Egyptian Stories

A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd on the Occasion of His Retirement.

Edited byThomas Schneider and Kasia Szpakowska

Alter Orient und Altes TestamentVeröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients

und des Alten Testaments

Band 347

[AOAT EDITORIAL DETAILS HERE]

Egyptian Stories

A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd on the Occasion of His Retirement.

Edited byThomas Schneider and Kasia Szpakowska

2007Ugarit-Verlag

Münster

[AOAT RIGHTS/ISBN INFO HERE]

Foreword

“But concerning Egypt, I am going to speak at length, because it has the most wonders, and everywhere presents works beyond description”

Egyptian Stories as the title for the Festschrift to honour Alan Lloyd’s achieve-ments is particularly apt because it encapsulates the main strands of his in-terests and academic tenets, and is equally pertinent to the character of this gathering of papers. It is an obvious reference to the histories of Herodotus, and to Alan’s seminal commentary on the Greek historian’s Egyptian logos as a scholar dedicated to both the Classical Civilizations of the Mediterranean and Egypt. It also emphasizes Alan’s interest in the past, his insistence on scientific scrutiny (the basic meaning of history), and his profound love of (hi)stories, of literature. Following Herodotus’ motto, the present volume of Egyptian Stories wishes to speak at length about Egypt, and to present modern inquiries into its wonders and works beyond description. It explores Egypt from the Saqqara Necropolis to the Red Sea, from Sais in the Western Delta to festive Thebes, and reaches to the Greek Mainland and the Levant. It offers to the recipient water, honey, flint, amethyst and gold. It investigates the belief in Amun, in the jackal god, in the gods of the Western and Eastern deserts, and sacred animals. It unfolds stories about women, goddesses and queens, about priests and kings, and reflects about the acquisition of knowledge, the prediction of dreams, erotic gestures, and the purchase of arms. It also writes in new facets on the page of how Ancient Egypt was recreated in modern Britain.

Thus, it is fitting that this be a British tribute to Alan, as he has always been a champion of Egyptology in this country. For years he has dedicated himself as Chairman of the Egypt Exploration Society, engaged in expanding the scope of our knowledge of Ancient Egypt through the Society’s excavations and publications. He has made Ancient Egypt come alive for the British public as well, through the numerous lectures he generously gives for societies and universities throughout the UK. The University of Wales Swansea has par-ticularly benefited from Alan’s expertise for over four decades. As Pro-Vice-Chancellor he helped shape the profile of the university as a whole, and as Head of Department of Classics and Ancient History for many years, Alan cultivated the Egyptological component by teaching undergraduate courses and supervising research students. As a teacher, Alan has always emphasised the importance of teaching and the transmission of knowledge, and this is

viii

clearly recognised by his students who flock to his lectures. Building on the work of J. Gwyn Griffiths and Kate Bosse-Griffiths, he helped to establish a campus Museum of Egyptian Antiquities: The Egypt Centre. Finally, it was largely through the foresight and endeavours of Alan Lloyd that the field of Egyptology was established as an integral component of the department that now is formally called ‘Classics, Ancient History, and Egyptology’. Through all his efforts, Wales is now home to a thriving Egyptological community that is composed of large numbers of local and international students, scholars and researchers. Alan’s devotion to British Egyptology is reflected by the willing-ness and alacrity with which his colleagues have contributed here.

This collection of articles would not have been possible without the most generous financial support of the Egypt Exploration Society (to whom we are also grateful for permission to use the photograph of Alan as our frontis-piece), and a contribution by the School of Humanities of The University of Wales Swansea. We are grateful to the series editors of Alter Orient und Altes Testament for agreeing to publish the Festschrift, and to Steven Snape and Rutherford Press Limited for facilitating the production of the volume. A note concerning style: as Egyptologists approach their subject through a variety of sub-disciplines, in this volume each contributor’s individual and appropri-ate transliteration and citation style has been retained. The editors and the contributors hope that Alan accepts this tome as a sincere token of recogni-tion and esteem for his achievements as a scholar and a promoter of British Egyptology.

Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................

C. A. R. Andrews, Eponymous Priests Old and New in Unpublished Frag-mentary Demotic British Museum Papyri (P. BM EA 76271, 76269A, 10992 and 10540) .........................................................................................................

D. A. Aston, A Taste of Honey: mnt- and mDot-Vessels in the Late Eighteenth Dynasty ............................................................................................................................

M. Collier, Facts, Situations and Knowledge Acquisition: gmi with iw and r-Dd in Late Egyptian .................................................................................................

A. M. Dodson, Legends of a Sarcophagus ....................................................................

T. DuQuesne, Private Devotion and Public Practice: aspects of Egyptian art and religion as revealed by the Salakhana stelae ................................................

R. Enmarch, What the Ancestors Foretold: Some References to Prediction in Middle Egyptian Texts ...............................................................................................

D. W. J. Gill, Arsinoe in the Peloponnese: the Ptolemaic base on the Methana peninsula ..........................................................................................................................

C. Graves-Brown, Flint and the Northern Sky ..........................................................

K. Griffin, An Ax iqr n Ra Stela from the collection of the Egypt Centre, Swansea ............................................................................................................................

K. A. Kitchen, Festivity in Ramesside Thebes and Devotion to Amun and his City ....................................................................................................................................

I. Mathieson, Recent Results of Geophysical Survey in the Saqqara Necropolis

R. G. Morkot, War and the Economy: the International ‘arms trade’ in the Late Bronze Age and after ........................................................................................

E. F. Morris, Sacred and Obscene Laughter in The Contendings of Horus and Seth, in Egyptian Inversions of Everyday Life, and in the Context of Cul-tic Competition .............................................................................................................

vii

1

13

33

47

55

75

87

111

137

149

155

169

197

x

G. Mumford, Egypto-Levantine relations during the Iron Age to early Per-sian periods (Dynasties late 20 to 26) ....................................................................

E. J. Owens, The Waters of Alexandria .........................................................................

R. B. Parkinson, ‘Une cantilène de Pentaour’: Marguerite Yourcenar and Middle Kingdom Literature ......................................................................................

T. Schneider, Contextualising the Tale of the Herdsman ........................................

I. Shaw, Late Roman Amethyst and Gold Mining at Wadi el-Hudi ................

H. S. Smith and S. Davies, The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara yet again! Some Late Period inscribed offering-tables from the site ..........

