Archaeometry 2 2 , 1 (1980), 81-86.

Printed in Great Britain

RESEARCH NOTES A N D APPLICATION REPORTS

A BRONZE F I G U R E O F TUTANKHAMUN: TECHNICAL STUDIES

B. FISHMAN and S . J . FLEMING
MASCA, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA I91 04, U.S.A.

Introduction
While 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 expressed by Gordon in his own notes on the transactions, identified the subject of the statuette as Akhenaten (ca. 1345 B.C.; see Wente and Van Siclen I11 1977), the notorious tenth pharaoh of Egypts Eighteenth Dynasty. The statuette, however, lacks any inscription and was originally marketed without 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 fresh interest in the piece was generated. Even then, it was not until it was separately published by Aldred (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 Ancient Egypt, provided an opportunity for the Figures stylistic re-appraisal, and for a general technical examination to 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 its obvious affinities with stylistic features developed during that pharaohs reign (1350-1334 B.C.) (see Wente and Van Siclen 111, 1977). Akhenaten was the heretic pharaoh who sought to establish a monotheistic religion, symbolized by the sun disc, the Aten, with its cultic focus at the new royal capital at ELAmarna. Akhenatens religious innovations were accompanied by significant changes in the traditional conventions of Egyptian art (Aldred 1973,72-79). Traits shared by the Figure and royal statuary of the Amarna period include a prominent paunch, swollen thighs, pleated kilt, and sensuously individualized facial details. Missing from the statuette, however, are the elongated skull, pendulous chin, and facial lines normally present on representations conceded to be 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 the statuette are the skin creases evident on the steatite statue of Akhenaten now in the Louvre (acc. N831, von Bissing 1914, Aldred 1968). These creases, resulting from a combination of ageing and obesity, show the subject of the steatite statue to have been approaching middle age. Tutankhamun, however, died before reaching the age of twenty after a reign of less than ten full years. We would thus expect all representations of his features to be youthful, with those dating early in his reign to be positively immature. The three cast metal figurines from

81

82

B. Fishmun and S. J. Fleming

Tutankhamuns tomb (Cairo Museum, acc. JE 61665,61666,60702, Aldred 1956, p. 6,plII, 5; Edwards 1976, pp. 100-101 and 182-183) closely resemble the bronze statuette, most especially in the rotund and undeveloped shape of the face. A fragmentary sculpture (Brooklyn Museum: temp. acc. L67.26.1), preferentially identified as Tutankhamun by Aldred (1973, p. 168 item 98) is a particularly close parallel for the face of the Kneeling Figure. Full references and additional stylistic parallels wiU be presented at a later date by one of the authors (B. F.), when the possibility of an alternative attribution of the bronze to Smenkhare (Akhenatens ephemeral co-regent) will be examined. In summary here we would state only that the attribution of the bronze to Tutankhamun, tentatively proposed for a generation, should now be vigorously reaffirmed.

Authenticity analysis
Besides a lack of provenience, the fact that the Figure bears an odd dark patina has led to some questioning of its very authenticity. In order to resolve this point a thermoluminescence analysis was carried out on the casting core of the statuette, access to that being gained through an opening produced by metal corrosion, beneath the right leg. The result obtained, using the finegrain method, was 1490 B.C. I-,
f

305, PhTL 1la)

where the manner of date presentation follows that recommended by Aitken and Aldred (1972). (Environmental assumptions follow those outlined by Fleming 1979, for Egyptian ceramics: absence of any provenience obviates any alternative approach.) The absolute dates for Tutankhamuns reign are given by Wente and Van Siclen 111 (1977) as 1334-1325 B.C. As for the patination, a test with methylene chloride suggested the presence of a soluble organic laquer (as yet unidentified), while a micrograph of a metallographic section, taken from a tang protruding from below the right knee, revealed that the laquers application had been made subsequent to having stripped the bronze of heavy corrosion (plate 3). It is possible that this action may have been intended as a preservation measure, or merely to provide the newly cleaned piece with a sufficiently antique appearance. It might even have been made to crudely simulate the appearance of black copper (hmty km), i.e., copper artificially darkened in order to better reveal inlays of precious metal (Cooney 1966). Traces of gold inlay on the headdress and nipples of the KneelingFigure show it to have originally been included in this class of treated objects. A number of artefacts from Tutankhamuns tomb are also examples of black copper e.g., a superb adze handle (Cairo Museum acc. JE 61292), and the sceptre held by the gdded wooden figure of the god Ptah (Cairo Museum, acc. JE 60739; see Edwards 1976, p.p. 186-187).

