Rediscovering Grigory Stroganoff as a collector of Egyptian art
Transcription
Rediscovering Grigory Stroganoff as a collector of Egyptian art
Journal of the History of Collections (2009) pp. 1–18 Not for public release Rediscovering Grigory Stroganoff as a collector of Egyptian art Marsha Hill, Georg Meurer and Maarten Raven 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 A famed connoisseur of European paintings and of objects of fine 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. Grigory Sergeievich Stroganoff, 1829–1910,1 a member of the well-known Russian family of connoisseurs and collectors, was himself a collector of paintings and objects of fine 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 booklet produced in connection with the 1880 exhibition of his collection in Aachen, Sammlung Aegyptischer Alterthümer des Grafen Gregor Stroganoff, which enumerated and described quite cursorily and without measurements the astonishing 501 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 apparent 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 collecting society. The first section by Marsha Hill considers 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 involvement with Aachen. The last section comprises two considerations of remarkable objects once in the collection, by Marsha Hill and Maarten Raven, respectively. count Stroganoff and Egyptian art: an overview, by Marsha Hill 40 Collecting and exhibiting A highly cosmopolitan individual, Stroganoff travelled extensively with his family throughout the world, east and west, from the early 1860s, 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 specifically noted that the Count purchased from dealers throughout Europe, including in Rome, Paris, Cologne, Munich, and other unspecified cities.6 The eventful years from 1875 to 1882 saw personal tragedies – the suicide of Stroganoff’s teenage son in 1875 and the ensuing ill-health of his wife with her eventual death in 1882 – but also the purchase in 1880 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 figures 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 1879-80, probably during the winter months.8 He also witnessed the initiation of the exhibition of his Egyptian collection in Aachen in 1880. It was following this period that the collections of © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/jhc/fhp043 45 50 55 60 65 hill et al 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 paintings and fine arts for which Stroganoff is best known were attentively formed,9 although, as will be seen, he continued to collect Egyptian antiquities at a diminished level. The Aachen exhibition came about because from at least 1876 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 permitted 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 subsequent loans to Aachen; it identifies 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 identified 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 1886 with the withdrawal of hundreds of pieces. Some portion of these pieces may have been incorporated in the collections in the newly finished villa in Rome, but possibly a certain culling and refining of the Egyptian collection began to take place already then. Certainly Stroganoff continually refined other aspects of his collections through auction and sales to dealers.10 At the same time he apparently continued to buy selectively. For example, a fine panel painting now in the Vatican museums (discussed further below) and another painting donated to Aachen are unlikely to have been purchased before 1887 when the great finds of such mummies with painted portraits began to be made in Egypt,11 while Maarten Raven’s contribution below suggests the Nubian bed-legs now in Leiden would have been acquired about 1893. Moreover, besides the possible mid-1870s tour including Egypt and the 1879-80 buying trip to Egypt which is documented in the Aachen catalogue, there is evidence that suggests at least one other in 1887.12 Consolidation and dispersal of the collection The first decade of the twentieth century was much occupied by plans and consultations for the publication of a select catalogue of Stroganoff’s collections, to be written by Ludwig Pollak and Antonio Muñoz. A significant dispersal of Egyptian pieces, whether they had figured in the Aachen exhibition or not, seems to have been take 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 first volume, Les Antiquités by Ludwig Pollak, of Pièces de Choix de la Collection du Comte Gregoire Stroganoff à Rome, appeared in 1911 shortly after the Count’s death on July 27, 1910 in Paris. Indeed, only one piece from the Aachen exhibition, the bronze torso of King Pedubast (no. 81; see below), was illustrated and described in Pièces de Choix, and this is the sole piece that has remained reasonably well-known to the Egyptological community. The authors’ introduction to the same volume notes, however, that Stroganoff retained also in his collection even a good number of the scarabs that figured so largely in the Aachen exhibition thirty years earlier.13 The Sangiorgis in particular dealt with at least some of the Egyptian objects from this period of dispersal apparently sanctioned by Stroganoff himself if not actually 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 1920.15 The torso of Pedubast was definitely among the pieces in the house, and was committed to a sale at Frederik Muller in Amsterdam in December 1921, 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 fine collection of small 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 and decorative arts was insufficiently 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, identification of pieces from the collection is difficult: even for those that figured in the Aachen exhibition the descriptions by Brugsch are abbreviated and have proven imprecise, while identification 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 1886, adds details or, in a few cases, corrections about certain other pieces in the catalogue. In an 1886 article, he focuses on two Stroganoff pieces, and makes remarks that proved important in following the history of the Pedubast torso (no. 81), while correcting the name on the menat (no. 84) to Nikauba.19 In the supplement to his history, he cites Stroganoff pieces according to their Aachen catalogue numbers, often correcting or adding significantly to Brugsch’s descriptions or readings, such as correcting the name on the shawabtis (nos 91-3) 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. 80).21 Now and then pieces have the name Stroganoff attached or can be recognized when they surface in a museum collection, auction catalogue, or other source: the lion hunt scarab of Amenhotep III (no. 45) and the scarab with the name of Sheshonq III (no. 80) in the Museo Egizio in Turin,22 one of the three shawabtis no. 91 at a sale in Florence,23 a faience bead with the names of Amenhotep III and Tiye in the Miho Museum (no. 51) (Fig. 1),24 a stela of Osorkon II (no. 77) 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. 336.26 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 fine panel painting mentioned above figured in Pièces de Choix, passed eventually into the collections of Federico Zeri, who bequeathed it to the Museo Gregoriano Egizio, Rome (Fig. 2);28 the Nubian bed-legs were acquired by the Rijksmuseum in Leiden in 2000; two rings are now in the Gualino collection in Milan.29 Fig. 1. Large bead with the name of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his wife Queen Tiye, Miho Museum, Shigaraki, Japan. Photograph © Miho Museum. Fig. 2. Encaustic panel painting of a man, Museo Gregoriano Egizio, Rome, Inv. 56605. Photograph © Vatican Museums. 