K. Spence, Topography, Architecture and Legitimacy: Hatshepsut’s founda-tion deposits at Deir el-Bahri ...................................................................................

N. Spencer, A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef .......................

K. Szpakowska, Flesh for Fantasy: Reflections of Women in Two Ancient Egyptian Dream Manuals ..........................................................................................

J. H. Taylor, The earliest Egyptian hippocampus .......................................................

A. P. Thomas, The Barefoot Aristocrats and the Making of an Egyptian Collection

P. Wilson, A Cult of Amasis and ‘The Procession of Two Gods’ at Saïs ............

225

289

301

309

319

329

353

373

393

405

417

437

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef

N. Spencer

Abstract: Publication of a statue base inscribed with the titles of Nekhtnebef, originally part of a series of lion and sphinx statues set up in Theban temples, on the basis of parallel pieces and the inscrip-tion. An appendix surveys evidence for Wallis Budge’s trip to Egypt, during which the monu-ment was acquired for the British Museum.

***

During the Thirtieth Dynasty, Egypt witnessed a temple construction pro-gramme which encompassed all of the major religious sites and nome capitals of Egypt.1 Allowing for the evident problems in relying upon the preserved ar-chaeological record, it seems this was conceived on a scale not witnessed since the reign of Ramses II. The collections of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum include several important monuments from this construction programme, including the obelisks of Nekhthorheb from Hermopolis Magna,2 parts of two naoi from the Egypt Exploration Fund ex-cavations at Bubastis,3 two dado reliefs of Nekhtnebef,4 several statues5 and the enigmatic greywacke architectural elements, often erroneously referred to as ‘intercolumnar slabs’.6 This paper presents a more modest object, a statue base inscribed for Nekhtnebef, which originally formed part of a series of statues set up in Theban temples.1 Alan Lloyd was the external assessor for my initial year of doctoral research into Thirtieth Dynasty temple building in 1997, thus it seemed appropriate to offer a modest publication of a Nectanebid monument in this volume, in thanks for his support and comments at the time. The temple building of the Thirtieth Dynasty is surveyed in N. Spencer, A Naos of Nekhthorheb from Bubastis. Religious Iconography and Temple Building in the �0th Dynasty (British Museum Research Publications 156; London, 2006), Chapter 7.2 EA 523 and 524; for provenance and bibliography cf. A.J. Spencer, Excavations at el-Ashmu-nein, II: The Temple Area (London, 1989), 73, n.25.3 EA 1005, 1078–80, 1106; see Spencer, Naos.4 EA 1731 and 1732; for the latter cf. H.R. Hall, ‘Egyptian and Babylonian Antiquities’, BMQ 5 (1931), 18–19.5 Torso of Nekhtnebef from Saft el-Henna, EA 1013: J.C.H. King, Human Image (Lon-don, 2000), 65 [49]. Statue of Amun-Ra and Nekhthorheb, EA 1421: T. Holm-Rasmussen, ‘Some monuments of the last pharaoh viewed in the light of contemporary ideology’, Hafnia 10 (1985), 9–13.6 EA 22 and 998; for the most recent bibliography, cf. J. Yoyotte, ‘Un nouveau souvenir de Sheshanq I et un muret héliopolitain de plus’, RdE 54 (2003), 219–53.

N. Spencer374

Statue base British Museum EA 1230The rectangular monument, EA 1230, is carved from relatively coarse sand-stone, and measures 92 cm in length, 31 cm in width and 14 cm in height (fig.1). Other than superficial chipping to the edges of the piece, particularly at the rear corners, and some gouging on the underside, the object is well preserved. The upper surface does not bear any decoration, but a single line of sunk relief hieroglyphic inscriptions is carved around all four sides. This in-scription consists of two nearly identical texts which present the royal titulary of Nekhtnebef, symmetrically arranged around the central axis of the base, commencing at the front with the anx-sign, which introduces the Living Ho-rus name (figs.2–5). Both sides of the inscription share the final phrase, ‘may he be given life like Ra’. The quality of the carving varies, particularly in terms of the layout of individual signs; see, for example, the three xa signs before Nekhtnebef ’s nomen cartouche on the right side (fig.3).

The text carved upon the proper right side of the base reads:The Living Horus ‘Strong of Arm’, the Two Ladies ‘One who estab-lishes the Two Lands’, the Golden Horus ‘One who undertakes what the gods desire’, the Dual King, Kheperkara, Son of Ra, Lord of Ap-pearances, Nekhtnebef, beloved of Amun-Ra (of ) 9sr-st, may he be given life like Ra.

The same text is repeated on the other side, though Amun-Ra is afforded a different epithet. Unfortunately, this area of the inscription is rather damaged (figs.3, 5). The original surface into which this part of the text was carved has disappeared, whereas some survives elsewhere, particularly on the rear face. As such, one must rely on traces of the carving, particularly the deepest parts of each carved sign, below the original surface of the dressed stone. It is often difficult to distinguish between damage to the soft stone, and traces of hiero-glyphs. The space between the signs representing Imn-Ra, and the beginning of the word mry, is filled with three groups of traces. The first is undoubtedly a sedge-plant (nsw), after which follows a very damaged area. In the centre of this patch, at the far right end of the left side of the monument, is the clearly carved top of a sign which may be a stroke. The text continues around the cor-ner onto the rear face; here all that remains is the impression created by a hi-eroglyph with a straight vertical line as a central element, and a wider element towards the top. The epithet of Amun-Ra which best fits the traces would be nsw nTrw, the latter word being written with three plural strokes signs ar-ranged vertically (on the proper left side of the base) and the standard nTr-sign on the adjoining rear face. This rather awkward handling of the inscription is not unusual on such monuments. Indeed the signs are well spaced before the prenomen cartouche, but the ‘son of Ra, lord of appearances’ title, and the writ-ing of Amun-Ra, are rather cramped.

The upper surface of the base, which would have supported the statue, bears

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 375

Figure 4: British Museum EA 1230, proper right.

Figure 1: British Museum EA 1230, general view.

Figure 5: British Museum EA 1230, back.

Fig.3: British Museum EA 1230, proper left.

Figure 2: British Museum EA 1230, front.

