INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD*

[PLANCHES XIII-XIV]

BY

PETER PAMMINGER Institut für Ägyptologie der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Saarstr. 21 (Campus) D-55099 MAINZ

Recently, while visiting a private collection in Belgium, I became aware of a rock- crystal bead of quite distinctive qualities, which might once have belonged to the royal entourage of the 25th dynasty King . The object was acquired not long ago on the art market, unfortunately without any proof of provenance. Its owner was kind enough to grant me permission to publish it. The bead itself (diameter 1.8 to 2.5 cm) has been drilled through (the hole 1.0 to 1.1 cm wide), embodying a sheet of gold in its core. One side of the surface being decorated with a raised bearing the inscription Mn-Ìpr-R{, the opposite side depicting a vulture1 who is carrying in each claw a symbol of {nÌ. Inbetween these two motives are situated two raised circular dots, each obviously representing a sun-disc (fig. + pl. XIII).

* Abbreviations generally in accordance with Helck, W. und W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie (=LÄ), vol. VII, 1989, p. IX-XXXVIII. In addition: — RMT: Regio Museo di Torino. — Andrews, Jewellery I: C.A.R. Andrews, Jewellery I. From the Earliest Times to the Seventeenth Dynasty. Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum VI, 1981. — Hall, Royal Scarabs: H.R.(H.) Hall, Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, etc., in the British Museum. Vol. I: Royal Scarabs, 1913. — Jaeger, OBO SA 2: B. Jaeger, Essai de classification et datation des scarabées Menkhéperrê (OBO SA 2), 1982. — Kaplony, Rollsiegel II: P. Kaplony, Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reichs II (MonAeg 3), 1981. — Kitchen, TIP: K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in (1100-650 BC), 1972, 21986. — Matouk, Scarabée I+II: F.S. Matouk, Corpus du scarabée Égyptien, vol. I+II, (1971 + 1977). — Ward, Sacred Beetle: J. Ward, The Sacred Beetle, 1902. I am indebted to Allison and Harry for correcting my English, to Sabine Hornung for the drawing, once more to Matthias Rochholz for his tireless efforts in preparing the typescript of this paper and last, but not least, to Heike Schmidt for kindly discussing various aspects of the subject. 1 Cf. e.g. the vulture designs Matouk, Scarabée II, p. 133-134 (965-978, 59), p. 347 (664-675), dated exclusively to the NK.

RdE 46 (1995) 150 P. PAMMINGER

The designation Mn-Ìpr-R{, emerging at first as prenomen of Thutmose III, remained for various reasons en vogue till the Ptolemaic Period. Soon it became an acrophonetic writing for the god Amun2 and as written with a scarab, reflecting the beetle as an incarnation of the sun-god. Therefore the Mn-Ìpr-R{ scarabs brought to effect an allusive designation of ‘Imn-R{, the god who came into being (Ìpr) perpetual3. The Theban highpriest Menkheperre of the 21st dyn. as well as the 25th dyn. local ruler Necho I adopted the name, but also apparently King Piye. As we will see, he seems to be the most likely candidate for this rock-crystal bead. For Piye, Mn-Ìpr-R{ constitutes the first of his three different prenomen — the others being subsequently (the common) Wsr-m{.t-R{ and Snfr-R{ 4 —, hence linking him to the great of the 4th, 18th and 19th dyn. respectively, symbols of a golden (and repeat- able) age5. That these three different prenomen refer to one and the same person is a view nowadays generally accepted6 and already proposed for a length of time7, although they have once been the main criteria to distinguish several different ‘Piye’8. Most probably these prenomen reflect the political career of Piye9, who started at Gebel Barkal as a new ‘Thutmose III’, later, by conquering Egypt proper, he turned into a ‘Ramesses II’ and finally he linked himself with one of the ancient heroes after having seized the resisting Memphis10. Thus, he became not only a living incarnation of these great predecessors, but ‘the timeless image of ’11 par excellence. Due to its imaginative possibilities of interpretations, the designation Mn-Ìpr-R{ was used e.g. by Piye’s successor, Shabataka (Dunham’s ), alternately with his own prenomen ∆d-k(.w)-R{, inscribed on a faience necklace from the burial of one of his horses12,

2 Et. Drioton, BSFE 19 (1955), p. 64-66; E.Hornung and E. Staehelin (eds.), Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen (ÄDS l), 1976, p. 175; B. Schlick-Nolte and V. von Droste zu Hülshoff, Liebieghaus - Frankfurt am Main, Ägyptische Bildwerke vol. I: Skarabäen, Amulette und Schmuck, 1990, p. 24. 3 H. Satzinger, Studia Aegyptiaca I (Fs Wessetzky), 1974, p. 331, 332. 4 Cf. J. v. Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (MÄS 20), 1984, p. 269; K. Priese, ZÄS 98 (1970), p. 24. 5 On Thutmose III and Ramesses II it seems superfluous to cite references, but for Snofru lastly see R. Ventura, in: S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Pharaonic Egypt. The Bible and Christianity, 1985, p. 278-288 and Graefe, in: S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Studies in Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, vol. I, 1990, p. 257-263. 6 Cf. e.g, Kitchen, TIP, p. 153 (§124), 359 (§321), 589 (Table *4). 7 J. Lecant, s.v. Pi(anchi), LÄ IV, col. 1045 w.n. 7 (for references); J.v. Beckerath, MDAIK 24 (1969), p. 58-62. 8 Cf. e.g. F. Petrie, A , vol. III, 31925, p. 268-277, 290-291, 292-294; BAR IV, §941; LR IV, 2-4, 24, 50-52. 9 J. v. Beckerath, MDAIK 24 (1969), p. 62. 10 For the OK links of the Kushite rulers with the Memphite area in general cf. J. Leclant, Mél.Mar., p. 282-83; K. Mysliwiec, Ramesside Traditions in the Arts of the Third Intermediate Period, in: E. Bleiberg and R. Freed (eds.), Frag- ments of a Shattered Visage (Monographs of the Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology I), 1991 (1993), p. 112. 11 L. Török in: W.V. Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa. from Prehistory to Islam, 21993, p. 195. 12 Ku.209 - RCK I, p. 113 (19-4-71), ill. pl.68.A2; cf. too Ku.210 = op.cit., p. 113 (19-4-91); both cited quite often, but not always with corresponding historical conclusions, cf. e.g. J. Leclant / J. Yoyotte, BIFAO 51 (1952), p. 35 n. 3; v. Becke- rath, MDAIK 24 (1969), p. 59 w.n. 8, p. 61 (bottom); Kitchen, TIP, p. 153 (§124); Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 247 (§1512) w.n. 987+988, p. 248-249 (§1517-1518 - Nos. 2764+2765); Leclant, LÄ IV, col. 1050 n. 34; R. Giveon, Egyptian Scarabs from Western Asia from the Collections of The British Museum (OBO SA 3), 1985, p. 168 (6.d).