Composition and structures

Extension of our analyses produced some unusual sets of data. Elemental analysis of a metal sliver taken from the tang beneath the right knee of the Figure, using proton-activated X-ray fluorescence (PEE) (see Folkman 1975) yielded the composition (as an average of two excitation runs on the same metal sliver), Cu (88.7%) Sb (0.038%) Fe (1.57%) Sn (4.6%) Au (4.7%) Hg (<0.08%) Pb (0.25%) Ag (0.75%)

As (1.10%) Zn (<0.56%)

Plate 1

Bronze kneeling figure of Tutankhamun. (University Museum, ace. E 14295.)

facing page 82

d
I

i '

Plate 3 Photomicrograph of a metallographic section taken from the tang beneath the right knee of the Figure in plate I . (Magnification, 300 x .) A typical example of the junction of the modern surface coating with the abraded surface corrosion is marked with white arrows. The corrosion itself (probably cuprite) is labelled ( c ) and the remaining metal (m).

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

Plate 5 A rear view of the bronze of plate 1. Three of the mortise marks are detailed at (a)-(c). The incomplete1,v removed folds of the kilt can be seen running through (c),indicating the mortise mark to have been fashioned subsequent to the original casting of the bronze.

A bronze figure of Tutankhamun: technical studies

83

The detection limits for PIXE analysis of bronzes are as quoted in Fleming and CrowfootPayne 1979. An X-ray study of this section of the Figure suggested that the tang was a castingsprue and therefore we would expect this analysis to be representative of the Figures composition as a whole. The level of lead is low, suggesting that it is not an additive to the bronze stock but merely a copper ore contaminant here. A current MASCA study of Egyptian bronze artefacts indicates that lead was being introduced into bronze castings only erratically by ca. 1 0 5 0 ~ . c .nearly , three centuries after Tutankhamuns reign, and routinely only after about 700 B.C.(Fleming and Fishman 1980). On the other hand the level of arsenic is quite high. Coghlan (1975), in his analysis of a model agricultural implement from Tutankhamuns tomb, detected an arsenic level of only 0.1% in the tool, which was revealed to be an almost pure copper casting. The MASCA program has produced no arsenic content in excess of 0.1% in artifacts dating subsequent to 1100 B.c., and the surveys of both 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 the Eighteenth Dynasty. Additionally among 12 analyses carried out on New Kingdom bronzes in the Louvre Museum o d y one (that of a khepesh-sword; acc. N 2116) has an arsenic content greater than 0.9%, whereas analyses for 19 earlier pieces yielded five examples where the arsenic content was more than twice that limit (Hours and Michel 1973). The most striking feature of the analysis is the high level of gold, at 4.7%. We can find no obvious parallel for this in our current analytical program on early Egyptian bronzes (see Fleming 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 contaminated with 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 ritual need, similar to that claimed in metalsmith recipes for the manufacture of Indian Buddhist images. Egyptian texts, however, offer no support for such a notion. It is also possible +at the gold was added to achieve a particular visual effect. We know that the craftsmen of the Amarna period were intrigued with chromaticity in both 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 that in the Late Period at least the Egyptians used a technique of alloying copper and gold to produce a pleasing blue tinge to a bronzes surface. But a study of colour coordinate charts for Cu/Au alloys suggest that the gold level in our bronze is simply insufficient to have a significant impact in this direction (Roberts and Clarke 1979), unless some subtle preferential enrichment of gold was induced at the surface. The thorough miscibility of gold with copper at even modest temperatures (Roberts 1973) rules out the possibility that this enrichment 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 ever known in the Old World. We prefer a quite different explanation: that the Tutankhamun bronze was made from recycled scrap metal which either included remnants of gold or fragments of bronze inlaid (or covered) with gold. The observed silver content of 0.75% - an exceptionally high level for an Egyptian bronze - offers some circumstantial evidence in support of this idea. Egyptian

