: Hellenic Institute of Egyptology & Peoples’ University of Athens, GR
MRS Sophia TSOURINAKI: Hellenic Institute of Egyptology & S.E.N. Heritage Looms, GR
MRS Antigoni MANIATI: Hellenic Institute of Egyptology, GR
Dr Evi BATRA: Hellenic Open University & Association of Greek Women Scientists, GR
Dr Nikolaos FYSSAS: Mount Sinai Foundation, GR

[XV]
 Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU (EDS): Environment & Religion in Ancient & Coptic Egypt

ENVIRONMENT & RELIGION IN ANCIENT & COPTIC EGYPT:

SENSING THE COSMOS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE DIVINE

1ST EGYPTOLOGICAL CONFERENCE OF THE HELLENIC INSTITUTE OF EGYPTOLOGY,

CO–ORGANIZED WITH THE WRITING & SCRIPTS CENTRE OF THE BIBLIOTHECA
ALEXANDRINA AND THE INSTITUTE OF COPTIC STUDIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
ALEXANDRIA, AT THE PEOPLE’S UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS, UNDER THE HIGH
AUSPICES OF HIS EMINENCE MGR DAMIANOS, ARCHBISHOP OF SINAI

ATHENS: WEDNESDAY 1ST, THURSDAY 2ND & FRIDAY 3RD FEBRUARY 2017

SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZING COMMITTEE [SOC]

Dr Dr Alicia MARAVELIA: Hellenic Institute of Egyptology & Peoples’ University of Athens, GR
Dr Nadine GUILHOU: Université de Montpellier III & Hellenic Institute of Egyptology, FR–GR
Dr Dr Nils BILLING: Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE
Dr Themis G. DALLAS: I.A.K.A. Department, University of Thessaly, GR
Dr Ahmed MANSOUR: Writing & Scripts Centre, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, EG
Dr Azza EZZAT: Writing & Scripts Centre, Bibliotheca Alexandrina, EG
Dr Pauline NORRIS: Independent Researcher, Newtown, Powys, UK
Mr John WYATT: Independent Researcher, Ornithologist & Zoologist, Chesham, Bucks, UK
Prof. Dr Sherin SADEK: Faculty of Letters, cAin Shams University, Cairo, EG
Dr Tatjana A. SHERKOVA: Centre for Egyptological Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, RU
Dr Hab. Mykola TARASENKO: A.Yu. Krymskyi Institute of Oriental Studies of the NASU, Kyiv, UA

[XVI]
 Alicia MARAVELIA: General Information, Programme of the Conference, Contents, Authors & Participants

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Co–Organizers and Sponsors ……………………………………………………………………………………….. VII
Blessing by His Eminence the Archbishop of Sinai Mgr DAMIANOS ………………………………………….. IX
Foreword by H.E. the Ambassador of Egypt in Athens Mr FarÎd MONHB ……………………………………. XIII
Dedicatory Page, Theme, Honorary Organizing Committee, LOC and SOC ………………………………….. XV
Programme of the Conference …………………………………………………………………………………….. XVII
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………… XXI
Authors and Afęliations …………………………………………………………………………………………... XXIII
Foreword by H.E. the Former Minister of Hellas Mr Andreas ZAÏMIS ………………………………………. XXVII
Introduction by the Principal Editor Prof. Dr Dr Alicia MARAVELIA …………………………………………. XXXI
Introduction by the Co–Editor Dr Nadine GUILHOU …………………………………………………………….. XLI

