A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU [PL. I-II]
BY
MARSHA HILL Department of Egyptian Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art – NEW YORK
With an appended technical examination by DEBORAH SCHORSCH
The Metropolitan Museum of Art recently acquired a small gilded silver statuette of the seated goddess Nephthys with a loop behind her crown and an inscription beneath the base.1 The statuette belongs to the group of “temple pendants” to which Olivier Perdu has recently drawn attention, and which has been supplemented and further explored in more recent contributions.2 The small temple pendant of Nephthys has not previously been known and offers an additional reference point for discussing the dedication and purpose of such an object.3
1 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2014.259, Purchase, Liana Weindling Gift, 2014. “Temple pendant of the goddess Nephthys,” “Recent Acquisitions, A Selection: 2012–2014.” MMAB (fall 2014), p. 6. I am grateful to Diana Craig Patch, Lila Acheson Wallace Curator in-charge of the Department of Egyptian Art at the Museum, and to Liana Weindling, a good friend of the department, for their enthusiasm for the statuette. 2 O. Perdu, “Des pendentifs en guise d’ex-voto,” RdE 54 (2003), p. 155-166; M. Hill – D. Schorsch (eds.), Gifts for the Gods: images from Egyptian temples (exh. cat. New York), 2007, p. 84-89; Fr. Payraudeau, “Un socle de triade au nom de Takélot II (Caire JE 25672),” RdE 61 (2010), p. 201-207; R. Meffre, “Remarques à propos du texte de la triade d’Osorkon II (Louvre E 6204), avec en annexe une liste récapitulative des dénommés Di-aset-heb-sed,” RdE 64 (2013), p. 41-61. 3 The statuette had been in the collection of Mrs. Henry Walters, Baltimore and New York, from whom it was pur- chased by Joseph Brummer on March 15, 1941 (Brummer Galleries Archive online at http://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/ cdm/landingpage/collection/p16028coll9, no. N5081). It subsequently appeared in the second Brummer sale, Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York, May 11-14, 1949, as part of lot 17 (the so-called silver standing Isis in the same lot has a different history, and the silver wedjat is not traced). In 1977 it was sold by one Samuel Rulnick at Sotheby’s New York on May 21 as lot 338, dated 22nd-26th dynasties, subsequently entering the Symes/Michaelides collection. It was then obtained by the Rupert Wace Ancient-Art Ltd. from the Michaelides estate in 2010, and eventually sold to the museum. Mrs. Walters was the wife of the collector Henry Walters, and the purchase of the Nephthys presumably predated his death in 1931. More than that it is difficult to speculate as Walters traveled and bought widely; for a study of Walters, see W. R. Johnston, William and Henry Walters: the reticent collectors, 1999.
Revue d’égyptologie 66, 33-49. doi : 10.2143/RE.66.0.3149545 Tous droits réservés © Revue d’égyptologie, 2015. 34 M. HILL
Description
The statuette (pl. I-II) measures only 6 cm high and shows the goddess Nephthys seated on a now mostly missing block throne, which rests on a plinth of thick metal sheet. Coiffure and dress follow very ancient models, as is appropriate for a goddess. On her head the goddess wears a modius surrounded by uraeus cobras, and above that rises a version of her hieroglyphic symbol: the sign for a ḥwt-building is comprised of a slightly narrowing rectangle surrounded by a block-border and with a door depicted against the left upright of the rectangle. Not far above the upper edge of the door, the metal is broken away so that the nb-basket normally found atop the ḥwt sign is missing. Behind the ḥwt sign, in the right angle formed with the top of the modius, is a loop composed of two thick vertically-placed rings. The goddess wears a striated tripartite wig banded along its lower margin and beautifully rounded where it is tucked behind her ears and where its lower margin passes over her shoulder. Her face is rather round, her eyes and brows have cosmetic strips running to either side, and the pupils are raised. Her eyes and cheeks are prominent. Two narrow horizontal creases pass across her throat beneath her jaw. Broad shoulders and a high rounded breast lead into a body slim at the waist and hips. The dress is form-fitting, its presence discernable only by the horizontal hemline, and she wears a simple broad collar composed of a double upper border, two strands of tube beads, and a row of pendants. Her forearms rest on her legs, her right fist vertical and her left horizontal. The back upper edge of the throne on which she sits rises slightly behind her seated figure. The throne itself is mostly missing, and was certainly not solid like the figure of the goddess. Traces of its decoration remain: a vertical Egyptian block border is particularly visible on the front directly beside the goddess’s right leg, and a feather pattern and rem- nants of a block border can just be seen with the naked eye on the right side of the throne. The underside of the plinth on which the throne rests is inscribed in two columns, read from right to left and front to back in relation to the statue (pl. II). Dd-mdw ỉn Nbt-Ḥwt smnḫ(t) r’w-pr dỉt ῾nḫ wdꜢ snb ῾ḥ῾ q῾ỉ n Mr-s(t)-ḫnsw mꜢ῾ ḫrw Recitation by Nephthys who embellishes chapels, who gives life, prosperity, health, and a long life to Mereskhonsu, justified. Two features of the inscription warrant comment. The use of dd-mdw ỉn without a fol- lowing direct statement is discussed by Karl Jansen-Winkeln, who notes there are instances where a participle absorbs the substance of the direct statement as here.4 Moreover, before engaging in trying to understand and contextualize this small piece, it is important to cite
4 K. Jansen-Winkeln, Text und Sprache in der 3. Zwischenzeit. Vorarbeiten zu einer spätmittelägyptischen Grammatik (ÄAT 26), 1994, p. 100-101. I thank Niv Allon for the reference.
