COUNT Grigory Sergeievich Stroganoff ( – ), 1 a member of the well-known Russian family of con-noisseurs and collectors, was himself a collector of paintings and objects of fi ne art from Europe, Russia, the countries of the Mediterranean basin and the Near and Far East, including ancient Egyptian objects. 2 The Count’s Egyptian collection has been known almost exclusively from the slender book-let produced in connection with the exhibition of his collection in Aachen, Sammlung Aegyptischer Alterthümer des Grafen Gregor Stroganoff , which enumerated and described quite cursorily and without measurements the astonishing pieces involved. 3 Recent years, however, have brought fresh attention to the Count’s collections, including that of the current authors who had each begun work from different perspectives on Stroganoff’s Egyptian collection. 4 Even as renewed research makes it appar-ent how many questions remain, it is possible to begin to suggest a more detailed picture of the Count’s Egyptian collecting activity and to place it within the context of its time and related collect-ing society. The fi rst section by Marsha Hill consid-ers the trajectory of the Count’s Egyptian collecting life in overview. The second section by Georg Meurer deals with all aspects of the Count’s involve-ment with Aachen. The last section comprises two considerations of remarkable objects once in the collection, by Marsha Hill and Maarten Raven, respectively.
Stroganoff and Egyptian art: an overview, by Marsha Hill
Collecting and exhibiting
A highly cosmopolitan individual, Stroganoff trav-elled extensively with his family throughout the world, east and west, from the early s, returning intermittently to St Petersburg and the Russian and Ukranian countryside, but maintaining Rome as their winter home. 5 Those travels would have provided opportunities for collecting, and it has been specifi cally noted that the Count purchased from dealers through-out Europe, including Rome, Paris, Cologne, Munich, and other unspecifi ed cities. 6 The eventful years from to saw personal tragedies – the suicide of Stroganoff’s teenage son in and the ensuing ill-health of his wife with her eventual death in – but also the purchase in of the house in Rome on Via Gregoriana that was to become associated with him and his important collections. 7 During the same years the Count certainly made one and possibly two trips to Egypt: a prolonged tour of Asia and Egypt that followed closely on his son’s suicide fi gures in family records, while a trip to Egypt that included visits to Alexandria, the Fayum, Upper Egypt, and to Zagazig in the eastern Delta definitely took place in -, probably during the winter months. 8 He also witnessed the initiation of the exhibition of his Egyptian collection in Aachen in . It was following this period that the collections of paintings
Rediscovering Grigory Stroganoff as a collector of Egyptian art
Marsha Hill , Georg Meurer and Maarten J. Raven
A famed connoisseur of European paintings and of objects of fi ne art from many cultures, Count Grigory Sergeievich Stroganoff of Rome, Paris, and St Petersburg also had a large collection of Egyptian art. This early Egyptian collection was dispersed with scarcely any record at the time of Stroganoff’s death, and so has been known almost exclusively from a slender booklet produced in connection with an exhibition mounted in 1880 in Aachen. The three authors join their own researches from different perspectives to create a portrait of Stroganoff as a collector of Egyptian antiquities.
Journal of the History of Collections Advance Access published September 13, 2009
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
and fi ne arts for which Stroganoff is best known were attentively formed, 9 although, as will be seen, he con-tinued to collect Egyptian antiquities at a diminished level.
The Aachen exhibition came about because from at least Stroganoff regularly spent time in the spa-city of Aachen with its rich remembrances of early European history, where he was one of a group of cultured gentlemen who supported the Museum Society. Georg Meurer’s continuing work on the history and cataloguing of the Egyptian collection of the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum in Aachen, latest successor of the earlier Museum Society, has permit-ted him to write a detailed and revealing examination of this earliest and most substantial manifestation of Stroganoff’s Egyptian collecting activities. This study which follows immediately hereafter considers such questions as the acquisition of the collection presented at that exhibition and the history of Stroganoff’s sub-sequent loans to Aachen; it identifi es donations that still remain in the Museum and it places the collection in the context of other early private collections of Egyptian art in Germany.
Among the critical junctures identifi ed by Meurer in the history of the exhibition, loans and gifts to Aachen, it seems that the exhibition in the form recorded in the catalogue ended by with the withdrawal of hundreds of pieces. Some portion of these pieces may have been incorporated in the collections in the newly fi nished villa in Rome, but possibly a certain culling and refi ning of the Egyptian collection already began to take place. Certainly Stroganoff continually refi ned other aspects of his collections through auctions and sales to dealers. 10
At the same time, apparently, he continued to buy selectively. For example, a fi ne panel painting now in the Vatican Museums (discussed further below) and another painting donated to Aachen are unlikely to have been purchased before when the great fi nds of such mummies with painted portraits began to be made in Egypt, 11 while Maarten Raven’s contribution below suggests that the Nubian bed-legs now in Leiden would have been acquired about . Moreover, besides the possible mid-s tour including Egypt and the - buying trip to Egypt which is documented in the Aachen catalogue, there is evidence that suggests at least one other visit in . 12
Consolidation and dispersal of the collection
The fi rst decade of the twentieth century was much occupied by plans and consultations for the publica-tion of a select catalogue of Stroganoff’s collections, to be written by Ludwig Pollak and Antonio Muñoz. A signifi cant dispersal of Egyptian pieces, whether they had fi gured in the Aachen exhibition or not, seems to have been taking place as part of a general inventorying, clearance, and consignment to dealers in the early part of the twentieth century before Stroganoff’s death, perhaps in conjunction with that catalogue project. As it transpired, the fi rst volume, Les Antiquités by Ludwig Pollak, of Pièces de Choix de la Collection du Comte Gre-goire Stroganoff à Rome , appeared in shortly after the Count’s death on July in Paris. Indeed, only one piece from the Aachen exhibition, the bronze torso of King Pedubast (no. ; see below), was illus-trated and described in Pièces de Choix , and this is the sole piece that has remained reasonably well-known to the Egyptological community. The authors ’ introduc-tion to the same volume notes, however, that Stroganoff retained also in his collection even a good number of the scarabs that fi gured so largely in the Aachen exhi-bition thirty years earlier. 13 The Sangiorgis in particu-lar dealt with at least some of the Egyptian objects from this period of dispersal, apparently sanctioned by Stroganoff himself although the transactions may not have been completed before his death. 14
The villa in Rome remained mostly closed in the years immediately following Stroganoff’s death, although some works were distributed by his daughter who continued to live mainly in Russia. Apparently an unknown number of objects remained in the Roman villa on the family’s complete return to Russia at some point before World War I, and those began to be sold only when last remnants of the family – the wife and son of Stroganoff’s grandson – were able to escape Russia after the Revolution and reach Rome at the end of . 15 The torso of Pedubast was defi nitely among the pieces in the house, and was committed to a sale at Frederik Muller in Amsterdam in December , where it was purchased by Calouste Gulbenkian through the dealer Joseph Duveen. 16 One way or another, after his death and continuing after his family’s return, the Count’s entire collections were dismantled and dispersed through art dealers and sales, dismaying many in Roman art circles; 17 there were criticisms at the time that Stroganoff’s very fi ne collection of small
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
and decorative arts was insuffi ciently appreciated and poorly tracked, and this has every appearance of being true also for the Egyptian antiquities. 18
In the absence of a continuous trail, identifi cation of pieces from the collection is diffi cult: even for those that fi gured in the Aachen exhibition the descriptions by Brugsch are abbreviated and have proven imprecise, while identifi cation of Egyptian pieces not included in the exhibition is quite fortuitous. A few pieces, as noted by Meurer below, are still in Aachen. The Egyptologist Alfred Wiedemann, who saw Stroganoff pieces in Aachen by , adds details or, in a few cases, corrections concerning certain other pieces in the catalogue. In an article, he focuses on two Stroga-noff pieces, and makes remarks that proved important in following the history of the Pedubast torso (no. ), while correcting the name on the menat (no. ) to Nikauba. 19 In the supplement to his history, he cites Stroganoff pieces according to their Aachen catalogue numbers, often correcting or adding signifi cantly to Brugsch’s descriptions or readings, such as correcting the name on the shawabtis (nos -) from ‘ King Psamtik ’ to ‘ Pabu with the good name Psamtikseneb ’ , 20 and, even when he says little, his more trustworthy scholarship provides revelatory information about pieces summarily described in the catalogue simply by listing them alongside comparable known or traceable pieces in public collections. Finally, he provides useful descriptive remarks on an unusual large blue scarab with the name of Sheshonq III (no. ). 21 Now and then pieces have the name Stroganoff attached or can
be recognized when they surface in a museum collec-tion, auction catalogue, or other source: the lion hunt scarab of Amenhotep III (no. ) and the scarab with the name of Sheshonq III (no. ) in the Museo Egizio in Turin, 22 one of the three shawabtis no. at a sale in Florence, 23 a faience bead with the names of Amenhotep III and Tiye in the Miho Museum (no. ) ( Fig. ), 24 a stela of Osorkon II (no. ) that was recorded by a cast in the Vatican and published, 25 and a glass vase now in Toledo that is certainly from the collection and was possibly no. . 26 Other objects would seem to offer features that are traceable, but so far the necessary links are not known to the present writers. 27
A few Egyptian objects that once belonged to Stroganoff’s collection but did not appear in the Aachen catalogue were given by him to the Museum as discussed below by Meurer, and a few others not known from the Aachen catalogue have reached public collections in recent years. A fi ne panel painting men-tioned above fi gured in Pièces de Choix , passed even-tually into the collections of Federico Zeri, who bequeathed it to the Museo Gregoriano Egizio, Rome ( Fig. ); 28 the Nubian bed-legs were acquired by the Rijksmuseum in Leiden in ; two rings are now in the Gualino collection in Milan. 29
Fig. . Encaustic panel painting of a man, Museo Gregoriano Egizio, Rome, inv. . Photograph after Pollak and Muñoz (see note ).