PAPERS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 1
Rania M. cABDELWAHED: ReĚections on the Tree imA / iAm in Ancient Egypt ………………………………………… 3
Dalia ABU STET: New Insights into the Signięcance of Exotic Plants & Animals in Ancient Egypt ………………... 15
Dalia ABU STET: The Use & Signięcance of Jasper in Ancient Egyptian Art ………………………………………… 31
Bernard ARQUIER: NĀt et les Astérismes dans les Textes et le Décor du Double Sarcophage de Mésehty ………….. 49
Mohammed AZZAZY: Pollen Flora from Archaic & Old Kingdom Egyptian Tombs ………………………………... 61
Nils BILLING: You are not Alone: The Conceptual Background of NĀt as the Eternal Abode in Text & Iconography …. 69
Themis G. DALLAS: On the Orientations of Coptic Churches in Egypt ……………………………………………... 85
Alexandra DIEZ DE OLIVEIRA: The Many Faces of God Bacal in Ancient Egypt: Metaphors & Syncretisms ……… 107
Ola дEL-CABOUDY: Mice as Protectors in the Books of the Netherworld …………………………………………….. 115
Wafaa дEL-GHANNAM: Water–Lifting Devices in Hellenistic Egypt: A Manifestation of the InĚuence of the Nile … 127
Azza EZZAT: The Zenet–Game (?) & its Association with Garden Pools in Ancient Egypt: A Case Study ………… 139
Angus GRAHAM: The Interconnected Theban Landscape and Waterscape of AmĀn–R¾c …………………………… 155
Nadine GUILHOU: Une Lecture Calendérique de la Tombe de Nakht (TT 52) ………………………………………. 169
Mona HAGGAG: The Ouroboros in Helleno–Egyptian Amulets …………………………………………………….. 179
Aml MAHRAN: The Oar: Religious and Everyday Life Usage in Ancient Egypt …………………………………… 193
Ahmed MANSOUR: The Minerals as Divine Epithets: Notes on the Use of Lapis Lazuli in Divine Epithets ………. 195
Ahmed MANSOUR: ReĚections on the Veneration of Dead Ancestor Kings in Sinai ……………………………….. 205
Alicia MARAVELIA & Mosalam SHALTOUT: The InĚuence of the Solar Activity & of the Nile Flood on Egypt …... 217
Alicia MARAVELIA: The Function & Importance of Some Special Categories of Stars in the Funerary Texts, 2 …… 243
Alicia MARAVELIA & Markos FILIANOS: The Kyphi/̍ІΚ΍/KApt–Incense of the Ancient Egyptians ………………. 257
Giselle MARQUES CAMARA: MAat: Environmental Rhythms of the Ancient Kmt–Cosmos …………………………. 305
Pauline NORRIS: Lettuce as an Offering to Mnw (Min) ……………………………………………………………… 317
André PATRÍCIO: The Case of the Millennial Protection: Carrying One’s Amulets on One’s Neck ………………… 331
Jean–Pierre PÄTZNICK: L’Éléphant sur le Signe des Trois Collines et Hiérakonpolis ………………………….. 341
Gyula PRISKIN: Mythological Associations of Lunar Invisibility in Ancient Egypt ………………………………… 353
Detlev QUINTERN: The Nile in Early Arabic–Islamic Maps & Sources …………………………………………….. 367
Ashraf–Alexandre SADEK: La Nature dans le Patrimoine Chrétien d’Égypte ……………………………………... 381
Sherin SADEK вEL-GENDI: Les Figures des 24 Vieillards de l’Apocalypse dans l’Art Copte: Étude Comparative ….. 399
Daniel L. SELDEN: Inundation & Allegory …………………………………………………………………………... 415
Tatjana A. SHERKOVA: On the Mythological Image of the Eye of Horus ……………………………………………. 429
Mykola TARASENKO: Gliedervergottung Texts & Theogonic Ideas in Ancient Egypt ……………………………… 431
Maria Helena TRINDADE LOPES & Guilherme BORGES PIRES: Sacred Space in Ancient Egypt ………………….. 443
Sophia TSOURINAKI: The Use of Muricidæ and Other Purple Colourants during Late Antiquity …………………. 453
John WYATT: Birds of the Air: An Ornithological Overview of their Roles in Religion, Art, Hieroglyphs, & c. ……. 475
John WYATT: Fishes, Insects, Amphibians & Reptiles in the Art, Hieroglyphs & Religion of Ancient Egypt ……… 491
John WYATT: Lilies of the Egyptian Field: The Flowers & Plants of Ancient Egypt & Sinai ……………………….. 515

Alicia MARAVELIA: Epilogue: Brief CV, Activities & Publications of the Late Prof. Dr M. Shaltout ……………… 531
Alicia MARAVELIA: Brief CVs & Activities of the Editors …………………………………………………………... 535

[XXI]
 André PATRÍCIO: The Case of the Millennial Protection: Carrying One’s Amulets on One’s Neck – Three Pieces from KV 62

THE CASE OF THE MILLENNIAL PROTECTION: CARRYING ONE’S AMULETS

ON ONE’S NECK. ANALYSING THREE PIECES FROM KV 62 WHERE SPECIFIC
STONES PLAYED A ROLE OF PROTECTION INCRUSTED IN AN ALREADY
PROTECTIVE MACRO–STRUCTURE*

André PATRÍCIO
Department of History, Faculty of Social & Human Sciences, CHAM, Universidade NOVA, Lisbon, Portugal

ABSTRACT
It has been a transversal trait of most civilizations, a fact not expressively mentioned for its customary recurrence, the
practice of transporting on one’s neck, or body, protective elements, such as amulets (sA, mkt) or even talismans (wDA). Now-
adays one usually sees silver– or gold–made symbols imbued with amuletic properties: one’s need for their day–to–day
belief system and life. In ancient Egypt that would simply not be done! Perhaps the most outstanding examples, and so
the more recognizable, are some of the pieces that were found inside KV 62, that the glazed eyes of our modern world cal-
led jewels. In this essay, we do propose to take a closer look and make a careful analytical deconstruction of the so–called
jewels to arrive at their components, considering both their separate constituent elements, the incrusted stones and other
materials, their organization and repetition patterns and their undeniable religious connections. Even more, we propose
to analyse the super–structure of the jewels and establish a religious and belief structure connection, for they usually are
the representations —by themselves— of protective or magic symbols. This signięcance was retrieved from a quite com-
plex belief system that began to take form more than ęve Millennia ago, and eventually helped to navigate the destinies
of the Two Lands (&Awy). The main objective of this paper will be to address such questions as: «did every component of
a piece have a specięc religious and protective signięcance or only the conjugation of all the elements would be effec-
tive?»; or «were these pieces used both as protective and as talismans in a world seemingly hostile?»; and ęnally a hypo-
thesis will be presented, in trying to answer a somewhat broader question: «what made certain minerals, stones, colours
or forms, part of the religious realm and deemed them usable as protective?». Several hypotheses can and will tend to
surface; however, as the iron of a meteorite (biA) was frequently understood as a gift from the gods, it will be mainly on
the members of the Egyptian Pantheon that we propose to ęnd the most important part of the answers.