RdE 66 (2015) A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU 35
Erhart Graefe’s rule of thumb for understanding the use of “justified,” noted and further demonstrated by Carola Koch: in genealogical contexts the phrases living or justified con- trast living and deceased, but on donation pieces and in isolated uses the words serve only as a kind of blessing.5
Commentary
The statuette’s figural style is attributable to the later 8th and first half of the 7th centuries BC, that is, to the period of Kushite style. The seated image of the goddess appears occa- sionally before the Late Period in her Osirian role, but goes out of vogue with the Late Period under the influence of the ubiquitous funerary amulets of Isis and Nephthys.6 Relatively broad shoulders and narrow waist are characteristic of small bronze female god- desses and Divine Consorts of the period,7 as are tear-drop navel depressions.8 Nephthys’ particularly high and shelf-like breasts emphasize her square shoulders and recall the high pectorals of the bronze statuette of Shabaqo9 and other statuettes that relate to Old Kingdom models. The round face is typical of the Kushite period. And, as often, the eyeballs are curved around a vertical axis, and more or less the same axis is continued by the prominence of the cheeks.10 Her raised pupils are frequently employed in Third Intermediate Period metal stat- uary, but raised or marked pupils are rarely seen thereafter.11 The creases across the throat, which are, of course, characteristic of Egyptian sculpture from the late 18th dynasty through pre-Kushite dynasties of the Third Intermediate Period when New Kingdom models were prevalent, are usually thought to have disappeared with the Kushite dynasty; in fact, they
5 See C. Koch, “Die den Amun mit ihrer Stimme zufriedenstellen”: Gottesgemahlinnen und Musikerinnen im thebani- schen Amunstaat von der 22. Bis zur 26. Dynastie (SRaT 27), 2012, p. 47, citing p. 46 in E. Graefe, “Stellung, Familie und Herkunft des ‘Anch-Hor,” in M. Bietak – E. Reiser Haslauer, Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, I, 1978, p. 41-54. For the history of writings/meanings as here with the plant classifier, see B. Gessler-Löhr, “Zur Schreibung von mꜢ῾ ḫrw mit der Blume,” GM 116 (1990), p. 25-43, usefully posted on Wortdiskussionen https://aegyptologie.unibas.ch/werkzeuge/wortdiskus- sionen. 6 C. Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt, 1994, p. 48. 7 Neith from the Heraion, Archaeological Museum, Vathy, Samos, Greece B354, see M. Hill, op. cit., p. 108-109; Princess or Divine Consort, Brooklyn Museum, 1999.110, see B. V. Bothmer, “Egyptian Antiquities,” in Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis, 1987, p. 36-38. 8 For this feature in sculpture of these women, see E. R. Russmann, “Sculptural Representations of the 26th Dynasty Divine Consorts of Amun, Nitokris and Ankhnesneferibre,” in M. Eldamaty – M. Trad (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections around the World, 2002, p. 1037-1038. 9 M. Hill, Royal Bronze Statuary from Ancient Egypt, with Special Attention to the Kneeling Pose, 2004, pl. 29. 10 About the head probably depicting Shabaqo, London, British Museum EA 63833, E. R. Russmann (ed.), Eternal Egypt: Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum, exh. cat., 2001, p. 223-225, comments on p. 223, “It is broad, with full cheeks bulging along the line between nose and mouth.” See also Athens, National Archaeological Museum ANE 624, as described by Hill, 2004, p. 60. 11 M. Hill, op. cit., 2004, p. 30 n. 40.