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
Egyptian art in Stroganoff’s circles
As Georg Meurer discusses below, it is conceivable that most of the pharaonic collection exhibited in Aachen was purchased, perhaps within a very restricted period, through the proxy of Emil Brugsch. Even so, other possibilities cannot be ruled out, all the more so as Stroganoff was a rarely privileged and cosmopoli-tan man; both before and during the phase when the Aachen collection was formed and also later in his life, in collecting Egyptian antiquities just as with every aspect of his collections, he could have had access to expertise and to an art market almost without limita-tions. In the absence of any specifi c information, it nevertheless seems necessary and possible to create some idea of the potential sources of expertise and objects available to him, and, particularly for Rome, to suggest something of the society he shared. Of course, the Count’s own visit(s) to Egypt constituted collecting opportunities. In addition, his Aachen con-nection, his buying in Cologne and Munich, and his involvement with Brugsch in Cairo could possibly signal direct relations with Egyptological scholarship in Germany of the period. And, again, although virtu-ally nothing conclusive relative to Stroganoff’s col-lecting of Egyptian art can be documented, certainly Rome, his main abode, and Paris, where he regularly summered, supported separately and in common a rich mixture of collectors, scholars and dealers who included Egyptian art in their concerns.
In Rome, the community included Italian and inter-national collectors and scholars, and antiquaries or dealers. Memoirs and notebooks of Ludwig Pollak, who was associated with the German Archaeological Institute in Rome, document and refl ect on the antiquarian-minded society of Rome from his arrival in . 30 In particular, two great Roman lovers and collectors of Egyptian art were Stroganoff’s con-temporaries and attested acquaintance, Count Michel Tyszkiewicz ( – ) and Senator Giovanni Barracco ( – ). 31 Tyszkiewicz had excavated in Egypt, formed and sold more than one famed Egyptian collec-tion, and in his own memoir recalls one occasion when Stroganoff instructed him on the recognition of forger-ies of goldwork from southern Russia. 32 Barracco had travelled frequently to Egypt and was distinguished in Roman collecting circles by his affi nity for and scholarly knowledge of Egyptian language and art. 33 Wolfgang Helbig (-) and Pollak himself (-)
were scholars/connoisseurs/antiquaries connected with the German Archaeological Institute, established in Rome since and central to the city’s antiquities culture, and were infl uential fi gures in the ancient art circles in Rome. Pollak, although he was primarily con-cerned with Greek and Roman art, extended himself to other ancient traditions, and was an important infl u-ence and companion in the last decade of Stroganoff’s life. He met Stroganoff fi rst in , and travelled to Egypt and the Near East himself in . After com-pleting a catalogue of the Byzantine collection of the Count’s countryman and fellow resident of Rome the Russian Ambassador Alexander Nelidow, he became more intensely involved with Stroganoff from about , began to plan the Pièces de Choix project (with Muñoz) from , and to concentrate on it from about . 34 Younger Italian Egyptologists Orazio Marucchi and Ernesto Schapparelli were certainly in contact with this society in at least a general way. 35 Names of anti-quaries/dealers such as Augusto Jandolo, Augusto Castellani, and Giuseppe and Giorgio Sangiorgi fi gure with those of others in the accounts of the era, and Stroganoff’s contact with all of them is known or safely surmised. 36
Although very little is known about Stroganoff’s activities when he was regularly in Paris where his daughter and son-in-law had a home, the city’s long and early involvement with Egypt was refl ected in its great academic institutions and museums that nurtured a famed network of Egyptological scholars beginning with Mariette and Maspero, collectors and antiquaries/dealers. 37 One of the most important of the latter, H. Hoffmann, from whom Stroganoff is known to have purchased Asian antiquities, was also a major source of Egyptian antiquities. 38
Collecting tastes
In general, and although Brugsch’s taciturnity certainly conceals items of delicacy and beauty, the Aachen exhibition catalogue suggests that Stroganoff had acquired pharaonic material in a historical-typological way that seeks to comprehend the major structural axes of history and religion in an alien culture. It was an interest that he appears to have shared with others of his era and that he may have retained until the end of his life (if we are to judge from the scarabs he had withdrawn from the Aachen exhibition and kept among his collection). 39 He seems, however, not to
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
have strongly sought out types of Egyptian art gener-ally acknowledged as characteristic and admirable, such as stone sculptures and reliefs.
Without knowing more about the circumstances of formation of the collection exhibited at Aachen, it is not feasible to evaluate the range of choices actually available to Stroganoff up to that point. After , even though his collecting activity seems to have been concentrated in other areas he did continue to collect Egyptian art at least occasionally, to judge from the presence of objects associated with his collection that did not appear in the Aachen catalogue, so it is possi-ble to consider the implications of these as choices. Since major contemporary private collections in Rome (like that of Giovanni Barracco) and in Paris included signifi cant Egyptian stone sculpture and related items, it certainly would have been possible for someone like Stroganoff to make such acquisitions if he had chosen to do so. 40 Their apparent absence from his collection suggests that these Egyptian genres did not strongly command his attention. Among signifi cant acquisitions almost certainly from the post-Aachen exhibition years, the Leiden furniture legs described below by Maarten Raven (see Figs. – , below) and the fi ne panel painting in the Vatican ( Fig. , above) are cer-tainly aesthetically striking pieces, but again are not characteristic pharaonic genres. The bronze torso of Pedubast (see Fig. , below), even if it was part of the Aachen collection and therefore conceivably origi-nally chosen for its historical rather than its aesthetic signifi cance, clearly did meet his own artistic criteria as it was the one pharaonic piece that appeared in the Pièces de Choix catalogue. Possibly the surface attention, the modelling, colour and movement of the piece, appealed more nearly to this connoisseur’s per-sonal tastes insofar as they are represented by the clas-sical bronzes and Byzantine and Islamic decorative arts that heavily populated his collections.
Stroganoff and his Egyptian collection in the present-day Suermondt-Ludwig Museum, Aachen , by Georg Meurer
The Aachen exhibition of and the origins of the Stroganoff Egyptian collection In February a Museum Society was founded in Aachen through the initiative of several engaged citi-zens with the purpose of helping the city bring into
being its fi rst local museum. The Museum was to have divisions for natural history, history-archaeology, and art. The secretary of the Society, retired Captain Fritz Berndt, was at the same time the fi rst director of the Museum. In , 42 even before any signifi cant collec-tion had been acquired for the permanent installations of what was later to be the Suermondt Museum, the young Museum Society presented Stroganoff’s Egyptian collection as its second special exhibition.
An internationally known Egyptologist, Emil Brugsch (-), 43 wrote the exhibition catalogue entitled Sammlung Aegyptischer Alterthümer des Grafen Gregor Stroganoff (The Collection of Egyptian Antiquities of Count Grigory Stroganoff). How the contact between Brugsch and Stroganoff came about, or why Brugsch in particular was brought in to write the catalogue, unfortunately remains unknown. Possibly the Count had become acquainted with Emil Brugsch and his older brother Heinrich on an earlier visit to Egypt; Heinrich Brugsch was also an Egyptologist and, in fact, an incomparably more important scholar, as well as a tour guide sought by nobility and royalty. On the other hand, the younger Brugsch was a deputy to the fi rst two directors of the Museum and the Service des Antiquités, Auguste Mariette (-, director of the Service from , and of the Museum from ) and Gaston Maspero (-, director of the Service and the Museum - and -), and was employed as curator in the Egyptian Museum in Boulaq (from in its current central Cairo loca-tion) from until his retirement in , and through his position he came into contact with all the archaeological excavations in Egypt and their fi nds. Beginning in the s, on the instructions of the Service des Antiquités and with the concurrence of the government, he sold duplicates on behalf of the Egyptian Museum (in particular, shawabtis from Deir el-Medina, amulets, sarcophagi and mummies from Akhmim, etc.) to tourists and interested museums worldwide. 44 However, it is apparent that Emil also exploited his position in the Museum to deal in objects for his personal benefit. Possibly he had already obtained objects in one way or another for Stroganoff and in this way had been in contact with him. It is in any event quite likely that Brugsch had put together the core of the Count’s collection from the available duplicates in the Museum, as he is documented to have done later, for example, for the American collector Anthony W. Drexel, when he received $, for his
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
services from the collector. 45 So it can be conjectured that the exhibition catalogue for Aachen was written in Cairo, where Brugsch could have known all the objects from the beginnings of the collection or had even pro-cured them. 46 The alternative would be a sojourn by Emil in Aachen or Rome, which cannot be documented.
