Navigation – Plan du site
Part 3. Small by nature

The lead statuettes and amulets of Heracleion-Thonis

Les amulettes et statuettes en plomb d’Heracleion-Thonis
Sanda S. Heinz
p. 211-232

Résumés

Héracleion-Thonis est un site submergé au large de la côte de l’Égypte où, parmi les artefacts les plus intéressants récemment mis à jour, se trouvent des objets en plomb, un matériau souvent négligé par les égyptologues. Je propose un nombre de raisons pour lesquelles, à part le coût modeste, on a utilisé le plomb pour ces statuettes votives et ces amulettes, et j’explique brièvement comment la façon de les utiliser à Héracleion influence des hypothèses au sujet de la piété personnelle en rapport avec des offrandes d’objets de petites dimensions et de faible coût.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

I would like to thank the organisers of the Gods of Small Things conference, the other speakers and attendees, and the reviewers, for their comments and insights. I also would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisors, Bert Smith and John Baines, and my IEASM collaborators Franck Goddio, David Fabre, Christoph Gerigk, and Olivier Berger for their constructive critiques. Finally, the Hilti Foundation, IEASM, and the Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology (OCMA) have generously supported the Heracleion-Thonis project and my research.

1. Introduction

  • 1 Heracleion-Thonis monographs, theses, and catalogues: Goddio, 2007; Stanley, Bandelli, 2007; Stolz, (...)

1The excavations at Heracleion-Thonis offer to archaeologists and ancient historians a trove of finds and information: a colossal god of the inundation; a monumental temple; and an entire ancient landscape.1 With finds at this scale, it is easy to overlook smaller, less visually imposing objects. One category of small finds, however, is exceptional for the field of comparative religious studies: the small-scale lead statuettes and amulets. After brief introductions to the site and its small lead finds, I will present and analyse a selection of these lead finds.

1. 1. The site

  • 2 Goddio and Fabre, 2008, p. 45. Depth: Stanley, Bandelli, 2007, p. 47.
  • 3 Goddio, 2007, p. 102-11 (Grand Canal) and p. 75-101 (temple); Goddio and Fabre, 2008, p. 44-48.

2Heracleion-Thonis was a settlement in Egypt, situated at the mouth of the Canopic branch of the Nile, approximately 6 km from the modern coastline of Aboukir Bay and 40 km east of Alexandria. Today, the city lies five to seven metres below sea level.2 Recent work in Aboukir Bay began in 1996, when the Institut Européen d’Archéologie Sous-Marine (IEASM) undertook a project to survey and identify underwater features in the Canopic region. In 2000, the team discovered Heracleion and they have surveyed and excavated the site every year since. The excavators have established that the city comprised numerous small landmasses surrounded by waterways, the largest of which passes east-west through the centre of the city and has been nicknamed the “Grand Canal” (see figure 1). The most prominent architectural feature is the large Egyptian temple of Amun-Gereb.3

  • 4 Subsidence factors: Stanley, Bandelli, 2007; Nur, 2010. Topography: Goddio, 2007, p. 9 (survey area (...)
  • 5 From this point forward all dates are BCE unless stated otherwise.
  • 6 Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 46; Grataloup, 2010, p. 151, 156-58; personal communication with the site n (...)
  • 7 Goddio, Fabre, 2008: p. 219-25, 232-35 (port of trade); 236-40 (stele). See also van der Wilt, fort (...)

3A variety of subsidence factors caused a vast area of the Canopic peninsula, c. 110 kilometres, to sink beneath the sea. Heracleion and its neighbouring settlement East Canopus were completely submerged by the end of the eighth century CE, a terminus post quem based on an Abbasid dinar dating to CE 775-785.4 The primary phase of occupation at Heracleion was the 7th century BCE to the mid-2nd century BCE, encompassing the Late and Ptolemaic Periods in Egypt.5 There are few signs of Roman occupation, but the site was resettled on a smaller scale in the Byzantine period.6 The city was a major port and locus of trade during its primary phase, with close links to Naukratis, evidenced in particular by Heracleion’s stele of Nectanebo I; the stele is nearly an exact copy of the famous Naukratis Stele in the Louvre, except Heracleion is named in place of Naukratis. The two stelai demonstrate that the cities were connected and operated under the same fiscal ordinances.7 All objects in this chapter belong to this earlier phase of occupation.

1. 2. The lead statuettes and amulets: an overview

  • 8 Heinz, forthcoming. This material forms the subject of my dissertation, which upon completion and r (...)
  • 9 Van der Wilt, forthcoming.

4The statuettes and amulets of Heracleion-Thonis represent a coherent assemblage from a single site, one of the first to be comprehensively studied from the Late and Ptolemaic Periods. There are over 300 statuettes and amulets, and the number grows with each successive season.8 Approximately 55% are bronze, 30% are lead, and 15% are of other materials such as terracotta, faience, and limestone. The majority of these artefacts were made deliberately as votives and amulets. In addition to these figures, some mundane, quotidian lead objects such as bowls and fishing weights have been found in defined votive deposits. While many of these are relevant, they are being studied by Elsbeth van der Wilt in conjunction with other lead finds from the site.9 I therefore focus on the amulets and statuettes.

  • 10 Cox, 2008, p. 264; Robinson, 2008, p. 32.
  • 11 Franck Goddio, personal communication.

5The Heracleion material is not perfectly representative. Even under ideal conditions in a dry environment, some categories of votives such as wood, cloth, unfired clay, flowers, and edibles, are more likely to degrade. There was extensive looting on the site before its complete submergence, and the group is heavily weighted towards metal finds because of collection practices.10 A metal detector was used on prospection, to delimit the contours of certain areas on site, and to check the discharge from the underwater vacuum during excavation.11 In this discussion I highlight the traits of the lead pieces, but it is necessary to recall that the metal artefacts would have been part of a larger and more varied group of material and associated practices.

  • 12 Recent votive studies: Pinch, 1993; Stevens, 2003, 2006; Exell, 2009; DuQuesne, 2010. For a short r (...)
  • 13 Hill, 2001, p. 203, 2004, p. 3; Schulz, 2004.
  • 14 For example, for the excavation of over 17,000 statuettes at Karnak in 1902-1903, see Legrain, 1906 (...)

6While many studies of Egyptian religion treat less mobile remains, such as temples, temple reliefs, royal statuary, or texts, small-scale votives have received relatively little attention.12 This neglect is not without cause. Thousands of small votives of every material have survived, but the majority are in museum collections with little definite information regarding their context, function, or date.13 Records of older excavations provide scant archaeological information, while more recent discoveries, like the statuettes from the animal necropoleis at Saqqara and the deposit at Ayn Manawir, await full publication.14

  • 15 Recent bronze studies: Hill, 2004, 2007; Mendoza, 2008. One of the only lead studies is Boussac, Se (...)
  • 16 For the scarcity of lead ore in Egypt, see Ogden, 2000, p. 168-69. For a compilation of known lead (...)

7New studies concerning museum material have begun, but few concern lead votives.15 Beyond Heracleion, very few lead statuettes and amulets have been recorded from Egypt, due to a lack of preserved artefacts, a lack of interest on the part of researchers, or to a failure to conserve lead finds.16 At Heracleion over one hundred lead statuettes and amulets have been recovered, presenting an excellent opportunity to look at the significance of this material in a votive context in Egypt. The low cost of lead, then and now, tempts us to see these as the dedications of the poor. As I demonstrate, however, lead is not “the poor man’s bronze” at Heracleion. The lead artefacts do not imitate bronze types; they appear in different contexts, they represent different subjects, and people dedicated them for a variety of reasons beyond their modest cost.

8The statuettes and amulets fall into three main typological divisions: anthropomorphic figures, theriomorphic figures, and inanimate objects. There are small numbers of hybrid figures that combine anthropomorphic and theriomorphic aspects, such as Bes-images, deities that combine dwarf and leonine features. These divisions apply to both the bronze and lead material.

9Functionally, the pieces again fall into three main categories: statuettes, amulets, and supports. For this study, I define statuettes as figures 40 cm or less in height, self-supporting or supported by a base, and intended to stand on display. Amulets are smaller and were intended to be worn or carried. The majority of the amulets have one or more suspension loops. The bronze statuettes range from 5 cm to 40 cm in height, with the majority around 10-15 cm. The lead statuettes and amulets, in contrast, are smaller, usually 7 cm or less in height.

  • 17 For the bronzes and their characteristics, see Heinz, forthcoming.

10The subjects of the lead objects are more varied than those of the bronze statuettes. They incorporate subjects of both Greek and Egyptian style, while the bronze statuettes are predominately Egyptian in style, with the majority representing deities.17 The main divisions of the lead figures are presented below. These do not represent all of the lead statuettes and amulets from the site, but they do cover the main types, all represented by four or more lead objects.

2. Statuettes

2. 1. Child Deities

  • 18 For problems associated with the generalised use of the name Harpokrates, see Sandri, 2005, p. 34, (...)
  • 19 Feucht, 1995, p. 501.
  • 20 Neils, Oakley, 2003; Schmidt, 2003, p. 256.
  • 21 Schmidt, 2003, p. 253-56; Sandri, 2006a, p. 92, 211.

