At the beginning of September Paul Collins came to the Essex Egyptology Group to talk to us about the influences that Uruk culture (in Mesopotamia) and Proto-Elamite culture (in Iran) had on Predynastic & Early Dynastic Egypt. He's not an egyptologist - his research interests include the material culture of ancient Iraq & Iran in the late 4th Millennium BCE, and the transmission of artistic forms across the Near East and Egypt.

He began with a discussion of historical explanations and ideas about these influences. It begins, as so much of Egyptology does, with Petrie whose work on pottery from Naqada is still the foundation of our understanding of the chronology of Predynastic Egypt today. Petrie also worked at Koptos and Abydos - the royal tombs at Abydos date to the Early Dynastic period. They are an expression of the great power of the Egyptian state at this time and the resources it commanded - including associated burials of sacrificial victims. The site of Hierakonpolis is another key site in early Egypt, including both a settlement and burials which also demonstrate a centralisation of regional power at the site. This is ancient Nekhen, which Renee Friedman talked to the EEG about in November 2014 (my write up).

The Scorpion Macehead

Scorpion Macehead

Several objects that define kingship in Egypt for a modern audience date to this period, and Collins showed us photographs of some of them. One is, of course, the Narmer palette with an early depiction of the smiting scene that kings used throughout the history of Pharaonic Egypt to show their power. The Scorpion macehead now in the Ashmolean shows the king taking part in an irrigation ceremony, another part of the iconography of kingship. But along with this imagery that becomes part of the canon of Egyptian iconography there are other images from this time period that don't seem to "fit". For instance the decoration on the Painted Tomb (Tomb 100) at Hierakonpolis includes motifs that don't show up later in Egyptian imagery - for example in middle left of the picture below you can see a man holding two beasts. This motif is also on the handle of a knife referred to as the Gebel al Arak knife. Another motif that shows up on both the Narmer palette and the Two Dog palette (see picture further below) as well as other places is that of serpopards - composite creatures with the body of a feline and the neck & head of a snake, often shown with entwined necks.

Pre-Dynastic Egypt Exhibit

The background to this display in the Ashmolean Museum is a replica of the Painted Tomb at Hierakonpolis

These motifs all fit better with the contemporary iconography of Mesopotamia, rather than with that of Egypt. And it's not just the imagery - the distinctive architecture of Predynastic Egypt with niches & buttresses also has similarities to contemporary Mesopotamian architecture. In an Egyptian context it's referred to as the palace facade, and is found both in archaeological evidence and in imagery (like the Horus name of the king which is enclosed in a representation of a palace facade). In the Mesopotamian context it's referred to as the temple facade, and is again found in both architecture and imagery.

So there is a cultural connection here to be explained, and Petrie provided a theory - that Egyptian civilisation as we usually think of it is the result of the movement of a new race into Egypt at the end of the Predynastic period, specifically a northern (white) race. As Collins pointed out these days that's a racist idea, but in the late 19th & early 20th Centuries this was standard scientific thinking. Petrie & other archaeologists did a lot of measuring of skulls and assigning them to races to see what a population consisted of. Of course they assigned those with larger brain cases to white "civilised" people, and used this to back up the idea of a new race arriving from the north.

Petrie's explanation was accepted well into the 1960s, but in the 1970s & 80s this changed and scholarship shifted to looking at internal developments. And once scholars were looking for it there was plenty of evidence that the motifs and imagery of Egyptian civilisation had grown out of older Predynastic imagery that reflected local culture and the local environment. So it is now accepted that Egyptian civilisation emerges from a long local tradition and was not imported by a new ruling class. There is, however, still a cultural connection with Mesopotamia that needs to be explained.

Having set the scene from the Egyptian perspective Collins now moved on to tell us about Mesopotamia during this time period (late 4th Millennium BCE). Mesopotamia is a Greek term for "land between rivers", and in the context of the ancient Near East it is a region that covers modern Iraq & eastern Syria. The key site in this period is Uruk, which is a city in southern Mesopotamia on the Euphrates river. This area of Mesopotamia is a vast river delta that is largely waterlogged. Transport is easy along the many river channels, although these are also prone to flooding. This is an environment with parallels to the Egyptian Delta. The river channels are also prone to flooding and will change course relatively often, as a result there are not many sites suitable for permanent settlement. Uruk is built on one of the more stable spots - today it is dry and far from the ocean, but when it was in its heyday it was on the river & closer to the open ocean. During the 4th Millennium BCE it was the largest concentrated urban settlement in the world.

Uruk was excavated in the early 20th Century. The main area of excavation was the centre of Uruk around the ziggurat (which is a structure from a later period than the late 4th Millennium BCE). There was a religious precinct around the ziggurat which does date back to the right period, that was called Eanna in later records. In this area of the city were several monumental buildings made of mudbrick. Collins demonstrated what he meant by "monumental" by showing us a plan of these buildings and then added the Parthenon onto the plan at the same scale. Each of these buildings was of a similar size to the Parthenon - built some 3000 years or more before it. They were made of very regular mudbricks, each about the size of a modern London brick. The structure was decorated with cone mosaics. These were made from clay cones which were baked & coloured on the flat end. Each cone was then pushed into the plaster. This isn't purely decorative, it also served to protect the mudbricks from the elements. The sheer amount of work required to build and then decorate buildings on this scale demonstrate the power available to make it happen.

During this period the society of Uruk began to develop technology for the administration of people and resources, and Collins talked us through some examples. One is the development of record keeping. First by collecting together tokens to represent the number of objects (or people etc), and then the development of proto-writing using a number of impressions in a clay tablet to represent the number plus a symbol to represent what was counted. Collins pointed out that these clay tablets with their grids of numbers are in their own way just like spreadsheets! Another technology was the use of a standard measure. This grew out of the practicalities of how bread was made - in Uruk bread was baked in pottery bowls called beveled rim bowls. These bowls were mass-produced in their thousands and discarded after use. As they were all the same size they became a standard measure, not just to measure out one portion of bread but a portion of other things too. The Uruk culture also began to use stamp seals to demonstrate ownership of goods or to control access to rooms.

Collins told us that at this time the hierarchy begins to be expressed through imagery. Simple stamp seals developed into cylinder seals which let the seal owner show off their status via more elaborate imagery. This sort of imagery also begins to appear on vessels, which have long registers of imagery that look almost like seals rolled out.

In the 4th Millennium BCE Uruk type features start to be found in places that are quite distant from Uruk itself. These sites in places like eastern Syria were excavated in the later 20th Century. Collins took us through a few examples to show us the different sorts of contexts that Uruk artifacts & technology show up in. The first place he talked about was Habuba Kabira in modern Syria. It's a long way north of Uruk on the Euphrates River, perhaps a week's journey at the time. It's also a very different environment to that of Uruk - instead of aluvial plain it is situated in a steppeland. The settlement here is laid out from scratch, in a similar layout to Uruk using the same standard Uruk mudbricks. The are monumental buildings just like those at Uruk, cone mosaics and all. It's a very large scale settlement, completely unlike anything in the local area at that date and uninhabited before the Uruk-type settlement is built. As Collins pointed out, the fact that the people of Uruk were able to do this demonstrates the incredible amount of power & resources at the disposal of their elites.

Hacinebi Tepe is a different sort of site where Uruk culture begins to show up around 3400 BCE. It's in the foothills of the Taurus mountains and there is a local settlement there that pre-dates the arrival of Uruk features. It is sophisticated and administratively organised in its own right before beveled rim bowls start to show up in some areas of the settlement. After this there are some specific areas of the settlement where the Uruk artifacts are found, and the two cultures appear to have co-existed side by side with no mixing for a long time.

Tel Brak (in modern Syria) was excavated in the late 1990s through to the 21st Century. It was very ancient by the late 4th Millennium BCE dating back to at least the 5th Millennium BCE. Again in the time period Collins was discussing Uruk pottery began to show up in the archaeological record of the city, and after this one area of the settlement has the features of late Uruk culture, with an Uruk style monumental building in another area of the settlement.

The last of the sites that Collins told us about was Godin Tepe which is in modern Iran. It sits on the trade routes to the east which would later become known as the Silk Road. The site is a circular fort that overlooks the valley - controlling passage along that route. It's a local settlement, almost all locally made except a few Uruk style vessels and administrative tools.

Collins summarised this last part of the talk by discussing how this evidence is interpreted. The various sites are "colonised" over a 500 year period, and to varying degrees. So clearly this is not one single expansion and perhaps not one explanation. The traditional explanation is control of trade, in particular of stone, metal and wood. But there's no real evidence in Uruk of this trade, so there must be some other explanation. Other possibilities include the idea that these settlements are something to do with textile production & trade. Uruk cylinder seals generally have designs related to labour on them, and they are often related to textile production so this must've been important to the economy of Uruk. It is also possible that these settlements were to exploit the pasturelands of the north, or perhaps a straightforward migration of people to establish a new colony (like the Greeks & Phoenicians did much later).

The key point is that southern Mesopotamia was the core of the Uruk culture settlements, with some further afield peripheral sites. Some of these were closer to Egypt and so provide routes for contact between the two cultures.

After a break for coffee and cake Collins returned to the connections between Egyptian culture and Uruk culture, first posing the question: Why would Egypt want connections with Mesopotamia? At the time Egypt had all the resources it needed to function and for the elites to express their power. The earliest evidence of a connection between the two regions comes from cylinder seals. These are by design small & portable, so their arrival in Egypt is possibly accidental and doesn't necessarily require the direct intervention of people. A seal could've fallen into goods that were being traded. These start showing up in the Egyptian archaeological record around 3000 BCE, in graves. They are decorated in the same way as the Mesopotamian ones. But whereas in Uruk they are administrative tools, in Egypt they are treated as exotic & precious objects. They appear in Egyptian graves in association with lapis lazuli beads, and Collins explained that this is the key to the Egyptian connection with Mesopotamia. Lapis lazuli is only found in Afghanistan and in both Egypt and Uruk it was associated with the gods as well as being immensely valuable due to its scarcity. So this is something that is worth trading for across such vast distances.