Emil Brugsch’s catalogue organized the collec-tion totalling objects primarily in four sections, ‘ Historical Collection, ordered by dynasties ’ , ‘ Pantheon ’ , ‘ Diversa (scarabs, statuettes, items from vitreous materials, jewellery elements, etc.) ’ , and ‘ Bronzes ’ ; it included brief descriptions of the pieces or explana-tions of their meaning, but gave no measurements or pictures. At the front of the booklet is a ‘ Chronological Overview of the Dynasties (according to Lepsius, Königsbuch ) ’ , which made it possible for a layperson to understand, at least, the chronological order of the objects. Nos - were added as an afterword, and nos - were placed in an appended section entitled ‘ Terracottas and Bronzes of Count Grigory Stroganoff, collected by him in Egypt in / ’ . 47
A proportion of the catalogued antiquities were also rated ( R, RR, RRR ) according to their rarity and their resultant scholarly importance, so that the visitor could easily recognize the most important objects. Eight pieces in all were emphasized as absolute Rarissima ( RRR ): the torso of a bronze statue of Pedubast, which is now in the Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon (no. ), 48 a Coptic tunic (no. ), a bronze of the god-dess Selket (no. ), an aegis-menat (no. ), 49 an arm-censer (no. ), a bronze ram-headed sphinx (no. ), a statuette of a particular form of the Goddess Isis-Hathor (?) (no. ), and a gold statuette of the god Seth (no. ). In fact, most of these objects could certainly be classified as remarkable from the modern viewpoint. Two are still today in the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum, the Coptic tunic and the aegis ( Fig. ). Moreover, of the twenty objects in the second category ( RR ), the mummy cartonnage (no. ) ( Fig. ) is still in the Museum, while the small wood fi gures also in the Museum probably formed part of the wooden bark (no. ). 50
The Stroganoff Egyptian collection in Aachen from
According to the guide to the Suermondt- Ludwig Museum, then located in its earliest home in the Alte Redoute in Comphausbadstrasse, the Egyptian antiq-
uities were displayed in gallery VI , which was intended for ‘ ancient craftworks ’ according to the Museum’s organizational scheme. The objects were presented in two cabinets as well as in two small showcases, 51 and were labelled ‘ Collection of Egyptian Antiquities of Count Stroganoff, who has loaned it to the Museum for some years in the friendliest manner. ’ At this time, then, they were still the Count’s property. Scarabs, statuettes of gods of wood and terracotta, amulets and jewellery, as well as terracotta statuettes, lamps, and so on from the Graeco-Roman period were found in cab-inet . The bronzes were on their own in cabinet . In the showcase adjacent to cabinet was the wooden bark, and in the showcase opposite, next to cabinet , were the mummy cartonnage and textile fragments (possibly the Coptic tunic). According to the catalogue of , in this same year Count Stroganoff still had sixty objects in all from his private collection on long-term loan, including all eight of those marked with RRR in the catalogue and six of those marked with RR , indicating that he had withdrawn the remainder of the collection some time before .
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
The objects still on loan had evidently been selected according to their signifi cance, since, for example, the lion-hunt scarab of Amenhotep III 52 and the bronze kneeling king offering nu -pots were included. 53 From the fact that Stroganoff himself had made this selec-tion it can be deduced that he continued to place these important pieces from his collection on loan with a view to the long-term benefi t of the Museum.
The Museum guide of shows the Egyptian objects still exhibited in the same cabinets in the same gallery. 54 The gallery was now identifi ed as for
‘ Goldwork, older craft works and other items ’ . The Count’s loans were now only very cursorily cited: one cabinet contained ‘ a collection of scarabs and small representations of gods ’ , another ‘ mostly pottery, lamps and other things; in the uppermost row, on the narrow side toward the window, a Tanagra fi gurine. ’ This last item too was a loan from the Count, which he later donated to the Museum. 55 The adjacent show-case displayed ‘ an ancient Egyptian mummy garment ’ (surely the mummy cartonnage) and ‘ on the fl oor an ancient Egyptian textile with coloured decoration from the th and th centuries AD ’ (probably the Cop-tic tunic). So, one can deduce that between and the selection of pieces placed at the disposal of the Museum had changed minimally – only the wooden ship was defi nitely no longer exhibited.
The last guide produced for many decades for the Museum, which had in the meantime moved to the new building at the Casalettsche Stadtpalais on Wilhelmstrasse, dates to and was written by the new director Dr Anton Kisa. It reveals a restructur-ing, not only as a result of the move, of the presenta-tion of all the holdings including also the Egyptian collection. 56 In the Museum had purchased on the art market a mummy with its coffi n from Akhmim. This was probably the reason that the Egyptian dis-play was divided: some of the Aegyptiaca were placed in a cabinet in an anteroom on the ground fl oor, which held the ‘ Ethnographic Collection and Oriental Art-works ’ . There the mummy cartonnage was displayed, with its gold mask that unfortunately no longer exists, and also its linen wrappings and the separate carton-nage for the feet, both items now lost too. Then, on the fl oor were the Coptic tunic ( ‘ rich Coptic fabric, rd century A.D. , gift of Count Grigory Stroganoff ’ ) and in the lower part of a cabinet the ‘ ancient Egyptian female mummy from Panopolis (that is, Akhmim), ca. th century B.C. ’ In the same gallery four further cabinets presented South American objects, weapons from Nubia and the South Seas, from Java and Borneo, as well as craftworks from China (statuettes of gods from boxwood and stoneware, gifts of Count Stroga-noff), Java (a gilded wood Buddha, likewise the gift of Stroganoff), Japan (for example, two ancient Japanese sets of armour) and the Dutch East Indies (weapons and implements). The remaining Aegyptiaca were now in a cabinet of a small gallery for ‘ Ancient Art ’ on the second fl oor. In this cabinet were, among other things, the aegis-menat, a seated statuette of Isis, the
foot piece of a coffi n, some small vessels of alabaster, and wooden oarsmen. On the wall was exhibited a mummy portrait. All these pieces were labelled as the donation of Count Stroganoff. In an adjacent fl at wall-case Coptic textiles, which derived from the bequest of the Canon Franz Bock, were presented. A second cabinet in the Ancient Gallery, whose wall and ceiling were decorated in Pompeian style, exhibited electro-plated copies of the treasures of Mycenae as well as Greek and South Italian ceramics.
Comparison of the catalogues and inventories with the pieces now present in the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum happily indicates that, of the pieces fi nally donated by Stroganoff to the Museum, almost all are still present. 57 The following items from the Count’s property are in the Museum today: various compo-nents of the aegis/menat; the bronze statuette of a seated Isis; fourteen wooden servant fi gures, probably originally from a boat; two small wooden papyrus columns, originally from a boat or shrine; the mummy portrait; eleven small stone vessels; the foot-piece of a coffi n; the mummy cartonnage; and – probably also stemming from his collection – the limestone statu-ette of a woman.
Stroganoff as collector of Egyptian art and patron of the Suermondt Museum
The exhibition catalogue of demonstrates that Stroganoff had purchased at least a part of his Aegyp-tiaca on a trip to Egypt in /, probably in the winter months. 58 In fact, if it were the case that this quite large Egyptian collection was not provided en bloc by Emil Brugsch, the Count surely could not have begun building the collection only shortly before the Aachen exhibition, but must already have made earlier purchases on the art market in Europe. Or per-haps he had already been in Egypt at some time and brought objects home. Indeed, one later Egyptian tour in the year is certainly known to the present writer. 59
As concerns the objects themselves described in the exhibition catalogue by Emil Brugsch, they are almost entirely small pieces. Given Stroganoff’s widely reputed passion for collecting, in which, admittedly, the Egyptian collection appears to have played a rather subordinate role, he may have had infrequent oppor-tunities to obtain larger Egyptian pieces, as seems to have been the case with other important collectors of his time. 60 For example, the collector of Egyptian art
Gustav Lübcke (-), himself an art dealer and hence provided with inside information, donated his collection to the museum in Hamm which is for this reason named after him, but it likewise contained no large objects. The same is true for the collection of August Kestner (-), which represented the basis of the collection for the museum in his name in Hanover. He had begun his collecting in Rome some decades earlier and had cultivated close contacts with Egyptologists. In contrast, Wilhelm Pelizaeus (-) lived in Cairo, fi nanced excavations in Egypt over the course of a decade, and in this way received a part of the fi nds, which included large sculpture. What is more, in Egypt he could make good purchases for his collection, which today forms the core of the collection of the Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum, likewise named after him.
While Stroganoff sojourned regularly in the spa-town of Bad Aachen over several years, 61 he actually lived in Paris and more especially Rome, where he had spent the winters since the s. 62 For the exhi-bition in Aachen he probably had his entire Egyptian collection of objects transported there. In the foreword to the catalogue by Brugsch it is noted that the exhibition would continue ‘ for some time ’ , but unfortunately the surviving documentation about the Museum and the Museum Society does not permit the precise length of the presentation to be estab-lished. 63 Nor is it known how many of the available nine galleries of the Museum it took up, compared to the permanent collection that was then only in its formative years. Possibly Stroganoff fi rst withdrew all the loans after the closing of the exhibition of , only later to resolve on a further loan: a document in the Aachen city archives dated December lists various art works placed on loan by Stroganoff at a total insurance value of , Marks. At the head of this list stands the entry ‘ ancient Egyptian objects, pieces, according to the special list ’ ; unfortunately, however, the special list has not been preserved. 64 The worth of the named Aegyptiaca for insurance pur-poses is declared at , Marks. From the Museum guides of the years and it can be gathered that Stroganoff placed part of his collection, some sixty objects, on loan over at least a decade. In the interval from to he then withdrew them. Presumably this occurred at the time the Museum moved into the new building on Wilhelmstrasse in (opened on November ), since on this
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
occasion the entire holdings underwent reorganiza-tion based on the ideas of the new director Dr Kisa, and, in spite of the considerably enlarged area, the entire available space was intended to be used for the permanent collections.
