Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Egyptian sculpture of the late period, 700 B.C. to A.D. 100"

See other formats



v % x . 


of the Late Period 



art, stxf NB 75.B75 

Egyptian sculpture of the late per 

3 T1S3 DD5A0Dfl0 5 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 


of the Late Period 

\ W X^ I ^ I 


of the Late Period 

700 B.C. to A.D. IOO 


An exhibition held at 


1 8 October i960 to 9 January 1961 


Compiled by Bernard v. bothmer in collaboration with 


Edited by Elizabeth riefstahl 

Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 60-14710 

Copyright, i960, by the Brooklyn museum, Brooklyn 38, New York, a department of 




























PLATES 1-134 


Lenders to the Exhibition 




























New York, N. Y. 

Bryn Athyn, Pa. 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Buffalo, N. Y. 

Chicago, III. 

New York, N. Y. 

Baltimore, Aid. 

Bronxville, N. Y. 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Santa Barbara, Cal. 

Chicago, III. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

Cleveland, Ohio 

Detroit, Mich. 

Washington, D. C. 



New York, N. Y. 


New York, N. Y. 


New York, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

Omaha, Neb. 

Ann Arbor, Mich. 

















Berkeley, Cal. 

Los Angeles, Cal. 

New York, N. Y. 

Anxerre (Yonne) 




Boston, Mass. 

Kansas City, Mo. 

Chicago, 111. 

New Haven, Conn. 

New York, N. Y. 

Bryn Athyn, Pa. 

New York, N. Y. 

Providence, R. I. 


















Sa?i Jose, Cal. 



New York, N. Y. 

Seattle, Wash. 

New York, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

New York, N. Y. 

Strasbourg (Bas-Rhin) 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

Richmond, Va. 

Haverford, Pa. 

Baltimore, Md. 


New Haven, Conn. 

San Francisco, Cal. 


The Exhibition recorded in the following pages summarizes the research of a decade. 
It was in 1950 that Bernard V. Bothmer, then an assistant in the Department of 
Egyptian Art of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, started his great survey, soon after- 
wards to be identified as the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture. That survey is still 
in progress, and it will doubtless be many years before the final summary can be published. 
Awaiting that, this Catalogue makes available in part the present results of the long study. 
Surveying at first hand all the Late Egyptian sculptures scattered over Egypt, Europe, 
and the Americas, in public possession and private, has been a costly and laborious affair. 
The actual research has largely been done by Bothmer himself, but several institutions and 
organizations have aided in financing some of the work. Early in the investigation the 
Museum of Fine Arts granted leave of absence to allow research in European collections. 
A most generous grant was received from the Bollingen Foundation in New York to be 
used for making many of the photographs essential for the Corpus. The American Council 
of Learned Societies also made a grant for photography. Two years in Egypt (195 4- 1956) 
were possible, thanks to two generous Fulbright Research Grants. They allowed the de- 
tailed study of the major part of the vast unpublished collections in Cairo and Alexandria, 
though at least another year's work there remains to be done. At the Brooklyn Museum the 
Trustees have allocated various sums for travel and for additional photography. Most re- 
cently, the cost of this Exhibition and its accompanying catalogue has been defrayed by 
the Charles Edwin Wilbour Memorial Fund. 

It is impossible to mention all the individuals who have assisted during the past ten years: 
even were we to restrict the list to those who have cooperated in the assembling of the 
Exhibition, they alone number more than one hundred persons. But it is equally impossible 
to avoid mentioning two men without whose aid the Catalogue and Exhibition would never 
have taken form. Dr. Herman De Meulenaere of Brussels has for several years assumed 
responsibility for the philological side of the Corpus The quality and importance of his 
work are obvious on almost every page of this Catalogue. He has also been responsible 
for several of the "joins" that are so spectacular a part of this Exhibition. Professor Hans 


Wolfgang Muller of Munich has long made a special study of royal sculpture of the Late 
Period. He has kindly prepared material for the entries of royal pieces in this publication. 
The contributions of these two scholars are deeply appreciated by the Brooklyn Museum, 
and equal appreciation will certainly be forthcoming from scholars in general. 

The Exhibition has not been assembled as a survey of the entire field of Late Egyptian 
art but rather as a representative selection of Late Egyptian sculpture. The great bulk of 
the collection consists of stone sculpture in the round; only a few limestone reliefs have 
been chosen from the impressive quantities surviving — a field in itself — and two royal 
bronzes are included; of the more fragile media of wood, ivory, and faience only one 
example each is shown. Obviously, important categories of Late Egyptian art have been 
ignored. But within the limited field of sculpture in the round, which together with archi- 
tecture was probably Egypt's greatest contribution to posterity, a balanced view is certainly 
obtainable from this Exhibition. Several masterpieces, scarce in any civilization, are shown 
along with sculptures of excellent quality and still others of indifferent workmanship; a few 
are so dull that their interest is entirely archaeological — one would not willingly live with 

The dates and attributions listed in the Catalogue are frequently at wide variance with 
those of the owners or with those found in earlier publications. Praise or censure for these 
rests with the compiler of the Catalogue, Bernard V. Bothmer. 

John D. Cooney 


Department of Ancient Art 



The last great epoch of Egypt's sculptural achievement, chosen as the theme of 
this temporary Exhibition, "Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period," coincides 
with the rise of Western civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean and with the gradual 
evolution of Greek art, to which we have been — and still are — so greatly indebted. 
Though it is a time of great creative richness, it has been largely neglected by scholars in 
the field of Egyptian and (to a lesser extent) of Classical studies, because of its frequently 
startling departure from traditional artistic style. In this Exhibition we endeavor to illus- 
trate, for the first time in any museum of any country, the history of sculpture during the 
closing centuries of Egypt's great ancient civilization. 

This Catalogue is a guide to the Exhibition, a handbook for the visitor, not a treatise on 
the art of the Late Period, though it contains many general observations on the development 
of sculptural form during the eight centuries from 700 B.C. to a.d. 100. About one-third of 
the material included has not previously been published, and an even greater proportion 
has received only summary notice. What the Catalogue offers is by no means an exhaustive 
study, but it is hoped that it may lead to more comprehensive publication of at least the 
outstanding works shown in the Exhibition. 

It will be noted by the attentive visitor that a proportionally larger number of pieces 
are shown for the beginning and end of the period covered than for the intervening time. 
This is quite intentional, for the beginning was an era of creative revival, introducing many 
innovations fundamental for the understanding of what was to follow, and the end — the 
Ptolemaic Period — was the last flowering of a great tradition, producing works so rich 
and varied that it seemed to us necessary to show its strength to the fullest possible extent. 
The assembling in one room of three or four of the truly great portraits of that period may 
alone lead to a deeper understanding of the contribution of Egypt to the art of the West. 

We have, for the most part, limited the objects shown to statues of kings and private 
persons; four sculptures of deities have been included to enliven the picture with repre- 
sentations from the spiritual realm. We have intentionally discarded the numerous bronzes 
of Egyptian gods made during the Late Period, for as mold-made, mass-produced objects 


they have little to do with the development of the modeling of the human form, which 
we are attempting to illustrate in the Exhibition. 

Lenders to the Exhibition have shown great generosity. In inviting museums and col- 
lectors to participate we have met with most cordial response. While we have drawn 
primarily on the rich collections of the United States and Canada, a few museums of other 
countries have also parted temporarily with some of their great sculptures to permit us to 
round out the picture. A list of the more than fifty lenders to whom we are indebted 
precedes the Foreword. The extent of each loan can be gleaned from the "Index of Col- 
lections" at the end of the text of this Catalogue. 

The Dates given in the text are for the most part merely approximate, to be taken with 
a grain of salt, except when the contrary is specifically stated. This holds true especially for 
the headings of the plates, where the ubiquitous "about" has been consistently omitted. 
The dates to which individual sculptures have been attributed reflect the views of this 
compiler and his collaborators and may be at variance with those of the owners of the 
objects. In many instances our dating is only tentative. Frequently, moreover, we have not 
specifically explained how we have determined the period to which we have assigned a 
given sculpture; this is for the simple reason that a full discussion of the imponderabilia 
leading to our conclusions would far exceed the purpose of this guide to the Exhibition. 

Though certain dates may be relative and subject to change in years to come, a respect- 
able number of sculptures in this Exhibition can be assigned to a definite time within the 
Late Period. We refer to a statue as dated, when its period is evident from a fact stated in 
its inscription or in the text of a related document, such as a stela or a papyrus or another 
statue, which mentions the person represented or a member of his family. On the other 
hand, a piece is called datable to a given period, when certain stylistic criteria of artistic 
form, costume, or inscription in our opinion permit a definite attribution. In the numbering 
of the Ptolemaic kings we follow that of the leading specialists in the history of the period — 
W. Otto, Skeat, and Vergote. A "Chronology" will be found on pages xxx-xxxi. 

It will be noted that the material presented in the Exhibition has been arranged in the 
Catalogue so far as possible in chronological order. This order, as indicated above, is pri- 
marily based on sculptures dated by a royal name or by historical facts in a related inscrip- 
tion or on pieces with texts that have permitted Dr. De Meulenaere to give a more or less 
definite attribution through stylistic analysis. It is only when such means have failed me 
that I have ventured to determine the chronological position of a sculpture by study of the 
archaeological evidence, always bearing in mind Bernard Berenson's words in The Passion- 
ate Sightseer: ". . . documented and dated works were my only stepping stones across the 
vague lands of connoisseurship." 

Vague lands they are, indeed, these eight centuries with which the Exhibition is con- 
cerned. The sculptures produced during that time have been dated back and forth, almost 
at will, from the Saite to the Ptolemaic Period. The lack of long-established method in 
Egyptian archaeology becomes very apparent when one reads such works as Miss Richter's 
Koaroi and realizes with what an accumulation of tested knowledge, precise terminology, 
and systematic procedure a Classical archaeologist approaches his subject. In studying the 
Egyptian sculpture of the Late Period, much new ground had to be broken. By systemat- 
ically recording in photography every available piece of the period a reference file has, 
however, been built up. Without it, any attempt at a chronology would be difficult, if not 
impossible, and such identifications (to give only one example) as that of the female head 
in the Bastis Collection (No. 55), which turns out to be the companion piece of the Isis in 
Cairo (PI. 52, Fig. 128), would have been out of the question. 

The Material of each sculpture has in most cases been described as it appears to the eye; 
only in a few instances has it been verified by laboratory analysis. Although precise identi- 
fication of stones is highly desirable from a scientific point of view, it is not always of value 
to the archaeologist, who is rarely a trained minerologist, and perhaps even less to the larger 
public, chiefly interested in the appraisal of a sculpture as a work of art. In general, there- 
fore, I have employed generic terms such as "schist," "granite," "basalt," and the like, 
basing my nomenclature as closely as possible on A. Lucas, Ajicie?it Egyptia?i Materials and 
Industries (3rd edition; London, 1948). I have often added an adjective descriptive of the 
color of a piece, though with full awareness that the tone of a well-polished or a much-worn 
surface may be quite different from the actual color of the stone employed, as seen, for 
instance, in a recent break. 

The majority of sculptures of kings and private persons made during the Late Period 
were fashioned of hard stone. Only a comparatively small number were made of the 
softer and more easily worked limestone and sandstone, and still fewer were executed in 
wood, ivory, faience or bronze. The ratio in which these materials were used is pretty faith- 
fully reflected in the pieces shown in the Exhibition 

The Measurements of the pieces shown in the Exhibition are given in greater detail than 
is customary in Egyptian archaeology in general and in catalogues and handbooks in par- 
ticular. Unless otherwise stated, "Height" always means maximum height (including the 
ancient base), "Width" is maximum width (the level at which the measurement was taken 
is frequently stated), and so forth. In many instances, individual parts, such as face, head, 
base, have been measured separately, to encourage more detailed studies on the proportions 
of sculpture, the value of which has only recently become more widely recognized. Specific 
attention has been given to the measurements of fragmentary pieces, since it is obvious that 


headless statues in one collection and bodiless heads in another may belong together, but 
that without accurate measurements of the breaks not even a beginning can be made in 
trying to join widely dispersed members of one and the same sculpture. Due to wanton 
damage and to tampering with ragged breaks it is not always easy to assemble two pieces of 
a sculpture on paper, for the diameter of the greatly worn break at a neck may differ on a 
head and torso which actually belong together. In Egyptian sculpture, however, we are 
fortunate in having one factor which remains constant, no matter how great the damage — 
the back pillar and the intracolumnar space of the inscription upon it. By intracolumnar 
space, we mean the distance within (though not including) the two lines bordering a 
column of text. In the case of a fracture which runs perpendicular to a line of inscription, 
the intralinear width is given. Thanks to these measurements, many a suspected join has 
been proved to be correct, without going to the bother of making tracings and plaster casts 
or actually shipping fragmentary sculptures hither and yon for trial fittings. In cases of 
doubt, it has been indicated whether the measurement of a fracture follows a break ("slant") 
or has been taken horizontally ("horiz."). Measurements of back pillar and intracolumnar 
width are always understood to have been taken as close as practicable to the line of fracture, 
even if this is not specifically stated in the text. Figures of less than ten inches (25 cm.) 
have been termed statuettes; those exceeding this size are called statues — an arbitrary desig- 
nation, but one which gives some sort of standard to a widely varying nomenclature. Sculp- 
tures, or parts of them, which are larger than life size are referred to as colossal. Since the 
metric system is used by most archaeologists, it has been employed throughout this pub- 
lication. Let us remind the visitor that the average width of a man's hand measures 10 centi- 
meters or 4 inches. 

The Bibliography of sculptures shown in this Exhibition has been given in full under 
the appropriate heading, except in a few instances, where, in view of the large number of 
titles to be cited, it had to be made selective, in which case care has been taken to include 
publications containing additional bibliographical material on the piece under discussion. 
Since this is primarily a guide to an exhibition and in no sense a comprehensive handbook on 
Late Egyptian statuary, references in the Comments have had to be curtailed; otherwise the 
bulk of the text would have become too unwieldy. More than half of the objects cited, 
however, have not previously been mentioned in the literature. As for the remaining pieces, 
specialists will know the standard catalogues in which they have been published; others 
who are interested in supplementary references may address inquiries to the curator in 
charge or to The Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture in care of The Brooklyn Museum. 
Many titles have been quoted in abbreviated form; the reader will find the key to these 
publications in the "Abbreviations of Books and Periodicals" on pp. xxvii-xxix. On almost 

every page, acknowledgement should have been made to five works, to which I am immeas- 
urably indebted: Bissing, Dejtkm., Maspero, Egypte, Bosse, Menschl. Figur, Hornemann, 
Types I-III, and Vandier, Manuel III. The last-named book, although ending with the 
close of Dynasty XX and not directly concerned with the Late Period, is the fundamental 
compendium for sculpture in the round — a study needed by Egyptian archaeology for 
more than half a century, which finally has provided a basis for critical investigation of 
Egyptian statuary of all periods. 

The References to sculptures shown in the Exhibition and discussed in the Catalogue 
are always preceded by "No.," written with a capital, and their illustrations are cited as 
"Fig.," whereas "no." and "fig." are used in all other instances. 

The Spelling of Names of persons and places has necessarily been a compromise, but in 
the main we have been guided by Dr. W. S. Smith's Ancient Egypt (i960 edition). 

The Photography of Late statuary follows, in general, the rules that apply to the 
photography of all ancient sculpture. The optical axis, whenever possible, has been raised 
to the eye level of the statue or head, and furthermore the distance between object and 
camera has been increased to six or even eight times the greatest dimension of the sculpture, 
so as to insure a minimum of distortion. Many museums and private collectors have fur- 
nished excellent photographs, which are up to standard both from a technical and an 
artistic point of view. If we have not always used them, this has come about mainly because 
their size and the angle from which the figure was taken did not agree with the proposed 
layout. We have attempted to give more than one view of each item, in order to create an 
impression of sculpture in the round for those who may leaf through this Catalogue long 
after the Exhibition has closed. In this connection, special thanks are due to Professor 
H. W. Muller, not the least of whose many accomplishments is the uniformly high stand- 
ard of his photographs of Egyptian sculpture, and who has contributed so generously over 
the years to the photographic records of the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture. Many 
fine pictures from his hand will be found in the plates of this Catalogue. The credit for 
each view has been given in the "List of Plates and Figures" on pp. xv-xxvi, where also has 
been incorporated the acquisition record of the objects, when required by the lenders. 

Research on the history and development of Late Egyptian sculpture is — like that in 
any other field — essentially a taking of stock, a collecting and sifting of all available evi- 
dence, which should result in a sensible and understandable chronological order. It is for 
this reason that every time we are confronted with a partial, or fragmentary, piece of sculp- 
ture, we ask ourselves what the missing portion may have looked like or what the lost part 
of an inscription may have contained. This avid curiosity, with the help of systematically 
collected notes on measurements and materials, has made it possible to discover over the 


years more than three dozen fragmentary sculptures which can be joined to form half 
that number of more or less complete figures, a venture in which John D. Cooney, Herman 
De Meulenaere, Henri Wild, and myself have been moderately successful. This Exhibition 
shows some of the results (though unfortunately not all the photographic reconstructions 
have been entirely successful, due to the fact that the pictures were taken at different times 
with different equipment, and not always under favorable conditions). With one excep- 
tion, none of these fragmentary sculptures was ever joined before coming to Brooklyn 
for the Exhibition, which is probably the only show of ancient statuary in which so large 
a number of dispersed members have been — at least temporarily — made whole. 

Bernard V. Bothmer 


List of Plates and Figures 

All objects which appear on the plates of this Catalogue are illustrated through the courtesy and by express 
permission of their owners. For picture credits the following abbreviations are used in parentheses: 

ph. O = Photograph provided by, and reproduced by courtesy of, the owner of the sculpture. 

ph. BKLN = Photograph from the files of the Brooklyn Museum. 

ph. HWM = Photograph by Professor Hans Wolfgang Midler, Munich. 

ph. CLES = Photograph of the Corpus of Late Egyptian Sculpture at the Brooklyn Museum. 

Plate i Fig. i No. i Amenirdas I, the Divine Consort. Joslyn Memorial Art Museum, 

Omaha, Nebraska; no. 1953.80. Front (ph. CLES). 

Plate 2 Fig. 2 No. 2 Man with Cloak. Mr. Albert Gallatin, New York, N. Y. Front (ph. 

Fig. 3 No. 1 Amenirdas I. Right profile (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 4 No. 1 Inscription on back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Plate 3 Fig. 5 No. 2 Man with Cloak. Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 6 No. 3 Kneeling Servant of the Divine Consorts. City Art Museum of St. 

Louis, St. Louis, Mo.; no. 221:24. Front (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 7 No. 3 Left side (ph. CLES). 

Plate 4 Fig. 8 No. 4 Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh, Prophet of Monthu. The Metropolitan Museum 

of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 07.228.27 (Rogers Fund, 1907). Front 
(ph. CLES). 

Fig. 9 No. 4 Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 10 No. 4 Top view (ph. CLES). 

Plate 5 Fig. 1 1 No. 5 Royal Dispatch Writer. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 

04.1841. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 
Fig. 12 No. 5 Back (ph. O). 

Plate 6 Fig. 1 3 No. 6 Akhamenru, High Steward of Shepenwepet II. The Metropolitan 

Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; old no. 1271 (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 14 No. 7 Head from Abydos. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
N. Y.; no. 02.4.191 (Gift of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1902). 
Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 15 No. 7 Back (ph. O). 

Plate 7 Fig. 16 No. 7 Front (ph. CLES). 

Plate 8 Fig. 1 7 No. 8 Priest from Bubastis. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richtwnd, Va.; 

no. 51-19-3. Front (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 18 No. 8 Back (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 19 No. 8 Detail of head (ph. CLES). 


Plate 9 Fig. 20 No. 9 

Fig. 21 
Fig. 22 

No. 9 
No. 9 

Plate 10 

Fig. 23 

No. 10 

Fig. 24 
Fig. 25 

No. 10 
No. 10 

Plate 1 1 

Fig. 26 

No. 11 

Fig. 27 

No. 12 

Fig. 28 

No. 12 

Plate 1 2 

Fig. 29 

Plate 1 3 

Fig. 30 

No. 13 A 

Fig. 31 
Fig. 32 

No. 1 3 A 

No. 14 

Plate 14 

Fig- 33 

No. 15 

Fig- 34 

No. 16 

Plate 15 

Fig- 35 

No. 17 

Fig. 36 
Fig- 37 

No. 17 
No. 17 

Plate 16 

Fig. 38 

No. 18 

Fig. 39 
Fig. 40 

No. 18 
No. 19 

Plate 17 

Fig. 41 

Fig. 42 

No. 19 
No. 19 

Plate 18 

Fig- 43 

No. 20 

Plate 19 

Fig. 44 

No. 20 

Fig- 45 

No. 20 

Plate 20 

Fig- 4 6 

No. 21 

Khonsu-ir-aa. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 07.494. Back 
(ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. O). 
Leftside (ph. O). 

Ankh-em-tenenet. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
N. Y.; no. 07.228.47 (Rogers Fund, 1907). Front (ph. CLES). 
Right profile (ph. CLES). 
Back (ph.O). 

Figure of a Girl. William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary 

Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, Kansas City, Mo.; no. 47-25. Front 


Royal Lady in Ivory. Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; no. 1954.40. 

Left side (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

Mentuemhat, Count of Thebes (not shown in the Exhibition). Egyp- 
tian Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 647. Detail of face (ph. CLES). 

•B Mentuemhat, Count of Thebes (plaster cast). Upper: Chicago 
Natural History Museum, Chicago, 111.; no. 31723. Lower: The Brook- 
lyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 16.580.186. Front (ph. BKLN). 

B Back (ph. BKLN). 

Mentuemhat in Relief. William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and 
Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, Kansas City, Mo.; no. 48-28/2. 
Detail of main figure (ph. O). 

Girls Fighting. The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago, 
Chicago, 111.; no. 18828. Entire (ph. BKLN). 

Man with Fowl. Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, Cal.; no. 2/101. 
Entire (ph. BKLN). 

Mentuemhat's Guardians. The Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthro- 
pology, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.; no. 5-363. Base, detail 
of inscription (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 
Detail of Amset (ph. CLES). 

"Libyan" Bust. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.398. 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Senbef. The Reverend Theodore Pitcairn, Bryn Athyn, Pa. Front 

(ph. CLES). 

Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Back pillar inscription (ph. CLES). 

Bes, Prince of Mendes. Museo Nazionale, Palermo; no. 145. Front 
(ph. CLES). 

Front, entire statue; combined view (ph. CLES). Lower: Egyptian 
Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 1233 (not shown in the Exhibition). 
Back, entire statue; combined view (ph. CLES). 

Anonymous Scribe. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
N. Y.; no. 25.2.1 (Rogers Fund, 1925). Front (ph. O). 


Fig. 47 No. 22 Scribe's Bust. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Va.; no. 
5 1- 19-4. Front (ph. CLES). 

Plate 2 1 Fig. 48 No. 23 Old Alan Frowning. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 

22.145. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 
Fig. 49 No. 23 Back (ph. CLES). 

Plate 22 Fig. 50 No. 24 Archaizing Stela. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; 

no. 3949.20 (John Huntington Collection). Entire (ph. O). 
Fig. 51 No. 25 King Psamtik I. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 58.95. 

Front (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 52 No. 26 Father and Son. Mr. Albert Gallatin, New York, N. Y. Entire (ph. O). 

Plate 23 Fig. 53 No. 27 Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh, Prophet of Amun. Egyptian Museum, Cairo; 

no. J.E. 37992. Back pillar (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 54 No. 27 Front (ph. O). 

Plate 24 Fig. 55 No. 27 Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 56 No. 28 Ankh-pa-khered with Osiris. City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, 
Mo.; no. 222:24. Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Plate 25 Fig. 57 No. 28 Front (ph. CLES). 

Plate 26 Fig. 58 No. 28 Right side (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 59 No. 28 Back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Plate 27 Fig. 60 No. 29 Bes the Courtier. Fundagdo Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon; no. 158. 

Three-quarter view (ph. O). 
Fig. 61 No. 29 Back (ph. O). 

Plate 28 Fig. 62 No. 30 Ipy and His Lady. The Walters Art Gallery , Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.76. 

Front (ph. O). 
Fig. 63 No. 30 Back (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 64 No. 30 Ipy, from above (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 65 No. 31 Keref, a General of Psamtik I. Musees Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, 

Brussels; no. E. 7526. View from above (ph. CLES). 

Plate 29 Fig. 66 No. 31 Front (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 67 No. 31 Back (ph. CLES). 

Plate 30 Fig. 68 No. 3 2 Nesna-isut from the Fayum. Mr. Nasli M. Heeramaneck, Neiv York, 

N. Y. Front, from above (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 69 No. 32 Back (ph. CLES). 

Plate 31 Fig. 70 No. 32 Right side (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 71 No. 33 Hor, Son of Djed-monthu-iuf-ankh. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, 

N. Y.; no. 57.66. Left side (ph. O). 
Fig. 72 No. 33 Back pillar inscription (ph. O). 
Fig. 73 No. 33 View from above (ph. O). 

Plate 32 Fig. 74 No. 34 Harbes of Busiris. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, III.; 

no. 105 18 1. Front (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 75 No. 34 Back, entire statue; combined view. Lower: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 
Copenhagen; no. 78 (not shown in the Exhibition); ph., upper: CLES, 
lower: O. 

Fig. 76 Statue of Akhamenru (not shown in the Exhibition). The Oriental In- 

stitute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, III.; no. 14284. Detail of 
head (ph. CLES). 


Plate 33 Fig- 77 No. 35 King with Atef Crown. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, 

Ohio; no. 3920.20 (John Huntington Collection). Entire (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 78 No. 36 Pe-shery-aset. Mr. Michel Abemayor, New York, N. Y. Back (ph. 

Fig. 79 No. 36 Front (ph. CLES). 

Plate 34 Fig. 80 No. 37 Horwedja Kneeling. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 

22.J9. Right side (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 81 No. 37 Back (ph. CLES). 

Plate 35 Fig. 82 No. 38 A-B Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset. Back; combined view (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 83 No. 38 A Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, N. Y.; no. 07.228.33 (Rogers Fund, 1907). Bust, front (ph. 

Plate 36 Fig. 84 No. 39 Anonymous Osiriphoros. The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, 

N. Y.; no. Inv. 11. Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 85 No. 39 Right side (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 86 No. 38 B Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset. Egyptian Museum, Cairo; ?io. ].E. 37442. 
Lower part, right side (ph. CLES). 

Plate 37 Fig. 87 No. 40 Nes-ptah with Naos. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 

22.159. Back (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Osiris. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.184. Front 

(ph. CLES). 

Head, left profile (ph. CLES). 

Osiris Statue with Inscription of King Psamtik I (not shown in the 

Exhibition). Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 38231. Detail of head, 

left profile (ph. HWM). 

King Necho II in Relief. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; 

no. 22.135. Entire (ph. O). 

Royal Head (not shown in the Exhibition). The Brooklyn Museum, 

Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 16.237. Entire (ph. O). 

Detail of king's head (ph. CLES). 

King Necho II Kneeling. The University Museum, University of Penn- 
sylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; no. E. 13004. Front (ph. CLES). 
Detail of inscription on belt in rear (ph. CLES). 
Iret-horru with Osiris. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 
22.215. Detail of head (ph. O). 

Three-quarter view (ph. O). 
Back (ph. O). 

Ankh-wennufer with Naos. Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, Cal.; 

no. 2/24. Front (ph. CLES). 

Back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Head of the Sixth Century. Mr. Michel Abe?nayor, New York, N. Y. 

Back pillar inscription (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Ipy, also named Ankh-Psamtik. Mr. Michel Abemayor, New York, 
N. Y. Front (ph. CLES). 
Fig. 105 No. 47 Back (ph. CLES). 


Fig. 88 

No. 40 

Plate 38 

Fig. 89 

No. 41 

Fig. 90 
Fig. 91 

No. 41 

Plate 39 

Fig. 92 
Fig. 93 

No. 42 

Fig. 94 

No. 42 

Plate 40 

Fig- 95 

No. 43 

Fig. 96 
Fig. 97 

No. 43 
No. 44 

Plate 41 

Fig. 98 
Fig. 99 

No. 44 
No. 44 

Plate 42 

Fig. 100 

No. 45 

Fig. 101 
Fig. 102 

No. 45 
No. 46 

Plate 43 

Fig. 103 
Fig. 104 

No. 46 

No. 47 

Plate 44 Fig. 1 06 No. 48 

Plate 45 

Plate 46 
Plate 47 

Plate 48 

Plate 49 

Plate 50 

Plate 5 1 

Plate 53 

Plate 54 

Plate 55 










Plate 52 Fig. 










2 3 

2 4 

2 5 

2 7 

2 9 

3 1 

3 2 



No. 48 
No. 48 

No. 48 
No. 49 

No. 49 

No. 50 
No. 50 

No. 51 

No. 51 
No. 52 A 

No. 52 A 

No. 52 A- 
No. 52 B 

No. 53 

No. 53 
No. 53 

No. 54 

No. 54 
No. 54 

No. 55 

No. 55 
No. 56 

No. 56 

No. 57 A 

No. 57 A 

No. 57 A 
No. 58 

Fig. 136 No. 58 

Harbcs with Osiris. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
N. Y.;vo. 19.2.2 (Rogers Fund, 1919). Right side (ph. CLES). 
Back (ph. O). 
Detail of Osiris (ph. O). 

Detail of Harbes' head (ph. CLES). 

Bust from Memphis. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 

22.198. Back (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Head of Osiris. Mr. Walter C. Baker, New York, N. Y. Front (ph. O). 
Left profile; detail of face (ph. CLES). 

King Apries. Mr. and Mrs. Philip R. Adams, Cincinnati, Ohio. Left 
profile (ph. CLES). 
Detail of eye (ph. CLES). 

Iahmes (Neferibra-nakht). Mr. Albert Gallatin, New York, N. Y. 
Right profile (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

■B Back; combined view (ph. CLES). 

Iahmes (Neferibra-nakht). Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 895. 
Front (ph. CLES). 

King Amasis. The University Museum, Philadelphia, Pa.; no. E. 14303. 
Front (ph. O). 
Back (ph. CLES). 
Left profile (ph. O). 

Pa-debehu (not shown in the Exhibition). Vatican Museum, Rome; 
no. 167. Front; restored head eliminated (ph. O). Cf. PI. 53, No. 56. 
Sphinx Head. Mr. Albert Gallatin, New York, N. Y. Left profile 
(ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. O). 
Back (ph. CLES). 

Head of a Goddess. Mr. Christos G. Bastis, Bronxville, N. Y. Front 


Goddess Isis (not shown in the Exhibition). Egyptian Museum, Cairo; 

no. C.G. 38884. Head; right profile (ph. HWM). 

Right profile (ph. CLES). 

Pa-debehu; combined view of back. Upper: The Brooklyn Museum, 
Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 60.1 1 (ph. O). Lower (not shown in the Exhibi- 
tion): Vatican Museum, Rome; no. 167 (ph. O). 
Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

Iahmes-sa-neith. Musee du Louvre, Paris; no. E. 25390. Bust, right side 
(ph. CLES). 

B Back; combined view. Upper: see Fig. 132 (ph. CLES). Lower: 
The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y .; no. 59.77 (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Pa-wen-hatef with Naos. Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, Wash.; no. 

Eg. n.23. Front (ph. CLES). 

Head, three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 


Plate 56 



Plate 57 Fig. 

Plate 58 Fig. 

Plate 59 Fig. 










Plate 60 

Plate 61 

Plate 62 

Plate 63 

Plate 64 

Plate 65 

Plate 66 


37 No. 58 

38 No. 59 


4 1 
4 2 


No. 59 
No. 60 

No. 60 
No. 60 

No. 61 

44 No. 61 

45 No. 61 

46 No. 62 

47 No. 62 

48 No. 63 

49 No. 63 

50 No. 63 

51 No. 64 

52 No. 64 

53 No. 64 

54 No. 65 

55 No. 65 

56 No. 65 

57 No. 65 

58 No. 66 

59 No. 66 

60 No. 67 

61 No. 67 

62 No. 67 

63 No. 67 

64 No. 68 

65 No. 68 

66 No. 69 


68 No. 69 

69 No. 69 

Inscription on back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Djed-djehuty-iuf-ankh Kneeling. Mrs. Clifford B. Hartley, Neiv York, 

N. Y. Back (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Head from Athribis. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 37.377. 

Inscription on back pillar (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Horwedja, Son of Tesnakht. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleve- 
land, Ohio; no. 3955.20 (John Huntington Collection). Three-quarter 
view (ph. O). 
Back (ph. O). 
Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Bust from a Group. The Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Md.; 

no. 51.258. Right side (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Ankh-hor. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 191. 14 

(John Huntington Collection). Front (ph. CLES). 

Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Ptah-hotep. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 37.353. Neck 

ornaments, from above (ph. CLES). 

Right side (ph. O). 

Detail of inscription (ph. CLES). 

Psamtik-sa-neith. Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 726. Bust, left 

side (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 
Back (ph. O). 
Bust, front (ph. O). 

Niche Stela of a Family. Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; no. 
1956.134. Back (ph. O). 
Front (ph. O). 

Fifth Century Portrait. Musee du Louvre, Paris; no. N. 2454. Three- 
quarter view (ph. HWM). 
Right profile (ph. HWM). 
Back (ph. HWM). 

Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Man with Persian Gesture. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; 

no. 22.208. Front (ph. CLES). 

Back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Model Bust. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.34. Right 

profile (ph. CLES). 

Uninscribed Naophorous Statue (not shown in the Exhibition). The 

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 25.2.10 (Rogers 

Fund, 1925). Detail of costume. 

Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

Back of head (ph. CLES). 


Plate 67 



No. 70 




No. 70 

No. 71 


[ 73 

No. 71 

Plate 68 



No. 72 


[ 75 

No. 72 

No. 72 

Plate 69 



No. 73 





No. 73 
No. 73 

No. 73 

Plate 70 



No. 74 



No. 74 

Plate 7 1 

Fig. 1 


No. 74 
No. 74 

Plate 72 

Fig- 1 


No. 75 

Fig- 1 
Fig. 1 



No. 75 

No. 75 
No. 76 

Plate 73 


Fig- 1 
Fig. 1 


No. 76 
No. 76 
No. 76 

Plate 74 

Fig- 1 

9 2 

No. 77 

Fig- i 
Fig- 1 


No. 77 
No. 77 

Plate 75 

Fig. i 


No. 78 

Fig- 1 
Fig. i 



No. 78 
No. 79 

Fig- 1 


No. 79 

Plate 76 

Fig. 1 


No. 80 

Fig. 1 


No. 80 

Plate 77 

Fig. 2 


No. 81 

Fig. 2 


No. 81 

Wen-nufer. Dr. and Mrs. Max M. Stern, New York, N. Y. Rack pillar 

(ph. CLES). 

Front ( ph. CLES). 

Kneeling King. William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary 

Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, Kansas City, Mo.; no. 53-13. Back 

(ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Naophoros with Neith in Relief. M. H. De Young Memorial Museum, 

San Francisco, Cal.; no. 54664. Right side (ph. CLES). 

Front ( ph. CLES). 

Back pillar inscription (ph. CLES). 

King Nectanebo I. Musee du Louvre, Paris; no. E. 8061. Back (ph. 


Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 

Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Tha-aset-imu, Royal Secretary. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, 
N. Y.; no. 56.152. Reverse, entire (ph. O). 
Reverse, detail (ph. O). 

Obverse, detail (ph. O). 
Obverse, entire (ph. O). 

Torso of Dynasty XXX. Mr. Otto L. Spaeth, New York, N. Y. Front 

(ph. CLES). 

Back pillar inscription (ph. CLES). 

Inscription on left side of back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Thanefer, Son of Nespa-medu. The Pierpont Morgan Library, New 

York, N. Y.; no. Inv. 10. View from above (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 
Leftside ( ph. CLES). 
Back (ph. CLES). 

Servant of Osiris-Anedjty. Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds, Munich 

(on loan at the Agyptische Staatssavrmlung; Glyptothek no. 29). 

Three-quarter view (ph. HWM). 

Back (ph. HWM). 

View from above (ph. HWM). 

Wen-nufer, Servant of Neith. The Baltimore Museum of Art, Balti- 
more, Md.; no. 51.257. Back pillar (ph. CLES). 
Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Head with Wide Wig. City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo.; 
no. 215:54. Front (ph. CLES). 
Right profile (ph. CLES). 

Archaistic Statue. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 52.89. 

Back (ph. O). 

Three-quarter view (ph. BKLN). 

Ankh-pa-khered, Son of Nesmin. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, N. Y.; no. 08.202.1 (Rogers Fund, 1908). Back (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 


Plate 78 Fig. 203 No. 82 

Plate 79 

Plate 80 

Plate 8 1 


Plate 83 


Fig. 204 
Fig. 205 

Fig. 206 
Fig. 207 

Fig. 208 
Fig. 209 

Fig. 210 

Fig. 2 1 1 
Fig. 2 1 2 

Fig. 2 1 3 
Fig. 214 

Fig. 215 
Fig. 216 
Fig. 217 

Fig. 218 
Fig. 219 


Plate 86 Fig 


Plate 87 Fig 


Plate 88 Fig 


No. 81 
No. 83 

No. 83 
No. 84 

No. 84 
No. 84 

No. 85 

No. 85 
No. 86 

No. 86 
No. 87 

No. 87 
No. 87 
No. 87 

No. 87 
No. 88 

Plate 84 Fig. 220 No. 89 

Fig. 221 No. 89 

Fig. 222 No. 89 

85 Fig. 223 No. 90 

224 No. 90 

225 No. 90 

226 No. 91 

227 No. 91 

228 No. 92 

229 No. 92 

230 No. 92 

231 No. 93 

232 No. 93 

233 No. 93 

234 No. 94 

235 No. 94 

Hap-iu's Lady Musicians. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, 
Ohio; no. 199.14 {John Huntington Collection). Entire (ph. O). 
Ankh-pa-khered. Inscription on base (ph. CLES). 

Portrait of a Priest of Monthu. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, 
N. Y.;no. 55.175. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 
Back (ph.O). 

Head in Polished Diorite. Dr. Robert Waelder, Haverford, Pa. Right 
profile (ph. BKLN). 
Back (ph. BKLN). 
Three-quarter view (ph. BKLN). 

Youthful Head. Albright Art Gallery, Buffalo, N. Y.; no. 42:16.281. 

Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Man with Serrated Shawl. Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Schimmel, New York, 

N. Y. Back (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

In Praise of Drinking (relief). The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 

Md.; no. 22.97. Left part (ph. O). 

Left part, detail of standing man (ph. CLES). 

Left part, detail of pied kingfisher (ph. CLES). 

Right part (ph. O). 

Left part, detail of seated man (ph. CLES). 

Dignitary with Long Staff. The University Museum, University of 

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; no. E. 143 16. Entire (ph. O). 

Iret-horru. The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, 

III.; no. 13953. Right side (ph.O). 

Back (ph. O). 

Three-quarter view, upper (ph. CLES). 

Girl's Head. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; 

no. 30.8.90 (The Theodore M. Davis Collection. Bequest of Theodore 

M. Davis, 191 5). Right profile (ph. CLES.) 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Wesir-nakht with Necklace. The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 

III.; no. 10.243. Back (ph. CLES). 

Leftside (ph. CLES). 

Lady with Large Wig. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Va.; 
no. 55-8-13. Upper; right profile (ph. CLES). 
Back (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Tired Old Man. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.63. 
Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 
Right profile (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Theban Lady. Rosicrucian Egyptian, Oriental Museum; San Jose, Cal.; 
no. 1603. Upper; three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 
Back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Fig. 236 No. 95 Girl or Goddess. Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; no. 1332. Back 
(ph. CLES). 

Leftside (ph. O). 
Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

King Ptolemy II. Universite de Strasbourg, Strasbourg (Bas-Rhin); no. 

1585. Right side (ph. O). 

Back (ph. O). 

Detail of face (ph. O). 

Amun-pe-yom, Commander of Troops. The Cleveland Museum of Art, 
Cleveland, Ohio; no. 48.141 (Gift of Hanna Fund). Three-quarter 
view (ph. O). 
Back (ph. O). 

Queen Arsinoe II. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 

N. Y.; no. 38.10 (Gift of Mrs. Joh?i D. Rockefeller, Jr.; 1938). Front 

(ph. CLES). 

Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Top view (ph. CLES). 

Prophet of Horemheb. Academy of the New Church Museum, Bryn 

Athyn, Pa. Inscription on back (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 
Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Statue of Teos II (not shown in the Exhibition). Egyptian Museum, 

Cairo; no. C.G. 700. Detail of head, front (ph. O). 

Head with Stubble Beard. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 

50.3427. Front (ph. O). 

Right profile (ph. O). 

Head with Portrait Features. The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto; 

no. 958.221.4. Front (ph. O). 

Left profile (ph. O). 

Pekher-khonsu. Rosicrucian Egyptian, Oriental Museum; San Jose, 

Cal.;no. 1583. Back (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. CLES). 

Hellenistic Royal Head. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale 
University , New Haven, Conn.; no. 388 (on indefinite loan at the Yale 
University Art Gallery; no. 4.1. 1953). Front (ph. CLES). 
Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 

Portrait of a Strong Man. The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Mich.; 
no. 40.47. Front (ph. CLES). 
Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 

Ptolemaic Queen. The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto; no. 910.75. 

Right side (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

Fragment of a Face. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y '.; no. 

57.42 (ph. O). 

Portrait of a Wise Man. Fundagao Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon; no. 
46. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 


Plate 89 

Fig. 237 
Fig. 238 

No. 95 

No. 95 

Plate 90 

Fig. 239 

No. 96 

Fig. 240 
Fig. 241 

No. 96 
No. 96 

Plate 91 

Fig. 242 

No. 97 

Fig. 243 

No. 97 

Plate 92 

Fig. 244 

No. 98 

Fig- 2 45 
Fig. 246 
Fig. 247 

No. 98 
No. 98 
No. 99 

Plate 93 

Fig. 248 
Fig. 249 

No. 99 
No. 99 

Plate 94 

Fig. 250 

Fig. 251 

No. 100 

Fig. 252 

No. 100 

Plate 95 

Fig. 253 

No. 101 

Fig. 254 
Fig. 255 

No. 101 
No. 102 

Fig. 256 

No. 102 

Plate 96 

Fig. 257 

No. 103 

Fig. 258 

No. 103 

Plate 97 

Fig. 259 

No. 104 

Fig. 260 

No. 104 

Plate 98 

Fig. 261 

No. 105 

Fig. 262 
Fig. 263 

No. 105 
No. 106 

Plate 99 

Fig. 264 

No. 107 

Fig. 265 No. 107 

Fig. 266 No. 107 

Plate 100 Fig. 267 No. 108 

Fig. 268 No. 108 

Fig. 269 No. 108 

Plate 10 1 Fig. 270 No. 109 

Fig. 271 
Fig. 272 

Plate 102 Fig. 273 

No. 109 
No. 108 

No. no 

Fig. 274 No. 1 

Fig. 275 No. 1 

Plate 103 Fig. 276 No. 1 

Fig. 277 No. 1 

Fig. 278 No. 1 

Plate 104 Fig. 279 No. 1 

Fig. 280 No. 1 

Plate 105 Fig. 281 No. 1 

Fig. 282 No. 1 

Fig. 283 No. 1 

Plate 106 Fig. 284 No. 1 

Fig. 285 No. 1 

Plate 107 Fig. 286 No. 1 

Fig. 287 No. 1 

Fig. 288 No. 1 

Plate 108 Fig. 289 No. 1 

Fig. 290 No. 1 

Fig. 291 No. 1 

Fig. 292 No. 1 

Plate 109 Fig. 293 No. 1 

Fig. 294 No. 1 

Fig. 295 No. 1 

Plate 1 10 Fig. 296 No. 1 

Front (ph. O). 
Left profile (ph. O). 

The Boston "Green Head." Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 
04.1749. Front (ph. O). 
Right profile (ph. O). 
Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

Bust of a Ptolemy. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale Uni- 
versity, New Haven, Conn.; no. 384 {on indefinite loan at the Yale 
University Art Gallery, no. 1.1.1953). Front (ph. CLES). 
Back (ph. CLES). 
The Boston "Green Head." Back (ph. O). 

Man with Aquiline Nose. Musees Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels; 

no. 5346. Right profile (ph. O). 

Portrait Head with Hooked Nose. The Detroit Institute of Arts, 

Detroit, Mich.; no. 40.48. Right profile (ph. O). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Man with Aquiline Nose. Front (ph. O). 

Portrait Head with Hooked Nose. Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 

Front (ph. O). 

Votary of the Second Century. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 
Md.; no. 22.395. Right side (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Queen Cleopatra II. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 
N. Y.; no. 89.2.660 (Gift of Mrs. Lucy W. Drexel, 1889). Detail of 
head (ph. CLES). 
Front ( ph. CLES). 
Leftside (ph. CLES). 

Head from a Ptolemaic Sphinx. Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, 
Cal.; 710. 2/97. Detail of face (ph. CLES). 
Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Votary with Naos. Kestner-Museum, Hanover; no. 1935.200.773. Front 
(ph. HWM). 
Leftside (ph. HWM). 
Detail of bust (ph. HWM). 

Ptolemaic Head. Mr. Ernest Erickson, New York, N. Y. (on loan at 
The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. L59.5). Three-quarter 
view (ph. BKLN). 
Left profile (ph. BKLN). 

Pinouris, Son of Hor. The Philip H. and A. S. W. Rosenbach Founda- 
tion Museum, Philadelphia, Pa. Back pillar inscription (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Portrait Head with Beard. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Aid.; 

no. 22.9. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

Right profile (ph. CLES). 

Pinouris. View from above (ph. CLES). 

Pensive Man. Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Provi- 
dence, R. I.; no. 58.001. Right profile (ph. O). 


Fig. 297 No. 

Plate 1 1 1 Fig. 298 No. 

Fig. 299 No. 

Fig. 300 No. 

Plate 112 Fig. 301 No. 


Plate 1 1 3 Fig 

Plate 1 14 Fig 


Plate 1 1 5 Fig 

Plate 1 1 6 Fig 

302 No. 

303 No. 

304 No. 

305 No. 

306 No. 

307 No. 

308 No. 

309 No. 

310 No. 

3 1 1 No. 

3 1 2 No. 

3 1 3 No. 

Fig. 314 No. 

Plate 117 Fig. 315 No. 

Fig. 316 No. 

Fig. 3 1 7 No. 

Plate 1 1 8 Fig. 3 1 8 No. 

Plate 119 Fig. 319 No. 

Fig. 320 No. 

Fig. 321 No. 

Plate 120 Fig. 322 No. 

Fig. 323 No. 

Plate 121 Fig. 324 No. 

Fig. 325 No. 

Fig. 326 No. 

Plate 122 Fig. 327 No. 

Fig. 328 No. 







2 3 

2 3 

2 3 
2 3 
2 4 

2 4 

2 5 

2 5 


2 7 

2 7 

2 7 

2 9 

2 9 


3 1 
3 1 

Front (ph. O). 

Curly-haired Youth. The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Mil.; no. 
22.226. Back (ph. CLES). 
Front ( ph. CLES). 
Right profile (ph. CLES). 

Governor of a Province. The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and 

Collection (Trustees for Harvard University), Washington, D. C; 

no. 37.13. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 

Back (ph. O). 

Girl with Flower. Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. 2 \-\- *. Back (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

Detail of head (ph. O). 

Right side (ph. O). 

Queen Arsinoe II, Deified. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
York, N. Y.; no. 20.2.21 (Rogers Fund, 1920). Right side (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Detail of head (ph. CLES). 

Bust of a Kneeling King. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 

York, N. Y .; no. 10.176.44 (Rogers Fund, 1910). Front (ph. CLES). 

Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Sphinx with Serpent-headed Tail. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, N. Y.; no. 30.8.71 (The Theodore M. Davis Collection. 
Bequest of Theodore M. Davis, 191 5). Right side (ph. O). 
Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 

Personage with Lotus Bud Diadem. Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexan- 
dria; no. 3 151. Front (ph. CLES). 
Left profile (ph. CLES). 

The Berlin "Green Head." Ehemals Staatliche Museen, Berlin; no. 
12500. Back (ph. HWM). 

Face, right profile (ph. HWM). 

Three-quarter view (ph. HWM). 

Ptolemaic Ruler with Blue Crown. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, 

N. Y.; no. 54.68. Right profile (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

Man or God. Mr. Frederick Stafford, New York, N. Y. Front (ph. 


Back (ph. CLES). 

Late Ptolemaic Queen. Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, 
Conn.; no. 193 1. 106. Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 
Back (ph. CLES). 

Man with Scarred Forehead. Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; no. 
3204. Right profile (ph. CLES). 
Three-quarter view (ph. CLES). 


ITiaLC YL b 

Fig. 330 

No. 132 

Plate 124 

Fig. 331 

No. 132 

Plate 125 

Fig. 332 

No. 133 

Fig- 333 
Fig- 334 

No. 133 

Fig- 335 

No. 133 

Plate 126 

Fig. 336 

No. 134 

Fig- 337 

No. 134 

Plate 127 

Fig- 338 

No. 135 

Fig- 339 

No. 135 

Plate 128 

Fig- 34° 

No. 136 

Fig- 34 1 

No. 136 

Plate 129 

Fig- 34 2 

No. 137 

Fig- 343 
Fig- 344 

No. 136 
No. 137 

Plate 130 

Fig- 345 

No. 138 

Fig- 34 6 

No. 138 

Plate 1 3 1 

Fig- 347 

No. 139 

Fig- 34 8 
Fig- 349 

No. 139 
No. 139 

Plate 132 

Fig. 350 

No. 140 

Fig- 35i 

No. 140 

Plate 133 

Fig- 35 2 
Fig- 353 

No. 140 

No. 141 

Fig- 354 No. 141 
Plate 134 Fig. 355 No. 141 

The Brooklyn "Black Head." The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; 
no. 58.30. Three-quarter view (ph. O). 
Back pillar inscription (ph. O). 

Front (ph. O). 

Bearded Head. Los Angeles County Museum, Los Angeles, Cal.; no. 

A. 6425. 53-9. Front (ph. CLES). 

Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Head of Bearded Man; painting on linen (not shown in the Exhibition). 

The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y '.; no. 37.181 ie (ph. O). 

Back pillar (ph. CLES). 

Head in Attitude of Apotheosis. Musee Archeologique, Auxerre 
(Yonne). Right profile (ph. CLES). 
Front (ph. CLES). 

Late Ptolemaic Prince. The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 
54.117. Front (ph. CLES). 
Leftside (ph.O). 

Pakhom, Governor of Dendera. The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, 
Mich.; no. 51.83. Right side (ph. O). 
Back (ph.O). 

Tutu as Sphinx. The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 
344.15 {]ohn Huntington Collection). Front (ph. CLES). 
Pakhom. Detail of head (ph. CLES). 
Tutu. Left side (ph. CLES). 

Woman in Ecstasy. Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, Cal.; no. 
3/162. Front (ph. CLES). 
Left profile (ph. CLES). 

Ex-voto to the God Tutu. Mr. Khalil Rabenou, New York, N. Y. 

Entire (ph. CLES). 

Detail of heads (ph. CLES). 

Detail of inscription (ph. CLES). 

Dignitary of the Roman Period. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.; no. 8218. Right side 
Front (ph.O). 

Back (ph.O). 

Man with Wrinkled Forehead. Chicago Natural History Museum, 

Chicago, III.; no. 105 182. Front (ph. CLES). 

Back (ph. CLES). 

Detail of face (ph. CLES). 


Abbreviations of Books and Periodicals 

AA Archdologischer Anzeiger, Beiblatt zum Jahr- 

buch des Deutschen archdologischen Instituts 
AfO Archiv fur Orientforschung 
AJA American Journal of Archaeology 
ASAE Annales du Service des antiquites de VEgypte 

Benson and Gourlay M. Benson and J. Gourlay, 
The Temple of Mut in Asher [London, 1899] 

Berliner Museen Berliner Museen, Berichte aus den 
preussischen Kunstsammlungen 

BIE Bulletin de rinstitut d'Egypte 
Bieber, The Sculpture M. Bieber, The Sculpture of 
the Hellenistic Age [New York, 1955] 

BIFAO Bulletin de rinstitut franqais d'archeologie 
orientale du Caire 

BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis 

Bissing, Denkm. Fr. W. von Bissing, Denkmdler 
dgyptischer Sculptur [Munich, 1914] 

BMFA Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 

BMMA Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of 

Bonnet, Reallexikon H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der 
agyptischen Religions geschichte [Berlin, 1952] 

Borchardt, Sahu-re L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal 
des Konigs Sahu-re I-II = Ausgrabungen der Deut- 
schen Orient-Gesellschaft VI- VII [Leipzig, 19 10 
& 1913] 

Borchardt, Statuen L. Borchardt, Statuen und Stat- 
uetten von Konigen und Privatleuten I-V = Cata- 
logue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee 
du Caire, nos. 1-1294 [Berlin, 1911-1936I 

Boreux, Guide-Catalogue C. Boreux, Guide-Cata- 
logue Sommaire (Musee National du Louvre, De- 
partement des antiquites egyptiennes) I-II [Paris, 

Bosse, Menschl. Fig. K. Bosse, Die menschliche 
Figur in der Rundplastik der agyptischen Spatzeit 
von der XXII. bis zur XXX. Dynastie = Agyptolo- 
gische Forschungen I [Gliickstadt, Hamburg and 
New York, 1936] 

Breasted, A.R. J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of 

Egypt I-V [Chicago, 1906- 1907] 
Brugsch, Reiseberichte H. Brugsch, Reiseberichte 

aus Aegypten [Leipzig, 1855] 
BSAA Bulletin, Societe archeologique d'Alexandrie 
Buhl, L.E.A.S.S. M. L. Buhl, The Late Egyptian 

Anthropoid Stone Sarcophagi [Copenhagen, 1959] 
BVBKAB Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevorder- 

ing der Kennis van de Antieke Beschaving 
Capart, Documents J. Capart, Documents pour 

servir a P etude de Fart egyptien I-II [Paris, 1927 & 

CdE Chronique d'Egypte, Bulletin periodique de la 

Fondation egyptologique Reine Elisabeth 
Delbriick, Antike Portrdts R. Delbriick, Antike 

Port rats [Bonn, 191 2] 
Delbrueck, Antike Porphyriverke R. Delbrueck, 

Antike Porphyriverke [Berlin and Leipzig, 1932] 
De Meulenaere, Herodotos H. De Meulenaere, 

Herodotos over de i6ste Dynastie [Leuven, 195 1] 
Drerup, Ag.Bildniskopfe H. Drerup, Agyptische 

Bildniskopfe griechischer und romischer Zeit 

[Munster, 1950] 
Evers, Staat H. G. Evers, Staat aus dem Stein I-II 

[Munich, 1929] 

Gardiner, Onom. A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian 
Onomastica I-III [London, 1947] 

Gauthier, L.R. M. H. Gauthier, Le livre des rois 
d'Egypte = MIFAO 17-21 [Cairo, 1907- 19 17] 

Graindor, Bustes P. Graindor, Bustes et statues- 
portraits d'Egypte romaine [Cairo, 1937] 

Hassan, Great Sphinx S. Hassan, The Great Sphinx 
and its Secrets [Cairo, 1953] 

Hornemann, Types B. Hornemann, Types of An- 
cient Egyptian Statuary I-III [Copenhagen, 195 1 & 

IFAO Institut franqais d^archeologie orientale 

ILN The Illustrated London News 

Iversen, Two Inscriptions E. Iversen, Two Inscrip- 
tions Concerning Private Donations to Temples = 
Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Histor- 


isk-filologiske Meddelelser. XXVII, no. 5 [Copen- 
hagen, 1 941] 
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society 
Jdl Jahrbuch des Deutschen archaologischen 

JEA The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies 
JWAG Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 
Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue des statues O. Koefoed- 

Petersen, Catalogue des statues et statuettes egyp- 

tiennes = Publications de la Glyptotheque Ny 

Carlsberg, no. 3 [Copenhagen, 1950] 
Leclant, Enquetes J. Leclant, Enquetes sur les sa- 

cerdoces et les sanctuaires egyptiens = IFAO, 

Bibliotheque d'etude XVII [Cairo, 1954] 
Lefebvre M. G. Lefebvre, he Tombeau de Petosiris 

I-III [Cairo, 1924] 
L'Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture H. P. 

L'Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture [Os- 
lo, 1947] 
Macadam, Kawa M. F. L. Macadam, The Temples 

of Kawa I-II [London, 1949 & 1955] 
Malinine, Choix M. Malinine, Choix de textes juri- 

diques I [Paris, 1953] 
Maspero, Egypte G. Maspero, Egypte = Ars Una, 

Species Mille, Histoire generale de Fart [Paris, 

Maspero, Guide G. Maspero, Guide du visiteur au 

Musee du Caire [Cairo, 19 15] 
MDIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen archaologischen 

Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 
MIFAO Memoires publics par les membres de Vln- 

stitut franqais d'archeologie orientale du Caire 
Misc.Greg. Monumenti Musei e Gallerie Pontificie, 

Miscellanea Gregoriana [Vatican, 1941] 
Mnemosyne Mnemosyne = Bibliotheca Classica 

Batava, series 3, vol. 7 [Leiden, 1939] 
Mon.Piot Fondation Eugene Piot, Monuments et 

memoires pub lies par PAcademie des inscriptions 

et belles-lettres 
Montet, Nouvelles fouilles P. Montet, Les Nou- 

velles fouilles de Tanis (1929-1932) [Paris, 1933] 
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 
OMRO Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uit het 

Rijksmusewn van Oudheden te Leiden 

Otto, Priester und Tempel W. Otto, Priester und 
Tempel im hellenistischen Agypten I-II [Leipzig 
and Berlin, 1905 & 1908] 

Otto, Topographie E. Otto, Topographie des the- 
banischen Gaues = Untersuchungen zur Geschichte 
und Altertumskunde Aegyptens 16 [Berlin and 
Leipzig, 1952] 

Petrie, Abydos W. M. F. Petrie, Abydos I = Mem- 
oirs of The Egypt Exploration Fund 22 [London, 

Petrie, Hawara W. M. F. Petrie, Hawara, Biahmu 
and Arsinoe [London, 1889] 

Pijoan, El Arte egipcio J. Pijoan, El Arte egipcio = 
Summa artis III [Madrid, 1945] 

PN H. Ranke, Die agyptischen Personennamen 
I-II [Gliickstadt, 1935 & 1952] 

Porter-Moss, Top.Bibl. B. Porter and R. L. B. Moss, 
Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian 
Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings I-VII 
[Oxford, 1927-1951]; I, part 1 [Oxford, i960] 

Posener, Douanes G. Posener, "Les douanes de la 
Mediterranee dans l'Egypte sa'ite" = Revue de 
philologie de litterature et d'histoire anciennes 
XXI, pp. 117-131 [Paris, 1947] 

Posener, Premiere Domination G. Posener, La pre- 
miere domination perse en Egypte = IFAO, Bib- 
liotheque d'etude XI [Cairo, 1936] 

R.A. Revue archeologique 

RdE Revue d'egyptologie 

Rec.Trav. Recueil de travaux relatifs a la philologie 
et a Varcheologie egyptiennes et assyriennes 

REG Revue des etudes grecques 

Richter, Kouroi G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi [New 
York, 1942] 

R.M. Mitteilungen des Deutschen archaeologischen 
Instituts, Roemische Abteilung 

Roeder, Agyptische Bronzefiguren G. Roeder, 
Agyptische Bronzefigurefi = Mitteilungen aus der 
Agyptischen Sammlung VI [Berlin, 1956] 

Roeder, Statuen G. Roeder, Statuen agyptischer 
Koniginnen = Mitteilungen der V order asiatisch- 
aegyptischen Gesellschaft 37, part 2 [Leipzig, 

Ross, The Art E. D. Ross, The Art of Egypt through 
the Ages [New York and London, 193 1] 

Rostovtzeff, Soc. & Econ. History M. Rostovtzeff, 
The Social & Economic History of the Hellenistic 
World I-III [Oxford, 194 1] 

de Rouge, Inscr. E. de Rouge, Inscriptions hiero- 
glyphiques copiees en Egypte [Paris, 1887] 

Schafer, Gewand H. Schafer, "Das Gewand derlsis, 
Ein Beitrag zur Kunst-, Kultur-, und Religions- 
geschichte des Hellenismus" = Janus, Arbeiten zur 
alten und byzantinischen Geschichte I, pp. 194- 
206 [Leipzig, 192 1 ] 

SDB Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 

Smith, A.A.A.E. W. S. Smith, Art and Architecture 
of Ancient Egypt (Pelican History of Art) [Balti- 
more, 1958] 

Smith, Anc.Egypt W. S. Smith, Ancient Egypt as 
Represented in The Museum of Pine Arts [Boston; 
editions of 1942, 1946, 1952, i960] 

Spiegelberg, Demotica W. Spiegelberg, Demotica 
I-II = Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie 
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische 
und historische Klasse [Munich, 1925, no. 6; 1928, 
no. 2] 


Steindorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G. G. Stcindorff, Cata- 
logue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art 
Gallery [Baltimore, 1946] 

Studi . . . Rosellini Studi in Menwria di Ippolito 
Rosellini I-II [Pisa, 1949 & 1955] 

Studies . . . Griffith Studies Presented to F. LL. Grif- 
fith [London, 1932] 

Svoronos, Ta No7uis?nata I. N. Svoronos, Ta Nomis- 
mata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion I-IV [Athens, 

TSBA Transactions of the Society of Biblical 

Vandicr, Manuel J. Vandicr, Manuel d'archeologic 

egyptienne III, La statuaire part 1-: [Paris, 195KI 
Wiedemann, Aeg.Gcschichte A. Wiedemann, Agyp- 

tische Geschichte l-II [Gotha, 1884] 
Wilbour, Travels C. E. Wilbour, Travels in Egypt, 

ed. J. Capart [Brooklyn, 1936] 
Wolf, Kunst. W. Wolf, Die Kunst Aegyptens 

(Stuttgart, 1957] 
Wrcszinski, Atlas W. Wrcszinski, Atlas znr altae- 

gyptischen Kulturgeschichte 1 [Leipzig, 1923] 
ZAS Zeitschrift fiir agyptische Sprache und 




4500-31OO B.C. 


3100-2600 b.c. Dynasties I-III 


2600-2500 b.c. Dynasty IV 
2500-2200 b.c. Dynasties V- VI 


2200-2000 B.C. Dynasties VII-XI 


2052-1786 b.c. Dynasties XI-XH 


1785-1567 b.c. Dynasties XIII-XVII 


1 567- 1 304 b.c. Dynasty XVIII 

1 370-1 352 b.c. Amarna Period 

1 304-1 195 b.c. Dynasty XIX 

1 195-1075 b.c. Dynasty XX 


1075-715 b.c. Dynasties XXI-XXIII 
725-710 b.c. Dynasty XXIV 


736-656 b.c. Dynasty XXV; Kushite Period (in part contemporaneous with 

Dynasties XXIII-XXIV) 
???-736 Kashta 
736-710 Piankhi 

716/15 Conquest of Upper Egypt 
710-696 Shabako 
698-685 Shebitku 
690-664 Taharqa 
664-656 Tanwetamani (in the south) 

664-525 b.c. Dynasty XXVI; Sake Period 

(673-664 Necho I, Prince of Sais) 
664-610 Psamtik I 



Consolidation of Lower and Upper Egypt 


Necho II 

595-5 8 9 

Psamtik II 


Campaign against Kush 






Psamtik III 

5 2 5"4°4 



XXVII; Persian Period (First Persian Domination) 




Darius I 
















Nectanebo I 



359-34 1 

Nectanebo II 




XXXI (Second Persian Domination) 



Macedonian Period 

33 2 "3 2 3 

Alexander the Great 

3 2 3"3°4 

Ptolemy Lagos, riding as satrap for 
Philip Arrhidaeus (323-317) 
Alexander, son of Roxane (316-310) 



Ptolemaic Period 


Ptolemy I Soter (Ptolemy Lagos) 


Ptolemy II Philadelphos 


Ptolemy III Euergetes I 


Ptolemy IV Philopator 


Ptolemy V Epiphanes 


Ptolemy VI Philometor 


Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator 

145-1 16 

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 

1 16-107 

Ptolemy IX Soter II ( Lathy ros) 


Ptolemy X Alexander I 


Ptolemy IX (restored) 


Ptolemy XI Alexander II 


Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos (Auletes) 


Cleopatra VII Philopator 

30 B.C.-A.D. 324 

Roman Period (Emperors mentioned in the Catalogue) 

30 B.C.— A.D. 14 

Augustus (Caesar Octavianus) 










Of the four major spans of time into which the history of ancient Egypt has been 
divided for convenience' sake, the Late Period is the longest. Unlike the Old, 
Middle, and New Kingdoms, it is historically not a unit. During it, periods of foreign 
domination were interspersed with dynasties of native rule, and for three hundred 
years before our era a foreign house — that of the Ptolemies — made Egypt its own, to 
hold it until the land finally became a colony of all-conquering Rome. But archaeologically 
and artistically, the eight hundred years between around 700 B.C. and a.d. 100 constitute a 
well-defined entity. To treat them as a whole in tracing the development of sculpture is 
not as arbitrary as it may seem, for changes of dynasties, wars, and invasions had remarkably 
little effect on native cultural life. The stream of Egyptian civilization flowed on, gaining 
impetus as it went, and (in contrast with what seems to have happened during the 
unsettled periods of the third and second millennia B.C.) magnificently surviving the ill 
fortune that from time to time befell the country. 

Ever since the remains of two standing figures in wood, of about two-thirds life size, 
were found in a grave dated to the end of Dynasty I (about 3000 B.C.), we have been 
aware that the noblest manifestation of ancient Egyptian art — sculpture in the round of 
human beings on a human scale — existed in the Nile Valley for nearly as long as the 
expression of ideas in written characters and the fitting of hewn stone into architectural 
units. These two statues were "... erect in a frontal pose . . . one leg advanced . . . the 
weight evenly distributed . . . the hands either clenched or, more rarely, laid flat against 
the thighs." It is in these words, used by Miss Richter (Kouroi, p. 3) in reference to the 
earliest Greek statues, fashioned some two thousand years later, that they are best described. 
There can be no doubt that these sculptures of the Old Kingdom — the first sizeable crea- 
tions made by the Egyptians in their own image — mark the beginning of Western sculpture. 
As the modeling of the human figure in the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms has by now 
been well studied, the moment seems to have arrived for focusing attention on the statuary 
made during the final centuries of ancient Egyptian civilization, when Egypt was continu- 
ously in touch with both the Middle East and the rising West, when Phoenicians and 


Assyrians, Persians and Cypriotes, Greeks and Romans came to the Nile Valley and saw 
the living art of its people. 

After a long twilight, which set in as early as the reign of the great Ramcsscs (some of 
whose statuary, not to mention that of his notables, shows an appalling deterioration), 
there occurred in Egypt about 700 b.c. one of those revivals of the art of sculpture, such 
as had taken place earlier, in Dynasties XI and XVIII, following periods of anarchy and 
invasion. This time, however, the revival did not come in the wake of national resurgence. 
On the contrary, it was stimulated by conquering rulers from Kush, a land far to the south. 
These foreign kings and their courtiers commissioned the modeling of their likenesses in 
hard stone on a scale not known for centuries past; and just as early Middle Kingdom art 
harked back to the Old Kingdom and certain work of the sixteenth century took inspiration 
from Dynasties XII and XIII, so the statues made under Kushite rule in the beginning 
reflected the best of the sculpture of earlier periods. 

This reawakening after three or four centuries of stagnation is one of the miracles that 
constantly astonish the student of the archaeology of the Late Period. From the time of the 
Kushite kings sculpture remained dominant in the art of Egypt. Relief work and archi- 
tecture also reached new heights, but only sporadically; sculpture alone continued and 
developed to the very end of the existence of the ancient civilization. The function of 
statuary became more sharply defined. (^n the beginning , images of human beings had been 
destined mainly for the tomb, where they were hidden from the sight of men) From the 
Middle K ingdom on, private people occasionally set up their statues in the sanctuaries of 
their local gods, but in the . I, are. Period all s mlpmrp<; were destined for the temples and 
meant to be seen by those who came to worship. For this reason, attempts were made, 

Ltime and again, to endow the face of a statue with something more than a benign and 
idealizing expression, to give it the features of a definite person, to imbue it with the 
character and inner life of the subject./ To the influence of Egyptian realism thus developed, 
we owe some Hellenistic and many fine Roman portraits. 

Having once been shaken out of their splendid introspective isolation, the Egyptians rose 
to the challenge of a modern world, in which neighboring peoples had to be reckoned with. 
Not to suffer in their pride, they became demonstrative and extroverted. Under the eyes of 
foreigners, they gave visible proof of their faith and tenacity of tradition by filling their tem- 
ples with statues in hard stone in a profusion that belies the modern dismissal of the waning 
centuries of ancient Egyptian civilization as weak and decadent. Only with Roman rule, 
when the country was bled white and the proud aristocracy gradually decimated, did they 
cease to display their images in their sanctuaries, but hid them from the sight of the hard 
bureaucrats and armored cohorts who had come from beyond the seas to govern Egypt. It 


was in the first century a.d., precisely at the time when the Roman administration became 
firmly entrenched, that the sculpture of temple statues deteriorated and a new art — the 
painting of portraits on panels — arose for the privacy of the grave. Only then what was 
genuinely Egyptian came to an end. Though succeeding centuries saw the evolution of a 
new, more direct art form — the Coptic — it was one that drew for the most part on popular 
versions of Greco-Roman tradition. 

^Egyptian statues differ from those of all other countries of the ancient world in incor- 
porating a member called the back pillar, a post or pillar which rises from the base in the 
rear to shoulder, neck, or head level. The figure does not lean against this pillar; it follows 
the contour of the body as if it intruded into or grew out of the person represented. Its 
rear plane is flat and rectangular and frequently covered by one or more columns of text. 
Various explanations — none satisfactory — have been offered to explain the use of the 
back pillar. Some think that the Egyptian sought for an upright, a pillar like the engaged 
columns of early temple architecture, against which to lean his statue, and that once this 
member had been devised it was clung to for tradition's sake. Others, more practical- 
minded, have argued that the back pillar was created to protect the statue from breakage; 
against this theory speaks the fact that in many early examples the back pillar does not 
extend above shoulder level and thus leaves the neck unprotected. A further suggestion — 
based on the protective hawk that stands on the back pillar in certain royal sculptures of 
the Old Kingdom — is that the shaft is the seat of the vital force, the Ka, the divine essence 
thought to endow the person represented with divine power. 

The shape of the back pillar is often a valuable aid in attributing a sculpture to a definite 
period. Throughout the entire Late Period it frequently terminates in a squared-off top. 
A new version appears with Dynasty XXVII, when the top is sometimes shaped like a 
trapezoid, and from the latter part of the fourth century B.C. occasionally it ends in a point, 
first as an isosceles and later, in the Ptolemaic Period, as an equilateral triangle. 

In principle the back pillar rises perpendicular to the base, but there are exceptions, as 
for instance in No. 3 9 of this Catalogue, in which the back pillar slants toward the rear of 
the sculpture. In the Late Period, the Egyptians were less addicted to a mechanical con- 
struction of sculpture than at any previous time; figures were modeled more freely. Though 
they conformed to a few simple rules, long since established by faith and tradition, when 
one measures and tests them with level and plumb line one invariably finds that they do 
not follow a rigid canon. It i s tru e that Egyptian sculpture is "frontal" — until the last 
decades of the Ptolemaic Period an obvious movement or turn of the head does not occur 
in a statue. On the other hand the sole intention seems to have been to make a figure 
appear to conform to the law of frontality. On closer inspection one nearly always finds 

that the conformity is only illusionary; that a gentle turn of the head by a fraction of an 
inch, the lowering of one shoulder against the other, a slight shifting of the body's weight 
are all incorporated in what seem to be formally and symmetrically executed statues. 

Since the degrees of asymmetry employed in the sculptures of the earlier periods have 
not yet been extensively studied, no precise comparison with those of the Late Period can 
be offered. It seems, however, as if Late sculptors were far more addicted to loosening a 
rigid code than their forebears had been. This is also evident in variations in detail occurring 
in a single statue. For instance, the hands may be highly stylized and the feet modeled 
naturalistically, or the hands are left crude and undeveloped, and other parts of the body 
are modeled with great attention to detail. All these deviations serve to enliven a piece of 
sculpture, though the observer may register them only subconsciously. 

In tneTcourse of the period under discussion the modeling of the male torso, from sternal 
notch to navel, undergoes a number of changes, the most important of which is that from 
bipartition to tripartition. The Egyptians of the Kushite Period, in reviving an ideal handed 
down in the sculpture of Dynasty XII, stressed as the most prominent feature of a man's 
body the median line, vertically bisecting the torso into two distinctly separate halves. This 
sculptural form, called bipartition, is very pronounced until the time of King Psamtik II 
(595-589 b.c), and still occurs occasionally under his successors. Then a new basic prin- 
ciple of modeling evolves, which we call tripartition. In this the median line is hardly 
noticeable or entirely absent, even under strong raking light, and the three main portions 
of the torso — chest, rib cage, and abdominal region — are modeled almost as separate 
entities, markedly set off against each other. This style achieves its fullest development in 
the reign of King Amasis (570-526 b.c), well anticipating a similar stylistic change in 
Greek sculpture. 

We are poorly informed about the modeling of the male body in Dynasties XXVII- 
XXIX, but with King Nectanebo I (378-360 b.c.) of Dynasty XXX, the body is again 
often shown in the nude from neck to loins, and though the king himself employed sculp- 
tors who modeled him in a fashion which can only be described as a mixture of bipartition 
and restrained tripartition, the private statuary of his time and of the following period 
displays, for the most part, pure tripartition. The Ptolemaic Period goes its own way, 
mostly along the lines of tripartition; pure bipartition is never revived. 

The principal statue forms represented in sculpture of the Late Period are the following: 

Standing statue, the classical attitude of male or female figures cited in the second para- 
graph of this Introduction. Whether "standing" or "striding" — the terms can be used 
interchangeably — the figure is in repose, not walking. The left foot is advanced, and the 


stride is longer in the male statue than in the female. All standing sculptures in stone have 
a back pillar, except some sculptors' models and, possibly, a few royal figures of late 
Ptolemaic times. 

Seated statue, the position of a person resting erect on a block of approximately cubic shape 
which serves as a seat. Neither foot is advanced. With and without back pillar, this form 
of sculpture was made occasionally for single figures until the time of Psamtik I, and for 
groups until the reign of Necho II (with two possible exceptions, Cairo J.E. 36576 and 
Paris, Louvre E. 9333). The single seated figure was revived in Roman times, after 30 B.C., 
and there is at least one royal example of a seated group in the Ptolemaic Period (Alexandria 
1 1261). 

Kneeling statues, showing a person kneeling and resting on his heels. These were made 
throughout the Late Period, and one specimen seems even to date from Roman times (Alex- 
andria 22986). All private examples have a back pillar, sometimes lacking in royal figures. 

Block statues, first fashioned in the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. This is a typically 
Egyptian form not found anywhere else in the ancient world. It shows a man squatting on 
the ground or on a very low cushion, the arms crossed on the knees, which are drawn up 
to shoulder level. It is the most frequently employed type of the Late Period, increasing 
considerably in post-Persian times and not going out of fashion until the beginning of the 
first century b.c. Up to the time of Psamtik I, block statues were on occasion made without 
back pillar; after his reign they always have one. 

Asymmetric squatting statues, representing the subject, always a man, as sitting on the 
ground, the left leg drawn up as in a block statue, and the right leg folded under, so that the 
sole of the right foot appears under the left thigh, back of the left foot. In one instance 
(Hanover 1935.200.515) the subject folds the right leg straight back from the knee so 
that he actually sits on the right foot. Asymmetric squatting statues occur mainly in 
Dynasty XXV; a few are dated to Psamtik I of Dynasty XXVI, but none are found under 
his successors. They usually have a back pillar; only two exceptions are known (Cairo C.G. 
653 and J.E. 36711). 

Squatting statues, also referred to as scribe statues, showing the subject seated on the ground 
cross-legged, the knees spread widely apart. In most cases the right leg is crossed over the 
left. All dated sculptures of this type are from the reign of King Psamtik I; only very few, 

if any, may have been made for men who lived under his successor, Nccho II. The 
majority come from Memphis, and arc without back pillars. Those found at Thebes were 
made sometimes with or sometimes without back pillar. 

By far the largest number of statues created during the Late Period represent men, 
tk«s- widely changing the ratio which prevailed in earlier times. In Dynasty XXV no stone 
sculpture of a queen or a private woman was ever made; the only females represented in 
durable material were the princesses who served as divine consorts of the god Amun. In 
the beginning of Dynasty XXVI we-firrd a few private female figures in stone, and women 
still appear in group statues under Necho II. Then none were so honored for centuries to 
come, until the time of Alexander the Great or of his immediate successors, to whose reign 
we have attributed Nov-o^r-In the Ptolemaic Period, statues of women are not uncommon, 
constituting about one-fourth of all sculptures made. 

The reason for this strange ban against temple sculptures of women is not known. It 
becomes even more puzzling in view of the fact that the renaissance which took place under 
Psamtik I included the restoration of the woman's position in the arts. It almost seems as if 
the Egyptians, on account of increasingly frequent contacts with foreign nations, had come 
to deem inappropriate the presence of a female sculpture in a temple. Only a few statuettes 
in wood show that there may have been a traditional undercurrent among the populace, to 
bridge the two and a half centuries during which stone statues of women were apparently 
never fashioned. 

It was not only in Dynasty XXV, when the great revival of sculpture-making took 
place, that statuary was frequently inspired by the splendid examples of bygone times. 

X Sculpture of the time of the Sake ruler, Psamtik I, also shows many classicistic tendencies, 
which we call archaizing. One of them, for instance, is the revival of the scribe — or squatting 
— type of figure, which harks back to the great Memphite examples of the Old Kingdom. 
This trend toward the distant past should be well distinguished from a style of Dynasty 
XXX, -termed archaistic, which attempts to revive the glories of Dynasty XXVI and, more 
specifically, of its early decades, when Psamtik I was ruling. By careful analysis of undated 
examples of such classicism, these two periods, the archaizing and the archaistic, can be 
better understood. That one of them is more derivative than the other is of no importance; 
to distinguish them is far more vital, for otherwise a critical appraisal of the achievements 
of the two dynasties or of a given span of time cannot be made. Part of the lack of serious 
interest in the Late Period has always been due to misconceptions arising from the bewilder- 
ing multitude of stylistic features which seem to exist side by side. It is true that there are 
many currents in the art of these times, but they cease to be bewildering when they are 


studied on the basis of dated and datable sculptures of each period. Such study is very 
rewarding in its revelation of the inner richness and sense of direction that never failed the 
Egyptian sculptor until the beginning of the Roman rule. 

One of the many fascinating aspects that lend to Late Period sculpture a mark of distinc- 
tion is the treatment of the human face. As in all previous periods of Egyptian art, there 
is a fair share of idealization, arising from the desire to create for posterity a harmonious, 
contented, eternally youthful countenance. From the middle of the seventh century on, 
we find the outspoken "smile," which — together with the rigid frontality and stance of 
the Egyptian statue.— was soon to be taken over by the Greeks, b«£ at the same time a new 
conception of the human face made itself felt. At the close of Dynasty XXV and during 
the reign of Psamtik I at the beginning of Dynasty XXVI, there set in a trend of almost 
brutal realism. It would be claiming too much if one hailed the sculptured heads in this 
style as portraits. A portrait embodies the individual traits of a definite human being. Since 
there is some evidence that these heads were created after a common formula used for 
denoting the maturity of age, as distinguished from the immaturity of eternal youth, we 
prefer to call the sum-total of these more or less stereotype features a likeness. 

After the half-century of the reign of Psamtik I, this realism is discontinued, only to 
crop up again under Persian rule. Although Dynasty XXVII is archaeologically but little 
explored, we have enough evidence to claim that^ after 525 B.C. there begins a development 
that quickly ripens to true portraiture in the Western sense, revealing the outer as well as 
the inner characteristics of a human being^in the lineaments of his face. From then on the 
search for man's soul in the shape and expression of his countenance was never to cease 
until the end of ancient Egyptian civilization; and Greece and eventually Rome soon joined 
in the quest. Splendid examples of this native Egyptian portrait style abound; we find in 
them the full range of human emotion, and through them we sense the vigor and vitality 
of an artistic force which, though far from the lofty ideals of the centuries of isolation, was 
able to hold its own in a changing world. 

In the last millennium the technical process involved in making hard-stone sculpture 
remained essentially the same as it had always been. By pounding and hammering and 
bruising, the stone was worn away; the cutting was done with stone tools and the polishing 
with quartz sand. Unfinished statues display tool marks exactly the same as those of never- 
completed hard-stone statues of Dynasty IV. The use of hard-tipped metal tools by foreign 
sculptors of their time, does not prove that the tradition-minded Egyptian craftsmen bor- 
rowed these tools and employed them successfully. Just as the peasant of a Near Eastern 
village, employing a team of oxen and a crude wooden plough, never so much as turns his 
head when a tractor crosses his path, so the Egyptian craftsman clung to his established 


perfect technique in the face of scientific developments of other countries. What he had 
was good enough. To fashion a diorite head such as No. 132 without leaving a mark or 
trace on the polished face would be impossible even with the most modern steel tool. The 
very walls of the temple of Dendcra, the roofing slabs of the temple of Edfu, all point to 
the justifiable persistence of Egyptian artisans in the employment of their own time-tested 

1 There lay their strength, in imperturbably following their own way, adapting, even 
borrowing, but always creating what was essentially Egyptian. Our present task is to 
isolate and to arrange in a sensible order the elements which form the sum-total of their 
achievement in the field of sculpture. One cannot begin this task by choosing pieces here 
and there and comparing them without form analysis with the finest sculptures of earlier 
times. A period has to be judged on its own merits; only then can one weigh the evidence 
and measure the degree to which it surpasses or falls short of another epoch. But little is 
gained by such comparison. Though of the same stock and of the same faith as their fore- 
fathers, the Egyptians of the Late Period faced different problems and coped with a world 
foreign to their tradition. That they maintained an even higher standard of durability in 
their work than did their predecessors is greatly to their credit. How great was their artistic 
achievement, how fine their sculptures, determined by any standards, must be judged 
for himself by each who sees the Exhibition and goes through the pages of this Catalogue. 



No. i; Pis. 1-2, Figs, i, 3, 4. 


About 700 b.c; Dynasty XXV. Dark grey and brown mottled granite. 

Owner: Joslyn Memorial Art Museum, Omaha, Nebraska; no. 1953.80. 

The Kushite rulers of Egypt constitute the 
XXVth Dynasty. Their rise to power ushers 
in the last great era of Egyptian history and art, 
which is commonly called the Late Period. Far 
from exercising a debasing influence on Egypt, 
they effected a revival of artistic expression, 
and many of the works created during their 
rule rival in quality the best created in earlier 

About 715 B.C. Piankhi, King of Kush, be- 
came ruler of a large part of Egypt, the first 
foreigner in a thousand years to dominate the 
Nile Valley. No sculpture in the round is 
known to represent him; this bust in Omaha 
shows his sister, Amenirdas, daughter of King 
Kashta of Nubia, which the Greeks and Ro- 
mans called Ethiopia and which today is divid- 
ed between the Sudan and the United Arab 

At the time of the Kushite conquest, Shepen- 
wepet I, daughter of the last native king, held 
the supreme religious office of the land at 
Thebes, which for long had been the spiritual 
capital of Egypt. She was compelled to adopt 
Amenirdas, the Kushite princess, who hence- 
forth as Amenirdas I became the Divine Con- 
sort, earthly bride of the state god Amun, thus 
lending legitimacy to the claim of the house of 
Kush to the kingship of Egypt. The upper part 
of the nearly life-size sculpture is one of several 
statues which were set up at Thebes at the 
height of her rule. In quality it is surpassed only 
by her alabaster statue in Cairo (C.G. 565). 
Though of foreign extraction, her attitude, 
costume, and bearing are such as if she had been 
born to the exalted office of the god's consort, 
and despite her somewhat plump, broad Nu- 
bian features the face framed by the heavy wig 
radiates the calm majesty for which the best of 

pharaonic sculpture is justly famous. She is 
crowned by a circlet of cobra heads and hoods; 
another uraeus, now lost, adorned her fore- 
head. In the tradition of the New Kingdom, 
the eyebrows and cosmetic lines are long drawn 
out in heavy relief. A simple, tight-fitting gar- 
ment sheathes her body, the breasts are covered 
by a halter, and the left hand grasps the stem of 
a lily — a scepter as much as a symbol of fem- 
ininity. The back pillar bears the beginning of 
a column of inscription, probably the continu- 
ation of a text, now lost, which started on the 

measurements: Height 64.3 cm. Width ca. 37 cm. 
Depth 29.8 cm. Depth of break at waist level 26.2 cm. 
Width of back pillar near break 14.5 cm. Intracolum- 
nar width ca. 10.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; most probably from 
Thebes. Originally collected by General Le Marois, 
later le Comte le Marois, a member of Napoleon's 
campaign in Egypt (1 798-1 801). 

bibliography: Joslyn Memorial Art Museum, A 
Guide to the Museum, no. 1 (1958), p. 19 (illus.). 

comment: The face lacks the delicacy usual in Egyp- 
tian representations of women. Typically Kushite is 
the fold of the skin which springs from the upper nos- 
tril and broadens out on the cheek. On the other 
hand, the lips are beautifully contoured by an incised 
line, a feature far too little studied thus far, which 
seems to distinguish a number of outstanding sculp- 
tures (Nos. 5, 50) and is never found on heads of 
inferior quality. The iconography of the divine 
consorts of Dynasty XXV is well established, and 
comparison with the alabaster statue of Amenirdas 1 
in Cairo (C.G. 565 — always illustrated at an angle so 
far from below that the impressive face appears dis- 
torted) proves that the facial features are nearly 
identical. The lower part of a second statue of 
Amenirdas I in Cairo (C.G. 611) is of the same 
material as the Omaha bust, although the two do not 
belong together. The uraeus crown is flat on top, 
as on Sydney 41, but unlike Cairo C.G. 565, which 
has a hole in the center of the top surface for inser- 
tion of an additional adornment. The strands of the 
hair are not indicated; in this the Omaha bust, with 

its straight lappets hanging over the shoulders, is 
unlike any other sculpture of the divine consorts, 
though on the sphinxes with curled lappet ends the 
tresses are never marked. Amenirdas I is the only 
divine consort of Dynasty XXV whose sculptures 
never show an ornamental necklace; this, too, con- 

firms the attribution of the Omaha bust. 

The hieroglyphic signs on the back pillar read 
"Lower and Upper Egypt," part of the frequent 
title of the divine consorts, "Mistress of Upper and 
Lower Egypt." 

No. 2; Pis. 2-3, Figs. 2, 5. 


700-660 b.c; Dynasty XXV. 

Ovmer: Mr. Albert Gallatin, Neiv York, N. Y. 

Fine-grained black granite. 

The head and shoulders of this anonymous 
man might be taken for a work of the Middle 
Kingdom, particularly of Dynasty XII. Both 
the striated wig and the almost fierce expres- 
sion of the face would favor such an attribu- 
tion, and the fringed cloak, of which enough 
survives to identify it as such, is also found in 
that period. Yet the contour of the wig and 
the cutting of the eyes betray the Late origin of 
the sculpture. In spite of damage to forehead 
and nose, the face is extraordinarily lively. Its 
deep nasolabial furrows and heavy mouth in- 
dicate the advanced age of the man represented. 
It must have been a sculpture in which the 
forms were given in great detail, because even 
the Adam's apple is evident. The back is badly 
worn. All that can be said of it with certainty 
is that there is no trace of the back pillar, which 
was either ground off deliberately or ended be- 
low the break; for statues of the type from 
which this head comes should normally have a 
back pillar. The man wore a simple cloak 
wrapped around his shoulders and covering 
arms and legs down to the ankles. The hands 
were probably shown, the left lying flat on the 
right side of the chest, the right holding the 
edge of the garment and pulling it toward the 
left hip. The edge, incidentally, shows a loop 

pattern; both the cloak and the patterned edge 
are rendered as was the custom in Dynasty XII, 
some 1200 years earlier. 

measurements: Height 15.2 cm. Height of face 4.5 
cm. Width of break ca. 13.6 cm. Depth (chin 
through back) 9.4 cm. Depth of break (slant) 9.1 cm. 

provenance: Not known; acquired in 1953. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: Despite numerous instances in which it is 
difficult to determine at first glance whether a sculp- 
ture dates from Dynasty XII or from Dynasty XXV, 
the plastic art of the Kushite Period constitutes an 
original effort and is not just a copy of work of the 
Middle Kingdom. Tradition is not merely preserved; 
it is being revived, for the sculpture of the preceding 
Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties XXI-XXIV) 
is without vitality and, with very few exceptions 
(Cairo J.E. 37512; Philadelphia E. 16199 + Cairo 
C.G. 1040), of inferior quality. The striated wig, 
continuously in use for nearly two millennia, is still 
found in Dynasty XXV; at the end of the seventh 
century it disappears in the reign of King Necho II 
(No. 44) and briefly recurs in slightly different 
form in sculpture of the early Ptolemaic Period. It 
is found in exactly the same form as in the Gallatin 
head in a cloaked seated statue of Mentuemhat (Ber- 
lin 1 72 71). It should be stressed that statues wearing 
the long cloak are always seated; apart from the 
aforementioned statue of Mentuemhat, the best-dated 
example is Cairo J.E. 37866 (Leclant, Enquetes, pp. 
3 ff.), belonging to Bakenptah, the grandfather of 
Akhamenru (No. 6). For the lack of a back pillar, 
if there was really none, see the Comment on No. 10. 

No. 3; PL 3, Figs. 6-7. 


About 690 b.c; Dynasty XXV. 

Owner: City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo.; no. 22 1 : 24. 

Green chlorite schist. 

As a result of an understandable reluctance 
on the part of the native Egyptians to identify 
themselves too closely with their foreign rulers, 
few private sculptures of Dynasty XXV bear 
cartouches of the Kushite kings, and many of 
those on which such cartouches originally ap- 
peared no longer show them, because in the 
time of King Psamtik II (594-589 b.c.) the 
royal names of the by then hated usurpers were 
scratched out and replaced by those of Psamtik 
II, who in 593 b.c. undertook a famous cam- 
paign against the land of Kush. Fortunately 
few people were compelled for political rea- 
sons to name a Kushite king on their statues, 
but many named one or several of the spiritual 
rulers of their time — the divine consorts of the 
god Amun — in their inscriptions, and for pur- 
poses of dating these names are just as helpful 
as the names of kings. 

Such is the case with this statuette of a kneel- 
ing man who proffers a figure of the god Osiris. 
He wears a wide double wig without indication 
of the strands of hair, the upper part of which 
covers most of the ears. The eyebrows are 
plastically indicated in low relief; the mouth is 
straight and has full lips. The body is clad in 
an elaborate pleated skirt with a trapezoid 
forepart, held in place by a belt. The soles of 
the kneeling man are perfectly vertical. 

As happens often in Egyptian sculpture, the 
stone between the head of the deity and the 
body of the donor has not been cut away, and 
on the right and left sides of this "bridge" are 
the names of the divine consorts Amenirdas I 
and her adopted daughter and eventual suc- 
cessor Shepenwepet II. From the inscription 
on the base we learn that the statuette's subject 
was their chamberlain, and thus the statuette 
must have been made at the time of the co- 

regency of the two great ladies before the death 
of Amenirdas I. The back of the statuette 
shows not even a trace of an inscription, and it 
appears as if the man's name, with the rest of 
the text, may have been intentionally erased. 
It is a pleasant little sculpture, and though it 
does not show much individuality it nonethe- 
less presents a good example of the small-scale 
statuary of the middle of Dynasty XXV. 

measurements: Height 18.7 cm. Height of base ca. 
2.8 cm. Width of base 5.5 cm. Depth of base 10 cm. 
Height above modern base (as illustrated) 18 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps from Karnak. For- 
merly in the collection of A. Stoclet, Brussels. 
bibliography: City Art Museum of St. Louis, 16th 
Annual Report (St. Louis, 1925), p. 55. 

comment: The material, chlorite schist (often er- 
roneously referred to as "pri?ne d'e??ieraude"), is 
rarely employed in Egyptian statuary. Kneeling 
theophorous sculptures, though introduced during 
the New Kingdom, become more frequent in the 
Late Period, but only during Dynasties XXV-XXVI. 
They then go out of fashion; only one example 
(Berlin 18562) dates from the Ptolemaic Period. The 
use of the double wig without indication of the 
strands of hair is even more limited, occurring only 
during Dynasty XXV and immediately afterward, 
under Psamtik I (No. 34 and Berlin 17700). Cen- 
turies later it is revived briefly in the Ptolemaic 
Period in almost grotesque form (Cairo J.E. 37169; 
New York, M.M.A. 07.228.28). The garment with 
the trapezoid, apron-like forepart is, though pleated, 
essentially the same as in a statue from Cairo shown 
in this Exhibition (No. 37). It is a New Kingdom 
heritage, often represented in relief work. In sculp- 
ture in the round it occurs occasionally throughout 
Dynasties XXV and XXVI (London, B.M. 14466; 
Paris, Louvre E. 4299), but becomes exceedingly rare 
during the post-Persian (Cairo C.G. 1020) and Ptole- 
maic (Berlin 18562) periods. 

For the title "Chamberlain" (imy-khent), see the 
references cited by Leclant, Enquetes, p. 76 (c). If 
the inscription on the back of the statuette was in- 
tentionally erased — and this appears to have been the 
case — one suspects that it was done because the two 
divine consorts were named there with their full 
titulary, which would include at least the names of 

their ancestors, King Kashta, father of Amenirdas I, 
and King Piankhi, father of Shepenwepet II, and in 
so small a sculpture it was easier to grind off the 
whole text than to pick out just the hated royal 

Thus far it has been assumed that the two names of 
the divine consorts are those of Amenirdas I and 
Shepenwepet II. There are, however, two other pos- 
sibilities, namely Shepenwepet I + Amenirdas I and 
Shepenwepet II + Amenirdas II (cf. Christophe, in 
B1E 35 [1953], pp. 14 1- 1 52). For stylistic reasons, the 
former possibility can be disregarded, although 

neither of the two names is followed by either "liv- 
ing" or "deceased." The St. Louis statuette is not 
unique in mentioning just the two names; two in- 
scriptions on statues in the Cairo Museum (22 + 2 
and J.E. 36995) show the same feature, and there are 
probably others. Very little is known about Ame- 
nirdas II, and the role she played after her adoption 
by Shepenwepet II was at best ephemeral. Until bet- 
ter evidence can be uncovered one is therefore com- 
pelled to consider the two names as those of Ame- 
nirdas I and Shepenwepet II, and stylistically there is 
nothing to contradict such an attribution. 

No. 4; PL 4, Figs. 8-10. 


About 665-650 b.c; end of Dynasty XXV to beginning of Dynasty XXVI. 
Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 07.228.27. 

Black basalt. 

The block statue is as typical for Egyptian 
sculpture as the pyramid for Egyptian archi- 
tecture. It is the most compact way of repre- 
senting a human being who sits on the ground, 
with the knees drawn up to shoulder level and 
a cloak covering the whole body, except for 
the head and hands (see p. xxxvi). In contrast 
to the amorphous mass of the body, the head 
of the sculpture shown here looks surprisingly 
human and alert, presumably a well-calculated 
effect, which could not fail to attract the visi- 
tor to the temple of Karnak, where, in the 
presence of his gods, the man represented 
wished to be remembered forever. His name, 
as we learn from the inscriptions, was Djed- 
khonsu-iuf-ankh. He was a prophet of the god 
Monthu of Thebes, held another priestly office 
with the goddess Mut, "Mistress of Heaven," 
and was a libationer of the god Khonsu, in 
addition to having an administrative function 
in the "House of Amun." His son, Khonsu- 
mes, who had the statue made for him, was 
likewise a "Prophet of Monthu" and libationer. 
The son, as was often the case in Egypt, had 
been named after his paternal grandfather. 
Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh's mother was named 

The subject of the statue wears a plain wide 
wig, which bulges forward under the ears. The 
eyebrows and the short cosmetic lines at the 
outer corners of the eyes are in low relief. The 
nose is remarkably strong and straight, con- 
tinuing the contour of the forehead in an al- 
most unbroken line. The face is full and 
round, forceful yet idealizing. A short beard 
forms the transition between chin and the sur- 
face of the "block" proper. The crossed arms 
are not shown; only the hands are indicated in 
relief, issuing from the cloak. The back of the 
base is slightly higher than the front, as if the 
subject sat on a low cushion. There are four 
columns of inscription in a neatly framed rec- 
tangle at the front, one line and two columns 
of text on top of the base, and three columns on 
the back pillar, the plane of which slightly 
projects from the plane formed by the back 
of the wide wig. 

measurements: Height 31 cm. Base: height (front) 
4.8-5.1 cm., (rear) 5.2-5.6 cm., width (front) ca. 
13.5 cm., (rear) 15 cm., depth (right) 20.6 cm., 
(left) 2 1.1 cm. 

provenance: Not known; undoubtedly from Karnak. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY: BMMA 1 (1907), p. I95. 

comment: There are two basic types of block stat- 


ues, both of which were created as early as the 
Middle Kingdom (Vandicr, Manuel III, pp. 235-237). 
One shows the subject entirely wrapped in the cloak; 
only the hands and the head protrude; the feet are 
covered. The second type has the feet uncovered, 
and the arms are either modeled freely three-quarters 
in the round or are wrapped in the cloak. Only the 
first of these two types is of interest here (the sec- 
ond is discussed in the Comment on No. 32). It is 
by far the most typical form of the block statue in 
the Late Period, although presence or absence of the 
beard (see, below, Comment on No. 5) and espe- 
cially the position of the hands vary. In this case, 
both hands lie flat, palm down, a common attitude in 
the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Pe- 
riod (Cairo J.E. 38015; Detroit 11834; London, B.M. 
1007; New York, M.M.A. 23.8; Paris, Louvre E. 
20205). There are a number of examples from Dy- 
nasty XXV to the beginning of Dynasty XXVI: 
Cairo C.G. 535; Karnak, Karakol 68; Cairo C.G. 646 
(Mentuemhat); Karnak-Nord T 40 (Mentuemhat); 
Cairo C.G. 42234 (Mentuemhat's grandfather), and 
C.G. 42246 (a brother of Mentuemhat). The block 
statue of Khonsu-mes the Elder, father of Djed- 
khonsu-iuf-ankh, too, has the same position of the 
hands (Cairo J.E. 37878) and furthermore has the 
double wig (see Comment on No. 3). There are a 
few more examples of statues with extended hands 
in relief, which are dated to the reign of King 
Psamtik I (Cairo J.E. 37002, 37413; 37414; Frankfurt- 

Main 1449), and then the style changes, and different 
positions of the hands prevail. Certain other ar- 
chaeological details that occur on sculptures of Dy- 
nasty XXV or, at the latest, the beginning of Dynasty 
XXVl may be observed on the block statue of Died- 
khonsu-iuf-ankh. For instance the back pillar which 
does not form a continuous line with the wig is also 
found on Cairo J.E. 36976 and 38586 and on Karnak- 
Nord T 36. The four columns of the inscription on 
the front are similarly placed on Cairo C.G. 42196. 
All of this adds up to a very good case for a date 
within the transitional period from Dynasty XXV to 
Dynasty XXVL The statue of Khonsu-mes the Elder 
in Cairo (J.E. 37878) has already been mentioned. 
There is also a second statue of Djed-khonsu-iuf- 
ankh (Baltimore, W.A.G. 173), likewise made for 
him by his son, and a number of additional docu- 
ments (Amherst Coll. 347; Sabatier Coll. 105 and 
no; Leiden M. 20-23; London, B.M. 35804) very 
considerably enlarge the file on his family. Thus, 
although none of these objects are precisely dated by 
inscription, the inscriptional material as a whole and 
especially the style of the sculptures leave no doubt 
about the general date indicated above. The forceful 
expression of the face of this statue points to late 
Kushite rather than to early Saite times, especially 
when one considers the Theban origin. For the title, 
sesh thay medjat, see references cited in Gardiner, 
Onom. I, p. 72 (A 181) and ASAE 54 (1957), p. 143, 
note 1. 

No. 5; PI. 5, Figs. 11-12. 


About 700-670 b.c; Dynasty XXV. 

Owner: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; ?io. 04. 1 841 , 

Green schist. 

In the course of the Late Period, the extraor- 
dinary competence of Egyptian craftsmen in 
working hard stone is for the first time applied 
to the large-scale production of private sculp- 
ture. As a result, limestone and sandstone are 
less favored for non-royal sculpture than had 
heretofore been customary. This head is an 
excellent example of the delicacy with which 
such material can be used. The velvet-like 
smoothness of the surface lacks the high, glossy 
polish which, during the Late Period, is found 
occasionally before the Persian domination 

(No. 44) but mainly occurs from the fourth 
century b.c. on (No. 80). 