KEY WORDS: Ancient Egypt, Egyptians, religion, magic, protection, amulets, talismans, periapts, jewels, minerals, stones,
iron, meteorites, gold, silver, lapis–lazuli, turquoise, carnelian, colours, symbolism.

I. INTRODUCTION.
The need for protection has always been an indispensable companion of Humanity. It is that same
need, and constant search, for protection, that has allowed our species to thrive through Millennia.
There is, however, a specięc type of protection, more personal, whose use by humans can be tra-
ced as far as four and a half Millennia1, in Egypt. This essay will be focused on this type of perso-
nal protection objects: amulets, and in a more specięc context, some of the ęndings of KV 62, a tomb
historically sealed, for the ęrst time, after TutcankhamĀn’s funeral2, during the New Kingdom3.

Amulets are magic charms that are worn to ensure spiritual power or to ward off evil4. This is a be-
lief as old as the oldest human culture and is still going strong. Amulets, sAw or mkwt 5, are believed

* I should like to thank both Editors, for making my text more idiomatic in English, and particularly Prof. Dr Dr Alicia
MARAVELIA for the good care she took of my paper, correcting several mistakes, adding new ideas, references and images.
1 PINCH 1995: 9; ANDREWS 2001: 77.
2 CARTER & MACE 22001: 89.
3 VERNUS & YOYOTTE 1989: 289.

4 ANDREWS 2001: 75.

5 PINCH 1995: 104.

MARAVELIA & GUILHOU (eds): Archaeopress AEGY 30: 331-340.

[331]
ISBN 978 1 78969 639 4 | Oxford, July 2020.
 Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU (EDS): Environment & Religion in Ancient & Coptic Egypt

to have the power to ward off negative energy, evil spirits or even illnesses6. They are worn as pro-
tection and defence from the evil that surrounds humans. In ancient Egypt, amulets tended to be
used both in a daily basis, for general protection, in a moment of need or crisis, like childbirth, dis-
ease or long journeys and, in the afterlife, by members of any social strata7. The difference between
them was, in fact, the layers of symbolism and the degree of complexity8. Another term applicable
to amulet is wDA, for pieces which have different properties and characteristics. One can safely state
that it is a distinction between passive and active magical amulets. Therefore, we propose that an
active amulet (talisman) works in more than one way. It is believed to give protection, but also to in-
crease the power of the person wearing it. It is viewed as an amulet that grants desirable qualities
to the one who uses it9. Excalibur would be an accurate example of this.

Amulets can be classięed according to numerous considerations. Those that are intended to offer
protection; and those that are meant to create aversion to the very danger they represent10. Those
with something written on it (usually magical spells in this context); and those non–inscribed11. One
aspect seems to be universal, regardless of any of the classięcations: the use of amulets makes them
one of the most signięcant types of objects usually uncovered in egyptological excavations. There
is an impressive number of types of amulets: more than 275, mainly found in funerary contexts12.
This is particularly illustrative of the importance of both magic (HkA) and superstition in the lives of
ancient Egyptians13. A considerable number existed in the form of jewels, and were used on a daily
basis during their lives in Egypt, then carried on to the World of the Occidentals (Imntt)14.

The interesting question regarding the power and supposed magic of a certain piece is to under-
stand what exactly bestowed it those characteristics? Was it its form? The materials? The colours?
This is exactly what we propose to analyse in this brief essay: to try to understand the particular use
of an amulet and what mixture of elements gave such an object its apotropaic properties. In order to
address this topic, we must consider an extremely important factor: that the role of each compo-
nent of any amulet ([colour, form and material(s)], is intrinsically connected to an elaborate belief
system that spent Millennia building and perfecting itself to acquire the highest effectiveness and
proximity to the divine as possible. Therefore, we propose that what is divine has power. What is
effective is linked to both the divine and to a belief system with such a complexity that will easily
befuddle an important symbol for a common object. Here we choose items of complex design and
whose information is not immediately understood.

Understanding amulets and their variations can be achieved by various methods. The specięc arte-
facts chosen for this analysis are but a small portion of those composite amulets found inside KV 62:
the Pr-+t of King TutcankhamĀn15. While researching for amulets among the jewels of this long–
gone pharaoh, it became clear that one could easily divide them in the two groups mentioned abo-
ve: active amulets and passive amulets, according to their symbolism. The division in inscribed and

6 Although some authors, during the 20th Century, defended an existence of amulets and talismans, we shall not use this
distinction here broadly; cf. BUDGE 1978: 45.
7 BAINES, LESKO & SILVERMAN 1991: 168.

8 WARD 1970: 65.

9 PINCH 1995: 105.

10 ANDREWS 1994: 36.

11 HARRIS 1996: 296.

12 PINCH 1995: 104.

13 TEETER 2011: 429.

14 Although the greatest number of amulets was in simple forms: small falcons carved in amethyst, joined double lion’s

foreparts carved in cornelian, human face carved in pink limestone, leg with foot carved in cornelian, among many other
examples; see e.g.: ANDREWS 1994: passim.
15 On this subject, see REEVES 1990; REEVES & WILKINSON 2008; HAWASS 2006; HAWASS 2007.

[332]
 André PATRÍCIO: The Case of the Millennial Protection: Carrying One’s Amulets on One’s Neck – Three Pieces from KV 62

non–inscribed amulets is not applicable in these cases. It also became clear that jewels were the per-
fect vessels to incorporate all the desirable power and protection in a discreet form, although in a
very visible way.