N. Spencer376

some interesting discolouration (fig.1). A rectangular area of the surface, cov-ering the two-thirds of the upper face nearest the front of the base, is of a much lighter hue than the rest, suggesting this part was covered for a long pe-riod, while the remaining areas were open to other elements. Though the pro-portions of this lighter-hued area are consistent with the ‘footprint’ of a statue, whether an anthropomorphic figure or a falcon statue of the type erected in Nekhthorheb’s reign,7 preserved examples of the latter type of sculpture always include the statue and its base carved out of one piece of stone, and are of a smaller scale. Anthropomorphic statues were typically set towards the back of their base. Hence it is likely that the discolouration derives from a secondary use/deposit of the stone. One further question deserves highlighting. Was the original statue cut from its base, to provide a rectangular slab for re-use? The upper surface is very evenly ‘cut’. Or was the base originally part of a compos-ite statue, made of two or more parts, possibly of different materials. The lack of any holes or tangs on EA 1230 suggests the former explanation is more likely.

Provenance and parallelsThe British Museum acquisition records contain no information relating to the provenance of this object, thus the inscription, and similar but well-prov-enanced monuments, offer the only clues as to its original context. Unlike the monuments of Nekhthorheb, whose cartouches often contained internal epithets relating to deities which were specifically modified for certain loca-tions,8 those of Nekhtnebef offer no such opportunity. There are variants in the writing of the nomen, Nxt-nb.f, but these do not appear to be regionally consistent.9 It is interesting that the four statues discussed here (figs.1–7, 9) all use the sphinx-hieroglyph to represent the nb-element in the king’s nomen, perhaps an intentional reference to the type of statue.

As such, the epithets of Amun-Ra offer the only internal evidence for prov-enance. King of gods (nsw-nTrw) is a relatively common designation of this deity, typically associated with Karnak, but also depicted or invoked in temples at many other sites.10 The other epithet on the base, Dsr-st, strongly suggests an 7 e.g. Fine Antiquities. London, Wednesday, 5 July 1995 (Christie’s Sale Catalogue; London, 1995), 35 [67]; D. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs (Oxford, 1999), fig. 82; Coptos. L’Égypte antique aux portes du désert. Lyon, Musée des Beaux-Arts. � février - 7 mai 2000 (Lyon, 2000), 129 [95].8 H. Jenni, Elephantine XVII. Die Dekoration des Chnumtempels auf Elephantine durch Nek-tanebos II (AV 90; Mainz 1998), 75–8.9 Variants on the standard writing are found on monuments at el-Baqlieh (L. Habachi, ‘Notes on the Delta Hermopolis’, ASAE 53 (1955), 449, fig.5), Karnak (C. Traunecker, ‘Un exemple de rite de substitution: une stèle de Nectanébo Ier’, Cahiers de Karnak, 7 (1982), 339–54: 341, fig.3) and el-Mo’alla (G. Gabra, ‘Hemen and Nectanebo I in Mo’alla’, CdE 49 (1974), 234–7; Antiq-uities and Islamic Works of Art. New York, November 21 and 22, 1985 (Sotheby’s Sale Catalogue; New York, 2005), nos.133–4).10 C. Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen I (OLA 110; Leuven, 2002), 320–2.

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 377

Figure 7: Cairo Museum CG 661, proper right side. Reproduced from Borchardt, Statuen III: pl. 121

Figure 6: Berlin Museum 2280, proper right side. Courtesy of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin

association with Medinet Habu, as this toponym, written with the chapel (pr) determinative, was used to describe the small temple at Medinet Habu from its initial construction onwards,11 and was still employed in the second century BC.12 The epithets ‘king of gods’, and ‘lord of the thrones of the Two Lands’, are also found within this temple.13 The designation st Dsr can be used to qualify other temples, but in these cases without the chapel determinative.14

11 Building inscription of Tuthmosis III, K. Sethe, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Neuntes und Zeh-ntes Heft. Historisch-biographische Urkunden aus der Zeit Thutmosis’ III (Leipzig, 1907), 880–2.12 S. Sauneron, Le temple d’Esna. Esna II (PIFAO; Cairo, 1963), 79. See further discussion in R. el-Sayed, ‘Au sujet de la statue CG.680 du musée du Caire de l’époque ptolémaïque et prov-enant de Thèbes ouest’, BIFAO 80 (1980), 235–6.13 LD III, 38 [c–d], 286 [h].14 G. Lefebvre, Inscriptions concernant les grands prêtres d’Amon, Romê-Roÿ et Amenhotep (Paris,

N. Spencer378

Figure 9: Lion inscribed for Nekhtnebef. Found in front of the east jamb of the Tiberius gate, Medinet Habu. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Figure 8: Fragment of a lion or sphinx inscribed for Nekhthorheb, at Behbeit el-Hagar.

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 379

The attribution of EA 1230 to Medinet Habu is further supported by Höls-cher’s discovery of the lower part of a statue at Medinet Habu, inside a gate-way, erected by Claudius Tiberius, set into the enclosure wall of the small temple (fig.9).15 Only the base and the lower part of the leonine body were found, thus it is possible this statue represented a sphinx or a lion. Presumably, the statue was repositioned in the Roman period, though its original loca-tion is unlikely to have been far removed from its findspot; Thirtieth Dynasty activity in and around the small temple is discussed below. Though the head is missing, the preserved part of the body and the nature of the band of text around the base are identical to EA 1230. Again, slight variations are visible in the carving, with the st-sign fitting on the left side, and nb xaw written with the plural strokes and the xa-sign at the same level, differing from EA 1230 and the other monuments discussed below. I do not know of the present whereabouts of this lion, and the only extant photograph does not allow study of all four sides of inscription.

An even closer similarity exists between the statue base EA 1230 and two sandstone lions. A lion statue in Berlin (No.2280; fig.6) measures 106 cm in length.16 This type of statue is relatively rare: the lion is usually depicted with its head turned at right angles to its body in temple sculpture, such as the Soleb lions of Amenhotep III,17 and the Thirtieth Dynasty examples now in the Mu-seo Egizio at the Vatican,18 and in the Louvre Museum.19 The Berlin lion has a more formal appearance, its head facing forwards as with sphinxes. Examples of this such lion statues are known from the Ramesside period.20 Though the Berlin lion is very finely carved, the proportions are rather unusual, with a very small head in relation to the rest of its body. Could this piece have been recarved in antiquity? It was clearly never a sphinx, as the gentle curvature of the back towards the back of the head is not consistent with the nemes-wig typically worn by sphinxes.21 The inscription running around the base of the