The head of this man comes from a so-called 
block statue, in which he was shown squatting 
on the ground, with his knees, drawn up to 
shoulder level, supporting his crossed arms 
(see p. xxvi and Nos. 4 and 32). A wide wig, 
resting on shoulders and back pillar, leaves the 
ears free. The plastic eyebrows, in low relief, 
form elegant curves; the rim of the upper eye- 
lid is outlined, and so arc the lips. The nose, so 
rarely preserved, is very well modeled, thus 

completing the picture of what were consid- 
ered the ideal features of the period. For this 
head is not a portrait; it is a standard likeness 
of a man who wished to be represented in stone 
with a fine youthful face. As idealizing sculp- 
ture goes, this is one of the best examples from 
the two centuries preceding the Persian in- 

The back pillar shows the beginning of three 
columns of inscription; the hieroglyphs have 
been carved with great care. It is typical for 
hard stone that the unpolished parts, in this case 
the hieroglyphic signs, show up much lighter 
than the surface surrounding them. The first 
column begins with a common invocation of 
the person represented, a priest of the god 
Monthu of Thebes; the second column lists the 
main title of the man, namely "Scribe of the 
Letters of the King," or "Royal Dispatch 
Writer." The third column ends with a per- 
sonal name, Hor, which may be that of the man 
who dedicated the statue or of his father. 

measurements: Height 19.5 cm. Height of face 6.8 
cm. Depth 12.6 cm. Width across break at shoulder 
level ca. 18.5 cm. Width of back pillar near break 
6.8 cm. Intracolumnar width 1.7 to 1.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably from Karnak. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The great variety of sculptural styles pre- 
vailing throughout the Late Period is due to several 
factors, which are discussed in connection with the 
respective sculptures included in this Catalogue. The 
Boston head represents in part the grand tradition of 
idealizing youth and in part reflects the revival of 
great craftsmanship under the Kushite rulers, one of 
the most surprising benefits that this domination by 
foreign kings brought to Egypt. Admittedly, there 
is little difference between idealizing sculptures in 
hard stone of Dynasty XXV and those of the early 
decades of Dynasty XXVI. The reasons for attribut- 
ing the Boston head to the beginning rather than to 
the second half of the seventh century B.C. are the 
inscription, the form of the back pillar, which occurs 
almost identically on two statues of Harwa (Berlin 
8163 and Louvre A 84), and the rare outlining of the 
lips, which is found in a block statue of Kushite date 
in Cairo (J.E. 37150), in the sculpture of Ity (Brit- 
ish Museum 24429) dated to the 15th regnal year 
of King Shabako, and in a third statue of Harwa 
(British Museum 55306). Harwa was the High Stew- 
ard of the divine consorts of Amun at Thebes dur- 
ing the reigns of kings Shabako, Shebitku, and 
Taharqa of Dynasty XXV. The obviously short 
beard, on the other hand, is not very common in the 
earlier period, but occurs much more regularly in the 
second half of the seventh century. For the title 
"Royal Dispatch Writer" see H. Kees, in ZaS 84 
(1959), pp. 56-57; the statue discussed there (Cairo 
J.E. 37150) is datable to Dynasty XXV and bears 
titles similar to those of the Boston head. 

No. 6; PI. 6, Fig. 13. 


About 660 b.c; end of Dynasty XX V. Limestone, ivith remains of color. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; old no. 1 27 1 . 

In an exhibition dedicated primarily to stone 
sculpture in the round, it seems desirable to 
include a few reliefs to illustrate the two- 
dimensional work contemporary with the hun- 
dreds of sculptures carved in hard stone. This 
relief from the southern part of Egypt was 
chosen because it is a fine example of the clas- 
sicistic tendencies prevailing in private relief 
work of the XXVth Dynasty. 

The man represented is identified by the in- 
scription as Akhamenru, son of Pekiry, a well- 
known personality who exercised the function 
of High Steward for the Divine Consort She- 
penwepet II between 665 and 656 b.c. He is 
shown in one of the traditional poses of the 
master in his tomb, seated and holding in the 
far hand a long staff, in the near one a folded 
kerchief. The simple wig, with summary in- 

dication of the strands of hair, is of a type fre- 
quently occurring on statues of the seventh 
century B.C. He wears a broad necklace, an 
amulet suspended from a cord, and a sash cross- 
ing his breast; his loins are covered by a simple 
kilt. His chair has a low backrest covered with 
a cushion; its supports are in the shape of lions' 
legs resting on a frustum. The sidepiece of the 
seat extends beyond the back to end in an 
elaborate papyrus blossom. 

Were it not for the inscription, one might 
wonder if this relief did not come from a tomb 
of the Middle Kingdom, and indeed the dif- 
ference is so fine that it might well baffle an 
expert. The work has noble simplicity and, 
unlike archaizing art of other countries, is not 
disfigured by the frills with which craftsmen 
often attempt to improve upon an earlier 
model. Still, it is no empty imitation but a 
well-rounded composition with the inner ten- 
sion inherent in the best of Middle Kingdom 
reliefs, from which it takes its inspiration. 

measurements: Height 47 cm. Width 26.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably from the tomb 
of Akhamenru (no. 404) in the Asasif valley at west- 
ern Thebes. 

bibliography: None. For Akhamenru and his father, 
Pekiry, see M. Lichtheim, in JNES 7 (1948), pp. 163 
ff., and J. Leclant, in JNES 13 (1954), pp. 154 ff. 
(on the tomb of Akhamenru ibid. pp. 161 and 169). 

comment: There is no record of the way in which 
the relief was acquired, but it can hardly be doubted 

that it came from Akhamenru's tomb, and this is 
corroborated by the creamy texture of the limestone, 
which points to a provenance from the Asasif valley. 
Hardly anything is left of the decorations of Akha- 
menru's tomb, which adjoins and encroaches upon 
that of his predecessor as high steward, Harwa. When 
Psamtik I brought Thebes under his control in 656 
b.c, the Divine Consort Shcpcnwepet II was obliged 
to adopt his daughter, Nitocris, as corcgent, and a 
new man, Pabasa, became their high steward. Ir is 
not even clear if Akhamenru was actually buried in 
the tomb that undoubtedly was prepared for him 
while he occupied his exalted post. The pose, coif- 
fure, ornaments, and attributes of Akhamenru in this 
relief are typical for the Middle Kingdom, and nu- 
merous parallels can be noted in H. O. Lange and 
H. Schafer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren 
Reiches, IV (Berlin, 1902), pi. LX, LXXV, LXXXIII, 
XCIV. In sculpture in the round, the broad collar 
is not found in this period (see No. 91), although 
the sash occurs occasionally (No. 13), as does 
the double amulet (Brussels E. 7049 and E. 7730). 
The Late character of the relief is evident from the 
delicate eye of Akhamenru, the kerchief, which is 
just a trifle too long and thin, and the papyrus blos- 
som, which is much more dainty than the sturdy 
examples of this type on Middle Kingdom chairs in 
relief. The truncated cone under the lion's foot is 
usually inverted on reliefs of the middle of the 
seventh century b.c; here, however, the craftsman 
has faithfully followed his Middle Kingdom model. 
As in the case of reliefs, it is just as hard, in certain 
instances, to distinguish between Middle Kingdom 
and Late sculptures in the round. For example, Bal- 
timore, W.A.G. 188, New York, M.M.A. 28.2.1, 
London, B.M. 44, which date from the Middle King- 
dom, are claimed for the Late Period. On the other 
hand, there are pieces, such as Brussels E. 7049 and 
London, B.M. 1229, which languish in alien sur- 
roundings amidst the Middle Kingdom statuary, al- 
though they date from the Late Period. 

No. 7; Pis. 6-7, Figs. 14-16. 


Date uncertain; probably Dynasty XXV, 7 15-660 b.c. Light brown quartzite. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 02 .4. 1 9 1 . 

For many decades the Late Period of Egypt 
was a kind of dumping ground into which 
sculptures as well as archaeological specimens 
were relegated when they could not be easily 
attributed to any other period. Ever since the 
picture of Late statuary has become better de- 
fined, it has been necessary to remove heads, in 
some cases even entire statues, from this limbo, 
because they were obviously not made in the 
course of the last 700 years before our era, and 
at present much of this material is now attrib- 
uted to the Third Intermediate Period (about 
1 100-730 b.c), with which this Exhibition for- 
tunately is not concerned. 

One of these sculptures of uncertain date is 
this fine quartzite head from Abydos. It would 
have been a pity to leave it out, though it must 
be admitted at once that the attribution to Dy- 
nasty XXV is based on rather circumstantial 
evidence. For its workmanship and style, no 
other period offers any good parallel examples, 
and thus one has to reckon with it as one of 
those rare sculptures which, in a period of great 
and varied production, occupy an isolated place 
and are not closely related to any other docu- 
ment of their time. It should be added that few 
pieces of life-size statuary of the Late Period 
from Abydos are known; perhaps we have in 
this head the best product of a local school, the 
output of which was small and has for the most 
part been lost. 

It is an impressive piece of sculpture, with its 
mighty skull, heavy-lidded eyes, and sensitive 
mouth. The face is broad and firm and has a 
majesty that is hard to define. This is not an 
idealizing type, no replica of a standard model, 
and yet it is too remote to rank as a true por- 
trait. The cranium is unusual, inasmuch as it 
shows a slight ridge, best noticed from directly 

in front or back, and the notches which de- 
scend from the corners of the mouth are un- 
common. The back pillar, of nearly rectangu- 
lar form, tapers slightly toward the top; it is 

The impression of firmness, strength, and 
determination which one gains from the study 
of the head is perhaps the best guide to a ten- 
tative attribution. These features, in relatively 
simple form, are encountered only during the 
Kushite domination, i.e. Dynasty XXV, and 
though the sculpture is far from having a Kush- 
ite face, the underlying stylistic elements are 
the same as those which eventually lead to the 
creation of the masterful head of Mentuemhat 
(Fig. 29). 

measurements: Height 30.5 cm. Width across ears 
22.4 cm. Depth 29.8 cm. Width of break at neck 
ca. 14 cm. Depth of break (horiz.) ca. 23 cm. Width 
of back pillar at break 10.5 cm. 

provenance: Abydos (Osiris Temple). 

bibliography: Petrie, Abydos I, p. 32, pi. LXX, figs. 
4-5. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, A Special 
Exhibition of Heads in Sculpture from the Museum 
Collection (New York, 1940), pi. [17]. The Metro- 
politan Museum of Art, A Handbook of the Egyp- 
tian Rooms (New York; 1911 through 1922 editions), 
p. 135 fig. 56. Bosse, Menschl. Fig., p. 74, no. 204. 

comment: Regardless of the date of this head, the 
Middle Kingdom heritage is unmistakable (Vienna 
5801), especially in the heavy-lidded eyes, which, 
however, occur frequently in Dynasty XXV (Lon- 
don, B.M. 37883; Munich, Ag.St. 1622; Paris, Louvre 
A 89; Turin 3063) and occasionally thereafter (Nos. 
36 and 107). For the way in which the upper eye- 
lid is drawn over the lower lid, see the head from the 
Gallatin Collection (No. 2), the bust of Mentuemhat 
from the Cairo Museum (not shown in this exhibi- 
tion, but illustrated in Fig. 29), and a head in London 
(B.M. 848). The ridge on the cranium is found in a 
sculpture well dated to the end of Dynasty XXV in 
Cairo (C.G. 42204), which also (like No. 8) has 
notches descending from the corners of the mouth. It 
must be pointed out, however, that the nondescript 

form of the upper part of the back pillar has no paral- 
lels in the early Late Period. The decrease in width 
toward the top is too slight for the well known trape- 
zoid which occurs from the end of the sixth century 
on (No. 65). It is much more closely related to the 
back pillars of, for instance, the beginning of Dy- 
nasty XIX, as is shown by comparison with the statue 

of Iuty in Leiden (A.ST. 10, D. 32). Since the head 
of the latter statue also bears a certain resemblance 
to the head under discussion, we must take into con- 
sideration similar sculptures of around 1300 B.C., as, 
for example, Berlin 2297. To sum up, the attribution 
of the New York head must still remain uncertain. 

No. 8; PI. 8, Figs. 17-19. 


About 700-670 b.c; second half of Dynasty XXV. 

Owner: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Va.; no. 5 1-19-3. 

Dark red quartzite. 

The strong, almost brutal features of this 
individual demonstrate once more how closely 
the sculptors of the Late Period observed the 
statuary of Dynasty XII. But whereas in the 
attribution of No. 2 stylistic criteria alone 
formed the basis for dating, this sculpture bears 
an inscription on the back pillar, which neatly 
confirms its date, or at least proves that it could 
not have been made during the Aliddle King- 
dom. The ears are pushed forward by the stri- 
ated wig, and the eyes, the fleshy nose, and the 
thick-lipped mouth are prominent. If this were 
a Theban sculpture, one would be tempted 
to see in it the typical rendering of Kushite 
features. Since it comes from the north, how- 
ever, it is probably not merely the result of 
contact with the style preferred by the Kush- 
ites, but perhaps even more a reflection of 
Middle Kingdom realism. Be that as it may, the 
severe, unflattering rendering of the face and 
the powerful build of the torso, with its well 
modeled collarbones and muscular chest, can- 
not fail to impress. The complete figure must 
have shown the priest erect and striding, prof- 
fering the statuette of a deity, as indicated by 
the preserved portion of the lower left arm, 
which is slightly bent at the elbow. 

measurements: Height 32.5 cm. Width at wig level 
ca. 19 cm. Depth at belt level 13.8 cm. Width of 
back pillar at top 1 1.6 cm., near break 12.6 cm. Depth 

of back pillar at waist level 3 cm. Intracolumnar 
width 2.8 cm. 

provenance: Probably Bubastis (Delta). 

bibliography: None. 

comment: For the striated wig, see Comment on No. 
2. Unlike that of No. 2, it does not bulge below the 
ears, although it is cut in where it meets the should- 
ers. The eyebrows are fairly straight and sharp, thus 
differing from the Middle Kingdom prototype (cf. 
Baltimore, W.A.G. 188, erroneously attributed to the 
Late Period). The nasolabial furrows and the droop- 
ing corners of the mouth represent the standard mode 
of indicating maturity, as distinguished from the 
youthful, idealizing faces of the period (No. 5). 
Though there is an attempt at individualization, the 
result is not a true portrait. The garment, ending 
well above the waistline, goes back to the Middle 
Kingdom; no parallel, however, has as yet been 
found to explain satisfactorily the design at the upper 
front edge of the skirt (cf. London, B.M. 32748). 
Broad back pillars with three or more columns of 
inscription are much more common in Dynasty XXV 
than later (see No. 20 for an example dated to 
Psamtik I). Column 1 opens with an offering formula 
addressed to the great ennead of Bubastis; in col- 
umn 2 the subject of the sculpture appears as "Serv- 
ant of Bastet, Fourth Prophet," but his name is lost. 
His father's name, Shed-su-bast, is mentioned in col- 
umn 3. He, too, was a "Servant of Bastet," in addi- 
tion to being a "Prophet of Khonsu-residing-in- 
Bubastis." It is not clear with whom the titles given 
in column 4 should be connected; perhaps they are 
those of the grandfather. The writing of "ennead" is 
typical for this period (Louvre E. 7689 and N. 3670). 
The provenance of the sculpture is quite clear from 
the text; it was set up in the temple of Bubastis, the 
sanctuary of the cat-headed goddess Bastet, about 50 

miles northeast of modern Cairo. Despite several 
indications of a Kushite date sometime after the be- 
ginning of the seventh century B.C., it must be re- 
membered that Delta monuments datable to Dynasty 
XXV are almost non-existent. This part of the coun- 
try came only gradually under the rule of the kings 
from Nubia, who throughout their dynasty never 
held it as firmly under control as they did Memphis 
and Thebes. The warrior tribes of Libyans, who 

formed the dominant element in the population of 
Lower Egypt from Ramesside times, enjoyed a cer- 
tain amount of independence, and it is therefore 
quite possible that sculptures such as this are not, 
strictly speaking, of Dynasty XXV. They could have 
been made at a time when parts of the Delta were 
only nominally under Kushite rule or later, under the 
Assyrians, who invaded Egypt in 671 B.C. and occu- 
pied the country as far as Memphis. 

No. 9; PL 9, Figs. 20-22. 


About 670-660 b.c; end of Dynasty XXV. Black diorite ivith yelloiv-broivn spots. 

Owner: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 07.494. 

This statue of a Theban priest named Khon- 
su-ir-aa shows the classic figure of a striding 
man of powerful build and ideal proportions in 
the best Egyptian tradition. The extremely 
hard material has been treated with great ease. 
The surface is well polished, and though the 
face shows hardly any individuality, the forms 
of the body have been worked out in accord- 
ance with a canon based on outstanding ex- 
amples of royal sculpture of the Old Kingdom. 
It can be stated without exaggeration that, dur- 
ing the half millennium preceding Dynasty 
XXV, no private male statue was created which 
even approaches in quality this figure of 

With its broad shoulders, slim waist, vigor- 
ously emphasized collarbones and chest mus- 
cles, the sculpture conveys, despite its relatively 
small size, an impression of physical strength 
without brutality. The whole torso, from the 
sternal notch to the navel, is bisected by a well- 
marked median line. In profile, it becomes 
even more evident how powerful the upper 
portion of the torso is, as compared with ab- 
domen and hips — clearly an ideal of male 
beauty which lastingly influenced the begin- 
ning of Greek monumental sculpture half a 
century later. 

The head appears small in proportion to the 

somewhat elongated body, a feature often ob- 
served in royal reliefs of the middle of the 
seventh century b.c. at Thebes. Khonsu-ir-aa 
does not wear a wig of usual form; his natural 
hair is summarily indicated by the outline of 
what may be taken at first glance to be a close- 
fitting cap. The eyes lack the customary styli- 
zation of plastic eyebrows and cosmetic lines. 
Small discs indicate the nipples. The arm 
muscles are visibly flexed, and in his clenched 
fists Khonsu-ir-aa holds the emblematic staves 
which occur in statues of this stance as early as 
Dynasty IV (ca. 2600 b.c); they denote origi- 
nally that the bearer was entitled to carry a 
staff and scepter as signs of his exalted station. 
The deeply grooved kilt is held by a belt 
inscribed "Prophet of Amun, Khonsu-ir-aa." 
The fill-in between the left leg and the back 
pillar bears an inscription, and an additional 
column of text is engraved on the back pillar. 
This pillar is of a rare form. It becomes nar- 
rower in width toward the top, which — 
though basically of the square type — is worked 
in two planes. The feet and the base, together 
with the lower part of the inscriptions, are 

measurements: Height (above modern base) 43.5 
cm. Height of head 5.5 cm. Width at shoulder level 


12.6 cm. Depth of break at left ankle 13.5 cm. Width 
of break at back pillar 4 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Karnak (ca- 
chette). Acquired in Egypt in 1906. 

bibliography: BMFA vol. V, no. 30 (Dec. 1907), p. 
72. Leclant, Enquetes (1954), p. 25 (t). 

comment: For the type in general, see Cairo C.G. 
42243 (with over-emphasis of the muscles) and Brit- 
ish Museum 14403. The best example of the torso 
with pronounced median line is offered by the colos- 
sal statue of King Tanwetamani (Dynasty XXV) in 
Toledo (49.105); for the Middle Kingdom prototype 
see the torso of the seated statue of Sesostris I in the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art (25.6; Evers, Staat I, 
pi. 42). A brief outline of bipartition and tripartition 
is found on p. xxxv of this Catalogue. The cap-like 
indication of the natural hair is found during the Late 
Period only in Dynasties XXV to XXVII (Balti- 
more, W.A.G. 206; Paris, Louvre E. 15548). At the 
same time there occurs a more naturalistic rendering 
of cropped hair, which is frequently employed from 
Dynasty XXVII down to the Roman Period (see 
No. 116). By far the overwhelming majority of all 
heads, however, are either bald (or shaven) or are 
covered by a wig. In BMFA 48 ( 1950), p. 15, may be 
found a more detailed discussion of the emblematic 
staves. H. Ranke stated in JAOS 73 (1953), p. 196, 
that inscribed belts on statues, formerly a royal pre- 
rogative, occur in private sculpture first with 
Dynasty XXV and that Mentuemhat (Nos. 13-17) 
may well have initiated it in his statues. Since 
Khonsu-ir-aa was his contemporary, there is no 
absolute proof that Mentuemhat was the innova- 
tor, but there seems to be little doubt that this 
royal custom was first applied to private sculp- 
ture in the course of Dynasty XXV. From the in- 

scription on the back pillar we learn that Khonsu- 
ir-aa, "Prophet of Amun," was the son of a lady 
named Nes-ncbct-ishcru. Then follows an offering 
formula which continues on the left side of the back 
pillar; it is difficult to translate because of several 
semi-cryptographic and alphabetical writings. Two 
other sculptures of Khonsu-ir-aa arc known: Cairo 
J.E. 36991 (K. 172), a striding statue with shaven 
head, the base of which is preserved. Its text gives 
the name of the father, Iuf-aa, who had in addition 
a "beautiful name," Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh. The other 
sculpture is in Berkeley (5-290), a fragment showing 
only the feet and forepart of the base of a seated 
figure. This fragment belongs to a rare type, since 
seated statues of a single person disappear with the 
time of Psamtik I and even in Dynasty XXV are 
quite uncommon. Only in Roman times is their use 
once more revived (No. 140). If this gives us a 
terminus ante quevi — and indeed the body modeling 
is that prevailing during the latter part of the Kushite 
reign and the Saite Period — there are still two more 
features which permit the narrowing down of the 
date. On the Cairo statue of Khonsu-ir-aa, the back- 
pillar top has a peculiar form, also found on the 
statue of Pa-khered-en-mut (Cairo C.G. 42243), a 
son of Mentuemhat, who must have died before his 
father, but even more unusual is the form of the 
back-pillar top of the Boston statue with its char- 
acteristic "break," thus forming two planes rather 
than one. This is found on only three other statues 
(Brussels E. 7049; Cairo C.G. 42204 and J.E. 38018), 
two of which are firmly dated to Dynasty XXV by 
their inscriptions, whereas the third (Brussels E. 
7049) is on stylistic grounds datable to the same pe- 
riod. This "break" of the back-pillar top is, however, 
not an invention of Kushite times; it occurs already 
in the Middle Kingdom (Kansas City 39-8). 

No. 10; PI. 10, Figs. 23-25. 


700-660 b.c; Dynasty XXV. Red-brown quartzite with yelloiv spots. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 07.228.47. 

The serene face of this man, whose name is 
Ankh-em-tenenet, is surrounded by a wide 
double wig, the upper layer of which is striated, 
the lower formed by rows of strands with 
stylized curls. The ears are almost entirely 
covered and so is the forehead, with the result 
that the head appears to be broader than it 

actually is. The features are regular, and al- 
though hardly a trace of portraiture can be 
detected, they are not overly idealizing; far 
from being empty, the face has a timeless qual- 
ity. The eyebrows are rendered plastically in 
low relief, and a fold, indicated where the up- 
per eyelid meets the brow, lends a life-like 

1 1 

expression. The mouth, flanked by light na- 
solabial furrows, is absolutely straight. The 
Adam's apple and the sinews of the neck are 
well marked. 

Like the head from the Gallatin Collection 
(No. 2), the subject wears a cloak covering 
both shoulders. In this case, however, the edge 
is plain. Since the left hand lies flat on the right 
side of the chest, as is customary in cloaked 
statues of this period, one has to assume that 
the bust comes from a seated statue. The cloak 
is covered with inscriptions, from which we 
learn not only the man's name but also the fact 
that he was connected with the temple of the 
god Ptah at Memphis. The horizontal inscrip- 
tion on the back begins with an offering for- 
mula addressed to Ptah-Sokar. 

measurements: Height 25 cm. Width of break 29 
cm. Depth of break 18.2 cm. Depth from nose 
through back of head 19.2 cm. 
provenance: Mitrahineh (Memphis); 1892. 
bibliography: BMMA 2 (1907), p. 195. Hoyningen- 
Huene and SteindorfT, Egypt (1945 edition), p. 168. 

comment: The sculpture was formerly in the Cairo 
Museum (J.E. 29878). The man's name, Ankh-em- 
tenenet (PN I, 64, 10), and a second name, Iref-aa- 
en-ptah (PN I, 40, 9), which appears on the right 
chest and may well be that of his father, are both 

frequently attested at the end of Dynasty XXV and 
the beginning of Dynasty XXVI. The double wig of 
this type occurs primarily in the middle of Dynasty 
XVI11 and continues to be in use during the follow- 
ing centuries. In the Late Period it is rare; it is worn 
by Pas-shu-per (British Museum 15 14), whose floruit 
lies at the end of the eighth century B.C., by Men- 
tuemhat (Cairo C.G. 42236), who was active both at 
the end of the XXVth and the beginning of the 
XXVIth Dynasties, and by Nes-peka-shuty (British 
Museum 1132), who was vizier under Psamtik I. It 
then went out of fashion. The facial structure of the 
head of Ankh-em-tenenet is of a type which thus far 
cannot be exactly paralleled in sculpture of Dynasty 
XXV, partly because Memphite statuary of that pe- 
riod is almost unknown, and partly because additional 
examples are lacking for cloaked figures without 
back pillar, such as this bust and the Gallatin head 
(No. 2). A vague reflection of Ankh-em-tenenet's 
facial expression may be found in the head of the 
scribe's statue of Nes-peka-shuty from Karnak in the 
Cairo Museum (J.E. 36665, often erroneously re- 
ferred to as J.E. 36662); this is not surprising, in view 
of the fact that Nes-peka-shuty was vizier in the time 
of Psamtik I, who, after having established himself at 
Memphis in 664, finally obtained control of Thebes 
in 656 B.C. Thus certain peculiarities of Memphite 
style appear also at Karnak and elsewhere in the 
Theban area. The fold on the upper eyelid occurs 
also in a head in the British Museum (37883), known 
to have been found at Memphis, and again in Brus- 
sels E. 7526 (No. 31). In short, the bust of Ankh- 
em-tenenet represents a Memphite type of Dynasty 
XXV, of which no complete specimen has yet been 

No. II; PI. 11, Fig. 26. 


About 670-650 b.c; end of Dynasty XXV to beginning of Dynasty XXVI. 

Brown wood. 

Owner: William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, 
Kansas City, Mo.; no. ^7-15. 

The use of wood for sculptures, large and 
small, was common in the Old, Middle, and 
New Kingdoms. Around 1300 B.C., however, 
a significant change took place in the customs 
governing burial equipment; the tomb statue 
was almost entirely replaced by the temple 
statue, and toilet spoons and many other items 
were no longer placed in graves. A great tra- 

dition of figural wood carving all but died out. 
This slender statuette of an anonymous fe- 
male comes, therefore, as a pleasant surprise. 
Not only does it represent a class of sculpture 
scarce in the Late Period, but it is in itself an 
appealing object, recalling the numerous at- 
tractive, small-scale female figures of Dynasties 
VI, XII, and XVIII. 


Although parr of rhe wig, rhe lefr arm, feet, 
and base are gone, the charm of the figure can 
still be felt, and the workmanship is so good that 
one wonders if the tradition of wood carving 
really may have been revived. Undoubtedly, 
earlier masterpieces must have been available 
to the craftsman who fashioned this statu- 
ette, for in the tripartite striated wig and the 
slimness of the body he certainly followed a 
style set many centuries before his time. Yet 
signs of the Late Period are unmistakable in the 
furrow that runs around the nostrils and down 
past the corners of the mouth and in the gar- 
ment, which leaves the bosom bare and is held 
up by an elegant tie under the right breast. The 
stride of the left foot is a little too long for the 
classical period, and the emphasis of the median 
line, especially remarkable in a female body, 
reflects a change of taste which sets the style 
of the Late Period. 

measurements: Height above modern base 15.3 cm. 
(there is a peg under each foot of an additional height 
of 1.2 cm.). Width across right hand and left hip 
3.3 cm. Depth (left foot through back) 3.8 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 

hiih.iography: Handbook of the Collections in the 
William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary 
Atkins Museum of Fine Arts (Fourth Edition; Kan- 
sas City, Mo.; 1959), p. 22 (illus.). 

comment: This is by far the earliest among the 
wooden sculptures of private persons known from 
the Late Period. Its attribution to the middle of the 
seventh century B.C. is based primarily on strong 
Middle Kingdom characteristics in the style of the 
figure, for it was the Middle Kingdom ideal, more 
than that of any other period, which was revived in 
the latter part of Dynasty XXV (see No. 6). The 
little tie under the right breast seems to occur only 
at that time, as does the bare bosom, which is found 
in an ivory statuette of unquestionably Kushite ori- 
gin (No. 12). Also the face has in the nasolabial 
furrows — so unladylike — a sign of Kushite influ- 
ence. In spite of all this, it cannot be excluded that 
the figure may have been made in the beginning of 
Dynasty XXVI. The body shows none of the heavi- 
ness characteristic of female figures from Dynasty 
XXV. On the contrary, its slenderness conforms 
more closely to the Saite ideal. Bare breasts are, of 
course, well attested in the Middle Kingdom in the 
representations of female servants (Brooklyn 53.178 
and 56.126); their reappearance in the seventh cen- 
tury b.c. is therefore another of those archaizing ten- 
dencies of the period. The ears of the wooden stat- 
uette are pierced, a custom seldom encountered in 
the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. (Cairo C.G. 
565); the earplugs, however, have not been preserved. 

No. 12; PI. 1 1, Figs. 27-28. 


About 680-660 b.c; Dynasty XXV. 

Owner: Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; no. 1954.40. 

Statuettes in ivory are not very common in 
any period of Egyptian art, but they are out- 
right rarities in the last millennium before the 
Roman conquest. Although this exhibition is 
primarily dedicated to stone sculpture, it seems 
appropriate to include at least one well-carved 
figure in this rare material, an excellently pre- 
served little lady of royal blood. She wears an 
elaborate crown composed of two feathers, 
cow's horns, sun disc, and two cobras, which 
in turn wear miniature crowns of horns and 

uraeus; the whole rests on an undecorated 
circlet with flaring sides. The long tripartite 
echeloned wig is surmounted by a cap of vul- 
ture wings, but where one would expect the 
regal bird's head a uraeus rises above the fore- 
head, thus unmistakably distinguishing the 
subject as someone of royal blood. Below the 
full bosom, the thin skirt is held by a waistband 
tied with an elegant loop under the right breast. 
Needless to add that the tight sheath of a gar- 
ment reveals rather than hides the ample forms 


of the body. The left hand lies flat along the 
thigh, whereas the right fist grasped an object 
now lost. 

The face, with its thick plastic eyebrows and 
cosmetic lines, has little individuality. It is 
strong, not dainty, and the lips are rather prom- 
inent. There is no back pillar, and the base, 
which may have borne an inscription, has not 
been preserved. Thus the identity of the little 
lady cannot be established with certainty. The 
adornment of the head is a faithful replica of 
that on a stone statue of the Divine Consort 
Shepenwepet II in Cairo (J.E. 59870), and the 
plump form suggests a date in the Kushite 
Dynasty, but whether the Edinburgh lady was 
a queen, an ordinary princess, or one of the 
divine consorts must remain a moot question. 

measurements: Height above modern base 19.9 cm. 
Height of face 1.9 cm. Width across hands 4.5 cm. 
Depth (left toe to right heel) 5 cm. 

provenance: Unknown; presumably from Thebes. 

bibliography: Royal Scottish Museum, Dynastic 
Egypt (Edinburgh, 1955), pi. 21. 

comment: No sculptures in the round of any Kushite 
queen or princess — if they were ever represented in 
statuary — have been preserved, except those of the 
divine consorts (see the Comment on No. 1 above). 

Against the identification of this lady as a divine 
consort speak the position of the arms and the ab- 
sence of the lily scepter which the god's brides in- 
variably hold in all striding representations in sculp- 
ture and relief. Still, the similarity to the statue of 
Shepenwepet II (Cairo J.E. 59870), the successor of 
Amenirdas I, must not be overlooked. Perhaps we 
have here a representation of the little known Divine 
Consort Amenirdas II, daughter of King Taharqa, 
who was adopted by Shepenwepet II as successor, but 
seems to disappear from the scene when the latter 
was obliged to adopt Nitocris, daughter of King 
Psamtik I of Dynasty XXVI, after he established his 
rule at Thebes upon the defeat of the Assyrians, who 
had broken the hold of the Kushite dynasty. The 
beaded necklace is not found in the sculptures of 
Amenirdas I. The full breasts, often thought to oc- 
cur in Late Egyptian art only with the Ptolemaic 
Period, are in fact a native characteristic from the 
time of Dynasty XXV, rarely noticed because so few 
female statues were made after the Third Intermedi- 
ate Period. A feature that may help to attribute the 
statuette even more definitely to the decade imme- 
diately preceding the beginning of Dynasty XXVI, 
is furnished by the little tie of the garment under the 
right breast, which may also be seen on the wooden 
statuette from Kansas City (No. 11). It seems to be 
one of those fancy little details appearing only during 
a limited period, and the date is corroborated by a 
relief in Brooklyn (48.74) from the tomb of Men- 
tuemhat, in which it is also shown. A fourth ex- 
ample occurs in an ivory statuette likewise datable 
to the middle of the seventh century B.C. (Brooklyn 
49.166; JNES 9 [1950], pp. 202-203, pi. XVIII). 

No. 13 A-B; Pis. 12-13, Figs. 29-31. 


About 665-650 b.c; Dynasties XXV-XXV1. 

Fine-grained black granite. 

Owners: A (upper) Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, 111.; no. 31723. 
B (lower) The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y .; no. 16.580.186. 

Among the kings, royal princes and prin- 
cesses, divine consorts, and commoners of the 
seventh century b.c, the outstanding person- 
ality — both from an historical and an archae- 
ological point of view — is undoubtedly Men- 
tuemhat, Fourth Priest of Amun, Count of the 
City, and Governor of Upper Egypt. Well 
known from historical inscriptions, he also left 

more than a dozen statues of himself, a larger 
number than have survived of any other person 
since the time of Ramesses II, and his tomb- 
palace in the Asasif valley at western Thebes, 
with its extensive and beautiful relief decora- 
tion, is by far the finest example of early Saite 

Mentuemhat emerged as a forceful person- 


ality at just about the time of the death of 
Taharqa, the next to the last king of Dynasty 
XXV, when the Assyrian armies had penetrated 
Egypt as far as Thebes, and when the Prince of 
Sais, Psamtik I, had established the XXVIth 
Dynasty in Lower Egypt. During the ephem- 
eral reign of Tanwetamani, last king of Dy- 
nasty XXV, it was Mentuemhat who — to- 
gether with the Divine Consort of Amun, 
Shepenwepet II — exercised the real power, 
with almost royal prerogatives, in the south. 
Scion of an old Theban family with long- 
established sacerdotal positions in the service of 
the state god Amun, he nevertheless held to the 
end of his days only a comparatively minor 
temple office, that of Fourth Prophet of Amun. 
Still, as Count of the Thebais and Governor of 
Upper Egypt his influence was enormous, and 
it is significant that he should have been the 
chief negotiator for the south in 656 B.C., when 
his spiritual sovereign, Shepenwepet II, was 
compelled to accept Nitocris, daughter of 
Psamtik I, as adoptive daughter and co-ruler of 
the sacred domain of Amun. 

Since the heads of ten of Mentuemhat's sta- 
tues are preserved, it is disappointing to note 
how little they resemble each other, for we 
should like to have a true portrait of Mentuem- 
hat. Though some of the heads show traces of 
realism, not even his famous bust in the Cairo 
Museum (C.G. 647; Fig. 29) can be acclaimed 
as truly presenting the features of the great 
man. In the fragmentary sculpture shown here, 
which is divided between Chicago and Brook- 
lyn, we have one of the two heads in which 
Mentuemhat wears a most conservative double 
wig, with an upper layer of thin striations and 
horizontal waves, and a lower part with styl- 
ized echeloned curls. Around his neck is a 
thick necklace supporting a cow's-head amulet, 
symbol of the goddess Hathor who, as mistress 
of the western mountains of Thebes, enjoyed 
special veneration in Mentuemhat's home town. 
His chest and left shoulder are covered by the 
priestly leopard skin on which lies a banderole 
inscribed with his name and titles: "Count, 

Fourth Prophet of Amun, Count of the City 
(Thebes), Mentuemhat, alive." The back pil- 
lar, only partly preserved, contains fragments 
of an autobiographical text in three columns of 
inscription, and near it, back of the left shoul- 
der, is carved a hand in low relief, which proves 
that the bust must have belonged to a group 
statue of at least two persons, probably show- 
ing Mentuemhat with his son, Nes-ptah, at his 
right. Since this is the only representation in 
the round of Mentuemhat in the Western Hemi- 
sphere, it is indeed a fortunate coincidence that 
the two fragments composing it are only a few 
hundred miles apart. 

measurements: Total height (A +B) 27.5 cm. 

A (upper): Height 16.2 cm. Width 18.7 cm. Depth 

13.3 cm. Intracolumnar width 2.8 cm. 

B (lower): Height 14.4 cm. Width 16.5 cm. Depth 

of break 12.2 cm. Intracolumnar width, same as 


provenance: Not known; presumably from Thebes. 
The upper part was acquired in Egypt in 1898 by 
E. E. Ayer, the lower fragment, by Charles Edwin 
Wilbour between 1880 and 1896. 

bibliography: John D. Cooney, "Souvenirs of a Great 
Egyptian," The Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 18, no. 4 
(Summer 1957), pp. 13-18, figs. 1-3. Jean Leclant, 
"Montouemhat, quatrieme prophete d'Amon, prince 
de la Ville," Bibliotheque d'Etude, Institut Frangais 
d'Archeologie Orientale, Cairo (in press). 

comment: The Chicago-Brooklyn bust probably be- 
longed to a seated group statue similar to Cairo C.G. 
42241, where Mentuemhat and his son, Nes-ptah, both 
wear the leopard skin. The former appears in the 
same costume on a graffito in the Wady Hammamat 
(MIFAO 34 [1912], pp. 52-53, pi. X) and in the 
vignette of a papyrus in Brooklyn (47.218.3), dated 
to the 14th year of Psamtik I (651 B.C.), in which he 
immediately precedes the sacred barque. This shows 
that Mentuemhat was still highly respected well after 
Psamtik I had established his rule over Thebes — a 
fact borne out by a graffito dated to the same year, in 
which he is named with his full titulary (ASAE 54 
[1957], pp. 179-186). For the striated and echeloned 
double wig, see Nos. 10 and 22. A Theban tradi- 
tion of Hathor-head amulets on sculptures existed as 
early as the Third Intermediate Period. In addition 
to the Chicago-Brooklyn bust, Mentuemhat wears it 
in three other statues (Cairo C.G. 42237, 42241; 
Karnak-Nord T 40). The only one of his near-con- 
temporaries who boasts the same adornment is the 
vizier Nespa-medu (Cairo J.E. 36948), son of the 
vizier Nespeka-shutv. After the reign of Psamtik I 
the Hathor-head amulet disappears, not to be revived 


until the Ptolemaic Period (Cairo J.E. 37076, 37339, 
37376, all from Karnak). At about Mentuemhat's 
time were made a number of statues, well dated to 
the reign of Psamtik I (London, B.M. 514, 1225), 
showing a kneeling person who proffers a large 
Hathor symbol, which is surely no accident. This 
type, too, dies out before the end of the seventh cen- 
tury, never to be revived. A similar observation can 
be made regarding the leopard skin worn by Men- 

tuemhat, his son Nes-ptah (Cairo C.G. 42241), and 
Khonsu-irdas (London, B.M. 14466), who also was 
Governor of Upper Egypt under Psamtik I. After 
them, the leopard skin is not encountered again on 
sculptures until the Ptolemaic Period (Alexandria 
1 7533, 17534; Cairo J.E. 37343, 38007; Paris, Louvre 
E. 20358, 20361). It was John D. Cooney who estab- 
lished that the Chicago head and the Brooklyn torso 
belong together. 

No. 14; PI. 13, Fig. 32. 


About 665-650 b.c; Dynasties XXV -XXV I. 

Limestone, painted. 

Owner: William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, 
Kansas City, Mo.; no. 48-28/2. 

Right in the heart of the Asasif valley, which 
rises toward the great temple of Queen Hat- 
shepsut at Deir el Bahari in western Thebes, 
lies the rock-cut tomb of Mentuemhat. As we 
have seen, he first served the last two kings of 
the Kushite Dynasty, Taharqa and Tanweta- 
mani, and later was active under Psamtik I, 
whom he recognized as his sovereign by repre- 
senting him on the east wall of the great court 
of his tomb and whose cartouches appear at 
least twice in the inscriptions. Although the 
lay-out of the tomb and some of the relief work 
may have been done before the end of Dynasty 
XXV, the final decoration and the color that 
once enhanced the lively scenes and inscrip- 
tions are a product of early Dynasty XXVI. 

The fragmentary relief in Kansas City, a de- 
tail of which is shown in Figure 32, is by far 
the most forceful two-dimensional representa- 
tion of any private person of the last millen- 
nium b.c. The end of his name written above 
his head, the gala costume with pendant and 
leopard skin, and the stark realism of the fea- 
tures sufficiently identify the figure as that of 
the great Mentuemhat. He is followed by two 
files of offering bearers, well modeled and yet 
conventional, which serve to emphasize the 

representation of the overpowering personality 
of the tomb's owner. No Kushite relief, even 
no scene in sunk relief in the tomb of Men- 
tuemhat himself, shows such vigor and superb 
modeling as the low-relief compositions from 
the great open court of his burial place. They 
demonstrate well the new life imparted even 
into sophisticated Thebes by the rise of the 
Sake Dynasty. 

measurements: Height 51.3 cm. Width 38.8 cm. 
Height of Mentuemhat's figure 43.5 cm. 

provenance: Western Thebes, Tomb 34 (Mentuem- 

bibliography: Handbook of the Collections in the 
William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary 
Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, Kansas City, Mo. 
(Third Edition, 1949), p. 15; (Fourth Edition, 1959), 
p. 21 (illus.). Smith, A.A.A.E., pp. 248, 286; pi. 182 A. 

comment: In the exhibition the relief is shown in the 
same frame with a relief of the jackal-headed god 
Anubis, facing right (Kansas City 48-28/1), which is 
probably also from the tomb of Mentuemhat, though 
the two reliefs do not belong together. These decora- 
tions in low relief originally lined the three walls of 
the west end of the great open court in Tomb 34, 
where the lower portions of some scenes were still 
visible a few years ago. The reliefs from this court, 
now dispersed in European and American museums, 
will be discussed comprehensively in Jean Leclant's 
forthcoming publication on Mentuemhat (see Bibli- 
ography to No. 13; cf. BiOr 16 [1959], p- 213 right). 


In content and style the decorations of Tomb 34 are 
infinitely richer and livelier than those of any other 
Late tomb at Thebes, and the Kansas City relief is by 
far the most interesting two-dimensional representa- 
tion of Mentuemhat known, though there are others, 
in sunk relief, showing him bedecked with the full 
regalia of his high position, both in the tomb (north 
face of east doorway to the open court) and in the 
Cleveland Museum (49.492, 51.280, 51.281). As has 
been noted so often with works of the reign of 
Psamtik I, the extraordinary features of Mentuemhat 
in the Kansas City relief are an experiment and can- 
not be compared for resemblance with the heads of 

the two best of his statues (Cairo C.G. 647 and 
42236), since they are all essentially unlike. In the 
relief a far freer form of modeling human features is 
found than in any head in the round of the period. 
Only several hundred years later does sculpture be- 
come so unrestrained, so loose in treatment, that 
something resembling the Kansas City relief head 
occurs in statuary, and then primarily in portraits 
like the head from Detroit (No. 104). Time and 
again we find a new attempt at expressing individual- 
ity in the period of Psamtik I, and here at Thebes, 
with its Kushitc tradition, it successfully invades a 
new medium — relief; yet this attempt remains unique. 

No. 15; PI. 14, Fig. 33. 


About 665-650 b.c; Dynasties XXV -XXVI. 

Owner: The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, III.; no. 1882! 


When Mentuemhat had his tomb laid out on 
the slopes of the western desert opposite 
Karnak he ordered a large court dug out of 
bedrock in the Asasif valley. This court is the 
core of a vast complex of underground halls 
and passages, most of which were decorated 
with funerary scenes and texts in sunk relief. 
The court, however, has at one end decorations 
in low relief reflecting daily life, and it is from 
one of these scenes that this charming fragment 
in Chicago probably comes. 

Despite the damage it has suffered, the motif 
is unmistakable. Two little girls — so young 
that they are still permitted to run about prac- 
tically naked — have quite literally got into 
each other's hair and pull and tussle in the way 
exuberant children do. The quarrel may have 
started over the sheaves of grain they have been 
gleaning, which now lie at their feet next to the 
field bag. Above the girls is a wicker pannier 
for transporting sheaves from the field to the 
threshing floor. Such a pannier is usually car- 
ried suspended from a bar on the shoulders of 
two men, and indeed the arm of a man is visible 
at the upper left. 

This motif of the tussling girls was inspired 
by a freely sketched scene in the paintings of 
the tomb chapel of Menna, an administrator in 
the time of King Tuthmosis IV (1411-1397 
b.c), which lies not far from the tomb complex 
of Mentuemhat. Several of the minor painted 
scenes of the tomb of Menna were transposed 
into low relief by the artisans who decorated 
the tomb of the Count of Thebes in about 655 
b.c. The reliefs are, however, not mere copies; 
the sensitive treatment of contour and surface 
endows them with an elegance such as is neither 
intended nor noticeable in the painted proto- 
measurements: Height 22 cm. Width 15.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known, but almost certainly from 
Tomb 34 at Thebes (Mentuemhat). 

bibliography: None. 

comment: For Mentuemhat and his tomb, see Nos. 
13-14, 16-17. The provenance of the fragment shown 
here is practically assured by the style, the kind of 
limestone, and the fact that it first appeared in the art 
market with a group of reliefs that almost certainlv 
came from Tomb 34. At that time, its state of pres- 
ervation was very similar to that of another frag- 
ment in the same group (Brooklvn 48.74), which was 
published in JNES 9 (1950), pp. 193 fF., pi. XIV. 


Both reliefs have motifs from daily life on the farm, 
which were inspired by scenes in Tomb 69 (Menna) 
at Sheikh Abd el Qurna (Nina M. Davies and Alan 
H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Paintings, vol. I, pi. 
LI; vol. Ill, p. 101). The upper group of the Brook- 

lyn relief appears in the tomb of Menna directly 
under the two quarreling girls (Wreszinski, Atlas I, 
pi. 233); the relative positions of the Brooklyn and 
Chicago fragments on the wall of Mentuemhat's tomb 
cannot, however, now be determined. 

No. 16; PL 14, Fig. 34. 


About 665-650 b.c; Dynasties XXV-XXVI. Limestone with some traces of paint. 

Owner: Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, Cal.; no. 2/10 1. 

The often quoted dependence of Sake relief 
art on Old Kingdom scenes and decorations is, 
of course, one of those myths which, once they 
have appeared in print, can never quite be de- 
stroyed. Actually, the artisans of the early 
Sake Period took their inspiration from all 
periods of the past, and it is interesting to note 
that the one Late tomb — that of Aba (Thebes 
36) — which shows extensive copies of sources 
from Dynasty VI, is also among the least inter- 
esting and most uninspired of the entire Theban 
necropolis. Early Sake two-dimensional com- 
positions are full of scenes that are partly based 
on older motifs adapted to the style of the new 
era. One such scene, which actually has been 
published in recent years as of the Old King- 
dom, is shown here in the company of other 
reliefs of Mentuemhat. 

This fragment has to the left a column of 
inscription which reads ". . . seining, and all 
(other) good things . . .;" at the right are two 
registers of persons, of which only the lower 
has a recognizable subject. Here a cage with 
four water fowl is carried on the shoulder of a 
man wearing the valanced wig of Dynasty 
XVIII, which had again become fashionable in 
Sake times. His face lacks the usual bland ex- 
pression of the offering bearer; the eyes are 
long and narrow, the cheek is deeply contoured 
against nostrils and mouth, and he has an ele- 
gant short beard. The inscription in front of 
him states his utterance: "This is for (your) 

spkit," referring probably to the ducks, which 
are destined to be eaten by Mentuemhat, from 
whose tomb the relief presumably comes. 

measurements: Height 19.6 cm. Width 29.6 cm. 
Intracolumnar width 8.9 cm. 

provenance: Not known, but almost certainly from 
Tomb 34 at Thebes (Mentuemhat). 

bibliography: ILN, vol. 226, no. 6057 (May 21, 1955), 
p. 945 ("Dynasty XXVI"). AfO 17 (1956), p- 4°6, 
fig. 1 ("Dynasty V"). 

comment: For Mentuemhat and his tomb, see Nos. 
13-15, 17. The relief was probably exposed to fire in 
the past, and thus the surface has in part a peculiar 
color, which is also found on other reliefs from 
Mentuemhat's tomb. The term kham, "seining," or 
"fishing with a net," (cf. ZAS 83 [1958], pp. 144-145), 
written with the sign of a heron picking at a dead 
fish, refers to an adjoining scene, part of which is 
now in Chicago (Oriental Institute 17974)- They all 
belong to a major composition, a so-called swamp 
scene, to which W. S. Smith (A.A.A.E., p. 247, note 
38) has recently drawn attention. The best known 
relief of this group (Rome, Vatican 288), correctly 
dated in the Vatican publication, has been attributed 
to the Old Kingdom time and again (BMMA 17 
[1958], p. 4, illus.). Although it has long been recog- 
nized that certain sunk-relief scenes in the side chapels 
of the great court of Thebes 34 are based on reliefs in 
the temple of Hatshepsut, the figure of the fowl car- 
rier is more in the style of tombs close to that of 
Puyemra (Thebes 39) of the time of Hatshepsut and 
Tuthmosis III; yet the combination of eye, nasolabial 
furrow, and beard, in addition to the limp lotus flow- 
ers on the right, is unmistakably early Saite. It is sur- 
prising to note that the repertory of scenes in the 
tomb of Pabasa (Thebes 279) is much poorer than in 
Mentuemhat's tomb. The two were, after all, con- 
temporaries, and Pabasa had taken over from Akh- 
amenru (No. 6) the office of high steward of the 


divine consort, and as such must have acquired con- 
siderable stature. Some of the figures in his tomb 
show, however, a certain degree of slick sophistica- 
tion. He was succeeded in 638 B.C. by Aba, and the 

tomb of the latter (Thebes 36) shows a marked de- 
cline in comparison with Thebes 34 and 279. Sec also 
JNES 7 (1948), pp. 178-179, and BiOr 16 (1959), p. 

No. 17; PI. 15, Figs. 35-37. 


About 665-650 b.c; Dynasties XXV-XXV1. Black diorite. 

Oiv?ier: The Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, 
Berkeley, Cal.;no. 5-363. 

Mentuemhat as an historical personality is 
impressive enough; from the number and va- 
riety of monuments he had made for himself 
he stands out as the foremost figure of the 
seventh century b.c. That more than a dozen 
of his statues have been preserved has already 
been mentioned. A visit to his tomb complex 
at western Thebes is still, more than 2600 years 
after his death, a memorable experience. In 
this group statue of two of his guardian spirits 
we encounter another memorial of the great 
man, a type of Egyptian sculpture which 
neither before nor after his time was ever con- 
ceived in such a manner. 

On a rectangular base with back slab are 
modeled two creatures who seem to be on the 
point of rising from their seats, their left legs 
slightly advanced. The one on the left is hu- 
man-headed, with shaven skull; he holds a 
lizard in each hand. The inscription below his 
left elbow identifies him as Amset. The demon 
next to him, with the head of a jackal, is named 
Hapy; he clutches with both hands a large 
snake, its head now missing. An inscription on 
top of the base hopefully proclaims: "They 
shall hold vigil by night and by day over the 
Fourth Prophet of Amun, Mentuemhat, justi- 
fied (deceased)." Amset and Hapy are nor- 
mally two of the four so-called Sons of Horus, 
whose heads crown the lids of the Canopic jars 
which formed part of the standard funerary 
equipment. In this group, however, they are in 
a wider sense guardian deities, such as usually 

appear in tomb and sarcophagus reliefs and in 
funerary inscriptions together with other guar- 
dian genii. Only Mentuemhat had them sculp- 
tured in the round, and he left a number of 
these strange group statues of protective de- 
mons bearing his name. 

measurements: Height (left ear of jackal) 51 cm. 
Width 35.7 cm. Depth 28.5 cm. Height of base 
15.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably from the tomb 
of Mentuemhat (Thebes 34). Acquired in Egypt in 
1899 by Mrs. Phoebe Hearst. 

bibliography: Henry Frederick Lutz, Egyptian Stat- 
ues and Statuettes in the Museum of Anthropology of 
the University of California (Leipzig, 1930) = Uni- 
versity of California Publications, Egyptian Archae- 
ology, vol. V; p. 1, no. ib; pi. I, fig. b. Jean Leclant 
(article to be published in the forthcoming studies in 
honor of V. V. Struwe). 

comment: The snout of the jackal head is restored. 
Although according to the inscription this demon 
represents Hapy, the ears are unmistakably those of 
a jackal, and not of the baboon one might expect, 
since Amset and the baboon-headed Hapy usually 
form a pair. For the identification of guardian spirits 
by lizards and serpents, see Bonnet, Reallexiko?7, p. 
165. The forceful head of Amset is summarily mod- 
eled, but because it is so well dated, it has some sig- 
nificance for the study of the development of bald- 
headed sculptures from the seventh century to the 
Ptolemaic Period. This is a typical "round head" of 
early Dynasty XXVI, somewhat comparable to the 
head of Cairo J.E. 37416 which represents a vizier 
named in the Brooklyn papyrus (47.218.3) dated to 
651 b.c. The Berkeley group is the only guardian 
sculpture of Mentuemhat in the Western Hemisphere; 
others are in Athens (112), Berlin (23729), Cairo 
(C.G. 39273-39274), Medinet Habu (in 1956 at the 
ghafir's hut), and elsewhere (see the forthcoming 
article by Leclant). 


No. i8;Pl. 1 6, Figs. 38-39. 


Date uncertain; perhaps 670-650 b.c; Dynasties XXV -XXVI. Grey -green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.;no. 22.398 (W.A.G. no. 158). 

In view of the enormous production of 
stone sculptures in ancient Egypt and the pro- 
lific way in which most of them were furnished 
with inscriptions, one is not often at a loss as 
to the approximate period to which a statue is 
to be attributed. First, the hieroglyphic signs, 
the orthography, and the language change 
gradually, not rapidly, from century to cen- 
tury; second, many sculptures were always 
made in more or less the same style within a 
given period. As a result, the body of compar- 
able material is usually quite sizable, and only 
rarely does a sculpture appear that can be 
called unique. Such pieces, difficult to place, 
are often neglected. That has been the case 
with this bust in Baltimore, first illustrated 
forty-eight years ago, which, probably on ac- 
count of the unusual treatment of the face, has 
thus far been largely ignored. 

The bust forms the upper part of a kneeling 
statue representing a man with a wide wig, 
plastic eyebrows, and a fat chin, whose face is 
deeply creased and anything but attractive. To 
term it ugly would perhaps be going a little too 
far, for there is no doubt that the features are 
strangely arresting. The wide, slanting eyes, 
the high cheekbones, the deep furrows, are de- 
tails found on other sculptures, especially on 
some of early Dynasty XXVI. But what lends 
the face an almost foreign expression are the 
folds which depart from the philtrum to de- 
scend below the corners of the mouth, almost 
like a mustache. As a result, the mouth seems 
somewhat disdainful to the modern observer. 

Even though unusual features appear spo- 
radically during the middle and second half of 
the seventh century B.C., this face seems un- 

Egyptian. Since the sculpture is uninscribed 
(whatever text the back pillar may have had 
has been carefully erased, so that no trace of a 
hieroglyphic sign remains), and no exact paral- 
lel for this strange expression has been found, 
we may assume that the person represented is 
of a racial strain different from that of the 
native Egyptian. Perhaps he was a Libyan, or 
a courtier of Libyan extraction, in the turbu- 
lent times when a dynasty of Libyan ancestry, 
the Saites, established itself on the throne of 

measurements: Height 27.2 cm. Width across 
shoulders 16.6 cm. Depth (depth of break at front of 
skirt) 1 1.4 cm. Width of back pillar near break 
6.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known; formerly in the collection 
of Giovanni Dattari. 

bibliography: Collections de feu M. Jean P. Lambros 
d'Athenes et de M. Giovanni Dattari du Caire; An- 
tiquites egyptiennes, grecques et romaines (Sale 
Catalogue, Paris, Hotel Drouot, 17-19 June, 191 2), 
p. 36 no. 293, pi. XXXII. Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc. 
W.A.G., p. 52 no. 158, pi. XXVII. 

comment: That the bust belonged originally to a 
kneeling sculpture can be seen from the angle formed 
by the deeply grooved kilt and the body. The upper 
outline of the belt is curiously uneven; perhaps this 
part of the statue was left unfinished or was worked 
over at a later date. The width of the eyes and their 
slant relate the head somewhat to No. 20 and a few 
other similar pieces (Baltimore, W.A.G. 179; Lon- 
don, B.M. 41 56 1 ), and for the modeling of the collar- 
bones and the broad groove of the median line (No. 
19) numerous examples of early Saite date are avail- 
able. The closest parallel, however, for the strange 
expression of the face, though clearly created by a 
different craftsman, is in Paris (Petit Palais 308), 
likewise a kneeling statue without inscription; in this, 
the slant of the eyes is highly exaggerated and the 
mouth has a distinctly foreign expression. 


No. 19; Pis. 16-17, Figs. 40-42. 


664-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Light brown, almost alabaster-colored, quartzite. 

Owner: The Reverend Theodore Pitcairn, Bryn Athyn, Fa. 

Side by side with the idealizing style of the 
early Sake Period runs a strain of severe, harsh, 
almost ugly realism, which thus far has been 
detected only in a few heads dating from the 
reign of King Psamtik I. Whether this realism 
was prompted by Kushite influence reaching 
far to the north is as yet undetermined. There 
are reasons to assume that at about this time a 
native trend, either Memphite or from the 
Delta, made itself felt, which possibly reflected 
the Libyan ancestry of the rulers of Dynasties 
XXIV and XXVI. The body of inscribed 
sculpture dating from approximately 750 to 
664 b.c. in the north is still so small that one 
can hardly more than guess at the evolution of 
statuary which led to the masterpieces of early 
Saite art of Memphis and the Delta. 

In this bust, dated to the reign of Psamtik I 
by the inscription on the back pillar, we have 
one of the few great sculptures from the sev- 
enth century b.c. that conveys the impression 
of a major effort to individualize the likeness of 
a human being. A man is here represented who, 
despite the conventions of coiffure and pose, 
shows a directness of expression which cannot 
fail to attract attention. There is something 
very alert in this face, a face which at first 
glance might be termed ugly, but which in 
reality is merely so unlike the standard Egyp- 
tian idealizing visage that it stands out among 
its contemporaries. It should be added imme- 
diately, however, that there is no proof what- 
soever that this care-worn face is really a 
portrait, the true likeness of a definite person. 
This can hardly be expected at the time in 
which it was made, because the art of the sculp- 
tor was then still bound to the traditionalism of 
permanence, and a factual imitation of nature, 
as found in the features of a particular person, 

was not his aim. In a way, a head such as this 
is a negation of nature; a formula has been de- 
veloped to produce the impressive features of 
an older man, and in this bust we probably 
have the best example of just this formula under 
Psamtik I. There are other age-lined faces dat- 
ing from his reign, but none of them renders so 
admirably the maturity of a powerful old 

Several details of his features deserve special 
attention. The cranium is unusually flat, and 
since the striated wig lacks the customary bulk, 
the receding forehead appears rather low. The 
wig itself bulges forward below the ears and is 
cut back just where it meets the shoulders. The 
eyebrows and upper eyelids are contoured by 
a deep line, which gives them a plastic appear- 
ance, though they are not rendered in relief. 
The eyesockets are underlined by extraordinar- 
ily strong, high cheekbones, below which the 
cheeks rapidly sink away. The nose, to judge 
by the remains, was large and fleshy. On the 
other hand, the nasolabial furrows — usually 
the most convenient means of indicating ad- 
vanced age — are not very prominent. The 
mouth is rather forceful, broad, and with lips 
more open than is customary. 

The collarbones have been well worked out, 
as is characteristic of many sculptures made in 
the time of Psamtik I; and the same holds true 
for the median line, which in this case, how- 
ever, is really a deep broad groove rather than 
a sharply defined line. The inscription on the 
back pillar contains in the first two columns 
the so-called Saite formula and a series of titles. 
The third column gives the name of the person 
represented, Senbef, "revered before the King 
of Upper and Lower Egvpt, Wah-ib-ra 
(Psamtik I), living forever." 


measurements: Height 35.6 cm. Height of face 11.5 
cm. Width of break 34 cm. Depth 16.6 cm. Depth 
of break at median line 16.3 cm. Width of back pillar 
at break 12.7 cm. Depth of back pillar at break ca. 
1.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps from Memphis. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The name Senbef is well attested in this 
period (PN I, 314, 5), especially in the Memphite 
region (Cairo C.G. 659; Chalon-sur-Saone 851). The 
place name "Hetepet" at the beginning of the fourth 
column is that of a cult center of the goddess Hathor 
in the vicinity of Heliopolis and does not necessarily 
indicate the provenance; it appears, for instance, also 
in the titulary of that famous and yet elusive Theban 
priest, Petamenophis, owner of Tomb 33. The 
flatness of the cranium is occasionally found in this 
period (Athens 922; Baltimore, W.A.G. 179; Lon- 
don, B.M. 32183; Paris, Louvre E. 11251); it thus does 
not seem to have been a special peculiarity of the 
man here represented. Some of the detail of work- 
manship reminds one of the bust from the Metro- 
politan Museum (No. 10), especially in the treat- 
ment of eyeballs and lids. The broad back pillar 
with its lack of columnar lines, the well marked col- 
larbones, and the deeply grooved median line (cf. 

No. 18; New York, M.M.A. 24.2.2) are all in keep- 
ing with the style of numerous sculptures of the sec- 
ond half of the seventh century b.c. Senbef's face, 
however, is a singular achievement, and despite its 
formulary nature it has no close parallels — it is 
unique for its period. For the high cheekbones and 
deep eyesockets several heads, such as No. 20 and 
Munich, Ag. St. 1622, could be cited, but none 
of them is really close to the Bryn Athyn bust. The 
rather full mouth, which to some gives the impres- 
sion that it is partly open, also is apparently well-nigh 
unique. Finally the question remains from what kind 
of a statue this bust came. Enough is preserved of 
the left lower arm at the elbow to indicate that it 
was bent nearly at a right angle. The arms, there- 
fore, were reaching straight forward, and there is 
only one pose at this time which fits, namely that of 
the so-called scribe (No. 20). Although most scribe's 
statues are without a back pillar, some have one (see 
pp. xxxvi-xxxvii and No. 20), and it is precisely 
among the latter that we have a squatting scribe's 
figure (London, B.M. 32183), the bust of which re- 
sembles the Bryn Athyn sculpture in more than one 
way. The hair is striated, the back pillar is unusually 
broad, and though it bears only three columns of 
text, the way in which its upper edge meets the wig 
is exactly the same. 

No. 20; Pis. 18-19, Figs. 43-45. 


664-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Museo Nazionale, Palermo; no. 145. 

Dark grey granite with pink veins. 

Thanks to the sharp eye of our colleague 
Henri Wild, of the Institut Francais d'Arche- 
ologie Orientale in Cairo, the lower part of this 
magnificent bust in Sicily was recognized in the 
Cairo Museum, where it had been since 1898. 
When the upper portion, shown in this Exhibi- 
tion, came to Palermo is not known. Like many 
pharaonic monuments it may have been carried 
in the time of the Ptolemies to Alexandria, 
where, under the Romans or even later, it was 
picked up and brought acrossthe Mediterranean. 

According to the inscriptions on the back 
pillar and on the lap of the complete statue, a 
prominent man by the name of Bes (or Basa) 

is here represented. He was nomarch, or prince, 
of Mendes, in the heart of the Delta, under 
Psamtik I, whose cartouches occur both on the 
back pillar and on the lap of the figure. The 
completed sculpture shows Bes in the cross- 
legged attitude of a scribe, although he holds 
with both hands the front of his loincloth 
rather than the opened roll of papyrus, often 
represented in similar statues of the same pe- 
riod. Whereas the statue as a whole is quite 
conventional, Bes' head is again an example of 
the highly individualistic approach, in which 
some sculptors of early Dynasty XXVI excelled. 
Bes wears a wide wig which, in keeping with 


the style of his time, bulges slightly at ear level 
and below. It is cut out unusually high above 
the temples, with the result that the forehead 
looks as if it were enclosed in an angular frame. 
Under the plastic eyebrows, the eyes are set 
wide apart; they are quite large and slanting. 
The cheekbones form two curved ridges, which 
makes the eyesockets appear very deep when 
the sculpture is lit from above. Nose and mouth 
are much damaged; the latter is wide and thin- 
lipped, and the nasolabial furrows are deeply 
etched. All these details lend the face a sorrow- 
ful, almost tragic expression, although it is un- 
likely that it is a true portrait of the Prince of 

That an unusually fastidious and skilled 
craftsman was at work on this sculpture can be 
seen in a number of rarely observed details. 
For instance, a very delicate ridge, to demark 
the line where frontal and parietal bones meet, 
rises vertically on the forehead over the outer 
portion of each eye. Above the eyebrows a 
horizontal depression modifies the forehead, 
and at the root of the nose a perpendicular, 
somewhat irregular furrow indicates a light 
frown. These are details which much later 
become the standard means by which an age- 
lined face is distinguished from idealizing fea- 
tures; it is surprising to find them so well 
developed early in Dynasty XXVI. Their pres- 
ence at this time throws a special light on the 
achievements of sculpture in the round under 
Psamtik I in northern Egypt. 

The torso, on the other hand, does not offer 
anything nearly as spectacular, though atten- 
tion should be drawn to the well-modeled, 
strong collarbones, which in this period are 
often treated with great attention to anatomical 

measurements: Height 33.8 cm. Width across break 
26.6 cm. Depth of break 12.3 cm. Width of back 
pillar 8.4 cm. Intracolumnar width ca. 1.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known; originally from Mendes. 

bibliography: Biagio Pace, Arte e Civilta della Sic ilia 
antica, vol. Ill (1945), p. 685. TSBA 6 (1878), pp. 
287-288 and plate. Henri Wild, "Statue d'un noble 
mendesien du regne de Psametik I er aux musees de 

Palerme et du Caire," in llll'AO 60 (i960), pp. 43-67 
with 2 figs., pi. 1-V. 

comment: The lower portion in the Cairo Museum, 
C.G. 1233 (J.E. 3201 1 ), made its first appearance in 
Borchardt, Statuen IV, p. 122, pi. 172. Since the 
statue has been well published by Henri Wild, who 
also gave permission to reproduce here his composite 
views of the two widely separated fragmentary por- 
tions, this commentary can be restricted to a few 
points not dealt with in his otherwise admirable 
treatment of the statue, which, when complete, would 
have measured about 60 cm. in height. In general, 
the comments on the other sculptures of early Dy- 
nasty XXVI, especially of the time of Psamtik I, 
should be compared. It cannot be stressed too often, 
however, that after the reign of this king attempts at 
individualizing the features of a private person in a 
temple sculpture again disappear, and that there is 
not sufficient evidence to attribute the beginning of 
true portraiture to his period. As much as one might 
be inclined to see the traits of a definite person in 
heads such as this one, it must be remembered that 
experiments in realism at this time are widely scat- 
tered and that their sum total does not amount to 
more than an occasional venture to find a solution 
different from the usual and traditional. It has al- 
ready been pointed out that our understanding of the 
origin of realism in sculpture under Psamtik I is still 
rather sketchy, especially with regard to the influ- 
ence of Kushite realism of Dynasty XXV. The type 
of the cross-legged seated statue originates in Dy- 
nasty IV (Paris, Louvre E. 12629), without back 
pillar. In the Middle Kingdom the type occurs more 
often, still without a back pillar (Copenhagen, N.C.G. 
88 is possibly the only exception). It is frequent dur- 
ing the New Kingdom (Vandier, Manuel III, pp. 
448-450), and then seems to disappear, except for a 
few isolated examples (ASAE 47 [1947], pp. 15-21). 
The revival of this classic pose in the Late Period 
seems to have taken place in the north; the earliest 
example is Cairo " -f- \l which was made for Baken- 
nifi, Prince of Athribis, at the time of the Assyrian 
raids into Egypt between 670 and 664 b.c. All other 
dated or datable cross-legged statues were made in 
the reign of Psamtik I, one or two perhaps under his 
successor, although this is far from certain. Apart 
from the presence or absence of the back pillar, there 
are two main types to be distinguished. Some statues, 
such as the Palermo-Cairo statue of Bes, show the 
subject holding the front edge of the loincloth with 
both hands; in others the right hand rests on the right 
thigh, whereas the left holds a papyrus which is 
partly unrolled on the lap. The earlv example from 
Athribis, cited above, has one arm raised after the 
fashion of the Middle Kingdom (Vienna 35), from 
which the sculptor took his inspiration, and there is 
one statue in the Cairo Museum (J.E. 4371 1) — well 
dated by a cartouche of Psamtik I — in which a 
long skirt entirely hides the lower legs and feet. A 

2 3 

red vein runs diagonally across the statue of Bes. It 
appears that a "flawed" block was intentionally 
chosen for the sculpture. Since a number of Late 
sculptures in hard, dark stones show similar veins 
(Alexandria 26298; Washington, Textile Museum 
07.3), it may be that, to the craftsman of those times 

(unlike those of earlier periods, who apparently chose 
perfect blocks), the irregularities of the stone had 
some aesthetic or other appeal. The subject of the 
Palermo-Cairo statue, Bes, is not identical with the 
persons of the same name represented in No. 29, 
Marseille 214, and Moscow 4982. 

No. 21; PI. 20, Fig. 46. 


About 660-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; no. 25.2.1, 

Dark green schist. 

Thanks to the squatting statue of Bes, divided 
between the Palermo and Cairo Museums (No. 
20), we have now one great sculpture in this 
pose with a remarkable face, which is dated to 
the reign of Psamtik I by the inscription. The 
incomplete statue from Bryn Athyn (No. 19), 
with an equally impressive head, also of the 
period of Psamtik I, in all probability likewise 
belonged to a squatting statue. And here we 
have in a bust from the Metropolitan Museum, 
datable to the same period, a third example, 
chosen for the highly individualized realism 
which, during a relatively brief period, is ex- 
pressed in the sculpture of early Dynasty 
XXVI. These three are actually the best sur- 
viving pieces of this particular style, and it is 
indeed fortunate to be able to see them together. 

And yet, the differences between them are 
great, and none is farther from the norm — if 
there ever was one — than this bust of an anony- 
mous official in well-polished schist. He wears 
a bag wig which surrounds the face on three 
sides like a voluminous cushion and droops over 
the shoulders onto the back. With its smooth, 
bulging contour it forms a marked contrast to 
the wrinkled face, which, like the two exam- 
ples cited above, is primarily distinguished by 
the high cheekbones and deep furrows. The 
eyebrows are strongly curved and are defined 
by a single incised line, which forms the upper 
contour. The eyes, set in large sockets, have 

very delicate plastic rims on the lids, a minute 
detail not observed on any other sculpture of 
the period. Incised crow's-feet mark the outer 
corners of the eyes, and an almost unbelievable 
care — unbelievable in this period — has been 
exercised to model the bags under the eyes and 
the transition to nose and cheekbones. The 
way in which the upper lid covers part of the 
eye also betrays the mastership of the craftsman. 

There are traces of small furrows at the root 
of the nose. The nose itself, however, is almost 
entirely missing. All that is left seems to indi- 
cate that it was deeply depressed, for the ridge 
descends straight down from the forehead. The 
ears are unusual, modeled in great detail and 
lacking the traditionally large earlobes. There 
are vertical "worry lines" between the eyes, 
and where the cheek meets the ear a few wrin- 
kles have been added; this preoccupation of the 
sculptor with skin and flesh, rather than with 
the bony structure of the head, is almost with- 
out parallel in this period. 

The torso was surely done by another hand 
or lacks the final finish, because, at least from 
the front, it is disappointingly nondescript in its 
traditional form. The back shows somewhat 
more character, and since the figure does not 
have a back pillar, it can be seen that the ana- 
tomical essentials have been followed with a cer- 
tain faithfulness, though without inspiration. 

The angle formed by the left elbow shows 


that the lower arms were held nearly horizon- 
tally. This attitude, and the fact that the elbows 
are not held close to the body, are — together 
with the absence of the back pillar — the best 
proof that the bust belonged to a scribe's statue. 
There is no reason to doubt that it really came 
from the Ptah Temple precinct at Memphis, 
the finding place of so many sculptures of pre- 
cisely the reign of Psamtik I, and stylistically 
the sculpture is definitely of the north rather 
than of the Thebais. 

measurements: Height above modern base 35.9 cm. 
Width across arms (break) 29.8 cm. Depth 15.8 cm. 
Depth of break at abdomen 13.2 cm. Death of break 
of left arm 5.4 cm. 

provenance: Said to have been found at Memphis, 
on the site of the Ptah Temple. 

bibliography: (Herbert E. Winlock) The Metro- 
politan Museum of Art, Egyptian Statues and Statu- 
ettes; A Picture Book (New York, 1937), fig. 22. 
(Nora E. Scott and Charles Sheeler) The Metropoli- 
tan Museum of Art, Egyptian Statues (New York, 
1945). fig- (28). 

comment: The absence of a back pillar occurs only 
during the latter part of Dynasty XXV and the be- 
ginning of Dynasty XXVI, and then only in block 
statues, seated statues, and squatting statues. The 
present piece is obviously not a block statue, and for 
seated statues we have thus far only two examples 
without back pillar, one of which is definite (Cairo 
J.E. 36578, Theban) and one probable (No. 10, 
Memphite). On the other hand, most squatting 
statues and statuettes are without back pillar, and 
thus it seems likely that this bust from the Metro- 

politan Museum, too, comes from a scribe's statue, 
especially in view of the realistic treatment of the 
face, which also occurs in the two other examples 
(Nos. 19, 20). It is perhaps no accident that in the 
time of King Psamtik I, scribe's statues more than 
any other type of sculpture were endowed with in- 
dividualistic features; the preoccupation of a man in 
this pose with reading, writing, understanding, and 
thinking may have something to do with it. The bag 
wig, which, like the wide wig, is found with minor 
modifications throughout the Late Period, makes its 
first appearance in the time of Psamtik I (No. 29). 
The stark realism of the face and the emphasis on 
flesh and skin in the features of this anonymous 
courtier are of course the climax of a fairly brief de- 
velopment, which perhaps began with sculptures such 
as No. 8 and progressed through Nos. 19 and 20 to 
this bust. Against such an evolution speaks the great 
bust of Mentuemhat in Cairo (C.G. 647), which has 
a similar, though Theban, treatment of the skin folds, 
mainly around the corners of the eves (Fig. 29). The 
lack of well-developed earlobes on the bust under 
discussion is a feature not easily overlooked, since it 
does not correspond to traditional treatment, and one 
may well wonder if, after all, the detail is not based 
on actual observation of the person represented. Al- 
though at present — and this cannot be stressed too 
often — there is no proof of definite portraiture in the 
beginning of Dynasty XXVI, any statements on the 
formula of realistic representations must be subject 
to revision when the entire repertory of surviving 
heads of the Late Period with realistic features has 
been properly recorded and studied. The corners of 
the mouth are open and end in notches, which de- 
scend as they do in the sculpture from Richmond 
(No. 8). The receding forehead, for which there is 
a good parallel in the head from Bryn Athyn (No. 
19), is not much noticeable because of the bulk of 
the wig. 

No. 22; PI. 20, Fig. 47. 


664-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Va.; no. 5 1-19-4. 


Among the materials which the Egyptians 
themselves considered rare and precious is the 
milky-white to cream-colored alabaster which 
in many instances resembles marble. Less than 
twenty sculptures in this stone are known from 

the Late Period, and in view of their scarcity it 
is fortunate to be able to include in this exhibi- 
tion one which, from its style and inscription, 
can be assigned to the second part of the sev- 
enth century b.c. 


The man represented is for the time being 
anonymous. The only inscriptions on the bust 
are the names and titulary of King Psamtik I, 
which are incised on the shoulders of his faith- 
ful follower. The signs on the right read, "King 
of Upper and Lower Egypt, Psamtik," and 
those on the left, "The Good God, the Lord of 
the Two Lands, Wah-ib-ra." The person wears 
a double wig which partly covers the ears. The 
upper layer of the wig has thinly incised, un- 
dulating striations; on the lower portion the 
echeloned curls are equally faint. The eye- 
brows are contoured by engraved lines, and 
this gives them the appearance of being in low 
relief, which is actually not the case. The fea- 
tures are without much distinction, except per- 
haps for the well-formed mouth. There is a 
slight repair on the nose. The collarbones, as 
customary in early Sake times, are quite promi- 
nent, although the alabaster tends to subdue 
many details of the modeling. The median line 
is marked; the nipples have not been indicated. 
Since the sculpture has no back pillar, it must 
have come from a scribe's statue. 

Incidentally, the name of the material, ala- 
baster, is in all probability derived from the 
place-name "Bubastis" in Lower Egypt, where 
the cat-headed goddess Bastet was worshipped. 
Her name is written in hieroglyphs with the 

sign of an ointment jar usually made in this 
very material. 

measurements: Height 37.5 cm. Width of break 
34.4 cm. Depth of break 16.9 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collection 
of P. Philip. 

bibliography: Antiquites Egyptiennes, Grecques et 
Romanies appartenant a P. Philip. . . . (Sale Cata- 
logue, Paris, Hotel Drouot, 10-12 April, 1905), pp. 
17-18, no. 53, plate. 

comment: There can be no doubt that this bust 
comes from a scribe's statue, in view of the over- 
whelming number of sculptures of this type without 
back pillar which are dated to Psamtik I. For the 
double wig with indication of striations and curls, 
see No. 10. The use of "King of Upper and Lower 
Egypt" before "Psamtik" is uncommon (Gauthier, 
L.R. IV, pp. 67 and 72); one would expect it to 
preface "Wah-ib-ra." In general, the latter cartouche 
is found on the left shoulder of the statues dated to 
Psamtik I, although in a few cases the reverse can be 
observed (Cairo J.E. 36949; Edinburgh 1947.89). 
Among the alabaster sculptures of the Late Period 
are the lower portions of two scribe's statues, to 
either of which this bust may have belonged. One of 
them was in the Gubert Collection around 1800 and 
then passed into the J.F. Mimaut Collection (no. 321); 
it has since been lost to sight. The other is in private 
possession in Egypt; according to the long inscrip- 
tion on base and lap it represents Sema-tawy-tefnakht, 
the well-known commander of the flotilla which in 
656 b.c. brought Nitocris, daughter of Psamtik I, to 
Thebes. He is the person most likely represented in 
the Richmond bust. 

No. 23; PI. 21, Figs. 48-49. 


About 664-640 b.c; Dynasty XX VI. Dark grey -green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery , Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.145 ( 152). 

In the heads Nos. 19 and 20, dated to the 
reign of Psamtik I, and in that of No. 21, dat- 
able to the same king, a surprising variety of 
realistic expressions has been recorded. In this 
sculpture from Baltimore, the upper part of a 
standing or kneeling statue, a fourth example 

is presented to illustrate the wide range of pos- 
sibilities enjoyed by the craftsmen of early 
Dynasty XXVI in depicting advanced age. 
Such versatility is even more remarkable when 
one considers the number of idealizing heads 
created at the same period and probably in the 


same workshops, unless one assumes that the 
beginning of the reign of Psamtik I is charac- 
terized by a series of realistic heads and that 
idealizing faces were created in the latter part 
of his rule, at least in the north — that is, in the 
Delta, at Memphis, and in the Fayum. 

From the inscription on the back pillar, the 
last-named region is clearly the origin of this 
sculpture; although the man's name is only 

partly preserved as Djed , his titles point 

to that fertile oasis adjoining the Nile Valley 
southwest of Memphis. He was a person of 
considerable character, and though it is un- 
likely that this is his true portrait, something of 
his fierce frown and wildly discordant features 
may be reflected in this extraordinary temple 
sculpture. His is a face long to be remembered. 

The man wears a long, striated wig of un- 
usual shape, which is drawn back above the 
temples and then, in relief, without any vol- 
ume, swings forward toward the eyes and back 
again, to end in an approximation of the usual 
square tabs in front of the ear. A shallow 
groove bisecting the forehead above the nose 
is flanked by two furrows slanting toward the 
temples. At the root of the nose, a thick hori- 
zontal fold adds to the frown. The cheeks are 
slightly sunken, and two heavy, curved naso- 
labial furrows and a mouth drooping at the 
corners complete the picture of an angry, de- 
termined old man. 

In contrast, neck and torso show little modi- 
fication except for a perpendicular ridge at the 
throat, the deep sternal notch, and the median 
line. Otherwise the body seems strangely 
youthful; but it must be borne in mind that 
after Dynasty XXV the Egyptians hardly ever 
bothered to reproduce individual features in 
the human body. The remains of the belt indi- 
cate that the skirt, as customary, is worn 
rather low. 

The whole sculpture is peculiarly asymmet- 
rical. The groove on the forehead is slightly 
left of center; the head turns almost imper- 
ceptibly to the right and leans back, and the 
neck does not sit vertically on the torso. 

measurements: Height 18.8 cm. Height of face 5.2 
cm. Width 10.6 cm. Depth of break 6.5 cm. Width 
of back pillar near break 3.9 cm. Intracolumnar width 
1.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably from the Fayum. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., p. 51, 
pi. XXVI and CXIII, no. 152. 

comment: The way in which the wig more or less 
squarely surrounds the forehead reminds one of 
No. 20, the bust from Palermo, and so does the nar- 
rowness of the head at the level of the temples. With 
the bust from Bryn Athyn (No. 19) this head has in 
common the receding forehead and the marked flat- 
ness of the cranium. The slanting folds which rise 
above the root of the nose occur on other sculptures 
of approximately the same period (Nos. 7 and 28; 
Berlin 23728; Moscow i960; Washington, 
Textile Museum 07.4). The bulging eyes and 
thick eyelids are probably due to the craftsman's in- 
tention to exaggerate those features (cf. No. 36), 
just as he has pictured the neck as abnormally long. 
There is no transition between neck and torso; they 
are modeled as if they were separate units which 
have been placed one on the other. The first column 
of the text on the back pillar begins with the so- 
called Saite formula in favor of the "Servant of 
Neith, Prophet of Bastet-Protector-of-her-Father, 
Djed. . . ." The incomplete name is probably to be 
restored as Djed-bast-iuf-ankh, a name very common 
in the Fayum (London, B.M. 22374-22377; Petrie, 
Hawara, pi. II-III; Spiegelberg, De?>iotica, II, p. 29, 
no. 23; MD1K 16 [1958], pp. 243-244). Both titles of 
the man point to the Fayum. "Servant of Neith" is 
especially frequent on monuments from that region 
(Boston,' MF.A. 89.482; Cairo C.G. 882; London, 
B.M. 1042; Seattle Eg 24.12). A "Prophet of Bastet- 
Protector-of-her-Father" is named on London, B.M. 
22374-22377. The full writing of wedjeb in the sec- 
ond column, in the standard expression em-khet 
wedjeb khet, is only known from earlv Saite times 
(Paris, Louvre N. 663). Thus date and provenance 
of the bust are reasonably well assured. The traces 
of paint mentioned in the publication are ordinary 
mud. There is no evidence that hard-stone sculptures 
of the Late Period were ever polychromed. 


No. 24; PL 22, Fig. 50. 


About 670-650 b.c; early Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 3949.20. 

Brown quartzite. 

The manifold facets of Sake art would not 
be complete without at least one example of a 
highly archaizing trend which, unjustly, is 
mentioned much too often; namely, the style 
which follows or even imitates works of art 
from the Old Kingdom. Pieces in this style are 
relatively few. In sculpture in the round we 
have the well-known statues of the so-called 
scribes (No. 20); in relief, there survive a few 
tablets and stelae, such as this from Cleveland, 
which are definitely based on prototypes dat- 
ing from Dynasties IV and V. 

The Cleveland stela is in brown quartzite, a 
stone quarried at the Gebel Ahmar, not far to 
the east of modern Cairo, of which many mon- 
uments at nearby Memphis and Heliopolis were 
made; this relief comes from the latter place. 
It represents a man named Djed-atum-iuf-ankh 
seated before an offering table and dressed in 
an archaic costume. He and his father Hory 
bear a typically Heliopolitan priestly title, 
imy-iunet; the mother's name is Tagemet. 
These names are contained in the inscription 
incised on a panel at the upper right of the 
slab, in a very different manner from the in- 
scription in bold relief under the offering table, 
which reads, "A thousand of bread and beer, 
cattle and fowl" — a plea for everlasting nour- 
ishment in life after death. 

Neither in proportions nor in composition 
does this relief correspond very closely to Old 
Kingdom examples, and yet it is unmistakably 
based on a type of slab stela developed in the 
reign of Snofru, the first king of Dynasty IV. 
Since there exist hardly any other parallels of 
the Late Period for this particular kind of bold 
relief derived from the early Old Kingdom, 
the Cleveland slab must be considered as the 
product of a workshop which soon abandoned 


the practice of mere borrowing from works of 

art produced some 2000 years earlier. 

measurements: Height 29.5 cm. Width 25.5 cm. 

provenance: Heliopolis (dealer's statement, borne 
out by the inscription). From the John Huntington 

bibliography: The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum 
of Art 12 (1925), pp. 145, 147-148. The Art News 
(New York) 12 (28 Nov., 1925), p. 8 (illus.). Jean 
Yoyotte, in B1FAO 54 (1954), pp. 83-85. 

comment: Not only is the name of the relief's sub- 
ject, Djed-atum-iuf-ankh, composed with that of 
Atum, the chief deity of Heliopolis, but the offering 
formula is addressed primarily to "Atum-who-re- 
sides-in-his-town." The father's name, Hory, is also 
frequent in the region of Heliopolis. For the name 
of the mother, Tagemet, see PN I, 371, 20; and for 
the title imy-iunet see Yoyotte, loc. cit., especially 
pp. 105- 1 10. Mrs. C. R. Williams, in a footnote to the 
article in the Cleveland Bulletin, cited above, already 
indicated that she considered the relief Late, and F. 
LI. Griffith (JEA 12 [1926], p. 303) assigned it to the 
transitional period from Dynasty XXV to XXVI. 
This date is indicated not only by the inscription at 
the upper right but also by details such as the inverted 
frustrum under the chair legs. Yet the Old Kingdom 
model had been studied with great care, as is shown 
by the outline of the pillow edge just above the 
papyrus-blossom finial on the chair. Another archaiz- 
ing relief from Heliopolis, of approximately the same 
period, though less bold, is in Copenhagen (N.C.G. 
1040); it imitates the style of Dynasty VI. A fine ex- 
ample of a much freer adaptation of Old Kingdom 
low relief in the beginning of Dynasty XXVI is of- 
fered by the stela of Harbes in Turin (Suppl. 17161). 
If only a fragment of the Cleveland relief with the 
head of Djed-atum-iuf-ankh had been preserved, it 
would indeed be hard to state whether it dated from 
the Old Kingdom or from the Late Period, so closely 
does the valanced wig follow the style of Dynasty IV. 
A similar wig, though somewhat modified, also oc- 
curs in sculpture in the round during the reign of 
Psamtik I (Cairo J.E. 56836; H. Hoffmann Collection 
41; London, B.M. 14403), and again 300 years later, 
during one of those brief spells of classicism to which 
Egyptian art was sporadically prone to succumb 
(Nos. 77 and 80). Note that the archaism of this stela 
goes so far as to endow Djed-atum-iuf-ankh with two 
"left" hands and feet, whereas on the stela of Harbes, 
mentioned above, the hands are drawn correctly. 

No. 25; PL 22, Fig. 51. 


664-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 58.95. 

Green-brown schist. 

In view of the large number of sculptures 
dated to the reign of the first king of Dynasty 
XXVI, Psamtik I, it is disappointing to realize 
how little we know of the statuary represent- 
ing the great ruler himself, who restored native 
kingship to the Nile valley, brought the entire 
land under his control after the defeat of As- 
syrians and Kushites, and in an as yet unde- 
termined way inspired numerous workshops 
all over the country, so that stone sculpture in 
the round once more became the primary mode 
of artistic expression in Egypt. 

There are no statues of Psamtik I in this 
country except for the fragmentary torso in 
Brooklyn, here presented for the first time. It 
is the wreck of what was once a very fine 
figure, now only a document rather than a 
work of art, but in view of its artistic and his- 
torical importance, it has seemed advisable to 
include it in the Exhibition. It shows merely the 
front of a striding statuette of the king; the 
back is completely split off, and there are only 
traces of the arms. The front, however, is 
superbly modeled, and despite the damage the 
piece has suffered, it permits us to imagine 
what royal sculpture of the period was really 
like. It certainly is in no way inferior to the 
best of small-scale statuary of Dynasty IV, and 
in its refinement of form it achieves a harmony 
such as must have greatly impressed the Greeks 
in their first encounter with Egyptian sculpture. 

Although the royal cartouche in the inscrip- 
tion on the belt is all but obliterated, there re- 
mains a minute trace of the first sign, wah, of 
the prenomen of Psamtik I, Wah-ib-ra, the 
name he adopted when he acceeded to the 
throne in 664 b.c. It is usually prefaced by the 
title "King of Upper and Lower Egypt," but 
this inscription employs a more religious termi- 

nology: "The Good God, Wah-ib-ra, Beloved 
of Amun-Ra, Living Eternally." The refer- 
ence to the state god residing at Thebes permits 
us to assume that the statuette was dedicated 
there in the great temple of Karnak. 

The sternal notch is placed rather high; con- 
sequently the well-modeled collarbones form 
a nearly straight line, unlike those in some pri- 
vate sculpture of the same period from the 
north (No. 20). The median line divides the 
thorax into two equal halves, though it is less 
pronounced than in the torso of the statue of 
Khonsu-ir-aa from Boston (No. 9), which may 
have been made about a generation earlier. The 
contour of the chest muscles dips slightly to- 
ward the sides, and there is a faint indication of 
the rib cage. The upper abdomen, though 
quite flat, shows a softness and roundness far 
more in keeping with the Theban style of the 
middle of the seventh century b.c. than with 
work done in Memphis or the Delta during the 
same period. Psamtik I did not establish his 
rule over Thebes until 656 b.c, and since he 
was a notably wise and cautious king, a fairly 
small sculpture such as this one, made in a 
Theban workshop, may well have been his first 
obeisance to the main deity of the much- 
coveted capital of the heartland. 

measurements: Height 15.4 cm. Width 12.2 cm. 
Depth 4 cm. Width of break at neck ca. 3.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps Thebes. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: Thus far only three sculptures of Psamtik 
I are known, all from the Delta (Alexandria 347, 
which forms the lower part of the headless torso in 
London, B.M. 600; Copenhagen, N.M. AAb 211, also 
headless and without arms; Cairo J.E. 67845, a statue 
base, not necessarily from a figure of the king him- 
self). The fragmentary seated statue at Mitrahineh, 
mentioned in Brugsch, Reiseberichte, p. 81, was most 
probably that of a god, dedicated by the king. It is 


very unlikely that a head in London (B.M. 633), often 
claimed to be that of Psamtik I, really represents the 
king, and his shawabtis (London, B.M. 21922; Vienna 
8354) are too insignificant to be of value for no mat- 
ter how meager an iconographic study — they show a 
pudgy, rather un-royal face and can hardly be taken 
into account. Comparison of the collarbones with 
those of the statue of Khonsu-ir-aa (No. 9) and other 

Theban sculptures of the period show that this frag- 
mentary torso may well have been made in Upper 
Egypt, not in Memphis or the Delta. The lack of 
lappets on the shoulders permits us to assume that 
the king was represented wearing the "Blue Crown," 
the war helmet (Nos. 51 and 53), which according to 
Herodotus II, 151, played such a decisive role when 
Psamtik I came to power. 

No. 26; PL 22, Fig. 52. 


About 660-630 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Brownish-black basalt. 
Owner: Mr. Albert Gallatin, New York, N. Y. 

Included in this exhibition are many sculp- 
tures in the round and a few reliefs. This naos 
stela from the collection of Albert Gallatin 
presents a third mode of modeling the human 
figure, which is neither high relief nor in the 
round: the figures represented, shown in front 
view, are almost detached from the back- 
ground of their niche. The front border of the 
shrine in which they stand is covered with a 
continuous band of inscription. On the loin- 
cloth of each man is a brief column of text 
giving his chief title and name, and on the back- 
ground of the niche between them is a barely 
visible column of inscription with the name 
and title of the son of the man to the right. The 
latter, who wears a valanced wig, is Pa-inmu; 
on the left, with a wide wig, is his father, It, 
son of Pedy-ese. Pa-inmu's son, also named It, 
had the stela made for his father and grand- 
father as an offering of filial piety. The wife of 
Pa-inmu, mother of the younger It, was called 

The titulary of the men and the offering 
formula addressed to the gods Ptah and Sokar- 
Osiris point to a Memphite provenance. The 
torso of the elder It is characterized by the 
median line, whereas that of his son, on the 
right, shows a more detailed modeling, with in- 
dication of the rib cage. 

measurements: Height 40 cm. Width 30 cm. Depth 
10 cm. Height of niche 26.9 cm. Width of niche 21.2 

cm. Depth of niche at level of feet 3.5 cm. 

provenance: Said to be Memphis, an origin which is 
borne out by the inscriptions. Formerly in the Joseph 
Durighello Collection. 

bibliography: Catalogue des objets d'art antiques, 
egyptiens, grecs et romains . . . ayant compose la 
Collection de Madame Xav. Durighello (Sale Cata- 
logue, Paris, Galerie Georges Petit, 12 June, 1924), 
p. 10, no. 11, pi. II. John D. Cooney, "Egyptian Art 
in the Collection of Albert Gallatin," in JNES 12 
(1953), pp. 16-17, pi. XLIX, no. 79. 

comment: Niche stelae with two or more standing 
figures half in the round occur rarely (Third Inter- 
mediate Period: Rec.Trav. 29 [1907], pp. 174-178; 
Dynasty XXV: Cairo J.E. 37377; early Dynasty 
XXVII: No. 66 and London, B.M. 511)- The costume 
of the two men is archaizing; their loincloth is of a 
kind worn only by squatting scribes in the Late 
Period, and the valanced wig (in less voluminous 
form characteristic of the reign of Psamtik I) re- 
minds one of the Old Kingdom prototype. The 
notch at the edge of the elder It's wig in the middle 
of the forehead is not accidental; such indication of 
the parting of the hair is occasionally found in early 
Saite sculpture (Baltimore, W.A.G. 153; Paris, 
Louvre E. 1 1068). For the name of the lady, see PN 
I, 356, 8, and 359, 11; II, p. 395. The full titulary of 
the people named in the stela is as follows: "God's 
Father, ^e7;;-Priest, Belonging to the Feasts of Ra, 
Overseer of the Secrets of Rosetau, It," son of the 
"God's Father, Prophet, Overseer of the Secrets of 
the Great Palace, Overseer of the Secrets of the 
House of Ptah, Pedy-ese." Pa-inmu is merely a 
"renep-Priest," whereas his son, It, was "God's Father, 
He-who-is-in-the-palace, and renep-Priest." The ar- 
chaizing costume, the formula maa-kheru neb imakh, 
and the examples for the writing of the name "It" 
mentioned by Cooney, loc. cit., all suggest a date in 
the first half of the reign of Psamtik I. 


No. 27; Pis. 23-24, Figs. 53-55. DJED-KHONSU-IUF-ANKI I, PROPHET OF AMUN 

About 660-650 b.c; end of Dynasty XXV to beginning of Dynasty XXVI. 

Light to dark grey -green schist. 

Owner: Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. J.E. 37992 (K. 584). 

In the introduction to this Catalogue it has 
been stressed that each period of Egyptian art, 
like the art of any other nation, has first to be 
judged on its own merits and only then com- 
pared, if necessary, with the achievements of 
earlier times. This statue from Karnak in 
Upper Egypt can pass both tests. It is one of 
the best examples of male sculpture without 
attributes from the middle of the seventh cen- 
tury b.c, and it certainly more than holds its 
own when compared with similar figures made 
during the New Kingdom and even earlier. Its 
simplicity is beguiling; though the feet and base 
are lost, the pose is self-evident — a striding 
man with the left leg advanced, dressed in a 
wide wig and a long skirt with stiff trapezoid 
front panel. There is no belt. The man holds 
no naos, nor does he present anything to his 
god. He is just himself. His arms hang at his 
sides, and he holds a folded kerchief in his left 
hand, while his right hand is stretched out, palm 
turned toward the rear. 

There are two inscriptions on the figure, a 
column down the front of the skirt and another 
on the back pillar. From these texts we learn 
that the subject was the "God's Father, Prophet 
of Amun in Karnak, Prophet of Sobek-lord-of- 
Isheru, Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh, son of the God's 
Father, Pi-. . .-wedja, and of the Lady, Song- 
stress of Amun-Ra . . ." (The name of the 
mother is lost, and that of the father is not en- 
tirely legible.) Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh and his 
parents have thus far not been identified from 
any other inscription. Thus the subject of this 
fine sculpture remains more or less anonymous 
for us, which is especially regrettable in view 
of the exquisite workmanship. 

The hard schist, with its variety of shades 

from light to dark, has been modeled with great 
care, and though the surface has been well fin- 
ished, it has not been polished, which gives a 
texture of velvety quality rarely encountered. 
The face, an idealizing likeness, has been sculp- 
tured with just the degree of reticence neces- 
sary to blend the youthful features successfully 
with more definite traits — the firm chin, for 
instance — so that the impression of a pleasant, 
yet empty mask has been avoided. 

The eyes deserve special attention since, on 
account of the strong eyebrows and cosmetic 
lines in relief, it is not readily noticed how small 
the openings really are. The contour formed 
by upper and lower eyelid is of great elegance, 
reminding one of the best work in the time of 
King Amenhotep III. There is a sharp incision 
around each nostril, and lastly it has to be 
pointed out that the corners of the mouth are 
drawn up in a faint "smile," though surely no 
smile was intended, only an amiable and pleas- 
ing expression. 

In keeping with Theban tradition, the body 
shows the same sensitive approach as the face. 
The chest is muscular, and yet not overly 
strong; the nipples have been prominently in- 
dicated, and there is a pronounced median line. 

To the modern observer the texture of the 
surface, the harmony of the proportions, and 
the benign expression of the face render this 
statue a very appealing work of sculpture. The 
body is supple and yet strong, and were it not 
for the inscription and the unmistakable attire 
of a private person, one might well wonder if 
the figure did not represent a person of blood 

measurements: Height 53.3 cm. Height above hem 
of skirt 48 cm. Height above break of back pillar 52 


cm. Width across shoulders ca. 15 cm. Width of 
back pillar 5.8 cm. Intracolumnar width 3.5 cm. 

provenance: Karnak (cachette). 
bibliography: Hornemann, Types I, 115. 

comment: Since neither names and titles nor the 
palaeography of the inscriptions offer any precise 
dating criteria, the exact period to which this statue 
should be attributed has for some time been some- 
what doubtful, but there are now a number of good 
reasons for assigning it to the transitional period of 
Dynasties XXV-XXVI. First, an inscription down 
the front of the long skirt of a standing figure seems 
to occur for only a limited time. In addition to the 
statue under discussion, it is found in at least five 
examples (No. 38B; Cairo C.G. 902, 42248, and J.E. 
37389; Paris, Louvre E. 13 106). Of these, the well- 
dated sculptures range from the middle of Dynasty 
XXV (Cairo C.G. 902) to the time of Psamtik I 
(Cairo C.G. 42248), and one of them, the statue 
of Akhamenru in Paris (Louvre E. 13 106), offers 
several other parallels to the sculpture of Djed- 
khonsu-iuf-ankh. It has been remarked above that 
the skirt worn by Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh has no belt. 
But on the statue of Akhamenru the belt, although 
shown on both sides of the front panel, apparently 
passes under it or at any rate is not indicated in the 
center where the column of inscription begins. Fur- 
thermore, the wide wig worn by Akhamenru is, in 
contour, bulk, and the way in which it juts out back 
of the shoulders, very similar to that of our statue, 
and the same holds true for the wig on the Cairo 
statue of Petamenophis (J.E. 37389). Akhamenru 
(No. 6) is well dated, and so is Petamenophis, owner 
of Theban Tomb 33, of whom nine sculptures are 
known and whose floruit lies definitely at the end of 

Taharqa's and the beginning of Psamtik I's reign. In 
this connection the position of the hands of the sculp- 
ture under discussion should be mentioned, because 
it is so unusual for this period. For the position of the 
right hand, palm to rear, no Late examples have been 
found, but the aforementioned statue of Akhamenru 
has the right hand open and the left hand clenched. 
The kerchief is found in the left hand on the statue 
of In-imen-naf-nebu (Cairo C.G. 42248), who was a 
nephew of Mentuemhat; his right hand is stretched 
out. A statue in Cairo (J.E. 56836), dated by the 
cartouches of Psamtik I, even holds kerchiefs in both 
hands; after this king no examples are found for the 
kerchief or for asymmetrical positions of the hands 
in standing figures without attributes. The long skirt 
with trapezoidal forepart is clearly taken over from 
the New Kingdom without modification. The same 
holds true for the asymmetrical positions of the 
hands, one of which holds a kerchief (Hornemann, 
Types I, 110-115), and especially for the turn of the 
right hand held with the back to the front (Berlin 
10269; Brooklyn 57.64; Paris, Louvre E. 11555 and 
N. 502). Heavy eyebrows and cosmetic lines, in con- 
junction with very narrow slit-type eyes, rarely 
occur; only the Osiris statue of Psamtik I in the Cairo 
Museum (C.G. 38231; Fig. 91) offers a fairly good 
parallel. That at Thebes the modeling of the torso 
is usually done with great care in a statue with a fine 
head is more often true than in the north, where a 
rather undistinguished body can well have an un- 
usually good head (Nos. 21 and 23). For the faint 
smile, see the Comment on No. 29. The light spot in 
the stone directly above the forehead is probably ac- 
cidental. Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh is not identical with, 
or related to, the man represented in No. 4; the name 
is rather frequent at Thebes during this period. 

No. 28; Pis. 24-26, Figs. 56-59. 


About 655-640 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo.; no. 222:24. 

Green-black schist. 

Inscriptions are an organic part of Egyptian 
sculpture. The statue conveys to the illiterate 
the idea that a human being is commemorated; 
the texts with which the statue are inscribed 
establish the identity of the person for the 
literate and for the deity to whom it is offered 
and who is usually invoked with inscribed 
prayers and funerary formulas. The most com- 

mon places for applying the texts are the back 
pillar of the figure and the four sides of the 
base. Occasionally the left side and, more rare- 
ly, also the right side of the back pillar bear 
additional inscriptions, and infrequently fur- 
ther texts are incised on top of the base, beside 
or in front of the feet of the figure. This statue 
is truly over-inscribed; it not only has texts in 

3 2 

all the places mentioned but even behind the 
right foot. 