From time to time the Count parted with works from his different collections and transferred them as gifts to the Museum. 65 Judging from the valuation system applied in the exhibition catalogue, it is clear that he chose not only insignifi cant pieces for this purpose, but also some pieces which Brugsch had designated as ‘ Rarissima ’ (the aegis-menat, Coptic tunic, and mummy cartonnage). The entire scarab collection, though, was withdrawn. 66 The Fayum mummy portrait described in the guide and the ‘ alabaster cups and bowls ’ were not mentioned in . Presumably in the interval Stroganoff had made further purchases for his collection, but later divested himself of some of the less important – the mummy portrait was certainly not in good condition even in . 67 Papers preserved in the city archive also indi-cate that the Count donated the Egyptian artworks still in the Museum collection piece-by-piece, at least in the well-documented period between and , and not as a single larger gift. 68
Presentation of the exhibition of Stroganoff’s Egyp-tian antiquities in Aachen created a small sensation. If one bears in mind the size of the collection with its exhibited objects, even by today’s standards it was an unusually large exhibition. Moreover, the (tempo-rary) public presentation of private Egyptian collec-tions in Germany years ago was completely out of the ordinary, no other instance being known to the present writer. 69 And, indeed, one has to recall that at that time in Germany itself there were only a few Egyptian collections to be seen in publicly accessible museums. 70 To be sure, the most important Egyptian museums today in Germany, those in Berlin (founded in ) and Munich (from ), 71 had already existed for some time; however, with the exception of these two museums and those in the cities of Dresden ( dissolution of the princely collection and crea-tion of the Historical Museum), Gotha (founded ), Karlsruhe (before ), 72 Kassel (founded ), Leipzig (founded ), Wiesbaden (from ) and Würzburg (from ), in there was otherwise no place in Germany where noteworthy Egyptian objects could be freely viewed. All the other collections known today were nascent at this time and
formed within the next decades. 73 The exhibition in Aachen was therefore not only of interest for layper-sons, but also for Egyptologists, as is evidenced by the visit of Alfred Wiedemann, who was later the fi rst holder of the chair of Egyptology at the University of Bonn. 74
Stroganoff, forerunner, catalyst and honorary member
The special stature of the collection loaned by the Count – a man who was not native to Aachen but who merely passed time there as a spa-guest – was fully acknowledged by the city authorities: on September the Museum Society named Stroganoff as its third honorary member on the basis of his special merit. 75 This honour was in direct response to his loan of the Egyptian collection, which had remarkably advanced the new Museum at this early stage of its creation. 76 Fortunately a copy of the certifi cate of honour is preserved and reads 77 :
Grégoire Serge Stroganoff! In thankful recognition of the active goodwill which you, most honoured Count, have shown for the efforts of the Society for years through the loan of art objects for the exhibition of the Museum Society, whereby the interest of the same has been advanced in an outstanding way, the undersigned committee has the hon-our to appoint you according to Statute as an Honorary Member of the Museum Society in the City of Aachen and to respectfully and faithfully present this diploma as testi-mony to you. Aachen, September . The Committee of the Museum Society.
Two case-studies of extraordinary objects from the Stroganoff collection
The bronze torso of King Pedubast, by Marsha Hill The still-spectacular fragmentary bronze torso of King Pedubast ( c .- BC ) today in the Gulben-kian Museum, Lisbon, is one of the great artistic monuments of the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties -, c .- BC ), a politically decentralized and obscure era marked, nonetheless, by a high level of inventiveness and artistry in metal-work ( Fig. ). 78
As preserved, the torso measures cm high; the original statue probably measured about - cm, exclusive of any headdress it may have worn, and showed the King striding forward and probably presenting an offering in his now missing hands.
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
Even the fragment conveys a strong sense of motion, because the King was represented as if in the course of activity: the weight shifts between his legs to the rear and to the front, the left swinging strongly in front of the right. The surface was richly decorated. Only traces remain of precious metal inlay on the chest, but enough to indicate that two groups of confronted gods were represented, that on the fi gure’s right side led by a mummiform deity followed by a male and then a female goddess, the group on the fi gure’s left being led by a male holding an Egyptian god’s sceptre and followed by two figures. Gold inlays at the centre of the statue’s belt delineate his name ‘ Usermaatre-Chosen-of-Amun, Pedubast-son-of-Bastet-beloved-of-Amun ’ , and on his apron appear again his names ‘ King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Usermaatre-Chosen-of-Amun, son of Re,
lord of Diadems, Pedubast-son-of-Bastet-beloved-of-Amun. ’ Over a pleated kilt Pedubast wears a feather-patterned belt and apron, with a panther head adorning the top of the apron and a row of uraei across the bottom; this costume is conjectured to emphasize the King’s divinity as son of the sun god and his protection by the sky goddess, and may have associations with the royal renewal festival called the heb-sed . Blocks of gold and copper-enriched reddish-gold chevrons are inlaid in cells to form the feather patterning on these costume elements. These cells and, therefore, the colour blocks are intentionally offset from one side of the apron to the other so as to create an asymmetry and visual movement.
The animation of the surface of the statue through the layout and colour of the inlays, along with the strong sense of motion in the treatment of the fi gure, attest to the vibrancy of temple ritual statuary in the Third Intermediate Period, when metal-working skills reached new heights, and when temples, as the focal points of the political strivings of the era, were richly endowed with such elaborate statues. The use of sophisticated alloys that suggest a previously unsus-pected spectrum of possibilities for metal polychromy and the presence of an iron armature both confi rm and extend the observations of other recent studies of Egyptian ‘ great bronzes ’ and other bronzes of the period.
The statue was no. in the Aachen exhibition of the Stroganoff Egyptian collection in . 79 A number of details indicate that the statue had been only partially cleaned of its archaeological corrosion when Brugsch saw it to record the inscription for the catalogue, although the entire inscription had been cleaned and was visible when it was seen by Wiedemann who published his description in . 80 It seems likely the statue may have been excavated only shortly before it was seen by Brugsch and purchased by Stroganoff. The catalogue itself gives no archaeological origin for the piece, and historians of the Third Inter-mediate Period have generally followed Kenneth Kitchen, author of the major synthetic work on this diffi cult period, in discarding as late and unsubstanti-ated a statement by Petrie from that the statue was excavated among the ruins of the great northern city of Tanis in the eastern Egyptian Delta. 81 How-ever, evidence from an account by Maspero reveals that there is a stronger tradition of this origin,
Fig. . Torso of King Pedubast, Museu Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, no. . Reproduced with permission. Photograph by William Barrette, New York.
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
and the history of investigations at the site gives substantial (if circumstantial) credibility to this tradi-tion. 82 Such a possible provenance has important implications for discussions about the nature and geo-graphic centre of Dynasty in the Third Intermedi-ate Period that are outside the focus of the current presentation of the piece, but dealt with at greater length elsewhere. 83 Whether the provenance of the piece was known by Brugsch or Stroganoff is a matter for speculation, as are the reasons for its omission (if known to them) from the text. 84
Meurer reveals above that the statue remained in Aachen with Stroganoff’s loans from , and may then have stayed there even until . It was included in Pièces de Choix , 85 and remained as part of the Stroganoff collections in Rome until after the family’s return to Rome in . Then it was sold through Frederick Muller in Amsterdam as lot in the sale of - December , when it was obtained with the assistance of Duveen for the oil magnate and art collector Calouste Gulbenkian, then resident in Paris. 86 Quite soon thereafter, from July until December of that year, it was loaned to the Exposi-tion Champollion at the Louvre to celebrate the ‘ Centenaire de Champollion ’ , the hundredth anni-versary of Champollion’s ‘ Lettre à M. Dacier, ’ which announced his success in deciphering hieroglyphic script. The torso appeared in exhibitions focusing on the Egyptian art in Gulbenkian’s collection in and ; it has been in the Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon since its opening in , is published in the Gulbenkian Museum catalogue of its Egyptian collection, and has appeared in international loan exhibitions. 87
Two Nubian bed-legs, by Maarten J. Raven
In , the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden acquired two rather spectacular items of furniture (inv. F/.-: Figs. – ). These can be identifi ed as the legs of a funerary bed, are made of wood and carry the remains of paint. The most complete leg is . cm high, whereas the width of both legs is . cm and the depth . cm.
These two extraordinary objects once formed part of the Stroganoff collection, although they do not fi gure in the catalogue. 88 Together with other objects, the Count sold the two bed-legs around to his close friend Giorgio Sangiorgi who had helped him to make an inventory of his antiquities. Sangiorgi
was a well-known collector and dealer in Rome, who possessed his own art gallery (the Galleria Sangiorgi). In the s the family moved from Rome to Monaco, where the bed-legs became part of the owner’s ‘ Egyptian cabinet ’ . After Sangiorgi’s demise, they remained in the possession of his son Sergio until the latter sold them at Christie’s in New York, 89 where they were bought by the Leiden Museum. 90
Due to the fact that until recently these two objects were always in private hands, they have so far escaped the attention of the scholarly world, although they well deserve it in view of their rarity and outstanding quality. They form a set and depict a human-headed sphinx seated on a rectangular base; the rather squat, leonine body has here been combined with a rounded head which clearly shows negroid features; the eyes are recessed and were originally inlaid, the nose is rather fl at and there is a wide mouth and a heavy chin. The African aspect is further stressed by the peculiar hair-style consisting of close-cropped hair in combination
with four groups of braided tresses falling over the front and rear and to the sides. A concentric collar lies over the shoulders, terminating in a range of drop-beads below; the lion’s chest is incised with a stylized pattern depicting the mane of the animal. All the incised parts have been fi lled with a yellow paste in imitation of gold; small traces suggest that there may have been a painted design involving further colours.
The bases of both sphinxes are decorated with framed panels of incised Egyptian hieroglyphs. Those on the front read ‘ all life and dominion ’ , whereas the panels on the sides mention ‘ all joy ’ and ‘ all health ’ ; the rear of the bases is undecorated. The heads of both sphinxes are surmounted by a square, fl aring post with a rounded top (damaged in one instance); the front of this post is incised with a clump of papyrus below and a pendant lotus fl ower above. Otherwise, there are two square perforations, the upper one run-ning from the front to the rear of the post, the lower one in transverse direction, indicating that the objects served as the legs for an item of furniture.