RdE 66 (2015) 36 M. HILL continue to be a feature in certain temple reliefs and temple ritual statuary, all created in the environment of huge New Kingdom temples. So, while at first surprising, the feature is a nice marker of the environment in which the piece was created.12 The style of the inscription bears remark. The signs are handsomely and precisely drawn with ample space: some have the thickness and detail characteristic of monumental inscrip- tions, while others are more simply incised.13 Certain signs are formed in ways that are ornamental even to the extent of subverting the image underlying the sign: the n-sign, normally a zigzag replicating waves of water, looks like a tightly twisted strip of ribbon; the s-sign, the image of a horizontal bolt passing through two catches, is decomposed into two discontinuous elements. The former is actually formed as a horizontal line between two triangular terminals, with repeated punch marks along the line as described further in the technical appendix to this article by Deborah Schorsch. Related ways of forming the n-sign are attested in metalwork from at least the late 18th dynasty and frequently in Third Intermediate Period: a non-systematic survey found an early example on the small gold scepter terminal (?) of Maketaten in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,14 and later versions nearer the piece in question can be seen on, for example, the coffin of Sheshonq II,15 or the recently published pectoral of Takelot II discussed also further below.16 The punch marks along the horizontal in the sign on the pendant in question appear much more like beads on a string than like strong diagonals. Following Olivier Perdu’s discussion, temple pendants can convincingly be identified by the simultaneous presence of three features, 1) a loop, and 2) an inscription on the pattern of temple ḏd mdw inscriptions, which 3) is placed beneath the statuette. One example with these features (that of Herishef, see below) also has an archaeological find spot in a temple, substantiating the validity of these criteria and this identification. Absent the inscriptional features, identification as an amulet is more likely. So far, temple pendants are only identified beginning from the time of Osorkon II. Leaving aside the current example, four inscribed temple pendants have been identified
12 M. Hill, op. cit., 2007, p. 159, and M. Hill, “A Bronze Aegis of King Amasis in the Egyptian Museum: Bronzes, Unconventionality and Unexpected Connections,” in M. Eldamaty – M. Trad (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections around the World, 2002, p. 545-556. 13 See for a discussion Henry Fischer in R. Caminos – H. G. Fischer, Ancient Egyptian Epigraphy and Palaeography, 1976, p. 40-42. 14 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 30.8.372, Theodore M. Davis Collection, Bequest of Theodore M. Davis, 1915. For the identification and suggested provenance of the piece, see M. Gabolde, “La redécouverte de la nécropole royale de Tell el-Amarna,” EAO 52 (December, 2008), p. 34-35, fig. 4. For a discussion of other eighteenth dynasty stylized n-signs on metalwork, see Chr. Lilyquist, “The Gold Bowl Naming General Djehuty: A Study of Objects and Early Egyptology,” MMJ2 3 (1988) p. 29 n. 170. 15 Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 72154; H. Stierlin, The Gold of the Pharaohs, 1997, p. 187, and apparently related stylizations in material from the Tanite tombs p. 139 ff. 16 Fr. Payraudeau, op. cit., fig. 2.
RdE 66 (2015) A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU 37 from the Third Intermediate Period; a fifth from the later ninth century is highly likely, but its base, presumably bearing an inscription, was torn away. Each depicts a god or gods and refers to benefits bestowed by that god on an individual: the gold and lapis triad of Osiris flanked by Horus and Isis refers to Osorkon II,17 the gilded silver base of a triad of Re-Harakhty flanked by Isis and Nephthys refers to Takelot II,18 the gold statuette of Herishef names that god and the local king of Herakleopolis Peftjawybast and asks that Somtous give life to Neferubastet,19 a gold Bastet refers to the Great Chief Pami,20 and a large gold statuette of Amun presumably had an inscription referring to an unknown indi- vidual.21 Two further silver pendants of Nefertum are datable to the Saite period based on a particularity of the donation inscription that occurs in that period; their inscriptions name individuals whose status is not known and cite, not Nefertum, but his mother Bastet.22 Particular issues surround the representation of this god: Nefertum invariably has loops behind is crown and he is particularly closely intertwined with his mother.23 Because they represent a general feature associated with Nefertum and not a decision and choice as they do for the pendants under discussion, and because the informative inscriptions are later, I am omitting them from the “justified” group under discussion. So far as one can speak from such a small group, the overall picture is in keeping with our general view of the development of temple divine statue offering and inscription practices: named donors are predominantly high stature individuals before the Saite Period.24 To the five early temple pendants then, the current example can be added as a sixth. The inscription indicates that the donation was made for the benefit of Mereskhonsu (Khonsu-loves-her), who is both given long life, and referred to as justified, a term that here signifies a desired state as discussed above. Karl Jansen-Winkeln has one instance of the name Mereskhonsu, cited based on the name of the mother of the Akhamenru depicted in statue Louvre A85, whose attribution to the Chief Steward of the Divine Wife Shepenwepet II, Akhamenru, is discussed further below.25 At the same time, a Mereskhonsu is named as the Chief Steward Akhamenru’s mother in TT404. The name was noted some fifty years ago when explorations by Jean Leclant and Paul Barguet identified the tomb itself TT404 branching off from the tomb of
17 O. Perdu, op. cit., doc. 5, p. 162-164; R. Meffre, op. cit., p. 41-61. 18 Fr. Payraudeau, op. cit., p. 201-207. 19 O. Perdu, op. cit., doc. 4, p. 160-162. 20 Id., ibid., doc. 3, p. 158-160. The figure actually has two loops of similar construction, one at the back of the head and another behind the feet, confirmed in personal communication Yvonne Markowitz, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Curator of Jewelry, email dated October 1, 2014. 21 M. Hill (ed.), op. cit., 2007, p. 84-89. 22 O. Perdu, op. cit., doc. 1 and 2, p. 155-158. 23 M. Hill (ed.), op. cit., 2007, p. 87-88, 143-146. 24 Id., ibid., p. 125. 25 K. Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften der Spätzeit. III. Die 25. Dynastie, 2009, p. 327 no. 51.114.