The imagery on the cylinder seals from Uruk parallel the "odd" imagery in Predynastic Egypt that Collins opened the talk with. The boxes that contained the lapis lazuli were almost certainly sealed with impressions from cylinder seals, which provides another route for this imagery to come to Egypt (as well as on the seals themselves). So by the association with lapis lazuli the imagery would become high status in its own right - and would be added to local Egyptian elite objects to express their "otherworldly" status. For instance the Mesopotamian style of art in long registers which developed out of seal impressions begins to show up in Egyptian art. Collins showed us examples of combs with parallel lines of animals - local African animals, but this new Mesopotamian layout.

"Two Dog Palette"

"Two Dog Palette"

Two Dog Palette, front (above) and reverse (below)

Critically there is no indication that the imagery is accompanied by people, or by the culture of Uruk. Instead the imagery is used in different ways and with different associations in the two cultures. For instance the serpopards on the Two Dog Palette (see above) are under the control of dogs, and on the Narmer Palette they are controlled by people. This is Egyptian royal propaganda - showing that these otherworldly and exotic beasts are under the control of the king.

Before he wrapped up his talk Collins fulfilled the promise of the title and told us a bit about Iran. Between 3200 & 2900 BCE the culture in the Zagros Mountains was that which we now call the Proto-Elamite culture. This region is also on the lapis lazuli trade route, so Collins said it was another piece in the jigsaw puzzle of evidence for the "odd" imagery in Predynastic Egypt. They made use of some of the Uruk administrative technology - archaeologists have found clay tablets with Proto-Elamite writing on them, which is a unique script that has not yet been deciphered. They also used cylinder seals. Interestingly the imagery on these seals does not include any human figures. When they wanted to represent human activities they would use an animal in the place of the figure of a person. Collins showed us examples which included a standing figure of a bull in a boat, and of a standing bull holding two lions in a similar pose to the one on the wall of the Painted Tomb at Hierakonpolis (see photo earlier in this post). And if you look at the reverse of the Two Dog Palette, near the bottom left is an animal standing up & playing some sort of flute - a piece of Proto-Elamite imagery in a very Egyptian piece of art.

Collins concluded his talk by summing up all the threads of evidence. He said that in this period there is a sense of Mesopotamian and Proto-Elamite culture feeding into Egypt as part of the elite culture. When the Uruk culture ceases to be an international phenomenon at the end of the 4th Millennium BCE Egypt also abandons the Mesopotamian & Proto-Elamite flavoured imagery. In the Early Dynastic period there is a gap in imports of lapis lazuli to Egypt and Collins said that this lack of trade with the East meant that the imagery was also not reaching Egypt. So this period of the late 4th Millennium BCE was a unique moment where the expansion of southern Mesopotamian culture fed into the emerging Egyptian elite culture as exotic status symbols.

This was a really interesting talk - Collins gave us a view of the world outside Egypt's borders that early Egyptian culture was interacting with. And he also showed how the early Egyptian elites had something in common with more modern people - the impulse to use Mesopotamian imagery in their time sounds like it was born from much the same impulse as the Egyptianising architecture & design of the 19th & 20th Centuries in the West.

At the beginning of June Vincent Oeters returned to the Essex Egyptology Group to talk to us about some of his own work at Saqqara on a Ramesside era tomb chapel. This work is part of a long term on-going project which has been excavating south of the Causeway of Unas since 1975. Initially the project was a collaboration between the Museum at Leiden and the Egypt Exploration Society, then after 1998 the EES were no longer involved and the University of Leiden replaced them. Since 2015 the Turin Museum have also been part of the project.

Before telling us about the tomb chapel of Tatia, Oeters told us about the overall project. The genesis of the project was in the 1950s when the Museum began to investigate three statues which had been in the collection since 1828. They arrived without provenance, but were believed to be from Saqqara. The statues depict two people - Maya, the Overseer of the Treasury and Overseer of Works during the reign of Tutankhamun, and Merit, his wife who was a Chantress of Amun. One statue is of both of them, one is of him alone and one of her alone. On the map of Saqqara drawn by Lepsius in 1843 there is a tomb of Maya marked, and so the Museum wanted to excavate in that area - it took several years to get funding and the necessary permissions but they finally started work in 1975. Tombs have been discovered in their concession since 1975, although the tomb of Maya wasn't discovered until 1986. The first to be found was actually even more well known as it was the tomb that Horemheb was building for himself before he became Pharaoh.


Annotated satellite image of the tombs of Horemheb, Meryneith, Maya, Pay, Khay II and Tatia
made by me using an image from Google maps and information from Oeters's slides.

The tomb chapel of Tatia was found in 2009, which is the year that Oeters started work with the project. The team were excavating between the tombs of Horemheb, Meryneith and Pay. They first found a tomb belonging to a man named Khay (the second of that name in the area, so referred to as Khay II). Then as they were looking for a shaft from the substructure of another tomb (to avoid having to constantly go in & out of the temple part of the superstructure) they came across a slab which had no apparent text. When they uncovered the bottom of it there was an inscription - and Oeters was given this to study for his Master's thesis. It is the stela of a man called Tatia. It wasn't intact when discovered, but when they looked in their stores there were some previously excavated fragments that filled some of the gaps.

There are several scenes on this stela - there is a scene of Tatia in front of Osiris, there is a scene of Tatia about to slaughter an oryx (a sort of antelope associated with Seth) as a sacrifice in front of Re-Horakhty and a scene of Tatia and his wife receiving offerings with family members sitting in front of them. The scene of Tatia slaughtering an oryx is particularly interesting as it is a unique representation of a private individual performing this ritual, as far as Oeters can tell - normally this sort of scene has the Pharaoh performing this ritual. This is also the only scene in all the depictions of Tatia where he is wearing a wig, rather than being shown with a clean shaven bald head. This must have some significance, but Oeters is still trying to find out what that might be.

Tatia's titles were Priest of the Front of Ptah, With Access to the Gold House, Chief of the Goldsmiths. The first of these titles means that he was a priest who walked at the front of a procession, in front of the barque bearing the (statue of) the god Ptah. Three of the family members depicted also have names & titles - two of his sons were stablemasters and another son was also a Priest of the Front of Ptah and Goldsmith.

As they continued to excavate the area where the stela was found they uncovered a door jamb and eventually found all of a very small tomb chapel. Oeters was able to persuade the field directors to let him include the whole chapel in his Master's research. The door jambs of the chapel show a bald individual in a praising gesture, doubtless the tomb owner. On the south wall there is a relief of a harpist, a flute player and 3 seated figures (who are singers). There is a part of text still visible above the reliefs which is the words of a song - including the phrase "may Tatia live 110 years". The west wall of the chapel has a large gap where the stela would fit. Adjacent to the stela a relief was depicted on both sides of Tatia as a sem-priest before an offering table. This wall also shows signs of reuse of the tomb-chapel after Tatia's time - remains of mudbrick were found on top of what remains of the original chapel wall. The north wall has a scene of a funeral - the top of it is missing and the part that remains is very damaged. It depicts the mummy in front of the tomb being held by a priest whilst a sem-priest performs the opening of the mouth ritual.

The burial shaft was found nearby, but had been robbed in antiquity. Oeters told us that the robbers had built a mudbrick wall in & around the top of the shaft to stop the sand falling in whilst they were robbing the tomb. Under this wall were some intact bowls and dishes which had been preserved by the wall. The shaft itself is at a different angle to the tomb chapel - so it would seem to be an older one that Tatia reused. The shaft is 5.25m deep, with two chambers at the bottom, one to the north with a mummy niche and one to the south of the shaft. There were several breakthroughs to other tombs. The tomb was probably not properly finished before Tatia was buried in it - the floor is not the same level throughout, which it would've been if the tomb builders had finished their work. There were two fragments of papyrus found while clearing the shaft belonging to a man namer Suner, thus it seems likely that they just blew in from the surrounding area rather than having been placed in there with Tatia.

Tatia's tomb chapel is not the only small chapel in the area. There seems to have been a second wave of use of the site with several small 19th Dynasty chapels amongst & to the south of the larger 18th Dynasty ones. There are no hieroglyphs on the other small chapels, so they remain anonymous.

As part of his investigation of Tatia's chapel & stela Oeters tried to find parallels with other stelae. This isn't as straightforward to do as one might think - there isn't a convenient list or database, so he had to spend quite a bit of time searching to make sure he didn't miss any out. Eventually he looked at more than 900 stelae of the New Kingdom to compare to Tatia's stela. All of those that have direct parallels to the scenes seem to come from Saqqara and date to the same period.

Oeters also tried to find other references to Tatia, which lead him to another New Kingdom tomb at the Teti cemetery at Saqqara. This tomb belongs to a man called Mose, Scribe of the Treasury of Ptah. His tomb is famous for a text in it that details a legal dispute over the land of Mose's mother, which dates him & his family to the second half of the reign of Ramesses II. In this tomb there is also a scene of three couples receiving offerings - Mose & his wife, Mose's parents and a man called Tatia & his wife. Not only is Tatia a rare name, but also this Tatia has the same titles as the Tatia whose chapel Oeters was investigating. So it's very likely to be the same man. At the point at which he wrote up his Master's thesis Oeters believed the most plausible explanation was that Mose & Tatia were brothers. Between the two tombs he was able to draw up a conjectured family tree of three generations.