1929), 53; contra el-Sayed, BIFAO 80, 235.15 U. Hölscher, The Excavation of Medinet Habu, 5. Post-Ramessid Remains (OIP 66; Chicago, 1954), 37, pl. 23.C. Thanks are due to Emily Teeter and John Wilson at the Oriental Institute for providing access to this material.16 Ausführliches Verzeichnis der Ägyptischen Altertümer und Gipsabgüsse (Berlin, 1899), 249. I am grateful to Olivia Zorn of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, for providing the photograph published here.17 E. Russmann, Eternal Egypt. Masterworks of Ancient Art from the British Museum (London, 2001), 130–1.18 A. Roullet, The Egyptian and Egyptianizing monuments of Imperial Rome (EPRO 20; Lei-den, 1972), 131–2 [273–4], figs. 279–83, pls.190–3. These are probably from el-Baqlieh, as the inscription on the base refers to Thoth wp-rHwy.19 J.M. Humbert et al., Egyptomania. Egypt in Western Art 17�0-19�0 (Ottawa and Paris, 1994), 345–7 [208]. These are uninscribed, but were found in situ at the Serapeum by Mariette, flanking the dromos to face arriving visitors, before the gate of Nekhtnebef.20 G. Careddu, Museu Baracco di Scultura Antica. La Collezione Egizia (Rome, 1985): 22, fig. 21.21 For contemporary examples, see the sphinxes of Nekhtnebef at Luxor: J. A. Josephson,

N. Spencer380

Berlin lion is almost identical to that on the British Museum piece. Nekht-nebef ’s titulary is followed by the epithet ‘beloved of Amun-Ra of Dsr-st’ on the left side, while the other face features the epithet ‘lord of the thrones of the Two Lands’.22 A provenance of Karnak has been cited in the literature for this lion.23 While the inclusion of the epithet Dsr-st points to an association with Medinet Habu, it does not imply the statue was actually set up there, as there were close links between Medinet Habu and the temple complex at Karnak, and Amun-Ra (of ) Dsr-st clearly had a presence at the latter site. A Thirtieth Dynasty monument at Karnak was intended as a cultic substitute for actual rituals taking place at Medinet Habu,24 and the small East Temple bears a Ptolemaic inscriptions invoking ‘[Amun-Ra] … unique god who has no equal, king of gods, Dsr-st, lord [of the thrones of the Two Lands who presides over] Karnak’.25 Other temples in the wider Theban area could also feature monu-ments with depictions or references to Amun-Ra Dsr-st, such as upon a gate-way of Ptolemy II at Medamud,26 in the temple of Thoth at Qasr el-Agouz27 or on the gateway of the temple at Deir el-Medina.28 The epithet ‘lord of the thrones of the Two Lands’ is most frequently associated with Karnak, though forms of Amun elsewhere in Egyptian take this qualification also.29

A very similar piece to the Berlin lion is now in the Cairo Museum (CG 661; fig.7).30 The head is missing, thus it is unknown if this was a lion or sphinx statue. The markings on the side of the foreleg are familiar from sphinxes,31 but are also found in a more stylized form on the Berlin lion. The text on the Cairo statue is the same as that upon the Berlin lion,32 with the exception of the phrase following the epithet of the deity, and the base is 101 cm long. There is no secure provenance given for the statue.

Egyptian Royal Sculpture of the Late Period 400–246 BC (SDAIK 30; Mainz 1997), pl. 3.22 LD III, 286 [d–g].23 Ausführliches Verzeichnis, 249; F.K. Kienitz, Die politische Geschichte Agyptens von 7. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende (Berlin, 1953), 209 [78].24 Traunecker, Karnak 7, 339–54.25 P. Barguet, Le Temple d’Amon-Rê à Karnak. Essai d’exégèse (Cairo, 1962), 234–5.26 J.F. Carlotti and C. Sambin, ‘Une porte de fête-sed de Ptolémée II remployée dans le tem-ple de Montou à Médamoud’, BIFAO 95 (1995), 396–7, figs. 14–15.27 ‘Amun-Ra Dsr-st lord of the thrones of the Two Lands in Karnak’, D. Mallet, Le Kasr-el-Agouz (MIFAO 11; Cairo, 1909), 53.28 Here Amun-Ra is given the epithets nb nswt tAwy xnty Ipt-4wt Dsr-st. Bourguet, Le temple de Deir al-Médina (MIFAO 121, Cairo, 2002), 4.29 e.g. ‘Amun-Ra lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, lord of Hibis’, N. de G. Davies, The temple of Hibis in el-Khargeh Oasis, III: The decoration (MMA Egyptian Excavations 17; New York, 1953), pl. 11.30 L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten, III (CGC; Berlin, 1930), 9, pl. 121.31 K. Mysliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI–XXX (Mainz, 1998), pl. 3.a.32 Borchardt has not restored the destroyed s at the start of each side face in his publication; Statuen III, 9.

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 381

These four monuments all bear a similar inscription, featuring Nekhtnebef ’s titulary, and the epithet ‘beloved of Amun-Ra (of ) Dsr-st’ on the right side. While the Berlin and Cairo examples feature ‘beloved of Amun-Ra lord of the thrones of the Two Lands’ on the other side, this cannot be confirmed for EA 1230; a reading of ‘king of gods’ fits the traces better. It is possible all were set up at Medinet Habu, and may have been quarried from the same stone. Indeed, it would be likely the Berlin and Cairo examples were commissioned simultaneously, as the inscriptions, material and scale are nearly identical, with only small stylistic variations evident in the sculpture. Small variations between the inscriptions upon these two and the British Museum base are noteworthy. Upon the right side of the Cairo and Berlin bases, the title nb xaw is written with one xa-sign with the plural strokes below it. The London base favours three xa-signs instead of the plural strokes. The Cairo inscription ends with di Dd wAs mi Ra and Di anx mi Ra, whereas the Berlin lion has di anx snb mi Ra and di anx Dd wAs mi Ra. The British Museum base is some 10 cm shorter, giving the sculptor less space for the inscription; as a result, the phrase after the divine designations was shortened to di anx mi Ra. It is often overlooked how small differences in scale and layout could be acceptable in sacred contexts; the carelessness of some of the carving is noted above. In the Late Period, rela-tively crude structural repairs were undertaken at the Hibis, in an undoubtedly important temple.33 At Behbeit el-Hagar, though significant resources were expended on bringing all the necessary hard stone to the site and undertak-ing exquisite relief sculpture, a fragmentary quartzite sphinx of Nekhthorheb may attest to compromise. The front of the base was chipped, but the carving was merely continued over the broken area (fig.8). Gallo suggested the break may have occurred in the workshop.34 The relative rarity of the stone, quartzite, should not be overlooked. In particular, if the hieroglyphs were being carved at Behbeit, or at a nearby workshop, the small damage was evidently thought not significant enough to warrant waiting for another quarry expedition.