RdE 46 (1995) INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD 151 recalling thus too, most probably, that his predecessor triumphed over Egypt primarily as heir of his father Amun13. This traditional Egyptian relationship may even have been the fore- most reason for Piye to choose this prenomen. From the time of Ramesses II on, Thutmose III was regarded as a conquerer by the grace of — a conception established in that king’s reign14. Revived by Piye, he composed other elements of his titulary also according to the dogmatic claims of Thutmose III15. Certainly this can be seen in correspondence to a ‘search for the best traditions of the past’, as stated recently for the TIP in general by Mysliwiec16. It is in this time that the skilled arts flourished, developing a new style by linking ‘Kushite’ and ‘Egyptian’ elements. For some of the most staggering objects rock-crystal17 was used, a material favoured since predynastic times to create small-scale treasures, mainly ritual vessels18, animal representations19 or beads for jewellery20. Most of these

13 Cf. the Piankhi Stela, passim (esp. lines 13, 24, 84-85, 92-93). The (‘coronation’) stela No. 26 (= Khartoum 1851), G.A. Reisner, ZÄS 66 (1931), p. 92 (lines 17-24). 14 R. Moftah, Studien zum ägyptischen Königsdogma im Neuen Reich (SDAIK 20), 1985, p. 84 – but already indicated in his own time, cf. e.g. the Gebel Barkal Stela, Urk. IV, 1227-1243 passim (e.g. 1237.17 or 1239.5-7). 15 Reisner, ZÄS 66 (1931), p. 93; Priese, ZÄS 98 (1970), p. 24; Kitchen, TIP, p. 359 (§321). A further element cites II (zm t.wí). 16 Mysliwiec, loc.cit. (n. 10), p. 108. 17 W. Helck, s.v. Bergkristall, LÄ I, co1. 709-710; J.R. Harris, Minerals, 1961, p. 110-111; A. Lucas, Materials, 1962, p. 402-403; Th. De Putter and Ch. Karlshausen, Les pierres utilisées dans la sculpture et l’architecture de l’Égypte pharaonique, 1992, p. 132-133. 18 A. El-Khouli, Egyptian Stone Vessels Predynastic to Dynasty III, 1978, vol. II, p. 845 (index) lists alone for this period 78 crystal vessels (4153 read: 4154; 5893 read: 5793; 5894 read: 5794). Worthy of notice seems to be a small crys- tal vessel of an uncertain date in London, UC (unpublished, without Inv. No. and known provenance, but on exhibition in case J 7). It is inscribed on the outside ( Ìtp-∂j-nj-sw.t r n†r.w) and probably a separate base was intended to be inserted into the vessel due to the hole that has been drilled through it. 19 Cf. from earliest times e.g. the frog Munich, ÄS 5567 = H.W. Müller, MJbK 3. Folge, vol. 21 (1970), p. 182 fig. 3, p. 185 (ex coll. E. Oppenländer) = H.W. Müller, Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst, 1972, p. 31 (with ill. on pl. 10) = (D. Wildung and H.W. Müller) 21976, p. 38, or the much larger specimen collection ‘Resandro’ = S. Schoske and D. Wildung, Gott und Götter im alten Ägypten, 1992, p. 107 (No. 74); the lions Quibell, Archaic Objects, CG 14044 = M. Saleh and H. Sourouzian, Official Catalogue Egyptian Museum Cairo, 1986, No. 11 and Sotheby, Cat. MacGregor coll., 1922, Lot 863; the scorpion tail Ash.E.205 = J.E. Quibell, Hierakonpolis I (BSAE 4), 1900, pl. 18:16. In later times, in addition to apes (e.g. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam E.121.1939 = J. Bourriau, Exh. cat. ‘Pharaohs and Mor- tals’, 1988, p. 156 No. 177) and cats (e.g. London, BM EA 11918 = BM Guide 1922 [Budge, 4th, 5th and 6th Egyptian Rooms], p. 164), especially scarabs (e.g. as central part of a gold bracelet, cf. Brooklyn 65.46) and representations of the goddess Thouëris (e.g. Baltimore, WAG 42.219 = G. Steindorff, Catalogue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery, 1946, No. 613; Hanover, Kestner-Museum 1950.19 = P. Munro (loose leaf cat. (n.d.)), Feste, tägliches Leben und die private Welt der Ägypter, p. 19 No. 116; London, BM EA 24395 = BM Guide 1922 [op.cit.], p. 218; Moscow, MPM 5459 = V.V. Pavlov and S. Hodjash, Egyptian Plastic Small-scale (in Russian), 1985, No.196; New York, MMA 44.4.67 = W.C. Hayes, Scepter II, 1959, p. 268) were favoured. Cf. too the serpent-head, BM EA 47349, and the unfinished figure London, UC.16617 = W.M.F. Petrie, The Arts and Crafts of , 21910, repr. 1974, p. 77 + fig. 89 (facing p. 81). 20 Besides these, a rock-crystal ring with a bezel carved in the round in the shape of an openwork wedjat-eye is known — Hayes, Scepter II, p. 278 — as well as an astragal gamestone — San José, Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, RC 1255 — or ritual arrow tips and mace heads, W.C. Hayes, Scepter I, 1953, p. 46+283; J.E. Quibell, Hierakonpolis I (BSAE 4), 1900, pl. 18:17 (mace-head). — From the Graeco-Roman period rock-crystal dices are known, e.g. BM EA 37467. Quite interesting seems to be the hollowed out oval rock-crystal cover representing a stylized heart (-scarab, equivalent to the sun-body), which formed once part of a wooden pectoral, painted inside with a benu-bird (with the accompaning