After reading the above description, one 
might well wonder what impression will be 
given by the original so crowded with inscrip- 
tions, but apprehension is unnecessary. The 
statue is a fine monument of great dignity, and 
the texts — except those on the back pillar — 
are so lightly incised that they do not disturb 
the eye. The man represented is Ankh-pa- 
khered, son of Wesir-wer (Osoroeris), who 
followed his father in office as "Prophet of 
Amun in Karnak" and who held many other 
priestly functions connected with the cults of 
the goddess Mut and the gods Khonsu and 
Thoth at Thebes, as his father had done before 

Ankh-pa-khered is dressed in a wide, straight 
wig and a long skirt with trapezoid front panel, 
the upper edge of which is marked on both 
hips by a belt. Despite his slim, erect figure 
two folds under the chest indicate that in real 
life he may have been a portly man, perhaps a 
little proud of his embonpoint. The most re- 
markable part of this statue, however, is the 
face, with its fine straight nose, the severe lines 
descending from the nostrils and the corners of 
the mouth, and the delicate modulations on the 
forehead, denoting the furrows which rose 
from the root of the nose over the brows. 
Though surely not a true portrait, the features 
of a mature person have been rendered here in 
an idealizing manner, with just enough realism 
to give an impression of timelessness. When 
one disregards the wig and the formalism of the 
long narrow eyes one cannot deny that this 
head is a great artistic achievement of A-lediter- 
ranean quality; despite its Egyptian character 
the face is akin to that of Western man. 

Ankh-pa-khered holds before him a figure 
of the god Osiris resting on a base. The face of 
Osiris presents the very opposite of the severe 
expression of his votary; with its pinched fea- 
tures and "smiling" mouth, it looks uncon- 
cerned, almost gay. 

A curious detail of the sculpture is that the 

left foot of the man has only four toes. Since- 
Egyptian sculptors were not given to slipshod 
workmanship, especially in so fine a statue, the 
lack of a toe is surely intentional, and indeed it 
can be seen in two other osiriphorous figures 
in this Exhibition (Nos. 39 and 48). There is 
some reason to believe that the figure of the 
god rests partly on the donor's foot, concealing 
the big toe. 

MEASUREMENTS: Height 41.3 cm. Height of face 3.3 
cm. Height of base (front) 5.6 cm.; (rear) 5.1 cm. 
Width of base 8.1 cm. Depth of base 19.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; almost certainly Karnak. 

bibliography: Antiquites egyptiennes, grecques & 
romaines . . . provenant de Vancienne Collection 
Borelli Bey (Sale Catalogue, Paris, Hotel Drouot, 
11-13 June, 1913), p. 15, no. 150, pi. V. Collection S. 
Pozzi (deuxieme partie). Art Antique. Catalogue des 
objets d?art antique provenant d'Egypte, de Grece 
. . . de la Collection de feu le D r Prof r S. Pozzi (Sale 
Catalogue, Paris, Galerie Georges Petit, 25-27 June, 
1919), p. 14, no. 279, plate. City Art Museum of St. 
Louis, Handbook of the Collections (1937), p. 5 

comment: In style this sculpture is very close to 
No. 38, although the latter is larger. For the way in 
which the corners of the wide wig jut out back of 
the shoulder, see No. 27. The curving wrinkles ris- 
ing from the root of the nose can also be observed in 
other sculptures (No. 23), although in this statue they 
are indicated with much more restraint. Such re- 
straint in rendering realistic features is typically The- 
ban in the Post-Kushite Period, and yet the skin 
folds below the chest are clearly a remnant from 
Dynasty XXV (Cairo C.G. 902, J.E. 3671 1 and 
36930), occurring in only two other statues (Cairo 
J.E. 37327 and Copenhagen, N.C.G. 84), which may 
be contemporary with this sculpture from St. Louis. 
The height of the base varies from front to rear, and 
the figure, like the Osiris image, is not centered upon 
the base. This is a feature common to many of the 
sculptures shown in this exhibition. Since we have 
here a statue obviously made with great care, such 
irregularities (the back pillar, for instance, is not 
centered at the rear of the base) show time and again 
that sculpture was worked freely and not "construct- 
ed" mechanically (see p. xxiv). In addition to the skin 
folds of the body and the details of the face noted 
above, attention should be drawn to the curious flat- 
ness of the point of the chin; it is rare to find so 
many individualistic traits in such a small sculpture — 
the face is, after all, only 3.3 cm. high. For the Osiris 
figure, see the Continent on Nos. 41, 44, and 50. The 
so-called smile of the god (cf. Continent on No. 29) 
was probably a northern feature, to which the The- 
ban sculptors were introduced after the realm of 


Psamtik I was extended to Upper Egypt in 656 B.C. 
The remnants of Kushite realism speak for a date 
early in the reign of this king, and so do the inscrip- 
tions, which are almost entirely composed of the 
titles of Ankh-pa-khered. Most of these titles are fre- 
quent in the early Saite Period, and a few of them 
become exceedingly rare later on. The menekh- 
shepesy formula, which adorns the back pillar, is 
quite unusual; it occurs also on No. 27. It has been 
noted that the great toe of the left foot is missing. 
Two other statues in this exhibition show this curious 
omission (Nos. 39 and 48), and it is probably no 
accident that all three are standing osiriphorous 
sculptures. Since a good number of similar statues 
have all five toes of the left foot well modeled in the 
round, the omission cannot have been a rigorous con- 
vention, but the reason for it escapes us. When one 

considers how asymmetrical the St. Louis statue is, 
it seems that the sculptor could have easily moved 
the left foot or reduced the width of the Osiris base 
so as to accommodate the big toe. Since he (and the 
craftsmen who modeled the other four-toed statues) 
chose not to do so, they perhaps intended to repre- 
sent the base as standing on the big toe of the votary. 
This explanation finds some support in a statue in 
Paris (Louvre E. 4299), in which the front left cor- 
ner of the Osiris base actually rests on the big toe, for 
the tip of the toe is shown as protruding from — al- 
most as if growing out of — the base of the god's 
figure. But why the base had to be supported by the 
big toe of the left foot is one of the very many 
strange features of Egyptian archaeology for which 
scholars have given no satisfactory explanation up to 
the present time. 

No. 29; PL 27, Figs. 60-61. 


664-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Fimdagao Calonste Gulbenkian, Lisbon; no. 158. 

Dense limestone, now discolored. 

Among the poses shown in Egyptian sculp- 
ture of the Late Period, none appears to us 
more relaxed than that of the asymmetric squat- 
ting figure, here presented in the exquisite 
statuette of Bes from the Gulbenkian Collec- 
tion. A4ade in the fine-grained compact lime- 
stone that resembles marble, it has been carved 
with a precision usually reserved for harder 
materials. The subject, a high-ranking courtier 
in the time of King Psamtik I, must have been 
a man of considerable influence, because — 
though by this time competent workshops ex- 
isted in widely separated places — the modeling 
is of such quality as to give the impression that 
the sculpture may have been made in a royal 

Bes wears a bag wig; his forehead is reced- 
ing; his eyebrows and the rims of his upper lids 
are beautifully curved, and the eyes themselves 
show a distinct slant. The upper lip is fuller 
than the lower and protrudes slightly; the 
mouth curves strongly upward at the corners 

and seems to have a faint smile. The neck, be- 
low the small bony chin, is rather full. Al- 
though the face does not show much individu- 
ality except around the mouth, the sculptor has 
lavished a great deal of attention on the model- 
ing of the torso, which reveals a sensitivity for 
which this warm, originally cream-colored, 
limestone is well suited. Bone and flesh, from 
the collarbones to the upper abdomen, are 
faithfully rendered, and instead of the formal 
median line a deep depression runs from the 
sternal notch to the navel. The nipples, like 
fancy blossoms, are discs rayed with tiny 
spokes. Even the cuticles are indicated on the 
fingers of the left hand. As is customary in 
squatting sculptures, the garment consists of a 
plain loincloth, inscribed on the lap. The main 
text, in the three columns of the back pillar, is 
concluded on the top of the base in front. 

measurements: Height 32.2 cm. Width 20.9 cm. 

Depth 23.6 cm. 

provenance: Lower Egypt; exact location not known. 


Formerly in the collection of the Reverend William 

bibliography: Catalogue of The MacGregor Collec- 
tion of Egyptian Antiquities (Sale Catalogue, Lon- 
don, Sotheby, 26-30 June and 3-6 July, 1922), p. 212, 
no. 1628, p. XLI. The British Museum (Temporary 
Exhibition) Ancient Egyptian Sculpture Lent by 
C. S. Gulbenkian, Esq. (London, 1937), pp. 7-8, 
17-19, no. 10, pi. XII1-XIV. National Gallery of Art, 
Egyptian Sculpture from the Gulbenkian Collection 
(Washington, 1949) pp. 13, 25-27, 60, no. 18 (illus.). 
W. Wolf, Die Kunst Agyptens (Stuttgart, 1957), pp. 
621,622 fig. 644. H. Wild, in B1FAO 60 (i960), p. 50. 

comment: The main titles of Bes are "Count and 
Prince, Companion of His Majesty;" for the sub- 
sidiary titles, see the British Museum exhibition cata- 
logue and H. Wild, in BIFAO 60 (i960), p. 50. The 
provenance of the sculpture is obscure. As Khemmis 
is mentioned in column 1 of the back pillar inscrip- 
tion one might conclude that the figure of Bes comes 
from there, in the neighborhood of Buto. The sekhet 
Hor, "Field of Horus," is, however, unknown as a 
place name in connection with Khemmis. This is 
the earliest well-dated example of the bag wig in the 
Late Period (cf. No. 21). For the pose of the asym- 
metric squatting figure, see p. xxxvi, above. Its use dis- 
appears with the reign of Psamtik I (Florence 7245; 
Hanover 1935.200.515). The separation of lower edge 
of the wig and back pillar occurs occasionally 
throughout the Late Period (No. 48) down to Ptole- 
maic times (No. 91 ) and does not seem to be typical 
for any pose or place of origin. For the deep depres- 
sion in lieu of a median line, cf. New York, M.M.A. 
24.2.2, and for the slant of the eyes, see No. 20 
(which probably represents a different person of the 
same name). The most important feature of the face 

of Bes, however, is the mouth with its uplifted cor- 
ners, because this is the earliest well-dated instance 
of the expression often called the "Archaic smile" in 
Greek sculpture. Reference to this type of mouth 
has been made in the Co in incut on \os. 27, 28, and 
elsewhere; a very developed example can be seen in 
No. 49. Since these are not isolated cases, and since 
this alleged smile occurs with increasing frequency 
throughout the fifth and fourth centuries, until it be- 
comes a mere grimace in later Ptolemaic times (Ber- 
lin 18562; Cairo J.E. 37169), it is evidently part of 
the sculptural repertory of Late Egypt. Twenty- 
five years ago, H. Schafer (Das alt'dgyptischc BilJnis, 
page 20, note 50) already remarked that the mouth 
of a queen's head in Cairo (C.G. 602) showed a dis- 
tinct smile, a fact which did not escape Vandier 
(Manuel III, p. 330), who comments also on other 
occurrences (op. cit., p. 428). This so-called smile is 
featured even earlier (Bissing, Denkni., Text, index 
p. XXII "Lacheln"); it was revived — perhaps as a 
reaction against Kushite realism — around the mid- 
dle of the seventh century b.c. Soon after 600 b.c. it 
is reflected in the "upward sloping mouth" (Richter, 
Kouroi, passim) of Archaic Greek statuary. It must 
be noted, however, that the so-called smile, together 
with other Egyptianizing motifs, appears in Phoeni- 
cian ivories from Nimrud, which was destroyed in 
612 b.c. Attention should especially be drawn to a 
head, facetiously called "Mona Lisa," which was 
found at the bottom of a well at Nimrud in 1952 
(M.E.L. Mallowan, Twenty -five Years of Mesopota- 
niian Discovery [London, 1956], frontispiece); its 
mouth is strongly sickle-shaped, and though it is 
dated to about 715 b.c. by the excavator, its relation- 
ship to Egyptian sculpture of the eighth and seventh 
centuries should be investigated further. 

No. 30; PI. 28, Figs. 62-64. 


About 660-620 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; 
no. 22.76 (W.A.G. no. 171). 

Group sculptures of man and wife, so fre- 
quent in the earlier periods of Egyptian art, 
seem with the advance of time to have gone 
out of fashion. One reason for this may have 
been the change in the position of the woman, 
a change which possibly took place during the 

Third Intermediate Period. Under Kushite 
rule the spiritual leadership of the heartland. 
Upper Egypt, lay entirely in the hands of prin- 
cesses of royal blood, the divine consorts; no 
private lady — no queen even — was represent- 
ed in a stone sculpture throughout Dynasty 


XXV. In the early decades of the XXVIth 
Dynasty" in the north, harking back to the great 
tradition of the past, group sculptures of man 
and woman were, however, once more mod- 
eled, and this one from Baltimore is the only 
one in America of that period. It shows on the 
right a squatting man, knees drawn up with 
arms crossed over them — the familiar pose of 
the block statue, although in this case (unlike 
No. 4) the person represented wears a rather 
short skirt, and his arms are bare and modeled 
in the round. His head is covered by a wide, 
full wig. His mouth is small, drawn up ever so 
slightly at the corners. He holds a folded ker- 
chief in his right fist, and his strong feet are 
planted firmly on the ground. 

The man's name is Ipy; his father was called 
Pasher-enmut, his grandfather, Hahat. On his 
left kneels his spouse, Pays-thau-em-auwy-pep, 
whose head and most of her upper body have 
been lost. Her arms are stretched out on her 
lap, and she has folded her legs under her in a 
very feminine way. The composition of the 
two figures side by side in different poses is 
decidedly odd, and altogether this is a very 
unusual little monument, which well deserves 
to become more widely known and better 

measurements: Height 14.8 cm. Width 10.9 cm. 
Height of base ca. 2.8 cm. Width of base ca. 10.2 cm. 
Depth of base 7.7 cm. Intracolumnar width 1.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably the region of 


bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G., p. 59, 

pis. XXXII and CXVI, no. 171. 

comment: The offering formula on the front of the 
man's garment is addressed to the "Great Ennead 
which is in Ipet." It occurs on other sculptures from 

Lower Egypt, which probably originated in the 
neighborhood of Heliopolis (Berlin 19779; Paris, 
Louvre E. 10366; Verona 583). Ipy's title, "God's 
Father," is frequent in the Heliopohtan region, and 
thus the provenance of the Baltimore group is reason- 
ably certain. For the puckered mouth with the slight- 
ly lifted corners, see the Comment on No. 29, and for 
block statues with free arms and uncovered feet, the 
Comment on No. 31. Ipy sits on a very low cushion; 
this cushion, sometimes merely suggested by the rise 
of the rear portion of the base, is especially frequent 
toward the end of Dynasty XXV and at the begin- 
ning of Dynasty XXVI (Berlin 23728; Cairo J.E. 
36965, 36998, 37151, 37203; New York, M.M.A. 35.9.1; 
Paris, Louvre A 92). The main reasons, however, 
for a dating to the early part of Dynasty XXVI lie 
— apart from the appearance of a private lady in 
sculpture — in the odd grouping of the two figures, 
man and woman, who are shown in completely dif- 
ferent positions on a common base. Two other such 
pieces are thus far known (Gotha 12; Paris, Musee 
Rodin 90), to which should be added a strange group 
of two block statuettes of men side by side (Paris, 
Louvre E. 17449). The first two come, according to 
the inscriptions, from Athribis and Memphis respec- 
tively. The former shows a man in the attitude of 
the block statue with a lady seated on a chair to his 
left; the latter, a man in the squatting or scribe's posi- 
tion, and a woman, legs folded under her, crouching 
on his right. Louvre E. 17449, to judge from the text, 
was dedicated at the Serapeum of Saqqara. All three 
pieces, on stylistic and inscriptional grounds, have to 
be attributed to the beginning of Dynasty XXVI, and 
nothing in the style or texts of the Baltimore group 
precludes such a date. On the contrary, Ipy and 
Hahat are names typical for the transitional period of 
Dynasties XXV-XXVI; the peculiar writing of the 
name Hahat (PN I, 232, 6; 233, 11) also occurs on 
another early Saite block statue (Cairo J.E. 65843) 
and furthermore is found in the Brooklyn papyrus 
(47.218.3) dated to the 14th year of Psamtik I. The 
whole series of block statue groups goes back to a 
Middle Kingdom prototype of northern Egypt, of 
which there is at least one good example of known 
origin in the Cairo Museum (J.E. 46307). The posi- 
tion of the lady's legs is also familiar from an example 
of Dynasty XII (New York, M.M.A. 18.2.2), al- 
though in this early piece the hands are differently 


No. 3 1 ; Pis. 28-29, Figs. 65-67. 


664-6 1 o b.c; Dynasty XX VI. 

Owner: Musees Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Brussels; no. E. 7526. 

Green schist. 

The fertile role played by the Kushite kings 
of Dynasty XXV in the revival of Egyptian 
political and artistic life was ably continued by 
the Sake rulers of Dynasty XXVI. Their home 
lay in the north, in Sais, on the Canopic branch 
of the Nile, and in expelling the Kushites from 
Upper Egypt and in maintaining their inde- 
pendence against the Assyrians, they had to 
rely heavily on Libyan mercenaries. Keref, 
son of Osorkon, represented in this statuette, 
was a high-ranking military commander of 
Libyan descent, whose loyalty to his master, 
King Psamtik I, is well attested by the two 
names of his sovereign carved on his upper 


He is shown in an attitude of great sim- 
plicity, squatting on the ground, with his arms 
crossed over the knees, a classical pose which 
goes back to the Middle Kingdom. This is the 
second form of the statue type discussed in the 
text to No. 4, for Keref's garment consists of 
a loin cloth belted at the waist, which reaches 
nearly to the ankles but leaves the feet bare. 
His arms, too, are uncovered, and thus the en- 
tire body is plainly visible. He wears a simple 
striated wig; his eyes are long and narrow, sur- 
mounted by eyebrows in low relief. Though 
the face is somewhat damaged, it shows a 
roundness and healthy youthfulness quite in 
keeping with the idealizing style of northern 
sculpture of the time of Psamtik I. A plain 
beard in the shape of a truncated cone forms 
the transition from the chin to the surface of 
the statue block. The feet and the front of 
the base are missing. 

There are two columns of inscription on the 
garment, framing an incised figure of the god 
Osiris, who is designated as "Osiris - Ptah - 
Sokar," an assimilation with Osiris of the town 

god of Memphis, Ptah, and the mortuary god 
Sokar. The two columns of inscription on the 
back pillar contain the so-called Saite formula, 
a short text addressing the local deity on be- 
half of the person represented by the statue, 
which occurs on sculptures until well into 
Ptolemaic times. 

measurements: Height 19 cm. Width of base 8.5 
cm. Depth of base on right side 8.8 cm. Width of 
back pillar 3.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: H. De Meulenaere, "Trois personnages 
saites. 3. Un general de Psammetique I," Chronique 
d'Egypte 31 (1956), pp. 254-256, fig. 24. 

comment: The prehistory of the Late Period — the 
Third Intermediate Period — is marked by the rise to 
power of the Libyan mercenaries who, in the person 
of Sheshonq I, first ruler of Dynasty XXII, even suc- 
ceeded in giving Egypt a king from their own ranks. 
Although the Libyan house failed to usher in a new 
era of unity and prosperity, it helped to entrench the 
military caste more firmly in the political life of the 
Delta, and thus we find a number of Libyan military 
leaders in influential positions at the beginning of 
Dynasty XXVI. Besides Keref there were Pedi- 
shahededet, of whom two statues are known (Athens 
917; Paris, Petit Palais 307), Pakir, whose block statue 
was once in private possession in Cairo (Omar Pasha 
Sultan Collection 403), and especially Sema-tawy- 
tefnakht who, though a native of Herakleopolis, was 
of Libyan descent (see Comment on No. 22). Their 
statues, however, show nothing that could be called 
typically Libyan; they follow the style of the period, 
more precisely the regional style, since there are cer- 
tain differences between the schools of the Delta as 
far south as Memphis and those of Upper Egypt, pri- 
marily the district of Thebes. The type of Keref's 
statuette, with short loincloth, feet uncovered, and 
arms modeled nearly in the round, has a vague fore- 
runner in the Middle Kingdom (Dahshur, Vallev 
Temple of Snofru, unpublished block statue from the 
excavations of Professor Ahmed Fakhry), but is bet- 
ter attested in Dynasty XVIII (London, B.M. 888; 
Chicago, Oriental Institute 10796), and occurs occa- 
sionally in the Ramesside Period (Cairo C.G. 606). 
Under the Kushites this type is more frequently rep- 
resented (Berlin 4437; Cairo J.E. 37194; Paris, Louvre 


A 85; Turin 3063) and finally, in the beginning of 
Dynasty XXVI, it becomes quite common, at Thebes 
as well as in the north. With the possible exception 
of Cairo J.E. 68595, which may be a reused piece, it 
disappears with the end of the reign of Psamtik I. 
Centuries later, it is imitated in the Post-Persian and 
Ptolemaic Periods (No. 76; Cairo C.G. 727, J.E. 
37154, 37335, 37350; Chicago, N.H.M. 31697; Moscow 
5351). The two columns of inscription on the back 
pillar with the Saite formula (Leclant, Enquetes, p. 7, 
note 1 ) are divided by a columnar line, but lack the 
two outer lines (cf. Paris, Louvre E. 9417, which 
dates from the same period). As for the incised fig- 
ure of Osiris in sunk relief on the front of the gar- 
ment, it, too, constitutes a convention of very limited 
time range, from the end of Dynasty XXV to the 
beginning of Dynasty XXVI. During this period, the 
Osiris figure also appears on kneeling and standing 
statues and in the latter was often applied to the chest 
(Baltimore, W.A.G. 181; Copenhagen, N.C.G. 591; 
Paris, Louvre E. 10966, E. 13 106, N. 663). It forms 
for sculptures not otherwise datable a good chrono- 
logical criterion. Leclant {Enquetes, p. 47, note 1) 
has discussed the various ways in which figures of 

deities appear on the garments of block statues — sunk 
relief, low relief, and half in the round. The end of 
Dynasty XXV and the beginning of Dynasty XXVI 
are artistically in many ways inseparable, despite the 
strife and warring which disrupted the country until 
656 b.c, when Psamtik I finally controlled Thebes. 
They really form one period, a time of experimenta- 
tion, when traditional forms of sculpture were re- 
vived and modified and new statue decorations were 
introduced, some of which again disappeared with the 
end of the reign of Psamtik I or, possibly, with the 
archaeologically little explored time of Necho II. 
The image of a god on the front of a statue has, of 
course, the same function as an image presented by a 
donor (No. 3), but the presentation idea itself under- 
goes a radical change after Necho II, when the image 
of the deity is more and more frequently enclosed in 
a shrine or naos. The statuette of Keref has, as do 
most block statutes, a back pillar, see Introduction 
p. xxxvi). Yet it must be remembered that there are 
in the Late Period more than a dozen block statues 
without back pillar, all of them datable to Dynasty 
XXV or the beginning of Dynasty XXVI. 

No. 32; Pis. 30-31, Figs. 68-70. 


664-6 1 o B.C.; Dynasty XX VI. 

Owner: Mr. Nasli M. Heeramaneck, New York, N. Y. 

Dark green to black schist. 

On the whole, we have tried to present in 
this Exhibition complete sculptures or frag- 
mentary pieces with the head intact. But ex- 
ceptions seem permissible, and one of them is 
this block statue of a man called Nesna-isut, 
because here the absence of the head is only a 
minor tragedy, in view of the well-modeled 
form of what remains. As a matter of fact, the 
head is easily reconstructed — it must have had 
a wide wig, a faint smile, and youthful, idealiz- 
ing features without individuality. The body, 
however, though in a standard attitude, is not 
of standard workmanship but of superior qual- 
ity. For one thing, the shoulders are unusually 
broad; their width is by one-fourth greater than 
that of the base. There is only the barest indi- 
cation of a kilt. If it were not for a tightly 

stretched surface between the legs, just above 
the ankles, and a belt visible from the sides, the 
figure would appear to be modeled in the nude. 
The arms, hands, and feet deserve special at- 
tention; in their refinement they represent the 
best of early Saite art, which — contrary to 
popular opinion — did not produce cheap imi- 
tations of the sculpture of a glorious past. In- 
deed it would be hard to find a statue of the 
Middle or New Kingdom from which this 
piece of sculpture could have been copied or 
even taken its inspiration. It is the creation of 
a new artistic force, which manifested itself in 
Egypt after the end of the Third Intermediate 
Period and brought the proverbial new life and 
blood into the waning art of modeling the hu- 
man form in stone. While adhering to a num- 


ber of long-established traditions, the craftsman 
of this time, through his preference for very 
hard materials, set a standard of workmanship 
which, on the average, is far higher than that 
of preceding periods. 

The right and left shoulders are adorned 
with the names and titles of King Psamtik I, 
first ruler of Dynasty XXVI. The right arm 
crosses over the left, and the fist holds a folded 
kerchief, whereas the other hand lies open. The 
feet are unusually long and narrow, the toes 
well separated, and in front of them is a brief 
inscription on top of the base, facing the ob- 
server. The main text is displayed in two col- 
umns on the back pillar, but an address to the 
god Osiris and the crocodile-formed god Sobek 
of the Fayum is displayed on the front of the 
garment. The name of Nesna-isut's father is 

measurements: Height 37.5 cm. Height of base 7.8-8 
cm. Width of base 16.2 cm. Depth of base 31.3 cm. 
Width across shoulders 20.5 cm. Width of back pil- 
lar near break 6.9 cm. Intracolumnar width 2.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably the Fayum. For- 
merly in the collections of Alphonse Kann and Wil- 
liam Randolph Hearst. 

bibliography: The Alphonse Kann Collection, Part I 
(Sale Catalogue, New York, American Art Associa- 
tion, 6-8 January, 1927), no. 40 (illus.). Catalogue of 
the Important Collection of Antiquities, The Property 
of William Randolph Hearst, Esq. (Sale Catalogue, 
London, Sotheby, 11-12 July, 1939), p. 13, no. 55. 

comment: For block statues with the short skirt and 
this full modeling of the arms, see the Comment on 
No. 31. Whereas the statue discussed there has both 
hands flat, Nesna-isut holds the kerchief, which 
often occurs in sculptures of this type in early Dy- 
nasty XXVI (No. 30). Though it may be a mere 
coincidence, it should be mentioned that none of the 
block statues of the type of Nesna-isut dated to 
Dynasty XXV holds this kerchief; perhaps this is a 
detail restricted to the time of Psamtik I. The arms 
on all block statues are always crossed right over left. 
The closest parallel to the two-column inscription 
between the legs on the front is Durham 502, which 
is also dated to the time of Psamtik I. An inscription 
is often found in front of the feet on top of the base 
(Boston, M.F.A. 29.731; Cairo J.E. 36949; Madrid, 
M.A.N. 2014; Paris, Petit Palais 307; all of early Dy- 
nasty XXVI). Interesting is the position of the belt, 
which rests on the thighs well below the waistline. 
Though this feature is quite common in other statue 
types (No. 9), it is rarely as marked in block figures. 
This sculpture forms a welcome addition to the small 
list of only about twenty pieces definitely known to 
come from the Fayum. The man's name, Nesna-isut 
(often erroneously read Nesna-kedut), is rather fre- 
quent, and so is that of his father, Wesir-nakht, but 
the family is not known from other sources. 

No. 33; PI. 31, Figs. 71-73. 


650 b.c. or slightly later; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 57.66. 

Fine-grained black granite. 

The attribution of a sculpture to a limited 
period is sometimes based on extraneous evi- 
dence, and this block statuette is a good ex- 
ample for the way in which such evidence can 
be put to use. The man represented is Hor, 
who had the elaborate titles of "God's Father, 
Scribe of the Divine Seal of the House of 
Amun of the Third Phyle." He was the son of 
Djed-monthu-iuf-ankh, a "Prophet of Alonthu- 
lord-of-Thebes, Scribe of the Divine Seal," 

who held the same offices as his father, Petiese, 
and his grandfather, Ankh-pakhrod, the great- 
grandfather of Hor. One more generation is 
added in the inscriptions of the sculpture, since 
it was made for Hor by his eldest son, Djed- 
monthu-iuf-ankh, who was obviously named 
for his grandfather; to judge by his titles he 
followed his father Hor in office. 

The style of the statuette is well known from 
similar sculptures datable from the end of 


Dynasty XXV to the beginning of Dynasty 
XXVI. It would be hard to be more precise in 
dating this piece, if it were not for a well-dated 
document — a papyrus in the Brooklyn Mu- 
seum (47.218.3), written in the fourteenth 
regnal year of King Psamtik I — on which 
Hor's signature appears as a witness, thus mak- 
ing it clear that he was alive in 65 1 B.C. Since 
in the inscriptions on his statue, he is referred 
to as deceased, the sculpture dedicated to him 
by his son must have been made after 651 b.c. 
How much later is not known; but the style of 
the sculpture and certain characteristics of the 
inscription are closer to Dynasty XXV than to 
Dynasty XXVI, so one is inclined to attribute 
the figure to the earlier part of the reign of 
Psamtik I. 

Hor wears a wide striated wig. Eyebrows 
and cosmetic lines are in low relief. The broad 
chin rests directly on the surface of the block 
formed by shoulders, arms, and legs, which are 
completely covered by the garment. Only the 
hands are indicated, the left lying flat, palm 
down, the right holding a folded kerchief. The 
broad, shallow back pillar bears three columns 
of text without columnar separation lines, and 
other inscriptions are found on the sides and 
front of the block. The dedicatory inscription 
of Hor's son, Djed-monthu-iuf-ankh, was ap- 
plied in an unusual manner, like an after- 
thought, around Hor's undefined arms, which 

form the three upper edges of the block. 

measurements: Height 18.3 cm. Width 10.1 cm. 
Depth 13.4 cm. Height of face 3.2 cm. 

provenance: Not known; said to have been found at 
Edfu, but probably from Karnak. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: For the Brooklyn Papyrus (47.218.3) 
dated to year XIV of Psamtik I, see Richard A. 
Parker, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Inter- 
national Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 21st- 
28th August, 1954, pp. 65-66. Stylistically, the sculp- 
ture conforms well with other pieces of the com- 
pletely enveloped block-statue type of the middle of 
the seventh century B.C., as outlined earlier in this 
Catalogue, and the same holds true for the striated 
wig, which in this particular form is typical of the 
reign of Psamtik I and in general disappears with the 
reign of his successor (see Comment on No. 2; cf. No. 
44). The lack of columnar dividing lines on the back 
pillar has been mentioned in connection with No. 19. 
Also the formula maa-kheru, neb imakh is a clear in- 
dication of an early Saite date. The front of the gar- 
ment is inscribed with a five-column offering text to 
the triad of Karnak, Amun-Ra, Mut, and Khonsu. 
This parallel arrangement of four or more columns 
on the front, beginning always with the same words, 
is more common in Dynasty XXV (Brooklyn 51.15; 
Cairo C.G. 42233 and 42234) than in Dynasty XXVI. 
On the left side of the block the gods Osiris and Isis 
are represented in sunk relief; the right side shows 
the Abydene emblem of Osiris and the god Horus. 
This kind of decoration of the sides of a block figure 
also connects the sculpture with a style much favored 
in Dynasty XXV (Brooklyn 36.738; Cairo J.E. 36967; 
Karnak, Karakol 68 and 269). Finally it should be 
mentioned that the Djed-monthu-iuf-ankh, named on 
another block statue in Cairo (C.G. 42217), is prob- 
ably the father of our Hor. 

No. 34; PI. 32, Figs. 74-76. 


664-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, 111.; no. 105 1 8 1 . 

Grey granite. 

When this hitherto unpublished head was 
first studied in preparation for the exhibition it 
appeared to belong stylistically to the transi- 
tional period from Dynasty XXV to Dynasty 
XXVI, and the fact that a royal titulary, but 

without the king's name, is engraved on the 
shoulders made it clear that the head once be- 
longed to a well-dated sculpture. That the 
sculpture was a block statue could be easily 
deduced from the nearly horizontal surface of 


what is left of the upper arms. The general 
date was further confirmed by the absence of 
dividing lines between the columns at the be- 
ginning of the inscription on the back pillar. 
Then our collaborator, Dr. Herman De Meule- 
naere of Brussels, by going over the material at 
his disposal in photographs and publications, 
suggested that a headless block statue in Co- 
penhagen, inscribed for Harbes, was probably 
the missing body of the Chicago head. An 
inquiry was sent to Copenhagen, with specific 
indications of measurements and material, and 
in due course came the reply that the two 
pieces indeed belonged together. Thus we are 
able to complete not only the inscription on 
the back pillar — the most common of offering 
formulas — but also the royal titulary, which 
is that of King Psamtik I. 

This fortuitous discovery permits the iden- 
tification of a man who would otherwise have 
remained anonymous. The head is of the ideal- 
izing type, not a portrait, but in the best early 
Saite style. Harbes wears the double wig, 
which leaves only the lower part of each ear 
uncovered. Although this wig occurs in The- 
ban sculpture of about the same time, there is 
a marked difference between the styles of the 
north and south, for the northern craftsmen, as 
in this head of Harbes, endowed the upper 
layer of the wig with more roundness and a 
certain amount of bulging, which are not to be 
found in contemporary pieces from the south. 

Harbes is known from a series of monu- 
ments. His father was named Paf-thau-mawy- 
shu and his mother Shebeten-aset. Although a 
native probably of Busiris, the legendary birth- 
place of Osiris in the central Delta, he was 
primarily associated with Giza, where he held 
an important office at the Isis Temple and built 
a chapel adjoining it. 

measurements: Height in back 15.3 cm. Height of 
head 10.4 cm. Width 19.5 cm. Depth 12.3 cm. Width 
of back pillar at break originally 7.5 cm. 
provenance: Not known; probably Busiris (Delta). 
bibliography: None. For the block statue in Copen- 
hagen (N.C.G. 78), see Koefoed-Petersen, Catalogue 
des statues, pp. 57-58, no. 96, pi. 106; Iversen, Two 
Inscriptions, pp. 18-21. 

comment: Dr. Otto Koefoed-Petersen, Curator of 
the Egyptian Department, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 
Copenhagen, very kindly provided new photographs 
of the lower part of the statue and gave permission 
for their use in this Catalogue. The type of block 
figure with arms and feet uncovered has been dis- 
cussed above (No. 31). In this case, the belt is un- 
usually broad; the base has a rounded front. The 
break at the shoulders slants from front to back, but 
it is clean, and apparently very little is missing. Orig- 
inally the entire statue was about 42-43 cm. high. The 
Copenhagen torso was acquired in Egvpt in 1892, the 
head from Chicago, in 1908. The double wig has al- 
ready been discussed under No. 3. It is interesting to 
compare the head with that of Akhamenru on a block 
statue in the Oriental Institute of the University of 
Chicago (14284), illustrated in Fig. 76 (cf. also relief 
No. 6). Since Akhamenru's floruit falls within the 
reign of King Tanwetamani (663-656 b.c.) of Dynas- 
ty XXV at Thebes, he may well have been a con- 
temporary of Harbes. The double wig is closer to 
the straight wide wig of the period than to that of 
Harbes, whose wig is more bulging. On the other 
hand, Akhamenru's head has what one might call 
normal height, whereas the cranium of Harbes is 
quite flat, which makes the head appear shorter. That 
this treatment of the head is merely a convention of 
the period (see the Comment on No. 19) becomes 
apparent in comparing the Chicago head with one of 
Harbes on a kneeling statuette that was in the art 
market at Frankfurt during the winter 1959-60. 
There, Harbes' head is bald and well-rounded on top, 
again in conformity with the style of shaven heads of 
the period. The features of the head of Akhamenru 
in Chicago are not as delicate as those of Harbes. The 
latter's eyes are unusually long and narrow, the upper 
eyelid being contoured by an incised line, and the 
cavity for the eyeballs is deeply cut, as is not the case 
in the head of Akhamenru. Although from the text 
on the front of the statue, addressed to the priests en- 
tering the sanctuary of Osiris at Busiris, one would 
assume that it was there that the statue had originally 
been placed, this is not absolutely certain, for a similar 
block statue of the beginning of Dynasty XXVI in 
Boston (M.F.A. 29.73 l ) nas a similar text addressed to 
the priests of Sais, although the statue was definitely 
excavated at Mitrahineh (Brugsch, Reiseberichte, p. 
82). In addition to the Chicago-Copenhagen piece 
there are two other documents of Harbes, both from 
Giza, which are dated by cartouches of Psamtik I 
(Cairo 28+ 10 and J.E. 28171). To judge from the in- 
scriptions, his kneeling figure in London (B.M. 514), 
like the statue in Frankfurt mentioned above, must 
also have come from Giza; the origin of Harbes' stela 
in Turin (Suppl. 17 161) is, however, not yet quite 
clear from the text. In Boston are two objects found 
in the chapel of Harbes at the Isis Temple, the lower 
portion of a seated Isis (26-1-237) and an offering 
table (26-1-238). The reliefs in his chapel (Hassan, 
Great Sphinx, pi. LIII-LIV; cf. Smith, A.A.A.E., pp. 
250 and 287, note 53, who also refers to the Copen- 

4 1 

hagen statue) are of superb quality; one of them is 
now in Princeton (918; JNES 9 [1950], pp. 228 ff.). 
From the Isis Temple also comes the inscription of 
the so-called tomb of Harbes in de Rouge, Inscr. pi. 

LXVI. Thus Harbes is a well-documented person, 
and from the sum total of his sculptures and reliefs 
we are inclined to date him to the early part of the 

reign of Psamtik I. 

No. 35; PI. 33, Fig. 77. 


Date uncertain; perhaps 650-600 B.C.; early Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 3920.20. 


In two-dimensional representations the bor- 
derline between a work of art of a classic epoch 
and a replica made at a later time is not always 
easily seen. For certain reliefs even experts may 
disagree about the date and the question of 
whether it is an original composition or inspired 
by an earlier work. This limestone slab is one 
such instance, and good reasons will have to be 
brought forth for including it in the Catalogue 
and assigning it to the Late Period. 

At a casual glance, a Late date does not seem 
very convincing, for the subject, a royal per- 
sonnage with necklace, formal beard, and elab- 
orate crown, appears in almost exactly the same 
form in temple decorations of Dynasty V at 
Abusir. The carving has been executed with 
great care and feeling, and in the drawing of 
the corkscrew ram's horns of the crown, of the 
cobra head, and the profile there is a firmness 
of line which betrays the hand of a master 
craftsman. No mere copyist could have pro- 
duced a relief of such quality, and that it is not 
just a copy is shown in a number of minor de- 
tails. For instance, the short cow's horn that 
rises vertically above the forward ram's horn, 
following the contour of the mass of the 
crown, should originate, as it always does in Old 
Kingdom reliefs, below the ram's horn in the 
space between the latter and the top of the 
wig. As compared with prototypes, the cobra's 
hood is just a trifle too far removed from 
diadem and forehead. Eyebrow and eye could 

belong to a relief of Dynasty XVIII, but the 
hairlines of the beard are entirely too dainty 
for any kind of royal representation before the 
Late Period. 

The decisive dating criteria, however, are less 
obvious. One is the floral collar, which would 
pass unnoticed were it not for the sophisticated 
little blossoms of the upper row, thus far only 
known from glass inlays in metal from the sec- 
ond half of the last millennium b.c. The second 
point is invisible in the photograph: most of the 
little curls on the valanced wig of the king are 
hollow; that is, they have been drilled from 
below, an unbelievably painstaking — and, from 
a practical viewpoint, utterly useless — feat of 
workmanship. Such drilling of curls is known 
from some exceptionally fine Old Kingdom 
sculptures in the round, but in relief it has thus 
far been noted only in a few instances covering 
a limited time within the Late Period. It occurs 
in the tomb of Mentuemhat in the Asasif valley 
at Thebes and again in the adjacent and prac- 
tically contemporary tomb of Pabasa, High 
Steward of the Divine Consort Nitocris. 

Since a number of Saite reliefs closely follow 
Old Kingdom style (No. 24), these added 
parallels for a significant detail make it very 
likely that this royal head was carved in the 
second half of the seventh century b.c. 

measurements: Height 27.9 cm. Width 27.2 cm. 
Thickness 6.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably the region of 


Memphis. From the John Huntington Collection. 

bibliography: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Hand- 
book of the Museum (1925 edition) p. 57; (1928 
edition) p. 69. Capart, Documents I (1927), pp. 70 
and 81, pi. 95. 

comment: The relief from the tomb of Mentucmhat 
(Thebes 34) with the hollow-drilled curls is now in 
Cleveland (51.281); that from the tomb of Pabasa 
(Thebes 279) is illustrated in EMMA, Part II (July 
1920), p. 22, fig. 13. The size of the relief under dis- 
cussion suggests that it came from a temple, not from 
a private tomb or stela, but our knowledge of Saite 
temple reliefs is pitifully small, due to the ever in- 
creasing destruction of the koms of Lower Egypt 
before they have been scientifically explored. An 
inlaid silver broad collar with flower blossoms similar 
to those on the necklace of the Cleveland relief is in 
the Louvre (E. 25379). The erroneous attribution 

of Saite reliefs to earlier dynasties is so frequent 
(Gulbenkian Collection 24; London, B.M. 1518; 
Rome, Vatican 288) that a new study of the two- 
dimensional representations of this period would be 
very rewarding. The Old Kingdom reliefs which 
served as models for this relief were undoubtedly 
seen in the temple of Sahura at Abusir, which is 
known to have been fairly well preserved until 
Greco-Roman times; see Borchardt, Sahu-re II, pi. 
37-38, for likely prototypes. That the decorations of 
this temple were indeed copied in the Late Period is 
apparent from one of the walls, which was covered 
by grid lines at a later date (Borchardt, op. fit. 1, 
p. 105, p. 106, fig. 132). Other Old Kingdom sources 
were also drawn upon in Late times. Some of the 
royal figures in the so-called Palace of Apries at 
Mitrahineh are adaptations of the Zoscr reliefs in the 
subterranean chamber of the Step Pyramid, where 
the Late grid lines may still be seen today. 

No. 36; PL 33, Figs. 78-79. 


655-600 b.c; early Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Mr. Michel Abemayor, New York, N. Y. 

Brown-black mottled steatite. 

Small-scale statuary of the Late Period has 
been studied very little, and for good reason, 
because few pieces of this size are inscribed and 
even fewer show the degree of individuality 
which raises them above the level of run-of- 
the-mill shopwork. The mass of medium or 
large sculpture in hard stone is so great that ob- 
jects such as this little piece attract hardly any 
attention. Yet the figurine is not without inter- 
est, since it is well preserved, amply inscribed, 
and probably comes from a site which fur- 
nished few sculptures during the last 700 years 
before our era. 

The person represented in the classical stance 
of the Egyptian male is, according to the text 
on the back pillar, Pe-shery-aset, a "Servant of 
Horus, Servant of the Golden One (the god- 
dess Hathor) , Prophet of Osiris, Prophet of Isis- 
the-Scorpion, Assistant of the Third Phyle," 
etc., who was the son of the "First Prophet of 
Horus of Edfu, Servant of the Golden One," 
Pedy-aa-behdet, who in turn was a son of the 

"Prophet of Amun at Karnak, First Prophet of 
Horus of Edfu," Pathenef. Thus both father 
and grandfather of the statuette's subject are 
named in the neatly carved inscription, which 
was executed with infinitely more care than 
the face of the man himself. 

He wears the round wig which forms the 
transition from the valenced wig to the bag 
wig. As happens often in small-scale sculpture, 
certain features are somewhat exaggerated — 
the overly round eyeballs, the thick plastic eye- 
brows, and the sharp nasolabial furrows. Espe- 
cially characteristic for the middle and second 
half of the seventh century B.C. are the strong 
collarbones, which dip deeply toward the 
sternal notch, and the marked median line. The 
empty fists were meant to hold two emblematic 
staves. It is surprising that this statuette in soft 
stone has not suffered any major damage. Even 
the nose — so easily knocked off — is ancient. 

measurements: Height 24.7 cm. Height of head 3.7 
cm. Height of base 2.7 cm. Width of base 5.5 cm. 


Depth of base 1 1 cm. Width of back pillar 2.9 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably Edfu. Form- 
erly in the Tigrane Pasha Collection. 

bibliography: Daninos Pacha, Collection cTantiquites 
egyptiennes de Tigrane Pacha d'Abro; Catalogue 
(Paris, 191 1 ), p. 12, no. 118, pi. XXXVII. 

comment: Apart from the text on the figure there 
are several additional inscriptions relating to this 
family (Rec.Trav. 23 [1901], p. 130), which make 
the provenance, Edfu, virtually certain. For their 
dates, and the Theban connections of the family, see 
J. Yoyotte, in Kemi 12 (1952), pp. 93-96. An epi- 
graphical feature which supports an early Sake date 

is the absence of columnar dividing lines in the in- 
scription, which can also be observed on Nos. 19, 33, 
and 34, all dated to the reign of Psamtik I. The at- 
tempt to endow the face with a realistic expression is 
attested in the seventh century, both in Kushite 
sculpture from Upper Egypt and in sculpture of 
early Dynasty XXVI from the north; see the Com- 
ment on No. 20. The pronounced collarbones are 
another mark of early Saite sculpture (No. 19; Bristol 
H.404); in short, there are enough indications to 
attribute the statuette to the second half of the 
seventh century B.C. The exaggeration of detail, in- 
cidentally, is also noticeable in the deep grooving of 
the kilt. 

No. 37; PI. 34, Figs. 80-81. 


About 650-600 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Dark grey schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.79 (W.A.G. no. 154). 

Of the attitudes met with in Late sculpture 
none is more humble, yet self-assured, than that 
of the kneeling man without attributes. He 
does not present anything but himself to his 
god, and by abasing himself in the deity's pres- 
ence, while keeping his head erect, respect and 
confidence are equally expressed. It is a pose of 
great simplicity, and it seems to be of some 
significance that the man here represented, so 
humbly, yet so proudly, was a son of the high- 
est official of the land in the time of Psamtik I. 

The wide wig, the modeling of collarbones 
and median line conform to the standards of 
the period, but the chest muscles are more 
powerful than usual. There is something crude 
in the large hands; the lower legs and feet, 
however, are well done. An unusual feature is 
the small correction of the wig tab in front of 
the right ear; such "errors" are rarely encount- 
ered, for the employment of stone tools made 
for slow and careful work. 

The man represented is Horwedja; his titles 
include "God's Father, Prophet, Overseer of 
the Secrets of Rosetau, and Servant of Neith." 
The statue was made for him by his son, 

measurements: Height 37.4 cm. Height of base 5.6 
cm. Width of base 11.3 cm. Depth of base 19.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Memphis. 

bibliography: The Walters Art Gallery, Handbook 
(Baltimore, 1936), p. 19 (illus.). Borchardt, Statuen, 
III, p. 16, no. 669. Studi . . . Rosellini, II, p. 4. Stein- 
dorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G., pp. 51-52, pi. XXIV and 
CXIII, no. 154. RdE 11 (1957), p. 83, note 10. Buhl, 
L.E.A.S.S., p. 169, note 7, p. 170. 

comment: The statue was formerly in the Cairo 
Museum (C.G. 669). There are now known about 
thirty-five kneeling statues without attributes, which 
range all the way from early Saite to Ptolemaic times 
to Dynasty XXXI. Horwedja's father, the vizier Sa- 
sobek, has long been identified from his fine anthropoid 
sarcophagus in London (B.M. 17). On it occurs the 
formula ffiaa-kheru neb imakh, which is so typical 
for inscriptions of the middle and second half of the 
seventh century b.c An early date in Dynasty XXVI 
is also indicated by the style of the father's sarco- 
phagus, by the form of Horwedja's wide wig, and by 
the way in which the son's dedicatory inscription is 
placed in a single line on top of the front of the base. 
The back pillar runs flush into the wig, and the 
latter's center drops toward the inscription; this 
characteristic pattern marks numerous sculptures 
from the beginning of Dynasty XXVI down to the 
beginning of Apries' reign (Paris, Louvre E. 9417, 
A 97; Moscow 5357). In view of the mention of 
Rosetau, of Ptah-Sokar, and of Hathor as "Mistress 
of the Southern Sycamore," the Memphite origin of 
the statue is practically assured. 


No. 38 A-B; Pis. 35-36, Figs. 82-83, 86. 


About 650-610 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Grey-green schist. 

Owners: A (upper) The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 07.228.33. 
B (lower) Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. J.E. 37442 (K. 374). 

At least 2000 years have passed since this 
statue was discarded, thrown into a pit in the 
temple of Karnak, and probably broken in the 
process. Now the two parts are at least tempo- 
rarily reunited to reveal to modern eyes a rather 
unusual sculpture of a man presenting to Osiris 
a seated figure in the god's likeness. The stat- 
uette is barely supported by the tips of the 
man's overly long fingers, and from below it 
the front panel of his skirt stiffly projects. Be- 
tween his feet, however, appears the base of a 
high pedestal on which the god's figure rests. 
On examination of the sculpture, one realizes 
that the man's skirt leaves his legs bare, that it 
actually serves more as a sheath for the pedestal 
of the figure than as a garment for the suppliant 
— a most unusual way of rendering a dress. 

The man proffering the figure of Osiris 
was named Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset, "God's 
Father," "Second Prophet of Khonsu-in- 
Thebes-Neferhotep." He was the son of Iret- 
horru and Ta-sheryt-aset (Senisis); his wife 
must have been Ta-amun-neb-nesut-tawy, who 
is named as mother of his two sons in the in- 
scription on the left side of the skirt. The text 
on the other side of the garment ends with a 
short autobiographical statement to the effect 
that Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset accomplished 
"eighty years in serving his lord." Who his 
lord was, is unfortunately not stated. 

The style of the statue is somewhat dry, but 
typical for the early Saite Period at Karnak. 
The ears are small, the eyebrows and cosmetic 
lines still very long, and the two nasolabial fur- 
rows lightly incised. 

measurements: The break is uneven, and since this 
is written before the two parts of the statue have 

actually been joined for the Exhibition, the total 
height of the original statue can only be estimated as 
about 49 cm. 

A (upper): Height 24 cm. Width 10.5 cm. Depth 
(front of Osiris base to back pillar) 12.4 cm. Width 
of back pillar at break 3.5 cm. Intracolumnar width 
2.1 cm. 

B (lower): Height 26.8 cm. Height of base 6.6 to 
7 cm. Width of base 8.6 cm. Depth of base 19 cm. 
Width of back pillar and intracolumnar width, same 
as above. 

provenance: Karnak (cachette). 
bibliography: None. 

comment: It was Herman De Meulenaere who, on 
the basis of photographs of the inscriptions, recog- 
nized that these two fragments belonged together. 
The lower part came to light in the famous cachette 
at Karnak in 1904 and was accessioned at the Cairo 
Museum in the same year, whereas the upper portion 
was acquired in the art market in 1907. The way in 
which the Osiris figure is held with the fingertips 
and yet is supported by the pedestal visable between 
the man's feet is so unusual that one cannot fail to 
see here another of those experiments with new forms 
which characterize the reign of Psamtik I. The titles 
and the epigraphy also speak for an early Saite date, 
and an additional criterion lies in the single column 
of text down the center of the flaring skirt (see 
Comment on No. 27). There are two lines of in- 
scription on top of the base in front of the figure, one 
line around three sides of the base, a single column on 
the back pillar, four columns on the left side of the 
skirt, and four on its right. The name Pedy-amun-ra- 
neb-waset is rare; it is known from only three other 
sources (London, B.M. 8471; Paris, Louvre E. 5157 
and E. 9293), none of which refer to the person rep- 
resented in this statue. The affinity between the head 
of Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset and that of Ankh-pa- 
khered (No. 28) is, despite the difference in scale, 
quite strong. It is noteworthy that the type of the 
standing naophorous or theophorous figure with the 
fingertips under the object held does not reappear 
for nearly 300 years. Of the two dozen examples 
studied, the earliest seems to be Aberdeen 142 1, which 
is dated to Nectanebo II; most of the others are defi- 
nitely Ptolemaic, and none has a supporting pedestal 
for the deity or naos. 


No. 39; PL 36, Figs. 84-85. 


About 640-600 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, N. Y.; no. Inv. 1 1. 

Grey-green schist. 

Since most Egyptian sculptures in the cen- 
turies preceding the Ptolemaic rulers were 
inscribed, an uninscribed statue is not too fre- 
quently encountered. In view of the great 
production of hard-stone sculptures and the 
amount of time involved in modeling them by 
pounding with stone tools and by abrasion, a 
sculptor's studio must have prepared certain 
figures for stock, for eventual sale to donors. 
Since there was always the possibility that a 
customer, whether buying from stock or on 
commission, was prevented by some unforeseen 
event from specifying the inscription he wished 
his statue to bear, it occurs occasionally that a 
complete figure turns up without a text. 

This osiriphorous statue in the Morgan Li- 
brary is such a case. It is clearly unfinished, for 
the transition from back pillar to wig has not 
yet been evened out. Eyebrows and cosmetic 
lines also seem to lack the final touch, and the 
contour which sets the beard of Osiris off 
against its support is rather ragged. The wide 

wig, the long garment with its trapezoid panel, 
and the treatment of the man's face suggest a 
date toward the end of the seventh century B.C. 

measurements: Height 47.3 cm. Height of face 4.1 
cm. Height of base 6.4 to 7.7 cm. Width of top of 
base ca. 10 cm. Depth of base 20.3 cm. Width of 
back pillar ca. 4.2 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 


comment: It is a curious fact that most of the unin- 
scribed statues of pre-Ptolemaic times are osiriphoroi 
(Paris, Louvre E. 4299 and N. 868) and that at least 
one, of early Saite date, was inscribed at a much later 
period (Cairo J.E. 37408). Osiris figures, either free- 
standing or in a naos, when combined with the figure 
of their donor, more often than not have an uraeus 
without the snake's body extending upward along the 
crown, as is usual at the very beginning of Dynasty 
XXVI, and without the figure-8 coil, which is rarely 
found before the sixth century. The absence of the 
maat feathers of the Osiris crown speaks also for a 
date before 600 b.c. The type of the wide wig is very 
much like that of No. 27 and similar sculptures dated 
to the time of Psamtik I. The man's left foot has only 
four toes; for this omission see the Comment on 
No. 28. 

No. 40; PL 37, Figs. 87-$ 


About 630-600 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Grey-green steatite. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.159 (W.A.G. no. 176). 

Among the standing figures of the Late 
Period one can distinguish two basic types, 
those with attributes and those without. At- 
tribute-bearing statues include those with the 
image of a god, a stela, an offering table, or a 
naos, and this sculpture from the Walters Art 


Gallery is one of the earliest of the last-named 

A naos is a shrine, a portable chapel, a taber- 
nacle, containing the figure of a god. A suppli- 
ant frequently had himself represented with 
the image of a divinity in his hands or resting 

on his knees, but in the course of the Late 
Period an increasing number of sculptures were 
made showing the donor proffering the god's 
figure within a naos. The composition was not 
difficult, so long as the donor was pictured as 
kneeling, but it seems that the Egyptians tried 
for about a century to find a satisfactory solu- 
tion for the standing naophorous figure. While 
the formula for kneeling figures holding a naos 
was established by the end of Dynasty XXV, 
that for the standing figures remained unstand- 
ardized until the very end of Dynasty XXVI. 
Six examples made before the reign of Amasis 
are known, and in five of them the manner in 
which the shrine is placed before the donor's 
figure differs. 

This statue in the Walters Art Gallery shows 
a man named Nes-ptah, "God's Father and 
Prophet of Amun-Ra-king-of-the-gods," hold- 
ing a shrine, from which the original figure of 
a god has been removed and substituted by a 
representation of Osiris set into the back wall. 
Originally the entire niche of the naos must 
have been filled by the figure of a deity worked 
in a different material, probably a harder stone 
than the soft steatite of which the statue itself 
is made. The naos, without base, rests directly 
on the base of the statue; the walls are slightly 
inclined, and the roof is a little curved. Behind 
the shrine stands the donor, wearing a bag wig 
and a long skirt with trapezoid front panel. The 
face, for so small a sculpture, is quite expressive, 
and it should be noted that the whole figure is 

much more asymmetrical than is usually the 
case. The head, for instance, is noticeably 
turned to the left, and the median line, though 
well marked, is not straight. Also unusual is 
the soft modeling of the umbilical region just 
above the belt. 

measurements: Height 31.4 cm. Height of base ca. 
4.5 cm. Width of base, front 8.2 cm., rear 7.5 cm. 
Depth of base 13.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Karnak. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., pp. 
61-62, pi. XXXI and CXVII, no. 176. 

comment: Nes-ptah's father was Ankh-wennufer, 
and the same name was borne by Nes-ptah's son, who 
had the statue made for him. His wife, the younger 
Ankh-wennufer's mother, was Iret-ru. These per- 
sonal names suggest that we have here one of the 
families brought from Memphis to Thebes by Psam- 
tik I. Several philological peculiarities of the inscrip- 
tions point to the early Saite date, especially the 
reed-leaf determinative after the name of the elder 
Ankh-wennufer. The main reason, however, for 
placing the statue toward the end of the seventh cen- 
tury lies in the combination of standing figure and 
naos, as compared with the other five examples of 
this type definitely made before the reign of Amasis. 
One of these is datable to the reign of Psamtik I 
(Cairo C.G. 730), and of the remaining three, two 
are of the time of King Necho II (Cairo C.G. 807; 
Paris, Louvre E. n 895) and one probably of that of 
Apries (Turin 3026). Except for the Baltimore nao- 
phoros, where the shrine rests directly on the statue 
base, the groping for an adequate support for the 
naos is only too obvious; the Theban school alone, 
with its long tradition, found a more or less harmoni- 
ous solution of the problem, though this piece seems 
to have been a unique experiment, since no further 
standing naophorous statues were made at Thebes 
for at least another century. See also No. 45. 


No. 41; PL 38, Figs. 89-91. 


About 630-600 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Green schist; numerous traces of gold foil. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Aid.; no. 22.184 (W.A.G. no. 382). 

Although this exhibition is primarily dedi- 
cated to stone sculptures of private persons and 
kings, representations of a few deities have been 
included, so as to enlarge the picture offered by 
the human form in its many aspects during the 
Late Period. Like the private and royal statu- 
ary of the time, stone figures of the gods were 
placed in temples by individual donors as ex- 
votos, either uninscribed and thus carrying, 
e silentio, the pious wishes of a suppliant to the 
god represented, or inscribed with plea or 
prayer, addressed to the deity by name and 
naming the person who presented the sculpture. 

Of the latter type is this statuette in Balti- 
more, which represents Osiris, god of the dead 
and the nether world, the incarnation of human 
resurrection. He is seated on a chair with low 
back, wrapped in his funerary shroud, which 
leaves only head and hands exposed. His wrists 
are crossed, right over left, and in his hands he 
holds the crook and flail, age-old symbols of 
the god's divine reign. The head is adorned 
with the atef crown; where it meets the fore- 
head the hood of a royal cobra, the uraeus, rises 
defiantly. Long plastic eyebrows and cosmetic 
lines decorate the narrow eyes, and a formal 
beard, held by a strap, completes the traditional 
costume. The face is surprisingly pleasant and 
shows a certain amount of character. In this it 
is unlike most Osiris figures in stone, which a 
few generations later are largely replaced by 
mass-produced bronze statuettes, usually of 
mediocre quality. 

A single line of inscription, beginning at the 
front left corner, runs clockwise around the 
figure. The dedication formula is in favor of 
the "Overseer of the Singers of Amun-Ra, Lord 
of Ta-bener, Thau-en-per-mut, son of the 
Overseer of the Singers of Mut, Ankh-khonsu, 


and of Tady-hor (Tauris)." There exists a 
statue of Ankh-khonsu dedicated to him by his 
son, this very Thau-en-per-mut. Since its style 
is typical for the early Sake Period, there can 
be no doubt about the general date at which 
this statuette of Osiris was made. 

measurements: Height 27.4 cm. Height of base, 
front 4.4 cm. Width of base, front 5.2 cm. Depth of 
base 14.9 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps Abydos. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G., pp. 
105-106, pi. LXVIII and CXVIII, no. 382. 

comment: The statue of Ankh-khonsu (Paris, 
Louvre E. 15545) i s a headless block figure with 
short kilt; between the feet is the base of a now 
mostly destroyed male deity (for a discussion of this 
type, see Leclant, Enquetes, p. 47, note 1 ) . The 
Louvre statue is post-Dynasty XXV in style, and 
thus the date of the Osiris is fairly well established. 
Even without the inscription, one would have been 
inclined to attribute the Baltimore statuette to the 
second half of the seventh century b.c, since, begin- 
ning with the seventh century (Copenhagen, N.C.G. 
72; Hanover 1935.200.493 and .494; Cairo C.G. 38231), 
we now have a whole series of Osiris sculptures in 
hard stone, well dated by inscription, down to the 
end of Amasis' reign (Cairo C.G. 38358). The change 
of style which took place over these two centuries is 
especially noticeable in the eyes, eyebrows, and cos- 
metic lines (No. 50). The connection between 
beard and chin also furnishes certain indications; 
whereas in the Baltimore statuette the point of the 
chin is partly covered by the beard, in the time of 
Amasis chin and beard form two separate entities and 
the beard is attached slightly below the chin. The 
statuette was originally entirely covered with gold 
foil, which must have given it a splendid appearance, 
and careful examination would probably establish the 
same for other sculptures of the god. The mention 
in the text of Ta-bener — a site which Jean Yoyotte 
tentatively identifies with today's Matbool, east of 
Kafr el Sheikh — connects the family with the north- 
ern part of the central Delta. The statuette itself 
may, however, have been dedicated at Abydos, the 
mythical burial place of the god Osiris. According to 
a theory on the position of the hands of Osiris figures 
offered by Roeder, Agyptische Bronzefiguren, pp. 

180-184, this statuette corresponds to what he calls 
the Upper Egyptian type. A profile view of the 
head, enlarged so as to correspond to a profile view 
of the nearly lifesize Osiris inscribed for Psamtik I 

(Fig. 91; Cairo C.G. 38231; from Mcdinct Habu), 
shows a surprising similarity and also indicates that 
the size of a good sculpture of this period cannot be 
determined from a photograph. 

No. 42; PL 39, Figs. 92-94. 


610-595 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Pale brown limestone. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.135 (W.A.G. no. 260). 

When Psamtik I acceded to the throne in 
664 b.c, he was the undisputed ruler of only 
part of the country. By 656 b.c, however, the 
whole of Egypt had come under his control 
and he was once more "King of Upper and 
Lower Egypt" in the true sense the ancient 
title implied. His father, Necho I, did not know 
any such independence, preserving a precarious 
situation in the western Delta between the As- 
syrians and Kushites and leaving no sculptures 
or reliefs with his likeness. 

When his grandson, Necho II, came to power 
after the death of Psamtik I in 610 b.c, he be- 
gan a successful reign of fifteen years, which 
saw the king and his armies carry the Egyptian 
banner well beyond the Nile Valley into Asia. 
Since the country was unified and not exposed 
to foreign invasions, one would expect to find 
a large number of monuments bearing his name. 
Actually, the opposite is the case, and because 
not even a fragmentary stone sculpture of him 
exists, but only a small bronze figure (No. 43), 
it is difficult to establish his iconography. 

For this reason we have chosen for exhibition 
a relief with the king's name and head, one of 
two such reliefs in any museum outside of 
Egypt. It shows on the left the goddess Hathor, 
who addresses the king with a speech well 
suited to his political ambitions: "(I give) to 
thee every country in submission (?)." The in- 
scription over the king mentions "offering in 
Hut-ihet," followed by his cartouche. The re- 
lief obviously comes from a shrine or temple 
dedicated by King Necho II to Hathor, chief 

goddess of the third nome of Lower Egypt. 
The slab is executed in sunk relief of a crisp, 
dry style. Necho II wears the valanced wig 
with diadem which, especially in the Memphite 
region and in Lower Egypt, had always been 
part of a king's festive costume, occurring of- 
ten throughout the Third Intermediate Period. 
His features are idealizing; at least they show 
that a certain fullness of face with which later 
Sake kings are represented had not yet become 
a characteristic of the standard royal likeness. 

measurements: Height 14.5 cm. Width 27.3 cm. 
Depth 3.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Kom el Hisn 
(Imau) in the western Delta. 

bibliography: SteindorfT, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., pp. 77- 
78, pi. LIII, no. 260. 

comment: For Necho II, see the comprehensive 
article by Jean Yoyotte, "Nechao," in SDB 6 (1958), 
363-393 (ibid. 366 and 367 on this relief). The second 
relief of Necho II is in Copenhagen (N.C.G. 46); in 
style, dimensions, and workmanship it is so close to 
the Baltimore relief that the two may well have come 
from the same site. The head of Necho II is nearly 
identical on both slabs. For the valanced wig (No. 
24) in the Third Intermediate Period, see for in- 
stance Montet, Nouvelles fouilles, pi. XVI. A relief 
in the Brooklyn Museum (16.237; not shown in the 
Exhibition) is illustrated in Figure 93, because it may 
well be another representation of the elusive king. 
It was acquired by C. E. Wilbour at Zagazig, north- 
east of Cairo, in May 1890. The material of the 
Wilbour piece is brown-black basalt or diorite, in- 
finitely harder than the limestone of the Baltimore 
and Copenhagen reliefs, which may account for the 
different treatment of the curls on what essentially 
is the same valanced wig. Eyebrows and cosmetic 
lines are overly long, drawn out in a thin stroke of 
relief, a treatment also to be noted on the Copenhagen 


No. 43; PL 40, Figs. 95-96. 


610-595 B - C v Dyjtasty XXVI. Bronze. 

Owner: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; no. E. 13004. 

During the Third Intermediate Period the 
art of casting in metal was developed to a de- 
gree never to be surpassed in any of the follow- 
ing centuries; to what extent this was the result 
of the deterioration of the art of stone sculp- 
ture, has yet to be explained. With the advent 
of Dynasty XXVI, a decline in bronze casting 
had already set in, and although a few fine 
pieces were made from time to time until the 
end of the Ptolemaic Period, the bulk of metal 
statuary was mass-produced and, with its end- 
less repetition of identical subjects, to the criti- 
cal eye has very little merit. 

The reason for including a bronze in an ex- 
hibition devoted to stone sculpture is that this 
statuette constitutes the only known sculpture 
in the round of Necho II, second king of 
Dynasty XXVI, whose valiant exploits in Asia 
are known from the Bible, as well as from Bab- 
ylonian sources. Among other deeds, he was 
the first to attempt the connection by canal of 
the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, the first 
to effect the circumnavigation of Africa. Yet, 
for all his might, he did not leave many monu- 
ments which show him in person, and most of 
those on which he appeared were later dis- 
membered by his son and successor, Psamtik 
II, who — for reasons still unknown — in nu- 
merous instances had his father's name erased 
and his own superimposed in place of it. Thus 
a sculpture of Necho II, even in bronze and on 
a small scale, is a rare item, and this one, from 
Philadelphia, is the only one thus far known. 

The king is shown kneeling, both arms 
stretched forward with the palms turned in; 
between them he probably once held an offer- 
ing to the gods. He wears a striped headcloth, 
the royal nemes, which has across the forehead 
a border ending in front of the ears. A broad 

necklace can be seen between the lappets. The 
chest muscles are sharply defined; the median 
line is remarkably deep. The inscription on the 
back of the belt states: "Son of Ra, Necho, 
living forever." The bronze was probably 
much corroded when it turned up during the 
past century and entered a private collection 
in France. It was carelessly cleaned, and as a 
result the surface is pitted and has lost much 
of its original "skin." Thus the features of the 
king have become rather indistinct, although 
they were probably never more than a conven- 
tional representation. Characteristic for him, 
however, seem to be the slant of the eyes, the 
sickle-shaped mouth with lifted corners, and 
the triangular structure of the face. 

measurements: Height (above the modern bronze 
base) 1 8. 1 cm. Width at shoulder level 7.6 cm. 
Depth 10 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Formerly in the Gustave 
Posno Collection. 

bibliography: Collection de M. Gustave Posno. An- 
tiquites egyptiennes, greco-romaines & romaines 
(Sale Catalogue, Paris, Hotel Drouot, 22-26 May, 
1883), pp. 14-15, no. 54. Wiedemann, Aeg. Ge- 
schichte II, p. 630, note 7. C. Aldred, in JEA 42 
(1956), pp. 6 and 7; pi. II fig. 9. J. Yoyotte, in SDB 
6 (1958), 366, fig. 608. 

comment: It was H. De Meulenaere who first drew 
attention to the curious erasures the cartouches of 
Necho II suffered in antiquity (cf. Yoyotte, loc. cit., 
370-371). These may in part account for the fact 
that, though he ruled fifteen years, there are infinitely 
fewer surviving monuments with his name than there 
are with that of his son, Psamtik II, who was king for 
only six years. It is unthinkable that Necho II simply 
failed to have statues made of himself, and yet all 
that is known of his sculptures consists of this bronze 
statuette and a headless sphinx (ASAE 11 [191 1], p. 
87) with his cartouches gouged out. Other sculptures 
were presumably intentionally destroyed. On private 
sculptures, where his name originally appeared but 
was subsequently erased, the cartouche was left blank 
(Cairo C.G. 807 and 928; Stockholm, N.M. 78) or 


had the name of Psanitik II superimposed (Cairo 
C.G. 658; London, B.M. 37891; Paris, Louvre E. 
10709). In this connection, mention should be made 
of the kneeling bronze figure of a king (New York, 
M.M.A. 35.9.3) on which the name of King Amasis 
appears on the front of the kilt, written in a column 

which runs right across the overlap of the garment, 
a most unusual place for a royal name. The back of 
the belt has an obliterated cartouche in exactly the 
same place as on the Philadelphia statuette, and the 
name originally contained in it may well have been 
that of Necho II. 

No. 44; Pis. 40-41, Figs. 97-99. 


About 595 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.215 (W.A.G. no. 174). 

Due to the long reign of Psamtik I, there 
have survived a large number of private sculp- 
tures, which were made, according to their in- 
scriptions, within the king's lifetime. The num- 
ber known to have been produced under his 
successor is much smaller, partly because 
Necho II ruled for a shorter time and partly 
because his name was frequently scratched out, 
even on private sculptures, at the behest of his 
son, Psamtik II. Therefore any private sculp- 
ture dated to the period of Necho II is rare; the 
one presented here is the only one in America. 

The man represented, Iret-horru, has numer- 
ous titles, of which the most important are 
"God's Father, Prophet of Amun-Ra-king- 
of-the-gods," "Libationer," and "Prophet of 
Thebes-triumphant." He holds before him a 
figure of Osiris, presenting it to the god of the 
nether world. His wide wig has been modified 
by lines of striation, common in the preceding 
century but no longer found after Iret-horru's 
time. Although the eyebrows are fully ren- 
dered in relief, the cosmetic line extends very 
little beyond the eyelid; with the sixth century 
it becomes less and less prominent in private 
sculpture. Collarbones and sternal notch are 
still well marked, but the torso lacks the 
hitherto familiar median line; that, too, is no 
longer a standard feature of the body model- 
ing, although it occurs sporadically until the 
reign of King Apries. 

Iret-horru is dressed in the gala garment with 
numerous pleats and trapezoid forepart which, 
especially in the profile views, makes him ap- 
pear rather bulky. The arms are extraordinarily 
thick. With his stocky figure and erect head 
Iret-horru gives an impression of pride and 
strength rarely encountered in theophorous 
sculpture. Both his father, Hor, and his grand- 
father, Neska-shuty, held the same offices as 
Iret-horru at Karnak, whereas his son inherited 
only one of his father's priestly positions. It 
was this son, Necho, who had the statue made 
for his father, and since he obviously received 
his uncommon name after the ruling king, the 
date of the statue can hardly be doubted, es- 
pecially since its stylistic features are those to 
be expected at the period. 

measurements: Height 56 cm. Height of base 9.5 
cm. Width of base 11 cm. Depth of base 22 cm. 
Width across elbows 14.5 cm. Width of back pillar 
6.5 cm. Height of face 5 cm. Height of Osiris figure 
with its base 30.5 cm. 

provenance: Karnak (cachette); 1905. Acquired in 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., pp. 60- 
61, pi. XXXI and CXVII, no. 174. 

comment: The sculpture wts formerly in the Cairo 
Museum (J.E. 37890, K. 626). A statue of the son, 
Necho, is in London (B.M. 41560). Apart from their 
style, these statues can safely be dated to the time 
of King Necho II, because only then would a father 
have given this name to his son. A century later, 
under the Persians, the name Necho is revived as a 


sign of nationalism, as is well known from the Sera- 
peum stelae and from sculptures of post-Saite style, 
entirely different from that of these figures. The 
Baltimore statue thus forms a welcome addition to 
the small group of sculptures from the reign of 
Necho II. The date of some of them can be surmised 
from the fact that Psamtik I is mentioned as deceased 
in the inscriptions (Paris, Louvre E. 11805 an ^ N. 
663); others contain the name of a private person 
composed with that of King Necho II (Paris, Louvre 
E. 10966; Strasbourg 367) or bear his cartouche which 

somehow escaped destruction (Paris, Louvre A 83). 
Examples of statues on which his name was de- 
stroyed or even replaced by Psamtik II have already 
been given in the Comment on No. 43. Osiriphorous 
standing sculptures enjoyed great popularity and, 
beginning with Dynasty XXV, occur time and again 
until well into the Ptolemaic Period (London, B.M. 
48038). It is worth noting that, at the time of Necho 
II, the beard still covers the chin of the Osiris figure, 
but that the figure-8 coil of the uraeus becomes more 

No. 45; PI. 42, Figs. 1 00-101. 


About 600-585 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, Cal.; no. 2/14. 

Dark brown to black basalt. 

One often marvels at the great care the 
Egyptians lavished on the carving of inscrip- 
tions in hard stone, especially in cases where 
the inscription would normally not be noticed. 
This holds true particularly for the back pillars 
of statues; and although it is unlikely that an- 
cient temple sculptures were always placed 
against a wall, or so close to a wall that the in- 
scriptions could not be read by the living, many 
texts were certainly never seen by visitors to 
the temples. Inscribing the back of a statue 
was an act of faith. What was written there 
was meant to be read by the deity to assure 
the survival in the hereafter of the person rep- 
resented, and not primarily to convey informa- 
tion to living human beings. 

Many museums follow Egyptian custom 
(though for other reasons! ) in exhibiting sculp- 
tures so that the back is not easily seen. This 
Exhibition is perhaps the first attempt to make 
all four sides of inscribed pieces accessible, in 
certain cases at least through photographs of 
the back, because the back — as in this naoph- 
oros from the Brundage Collection — often 
contains all the written data concerning the 
person represented and thus forms an essential 
part of the archaeological history of the sculp- 

ture. This piece, moreover, bears an inscription 
which excels by reason of the beauty of the 
hieroglyphs and their balanced spacing. The 
information they impart is that the person rep- 
resented is the "God's Father, Ankh-wennufer," 
son of the Prophet Dy-ptah-iaut, and that the 
statue was made by his "beloved son," whose 
name unfortunately is lost with the lower part 
of the figure. 

Ankh-wennufer holds a naos, which houses 
an image of the god Osiris. He is represented 
as wearing a wide wig and a long skirt with 
trapezoid front panel. His face is expressive 
and yet idealizing; the eyebrows are almost 
imperceptibly indicated. On the other hand, 
the collarbones are well modeled, and his pow- 
erful chest, which does not show a trace of the 
median line, is very prominent. 

measurements: Height above modern base 34.1 cm. 
Width 12.2 cm. Depth, at wrist level, 11 cm. Width 
of back pillar 4.8 cm. Intracolumnar width 1.8 cm. 
provenance: Not known; probably Memphis. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The period at which this statue was made 
is difficult to establish. Stylistically, the early Saite 
Period has much in its favor. The lack of a belt (see 
No. 27) and the strong collarbones would fit well 
the time of King Psamtik I, and the reed-leaf deter- 


minative in the man's name, which in this case indi- 
cates the order of the two component parts of Ankh- 
wennufer (instead of Wemiufer-ankh), is also typi- 
cal of early Saite times. Against this date speak the 
form and structure of wig and face, which remind 
one of No. 47, the total absence of the median line, 
and the position of the beard of the Osiris figure. 
The lack of plastically defined eyebrows is more in 
keeping with middle Saite than with early Saite 
sculptures. The shape of the naos, with torus mold- 
ing, cavetto cornice, and the curving roof line found 

in archaic sanctuaries, is of no help, since this form 
exists side by side with the plain, box-like naos 
throughout the seventh and the better part of the 
sixth century. Although the titles of both father 
and son of Ankh-wennufer point to a Memphite 
provenance, none of the three men occurs on anv 
other monument (including the Serapeum stelae) 
from that region. For standing naophoroi in general, 
see No. 40. The Saite formula seems to have been 
restricted to "The City God of . . ." as on No. 9 and 
Marseille 216. For Dy-ptah-iaut, see PN I, 396, 18. 

No. 46; Pis. 42-43, Figs. 102-103. 


About 600-575 B - c -> Dyjiasty XXVI. 

Owner: Mr. Michel Abemayor, New York, N. Y. 

Grey-black granite with pink spots. 

By their preference for hard stones, the 
Egyptian sculptors of the Late Period — far 
more than their ancestors — expressed a fierce 
belief in the permanence of votive statutary. 
Living, as they did, in a world of changing 
conditions, when the rise of potentially hostile 
powers beyond the borders constituted a per- 
manent threat to the safety of their way of life, 
they continued, decade after decade, to model 
in the hardest materials available the human 
figure of the votary who wanted to be with his 
god in his temple after death. Though Egypt's 
influence was on the wane, though the Nile 
Valley no longer enjoyed the splendid isola- 
tion of an imperial past, the faith remained un- 
shakable, and the sheer number of better-than- 
average sculptures produced during the last 
seven centuries before the Roman conquest 
constitutes a vivid testimony to the strength 
the country and its people still possessed. There 
is a firmness, a determination, in heads such as 
this one in granite, which belies the "decline" 
of the arts in the last millennium b.c. 

The face under the wide wig is a strange 
mixture of idealization and just that minute 
touch of individuality, which makes it stand 
out among its more conventional fellows. The 
left eye, for instance, is much more slanting 

than the right; the lower lip is drooping, and 
the corners of the mouth are marked by 
notches which add to the arresting qualities of 
the expression. An incised line around the base 
of the neck no doubt indicates a cord from 
which an amulet, a royal cartouche, or a pec- 
toral was suspended. The back pillar runs 
flush into the wig; it bears the beginning of 
three columns of inscription with a text which 
seems to be both funerary and autobiographi- 
cal. The man's name is not preserved. Com- 
parison with well-dated examples of heads with 
similar wigs and features points to the early 
decades of the sixth century b.c. as the time 
when this sculpture was made. 

measurements: Height 34.5 cm. Height of face 11.3 
cm. Width 23.8 cm. Depth 18.5 cm. Depth of break 
at neck 14.2 cm. Width of back pillar 10. 1 cm. Intra- 
columnar width 2.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Paris, Musee des Arts Decoratifs, Ex- 
position Egypte-Frcmce (October-November 1949), 
no. 137. 

comment: The wide wig of this man is obviously 
not nearly as wide as that of No. 38A of early Saite 
date; its less flaring shape is characteristic for the 
sixth century. Thick plastic eyebrows and the nearly 
total absence of cosmetic lines at the corners of the 
narrow eyes occur often under Psamtik II and Apries. 
The incised line of the amulet cord begins with the 


reign of Necho II (London, B.M. 37891; Paris, 
Louvre A 83 and E. 10709), and several sculptures 
dated to him and to Psamtik II have three columns 
of inscription on the back pillar (Cairo C.G. 658; 
London, B.M. 37891). On the other hand, the treat- 
ment of eyebrows and eyes is still found under 
Apries (No. 52 A), with whose reign the unbroken 

transition from pillar to wig seems to disappear. The 
notches at the corners of the mouth, already noted 
earlier, are in this head particularly noticeable. These 
triangular depressions are among the many features 
of Egyptian modeling which were taken over directly 
by the Greek sculptors of the Archaic Period 
(Richter, Kouroi, pp. 35, 64, and passim). 

No. 47; PL 43, Figs. 104-105. 

IPY, also named ANKH-PSAMTIK 

595-589 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Mr. Michel Abemayor, New York, N. Y. 

Green schist. 

The wealth of different forms and styles, 
which exist side by side throughout the Late 
Period, is still somewhat of a stumbling block 
to establishing a clear line of development for 
faces other than those with realistic or true 
portrait features. Here, for instance, in the 
upper part of a statuette inscribed for the 
"King's Companion" Ipy, we encounter a full 
face of a type usually associated with the 
Ptolemaic, or at least the post-Persian, Period; 
yet the two names of King Psamtik II are 
clearly incised on Ipy's upper arms, so there 
can be no doubt about the brief span of time 
in which the sculpture was made. A new type 
of idealizing features is being developed, and 
toward the end of the century we shall find 
this type adopted for near-colossal private 
statuary, such as the kneeling figure of Wah- 
ib-ra in London (B.M. 1 1 1 ). 

The fact that, in this sculpture of Ipy, the 
median line is notably absent betrays a new 
approach also to the rendering of the human 
body in the round — an approach that is to 
become more apparent in succeeding years. 
Otherwise Ipy, with his wide wig and plastic 
eyebrows and cosmetic lines, follows the tra- 
dition of early Saite standards. His arms are 
bent at the elbow to hold a god's figure, pos- 
sibly that of the god Osiris, as is indicated by 
the fragmentary protuberance below his chest. 
The back pillar is unusually wide and lacking 

in depth. It bears the remains of eleven lines of 
inscription in rather deeply cut small hiero- 
glyphs of careful design. 

measurements: Height 18.1 cm. Height of head 

6.1 cm. Width of break across arms 10.8 cm. Depth 

of break 7.4 cm. Width of back pillar near break, 

originally 4.9 cm. 

provenance: Said to be Middle Egypt, near Ash- 


bibliography: None. 

comment: The cartouches, Nefer-ib-ra on the right, 
and Psamtik on the left upper arm, are not preceded 
by the customary royal titles. For the arrangement 
of the text on the pillar in horizontal lines, see also 
No. 48. In the mouth we find the faint indication of 
the so-called smile, discussed above under No. 29. 
The chest is rather fully modeled, almost fleshy, a 
convention which, from the time of Psamtik II on, is 
more and more frequently employed. The lack of 
the median line points out the great change in the 
modeling of the male torso which begins during the 
rule of this king, when bipartition gradually is re- 
placed by tripartition (see p. xxxv). A statue in Paris 
(Louvre A 94), representing a man well dated to the 
reign of Psamtik II (RdE 6 [1951], pp. 234-235), 
actually shows both bipartition and tripartition very 
markedly, and it is surely no accident that the last 
sculpture with distinct bipartition (No. 52) was made 
for a man known to have been active both under 
Psamtik II and his successor Apries. The subject of 
our bust may possibly have been named Ip-mer, 
rather than Ipy; the reading is not entirely certain. 
His "beautiful name," Ankh-psamtik, indicates per- 
haps a Heliopolitan origin, since almost all examples 
of this name come from the City of the Sun (BIFAO 
54 [1954], pp. m-112). The text on the back pillar 
is autobiographical, followed by the beginning of an 
"Address to the Living." 


No. 48; Pis. 44-45, Figs. 106-109. 


595-589 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 19.2.2. 

Grey schist. 

In trying to trace the development of Egyp- 
tian sculpture in the round throughout the 
last centuries before the Roman domination, 
one is constantly faced with the problems aris- 
ing from the great difference between Theban 
and northern workshops. For certain periods 
we are equally well informed about the output 
of Upper and Lower Egyptian studios; for 
other times, material from one part of the 
country abounds and is lacking for the other — 
in short, one can rarely gain a balanced picture 
for the country as a whole at a given time. 

We have here, in this osiriphorous statue 
from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, an 
anomaly, a complete sculpture with base, head 
and nose preserved, inscribed with a long text, 
dated by the cartouches to the reign of Psamtik 
II (595-589 b.c), and known to have been 
found in the famous cachette at Karnak, which 
has yielded hardly anything inscribed for that 
king. It is probably the only undamaged piece 
of sculpture still extant that is definitely 
known to have been made at Thebes in the 
time of the third king of Dynasty XXVI. The 
subject, dressed in a long garment with trape- 
zoid forepart and wearing a wide wig, proffers 
a figure of the god Osiris. His name is Harbes, 
and he bears in addition a "beautiful name," 
Psamtik-nefer. His father's name, Ptah-hotep, 
suggests that the previous generation of the 
family may have come from the north, and the 
mother's name, Diny-ikhet-iret, is absolutely 
unique. Harbes and his family are not known 
from any other sources, and thus his role in 
history is transitory; yet he seems to have been 

in a position to command a sculpture of fine 
workmanship. Its quality and its excellent 
preservation assure it a prominent place among 
the Theban statuary of the sixth century B.C. 
surviving to our day. 

It should be noted that the eyebrows are 
now much less prominent than they were in 
the previous period, for a sharp ridge all but 
replaces the former plastic relief, and that the 
cosmetic lines at the corners of the eyes have 
become noticeably shorter. 

measurements: Height 61.5 cm. Height of base 11.7 
cm. Width of base ca. 12.2 cm. Depth of base 20.4 cm. 
provenance: Karnak (cachette); 1904. Formerly in 
the collection of Lord William Cecil. 
bibliography: ASAE 6 (1905), p. 129. BMMA 15 
(1920), pp. 129-130, fig. 3. Hornemann, Types I, 282. 

comment: The statue is amply inscribed. In addition 
to the name of King Psamtik II on the upper arms — 
Nefer-ib-ra on the right and Psamtik on the left — it 
bears three columns of text on the left side of the 
back pillar and another three columns on the right 
side of the flaring skirt. The arrangement of the in- 
scription on the back pillar is unusual (cf. No. 47 
and Alexandria 409, both dated to Psamtik II, and 
Vienna 5774, of the time of Apries), and it is full 
of alphabetical writings. Harbes is no relation of the 
subject of No. 34, although the name is not common 
(Florence 1646; Malinine, Choix, p. 143). The father, 
Ptah-hotep, was a prophet of Amun and se?n-pnest; 
for the mother's name, see PN I, 396, 21. The face 
shows the small curved mouth discussed under Nos. 
29 and 49, with a drooping lower lip. Significant for 
the development of the Osiris figure are the double 
feathers, the figure-eight coil of the uraeus, and the 
attachment of the beard under the chin (cf. Nos. 41 
and 50). For Harbes' main title, mer-sesh khenty- 
wer, see Posener, Premiere Domination, p. 8, and 
Wm. C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle King- 
dom (Brooklyn, 1955), pp. 39 ff. For the lack of the 
big toe on the left foot, see No. 28. 


No. 49; PI. 45, Figs, iio-iii. 


About 590 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Grey-green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Aid.; no. 22.198 (W.A.G. no. 155). 

One cannot be too grateful to ancient Egyp- 
tian notables for their custom of inscribing the 
names of their kings on statues and in tombs. 
Without such chronological aids, even pains- 
taking research would often not succeed in 
attributing a sculpture other than to a dynasty 
or a century, and detailed information on the 
development of style under the various rulers 
could never be established. This small bust 
from the Walters Art Gallery, for instance, 
though poorly preserved, is invaluable for dat- 
ing, because its anonymous subject is thrice 
decorated with the cartouches of King Psamtik 
II (595-589 b.c), son of Necho II, who despite 
his fairly brief reign is frequently mentioned 
on royal and private monuments. 

Although the face of the man represented is 
idealizing and as such impersonal, two features 
should be noted as characteristic of some of 
the heads made during the reign of the third 
king of Dynasty XXVI. One is the elegance 
of the very slanting eyes, which remind one of 
the sloe-eyed girl musicians in the tomb of 
Nakht (Thebes 52). The other is the pro- 
nounced curve of the small, pouting mouth, 
causing that benign expression which has been 

likened to a smile, here more evident than in 
examples of the time of Psamtik I (Nos. 27, 29). 
To judge by the outline of the break at the 
front and the position of the arms, the man was 
represented holding before him a shrine or the 
figure of a deity. Since the invocation on 
the back pillar is addressed to the goddess 
Bastet, it was probably her image that he was 

measurements: Height 16.3 cm. Width 9 cm. Depth 
(at nose level) 6.5 cm. Width of back pillar 2.6 cm. 
Intracolumnar width 1.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Memphis. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G., p. 52, 
pi. XXVI and CXIII, no. 155. 

comment: The offering formula, addressed to "Ba- 
stet, the eye of Ra, mistress of Ankh-tawy," refers 
to the goddess as a Memphite deity, and thus the 
provenance of the sculpture is reasonably certain. 
Whereas the original gives the impression that noth- 
ing underlies the cartouche of Nefer-ib-ra decorat- 
ing the chest, photographs taken in a raking light 
reveal faint traces which may, or may not, indicate 
the presence of an earlier cartouche. If there ever 
was one, it must have been that of Necho II, as is the 
case with London, B.M. 37891, and Paris, Louvre 
E. 10709. For the "smile," see the Comment on No. 
29. The statue was either standing or kneeling, but 
certainly not seated, as stated in the publication. 


No. 50; PI. 46, Figs. 1 1 2-1 13. 

About 590-570 b.c; Dy?msty XXVI. 

Oivner: Mr. Walter C. Baker, Neiv York, N. Y. 


Grey-green schist. 

The features of kings and private persons in 
sculpture in the round may be conventional or 
individualizing in an infinite number of de- 
grees, but it is impossible to define the face of 
a deity. As a spiritual conception it should rep- 
resent an idea as well as an ideal, but no one 
has as yet tried to analyze what standards were 
followed in the facial expression of Egyptian 
gods. In the case of the well-known heads of 
the god Amun with the features of Tutankh- 
amen, it is clear that the deity was modeled 
after the standard likeness of the ruling king, 
but in the Late Period this is not nearly so cer- 
tain. Few outstanding royal heads can be at- 
tributed to a definite king, and those few do 
not seem to be reflected in the heads of deities; 
moreover, only a handful of sculptures of 
good quality representing gods have survived. 
Changes in religious ideas, especially on the 
popular level, and the desire of votaries to pre- 
sent the deity with a physical token of devo- 
tion, resulted in a mass-production of statuettes 
in bronze, which led to a decline of liturgical 
art in the field of sculpture in the round. 

It is therefore a pleasure to exhibit a head of 
the god Osiris, made in all probability in the 
sixth century b.c, which in composition, style, 
and workmanship equals the best of royal and 
private sculpture of the period. Indeed it is so 
very fine a head that one may well wonder if 
it did not belong to a statue dedicated by a 
king. Since the iconography of the first three 
kings of Dynasty XXVI is as yet ill defined, 
and since the known heads of Apries and 
Amasis offer few points of comparison, it is 
best to abandon the idea of seeing in this head 
of Osiris the replica of a royal face. It is much 
more likely that it is the prototype of the ideal 
likeness of the god as developed in a great com- 

munity such as Memphis or one of the Delta 
cities, and that only certain details reflect the 
conventions prevailing during the reign of a 
definite king. 

There can be no doubt that this is Osiris, 
god of the nether world, of the dead and of the 
resurrected. His high crown was flanked by 
the two feathers of truth, the royal cobra rises 
above the forehead, and the chin was adorned 
with a braided beard held in place by a strap. 
The uninscribed back pillar tapered to a point 
at about the tip of the crown. The ears are 
rather small, and the narrow face shows the 
kind of refinement and benign expression which 
seems to be one of the characteristics of Saite 
art. In this it is infinitely superior to the empty 
masks of even the better among the masses of 
bronzes, which at this time began to invade the 
Egyptian temple. 

In comparison with Osiris heads of the sev- 
enth century, two details in the head from the 
Baker Collection represent a new development, 
namely the figure-eight coil of the cobra body 
and the sophisticated eyes and eyebrows, which 
are the primary indications of a date in the first 
half of the sixth century. 

measurements: Height 28.7 cm. Height of face 7.7 
cm. Width 14.5 cm. Depth 19.6 cm. Depth of break, 
neck only (horizontal) 14.5 cm. Width of break at 
neck (horizontal) 6.6 cm., at back pillar 9.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Ancient Art in American Private Col- 
lections. A Loan Exhibition at the Fogg Art Museum 
of Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), 
p. 18, pi. V, no. 15. 

comment: Attempts to identify the torso to which 
this head originally belonged have been to no avail: 
it does not fit Cairo C.G. 38236 and J.E. 37213. 
The lips are contoured by an incised line, a feature 
observed several times in this Exhibition, occur- 
ring only on heads of unusually careful workmanship. 


The treatment of the face of this Osiris head and the 
number of well-designed details are so attractive that 
an attempt to establish its chronological position 
within the Late Period seems deserved. Neither the 
form of the uraeus nor that of the eyes is a new in- 
vention; they are taken over from the repertory of 
earlier centuries, but their appearance in Dynasty 
XXVI marks one of the numerous turning points in 
the evolution of style of sculpture in the round. With 
one exception (Cairo C.G. 42242, a son of Mentuem- 
hat) none of the stone Osiris figures of the seventh 
century has an uraeus with figure-eight coil (No. 
41). On the other hand, it is well attested in a num- 
ber of divine sculptures which are dated to the 
sixth century B.C. (Cairo C.G. 38358; Florence 313; 
London, B.M. 1162), as well as in No. 44, of the 
time of Necho. Again, in the seventh century the 
beard strap completely encloses the tip of the chin, 
while in the sixth century the tip becomes more and 
more exposed; the beard is actually fastened just 
under the chin. There are few sizable figures of 
deities with head intact dated to Psamtik II and 
Apries, and thus the development during their reigns 

cannot at present be well defined. The sophisticated 
contour of the wide eyes on the Baker head is defi- 
nitely attested under Amasis and differs notably from 
the style of Psamtik I. Thus this kind of modeling 
of the eye must have come into fashion in the first 
half of the sixth century. As for the very long and 
particularly narrow stripes of eyebrows and cosmetic 
lines, they seem to have been introduced under 
Necho II in relief (Fig. 94), and in the round under 
either Psamtik II or Apries, since in some sculptures 
of the time of Amasis the eyebrows are rendered 
naturally and the long thin paint stripe occurs only 
at the corners of the eyes. In short, the head under 
discussion may have been made under either Psamtik 
II or Apries, probably the latter, because a head of 
the king in Bologna (Museo Civico 1801) shows a 
somewhat similar treatment of the eyes and eye- 
brows. The closest parallel, however, for uraeus, eye- 
brows, eyes, and mouth is found in the head of an 
Osiris statue in Boston (M.F.A. 29.1 131; from Giza), 
but despite the fact that it is inscribed it cannot be 
dated any more precisely than the head under 

No. 51; PL 47, Figs. 114-115. 


589-570 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Philip R. Adams, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Black diorite. 

Fragments of fine works of sculpture have 
an attraction of their own for the sensitive ob- 
server; some amateurs even prefer fragmentary- 
heads and statues to complete specimens, and 
the specialist is often so familiar with the proto- 
type of a broken figure that he hardly notices 
a damaged nose, a missing ear: he sees the 
whole as it was, not as it is now, and the details 
he can observe suffice to resurrect before his 
inner eye an entity which is gone forever. 

This fragment of the face and crown of an 
Egyptian king from the Adams Collection is 
therefore something of a test; by including it 
among far more complete works of art of Dy- 
nasty XXVI, it may be seen whether or not it 
can hold its own. It is to be hoped that many 
who see it will be able to visualize, in this mere 
portion of a king's likeness, the superb royal 
head to which it once belonged. 


The remains of the uraeus — the royal cobra 
— on the forehead might sufficiently identify 
the person represented as a king, but the head- 
gear makes it certain that the fragment is from 
a royal sculpture, for it is never worn by a 
private person or even by a god. It is the so- 
called Blue Crown, a war helmet of leather, 
which in earlier representations is usually 
studded with a multitude of small blue faience 
discs. The pliable material flares to a creased 
edge that rises from over the temples. The rim 
of the leather around the face was apparently 
folded over and sewn, with a resulting band- 
like hem, which sets the crown off against the 
face. A lining, or a cap of softer material worn 
under the helmet, is visible below the helmet's 
edge, over the eye and back of the ear. 

The eyebrows are plastic and quite thin; the 
rim of the upper eyelid is outlined and drawn 

out over the lower lid. A swelling below the 
eyesocket subtly indicates the bone structure 
of the face. The ear is exquisitely shaped and 
fairly small for what was once an over life-size 
head; its anatomical details were followed care- 
fully by the craftsman, who obviously knew 
his subject very well indeed. As for the identi- 
fication of the king: though it must be stressed 
that our knowledge of the royal iconography 
of Dynasty XXVI is, on the whole, still 
sketchy, this fragment strongly resembles a 
head (Bologna 1801) which is fortunately in- 
scribed, and thus it can hardly be doubted that 
King Apries, the Hophra of the Bible, is here 

measurements: Height 30.2 cm. Width 23 cm. 
Thickness 8.9 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Ancient Art in American Private Col- 
lections. A Loan Exhibition at the Fogg Art Mu- 
seum of Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass., 
1954), p. 18, pi. V, no. 14. 

comment: Two fundamental articles on royal sculp- 
ture of the Late Period have been published by 

H. VV. Miiller, in Studi . . . Rosellini II, pp. 181 ff., 
and in ZAS 80 (1955), pp. 46-68 and 146. In the lat- 
ter article, the head Bologna 1801 is identified as that 
of King Apries and discussed in detail. It is the only 
royal head of Dynasty XXVI which offers numerous 
points of comparison with the Cincinnati fragment, 
especially for the form and volume of the crown, 
for the treatment of eyebrow and eye, and for the 
two figure-eight folds of the uracus, which lie one 
above the other. To be sure, the few heads which 
are attributed to Psamtik II and Amasis can also be 
compared in one feature or the other with the frag- 
ment from the Adams Collection, but only the head 
of Apries in Bologna offers so many parallels. The 
fragmentary state of preservation is probably due to 
the deliberate destruction which many monuments of 
Apries suffered after he had been defeated by 
Amasis, the usurper who became his successor. A 
royal head with Blue Crown in Paris (Louvre E. 
3433) and a fragment of a face from Heliopolis in 
New York (M.M.A. 12. 187.31), both uninscribed, 
can also be attributed to the fourth king of Dynasty 
XXVI. Although the rendering of the eye is formal, 
the ear is naturalistically modeled. The essential 
parts of the ear — helix, tragus, and lobe — are of 
course always present; what is surprising is to find 
antihelix, concha, and antitragus formed with such 
minute care. More than half a century later a simi- 
lar rendering of the human ear is found in Greek 
sculpture (Richter, Kouroi, pp. 27-28, 33, 34, and 

No. 52 A-B; Pis. 48-49, Figs. 1 1 6- 1 19. 


About 585 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owners: A (upper) Mr. Albert Gallatin, Neiv York, N. Y. 
B (lower) Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 895. 

Grey -green schist. 

On the left leg of the colossal statue of 
Ramesses II, just south of the entrance to the 
great rock temple at Abu Simbel, is a famous 
Greek inscription. It dates from the third 
regnal year of Psamtik II (593 B.C.), the year 
of his campaign against the Kushites, and re- 
lates, among other things, that the commander 
of the foreign contingent of his army was a 
certain Potasimto and that the Egyptian troops 
were led by Amasis. This Amasis, or Iahmes, 

to call him by his Egyptian name, is represented 
in the head from the Gallatin Collection, and 
with it is exhibited the statue (now owned by 
the Cairo Museum) to which it once belonged. 
Through a discovery of H. De Meulenaere, 
who recognized that the two pieces went to- 
gether, it is now possible to identify one of the 
great personalities of the sixth century b.c, 
a military leader known not only from an 
Egyptian source, but also from the earliest 


Greek inscription of the entire Nile Valley. 

Though Iahmes' "beautiful name," Nefer- 
ibra-nakht, is compounded with the throne 
name of Psamtik II, his statue was not made in 
Psamtik's reign, but in that of his successor, 
Apries (589-570 B.C.), whose cartouche adorns 
the upper right arm of the figure. In the text 
of his statue, however, Iahmes refers only to 
Psamtik II. He not only displays his "beautiful 
name" prominently on his lap, with the royal 
component in a cartouche, but he also states 
in the line of inscription round the base that he 
was the "king's (Psamtik's) messenger, fighting 
on behalf of his lord in every foreign land, do- 
ing what His Majesty loves in ta-sety . . ." 
Ta-sety, "the Land of Nubia," specifically 
singles out the place of Iahmes' greatest ex- 
ploits in the Nubian campaign of 593 B.C. 
How close he must have been to his sovereign 
is evident from a second Greek inscription at 
Abu Simbel, in which he is again mentioned as 
having accompanied Psamtik II as military 

The statue shows him in the simplest of all 
poses of worship, kneeling, with hands resting 
on the thighs. His face, of oval shape, under a 
wide wig, is idealizing. His eyebrows are of a 
new style, which appears occasionally during 
the reign of Apries, with rather narrow plastic 
bands running very straight across the fore- 
head, but bending sharply down and tapering 
rapidly at the outer ends. The philtrum is 
unusually wide, and the left eye slants far more 
than the right. The torso is characterized by 
a marked median line, the latest example of 
pure bipartition, which — as has been noted 
elsewhere — begins to be superseded by tri- 
partition in the time of Psamtik (see p. xxxv) . 

Iahmes was the son of Nes-atum; his mother's 
name was Na-ires-nefer. He was a prophet of 
the god Sopdu, the "Lord of the East," the 
chief deity of the 20th nome of Lower Egypt, 
who was worshipped in the form of a squatting 
hawk at what is now the village of Saft el 
Henna, northeast of Cairo. This village, inci- 
dentally, is one of many localities where the 

name of a deity (in this case, Sopdu) has sur- 
vived in a place name (Saft) to this day. Iahmes 
presumably was a native of the town where 
his statue was found, or at least of the nome in 
which that town is situated. That he held an 
important office in the north, where his home 
lay, is shown by the title "Superintendent at 
the Gateway to the Foreign Lands of the 
North," a reference to the strategic position of 
Saft el Henna as the control point where the 
two routes from Asia met — the Pelusiac branch 
of the Nile and the Wady Tumilat. 