The titles held by Tatia are also rare. Oeters has only found five instances of Priest of the Front of Ptah, and they are all from tombs in that part of Saqqara. This indicates that the burials are clustered by profession rather than by family - which fits with Mose's tomb being elsewhere in Saqqara. As well as Tatia & his son, Khay II (the owner of the nearby tomb discovered just before Tatia's tomb) was one of these priests. Another was a man called Ny and the last was named Khaempet (and his stela is in the Louvre).

Since the Revolution the team have been excavating to the west of Tatia's tomb - in a burial shaft belonging to another tomb nearby more pieces of the wall of Tatia's tomb chapel were discovered. Oeters discovered these were part of the south wall, containing the start of the text of the song. There is still a chance of more pieces being discovered as there is an area to the south of Tatia's tomb (and north of Meryneith's tomb) which hasn't yet been excavated.

The excavation to the west of Tatia's tomb has also discovered a falcon statue. This was pretty exciting as it is the first animal statue the team has discovered since work on the site started in 1975! It's made of pretty poor quality limestone, and is also quite damaged, but it's still possible to make out a figure kneeling in front of the falcon. Oeters believes this statue was originally placed in Tatia's chapel, he has no concrete proof but he argues that the indirect evidence is convincing. It was found just behind Tatia's tomb chapel, and dates to the same era. Furthermore, there is a side annex to the south of the chapel proper which might be where the statue sat. There is a lot of falcon imagery on Tatia's stela, which is unique among the comparable stelae he's examined. And the limestone the falcon is made out of is the same sort of poor quality stone that the whole of Tatia's chapel is made from. He talked a little more about the limestone in the Q&A session at the end of the talk - in the 18th Dynasty the large tombs were built of mudbrick faced with good quality limestone, and between them they used up all the locally available good stone. By the time the 19th Dynasty tombs were built they had to make do with lower quality stone sourced from a little further away.

The last part of Oeters talk was about his investigation into the name Tatia, as it's a very unusual name for an Egyptian. He also used this part of the talk to illustrate how an archaeologist's theories can change significantly as more evidence comes to light. There is only one other place where there are references to Egyptians named Tatia - tomb TT106 in Luxor. This is the tomb of the Vizier Paser, who was vizier to Seti I and Ramesses II. There are two individuals depicted in this tomb called Tatia - 5 references to a Stablemaster Tatia who was brother of Paser, and 1 reference to a Tatia with no titles who was the grandfather of Paser. The name is spelt differently even within this one tomb, which leads Oeters to speculate that it could be a foreign name which has no standard spelling. The younger Tatia, the stablemaster, was particularly interesting to Oeters and he looked into the possibility that this was "his" Tatia from Saqqara. The dates of the two tombs make it possible that both these references are to a single individual who changes job and moves from Luxor to Saqqara. It's also notable that two of the children of Tatia named in the Saqqara tomb are stablemasters, and they are younger than the child who is a Priest of the Front of Ptah and Goldsmith like his father. So there might be a career path in this particular family - that the next step after stablemaster was to become this particular sort of priest, and to become a goldsmith. The stablemaster Tatia was named after his grandfather Tatia. There are also other names that overlap between the family members named in TT106 and on the reliefs in Tatia's tomb chapel and that of Mose.

This evidence completely contradicts Oeters's previous theory about Tatia's family relationships. If Tatia is Paser's brother, as seems very plausible, then he cannot also be Mose's brother as Paser & Mose have different parents. But it is still true that Tatia is portrayed in Mose's tomb in a context where only a member of Mose's immediate family would be depicted. Oeters now thinks that it is most likely that Mose is Tatia's brother-in-law, and is married to Tatia's sister. So this demonstrates that no matter how plausible your theory is, it can still be overturned by a new piece of evidence!

This was a fascinating talk which demonstrated how archaeologists go about investigating the artifacts they find, and the sort of range of information they can glean including information about wider Egyptian culture and information about the family relationships & career path of a specific individual.

For more information see this paper that Vincent Oeters has published on the subject:

Vincent Oeters – “The Tomb of Tatia, Wab-Priest of the Front of Ptah and Chief
of the Goldsmiths” in Verschoor V., Stuart A.J., Demarée C. (Eds.) Imaging and Imagining the Memphite Necropolis: Liber amicorum René van Walsem. Egyptologische Uitgaven no. 30 Leuven and Leiden: Peeters and NINO, 57-80.

In August Taneash Sidpura came to the Essex Egyptology Group to talk to us about the topic of his PhD research - golden flies, golden lions & oyster shells. These pendants are often stated to be military awards handed out by Pharaoh to people who distinguished themselves in battle, but having researched these items Sidpura disagrees with that assessment.

He began his talk by giving us some background to the items & their assumed meaning. It's typical of nobles to record self praise on stelae & in their tomb inscriptions. Generally this is related to the king, and how wonderfully the noble did the things the king wanted him to do. Sidpura showed us some examples of these sorts of texts including the 12th Dynasty stela of Sobek-khu. These texts also record the gifts and rewards that the king has given them for doing these things. Lots of these gifts are golden objects - including gold jewellery, golden flies and golden lions. The specific texts which record gifts of golden flies & lions are detailing the accomplishments of military men, and so these objects have been interpreted as being like modern medals. The conventional wisdom is that they were a bit like chivalric orders - Order of the Golden Fly or Order of the Golden Lion. The objects have also been assigned meanings by archaeologists - flies mean persistence, lions mean bravery and weapons indicate military prowess. Which makes a neat & tidy story, which is reflected in many museum labels etc, but Sidpura pointed out that when you start to examine it at all closely it begins to unravel. One key problem is that these same objects - golden flies, golden lions - are also found in the burials of women and children who would be unlikely to have medals for valour in battle. And it's clear if you look at a wider context that weapons as grave goods actually signify power & authority rather than strictly military prowess.

Sidpura next went through each of the three object types from his title in turn, before returning to consider what golden flies actually mean. Golden lions have been re-investigated more recently than the other two, so Sidpura has not himself looked at these objects in detail. He showed us some examples of the sort of things that he was talking about - small lions on rectangular bases about 2-3cm long. There are 50 known examples from the 12th & 13th Dynasty, none of which were found in the burials of men (of those where the context is known). In contrast 22 were found in the burials of women. The researchers who re-investigated the meanings of golden lions looked at references to lions in texts and images, and found that they consistently represented the king. It makes sense, therefore, that they are found in the burials of royal women as signifiers of their relationship to the king. The texts that mention them as gifts to nobles also make sense in this context - they indicate the close relationship between the king and the man who served him well.

String of 7 fly amulets
A string of 7 fly amulets from the 17th Dynasty, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Photo from the Met, via Wikimedia Commons

There are 500 examples of golden flies, most of which are cut out of a flat sheet of gold in a shape roughly resembling a capital A. Some are just the flat shape, and others have a golden body attached to the flat sheet. One of the examples he talked about was rather unusual - they were from the grave goods of Ahhotep (an 18th Dynasty queen) at Dra Abu el Naga. Normally golden flies are about 1cm in size, but these are 9cm long. She's described in a text almost like she was a king, so between this & the golden fly necklace she was once thought to be a warrior queen. However if you look more closely at the text it is talking about her ability to rule and not her military prowess, and it's also not clear that it's intended to be literal. Not all of Ahhotep's grave goods were found - her tomb wasn't actually found, but her coffin and some grave goods were found buried in a pit which was presumably a robbers' cache. Those grave goods which were found back up the idea that she was a powerful woman, not necessarily a fighting woman.

Fly ornaments are not always made of gold. There is a long history from the Naqada II period through to the Roman period of flies made out of materials such as faience or hard stones. Sidpura showed us several examples of these. Some of them were like scarab amulets in that they had texts inscribed on the bottom. They were often strung with other amulets - generally protective amulets such as Bes figures. Another example was of flies strung with ancestor bust beads.

The context they were found in is known for about 125 of the 500 golden flies. Of these 63% were found associated with women, 3% with men, 3% with children and 31% unknown. As Sidpura pointed out this doesn't fit with the military award hypothesis! There were also many designs of the flies, so they were not a distinctive award. And they were not unique in form, being based on non-golden flies. Whilst 2 of the 3 known examples of images of Egyptian men wearing flies are military men, there are also many images of Nubians wearing flies. These Nubians are often shown as captives, or being smited - and again this doesn't fit well with the military award hypothesis.

There are only 2 texts which refer to golden flies (both referencing them as gifts from Pharaoh), all the other texts refer to the real insects. The references to the real insects are interesting - fly dung or fly blood is an ingredient in medicine or magic. And when Sidpura said this my first thought was "fly dung? how'd you get that?" and that is what he went on to explain. The bee was a symbol of the king, and so beekeepers couldn't refer to themselves as beekeepers because it would be presumptuous. Instead they called themselves fly keepers. Thus fly dung is honey! And what is interesting about this in the context of golden flies as gifts is that it may put the golden flies into the same category as the golden lions - are they symbols of the king? Another association for flies (the real insects) is that in the Coffin Texts they are linked to regeneration and rebirth. So in texts flies are a metaphor for bees (and thus the king) and for regeneration.

Sidpura now moved on to discuss oyster shells. He started by showing us a picture of an example of the objects he was talking about - this was a 10cm shell, likely to be from a pearl bearing species. It was engraved with the cartouche of Senwosret. There are 60 known examples of these shells, and all are very alike, even down to the handwriting being similar. On the various shells there are two different cartouches, and so it's possible to work out that it's Senwosret I. So this particular variant is a short-lived practice, although that are other examples that don't match these ones. The shells were mostly purchased and so the contexts are not secure. One of these purchases was by the Egyptologist Herbert Winlock in about 1922 - he bought a mummified arm which came with one of these shells and a piece of leatherwork with military significance. Some more shells came from tomb MMA507 at Deir el Bahri. This was a mass grave of warriors from the Middle Kingdom, and so this is also a military context. Thus the shells were assumed to be military awards, but once again a closer examination throws this into doubt. Of those where there is a context of some sort 4 had no military connection, and 4 had some military connections but mostly of a tenuous nature. And again the inscribed oyster shells are not unique - they are a sub-type of a more general class of oyster shell ornaments. And these uninscribed oyster shells are often associated with women - either being found with them, or being drawn onto female figurines. The significance of the inscribed oyster shells is more likely to do with having the king's name on them - again as with the lions, and perhaps the flies, it is a symbol that links the recipient to the king.