RdE 66 (2015) 38 M. HILL
Harwa.26 More recently Francisco Tiradritti’s work in the tomb of Akhamenru has con- firmed this, in 2007 replacing a fragment where it fits on the eastern wall of the tomb’s entrance. A photograph posted on the Harwa expedition website27 and shared with me by Francesco Tiradritti shows a kneeling female with hands raised before her face and four columns of text above her head. The text reads “….Akhamenru, his mother, the great follower of the Divine Adoratress, Mereskhonsu.” The statuette that is the subject of this article was already noted by Michelle Thirion as an example of the same name on the basis of the 1977 Sotheby’s auction catalog.28 Even though A85 has in the past generally been listed, with reservations, among the statues belonging to Akhamenru, Chief Steward of the God’s Wife Shepenwepet II, in the recent Louvre catalog of Late Period statuary Olivier Perdu specifies the difficulties with assigning A85 to the Chief Steward of the Divine Adoratress Shepenwepet II:29 the Akhamenru of A85 spells his name with the reed rather than with the špss figure used in other instances of the Chief Steward’s name when any classifier is employed, he is termed the chamberlain (ỉmy-ḫnt) of the God’s Wife Shepenwepet II and not the chief steward (ỉmy-r pr wr),30 and there is a stylistic disjunction with the other statues of the Chief Steward. One of the points Perdu presses is the date of A85, and he demonstrates convinc- ingly that it is late twenty-fifth or, even more likely, very early twenty-sixth. Leaving aside the other problems with this statue, however, it would be difficult to confidently accept as a principle that a stylistic disjunction within the suite of the Chief Steward Akhamenru’s statuary is necessarily a clue to different times of production without under- standing the goals of the suites of statuary created for high Kushite officials such as Harwa, Akhamenru, Petamenophis, and Mentuemhat, which would require consideration of each statue, its inscriptions, and the suites relative to one another.31 The matter of relative dat- ings is all the more complicated as the dates for the divine wives and their stewards have not been precisely known; according to Carola Koch’s recent consideration of these mat- ters, discussed below, the Chief Steward Akhamenru and his statues could even be assigned
26 J. Leclant, “Fouilles et Travaux en Égypte, 1952-1953,” Orientalia 23 (1954), p. 67 n. 1; id., “Le prêtre Pekiry et son fils le Grand Majordome Akhamenrou,” JNES 13 (1954) p. 155. 27 http://www.harwa.it/ita/diario/diario2007/fotodiario/20071124.htm 28 M. Thirion, “Notes d’onomastique. Contribution à une révision de Ranke PN,” RdE 42 (1991), p. 227. Ranke had noted two instances, but M. Thirion points out that his two instances referred to the same statue Louvre A85. 29 O. Perdu, Les statues privées de la fin de l’Égypte pharaonique (1069 av. J.-C. - 395 apr. J.-C.) I. Hommes (cat. Louvre), 2012, p. 144-151. 30 J. Leclant, 1954, op. cit., p. 155, points out the one place where the lower title for Akhamenru could be attested is on a block of the chapel Osiris-pꜢ-ḏd-῾nḫ, but notes it is more likely ỉmy-r ought to be restored to give the higher title ỉmy-r ỉmy-ḫnt, a title known also for Harwa. 31 E. R. Russmann, op. cit., 2001, p. 38: “in part, Mentuemhat’s different visages may represent a Late Period version of the deliberate variety already noted in Old Kingdom private tomb sculpture.”