11The most popular type at Heracleion-Thonis is the child deity, or Harpokrates type.18 Among child deity figures there are two main styles. For purposes of brevity, I term the older Pharaonic, although this style continued into the Ptolemaic period. The Pharaonic style relies heavily on iconographic markers (hand position, sidelock, nudity) to show that a child is being represented.19 These figures look like adults, but with narrower shoulders and less defined musculature. The Ptolemaic style, in contrast, uses more realistic depictions of age with altered body proportions that are consistent with changes in contemporary representations of children in Greek art.20 The new form represents a blending of Greek and Egyptian iconographic traditions, executed in Greek style.21

12There are thirty-nine child deity figures from Heracleion. Twenty-seven are of the Pharaonic style, while twelve conform to the Ptolemaic type. Twenty-three of the Pharaonic style are bronze, while eleven of the Ptolemaic style are lead. In short, there is a clear correlation of style and material: Pharaonic style figures are bronze, Ptolemaic style figures are lead.

13Nine of the twelve Ptolemaic style figures represent the child deity in exactly the same manner (figure 2): the figure is nude and has a sidelock in the form of a plaited lock of hair on the right side of the head. It sits flat on a small platform with its short, chubby legs extended in front, usually with the feet touching each other. The belly is bulging and rounded, often with a deeply indented navel, and each figure holds a small pot under the left arm. All nine of these figures are made of lead and measure 5.2 cm or less in height.

  • 22 Malaise, 1991; Györy, 2003, p. 168.
  • 23 Malaise, 1991, p. 226-31, 1994; Fischer, 2003, p. 148; Györy, 2003, p. 188-89.
  • 24 Fischer, 1999, p. 37-42; Schmidt, 2003, p. 253-56.
  • 25 Athribis: Myśliwiec, 1999; Saqqara: Quibell, 1907, p. 12-14, pls. xxvi-xxxiii.

14The type representing a child deity holding a pot is common among terracottas and emerged in the first half of the third century.22 Some argue that the pot contains food, while others suggest Nile water, which was famous for its powers of fertility.23 Among the lead Ptolemaic style figures, the fertile and productive powers of the child deity come to the forefront of the iconography. The enlarged phallus is another symbol of such fertility, one rooted in the iconographic tradition of both the Greeks and the Egyptians.24 The role of these figures in fertility cult is visible at Athribis, where many child deity terracottas were discovered alongside phallic and Dionysiac figures, as well as at Saqqara, where limestone phallic figures, some with a sidelock, were found in the fill of the Bes Chambers, where large phallic mudbrick Bes figures decorate the walls.25

2. 2. Elephants

  • 26 The elephant in Egypt: Vernus, 2005; in the Greco-Roman world: Scullard, 1974.

15The second category of lead statuettes consists of fourteen elephant figures of Ptolemaic date.26 All, except one, represent the same type: the elephant stands on a platform and has a rider on its back. The best-preserved examples show that the rider wore Greek military dress.

  • 27 Boussac, Seif el-Din, 2009, p. 226, nos. 20-23 with parallels and p. 251, figs. 19-22.

16The elephants are small-scale, ranging in height from 2.8 to 4.2 cm, and in weight from 9.7 g to 29.8 g; those at the low end of the range are damaged and lack significant amounts of metal, and most lie within a range of 16-25 g. They are hollow-cast with a rectangular open bottom edge. Eleven parallel lead examples are known in museums. All with a provenance are associated with Alexandria and the Canopic region.27

  • 28 For similar openings and platforms for terracottas of child deities riding animals, see, for exampl (...)

17It is possible that these figures are not votives. Their open edges and hollow interiors suggest that they may have been fittings, either for furniture or military gear. Nevertheless, the closest parallels for these figures are Greco-Roman terracottas, and terracottas, in general, are hollow and commonly have large rectangular openings on the underside, with figures posed on raised platforms above.28 The Heracleion-Thonis lead figures may be close imitations of the terracottas, down to the open, rectangular platform edge. Therefore, the shape, the platform, and the presence of the opening may be skeuomorphs rather than indications of a non-votive primary function.

  • 29 For H 8578 (SCA 1046), see Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 192, 340, cat. no. 328.
  • 30 For Harpokrates riding animals (terracotta), see, for example, Fischer, 1994, nos. 614-29, or Dunan (...)
  • 31 Franck Goddio, personal communication.

18Moreover, the rider may have religious associations. Although the majority of examples are preserved only from the chest down, one figure, H 8578, preserves the head (figure 3).29 On the right side of the head, there is a small protrusion that looks like a sidelock, suggesting that the rider is not just a soldier but is a child deity in military dress. The subject of a child deity in military dress riding animals is common among terracotta figures, and would not be surprising among the lead figures at Heracleion.30 Finally, according to the excavators, the elephant figures were frequently found in similar contexts as the lead child deity figures described above, figures that have a clear votive significance and may relate to the elephant rider.31

2. 3. Horses

  • 32 Boussac, Seif el-Din, 2009, p. 224, nos. 9 and 10 with parallels and p. 248, figs. 8 and 9.

19In addition to the elephant figures, there are eight lead leaping horses. These are of two types, with and without a rider. The riderless horses, especially, have a distinctive iconography: on the left side beneath the horse’s belly a figure reclines, probably a fallen warrior, while on the right side are a cuirass and shield. The figures with a rider show the horse rearing, with the rider in Greek military dress. Ten parallel lead examples with the same motifs are known in museums, the majority of which are reputedly from the Alexandria or Canopic regions.32 The horses with riders also have two unpublished parallels from the IEASM investigations at East Canopus, C 3387 and C 3710. None of the Heracleion figures preserves the rider’s head. The horse statuettes are the same type of object as the elephant figurines, in terms of function, and they fall within the same size and weight range.

2. 4. Genital-display figures

  • 33 See H 8534 (SCA 1033) in Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 192, 339, cat. no. 327. For terracottas, see, for (...)
  • 34 See Török, 1995, p. 132-33, and Bailey, 2008, p. 46-47, for concise reviews of the debate.
  • 35 For example, Fischer, 1994, nos. 831-39, pls. 87-88; Török, 1995, p. 131-32, nos. 186-90, pls. c-ci

20Two “Baubo” figures show a woman with her legs spread, displaying her vulva. Again, the closest parallels are among terracotta figures.33 Some scholars use the term “Baubo” for these figures in reference to a character from Greek myth, related to Demeter, but whether these figures represent Baubo or generic fertility-promoting females is a matter of debate.34 The Heracleion-Thonis figures rest their hands on their knees, but some terracotta figures have one hand pointing, touching, or covering the genital region, further emphasising the vulva.35

21There is at least one lead phallus from the site, H 8226, in addition to one of stone, H 3170. H 8226 was manufactured as a stand-alone figure and has not broken from another piece. A second lead figure, H 6098, may represent a phallus, but it is so worn and the design so rudimentary that it is impossible to determine the subject with certainty.

3. Amulets

3. 1. Falcons

  • 36 For H 3080 (SCA 562), see Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 183, 338, cat. no. 319.
  • 37 Double crown: Abubakr, 1937, p. 60-62; Strauss, 1980, col. 813; Collier, 1996, p. 16-36; Goebs, 200 (...)
  • 38 Reisner, 1907, pl. 1, CG 12530; Petrie, 1914, p. 48, pl. xli, 245n; Andrews, 1994, p. 27-28. Dating (...)

22Among the amulets, there are eighteen lead falcons wearing the double crown of Egypt (figure 4).36 The double crown is a royal crown symbolizing the two lands, Upper and Lower Egypt. The crown and the falcon are associated with Horus, the heir to Osiris’ throne, with whom the pharaoh was assimilated.37 The falcon pendants are small, under 2.4 cm in height and under 4.7 g in weight. They were not produced from the same mould but they conform to the exact same type: their wings are close to their breast, the legs are together, their tails sweep backwards until they touch the base, and they stand on narrow platforms. All have, or once had, suspension loops at the back of the neck. This type of amulet was common in a variety of materials, although I do not know of further lead examples.38

3. 2. Nefertem

  • 39 Schlögl, 1982, cols. 378-79. For Nefertem, see also Bonnet, 1952, p. 508-10; Houser-Wegner, 2001.
  • 40 Schlögl, 1982, col. 379; Bonnet, 1952, p. 509. Connections with Bastet: Roeder, 1956, p. 20, §19c, (...)
  • 41 Schlögl, 1982, col. 379; Bonnet 1952, p. 510.
  • 42 For example, Daressy, 1905, nos. 38076-38100, pl. vii; Roeder, 1937, §10-18; 1956, §19-25.
  • 43 Roeder, 1956, p. 21; Schlögl, 1982, col. 379; Houser-Wegner, 2001.

