A Bronze Figure of Tutankhamun Technical Studies 80 Vol22

7/30/2019 A Bronze Figure of Tutankhamun Technical Studies 80 Vol22

1/11

Archaeometry 2 2 , 1 (1980), 81-86. Printed in Great Britain

RESEARCH NOTE S A ND APPLICATION R EPORTSA B R O N Z E F I G U R E O F T U T A N K H A M U N : TE C H N IC A L S T U D I E S

B . F I S HM AN and S . J . F L E M I N GMASCA, University Museu m, U niversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA I91 4, U.S.A.

IntroductionWhile in Cairo in July, 1923, George Byron Gordon, the Director of the University Museum,arranged for the purchase of a number of Egyptian antiquities from the well-known dealer,Nicolas Tano. Among them was the bronze Kneeling Figure illustrated here in plate 1(U.M. acc. E14295). The Museums Journal of September, 1924, following the views expressedby Gordon in his own notes on the transactions, identified the subject of the statuette asAkhenaten (ca. 1345 B .C. ; see Wente and Van Siclen I11 1977), the notorious tenth pharaoh ofEgypts Eighteen th D ynasty . The sta tue tte , however, lacks any inscription and was originallymarketed w ithout a known provenience.Surprisingly, the Figure then sank into reiative obscurity. It was not until Ranke (1950)suggested that it might represent Tutankhamun, Akhenatens second successor, that freshinterest in the piece was generated. Even then, it was not until it was separately published byAldred (1956, p. 6 pl II,6), and Roeder (1956), that the piece was actually illustrated.

The recent preparation of the University Museums exhibition, The Search For AncientEgypt, provided an oppo rtun ity for the Figures stylistic re-appraisal, and for a general technicalexamination t o establish its method of manufacture.Akhenaten or T u t f f n k h ~ u n ?The statuettes original identification as Akhenaten rested on it s obvious affinities with stylisticfeatures developed during that pharaohs reign (1350-1334 B.C.) (see Wente and Van Siclen111, 1977). Akhenaten was the heretic pharaoh who sought t o establish a monotheisticreligion, symbolized by the sun disc, the Aten, with its cultic focus at the new royal capital atELAmarna. Akhenatens religious innovations were accompanied by significant changes in thetraditional conventions of Egyptian art (Aldred 1973,72-79). Traits shared by th e Figure androyal statuary of the Amarna period include a prominent paunch, swollen thighs, pleated kilt,and sensuously individualized facial details. Missing from the statuette, however, are theelongated skull, pendulous chin, and facial lines normally present on representations conceded tobe Akhenaten (see plate 2), whether stylistically early or late in his reign. (See, for comparison,Cairo Museum, acc. 29.5.49.1, Chevrier 1926, Michalowski 1968.) Also missing from thestatuette are the skin creases evident on the steatite statue of Akhenaten no w in the Louvre(acc. N831, von Bissing 1914, Aldred 1968). These creases, resulting from a combination ofageing and obesity, show the subject of the steatite statue t o have been approaching middle age.

Tutankhamun, however, died before reaching the age of twenty after a reign of less thanten full years. We would thus expect al l representations of his features to be youthful, withthose dating early in his reign to be positively immature. The three cast metal figurines from81


2/11

82 B. Fishmun and S. J. FlemingTutankhamuns tomb (Cairo Museum, acc. JE 61 665 ,616 66,6 070 2, Aldred 1956, p. 6 , p l I I ,5; Edwards 19 76, pp. 100-101 and 182-183 ) closely resemble the bronze statue tte, mostespecially in the rotu nd a nd undeveloped shape of the face. A fragmentary sculpture (BrooklynMuseum: temp. acc. L67.26.1), preferentially identified as Tu tan kha mu n by Aldred (197 3,p. 168 item 9 8) is a particularly close parallel for th e face of th e Kneeling Figure.Full references and ad ditional stylistic parallels wiU be p resented at a later date by one of theauthors (B . F.), when the possibility of an alternative a ttribu tion of th e bronze to Smenkhare(Akhenatens ephemeral co-regent) will be examined. In summary here we would state onlythat the attribution of the bronze to Tu tank ham un, tentatively proposed for a generation,should now be vigorously reaffirmed.Authenticity analysisBesides a lack of provenience, the fact that the Figure bears an odd dark patina has led to somequestioning of its very authentic ity. In o rder t o resolve this point a thermoluminescence analysiswas carried out on the casting core of the statuette, access to that being gained through anopening produced by meta l corrosion , be neath the right leg. The result obtained, using the fine-grain me thod , was