RdE 66 (2015) A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU 39 to a downwardly extended range.32 Almost fortunately, the problems with the assignment of A85 to the Chief Steward are numerous! Perdu is able to point to another Akhamenru of this period who is in fact a Chamberlain of an unnamed Divine Wife as a possibility,33 so that the statue should be considered to belong to a separate individual also named Akhamenru and with a mother named Mereskhonsu. This means that there is at least one other Theban Mereskhonsu besides the mother of the Chief Steward Akhamenru. On the face of it, there is not enough evidence to determine whether the silver pendant belongs to one of the Mereskhonsus discussed or to yet another one. Although the name Mereskhonsu with its mention of Khonsu is consistent with Theban origins, there are other possibilities.34 Even so, there is reason to assign the pendant provisionally to Mereskhonsu the mother of the Chief Steward and wife of Pekiry. In this period, the evidence from the object class itself and donation practices discussed above anticipate a high status offerer, and Mereskhonsu’s important son but also her own titles indicate her stature. As noted above, in her son’s tomb Mereskhonsu bears the title great follower of the Divine Adoratress, šmswt ῾Ꜣt n dwꜢt-nṯr. The title points to a role for Mereskhonsu herself in rela- tion to the Divine Adoratress. Although she was unaware of Mereskhonsu as a bearer of the title, the title has been considered by Koch.35 She refers to sixteen followers from the period of Nitokris through Ankhnesneferibre; however, two of those sixteen she actually lists with dates in the 25th dynasty, so before Nitokris, though neither is well-established and, so far as I can tell after cursory examination, neither is more closely datable than generally to the cusp of the 25th and 26th dynasties.36 Evidence from the twenty-sixth dynasty is more frequent and indicates a ramified structure, since the women involved
32 C. Koch, op. cit., p. 42-44, p. 48 n. 423. O. Perdu, op. cit., 2012, p. 151 n. 12 notes a new statue of Akhamenru (where his mother is named as Nyankhduatnetjer, presumably a service name for Mereskhonsu), and a further statue is noted in M. Page-Gasser et al., Égypte. Moments d’éternité : art égyptien dans les collections privées, Suisse (exh. cat. Geneva), 1997, p. 226-228, which is certainly the same statue as E. Graefe, “Nachträge und Korrekturen zum Korpus der Funktionäre der Gottesgemahlinnen des Amun,” CdE 87 (2012), p. 26 1h. 33 H. De Meulenaere – M.-P. Vanlathem, “La stèle JE 44268 du Musée du Caire”, REAC 10 (2008), p. 35-40. That Akhamenru is son of Paherisedjem, his mother is unnamed. He writes his name once with no determinative in the lunette of the stela, and once with the špss figure in the text. 34 For instance, I. Guermeur, Les cultes d’Amon hors de Thèbes : Recherches de géographie religieuse (BEHE Section des sciences religieuses ; v. 123), 2005, p. 579-581 discusses Tanis, Sema-behdet and Xois as locations that at this time had ramified cults of Amun including Khonsu; in such places one might anticipate theophoric names related to the cult. 35 C. Koch, op. cit., p. 82-86. 36 Id., ibid., p. 83. Her no. 1 was only known from a description, and had been dated Dynasty 25/26 by Graefe based on its presumed closeness to British Museum 8504, although K. Janssen-Winkeln, op. cit., p. 343 dates it to the dynasty 25 divine wives generally. For that matter, British Museum EA 8504 is dated to dynasty 26 by P. Munro, Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen, 1973, p. 220-221 (dates: 650-630 BC) and M. L. Bierbrier, Hieroglyphic texts from Egyptian stelae, etc., in the British Museum, Part 11, 1987, p. 27-28, pl. 48-49. Koch’s no. 2 appears on a coffin at Emory, which was dated to the 25th dynasty in P. Lacovara – B. Teasley-Trope, The Realm of Osiris: Mummies, Coffins, and Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art in the Michael C. Carlos Museum, 2001, p. 53-55: John Taylor (email August 4, 2014) suggests a date of about 670-660 for the Emory coffin based on style, in the absence of a firm dating.