The back pillar is inscribed with an invoca- 
tion of "every it^Z?-priest who comes into and 
goes forth from Hut-nebes, before Sopdu, 
Lord of the East." 

measurements: A (upper): Height 17.8 cm. Width 
13.3 cm. Depth 9.3 cm. Width of back pillar 5.5 cm. 
Intracolumnar width 2.3 cm. 

B (lower): Height 37 cm. Height 
of base 9.9 cm., width 1 1.4 cm., depth 23.3 cm. Width 
of back pillar and intracolumnar width, originally 
recorded 1 mm. less than given above under (A). 
The complete statue was about 49 cm. high. 

provenance: Saft el Henna (Delta). The head was 
acquired in the New York art market in 195 1. The 
body, already headless, was found at Saft el Henna 
in 1898 or shortly before, but did not come to the 
Cairo Museum through Naville, as stated by Bor- 
chardt, loc. cit. 

bibliography: A (upper): John D. Cooney, "Egyp- 
tian Art in the Collection of Albert Gallatin," in 
JNES 12 (1953), pp. 14-15, pi. XLVI-XLVII, no. 70. 
ZaS 82 (1958), p. 93, no. 1. 

B (lower): Rec.Trav. 20 (1898), p. 
77, no. 2. Breasted, A.R. IV, p. 514. BSAA 21 (1925), 
pp. 55-57. Borchardt, Stamen III, pp. 142-143. ASAE 
38 (1938), pp. 158, 170-171, 193-194, pi. XXVI. 
Bosse, Menschl. Figur, p. 34, no. 72. Posener, 
Doaanes, pp. 1 19-120. De Meulenaere, Herodotos, 
p. 69 and passim. BIFAO 50 (1952), pp. 159-160 and 
passim. For the Greek inscriptions referring to 
Iahmes, see REG 70 (1957), pp. 5-14. 

comment: Since both head and statue have been well 
published, reference may be made here to only a 
few minor points. For statues of kneeling worship- 
pers without attributes, see 37, 89, and 91. Most 
of the sculptures of the reign of King Apries have 
recently been collected by E. Brunner-Traut, in 
ZA'S 82 (1958), pp. 90 ff. It is not surprising that 
the type reflected in the head of Iahmes should be 
found in at least two other sculptures dated to 


Apries, one in Brussels (Collection P.G.) and one 
in Tubingen (University; on loan from the Linden- 
Museum, Stuttgart). The top of the statue base and 
the back pillar do not form a right angle; the latter, 

in rising, leans somewhat back. The modeling of the 
hands is done summarily; the thumbs are abnormally 
short. For the early writing of em-khet ivedjeb 
khct, see the Comment on No. 23. 

No. 53; PI. 50, Figs. 120-122. 


About 570-550 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. Fine-grained, cream-colored qnartzite. 

Owner: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; no. E. 14303. 

In view of the mass of information available 
on heads of private persons of the Late Period, 
it is disappointing to realize how few stone 
sculptures in the round still exist which can 
definitely be attributed to specific kings of 
Dynasties XXV-XXVI. From the Kushite Pe- 
riod there survives one head each of Sha- 
bako and Taharqa, and from the Saite Period 
we know a single head of Psamtik II, a head 
and a fragment of a head of Apries, and three 
(possibly four) heads of Amasis. Therefore, 
every unpublished royal head which can be as- 
signed on stylistic grounds to pre-Persian times 
forms a valuable contribution, even though it 
sometimes may not seem to clarify existing 
problems or — even worse — may add new ones 
to an already slightly bewildering picture. 

This royal head in Philadelphia lends itself 
to precisely such a definition — it presents many 
problems; but since it is an imposing sculpture 
and, furthermore, is the only major royal head 
of Saite times in the Western Hemisphere, it 
has been included in the Exhibition. The king, 
identified as such by an uraeus with two figure- 
eight coils and by the helmet commonly called 
the Blue Crown, was modeled in a rare and 
very hard material, light-colored quartzite. The 
body and tail of the uraeus stretch beyond 
the crest of the leather helmet. The eyebrows 
are clearly defined and straight, but not mod- 
eled in relief. The face is idealizing, approxi- 
mately triangular, with a small mouth. The 
eyes are narrow, the right one straight, the 

left one slightly slanting. The nostrils and the 
turned-up corners of the mouth are drilled. Al- 
though the chin itself is small, its under side 
and the transition to the neck are rather full. 
Only a trace is left of the back pillar; its origi- 
nal surface, which was probably much wider, 
has disappeared. It is relatively narrow and 
tapers somewhat toward the top, which was 
squared off horizontally. 

The identification as Amasis, the upstart who 
defeated and dethroned his predecessor, Apries, 
is partly negative and partly positive. If one 
studies the heads of Psamtik II in Paris (Musee 
Jacquemart- Andre 438) and of Apries with 
Blue Crown in Bologna (Museo Civico 1801), 
it becomes obvious that this head does not rep- 
resent either of these kings, and further con- 
siderations lead to the conclusion that it must 
be later than their reigns. Since the Persian 
rulers of Dynasty XXVII were not represented 
in statuary in the round, and since stylistically 
the head cannot belong to the post-Persian or 
even the Ptolemaic Period, the attribution to 
Amasis can be well defended. On the positive 
side — taking into account that the king ruled 
for more than forty years, during which the 
royal iconography must have undergone a cer- 
tain change — one has only to refer to his 
famous life-size bust (Florence 5625), the face 
of which is probably the likeness closest to that 
of the Philadelphia head. A number of features 
are almost identical — especially eyebrows, 
mouth, and chin seem to be based on the same 


model; in other features, a pale reflection of the 
known heads of Apries can be sensed, indicat- 
ing probably that this head was made early in 
the reign of Amasis, before he developed a style 
entirely of his own. 

measurements: Height 43 cm. Height of face 17.5 
cm. Width of crown 26.5 cm. Depth 33.5 cm. Width 
of break at neck 14 cm., at back pillar 10.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; acquired in Cairo in 1924. 

bibliography: H. Ranke, The Egyptian Collections 
of the University Museum (Philadelphia, 1950) — 
University Museum Bulletin, Vol. XV, Nos. 2-3, p. 
59. ZAS 80 (1955), p. 48, note 6. 

comment: For the Blue Crown and for the litera- 
ture on royal sculpture of Dynasty XXVI, see the 
Comment on No. 5 1 . There are two heads of Amasis 
on inscribed statues in Rome, the head of a sphinx 
(Museo Capitolino 8) and the head of a striding 
statue (Villa Albani 551). The latter is too much 
restored to leave more than a general impression 
(the statue identified as Villa Albani 551 in Bissing, 
Denkm., Text to pi. 71, actually represents Ptolemy 
II, Villa Albani 558), but the former is of good work- 
manship and — except for the nose — well preserved. 
In 1955 H. W. Muller published his splendid study 
of a bust in Florence (Museo Archeologico 5625) 
and, entirely convincingly, was inclined to attribute 
it to Amasis. It has much in common with a royal 
head (Berlin 11864) long claimed for the Sake Pe- 
riod. Without going into details of the iconography 
of Apries and Amasis, two points should be stressed. 
The Amasis Sphinx in Rome and the Florentine bust 
both have overly wide tabs below the nemes in front 
of the ears and a deep depression which begins 

slightly above the corners of the mouth, curves 
around them, and tapers out toward the chin. Al- 
though the tabs are not as wide on the Berlin head, 
also wearing the nemes, the depression is very notice- 
able. The head of Apries (Bologna 1801) entirely 
lacks this prominent depression, and the formation of 
the mouth differs greatly from that of the three 
aforementioned heads. The Philadelphia head, like 
the Apries head in Bologna, wears the Blue Crown, 
for which there had previously been no example in 
the round representing Amasis, although he is shown 
with that helmet in reliefs. The form of the helmet 
lining, which reaches as far as the tab in front of 
the ear, is undoubtedly later than that of the Bologna 
Apries head with Blue Crown, and comparing the 
tab itself with the tabs of the Jacquemart-Andre 
head of Psamtik II and the Apries head in Bologna, 
one can notice a tendency to reduce it, which finds 
its final form in a head in Alexandria (Graeco-Roman 
Museum 23843), where the helmet lining remains 
visible all around the tab until it meets the ear. 
Therefore, the Philadelphia head has to be placed 
later than the Apries head in Bologna; it also dif- 
fers greatly from it — but resembles the Amasis in 
Florence — in the lack of plastic eyebrows. The de- 
pression around the mouth, absent in the Bologna 
Apries and present in the Rome-Florence-Berlin 
heads of Amasis, is well marked in the Philadelphia 
head, which thus further approaches the representa- 
tions of Amasis. It can accordingly be assumed that 
this quartzite head dates from the earlier part of 
Amasis' reign. H. W. Muller, however, does not 
agree with this identification and attributes the Phila- 
delphia head to Dynasty XXIX. The series of holes, 
which run in a straight line over the back of the 
Blue Crown between the ears and the back pillar, 
are due to ancient or modern attempts to split off the 
front of the head. 

No. 54; PL 5 1 , Figs. 124-126. 


About 550-530 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Mr. Albert Gallatin, New York, N. Y. 

White indurated limestone. 

The body of the most powerful animal, the 
lion, surmounted by the head of the most 
powerful human, the king, was the symbol of 
divine royalty in Egypt throughout millennia 
— from Dynasty IV to the Roman Period. 
There is ample evidence that the figure of the 


sphinx was favored for the representation of 
kings throughout the Late Period, but unfor- 
tunately more headless inscribed sphinxes than 
heads of sphinxes or complete sphinxes have 
survived to our time. 

All sphinxes from Dynasty XXVI down to 

the beginning of the Roman Period wear the 
nemes headdress, as does this small head from 
the Gallatin Collection. The remnants of the 
lion's shoulder and back on the right side, and 
the angle at which the queue juts out, are suffi- 
cient indication that this sculpture once formed 
part of the divine monster. The striations of 
the royal headcloth are worked in relief instead 
of being merely incised, and the royal cobra's 
body stretches in six undulations over the crown 
of the head. Despite its small scale the damaged 
face makes a powerful impression. The fea- 
tures are round and full, much more summarily 
modeled than the narrow eyes, delicately out- 
lined along the upper lids. The left eye is 
horizontal, the right slants markedly. A semi- 
circular fold runs around each corner of the 
mouth. Comparison with other royal heads of 
Dynasty XXVI — the only period during 
which this head could have been created — per- 
mits us to attribute this likeness to King Amasis; 
presumably it was made during the latter part 
of his reign. 
measurements: Height 6 cm. Width 6 cm. Depth 

5.6 cm. Width of break (slant) 4.8 cm. Depth of 
break 3.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; acquired in 1955. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: There are good reasons to believe that 
every king of the pre-Persian period had at least one 
sphinx made for himself (Dynasty XXV: Turin 8; 
London, B.M. 1770. Dynasty XXVI: Psamtik I, 
Strasbourg 1394; Necho II, ASAE 11 [1911], p. 87; 
Psamtik II, Alexandria 11273; Apries, Cairo C.G. 748; 
Amasis, Rome, Museo Capitolino 8). The head of 
the Amasis sphinx in Rome offers the best parallel 
for the heaviness of jowl, chin, and neck, whereas 
the head of Amasis in Florence (Museo Archeo- 
logico 5625) must be cited for the treatment of eye- 
brows and eyes. The uraeus with six bends is found 
in another head attributed to Amasis (Berlin 11864). 
All three of these heads of the king show the depres- 
sion round the mouth, which seems to be typical of 
Amasis. Another feature linking this small head with 
the accepted heads of Amasis is the characteristic 
outline of the ne?nes with stripes in relief. Whereas 
the Philadelphia head of Amasis (No. 53) seems to 
have been made early in the king's reign, since it 
still reflects some forms prevailing under Apries, this 
little limestone head, with its heavy features, should 
be attributable to the latter part of his rule. (See the 
Comment on Nos. 51 and 53 for further material on 
the royal iconography of Dynasty XXVI.) 

No. 55; PL 52, Figs. 127-129. 


About 530 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: Mr. Christ os G. Bastis, Bronxville, N. Y. 

Grey-green schist. 

Since there are preciously few stone sculp- 
tures of women from the two centuries pre- 
ceding the Persian invasion of 525 b.c. and 
since they represent only princesses of blood 
royal and deities, our knowledge of female 
statuary before the Ptolemaic Period is still 
very limited. Therefore the head in the collec- 
tion of Mr. Bastis, although obviously not 
that of a private person, posed numerous prob- 
lems of identification and attribution, until 
through a lucky coincidence it was discovered 
that it undoubtedly represents a goddess, not 

a queen or princess, that at least one sculpture 
by the same hand is known, and that it can be 
attributed to the latter part of King Amasis' 
reign with a good degree of certainty. 

The wig, falling over both shoulders in front 
and ending originally just above the breasts, 
is surmounted by a modius. On it rests a sec- 
ond element, the top of which is flat in front 
and toward the back rises steeply to the break. 
Clearly, whatever identifying symbol the god- 
dess bore on her head covered only the rear 
portion of the cushion-like modius. Above the 


forehead are remains of the hood and head of 
the royal cobra — the uraeus — which is worn 
by most deities. The face is full and beauti- 
fully modeled; in its soft roundness it has a 
great deal of grace. The brows are not stressed, 
but the edge of the upper lid is rendered in low 
relief and drawn out into the cosmetic line. 
Strangely enough there is no philtrum (love 
cup). The mouth is straight and slightly pout- 
ing, and a pleasing expression is created by the 
notches at the corners. With great delicacy 
the full throat has been set off against the under 
side of the chin. The one preserved ear seems 
remarkably small in comparison with the ears 
of other sculptures shown in this Exhibition. 
There are in the Cairo Museum three sculp- 
tures in grey-green schist which bear the name 
of a courtier called Psamtik, a contemporary of 
King Amasis (570-526 B.C.). One of them 
shows Psamtik himself, standing under the head 
of a striding cow, identified by the inscription 
as the goddess Hathor (C.G. 784). The 
other two statues, dedicated by Psamtik, repre- 
sent the god Osiris and the goddess Isis; both 
are seated. The state of preservation of all 
three sculptures is admirable. The face of the 
goddess Isis (Fig. 128) is line for line and trait 
for trait identical with that of the head in Mr. 
Bastis' collection, and the measurements are 
nearly the same. Only two pieces created after 
the same model and in the same workshop can 
be so much alike, and thus we have to assume 
that at least one more statue representing a 
goddess was dedicated by Psamtik. Who this 
goddess was is hard to determine, since neither 
the inscription nor the emblem she wore on her 
head are preserved. Among the three funer- 
ary goddesses most frequently associated with 
Isis, namely Nephthys, Neith, and Selket, the 
traces of the symbol on the head appear to con- 

form best with the rising scorpion which iden- 
tifies the goddess Selket. Despite the venomous 
nature of her insect, she is a protectress of life, 
and according to the Pyramid Texts, holds the 
wake at the bier of Osiris with Isis, Nephthys, 
and Neith. 

measurements: Height above modern base 21.5 cm. 
Height of face ca. 8 cm. Width 13.2 cm. Depth 14.9 

provenance: Not known; probably Saqqara. For- 
merly in the collection of Lord Amherst. 

bibliography: Catalogue of the Amherst Collection 
of Egyptian & Oriental Antiquities (Sale Calalogue, 
London, Sotheby, 13-17 June, 192 1), p. 27, no. 257, 
pi. VIII. 

comment: The presence or absence of the philtrum 
on sculptures of the Late Period has occasionally 
been noted, though for the time being no definite 
significance can be attached to it. The three sculp- 
tures of Psamtik in the Cairo Museum have been 
dated back and forth between Dynasty XXV and 
Dynasty XXX (CdE 31 [1956], p. 253, note 6, p. 255). 
They were found by Mariette at Saqqara in a pit, 
together with a shawabti of King Nectanebo II and 
the sarcophagus of an unknown queen, and the re- 
sulting confusion, even among reputable scholars, 
offers an amusing picture. Of late the sarcophagus 
of the queen (Vienna 3) has again been published; 
tvpologically it belongs clearly to the latter part of 
Dynasty XXVI (Buhl, L.E.A.S.S., no. B, b 1; pp. 29 
and 213) and may well be contemporary with the 
sculptures dedicated by Psamtik. On philological and 
epigraphic grounds, Psamtik's inscriptions indicate 
that he can be dated to the time of Amasis; on the 
basis of the modeling of the figure in front of the 
cow, it seems most likely that the statue was made 
toward the end of Amasis' reign. To create two 
heads almost exactly alike (the face of the Isis in 
Cairo differs in height by only about a centimeter 
from that of our goddess), probably by mechanical 
means, so that their profiles match in every detail, 
is not typical of the Late Period alone. It occurs as 
early as Dynasty IV, in the royal sculptures of King 
Mycerinus (BMFA 48 [1950], pp. 16-17, fig- 9)- The 
goddess Selket as a tutelary deity is rarely repre- 
sented in the Late Period, and then only on a small 
scale. The identification given here can, accordingly, 
be offered only tentatively. 


No. 56; Pis. 51, 53, Figs. 123, 130-13 1. 


About 550-525 b.c; Dynasty XXVI. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y .; no. 60. 1 1 . 

Dark green schist. 

One of the many unsolved problems of 
Egyptian archaeology is the question: Why 
are some persons represented with a shaven 
head while others are shown with a wig? No 
one has seriously and profoundly studied this 
problem. A survey of Late sculpture makes 
clear only one point: that the heads of block 
statues are never bald after the middle of the 
seventh century b.c. From the number of sur- 
viving statues of other types with heads still 
intact, one might infer that most sculptures of 
men showed them wearing wigs, but such in- 
ference may be misleading, for among the iso- 
lated heads in museums and private collections 
the greater number are shaven. This is of 
course due to the fact that a bald head is more 
easily severed from a body than one with a wig. 
But it goes to prove that it is impossible to 
establish even a numerical relation between the 
types. All one can say at present is that shaven 
heads were apparently less frequently repre- 
sented in pre-Persian than in post-Persian times, 
because most of the stray bald heads in collec- 
tions seem to belong to the fourth and third 
centuries b.c. 

It came, accordingly, as a pleasant surprise, 
when H. De Meulenaere recognized from the 
inscription on this head in the Brooklyn Mu- 
seum that it belonged to a kneeling naophorous 
statue in the Museo Gregoriano Egizio of the 
Vatican, representing a man who must have 
lived in the latter part of the sixth century 
b.c. Since there survives literally not a single 
intact statue with shaven head of the second 
half of Dynasty XXVI, the type of the Brook- 
lyn head had long been attributed more or less 
to the end of the Persian Period and the fourth 
century. The identification of the head as be- 
longing to the Vatican statue therefore consti- 

tutes one of those "breaks" every archaeologist 
hopes for, and though it is not an inspired 
work of sculpture, it has been included in this 
Exhibition for its chronological importance. 
Even if it had not turned out to belong to a 
known statue, the inscription would have made 
one hesitate to date it later than the middle of 
the fifth century, for the epigraphy is very 
close to that of statue inscriptions of Dynasty 
XXVI, after Necho II. 

In relation to the back pillar the head is — to 
put it mildly — somewhat out of line. If the 
back pillar is placed in a vertical position, the 
face is cocked so that the right eye and ear are 
much higher than the left eye and ear, and the 
chin is raised as if the man were looking sky- 
ward. This has been corrected in the photo- 
graphs, but only a plaster cast placed on the 
torso could settle the question of the proper 

The head is curiously compressed at the 
temples. A deep groove runs under the lower 
lip from the corners of the mouth, and the 
mouth itself curves upward, although its 
"smile" is not nearly as pronounced as, for in- 
stance, that of No. 49. The most interesting 
portions of the head are the eyebrows and the 
skull. The former consist of narrow plastic 
bands, which for two-thirds of their length are 
quite straight, then make a downward bend 
and rapidly taper to a point. They are essen- 
tially in the same style as the eyebrows of 
No. 52 A, the head in the Gallatin Collection. 
The skull is not nearly as egg-shaped as it ap- 
pears to be at first sight in front and profile 
views; its top is actually flattened, and in this 
it differs somewhat from No. 70, the head in 
the Stern Collection, which is a century or 
more later. Here, then, in the second half of 


the sixth century, occurs the transition from 
the round, squat heads to the egg-shaped heads. 
The early round heads, of which there is one 
example in this Exhibition (No. 17), strangely 
enough continue as a type — although inter- 
mediate parallels are still largely lacking — 
down to Dynasty XXX (Nos. 83 and 84), 
unless one assumes that then an early Sake 
model is merely revived as one of the archa- 
istic tendencies of that dynasty. The "egg- 
head" type is evolved toward the end of the 
sixth century; it becomes more and more sche- 
matic until the time of Alexander the Great, 
when it is fully developed, to appear — in its 
most innocuous form — in the statue of Iahmes 
in Cairo (J.E. 37075). 

measurements: Height 20.4 cm. Width at ear level 
10.2 cm. Depth 13.1 cm. Width of back pillar 8.6 
cm. Intracolumnar width 3.4 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Sais. 

bibliography: None. For the statue in the Vatican, 
see G. Botti and P. Romanelli, he Sculture del Museo 
Gregoriano Egizio (Vatican, 195 1) = Monumenti 
Vaticani di Archeologia e d'Arte, vol. IX, pp. 30-31, 
pi. XXVI and XXXV, no. 38 (Inv. 167) with bibliog- 
raphy (cf. p. 137 for the circumstances of the acqui- 

comment: The head was formerly in an old French 
collection; the rest of the statue was acquired in 
1783 from a certain Dottore Carlo De Assulle, who 
in turn had obtained it from a Count Pasch di 
Knieven in a shipment consigned from Smyrna. It 
is not known when the Vatican statue was restored 

and acquired the pseudo-Egyptian head, with which 
it is still exhibited. It represents Pa-debehu kneeling 
and holding a naos with a figure of the god Osiris 
(Fig. 123). The naos is of the plain box type. The 
most significant "round heads" of the seventh cen- 
tury are those of Mentuemhat's son, Pa-khered-en- 
mut (Cairo C.G. 42243), and of Nes-pa-medu (Cairo 
J.E. 37416), a vizier of Psamtik I. Then there is a 
gap until the time of this head in Brooklyn, which 
was probably made toward the end of Dynasty 
XXVI. The whole problem of a more definite at- 
tribution of the statue is related to a group of sculp- 
tures which has not yet been fully recorded. Gau- 
thier, in ASAE 22 (1922), pp. 81 and 106, assumed 
that Pa-debehu was the brother of a well-known per- 
sonality of the latter part of the sixth century B.C., 
Wah-ib-ra, but although the father of the two could 
be the same, the mother's name and titles differ. 
Pa-debehu was a kherep-hut, "Prophet of Horus 
wer-wadjty, Prophet of weret-hekau, Overseer of 
the Secrets in hut-bity." His father, Pef-thau-neith, 
was also a kherep-hut, and a "Prophet of Neith-the- 
Cow." The reading of the mother's name, Ta-khety, 
is uncertain; as given in PN I, 367, 12, it is hardly 
correct. Her title was "Weaver of resnet" (cf. Kemi 
14 [1957], p. 38). The name Pa-debehu occurs on 
several sculptures of Dynasties XXVI-XXVII, but 
thus far no other monument of the man represented 
in the Brooklyn- Vatican statue has been identified. 
The form of the naos, the style of the sculpture, and 
the epigraphy could as well be late Saite as early 
Persian. The broad back pillar, which tapers in 
width toward the neck, is soon altered to trapezoid 
shape on statues with shaven heads (see the Comment 
on No. 65). The head, neck, right shoulder, and 
right arm down to the elbow of the Vatican statue 
are restored. At some time in the past, the inscrip- 
tion was filled with white paint, which accounts for 
the difference in the aspect of the hieroglyphs in 
the back view. 


No. 57 A-B; Pis. 54-55, Figs. 132-134. 


About 525-500 b.c, Dynasty XXVII. 

Owners: A {upper) Musee du Louvre, Paris; no. E. 25390. 

B (lower) The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y .; no. 59.77. 

Dark green schist. 

One of the periods for which it is still diffi- 
cult to present a consecutive series of datable 
sculptures is the time between the end of Dy- 
nasty XXVI (525 b.c.) and the beginning of 
Dynasty XXX (378 b.c). There are a few 
heads and statues which can be attributed with 
reasonable certainty to a limited period within 
that "dark" century and a half, and a larger 
number which, though obviously post-Saite 
and most probably earlier than Dynasty XXX, 
can be less definitely assigned to a given time. 
To throw some light on this hitherto ill-defined 
chapter of Egyptian art and archaeology, an 
effort has been made to bring together in this 
Exhibition a dozen pieces which are dated or 
datable to those hundred and fifty years, and 
it is hoped that doing so will lead eventually to 
more and better studies dealing with a rela- 
tively unexplored field, for which ample ma- 
terial is available in museums all over the 
world. The responsibility for our present ig- 
norance about this period is not entirely that 
of the archaeologists. A large amount of con- 
temporary inscribed material — stelae and pa- 
pyri with dates and the names and titles of 
private persons — is available but not yet pub- 
lished. Much of the information needed for a 
better chronological arrangement of inscribed 
sculptures therefore exists, but is not generally 
accessible. In attempting a classification of the 
sculpture of the period, we can thus offer only 
an incomplete picture, but we hope that its 
very incompleteness may serve as a challenge 
to bring forth the publication of some of the 
historical and civil documents of the people 
who lived during the rule of the Persians and 
their immediate successors. 

Among the prominent officials of early Dy- 
nasty XXVII there has been identified in recent 

years a man named Iahmes-sa-neith, who is 
known from half-a-dozen different sources. 
Although none of them states explicitly that 
he was active under the Persian kings, there is 
enough evidence for such attribution to add 
some new, though fragmentary, statues to the 
small body of sculpture datable to Dynasty 
XXVII. Iahmes-sa-neith, who bears a name 
identical with that of King Amasis of Dynasty 
XXVI and who must have been born during 
his reign, was a personality of great standing, 
for he is still mentioned more than a century 
after his death in the inscriptions of a fine 
relief of Dynasty XXX, which is also shown in 
this exhibition (No. 74). 

The bust from the Louvre, which — as Dr. 
De Meulenaere recently discovered — forms 
the upper portion of the kneeling fragment in 
the Brooklyn Museum, is an extraordinarily 
accomplished piece of sculpture, despite the ex- 
tensive damage it has suffered. It is an idealiz- 
ing representation, not a portrait, but in the 
smoothness of the youthful features the proud 
permanence of Egyptian art is deeply em- 
bodied. Iahmes-sa-neith wears a bag wig. The 
eyebrows are of a type that becomes fashion- 
able in the time of Apries and persists through- 
out the reign of Amasis, until the beginning of 
the Persian Period. The rim of the upper eye- 
lid barely extends beyond the outer corner of 
the eye. The lower eyelid shows a peculiarity, 
which probably exists in other sculptures of 
the period but has thus far not been elsewhere 
observed: the lid is separated from the eyeball 
by a double line — perhaps the beginning of 
the contouring noted on other sculptures of 
Dynasty XXVII (cf. No. 65). The ears, 
even by ancient Egyptian standards, are very 
long and are distinguished by unusually volu- 


minous lobes, a feature which also occurs on 
another head of Iahmes-sa-neith in Moscow. 

The sinews of the neck have been worked 
out with a fine feeling for the anatomy. The 
torso modeling is exquisite; the modulations of 
the surface have been balanced so as to suggest 
both strength and softness. Tripartition is no- 
ticeable, but so is a faint median line, and it 
seems as if the torso were created partly after 
an early Sake model and partly according to 
contemporary standards. 

Iahmes-sa-neith wears on his chest, sus- 
pended by a thick cord, a tablet decorated with 
the scene of a king in "Blue Crown" worship- 
ing a seated deity. Since the upper arms hang 
down naturally, and since abdomen, navel, and 
belt have been carefully worked, he probably 
did not hold a naos, but was kneeling with his 
hands flat on his thighs, like the figure of 
Horwedja (No. 37), which this sculpture also 
resembles in the manner in which the back pil- 
lar runs straight into the wig without transition. 

measurements: A (upper): Height 27.5 cm. Width 
across arms 14.7 cm. Depth of break 7.1 cm. Width 
of back pillar 4 cm. Intracolumnar width 2.6 cm. 

B (lower): Height 20.4 cm. Width 
10.6 cm. Depth 14 cm. Height of base 7.5 cm. Intra- 
linear width 2.7 cm. Back pillar and intracolumnar 
widths, same as above. The break on top is slanting; 
originally the statue must have been about 44 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably Mitrahineh. 
The bust in the Louvre was formerly in the collec- 
tion of Levy de Benzion. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: Although the Serapeum stelae in the 
Louvre have not yet been published, we are much 
obliged to Messrs. Vercoutter, Malinine, and Po- 
sener for willingly giving us all pertinent information 
from the manuscripts of their study of this impor- 
tant body of material. After the stelae, the most 
valuable sources for the prosopography of the Late 
Period are the papyri, especially those written in 
demotic, and of these, considering their number, 
only a small fraction has been published; on the 
contents of the unpublished documents very little, 
if any, information has been available from those 
entrusted with their care. Some day — it is hoped — 
these papyri will play an important role in the iden- 
tification and proper chronological attribution of 
many persons represented in the statuary of the 
Late Period. Iahmes-sa-neith, for short also called 

Iahmes, is known from three other sculptures (Alex- 
andria 402; Cairo C.G. 666; Moscow 5740). A fourth 
piece, the fragment of a foot from a kneeling figure, 
together with the left rear corner of the base, was 
seen by Charles Edwin Wilbour on January 21, 1883, 
in the hands of a dealer at Saqqara (Wilbour Note- 
book 2-D, p. 36), who said that the rest of the sculp- 
ture, a headless, kneeling naophoros, was still at 
Mitrahineh. This fragment may, or may not, have 
been part of Cairo 666, and since the latter is headless, 
the head in Moscow may have belonged to it. The 
piece in Alexandria consists of the base and feet of 
a striding figure. Iahmes' well-preserved sarcophagus 
is in Leiden (AMT. 5), and that of his mother in 
Stockholm (N.M. 1). An offering table, inscribed 
with his name and titles, is in Paris (Louvre D 50). 
The evidence offered by a clay seal in London 
(B.M. 27574) i s not quite conclusive as far as his 
service during the reign of King Amasis is concerned, 
but the indication on a door jamb in Cambridge 
(Fitzwilliam Museum 5/1909) makes it clear that he 
was considered as having served King Amasis at one 
time. The attribution of at least the Louvre-Brook- 
lyn sculpture to the Persian Period is based primarily 
on the fact that one of the two occurrences in the 
text of the name of the man, which is identical with 
the nomen of King Amasis, is enclosed in a cartouche. 
This is not an isolated instance; there are a number 
of other people named after a king of Dynasty XXVI 
(without a compound such as -seneb or -ankh), who 
wrote their names within a cartouche (Athens 107; 
Brooklyn 16.580.150; Cairo J.E. 43204). One of 
those instances may well be the alleged name of 
King Amasis in the text of Louvre A 93 (see the 
Comment on No. 64). Such use of a royal preroga- 
tive is hardly conceivable during the rule of a native 
dynasty; it seems to have been revived during the 
Second Persian Domination of 341-333 B.C. (Brussels 
E. 7654). Another argument in favor of a Persian 
date for this sculpture is offered by the pectoral in 
relief with the typical adoration scene of a king 
wearing the Blue Crown (see the Comment on No. 
64). There can be hardly any doubt that the king 
represented is not a Persian ruler, but one of the 
pharaohs of Dynasty XXVI, whose favorite helmet 
was the Blue Crown. Perhaps this, like the appear- 
ance of what at first glance seems to be a royal car- 
touche of Dynasty XXVI on a private monument, 
is one of the numerous signs of subtle defiance against 
the foreign kings. Even the name of the mysteriously 
defamed King Necho II (see the Comment on No. 
43) is revived as a private name in Dynasty XXVII. 
The mother of Iahmes-sa-neith was Ta-peret; the 
father's name is not known. He was an "Adminis- 
trator of the Palace (?)," a kherep-res (an unknown 
title, also borne by the man represented in Cairo 
C.G. 784), and — his chief title - a "Master of the 
Antechamber" (see ASAE 33 [1933], p. 12). All his 
sculptures are Memphite, as is the relief of Dynasty 
XXX, which commemorates him (No. 74). 


No. 58; Pis. 55-56, Figs. 135-137. 


About 525-520 b.c; Dyfiasty XXVII. 

Owner: Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, Wash.; no. Eg 11.23. 

Brown-black basalt. 

Among the sculptures shown in this Exhi- 
bition are quite a few for which a definite date 
cannot be proposed without reservation, and 
it would have been easier to leave them out al- 
together rather than to admit that they offer 
problems which cannot at present be solved. 
One of them is this naophorous statue in the 
Seattle Art Museum, which is inscribed for the 
kherep-hut Pa-wen-hatef, son of Horsiese and 
of Ta-debehu-en-neith. He is shown kneeling, 
holding a naos that contains a figure of the god 
Osiris, which has been so damaged that it is 
not possible to reconstruct its face and uraeus; 
all that can be said is that the beard does not 
cover the chin, but seems to have been tied 
under it. From the inscriptions it appears that 
the statue was dedicated in the sanctuary of 
Osiris at Sais in the Delta. 

Pa-wen-hatef has a strong, full face, with 
fine, thin plastic eyebrows and cosmetic lines, 
under a heavy wig. A broad neck and power- 
ful chest muscles complete the picture of well- 
fed health offered by so many Egyptian sculp- 
tures from the early Old Kingdom on down. 
The shape of the naos, which Pa-wen-hatef 
holds between his knees, resembles a shrine 
with corner posts and vaulted roof, though 
from the side it appears merely as a box with 
slanting front. 

The inscription round the front refers to 
Pa-wen-hatef himself, whereas the text on the 
right side names "His eldest son, whom he loves, 
the kherep-hut, Horsiese, born of the lady, 
the Weaver of resnet, Nitocris," and that on 
the left mentions his other son, "the kherep- 
hut, Wedja-hor-mehnet," also "born of the 
lady, the Weaver of resnet, Nitocris." 

We find here again the old custom of naming 
the first-born son after his grandfather, and we 

also learn that the wife of Pa-wen-hatef, 
Nitocris, was a namesake of the daughter of 
King Psamtik I. Two columns of inscription, 
surmounted by the "sky" hieroglyph, cover the 
back pillar of the statue. In view of the "sky" 
sign, of the shrine-like decoration of the naos 
front, and especially of the fact that the sides 
of the naos are inscribed, the statue is probably 
to be dated to the beginning of Dynasty 

measurements: Height above the modern base 43.5 
cm. Width of base 13.2 cm. Depth of base 25.5 cm. 
Width of back pillar 6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably Sais. Formerly 
in the collections of R. Sabatier (?), Baron de Me- 
nasce, H. Hoffmann, and William Randolph Hearst. 

bibliography: Antiquites egyptiennes; Collection de 
Monsieur le Baron de Menasce (Sale Catalogue, Paris, 
Hotel Drouot, 23-24 February, 1891), pp. 3-4, no. 16. 
Rec. Trav. 16 (1894), p. 61, no. 11. G. Legrain, Col- 
lection H. Hoffmann (III); Catalogue des antiquites 
egyptiennes (Paris, 1894), pp. 15-16, pi. VIII, no. 39. 

Catalogue des objets antiques provenant 

des Collections du D r B. et de M. C. (Sale Catalogue, 
Paris, Hotel Drouot, 19-21 May, 1910), p. 3, pi. I, 
no. 4. Catalogue of the Important Collection of 
Antiquities, The Property of William Randolph 

Hearst, Esq (Sale Catalogue, London, Sotheby, 

11-12 July, 1939), p. 13, no. 52. 

comment: Legrain's statement (op. cit., p. VI) that 
the statue was purchased at the sale of the Sabatier 
collection is probably an error; it does not appear in 
the sale catalogue of that collection (31 March- 
4 April, 1890). The problem of the date of this 
sculpture is truly vexing, and it should be noted that 
the final word about it has not yet been said. To be- 
gin with the inscriptions, the typically Saite titulary 
of Pa-wen-hatef is, in this form, known only from 
Cairo C.G. 888 (temp. Psamtik I) and Louvre E. 1 1895 
temp. Necho II). Both the writing of ikhet instead 
of khet and the determinative after the man's name 
on the back pillar are most frequent in early Dynasty 
XXVI. On the other hand, naoi are rarely inscribed 
on the sides in early and middle Saite sculpture, and 
probably this custom was not generally adopted 


until Dynasty XXVII (London, B.M. 29478; Rome, 
Vatican 177 and 196). From an archaeological view- 
point, the full face is developed from the type which 
first appears in the time of Psamtik II (No. 47), and 
the modeling of the powerful chest muscles does not 
really evolve until after his reign. Although definite 
proof is still lacking, we believe that the naos front 

with shrine design and the "sky" hieroglyph above 
the back pillar inscription do not occur until after 
Amasis (see the Comments on Nos. 59 and 60 re- 
spectively), and thus, for the time being, one has to 
consider the inscription archaizing. For another 
"Weaver of resnet" see No. 56, and for a second 
lady named Nitocris, No. 59. 

No. 59; PI. 5 6, Figs. 138-139. 


About 525-500 b.c; Dynasty XXVII. 

Owner: Mrs. Clifford B. Hartley, New York, N. Y. 

Brown basalt. 

Small sculptures of votaries were made in 
great numbers in all periods of Egyptian his- 
tory, but at no time were so much care and skill 
lavished on carving them as during the Late 
Period. A good many small figures in the Ex- 
hibition will bear out this statement, and when 
one considers that the hardest stones, rather 
than sandstone and limestone, were most fre- 
quently used, respect for the amount of work 
involved cannot be restrained. If the statuettes 
of this period — like this figure of Djed- 
djehuty-iuf-ankh — often have faces of little 
individuality, they merely follow the prevail- 
ing trend of many a large-scale statue. 

The man is represented kneeling and holding 
a naos containing the image of the god Osiris. 
He wears a bag wig and a long garment of the 
wrap-around type, of which a corner appears 
on his chest. The base, slightly rounded in 
front, is decorated with one line of inscription, 
and there is an additional column of text on the 
back pillar. The hieroglyphs, considering their 
small size, are well and deeply cut, each with a 
fine clear outline. Our man has a title typical 
for Sais, and so did his father, Psamtik. The 
mother's name is Nitocris; undoubtedly she 
was named after Princess Nitocris, daughter of 
Psamtik I, who held the exalted office of divine 
consort of the god Amun until 585 b.c. 

measurements: Height 19.2 cm. Height of head 3.2 
cm. Width 6 cm. Height of base 3.3 cm. Width of 
base 4.4 cm. Depth of base 8.2 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably Sais. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The statuette was broken across chest and 
elbows at the level of the naos' roof and mended; 
part of the right arm is restored. Djed-djehuty-iuf- 
ankh and his parents are not known from other mon- 
uments, but the name occurs on sculptures from Sais 
(London, B.M. 37922; Paris, Musee Rodin 289). The 
addition of maa-kheru after the so-called Saite for- 
mula, which ends on the left side of the base, is 
found most frequently from late Saite to early Per- 
sian times (No. 65; Cairo C.G. 662; Detroit 11835; 
Paris, Louvre A 91). The main reason, however, for 
attributing this statuette to early Dynasty XXVII 
lies in the top of the garment, the shape of the naos 
front, and the diminutive "sky" hieroglyph which 
surmounts the column of text on the back pillar, 
because all three of these details seem first to appear 
after the end of Dynasty XXVI. For the wrap- 
around garment, see the Comment on No. 63. The 
vaguely triangular way in which the upper, inner 
corner of the cloth (made like a roll in other ex- 
amples) is incised on the chest is, of course, mere 
stylization, because of the small scale of the figure, 
somewhat comparable to the treatment of Stockholm 
83, where, because of the naos, the outer corner is 
entirely left off, just as on this statuette of Djed- 
khonsu-iuf-ankh. Although the normal form of the 
naos in late Saite and Persian times is that of a plain 
box, there are a number of examples in which it is 
shaped like a shrine, with corner posts confining a 
vaulted roof. This is a novelty which first appears 
in this form toward the end of the sixth century 


with Philadelphia 42-9-1 (for the date, see the Com- 
ment on No. 63) and a number of other sculptures 
(No. 58), among which Stockholm 83 is well dated 
to the Persian Period. (Cairo C.G. 42244, with a roof 
of much stronger curvature, is an isolated forerun- 
ner.) Although at first glance it seems that the back- 
pillar inscription is surrounded on top and both sides 
by a continuous line, this is actually not the case. 
The line on top is in reality a very thin "sky" hiero- 

glyph, the tips of which do not meet the ends of the 
columnar lines, but bracket them by about one mil- 
limeter. The evidence for the use of this hieroglyph 
over back-pillar inscriptions of Dynasty XXVII is at 
present still circumstantial (cf. the Comment on No. 
60); i.e., it does not occur on any statues dated by 
inscription to the reign of Amasis, but is found first 
on sculptures datable on archaeological grounds to 
Dynasty XXVII (Vienna 20). 

No. 60; Pis. 56-57, Figs. 140-142. 


About 525-500 b.c; Dynasty XXVII. Dark grey to black biotite granite. 

Owner: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 37.377. 

The sculpture of Dynasty XXVI — like 
many other historical phenomena — ran a full 
course of development, from a beginning in 
widely diverse experiments, ranging from real- 
ism to idealism, to an ending of nondescript 
idealism, which became so well entrenched that 
it was imitated for generations to come. The 
arrival of the Persians on the sacred soil of the 
Nile Valley had, however, a sobering effect, 
and out of the shock the foreign domination 
must have caused there frequently emerged a 
new, less idealistic, approach to rendering the 
human form, which left its traces in a number 
of heads with portrait features, the finest 
among them those of Nos. 65 and 67 from 
Cairo and Paris. 

This head from the Boston Museum is of ap- 
proximately the same period as the Cairo statue, 
but its style is somewhat different, for the 
means employed are very sparing and subdued. 
It represents a man in a bag wig; the eyebrows 
are naturalistically drawn, the rim of the upper 
eyelid is contoured. A groove runs diagonally 
across the face from the inner corners of the 
eyes, and a deeper groove sets off the cheeks 
against the nostrils and the mouth. The small, 
thin-lipped mouth has that individualistic touch 
which gives the face its arresting expression, 

extraordinarily life-like in its determination 
and surliness. To be sure, these are impressions 
gained by the modern beholder, and may not 
at all correspond to what the ancient craftsman 
intended to convey; but his competence was 
obviously great, and by merely following the 
features of his model, he could not help captur- 
ing the mood of the dignitary whose name has 
been lost to us, together with the lower portion 
of the two columns inscribed on the back pillar. 

measurements: Height 22.8 cm. Width 18 cm. Depth 
of break 14.5 cm. Width of back pillar 10.2 cm. 
Intracolumnar width 3.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Athribis. 

bibliography: BMFA, vol. XXXV, no. 211 (Oct. 
1937), pp. 70, 72-73; vol. XLIX, no. 277 (Oct. 1951), 
p. 72 and note 6 (where the head is dated incorrectly ) • 

comment: The back pillar inscription contains 
neither names nor a distinctive title. Column 1 begins 
with the so-called Saite formula, whereas column 2 
reads: "... in the temple of Khenty • • •" This may 
be restored to Khenty-khety, the name of a god of 
Athribis, north of Cairo, which would indicate the 
provenance. Although epigraphically the inscription 
could as well date from late Saite as from early 
Persian times, two features permit a more definite 
attribution. First, the upper edge of the back pillar 
is ground off so as to resemble the Egyptian "sky" 
hieroglyph; since there are a few contemporary ex- 
amples for this, it cannot be a mere accident (cf. 
Comment on No. 58). Second, there is in the face a 


portrait-like realism, which is unlike anything known 
from the other period of marked individualization in 
sculpture, namely the middle and second half of the 
seventh century. Since such realism, even to the 
point of advanced portraiture, is known in the early 
part of Dynasty XXVII (No. 65), the Boston head 
may safely be assigned to that period. Under no 
circumstances could it be later than 450 B.C.; the in- 
scription is far too classical. A bust from Sais in 
Naples (Museo Nazionale 490) seems to have been 
made in the same workshop. The features are 

portrait- like, and although the subject is not the same 
as that of the Boston head, the treatment of the 
mouth is very similar, while that of eyebrows and 
eyes is practically identical. The date of the Naples 
bust is well assured by the thick cord worn round 
the neck, from which a tablet must have been sus- 
pended (cf. No. 57 A). In both faces the lack of a 
depression above the eye is very significant; this rep- 
resents the new eye formation, in which the upper 
eyelid is no longer modeled as a separate entity, al- 
though the old style still continues. 

No. 61; PI. 58, Figs. 143-145. 


About 520-490 b.c; Dynasty XXVII. Dark green to black schist. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 3955.20. 

As early as the end of Dynasty XXVI, a 
certain crowding of the hieroglyphs may be 
observed in the inscriptions which cover the 
front of a naos held by a kneeling figure (cf. 
Fig. 123). This characteristic crowding oc- 
curs more and more frequently in the course 
of Dynasty XXVII, and with the fourth cen- 
tury becomes a standard feature, not only of 
naos inscriptions, but of texts engraved on 
other parts of statues. One of the earliest ex- 
amples of the crowding of small signs on the 
back pillar is this statue in the Cleveland Mu- 
seum of Art — if the man represented by it 
were not known from a fairly well-dated stela 
in the Louvre, one would indeed hesitate, in 
view of the epigraphy, to place the statue be- 
fore the end of the fifth century b.c. 

It so happens, however, that the name of this 
kneeling naophoros, Horwedja, son of a lady 
named Tesnakht, occurs on a stela from the 
Serapeum, now in Paris, with his full titulary, 
the name of his mother, and even that of his 
father, who is not mentioned on the Cleveland 
statue. The stela was dedicated, in all proba- 
bility, between the fourth and thirty-fourth 
regnal years of King Darius I; but even though 
the precise date cannot be established, the piece 

was definitely inscribed after the end of 
Amasis' reign. Thus we have here another 
sculpture of the early part of Dynasty XXVII. 
It shows Horwedja in a kneeling position, 
holding a naos with an image of the god Ptah, 
the town god of Memphis, on his knees. He 
wears an ample bag wig and a short kilt with 
wide grooves. The outline of the wig is barely 
contoured on the forehead (cf. No. 62) —a 
fashion which seems to have been often fa- 
vored in the Persian Period. The face is that 
of a healthy youth without much individuality; 
it is idealizing, though it should be noted that 
eyes and eyebrows are rendered naturalisti- 
cally, without relief lines. The features are 
full, and so is the chest; it lacks the muscular 
structure which marks the best of early and 
middle Sake torso modeling. Still, the figure 
of Horwedja is an accomplished piece of sculp- 
ture, indicative of the strong tradition which 
persists throughout the Persian Period, despite 
the ever increasing uncertainty of the political 
situation of Egypt. 

measurements: Height 43.4 cm. Width of base 9.7 
cm. Depth of base 23 cm. Width of back pillar 
4.7 cm. 
provenance: Not known; probably Memphis. From 


the John Huntington Collection. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: The name Horwedja is common in the 
Late Period; the man is, of course, not identical with, 
or related to, the subject represented in No. 37. The 
offering formula on the base, addressed to the god 
Ptah-Sokar, makes the Memphite provenance of the 
sculpture virtually certain. The unpublished Ser- 
apeum stela of this man (Paris, Louvre l.M. 4057) 
mentions, in addition to the name of his mother, 
also that of his father, which is, however, only partly 
preserved as In-hor. . . . Horwedja's main titles are 
sia-entet and "Overseer of the Fields," which occur 
together also on other sculptures (Kansas City 47-12). 
For the shape of the naos, cf. Nos. 56 (Fig. 123) and 
65; the latter offers an additional parallel for the 
merger of upper eyelid and eyebrow (cf. No. 62) 

in this period. As the monument of a hitherto un- 
known man who lived under Darius 1 the statue will 
gain in importance, once all Memphite sculptures at 
present only vaguely attributable to later Saitc and 
to Persian times have been properly recorded. 
Though it has been mentioned that features and 
forms of this piece are full and well-rounded, this 
must not be interpreted as a sign of that much- 
decried "decadence," which allegedly can be de- 
tected in so many sculptures of the Late Period. On 
the contrary; the features are youthful and uncon- 
cerned in the best Egvptian tradition, and neither 
the craftsmanship nor the proportions are in any 
way inferior to those of statues of Dynasties XXV 
and XXVI. Style and epigraphy gradually change. 
Such changes do not indicate a disintegration, but a 
development, and serve to prove that the art of 
Egvpt at this time was far from stagnation. 

No. 62; PI. 59, Figs. 146-147. 


About 520-480 b.c; Dynasty XXV11. Fine-grained broivn quartzite. 

Owner: The Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Aid.; no. 51.258. 

The prolific manner in which most Egyptian 
sculptures of the Late Period are inscribed 
often induces the student to turn a fragmentary 
statue or statuette around for a glance at the 
inscription on the back pillar before seriously 
examining the piece. To the trained eye, the 
style of the epigraphy is itself revealing, even 
if one does not attempt to "read" the text — 
that is, to try to understand it or to search for 
names and titles. Here we have one of those 
unusual cases where there is no inscription on 
the back pillar — even worse, there is no back 
pillar at all, only a slab which rises slightly 
above the head of the anonymous votary. This 
slab ends on one side in back of the man's right 
eye, but a break next to the left upper arm 
shows that it must have continued on the oppo- 
site side, a fact that can only be explained by 
the former existence of a second figure, now 

The face at first glance does not show any 
characteristic features which would permit at- 

tribution to a definite period. On general 
grounds, one would be inclined to date the 
sculpture somewhere between the middle of 
the seventh and the end of the fifth century. 
There are, however, some small points which 
may be helpful for a more precise dating. For 
one, the wig is barely indicated on the fore- 
head, as occurs in several examples from Dy- 
nasty XXVII. For the pursed mouth, there is 
one close parallel in the same period. The eye- 
brows are not plastic; they are not even sharply 
defined. The upper eyelid — with hardly any 
depression — seems to continue the surface of 
the temple. This, too, is well attested in the 
Persian Period. 

Though it is hardly likely that in this period 
a man and woman were represented side by 
side, there is ample proof of the existence of 
groups of two or more men, either standing or 
kneeling. On the basis of these parallels, it ap- 
pears likely that the Baltimore bust belonged 
to a group of two kneeling men. 


measurements: Height 14.5 cm. Width 11 cm. 
Depth at nose level 8.8 cm. Width of break at waist 
4.7 cm. Depth of break at waist 6.9 cm. Depth of 
back slab at left shoulder 4 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: Groups of two kneeling men of approxi- 
mately the same period are found in Chicago 
(N.H.M. 30823) and in London (B.M. 32731), both 
with back slab. Groups of standing men, however, 

seem to occur at this time only in niches (No. 66; 
London, B.M. 511). The barely marked demarcation 
between the front of the wig and the forehead is 
found in at least four sculptures of Dynasty XXVII, 
two of which are in this exhibition (Nos. 61, 63; 
Copenhagen, N.C.G. 76; Paris, Louvre N. 864). No. 
61 can be compared to the Baltimore bust also for 
the mouth and the treatment of the eyebrows with- 
out relief lines. Another sculpture of the Persian 
Period furnishes a good example for the transition 
from upper eyelid to the temple (No. 65). 

No. 63; Pis. 59-60, Figs. 148-150. 


About 520-480 b.c; Dynasty XXV1L Black basalt or diorite. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 191. 14. 

The Egyptian temple statue, representing 
the subject as he wished to appear before his 
god, is distinguished by an air of dignity that 
has not lost in emphasis with the passing of 
millennia. This dignity is even more apparent 
in sculptures with age-lined faces; it leads us 
to forget that we are confronted with figures 
of human beings, rather than with personifica- 
tions of an idea, an institution. Yet one is 
always compelled to consider the features of 
such a sculpture again and again, to search for 
the person hidden behind the timeless mask: 
this is the fascination a fine sculpture holds for 
those who study it more than casually. 

Such a work is the bust of a man named 
Ankh-hor, which in many ways surpasses the 
ordinary — the conventional — despite the cus- 
tomary wig and the familiar wrap-around 
which once covered his portly figure. There 
is merely the faintest indication of the wig's 
edge on the forehead; for all practical purposes 
it does not exist there, and in the rear it might 
be Ankh-hor's own thick hair, brushed back 
and spread apart. The eyebrows are contoured 
by an incised line, which makes them appear 
almost plastic, and the upper eyelid is bordered 
by a thick rim. The nose is badly damaged; 

the mouth less so — it must have been far from 
stereotype and still makes a sensitive impres- 
sion. But all these features together would not 
have sufficed to lend the face its pensive qual- 
ity; this is due solely to the stylized crease 
which curves down from the upper part of the 
nostrils. It lends the head what is commonly 
termed "character," and it is this character, 
this mark of a human being, which raises the 
bust above the conventional. 

Numerous parallels show, however, that this 
is not a portrait sculpture; it is one of the most 
successful heads carved after a prototype de- 
veloped during the early part of the Persian 
Domination. The man was shown striding 
and proffering a naos, which stood on a grad- 
ually receding pillar between his feet. The two 
columns of text on the back pillar contain the 
beginning of the so-called Saite formula, with 
his name and a by that time almost meaningless 

measurements: Height 21.6 cm. Width 15 cm. 
Depth 11 cm. Width of back pillar 5.4 cm. Intra- 
columnar width 2.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known. From the John Hunting- 
ton Collection. 

bibliography: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cata- 
logue of the Inaugural Exhibition, June &Septe?nber 


20, 1916 (Cleveland, 1916), p. 213, no. 83 (illustrated 
edition: p. 213, no. 83; p. 339). ]EA 5 (1918), p. 279, 
no. 21, pi. XXXVIII. 

comment: The way in which the initial signs of the 
Saite formula are written occurs on a number of 
other sculptures, most of which seem to belong to 
the transitional period from Dynasty XXVI to 
XXVII (London, B.M. 37889; Nimes 114; Rome, 
Vatican 166). For the lack of the wig's contour on 
the forehead, see Nos. 61, 62, and Naples 980; the 
last-named sculpture, a bust with pectoral and a 
curious wig imitating a Middle Kingdom model, is 
in many ways comparable to the Cleveland bust. 
The type of naophoros, from which this fragment 
comes, is that of Copenhagen, N.C.G. 76; Hanover 
1935.200.510; Leipzig 1635; Paris, Louvre N. 864. The 
piece in Hanover is headless; all others have age- 
lined faces, and the wig is not marked on the fore- 
head. The attribution of the Cleveland bust to the 
Persian Period is based primarily on the realism of 
the face, for which no parallels have been found in 

the reigns of Apries and Amasis, on the lack of de- 
marcation between wig and forehead, and especially 
on the wrap-around garment, of which several ex- 
amples may be seen in this Exhibition. This garment 
is known from numerous instances, and in nearly all 
of them the two folded corners on the chest are 
stylized in a different manner. Since this garment 
has never been discussed in detail, it may be useful 
to explain briefly how it was put on and folded, 
from experiments made under the direction of Mr. 
Robert Riley, Curator of the Department of Indus- 
trial Design in the Brooklyn Museum. As shown in 
the accompanying diagram, which is conceived from 
the point of view of one facing the model or sculp- 
ture, the garment consists of a rectangular sheet of 
material, A-B-C-D, reaching in its shortest dimen- 
sion from chest to ankles. This material is folded in 
at one end, E-F, and the fold is held by its upper 
edge, A-E, against the chest, with the corner E near 
the left armpit. Corner A is then pulled up slightly 
and tucked in, to produce the curious "roll" pro- 
truding above the garment on the left side of the 

















C B|^ 






chest. In all well-modeled examples, this "roll" seems 
to be "open" to the right and tapers down toward 
the left armpit. With the roll held firmly in place, 
the sheet is then wrapped very tightly around the 
body from left to right, passing under the armpits 
and returning to the front to a point just beyond 
the right end of the "roll." There the end of the 
rectangle, D-C, is again folded in along the line 
H-G, and a deep corner forming a triangle is taken 
at D and pulled up. The base, J-K, of this triangle 
is tucked into the upper edge of the garment to hold 
in place the overlapping ends of the rectangle. The 
point D is also tucked in, leaving a truncated fold, 
which hangs down over the front of the garment at 
the right. This fold may be creased, or pleated, or 
smooth, and it ranges in shape from a triangle to a 
perfect square. As in men's clothing of the present 
day, the overlap is invariably from left to right. 

Whereas in the Cleveland bust creases and folds 
are not indicated, sculptures such as Nos. 64, 65, and 
Vatican 196 show so much detail that the way in 
which the garment was wrapped and fastened is 
quite clear. It occurs on many statues of the Late 
Period, from the latter part of the sixth century to 
the Roman era (cf. Bosse, Menschl. Figur, p. 93). 

Its origin is as yet unexplained; a large number of 
the early occurrences are datable to the Persian Pe- 
riod, and therefore we have to assume for the time 
being that its use began with Dynasty XXVII. There 
are only two statues which seem to contradict this 
theory: Paris, Louvre A 93, and Philadelphia 42-9-1. 
Although the former presents a man who was very 
active in Saite times, there is no reason to assume 
that the statue was actually made before the end of 
Dynasty XXVI (see also the Comment on Nos. 57 
and 64). The Philadelphia sculpture, which also 
wears the wrap-around garment and has the erased 
cartouche of Amasis on top of the naos, could well 
date from the first years of Dynasty XXVII, when 
it was still permissible to mention the names of Saite 
kings in statue inscriptions (cf. Florence 1784 and 
Rome, Vatican 196). In that case, the text of the 
Philadelphia sculpture with the name of King Amasis 
is merely an account of historical events and was 
not necessarily carved during the reign of the king 
mentioned in the inscription. It should be noted, 
however, that Dr. De Meulenaere does not agree 
with this interpretation; to him the occurrence of 
the wrap-around does not constitute a sure indication 
of post-Saite date. 

No. 64; Pis. 60-61, Figs. 1 5 1- 1 53. 


About 490 b.c; Dynasty XXVII. 

Onjoner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 37.353. 

Dark grey -brown schist. 

The last of the Saite kings, Psamtik III, was 
defeated by the Persians in 525 B.C. For nearly 
a century and a half Egypt had enjoyed com- 
plete independence under native rulers. Now 
the country became a province of the empire 
of the King of Kings, to remain under Persian 
domination for 122 years, but — to judge by 
the continued production of hard-stone temple 
sculptures alone — the religious and artistic life 
of the Egyptians seems to have been little af- 
fected by the foreign rule. Although thus far 
only one statue is known which bears the car- 
touches of a Persian king and thus directly 
takes cognizance of alien sovereignty in the in- 
scription (Rome, Vatican 196), there are a 
number of sculptures which show, in costume 


and other attributes, unmistakable Persian influ- 
ence. Outstanding among them is the cloaked 
figure of Ptah-hotep in the Brooklyn Museum. 
According to the inscription on the back 
pillar, this man had, in addition to a series of 
titles customary for high-ranking officials, the 
position of "Treasurer," or minister of finance, 
and a glance at the outfit he wears leaves no 
doubt regarding the master he was serving. He 
is clad in a jacket with wide sleeves; over it 
is a long, wrap-around skirt. Around his neck 
Ptah-hotep wears, suspended by a cord, a 
pectoral, or tablet, with the representation of 
a king before the two Memphite deities, Ptah 
and Sakhmet. He is also adorned with a torque, 
a circular necklace open in front, the ends of 

which terminate in recurved ibex figures. That 
the sleeved jacket and the torque are of Persian 
origin has long been known, and final con- 
firmation that Ptah-hotep was active during 
Dynasty XXVII is furnished by a stela from 
the Serapeum (Paris, Louvre I.M. 1244), in 
which he is named as "Treasurer" and also 
bears a Persian title written in hieroglyphs. 
This stela is dated to the 34th year of Darius I, 
the second king of Dynasty XXVII, undoubt- 
edly Ptah-hotep's master, who granted him 
the distinction of a Persian necklace and a 
Persian title. Both these distinctions were borne 
by Ptah-hotep alone; we know of none of his 
contemporaries or successors thus decorated, 
though the Persian jacket with short, half- 
long, or long sleeves, both tight and flaring, is 
often found in sculpture of Dynasty XXVII 
and the centuries following it. 

measurements: Height above modern base 85 cm. 
Width 30 cm. Depth 32.1 cm. Width of break at 
neck 15 cm. Width of back pillar near break 12.3 
cm. Intracolumnar width 2.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; almost certainly Memphis. 

bibliography: John D. Cooney, "The Portrait of an 
Egyptian Collaborator," The Brooklyn Museum Bul- 
letin XV, no. 2 (Winter 1954), pp. 1-16, figs. 1-5. 
CdE 31 (1956), p: 253, note 4. 

comment: The back pillar is inscribed with four 
columns of a mainly autobiographical text, part of 
which is reproduced in Fig. 153 (see Cooney, op. cit. 
for full text), which relates the good work done in 
the temples of Memphis by the "Director of All 
Works of the King, Overseer of the Treasury, Ptah- 
hotep." His father's name is not known; that of his 
mother, Her-enpetays-nakht, occurs in the inscrip- 
tions on his sarcophagus in Oxford (Ashmolean Mu- 
seum 1947.295; Porter-Moss, Top. Bibl. Ill, p. 57, and 

Buhl, L.E.A.S.S., fig. 82). His Serapeum stela is pub- 
lished in Rec.Trav. 21 (1899), pp. 67-68, where the 
Persian title, however, has been left off. The top of 
the back pillar is square and ends directly below the 
wig, which must have had the same shape as that of 
No. 60. That back pillar and wig are treated as sepa- 
rate entities is not too frequent (cf. Nos. 29, 40, and 
to a certain extent also No. 28). The back pillar 
inscription ends with a prayer for "a long lifetime in 
happiness, and a good burial after old age;" the statue 
was therefore made while Ptah-hotep was still alive. 
For the sleeved Persian jacket, see the Comments on 
Nos. 65 and 68; Ptah-hotep wears the V-neck type, 
whereas the subject of No. 68 is clad in the round- 
neck garment. In the time of King Necho, an incised 
breast plaque was not uncommon, but the type of 
pectoral worn by Ptah-hotep, modeled in high relief 
on the chest, seems to have become fashionable dur- 
ing the Persian Period (possibly with one exception 
— Paris, Louvre A 93 — whose date, however, is not 
necessarily the reign of Amasis; the alleged royal 
name may well be that of the subject's son, written 
in a cartouche: see the Comment on No. 57). The 
cord of Ptah-hotep's pectoral disappears on the 
shoulders under the wig, but the torque skirts the 
wig to run under the top edge of the back pillar, a 
detail for which no parallel has thus far been found. 
Ptah-hotep held a naos, probably containing a figure 
of the god Ptah. The naos, however, was not as 
narrow as the break in front of the body seems to 
indicate. This break is merely that of the "bridge" 
of material which connected the naos with the body. 
A similar difference between the width of the naos 
and its back support is also found on Nos. 61, 65, and 
numerous other examples, both standing and kneel- 
ing. For the fold-over corners of the overgarment, 
see the Comment on No. 63. Finally it should be 
noted that the break at the right wrist clearly shows 
the remains of a thick bracelet; the like is found onlv 
on one other statue — Rome, Vatican 196. The date 
suggested in the heading of this entry may well be 
too low; the statue of Ptah-hotep could have alreadv 
been made before the end of the sixth centurv. All 
we know is that the man was still alive in the 34th 
year of Darius I. 


No. 6y, Pis. 61-62, Figs. 154-157. 


About 500 b.c; Dynasty XXVII. Dark grey -green schist. 

Owner: Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. C.G. 726 (J.E. 31335; M. 824). 

The problem of true portraiture as distin- 
guished from schematic realism is one which 
has long occupied Egyptologists and art his- 
torians, and one should hasten to add that it is 
far from being solved. Lacking literary sources 
on the characteristic features of individual 
Egyptians, we can only try to arrive at the 
truthfulness of a representation through analy- 
sis, and portrait analysis has thus far rarely 
been successful in Egyptian sculpture. There 
can be no doubt that striking likenesses of what 
appear to be individual persons were modeled 
around the middle and second half of the 
seventh century b.c, and it is almost with a 
feeling of despair that the conclusion must be 
reached that these unflattering, non-idealizing 
sculptures are but variations on a formula of 
realism, which probably did not take much into 
account the definite features of the person rep- 
resented. With the reign of Psamtik I this 
realism disappears, and from roughly 610 b.c. 
to the end of Dynasty XXVI, about ninety 
years later, no personal expression is found in 
the faces of the many Egyptians of the period 
whose statue heads have been preserved. 

All this changes with the advent of the Per- 
sian rulers. Although bland idealism continues, 
side by side with it we find schematic realism, 
and — above and beyond it — a new approach 
to the face of the individual, in which (we 
firmly believe) lies the beginning of true por- 
traiture of the Late Period. This constitutes 
a live stream, never to dry up until the end of 
the Ptolemaic Period, half a millennium later, 
and it forms the source for a very important 
development of portraiture in Western art, 
namely verism. Why realistic features were 
not rendered plastically for nearly a century, 
why they were revived precisely when Egypt 


fell again under foreign domination, has yet 
to be explained satisfactorily. The evidence, 
however, is clear; and in this kneeling statue 
from the Cairo Museum the finest example of 
the new trend, which makes itself felt with 
Dynasty XXVII, is for the first time given the 
prominence it richly deserves. 

The man's name is Psamtik-sa-neith, "Direc- 
tor of All Workmen of the King in Silver and 
Gold." He kneels on a base with rounded 
front and supports between his legs a plain 
naos containing a figure of Osiris with atef 
crown. All four front borders of the naos are 
inscribed; one line of text runs around the base 
of the figure, and on the back pillar is a column 
of inscription. In the inscriptions, which are 
primarily funerary, Psamtik-sa-neith claims to 
be a "King's Relative," but by this time the 
title is merely that of a well-established official 
and does not imply blood relationship. His 
head is shaven; he wears an undergarment, visi- 
ble at the neck, a sleeved jacket with V-neck 
and, over it, a wrap-around whose tight upper 
edge firmly binds his fleshy chest. Since the 
introduction of this kind of sleeved garment is 
due to Persian influence, there can be no doubt 
that the statue was made after the end of Dy- 
nasty XXVI. A typical novelty of the Persian 
Period is also the trapezoid form of the back- 
pillar top. 

The remarkable part of this figure is, how- 
ever, its head, and here we have for the first 
time that minute observation of the skull's bone 
structure, which has often, though without 
foundation, been ascribed to "Greek influ- 
ence." The formation of the skull is merely 
an introduction to the astonishing face, with its 
modulation of flesh and skin in a manner 
hitherto unknown. The thick upper eyelid 

merges imperceptibly into the brow; there are 
bags under the eyes; the cheeks are worked in 
many planes, and a well-defined asymmetry 
distinguishes the two halves of the face. The 
nose is reminiscent of a beak, and the contour 
of the nostrils rises steeply. The upper lip is 
long and there is a deep depression under the 
mouth, balanced by a chin that swings for- 
ward. The mouth, with lips parted more than 
is usual, turns up at the corners, where curved 
folds lend a rather quizzical expression to the 
"smile." In short, it is a face that follows no 
known standard, and taken as a whole it has 
that vaguely "familiar" look, which distin- 
guishes portraits from the distant other-world- 
liness of types whose features are the result of 
carefully composed formulae. 

measurements: Height 44.5 cm. Height of head 
6.9 cm. Width at arm level 13.5 cm. Base: height 
7.8 cm., width 11.1 cm., depth 20 cm. 
provenance: Mitrahineh (Memphis); 1896. 
bibliography: (selective): Capart, Van egyptien 
(1909), p. 29, pi. 86; (191 1 ), p. 52, pi. 187. Bissing, 
Denkm., Text to pi. 108a and in. Maspero, Guide, 
p. 203, no. 824. Borchardt, Statuen III, pp. 60-62, 
pi. 134. Porter-Moss, Top.Bibl. Ill, p. 227. Bosse, 
Menschl. Fig., pp. 49, 92, 93, pi. VId, no. 125. Misc. 
Greg., pp. 217-218, fig. 6. Hornemann, Types III, 

comment: For another kneeling naophoros of about 
the same period, see No. 61, likewise from Memphis. 
The parents of Psamtik-sa-neith were Djed-ptah-iuf- 
ankh and Tagem-irset (PN I, 371, 23; also Cairo C.G. 
38266). The naos from a second kneeling statue of 
Psamtik-sa-neith is in London (B.M. 2341). He is 
not mentioned on the Serapeum stelae. The enumer- 
ation of the feasts in the text of the Cairo statue 
can be paralleled on other sculptures of late Saite 
to early Persian date (Cairo C.G. 662 and 673; 
Cambridge 393). The closest parallel for the under- 
garment of Psamtik-sa-neith's triple costume is of- 
fered by Vienna 20. For the wrap-around over- 
garment, see the Continent on No. 63, and for a 
discussion of the sleeved jacket, the Bibliography to 
No. 64. The earliest well-dated sculpture of Dynasty 
XXVII with sleeves is the statue of Henat in Flor- 
ence (M.A. 1784), the only monument of the man 
where King Amasis is referred to as maa-kheru, 

"justified," "deceased." There the sleeves arc very 
short, barely reaching the elbows. A relief in Balti- 
more, W.A.G. 276, shows three men in V-ncck, 
sleeved garments without the wrap-around skirt. 
Their gesture is unmistakably Persian (see the Com- 
ment on No. 68); the pointed sleeves end just about 
at the elbows. The trapezoidal back-pillar top docs 
not seem to have been previously observed; at least 
it has not been commented upon in the literature. 
As a chronological criterion it has proved invaluable, 
especially for those sculptures which otherwise might 
as well be attributable to Dynasty XXVI as to 
Dynasty XXVII. Since it has never been found in a 
sculpture dated by inscription to Dynasty XXVI, it 
therefore constitutes an unfailing indication of the 
datum post quern. The origin of this shape is still 
somewhat obscure. There is a certain amount of 
experimentation with new back-pillar terminals at 
the beginning of Dynasty XXVII, as in the above- 
mentioned statue of Henat in Florence, where the 
back pillar tapers to a rounded top of not clearly 
defined form. This shape may have been found 
unsatisfactory, and the trapezoid top could well have 
taken its place. One point, however, has become 
clear; the trapezoid top is used in this period only in 
connection with shaven heads, not with bewigged 
heads, and thus it may have been developed in order 
to avoid an awkward frame for the neck, while re- 
taining a certain width for the pillar in back of the 
body proper. Another important novelty of the 
Persian Period, for which the head of Psamtik-sa- 
neith furnishes a good example, is the eye with the 
plastic rim all around it. Since at this time eyebrows 
and cosmetic lines in relief are less commonly em- 
ployed in private sculpture, a new means of emphasis 
was introduced, and this, again, has proved to be an 
unfailing dating criterion, for it has never been found 
in sculptures of pre-Persian times. It was Henri 
Frankfort who coined the term "buttonhole eye" 
for the new type — an excellent definition, which we 
shall continue to employ. A bust in Naples (Museo 
Nazionale 987) offers perhaps the closest parallel for 
the style of the Cairo statue. Though adorned with 
a heavy wig and of Saite origin, and obviously rep- 
resenting an entirely different person, it nevertheless 
comes very close to the statue of Psamtik-sa-neith 
in the conception of the face, which is definitely a 
portrait, not following any standard formula. The 
Naples bust is striking in its ruthless ugliness but, un- 
like an often illustrated head in Paris (Louvre E. 
8060), it has nothing grotesque about it. As a serious 
study of a man past middle age, it underlines the 
wider range enjoyed by the artists of the period, 
one of whom — with a keen eye — created this ex- 
traordinary likeness of Psamtik-sa-neith. 


No. 66; PI. 6 3, Figs. 158-159. 


About 500 b.c; Dynasty XXVII. 

Owner: Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; no. 1956.134. 

Dark grey schist. 

The curious class of objects known as niche 
stelae is so uncommon that one often wonders 
what motivated the Egyptians to make them, if 
only rarely, during the Late Period. The fig- 
ures with which they are decorated, like those 
in naoi, are worked in one with the back- 
ground — a form of sculpture half in the round, 
with which one is familiar mostly from Greek 
and Roman high relief. At present only four 
examples of this type are known from the Late 
Period, and we are fortunate to be able to 
show two of them in this exhibition — No. 26 
and this piece from Edinburgh, which is the 
strangest specimen of the kind. 

It is a mere fragment, showing on one side 
(which was surely the front), two now in- 
complete figures in a niche surmounted by an 
inscription and, on the reverse, several columns 
of text and a scene in sunk relief. It is the only 
monument of the type which is decorated or 
inscribed on both front and back. To judge 
from the incline of the tympanum, what is pre- 
served today can be only one-half of the origi- 
nal width; there must have been formerly at 
least four persons on obverse and reverse. 

On the front we have, on the observer's left, 
a man with full, nondescript features, who 
wears his natural hair like a close-fitting cap. 
Next to him stands a man with shaven head, 
whose face — although not a portrait — bears 
the signs of the standard realism of the period: 
two vertical folds rising above the root of the 
nose and deep lines running diagonally down 
from the nostrils. 

Both men wear the Egyptian version of the 
Persian costume of their time — a shirt or jacket 
with sleeves which reach just below the elbows 
and end on a slant, and over it a wrap-around 
similar to that of so many statues of Dynasty 


XXVII, with the two upper corners tucked in 
on the chest. The inscription above, when 
partly restored from the text on the back, men- 
tions the "Governor in the Sake Nome, the 
kherep-hut, Prophet of resnet, Wah-ib-ra," 
whose father was Pedy-hor-resnet and whose 
mother was Nitocris. The relief on the reverse 
shows, on the right, Wah-ib-ra worshiping his 
ancestors; the first among them is his father, 
who faces him. 

When seen from the side, the obverse of this 
stela lies in a vertical plane, but the reverse is 
markedly convex, increasing in depth from the 
top down. How such a monument was set up 
is unknown, though it is fairly certain that it 
once stood in the temple precinct of the god- 
dess Neith at Sais. 

measurements: Height 38.2 cm. Width 20.7 cm. 
Depth 11 cm. Depth of niche 3.7 cm. Height of 
bald man 28 cm. Reverse: Height of register with 
men 8.2 cm. Intracolumnar widths; cols, one 3.2 cm., 
two 3.2 cm., three 3.4 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Sais. Formerly 
in the collection of A. Henry Rhind. 

bibliography: Proceedings of the Society of Antiqua- 
ries of Scotland 33 (1898-1899), pp. 488 and 517; 
M. A. Murray, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiqui- 
ties in the National Museum of Antiquities (Edin- 
burgh, 1900), pp. 24 and 53. CdE 27 (1952), pp. 
347-348; 31 (1956), p. 252, note 5. The Brooklyn 
Museum Bulletin XV, no. 2 (Winter 1954), page 9, 
note 2. Royal Scottish Museum, Dynastic Egypt 
(Edinburgh, 1955), pi. 23. 

comment: Many private inscriptions of the Persian 
Period contain elaborate genealogies (Berlin 23673; 
Paris, Louvre N. 418; and the Serapeum stelae), as if 
the people of that period were particularly anxious 
to prove their pure Egyptian ancestry. This perhaps 
explains why at least four generations are repre- 
sented on the Edinburgh monument. From the 
costume worn by the two men on the obverse, one 
has to assume that the sculpture was made in Dy- 
nasty XXVII; see Nos. 64 and 65 for the Persian 
sleeves, and the Comment on No. 63 for the wrap- 

around garment. The realistic traits, too, point to 
the Persian Period (cf. No. 63). But these archaeo- 
logical features are not entirely borne out by the 
inscriptions. A couple, Pedy-hor-resnet and Nitocris, 
are named on Cairo C.G. 1275 and 1277, as the father 
and mother of one Psamtik-men-resnct. If they are 
identical with the parents of our Wah-ib-ra, Psamtik- 
men-resnet must have been his brother. Wah-ib-ra 
is perhaps identical with a man bearing similar titles, 
who was the donor of a stela in London (B.M. 1427) 
dated to the eighth regnal year of King Amasis 
(563 B.C.), and who is probably the person repre- 
sented in the statue Cairo C.G. 672. It is, of course, 
unlikely that one and the same man had two monu- 
ments made for himself sixty-three years apart (or 
even thirty-eight years, if one assumes that the niche 
stela was made in the first year of the Persian Domi- 
nation, namely 525 B.C.). If the incomplete inscrip- 
tion of the Edinburgh monument originally bore a 
statement to the effect that it was made by Wah-ib- 
ra's son, then it would be the kind of family docu- 
ment in which the past was carried over into the 
present, and Wah-ib-ra could still be the man of the 
London stela of Amasis' eighth year, especially since 
two of the three other known examples of his title, 
"Governor in the Saite Nome," are borne by people 
known to have lived under Amasis (London, B.M. 
1427 and 1 6041). On the other hand, it must be re- 
membered that an Egyptian frequently was given 
the name of his grandfather, and that the same title 

or series of titles was passed on from father to son 
for two or more generations. Thus, it could well 
have been Wah-ib-ra's grandfather who was the 
man of the stela B.M. 1427. The fact that the mother 
is called Nitocris docs not necessarily mean that she 
was born when the famous daughter of Psamtik 1 
was still alive, in or before 585 B.C. It is well known 
from Serapcum stelae dated to the Persian Period that 
the royal names of Dynasty XXVI were given during 
that time to private people far more frequently than 
had been the custom in the Saite Period. Even the 
accursed name of Necho — never given to a man 
born between the reigns of Psamtik II and Amasis — 
is all of a sudden revived (Bologna 1838; London, 
B.M. 511). It is therefore entirely conceivable that 
Wah-ib-ra's mother received her name well after the 
demise of the princess. The sleeved garment of the 
two men is probably not the round-necked kind 
worn by the subject of No. 68; rather it had a 
V-neck, which is not indicated, the line round the 
base of the neck being as meaningless as that on 
No. 23. Finally the possibility should be mentioned 
that the Edinburgh monument was originally of the 
same shape and type as B.M. 511, with two men to 
one side, followed by a large cavity for a special 
inlay. In that case the break next to the arm of the 
older man would be that of the partition, which is 
well preserved on the London piece. For the few 
other known examples of the rarelv occurring niche 
stelae, see the Comment on No. 26. 

No. 67; Pis. 64-65, Figs. 160-163. 


About 450 B.C.; Dynasty XXVII. 

Owner: Musee du Louvre, Paris; no. N. 2454. 

Grey -green schist. 

One of the major contributions of Egypt to 
Western civilization was the early develop- 
ment of sculpture on a human scale with hu- 
man proportions. As far back as Dynasty IV 
the body of man was rendered in hard stone as 
a true image of a living model, an achievement 
transmitted to the West by the Greeks some 
two thousand years later. Around 500 B.C., 
the Egyptians — having been tempted for mil- 
lennia to apply their great skill in sculpting 
bodies also to a realistic rendering of faces — 
developed a series of portraits of individuals, 

which once and for all firmly established a rep- 
resentational style of sculpture in the Nile 
Valley. Unlike sporadic similar ventures in 
times past, this style was to endure until the 
art of modeling in hard stone ceased to be prac- 
ticed in Egypt. 

One of the early examples of this latest phase 
of realism is offered in a bust from the Louvre, 
which is one of the great portraits of the an- 
cient world, for it presents not only what can 
easily be recognized as the outer features of a 
definite individual, but also something of his 

inner, spiritual personality. In view of the fact 
that this sculpture has been on exhibition al- 
most continuously for more than half a cen- 
tury, it is surprising to find how little comment 
it has aroused. In its traditional formalism alone 
it offers a fine example of the superb crafts- 
manship of the Late Period, equal in quality to 
the best of Egypt's past, but above and beyond 
that, is the lifelike expression of the face, which 
seems to reflect the vicissitudes suffered by the 
Egyptians during an alien domination. 

The anonymous man here represented wears 
a bag wig, from under the amorphous mass of 
which, instead of the usual tabs in front of the 
ears, protrude little grooved trapezoids, indi- 
cating the natural hair. The forehead is modu- 
lated by incised lines, and there is an additional 
sharp incision under each eyebrow. Though 
the two eyes are quite different, the cutting is 
very precise and crisp; an unusual feature are 
the thick folds on the upper lids beside the root 
of the nose. At the outer corners of the eyes 
are crow's feet, and by contouring the sockets 
against the cheek an impression of bags under 
the eyes has been created — a significant fea- 
ture, which adds to the character of the face. 
The nose is thin and very straight; it is flanked 
by descending furrows, which, however, make 
a formal rather than a natural impression. But 
it is the mouth that shows the highest degree 
of individuality, with its upper lip shaped like 
a Cupid's bow and protruding somewhat over 
the lower lip, which is so full and sensuous. 
The chin is very articulate, especially in the 
profile view, and the neck has — again an un- 
usual feature — several heavy horizontal folds. 

The bust probably comes from a kneeling 
naophorous statue; a minute trace of the square 
outline of the shrine is still visible under the 
right side of the chest. The back pillar is of 
conventional shape and bears one column of 
text. It begins with "Honored before Ptah- 
Sokar," followed by a common title; then 
comes the break, and the rest of the text is lost. 
Epigraphically the inscription is of a style that 
already exists in late Dynasty XXVI and con- 

tinues well into Dynasty XXVII. It is, of 
course, regrettable that the identity of the per- 
son represented cannot be established, but even 
if it were known, it might prove to be of little 
value. A mere name and a few additional titles 
often leave a person still incognito, and — as 
in Greek and Roman portraiture — the face, 
and the face alone, frequently provides the 
fullest information. If the inscription on the 
back pillar were of post-Persian or even Ptole- 
maic style, it would not be difficult to align 
this sculpture with the outstanding portraits of 
a period which has produced so many fine 
heads of individuals. As it is, the bust — to- 
gether with No. 65 — remains a forerunner, 
one of those well-nigh unsurpassed early 
achievements, which the Egyptians suddenly 
produced at many times during their long 

measurements: Height 25.1 cm. Width 18.1 cm. 
Depth of break below chest 10 cm. Width of back 
pillar 6 cm. Intracolumnar width 3.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps Memphis. Said to 
have been in the collection of Henry Salt. 

bibliography: Gazette des Beaux-Arts 19 (1879), pp. 
216 and 220 (illus.). G. Maspero, in O. Rayet, 
Monuments de Vart antique I (1884), pi. [9], text p. 
2. G. Maspero, Essais sur Part egyptien (191 2), pp. 
248-249, fig. 83. Bissing, Denkm., Text to pi. 70, note 
2. P. Richer, he nu dans Vart I (1925), pp. 136-137, 
fig. 156. Boreux, Guide-Catalogue II, p. 461. 

comment: This bust and No. 65 are, for the quality 
of their portraiture, not such isolated examples of the 
best of Dynasty XXVII as one might think; Naples 
980 and 987 have already been mentioned elsewhere, 
and there is also Louvre A.F. 6314, which deserves a 
special study. Dynasty XXVII seems to have opened 
the floodgates of long pent-up individualism in Egyp- 
tian sculpture, and those who hail the Ptolemaic 
Period and so-called Greek influence as the creative 
forces of Late portraiture should take notice that 
the greatest progress toward the evolution of true 
portraiture was really made in the late sixth and 
early fifth centuries. The epigraphy of the Louvre 
bust does not permit us to arrive at a more definite 
date than that indicated, but it already presages the 
spidery hieroglyphs more frequently encountered on 
fourth-century sculpture. For the way in which 
the back pillar meets the back of the wig, Nos. 61 
and 68 should be compared. It is true that this com- 
position occurs in Dynasty XXVI, but it is especially 
frequent in Dynasty XXVII, though it cannot be 
used as a definite dating criterion. The grooved tabs 


in front of the ears have thus far not been found on 
other sculptures; it is indicative of the sharp eye of 
Bissing that he drew attention to them (see Bibliog- 
raphy above). It should be mentioned, however, 
that a bust in Munich (Ag. St. 1622) of late Dynasty 
XXV or early Dynasty XXVI has tabs which pro- 
trude from under the wig and which, though not 
grooved, at least mark the natural hair in unmistak- 
able fashion. The ears of the Louvre bust are so 
painstakingly carved that one can only marvel at the 
craftsman who took so much trouble to imitate na- 
ture. In the eyes, too, the sculptor far surpassed the 
standards usually prevailing in private statues; the 
lower lid, for instance, thickens toward the rim, 
which is so sharply cut that at a glance one might be 
inclined to see it as having a plastic outline. This is, 

of course, a variation on the style employed by the 
craftsman who carved the head of No. 65; the two 
pieces were made within a few decades of each other. 
The fine, irregular lines with which the forehead is 
furrowed are without parallel in the sculpture of this 
period (cf. Comment on No. 108), although they do 
occur, for the first time, in relief work of approxi- 
mately the same date (Berlin 15414; see W. S. Smith, 
in BMFA 47 [1949], pp. 21 and 26). For the heavy 
folds in the flesh of the neck, only one parallel pre- 
dating the Ptolemaic Period is thus far known (Han- 
over 1935.200.515). A definitive interpretation of the 
portrait presented by the Louvre bust has not yet 
been attempted, but one cannot fail to be impressed 
by the breadth and depth of intellectual insight 
which made the creation of this masterpiece possible. 

No. 68; PI. 65, Figs. 164-165. 


About 450 B.C.; Dynasty XXV II. Light green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.208 (W.A.G. no. 149). 

With the exception of the block statue, cre- 
ated during the Middle Kingdom, nearly all 
the poses occurring in Egyptian private sculp- 
ture were evolved during the early part of 
Dynasty IV. Although, in the course of the 
Late Period, the Egyptians came in contact 
with highly developed foreign art forms, they 
nevertheless continued their traditional poses 
with a sort of imperturbable stubbornness, 
which increased through the centuries until, 
during the last phase of their independence be- 
fore the Roman conquest, it probably became 
very intentional. In standing figures, the posi- 
tion of the legs never changed for more than 
twenty-five hundred years; certain variations 
in the way the arms were held were added to 
the repertory from time to time, only to be dis- 
carded, after a few hundred years, in favor of 
a few well-established attitudes, which are not 
more numerous in the Late Period than they 
were in the Old Kingdom. 

The last addition to the gestures found in 
sculpture in the round is the position of the 
hands as seen in this statue from the Walters 

Art Gallery, which represents an anonymous 
man, originally in a striding attitude, with his 
right hand clasped over his left fist. This ges- 
ture is a radical departure from the traditional, 
and though it may appear quite natural to mod- 
ern eyes, it constitutes the first breach in the 
solid front Egpyt had maintained for centuries, 
in the unending repetition of nearly identical 
statue types. How did this gesture, for which 
about ten examples exist in sculpture in the 
round, happen to originate in the Late Period? 

To find the answer to this question, the en- 
tire body of representations of gestures, from 
the Old Kingdom to the Third Intermediate 
Period, has to be taken into consideration. It 
is true that among the hundreds of different 
hand positions shown in relief and painting 
three or four instances of hands similarly 
clasped may be noted. They are, however, 
isolated cases due to the inventiveness of the 
artist and not based on a well-established Egyp- 
tian custom; otherwise the gesture would have 
been more frequently represented. 

The gesture also appears once in sculptures 

created prior to the Late Period. Three statues 
of King Amenhotep III of Dynasty XVIII 
show him clad in a fringed garment, his hands 
loosely clasped before him, the right covering 
the left. This, again is an isolated case; and 
since the costume worn by the king is not 
Egyptian, the position of his hands may also 
be interpreted as due to foreign influence. 

The gesture is indeed one long familiar in 
countries to the east of Egypt, and there seems 
no doubt that its frequent occurrence in the 
Late Period is of Persian origin. A relief in 
Baltimore (W.A.G. 276) showing a row of 
men, all employing a similar gesture, right 
hands clasped over left, and all wearing wide- 
sleeved foreign garments, identical with those 
of Nos. 64 and 65, makes such origin unmis- 
takable; for when one examines the Persian 
reliefs of the period, it will be found that the 
rows of servitors in the palace of Darius I at 
Persepolis alone yield half-a-dozen examples 
of a similar gesture. 

The pose is one that must have struck the 
Egyptians as something typically foreign, and 
the man who had this sculpture made for him- 
self — like Ptah-hotep, represented in No. 64 — 
must have wished to adopt something exotic 
(and probably fashionable) in his gesture. His 
garment, too, is un-Egyptian. Instead of the 
robe with V-neck and wide, flaring sleeves 
(also a foreign style), which was favored in 
the Persian period, he wears a long, straight 
coat with round neck and tight sleeves reach- 
ing to the wrists. The face is idealizing, squat 
under the heavy bag wig; only the rim of the 
upper eyelid is rendered plastically. 

The text on the back pillar begins with an 
offering formula addressed to "Onuris-Shu, 
the son of Ra, the great god, the lord of 
Thinis . . ." which makes it most likely that the 
figure was dedicated in a sanctuary of this god 
in the Thinite nome, the region of Abydos. 
measurements: Height 27.3 cm. Width at hip level 

7.2 cm. Depth 8.5 cm. Width of back pillar 3.2 cm. 

Intracolumnar width 2.1 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps the region of 


bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.Eg.ScW .A.G., p. 50, 

pi. XXV and CXIII, no. 149. 

comment: The first to draw attention to the gesture 
under discussion, was Bissing, (Denkm., Text to pi. 
71b, cols. 1-2 with note 8), followed by Bosse 
(Menschl. Figur, p. 93), Cooney (Brooklyn Museum 
Bull. XV, no. 2 [Winter 1954], p. 10, note 4), and 
Barnett (Iraq 19 [1957], p. 62, no. 20). The Late 
Egyptian sculptures with this gesture are, in addition 
to the Baltimore statue, the following: Antwerp A.i; 
Berlin 7737; Cairo C.G. 140, 691, 1189, 1282, J.E. 
52356; Paris, Louvre E. n 127. Among them, at least 
one (Cairo C.G. 1189) is early Roman; since it most 
likely follows examples of the Ptolemaic Period, one 
can assume a live tradition, which continued after 
Dynasty XXXI (Berlin 7737, for instance, was made 
at some time around the middle of the fourth century 
B.C.). Nobody has as yet collected the early exam- 
ples of this gesture in relief and painting, only two 
of which come readily to mind, one in a tomb at 
Deir el Medineh, the other in Tomb 82 at Thebes 
(Nina de Garis Davies and Alan H. Gardiner, The 
To?nb of Amenemhet [19 15], pi. XII, lower register). 
The three statues of Amenhotep III are Cairo J.E. 
33900-33901, and New York, M.M.A. 30.8.74; only 
the last one is mentioned by Vandier, Manuel III, 
pp. 322, 324, 327, 349, who does not discuss the ges- 
ture. The reliefs of Darius I are illustrated in E.F. 
Schmidt, Persepolis I (1953), pi. 51 upper right, 52 
upper left, 87 B-C, 121 left, 122, 123; II (1957), pi. 
69 G, but there are also earlier examples from As- 
syrian reliefs of the seventh century (C. J. Gadd, 
The Stones of Assyria, pi. 38 and 41; R. D. Barnett, 
Assyrian Palace Reliefs, pi. 107), and in sculpture in 
the round the clasping of the hands in front of the 
body is an old motif in the art of Western Asia. The 
long garment worn by the man represented in the 
Baltimore statuette has no overlap; it therefore must 
have been slipped over the head; only one other pre- 
Ptolemaic example of this costume with round neck 
and tight sleeves is known thus far in sculpture in 
the round (Boston, M.F.A. 35.1484), and it is of 
Theban origin. In view of the fact that, according 
to the inscription, the Baltimore statue is also from 
the south, we have here perhaps a regional difference 
in costume, the dress with wide, pointed sleeves and 
V-neck being typical for the north only. From an 
epigraphic and orthographic point of view the in- 
scription on the back pillar must be earlier than 
Dynasty XXX; from an archaeological viewpoint the 
attribution of the sculpture to the middle of the fifth 
century seems to be well founded. 


No. 69; PI. 66, Figs. 166-169. 


About 450-340 b.c; Dynasties XXVII-XXX1. Gypsum plaster. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Aid.; no. 22.34 (W.A.G. no. 297). 

Scholars, like everyone else, have the mad- 
dening habit of repeating in print worn-out 
platitudes on subjects unrelated to their fields 
of special interest. One such stock designation, 
though largely erroneous, is applied over and 
over again to the tablets in relief and small- 
scale sculptures of limestone or plaster which 
were made in great quantities during the Late 
Period. These little pieces, representing figures 
of animals, heads and busts of kings and deities, 
hands, feet, and the like, are habitually called 
"trial pieces," "sculptor's models," or "sculp- 
tor's studies," although there is ample evidence 
that the great majority of them were ex-votos 
— tokens of faith which a worshiper offered to 
his god in a shrine or temple. 

There are, however, a small number of true 
sculptor's models of the Late Period, often 
overlooked amid the mass of their mistaken 
namesakes, and one of the most interesting of 
them is a bust in the Walters Art Gallery 
which, though published some time ago, does 
not seem to have hitherto evoked much inter- 
est. It is a true bust, conceived as such, and not 
the upper portion of a lost statue. It is made 
in gypsum plaster, partly hollowed from be- 
neath with a broad-edged chisel. It represents 
a man with shaven head, whose skull shows a 
ridge similar to that of a head of much earlier 
date from the Metropolitan Museum of Art 
(No. 7). The bust has no back pillar, and thus 
the care with which the parietal bones are in- 
dicated becomes very evident in the rear view. 
The approach of the craftsman who modeled 
it was very individualistic, for the face is full 
of character. Fleshy eyebrows nearly cover 
the small, slitted eyes; the forehead is marked 
by horizontal lines, and heavy jowls flank the 
protruding mouth. 

High on the chest, just above the base of the 
bust, is shown the edge of a wrap-around gar- 
ment, which runs under the armpits and ends 
in front in a "roll" and folded corner, as may 
be seen on other sculptures of Dynasty XXVII 
in this Exhibition. These ends of the garment 
are quite voluminous; the "roll," especially, 
protrudes much farther than is usual. On its 
"open" side, toward the right side of the chest, 
an interior design is indicated in relief, which 
shows that the "roll" was folded twice before 
it was tucked into the upper edge of the gar- 
ment. The other corner is modeled as if it had 
been tightly rolled before folding. 

Apart from the problem of whether the little 
bust is a true portrait or merely a standard rep- 
resentation of highly individualistic form, its 
date is not easily determined. Judging by the 
volume of "roll" and corner, it could well have 
been made in Dynasty XXVII; on the other 
hand this kind of head, with its brutal direct- 
ness, is more to be associated with sculpture of 
the fourth century B.C., or even later, though 
then it might be expected that the garment 
would be treated less realistically. Be that as it 
may, the lack of a back pillar and the material 
employed show that the bust was no formal 
temple statue, but rather a model, after which 
an unflattering sculpture of an old official was 
to be executed in hard stone. 

measurements: Height 9.4 cm. Width 8.4 cm. 
Depth 5.4 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G., p. 91, 
pi. LVIII, no. 297. 

comment: For a discussion of the objects errone- 
ously called "sculptor's models" and the like, and for 
their votive character, see BMFA 51 (1953), pp. 83- 
84. The misnomer is current, not only in publica- 
tions, but also in the labeling of some of the leading 


collections of Egyptian art and archaeology. True 
busts are rare in Egyptian sculpture of all periods; 
for a parallel to the Baltimore piece, though worked 
in limestone and of Ptolemaic date, see Paris, Louvre 
E. 25374, which likewise was made without a back 
pillar. Since this support (if it was ever meant to be 
one; cf. the Introduction, p. xxiv) is normlaly present 
in all statues made after the early part of Dynasty 
XXVI, its absence underlines the temporary, non- 
religious, function of the sculpture (cf. also No. 86). 
The meticulous treatment of individual parts of the 
skull, which was initiated in Dynasty XXVII with 
sculptures such as No. 65, and the wrap-around 
garment, which was first widely employed at that 
period (cf. the Comment on No. 63), link the piece 
with the time of the First Persian Domination. Yet 
the date is far from certain. The only other example 
showing a "roll" marked with an interior design at 
the "open" end is a statue in New York (M.M.A. 
25.2.10; Fig. 167), which — though uninscribed — 
undoubtedly was made during Dynasty XXVII. It 
has perhaps the most voluminous "roll" in the wrap- 
around garment of all sculptures of its size, and the 
parallel it offers would alone be sufficient to at- 
tribute the Baltimore bust to the Persian Period. On 

the other hand, it must be remembered that we are 
poorly informed regarding the use of sculptor's 
models during that period, whereas their use in 
Dynasty XXX-XXXI is well confirmed (No. 86). 
In Dynasty XXXI, the time of the Second Persian 
Domination (341-333 b.c), many features of the first 
Persian reign (Dynasty XXVII) were consciously 
revived in sculpture. But from a number of statues 
made between ca. 340 and 320 b.c, it is evident that 
the representation of the ends of the wrap-around 
garment had by that time become rudimentary, 
almost as if they were misunderstood (cf. Cairo 
19 + ?, whose subject is dated to the reign of Philip 
Arrhidaeus by Cairo J.E. 46341). It seems hardly 
likely, accordingly, that the ends would then have 
been rendered in the naturalistic form developed in 
Dynasty XXVII, though, on the other hand, the 
head of the Baltimore bust betrays an assuredness in 
dealing with this type of realistic sculpture, which 
does not seem to fit into our present picture of Dy- 
nasty XXVII. Since the surface is worn and pitted, 
it is difficult to decide whether the bust is cast, as 
stated in the publication. It mav well be a freely 
modeled original. 

No. 70; PL 67, Figs. 1 70- 1 7 1 . 


About 410-370 b.c; Dynasties XXVI1-XXX. 

Owners: Dr. and Mrs. Max M. Stern, New York, N. Y. 

Black diorite with brown spots. 

The image of eternal vigor and youth, for 
which the Egyptians strived in their statuary at 
least from the beginning of Dynasty IV, per- 
sisted unabated throughout the Late Period. 
But it no longer formed the sole ideal; for lit- 
tle by little a more sober approach to the 
human likeness made itself felt — a realistic 
conception which, beginning with the sev- 
enth century", came to the fore in ever increas- 
ing waves. As has been shown earlier, this 
realistic conception absorbed much of the na- 
tive inventiveness of the sculptors, with the 
result that idealizing, youthful representations 
became stock items of well-established forms, 
repeated with little variation for several 

To trace the development — through what- 

ever little deviation in style can be detected — 
of a particular type of idealizing head from the 
sixth to the third century b.c, a sufficient num- 
ber of inscribed and datable sculptures are 
needed. The type with which we are con- 
cerned here is that of the egg-shaped shaven 
head, with well-fed features, a benign expres- 
sion, and a faint smile. Though this type is 
amply known from several dozen isolated 
heads, they have either lost their back pillars 
or their back pillars bear so few traces of in- 
scription that it is nearly impossible to assign 
them to a definitely limited period. The first 
real progress of recent years was made when 
the head of Pa-debehu (No. 56) was identified, 
to establish that this type, following the 
"round" heads of Dynasty XXV and early 


Dynasty XXVI, was already evolved before 
the beginning of Dynasty XXVII. We now 
have here, in a bust from the collection of Dr. 
and Mrs. Stern, a second example, which proves 
to be a key piece. The top of its back pillar is 
preserved, with part of an inscription yielding 
enough information to assign the sculpture to 
the period from the latter part of the Persian 
domination to Dynasty XXX. Though this 
time span may still seem rather long, the bust 
permits us to attribute other uninscribed heads 
of a like or similar type to the fifth or fourth 
century with a reasonable degree of certainty. 

Apart from its archaeological value, this bust 
is, in itself, a fine piece of workmanship on a 
small scale, marred only by the loss of the nose 
and the damage to the mouth. The skull, 
though amorphous, is still fairly squat — a far 
cry from the truly egg-shaped heads which 
abound in the fourth century. The eyebrows 
are modeled as sharp ridges, but are not in 
relief. The upper eyelids are drawn out at the 
corners and contoured by a fine, incised line. 
Cheeks, neck, and torso are well rounded; the 
body is almost feminine in its lack of muscles 
and sinews. 

The shape of the back-pillar top is trape- 
zoidal, and the inscription is surmounted by the 
"sky" hieroglyph, thus establishing Dynasty 
XXVII as the earliest possible date. The text 
begins with an offering formula addressed to 
the god Ptah of Memphis; then comes the 
break. The second column seems to start out 

with the end of a Hcrakleopolitan title, fol- 
lowed by the name of the subject, "Wen- 
nufer, son of Pedy-hor. . . ." The position of 
the arms does not permit any conclusion about 
whether the bust came from a standing or a 
kneeling statue. 

measurements: Height 1 3. i cm. Width 11 cm. 
Depth 6.2 cm. Width of back pillar 3.9 cm. Intra- 
columnar width 1.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Memphis. 

bibliography: Gothic & Renaissance Furniture & 
Objects of Art . . . Egyptian Antiquities (Sale Cata- 
logue, New York, Parke-Bernet Galleries, 13 March, 
1952), pp. 2-3, no. 8 (illus.). 

comment: The type represented by this head has 
been miscalled "Sake" for so long that it seems worth 
while to establish that it is typical neither for Dy- 
nasty XXVI nor for the site of Sais. For the "sky" 
hieroglyph and the shape of the back pillar, see the 
Comments on Nos. 60 and 65. It must be remem- 
bered, however, that both features were employed 
sporadically on sculptures from the Persian domi- 
nation on until well into the Ptolemaic Period. It is 
interesting to compare the beginning of the inscrip- 
tion with that of the text on No. 65. There, the text 
starts out well above the base line of the trapezoid, 
whereas by the latter part of the century the inscrip- 
tion starts lower, as in the present sculpture, begin- 
ning at the base line. The man's name, Wen-nufer, 
is frequent in the region of Herakleopolis Magna; 
in Greek texts it is rendered as Onnophris. Like so 
many pieces in this Exhibition, the sculpture is asym- 
metrical. The head is turned slightly to the right 
and the back pillar is not vertical when the head is 
straight. Also, the left shoulder is lower than the 
right one. For a fine head, showing a more devel- 
oped example — about a century later — of this type, 
see Brooklyn 55.178. A head in Baltimore (W.A.G. 
203) lies about midway between the two. 


No. 71; PI. 67, Figs. 172-173. 