Sidpura finished his talk by returning to the golden flies and summarising his conclusions about their significance. Firstly, there is no evidence that they symbolise persistence. It is also notable that they are not gifted alone, but are always gifted with other golden objects. Sidpura sees their significance to the recipient as being the gold that they were made from, not the form that the gold was in. In the opposite fashion to modern gifts & awards the content was less important than the material. The objects emphasise the relationship between the king and the recipient - that the king values the recipient enough to give precious gifts to them.

This talk was an interesting reminder that even things that "everyone knows" are worth properly re-examining every now & then. And that the assessments by previous archaeologists may tell us more about their own culture and assumptions than about Egyptian culture!

In July Ilona Regulski visited us at the Essex Egyptology Group to talk about her work on some Middle Kingdom texts written on papyrus fragments from Asyut. She is now working at the British Museum as a curator, but this talk was about the work she did before starting that job so the papyrii in question are not at the British Museum but instead are in the collection at the Neues Museum in Berlin. Their accession numbers are P10480-10482, and she used those as names for the pieces when talking about them.

Regulski began her talk by giving us context for the papyrii. They were acquired by Ludwig Borchardt (who also acquired the Nefertiti bust for the Neues Museum), who bought them in Luxor. The seller said they'd been found in Asyut and this provenance is confirmed by textual details which she explained later in the talk. Asyut is the most central point in Egypt, at the natural border between Upper & Lower Egypt. It was never the capital of Egypt, but was a trade nexus and a melting pot. These circumstances encouraged creativity & cultural development and it has had a big influence on the rest of Egypt. (For more about Asyut see my write up of 2017's Sackler Lecture at the British Museum, given by Jochem Kahl.)

The texts on these papyrii include some of the Coffin Texts, which are a corpus of mortuary texts normally found written on coffins. This is the reason for the name, but she pointed out that it's a bit of a weird name because that's not the most important thing about them and they also aren't exclusively on coffins (as witness these papyrii). The texts develop in the Middle Kingdom from the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom, and later develop into New Kingdom texts such as the Book of the Dead. They were ritual texts intended to be used in rituals, so writing them down (whether on coffins or not) is a secondary context. They contain a lot of information about how living people interacted with dead people, and what rituals were used. They were probably written on papyrus for actual use and only transferred onto coffins as a later development. She gave us an example of a spell at this point - one of the first things the deceased must do is cross the Nile, and so there is a spell that lists the pieces of a boat & how to construct it so that the deceased can demonstrate their knowledge of this in the afterlife. Which also gives Egyptologists information about boats & boat construction.

Regulski gave us the broad outlines of the conclusions she reached before telling us how she reached them, so that we would understand more clearly what the point of the various bits of evidence was. The papyrii that she worked on come under three accession numbers. 10482 is a single complete sheet of papyrus. 10481 consists of 6 fragments, and 10480 of 36 fragments. There are two distinct groups - one is a collection of anonymous fragments and the other, consisting of 10482 & 10481a-b, is connected by their naming a man called Sedekh. The anonymous fragments might be templates for writing onto a coffin or copying for personalised rituals, and may relate to Sedekh's profession as a scribe. The texts that are addressed to Sedekh are a personalised mortuary ritual which is then re-activated to ask Sedekh for help, and a letter to Sedekh explaining what help is required.

There were three strands of evidence that Regulski had used to come to these conclusions: the content of the texts; the textual traditions; palaeographical evidence. For the rest of her talk she went through these in turn.

On the front side of the single sheet, 10482, is a personalised liturgy for Sedekh. Regulski stressed that we should remember that this was a ritual which was used and not just buried with him. The piece of papyrus it was written on was not fresh, it had been previously used. This is very unusual for a religious text, it was almost embarrassing not to have new papyrus to use. The previous text had only been at one end of the papyrus and was an administrative document - a list of names. After it had been mostly removed the new liturgical text started with a very wide margin so that it was only written on the virgin papyrus. The scribe then left an equally large margin at the other side of the document so that it was symmetrical. In the spells Sedekh is named. Sometimes on these sorts of documents there is a gap left for the name of the deceased to be filled in later, but not in this case - his name was written with the rest of the text. The name Sedekh is found in other contexts linked to Asyut - in tomb N13.1 in the necropolis at Asyut there is mention of a Sedekh, Chief of Cattle, and on a wooden statue base from Asyut now in the British Museum (EA45070) the inscription names a Sedekh. It isn't clear if either of these is the same man as the one named on Regulski's papyrus, but it does link the name to Asyut which backs up the assumed provenance for these papyrii.

On the reverse side of 10482 there is an offering list at the top of the sheet, which is unusual. Below this was a dedication text which was added later as a postscript to the ritual and consists of transfiguration spells including those for turning into an Akh. If something went wrong in life which couldn't be explained it was assumed that it was the influence of someone who had died. And it must be that you had in some way failed to carry out the rituals properly, because if you had then the deceased would've transformed into an Akh and would not be haunting you. So this dedication is a re-activation and repeat of the rituals to essentially do a better job of burying the deceased. Added to this liturgical text is a request for help in getting children. This was a common theme for texts requesting help from the deceased - if there is no obvious (to the Ancient Egyptians) medical reason for a failure to conceive then someone in the afterlife is involved. It might be the deceased you have improperly buried, or might be someone that your properly buried deceased can intercede with on your behalf. The text implies that Sedekh has helped in similar cases in the past.

10481a-b are two fragments that contain a letter to the dead. This text is very difficult to read, because pretty much every sentence in the text is missing its verb! As a result Regulski isn't entirely sure what the subject of the letter is - it could be about stillborn children or it could be a problem with inheritance. Inheritance is also the business of the deceased as it will affect his or her cult. The letter lists Sedekh's epithets as "effective one", "Akh in Necropolis" and "true of voice", which is more than in the other documents. This implies that the letter is the last text to be written - in earlier texts he's not yet an Akh, for instance.

The liturgical text on 10482 is a purification ritual which mimics the mummification process, and Regulski went through various levels of meaning in part of the text. Coffin Text Spell 169 titles itself a spell for (re)assembling the two river banks. It then talks abstractly about drying out river banks, followed by putrefaction which his father should not see and finally about re-unification of river banks. The word used for river banks has two determinatives (which are hieroglyphs added to the end of a word to show what class of word it is). It has the determinative for words to do with land and the one for words to do with gods. So the banks are not just banks, they can also stand for the goddesses Isis & Nepthys. The part of the text that refers to putrefaction names a god "he who has putrefaction in his face" - this god is said to swallow the putrefaction of Osiris and spit it out as the flood, a metaphor for the removal of liquids from the body in the mummification process. Overall there are three levels of meaning in this sequence - firstly the reassembling of the river banks is a metaphor for the passage of the deceased to the afterlife. It is also a metaphor for unification of the father and the son. And finally it is a metaphor for the mummification process. So this text does several jobs for the deceased and his living family members. The text is written in a style that has the deceased taking an active role, so he is both beneficiary and performer. This lets the family member performing the ritual identify with the deceased, and so it re-integrates the deceased into the family at which point he can be asked for help. The text is also left in the tomb, so that the deceased has access to it whenever it may be needed.

Regulski's second strand of evidence was her investigation of the textual traditions of the different texts on these pieces of papyrus. Different areas had different textual traditions, and this was an evolving process not a static one. The first thing she noted was that the texts are in the 1st person, which is a style only found in texts from Asyut - backing up, again, the provenance of the texts. A collection of texts, like these papyrii, may not all come from the same tradition. She talked about the Mesehti coffins, now in Cairo Museum, which have the largest number of coffin texts on any coffin. Each coffin has different texts, some of which are nominally the same (i.e. we'd give them the same Spell number) but they are from different traditions on the two coffins. So having both traditions must've been important. This is also the case in Regulski's papyrii - the texts on 10482 come from a different tradition to the ones on the other fragments.

Internal clues from the texts can be used to construct "family trees" for the different versions. Regulski explained that she can use things like the grammar used in a particular version to see how far away from the original Classical Middle Egyptian text it is. Also when scribes are copying the texts they may make mistakes, which then propagate through the "generations" of copied texts. From this sort of evidence she is able to say that the texts on 10482 are later adaptations, whereas the fragments are closer to the original texts. It's important to remember that being further from the template doesn't necessarily mean a text has been written more recently than a text that's closer to the template. There are examples of texts known to date to the New Kingdom that are closer to the originals than other examples of the same texts that date to the Middle Kingdom. What's more important than when in history it was written was what texts the scribe had access to to copy.

The last strand of evidence that Regulski told us about was palaeography. This is the study of ancient handwriting and she was using it to answer questions about how many scribes were involved in writing the texts, and so what parts of them were written at the same time & what were subsequently added. It's generally a very subjective way to look at the text, so Regulski was trying to be more objective & mathematical in how she used it.

First she told us about her investigation of the liturgy text. One measurement she looked at was the spacing of the columns, and at a particular point in the text the gaps between the columns get narrower. Another measurement was the number of ligatures the scribe used. Ligatures are when a scribe joins two or three signs together when writing quickly, as the hieratic script develops these become standardised. This text is still early hieratic and not particularly cursive, but there are still some ligatures & Regulski counted their frequency in the text. At the same point at which the column spacing narrows, the frequency of ligatures increases. She also looked at the pattern of when the scribe dipped his pen to replenish the ink - the frequency of ink dips also increases at the same point that the other changes happen. So this text seems to've been written in two sessions - perhaps indicating two different scribes, but it's also possible that it was one scribe in two different sessions with the second one being more rushed.