The small variations in the sizes of the four bases of the sandstone lion/ sphinx statues may have been dictated by their individual architectural con-texts, now lost to us. But minor variations of this type were clearly accept-able in a single series too. The Serapeum sphinxes provide a useful data set by which one can compare variations in size. Of the eleven complete examples in Vienna, seven do not exhibit any signs of loss from the base, allowing fairly accurate measurements to be made.35 The bases vary in length from 120 cm (ÄS 5763) to 130.5 cm (ÄS 5758). Thus the shorter length of EA 1230 does not preclude it being part of the same group as the Berlin and Cairo lions. It is 33 E. Cruz-Uribe, Hibis Temple Project. I: Translations, Commentary, Discussions and Sign-lists (San Antonio, 1998), 217–19.34 P. Gallo, ‘Quelques documents royaux provenant de Behbeit el-Hagar’, BIFAO 90 (1990), 225.35 E. Rogge, Statuen der �0. Dynastie und der ptölemaïsch-römieschen Epoche (CAA Kunsthistor-isches Museum Wien 11; Mainz 1999), 1–50.

N. Spencer382

worth recalling that the rear part of the inscription would not have been as vis-ible as the rest, particularly if flanked by ancillary structures and trees, as found at the Luxor avenue of sphinxes.36 Overall, the ancient visitor to a temple would still retain a harmonious impression when looking at a number of such statues in close proximity, as the principal impression (front and three-quarter views) would be of a regular series, emphasised by the symmetrical inscription carved on the front of the base, and the cartouches on either side (by far the most dominant visual element in each inscription).

Temples at several sites were completely rebuilt in the Thirtieth Dynasty, but others received more modest embellishments. In particular, gateways, porti-coes fronting structures, enclosure walls and sacred avenues received attention; in essence, an emphasis on spatial organisation and the expansion of sacred space.37 As a result, many Thirtieth Dynasty sphinxes have survived, with sig-nificant numbers recovered from processional avenues at Saqqara, and in the Theban area. Those on the avenue linking Karnak and Luxor are inscribed for Nekhtnebef, and are conceived on a much larger scale than the monument originally set up on EA 1230. The Luxor sphinxes, incorporating an inscribed base, were set up on sandstone pedestals measuring 3.29 m in length, 1.15 m in width and 1.25 m in height.38 The Saqqara sphinxes are somewhat closer in size to EA 1230, measuring between 1.2 and 1.31 m in length, but these are limestone statues. Though none bear hieroglyphic inscriptions, their archae-ological context suggests a Thirtieth Dynasty dating.39 Two unprovenanced grey granite sphinxes of Nekhtnebef are now in the park at Châteauneuf-sur-Loire.40 In addition, sphinxes of Nekhthorheb are known from Behbeit el-Hagar (fig.8), the Serapeum,41 and the Mut temple at Karnak.42

The closest parallels to the Theban group discussed here are from Upper Egyptian sites. A sandstone sphinx in the Louvre (A29)43 is slightly smaller in length (88 cm) than the British Museum base. The inscription around the base follows the same pattern, with the epithet mry-Imn following the king’s cartouches. The use of sandstone suggests an Upper Egyptian provenance; ac-quired through Henry Salt, this Louvre piece may also come from a Theban temple. Another sandstone sphinx, of a scale similar to that of the British Mu-36 M. Abd er-Raziq, ‘Study on Nectanebo Ist in Luxor Temple and Karnak’, MDAIK 23 (1968), 156–9.37 See N. Spencer, Naos, 48–9. 38 Abd er-Raziq, MDAIK 23, 157, pl. 45.39 Rogge, Statuen, 1–50, with further bibliography. Lembke prefers a Ptolemaic date (K. Lem-bke, ‘Die Sphingenallee von Saqqara und ihre Werkstatt’ MDAIK 54 (1988), 266–73).40 A. Biedenkopf-Ziehner, and H.-J. Thissen, ‘Zwei sphingen Nektanebos’ I. an der Loire’ Enchoria, 3 (1973): 47–51.41 A. Mariette, Le Sérapéum de Memphis, I (Paris, 1882), 16–17.42 J. Leclant, ‘Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1979–1980’, Orientalia 51 (1981), 78.43 M. Desti, Des dieux, des tombeaux, un savant. En Égypte, sur les pas de Mariette pacha (Boul-ogne, 2004), 160–1 [80].

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 383

seum base, was found before the main gate of the Nekhbet temple precinct at el-Kab; a Thirtieth Dynasty dating is most likely.44 The base is uninscribed.

Two sphinxes found in a deep archaeological deposit at the rear of the temple at Medamud are carved in a relatively coarse sandstone similar to EA 1230.45 The first, inv.2113, was preserved in one piece, without the head (a head found nearby, inv.2114, was associated with the sphinx body by the excavator). It measured 1.03 m long and 30 cm wide, with an inscribed base. This differed in composition to EA 1230, with only one cartouche appearing on each side, in addition to the first three parts of the royal titulary. The extra space thus afford-ed allowed for an additional phrase after ‘beloved of Montu lord of Medamud’. The right side had nTr nfr wr Sft mi MnTw (‘the good god, great of terror like Montu’), while the other side featured nTr nfr ir Axt n it.f MnTw (‘the good god, who undertakes glories for his father Montu’). The second Medamud sphinx, inv.2115, was of the same size (again, the excavator associated a separate head to the sphinx; inv.2116), and had a similar inscriptional content, with two other phrases: nTr nfr aHA sxr sbiw mi MnTw (‘the good god, who fights and van-quishes the enemies like Montu’), and nTr nfr aA nxt wr pHty mi MnTw (‘the good god, one who is great of might and great of strength like Montu’). Effectively, the Medamud sphinxes were identifying the pharaoh with various qualities of the god to whom the temple was dedicated, with an emphasis on terrifying and powerful aspects. It is unclear whether these sphinxes are the remnants of a sacred avenue (their eventual findspot clearly not being their original location), or simply a pair flanking a gateway. If part of an avenue, the other sphinxes would have been carved with a variety of other phrases associating the king with Montu. Though featuring a different subject matter, the texts carved upon the Luxor sphinxes of Nekhtnebef exhibit a similar use of subtle variation in textual content, in this case describing the layout of the local sacred topography.46