1490 B . C . I-, f 305 , PhTL 1 a )where the m anner of d ate presentation follows that recommended by Aitken and A ldred (1972).(Environmental assumptions follow those outlined b y Fleming 197 9, for Egyptian ceramics:absence of any provenience obviates any alternative approach.) The absolute dates forTutankham uns reign are given by W ente and Van Siclen 111 (1977) as 1334-1325 B . C .As for the patination, a test w ith m ethylene chloride suggested the presence of a solubleorganic laquer (as yet unidentified), while a micrograph of a metallographic section, taken froma tang protruding from below the right knee, revealed that the laquers application had beenmade subsequent to having stripped the bronze of heavy corrosion (plate 3). It is possible th atthis action may have been intended as a preservation m easure, or merely to provide the newlycleaned piece with a sufficiently antique appearance.It m ight even have been m ade to crudely simulate the appearance of black copper(hmty km), i.e., copper artificially darkened in order to better reveal inlays of precious m etal(Cooney 1966). Traces of gold inlay o n the headdress and nipples of the KneelingFigure showit to have originally been included in this class of treated objects. A number of artefacts fromTutankham uns to m b are also examples of black copper e.g., a superb adze handle (CairoMuseum acc. JE 61292), and the sceptre held by the gdded wooden figure of the god Ptah(Cairo Museum, acc. JE 6 07 39 ; see Edwards 19 76 , p.p. 186-187).Composition and structuresExtension of our analyses produced some unusual sets of data. Elemental analysis of a metalsliver taken from the tang beneath the right knee of the Figure, using proton-activated X-rayfluorescence ( P E E ) (see Folkman 197 5) yielded the composition (as an average of twoexcitation runs o n th e same metal sliver),

Cu (88.7%) Sn (4.6%) Pb (0.25%) As (1.10%)Sb (0.038%) Au (4.7%) Ag (0.75%) Zn (


3/11

Plate 1 Bronze kneeling figure of Tutankhamun. (University M useum, ace. E 14295.)facing page 8 2


4/11

I !i'

Y

d


5/11

Pae3PomcoaoamaoacsoanfomhabnhhrgkothFgnpaeI.(Maco300)Ayc

emeohuoofthmnsuacnwhhaasuacoosmkwhweaowTcoos(poy

cueiae(cahrmnnma(m)


6/11

Plate 4the mark at the back of he head. (Photograph: courtesy, Freer Gallery o f A r t , W ashington, D.C.)X-rav of th e Figure in plate I . The fou r mortise marks around the thorax can be clearly seen, as can


7/11

Plate 5 A rear view of the bronze of plate 1. Three o f the mortise marks are detailed at (a)-(c). Theincomplete1,v removed folds of the kilt can be seen running through ( c ) , ndicating the mortise mark t o havebeen fashioned subseque nt to the original casting of he bronze.


8/11

A bronze figure of Tutankhamun: technical studies 83The detection limits for PIXE analysis of bronzes are as quoted in Fleming and Crowfoot-Payne 1979. An X-ray study of this section of the Figure suggested tha t the tang was a casting-sprue and therefore we would expect this analysis to be representative of the Figures compo-sition as a whole.The level of lead is low, suggesting tha t it is not an additive to the bronze stock but merely acopper ore contaminant here. A current MASCA study of Egyptian bronze artefacts indicatesthat lead was being introduced into bronze castings only erratically by ca. 1 0 5 0 ~ . c . , e arlythree centuries after Tutankhamuns reign, and routinely only after abou t 700 B.C. (Fleming andFishman 1980).On the other hand the level of arsenic is quite high. Coghlan (1975), in his analysis of amodel agricultural implement from Tutankhamuns tomb, detected an arsenic level of only0.1% in the too l, which was revealed to be an almost pure copper casting. The MASCA programhas produced no arsenic content in excess of 0.1% in artifacts dating subsequent to 1100 B.c.,and the surveys of bo th Lucas (1962, p.p. 214 and 483-489) and Eaton and McKerrell(l976)confirm the rarity, if not the absence, of arsenic in bronzes made after the beginning of theEighteenth D ynasty. Additionally among 12 analyses carried out on New Kingdom bronzes inthe Louvre Museum o d y one (that of a khepesh-sword; acc. N 2116) has an arsenic contentgreater than 0.9%, whereas analyses for 19 earlier pieces yielded five examples where thearsenic con tent was more than twice that lim it (Hours and Michel 1973).The most striking feature of the analysis is the high level of go ld, at 4.7%. We can find noobvious parallel for this in our current analytical program on early Egyptian bronzes (seeFleming and Crowfoot-Payne 1979) and only one comparable analysis in Lucas (1962,p.p. 200 and 483) - a chisel described as early Dynastic and said to have come from Nubia