There are corrections or additions in the first part of the text. All but one of these are additions that change the meaning of the text. They each change the tense of a verb from present tense to an enduring tense - changing it from saying something is happening right now, to saying something is repeatedly happening. Regulski speculated that this might be part of reactivating the ritual, and it shows that people re-interpreted these texts as necessary for the situation. There are no additions to the letter to the dead, so she thinks this is contemporary with the corrections to the liturgical text.

Using these three strands of evidence Regulski has identified 5 or 6 phases of use of these personalised texts for Sedekh. First an already used piece of papyrus was cleaned for re-use and the first half of the liturgy was written on it. Then the second half was written. The offering list & dedication on the back were added next, and then corrections made to the liturgy. The letter was then deposited in the tomb as well. She believes there were 5 different scribes involved in the process. She particularly drew our attention to how although the Coffin Texts were in some sense standard & produced en masse each copy was unique and personalised to fit the deceased & their situation.

This was a fascinating talk, demonstrating just how much information you can glean from a small collection of papyrii if you carefully examine them.

This is the second half of Ramadan Hussein's talk that he gave to us at the Essex Egyptology Group in February - the first part is here. During this part of the talk Hussein told us about the exciting new discoveries that he & his team have made at Saqqara which have now been announced by the Ministry of Antiquities (see also the Tübingen University announcement).

Ramadan Hussein on site at Saqqara in 2016

Ramadan Hussein on site at Saqqara in October 2016

Hussein said that they have continued to excavate the area to the south of the three tombs he discussed in the first half of his talk. As a reminder, on top of the main shaft they discovered the remnants of a basic superstructure and then to the south of this was a chapel for offerings. The initial discovery for this further excavation was a small shaft the size of the side shafts of the tombs to the south of the chapel. This had holes around it that were to hold vessels, plus a ramp built up to the shaft. There are similar structures at Old Kingdom mastaba tombs which are for an offering ritual, and so this was what he assumed this structure was - but it turned out to be something much more interesting.

When they excavated the shaft it was full of distinct layers of pottery vessels, that looked like cooking vessels and were stuffed with botanical materials. These botanical materials are mostly cereals and other seeds - but not the useful stuff that you might eat. Instead it's mostly waste and is similar to the packing material found in KV63 (an embalmers cache found in the Valley of the Kings in 2005 near Tutankhamun's tomb). Partway down the shaft they discovered a dog burial, which Salima Ikram came to help excavate. This 4-7 year old dog had clearly been left outside before burial as there was not much flesh left, but it was buried with care - a burial rather than a disposal. Further down there was some red & white linen and some large insects (I didn't quite catch the name, I think he called them cockroaches at one point and Palmetto bugs at another point), which are symbols of the goddess Neith. Hussein said they're going to investigate the linen further - one piece has a stain of something like resin on it that they plan to analyse, and they can also look at how the cloth was made.

At 10m deep the shaft cuts through the 2nd Dynasty tunnels that extend under Unas's 5th Dynasty pyramid (this is part of why Khaemwaset had to restore Unas's pyramid in the New Kingdom period, as it wasn't structurally sound). Below this level the shaft is full of broken pottery & stones. The stones appear to've been part of a building which was then dismantled and used to fill the shaft. And finally at the bottom of the shaft there is a 9m x 5m room. At the east side of the room there is a ledge or raised platform, and in the south east corner there is a storage vessel buried in the floor with walls built around it. There are signs that this was a room that was used - human activity took place here, it wasn't just for disposal or storage.

Hussein told us that some of the pottery they've discovered during this excavation are measuring cups labelled in hieratic and demotic. This is really exciting as the labels are instructions and ingredients for the embalming process - they say things like the name of an oil plus a number. Perhaps saying "use this measure of oil for the Nth time you use it". There are also residues inside the measurement cups - which means that they will be able to find out what the different named oils actually were. Hussein is currently putting together a team to study these further.

So this shaft appears to be both some sort of work area and where an embalmer disposed of his now sacred tools that he'd finished with. Hussein & his team continued to investigate the area near this shaft, as it seemed plausible that there would be a workshop nearby - perhaps the building that had been dismantled & put down the shaft had once been part of such a thing. Immediately to the south of the shaft they could already see signs of the corner of a wall. When excavated they found a rectangular enclosure divided into two by a ramp running from south to north. In one half they found a mudbrick basin with vessel holes around it, and in the other half there were traces of a matching basin which was much more destroyed. The shape of this workshop looks like Old Kingdom representations of a temporary purification tent. These Old Kingdom structures had to be dismantled & disposed of after use, just like this 26th Dynasty structure seems to've been - although it was a longer lasting structure than the very temporary tents.

They also found vessels in situ like those disposed of the shaft, and some of them had a tar residue inside. Tar was the main component of the mummification process during the 26th Dynasty, so this provides further evidence for the idea that this was an embalmer's workshop. They have also discovered braziers which would've been used to heat the tar. And four torches - which is a number mentioned in texts describing various rituals that should take place during mummification.

Continuing further to the south of the workshop Hussein & his team discovered a new large shaft. This is not another tomb like those of the three 26th Dynasty officials that he started his excavations with - instead it is if anything more exciting to an archaeologist. It is absolutely full of burials!

The first burials they discovered were intrusive burials in the walls around the top of the shaft. As Hussein pointed out this implies that this was a place of some significance to the local community - people wanted to be buried near it. At about 9m deep in the shaft it once again breaks through to link to the 2nd Dynasty galleries - it seems they did this on purpose & knew roughly where and how to deep to drop their shaft in order to do this. In fact you can see a first attempt to break through at 8m deep before they realise they're too high and dig down another meter. Below the level of the 2nd Dynasty galleries are the burial chambers, which he said had been disturbed in antiquity. The chambers are full of debris, which is partly from decaying mummies, and under this there are row upon row of mummies. The mummies are separated from each other by white sand, which is both pragmatic and ritual. The shaft is clearly a communal burial place that has been used over a long period of time.

The people who have been buried here come from various different levels of society. Many are in the large groups in the big burial chambers. Some are in separate chambers on their own or in a small group. Others are in a hallway rather than in a burial chamber proper. And they have varying amounts & types of burial goods including some in coffins. One burial had a set of 365 shabti figures which had clearly been in a now decayed box. One of the burials was clearly of a very high status woman (for this group) as she was in a bead net dress decorated with Nut and the Sons of Horus. Another high status burial had a wooden coffin and an obsidian head plate, but this individual clearly didn't have the best quality mummification as the body has decayed and all that is left is a shell of tar covered linen.

Hussein and his team have excavated further down the shaft as well - below this first level of burial chambers in the shaft is a layer of silt. The shaft must've been open to the air and rain must've gotten into the shaft, which will be why so much of the wooden material in the burials above this layer has decayed. At this level there is also the body of a child - but this is not a burial, instead it looks like this was someone who fell in.

Deeper yet there is another chamber with even more mummies in it. As with the burial chambers further up these are also water damaged. They also come from a range of levels of society, and include some individuals with painted masks. Some of the mummies look like they were wedged into the last available space once the chamber was filling up.

Continuing deeper into the shaft at the 21 meter depth there is another burial chamber - this time with 2 mummies in it. These both have an associated inscription, with a lineage for each of them. Hussein explained that they seem to've been an uncle/nephew pair. They've continued to excavate further into the shaft, and have got as far as 30 meters deep where there are yet more chambers. There's a large entrance marked with a drawing of a mummy, and this is where they'll be investigating next season - so far they've seen that there are more mummies and shabtis, plus at least one anthropoid coffin with an inscription.

This was a very interesting second half to Hussein's talk. Clearly what he has unearthed next to the three sarcophagus tombs of officials of the 26th Dynasty is an embalming workshop and burial place for a local community which was used across a significant period of time. Very exciting! There's so much that can be learnt from the mummies and their burial goods and it's one of those discoveries that you're pleased happened now when we're interested in it rather than back in the days when archaeology was more like treasure hunting.

In May Robert Morkot came to the Essex Egyptology Group to talk to us about the 25th Dynasty - kings from Kush. Chronologically the 25th Dynasty is in the Late Period at the end of the Third Intermediate Period. Kush is also referred to as Nubia, and is in the north of modern day Sudan stretching from Aswan to Khartoum. Nowadays this area is mostly desert but the rain line has changed and it was a much more fertile region during the time of Kush. Morkot prefers to use the term Kush instead of Nubia because it has fewer connotations. There are modern Nubians and it's not clear whether or not they have continuity with the 25th Dynasty era people. (Although old habits clearly die hard as he used Nubia & Kush pretty much interchangeably through the talk.) Morkot told us his interest in the region & period started when the temples were being moved when the High Dam was built at Aswan.

Morkot's talk was split into two parts - first he told us about what evidence we have for the Kushites and their time ruling Egypt, and then he put it all together to tell us what the modern reconstruction of the period is. In the first part he also told us about who found the evidence and what their worldview was - as he pointed out near the start of his talk how people used to think shapes what we think of the subject now. So it's important to know where our "facts" come from and to re-evaluate them in the light of those biases.

One of these critical biases for early investigators of the 25th Dynasty is that one of the Pharaohs of that dynasty, Taharqa, is mentioned in the Bible. 2 Kings 19:8-13 and Isaiah 37 (which are identical) mention him:

8 So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish.
9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying,
10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.
11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?
12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar?
13 Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah?

