Excavating Paper Squeezes: Identifying the value of nineteenth and early twentieth century squeezes of ancient Egyptian monuments, through the collections of seven UK archives. by Charlotte Booth A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of History and Cultures Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology University of Birmingham May 2018 1 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ‘Paper impressions or ‘squeezes’, of sculptures, which are invaluable for study, but which are too readily thrown aside and lost,’ Petrie’s Introductory Lecture.1 1 Quoted in Janssen 1992: 99. 1 Contents Acknowledgements 6 Figure References 7 Chapter 1 – Introduction 10 Travellers to Egypt 10 Squeezes for Research 14 Squeezes in Archives 16 Methodology 20 The Data 27 Matching the Squeezes 28 History of Squeeze-making 29 Research Question 30 Chapter 2 – Squeeze Definitions 32 Paper Squeezes 32 Latex Squeezes 33 Dry Squeezing 34 Chapter 3 – Literature Review 39 Overview 39 Squeeze Production 42 Identification of Individual Blocks 48 Study of Tombs 52 Scenes Represented 58 Whole Squeeze Collections 62 Museum and Collection Studies 65 Heritage Crime 73 Conclusions 76 Chapter 4 – Current Squeeze Projects 78 Smithsonian Institution Squeeze Imaging Project, USA 78 Cornell University Library Conservation Project, USA 81 The Canadian Epigraphic Mission of Xanthos Letoon (Lycia) Project 82 2 Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies of the University of British Columbia, Canada 84 Biblioteca e Archivi di Egittologia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy 85 Griffith Institute, University of Oxford, UK 86 Egypt Exploration Society, London 87 Discussion 87 Chapter 5 – Collecting Paper Impressions 91 Professional Egyptologists 91 Earliest Squeezes 92 Petrie and the BAAS 96 Tourists collecting Squeezes 107 The End of the Road for Squeezes 110 Squeezes as Souvenirs 114 Chapter 6 – Making Squeezes 118 Casts 118 Materials of Squeezes 125 Practicalities of Squeeze-making 126 Latex Impressions 134 Discussion on Experiments (See Appendix 2) 136 Chapter 7 – Value of a Squeeze 141 Impact of a Negative Reputation 141 Damage to Painted Surfaces 142 The Impact of subscription Incentives on Inscriptions 145 Post-2011 Heritage Crime 147 Combating the Antiquities Black Market 151 Squeezes and Heritage Crime 156 Epigraphic Value 157 Evolving Use/Evolving Value 159 Assessing the Meaning of Value 161 3 Squeezes as Authentic Art 163 Cast Galleries 171 Rubbish Theory 173 Reserve Collections 181 Financial Value 184 Artefact Disposal 188 Conclusions 195 Chapter 8 – Discussion on Seven UK Collections 201 Introduction 201 Collecting the Squeezes 205 Analysing the Collections 206 Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London: (P001–P016) 207 City Museum, Leeds: (L001 – L022) 210 Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery – B001–B014 214 Marischal Museum, University of Aberdeen M001–M065 216 Duplication 222 Tomb of Khaemhat (TT57) 223 Tomb of Sety I (KV17) 225 Tomb of Paser (TT106) 227 The Collection, Lincoln 228 Unprovenanced 242 Preferred Squeezes 243 Egypt Exploration Society, London E001–E090 243 Group 1: Dr Hans Alexander Winkler group E001–E002 245 Group 2 – 'Temples of Armant 1936: stone register' E003–E024 246 Group 3 – Norman de Garis Davies Sheikh Said Tombs E025–E040 248 Value of the Sheikh Said Squeezes 254 Group 4 – Amarah West/ Sesebi (?) E041–E050 255 Group 5 – Blackman / Fairman 1936 – 1937 – Sesebi E051–E090 257 Group 6 – Miscellaneous 262 University of Aberdeen, Special Collections, Aberdeen (A001 – A068) 263 Colour Transference 272 Damaged and missing monuments 277 Method of Manufacture 280 4 Joining numerous sheets together 280 Dry squeezing 283 Different types of paper 284 Tourist Industry 285 Unmatched 286 Conclusion 288 Chapter 9 – Lost Information 290 Missing Inscriptions 290 Damaged Inscriptions 295 Chapter 10 – Discussion on the Database 310 CD-ROM Appendix 1 317 Chapter 11 – The Future for Squeeze Studies 319 3D One-to-One Reconstructions 320 Presenting Squeezes to the Public 322 Visitor Interaction 324 Virtual Heritage 325 3D Digital Projects 328 The Role of Squeezes 323 Appendix 1 – The Catalogue (see enclosed CD) 336 Appendix 2 – Experimental Squeeze-making 337 Appendix 3 – Example of Conservation Report (Bristol City Museum) 344 Bibliography 346 Plate credits 370 Plates 5 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Martin Bommas and Dr John Carmen for offering useful suggestions