(Au, 4.14%) - which, for no obvious reason, he assumes was made from a copper ore con-taminated w ith gold. (He offers no further evidence for this in his own ore analyses.)It is possible that the gold was deliberately added to the metal stock to meet some ritualneed, similar to that claimed in metalsmith recipes for the manufacture of Indian Buddhistimages. Egyptian texts, however, offer no support for such a notion. It is also possible +at thegold was added t o achieve a particular visual effect. We know th at the craftsmen of the Amarnaperiod were intrigued with chromaticity in bo th statuary and gold work (Aldred 1973, p.p.212-216; Aldred 1975, p. 97). Following a reference by Plutarch, Garland and Bannister(1927) have assumed tha t in the Late Period at least the Egyptians used a technique of alloyingcopper and gold to produce a pleasing blue tinge to a bronzes surface. But a study of colourcoordinate charts for Cu/Au alloys suggest that the gold level in our bronze is simply insuf-ficient to have a significant impact in this direction (Roberts and Clarke 1979), unless somesubtle preferential enrichmen t of gold was induced at the surface. The thorough miscibility ofgold with copper at even modest temperatures (Roberts 1973 ) rules ou t the possibility tha t thisenrichment could have been created purely by elemental segregation. Lechtman et al. (1975)have reported the use of a multi-stage pickling process to goldenrich the surface of gold/silver/copper alloys in Peruvian artifacts, but no one has ever suggested a similar process was everknown in the Old World.We prefer a quite different explanation: th at the Tutankhamun bronze was made fromrecycled scrap metal which either included remnants of gold or fragments of bronze inlaid(or covered) with gold. The observed silver content of 0.75% - n exceptionally high level foran Egyptian bronze - offers some circumstantial evidence in support of this idea. Egyptian


9/11

8 4 B. Fishman and S. . Fleminggoldwork dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty and earlier contains 13.4% silver, on average(Lucas 19 62 , p.p. 24 5 and 490), a conte nt which would translate to 0.64% in our bronze.Additionally, we would guess that recycled metal would be the source of the arsenic contentdiscussed earlier.

In historical terms the reign o f Tu tank ham un is precisely th e period when we exp ect such arecycling procedure to have been used. The Resto ration Stela of Tu tank ham un (Cairo Museum,acc. 31183; translated by John A. Wilson in Pritchard 1969) describes the young pharaohsdistress over th e neglected con dition of t he orth odo x cultic centres as resulted from Akhenatenssuppression of the traditional system of worship. A description then follows of how he refur-bished these temples with new personnel and a multitu de of new cult images. Akhenatensvicious destruction of the names and images of the proscibed deities as carved in stone(Aldred 19 75 , p. 88) presumes the destruction of smaller me tal images as well, and t ha t wouldcertainly have required Tu tank ham un to search o ut significant qua ntities of raw material fromwhich to create new statuary. Although formal execration of Akhenatens memory did notoccur while Tutankhamum reigned, we know that such a formality would never have beena bar in ancient Egypt to the theft and re-use of a predecessors monuments. ConsequentlyAkhenatens metal statua ry could well have been a prime target for the melting-po t, along withsome odd scrap centuries old.