23Since the Old Kingdom, Nefertem was manifest as a lotus blossom and was associated with the perfume of the lotus flower and pleasant aromas.39 He also had militaristic and punitive aspects, and was alternately named as the son of Bastet or Sekhmet, reflecting the pacific and aggressive aspects of cat goddesses.40 In the Late Period, Nefertem’s role developed further and he became associated with good luck.41 Nefertem usually appears in anthropomorphic guise as a striding male figure, wearing a short kilt, the tripartite wig, a beard, and a distinctive crown. The crown is comprised of a lotus blossom framed by a menat sign on either side and surmounted by two tall feathers.42 The majority of Nefertem figures hold their arms stiffly at their sides; some carry a scimitar.43

  • 44 For example, see H 6864 (SCA 974) in Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 191, 339, cat. no. 323.
  • 45 Large pendant figures: Steindorff, 1946, p. 42; Roeder, 1956, p. 21; Patch, 2007, p. 145.
  • 46 Steindorff, 1946, p. 42; Andrews, 1994, p. 18-19.

24At Heracleion, six figures representing Nefertem all belong to the same iconographic type; they vary only in quality, weight, and height. Five are lead, and one is bronze. All are striding with their hands at their sides; none carry the scimitar.44 Four have suspension loops, including the largest of them (H 6864 and H 11776). Several scholars have noted that many Nefertem figures have loops, even large, bulky figures.45 Although this is not a phenomenon associated solely with Nefertem, as Steindorff suggested, it is an important signifier of Nefertem’s role as a protector and bearer of good fortune and may signify a special amuletic quality related to Nefertem, who is also a common subject among small faience, metal, and glass amulets.46

4. Supports: Barks and Thrones

  • 47 Full-length barks: Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 145-47, 340, nos. 330-33 (does not include H 9034). H 55 (...)

25The lead papyriform bark models are larger than the rest of the lead figures, and are not typical votives. I therefore describe and contextualise them in more detail here than some of the other amulets and statuettes. Five full-length barks range between 12.1 and 39.8 cm in length (figure 5).47 Four of the five have a throne at their centre. The fifth, H 9034, also had a lead throne, H 9031, though the two have become separated. Another lead throne, H 10285, may attest to another bark, no longer extant. Two further lead objects, H 6902 and H 11712, may also represent bark thrones, although they are less distinctive in their design. In addition to the five barks, there are fragments from either the bow or stern of two further barks. In all, approximately nine lead objects attest to the use of model barks at Heracleion, eleven if H 6902 and H 11712 are bark thrones.

  • 48 Papyrus bundles: Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 340, cat. no. 333 (H 9033).

26The design of the five full figures is simple. Each consists of a thin, flat bar of lead that curves upwards at either end. The degree of curvature at the bow and stern differs markedly between the examples. Two, H 9033 and H 8566, have designs on the top portion of the bark, presumably mimicking the appearance of the bundles used to fashion papyrus boats.48 H 9033 has repeated rectangular groupings of four horizontal bars while H 8566 has a more complex design with groupings of horizontal bars interspersed with blank rectangles and crosshatching. The thrones for each are similarly decorated. H 8196, while displaying no incised decoration, retains a papyrus finial at the bow.

  • 49 See Ward, 2000, p. 1-13 for the use of boats in Egyptian life and representations.
  • 50 Nour, et al., 1960; Lehner, 2008, p. 118-19, with bibliography on p. 249. Boat burials: Jones, 1995 (...)
  • 51 Jones, 1995, p. 12-25 (boat types). See also Reisner, 1913, p. i-xxvii for a typology of boat model (...)
  • 52 Jones, 1990, p. 12, 43-50, 60-62, nos. 30-35 (Carter nos. 308, 312, 285-86, 307, and 311 respective (...)
  • 53 Jones, 1990, p. 3 (subdivision 2), 5, 60-62, 1995, p. 48 (in a funerary setting).

27In Egypt, the importance of boats in daily life and religion was tantamount, and this importance reveals itself in dedications.49 Boat dedication and burial is known from the beginning of the Dynastic period onward, with the stunningly preserved boats from Giza being the most famous examples.50 The deposition of model boats was common in tombs. The majority may have been intended to aid the owner of the tomb in his own afterlife. Additionally, there were models of funerary boats with a mummy either enthroned or prostrate on a bier.51 Some of the closest parallels for the Heracleion barks derive from Tutankhamun’s tomb, though his are larger wooden models and they retain painted decoration. In his tomb, there were thirty-five boat models. Six papyriform models, comprising two types, correspond approximately to the Heracleion examples. Of these six, four have a throne mid-ship and upward-curved bows and sterns; the remaining two have the inwardly curved papyrus finials, like H 8196.52 Papyrus boats in general were used to represent symbolic, religious, and ceremonial boats, either funerary, solar, or divine/sacred.53

  • 54 Jones, 1995, p. 26-33, for boat models from the 6th Dynasty to the New Kingdom.
  • 55 Sacred barks: Reisner, 1913, p. xvii (Type VII); Kitchen, 1975; Vinson, 1994, p. 50-52; Jones, 1995 (...)
  • 56 Kitchen, 1975, cols. 619-20, 623-24; Vinson, 1994, p. 51; Jones, 1995, p. 20-22.
  • 57 Decoration: Roeder, 1956, §584, 625; Göttlicher, Werner, 1971, p. 5; Kitchen, 1975, cols. 620-23; J (...)

28The dedication of model boats in the funerary realm declined in the New Kingdom.54 In view of the non-funerary context and later date of the Heracleion barks, unlike the examples in Tutankhamun’s tomb, they are probably model sacred barks, and the thrones would have carried an image of a deity rather than a mummy.55 In ancient Egypt, in processions the cult statue of a deity often travelled on a real barge or priests carried the cult statue on bark models, as this procession symbolised the deity’s journey across the sky and through the underworld.56 In depictions, the sacred barks are elaborately decorated papyrus boats, often gilded and bedecked with jewels, with adorants or other deities accompanying the primary deity.57

  • 58 On the scarcity of models from later periods, see Landström, 1970, p. 140.
  • 59 Kitchen, 1975, and Brand, 2001, with bibliography; Jones 1995, p. 20-25.
  • 60 Sacred bark models: Reisner, 1913, xxvii, 80-83, 88, 90-92, 113, cat. nos. 4919, 4922-4924, 4929-49 (...)
  • 61 Roeder, 1956, §625.

29In contrast with model boats in earlier tombs, the deposition of model sacred barks in a religious setting is much less common.58 Representations of sacred barks are better known from texts and temple reliefs than from material remains, a fact that highlights the significance of the Heracleion barks.59 Some individual examples have been found, including larger stone statuary, but none of lead and no other contextualised group of this number. Bronze figures are known, complete with naoi, deity statuettes, and decorations on the bow and stern; few of these are published in detail.60 Many of these bronzes are processional standards and they rest on top of a papyriform column.61 There is no sign that the Heracleion examples were standards; instead they appear to be self-supporting dedications.

  • 62 Raven, 1983, p. 16, 36, cat. no. 31, pl. 6.
  • 63 Sandri, 2006b, with bibliography.
  • 64 For example, Roeder, 1956, §584; Terrace, 1959; Aubert, Aubert, 2001, p. 337-38.

30There may be further representations of sacred barks among material already known, but some examples are so simple in design that a definitive assignation as a sacred bark is elusive. For instance, a black wax figure in Leiden shows Neith standing in a small papyrus craft, with a support for a second figure in front of her. As Maarten Raven notes, the boat may highlight her association with the inundation, or it may have a more targeted meaning associated with sacred barks.62 Similarly, a common motif among many types of terracotta is the representation of a child deity in a boat. Sandra Sandri argues that this boat highlights the child deity’s association with the Nile, and does not represent a sacred boat, as others have suggested.63 In view of the multifaceted nature of Egyptian religious thought, however, it is possible, even likely, that both connotations coexisted. In addition to the barks mentioned above, fragments and decorations such as statuettes, oars, and finials attest to other bronze or wooden barks.64

  • 65 Heracleion cult vessels: Robinson, 2008, p. 258-78. Heracleion bronze standards: Heinz, forthcoming (...)
  • 66 Göttlicher, Werner, 1971, p. 5.

31The Heracleion barks would not have carried the primary cult statues of the temple. Many elements used for rituals and festivals are extant from Heracleion, including ritual vessels and standards, but the lead barks are relatively unelaborated and are too small and narrow to have carried a cult image large enough to be seen in a procession.65 Even acknowledging that Egyptian cult statues were not always large scale, extant representations and texts suggest that temple barks were large, either full size or large enough that priests had to carry them on their shoulders. One bark of Ptah, made of cedar, was said to be 67.6 m long; even if we must allow room for exaggeration, the general idea that the cultic barks were large scale is clearly expressed.66 The Heracleion models and their statuettes probably acted as dedications rather than the central focus of any worship.

  • 67 Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 145-47, based on a reading of the Canopus Decree of 238. See also Yoyotte, (...)