And even more importantly to the Victorians Taharqa is one of the "good guys" in the story - he's on the side of Judah and against the Assyrians. Nowadays Taharqa is more important to Egyptology because he has the first fixed date in Egyptian history. The year of his accession, 690 BCE, can be worked out by working backwards from known Roman & Greek dates cross-referencing with other cultures. It's apparently rather complicated, so Morkot didn't go into any more detail.

Manetho is the first source Egyptologists had for who ruled Egypt when - he lived during Ptolemaic times and his list of kings divides them up into the Dynasties we still use today. The decipherment of hieroglyphs then allowed the names in Manetho to be linked to names on monuments and stelae. There are also Assyrian records that tell us about the Kushites from the other side of the conflict between them. This textual evidence was then supplemented by evidence from excavations in Nubia through the 1920s and beyond, and the whole era was "sorted out" by the 1960s. Although of course the progression of knowledge has been a lot more messy than that short summary implies!

Having given us the overview Morkot went into more detail about the evidence that we have. One of the first modern(-ish) histories of Egypt was published by Ippolito Rosellini who travelled in Egypt with Jean François Champollion. One thing he was trying to do with his survey was to link the names in cartouches (that could now be read for the first time in millennia) to the names in Manetho. He was also interested in finding new names that Manetho hadn't mentioned, of which there are several in the 25th Dynasty. Manetho only names 3 kings but there are others both before & after those ones, who are rather more difficult to put in sequence & pin down to dates. There are many mentions of 25th Dynasty kings on the structures they built at both Karnak & Luxor - for instance Taharqa built a colonnade at Karnak & Shabaka built one at Luxor. In Medinet Habu there is a relief depicting Taharqa - much to the delight of 19th Century tourists who could now see this biblical ally of Judah.

Medinet Habu also has chapels each dedicated to a God's Wife of Amun. This was an important religious role (not just in the 25th Dynasty) and formed the backbone of the 25th Dynasty. References to their birth mother and father link them to the Pharaohs - they are daughters of kings. It is believed each woman adopted her successor. The imagery in the sculpture of these women is archaised - that is it looks like older Egyptian iconography rather than the contemporary Nubian imagery which has more ample bodies. The statues do have Nubian style faces so they mix both styles.

From textual evidence we know that Napata was a key city for the Kushite, but it has not actually been found & excavated - it is probably beneath the modern city in that area. Gebel Berkel is another key site and is on the other side of the river from Napata. The most striking feature of Gebel Berkel is the mountain, which stands out in isolation against the landscape. There are a lot of temples and palace complexes here, and it was excavated from 1914 by George Reisner. There are reliefs in the main temple which relate the conquest of Egypt by Piankhi at the start of the 25th Dynasty. Reisner also found a cache of broken colossal statues of the 25th Dynasty kings in black granite - they must've been quite spectacular when first made as they originally had gilded decoration.

Reisner also excavated the nearby Pyramids of Nuri, which include Taharqa's tomb which was found intact. Its contents included many shabti, and vessels which had Egyptian forms but Nubian decoration. Morkot explained that like the God's Wife of Amun statues in Karnak these show how the Nubian & Egyptian cultures were mingled in the elite of the 25th Dynasty.

Reisner next excavated at el Kurru, which is a royal necropolis. We had a talk about two of the tombs here 3 years ago given by Birgitte Balanda (post). The tombs here are two pyramids from later than Morkot's topic of the 25th Dynasty, a group of 25th Dynasty Queens and a group of 25th Dynasty Kings. There were a lot of beautiful objects found here - again some with Egyptian ideas and Nubian implementation. There were also some very Nubian things which don't show up at all in Egyptian iconography or artifacts.

At this point Morkot had finished covering the material & evidence, so we took a break for coffee & cake before he moved on to the way the period has been reconstructed from this evidence.

When Reisner excavated he developed a theory of how the tombs developed over time and reconstructed what he thought the was chronology at el Kurru, which he published but didn't explain his reasons in his publication. The earliest burials have a lot of artifacts that look like New Kingdom period. Including evidence for the red pot smashing ritual which Susanne Bickel also talked about in her talk in April (post) about re-excavating KV40. But Reisner says that they're not New Kingdom but instead are later. Which Morkot pointed out is difficult to square with the physical evidence, and with the fact that New Kingdom Egypt is known from other sources to have a presence in Nubia and to rule it. So it's not at all clear why Reisner drew this conclusion.

The paradigm is that nothing happens in Nubia between the time of Ramesses XI (end of the New Kingdom) and the 25th Dynasty, based in large part on Reisner's chronology. Morkot went off on a bit of a digression here about how ridiculous this idea is, as this is a time close to his heart. His PhD thesis was on precisely this "in between" period, to the perplexity of his senior colleagues who felt it couldn't be interesting or worth studying because "everyone knew" nothing happened. However if you look at the archaeological evidence without Reisner's blinkers on then there's a lot that was previously overlooked filling the period. Morkot didn't go into any detail about what he thought was actually happening in this period, but in essence his argument was that the people who were living there through the New Kingdom and then in the 25th Dynasty period would've had no reason to stop living there in the time in between. And Egypt carries on through the Third Intermediate Period, so why wouldn't Nubia? After all, the Nubian conquest of Egypt didn't come out of nowhere!

The rise of Assyria is an important part of the context for the Kushite conquest of Egypt that establishes the 25th Dynasty, and conflict with the Assyrians is a key part of the politics of the dynasty. The Assyrian empire is growing during this period, and imposing its authority on a large swathe of territory - this includes the destruction of Israel & Judah (hence Taharqa showing up in the Bible). So this is a powerful state threatening and even sometimes invading Egypt from the north. But conflict is not the only way the two interact, trade is also important. For instance there's evidence that the Assyrians import horses from Kush - Napata is a horse rearing area.

The founding king of the 25th Dynasty is Piankhi (or Piye, Morkot used the two names interchangeably). A stela of his records that he went to Thebes and had been in the presence of Amun, i.e. had visited Karnak. This had significance for the Nubians - Amun is the god that the main temple at Gebel Berkal was dedicated to and he was an important god for the Nubians. This stela of Piye's also says that he has priests appoint Chiefs & Kings amongst the contemporary Libyan rulers of the Delta - i.e. he is claiming the power to decide who rules. The most famous stela from Piankhi's time is called (by us) the Victory Stela, and it shows the Delta kings kneeling to him.

At this point the Delta is ruled by Libyans who have divided the region between lots of chiefs, plus some kings who govern those chiefs. In response to Piye extending his influence they got together and marched south to besiege Piye's vassals. So Piye sends his generals north to deal with this, but they fail and Piye needs to go in person. He is successful - he doesn't just drive the Libyans back, he also captures Memphis and conquers the Delta and then returns to Napata. The chronology of this isn't clear, but it is somewhere in the second half of the 8th Century BCE probably between 750 & 720 BCE.

After this the Kushites install themselves in Memphis & in Egypt. It's well documented that Piye's successor Shabaka builds at Karnak and Luxor, and it is generally assumed that he's reigning c.700 BCE. He's also known to have diplomatic contact with the Assyrian ruler Sennacherib. Shabaka's successor is Shebitiqo (or Shabataka) and he is also shown in reliefs at Karnak.

The next Pharaoh in the dynasty is Taharqa, who comes to the throne in 690 BCE (our first fixed date). The majority of his reign is the high point of the dynasty. However, later in his reign he has significant conflict with the Assyrians. The Assyrian King Esarhaddon succeeds in conquering Egypt to some extent - he definitely sacks Memphis and Thebes, and Taharqa's family may've been deported. But Taharqa managed to fight back and re-conquer Egypt. Esarhaddon gathered his army and returned intending his own re-conquest but died before he could achieve this. Taharqa also dies around this time and was succeeded by his nephew Tantamani. The conflict between Esarhaddon's son Ashurbanipal and Tantamani went even less well for the Kushites than did the conflict between their predecessors. Ashurbanipal finished the conquest and ended the 25th Dynasty. He installed a puppet ruler - this ruler's son would go on to found the 26th Dynasty as Psamtik I after he wrested independence from Assyria.

This wrapped up Morkot's narrative of the 25th Dynasty, but he ended his talk with an example of how no matter how settled & coherent a theory might seem to be it can always be thrown into doubt by new evidence. Relatively recently an inscription dating to c.706 BCE was found high up on a cliff at Tang-I Var. As part of the preamble of the inscription it says that Shabataka had diplomatic contact with Sargon II before this date - which doesn't fit with the standard chronology of the 25th Dynasty which has Shabaka as king at this point. So a lot of ink has been split trying to fit this new evidence into a consistent story with all the previous evidence. However Morkot thinks that this is all a waste of time in this case - this is just one inscription, other contemporaneous inscriptions name Shabaka. It's also very high up a cliff on the outskirts of Sargon II's territory so it's unlikely to have a "truth" that other more central & accessible inscriptions don't have. And finally Shabaka and Shabataka are only one sign different when written in cuneiform, so it's much more likely that the carvers of this difficult to reach inscription made a simple mistake. Which makes sense - after all, I'm sure there's at least one typo in this post of mine and our alphabet is so much easier to work with than cuneiform!

This was in general an interesting talk about a dynasty of Ancient Egypt that we don't often get to hear about in such detail. I did find it a little hard to follow at times tho, so I hope I've succeeded in writing it up accurately!

In the last talk of the Essex Egyptology Group study day Cédric Gobeil told us about an exciting discovery in the 2014/15 season of a female mummy with several tattoos. He began by giving us some context for the discovery, and showed us some photos of Bernard Bruyère's excavations of the eastern & western necropolises. Bruyère wasn't interested in the human remains, he was only interested in the amulets etc that he could find on these mummies. So he unwrapped all the mummies that he found, which sadly has the knock on effect of damaging the mummy. The remnants were put back into some of the tombs and just left there.