RdE 46 (1995) 152 P. PAMMINGER items can still be found in the 25th dynasty. A couple of crystal beads of lesser significance have been excavated at Meroë21, as well as at least one miniature vessel22. But, as one of the most astonishing creations the rock-crystal ball discovered at Ku.55 in a queen’s tomb, in all probability of Piye’s time and today in Boston, has to be recollected23. Being slightly larger in dimension (ø 2.0 to 3.2 cm), the ball is surmounted by a golden head, indicating a representation of the goddess Hathor24 and functioning by its loop as a pendant. This ingenious masterpiece of — as widely accepted — early Napatan craftsmanship, remains up till now without any parallel and without any convincing scholarly interpretation in regard to the ‘ball’ as being the body of the goddess. It can only be compared in its peculiarity to the polygonal rock-crystal column with the depiction of a silver ram’s head on top from the same burial site25. The ball of Hathor will be significant for our interpreta- tion and we will return to this subject later. The inscribed bead in general26 seems to have a long tradition. Starting at the dawn of the MK, the cylinder, formerly having been used dominantly as a seal, converted to a more or less ‘amuletic’ function27. In this period one can find the first name-beads of a ‘barrel’ shape28, remaining in use at least till the end of the TIP29 and extending itself amongst officials30. The significance of the private ‘name badges’ has been connected inscription: “I am the Bennu, the soul of Re”), now in London, UC.12577, cf. Fl. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob, Hawara, 1890, p. 35, 38, pl. 24:3 = Petrie, Amulets, 1914, p. 24:90x = Petrie, Scarabs, 1917, pl. 38:32 = A.P. Thomas, Gurob: A New Kingdom Town, 1981, vol. I, No. 714. 21 E.g. RCK V, p. 106 (22-2-460 B.d) — dating from the end of the 1st century, but in conjunction with older material like the green jasper scaraboid (p. 106-22-2-460 B.l -ill. p. 105, fig. 79:j + p. 107, fig. 80:f.2/3), claimed by Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 27 (§23), due to the inscription mentioning k nÌt, as an evidence for the name of Thutmose III, the other side naming Mn-Ìpr-R{ tí.t ‘Imn; for the epithet cf. ibidem, p. 60 (§232). Divers rock-crystal findings from earlier times have been excavated by Reisner, cf. Kerma IV-V (HAS 6), 1923, esp. p. 92. 22 RCK I, p. 91 (19-3-1383); pl. 38:D.l.l. 23 MFA 21.321; RCK I, p. 94, pl. 60:E-G; S. Hochfield and E. Riefstahl (eds.), Exh. cat. ‘Africa in Antiquity’, 1978, vol.I frontispiece, vol. II, p. 180 No. 93. 24 Or (but far more less probable) , as suggested by W.S. Smith, Ancient Egypt, MFA 1960, p. 170. 25 MFA 24.976; RCK I, p. 94 (19-3-1436, 1437), pl. 61:A-C.1. 26 The following notes 28-30 and 36-41, citing inscribed beads, are by no means exhaustive, due to the difficulties of access both in literature and in public/private collections. Other beads known to the author but unpublished and without accesible inventory number during this paper ’s preparation were, with a few exceptions, purposely ignored. 27 P. Kaplony, s.v. Rollsiegel, LÄ V, col. 294-300 – those small ‘votive’ cylinders, serving as amulets, were once used probably as a kind of wig ornament (hairnet) or kilt decoration, cf. J. Yoyotte, BIFAO 56 (1957), p. 85 w.n. 1, rather than as ‘real seals’, O. Perdu, RdE 29 (1977), p. 76 w.n. 45, see however Bourriau, op. cit. (n. 19), p. 154 (No. 172). 28 A designation used throughout this paper to describe more or less ovoid lenticular shaped beads (including sometimes those with flattened backside), mostly identical with Kaplony’s ‘tönnchen-’ and ‘tropfenförmige’ Rollsiegel, see LÄ V, col. 295 w.n. 28+29. Cf. e.g.: Sesostris (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 12, 12.2.34), Sesostris I (BM EA 36470 = Andrews, Jewellery I, pl. 29: 456), Amenemhat II (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 13, 12.3.7.8), Amenemhat III (Petrie, Buttons and Design Scarabs, 1925, p. 24/26, 12.6.29; Kaplony, Rollsiegel II, p. 539 No. 42) — but remaining yet indeterminate when belonging to family members, cf. e.g. the beads of his daughter Neferwptah, N. Farag and Z. Iskander, The Discovery of Neferwptah, 1971, p. 39 No. 59, p. 61, ill. pls. 36.A.2, 39, 50, or high officials, see e.g. Hayes, Scepter I, p. 308, 311 fig. 202; cf. furthermore below n. 30. 29 Cf. e.g.: Sekhem-Re Khu-towy (Kaplony, Rollsiegel II, p. 539 No. 44), (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 18, 13.21.2 = Ch. Kuentz, BIFAO 28 (1929), p. 134 No. 27; Petrie, Buttons and Design Scarabs, pl. 24, 13.21.7), Ahhotep I (?) (Kaplony, Rollsiegel II, p. 539 No. 48), - (BM EA 26291 + 26292 = Hall, Royal Scarabs, Nos. 329+330 =

RdE 46 (1995) INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD 153

M. Gitton, L’épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary, 21981, p. 25 (Nos. 39+40)), Amenhotep II (ex Coll. Duke of Northumber- land, cf. sale cat. Sotheby ’s London, 21st April, 1975, Lot 21), Amenhotep III (Berlin 18847 = H. Schäfer and W. Andrae, Kunst des Alten Orients (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte II), 31925, p. 341 = Kuentz, BIFAO 28 (1929), p. 144 No. 90; Cairo, JdE 85276-85278 = Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 361 n. 1010 [ex coll. Fouad, Album Drioton, Strasbourg Ms 5380-5386]; BM EA 65231 = C. Andrews, Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, 1990, p. 197 fig. 183d; MMA = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 258; Christie’s London (Alcestis-3842), 08 June 1988, Lot 132; cf. also the teardrop pendant bead from the King’s flail, Paris, Louvre E 22630 = A.P. Kozloff/B.M. Bryan (et al.), Exh. cat. ‘Egypt’s Dazzling Sun. Amenhotep III and his World’, 1992, p. 451 No. 136), Teye (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 35, 18.9.166.167), (BM EA 12737 = Hall, Royal Scarabs, No. 1972; as part of his (funerary) armlets (or amuletic bracelets), ill. H. Carter, Tut=ench=Amun (German ed.), vol. II, 1927, pl. 82A:1.2 (= Carter handlist 256hh (1)+(3) = exh. Nos. 288+287 = Cairo, JdE 62387+62386), text: H. Beinlich and M. Saleh, Cor- pus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun, 1989, p. 89 (256hh (3)); cf. also the flail beads Paris, Louvre N 2271 = PM III2, 781 (no. 456)), (Paris, Louvre N 596), (BM EA 17135 = Hall, Royal Scarabs, No. 1985; Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 38, 18.14.9; Cairo, JdE 85279 [ex coll. Fouad, see above]; Ward, Sacred Beetle, pl. 5:371 — see, apart from the bead Cairo, R. Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 1964, pl. 64:38-40 (Hari’s other “pende- loques” on pl. 64-66 are no barrel-beads), Sety I (Paris, Louvre = Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 361 n. 1010), Ramesses II (Leiden G.504 = C. Leemans, Monuments Égyptiens ... à Leide (Description Raisonnée E.F.G.), 1848-1850, pl. 43; MMA = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 344; Petrie, Hist. Scarabs, 1889, pl. 50:1581), Ramesses III (Matouk, Scarabée I, p. 117/219 (726)), I (P.E. Newberry, PSBA 24 (1902), p. 248 (32.b - MacGregor coll. - obviously part of Sotheby, Cat. MacGregor coll., 1922, Lot 533) = Petrie, History, vol.III (cf. n.8), p. 220 = LR III, p. 288 w.n.2 = Kitchen, TIP, p. 256 w.n.66 = M.-A. Bon- hême, Les noms royaux dans l’Égypte de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire (BdE 98), 1987, p. 51), Psusennes, (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 49, 21.6 = Matouk, Scarabée II, p. 139/348 (713)), Pinudjem I (BM EA 48951 = Andrews, Egyptian Jewellery (see above), p. 197 fig. 183e; D. Randall-Maciver, El Amrah and Abydos, 1902, pl. 45:D28), Shoshenq (?) (Turin, Inv. Suppl. 276, see e.g. A.M. Donadoni et al., Il Museo Egizio di Torino, 1988, p. 116), (Cracow, MAK/AS/ 1889- 1 to 19 = J. Sliwa, Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids and Plaques from the Cracow Collections, 1985, pl. 6-7:25-43; BM EA 32274, 32595-32596 = Hall, Royal Scarabs, Nos. 2493-2495; BM EA 65831+65832 = Andrews, Egyptian Jewellery (see above), p. 197 fig. 183a+b; Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 52, 25.3.14.15.16-18; Paris, Louvre = P. Pierret, Cat. de la salle historique de la galerie égyptienne, 1873, p. 109; H. Chevrier, ASAE 37 (1937), p. 184 = L. Keimer, ASAE 39 (1939), p. 205-206 (= amoung others Cairo JdE 85280-85281 [ex coll. Fouad, see above]) — as votive offerings to the temple of Amun at Kar- nak, cf. for a further bead J. Berlandini, in: Hommages Sauneron I (BdE 81), 1979, p. 111-112, pl. 17 B and for another one from temple A M.F.L. Macadam, Kawa I, 1949, p. 87:XXIX [0088], ill. pl. 35; G. Fraser, A Catalogue of the Scarabs Belonging to George Fraser, 1900, repr. 1979, p. 45 Nos. 367+368, ill. pl. 13; Matouk, Scarabée I, p. 199 (807+808) / 221 (860+861); Sotheby’s, Coll. Duke of Northumberland, op. cit. (see above), p. 10, Lot 19 (item 2 and 4); G.C. Pier, Egyptian Antiquities in the Pier Collection, 1906, p. 27:230 and pl. 21; F.G.H. Price, A Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Possession of F.G. Hilton Price, 1897, No. 361 (= Petrie, Hist. Scarabs, pl. 59:1888); Ward, Sacred Beetle, pl. 7:367.368; Christie’s London (Achavrail-3425), 16 July 1986, Lot 159; J. Haynes and Y. Markowitz, Scarabs and Design Amulets, sale cat. nfa classical auctions, New York, NY, Dec.11, 1991, Lot 296 = Sotheby’s, Antiquities Sale 93672, London 9th and 10th dec. 1993, Lot 592), Shabataka (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 52, 25.4.5.6), (BM EA 17160 = Hall, Roya1 Scarabs, No. 2502; Paris, Louvre A 2244 = Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 360 n. 1004, p. 361 n. 1010). 30 Cf. e.g.: Iy (BM (part of) EA 50742 = C. Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt, 1994, p. 98 fig. 100d), Amenhotep (BM EA 30643 = Andrews, Egyptian Jewellery (cf. n. 29), p. 197 fig. 183c), Bakmut (Petrie, Amulets, pl. 6, No. 77c = Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 43, 19.3.166), Paser (A. Mariette, Le Sérapéum de Memphis, vol. III, 1857, pl. 11), (probably) Khay (Turin, RMT Inv. 6785 (amoung others)), Khaemwaset (Paris, Louvre AF 6796 = KRI II, 368.13), Serbykhen (Paris, Louvre E 1155; cf. also two other amulets in the same collection, one of them a tí.t (E 2208), the other a mnqbí.t (E 3860), most probably, to be added to PM III2, 717, his tomb in Saqqara of unknown location. For a discussion of the personal name lastly see Th. Schneider, Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches (OBO 114), 1992, p. 187- 189, 330 (N 396) (with further references)), or the blue glazed steatite drop beads of Huy (Brooklyn 44.123.144 = T.G.H. James, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum, vol. I, 1974, p. 86 No.198; Boston, MFA 67.1134 = Exh. cat. ‘Egypt’s Golden Age’, 1982, p. 240/308 No. 318); the yellow faience bead with a black inscription of Paser (MMA, C 742 = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 333), and, last but not least, several examples in Cairo, Egyptian Mus., Room 24, showcase T, exh. nos. 5066, 5071-5073, 5076-5077. Do one have to add to this group those ‘pendeloques’ of various highpriests mentioned by G. Daressy, RAr 3e série, vol.28 (1896), p. 76, like that ‘funeral pendant’ of the highpriest of Amun Nesubanebdjed (= HPA Smendes I (J. v. Beckerath, MÄS 20, p. 99 / 256 and s.v. Smendes B., LÄ V, col. 991 w.n. 10) or II (Kitchen, TIP, p. 14 n. 57), cf. Daressy, ibidem, p. 76 No. 130 and ASAE 8 (1907), p. 35:135 = Petrie, History, vol. III (cf. n. 8), p. 214 = LR III, p. 271 (XXIV.1.B))?