II. ANALYSING THE AMULETS: METHODS AND STUDIED ARTEFACTS.

In this paper, we shall take particularly good notice of the role of gemstones on each selected com-
position16. A fact that became immediately clear from our study is that a gemstone has two sides to
its relevance: its rarity and how pure it is (the degree of difęculty in its acquisition), and its colour.
Symbolism makes all the component elements of an amulet, gemstones included, totally non–disso-
ciable from colour. To try separating these two aspects is to read only one side of a book. Much of
the symbolic power tends to come, or be increased, from colour. Material could very well had taken
a second place. Colour has always been at the core of symbolism, wherever one looks: iconogra-
phy, manuscripts, furniture or (amuletic) jewels17.

It is quite relevant to underline that the production of jewels in the New Kingdom helps to under-
stand this importance of colour in the symbolic world: the main part of gemstones tended to be sub-
stituted by glass. However, glass tended to imitate the original gemstone. It is of paramount impor-
tance to register that this is more a representation of a technological advance, instead of a prevalen-
ce in importance of colour above all else in the belief system of ancient Egyptians. The glass symbo-
lism can be elated by the colour, for its objective was to mimic the original material: the gemstone18.
However, some gemstones kept appearing. Even in a collar mainly made of coloured glass, a small
percentage was made of a specięc stone19.

In this paper, there are two questions that we intend to answer: 1. Had all the components of an
amulet a specięc religious and symbolic signięcance or only the conjugation of all the elements
would made it effective? 2. Was there a specięc signięcance (and effective link) on the use of cer-
tain minerals (or its substitute coloured glass) and its colours to justify its seemingly constant inclu-
sion in (amuletic) jewels?

To try to get a glimpse on some of these questions, one must present a deconstruction model to un-
derstand the parts that create the whole, the amulet itself. In this essay, the following points were
considered: the jewel (as a whole), its main material (being the most present), recognizable symbo-
lic elements, other materials included in the jewel and the colours. We tried to use some apparen-
tly symbolic pieces of amuletic jewellery from KV 62, as well as the most composite of them all. On
a general note, regarding the most recurrent material: gold, the skin of the gods of the Egyptian
Pantheon is the basis of both form and incrustations20. An individual interpretation of the selected
amulets will provide some more answers.

II.1. 1st Amulet: TutcankhamĀn’s BA–Pectoral. This is the pectoral21 with a clear allusion to the bA
[FIG. 1], the winged soul–bird with a human head, found over the external wrappings of the mum-
my22. Its crown bears a uræus and clearly seems to indicate that this is TutcankhamĀn’s bA, which is

16 Gemstones have been widely studied as having amuletic properties in various civilizations. Concerning this issue, see
BONNER 1946: 26; WEST 2011: 136. For the symbolism of the different mineral–materials, see AUFRÈRE 1991.
17 ASTON, HARREL & SHAW 2000: 25.

18 The en masse production of coloured glass was a sub–product of the increased demand of this specięc time–period; see

NICHOLSON & PELTENBURG 2000: 183.

19 We shall assume here that it was not because it was easy to mine or plentiful, but because that mineral had a certain

symbolic (metaphysical and/or magical) meaning.

20 This aspect is of elevated signięcance, symbolically speaking.

21 Object Carter ́ 256b (2) (current location: Egyptian Museum of Antiquities, Cairo).

[333]
 Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU (EDS): Environment & Religion in Ancient & Coptic Egypt

FIGURE 1: TutcankhamĀn’s BA–Pectoral, an amuletic object of high «aesthetic Ěavour», holding two Sn–rings.
© Copyright, Grifęth Institute, University of Oxford.

protected as the pharaoh himself was on Earth. The bA (according to CT II, 101: §§ 98a-105d) is belie-
ved to be created at the moment of death and leaves the body. In this so symbolic and important
piece one ęnds lapis–lazuli, orange carnelian, black obsidian and turquoise, incrusted in a gold sur-
face. We note the Sn–symbols on each of the claws of the bird–creature23.

Symbolic Analysis: From the colour and materials used, we observe the presence of regeneration
and divine association24, rebirth and fertility25, vitality26, rebirth and eternity27. This is clearly em-
phasised by the symbolic elements and the macro–structure of the piece itself: the bA of Tutcankh-
amĀn, reĚection of movement and breath28, is protected by a uræus, the solar–eye entity deemed to
protect all the pharaohs; and the soul–bird claws are holding eternity Sn–symbols (corresponding
also to the great number 10,000,000). Hence, the symbolism of this amulet alludes also to eternal li-
fe, a fundamental desire for the pharaoh, who would now enter the troubled path of the _wAt. The
placing of this object over the chest of TutcankhamĀn is a clear indication for the notion of the
magical properties it was imbued by itself.

Conclusions: This amuletic jewel can be regarded both as protecting the pharaoh and increasing his
power, to transcend to the Divine Realm. It intends to help the passage through the Netherworld,
as well as the clear protection of one of TutcankhamĀn’s most important components, the bA–soul.
This protection might be associated to the frailty of this soul —and perhaps of the pharaoh himself
— at this specięc point of his post mortem existence. However, the vitality, eternity and divine asso-
ciation, supposedly emanating from this periapt, seem to intend a more permanent resolution.