The female tattooed mummy was found in TT291 in the western necropolis, which wasn't the tomb where it was initially buried. Nobody knew there was anything in TT291 so when Gobeil first entered the tomb and discovered it was full of pieces of mummies & pieces of debris he got rather a shock! The tomb contents included skeletons, mummies, wrappings, coffin bits and whole coffins. The skeletons were generally mummies which had been unwrapped & deteriorated. The original context of the tomb contents was completely destroyed - some of the bits of coffin didn't even come from the western necropolis - but there are some hints in Bruyère's notebooks. Gobeil called in specialists like physical anthropologists, and the contents were conserved and investigated.

The first stage was to conserve all the mummies & other objects. Lots of the mummies were in plastic bags from the 1920s and they are now stored in acid free paper. They've also been numbered & tagged, and catalogued in a database. Whilst doing this work they discovered that one of the torsos had several tattoos on it.

At this point Gobeil took a step back and gave us some context for what was previously known about tattoos in Ancient Egyptian culture. At first the only evidence we had for tattoos came from figurines, particularly from the Pre-Dynastic and Middle Kingdom periods. It wasn't clear from those whether they were designs on figurines, designs that would've been painted on the skin or tattoos. The first tattooed bodies found were female, and the placement of the tattoos was always the breast or pubic areas. So the theory was that they were to do with sexuality and eroticism. All these were geometrical figures or dots. There is later evidence from vignettes of figurative art tattoos, but no physical evidence of these. Once again the tattooed individuals were always female, like the fragment of decoration on a house altar of a tattooed dancing girl that Gobeil talked about in the first talk of the day.

The torso that they found had several tattoos. When they photographed it and used software to enhance the photos they discovered 20 or more tattoos. Using photographs to identify them also allowed them to correct for the skin shrinkage that occurred during mummification. The most obvious one is on the neck, there are several more on the back and also on the upper arms. There were no tattoos on the breast or pubic region, in distinct contrast to previously known tattooed individuals. In another contrast, all the tattoos are symbolic and figurative art.

Gobeil now talked us through the various tattoos. I'm afraid that the following is a bit of a long list, but I thought a summary wouldn't get across the sheer extent & variety of symbols on this woman's body. On her neck she had 3 wadjet eyes, 2 baboons and 1 nefer symbol arranged symmetrically. In fact the tattoos on her back were the only ones that weren't a symmetrical set - only one scapula had been tattooed. On it was a symbol found on ivory wands, of a seated baboon with a wadjet eye. Her shoulder and upper arm tattoos were laid out as they were on a stela - if you look at someone side on the shape of the body here is reminiscent of a stela. On her upper arms were several different symbols. She had snakes facing forwards. There were also cross signs (a bit like four petalled flowers) of unknown meaning (but they also show up on reliefs in TT218 to do with a female offering ritual). She had handles of sistrums tattooed in a place that suggests they symbolically turned each of her arms into a sistrum. There were also 2 Hathor cows facing each other. On her front above the armpits were snakes over sun discs (like a uraeus on a sun disc), the goddess Wadjet wearing the red crown plus other unidentified symbols. And on her lower back there were lotus flowers blooming from her buttocks.

Who or what was she? It's not clear. All of her symbols are also found in votive graffiti on the Hathor temple. This suggests that she might in some fashion be linked to Hathor. But probably not a priestess, as texts say that they don't exist in the New Kingdom or later because women were considered too impure. There were also other roles for women in temples so this shouldn't be ruled out. Texts also talk about rḫt, wise women, who can cure snake bites. So are her tattoos part of a ritual piece of a magic?

She was not the only tattooed individual they have found in TT291. Gobeil told us about three more examples of body parts with tattoos. One of these was a left arm which had a walking lion smelling a lotus flower motif - which also shows up in the Book of the Dead. This was not tattooed on the arm as part of the funerary process - all the tattoos they've discovered were made during the life of the individual. They have also found a hip with more tattoos that look like a belt and which raises the possibility that representations of "naked women wearing belts" might actually be naked women who have tattoos. Another pair of legs attached at the hip (from a woman) had a tattoo on the thigh of a band holding 5 lotus flowers (like a garter). These examples are unlikely to be all of them - they haven't yet had time to examine all of the human remains from the tomb in this sort of detail.

In the third talk at the Essex Egyptology Group study day Cédric Gobeil broadened his focus to tell us about the work carried out by the whole team over the last 7 years - his time as director. His aims when he took on the job were threefold: to restore & preserve the archaeological structures, to enhance the site with the development of a site management programme and to continue the study of the monuments & objects (both in situ and in the storerooms). The talk covered each of the areas of the site in turn, giving an idea of the sort of things that were done in each place and some of the more interesting discoveries.

In the settlement area he started his term by seeing what repairs were needed, and it turned out that about 15% of the site needed emergency repair which took 2 years to accomplish. Their remit doesn't stretch to rebuilding the site to look as it would when it was occupied, instead they return it to what it looked like in Bernard Bruyère's time (but correcting mistakes). They try if at all possible to reuse the antique material, but sometimes that's not possible and they have to use modern mudbricks. These are always noticeably different from the original bricks so that it's clear which bits are rebuilt. They also cleared out 30-40cm of sand from each house.

Despite the assumption that Bruyère had done all the excavation possible at the site because of his haste there was a lot there for Gobeil's team to discover. They even found structural elements like walls that he hadn't recorded. There were around 1000 objects in the village that had been left behind by the previous excavation. These included ostraca, beads, stamped mudbricks and even bits of doorjambs. He showed us an example of an ostraca which had a god on it. It was found in situ in a wall, and was actually a votive stela. To the naked eye the design was only partially visible, but they've used software to enhance the photograph to show the whole thing.

They've also remade the map to correct Bruyère's mistakes, using modern technology including GPS to make it much more precise than he could ever have achieved. They've used this map to render 3D models, and will eventually reconstruct the houses virtually to the state they would've been in whilst occupied.

Gobeil next told us about the work they've done on 2 of the votive chapels. CV1 is to the south of the Ptolemaic temple and was in need of conservation work when he started as director - the roof was collapsing. So in 2012 they started work on this chapel - they cleared out the debris from the floor and rebuilt the roof more sturdily. They also restored the inside and it's now open to the public.

As they cleaned up CV1 they also excavated it. Again despite the idea that Bruyère had found everything there were still tens of objects from this small chapel alone - these included ostraca & a statue head. The contexts that these were found in also seemed plausible, meaning that they hadn't been moved by Bruyère's excavation. Gobeil told us about the texts on some of the ostraca. One talks about cyclic feasts, and another has the rather cryptic phrase "the wrath of Amenhotep I". There are other examples of this phrase on ostraca & they are probably the answers to questions that have been put to oracles. So this suggests that the chapel may've been an oracular chapel.

The interior of the chapel is also interesting in its own right. It was decorated with paintings and some of these still remain. There were seats round the edge of the chapel which were inscribed with the names of the people who sat on them (these are now in Turin). Chapels of this type are very rare and are only found in Deir el Medina and Amarna so studying them is important for understanding these sites.

The other chapel Gobeil told us about was CV4 where they have restored the building to the state that Bruyère left it in. Sadly the traces of decoration that Bruyère found on the shrine walls are no longer visible to the naked eye, but once again modern technology can be used to enhance photos of the chapel and reveal this decoration. One of the images is of a royal child, which Gobeil compared to a well known depiction of Ramesses II as a child which is now in the Louvre. Due to the similarity in style they think the chapel is from the Ramesside era and built to celebrate a king's jubilee festival.

In the Western Necropolis Gobeil's team have re-surveyed the area using the same technology as in the village. Again their goal is to generate 3D models of the area, and to use the photo enhancement software to reveal the decoration that has faded. So far they've done tombs TT2, TT6 and TT8. The Ministry of Antiquities is also very keen for them to prepare the tombs to be re-opened to the public. So they've been putting in wooden floors and lighting. They've also been restoring and conserving the tombs as they go.

Gobeil finished off this talk by telling us about another feature of the site that he thought they'd discovered but in 2017 it became clear they hadn't. The building they were hoping to excavate is called the khetem, which was the administrative office for Deir el-Medina. It was the place where the bureaucracy, the sheriff and the site security were based when the village was occupied. There are 60 ostraca which name this office, but it hasn't yet been found. So when initial investigation of a Ramesses II era structure near the entrance to the Ptolemaic temple showed it wasn't the simple house Bruyère had identified it as Gobeil was hopeful they'd discovered the khetem. It seems to be near a gate, a wall and a delivery area. It has a structure that looks like it would contain food & water for donkeys, plus a structure (also found in Amarna) linked to water delivery. However in 2017 they finally got a chance to excavate and it turned out to be the front section of a Ramesside era temple. The bits he'd thought were storage areas turned out to be part of a staircase and some side chambers. So not as exciting as they'd hoped, but they did discover some objects there including 150 ostraca and a stela. In the question & answer session after this talk Gobeil still seemed fairly optimistic they might find the khetem in the same sort of area. But it's possible the Ptolemaic temple is built on top of it (and in that case the ostraca in the Great Pit might've been dumped there by the Ptolemaic builders from the khetem's archives).

In his second talk of the Essex Egyptology Group study day Cédric Gobeil told us about his own personal work (as opposed to the work he oversaw as director). The original publications of the tombs at Deir el-Medina were some time ago, and the photographs were all in black & white and were supplemented by drawings that aren't to modern standards. And so the tombs need to be re-examined and republished - Gobeil has been working on tomb TT250. This tomb was originally identified as belonging to someone called Ramose from the reign of Ramesses II, but Gobeil's work now shows that it was the tomb of 9 women.

TT250 is in the mid-level of the western necropolis and is of small to average size. It has four chambers in the tomb chapel - one large one with 3 chapels off the back wall. Only the middle chapel at the back is decorated. The tomb itself is down a shaft in the courtyard in front of the chapel, there is a corridor leading from the shaft to a chamber with another chamber on the left of the corridor. Bernard Bruyère found little in the tomb, and Gobeil hasn't re-examined it.