RdE 46 (1995) 154 P. PAMMINGER by Petrie with BD 25 as a way of preserving the owner’s name in the underworld31, while those with royal names could have been used e.g. as parts of (funerary) jewellery32 or as votive offerings33. An utilization as a votive offering could apply to the inscribed ‘ball-bead’34 as well35 and therefore they may have been influenced by these ‘barrel’ shaped badges. After all, they too appear sporadically from this time on. Still seldom in the 11th dyn.36, but already more common in the 12th and 13th dyn.37, in particular inscribed with the names of the ‘heroes’ Amenemhat and Sesostris38, they continue to appear during the NK39 till the LP40, but only rarely found in relation to higher officials41. This lack of ‘private’ evidence raises doubts about the ball-bead’s primarily amuletic purpose — at least in comparison to those barrel shaped ‘private’ name badges used as part of funerary equipment. Even if their more specific purpose(s) still has to be determined, it is interesting to note that — at least as far as I know — none of the inscribed beads was made out of rock-crystal, certainly due to an unsuitable symbolism of colour and/or material42. Therefore, in regard to the king’s name, an ad hoc conclusion comes to mind: As the ball- bead of Hathor in Boston would suggest a comparatively equivalent date, the possibility of an original reference of the royal name to Thutmose III (or one of the other Mn-Ìpr-R{) could be excluded. Thus the name would rather have to designate the god Amun or the King Piye, not excluding a reference to both of them. On the other hand, Jaeger draws attention to the fact that the Mn-Ìpr-R{ scarabs do not occupy an important place in the 25th dyn.43. Less than 50 examples with contemporary designations were listed44, however, not implying at the same time a given reference to King Piye45. This result is an astonishing fact. As Jaeger points out, one can expect, at least

The ‘barrel’ shaped (private name?) beads were termed either swr.t / swí.t (Wb IV, 71.1), Ìp{.t (Wb III, 366.11), cf. e.g. Lacau, Sarcophages antérieurs au nouvel empire, CG 28083 (vol. 1, 1904, p. 185 (94), (93)), or eventually s (Wb IV,13.17 = J. Capart, ZÄS 45 (1908/09), p. 19 (51)) and are mainly made out of red carnelian (Ìrs.t), so too G. Jéquier, Frises d’Objets, 1921, p. 50-51. Completed by a ∂d-pillar, (usually) a mnqbí.t (for a brief discussion of this amulet cf. E. Feucht, Das Grab des Nefersecheru (TT 296) (Theben II), 1985, p. 141-142), a heart-scarab or heart amulet and a tí.t, these beads (still) seem to have been a ‘classical NK outfit’, cf. e.g. the inner coffin-lid of Huy, see A. Zivie, Découverte à Saqqarah. Le vizir oublié, 1990, p. 117-118, fig. 66+67, or the funerary property of Iy, see Andrews, Amulets (op. cit.), p. 98 fig. 100 (BM EA 50742). Cf. too the decoration of pillar H(c) in the tomb of Sennefer (TT 96 = PM I2, 203), ill. e.g. in: R. Gund- lach et al., Sennefer, Exh. cat. Hildesheim ed. by A. Eggebrecht, 1988, p. 66 fig. 45 (whereat in other editions the mnqbí.t- amulet is sometimes exclusively interpreted as a phallus, albeit the connotation of the snake as a symbol of the membrum virile was not very predominant within the Egyptian culture, cf. L. Störk, s.v. Schlange, LÄ V, col. 650 w.n. 64+65). 31 Petrie, Amulets, p. 21:77 — but when made out of carnelian these beads might evoke at the same time the restitution of the eye of Horus (pRamesseum B,72), see S. Aufrère, L’univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne (BdE 105), 1991, p. 555. For a possible function to avert snake bite lastly Andrews, Amulets (cf. n. 30), p. 99. 32 cf. n. 29: Tutankhamun. 33 Lastly cf. G. Pinch, Votive Offerings to Hathor, 1993, p. 265-269; cf. too n. 29: Shabaka. 34 A designation used throughout this paper to describe more or less spherical, but in most cases oblated beads. 35 Pinch, loc. cit. (n. 33).