The sphinx is of course well-known in ancient Egyptian art. The leonine body and human head stood for the combination of animal power and human intel-ligence. Sphinxes frequently symbolize the incarnation of divine spirits in bodily form, or represent the war-like aspect of the Pharaoh; in general, they served as guardians of sacred precincts or cemeteries. The appli-cation of sphinxes, lions, or other apotropaic animals on items of furniture is quite common. Lions and other felines are also symbols of the sky, and we fi nd them depicted on beds, thrones, and other ‘ elevated ’ struc-tures, stressing the symbolic link between the furniture legs and the four struts of heaven. Together with the hieroglyphic mottoes inscribed on their bases, the sphinxes would therefore have ensured the protection and revivifi cation of the person using the item of furni-ture in question. Both lotus and papyrus can also be connected with concepts of new life, joy, and health.
So far, the representations can be seen to conform to ancient Egyptian traditions. However, there are other elements which are distinctly un-Egyptian. In the fi rst place, there is the material from which the legs have been carved – a dark brown wood with yellowish patches, probably some kind of ebony and defi nitely of tropical origin. Very characteristic are the negroid heads which seem to point to a Nubian origin for these pieces, although female sphinxes with the same hair-style are occasionally depicted in Egyptian art. 91 They seem to depict an aspect of the goddess Hathor, protectress of love and fertility but also associ-ated with rebirth and the afterlife. 92 The Nubian hair-style may be connected with Hathor’s role as patroness of the deserts and of foreign countries.
Close parallels to this sphinx motif have been found in the Nubian royal cemeteries of el-Kurru, Ballana, and Qustul. 93 These are the burial-places of those kings who ruled over Nubia after the withdrawal of the Egyptian occupation at the end of the New Kingdom. Between the eighth and the sixth centuries BC these rulers resided at Napata, close to the Fourth Cataract; from the fi fth century BC the balance grad-ually shifted in favour of the new capital of Meroe further south. The Napatan and Meroitic cultures are characterized by a peculiar mixture of Egyptian and local Sudanese elements. Excavations in the contem-porary cemeteries have provided the necessary infor-mation for a proper identifi cation of the furniture pieces which concern us here. Élite burials dating to these periods were provided with funerary beds on
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
which the deceased were laid to rest. Several isolated legs of these couches have been found, some of which are highly ornamental. 94
An almost identical wooden bed-leg with sphinx motif is held in the British Museum. 95 This is undoubtedly the third leg of the bed to which also the two pieces from the Stroganoff collection belonged. Unfortunately, its provenance is unknown (it was accessioned in with a group of objects bought by E. A. Wallis Budge). The same goes for the fourth leg, which has recently been identifi ed in the collections of the Louvre 96 and was bought in . In spite of the lack of evidence, there cannot be any doubt that the legs in question once belonged to the funerary bed of a high-ranking person from one of the Napatan ceme-teries and that it should be dated somewhere between and BC . The legs in London and Paris are . cm high, whereas the undamaged Leiden speci-men has a height of . cm. This suggests that the bed-frame was mounted at an incline. Presumably, the head end (with the legs now in Leiden) would be raised and the foot end would be at a lower level. This is in accordance with the Egyptian custom to make beds with a protruding footboard but without a correspond-ing headboard. It is also seen in contemporary mummy biers and mummifi cation tables, such as those made for the embalming of the Apis bulls in Memphis.
When and how Stroganoff acquired the bed-legs now in Leiden is unknown, but the evidence cited at the beginning of this contribution suggests it was between and . This is corroborated by the acquisition of the third leg by Budge, recorded as hav-ing been made in Egypt in . Perhaps the Count likewise picked up the items now in Leiden during one of his visits to Egypt (maybe during the elusive trip of ), rather than on the European art market. Whatever be the case, their acquisition again refl ects his rather exotic taste in Egyptian antiquities, as dem-onstrated by various other articles of his collections. It was exactly this quality – rather too unusual for most collectors – which helped the Leiden Museum to acquire the bed-legs at the auction in New York.
Addresses for correspondence Dr Marsha Hill, Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fifth Avenue, New York, NY , USA. [email protected] Dr Georg Meurer, Wilsnacker Strasse , Berlin, Germany. [email protected]
Dr Maarten Raven, Egyptian Department, National Museum of Antiquities, P.O. Box , NL- EC Leiden, Netherlands. [email protected]
Notes and references Morris Bierbrier (ed.), Who Was Who in Egyptology , rd
edn (London, ) mistakenly identifi es Count Stroganoff as Grigory Alexandrovitch Stroganoff ( – ), another member of the family.
Penelope Hunter-Stiebel (ed.), Stroganoff. The Palace and Collections of a Russian Noble Family (Portland, OR and New York, ) gives an overview of the Stroganoff family.
Emil Brugsch, Sammlung Aegyptischer Alterthümer des Grafen Gregor Stroganoff (Aachen, ).
Varduì Kalpakcian, ‘ Il palazzo romano del conte G. S. Stroganoff negli acquarelli di F. P. Reyman ’ , Pinakoth e- k e- – (), pp. – . Dr Kalpakcian studies Stroganoff’s paintings, in particular, but pursues a better understanding of all his collecting activities and the dispersal of his collections. She has been most generous with information; other articles by her and by other colleagues investigating other aspects of Stroganoff’s collection are cited throughout.
Antonio Muñoz, ‘ La collezione del conte Stroganoff, ’ Rassegna Contemporanea / (October ), pp. – : ‘ E Roma era poi stata la meta continua dei viaggi di lui che aveva pellegrinato per tutto il mondo, in Oriente e in Occidente. ’
Ibid., p. : ‘ Il conte Gregorio si dette con passione, che era quasi mania, a raccogliere le cose più belle che gli venivano presentate dagli antiquarii a Roma, a Parigi, a Monaco, a Colonia … ’
Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note ), pp. – , where the date of the son’s death is given as . New archival discoveries and further research have given the earlier date for his son’s death: Varduì Kalpakcian, ‘ La passione private e il bene pubblico. Il conte Gregorio Stroganoff: collezionista, studioso, fi lantropo e mecenate a Roma fra Otto e Novecento ’ , in Lucia Tonini (ed.), Il collezionismo in Russia da Pietro I all’Unione Sovietica (Naples, ), pp. , and n. .
Family records of a prolonged visit to Asia and Egypt after the son’s death are noted in Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note ), pp. , , and an email from Varduì Kalpakcian dated May . The visit to Egypt of - is documented by the Aachen catalogue in the heading for the terracottas nos -, where it reads like an insertion at Stroganoff’s behest. Stroganoff’s daughter married in as noted by Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note ), n. , apparently in St Petersburg or possibly Rome, an event that he would certainly have attended and that must have predated the - trip to Egypt, so that suggests either that there were two visits or that its proximity to his son’s death was not so marked as later recalled.
Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), p. .
In an email of May , Varduì Kalpakcian shared with me her record of letters in the Central State Archives Rome (° Versamento, serie, busta , fascicolo , Anni: , e ) indicating that in the Count came to the offi ce for exportation of art and antiquities with regard to a case containing a collection of , Egyptian coins that he had bought ‘ some years ago ’ when he was in Egypt, and now wished to dispose of, shipping the case somewhere outside Italy for
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
that purpose. Possibly these are the ‘ medals ’ purchased on the putative visit of (see note ).
See Morris Bierbrier, ‘ The discovery of the mummy portraits ’ , in Susan Walker (ed.), Ancient Faces. Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt (New York, ), pp. -. The fragmentary panel Aachen AK is discussed further below.
In the Archive of the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow Dr Varduì Kalpakcian noted a document issued by the Russian Consulate in Egypt, dated May , which states that a case containing ‘ the collection of medals belonging to Count G. S. Stroganoff is sent from Cairo to Naples, where the owner is now. ’ (See also note for later discussion possibly concerning the same material.) A separate visit to Egypt is perhaps also suggested by the annotation for the Aphrodite in Ludwig Pollak and Antonio Muñoz, Pièces de Choix de la Collection du Comte Gregoire Stroganoff à Rome (Rome, -), ère partie, Les Antiquités , by L. Pollak, (), p. and pl. indicating that Stroganoff believed he purchased it in Egypt, since the piece does not occur in the Aachen catalogue. A similarly glossed terracotta lamp (p. and pl . ) does not seem to be in the Aachen catalogue but it is diffi cult to be sure.
Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), vol. I , p. viii. In an email of May Varduì Kalpakcian notes that she has located the inventory of Stroganoff’s palazzo after his death in the Archive of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire, Department for history and documentation of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Section: Rome, Consulate; Year: - ; no. ; Description d; hopefully she will be able to publish the entire document. On and October the inventory notes certain not particularly recognizable Egyptian pieces in the Studio: a bronze cat, an Egyptian portrait with gilded cornice, an Egyptian idol in (the word wood is struck out) stucco with four necklaces in enamel and a base in black wood mounted in metal, an Egyptian bronze, and in three drawers of a small cabinet ten Egyptian idols and eighty-six scarabs and incised stones.
See the section below by Maarten Raven.
Ludwig Pollak, Römische Memoiren. Künstler, Kunstliebhaber und Gelehrte – (Rome, ), p. n. . Most recently Varduì Kalpakcian, ‘ Il destino della collezione romana del Conte G. S. Stroganoff (-) dopo la scomparsa del collezionista ’ , in Serena Romano (ed.), La Russie et l’Occident. Actes du colloque, Lausanne avril , Études Lausannoises d’Histoire de l’Art (forthcoming) establishes the end of for the family’s return.
See the discussion of Pedubast below by Marsha Hill.