RdE 66 (2015) 40 M. HILL may be šmswt n dwꜢt-nṯr, šmswt ῾Ꜣt n dwꜢt-nṯr or ḥrỉt šmswt n dwꜢt-nṯr. Many highly placed women, some of them exceptionally so such as Mutirdis, held the position, but the status of others is not obvious. Mereskhonsu, the mother of the Chief Steward Akhamenru, would be one of the earliest attested great followers. It is, however, actually difficult to specify whether her date should be late 25th in Thebes (i.e. 664-656) or early 26th. Although one statue of Akhamenru bears the name of Tanwetamani, there is not good understanding of the holders of the office of Chief Steward between the adoption of Nitokris in 656 and the date she actually takes office in 639.37 Koch’s careful study proposes Shepenwepet II only began service between 678 and 671, and in addition dismisses Amenirdis II as an actual independent reign; she notes that Shepenwepet II could have then been adopted quite young by Amenirdis I while Piye still lived, entered into service in the 670s and then lasted until Nitokris entered into service in 639.38 Lower date possibilities for Shepenwepet II affect potential timespans of Akhamenru and his mother Mereskhonsu. Nothing much is known about what the women bearing this title do as they do not seem to have been precisely cult functionaries like singers and others; an exceptional title borne by the ḥrỉt šmswt n dwꜢt-nṯr Mutirdis suggested to Koch the possibility of an association with the palace of the Divine Adoratress,39 which resonates somewhat with one of the use possibilities discussed further below. It would also not be surprising if gifts to the cult were associated with the position40. After exploring these various avenues, what is it possible to say about the intended destination and purpose of the small pendant? The choice of the goddess Nephthys is not an obvious one. Nephthys’ most familiar identity was simply as sister of Osiris and pair of his sister-wife Isis; she had no independ- ent cult temple in this or her other roles. Based on the goddess’ epithets the gilded silver statuette does not appear to relate to any overtly Osirian context. But Nephthys’ identity has other currents. A recent dissertation underscores that from earliest times, she is a sort of goddess of royalty, probably a Mistress of the Palace in the way Isis is Mistress of the Throne.41 Moreover, Nephthys by the Ptolemaic Period is also a fiery, frightening protec- tive goddess, but she certainly already possessed dangerous protective aspects in the Third
37 C. Koch, op. cit., p. 12-15 38 Id., ibid., p. 42-44 for the succession of Shepenwepet II and, p. 48 n. 423 for her term; p. 44-50 for the “problem” of Amenirdis II. 39 Id., ibid., p. 83. 40 Petrie Museum UC36443, a bronze feline headed Bastet (h. 15.5 cm; formerly holding attributes, presumably a sis- trum and menat, names Ankhnesneferibre and also the great follower Ankhduatnetjer; C. Koch, op. cit., no. 6 p. 84; add to that bibliography K. Jansen-Winkeln, Inschriften der Spätzeit. IV. Die 26. Dynastie, 2014, p. 748 no. 59.121. 41 J. Lévai, Aspects of the Goddess Nephthys, especially during the Graeco-Roman Period in Egypt (Dissertation, Brown University), 2007, p. 19-45.
RdE 66 (2015) A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU 41
Intermediate Period: see, for example, the spacer in plate II.42 And, Frederic Payraudeau has recently pointed out in relation to the gilded silver triad of Takelot II that Nephthys has acquired an association with the sun-god Re-Harakhty (at Thebes Amun-Re) by means of the close identification between Osiris and Re-Harakhty already operative since the Egyptian New Kingdom and only intensifying during the Third Intermediate Period: on the triad in question, presumed to originate in Thebes, Nephthys is depicted in just such a con- text, and receives epithets characteristic of a royal goddess (granting heb-seds) in that instance.43 Dedication and use occasions and sites within greater Karnak could exist, particularly if Nephthys had been evoked as accompanying Amun-Re-Re-Harakhty-Osiris. But other contexts too are possible. Particular chapels at North Karnak have more specific connec- tions to the God’s Wife. Shepenwepet II built a chapel to Osiris in his aspect Osiris-Pa- ankh-Djed in North Karnak. The chapel is destroyed, but presumably stood in the area of the Amun-Re-Monthu precinct. Fragments remain depicting the Divine Wife performing actions and receiving them, notably she is shown in a heb-sed kiosk; other fragments remain depicting the Divine Wife followed by Akhamenru, whose father is certainly referred to.44 Although more cannot be said for sure, it is certainly possible other members of his family were named or otherwise participated in endowing the chapel in order share in the access and benefits deriving from Akhamenru’s position and works. Nephthys could either be evoked to support the cult focus or in order to support the God’s Wife, as god- desses do sometimes reward the Divine wife in the chapels,45 although, as noted above, the gilded silver statuette’s epithets do not here suggest any association. A second possibility as a use context might be the palace of the God’s Wife believed to have been at Naga Malgata in North Karnak, documentation of which was recently gath- ered and discussed.46 A palace was built for Amenirdis I, probably in this same area, but extant remains belong to structures of Nitokris and Ankhnesneferibre. Two stelae survive that are likely attributable to this site, one depicting Ankhnesneferibre given life by Hathor-Nebethetepet and the other depicting her given life by Nephthys.47 Coulon attrib- utes the presence of the first to the parallelism between the God’s Wife of Amun and
42 Id., ibid., p. 61-62. The spacer in question is New York, Brooklyn Museum 49.30, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund. Edward Bleiberg, Curator, and Kathy Zurek-Doule kindly provided the photograph. 43 Fr. Payraudeau, op. cit., p. 201-207. 44 Conveniently, C. Koch, op. cit., p. 128-9; M. F. Ayad, God’s Wife, God’s Servant: The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740- 525 BC), 2009, p. 110-115. 45 M. F. Ayad, ibid., p. 82-86 and her plates 2.20b and 2.21a. 46 L. Coulon, “The Quarter of the Divine Adoratrices at Karnak (Naga Malgata) during the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty: Some hitherto unpublished epigraphic material,” in E. Pischikova – J. Budka – K. Griffin (eds.), Thebes in the First Millennium BC, 2014, p. 565-585. 47 L. Coulon, op. cit., p. 78-81. For the Boston stela with Nephthys, see W. K. Simpson, “A Relief of a Divine Votaress in Boston,” CdE 57 (1982), p. 231-235.