32The imagery of the bark resonated with the population of Heracleion, enough for some people to invest in large and complex votives. The relative scarcity of similar votives makes their presence at Heracleion all the more notable and perplexing. One possible explanation is that bark imagery had a special significance for the population of Heracleion because of the topography of the area. Although the Egyptians were deeply connected to the Nile in every part of Egypt and were consequently tied to boat transportation and imagery, there are few places where this imagery would resonate more than at Heracleion. As the entrance to the Canopic branch of the Nile, the city had a prime geographic and symbolic maritime location, and the city itself was a marshy landscape composed of an interconnecting group of canals and landmasses. A specific, recurrent event may also have played a significant role. The excavators have suggested that these dedications were associated with the Khoiak festival, when the image of Osiris was placed on a sacred bark and would have travelled from Heracleion to East Canopus and back again. The lead barks are suggested to have been mementos of participants in this festival.67

5. The significance of lead

5. 1. Patterns of use

33The lead and bronze statuettes and amulets differ in significant and telling ways with respect to their subjects. Some subjects appear in one material and not in the other. The best diagnostic subject types are child deities and Osiris because they are among the most numerous figures at the site. The seventeen intact Osiris statuettes are represented in traditional Egyptian style and are bronze only, even the smaller figures that are no larger or better designed than similarly proportioned lead subjects. As noted previously, there is a sharp divide among the child deity figurines, with the majority of the Pharaonic style figures in bronze and the Ptolemaic style in lead. Representative subject types that only appear in lead are the horses, elephants, and barks. These material groupings relate to specific types but they exemplify a general trend at the site: the bronze figures represent primarily Egyptian deities, zoomorphic or anthropomorphic, in traditional Egyptian style, and the lead figures have a wider range of motifs, still focused on deities but with divergent styles.

  • 68 Goddio, 2007, p. 27-28.

34The lead and bronze figures also differ in terms of context. Based on the site and its stratigraphy, it is difficult to say whether the lead votives on the whole derive from an institutional religious or a domestic or public setting, as the stratigraphy is much disturbed in some areas, and the boundaries between sacred and public areas have not yet been fully explored.68 We may obtain some idea of context, however, by looking at similar subject matter in other materials.

  • 69 Bailey, 2008, p. 1-2.
  • 70 Andrews, 1994, p. 27-28 (falcons), 18-19 (Nefertem).
  • 71 Andrews, 1994, p. 6.

35The child deities, the elephants, the horses, and the genital-display figures, for instance, find their closest parallels among terracottas. Terracottas with these types generally derive from domestic contexts, and it seems likely that the lead statuettes had similar functions and settings, linked with domestic cult.69 The context of the Egyptian style lead figures, like the falcon and Nefertem amulets, is somewhat more difficult to define. The falcon and Nefertem types are common among bronze statuettes, but for figures of this small size their closest parallels are faience amulets.70 Most amulets and small faience figures are known from burials, but many were also worn in life.71 The Heracleion examples were found in populated areas rather than in a defined liminal cemetery. They may have been worn day-to-day or been used for ritual dedications. A number of the lead amulets, particularly the falcons, were discovered near sanctuary areas. With so few parallels for Egyptian amulets in a quotidian setting, the function and social context of these amulets is ambiguous, particularly in contrast to those figures with close terracotta parallels.

  • 72 Roeder’s catalogues of bronze statuettes (1937, 1956) stand as the most comprehensive works. More r (...)
  • 73 Hill, 2001, p. 203.

36The bronzes, in contrast, constitute what scholars have typically classified as prestigious ex votos, a category that gained popularity in the Third Intermediate Period and flourished from the Late Period onwards.72 Most bronze statuettes in Egypt are found in favissae, or pits, associated with temples. When the temples grew too crowded with dedications, the priests removed statuettes and ritually buried them in these favissae.73 The lead barks, which would have carried statuettes, probably shared this context.

37These different functions and contexts are evident in the appearance of the lead and bronze figures. Many of the bronze votives are larger, as noted previously, and they have tenons that were inserted into bases in the form of thrones or plinths, suitable for permanent display. In contrast, many of the lead figures are more portable. The amulets have pendant loops or they are flat or small objects, easily moved and even suitable to be carried in a pouch; the statuettes, which do not have tenons but usually rest flat, are likewise small and portable.

  • 74 Luiselli, 2008, p. 2.
  • 75 See Kemp, 1995, p. 36-38 for prestige dedication motivated by self-interest among the elite.
  • 76 Gunn, 1916.
  • 77 Kemp, 1995, p. 29.
  • 78 For more nuanced approachs to personal piety: Pinch, 1993; Baines, Frood, 2011.

38The idea that small, inexpensive, and mundane votive objects reflect a particular economic class has long prevailed in the field of Egyptology,74 so that it is often assumed that inexpensive votives reflect the poor, bronzes the wealthy.75 This preconception derives from Battiscombe Gunn’s suggestion, in 1916, that the rise of personal piety in Egypt was a movement driven by the poor.76 Barry Kemp, commenting on discussions relating to the modest votives of earlier periods, says, “A puritan criterion is at work here that takes the modesty of provision as a guarantee of sincerity”.77 In other words, people assume that an inexpensive dedication represented true, pious religious sentiment while more expensive dedications were transparent attempts by wealthy elites to compete for prestige.78

39The context of these figures plays a role, however, in the subjects they represent. The lead figures at Heracleion are especially significant because they reflect a wider cultural spectrum than the bronzes, a phenomenon in part determined by lead’s pattern of use; they express not just local concerns but also the concerns of foreigners that inhabited Heracleion. A large number of lead figures, including the child deities, horses, and elephants, are executed in Greek style and, as noted previously, the closest parallels for these figures are terracottas from domestic contexts. The Greek population, for whatever reason, seems to have participated little in the local temple cult, or if they did participate, their dedications either conformed to traditional Egyptian iconography, or they were made of materials that are not well represented at Heracleion. Greek style at Heracleion, among the statuettes and amulets, is more visible in the domestic realm, and hence more visible among the lead objects.

5. 2. Material choice

  • 79 Baines, 2007, p. 14-30, for the term decorum in relation to Egyptian art.
  • 80 Treister, 1996, p. 341 for price ratios in Classical Greece.
  • 81 Ogden, 2000, p. 154-55.
  • 82 Lead ceramic repairs at Heracleion: van der Wilt, forthcoming.

40Defined strictures, or rules of decorum, appear to have determined what was represented in lead and bronze, but how and why did these strictures develop?79 One possibility is that lead was used for particular items because it was an inexpensive material. Precise ratios for the value of lead are difficult to determine, but material remains show that it was relatively inexpensive.80 Frequently metalworkers used lead as an additive to bronze to increase its viscosity for casting and to decrease the amount of copper used.81 People also used it to repair pottery, which shows that the metal for the repair was less expensive than a replacement vessel.82 Lead is durable and cheaper to replace than bronze, a quality that would have made it suitable for portable objects in domestic and public spaces, like the Nefertem and falcon amulets and the small, Greek style statuettes.

  • 83 See Nicholson, 1993, p. 39-41, for faience production in the Late Period and later; Patch, 1998, fo (...)
  • 84 Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 138-39.
  • 85 Raven, 1983, 1988.

41Nonetheless, lead’s modest cost is not an entirely adequate explanation. Much of the depth that this material offers is lost if we focus only on economic considerations. Connotative and practical concerns may have determined patterns of use for lead, as much as or more than its cost. Faience, for instance, is a silicate material from Egypt that costs relatively little to manufacture, but Diana Craig Patch argues against the idea that it was a substitute material for the poor; all socioeconomic classes used faience in their tombs, and its modest cost appears to have had little relation to its use.83 At Heracleion, excavators discovered a votive deposit from the Amun-Gereb temple, consisting of amulets, small statuettes, and a small naos. In view of its location, this deposit would have been one of the most important deposits at the site and yet all of the objects, except for a small wooden naos, were made not of gold or silver or bronze, but finely crafted faience.84 The temple deposit supports Patch’s reasoning that the low material cost of faience did not diminish or devalue its symbolic power. Similar arguments have been made for other inexpensive materials such as wax, clay, and lead in Egypt.85

  • 86 Patch, 2007, p. 145-46, especially n. 15.

42Lead had a strong connection with magic for Egyptians. Maarten Raven notes that it was used for a wide range of things including love charms, rituals against enemies, and as a source of protection for mummies. Raven attributes part of lead’s appeal to its easy fusibility in comparison to other metals and to the “mysterious heaviness of the metal, suggesting some supernatural potency”.86 Such a magical association may explain the use of lead for small amulets like the falcons and Nefertem figures as it may have increased their potency and efficacy as protective symbols.

  • 87 Amulets, material, and colour: Andrews, 1994, p. 100-106, 2001.
  • 88 Raven, 1988, p. 238.

43Lead’s light hue, likewise, may have determined its use for specific subjects. In Egypt, artisans used colour to communicate the qualities and powers of certain amulets and deities.87 Nefertem figures are more frequently made of silver than other subjects, implying that silver may express a particular aspect of the god’s role and nature.88 At Heracleion, all Nefertem figures are lead except for one bronze pendant figure. The light grey colour of lead, like silver, may have expressed qualities particular to Nefertem, causing artists to prefer it.