Where would the British Museum statue have been set up? At Medinet Habu, the most likely provenance, Thirtieth Dynasty activity was concentrated on the small temple (Dsr-st). In addition to the statue discussed above (fig.6), Nekhtnebef added texts to the portico and second pylon.47 While the latter part was built in the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, the cartouches of Nekhtnebef on the portico appear to be carved over the name of Hakoris.48 As elsewhere in Egypt, the spatial organisation of the temple enclosure was modified. The exact configuration is not clear, but remnants are preserved of two gateways

44 Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire E.7702; P. Gilbert, Exposition des objets prov-enant des fouilles d’El-Kab ou récemment acquis par le département égyptien (Brussels, 1952), 2 [1], fig. on cover.45 F. Bisson de la Roque, Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud (1926) (FIFAO 4; Cairo, 1927), 116–18.46 Abd er-Raziq, MDAIK 23, 156–9.47 PM II², 463–5.48 C. Traunecker et al., La chapelle d’Achôris à Karnak, 2 (Recherches sur les grandes civilisa-tions. Synthèse 5; Paris, 1981), 16, pls.F1–2.

N. Spencer384

of Nekhtnebef, one of which was set into the north stretch of the small tem-ple’s enclosure wall.49 A series of lions/sphinxes, numbering at least four, may have embellished these doorways, or the sacred avenues leading from them. Nekhthorheb’s activity at the site was confined to the well, located behind the small temple.50 Of course, extensive building also took place at Karnak, Luxor, Tod, Medamud and Armant, which cannot be removed from consideration as an original provenance for the British Museum statue base.

Budge’s purchasing expedition to Egypt in the winter of 1897-8EA 1230 bears the registration number 1897,0511.226, referring to the offi-cial date of accession at the British Museum, May 11th, 1897. It was included in a lot of 233 objects purchased by the Museum from R.J. Moss. Based in Al-exandria, Moss is fairly ubiquitous in the register books of the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan: the Museum database lists 3772 objects purchased through him. The Who’s Who in Egyptology entry summarises his role:

during the 1890’s the British Museum purchased several important collections of antiquities from his company, and it would appear that he acted as an agent for Budge, purchasing and storing objects selected by Budge which the Museum could not immediately afford, and then shipping them when the finances became available; his company also handled the shipment of antiquities purchased by Budge from other sources.51

As is clear from his autobiography, Budge visited Egypt many times be-tween 1893 and 1913, travelling through the country to acquire antiquities.52 Consultation of the British Museum archives, including correspondence, min-utes of meetings and the reports to the trustees, revealed information on the trip which led to EA 1230 entering the collection.53

In a letter to the Museum, received on January 4th, 1897, Budge outlines his itinerary. He left London on November 6th, arriving in Port Said five days later. Subsequently, Budge travelled to Cairo, where he spent some days purchasing objects from the Giza Museum and ‘other persons’, using British Museum funds. Caution is required when using any Budge data, as there are a number of mistakes regarding ancient dating, the reading of names and the 49 PM II², 474–5.50 PM II², 275.51 M. L. Bierbrier, Who Was Who in Egyptology. Third revised edition (London, 1995), 299.52 cf. E. A. W. Budge, By Nile and Tigris. A Narrative of Journeys in Egypt and Mesopotamia on Behalf of the British Museum between the Years 1886 and 191�, II (London, 1920), 321–81. Details of which sites were visited, or objects acquired, are often unreliable (cf. M. Smith, M. ‘Budge at Akhmim, January 1986’, in C. Eyre (ed.), The Unbroken Reed. Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt. In Honour of A.F. Shore (EES Occasional Publications 11; London, 1996), 293).53 I would like to thank Patricia Usick, archivist in the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan at the British Museum, for her helpful comments on Budge’s activities.

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 385

identification of material in the below statement.‘With this sum I purchased from the Ghîzeh Museum a collection of pottery which M. de Morgan found at Abydos, and believes to be-long to the prehistoric period, and an interesting mummy of the period about B.C. 1000; and from other persons a large collection of scarabs 1290 in number, also from Abydos and belonging to all periods from the IVth dynasty to the XXVIth; a large stone slab from the tomb of Shera, an official who flourished in the reign of Sent, a king of the IInd dynasty who reigned before B.C. 4000; a lintel of a door from the tomb of an official of Khephren, about B.C. �700; a large mastaba door of the same period; and a number of smaller objects. You will no-tice from the account that the scarabs cost less than five shillings each, which, considering how much they are sought after by tourists is a low figure. It was necessary to buy them in order to carry on negotiations for more important objects.’

This description corresponds very well with a group of 1352 objects acces-sioned on January 12th, 1897 (Budge returned to England on December 7th, 1896); the Departmental register explicitly states 1034 were bought from the Giza Museum. The massive purchase of scarabs echoes the later statement that the British Museum trustees wished to increase the scarab collection dur-ing the 1890s.54 Unfortunately, there are no records of how or when the Giza Museum material travelled back to the Museum, in contrast to the material acquired elsewhere in Egypt that winter (see below).

Returning to Budge’s letter received on January 4th, he continues:‘According to your wish I discussed with M. de Morgan the possibility of purchasing duplicates from the Ghizeh Museum, and found him ready to do all that he could in the matter. He is now at Abydos exca-vating two “prehistoric” tombs for us, and when the results, skeletons, etc., are packed up and despatched to the Trustees all they will have to pay for will be the wood for the boxes and the carriage. I found M. de Morgan most willing to help us.’

The acquisition of casts of ancient sculptures still in Egypt, or in other col-lections, occurred intermittently throughout the 19th century, such as the colossal statue of Ramses II at Mit Rahineh.55 Budge’s agreement with De Morgan over his ongoing Abydos excavations seems to have borne little suc-cess: no objects in the collection are associated with De Morgan’s excavations, according to the register. De Morgan left Egypt in 1897, which must have affected this arrangement.56

54 Budge, Nile and Tigris II: 356–8.55 I. Jenkins, Archaeologists & Aesthetes in the Sculpture Galleries of the British Museum 1800–19�9 (London, 1992), 116–17.56 Budge, Nile and Tigris II: 357.