II.2. 2nd Amulet: The Necklace with the Eye of Horus of TutcankhamĀn. This is a pectoral29 of the
complete and sound eye of Horus (Irt-@r = WDAt), an apotropaic amulet, protected by the heraldic
and matron–goddesses of Lower Egypt WADyt and of Upper Egypt Nxbt [FIG. 2], each wearing their
respective crowns (dSrt and HDt). The healed eye of Horus, the one offered by Thoth after the ęght
between Horus and Seth, establishes a direct link to the Moon, the Sun and The Two Ladies (Nbty)

22 HAWASS 2007: 107.

23 CARTER 22001: 83.
24 The blue colour of lapis–lazuli; cf. ASTON, HARREL & SHAW 2000: 25.

25 From the turquoise; cf. ASTON, HARREL & SHAW 2000: 25.

26 The orange colour of carnelian and the black colour of obsidian. Cf. ASTON, HARREL & SHAW 2000: 25.

27 The resplendent gold, both from its colour and its material; cf. SCHORSCH 2001: 57.

28 Transmitted by the belief that the bA Ěies away in the moment of death; cf. HAWASS 2007: 117.

29 Object Carter ́ 256vvv (current location: Egyptian Museum of Antiquities, Cairo).

[334]
 André PATRÍCIO: The Case of the Millennial Protection: Carrying One’s Amulets on One’s Neck – Three Pieces from KV 62

in both sides of this amuletic pectoral. It conveys a message of protection and would be an amulet
that should be placed above the chest of the bearer. In the counterpoise, one ęnds two Dd–pillars
and the tit–symbol, also powerful elements, according to the ancient Egyptian metaphysical and
mythological thought, that —combined— were supposed to create an incredibly protective periapt
with a resilient message between the feminine and the masculine part of the individual30.

FIGURE 2: The necklace, an amuletic masterpiece with the Eye of Horus and counterpoise with tit– and Dd–amulets.
© Copyright, Grifęth Institute, University of Oxford.

Symbolic Analysis: The colours of this piece are essentially brought by the human–made glass. The
gemstones present are: bluish and yellow calcite, on the —notably— Right (Imnt) Eye of Horus, that
evoke, if one introduces the signięcance of the gold of the piece and the direct solar link of this eye,
a strong message of eternity, regeneration and divinity31. The application of lapis–lazuli, also in the
eye and parts of the bodies of the Two Ladies, reinforces the statement of regeneration and divine
connection32. Regarding the different glass colours present, the symbolic message can be read as a
desire for regeneration33, life and again a connection to Osiris34, as stated above. This specięc coun-
terpoise offers also the protection of Isis (tit–amulet), as well as a connection with Osiris (Dd–pillar),
her natural counterpart. They were the parents of Horus, and their power, put together, was im-
mense and assured resurrection, as the tit–symbol tends to refer to the menstrual cycle, the blood
of life. Hence, this amulet has both solar (masculine traits) and lunar (feminine traits) undertones.

Conclusions: This item was unquestionably intended to be a powerful amulet. Its more prominent
characteristics, the Eye of Horus, the Two Ladies, or even the link between Isis and Osiris, were cle-

30 CARTER 22001: 134; HAWASS 2007: 141.

31 WILKINSON 1994: 106-07.
32 WILKINSON 1994: 106-07.

33 From the green colour; cf. WILKINSON 1994: 108.

34 Mainly the green colour and the fact that Osiris was the father of Horus, revenged by his son; also the meaning of wAD

(root of the name of WADyt; see HANNIG 52009: 190) is connected to the notion of Ěourishing and of green colour. Cf. also
ASTON, HARREL & SHAW 2000: 28.

[335]
 Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU (EDS): Environment & Religion in Ancient & Coptic Egypt

verly used in this composition, found on the second layer of wrappings of TutcankhamĀn35. The
Dd–pillars and the tit–signs can both imply a safe return to life, through the blood of Isis, with the
force of Osiris, represented with the two Dd–pillars36, probably alluding to his sovereignty over the
Two Lands (&Awy), represented by the Two Ladies (Nbty). This periapt should have been considered
as a powerful amulet, with a rich content of information; but above all, with clear intents regarding
its purposes, that is to protect and guarantee life eternal (see also the Sn–ring held by Nxbt, who no-
tably bears a composite HDt–crown with Atf–characteristics). This artefact seems to have a dual inten-
tion. On its front is more of a passive amulet, not conferring to its user an extraordinary power, but
mainly protecting him. On the other side, the possible signięcance of the counterpoise and its
symbolism tend to disagree with this assumption and tell a very different story, for here one ęnds
the same, as previously described: desires of resurrection, regeneration, and so on and so forth. So,
at the front one ęnds the protection; at the back one ęnds the ultimate purpose of this jewel: to help
its bearer returning to life.

II.3. 3rd Amulet: The Solar Scarab Pendant of TutcankhamĀn. The winged solar scarab pendant37
is one of the most astonishing pieces of amuletic «jewellery» found between TutcankhamĀn’s fune-
rary paraphernalia [FIG. 3]. It is an open–work piece, to be worn on the chest. The design is quite
complex. Taking centre–stage is an incredible solar scarab, originally thought to be carved out of
chalcedony38, it appears to be a fusion of a winged #prrr and a hawk, bearing the characteristic tail.
However, recent studies indicate that it is rather natural glass, formed by terrestrial materials su-
per–heated by the collision of a meteorite or comet in the Libyan Desert, an estimated of 28 million
years ago39. The reason for this not being widely known is basically the lack of knowledge–transfer
between different disciplines.