  • 89 Personal communication with IEASM conservator, Olivier Berger.
  • 90 Jones, 1995, p. 20-21.

44Votive barks in museum collections demonstrate that bronze was a legitimate material choice for bark standards, but the consistency with which the barks are made of lead at Heracleion suggests that this choice was significant. It is possible that craftsmen used lead in this case because it acted as a good base material for gilding. None of the Heracleion barks retains traces of gilding, but considering their long-term exposure underwater, it is possible that any gilding has worn away.89 Many sacred barks in reliefs, drawings, and texts are shown or described as gilded, and in general, bronze statuettes in Egypt were frequently gilded.90 This suggestion, however, begs the question why lead was not used more frequently instead of bronze, if the base metal was covered in gold. At this point it is useful to consider not only the reasons why lead was used for some objects, beyond cost, but also why bronze, wood, stone, were preferred for others.

45For larger and more elaborate Egyptian style statuettes, which appear to have been preferred in temple settings, practical concerns may have limited the use of lead. For instance, larger lead figures may have been too heavy to be desirable, even if they were hollow cast. The barks, while they are large compared to other figures from the site, are thin, especially when compared to extant bronze bark standards; their slim design reduced their weight in a way that would be more difficult to do for anthropomorphic or theriomorphic figures. Lead is also a softer material, with the result that incised detail does not remain as sharp or clear as it does in other materials. Its malleability also makes it more susceptible to deformation, especially under hot conditions. All of these factors may have contributed to artists’ preference for bronze or wood or stone in certain cases, even when the figure was gilded and the material beneath was not apparent.

  • 91 Craddock, Giumlia-Mair, 1993; La Niece, Craddock, 1993; Hill, Schorsch, 1997, p. 13-14; La Niece et (...)
  • 92 Kees, 1943, p. 418-22; Pinch, 2001, p. 183.

46For those figures that were not gilded, artists could alter the patina of bronze, allowing for a wider range of tonal and chromatic possibilities than lead.91 Moreover, on a symbolic level, the deeper tone of some bronzes may have been more appropriate in some cases. In painted relief, for instance, Osiris often has black or green skin, highlighting his reproductive and regenerative powers.92 Symbolic considerations such as these may explain why all of the Heracleion Osiris figures are bronze, even small pendant Osiris figures under 10 cm. The Osiris figures are some of the most numerous figures at the site and, again, as with the Nefertem figures, the consistent choice of metal appears deliberate. Wood or particular stones may also have served as appropriate materials, with their own symbolic connotations, but these materials are not well preserved, or well represented, at Heracleion among the statuettes and amulets.

6. Conclusion

  • 93 Bowman, 1986, p. 121-64.

47The sharp interpretive dichotomy suggested by the generalism that inexpensive, lead votives reflect the poor, while larger bronzes reflect the wealthy, obfuscates other potential patterns of use. As I have demonstrated for Heracleion, the lead and bronze subjects and contexts differ for a variety of potential contextual, connotative, and cultural reasons that can be explored in order to understand the choices made in the adoption of one metal or the other. None of the evidence from Heracleion suggests that inexpensive materials were primarily used by the poor. If anything, the material contradicts this idea. Lead was commonly used for Greek-style votives. The Greeks formed a powerful, elite class in the Ptolemaic Period and at Heracleion they appear to have had a large role in trade; there is no reason to think that objects in Greek style would represent only a poor sector of society.93 At Heracleion, the subject of the figure, its size, its setting, as well as norms associated with genres of material, determined what material was used as much as any economic considerations.

48Overall, the Heracleion-Thonis lead votives have much to add to our understanding of small votives and their role in dedicatory practices. If people used lead out of choice instead of necessity, as they did faience, then its modest cost is no more indicative of piety than the expense of gleaming bronzes. This does not mean that these votives do not reflect piety, but such patterns of usage at Heracleion call for a revision of how piety is defined and how we may observe it in the material evidence. Small, inexpensive votives, such as those discussed in this volume, are at the forefront of such re-evaluations. By looking beyond the obvious reasons for small or inexpensive dedications, and by looking at their specific patterns of use, we may better understand larger issues, such as personal piety, not only in Egypt but also in the wider ancient world.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abubakr, M.J., 1937, Untersuchungen über die ägyptischen Kronen, Glückstadt.

Andrews, C., 1994, Amulets of Ancient Egypt, London.

Aubert, J.F. and Aubert, L., 2001, Bronzes et or égyptiens, Contribution à l’égyptologie, 11, Paris.

Bailey, D.M., 2008, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum, 4, Ptolemaic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt, London.

Baines, J., 2007, Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt, Oxford.

Baines, J. and Frood, E., 2011, Piety, Change and Display in the New Kingdom, in M. Collier and S. Snape (eds.), Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, Bolton, p. 1-17.

Bianchi, R., 1998, Symbols and Meaning, in F.D. Friedman, G. Borromeo and M. Leveque (eds.), Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Faience, London, p. 22-31.

Bonnet, H., 1952, Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin.

Boussac, M.-F. and Seif el-Din, M., 2009, Objects miniatures en plomb du Musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie, Études alexandrines, 18, p. 215-71.

Bowman, A.K., 1986, Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332 BC-AD 642: From Alexander to the Arab Conquest, London.

Brand, P., 2001, Sacred Barks, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 3, New York, p. 171-73.

Budde, D., 2010, Child Deities, in J. Dieleman, W. Wendrich, E. Frood and J. Baines (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles, 1-14, <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9cf2v6q3>, accessed 20/01/2011.

Collier, S.A., 1996, The Crowns of Pharaoh: Their Development and Significance in Ancient Egyptian Kingship, PhD thesis, Los Angeles.

Cox, Z., 2008, Excursus: The Metal Finds from Heracleion-Thonis, in F. Goddio and D. Fabre (eds.), Egypt’s Sunken Treasures, 2nd ed., Munich, p. 264.

Craddock, P.T. and Giumlia-Mair, A., 1993, Corinthium Aes: Das schwarze Gold der Alchimisten, Antike Welt / Sondernummer, 24, Mainz am Rhein.

Daressy, G., 1905, Statues de divinités, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Cairo.

Davies, S., 2007, Bronzes from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara, in M. Hill (ed.), Gifts for the Gods: Images from Ancient Egyptian Temples, Metropolitan Museum of Art Publications, New Haven, p. 174-87.

Delange, É., 2007, The Complexity of Alloys: New Discoveries about Certain “Bronzes” in the Louvre, in M. Hill (ed.), Gifts for the Gods: Images from Ancient Egyptian Temples, New Haven, p. 39-49.

Dunand, F., 1990, Catalogue des terres cuites gréco-romaines d’Egypte, Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités égyptiennes, Paris.

DuQuesne, T., 2010, The Salakhana Trove: Votive Stelae and other Objects from Asyut, Oxfordshire Communications in Egyptology, 7, Redhill.

Exell, K., 2009, Soldiers, Sailors and Sandalmakers: A Social Reading of Ramesside Period Votive Stelae, Egyptology, 10, London.

Feucht, E., 1995, Das Kind im alten Ägypten: die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft nach altägyptischen Texten und Darstellungen, Frankfurt.

Fischer, J., 1994, Griechisch-römische Terrakotten aus Ägypten: Die Sammlungen Sieglin und Schreiber: Dresden, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Tübingen, Tübinger Studien zur Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte, 14, Tübingen.

Fischer, J., 1999, Der Zwerg, der Phallos und Harpokrates, in H. Felber and S. Pfisterer-Haas (eds.), Ägypter, Griechen, Römer: Begegnung der Kulturen, Kanobos, 1, Leipzig, p. 27-45.

Fischer, J., 2003, Harpokrates und das Füllhorn, in D. Budde, S. Sandri, and U. Verhoeven (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechisch-römischen Zeit: Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des interkulturellen Kontakts, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 128, Leuven, p. 147-63.

Freed, R.E. and Doxey, D., 2009, The Djehutynakt’s Models, in R.E. Freed (ed.), The Secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC, Boston, p. 151-77.

Goddio, F., 2007, The Topography and Excavation of Heracleion-Thonis and East Canopus (1996-2006), Underwater Archaeology in the Canopic Region in Egypt, 1, Oxford.

Goddio, F. and Fabre, D. (eds.), 2008, Egypt’s Sunken Treasures, 2nd ed., Munich.

Goebs, K., 2001, Crowns, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 1, New York, p. 321-26.

Göttlicher, A. and Werner, W., 1971, Schiffsmodelle im alten Aegypten, Wiesbaden.

Grataloup, C., 2010, Occupation and Trade at Heracleion-Thonis—The Evidence from the Pottery, in D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds.), Alexandria and the North-Western Delta: Joint Conference Proceedings of Alexandria: City and Harbour (Oxford 2004) and The Trade and Topography of Egypt’s North-West Delta, 8th century BC to 8th century AD (Berlin 2006), Underwater Archaeology in the Canopic Region in Egypt, 5, Oxford, p. 151-59.