RdE 46 (1995) INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD 155

36 Mentuhotep III (BM EA 41138 = Hall, Royal Scarabs, No. 61 = Andrews, Jewellery I, pl. 29:384 = Matouk, Scarabée I, p. 12/177 (23)). 37 Sesostris I (Petrie, Hist. Scarabs, pl. 6:175), Amenemhat II (BM EA 54421 = Andrews, Jewellery I, pl. 29:457; Petrie, Hist.Scarabs, pl. 7:218 = Kuentz, BIFAO 28 (1929), p. 127 No. 10 = (obviously identical with) Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 13, 12.3.14 (but cited twice by Kaplony, LÄ V, col. 299 n. 28 and 29)), Khenemet-nefer-hedjet (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 12, 12.2.36 = Perdu, RdE 29 (1977), p. 78 No. 18; Drioton, ASAE 45 (1947), p. 56 = Perdu, ibidem, p. 78 No. 16), Amenemhat III (MMA, cf. generally Hayes, Scepter I, p. 201), Awibre I (J. de Morgan, Dahchour I, 1895, p. 100:239), Sobekhotep III (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 18, 13.20.1; Sotheby, Cat. MacGregor coll., 1922, Lot 1428), (BM EA 59603 = Andrews, Jewellery I, pl. 42:570), Wahibre Iaiib (MMA = Hayes, Scepter I, p. 343 fig. 226, p. 344). For a 17th dyn. example, cf. the ball-bead of Ahhotep II, mentioned by Hayes, Scepter II, p. 52. The spheroid cap from a menyet necklace, MMA 30.8.341, however, has been less exactly described/translated (?) as a „Fayencekugel“ by C. Roehrig in the recent published exh. cat. ‘Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel’, 1994, p. 265-266 No. 367, cf. Hayes, Scepter II, p. 52; L. Troy, GM 35 (1979), p. 88 (III.B.6). 38 Amenemhat (Chicago, Art Institute 92.23 + 94.1285 = Th.G. Allen, Handbook of the Egyptian Collection, The Art Institute of Chicago, 1923, p. 113), Sesostris (BM EA 12804 = Andrews, Jewellery I, pl. 29:455; Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 12, 12.2.35; Price, Egyptian Antiquities, op. cit. (n. 29), No. 3935; Christie’s London (Alcestis-3842), 08 June 1988, Lot 137). 39 Cf. e.g. [Ahmose-]Nefertari (MMA = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 46; Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 23, 18.1.25), Ahmose-Merytamun (MMA = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 53), (Liverpool, M 11568 = Exh. cat. ‘Egypt’s Golden Age’, 1982, p. 169/308 No. 193 = N. Reeves, The Antiquaries Journal 66 (1986), p. 400 n. 111 (I) (with abundant references); BM EA 26289+26290 = Reeves, ibidem, p. 387-388 (according to him, following Sethe, Urk. IV, 381 (117), for the bead Liverpool, M 11568, probably intended for the foundation deposit of the Hathor shrine in Deir el-Bahri, as Hathshepsut is “beloved of Hathor who resides in Thebes, who presides over Djeserdjeseru”) = P. F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut, 1988, p. 200 (App.2, C.9) = M. Bimson and I.C. Freestone, Journal of Glass Studies (The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, New York) 30 (1988), p. 11 = (the complete one) Pinch, Votive Offerings (cf. n. 33), p. 265 (where the identity has been overlooked?) + fig. 4 (third row, left); BM EA 37727 = Hall, Royal Scarabs, No. 490; New York, MMA 26.7.378 = Chr. Lilyquist, DE 27 (1993), p. 52 n. 24; New York, MMA 26.7.746 = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 105 (amoung others) = Dorman, op. cit., p. 200 (App. 2, C.10) = C. Lilyquist and R.H. Brill, Studies in Early Egyptian Glass, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1993, p. 33 No. 1, p. 49 fig. 27; ex Coll. Captain Henvey, R.N. = J.G. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of The Ancient Egyptians, vol. III, 1837, p. 90, No. 349.a, fig. 3+4 = Reeves, ibidem, p. 400 n.111 (III); cf. too Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 29, 18.6.150), Amenhotep III (Cairo, TN 30/5/26/6, and with an identical inscription Turin, RMT Inv.6787 (amoung others); compare too the ‘ear-rings’ Zivie, Découverte à Saqqarah (n. 30), p. 160, fig. 98), Ramesses II (and Istnofret, gold ball-bead, New York, MMA 26.7.1921; red glass ball-bead = Hayes, Scepter II, p. 344). 40 Shabaka (?, cf. red jasper ball-bead of Nfr-k-R{ at MMA), Psamtek (Abydos I, p. 25, pl. 52; Sale cat. ‘Galerie Nefer 4’ (1986), p. 33 No. 55). For a faience bead of Khensa (one of the wifes of Piye) cf. G. Steindorff, ZÄS 44 (1907), p. 96, and compare it to the steatite ball from her burial equipment, now in Boston, MFA 21.313 = RCK I, p. 31 (19-3-544), p. 36 (fig. 11h), pl. 59.H-I. 41 Paser (Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 43, 19.3.150). For a lapis-lazuli bead of the highpriest of Amun Nesubanebdjed (= HPA Smendes II (v. Beckerath, MÄS 20, p. 103 w.n.9/262 and s.v. Smendes C., LÄ V, col. 991-992) or III (Kitchen, TIP, p. 521), son of ) cf. Coll. H. Hoffmann, partie 3, 1894, No. 58 = G. Daressy, RT 35 (1913), p. 144 = Petrie, History, vol. III (cf. n. 8), p. 264 = W.C. Hayes, JEA 34 (1948), p. 49 w.n. 10. 42 The spherical beads of Hatshepsut (and Senenemut — e.g. BM EA 26289+26290, cf. n. 39), sometimes thought to be carved out of (rock-)crystal, are definitely made out of glass, cf. Reeves, The Antiquaries Journal 66 (1986), p. 387-388, and the chemical analysis by Bimson and Freestone, Journal of Glass Studies 30 (1988), p. 15. It can only be guessed that the colourless glass imitated rock-crystal as the primary purpose of glass seems to have been the imitation of (brightly coloured) semiprecious stones — thus these beads might have been intended to transmit religious ideas comparable to those proposed below p. 157-158. 43 Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 246 (§1510), 248 (§1515). 44 P. 248-249 (§1517 - Nos. 2762-2808). Add now: Haynes/Markowitz, Scarabs and Design amulets (cf. n. 29), Lot 285 = Sotheby’s, Antiquities Sale 93672 (cf. n. 29), Lot 579 and cf. too below w.n. 87 for a plaque redated by Wiese to the 25th dyn. 45 For a possible clay sealing of Mn-Ìpr-R{ (Piye) cf. London, BM EA 84526 = PM VII, 397; Giveon, OBO SA 3 (cf. n. 12), p. 168 (6.).