N. Spencer386

It was in the second part of the late 1896 trip to Egypt that Budge seems to have accquired the Nekhtnebef statue base, EA 1230. This segment of Budge’s journey is described in the remainder of the letter received by the Museum on January 4th, 1897:

‘On Nov 17th, I started for Luxor and in going and returning I vis-ited the chief places where antiquities are to be had - Mellawi, Su-hag, Ahmim, Keneh, Balyana, etc., and succeeded in collecting a large number of objects in stone, faience, wood, etc., which I packed up in 45 boxes and shipped to Liverpool. These will be offered for purchase by Moss of Alexandria and by the Rev. C. Munch in the spring of this year.’

The places visited by Budge are the main modern towns between Cairo and Luxor. Mallawi was closely located to the cemeteries at Deir el-Bersheh, Tuna el-Gebel and the site of Tell el-Amarna; Sohag was adjacent to Akhmim but also el-Hawawish, Wanina and el-Salamuni. Dendera is the most notable site near Qena, while Ballyana is the nearest modern settlement to Abydos. With regards to the British Museum collections amassed during the keepership of Budge, the sites of Akhmim and Abydos are particularly well represented. Indeed the lot purchased from Moss in May 1897 does include a number of objects from these sites, according to Budge’s Report to the Trustees, cited below: the Predynastic flint implements (EA 29285–99), a limestone vessel (EA 29479), a granite block inscribed for Seti I (EA 55340), three shabtis (EA 29402–3, 29405) and a stela (EA 1213) from Abydos; a glazed composition staff fitting (EA 29360) from Tuna el-Gebel and two stelae from Akhmim (EA 1214–15).57 Unfortunately, Budge gives no provenance for most pieces; it is possible he was often buying from dealers in the modern towns, as well as visiting the ancient sites.

The purchase of the objects through Moss would have to wait until the next financial year (as indicated in the Minutes of January 9th, 1897), but arrange-ments were underway for the shipping of the 45 crates to Liverpool, and for the onward journey to London. A series of letters from the Moss offices in Alexan-dria and Liverpool to Budge include details of insurance and payment arrange-ments, and shipping details.58 Moss was evidently handling those pieces acquired through the Reverend Munch also (letters of December 18th and 26th, 1896). What is unclear is how payment for the objects was administered in Egypt, if one assumes that Budge was acquiring pieces from dealers at the various sites. Were these simply handed over to Budge, as he was acknowledged as working with Moss, who would ensure subsequent payment for the antiquities?

57 Note the problems with Budge’s descriptions of objects from Akhmim; Smith, in The Un-broken Reed, 293–303.58 Dated November 18th, 26th, 27th and 28th, December 4th (1896); January 6th and 23rd, February 19th, May 18th (1897). The SS Amasis carried 26 crates, with the remainder travelling aboard the SS Menes.

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 387

In any case, it is clear, Moss would not receive payment for the antiquities for some time after Budge’s return to England. In late April 1897, at which time the antiquities were in Britain and possibly at the Museum, Budge submitted a formal request to the Trustees for agreement to purchase the lot (Report to the Trustees, April 29th, 1897):

‘Mr Budge has the honour to report that Messrs. R.J. Moss & Co of Alexandria, Egypt, have offered for purchase a large and important collection of Egyptian antiquities for the sum of £1174.14.4. They in-clude a number of fine stone objects, seated figures of hawks, etc., and a collection of alabaster vessels of unusual shapes which date from the period of the first Egyptian Empire. In addition to these a considerable number of small but rare objects are included, which will fill up gaps in the collections now in the Museum.’

Budge then provided a more detailed outline of the objects in question, though rarely noting their provenance. I have annotated the list with the cor-responding EA numbers, where possible. As mentioned above, caution should be exercised with any of Budge’s datings:

‘Mr Budge begs to draw attention to the following as being of special importance: -1. Lintel of a doorway of a tomb of an official who flourished in the reign of Khafa (Chephren), about B.C. �750 [EA 1268–9].2. Stele from the tomb of a high official of the same period. The inscrip-tion is remarkable, for each character is in relief [EA 1212].�. Mastaba door from the tomb of the lady Tefes; of the same period [EA 1228].4. Mastaba door of the tomb of the prophet Net-ankh; of the same period.[EA 122�?]5. Inscribed slab from the same tomb [EA 12�4].6. Large black granite scarab on a plinth; dedicated at the Temple of Amon-Ra by Rameses II. B.C. 1��� [EA 12�1].7. Two stone bas-reliefs painted with figures of the gods Thoth and Horus: XXth Dynasty, about B.C. 1200. These objects are very in-teresting as showing the use of colours for decorating large figures [EA 12�5].8. Painted terra-cotta kneeling figure of Nekht-Amun holding a stele inscribed with a hymn to the sun. B.C. 1200 [EA 1222].9. Granite hawk with inlaid eyes; XVIIIth dynasty. B.C. 1500 [EA 1226].10. Granite hawk-headed lion; XVIIIth dynasty. This is a rare object [EA 1211].11. Double black granite statue; XVIIIth dynasty [EA 1�87].

N. Spencer388

12. Black granite seated statue of an official who lived in the reign of Amenophis III, about B.C. 1470 [EA 1210].1�. Lower part of a black granite kneeling figure of an official with plinth (inscribed); about B.C.1000 [EA 1225]. 14. Granite altar inscribed with figures of the two Nile gods, of the goddess Hathor or Nut, lotus flowers, etc. XXIInd dynasty. A very fine specimen [EA 1227].15. Large limestone vase dedicated at the Temple at Abydos by Amen-ophis III. B.C. 1470 [EA 29479].16. Black granite statue of a king or prince: XXIInd dynasty, about B.C. 1000 [EA 1209].17. Black granite clamp inscribed with the prenomen of Seti I. B.C. 1�70. From Abydos [EA 55�40].18. Limestone stele, inscribed, of the time of Osorkon I, about B.C. 800 [EA 1224].19. Black basalt kneeling figure of a priest holding a shrine: about B.C. 600[EA 29478].20. Limestone plinth of a statue inscribed with the prenomen, etc., of Nectanebus, the last native king of Egypt, about B.C. ��0 [EA 12�0].21. Black granite head of a statue; the face is clearly a portrait. About B.C. 500-400 [EA �7905].22. Hard, red stone statue of a priest: Ptolemaic period [EA 1229].2�. Two large stone apes. They stood, one on each side of an official at Abydos [EA 12�2–�].24. Limestone stela, inscribed. From Akhmim, about B.C. �50.25. Limestone stela, inscribed. From Akhmim, about B.C. �50 [nos. 24–5 equivalent to EA 1214–15 (?)].26. Limestone stele with figures, etc, in relief [EA 121�].27. Marble octagonal slab with Coptic inscription [EA 1208].28. Limestone slab with Greek inscription [EA 1206].29. Black granite herm [EA 1219].�0. Limestone herm [EA 1218].�1. Stela with a figure of the god An-heru in relief [EA 1217].�2. Stone tablet with funereal inscription in Greek [EA 1207].��. Two painted and gilded heads and feet coverings from mummies of a late period: about B.C. 200 [EA 29472–5].�4. Painted cartonnage from the mummy of a woman, about A.D. 100 [EA 29476].