and guiding me through my research at the University of Birmingham. The museum collections featured in the catalogue would not have been possible were it not for the very helpful staff: Dr Chris Naunton and Carl Graves at the EES, London; Tracey Golding and Dr Debbie Challis, Petrie Museum, London; Amber Druce from the Bristol City Museum; Antony Lee from The Collection, Lincoln; Katherine Baxter from Leeds City Museum; Louise Marie Sarah Wilkie from the Marischal Museum, Aberdeen and Michelle Gait from The Special Collection, University of Aberdeen. Additional information was provided by Dr Marie Bryan, previously of Chicago House Library, Luxor; Michael Jones, ARCE, Cairo; Benet Salway, UCL; Dr Silke Grallert, Berlin- Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; Klaus Finneiser, Staatliche Museum, Berlin; Elizabeth David, Musée du Louvre and Eva Hoffman, Heidelberg. I would like to thank Peter Haarer, University of Oxford, for allowing me to attend the Epigraphy Workshop in Oxford and for making special arrangements for Egyptian artefacts to be available to study. Additional thanks to Trish Lee for proofreading the final draft. Special thanks go to Brian Billington for sponsoring my studies at the University of Birmingham and for providing some of the photographs through his company BKB Photography. When carrying out research over such a long period of time there are many people you meet along the way that provide ideas and spark ‘eureka’ moments and I would like to ensure that they are all aware they are greatly appreciated even if they are not named. 6 Figure References Charts Chart 1 –Colour distribution on the verso of squeezes. Figures Figure 1 – Tin Squeeze made by Victor Loret. (Photo courtesy of Biblioteca e Archivi di Egittologia, Università degli Studi di Milano.) Figure 2 – Cast made from a squeeze from the Mastaba of Akhethetep. (Photo de Garis Davies 1901: Frontispiece.) Figure 3 – Seventeenth century squeeze. Rostgaard nr. 28. (Photograph from Kragelund 2009: 139.) Figure 4 – Northern Race from the tomb of Merenptah. Painted Squeeze/Cast. (Photograph courtesy of the Petrie Museum.) Figure 5 – British Museum painted casts from Beit el Wali. (Photograph from Wikimedia commons taken by Andres Rueda.) Figure 6 – Still from the movie ‘Blackmail’, (Photo from thehitchcockreport.wordpress.com). Figure 7 – Squeezes on display in the Leeds Museum. (Photograph courtesy of David Strike.) Figure 8 – The tomb of Khaemhat in 1884, as recorded by Loret. (Photograph courtesy of Universita degli Studi di Milano.) Figure 9 – Layout of TT57, the tomb of Khaemhat with squeeze placements Figure 10 – Placement of squeezes in the tomb of Sety I (KV17). Figure 11 – Tomb of Paser (TT106). L011 (Left) and L015 (Right) as they would be on the north-eastern wall of the first chamber. (Image adapted from one held at the Leeds Museum and Gallery.) Figure 12 – Kom Ombo, 1850. F.Firth courtesy of Library of Congress. 7 Figure 13 – Deir el Bahri 1895. (Photograph by Anonymous courtesy of the Griffith Institute.) Figure 14 – First court of Luxor Temple, 1890. (Photograph by A. Beato Somers Clark. Griffith Institute.) Figure 15 – Placement of G049 G052 G051 and G050 (left to right) in the tomb of Khnumhotep II. Figure 16 – Placement of squeezes on the Armant Stela. (Image adapted from Mond, R. and Myers, O. 1940.) Figure 17 – Living Paintings mould for their Touch to See books. (Photograph and mould provided by Living Paintings.) Figure 18 – Above: The author making a squeeze. Figure 19 – Top Right: Squeeze 008 of the Ramose stela Figure 20 – Bottom Right: Squeeze 016 of the Ramses III stela. Tables Table 1 – Smithsonian squeezes and how they correlate with the Booth catalogue. Table 2 – Scenes from Khaemhat (TT57) repeated in more than one collection. Table 3 – Duplicated Scenes from the tomb of Sety I (KV17). Table 4 – Squeeze location on tomb of Serfka. Table 5 – Squeeze location on tomb of Urarna. Table 6 – Squeeze location on tomb of Hepa. Table 7 – Squeeze location on tomb of Imhetep. Table 8 – Squeeze location on tomb of Meru. Table 9 – Stelae in the Anastasi Collection. Table 10 – Unidentified stelae in the Anastasi Collection. 8 Table 11 – Identified stelae not from the Anastasi Collection. Table 12 – The colour transference on the squeezes in the catalogue. Table 13 – The squeezes which are in better condition than the original monument. Table 14 – Unmatched squeezes. Table 15 – Results of experimental squeeze-making. 9 Chapter 1 Introduction