Gunn, B., 1916, The Religion of the Poor in Ancient Egypt, JEA, 3, p. 81-94.

Györy, H., 2003, Veränderungen im Kult des Harpokrates—Harpokrates mit dem Topf, in D. Budde, S. Sandri and U. Verhoeven (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechisch-römischen Zeit: Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des interkulturellen Kontakts, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 128, Leuven, p. 165-94.

Heinz, S.S., forthcoming, The Statuettes and Amulets of Heracleion-Thonis, DPhil thesis, Oxford.

Hill, M., 2001, Bronze Statuettes, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 1, New York, p. 203-208.

Hill, M., 2004, Royal Bronze Statuary from Ancient Egypt with Special Attention to the Kneeling Pose, Egyptological Memoirs, 3, Leiden.

Hill, M. (ed.), 2007, Gifts for the Gods: Images from Ancient Egyptian Temples, , New Haven.

Hill, M. and Schorsch, D., 1997, A Bronze Statuette of Thutmose III, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 32, p. 5-18.

Houser-Wegner, J., 2001, Nefertum, in D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2, New York, p. 514-16.

Jones, D., 1990, Model Boats from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Tutankhamun’s Tomb Series, 9, Oxford.

Jones, D., 1995, Boats, London.

Karlshausen, C., 2009, L’iconographie de la barque processionnelle divine en Egypte au Nouvel Empire, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 182, Leuven.

Kees, H., 1943, Farbensymbolik in ägyptischen religiösen Texten, Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 11, p. 413-79.

Kemp, B.J., 1995, How Religious were the Ancient Egyptians?, CaArchJ, 5 (1), p. 25-54.

Kitchen, K., 1975, Barke, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 1, Wiesbaden, cols. 619-25.

La Niece, S. and Craddock, P.T. (eds.), 1993, Metal Plating and Patination: Cultural, Technical and Historical Developments, Oxford.

La Niece, S., Shearman, F., Taylor, J. and Simpson, A., 2002, Polychromy and Egyptian Bronze: New Evidence for Artificial Coloration, Studies in Conservation, 47 (2), p. 95-108.

Landström, B., 1970, Ships of the Pharaohs: 4000 years of Egyptian Shipbuilding, Architectura navalis, London.

Legrain, G., 1906, Nouveaux renseignements sur les dernières découvertes faites à Karnak, 15 novembre 1904-25 juillet 1905, Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes, p. 137-61.

Lehner, M., 2008, The Complete Pyramids, London.

Libonati, E.S., 2010, Egyptian Statuary from Abukir Bay: Ptolemaic and Roman Finds from Herakleion and Canopus, DPhil thesis, Oxford.

Lucas, A. and Harris, J.R. (eds.), 1962, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th ed., London.

Luiselli, M., 2008, Personal Piety, In J. Dieleman, W. Wendrich, E. Frood and J. Baines (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles, 1-9, <http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/49q0397q>, Accessed 27/08/2009.

Malaise, M., 1991, Harpocrate au pot, in U. Verhoeven and E. Graefe (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten: Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Juli 1991, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 39, Leuven, p. 219-32.

Mendoza, B., 2008, Bronze Priests of Ancient Egypt from the Middle Kingdom to the Graeco-Roman Period, BAR-IS, 1866, Oxford.

Myśliwiec, K., 1999, Fruchtbarkeitskult und erotische Kunst im ptolemäischen Athribis (Unterägypten), in H. Felber and S. Pfisterer-Haas (eds.), Ägypter, Griechen, Römer: Begegnung der Kulturen, Kanobos, 1, Leipzig, p. 47-81.

Neils, J. and Oakley, J.H. (eds.), 2003, Coming of Age in Ancient Greece: Images of Childhood from the Classical Past, New Haven.

Nicholson, P., 1993, Egyptian Faience and Glass, Shire Egyptology, 18, Princes Risborough.

Nour, M.Z., Moustafa, A.Y., Osman, M.S. and Iskander, Z., 1960, The Cheops Boats, 1, Cairo.

Nur, A., 2010, Destructive Earthquakes in Alexandria and Aboukir Bay?, in D. Robinson and A. Wilson (eds.), Alexandria and the North-Western Delta: Joint Conference Proceedings of Alexandria: City and Harbour (Oxford 2004) and The Trade and Topography of Egypt’s North-West Delta, 8th century BC to 8th century AD (Berlin 2006), Underwater Archaeology in the Canopic Region in Egypt, 5, Oxford, p. 127-37.

Ogden, J., 2000, Metals, in P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, p. 148-76.

Patch, D.C., 1998, By Necessity or Design: Faience Use in Egypt, in F.D. Friedman, G. Borromeo and M. Leveque (eds.), Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Faience, London, p. 32-45.

Patch, D.C., 2007, Nefertem, in M. Hill (ed.), Gifts for the Gods: Images from Ancient Egyptian Temples, New Haven, p. 143-46.

Petrie, W.M.F., 1914, Amulets: Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London, London.

Pinch, G., 1993, Votive Offerings to Hathor, Oxford.

Pinch, G., 2001, Red Things: The Symbolism of Colour in Magic, in W.V. Davies (ed.), Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt, London, p. 182-85.

Pinch, G. and Waraksa, E., 2009, Votive Practices, in J. Dieleman, W. Wendrich, E. Frood and J. Baines (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles, 1-9, <http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7kp4n7rk>, accessed 15/10/2009.

Poulin, S., 1994, Harpocrates-Hérôn à cheval, dieu de l’abondance, in M.-O. Jentel and G. Deschênes-Wagner (eds.), Tranquillitas: Mélanges en l’honneur de Tran tam Tinh, Collection “Hier pour aujourd’hui”, 7, Québec, p. 483-96.

Quibell, J.E., 1907, Excavations at Saqqara, 1905-1906, Cairo.

Raven, M., 1983, Wax in Egyptian Magic and Symbolism, OMRL, 64, p. 7-47.

Raven, M., 1988, Magic and Symbolic Aspects of Certain Materials in Ancient Egypt, Varia Aegyptiaca, 4, p. 237-42.

Reisner, G.A., 1907, Amulets, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Cairo.

Reisner, G.A., 1913, Models of Ships and Boats, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Cairo.

Robinson, D. and Wilson, A. (eds.), 2010, Alexandria and the North-Western Delta: Joint Conference Proceedings of Alexandria: City and Harbour (Oxford 2004) and The Trade and Topography of Egypt’s North-West Delta, 8th century BC to 8th century AD (Berlin 2006), Underwater Archaeology in the Canopic Region in Egypt, 5, Oxford.

Robinson, Z., 2008, The Metalware from the Sanctuary-Complex at Heracleion-Thonis, DPhil thesis, Oxford.

Roeder, G., 1933a, Die Herstellung von Wachsmodellen zu ägyptischen Bronzefiguren, ZAS, 69, p. 45-67.

Roeder, G., 1933b, Komposition und Technik der ägyptischen Metallplastik, JDAI, 48, p. 227-63.

Roeder, G., 1937, Ägyptische Bronzewerke, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung / Pelizaeus-Museum zu Hildesheim, 3, Glückstadt.

Roeder, G., 1956, Ägyptische Bronzefiguren, Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung / Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 6, Berlin.

Sandri, S., 2005, Im Fokus des Kulturkontaktes: Ägyptische Kindgötter in der Kleinplastik, in H. Beck, P. Bol and M. Bückling (eds.), Ägypten Griechenland Rom: Abwehr und Berührung, Frankfurt, p. 342-46.

Sandri, S., 2006a, Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates): die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 151, Leuven.

Sandri, S., 2006b, Der Kindgott im Boot: Zu einem Motiv in der gräko-ägyptischen Koroplastik, CE, 81, p. 287-310.

Schlögl, H., 1982, Nefertem, in W. Helck, E. Otto, and W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 4, Wiesbaden, cols. 378-80.

Schmidt, S., 2003, Typen und Attribute: Aspekte einer Formengeschichte der Harpokrates-Terrakotten, in D. Budde, S. Sandri and U. Verhoeven (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechisch-römischen Zeit: Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des interkulturellen Kontakts, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 128, Leuven, p. 251-81.

Schulz, R., 2004, Treasures of Bronze, Bulletin of the Egyptian Museum, 1, p. 61-66.

Scullard, H.H., 1974, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, London.

Stanley, D.J. and Bandelli, A., 2007, Geoarchaeology, Underwater Archaeology in the Canopic Region in Egypt, 2, Oxford.

Steindorff, G., 1946, Catalogue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.

Stevens, A., 2003, The Material Evidence for Domestic Religion at Amarna and Preliminary Remarks on its Interpretation, JEA, 89, p. 143-68.

Stevens, A., 2006, Private Religion at Amarna: The Material Evidence, BAR-IS, 1587, Oxford.

Stolz, Y., 2007, Early Byzantine Jewellery and Related Finds from the Underwater Excavations in Abuqir Bay in Egypt: Their Classification, Production and Function, DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.

Stolz, Y., 2008, Monasteries and Workshops, in F. Goddio and D. Fabre (eds.), Egypt’s Sunken Treasures, 2nd ed., Munich, p. 194-99, 202-15.