About 380 b.c; Dynasty XXIX. 

Bronze; cast solid. 

Owner: William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art and Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, 
Kansas City, Mo.; no. 53-13. 

As far back as Dynasty VI representations 
of the king kneeling in humility before his god 
and presenting an offering had been fashioned 
in sculpture in the round. With the passing of 
time this attitude became more and more popu- 
lar, and from Dynasty XVIII on, it was ren- 
dered with increasing frequency in bronze. 
Since bronzes were cast from molds, and molds 
were usually employed more than once, a cer- 
tain amount of duplication was inevitable. The 
artisan who made the model from which a 
mold was formed must have known that no 
work of great individuality could result from 
his labor; he usually created, accordingly, a 
sculpture without much character, meant to 
be seen in many places and to please a large 
number of people. 

In the case of this royal figure in bronze from 
Kansas City, however, the result is gratifying. 
Despite a notable restraint in rendering the 
features, the face of the kneeling king has con- 
siderable vigor and betrays a certain amount of 
individuality in the full mouth with lines run- 
ning down from its corners. From the remains 
of the right arm, bent at the elbow, it might be 
concluded that the king offered his deity two 
jars of wine or, as was probably the case with 
No. 43, a divine image. He wears the Blue 
Crown, originally a war helmet, the surface 
of which is studded with little incised discs. 
The crown is small in relation to the face, and 
the usual creases at the sides are not very prom- 
inent. It is adorned with an uraeus in — what 
is rather rare — a perfect state of preservation. 
This royal serpent has two figure-eight coils 
and a well-modeled body that runs over the 
crown of the head. A long streamer descends 
from the rear of the helmet to the belt, into 

which it is tucked. The depression between 
helmet and forehead presumably signifies that 
the border — probably representing a helmet 
lining of a different material — was inlaid with 
gold. Like the face, the body is modeled in 
well-rounded forms without much individual- 
ity, and especially in chest and upper abdomen 
all indication of muscles has been suppressed 
— one of the many characteristic features of 
most post-Persian sculpture on a small scale. 

The identity of the kneeling king cannot be 
definitely established. Stylistically, the statu- 
ette dates from the post-Saite period, which, so 
far as sculptures of kings are concerned, is 
synonymous with post-Persian, since no royal 
representations in the round were created dur- 
ing Dynasty XXVII, when the Persians ruled 
Egypt. The three signs incised in the cartouche 
on the front center of the belt are unfortu- 
nately illegible. In general outline, however, 
they seem to conform to "Maat-khenem-ra," 
the prenomen of King Hakoris (390-378 B.C.) 
of Dynasty XXIX, who could well be the king 
represented in the age-old pose of this bronze. 
measurements: Height 20.5 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: JEA 42 (1956), p. 6. Handbook of the 
Collections in the William Rockhill Nelson Gallery 
of Art and Mary Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, 
Kansas City, Mo. (Fourth Edition, 1959), p. 22 

comment: The closest parallel to the head of this 
bronze figure is offered by a fine limestone head in 
Paris (Louvre E. 22761), which has also never been 
identified. The head of the bronze shows a faint 
indication of a double chin, quite in keeping with the 
full, well-rounded forms of the body. The long 
streamer — or a pair of them — hanging down from 
the rear of the Blue Crown (for which cf. No. 53) — 
seems to be characteristic of the royal costume in 
post-Persian times, when the discs indicated on the 

helmet are also once more quite fashionable (see 
Baltimore, W.A.G. 326 A, 327, and 333 A). In re- 
liefs, the streamers appear in royal representations 
until the very end of the Ptolemaic Period. As in 
the kneeling glazed-stone statuette of Hakoris in 
London (B.M. 24247), the soles of the feet seem 
to have been approximately vertical. Another kneel- 
ing figure of Hakoris is in Cairo (C.G. 681). If 
this statuette in Kansas City really represents the 
same king, it may be possible to solve the problem 
of when the double figure-eight coil of the uraeus 

fell into disuse. It no longer occurs under Nectancbo 
I and his successors, but appears in Dynasty XXVI 
as late as Amasis (No. 53; Rome, Musco Capitolino 
8). It is found in a head in Cairo (C.G. 838), which 
also may represent Hakoris, and in the limestone 
head in the Louvre mentioned above; in relief it 
occurs on both Gulbenkian Collection 24 and New 
York, M.M.A. 26.7.1006 (JEA 5 [1918], pi. IX), 
which probably antedate Dynasty XXX and may be 
attributable also to Hakoris. 

No. 72; PI. 68, Figs. 174-176. 


378-360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. Dark green schist. 

Owner: M. H. De Young Memorial Museum, San Francisco, CaL; no. 54664. 

Some strange and wonderful sculptures were 
created under King Nectanebo I, and taking 
into account solely such private monuments as 
bear his name, one cannot but admire the in- 
ventiveness and capability of the sculptors of 
his time. To them the Saite Period was the 
golden age, and from it they took their in- 
spiration — adding new ideas and subtly chang- 
ing and adapting the traditional. One of the 
arts which had fallen into oblivion in the course 
of the century and a half following the end of 
Dynasty XXVI, was that of relief carving in 
hard stone. It was splendidly revived under 
Nectanebo I, and on such a scale that it not 
only surpassed anything done in that medium 
in Saite times, but also established a new tradi- 
tion in Egypt for a century to come. From the 
reign of Nectanebo I we have such major re- 
liefs as the Naucratis Stela and the Naos of Saft 
el Henna, under Nectanebo II entire temple 
walls in granite were decorated with relief at 
Mendes, Samannud, Behbeit el Hagar, and 
Bubastis; and relief work in hard stone, thus 
revived, continued until the reign of Ptolemy 
III, more than a hundred years later. 

From the great era of Nectanebo I we have, 
in this fragmentary sculpture from San Fran- 

cisco, one of the few examples showing the 
application of hard-stone relief to sculpture in 
the round. What remains is only a small part 
of a standing figure, dressed in a long coat with 
overlap on the right, probably a garment of the 
wrap-around type. The man holds a naos, or 
rather a block of naos shape, supported by a 
receding pillar which gradually blends into the 
front of his garment. The face of the vaulted 
naos is not, however, hollowed out to form the 
cavity of the shrine, but left solid and dec- 
orated in sunk relief with the image of the god- 
dess "Neith, Mistress of Sais," as the inscription 
states. The text on the supporting pillar re- 
cords an "Utterance by the King of Upper and 
Lower Egypt, Kheper-ka-ra (Nectanebo I): 
May this writing be placed . . . ." The back pil- 
lar contained two columns of inscription, but 
only a small portion of them is preserved — the 
name and titles of the subject are lost. 

What little is left of the statue shows ex- 
quisite workmanship. The relief of the goddess 
is extremely well done, not crowded into the 
field formed by the face of the naos, but show- 
ing a fine sense for composition and balance. 
The hands of the figure itself, often so crude in 
sculptures of the Late Period, are overly long 


and sensitive, as if affected by the act of prof- 
fering; even the cuticles are indicated. It al- 
most seems that the sculptor formed these fin- 
gers after a wooden model of Dynasty V or 
VI, a period in which elongated hands — highly 
stylized — are found more frequently than at 
any other time. 

measurements: Height 33.3 cm. Width 12 cm. Depth 
18 cm. Width of upper break (slant) 12 cm., depth 
(slant) 20 cm. Depth of lower break (slant) 17 cm. 
Width of back pillar 5.5 cm. Intracolumnar width, 
front 1.9 cm., back 2.1 cm. 
provenance: Not known; probably Sais. 

bibliography: M. H. De Young Memorial Museum, 
Illustrations of Selected Works (San Francisco, 1950), 
pi. 10. 

comment: Considering the great changes and up- 
heavals to which Egypt was subjected from about 
375 b.c. (Nectanebo I) to the third century b.c, it is 
surprising that this should have been the great era of 
temple reliefs in hard stone, especially in a part of 
the country where this material was not quarried; 
cf. BMFA 51 (1953), pp. 2 ff. There exist a few 
other relief-decorated statue naoi of Dynasty XXX 
(Alexandria 403; Cairo C.G. 617), but they are not 
an invention of the fourth century, since they al- 
ready occur briefly in sculptures from Sais at the 
beginning of Dynasty XXVII. At that time were 
made a number of standing and kneeling naophoroi, 
supporting shrines without a cavity, but decorated in 
relief with a stylized representation of the facade of 

the Neith sanctuary of Sais (Cairo C.G. 672, 714; 
Florence 1784; Paris, Louvre E. 13 103; Rome, Vatican 
166. Cf. B1FAO 6 [1908], pp. 28-30; ASAE 34 1 1934], 
pp. 147-148). Among these, the Florence statue is 
comparable to the San Francisco fragment also for 
the column of text on the rudimentary pillar sup- 
porting the naos. The figure of the goddess, with 
ample bosom and slim waist, reminds one of the 
statue of the Divine Consort Ankhnes-neferibra 
(Cairo C.G. 42205), daughter of Psamtik II, who 
was in office from 585 b.c. to the end of Dynasty 
XXVI, which represents the ideal of feminine beauty 
followed in what little female sculpture and relief 
was made before the Ptolemies. The inscription on 
the back pillar begins in the first column with ". . . 
ipet-weret^ perhaps the end of the name of the sub- 
ject's mother, Tadyt-ipet-weret (FN I, 372, 19). The 
statue was dedicated by his eldest son, whose name is 
also lost. The second column contains part of an 
autobiographical text. For the prototype of the 
elongated fingers in wooden sculptures of the Old 
Kingdom, see Brooklyn 51.1 and New York, M.M.A. 
26.2.3, to mention only two handy examples. Lastly, 
it should be considered that the naos front, with its 
round top, might be an imitation of a stela and that, 
in sculptures such as the San Francisco fragment, 
two conceptions — that of the stelophoros and that of 
the naophoros — have been combined. It must be re- 
membered that the relief-decorated naoi of early 
Dynasty XXVII are mostly box-shaped and never 
vaulted, and that there are a number of standing 
stelophorous statues of late Dynasty XXV and early 
Dynasty XXVI (Cairo C.G. 1098, J.E. 36158) which 
could have served as models. 

No. 73; PI. 69, Figs. 177-180. 


378-360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: Musee du Louvre, Paris; no. E. 8061. 

Fine-grained dark brown basalt. 

The iconographic problems presented by the 
numerous idealizing and conventional heads of 
kings of the Late Period are many but, in the 
frequent absence of inscriptions, not particu- 
larly surprising. More complex and baffling is 
the identification of a royal head that is an in- 
dividualistic work of art, the portrait of an im- 
pressive person, rather than a mass-produced, 
nondescript, standard representation. Con- 

fronted with such a piece, the present inade- 
quacy or very often complete lack of critical 
studies of Late sculpture is painfully apparent, 
and one has to attempt to break new ground 
in a field which should have been explored 
many decades ago. 

The reason for these lamentations is a small 
royal head from the Louvre, which is for the 
first time brought into the limelight of critical 


examination in this Exhibition — deservedly so, 
because it is probably one of the strongest royal 
portraits of the Late Period, despite its minute 
size. Under the squat but well-defined helmet, 
the so-called Blue Crown, we have the likeness 
of a full-faced, heavy-jowled king. The hel- 
met is adorned with the uraeus, the head lost, 
but the hood showing the grooved pattern 
handed down from the New Kingdom. The 
cobra's head is flanked by two single coils, 
which here play a curiously separate role, as if 
they were no longer part of the serpent's body, 
thus anticipating a development frequent in 
the Ptolemaic Period. The tail of the uraeus 
runs straight up to a point just beyond the 
apex of the helmet. 

The border of the Blue Crown is modeled 
in relief all around, and in addition, the lining 
of the helmet is plastically indicated on the 
slightly bulging forehead. The king's prom- 
inent brows spring from the root of the nose 
in an arch and descend slightly at the temples. 
They are treated naturalistically, but the eyes 
are traditional and formalistic. The upper lid 
is set off against the brows by a fold; the eye- 
balls are markedly convex and seem to pro- 
trude. The strong nose broadens out toward 
the nostrils far more than is customary in 
standard royal representations and is slightly 
hooked toward the tip. The mouth is straight 
and rather thin-lipped, with an ever-so-gentle 
lift at the corners. It is small, in contrast with 
the heavy jowls and voluminous chin, which 
merge into what appears to have been an 
equally fleshy neck. The whole face, miracu- 
lously well formed on so small a scale, betrays 
determination and energy. Whoever created 
this little masterpiece captured the likeness of 
a king of great power and firm — even stub- 
born — will. 

Not content with portraying him, the sculp- 
tor provided a written identification on the 
back pillar, which, alas, is lost with the main 
portion of the figure. All that remains are the 
"sky" sign, the sun disc with two pendant uraei 
supporting the "life" hieroglyph, and a faint 

trace of the hawk of Horus, with which the 
royal titulary began. It seems very probable, 
however, from the evidence at hand, that we 
have here a portrait of Ncctanebo I. 

The trapezoid-shaped top of the back pillar 
is unusually elongated, perhaps in an effort to 
cover as much as possible of the back of the 
Blue Crown, without detracting from the bulk 
of the powerful head. 

measurements: Height 6.$ cm. Width 5 cm. Depth 
6.5 cm. Width of break at neck 3.2 cm., at back 
pillar 2 cm. Depth of break 6 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Acquired in 1886. 

bibliography: None. Mentioned in ZAS 80 (1955), 
p. 48, note 6. 

comment: The identification of this head as a por- 
trait of Nectanebo I was made by H. W. Miiller 
some years ago. He bases his identification on its 
great similarity to the profile views of Nectanebo I 
on two inscribed reliefs in hard stone (Bologna, 
Museo Civico 1870, and London, B.M. 22), which 
formed part of a long, low barrier at Heliopolis. 
Other barrier reliefs of the same monument (Lon- 
don, B.M. 20 and 998; Vienna 213) are decorated 
with the names and representations of Psamtik I, 
Nectanebo I, and Psamtik II, respectively, and the 
evidence — to put it mildly — is very confusing. There 
seems to be no doubt that British Museum 22 (Smith, 
A.A.A.E., pi. 184) does represent Nectanebo I: the 
hands with partly separated fingers, for instance, pre- 
clude that the relief could have been made before 
Dynasty XXX and inscribed at a later period; as 
J. D. Cooney points out, the same hands appear on a 
stela of Nectanebo I from Hermopolis (ASAE 52 
[1954], pp. 375 ff., pi. IX). The king, on the London 
barrier, wears a skull cap with streamers of Kushite 
style; on the reverse his figure is twice carefully 
scratched out, although the remainder of the repre- 
sentations and the inscriptions have not been touched. 
On B.M. 998, too, his figure has been intentionally 
damaged; there, only his head, again in the Kushite 
cap, has been singled out for destruction, and the 
way in which he leans forward in adoration is a 
direct copy of the representation of Psamtik II on 
the barrier Vienna 213, where the skull cap, less 
elaborate than that of Nectanebo I, is clearly copied 
from the head of Psamtik I on the barrier London, 
B.M. 20. It seems, therefore, as if the representations 
of Nectanebo I on Bologna 1870 and British Museum 
22 and 998 were carved after a local Heliopolitan 
model of 300 years earlier, illustrating once more the 
archaistic tendency of Dynasty XXX, which harks 
after the Saite ideal, with the exception that the 
king's face has been fashioned in a highly individu- 
alistic manner, for which the Louvre head forms our 


only replica in the round. Although the inscription 
is lost, this head must be considered a true portrait of 
the king, beside which the inscribed sculptures of 
Nectanebo I with the head intact (Cairo J.E. 87298; 
Paris, Louvre A 29; the head from the Mauduit Col- 
lection; and several sandstone sphinxes of the avenue 
north of the First Pylon of the Luxor Temple) are 
but pale representations of the official image; their 

great variety merely proves that none of them can 
be claimed as a true likeness. In shape and propor- 
tions the back pillar of the Louvre head very much 
resembles Paris, Louvre E. 10783, which also bears 
an inscription beginning with the "sky" sign over a 
sun disc with pendant uraei; it is apparently a stylis- 
tic feature first developed under Nectanebo I (cf. 
Paris, Louvre E. 11075). 

No. 74; Pis. 70-71, Figs. 1 8 1- 1 84. 


378-360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 56.152. 

Fainted limestone. 

Half a century ago, during one of his many 
seasons on the site of the city of Memphis, 
Flinders Petrie, the great British archaeologist, 
excavated at the northern end of Mitrahineh. 
There he discovered, reused in a brick con- 
struction at the southwest corner of the so- 
called Palace of Apries, a limestone slab about 
fifty inches high, decorated on one side with 
the representation of a striding man and a text 
in sunk relief and on the opposite side with two 
people and an inscription in low relief, on 
which a good deal of color was still preserved. 
The texts, containing the names of both King 
Amasis, designated as "deceased," and King 
Nectanebo I, "living forever," proved that 
this door jamb from a chapel (it was easily 
recognized as such) was made during the reign 
of the latter ruler. The slab was shipped to 
England — fortunately after it had been photo- 
graphed and drawn, for it was badly broken in 
transit — and is now in the Fitzwilliam Museum 
in Cambridge. There exists, however, a com- 
panion piece to this important document: the 
opposite jamb of the doorway, which is now 
in the Brooklyn Museum. 

This double-faced relief, in nearly perfect 
state of preservation, corresponds almost ex- 
actly to the Cambridge slab. The outer side, 
the obverse, shows in carefully cut sunk relief, 

facing left, the figure of a portly man with 
shaven head, who is dressed in a sleeved gar- 
ment, probably with V-neck. Over it he wears 
a wide scarf, which covers one arm and shoul- 
der, passes around the body, and ends again in 
front, where it is lightly held by the hand, 
adorned with a signet ring. The other hand 
holds a long staff. Above the man's head are 
four columns of inscription; at the right, a 
torus molding with remains of lacing painted 
in green runs along the entire height of the slab. 
The opposite side, the reverse, was on the 
inside of the chapel, as is shown by a recess on 
the right to receive the door-leaf. Here the 
decoration is in low relief, still covered to a 
large extent with bright color. The scene con- 
sists of two persons; a man striding left is being 
received by a lady, who faces him, with her 
left arm around his shoulder, and holds him by 
the elbow with her right hand. The man wears 
an undergarment and a short-sleeved jacket 
with V-neck, and over it, the familiar wrap- 
around with highly stylized "roll" and pendant 
corner. Above the couple are five columns of 
brilliantly painted hieroglyphic inscriptions, 
surmounted by two lines of text in larger char- 
acters. These run from right to left, away 
from the doorway, while the two correspond- 
ing lines on the Cambridge slab, forming the 


opposite side of the inner face of the doorway, 
go in the contrary direction, from left to right. 

The relief was covered with gesso before 
drawing and painting were applied, and the 
artisan who took over after the carving had 
been completed worked in a remarkably free 
manner. He did not slavishly follow the out- 
line marked in stone, especially in the figure 
of the man, and added such touches as the folds 
of the sleeve and of the tightly stretched wrap- 
around, which bring out a personal note in 
what otherwise would have been a routine job 
of coloring a completed relief. Especially note- 
worthy are the bulge of the sleeve between the 
man's arm and body on the right, and, on the 
left, the straight drop of the wrap-around, 
which does not follow the line of the body 
at all. 

The technique used on the obverse was 
simply covering the sunk relief — inscription as 
well as representation — with gesso and then 
painting it; very few traces of color remain to- 
day. It is incredible that so much skill was ap- 
plied to the carving, only to have it covered up 
again with gesso. The hieroglyphs, for in- 
stance, now look neat and clean wherever the 
gesso has been lost, and appear ill-defined 
where gesso, and occasionally color, are still 
preserved. Despite the sunk relief, the figure 
of the man, and especially his head, are modeled 
with a certain amount of depth. His head, in 
keeping with one of the ideals of the period, is 
typically egg-shaped, and the lifted corners of 
his mouth convey the well-known "smile." 

As a practically undamaged relief of fairly 
large size and known date, the Brooklyn relief 
and (to a lesser degree) its companion in Cam- 
bridge are of great importance for the study of 
the art of Dynasty XXX. Since this is the side 
— not the lintel — of a doorway the representa- 
tions traditionally are of a somewhat staid, 
formal nature, as was always the case on cor- 
responding members of Old Kingdom chapels 
or the side panels of a large false door. But this 
sobriety is more than compensated for by the 
wealth of information the relief provides on 

style, subject matter, technique, and color 
scheme, not to mention the inscriptions. These 
finally furnish an answer to many problems 
posed by the long-known texts of the Cam- 
bridge slab. The man is Tha-aset-imu, "Royal 
Herald," "King's Secretary," a contemporary 
of Nectanebo I. In the inscriptions he refers to 
a great personality who had lived a century 
and a half before his time, during and after the 
reign of King Amasis. This famous character 
was the "Master of the Antechamber," Iahmes- 
sa-neith, of whom a fragmentary statue (No. 
57) is also shown in the Exhibition. 

measurements: Height 126.8 cm. Width 34.7 cm. 
Thickness 17.8 cm. The dimensions of the Cam- 
bridge slab are, within a few millimeters, identical, 
even with respect to most details, such as the height 
of the lady, which is 47.5 cm. on the Brooklyn relief 
and 47.6 cm. on the slab in Cambridge. 

provenance: Mitrahineh (Memphis). 

bibliography: ZAS 84 (1959), p. 78, note 4. The re- 
lief in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum 5/1909, was 
published in W.M. Flinders Petrie, The Palace of 
Apries (Meniphis II) (London, 1909), pp. 13, 20-21, 
pi. XVII and XXV. 

comment: The Brooklyn and Cambridge door jambs 
— and their inscriptions, which have been studied by 
H. De Meulenaere and Jean Yoyotte — will be pub- 
lished in detail in a separate article. The texts are 
very difficult to understand, and the identity of the 
lady Semset (cf. BiOr 16 [1959], p. 224) on the re- 
verse of the Brooklvn relief and of the ladv Ankhet 
on the slab in the Fitzwilliam Museum has not yet 
been fullv explained. In addition to these two jambs, 
there is a third one (Berlin 15415 ) from another 
chapel, with a standing figure, facing left, which was 
published by Scharff, in ZaS 74 (1938), pp. 44-45, 
fig. 3 (where the Berlin number is given incorrectly); 
it shows a man wearing a serrated scarf, wrapped 
numerous times around chest and shoulder, some- 
what in the manner of No. 86. And finallv, a re- 
lief in Philadelphia (No. 88) probably also comes 
from a doorjamb. Only the Brooklyn-Cambridge 
pieces are decorated or inscribed on both sides. As 
for the use of these doorways, it must be assumed 
that thev led into real, adjacent rooms; otherwise the 
Brooklvn-Cambridge slabs would not be double- 
faced. The use of such rooms is yet to be studied; 
some information concerning it should be gained 
when the inscriptions have been fullv interpreted. 
Anthes (in ZAS 75 [1939], 30-31), in discussing the 
use of relief slabs such as that of Henat (Berlin 15414), 
proved that a theory proposed by Kuentz was un- 
tenable, but did not suggest specifically that such 
oblong blocks might be the lintels of doorways, 


which has now been stated on very good evidence by 
W. S. Smith (A.A.A.E., pp. 251, 287, note 60) with 
reference to Alexandria 380 and Paris, Louvre E. 
1 1377. For the use of sunk relief on one side and low 
relief on the other side of the same block, see lately 
Leclant, in Cahiers Techniques de VArt (Strasbourg) 
4 ( 1957), pp- 39-40, notes 93-94. For the wide scarf, 
see the Comment on No. 86; it seems obvious that 
the clothes worn under the scarf are those shown on 
the reverse, in the scene of Tha-aset-imu and Semset. 
For a sculpture in wood, wearing the non-serrated 
wide scarf, see Cairo C.G. 140, which, despite the 
fact that it was published by Borchardt (Statuen I, 
p. 103) as "Spatzeit" as early as 191 1, continues to be 
exhibited among the Old Kingdom statuary with 
obvious results (cf. OLZ 55 [i960], 19). Although 
the ring on Tha-aset-imu's hand in the Brooklyn re- 
lief is probably a signet ring, the corresponding ob- 
ject on the Cambridge slab is something entirely 
different, namely a cartouche-shaped seal surmounted 

by two feathers. The scene on the reverse is very 
curious, surpassed only by the corresponding repre- 
sentation on the Cambridge relief, where the Lady 
Ankhet suckles the man. Both scenes are modeled 
after well-established stock representations showing 
the king in the good graces of a goddess, but are 
very strange indeed in the decoration of a private 
chapel. The use of plaster and paint over low relief 
has the effect that the head of Lady Semset appears 
rather gross; that of Tha-aset-imu has fared a little 
better. His costume is of the type worn by No. 6y, 
for the wrap-around, see the Comment on No. 63. 
It is important to note that these garments, first 
found in the beginning of Dynasty XXVII under 
foreign influence, are in common use by the time 
this relief was made and have become thoroughly 
Egyptian. Since the man is facing left, the wrap- 
around has been reversed; in the relief Berlin 154 15, 
the serrated scarf has been reversed in a similar 


No. 75; PI. 72, Figs. 185-187. 


378-360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: Mr. Otto L. Spaeth, Neiv York, N. Y. 

Mottled diorite. 

The great pride which some Egyptians took 
in being in the good graces of their king induced 
them to decorate the entire upper portion of 
the back pillar of their statues with the full 
titulary of their sovereign, followed by the 
statement that the person represented in a given 
sculpture was honored before his ruler. Only- 
then does the main text referring to the indi- 
vidual begin, usually with an enumeration of 
his titles. The personality of Nectanebo I 
must have impressed many of his subjects 
deeply, for a number of persons in high stations 
inscribed their statues in this fashion during his 
reign. Of all the rulers of the last five hundred 
years before the Roman conquest, the name of 
Nectanebo I appears more frequently on pri- 
vate sculptures than that of any other king. 

In this statue of an anonymous courtier — 
merely the first few titles, denoting a man of 
high rank, are preserved — we have a fine ex- 

ample of this time-honored custom, and though 
the sculpture is headless and the part below the 
thighs, with legs, feet, and base, is also missing, 
it is still an impressive figure. The entire sur- 
face is well polished, except for the skirt below 
the belt, which has been left rough as if pre- 
pared for a layer of different material. The 
torso of the man shows pure tripartition; chest, 
rib cage, and upper abdomen have been worked 
out as separate entities and blended together 
without great differentiation. Both arms were 
hanging straight down by the sides, and the 
fists probably held emblematic staves. 

There are three columns of inscription on 
the main portion of the back pillar and one 
column on its left side. On its upper part, 
under the formerly trapezoid top, are an 
elongated "sky" hieroglyph surmounting the 
names and titles of King Nectanebo I and a 
brief inscription to the god Sopdu, "Lord of 


the East," before whom the subject of the 
statue was revered. 

measurements: Height 43.5 cm. Lower break, width 
23.8 cm., depth 18.2 cm. Upper break, width of neck 
8.5 cm., depth of neck only 8 cm., entire depth 13.5 
cm. Width of back pillar 10 cm. Intracolumnar 
width, column two 3 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably Saft el Henna. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: This flocky, grey-green to black diorite 
seems to be as typical for Saft el Henna and the 
reign of Nectanebo I as the grey-green breccia for 
Heliopolis and Nectanebo II (Glasgow oar-'i2; Paris, 
Louvre E. 17379). This diorite is the same material 
of which the head Berlin 8805 is made; alas, the two 
do not belong together, although the head is datable 
to the time of Nectanebo I. Interesting is the orna- 
mentation of the back-pillar top, with its pendant 
uraei supporting ankh signs and framing an inscrip- 
tion that ends with "Lord of Heaven." An almost 
identical motif appears on the back-pillar top of a 
statue of Nectanebo I himself in London (B.M. 
1013), which is made in the same diorite and also 
comes from Saft el Henna. Another trapezoidal 
back-pillar top from a private statue in Paris (Louvre 
E. 10783) offers an arrangement of the royal titulary 
of Nectanebo I comparable to that of the New York 
statue, except that it is more complete, comprising 

the five names of the king as against only three on 
our torso. Also Berlin 21596 deserves to be men- 
tioned in this connection; here again the back pillar 
of a private statue has a trapezoidal top with the 
cartouches of Nectanebo I, after which the main text 
begins. This arrangement occurs on occasion al- 
ready in Dynasty XXVI (Alexandria 409; Copen- 
hagen, N.C.G. 73; Paris, Musee Rodin 284), where 
the names of the ruling king precede the name of the 
private person who mentions his sovereign in the 
back-pillar inscription. With the introduction of the 
trapezoidal top, however, the layout of the inscrip- 
tions and the design of the decoration at the top 
become much more elaborate; one of the many ways 
in which Dynasty XXX showed distinct progress. 
Edouard Naville, writing in 1885, when he excavated 
at Saft el Henna, felt that "it is impossible not to be 
struck by the beauty of the workmanship [of the 
monuments of Nectanebo I and II] as well as by the 
richness of the material employed. Egyptian art 
undergoes a new resurrection more complete than 
under the twenty-sixth dynasty. There is more vigour 
in the style than at the time of the Psammetichi. . . ." 
(E. Naville, The Shrine of Saft el Hemieh [London, 
1887], p. 3). Though in his day the best of Saite 
sculpture had not yet been uncovered, Naville's ap- 
preciation of Dynasty XXX was excellent, and it is 
well worth while to read his paragraphs following 
the quotation given above. For another sculpture 
from Saft el Henna, see No. 52. 

No. 76; Pis. 72-73, Figs. 188-191. 


About 380-340 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Mottled dark grey granite. 

Owner: The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, N. Y '.; no. Inv. 10. 

There are many facets to the revival of early 
Saite art forms that took place in a resurgence 
of national consciousness under King Nec- 
tanebo I. Not the least among the forms that 
then returned to favor is the block statue, 
which in the course of the later Dynasty XXVI 
and of Dynasty XXVII had gradually been 
abandoned. With the fourth century we find 
in the south, at Thebes, a renewal of this 
statue type, executed in hard stone and appear- 
ing continuously in great numbers from then 
on until the end of the second or the beginning 
of the first century b.c. 

At the time of Dynasty XXX, however, the 
pose was no longer deemed appropriate for a 
high dignitary, and one cannot suppress the 
feeling that the Egyptians themselves may have 
considered it as something faintly archaic. Both 
types, the one with bare feet and the one with 
the feet covered by the garment, are revived 
simultaneously, but the proportions seem to 
have suffered, and the attitude — at least in the 
examples with short skirt and bare feet — no 
longer makes a convincingly relaxed impres- 
sion. It is probably not justifiable, however, to 
compare these later block statues too closely 


with the early Saite prototype, for, mutatis 
mutandis, they do represent a different era and 
a different approach to sculpture in the round. 

Because they were so frequently made at 
Thebes during the time of the Nectanebos, it 
has seemed desirable to include at least one of 
them in the Exhibition, though it does not 
show the vigor of the splendid sculptures pro- 
duced in the north under those rulers. This 
block statue from the Pierpont Morgan Library 
is fairly typical of the series, impressive in size 
and quality of workmanship and in very little 
else. The man represented crosses his arms, 
right over left, in the classical manner, the left 
hand lying flat, palm down, the right holding 
something not clearly identifiable. Wide wig, 
sharp, almost plastic eyebrows, long, narrowed 
eyes, and a short beard complete the picture of 
the figure, which is inscribed around the base 
and on the back pillar with an invocation of 
Amun-Ra on behalf of Thanefer, "God's 
Father, Prophet of Amun in Karnak," son of 
Nespa-medu (who had the same titles), and of 
the "Songstress of Amun-Ra," Khonsu-irdas. 
The orthography, in its clarity and simplicity, 
offers a fine example of Saite revival. 

With two statues of Thanef er's distinguished 
brother, Djed-hor, which came to light at Kar- 
nak early in the century and are now at the 
Cairo A4useum, we now have on hand three 
statues of one and the same generation, made in 
the same workshop at approximately the same 
time, to give a somewhat larger view of the 
efforts of the period. The variety these three 
sculptures offer shows that there was at least no 

stagnation under Nectanebo 1, even if Than- 
efer's statue turned out to be the least inspired 
of the lot. 

measurements: Height 45.5 cm. Height of face 5.5 
cm. Height of base 9.4 to 10 cm. Width of base 
17.5 cm. Depth of base, left 21.2 cm., right 20.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; undoubtedly Karnak. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: For the early Saite prototype of Thane- 
fer 's statue, see Nos. 30-32. In Dynasty XXX, how- 
ever, the garment is much less distinct, and it is not 
always clear whether the arms are meant to be bare 
or covered. Thanefer's beard is curious; it is set back 
so far from the chin that it appears to be merely a 
filler. In block statues of this type, there is some varia- 
tion, even among contemporary Theban sculptures, 
in the way in which the head sits on the block. Some- 
times the chin rests directly on the block; sometimes 
it is raised and supported by a beard; sometimes it is 
modeled freely, without the supporting beard. The 
position of the right hand also varies; it may hold a 
kerchief or even a bunch of flowers. The left hand, 
however, seems always to he flat, palm down, 
throughout the fourth century b.c. There is, of 
course, if compared with the classic examples, some- 
thing odd about the proportions. The depth of the 
base is greatly reduced in relation to the height of 
the statue. The two figures of Djed-hor, Thanefer's 
brother, are Cairo ^-L-'g and J.E. 37861. The latter is 
a block statue, similar to that of Thanefer; the former 
is a fine standing statue with wide wig, plain royal 
kilt, and emblematic staves in both fists. The torso 
modeling is exquisite, and only the wig and the ex- 
pression of the face betray the post-Persian date — 
that is, if one disregards the inscriptions which, 
though well carved, appear more crowded than their 
Saite forerunners. Perhaps the quality of this strid- 
ing statue of Thanefer's brother can be partly ex- 
plained by the fact that, to judge from the rich 
titulary of his sculptures, he was a much more dis- 
tinguished and perhaps more influential person than 


No. 77; PL 74, Figs. 192-194. 


About 370-350 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Dark mottled diorite. 

Owner: Wittehbacher Ausgleichsfonds, Munich (on loan at the Agyptische Staatssammlung 
Miinchen; Glyptothek no. 29). 

The classicism of the fourth century, 
prompted by the desire of Nectanebo I to re- 
vive the glories of the Sake age, produced an 
art, especially in the field of sculpture, that in 
many ways lastingly influenced the Romans 
more than three hundred years later and, 
through Roman imitations, has formed the taste 
and opinions of archaeologists studying Egyp- 
tian art in Italian collections almost to this day. 
These archaeologists have acclaimed many 
fourth century sculptures as "Sake," that is, as 
dating from the seventh and early sixth cen- 
turies b.c. There are a number of Egyptian 
statues in the Vatican collections, with heads 
restored in this "Sake" style, which actually 
imitate heads of Dynasty XXX. 

It is hardly surprising that one of the best 
pieces of this last-named period should have 
come to Munich by way of the Villa Albani 
in Rome. This is a male head with a valanced 
wig consisting of several hundred stylized, 
echeloned curls, which are arranged, like beads 
on strings, in rows issuing from an undecorated 
disc on the crown of the head. Thus is intro- 
duced a vertical conception, which does not 
exist in the Old Kingdom, where this wig first 
appears. In Old Kingdom examples, the rows 
of curls, though already echeloned, are ar- 
ranged in concentric circles around the wig, 
with more emphasis on the horizontal. In the 
Munich head the wig is rather long and bulges 
very little, quite unlike the similar wig on a 
statue in Brooklyn (No. 80) where the out- 
line approaches the globular. 

The face is placid and idealizing, well formed 
and somewhat bland. The eyebrows are straight 
and thin; the rims of the upper eyelids are out- 
lined. The left eye slants far more than the 

right. The tip of the nose has been restored, 
and in the process the adjoining portions seem 
to have been slightly reworked, so that the nose 
now appears much more attenuated than it 
originally was. The edges of philtrum and lips 
are unusually sharp, but cheeks, chin, and neck 
show hardly any modifications. The forehead 
is very low and deeply cut back below the wig, 
which leaves off abruptly, without transition to 
the face. As a whole it is an impressive head, 
uninspired so far as human features are con- 
cerned, but imaginative in the use of the un- 
usual wig, which completely covers the ears. 
The top of the back pillar, of trapezoid 
shape, shows in sunk relief the figure of the god 
Osiris-Anedjty of Busiris, facing right, before 
whom the man represented in the head was 
honored — so much at least can be made out 
from the inscription below, of the four col- 
umns of which only the very beginning has 
been preserved. Apart from the features of the 
face and the archaistic wig, it is the representa- 
tion of the single deity on the back pillar that 
most strongly suggests a date in Dynasty XXX. 

measurements: Height (exclusive of the restoration 
on the neck in front) 22.5 cm. Height of face 12.2 
cm. Width 19.6 cm. Depth of break at neck 18.3 
cm. Width of back pillar 12.7 cm. Intracolumnar 
width, columns one and three 2.3 cm., columns two 
and four 2.1 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Busiris (Delta). 
Formerly in the collections of Cardinal Alessandro 

bibliography (selective): A. Furtwangler, Ein Hun- 
dert Tafeln nach den Bildwerken der Koniglichen 
Glyptothek (Munich, 1903), pi. 5. A. Furtwangler, 
Beschreibung der Glyptothek Konig Ludwig's I. zu 
Miinchen (2d ed.; Munich, 1910), pp. 32-33, no. 29. 
Bissing, Denkm., pi. 67-68. Paul Wolters, Fiihrer 
durch die Glyptothek Konig Ludwig's I. zu Miinchen 
(Munich, 1928 and 1935), pp. 8-9, no. 29. Spiegel- 


berg, in ZAS 64 (1929), pp. 74-75. Bosse, Menschl. 
Figur, p. 71, no. 190. Kunsthalle Basel, Scbaetze 
Altaegyptischer Kunst; i-j. Juni— 13. Sept. 1953 
(Basel, 1953), p. 62, no. 167. Bieber, The Sculpture, 
p. 92, fig. 350. 

comment: This is a much-traveled head, which 
originally probably graced the Egyptian collection 
of the Emperor Hadrian at his villa near Rome. 
Centuries later, it formed part of the vast museum 
assembled by the Cardinal Alessandro Albani at his 
villa in the outskirts of Rome, from which Napoleon 
took nearly three hundred sculptures to Paris. In 
18 1 5, when these pieces were restituted to their 
owner, some of them had to be sold, since the cost 
of transportation back to Rome was too high, and 
thus the head of the anonymous servant of the god 
Osiris-Anedjty was acquired by the later King 
Ludwig I of Bavaria for his newly founded museum 
of ancient sculpture, the Glyptothek of Munich. 
Probably in Roman times the head had been placed 
on a female draped torso, from which it was removed 
not long ago, although it had been recognized for 
some time as representing a man and not belonging 
to the body. The piece at the front of the neck is a 
restoration, and so is the tip of the nose. The nose, 
reworked in the course of restoration, lends a strange 
expression to the head, especially as seen in profile. 
The undecorated disc on top of the wig is found also 
on the head of the Dattari Statue (No. 80), the 
Continent on which should be compared for a brief 
discussion of heads of this type. The generally verti- 
cal arrangement of the rows of curls prevails also in 
early Saite sculpture (London, B.M. 1682), which 

affords a prototype for heads such as this one from 
Munich, but since there are great differences be- 
tween the two styles, it is doubly curious that the 
Munich head should have been regarded as Saite for 
so long. It was finally Spiegelberg who proposed a 
date in Dynasty XXX, although he came to this con- 
clusion in a rather roundabout, and probably falla- 
cious, way. For the representation of Osiris-Anedjty 
with his typical headdress, see Cairo C.G. 7001 1, of 
the time of King Amasis. The single figure of a god 
on the back-pillar top, which occurs only briefly, is 
also found on No. 83, and the two pieces cannot be 
very far apart in date — the Munich head coming 
from the north and the Brooklyn head from the 
south. Yet these two heads show wide divergencies, 
symbolic of the many diverse trends expressed in 
sculpture of the fourth century. The close affinity 
between the relief style of Nectanebo II and that of 
Ptolemy II has been frequently pointed out (BMFA 
51 [1953], p. 5). Taking details of the face of the 
Munich head, such as eyebrows, eyes, and the root 
of the nose, and comparing them with the corre- 
sponding parts of the statue of Ptolemy II in Rome 
(Vatican 27), one is indeed struck by the resem- 
blance; if both were preserved only as fragments it 
would be hard to state which was of the third and 
which of the second century. All this merely points 
up the complexity of archaistic trends. It is essential, 
however, at least to distinguish the sculpture of 
early Dynasty XXVI from that of Dynasty XXX, 
for works of the two periods should no longer be 

No. 78; PL 75, Figs. 195-196. 


About 365 b.c; Dynasty XXX. Indurated, veined limestone. 

Oivner: The Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Md.; no. 51.257. 

There is only a limited amount of informa- 
tion to be gleaned from egg-shaped heads of 
the idealizing type of the fourth century b.c. 
Some of them are better than others — in a few 
the mouth shows an individualistic touch — 
but commonly they are rather uninspired. 
Nothing would be gained by including in this 
Exhibition another sculpture of an ordinary 
type, such as this head from the Baltimore Mu- 

seum of Art, were it not that its back pillar 
provides several quite valuable data. 

Only the upper portion of the pillar is pre- 
served; it is of the trapezoidal shape introduced 
after the end of Dynasty XXVI, with the field 
divided into two parts. Despite the damage, 
there is no doubt that a bull with sun disc, fac- 
ing right, stood on the base line of the trape- 
zoid; on the right was probably a figure of the 


statue's subject, worshiping the sacred animal. 
The upper part of the trapezoid is rilled with 
three lines of inscription bearing on the scene 
below, which are complete in themselves and 
thus do not necessarily form the beginning of 
the main text, which must have been inscribed 
on the long back pillar, now lost. These three 
lines state that a certain Wen-nufer, one of 
whose titles is "Servant of Neith," was "Re- 
vered by Hapy-Sokar-Osiris, the great god, 
lord of Shethyt," etc.; so the bull represented 
must be the Apis Bull of Memphis, which indi- 
cates the provenance of the sculpture. It so 
happens that there is preserved the lower part 
of a standing statue of this same Wen-nufer (to 
which this head cannot belong because it is in a 
different material), which contains in the text 
a reference to King Nectanebo I, thus offering 
proof that the Baltimore head must also date 
from Dynasty XXX. 

This head, then, tells us that as early as Dy- 
nasty XXX the trapezoid back-pillar top was 
fully inscribed, that the later very frequent 
scene of worship before a single god already 
occurred in the reign of Nectanebo I, and that 
the scene can be captioned above by a text of 
several lines, well before the Ptolemaic Period. 
Still, back-pillar tops of this shape were occa- 
sionally left without inscription and decoration 
until late in the Ptolemaic Period. 

measurements: Height 20 cm. Width 12.6 cm. 
Depth of break 16.3 cm. Depth of back pillar (slant) 
8.4 cm. Width of break at neck 8.4 cm., at back of 
neck 6.6 cm., at rear of back pillar ca. 1 1 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Memphis. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The nose is modern; as restorations go, it 
has been done very well. The back pillar is very 
deep and decreases noticeably in width from the rear 
toward the neck. This indurated kind of limestone, 
now of creamy-grey color, was frequently employed 
from the fourth century on — frequently, consider- 
ing that limestone as such was little favored in com- 
parison with harder stones. The forehead is fairly 
high; the eyebrows are sharp, but not plastic; the 
rim of the upper eyelid is outlined and drawn over 
at the outer corners. There is no philtrum. The 
mouth curves upward; the corners are drilled and 
appear to be open. Wen-nufer, in addition to being 
a "Servant of Neith," which may indicate that he 
hailed from the Fayum, was mer-sesh khe?ity-wer, 
for which see Posener, Premiere Donrination, p. 8. 
The other sculpture of Wen-nufer is the lower por- 
tion of a granite naophoros, Alexandria 20959, the 
texts of which clearly indicate a Fayum provenance 
and name his parents— Djed-bastet-iuf-ankh and 
Shedet. These persons also appear as parents of a 
Wen-nufer with a different title on the statue Turin 
3028, but it is impossible to state at present whether 
it represents the same man. Since only Wen-nufer's 
Alexandria statue is dated by the cartouche of 
Nectanebo I, it is of course not proved that the 
Baltimore head was made in that king's reign; it 
may have been fashioned a few years later under 
Nectanebo II. Perhaps the missing statue to which 
the head belongs will some day be found to provide 
the answer. 

No. 79; PI. 75, Figs. 197-198. 


About 360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo.; no. 215:54. 

Grey to black schist. 

The memory of the Saite Dynasty played a 
decisive role in the second quarter of the fourth 
century b.c, when sculptures in the round 
were once more produced in great numbers in 
studios all over the Nile Valley. Much of 

what was, from an Egyptian point of view, the 
most valuable contribution of Dynasty XXVI 
was revived, adapted, and even imitated. One 
type current in sculpture of the late seventh 
and early sixth century B.C. seems especially to 


have attracted the Egyptians of this later age — 
the delicate, youthful face, represented in this 
Exhibition by examples such as Nos. 27 and 46. 
The sculptors of Dynasty XXX even tried 
to improve upon this type — not always with 
happy results — but when they struck a bal- 
ance between adaptation and innovation they 
succeeded in modeling some fine faces, one of 
which is shown here in a head from the City 
Art Museum of St. Louis. This head cannot 
be mistaken for a work of Dynasty XXVI; the 
wig is much too large for the face and rises too 
steeply above the forehead to belong to the 
pre-Persian period, but in the contour of the 
almond-shaped eyes and in the softness of the 
cheeks, a good deal of the prototype is re- 
flected. On the other hand, the faint plasticity 
of the eyebrows and their transition to the nose 
are strictly of fourth century style, and the 
distinct line marking the front border of the 
wig, which does not blend into the forehead, 
is actually characteristic of Dynasty XXX and 
the centuries following it. 

measurements: Height 10.2 cm. Width 10.4 cm. 
Depth 8.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Thebes. For- 
merly in the J. Lionberger Davis Collection. 

bibliography: Part II of the Notable Art Collection 
Belonging to the Estate of the Late Joseph Brummer 

(Sale Catalogue, New York, Parke-Bernet Galleries, 
11-14 May, 1949), pp. 4-5, no. 21 (illus.). Bulletin of 
the City Art Museum of St. Louis, XXVII, nos. 2-3 
(*95 2 )» P- 2 7> no. no (erroneously identified as no. 
109 in the illustration). 

comment: Strictly speaking, the wig is not a wide 
wig, but a mixture of wide wig and bag wig, such as 
often occurs in the fourth century b.c. The main 
reason, however, for attributing the head to Dynasty 
XXX is found in a close parallel, the head of a statue 
made for the brother of our No. 76, Djed-hor 
(Cairo 2 4 -f-^), which is datable to the reign of 
Nectanebo I or a little later. Although the cut of 
Djed-hor's wide wig is much purer than that of the 
St. Louis head, the two pieces can be compared on 
several points, not the least of which is the scale, 
since they are almost identical in size. The back 
pillar of the St. Louis head ended just where it met 
the wig, a feature found also in the Cairo statue of 
Djed-hor and a number of other sculptures datable 
to the middle of the fourth century b.c. (cf. No. 
80). The great height of the wig above the fore- 
head, noticeable also in some block statues of post- 
Persian, pre-Ptolemaic date (Cairo J.E. 36945, 
37354), may be based on a general tendency prevail- 
ing at Thebes in this period, when bald-headed 
statues, too, have unusually high foreheads (New 
York, M.M.A. 17. 120. 145). In the New York statue 
— and in numerous other examples of the time, in- 
cluding the St. Louis head — the eyebrows form an 
even curve, which is interrupted by the root of the 
nose without transition. The manner in which the 
forehead is cut back to meet the wig, resulting in a 
wig edge of visible depth, is already evolved during 
the later Persian Period (Boston, M.F.A. 35.1484). 
It is one of the tell-tale signs of post-Saite sculpture. 

No. 80; PI. 76, Figs. 199-200. 


About 365 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y .; no. 52.89. 

Black diorite. 

As recently as twenty years ago, expert 
opinion — and to a large extent that of the edu- 
cated public — looked with ill-concealed hor- 
ror upon Egyptian sculpture of the Late Pe- 
riod. Almost everything created after the end 
of the New Kingdom was considered decadent, 
and forms of modeling which did not follow 

classical standards were pointed to as signs of 
decline. It was as if the Egyptians ought to 
have continued, ad iiifinitum, the style of a par- 
ticularly acceptable period, thus saving the 
specialist the trouble of mapping the develop- 
ment that inevitably takes place in art forms 
with the passage of time. "Decadence" and 


"decline" are, as we now have come to realize, 
only relative conceptions. As evaluations they 
appeal to the purist; as terms of critical judg- 
ment they are quite worthless. 

The sculpture known as the "Dattari 
Statue," which here appears for the second 
time in a Brooklyn exhibition, had made the 
round of the major museums and collectors for 
a number of years before it was acquired by 
the Museum. The reason why it was not im- 
mediately picked up when it first appeared in 
the market is today hard to understand. It 
probably aroused suspicion, not because it was 
considered a forgery, but because it was held 
to be hybrid and lacking in that unity of form 
and style which is considered the essence of a 
work of art. That there are now quite a num- 
ber of experts who consider this statue a great 
work of art, who will not dispute that it shows 
unity, and who regard it as an outstanding 
piece of sculpture, proves how quickly taste 
and understanding change, even among such 
conservatives as scholars usually are. 

The fine youthful face — admittedly, and in 
keeping with one of the artistic tendencies of 
the time, without much individuality — seems 
to be divided into two halves by an imaginary 
line running from the middle of the forehead 
to the point of the chin. From this line, the 
forehead slopes noticeably toward the temples, 
and the lips toward the tips of the ears. The 
ears themselves are entirely covered by a val- 
anced wig with stylized, echeloned curls, which 
follows the line of the cheeks much more 
closely than does that of the Munich head (No. 
77), with the result that, in contour, it is al- 
most globular. Its roundness is not even inter- 
rupted by the back pillar, which (again unlike 
No. 77) terminates at the nape of the neck. 

While the face offers the picture of ideal 
youth with a faint "smile" about the lips, the 
torso and arms present a far from conventional 
aspect. More than any other statue of its size, 
this sculpture has tension and strength, ex- 
pressed in superbly modeled muscle and flesh. 
Even if the head were missing, the torso would 

remain a little masterpiece of the sculptor's art, 
for in it the vigor of the male body is captured 
in forms of almost sensuous appeal. The two 
hands really grasp the emblematic staves and 
hold them firmly. 

The back pillar is very deep; its top ends 
horizontally. On it are three columns of in- 
scription, headed by the divine triad, Amun, 
Mut, and Khonsu, in squatting position. 
Though these are the main gods of Thebes, 
there is no doubt that the statue originated in 
the north, where the same triad was worshipped 
in numerous places. Although the second col- 
umn contains several priestly titles, the name of 
the man represented is lost, together with the 
lower portion of the statue. The inscription 
employs archaistic forms and, in the third 
column, some curious writings, which point to 
the time of Nectanebo I as the most likely pe- 
riod in which the statue could have been made, 
and this date agrees well with other stylistic 
features of the sculpture, such as the wig and 
the classical attitude without naos or divine 

measurements: Height 5 1.2 cm, Height of face 5.4 
cm. Width 16.7 cm. Depth at left knee 14 cm. 
Width of back pillar 5.9 cm. Intracolumnar widths 
( 1 ) : r.5 cm., (2) and (3): 1.6 cm. each. 

provenance: Not known; probably the Delta. For- 
merly in the collection of Giovanni Dattari. 

bibliography: Collections de feu M. Jean P. Lambros 
cTAthenes et de M. Giovanni Dattari du Caire. An- 
tiquites egyptiennes, grecques et romaines (Sale Cata- 
logue, Paris, Hotel Drouot, 17-19 June, 19 12), p. 36, 
no. 291, pi. XXVII-XXVIII. 1LN, vol. 223, no. 5973 
(October 10, 1953), p. 563. The Brooklyn Museum, 
Five Years of Collecting Egyptian Art, 1951-56 
(Brooklyn, 1956), pp. 14-15, no. 14, pi. 30-31. AfO 
18 (1958), p. 437, note 1. ZAS 84 (1959), p- 78, note 4. 

comment: The name "Dattari Statue" was given to 
the sculpture because of its first owner. The valanced 
wig with numerous curls was not, as is generally 
assumed, influenced by an Old Kingdom model, but 
bv a coiffure fashionable in the early part of Dynasty 
XXVI (see No. 16), the period from which the 
sculpture of the reign of Nectanebo I took a great 
deal of inspiration. For similar heads with the curly 
valanced wig, cf. No. 77, Nantes E. 195, San Jose 
1643, and a head in Padua (Museo Civico), although 
basically the wig of the Dattari Statue, with its globu- 
lar form, is unique. The nose has suffered a slight 


damage on the bridge, but is ancient throughout and 
nowhere restored. The edge of the upper lids is 
outlined. The face, though not quite as broad, is 
reflected in later heads such as Cairo J.E. 46341 of 
the time of Philip Arrhidaeus. With its high polish 
and swelling forms, the torso obviously follows the 
standard set for the statuary of Nectanebo I (Lon- 
don, B.M. 1013; Paris, B.N.; Rome, Vatican 13). 

Though it clearly shows tripartition, a faint median 
line is visible in the right light, as in the royal 
sculpture of the time. It is interesting to compare 
the modeling with that of No. 81, which is of Theban 
origin and should be of about the same period, but 
is much more subdued in its modeling. For the deep 
back pillar, ending horizontally and very low, cf. 
Baltimore, W.A.G. 150. 

No. 81; PL 77-78, Figs. 201-202, 204. 


About 360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. Black basalt or diorite. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 08.202.1. 

The reign of King Nectanebo I (378-360 
B.C.) of Dynasty XXX has left numerous mon- 
uments which bear testimony that a conscious 
effort was made, after a quarter of a century 
of civil strife and disorder, to revive the mem- 
ory of the early Saite Period, by that time 
considered to be something of a golden age. 
This renaissance is reflected in the archaistic 
language and epigraphy of numerous inscrip- 
tions of the period and in many other ways, 
one of which is the sudden reappearance of the 
striding male statue in the classical tradition, 
with short, pleated kilt and emblematic staves 
in the clenched hands. 

Strange as it may seem, this type of figure 
without attributes had all but disappeared from 
the repertory in the sixth century; the few 
standing statues of the Persian Period, which 
were made without a naos or the figure of a 
god before them (cf. No. 68), are always 
dressed in a long garment hiding the body from 
chest to ankles. It is as if the Egyptians had 
acquired a prudish streak under foreign domi- 
nation. However this may be, it is almost im- 
possible to gain a clear picture of the develop- 
ment of modeling of the male torso for the 
period between Amasis and Nectanebo I, be- 
cause even such kneeling statues as have been 
preserved, with or without an overgarment, 

are nearly always encumbered by a naos con- 
cealing the better part of the body. 

In comparison with the sensuousness that 
marks tripartite torso modeling toward the 
end of the sixth century, the forms presented in 
this figure of Ankh-pa-khered are surprisingly 
modest and restrained. Chest, rib cage, and 
abdomen are well indicated as individual units, 
but the transition from one to the other is 
invariably soft, and one can even detect a faint 
median line after early Saite fashion. The head 
is truly egg-shaped, and not the faintest hint at 
the skull's bone structure has been attempted. 
Thin plastic eyebrows and cosmetic lines, a 
straight nose and small mouth complete the 
picture of dignified, formal reticence, which 
characterizes so much of the sculpture of this 

Ankh-pa-khered was a "God's Father, 
Prophet of Amun in Karnak, idenu of the 
House of Amun of the First Phyle." His father, 
Nesmin, also was a "God's Father," and his 
mother, Tady-aset-dy-ankh, a "Singer of 
Amun-Ra." The texts on left side and rear of 
the back pillar and on top of the base contain, 
in addition to the names and titles, funerary 
prayers and the so-called Address to the Living. 
They follow early Saite style with fair ac- 
curacy, except for a few typically fourth cen- 


tury writings. The back-pillar top, too, is 
somewhat anachronistic in such a classicistic 
statue, for it is of a trapezoidal shape which 
did not exist in Dynasty XXVI. The rear of 
the back-pillar top does not lie in the same 
plane with the main part of the back pillar, as 
if the sculptor had not been quite sure of the 
prototype to be followed. 

measurements: Height 58.9 cm. Height of base 4.8 
cm. Width of base 15.3 cm. Depth of base 27.1 cm. 

provenance: Not known; undoubtedly Karnak. 

bibliography: BMMA 3 (1908), p. 223, fig. 6. 

comment: The statue was broken in two across legs 
and back pillar and has been mended. A small por- 
tion of the left foot and of the left side of the back 
pillar is restored. The family of Ankh-pa-khered is 
known from other sources. His brother, Horsiese, 
has left a block statue now in Cairo ( 2 4-\- 1 l), and one 
Nesmin, who could be either the father or the son of 
Ankh-pa-khered, has a block statue in Glasgow (Bur- 
rell Collection) and a papyrus in Paris (Louvre E. 
3096). The text on the base is copied, if not from 
our No. 44, at least from a statue close to it, includ- 
ing the formula peret nebet her udehu-ef, etc., 
which was very popular in early Saite times (Bologna 
181 2; Cairo J.E. 36665) and was frequently reused in 
the fourth century (No. 76; Paris, Louvre N. 1572). 
The fact that the Saite formula is not followed by 
maa-kheru, is typical for the early part of Dynasty 

XXVI. This formula appears on the Cairo statue of 
Ankh-pa-khered's brother in a strange variant, which 
also occurrs on No. 38. The texts of this statue of 
Ankh-pa-khered contain some of the alphabetical 
writings for which the Naucratis Stela of Nectancbo 
I (Cairo J.E. 34002) is well known: e.g., ny in col- 
umn three of the inscription on the left side of the 
back pillar. The texts, however, are not quite as 
classicistic as those of certain other Karnak statues 
of the time of Nectanebo I (Cairo J.E. 37354 and 
37861), and thus it seems best to assume that the 
sculpture was made at the end of the king's reign or 
at the beginning of that of Nectanebo II. Since there 
exist practically no statues from Karnak that are 
dated by cartouches of Nectanebo I, this sculpture 
and that of its subject's brother constitute a kind of 
fixed point in the maze of post-Persian statues, so 
hard to classify. Another fixed point, so far as 
Thebes is concerned, is Cairo J.E. 37075, the statue 
of Iahmes, which must have been made at about the 
time of Alexander the Great. For the exuberance and 
vitality of tripartite torso modeling in the sixth cen- 
tury, see Cairo C.G. 784 and London, B.M. 16041. 
The revival of that style in the fourth century B.C. 
resulted in a number of variations with drastic or 
subtle changes which are difficult to define. Their 
wide range points out the strength of this renaissance 
of Dynasty XXX, which set a pattern followed for 
nearly three centuries. Thus the reign of Nectanebo 
I proved artistically as fertile as that of Psamtik I, al- 
though not all aspects of Saite revival are aestheti- 
cally as harmonious as the torso of the statue of 

No. 82; PI. 78, Fig. 203. 


About 360 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 199.14. 


The impressions of the art of Dynasty XXX, 
given by surviving monuments from the time 
of the two Nectanebos, are highly diverse. On 
the one hand are formal temple sculptures, 
stelae, and reliefs from the great royal sanc- 
tuaries; on the other, are a series of doorjambs 
and relief-decorated lintels from private chap- 
els, which, in their liveliness and stylistic free- 
dom, are in striking contrast to the official 
monuments of the period. 

Among these private documents is a relief 
from Cleveland, which, although it repeats 
with some variations a scene represented on 
slabs in Alexandria and Baltimore (No. 87), is 
the only nearly intact one of its kind in the 
Western Hemisphere, being preserved almost 
to its base line. As has long been recognized, it 
forms the right-hand portion of a relief in 
Berlin, representing a seated man, facing right, 
before whom a harpist plays his instrument; a 


rooster, still a strange bird in Egypt at the time, 
stands between them. Only the rounded back 
of the harper remains at the left of the Cleve- 
land relief. Behind him stands a woman in a 
long coat, who plays a barrel drum suspended 
by a cord from her neck. Then comes a floral 
arrangement on a stand, followed by a lightly 
clad girl who plays a lyre; behind her, at the 
right edge of the block, is a bird beating its 
wings and trying to maintain a precarious bal- 
ance upon a bundle of reeds. 

From the Berlin piece, we know the name 
of the man wearing a serrated shawl such as 
shown on Nos. 86 and 87, for whom the or- 
chestra is playing: he is called Hap-iu. Though 
the style of the inscription points to the early 
Sake period, the figures give the lie to such a 
date. It is obvious that we have here another 
monument of the fourth century that recalls 
the style of early Dynasty XXVI. From the 
spaciousness of the arrangement, one would 
conclude that this relief is earlier than that 
from Baltimore (No. 87); but it undoubtedly 
comes from the same locality. Though the 
ladies' figures show a certain voluptuousness, 
they are treated with far more restraint than 
are those on certain other post-Persian reliefs. 
One is inclined, therefore, to attribute the 
Berlin-Cleveland fragments to the reign of 
Nectanebo I rather than to that of his successor. 

measurements: Height 27.3 cm. Width at top 32 
cm., at bottom 34.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Heliopolis. From 
the John Huntington Collection. 

bibliography (selective): The Cleveland Museum of 
Art, Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition, June 6- 
September 20, 1916 (Cleveland, 19 16), p. 212, no. 
80 (illustrated edition: p. 212, no. 80; p. 339). Caro- 
line Ransom Williams, in JEA 5 (1918), pp. 280-284, 
no. 23; pi. XXXIX. Schafer, Gewand, p. 204. Capart, 
Documents I, pp. 69-70, 81; pi. 94. Bissing, in 

BVBKAB 4 (1929), p. 10. Porter-Moss, Top. Bibl. 
Ill, p. 224. Scharff, in ZAS 74 (1938), pp. 42 if., pi. 
Ill; and in Misc.Greg., p. 202, note 49. Macadam, 
Kaiva II, pp. 43 and 244. Wolf, Kunst, pp. 640 and 
642, fig. 686. H. Wild, in Kush 7 (1959), p. 78, 
note 7. 

comment: For such lintels in general and for the 
doorways which they may have surmounted, see the 
Comments on Nos. 74 and 87. C. R. Williams, in the 
initial publication of the Cleveland piece, suggested 
that the outline at the left break might be the back 
of a harpist, a suggestion taken up by Scharff in 
publishing the harpist relief, Berlin 23001; he assumed 
that the latter formed the missing left side of the 
Cleveland relief, and W. S. Smith (A.A.A.E., pp. 
252 and 287, note 63) confirmed it. With No. 87 
and Alexandria 380, we have here a third relief of 
approximately identical composition: a group of lady 
musicians, led by a seated harpist, performing before 
the principal figure who is seated at left, and there 
is no doubt that all three reliefs are Heliopolitan, 
made within one generation, and that their inscrip- 
tions hark back to early Saite times; viz. the de- 
terminative of the seated man on the Berlin fragment. 
The name, Hap-iu, too, is already attested in the be- 
ginning of Dynasty XXVI, although, at that time, it 
is not very common. A great deal has been written 
about the costume of these ladies, their ornaments 
and musical instruments, and thus they warrant only 
a few additional remarks. No explanation can be 
offered for the costume of the lady drummer be- 
yond what others have said; in view of the Kushite 
origin of her instrument, her stole, necklace and ear 
pendants are probably also of Sudanese provenance. 
The close-cropped curly hair, on the other hand, is 
in the Egyptian tradition (cf. No. 90). As for the 
hair ornament, the Cleveland relief shows that the 
lotus flower has no connection with the broad band 
in the figure on the left, and on a relief in Paris 
(Louvre E. n 148) a little girl — perhaps a maid ser- 
vant—carries such an object in her hand. C. R. 
Williams explained the plant form between the two 
large papyrus umbels as a lotus leaf; Keimer, in OLZ 
28 (1925), 465 and note 1, favors a closed papyrus 
bud; perhaps it and the "lily pad" on No. 87 are 
actually identical. The coiffure of the girl on the 
right occurs many times on fourth century reliefs. 
As there are no stone sculptures of women before 
the second half of the century (cf. the Comment on 
No. 92), one has to turn to bronzes (Louvre E. 
1 1556) to find parallels in the round. 


No. 83; PI. 79, Figs. 205-206. 


About 360-340 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 55.175. 

Green schist. 

Few heads from ancient Egypt can be called 
portraits in the fullest sense of the term; this 
green head in the Brooklyn Museum is one of 
them. Here, great sculptural skill has endowed 
a man's likeness with the lasting expression of 
a strong personality, has captured, with sparing 
means, the inner being of an anonymous 

The face is an unwrinkled mask of skin, 
stretched tightly over the framework of the 
bones. The rise of the triangle formed by the 
root of the nose separates the two sharp eye- 
brows. The ridge of the nose is thin, but the 
wide-open nostrils betray a sensitivity that is 
offset by the firm, thin-lipped mouth with 
slightly drooping corners, characteristic of 
strength and determination. The eyes are 
partly closed; an incised line separates the eye- 
lids from the brow. All parts of the face — 
eyes, nose, and mouth — have a life of their 
own, and they add up to the picture of a 
strangely complex individual, who was prob- 
ably an outstanding figure in the life of his 

The skull is broad and squat, with just 
enough indication of the anatomy to show 
that it was not modeled after a standard type. 
The incised line around the base of the neck 
may mark either the edge of a close-fitting 
garment or a string from which an amulet was 
suspended. The top of the back pillar, trape- 
zoid in shape, is decorated with a seated figure 
of the god Osiris, on whose throne is incised a 
bird, the hieroglyph for "great." Underneath 
is the beginning of two columns of inscription 
naming Amun-Ra and Monthu, the two main 
deities of Karnak. 

measurements: Height 15.3 cm. Height of head 
only 10.8 cm. Width 10 cm. Depth 12.7 cm. Width 

of break 10 cm. Depth of break (horiz.) 8.4 cm. 
Width of back pillar 6.6 cm. Intracolumnar width 
4.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; perhaps Karnak. Formerly 
in the Jameson Collection (through Nahman in Cairo 
and Bing in Paris). 

bibliography: Exposition de sculpture . . . organisee 
par M. Arthur Sambon (Paris, 16 March-16 April, 
1928), p. 9, no. 16; pi. 7. Paris, Musee des Arts 
Decoratifs, Exposition Egypte-France (October- 
November 1949), no. 57. Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 
XVIII no. 1 (Fall 1956), pp. 17 and 18. The Brook- 
lyn Museum, Five Years of Collecting Egyptian Art, 
1951-1956 (Brooklyn, 1956), pp. 13-14, no. 13, pi. 
28-29. G. Posener et al., Dictionnaire de la civilisation 
egyptienne (Paris, 1959), p. 275 (illus.). 

comment: Whereas heads with realistic features 
from the end of Dynasty XXV (No. 8), the begin- 
ning of Dynasty XXVI (Nos. 19 and 23), and the 
Persian Period indicate the repeated attempts to 
endow a face with some individuality within the 
limits of a formula, there occurs in the fourth cen- 
tury — after a few isolated forerunners datable to 
Dynasty XXVII (Nos. 65 and 67) — the real break- 
through, of which this head in the Brooklyn Museum 
is by far the best example. No Achaemenid or 
Greek influence was needed to create this portrait; 
it is purely Egyptian, evoking memories of the great 
portraits of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. 
For the squat type of skull, see the Comment on No. 
84. The mannerism of the eyes is, of course, tradi- 
tional and occurs throughout the Late Period down 
to the first century B.C. (No. 127). If the incised line 
at the neck forms the edge of a coat, it must have 
been a garment like that of Nos. 72 and 74. It is more 
likely, however, that this line represents the cord of 
an amuletic pendant, for which there are quite a 
number of parallel cases in the fourth century alone, 
prior to the Ptolemaic Period (Berlin 21596; Cairo 
C.G. 682; Louvre E. 17379; Moscow 5320; Rome, 
Vatican 163). It has by now been well established 
that the trapezoidal back-pillar top, like the one of 
this Brooklyn head, was introduced in the Persian 
Period; in Dynasty XXVII, however, it is undeco- 
rated (No. 65). A number of well-dated examples of 
Dynasty XXX (Berlin 21596) have the beginning of 
the inscription on the trapezoid, and at that period 
the figure of a single deity appears in the same place 
as on this Brooklyn head on a small number of pieces 


(No. 77; Brussels E. 4993; Paris, Louvre E. 10973). 
Another sculpture of Dynasty XXX (Paris, Louvre 
E. 17379) has two gods at the top of the back pillar, 
and a statue in Cairo (C.G. 682) representing the 
same man shows him worshiping a single deity. Since 
scenes of several deities, with or without a wor- 
shiper, are frequent from Dynasty XXX on, it seems 
that the representation of the single deity is re- 
stricted to the time of Dynasty XXX. The image of 

Osiris with the bird on the seat may be a rebus-like 
writing of Wesir-wer, "Osiris, the Great," known 
from Greek sources as "Osoroeris." This name could 
possibly be also that of the person portrayed in the 
Brooklyn head. It has been suggested, however, that 
the seat encompassing the iver-bhcd might indicate 
the name of the repository of the sacred barque at 
Karnak (Otto, Topographie, p. 23). 

No. 84; PI. 80, Figs. 207-209. 


About 360-340 b.c; Dynasty XXX. 
Owner: Dr. Robert Waelder, Haverford, Pa. 

Brown-grey mottled diorite. 

From the latter part of the sixth century b.c. 
idealizing heads without a wig are usually rep- 
resented as shaven, and the skull is formed like 
a large egg without any modeling to indicate 
the underlying bone structure. A sizeable num- 
ber of such "egg heads" have been preserved, 
and they hardly ever show any individuality. 
At first glance this sculpture in mottled diorite 
might be placed into the same class were it not 
for two distinct features. First, the head is 
rather squat in comparison with the common 
"egg heads," and second, the face is clearly not 
a type, but a curious mixture of the traditional 
and the individual. The small pointed nose is 
lightly upturned; the mouth is broad, and only 
the right corner is drilled; finally, the head is 
gently turned to the left in relation to the back 
pillar — in other words, there are definite traces 
of an unusual approach on the part of the 
craftsman. It is hard to say whether an attempt 
at true portraiture is intended; all one can es- 
tablish for the time being is that the head is 
without any close parallels, that it definitely is 
far superior to the well-known idealizing heads 
of the fourth century b.c, and that, whatever 
the artist's intention, it is not a true portrait, 
since the personality of the model — if there 
ever was a model — is not fully brought out. 


Yet it is an uncommon face, and the fact that 
eyebrows and eyes were inlaid must have given 
it a lively appearance in antiquity. The back 
pillar is uninscribed. 

measurements: Height 18 cm. Height of face to 
top of eyebrows 8 cm. Width 13.6 cm. Width across 
ears 11 cm. Depth 13.3 cm. Depth of break 9.2 cm. 
Width of back pillar near break 6.6 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: This mottled diorite of brown-grey color 
is very rare in the Late Period; it may come from the 
same quarry as No. 75 and Berlin 8805 (the best 
known "egg head" of the fourth century b.c, errone- 
ously often attributed to the Saite Period). The type 
of the squat bald head of the "classical" period 
of Dynasties XXV-XXVI is best represented by 
Cairo C.G. 42243 (a brother of Mentuemhat) and 
Cairo J.E. 37416 (a vizier of King Psamtik I). 
Many features of this period reappear in the sculp- 
ture and inscriptions of Dynasty XXX and the dec- 
ades following it. The dating of this head is at 
present based on circumstantial evidence, at least so 
long as no close parallel has been found in an in- 
scribed sculpture. Eyebrows and eyes with inlays in 
hard-stone sculptures are not known in private statu- 
ary before the fourth century, and though there are 
a number of instances when one or the other is 
shown to have been inlaid, only two examples come 
to mind in which both eyebrows and eyes were 
originally so treated (Baltimore, WAG 210 and 
Bordeaux 1255), and they date from the end of the 
Ptolemaic Period or from early Roman times. For 
squat idealizing heads there are a number of parallels 

in Dynasty XXX (Louvre E. 17379). In this piece, 
however, the shape of the back pillar is most unusual. 
The width of its uninscribed rear plane does not 
diminish toward the top, the top itself is beveled, and 

the upper portion of the pillar hugs the back of the 
neck so that the skull extends over it; the closest 
parallels for these details are furnished by No. 83 and 
by Alexandria University 1299. 

No. 85; PI. 81, Figs. 2 10-2 1 1. 


About 360-330 b.c; Dynasties XXX-XXX1. 

Owner: Albright Art Gallery, Buffalo, N. Y .; no. 42: 16.281. 

Red granite. 

Among the numerous idealizing heads of the 
fourth century b.c. is a type that cannot be 
classified as egg-shaped or round; it cannot 
even be designated as squat, for the forehead 
is too highly domed. This group is best rep- 
resented in the Western Hemisphere by a 
granite sculpture from Buffalo. Like heads 
from other type groups of the period, it is 
anything but a portrait. It shows a man who 
was identified only by the inscription on his 
statue, not by any individual facial traits. All 
that one can say of him is that the sculptor has 
given him rather handsome features and a 
pleasant expression. 

The eyebrows under the high forehead are 
straight and well defined, but not truly plastic. 
The upper rims of the eyelids are outlined; 
the eyes are unequal in size. The nose, fortu- 
nately intact, is that of a youth, with neatly 
contoured nostrils but without much charac- 
ter. The mouth, competently modeled, turns 
up slightly at the corners. The nearly rec- 
tangular trace left by the missing back pillar 
shows that it ended fairly high at the back of 

the head and that it must have been of trape- 
zoid shape. The breaking or chiseling away 
of the pillar results in a peculiar outline of the 
skull as seen in profile. 

measurements: Height 19 cm. Width at ear level 
12 cm. Width of break at neck 7 cm. Width of back 
pillar at break 6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Lower Egypt. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The fact that the back pillar reached to 
well above ear level points to a date in the middle or 
second half of the fourth century b.c. From Berlin 
7737, Paris, Louvre E. 17379 ana< other pieces on 
which the head is intact, one can infer that the 
Buffalo sculpture was not made at Thebes, but at 
Memphis or in the Delta. Red granite was rarely 
employed for sculpture after the Persian Period, and 
thus it has not been possible to find a comparable 
statue in this material, though at Richmond, Va. 
(51-19-5) there is a head in red and black breccia of 
approximately the same size and style, with the nose 
damaged and now restored. There the back pillar 
ends fairly low, but its rear portion is destroyed, too, 
with the result that the inscription is lost. One will 
have to wait until a complete statue with a head of 
the Buffalo type turns up intact before coming to 
any definite conclusions regarding time and place of 


No. 86; PL 8 1, Figs. 212-213. 


About 360-330 b.c; Dynasties XXX-XXXI. 

Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Schimmel, New York, N. Y. 


An Egyptian standing stone figure without 
back pillar is so unusual that it deserves closer 
examination, even if, as in the case of this 
statuette from the Schimmel Collection, the 
head is missing. Here, however, "missing" 
does not quite apply; for the sculpture was 
made without a head and was never meant to 
have one. 

These are indeed ambiguous statements, and 
one must hasten to add that this statuette is one 
of those rare sculptor's models (see No. 69), 
which were carved as studio pieces, either to 
serve as guides in the execution of a sculpture 
or sculptures on a larger scale, or as examples 
to be used in the training of apprentices and 
helpers. Be that as it may, the neck was never 
worked out, but has a guide line running from 
front to rear engraved on top, and where one 
would expect the ankles and feet under the 
long coat, an approximately round portion of 
the stone has been left as a base. The left arm, 
too, is absent; one might take the curious pro- 
jection at the left of the chest to be an indica- 
tion of the forearm, but in that case the elbow 
would seem to lie far too high. 

The strangest part of the figure is, however, 
the costume. It consists of an undergarment, 
indicated by a round line at the neck in front 
and rear, and a sleeved jacket with V-neck. 
Then there is a long skirt reaching almost to 
where the ankles would be if there were any 
legs; this skirt, which has an overlap on the 
right, is probably the wrap-around discussed in 
the Comment on No. 63. Over all this clothing, 
the man wears a broad shawl, deeply serrated 
at the lower edge. To judge from the multiple 
folds on the right side of the chest, the shawl 
must have passed several times around the 
body, going over the left shoulder, across the 


back, and returning to the front under the right 
armpit, finally to end at the left, just short of 
the elbow, where it was held in place by the 
left arm or pinned to the wrap-around. 

The origin of this serrated shawl, which is 
always wrapped around the left shoulder, is 
not yet well established. There is no doubt 
that it first occurs in post-Persian times; the 
earliest dated examples are the door jambs in 
Cambridge and Brooklyn (No. 74) of the time 
of King Nectanebo I, where, however, it does 
not have any serrations. Regardless of its ori- 
gin, there are enough representations of this 
shawl in relief and sculpture during the fourth 
century to look upon it as having by that time 
become a native costume enjoying wide popu- 
larity. The limestone figure from the Schim- 
mel Collection is the only representation in the 
round in the Western Hemisphere in which 
the costume appears in this form. 

measurements: Height 23 cm. Width at arm level 
9 cm. Depth at lower garment edge 6.4 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Memphis or 
Lower Egypt. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: The "base" of the figure, under the coat 
edge, has incised guide lines on the bottom and at the 
back. For sculptor's models of the Late Period, see 
No. 69. The absence of the back pillar on stone 
statues generally denotes that they were models, but 
toward the end of the Ptolemaic Period, and espe- 
cially in the first century a.d., a few temple statues 
and statuettes were made without back pillar (Nos. 
124 and 128). On the other hand, single wooden fig- 
ures of the Late Period only vary rarely have back 
pillars (Paris, Louvre E. 122), though a broad, stela- 
like back slab is common in wooden group sculptures 
(London, B.M. 32731, 41516). A great deal has been 
written about the problems presented by the cos- 
tume shown here and by other garments of the last 
four centuries b.c The literature has lately been 
summed up by Strieker, in OMRO 40 (1959), pp. 
io-ii, although he is primarily concerned with the 

garments worn in the Ptolemaic Period and not with 
this early version of the serrated shawl (for which 
see Scharff, in ZaS 74 [19381, pp. 44-45). That the 
shawl, with or without serrations, may have been 
based on a good Egyptian costume (cf. the relief of 
Pabasa; Smith, A.A.A.E., pi. 181) has already been 
suggested; the frequent attempts (BIFAO 30 [1931], 
pp. 217-218) to derive it from a Greek ("Mace- 
donian") garment have generally been refuted. The 
shawl is really a separate broad band, rather than part 
of a wrap-around with serrated edge, as is made clear 

by a relief in Paris (Louvre E. 11377), where the 
shawl hangs loosely over one shoulder of the main 
figure and is not wrapped around the body. Since 
the subsidiary figure of a man on the same relief 
wears only a long garment with overlap, it is cntirclv 
evident that the shawl and the overlapped skirt are 
really two different garments, which was not under- 
stood by Snijder {Mnemosyne 7 [1939], pp. 247-248) 
when he tried to explain the costume of Louvre E. 
1 1 4 14 as a single garment. 

No. 87; Pis. 82-83, Figs. 214-218. 


About 350 b.c; Dynasty XXX. Limestone. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. n.^-j (W.A.G. no. 273). 

In the course of the fourth century B.C., 
there were made at Heliopolis a group of re- 
liefs in the form of an oblong lintel with torus 
molding and cavetto cornice, on which un- 
usually gay scenes are depicted. An incom- 
plete example of this type of relief has long 
been in the Walters Art Gallery without at- 
tracting much attention, and since it has more 
than passing interest it has been included in this 

The main figure is that of a man seated at the 
left, facing a procession of companions who 
entertain him with music. In its arrangement, 
the relief is very much like several others on 
which there are a seated harpist and a group 
of women playing different instruments. Re- 
cent cleaning and new photography have re- 
vealed also on the Baltimore relief a harpist with 
badly damaged head, who had not previously 
been observed. The host of the musicians is 
identified as the "Divine Wine Steward of 
Heliopolis," Pady-ir . . . (the rest of his name 
is missing). He wears the broad scarf with 
serrated edge, wrapped several times around 
his chest and shoulder. His short hair is con- 
toured in such a way as to leave no doubt that 
it is beginning to recede above his temples. In 

his raised hand he holds a bouquet of flowers, 
and in front of him there remains the top of 
a formal flower arrangement, on which a pied 
kingfisher perches. The inscription which fol- 
lows belongs to the standing man facing the 
main figure. It reads: "The excellent wine 
steward of drunkenness, Pady-(pep?) . . . 
May the Golden One (the goddess Hathor) 
give you drunkenness every day . . . love of 
drunkenness for Pady-nubet." The text is not 
easily understood, since the lower portions of 
all three columns are missing, and thus the 
identity of the man following the text is in 
doubt. But the reference to Heliopolis and to 
the goddess Hathor ("Goddess of Drunken- 
ness" is one of her well-known epithets) make 
it sufficiently clear where the relief came from 
and to whose cult the people named on it were 

The second man wears a scarf without ser- 
rations over an undergarment with multiple 
folds. As with the main figure on the left, his 
neckline is marked by two folds under the chin. 
Behind him, are the upper portion of a triangu- 
lar harp and the almost effaced head of the 
harpist who — to judge from numerous paral- 
lels — was probably represented as blind. 


Above the harpist is written, "Playing the 
harp." Then follow three lady musicians. The 
first one carried a drum in the shape of an 
elongated barrel, on a broad band slung around 
neck and shoulder. The second, facing in the 
opposite direction, is playing the lyre, and the 
third (on the analogy of similar scenes) must 
have plucked a lute. The coiffure, ornaments, 
and garments of these musicians are so close to 
those on the relief from Cleveland (No. 82) 
that they need not be explained here. Though 
fragmentary, the well-carved slab has such a 
delightful subject that the loss of the lower 
portion and of the right end is doubly re- 

measurements: Height 17.8 cm. Width 57 cm. 
Height of standing man to left of break 4.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; undoubtedly Heliopolis. 
bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.EgSc.W.A.G., p. 80, 
pi. LVI, no. 273. 

comment: Reliefs in this style have often been called 
"Neo-Memphite" (cf. JWAG 19-20 [1956-1957], p. 
35). Due to recent progress in the study of relief 
work of the Late Period, this term has gradually be- 
come meaningless and should no longer be employed. 
The Heliopolitan origin of this and other similar re- 
liefs is quite obvious. Even some formerly attributed 
to Memphis have been proved to come from Helio- 
polis (CdE 29 [1954], pp. 278-280); their style reflects 
anything but Memphite work of the Old Kingdom. 
Moreover, the confusion created of late by attribut- 
ing fourth century reliefs to Dynasty XXVI (BIE 20 
[1938], pp. 241 ff. Arts asiatiques 1 [1954], pp. 51 ff.; 
cf. Smith, A.A.A.E., p. 287, note 54) is such that 
"Neo-Memphite" has become a stock label for all 
sorts of relief work from Dynasty XXVI to the 
Ptolemaic Period, which obviously deprives it of any 
chronological meaning. Since there are now available 
for stylistic comparison a number of well-dated re- 
liefs from Dynasty XXVI to the middle of Dynasty 
XXVII (Baltimore, W.A.G. 274-275), the develop- 
ment is clear enough to make a distinction between 
pre-Persian and post-Persian work. Whatever ar- 
chaistic trends occur in post-Persian representations 
and inscriptions, they reflect early Saite style rather 
than that of the Old Kingdom. Since this distinction 
between the two prototypes has often been over- 

looked, it should be repeated that the style of Dynasty 
XXX goes back to that of Dynasty XXVI and not to 
that of the Old Kingdom. For the use of lintels such 
as this one from Baltimore, see the Comment on 
No. 74, and for similar scenes with musicians, No. 82 
and Alexandria 380. The costume of the seated man 
at the left has been discussed under No. 86. His 
facial type is based on a tradition which is handed 
down, via a Baltimore relief (W.A.G. 274-275), from 
the end of Dynasty XXVI (Berlin 15414). He holds 
in his hand a lily with two lily pads. The flower- 
and-bird arrangement before the principal figure has 
only one parallel — the Tha-nefer relief (Alexandria 
380; Bissing, Denhn. 101 ), where a heron, not a king- 
fisher, perches on the flowers. These flowers are 
papyrus umbels and bulrush buds. Bissing claimed 
that the bulrush (Cyperus alopecuroides) did not 
exist in Egypt before Alexander, but this claim has 
been refuted by C. R. Williams (JEA 5 [191 81, p. 
282) and others. Bulrush buds in this peculiar form 
occur first on post-Persian reliefs such as this (see 
also Bissing, Denkm. 102 a) and in profusion, a few 
decades later, in the tomb of Petosiris (ed. Lefebvre, 
vol. Ill, pi. 35, second row, far left and far right). 
The undergarment of the standing man, facing left, 
shows a series of folds quite different from the 
superimposed edges of the broad scarf worn by the 
principal figure. It therefore appears to be a kind of 
singlet supported by a halter over one shoulder, such 
as is occasionally shown in sculpture, e.g., on the 
magnificent sarcophagus lid in London (B.M. 90) 
with an effigy modeled three-quarters in the round. 
The man on our relief wears over the singlet the 
scarf without serrations as on No. 74. We are in- 
debted to Miss Dorothy K. Hill for discovering and 
pointing out to us the head of the harpist. For the 
angular harp, see BIE 35 (1953), p. 341, fig. 37 B #13, 
and passim. The female musicians are discussed under 
No. 82. From the inscription, a date in the reign of 
Nectanebo II rather than Nectanebo I is favored by 
H. De Meulenaere. 

addendum: Just before the above went to press, 
it was noticed that both the undergarment with 
folds worn by the two men and the narrow shawl 
without serrations on the shoulder of the man facing 
left occur in nearly life-size Cypriote statues in New 
York (M.M.A. 74.51.2458, .2459, .2461, .2469). They 
are datable to the fifth century B.C., to a time when 
Cyprus, like Egypt, was dominated by the Persians. 
This connection opens up an entirely new approach 
to the problem of cross-influence, though the idea 
that the costume is of Persian origin cannot be 


No. 88; PL 83, Fig. 219. 


About 350-340 b.c; Dynasty XXX. Limestone. 

Owner: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; no. E. 143 16. 

The changes in Egyptian relief style through- 
out the Late Period are still largely unexplored. 
Although a good deal has been written on the 
subject, the available material has not been 
nearly so well surveyed as that furnished by 
sculpture in the round. The stylistic devel- 
opment of relief in Upper Egypt down to the 
end of the sixth century B.C. is fairly well 
known from a series of dated stelae and tombs, 
but for Memphis, Heliopolis, and the Delta 
hardly any pieces of fixed date exist, so that 
there is but meager support for the chrono- 
logical arrangement of the majority of isolated 
reliefs, with and without known provenance. 

This limestone slab from Philadelphia is a 
case in point, and the date suggested above 
should be considered as very tentative. Despite 
the uncertainty regarding the time when it 
was carved, it seemed desirable to include it in 
the Exhibition, if only to present an archaistic 
style, different from that of Nos. 82 and 87. 
Two columns of inscription — too fragmentary 
to offer much of a clue to the contents of the 
complete text — surmount the figure of a stand- 
ing man, facing right, holding a long staff in 
one hand; the other arm probably hung straight 
at his side. He wears a baggy or wide wig, and 
around his neck is a composite broad collar. 
The eyebrow, though it appears to be plastic, is 
actually fashioned by a single incised line; the 
rim of the upper lid is contoured, and the tear- 
duct is extended onto the nose. The corners of 
the mouth curve upward in a so-called smile, 
which is reflected almost as a smirk in the face 
of the little figure forming part of the inscrip- 
tion above the man. The inscription shows also 
two other fine hieroglyphs, a scarab beetle and 
an owl, both rendered with infinite care and a 
manneristic interest in detail. 

In the modeling of the signs and of the figure 
of the man, who was probably the owner of 
the tomb chapel from which the relief came, 
and in the spaciousness of the composition, 
there is evident a sense for form and balance, 
which is a far cry from slavish imitation of a 
"classical" model. One can only hope that 
some day other slabs from this chapel will be 
found, so that the relief decoration may be 
evaluated on the basis of more than this single 
attractive fragment. 

measurements: Height 27.2 cm. Width 29.3 cm. 
Present depth ca. 3.8 cm. Intracolumnar width 11.1 
cm. Height of the man's figure 11.2 cm. Height of 
hieroglyph of squatting man 6.1 cm. 
provenance: From the Delta; perhaps Buto. Ac- 
quired in Cairo in 1926. 

bibliography: H. Ranke, The Egyptian Collections 
of The University Museum (Philadelphia, 1950) = 
University Museum Bulletin, Vol. XV, Nos. 2-3, pp. 
71-72, fig. 44. R. Anthes, Aegyptische Plastik in 
Meisteriverken (Stuttgart, 1954), p. 16, pi. 46. 

comment: Both sides and top of the slab show 
ancient cuts; bottom and back have been more re- 
cently sawed. It probably formed part of a com- 
posite doorway, with standing figures of the tomb 
owner on either side, surmounted by a lintel with 
relief decoration (cf. Smith, A.A.A.E., p. 251). For 
a complete door jamb, though monolithic, see No. 74 
(also Berlin 15415). In a way, the bust of the man 
reminds one much more of Theban work of the 
seventh century (e.g. Aba; Thebes 36) than of Lower 
Egyptian relief of the Saite Period, although the 
intention of the craftsman to follow the style of 
Dynasty XXVI seems clear. That the Philadelphia 
fragment does not belong within the range of north- 
ern relief from Harbes (temp. Psamtik I) to Henat 
(temp, late Amasis to early Dynasty XXVII) is 
obvious. The offering bearers on Henat's relief in 
Cairo (24+8) furnish good examples for valanced 
wig, stance, and modeling, late in the sixth century. 
On the other hand, a relief from Buto (Cairo J.E. 
46591) shows in the figure of its owner, Hor-hetep, 
and the large, well-spaced inscription in front of 
him, a great deal of stylistic affinity, and furthermore 
the detail of the "Horus" hieroglyph on that relief 


is so close to that of the "owl" sign in the Philadel- 
phia relief that both seem to have been designed by 
the same hand. The Butic relief may be of Dynasty 
XXX, when a revival of early Sake themes, pre- 
sumably as a reaction against the Persian domination, 
was very much in fashion — in the written language 
as well as in sculpture in the round (No. 76). Al- 
though it cannot be stated with absolute certainty in 
what decade the Philadelphia relief was made, its 
attribution to the fourth century, before Alexander, 
is not to be doubted. It is perhaps not without inter- 

est to note that the "smirk" of the little man is repro- 
duced exactly in the hieroglyphic signs forming part 
of cartouches of King Nectanebo II (Brooklyn 
57.21.4; Munich, Ag. St. 1 3 1 3 ). Although the "smile" 
is well attested in sculpture in the round of Dynasty 
XXVI (No. 29), it does not appear in reliefs of that 
dynasty or even in those of the most advanced style 
of Dynasty XXVII (Baltimore, W.A.G. 274-275). 
The peculiar way in which the little man's upper 
arms cover one another is also based on a Saite model 
(Cairo J.E. 38825). 

No. 89; PL 84, Figs. 220-222. 


About 350 b.c; Dynasty XXX. Red breccia. 

Owner: The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, III.; no. 13953. 

The pose of the kneeling male without at- 
tributes, the hands flat on the thighs, is less 
frequent in post-Persian times than in Dynasties 
XXV-XXVI, and yet it is so completely re- 
laxed an attitude that one wonders why it was 
not more often employed. It seems almost as 
if it had come to be considered old-fashioned. 
If that was the case, its use in the fourth cen- 
tury might indicate one of the many archaistic 
trends of that period — about the last in which 
the pose appears in Egyptian sculpture in the 

The date of this statue in the Oriental Insti- 
tute has long constituted a puzzle. It might 
well be regarded by the casual observer as a 
Saite piece. It has been included in this Exhi- 
bition, however, precisely because it is not 
Saite, not even of the Persian Period, but is one 
of those cleverly archaistic sculptures made in 
the decades between the end of the Persian 
regime and the arrival of Alexander the Great 
in the Nile Valley. Though the man wears 
what we commonly call a wide wig, the wig is 
really not as wide as one would expect in a 
Saite figure, although the lower corners jut out 
from the shoulders as was customary early in 
Dynasty XXVI. Furthermore, the front edge 

of the wig does not blend smoothly into the 
forehead; on the contrary, the forehead is cut 
back so that the wig's border stands out, a 
sculptural convention first observed toward 
the end of Dynasty XXVII and then occur- 
ring more and more frequently in the fourth 
and third centuries. The face is idealizing, 
well formed and pleasant, and could almost 
pass for Saite were it not for the narrow eyes 
and their lack of plastic brows and cosmetic 
lines. The body is well modeled; with its 
strong, round forms it reminds one of the 
"Dattari Statue" (No. 80), although it lacks 
the refinement of the latter. It shows triparti- 
tion to a marked extent — quite possible in the 
latter part of Dynasty XXVI, though at that 
time one would not find the wig with project- 
ing corners. 

The inscription consists of one column on the 
back pillar and a line around the base, and not 
much can be learned from either one. The 
former contains the so-called Saite formula 
for the "God's Father and Prophet of Amun- 
in-Karnak, Iret-horru," in suspiciously pure 
form, and the latter consists of the most com- 
mon of offering pleas in Iret-horru's behalf, 
where he is identified as the son of a prophet, 


whose name is now illegible, and of Ta-ketem. 
The simplicity of the language, which is in- 
tentionally classical, is not quite borne out by 
the way in which the signs are written — an- 
other indication that this is an archaistic work. 
One additional feature — the material — 
makes a date in the fourth century, and spe- 
cifically in the second part of Dynasty XXX, 
virtually certain. Breccia, like quartzite and 
alabaster, is one of the stones rarely employed 
for sculpture in the Late Period, and the ma- 
jority of the pieces in which it is used can be 
attributed to the time of Nectanebo II, whose 
own sarcophagus is made in this stone. Until 
compelling reasons for a different attribution 
can be found, we do not hesitate to assign the 
Chicago statue to his reign. 

measurements: Height 36 cm. Height of base 4.8 
cm., width n cm., depth 17.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Karnak. 

bibliography: John A. Wilson, The Burden of 
Egypt; An Interpretation of Ancient Egyptian Cul- 
ture (Chicago, 195 1 ), fig. 32b, facing p. 237; =z The 
Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1956), fig. 32b, 
facing p. 237. 

comment: The statue was broken in two at about 
waist level and mended; the right arm is partly re- 
stored. For the way the wig juts out back of the 
shoulder, see for instance No. 27, of early Saite date. 
The characteristic sharp edge of the wig over the 

forehead may also be noticed on No. 76. The face 
of the Chicago statue is actually quite fine, and 
though it differs stylistically from similar heads of 
earlier millennia, it is neither more meaningful nor 
emptier than many faces in the great mass of con- 
ventional undistinguished sculptures of the Old, Mid- 
dle, and New Kingdoms. It should be noted that the 
back pillar ends just below the edge of the wig and 
stands out from the latter; this too may be an ar- 
chaistic feature. The name Iret-horru was still used in 
Ptolemaic times, when in Greek it becomes "Inaros." 
As for breccia in sculpture of the Late Period, it is 
thus far known from less than twenty heads and 
statues. The study of this and other rare stones em- 
ployed in statuary would be rewarding. Here it 
should be noted only that breccia seems not to have 
been used for sculpture in Dynasties XXV-XXVII, 
but that a number of pieces — all made in the grey- 
green type of breccia and originating in Heliopolis 
— are datable to the time of Nectanebo II or at least 
to Dynasty XXX (Brussels E. 4993; Hanover 
1935.200.523; Paris, Louvre E. 10973, E. 17379). R- e d 
breccia is extremely rare; at present only one other 
sculpture (Aberdeen 1394) comes to mind. The 
sarcophagus of Nectanebo II, in the same material, is 
in London (B.M. 10). Inscriptions in breccia are 
often barely legible, and since there is no evidence 
that they were brought out by means of colored 
paste or the like, one might well ask if a special 
symbolism were not attached to this stone, and if 
imbedding the text into it was not more important 
than rendering the inscription legible. In any case, 
such "secretiveness" is not known in pre-Persian 
sculpture, on which inscriptions were always made 
so as to stand out in a readable manner. For other 
kneeling statues without attributes see, Nos. 37, 52, 
and 91. 

No. 90; PI. 85, Figs. 223-225. 


About 330-290 b.c; Macedonian or Early Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 30.8.90. 

Green Faience. 

The elaborate coiffures of Egyptian ladies 
as shown in sculpture and relief are usually as- 
sumed to be wigs. At least some of them must 
have been, for similar wigs, carefully packed 
for eternity, have been found in Egyptian 
tombs. One cannot be as certain, however, 
about sculptures showing girls or women with 
short hair. There appears very frequently in 

the Late Period a "bob" enclosing the head 
like a cap, which bulges over the ears and is 
covered with tiny ringlets, indicated rather 
dryly by echeloned rectangles. 

A minute head from the Metropolitan Mu- 
seum of Art wears such a "bob," which may 
represent the natural hair of this charming lit- 
tle person in faience — the only piece made of 


this typically Egyptian material in the Exhibi- 
tion. The girl depicted, to judge from the de- 
pressed nose and tiny chin, seems little more 
than a child, but plastic brows and cosmetic 
lines show that her narrow eyes were heavily 

To try to guess who or what she was, leads 
into the realm of pure fantasy. Considering 
the small size and the material of the piece, she 
might be a survival (rare in the Late Period) 
of the servant figurines that, from time im- 
memorial, had been placed in tombs to accom- 
pany the dead into the future world. Perhaps 
she was one of those sloe-eyed girl musicians, 
such as are shown in reliefs entertaining their 
lords in the hereafter (Nos. 82 and 87). Her 
coiffure is one that often occurs on the ar- 
chaistic reliefs of Dynasty XXX, as well as on 
those of the Macedonian and early Ptolemaic 
periods. Chiefly in the fourth century, it is 
found on female sculptures in wood and — 
strangely enough — in stucco. It is, accord- 
ingly, to the transitional time between the last 
of the pharaohs and the first of the Ptolemies — 
the Macedonian Period — that we have assigned 
this delightful relic of the past. 

measurements: Height 4 cm. Width above the ears 
3.7 cm. Depth 3.9 cm. Width of break at neck 
1.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Formerly in the Theodore 
M. Davis Collection. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: This coiffure seems to occur first in the 
round at the end of Dynasty XXVI in bronzes and 
wooden figures (Gulbenkian Collection 17; London, 
B.M. 415 16), when it is still very flat on top of the 
head and bulges only slightly around the ears. It is 
never found in relief during the seventh and sixth 
centuries B.C.; Louvre A.F. 1681 is really a good deal 
later than is indicated in Arts asiatiques 1 (1954), 
pp. 44 ff. The earliest datable relief (middle to sec- 
ond half of Dynasty XXVII) on which this coiffure 
occurs is probably Baltimore, W.A.G. 275, where, 
however, the surface is smooth and the curls are not 
indicated. In addition to the archaistic reliefs of 
Dynasty XXX, the reliefs of the Macedonian and 
early Ptolemaic periods, and the sculptures in wood 
and stucco already mentioned, it appears also on a 
few heads in stone (London, B.M. 57355; New York, 
M.M.A. 26.7.1401); the curls on these also are some- 
times not indicated. This coiffure undoubtedly has 
a male forerunner, often shown in Middle Kingdom 
sculpture (Cairo C.G. 42004; Leipzig 2906). The 
hair of the Lady Takoushit in Athens is dressed in 
a different style, covering the ears. The fashion of 
the "bob" worn by the little faience girl seems to 
have died out at the beginning of the Ptolemaic 
Period, some time in the course of the third cen- 
tury B.C. 

No. 91; PI. 85, Figs. 226-227. 


About 340 b.c; Dynasty XXXI. 

Owner: The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 111.; no. 10.243. 

Dark grey steatite. 

Unlike their forefathers of the classical 
Egyptian periods, private persons, to judge 
from their statues, wore simple costumes from 
the close of the Third Intermediate Period un- 
til the end of Dynasty XXVI. A long skirt 
might occasionally be pleated (No. 3), but on 
the whole ornamentation in male garments was 
kept to a minimum, and with one exception no 
jewelry was ever worn. During the Persian 

Period, those who adopted the foreign costume 
with sleeves went in for more elaborate dress 
and even sometimes wore a torque and brace- 
lets (No. 64). In the fourth century simplicity 
again prevails, although the fashion of the 
Persian Period left some traces, and — in relief 
at least (Nos. 74 and 87) —the garment with 
the serrated scarf brought in a note of vanity 
hitherto unknown. And then, all of a sudden, 


we have a statuette such as this one from 
Chicago with a stylized necklace, the so-called 
broad collar. How did this come about? 

There is no obvious answer to this question, 
and in order to avoid embarrassment, it might 
have been easier — as in the case of several 
other sculptures in this Exhibition — not to 
select the piece for showing at Brooklyn. But 
figures such as this, so incongruous and out of 
the ordinary, have an appeal which makes one 
want to place them before a wider public, in 
spite of the fact that they do not fit into any 
known category or follow the accepted rules 
for a period. 

To begin with the period — one has only to 
glance at the hair to realize that the statue 
does not belong to the time when a striated 
coiffure was fashionable, that is, to Dynasty 
XXV, or Dynasty XXVI down to the end of 
Necho's reign. There is something odd about 
the tabs in front of the ears, and especially 
from the back, the striated wig is mechanical 
and awkward. The body also is badly propor- 
tioned; but it is useless to dismiss the statuette 
as a provincial piece of no consequence, be- 
cause the inscription on the back pillar, sur- 
mounted by a "sky" sign, is well written and 
expertly carved. From it we learn that the 
man represented was Wesir-nakht, who, ac- 
cording to his titles, was attached to the an- 
cient sanctuary of Buto in the northern Delta, 
and whose father, Hor-hotep, bore a Butic as 
well as an Athribite title. The Delta was a 
lively region in the fourth century B.C., to 
which the epigraphy of the inscription points, 
and not an out-of-the-way place. Even grant- 
ing that a poor craftsman fashioned the statu- 
ette, it must have been made for a person of 
some consequence. 