Silvana Pettanati, ‘ Le raccolte antiquariali ’ , in Giovanna Castagnoli (ed.), Dagli ori antichi agli anni Venti. Le collezione di Riccardo Gaulino (Milan, ), pp. - provides a brief account of the dispersal of the Stroganoff collections with extensive bibliography. I have been able to review the sale catalogues listed there that might include antiquities except one – L. Ozzola, Ogetti d’arte componenti la collezione Stroganoff, venduta per conto degli eredi (Rome, ) – and fi nd nothing relevant to the Egyptian collection. Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note ) reviews the dispersals and traces many of the most famous paintings and certain objects from the collection.
Pettanati, op. cit. (note ), p. quotes an anonymous critique from Dedalo , December , pp. -, regarding the undervaluing and careless dispersal of the Stroganoff collection, attributing this to the general lack of interest
in bronzes, silver, ivories, and textiles of the collection as compared to interest in sculpture and painting.
A. Wiedemann, ‘ Inschriften aus der Saitischen [ sic ] Periode, ’ Receuil de Travaux (), pp. – .
A. Wiedemann, Ägyptische Geschichte. Supplement (Gotha, ), p. n. .
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeologists (), pp. -; at the time the royal names were understood to refer to Sheshonq I.
Scarab no. is Museo Egizio , acquired and in C. Blankenberg-van Delden, The Large Commemorative Scarabs of Amenhotep III (Leiden, ), pp. - no. C and pl. ; also Ernesto Scamuzzi, ‘ Scarabeo della caccia ai leoni di Amenhotep III ’ , Bollettino della Società Piemontese di Archeologia e Belle Arti – ( – ), p. , n. . Scarab no. is Museo Egizio . Elisa Fiore Marochetti of the museum noted the material of the scarab is ‘ defi nitely not blue paste and perhaps not even lapis lazuli (lazulite, anhydrite?) ’ , email December . The scarab is illustrated in Giulio Farina, Il R. Museo di Antichita di Torino, Sezione Egizia (Rome, ), p. . Not recognizing that they were the same piece, the Turin scarab and the scarab described by Wiedemann were both compared to a problematic one in the British Museum and similarly questioned by John Cooney, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum IV . Glass (London, ), p. . The last piece (EA) is currently classifi ed as a forgery.
Sale catalogue Pandolfi ni, Florence, June , no. , as a shawabti of Psamtik III.
Sale catalogue Christie’s, New York, June , lot p. , now in the Miho Museum, Miho Museum. Catalogue of Ancient Glass (Tokyo, ), pp. and , no. . The bead measures . cm in diameter, and the inscription is given as: ‘ the good god, Neb-maat-re [Amenhotep III] given life [and] the King’s wife Tiye [beloved] of Hathor, mistress of Dendera, who lives. ’
Orazio Marucchi, ‘ Di una stela egizia dedicata in occasione del giubileo del faraone Osorkon II ’ , Atti della Pont. Accad. Rom. di Archeologia, Rendiconti, vol. I (Rome, ), pp. - and plate, reports on p. that he was informed that the stela had been purchased by a ‘ rich American ’ from Sangiorgi. Unable to prevent the export licence for what he considered an important historical piece, Marucchi arranged with the Vatican to make a cast which was then displayed in the Hemicycle as no. . Jürgen von Beckerath, ‘ Die angebliche Jubiläums-Stele Osorkons II. ’ , Göttinger Miszellen (), pp. - republishes the stela with a drawing after the cast pictured in Marucchi, and reproduces Marucchi’s error (p. ) in referring to Wiedemann’s mention of the stela, op. cit. (note ), as being on p. when it should be p. . Dr Alessia Amenta, Curator of the Egyptian and Oriental Antiquities, confi rms that the cast is still in the collection of the Vatican.
Toledo ., published in David Grose, Early Ancient Glass. Core-formed, rod-formed, and cast vessels and objects from the late Bronze Age to the early Roman Empire, B.C. to A.D. (New York, ), p. no. , colour p. where it is noted to be former Giorgio Sangiorgi, Collezione di Vetri Antichi (Milan and Rome, ), no. pl. and obtained by Sangiorgi in from Stroganoff.
For example, no. a small limestone stela with the god Thoth on the right and Horus on the left with foreign captives beneath their feet and uninscribed represents a rare type of
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
which I am acquainted with two limestone examples: it does not appear to be Allard Pierson based on the orientation described, but might be Metropolitan Museum of Art ., purchased from John Ross, who at least in the late twentieth century lived part-time in Italy. On the other hand, no. a Seth in gold (rated RRR ), would seem unusual enough to be traceable, but as Georg Meurer’s researches have shown below it remained in Aachen still in , so that the two (!) examples in the Louvre with the name Ahhotep that fi rst suggest themselves cannot be the same as they were obtained from Allemand in and Pennelli in respectively.
Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), vol. I , p. , pl. , and presumably the panel referred to by Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), p. : ‘ Questo eclettico amatore che sapeva estendere il suo gusto dalle pitture ellenistiche del Fayum a quelle di Francisco Goya . . . ’ It is now Museo Gregoriano Egizio, inv. , catalogued as encaustic on wood and measuring cm by cm, - BC . It is pictured in Romana pictura. la pittura romana dalle origini all’età bizantina (Milan, ), no. , p. , fi g. on p. . For its acquisition by the Vatican and some history see Lorenzo Nigro, ‘ Nuove acquisitione ’ , Bollettino – Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontifi cie (), p. , and Francesco Burnarelli, ‘ Testimonianze ’ , in Mina Gregori (ed.), Venti modi di essere Zeri (Turin, ), pp. -. The panel has been dated to the later second century AD most recently by Barbara Borg, Mumienporträts. Chronologie und kultureller Kontext (Mainz am Rhein, ), p. (in a group of panels whose painting style she discusses as late Antonine), and had previously been dated to the early fourth century by Klaus Parlasca, Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano. Serie B: Ritratti di mummie III (), no. , p. , plate /. Dr Alessia Amenta graciously provided information.
Pettanati, op. cit. (note ), p. no. a gold ring bezel with the name of Amenhotep II (the cited reference to lot in the Castellani sale is an error for lot ); p. no. , a greyish metal ring holding a stone with a magical device. The fi rst is certainly Egyptian, although the second might have a Roman or more generally Mediterranean origin.
Pollak, op. cit. (note ), describes the complexity and immense richness of Roman scholarly and collecting society, mainly, of course, in relation to Graeco-Roman and Italian art: pp. - and passim for the German Archaeological Institute; pp. - for sketches of some Roman collectors including Stroganoff on pp. -. Augusto Jandolo, trans. Olga Leonie Hainisch, Bekenntnisse eines Kunsthändlers (Berlin, ) offers another view of much the same society, pp. - being a sketch devoted to Stroganoff. Loredana Sist, ‘ Giovanni Barracco e L’Egitto ’ , Museo Barracco. Arte egizia (Rome, ), pp. - gives a rich and complex picture of interest in Egypt in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Rome, with references to other work.
For Tyszkiewicz (who lived across the street from Stroganoff’s house on its Via Sistina face) and Barracco, see Pollak, op. cit. (note ), pp. – , – , and -. For these fi gures in relation to Egyptology see Bierbrier, op. cit. (note ), pp. (Barracco) and – (Tyszkiewicz).
Tyszkiewicz has been the subject of recent work based on rediscovered records: see several articles by Witold Dobrowolski, Aleksandra Majewska, Andrzej Niwinski, Charles Rouit, and Aldona Snitkuviené in Joanna Aksamit (ed.), Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinsk a (Warsaw, ). His account of Stroganoff is in Memories of an Old
Collector, trans Mrs Andrew Lang (London, New York, etc., ), pp. -.
For Barracco, see also Sist, op. cit. (note ): Barracco himself purchased or obtained Egyptian art in Paris (for example, pp. , via Pollak, ) and – with the agency of Pollak – in Naples (see p. ). Simona Moretti, ‘ Il collezionismo d’arte bizantina a Roma tra Otto e Novecento: il caso Stroganoff ’ , in Antonio Iacobini (ed.), Bixanzio. La Grecia e l’Italia (Rome, ), p. refers to the contact between Barracco and Stroganoff.
M. Merkel Guldan, Die Tagebücher von Ludwig Pollak (Vienna, ), especially pp. -, -.
They certainly had connections with Barracco and would also have been available to Strogranoff, Sist, op. cit. (note ), p. .
E.g. Moretti, op. cit. (note ), p. . For Stroganoff’s involvement with this society see, for example, notes , , above and Maarten Raven’s contribution below.
The world of collectors can be glimpsed in surveying Les Donateurs du Louvre (Paris, ). Other sources of general (since Stroganoff is not mentioned) interest about the world of collectors and antiquaries/dealers include S. Bakhoum and M. C. Hellman, ‘ Wilhelm Froehner, le commerce et les collections d’antiquités égyptiennes ’ , Journal des Savants (), pp. -, and Annie France Laurens and Krzysztof Pomian (eds), L’Anticomanie. La collection d’antiquités aux e et e siècles (Paris, ), the latter dealing mainly with classical antiquities.
I owe the information regarding Stroganoff and Hoffmann to Dr Varduì Kalpakcian; also Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), vol. I , pp. -, pl. is a Palmyrene relief purchased from Hoffmann. For Hoffmann’s collecting of Egyptian antiquities, see, e.g., Georges Legrain, Collection H. Hoffmann. Catalogue des antiquités égyptiennes (Paris, ).
See note .
Sist, op. cit. (note ), includes numerous large stone sculptures and sarcophagi that are Egyptian and not the type to have been taken to Rome anciently; even if they had been taken to Rome in ancient times, presumably Stroganoff might also have acquired similar material had he chosen to do so. Stone sculpture and stelae were certainly among those handled by Hoffmann: see note .