84

B. Fishman and S .J. Fleming

goldwork dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty and earlier contains 13.4% silver, on average (Lucas 1962, p.p. 245 and 490), a content which would translate to 0.64% in our bronze. Additionally, we would guess that recycled metal would be the source of the arsenic content discussed earlier. In historical terms the reign of Tutankhamun is precisely the period when we expect such a recycling procedure to have been used. The Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun (Cairo Museum, acc. 31183; translated by John A. Wilson in Pritchard 1969) describes the young pharaohs distress over the neglected condition of the orthodox cultic centres as resulted from Akhenatens suppression of the traditional system of worship. A description then follows of how he refurbished these temples with new personnel and a multitude of new cult images. Akhenatens vicious destruction of the names and images of the proscibed deities as carved in stone (Aldred 1975, p. 88) presumes the destruction of smaller metal images as well, and that would certainly have required Tutankhamun to search out significant quantities of raw material from which to create new statuary. Although formal execration of Akhenatens memory did not occur while Tutankhamum reigned, we know that such a formality would never have been a bar in ancient Egypt to the theft and re-use of a predecessors monuments. Consequently Akhenatens metal statuary could well have been a prime target for the melting-pot, along with some odd scrap centuries old. It is true the Egyptian historical records were wont to exaggerate the negative aspects of a preexisting condition remedied by a new pharaoh (see Gardiner 1961). However we feel that, in the light of the Kneeling Figures analysis, Tutankhamuns claims, as expressed in the Restoration Stela, were tangibly executed. X-ray studies Another puzzle posed by this bronze was revealed most strikingly by X-ray examination (plate 4). A series of mortise-like rectangular depressions can be seen to be distributed almost symmetrically over the surface of the statuette. Four of these markings girdle the thorax; there is one each on the lap, on each thigh, on the buttocks and on the back of the head. One pair of more attenuated depressions is discernible on the top of the head. Taken individually, certain of these markings could be considered sites for the attachment of accoutrements, like an aref crown on the head, or a nam or offering table on the lap. But they cannot all be so explained, and their basic similarity suggests that they all contributed t o a single end. The depressions are distributed too syrnrnetrically to represent patches for casting flaws. They are insufficiently aligned to be accounted for by support rods which held the inner casting core steady during the bronzes casting by the cire-perdue technique (for this technique, see Roeder 1937). In any event n o Egyptian metal statues of roughly similar (Aldred 1956, p.p. 3-7), or even much later date show comparable depressions. The only parallel bronze. X-rayed, the Acworth Tuthmosis IV (British Museum acc. 64564, Edwards 1952), is also free of these markings. What is clear in the original radiographs, though sadly lost in subsequent photographic printing, is that those markings which penetrate the statuettes body wall share a similar T-shaped profile. These, and the more shallow markings on the thighs and buttocks (see plate 5), unanimously give the impression of having been scored into the bronze subsequent to its casting, or at least redefined in shape if based originally on indentations in evidence after the original casting. The markings on the thighs and buttocks were clearly incompletely excavated,