As we have seen, the attitude of the kneeling 
worshiper without attributes, the hands flat 
on the thighs, occurs fairly regularly from the 
seventh (No. 37) to the fourth century (No. 
89), but strangely enough there is not a single 
example which is dated — or can be dated on 
the basis of sound evidence — to the Ptolemaic 

Period, and this in spite of the large and 
varied body of inscribed sculpture which was 
created in the last three centuries of Egypt's 
independence. Therefore — if one does not 
want to consider this statuette the one excep- 
tion which proves the rule — it can hardly be 
attributed to the time after Alexander the 
Great. Thus it must have originated in the 
previous period, and there comes immediately 
to mind the archaistic trend of the fourth cen- 
tury, for which there are so many examples in 
the reign of Nectanebo I and, to a lesser de- 
gree, of Nectanebo II. 

As an archaistic work the statuette makes 
more sense; the awkwardness of form and 
proportions, the very attitude, and the long- 
outmoded coiffure explain themselves as inten- 
tional — the figure was meant to look "ancient." 
Since the striated wig occurs in early Saite 
times until the reign of Necho II (No. 44), 
the statuette may well have attempted to recall 
the style of the beginning of Dynasty XXVI. 
But at that period the striated wig did not 
have tabs in front of the ears, and a broad 
collar was modeled in sculpture only once and 
then for a prince of royal blood (Cairo C.G. 
42204). We therefore are in the dark as to 
the prototype the sculptor had in mind. Since 
good archaistic work of Dynasty XXX is 
known, and since both Buto and Athribis were 
religious centers of great prominence, it seems 
best to attribute the figure to Dynasty XXXI, 
the troubled time of the Second Persian Domi- 
nation, when Egypt once again lost her inde- 
pendence. Especially the Delta was badly 
ravaged by the invader for nearly a decade, 
and it is quite possible that the Chicago figure 
was made at just about that time. 

measurements: Height 16 cm. Height of base 1.4 
cm., width 6 cm., depth 7.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Buto (Delta). 

bibliography: Thomas George Allen, The Art Insti- 
tute of Chicago; A Handbook of the Egyptian Col- 
lection (Chicago, 1923), pp. 58-59 (illus.). 

comment: For other kneeling figures without attrib- 
utes, see No. 89. The disappearance of this pose 
toward the end of the fourth century is one of the 


many unexplored problems concerning the sculp- 
ture of that era, especially since the Ptolemaic Pe- 
riod was in many ways archaistically inclined, and 
one might expect such an ancient attitude to have 
been appealing to the sculptors of that time. It 
should be noted that the figure leans forward and 
that the back pillar consequently decreases in depth 
from the shoulders down; also that it ends well be- 
low the edge of the wig, which is undercut all the 
way around the back of the shoulders. The broad 
collar (wesekh) of course occurs frequently in pri- 
vate statuary from the early Old Kingdom on, but 
though it is found on private bronzes (Baltimore, 
W.A.G. 588) and in private relief (No. 88) of the 
Late Period, it does not appear to have been used in 
stone sculpture, except in the one case already cited 
(Cairo C.G. 42204). Since the subject of this sculp- 

ture was a member of the royal family, he perhaps 
followed the custom of the kings, who frequently 
are shown in statuary with a broad collar (Cairo 
C.G. 694 and 939). The striated wig of Dynasties 
XXV-XXVI never has tabs in front of the ears; 
No. 23 cannot be cited as an exception, because it 
is so distinctly an unusual piece. In this connection 
a kneeling osiriphoros in London (B.M. 48037) should 
be mentioned; it, too, is an archaistic piece, and its 
striated coiffure is even odder than that of the Chi- 
cago figure. Wesir-nakht's titles are "Hery-pe, 
wer-wadjty, imy-akhet, Prophet of Horus-on-his- 
papyrus," whereas his father, Hor-hotep, was hery-pe 
as well as hebes-diu. For the name of the mother, 
Tady-aset-per-mes, "She-who-is-given-by-Isis-of-the- 
Mammisi," see BiOr 16 (1959), p. 224. 

No. 92; PI. 86, Figs. 228-230. 


About 330-300 b.c; Macedonian Period. 

Owner: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, Va.; no. 55-8-13. 

Grey -green schist. 

That this Exhibition is devoted to a large 
extent to male sculpture is simply because (as 
has been briefly mentioned) the Egyptians all 
but ceased to make stone sculptures of women 
at the beginning of the sixth century b.c. and 
with very few exceptions limited their statuary 
to representations of men. Things changed, 
however, in Ptolemaic times, when, as we know 
from well-inscribed sculptures, a lady who 
could afford to do so might have her likeness 
rendered in stone. Just when was this custom 

A fine, fragmentary statue of a woman from 
the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts may fur- 
nish the answer to this question, though it does 
not bear an inscription. It represents a lady 
in a large wig, bound with a fillet which is tied 
in back with a knot sculptured three-quarters 
in the round. Long, thin plastic eyebrows and 
cosmetic lines enhance the beauty of her small, 
well-shaped, slightly protruding eyes. Her 
face is broad, her neck and bosom ample. 


Lightly incised halters covering the breasts 
hold up her close-fitting garment, which prob- 
ably reached to her ankles. This sheath con- 
ceals more than it reveals. Nipples are not 
indicated, and navel and abdomen are only 
faintly suggested — a modesty not found in 
representations of the female form in either 
pre-Persian or Ptolemaic times. In her left 
hand, held under the right breast, is a folded 
kerchief. The right arm is missing, but un- 
doubtedly it hung straight at her side in the 
traditional manner. 

We shall never know who this lady was, for 
the back pillar, which is of unusual shape, wide 
and very deep, with a squared, flat top reach- 
ing midway to the crown of the head, was 
never inscribed. She is certainly not a goddess, 
not a queen, not a princess of blood royal. 
The fillet, for centuries a common adornment 
of the female coiffure, offers no clue to her 
identity. Even the precise date at which she 
lived is difficult to determine. The fillet, the 

wig, the shape of the eyes, the position of the 
left arm, all occur in the Ptolemaic Period. 
Since in that period, however, the female form 
is rendered much more sensuously, it seems 
likely that this sculpture may be a forerunner 
of the style developed under the early Ptole- 
mies, and that it is therefore to be attributed to 
the Macedonian Period. 

measurements: Height above modern base 56.5 cm. 
Depth of break ca. 22 cm. Depth of back pillar be- 
hind head 8 cm. Width of back pillar near break 
10.2 cm. 

provenance: Benha (presumably Athribis). 
bibliography: None. 

comment: Nose, mouth, part of the chin, and lower 
right cheek are lost and have been well restored. 
For the eyes and the formation of the face the 
closest parallel is London, B.M. 37901, also in grey- 
green schist with the same satin finish. There the 
lady wears a long striated wig, bound with the same 
ribbon or fillet, and the halters are indicated just as 
on the Richmond statue. The latter appears, how- 
ever, to be somewhat earlier, and since the modeling 
of the body is neither typically Ptolemaic nor as 
supple as that of the sculptures of goddesses known 
to have been made in the sixth century b.c. (Cairo 
C.G. 38884; London, B.M. 1162), we can only at- 
tribute the statue to the end of the fourth century 
B.C. For the lack of private female sculptures from 
Dynasty XXV and again from the time between 
Necho II and Nectanebo II, see p. xxxvii. There are, 
however, a few female pieces in wood which may 

belong to just that period (London, B.M. 32734), 
and one of them — a group of man and wife — is 
almost certainly of the sixth century, to judge by 
the inscription (London, B.M. 41516). Women were 
always, without interruption, represented in relief 
throughout this period, especially on stelae. Still, 
no stelae seem to have been set up specifically for 
women alone from about 600 b.c until the Ptolemaic 
Period. A parallel has not been found for the volumi- 
nous back pillar (Edinburgh 1956.340 is a doubtful 
parallel, since the head is missing) and for the sculp- 
tured fillet-tie of the Richmond statue; the fillet 
itself occurs frequently in relief representations. The 
type of wig is rarer, though not too unusual; it is 
still found in the Ptolemaic Period, in relief (Cairo 
C.G. 22232; with a very elegant tie) as well as in 
sculpture in the round (Hanover 1935.200.415, 
where the wig covers the ears completely). The 
position of the left arm, which also occurs in No. 
122, is known from bronzes of deities. The Rich- 
mond lady is the only piece with such a long ker- 
chief; in Ptolemaic times the gesture occasionally 
occurs with an empty fist (Paris, Louvre E. 5349), 
although usually the woman carries the flail-like 
lily scepter (Alexandria 3221; Cairo J.E. 38582; 
Florence 6315), which centuries before had been 
the emblem of the divine consorts (No. 1). In many 
ways, Berlin 21763 can be compared with the Rich- 
mond statue, although the eyes of the Berlin queen 
are different, and the ears smaller. But the manner 
in which the fillet follows the contour of the coiffure 
betrays the same sensitivity, the same approach to 
form; if there were any comparable dated material 
available, both the Richmond lady and the Berlin 
queen might be attributed to Dynasty XXX, because 
of their distinctly pre-Ptolemaic sedateness. 

No. 93; PI. 87, Figs. 231-233. 


About 300 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Green schist. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.63 (W.A.G. no. 197). 

Professor B. Schweitzer, at a symposium on 
portraiture held a few years ago in Copen- 
hagen, set forth in his native German, with 
Kantian precision, the conditions a head had to 
fulfill in order to be called a true portrait: 
( 1 ) It must represent a definite person, either 

living or of the past, with his distinctive 

human traits. 

(2) The person must be represented in such a 
manner that under no circumstances can 
his identity be confounded with that of 
someone else. 

(3) As a work of art, a portrait must render 
the personality, i.e., the inner individual, 
of the person represented in his outer 


Although it depends greatly on the viewer, 
whether he sees in a given head the third point 
stipulated by Professor Schweitzer, we might 
as well apply this guide to Egyptian sculptures, 
when in doubt concerning the nature of a 

Here, in this head from the Walters Art 
Gallery, we have the representation of a man 
with age-lined features, which may remind at 
first glance of apparently similar heads in Ber- 
lin, Cairo, and Paris. The longer one studies 
the face, however, the more it appears to rep- 
resent a definite person. The essentials of the 
head have been blocked in with sparing means. 
Although the skull may give the impression 
of being egg-shaped, without much modula- 
tion, on closer scrutiny it is seen to have been 
modeled with great care around the temples 
and the ears, back of which a deep groove 
marks the place where it meets the neck. The 
heavy features, with coarsened nose, sagging 
cheeks, and weary mouth and eyes, are those 
of a tired old man. 

As for personality, it is hard to define what 
the face seems to reveal: a certain resignation 
and perhaps some disappointment and pessi- 
mism, though to what extent these are qualities 
of the man himself or merely inventions of the 
sculptor, is impossible to determine. In any 

case, the head is not one made after a standard 
model, though its small scale may make one 
hesitate to call it a true portrait. 

measurements: Height 8.3 cm. Width 5.6 cm. 
Depth 7.5 cm. Width of back-pillar top 2 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., p. 65, 
pi. XXXIV, no. 197. 

comment: The back pillar, now almost entirely lost, 
was trapezoidal, similar to that of No. 70, a shape 
which precludes an attribution to Dynasties XXV- 
XXVI. As for a date in Dynasty XXVII, it appears, 
from comparison with Nos. 60, 63, 65, and 67, that 
the Baltimore head is of a later date. It is very 
tempting to place it somewhere in the vicinity of 
No. 83; the sparing means employed, the treatment 
of the eyes, are similar. The essential point, how- 
ever, which excludes any comparison, is the mouth. 
Whereas the mouth of No. 83 still has a certain 
traditional flourish, that of the Baltimore head seems 
to be cast from nature and approaches the group 
around Cairo C.G. 700; cf. also No. 100. B. Schweit- 
zer's paper on portraiture was published in: Acta 
Congressus Madvigiani Hafniae MDMLIV = Pro- 
ceedings of the Second International Congress of 
Classical Studies, vol. Ill, "The Classical Pattern of 
Modern Western Civilization. Portraiture" (Copen- 
hagen, 1957), where on p. 8 appears the definition 
here translated in somewhat condensed form. Even 
if the result is negative, it is always useful to keep 
Professor Schweitzer's three points in mind, espe- 
cially since the first also implies identification by 
means of inscription, an aid found in Egyptian sculp- 
ture much more frequently than in that of the 
Classical world. 

No. 94; PI. 88, Figs. 234-235. 


About 300-250 b.c; Ftolemaic Period. Grey-green schist. 

Owner: Rosicrucian Egyptian, Oriental Museum; San Jose, Cal.; no. 1603. 

When the ban on stone sculptures of private 
ladies, which had been in effect since the be- 
ginning of the sixth century, was lifted with 
the arrival of the Greeks under Alexander the 
Great, the first statues and statuettes made 
took as models figures of the early Sake period. 


Thus a style that had long been out of fashion 
was suddenly revived, to last until the age of 
the Ptolemies developed its own characteristic 
type of female sculpture. 

Though dating from the early third century, 
this fragmentary statue from San Jose is al- 

ready unmistakably Ptolemaic, not only on 
account of the epigraphy, but mainly on the 
basis of the overly plump features. The good 
woman is anonymous — the text on the back 
pillar merely gives the beginning of an offer- 
ing formula addressed to the god Amun of 
Karnak; and if one can judge from the rather 
incompetent modeling, she was certainly not 
of a rank sufficiently high to command the 
services of a good craftsman. But her desire 
to be represented, alone and in a dignified 
pose, before her god, is evidence of an act of 
faith, which, strangely enough, had been denied 
to the weaker sex of ancient Egypt for nearly 
three hundred years, until enlightened for- 
eigners — the Greeks — came to liberate and 
liberalize the country. 

The costume of this Theban lady consists 
of a heavy tripartite wig, two parts of which 
fall over the shoulders onto the breasts, where- 
as the third is partly covered by the high back 
pillar, with its single column of inscription. 
The garment, which seems originally to have 

reached to the neck, apparently was chiseled 
away so as to permit the addition of a broad 
necklace, never completed, which gives the 
dress the curious appearance of a modern, 
rather ill-fitting strapless gown. 

measurements: Height 24.4 cm. Width 13.3 cm. 
Depth 10.5 cm. Width of break 12.7 cm., depth 9.6 
cm. Width of back pillar 4.8 cm. Intracolumnar 
width 2.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Karnak. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: Even without the inscription, the style 
would be recognized as typically Theban; cf. the 
female statue from the temple of Mut at Karnak 
(ed. Benson and Gourlay, pp. 67, 274, 359-360, pi. 
XXVII), the head of which greatly resembles that 
of the San Jose figure. Since Ptolemy II was the 
only king who made important additions to that 
temple, it was probably in his reign that the Karnak 
statue was set up, and accordingly the San Jose 
sculpture can also be assigned roughly to his period. 
For the early Saite prototype of this kind of female 
figure in schist, cf. Antwerp 284. In limestone sculp- 
tures with long tripartite wig, striated or echeloned, 
the back pillar usually abuts against the lower edge 
of the wig and does not cover it. 

No. 95; Pis. 88-89, F ig s - 236-238. 


About 300-275 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; no. 1332. 

White indurated limestone. 

A physically perfect and well-proportioned 
body was one of the sculptural ideals attained 
by the Egyptians early in their civilization. 
No one who has seen the triad of King Mycer- 
inus of Dynasty IV in Boston can have failed 
to be impressed by the manly strength of the 
king's body as contrasted with the supple forms 
of his two female companions. Time and 
again we find in Egyptian art, not only in 
sculpture but also in relief and painting, an 
enjoyment of the human form which can have 
resulted only from long study and great aes- 
thetic perception. 

When the Greeks first came into contact 
with Egypt, it was this realization of the hu- 
man form, as exemplified in hundreds and 
hundreds of statues, which gave them the final 
impetus toward creating something similar 
of their own and enabled them, from the ar- 
chaic beginnings of the seventh century, to 
progress, in the course of less than half a 
millennium, to the ripeness of the Hellenistic 
age. How often the contact with Egypt was 
renewed, how much cross-fertilization took 
place after the arrival of Alexander the Great, 
cannot be demonstrated in such an Exhibition 


as this. Instead of attempting to do so, we have 
chosen to include a single sculpture that is 
thoroughly Egyptian, yet owes its very ex- 
istence to Greek influence — a great statue, 
though small in size, from Alexandria. This 
headless female figure, with feet and base re- 
stored in plaster, is uninscribed and without 
identifying attributes. It might seem out of 
place in an atmosphere of so many well-docu- 
mented sculptures; but its importance is not 
historical and only mildly archaeological. It 
stands on its own merits as an object of beauty, 
based on a timeless formula — the plastic ren- 
dering of the female body. 

The slender girl represented appears to be 
naked to the thighs, where it becomes evident 
that she is sheathed in a thin, clinging garment 
that reaches to the ankles. Her pose is the tra- 
ditional one of a standing figure at rest, left 
leg advanced and both arms hanging straight 
at the sides. The full, firm breasts, with no 
hint of sagging, are youthful, as is the slim 
waist, though the hips, especially as seen in 
profile, have a maturer roundness. The arms — 
as so often at this period — are extraordinarily 
long in proportion to the torso, and the out- 
stretched hands tend to conceal the swelling 
hips and thighs in the front view, perhaps an 
intentional device of the sculptor to give grace 
to the figure and yet remain true to the original 
proportions of the body. 

Owing to the lack of headdress, it is useless 
to speculate about whether the lady depicted 
was a queen, a goddess, or a private person, 
though the latter is most likely. There is small 
doubt, however, that the figure was a votive 
statue, to be set up in a place of worship. It is 
hardly necessary to add that it is wholly Egyp- 
tian in stance as well as in essential form. That 
it was created at all is due to the Greeks, for 
only after the arrival of Alexander the Great 
was lifted what we must assume to have been 
a ban, lasting many centuries, on stone sculp- 
ture of women. But, though there is just the 
degree of naturalism in the modeling of the 
body to hint at the presence of the Greeks, the 

sculptor has expressed himself in a purely 
Egyptian manner, based on long tradition. 

measurements: Height (with restored base and 
feet) 50.2 cm. Width at elbow level 13.6 cm. Depth 
at chest level 9.2 cm. Width of break at neck 9.5 
cm. Depth of break at neck 7.2 cm. Width of back 
pillar 5.2 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably from Lower 

bibliography: G. Botti, Catalogue des monuments 
exposes au Musee Greco-Romain d 'Alexandrie (Alex- 
andria, 1900), p. 408, no. 580. J. Capart, Recueil de 
monuments egyptiens (Brussels, 1902), pi. XLVII. 
Bissing, Denkm., Text to pi. 64, note 7. G. Maspero, 
Egypte (Paris, 1912), p. 255, figs. 481-482, p. 261. 
Ev. Breccia, Alexandrea ad Aegyptum (Bergamo, 
1922), p. 173, figs. 78-79, no. 69. Ross, The Art of 
Egypt, pi. 241, figs. 4-5, p. 53. G. Roeder, in Studies 
. . . Griffith, pp. 338-339, pi. 53, figs, a and c. 

comment: The question implied in the caption to 
this entry — girl or goddess? — is hard to answer. 
The coiffure obviously must have been a short bob; 
at any rate, enough of the left shoulder is preserved 
to show that the hair did not touch it. Thus, it may 
have been like that of No. 90, or perhaps smooth, 
without indication of the curls, like New York, 
M.M.A. 26.7.1401. Against such a restoration speaks 
the broad and fairly deep back pillar. Although it 
tapers slightly above the left shoulder, it could have 
hardly stopped short of the coiffure. Since the very 
short bob is never associated with a back pillar, a 
valanced wig, like that of Paris, Louvre E. 5349 
(in wood), may have been worn, and there is in- 
deed the statue of a private lady in Leiden (L.X.9), 
which has a very curious valanced wig and a back 
pillar with triangular top. Yoyotte, in publishing 
(though not illustrating) the lower portion of an 
inscribed striding female figure similar to the Alex- 
andria sculpture, calls it (Kemi 15 [1959], p. 76) 
"une des rares statues feminines de style pharaonique 
qui nous soit restee de la Basse Epoque." Actually, 
they are not rare — only rarely published, like the 
block statues of the Ptolemaic Period, which exist in 
even greater numbers and, though amply inscribed, 
are shunned by philologists and archaeologists alike. 
By arbitrarily limiting her field of study to the time 
before Alexander the Great, K. Bosse (Menschl. 
Figur, pp. 58-66) was compelled to exclude most 
private female sculptures in Egyptian style of the 
Late Period. For such sculptures see the remarks bv 
Roeder (op.cit. pp. 337 ff.), who well develops the 
purely Egyptian ancestry of sculptures comparable 
to this figure from Alexandria. A date in the reign 
of Ptolemy I or early in that of Ptolemy II is pro- 
posed, because the stylistic features appear to indi- 
cate that this sculpture was made almost at the be- 
ginning of the Ptolemaic Period. First, we know the 
style of that time from the colossal statue of Arsinoe 


II in Rome (Vatican 25), dating from before her 
deification (i.e. about 275-270 B.C.). The queen's 
statue is well proportioned, and though it is mod- 
eled on a gigantic scale, the physical form is not too 
far from that of the Alexandria torso. There is, 
furthermore, a headless limestone statue in Paris 
(Louvre, N. 2456), which, from evidence contained 
in another inscription concerning the subject, was 
probably made between 285 and 264 b.c. This fe- 
male figure is approximately of the same size and 
material as the Alexandria statue, wearing the tripar- 
tite echeloned wig (cf. No. 105), which replaces 
ladies' short coiffures at some time early in the 
third century. Though the globular breasts, long 

arms, extended fingers, and numerous other features 
are comparable, the Louvre sculpture is not of the 
quality of the Alexandria statue; the forms are a bit 
heavier, and there is not the same — almost sensuous 
— pleasure in physical perfection; still, the two pieces 
cannot be very far apart in date. Finally, it should 
be remembered that female figures in temple reliefs 
dating from the time of Ptolemy I show an elegance 
and slimness notably different from the manneristic 
elongation of the figures of women in the reliefs of 
his successors. For a fine female figure in early 
Ptolemaic relief, see Hoyningen-Huene and G. Stein- 
dorff, Egypt (New York; 1945 edition), p. 169. 

No. 96; PI. 90, Figs. 239-241. 


285-246 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Grey -brown feldspathic quartzite with quartz vein. 

Owner: Universite de Strasbourg, Strasbourg {Bas-Rhin); no. 1585. 

With the ascension to the throne of Ptolemy 
II Philadelphos a new, consolidated Egypt 
emerges, which for nearly three centuries en- 
joyed great prosperity, an active political life 
both in domestic and foreign affairs, and a 
spiritual freedom that permitted the develop- 
ment, side by side, of both native-Egyptian 
and Hellenistic-Greek culture. Greek papyri, 
which have come to light in large numbers in 
the buried cities of Ptolemaic Egypt, contain 
a wealth of information on the period, and 
since these papyri have for the most part been 
made available to students of the Hellenistic 
age, we have a well-rounded picture of Ptole- 
maic Egypt from Greek sources. These 
sources, however, are Greek, not native Egyp- 
tian, and herein lies their inadequacy. The 
sources available for the study of traditional 
Egyptian culture — mainly demotic papyri and 
hieroglyphic stelae — are largely unexplored, 
and the same holds true for sculptuie of phara- 
onic inspiration as distinguished from Hellenis- 
tic sculpture made in Egypt. 

There are many representations in the round 
of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, but few of 

them are inscribed, and still fewer — only three 
known at present — have the faces intact. One 
of these is this fragmentary, idealizing sculp- 
ture from the Egyptian collection of the Uni- 
versity of Strasbourg. Acquired in 1905 and 
first published in 1909, it richly deserves fur- 
ther attention, not merely because of its rarity, 
but also because of details distinguishing it from 
other Ptolemaic royal sculptures, equally ideal- 
izing and thus far not attributable to a specific 

The face, somewhat battered, the chest, 
upper arms, and part of the nemes headdress 
are preserved, as is also a portion of the back 
pillar with two columns of inscription contain- 
ing the name of the king. The queue of the 
nemes appears on each side of the back pillar 
in sunk relief. The eyebrows and the rims of 
the upper lids are plastic; the cosmetic line 
outlining the upper lid of the left eye is slightly 
drawn out over the lower lid. This treatment 
of brows and eyes, connecting the sculpture 
with formal royal representations of Dynasty 
XXX, is a feature often encountered in sculp- 
ture and relief work of the time of Ptolemy II. 


The forms are rounded, and the face might 
pass for an idealizing representation without 
much further interest, were it not for the un- 
usual shape of the mouth. Of all the heads of 
Ptolemaic rulers, this one, together with that 
of Ptolemy II in the Vatican, stands out on 
account of the large, well-curved mouth, with 
lifted corners imbedded in grooves running 
down and around the lower Up. It cannot be 
stated that this apparently individualistic mouth 
really is a feature characteristic of Ptolemy II, 
but since it occurs on two inscribed sculptures 
of his, it may be assumed that it was at least an 
integral part of his official likeness. Its occur- 
rence on other, uninscribed statues, moreover, 
permits the attribution to his reign of a num- 
ber of hitherto undated Ptolemaic sculptures. 

measurements: Height 33.5 cm. Width at shoulder 
level ca. 25 cm. Width of back pillar 8.5 cm. Intra- 
columnar width 2.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Quft (Coptos). 
Acquired in 1905 at Giza. 

bibliography: W. Spiegelberg, Ausgewdhlte Kunst- 
Denkmdler der Aegyptischen Sammlung der Kaiser 
Wilhelms Universitat Str ass burg (Strasbourg, 1909), 
pp. 12-14, no - '7> % s - 6"7> pl- X. H. W. Muller, in 
Studi . . . Rosellini II, p. 210, note 3, pi. XXVI c. 

comment: It is a fortunate coincidence that the 
salient feature of the official representation of the 
likeness of Ptolemy II Philadelphos— the wide curved 
mouth with uplifted corners — occurs on at least two 
of his inscribed sculptures: the bust in Strasbourg 
and the well over life-size statue in Rome (Vatican 
27). The face of Rome, Villa Albani 558, inscribed 

for Ptolemy II, is so damaged and restored that one 
cannot form an opinion from photographs. This 
typical feature of some of his heads enables us to as- 
sign to his reign such standard, often repeated, ideal- 
izing votive busts as Brooklyn 37-37E and Cairo C.G. 
33328 (the latter mislabeled a sculptor's model). In- 
vestigation of whether the royal heads London, B.M. 
97 and Vienna 37 are not also attributable to his time 
would result in real progress in establishing the ico- 
nography of the early Ptolemies as shown on Egyp- 
tian monuments. For a close-up of the face of 
Ptolemy II in the Vatican sculpture, see H. W. 
Muller, in Studi .. .Rosellini II, p. 210, pi. XXVII; 
compare also relief work of the period (BMFA 51 
[1953], pp. 1-7). The nemes was set very low on the 
forehead of the Strasbourg sculpture; a small por- 
tion of its border is still visible. The top of the back 
pillar indicates that its shape originally was trapezoid 
or triangular. Column 2 of the inscription begins 
with "Words spoken by Osiris of Coptos," thus 
localizing the deity in whose temple precinct the 
sculpture was originally set up. That the queue of 
the nemes is indicated on both sides of the back 
pillar is a standard feature of many royal sculptures 
after the New Kingdom; cf. JEA 46 (i960), p. 3, 
note 5. The direction of the break below the chest 
and the contour of the back of the king's figure sug- 
gest that the Strasbourg bust may have come from a 
seated figure similar to Alexandria 11261, where 
Ptolemy II is shown sitting side by side with his 
queen and his other sister. We must regard with 
envy the studies published in recent years of Ptole- 
maic portraiture of purely Hellenistic style (cf. 
especially Charbonneaux, in Mon. Piot 47 [1953], 
pp. 99-129). There the comparison with coins has 
led to numerous identifications of uninscribed por- 
traits. Alas, there are neither gold coins nor marble 
sculptures offering clues to the identity of many un- 
inscribed Ptolemaic sculptures in traditional Egyp- 
tian style, and the tertium comparationis has as yet 
not been found. 

No. 97; PI. 91, Figs. 242-243. 


About 280-250 B.C.; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; no. 48.141. 

Grey granite. 

Half a century ago, at Thmouis in the cen- 
tral Delta, occurred the greatest find of Hel- 
lenistic marble sculpture of quality Egypt had 
ever known; the ten admirable heads which 
formed the main portion of that discovery pre 

now in the Graeco-Roman Museum at Alex- 
andria. Thmouis, today known as Tell Timai, 
is the ancient town within a few hundred yards 
of the Egyptian temple site of Mendes, now 
called Tell Roba. Mendes was one of the great 


cult centers of the Delta, in religious and his- 
torical importance equal to Buto and Tanis. 
As the cult place where a ram deity was wor- 
shiped from time immemorial, Mendes is al- 
ready mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, and as 
capital of the XVIth nome of Lower Egypt 
its importance, specifically during the New 
Kingdom and in the Late Period, was consid- 
erable. One of the major branches of the Nile 
(which has now disappeared) passed between 
Mendes and Thmouis, thus assuring easy access 
from other parts of the country as well as from 
abroad. Whereas Thmouis has yielded a great 
hoard of Greek sculpture, Mendes — which 
has never been properly excavated — has given 
us what is probably the finest torso in Egyptian 
tradition of the Ptolemaic Period, the granite 
statue of Amun-pe-yom in Cleveland. 

If this figure of Amun-pe-yom, in his day a 
provincial governor (nomarch) and general of 
the Ptolemaic army, is life size, he must have 
been a big man even by modern standards, a 
little better than six feet tall. All that is left 
of his statue today is the armless torso from 
neck to hips, with a large portion of the in- 
scribed back pillar. Though this may not sound 
impressive, what remains, fragmentary as it is, 
is easily recognizable as a great work of art. 
In no other sculpture made during the last 
millennium of Egyptian civilization has a hu- 
man body been modeled on a human scale in 
as lively a fashion as this figure in its age-old 
attitude; for there is no doubt that Amun-pe- 
yom was represented standing, left foot ad- 
vanced, arms hanging straight at his sides, and 
emblematic staves held in his clenched hands. 

The deep chest with its powerful muscles, 
the rib cage, the abdomen of an athlete, show- 
ing an infinite variety of subtle changes in sur- 
face modulation round the navel — all these 
features are essentially Egyptian and can be 
shown to have already existed in the latter part 
of the sixth century b.c. But in their reappear- 
ance in the third century and at Mendes, in 
the neighborhood of Thmouis, they have ac- 
quired a shadowy something that is not purely 

Egyptian. Though it may be going too far to 
say that the torso was Greek-influenced — the 
Egyptians, after all, had invented most of the 
features of its modeling — it must be admitted 
that only in the Hellenistic age could an Egyp- 
tian torso in the traditional stance have been 
imbued with such vibrating strength that even 
Western eyes, accustomed to the white or 
cream-colored surface of marble sculptures, 
can see the life inherent in this representation 
of a vigorous and beautiful body. 

Amun-pe-yom, according to the inscription 
on the back pillar and on the belt that holds 
the pleated kilt, was of course a priest, but his 
main functions were those of a commander of 
infantry and of the charioteers of the Mende- 
sian nome, which he administered as governor 
for an unnamed ruler. His name is one of the 
many Egyptian names for which there is a 
Greek version — in this case, Amphiomis — but 
he is not known from any other source, Greek 
or Egyptian. His father's name was Pamerih 
(he, too, a leader of troops), and his mother 
was called Nebet-tekh. The top of the back 
pillar has an adoration scene in sunk relief, 
showing on the right Amun-pe-yom, with 
shaven head and in a long garment, facing left 
and worshiping the local triad, the ram-headed 
chief deity of Mendes, his wife Hat-mehyt, 
and their son Harpocrates, who, being of ten- 
der age, still puts his finger in his mouth. 
Underneath is one line, reading like the main 
inscription from left to right, which again gives 
the names of the subject and of his parents. 
Since not even a trace of the head has survived, 
we have no way of knowing whether the fea- 
tures of this important man showed anything 
of his likeness or were merely an idealized rep- 
resentation. All that is certain is that he did 
not wear a long wig, for there is not a vestige 
of such a headdress on neck or shoulders. He 
may have had a shaven head, befitting his 
priestly status, or he may have worn his hair 
in close-cropped curls, in the Hellenistic 


Although a precise date cannot be given, it 

I2 3 

is not difficult to establish the general period 
during which this statue was made. The main 
impact of the Hellenization of Egypt took 
place in the third century B.C., and at that time 
new forms in sculpture were once more de- 
veloped. A pro-Egyptian policy, instigated by 
Arsinoe II, helped to consolidate the two dis- 
parate groups, Greek and Egyptians, who from 
then on were to live side by side. The lan- 
guage, the spelling, and the forms of the signs 
employed in the inscription all point to a date 
early in the Ptolemaic Period, probably before 
the time of Ptolemy III, and when one con- 
siders the homage paid to the gods of Mendes 
by Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II in the celebrated 
Mendes Stela, the flourishing of the local aris- 
tocracy under these rulers is well understand- 
able. The statue of Amun-pe-yom, although 
sculpturally by far the best, is not the only 
one of the period of the Philadelphoi from 
Mendes; two other fragmentary granite figures 
made for high dignitaries of Mendes in the 
third century B.C. have survived to our time. 

measurements: Height 96.5 cm. Width ca. 35 cm. 
Depth 36.7 cm. Width of break at neck 13.5 cm., 
depth 24-25 cm. Width of back pillar 16.1 cm. In- 
tracolumnar width 4.5 cm. 
provenance: Mendes (Delta). 

bibliography: Silvia A. Wunderlich, "Diorite Torso 
of a General," The Bulletin of the Cleveland Mu- 
seum of Art 36 (1949), pp. 99-101, illus. on p. 97. 
H. Ranke, "The Statue of a Ptolemaic Strategos of 
the Mendesian Nome in the Cleveland Museum of 
Art," JAOS 73 (1953), pp. 193-198, with 1 pi. JAOS 
74 (1954), p. 70. The Cleveland Museum of Art, In 
Memoriam Leonard C. Hanna, Jr. (Cleveland, 1958), 
no. 219 (illus.). The Cleveland Museum of Art, 
Handbook (1958 edition), no. 9 (illus.). MDIK 16 
(1958), p. 113. H. De Meulenaere, in Rivista degli 
Studi Orientali 34 (1959), pp. 2 and 22. 

comment: Despite the general neglect of the few 
monuments visible on the surface and the lack of 
supervision that permits the leveling of so many im- 
portant koms in Lower Egypt, Tell Timai and Tell 
Roba are still among the great sites of the Delta. 
Such ancient temple and town sites, risen through 
the millennia to a considerable height above the level 
of the surrounding land, are as much worth saving 
as are the temples of Nubia, and — unlike the latter 
— most of their documentary value is still buried and 
unknown. There have never been any systematic 
excavations on a large scale at Mendes, though 


chance finds from the site have abounded for nearly 
a hundred years. For another, earlier, sculpture from 
the place, see No. 20. The great hoard of Greek 
marble heads discovered there was first published in 
Le Musee egyptien 3 (1915), pp. 1-13, pi. I-V. We 
have no life-size or colossal private sculpture datable 
to Ptolemy I, but there is ample evidence to show 
that such sculpture was made under Ptolemy II (cf. 
the Comment on No. 99). The torso modeling of 
Amun-pe-yom follows, in principle, that evolved 
during Dynasty XXX, and it is helpful to compare 
it with that of No. 75. Tripartition is present, and 
so is the faint median line, which played such a 
dominant role in sculptures like No. 9, where it is 
far more strongly marked. It is significant that 
H. Ranke (op. cit., p. 193), after consultation with 
two outstanding Classical archaeologists of his day, 
should have written: "The artist must have been in- 
spired by works of Greek contemporaries but he 
himself certainly was an Egyptian. In all the details 
of rendering the male body there is not a single one 
which could be claimed as characteristic of Greek 
sculpture." The presence of the Greeks brought out 
something in the Egyptian sculptor that was a fine 
contribution to his art, especially considering the 
rigidity of the traditional stance. It would be of 
value to see if any purely Hellenistic marble torsos 
could be attributed to the time of Ptolemy II, so as 
to compare them with the Cleveland statue. The in- 
scribed belt is a Ptolemaic revival of the custom first 
found in private sculpture toward the end of Dy- 
nasty XXV (see the Comment on No. 9), and it is 
interesting to note that it occurs only rarely in 
Dynasty XXX (Cairo J.E. 26427). The two other 
statues from Mendes, mentioned below, also have 
inscriptions on the belts. The reversal of the direc- 
tion of the inscription on the back pillar is most un- 
usual; other cases are known, but no explanation has 
as yet been ventured; the date of sculptures so in- 
scribed is always post-Persian. Ranke, in his excellent 
study of the texts of the Cleveland statue, concluded 
that it was made after 120 B.C., although — in the pre- 
amble to his last paragraphs — he notes specificallv 
that the language of the inscriptions is very "classi- 
cal" and that only a single typically "Ptolemaic" sign 
value occurs in the text. He was induced to commit 
this error in dating because historians, and primarily 
papyrologists, have stated over and over again that 
no Egyptian could have held a high office — espe- 
cially one of military standing — in the early part of 
the Ptolemaic Period, and furthermore have asserted 
that the title syggenes was never given to a native 
strategos before ca. 120 b.c. It would lead too far to 
develop the argument here in extenso; cf. H. De 
Meulenaere, op. cit., p. 22, note 2. For the present, 
nothing prevents us from attributing the Cleveland 
torso to the reign of Ptolemy II, and the torso of his 
descendant, Cairo C.G. 687 (who bears the same 
name as the father of Amun-pe-yom), to the time of 
Ptolemy III at the latest. The other two life-size 

statues of dignitaries from Mcndes are Kansas City 
47-12 (made for one Hor-em-akh-bvt = Archi- 
beios) and Paris, Louvre E. 15546 (named P-yrds = 
Pyrrhides?). The statue of Archibeios is better pre- 
served than the Cleveland torso, but its modeling is 
more restrained. The Louvre torso — with back pil- 

lar inscription reversed as in the Cleveland statue — 
is preserved from waist to thighs only, and thus does 
not yield any archaeological information beyond the 
fact that it must have been made in the same studio 
and approximately at the same time as the Kansas 
City and Cleveland Mcndcsians. 

No. 98; PI. 92, Figs. 244-246. 


275-270 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. White indurated limestone. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 38.10. 

Though many a delightful account has been 
written of the lives and loves of the great Ptole- 
maic queens from Berenice I to Cleopatra VII, 
we have little information on the statuary made 
for them in Egyptian style. Few of their sculp- 
tures are inscribed, and fewer have the heads 
preserved. There is always a question, more- 
over, of whether a sculpture was made during 
or subsequent to a queen's reign, for several 
of the royal ladies were deified after death, 
and statues in a later style were dedicated to 
their cults. The problems presented by sculp- 
tured figures of queens, like those posed by 
their portraits on coins, are manifold; but here, 
for once, we have an uninscribed head from 
the Metropolitan Museum of Art that can be 
attributed with some certainty to a definite 
royal consort, Arsinoe II, and was probably 
made during her lifetime. 

In many respects, Queen Arsinoe II was a 
remarkable woman. The daughter of the first 
Ptolemy, Ptolemy Lagos, she was married 
when still very young to Lysimachos, king of 
Thrace. After the death of her husband, hav- 
ing vainly tried to hold her own in the strife- 
torn world of Hellenistic kingship, she sought 
refuge with her brother, Ptolemy II Philadel- 
phos, in Egypt. By this time she was in her 
late thirties, a woman of high intelligence, 
striking personality, and — like most of the 
Macedonian princesses — considerable ruthless- 

ness. In the course of an intrigue, she won an 
easy victory over her sister-in-law and step- 
daughter, Arsinoe I, who was banished to 
Coptos in order that she herself might marry 
her own brother and become queen of Egypt 
as Arsinoe II. This marriage, the first of Ptole- 
maic brother-sister unions, while following 
Egyptian royal custom, created considerable 
scandal among the Greeks. Nothing daunted, 
Arsinoe is said to have taken the reins of gov- 
ernment into her own capable hands, leaving 
her brother to his mistresses. She died in 269 
b.c, but her memory endured in the Greek 
world for several hundred years. 

An inscribed statue of Arsinoe II in Rome 
(Vatican 25), with the head fortunately in- 
tact, gives a good idea of the official style of 
her period. It is of colossal dimensions — the 
queen's figure, without base, measuring eight 
feet in height — and the features are conse- 
quently not too detailed, but it permits the 
conclusion that the head from the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art is a replica, if not of the Vati- 
can statue itself, at least of a similar one, and 
that it is undoubtedly an official likeness of 
Arsinoe II. 

A tenon on top of the head shows that it 
was once, like that of the Vatican figure, 
crowned with a divine symbol, probably iden- 
tifying the queen with Isis-Hathor. The wig 
is of the conventional tripartite type, with two 

I2 5 

heavy, striated lappets that once fell to the 
breasts and a third that ended at the top of a 
low back pillar. Two uraei, the heads now 
lost, rise over the queen's forehead. Her eyes, 
long, narrow, and slanting, are exquisitely 
shaped under the gently curved, faintly sug- 
gested brows. The mouth is lifted at the cor- 
ners, and the barest indication of a philtrum 
modifies the upper lip. The chin is short, yet 
firm, and the small ears are remarkably 

Though it follows, line for line, the model 
set by the Vatican sculpture, this less-than-life- 
size head is infinitely more appealing than its 
colossal counterpart in red granite. In our 
opinion, it is by far the best of all surviving 
female heads of the Ptolemaic Period. Its 
modeling reveals a superb craftsmanship, and 
as a work of art it shows a harmonious blend- 
ing of Egyptian tradition with an enlivening 
touch of Hellenistic sensuousness. 

measurements: Height 12.2 cm. Width of break ca. 
9 cm. Depth of break 5.8 cm. 
provenance: Not known; probably Lower Egypt. 
bibliography: BMMA 33 (1938), pp. 233 (illus.) and 
240. A] A 54 (1950), pp. 383-384, fig. 17. 

comment: To judge by the statue of Arsinoe in the 
Vatican, the missing body of the New York head 
must have been worked as if entirely nude, with a 
thin hem at the ankles merely hinting at a garment 
(cf. No. 95). The left arm was presumably bent, 
with the left hand under the right breast, in the atti- 
tude of the Vatican statue (cf. No. 92). That the 
back pillar ends flush with the lower edge of the wig 

is frequent in female statues with tripartite echeloned 
or striated wigs (Paris, Louvre N. 2456). The kind 
of crown or headdress that was slipped over the 
tenon is best shown by Berlin 10 114; cf. also No. 12, 
an early version of the Isis-Hathor crown of the 
Ptolemaic Period. For Arsinoe II and her time, see 
G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens (Baltimore, 
1932), pp. m-130, and passim. Her epithet, "brother- 
loving," manifests the close relationship which, 
though not shocking from an Egyptian point of 
view, was novel to the Greek world, to which she, 
as well as her husband-brother, were spiritually al- 
lied. In the Vatican statue the queen's mouth is 
larger than in the New York head, and it shows the 
distinct curvature that is characteristic of her 
brother's likeness (cf. No. 96). There is, indeed, a 
resemblance between the face of Arsinoe II and that 
of her brother, Ptolemy II, as shown in their colossal 
granite statues (Vatican 25 and 27), which is much 
less obvious in the New York head, with its smaller 
mouth and very feminine features. Mrs. I. Lapis, in 
Bulletin du Musee de VErmitage 11 (1957), pp. 
49-52 (in Russian) proposed the identification of a 
queen's statue in Leningrad (Hermitage 3936) as a 
sculpture of Arsinoe II (better illustrated in Famiat- 
niki iskusstva drevnego Egipta v Muzeiakh sovet- 
skogo soiouza [Moscow, 1958], pi. 99-100). At first, 
her argument seems convincing, because the queen 
is represented with tripartite echeloned wig and 
holds in her left arm a cornucopia, well known from 
coins of Arsinoe, and is dressed in the transparent 
sheath-like costume of the early and middle Ptole- 
maic Period. On the other hand, she is represented 
with a triple uraeus, and the forms of her body are 
much plumper than is conceivable for the period, in 
view of the Vatican statue, which undoubtedly was 
made before the queen was deified. Therefore the 
Leningrad statue, if indeed it was meant to repre- 
sent Arsinoe II, was probably created in her mem- 
ory, for her cult. For another queen with triple 
uraeus and cornucopia, see No. 113, and for a statue 
of the deified Arsinoe II, No. 123. 


No. 99; Pis. 92-93, Figs. 247-249. 


About 280-250 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Oivner: Academy of the Neiv Church Museum, Bryn Athy?t, Pa. 

Indurated limestone. 

Although the Macedonian rulers of Egypt 
seem to have been accepted by the native 
Egyptians as god-given kings (there were re- 
markably few revolts in the course of the 
Ptolemaic Period), the affection of the Egyp- 
tian aristocracy for the successors of Alexander 
the Great was not so warm as to cause them to 
decorate their temple statues with the car- 
touches of a sovereign, nor was the ruling king 
or queen referred to by name in sculptural in- 
scriptions. Though there are a few exceptions 
to this rule, in general we have to rely on re- 
lated evidence for the chronology of private 
sculpture of the Ptolemaic Period, to look for 
mention of the subject of a statue in a papyrus 
or on a stela dated to the reign of a definite 
king, or to base our dating on the style of 
modeling and of inscription. 

It has been an uphill struggle over the years 
to classify large numbers of statues and espe- 
cially of statue fragments, mostly heads, which 
according to all available evidence were created 
between Alexander the Great and Hadrian. 
One hypothesis which has proved correct in so 
many cases that it may be termed a theory, is 
that life-size or colossal statues of private per- 
sons were mainly made during the rule of only 
two rather widely separated kings, Ptolemy II 
and Ptolemy XII. Here, in an anonymous, 
colossal limestone head from Bryn Athyn, we 
have a good example from the earlier of these 
two groups, representing a man whose chief 
title is "Prophet of Horemheb of Pa-khetP 
We do not know who this Horemheb was — 
a saint? a deified king? — and we also have no 
information on the place name that follows. 
At present, therefore, the subject of this large 
head is, despite the inscription, very anony- 
mous indeed. 

He must have been a person of distinction, 
however, because even in the early Ptolemaic 
Period heads of such super-human scale are 
not common. Unfortunately his face is not a 
portrait, but an idealizing likeness, with highly 
domed forehead, shaven skull without detailed 
modeling, sharp eyebrows, and stylized eyes, 
the contour of which is drawn with a fine 
flourish. Considering the round, full face, the 
mouth is small, with rather thick lips; the 
corners, like the nostrils, are deeply drilled. 
Instead of a back pillar, the statue had a wide 
stela-like panel, made in one piece with the 
sculpture. There was a considerable amount 
of space between this back slab and the man's 
body; his statue — so to speak — was provided 
with its own setting, its own background, 
which, considering the scale, must have greatly 
added to its impressiveness. 

The title cited above is written on the left 
side of the back slab. At the top of the face 
of the slab, to the rear, was a scene showing 
the Prophet of Horemheb worshiping the di- 
vine triad of Thebes, Amun-Ra, Mut, and 
Khonsu. Of his figure, only his uplifted hand 
remains at the right; the rest, and the accom- 
panying text, are lost. 

measurements: Height 32.8 cm. Height of face 
(chin to eyebrows) 15 cm. Width 22.5 cm. Depth 
36 cm. Width of break at neck (horiz.) ca. 15 cm., 
depth ca. 32 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Thebes. 

bibliography: Pijoan, El Arte egipcio, pp. 306 and 
308, fig. 412. 

comment: It is interesting to compare this head with 
one of a similar type made nearly a century previ- 
ously (No. 78). Though of widelv differing scale, 
the two are closely related; the statement, often re- 
peated, that it is difficult to distinguish between the 
art of Nectanebo II and that of Ptolemy II certainlv 
applies here, although No. 78 may have been made 


as early as the reign of Nectanebo I. In any case, 
the differences between the two heads are not great 
and may be primarily those of two different locali- 
ties. The Bryn Athyn head is distinctly turned to- 
ward the left in relation to the back slab. Attention 
should be given to the eyes, primarily to the fleshi- 
ness of the upper eyelid, which has already been 
noted in sculptures of Dynasty XXVII (Nos. 61-62), 
though at that time it did not appear in so highly 
stylized a context. Furthermore the contour of the 
eyes relates the head to that of Arsinoe II (No. 98), 
where, in a head of finer quality, the same outline is 
found. A back slab often occurs in group statues 
(cf. No. 62), but is not used as a background for a 
single standing figure before the end of Dynasty 
XXX. For this, three other sculptures should be 
compared: Cairo J.E. 37075, of the time of Alexander 
the Great; Lausanne Eg. 7, which is a little later; 
and Cairo C.G. 70031, dated to the early part of the 
reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. Whereas the first 
two sculptures are well below life size, the slab of 
Cairo C.G. 70031 (which is all that is left of the 
sculpture) must have belonged to a fully life-size or 
colossal statue. The Bryn Athyn head, the fourth 
example of a statue with back slab, and the second 

one datable to the time of Ptolemy II, probably 
comes from Thebes. It is significant that of the 
other three, two are Theban and the third comes 
from near-by Coptos (Cairo C.G. 70031); this type 
of sculpture was apparently never made in the 
Memphite region and the Delta. The theory that 
large-scale sculpture was made primarily in the time 
of Ptolemy II rests not on the Coptos slab alone but 
more on the statues of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II 
in Rome (Vatican 27 and 25), on London, B.M. 
1668 (representing the same subject as Cairo C.G. 
70031), on Cairo C.G. 700 (which from the inscrip- 
tions is prior to Ptolemy III), and others; see also 
the Comment on No. 97 and, for large-scale sculp- 
ture of the time of Ptolemy XII, the Comment on 
No. 132. Another colossal limestone head of the 
third century is in Copenhagen (N.C.G. 1384). It 
should be noted that a colossal statue in Cairo (C.G. 
1230), which stylistically can well date from the 
reign of Ptolemy II, was made for a certain Horem- 
heb, referred to as "Man of Khetet" in the inscrip- 
tion. There is undoubtedly a connection between 
the two Horemhebs; it — as well as the mysterious 
place name — will have to be investigated further. 

No. IOO; PI. 94, Figs. 250-252. 


About 250 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Fine-grained, nearly black granite. 

Owner: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 50.3427. 

The frequent absence of an inscription from 
the top of a back pillar still remaining on a 
detached head does not necessarily mean that 
the head belonged to a statue which was never 
inscribed, for often, as we have seen in No. 70, 
the text begins fairly low. There are cases, 
however, of sculptures that never bore written 
identification, and some of them may result 
from a new idea, perhaps due to Greek influ- 
ence, that the face of a person constituted suffi- 
cient identification, because it was unmistak- 
ably his. 

This may be true of a little head from Boston 
which, though sadly battered, still retains a 
good deal of the character of the person it was 
intended to represent, a heavy-jowled, elderly 


gentleman with deep nasolabial furrows and 
swollen lids half veiling his eyes. For once, the 
eyebrows are marked as a groove, not as a 
ridge, and over them the forehead merges into 
an almost globular skull. The chin, stubborn 
and well-defined, set off sharply against cheeks 
and neck, is covered with tiny pick marks, as 
are also the adjoining portions of face and 
neck. Since these marks were worked after 
the surface had been carved and smoothed, 
they must have been made purposely to indi- 
cate a growth of beard. Such realistic approach 
was possible only in the Ptolemaic Period, 
from which we have several other portraits 
with poorly shaven or bewhiskered faces (cf. 
No. 118), and after close contact with the natu- 

ralistic tendencies of the Greek world. Both 
stubble beard and the formation of the eyes 
point to a date within the third century b.c. 

measurements: Height 10.4 cm. Width 7 cm. 
Depth 10 cm. Width of break at neck 5.2 cm., depth 
7.5 cm. Width of back pillar, originally ca 4.4 cm. 
provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collec- 
tion of Albert Gallatin. 

bibliography: B. V. Bothmer, "The Signs of Age," 
in BMFA 49 (1951), pp. 69-74, ^g s - I ~^- 

comment: Since the Boston head has been published 
before, a remark might be appropriate on the prob- 
lem of dating these late portraits and on the progress 
made in the last decade in building a firmer founda- 
tion for a sound method of attribution. As recently 
as 1953 H. Ranke stated: "A careful archaeological 
publication of all available Ptolemaic statues is an 
urgent desideratum" (JAOS 73 [1953], p. 196, note 
13), and on the following page he pleaded for a 
much-needed "comprehensive investigation of the 
orthography of late Egyptian texts." Both are in- 
dispensable for an eventual study of the portraits of 
the Ptolemaic Period; it is indeed obvious that such 
a study has to be based on a framework of firmly 
dated sculptures. Although inscribed statues, with 
the head intact and a definite date in the inscrip- 
tion, are still wanting, we have at least one compar- 
able piece whose inscription clearly indicates that it 

was made some time after 238 B.C. (London, B.M. 
65443; cf. the Comment on No. 115), and a second 
sculpture on a colossal scale, which has a somewhat 
battered yet sufficiently preserved face to show im- 
pressive portrait features (Cairo C.G. 700) ami is 
commonly attributed to the time of Ptolemy II. This 
sculpture represents Teos II, a general and governor 
of Tanis around the middle of the third century B.C. 
His wildly discordant face (Fig. 250) shows indi- 
vidual traits (e.g. a double fold wider the right lid, 
which neither before nor after his time has ever 
been traced in a portrait), the most important fea- 
ture of which are the eyes. Though formed very 
plastically in the round, they are largely covered by 
the lids, so that the actual opening is fairly small. 
This technical device for giving a life-like appear- 
ance to an old man's face by modeling the eyes so 
realistically may, like so many features of Ptolemaic 
sculpture, have been based on the observation of 
works of a previous period; at any rate, the de- 
vice is widely employed in the third century b.c, 
and in many instances it is difficult to determine 
whether an uninscribed portrait head is of earlier 
or later date. To come back to the Boston piece: its 
back-pillar top is certainly of the same shape — in- 
cluding the beveled sides — and height as that of 
London, B.M. 65443, which is dated after 238 B.C. 
Since the eyes, however, follow the model set bv 
Cairo C.G. 700, it should still be attributable to the 
third century b.c 

No. 101; PL 95, Figs. 253-254. 


About 250 b.c; Ptoleinaic Period. 

Owner: The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada; no. 958.22 1.4. 

Dark grey diorite. 

During the end of Dynasty XXV and the 
beginning of Dynasty XXVI, Egyptian crafts- 
men experimented widely with various means 
by which maturity or, even more, ripe old age 
could be expressed in a face sculptured in hard 
stone. Similar experimentation again took place 
in Dynasty XXVII (end of the sixth century 
b.c), and at that time something more than a 
mere formula was evolved; in a few instances, 
surviving sculptures of the period show flashes 
of deep insight into human character and of 
the genius needed to reproduce it in stone. 

This, to us, marks the beginning of true por- 
traiture, which was to last to the end of the 
Ptolemaic Period. 

It is understandable, however, that even in 
good portraits certain small details are repeated 
from time to time in strikingly similar manner, 
simply because sculptors had learned to render 
certain facial traits in a direct fashion without 
overelaboration. One such detail is the nasola- 
bial furrow. It is usually drawn as a single 
line or modeled as a single fold, curving from 
nostril to just beyond the upper lip, but in 


this head from Toronto we have a double 
crease, beginning at the nostril and diverging 
to well below the corner of the mouth. Every 
addition to a craftsman's repertory is, to the 
student, a point of interest and of inquiry. If 
the double furrow was a new feature adopted 
as a standard, one would expect to find it re- 
curring in several sculptures. But, since dili- 
gent search has failed to turn up another exam- 
ple among the many sculptured faces showing 
the conventional signs of age, this double 
crease seems to be unique and may (though 
with due caution) be interpreted as characteris- 
tic of the person represented in the Toronto 
head, which, if now sadly battered, was origi- 
nally too good a sculpture to have served 
merely as an experiment for a single variation 
on a type. In other words (especially since 
the eyes, too, show unusual modulations, per- 
haps expressive of the rheumy eyes of an old 

man) we may have here the remnant of what 
was once a fine portrait head, now regrettably 
reduced to little more than a shadow. 

measurements: Height 8.5 cm. Width 6.2 cm. 
Depth 8.7 cm. Width of break at neck 4.8 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: The back-pillar top, once of trapezoid 
shape, is now mostly gone; so are the ears, nose, and 
mouth. Still, it was felt worth while to bring this 
head from Toronto to Brooklyn, in order to furnish 
another illustration of the variety of sculptural forms 
used in portraiture. If the head turns out to be rep- 
resentative of a type that exists somewhere on a 
complete or, even better, an inscribed statuette, it 
may be easier to place it. At the moment we are 
frankly at a loss as to the century in which it was 
made. Since the third century, as exemplified by 
Cairo C.G. 700 (Fig. 250) and other pieces, seems 
to have been an epoch of experimentation and novel- 
ties, we have tentatively assigned the Toronto head 
to about 250 B.C. 

No. 102; PL 95, Figs. 255-256. 


About 250-200 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Grey -black diorite. 

Owner: Rosicrucian Egyptian, Oriental Museum; San Jose, Cat.; no. 1583. 

Most standing male sculptures of the Ptole- 
maic Period were represented with a shaven 
head; when a wig is employed, it is usually a 
bag wig. A wide or a straight wig is rarely 
found, and the few examples that occur are 
invariably from Thebes. It is significant of 
the tradition-loving south that there such a 
time-honored headdress appeared continuously 
among the shaven heads, while the north had 
completely abandoned it for generations. It is 
doubtful that the wide wig was still worn in 
daily life; it had probably become an acces- 
sory used only in sculpture made for tradition- 
minded persons. Its shape and contour became 
less and less distinct, and it no longer formed 

an imposing frame and background for the 
face — it became an adjunct, put on the head 
for convention's sake rather than something 
really worn, as is shown by its awkward pro- 
portions, narrow, and rising to a great height 
above the forehead. 

To illustrate this phase of development, a 
statue from San Jose has been chosen, in which 
the traditional stance of the male figure is re- 
iterated with even more than customary rigid- 
ity. The technical skill with which this sculp- 
ture in extremely hard stone has been fash- 
ioned is, as always, admirable, but in its lack 
of nuance the figure reveals that the source of 
inspiration was drying up, even though, spo- 


radically, at even later times, it was able still to 
revivify the sculptor's art. 

An inscription in two columns on the back 
pillar indicates that the man represented was 
one Pekher ... (a name most likely to be re- 
stored as Pekher-khonsu); his parents' names 
have been lost with the missing end of the 
columns, both here and on the left side of the 
pillar. Pekher-khonsu was a "Prophet of Amun 
in Karnak" and a "Prophet of Amun-Userhat," 
the sacred barque of the god Amun, and also 
held, among other titles, that of "Overseer of 
the Secrets and Purifier of the God," probably 
the equivalent of the Greek stolistes. 

Since Pekher-khonsu, like many notables of 
Thebes — which during most of the Ptolemaic 
Period was a rather provincial town — is not 
known from other sources, and since the in- 
scriptions do not provide a fixed date, his pe- 
riod can only be pinpointed to within half a 
century. Yet the mass of sculptures of the 
Ptolemaic Period found at Thebes, among 
which there are fortunately a few dated and 
datable pieces, provides enough information 
to attribute a statue such as his with full justi- 

fication to the middle or second half of the 
third century. 

measurements: Height 48.4 cm. Width 13.2 cm. 
Depth at knee level 11.5 cm. Width of back pillar 
5.7 cm. Intracolumnar width 2.2 cm. Depth of 
break at right leg 4 cm. 

provenance: Not known; presumably Karnak. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: Part of the nose, the feet and the base are 
missing, and the left leg, from the knee down, has 
been restored; otherwise the statue is well preserved. 
Although the wide wig of early Dynasty XXVI 
(see No. 28) continued in use at Thebes, already in 
Dynasty XXX some models decrease the lower por- 
tion slightly in width (Brussels E. 4395; Cairo J.E. 
37993), and there gradually develops a wig with the 
two sides almost parallel to each other. This modi- 
fied wide wig is called a straight wig; a good ex- 
ample in a block statue is No. 117, and in a standing 
figure, London, B.M. 48038. The latter, which also 
belongs to a man named Pekher-khonsu (no rela- 
tion), was obviously worked in the same studio as 
the San Jose statue: in the rear view, back pillar and 
wig can hardly be distinguished. Our Pekher-khonsu 
has a summarily modeled face; both hands hold 
emblematic staves. According to epigraphy and 
orthography, the statue still belongs to the third cen- 
tury; its workmanship and the shape of the wig re- 
late it to pieces such as Cairo C.G. 680, which was 
made for a man known to have lived in the time of 
Ptolemy II. 

No. 103; PI. 96, Figs. 257-258. 


About 250-200 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Dark grey schist. 

Owner: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.; no. 388 
{on indefinite loan at the Yale University Art Gallery; no. 4.1. 195 3). 

In the Ptolemaic Period, Egyptian sculpture 
developed along two distinctly different lines. 
One was the traditional, in which — with cer- 
tain modifications — costume and attitude were 
shown as had been the custom during previous 
centuries: this is Ptolemaic sculpture in the 
strict sense of the term. The other follows the 
traditional style so far as pose and attitude are 
concerned, but employs costume, coiffure, and 

attributes of Hellenistic inspiration (though 
not necessarily of Greek origin), sometimes 
mixed with ancient Egyptian elements. 

On account of its coiffure, this head from 
New Haven belongs to the second group: it is 
Hellenistic-Egyptian or Hellenistic-Ptolemaic 
— Hellenistic for short, though one has to bear 
in mind that in the context of this Exhibition 
a head such as this is not what Classical archae- 


ologists call Hellenistic, because it is made in 
Egyptian material, comes — as traces of the 
back pillar prove — from an Egyptian temple 
statue, and was made by a native Egyptian, 
not a Greek or Greco-Egyptian sculptor. In 
this royal head we have — to a surprising de- 
gree — a mixture of the traditional and the new. 
Conventionally Egyptian, of course, are the 
inlay (now missing) of the eyes, the royal 
headcloth, the uraeus, and the back pillar. Hel- 
lenistic are the naturalistic locks protruding 
from under the nemes onto the forehead, the 
large, deep-set eyes, and the soft, full lips of 
the sensitive mouth. 

The head belonged to a statue that was well 
over life size. There is no reason to doubt that 
the stance of the figure was the very same as 
that of hundreds of other statues with left foot 
advanced, which had been made during pre- 
vious millennia. Although the nemes follows 
the Egyptian prototype in general form, the 
rise and swinging curve of its creases and its 
large, softly rounded planes betray Hellenistic 
inspiration and emphasize the alien heroic as- 
pect of the large head. The tail of the uraeus 
runs distinctly to the left of center and tapers 
off just beyond the crown of the head. The 
border of the nemes is rather narrow and, un- 
like the headcloth itself, which was once well 
polished, has been left in the rough, probably 
intentionally, to be covered with metal foil. 
Under the border, the curls are lined up in a 
row increasing in volume towards the temples, 
like so many thick little claws. The face is 
softly rounded and youthful, far from mature; 
yet the mouth, in contrast with the other fea- 
tures, conveys disdain and experience. That as 
an idealizing likeness the head follows much 
more closely Hellenistic than Egyptian style 
is underscored by the ecstatically opened eyes, 
with their thick brows and the naturalistic fold 
of the upper lids. 

The identity of the king represented must 
remain for the present a matter of conjecture. 
The entire field of Egyptian royal sculpture of 
the last three centuries b.c, Ptolemaic as well 

as Hellenistic, has been so long neglected that 
even the available material, which has greatly 
increased in recent years, has not been re- 
corded, much less classified and analyzed. Since 
only a few isolated pieces have been well pub- 
lished and discussed, for lack of comparative 
material the historical development of Hellen- 
istic royal sculpture during these centuries can 
not as yet be accurately traced. It is therefore 
with some hesitation that even an approximate 
date can be proposed for the pharaoh shown 
here; at present an attribution to the second 
half of the third century b.c. seems best 

measurements: Height 37 cm. Width 30.5 cm. 
Depth 24.4 cm. Height of face 15 cm. 

provenance: Not known; formerly in the collection 
of Judge Victor Clay Barringer. 

bibliography: Rostovtzeff, Soc. & Econ. History II, 
p. 872, pi. XCIX, fig. 1. Winifred Needier, in Bery- 
tus 9 (1948-49), pp. 133-136, pi. XXV, figs. 3-4. 

comment: For Judge Barringer, see the Comment 
on No. 109. Miss Needler's discussion (op. cit.) of 
the Yale head is excellent, and should be consulted 
for further details. At the left side of the base of the 
neck, part of the lappet of the nemes is still visible. 
The protruding lower Up and a deep depression be- 
low it combine to give the youthful face its disdain- 
ful expression. The ears are fairly small — always a 
surprising feature in an Egyptian sculpture — and the 
Adam's apple is indicated. There is no true resem- 
blance between this head (or for that matter any 
royal head with Hellenistic coiffure and mouth) and 
royal heads of the period following Egyptian tradi- 
tion; the two types simply cannot be compared. As 
for Hellenistic heads, there is one with an inscription 
(Athens, N.M. 108) identifying it as Ptolemy VI 
Philometor, on the basis of which it has been pos- 
sible to attribute Alexandria 3357, a sculpture of 
colossal scale, to the same king. In both of these a 
characteristic feature is the prominence of the locks 
on the forehead. In consequence, the nemes is not 
very voluminous and looks as if it had been pushed 
back on the head. Since the locks are smaller, and 
the nemes is more sizable, it can be inferred that the 
Yale head may be a good deal earlier. Though in 
principle it is not good practice to compare sculp- 
tures of entirely different scale, reference should be 
made to the gigantic head of a Ptolemaic ruler with 
Hellenistic coiffure (Alexandria 11275), whose com- 
panion queen is now in a Belgian museum (Marie- 
mont 505). This undoubtedly antedates the first 
century b.c, to which it has frequently been at- 
tributed, for the chin is certainly comparable with 


that of the head in Athens, and we may thus have in 
the royal pair a representation of Ptolemy VI with 
Cleopatra II. While not directly bearing on the 
Yale head, the identification of the large heads with 
Hellenistic locks in Alexandria is of primary impor- 
tance for a new approach to the entire chronology. 
The often cited and (since Bissing, Denkm. 103) not 
much studied colossal statue of the so-called Alex- 
ander II or IV in Cairo (C.G. 701) is, in our opin- 
ion, later than the Yale head; the latter shows a 
really harmonious blending of Hellenistic-Greek and 
Egyptian features, such as occurs only rarely in 
sculpture of this type. Miss Needier has attributed 
the Yale head to Ptolemy IV; Mr. G. K. Jenkins, 
of the Department of Coins and Medals of the Brit- 

ish Museum, who very kindly has given us his opin- 
ion, is more inclined to liken it to coin portraits of 
Ptolemy III. But Ptolemy III is supposed to be rep- 
resented in the big diorite head in Copenhagen 
(N.C.G. 933), which does not resemble the Yale 
head at all. Perhaps the Copenhagen head is not that 
of a ruler, for it lacks the uraeus or any other royal 
insignia. The ribbon that adorns its hair is well 
known from private Egyptian sculptures of the 
Ptolemaic Period (Alexandria P. 10425) and, unless 
provided with a royal cobra (No. 135), does not nec- 
essarily denote a royal personage. To judge by the 
hardly perceptible traces, the back pillar of the Yale 
torso had a rounded top. 

No. 104; PI. 97, Figs. 259-260. 


About 250 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Mich.; no. 40.47. 

Black diorite. 

The apparent connection between Egyptian 
and Roman-Republican portraiture is a much- 
discussed but still largely unsolved problem of 
Mediterranean history of art. That there was 
some connection is obvious from the number 
of surviving Roman portraits made in Egyptian 
stones and presumably by Egyptian workmen 
familiar with such harder-than-marble mate- 
rials. An even better argument in favor of a 
close relationship is, however, the strong re- 
semblance between certain Egyptian portraits 
of the Late Period and Roman portraits made 
during the last decades of the Republic, and 
here, in a head from Detroit, is one of the most 
Roman-looking of all the pre-Roman heads 
from the Nile Valley. That it is of Egyptian 
origin might be suspected from the material — 
diorite — but is best proved by the remains of 
a back pillar, that infallible sign of Egyptian 
provenance for a sculpture of the Hellenistic 

Though it is of less than life size, in an en- 
larged photograph the head gives an illusion of 
being of heroic proportions. This is due to 

the inner strength the artist has managed to 
express in the features of the unknown man it 
represents. He must have been a person of 
dynamic forcefulness, rather coarse, perhaps, 
and certainly ruthless. His face, unlike that 
of the head from the Gulbenkian Collection 
(No. 107), has nothing in it of peace, of quiet; 
it is all but brutal in its determination. No 
doubt from observation of the living model, 
the sculptor has fashioned forehead, temples, 
and skull with full awareness of the underlying 
bone structure. His attention to the whims of 
nature is especially evident in the brows, which 
— a rare feature — are paralleled by deep 
grooves, in precisely the place where, in earlier 
pieces, one would expect to find a band plas- 
tically rendered in relief. The creases running 
down from the nostrils are marked by fleshy 
folds, well-fitting the character of a face with 
full, heavy features and double chin. While 
the mouth is treated in a Hellenistic manner, 
the portrait as a whole is very Egyptian in its 
directness and excellently represents the type 
of portraiture which so deeply impressed the 


Romans that they used it as a model when they 
developed their own style of portrait sculp- 
ture around ioo b.c. 

measurements: Height 20 cm. Width 12.2 cm. 
Depth 17.2 cm. Width of break at neck 8.3 cm., at 
back pillar 8.5 cm. Depth of break (slant) 12.3 cm. 
provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collection 
of Howard Carter. 

bibliography: None; mentioned in BMFA 49 (1951), 
p. 74, note 2. 

comment: The Detroit head — one of the great 
Egyptian portraits of the Late Period — is so unusual 
in so many respects that it should be made the sub- 
ject of a special study. In the impression of volume it 
gives, despite its small size, it recalls a frequently illus- 
trated head in Paris (Louvre E. 8060), though the 
Paris head, with features embedded in mountains of 
flesh, is reduced to mere caricature when confronted 
with the head from Detroit. The latter shows an 
ever-so-faint line of natural hair above the temples. 
A slight vertical wrinkle rises from each side of the 
root of the nose. It has in common with the Boston 
head (No. 100) the unusual groove above the brow, 
though the treatment of the eyes differs. Such natu- 
ralistic features constitute a new approach to por- 
traiture. No one, we believe, will deny that No. 83, 
the Brooklyn "Green Head," is a portrait. Yet in it 
the result has been achieved by means which scarcely 

take into account the nature of skin. The Detroit 
head, on the other hand, shows a preoccupation on 
the part of the sculptor with flesh and skin, which 
can have been brought into the open only through 
contact with Greek statuary, although — we hasten 
to add — it was always a latent part of the Egyptian 
craftsman's equipment, as is shown, for instance, by 
Nos. 23 and 67. So far as can be judged from its 
battered condition, the back pillar was of an amor- 
phous nature frequent in the Ptolemaic Period. If, 
however, its present form is merely the result of 
wear, its slender proportions suggest that it may 
originally have been of an elongated trapezoid shape, 
similar to those of No. 73, Chicago, N.H.M. 31724, 
and London, B.M. 59075. In date, the Detroit head 
must be close to, or slightly later than, the head of 
Cairo C.G. 700 (Fig. 250). The conception of these 
two faces springs from the same source, although two 
entirely different people are represented, and the 
sculptures were not necessarily made at the same 
studio or at the same date; the question of which is 
the earlier must at present be left open. The mouth 
of the Detroit head is the most un-Egyptian part of 
the face, although this Hellenistic feature had been 
taken over by Egyptian craftsmen as early as the 
fourth century b.c. Here, it is strongly reminiscent 
of that of Turin 1385, the queen with the vulture cap 
and the triple uraeus. For further discussion of 
Egyptian-Roman relations and Egyptian influence on 
Roman portraiture, see the Comment on No. 127. 

No. 105; PI. 98, Figs. 261-262. 


About 240-200 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto; no. 910.75. 

Black porphyritic granite. 

Statues of queens of Dynasty XXVI appear 
never to have been made, and of course the 
Persian rulers of Egypt did not set up sculp- 
tures of their consorts any more than of them- 
selves. During Dynasties XXVIII-XXX the 
queens were not even mentioned in texts or 
represented in relief, and Alexander the Great 
was too much the conqueror, hero, and god to 
commemorate his family in foreign lands. Only 
with his successors, who had become resident 
kings of Egypt, a change took place — actually 
not so much a change as a revival; for in re- 

establishing the position of the queen, they 
merely again brought to life an ancient Egyp- 
tian tradition that had been suppressed for 
about five hundred years. 

Basically, the representations in the round 
of Ptolemaic queens fall into two groups. In 
one the queen wears a traditional Egyptian 
costume, and in the other she wears garments 
which, though basically Egyptian, show folds 
in a manner inspired by Hellenistic sculpture — 
in short, a Hellenistic costume. If one expects 
to find the style changing from the former to 

T 34 

the latter costume at a given time, perhaps with 
the accession to the throne of a new queen, 
one will be sadly mistaken. While Queen 
Arsinoe II is pictured in relief as wearing 
Hellenistic costume, more than a century later 
queens are still occasionally shown in tradi- 
tional Egyptian dress, not only in temple re- 
liefs, but also on stelae. Since thus there seems 
to have been no definite time at which a change 
took place, each sculpture has to be judged by 
style, rather than by attributes and accouter- 

An approximately life-size bust from the 
Royal Ontario Museum is a good case in point. 
It represents a queen in a tripartite wig cov- 
ered with echeloned stylized curls, bound at 
the ends with three bands. Half-way between 
forehead and crown of head, a circlet is indi- 
cated in relief, on which appear the damaged 
head and hood of the uraeus; the body of the 
royal cobra was, however, never shown. A 
broad back pillar rises to a height well above 
the head, in order to give support to a divine 
crown, now lost; only the modius on which it 
once rested is preserved. Though the edge of 
a garment is indicated at the neck, it probably 
sheathed the figure so closely that the body 
appeared to be naked, a convention that is, 
with exceptions, more common in early than 
in late Ptolemaic sculpture. The face is, of 
course, not a portrait; on the other hand it 
shows traits which do not quite conform to the 
feminine ideal as it appears in No. 98. The 
expression is dry, bland, non-committal, and 
still: the longer one looks at the face in varying 
light, the more one has the impression that 
something distinctly personal is expressed in 
the features. There is a mystery in the face, 

and the puzzling element is probably I lellcnis- 

tic-Greek. In indicating a mood, this Toronto 

head is distinguished from more traditional 

sculptures of the early Ptolemaic Period. 

measurements: Height 63.5 cm. Height of head 22.9 
cm. Width at shoulder level 33 cm. Depth at nose 
level 25.5 cm. Width of back pillar near break 13 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

hibliography: None. Mentioned in Berytus 9 (1948- 
49), p. 140, note 6. 

comment: The two basic groups of queens' statuary, 
Ptolemaic and Hellenistic, should be further sub- 
divided according to coiffure: Egyptian or Greek. 
The Toronto queen is Egyptian-Ptolemaic, but a 
very similar bust in Alexandria (Graeco-Roman Mu- 
seum 3222) with the same wig and circlet shows 
Hellenistic drapery in the costume, and the breasts 
are covered. A head in Baltimore (W.A.G. 225) has 
the same wig and a bodyless uraeus, but no circlet. 
The heads closest to the Toronto bust are in Glasgow 
(Burrell Collection; AfO 17 [1956], p. 409, fig. 5) 
and Leningrad (Hermitage 3099; from Kertch). The 
earliest representation of Arsinoe II in Hellenistic 
costume appears on a stela from Tanis (London, 
B.M. 1054); she has the long lappet wig with circlet 
and uraeus and wears the crown, with two plumes, 
cow's horns, and sun disc, of Isis-Hathor. The To- 
ronto queen's head has one uraeus, the statue of 
Arsinoe II in Rome (Vatican 25) and the head from 
the Metropolitan Museum of Art (No. 98) have two 
uraei, and the whole problem of one, two, or even 
three uraei (see No. 1 1 3 ) is as puzzling as ever, despite 
the discussions in Bissing, Denkm., Text to pi. 64, 
note 8, and Roeder, Statue?!, passim. The modius on 
the head of the Toronto queen has approximately the 
same shape as that of the goddess Isis in Fig. 128. The 
ends of the lappets come unusually close together. 
The thick rim of the upper lids and the heavy fold 
above it should be noted. If the date suggested 
(about 240-200 B.C.) is correct, we may have in this 
queen either Berenice II or Arsinoe III. Comparison 
with temple reliefs has not yielded any very definite 
information; often the queen is assimilated to the 
goddess of the temple in coiffure and costume, and 
frequently the date of a given relief representation 
is not evident from the royal names in the accom- 
panying text. 


No. 1 06; PI. 98, Fig. 263. 


About 200 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 57.42. 

Black basalt. 

There are two mere fragments of heads in- 
cluded in the Exhibition: No. 51, from a head 
of King Apries, and this fractured face with 
portrait features. Though deplorably incom- 
plete, we are showing it among the great heads 
of the Ptolemaic Period, since even as a docu- 
ment it contributes its share to the wide range 
of diverse physiognomies from the last cen- 
turies of ancient Egypt. 

A well-formed high forehead leads in a 
gentle curve into what was once a lofty, elong- 
ated skull. The bridge of the nose shows a 
deep depression; the line of the rounded eye- 
brows is straight; a heavy line descends from 
the nostrils. Most remarkable, however, are 
the eyes, especially the well-preserved left eye, 
embedded in a deep, sharply contoured socket, 
from which an ornamental curve escapes to 
separate nose and cheek. Upper and lower lid, 
cut with metallic precision, are partly drawn 
over the eyeball, leaving a fairly small opening 
for the eye itself. 

The cheeks must have been sunken, almost 
disappearing below the strong cheekbones, 
which probably lent the face a tragic expres- 
sion. Whereas No. 100 seems complacent and 
rather contented, this head must have been 
that of a sad, if strong-willed, man. 

measurements: Height 14.7 cm. Width (outer cor- 
ners of the eyes) 6 cm. Depth 12.5 cm. 

provenance: Mitrahineh (Memphis). 

bibliography: None. 

comment: To reconstruct a head and, even more, 
the expression of a person, from a fragmentary face 
such as this is rather a task for a physiognomist than 
for an art historian. It would be easier if there were 
abundant parallels, but this is not the case. That the 
Brooklyn head was a highly individual sculpture is 
apparent, despite its poor preservation. The metallic 
quality of the cutting of the eye and surrounding 
areas, as distinguished from the soft rounding of the 
brows, should be noted, in the hope that it may be 
again found in a sculpture with head intact and with 
an inscription giving some clue to the date. At pres- 
ent one only can place this fragment among the mid- 
dle Ptolemaic sculptures; in any case, it appears to be 
younger than Cairo C.G. 700 (Fig. 250) and older 
than London, B.M. 65443. 

No. 107; PI. 99, Figs. 264-266. 


About 220-180 b.c. 

Owner: Fundagao Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisbon; no. 46. 

Light and dark green schist. 

Few men, on reaching a ripe old age, have 
faces that can be called beautiful, and the an- 
cient Egyptians were no exception to this rule. 
When men are powerful and influential and 
have achieved a certain stature in the political 


and economic life of their nation, their features 
are apt to reflect the power to command; and 
occasionally aging faces are pleasant and be- 
nign, radiating a life well-lived. Egyptian 
artists, throughout the millennia, however, 

largely idealized men's features, giving them, 
if not the traits of youth, the lineaments of 
mature authority — making them, in short, into 
the ideal types they might wish to be for eter- 
nity. But time and again, from the early bust 
of Ankh-haf in Boston to the "Tete Salt" in 
the Louvre, anonymous sculptors managed to 
recreate in stone real persons, whose faces ap- 
peal today more than the hundreds of bland 
masks that confront us in museums and are 
hailed as works of art merely because of their 
good craftsmanship and fine preservation. 

Here, in the head of a wise, if not very agree- 
able, old man from the Gulbenkian Collection, 
we are confronted with a face that has all the 
indications of true portraiture. In contrast with 
many of the heads showing signs of age, which 
have been preserved in fairly large numbers 
from Ptolemaic times, this is not a likeness made 
with the help of a well-proved formula, but 
one achieved with an artist's approach to a defi- 
nite person's striking appearance. The beau- 
tifully modeled skull, the asymmetry of the 
two halves of the face, the heavy-lidded eyes, 
the sunken cheeks, and especially the thin- 
lipped, slightly contemptuous mouth are hard 
to imagine as the features of a person who died 
more than two thousand years ago. Minute 
pick marks on the upper lip may indicate the 
stubble of a moustache. The two nasolabial 
furrows, though entirely different from each 
other, form the only conventional feature of 
this otherwise highly realistic image of a man's 

The tight, thin-lipped mouth, clearly show- 
ing the influence of Hellenistic naturalism, pro- 
vides the key for the chronological position of 
this head, which often — so unjustly — has been 
attributed to the Saite Period. Another indica- 
tion of the Ptolemaic origin are the eyes, spe- 
cifically the eyelids, which permit us to group 
the head with a number of third and second 
century portraits with eyes treated in a similar 
manner. Since little remains of the back pillar, 
which was rather deep and terminates low on 
the skull, probably with a trapezoidal top, the 

identity of the man is not known. His face, 
however, especially as seen from the front, has 
a haunting quality not easily forgotten, and 
though the mouth seems to betray experience 
and bitterness, the eyes, brows, and forehead 
impart a feeling of understanding and deep 

measurements: Height 9.5 cm. Width 7.5 cm. Depth 
10.2 cm. Width of break at neck 3.9 cm. Depth of 
break 7.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Formerly in the Fouquet 

bibliography (selective): E. Chassinat, Les Antiquites 
egyptiennes de la Collection Fouquet (Paris, 1922), 
pp. 21-22, pi. IX. Collection du D r Fouquet, du 
Caire; Art egyptien . . . coniposant la premiere vente 
de la Collection du Docteur Fouquet, du Caire (Sale 
Catalogue, Paris, Galerie Georges Petit, 12-14 June, 
1922), p. 4, pi. II, no. 19. Bosse, Menschl. Figur, p. 
74, no. 205, pi. XIc. The British Museum (Tempo- 
rary Exhibition), Ancient Egyptian Sculpture Lent 
by C. S. Gulbenkian, Esq. (London, 1937), p. 2, no. 3, 
pi. V-VI. Scharff, in ZAS 74 (1938), pp. 48-49, note 
5. National Gallery of Art, Egyptian Sculpture jrom 
the Gulbenkian Collection (Washington, 1949), pp. 
14, 27, 61 (illus.), no. 19. Drerup, Ag. Bildniskopfe, 
p. 24, note 23, pi. 2 b. BMFA 49 (1951), p. 74, fig. 8 
(with bibliography). Wolf, Kunst, p. 629, fig. 664. 

comment: That the head, as a portrait, is far better 
than any sculpture created in early Saite times, need 
not be explained today; there is a "depth" in the ex- 
pression of the eyes that does not exist before the 
fourth century and comes to its greatest ripeness in 
the Ptolemaic Period. Of course, heads such as this 
one and several others in the Exhibition contradict 
popular opinion of what Egyptian art is supposed to 
be like; they are frequently considered ugly and 
atypical. Whether they are ugly or not, cannot be 
discussed here, since this is a relative conception. 
Most persons overlook the individual features, once 
the spell of a work of art has captivated their minds 
and eyes, and are no longer aware of whether the 
object is "pretty" or "beautiful," provided it arouses 
their interest. The head from the Gulbenkian Col- 
lection is atypical insofar as there are no replicas, but 
as a member of the larger group of portraits of the 
Ptolemaic Period it is not so isolated as it may seem 
at first glance. The striking portraits brought to- 
gether in this Exhibition should help to prove that 
the fable of the decline of Egyptian art under Ptole- 
maic rule is, by and large, nothing but a fable. The 
head from the Gulbenkian Collection, like its peers 
from Detroit, Baltimore, and Boston, shows an in- 
dependence of spirit and a freedom of artistic con- 
ception which surpasses even the best of the two 


preceding centuries. The adoption of a naturalistic 
rendering of the mouth, for instance, in this and 
other heads of the period, is not so much a concession 
to Hellenistic taste as a frugally tentative adoption 

of the best from another world. But this other world 
never created a portrait on Egyptian soil of similar 
spiritual dimensions. The Egyptians, as always, 
found their strongest resources in themselves. 

No. io8;Pls. ioo-ioi, Figs. 267-269, 272. 


About 220-180 b.c; Ftolemaic Period. 

Owner: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.; no. 04.1749. 

Green schist. 

The history of collecting records few works 
of Egyptian art that are both distinguished and 
have distinguished pedigrees. Even fewer of 
the truly great sculptures that have been ob- 
tained through the art trade can be traced back 
for more than a hundred years. It is therefore 
worthy of note that what we consider the 
finest of all Ptolemaic portraits — the "Green 
Head" from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 
— has a long and remarkable history. 

That history began in the winter of 1857- 
58, when Auguste Mariette, the father of 
Egyptian field archaeology, discoverer of the 
Serapeum, and founder of the Antiquities 
Service of Egypt, was commissioned by the 
Khedive to open up a number of ancient sites 
in the Nile Valley in anticipation of the visit 
of Prince Napoleon, a cousin of Emperor 
Napoleon III. His Highness, known as "Prince 
Plonplon" in the salons of Paris, delayed his 
arrival and finally, early in 1858, canceled his 
visit. As souvenirs of a journey never under- 
taken, the Khedive nevertheless sent to him in 
Paris a number of the antiquities said to have 
been discovered by Mariette during his season 
of exploration. Among them was the master- 
piece from Boston. 

A year later, this extraordinary head was 
published by C. Ferri-Pisani, secretary to the 
Prince, who illustrated it with an engraving 
in reverse, which reappeared after eight years 
in an article on the Egyptian antiquities shown 


at the Paris Exposition of 1867. Then the head 
vanished, only to turn up thirty-seven years 
later, when it was acquired by the Museum of 
Fine Arts from the great Bostonian collector, 
E. P. Warren, whose papers gave no indication 
of how or where he had found it. The full 
story of the fate of the little head during the 
interval will probably never be known, but it 
is significant that the man who brought to 
America the finest Greek sculpture of the 
Classical period in the Western Hemisphere, 
the Boston companion piece to the "Ludovisi 
Throne," should also have acquired by far the 
best Ptolemaic portrait sculpture owned by 
any museum in any country. 

For there can be no doubt that, notwith- 
standing the merits of the Berlin "Green Head" 
(No. 127) and the Brooklyn "Black Head" 
(No. 132), this small sculpture from Boston 
is a jewel the like of which exists in no other 
collection. It reflects, in the features of an 
aging man with shaven head, a depth of human 
understanding and a sureness of execution that 
are the more amazing in a piece scarcely five 
inches in height. The character of the man is 
fully expressed, though his name is not known. 
The inscription on the trapezoid top of the 
back pillar names the Memphite god Ptah- 
Sokar, before whom he doubtless was honored; 
the rest is lost. 

The account of Ferri-Pisani states specifi- 
cally that Mariette found the head at the Sera- 

peum, the sanctuary of the Ptolemaic god 
Sarapis and the burial place of the Apis bulls 
at Saqqara, in the Memphite necropolis. If the 
head actually came from the sanctuary of 
Sarapis, its date might be more easily estab- 
lished than if it had been found at a part of 
the site constantly in use from the New King- 
dom on, but, alas, the facts recorded are in- 
conclusive, and we must resort, as so often, to 
examination of the head itself, in order to de- 
termine its approximate age. 

Under a domed skull, a fleeting forehead is 
marked by wrinkles in the form of neatly par- 
alleled engraved lines, which approximate the 
contour of the high-arched brows. A gnarled 
bone protrudes under the skin between the 
brows, and below it the bridge of the nose is 
deeply depressed, to rise abruptly into what 
must have been a strong and conspicuous or- 
gan, probably hooked at the tip. The eyes, set 
in large, deep sockets, with a depression sepa- 
rating them from the cheeks, are half-veiled by 
tightly stretched lids. Short crow's-feet are 
engraved at the corners, and on the cheekbone, 
just below the left eye, is a wart, prominently 
displayed. The two nasolabial furrows are 
straight and simply drawn. The right one is 
paralleled by a brief line engraved in the cheek, 
the left, by a short fold, in perfectly harmoni- 
ous asymmetry. The ears, well modeled though 
not in great detail, are set far back on the skull 
and slant conspicuously to the rear. 

The greatest marvel of the head, however, 
is the sense it gives of underlying bone struc- 
ture. It is no exaggeration to say that nowhere 
else have bone and skin been so sensitively han- 
dled in an Egyptian portrait. For this is a por- 
trait — the portrait of the Late Period. The 
sculptor who made it was not interested in 
idealizing his subject, not concerned with giv- 
ing him an appearance of youth and beauty 
and a bland smile. On the contrary, he por- 
trayed faithfully the cool, calculating eyes, the 
large, prominent nose, the harsh mouth, even 
the blemish of the skin, with an almost cruel 
accuracy. He has made known to us a canny 

and probably cunning old priest of the Mem- 
phite Ptah, who has kept his name and his 
secrets from us, yet reveals in his face more 
than he can hide. 

measurements: Height 10.8 cm. Width 8.1 cm. 
Width of break at neck 5 cm., at back pillar 4.3 cm. 
Depth of break (horiz.) 7.8 cm. 

provenance: Saqqara (Serapeum). Formerly in the 
collections of Prince Joseph-Charles-Paul Bonaparte 
Napoleon and E. P. Warren. 

bibliography (selective): C. Ferri-Pisani, in Gazette 
des Beaux-Arts 1 (1859), pp. 275-276, 281 (reversed 
illus.); 23 (1867), p. 31 (reversed illus.). Museum of 
Fine Arts, Handbook (Boston, 191 1 ), p. 50 (also illus- 
trated in all subsequent editions, to date). BMP A 
vol. XXXV, no. 211 (Oct. 1937), pp. 70-71; vol. 
XLVII, no. 268 (June 1949), p. 25, fig. 6, p. 26. 
Smith, Anc. Egypt (1942, 1946, 1952 editions), p. 157 
(illus.); (i96oed.),p. 176, fig. 113. Delbriick, Antikc 
Portrats, p. XXVIII, pi. 12. R.M. 32 (1917), pp. 145- 
146; 55 (1940), p. 230. Pijoan, El Arte egipcio (1945 
ed.), p. 479, fig. 637. R.A. 26 (1946), p. 134. Wolf, 
Ktinst, p. 629, fig. 662. Smith, A.A.A.E., p. 252, pi. 
158. Dows Dunham, The Egyptian Department and 
Its Excavations (Boston, 1958), pp. 19-20, fig. 12. 

comment: Though the discussion of Egyptian por- 
traiture may not have been carried sufficiently far in 
the text of this Catalogue, the Exhibition affords an 
opportunity to compare and evaluate, not only the 
three or four best pieces of the Ptolemaic Period, 
such as the Berlin, Boston, and Brooklyn portraits, 
but also a score of other remarkable faces, in which 
the true likeness of an individual is imbedded. It is 
with this in mind that we wish to emphasize the great 
achievement mirrored in the Boston head. Not only 
skin and bones and structure and form, but character 
in a hitherto unknown degree is revealed in this 
miniature of humanity. It does not matter that we 
may not like the man revealed in the portrait — 
neither can one like the Gattamelata. But we can 
respect the accomplishment and grasp the profound- 
ness of experience that inspired the unknown crafts- 
man who produced the head. 

Regarding Prince Joseph-Charles-Paul Bonaparte 
Napoleon and his venture, see Winlock, in JEA 10 
(1924), pp. 259 fF., and the literature cited by him. 
C. Ferri-Pisani, loc. cit., states that the head, with a 
number of bronzes, was found at the Serapeum in 
the foundations of the chapel of an Apis built by 
Apries. Though he claims to base his account on 
notes furnished bv Mariette when the collection was 
presented to the Prince, his statements are so ob- 
viously based in many instances on — to say the least 
— a misunderstanding of whatever Mariette meant to 
convey that, to verify them, it would be necessarv to 
consult Mariette's original notes, which are said to 
have been preserved in the archives of the Bonaparte 


family. The reference to "Apries" could mean 
"Wah-ib-ra," a private name still frequent in the 
Ptolemaic Period. Also, it is not clear with which 
lot of bronzes the head was found, if it was found at 
all in the excavations of 1857-58. Since there is evi- 
dence that some of the objects presented to the 
Prince had come to light a number of years before 
the intended visit, it is impossible to be certain of the 
origin of the head. If it actually was found at the 
Serapeum, it was probably not from a tomb statue 
but rather from the temple statue of an elderly priest 
who wished to be commemorated near his god. As 
may be seen from the limited Bibliography listed 
above, the head — like so many Late portraits — has 
suffered the misfortune of a number of attributions 
without very convincing argument. The latest 
(Smith, A.A.A.E., plate 185 [greatly enlarged], cf. p. 
252) reads "Early fourth century b.c." One only 
wishes that there existed a series of fine portraits 
dated to that period, among which the Boston "Green 
Head" could take its place. Alas, the problems con- 
nected with assigning it to a period are numerous. 
One of them is posed by the inscription. We have 
seen that the trapezoid back-pillar top was intro- 
duced in Dynasty XXVII and was not fully deco- 
rated until Dynasty XXX. Inscriptions of the latter 
period are meticulous in their adaptation of early 
Saite style, and one primary rule, illustrated in a 
number of well-dated monuments, was the "balanc- 
ing" and "squaring" of the inscriptions in the classi- 
cal manner. The inscription of the Boston head, 
however, is neither balanced nor well squared; de- 
spite the fact that the contour tapers, the "r" has 
been shifted to the right, and the "t" of "Ptah" has 
dropped so low that not even its crest is visible above 
the break. Furthermore, attention should be given to 
the peculiar form in which the "h" of "Ptah" is 
drawn, with three separate circles forming the stem 
of the sign. None of these points can convincingly be 
paralleled in the early fourth century, but is it not 
difficult to find examples for them in the Ptolemaic 
Period. For instance, Berlin 14460, the torso of a 
man named Iahmes, who died in the time of King 

Ptolemy V, has a group of three Memphite deities in 
sunk relief on the upper portion of the back pillar; 
above them were their names, mostly lost, but the 
"h" and "t" of the word "Ptah" are sufficiently pre- 
served to show that the "h" is drawn in the same way 
as on the back pillar of the Boston head. The fine 
lines on the forehead, too, are an indication of Ptole- 
maic origin. To be sure, they are found in relief at 
the end of the sixth century (Berlin 15414) and occur 
— ever so faintly — on No. 67, but that, in many ways, 
is an unusual bust, much advanced for its time, 
though it can hardly be attributed to the post-Per- 
sian period on account of its inscription. All other 
heads with wrinkled foreheads, so far as they can be 
dated by inscription or by other means with reason- 
able certainty, are of the Ptolemaic Period or, at the 
earliest, of Dynasty XXXI and the Macedonian Pe- 
riod (Berlin 255, 2271, 10972, 14499; Paris, Louvre E. 
10243, III2 7» II][ 95i 20173, 2 5374)- The closest par- 
allel to the drawing of such lines occurs in the so- 
called "Cesare Barracco" (Rome, Museo Barracco 
31; cf. R.M. 55 [1940], pp. 220-230), which at the 
very earliest may have been created around the mid- 
dle of the second century b.c. As for the wart, it has 
always been there, but, strangely enough, no one has 
ever mentioned it, though it is an essential point in 
assigning the head to its proper period. It is a so 
incredibly accurate observation of a distinguishing 
mark, that here — for once — we should admit for- 
eign influence. It is precisely the kind of detail which 
appealed to sculptors in what Classical archaeologists 
call the "rococo trend" of Hellenistic art (cf. Bieber, 
The Sculpture, chapter X) — a trend later reflected 
in Roman portraits with warts such as the Isis Priest 
and the Pompeian Banker in Naples (Museo Nazio- 
nale 5634 and 1 10663). Both are in bronze, the ma- 
terial which best imitates the metallic sheen of well- 
polished Egyptian schist, basalt, and diorite; and for 
the Egyptian prototype of both the Hellenistic sculp- 
tures and the Roman bronze portraits the Boston 
"Green Head" is probably the earliest and by far the 
strongest example. 


No. 109; PL 101, Figs. 270-271. 


About 220-180 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Black diorite. 

Ozujier: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Neiv Haven, Conn.; no. 384 
(on indefinite loan at the Yale University Art Gallery, no. 1.1.1953). 

In many royal representations of the Ptole- 
maic Period an effort was apparently made to 
maintain a standard set by sculptures of earlier 
times. Frequently, only minute deviations 
from a long-established norm permit us to de- 
termine when a piece was modeled, to decide 
whether it was really made in the period it 
seems to reflect or at a later epoch, which was 
attempting to recapture the spirit of what had 
come to be considered a classical age. This 
torso from New Haven undoubtedly recalls an 
earlier model, but not in a stereotyped fashion. 
Among the numerous replicas of similar type, 
it stands out as one of the best and most ac- 
complished royal sculptures in the pharaonic 
tradition created during the Ptolemaic Period. 

The torso comes from a standing figure of a 
little under life size. Only the upper part, 
from just below the waist, is preserved. The 
arms and most of the shoulders are lost, as are 
the nose, the inlays of the eyes, and the upper 
portion of the uraeus. Attitude, headcloth, and 
facial expression follow faithfully the conven- 
tions established during the last millennium 
b.c, but the proportions of face and figure 
show a slim elegance that marks a new devel- 
opment in royal sculpture, an ideal form which 
must have evolved after the reign of Ptolemy 
II. The long, narrow face has an air of refine- 
ment. The royal nenies is unusually high and 
narrow, steeply domed above the figure-eight 
coil of the uraeus. The folds at the sides of 
the headcloth drop down almost vertically and 
extend in long, narrow lappets onto the chest. 
The figure is remarkable for its asymmetry: 
the lappets are of unequal length and width, 
the eyebrows are on different levels, and the 
right ear is placed much higher than the left. 

Such sculptural deviations within a framework 
of conventions cannot fail to add to the interest 
the statue evokes, an interest heightened still 
further by the obvious care and finesse with 
which the well-polished, hard black stone has 
been worked. The level of the chin lies notice- 
ably above the horizontal folds of the head- 
cloth on the shoulders; these folds break up 
the emphasis on verticals, which are further 
stressed in the long, slim torso, with the deep 
dip of the collarbones, the prominent chest 
muscles and faint indication of a median line. 
Since there are preserved no sizeable royal 
sculptures datable with any certainty to Ptole- 
mies III, IV, or V, all that can be said concern- 
ing the period of the New Haven torso is that 
it must have been made later than the great 
statue of Ptolemy II in the Vatican, from 
which (or a similar piece) it took much of its 
inspiration, though it is far from a slavish copy. 
It, therefore, also has to be younger than the 
sculpture of Ptolemy II from Strasbourg (No. 
96), though how much younger is not evident. 
On the basis of the firmness and feeling with 
which the figure has been modeled, we are 
inclined to attribute it to the end of the third 
or the beginning of the second century b.c, 
the time of Ptolemies IV and V. 

measurements: Height 44.5 cm. Height of face 10 
cm. Depth of break 17.2 cm. Width of back pillar 
10 cm. 

provenance: Not known; formerly in the collection 
of Judge Victor Clay Barringer. 

bibliography: Bulletin of the Associates in Fine Arts 
at Yale University, vol. V = Handbook; A Descrip- 
tion of the Gallery of Fine Arts and the Collections 
(New Haven, School of the Fine Arts, Yale Uni- 
versity, 193 1 ), p. 12 (illus.). Pijoan, El Arte egipcio, 
pp. 480 and 482, fig. 641. Winifred Needier, in 
Berytus 9 (1948-49), pp. 130-132, pi. XXIII, figs. 1-2. 


comment: Victor Clay Barringer, one of the early 
American collectors in Egypt, sat on the Court of 
Appeals, Mixed Tribunal in Egypt, at Alexandria, 
from 1874 to 1894. He was the first American judge 
to be selected for this position and was appointed by 
the Khedive. There are no records showing where 
the bust came from, but it is quite likely that Judge 
Barringer bought it in Alexandria and that it had 
been found there. It belongs to a group of royal 
striding sculptures, all uninscribed, which reflect 
more or less the same type (Copenhagen, N.C.G. 
929; Munich, Ag. St. 20; Rome, M.N. 60921). Char- 
acteristic for them is the manner in which the queue 
ends in contact with the top of the back pillar, which 
is placed very low, at about chest level. This typical 

feature of certain Ptolemaic statues, found also in the 
Yale torso, was adopted in imitation of early Saite 
royal sculpture (e.g. Copenhagen, N.M. AAb 211, 
and London, B.M. 600, both representing Psamtik I). 
At a later date it is particularly this group which 
served as model for Roman imitations of Egyptian 
royal statues (Benevent, Museo Provinciale: H. W. 
Miiller, in Akten des Vierundzwanzigsten Interna- 
tionalen Orientalisten-Kongresses Miinchen, 1957 
[Wiesbaden, 1959]; Rome, Vatican 93). The mouth 
of the Yale bust is straight, with a thin upper lip and 
a full lower lip. Throat, sternum, chest, and upper 
abdomen are modeled with great sensitivity; the bust 
is — for royal sculpture of the period — a very accom- 
plished piece of workmanship. 

No. 1 10; Pis. 102-103, Figs. 273, 276. 


About 200-150 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Ow?ier: Musees Royaux cTArt et (THistoire, Brussels; no. E. 5346. 

Green schist. 

The preoccupation of the Egyptologist with 
back pillars and their inscriptions may seem 
rather odd to those who are not forewarned. 
It appears to be even more eccentric when the 
pillar has no inscription to furnish a clue to the 
date and provenance of a sculpture. But the 
concern of the scholar is vindicated when a 
back pillar of unusual shape turns up in three 
examples, two of which are fine portrait heads 
that — to judge from their style — were obvi- 
ously made at the same period. Such is the 
case with the head from Brussels discussed here 
and a related portrait from Detroit described 
under No. in. 