The catalogue of the Egyptian collection in Aachen edited by the present writer is in preparation. Michael Rief and Dr Adam C. Oellers of the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum, Aachen, are gratefully acknowledged for their support and for permission to reproduce photographs of the objects from the museum collections.
While the precise opening date is as little known as the duration of the exhibition, the opening must have taken place before September , since on September the Count was named an honorary member of the Museum Society because of his support.
For Emil Brugsch see Bierbrier, op. cit (note ), p. ; Theodor Brugsch, Arzt seit fünf Jahrzehnten , th edn (Berlin, ), pp. - and ; Elisabeth David, Mariette Pacha - (Paris, ), pp. , , ; Margaret S. Drower, Flinders Petrie. A Life in Archaeology (London, ), pp. , , , , , , , -, , -, ; John A. Wilson, Signs and Wonders upon Pharaoh. A History of American Egyptology (Chicago and London, ), p. ; Warren R. Dawson, ‘ Letters from Maspero to Amelia Edwards ’ , Journal of Egyptian
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
Archaeology (), p. n. ; Harry Nehls, ‘ Der große und der kleine Brugsch ’ , Berlinische Monatsschrift (), pp. -; Elisabeth David, Gaston Maspero -. Le gentleman égyptologue (Paris, ), pp. -, -, -, -, -, , -, , , -, , ; and W. Benson Harer Jr., ‘ The Drexel collection: from Egypt to the Diaspora ’ , in Sue H. D’Auria (ed.) , Servant of Mut. Studies in Honor of Richard A. Fazzini (Leiden and Boston, ), pp. -. Brugsch’s private collection was auctioned in Paris at Drouot-Richelieu through François de Ricqlès on September and on - September . For Brugsch’s possible involvement with the production of forgeries, see Jean-Jacques Fiechter, Faux et faussaires en art égyptien (Turnhout and Brussels, ), pp. -.
See David, op. cit. [ Maspero ] (note ), pp. -, and Harer, op. cit. (note ), pp. -. The purpose of the sales was to bring money into the coffers of the Service des Antiquités and at the same time to stem the trade in stolen goods through legalized purchases.
Gerry D. Scott III, Temple, Tomb and Dwelling. Egyptian Antiquities from the Harer Family Trust Collection (San Bernardino, ), p. ix; and Harer, op. cit. (note ), pp. -. The fact that Stroganoff’s collection was essentially one of small objects speaks also for its having been collected through Brugsch, compare Harer, op. cit. (note ), p. .
Since Brugsch also wrote a catalogue for Drexel, this picture seems the most likely choice; compare Harer op. cit. (note ), p. , n. .
This section is further divided into nine subsections that refl ect focal points: terracotta vessels, four sections with terracotta lamps (Greek, Graeco-Egyptian, Romano-Egyptian, and Roman), statuettes and busts, and objects from the Greek, Roman and Coptic periods in Egypt.
Maria Helena Assam, Arte egípcia. Colecção Calouste Gulbenkian (Lisbon, ), pp. -, cat. , as well as Luís Manuel de Araújo, Egyptian Art. Calouste Gulbenkian Collection (Lisbon, ), pp. -, cat. . See Marsha Hill below.
This object consisted of a number of parts fi tted together (in modern times?): an aegis with a piece remaining from the menat that attached behind it, a modius encircled with uraei, and arms holding a Horus-child. See Günther Roeder, Ägyptische Bronzefi guren (Berlin, ), p. § d ( = fi gs. - and pl. d-e), p. § b (aegis); pp. - § c ( = fi g. and pl. g) and p. § i, (modius encircled with uraei); p. § e ( = fi g. and pl. g), p. § e and p. § g (Horus child in arms).
The objects designated with RR are the following (with the descriptions given in the catalogue): no. plaque with the titulary of Cheops (th dyn.); no. scarab of Nub-cheper-Re Antef V (th dyn.); no. scarab of Amenemhat III (th dyn.); no. scarab of Rahotep (th dyn.); no. faience bead of Amenhotep III and Tiye (th dyn.); no. scarab of Thutmose III (th dyn.); no. cartouche of Tutankhamun (th dyn.); no. faience ring of Tutankhamun (th dyn.); no. yellow faience ring of the God’s Father Ay (th dyn.); no. carnelian Horus statuette with the name of Ramesses IV (th dyn.); no. stela of Osorkon II (nd dyn.); no. scarab of Sheshonq III (nd dyn.); no. faience fragment of Necho (th dyn.); no. faience statuette of Khnum; no. wooden bark of the Middle Kingdom; no. mummy cartonnage of the Late Period; no. bronze sphinx with human head; no. bronze headdress from a composite
statuette; no. scarab of Aya (th dyn.); no. haematite statuette of a lion goddess. Thirty-fi ve objects were classifi ed as R . Altogether sixty-three objects were thus classifi ed as particularly remarkable, which corresponds to just under % of the collection.
Fritz Berndt, Führer durch das Suermondt-Museum (Aachen, ), pp. - and p. iv.
This scarab is in the Museo Egizio, Turin, no. , see note , purchased in for the museum.
The present whereabouts are unfortunately unknown; for the statue type in general see Marsha Hill, Royal Bronze Statuary from Ancient Egypt, with Special Attention to the Kneeling Pose (Leiden and Boston, ).
Fritz Berndt, Führer durch das Städtische Suermondt-Museum (Aachen, ), pp. -.
The piece is illustrated as artwork of the month for March in Felix Kuetgens, Aachener Kunstblätter Sonderheft (Aachen, ).
Anton Kisa, Führer durch das Suermondt-Museum der Stadt Aachen (Aachen, ), pp. , , -.
The only pieces lost are a third wooden papyrus column and two handles with duck-heads from wooden spoons.
Particularly in the second half of the nineteenth century it was fashionable among nobles and the wealthy bourgeoisie of good breeding to undertake a trip to Egypt, as did, for example, the Grand Duke Friedrich Franz II of Mecklenburg-Schwerin in , the Hohenzollern Prince Friedrich-Karl in , or Duke Max of Bavaria already in (see for these trips Ina Busch and Ina Boike (eds.), Ägypten. Forscher und Schatzjäger (Darmstadt, ), pp. , . Heinrich Brugsch served both the Grand Duke Friedrich Franz II and Prince Friedrich-Karl as authoritative tour guide, see Renate Germer, Das Geheimnis der Mumien. Ewiges Leben am Nil (Munich and New York, ), pp. and -, respectively, as well as Heinrich Brugsch-Pasha, Prinz Friedrich Karl im Morgenlande. Dargestellt von seinen Reisebegleitern (Frankfurt, ); on Duke Max see Bernhard Kästle, Petrefaktensammlung Kloster Banz. Versteinerungen und Orientalische Sammlung (Munich and Zürich, ), pp. , -. Prince Johann Georg von Sachsen visited Egypt many times, fi rst in , then , , , and fi nally , see Birgit Schlick-Nolte in Birgit Heide and Andreas Thiel (eds.), Sammler – Pilger – Wegbereiter. Die Sammlung des Prinzen Johann Georg von Sachsen (Mainz, ), p. .
Kindly indicated by Marsha Hill; cf. note . A mid-s tour is also possible as discussed above and in note .
With regard to the purchase of duplicates through the Cairo Museum, generally only such small objects were involved (with the exception of coffi ns and mummies). In addition Count Stroganoff was in contact with dealers in, among other places, Rome, Paris, Munich, and Cologne, according to Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), p. .
When he was in Aachen, he appears not to have lived in a private house but to have stayed in the Kaiserbad; see the thank-you note from the mayor of August addressed to the Kaiserbad, Dokument Stadtarchiv Aachen, Caps. , Nr. , Bd. V (-), fols v-r.
See Jandolo, op. cit. (note ), pp. , -. and Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note ), pp. -. In Rome the Count had fi rst purchased a house at Via Gregoriana , and then was able to add to it the palazzo at Via Sistina which adjoined it on the
R E D I S C O V E R I N G G R I G O R Y S T R O G A N O F F A S A C O L L E C T O R O F E G Y P T I A N A R T
rear; the fi rst address served for private purposes, the second offi cial.
The roll with the acts of the Museum Society before unfortunately no longer exists in the Stadtarchiv Aachen; in all inventories since it has been marked missing (Caps. , Nr. d, Bd. I (vor )).
Dokument Stadtarchiv Aachen Caps. , Nr. , Bd. IV (-), fol. .
Besides Aegyptiaca, and besides pieces already mentioned (see above) the Count donated paintings (e.g., a ‘ Landscape with fi gures by D. Teniers ’ by J. Artois and the ‘ Portrait of a nobleman ’ from the School of Lucas Cranach), sculptures (e.g. two sandstone angels, a fourteenth-century stone fi gure from the cathedral at Metz, or a fi fteenth-century Gothic sandstone statuette from the lower Rhine), and various other objects (e.g., three Chinese terracotta fi gures, an Arab inkwell, a hazelwood crook, three porcelain fi gures from the Höchst manufactory, two Sèvres biscuit-porcelain fi gures and a bronze cross, and so on).
Compare Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note ), vol. I introduction.
See the illustrations in Anton Kisa (ed.), Denkschrift aus Anlass des fünfundzwanzigjährigen Bestandes des Suermondt-Museums (Aachen, ), p. .