RdE 46 (1995) 156 P. PAMMINGER statistically, for the NK period of to Thutmose IV, excluding Thutmose III46, more than 22 scarabs for each reigning year 47. Provided that this number is still valid for the 8th cent. BC, one could anticipate some 650 to 700 scarabs from Piye’s time48, of course not all with this prenomen49. In relation to our problem it is sufficient to state that only scarabs and scaraboids seem to have a significant value as Thutmose III reissues, certainly primarily due to their particularly amuletic character. Therefore, regardless of its original purpose, the bead shaped object under discussion has to be regarded as of being (roughly) contemporary with the king’s name. Hence, considering the specific design style, an 18th dyn. date, as well as a reissue, can now be excluded definitely. In determining the date of this bead the theme of the decoration at first sight seems to be of little help. The vulture traditionally does not only refer to the goddess Nekhbet but to Mut as well50. When recalling the acrophonetic reading of Mn-Ìpr-R{ as Amun, the illusion of the decoration as a representation of the ‘supreme couple’ – and even more generally of the female (vulture) / male (scarab, as part of the prenomen) principle51 — comes to mind. Could this allusion be the reason why the normally preferred nomen ‘Piye’ had to be avoided and his rarely attested prenomen be used? In this respect, the inbetween decoration of two raised circular dots, where one would rather expect an antithetically n†r nfr instead, could be explained as a ‘determinative’ to this cartouche conception. Unveiled, this enig- matic inscription could stand e.g. for – the Living (i.e. the sungod52) lives53, a reading supported likewise by the symbols of {nÌ carried by the vulture and thus serving as another revealing hint. Of course, it should not be ignored that the vulture customarily protects the king or his name and thus weakens an exclusively divine interpretation. The most conclusive view of the bead seems to be a straightforward one: King Piye (‘Mn-Ìpr-R{’), representing the ‘actual’ sun-disc54, emphasized by the dots flanking the

46 For his 31 year reign about 700 scarabs are known for sure, but around 1700 ($ 55 each year) might be possible, cf. H. Satzinger, WZKM 77 (1987), p. 134-135 n. 5. 47 Jaeger, OBO SA 2, p. 275 n. 3. 48 On the basis of a 31 years’ minimum reign, cf. Kitchen, TIP p. 152 (§123). 49 For his other scarabs cf. Leclant, LÄ IV, col.1046 w.n. 33+34 (with further references). 50 Besides other female deities like Neith (e.g. A. Piankoff, Myth.Pap., 1957, p. 183), Nut (e.g. E. Chassinat, La seconde trouvaille de Deir el-Bahari (sarcophages), 1909 (CG), 1901, p. 61; E. Feucht-Putz, Die königlichen Pektorale, 1967, p. 86 (cat. No. 25)), Nephthys (G. Daressy, Cercueils (CG), 1909, p. 131) and — quite often — Wadjet (LD III, 51b, 58 — ser- pent headed; Wresz. Atlas II, 53a Abb. II (= PM II2, 57 (170)), 115-116 (= PM II2, 519 (189) 5), 121-122 (= PM II2, 499 (93)-(95) II,1-4); OIP 102, 1980, pl. 24, 41-42 (= PM I2, 298 (5) I,2 [TT 192])); for Isis see below w.n. 68. 51 RÄRG, p. 211. For the female vulture see E. Winter, Von der Symbolik des Geiers (forthcoming, in: Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M.). 52 Wb I, 201.5. 53 For these feasible meanings of the hieroglyph ‘sun-disk’ cf. Et. Drioton, Kêmi 12 (1952), p. 31 w.n. B+G (on p. 32+33). 54 Indicated by the bare prenomen of the king: Snfr-R{, Mn-Ìpr-R{ (Thutmose III as ítn n t.w nb.w: Urk. IV, 887.16; D. Lorton, The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in Egyptian Texts through Dyn. XVIII, 1974, p. 8) and

RdE 46 (1995) INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD 157 cartouche as well, is protected by the vulture goddess, the traditional symbol of the South, and enhanced with life. The enigmatic inscription could thus stand e.g. for ‘the Living (i.e. Horus55) lives’ and may allow an even closer indication to the king himself whose nomen Piye is in fact the Kushite’s translation for ‘life’. In this respect, the scene transmits too his very personal quality and allows at the same time a further allusion to the traditional Egyptian concept of the god/king as donor of life. Comparable ‘cosmological’ ties and allusions of the royal cartouche are by no means unusual — but even a brief sketch of different aspects involved would go far beyond the scope of this paper.

Rather, the question has to be raised what this object was used for. The bar inside cov- ered in gold-leaf again reminds us of the previously mentioned crystal ball of the goddess Hathor in Boston. Therefore, it seems probable that our bead might also have had a similar circular gold base. The bar, protruding over the top of the borehole, then would suggest an anchor function, e.g. for a ram’s head (?)56, that could have capped the bead. Occasionally, contemporary scholarly interpretation has proposed that the Egyptians conceived the sun as a ‘globe’57 – but of course more likely referring to the ball of dung created by the scarab58 e.g., or the special breeding manners of the Tilapia zilii59, rather than by cosmological insights. The representations however sometimes evoke the illusion that this ‘globe’ is slightly wider than high60 — bringing us to a probable interpretation of the rock-crystal ball as an allusion to the ‘sun-globe’. In this respect, the golden bar shining through and thus ‘illuminating’61 the translucent crystal, symbolizes the ‘real body’

Wsr-m{.t-R{ (Ramesses II as [R{ n p∂.t ps∂.t: KRI III, 9.l]; R{ n Ìq.w: KRI II, 486.9 = N.-Chr. Grimal, Les termes de la propagande royale égyptienne de la XIXe dynastie à la conquête d’Alexandre. Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (N.S.6), 1986, p. 373 w.n. 1254; R{ n Km.t: KRI II, 457.8 = Grimal, op.cit., p. 381 w.n. 1298; R{ n t: KRI II, 311.6 = Grimal, op. cit., p. 381 w.n. 1298, KRI VII, 46.4; generally: D. Wildung, ZÄS 99 (1972), p. 33-41). For Piye as ‘giver of light’ cf. his stela Cairo, JdE 48862 (+47086-47089), lines 72/73, 73/74. 55 Wb I, 201.6. 56 Cf. e.g. the sun-disc with a ram’s head in KV 6, PM I2, 505(26)-(27) = E. Hornung, Tal der Könige, 21983, p. 116 fig. 88; the ram’s head M.F.L. Macadam, Kawa II, 1955, p. 148 [0709], ill. pl. 80e; the pair of ram’s horns and ears Kawa II, p. 216 [2086], ill. pl. 106b; the glazed ball decorated with an {nÌ alternating with rams’ heads bearing disc, Petrie, Amulets, p. 14 No. 30g, ill. pl.3, and last, but not least, above w.n. 25. On the other hand, cf. the pendant Cairo, Egyptian Mus., Room 4, showcase 24, where a semicircular gold-sheet forms the base of an undecorated rock-crystal bead while another sheet with an additional suspension loop capes it, hence form- ing the top and thus suggesting that it was used as an amulet too. 57 L. Kákosy, in: Fs Westendorf, 1984, p. 1057-1067 (with older references). 58 A well established opinio communis, cf. e.g. E. Hornung and E. Staehelin (eds.), Skarabäen Basel (cf. n. 2), p. 13-14, but recently rejected by Goedicke, in: M. Bietak et al. (eds.), Zwischen beiden Ewigkeiten, Fs Gertrud Thausing, 1994, p. 37-38. 59 M. Dambach and I.Wallert, CdE 41 (1966), p. 273-294. 60 Cf. e.g. the ‘sun’ at the entrance of KV 15, PM I2, 532(1) = J. Capart and M. Werbrouck, Thèbes, 1925, fig. 231. 61 Perhaps even by a pun through the material designations: mnw Ì∂ (rock-crystal) and nbw (gold) become readable/under- standable as Ì∂ nbw mnw — gold illuminates the stone/monument. Cf. Fr. Daumas, RHR 149 (1956), p. 8 (= Edfou II, 289).