215 220 hill et al were scholars/connoisseurs/antiquaries connected with the German Archaeological Institute, established in Rome since 1829 and central to the city’s antiquities culture, and were influential figures in the ancient art circles in Rome. Pollak, although he was primarily concerned with Greek and Roman art, extended himself to other ancient traditions, and was an important influence and companion in the last decade of Stroganoff’s life. He met Stroganoff first in 1898, and travelled to Egypt and the Near East himself in 1900. After completing 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 1905, began to plan the Pièces de Choix project (with Muñoz) from 1907, and to concentrate on it from about 1909.34 Younger Italian Egyptologists Orazio Marucchi and Ernesto Schapparelli were certainly in contact with this society in at least a general way.35 Names of antiquaries/dealers such as Augusto Jandolo, Augusto Castellani, and Giuseppe and Giorgio Sangiorgi figure 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 reflected 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 Egyptian art in Stroganoff’s circles 225 230 235 240 245 250 255 260 265 270 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 cosmopolitan 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 limitations. In the absence of any specific 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 connection, 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 virtually nothing conclusive relative to Stroganoff’s collecting 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 international 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 reflect on the antiquarian-minded society of Rome from his arrival in 1893.30 In particular, two great Roman lovers and collectors of Egyptian art were Stroganoff’s con temporaries and attested acquaintance, Count Michel Tyszkiewicz (1828–97) and Senator Giovanni Barracco (1829–1914).31 Tyszkiewicz had excavated in Egypt, formed and sold more than one famed Egyptian collection, and in his own memoir recalls one occasion when Stroganoff instructed him on the recognition of forgeries of goldwork from southern Russia.32 Barracco had travelled frequently to Egypt and was distinguished in Roman collecting circles by his affinity for and scholarly knowledge of Egyptian language and art.33 Wolfgang Helbig (1839-1915) and Pollak himself (1868-1943) 275 280 285 290 295 300 305 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 310 315 rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 have strongly sought out types of Egyptian art generally acknowledged as characteristic and admirable, such as stone sculpture and relief. 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 1880, 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 possible to consider the implications of these as choices. Since major contemporary private collections in Rome (like that of Giovanni Barracco) and in Paris included significant 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 in his collection suggests that these Egyptian genres did not strongly command his attention. Among significant acquisitions almost certainly from the post-Aachen exhibition years, the Leiden furniture legs described below by Maarten Raven (see Figs. 6–7, below) and the fine panel painting in the Vatican (Fig. 2, above) are certainly aesthetically striking pieces, but again are not characteristic pharaonic genres. The bronze torso of Pedubast (see Fig. 5, below), even if it was part of the Aachen collection and therefore conceivably originally chosen for its historical rather than its aesthetic significance, 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 personal tastes insofar as they are represented by the classical bronzes and Byzantine and Islamic decorative arts that heavily populated his collections. being its first 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 first director of the Museum. In 1880,42 even before any significant collection 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 (1842-1930),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 first two directors of the Museum and the Service des Antiquités, Auguste Mariette (1821-1881, director of the Service from 1858, and of the Museum from 1863) and Gaston Maspero (1846-1916, director of the Service and the Museum 1881-6 and 1899-1914), and was employed as curator in the Egyptian Museum in Boulaq (from 1902 in its current central Cairo location) from 1883 until his retirement in 1914, and through his position he came into contact with all the archaeological excavations in Egypt and their finds. Beginning in the 1880s, 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 obtained objects in one way or another for Stroganoff already 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 Stroganoff and his Egyptian collection in the present-day Suermondt-Ludwig Museum, Aachen, by Georg Meurer 41 360 The Aachen exhibition of 1880 and the origins of the Stroganoff Egyptian collection In February 1877 a Museum Society was founded in Aachen through the initiative of several engaged citizens with the purpose of helping the city bring into 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405 410 hill et al 415 420 425 430 435 440 445 450 455 Anthony W. Drexel, when he received $3,000 for his 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 procured them.46 The alternative would be a sojourn by Emil in Aachen or Rome, which cannot be documented. Emil Brugsch’s 1880 catalogue organized the collection totaling 501 objects primarily in four sections, ‘Historical Collection, ordered by dynasties’, ‘Pantheon’, ‘Diversa (scarabs, statuettes, items from vitreous materials, jewelry elements, etc.)’, and ‘Bronzes’; it included brief descriptions of the pieces or explanations 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 438-47 were added as an afterword, and nos 448-501 were placed in an appended section entitled ‘Terracottas and Bronzes of Count Grigory Stroganoff, collected by him in Egypt in 1879/80’.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. 81),48 a Coptic tunic (no. 369), a bronze of the goddess Selket (no. 372), an aegis-menat (no. 398),49 an arm-censer (no. 424), a bronze ram-headed sphinx (no. 425), a statuette of a particular form of the Goddess Isis-Hathor (?) (no. 426), and a gold statuette of the god Seth (no. 447). 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. 3). Moreover, of the twenty objects in the second category (rr), the mummy cartonnage (no. 370) (Fig. 4) is still in the Museum, while the small wood figures also in the Museum probably formed part of the wooden bark (no. 368).50 Fig. 3. Aegis, Suermondt Ludwig Museum, Aachen, AK533. Photograph © Suermondt Ludwig Museum, by Ann Münchow, Aachen. the Alte Redoute in Comphausbadstrasse, the Egyptian antiquities 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 jewelry, as well as terracotta statuettes, lamps, and so on from the Graeco-Roman Period were found in cabinet 9. The bronzes were on their own in cabinet 10. In the showcase adjacent to cabinet 10 was the wooden bark, and in the showcase opposite, next to cabinet 9, were the mummy cartonnage and textile fragments (possibly the Coptic tunic). The Stroganoff Egyptian collection in Aachen According to the catalogue of 1886, in this same year from 1886 Count Stroganoff still had sixty objects in all from his According to the 1886 guide to the Suermondt- private collection on long-term loan, including all Ludwig Museum, then located in its earliest home in eight of those marked with rrr in the 1880 catalogue 460 465 470 475 480 rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art 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 figurine.’ This last item too was a loan from the Count, which he later donated to the Museum.55 The adjacent showcase displayed ‘an ancient Egyptian mummy garment’ (surely the mummy cartonnage) and ‘on the floor an ancient Egyptian textile with colored decoration from the 4th and 5th centuries AD’ (probably the Coptic tunic). So, one can deduce that between 1886 and 1892 the selection of pieces placed at the disposal of the Museum had changed minimally – only the wooden ship was definitely 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 1902 and was written by the new director Dr Anton Kisa. It reveals a restructuring, not only as a result of the move, of the presentation of all the holdings including also the Egyptian collection.56 In 1893 the Museum had purchased on the art market a mummy with its coffin from Akhmim. This was probably the reason that the Egyptian display was divided: some of the Aegyptiaca were placed in a cabinet in an anteroom on the ground floor, which held the ‘Ethnographic Collection and Oriental Artworks’. There the mummy cartonnage was displayed, with its gold mask that unfortunately no longer exists, and also its linen wrappings and the separate cartonnage for the feet, both items now lost too. Then, on the floor were the Coptic tunic (‘rich Coptic fabric, 3rd 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. 16th 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 Stroganoff), 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 floor. In this cabinet were, among other things, the aegis-menat, a seated statuette of Isis, the foot piece of a coffin, some small vessels of Fig. 4. Cartonnage, Suermondt Ludwig Museum, Aachen, AK568. Photograph © Suermondt Ludwig Museum, by Anne Gold, Aachen. 485 490 495 and six of those marked with rr, indicating that he had withdrawn the remainder of the collection some time before 1886. The objects still on loan had evidently been selected according to their significance, since, for example, the lion-hunt scarab of Amenhotep III52 and the bronze kneeling king offering nu-pots were included.53 From the fact that Stroganoff himself had made this selection it can be deduced that he continued to place these important pieces from his collection on loan with a view to the long-term benefit of the Museum. The Museum guide of 1892 shows the Egyptian objects still exhibited in the same cabinets in the same gallery.54 The gallery was now identified as for ‘Goldwork, older craft works and other items’. The Count’s 500 505 510 515 520 525 530 535 540 hill et al 545 550 555 560 565 570 575 580 585 590 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 flat 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 electroplated copies of the treasures of Myceneae 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 finally 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 components of the aegis/menat; the bronze statuette of a seated Isis; fourteen wooden servant figures, 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 coffin; the mummy cartonnage; and – probably also stemming from his collection – the limestone statuette of a woman. Gustav Lübcke (1868-1925), 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 (1777-1853), 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 (1851-1930) lived in Cairo, financed excavations in Egypt over the course of a decade, and in this way received a part of the finds, 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 PelizaeusMuseum, likewise named after him. While Stroganoff sojourned regularly in the spatown of Bad Aachen over several years,61 he actually lived in Paris and more especially Rome, where he had spent the winters since the 1860s.62 For the exhibition in Aachen he probably had his entire Egyptian collection of 501 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 established.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 first withdrew all the loans after the closing of the exhibition of 1880, only later to resolve on a further loan: a document in the Aachen city archives dated 14 December 1884 lists various art works placed on loan by Stroganoff at a total insurance value of 15,500 Marks. At the head of this list stands the entry ‘ancient Egyptian objects, 41 pieces, according to the special list’; unfortunately, however, the special list has not been preserved.64 The worth of the named Aegyptiaca for insurance purposes is declared at 2000 Marks. From the Museum guides of the years 1886 and 1892 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 1892 to 1902 he then withdrew them. Presumably this occurred at the time the Museum moved into the new building on Wilhelmstrasse in 1901 (opened on 26 November 1901), since on this Stroganoff as collector of Egyptian art and patron of the Suermondt Museum The exhibition catalogue of 1880 demonstrates that Stroganoff had purchased at least a part of his Aegyptiaca on a trip to Egypt in 1879/1880, 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 perhaps he had already been in Egypt at some time and brought objects home. Indeed, one later Egyptian tour in the year 1887 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 opportunities 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 595 600 605 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art 645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 occasion the entire holdings underwent reorganization 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 1880 exhibition catalogue, it is clear that he chose not only insignificant 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 1902 guide and the ‘alabaster cups and bowls’ were not mentioned in 1880. 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 1903.67 Papers preserved in the city archive also indicate that the Count donated the Egyptian artworks still in the Museum collection piece-by-piece, at least in the well-documented period between 1886 and 1893, and not as a single larger gift.68 Presentation of the exhibition of Stroganoff’s Egyptian antiquities in Aachen created a small sensation. If one bears in mind the size of the collection with its 501 exhibited objects, even by today’s standards it was an unusually large exhibition. Moreover, the (temporary) public presentation of private Egyptian collections in Germany 130 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 1828) and Munich (from 1833),71 had already existed for some time; however, with the exception of these two museums and those in the cities of Dresden (1832 dissolution of the princely collection and creation of the Historical Museum), Gotha (founded 1824), Karlsruhe (before 1766),72 Kassel (founded 1779), Leipzig (founded 1874), Wiesbaden (from 1825) and Würzburg (from 1857), in 1880 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 laypersons, but also for Egyptologists, as is evidenced by the visit of Alfred Wiedemann, who was later the first holder of the chair of Egyptology at the University of Bonn.74 695 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 2 September 1880 the Museum Society named Stroganoff as its third honorary member on the basis of his special merit.75 This honour was 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 certificate of honour is preserved and reads77: 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 honour to appoint you according to Statute 6 as an Honorary Member of the Museum Society in the City of Aachen and to respectfully and faithfully present this diploma as testimony to you. Aachen, 2 September 1880. The Committee of the Museum Society. 