A bronze figure of Tutankhamun: technical studies

85

in that they have not entirely obliterated the cast-in fold of the kilt over which they were superimposed. The possibility that some of the markings contain metal plugs, the composition of which may aid us to determine their contemporaneity with the main casting must await tests scheduled to take place once the bronze comes off exhibit. We currently, believe, with due caution, that the distribution of the markings may suggest that the statuette was once part of a complex figural group, in which the kneeling king was protected by the enfolding wings of a deity while holding a large naos or similarly sizeable offering block. From Tutankhamuns tomb comes a small ring bezel of gold (Carter handlist, number 44j, Murray and Nuttall 1963, Silverman 1978) which shows a number of kneeling figures girdled by the wings of both the falcon-god Horus, and the vulture goddess, Nekhbet, but the parallel is far from exact. In advancing this explanation we have some reservations, such as the unusual degree to which the Kneeling Figure would then be obscured if included in such a composite group. Yet unless the statuette was reworked at a late date for some entirely obscure purpose, we can propose no other solution. Our research programme on the Kneeling Figure is still active, in terms of rounding off studies such as identification of the organic surface coating and the analysis of the pieces gold inlays (by SEM and lead-isotope analysis). However, we feel that the data presented above is already sufficient to justify an expansion of our endeavors to include other bronzes of similar date, in the search for compositional and figural parallels.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are indebted to Robert Maddin (LRSM, University of Pennsylvania) for support on metallurgical aspects of this study, to John Cookson (AERE, Harwell) for PIXE analysis, to Lynda Zycherman (Freer Gallery, Washington, D.C.) for the X-ray photography and to Virginia Greene (Conservation department, University Museum) for her observations on the bronzes surface coating. The advice of David OConnor and David Silverman (Egyptology Department, University Museum) has been invaluable, indeed essential.

REFERENCES Aitken, M. J. and Aldred, J. C., 1972, The assessment of error limits in thermoluminescent dating, Archaeometry 14 (2), 257-267. Aldred, C., 1956, The Carnarvon statuette of Amun, Joum, of Egyptian Arch. 42. Aldred, C., 1968, Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt (Thames & Hudson, New York), pl. I. Aldred, C., 1973,Akhenaten and Nefertiti (Brooklyn Museum/Viking Press, New York). Aldred, C., 1975, Egypt: the Amarna Period and the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty, in The Cambridge Ancient Hisrory ZI, p u t 2 and third edition (Cambridge University Press). Chewier, M. H., 1926, Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak, Annales du Service des Antiquites de IEgypte XXVI, 119-130 and pl. 11. Coghlan, H. H., 1975, Copper artefacts from Tutankhamuns tomb, Journ, Hist, Metallurgy SOC. 9 (9, 64-61. Cooney, J. D., 1966, On the meaning of hmty km, Zeit. fi7r Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 93, 43-47. Eaton, E. R. and McKerrell, H., 1976, Near Eastern alloying and some textual evidence for the early use of arsenical copper. World Archaeol. 8 (2), 169-191. Edwards, I. E. S., 1952, Egyptian antiquities from the Acworth Collection, The British Museum Quarterly XV,56 and pl. XXIII. Edwards, I. E. S., 1976, Tutankhamun: His Tomb and Its Treasures (The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.).

86

B. Fishman and S. J. Fleming

Fleming, S. J. and Fishman, B., 1980, Some analytical data on Egyptian bronze shawabtis,MASCA J o u m I 1 (41, in press. Fleming, S. J., 1979, Thennoluminescence Techniques in Archaeology (Oxford University Press), section 7.11. Fleming, S. J. and Crowfoot-Payne, J., 1979, P E E analyses o f some Egyptian bronzes of the Late Period, MASCA Journal 1 (2),46-48. 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, quoting PlutarchsMorals (W. W. Goodwin trans., vol. 3, 70; 1871). Hours, M. and Michel, F., 1973, in Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art II (Museum o f Fine Arts, Boston), 67-72. Lechtman, H., Parsons, L. A. and Young, W. J., 1975, Seven matched hollow gold jaguars from Perus early horizon, Studies in Pre-ColumbianArt & Archaeology 16, (Dumbarton Oaks) 17. Lucas, A., 1962, Ancient Egyptian Materiols and Industries (E. Arnold, London), fourth edition, revised by J. R. Harris. Michalowski, K., 1968, L Arr de LAncienne Egypte (L. Mazebod, Paris), pl. 101. Murray, H.and 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), 251-252. Ranke, H., 1950, The Egyptian collections of the University Museum, 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, The colour characteristics of gold alloys, Gold Bulletin 12 (l), 9-19. 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,Masterpieces of Tutankhamun (Abbeville Press, New York), 114. Von Bissing, Fr. W. F., 1914, Denkmdler &yptischer Sculptur (F. Bruckmann A.G., Miinchen) Vol. 11, Part I, PI. 45. Wente, E. F. and Van Siclen 111, C. C., 1977, in Studies in Honour of George R. Hughes (Oriental Institute, University of Chicago), 217-261.