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 389

�5. Painted plaster face from a coffin; about A.D. �00 [EA 29477].�6. Large limestone circular table.�7. Black basalt dish.�8. Stone animal with inlaid eyes.�9. Bronze mirror with ivory handle [EA 29246].40. Two Bronze axe heads [EA 29429–�0].41. Bronze case for a mummified fish [EA 294�2].42. Bronze shrew-mouse [EA 2941�].4�. Bronze hoe [EA 294�1].44. Bronze dog-ape inlaid with gold [EA 29414].45. Bronze Osiris inlaid with gold [EA 29410?].46. Bronze Osiris, solid; very fine work [EA 29409].47. Bronze uraeus goddess Sati [EA 29415].48. Block of porphyry.49. Painted marble ushabti figure. IVth dynasty. From Abydos [EA 29405].50. Painted ushabti figure, made for Khatha.51. Two limestone ushabti figures. From Abydos [EA 29402–�].52. Black stone figure of Isis suckling Horus [EA 29411].5�. Two painted faience pectorals [from EA 29467, EA 29468, EA 29469].54. Ivory doorway of a tomb inlaid with colour.55. Shell inscribed with the name of Usertsen, a king of the XIIth dynasty, about B.C. 2500 [EA 29484].56. Green glazed steatite scarab inscribed with an account of the lion hunts of Amenhophis III. B.C. 1470 [EA 294�8].57. Green glazed steatite scarab inscribed with a statement of the ge-nealogy of Ihi, wife of Amenophis III. B.C. 1470 [EA 294�7].58. Green basalt “heart scarab” [EA 294�9].59. Two painted faience “heart scarabs” [EA 29440–1].60. Green stone head [EA 29417].61. Painted limestone stele; late period [EA 29422].62. A collection of flints [EA 29285–99].6�. A collection of alabaster, porphyry, basalt and granite vessels [EA 9�00–7�].64. A collection of faience vases of various periods [EA 29�52–7�].

N. Spencer390

65. Two buffaloes [EA 29419–20 or 29465–6?].66. A collection of fine steatite and hard stone scarabs, cylinders, etc, inscribed with names of kings of chiefly of the kings of the Middle Empire [EA 294�5, 2944�–64].67. A silver ring, found with two vases, inscribed with the name Nefer-kheperu-Ra, Meri-Anset and Heru. This king is identical with one found in the Museum excavations at Enkomi [EA 294�6].68. A number of pieces of coloured Roman glass which formed the sides of a toilet box [EA 29�74–401].

This list emphasises the variety of objects, from different sites and periods, that Budge was acquiring on behalf of the British Museum during his yearly visits in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Of the 232 objects in this lot recorded in the Department registers, Budge lists nearly all of them in the report cited above, the smaller objects in groups, but large stone objects being individually listed. Thirty-eight stone sculptures and reliefs were included in this group according to the Museum Register books, four of which are omit-ted from Budge’s Report cited above: the sizeable fragments from the mastaba of Ptahshepses (EA 686), an ‘alabaster slab’ (EA 29421), a limestone door socket of Amenemhat II (EA 1236) and the granodiorite figure of a cloaked man (EA 1237). The last piece is well known as the statue of an Athribis of-ficial of the 12th dynasty.59 However, the only record of its provenance is that published by Budge in a British Museum Guide, where he states the piece is from Benha.60 Many of the provenances in these guides have been questioned, or proved false.61 To our knowledge, Budge did not visit Benha during his ac-quisition trip that led to this lot of objects, so this information is likely to have come from the dealer from whom the object was purchase, whether in Cairo or elsewhere. Caution is advised with early published provenances for British Museum objects.

The omission of the Ptahshepses mastaba fragments is striking, if only for the size of the pieces. This object is the last entered into the registers for the accessions of May 11th, 1897, with some measurements, and the description ‘false door and architrave of the tomb of Ptahhetep (sic)’. Returning to the above-quoted report by Budge, the description of the pieces acquired in Cairo, from the Giza Museum and ‘other persons’, three Old Kingdom tomb ele-ments are described, yet only two appear in the corresponding register entry for January 12th, 1897 [EA 1191–2]. It seems likely that the ‘large mastaba door’ is that of Ptahshepses, which though mentioned as part of the objects 59 Russmann, Eternal Egypt, 100–1 [28].60 E. A. W. Budge, British Museum. A Guide to the The Egyptian Galleries (Sculpture) (London, 1909), 83.61 R. B. Parkinson, ‘Two or Three Literary Artefacts: British Museum EA 41650/47896, and 22878–9’, in W.V. Davies (ed.), Studies in Egyptian Antiquities. A Tribute to Harry James (British Museum Occasional Paper 123; London, 1999), 51–2 (cites further examples).

A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef 391

purchased with Museum money (rather than via the agency of Moss), ended up in the later Moss shipment along with the statue base published here. Note that the Moss shipment did include Old Kingdom tomb elements (nos.1–5 in Budge’s list, quoted above).62

The purchase of the Moss lot of 232 objects was confirmed several days later at the British Museum (Minutes of 8th May 1897):

‘A large and important collection of Egyptian Antiquities, including a number of fine stone objects, sculptures from a mastaba of the 5th dynasty, statues and stelae dating back to the 19th dynasty; a collec-tion of alabaster vessels of unusual shapes, from the period of the Early Empire; and a considerable number of small but rare objects which go to complete the Museum collection.’

The objects were registered three days later.

62 For Budge’s later description of how he came to acquire many fragments of mastaba decora-tion, including the Ptahshepses piece, cf. Nile and Tigris II: 335–8.

392