Bachelor thesis | Oude culturen van de mediterrane wereld (Bachelor)
closed access
Ivory wands are crescent-shaped objects fashioned from hippopotamus tusk. They are often inscribed with figures, motifs and (less often) hieroglyphic inscriptions which can be applied on both sides...Show moreIvory wands are crescent-shaped objects fashioned from hippopotamus tusk. They are often inscribed with figures, motifs and (less often) hieroglyphic inscriptions which can be applied on both sides. Discussions regarding the name of these objects and their function are still ongoing but the possible find of the Egyptian name of this object, Sna m Abw ‘Ivory Repeller’, can lead to consensus regarding the naming. Ivory wands are presumably products of a temple workshop as is shown on the tomb walls of Rekhmira. If this is the case, the rare use of an enclosure on wands might refer to these temples. Over 90% of the excavated wands were found in tombs but traces of use such as repairments and reworked endings also show a usage during lifetime. Moreover, depictions show their usage by wet-nurses and inscriptions on the wands also suggest a purpose during lifetime. These inscriptions usually start with Dd mdw and continue to either designate the speaker(s) using in or start the recitation itself. The figures on the wand state that they have come to draw protection over a specified person: ii.n=i/n stp=i/n sA Hr (mst n ) (anx wDA snb) I/We have come to draw protection over (born to ) (live, wellfare, health) The figures on ivory wands are referred to as sAw ‘protectors’ and nTrw ‘gods’ in inscriptions. Most figures found within the corpus of all-known wands are also represented on wands from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: only the figures ‘7. Profile lion-maned/eared figure, male (child?)’ and ‘25. Donkey head’ are not included. The most represented figures are the hippopotamus-lion, lion standing on hind legs and jackal-headed leg(s)/staff. The figures of the lion rear and long-legged feline with short neck are only found in the corpus of the MMA. In the case of the long-legged feline, I explain this uniqueness to a wrong interpretation of the depiction itself. Five ivory wands from the MMA corpus are preserved completely. Eighteen other wands are fragmented, leaving only one or two figures (partially) visible. The complete wands show no preference in orientation of the figures while the figures on the fragments are mostly facing right. With the exception of three wands, a single framing line is used on all wands. The curvature of objects shows that wands of compositional alignment categories IV, V and VI are absent in the MMA corpus. Figures are placed next to each other without use of any motifs in between. Fragments MMA 15.3.951A,B and MMA 32.8.3 can possibly be from the same wand but closer inspection is necessary. Some patterns emerge when the arrangement of figures is analyzed. First off, the group of hippopotamus-lion, lion standing on hind legs and frontal lion-maned male. The figures appear next to each other on at least four wands which proves their close connection as deities. Animal heads at the proximal and distal endings are seen as a characteristic feature of ivory wands. This is true in the sense that they only appear at the endings, but in most cases another figure is placed at the endings. For example the lion rear figure which shows a distinct pattern regarding its position. It is placed at the proximal end and a hippopotamus-lion is found besides it: 1-26-P.END. There is some use of repetitive sequences of figures on the wands. An example is the vulture figure which is only carved onto two wands but represented three times on one of them. On this same wand (MMA 26.7.1288A,B + Louvre E3614) the vulture is accompanied in twofold by a combination of the hippopotamus-lion and sitting baboon. A repetitive sequence is also found on wand MMA 22.1.103 where the vulture is placed between torch figures. Other repetitive sequences like this do not occur within the corpus, but figures are represented multiple times on seven wands. Taking in account the fragmentary state of most wands, I would suggest that there is no tendency to maximize the number of figures. Three methods were used to identify work of the same craftsman: comparison of 1) figures found besides each other, 2) measurements of the figures, and 3) style of the figures. Only the third method led to MMA 15.3.951A,B and MMA 32.8.3, being the work of the same craftsman. The first two methods are unsuitable for fragmentary objects: the order of figures is often unclear and partially visible figures cannot be measured. Although the measurement of figures and comparison of their data could be used to analyse a huge amount of objects, the process is time consuming. I would suggest identifying certain characteristics of figures (some already mentioned by Quirke and Altenmüller) such as skin-decoration, shape of the eyes and presence of a lump on the abdomen, and inserting this data in a database where user-friendly analysis can be done: https://online-collections.netShow less