700 705 710 715 720 Two case studies of extraordinary objects from the Stroganoff collection The bronze torso of King Pedubast from the Stroganoff collection, by Marsha Hill The still-spectacular fragmentary bronze torso of King Pedubast (c.818-793 bc) today in the Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon, is one of the great artistic monuments of the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties 21-25, c.1070-664 bc), a politically decentralized and obscure era marked, nonetheless, by a high level of inventiveness and artistry in metalwork (Fig. 5).78 As preserved, the torso measures 27 cm high; the original statue probably measured about 74-78 cm, exclusive of any headdress it may have worn, and showed the King striding forward and probably 725 730 735 hill et al Lands, Usermaatre-Chosen-of-Amun, son of Re, lord of Diadems, Pedubast-son-of-Bastet-beloved-ofAmun.’ Over a pleated kilt Pedubast wears a featherpatterned 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 figure, 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 unsuspected spectrum of possibilities for metal polychromy and the presence of an iron armature both confirm and extend the observations of other recent studies of Egyptian ‘great bronzes’ and other bronzes of the period. The statue was no. 81 in the Aachen exhibition of the Stroganoff Egyptian collection in 1880.79 A number of details indicate that the statue had only been 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 1886.80 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 Intermediate Period have generally followed Kenneth Kitchen, author of the major synthetic work on this difficult period, in discarding as late and unsubstantiated a statement by Petrie from 1905 that the statue was excavated among the ruins of the great northern city of Tanis in the eastern Egyptian Delta.81 However, evidence from an 1887 account by Maspero reveals that there is a stronger tradition of this origin, Fig. 5. Torso of King Pedubast, Museu Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon, no. 52. Reproduced with permission. Photograph by William Barrette, New York. 740 745 750 resenting an offering in his now missing hands. p 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 figure’s right side led by a mummiform deity followed by a male and then a female goddess, the group on the figure’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 ‘UsermaatreChosen-of-Amun, Pedubast-son-of-Bastet-belovedof-Amun’, and on his apron appear again his names ‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790 795 800 rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art 805 810 815 820 825 830 835 and the history of investigations at the site gives substantial (if circumstantial) credibility to this tradition.82 Such a possible provenance has important implications for discussions about the nature and geographic centre of Dynasty 23 in the Third Intermediate 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 1886, and may then have stayed there even until 1901. 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 1921. Then it was sold through Frederick Muller in Amsterdam as lot 612 in the sale of 13-16 December 1921, when it was obtained with the assistance of Duveen for the oil magnate and art collector Calouste Gulbenkian, then resident in Paris86. Quite soon thereafter, from 12 July 1922 until December of that year, it was loaned to the Exposition Champollion at the Louvre to celebrate the ‘Centenaire de Champollion,’ the hundredth anniversary 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 the Gulbenkian’s collection in 1937 and 1949; it has been in the Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon since its opening in 1969, is published in the Gulbenkian Museum catalogue of its Egyptian collection, and has appeared in international loan exhibitions.87 Fig. 6. Nubian bedlegs, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, F 2000/6.1-2. Photograph © Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. was a well-known collector and dealer in Rome, who possessed his own art gallery (the Galleria Sangiorgi). In the 1950s 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 flat and there is a wide mouth and a heavy chin. The African aspect is further stressed by the peculiar hairstyle consisting of close-cropped hair in combination Two Nubian bed-legs, by Maarten J. Raven 840 845 850 In 2006, the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden acquired two rather spectacular items of furniture (inv. F2000/6.1-2: Figs. 6–7). These can be identified as the legs of a funerary bed, are made of wood and carry the remains of paint. The most complete leg is 50.2 cm high, whereas the width of both legs is 8.6 cm and the depth 13.5 cm. These two extraordinary objects once formed part of the Stroganoff collection, although they do not figure in the 1880 catalogue.88 Together with other objects, the Count sold the two bed-legs around 1900 to his close friend Giorgio Sangiorgi who had helped him to make an inventory of his antiquities. Sangiorgi 855 860 865 870 hill et al 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 intelligence. Sphinxes frequently symbolize the incarnation of divine spirits in bodily form, or represent the warlike aspect of the Pharaoh; in general, they served as guardians of sacred precincts or cemeteries. The application 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 find them depicted on beds, thrones, and other ‘elevated’ structures, stressing the symbolic link between the furniture legs and the four struts of heaven. Together with the hieroglyphic mottos inscribed on their bases, the sphinxes would therefore have ensured the protection and revivification of the person using the item of furniture 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 first 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 definitely 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 associated with rebirth and the afterlife.92 The Nubian hairstyle may be connected with Hathor’s role as patroness of the deserts and of foreign countries. Close parallels to this sphinx motive 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 fifth 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 contemporary cemeteries have provided the necessary information for a proper identification of the furniture pieces which concern us here. Élite burials dating to these periods were provided with funerary beds on Fig. 7. Nubian bedlegs, side view, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, F 2000/6.1-2. Photograph © Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. 