Strauss, C., 1980, Kronen, in W. Helck, E. Otto and W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 3, Wiesbaden, cols. 811-16.

Taylor, J., Craddock, P. and Shearman, F., 1998, Egyptian Hollow-Cast Bronze Statues of the Early First Millennium BC, Apollo, 148, p. 9-14.

Terrace, E.L.B., 1959, Three Egyptian Bronzes, Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 57 (308), p. 48-54.

Thiers, C., 2009, La stèle de Ptolémée VIII Évergète II à Héracléion, Underwater Archaeology of the Canopic Region in Egypt, 4, Oxford.

Török, L., 1995, Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt, Monumenta antiquitatis extra fines Hungariae reperta, 4, Rome.

Treister, M.Y., 1996, The Role of Metals in Ancient Greek History, Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava Supplementum, 156, Leiden.

van der Wilt, E., forthcoming, A Selection of Lead Objects from Heracleion-Thonis, DPhil thesis, Oxford.

Vernus, P., 2005, Éléphant, in P. Vernus and J. Yoyotte (eds.), Bestiaire des pharaons, Paris, p. 134-36.

Vinson, S., 1994, Egyptian Boats and Ships, Shire Egyptology, 20, Princes Risborough.

von Bomhard, A.-S., 2008, The Naos of the Decades: From the Observation of the Sky to Mythology and Astrology, Underwater Archaeology of the Canopic Region in Egypt, 3, Oxford.

Ward, C.A., 2000, Sacred and Secular: Ancient Egyptian Ships and Boats, Archaeological Institute of America Monographs, 5, Philadelphia.

Winlock, H.E., 1955, Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt, from the Tomb of Meket-Re at Thebes, Cambridge.

Wuttmann, M., Coulon, L. and Gombert, F., 2007, An Assemblage of Bronze Statuettes in a Cult Context: The Temple of Ayn Manawir, in M. Hill (ed.), Gifts for the Gods: Images from Ancient Egyptian Temples, New Haven, p. 167-73.

Young, E., 1967, An Offering to Thoth: A Votive Statue from the Gallatin Collection, BMM, 25 (7), p. 273-82.

Yoyotte, J., 2010, Osiris dans la région d’Alexandrie, in L. Coulon (ed.), Le culte d’Osiris au Ier millénaire av. J.C. découvertes et travaux récents: Actes de la table ronde internationale tenue à Lyon Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (université a Lumière-Lyon 2) les 8 et 9 juillet 2005, Bibliothèque d’étude, 153, Cairo, p. 33-38.

Haut de page

Annexe

Figure 1. Heracleion-Thonis site map.

Figure 1. Heracleion-Thonis site map.

Map courtesy of Franck Goddio©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.

Figure 2. Ptolemaic style child deity, H 9725, lead, 4.5 cm x 2.8 cm.

Figure 2. Ptolemaic style child deity, H 9725, lead, 4.5 cm x 2.8 cm.

Author’s photo.

Figure 3. Elephant, H 8578, lead, 4.2 cm x 3.7 cm.

Figure 3. Elephant, H 8578, lead, 4.2 cm x 3.7 cm.

Photo courtesy of Christoph Gerigk©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.

Figure 4. Falcon, H 3080, lead, 2.2 cm x 1.4 cm.

Figure 4. Falcon, H 3080, lead, 2.2 cm x 1.4 cm.

Photo courtesy of Christoph Gerigk©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.

Figure 5. Barks: H 9033, lead, 6.6 cm x 39.8 cm (top), H 8196, lead, 6.2 cm x 19.5 cm (right), H 8566, lead, 6.2 cm x 36.5 cm (bottom).

Figure 5. Barks: H 9033, lead, 6.6 cm x 39.8 cm (top), H 8196, lead, 6.2 cm x 19.5 cm (right), H 8566, lead, 6.2 cm x 36.5 cm (bottom).

Photo courtesy of Christoph Gerigk©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Heracleion-Thonis monographs, theses, and catalogues: Goddio, 2007; Stanley, Bandelli, 2007; Stolz, 2007; Goddio, Fabre, 2008; Robinson, 2008; von Bomhard, 2008; Thiers, 2009; Libonati, 2010; articles in Robinson, Wilson, 2010.

2 Goddio and Fabre, 2008, p. 45. Depth: Stanley, Bandelli, 2007, p. 47.

3 Goddio, 2007, p. 102-11 (Grand Canal) and p. 75-101 (temple); Goddio and Fabre, 2008, p. 44-48.

4 Subsidence factors: Stanley, Bandelli, 2007; Nur, 2010. Topography: Goddio, 2007, p. 9 (survey area), 29-68 (East Canopus), 69-130 (Heracleion-Thonis). Abbasid dinar: Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 200-201.

5 From this point forward all dates are BCE unless stated otherwise.

6 Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 46; Grataloup, 2010, p. 151, 156-58; personal communication with the site numismatist Andrew Meadows. Byzantine artefacts in the sunken Canopic region: Stolz, 2007, 2008.

7 Goddio, Fabre, 2008: p. 219-25, 232-35 (port of trade); 236-40 (stele). See also van der Wilt, forthcoming.

8 Heinz, forthcoming. This material forms the subject of my dissertation, which upon completion and review will be published by OCMA as part of the Heracleion-Thonis monograph series. Counts and percentages are approximations. I will present the final numbers in my thesis. Some objects have been preliminarily published in Goddio, Fabre, 2008; these are referenced accordingly.

9 Van der Wilt, forthcoming.

10 Cox, 2008, p. 264; Robinson, 2008, p. 32.

11 Franck Goddio, personal communication.

12 Recent votive studies: Pinch, 1993; Stevens, 2003, 2006; Exell, 2009; DuQuesne, 2010. For a short review of Egyptian votive practices spanning all periods, see Pinch, Waraksa, 2009. Roeder’s works on Egyptian bronze statuettes, most from the Late and Greco-Roman periods, focus on subject types and manufacture (Roeder, 1933a, 1993b, 1937, 1956).

13 Hill, 2001, p. 203, 2004, p. 3; Schulz, 2004.

14 For example, for the excavation of over 17,000 statuettes at Karnak in 1902-1903, see Legrain, 1906; Young, 1967, p. 274-75, 282; Taylor et al., 1998, p. 14. For Saqqara, see Davies, 2007, with bibliography. For Ayn Manawir, with its deposit of Osiris statuettes, see Wuttmann et al., 2007 with bibliography.

15 Recent bronze studies: Hill, 2004, 2007; Mendoza, 2008. One of the only lead studies is Boussac, Seif el-Din, 2009, which looks at examples from the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria.

16 For the scarcity of lead ore in Egypt, see Ogden, 2000, p. 168-69. For a compilation of known lead artefacts from Egypt, see Lucas, Harris, 1962, p. 244. For a detailed account, including reasons for lead’s scarcity, see “Lead in Egypt” in van der Wilt, forthcoming.

17 For the bronzes and their characteristics, see Heinz, forthcoming.

18 For problems associated with the generalised use of the name Harpokrates, see Sandri, 2005, p. 34, 2006a, p. 5, with an excursus on the name, p. 17-25. Type overview: Budde, 2010.

19 Feucht, 1995, p. 501.

20 Neils, Oakley, 2003; Schmidt, 2003, p. 256.

21 Schmidt, 2003, p. 253-56; Sandri, 2006a, p. 92, 211.

22 Malaise, 1991; Györy, 2003, p. 168.

23 Malaise, 1991, p. 226-31, 1994; Fischer, 2003, p. 148; Györy, 2003, p. 188-89.

24 Fischer, 1999, p. 37-42; Schmidt, 2003, p. 253-56.

25 Athribis: Myśliwiec, 1999; Saqqara: Quibell, 1907, p. 12-14, pls. xxvi-xxxiii.

26 The elephant in Egypt: Vernus, 2005; in the Greco-Roman world: Scullard, 1974.

27 Boussac, Seif el-Din, 2009, p. 226, nos. 20-23 with parallels and p. 251, figs. 19-22.

28 For similar openings and platforms for terracottas of child deities riding animals, see, for example, Fischer, 1994, nos. 616-17, 623-27, pls. 64-67.

29 For H 8578 (SCA 1046), see Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 192, 340, cat. no. 328.

30 For Harpokrates riding animals (terracotta), see, for example, Fischer, 1994, nos. 614-29, or Dunand, 1990, p. 81-90, 92-94, nos. 165-93. For figures on a horse, specifically, see Poulin, 1994, particularly p. 483-84, n. 2, for a comprehensive list of examples in catalogues.

31 Franck Goddio, personal communication.

32 Boussac, Seif el-Din, 2009, p. 224, nos. 9 and 10 with parallels and p. 248, figs. 8 and 9.

33 See H 8534 (SCA 1033) in Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 192, 339, cat. no. 327. For terracottas, see, for example, Fischer, 1994, nos. 831-39; Török, 1995, p. 130-33, nos. 182-90; Bailey, 2008, p. 46-47, 51-53, nos. 3130-3143, pls. 23-25.