It is true the Egyptian historical records were wont to exaggerate the negative aspectsof a preexisting condition remedied by a new pharaoh (see Gardiner 1961). However we feeltha t , in the l ight of the Kneeling Figures analysis, Tutankhamuns claims, as expressed in theRestoration S tela, were tangibly executed.

X-ray studiesAno ther puzzle posed by this bron ze was revealed mo st strikingly by X-ray examination (plate4). A series of mortise-like rectangular depressions can be seen to be d istributed almost sym-metrically over th e surface of the statu ette. F our of these markings girdle th e thora x; there isone each on the lap, on each thigh, on the buttock s and on th e back of the head. One pair ofmo re attenu ated depressions is discernible on the to p of th e head.

Taken individually, certain of these markings could be considered sites for the attach me nt ofaccoutrements, like an aref crown on the head, or a nam or offering table on the lap. But theycannot all be so explained , and th eir basic similarity suggests that the y all con tribu ted t o asingle end. The depressions are distributed too syrnrnetrically to represent patches for castingflaws. Th ey a re insufficiently aligned to be accou nted for by sup port rods which held the innercasting co re stead y during the bronzes casting by th e cire-perdue techniqu e (for this techn ique,see Roeder 1937). In any event no Eg yptian m etal statues of roughly similar (Aldred 195 6,p.p. 3-7), or even mu ch later da te show comp arable depressions. Th e only parallel bronze.X-rayed, the Acworth T uthmosis IV (British Museum acc. 64564, Edwards 1952), is also freeof these markings.

What is clear in the original radiographs, though sadly lost in subsequent photographicprinting, is that those markings which penetrate the statuettes body wall share a similarT-shaped profile. These, and the more shallow m arkings o n the thighs and butto cks (see plate 5),unanimously give the impression of having been scored into the bronze subsequent to itscasting, or at least redefined in shape if based originally on indentations in evidence after theoriginal casting. T he m arkings o n the thighs and butto cks were clearly incom pletely excavated,


10/11

A bronze figure of Tutankhamun: technical studies 85in that they have not entirely obliterated the cast-in fold of the kilt over which they weresuperimposed.The possibility that some of the markings contain metal plugs, the composition of whichmay aid us to determine their contemporaneity with the m ain casting must await tests scheduledto tak e place once the bronze comes off exh ibit. We curren tly, believe, with due caution, tha tthe distribution of the markings may suggest that the statuette was once part of a complexfigural group, in which the kneeling king was protected by the enfolding wings of a deity whileholding a large naos or similarly sizeable offering block. From Tutankhamuns tomb comes asmall ringbezel of gold (Carter handlist, number 44 j , Murray and N uttall 1963, Silverman 1978)which shows a number of kneeling figures girdled by the wings of bo th the falcon-god Horus,and the vulture goddess, Nekhbet, but the parallel is far from exact. In advancing thisexplanation we have some reservations, such as the unusual degree to which the Kneeling Figurewould then be obscured if included in such a composite group. Yet unless the statuette wasreworked at a late date fo r some entirely obscure purpose, we can propose no other solution.Our research programme on the Kneeling Figure is still active, in terms of rounding offstudies such as identification of the organic surface coating and the analysis of the pieces goldinlays (by SEM and lead-isotope analysis). However, we feel that the data presented above isalready sufficient to justify an expansion of our endeavors to include other bronzes of similardate , in the search for compositional and figural parallels.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T SWe are indebted to Robert Maddin (LRSM, University of Pennsylvania) for support on metallurgical aspectsof this study, to John Cookson (AERE, Harwell) for PIXE analysis, to Lynda Zycherman (Freer Gallery,Washington, D.C.) for the X-ray photography and t o Virginia Greene (Conservation d epa rtm ent , UniversityMuseum) for her observations on the bronzes surface coating. The advice of David OConnor and DavidSilverman (Egyptology D epartment, University Museum) has been invaluable, indeed essential.