RdE 66 (2015) 42 M. HILL
Hathor-Nebethetepet who is the God’s Hand of Atum, but the existence of the Nephthys stela suggests to him there may have been several stela including Nephthys and Isis, and he suggests the stelae might have in some sense marked off the palace. In any event, it is possible to think of the gilded silver pendant of Nephthys as essentially prefiguring those stelae and connected in some way with the functioning and/or personnel of that palace during the time of Shepenwepet II. In terms of the actual manner in which this particular pendant might have been used, the restricted range of Nephthys in general, and the fairly non-specific nature of the god- dess’ epithets along with her apparent representation here independently of a triad would seem to fit best a role in a group of protective goddesses like that posited by Coulon. The fact that a Divine Wife is not named as a beneficiary makes it more difficult to imagine that the pendant was intended to be worn by the Divine Wife or her statue, appurtenances or properties; one wonders whether the pendant might have been worn by Mereskhonsu her- self in connection with a role in the entourage of the Divine Wife.
Résumé / Abstract
L’article présente un pendentif dit “de temple” en argent doré à l’effigie de Nephthys. Inscrit pour Mereskhonsou, il semble avoir appartenu à Mereskhonsou “grande suivante de l’Épouse divine” Shepenoupet II et mère de l’Intendant en chef Akhamenrou.
The article reports on a gilded silver “temple pendant” of Nephthys inscribed for Mereskhonsu, suggesting it belonged to the Mereskhonsu who was a “great follower of the God’s Wife” Shepenwepet II and the mother of the Chief Steward Akhamenru.
RdE 66 (2015) A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU 43
APPENDIX
TECHNICAL EXAMINATION OF THE TEMPLE PENDANT OF THE GODDESS NEPHTHYS (MMA 2014.159)
DEBORAH SCHORSCH Department of Objects Conservation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
This figure of Nephthys newly acquired by The Metropolitan Museum of Art was constructed from a number of cast and hammered gilded silver components joined with solder. Her body and each of her arms are separate, solid, lost-wax casts. Solder joins between the torso and the arms can be discerned in a frontal view radiograph, and greater or lesser accumulations of solder are visible under magnification along many of the other joins. The headdress itself is constructed from two separate parts: the modius, which was certainly cast, and two conjoined hieroglyphic elements that are likely to have been cast. The attachment loop behind the crown was made from of two rings, each hammered from a short thick rod and joined with solder side by side before they were soldered to Nephthys’s wig. The throne was constructed from several small pieces of hammered sheet, which are gilded only on their exterior surfaces. Each of the two sides appears a separate sheet; a wide band of silver sheet that runs along the top of plinth from the back serves as the front and the seat of the throne and curves up behind the goddess’s derriere. The front of the throne would originally have been folded up so as to be parallel to the goddess’s legs, but it has slumped and now is fused to her thighs with silver corrosion products. The pres- ence of massive iron corrosion, inside the throne is curious. It appears to be the remains of an iron element that was inside the throne rather than corrosion that migrated from an object buried nearby; no immediate explanation can be formulated on the basis of surviv- ing material evidence or by example. Pressure due to the increase in volume of the iron corrosion with respect to the original iron metal may be responsible for deforming the front of the throne. Tool marks on the exposed edge of an upright vertical sheet at the back of the throne suggest that this element may have been trimmed in modern times. Where this component originally would have joined the underside of the seat, however, is not evident. The plinth on which the throne rests is also a separate cast or hammered sheet component. The linear details on the figure including the eyes and elaboration of the wig, and the bands of a beaded broad collar, were scored; teardrop beads hanging from the collar were produced using a punch. On the small surviving proper right fragment of the throne are