List of recent gifts and donations dated October : Position , Count Stroganoff: h. bronze statuette of Isis, m. Coptic tunic, n. mummy cartonnage (Caps. , Nr. , Bd. IV (-), fols r-v) – this donation is also mentioned in Hans Feldbusch, ‘ Aus der Gründungszeit des Suermondt-Museums nach den Unterlagen des Aachener Stadtarchivs dargestellt ’ , Aachener Kunstblätter (), p. ; newspaper report on the minutes of the general meeting of the Museum Society on May (for the previous business year): ‘ donation of Count Stroganoff, ancient Egyptian painted wooden board with inscription ’ (foot-piece of a coffi n) (Caps. , Nr. d, Bd. II (-), fol. v); newspaper report of the general meeting of the Museum Society on March : in the year Stroganoff donated the Fayum mummy portrait (Caps. , Nr. d, Bd. II (-), fol. ).
By way of comparison, for example, in London in Giovanni Battista Belzoni opened an exhibition with more than exhibits and the reproduction of two rooms from the Tomb of Seti I in the Valley of the Kings in the ‘ Egyptian Hall ’ in Picadilly; the exhibition ran for a year, see Ingrid Nowel (ed.), Giovanni Belzoni. Entdeckungreisen in Ägypten -. In den Pyramiden, Tempeln und Gräbern am Nil (Cologne, ), pp. -. In the gold treasure of the Kandake Amanishaketo discovered by the Italian Giuseppe Ferlini in Meroe (Nubia) was also exhibited in London, see Alfred Grimm, ‘ Werke ausgezeichneter Schönheit will ich erwerben. Jahre Sammlungsgeschichte ’ , in Sylvia Schoske (ed.), Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst München (Mainz, ), p. , and in America in about - the , objects in the extensive Egyptian collection of Henry Abbott were publicly shown in the ‘ Egyptian Gallery ’ at the Stuyvesant Institute in New York, see the advertisement in John Olbrantz, ‘ Innocents abroad: collectors, curators, and the rise of Egyptian collections in the United States ’ , in James F. Romano, In the Fullness of Time. Masterpices of Egyptian Art from American Collections (Seattle and London, ), p. .
A study of the development of the Egyptian collections in Germany is in preparation by the current writer. A distinct
parallel to the establishment of Egyptian collections in Germany is found in the United States, where also the bequest of private collections represented the foundation of important museums as well as the impetus for their building; compare Harer, op. cit. (note ), pp. -.
In the ‘ Egyptian Gallery ’ of the Glyptothek was established; however, small antiquities, including Egyptian, had already been exhibited in the royal Antiquarium of the Munich Residenz since ; fi nally in the ‘ Combined Collections of King Ludwig I ’ , including an ‘ Egyptian Gallery ’ , were opened in a gallery building at the Hofgarten. Opposite the Glyptothek at the Königsplatz, which retained its Egyptian objects, in there followed ‘ the Royal Antiquarium ’ , which united the Egyptian antiquities from the Antiquarium of the Residenz (under the administration of the Royal Academy) and the ‘ Combined Collections ’ . In the Egyptian collection was segregated again from this ‘ Museum Antiker Kleinkunst ’ , after having been moved already in into fi ve rooms on the ground fl oor of the Residenz. Only in was it possible to merge the various individual Egyptian collections and to present them to the public: see Grimm, op. cit. (note ), pp. -.
Before the Hofbibliothek was established as the storage place for the assembled noble collections. In this was succeeded by the presentation of the ‘ Grand Duke’s collection of archaeology and ethnology ’ in the newly erected building on Friedrichsplatz: see Ulrike Grimm, Das Badische Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe. Zur Geschichte seiner Sammlungen (Karlsruhe, ), pp. -, .
This is true, for example, for Bremen, Übersee-Museum (), Essen, Museum Folkwang (), Frankfurt, Städtische Galerie Liebieghaus (), Hamm, Gustav-Lübcke-Museum (), Hanover, Kestner-Museum (), Heidelberg, Ägyptisches Museum (), and Hildesheim, Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum ().
Wiedemann must have visited the exhibition himself, as revealed by the commentary in Wiedemann, op. cit. (note ), p. : ‘ The monument [the torso of Pedubast] is in the handsome collection of Count Stroganoff in the Museum at Aachen (no. ). ’ Unfortunately, the year of his visit is not known.
With the exception of Count Stroganoff and the ninth honorary member of the Museum Society (Alexander von Swenigorodskoi, October ), honorary members were named on the basis of donations and not because of loans. The fi fth honorary member (Ludwig von Weise, January ) was named on account of his good offi ces on behalf of the Museum, being mayor at the same time as chairman of the Museum Society.
There is no documentation indicating that in Count Stroganoff had already made other loans to the Museum, nor can his honouring have any relation to gifts, which were received only later. See the corresponding passage in the ceremonial speech of Fritz Berndt on the opening of the Museum on October , in Alfons Fritz, ‘ Zur Vorgeschichte des Museums ’ , in Kisa, op. cit. (note ), p. .
The document was signed by, among others, the mayor, Ludwig von Weise, and the director of the Museum, Fritz Berndt.
The discussion is based on a recent major study of this statue: Marsha Hill and Deborah Schorsch, ‘ The Gulbenkian torso of King Pedubaste: investigations into Egyptian large bronze
H I L L , M E U R E R A N D R A V E N
statuary ’ , Metropolitan Museum Journal (), pp. -. Further discussion and references will be found there. See also Marsha Hill and Deborah Schorsch (eds.) , Gifts for the Gods. Images from Egyptian Temples (New York, ), pp. - (entry D.S.). Dr Maria Rosa Figueiredo of the Gulbenkian Museum kindly gave permission to reproduce this photograph.
Brugsch, op. cit. (note ), p. , no. : ‘ Bronze torso. Complete, inlaid with gold and with the name of King Petsibast; specially remarkable because of the fi rst attested writing of the name in this form. RRR . ’ As noted by Georg Meurer above, RRR refers to the most singular objects.
Jiedemann, op. cit. (note ), pp. -.
William Mathew Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt , vol. III (London, ), pp. , ; Kenneth Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period in Egypt , rd edn with preface (Warminster, ), para. , p. .
Gaston Maspero, L’archéologie égyptienne (Paris, ), pp. -. For a discussion of the history of excavations relevant to this point see Hill and Schorsch, op. cit. [] (note ), pp. -.
Hill and Schorsch, op. cit. [] (note ), pp. -. The most recent discussions of the historical issues may be found in G. P. F. Broekman, R. J. Demarée and O. E. Kaper, The Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and Cultural Studies into the st-nd Dynasties: Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University - October (Leuven, ).
It is potentially relevant to recall here, as noted above, that in the Graeco-Roman section of the Aachen catalogue where the format suggests information directly from Stroganoff is recorded, purchases in Alexandria, the Fayum, Upper Egypt, and in the eastern Delta at Zagazig, not too far from Tanis, are noted.
Pollak and Muñoz, op cit. (note ), vol. I , p. and pl. .
Lot is described on a ‘ feuillet spécial ’ , and fi gures in a sale that consists otherwise of paintings and European decorative arts belonging to other collectors. This could imply the torso was sold hurriedly.
Assam, op. cit. (note ), pp.-, cat. ; Araújo, op. cit. (note ), pp. -, cat. ; and to the lists of exhibitions provided there add Hill and Schorsch, op. cit. [] (note ), pp. -, cat. .
Brugsch, op. cit. (note ).
Christie’s New York, Antiquities, December , pp. - and frontispiece, lot no. . See also J. Eisenberg, ‘ Auction reports – the autumn antiquities sales ’ , Minerva / (), pp. - with fi g. .
This acquisition was made possible by the generous support of the Mondriaan Stichting and the Vereniging Rembrandt. See M. J. Raven, ‘ Twee poten van een Nubisch grafbed ’ , Bulletin van de Vereniging Rembrandt / (), pp. -; M. J. Raven, ‘ Nieuw in Oudheden – twee poten van een Nubisch grafbed ’ , Nieuwsblad RoMeO (), pp. -. Since then, the objects have been catalogued in H. Kik (ed.), topstukken van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden / Masterpieces of the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden (Leiden, ), pp. -.
Compare A. C. T. E. Prisse d’Avennes, Histoire de l’art égyptien d’après les monuments depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu ’ à la domination perse (Paris, ), pl. .; J. van Dijk, ‘ De sfi nx in de Oudheid: van Egypte naar Griekenland en terug ’ , Phoenix . (), fi g. . This concerns a representation from the temple of Armant, now lost, which may date to the New Kingdom (cf. O.E. Kaper, in E. Prisse d’Avennes, Atlas de l’art égyptien (reprint Cairo, ), p. , comments to pl. II ..
Van Dijk, op. cit. (note ), p. .
W. B. Emery, The Royal Tombs of Ballana and Qustul, II (Cairo, ), p. and pl. (kohl pot); D. Dunham, El Kurru (Cambridge MA, ), p. and pl. (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts .: faience amulet). For a very similar amulet see L. Gamwell and R. Wells (eds.), Sigmund Freud and Art: his Personal Collection of Antiquities (New York and London, ), p. ; E. Gubel, De sfi nx van Wenen. Sigmund Freud, kunst en archeologie (Ghent, ), p. no. ; van Dijk, op. cit. (note ), fi g. .
Compare D. Wildung and J. Vrieze (eds.), De zwarte farao’s (Amsterdam, ), cat. - (Khartoum National Museum inv. and Boston Museum of Fine Arts ., from el-Kurru), cat. (from Meroe).
British Museum EA ; see S. Quirke and J. Spencer, The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt (London ), fi g. .
Paris, Musée du Louvre E ; see J.-L. De Cenival, ‘ Vingt ans d’acquisitions du département des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Louvre ’ , Bulletin de la Société française d ’ égyptologie (), p. with illustration. I want to thank A. Sackho-Autissier for drawing my attention to this object.