FIGURE 3: The solar scarab pendant, another exquisite piece of amuletic «jewellery» from TutcankhamĀn’s Tomb.
On the right photo of an elaborate exact copy of the original from the touring exhibition of King TutcankhamĀn
(Frankfurt, April 2012), taken and kindly offered by Professor Dr Dr Alicia MARAVELIA.
© Copyright, Grifęth Institute, University of Oxford (left) & Hellenic Institute of Egyptology (right).

The winged solar scarab is supporting, with lapis–lazuli arms, a lunar barque containing the Left
Eye of Horus (Irt-@r IAbt), made of blue glass and calcite and with an obsidian pupil, surrounded by

35 HAWASS 2007: 109.

36 PINCH 1995: 116. On the Dd– and tit–symbols, respectively, see WILKINSON 1992: 164-65, 200-01.
37 Object Carter ́ 267d (current location: the Egyptian Museum of Antiquities, Cairo).

38 HAWASS 2007: 190.

39 MICHELE 1998: 107.

[336]
 André PATRÍCIO: The Case of the Millennial Protection: Carrying One’s Amulets on One’s Neck – Three Pieces from KV 62

gold, carnelian and lapis–lazuli uræi; and above it, made in gold, a fourth lunar crescent support-
ing a silver lunar (Full Moon), orb where TutcankhamĀn is visible, also in gold, incrusted, between
two gods (R¾c–Horakhty and Thoth). The scarab is holding, in each claw, the Sn–symbols, for eter-
nity, and both lotus and lilies, heraldic plants of Upper and Lower Egypt, surrounded by uræi40.
Below the lower bar, adorned with consecutive circles, pending, one ęnds lotus–Ěowers, poppies,
complex buds of an unknown plant–species and papyrus–corollæ. Several other gemstones are used
in incrustations, like chalcedony, carnelian and turquoise. The presence of red, blue, green and whi-
te glass is also noticeable.

Symbolic Analysis: In this case, the symbolic message that resonates is a mixture of rebirth and
eternity for a pharaoh (given by the winged scarab fused with a hawk, holding two eternity–sym-
bols, lilies and lotus Ěowers in its metamorphosed vulture legs)41 with solar and lunar connections,
that not only projects the pharaoh to the divine domain (for the barque belongs to the realm of gods),
but also shows him with two gods in equal standing. The Left Eye of Horus transmits protective
power, here with a connection to the Moon and the night. The four uræi complete its message: the
one using this is both protected and special; as is its land. Also Kmt is here referred to by the heral-
dic plants, and protected by the uræi that surround the intrinsic composition. On the centre of the
amulet, one ęnds the most important piece: the scarab. The position of this piece on the periapt
makes complete sense, being the centre of the pectoral, augmenting its power of protection and re-
birth, also echoed with the reddish carnelian (usually associated with the morning re–born solar
god as #pri and eternal life), given by the two Sn–symbols that it holds. A curious aspect of this par-
ticular scarab is that it is not made of glass or any type of earthly stone42, as previously stated by ot-
her authors. It is not green chalcedony! It is the result of a high–speed impact of a fractured meteo-
rite or of a small comet above the Libyan Desert43. This is not a rare occurrence, if one considers the
funerary paraphernalia of TutcankhamĀn and the pieces made with iron forged from meteorites. It
was considered, after all, as a present from heavens; and it was there, where the gods resided. The
designers of this artefact must have been very aware of the signięcance of the material they were
using. The characteristics of that glass (for them, natural occurring glass was something not made
by humans, but apparently by gods), mainly the intense change of colour of the glass itself, depen-
ding on its relative position to (sun)light, due to the optical phenomenon of polarization of light,
could only mean one thing: it was the rarest of materials, and divine by both origin and design.
The turquoise reinforces the idea of fertility and rebirth in accordance with the lapis–lazuli that al-
ways evokes the idea of regeneration.

Conclusions: The complexity of this pendant is impressive. It seems to be an extremely protective

amulet, if one analyses the macro–structure elements. The uræi are clearly protective, but it seems
not only for the pharaoh, who can be seen represented above the lunar crescent. They were also
protective of Egypt. This jewel also carries immense power regarding rebirth, fertility, regenera-
tion and a clear connection to the divine realm, making it an indispensable ally in the ęght for the
afterlife. Perhaps the most signięcant aspect of this beautifully made amulet is the fact that it truly
incorporates a piece that originated from the celestial domain of gods. This aspect would bring a
possible comparative discussion between the pieces that TutcankhamĀn had in his paraphernalia,
objects that had a common origin: the Solar System (and not Planet Earth), or the sky, if we consi-

40 CARTER 22001: 76.

41 HAWASS 2007: 190.
42 PINTER & STEHLIK 2003: 15.

43 The history regarding this object has started long ago, when in 1996 the Mineralogist Vicenzo DE MICHELE spotted that

specięc scarab. Analysis indicated that it was made of glass; though not of a normal glass, one that predates the ęrst
known civilizations. It also had in its matrix several unusual elements; see MICHELE 1998: 107.