The decoration of the chapel is in a style called "monochrome decoration" which is typical of Deir el-Medina tombs but unknown elsewhere in Egypt. Of the 22 tombs that use this decoration style TT250 is unique - all the rest are decorated in the burial chamber but here the decoration is in the chapel. The decoration uses four colours only - white, red, yellow and black. The name monochrome is thus a misnomer, but the overall impression is of yellow figures on a white background in contrast to the more colourful polychrome decoration used elsewhere.

Gobeil spent the majority of this talk walking us round the decoration in order & discussing it - which is always difficult to write up in any detail when I have none of the pictures so I shall instead try to summarise. Outside the chapel Bruyère had said there was no decoration, but Gobeil found that in certain lights there were traces of very faint decoration near the bottom. Once he'd seen that he found in their store room a door jamb that looks like a match both in terms of the decorative style & scene details and in terms of the names mentioned in the texts.

One of the surprising things about the internal decoration of the tomb chapel is that some of the offering bearers look like they are leaving the tomb. This is absolutely counter to usual practice, and seems to make no sense. Gobeil's theory is that the central axis of the decorative scheme doesn't match the central axis of the physical room. So instead of running through the centre of the door the axis runs through the middle of the "south" wall. I think the idea was that this axis lines up with north and the room itself doesn't quite do so. And once he'd identified that as the "real" axis all of the offering bearers & mourners were moving into the tomb.

There are 20 different women named in the tomb. 9 of these are represented as mummies, in two different groups, and these are the 9 women that Gobeil thinks are the actual tomb occupants. There are another 6 women who are receiving offerings, as well as women who are represented as part of couples receiving offerings. The offering bearers and mourners are all labelled as "son of" or "daughter of" one of the women. The 9 women buried here are titled as "servant", which is a unique case - no other tombs are for servants. And this provides us with some evidence for the social structure of the village - the households had servants, and these servants could (& did) have children.

The back (west-ish) wall is laid out like a giant stela. In the top register are Ramose and his wife, in the position of honour despite not being the tomb occupants. Other notable members of the community that we know from other tombs or documents are also depicted on the walls, some as adults and some as children. Gobeil thinks that this tomb was a shrine or memorial for the community as a whole, and the people depicted in it are a snapshot of who was in the community at the time the decoration was painted. He believes that this use was in addition to its use as a burial place for the 9 women, rather than that they were buried there because it was a shrine (or vice versa).

In April the Essex Egyptology Group held its annual study day. This year the subject was the workmen's village at Deir el-Medina with four talks given by Cédric Gobeil who was director of the French archaeological mission to the site for several years (before he became the Director of the Egypt Exploration Society in 2016). I've split my write-up into four parts, and this one covers the first talk.

"Archaeology in the Archive: A Short Historical Review of the French Excavations at Deir el-Medina"

This talk gave us historical context for the investigation of the site, as well as illustrating the information that can be gleaned by studying the archives of previous expeditions. Gobeil pointed out that archive archaeology is currently trendy - a combination of field archaeology being more difficult (more permissions, and the modern science takes much longer than the older treasure hunting style) and of how much unexpected & unpublished data lurks in the archives.

The village is positioned at the foothills of the Western mountains close to both the Valley of the Kings & the Valley of the Queens. The people who lived here were the workers (and their families) who built the tombs in these two valleys, and the village was occupied from the reign of Thutmose I to the end of the New Kingdom (roughly 1500 - 1000 BCE). The bulk of the excavation of the site was performed by a French team led by Bernard Bruyère who excavated there from 1922 to 1952. The work they did was so extensive that when Gobeil took up the job as director in 2011 he was told by friends & colleagues that he was making a mistake - it would be a dead end job with nothing left to find. Luckily for him this turned out not to be the case! The current work fills in the gaps that Bruyère left - some because he overlooked things and in other cases because he didn't have modern technology.

Gobeil showed us a map of the site drawn by Bruyère in 1956 which is still used as a reference to this day. The site can be split into 3 areas: the settlement, the necropolis to the west of the settlement and the cultic & religious area. He highlighted a few features of each of these to whet our appetites - for instance the walls around the settlement, which weren't to keep people in but were more likely to be for protection from the weather. The necropolis to the west is not the only necropolis at the site, but the eastern one doesn't seem to be the same population so isn't counted as part of Deir el-Medina nowadays. There are 491 tombs in the western necropolis of which 53 are decorated & have names. The cultic & religious area is dominated now by the Ptolemaic era temple which was built on top of the earlier structures that were contemporaneous with the workers in the village. These votive chapels were dedicated to the same gods as the later Ptolemaic structure, so there is some sort of continuity with the original inhabitants.

Bruyère hadn't been the first archaeologist to work at Deir el-Medina, although the first people to dig there in the first half of the 19th Century can't quite be called archaeologists being more focused on finding impressive objects for museums or private collectors rather than understanding the site. These people included Henry Salt and Bernardino Drovetti. From the later 19th Century the diggers were more archaeologically inclined - including names such as Auguste Mariette and Ernesto Schiaparelli. Gobeil showed us a photograph of Schiaparelli's excavation with a procession of workers bringing the tomb goods out of a tomb - a reversal of what the original preparation of the tomb must've looked like millennia ago.

The original French concession that Bruyère worked on in the 1920s was very large - it didn't just cover the known site but also into the mountains around it. In comparison the concession today covers just the site of Deir el-Medina. The larger size was partly because that was the way things were done at the time, and partly because the extent of the site wasn't known. In 1921 only a few bits of the village plus the temple and a couple of tombs were known. And originally the site was thought to be Ptolemaic because the temple was clearly of that era. Gobeil showed us archive photographs of how the site looked when Bruyère started work. It was full of rubbish and debris, and things left by the looters who had been there before him. So as with the modern expedition part of Bruyère's remit was to tidy up the site and make it visible & interesting to visitors.

Bruyère's dig house was in the hills above the site, and the kitchen of that structure is the same kitchen that Gobeil's team used whilst they were excavating there. But the rest of the building has been changed & extended since the 1920s! Not to the extent of providing running water, however - water is still brought up by donkey as it was in Bruyère's day. The dig house wasn't just living quarters for Bruyère's team, it was also the place they stored the artifacts they'd dug up.

Bruyère's team had about 75-100 workers per day, of whom around half were children. Children being cheaper to pay than donkeys were to hire! The excavation was done quickly even by the standards of the day. They started with the Eastern necropolis, as debris from this was likely to end up falling on the village. The original plan was to take 10 years to excavate the village itself, but because of World War II they ended up taking just one year to do the whole thing. Which is why there's been so much for Gobeil & his team to find, and there are probably lots more ostraca and overlooked objects in the massive debris mountain from Bruyère's excavation. After the war Bruyère returned and excavated the temple. The temple was apparently excavated down to the bedrock, although Gobeil has found things there that show that wasn't quite the case. But Bruyère did discover that there's a Ramesses II era temple underneath the Ptolemaic structure we see now - of course this can't be excavated as you'd need to dismantle the Ptolemaic one first. The last part of the site to be excavated by Bruyère was the Great Pit in the 1950s, and Gobeil showed us a photography of workers removing the debris from the pit by hand using the original staircase.

Bruyère was also keen to rebuild when he had excavated, as mentioned previously tourism was an important part of his plan for the site. And so even in the 1930s they were setting up tourist routes round the village as part of their rebuilding plan. The rush of the excavation did also mean that the rebuilding was rushed, so sadly Bruyère didn't always get it right. He also made the decision to leave the remains of the painted decoration in place for tourists to see - very interesting for those who visited then, but now it has eroded away and we know of it only from archive photographs. There's only one fragment that still remains on a house altar - a brightly coloured half image of a dancing girl with tattoos on her thighs.

The speed of Bruyère's excavation is both good and bad. The bad is that many smaller objects were missed, and there aren't secure contexts recorded for a lot of the finds from the village in particular. But it does mean we have knowledge of the whole site which we wouldn't otherwise have. An excavation of that scale would be far too expensive to be contemplated today - expensive in terms not only of money but also of manpower & time.

A lot of the information on the site & the finds comes from Bruyère's dig diary which he kept all the way through his time at Deir el-Medina. It is very thorough and Bruyère was a good draftsman who drew his finds at their contexts. It also includes newspaper clippings show what the general public of the time were learning about the site.

After Bruyère there were another couple of excavations over the next 20 years or so. But then there was no work at the site from 1975 until Gobeil took on directorship of the concession in 2011.

Gobeil finished up this talk by showing us photographs of some of the objects (now in the Louvre) found by Bruyère's team. These include a lot of everyday items, as well as ~15,000 ostraca (10,000 of these from the Great Pit). There were also more than a thousand papyrii, including lots of copies of the classic Middle Kingdom texts. He also showed us photographs of the people who visited the site while Bruyère was working there, including Petrie.

One of the things discussed in the question & answer session for this talk was the structures that are now thought to be house altars. These are raised platforms with a small staircase in the first room of 30 of the houses on the site. Originally they were thought to be beds, or perhaps places for women to give birth. But this seems implausible for many reasons - one of which is the position near the entrance to the houses in what was probably the public space of the house. The staircases which lead up to these platforms were decorated and show no signs of wear on the steps at all. This also counts against them being functional spaces for the human occupants of the house to walk up onto. Instead Gobeil told us that they were altars - the steps were not intended for people, they were intended for the gods to use to come & go from the altar. These altars were in a public space because when visitors were received in the household they'd bring a gift to place on the altar - and then after the guest was gone the householder would use the gift themselves in the same way that food offerings etc in a temple would be redistributed by the priests after it had been offered to the gods.

Pages

Subscribe to