RdE 46 (1995) 158 P. PAMMINGER of the sun, while the ball itself becomes its resting place62. In other words, the crystal body of the goddess Hathor may represent the ‘ball’ of creation and the golden bar inside the internal-eternal revivication63, as the divine presence is manifested through the gleaming rays of the material. In all probability, the Boston amulet thus represents a ‘materialized’ interpretation of the goddess’ name as ‘mother64/womb65 of Horus’. The decoration of our ‘ball-bead’ substantiates this interpretation if we understand the decoration as a represen- tation of the sky (the vulture as a celestial personification), ‘read’ it as mw.t (vulture) ní-sw.t/ n†r (generalized understanding of the cartouche inscription Mn-Ìpr-R{/'Imn-R{) and compare it e.g. to the birth scene of the sun, visible through the translucent ball belly of the goddess, as it is illustrated in the book of the day66: The rock-crystal ball then being the translucent motherly body for the internal rebirth of the sun-god/king respectively. Thus an original usage of our bead as the central part of an independant ‘amulet’ seems highly probable. But usage as a significant ‘central’ bead of a necklace can not be excluded either67, and thus the vulture, as related to (the slightly later?) BD 157, expands its feasible meaning to the protectress Isis68. Less probable seems a more ‘profane’ usage like the prospect that the bead once might have been attached to a stave or dagger, functioning as a kind of knob69. Regard- less of what the destined purpose was, the material, the size, the royal name and the royal vulture insignia makes it certain that this bead once belonged, as a treasured possession, to one of the royal dignitaries – if not even to the royal family — at the end of the 8th cent. BC. Its provenance may be either the Nubian area or – more probable — Egypt proper, attested e.g. by a fragmentary bandage, bearing the name of Piye, which was acquired at

62 As a kind of Ìw.t nbw? For its significance cf. Daumas, ibidem, p. 10-13. 63 Cf. Daumas, ibidem, p. 14-15. On the regenerative capacity of gold cf. Aufrère, L’univers minéral (BdE 105), 1991, p. 389 -392. 64 H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 1948, p. 171. 65 L. Troy, Patterns of Queenship (Boreas 14), 1986, p. 21-23 (with older references), lately P. Springborg, Royal Per- sons: Patriarchal Monarchy and the Feminine Principle, 1990, p. 135 and the review article by J.G. Griffiths, JEA 80 (1994), p. 238. 66 For a drawing of the vignette (from KV9) cf. e.g. E. Hornung, Ägyptische Unterweltsbücher, 1972, p. 487 fig. 112. Another scene showing translucent pregnancy is provided by the ostracon CG 25074. The subject has been treated in length by A. Weis, Die Madonna Platytera, 1985, esp. p. 26, 79 (reference kindly called to my attention by E. Winter). 67 Cf. the inscribed Assyrian lapis-lazuli bead of one of the collars of , of the same dimensions (diameter 1.8 to 2.5 cm), but of unsettled date (either 14th or 11th cent. BC), ill. e.g. Exh. cat. ‘Tanis, L’or des pharaons’, 1987, p. 244-245 (No. 81); the gold capped amethyst ball-bead of Sobekhotep III, Sotheby, Cat. MacGregor coll., 1922, Lot 1428, ill. pl. 38. 68 Cf. too Daressy, Cercueils (CG), p. 131. 69 Cf. the rock-crystal knob of one of the daggers of Tutankhamun, ill. H. Carter, Tut=ench=Amun (German ed.), vol. II, 1927, pl. 87B, or the upper part of a stave from the burial of Psusennes I, ill. e.g. Exh. cat. ‘Tanis’ (cf. n. 67), p. 254 (No. 90), the ivory knob of Pinudjem I, ill. Petrie, Scarabs, pl. 49, 21.3.1, and those of Ahmose’s poniard, E. Vernier, Bijoux, 1907, CG 52658. Usage as part of a cylindrical amulet, approximately comparable to Brooklyn 51.226 (= J.D. Cooney (et al.), Exh. cat. ‘Five Years of collecting Egyptian art’, 1956, p. 42-43 (No. 49), ill. pl. 68, or BM EA 30477 + 30478 = Andrews, Egyptian Jewellery (cf. n. 29), p. 171 fig. 155b+c), where cylindrical amethyst beads alternate with golden ones (cf. too Andrews, Jewellery I, p. 92 (F)) can be excluded.

RdE 46 (1995) INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD 159

Thebes before 185570. Other objects from the Theban area bearing this king’s name have been listed by Leclant71, including a fragmentary counterpart of a menat, once belonging to the king’s foundation deposit at Karnak72. Some high Kushite officials, like Kelbasken (TT 391) or Kelech-Amani (TT 223)73, and an up to now unknown number of less important people74, have been buried in the (southern) Asâsîf necropolis, one of the primeval places of the zp tpí75, thus establishing another link to the very beginnings of genuine Egyptian traditions. Pekereslo, one of the Ìm.t ní-sw.t wr.t of Piye, as well as her mother Pabatma, wife of King and mother of the god’s wife Amenirdis I as well as of general Pekar-tror, disposed of votive chapels (or even were buried?) at Abydos76. Alone the above mentioned facts indicat- ing Kushite presence in Egypt provides us with various hypothetical places of origin. A scarab77, probably originating from Tell Basta and presumably bearing Piye’s name, discloses even the likelihood of a Delta provenance, as Piye designated himself as ‘son’ or ‘beloved of’ , having ‘conquered’ this residence through the submission of King Osorkon IV78. The place of origin has to remain, at least at present, completely undetermined. How- ever, other amazing objects, most probably of the same period, but without any approved provenance as well, appeared too in the last couple of years79. It seems worthwhile to discuss these pieces briefly. In 1987, a Swiss gallery offered what seems to have been once the top of a scepter, an amethyst head of a lion mounted on 8 golden baboons80. A small rock-crystal vessel