[337]
 Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU (EDS): Environment & Religion in Ancient & Coptic Egypt

der that another way of forming non–human–made–glass is via lightning44. However, this will be,
for now, only registered as an obsession for elements that seemed divine because of their origin45.

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

By analysing the macro–structure of each of the presented pieces, one starts to comprehend the
general purpose of each amulet. But the minuscule details, the gemstones, the other materials and,
above all, the colours, allow for a more comprehensive interpretation, one that is unquestionably al-
ways subjective. Familiar symbols are detected immediately on a ęrst approach. If one decides to
be methodical about them, in a second revision, it is the number of symbolic elements one ęnds, both
used to protect or empower, depending mainly on the global picture where they are eventually in-
serted.

Concerning all the materials of which the previous examined examples were made, we ęnd gold
(both as base for construction and for underlining and contouring decorative elements), silver and
electrum (incrusted in the jewels themselves), and frequently beads of gold between the pendant
and the counterpoise. The most recurrent gemstones in these pieces are feldspar, lapis–lazuli, car-
nelian, green chalcedony and turquoise. Then we ęnd a human–made element, glass, with several
colours, frequently mimicking turquoise; and ęnally, natural glass. The most present colours, seem-
ingly repeating themselves quite often, follow under the palette of: white, yellow, blue, turquoise,
orange, red, green, brown and black.

Could we say, with only a simple analysis, such as the one provided by this paper, that jewels were
clearly used as amulets by the ancient Egyptians? Or, following Aldred’s ideas46, that they were
not jewels, but periapts with an amuletic character, however very nicely made and looking like vir-
tual «jewels»? Although its beauty and design could be said to be only decorative, it is far more
Egyptian to use these aspects to protect themselves from the horror of isft that surrounded them
eternally. At this point two questions arise: 1. Had all the components of an amulet a specięc reli-
gious and symbolic signięcance or only the conjugation of all the elements would made it effecti-
ve? 2. Was there a specięc signięcance (and effective link) in the use of certain minerals (or their
substitute coloured glasses) and their colours to justify their seemingly constant inclusion in jewels?

Regarding the ęrst question of the manner an amulet works and the signięcance of every piece
that composes it, did the parts worked alone? The simple amulets, those which represented a Dd–
pillar or a god, seem to attest that —for protection effects— a simple piece would sufęce! However,
even an amulet can be made stronger, and this is where more complex combinations take form.
More elements are added and, from that, more protection will certainly be conjured. One could use
only one crown, let’s say the Crown of Upper Egypt, and be immediately empowered with a single
element, thus becoming more than the others. However once again, an amulet was more than an
empowerment tool, it had, occasionally —if not often— to cast protection over its user. Thus, a con-

44 This question raises a series of other questions. Did the Egyptians know that a meteorite would have come from outsi-
de the planet, i.e.: from the realm of the gods, and that’s why they carved the iron for TutcankhamĀn’s daggers, or was it
just an impressive coincidence? The glass in question, of the Libyan Desert, is quite different, as they already knew how
glass was produced and could easily have deduced that only an enormous discharge of energy could have produced it.
So, that specięc glass used in this scarab would, in any possible scenario, came from the gods. All these considerations
would be the subject of another article by themselves. On biA, see MARAVELIA 2006: 266-67, 376; GRAEFE 1971.
45 Although the fall of a meteorite or comet on the Libyan Desert, wherefrom this particular glass originated, was not wit-

nessed by the ancient Egyptians, there could be no doubts that any type of glass, not made by humans, could only have
been produced by celestial phenomena, like lightning (e.g.: pegmatite); or, in this case, celestial bodies in direct collision
with the Earth. On meteorites (sbAw hAw) and the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, see MARAVELIA 2012: 156-57.
46 See ALDRED 21988: 11 ff. On the ancient Egyptian jewellery, see ANDREWS 1990.

[338]
 André PATRÍCIO: The Case of the Millennial Protection: Carrying One’s Amulets on One’s Neck – Three Pieces from KV 62

junction seems to be necessary here: e.g.: if we put an additional uræus, the perfect amulet, that
would be actively acting to empower its user, would be ready! There seems to be no doubt: con-
jugation of elements did make them stronger and more effective.

In order to answer the second question, if there was a specięc signięcance (and effective link) in the
use of certain minerals (or their substitute coloured glasses) and their colours to justify their seem-
ingly constant inclusion in amuletic jewels, we should remember of how special the ancient Egyp-
tians were and of the close relationship they had with the Environment that surrounded them. They
were keen observers and, as humans often do, established virtual connections between the visible,
the spiritual and its representation.

As amulets, as much as in any other aspect that carried very specięc intentions, these three objects
tended to band together and super–evolve. That is why lapis–lazuli appeared in important arte-
facts of any kind: its signięcance was based on its intense sky–blue colour, but the fact that it exi-
sted naturally, was the important part. One can say the same for all the other minerals that repe-
atedly appeared here: obsidian, turquoise, carnelian, feldspar and even calcite. The same can also
be said about that amazing natural glass; imagine what it took to ęnd it, work it and place it at the
centre of a periapt, the most signięcant part of any ensemble! It is a fact that, at this time of Egyptian
Technology, all these gemstones could have been substituted by coloured glass. But this was a hu-
man–made substance. The symbolism in this case is mainly connected to colour, not material. And
then there are the curious cases, where an all–coloured glass amuletic «jewel» presents one kind of
gemstone. So, there was more at work here than to produce coloured agreeable pieces.