875 880 885 890 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 dropbeads below; the lion’s chest is incised with a stylized pattern depicting the mane of the animal. All the incised parts have been filled 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, flaring 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 flower above. Otherwise, there are two square perforations, the upper one running 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. 895 900 905 910 915 920 925 930 935 940 rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980 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 motive 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 1893 with a group of objects bought by E. A. Wallis Budge). The same goes for the fourth leg, which has recently been identified in the collections of the Louvre96 and was bought in 1948. 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 cemeteries and that it should be dated somewhere between 800 and 400 bc. The legs in London and Paris are 42.5 cm high, whereas the undamaged Leiden specimen has a height of 50.2 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 corresponding headboard. It is also seen in contemporary mummy biers and mummification 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 1880 and 1900. This is corroborated by the acquisition of the third leg by Budge, recorded as having been made in Egypt in 1893. Perhaps the Count likewise picked up the items now in Leiden during one of his travels in Egypt (maybe during the elusive trip of 1887), rather than on the European art market. Whatever be the case, his acquisition again reflects his rather exotic taste in Egyptian antiquities, as demonstrated 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. Dr Maarten Raven, Egyptian Department, National Museum of Antiquities, P.O. Box 11114, NL-2301 EC Leiden, Netherlands. [email protected] Notes and references 1 Morris Bierbrier (ed.), Who Was Who in Egyptology, 3rd edn (London, 1995) mistakenly identifies Count Stroganoff as Grigory Alexandrovitch Stroganoff (1823–79), another member of the family altogether. 2 Penelope Hunter-Stiebel (ed.), Stroganoff. The Palace and Collections of a Russian Noble Family (Portland, OR and New York, 2000) gives an overview of the Stroganoff family. 3 Emil Brugsch, Sammlung Aegyptischer Alterthümer des Grafen Gregor Stroganoff (Aachen, 1880). 4 Varduì Kalpakcian, ‘Il palazzo romano del conte G. S. Stroganoff negli acquarelli di F. P. Reyman’, Pinakothe-ke16–17 (2003), pp. 184–95. 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. 5 Antonio Muñoz, ‘La collezione del conte Stroganoff,’ Rassegna Contemporanea 3/10 (October 1910), pp. 85–6: ‘E Roma era poi stata la meta continua dei viaggi di lui che aveva pellegrinato per tutto il mondo, in Oriente e in Occidente.’ 6 Ibid., p. 86: ‘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…’ 7 Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 185–6, where the date of the son’s death is given as 1877. 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, filantropo e mecenate a Roma fra Otto e Novecento,’ in Lucia Tonini (ed.), Il collezionismo in Russia da Pietro I all’Unione Sovietica (Naples, 2009), pp. 90, 91 and n. 25. 8 Family records of a prolonged visit to Asia and Egypt after the son’s death are noted in Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 90, 95, and an email from Varduì Kalpakcian dated 29 May 2009. The visit to Egypt of 1879-80 is documented by the Aachen catalogue in the heading for the terracottas nos 448-501, where it reads like an insertion at Stroganoff’s behest. Stroganoff’s daughter married in 1879 as noted by Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note 7), n. 25, apparently in St Petersburg or possibly Rome, an event that he would certainly have attended and that must have predated the 1879-80 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. 9 Muñoz, op. cit. (note 5), p. 86. 10 In an email of 25 May 2009, Varduì Kalpakcian shared with me her record of letters in the Central State Archives Rome (2° Versamento, 1 serie, busta 205, fascicolo 3398, Anni: 1888, 1891 e 1892) indicating that in 1892 the Count came to the office for exportation of art and antiquities with regard to a case containing a collection of 4,000 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 Addresses for correspondence 985 Dr Marsha Hill, Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10028, USA. [email protected] Dr Georg Meurer, Wilsnackerstrasse 33, 10559 Berlin, Germany. [email protected] 990 hill et al that purpose. Possibly these are the ‘medals’ purchased on the putative visit of 1887 (see note 12). in bronzes, silver, ivories, and textiles of the collection as compared to interest in sculpture and painting. 11 See Morris Bierbrier, ‘The discovery of the mummy portraits,’ in Susan Walker (ed.), Ancient Faces. Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt (New York, 2000), pp. 32-3. The fragmentary panel Aachen AK548 is discussed further below. 19 ‘Inschriften aus der Saitischen [sic] Periode,’ Receuil de Travaux 8 (1886), pp. 63–4. 20 Ägyptische Geschichte. Supplement (Gotha, 1888), p. 623 n. 11. 21 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeologists 13 (1891), pp. 35-6; at the time the royal names were understood to refer to Sheshonq I. 12 In the Archive of the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow Dr Varduì Kalpakcian noted a document issued by the Russian Consulate in Egypt, dated 15 May 1887, 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 10 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, 191112), 1ère partie, Les Antiquités, by L. Pollak, (1911), p. 20 and pl. 21 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. 71 and pl . 45) does not seem to be in the Aachen catalogue but it is difficult to be sure. 22 Scarab no. 45 is Museo Egizio 17132, acquired 1931 and in C. Blankenberg-van Delden, The Large Commemorative Scarabs of Amenhotep III (Leiden, 1969), pp. 98-9 no. C60 and pl. 20; also Ernesto Scamuzzi, ‘Scarabeo della caccia ai leoni di Amenhotep III’ Bollettino della Società Piemontese di Archeologia e Belle Arti, anni VI-VII (1952-53), Torino, p. 1, note 1. Scarab no. 80 is Museo Egizio 17131. Elisa Fiore Marochetti of the museum noted the material of the scarab is ‘definitely not blue paste and perhaps not even lapis lazuli (lazulite, anhydrite?),’ email 14 December 2005. The scarab is illustrated in Giulio Farina, Il R. Museo di Antichita di Torino, Sezione Egizia (Rome, 1938), p. 55. 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, 1976), p. 165. The last piece (EA64203) is currently classified as a forgery. 13 Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note 12), vol. i, p. viii. In an email of 25 May 2009 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: 1910 - 1911; N° 65; Description 525d; hopefully she will be able to publish the entire document. On 4 and 5 October 1910 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. 23 Sale catalogue Pandolfini, Florence, 6 June 2002, no. 47, as a shawabti of Psamtik III. 24 Sale catalogue Christie’s, New York, 3 June 1999, lot 40 p. 51, now in the Miho Museum, Miho Museum. Catalogue of Ancient Glass (Tokyo, 2001), pp. 28 and 192, no. 19. The bead measures 2.2 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.’ 25 Orazio Marucchi, ‘Di una stela egizia dedicata inoccasione del giubileo del faraone Osorkon II’, Atti della Pont. Accad. Rom. di Archeologia, Rendiconti, vol. I (Rome, 1923), pp. 7788 and plate, reports on p. 77 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. 