RdE 66 (2015) 44 M. HILL traces of a scored feather pattern; fragments of the front and back also retain some scored patterning. A bolder hand scored the inscription on the underside of the plinth. An odd variant of the n (water) sign, usually written as a zigzag band, is here a string of dots pro- duced with a round punch between two scored triangular terminals. A row of angled punch marks over or under a straight line to indicate this hieroglyph, probably made with a chas- ing tool held perpendicular to the metal, has been observed on a number of precious metal objects, noted in the main article above (the Amarna Period miniature gold element, the silver falcon-headed sarcophagus of Sheshonq II, and the gilded silver plinth from a lost triad of Takelot II). This style of representation, however, seems less abstract – and is per- haps a form of shorthand – than the n sign on the figure of Nephthys, which may be a personal idiosyncrasy of the craftsman. This question will certainly remain open until a second occurrence of this peculiar form is observed. An additional, possibly personal, peculiarity is the use of single and double lines within the inscription and even within indi- vidual hieroglyphs, such as the ḥ῾ỉ (rejoicing man) sign. All surfaces of the figure and the plinth, including its underside, were originally gilded. As noted above, this is also the case for the throne, except for the interior. The gold layers are relatively thick – the starting product was probably a foil – and it appears to have been applied using a diffusion bonding technique, by which the gold was metallurgically bonded to the silver substrate through repeated burnishing and heating, simultaneously and in alter- nation. This method is attested on ancient Near Eastern as well as Greek, Etruscan, and Roman gilded silver substrates.48 Diffusion bonding was likely used also in Egypt, but its possible occurrence has not yet been systematically investigated. When first retrieved, the statue was surely covered with a thick accumulation of silver corrosion; x-ray fluorescence surface analysis suggests the presence of bromium chlorar- gyrite, orembolite [Ag(ClBr)] or a mixture of cerargyrite (AgCl) and bromyrite (AgBr). Subjected to mechanical and chemical cleaning, different components and surfaces cur- rently reflect different degrees of intervention and states of preservation. Most of the mas- sive silver corrosion products were removed from the figure and the plinth to expose the original gilded surfaces. Redeposited silver, probably a side effect of an electrochemical reduction treatment carried out subsequent to mechanical cleaning, is present particularly on the top and bottom of the plinth. Where the gold layer was no longer intact, the massive purplish-grey silver corrosion was carved back and burnished to be flush with surviving gilded surfaces, thus approximating the figure’s original contours. In some areas where the surface was aggressively cleaned, the gold layer is partially abraded away. Massive silver
48 W. A. Oddy, “Gilding of Metals in the Old World,” in S. La Niece – P. T. Craddock, Metal Plating and Patination: Cultural, Technical and Historical Developments, 1993, p. 171-181, see p. 176-177; W. A. Oddy – S. La Niece – J. E. Curtis – N. D. Meeks, “Diffusion Bonding as a Method of Gilding in Antiquity.” MASCA 1, 9 (1981), p. 239-241.
RdE 66 (2015) A GILDED-SILVER PENDANT OF NEPHTHYS NAMING MERESKHONSU 45 corrosion remains intact on the loops. Numerous round depressions pock the surface of the figure. Whether these are traces of ancient workmanship or relate to a modern intervention has not yet been determined. The black tarnish film overlying some of the cleaned areas is presumably relatively recent in origin.
Résumé / Abstract
Annexe détaillant les caractéristiques de construction, les techniques de décoration et l’état de la petite statuette d’argent doré de Nephthys.
The appendix details features of construction, techniques of decoration, and the condition of the small gilded silver statuette of Nephthys.
RdE 66 (2015)
REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE t. 66 (2015) Pl. I
Nephthys, Metropolitan Museum of Art 2014.259 : front view, three-quarter view, left side, and back (Photographs courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).
M. Hill, A gilded-silver pendant of Nephthys naming Mereskhonsu
REVUE D’ÉGYPTOLOGIE t. 66 (2015) Pl. II
Nephthys, Metropolitan Museum of Art 2014.259 : right side and inscription on underside of plinth (Photographs courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York).
Jewelry spacer, Brooklyn Museum, 49.30, 2.7 × 7 × 5 cm; provenance not known. (Photograph courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, New York).
M. Hill, A gilded-silver pendant of Nephthys naming Mereskhonsu