The divine could be artięcially recreated to the human eyes, using symbols and colours, but the
actual power needed to come from something humans didn’t create; something unique, natural and
left behind during those moments of creation, when gods roamed the Earth, or after that mythologi-
cal period, when gods sent objects to this Earth. A gemstone is the heart of an amulet. It is its core!
Without it, magic could very simply not happen and that would deem the object useless. Hence,
this seems to have been both a realization and a deep belief throughout the Millennia of the existen-
ce of ancient Egypt. And it was repeated, again and again, always calling for the gods, from below
(inferius) to above (superius), in order to protect those still in Egypt.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALDRED, C.: Egyptian Art, London (Thames & Hudson) 21988.
ANDREWS, C.A.R.: Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, London (BMP) 1990.
ANDREWS, C.A.R.: Amulets of Ancient Egypt, London (BMP) 1994.
ANDREWS, C.A.R.: «Amulets», The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt III, Oxford (Oxford University Press) 2001, 75-82.
ASTON, B., HARREL, J. & SHAW, I.: «Stone», Ancient Egyptian Materials & Technology (Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I., eds), Cam-
bridge (Cambridge University Press) 2000, 5-77.
AUFREÈRE, S.H.: L’univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne: I: L’inĚuence du désert et des minéraux sur la mentalité des anciens
Égyptiens; II: L’intégration des minéraux, des métaux et des «Trésors» dans la marche de l’univers et dans la vie divine, Le Caire
(IFAO / BiÉtud 1051-2) 1991.
BAINES, J., LESKO, L.H. & SILVERMAN, D.P.: Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice, London–Ithaca (Cor-
nell University Press) 1991.
BOONER, C.: «Magical Amulets», The Harvard Theological Review 391, 1946, 25-54.
BUDGE, E.A.W.: Amulets and Superstitions, NY (Dover Publications) 1978.
CARTER, H. & MACE, A.C.: The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen: Search, Discovery and Clearance of the Antechamber, London (Duck-
worth) 22001.
CARTER, H.: The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen: The Burial Chamber, London (Duckworth) 22001.
GRAEFE, E.: Untersuchungen zur Wortfamilie BiA, Köln (Universität Köln) 1971.
HANNIG, R.: Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch–Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.), Mainz (P. von Zabern) 52009.

[339]
 Alicia MARAVELIA & Nadine GUILHOU (EDS): Environment & Religion in Ancient & Coptic Egypt

HARRIS, E.: Ancient Egyptian Magic, York Beach (Samuel Weiser Inc.) 1998.
HAWASS, Z.: The Realm of the Pharaohs, NY (White Star Publishers) 2006.
HAWASS, Z.: King TutcankhamĀn: The Treasures of the Tomb, London (Thames & Hudson) 2007.
MARAVELIA, A.–A.: Les astres dans les textes religieux en Égypte antique et dans les Hymnes Orphiques, Oxford (Archaeopress /
BAR International Series 1527) 2006.
MARAVELIA, A.–A.: «Éléments astronomiques et cosmographiques dans le Conte du Naufragé», Polymathès – ̓ΓΏΙΐ΅ΌφΖ:
Mélanges offerts à Jean–Pierre LEVET (Morin, B., ed.), Limoges (PULIM) 2012, 147-166.
MICHELE, V.: «The Libyan Desert Glass Scarab in Tutcankhamen’s Pectoral», Sahara 10, 1998, 107-110.
MURRAY, H. & NUTTAL, N.: A Handlist of Howard Carter's Catalogue of Objects in TutcankhamĀn's Tomb, Oxford (Oxford Uni-
versity Press) 1963.
NICHOLSON, P.T. & PELTENBURG, E.: «Egyptian Faience», Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw,
I., eds), Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 2000, 177-194.
PINCH, G.: Magic in Ancient Egypt, Austin (University of Texas Press) 1995.
PINTER, C. & STEHLIK, H.: «Rätsel im brennend heißen Sand: Das lybische Wüstenglas», LAPIS 10, 2003, 11-16.
REEVES, N. & WILKINSON, R.H.: The Complete Valley of the Kings: The Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaohs, Lon-
don (Thames & Hudson) 2008.
REEVES, N.: The Complete TutcankhamĀn: The King, the Tomb, the Royal Treasure, London (Thames & Hudson) 1990.
SCHORSCH, D.: «Precious–Metal Polychromy in Egypt in the Time of TutcankhamĀn», JEA 87, 2001, 55-71.
TEETER, E.: Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) 2011.
VERNUS, P. & YOYOTTE, J.: Dictionnaire des pharaons, Paris (Librairie Académique Perrin) 2004.
WARD, W.A.: «The Origin of Egyptian Design–Amulets (“Button Seals”)», JEA 56, 1970, 65-80.
WEST, N.: «Gods on Small Things: Egyptian Monumental Iconography on Late Antique Magical Gems and the Greek and
Demotic Magical Papyri», Pallas 86, 2011, 135-166.
WILKINSON, R.H.: Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture, London (Thames &
Hudson) 1992.
WILKINSON, R.: Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art, London (Thames & Hudson) 1994.

[…] m sA.k, wsr.tw m-a nTrw!

[…] as thy protection [the amulet], being powerful with the gods!

[340]
Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com