The small masterpiece from Brussels repre- 
sents an anonymous Egyptian with two deep 
furrows descending from his nostrils and a re- 
markable hooked nose, sharply depressed at 
the root. As in a quick sketch, the artist has 
captured the entire expression of a man's face 
in these two features. It is not surprising to 
find that the skull and receding forehead show 
hardly any modeling and that the eyes and 
eyebrows are of that near-formal nature which 

occurs intermittently throughout the Late Pe- 
riod. The large mouth, slightly drooping at 
the corners, shows some individuality. Though 
it is not of the "classical" Egyptian cut pre- 
vailing up to the fourth century, it permits no 
more than a suspicion that it must have been 
modeled after Egypt came into close contact 
with the Hellenistic world. The pessimistic 
lips show a determination that is underscored 
by the stubbornness of an unusually broad, 
shallow, and slightly receding chin. 

measurements: Height 8.5 cm. Width ca. 6 cm. 
Depth 8.5 cm. Width of break at neck 3.7 cm., at 
back pillar 1.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography (selective): Burlington Fine Arts Club, 
Catalogue of an Exhibition of Ancient Egyptian Art 
(London, 1922), p. 97, no. 20, pi. X. Musees Royaux 
dArt et d'Histoire, Bruxelles, Departement Egyp- 
tien, Album (Brussels, 1934), p. VIII, pi. 26. CdE i-j 
( 1952), pp. 346-347, fig. 24. Kunsthalle Basel, Schaetze 
Altaegyptischer Kunst; 27 Juni — 13. Sept. 1953 
(Basel, 1953), p. 62, no. 172. 

comment: The back pillar — here not separately il- 
lustrated because shape and proportions are the same 
as that of No. 11 1 (Fig. 275)— is of a type not 


hitherto encountered in Late Period sculpture. Its 
characteristics are that it is comparatively narrow as 
well as deep, that its top is square and its upper side 
almost always horizontal. It may have developed out 
of the overly elongated trapezoid tops found through- 
out the Ptolemaic Period (cf. No. 115; London, B.M. 
59075 and 65443); the difficulty at present is its place 
within the Ptolemaic Period. In addition to the ex- 

amples in this Exhibition (Nos. 107, in, 112 and 
116), Baltimore, W.A.G. 202 should be compared, 
the only parallel which was once inscribed. From 
the style of the head that sculpture could be as early 
as the third century B.C., whereas the Brussels head 
and its companion, No. in, must be of a later date. 
For the outline of the mouth, No. 112 might be 

No. 1 n; Pis. 102-103, Figs. 274-275, 277-278. PORTRAIT HEAD WITH HOOKED NOSE 

About 200-150 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Mich.; no. 40.48. 

Black basalt. 

Beginning with the third century, we find 
in Egypt such a diversity of sculptural schools 
and styles, such a variety of expression of 
character, superficial or profound, in represen- 
tations of the human face, that even among the 
inscribed and dated material — stelae, for in- 
stance — contemporary pieces frequently look 
as if they had been made centuries apart. This 
wide diversity is reflected in the series of mag- 
nificent portraits made by the Egyptians dur- 
ing the Hellenistic age. At that time they pro- 
duced fine and highly individualistic sculptures 
in almost any size, from heroic scale (No. 132) 
to very small format. Toward the end of the 
Ptolemaic and during the Roman Period, the 
pleasure they took in small-scale sculpture 
found a rich outlet in the hundreds and thou- 
sands of terra cottas for which Alexandria has 
become famous. While many of these surviv- 
ing pottery figurines are dreary enough, among 
them are some genre pieces, usually represent- 
ing common folk — slaves, street vendors, or 
actors — which the craftsman's skill has imbued 
with life. 

Seen in profile, the Egyptian pictured in this 
small basalt head from Detroit might seem to 
have been one of the turbulent, happy-go- 
lucky crowd that thronged the streets of Alex- 
andria two thousand years ago, but from the 
front it is apparent that he was by no means one 

of the populace, living from day to day. His 
cool, calculating gaze and firm mouth seem to 
indicate that he must have been a wielder of 
the people and, whatever his birth, not one of 
them. With his long, narrow skull and pointed 
chin, he is not unlike a type still to be en- 
countered in the Levant, and indeed were it not 
for subtle touches given to the head by the 
sculptor, it might be dismissed as the represen- 
tation of a type rather than a portrait. But the 
artist has noted the curious slant of the man's 
ears, the knob-like protuberance between his 
eyes, the strange depression, marked by a sharp 
line, at the springing of his nose, his well- 
defined cheekbones, and put them all together 
to form a picture of a shrewd and clever, if 
not particularly benevolent, person. The skull 
and brows follow faithfully the underlying 
bone structure. The upper eyelids are drawn 
out over the lower lids, and there is a sugges- 
tion of bags under the eyes. The philtrum is 
deep-cut and the Adam's apple rather promi- 
nent. Superficially, the head bears a certain 
resemblance to that from Brussels (No. no), 
but it is obvious that the two represent en- 
tirely different persons and that both are por- 
traits in the full meaning of the word. 

measurements: Height 8.7 cm. Width 6.5 cm. 
Depth 8.8 cm. Depth of break 5.9 cm. Width of 
break at neck 3.7 cm., at back pillar 2.4 cm. 


provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collection 
of Howard Carter. 

bibliography: None; mentioned in BMFA 49 (1951), 
p. 74, note 2. 

comment: This head has a deep, square back-pillar 
top; for others with similar tops see the Comment 
on No. no. In a photographic album, consisting of 
juxtaposed views of ancient and modern Egypt 
(Tristan Tzara, UEgypte face a face [Lausanne, 
1954], pi. 15), a profile is shown which greatly re- 
sembles that of the Detroit head. This kind of com- 
parison has, of course, been made before (cf. JEA 16 
[1930], pi. III-IV) and does not prove anything, ex- 
cept that a certain racial type still exists in Egypt 
today. It can, however, have a bearing on the prob- 
lem of portraiture — the problem of whether a type 
or a definite person is represented. As remarked 

initially, the profile of the Detroit head suggests cer- 
tain Alexandrian terra cottas (e.g. P. Perdrizet, Les 
terres cukes grecques d'Egypte de la Collection 
Fouquet II (Nancy, 192 1), pi. CXII-CXIV), but the 
resemblance is mainly based on the length and nar- 
rowness of the head and the shape of the extraor- 
dinary nose with the deep depression at the root, for 
which the head from the Gulbenkian Collection (No. 
107) offers a good parallel. Such features mark the 
outer form, but they do not constitute the essentials 
which make this head a striking portrait. Its indi- 
viduality has been achieved by a subtle blend of the 
conventional and the novel; the eyes, for instance, are 
distinctly traditional and reminiscent of the sixth cen- 
tury (No. 55). The receding forehead, too, should 
be noted. All these details could sum up to a mere 
caricature, but this, despite the man's striking fea- 
tures, the artist has successfully avoided. 

No. 1 12; PI. 104, Figs. 279-280. 


About 200- 1 50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Grey-black basalt. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.395 (W.A.G. no. 178). 

The emotional range reflected in Egyptian 
heads of the Ptolemaic Period is much wider 
than is generally supposed. During that time, 
there is evident a conscious attempt, not only 
to express feeling in a sculptured face, but also 
to evoke a mood by a gentle turn of the head. 
Eventually, in the first century b.c, this move- 
ment leads to attitudes undreamed of in tra- 
ditional Egyptian sculpture. The asymmetry 
of faces and figures of the Late Period has pre- 
viously been commented upon, and it has been 
pointed out several times how frequently 
heads show a deviation from strict frontality. 
Here, in a bust from the Walters Art Gallery 
we have a man with head cocked at a marked 
angle, as if he were listening — and to some- 
thing of which he strongly disapproves. 

Though this interpretation is admittedly far- 
fetched, there can be no doubt that the im- 
pression given by the man's face is one of 
surliness — even fanaticism; and the illusion is 
strengthened by the drawn features and the 

scrawny neck with prominent Adam's apple. 
There is little modeling in the skull, and the 
wrinkles between the brows and nasolabial 
furrows follow well-worn formulae. But the 
sunken cheeks and drooping mouth show that 
the craftsman modeled the face with care, and 
the round, opinionated chin suggests that he 
may have had a definite person in mind. 
Though it would perhaps go too far to call the 
head a true portrait, it is hard to resist a play 
of imagination evoking a fanatical, tradition- 
bound, and sour old man, stubbornly clinging 
to the past in a changing world. 

It is easy to reconstruct the figure from 
which this bust may have come. As is appar- 
ent from what remains, the man wore a shirt 
with round neck under a V-necked garment 
with sleeves and, over all, a long, wrap-around 
skirt, its upper edge marked by irregular folds 
and its overlap, as customary, at the right. Since 
his arms are slightly bent forward, he doubtless 
held a naos containing the figure of a god, and 


indeed the outline of the shrine can be traced 
between the arms just above the break. 

Because of the turn of the head, it is impor- 
tant to try to place this sculpture of a votary 
within the period with which this Exhibition 
is concerned. One clue is provided by the 
back pillar, which, though uninscribed, is of 
the narrow and rather deep type not much 
encountered prior to the second century B.C. 
That the sculpture may date from that century 
seems to be confirmed by a stela of 183 B.C., 
on which is depicted in relief a man in a strik- 
ingly similar costume. 

measurements: Height 17.6 cm. Width of break 

1 1.8 cm. Depth of break (horiz.) 7.8 cm. Width of 

back pillar near break 3.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., p. 62, 

pi. XXVII, no. 178. 

comment: For the deep and rather narrow back pil- 
lar, see the Comment on No. no. Here it ends ap- 
proximately at the same height as on No. 116. The 
costume is in a way comparable with that of the 
statue of Psamtik-sa-neith from Cairo (No. 65); there 
too we have the undergarment, the V-neck sleeved 
jacket, the wrap-around with overlap on the right — 
but what a difference! The roll-and-flap ending of 
the long skirt (cf. the Comment on No. 63) has here 

been reduced to a roll which clings to the chest as 
if it had no longer any connection with the garment 
(a similar example is discussed under No. 115). 
Clearly, the roll is modeled for tradition's sake and 
has lost its function; as the reader will recall, the 
wrap-around is held in place by tightening the upper 
edge and rolling and tucking in the corners, in al- 
most precisely the way in which a man of today 
wraps himself in a bath towel to answer the tele- 
phone. How the meaning and function of the gar- 
ment have been lost in this sculpture is indicated by 
the irregular treatment of the folds — a far cry from 
that of sculptures such as No. 64. This sketchy man- 
ner of depicting folds in a wrap-around occurs fre- 
quently in Ptolemaic sculptures (Alexandria 20723; 
Cairo J.E. 37136 and 37328). The shirt worn under a 
sleeved garment is also common during the period 
(Alexandria University 1299). The relief mentioned 
above, on which it is shown, is that of a certain 
Iahmes, who died in 183 b.c. (Bologna 1943). Iahmes' 
sleeved garment, unlike that of the Baltimore votary, 
is pleated. Moreover, his long skirt has a shirred top, 
minutely carved — a representation too rare to be of 
a conventional nature. In connection with the piece 
under discussion, mention should be made of a mag- 
nificent statue in London (B.M. 34270; poorly repro- 
duced in Ross, The Art of Egypt, pi. 240, fig. 2, 
where it is unjustly attributed to the Roman Period), 
representing a certain Psenobastis, who also cocks 
his head to one side. This man's portrait, with its 
heavy-lidded eyes and wonderfully tragic expression, 
seems to show an elaboration of many of the features 
found in the Baltimore bust. 

No. 1 13; PI. 105, Figs. 281-283. 


About 170-160 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 89.2.660. 


Among the queens represented in sculptures 
of the Ptolemaic Period, there are some, like 
the royal lady from Toronto (No. 105), who 
have a single uraeus on their diadems, and 
others — for example, the small head from the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art (No. 98) — who 
have two; but above the foreheads of a few of 
the queens of the period cluster no less than 
three of the royal cobras. 

A queen so adorned, depicted in an almost 

complete statue from the Metropolitan Mu- 
seum of Art, is identified by a cartouche on 
her right upper arm as "Cleopatra." She is 
shown in a traditional attitude, standing, with 
the right arm hanging at her side. Her left arm 
supports a cornucopia, the "horn of plenty," 
which was originally an emblem of the deified 
Arsinoe II (cf. No. 123), but was subsequentlv 
taken over by a number of other Ptolemaic 
queens. Her face is broad, with a large, firm 


chin and a fine, thin-lipped mouth. The bridge 
of the nose is depressed, and the likeness, espe- 
cially in profile, seems that of a very young 
person indeed. 

It would be tempting to see in this regal 
figure the famous Cleopatra, who became the 
ruler of Egypt at nineteen and three years later 
captivated the rugged Caesar, but unfortu- 
nately the style of the sculpture hardly allows 
assigning it to a date as late as the first century 
B.C. Though there might be a bare likelihood 
that it is of provincial origin and thus lagging 
in style behind the official representations of 
the capital, the statue is so distinctly youthful, 
demure, and chaste that it seems with more 
probability to be a work of the second century, 
during which time a number of Cleopatras, less 
famous than their later namesake, shared the 
throne of Egypt. 

The high back pillar and a break at the 
crown of the head suggest that the young 
queen wore the Isis-Hathor headdress of two 
plumes with sun disc and cow's horns. Her 
coiffure, probably a wig (see No. 122), but 
distinctly Hellenistic-Greek rather than Egyp- 
tian, is of a fashion introduced by the great 
ladies of the Ptolemaic royal house in the third 
century B.C., when it first appears, in a shorter 
version, on coins struck in memory of Arsinoe 
II. It consists of heavy, corkscrew curls that 
fall down over the shoulders. A series of ring- 
lets protrude on the forehead from under the 
diadem, a simple band in relief supporting the 
triple uraeus. The loose garment of the queen, 
gathered in folds around the body just above 
the waist, has a heavy rolled front edge, rising 
between the breasts to be knotted to a shoulder 
cape or shawl, which covers the left arm but 
leaves bare the right arm and the breasts. The 
costume as a whole, though called Hellenistic, 
is actually of Egyptian derivation. Since it 
was not represented in sculpture in the round 
until the Ptolemaic Period, when it was ren- 
dered by an exuberance of pleats and folds 
quite contrary to Egyptian tradition but en- 
tirely Greek in spirit, its native origin is quite 


understandably obscure at first glance. 

Very curious is the manner of designating 
the queen as Cleopatra by writing her name in 
a cartouche on her arm. It is reminiscent of 
the custom of engraving the cartouche of a 
king on the arms of statues of private persons 
— a custom which died out in the sixth century 
(cf. No. 5 2 A) and was never at that time ap- 
plied to figures of kings or queens. Here, the 
hieroglyphs in the cartouche, unlike those on 
the earlier, non-royal sculptures, face toward 
the back, and are thus to be read in the Greek 
manner, from left to right. 

If the statue does not represent Cleopatra 
VII — "the Great" — there arises the question: 
Which of the earlier Cleopatras is it meant to 
depict? Since Cleopatra I did not play an in- 
dependent political role, it seems best to attrib- 
ute the sculpture tentatively to Cleopatra II, 
the daughter of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, who 
was barely ten years old when she became co- 
regent with her brothers, Ptolemy VI and 
Ptolemy VIII, in the autumn of 170 B.C. 

measurements: Height above modern base 61.8 cm. 
Width at elbow level 18.5 cm. Depth near lower 
break 14.5 cm. Width of back pillar near break 5.7 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: The Rev. Charles R. Gillett, The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art. Hand-Book No. 4. 
Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities in Hall III ( 1896 
and 1898 editions), p. 32, no. 338. Needier, in Berytus 
9 (1948-49), pp. 137, 139-140, pi. XXVI, fig. 5. 

comment: It is probably an accident that the only 
Ptolemaic princess shown with long corkscrew locks 
on a coin, the reverse of which bears the familiar 
cornucopia, is Cleopatra Thea, daughter of Ptolemy 
VI, who married three kings of Syria in succession 
(Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens, fig. 5a). The gar- 
ment is found as early as Dynasty XXX in the figure 
of the woman behind the harpist on Alexandria 380 
and, in a slightly modified form, in the right-hand 
figure of No. 82 in this Exhibition. There it is quite 
clear that the shawl is a separate garment, which, 
incidentally, had long been evident from Berlin 
21763. This interpretation is confirmed by Cairo J.E. 
46591, where a little boy — otherwise stark naked - 
wears such a shawl over his shoulder. Miss Needier, 
op. cit., pp. 137-138, should be consulted for the dress 
as well as for the coiffure. The triple uraeus is baf- 
fling, to say the least. Roeder, Statueti, p. 53, men- 

tions that it occurs once on the colossal group of 
Amenhotep III and Tiyi from Medinct Habu as in- 
signia of the queen and then refers to Turin 1385 as 
the only other example. The Turin bust is also of 
the Ptolemaic Period — an extraordinary sculpture, 
with a tripartite wig like that of No. 105, but covered 
by a vulture cap. Despite its Egyptian style (back 
pillar, etc.), its full lips form a very un-Egyptian, 
Greek-Hellenistic mouth. The third sculpture with 
triple uraeus is Leningrad 3936, referred to in the 
Comment on No. 98, and the fourth is San Jose 1582, 
briefly mentioned by Needier, op. cit., p. 140, note 6, 
again with tripartite echeloned wig, but with both 
arms hanging at the sides. The San Jose statue is the 
most startling of the three, with a hawk's face, very 
much like that of the often cited coins of Cleopatra 

VII (AJA 41 [1937], p. 463, fig. 5). There is really n<> 
reason why it could not represent the same queen as 
the Leningrad statue. After all, the triple uraeus and 
the cornucopia occur also on our inscribed New York 
statue, and thus identification of the Leningrad statue 
as Arsinoe II is put in doubt. H. W. Midler suggests 
that the center uraeus originated in an assimilation of 
the queen's vulture head to the two uraei due to her. 
This may apply to Turin 1385, where a vulture cap 
is worn, but in the remaining four examples it may 
rather be an allusion to the triple regency, of which 
each queen formed part. For the corkscrew tresses 
— a coiffure which originated in Hellenistic Egypt — 
see A. Adriani, Testimonialize e Momenti di Scultura 
Alessandrina (Rome, 1948), and Bicbcr, The Scidp- 
ture, pp. 89-90; cf. also No. 138. 

No. 114; PI. 106, Figs. 284-285. 


About 150 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Mr. Avery Brimdage, Santa Barbara, Cal.; no. 2/97. 

Red granite. 

The figure of the ruling king as sphinx with 
lion's body and human head was favored in 
the fourth century b.c. far more than it had 
been under the Sake Dynasty. With the Ptole- 
maic Period this preference became more 
marked, and next to the rock-cut Great Sphinx 
of Giza, which represents King Chephren of 
Dynasty IV, about the largest monsters of this 
breed are two sphinxes at the Serapeum of 
Alexandria, modeled in red Assuan granite. 
They are thought to have been made under 
Ptolemy VI Philometor (180-145 B - c -); at an Y 
rate, they were fashioned well after the time 
of Alexander the Great. 

In this head from the Brundage Collection, 
we have a smaller example in the same hard 
material, the head of a Ptolemy adorned with 
the 7ie?nes, the royal headcloth, the lateral por- 
tions and lappets of which are broken off. The 
contours of the headcloth are soft and rounded; 
characteristic for the Ptolemaic Period are the 
flat curvature of the nemes across the crown 
of the head in front view, the near-vertical 
position of the lateral creases as seen in profile, 

and the almost horizontal plane, in which the 
border meets the lateral creases at the ears. The 
uraeus is badly damaged; it had the single 
figure-eight coil which, from the end of Dy- 
nasty XXVI, decorates all royal heads with 
nemes. The queue at the back of the head- 
dress is sufficiently preserved to show that it 
extended horizontally along the back of the fig- 
ure — definite proof that the head once formed 
part of the statue of a recumbent sphinx. 

The eyebrows are straight and not very 
prominent, little more than a ridge between 
the upper eyelids and the forehead. The mouth 
is unusually small, the philtrum almost non- 
existent. Though the modeling of eyes, ears, 
and mouth, and the general impression made 
by the face permit an attribution to the second 
century b.c, it is impossible to state precisely 
what ruler this head was meant to represent. 

measurements: Height 27.3 cm. Width 23.5 cm. 
Depth 25.7 cm. Width of break (neck only) 11.5 
cm. Depth of break (slant) 20.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities . . . 


the Property of a Collector (Sale Catalogue, London, 
Christie, 2 March, 1937), p. 10, no. 40 (illus.). 

comment: If it is difficult to distinguish between 
conventional royal heads of Dynasty XXX and those 
of the early Ptolemaic Period, it is even more diffi- 
cult to establish some sort of guide to the numerous 
standard royal heads of the last three centuries B.C. 
Among the twelve successors of Alexander the Great 
only two are represented in heads that are definitely 
identified by the king's name. Since the abundant 
mass of uninscribed royal sculpture of the period has 
not yet been critically sifted, we are accordingly 
still in the dark about the features of the various 
Ptolemaic rulers. It may be recalled that the in- 
scribed statutes of Nectanebo I of Dynasty XXX 
bear little resemblance to one another, and we may 
probably assume that a similar state of affairs con- 
tinued under Ptolemaic rule. Local styles, moreover, 
differed widely, with the result that the face of a 
given king modeled at Alexandria would not be rec- 
ognizable in a sculpture made for him at Thebes. We 
have thus very little to go by in attempting to assign 

the Brundage head to a definite reign. The only 
prominent feature — the small, thick-lipped mouth — 
is not found in any other royal head of the size that 
can be attributed with reasonable certainty to a defi- 
nite Ptolemy. This type of mouth exists, however, 
on a very large scale and consequently in a some- 
what different style, on the two colossal sphinxes at 
the Serapeum of Alexandria (BSAA 35 [1942], p. 
157, pi. XXXVI, fig. 1; cf. Rowe, in Bull, of the John 
Rylands Library [Manchester], 39 [1957], p. 508), 
which may have been made under Ptolemy VI. If 
they reflect, in no matter how gigantic a proportion, 
an official style of this king, the head from the 
Brundage Collection could conceivably date from 
the same period. But we do not yet even have a 
compendium listing the royal sculptures set up in 
the portions of Ptolemaic temples and sanctuaries of 
which the building date is definitely known, and 
therefore any identification must be accepted with 
caution. For definitely identifiable royal Ptolemaic 
sculptures, see the Comment on Nos. 96 and 103, and 
for the nemes in general, the Comment on No. 124. 

No. 1 15; PI. 107, Figs. 286-288. 


About 150-100 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Kestner-Museum, Hanover; no. 1935.200.773. 

Brow?i-black basalt. 

After the seventh century the naophorous 
statue, showing a man proffering a shrine 
containing a god's image, underwent many 
changes, until finally, in the Ptolemaic Period, 
it became — like the block statue — something 
venerably archaic — a figure made for tradi- 
tional reasons and for little else. The composi- 
tion had changed so radically that the essen- 
tial harmony had been destroyed. A nao- 
phoros, or for that matter any statue that 
represents a person carrying an object, con- 
sists of two parts, the bearer and the object, 
which should be in aesthetically pleasing rela- 
tion to each other. In earlier periods, that 
relationship had been established most favor- 
ably in sculptures such as Nos. 40 and 61; in 
the course of the Ptolemaic Period the balance 
was lost, with the result that the votary 


achieves so great a prominence that his offer- 
ing to his god looks like a gift of minor 

In this uninscribed statue from Hanover an 
elderly man with a grave mien presents to his 
god a small naos with a steep roof, an edifice 
which dwarfs the figure of the god Osiris in- 
side, just as the votary dwarfs the shrine. His 
body is very slim and does not show much 
modeling. He wears the long wrap-around 
garment first introduced into Egypt at the end 
of the sixth century b.c. (cf. No. 63), but this, 
too, seems to be an archaism, for it shows no 
overlap and the "roll" is rudimentary. The 
back pillar runs up to well above neck level; 
its top is of elongated trapezoid shape. 

The best portion of the statue is undoubtedly 
the head. It portrays a man with close-cropped 

natural hair, distinctly outlined over the fore- 
head and receding slightly above the temples. 
He has a fine, straight nose; the treatment of 
his eyebrows and deep-sunk eyes is quite natu- 
ralistic, and the straight, thin-lipped mouth has 
been modeled with a good deal of sensitivity. 
It appears from the state of the ears that the 
sculpture is unfinished, but it is, of course, 
impossible to determine to what degree the 
artist might have worked out the face in greater 
detail. The nasolabial furrows, at any rate, 
have been marked with just sufficient restraint 
to lend character to the face, without exag- 
gerating the signs of age. While one cannot 
call this representation a portrait, the man's 
features are individualistic and in their serenity 
of expression accord well with the stark sim- 
plicity inherent in his figure. 

measurements: Height 42.5 cm. Height of head 7.5 
cm. Height of base 3.2 cm., width 7 cm., depth 14 cm. 
provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collection 
of F. W. von Bissing. 

bibliography: (Kestner-Museum) Fiihrer durch das 
Kestner-Musewn (Hanover, 1952), pp. 17 (illus.) and 
18. Irmgard Woldering, Ausgewahlte Werke der 
Aegyptischen Sammlung = Bildkataloge des Kestner- 
Museums Hannover I (Hanover, 1955), p. 77, fig- 74; 
(second edition, 1958), p. 83, fig. 88. 

comment: Standing naophorous statues can be di- 
vided into two groups, those with and those without 
a naos support. For the former group, see Nos. 40 
and 72; the support disappears with the beginning of 
the Ptolemaic Period. The latter group begins with 
Dynasty XXVII (New York, M.M.A. 25.2.10), when 
a supportless naos is held between the palms of the 
hands, looking as if it might slip out and fall at any 
minute, a very curious un-Egyptian conception of 
weightlessness. This type occurs throughout the 
fourth century b.c. (Cairo C.G. 722) and, intermit- 
tently, until the end of the Ptolemaic Period. In 
Dynasty XXX — to be precise under Nectanebo II 
(Aberdeen 142 1) —a new method of holding a sup- 
portless naos is introduced: the shrine rests on the 
tips of the fingers, which reach under the base on 
each side. This convention is found throughout the 

Ptolemaic Period in numerous theophorous and 

naophorous standing statues, among them the sculp- 
ture from Hanover. The rudimentary "roll" of the 
garment has become almost meaningless; from its 
origin in examples such as Nos. 63 and 65, where it 
is of conical shape, it has become cylindrical (or 
more correctly rectangular) by the time of Alexan- 
der the Great and his successor (Cairo ,9 + 6 , ), al- 
though the other corner is still indicated. In the time 
of Ptolemies IV-V the flap of the other corner is 
already occasionally eliminated, as it is in the Han- 
over statue, though some studios retain it faithfully 
throughout the Ptolemaic Period (Alexandria 17534, 
temp. Ptolemies V-VI; Cairo J.E. 45390, temp. 
Ptolemy XII). In the reign of Ptolemy II, the long 
garment begins to be shown without either roll or 
flap (Cairo C.G. 689 and 700), especially when an 
amulet is worn round the neck. The multiple facade 
and steep roof of naoi are well attested in Ptolemaic 
times (Cairo C.G. 70024, 70030); the roof becomes 
gabled as early as Dynasty XXX (Cairo C.G. 70022). 
Among naophorous statues of the Ptolemaic Period 
the closest parallel for the Hanover piece is in Lon- 
don (B.M. 65443), datable to about 200-150 B.C. The 
naos is small, but not quite as miniscule in proportion 
to the figure of the votary as in the sculpture under 
discussion; there is a roll, but no flap, on the man's 
garment. Indication of the natural hair, close- 
cropped, has been encountered in No. 9 and again in 
No. 66; the question is when the more naturalistic 
rendering, with the hairline receding above the tem- 
ples, began. It is known in relief toward the end of 
the sixth century (Berlin 15414), as well as in the 
fourth century (No. 87; Boston 49.5), but in the 
round we do not encounter it until the fourth cen- 
tury at the earliest and possibly not before the be- 
ginning of the Ptolemaic Period (The Hague 1778; 
London, B.M. 49243, in bronze). The well-known 
bronze statue with the serrated coat in Paris (Louvre 
E. 11414) shows the recession on the temples very 
faintly; perhaps it is the earliest example of the 
group. In the Ptolemaic Period heads with the 
hair in a naturalistic, Hellenistic manner offer good 
parallels (cf. No. 118; Amsterdam 7862). To con- 
clude solely from relief representations that certain 
types of sculpture should be of a given date, is fal- 
lacious, as has been pointed out in the Comment on 
the relief of Mentuemhat (No. 14). What was said 
there holds true also for the fourth century, when 
many of the costume and coiffure features shown in 
relief never appear in sculpture in the round. 


No. n6;Pl. 108, Figs. 289-290. 


About 150 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Fine-grained black granite. 

Owner: Mr. Ernest Erickson, New York, N. Y. {on loan at The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, 
N. Y.; no. L59.5). 

In most histories of art, discussion of Egypt 
ends with the time of Alexander the Great, 
or even earlier. The average author rushes 
through the last centuries of Egypt's ancient 
civilization like a person eager to get in out of 
the rain and ends on a note of high disdain for 
anything Ptolemaic. This is, of course, as must 
be realized by now, a gross injustice to the art 
produced under Alexander's successors. If 
anything should be treated with disdain, it is 
the work done toward the end of the New 
Kingdom, which petered out so ignominiously 
and left so poor a heritage that for several hun- 
dred years it seemed doubtful if there was any 
artistic feeling whatever left among the people 
of the Nile Valley. When we think of the 
Ptolemaic Period, there should immediately 
come to mind the series of magnificent portrait 
heads, a goodly number of which are shown in 
this Exhibition. They represent, it is true, the 
cream of Ptolemaic art; but other sculptures 
produced in the last three centuries before our 
era are by no means negligible. Numerous 
pieces of small scale often show an especially 
high quality of workmanship, and among 
them few are more characteristic of the Ptole- 
maic Period than is this little head from the 
Erickson Collection. 

Its relationship to other small heads of the 
second century is immediately apparent. The 
two sides of the back pillar are absolutely 

straight, just as in the head from Detroit (No. 
m), though it terminates at a much higher 
level. The hair, as so often, is close-cropped, 
and descends rather low on a forehead marked 
by worry lines. The heavy-lidded eyes are 
unusually large and wide apart. The furrows 
descending from the nostrils are even more 
summarily indicated than those in the face of 
the statuette from Hanover (No. 115). The 
thick-lipped mouth is separated from the chin 
by a deep, horizontal cleft. With its coarse, 
prominent ears and half-sullen expression, the 
head is not that of a handsome or distinguished- 
looking man, but it is a well-proportioned piece 
of sculpture and one which subtly reflects a 
living type. Even though it cannot be called 
a portrait in the true sense of the word, it is 
typical of the good work turned out by Egyp- 
tian studios under the Ptolemies. 
measurements: Height 6.8 cm. Width of break 4.7 
cm. Depth 7.1 cm. Depth of break ca. 5 cm. Width 
of back pillar 2.8 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: For this kind of back pillar with straight 
sides, consult the Comment on No. no; it has not 
been illustrated because it is uninscribed and resem- 
bles that of Fig. 275. For the outline of the natural 
hair and the fine lines on the forehead, see the Com- 
ments on Nos. 115 and 108 respectively. This head 
may have come from a figure comparable to that 
from Hanover (No. 115). With its long straight 
nose it is somewhat related to London, B.M. 49243, a 
bronze with forehead similarly lined. 


No. 1 17; Pis. 108-109, Figs. 291-292, 295. 


About 150-120 B.C.; Ptolemaic Period. Black basalt. 

Owner: The Philip H. and A. S. W. Rosenbach Foundation Museum, Philadelphia, Pa. 

When Georges Legrain, the French Egypt- 
ologist, worked on behalf of the Egyptian De- 
partment of Antiquities in the great temple of 
Amun at Karnak in 1903, he made a find which 
is impressive even today, more than half a 
century later, and has increased rather than 
diminished in archaeological and historical im- 
portance. His discovery was the so-called 
cachette, the subterranean repository to which 
the temple sculptures of kings and private peo- 
ple had periodically been relegated, when the 
halls and sanctuaries of the sacred precinct of 
the god Amun had become too crowded. In 
the course of three years, he unearthed more 
than nine hundred statues and statuettes, dating 
from the Middle Kingdom to the Late Period 
and constituting an extensive record — a kind 
of Who Was Who — of prominent people 
who at one time or another had served among 
the clergy of the temple or simply had been 
commemorated by statues in the temple of 

Legrain kept a Journal de fouilles, a register 
of objects, in which he entered the statues in 
the order in which they were found, beginning 
with no. 1 and identifying the group by the 
prefix "K" (for Karnak). At the same time 
he tried to have the more important pieces 
photographed before they left the Karnak 
storerooms. Fortunately, the Karnak numbers 
appear on many of these old pictures, for the 
whereabouts of Legrain's Journal de fouilles, 
to which he himself made frequent reference 
in his publications, is not known today. Most 
of his negatives, however, are still preserved 
in the Cairo Museum and form a very valuable 
source for objects from his find, which — as 
will be easily understood — could not be kept 
together. Some fragmentary pieces may have 

been discarded on the spot; other sculptures 
went astray before they could be shipped to 
Cairo, and of those that entered the Egyptian 
Museum, not all were accessioned and incor- 
porated into the collection. Of the last-named 
group a certain number were disposed of 
through the Salle de Vente, the famous sales- 
room of the Cairo Museum, where until the 
middle twenties the Department of Antiquities 
offered for purchase from its vast holdings 
sizeable pieces considered as duplicates or items 
of secondary importance. 

About one-fourth of Legrain's find were 
sculptures made between Dynasty XI and the 
end of the Third Intermediate Period. These, 
and about thirty sculptures from the beginning 
of the Late Period, he was himself able to pub- 
lish, and they are well known. It is less well 
known, however, that the majority of statues 
from the cachette are of the Late Period, and 
that some of them are as late as the second 
century B.C. As a matter of fact, nearly three 
hundred of the pieces buried at Karnak were 
created after Alexander the Great had come 
to Egypt, and almost all of these are unpub- 
lished. Among them, is this statue from the 
Museum of the Rosenbach Foundation, which 
appears on one of Legrain's Karnak photo- 
graphs in the archives of the Cairo Museum. 
Thus, its Theban origin (of which, indeed, 
there had never been any doubt, because of 
the inscription) is amply documented. 

It is a typical Karnak block statue of the 
Ptolemaic Period, and though its exact date can 
not be deduced from the text, and the people 
named in the genealogy are thus far not known 
from any other dated monument, the lan- 
guage, orthography, and epigraphy of the in- 
scriptions point to a time after Ptolemy II 


and, more specifically, to the second century 
B.C. Such block statues in hard stone were 
turned out at Karnak in profusion during the 
last centuries before the Roman conquest. 
Even if the temples of Dendera, Esna, and 
Edfu — to name only a few of the great monu- 
ments of the Ptolemaic Period — had not sur- 
vived to testify to the splendor and wealth of 
the country under the successors of Alexander 
the Great, the vast number of hard-stone sculp- 
tures made for the Egyptian upper classes 
would alone furnish ample proof that the na- 
tive aristocracy of administrators, officers, and 
priests, of well-to-do families firmly entrenched 
in long-established local positions, enjoyed 
great freedom in pursuing the way of life and 
worship established by their forefathers. The 
making of a statue still was, as it always had 
been, an act of faith, accomplished by deposit- 
ing the sculpture in the precinct of the god. 

According to the inscription, the statue from 
the Rosenbach Foundation was dedicated by 
Pa-iu-en-hor — a name rendered in Greek as 
Pinouris — who was a "God's Father" and 
"Prophet of Amun in Karnak." His father was 
the God's Father, Hor, and his mother, the 
Songstress of Amun, Setha-irbint. The three 
columns of text on the back pillar contain 
offering formulae and prayers; the twelve lines 
on the front of the block are mostly composed 
of prayers and routine autobiographical state- 
ments. As in the post-Persian period (No. 
76), the block statue is rather high in propor- 
tion to the dimensions of the base (especially 
the depth). The wig also is over-high and no 
longer seems to be a functional part of the 
man's attire. The face is of standard workman- 
ship, without individuality. The eyes have 
thick plastic eyebrows and cosmetic lines, and 
the chin is supported by an elongated beard. 
The body is completely covered; only the 
clenched hands are indicated in low relief; 
they each hold a plant of lettuce (a kind of 
romaine), which, as symbol of the fertility god 
Min, came to be a sign of procreation and — 
like the sign of life, the cmkh sign — often ap- 

pears in the hands of persons commemorated 
by block statues. 

measurements: Height 41.4 cm. Height of base, 
front 8.3 cm., rear 9 cm. Width of base 12.9 cm. 
Depth of base 20.6 cm. 

provenance: Karnak (cachette). Formerly in the 
collection of Lord Carmichael of Skirling. 

bibliography: The Carmichael Collections. Cata- 
logue of the Collections Formed by the Late Lord 
Carmichael of Skirling . . . (Sale Catalogue, London, 
Sotheby, 8-10 June, 1926), p. 18, no. 192, and plate. 

comment: Gaston Maspero, referring to the first 
season of Legrain's work on the cachette, wrote: 
"Jamais, a ma connaissance, depuis les fouilles du 
Serapeum, on n'a recueilli a la fois, dans un meme 
endroit, une quantite aussi considerable de docu- 
ments historiques" (ASAE 5 [1904], p. 266). Be- 
tween December 26, 1903, and July 4, 1904, Legrain 
brought to light more than 8000 objects, and 469 of 
them were stone sculptures (Rec.Trav. 27 [1905], 
p. 67). He valiantly tackled the task of publication, 
but his volumes in the Catalogue General des Anti- 
quites Egyptiennes du Musee du Caire contain only 
about thirty pieces of the Late Period proper. A few 
more were published here and there by others, but a 
simply staggering number of more than 500 sculp- 
tures in the round, most of them inscribed, have yet 
to be made fully known. The highest number from 
Legrain's vanished Journal de fouilles pertaining to a 
Late sculpture preserved in Cairo is K. 909 (Cairo 
J.E. 43606). Since his numbers were painted on the 
pieces with yellow or orange color that easily rubbed 
off, the identification of objects from his find has 
presented major problems for the Cairo Museum. 
His photographic record, however, was good for its 
time. The negative on which the block statue of the 
Rosenbach Foundation appears, bears the photograph 
number 33-6/12, but unfortunately does not show the 
"K" or Karnak number. There are in this Exhibition 
quite a few sculptures which must have come from 
the cachette at Karnak, and for some of them — e.g. 
No. 48 — this provenance is absolutely certain. Mas- 
pero, loc.cit., ventured the opinion that all the sculp- 
tures found had been cleared out under Ptolemy IN 
or IV, but in view of the preservation of several of 
the older pieces, it is much more likely that clear- 
ance of the temple, or parts thereof, was undertaken 
periodically throughout the centuries, a theory that 
seems to be supported by the fact that discarded 
statues have been found in the foundations of several 
older buildings at Karnak, not only in the cachette. 
The statue from the Rosenbach Foundation Museum 
and other pieces indicate that the cachette was in use 
until well into the second century B.C., but since the 
inscriptions of the latest sculptures found there are 
not yet available, no definite date can be established 
for the last piece discarded. The statue of Pinouris 
is admittedly not a work of art; it is only a document 


of good workmanship, but uninspired, because it so 
doggedly clings to a time-honored formula. The 
following of tradition in itself may be a merit, but 
there is nothing delightful in the endless repetition 
of the squatting pose in hard-stone sculpture through- 
out the Ptolemaic Period. A statue such as this seems 
little more than a curiosity — of interest for its in- 
scriptions and the names and titles of the people 
listed in them, but of minor artistic or archaeological 
value. The type as such, with its elongated propor- 
tions, was established in Dynasty XXX; the only 

novelty introduced in Ptolemaic times seems to be 
the lettuce plant (L. Keimer, in ZAS 59 [1924], pp. 
140-143) in both hands, for which there arc a number 
of examples of this period from Karnak (Cairo J.E. 
36945 and 38009; London, B.M. 54348). Pinouris ap- 
parently sits on a cushion; at least the rear portion of 
the base is higher than the front — a feature of block 
statues which at Karnak goes back at least 500 years 
(cf. No. 4). For the straight wig and its evolution 
from the wide wig, see the Comment on No. 102. 

No. 1 18; PL 109, Figs. 293-294. 


About 150-100 b.c; Vtolemaic Period. Dark grey schist. 

Oivner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Md.; no. 22.9 (W.A.G. no. 230). 

Throughout the Ptolemaic Period there oc- 
cur, side by side, some sculptures carved with 
boring, metallic precision, and others dis- 
tinguished by a freedom that reveals superb 
mastery of the medium employed. It would 
be fallacious to use either type as the sole cri- 
terion for dating; for in the same decade there 
seem to have existed craftsmen with no talent 
for anything but the pedantic and artists with 
little patience for detail and great ability for 
imbuing a sculpture with meaning. These last 
could suggest form in a body hidden by the 
multiple folds of a garment without resorting 
to anatomical exactitude and could give char- 
acter to a freely modeled face by subtle varia- 
tions on traditional themes. How such free 
modeling was used to great advantage in por- 
traiture is well demonstrated by this head from 

It represents an elderly man with thick, 
close-cropped hair that recedes sharply above 
the temples. His forehead is heavily lined, and 
a number of deep wrinkles rise from the root 
of his fleshy nose. His deep-set eyes differ 
widely, the right being much larger than the 
left. The customary nasolabial furrows are 
sketched in with a simple stroke; they are 

hardly needed to add to the impression of ripe 
age. The thin lips are slightly parted — very 
slightly, but more than traditional Egyptian 
sculpture had hitherto permitted — and the 
mouth, faintly Hellenistic, is asymmetrical. 
Natural hair, beard, and mustache are indi- 
cated by a multitude of pick marks, applied 
with great precision to create the impression 
of a thick mass of unruly hair kept short by the 
barber's shears. The effect is apparently cas- 
ual, but it betrays a sureness of touch that must 
have resulted from long experience. In this 
case, more than ever, it is to be regretted that 
the artist who created such a fine portrait of a 
dour old gentleman and the studio in which 
he worked must remain unknown. 

measurements: Height 12.5 cm. Width of break at 
neck 5.5 cm., at back pillar 3.3 cm. Depth of break 
6.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known; said to be Upper Egypt. 
bibliography: The Brooklyn Museum, Pagan and 
Christian Egypt; Egyptian Art from the First to the 
Tenth Century A.D. (Brooklyn, 1941), p. 20, no. 25. 
Steindorff, Cat.Eg.Sc.W.A.G., p. 71, pi. XXXVII, 
no. 230. 

comment: The small trace of the back-pillar top 
may be restored as a trapezoid or a triangle; if the 
latter, the head could be dated to the first half of the 
first century b.c. It is, in any event, of good Ptolemaic 


origin, well in advance of the Roman Period. Its 
affinity to the "tragic" sculpture in London (B.M. 
34270) is obvious; though made by different hands, 
both heads are marked by a still melancholy of ex- 
pression, found, indeed, in several other second cen- 
tury sculptures and in striking contrast with the 
unmistakable gaity occasionally reflected in the faces 
of sculptures of considerable size made just prior to 
the Augustan conquest (Cairo C.G. 696). For the 
stubbly beard, see the Comment on No. 100. The 

contour of the natural hair is depicted in a similar 
manner throughout the Ptolemaic Period; cf. the 
Comment on No. 115. The type of statue to which 
this head belonged was probably that of a standing 
figure in the so-called Hellenistic garment of No. 136, 
gathering the front folds of the drapery together with 
the left hand. The deliberate irregularity of the two 
heavy fines on the forehead may have been based on 
observation of a living model; they seem too boldly 
marked to be anything but an imitation of nature. 

No. 1 19; PL 1 10, Figs. 296-297. 


About 150-100 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Mottled reddish granite. 

Owner: Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, R. I.; no. 58.001. 

In their depth of human understanding, the 
fine portraits made in the last three hundred 
years before our era provide what is perhaps 
the most moving chapter in the history of Late 
Egyptian art. Other chapters may seem to 
some of greater artistic and greater historical 
importance; to us, the calm gaze of the best of 
Ptolemaic sculptured faces happens to mean the 
most, though it is almost impossible to explain 
why in straight-forward, rational terms. It 
seems safest to begin this discussion with a 
brief description of one of the finest of them. 

The nearly life-size head of an elderly man 
from Providence provides an example of the 
reticence with which an outstanding craftsman 
could portray his subject in an unfriendly ma- 
terial, which, without strong overhead light- 
ing, simply does not show either the expression 
of the face or the quality of the work. Since 
there is no trace of polychromy, the artist un- 
doubtedly did not have the aid of color to 
bring out details of his sculpture, and in diffuse 
light hardly anything can be seen of the man's 
fine, noble countenance. The composition is 
very simple — deceptively so. It is only after 
some study that one is aware of the finesse with 
which the features have been combined and 
sees how one accent depends on another. The 

means employed are few and uncomplicated 
but used in a highly sophisticated fashion. To 
take but one example: The ubiquitous naso- 
labial furrows are echoed in lines running down 
from the corners of the mouth, but furrows 
and lines are not parallel. As a matter of fact, 
each of the four has been modeled individually, 
with great care, although adjoining parts of the 
face have merely been smoothed over with 
small attention to detail. The high forehead 
and the skull are also without much modula- 
tion. A few tool marks convey, in an almost 
impressionistic manner, the sparseness of an 
old man's hair, a few wrinkles, carved lightly 
and with great precision, cross the forehead; 
otherwise, the sculptor has paid little heed to 
individual characteristics of the skull. 

He has, however, deliberately brought out 
facial asymmetries which vivify and render 
mobile the features of this aged man. The two 
eyebrows are treated quite differently, and the 
depression of the skull between left eye and 
ear is much deeper than it is on the right side. 
All is well balanced, well calculated; the total 
effect is quiet, not provocative — and in this 
the sculpture is very rewarding, for even after 
prolonged study it does not pall. Like several 
other portraits in this Exhibition, the head has 


been touched by the hand of a master and im- 
bued with life everlasting. 

measurements: Height 23.7 cm. Width ca. 16 cm. 
Depth 20 cm. Width of break at neck 11.5 cm., 
depth (slant) 14.5 cm. Width of break of back pillar 
9.4 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Bulletin of Rhode Island School of 
Design. Museum Notes, vol. 45, no. 3 (March 1959), 
front cover. 

comment: In contemplating a head such as this, we 
are always struck by the somber note sounded by a 
dark and mottled stone. At the time at which this 
portrait was made, Hellenistic sculptors in Egypt 
were fashioning numerous life-size statues in marble 
and limestone, and nothing would have prevented an 
Egyptian sculptor from using for his work the lime- 
stone of his native valley, infinitely cheaper to 
quarry and easier to carve than the stones of his 

choice. The overwhelming majority of all great 
works of the Ptolemaic Period, as of the Late Period 
in general, were nevertheless made in the hard, 
mostly dark, rocks of the Red Sea mountains and the 
Assuan region. At no other time were soft and light 
stones so little used by the Egyptians. The chron- 
ological position of the Providence head is not defi- 
nitely established. Because of its size and quality, 
and because of the shape of the uninscribed back 
pillar, good arguments could be advanced for any of 
the three centuries covered by Ptolemaic rule. The 
least likely appears to be the third; although exam- 
ples for the back-pillar top exist at that period, the 
stillness of the face — the expression of a mood — and 
the reticence of the sculptural means employed in- 
dicate rather the century in the course of which 
heads such as London, B.M. 34270 and 65443, an d 
Berlin 12500 (No. 127), were made. The way in 
which the back pillar hugs the back of the neck is 
closely paralleled in the first-named London sculp- 
ture. Since this portrait from Providence is not a 
tvpe, there are no close parallels for it. 

No. 1 20; PI. 1 1 1, Figs. 298-300. 

About 150-100 b.c; Vtolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Aid.; no. 22.226. 


Black diorite. 

Sculptures of mixed style, such as this fine 
black diorite head from the Walters Art Gal- 
lery, are frequently left to languish in museum 
storerooms. Since they are of neither pure 
Egyptian nor pure Classical tradition, they are 
often considered to be mongrel types and so 
are consigned to limbo by scholars of both 
fields as unworthy of study or classification. 
They form, nevertheless, an important group 
among the sculptures of the Ptolemaic Period, 
and many of them, including the one presented 
here, are of by no means negligible quality. 

In spite of an inept and disfiguring restora- 
tion of the nose, this Baltimore head reveals a 
sureness of touch betraying long practice in 
the working of hard stones. It represents a 
youth whose head is covered by a multitude of 
carefully modeled ringlets. His face is of the 
idealizing type, with smooth, well-rounded 

forehead, eyebrows sharply defined in an even 
curve, and eyes cut with metallic precision, 
though in good Egyptian tradition. His mouth 
is straight, with full, slightly parted lips. A 
rough rectangle at the nape of the neck is all 
that remains of the top of the back pillar, 
which was probably trapezoidal in shape. 

Except for the individualistic mouth, which 
follows closely neither the Hellenistic nor the 
Egyptian pattern, this head would perhaps 
not offer much of interest, were it not for the 
contrast in color and texture afforded by face 
and hair. The face is expertly polished and 
appears dark; the hair, left in the rough, seems 
much lighter. With its writhing mass of locks 
it plays, in its animation, a striking counter- 
point to the placid calm of the face. Obviously 
inspired by the coiffures represented on Greek 
statues of the second century, it reveals the in- 


ventiveness of a fertile mind, here concerned 
with creating a new type of Egypto-Hellenistic 
sculpture that carried its influence into the first 
century B.C. 

measurements: Height 12 cm. Width of break at 
neck 5.6 cm., at back pillar 4 cm. Depth of break 
(slant) 5.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; said to be Luxor. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: The chin is slightly damaged; it is not 
bearded. For the unusual slant of the ears, cf. the 
Detroit head (No. in). The refusal of specialists 
in the Egyptian as well as in the Hellenistic field to 
occupy themselves more seriously with sculptures 
made in the last two centuries B.C. has — at least 
among Classical archaeologists — somewhat weakened 
in recent years. Superb heads, which show little 
except the material used that could be called Egyp- 
tian, are being brought out of hiding, among them 
the great portrait at Kingston Lacy, to which C. C. 
Vermeule has justly called attention (A] A 59 [1955], 
p. 137; 60 [1956], pp. 330-331, pi. 108, figs. 18-19). 
The Baltimore head is, in a way, an ancestor of that 
head, though still marked by Egyptian accouterments 
such as the back pillar and the high degree of styliza- 
tion in the curls. The earliest example of this type 

is in Copenhagen (N.C.G. 1459). There the trape- 
zoid back-pillar top, ending above neck level, shows 
an adoration scene and the beginning of an inscrip- 
tion; the curls are well made, but fairly short. An- 
other example with short curls, much more volumi- 
nous than those of the head in Copenhagen, was in 
the collection of Anthony Charles Harris and is 
now in the British Museum (1928-1-23-1); the break 
at the neck makes it impossible to be definite about 
the presence or absence of a back pillar. All these 
heads have in common the great contrast between 
the polished surface of the features and the unpol- 
ished hair, the sharp dividing line which separates 
the coiffure and the face, and the youthful traits 
with carefully cut, never wide-open, eyes. The 
statues to which these heads belonged, probably 
showed the subject in an Egyptian kilt, as in Stock- 
holm 73, and not in a draped Hellenistic costume. 
In attributing the Baltimore head to the second half 
of the second century we have based ourselves on 
the assumption that the coiffure is an Egyptian ver- 
sion of a type found on statues of Hellenistic rulers 
(cf. Bieber, The Sculpture, p. 161, figs. 682-683); 
certainly the back-pillar decoration of the head in 
Copenhagen precludes a date in the first century 
(the head in London, however, may have been made 
after 100 b.c). For a colossal head with a similar 
coiffure, see No. 132. 

No. 121; PL 112, Figs. 301-302. 


About 120-80 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 


Owner: The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection {Trustees for Harvard Univer- 
sity), Washington, D. C; no. 37.13. 

Many different kinds of diadems were worn 
by Egyptian notables of the last centuries before 
our era, and for lack of precise literary sources 
the significance of most of them is obscure. 
One type, consisting of a thick band studded 
with rosettes, appears on the statue of a man 
who was governor of Dendera just before 
Egypt became a Roman province, and it is on 
the basis of this sculpture, for which there are 
several parallels, that we hazard the guess — it 
is only a guess! — that this head from the Dum- 
barton Oaks Collection may represent a nom- 
arch of Ptolemaic times. 

It is of course apparent that there are no 
rosettes on the head in its present state. It is 
encircled only by a thick band, but that band 
shows a series of ancient drill holes which must 
have been intended to receive some decoration: 
what could it be, but a series of rosettes? Orna- 
mentation in metal was a current practice 
among Greek sculptors of the Hellenistic pe- 
riod, and although it is impossible at the mo- 
ment to bring a parallel on this scale for such 
embellishment in an Egyptian statue, it seems 
not unlikely, in view of the many statues of the 
Ptolemaic Period with inlaid eyes, that we 


might also have had an inlaid diadem. 

The head, of nearly life size, shows traces of 
a back pillar indicating that it once formed 
part of an Egyptian temple statue. The hair 
is dressed in Hellenistic fashion, and the figure 
itself was probably clothed in the draped gar- 
ment that was one of the characteristic cos- 
tumes of the Ptolemaic Period. The treatment 
of the hair as seen from the rear is very me- 
chanical, and parts of the face seem ill-defined, 
but there is some indication that portions of 
the head may have been left in the rough, 
awaiting a final touch that was never applied. 
One deep wrinkle crosses the forehead; the 
eyes, carefully outlined, stare wide open, more 
in the Greek than in the Egyptian manner. 
Philtrum and nasolabial furrows are merely 
hinted at, and the mouth is indefinite and with- 
out character. Though there is little personal- 
ity in the face, the features convey a stark 
realism, a sense of immediacy, which makes it 
seem small wonder that only a quarter of a 
century ago it was thought to be the repre- 
sentation of a Byzantine emperor. 

measurements: Height 32 cm. Width 18.3 cm. 
Depth 21.5 cm. Width of break at neck 12 cm. 
Depth of break (slant) 15.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: G. Duthuit, "A Masterpiece of Byzan- 
tine Sculpture," The Burlington Magazine for Con- 
noisseurs 66 (1935), pp. 277-278, with 1 pi. (2 illus.). 

comment: There must be something "Byzantine" 
about Egyptian heads of the Ptolemaic Period, for a 
life-size head with rosette wreath, Brooklyn 55.120, 
was also acclaimed as Byzantine while still in private 
possession. Alas, Byzantine emperors have no back 
pillars! The statue of Pamenkhes, governor of Dcn- 
dera at the time when Augustus came to Egypt 
(Cairo J.E. 46320), is the prime example of a diadem 
with rosettes. A number of other examples (Phila- 
delphia E. 975; Zurich, Museum Rietberg R.V.A. 
501) make it seem clear that rosettes are the only 
decoration which could possibly have been applied 
in regular intervals round the head of our governor 
from Washington. Now the thick, rather rough 
band on the head of the Detroit governor (No. 136) 
becomes meaningful; it was dressed down too far 
for rosettes to be worked out in the stone, but it 
could well have been drilled — like the head from 
Washington — to accommodate separate rosettes in 
another material. Since the statue of the Governor 
Pamenkhes in Cairo has the finest of all rosette 
diadems, we have come to associate them with that 
high position of the Ptolemaic administration of 
Egypt. Admittedly, there is little proof for this as- 
sumption, but since there is also no proof to the 
contrary, it may as well be retained as a working 
theory. In Roman times the rosette diadem becomes 
associated — nobody knows why — with the represen- 
tation of drowned people on stelae and other reliefs; 
see Rowe, in ASAE 40 (1940), pp. 1 ff. 

No. 122; Pis. 1 1 2-1 1 3, Figs. 303-306. 


About 120-70 b.c. 

Owner: Egyptian Museum, Cairo; no. ^-\-\ 

Fine-grained grey granite. 

The picture of healthy youth, so long a com- 
mon denominator in Egyptian art, may seem 
to have faded a bit during the Late Period. 
But though in this Exhibition we have shown 
the stark and sombre side as well as the pleas- 
ant and beautiful, the ideal of youth neverthe- 
less existed — and continued to exist until well 
into the first century b.c. Despite the many 
sculptures depicting care-worn faces marked 

with signs of age, one must always remember 
that Egypt, to the day she became a Roman 
province, had an irrepressible love of life, a 
faith that life would continue beyond the 
grave, and a flair for captivating life at its best 
in the sculpture of a human being. Nothing 
could be more symbolic of the terminal phase 
of this innate joie de vivre than the girl with 
the flower from Cairo. 


This sculpture is only the upper part of what 
was once a standing figure of a maiden with 
left foot advanced, right arm hanging at her 
side; in her left hand she holds a lotus flower, 
modeled in relief on the right breast. Her 
hair — or wig — is dressed in heavy, echeloned 
tresses, covering her ears and hanging over her 
shoulders, with a delicate fringe of straight 
bangs combed down on the forehead. From 
the front, the wig resembles a heavy scarf, 
pushed back from the forehead to show the 
fine, natural hair. Since the lower portion of 
the figure is missing, it is not easy to identify 
the dress. It seems, however, that the young 
lady wore an undergarment with round neck 
and short sleeves, a scarf or cape covering the 
left arm, and a haltered skirt, which probably 
ended just below the breasts and reached to 
the ankles. On the back pillar with rounded 
top there is the beginning of an unpublished 
and unrecorded inscription in three columns. 
The pillar terminates just where it meets the 
edge of the wig and is rather deep in relation 
to its width. 

This description gives small idea of the 
warmth and charm of the figure. The face has 
not yet lost its young roundness. The eyes, 
their corners drawn out in the usual cosmetic 
lines, look out from under their straight, well- 
defined brows with almost childish frankness. 
The nose and full-lipped mouth, though dam- 
aged, appear to retain the softness of youth, 
and the breasts, swelling to ripeness, complete 
the picture of a sturdy girl on the eve of wom- 

anhood. The lotus flower, held in the simple, 
traditional manner, here seems to enhance an 
impression of healthy, very feminine, and ut- 
terly charming adolescence. 

measurements: Height 31 cm. Height of face to 
bangs 8 cm., to wig 9.8 cm. Width of face 7.5 cm. 
Depth of break below arm 12 cm. Height of back 
pillar 12.5 cm. Intracolumnar widths, columns one 
and three 2.1 cm., column two 2.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probablv Lower Eevot 
(Delta). ^ 7 *™ 

bibliography: Bissing, Denkm., Text to pi. 112, cols. 
4-5 (illus.). G. Maspero, Egypte (Paris, 19 12), pp. 
258 and 262, fig. 487. 

comment: The inscription on the back pillar, which 
epigraphically could be as early as the second cen- 
tury B.C., begins with a prayer to the god Amun. 
The name of the subject's father, in its present con- 
dition illegible, is contained in the third column, 
followed by "born of the lady . . .;" the mother's 
name is lost. The shape of the back-pillar top is, 
even in the Ptolemaic Period, rather unusual. For a 
youthful face of the first century B.C., cf. that of a 
young man in Philadelphia E. 975. The gesture of 
the girl's left arm may be traced by means of the 
illustrations in Vandier, Manuel III; the earliest oc- 
currence seems to be Cairo C.G. 381. The flower is, 
of course, an age-old attribute, held by women in 
relief and sculpture (Cairo C.G. 27471, a late Ptole- 
maic queen) until the end of the Ptolemaic Period, 
and usually in the left hand. For the girl's costume, 
no exact parallel in the round is available, although 
Rome, Museo Barracco 29, shows, for instance, that 
in sculpture of the first century b.c. the skirt ending 
directly below the breasts (cf. No. 11) was still rep- 
resented. Obviously, the bosom of the Cairo bust, 
though well-rounded, is not as obtrusive as that of 
the Yale figure (No. 130), and the position of the 
girl's arm helps to offset the volume of the breasts. 
For another heavy wig with the natural hair de- 
scending on the forehead, see No. 123. 


No. 123; Pis. 114-115, Figs. 307-310. 


About 100 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Limestone, with traces of color. 

Owjier: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y '.; no. 20.2.2 1 . 

Inscribed statues of Ptolemaic queens with 
heads intact are very rare; in fact, only three 
are known, and of these, two are in the Metro- 
politan Museum of Art. Both are included in 
the Exhibition. One, representing a queen 
named Cleopatra (No. 113), was presumably 
made during her lifetime, but the second, dis- 
cussed here, was modeled for a royal lady long 

The inscription on the back pillar, which 
tells us that the figure represents "... Arsinoe, 
divine, brother-loving . . .," distinguishes the 
queen from two others of the same name, as 
Arsinoe II, who married her brother, Ptolemy 
II, and received, with him, the cognomon Phil- 
adelphos, meaning "brother-loving" or (in his 
case) "sister-loving." The text also reveals that 
the statue was made in her memory, after her 
death, for it was only posthumously that her 
husband and brother elevated her to the rank 
of goddess, entitling her to the epithet "divine," 
by which she is designated in all texts written 
after her demise. 

Since the cult of the deified Arsinoe II is at- 
tested until well into the first century b.c, we 
have a wide range of time to choose from in 
assigning this figure to a definite period. It is 
of a very different style from the only other 
inscribed figure known of her — the colossal 
statue in Rome (Vatican 25), which must have 
been made during her lifetime, for its text does 
not refer to her as "divine." It is different, too, 
from the uninscribed head in New York (No. 
98), which is a smaller, finer replica of the head 
of the Vatican figure and probably also dates 
from the time of her vigorous reign. It is a 
portly, mature lady who is represented here, 
in a wig of thick corkscrew locks, from under 
which her own hair descends in more delicately 

twisted curls well onto her forehead. The top 
of the head is broken away, together with the 
royal insignia — the uraeus and the Isis-Hathor 
crown worn by most Ptolemaic queens. This 
crown was supported by the back pillar, which 
must have extended considerably above its 
present level. The queen stands in the age-old 
pose, left foot advanced, holding a cornucopia 
on her left arm and with her right arm, hand 
clenched, hanging at her side. Her Hellenistic 
dress, carved with beautiful precision in folds, 
pleats, and serrations that convey a feeling of 
the texture of materials, outlines, without em- 
phasizing, the heavy breasts and the thickening 
forms of the body. There is nothing of the del- 
icate femininity of No. 98 in the broad, heavy 
face of the queen. Strongly arched, sharply 
defined eyebrows surmount her large, wide- 
open, slightly bulging eyes. Her mouth is 
small and thick-lipped, her cheeks all but sag- 
ging, her chin broad and firm. Traces of black 
on the coiffure, of gilding on the neck, and of 
red on the cornucopia, reveal that the sculp- 
ture was once completely polychromed. It 
must have formed a splendid tribute, impres- 
sive in its modeling as in its color, to a queen 
long dead. 

Though the face is not dissimilar from that 
of the traditional Arsinoe II as it appears on 
coins, it seems quite possible that this repre- 
sentation, so naturalistic and so unflattering, 
may reflect the likeness of a queen who shared 
the throne of Egypt at the beginning of the 
first century b.c.; but we have no queen's 
statue of the period to serve as a parallel. In 
general style, however, this cult figure must be 
of about that time. It is notably fallacious to 
compare sculpture in the round with relief, es- 
pecially in the Late Period; yet, to judge by the 


form of the female body in temple reliefs from 
the third to the first century, a representation 
of so stocky a lady would have been impossible 
before the time of Ptolemy V or VI. On the 
other hand, the assuredness and sharpness of 
the thin folds of the garment on the lower part 
of the body relate this sculpture to certain 
statues which cannot be much earlier than the 
end of the second century B.C., the period to 
which we have assigned it. 

measurements: Height above modern base 38.1 cm. 
Height of figure 36.2 cm. Width of base, front 7.3 
cm.; rear 4.3 cm. Depth of base 13.1 cm. Width of 
back pillar near break 3 cm. Intracolumnar width 
2.1 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: (Nora E. Scott and Charles Sheeler) 
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Statu- 
ettes (New York, 1946), no. 36 (illus.). Millia 
Davenport, The Book of Costume I (New York, 
1948), p. 33, fig. 99. Needier, in Berytus 9 (1948-49), 
pp. 137 and 140, pi. XXVI, fig. 3. Bieber The Sculp- 
ture, p. 92, figs. 351-353. Thompson, in AJA 59 
(1955), p. 202, note 36. Buhl, L.E.A.S.S., p. 200. 

comment: The inscription has been translated by 
Miss Needier, loc. cit.; her "beloved of the king" has 
to be corrected to "brother-loving," thus rendering 
Miss Buhl's identification of the piece as Arsinoe III 
unlikely. The title, "Daughter of Amun," evidently 
refers to the special place the ancient imperial god 
came to occupy in the state religion of the Ptolemies, 
due to the efforts of Arsinoe II (cf. Milne, in Studies 
. . . Griffith, pp. 13-15). For the cult of the deified 
Arsinoe in later times, see W. Otto, Priester und 

Tempel I, pp. 349-350. For the corkscrew tresses, 
see Nos. 113 and 130, and for their use in a wig, 
cf. No. 122. As is the case on No. 130, the uraeus 
may have been placed so high that no trace of it is 
left. The iconography of Arsinoe II forms a fasci- 
nating chapter of Hellenistic art, transgressing the 
borders of most countries around the eastern end of 
the Mediterranean and expressed in sculpture of 
stone, faience, metal, and terra cotta, in reliefs, and 
in gold and silver coins. The material has been 
summed up by Mrs. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 199 ff., 
who points out that the portraiture of the queen, 
as transmitted on coins, must have been established 
soon after her death and that the unflattering like- 
ness was repeated again and again, until late Ptole- 
maic times. Mrs. Thompson's description {op. cit., 
p. 203) applies well to the New York statue: ". . . 
Arsinoe looks all her forty years; her face is drawn, 
her long nose peaky, her mouth irritably pursed, 
her chin sagging, her neck heavily ringed. More- 
over, her eyes protrude sensationally . . ." Though 
our statue, therefore, was based on the traditional 
idea of Arsinoe's portraiture, it still cannot be called 
a portrait, because it was obviously not made from 
the living model. The sharpness of the folds of the 
garment may be compared to that, for instance, of 
Berlin 2271, which can hardly have been made be- 
fore 120 b.c. Mrs. Thompson, in AJA 54 (1950), 
p. 379, dates the Baker Dancer to about 225-175 B.C., 
and though the folds of a bronze statuette cannot be 
profitably compared with those of a limestone statue, 
her dissertation on the change in drapery through- 
out the Hellenistic age is worth rereading. The folds 
on our sculpture have undoubtedly a metallic qual- 
ity, probably partlv due to a superior workshop, but 
also partlv the result of the prevailing style of the 
period, which appears to be about 100 B.C. For the 
deification of Arsinoe II, see BSAA 37 (1948), p. 
15 ff. and Aegyptus 33 (1953), pp. 127-128. 

No. 124; PI. 115, Figs. 31 1-3 1 2. 


About 100 b.c; Ftolemaic Period. Marbled limestone. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, N. Y.; no. 10.176.44. 

Among the numerous kinds of headgear in 
which Egyptian kings are represented in the 
Ptolemaic Period, the most favored is the 
nemes, a name derived from the ancient Egyp- 
tian word for a type of royal headcloth. It 
consisted of a creased — in pre-Ptolemaic times 

usually pleated — hood, from which two lap- 
pets fell in front over the shoulders. The cloth 
was brought together at the back to terminate 
in the sheathed royal pigtail. The edge over 
the forehead usually had a border, from below 
which, in front of the ears, protruded two ap- 


pendages of approximately trapezoid shape, a 
stylized indication of hair. 

It is perhaps because the nemes was less cum- 
bersome than other regal headdresses and 
therefore more commonly worn, that it ap- 
pears on the majority of Ptolemaic royal heads. 
One additional head among the many routine 
portraits of kings shown in this traditional head 
covering would not, accordingly, be of much 
interest, were it not, as is the case with this 
bust from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
for certain unusual features. First, the sculp- 
ture lacks a back pillar and, second, the rela- 
tionship of head to neck and torso is such that 
it must be assumed that the figure, when intact, 
leaned markedly backward. Since this would 
be the case only in a kneeling figure, the king 
represented here must have been shown kneel- 
ing, resting on his heels, with an offering to a 
god in his hands or — less likely — in an attitude 
of worship, with his hands flat on his thighs. 
The lack of a back pillar would favor such an 
assumption, for figures of kneeling pharaohs 
without back pillar occur from the Old King- 
dom down into the Late Period. Here we may 
well have an additional example from the time 
of the Ptolemies. 

Thanks to the unusual position of the body, 
and perhaps also to a desire to protect the head 
from breaking off at the neck, the nemes is 
rather large at neck level. It descends very low 
on the back, ending, as always, in a queue, 
which in this case is short and greatly dam- 
aged. The uraeus that rises above the forehead 
is meager and mechanically worked, its tail 
reaching just beyond the crown of the head. 
The king's face is broad, with large features. 
The plastic outline of the rim of the upper eye- 
lids is continued as a short cosmetic stripe 
toward the temples, and the rounded, slightly 
protruding eyeballs give some intensity to an 
expression that is otherwise without character. 

Although the small mouth is reminiscent of 

the mouth of the royal head from the Brundage 
Collection (No. 114), the unknown king 
shown here is undoubtedly of a later date. For 
how long the standardized idealization of royal 
features as represented in these heads was in 
use, is not yet known, but a date at the end of 
the second or the beginning of the first cen- 
tury before our era seems plausible for the 
royal bust from the Metropolitan Museum of 

measurements: Height 21.3 cm. Width ca. 17.5 cm. 
Depth ca. 1 1 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: None; mentioned in Berytus 9 (1948- 
49), p. 132. 

comment: The material — a veined and marbled 
limestone speckled with yellow and brown — is so 
unusual that it alone speaks for an origin outside 
the strongly pharaonic tradition of the earlier Ptole- 
mies. The figure-eight coil of the thin uraeus is an- 
other indication of a rather late date. The face is so 
bland, so empty, that it does not offer any feature 
helpful for closer identification of the period. We 
cannot, however, arbitrarily dismiss sculptures such 
as this merely because they are uninscribed and hard 
to pin down chronologically. The nose is deeply de- 
pressed at the root, and the lips are small and pursed; 
the dome of the skull is very shallow above the 
border of the nemes. Having tilted the bust in all 
directions, we are convinced that the position shown 
in the profile view — with the head vertical and look- 
ing straight ahead — is the correct one, and that the 
figure was leaning back so unusually far that the ab- 
domen lay well in front of the chest. For the history 
of the attitude of the kneeling king, see H. W. 
Miiller, in Studi . . . Rosellini II, pp. 181 ff.; cf. also 
JEA 46 (i960), pp. 1 ff. None of the sculptures he 
discusses, however, shows the king leaning back as 
far as does the piece presented here. Below the 
queue, the spinal groove has been deeply hollowed 
out, and there is no indication that there ever was a 
back pillar. In this connection, reference must be 
made to the life-size black diorite bust of a man 
with shaven head in Baltimore (W.A.G. 210), which 
has never been satisfactorily explained. It is now 
mounted as if the head were bending down; once 
the chin is raised and the chest is permitted to slant 
forward, as in the New York royal bust, the attitude 
becomes clear: the Baltimore bust, too, comes from 
a kneeling figure (cf. Rome, Palazzo dei Conserva- 
tori, Scala VI-9, which likewise is incorrectly 


No. 125; PL 116, Figs. 313-314. 


About 1 00- 70 B.C.; Ptolemaic Period. Limestone with traces of black paint. 

Owner: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; no. 30.8.7 1. 

The exception proves the rule: this Ptole- 
maic sphinx is perhaps the only complete ex- 
ample of its type made after Alexander that 
holds its own as a work of art. The striding 
monster, with human head and lion's body, is 
endowed with a tail ending in a serpent's head, 
which makes one uneasy about accepting it as a 
representation of a king. The attitude, passant 
instead of couchant, also is unusual for a royal 
sphinx of the period, and thus the statuette ap- 
pears to be the image of the god Tutu rather 
than that of a ruler. 

Eyes and eyebrows were formerly inlaid; 
the latter still bear traces of green paste. The 
serpent's head at the end of the tail, too, had 
inlaid eyes. In its slim build the body of the 
sphinx shows a great deal of grace, and some- 
thing of this delicacy is found also in the face, 
which — unlike most Ptolemaic sculptures of 
gods — has fine, almost feminine, features. The 
heavy, stylized mane covers the forelegs like 
an apron; seen in profile one would expect it to 
be balanced by a deep lion's chest. In the front 
view, the bulky mane lends majesty to the rep- 
resentation of the god, who is anything but fierce 
in this small sculpture of great sophistication. 

measurements: Height 21.5 cm. Height of base 2.9 
cm. Width of base 12.1 cm. Length of base 35.7 cm. 
provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collection 
of Theodore M. Davis. 

bibliography: BMMA, March 1931, Section II, p. 6, 
fig. 7. S. Sauneron, in JNES 19, no. 4 (October 
i960), notes 65 and 71 (in press). 

comment: For the god Tutu, see Nos. 137 and 139. 
The tripartite wig is never worn by kings; smooth as 
well as striated, it is a characteristic element of this 
god's costume in numerous instances when he is 
represented as a sphinx; his other headdress is the 
nemes (see No. 139). This tripartite wig and the 
cobra head at the end of the tail are, in addition to 
the striding attitude, the main criteria for identify- 
ing the monster as Tutu. The small braided beard, 
too, is not found in royal representations in the 
round. The large apron-like mane had been tradi- 
tional in untold Egyptian sphinxes for well over a 
millennium until it went out of fashion around 1000 
b.c. It reappears in the sphinx couchant of King 
Nepheritis I (ca. 395 B.C.; Dynasty XXIX) in the 
Louvre (A 26; now at La Malmaison near Paris), 
but in all these recumbent sphinxes it is of course 
much less overwhelming than in the striding exam- 
ples. The function of the statuette was presumably 
votive, and the quality of workmanship seems to be 
of a kind that could have been produced only in a 
royal workshop. The date of this figure is as yet 
not satisfactorily established. Excellent workman- 
ship, even in so small a sculpture, is not surprising 
in the late Ptolemaic Period, when, for instance, a 
similar youthful face with small pouting mouth oc- 
casionally appears in royal sculpture (Alexandria 
425; Madrid, M.A.N. 2015; Paris, Louvre A 28). A 
royal head in Cairo (J.E. 36849), made in a glass 
mixture imitating imperial porphyry, might well date 
from the second half of the first century B.C. — with 
its ovoid face and pursed mouth it can be compared 
to the features of the Tutu sphinx. The closest paral- 
lel, however, is furnished by the face of a queen's 
head in porphyry, formerly at Doughty House, 
Richmond (in 1955 in London, Collection D.E.B.)- 
Hesitatingly attributed to the third century b.c by 
R. Delbrueck (Antike Porphyrwerke, p. 38, no. 6, 
pi. 1 ) it nonetheless belongs to the first century B.C. 
at the earliest. Its features reflect an idealizing type 
of late Ptolemaic times of which the New York 
Tutu may well be one of the primary examples. 


No. 126; PL 117, Figs. 315-316. 


About 100-50 b.c; Ftolemaic Period. 

Owner: Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; no. 3 1 5 1 , 

Grey-black basalt. 

At Hermopolis in Middle Egypt, in the fa- 
mous tomb chapel of Petosiris, decorated during 
the last decade of the fourth century B.C., there 
are represented a number of persons crowned 
with circlets formed by the stem of a flower 
which blossoms above the forehead of the 
wearer. Since this sort of single-stem wreath 
goes back as far as the Old Kingdom, its use in 
the Late Period is not surprising; but it is as- 
tonishing suddenly to find a number of heads 
modeled in hard stone around 100 b.c. (usu- 
ally portraits of better-than- average quality), 
which show the stem-diadem as ending in two 
buds. Of this type, the head from Alexandria 
shown here is one of the best examples. 

The head is a type, however, only insofar as 
the diadem is concerned; the face must surely 
be a portrait. Especially in the beetling eye- 
brows and the thick, horizontal upper lids, not 
elsewhere encountered, it shows marked indi- 
vidual characteristics. Add to these a short, 
very broad nose, a straight, stern mouth, some- 
what summarily sketched but with sharply 
protruding lower lip, and you have before you 
a personality whose face must have been mod- 
eled, as the phrase goes, from life. In contrast 
with these highly personal traits are the triple 
furrows that wave along the cheeks almost 
from the inner corners of the eyes to well be- 
low the mouth. They are treated in a highly 
ornamental fashion, and since they occur in 
almost the same manner in other portraits, they 
must be considered as part of the repertory of 
a definite studio. Notwithstanding such con- 
ventional devices for enlivening and "aging" 
the face and the dry and perfunctory manner 
of indicating the hair, the head still conveys 
the impression of a definite person, some rug- 

ged individualist of the first century b.c. 

measurements: Height 15 cm. Width 9.7 cm. 
Depth 12 cm. Width of break at neck 6.5 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Ev. Breccia, Alexandre** ad Aegyptum 
(Bergamo, 1922), pp. 171, 172, fig. 77, no. 60. 

comment: For flower diadems in the reliefs of 
Petosiris, see ed. Lefebvre, pi. XX, XXXV, XLVI- 
XL1X, and for their ancestor, the "boatman's fillet," 
Ebba E. Kerrn, in Acta Orientalia 24 (1959), pp. 161 
ff. For the Ptolemaic diadem with lotus buds, we 
have a number of good examples in sculpture in the 
round (Alexandria 3 191= Cairo C.G. 27492; Mos- 
cow 113; Munich, Glyptothek 47; Paris, Louvre 
E. 3434, where the buds were separately inlaid; and 
of late the fine head in: Ars Antiqua, Antike Kunst- 
werke, Auktion I [Sale Catalogue, Lucerne, 2 May 
1959], p. 7, no. 10, pi. 4-5), but none of these pieces 
bears an inscription, and therefore the deeper rea- 
son why so many age-lined heads wear this fillet 
still escapes us. Charbonneaux (Mon. Piot 47 [1953], 
pp. 112-113), in noticing these buds on diadems 
which are decorated with two small wings, points 
up the connection with Hermes, but this does not 
help in the interpretation of our head from Alex- 
andria, and also the voluminous literature on crowns, 
wreaths and diadems (see the references cited by 
Derchain, in CdE 30 [1955], pp. 225 ff.) has thus far 
not yielded any concrete suggestions as to the mean- 
ing of our fillet. It is clear, however, that the cir- 
clet with the two buds is worn only by men. It 
seems to occur also in relief: Louvre D 40 shows 
only a single bud in outline, but two may be under- 
stood as overlapping, for the representation is very 
different from that of women with a single flower 
on their forehead (London, B.M. 512). The double 
nasolabial furrow of the Toronto head (No. 101) 
may possibly be a forerunner of the triple fold of 
the Alexandria head, although the latter springs from 
further up along the nose, and not from the nostrils. 
The triple fold is found in only a small group of 
late Ptolemaic heads (e.g. Alexandria 26033; Revue 
des Arts 9 [1959], pp. 104 and 107, fig. 6). In spite 
of it, we consider the head under discussion a por- 
trait; forehead, eyebrows, eyes and mouth are singu- 
larly emphasized and so well composed that it seems 
beyond doubt that the skilled artist who made the 
piece must have had a definite person in mind. 


No. 127; Pis. 117-119, Figs. 317-319 


About 100-50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Ehemals Staatliche Museen, Berlin; no. 1 2500. 

Green schist. 

Until about a quarter of a century ago, what 
little credit was given to the art of the Late 
Period was based entirely on a single piece of 
sculpture, the famous "Green Head" in Berlin. 
That was a portrait which could not be ig- 
nored, even by the most violent advocates of 
the degeneracy of the arts toward the close of 
the long history of ancient Egypt. It has been 
interminably discussed — often as an excep- 
tional and isolated phenomenon — and has been, 
together with the painted bust of Nofretete 
and the gold mask of Tutankhamen, one of the 
most frequently illustrated of all Egyptian 
works. We are fortunate to be able to show it 
for the first time to the American public, for 
indeed no exhibition of Late sculpture could be 
complete without it. 

As one looks at the head, it is easy to see why 
it could never have been sent into limbo along 
with so many other — often important — works 
of the last centuries before our era. One is 
conscious, first of all, of the mighty, shaven 
skull that rises in an elongated oval above an 
intelligent face. The skull is such a miracle of 
translation of anatomical detail into artistic 
form, blending planes and depressions, curves 
and straight lines into a harmonious whole, 
that it has often been cited as evidence that the 
Egyptians profited from Greek medical knowl- 
edge. Alas, this head was based on nature, not 
on a Greek treatise on anatomy. The keen 
observation it reveals was long a part of Egyp- 
tian sculptural tradition; it has a forerunner — 
among others — in the head of Psamtik-sa- 
neith (No. 6$). 

The unlined forehead of the man represented 
is modified by a deep, horizontal depression and 
two sharply cut wrinkles between the brows. 
These wrinkles, familiar enough in Late por- 


traiture, end in a pronounced outward curve. 
The eyes are very formally drawn; the manner 
in which the upper lid cuts over the lower is 
especially reminiscent of the treatment of the 
eyes in the well-known bust of Mentuemhat 
in Cairo (Fig. 29). Three crow's-feet incised 
at the outer corners of the eyes are balanced 
by three shorter and shallower lines on the side 
of the nose at the inner corners. Similar lines, 
again in groups of three, appear above the up- 
per lip, and the protruding lower lip shows a 
vertical incision in the exact center. The face 
betrays a preoccupation with symmetry that 
is very unusual for the Late Period. The treat- 
ment of the nasolabial furrows is unique. They 
descend in an almost straight line down from 
the nostrils, to end in an elegant curve that 
bends upward to meet two triangular depres- 
sions at the corners of the mouth. One looks in 
vain among Late portraits for parallels to the 
singular, highly ornamental treatment of such 
furrows, or of the folds of flesh indicated 
around the minutely designed ears and es- 
pecially on the earlobes, which are curiously 
marked by a deep incision. The cheeks, with 
two sharp lines beyond the corners of the 
mouth and a broad, deep depression descending 
from the temples, have lost their youthful 
roundness, but the face is not that of an old 
man. It is that of a handsome, intelligent per- 
son in the prime of life. Realistic rendering 
and strangely calligraphic treatment of detail 
have been combined by what must have been 
one of the most capable sculptors of ancient 
Egypt to produce a portrait revelatory of the 
nature and mind of an extraordinary person. 
Like the portrait from the Gulbenkian Col- 
lection (No. 107), the Berlin head shows a tra- 
ditional calm that is one of the strongest trends 

surviving from earlier periods in the best works 
of Ptolemaic times. It is so completely unemo- 
tional that Classical archaeologists understand- 
ably employ it as an example in discussing the 
difference between Roman and Hellenistic por- 
traiture of around ioo b.c. Its Egyptian origin 
of course can not be doubted. Aside from the 
material, the trapezoidal top of a back pillar is 
proof of that, as could also be the thick cord 
lying around the neck, which probably once 
supported an amulet. The date is another mat- 
ter. Though the head was, of course, long re- 
garded as Saite, its Ptolemaic origin has not 
been disputed for some years — indeed it was 
almost prophetically assigned to Hellenistic 
times by Bissing half a century ago. Where it 
belongs within that period has been largely 

Leaving aside the sentimental considerations 
that play such a role among tradition-minded 
Egyptologists, when they gingerly approach 
the untrodden paths of archaeology of the Late 
Period, we are assigning the sculpture to the 
first century b.c. In this, we are prompted by 
two considerations. First, the head shows every 
sign of being the result of long experimentation 
and practice; it betrays a ripeness not yet ar- 
rived at in the early part of Ptolemaic rule. Its 
modeling presupposes the existence of the heads 
of Teos II in Cairo (Fig. 250), of the great por- 
traits from Boston (No. 108), Lisbon (No. 
107), and Detroit (No. in). Though the 
dating of these pieces has not yet been firmly 
established, there seems no doubt that they 
were made well before the end of the second 
century b.c. Native sculptors, having created 
portraits (especially the Boston "Green Head") 
that were true to life in the widest sense, ren- 
dering not merely physical but innate charac- 
teristics, began to play variations on the theme, 
without ever again quite recapturing the spirit 
of the first great achievements. Notable among 
these variations is the Berlin "Green Head." 
Avoiding verism in outer form, even approach- 
ing unreality in its symmetry and calligraphic 
lines, it nevertheless manages to reflect the in- 

dividual, inner being of a man who lived two 
thousand years ago. 

Less subjective, indeed purely archaeolog- 
ical, is the second reason for our dating of the 
head to the time of Ptolemies X to XII. There 
is in the Berlin Museum a bust generally ac- 
cepted to be a portrait of Julius Caesar, which 
is fashioned of a green schist nearly identical 
in shade with that of the head under discussion. 
This extraordinary piece does not represent 
the aging Caesar of the Ides of March, but was 
almost certainly made during his lifetime, and 
very probably at or shortly after the time he 
reached Egypt, in the year 48 b.c. Of Egyp- 
tian stone and obviously fashioned by a sculp- 
tor familiar with handling such stone, this 
portrait has so much in common with the Ber- 
lin "Green Head" that it arouses the suspicion 
that both must have been made within the 
same generation and perhaps even in the same 
workshop. This does not mean that the two 
"look alike" — after all, the Caesar bust is the 
portrait of a victorious dictator — but a close 
comparison shows that the tradition which 
found expression in the "Green Head" was 
still alive when the bust of the conqueror was 
modeled. The horizontal depression of the 
forehead, the swinging ornamental line of the 
nasolabial furrows, even the strange modeling 
of the earlobes, are all present in the face of 
Caesar, along with other more conventional 
details (here doubly prominent) such as the 
two lines at the root of the nose, the crow's-feet 
at the corner of the eyes, and the vertical 
incisions in the cheeks. All these features, 
though used to produce, on the one hand, the 
portrait of a Roman with head turned to one 
side and, on the other, that of an Egyptian in 
the age-old frontal pose, spring from exactly 
the same artistic conception. 

measurements: Height ca. 21 cm. (the break has 
been obscured by a metal mount). Depth 19 cm. 
Width of break at neck ca. 1 1 cm., at back pillar 
6 cm. Depth of break ca. 14 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Formerly in the collec- 
tions of Prince Ibrahim Hilmy and Henry Wallis. 
Acquired in 1895. 


bibliography: (selective): G. Maspero, UArcheol- 
ogie egyptienne (Paris, 1887), p. 228. W. M. Flinders 
Petrie, The Arts & Crafts of Ancient Egypt (Edin- 
burgh & London, 1909), pp. 46-47. Bissing, Denkm., 
pi. 105; Text to pi. 105-m. ZAS 52 (1914-1915), 
p. 86; 73 (1937), p. 35; 74 (1938), pp. 26 and 44. 
OLZ 25 (1922), 397; 26 (1923), 1 and 4; 30 (1927), 
245. BMFA 35 (1937), p. 70; 49 (195 1 ), p. 73. Bosse, 
Menschl. Figur, pp. 75-76, 97, no. 206. Snijder, in 
Mnemosyne 7 (1939), p. 253. Anthes, in AA 1939, 
376 ff., figs. 4-5. R.M. 55 (1940), p. 230. ScharfF, in 
Misc. Greg., p. 203 and note 51. Mon. Piot 38 (1941), 
pp. 1 1 7 fT. and passim. Poulsen, in From the Collec- 
tions of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek 3 (1942), pp. 
160 ff., fig. 18. R.A. 16 (1946), pp. 132-133 and 
passim. E. Buschor, Bildnisstufen (Munich, 1947), 
pp. 245-246, fig. 104. Drerup, Ag. Bildniskopfe, pp. 
6, 17, 23, pi. 1. A] A 56 (1952), pp. 86-87. Kunsthalle 
Basel, Schaetze Altaegyptischer Kunst; 27. Juni— 13. 
Sept. 1953 (Basel, 1953), pp. 62-63, no. 173 (illus.). 
Wolf, Kunst, pp. 628-630, figs. 665-666, p. 714, note 
40 (bibliography). Smith, A.A.A.E., pp. 252 and 287, 
note 64. Strieker, in OMRO 40 (1959), pp. 12-13. 

comment: It speaks for the perspicacity of Gaston 
Maspero (loc. cit.) that he singled out this head as a 
masterpiece when it was still in private possession in 
Cairo. For Prince Ibrahim Hilmy, see Wilbour, 
Travels, pp. 215, 466, and 530; for Henry Wallis, 
cf. Warren R. Dawson, Who Was Who in Egyptol- 
ogy (London, 195 1), p. 163. The trapezoid shape of 
the back-pillar top is well attested in this "classical" — 
not elongated — form, as late as the first century B.C.; 
see for instance the governor from Coptos in Phila- 
delphia (E. 975). For the bevel of the side of the 
back pillar, Berlin 10972 furnishes a close parallel. 
The heavy cord around the neck is found in a num- 
ber of statues, e.g. London, B.M. 1935-4-17-1, and 
Paris, Louvre E. 20358; certainly no scholar would 
date the last-named piece earlier than 100 b.c. The 
ears are very "Ptolemaic" in the way in which they 
have been set back from the face and tilted, for 
which see No. m. Shaven skulls become rare in 
sculpture in the round after the third century B.C., 
though they continue in a few examples beyond the 
end of Egyptian independence (cf. No. 141); on 
stelae their popularity does not seem much reduced 
until the Roman Period. The formal treatment of 
the eyes is quite in character with the ornamental 
approach to the composition. For their shape and 
outline in general, see Alexandria P. 10427 and Cairo 
J.E. 45390; the latter is dated to 80-50 b.c. The two 
folds at the root of the nose and the three crow's- 
feet at the outer corners of the eyes are, of course, 

conventional traits long used in Egypt, but occur 
also in Roman heads whose early Republican date is 
undisputed; see Bernhard Schweitzer, Die Bildnis- 
kunst der Romischen Republik (Leipzig, 1948), pas- 
sim. It is curious that only one Egyptologist long 
ago saw the close connection between the "Green 
Head" and Roman Republican portraits (Petrie, loc. 
cit.), although he was inclined to see in the Berlin 
head a forerunner, whereas we believe it to be a 
contemporary. To Classical archaeologists, with their 
excellent training in really seeing sculpture in the 
round, the association of the Berlin "Green Head" 
and the Caesar bust has been self-evident for many 
years (Bieber, in R.M. 32 [19 17], pp. 145-146). Bis- 
sing, who committed in 1914 the unspeakable heresy 
of removing the "Green Head" from the Saite 
Period and attributing it to the end of the fourth 
century B.C., saw the relationship between Hellen- 
istic and Egyptian sculpture, but never acknowledged 
the Roman connections, although they are admitted 
in almost every book on Roman portraiture; cf. also 
AA 1930, 196 ff., and Mon. Piot 38 (1941), 122 ff. 
From the Classical point of view, the difficulty seems 
to lie in explaining the sudden appearance of Egyp- 
tianizing portraiture in Rome at the very moment 
when that nation develops a sculpture of its own, 
mostly modeled by imported Greek artists and work- 
men. Heads such as Detroit (No. 104) and London, 
B.M. 65443 represent pre-Roman "Roman" types in 
Egyptian sculpture; and whether or not the reader 
agrees that the Berlin "Green Head" is of the first 
century B.C., he can hardly deny the existence of 
Ptolemaic prototypes of the third and second cen- 
turies b.c. for typically Roman Republican portrai- 
ture. The knowledge of such sculpture must have 
been transmitted to Rome with the introduction of 
the Isis cult; it is surely no accident that for several 
hundred years the Roman portraits of the priests of 
Isis reflect a style current in Egypt in the second 
century b.c. and possibly earlier. Small wonder that 
the first examples of these priestly heads were made 
in Egyptian materials (Mon. Piot 38 [1941], pp. 117 
ff.; C. C. Vermeule, in Allen Memorial Art Museum 
Bulletin [Oberlin, Ohio!, 17, no. 1 [Fall, 1959I, pp. 
6 ff.). The Nilotic scenes of the Palestrina mosaics 
are but another facet of the lively interest everything 
Egyptian evoked among the artists and art-minded 
public of Rome, a century before Caesar set foot 
into Egypt. For Caesar's bust in Berlin, see Carl 
Bliimel, Romische Bildnisse (Berlin, 1933), pp. 4-5, 
no. R 9, pi. 5; and E. Boehringer, Der Caesar von 
Acireale (Stuttgart, 1933), pp. 16 and 25, pi. 42-43, 
with the rarely illustrated right profile. 


No. 128; PI. 119, Figs. 320-321. 


About 100-50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y ., no. 54.68. 

Marble; much discolored. 

The tenacity with which the Hellenistic 
kings of Egypt clung to pharaonic tradition 
when it suited their purpose, is admirable. As 
one wanders through the gigantic temples of 
Dendera and Edfu — acres of wall space cov- 
ered with inscriptions and relief in the classical 
Egyptian manner — and realizes that all this 
was built and decorated in times when fierce 
battles, murder, and treason embroiled the 
royal family in strife at home and abroad, one 
marvels at the solid core of the people who 
built these sanctuaries, at their stamina, at the 
strength of tradition that prevailed among 
them. It was tradition that made it possible for 
the alien rulers to hold the country together 
in troublous times and that inspired in archi- 
tecture and sculpture major contributions not 
unworthy of the great civilization of the past. 

The dualism of the ruler — part Egyptian 
deity, part Hellenistic condottiere — is strangely 
symbolized when a Ptolemaic king is repre- 
sented in the old war helmet known as the 
Blue Crown, which, when it first appeared in 
the sixteenth century B.C., was part of a king's 
battle dress and not worn in formal representa- 
tions in the round. Custom gradually changed, 
and many statues, from the end of the fifteenth 
century on, show the king in the Blue Crown. 
It is unlikely that it was still actually worn in 
the Ptolemaic Period, but in reliefs and also — 
very rarely — in sculpture in the round, it was 
pictured as part of the royal paraphernalia. 

The much-corroded marble head of a Ptole- 
maic king from the Brooklyn collection shows 
him in the ancient helmet. The creases of the 
crown do not rise as steeply as was customary 
in pre-Ptolemaic times; the border is banded by 
two incised lines, and a pair of streamers, vis- 
ible in relief at the nape of the neck, indicate 

that if the piece ever had a back pillar, it must 
have ended at a low level. The form of the 
hood and coil of the cobra ornamenting the 
front of the helmet is well attested in the 
Ptolemaic Period, and there is at least one paral- 
lel from the first century B.C. for the sharp 
twist to the side of the serpent's body on the 
Blue Crown of a royal head. Having frequently 
warned against the comparison of sculpture in 
the round with relief for purposes of attribu- 
tion, we now resort to this auxiliary ourselves, 
to point out a resemblance to the features of 
the king, which may or may not be accidental. 
On a large basalt slab in Paris (Louvre E. 
22040) are two symmetrical representations of 
King Ptolemy XII, in both of which he wears 
the Blue Crown with streamers hanging down 
his back. The faces of the two representations 
differ, but that of the right closely resembles 
the profile of the Brooklyn head, especially in 
the very small, weak chin. A certain mute tran- 
quility in the face also seems to fit the Late 
Ptolemaic Period, to which we have assigned 
this somewhat enigmatic sculpture. 

measurements: Height 14.9 cm. Width 10.3 cm. 
Width of break 5.2 cm., depth of break 5.8 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: The Brooklyn Museum, Five Years of 
Collecting Egyptian Art, 1951-1956 (Brooklyn, 1956), 
pp. 17-18, no. 19, pi. 36. Mentioned in AJA 61 
(1957), p. 291 (where the authenticity of the head 
is doubted). 

comment: For another marble sculpture in this Ex- 
hibition, see No. 113, and for a second example of a 
royal head without back pillar, No. 124. For other 
royal heads with Blue Crown, see Nos. 51, 53, and 
71. Ann Arbor 25801 (from the Fayum) is another 
Ptolemaic example in war helmet, which also shows 
the bend of the serpent's body. One has to admit 
how little is still known about the iconography of 
the Ptolemaic kings, when it comes to idealizing 
representations. The comparison with the profile of 


King Ptolemy XII on the Louvre relief (which may 
well be a fragment of the king's sarcophagus) must 
not be taken as suggesting that the Brooklyn head 
was made for this ruler; all we want to point out is 
that there is a resemblance and that we think the 
head may possibly have been made in the first half 

of the first century b.c. Against such an attribution 
are the eyes, which might fit better into the early 
part of the Ptolemaic Period (cf. No. 98), than into 
its final century, from which time no really striking 
parallels for them have yet been found. 

No. 129; PI. 120, Figs. 322-323. 

About 100-50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Mr. Frederick Stafford, Neiv York, N. Y. 


Since most male statues of the Ptolemaic Pe- 
riod are either dressed in a flowing garment of 
Hellenistic fashion or are shown proffering a 
god's figure, a stela, or a naos (in which case 
a long, wrap-around skirt is usually worn), 
sculptures revealing the human body are com- 
paratively rare. As a result, though one reads 
every once in a while that a torso is "typically 
Ptolemaic" — whatever that may mean — the 
development of body modeling is hardly 
known. This statue from the collection of Mr. 
Stafford therefore represents a type of sculp- 
ture not frequently encountered and, despite 
the fact that head, arms, and lower legs with 
feet and base are missing, it not only imparts a 
good deal of information but possesses some- 
thing above and beyond mere documentary 

For the modeling is of an archaic simplicity 
hardly to be expected after the exuberance of 
the third century (cf. No. 97). It once more 
indicates how many different styles existed in 
Egypt side by side at a given moment, for to- 
gether with sculptures of heroic magnificence, 
attested by a number of fine examples made 
just before and perhaps even after Egypt's loss 
of independence, there prevailed at certain cult 
centers a much more serene style, marked by a 
noble reticence. This phenomenon is even 
more noteworthy for its occurrence in the 
closing decades of a great sculptural tradition, 


when disintegration or complete dissolution 
might be expected. 

Chest, rib cage, and loins are competently 
modeled in the traditional manner; what is un- 
usual is the way in which the abdomen is 
formed as a separate entity. Although it does 
not greatly protrude, it is the most prominent 
part of the torso. For its width, the torso is 
not very deep — another indication of the dis- 
tinctive style of the first century b.c. Two 
additional features seem to support this date. 
The first is the inclination of the top of the 
back pillar toward the now-missing head, and 
the second is the inscription. The text is ex- 
traordinarily difficult — so hard to interpret 
that one prominent Egyptologist, after taking 
a look at it, declared sculpture and all a forgery. 
It is, however, in the typically playful, enig- 
matic writing developed in temple inscriptions 
of the Ptolemaic Period, though almost never 
found in the texts of statues. The signs are oddly 
shaped and of disparate size, and some of them 
are cryptographically employed. Among the 
names of various gods listed, is that of Sarapis, 
which indicates that the statue, known to have 
been found at Saqqara, may once have stood in 
a sanctuary of the Serapeum; and since the text 
does not seem to contain a reference to a 
private person it is possible that the sculpture 
represents a diety, perhaps even the great god 

measurements: Height above modern base 63 cm. 
Width of break on shoulders 15.5 cm. Depth of 
break at neck 12 cm. Width of back pillar 10 cm. 
Depth of break at left knee 25.5 cm. Intracolumnar 
width 7.7 cm. 
provenance: Saqqara. 


comment: Traces of the break on the shoulders look 
like indications of a wide wig, but are not conclu- 
sive. Although the first deity addressed in the in- 
scription is Onuris (or Onuris-Shu?), the short val- 
anced wig in which this god is usually represented 
makes it unlikely that he is shown here. The change 
in plane between the inscribed rear of the back pillar 
and of the top is infrequent, occurring mainly toward 
the end of Ptolemaic rule. The width and depth 
of the back pillar and especially the inscription arc 
most unusual; as a matter of fact, no exact parallel 
is known for this kind of text on a statue. The 

modeling of the abdomen as a circular or oval, 
flattened unit occurs in vastly exaggerated form in 
the strange, naked, life-size sculptures of Ihy at 
Dendcra and Harsomtus at Edfu, which a few years 
ago were still carelessly left lying around in the 
forecourts of those temples — probably the only 
hard-stone, large-scale statues of gods that date from 
the Roman Period. They must have been based on 
a style prevailing at the end of the Ptolemaic Period, 
and it is in sculptures such as this statue from the 
Stafford Collection that we can trace the develop- 
ment of torso modeling between the early Ptolemies 
and the Romans. Comparison with the modeling of 
Berlin 14460 (temp. Ptolemy V) and similar statues 
shows that our torso must be considerably later. 
Grenoble 14 provides the sole surviving comparison. 
Unfortunately uninscribed and headless, but of about 
the same size as our piece, it shows a similar treat- 
ment of the abdomen and also a back-pillar top in- 
clined toward the missing head. 

No. 130; PI. 121, Figs. 324-326. 


About 80-50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Broivfi-black basalt. 

Owner: Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Conn.; no. 193 1. 106. 

If one were to define facetiously in a few 
words the development of the modeling of the 
female body in Ptolemaic sculpture from the 
third to the first century, one might say that it 
progressed from nudity to nakedness. While 
statues such as the girl's torso from Alexandria 
(No. 95) are nude but inoffensive, this sculp- 
ture of a queen from Yale University seems 
unabashedly naked and very definitely indi- 
cates a change of taste and style. As other 
sculptures of the same period in this Exhibition 
amply demonstrate, such change was not uni- 
versal; the style may have been limited to the 
members of a cult, to a particular sculptor's 
studio, or simply to a provincial locality far 
removed from the main stream of the nation's 
cultural and artistic life. Be it as it may, this 
statue, with its long neck and thinly veiled 
curves, is a far cry from the majestic early rep- 
resentations of Ptolemaic queens. 

The fragment comes from a striding figure, 
with both arms hanging at the sides. A wig of 
long, heavy, mechanically rendered corkscrew 
locks is bordered in front by a diadem, on 
which are the remains of a uraeus. Below the 
wig, a row of ringlets — probably the natural 
hair — fringes the forehead. Wide-open eyes 
and a mouth formed in the Hellenistic manner 
dominate the none-too-carefully modeled face. 
The body, covered by the faintest suggestion 
of a garment, is of an exuberance — to put it 
mildly — not at all in keeping with pharaonic 
tradition, and indeed not typical of Greco- 
Egyptian sculpture. It is an exaggeration of 
the already exaggerated style of late Ptolemaic 
temple reliefs, in which breasts and abdominal 
parts are heavily stressed. The relief figures — 
depending on the locality of the temple — are 
usually stocky, as if the canon of proportions 
had changed; but in this sculpture, on the con- 


trary, the proportions have changed in the 
other direction, with the result that the figure 
is over-elongated. 