181. Jürgen von Beckerath, ‘Die angebliche Jubiläums-Stele Osorkons II.’, Göttinger Miszellen 154 (1996), pp. 19-22 republishes the stela with a drawing after the cast pictured in Marucchi, and reproduces Marucchi’s error (p. 77) in referring to Wiedemann’s mention of the stela, op. cit. (note 20), as being on p. 55 when it should be p. 555. Dr Alessia Amenta, Curator of the Egyptian and Oriental Antiquities, confirms that the cast is still in the collection of the Vatican. 14 See the section below by Maarten Raven. 15 Ludwig Pollak, Römische Memoiren. Künstler, Kunstliebhaber und Gelehrte 1893–1943 (Rome, 1994), p. 229 and n. 41 gives the date 1914. Most recently Varduì Kalpakcian, ‘Il destino della collezione romana del Conte G. S. Stroganoff (18291910) dopo la scomparsa del collezionista’, in Serena Romano (ed.), La Russie et l’Occident. Actes du colloque, Lausanne avril 2009, Études Lausannoises d’Histoire de l’Art (forthcoming) establishes the end of 1920 for the family’s return. 16 See the discussion of Pedubast below by Marsha Hill. 17 Silvana Pettanati, ‘Le raccolte antiquariali’, in Giovanna Castagnoli (ed.), Dagli ori antichi agli anni Venti: Le collezione di Riccardo Gaulino (Milan, 1982), pp. 21-4 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, 1925) – and find nothing relevant to the Egyptian collection. Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note 15) reviews the dispersals and traces many of the most famous paintings and certain objects from the collection. 26 Toledo 67.2, 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, 1600 B.C. to A.D. 50 (New York, 1989), p. 62 no. 11, colour p. 42 where it is noted to be former Giorgio Sangiorgi, Collezione di Vetri Antichi (Milan and Rome, 1914), no. 4 pl. 3 and obtained by Sangiorgi in 1912 from Stroganoff. 18 Pettanati, op. cit. (note 17), p. 22 quotes an anonymous critique from Dedalo, December 1925, pp. 479-80, regarding the undervaluing and careless dispersal of the Stroganoff collection, attributing this to the general lack of interest 27 For example, no. 363 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 which I am acquainted with two limestone examples: it does rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art not appear to be Allard Pierson 7794 based on the orientation described, but might be Metropolitan Museum of Art 55.154, purchased from John Ross, who at least in the late twentieth century lived part-time in Italy. On the other hand, no. 447 a Seth in gold (rated rrr), would seem unusual enough to be traceable, but as Georg Meurer’s researches has shown below it remained in Aachen still in 1886, so that the two (!) examples in the Louvre with the name Ahhotep that first suggest themselves cannot be the same as they were obtained from Allemand in 1883 and Pennelli in 1884. Collector, trans Mrs. Andrew Lang (London, New York, etc., 1898), pp. 165-9. 33 For Barracco, see also Sist, op. cit. (note 30): Barracco himself purchased or obtained Egyptian art in Paris (for example, pp. 56, 81 via Pollak, 99) and – with the agency of Pollak – in Naples (see p. 47). 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, 2003), p. 92 refers to the contact between Barracco and Stroganoff. 34 M. Merkel Guldan, Die Tagebücher von Ludwig Pollak (Vienna, 1988), especially pp. 75-6, 85-91. 28 Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note 12), vol. i, p. 80, pl. 48, and presumably the panel referred to by Muñoz, op. cit. (note 5), p. 90: ‘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. 56605, catalogued as encaustic on wood and measuring 34 cm by 21 cm, 220-250 bc. It is pictured in Romana pictura: la pittura romana dalle origini all’età bizantina (Milan, 1998), no. 146, p. 314, fig. on p. 238. For its acquisition by the Vatican and some history see Lorenzo Nigro, ‘Nuove Acquisitione,’ Bollettino – Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie 20 (2000), p. 283, and Francesco Burnarelli, ‘Testimonianze,’ in Mina Gregori (ed.), Venti modi di essere Zeri (Turin, 2001), pp. 69-75. The panel has been dated to the later second century ad most recently by Barbara Borg, Mumienporträts. Chronologie und kultureller Kontext (Mainz am Rhein, 1996), p. 105 (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 (1980), no. 540, p. 33, plate 131/1. Dr Alessia Amenta graciously provided information, and Professor Antonio Paolucci, Director of the Vatican Museums, kindly granted permission to publish the photograph of the portrait. 35 They certainly had connections with Barracco and would also have been available to Strogranoff, Sist, op. cit. (note 30), p. 14. 36 E.g. Moretti, op. cit. (note 33), p. 92. For Stroganoff’s involvement with this society see, for example, notes 26, 29, 30 above and Maarten Raven’s contribution below. 37 The world of collectors can be glimpsed in surveying Les Donateurs du Louvre (Paris, 1989). 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 (1992), pp. 155-85, and Annie France Laurens and Krzysztof Pomian (eds), L’Anticomanie. La collection d’antiquités aux 18e et 19e siècles (Paris, 1992), the latter dealing mainly with classical antiquities. 38 I owe the information regarding Stroganoff and Hoffmann to Dr Varduì Kalpakcian; also Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note 12), vol. i, pp. 14-15, pl. 19 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, 1894). 29 Pettanati, op. cit. (note 17), p. 203 no. 1 a gold ring bezel with the name of Amenhotep II (the cited reference to lot 886 in the 1884 Castellani sale is an error for lot 866); p. 213 no. 18, a greyish metal ring holding a stone with a magical device. The first is certainly Egyptian, although the second might have a Roman or more generally Mediterranean origin. 39 See note 13. 40 Sist, op. cit. (note 30), 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 op. cit. (note 38). 30 Pollak, op. cit. (note 15), describes the complexity and immense richness of Roman scholarly and collecting society, mainly, of course, in relation to Greco-Roman and Italian art: pp. 89-98 and passim for the German Archaeological Institute; pp. 21329 for sketches of some Roman collectors including Stroganoff on pp. 221-9. Augusto Jandolo, trans. Olga Leonie Hainisch, Bekenntnisse eines Kunsthändlers (Berlin, 1940) offers another view of much the same society, pp. 65-76 being a sketch devoted to Stroganoff. Loredana Sist, ‘Giovanni Barracco e L’Egitto,’ Museo Barracco. Arte egizia (Rome, 1996), pp. 1115 gives a rich and complex picture of interest in Egypt in nineteenth and early twentieth century Rome, with references to other work. 41 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. 42 While the precise opening date is as little known as the duration of the exhibition, the opening must have taken place before September 1880, since on 2 September the Count was named an honorary member of the Museum Society because of his support. 31 For Tyszkiewicz (who lived across the street from Stroganoff’s house on its Via Sistina face) and Barracco, see Pollak, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 189–91, 195–7, and 223-5. For these figures in relation to Egyptology see Bierbrier, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 31 (Barracco) and 420–21 (Tyszkiewicz). 