34 See Török, 1995, p. 132-33, and Bailey, 2008, p. 46-47, for concise reviews of the debate.

35 For example, Fischer, 1994, nos. 831-39, pls. 87-88; Török, 1995, p. 131-32, nos. 186-90, pls. c-ci.

36 For H 3080 (SCA 562), see Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 183, 338, cat. no. 319.

37 Double crown: Abubakr, 1937, p. 60-62; Strauss, 1980, col. 813; Collier, 1996, p. 16-36; Goebs, 2001, p. 323.

38 Reisner, 1907, pl. 1, CG 12530; Petrie, 1914, p. 48, pl. xli, 245n; Andrews, 1994, p. 27-28. Dating in tombs: Andrews, 1994, p. 28.

39 Schlögl, 1982, cols. 378-79. For Nefertem, see also Bonnet, 1952, p. 508-10; Houser-Wegner, 2001.

40 Schlögl, 1982, col. 379; Bonnet, 1952, p. 509. Connections with Bastet: Roeder, 1956, p. 20, §19c, 20d, 23a, 444a, 602c, 633a; with Sekhmet: p. 19-20, §663e, 687c.

41 Schlögl, 1982, col. 379; Bonnet 1952, p. 510.

42 For example, Daressy, 1905, nos. 38076-38100, pl. vii; Roeder, 1937, §10-18; 1956, §19-25.

43 Roeder, 1956, p. 21; Schlögl, 1982, col. 379; Houser-Wegner, 2001.

44 For example, see H 6864 (SCA 974) in Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 191, 339, cat. no. 323.

45 Large pendant figures: Steindorff, 1946, p. 42; Roeder, 1956, p. 21; Patch, 2007, p. 145.

46 Steindorff, 1946, p. 42; Andrews, 1994, p. 18-19.

47 Full-length barks: Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 145-47, 340, nos. 330-33 (does not include H 9034). H 5584 is unavailable for study, and the low measurement above is from Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 340, cat. no. 330; the high measurement (H 9033) is from my own data.

48 Papyrus bundles: Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 340, cat. no. 333 (H 9033).

49 See Ward, 2000, p. 1-13 for the use of boats in Egyptian life and representations.

50 Nour, et al., 1960; Lehner, 2008, p. 118-19, with bibliography on p. 249. Boat burials: Jones, 1995, p. 33-35.

51 Jones, 1995, p. 12-25 (boat types). See also Reisner, 1913, p. i-xxvii for a typology of boat models, with a catalogue of examples in the Cairo Museum. Specific tombs: Freed, Doxey, 2009, p. 166-77 (Djehutynakht); Winlock, 1955, p. 45-69, pls. 33-53, 55, 70-86 (Meket-Re).

52 Jones, 1990, p. 12, 43-50, 60-62, nos. 30-35 (Carter nos. 308, 312, 285-86, 307, and 311 respectively), pls. xi, xxviii, xxix. For his typology of the Tutankhamun models, see Jones, 1990, p. 16, and 1995, appendix 1, p. 92 for a summary of his typology alongside Reisner’s.

53 Jones, 1990, p. 3 (subdivision 2), 5, 60-62, 1995, p. 48 (in a funerary setting).

54 Jones, 1995, p. 26-33, for boat models from the 6th Dynasty to the New Kingdom.

55 Sacred barks: Reisner, 1913, p. xvii (Type VII); Kitchen, 1975; Vinson, 1994, p. 50-52; Jones, 1995, p. 20-25; Aubert, Aubert, 2001, p. 336-38; Brand, 2001; Karlshausen, 2009. See Jones, 1990, p. 61 for the hypothesis that the throne carried an image of the deceased.

56 Kitchen, 1975, cols. 619-20, 623-24; Vinson, 1994, p. 51; Jones, 1995, p. 20-22.

57 Decoration: Roeder, 1956, §584, 625; Göttlicher, Werner, 1971, p. 5; Kitchen, 1975, cols. 620-23; Jones, 1995, p. 20-25, 66-68; Karlshausen, 2009, p. 154-243.

58 On the scarcity of models from later periods, see Landström, 1970, p. 140.

59 Kitchen, 1975, and Brand, 2001, with bibliography; Jones 1995, p. 20-25.

60 Sacred bark models: Reisner, 1913, xxvii, 80-83, 88, 90-92, 113, cat. nos. 4919, 4922-4924, 4929-4930, 4974-4975, pls. xix, xxiv. Göttlicher, Werner, 1971, pls. xlv (drawings, reliefs, and one bronze model) and xvii (models). Bronze, specifically: Roeder, 1956, §584, 625; Aubert, Aubert, 2001, p. 336-38.

61 Roeder, 1956, §625.

62 Raven, 1983, p. 16, 36, cat. no. 31, pl. 6.

63 Sandri, 2006b, with bibliography.

64 For example, Roeder, 1956, §584; Terrace, 1959; Aubert, Aubert, 2001, p. 337-38.

65 Heracleion cult vessels: Robinson, 2008, p. 258-78. Heracleion bronze standards: Heinz, forthcoming.

66 Göttlicher, Werner, 1971, p. 5.

67 Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 145-47, based on a reading of the Canopus Decree of 238. See also Yoyotte, 2010, for Osiris at Heracleion.

68 Goddio, 2007, p. 27-28.

69 Bailey, 2008, p. 1-2.

70 Andrews, 1994, p. 27-28 (falcons), 18-19 (Nefertem).

71 Andrews, 1994, p. 6.

72 Roeder’s catalogues of bronze statuettes (1937, 1956) stand as the most comprehensive works. More recent studies: Aubert, Aubert, 2001; Hill, 2004, 2007; Mendoza, 2008.

73 Hill, 2001, p. 203.

74 Luiselli, 2008, p. 2.

75 See Kemp, 1995, p. 36-38 for prestige dedication motivated by self-interest among the elite.

76 Gunn, 1916.

77 Kemp, 1995, p. 29.

78 For more nuanced approachs to personal piety: Pinch, 1993; Baines, Frood, 2011.

79 Baines, 2007, p. 14-30, for the term decorum in relation to Egyptian art.

80 Treister, 1996, p. 341 for price ratios in Classical Greece.

81 Ogden, 2000, p. 154-55.

82 Lead ceramic repairs at Heracleion: van der Wilt, forthcoming.

83 See Nicholson, 1993, p. 39-41, for faience production in the Late Period and later; Patch, 1998, for patterns of use; and Bianchi, 1998, for the symbols and meanings associated with faience.

84 Goddio, Fabre, 2008, p. 138-39.

85 Raven, 1983, 1988.

86 Patch, 2007, p. 145-46, especially n. 15.

87 Amulets, material, and colour: Andrews, 1994, p. 100-106, 2001.

88 Raven, 1988, p. 238.

89 Personal communication with IEASM conservator, Olivier Berger.

90 Jones, 1995, p. 20-21.

91 Craddock, Giumlia-Mair, 1993; La Niece, Craddock, 1993; Hill, Schorsch, 1997, p. 13-14; La Niece et al., 2002; Delange, 2007.

92 Kees, 1943, p. 418-22; Pinch, 2001, p. 183.

93 Bowman, 1986, p. 121-64.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Heracleion-Thonis site map.
Crédits Map courtesy of Franck Goddio©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.
URL http://pallas.revues.org/docannexe/image/2166/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 240k
Titre Figure 2. Ptolemaic style child deity, H 9725, lead, 4.5 cm x 2.8 cm.
Crédits Author’s photo.
URL http://pallas.revues.org/docannexe/image/2166/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 608k
Titre Figure 3. Elephant, H 8578, lead, 4.2 cm x 3.7 cm.
Crédits Photo courtesy of Christoph Gerigk©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.
URL http://pallas.revues.org/docannexe/image/2166/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 156k
Titre Figure 4. Falcon, H 3080, lead, 2.2 cm x 1.4 cm.
Crédits Photo courtesy of Christoph Gerigk©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.
URL http://pallas.revues.org/docannexe/image/2166/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Titre Figure 5. Barks: H 9033, lead, 6.6 cm x 39.8 cm (top), H 8196, lead, 6.2 cm x 19.5 cm (right), H 8566, lead, 6.2 cm x 36.5 cm (bottom).
Crédits Photo courtesy of Christoph Gerigk©Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation.
URL http://pallas.revues.org/docannexe/image/2166/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 87k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Sanda S. Heinz, « The lead statuettes and amulets of Heracleion-Thonis », Pallas, 86 | 2011, 211-232.

Référence électronique

Sanda S. Heinz, « The lead statuettes and amulets of Heracleion-Thonis », Pallas [En ligne], 86 | 2011, mis en ligne le 30 octobre 2011, consulté le 27 mars 2017. URL : http://pallas.revues.org/2166 ; DOI : 10.4000/pallas.2166

Haut de page

Auteur

Sanda S. Heinz

St. Cross College
University of Oxford
sanda.heinz@stx.ox.ac.uk

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Pallas – Revue d'études antiques est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo Presses universitaires du Midi
  • Revues.org