The presence of the uraeus on the forehead 
designates the wearer as a personage of blood 
royal, presumably a queen. The uraeus, of 
rudimentary form, as well as the modeling of 
the body and the shape of the shallow back 
pillar, indicates a date in the first century B.C. 
Since there is no break on the crown of the 
head (a part in the hair is indicated back of the 
uraeus) this queen did not wear the emblems 
of a goddess— a departure from tradition 
which may have occurred only with the first 
century b.c. 

measurements: Height 48.6 cm. Height of head 12 
cm. Width 23.5 cm. Depth 14 cm. Depth of break 
ca. 13 cm. Width of back pillar 9.4 cm. 
provenance: Not known; acquired in 193 1. 
bibliography: Rostovtzeff, Soc. & Econ. History II, 
p. 872, PL XCIX, fig. 2. W. Needier, in Berytus 9 
(1948-49), pp. 1 36-141, pi. XXVI, figs 1-2. Badawy, 
in BIE 35 (1953), PP- "-". %• 2 7- 
comment: For other queens in Hellenistic-inspired 
costume and with corkscrew locks, see Nos. 1 1 3 and 
123. That the Yale statue was not unique, but may 
have belonged to a type-group, is shown by a replica 
in Rome (Vatican 107), with a slightly varied coif- 
fure, which was probably made for the Roman mar- 

ket in the first century a.d. It is amusing to note that 
this Roman sculpture shows more modesty than the 
Ptolemaic prototype. Similarly the near-nude lime- 
stone statue of the lady of Kom esh-Shuqafa, which 
is of the time of the Emperior Nero, follows ancient 
Egyptian conventions and has nothing sensuous or 
voluptuous about it. The hair-parting back of the 
uraeus is found also on Baltimore, W.A.G. 226. The 
circlet with the uraeus on the Yale statue is so inci- 
dental, that the sculpture could hardly have repre- 
sented a ruling queen such as, for instance, Cleopatra 
VII, at least not as an official monument. If it dates 
from as late as 50-30 b.c, it may well have been made 
to commemorate a queen of an earlier period. The 
ending of the back pillar is worthy of note. Al- 
though in Ptolemaic male statuary the high back 
pillar, often extending well above ear level (Cairo 
C.G. 696, 697), is employed beyound the middle of 
the century, a number of exceedingly odd back-pillar 
endings occur (cf. Nos. 122 and 136). They make 
very little sense in their variety of proportions and 
shapes; it is as if whatever meaning the back pillar 
originally held (and continued to hold for certain 
temple statues) had been lost. The same pointed 
back pillar seen in No. 136 appears on a fine, and 
very late, queen's statue in Rome (Museo Barracco 
29), which has a heavy wig of corkscrew locks. 
There, since the back pillar ends just below the edge 
of the wig, the triangle formed by the back-pillar 
top is placed at the level of the bosom. All these 
observations are, admittedly, inconclusive, so far as 
arranging the sculptures in chronological order and 
probing into the meaning of the back pillar are con- 
cerned. But they may awaken some interest in 
assembling archaeological data, still sadly lacking for 
certain features of Egyptian sculpture. 

No. 131; PL 122, Figs. 327-328. 


About 80-50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, no. 3204. 

Broivn-black basalt. 

The great value of the sculpture made dur- 
ing the closing centuries of the Late Period lies 
in its ability to maintain its own amid the multi- 
tudinous influences and foreign inventions that 
invaded the Nile Valley. How creative the 
artists of that period were has never yet been 
quite appreciated. It seems as if the very turbu- 
lence of events of the first century b.c. inspired 

them to ever-renewed effort toward quality in 
portraiture, toward sheer size in statuary. This 
tendency toward the colossal might be more 
easily understood if it expressed itself in sculp- 
tures of royal personages. But more large-scale 
sculptures of private persons have survived 
from the period than of kings. Since their in- 
scriptions (if they are inscribed) reveal that 


they were made for persons with good Egyp- 
tian names, it has to be recognized that the 
native population was still in a position to 
command the services of important sculptors' 
studios capable of turning out sizeable statues 
in the hardest materials known. 

The head from one of these statues comes to 
us from the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alex- 
andria. It is an over-life-size portrait of an 
arresting directness such as is found elsewhere 
only in Roman sculpture of the second and 
third centuries a.d. As the deep back pillar 
indicates, it came from a standing statue. On 
account of his short curly hair, deeply reced- 
ing from his forehead, the man represented 
has been called "Ethiopian," "Nubian," or 
"Negro," but his features are anything but 
negroid, and the illusion of fuzziness given by 
the hair is probably the result of stylization of 
the sort that is met with in other sculptures of 
the period, which no one dreams of designating 
as negroid. 

The mighty forehead gives some indication 
of the intelligence and innate ruthlessness of 
our anonymous pasha. It is possible that he 
was a warrior, perhaps a general in the Ptole- 
maic army, for over his right eye a deep scar 
marks an injury to the skull. This is the only 
portrait among the hundreds of Late Egyptian 
heads distinguished by such a highly personal 
mark. It recalls, of course, the skin blemish of 
the Boston "Green Head" (No. 108), which 
the Alexandria piece also resembles in the 
strong downward curve of the mouth, though 
unlike the thin-lipped priest, this man has a 
strong, disdainful lower lip. His eyes are wide 
open under thick upper lids, pulled slightly 
over the lower lids. The left eyebrow is sharp 
and straight, the right, less well defined. Whis- 
kers and a moustache are indicated by numer- 
ous pick marks, applied after the final polish 
was given. They tone down the brilliancy of 
the surface and add to the extraordinarily life- 
like impression made by the face. In its brutal 
power this colossal head is indeed one of the 
most commanding portraits of the Ptolemaic 

Period, and the scar on the forehead lends an 
air of mystery to features otherwise expressive 
only of dour force. 

measurements: Height 34 cm. Width 19 cm. Depth 
32.5 cm. Width of break at neck 15.5 cm., at back 
pillar 12 cm. Depth of break (slant) 26 cm. 
provenance: Said to be Dimeh (Fayum). 
bibliography: G. Botti, Catalogue des monuments 
exposes au Musee Greco-Roma'm d" ' Alexandrie (Alex- 
andria, 1900), p. 481, no. 33. Bissing, Denkm., Text 
to pi. in, note 26. Ev. Breccia, Alexandre a ad 
Aegyptum (Bergamo, 1922), p. 171, no. 54. Grain- 
dor, Bustes, pp. 141-142, no. 76, pi. LXVIlb. Snijder, 
in Mnemosyne 7 (1939), p. 259, pi. XVIII, fig. 14. 
Drerup, Ag. Bildniskopfe, p. 17, note 46b, pi. 9b. 

comment: The provenance (Dimeh) has been 
doubted by Botti (loc.cit.), and rightly so. The 
Alexandria head is stylistically related to the school 
that produced the famous head of Pa-en-meret 
(Cairo C.G. 27493), belonging to the Paris (Louvre 
E. 15683) statue of the Governor of Tanis in the 
time of Ptolemy XII (cf. Mon. Piot 50 [1958], pp. 
1 ff.). This head of Pa-en-meret is the one fixed 
point in the chronology of first century portraiture. 
Despite the unflattering photographs thus far pub- 
lished, it is of first quality. From the Hellenistic 
coiffure and the fine, incised lines on the forehead 
to the metallic cutting of eyelids and eyes, it runs 
the whole gamut of late Ptolemaic traits, and there 
can be no doubt that our man with the scarred fore- 
head from Alexandria, though of a different class 
and lacking the intellectual depth of the governor, 
belongs to the same generation. There seems to have 
been in the first century b.c. a group of sculptors 
who thought along lines which might be considered 
to have long been lost. Two other excellent sculp- 
tures (Cairo C.G. 696 and 697), perhaps made on 
the eve of Augustus' arrival in Egypt, belong to the 
same group of major portrait figures. It is indeed 
strange that in the days of the last Ptolemies and the 
last Cleopatra there should have been produced 
native Egyptian sculpture in a quantity and of a uni- 
formly high level of quality such as had not been 
known for nearly one hundred years. Another basic 
point in relation to these large heads — most of them 
excellent portraits — is the following: A royal statue 
of over-life-size dimensions (Alexandria 22979 = 
Cairo J.E. 55960) was found in the early thirties bv 
an Italian expedition in the excavation of a temple 
at Tebtunis, where an inscription in honor of Ptolemv 
XII (80-51 b.c.) also came to light. The excavators 
surmised that the late Ptolemaic reliefs of the fore- 
court of the temple were made under this king, and 
by inference one is tempted to attribute to him also 
the big statue, since it is obviously of very late date. 
As Mr. Dawson Kiang points out, the characteristic 
profile of the royal statue in Alexandria for once 
corresponds exactly to a coin portrait, namely to 
that of Ptolemy XII (Svoronos, Ta Nomisinata III, 


pi. LXI, nos. 22-23; c f« v °l- H» P- 3 02 5 no - 1838) — 
especially his overly long, hooked nose comes out 
clearly in the colossal as well as in the minute rep- 
resentation. Consequently we have a colossal statue 
of Ptolemy XII, several big statues (one with a fine 
head; Fig. 250) of persons who lived during the 
reign of Ptolemy II and now, from Alexandria, an- 
other large head of a private person that may be 

safely attributed to the first century b.c. The flocky 
hair, fashioned in a similar manner, occurs also on a 
youthful head with diadem (Alexandria 18536). The 
back-pillar top of our statue has the shape of an 
elongated trapezoid. It is amazing that no one, not 
even Bissing, has thus far commented on the scar on 
the forehead. Despite Graindor (loc.cit.) and his 
followers, the accession number is definitely no. 3204. 

No. 132; Frontispiece, Pis. 123-124, Figs. 329-331. THE BROOKLYN "BLACK HEAD" 

About 80-50 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y.; no. 58.30. 


The end of the Ptolemaic Period and the in- 
corporation of Egypt into the Roman Empire, 
as one of many colonies around the Mediter- 
ranean basin, terminated the greatest and long- 
est chapter of sculpture-making in hard stone 
the world has ever known. For almost three 
millennia the Egyptians relentlessly pursued 
an ideal of human dignity and religious devo- 
tion, and one of the ways in which they ex- 
pressed this ideal was in the modeling of the 
human body in a material as nearly permanent 
as could be found. We are well informed on 
the rapid decline of their great art under 
Roman domination; what has become better 
understood only in recent years is the daring 
work done by the sculptors of the Nile Val- 
ley in the closing decades of the Ptolemaic 
reign — daring in its lavish use of the hardest 
stone available, diorite, daring in the frequently 
heroic size of its statues, and daring in its drive 
for realism in portraiture, which left a lasting 
mark on Roman portraits made in Egyptian 
stone during the age of Augustus and shortly 

The best example of the group of heroic 
sculptures made during the first century B.C. 
for native Egyptian notables is probably the 
Brooklyn "Black Head," so called not only 
because the material is obviously very dark in 
color, but primarily because the polished sur- 

face of the face is so startlingly black in com- 
parison with the soft grey of the unpolished 
curly hair. This lively coiffure is well con- 
toured, to set it off against the face, and uni- 
formly rendered in tight curls, except in front 
of the ears, where a few strands of almost 
straight hair seem to have escaped from be- 
neath it. The large planes of the face are 
worked with little modification; unlike other 
portraits of the Ptolemaic Period, this shows no 
outspoken preoccupation with the skin and 
its lines and wrinkles. Flesh as such has been 
rendered accurately and with a good deal of 
feeling, but the strength of the portrait does 
not lie in minute imitation of details. It is based 
far more on form and structure; the eyes and 
the upturned chin seem mere accents in an 
otherwise well-balanced picture. Strange are 
the over-small ears and the fine, thin lines of 
the mouth, which is neither, as so often, thin- 
lipped and morose nor sensuous, but deter- 
mined and energetic — an impression strength- 
ened by the volume of the firm chin. 

Everything in this head breathes a spiritual 
superiority, a magnanimous, positive, highly 
intellectual outlook on life. This man could 
hardly have been a general of the Ptolemaic 
army; he was more likely a member of one of 
the great Memphite families that had been at- 
tached for generations to the temple of Ptah, 


perhaps he was even the High Priest of Ptah 
himself. The top of the back pillar, of trape- 
zoid shape, shows that our unknown man must 
have been identified by a long inscription, 
though nothing remains except the crowns of 
three deities and a statement that he was "re- 
vered before" them. Attempts have been made 
to identify the torso from which the head 
comes, in Egyptian collections all over the 
world, but to no avail. The rest of the over- 
life-size figure probably still lies under the 
mounds of modern Mitrahineh. 

measurements: Height 41.4 cm. Width 28.5 cm. 
Depth 35.2 cm. Width of neck 16 cm. Depth of 
break (slant) 26.9 cm. Width of back pillar at neck 
1 1.3 cm., at rear 15.8 cm. 
provenance: Mitrahineh (Memphis). 
bibliography: None. 

comment: Not only is this head in Brooklyn the 
peer of the two other fine portraits of the Ptolemaic 
Period, the relatively small "green heads" from Bos- 
ton (No. 108) and Berlin (No. 127), but it is prob- 
ably the best of the colossal portrait heads of its time. 
It outranks both Alexandria 3204 (No. 131) and 
3 191 in quality of workmanship and depth of per- 
ception. As a portrait it is close to Cairo C.G. 27493, 
on which rests much of the reasoning for dating it 

to the time of Ptolemy XII (cf. the Comment on 
No. 131). With its curly hair, our head stands mid- 
way between the Hellenistic coiffure of heads such 
as that from Baltimore (No. 120) and the near- 
Augustan portrait (possibly of Marc Antony) at 
Kingston Lacy, which has already been mentioned 
in the Comment on No. 120. The latter, probably 
a generation later than the Brooklyn head, still shows 
a daring intrepidity, whereas a contemporary of the 
Kingston Lacy bust — but in Egyptian-Hellenistic 
style — in Cairo (C.G. 697) is more introverted and 
seems, with its overly wide-open eyes, to express 
a tragic finality, foreshadowing the end of the king- 
dom. None of this is felt in the Brooklyn head; in 
contrast to the emotionalism of the Auxerre head 
(No. 134), it is static, and yet essentially dynamic 
in its Olympian majesty. For once we have here a 
fine portrait of a man, his face hardly marked by the 
passage of years; it is an idealizing portrait, yet a 
portrait in the fullest sense of the word. Again, the 
outspoken asymmetry of the two sides of the face, 
the difference in the eyebrows, the numerous marks 
of individual touches by the craftsman's hand. It is 
a pity that no Memphite portraits of a generation or 
two earlier are known, for the Brooklyn "Black 
Head" must have had its forerunners in the local 
workshop. Its relationship to Roman Republican 
portraits is obvious (cf. the Comment on No. 127). 
For colossal sculpture of the early part of the Ptole- 
maic Period, see the Comment on No. 99; and for 
the great Memphite families of the High Priests of 
Ptah, cf. the literature cited in Kemi 13 ( 1954), p. 30. 

No. 133; PI- 125* Figs. 33 2 "335- 


About 70-30 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Dark grey to black basalt. 

Owner: Los Angeles County Museum, Los Angeles, Cal.; no. A6425.53-9. 

Among the many moods expressed in the 
faces of Egyptian noblemen of the Ptolemaic 
Period is one of gentle sadness and resignation, 
which — to interpret it romantically — seems 
to foreshadow the impending end of the empire 
of the Nile. There is no doubt that many of the 
heads made under Greek rule attempt to reflect 
a pensive mood, and the intellectual character- 
istics of persons represented are often brought 
out in a direct and immediate way. To what 
extent this is a native development, or the re- 

sult of contact with Hellenistic sculpture, or 
even something typical of the Greeks in Egypt, 
is hard to determine. 

Among the goodly number of portraits in 
hard stone which show this immediacy, is this 
bearded head from Los Angeles. It is a por- 
trait that foregoes the precision so often en- 
countered in the carving of Late heads; what- 
ever effect it has is based on the general aspect 
of the face, the brooding expression, the sensi- 
tivity of eyes and mouth. Especially the latter 

l 73 

deserves attention; the sketchiness of definition 
— or rather the lack of precise definition — con- 
tributes greatly to the tragic expression of the 
face. The beard and mass of curls composing 
the hair are only summarily indicated, yet the 
head does not appear to be unfinished. It be- 
longs to that small group of sculptures in which 
the stone is treated as if it were terra cotta or 
stucco, modeled with the finger tips and not 
with a tool. 

measurements: Height 17 cm. Width 13.7 cm. 
Depth 16.4 cm. Width of break at neck 8.6 cm. 
Depth of break (slant) 11.2 cm. Width of back 
pillar at break 4.2 cm. Depth of back pillar 4 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: The Brooklyn Museum, Pagan and 
Christian Egypt; Egyptian Art fro?n the First to the 
Tenth Century A.D. (Brooklyn, 1941), p. 20, no. 24 
(illus.) [with a probably erroneous reference to an 
item in the sale catalogue of the Henry Wallis Col- 
lection; the measurements differ widely]. 

comment: The edge of a garment is visible at the 
left side of the neck, just above the break. The 
back-pillar top is not well defined; it could be tri- 
angular or trapezoid. It is marked by a red vein 
which also shows on the right side of the back 
pillar. There is no trace of an inscription. The 
date of the head is not easily established. Classical 
archaeologists often tend to take Roman portraits, 
compare their eyes, hair, beard, etc., with an Egyp- 
tian head to be classified, and attribute the latter as 

if Egyptian style followed the Roman. But Snijder, 
in Mne?nosyne 7 (1939), p. 271, pointed out that 
Hadrian and others adopted Eastern fashions which 
had been in existence well before their time, and 
that therefore the comparison of Egyptian and Ro- 
man heads did not serve any purpose. In La Revue 
des Arts 9 (1959), p. 106, it has been stressed how 
rapidly sculpture in the round declined under Ro- 
man rule, although at just about that time panel 
painting began its rich evolution. It therefore seems 
more than justified to attribute the head to that last 
flowering of Egyptian sculpture which preceded the 
Roman conquest and which excelled in variety and 
inventiveness, namely, the first century b.c. That a 
full coiffure and rich whiskers were fashionable at 
that time is best seen from a painting on a mummy 
shroud (Fig. 334; Brooklyn 37.181 ie), which bears 
a typically Ptolemaic, pre-Roman, inscription. This 
fashion was developed from a popular hair style first 
observed in the tomb of Petosiris (ed. Lefebvre, pi. 
XIV and XX) shortly before 300 b.c. and frequently 
repeated on relief slabs at about that time. Though 
Schafer, who published two of these reliefs (Berlin 
2214; Hildesheim 2244) in Berliner Museen^i (1920), 
pp. 15 ff., did not yet know the Petosiris reliefs, he 
was nevertheless inclined (p. 22) to attribute the 
two slabs to the early Ptolemaic Period, and the 
Hildesheim piece — with its abundant hair and beard 
— is certainly a likely forerunner of bearded heads of 
the later Ptolemaic Period, when what was originally 
a countryman's unkempt appearance gradually be- 
came an accepted fashion. Bearded heads are very 
common in the Ptolemaic Period; for a heavy beard, 
cf. Alexandria 1341, Antwerp 282, and especially 
Berlin 10660, which also in the coiffure comes very 
close to the Los Angeles head. 

No. 134; PI. 126, Figs. 336-337. 


About 60-40 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: Musee Archeologique, Auxerre (Yonne). 

Dark grey granite. 

During the last three centuries before the 
Christian era, Greek sculpture of Hellenistic 
style spread all over the Near East, through 
import and also through imitation in local pro- 
duction. Since most of the countries of that 
part of the ancient world were ruled by suc- 
cessors of Alexander the Great, it was to be 
expected that Greek influence would make it- 

self felt. In some regions, indeed, it stifled 
native art — not so, however, in Egypt. The 
output of statuary in purely Egyptian style 
was enormous during the Ptolemaic regime and 
continued until well into the first century B.C. 
But side by side with it, there existed new 
trends. One showed itself in sculpture that was 
traditionally Egyptian in form but betrayed 


Greek influence in costume and coiffure. The 
other, whether executed in native material or 
imported marble, was entirely Hellenistic in 
form and feeling and, as such, has no place in 
this Exhibition. On the whole, however, it is 
astonishing how little Egyptian sculptors were 
influenced by the Greek civilization that had 
engulfed their native country. Though in some 
cases they adopted new renderings of garments 
and hair fairly early in the Ptolemaic period, 
the emotionalism so characteristic of Hellenis- 
tic works hardly showed itself in Egyptian 
temple sculpture until shortly before the Ro- 
man conquest. Only occasionally can "mood" 
and "feeling" be detected in sculptures as early 
as the third century b.c. 

When a display of emotion finally entered 
into Egyptian works, it was not limited to 
facial expression, but was shown, in several in- 
stances, by an ecstatic movement of the head — 
the so-called attitude of apotheosis. This 
movement, with head thrown back and eyes 
turned skyward, is well known from Hellen- 
istic sculpture. It had its origin in a character- 
istic attitude of Alexander the Great, as de- 
scribed by ancient authors and depicted by 
artists of the Hellenistic age. It was later 
adopted for sculptures of his successors, of 
deities, and eventually of private persons. It 
occurs in a few Egyptian temple sculptures 
with back pillar, though there — with one ex- 
ception — it lacks the slight sideways tilt char- 
acteristic of Hellenistic heads of the period. 

As an example of apotheosis in Egyptian 
sculpture we are showing a portrait known as 
"La Tete egyptienne d'Auxerre," because its 
spiritual and emotional expressiveness reveal 
the inner tension resulting from the conflict be- 
tween two worlds — that of the ancient Nile 
Valley and the rising Mediterranean orbit. It 
is an old man who is pictured in this head. 
There is only the barest indication of hair, but 
his aged face is lavishly modeled and dominated 
by his wide-open eyes. The eyeballs protrude 
from under the heavy lids with an intensity 
that underlines the attitude of apotheosis — the 

search for God. Everything is concentrated in 
these eyes; the rest of the face, the bony cheeks, 
the disdainful mouth, play only a subordinate 
role. They fill in the picture, but they do not 
determine it. 

Apart from the material employed, the back 
pillar more than anything else indicates that 
this head once belonged to an Egyptian statue, 
representing an Egyptian and not an Egyp- 
tianized Greek. Only an Egyptian would still 
cling to the traditional mode of representation, 
which is probably to be completed as that of 
a striding man, with his left foot forward, 
dressed in the kind of costume fashionable in 
the Hellenistic Period. This costume is gen- 
erally called Hellenistic, although it was not 
introduced by Greeks. On the contrary, it is 
an Egyptian costume, modified under Hellen- 
istic influence and sometimes adorned with 
loose folds, by which it is distinguished from 
the more traditional "Egyptian" dress of the 
period. The rear plane of the back pillar is left 
rough, and though it may be unfinished, it is 
unlikely that it was ever meant to be inscribed. 

The intense expression of the face, the dis- 
cordant features, the great asymmetry of the 
two halves of the head in the front view, per- 
mit the conclusion that a definite person served 
as model and that we have here a true likeness 
— a portrait — and this impression is strength- 
ened when one examines other heads of the pe- 
riod, which show a comparable amount of 
artistic quality and physiognomic strength. 
Though small details such as the relationship 
between lid and eyeball may be found in other 
sculptures of the closing decades of Ptolemaic 
rule in Egypt, none of these works is in any 
appreciable degree similar to the Auxerre head. 
It can be stated without reservation that the 
head does not represent a type, not even a type 
rarely encountered. It is an individual crea- 
tion, made in the great tradition of the Ptole- 
maic Period; and it conveys the religious fer- 
vor with which some prominent Egyptians still 
clung to their faith on the eve of the Roman 


measurements: Height 22.9 cm. Width ca. 17 cm. 
Depth 24.5 cm. Width of break, at neck 12.7 cm., 
at back pillar 10.5 cm. Depth of break (slant) 19.5 

provenance: Not known; given in 1825 by Baron 
Henri Grand d'Esnon. 

bibliography: B. V. Bothmer, "La Tete egyptienne 
d'Auxerre," in La Revue des Arts 9 (1959), pp. 98- 
108, with 7 figs. 

comment: Mr. Jean Vergnet-Ruiz, Inspector Gen- 
eral of the Provincial Museums of France, discovered 
the head some five years ago in a storeroom of the 
Musee Lapidaire at Auxerre and thus brought to 
light one of the most significant Egyptian portraits 
of the last decades of Ptolemaic rule. After the head 
was published (see above), the Curator of the Mu- 
seum, Mr. Rene Louis, was able to establish that it 
had been given to the township by Baron Grand 
d'Esnon, together with a collection which he formed 
in the course of a journey in the Levant during 1788- 
1790. Dr. Walter Federn kindly provided more in- 
formation on this collector, Henri-Maximilien-Elisa- 
beth-Marguerite Grand (1 757-1827), who, though 
born in Paris, was of a Swiss family from Lausanne. 
In 1803 he bought the barony of Esnon (Yonne), 

became a French subject in 18 15, and a year later 
was elevated to the baronetcy as Baron Grand 
d'Esnon. Since the Auxerre head is not yet widely 
known, its position within the framework of late 
Ptolemaic portraiture has not been studied from 
more than one point of view. By including it in this 
Exhibition, a dynamic aspect very much on the sur- 
face may be compared with the dynamism of por- 
traits such as the great Brooklyn head (No. 132), and 
from the juxtaposition we shall perhaps learn more 
about the validity of interpretation, when dealing 
with faces which, though diverse in treatment, are 
approximately contemporary. For apotheosis in Hel- 
lenistic art, see H. P. L'Orange, Apotheosis in An- 
cient Portraiture (Oslo, 1947). The other Egyptian 
heads with apotheosis are Amsterdam 7877; Brussels 
E. 1813; London, B.M. 1316 and 65221; they were 
listed in the publication of the Auxerre head. Re- 
cently, an additional head of the type has been found. 
Since it has a back pillar and thus belonged to an 
Egyptian, not a Hellenistic, statue, it has been in- 
cluded in this Exhibition (No. 138). It shows, as do 
none of the other heads, the tilt to the side charac- 
teristic of purely Hellenistic works, in Egyptian as 
well as Greek materials. For the type of statue to 
which the Auxerre head could have belonged, see 
No. 136. 

No. 135; PL 127, Figs. 33 8 -339- 


About 60-30 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. Red-broivn porphyritic basalt. 

Owner: The Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y .; no. 54.1 17. 

Statues of Egyptian kings, even when unin- 
scribed, are readily identifiable as such by at- 
tributes and dress reserved for the use of 
royalty. Though the royal kilt, the so-called 
shendet, was taken over by private persons as 
early as the late Old Kingdom, certain crowns 
and headdresses and ornaments such as the 
uraeus remained to distinguish a royal sculpture 
from that of a commoner throughout antiquity. 
During the Ptolemaic Period, as we have seen, 
kings frequently wear the Blue Crown or the 
headcloth known as the nemes; in a number of 
sculptures — none of them shown in this Exhi- 
bition — the ruler appears in the lofty Upper 
Egyptian crown or the double crown of the 

Two Lands, sometimes with a naturalistic 
fringe of curls hanging over the forehead from 
under its edge. Here, in an uninscribed statue, 
we have a man with Hellenistic coiffure, whose 
only sign of royalty is a diadem with uraeus — 
is he a king? 

Since the statue was first published four years 
ago, it has aroused no comment. At that time, 
it was called "The Last of the Ptolemies," and 
it was hoped that someone might challenge the 
attribution, but no one has done so — and we 
are no wiser than before. In the absence of 
parallels, it is impossible to say whether or not 
the figure represents a ruling king. The youth 
shown wears around his curly hair (which is 


summarily modeled, as is not surprising on so 
small a piece) a plain circlet supporting the 
hood and lost head of the royal cobra, the body 
of which is not indicated. Since this diadem 
and the tailless serpent occur on the heads of 
queens, such as the New Haven queen (No. 
1 30) and the Cleopatra from New York (No. 
1 13), it is perhaps not unwise to conclude that 
the youth was a scion of a royal house. 

His torso, girded in the shendet, is broadly 
modeled, with an underlying composition of 
tripartition; his clenched hands hold emblem- 
atic staves. A wide back pillar with trapezoid 
top, very like that of the New Haven queen 
(No. 130) reaches half-way up the back of his 
head. His eyes were inlaid — a fairly common 
practice in late Ptolemaic times. The mouth 
gives a rather petulant impression. It is sepa- 
rated by a deep groove from the short, squared, 
and slightly protruding chin. Seen in profile, 
the face has a "chinlessness" similar to that of 
No. 128, and there is perhaps a family relation- 
ship between the two heads, though they may 
have been worked in different studios. 

It is possible that, if not a king, this boy 
was a prince of blood royal. It is interesting 
to speculate that the figure might represent 
Ptolemy XIII or Ptolemy XIV, half-brothers 
of Cleopatra VII, or even her son Caesarion, 
who was fifteen years old when he was put to 
death. The problem is a vexing one; but 
though the identity of the youth can not be 
finally established, the style of the sculpture 
fits well into the last years of Ptolemaic rule in 

measurements: Height 30.2 cm. Width 12.8 cm. 
Depth 5.9 cm. Width of back pillar 4.3 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: The Brooklyn Museum, Five Years of 
Collecting Egyptian Art, 1951-1956 (Brooklyn, 1956), 
pp. 19-20, no. 22, pi. 39-40. 

comment: The first publication (see Bibliography 
above) should be compared for a more detailed study 
of the sculpture. The crowns worn by kings in the 
Late Period are the Blue Crown (Nos. 51, 53, 73, and 
128), the smooth nemes (Nos. 114 and 124), and the 
nemes with Hellenistic curls (No. 103). In addition, 
there exist in stone sculpture the striped (or pleated) 
nemes (cf. No. 43), the striped nemes combined with 
double crown, with or without Hellenistic curls on 
the forehead, and the double crown alone. Among 
the latter is a remarkably strong Ptolemaic portrait 
in black diorite (Brussels E. 1839), which, though it 
represents a mature man, has a chin very much like 
that of the Brooklyn statue. As for the uraeus, we 
have to insist that this is what distinguishes a royal 
personage from a commoner. Attempts to date to 
the Late Period the great head with Upper Egyptian 
crown minus uraeus in Copenhagen (N.C.G. 924; 
cf. Vandier, Manuel III, p. 214) lack any foundation; 
even if it had an uraeus it could never date from 
post-New Kingdom times. More of a puzzle is the 
lack of a uraeus on a sculpture such as Cairo }5-)-3, the 
torso modeling of which compares favorably with 
that of the Brooklyn statue — one might well wonder 
if it could represent Marc Antony in regal nemes 
but without the cobra, to which, as non-royal con- 
sort of the queen, he was not entitled. Another sculp- 
ture in Cairo with royal headdress but no cobra 
(C.G. 702) is obviously Roman and may show a 
proconsul of the first century a.d. Two parallels exist 
for the coiffure with circlet and uraeus of the Brook- 
lyn statue. One, in Copenhagen (N.C.G. 294), has 
curlv hair and eyes formerly inlaid; the chin is 
partly missing, but seems to have been of about the 
same shape as that of the Brooklvn head. The other 
parallel is offered bv Bologna 1803. In it coiffure and 
diadem are much more stylized, and the eves also 
differ, but the chin is remarkably close to that of 
the Brooklyn head. 


No. 136; Pis. 128-129, Fig s - 34° _ 34 I > 343' 


About 50-30 b.c; Ptolemaic Period. 

Owner: The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Mich.; no. 51.83. 

Grey-brown granite. 

In speaking of Egyptian sculpture of the 
Ptolemaic period, the expression "Hellenistic" 
is often carelessly used to distinguish statuary 
created for the Greco-Egyptians — the high- 
ranking native officials who liked to be shown 
in fashionable Greek guise, with curly hair and 
in flowing garments — from that made for the 
more conservative element of the population, 
who clung to traditional styles. Yet even the 
so-called Hellenistic sculpture of Egypt is in- 
digenous — Egyptian in stance and essential 
form, with only surface features that can be 
called Greek. As such, it should not be con- 
founded with sculpture of surrounding Medi- 
terranean countries, which, as an evolution of 
the style created in the Classical Period of 
Greece, is truly called Hellenistic. 

As an official of the Ptolemaic administration 
and the powerful governor of the province of 
Dendera, Pakhom, as represented in this "Hel- 
lenistic" sculpture from Detroit, personifies the 
native Egyptian aristocracy which quite fre- 
quently rose to prominence under the Ptol- 
emies. It is fortunate that, for once, we have 
here a sculpture with head preserved. Though 
the piece is not a portrait, it affords consider- 
able information about the style of the third 
quarter of the first century b.c. in Upper Egypt 
and, since there is good evidence that Pakhom 
exercised his functions between about 50 and 
30 b.c, provides a fixed point in the vexing 
chronology of late Ptolemaic sculpture. 

Unfortunately, the statue was never finished. 
The surface of the figure lacks the final 
smoothing, and the hieroglyphs of the two 
columns of text on the back pillar were not 
carved in full detail. Pakhom's hair above the 
diadem was probably to have been left very 
much in its present state, but one might expect 


the locks below the circlet and the details of the 
face to have been worked out in a more nat- 
uralistic manner. The head, as so often in Late 
Egyptian sculpture, is definitely turned to the 
left, both as seen from the front and in relation 
to the back pillar. The latter ends in a triangle, 
the plane of which is inclined toward the head. 

The garment worn by Pakhom is of typical 
Ptolemaic style, appearing on nearly one hun- 
dred statues and statuettes of the period. It 
consists of a round-necked shirt with short 
sleeves, over which is wrapped a long skirt. 
This skirt, under the Ptolemies, invariably has 
the overlap from right to left, exactly opposite 
to that of the familiar wrap-around introduced 
during the Persian rule. As a final touch, Pak- 
hom wears the long scarf with serrated edge, 
which he holds together with his left hand. In 
his right hand, he grasps the traditional em- 
blematic staff. 

In its unfinished state, it is difficult to judge 
the statue as a work of art, but as a well- 
dated example of late Ptolemaic style and as 
the representation of an historical personality, 
there can be no doubt of its archaeological 

measurements: Height 69.8 cm. Width 18.5 cm. 
Depth of break at left leg 15.8 cm. Width of back 
pillar at break 6.6 cm. 

provenance: Not known; probably Dendera. 
bibliography: Herman De Meulenaere, "Les strateges 
indigenes du nome tentyrite a la fin de l'epoque 
ptolemai'que et au debut de l'occupation romaine," in 
Rivista degli Studi Orientali 34 (1959), pp. 1 ff., pp. 
14-15 (illus.). Strieker, in OMRO 40 (1959), pi. IV, 
fig. 6 (not mentioned in text, pp. 1-16). 

comment: Dr. B. Strieker, in a continuation of the 
article cited above, will deal comprehensively with 
the three-piece costume of the Egypto-Hellenistic 
statues, twenty-four examples of which are illustrated 
in his article. In anticipation of his full discussion, 
notice should be drawn to the fact that the scarf of 

the Detroit figure is serrated (cf. the Comment on 
No. 86), whereas the overlap of the skirt has a plain 
edge, which is slightly pulled up and tucked in on the 
chest, as shown by the fine folds on the right leg. 
In Ptolemaic sculptures the skirt often has a serrated 
edge, which has misled some observers to take it 
for the beginning of the serrated shawl. The distinct 
difference between the old wrap-around (cf. the 
Comment on No. 63 ) with overlap from left to right 
and the new skirt with overlap from right to left is 
amusingly illustrated in a statue in Cairo (J.E. 44637), 
which originally was draped in the wrap-around 
garment, but was later brought up to date by the 
addition of the skirt with serrated edge, with the re- 
sult that the garment was provided with two over- 
laps (Louvre E. n 127 is a similar case). The best 
representation of the serrated skirt without the cover- 
ing shawl is found on London, B.M. 90, which also 
demonstrates how the edge of the skirt was tucked 
in at the top, all of which is well hidden by the 
scarf of the Detroit statue. For Pakhom and his 
time, his predecessors and followers in the governor- 
ship of Dendera, see De Meulenaere, op.cit. For the 
inlaid eyes, cf. No. 135, and for the diadem, Nos. 121 

and 126. The back-pillar top in shape of an equi- 
angular triangle is typical for the first century B.C., 
although of course, numerous older shapes are still in 
use at that time. The same shape is found in the 
statue of a predecessor of Pakhom at Dendera (Cairo 
J.E. 45390; about 80-50 b.c.) and in a second statue 
of Pakhom himself, which was actually found at 
Dendera (Cairo 2 £''-f-l 5 ). Although it has been gen- 
erally assumed that all statues in this costume, with 
the exception of those carrying specific attributes, 
hold the scarf with the left hand, there are a few 
exceptions (Cairo 2 f -\-l, from Philae; Paris, Louvre 
E. 20361). The earliest approximately datable statue 
of this type is considered to be Turin 3062 (temp. 
Ptolemy III), but since Ptolemy II is already shown 
in a fine pleated garment with serrated edge on a 
stela in London (B.M. 1054) it can be assumed that 
he followed a native custom expressed in sculpture 
in the round in his day. The last statues of the style, 
Alexandria 3192 and 3202 can hardly be later than 
the middle of the first century a.d. For the Egyptian, 
non-Greek, origin of pleats and folds and draped 
garments, see Nos. 64, 74, and 87. 

No. 137; PI. 129, Figs. 342, 344. 


About 50-1 b.c; Ptolemaic to Roman Period. 

Owner: The Cleveland Museum of Art Cleveland, Ohio; no. 344.15. 

Grey steatite. 

The sphinx — a lion's body with a human 
head — is a composite creature which, from the 
time of the Old Kingdom, represented the king, 
superhuman, god-like. Only in the Ptolemaic 
and Roman periods is this monster used to rep- 
resent a real deity, the god Tutu, and this is the 
most probable identification of the little Cleve- 
land sphinx. The soft stone is carved with 
great competence, and though the statuette is 
now fragmentary, it is an attractive piece of 
small-scale sculpture of the Late Period. The 
crown, with the upper portion of the head, is 
lost, but the striations of the hair and the re- 
mains of a second head (probably that of an 
animal) at the nape of the sphinx's neck indi- 
cate that this is not the image of a king. The 
eyes were formerly inlaid; a braided beard, 

now mostly missing, adorns the chin, and an 
elaborate broad collar lies on the chest over the 
lion's mane. Even the ribs have been marked 
with a few incisions of a pointed tool. For lack 
of the inscribed base one can only surmise that 
this is Tutu, and that the statuette must have 
been an ex-voto to the god. 
measurements: Height 9.5 cm. Length 14 cm. 
provenance: Not known. From the John Hunting- 
ton Collection. 

bibliography: Serge Sauneron, in JNES 19, no. 4 
(October i960), pi. XVI A-B, note 55 (in press). 

comment: For representations of the god Tutu 
(Tithoes) see Nos. 125 and 139, as well as the article 
by S. Sauneron, who has established that this deity 
does not occur before the time of King Ptolemy VIII 
Euergetes II (145-116 b.c). Royal sphinxes with a 
striated coiffure are not known from the Late Pe- 
riod; on the other hand, a relief in the Brooklyn 


Museum (58.98), which undoubtedly represents 
Tutu, shows the god as striding sphinx with this very 
detail, thus making the identification of the Cleve- 
land statuette almost certain. On the relief in the 
collection of Mr. Rabenou (No. 139) and in other 
representations of the god he has the heads of ani- 
mals — emissaries of harmful deities — at the nape 

of his neck. Bearded sphinxes that are undoubtedly 
royal are rare (Brussels E. 7702; Cairo C.G. 699 and 
1 166; Chicago Natural History Museum 31585); the 
only well-dated examples are the sphinxes of Necta- 
nebo I (378-360 b.c.) of the avenue north of the great 
pylon of the Luxor Temple. A statuette similar to 
the Cleveland sphinx is Amsterdam 7960. 

No. 138; PI. 130, Figs. 345-346. 


About 50-1 b.c; Ptolemaic to Roman Period. 

Owner: Mr. Avery Brundage, Santa Barbara, Cal.;no. 3/162. 

Dark grey to black basalt. 

Toward the end of the Late Period there 
came into being a non-Egyptian type of sculp- 
ture — often called Alexandrian, though in real- 
ity by no means restricted to the north — which 
employed Egyptian materials, but in form and 
style was purely Hellenistic and (eventually) 
Roman. Since a line had to be drawn some- 
where for the Exhibition, it was decided not to 
include this group, but to show only what we 
considered to be temple statues retaining some- 
thing of Egyptian tradition. With this in mind, 
a very unusual head in the Brundage Collection 
was duly noted and almost rejected, when it 
was found to retain traces of a back-pillar top 
and must therefore have belonged to a formal 
temple sculpture in Egypto-Hellenistic style. 

It represents a woman with a long neck, her 
head thrown back and tilted to the right. Her 
hair, sculptured in vivid lines, adds to the ex- 
pression of ecstasy conveyed by the pose of her 
head. It is parted in the middle and confined by 
a ribbon, the ends of which disappear under a 
snail-like bun that rests on the top of the 
pointed back pillar. Two long curls fall from 
behind the ears, framing the neck; the left is 
mostly missing, but the right is preserved and 
turns out to be entirely in the round, detached 
from the neck. This head represents what must 
indeed be the gravest invasion by Hellenistic 
innovations Egyptian temple sculpture ever 


suffered. It is so rife with foreign elements that 
it can hardly be considered Egyptian; yet the 
workmanship and the form of the back pillar — 
not to mention the material — are typically 

In its attitude of apotheosis the head from 
Auxerre (No. 134), already introduced a for- 
eign element, for which, as we have seen, there 
exist a number of other examples. The sculp- 
ture from the Brundage Collection multiplies 
alien concepts. With its free-flowing locks and 
the emotional turn of the head, it is apparently 
unique. The ecstatic expression lent by the up- 
turned, oval face, with its wide eyes and parted 
lips, is known from other female sculptures of 
the so-called Alexandrian school, in marble as 
well as in native stones, but none of them has 
the back pillar. As a temple statue, the figure 
to which this head belonged must indeed have 
presented a strange aspect of waning Hellen- 
ism, combined with all-but-forgotten Egyptian 

measurements: Height 28.3 cm. Width 21 cm. 
Depth 27 cm. Width of break at neck ca. 10 cm. 
Depth of break ca. 18 cm. 
provenance: Not known. 
bibliography: None. 

comment: The curious shape of the nose is due to 
modern repairs; the upper lip was chipped and has 
been smoothed off and thus reduced in volume. 
Traces of paint, visible here and there, are probably 

not ancient. The turn of the head, the oval shape of 
the face, the wide-open eyes and the parted lips — so 
startling in the profile view — are all part and parcel 
of a well-known Hellenistic female likeness, for 
which there are a number of examples, the earliest 
of which is probably Alexandria 3908 (Mon. Plot 28 
[1925-1926], pp. 113-130, pi. IX); see also the mate- 
rial collected by A. Adriani, Testimomanze e mo- 

menti di scaltura alessandrina (Rome, 194K), passim. 
The oval form of the face is found in a Hellenistic 
female head in Egyptian material, Amsterdam 7818. 
The attitude of apotheosis expressed in a turn of 
the head also occurs in a female head in glassy faience 
(Brooklyn 58.1). For apotheosis in general, cf. the 
Comment on No. 134 and for other examples of 
the corkscrew locks, that on No. 113. 

No. 139; PI. 131, Figs. 347-349- 


First century a.d.; Ro?rian Period. 

Owner: Mr. Khalil Rabenou, New York, N. Y. 


Whereas relief work in the Ptolemaic Period 
showed a certain quality and some innovation, 
it rapidly degenerated under the Romans, de- 
spite the extensive decorations with which the 
temples continued to be adorned. Stelae and 
votive plaques became imitative and crude, and 
after Augustus only a few pieces have survived 
that continue the best of Ptolemaic tradi- 
tion. This fragmentary limestone slab is a good 
example of the style of the first century a.d., 
with its representation of a monstrous, striding 
sphinx — a lion with human head, royal head- 
cloth and beard, and a god's crown. From be- 
hind his head issue the heads of an ibis and a 
lion; his tail is formed like a cobra; another 
cobra wriggles under his paws, which are 
armed with knives. Over him hovers a winged 
sundisk, now largely lost, and an inscribed 
plaque identifies him as the god Tutu. Even 
without the inscription, crown and animal 
heads would show this sphinx to be the fabu- 
lous deity worshiped from the time of the 
Ptolemies as being able to ward off evil mes- 
sengers of the gods. Holes at the four corners 
of the slab indicate that it was hung by pegs as 
an ex-voto on the wall of a temple or chapel. 
The person who offered it there was fortunate 
in securing the services of an artist capable of 
producing within the limits of a rectangular 

space a balanced representation of impressive 

measurements: Height 22.5 cm. Width 29 cm. 

Thickness 2 cm. 

provenance: Not known. 

bibliography: Serge Sauneron, "Le nouveau sphinx 

composite du Brooklyn Museum et le role du dieu 

Toutou — Tithoes," JNES 19, no. 4 (October i960), 

pi. XIII (in press). 

comment: Interpretation of the subject of this relief 
is due to the kindness of Serge Sauneron, whose ar- 
ticle, cited above, forms the definitive study of the 
god Tutu, long known from Greek dedicatory in- 
scriptions as Tithoes. Originally shown as a human 
figure with an elaborate crown studded with animal 
heads, the heads of the divine emissaries, Tutu ap- 
pears in the Roman Period almost always as a sphinx. 
Apart from the statuette in Cleveland (No. 137), the 
identification of which is still somewhat doubtful, 
the only sizeable representations of the god in the 
round are in the Smithsonian Institution (U.S.N.M. 
8277) and in the Brooklyn Museum (37.1509E), 
where there is also a relief (58.98), which is the key 
piece for the study of Tutu, since it is not only 
inscribed but depicts separately a procession of the 
animal-headed spirits of whom Tutu was the leader. 
As an ex-voto, this plaque belongs to a group of 
reliefs which numerous authors have lumped in- 
discriminately with so-called sculptor's models and 
trial pieces. Both types are generally small, and their 
relief work is often incomplete. But trial pieces 
served as models in a sculptor's shop, whereas ex- 
votos were gifts to a god and as such were deposited 
in a temple precinct in order to obtain divine favor 
or to give thanks for benefits received. Many votive 
plaques are provided with means for suspension. 

1 « 1 

No. 140; Pis. 132-133, Figs. 350-352. 


About a.d. 50-100; Roman period. Black basalt, grey in rough spots, with brown specks. 

Owner: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.; no. 8218. 

The man represented wears a thin under- 
garment that barely obscures the modeling of 
the torso and shows only a few folds, indicated 
by incised lines, on the left shoulder near the 
neck. Over it, there is a short kilt with thick 
belt, ending just above the knees. The sculp- 
ture is evidently unfinished; although the figure 
of the man has been smoothly surfaced, chair 
and back pillar have been left rough and still 
show numerous tool marks. This incomplete 
state is presumably responsible for the lack of 
detail on the ears. The head is summarily done; 
the eyes are of the buttonhole type, very simply 
carved. Crude notches on the corners of the 
mouth constitute an attempt to imbue the face 
with some individual expression. 

The median line, beginning far below the 
sternal notch and ending in the round navel, is 
for this period unusually well defined. The 
position of the hands — both fists resting on 
the knees — is intentionally classical, and the 
same holds true for the attitude, imitating 
seated sculptures of a thousand years or more 
earlier. With Roman rule, Egyptian statuary 
was losing its inner justification and deteriorat- 
ing rapidly. The pose of this man is not a re- 
vival of an older form but a helpless groping in 
search of a model from the great periods of 

Still, when one considers this sculpture by 
itself and disregards the grand tradition of the 
centuries immediately preceding, the rigidity 
and bland expression of the statue are not with- 

out a certain appeal. The oddly shaped head, 
the firmly planted, trunk-like legs, and the 
rounded forms of torso and arms remind one 
of the beginning of Egyptian seated figures 
early in the third millennium B.C. The Ann 
Arbor statue represents the end of a cycle and 
thus again appears primitive to the eye of an 
observer accustomed to the more developed 
types of Egyptian sculpture of the periods be- 
fore the Roman conquest. 

measurements: Height 50 cm. Height of head 8.8 
cm. Height of base 2.5 cm. Width of base 18.5 cm. 
Depth of base 29.8 cm. 

provenance: Karanis, at the northern edge of the 
Fayum; found near the South Temple (Temple of 
Pnepheros and Petesouchos). 

bibliography: None. 

comment: Seated sculptures of private persons oc- 
cur until the time of King Necho II of Dynasty 
XXVI (Louvre N. 663), then disappear and (with 
the possible exceptions of Cairo J.E. 36576 and 
Louvre E. 9333) are not made until the time of the 
Roman domination, after Augustus (Alexandria 415, 
3193, 3196, 3203; Amsterdam 7876; Cairo C.G. 1190, 
1 191). For statues dated to the Roman Period, see 
La Revue des Arts 9 ( 1959), p- 106 and note 23. The 
top of the back pillar of the Ann Arbor statue is 
rounded, as in certain other sculptures of this period 
(Alexandria 3193), though such treatment is found 
as early as the Ptolemaic Period (No. 122). A head 
in Strasbourg (1440) is stylistically closely related 
to the head of the Ann Arbor statuette and may be- 
long to a similar figure. The garment running up 
and over the left shoulder is frequent since about 
Dynasty XXX, although in Ptolemaic times it is 
never worn with a short kilt but rather with the long 
skirt ending at chest level (Baltimore W.A.G. 177; 
Cairo C.G. 715; Cairo J.E. 37140). 


No. 141; Pis. 133-134. Fi g s - 353-355- 


About a.d. 50-100. Black basalt with red vein. 

Oivner: Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, III.; no. 105182. 

There are many ways in which a great art 
can come to an end. Very frequently, a vio- 
lent act of man or nature has brought the ar- 
tistic expression of a people to a sudden stop. 
Egypt was spared such a fate, but nevertheless 
the long tradition of fine sculpture in hard 
stone was all but ended with the Roman con- 
quest in 30 b.c. The reasons for this were 
political and economic. Quarrying was not 
abandoned; on the contrary it flourished, well- 
organized for the profit of Rome, as may be 
seen from the active export trade in porphyry 
(not to mention other Egyptian materials), 
which began precisely when Egypt became a 
Roman province. 

It is to the credit of the Egyptians that they 
began to work in other media, once deprived 
of the materials for enduring sculpture. While 
temple statues apparently became almost non- 
existent, the commemoration of the dead, so 
long a part of Egyptian tradition, was never 
abandoned. It seems very probable that the 
evolution of painted mummy portraits was di- 
rectly due to the decline of stone sculpture in 
the round. Though the history of such sculp- 
ture under Roman rule presents a sad tale of ut- 
ter disintegration, there were produced, never- 
theless, a very few heads that, if not compared 
with the remarkable portraits of a century 
earlier, can hold their own as expressions of a 
creative force almost primitive in its vividness 
and directness. The best example of the dying 
— yet temporarily revivified — art of Egyptian 
sculpture is a nearly life-size basalt head from 
the Chicago Natural History Museum. 

Comparison with a number of smaller — and 
weaker — parallels in the Graeco-Roman Mu- 
seum of Alexandria leaves little doubt that this 
head can be attributed to the first century a.d., 

though how early or how late in that century 
is anybody's guess. The squared skull, the 
mechanically straight wrinkles of the forehead, 
the veiled eyes, are signs of an awkward and 
primary approach to the problem of portrai- 
ture. There is a vague suggestion in the face 
of the greater art of the past, and yet it betrays 
an awareness on the part of the artisan that a 
man's features and personality could be ex- 
pressed in stone. Though he was not quite mas- 
ter of his material, he managed to convey 
something of what he wished to say. This is 
most apparent in the deep fold of skin near the 
nostril and the sunken cheeks, each with a 
small, round depression, such as might, in a less 
somber face, be called a dimple. The head is 
powerful, though hardly, in the strictly tradi- 
tional sense, Egyptian. Only the trapezoid top 
of the back pillar (never meant to be inscribed) 
survives from the illustrious past. 

measurements: Height 23.1 cm. Width 15.8 cm. 
Depth (when mounted correctly, with the back pillar 
vertical) 19.4 cm. Width of break at neck 9.7 cm., 
at back pillar 8.2 cm. Depth of break (slant) 13.7 cm. 

provenance: Not known. Acquired in Egypt by 
E. E. Ayer in 1908. 

bibliography: None. 

comment: If the lower portion of the statue — prob- 
ably a seated figure — to which this head once be- 
longed still exists, it can be easily spotted by the dark 
red vein, which should appear in the middle of the 
chest and on the left side of the back pillar. For 
other sculptures with red veins, see Nos. 20 and 133. 
The administration of the quarries under the Romans 
can not have differed much from that of the Mons 
Porphyrites (see Delbrueck, Antike Porphyrwerke, 
pp. 7-1 1 ). That the quarrying of schist, diorite, and 
basalt was not discontinued is shown by the large 
number of Roman Imperial heads made in these ma- 
terials until about the time of Hadrian, although they 
are more frequent in the Augustan and Julio- 
Claudian periods. Brooklyn 54.51, London, B.M. 
Greek and Roman 1883, New York, M.M.A. 11. 197, 


and the so-called Caligula in Rome (Museo Capito- 
lino; ph. Alinari 11772) are but a few of the many 
examples. The beginning of Egyptian portrait paint- 
ing, which seems to coincide with the rapid abolish- 
ment of private temple statuary, will be fully dealt 
with by Klaus Parlasca in his forthcoming study on 
mummy portraits. The temples of the Nile Valley 
were maintained and even enlarged under the Ro- 
mans, but more as a policy of public relations than 
as a continuance of a religious tradition. It is possible 
that private persons were therefore no longer en- 
titled to consider them places for a funeral cult, with 
its indispensable statue. Be it as it may, the mummy 

portraits show that the image of the deceased was 
removed from the public view in a temple to the 
privacy of the grave. Limestone and, to a lesser 
degree, sandstone continued to be available in large 
quantities, but were hardly used for sculpture in the 
round. This Chicago head has strangely undefined 
eyes, but the treatment of the surface shows that 
they are not unfinished. No parallel has been found 
for the large dimples in the hollow of the cheeks. 
The sinews of the scrawny neck stand out sharply. 
As a testimonial to the final phase of Egyptian sculp- 
ture in the round the head from Chicago sounds the 
last note of a long and glorious epic. 


Index of Collections and Provenances 


Abbreviations for museums used in the text of the Catalogue are given in parentheses, following the name of 
the institution. The left column lists accession, catalogue, or registration numbers; the right column refers 
to the pages of this Catalogue. Objects shown in the Exhibition are identified by " — No. " written with an 
initial capital. 




Statuette = No. 36 8, 27, 43-44 

3204 = No. 131 

170-172, 173 

Head = No. 46 53-54, 100 



Bust = No. 47 53,54,55,70 




1 1261 


Anthropological Museum, M arise hal College 

xxxvi, 122 

1394 113 


6 3 

142 1 45, 149 


!3 2 




Royal head = No. 5 1 30, 58-59, 62, 63, 1 36, 


16, 149 

167, 177 











Graeco-Roman Museum 

P. 10425 133 



P. 10427 166 



347 29 



380 94, 104, 1 10, 146 


402 68 

Colossal sphinxes 

147, 148 

403 90 


4°9 55, 95 


107, 145 

415 182 

425 162 



i332=No.95 119-121,126,169 



134 1 174 


3151 = No. 126 163, 179 

Allard Pierson Stichting 

3191 163, 173 



3192 179 



3193 182 



3196 182 



3202 179 





Ace. 22.226 = No. 120 

<55-*5<S. «73 

Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 

Ace. 22.395 = No. 112 

143, 144-145 

University of Michigan 

Ace. 22.398 = No. 18 

20, 22 

8218 = No. 140 

1 1, 182 

Cat. 149 = No. 68 

77,79,81,82,83-84, 102 



Cat. 150 

Cat. 152 = No. 23 


26-27,32,33,61,81, 105, 


116, 134 

Oudheidkundige Musea 

Cat. 153 



Cat. 154 = No. 37 

44,60,68,73, 113, 115 



Cat. 155 = No. 49 




Cat. 158 = No. 18 

20, 22 


Cat. 171 = No. 30 


National Museum (N.M.) 

Cat. 173 

Cat. 174 = No. 44 







*3 2 

Cat. 176 = No. 40 

103, 115 
46-47, 53, 77, J 4 8 , i49 


Cat. 177 





Cat. 178 = No. 112 
Cat. 179 
Cat. 181 

143, 144-145 

20, 22 



Cat. 188 


Musee Archeologique 

Cat. 197 = No. 93 

1 17-1 18 

Head = No. 134 173,174- 


[80, 181 

Cat. 202 
Cat. 203 



AYER, E. E. 


Cat. 206 

1 1 


Cat. 210 

106, 161 



Cat. 225 


Osiris head = No. 50 1, 33, 

4 8 , 55, 57-58 

Cat. 226 


Cat. 230 = No. 118 

128, 149, 153-154 


Cat. 260 = No. 42 


The Baltimore Museum of Art 

Cat. 273 = No. 87 

103, 104, 109-1 10, 1 1 1, 

51.257 = No. 78 


-99, 127 

114, 149, 179 

51.258 = No. 62 72,73-74, 

75, I2g 

Cat. 274 

1 10, 112 

The Walters Art Gallery (W.A.G.) 

Cat. 275 

no, 112, 1 14 

Ace. 22.9 = No. 118 128, 


I 53" I 54 

Cat. 276 


Ace. 22.34 = No. 69 


-86, 108 

Cat. 297 = No. 69 

85-86, 108 

Ace. 22.63 — No. 93 

1 17-1 18 

Cat. 326 A 


Ace. 22.76 = No. 30 


Cat. 327 


Ace. 22.79 = No. 37 44,60,68 



Cat. 333 A 


Ace. 22.97 = No. 87 103,104, 

109-1 10, 114, 

Cat. 382 = No. 41 


'49, '79 

Cat. 588 


Ace. 22.135 
Ace. 22.145 

No. 42 


No. 23 26-27, 32, 33,61,81, 105, 

116, 134 
Ace. 22.159 = No - 4° 4 6 "47, 53, 77, H 8 , H9 
Ace. 22.184 = No. 41 33,48-49,55,58 

Ace. 22.198 = No. 49 35,55,56,65 

Ace. 22.208 = No. 68 77, 79, 81, 82, 83-84, 102 
Ace. 22.215 =No.44 2,5, 33,40, 51-52,58, 

103, 115 


Head of a goddess = No. 55 xi, 63-64, 144 


Museo Provinciale 
Royal statue 





The Robert H. Loivie Museum of 

Anthropology, University of California 

5-290 1 1 

5-363 = No. 17 11,17,18,19,66 


StaatlicheMuseen, Ehemals Staatliche Museen 

Caesar bust 165 

255 140 

2214 174 

2271 140, 160 

2297 9 

4437 37 

7737 84, 107 

8163 6 

8805 95, 106 

10114 126 

10269 3 2 

10660 174 

10972 140, 166 

1 1864 62,63 

12500 = No. 127 105,134,138,155, 

164-166, 173 

14460 140, 169 

14499 140 

15414 83,93,110,140,149 

15415 93,94,111 
17271 2 
17700 3 
18562 3,35 
19779 36 
21596 95, 105 
21763 1 17, 146 
23001 104 
23673 80 

23728 27,36 

23729 19 


Museo Civico 








Musee des Beaux-Arts 


58, 59,61,62 




9 1 





Museum of Fine Arts (M.F.A.) 
26-1-237 41 

26-1-238 41 

89.482 27 

04.1749 = No. 108 83, 138-140, 150, 165, 

'7*. '73 
04.1841 = No. 5 1, 5-6,9 

07.494 = No. 9 10-11,29,30,39,53, 124, 149 

2 9-73i 39,41 

29.1131 58 

35.1484 84, 100 

37.377 = No. 60 70,71-72,77,87,118 

49.5 149 

50.3427 = No. 100 1 18, 128-129, '34> *36, 154 


The City Museum 




The Brooklyn Museum 

L59.5 = No. 116 11, 143, 145, 150 

16.237 49 

16.580.150 68 

16.580.186 = No. 13 B 7, 1 1, 14-16, 17, 18 

36.738 40 

37.37E 122 

37.353 = No. 64 68, 76-77, 79, 80, 84, 1 14, 


37.1509E 181 

37.1811E 174 

47.218.3 15,19,36,40 

48.74 14, 17 

49.166 14 

51. 1 90 

51.15 40 

52.89 = No. 80 5, 28, 97, 98, 100-102, 1 1 2 

53.178 13 

54.51 183 

54.68 = No. 128 108,167-168,177 

54.117 =No. 135 133,176-177,179 

55.120 157 

55.175 = No. 83 66, 98, 105-106, 107, 1 18, 134 

55.178 87 

56.126 13 

56.152 = No. 74 67, 68, 92-94, 104, 105, 108, 

1 10, 1 1 1, 1 14, 179 

57.21.4 112 


57-4 2 = No. 106 


57.66 = No. 33 


58.30 = No. 132 

58.95 = No. 25 


59.77 = No. 57 B 

60.11 = No. 56 


2/24 = No. 45 
2/97 = No. 1 14 
2/101 = No. 16 
3/162 = No. 138 


Musees Royaux d'Art 

E. 1813 

E. 1839 

E. 4395 

E. 4993 

E. 5346 = No. 1 10 

E. 7049 

E. 7526 = No. 31 

E. 7654 

E. 7702 

E. 7730 


Academy of the New 
Head = No. 99 


Albright Art Gallery 
42: 16.281 = No. 85 




3 2 

39-40, 44 


xxxix, 128, 138, 143, 156, 

172-173, 176 


180, 181 


6^-66, 70, 73, 86 

147-148, 161, 177 

1 1, 17, 18-19, IDI 
147, 176, 180-181 

et d'Histoire 



1 06, 1 1 3 
142-143, 144, 145, 150 

7* 11 
12, 36, 37-38, 39,41,96 




Church Museum 

124, 127-128, 173 



Egyptian Museum 

13 | 3 


4 , 6 
19 "+- 1 

8 I 2 

21 T« 

14 1 5 

22 -["2 

6 1 8 

28 1 5 
24 -|-8 

8 1 12 

8 1 12 
24 -p 5 

5 , 3 _ 
25 -+* 7 



I I 12 

i-p 10 


86, 149 




1 1 1 


96, 100 

117, 146, 157-158, 160, 170, 182 

4 1 

22 1 10 

48-T16 23 

C.G. 140 84,94 

C.G. 381 158 

C.G. 535 5 

C.G. 565 1,13 

C.G. 602 35 

C.G. 606 37 

C.G. 611 1 

C.G. 617 90 

C.G. 646 5 

C.G. 647 i5''7' 2 5 

C.G. 653 xxxvi 

C.G. 658 51 

C.G. 659 22 

C.G. 662 70, 79 

C.G. 666 68 

C.G. 669 44 

C.G. 672 81,90 

C.G. 673 79 

C.G. 680 1 3 1 

C.G. 681 89 

C.G. 682 105, 106 

C.G. 687 124 

C.G. 689 149 

C.G. 691 84 

C.G. 694 116 

C.G. 696 154, 170, 171 

C.G. 697 170,171,173 

C.G. 699 180 
C.G. 700 118, 128, 1 29, 1 30, 1 34, 1 36, 149 

C.G. 701 133 

C.G. 702 177 

C.G. 714 90 

C.G. 715 182 

C.G. 722 149 
C.G. 726 = No. 65 9, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 
74, 76, 77, 78-79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 
87,94, 105, 118, 145, 149, 164 

C.G. 727 38 

C.G. 730 47 

C.G. 748 63 

C.G. 784 64,68,103 

C.G. 807 47, 50 

C.G. 838 89 

C.G. 882 27 

C.G. 888 69 
C.G. 895 = No. 52 B 54,59-61,95,113 

C.G. 902 32,33 

C.G. 928 50 

C.G. 939 116 





2 33 

2 75 
2 77 

C.G. 22232 
C.G. 27471 
C.G. 27492 
C.G. 27493 
C.G. 33328 
C.G. 38231 
C.G. 38236 
C.G. 38266 
C.G. 38358 
C.G. 38884 
C.G. 39273 
C.G. 39274 
C.G. 42004 
C.G. 42196 
C.G. 42204 
C.G. 42205 
C.G. 42217 
C.G. 42233 
C.G. 42234 
C.G. 42236 
C.G. 42237 
C.G. 42241 
C.G. 42242 
C.G. 42243 
C.G. 42244 
C.G. 42246 
C.G. 42248 
C.G. 7001 1 
C.G. 70022 
C.G. 70024 
C.G. 70030 
C.G. 70031 
J.E. 26427 
J.E. 28171 
J.E. 29878 
J-E. 31335 = 









2 3 







17*1 ! 73 






xi, 117 




8, 1 1, 1 15, 1 16 



12, 17 


15, 16 

1 1, 66, 106 

7 1 


3 2 






4 1 


No. 65 9,66,67,70,71,72,73,74, 

76, 77, 78-79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 

94, 105, 118, 145, 149, 164 

.E. 3201 


.E. 3390 


.E. 36 



















, 36578 

, ^6665 


1 1 

■ 3 6 93 

3 6 945 





;. 36991 

•E. 36995 
.E. 36998 
.E. 37002 

•E. 37075 
.E. 37076 
.E. 37136 
.E. 37140 
.E. 37150 

•E. 37*54 
.E. 37169 
.E. 37194 
•E. 37203 
.E. 37213 
.E. 37327 
.E. 37328 
•E. 37335 
•E. 37339 
•E. 37343 
•E. 3735° 
•E. 37354 
•E. 3737 6 
•E. 37377 
•E. 37389 
.E. 37408 

•E. 374*3 

•E. 37414 

fJE. 37416 

f.E. 37442 = No. 38 B 

r .E. 37512 

.E. 37861 

.E. 37866 

2 3 




xxxvi, 182 

2 5 

12, 103 

xxxvi, 33 


100, 153 



1 1 



66, 103, 128 







3. 35 










100, 103 



3 2 


19, 66, 106 

32,33,45, 103 


96, 103 



J.E. 37 8 7 8 
J.E. 37890 
J.E. 37992 = No. 


J-E. 37993 
J.E. 38007 
J.E. 38009 
J.E. 38015 
J.E. 38018 
J.E. 38582 
J.E. 38586 
J.E. 38825 
J.E. 43204 
J.E. 43606 
J.E. 437 1 1 
J.E. 44637 
J.E. 45390 
J.E. 46307 
J.E. 46320 
J.E. 46341 
J.E. 46591 

J-E. 52356 

J.E. 55960 

J.E. 56836 

J.E. 59870 

J.E. 65843 

J.E. 67845 

J.E. 68595 

J.E. 87298 

K. 172 

K. 374 = No. 38 B 

K. 584 = No. 27 



3>3 I -3 2 >33'34'35.45> 

46,52,56, 100, 113 

I3 1 







i5 2 


149, 166, 179 



86, 102 

1 11, 146 





K. 626 
K. 909 
M. 824 

No. 65 

7 6 >77> 


3'3 I -3 2 , 33' 34' 35' 

46, 52, 56, 100, 


78-79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 

94, 105, 118, 145, 149, 




Fitzwilliam Museum 



Musee Denon 


134, 144 




The Art Institute of Chicago 
10.243= No. 91 7135560,113,114-116 

Chicago Natural History Museum (N.H.M.) 
30823 74 

31585 180 

31697 38 

31723= No. 13 A 7,11,14-16,17,18 

31724 134 

105181= No. 34 3,40-42,44,55 

105182 = No. 141 166,183-184 

The Oriental Institute, The University 
of Chicago 

10796 37 

13953= No. 89 60,112-113,115 

14284 41 

17974 18 

18828 = No. 15 11,17-18 


The Cleveland Museum of Art 
191. 14 = No. 63 70, 71, 74-76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 
86, 94, 108, 118, 145, 148, 149, 179 
199.14 = No. 82 103-104, 1 10, 11 1, 1 14, 146 

162, 179-180, 181 

344.15 = No. 137 
3920.20 = No. 35 
3949.20 = No. 24 
3955.20 = No. 61 

48.141 = No. 97 


28, 42, 49 

72-73^ 74' 75> 77> 79, 82, 

128, 148 

122-125, I2 8, 168 



i7' 43 


Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (N.C.G.) 








74' 75 









59 1 














Nationalmuseet (N.M.) 

AAb 2 1 1 




29, 142 

5, 20, 28,97,98, 101 


114, 162 


The Glasgow Art Gallery, Burrell Collection 
Queen's head 103,135 



The Detroit Institute of Arts 

40.47 =No. 104 17,133-134,166 

40.48 =No. in 142, 143-144, 150, 156, 

165, 166 
51.83 = No. 136 154, 157, 170, 176, 178-179 

11834 5 

1 1835 7° 

9ar- 12 




Musee de Peinture et de Sculpture 
J 4 











see Lisbon 






Royal Scottish Museum 




1954.40 = No. 12 
1956.134 = No. 66 


13-14, 126 

74,80-81, 149 



Kestner- Museum 







Head = No. 116 

11, 143, 145,150 



see grand d'esnon 


1935.200.773= No. 115 129,143, 

xxxvi, 35, 83 

145, 148-149, 



Museo Archeologico (M.A.) 







76, 79, 90 

Statuette = No. 59 




61, 62, 63 








Block statue = No. 32 


38-39, 96 



!449 5 


Man with cloak = No. 2 2, 8, 9, 1 2, 40 

Niche stela = No. 26 30, 80, 8 1 

Bust = No. 52 A 54, 59-61, 65,95, 113, 146 

Sphinx head = No. 54 62-63 


2244 174 



HUNTINGTON, JOHN 28, 43, 73, 74, 104, 179 







The British Museum (B.M.) 

Gr. & R. 




Gr. & R. 




William Rockhill Nelson 
Mary Atkins Museum 

Gallery of Art and 
of Fine Arts 

1 93 5-4- 1 


1 1 




47-25 = No. 11 


73- I2 5 
•13, 14, 158 


2 2 




9 1 

48-28/2 = No. 14 



■17, 18, 149 



53-13 =No.7i 

88-89, l6 7 



no, 179 


1 1 1 















29, 142 













i5 6 , i73 





95, 102 

Musee des Beaux- Arts 



% 7 



!35* i79 


Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 

1 162 



AMT. 5 


A. St. 10 








1 3 16 






M. 20-23 





















The State Hermitage 


n, 28 
3, 16 



126, 147 

1 604 1 


81, 103 



Fundagao Caloaste Gulbenkian 



46 = No. 107 8, 

J 33, 



?, 143, 144, 
164, 165 



158 = No. 29 2 

4' 2 5 

>3 2 , 


1 34-35, 3 6 , 





56,77, 112 



Cat. 17 




Cat. 24 

43> 8 9 








3 2 73' 

74, 108 



3 2 734 






535 1 



145, 154, 155 








8, 12 




Agyptische Staatssammhing < Ag.St.) 


5^54'5 6 


1 12 



I 3 1 3 






108, 1 14, 1 17 



5 1 

29 = No. 77 28, 97-98, 

101, 106 





Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds 



52, 13 1 

Head = No. 77 28, 97-98, 

101, 106 


149, 150 






Musee Dobree 



E. 195 



I 34^ I 43 




Museo Nazionale (M.N.) 

6 5443 


136, 143, 

149, 155, 166 







Los Angeles County 





= No. ] 

! 33 

173-174, 183 

1 10663 




Museo Arqueoldgico National (M.A.N.) 

2014 39 

2015 162 


Musee du Domaine 


Musee Borely 




State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts 

'3 2 





*9> '47 




Peabody Museum of Natural History, 

Yale University 
384 = No. 109 132,141-142 

388 = No. 103 131-133,148,177 

Yale University Art Gallery 
1. 1. 1953 = No. 109 132, 141-142 

4.1. 1953 = No. 103 131-133,148,177 

1931.106 = No. 130 158, 160, 169-170, 177 


The Metropolitan Museum of Art (M.M.A.) 

Old 1271 = No. 6 2,6-7,13,18,32,41 

74.51.2458 no 

74.51.2459 no 
74.51.2461 no 
74.51.2469 no 
89.2.660 = No. 113 126, 135, 145-147, 159, 

160, 167, 170, 177, 181 
02.4.191 = No. 7 8-9,27,85 

07.228.27 = No. 4 4-5,32,36,37,153 




145 = No 

20 9, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 

07.228.33= No. 38 A 33,45,53,103 

28, 29, 

35,44, 124, 183 

07.228.47 = No. 10 

2, 11-12, 15, 22,25, 26 


08.202.1 = No. 81 


Bibliotheque Nationale (B.N.) 

10.176.44 =1 No. 124 

108, 148, 160-161, 



167, 177 

Musee Jacquemart- Andre 

11. 197 




12. 187. 31 


Musee du Louvre 

17. 120.145 


A 26 




A 28 


19.2.2 = No. 48 

33, 34, 35*54, 55, '5 2 

A 29 


20.2.21 = No. 123 

126, 145, 158, 159-160, 170 

A 83 




A 84 




A 85 


25.2.1 = No. 21 

24-25,26, 32, 35 

A 89 



86, 149 




1 1 

A 92 




A 93 

68, 76, 77 



A 94 


26.7. 1401 

1 14, 120 

A 97 




A.F. 1 68 1 


30.8.71 = No. 125 

162, 179 

A.F. 6314 






30.8.90 = No. 90 

104, 1 1 3-1 14, 120 





E. 122 



5 1 

E. 3096 


38.10 = No. 98 

125-126, 128, 135, 145, 

E - 3433 


147, 159, 168 

E. 3434 


The Pierpont Morgan Library 

E. 4299 

3, 34, 4 6 

Inv. 10 = No. 76 

38,95-96, 100, 103, 112, 

E. 5157 


113, 152 

E. 5349 

1 17, 120 

Inv. 11 = No. 39 

xxxiv, 33, 34,46 

E. 7689 



E. 8060 

79, 134 

Musee des Antiques 

E. 8061 = 

No. 73 

90-92, 134, 177 



E. 9293 

xxxvi, 182 


Joslyn Memorial Art 
1953.80 = No. 1 


1-2, 14, 117 

E. 10243 
E. 10366 

3 8 ,44 



E. 10709 




E. 10783 



E. 10966 


Ashmolean Museum 

E. 10973 
E. 1 1068 

106, 1 13 



E. 1 1075 



E. 1 1 127 

84, 140, 179 

Museo Civico 

E. 1 1 148 




E. 1 1 195 



E. 11251 


Museo Nazionale (M 


E. 1 1377 

94, io 9 




1 1 895 
1 3 106 


E. 20173 

E. 20205 

E. 20358 

E. 20361 

E. 22040 

E. 22761 

E. 25374 

E. 25379 

E. 25390 = No. 57 A 

I.M. 1244 

I.M. 4057 


N. 502 

N. 663 

N. 864 

N. 868 

N. 1572 

N. 2454 = No. 67 

N. 2456 

N. 3670 

Musee Rodin 




Petit Palais 


109, 149 

3 2 

47. 5M9 

2 3 





1 1 


95, 105, 106, 107, 113 


16, 166 

16, 179 

167, 168 


86, 140 




3 2 
27,38,52, 182 




71,81-83, 105, 118, 134, 140 

121, 126 






The Philip H. and A.S.W. Rosenbach 

Foundation Museum 
Block statue = No. 1 1 7 131,151-153 

The University Museum, University of 

42-9-1 71,76 

E.975 157,158,166 

E. 1 3004 = No. 43 49,50-51, 52,68,88, 177 

E. 14303 = No. 53 30,61-62,63,88,89, 

l6 7, '77 
E. 14316 = No. 88 93,111-112,116 

E. 16199 2 




Bust = No. 19 20,21-22,24,25,26,27, 

40,41,44, 105 




The Art Museum, Princeton University 

918 42 


Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design 
58.001 = No. 1 19 154-155 


Relief = No. 1 39 


Doughty House 

162, 179, 180, 181 



Virginia Museum of Pine Arts 
51-19-3= No. 8 8,9-10,25,105 

51-19-4 = No. 22 15,22,25-26,37 

51-19-5 107 

55-8-13 = No. 92 xxxvii, 104, 1 16-1 17, 126 


Museo Barracco 
2 9 

3 1 

Museo Capitolino 


158, 170 


8 62,63,89 

Museo Nazionale (M.N.) 
60921 142 

Palazzo dei Conservatori 

Scala VI-9 161 

Vatican (Museo Gregoriano Egizio) 
13 102 

25 121,125,126,128,135,159 

27 98, 122, 126, 128 

107 170 

163 105 

166 75' 9° 

177 70 


Villa Albani 

55 l 


7°i 7<5, 77 

62, 122 

5* 6 9 


City Art Museum of St. Louis 

221:24 = No. 3 3-4' 5> 3 8 >4 X » n 4 

222:24 = No. 28 27,32-34,35,45,46, 

55^ 77, I3 1 
215:54 = No. 79 99-100 



M . H. De Young Memorial Museum 

54664 = No. 72 89-90, 105, 149 


Rosicrucian Egyptian, Oriental Museum 
1582 147 

1583= No. 102 130-131,153 

1603 =No. 94 1 1 8-1 19 

1643 101 


Statuette = No. 86 

86, 93, 94, 104, 108-109, 
no, 179 


Seattle Art Museum 

Eg n.23 = No. 58 
Eg 24.12 

69-70, 7 1 

2 7 


Torso = No. 75 


106, 124 


Torso = No. 1 29 



Bust = No. 70 

6$, 86- 


, 118, 128 





Nationalmuseum (N.M.) 











3 6 7 

5 2 


r 394 

1585 = No. 96 121-122,126. 




Nicholson Museum 
4 1 


The Toledo Museum of Art 


The Royal Ontario Museum 

910.75 = No. 105 121,134-135, 

958.221.4 = No. 101 129- 




Museo Egizio 

Suppl. 17 161 


Museo Maffeiano 


Kunsthistorisches Museum 




2I 3 






141, 148 




r 45' i47 
130, 163 



*34. i47 








7'. 79 

2 3 






Head = No. 84 


66, 105, 106-107 

165, 174 
138, 139 


The Dumbarton Oaks Research Library 

and Collection 
37.13= No. 121 156-157,179 

Textile Museum 

07.3 24 

07.4 27 

United States National Museum ( U.S.N.M.), 

Smithsonian Institution 
8277 181 



Museum Rietberg 
R.V.A. 501 




Nos. 7, 41, 68 

K6m el Hisn 

No. 42 


No. 47 

Lower Egypt 

Nos. 29, 85, 86, 95, 98, 122 


Nos. 60, 92 


No. 1 20 


No. 92 


Nos. 10, 19, 21, 26, 35, 37,45,49,61, 


No. 8 

64, 65, 67, 70, 74, 78, 86, 106, 1 32; 


Nos. 34, 77 

see also Mitrahineh and Saqqara 


Nos. 88, 91 


Nos. 20, 97 


No. 96 

jMiddle Egypt 

No. 47 


Nos. 80, 122 


Nos. 10, 57,65, 74, 106, 132; 


No. 136 

see also Memphis 


No. 131 


No. 96 


Nos. 33, 36 

Saft el Henna 

Nos. 52, 75 


Nos. 2 

3, 32, 131, 140 


Nos. 56, 58, 59, 66, 72 



. 24, 30,82,87 


Nos. 55, 108, 129; see also Memphis 


No. 42 


Nos. 1, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 


No. 140 

79, 99; see also Karnak 

Karnak Nos. 2 7: 

.28,33, 3 8 i 

40, 44, 48, 76, 

Upper Egypt 

No. 1 1 8 



102, 117; see also Thebes 



No. 6 comment, last line. 
For the tomb of Akhamenru (Thebes 404), see 
now: Porter-Moss, Top. Bibl. I, pt. 1 (i960), p. 445. 


Richard A. Martin, "Two Museums Reunite a 
Shared Egyptian," in Chicago Natural History 
Museum Bulletin 28, no. 10 (October 1957), p. 8. 
No. 14 bibliography; add 
Porter-Moss, Top. Bibl. I, pt. 1 (i960), p. 60. 


Porter-Moss, Top. Bibl. I, pt. 1 (i960), p. 59. 
Helene J. Kantor, "A Fragment of Relief from the 
Tomb of Mentuemhat at Thebes (No. 34)" = 
Oriental Institute Museum Notes, No. 12, in JNES 
19 (i960), pp. 213-216, pi. V-VI. 
No. 17 bibliography; add 

H. F. Lutz, "A Stone Group of Amset and Hapi," 
in JAOS 46 (1926), pp. 312-313. Porter-Moss, 
Top. Bibl. I, pt. 1 (1060). p. 60. 

No. 32 bibliography; add 

Classical and Medieval Stone Sculptures . . . Part 
III of the Art Collection Belonging to the Estate 
of the Late Joseph Brunmier (Sale Catalogue, New 
York, Parke-Bernet Galleries, 8-9 June, 1949), p. 
93, no. 450. 

No. 120 comment; add 

For a very recent discussion of the Kingston Lacv 
head, with excellent illustrations, see BMFA 58 
(i960), pp. 19-20, figs. 6-7. 


P. 5, No. 5, column 2, line 7: for xxvi read xxxvi. 

P. 33, No. 28, column 2, line 47: for xxiv read xxxiv. 

P. 60, No. 52, column 1, line 38: for "Psamtik" read 
"Psamtik II;" for xxv read xxxv. 

P. 70, No. 59, column 2, line 6 from bottom: for 
"khonsu-iuf-ankh" read "djehuty-iuf-ankh." 

PI. 72, Fig. 187 should be inverted. 



700 K.< . 


C I 

Fig. i No. i. Amenirdas 1 

Plate 2 700-660 b.c. 


t* t m--- 

Fig. 2 No. 2. Alan with Cloak 
Figs. 3-4 No. 1. Amenirdas I 

690-660 B.C. Plate- j 

Fig. 5 No. 2. Man with Cloak 

Figs. 6-7 No. 3. Servant of the Divine Consorts 


Plate 4 665-650 B.C. 

Figs. 8-10 No. 4. Djed-khonsu-iuf-ankh, 
Prophet of Monthu 

700-670 b.c. Plate 5 

Figs. 11-12 No. 5. Royal Dispatch Writer 

Plate 6 7 1 5-660 b.c. 

7 1 5-660 b.< . Plate 7 

Fig. 16 No. 7. Head from Abydos 


Plate 8 700-670 B.C. 

Figs. 17-19 No. 8. Priest from 

670-660 b.c. Plat< 9 




Figs. 20-22 No. 9. Khonsu-ir- 


Plate i o 700-660 b.c. 










Figs. 23-25 No. 10. Ankh-em-tenenet 


68o-6?o b.c. Plate i i 




Fig. 26 No. 1 1 . Figure of a Girl 
6 Figs. 27-28 No. 12. Royal Lady in Ivory 

% H 


Plate 12 665-650 B.C. 

2 9 

Fig. 29. lYIentuemhat, Count of Thebes 
(Cairo; not shown in Exhibition) 

665-650 b.c. Plate 1 j 

Figs. 30-31 No. n A-B. Mentuemhat 
{Chicago and Brooklyn fragments combined) 

Fig. 32 No. 14. Mentuemhat in Relief 


1 1 ; • 


,.,.. .; ., , . 


1 '■ ' ' ' ^ 


•j.'.-ij- ■ij/!.ri^v4i; r ^ 


i 00$ji$£$&$ 

*>\ ■ 


- r. 

■ r 

* — -. i ^- ■/ . sh ^i 


■ £>££&} .'*• Sf 


"'''*"'-' "<B ?a 

~*'i»»''' S ^^B BI 


?4Mmk W 


Plate 14 665-650 B.C. 


Fig. 33 No. 15. Girls Fighting 
Fig. 34 No. 16. Alan with Fowl 


665-650 b.( . Plate 1 5 

Figs. 35-37 No. 17. Mentuemhat's Guardians 

Plate 1 6 670-610 B.C. 

Figs. 38-39 No. 18. "Libyan" Bust 
Fig. 40 No. 19. Senhef 

664-610 b.( . Plate 1 - 

4 1 

Figs. 41-42 No. 19. Senbef 

4 2 

Plate 1 8 664-610 B.C. 


Fig. 43 No. 20. Bes, Prince of Alendes 

664-6 [o b.c. Plate 1 9 


Figs. 44-45 No. 20. Bes, Prince of Mendes. 

Bust in Palermo combined with lower portion 
of statue in Cairo ( the hitter nut shown 
in this Exhibition ) 


Plate 20 664-610 b.c. 


Fig. 46 No. 21. Anonymous Scribe 
Fig. 47 No. 22. Scribe's Bust 


664-640 n.< . Plate 2 1 

Figs. 4H-49 No. 23. Old Man Frowning 



Plate 22 670-610 b.c. 



Fig. 50 No. 24. Archaizing Stela 
Fig. 51 No. 25. KingPsamtikI 
Fig. 52 No. 26. Father and Son 

660-650 b.c. Plate : 5 

Plare 24 660-640 b.c. 


Fig. 55 No. 27. Djed-khonsu-iuf- 
ankh. Prophet of Amun 

Fig. ^6 No. 28. Ankh-pa-khered 


65 5 -640 b.c. Plate : 5 

Fig. 57 No. 28. Ankh-pa-khered with Osiris 

Plate 26 655-640 b.c 

664-6 1 1) b.< . Plate -~ 


Pigs. 60-61 No. 29. Bes the 


Plate 28 664-610 b.c. 

1 -*** „*P* ■ 

' "'ill 

'• I 
* '■ 



Figs. 62-64 ^ so - 3°- Ip v an d his Lady 

Fig. 65 No. 31. Keref, a General of Psamtik I; 

seen from above 



664-6 [o i!.(.. Plate a) 



Figs. 66-67 No. 3 1. Keref, a General of Psamtik I 

Plate 30 664-610 b.c. 

Figs. 68-69 No. 32. Nesna-isut from the Fayum 


664-610 b.i . Plate j 1 


7 2 




" ■ > j 

• T '^l^SflBSSS5^BniR| 

P^,<^. ...75£-&* ■V , ^_: 

Fig. 70 No. 32. Nesna-isut 

Figs. 71-73 No. 33. Hor, son of 


Plate 32 664-610 b.c. 


Fig. 74 No. 34. Harbes of Busiris 

Fig. 75 No. 34. Head of Harbes combined with 
statue in Copenhagen ( the latter not shown 
in this Exhibition ) 

Fig. 76. Head of Akhamenru ( not shown in 
Exhibition); Oriental Institute, University 
of Chicago 


655-600 n.< . Plate j ; 


Fig. 77 No. 35. King with Atef Crow n 
Figs. 78-79 No. 36. Pe-shery-aset 



Plate 34 650-600 b.c. 


Figs. 80-81 No. 37. Horwedja Kneeling 

650-610 B.C. Plate 35 





Fig. 82 No. 38 A-B. Combined View of the 
New York and Cairo Fragments 

Fig. 83 No. 38 A. Bust in New York 

Plate 36 650-600 B.C. 



Figs. 84-85 No. 39. Anonymous Osiriphoros 

Fig. 86 No. 38 B. Pedy-amun-ra-neb-waset; 

Fragment in Cairo 


630-600 B.C. Plan J7 

», &t 

Figs. 87-88 No. 40. Nes-ptah with Naos 87 

Plate 38 630-600 B.C. 


Figs. 89-90 No. 41. Osiris 

Fig. 91. Head of Osiris Statue in Cairo 
{not shown in the Exhibition) 

8 9 

9 1 

610-595 lu • Plate }<y 

Figs, 9: and 94 No. 42. King Necho II in Relief 

Fig. 93. Royal Head 

{Brooklyn; not shown in Exhibition ) 



Plate 40 610-595 b.c. 


Figs. 95-96 No. 43. King Necho II 
Kneeling; Bronze 

Fig. 97 No. 44. Iret-horru 



595 b.c. Plate 41 



Fi^s. 98-99 No. 44. Iret-horru with Osiris 

Plate 42 600-575 b.c. 

1 ( x ) 


Figs. 100-101 No. 45. Ankh-wennuf er with Naos 

Fig. 102 No. 46. Head of the Sixth Century; 

Back Pillar 



6oo J75 b.c. Plate 4; 

Fig. 103 No. 46. Head of the Sixth Century 
Figs. 104-105 No. 47. [py (Ankh-Psamtik) 



Plate 44 595-589 B.C. 



Fii>s. 106-108 No. 48. Harbes with Osiris 


595"5&9 lu • Plate 45 


Figs. 109 No. 48. Harbes 

Figs. 1 10-1 1 1 No. 49. Bust from 

1 10 

1 1 1 

Plate 46 590-570 h.c. 

1 1 2 

Figs. 1 1 2-1 1 3 No. 50. Head of 


1 '3 

589-57° IJ - <; - Plate 4- 


Figs. 1 14-1 1 5 No. 51. 
King A pries 

1 1 

Plate 48 585 B.C. 


Figs. 1 1 6-1 17 No. 52 A. lahmes 


y85 B.C. Plate 


Fig. i [8 No. 52 A-B. Bust of [ahmes 
( Combined \\ ith ( !airo Statue 

No. ^2 B. [ahmes < Neferibra-nakht ) 

Plate 50 570-550 B.C. 


1 20 

Figs. 120-122 No. 53. King Amasis 


5 yo-525 B.C. Plate 5 1 


Fig. [23 No. 56. Pa-debehu (Rome, Vatican; 
not shown in Exhibition ) 

Figs. 1:4-1:6 No. 54. Sphinx Mead 


Plate 52 530 b.c. 

12 7 




I27, (29 


■ 55 

. Head of a 



. 1 


Head of Isis 

Statue in Cairo 

(not sh 

own in 

Exhibition ) 



' r JW 


550-525 lu ■ Pl ate 53 

1 1 1 

Fig. 1 30 No. 56. Head of Pa-debehu combined with statue 
in Vatican ( the latter not shown in Exhibition ) 

Fio-. 131 No. ^6. Pa-debehu 


Plate 54 525-500 b.c. 


Fig. 132 No. 57 A. Iahmes-sa-neith 

Fig. 133 No. 57 A-B. Paris Torso of Iahmes-sa-neith 
combined with Brooklyn Fragment 

525-500 b.c. Plate 5 






^ • 1 

Ik}' • 

■■[•*"■: iflBja '- 

■ 1 



M&- . .- *£., -'dX- . .. «*uW 

Fig. 134 No. 57 A. Iahmes-sa-neith 
Figs. 135-136 No. 58. Pa-wen-hatef 



Plate 56 525-500 is. c. 



Fig. 137 No. 58. Pa-wen-hatef ; Back 

Figs. 138-139 No. 59. Djed-djehuty-iuf-ankh 

Fig. 140 No. 60. Head from Athribis; Back Pillar 



^2 5-500 Plate 57 


Figs. 141-142 No. 60. Head from 


Plate 58 520-490 B.C. 

Figs. 143-145 No. 61. Horwedja, Son of Tesnakht 



SQk - mml 

L|| *jk V 

IF § 

B ^pt# 


B^ w 

IB w 

520-480 b.c. Plate 59 

Figs. 146-147 No. 62. Bust from a Group 
Fig. ,48 No. 63. Ankh-hor 


Plate 60 520-480 B.C. 








g ^ 


M>SW\ & ( 



^ ' 

Figs. 149-150 No. 63. Ankh-hor 

Fig. 1 5 1 No. 64. Ptah-hotep, 
neck ornaments 


joo 490 i!.( . Plate 6 \ 

1 V 

Fig. 152 No. 64. Ptah-hotep 

Fig. 1 53 No. 64. Ptah-hotep, detail of inscription 

Fig. 1 54 No. 65. Psamtik-sa-neith 



Plate 61 500 b.c. 


Figs. 155-157 No. 65. Psamtik-sa-neith 



500 B.C. Plate 6 j 

bt sit 


Fig. i 58 No. 66. Family Stela, hack 
Fig. 159 No. 66. Family Stela, front 


I f (5 r 9 

Plate 64 450 B.C. 


Figs. 160-162 No. 67. Fifth Century Portrait 



i6 3 

450 ii. < . Plate 65 

Fig. 163 No. 67. Fifth Century Portrait 

Figs. 164-165 No. 68. Man with Persian 




Plate 66 450-340 B.C. 


Figs. 166. 168-169 No. 69. Model Bust 

Fig. 167. Detail of Costume (New York, 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art; 

not shoivn in the Exhibition ) 


4i<»- \~<> b.( . Plate ( >~ 


Figs. 170-171 No. 70. Wen-nufer 

Figs. 172-173 No. 71. Kneeling King 




Plate 68 378-360 B.C. 

Figs. 174-176 No. 72. Naophoros with Neith in Relief 

578 560 B.C. Place 69 

Figs. 177-180 No. 73. King Nectanebo I 



Flare 70 378-360 B.C. 


Figs. 1 81-182 No. 74. Tha-aset-imu, 
Royal Secretary (reverse) 


\jS j6o k.< . Plate - 1 


Figs. 183-184 No. 74. Tha-aset-imu, 
Royal Secretary ( obverse ) 


Plate 72 380-340 b.c. 




Figs. 185-187 No. 75. Torso of Dynasty XXX 

Fig. 188 No. 76. Thanefer, Son of Nespa-medu 

(from above) 

{8o 540 i;.« . Plate - j 




Figs. 1 89-191 No. 76. Thanefer, Son of Nespa-medu 

1 go 

I 9 I 

Plate -4 570-350 b.c 


tiK - - ~ 







Figs. 192-194 No. 77. Servant of 
Osiris- Anedity 

565- }6o b.< . Plate 7 5 

Figs. 195-196 No. 78. Wen-nufer, Servant of Neith 
Figs. 197-198 No. 79. Head with Wide Wig 


Plate 76 365 b.c. 


Figs. 199-200 No. 80. Archaistic Statue 


j6o i:.( . Plate 77 


Figs. 201-202 No. Si. Ajnkh-pa-khered, Son oi 


Plate 78 365-360 b.c. 


Fig. 203 No. 82. Hap-iu's Lady Musicians 

Fig. 204 No. Si. Ankh-pa-khered, inscription on base 


I ' 'fi 

1 ~t> " *■' 

I ' ""^- 

[' ^%%^\ mVv 

k* -— - . 

}6o ;ji> B.c, Plate 79 



Figs. 205-206 No. 83. Portrait of a Priest of Monthu 


Plate 80 360-340 b.c. 


Figs. 207-209 No. 84. Head in Polished Diorite 



}6o ^<» ii.( . Plate < s i 

Figs. 2IO-2H No. 85. Youthful Head 

Figs. 212-213 No. 86. Man with Serrated Shav* 


2 1 1 


Flare 82 350 b.c. 




2 '5 

Figs. 214-217 No. 87. In Praise of Drinking 



■i" - ' 

^ ,1 

m ■ 

350-340 B.C. Plate 8 5 

Fig. 2 iH No. 87. In Praise of Drinking, detail of seated man 
Fig. 2 19 No. 88. Dignitary with Long Staff 


Plate 84 350 B.C. 


Figs. 220-222 No. 89. Iret-horru 

'.2 1 

540-290 r..< . Plate 85 



22 5 

Figs. 223-225 No. 90. Girl's Head (enlarged) 

Figs. 226-227 No. 91. Wesir-nakht with 



Plate 86 330-300 B.C. 

Figs. 228-230 No. 92. Lady with Large Wig 



joo n.< . Plate x- 

23 ] 

Figs.231-233 No. 93. Tired Old Man 

2 33 

Plate 88 300-250 b.c. 

Figs. 234-235 No. 94. Theban Lady 
Fi^. 236 No. 95. Girl or Goddess, back 

joo 275 i!.( . Plate 89 

Figs. 237-238 No. 95. ( 1 ill or Goddess 

Plate 90 285-246 b.c. 

Figs. 239-241 No. 96. King Ptolemy 11 


&8o 250 b.( . Plate 91 

2 4 2 

Figs. H 2 ~ 2 43 No. 97- 
Amun-pe-yom, Commander 
of 1 roops 

2 43 

,'■ : l 


1 1 





Plate 92 280-250 B.C. 


Figs. 244-246 No. 98. Queen Arsinoe II 
Fig. 247 No. 99. Prophet of Horemheb, back 

2 45 

z8o : yo b.< . Plate 93 

Figs. 248-249 No. 99. Prophet of 
I [oremheb 


2 49 

Plate 94 

2nO B.C. 


Fig. 250 Head of Teos II 
(Cairo; not shown in the Exhibition) 

Figs. 251-252 No. 100. Head with Stubble Beard 

^5 2 

25O-2O0 B.< . 

Plate 95 


2 53 

2 54 

Figs. 253-254 No. 10 1. 
Head with Portrait Features 

Figs. 255-256 No. 102. 

: 5 6 

Plate 96 250-200 B.C. 

Figs. 257-258 No. 103. Hellenistic 
Royal Head 

co b.< . Plate 97 


Figs. 259-260 No. 104. Portrait of a 
Strong Alan 


Plate 98 240-200 b.c. 



Figs. 261-262 No. 105. Ptolemaic Queen 
Fig. 263 No. 106. Fragment of a Face 


»o-i No n.< . Plate 99 


Fi^s. 264-266 No. 107. Portrait of a Wise Man 

Plate ioo 220-180 b.c. 


Figs. 267-269 No. 108. 
The Boston "Green Head" 



22o- i No B.C. Plate 101 


Figs. 270-271 No. ioy. Bust of a Ptolemy 

Fitr. 272 No. 108. The Boston "Green 

I lead" 



Plate 1 02 200-150 b.c. 

2 73 

Fig. 273 No. 1 10. Man with Aquiline 


Figs. 274-275 No. 111. Portrait Head 
with Hooked Nose 


2 75 

200- i •;() B.C. Pl.itc i o I 

2 77 

Fig. 276 No. 1 10. Man with Aquiline Nose 

Figs. 277-278 No. 111. Portrait Head with 

Hooked Nose 

I ^78 

Plate 1 04 200-150B.C. 


Figs. 279-280 No. 112. Votary of the Second 

170-1 6o h.< . Plate i<>^ 

Figs. 281-283 No. 113. Queen Cleopatra 11 


Plate 1 06 1 so B.C. 


Figs. 284-285 No. 114. Head from a 
Ptolemaic Sphinx 


i ^<>- 1 oo u.( . Plate i«i- 


Fie^s. 286-288 No. 115. Votary with Naos 


Plate 1 08 150-120 B.C. 



Figs. 289-290 No. 116. Ptolemaic Head 
Figs. 291-292 No. 117. Pinouris, Son of Hor 



1 50- 100 i'..< . Plate 109 

2 93 


*9 f 

Figs. 293-294 No. 1 18. Portrait Head 
with Beard 

Fig. 295 No. 1 17. Pinouris, from above 


Plate 1 10 150-100 B.C. 


Figs. 296-297 No. 1 19. Pensive Man 


i ^o- [oo b.c. Plate 1 1 1 


&&*.{ & & 


Figs. 298-300 No. 120. Curly-haired 


Plate 1 12 120-70 b.c. 


Figs. 301-302 No. 121. Governor of a 


Fig. 303 No. 122. Girl with Flower, back 


120-70 b.c. Plate 1 1 ; 



Figs. 304-306 No. 122. Girl with Flower 


Plate 114 100 B.C. 

Figs. 307-308 No. 123. Queen Arsinoe II, 


too b.< . Plate i i s 

Plate 1 1 6 100-70 B.C. 


Figs. 313-314 No. 125. Sphinx with 
Serpent-headed Tail 


IOO CO i Pl.i- 


Figs. 515-31(5 No. 1:0. Personage with 1 otus 
Bud Diadem 

Fig. ;i~ No. 127. rhe Berlin "Green Head/' 

Plate i [8 ioc-50 B.C. 


Fig. 318 No. 127. The Berlin "Green Head" 


loo yo K.< . Plate i 19 

Fig. 319 No. 127. The Berlin 
"Green Head" 

Figs. 320-321 No. 128. Ptolemaic 
Ruler with Blue Crown 



Plate 120 100-50 b.c. 

Figs. 322-323 No. 129. 
Man or God 

8o-?0 B.< . 

(.- i : i 

3 2 4 

Figs. 324-326 No. 130. Late Ptolemaic 



Plate [22 80-50 B.C. 

3 2 7 

Figs. 327-328 No. 131. Man with 
Scarred Forehead 


80-50 B.C. Plate i : ; 



Figs. 329-330 No. 132. The Brooklyn "Black Head" 


Plate 1:4 80-50 B.C 

.iff -W 


33 1 

Fig. 331 No. 132. The Brooklyn "Black Head" 

70 jo is. < . Plate 1 2 5 

figs- 33 2 "333i 335 No. 133. Beard 

Fig. 334 I [ead of Bearded Man; painting on linen 
(Brooklyn; not shown in the Exhibition ) 


Plate 1:6 60-40 b.c. 


Figs. 336-337 No. 134. Head in Attitude 

of Apotheosis 


60-30 b.( . Plate i ij 



Figs. 338-339 No. 135. Late Ptolemaic Prince 

Plate 128 50-30 b.c. 




1 ^T *S** 





Figs. 340-341 No. 136. Pakhom, Governor of 


^<>- 1 h.( . Plate i z<) 

34 2 
Figs. 342, 344 No. 137. Tutu as Sphinx 
Fig. 343 No. 136. Pakhom, Governor of Dendera 




Plate 130 50-1 B.C. 


Fi g s - 345"34 6 No - '3 8 - 
Woman in Ecstasy 


\.n. i i Plate i ^ i 



Figs. 347-349 No. 139. Ex-voto to the God Tutu 





- t s 

Vv*^ ~ s 



Plate 132 a.d. 50-100 

Figs. 350-351 No. 140. Dignitary of the 

Roman Period 

35 1 

\.n. jo- [oo Plate i ; < 





'^^■flii'. ^4£//k 

35 2 

Fig. 352 No. 140. Dignitary of the Roman Period 
Figs. 353-354 No. 141. Man with Wrinkled Forehead 









Plate 1 34 A.D. 50-100 


Fig. 355 No. 141. Alan with Wrinkled Forehead 

University of