70 BM EA 6640 - cf. LR IV, 50-51; RCK I, p. 66; Leclant, LÄ IV, col. 1049 n. 17; D. Redford, JARCE 22 (1985), p. 9-11. 71 Alabaster fragment W.Fr. v. Bissing, Steingefäße, 1904, CG 18498, from the temple of Mut at , cf. J. Leclant, Mon. Thébains (BdE 36), 1965, p. 118 + LÄ IV, col. 1046 w.n. 21; bowl Sotheby, Cat. MacGregor coll., 1922, Lot 199; PM II2, 299; Leclant, LÄ IV, col. 1046 w.n. 22. 72 As suggested by Berlandini, in: Hommages Sauneron I (BdE 81), 1979, p. 109-111, pl. 17A. Cf. generally J.M. Wein- stein, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt, 1973, p. 293-294. 73 Cf. D. Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der thebanischen Nekropole (DÖAW 8), 1984, p. 16, 17, 26, 40-41, 41-42, 95, 135, 140, 176. 74 M. Bietak, Theben - West(Luqsor), SÖAW 278:4 (1972), p. 33-35. 75 J. Assmann, Das Grab des Basa (Nr. 389) (AV 6), 1973, p. 11 w.n. 3. 76 Leclant, LÄ IV, col. 1050 n. 39; St. Wenig, Meroitica 12 (Fs Hintze, 1990), p. 333-334. 77 Leclant, LÄ IV, col. 1050 n. 33. 78 Piankhi stela, line 114; Kitchen, TIP, p. 365 (§326). 79 Cf. e.g. the unprovenanced and highly unusual golden bracelet, bearing the name of Piye, published by H. Brunner and E. Brunner-Traut, in: J. Baines et al. (eds.), Pyramid Studies and other Essays Presented to I.E.S. Edwards, 1988, p. 143-147. As proposed by the authors, the bracelet should have possibly been used, either by a member of the royal fam- ily, or as a present to a high esteemed official. The closest parallel to this bracelet - to be added ibidem, p. 145 n. 5 - seems to be the one described by H.W. Müller and sold by Ars Antiqua AG, auction I, Lucerne 2nd mai 1959, Lot 24, bearing the prenomen of Amenemhat III ( Ní-m{.t- R{) on the innerside of the ‘medallion’ and being dated to the late Ptolemaic-Roman period, a time when this king was (still/again) venerated, cf. e.g. W. Westendorf, SAK 11 (Fs Helck, 1984), p. 381-397, esp. p. 396. 80 Cat. ‘Nefer 5’ (1987), p. 33 No. 50; height: 3.5 cm, length: 3.8 cm. An illustration of this ‘jewel’ is intended to be included in the forthcoming volume by H.W. Müller on jewellery: Göttliches Gold. Goldschmiedekunst im Reich der Pharaonen (provisional title; reference kindly provided by B. Schlick-Nolte).

RdE 46 (1995) 160 P. PAMMINGER

(pl. XIV) is kept in another private collection81. Remarkably, the ‘handles’ seem to have been shaped as duck heads, generally linked to the Persian Period82, but certainly known from later times. Nevertheless, such ‘duck-head-handles’ seemed to have decorated vessels of the late 8th cent. BC as well83. Finally, in addition to the seven known examples show- ing the king in ritual run on scarabs and plaques84, an eighth example, presumably bearing the cartouche inscription Mn-Ìpr-R{, turned up85, bringing thus the feasible number with this designation to two examples. As Wiese proposes, the motive as a seal decoration seems to have been introduced in the 25th/26th dyn.86, hence not excluding, for the already known Mn-Ìpr-R{ example, the possibility of a reference to Piye or Necho I87. In his opin- ion, the ritual scene relates to the Ìb-sd-run, not as a memory for an actual celebrated ceremony, but as an evidence for the physical and divine power of the king, transferable to the owner of the seal amulet88. But, if it is correct that this motive first appeared on seals in the 25th dyn., an introduction under Piye would seem to be plausible as, after some time, he could have been the first one to have really celebrated a sd-festival. Even if such a hypothesis remains purely speculative the idea of reviving this festival would fit well to our knowledge of this king. The scepter top has been linked to the 25th dynasty by the author(s?) of the sale cata- logue and it seems not improbable that the small vessel may be dated to this period too. Finally, for the amazonite (?) scarab a reference to Piye (or Necho I) has been proposed. These highly unusual and sophisticated objects clearly demonstrate that our knowledge on 25th dyn. artifacts is ever changing and advancing. For the unique rock-crystal bead under discussion, the religious associations of ideas embodied in this ‘amulet’ bear, in my opinion, witness to the ‘new’ Egyptian prestige and the court style of the Kushite ruler King Piye. Even in this small scale treasure the signifi- cance seems to lie in the insights and promotion of this king as a true heir and advocate of the traditional Egyptian concepts of (re-) establishing the divine kingship by (re-)creation.

81 Height: 3.9 cm, ø max. 2.8 cm. I am indebted to the present owner for allowing me to publish a photograph of the vessel. 82 Cf. e.g. M. Burchardt, ZÄS 49 (1911), p. 76 ill. 3; P. Günther and R. Wellauer, Ägyptische Steingefässe der Samm- lung Rudolph Schmidt Solothurn (Ägyptologische Hefte des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität Zürich 2), 1988, p. 27 No. 48. 83 Compare e.g. RCK I, p. 57 fig. 20.C (19-2-490) and for the shape generally RCK V, p. 29 fig. 20.f (23-3-373); p. 40 fig. 26.h (23-3-467). See furthermore the small crystal vessels of Rw∂-'Imn at Paris, Louvre E 3042 and E 23325 (this, the smaller one, a gift of A. Curtis), ill. J. Leclant (ed.), Ägypten vol. III: Spätzeit und Hellenismus, 1981, p. 201, fig. 186. 84 A. Wiese, Zum Bild des Königs auf ägyptischen Siegelamuletten (OBO 96), 1990, p. 123. 85 E. Gubel / C. Uehlinger, in: Ancient Art of the Mediterranean World & Ancient Coins, Numismatic & Ancient Art Gallery AG, Auction Cat. No. 7, Zurich 11th April 1991, p. 13-14, Lot 7. 86 Wiese, op. cit. (cf. n. 84), p. 125. 87 Wiese, op. cit., p. 124 w.n. 6. 88 Wiese, op. cit., p. 127-128.

RdE 46 (1995) INSIGHTS INTO A TRANSLUCENT NAME BEAD 161

Résumé/Abstract

Présentation d’une perle extraordinaire en cristal de roche appartenant à une collection privée. Percée, contenant toujours une feuille d’or dans son noyau, la perle est décorée, d’un côté, avec un vautour — chaque serre tenant un symbole {nÌ — et, de l’autre côté, avec un cartouche au nom de Mn-Ìpr-R{ flanqué de deux «sphères». L’auteur propose d’identifier le nom royal avec un des prenomen du roi Pije de la 25e dynastie. Ensuite, il est montré que la perle ne représente pas seulement la «sphère» de création et la barre d’or, le symbole d’une revivication éternelle, mais aussi le ventre maternel transparent pour la (re-)naissance, respectivement du dieu solaire et du roi. Il semble que Pije ait été présenté dans ce bijou comme un roi en référence à la conception traditionnelle des Égyptiens: établir la royauté divine par le moyen de la (re-)création.

Presentation of an unusual rock-crystal bead, of unknown provenance. Being drilled through and embodying a sheet of gold in its core, the ball-bead is decorated on one side with a vulture carrying in each claw a symbol of {nÌ and on the opposite side with a raised cartouche bearing the inscrip- tion Mn-Ìpr-R{, flanked by two raised circular dots. The paper proposes to identify the royal designation as one of the prenomen of the 25th dynasty King Piye. Further, the article wishes to establish the rock-crystal bead as being the ‘ball’ of creation and symbolizing the eternal revivication as well as the translucent motherly body for the internal rebirth of the sun-god/king respectively. The intention being, even in this small scale trea- sure, to promote Piye as a king with genuine insights into traditional Egyptian concepts of (re-)establishing the divine kingship by (re-)creation.

RdE 46 (1995) REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE, t. 46 Pl. XIII

P. Pamminger, Insights into a translucent name bead. REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE, t. 46 Pl. XIV

P. Pamminger, Insights into a translucent name bead.