R E F E R E N C E SAitken, M. J. and Aldred, J. C., 1972, Th e assessment of error limits in thermoluminescent dating, Archae-Aldred, C., 1956, The Carnarvon statuette of Am un, Joum,of Egyptian A rch. 42.Aldred, C., 1968, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Eg ypt (Thames &Hudson, New York), pl. I.Aldred, C., 1973,A khenaten and Nefertiti (Brooklyn Museum/Viking Press, New York).Aldred, C., 1975, Egypt: the Amarna Period and the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, in The Cam bridgeChewier, M. H., 1926, Rapport s u r les travaux de Karnak, Annales du Service des Antiquite s de IEgypteCoghlan, H. H., 1975, Copper artefacts from Tutankhamuns tomb, Journ, Hist, Metallurgy SOC.9 (9 ,Cooney, J . D., 1966, On the meaning of hmty km, Zeit. fi7r Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 93 ,Eaton, E. R. and McKerrell, H., 1976, Near Eastern alloying and some textual evidence for the early use ofEdwards, I. E. S. , 1952, Egyptian antiquities from the Acworth Collection, The British Museum QuarterlyEdwards, I. E. S., 1976, Tutankhamun: His Tom b and Its Treasures (The M etropolitan Museum of Art/Alfred

ometry 14 (2), 257-267.

Ancient Hisrory ZI,p u t 2 and third edition (Cambridge University Press).XXVI, 119-130 and pl. 11.64-61.43-47.arsenical copper. World Archaeol. 8 (2), 169-191.XV, 6 and pl. XXIII.A. Knopf, Inc.).


11/11

86 B. Fishman and S. J. FlemingFleming, S. J. and Fishman, B., 1980, Some analytical da ta on Egyptian bro nze shawabtis,MASCA JoumI 1Fleming, S . J., 1979, Thennoluminescence Techniques in Archaeology (Oxford University Press), sectionFleming, S. J. and Crowfoot-Payne, J., 1979, P E E ana lyses o f some Egyptian bronzes of the Late Period,Folkman, F., 1975, Analytical use of ion-induced x-rays, Joum,Phys. E. Sci. Instrum. 8,429-444.Gardiner, A. H., 1961,Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford University Press), 170.Garland, H. and Bannister, C. O . , 1927, Ancient Egyptian Metallurgy ( C . Griffin, London), 82, quotingHours, M. and Michel, F., 1973, in Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art II (Museum o fLechtman, H., Parsons, L. A. and Young, W. J. , 1975, Seven matc hed hollow gold jaguars from Perus earlyLucas, A., 1962, Ancient Egyptian Materiols and Industries (E. Arnold, London ), fourt h edition, revised byMichalowski, K.,1968, L Arr de LAncienne Egypte (L. M azebod, Paris), pl. 101.Murray, H. nd Nuttall , M., 1963, Tutunkhamuns Tomb Series I (Griffith Institute, Oxford), 3.Pritchard, J. B. (edit.), 1969, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, third edition (Princeton University Press),Ranke, H., 1950, The Egyptian collections of th e University M useum, Wniversiv Museum Bulletin X V , 72.Roberts, P. M., 1973,Gold brazing in antiquity, Cold BuZletin 6 (4),112-119.Roberts, E. F . I. and Clarke, K. M., 1979, T he colour characteristics of gold alloys, Gold Bulletin 12 (l),Roeder, G., 1937, kgyptische Bronzewerke ( J . J . Augustin, Gliickstadt), 187-207.Roeder, G., 1956,/igyptische Bronzefigwen (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin), 292 and pl. 81 h.Saverman, D., 1978,Masterpiecesof Tutankhamun (Abbeville Press, New York), 114.Von Bissing, Fr. W. F., 1914, Denkmdler &yptischer Sculptur (F. Bruckm ann A .G., Miinchen) Vol. 11,Wente, E. F. and Van Siclen 111, C. C., 1977, in Studies in Honour of George R. Hughes (Oriental Institute ,

(41,in press.7.11.MASCA Journal 1 (2),46-48.

PlutarchsMorals (W. W. Goodwin trans., vol. 3, 70; 1871).Fine Arts, Boston), 67-72.horizon, Studies in Pre-ColumbianA r t &Archaeology 16, (Dumbarton Oaks) 17.J. R. Harris.

251-252.

9-19.

Part I, PI. 45 .University of Chicago), 217-261.

A Bronze Figure of Tutankhamun Technical Studies 80 Vol22

Documents

Transcript of A Bronze Figure of Tutankhamun Technical Studies 80 Vol22