43 For Emil Brugsch see Bierbrier, op. cit (note 1), p. 66, Theodor Brugsch, Arzt seit fünf Jahrzehnten, 9th edn (Berlin, 1973), pp. 26-31 and 88; Elisabeth David, Mariette Pacha 1821-1881 (Paris, 1994), pp. 218, 228, 264; Margaret S. Drower, Flinders Petrie. A Life in Archaeology (London, 1985), pp. 36, 40, 45, 51; 84, 99, 124, 181-182, 241, 261-262, 329, John A. Wilson, Signs and Wonders upon Pharaoh. A History of American Egyptology (Chicago and London, 1964), p. 215, Warren R. Dawson, ‘Letters from Maspero to Amelia Edwards’, Journal 32 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 Lipinska (Warsaw, 1997). His account of Stroganoff is in Memories of an Old hill et al statuette; no. 438 scarab of Aya (13th dyn.); no. 445 hematite statuette of a lion goddess. Thirty-five objects were classified as r. Altogether sixty-three objects were thus classified as particularly remarkable, which corresponds to just under 13% of the collection. of Egyptian Archaeology 33 (1947), p. 70 n. 1; Harry Nehls, ‘Der große und der kleine Brugsch’, Berlinische Monatsschrift 7 (1998), pp. 45-51; Elisabeth David, Gaston Maspero 18461916. Le gentleman égyptologue (Paris, 1999), pp. 80-81, 90-91, 93-7, 105-7, 134-8, 142, 157-8, 172, 190, 232-3, 235, 269; 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, 2008), pp. 111-13. Brugsch’s private collection was auctioned in Paris at Drouot-Richelieu through François de Ricqlès on 30 September 1996 and on 29-30 September 1997. For Brugsch’s possible involvement with the production of forgeries, see Jean-Jacques Fiechter, Faux et faussaires en art égyptien (Turnhout and Brussels, 2005), pp. 48-52. 51 Fritz Berndt, Führer durch das Suermondt-Museum (Aachen, 1886), pp. 23-4 and p. iv. 52 This scarab is in the Egyptian Museum, Turin, no. 17132, see note 22, purchased in 1931 for the museum. 53 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, 2004). 44 See David, op. cit. [Maspero] (note 43), pp. 134-5, and Harer, op. cit. (note 43), pp. 111-13. 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. 54 Fritz Berndt, Führer durch das Städtische Suermondt-Museum (Aachen, 1892), pp. 23-4. 45 Gerry D. Scott III, Temple, Tomb and Dwelling. Egyptian Antiquities from the Harer Family Trust Collection (San Bernardino, 1992), p. ix; and Harer, op. cit. (note 43), pp. 11113. 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 43), p. 112. 56 Anton Kisa, Führer durch das Suermondt-Museum der Stadt Aachen (Aachen, 1902), pp. 25, 44, 95-6. 55 The piece is illustrated as artwork of the month for March in Felix Kuetgens, Aachener Kunstblätter 3 Sonderheft (Aachen, 1936). 57 The only pieces lost are a third wooden papyrus column and two handles with duck-heads from wooden spoons. 58 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 1872, the Hohenzollern Prince Friedrich-Karl in 1883, or Duke Max of Bavaria already in 1838 (see for these trips Ina Busch and Ina Boike (eds.), Ägypten. Forscher und Schatzjäger (Darmstadt, 2004), pp. 6, 8. 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, 1997), pp. 124 and 108-11, respectively, as well as Heinrich Brugsch-Pasha, Prinz Friedrich Karl im Morgenlande. Dargestellt von seinen Reisebegleitern (Frankfurt, 1884); on Duke Max see Bernhard Kästle, Petrefaktensammlung Kloster Banz. Versteinerungen und Orientalische Sammlung (Munich and Zürich, 1992), pp. 64, 73-4. Prince Johann George von Sachsen visited Egypt many times, first in 1910, then 1912, 1927, 1928, and finally 1930, see Birgit Schlick-Nolte in Birgit Heide and Andreas Thiel (eds.), Sammler – Pilger – Wegbereiter. Die Sammlung des Prinzen Johann Georg von Sachsen (Mainz, 2004), p. 22. 46 Since Brugsch also wrote a catalogue for Drexel, this picture seems the most likely choice; compare Harer op. cit. (note 43), p. 111, n. 2. 47 This section is further divided into nine subsections that reflect 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. 48 Maria Helena Assam, Arte egípcia. Colecção Calouste Gulbenkian (Lisbon, 1991), pp. 64-5, cat. 16, as well as Luís Manuel de Araújo, Egyptian Art – Calouste Gulbenkian Collection (Lisbon, 2006), pp. 98-9, cat. 16. See Marsha Hill below. 49 This object consisted of a number of parts fitted 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 Bronzefiguren (Berlin, 1956), p. 470 § 636d ( = figs. 716-17 and pl. 89d-e), p. 487 § 659b (aegis); pp. 236-7 § 296c ( = fig. 291 and pl. 79g) and p. 249 § 305i, 3 (modius encircled with uraei); p. 120 § 170e ( = fig. 158 and pl. 75g), p. 240 § 300e and p. 514 § 688g (Horus child in arms). 59 Kindly indicated by Marsha Hill; cf. note 12. A mid-1870s tour is also possible as discussed above and in note 8. 50 The objects designated with rr are the following (with the descriptions given in the catalogue): no. 1 plaque with the titulary of Cheops (4th dyn.); no. 8 scarab of Nub-cheper-Re Antef V (17th dyn.); no. 14 scarab of Amenemhat III (12th dyn.); no. 20 scarab of Rahotep (17th dyn.); no. 51 faience bead of Amenhotep III and Tiye (18th dyn.); no. 55 scarab of Thutmose III (18th dyn.); no. 59 cartouche of Tutankhamun (18th dyn.); no. 60 faience ring of Tutankhamun (18th dyn.); no. 61 yellow faience ring of the God’s Father Ay (18th dyn.); no. 73 carnelian Horus statuette with the name of Ramesses IV (20th dyn.); no. 77 stela of Osorkon II (22nd dyn.); no. 80 scarab of Sheshonk III (22nd dyn.); no. 84 faience fragment of Necho (26th dyn.); no. 301 faience statuette of Khnum; no. 368 wooden bark of the Middle Kingdom; no. 370 mummy cartonnage of the Late Period; no. 395 bronze sphinx with human head; no. 430 bronze headdress from a composite 60 With regard to the purchase of duplicates through the Cairo Museum, generally only such small objects were involved (with the exception of coffins 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 5), p. 86. 61 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 14 August 1891 addressed to the Kaiserbad, Dokument Stadtarchiv Aachen, Caps. 7, Nr. 11, Bd. V (1890-93), fols 194v-195r. 62 See Jandolo, op. cit. (note 30), pp. 65, 74-5. and Kalpakcian, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 184-95. In Rome the Count had first purchased a house at Via Gregoriana 32, and then was able to add to it the palazzo at Via Sistina 59 which adjoined it on the rediscovering grigory stroganoff as a collector of egyptian art rear; the first address served for private purposes, the second official. 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 43), pp. 113-14. 63 The roll with the acts of the Museum Society before 1883 unfortunately no longer exists in the Stadtarchiv Aachen; in all inventories since 1957 it has been marked missing (Caps. 7, Nr. 11d, Bd. i (vor 1883)). 71 In 1833 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 1808; finally in 1844 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 1869 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 1936 the Egyptian collection was segregated again from this ‘Museum Antiker Kleinkunst’, after having been moved already in 1935 into five rooms on the ground floor of the Residenz. Only in 1966 was it possible to merge the various individual Egyptian collections and to present them to the public, see Grimm, op. cit. (note 68), pp. 11-34. 64 Dokument Stadtarchiv Aachen Caps. 7, Nr. 11, Bd. iv (18851890), fol. 47. 65 Besides Aegyptiaca, and besides pieces already mentioned (see above) the Count donated paintings (e.g., 1894 a ‘Landscape with figures by D. Teniers’ by J. Artois and the ‘Portrait of a nobleman’ from the School of Lucas Cranach), sculptures (e.g. 1886 two sandstone angels, 1891 a fourteenth-century stone figure from the cathedral at Metz, or 1901 a fifteenth-century Gothic sandstone statuette from Niederrhein), and various other objects (e.g., 1886 three Chinese terracotta figures, an Arab inkwell, a hazelwood crook, three porcelain figures from the Höchst manufactory, two Sèvres biscuit-porcelain figures and a bronze cross, and so on). 66 Compare Pollak and Muñoz, op. cit. (note 12), vol. introduction. i 67 See the illustrations in Anton Kisa (ed.), Denkschrift aus Anlass des fünfundzwanzigjährigen Bestandes des Suermondt-Museums (Aachen, 1903), p. 7. 72 Before 1766 the Hofbibliothek was established as the storage place for the assembled noble collections. In 1875 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, 1993), pp. 15-16, 63. 68 List of recent gifts and donations dated 15 October 1886: Position 4, Count Stroganoff: h. bronze statuette of Isis, m. Coptic tunic, n. mummy cartonnage (Caps. 7, Nr. 11, Bd. iv (1885-1890), fols 210r-v) – this donation is also mentioned in Hans Feldbusch, ‘Aus der Gründungszeit des SuermondtMuseums nach den Unterlagen des Aachener Stadtarchivs dargestellt’, in Aachener Kunstblätter 28 (1963), p. 390; newspaper report on the minutes of the general meeting of the Museum Society on 30 May 1892 (for the previous business year): ‘donation of Count Stroganoff, ancient Egyptian painted wooden board with inscription’ (foot piece of a coffin) (Caps. 7, Nr. 11d, Bd. ii (1883-1906), fol. 68v); newspaper report of the general meeting of the Museum Society on 30 March 1894: in the year 1893 Stroganoff donated the Fayum mummy portrait (Caps. 7, Nr. 11d, Bd. ii (1883-1906), fol. 112). 73 This is true, for example, for Bremen, Übersee-Museum (1891), Essen, Museum Folkwang (1906), Frankfurt, Städtische Galerie Liebieghaus (1909), Hamm, GustavLübcke-Museum (1887), Hanover, Kestner-Museum (1889), Heidelberg, Ägyptisches Museum (1910), and Hildesheim, Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum (1911). 74 Wiedemann must have visited the exhibition himself, as revealed by the commentary in Wiedemann, op. cit. (note 19), p. 63: ‘The monument [the torso of Pedubastis] is in the handsome collection of Count Strogonoff in the Museum at Aachen (no. 81).’ Unfortunately, the year of his visit is not known. 69 By way of comparison, for example, in London in 1821 Giovanni Battista Belzoni opened an exhibition with more than 200 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 1815-1819. In den Pyramiden, Tempeln und Gräbern am Nil (Köln, 1982), pp. 14-16. In 1842 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. 350 Jahre Sammlungsgeschichte,’ in Sylvia Schoske (ed.), Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst München (Mainz, 1995), p. 29, and in America in about 1853-1854 the 2,000 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, 2002), p. 10. 75 With the exception of Count Stroganoff and the ninth honorary member of the Museum Society (Alexander von Swenigorodskoi, 23 October 1894), honorary members were named on the basis of donations and not because of loans. The fifth honorary member (Ludwig von Weise, 8 January 1884) was named on account of his good offices on behalf of the museum, being mayor at the same time as chairman of the Museum Society. 76 There is no documentation indicating that in 1880 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 21, 1883, in Alfons Fritz, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des Museums,’ in Kisa, op. cit. (note 67), p. 67. 77 The document was signed by, among others, the mayor, Ludwig von Weise, and the director of the Museum, Fritz Berndt. 78 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 70 A study of the development of the Egyptian collections in Germany is in preparation by the current writer. A distinct hill et al statuary,’ Metropolitan Museum Journal 40 (2005), pp. 16395. 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, 2007), pp. 90-91 (entry D.S.). Dr Maria Rosa Figueiredo of the Gulbenkian Museum kindly gave permission to reproduce this photograph. 79 Op. cit. (note 3), p. 8, no. 81: ‘Bronze torso. Complete, inlaid with gold and with the name of King Petsibast; specially remarkable because of the first attested writing of the name in this form. rrr. As noted by Georg Meurer above, rrr refers to the most singular objects. 80 Op. cit. (note 19), pp. 63-9. 81 William Mathew Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt, vol. iii (London, 1905), pp. 262, 324; Kenneth Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 3rd edn with preface (Warminster, 1996), para. 102, p. 129. 82 Gaston Maspero, L’archéologie égyptienne (Paris, 1887), pp. 291-2. For a discussion of the history of excavations relevant to this point see Hill and Schorsch, op. cit. [2005] (note 78), pp. 166-7. 83 Hill and Schorsch, op. cit. [2005] (note 78), pp. 167-8. 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 21st-22nd Dynasties: Proceedings of a Conference at Leiden University 25-27 October 2007 (Leuven, 2009). 84 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. 85 Pollak and Muñoz, op cit. (note 12), vol i, p. 32 and pl. 28. 86 Lot 612 is described on a ‘feuillet spécial’, and figures in a sale that consists otherwise of paintings and European decorative arts belonging to other collectors. This could imply the torso was sold hurriedly. 87 Assam, op. cit. (note 48), pp.64-5, cat. 16; Araújo, op. cit. (note 48), pp. 98-9, cat. 16; and to the lists of exhibitions provided there add Hill and Schorsch, op. cit. [2007] (note 78), pp. 9091, cat. 21. 88 Brugsch, op. cit. (note 3). 89 Christie’s New York, Antiquities, 9 December 1999, pp. 100-101 and frontispiece, lot no. 403. See also J. Eisenberg, ‘Auction reports – the autumn 1999 antiquities sales’, Minerva 11/2 (2000), pp. 40-41 with fig. 8. 90 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 10/1 (2000), pp. 5-7; M. J. Raven, ‘Nieuw in Oudheden – Twee poten van een Nubisch grafbed’, Nieuwsblad RoMeO 16 (2003), pp. 10-11. Since then, the objects have been catalogued in H. Kik (ed.), 100 topstukken van het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden / 100 Masterpieces of the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden (Leiden, 2009), pp. 104-5. 91 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, 1879), pl. 35.1; J. van Dijk, ‘De sfinx in de Oudheid: van Egypte naar Griekenland en terug’, Phoenix 49.2 (2003), fig. 24. 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, 1991), p. 383, comments to pl. ii.35. 92 Van Dijk, op. cit. (note 91), p. 74. 93 W. B. Emery, The Royal Tombs of Ballana and Qustul, ii (Cairo, 1938), p. 343 and pl. 86 (kohl pot); D. Dunham, El Kurru (Cambridge MA, 1950), p. 78 and pl. 55 (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 24.630: 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, 1989), p. 50; E. Gubel, De sfinx van Wenen. Sigmund Freud, kunst en archeologie (Ghent, 1993), p. 104 no. 42; van Dijk, op. cit. (note 91), fig. 25. 94 Compare D. Wildung and J. Vrieze (eds.), De zwarte farao’s (Amsterdam, 1997), cat. 182-3 (Khartoum National Museum inv. 1900 and Boston Museum of Fine Arts 21.2815, from elKurru), cat. 326 (from Meroe). 95 British Museum EA 24656; see S. Quirke and J. Spencer, The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt (London 1992), fig. 162. 96 Paris, Musée du Louvre E 17333; see J.-L. De Cenival, ‘Vingt ans d’acquisitions du départment des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Louvre’, Bulletin de la Société française d’égyptologie 51 (1968), p. 8 with illustration. I want to thank A. SackhoAutissier for drawing my attention to this object.